滴灌下氮盐交互对加工番茄荧光特性及产量品质的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.05.011

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】Xinjiang has the largest area of saline-alkali land and planting base of processed tomatoes in China. In this paper, a two-year experiment in Xinjiang was carried to study the effects of different soil salinity and nitrogen application rate on the growth, physiological, yield and quality of processed tomato, and to obtain the rational nitrogen application rate and soil salinity range of processed tomato suitable for planting saline land in Xinjiang, so as to provide a scientific theoretical basis and technical approach for expanding tomato planting area and rational nitrogen application in Xinjiang. 【Method】This study was carried out in the Key Experimental Base of Modern Water-saving Irrigation Corps of Shihezi University in 2017 and 2018. The local main tomato cultivar “3166” was taken as the experimental material. This experiment was set in four levels of soil salinity: 1.5, 4.0, 7.0 and 10.0 g·kg ^-1 and four levels of nitrogen: 201, 166, 131 and 96 kg N·hm ^-2 in 2017. Based on the experiment in 2017, a soil salinity of 10.0 g·kg ^-1 were removed and a soil salinity of 5.0 g·kg ^-1 and a nitrogen application rate of 0 were added in 2018. The chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, yield and quality of processed tomatoes were analyzed. 【Result】Our results indicated that under the interaction of nitrogen and soil salinity, the fluorescence parameter and yield of processed tomatoes showed a complex change. Firstly, most of the fluorescence parameters and yields were more dominated by soil salt than nitrogen. At the same nitrogen level, soil salinity of 7.0 g·kg ^-1 and 10.0 g·kg ^-1 inhibited the fluorescence index of processed tomatoes mostly. At low salinity level, medium and high nitrogen application of 166 kg N·hm ^-2 promoted the fluorescence index of processed tomatoes the most, followed by 201 kg N·hm ^-2, and the worst was 131 kg N·hm ^-2. At medium and high salt level, 96 kg N·hm ^-2 had the best promotion degree for processed tomato, followed by no nitrogen level. At the high salt application rate, low nitrogen treatment was better than the high nitrogen treatment to improve tomato yield. The fresh fruit yield of processed tomato was generally consistent with the law of “the higher the salt, the lower the yield”. The yield of low-nitrogen and high-salt treatment was significantly higher than other yields with same salinity levels of different nitrogen. Moreover, it was found that salinity had a stronger effect on tomato quality than nitrogen. Soluble solids, VC, soluble sugar and titratable acid increased gradually with the increase of soil salt content. The maximum sugar-acid ratio appeared in low salinity treatment. Moreover, it was found that salinity had a stronger effect on tomato quality than nitrogen, and the interaction between them had no significant effect on the quality of processed tomatoes. Summary by analysis, the reasonable range of nitrogen application and soil salinity content of processed tomato were obtained. 【Conclusion】In the soil with high salinity, the yield of processed tomatoes could be increased by applying a small amount of nitrogen. The reasonable range of nitrogen application and the range of soil salt content for the relative optimal yield and quality of processed tomatoes were N: 98.12-119.60 kg·hm ^-2, S: 3.57-5.58 g·kg ^-1.

Key words: processed tomato, drip irrigation under film, photosynthetic fluorescence parameters, yield, quality, optimal interval, nitrogen application, soil salinity

ZHANG JiFeng,WANG ZhenHua,ZHANG JinZhu,DOU YunQing,HOU YuSheng. The Influences of Different Nitrogen and Salt Levels Interactions on Fluorescence Characteristics, Yield and Quality of Processed Tomato Under Drip Irrigation[J].Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(5): 990-1003.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

URL: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/EN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.05.011

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/EN/Y2020/V53/I5/990

Figures/Tables 9

Fig. 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Fig. 2

Fig.3

Table 4

Changes in yield and quality of tomato treated with different treatments"

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	鲜果产量 Fresh fruit yield (kg/pot)	单果重 Fruit mean weight (g)	可溶性固形物 Total soluble solids (%)	维生素C Vitamin C (mg·100g^-1)	可溶性糖 Soluble sugar content (%)	可滴定酸 Titrable acidity (%)	糖酸比 Sugar to acid ratio (%)
2017	N1CK	2.31±0.12ab	33.60±0.28d	7.34±0.07h	15.74±0.08i	7.05±0.11j	0.42±0.02j	16.64±0.01g
	N1S1	2.33±0.04a	35.05±0.14c	13.86±0.08g	18.55±0.09ef	10.91±0.09g	0.61±0.01g	17.78±0.08d
	N1S2	0.77±0.08g	23.31±0.17i	18.32±0.06a	21.89±0.15a	13.79±0.06a	0.90±0.03d	15.26±0.01j
	N1S3	1.05±0.10de	25.62±0.16g	18.04±0.04c	19.74±0.11cd	11.89±0.13d	1.33±0.01a	8.92±0.07k
	N2CK	2.35±0.13a	35.51±0.02b	7.35±7.00h	15.76±0.07i	7.01±0.14j	0.41±0.02jk	16.95±0.11f
	N2S1	2.38±0.11a	35.07±0.13c	13.85±0.11g	18.53±0.09ef	10.86±0.15gh	0.60±0.04gh	18.00±0.06c
	N2S2	1.90±0.07c	27.85±0.06f	18.26±0.07ab	21.84±0.11a	13.74±0.04ab	0.89±0.01de	15.38±0.07ij
	N2S3	1.13±0.09d	24.74±0.13h	17.94±0.06d	19.69±0.03d	11.84±0.06de	1.32±0.03ab	8.95±0.05k
	N3CK	2.31±0.12ab	34.97±0.11c	7.22±0.12i	16.17±0.05h	6.96±0.07jk	0.40±0.01k	17.25±0.13e
	N3S1	2.34±0.17a	35.08±0.04c	13.85±0.11g	18.35±0.11fg	10.81±0.06hi	0.59±0.02hi	18.21±0.07b
	N3S2	0.92±0.05ef	22.28±0.10k	18.26±0.09ab	20.95±0.13b	13.69±0.04bc	0.88±0.04ef	15.50±0.05hi
	N3S3	0.88±0.08fg	22.54±0.22j	17.76±0.12e	19.45±0.14d	11.79±0.03ef	1.31±0.06bc	8.98±0.07k
	N4CK	2.34±0.12a	35.72±0.11ab	7.24±0.14i	15.66±0.13i	6.91±0.15k	0.38±0.01l	18.02±0.13c
	N4S1	2.36±0.09a	36.24±0.25a	13.84±0.11g	18.00±0.07g	10.76±0.10i	0.58±0.01i	18.44±0.11a
	N4S2	2.18±0.13b	33.35±0.09e	18.19±0.07b	20.12±0.09c	13.64±0.07c	0.87±0.02f	15.62±0.05h
	N4S3	1.97±0.05c	27.83±0.02f	17.55±0.08f	18.92±0.14e	11.74±0.08f	1.30±0.03c	9.01±0.06k
2018	N0CK	2.57±0.09cdef	37.77±0.04h	6.09±0.0.7i	15.80±0.16i	7.68±0.06m	0.48±0.01l	16.17±0.05b
	N0S1	2.62±0.03abcd	38.64±0.05g	14.47±0.08g	18.56±0.05h	11.25±0.02j	0.68±0.02i	16.45±0.03a
	N0S2	2.12±0.04i	32.45±0.08k	16.90±0.06e	19.08±0.09g	13.06±0.20h	0.83±0.02f	15.66±0.04cd
	N0S3	2.15±0.08i	33.52±0.16j	19.04±0.09c	21.91±0.14b	13.69±0.21d	1.12±0.01c	12.18±0.07g
	N1CK	2.71±0.07abcd	40.72±0.14c	7.11±0.11h	15.86±0.21i	7.78±0.05k	0.52±0.03j	15.11±0.08ef
	N1S1	2.74±0.07abc	41.04±0.11b	14.60±0.12f	19.24±0.07e	11.36±0.04i	0.73±0.04g	15.48±0.09d
	N1S2	2.25±0.09hi	34.35±0.04i	17.04±0.14d	20.36±0.08c	13.17±0.11e	0.88±0.04d	14.89±0.11f
	N1S3	1.69±0.50k	26.71±0.08n	19.25±0.07a	21.97±0.17ab	13.79±0.13a	1.17±0.05a	11.74±0.12i
	N2CK	2.75±0.10ab	41.51±0.09a	7.08±0.06h	15.85±0.16i	7.75±0.11kl	0.51±0.04j	15.18±0.07e
	N2S1	2.79±0.11a	41.61±0.15a	14.55±0.08fg	19.20±0.04ef	11.33±0.15i	0.72±0.03gh	15.65±0.04cd
	N2S2	2.38±0.08gh	34.75±0.14i	17.00±0.11d	20.32±0.11cd	13.13±0.05ef	0.87±0.04de	15.02±0.05ef
	N2S3	1.87±0.07j	27.48±0.1m	19.20±0.08ab	22.02±0.18a	13.77±0.06ab	1.16±0.06ab	11.83±0.06hi
	N3CK	2.55±0.01def	40.34±0.11d	7.04±0.07h	15.83±0.14i	7.73±0.12lm	0.50±0.01k	15.61±0.12cd
	N3S1	2.59±0.03bcde	39.38±0.11f	14.51±0.03fg	19.17±0.08efg	11.27±0.13j	0.71±0.02hi	15.78±0.10c
	N3S2	2.09±0.11i	29.97±0.18l	16.97±0.07de	20.28±0.07cd	13.11±0.08fg	0.86±0.03e	15.17±0.07e
	N3S3	2.18±0.08i	34.50±0.10i	19.16±0.09ab	21.98±0.14ab	13.74±0.04bc	1.15±0.03b	11.90±0.03hi
	N4CK	2.63±0.06abcd	39.61±0.28e	6.11±0.08i	15.82±0.06i	7.69±0.12m	0.49±0.01kl	15.82±0.09c
	N4S1	2.68±0.07abcd	39.64±0.17e	14.47±0.01g	19.12±0.18fg	11.27±0.16j	0.69±0.03i	16.24±0.01ab
	N4S2	2.41±0.04fgh	38.76±0.11g	16.95±0.05de	20.24±0.14d	13.08±0.14gh	0.84±0.02f	15.49±0.04d
	N4S3	2.45±0.12efg	39.74±0.11e	19.11±0.11bc	21.94±0.16ab	13.70±0.11cd	1.13±0.01c	12.08±0.07gh
双因素方差分析（F值检验）Two-Way ANOVA (F value test)
2017	N	179.40**	1423.71*	28.91**	30.25**	18.57**	63.10**	101.82**
	S	705.67**	10683.32	1.12E5**	1092.12*	3.75E4**	5.14E4**	2.48E4**
	N×S	69.96**	475.11**	10.00**	7.29**	0.02	0.51	21.24**
2018	N	9.99**	1256.70*	136.18**	215.35**	31.48**	83.36**	64.35**
	S	160.28**	9468.99*	1.61E5**	3.65E4*	1.56E5**	2.03E4**	2405.46**
	N×S	11.13**	1280.21*	63.56**	69.48**	0.37	0.37	2.28

Table 4

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

References 57

[1]	王新, 马富裕, 刁明 . 不同施氮水平下加工番茄植株生长和氮素积累与利用率的动态模拟. 应用生态学报, 2014,25(4):1043-1050.
	WANG X, MA F Y, DIAO M . Dynamics simulation on plant growth, N accumulation and utilization of processing tomato at different N fertilization rates. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014,25(4):1043-1050. (in Chinese)
[2]	REN Z, LI Y, FANG W . Evaluation of allyl isothiocyanate as a soil fumigant against soil-borne diseases in commercial tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production in China: Evaluation of allyl isothiocyanate as a soil fumigant against soil-borne diseases in commercial tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production in C. Pest Management Science, 2018,74(9):2146-2155.
[3]	Ministry of Agriculture . China Agriculture Yearbook. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2015: 207.
[4]	AKHTAR S S, ANDERSEN M N, LIU F . Residual effects of biochar on improving growth, physiology and yield of wheat under salt stress. Agricultural Water Management, 2015,158:61-68.
[5]	DEBEZ A, KOYRO H W, GRIGNON C, ABDELLY C, HUCHZERMEYER B . Relationship between the photosynthetic activity and the performance of Cakile maritima after long-term salt treatment. Physiologia Plantarum, 2008,133(2):373-385.
[6]	YANG A, AKHTAR S S, IQBAL S, AMJAD M, NAVEED M, ZAHIR Z A . Enhancing salt tolerance in quinoa by halotolerant bacterial inoculation. Functional Plant Biology, 2016,43(7):632.
[7]	CHEN W, HOU Z, WU L . Evaluating salinity distribution in soil irrigated with saline water in arid regions of northwest China. Agricultural Water Management, 2010,97(12):2001-2008.
[8]	郗金标, 张福锁, 毛达如, 田长彦, 宋玉民, 刘德玺 . 新疆盐渍土分布与盐生植物资源. 土壤通报, 2005,36(3):299-303.
	XI J B, ZHANG F S, MAO D R, TIAN C Y, SONG Y M, LIU D X . Saline-soil distribution and halophyte resources in Xinjiang. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2005,36(3):299-303. (in Chinese)
[9]	WANG R, KANG Y, WAN S . Effects of different drip irrigation regimes on saline-sodic soil nutrients and cotton yield in an arid region of Northwest China. Agricultural Water Management, 2015,153:1-8.
[10]	LIU H, WANG X, ZHANG X, ZHANG L, LI Y, HUANG G . Evaluation on the responses of maize (Zea mays L.) growth, yield and water use efficiency to drip irrigation water under mulch condition in the Hetao Irrigation District of China. Agricultural Water Management, 2016,179:144-157.
[11]	GRATTAN S R, GRIEVE C M . Salinity-mineral nutrient relations in horticultural crops. Scientia Horticulturae, 1998,78(1/4):127-157.
[12]	MUNNS R . Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant, Cell and Environment, 2002,25(2):239-250.
[13]	MUNNS R . Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Phytologist, 2005,167(3):645-663.
[14]	汪顺义, 刘庆, 史衍玺, 李欢 . 氮钾配施对甘薯光合产物积累及分配的影响. 中国农业科学, 2017,50(14):2706-2716.
	WANG S Y, LIU Q, SHI Y X, LI H . Interactive effects of nitrogen and potassium on photosynthesis product distribution and accumulation of sweet potato. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017,50(14):2706-2716. (in Chinese)
[15]	PARIDA A K, DAS A B . Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2005,60(3):324-349.
[16]	李建兵, 黄冠华 . 盐分对粉壤土氮转化的影响. 环境科学研究, 2008(5):98-103.
	LI J B, HUANG G H . Pilot study of salinity (NaCl) affecting nitrogen transformation in silt loam soil. Research of Environmental Sciences, 2008(5):98-103. (in Chinese)
[17]	REDDY N, CROHN D M . Effects of soil salinity and carbon availability from organic amendments on nitrous oxide emissions. Geoderma, 2014,235/236(4):363-371.
[18]	王丽英, 武雪萍, 张彦才, 李若楠, 陈丽莉, 陈清 . 适宜施氮量保证滴灌日光温室黄瓜番茄产量降低土壤盐分及氮残留. 农业工程学报, 2015,31(17):91-98.
	WANG L Y, WU X P, ZHANG Y C, LI R N, CHEN L L, CHEN Q . Optimal nitrogen application rate to ensure cucumber and tomato yield with drip irrigation in greenhouse and to reduce soil salinity and nitrate residue. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2015,31(17):91-98. (in Chinese)
[19]	邢英英, 张富仓, 吴立峰, 范军亮, 张燕, 李静 . 基于番茄产量品质水肥利用效率确定适宜滴灌灌水施肥量. 农业工程学报, 2015,31(z1):110-121.
	XING Y Y, ZHANG F C, WU L F, FAN J L, ZHANG Y, LI J . Determination of optimal amount of irrigation and fertilizer under drip fertigated system based on tomato yield, quality, water and fertilizer use efficiency. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2015,31(z1):110-121. (in Chinese)
[20]	徐坤范, 李明玉, 艾希珍 . 氮对日光温室黄瓜呈味物质、硝酸盐含量及产量的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2006(5):121-125.
	XU K F, LI M Y, AI X Z . Effect of nitrogen on taste compounds, nitrate and yield of cucumber in solar-greenhouse. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2006(5):121-125. (in Chinese)
[21]	张鹏, 蒋静, 马娟娟, 杨治平, 王永亮 . 不同水氮处理对盐渍土水氮盐变化和燕麦产量的影响. 灌溉排水学报, 2018,37(5):1-5.
	ZHANG P, JIANG J, MA J J, YANG Z P, WANG Y L . Effects of different irrigations and nitrogen applications on distribution of water, nitrogen and salt in saline soil as well as the yield of oat. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2018,37(5):1-5. (in Chinese)
[22]	PERCIVAL G C, FRASER G A . Measurement of the salinity and freezing tolerance of Crataegus genotypes using chlorophyll fluorescence. Journal of Arboriculture, 2001,27(5):233-245.
[23]	尹海龙, 田长彦 . 氮调控对盐环境下甜菜功能叶光系统Ⅱ荧光特性的影响. 植物生态学报, 2013,37(2):122-131.
	YIN H L, TIAN C Y . Effects of nitrogen regulation on photosystem II chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics of functional leaves in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) under salt environment. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 2013,37(2):122-131. (in Chinese)
[24]	MOHAMMAD P, PRESS C. Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology, 3rd ed. United States, CRC Press, 2002.
[25]	段骅, 傅亮, 剧成欣, 刘立军, 杨建昌 . 氮素穗肥对高温胁迫下水稻结实和稻米品质的影响. 中国水稻科学, 2013,27(6):591-602.
	DUAN H, FU L, JU C X, LIU L J, YANG J C . Effects of application of nitrogen as panicle-promoting fertilizer on seed setting and grain quality of rice under high temperature stress. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2013,27(6):591-602. (in Chinese)
[26]	王雨, 唐晓清, 施晟璐, 王康才 . 不同施氮水平对盐胁迫下苗期菘蓝生理特性及根中(R,S)-告依春含量的影响. 核农学报, 2017,31(2):394-401.
	WANG Y, TANG X Q, SHI S L, WANG K C . Effects of different nitrogen levels on physiological characteristics and epigoitrin content in root of Isatis indigotica Fort. at seedling stage under salt stress. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2017,31(2):394-401. (in Chinese)
[27]	肖云华, 赵雪玲, 王康才, 石馨玫, 唐晓清 . 不同氮素形态和浓度对大青叶生物量与生物碱类成分的影响. 中国中药杂志, 2013,38(17):2755-2760.
	XIAO Y H, ZHAO X L, WANG K C, SHI Q M, TANG X Q . Effect of different nitrogen forms and concentrations on biomass and alkaloids of Isatidis Folium. China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, 2013,38(17):2755-2760. (in Chinese)
[28]	CLELAND E E, HARPOLE W S . Nitrogen enrichment and plant communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2010,1195(1):46-61.
[29]	SALA O E, CHAPIN F S, ARMESTO J J, BERLOW E, BLOOMFIELD J . Global biodiversity scenarios for the Year 2100. Science, 2000,287(5459):1770.
[30]	罗家雄 . 新疆垦区盐碱地改良. 北京: 水利电力出版社, 1985: 33.
	LUO J X. Amelioration of Saline-Alkali Soil in Xinjiang Irrigation District. Beijing: Water Conservancy and Electric Power Press, 1985: 33. (in Chinese)
[31]	ZHANG T Q, TAN C S, LIU K, DRURY C F, PAPADOPOULOS A. P, WARNER J. . Yield and economic assessments of fertilizer nitrogen and phosphorus for processing tomato with drip fertigation. Agronomy Journal, 2010,102(2):774.
[32]	HANSON B . Effect of subsurface drip irrigation on processing tomato yield, water table depth, soil salinity, and profitability. Agricultural Water Management, 2004,68(1):1-17.
[33]	王振华, 朱延凯, 张金珠, 李文昊, 扁青永 . 水氮调控对轻度盐化土滴灌棉花生理特性与产量的影响. 农业机械学报, 2018,49(6):296-308.
	WANG Z H, ZHU Y K, ZHANG J Z, LI W H, BIAN Q Y . Effects of water and nitrogen fertilization on physiological characteristics and yield of cotton under drip irrigation in mildly salinized soil. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2018,49(6):296-308. (in Chinese)
[34]	岳冬 . 番茄果实主要风味特征成分测定及品质形成机理研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015.
	YUE D . Measure the main compositions of flavor and characteristics and research the formation of features quality of tomato fruit[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2015. ( in Chinese)
[35]	范作卿, 邹德庆, 王娜, 朱琳, 郭光 . 改良直接滴定法测定桑椹酒中总糖含量. 山东农业科学, 2016,48(11):143-145.
	FAN Z Q, ZOU D Q, WANG N, ZHU L, GUO G . Determination of total sugar content in mulberry wine with improved direct titration method. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2016,48(11):143-145. (in Chinese)
[36]	JOHNSTONE P R, HARTZ T K, LESTRANGE M . Managing fruit soluble solids with late-season deficit irrigation in drip- irrigated processing tomato production. Hortscience A Publication of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 2005,40(6):1857-1861.
[37]	HUANG Y, LU R, HU D, CHEN K . Quality assessment of tomato fruit by optical absorption and scattering properties. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2018,143:78-85.
[38]	GRIERSON D, KADER A A . The Tomato Crop. A Scientific Basis for Improvement . London, Chapman and Hall Ltd, 1986: 241-280.
[39]	KAZENIAC S J, HALL R M . Flavor chemistry of tomato volatiles. Journal of Food Science, 1970,35(5):12.
[40]	MIKI N . Effects of chemical components on the browning of tomato juice. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 1974,38(3):499-506.
[41]	GOULD W A . Quality evaluation of processed tomato juice. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1978,26(5):1006-1011.
[42]	CHUNG T Y, CHAYASE F, KATO H . Volatile components of ripe tomatoes and their juices, purees and pastes. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 1983,47(2):343-351.
[43]	BUTTERY R G, TERANISHI R, FLATH R A, LING L C . Identification of additional tomato paste volatiles. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1990,38(3):792-795.
[44]	MIN S, ZHANG Q H . Effects of commercial‐scale pulsed electric field processing on flavor and color of tomato juice. Journal of Food Science, 2003,68(5):7.
[45]	曾文治, 徐驰, 黄介生, 伍靖伟, 高真 . 土壤盐分与施氮量交互作用对葵花生长的影响. 农业工程学报, 2014,30(3):86-94.
	ZENG W Z, XU C, HUANG J S, WU J W, GAO Z . Interactive effect of salinity and nitrogen application on sunflower growth. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2014,30(3):86-94. (in Chinese)
[46]	杨凤军, 李天来, 臧忠婧 . 等渗NaCl、干旱胁迫对番茄幼苗光合特性及叶绿体超微结构的影响. 应用生态学报, 2017,28(8):2588-2596.
	YANG F J, LI T L, ZANG Z J . Effects of isotonic NaCl and drought stress on photosynthetic characteristics and chloroplast ultrastructure of tomato seedlings. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017,28(8):2588-2596. (in Chinese)
[47]	ANTONOPOULOS, VASSILIS Z . Simulation of water and nitrogen balances of irrigated and fertilized corn-crop soil. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 2001,127(2):77-83.
[48]	SOBHANI G, GOLCHIN A, SHEKARI F . Effects of different levels of nitrogen and induced-NaCl stress on yield and growth indices of tomato. Journal of Science & Technology of Greenhouse Culture, 2014,5(3):49-63.
[49]	CAMPOS C A B, DANTAS F P, RAJ G H, FAVARO F B, CIRA G B, APARECIDA C S F . Yield and fruit quality of industrial tomato under saline irrigation. Scientia Agricola, 2006,63(2):146-52.
[50]	KEUTGEN A J, PAWELZIK E . Contribution of amino acids to strawberry fruit quality and their relevance as stress indicators under NaCl salinity. Food Chemistry, 2008,111(3):642-647.
[51]	YURTSEVEN E, KESMEZ G D, ÜNLÜKARA A . The effects of water salinity and potassium levels on yield, fruit quality and water consumption of a native central Anatolian tomato species (Lycopersicon esculantum). Agricultural Water Management, 2005,78(1/2):130-135.
[52]	SONNEVELD C, VAN DER BURG A M M. Sodium chloride salinity in fruit vegetable crops in soilless culture. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 1991,39:115-122.
[53]	CUARTERO J, FERNÁNDEZ-MUÑOZ R . Tomato and salinity. Scientia Horticulturae, 1998,78(s 1/4):83-125.
[54]	ELTEZ R Z, TÜZEL Y, GÜL A, TÜZEL I.H, DUYAR H. Effects of different EC levels of nutrient solution on greenhouse tomato growing. Acta Horticulturae, 2002,560(573):443-448.
[55]	CORNISH P . Use of high electrical conductivity of nutrient solution to improve the quality of salad tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) grown in hydroponic culture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 1992,32(4):513-520.
[56]	PETERSEN K K, WILLUMSEN J, KAACK K . Composition and taste of tomato as affected by increased salinity and different salinity sources. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 1998,73(2):205-215.
[57]	TUZEL I H, TUZEL Y, GUL A, ELTEZ R Z . Effects of EC level of the nutrient solution on yield and fruit quality of tomatoes. Acta Horticulturae, 2001,559(2):587-592.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

年份 Year	质地 Soil texture	干容重 Dry bulk density (g·cm^-3)	全氮 Total N (g·kg^-1)	全磷 Total P (g·kg^-1)	全钾 Total K (g·kg^-1)	速效磷 Available P (mg·kg^-1)	速效钾 Available K (mg·kg^-1)	田间持水量 Field water holding capacity (%)
2017	壤土Loam	1.29	0.58	0.82	7.1	29.24	418.59	30.65
2018	壤土Loam	1.32	0.63	0.77	8.0	31.22	415.31	28.43

年份 Year	生育时期 Growth stage	日期 Date (M-d)	灌水处理 Irrigation treatment		施肥处理 Fertilization treatment
			灌水量 Irrigation volume (mm)	灌水次数 Irrigation frequency	氮素Nitrogen (g/pot)				磷酸一铵 NH₄H₂PO₄(g/pot)	氯化钾 KCl (g/pot)	施肥次数 Fertilization frequency
			灌水量 Irrigation volume (mm)	灌水次数 Irrigation frequency	N1	N2	N3	N4	磷酸一铵 NH₄H₂PO₄(g/pot)	氯化钾 KCl (g/pot)	施肥次数 Fertilization frequency
2017	苗期 Seedling period	05-03—05-31	50	1	0.60	0.49	0.39	0.28	0.67	0.67	1
	开花坐果期 Blooming and fruit period	06-01—06-21	150	3	1.79	1.48	1.17	0.85	2	2	3
	果实膨大期 Enlargement period	06-22—07-31	200	4	2.38	1.97	1.55	1.15	2.68	2.68	4
	成熟期 Mature period	08-01—08-20	50	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	全生育期 The whole growth period	—	450	9	4.77	3.94	3.11	2.28	5.35	5.35	8
2018	苗期 Seedling period	04-30—05-27	50	1	0.60	0.49	0.39	0.28	0.67	0.67	1
	开花坐果期 Blooming and fruit period	05-28—06-22	150	3	1.79	1.48	1.17	0.85	2	2	3
	果实膨大期 Enlargement period	06-23—07-26	200	4	2.38	1.97	1.55	1.15	2.68	2.68	4
	成熟期 Mature period	07-27—08-15	50	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
	全生育期 The whole growth period	—	450	9	4.77	3.94	3.11	2.28	5.35	5.35	8

The Influences of Different Nitrogen and Salt Levels Interactions on Fluorescence Characteristics, Yield and Quality of Processed Tomato Under Drip Irrigation

RichHTML

PDF

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 57

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

2017		2018
处理 Treatment	土壤含盐量 Salt content (g·kg^-1)	处理 Treatment	土壤含盐量 Salt content (g·kg^-1)
CK	1.5	CK	1.5
S1	4.0	S1	4.0
S2	7.0	SS2	5.0
S3	10.0	SS3	7.0

[1]	ZHANG XiaoLi, TAO Wei, GAO GuoQing, CHEN Lei, GUO Hui, ZHANG Hua, TANG MaoYan, LIANG TianFeng. Effects of Direct Seeding Cultivation Method on Growth Stage, Lodging Resistance and Yield Benefit of Double-Cropping Early Rice [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(2): 249-263.
[2]	YAN YanGe, ZHANG ShuiQin, LI YanTing, ZHAO BingQiang, YUAN Liang. Effects of Dextran Modified Urea on Winter Wheat Yield and Fate of Nitrogen Fertilizer [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(2): 287-299.
[3]	XU JiuKai, YUAN Liang, WEN YanChen, ZHANG ShuiQin, LI YanTing, LI HaiYan, ZHAO BingQiang. Nitrogen Fertilizer Replacement Value of Livestock Manure in the Winter Wheat Growing Season [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(2): 300-313.
[4]	WANG CaiXiang,YUAN WenMin,LIU JuanJuan,XIE XiaoYu,MA Qi,JU JiSheng,CHEN Da,WANG Ning,FENG KeYun,SU JunJi. Comprehensive Evaluation and Breeding Evolution of Early Maturing Upland Cotton Varieties in the Northwest Inland of China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(1): 1-16.
[5]	ZHAO ZhengXin,WANG XiaoYun,TIAN YaJie,WANG Rui,PENG Qing,CAI HuanJie. Effects of Straw Returning and Nitrogen Fertilizer Types on Summer Maize Yield and Soil Ammonia Volatilization Under Future Climate Change [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(1): 104-117.
[6]	ZHANG Wei,YAN LingLing,FU ZhiQiang,XU Ying,GUO HuiJuan,ZHOU MengYao,LONG Pan. Effects of Sowing Date on Yield of Double Cropping Rice and Utilization Efficiency of Light and Heat Energy in Hunan Province [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(1): 31-45.
[7]	FENG XiangQian,YIN Min,WANG MengJia,MA HengYu,CHU Guang,LIU YuanHui,XU ChunMei,ZHANG XiuFu,ZHANG YunBo,WANG DanYing,CHEN Song. Effects of Meteorological Factors on Quality of Late Japonica Rice During Late Season Grain Filling Stage Under ‘Early Indica and Late Japonica’ Cultivation Pattern in Southern China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(1): 46-63.
[8]	XIONG WeiYi,XU KaiWei,LIU MingPeng,XIAO Hua,PEI LiZhen,PENG DanDan,CHEN YuanXue. Effects of Different Nitrogen Application Levels on Photosynthetic Characteristics, Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Yield of Spring Maize in Sichuan Province [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(9): 1735-1748.
[9]	LI YiLing,PENG XiHong,CHEN Ping,DU Qing,REN JunBo,YANG XueLi,LEI Lu,YONG TaiWen,YANG WenYu. Effects of Reducing Nitrogen Application on Leaf Stay-Green, Photosynthetic Characteristics and System Yield in Maize-Soybean Relay Strip Intercropping [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(9): 1749-1762.
[10]	GUO ShiBo,ZHANG FangLiang,ZHANG ZhenTao,ZHOU LiTao,ZHAO Jin,YANG XiaoGuang. The Possible Effects of Global Warming on Cropping Systems in China XIV. Distribution of High-Stable-Yield Zones and Agro-Meteorological Disasters of Soybean in Northeast China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(9): 1763-1780.
[11]	WANG HaoLin,MA Yue,LI YongHua,LI Chao,ZHAO MingQin,YUAN AiJing,QIU WeiHong,HE Gang,SHI Mei,WANG ZhaoHui. Optimal Management of Phosphorus Fertilization Based on the Yield and Grain Manganese Concentration of Wheat [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(9): 1800-1810.
[12]	GUI RunFei,WANG ZaiMan,PAN ShengGang,ZHANG MingHua,TANG XiangRu,MO ZhaoWen. Effects of Nitrogen-Reducing Side Deep Application of Liquid Fertilizer at Tillering Stage on Yield and Nitrogen Utilization of Fragrant Rice [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(8): 1529-1545.
[13]	LIAO Ping,MENG Yi,WENG WenAn,HUANG Shan,ZENG YongJun,ZHANG HongCheng. Effects of Hybrid Rice on Grain Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency: A Meta-Analysis [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(8): 1546-1556.
[14]	LI Qian,QIN YuBo,YIN CaiXia,KONG LiLi,WANG Meng,HOU YunPeng,SUN Bo,ZHAO YinKai,XU Chen,LIU ZhiQuan. Effect of Drip Fertigation Mode on Maize Yield, Nutrient Uptake and Economic Benefit [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(8): 1604-1616.
[15]	ZHU DaWei,ZHANG LinPing,CHEN MingXue,FANG ChangYun,YU YongHong,ZHENG XiaoLong,SHAO YaFang. Characteristics of High-Quality Rice Varieties and Taste Sensory Evaluation Values in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(7): 1271-1283.