Effects of Two Antitranspirants on Growth, Yield and Quality of Cucumber in Autumn Greenhouse

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2020-0046

Abstract

Abstract:

To select the suitable antitranspirant for facility cucumber, ‘Beinongjiaxiu’ and ‘Jinyou 35’ were used as materials, and a field experiment was conducted. Humic acid type Guoguang antitranspirant and film-forming Shenrun antitranspirant were selected, four treatments were set as Guoguang antitranspirant diluted 1000 times (T1), Guoguang antitranspirant diluted 500 times (T2), Shenrun antitranspirant diluted 20 times (T3), Shenrun antitranspirant diluted 40 times (T4), and water spray was taken as CK, to study the influence of different antitranspirants on the growth, biomass, yield and quality of cucumber. The results showed that compared with CK, for ‘Jinyou 35’, the SPAD value of leaves under T1, T2 and T3 increased by 4.8%, 7.4% and 9.4%, respectively, and the water content of underground part under T1, T2, T3 and T4 increased by 6.4, 17.2, 7.1 and 3.7 percentage points, respectively; the Vc content under T2 increased by 25.76% and the soluble protein increased by 11.54%. For ‘Beinongjiaxiu’, the SPAD value of leaves under T4 increased by 1.1% on average, the fresh weight of the aboveground part increased by 84.6%, the yield per plant increased by 27.2%, and the content of soluble protein increased by 50%. In general, 500 times dilution of Guoguang antitranspirant could be selected for ‘Jinyou 35’ cucumber, 40 times dilution of Shenrun antitranspirant could be selected for ‘Beinongjiaxiu’ cucumber.

Key words: antitranspirants, cucumber, growth vigor, quality, yield

GUO Fang, YUE Huanfang, WANG Tiechen, ZHU Ning, ZHAO He, MENG Fanyu, AN Shunwei, HU Xiaoyi. Effects of Two Antitranspirants on Growth, Yield and Quality of Cucumber in Autumn Greenhouse[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(2): 47-53.

Figures/Tables 9

References 25

[1]	岳焕芳, 孟范玉, 安顺伟, 等. 基质栽培黄瓜耗水规律与气象因子相关性研究[J]. 蔬菜, 2020(2):50-53.
[2]	牛勇, 刘洪禄, 吴文勇, 等. 基于大型称重式蒸渗仪的日光温室黄瓜蒸腾规律研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2011, 27(1):52-56.
[3]	FAROOQ M, WAHID A, KOBAYASHI N, et al. Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management[J]. Agronomy for sustainable development, 2009, 29(1):185-212. doi: 10.1051/agro:2008021 URL
[4]	张小雨, 张喜英. 抗蒸腾剂研究及其在农业中的应用[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2014, 22(8):938-944.
[5]	韩伟伟, 韩宁, 姜凯凯, 等. 成膜型抗蒸腾剂对‘赤霞珠’葡萄成熟进程的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2018, 45(3):447-456.
[6]	ANJUM S A, WANG L, FAROOQ M, et al. Fulvic acid application improves the maize performance under well-watered and drought conditions[J]. Journal of agronomy and crop science, 2011, 197(6):409-417. doi: 10.1111/jac.2011.197.issue-6 URL
[7]	陈怡昊, 李波, 王奇峰, 等. FA型抗蒸腾剂对温室黄瓜生长和产量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(4):131-134.
[8]	徐耘, 辛杰, 韩秀楠, 等. 玉米施用不同抗蒸腾剂比较试验初报[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2015(12):89-90.
[9]	DELFINE S, TOGNETTI R, DESIDERIO E, et al. Effect of foliar application of N and humic acids on growth land yield of durum wheat[J]. Agronomy for sustainable development, 2005, 25(5):183-191. doi: 10.1051/agro:2005017 URL
[10]	蔡庆生. 植物生理学实验[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2013:166-168.
[11]	孟宪敏, 刘明池, 季延海, 等. 种植密度对封闭式槽培黄瓜产量、品质及光合作用的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2019(9):60-68.
[12]	李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 1998:182-185.
[13]	赵世杰, 史国安, 董新纯. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2002:84-85.
[14]	张洋. 不同施氮处理对温室黄瓜产量、品质及效益的影响[J]. 青海农林科技, 2017(4):5-8.
[15]	潘宏兵, 李贵利, 杜邦, 等. 成膜型抗蒸腾剂在‘凯特芒果’上的应用研究[J]. 中国园艺文摘, 2015, 31(11):17-19,60.
[16]	苏文锋, 苏振声, 林玲玲, 等. 干旱胁迫下抗蒸腾剂对叶子花生理特性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(12):2122-2128
[17]	师长海, 孔少华, 翟红梅, 等. 喷施抗蒸腾剂对冬小麦旗叶蒸腾效率的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011, 19(5):1091-1095.
[18]	回振龙, 李朝周, 史文煊, 等. 黄腐酸改善连作马铃薯生长发育及抗性生理的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2013, 22(4):130-136.
[19]	GU S, FUCHIGAMI L H, CHENG L, et al. Effects of antitranspirant and leaching on medium solution osmotic potential, leaf stomatal status, transpiration, abscisic acid content and plant growth in ‘Early Girl’ tomato plants[J]. The journal of horticultural science & biotechnology, 1998, 73(4):473-477.
[20]	IRITI M, PICCHI V, ROSSONI M, et al. Chitosan antitranspirant activity is due to abscisic acid-dependent stomatal closure[J]. Environmental and experimental botany, 2009, 66(2):493-500. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.01.004 URL
[21]	吴艳艳. 抗旱剂的研究进展[J]. 山东化工, 2015, 44(3):69-70,76.
[22]	刘广成, 罗勇, 李强, 等. 两种新型抗蒸腾剂对小麦抗旱增产效果的影响[J]. 腐植酸, 2014(6):13-19.
[23]	李茂松, 李森, 张述义, 等. 灌浆期喷施新型FA抗蒸腾剂对冬小麦的生理调节作用研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2005, 38(4):703-708.
[24]	Tambussi E, Bort J, Araus J. Water use efficiency in C₃ cereals under Mediterranean conditions: a review of physiological aspects[J]. Annals of Applied Biology, 2007, 150(3):307-321. doi: 10.1111/aab.2007.150.issue-3 URL
[25]	张蕊. 抗旱保水剂对河套灌区土壤水分和春小麦生长的影响[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2013:10-12.

处理	抗蒸腾剂	稀释倍数
T1	国光抗蒸腾剂	稀释1000倍
T2	国光抗蒸腾剂	稀释500倍
T3	神润抗蒸腾剂	稀释20倍
T4	神润抗蒸腾剂	稀释40倍
CK	喷施清水

处理	抗蒸腾剂	稀释倍数
T1	国光抗蒸腾剂	稀释1000倍
T2	国光抗蒸腾剂	稀释500倍
T3	神润抗蒸腾剂	稀释20倍
T4	神润抗蒸腾剂	稀释40倍
CK	喷施清水

处理	Vc/(mg/100 g)	可溶性固形物/(g/100 g)	可溶性糖/(g/100 g)	可溶性蛋白/(mg/g)	亚硝酸盐/(mg/kg)
T1	8.15±0.17b	3.33±0.03a	2.48±0.02a	0.28±0.01ab	0.17±0.01bc
T2	8.74±0.12a	3.17±0.03b	2.31±0.05b	0.29±0.00a	0.34±0.03a
T3	7.33±0.17c	3.03±0.03b	2.21±0.04b	0.19±0.00c	0.16±0.00cd
T4	7.41±0.22c	3.03±0.03b	2.10±0.09b	0.20±0.01c	0.22±0.01b
CK	6.95±0.21c	3.13±0.07b	2.16±0.03b	0.26±0.01b	0.11±0.01d

处理	Vc/(mg/100 g)	可溶性固形物/(g/100 g)	可溶性糖/(g/100 g)	可溶性蛋白/(mg/g)	亚硝酸盐/(mg/kg)
T1	8.15±0.17b	3.33±0.03a	2.48±0.02a	0.28±0.01ab	0.17±0.01bc
T2	8.74±0.12a	3.17±0.03b	2.31±0.05b	0.29±0.00a	0.34±0.03a
T3	7.33±0.17c	3.03±0.03b	2.21±0.04b	0.19±0.00c	0.16±0.00cd
T4	7.41±0.22c	3.03±0.03b	2.10±0.09b	0.20±0.01c	0.22±0.01b
CK	6.95±0.21c	3.13±0.07b	2.16±0.03b	0.26±0.01b	0.11±0.01d

处理	Vc/(mg/100 g)	可溶性固形物/(g/100 g)	可溶性糖/(g/100 g)	可溶性蛋白/(mg/g)	亚硝酸盐/(mg/kg)
T1	7.26±0.03b	3.37±0.03a	2.58±0.17a	0.22±0.00a	0.19±0.01b
T2	8.19±0.03a	3.20±0.06ab	2.27±0.04a	0.18±0.00b	0.22±0.01b
T3	8.18±0.30a	3.13±0.03b	2.22±0.02a	0.23±0.01a	0.23±0.01b
T4	8.40±0.32a	3.33±0.07ab	2.27±0.02a	0.18±0.01b	0.34±0.02a
CK	8.23±0.23 a	3.17±0.03ab	2.42±0.03a	0.12±0.00c	0.11±0.01c