| Literature DB >> 29849511 |
Youzhen Xiang1,2, Haiyang Zou1, Fucang Zhang1,2, You Wu1, Shicheng Yan1, Xinyan Zhang1, Jianke Tian1, Shengcai Qiang1, Haidong Wang1, Hanmi Zhou3.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of different combinations of irrigation and nitrogen levels on the growth of greenhouse sweet peppers, assessing yield, quality, water use efficiency (WUE), and partial factor productivity from applied N (PFPN). By using controlled drip irrigation, the optimal conditions for efficient, large-scale, high-yield, and high quality production of sweet peppers in Northwest China were determined. Using the local conventional irrigation and nitrogen regime as a control (105% ET0, N: 300 kg·hm-2), three alternative irrigation levels were also tested, at 90%, 75%, and 60% ET0. These were combined with nitrogen levels at 100%, as the control, and 75%, 50%, and 25%, resulting in 16 combination treatments. The results show that different supplies of water and nitrogen nutrition had a significant impact on the growth, yield, WUE, PFPN, and quality of fruit. The treatments of W0.90N0.75, W0.90N0.50, W0.75N0.75, and W0.75N0.50 can better maintain the "source-sink" relationship of peppers. They increased the economic yield, WUE, and PFPN. A principal component analysis was performed to evaluate indicators of fruit quality, revealing that the treatment of W0.75N0.50 resulted in the best fruit quality. For greenhouse sweet peppers produced in Northwest China, the combination of W0.90N0.75 resulted in the highest economic yield of 34.85 kg·hm-2. The combination of W0.75N0.75 had the highest WUE of 16.50 kg·m-3. The W0.75N0.50 combination treatment had the highest fruit quality score. For sustainable ecological development and in view of limited water resources in the area, we recommend the W0.75N0.50 combination treatment, since it could obtain the optimal fruit quality, while its economic yield and WUE were 9% and 4% less than the maximum, respectively. This study provides a theoretical basis for the optimal management of water and nitrogen during production of greenhouse sweet peppers in Northwest China.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29849511 PMCID: PMC5924982 DOI: 10.1155/2018/9207181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Physical and chemical properties of the experimental field soil.
| Soil depth | Soil bulk density | Field capacity | Wilting point | Saturated moisture | pH value | Organic matter | Total N content | Total P content | Total K content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–20 | 1.46 | 24.4 | 15.2 | 45.3 | 8.03 | 14.5 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.17 |
| 20–40 | 1.57 | 23.8 | 18.2 | 42.0 | 8.15 | 15.7 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.14 |
| 40–60 | 1.48 | 24.7 | 17.6 | 49.0 | 8.20 | 14.3 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.14 |
| 60–80 | 1.45 | 25.2 | 16.0 | 35.2 | 8.20 | 14.0 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.12 |
Figure 1Effects of different water and nitrogen levels on dry matter content of greenhouse sweet pepper. Panel (a) shows treatment W105 corresponding to an irrigation of 105% of the reference crop evapotranspiration ET0, panel (b) shows treatment W0.90, panel (c) shows W0.75, and panel (d) shows treatment W0.60 (60% ET0). The black curves represent treatment N1.00 (100% of recommended N fertilizer, 300 kg·hm−2), red curves show N0.75, blue shows N0.50, and light green shows N0.25 (5% of recommended N fertilizer).
Figure 2Effects of different water and nitrogen levels on chlorophyll content of greenhouse sweet pepper. The codes for treatment and color use are as described for Figure 1.
Effects of different water and nitrogen levels on sweet pepper: marketable yield and WUE.
| Irrigation treatment | Nitrogen treatment | Market yield (t·hm−2) | WUE (kg·m−3) | PFPN (kg·kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1.05 | N1.00 | 22.19de | 8.97f | 73.96d |
| N0.75 | 30.28c | 11.48de | 126.16c | |
| N0.50 | 31.51bc | 11.95de | 196.96c | |
| N0.25 | 24.11de | 9.14f | 301.32d | |
|
| ||||
| W0.90 | N1.00 | 25.50d | 11.00e | 79.69c |
| N0.75 | 34.85a | 15.03b | 145.19ab | |
| N0.50 | 32.48ab | 14.01c | 203.00b | |
| N0.25 | 25.68d | 11.07e | 320.95c | |
|
| ||||
| W0.75 | N1.00 | 23.03e | 11.52de | 71.95c |
| N0.75 | 32.99ab | 16.50a | 137.45a | |
| N0.50 | 31.63bc | 15.82ab | 197.67a | |
| N0.25 | 23.17e | 11.59de | 289.57c | |
|
| ||||
| W0.50 | N1.00 | 15.20g | 9.05f | 47.51d |
| N0.75 | 20.18f | 12.02de | 84.08c | |
| N0.50 | 20.84f | 12.41d | 130.26c | |
| N0.25 | 14.87g | 8.86f | 185.90d | |
|
| ||||
| Significance level ( | ||||
|
| ||||
| Irrigation | 220.77 | 220.77 | 2.60 | |
| Nitrogen | 103.34 | 103.34 | 2.88 | |
| Irrigation × nitrogen | 126.29 | 126.29 | 10.93 | |
Statistical significance is shown as superscripts, with different superscripts indicating significant (P < 0.05) differences within a parameter under constant irrigation. At the bottom of the table, significance F values are indicated with P value 0.001 and P value 0.05.
Effects of different water and nitrogen levels on fruit quality.
| Irrigation treatment | Nitrogen Treatment | Soluble sugar‰ | Capsaicin‰ | Vc‰ | Nitrate‰ | Soluble solids‰ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1.05 | N1.00 | 23.55h | 0.23a | 25.88de | 0.42cd | 7.85ab |
| N0.75 | 26.44gh | 0.22ab | 29.88cd | 0.35def | 7.40bcdef | |
| N0.50 | 30.56def | 0.22abc | 32.94bc | 0.31efg | 7.60abc | |
| N0.25 | 26.13gh | 0.19cdf | 26.05de | 0.23g | 7.50abcde | |
|
| ||||||
| W0.90 | N1.00 | 27.2hi | 0.20abcd | 27.81cde | 0.45c | 7.95a |
| N0.75 | 32.34d | 0.21abc | 30.31cd | 0.35def | 7.55abcd | |
| N0.50 | 35.87c | 0.21abc | 42.24a | 0.33def | 7.05defg | |
| N0.25 | 27.96efg | 0.19cdf | 25.47de | 0.21g | 7.35bcdef | |
|
| ||||||
| W0.75 | N1.00 | 29.51defg | 0.21abc | 28.45cde | 0.67a | 7.25cdef |
| N0.75 | 37.19bc | 0.20bcd | 36.38b | 0.47c | 7.20defg | |
| N0.50 | 39.27bc | 0.21abc | 46.53a | 0.35def | 7.04defg | |
| N0.25 | 31.13de | 0.17f | 25.39de | 0.25fg | 6.80h | |
|
| ||||||
| W0.60 | N1.00 | 30.80def | 0.19cdf | 23.67e | 0.70a | 6.95fgh |
| N0.75 | 40.10b | 0.18df | 26.79de | 0.57b | 7.00efgh | |
| N0.50 | 44.67a | 0.16f | 30.55cd | 0.40cde | 6.85gh | |
| N0.25 | 31.93d | 0.15f | 18.91f | 0.31efg | 6.20i | |
|
| ||||||
| Significance level ( | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Irrigation | 57.86 | 15.96 | 24.81 | 26.78 | 27.3 | |
| Nitrogen | 59.77 | 9.12 | 61.32 | 71.81 | 9.1 | |
| Irrigation × nitrogen | 2.53 | 0.8 | 3.67 | 3.27 | 2.09 | |
Significance is indicated as for Table 2.
Evaluation of fruit quality under different water and nitrogen levels by multiple component analysis.
| Irrigation treatment | Nitrogen treatment | Principal component | Comprehensive evaluation | Ranking | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | Second | Third | ||||
| W1.05 | N1.00 | −2.256 | 2.670 | −0.330 | −0.28 | 11 |
| N0.75 | −1.254 | 1.693 | 0.249 | 0.00 | 8 | |
| N0.50 | −0.744 | 1.590 | 0.886 | 0.35 | 5 | |
| N0.25 | −1.145 | 0.205 | −0.959 | −0.68 | 15 | |
|
| ||||||
| W0.90 | N1.00 | −1.380 | 1.471 | −0.435 | −0.28 | 10 |
| N0.75 | −0.484 | 1.060 | 0.513 | 0.22 | 6 | |
| N0.50 | 0.840 | 0.905 | 2.462 | 1.22 | 2 | |
| N0.25 | −0.784 | −0.255 | −0.960 | −0.66 | 14 | |
|
| ||||||
| W0.75 | N1.0 | −0.333 | 0.669 | −0.265 | 0.00 | 9 |
| N0.75 | 1.102 | −0.075 | 1.369 | 0.79 | 3 | |
| N0.50 | 1.640 | 0.543 | 3.199 | 1.64 | 1 | |
| N0.25 | 0.277 | −1.621 | −1.027 | −0.61 | 13 | |
|
| ||||||
| W0.60 | N1.00 | 0.187 | −0.811 | −1.271 | −0.45 | 12 |
| N0.75 | 1.447 | −1.630 | −0.268 | 0.10 | 7 | |
| N0.50 | 2.349 | −2.498 | 0.413 | 0.40 | 4 | |
| N0.25 | 0.926 | −3.434 | −2.287 | −1.16 | 16 | |