| Musella lasiocarpa is a China-specific single genus and single species plant. It is ofhighly ornamental value and market potential, although its studies have been turned on, but thestudy of its cultivation, the physiology, growth and development is considerably less. In orderto master its regular pattern of growth and development, understand the relationship betweengrowth and environmental factors, three different cultivation experiments were set to study theeffect of fertilizers, hormones, light on the growth of Musella lasiocarpa. The results showedthat:1. The results of nitrogen and hormonal synergy test showed that:（1）The treatment6which were set by20g of nitrogen fertilizer and spraying200mg/L IAA and300mg/L6-BAhas made out the best results. Its base diameter, pesudostem was significantly higher than thecontrol,51.34%and80.48%respectively, while others deal with the pesudostem were nosignificant differences with the control, indicating that treatment6has good synergistic effectto Musella lasiocarpa growth.（2）Range and variance analysis showed that the6-BA on theinfluence of high false path has a very significant role, of which300mg/L is the optimalconcentration (R=7.71). But6-BA on the base diameter is not significant; The effect of IAAon the base diameter was very significant, The optimal concentration was200mg/L; IAAwould also have significantly effect on pesudostem, its optimal concentration was200mg/Ltoo; The impact of N fertilizer on base diameter and pesudostem was not significant.(3) Eachtreatment endogenous hormone content varies; All treatments were significantly promote IAAcontent,The6-BA is the main influencing factors. Apart from treatment1, the other treatmentswere significantly or very significantly reduced the ZR content, The effects of N fertilizer,IAA,6-BA were highly significant; The effects on endogenous ABA and GA content of eachtreatment had no apparent regularity, some teratments were significantly higher than thecontrol, some others were lower; The treatment1which had the best effect on Musellalasiocarpa growth,its IAAcontent was significantly higher than the control, But the ABA, ZR, GA content were significantly lower than the control;(4) The Pn, Tr diurnal variation ofMusella lasiocarpa was bimodal curve; The only photosynthetic indicators which wassignificantly lower than the control was Ci from treatment9, decreased by10.31%; Otherindicators as compared with the control have not a significant difference. Compared with thecontrol, The treatment6promote the Pn, Tr, Gs, reducing the Ci, Ls, WUE.(5) Between theinter-process and compared with the control, The chlorophyll a, carotenoids, total chlorophyllshall have no significant difference, compared with the control, the pigment Indicators oftreatment6was no significant difference.(6) Between the inter-process and compared with thecontrol, the content of soluble sugar had no significant difference, soluble protein, superoxidedismutase, peroxidase content change had no significant regularity; Compared with the control,the Indicators of treatment6was no significant difference.2. The results of fertilization experiments showed that:(1) Treatment4(2months1times, fertilization15g, N: P: K is1:3:2) has a very significant effect of promoting ramets, Itsnumber of ramets about3times the control, significantly higher than other treatments; Thetreatment9’s number of ramets (2months1times, fertilization60g, N: P: K1:1:3) weresignificantly lower than the control and other treatments.(2) Treatment6(1month1times,fertilization60g, N: P: K of1:3:2) has the maximum volume growth on the base diameter,pesudostem growth, higher than the control79.92%and83.52%respectively; Range analysisshowed that the most influential factors on base diameter, pesudostem are the frequency andamount of fertilizer applied,60g maximum amount of fertilizer works best, but suppressedramets.(3)Treatment4(2months1times, fertilization15g, N: P: K is1:3:2) significantlypromoted root, false trails, total biomass, Increased26.51%,118.10%,39.97%, compared withthe control respectively.(4) The plants leaf N, P, K element contents were not significantlydifferent from each treatment and control.(5) Compared with the control, only treatment6,9significantly reduced Gs values, by25.00%and31.25%respectively. Other indicatorscompared with the control showed no significant differences. The Pn and Tr of treatment4islargest; The Pn,Tr and Gs of treatment9is least. The impact of treatment on chlorophyllcontent were not significant.(6) The effect of SOD, soluble sugar content, POD, soluble protein,Between treatments with highly significant differences, significantly, significantly, notsignificant, respectively; However, are not significantly different compared with the control.3. The light intensity experimental results show that:(1) Dealing with different shadinglevels compared to full sunlight, the number of ramet, base diameter, pesudostem growth wasno significant difference in volume, but the shade reduced the base diameter to a certain extent.70%light intensity promote tillering, the growth of pseudostem.(2) Shade changed the Pn, Trdiurnal variation, In the natural light intensity, the Pn, Tr diurnal variation is bimodal curve, asingle peak curve appeared after shading. Shade had reduced the Pn, Tr, Greater the degree ofshading, Pn and Tr daily mean smaller,55%and45%of natural light intensity treatmenteffects were significant and highly significant, respectively, Pn decreased by40.62%and51.10%, Tr decreased by30.23%and42.73%. Shading increased Ci, Ls daily average;reduced Gs; The effect was not significant.(3) Shading increased chlorophyll a, b and totalchlorophyll content, reducing the carotenoid content and chlorophyll a/b ratio, but with nosignificant difference compared to the control.(4)Shade reduced the activity of SOD, increasedthe soluble protein content, but the effect was both not significant;45%shading treatmentsignificantly reduced the soluble sugar content, compared with the control decreased by32.98%,55%light intensity treatment significantly increased the POD activity,with an increaseof79.19%compared to the control. |
PDF Full Text Request