| 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 medicinal mushroom usually produced on substrate consisting of sawdust supplemented with wheat bran. Cultivation of G. frondosa on crop straw (corn cob, corn straw, rice straw, and soybean straw) as a substrate was optimized by using the D-optimum method of the simplex-lattice design, and the alternative of crop straw as a substitute for sawdust in the substrate composition was determined by the optimized model. The results showed that there was a significant positive correlation existing between the yield and corn cob. The growth cycle was negatively correlated with sawdust, corn cob and soybean straw, with sawdust significantly shortening the growth cycle of G. frondosa. The optimized high-yielding formula included 73.125% corn cob, 1.875% rice straw, 23% wheat bran and 2% light calcium carbonate (CaCO3) (C/N = 48.40). The average yield of the first flush was 134.72 ± 4.24 g/bag, which was increased by 39.97% compared with the control formula. The biological efficiency (BE) was 44.91 ± 1.41%, which was increased by 38.53% compared with the control. Based on the results of this study, corn cob can replace sawdust as one of the main cultivation substrates of G. frondosa.Entities:
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)