Effects of Different Hormone Types and Concentrations on Softwood Cutting Propagation of Calophyllum inophyllum

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.11.006

Abstract

Abstract:

The effects of different hormone types and concentrations, 1-naphthylacetic acid (NAA), 3-indolebutyric acid (IBA) and ABT-1 rooting powder (ABT) on the leaf-growing and rooting characteristics were studied on the softwood cuttings of Calophyllum inophyllum. A comprehensive evaluation was given based on membership function. The results showed compared with the control, different hormone types and concentrations significantly affected leaf sprout rate, new leaf number, new leaf area, rooting rate, partial root rate, adventitious root number, adventitious root number, lateral root number and lateral root length, but had no significant effects on the leaf retention rate. Under different hormone treatment, the leaf sprout rate and rooting rate of cuttings was 21.7% to 66.7% and 43.3% to 98.3%, respectively, while the leaf sprout rate and rooting rate of control treatment were 0. Based on the comprehensive analysis of membership function method, the promoting effect of hormones on cutting was NAA>ABT>IBA. The average leaf sprout rate and rooting rate of the cuttings treated with NAA were 62.1% and 95.4%, respectively increased by 47.5% and 30.2% compared with the treatments of ABT, and increased by 62.0% and 57.9% compared with the treatments of IBA. 1000 mg/L of NAA was the best combination for the softwood cuttings of C. inophyllum, while the leaf sprout rate was 61.7% and the rooting rate was 95.0%.

Key words: Calophyllum inophyllum, leaf-growing characteristic, rooting characteristic, membership function method

CLC Number:

S723

ZHANG Yangfeng,REN Zheng,LIN Mingping,CAI Weijing,SHI Guozheng,YU Bin. Effects of Different Hormone Types and Concentrations on Softwood Cutting Propagation of Calophyllum inophyllum[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(11): 2183-2189.

Figures/Tables 5

References 29

[1]	中国科学院中国植物志编辑委员会. 中国植物志[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1990: 83.
[2]	陶忠良, 方佳, 赖齐贤. 红厚壳在海南岛的分布及其生长习性[J]. 资源开发与市场, 2003,19(2):85-87.
[3]	Yimdjo M C, Azebaze A G, Nkengfack A E, et al. Antimicrobial and cytotoxic agents from Calophyllum inophyllum[J]. Phytochemistry, 2005,65(20):2789-2795. DOI URL PMID
[4]	Li Z L, Yuan L, Qin N B, et al. Four new coumarins from the leaves of Calophyllum inophyllum[J]. Phytochemistry Letters, 2016,16:203-206. DOI URL
[5]	Hwaichyuan O, Masjuki H H, Mahlia T M I, et al. Optimization of biodiesel production and engine performance from high free fatty acid Calophyllum inophyllum oil in CI diesel engine[J]. Energy Conversion & Management, 2014,81(5):30-40.
[6]	贾瑞丰, 尹光天, 杨锦昌, 等. 不同氮素水平对红厚壳幼苗生长及光合特性的影响[J]. 林业科学研究, 2012,25(1):23-29.
[7]	陈娟, 陶忠良. 红厚壳野生资源的开发型保护途径分析[J]. 资源开发与市场, 2007,23(11):1029-1031.
[8]	张军, 刘蕊, 范海阔, 等. 红厚壳高空压条繁殖技术研究[J]. 农学学报, 2013,3(5):56-57.
[9]	许德成, 王小菁. 红厚壳茎段丛生芽诱导与植株再生[J]. 植物学报, 2014,49(2):167-172.
[10]	覃国铭, 任征, 于彬, 等. 不同嫁接方式对红厚壳成活率及抽芽数的影响[J]. 林业与环境科学, 2019,35(2):62-66.
[11]	郭素娟. 林木扦插生根的解剖学及生理学研究进展[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 1997,19(4):64-69.
[12]	王东光, 尹光天, 邹文涛, 等. 不同基质和季节对闽楠嫩枝扦插生根的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2013,34(8):1458-1462.
[13]	白磊, 李荣生, 尹光天, 等. 米老排扦插生根因子及优化[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2016,33(3):543-550.
[14]	周锦业, 关世凯, 陶大燕, 等. 不同因素对薰衣草扦插成活的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019,40(1):24-31.
[15]	杨庆春, 李国雷. 不同植物生长调节剂对栓皮栎嫩枝扦插的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2017,45(6):12-16, 46.
[16]	黄东瑞, 王瑛华, 陈刚, 等. 不同激素处理对鼎湖山状元红扦插繁殖的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2017,45(22):40-43, 143.
[17]	周再知, 刘式超, 张金浩, 等. 外源IBA对裸花紫珠扦插生根和内源激素含量变化的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2016,37(6):1075-1080.
[18]	Rana R S, Sood K K. Effect of cutting diameter and hormonal application on the propagation of Ficus roxburghii Wall. through branch cuttings[J]. Annals of Forest Research, 2012,55(1):69-84.
[19]	Kanmegne G, Mbouobda H D, Fotso , et al. The influence of stockplant fertilization on tissue concentrations of nitrogen, carbohydrates and amino acids and on the rooting of leafy stem cuttings of Cola anomala K. Schum (Malvaceae)[J]. New Forests, 2016,48(1):1-15. DOI URL
[20]	杨立学, 王海南, 范晶. 母株年龄和生长调节剂对俄罗斯大果沙棘嫩枝扦插生根的影响[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2011,33(6):107-111.
[21]	胡涛, 曹钰, 张鸽香. 美国流苏嫩枝扦插及生根内源激素含量的变化[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2019,34(2):115-121.
[22]	陈丽英, 祁树安, 王开芳, 等. 激素种类、浓度及浸泡时间对红榉扦插育苗的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2018,50(8):72-76.
[23]	Bowman K D, Albrecht U. Efficient propagation of citrus rootstocks by stem cuttings[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2017,225:681-688. DOI URL
[24]	王书胜, 李晓花, 张乐华, 等. 激素种类与浓度对鹿角杜鹃扦插繁殖的影响及其评价[J]. 广西植物, 2014,34(2):227-234.
[25]	任明莹, 马玉华, 任杰, 等. 加拿大糖槭嫩枝扦插技术[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2015,43(4):10-13, 18.
[26]	陆秀君, 洪晓松, 刘景强, 等. 扦插基质及生根促进剂对美国红枫扦插繁殖的影响[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2015,30(5):138-144.
[27]	仲兆清, 潘春香. 不同基质、外源激素与扦插时间对油茶扦插育苗的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2014,45(4):623-627.
[28]	贾志远, 葛晓敏, 唐罗忠. 木本植物扦插繁殖及其影响因素[J]. 世界林业研究, 2015,28(2):36-41.
[29]	曾雯, 邹义萍, 胡曼筠, 等. 不同激素种类及用量对西藏山茉莉扦插生根的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2016,47(2):263-266.

激素种类 Hormone types	激素浓度 Hormone concentrations/(mg·L^-1)
CK	清水
NAA	400、600、800、1000
ABT	600、900、1200、1500
IBA	400、600、800、1000

激素种类 Hormone types	激素浓度 Hormone concentrations/(mg·L^-1)
CK	清水
NAA	400、600、800、1000
ABT	600、900、1200、1500
IBA	400、600、800、1000

处理 Treatment	宿叶率 Leaf retention rate/%	抽叶率 Leaf sprout rate/%	单株新叶数量 New leaf number per plant	单株新叶面积 New leaf area per plant/cm²
CK	88.3±6.9^a	0^e	0^e	0^e
NAA 400	89.2±5.0^a	55.0±13.7^abc	1.75±0.38^abc	30.00±13.90^abc
NAA 600	85.8±5.7^a	65.0±10.0^a	1.87±0.41^ab	29.60±2.97^abc
NAA 800	87.5±1.7^a	66.7±9.4^a	2.13±0.41^a	22.80±6.60^abcd
NAA 1000	94.2±5.0^a	61.7±8.4^ab	1.95±0.80^ab	30.80±7.30^ab
ABT 600	95.8±5.0^a	31.7±12.6^cd	1.03±0.52^bc	16.10±10.80^abcd
ABT 900	94.2±5.0^a	48.3±22.7^abc	1.63±0.83^abc	21.00±14.10^abcd
ABT 1200	95.8±4.2^a	53.3±30.3^abc	2.10±1.40^abc	24.90±17.40^abcd
ABT 1500	89.2±9.9^a	35.0±8.4^cd	1.13±0.53^abc	13.70±6.80^cd
IBA 400	90.8±7.4^a	33.3±7.7^cd	1.23±0.38^abc	11.70±5.10^d
IBA 600	93.3±4.7^a	21.7±13.7^d	0.80±0.60^d	10.00±8.80^d
IBA 800	87.5±9.6^a	38.3±12.6^bcd	1.22±0.52^abc	14.30±6.60^bcd
IBA 1000	92.5±6.9^a	60.0±22.5^ab	2.02±0.61^ab	31.30±14.60^a

处理 Treatment	宿叶率 Leaf retention rate/%	抽叶率 Leaf sprout rate/%	单株新叶数量 New leaf number per plant	单株新叶面积 New leaf area per plant/cm²
CK	88.3±6.9^a	0^e	0^e	0^e
NAA 400	89.2±5.0^a	55.0±13.7^abc	1.75±0.38^abc	30.00±13.90^abc
NAA 600	85.8±5.7^a	65.0±10.0^a	1.87±0.41^ab	29.60±2.97^abc
NAA 800	87.5±1.7^a	66.7±9.4^a	2.13±0.41^a	22.80±6.60^abcd
NAA 1000	94.2±5.0^a	61.7±8.4^ab	1.95±0.80^ab	30.80±7.30^ab
ABT 600	95.8±5.0^a	31.7±12.6^cd	1.03±0.52^bc	16.10±10.80^abcd
ABT 900	94.2±5.0^a	48.3±22.7^abc	1.63±0.83^abc	21.00±14.10^abcd
ABT 1200	95.8±4.2^a	53.3±30.3^abc	2.10±1.40^abc	24.90±17.40^abcd
ABT 1500	89.2±9.9^a	35.0±8.4^cd	1.13±0.53^abc	13.70±6.80^cd
IBA 400	90.8±7.4^a	33.3±7.7^cd	1.23±0.38^abc	11.70±5.10^d
IBA 600	93.3±4.7^a	21.7±13.7^d	0.80±0.60^d	10.00±8.80^d
IBA 800	87.5±9.6^a	38.3±12.6^bcd	1.22±0.52^abc	14.30±6.60^bcd
IBA 1000	92.5±6.9^a	60.0±22.5^ab	2.02±0.61^ab	31.30±14.60^a

处理 Treatment	生根率 Rooting rate/%	偏根率 Partial root rate/%	不定根Adventitious root		侧根Lateral root
处理 Treatment	生根率 Rooting rate/%	偏根率 Partial root rate/%	单株数量Number	单条体积Volume/cm³	单株数量Number	长度Length/cm
CK	0^f	1.00^a	0^d	0^c	0^d	0^b
NAA 400	91.7±6.4^a	0.67±0.18^bc	2.3±0.7^c	0.963±0.969^a	29.2±5.2^c	2.39±0.59^a
NAA 600	96.7±6.6^a	0.52±0.17^bcde	2.8±0.7^c	0.597±0.150^ab	39.2±10.9^abc	2.44±0.20^a
NAA 800	98.3±3.4^a	0.31±0.14^de	5.0±0.9^a	0.296±0.108^b	52.2±12.5^ab	1.80±0.28^a
NAA 1000	95.0±6.4^a	0.31±0.10^de	4.6±0.5^ab	0.413±0.074^b	49.4±8.8^ab	1.92±0.36^a
ABT 600	63.3±6.7^cd	0.75±0.20^b	2.3±0.9^c	0.468±0.349^ab	40.1±6.6^abc	2.14±0.70^a
ABT 900	80.0±9.4^abc	0.27±0.18^e	5.2±1.1^a	0.472±0.101^ab	49.7±7.4^ab	1.83±0.28^a
ABT 1200	83.3±11.6^ab	0.46±0.25^bcd	4.7±2.1^ab	0.311±0.083^b	56.9±23.8^a	2.13±1.50^a
ABT 1500	66.7±21.1^bcd	0.53±0.021^bcd	3.3±1.7^bc	0.417±0.155^b	38.8±8.3^abc	1.90±0.27^a
IBA 400	55.0±14.7^de	0.73±0.04^b	2.1±0.7^c	0.339±0.249^b	34.1±6.7^ab	2.14±0.43^a
IBA 600	43.3±11.6^e	0.77±0.14^b	1.8±0.3^c	0.369±0.143^b	45.1±5.2^abc	2.08±0.27^a
IBA 800	60.0±17.2^de	0.73±0.08^b	2.2±0.4^c	0.418±0.266^b	48.8±12.2^ab	2.05±0.65^a
IBA 1000	83.3±13.9^ab	0.63±0.17^bc	2.3±0.7^c	0.351±0.154^b	49.6±17.9^ab	1.81±0.31^a