Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology ›› 2022, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (2): 201-209.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2020.0844
• BIO-MANUFACTURING & RESOURCE AND ECOLOGY • Previous Articles Next Articles
Changjie CHEN1(), Lin MA1, Yuhuan MIAO1, Lanping GUO2, Dahui LIU1()
Received:
2020-10-19
Accepted:
2020-12-03
Online:
2022-02-15
Published:
2022-02-22
Contact:
Dahui LIU
陈昌婕1(), 马琳1, 苗玉焕1, 郭兰萍2, 刘大会1()
通讯作者:
刘大会
作者简介:
陈昌婕 E-mail:1051570116@qq.com;
基金资助:
CLC Number:
Changjie CHEN, Lin MA, Yuhuan MIAO, Lanping GUO, Dahui LIU. Effects of Potassium Application on Growth, Yield and Quality of Artemisia argyi[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 201-209.
陈昌婕, 马琳, 苗玉焕, 郭兰萍, 刘大会. 施用钾肥对蕲春蕲艾产量、出绒率及品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(2): 201-209.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 密度 Density/ (plant·m-2) | 株高 Plant height/ cm | 茎粗 Stem diameter/mm | 叶片数 Leaf number per plant | 叶宽 Blade width/ cm | 叶长 Blade length/ cm | 枯叶高 Dead leaf height/cm | 叶片产量 Leaf yield/ (kg·hm-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | K0 | 80.63±5.10 b | 173.91±5.92 a | 7.43±0.59 a | 22.13±2.72 a | 9.22±1.21 a | 9.80±0.83 a | 58.11±5.23 a | 4 974.71±235.20 c |
K60 | 93.13±9.59 b | 169.63±4.67 a | 7.48±0.12 a | 22.21±2.63 a | 9.67±0.79 a | 10.52±0.60 a | 63.54±7.02 a | 5 300.98±352.23 c | |
K120 | 110.31±9.19 ab | 174.10±9.33 a | 7.56±0.53 a | 22.01±1.98 a | 9.42±0.64 a | 9.46±0.71 a | 59.02±3.80 a | 6 653.52±400.93 b | |
K180 | 123.33±8.33 a | 170.92±1.52 a | 7.74±0.27 a | 24.27±3.02 a | 9.86±0.75 a | 10.23±0.92 a | 65.37±6.68 a | 7 324.03±595.08 a | |
K240 | 114.17±11.59 ab | 170.41±8.01 a | 7.87±0.24 a | 25.09±2.99 a | 10.51±0.93 a | 11.32±1.27 a | 66.13±4.33 a | 7 157.32±521.98 a | |
2019 | K0 | 85.42±7.12 c | 138.77±10.87 a | 5.12±0.26 a | 16.12±1.69 a | 8.93±0.92 a | 9.93±0.68 a | 77.40±10.63 a | 4035.50±339.17 c |
K60 | 117.97±12.44 b | 138.23±7.32 a | 4.88±0.58 a | 17.00±2.26 a | 8.30±0.40 a | 9.50±0.24 b | 75.13±2.58 a | 4608.31±559.32 c | |
K120 | 134.49±2.94 a | 140.73±8.50 a | 5.20±0.89 a | 17.24±1.82 a | 8.01±0.33 b | 9.29±0.58 b | 78.30±7.83 a | 5548.39±452.35 b | |
K180 | 137.50±13.12 a | 145.25±2.64 a | 5.22±0.35 a | 18.34±1.68 a | 8.24±0.52 b | 9.61±0.50 b | 82.43±4.56 a | 6198.62±208.91 a | |
K240 | 132.81±9.89 a | 141.21±4.31 a | 5.24±0.11 a | 18.71±1.02 a | 9.32±0.70 a | 10.69±0.72 a | 80.01±2.42 a | 5788.58±433.30 ab |
Table 1 Agronomic traits and leaf yield of Artemisiaargyi under different K application rates
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 密度 Density/ (plant·m-2) | 株高 Plant height/ cm | 茎粗 Stem diameter/mm | 叶片数 Leaf number per plant | 叶宽 Blade width/ cm | 叶长 Blade length/ cm | 枯叶高 Dead leaf height/cm | 叶片产量 Leaf yield/ (kg·hm-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | K0 | 80.63±5.10 b | 173.91±5.92 a | 7.43±0.59 a | 22.13±2.72 a | 9.22±1.21 a | 9.80±0.83 a | 58.11±5.23 a | 4 974.71±235.20 c |
K60 | 93.13±9.59 b | 169.63±4.67 a | 7.48±0.12 a | 22.21±2.63 a | 9.67±0.79 a | 10.52±0.60 a | 63.54±7.02 a | 5 300.98±352.23 c | |
K120 | 110.31±9.19 ab | 174.10±9.33 a | 7.56±0.53 a | 22.01±1.98 a | 9.42±0.64 a | 9.46±0.71 a | 59.02±3.80 a | 6 653.52±400.93 b | |
K180 | 123.33±8.33 a | 170.92±1.52 a | 7.74±0.27 a | 24.27±3.02 a | 9.86±0.75 a | 10.23±0.92 a | 65.37±6.68 a | 7 324.03±595.08 a | |
K240 | 114.17±11.59 ab | 170.41±8.01 a | 7.87±0.24 a | 25.09±2.99 a | 10.51±0.93 a | 11.32±1.27 a | 66.13±4.33 a | 7 157.32±521.98 a | |
2019 | K0 | 85.42±7.12 c | 138.77±10.87 a | 5.12±0.26 a | 16.12±1.69 a | 8.93±0.92 a | 9.93±0.68 a | 77.40±10.63 a | 4035.50±339.17 c |
K60 | 117.97±12.44 b | 138.23±7.32 a | 4.88±0.58 a | 17.00±2.26 a | 8.30±0.40 a | 9.50±0.24 b | 75.13±2.58 a | 4608.31±559.32 c | |
K120 | 134.49±2.94 a | 140.73±8.50 a | 5.20±0.89 a | 17.24±1.82 a | 8.01±0.33 b | 9.29±0.58 b | 78.30±7.83 a | 5548.39±452.35 b | |
K180 | 137.50±13.12 a | 145.25±2.64 a | 5.22±0.35 a | 18.34±1.68 a | 8.24±0.52 b | 9.61±0.50 b | 82.43±4.56 a | 6198.62±208.91 a | |
K240 | 132.81±9.89 a | 141.21±4.31 a | 5.24±0.11 a | 18.71±1.02 a | 9.32±0.70 a | 10.69±0.72 a | 80.01±2.42 a | 5788.58±433.30 ab |
Fig.1 Output rates of moxa in the leaves of Artemisia argyi under different K application ratesNote:Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments in same year at P<0.05 level.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 总挥发油 Total volatile oil/% | 桉油精 Eucalyptusoleoresin/(mg·g-1) | α-侧柏酮 α-thujone/ (mg·g-1) | 樟脑 Camphor/ (mg·g-1) | 龙脑 Borneol/ (mg·g-1) | α-石竹烯 α-caryophyllene/(mg·g-1) | β-丁香烯 β-butene/ (mg·g-1) | 石竹素 Caryophyllin/ (mg·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | K0 | 1.21±0.13 a | 1.12±0.17 a | 3.71±0.41 a | 0.37±0.04 a | 0.18±0.04 a | 0.29±0.02 a | 0.36±0.04 a | 0.57±0.08 a |
K60 | 1.18±0.09 a | 0.94±0.19 ab | 4.23±0.39 a | 0.26±0.09 a | 0.17±0.01 a | 0.26±0.03 a | 0.24±0.02 a | 0.67±0.10 a | |
K120 | 1.13±0.11 ab | 0.88±0.06 b | 3.66±0.64 a | 0.13±0.04 b | 0.17±0.02 a | 0.24±0.01 a | 0.31±0.05 a | 0.66±0.07 a | |
K180 | 1.12±0.04 ab | 0.16±0.04 c | 4.39±0.50 a | 0.11±0.02 b | 0.02±0.00 b | 0.20±0.00 b | 0.31±0.03 a | 0.51±0.06 a | |
K240 | 1.03±0.07 b | 0.11±0.03 c | 4.22±0.36 a | 0.10±0.04 b | 0.02±0.00 b | 0.19±0.02 b | 0.29±0.04 a | 0.70±0.08 a | |
2019 | K0 | 1.07±0.11 a | 1.18±0.19 a | 5.30±0.48 a | 0.57±0.07 a | 0.23±0.05 a | 0.31±0.05 a | 0.61±0.07 a | 0.50±0.06 a |
K60 | 1.01±0.08 a | 0.81±0.15 ab | 5.22±0.17 a | 0.42±0.06 b | 0.21±0.04 a | 0.26±0.03 a | 0.54±0.04 a | 0.49±0.04 a | |
K120 | 0.98±0.10 ab | 0.78±0.12 b | 5.16±0.69 a | 0.42±0.05 b | 0.18±0.01 a | 0.22±0.04 a | 0.41±0.08 a | 0.49±0.06 a | |
K180 | 0.95±0.09 ab | 0.39±0.09 c | 5.35±0.68 a | 0.41±0.02 b | 0.04±0.00 b | 0.18±0.03 a | 0.39±0.04 a | 0.49±0.09 a | |
K240 | 0.92±0.08 b | 0.15±0.03 d | 4.84±0.53 a | 0.35±0.06 b | 0.03±0.00 b | 0.23±0.03 a | 0.52±0.03 a | 0.55±0.03 a |
Table 2 Contents of total volatile oil and seven volatile components in the leaves of Artemisiaargyi under different K application rate
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 总挥发油 Total volatile oil/% | 桉油精 Eucalyptusoleoresin/(mg·g-1) | α-侧柏酮 α-thujone/ (mg·g-1) | 樟脑 Camphor/ (mg·g-1) | 龙脑 Borneol/ (mg·g-1) | α-石竹烯 α-caryophyllene/(mg·g-1) | β-丁香烯 β-butene/ (mg·g-1) | 石竹素 Caryophyllin/ (mg·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | K0 | 1.21±0.13 a | 1.12±0.17 a | 3.71±0.41 a | 0.37±0.04 a | 0.18±0.04 a | 0.29±0.02 a | 0.36±0.04 a | 0.57±0.08 a |
K60 | 1.18±0.09 a | 0.94±0.19 ab | 4.23±0.39 a | 0.26±0.09 a | 0.17±0.01 a | 0.26±0.03 a | 0.24±0.02 a | 0.67±0.10 a | |
K120 | 1.13±0.11 ab | 0.88±0.06 b | 3.66±0.64 a | 0.13±0.04 b | 0.17±0.02 a | 0.24±0.01 a | 0.31±0.05 a | 0.66±0.07 a | |
K180 | 1.12±0.04 ab | 0.16±0.04 c | 4.39±0.50 a | 0.11±0.02 b | 0.02±0.00 b | 0.20±0.00 b | 0.31±0.03 a | 0.51±0.06 a | |
K240 | 1.03±0.07 b | 0.11±0.03 c | 4.22±0.36 a | 0.10±0.04 b | 0.02±0.00 b | 0.19±0.02 b | 0.29±0.04 a | 0.70±0.08 a | |
2019 | K0 | 1.07±0.11 a | 1.18±0.19 a | 5.30±0.48 a | 0.57±0.07 a | 0.23±0.05 a | 0.31±0.05 a | 0.61±0.07 a | 0.50±0.06 a |
K60 | 1.01±0.08 a | 0.81±0.15 ab | 5.22±0.17 a | 0.42±0.06 b | 0.21±0.04 a | 0.26±0.03 a | 0.54±0.04 a | 0.49±0.04 a | |
K120 | 0.98±0.10 ab | 0.78±0.12 b | 5.16±0.69 a | 0.42±0.05 b | 0.18±0.01 a | 0.22±0.04 a | 0.41±0.08 a | 0.49±0.06 a | |
K180 | 0.95±0.09 ab | 0.39±0.09 c | 5.35±0.68 a | 0.41±0.02 b | 0.04±0.00 b | 0.18±0.03 a | 0.39±0.04 a | 0.49±0.09 a | |
K240 | 0.92±0.08 b | 0.15±0.03 d | 4.84±0.53 a | 0.35±0.06 b | 0.03±0.00 b | 0.23±0.03 a | 0.52±0.03 a | 0.55±0.03 a |
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 总黄酮 Total flavonoids/% | 新绿原酸 Neochlorogenic acid/(mg·g-1) | 绿原酸 Chlorogenic acid/(mg·g-1) | 隐绿原酸 Cryptochlorogenic acid/(mg·g-1) | 异绿原酸B Isochlorogenic acid B/(mg·g-1) | 异绿原酸A Isochlorogenic acid A/(mg·g-1) | 异绿原酸C Isochlorogenic acid C/(mg·g-1) | 山奈酚 Keampferol/(mg·g-1) | 棕矢车菊素 Jeceosidin/(mg·g-1) | 异泽兰黄素 Eupatilin/ (mg·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | K0 | 2.85±0.15 ab | 0.12±0.01 a | 0.42±0.03 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 0.73±0.20 a | 2.36±0.10 a | 0.29±0.14 a | 0.11±0.02 a | 0.24±0.05 a | 0.73±0.12 a |
K60 | 2.96±0.12 a | 0.11±0.00 a | 0.42±0.05 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 0.69±0.04 a | 1.96±0.14 b | 0.29±0.03 a | 0.11±0.01 a | 0.22±0.02 a | 0.62±0.11 ab | |
K120 | 2.83±0.23 ab | 0.11±0.00 a | 0.39±0.02 a | 0.18±0.00 a | 0.68±0.08 a | 2.02±0.11 b | 0.28±0.03 a | 0.10±0.01 a | 0.19±a0.01 a | 0.60±0.07 ab | |
K180 | 2.82±0.11 ab | 0.12±0.01 a | 0.42±0.10 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 0.69±0.22 a | 2.06±0.23 b | 0.28±0.17 a | 0.10±0.01 a | 0.17±0.01 ab | 0.57±0.05 ab | |
K240 | 2.76±0.22 b | 0.11±0.01 a | 0.39±0.06 a | 0.16±0.00 a | 0.54±0.15 b | 2.09±0.17 b | 0.28±0.10 a | 0.09±0.02 a | 0.12±0.06 b | 0.38±0.05 b | |
2019 | K0 | 2.86±0.27 a | 0.12±0.01 a | 0.28±0.09 a | 0.27±0.02 a | 0.81±0.18 a | 2.29±0.39 a | 0.29±0.05 a | 0.04±0.01 a | 0.25±0.05 a | 1.07±0.10 a |
K60 | 2.85±0.26 a | 0.13±0.01 a | 0.29±0.07 a | 0.26±0.02 a | 0.77±0.12 a | 2.22±0.17 a | 0.27±0.03 a | 0.04±0.01 a | 0.24±0.04 a | 1.01±0.09 a | |
K120 | 2.82±0.27 a | 0.12±0.00 a | 0.29±0.09 a | 0.26±0.01 a | 0.76±0.06 a | 2.05±0.10 b | 0.25±0.02 a | 0.05±0.01 a | 0.24±0.06 a | 1.06±0.06 a | |
K180 | 2.75±0.13 a | 0.11±0.00 a | 0.19±0.03 b | 0.22±0.02 b | 0.65±0.07 a | 1.78±0.25 c | 0.24±0.02 a | 0.04±0.01 a | 0.19±0.01 b | 0.75±0.09 b | |
K240 | 2.27±0.15 b | 0.11±0.00 a | 0.16±0.07 b | 0.21±0.01 b | 0.70±0.12 a | 1.70±0.25 c | 0.24±0.04 a | 0.04±0.01 a | 0.19±0.02 b | 0.71±0.10 b |
Table 3 Effects of K application rates on the flavonoids and phenolic acids in the leaves of Artemisiaargyi
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 总黄酮 Total flavonoids/% | 新绿原酸 Neochlorogenic acid/(mg·g-1) | 绿原酸 Chlorogenic acid/(mg·g-1) | 隐绿原酸 Cryptochlorogenic acid/(mg·g-1) | 异绿原酸B Isochlorogenic acid B/(mg·g-1) | 异绿原酸A Isochlorogenic acid A/(mg·g-1) | 异绿原酸C Isochlorogenic acid C/(mg·g-1) | 山奈酚 Keampferol/(mg·g-1) | 棕矢车菊素 Jeceosidin/(mg·g-1) | 异泽兰黄素 Eupatilin/ (mg·g-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | K0 | 2.85±0.15 ab | 0.12±0.01 a | 0.42±0.03 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 0.73±0.20 a | 2.36±0.10 a | 0.29±0.14 a | 0.11±0.02 a | 0.24±0.05 a | 0.73±0.12 a |
K60 | 2.96±0.12 a | 0.11±0.00 a | 0.42±0.05 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 0.69±0.04 a | 1.96±0.14 b | 0.29±0.03 a | 0.11±0.01 a | 0.22±0.02 a | 0.62±0.11 ab | |
K120 | 2.83±0.23 ab | 0.11±0.00 a | 0.39±0.02 a | 0.18±0.00 a | 0.68±0.08 a | 2.02±0.11 b | 0.28±0.03 a | 0.10±0.01 a | 0.19±a0.01 a | 0.60±0.07 ab | |
K180 | 2.82±0.11 ab | 0.12±0.01 a | 0.42±0.10 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 0.69±0.22 a | 2.06±0.23 b | 0.28±0.17 a | 0.10±0.01 a | 0.17±0.01 ab | 0.57±0.05 ab | |
K240 | 2.76±0.22 b | 0.11±0.01 a | 0.39±0.06 a | 0.16±0.00 a | 0.54±0.15 b | 2.09±0.17 b | 0.28±0.10 a | 0.09±0.02 a | 0.12±0.06 b | 0.38±0.05 b | |
2019 | K0 | 2.86±0.27 a | 0.12±0.01 a | 0.28±0.09 a | 0.27±0.02 a | 0.81±0.18 a | 2.29±0.39 a | 0.29±0.05 a | 0.04±0.01 a | 0.25±0.05 a | 1.07±0.10 a |
K60 | 2.85±0.26 a | 0.13±0.01 a | 0.29±0.07 a | 0.26±0.02 a | 0.77±0.12 a | 2.22±0.17 a | 0.27±0.03 a | 0.04±0.01 a | 0.24±0.04 a | 1.01±0.09 a | |
K120 | 2.82±0.27 a | 0.12±0.00 a | 0.29±0.09 a | 0.26±0.01 a | 0.76±0.06 a | 2.05±0.10 b | 0.25±0.02 a | 0.05±0.01 a | 0.24±0.06 a | 1.06±0.06 a | |
K180 | 2.75±0.13 a | 0.11±0.00 a | 0.19±0.03 b | 0.22±0.02 b | 0.65±0.07 a | 1.78±0.25 c | 0.24±0.02 a | 0.04±0.01 a | 0.19±0.01 b | 0.75±0.09 b | |
K240 | 2.27±0.15 b | 0.11±0.00 a | 0.16±0.07 b | 0.21±0.01 b | 0.70±0.12 a | 1.70±0.25 c | 0.24±0.04 a | 0.04±0.01 a | 0.19±0.02 b | 0.71±0.10 b |
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | N/ % | P/ % | K/ % | Ca/ (mg·g-1) | Mg/ (mg·g-1) | Mn/ (mg·g-1) | Fe/ (mg·g-1) | Cu/ (mg·g-1) | Zn/ (mg·g-1) | N/K | Ca/K | Mg/k |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | K0 | 2.93±0.01 a | 0.41±0.04 a | 1.88±0.03 b | 2.71±0.42 b | 0.40±0.02 a | 662.55±23.04 a | 546.42±48.48 b | 19.46±0.28 a | 55.61±11.25 a | 1.59±0.27 a | 0.31±0.03 b | 0.02±0.00 a |
K60 | 2.87±0.01 a | 0.45±0.03 a | 2.16±0.10 ab | 2.51±0.53 b | 0.41±0.04 a | 774.62±42.70 a | 589.03±51.10 b | 19.96±0.75 a | 59.80±7.97 a | 1.41±0.13 ab | 0.39±0.05 a | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K120 | 2.79±0.10 a | 0.36±0.01 a | 2.25±0.06 a | 4.02±0.10 a | 0.42±0.16 a | 694.37±166.31 a | 591.12±114.40 b | 19.98±1.06 a | 58.39±5.41 a | 1.34±0.20 b | 0.40±0.06 a | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K180 | 2.75±0.07 a | 0.35±0.02 a | 2.28±0.01 a | 4.31±0.34 a | 0.45±0.07 a | 694.11±126.39 a | 685.82±117.98 ab | 17.37±0.97 a | 61.08±4.19 a | 1.32±0.31 b | 0.42±0.04 a | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K240 | 2.44±0.04 b | 0.37±0.03 a | 2.23±0.02 a | 4.51±0.18 a | 0.55±0.12 a | 690.11±98.05 a | 860.61±61.28 a | 17.42±2.12 a | 62.05±9.53 a | 1.22±0.29 b | 0.32±0.02 b | 0.02±0.00 a | |
2019 | K0 | 1.95±0.17 c | 0.42±0.03 a | 2.37±0.24 c | 2.26±0.25 c | 0.56±0.02 a | 570.56±23.78 a | 412.00±63.34 b | 15.04±2.41 a | 27.13±5.63 ba | 0.80±0.19 a | 0.16±0.04 c | 0.02±0.00 a |
K60 | 1.89±0.05 c | 0.42±0.03 a | 2.54±0.42 b | 2.63±0.33 c | 0.57±0.06 a | 549.13±40.01 a | 436.37±3.544 b | 13.28±0.80 a | 30.75±7.94 b | 0.76±0.11 a | 0.24±0.03 b | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K120 | 1.87±0.08 a | 0.46±0.05 a | 2.64±0.19 ab | 3.10±0.48 c | 0.57±0.03 a | 532.23±93.72 a | 459.33±73.79 b | 13.49±1.38 a | 33.83±10.88 ab | 0.72±0.12 a | 0.33±0.06 b | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K180 | 1.83±0.14 a | 0.45±0.03 a | 2.66±0.24 a | 11.63±0.12 b | 0.62±0.01 a | 500.87±70.73 a | 467.06±22.57 b | 13.79±1.28 a | 44.33±9.89 a | 0.73±0.09 a | 0.52±0.08 a | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K240 | 1.76±0.10 a | 0.38±0.03 a | 2.78±0.17 a | 16.10±0.53 a | 0.63±0.01 a | 517.12±59.43 a | 774.52±60.72 a | 13.73±0.47 a | 47.72±7.01 a | 0.65±0.13 a | 0.39±0.02 ab | 0.02±0.00 a |
Table 4 Contents of 9 mineral elements and the ratios of N/K, Ca/K, Mg/K in the leaves of Artemisiaargyi under different K application rates
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | N/ % | P/ % | K/ % | Ca/ (mg·g-1) | Mg/ (mg·g-1) | Mn/ (mg·g-1) | Fe/ (mg·g-1) | Cu/ (mg·g-1) | Zn/ (mg·g-1) | N/K | Ca/K | Mg/k |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | K0 | 2.93±0.01 a | 0.41±0.04 a | 1.88±0.03 b | 2.71±0.42 b | 0.40±0.02 a | 662.55±23.04 a | 546.42±48.48 b | 19.46±0.28 a | 55.61±11.25 a | 1.59±0.27 a | 0.31±0.03 b | 0.02±0.00 a |
K60 | 2.87±0.01 a | 0.45±0.03 a | 2.16±0.10 ab | 2.51±0.53 b | 0.41±0.04 a | 774.62±42.70 a | 589.03±51.10 b | 19.96±0.75 a | 59.80±7.97 a | 1.41±0.13 ab | 0.39±0.05 a | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K120 | 2.79±0.10 a | 0.36±0.01 a | 2.25±0.06 a | 4.02±0.10 a | 0.42±0.16 a | 694.37±166.31 a | 591.12±114.40 b | 19.98±1.06 a | 58.39±5.41 a | 1.34±0.20 b | 0.40±0.06 a | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K180 | 2.75±0.07 a | 0.35±0.02 a | 2.28±0.01 a | 4.31±0.34 a | 0.45±0.07 a | 694.11±126.39 a | 685.82±117.98 ab | 17.37±0.97 a | 61.08±4.19 a | 1.32±0.31 b | 0.42±0.04 a | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K240 | 2.44±0.04 b | 0.37±0.03 a | 2.23±0.02 a | 4.51±0.18 a | 0.55±0.12 a | 690.11±98.05 a | 860.61±61.28 a | 17.42±2.12 a | 62.05±9.53 a | 1.22±0.29 b | 0.32±0.02 b | 0.02±0.00 a | |
2019 | K0 | 1.95±0.17 c | 0.42±0.03 a | 2.37±0.24 c | 2.26±0.25 c | 0.56±0.02 a | 570.56±23.78 a | 412.00±63.34 b | 15.04±2.41 a | 27.13±5.63 ba | 0.80±0.19 a | 0.16±0.04 c | 0.02±0.00 a |
K60 | 1.89±0.05 c | 0.42±0.03 a | 2.54±0.42 b | 2.63±0.33 c | 0.57±0.06 a | 549.13±40.01 a | 436.37±3.544 b | 13.28±0.80 a | 30.75±7.94 b | 0.76±0.11 a | 0.24±0.03 b | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K120 | 1.87±0.08 a | 0.46±0.05 a | 2.64±0.19 ab | 3.10±0.48 c | 0.57±0.03 a | 532.23±93.72 a | 459.33±73.79 b | 13.49±1.38 a | 33.83±10.88 ab | 0.72±0.12 a | 0.33±0.06 b | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K180 | 1.83±0.14 a | 0.45±0.03 a | 2.66±0.24 a | 11.63±0.12 b | 0.62±0.01 a | 500.87±70.73 a | 467.06±22.57 b | 13.79±1.28 a | 44.33±9.89 a | 0.73±0.09 a | 0.52±0.08 a | 0.02±0.00 a | |
K240 | 1.76±0.10 a | 0.38±0.03 a | 2.78±0.17 a | 16.10±0.53 a | 0.63±0.01 a | 517.12±59.43 a | 774.52±60.72 a | 13.73±0.47 a | 47.72±7.01 a | 0.65±0.13 a | 0.39±0.02 ab | 0.02±0.00 a |
Fig.2 Correlation between yield, output rate of moxa, chemical components and mineral elements in the leaves of Artemisiaargyi in 2018 and 2019Note:X1—Leaf yield; X2—Output rate of moxa; X3—Total volatile oil; X4—Eucalyptus oleoresin; X5—α-Thujone; X6—Camphor; X7—Borneol; X8—α-Caryophyllene; X9—β-Butene; X10—Caryophyllin; X11—Total flavonoids; X12—Neochlorogenic acid; X13—Chlorogenic acid; X14—Cryptochlorogenic acid; X15—Isochlorogenic acid B; X16—Isochlorogenic acid A; X17—Isochlorogenic acid C; X18—Keampferol; X19—Jeceosidin; X20—Eupatilin; X21—N; X22—P; X23—K; X24—Ca; X25—Mg; X26—Mn; X27—Fe; X28—Cu; X29—Zn.
1 | 张元,康利平,郭兰萍,等.艾叶的本草考证和应用研究进展[J].上海针灸杂志,2017,36(3):245-255. |
ZHANG Y, KANG L P, GUO L P, et al. Herbalogical study of mugwort leaves and research advances in its application [J]. Shanghai J. Acupuncture Moxibustion, 2017, 36(3): 245-255. | |
2 | 李国清,马磊,石岩.不同钾肥处理对甜叶菊生长发育及叶产量的影响[J].中国糖料, 2011(1): 36-38. |
LI G Q, MA L, SHI Y. Effects of different potassium fertilizer on growth, development and yield of Stevia rebaudiana [J]. China Sugar, 2011(1): 36-38. | |
3 | 赵倩,任仟,陈玉敏,等.磷肥和钾肥配合施用对甘草有效成分的影响[J].林业与生态科学,2019,34(1):87-92. |
ZHAO Q, REN Q, CHEN Y M, et al.. Effects of combined application of phosphate and potash fertilizer on the active ingredients of licorice [J]. For. Ecol. Sci., 2019, 34(1):87-92. | |
4 | 介晓磊,王镇,化党领,等.生物有机肥对土壤氮磷钾及烟叶品质成分的影响[J].中国农学通报,2010,26(1):109-114. |
JIE X L, WANG Z, HUA D L, et al.. Effects of bio-organic fertilizer on conventional components of soil and flue-cured tobacco [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2010, 26(1):109-114. | |
5 | 李鹏程,郑苍松,孙淼,等.棉花施肥技术与营养机理研究进展[J].棉花学报,2017,29(S1):118-130. |
LI P C, ZHENG C S, SUN M, et al.. Research progress on fertilization technology and nutrition mechanism of cotton [J]. Cotton. Sci., 2017, 29(S1):118-130. | |
6 | 许自成,秦璐,邵惠芳,等.烤烟钾含量与多酚、有机酸含量及评吸品质的关系[J].河南农业大学学报,2010,44(4):383-389. |
XU Z C, QIN L, SHAO H F, et al.. Relationship between content of potassium and polyphenols, organic acids and sensory quality in flue-cured tobacco leaves [J]. J. Henan Agric.Univ., 2010, 44(4):383-389. | |
7 | 胡吉清.中、韩等不同产地艾叶及类似品的比较鉴定与质量分析[D].武汉:中南民族大学,2016. |
HU J Q. Comparative identification and quality analysis of Artemisiaargyi leaves and similar products from different origins in China and Korea [D]. Wuhan: South-Central University for Nationalities, 2016. | |
8 | 李玲,吕磊,吕狄亚,等.GC-MS法测定艾叶中5种挥发性成分的含量[J].中国民族民间医药,2017,26(20):27. |
LI L, LV L, LU D Y, et al.. Rapid determination of five volatile components from Artemisiaeargyi folium by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry [J]. Chin. J. Ethnomedicine Ethnopharmacy, 2017, 26(20):27. | |
9 | 王小俊,邓玉环,张丽萍,等.UPLC-DAD-MS定性和定量分析蕲艾中的酚酸和黄酮类成分[J].中国中药杂志,2019,44(5):983-989. |
WANG X J, DENG Y H, ZHANG L P, et al.. Identification and determination of phenolic acids and flavonoids in Artemisiaeargyi folium by UPLC-DAD-MS [J]. China J. Chin. Materia Med., 2019, 44(5):983-989. | |
10 | 卢化,张义生,黎强,等.蕲艾的HPLC指纹图谱研究[J].中国药房,2015,26(9):1255. |
LU H, ZHANG Y S, LI Q, et al.. Study on the fingerprint of Artemisiaargyi by HPLC [J]. China Pharmacy, 2015, 26(9):1255. | |
11 | 徐皓,刘水英.湿法消解-原子吸收光谱法测定紫山药中矿质元素[J].食品科学,2015,36(16):192-196. |
XU H, LIU S Y. Determination of mineral elements in dioscoreaalata L. tubers by atomic absorption spectrometry with wet digestion [J]. Food Sci., 2015, 36(16):192-196. | |
12 | 赵娜,秦都林,聂军军,等.钾肥对不同抗虫棉品种叶片光系统Ⅱ性能的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报, 2019,25(1):106-114. |
ZHAO N, QIN D L, NIE J J, et al.. Effects of potassium application on performance of photosystem Ⅱ of various Bt cotton genotypes [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2019, 25(1):106-114. | |
13 | 马琳,陈昌婕,康利平,等.不同种植密度、叶位与叶龄对蕲艾产量和品质的影响[J].中国中药杂志,2020, 45(17):4031-4040. |
MA L, CHEN C J, KANG L P, et al.. Effects of different planting density, leaf position and leaf age on growth and quality of Artemisiaargyi var. Argyi ‘Qiai’ [J]. China J. Chin. Materia Med., 2020, 45(17):4031-4040. | |
14 | 钟晓兰,张德远,周生路,等.钾肥用量及基追肥比例对烤烟干物质累积和钾素吸收动态的影响[J].应用生态学报,2006(2):251-255. |
ZHONG X L, ZHANG D Y, ZHOU S L, et al.. Effects of potassium application rate and its supplemental proportion on dry matter accumulation and potassium absorption of flue-cured tobacco [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 2006(2):251-255. | |
15 | 谭杰,孔凡磊,曾晖,等.川中丘陵春玉米适宜钾肥用量研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2016,22(3):838-846. |
TAN J, KONG F L, ZENG H, et al.. The suitable potassium fertilizer rate in spring maize in hilly area of central Sichuan Basin, China [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2016, 22(3):838-846. | |
16 | 包亚英,胡秀英,郝雨杉,等.不同施肥处理对甜菊生长及糖苷含量和积累量的影响[J].植物资源与环境学报,2016,25(1):71-80. |
BAO Y Y, HU X Y, HAO Y S, et al.. Effects of different fertilizer treatments on growth, content and accumulation of glycoside in Steviarebaudiana [J]. J. Plant Resour. Environ., 2016, 25(1):71-80. | |
17 | JUDEL G K, MENGEL K. Effect of shading on nonstructural carbohydrates and their turnover in culms and leaves during the grain filling period of spring wheat [J]. Crop Sci., 1982, 22(5):958-962. |
18 | 汪顺义,李欢,史衍玺.不同施钾方式对甘薯钾素吸收及产量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2016,22(2):557-564. |
WANG S Y, LI H, SHI Y X. Effect of K application method on K absorption and yield of sweet potato [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2016, 22(2):557-564. | |
19 | 武娟,万定荣,赵百孝,等.艾绒的质量评价标准及其商品分级研究[J].中国药业,2019,28(24):4-7. |
WU J, WAN D R, ZHAO B X, et al.. Quality evaluation standard and commodity classification of moxa [J]. China Pharmaceuticals, 2019, 28(24):4-7. | |
20 | 植汉成,郭宝林,葛菲,等.非腺毛形态在(药用)植物分类和植物类药材鉴别方面的研究进展[J].中国现代中药,2018,20(4):489-494. |
ZHI H C, GUO B L, GE F, et al.. Research progress of non-glandular hairs morphology in classification of medicinal plants and identification of plant medicinal materials [J]. Modern Chin. Medicine, 2018, 20(4):489-494. | |
21 | 吴凯.胁迫条件下胡杨与意大利杨细胞内Ca2+水平和Ca2+-ATPase活性的变化[D].北京:北京林业大学, 2007. |
WU K. Changes of Ca2+ and Ca2+-ATPase activities in cells of Populuseuphratica and P. euramericana under stress [D]. Beijin: Beijing Forestry University, 2007. | |
22 | TRAW M B, BERGELSON J. Interactive effects of jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, and gibberellin on induction of trichomes in Arabidopsis [J]. Plant Physiol., 2003, 133(3):1367-1375. |
23 | 涂冰洁,刘长锴,田博文,等.菜用大豆和普通大豆叶片内源激素活性对钾素营养响应的差异研究[J].大豆科学,2016,35(6):969-974. |
TU B J, LIU C K, TIAN B W, et al.. Study on response differences to potassium nutrition in leaf endogenous hormone dynamic changes of vegetable soybean and grain soybean [J]. Soybean Sci., 2016, 35(6):969-974. | |
24 | 李春娜,占颖,刘洋洋,等.艾蒿药理作用和开发利用研究进展[J].中华中医药杂志,2014,29(12):3889-3891. |
LI C N, ZHAN Y, LIU Y Y, et al.. Research progress on pharmacological activities and development utilization Artemisiaargyi Levl.et Vant. [J]. China J. Trad. Chin. Med. Pharmacy, 2014, 29(12):3889-3891. | |
25 | 胡倩,刘大会,曹艳.艾叶黄酮类化合物的研究进展[J].食品安全质量检测学报,2019,10(12):3648-3653. |
HU Q, LIU D H, CAO Y. Research progress on flavonoids from Artemisiaargyi [J]. J. Food Safety Quality, 2019, 10(12):3648-3653. | |
26 | 卢丽兰,杨新全,杨勇,等.不同供氮水平对广藿香产量与品质的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2014,20(3):702-708. |
LU L L, YANG X Q, YANG Y, et al.. Effect of different nitrogen levels on yield and quality of Pogostemoncablin [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2014, 20(3):702-708. | |
27 | 曹艺雯,屈仁军,王磊,等.减量施氮对菘蓝生长及药材质量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2019,25(5):765-772. |
CAO Y W, QU R J, WANG L, et al.. Effect of nitrogen reduction on growth and quality of Isatisindigotica Fort. [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2019, 25(5):765-772. | |
28 | 张锋,韩金龙,倪大鹏,等.不同钾肥用量对白花丹参产量及药材品质的影响[J].山东农业科学,2014,46(10):60-62,67. |
ZHANG F, HAN J L, NI D P, et al.. Effects of different potassium fertilizer rates on yield and quality of Salviamiltiorrhiza Bunge f. alba [J]. J. Shandong Agric. Sci., 2014, 46(10):60-62,67. | |
29 | 王千,依艳丽,张淑香.不同钾肥对番茄幼苗酚类物质代谢作用的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2012,18(3):706-716. |
WANG Q, YI Y L, ZHANG S X. Effects of different potassium on phenol metabolism of tomato seedlings [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2012, 18(3):706-716. | |
30 | 卢国理,汤利,楚轶欧.单/间作条件下氮肥水平对水稻总酚和类黄酮的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2008,14(6):1064-1069. |
LU G L, TANG L, CHU Y. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer levels on rice total phenols and flavonoids under mono/intercropping conditions [J]. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 2008, 14(6):1064-1069. | |
31 | 刘大会,杨特武,朱端卫,等.不同钾肥用量对福田河白菊产量和质量的影响[J].中草药,2007(1):120-124. |
LIU D H, YANG T W, ZHU D W, et al. Effect of potassium application at various rates on yield and quality of flower in Chrysanthemummorifolium from Futianhe region [J]. Chin. Trad. Herbal Drugs, 2007(1):120-124. | |
32 | 薛启,王康才,梁永富,等.氮锌互作对藿香生长、产量及有效成分的影响[J].中国中药杂志,2018,43(13):2654-2663. |
XUE Q, WANG K C, LIANG Y F, et al.. Effects of N and Zn interaction on growth, yield and active components of Agastacherugose [J]. China J. Chin. Materia Medica, 2018, 43(13):2654-2663. | |
33 | 韩建萍,梁宗锁,王敬民.矿质元素与根类中草药根系生长发育及有效成分累积的关系[J].植物生理学通讯,2003(1):78-82. |
HAN J P, LIANG Z S, WANG J M. The relationship between mineral elements and the root growth and accumulation of effective ingredient in root of traditional herbs [J]. Plant Physiol. Comm., 2003(1):78-82. |
[1] | Xin XU, Zhaowu MA, Shuping XIONG, Xinming MA, Tao CHENG, Haiyang LI, Jinpeng ZHAO. Wheat Yield Forecast in Henan Province Based on Climate Year Type [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 136-144. |
[2] | Baoshi LI, Wenke LIU, Qi WANG, Mingjie SHAO. Effect of Soil-ridged Substrate-embedded Cultivation on Root Zone Temperature, Growth and Yield of Cucumber in Chinese Solar Greenhouse in Summer [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 177-183. |
[3] | Xuan ZHOU, Pinling YANG, Jianwei PENG, Huiqing CHAI, Xuemei ZHONG, Xingrong KANG, Junyou LONG, Huiru ZHANG. Effects of Function Microbial Compound Fertilizer on Yield, Quality and Economic Benefit of Head Cabbage [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 184-192. |
[4] | Jian WANG, Ailing XU, Xiaodong WEI, Jilong XI, Na YANG, Ke WANG, Tianyuan XI, Jiancheng ZHANG. Risk Assessment of Spring Freezing Injury of Wheat at Different Sowing Dates in Yuncheng Basin [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(1): 137-147. |
[5] | Zhidan WANG, Jili LIU, Na WU. Effects of Fenlong Tillage on Photosynthetic Physiological Characteristics and Yield of Sweet Sorghum [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(1): 148-156. |
[6] | Xing LIU, Jitao WANG, Zhijun HU, Yan LIU, Xiaoguo MU, Haijun ZHANG, Dalin ZHANG, Lei AN, Lin YE. Effects of Planting Density and Feeding Frequency on Growth and Quality of Crucian Carp under Aquaponics System [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(1): 192-201. |
[7] | HUANG Yulan§, LONG Shengfeng§, YE Xingzhi, LI Yanying, SHEN Zhangyou, ZHOU Jia, ZHOU Lingzhi, LAO Chengying, WEI Benhui. Study on the Agronomic Characters, Yield and Quality of Cassava in Enshi of Hubei Province [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 46-55. |
[8] | SUN Mengyao, XU Lanjun, LI Xiaolong, LI Chuanyou, CHEN Hua, ZHANG Chuanshuai, LIU Xingtao. Influences of Different Water-saving Methods on Water Utilization, Distribution and Yield of Rape [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 138-143. |
[9] | XI Min, XU Youzun, SUN Xueyuan, WU Wenge, ZHOU Yongjin. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Topdressing on Grain Filling and Milling Quality of the Rice with High Grain Chalkiness [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 144-151. |
[10] | LI Shengmei, ZHANG Dawei, DILIBAIER Dilimaimaiti, WEI Xin, RUI Cun, YANG Tao, GENG Shiwei, GAO Wenwei. Influence of Reduced Irrigation on Agronomic Traits, Yield and Fiber Quality of Transgenic ScALDH21 Cotton [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 152-159. |
[11] | LIU Yuqian, LU Faguang, GU Lifeng, REN Zhen, SHI Yu, LU Haitong, XU Zhenran, ZHOU Guisheng, WANG Xiaoshan, ZHANG Wangding, REN Zhiqiang, ZHU Guanglong, . Study on High Yield Production Technology of Oat in Saline Soils of Coastal beach and Its Associated Physiological Basis [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 160-172. |
[12] | LI Chengchen, SUO Haicui, LUO Huanming, AN Kang, LIU Jitao, WANG Li, SHAN Jianwei, YANG Shaohai, LI Xiaobo. Effects of Reduced Fertilizer Application and Fertilization Methods on Potato Yield and Tuber Nitrogen Accumulation [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 173-182. |
[13] | LIU Yuanbo, WANG Jing, Zhu Xuejie, JIANG Weifeng, LIU Tian, ZHANG Jinzhong, LI Yaoxin, FU Yunpeng. Effects of Different Water and Fertilizer Management Modes on Nutrient Accumulation and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco Leaves [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 193-201. |
[14] | YIN Yan, YIN Liang, ZHANG Xuekun, GUO Jingli, WANG Jijun. Status and Countermeasure of The High-quality Development of Rapeseed Industry in China [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(8): 1-7. |
[15] | LI Shengmei, YANG Tao, HUANG Yajie, REN Dan, GENG Shiwei, LI Dianpeng, RUI Cun, GAO Wenwei. Discussion on the Relationship Between Main Agronomic Traits and Fiber Quality in Backcross Populations of Gossypium hirsutum L. × Gossypium barbadense L. [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(8): 16-24. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||