DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Planting Density and Harvesting Time on Production of Small-size Tuberous Roots in Sweet Potato

소형 고구마 생산을 위한 재식거리와 수확시기의 영향

  • Lee, Na-Ra (Institute of Life Science and Natural Resources, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Choi, Kyu-Hwan (Jeollabuk-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Yeob (Institute of Life Science and Natural Resources, Wonkwang University)
  • 이나라 (원광대학교 생명자원과학연구소) ;
  • 최규환 (전라북도농업기술원 농식품개발과) ;
  • 이승엽 (원광대학교 생명자원과학연구소)
  • Received : 2015.08.17
  • Accepted : 2015.11.09
  • Published : 2015.12.31

Abstract

Small-sized tuber of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas Lam.) is more preferred by Korean consumers, because it is convenient to eat with hands, and can easily be steamed or roasted in small pan as a healthy snack for a small family. The present study was aimed to investigate the effect of high-density plantings and harvesting times on production of smallsized tuber (50~200 g). Four varieties ('Annobeny', 'Daeyumi', 'Shinzami', and 'Yeonhwangmi') were planted in 2-row zigzag high-density planting ($75{\times}30cm$, A; $75{\times}25cm$, B) and 1-row planting ($75{\times}25cm$, control) covered with black vinyl film on May 23th, 2014. Marketable yields and small-sized tuber yields were compared between 120- and 150-day harvesting. Vine length and fresh weight per plant were significantly decreased in 2-row planting A and B plots compared to the control at 120 days after planting. Weight of tuber per plant, mean weight of tuber and number of tuber per plant were significantly decreased in 120-day harvesting of A and B plots than in the control. Marketable yields per 10a were increased by 17% ($2.4ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$) and 8% ($2.6ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$) in 120-day harvesting of A and B plots compared to the control ($2.4ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$), and those were largely increased by 29% ($4.0ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$) and 26% ($3.9ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$) in 150-day harvesting than in the control ($3.1ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$). Proportions of small size tuber (50~200 g) were increased by about 65% in 150-day harvesting of A and B plots compared to the control (55.3%). Small-size tuber yield and marketable yield were highly increased in 150-day harvesting of 2-row zigzag high-density planting A ($75{\times}30cm$).

소형고구마는 간식용으로 찌고 굽거나 먹기에 편리한 점 때문에 소비자들의 선호도가 높은데, 소형고구마(50~200 g) 생산에 미치는 2조 밀식재배와 수확시기의 영향을 조사하였다. 4품종('연황미', '안노베니', '대유미', '신자미')을 2014년 5월 23일 정식하여 120일과 150일째에 생육특성, 상저수량과 소형고구마 생산성을 비교하였다. 재식거리는 관행 대조구($75{\times}25cm$, 1 row, $5300{\cdot}10a^{-1}$)와 2조 밀식재배 A ($75{\times}30cm$, 2 row, $8,800{\cdot}10a^{-1}$), B ($75{\times}25cm$, 2 row, $10,600{\cdot}10a^{-1}$) 등 3처리로 하여, 비닐피복 재배를 하였다. 정식 120일째에 밀식재배 A, B구의 줄기신장과 주당 생체중은 대조구보다 유의하게 감소하였다. 120일 수확에서 주당 괴근중, 평균괴근중과 주당 괴근수도 대조구보다 밀식재배 A, B구에서 유의하게 감소하였다. 재식개체수의 증가에 따라 120일 수확에서 상저수량은 대조구($2.4ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$)보다 밀식재배 A, B구에서 평균 17% ($2.8ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$), 8% ($2.6ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$) 증가하였다. 150일 수확에서 상저수량은 대조구($3.1ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$)보다 밀식재배 A, B구에서 평균 29% ($4.0ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$), 26% ($3.9ton{\cdot}10a^{-1}$)의 유의한 증가를 보였다. 50~200 g의 소형고구마 비율은 밀식재배 A, B구에서 모두 65% 정도로 대조구(55.3%)보다 증가하였다. 따라서 상저수량 및 소형고구마 생산에 미치는 2조 밀식재배는 $75{\times}30cm$로 150일에 수확하는 것이 효과적이었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bouwkamp, J. C. and L. E. Scott. 1980. Effect of plant density on yield and yield components of sweet potato. Ann. Trop. Res. 2 : 1-11.
  2. Guertala, E. A. and J. A. Kembleb. 1997. Nitrogen rate and within -row plant spacing effects on sweetpotato yield and grade. J. Plant Nutr. 20 : 355-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904169709365256
  3. Kattan, A. A. and B. B. Bryan. 1960. On newly leveled land irrigation and twin spacing improved yield and grade of sweet potatoes. Arkansas Farm Research 9(6) : 8 (Abstract).
  4. Kim, H. S., Y. H. Moon, M. N. Chung, Y. S. Ahn, J. S. Lee, and J. K. Bang. 2006. Effect of planting date, plant spacing, and harvest time on the production of small-sized sweetpotato in the alpine zone of Korea. Korean crop sci. 51 : 193-197.
  5. KOSIS (Korean Statistical Information Service). 2012. http:kosis.kr.
  6. Lee, S. Y., S. Y. Sim, S. W. Lee, H. K. Lee, and J. W. Lim. 2006. Growth and fruit characteristics as affected by different planting distances among plant types in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) for pickles. Kor. J. Hort. Sci. Technol. 24 : 162-167.
  7. Miller, J. G., 1930. A study of mutations of the Porto Rico sweet potato. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 27 : 343-346.
  8. Ming, S. U., J. Huang, X. Gan, R. Xu, and J. Ye. 2011. Effects of plant-row spacing on growth and yield characters of sweet potato. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi : 2011-05 (Abstract).
  9. Mulkey, W. A. and W. B. McLemore. 1992. Effect of plant spacing on yield of selected sweet potato cultivars with various planting dates. HortScience 27(11) : 1165 (Abstract).
  10. Nam, S. Y., S. K. Jong, C. W. Rho, and K. M. Kim. 1997. Effect of planting density on the growth and yield in early cultivation of sweet potato. RDA. J. Crop Sci. 39(1) : 61-67.
  11. Ramon, A. Arancibia, C. D. Smith, D. R. LaBonte, J. L. Main, T. P. Smith, and A. Q. Villordon. 2014. Optimizing sweetpotato production for fresh and processing markets through plant spacing and planting-harvest time. HortTechnology 24 : 16-24.
  12. RDA. 2006. Cultivation of sweet potato. Standard textbook for agronomy-28. Rural Development Administration. Suwon. Korea.
  13. Ruiz, M. E., D. Pezo, and L. Martinez. 1980. The use of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas,(L.) Lam) in animal feeding: I agronomic aspects. Trop. Anim. Prod. 5 : 144-151.
  14. Schultheis, J. R., S. A. Walters, and D. E. Adams. 1999. In-row plant spacing and date of harvest of 'Beauregard' sweetpotato affect yield and return on investment. HortScience 34 : 1229-1233.
  15. Sulaiman, H. and O. Sasaki. 2001. Influence of planting density on the root growth and yield of sweet potato : Ipomoea batatas Lam. Mem. Fac. Agr. Kagoshima Univ. 37 : 11-19.
  16. Yi, E. S., Y. S. Lee, H. D. Kim, S. T. Yoon, and D. J. Lee. 2007. Effects of soil compacting and pe film mulching on growth and yield in sweet potato "Keumshi" and "Shinyulmee". Koran J. Intl. Agri. 19 : 43-48.