4.7 Article

Effects of Previous Crop Management, Fertilization Regime and Water Supply on Potato Tuber Proteome and Yield

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 59-85

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy3010059

关键词

2D-electrophoresis; chicken manure pellets; cattle manure; fertilization regime; potato; protein profile; Solanum tuberosum; water use

资金

  1. European Community (EU Blight-MOP-development of a systems approach for the management of late blight in EU organic potato production) [QLK5-CT-2000-01065]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is increasing concern about the sustainability and environmental impacts of mineral fertilizer use in agriculture. Increased recycling of nutrients via the use of animal and green manures and fertilizers made from domestic organic waste may reduce reliance on mineral fertilizers. However, the relative availability of nutrients (especially nitrogen) is lower in organic compared to mineral fertilizers, which can result in significantly lower yields in nutrient demanding crops such as potato. It is therefore important to gain a better understanding of the factors affecting nutrient use efficiency (yield per unit fertilizer input) from organic fertilizers. Here we show that (a) previous crop management (organic vs. conventional fertilization and crop protection regimes), (b) organic fertilizer type and rate (composted cattle manure vs. composted chicken manure pellets) and (c) watering regimes (optimized and restricted) significantly affected leaf chlorophyll content, potato tuber N-concentration, proteome and yield. Protein inference by gel matching indicated several functional groups significantly affected by previous crop management and organic fertilizer type and rate, including stress/defense response, glycolysis and protein destination and storage. These results indicate genomic pathways controlling crop responses (nutrient use efficiency and yield) according to contrasting types and rates of organic fertilizers that can be linked to the respective encoding genes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据