不同砧木对葡萄‘87-1’氮磷钾等养分吸收利用的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.19.011

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】旨在筛选不同养分的高效利用型砧木,对12种砧木嫁接‘87-1’品种的氮、磷、钾、钙、镁养分吸收和利用效率进行研究,为葡萄生产中的砧木选择和肥料利用率的提升提供理论依据。【方法】本研究于2020年1月至2021年11月连续两年对12种砧木嫁接‘87-1’品种组合的苗木在萌芽期、始花期、末花期、种子发育期、果实转色期、果实成熟采收期和落叶期7个关键生育时期进行整株取样,测定植株氮、磷、钾、钙、镁矿质元素含量,计算各组合单株元素累积量、干物质生产效率、果实生产效率和收获指数,分析各指标之间的差异,比较不同砧木对氮、磷、钾、钙、镁吸收利用的影响。【结果】本研究中不同砧穗组合氮、磷、钾、钙、镁的单株累积量存在显著差异,其中以87-1/34EM组合的氮、磷、钾、钙、镁累积量最高。以干物质生产效率、果实生产效率为指标,评价养分生物及经济利用效率,结果表明,87-1/420A组合氮和钾的干物质生产效率最高,87-1/贝达和87-1/101-14组合磷和钙的干物质生产效率较高,而镁的干物质生产效率中则以87-1/5BB组合表现较好;钾果实生产效率以‘1103P’砧木表现最好,‘101-14’砧木氮、磷、钙和镁的果实生产效率最高。收获指数体现了果实中养分的吸收分配情况,不同砧木处理下,‘贝达’砧木磷和钾的收获指数最高,氮、钙和镁的收获指数分别以‘SO4’‘5BB’和‘华葡1号’砧木表现最高。【结论】本研究中不同砧木对氮、磷、钾、钙、镁的吸收情况差异显著,吸收能力与利用效率之间表现不一致。‘贝达’和‘101-14’砧木对磷和钙具有较高的生物及经济利用效率;‘1103P’砧木钾的生物及经济利用效率较高;氮和镁的生物利用效率分别以‘420A’和‘5BB’砧木表现最好,而经济利用效率则以‘101-14’砧木表现最好。另外,‘贝达’砧木促进了磷和钾向果实的分配,‘SO4’‘5BB’和‘华葡1号’砧木分别促进了氮、钙和镁向果实的分配。

关键词: 葡萄砧木, 氮, 磷, 钾, 钙, 镁, 吸收利用

Abstract:

【Objective】 In order to screen high-efficiency grape rootstocks with different nutrients, the nutrient uptake and utilization efficiencies of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) in 87-1 grape variety grafted with 12 rootstock varieties were studied, which was beneficial to provide a theoretical basis for the selection of rootstocks and the improvement of fertilizer utilization in grape production. 【Method】 From January 2020 to November 2021, the whole grape plants sampled from 87-1 grape variety grafted with 12 rootstock varieties at the key growth stages, such as germination stage, initial flowering stage, end bloom stage, seed development stage, veraison stage, maturation stage and deciduous stage, were carried out for two consecutive years, respectively. Based on mineral element content of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg in plants, the element accumulation per plant, dry matter production efficiency (DMPE), fruit production efficiency (FPE) and harvest index (HI) of each combination were calculated. And then, the differences between each indexes were analyzed, and the effects of different rootstocks on the absorption and utilization of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium were compared. 【Result】 The significant differences in the accumulation of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg per plant among different stock were found, 87-1/34EM of which had the highest accumulation of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg. Using DMPE and FPE as indicators, the biological and economic utilization efficiencies of nutrients (BUE and EUE) were evaluated. N and K of 87-1/420A combination had the highest DMPE, and 87-1/Beta and 87-1/101-14 combinations had higher DMPE of P and Ca. DMPE of Mg in 87-1/5BB combination performed better. The FPE of K was the best within 1103P rootstock, while the 101-14 rootstock had the highest FPE of N, P, Ca and Mg. The HI reflected the absorption and distribution of nutrients in the fruit. Under different rootstock treatments, the Beta rootstock had the highest HI of P and K, and the HI of N, while Ca and Mg was the highest within SO4, 5BB and Huapu No. 1 rootstock, respectively. 【Conclusion】 The grape absorptions of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg within different rootstocks were significantly different, and the absorption capacity and utilization efficiency showed inconsistency. Beta and 101-14 rootstocks had higher BUE and EUE of P and Ca. The BUE and EUE of K within 1103P rootstock was higher. 420A and 5BB rootstocks performed the best BUE in terms of N and Mg, respectively, while 101-14 rootstocks performed best EUE in terms of those. In addition, The Beta rootstocks promoted the distribution of P and K to fruits. SO4, 5BB and Huapu No. 1 rootstocks promoted the distribution of N, Ca and Mg to fruits, respectively.

Key words: grape rootstock, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, absorption and utilization

马玉全,王小龙,李玉梅,王孝娣,刘凤之,王海波. 不同砧木对葡萄‘87-1’氮磷钾等养分吸收利用的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(19): 3822-3830.

MA YuQuan,WANG XiaoLong,LI YuMei,WANG XiaoDi,LIU FengZhi,WANG HaiBo. Differences in Nutrient Absorption and Utilization of 87-1 Grape Variety Under Different Rootstock Facilities[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(19): 3822-3830.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.19.011

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2022/V55/I19/3822

图/表 5

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 35

[1]	韩晓, 王海波, 王孝娣, 史祥宾, 王宝亮, 郑晓翠, 刘凤之. 不同砧木对“87-1”葡萄叶片质量及净光合速率的影响. 中国南方果树, 2017(3): 143-147.
	HAN X, WANG H B, WANG X D, SHI X B, WANG B L, ZHENG X C, LIU F Z. Effects of different rootstocks on the leaf quality and net photosynthetic rate of 87-1 grape. South China Fruits, 2017(3): 143-147. (in Chinese)
[2]	BRUNETTO G, MELO G W B D, TOSELLI M, QUARTIERI M, TAGLIAVINI M. The role of mineral nutrition on yields and fruit quality in grapevine, pear and apple. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 2015, 37(4): 1089-1104. doi: 10.1590/0100-2945-103/15
[3]	陆景陵. 植物营养学. 上册. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 1994.
	LU J L. Plant Nutrition (I). Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007. (in Chinese)
[4]	马蕾. 红地球葡萄需肥规律与化肥减施研究[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2018.
	MA L. Study on fertilizer requirement of Red Globe grape and reduced application of chemical fertilizer[D]. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2018. (in Chinese)
[5]	郑秋玲, 张超杰, 刘万好, 王婷, 刘珅坤, 唐美玲. 不同砧木对“赤霞珠”葡萄生长及贮藏营养的影响. 中国南方果树, 2014, 43(6): 102-104.
	ZHENG Q L, ZHANG C J, LIU W H, WANG T, LIU K K, TANG M L. Effects of different rootstocks on the growth and storage nutrition of Cabernet Sauvignon grape. South China Fruits, 2014, 43(6): 102-104. (in Chinese)
[6]	KRPES C. Stilbenes-important constituents of grapevine and their effect on resistance to grey mould. Vinohrad, Bratislava, 1993, 31(2): 21-22.
[7]	REYNOLDS A G, WARDLE D A. Rootstocks impact vine performance and fruit composition of grapes in British Columbia. HortTechnology, 2001, 11(3): 419-427. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH.11.3.419
[8]	MELNYK C W, MEYEROWITZ E M. Plant grafting. Current Biology, 2015, 25(5): 183-188. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.029 pmid: 25734263
[9]	KOCSIS L, LEHOCZKY É. The significance of yield production and sugar content of the grapejuice with macronutrients in grape rootstock- scion combinations on dry climatic condition. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2002, 33(15/16/17/18): 3159-3166. doi: 10.1081/CSS-120014696. doi: 10.1081/CSS-120014696
[10]	孙行杰, 张禹, 刘万好, 张超杰, 唐美玲, 郑秋玲. 不同砧木对夏黑果实及树体贮藏营养的影响. 中国南方果树, 2016, 45(3): 135-137. doi: 10.13938/j.issn.1007-1431.20150670. doi: 10.13938/j.issn.1007-1431.20150670
	SUN X J, ZHANG Y, LIU W H, ZHANG C J, TANG M L, ZHENG Q L. Effects of different rootstocks on the storage nutrients of Summer Black fruits and trees. South China Fruits, 2016, 45(3): 135-137. doi: 10.13938/j.issn.1007-1431.20150670. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13938/j.issn.1007-1431.20150670
[11]	秦嗣军, 王铭, 郭太君, 贺红霞, 王喜荣. 双优山葡萄叶柄内矿质营养动态变化的研究. 吉林农业大学学报, 2001(4): 47-50.
	QIN S J, WANG M, GUO T J, HE H X, WANG X R. The research on the dynamic variations of the mineral elements in the leafstalks of Shuangyou Vitis amurensis rupr. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 2001(4): 47-50. (in Chinese)
[12]	CICCARESE A, STELLACCI A M, GENTILESCO G, RUBINO P. Effectiveness of pre- and post-veraison calcium applications to control decay and maintain table grape fruit quality during storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2013, 75: 135-141. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2012.08.010
[13]	管雪强, 杨阳, 王恒振, 郭成士, 关军锋. 喷钙对红地球葡萄果实钙、果胶含量和品质的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(1): 179-185.
	GUAN X Q, YANG Y, WANG H Z, GUO C S, GUAN J F. Effect of spraying calcium on contents of calcium and pectin and fruit quality of Red Globe grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2014, 20(1): 179-185. (in Chinese)
[14]	骆萌, 伍国红, 许文平, 骆强伟, 娄玉穗, 孙锋, 王世平. 新疆吐鲁番地区‘无核白’葡萄水分和矿质元素周年吸收规律研究. 园艺学报, 2017, 44(10): 1849-1860. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2016-0875. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2016-0875
	LUO M, WU G H, XU W P, LUO Q W, LOU Y S, SUN F, WANG S P. Water and mineral elements uptake patterns of Thompson seedless’ grapevine in Turpan, Xinjiang. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2017, 44(10): 1849-1860. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2016-0875. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2016-0875
[15]	BALIHAR V, FAGERIA N, HE Z. Nutrient utilization efficiency of crops. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2001, 32: 921-950. doi: 10.1081/CSS-100104098
[16]	EHDAIE B, SHAKIBA M R, WAINES J G. Sowing date and nitrogen input influence nitrogen-use efficiency in spring bread and durum wheat genotypes. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2001, 24(6): 899-919. doi: 10.1081/PLN-100103781. doi: 10.1081/PLN-100103781
[17]	马爱红, 孙秀波, 刘长江, 袁军伟, 韩斌, 郭紫娟, 赵胜建. 葡萄多抗砧木的选择与利用. 河北农业科学, 2011, 15(8): 22-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1088-1631.2011.08.007. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1088-1631.2011.08.007
	MA A H, SUN X B, LIU C J, YUAN J W, HAN B, GUO Z J, ZHAO S J. Selection and utilization of grape rootstocks with multiple resistance. Journal of Hebei Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 15(8): 22-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1088-1631.2011.08.007. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1088-1631.2011.08.007
[18]	马玉坤, 贾永芳, 马静芳. 砧木对红地球葡萄生长和果实品质的影响. 湖北农业科学, 2010, 49(1): 101-104. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0439-8114.2010.01.032. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0439-8114.2010.01.032
	MA Y K, JIA Y F, MA J F. Effects of rootstock on growth and fruit quality of red globe grapevines. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2010, 49(1): 101-104. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0439-8114.2010.01.032. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0439-8114.2010.01.032
[19]	王晓芳, 翟衡, 杜远鹏, 厉恩茂, 相昆, 魏树伟. 葡萄不同砧穗组合的营养特征分析. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2007(1): 15-18.
	WANG X F, ZHAI H, DU Y P, LI E M, XIANG K, WEI S W. Analysis on nutritional characteristics of different scion/rootstock combinations in grapevine. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine, 2007(1): 15-18. (in Chinese)
[20]	WHITE P J, HAMMOND J P, KING G J, BOWEN H C, HAYDEN R M, MEACHAM M C, SPRACKLEN W P, BROADLEY M R. Genetic analysis of potassium use efficiency in Brassica oleracea. Annals of Botany, 2009, 105(7): 1199-1210. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcp253. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcp253
[21]	陈波浪, 盛建东, 蒋平安, 侯静. 不同棉花品种钾素吸收利用差异的比较. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2009, 15(5): 1154-1159.
	CHEN B L, SHENG J D, JIANG P G, HOU J. Comparison of potassium absorption and utilization for different cotton varieties. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2009, 15(5): 1154-1159. (in Chinese)
[22]	KANAMPIU F K, RAUN W R, JOHNSON G V. Effect of nitrogen rate on plant nitrogen loss in winter wheat varieties. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1997, 20(2/3): 389-404. doi: 10.1080/01904169709365259
[23]	卢晓佩, 姜存仓, 董肖昌, 吴秀文, 闫磊. 硼利用效率不同的柑橘砧木光合性能差异研究. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(2): 476-483.
	LU X P, JIANG C C, DONG X C, WU X W, YAN L. Leaf photosynthetic characteristics of citrus rootstocks with different boron efficiency. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2017, 23(2): 476-483. (in Chinese)
[24]	RUIZ J M, RIVERO R M, CERVILLA L M, CASTELLANO R, ROMERO L. Grafting to improve nitrogen-use efficiency traits in tobacco plants. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2006, 86(6): 1014-1021. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2450
[25]	季萌萌, 彭玲, 文炤, 姜翰, 葛顺峰, 姜远茂. 供磷水平对苹果砧木氮、磷吸收和利用特性的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2015, 21(4): 1016-1021.
	JI M M, PENG L, WEN Z, JIANG H, GE S F, JIANG Y M. Nitrogen and phosphorus absorption and utilization characteristics of apple rootstocks under different phosphorus levels. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2015, 21(4): 1016-1021. (in Chinese)
[26]	许全宝. 不同黄瓜砧木氮素利用效率评价及砧木嫁接对黄瓜幼苗的影响[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2011.
	XU Q B. Evaluation of nitrogen utilization efficiency of different rootstocks and effect of grafting on cucumber seedlings[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2011. (in Chinese)
[27]	刘娜. 西瓜氮素养分高效吸收利用的机制研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2013.
	LIU N. Mechanism of high nitrogen absorption and utilization efficiency in watermelon[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2013. (in Chinese)
[28]	丁玉川, 陈明昌, 程滨, 李丽君, 李典友. 不同大豆品种磷吸收利用特性比较研究. 西北植物学报, 2005(9): 1791-1797.
	DING Y C, CHEN M C, CHENG B, LI L J, LI D Y. Phosphorous uptakes and uses of different soybean varieties. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2005(9): 1791-1797. (in Chinese)
[29]	常聪. 五种不同基因型苹果砧木钾吸收利用效率差异研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2014.
	CHANG C. Differences in the efficiency of potassium (k) uptake and use in five apple rootstock genotypes[D]. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2014. (in Chinese)
[30]	CHEN X Y, KIM J Y. Transport of macromolecules through plasmodesmata and the phloem. Physiologia Plantarum, 2006, 126(4): 560-571. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2006.00630.x
[31]	KEHR J, BUHTZ A. Long distance transport and movement of RNA through the phloem. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2007, 59(1): 85-92. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm176. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm176
[32]	吴伟民, 王西成, 王庆莲, 蔡伟建, 赵密珍. 砧木对夏黑葡萄营养生长、果实品质及矿质元素含量的影响. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2014(5): 14-17, 21.
	WU W M, WANG X C, WANG Q L, CAI W J, ZHAO M Z. Effects of different rootstocks on vegetative growth, fruit quality and mineral element contents of Summer Black grapevine. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine, 2014(5): 14-17, 21. (in Chinese)
[33]	CLARK R B, DUNCAN R R. Improvement of plant mineral nutrition through breeding. Field Crops Research, 1991, 27(3): 219-240. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(91)90063-2
[34]	和雅妮, 奚晓军, 查倩, 殷向静, 蒋爱丽. 葡萄果实矿质元素与品质的相关性及通径分析. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(2): 154-160.
	HE N Y, XI X J, CHA Q, YIN X J, JIANG A L. Correlation and path analysis of mineral elements and berry quality of grape. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 50(2): 154-160. (in Chinese)
[35]	MASSAI R, REMORINI D, TATTINI M. Gas exchange, water relations and osmotic adjustment in two scion/rootstock combinations of Prunus under various salinity concentrations. Plant and Soil, 2004, 259(1/2): 153-162. doi: 10.1023/B:PLSO.0000020954.71828.13

砧穗组合 Rootstock-scion combination	单株元素累积量 Element accumulation per plant (g)	干物质生产效率 Dry matter production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	果实生产效率 Fruit production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	收获指数 Harvest index (%)
87-1/HPYH	16.14±0.86g	77.86±3.86e	135.64±6.77cd	22.37±1.84abc
87-1/Beta	16.75±0.83fg	89.66±4.28cd	157.78±7.54b	23.69±1.60ab
87-1/LOT	22.40±0.31b	80.66±1.27e	107.19±1.70e	23.99±2.86ab
87-1/101-14	20.35±0.02cd	99.86±2.91b	198.82±8.08a	19.09±1.14bcdef
87-1/5BB	17.30±0.96efg	93.46±0.88bc	132.50±3.76cd	21.08±0.87bcd
87-1/SO4	24.85±0.65a	79.76±2.14e	144.88±6.51bc	26.72±2.63a
87-1/34EM	26.29±1.66a	84.46±1.27de	103.96±4.20ef	20.52±4.48bcde
87-1/1103P	18.81±0.54de	84.16±2.38de	150.42±3.83b	15.14±2.49ef
87-1/225R	20.33±0.11cd	83.56±0.03de	92.50±0.18f	21.86±2.89abcd
87-1/420A	17.83±0.79ef	110.6±4.95a	135.70±6.25cd	16.80±3.66def
87-1/140R	21.57±0.13bc	92.66±5.62c	128.93±10.93d	17.17±1.41cdef
87-1/110R	17.81±0.26ef	83.16±2.27de	105.24±3.84ef	14.04±1.23f

砧穗组合 Rootstock-scion combination	单株元素累积量 Element accumulation per plant (g)	干物质生产效率 Dry matter production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	果实生产效率 Fruit production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	收获指数 Harvest index (%)
87-1/HPYH	3.76±0.06d	283.49±4.33c	431.41±8.23cd	26.21±2.29bc
87-1/Beta	3.70±0.07d	327.06±5.43ab	516.86±17.93ab	33.01±1.35a
87-1/LOT	5.56±0.14b	274.60±6.27cd	340.45±6.88ef	21.37±3.56de
87-1/101-14	4.27±0.21cd	357.62±16.76a	543.41±50.08a	26.94±0.84bc
87-1/5BB	4.25±0.10cd	306.20±18.65bc	398.39±33.41de	22.29±4.49cd
87-1/SO4	5.64±0.26b	276.94±8.52cd	439.01±5.31cd	27.62±1.99b
87-1/34EM	7.15±0.35a	243.01±23.83d	263.45±38.72g	18.13±0.88def
87-1/1103P	5.40±0.26b	271.55±11.34cd	460.53±16.14bc	16.29±0.48f
87-1/225R	5.23±0.29b	285.55±9.50c	301.98±6.65fg	21.39±0.44de
87-1/420A	5.40±0.01b	280.83±0.37cd	300.28±8.47fg	18.31±1.27def
87-1/140R	6.57±0.15a	272.38±17.13cd	356.03±33.16ef	16.78±2.58ef
87-1/110R	4.47±0.66c	289.77±42.70bc	325.05±48.65f	14.55±1.09f

砧穗组合 Rootstock-scion combination	单株元素累积量 Element accumulation per plant (g)	干物质生产效率 Dry matter production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	果实生产效率 Fruit production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	收获指数 Harvest index (%)
87-1/HPYH	10.99±1.07g	99.61±10.58cd	159.92±18.70bc	50.40±2.52ab
87-1/Beta	12.58±1.22fg	97.46±9.08cd	158.74±14.03bc	51.32±0.11a
87-1/LOT	16.57±0.72bc	93.40±7.15d	116.34±12.13de	49.29±1.12ab
87-1/101-14	15.69±0.32bcd	99.52±2.94cd	166.92±7.29bc	39.33±0.49de
87-1/5BB	11.95±0.26fg	108.93±7.33bcd	141.61±13.58cde	43.55±1.49cd
87-1/SO4	17.15±1.18ab	101.14±9.72cd	176.59±19.69b	49.02±2.09ab
87-1/34EM	19.18±2.15a	98.70±16.99cd	113.45±23.29e	39.88±0.66de
87-1/1103P	11.51±0.30g	129.87±4.04a	224.09±7.86a	39.03±0.57de
87-1/225R	13.84±0.64def	109.17±12.02bcd	115.74±16.35de	45.30±3.72bc
87-1/420A	12.81±0.53efg	123.49±1.03ab	141.54±1.69cde	36.84±1.03e
87-1/140R	14.88±0.83cde	114.01±6.50abc	144.75±8.47cd	35.17±2.75e
87-1/110R	12.97±0.53efg	101.61±4.64cd	116.53±6.40de	28.55±5.82f

砧穗组合 Rootstock-scion combination	单株元素累积量 Element accumulation per plant (g)	干物质生产效率 Dry matter production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	果实生产效率 Fruit production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	收获指数 Harvest index (%)
87-1/HPYH	13.94±0.05e	76.48±0.18bc	117.35±0.85bc	11.37±2.84ab
87-1/Beta	13.96±0.36e	86.85±2.50a	140.13±4.80a	11.41±2.60ab
87-1/LOT	21.89±0.37bc	68.68±1.27cde	82.96±2.16de	6.63±0.40b
87-1/101-14	20.24±0.74cd	81.10±1.05ab	143.85±1.11a	10.71±0.41ab
87-1/5BB	18.62±0.72d	71.19±0.05cde	93.59±2.11d	13.65±3.30a
87-1/SO4	23.15±1.14b	72.86±1.26bcde	124.64±0.24b	10.09±0.87ab
87-1/34EM	28.36±2.00a	59.21±5.18f	61.73±7.17f	8.76±0.90ab
87-1/1103P	21.88±0.37bc	65.14±1.39def	106.33±3.41c	8.08±0.26ab
87-1/225R	20.39±1.14cd	73.35±7.88bcd	77.43±10.44e	11.16±0.96ab
87-1/420A	21.49±0.42bc	72.46±4.47bcde	82.02±7.77de	10.76±5.20ab
87-1/140R	23.65±0.69b	69.63±2.65cde	83.43±6.54de	10.50±4.15ab
87-1/110R	20.29±2.82cd	64.30±8.70ef	73.71±9.53ef	7.18±3.05b

砧穗组合 Rootstock-scion combination	单株元素累积量 Element accumulation per plant (g)	干物质生产效率 Dry matter production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	果实生产效率 Fruit production efficiency (g∙g^-1)	收获指数 Harvest index (%)
87-1/HPYH	1.83±0.01g	605.09±15.75b	984.21±43.17b	16.91±1.52a
87-1/Beta	2.32±0.03f	523.09±9.11cd	842.75±21.10c	13.59±0.53bcd
87-1/LOT	3.02±0.03d	499.50±2.94de	608.37±2.82fg	10.61±0.95ef
87-1/101-14	3.08±0.19cd	583.60±8.06b	1099.62±12.16a	12.16±0.07cdef
87-1/5BB	1.91±0.13g	688.38±52.09a	901.45±72.91bc	15.97±1.68ab
87-1/SO4	3.09±0.16cd	502.62±21.51d	813.67±27.25cd	16.00±0.91ab
87-1/34EM	3.86±0.22a	445.78±33.26ef	480.51±44.14h	11.46±0.81cdef
87-1/1103P	3.34±0.08bc	432.74±10.87f	723.12±19.84de	14.08±0.97bc
87-1/225R	2.87±0.06de	504.98±1.74d	524.60±11.19gh	11.23±1.01def
87-1/420A	2.71±0.04e	578.87±3.86b	660.14±15.17ef	13.40±0.37bcde
87-1/140R	3.40±0.29b	513.14±52.23cd	642.18±60.98ef	10.75±0.04ef
87-1/110R	2.58±0.05ef	566.24±14.35bc	651.40±50.67ef	10.37±3.15f