4.3 Review

Effects of different irrigation regimes and two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on some physiological characteristics and yield of potato under field conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION
卷 43, 期 13, 页码 2067-2079

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2020.1758133

关键词

arbuscular mycorrhiza; irrigation regimes; physiological traits; potato; yield

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Symbiosis between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and host plant roots may improve water and nutrient uptake by host plants. To evaluate this, a field experiment was carried out for 2 years. In both years, the experiment was arranged in a split plot system based on randomized complete block design with three replications. Irrigation regimes, as irrigation after 60 (S-0), 90 (S-1), 120 (S-2) and 150 (S-3) mm evaporation from class A pan were arranged in main plots and two fungal species (Claroidoglomus etunicatum and Rhizophagus intraradices) were included in sub plots. During the growing season, some morpho-physiological traits, tuber yield, and phosphorus and potassium contents of potato were measured. Then, combined analysis of variance was executed using the 2-year data. Leaf proline content (LPC) increased by 38.87, 51.93 and 41.54% and leaf water potential (psi(w)) decreased by 20.95, 31.43 and 59.05% at S-1, S-2 and S-3 compared with S-0 in the first year of experiment, respectively. The corresponding trend for the second year of experiment was 20.11, 25.21 and 26.06% increase for LPC, 7.46, 12.69 and 18.66 decrease for psi(w), respectively(.) The mean of tuber yield loss for 2 years was 20.78, 36.46 and 50.36% at S-1, S-2 and S-3 compared with S-0, respectively. The minimum LPC value was 4.16 (mu mol g(-1) FW) in C. etunicatum treated plants. Inoculation with R. intraradices increased tuber yield by 36.00-32.48% compared with non-inoculated control plants in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The maximum root colonization percentage (RCP) was 54.20% in R. intraradices inoculated plants.

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

4.3
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