| Literature DB >> 29572689 |
Bing Song1, Jianqiang Ye1,2, Frederick Leo Sossah1, Changtian Li1, Dan Li1, Lingsi Meng1, Shuai Xu1, Yongping Fu3, Yu Li4.
Abstract
Grifola frondosa is an economically important edible and medicinalEntities:
Keywords: Biological efficiency; Crop straw; Grifola frondosa; High-yielding formula; Simplex-lattice design; Yield and growth cycle
Year: 2018 PMID: 29572689 PMCID: PMC5866258 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-018-0565-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Formula design of the cultivation materials and C/N
| Formulas | Substrate mixture ratio | C/N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 (%)a | X2 (%)b | X3 (%)c | X4 (%)d | X5 (%)e | ||
| 1 (CK) | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 74.64 |
| 2 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48.9 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 20.51 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 34.88 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 32.25 |
| 6 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 59.12 |
| 7 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 31.83 |
| 8 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 47.22 |
| 9 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 44.24 |
| 10 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 28.65 |
| 11 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 40.58 |
| 12 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 38.49 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 26.71 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 25.22 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 33.48 |
| 16 | 60 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 47.66 |
| 17 | 10 | 60 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 40.6 |
| 18 | 10 | 10 | 60 | 10 | 10 | 25.82 |
| 19 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 60 | 10 | 34.88 |
| 20 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 60 | 33.48 |
| 21 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 14.9 |
aX1—sawdust
bX2—corn cob
cX3—soybean straw
dX4—rice straw
eX5—corn straw
Measured values and predicted values of yield
| Formulas1 | Yield (g) | Formulas | Yield (g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured value2 | Predicted value | Measured value | Predicted value | ||
| 1 (CK) | 97.25 ± 9.71def | 96.97 | 12 | 116.75 ± 7.57bc | 117.06 |
| 2 | 134.25 ± 14.59a | 133.95 | 13 | 66.40 ± 10.56h | 66.89 |
| 3 | 87.40 ± 12.36fg | 87.31 | 14 | 100.6 ± 9.15de | 101.12 |
| 4 | 31.75 ± 3.61i | 31.60 | 15 | 0.00 ± 0.00j | 0.46 |
| 5 | 78.20 ± 20.00gh | 78.08 | 16 | 86.65 ± 10.00fg | 87.09 |
| 6 | 119.00 ± 17.45b | 119.15 | 17 | 116.00 ± 8.00bc | 116.79 |
| 7 | 96.00 ± 8.75ef | 96.37 | 18 | 93.50 ± 9.50f | 91.04 |
| 8 | 38.25 ± 2.56i | 38.55 | 19 | 50.50 ± 10.05hi | 49.04 |
| 9 | 86.65 ± 12.98fg | 86.99 | 20 | 78.20 ± 11.5g | 76.23 |
| 10 | 105.75 ± 18.15cde | 106.09 | 21 | 86.65 ± 12.5fg | 83.52 |
| 11 | 110.00 ± 11.41bcd | 110.27 | |||
1Notes are the same as Table 1
2Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a level of 5% (P < 0.05)
Variance analysis of the quadratic polynomial regression model for yield
| Variation sources | Sum of squares | DF | Mean square | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 3,760,676 | 14 | 2686.20 | 397.07 | < 0.0001 |
| Linear mixed model | 29,142.60 | 4 | 7285.65 | 1076.96 | < 0.0001 |
| X1X2a | 14.08 | 1 | 14.08 | 2.08 | 0.0079 |
| X1X3 | 18.01 | 1 | 18.01 | 2.66 | 0.0027 |
| X1X4 | 918.75 | 1 | 918.75 | 135.81 | < 0.0001 |
| X1X5 | 1.54 | 1 | 1.54 | 0.23 | 0.6823 |
| X2X3 | 34.34 | 1 | 34.34 | 5.08 | 0.0014 |
| X2X4 | 972.00 | 1 | 972.00 | 143.68 | < 0.0001 |
| X2X5 | 147.70 | 1 | 147.70 | 21.83 | < 0.0001 |
| X3X4 | 62.11 | 1 | 62.11 | 9.18 | < 0.0001 |
| X3X5 | 422.45 | 1 | 422.45 | 62.45 | < 0.0001 |
| X4X5 | 4029.67 | 1 | 4029.67 | 595.66 | < 0.0001 |
| Residual | 128.86 | 36 | 3.58 | ||
| Lack of fit | 27.38 | 6 | 4.56 | 1.35 | 0.2669 |
| Error | 101.48 | 30 | 3.38 | ||
| Sum | 37,708.24 | 29 |
aNotes are the same as Table 1
Correlation analysis between yield and the different ingredients
| X1a | X2a | X3a | X4a | X5a | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yieldb | |||||
| Pearson | 0.084 | 0.665** | 0.112 | − 0.706** | − 0.145 |
| Significance | 0.767 | 0.008 | 0.692 | 0.003 | 0.607 |
| N | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 |
aNotes are the same as Table 1
bMean values followed by no letters are not significantly different at a level of 5% (P < 0.05)
** Significantly different at a level of 1% (P<0.01)
Measured values and predicted values of the growth cycle
| Formulas1 | Growth cycle (d) | Formulas | Growth cycle (d) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured values2 | Predicted values | Measured values | Predicted values | ||
| 1 (CK) | 63.00 ± 0.0a | 63.00 | 12 | 67.50 ± 3.10cdefg | 67.50 |
| 2 | 69.14 ± 2.27efg | 69.14 | 13 | 64.00 ± 0.00ab | 64.00 |
| 3 | 70.33 ± 1.29g | 70.33 | 14 | 65.13 ± 2.59abc | 65.13 |
| 4 | 70.00 ± 0.00fg | 70.00 | 15 | 100.00 ± 0.00i | 100 |
| 5 | 66.40 ± 3.10bcde | 66.40 | 16 | 66.65 ± 3.00bcd | 66.65 |
| 6 | 63.58 ± 0.52ab | 63.25 | 17 | 67.30 ± 3.10cdef | 67.30 |
| 7 | 67.31 ± 2.59cdef | 67.31 | 18 | 67.76 ± 3.20cdefg | 67.76 |
| 8 | 70.00 ± 0.00fg | 70.00 | 19 | 74.46 ± 3.00gh | 74.46 |
| 9 | 66.00 ± 2.24bcd | 66.00 | 20 | 73.74 ± 2.90gh | 73.74 |
| 10 | 68.33 ± 4.23defg | 68.33 | 21 | 70.71 ± 2.80g | 70.71 |
| 11 | 64.60 ± 1.90abc | 64.60 | |||
1Notes are the same as Table 1
2Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a level of 5% (P < 0.05)
Variance analysis of the quadratic polynomial regression model for the growth cycle
| Variation sources | Sum of squares | DF | Mean square | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 3407.93 | 14 | 243.42 | 71.35 | < 0.0001 |
| Linear mixed model | 733.34 | 4 | 183.34 | 53.73 | < 0.0001 |
| X1X2a | 16.54 | 1 | 16.54 | 4.85 | 0.0342 |
| X1X3 | 0.86 | 1 | 0.86 | 0.25 | 0.6178 |
| X1X4 | 25.43 | 1 | 25.43 | 7.45 | 0.0097 |
| X1X5 | 3.51 | 1 | 3.51 | 1.03 | 0.3173 |
| X2X3 | 4.10 | 1 | 4.10 | 1.20 | 0.2805 |
| X2X4 | 51.26 | 1 | 51.26 | 15.02 | 0.0004 |
| X2X5 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.044 | 0.8344 |
| X3X4 | 78.88 | 1 | 78.88 | 23.12 | < 0.0001 |
| X3X5 | 21.72 | 1 | 21.72 | 6.37 | 0.0162 |
| X4X5 | 2098.92 | 1 | 2098.92 | 615.18 | < 0.0001 |
| Residual | 122.83 | 36 | 3.41 | ||
| Lack of fit | 0.00008 | 6 | 0.00001 | 0.000003 | 1.0000 |
| Error | 122.83 | 30 | 4.09 | ||
| Sum | 12,865.92 | 44 |
aNotes are the same as Table 1
Correlation analysis between the growth cycle and different ingredients
| X1a | X2a | X3a | X4a | X5a | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth cycleb | |||||
| Pearson | − 0.283** | − 0.168 | − 0.126 | 0.334** | 0.235 |
| Significance | 0.213 | 0.468 | 0.586 | 0.139 | 0.305 |
| N | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 |
aNotes are the same as Table 1
bMean values followed by no letters are not significantly different at a level of 5% (P < 0.05)
** Significantly different at a level of 1% (P<0.01)
Comparison of the main agronomic traits between the high-yield straw-substrate formula and the control
| Formulas | Single-fruiting-body length (cm)2 | Single-fruiting-body width (cm) | Yield (g) | Growth cycle (d) | BE (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted value | Measured value | Predicted value | Measured value | ||||
| 1 (CK) | 2.58 ± 0.37b | 2.34 ± 0.37b | 96.97 | 97.25 ± 9.71b | 63.00 | 63.00 ± 0.0a | 32.42 ± 3.24b |
| Hy1 | 5.15 ± 0.148a | 3.45 ± 0.24a | 134.07 | 134.72 ± 4.24a | 68.68 | 68.68 ± 2.32b | 44.91 ± 1.41a |
1Hy high-yield
2Mean values followed by no letters are not significantly different at a level of 5% (P < 0.05)
Fig. 1Grifola frondosa fruiting in the high-yield formula (Hy) and the control (CK)