Accès libre

Varietal Differences in Wet Damage of Broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. italica) Under Waterlogging Conditions

À propos de cet article

Citez

Figure 1.

Wet treatment in the pot experiment (upper, A) and in the field experiment (lower, B and C)
Wet treatment in the pot experiment (upper, A) and in the field experiment (lower, B and C)

Figure 2.

The entire site of the field experiment (A), three broccoli cultivars on the 6th day after waterlogging treatment (71–74 days after sowing) in 2021 (white and blue arrows indicate CONT and WET, respectively): ‘Shigemori’ (B), ‘Sawayutaka’ (C), and ‘First Star’ (D), head of ‘Shigemori’ in CONT at harvest stage (E), “leafy” head of ‘Shigemori’ (white arrows indicate leafy symptom) in CONT (F), flower head of ‘First Star’ in WET (G)
The entire site of the field experiment (A), three broccoli cultivars on the 6th day after waterlogging treatment (71–74 days after sowing) in 2021 (white and blue arrows indicate CONT and WET, respectively): ‘Shigemori’ (B), ‘Sawayutaka’ (C), and ‘First Star’ (D), head of ‘Shigemori’ in CONT at harvest stage (E), “leafy” head of ‘Shigemori’ (white arrows indicate leafy symptom) in CONT (F), flower head of ‘First Star’ in WET (G)

Figure 3.

Plants of three broccoli cultivars 5–6 days after waterlogging treatment (65–66 days after sowing) in the 2021 pot experiment (scale bars represent 50 cm)
Plants of three broccoli cultivars 5–6 days after waterlogging treatment (65–66 days after sowing) in the 2021 pot experiment (scale bars represent 50 cm)

Figure 4.

Shoot fresh weight of three broccoli cultivars at 79–80 days after sowing in the 2020 and 2021 pot experimentSm – ‘Shigemori’, Sy – ‘Sawayutaka’, FS – ‘First Star’; the asterisks (*, ***) within a cultivar indicate significant differences from CONT at the 5% and 0.1% level according to Dunnett's test (n = 5), ns – nonsignificant; vertical bars represent standard errors; the number above the standard error shows the percentage compared with CONT of the same cultivar in the same experimental year; treatment WET2 was not conducted in 2020
Shoot fresh weight of three broccoli cultivars at 79–80 days after sowing in the 2020 and 2021 pot experimentSm – ‘Shigemori’, Sy – ‘Sawayutaka’, FS – ‘First Star’; the asterisks (*, ***) within a cultivar indicate significant differences from CONT at the 5% and 0.1% level according to Dunnett's test (n = 5), ns – nonsignificant; vertical bars represent standard errors; the number above the standard error shows the percentage compared with CONT of the same cultivar in the same experimental year; treatment WET2 was not conducted in 2020

Figure 5.

Water content of leaf (A) and stem (B) of three broccoli cultivars at 65–66 days after sowing in the 2021pot experimentSm – ‘Shigemori’, Sy – ‘Sawayutaka’, FS – ‘First Star’; different letters within the same cultivar indicate significant differences at the 5% level according to the Tukey–Kramer test (n = 5), ns – nonsignificant; vertical bars represent standard errors
Water content of leaf (A) and stem (B) of three broccoli cultivars at 65–66 days after sowing in the 2021pot experimentSm – ‘Shigemori’, Sy – ‘Sawayutaka’, FS – ‘First Star’; different letters within the same cultivar indicate significant differences at the 5% level according to the Tukey–Kramer test (n = 5), ns – nonsignificant; vertical bars represent standard errors

Figure 6.

Mean leaf area index (A) and net assimilation rate (B) of 3 broccoli cultivars calculated from the dry weight measurements between the wet treatment period (65–66 days after sowing) and the later growth stage (79–80 days after sowing) in the 2021 pot experimentNote: see Figure 5
Mean leaf area index (A) and net assimilation rate (B) of 3 broccoli cultivars calculated from the dry weight measurements between the wet treatment period (65–66 days after sowing) and the later growth stage (79–80 days after sowing) in the 2021 pot experimentNote: see Figure 5

Figure 7.

Relationships between shoot biomass and flower head yield of broccoli at the harvest stage in the 2021 field experimentSm – ‘Shigemori’, Sy – ‘Sawayutaka’, FS – ‘First Star’; closed symbols represent the control group (CONT), opened symbols represent the wet treatment group (WET); the asterisks (***) represent significance in the regression analysis at the 0.1% level using Pearson correlation coefficient
Relationships between shoot biomass and flower head yield of broccoli at the harvest stage in the 2021 field experimentSm – ‘Shigemori’, Sy – ‘Sawayutaka’, FS – ‘First Star’; closed symbols represent the control group (CONT), opened symbols represent the wet treatment group (WET); the asterisks (***) represent significance in the regression analysis at the 0.1% level using Pearson correlation coefficient

Figure 8.

Flower head diameter (A) and head yield (B) of three broccoli cultivars at harvest in the 2021 field experimentSm – ‘Shigemori’, Sy – ‘Sawayutaka’, FS – ‘First Star’; the asterisks (**, ***) within a cultivar indicate significant differences from CONT at the 1% and 0.1% level according to Student's t-test (n = 5), ns – nonsignificant; vertical bars represent standard errors; the number above the standard error shows the percentage compared with CONT of the same cultivar
Flower head diameter (A) and head yield (B) of three broccoli cultivars at harvest in the 2021 field experimentSm – ‘Shigemori’, Sy – ‘Sawayutaka’, FS – ‘First Star’; the asterisks (**, ***) within a cultivar indicate significant differences from CONT at the 1% and 0.1% level according to Student's t-test (n = 5), ns – nonsignificant; vertical bars represent standard errors; the number above the standard error shows the percentage compared with CONT of the same cultivar

Comparison of variables between treatments and cultivars at 65–66 days after sowing (just after wet treatment) in the 2021 pot experiment

Water content (%)z

shoots leaves stems
Treatment (T) CONT 88.5 ± 0.3 a 88.5 ± 0.2 a 88.1 ± 0.4 a
WET2 87.5 ± 0.1 a 87.5 ± 0.1 a 87.5 ± 0.3 a
WET3 79.4 ± 0.7 b 78.9 ± 0.7 b 81.4 ± 0.7 b

Cultivar (C) Sm 85.5 ± 0.9 a 85.4 ± 1.1 a 85.5 ± 0.6 a
Sy 85.2 ± 1.5 a 85.0 ± 1.5 a 85.9 ± 1.2 a
FS 84.8 ± 1.5 a 84.6 ± 1.5 a 85.6 ± 1.2 a

ANOVAy df MS Sig. MS Sig. MS Sig.

T 2 371.1 *** 418.3 *** 201.0 ***

C 2 1.9 ns 2.5 ns 0.9 ns

T × C 4 10.6 * 9.6 * 20.3 *

Comparison of variables between treatments and cultivars between 65–66 days after sowing (just after wet treatment) and 79–80 days after sowing (later growth stage) in the 2021 pot experiment

CGR (g DW·m−2·d−1) Mean LAI (m2·m−2) NAR (g DW·m−2·d−1)
Treatment (T) CONT 98.5 ± 2.8 a 5.6 ± 0.2 a 17.5 ± 0.6 a
WET2 76.1 ± 5.8 b 5.0 ± 0.3 a 15.5 ± 1.4 a
WET3 7.1 ± 6.4 c 3.1 ± 0.3 b 0.6 ± 3.0 b

Cultivar (C) Sm 70.9 ± 12.1 a 5.3 ± 0.4 a 12.2 ± 1.7 a
Sy 51.0 ± 12.1 b 4.3 ± 0.3 ab 11.5 ± 2.2 a
FS 59.9 ± 14.1 b 4.1 ± 0.5 b 9.8 ± 4.6 a

ANOVAy df MS Sig. MS Sig. MS Sig.

T 2 34010.8 *** 26.4 *** 1268.8 ***

C 2 1489.2 * 6.6 *** 22.4 ns

T × C 4 349.4 ns 1.7 * 165.9 *

Comparison of variables over years of experiment, treatments, and cultivars at 82–83 days after sowing (later growth stage) in the pot experiment

Fresh weight (g FW)z

shoots leaves stems
Year (Y) 2020 445.9 ± 57.1 a 291.2 ± 38.6 a 154.7 ± 24.1 a
2021 409.4 ± 39.0 a 293.5 ± 28.0 a 115.9 ± 14.6 b

Treatment (T) CONT 668.2 ± 16.9 a 452.1 ± 13.6 a 216.1 ± 18.0 a
WET3 187.1 ± 23.0 b 132.6 ± 18.1 b 54.5 ± 6.9 b

Cultivar (C) Sm 423.6 ± 45.2 a 330.0 ± 35.2 a 93.6 ± 10.9 b
Sy 412.5 ± 63.9 a 226.1 ± 32.0 b 186.4 ± 33.4 a
FS 385.7 ± 69.5 a 279.2 ± 51.3 ab 106.5 ± 19.0 b

ANOVAy df MS Sig. MS Sig. MS Sig.

Y 1 20018 79 ns 22613 ***

T 1 3471190 *** 1530891 *** 391652 ***

C 2 8368 ns 59574 *** 55733 ***

Y × T 1 138018 ** 45899 ** 24733 **

Y × C 2 4530 ns 4079 ns 3374 ns

T × C 2 82750 *** 47534 *** 42691 ***

Y × T × C 2 5460 ns 410 ns 4386
eISSN:
2353-3978
Langue:
Anglais
Périodicité:
2 fois par an
Sujets de la revue:
Life Sciences, Biotechnology, Plant Science, Ecology, other