阳光玫瑰葡萄叶片黄化原因及矫正效果研究.pdf

DOI:10.13925/ki.gsxb.20220595阳光玫瑰葡萄叶片黄化原因及矫正效果研究王绍祖1，樊秀彩1，张颖1，孙磊1，王冉2，姜建福1*，刘崇怀1*（1中国农业科学院郑州果树研究所，郑州 450009；2河南农业职业学院，河南中牟 451450）摘要：【目的】探寻阳光玫瑰葡萄叶片大面积普遍黄化的原因以及行之有效的矫正方案，为切实解决葡萄叶片黄化问题提供参考依据。【方法】以出现黄化症状的阳光玫瑰葡萄植株为材料，调查郑州地区24个黄化葡萄园，测定其理化指标以及土壤不同形态铁含量。分析土壤和叶片元素含量、FCR酶活性、根系铁含量以及根系活力的差异，初步确定叶片黄化的原因。以盆栽试验的方法，用NaHCO3和NaOH处理后观察黄化情况，测定并分析叶片铁含量、FCR酶活性及根系铁含量的差异，进一步确定黄化的原因。设计3种矫正方案对黄化植株进行处理，通过观察复绿情况和叶片营养元素变化，验证叶片黄化的发生原因，探索可行的矫正方案。【结果】调查结果表明，所有园区土壤均呈碱性，且大部分黄化园区土壤有效铁并不缺乏，植株黄化程度与土壤pH值、EC值、有机质含量以及全铁和有效铁含量相关性均不显著。在大田试验中，黄化植株与正常植株的土壤均偏碱性，土壤中氮以硝态氮为主。黄化植株根际土壤中速效元素氮、磷、铁、铜、锌含量均显著低于正常植株的土壤，速效钾含量显著高于正常植株的土壤，二者土壤全铁含量差异不显著。不同程度黄化叶片中氮、磷、钾、有效铁以及铜、锌的含量均显著低于正常植株。黄化植株根系中全铁含量显著高于正常植株。正常叶片全铁含量显著高于黄化叶片，不同程度的黄化叶片全铁含量随黄化程度增大而增加。黄化和正常植株根系活性无显著差异，黄化叶片FCR酶活性受到显著抑制。在盆栽试验中，NaHCO3溶液处理的植株叶片发生黄化，而用pH值为9的NaOH溶液处理的植株并未发生黄化现象。NaHCO3诱导发生黄化的植株根系铁含量、叶片铁以及FCR酶活性与大田试验结果相似，黄化植株根系铁大量积累，且显著高于正常植株，叶片FCR酶活性受到抑制，黄化叶片全铁含量显著高于正常叶片。矫正试验的3种方案处理后有不同程度复绿，其中以根施铵肥配柠檬酸复绿效果最好，叶面喷施铁肥配柠檬酸次之，单纯叶面喷施柠檬酸较差。各处理复绿叶片中氮、磷、钾、锌、铜元素含量相较于黄化对照均有下降，但叶面喷施柠檬酸处理叶片中总铁含量依然高于根施铵肥配柠檬酸处理。【结论】由于土壤高pH值诱导，HCO3-和NO3-在土壤中大量积累，使根和叶中铁还原酶活性降低，植株对铁元素吸收和转运受到抑制，积累在根系和叶片质外体的铁元素不能顺利被还原转运到根细胞和叶肉细胞，最终导致阳光玫瑰叶片缺铁黄化。黄化矫正方案以根施铵肥和酸性物质、解除根系铁还原受到的抑制作用复绿效果最佳。关键词：阳光玫瑰葡萄；黄化原因；矫正；盆栽试验中图分类号：S663.1文献标志码：A文章编号：1009-9980(2023)08-1703-14果树学报2023，40（8）：1703-1716Journal of Fruit Science收稿日期：2022-10-30接受日期：2023-03-07基金项目：郑州市重大科技创新专项（ZGS202104）；现代农业产业技术体系建设专项资金（CARS-29-yc-1）作者简介：王绍祖，男，在读硕士研究生，研究方向为葡萄种质资源。Tel：[phone]，E-mail：*通信作者Author for correspondence.Tel：[phone]，E-mail：；Tel：[phone]，E-mail：Causes and correction efficacy of leaf chlorosis of Shine Muscat grapevineWANG Shaozu1,FAN Xiucai1,ZHANG Ying1,SUN Lei1,WANG Ran2,JIANG Jianfu1*,LIU Chong-huai1*(1Zhengzhou Fruit Research Institute,Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Zhengzhou 450009,Henan,China;2Henan VocationalCollege of Agriculture,Zhongmou 451450,Henan,China)Abstract:【Objective】The experiment was undertaken to explore the reasons for the widespread chloro-sis of Shine Muscat grape leaves and the effective correction scheme,so as to provide a reference basisfor solving the problem of grape leaf chlorosis.【Methods】Shine Muscat grapevines with chloroticsymptoms were chosen as the materials,24 chlorotic vineyards in Zhengzhou were investigated,andtheir soil pH value,EC value,soil organic matter,soil iron and available iron contents were determined.Aiming at the same vineyard,the differences in soil and leaf element contents,FCR enzyme activityand root iron contents between chlorosis and normal grapevines were analyzed to explore the causes of果树学报第40卷leaf chlorosis.Pot experiment was used to treat potted seedlings with NaHCO3solution and NaOH solu-tion,respectively.The chlorosis was observed,and the leaf iron content,FCR enzyme activity and rootiron content of chlorotic plants were determined.The differences in above indexes between chloroticand normal grapevines were analyzed and compared with the conclusions in field experiments.Accord-ing to the conclusions of field and potted experiments,three correction schemes were designed to dealwith etiolated plants.The causes of leaf chlorosis were verified and a feasible correction scheme wassuggested by observing the situation of green restoration and the changes of nutrient elements in leaves.【Results】The results of chlorosis investigation of Shine Muscat showed that the content of availableiron in most of the chlorosis vineyards was not low,and the degree of chlorosis was not significantlycorrelated with soil pH value,EC value,organic matter content,and total iron and available iron con-tents.In the field,the soils of chlorotic and normal grapevines were alkaline,and the nitrogen elementsin the soil were mainly nitrate nitrogen.The contents of available nitrogen,phosphorus,iron,copperand zinc in soil of chlorosis grapevines were significantly lower than those of normal grapevines,whileavailable potassium was significantly higher than that of normal grapevines,but there was no signifi-cant difference in soil total iron content between them.The contents of nitrogen,phosphorus,potassi-um,available iron,copper and zinc in chlorotic leaves were significantly lower than those in normalgrapevines.The content of total iron in the roots of chlorotic grapevines was significantly higher thanthat of normal grapevines.The total iron content in normal leaves was significantly higher than that inchlorotic leaves,and the total iron content in chlorotic leaves increased with the increase of chlorosis,indicating that there was no iron deficiency in chlorotic grapevines.The upward transport of iron fromthe root and from the apoplast to the mesophyll cell was blocked,and iron accumulated in the apoplastof the root and leaf.There was no significant difference in root activity between chlorotic and normalgrapevines,but the activity of FCR enzyme in chlorotic leaves was inhibited compared with normalleaves.In the pot experiment,chlorosis occurred in the grapevines treated with 90 mmolL-1NaHCO3solution,but not in the grapevines treated with NaOH solution with pH 9,indicating that the high pHvalue of soil is not the direct cause of chlorosis.The root iron content,leaf iron and FCR enzyme activi-ty of chlorotic grapevines induced by NaHCO3were similar to those in field experiments.Iron accumu-lation in chlorotic grapevine roots was significantly higher than that of normal grapevines,and the FCRenzyme activity of leaves was inhibited,and the total iron content in chlorotic leaves was significantlyhigher than that in normal leaves.There were different degrees of green recovery after the treatments in-cluding three schemes in the correction experiment,which further verified that leaf chlorosis was relat-ed to HCO3-and NO3-.In the scheme,ammonium fertilizer combined with citric acid was the best,foliarspraying with iron fertilizer plus citric acid was second,and foliar spraying with citric acid was theworst.The contents of nitrogen,phosphorus,potassium,zinc and copper in the green leaves of eachtreatment were lower than those of the chlorosis control,but the total iron content in leaves sprayedwith citric acid was still higher than that of ammonium fertilizer combined with citric acid.【Conclu-sion】Due to the induction of high pH value in soil,a large amount of HCO3-and NO3-accumulated inthe soil,which decreased the activity of iron reductase in roots and leaves and inhibited the absorptionand transport of iron in grapevines,and the iron accumulated in the apoplast of roots and leaves couldnot be successfully reduced and transported to root cells and mesophyll cells,resulting in iron deficien-cy chlorosis in the leaves of Shine Muscat.The scheme of chlorosis correction by applying ammoniumfertilizer and acid to relieve the inhibition of iron reductase in roots has the best efficacyKey words:Shine-Muscat grapes;Cause of chlorosis;Correct;Pot experiment1704，等：阳光玫瑰葡萄叶片黄化原因及矫正效果研究第8期阳光玫瑰（Shine Muscat）葡萄属于二倍体欧美杂种（Vitis vinifera V.labrusca），果实具有外观美、香味浓、糖度高等优点，种植面积发展迅速。近年来，中国北方地区阳光玫瑰生理性黄化现象普遍发生，其症状主要表现为上部叶肉细胞失绿，而叶脉正常，严重时整株叶片黄化，甚至造成树体死亡1。目前叶片黄化已成为限制北方地区阳光玫瑰葡萄优质生产的重要因素之一。叶片黄化的原因有多种，环境因素、土壤条件、栽培管理、嫁接砧木、树体营养以及遗传背景等因素都可能导致叶片发生黄化。为了解决葡萄叶片黄化问题，前人对该现象发生机制做过一些探索，目前关注更多的是土壤环境因素引起有效铁含量降低以及冻害等因素造成根系发育不良等因素引起的叶片黄化2-3。露地百合叶片黄化是植株缺乏氮、镁、铁、锌元素所致4，而核桃叶片黄化主要原因是缺乏氮、铁元素，且发生叶片黄化的植株产量下降50%70%5。葡萄叶片黄化现象多发生在中国北方地区，发生时间集中在花序生长期和开花期，中、轻度黄化植株在5月下旬到6月初开始逐渐复绿。随着阳光玫瑰种植面积不断扩大，叶片黄化现象对产业造成的影响日益凸显。目前，有关葡萄叶片黄化的研究多停留在土壤、叶片营养元素分析，并以此阐明黄化原因，对于更深层次的生理生化复杂过程的研究甚少。此外对黄化现象的矫正措施仍以施用硫酸亚铁为主，但由于碱性土壤中Fe2+很快会被氧化固定，效果并不理想。本研究在土壤和叶片营养元素分析的基础上，对阳光玫瑰黄化植株生理特征进行更深一步研究分析，并设计出3种矫正方案，对比其矫正效果，旨在为探究叶片黄化的原因提供理论依据。1材料和方法1.1试验材料为了研究阳光玫瑰葡萄叶片黄化发生的规律，对郑州周边24个种植阳光玫瑰的葡萄园区进行调查，这些园区包括黄化园和正常园，试验材料为各园中不同黄化程度植株和正常植株；大田试验地点位于河南省荥阳市蔡寨村葡萄园，地处北纬3436、东经11307，属温暖带大陆性季风气候，土壤平均pH值8.04，试验材料为该园中叶片严重黄化以及正常的4年生自根树，树形为单干双臂形，架高185 cm，株距1 m，行距2.5 m，南北行向，露地栽培，园内所有阳光玫瑰植株统一进行无核处理和田间栽培管理，该园区阳光玫瑰2022年5月初出现不同程度叶片黄化现象。盆栽试验以1年生阳光玫瑰自根苗为试验材料，试验于中国农业科学院郑州果树研究所智能温室进行。1.2试验设计与方法1.2.1试验设计（1）调查阳光玫瑰叶片黄化情况。对不同黄化程度的植株进行分级。黄化叶片占全株25%左右为轻度黄化；黄化叶片占全株50%左右为中度黄化；黄化叶片占75%以上为重度黄化。在各园区采集不同黄化程度植株以及正常植株根际土壤各500 g，一共采集到48份土壤样品，送实验室烘干后测定pH值、EC值、有机质含量以及全铁和有效铁含量。（2）黄化矫正试验设计。对不同黄化程度植株和叶片拍照，采集不同黄化程度植株根际土壤样本各500 g，根系样本10 g，采集不同黄化程度叶片样本各15个。对黄化植株设3组处理（T1、T2、T3），如表1所示，设置黄化植株对照（黄CK，清水处理）、正常植株对照（绿CK，清水处理）2个对照组，每组5个重复。叶面喷施用喷壶均匀地喷施全株叶片正反两面，灌根在树冠投影边缘近树干三分之一处挖30 cm左右深、直径约35 cm的坑，将药剂充分溶解后灌根后覆土。观察到黄化叶片复绿后对各处理组进行拍照，采集各处理组及对照组根际土壤样本各500 g，叶片样本各随机取15个。本试验叶片样本试验和采集部位均选取从基部向上第8枚成龄叶。处理后用 SPAD 叶绿素仪测其叶绿素相对含量，每隔3 d测1次，每组叶片3次重复，取平均数。处理15 d后采集土壤和叶片送实验室处理，对土壤样本测定pH值及速效氮、速效磷、速效钾、全铁、有效铁、有效锌、有效铜、硝态氮、铵态氮的含量，叶片样本测定全氮、全磷、全钾、全铁、全铜、全锌、有效铁的含量以及高铁还原酶（FCR）活性，根系测定全铁含量和根系活力，元素测定每组3次重复，根系活力和酶活性每组5次重复。（3）盆栽试验。2022年3月下旬将生长势基本一致的1年生自根苗种植于装有培养基质（V草炭土V蛭石 V珍珠岩=3 1 1）的塑料花盆中，花盆上口直径、下口直径和高度分别为26、22、18 cm，每盆1株，常规管理。小苗长至12片叶完全展开时开始摘心，并抹王绍祖1705果树学报第40卷去多余副梢。7 月 14 日开始用 NaHCO3溶液和NaOH溶液处理。分别用90 mmolL-1NaHCO3溶液和pH值为9.0的NaOH 溶液定量灌溉处理，对照组用等量清水灌溉。每次灌溉溶液（清水）每盆2 L，每隔3 d灌溉1次，每个处理5次重复。观察叶片生长状态，处理50 d后，取根部向上第910枚叶片和根系，测定有效铁和全铁含量，每个指标测3次重复。测定叶片FCR活性，每组5次重复。1.2.2测定方法土壤 pH 值参照 NY/T 1121.22006测定；土壤EC值用电导法测定；土壤有机质含量参照NY/T 1121.62006测定；土壤碱解氮含量采用扩散法测定6；土壤速效磷含量采用碳酸氢钠浸提钼锑抗比色法测定6；土壤速效钾含量采用乙酸铵浸提火焰光度计法测定6；土壤有效铁、锌、铜含量参照国家环境标准HJ 8042016二乙烯三胺五乙酸浸提-电感耦合等离子体发射光谱法测定；土壤全铁含量采用硝酸消解、ICP-ms测定7；土壤硝态氮含量采用氯化钾浸提双波长比色法测定8；土壤铵态氮含量采用靛酚蓝比色法测定6；叶片全氮含量用元素分析仪法测定9；叶片全磷和全钾含量参照NY/T 20172011测定；叶片有效铁含量采用比色法测定；叶片全铁、全锌、全铜以及根系全铁含量参照GB 5009.2682016测定。1.3数据处理用Excel 2016数据分析软件对数据进行统计和作图，用SPASSPRO（众言科技）在线软件进行数据分析。2结果与分析2.1阳光玫瑰黄化情况的调查不同黄化程度植株见图1，调查结果发现叶片黄化发生时间集中在花序生长期和开花期，发生初期都是幼叶的叶脉间和新梢先开始黄化，逐渐发展至下部叶片。黄化植株较正常植株新生根很少，轻度黄化植株在5月下旬到6月初开始逐渐复绿，重度黄化植株叶片干枯或植株死亡。通过调查不同园区土壤样品的pH值、EC值、有机质含量以及全铁和有效铁含量，对叶片黄化现象发生的原因进行初步分析，结果（表2）表明48份土表 1矫正处理方案Table 1Corrective treatment plan处理TreatmentT1T2T3处理方式Treating method叶面喷施稀释800倍的康富铁+0.05%柠檬酸溶液Spray 800 times diluted Kangfu iron+0.05%citric acid solution on the leaf surface叶面喷施0.2%柠檬酸溶液Foliar spraying 0.2%citric acid solution叶面喷施0.3%硫酸铵和每株100 g硫酸铵+10 g柠檬酸溶于10 L水灌根Spray 0.3%ammonium sulfate on the leaves and dissolve 100 g ammonium sulfate+10 g citric acid in 10 L water for irrigation rootsA.轻度黄化；B.中度黄化；C.重度黄化。A.Light chlorosis;B.Moderate chlorosis;C.Severe chlorosis.图 1不同黄化程度的叶片Fig.1Leaves with different degrees of chlorosisABC1706，等：阳光玫瑰葡萄叶片黄化原因及矫正效果研究第8期表 2不同园区土壤调查Table 2Soil survey of different parks序号Serial number123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748黄化程度Degree ofchlorosis000000000000000000000000111112222222222333333333土壤pH值Soil pH value7.107.357.248.258.457.067.217.478.027.247.737.627.367.857.038.287.668.497.397.367.507.737.238.037.657.768.277.777.467.887.538.347.767.468.128.257.347.997.668.708.057.668.287.078.117.078.048.09土壤EC值Soil EC value/（Scm-1）900500240110130230250330170660220130190110920130340420308013704503005401504301405502103104004901202403101602503605602902101503601201201903460170150w（有机质）Organic matter content/（mgkg-1）17.8021.0024.8013.207.1012.206.969.5215.8018.6017.8014.708.693.0214.7012.6051.6022.8025.4022.0014.0010.4014.6020.2015.0011.0031.2041.7012.6019.6017.708.4022.0026.607.2423.4076.6019.209.7410.204.2023.206.025.0424.5030.2010.8018.80w（有效铁）Available iron content/（mgkg-1）23.628.624.825.214.817.613.416.819.215.27.425.28.87.67.96.718.814.212.012.68.67.413.911.513.88.417.919.612.832.214.413.619.213.37.417.423.811.010.46.523.214.515.414.218.414.29.411.7w（全铁）Total iron content/（mgkg-1）2.823.422.682.742.603.032.632.782.772.523.522.212.902.193.112.843.963.513.083.343.142.602.653.002.532.823.732.443.052.473.472.643.022.893.063.373.603.102.753.212.632.702.642.883.243.142.572.92注：黄化程度 0、1、2 和 3 分别表示正常、轻度、中度和重度。Note:The degree of chlorosis 0,1,2 and 3 indicates normal,mild,moderate and severe,respectively.王绍祖1707果树学报第40卷2.2大田黄化与正常植株的对比分析2.2.1黄化植株和正常植株根际土壤pH值和矿质元素含量对比分析如表4所示，通过对比分析根际土壤pH值和矿质元素含量，表明黄化植株和正常植株土壤pH值均大于8.0，偏碱性，两者差异不显著，土壤中氮存在形式均以硝态氮为主，即铵态氮含量显著低于硝态氮，两者铵硝比差异不显著。黄化植株土壤中速效氮、速效磷、有效铁、有效铜、有效锌含量均低于正常植株，且差异均达到极显著水平（p0.01）。黄化植株根际土壤速效氮、速效磷含量分别比正常植株低46.26%和28.63%，黄化植株有效铁和有效铜含量比正常植株低53.78%和51.03%。黄化植株土壤中速效钾含量比正常植株高14.22%，差异达到极显著水平（p0.01）。二者土壤全铁含量差异不显著。2.2.2不同黄化程度植株叶片矿质元素与根系铁含量对比分析如表5、表6所示，通过对比不同黄化程度叶片矿质元素与根系铁含量，不同程度黄化叶片中氮、磷、钾、铜、锌含量均显著高于正常植株，有效铁含量显著低于正常植株，差异随黄化程度的加重逐渐增大。虽然不同程度黄化叶片全铁含量均显著低于正常叶片，但随黄化程度的加重，黄化叶片中全铁含量逐渐增加，即重度黄化叶片全铁含量显著高于轻度黄化叶片。黄化植株根系中铁元素含量是叶片中的45倍，比正常植株高16.40%，差异显著（p0.05）。因此，黄化植株中铁元素并不缺乏。2.2.3叶片高铁还原酶（FCR）活性和根系活力差异分析如表7所示，通过分析黄化叶片和正常叶片FCR活性和根系活力，表明黄化植株的根系活力与正常植株差异不显著，黄化植株根系活力甚至高于正常植株，黄化叶片中FCR活性低于正常叶片，仅是正常植株的 37.93%，差异显著（p0.01），因此Fe3+的还原在黄化叶片中受到了抑制。2.3盆栽试验如图2所示，处理50 d后，用NaHCO3处理的阳光玫瑰植株叶片出现明显黄化症状，而用pH值为9的NaOH溶液处理的植株叶片未出现黄化。通过分析NaHCO3处理植株与对照植株之间叶片和根系中铁元素含量以及叶片FCR活性的差异，结果（表8）表明NaHCO3处理植株叶片和根全铁含量均显著高于对照植株。叶片有效铁含量在两者之间无显著差异。NaHCO3处理植株叶片 FCR 活性低于对照植株，差异极显著。2.4大田黄化植株矫正试验2.4.1不同处理对黄化的矫正效果用3种不同的处理对阳光玫瑰黄化植株进行处理，处理6 d后观察表 3植株黄化程度与土壤 pH 值、EC 值、有机质含量以及铁元素含量相关性分析Table 3Correlation analysis between chlorosis level of plants and soil pH,EC value,organic matter content as well as Fe content指标Index黄化程度 Degree of chlorosis土壤pH Soil pH土壤EC值 Soil EC values有机质含量 Organic matter content全铁含量All iron content有效铁含量Available iron content黄化程度Degree of chlorosis10.276-0.0170.056-0.0040.037土壤pH值Soil pH1-0.388*-0.136-0.019-0.055土壤EC值Soil EC values10.2190.208-0.057有机质含量Organic matter content10.539*0.348*全铁含量All iron content1-0.019有效铁含量Available iron content1注：*、*分别代表 0.01、0.05 的显著水平。下同。Note:*,*represent significance levels of 0.01,0.05,respectively.The same below.壤样品 pH 值均大于 7.0，pH 值大于 7.5 的样品占66%，pH值大于8的样品占25.41%。即使重度黄化的园区土壤pH值也可能8.0以上。EC值除个别园区大于1000 Scm-1以外，93.75%的园区都处于正常范围（150900 Scm-1）。参照李宝鑫等10发布的土壤元素含量标准，样品中有效铁含量为缺乏（5-10 mgkg-1）的仅占20.83%，有效铁含量为中等水平（1030 mgkg-1）的占79.17%，因此大部分园区土壤中有效铁并不缺乏。植株黄化程度和土壤指标相关性分析结果表明，黄化程度与土壤pH值、EC值、有机质含量以及全铁和有效铁含量相关性均不显著。而土壤pH值与EC值之间呈显著负相关（表3）。有机质含量与土壤有效铁含量之间呈显著正相关，与土壤全铁含量呈极显著正相关。1708，等：阳光玫瑰葡萄叶片黄化原因及矫正效果研究第8期表 4黄化植株和正常植株根际土壤 pH 值和矿质元素含量对比Table 4Comparison of pH and mineral elements contents in rhizosphere soils of etiolated and normal plants指标Index土壤pH值Soil pHw（速效氮）Available nitrogen content/（mgkg-1）w（速效磷）Available phosphorus content/（mgkg-1）w（速效钾）Available potassium content/（mgkg-1）w（全铁）Total iron content/（mgkg-1）w（有效铁）Available iron content/（mgkg-1）w（有效铜）Available copper content/（mgkg-1）w（有效锌）Available zinc content/（mgkg-1）w（铵态氮）Ammonium nitrogen content/（mgkg-1）w（硝态氮）Nitrate nitrogen content/（mgkg-1）铵/硝Ammonium/Nitrate黄化程度Degree of chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis正常Normal黄化Chlorosis平均值Average value8.0108.05743.46423.35698.23570.107155.457177.55929.07030.0974.4853.8740.5430.2516.6223.2431.0041.37692.886118.7570.0110.012标准差Standard deviation0.2270.1360.4530.2781.1882.7951.7792.9120.6134.3290.1240.0540.0210.010.0230.0530.0290.0912.4682.8220.0000.001F值F-value0.0934 298.683257.364125.8600.16561.453477.84110 462.48545.588142.8694.435p值p value(Two tailed)0.7750.000*0.000*0.000*0.7050.001*0.000*0.000*0.003*0.000*0.103表 5不同黄化程度植株叶片矿质元素含量对比Table 5Comparison of mineral elements contents of leaves from plants with different chlorosis degrees黄化程度Degree ofchlorosis重度 Severe中度 Moderate轻度 Light正常 Normalw（氮）Nitrogen content/（gkg-1）45.390.28 a