Effect of Spraying Plant Growth Regulators at Different Plant Heights on Yield of Potato Variety ‘Villas’

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2025-0014

Abstract

Abstract:

Under the condition of dry cultivation, the potato variety ‘Villas’ was used as the material, and the plant growth regulators were sprayed on the leaves at different plant height periods during the flowering stage. The effects of polyazole mepiquat chloride and uniconazol on the growth characteristics, agronomic traits and yield of potato at different plant height periods were compared. The results showed that there was a significant negative correlation between yield and plant height, and the correlation index was -0.8935. Spraying plant growth regulators at different plant heights had a very significant effect on increasing yield. When the plant height was about 60 cm, the effect of foliar spraying of polyazole mepiquat chloride was the best, and the yield of ‘Villas’ was the highest, which was 22.79% higher than that of the control. Spraying plant growth regulators on leaves promotes plant height dwarfing and tuber yield increasing. In field production, it is of practical guiding significance for producers to clarify how many centimeters of plant height are treated with chemicals, in order to provide basic data for chemical regulation of potato variety ‘Villas’ planting.

Key words: potatoes, plant growth regulator, Villas, plant height, yield

YU Xiaogang, JIANG Bo, LIU Zhiru, LI Hui, AO Xiang, WANG Jingshun, QIU Ping, WANG Guiping, WU Ritu, HE Siyi. Effect of Spraying Plant Growth Regulators at Different Plant Heights on Yield of Potato Variety ‘Villas’[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2025, 15(12): 15-18.

Figures/Tables 4

References 24

[1]	HAAS B J, KAMOUN S, ZODY M C, et al. Genome sequence and analysis of the irish potato famine pathogen phytophthora infestans[J]. Nature, 2009, 461(7262):393-398. doi: 10.1038/nature08358
[2]	SHARMA N, KAUR N, GUPTA A K. Effects of gibberellic acid and chlorocholin chloride on tuberisation and growth of potato (Solanum tuberosum L)[J]. Journal of the science of food and agriculture, 1998, 78:466-470. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0010 URL
[3]	金黎平, 石瑛, 高明杰, 等. 基于大食物观视角的中国马铃薯产业发展路径[C]// 金黎平,吕文河.马铃薯产业与大食物观[M]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江科学技术出版社, 2024.
[4]	段留生, 田晓莉. 作物化学控制原理与技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2005:1-3.
[5]	项洪涛, 冯乃杰, 王立志, 等. 3种植物生长调节剂对马铃薯产量和营养品质的调控[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2015, 29(2):97-102.
[6]	敖翔, 姜波, 王景顺, 等. 不同时期喷施植物生长调节剂对马铃薯干物质积累及产量的影响[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2022, 36(4):307-313.
[7]	ZHAO D L, OOSTERHUIS D M. Pix plus and mepiquat chloride effects on physiology, growth and yield of field-grown cotton[J]. Journal of plant growth regulation, 2000, 19:415-422. doi: 10.1007/s003440000018 URL
[8]	汪惠芳, 陈瑞兴. 烯效唑对油菜生长和产量的影响[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 1997, 33(5):345-346.
[9]	陈万义. 农药生产与合成[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2000:613.
[10]	汤红玲. PP333对马铃薯生长的影响及在生产上的应用[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2002(3):152-153.
[11]	纳添仓. 多效唑对马铃薯促控的增产作用[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2004(2):108-109.
[12]	闫苗苗, 张养利, 李倩, 等. 不同植物生长调节剂处理对旱地小麦抗倒稳产的影响[J]. 基层农技推广, 2024, 12(1):12-15.
[13]	张青江, 刘怒安. 不同植物生长调节剂对冬作马铃薯块茎的影响[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2024, 44(4):32-34.
[14]	孙月萍. 植物生长调节剂拌种对马铃薯生长和产量的影响[J]. 农业技术与装备, 2024(2):176-178.
[15]	何建栋, 陈彩芳, 甄继军, 等. 植物生长调节剂对马铃薯原原种生产的影响研究[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2023, 64(7):10-12,25.
[16]	于茳. 植物生长调节剂对马铃薯产量和品质的影响[J]. 新农业, 2021(13):9.
[17]	冯焱, 淳俊, 桑有顺, 等. 两种植物生长调节剂对马铃薯原原种产量的影响[J]. 四川农业科技, 2018(1):13-14.
[18]	田长恩. 植物生长调节剂在马铃薯生产中的应用[J]. 中国马铃薯, 1993(4):223-226.
[19]	李成军. 新型植物生长调节剂HHPS-1、HHPS-2对马铃薯产量及品质影响的研究[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2007(3):160-162.
[20]	鲁喜荣, 胡金锁. 多效唑对晋薯7号马铃薯的调控作用[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2006(3):168-169.
[21]	龚举品, 杨万奉, 黄佐全, 等. 马铃薯初蕾期喷施多效唑技术初探[J]. 中国马铃薯, 1999(2):42-43.
[22]	申惠波. 马铃薯叶面喷施植物生长调节剂对植株和产量的影响[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2007(4):209-211.
[23]	杨国放, 姜河, 纪志雨, 等. 叶面喷施烯效唑对马铃薯生长及产量的影响[J]. 辽宁农业科学, 2006(2):81-82.
[24]	童相兵, 严飞龙, 王胜曼, 等. 烯效唑对马铃薯产量影响的探讨[J]. 中国马铃薯, 1999(4):221-222.

处理	处理前株高	7 d后第二次处理前株高	第二次处理7 d后株高	收获期株高
处理1	54.4	62.1	65.3	77.5
处理2	54.5	59.3	64.4	78.6
处理7(CK，株高54 cm时)	54.3	69.9	81.3	106.7
处理3	60.4	66.9	74.1	84.4
处理4	59.8	69.5	77.2	90.2
处理7(CK，株高60 cm时)	61.2	74.2	85.8	106.7
处理5	69.5	78.3	84.4	91.3
处理6	69.9	79.7	85.8	92.7
处理7(CK，株高70 cm时)	69.9	81.3	92.6	106.7

处理	处理前株高	7 d后第二次处理前株高	第二次处理7 d后株高	收获期株高
处理1	54.4	62.1	65.3	77.5
处理2	54.5	59.3	64.4	78.6
处理7(CK，株高54 cm时)	54.3	69.9	81.3	106.7
处理3	60.4	66.9	74.1	84.4
处理4	59.8	69.5	77.2	90.2
处理7(CK，株高60 cm时)	61.2	74.2	85.8	106.7
处理5	69.5	78.3	84.4	91.3
处理6	69.9	79.7	85.8	92.7
处理7(CK，株高70 cm时)	69.9	81.3	92.6	106.7

变异来源	DF	SS	MS	F值	P值
区组间	2	4.1175	2.0587	0.8370	0.4568
处理间	6	173.1890	28.8648	11.7330^**	0.0002
误差	12	29.5205	2.4600
总变异	20	206.8270

变异来源	DF	SS	MS	F值	P值
区组间	2	4.1175	2.0587	0.8370	0.4568
处理间	6	173.1890	28.8648	11.7330^**	0.0002
误差	12	29.5205	2.4600
总变异	20	206.8270

处理	产量/(kg/11.2 m²)	折合产量/(kg/hm²)	与CK增产%	5%显著水平	1%极显著水平
处理3	52.21±1.07	46642.36	22.97	a	A
处理2	50.12±1.69	44775.35	18.05	ab	AB
处理1	49.79±1.28	44480.56	17.27	ab	AB
处理4	47.92±1.21	42810.08	12.87	bc	B
处理5	47.48±0.58	42417.03	11.83	bc	B
处理6	46.82±0.92	41827.45	10.28	c	B
处理7	42.46±2.54	37929.67	—	d	C