Correlation and regression analysis between leaf margin scorch diseases and leaf nutrient content of walnut

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.04.019

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 To explore the main factors related to walnut leaf margin scorch disease, and provide theoretical reference for the mechanism research and control measures of leaf margin scorch disease. 【Methods】 The main walnut varieties Xinfeng and Zha-343 in Xinjiang were taken as the research objects, and the wild walnut in Xinjiang was taken as the control material. The SPAD value, total nitrogen (N), total phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn) and other indicators of the leaves of two walnut cultivars with different scorched leaves were mainly measured, the correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted among the indicators. 【Results】 The leaf SPAD values of the two walnut cultivars decreased slowly with the aggravation of the degree of leaf scorch. There was no significant difference between the SPAD values of Xinfeng normal leaves (CK) and that of wild walnut normal leaves (T-CK). The SPAD values of Zha-343 normal leaves (CK) were significantly lower than that of T-CK, and the SPAD values of 'Xinfeng' leaves under different treatments were significantly higher than that of Zha-343. Different nutrient contents in the leaves of the two walnut varieties showed varying degrees of change with the aggravation of leaf scorch degree. Among them, N and Ca in the leaves of Xinfeng walnut showed an upward trend, P, K, Mg, Mn, Fe and Cu showed a downward trend, Zn showed an upward trend first and then a downward trend, and the degree of scorched leaves of Xinfeng walnut was significantly negatively correlated with its SPAD value, K, Mg and Cu contents. There was an extremely significant positive correlation with Ca content, N and Ca in leaves of Zha-343 walnut showed an upward trend, K, Mg, Mn, Fe and Cu showed a downward trend, P and Zn showed an upward trend first and then a downward trend, in which the negative correlation between SPAD value, Fe and Cu in leaves and their scorched degree reached an extremely significant level, and the positive correlation between Ca content in leaves and their scorched degree reached an extremely significant level. That the order of the factors affecting the scorching degree of Xinfeng leaves was Cu > Ca, and the regression equation was Y =10.968-2.193 X₁ + 4.388 X₂; The order of factors affecting the scorching degree of Zha-343 leaves is Cu > K > P, and the regression equation was Y' = 215.075-2.366 X'₁- 7.902 X'₂- 33.966 X'₃. 【Conclusion】 In arid areas, after the leaf edges of Xinfeng and Zha-343 walnuts start to scorch, the absorption of Cu, Ca, K, and P in the leaves is significantly affected.

Key words: walnut; leaf margin scorch disease; nutrient; correlation analysis; regression analysis

摘要：

【目的】研究与核桃叶缘焦枯病相关的主因子,为叶缘焦枯病机理研究及其防治措施提供理论参考。【方法】以新疆核桃主栽品种新丰和扎-343作为研究对象,以新疆野生核桃作为对照材料,测定不同程度焦叶的2个核桃品种叶片SPAD值、全氮(N)、全磷(P)、钾(K)、钙(Ca)、镁(Mg)、锰(Mn)、铁(Fe)、铜(Cu)和锌(Zn)等指标,分析各指标之间的相关性。【结果】随着2个核桃品种叶片焦枯程度的加重,其叶片SPAD值均缓慢下降趋势,新丰正常叶(X-CK)SPAD值与野生核桃正常叶(T-CK)间均无显著差异,扎-343正常叶(Z-CK)SPAD值显著低于T-CK,新丰不同处理的叶片SPAD值均明显大于扎-343。2个核桃品种叶片不同养分含量随着焦叶程度的加重而呈现不同程度的变化趋势,其中新丰核桃叶片N和Ca均表现上升趋势,P、K、Mg、Mn、Fe和Cu均表现下降趋势,Zn呈现先上升后下降趋势,新丰核桃焦叶程度与其SPAD值、K、Mg和Cu含量成极显著负相关,与Ca含量间成极显著正相关性;扎-343核桃叶片N和Ca均表现上升趋势,其K、Mg、Mn、Fe和Cu均表现下降趋势,P和Zn呈现先上升后下降趋势,其中叶片SPAD值、Fe和Cu与其焦叶程度之间的负相关性均达极显著水平,叶片Ca含量与其焦叶程度之间的正相关性达极显著水平。影响新丰核桃叶片焦枯程度的相关指标因子大小的排序依次为Cu > Ca,回归方程为Y =10.968-2.193 X₁ + 4.388 X₂;影响扎-343核桃叶片焦枯程度的相关指标因子大小的排序依次为Cu > K > P,回归方程为Y' = 215.075-2.366 X'₁- 7.902 X'₂- 33.966 X'₃。【结论】新丰和扎-343核桃叶缘开始焦枯后,叶片中Cu、Ca、K和P的吸收受到显著影响。

关键词: 核桃, 叶缘焦枯病, 养分, 相关性, 回归分析

CLC Number:

Mahemuti Abulaiti, Muhetaer zhare, Mireguli Waili, Hadier Yishake. Correlation and regression analysis between leaf margin scorch diseases and leaf nutrient content of walnut[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(4): 945-953.

马合木提·阿不来提, 木合塔尔·扎热, 米热古力·外力, 哈地尔·依沙克. 核桃叶缘焦枯病与其养分含量的相关性回归分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(4): 945-953.

Figures/Tables 5

References 24

[1]	郗荣庭, 张毅萍. 中国果树志-核桃卷[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1996.
	XI Rongting, ZHANG Yiping. China fruit Zhi-Walnut Roll[M]. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House, 1996.
[2]	时羽杰, 邬晓勇, 糜加轩, 等. 核桃内种皮苦涩味品质代谢组学分析[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(6): 54-64.
	SHI Yujie, WU Xiaoyong, MI Jiaxuan, et al. Metabonomics of bitter taste quality of walnut kernel pellicle[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University (Natural Science Ed), 2021, 49(6): 54-64.
[3]	陈小飞, 张锐, 罗立新, 等. 核桃焦叶病发病因素分析与防控技术要点[J]. 农业科技与信息, 2021, 18(14): 67-68.
	CHEN Xiaofei, ZHANG Rui, LUO Lixin, et al. Analysis of pathogenic factors of walnut scorch leaf disease and key points of prevention and control technology[J]. Agricultural Science-Technology and Information, 2021, 18(14): 67-68.
[4]	王冀川, 艾买尔江·吾斯曼, 阿依谢姆古丽·玉苏普, 等. 核(桃)麦间作系统内小气候特征的初步研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2016, 34(5): 138-145.
	WANG Jichuan, Aimaerijiang Wusiman, Ayixiemuguli Yusupu, et al. Preliminary study on micro-climatic characteristics of walnut and wheat intercropping systems[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2016, 34(5): 138-145.
[5]	高卫红, 韩嵘. 《新疆统计年鉴—2021》[M]. 中国统计出版社, 2021.
	GAO Weihong, HAN Rong. Xinjiang Statistical Yearbook-2021[M]. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2021.
[6]	李源, 蒲胜海, 马晓鹏, 等. 核桃叶片焦枯症特征与成因分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1475-1481. DOI
	LI Yuan, PU Shenghai, MA Xiaopeng, et al. Study on characteristics and causation of walnut withered leaf symptom[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(6): 1475-1481. DOI
[7]	唐书玉, 胡安鸿. 核桃焦叶病防治技术及防治效果[J]. 农村科技, 2019, (5): 26-28.
	TANG Shuyu, HU Anhong. Control technology and control effect of walnut scorch leaf disease[J]. Rural Science & Technology, 2019, (5): 26-28.
[8]	赵景玲, 李志刚. 核桃焦叶发生原因及防治技术[J]. 农村科技, 2022, (1): 39-42.
	ZHAO Jingling, LI Zhigang. Causes and control techniques of walnut scorched leaves[J]. Rural Science & Technology, 2022, (1): 39-42.
[9]	梁智, 张计峰, 井然, 等. 土壤及叶面调控对核桃“叶缘焦枯病” 的防控效果[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2014, 51(9): 1652-1657.
	LIANG Zhi, ZHANG Jifeng, JING Ran, et al. The prevention effect of soil and foliar regulation on“leaf margin scorch disease” of walnut[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 51(9): 1652-1657.
[10]	梁智, 张计峰, 井然, 等. 核桃“叶缘焦枯” 生理病害调控技术[J]. 新疆农业科技, 2014, (1): 19-20.
	LIANG Zhi, ZHANG Jifeng, JING Ran, et al. Control techniques of physiological diseases of walnut “leaf edge scorching”[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Science and Technology, 2014,(1): 19-20.
[11]	张计峰, 梁智, 邹耀湘, 等. 新疆南疆核桃叶缘焦枯病成因分析研究[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2012, 49(7): 1261-1265.
	ZHANG Jifeng, LIANG Zhi, ZOU Yaoxiang, et al. Study on causation of walnut withered leaf symptom in southern Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 49(7): 1261-1265.
[12]	李峻臣, 卢明艳, 宋锋惠, 等. 新疆12个平欧杂种榛品种(系)焦叶发生对坚果经济性状影响[J]. 林业科技通讯, 2022, (7): 43-47.
	LI Junchen, LU Mingyan, SONG Fenghui, et al. Effect of scorch leaf occurrence on economic characters of nut of 12 flat-European hybrid hazel varieties (lines) in Xinjiang[J]. Forest Science and Technology, 2022, (7): 43-47.
[13]	李峻臣, 卢明艳, 史彦江, 等. 平欧杂种榛焦叶原因[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2022, 50(3): 58-63.
	LI Junchen, LU Mingyan, SHI Yanjiang, et al. A preliminary study on the occurrence of Corylus heterophylla × C. avellana L. scorch leaf[J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2022, 50(3): 58-63.
[14]	蒋日盛, 李云平, 黄一华, 等. 连城县李 “焦叶症”调查[J]. 东南园艺, 2021, 9(6): 72-74.
	JIANG Risheng, LI Yunping, HUANG Yihua, et al. Investigation on"leaf scorch"of plum and nane in Liancheng County[J]. Southeast Horticulture, 2021, 9(6): 72-74.
[15]	张小雪, 巫伟峰, 傅振星, 等. ‘芙蓉李’焦叶症与矿质元素含量的关联性[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 49(6): 759-765.
	ZHANG Xiaoxue, WU Weifeng, FU Zhenxing, et al. Correlation analysis between leaf scorch and mineral element contents in plum fruit cv. 'Furongli '[J]. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 49(6): 759-765.
[16]	霍兆志. 枣焦叶病的发生及其防治[J]. 河北林业科技, 2009, (1): 68.
	HUO Zhaozhi. Occurrence and control of jujube scorched leaf disease[J]. The Journal of Hebei Forestry Science and Technology, 2009, (1): 68.
[17]	晏桃英, 崔琪. 枣焦叶病的发生规律及综合防治措施[J]. 湖北植保, 2004,(6): 21-22.
	YAN Taoying, CUI Qi. Occurrence regularity and comprehensive control measures of jujube scorched leaf disease[J]. Hubei Plant Protection, 2004,(6): 21-22.
[18]	郭全恩, 王益权, 郭天文, 等. 甘肃省秦安县苹果叶缘焦枯死亡原因调查[J]. 北方园艺, 2008,(8): 27-29.
	GUO Quan’en, WANG Yiquan, GUO Tianwen, et al. Investigation report on the death reason of apple leaf marginal withered in Qinan County of China[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2008,(8): 27-29.
[19]	郭全恩, 郭天文, 南丽丽, 等. 甘肃省秦安县苹果叶缘焦枯死亡原因的初步研究[J]. 西北农业学报, 2006, 15(1): 68-70.
	GUO Quan'en, GUO Tianwen, NAN Lili, et al. Preliminary survey on the cause of withered and die off of apple leaf in qin`an county of Gansu[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2006, 15(1): 68-70.
[20]	Karimi M R, Paltrinieri S, Sajadinejad M, et al. Molecular detection of prokaryotes in apricot showing decline and leaf scorch symptoms in Iran[J]. Phytopathogenic Mollicutes, 2016, 6(1): 33.
[21]	Mircetich S M. Etiology of almond leaf scorch disease and transmission of the causal agent[J]. Phytopathology, 1976, 66(1): 17.
[22]	Sosnowski M R, Ayres M R, Wilcox W F. Cultivar susceptibility and control of angular leaf scorch in grapevine[J]. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 2022, 28(1): 160-165.
[23]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
	BAO Shidan. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000.
[24]	阿卜杜许库尔·牙合甫, 张强, 王国安, 等. 新丰和新光两个核桃品种光合特性及产量比较[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2012, 49(11): 2008-2013.
	Abuduxukuer Yahefu, ZHANG Qiang, WANG Guoan, et al. Comparison of photosynthetic characteristics and yield of two walnut cultivars[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 49(11): 2008-2013.

品种 Cultivars	养分 Nutrients	处理Treatments					变异系数 CV (%)	野生核桃 T-CK
品种 Cultivars	养分 Nutrients	CK	T₁	T₂	T₃	T₄	变异系数 CV (%)	野生核桃 T-CK
新丰 Xinfeng	N(g/kg)	20.675 ± 2.645 ^a	21.255 ± 0.405^a	23.560 ± 0.160^a	23.140 ± 0.500^a	23.770 ± 4.020^a	6.301	24.325 ± 0.925^a
	P(g/kg)	1.610 ± 0.010^ab	1.745 ± 0.245^a	1.555 ± 0.145^abc	1.645 ± 0.025^ab	1.350 ± 0.260^bc	9.267	1.290 ± 0.080^c
	K(g/kg)	9.035 ± 1.565^b	8.200 ± 1.130^bc	7.550 ± 0.020^bc	7.030 ± 0.010^c	7.075 ± 0.115^c	10.879	23.050 ± 0.750^a
	Ca(mg/kg)	16.450 ± 0.050^cd	18.500 ± 0.900^bcd	19.000 ± 3.000^bc	19.900 ± 2.000^b	23.250 ± 0.050^a	12.807	15.900 ± 0.300^d
	Mg(mg/kg)	8.835 ± 0.665^a	8.740 ± 0.190^a	8.455 ± 0.015^a	8.300 ± 0.270^a	8.310 ± 1.110^a	2.896	7.010 ± 0.140^b
	Mn(mg/kg)	150.000 ± 12.000^a	143.000 ± 0.000^a	147.500 ± 1.500^a	137.500 ± 10.500^a	135.500 ± 10.500^a	4.366	99.000 ± 2.000^b
	Fe(mg/kg)	0.991 ± 0.040^a	0.971 ± 0.060^a	0.889 ± 0.142^ab	0.877 ± 0.082^ab	0.776 ± 0.089^c	9.498	0.590 ± 0.041^c
	Cu(mg/kg)	40.100 ± 1.000^a	27.850 ± 2.350^c	28.550 ± 0.950^c	23.550 ± 2.250^d	21.700 ± 2.200^d	25.29	35.905 ± 1.695^b
	Zn(mg/kg)	18.500 ± 0.500^b	24.100 ± 1.500^ab	34.650 ± 15.550^a	20.900 ± 0.600^b	17.600 ± 5.900^b	29.821	17.850 ± 0.950^b
扎-343 Zha-343	N(g/kg)	21.005 ± 0.745^b	21.100 ± 0.040^b	19.210 ± 0.280^b	20.395 ± 0.695 b	30.380 ± 9.380^a	20.136	24.325 ± 0.925^ab
	P(g/kg)	1.510 ± 0.280^abc	1.755 ± 0.105^a	1.700 ± 0.140^ab	1.625 ± 0.045^ab	1.485 ± 0.025^bc	7.251	1.290 ± 0.080^c
	K(g/kg)	11.850 ± 0.950^b	10.950 ± 0.450^b	9.635 ± 0.965^c	9.500 ± 0.600^c	8.425 ± 0.355^c	13.286	23.050 ± 0.750^a
	Ca(g/kg)	16.650 ± 0.750^b	17.100 ± 1.800^b	20.700 ± 0.700^a	23.100 ± 1.400^a	22.250 ± 2.650^a	14.775	15.900 ± 0.300^b
	Mg(mg/kg)	8.680 ± 0.320^a	8.655 ± 0.295^a	8.455 ± 0.105^ab	8.485 ± 0.115^ab	7.950 ± 0.310^b	3.483	7.010 ± 0.140^c
	Mn(mg/kg)	114.000 ± 0.000^a	111.500 ± 2.500^ab	111.500 ± 3.500^ab	110.000 ± 8.000^ab	105.500 ± 1.500^b	2.844	99.000 ± 2.000^b
	Fe(mg/kg)	0.940 ± 0.016^a	0.891 ± 0.035^ab	0.913 ± 0.197^a	0.780 ± 0.015^b	0.787 ± 0.092^b	8.574	0.590 ± 0.041^c
	Cu(mg/kg)	31.500 ± 2.600^a	20.850 ± 0.250^b	19.400 ± 2.400^b	14.200 ± 3.800^c	12.500 ± 0.800^c	37.899	35.905 ± 1.695^a
	Zn(mg/kg)	21.600 ± 2.600^a	23.550 ± 3.150^a	24.200 ± 0.800^a	23.150 ± 0.150^a	22.400 ± 0.500^a	4.397	17.850 ± 0.950^b

品种 Cultivars	养分 Nutrients	处理Treatments					变异系数 CV (%)	野生核桃 T-CK
品种 Cultivars	养分 Nutrients	CK	T₁	T₂	T₃	T₄	变异系数 CV (%)	野生核桃 T-CK
新丰 Xinfeng	N(g/kg)	20.675 ± 2.645 ^a	21.255 ± 0.405^a	23.560 ± 0.160^a	23.140 ± 0.500^a	23.770 ± 4.020^a	6.301	24.325 ± 0.925^a
	P(g/kg)	1.610 ± 0.010^ab	1.745 ± 0.245^a	1.555 ± 0.145^abc	1.645 ± 0.025^ab	1.350 ± 0.260^bc	9.267	1.290 ± 0.080^c
	K(g/kg)	9.035 ± 1.565^b	8.200 ± 1.130^bc	7.550 ± 0.020^bc	7.030 ± 0.010^c	7.075 ± 0.115^c	10.879	23.050 ± 0.750^a
	Ca(mg/kg)	16.450 ± 0.050^cd	18.500 ± 0.900^bcd	19.000 ± 3.000^bc	19.900 ± 2.000^b	23.250 ± 0.050^a	12.807	15.900 ± 0.300^d
	Mg(mg/kg)	8.835 ± 0.665^a	8.740 ± 0.190^a	8.455 ± 0.015^a	8.300 ± 0.270^a	8.310 ± 1.110^a	2.896	7.010 ± 0.140^b
	Mn(mg/kg)	150.000 ± 12.000^a	143.000 ± 0.000^a	147.500 ± 1.500^a	137.500 ± 10.500^a	135.500 ± 10.500^a	4.366	99.000 ± 2.000^b
	Fe(mg/kg)	0.991 ± 0.040^a	0.971 ± 0.060^a	0.889 ± 0.142^ab	0.877 ± 0.082^ab	0.776 ± 0.089^c	9.498	0.590 ± 0.041^c
	Cu(mg/kg)	40.100 ± 1.000^a	27.850 ± 2.350^c	28.550 ± 0.950^c	23.550 ± 2.250^d	21.700 ± 2.200^d	25.29	35.905 ± 1.695^b
	Zn(mg/kg)	18.500 ± 0.500^b	24.100 ± 1.500^ab	34.650 ± 15.550^a	20.900 ± 0.600^b	17.600 ± 5.900^b	29.821	17.850 ± 0.950^b
扎-343 Zha-343	N(g/kg)	21.005 ± 0.745^b	21.100 ± 0.040^b	19.210 ± 0.280^b	20.395 ± 0.695 b	30.380 ± 9.380^a	20.136	24.325 ± 0.925^ab
	P(g/kg)	1.510 ± 0.280^abc	1.755 ± 0.105^a	1.700 ± 0.140^ab	1.625 ± 0.045^ab	1.485 ± 0.025^bc	7.251	1.290 ± 0.080^c
	K(g/kg)	11.850 ± 0.950^b	10.950 ± 0.450^b	9.635 ± 0.965^c	9.500 ± 0.600^c	8.425 ± 0.355^c	13.286	23.050 ± 0.750^a
	Ca(g/kg)	16.650 ± 0.750^b	17.100 ± 1.800^b	20.700 ± 0.700^a	23.100 ± 1.400^a	22.250 ± 2.650^a	14.775	15.900 ± 0.300^b
	Mg(mg/kg)	8.680 ± 0.320^a	8.655 ± 0.295^a	8.455 ± 0.105^ab	8.485 ± 0.115^ab	7.950 ± 0.310^b	3.483	7.010 ± 0.140^c
	Mn(mg/kg)	114.000 ± 0.000^a	111.500 ± 2.500^ab	111.500 ± 3.500^ab	110.000 ± 8.000^ab	105.500 ± 1.500^b	2.844	99.000 ± 2.000^b
	Fe(mg/kg)	0.940 ± 0.016^a	0.891 ± 0.035^ab	0.913 ± 0.197^a	0.780 ± 0.015^b	0.787 ± 0.092^b	8.574	0.590 ± 0.041^c
	Cu(mg/kg)	31.500 ± 2.600^a	20.850 ± 0.250^b	19.400 ± 2.400^b	14.200 ± 3.800^c	12.500 ± 0.800^c	37.899	35.905 ± 1.695^a
	Zn(mg/kg)	21.600 ± 2.600^a	23.550 ± 3.150^a	24.200 ± 0.800^a	23.150 ± 0.150^a	22.400 ± 0.500^a	4.397	17.850 ± 0.950^b

焦叶程度 Scorch degree	SPAD	N	P	K	Ca	Mg	Mn	Fe	Cu	Zn
新丰 Xinfeng	-0.910^**	0.503	-0.208	-0.875^**	0.823^**	-0.707^**	-0.598^*	-0.566^*	-0.883^**	0.058
扎-343 Zha-343	-0.831^**	0.517^*	-0.482	-0.680^**	0.812^**	-0.391	-0.541^*	-0.707^**	-0.848^**	-0.118

焦叶程度 Scorch degree	SPAD	N	P	K	Ca	Mg	Mn	Fe	Cu	Zn
新丰 Xinfeng	-0.910^**	0.503	-0.208	-0.875^**	0.823^**	-0.707^**	-0.598^*	-0.566^*	-0.883^**	0.058
扎-343 Zha-343	-0.831^**	0.517^*	-0.482	-0.680^**	0.812^**	-0.391	-0.541^*	-0.707^**	-0.848^**	-0.118

品种 Cultivars	模型 Model	平方和 Sum of squares	Df	均方 Mean square	F	Sig.
新丰 Xinfeng	回归	8 484.713	2	4 242.357	27.514	0.000
	残差	1 850.287	12	154.191
	总计	10 335.000	14
扎-343 Zha-343	回归	9 775.576	3	3 258.525	64.073	0.000
	残差	559.424	11	50.857
	总计	10 335.000	14