|Table of Contents|

Copper Sensitivity in Different Periods of Melon

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2022年16
Page:
39-45
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Copper Sensitivity in Different Periods of Melon
Author(s):
YANG Zhiyi1WANG Rui1WANG Chaonan1XU Baolin2QIU Huojian2WANG Huilin1
(1.College of Horticulture,Xinjiang Agricultural University,Urumqi,Xinjiang 830052;2.Xinjiang Westland Seeds Co.Ltd.,Changji,Xinjiang 831100)
Keywords:
meloncopper preparationgrowth indexyield quality
PACS:
-
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20215333
Abstract:
M625 (high-generation inbred line of thick-skinned muskmelon) and M44 (high-generation inbred line of thick-skinned muskmelon) were selected as the test materials,the methods of soaking seeds and spraying copper preparations on the leaves were used to study the effect of copper preparations on the main body of muskmelon in different periods.The effects of vine length, stem diameter, maximum functional leaf area, maximum functional leaf node position, maximum functional chlorophyll relative content SPAD value, single melon mass, central sugar content, diseased leaf rate and copper damage index, in order to provide reference for exploring the different of copper sensitivity in different periods of melon.The results showed that the spraying of copper preparations at different times reduced the main vine length,stem thickness,leaf area,chlorophyll content,yield and quality of the two melon materials to different degrees,with the greatest decrease in each index at the seedling stage;the spraying of copper preparations at different times increased the maximum functional leaf nodal position,leaf disease rate and copper damage index of melon to different degrees,and the earlier the spraying of copper preparations the more obvious the copper damage performance.M625 and M44 were the most sensitive to copper preparations at the seedling stage,with the most severe copper damage,followed by the melon stage,and the difference between the seed dipping treatment and CK was not significant.In conclusion,the differences in the effects of copper sprays on the growth index,yield,quality and copper damage indexes of the two melon materials were basically the same,and the order of copper sensitivity was seedling stage>vine extension stage>melon sitting stage>seed dipping.

References:

[1]鲁思梦,王贤磊,宁雪飞,等.甜瓜MR-1细菌性果斑病抗病基因QTL定位分析展[J].分子植物育种,2019,17(9):2924-2931.[2]蔡大维,卜庆鑫,陈晓明.中国甜瓜出口现状、问题及对策:基于直接出口角度[J].现代商贸工业,2018,39(32):49-50.[3]刘克贞,王凯航,章建华.不同杀菌剂对甜瓜细菌性果斑病的防治效果[J].农村科技,2020(6):34-36.[4]刘梦华,卢霞,李腾,等.甜瓜细菌性果斑病病菌鉴定及不同材料抗病性测定[J].安徽农业科学,2021,49(6):145-148.[5]赵廷昌,孙福在,刘双平,等.哈密瓜细菌性果斑病及其防治[J].植物保护,2001,27(1):46-47.[6]赵廷昌,孙福在,王兵万,等.哈密瓜细菌性果斑病病原菌鉴定[J].植物病理学报,2001,31(4):357-364.[7]王雪,高洁,张静,等.63种杀菌剂对西瓜、甜瓜细菌性果斑病菌的室内毒力测定[J].吉林农业大学学报,2012,34(6):612-617.[8]CRALL J,SCHENCK N C.Bacterial fruit rot of watermelon in Florida[J].Plant Disease Reporter,1969,53(1):74-75.[9]李俊阁.甜瓜细菌性果斑病抗性鉴定及抗性相关生理研究[D].乌鲁木齐:新疆农业大学,2015.[10]李强,杨玉文,孙柏欣,等.瓜类及蔬菜等植物病原细菌抗铜机制研究进展[J].中国瓜菜,2014,27(3):5-9.[11]杨茹薇,孙梦瑄,秦勇.不同浓度多效唑和比久浸种对甜瓜幼苗质量的影响[J].北方园艺,2016(8):11-15.[12]蔡健,梁展鹏,梁文斌,等.不同药剂及浓度对“玉菇”甜瓜的药害程度分析[J].上海农业科技,2021(2):134-135.[13]王威,刘宗愉,蒋悟生,等.Cu2+对大蒜生长的影响及大蒜根、叶及蒜瓣对Cu2+的累积[J].西北植物学报,2001,21(2):306-312.[14]赵艳,徐迎春,柴翠翠,等.铜胁迫对狭叶香蒲生长及生理特性的影响[J].广西植物,2010,30(3):367-372.[15]王海鸥,弓爱君,刘杰民,等.施加磷元素后对小麦抗重金属铜毒性的影响[J].环境污染治理技术与设备,2006,7(5):54-59.[16]裴雪霞.冬小麦锰、锌、铜营养研究现状[J].小麦研究,2000,21(2):28-29.[17]谭明明.嫁接提高甜瓜幼苗对铜胁迫耐受性的生理机制研究[D].雅安:四川农业大学,2014.[18]RBOADS F M,OLSON S M,MANNING A.Copper toxicity in tomato plants[J].J Environ Qual,1989,18(2):195-197.[19]FERNANDO C L,FERNANDO S H.Copper toxicity in rice:Diagnositic criteria and effect on tissue Mn and Fe[J].Soil Sci,1992,154(2):130-135.[20]刘春生,孙白晔,王正直,等.铜对苹果砧木实生苗生长的影响差异研究[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2003,9(3):364-368.[21]贾云鹤.不同浓度可杀得叁仟对西瓜幼苗生长发育的影响[J].中国瓜菜,2019,32(1):31-32,36.[22]盛积贵,李晓梅,窦三丰.铜胁迫对辣椒种子发芽及其幼苗生长的影响展[J].北方园艺,2013(7):22-24.[23]潘雪峰,李明,赵盼,等,胁迫对穿心莲幼苗生长及生理特性的影响展[J].科学学报,2015,33(2):218-225.[24]贾云鹤,王喜庆,闫闻,等.可杀得叁千对西瓜幼苗细菌性果斑病的防治效果[J].黑龙江农业科学,2019(6):66-68.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2022-10-10