Effects of Microbial Fertilizer on Growth， Yield and Quality of Continuous Cropping Sugar Beet

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.1054

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on the situation of crop growth and yield inhibition of sugar beet continuous cropping in Inner Mongolia， widely used microbial fertilizer in the prevention and control of continuous cropping obstacles were selected. Five different dosages （0.250， 0.375， 0.500， 0.625， 0.750 kg·volume^-1） were set and no using as the control， the growth， yield and quality were studied to screen out the best amount of microbial fertilizer suitable for continuous cropping sugar beet in paper tube in Inner Mongolia. The results showed that the application of microbial fertilizer could raise the survival rate， reduce the incidence rate of root rot and promote the growth of continuous cropping sugar beet. Compared with control， only 0.625 kg·volume^-1 in two years could significantly increased survival rate by 8.41% and 11.06% ， reduce the incidence rate of root rot by 66.48% and 88.32%， increase plant height by 9.67%~23.51% and 4.48%~31.26%， increase leaf area index by 28.88%~34.62% and 15.24%~38.86%， increase dry matter accumulation of stem and leaf by 11.51%~21.10% and 21.00%~38.76%， increase dry matter accumulation of root by 22.32%~46.13% and 34.80%~68.03%. The effects of other application treatments on the growth of continuous cropping sugar beet were inconsistent between years and growth period. The application of microbial fertilizer could improve the yield and quality， the yield and sugar yield showed 0.625 kg·volume^-1 >0.750 kg·volume^-1 >0.500 kg·volume^-1 >0.375 kg·volume^-1>0.250 kg·volume^-1. And 0.625 and 0.750 kg·volume^-1 showed significant effects in two years， the yield increased by 11.64% and 18.29%， 9.59% and 14.23%， the sugar yield increased by 14.41% and 24.19%， 11.36% and 15.96%. Thus， the planting benefit of continuous cropping sugar beet was improved. In conclusion， by fitting the application amount of microbial fertilizer with the yield and quality of sugar beet， and the combination analysis of sugar beet growth dynamics and economic benefits， the study showed that 0.625 kg·volume^-1 was the best amount which applied to continuous cropping sugar beet in paper tube. The results provided an effective way to solve the obstacles of continuous cropping sugar beet in Inner Mongolia.

Key words: sugar beet, continuous cropping, paper tube seedling, microbial fertilizer, growth, yield and quality

摘要：

针对内蒙古地区甜菜连作生长受抑制、产质量水平受限的生产现状，选取目前连作障碍防控中广泛应用的微生物肥料，设置5个肥料用量（0.250、0.375、0.500、0.625、0.750 kg·册^-1），以不施肥为对照，分析连作甜菜生长发育以及产质量水平的变化，筛选适宜内蒙古地区纸筒育苗连作甜菜生产中微生物肥料的最佳用量。结果表明，微生物肥料能够提高连作甜菜成活率，降低根腐病发病率，促进连作甜菜生长。与对照相比，肥料用量0.625 kg·册^-1时，2年连作甜菜成活率分别显著提高8.41%和11.06%，根腐病发病率显著降低66.48%和88.32%，株高显著增加9.67%~23.51%和4.48%~31.26%、叶面积指数显著增加28.88%~34.62%和15.24%~38.86%、茎叶干物质积累量显著增加11.51%~21.10%和21.00%~38.76%、块根干物质积累量显著增加22.32%~46.13%和34.80%~68.03%，其余施肥处理在年际间、生育期间对连作甜菜生长的影响表现不一致。微生物肥料能够提高连作甜菜产质量水平，产量和产糖量表现为0.625 kg·册^-1>0.750 kg·册^-1>0.500 kg·册^-1>0.375 kg·册^-1>0.250 kg·册^-1，施肥量0.625和0.750 kg·册^-1处理2年均增加显著，产量分别提高11.64%和18.29%、9.59%和14.23%，产糖量提高14.41%和24.19%、11.36%和15.96%，提高了连作甜菜种植效益。通过微生物肥料施用量与甜菜产质量的拟合，结合对甜菜生长动态和经济效益的分析，0.625 kg·册^-1微生物肥料应用于纸筒育苗甜菜连作栽培中具有较好效果，为内蒙古甜菜连作障碍提供有效解决途径。

关键词: 甜菜, 连作, 纸筒育苗, 微生物肥料, 生长发育, 产质量

CLC Number:

S566

Lu TIAN, Xiaoxia GUO, Wenbin SU, Chunyan HUANG, Zhi LI, Peng ZHANG, Caiyuan JIAN, Jia LIU, Dejuan KONG, Kang HAN. Effects of Microbial Fertilizer on Growth， Yield and Quality of Continuous Cropping Sugar Beet[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(5): 192-203.

田露, 郭晓霞, 苏文斌, 黄春燕, 李智, 张鹏, 菅彩媛, 刘佳, 孔德娟, 韩康. 微生物肥料对连作甜菜生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(5): 192-203.

Figures/Tables 9

References 32

1	李楠. 我国甜菜糖产业发展问题研究及建议基于对内蒙古甜菜产区实地调研[J]. 农业与技术, 2021, 41(2):151-154.
	LI N. Research and suggestions on the development of beet sugar industry in China-based on the field investigation of sugar beet producing areas in Inner Mongolia [J]. Agric. Technol., 2021, 41(2):151-154.
2	羽凡. 中国食糖产业现状[J]. 福建轻纺, 2014(2): 21-23.
	YU F. The status quo of China’s sugar industry [J]. Light Textile Industries Fujian, 2014(2): 21-23.
3	MOHAMMAD A D, MOHAMMAD A. Effect of the nitrogen rate and weed control treatments on the quantitative and qualitative yield of sugar beet [J]. Russ. Agric. Sci., 2019,45: 423-429.
4	陈艺文, 李用财, 余凌羿, 等. 中国三大主产区甜菜糖业发展分析[J]. 中国糖料, 2017, 39(4):74-76.
	CHEN Y W, LI Y C, YU L Y, et al.. Analysis on the development of sugar beet industry in China’s three main producing areas [J]. Chin. Sug., 2017, 39(4): 74-76.
5	李智, 樊福义, 郭晓霞, 等. 减量施肥下甜菜产量及经济效益分析[J]. 北方农业学报, 2020, 48 (4):60-66.
	LI Z, FAN F Y, GUO X X, et al.. Analysis of yield and economic benefit of sugar beet under reduced fertilization [J]. J. North Agric., 2020, 48 (4):60-66.
6	高宝军. 内蒙古甜菜产业发展及对策研究[D]. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2012.
	GAO B J. Research on the development and countermeasures of sugar beet industry in Inner Mongolia [D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2012.
7	李满红, 王远斌, 银赛, 等.依靠科技创新助推糖业发展——十三五时期内蒙古甜菜糖业步入健康发展快车道[J]. 中国糖料, 2016, 38(5): 69-72.
	LI M H, WANG Y B, YIN S, et al.. Relying on scientific and technological innovation to boost the development of sugar industry—Inner Mongolia’s sugar beet and sugar industry has entered the fast lane of healthy development during the 13th Five-Year plan period [J]. Chin. Sug., 2016, 38(5): 69-72.
8	管怀明, 朱彦明. 不同前茬对甜菜产质量的影响[J].中国糖料, 1998(4): 27-29.
	GUAN H M, ZHU Y M. Effects of different previous crops on yield and quality of sugar beet [J]. Chin. Sug., 1998(4): 27-29.
9	魏良民, 冯建忠. 连作对甜菜生长和块根产量及含糖的影响[J].中国糖料, 1999(3): 20-22.
	WEI L M, FENG J Z. Effects of continuous cropping on sugar beet growth, root tuber yield and sugar content [J]. Chin. Sug., 1999(3): 20-22.
10	林柏森, 张福顺, 吴玉梅.重茬对甜菜品质的影响研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(6):81-85.
	LIN B S, ZHANG F S, WU Y M. Effect of continuous cropping on sugar beet quality [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2016, 32(6):81-85.
11	秦生巨. 微生物生态制剂的概念及种类[J]. 水产科技情报, 2008, 35(1): 33-35.
	QIN S J. Conception and kind of microbial ecological agents [J]. Fish. Sci. Tech. Infor., 2008,35(1): 33-35.
12	李倩, 张常兴, 程玉渊, 等. 微生态制剂对烤烟连作土壤酶活性及其产量的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2019, 47(1): 43-48.
	LI Q, ZHANG C X, CHENG Y Y, et al.. Effects of microecological preparation on soil enzyme activity and tobacco yield in continuous cropping tobacco field [J]. Guizhou Agric. Sci., 2019, 47(1): 43-48.
13	刘锦霞, 李娜, 李晶, 等. 多效微生物制剂对甘肃干旱区马铃薯连作土壤生态及产量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2019, 50(3): 675-682.
	LIU J X, LI N, LI J, et al.. Effects of multiple microbial agents on the soil ecology and crop yield under continuous potato cropping in the arid area of Gansu [J]. Chin. J. Soil Sci., 2019, 50(3): 675-682.
14	舒秀丽, 赵柳, 孙学振,等. 不同土壤改良剂处理对连作西洋参根际微生物数量、‍土壤酶活性及产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011, 19(6): 1289-1294.
	SHU X L, ZHAO L, SUN X Z, et al.. Effects of soil amendments on rhizosphere microbial number, soil enzyme activity and yield of continuous cropped American ginseng [J]. Chin. J. Eco-Agric., 2011, 19(6): 1289-1294.
15	齐会岩, 奥岩松. 微生物制剂对连作西瓜生长和果实品质的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2009(7):7-10.
	QI H Y, AO Y S. Effect of different microbial amendments on the growth and fruit qualities of watermelon continuous cropping [J]. Northern Hortic., 2009(7):7-10.
16	张根伟, 张丽萍, 李书生, 等. 复合土壤微生态制剂在连作花生上的应用效果[J]. 河南农业科学, 2012, 41(9):47-49, 62.
	ZHANG G W, ZHANG L P, LI S S, et al.. Control effects of complex bio-agent on peanut replant disease [J]. Henan Agric. Sci., 2012, 41(9):47-49, 62.
17	曲嫣红, 宋柏权, 王孝纯, 等. 农业微生态制剂对垄作甜菜块根产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国糖料, 2018, 40(6): 47-49.
	QU Y H, SONG B Q, WANG X C, et al.. Effect of agriculture microbial ecological agents on root yield and quality of sugar beet in ridge culture [J]. Chin. Sug., 2018, 40(6): 47-49.
18	郭晓霞, 田露, 樊福义,等. 微生态制剂对重茬甜菜根腐病防控及产质量水平提升的影响[J].西北农业学报, 2019, 28(9): 1460-1468.
	GUO X X, TIAN L, FAN F Y, et al.. Effect of micriobial ecological agents on control of root rot and improvement of yield and quality of sugar beet [J]. Acta Agri. Bor-Occid. Sin., 2019, 28(9): 1460-1468.
19	李天来,杨丽娟.作物连作障碍的克服——难解的问题[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(5): 916-918.
	LI T L, YANG L J. Overcoming continuous cropping obstacles—the difficult problem [J]. Sci. Agric. Sin., 2016, 49(5): 916-918.
20	AGUSTI L, BONATERRA A, MORAGREGA C, et al.. Biocontrol of root rot of strawberry caused by phytophthora cactorum with a combination of two pseudomonas fluorescens strains [J]. J. Plant Pathol., 2011, 93:363-372.
21	汪雪静,卜春亚,靳永胜,等. 草莓根腐病菌拮抗细菌的分离与鉴定[J]. 园艺学报, 2011, 38(9):1657-1666.
	WANG X J, BU C Y, JIN Y S, et al.. Identification and inhibitory effects of antagonistic bacteria against strawberry root rot (Fusarium oxysporum) [J]. Acta Hortic. Sin., 2011, 38(9):1657-1666.
22	申光辉, 薛泉宏, 陈秦, 等.硅酸钾与密旋链霉菌Act12菌剂配施对连作草莓生长、果实产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(3):315-321.
	SHEN G H, XUE Q H, CHEN Q, et al.. Effects of combined application of potassium silicate and Streptomyces pctum bio-control agents on growth, yield and quality of strawberry under continuous cropping in greenhouse [J]. Chin. J. Eco-Agric., 2012, 20(3):315-321.
23	DEGENKOL T, VILCINSKAS A. Metabolites from nematophagous fungi and nematicidal natural products from fungi as an alternative for biological control. Part i: metabolites from nematophagous ascomycetes [J]. Appl. Microbilo. Biot., 2016, 100(9): 3799-3812.
24	MICROBIOL J, PRIYA E, THENMOZHI R, et al.. Antagonistic potential of streptomyces flavomacrosporus gacmpt-57 against plant pathogens [J]. J. Microb. Biot., 2017,4(4): 68-73.
25	麻耀华, 尹淑丽, 张丽萍, 等. 复合微生态制剂对黄瓜根际土壤微生物数量和酶活性的影响[J]. 植物保护, 2012, 38(2): 46-50.
	MA Y H, YIN S L, ZHANG L P, et al.. Effects of complex microbial agent on microorganism population and soil enzyme activity in the cucumber rhizosphere soil [J]. Plant Prot., 2012, 38(2): 46-50.
26	戴美松, 王月志, 蔡丹英, 等. 我国微生物菌肥登记现状及其在果树减肥增效中的应用[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(2): 241-246.
	DAI M S, WANG Y Z, CAI D Y, et al.. Current situation of microbial fertilizer registration in China and its application in fruit tree weight loss and efficiency [J]. Zhejiang Agric. Sci., 2021, 62(2): 241-246.
27	张彩凤. 生防菌枯草芽孢杆菌的研究进展[J]. 现代农村科技, 2015(21):47.
	ZHANG C F. Research progress of biocontrol bacterium bacillus subtilis [J]. Mod. Agric. Sci., 2015(21):47.
28	龚杰, 江其朋, 谭茜.不同用量复合微生物菌剂基质拌菌对烟草生长及青枯病发生的影响[J]. 植物医生, 2020, 33(3):50-54.
	GONG J, JIANG Q P, TAN Q. Effects of mixing the seedling-nursing substrate with different doses of a composite micro organism agent on tobacco growth and control of tobacco bacteria wilt [J]. Plant Doc., 2020, 33(3):50-54.
29	CHENG H Y, ZHANG D Q, HUANG B, et al.. Organic fertilizer improves soil fertility and restores the bacterial community after 1,3-dichloropropene fumigation [J/OL]. Sci. Total Environ., 2020, 738:140345 [2021-12-09]. .
30	周培, 黄锦法, 陆贻通, 等.微生态制剂SC27对作物生长和土壤环境的影响[J]. 上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2002, 20(4):332-336.
	ZHOU P, HUANG J F, LU Y T, et al.. Effects of microecology agent for crop growth and soil environment [J]. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Agric. Sci.), 2002, 20(4):332-336.
31	黄春燕, 苏文斌, 张少英,等.施钾量对膜下滴灌甜菜光合性能以及对产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(10):1496-1505.
	HUANG C Y, SU W B, ZHANG S Y, et al.. Effects of potassium application on photosynthetic performance, yield, and quality of sugar beet with mulching-drip irrigation [J]. Acta Agron. Sin., 2018, 44(10): 1496-1505.
32	撖冬荣, 姚拓, 李海云, 等. 微生物肥料与化肥减量配施对多年生黑麦草生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(3):136-143.
	HAN D R, YAO T, LI H Y, et al.. Effects of combined application of microbial fertilizer and chemical fertilizer on the growth of Lolium perenne [J]. Acta Pratac. Sin., 2022, 31(3):136-143.

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	株高Plant height
年份 Year	处理 Treatment	苗期 Seedling stage	叶丛快速生长期 Rapid growth stage of foliage	块根及糖分增长期 Root tuber and sugar growth stage	糖分积累期 Sugar accumulation stage	收获期 Harvest stage
2018	T0	25.10±0.25 e	62.20±0.62 e	52.80±0.53 f	45.50±0.45 e	32.70±0.33 d
	T1	28.80±0.29 d	63.00±0.63 de	55.00±0.55 e	47.10±0.47 d	35.60±0.36 c
	T2	30.60±0.31 ab	63.50±0.64 de	56.30±0.56 d	48.10±0.48 bc	35.70±0.36 c
	T3	29.90±0.30 c	64.80±0.65 c	58.70±0.59 c	47.30±0.47 cd	35.40±0.35 c
	T4	31.00±0.31 a	70.20±0.70 a	61.50±0.62 a	49.90±0.50 a	40.00±0.40 a
	T5	30.30±0.30 bc	67.30±0.67 b	59.80±0.60 b	48.20±0.48 b	37.30±0.37 b
2019	T0	19.00±1.32 b	53.33±1.53 d	81.67±1.53 b	85.33±1.53 c	57.33±0.58 e
	T1	19.83±1.04 b	62.00±3.00 c	81.67±2.89 b	86.33±1.15 bc	59.33±1.15 de
	T2	19.83±0.29 b	63.67±1.15 bc	82.00±1.73 ab	87.67±2.89 bc	60.00±1.00 cd
	T3	20.00±1.00 b	64.67±1.53 bc	83.00±2.65 ab	88.00±1.00 a	62.33±1.53 c
	T4	21.17±1.26 a	70.00±2.65 a	85.33±0.58 a	90.67±0.58 a	68.33±2.08 a
	T5	19.67±1.53 b	66.00±2.65 b	83.33±1.53 ab	88.67±1.53 ab	65.00±1.00 b

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	株高Plant height
年份 Year	处理 Treatment	苗期 Seedling stage	叶丛快速生长期 Rapid growth stage of foliage	块根及糖分增长期 Root tuber and sugar growth stage	糖分积累期 Sugar accumulation stage	收获期 Harvest stage
2018	T0	25.10±0.25 e	62.20±0.62 e	52.80±0.53 f	45.50±0.45 e	32.70±0.33 d
	T1	28.80±0.29 d	63.00±0.63 de	55.00±0.55 e	47.10±0.47 d	35.60±0.36 c
	T2	30.60±0.31 ab	63.50±0.64 de	56.30±0.56 d	48.10±0.48 bc	35.70±0.36 c
	T3	29.90±0.30 c	64.80±0.65 c	58.70±0.59 c	47.30±0.47 cd	35.40±0.35 c
	T4	31.00±0.31 a	70.20±0.70 a	61.50±0.62 a	49.90±0.50 a	40.00±0.40 a
	T5	30.30±0.30 bc	67.30±0.67 b	59.80±0.60 b	48.20±0.48 b	37.30±0.37 b
2019	T0	19.00±1.32 b	53.33±1.53 d	81.67±1.53 b	85.33±1.53 c	57.33±0.58 e
	T1	19.83±1.04 b	62.00±3.00 c	81.67±2.89 b	86.33±1.15 bc	59.33±1.15 de
	T2	19.83±0.29 b	63.67±1.15 bc	82.00±1.73 ab	87.67±2.89 bc	60.00±1.00 cd
	T3	20.00±1.00 b	64.67±1.53 bc	83.00±2.65 ab	88.00±1.00 a	62.33±1.53 c
	T4	21.17±1.26 a	70.00±2.65 a	85.33±0.58 a	90.67±0.58 a	68.33±2.08 a
	T5	19.67±1.53 b	66.00±2.65 b	83.33±1.53 ab	88.67±1.53 ab	65.00±1.00 b

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	根冠比Root shoot ratio
年份 Year	处理 Treatment	苗期 Seedling stage	叶丛快速生长期 Rapid growth stage of foliage	块根及糖分增长期 Root tuber and sugar growth stage	糖分积累期 Sugar accumulation stage	收获期 Harvest stage
2018	T0	0.22±0.02 a	0.61±0.03 c	0.90±0.03 b	1.81±0.01 c	3.31±0.03 b
	T1	0.23±0.03 a	0.60±0.03 c	0.90±0.03 b	1.79±0.05 c	3.31±0.15 b
	T2	0.23±0.01 a	0.65±0.05 bc	0.95±0.05 ab	1.88±0.07 bc	3.34±0.13 b
	T3	0.23±0.02 a	0.71±0.02 ab	0.96±0.02 ab	1.91±0.03 ab	3.44±0.07 ab
	T4	0.24±0.01 a	0.76±0.04 a	0.97±0.03 a	1.98±0.07 a	3.57±0.04 a
	T5	0.23±0.02 a	0.74±0.05 a	0.91±0.06 ab	1.95±0.07 ab	3.44±0.04 ab
2019	T0	0.15±0.01 a	0.43±0.02 c	0.94±0.02 b	1.90±0.08 b	3.36±0.02 b
	T1	0.16±0.02 a	0.44±0.02 c	0.95±0.04 b	1.90±0.14 b	3.37±0.09 b
	T2	0.16±0.02 a	0.44±0.02 c	0.97±0.05 ab	1.91±0.08 b	3.37±0.06 b
	T3	0.17±0.01 a	0.51±0.02 ab	1.00±0.02 ab	2.01±0.08 ab	3.56±0.05 ab
	T4	0.17±0.01 a	0.55±0.01 a	1.04±0.06 a	2.06±0.04 a	3.74±0.08 a
	T5	0.17±0.01 a	0.50±0.03 b	1.00±0.06 ab	1.98±0.03 ab	3.57±0.30 ab

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	根冠比Root shoot ratio
年份 Year	处理 Treatment	苗期 Seedling stage	叶丛快速生长期 Rapid growth stage of foliage	块根及糖分增长期 Root tuber and sugar growth stage	糖分积累期 Sugar accumulation stage	收获期 Harvest stage
2018	T0	0.22±0.02 a	0.61±0.03 c	0.90±0.03 b	1.81±0.01 c	3.31±0.03 b
	T1	0.23±0.03 a	0.60±0.03 c	0.90±0.03 b	1.79±0.05 c	3.31±0.15 b
	T2	0.23±0.01 a	0.65±0.05 bc	0.95±0.05 ab	1.88±0.07 bc	3.34±0.13 b
	T3	0.23±0.02 a	0.71±0.02 ab	0.96±0.02 ab	1.91±0.03 ab	3.44±0.07 ab
	T4	0.24±0.01 a	0.76±0.04 a	0.97±0.03 a	1.98±0.07 a	3.57±0.04 a
	T5	0.23±0.02 a	0.74±0.05 a	0.91±0.06 ab	1.95±0.07 ab	3.44±0.04 ab
2019	T0	0.15±0.01 a	0.43±0.02 c	0.94±0.02 b	1.90±0.08 b	3.36±0.02 b
	T1	0.16±0.02 a	0.44±0.02 c	0.95±0.04 b	1.90±0.14 b	3.37±0.09 b
	T2	0.16±0.02 a	0.44±0.02 c	0.97±0.05 ab	1.91±0.08 b	3.37±0.06 b
	T3	0.17±0.01 a	0.51±0.02 ab	1.00±0.02 ab	2.01±0.08 ab	3.56±0.05 ab
	T4	0.17±0.01 a	0.55±0.01 a	1.04±0.06 a	2.06±0.04 a	3.74±0.08 a
	T5	0.17±0.01 a	0.50±0.03 b	1.00±0.06 ab	1.98±0.03 ab	3.57±0.30 ab

指标 Index	根腐病发病率 Incidence rate of root rot	株高 Plant height	叶面积指数 Leaf area index	茎叶干物质积累量 Dry matter of stem and leaf	块根干物质积累量 Dry matter of root tuber	根冠比 Root shoot ratio	含糖率 Sugar content	产量 Yield	产糖量 Sugar yield
成活率 Survival rate	-0.354^*	0.020	0.218	0.084	0.161	0.114	0.065	0.182	0.146
根腐病发病率 Incidence rate of root rot		-0.788^**	-0.856^**	-0.793^**	-0.849^**	-0.697^**	-0.737^**	-0.827^**	-0.812^**
株高 Plant height			0.885^**	0.979^**	0.972^**	0.458^**	0.966^**	0.932^**	0.964^**
叶面积指数 Leaf area index				0.874^**	0.906^**	0.590^**	0.882^**	0.894^**	0.910^**
茎叶干物质积累量 Dry matter of stem and leaf					0.981^**	0.412^*	0.957^**	0.934^**	0.963^**
块根干物质积累量 Dry matter of root tuber						0.575^**	0.943^**	0.951^**	0.971^**
根冠比 Root shoot ratio							0.399^*	0.559^**	0.520^**
含糖率 Sugar content								0.907^**	0.959^**
产量 Yield									0.989^**