頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 黃麻鐘麻及泰國麻生理學的比較研究--光照感應性之研究=Physiological Studies on Jute, Kenaf and Roselle--1. Study on Photoperiodism |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 季景元; 許水田; | 書刊名 | 中華農學會報 |
| 卷 期 | 61 民57.03 |
| 頁 次 | 頁1-22 |
| 關鍵詞 | 黃麻; 鐘麻; 泰國麻; 光照感應性; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 本研究工作連續舉辦2年,53年度係用麻袋原料黃麻圓果種3品種,鐘麻2品種,泰國麻1品種,54年加用黃麻長莢種1品種,從事光照感應性之研究,概用缽栽。各處理每天自然光照10小時外,另在暗室用250支電燈,分別調節至每日總光照時間為10?,11?,12?及13?小時,並以自然光照為對照,發芽後?開始處理,並調查株高開花期等性狀。麻株收穫,53年係以種子成熟為準,54年係以纖維為準,以生長曲線及照片圖表,分別簡敘結果如次: (一)幼苗生長速度,一般以鐘麻最快,黃麻次之,泰國麻最慢。 (二)不同光照時間各品種之營養生長日數,隨光照時間之加長而延長,光照時間愈長,則營養生長期愈長。短日照時間處理者,鐘麻51號,黃麻Solimoes及泰國麻最長,黃麻臺農2號及鐘麻培格7號次之,黃麻臺農1號及印度長莢種最短,長日照處理者,一般均生長良好,除13? 小時光照區鐘麻51號及泰國麻後期久不開花,終至因病死亡外,其他品種之營養生長日數,依次為鐘麻培格7號,黃麻Solimoes,黃麻臺農2號,黃麻臺農1號及黃麻印度長莢種,顯示各品種間之營養生長日數,在各光照處理所列次序,大致無甚變異,惟鐘麻培格7號因光照時間增加而營養生長日數亦延長,足見其對於短日照之敏感性。 (三)不同品種各光照處理之生長,黃麻4品種均顯示每日光照處理愈短,停止生長愈早,最後麻株亦愈低,而短日照處理後停止生長者,則以臺農1號及印度長莢種最早,臺農2號次之,Solimoes最晚。鐘麻及泰國麻中,經短日照處理後停止生長者,以鐘麻培格7號最早,泰國麻次之,鐘麻51號最晚,顯示各品種均為短日照作物,而對於光照之感應性,則顯有差異。 (四)分枝數黃麻品種間略有差異,除Solimoes外,光照處理者均較對照未處理者分枝長而少。鐘麻在短日照處理時,因促進生殖生長,尚有分枝,至長日照或對照未處理者則無分枝發生,泰國麻則在長日照或對照未處理者,有時尚有分枝。 (五)不同光照時間各品種之株高,莖長、鮮株重、鮮莖重及乾粗皮重,均隨光照時間之加長而增加,短日照處理時,黃麻Solimoes及鐘麻51號較鈍感,收穫時麻株最高,乾粗皮最重,呈現良好性狀,而黃麻長莢種則低矮,泰國麻生長,均不及黃麻鐘麻各品種。至於13? 小時之長日照處理後,收穫時株高,則以鐘麻2品種最高,黃麻Solimoes及黃麻臺農2號與泰國麻次之,黃麻印度長莢種最矮,惟一般而言,性狀均較正常良好,乾粗皮重,除鐘麻51號及泰國麻因病死亡外,以鐘麻培格7號最高,黃麻臺農2號次之。 (六)乾粗皮對鮮株%,黃麻鐘麻及泰國麻各品種經短日照處理者均不及長日照及對照未處理者。 (七)光照時間之長短,對於供試品種之平均果數、種子重、每果種子數等有關採種量之因子,並無規律之影響,光照時間長者,營養生長期多延長,後期麻株常死亡,反會影響採種。 (八)一般而言,黃麻鐘麻及泰國麻均為短日照作物,在短日照時,黃麻Solimoes及鐘麻51號較遲鈍,開花晚,顯示其良好性狀,長日照時,普通黃麻鐘麻及泰國麻均顯示正常良好性狀,而黃麻印度長莢種,則無論光照處理長短,開花早,分枝多,麻株矮、生長均差,殊不適於臺灣栽培。泰國麻開花晚,生長慢,亦不如黃麻及鐘麻。 |
| 英文摘要 | Four varieties of jute, (Corchorus capsularis L.) main material for making gunny sacks and its substitutes, two varieties of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) and one variety of roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L. var. altissima) in 1964 and the same material together with an Indian jute variety of Corchorus olitorious L. in 1965 had been selected as materials to study the effect of different lengths of photoperiod on their growth and yield of seed and fiber. Each of these material was grown 4 plants in each of 8 pots. These pots were divided into 4 sets and treated with light for 10?, 11?, 12?, and 13? hours a day respectively. They were controlled by 10 hours of natural day light and additional different lengths of artificial light treatment with 250 watt. of electric light in dark room and compared with natural day light as check. They were harvested mainly for seed in 1964 and that for dry ribbon in 1965. The results are described briefly with reference of growth curves, tables and photographs as follows: (1) In seedling stage, the growth of kenaf was the fastest and that of jute was faster than that of roselle. (2) The vegetative growth days of different crops of varieties increased with the increase of daily photoperiod. The order of vegetative growth days during shorter photoperiod was as follows: Kenaf No. 51> jute Solimoes > roselle> jute Tainung No.2> kenaf BG-52-7> jute Tainung No.1> Indian jute of C. olitorius, while that during longer photoperiod was as follows: kenaf BG-52-7> jute Solimoes > jute Tainung No.2 > jute Tainung No.1> Indian jute of C. olitorius. It is obvious that kenaf BG-52-7 is more sensitive to shorter photoperiod for its vegetative growth days increase significantly with the increase of daily photoperiod. (3) Ther growth of different varieties during different photoperiods is described as follows: A. Four varieties of jute stopped growing earlier during shorter photoperiod. Consequently, their plant height would be shorter. Among them, Tainung No.1 and Indian jute of C. olitorius stopped growing earliest and Tainung No.2 stopped growing earlier than Solimoes. B. Kenaf BG-52-7 stopped growing earliest and roselle stopped growing earlier than kenaf No.51. All varieties of jute, kenaf and roselle are short day plant but the effect of different photoperiods on their growth is different significantly. (4) With the exception of jute Solimoes, branches of other jute varieties were longer and fewer during different phototperiods than that in natural condition Kenaf had few branches during shorter photoperiod and had no branch during longer photoperiod. However, roselle sometimes had few branches during longer photoperiod and in natural condition. (5) The plant height, stem length, weight of fresh plant, weight of fresh stem and yield of dry ribbon of different crops of varieties increased with the increase of photoperiod. Jute Solimoes and kenaf No.51 were the highest, Indian jute of C. olitorius the lowest during shorter period, while two varieties of kenaf were the highest, jute Solimoes, Tainung No.2 and roselle the next, and Indian jute of C. olitorius the lowest during longer photoperiod. (6) Percentage of dry ribbon from fresh plant of different varieties of jute, kenaf and roselle was lower during shorter photoperiod than that during longer photoperiod. (7) There was no regular effect of different photoperiods on number of capsules per plant, weight of seeds per plant, weight of seeds per capsules and other related factors of seed collection from different crops or varieties. Amount of seeds might be decreased owing to possible death of plants in long growth period during longer photoperiod. (8) In general, jute, kenaf and roselle are short day plants. Jute Solimoes and kenaf No.51 bloom later and grow normally during shorter photoperiod. Most varieties of jute kenaf and roselle grow normally during longer photoperiod. No matter how longer the photoperiod may be, Indian jute of C. olitorius bloom earlier and grow with short stem and more branches. Therefore, it is not suitable to be grown in Taiwan. Roselle is also not so good as jute and kenaf in Taiwan for its slower growth and later blooming. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。