請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/19791
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張祖亮(Tsu-Tiang Chang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Tzu-Hsuan Hsu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 徐子軒 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T02:19:21Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2015-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2015-08-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
References 王冉、劉志剛、楊沛琦. 2012. 植物日光誘導葉綠素螢光遙感原理及研究進展. 地球科學進展. 27(11): 1221-1228. 沈海龍. 2009. 苗木培育學. 中國林業出版社. 北京 林讀標. 1996. 林木種子採集、處理、儲藏、休眠與發芽. 台灣林業試驗所印行. 林業季刊第 66 號. 姚銘輝、盧虎生、朱鈞. 2002. 葉綠素螢光與作物生理反應. 科學農業. 50(1/2): 31-41. 許原瑞. 1998. 造林苗木品質與培育管理. 台灣省林業試驗所. 台北. 台灣. 黃裕星. 1982. 林業苗木培育技術. 行政院農業委員會印行. 農委會林業特刊第四號. 喻方圓、周景莉、洑香香、李慶梅. 2008. 林木種苗質量檢驗技術. 北京林業出版社. 北京. 楊政川、洪堯增. 1978. 苗木根系再生潛能與造林成活率之關係. 台灣林業. 4(4): 3-4.15 . 楊純明、蘇慕蓉. 1997. 水稻族群植冠反射光譜之分析. 中華農業氣象. 4: 87-95 廖天賜、方榮坤. 1985. 光臘樹苗木分級及枝幹試驗. 與大實驗林研究報告第6 號. p: 37-45 . 潘富俊. 1992. 異葉銀合歡優劣苗生長之比較. 台灣林業試驗所印行. 林業試驗所研究報告季刊. 7(1): 23-26. Altland, J. E., C. H. Gilliam., J. H. Edwards., G. J. Keever., D. C. Fare., and J. L. Sibley. 2002. Rapid determination of nitrogen status in annual vinca. J. Environ Hort. 20:189-194. Apan, A., A.P. Held., S. Phinn., M. Stuart., and J. Markley. 2003. Formulation and assessment of narrow-band vegetation indices from EO-1 hyperion imagery for discriminating sugarcane disease. Proc. Spatial Sci. Conf. Ball, M.C., JA. Butterworth., J.S. Roden., R. Christian., and J.J.G. Egerton. 1994. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence to forest ecology. Australian Journal Plant Physiology. 1994:311-319. Belanger, R.P. and McAlpine R.B. 1975. Survival and early growth of planted sweetgum related to root-collar diameter. Tree Planters’ Notes 26: 1–21. Binder, W.D., Fielder P., Mohammed G.H., L’Hirondelle S.J., Colombo S.J. and Noland T.L.1997. Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence for stock quality assessment with different types of fluorometers. New For. 13: 63–89. Blair, R. and F. Cech. 1974. Morphological seedling grades compared after thirteen growing seasons. Tree Planters' Notes. 25(1):5-7. Bonneville, M.C. and Fyles, J.W. 2006. Assessing variations in SPAD-502 chloro -phyll meter measurements and their relationships with nutrient content of trembling aspen foliage. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 37(3-4):525-539. Bunting, W. R. 1980. Seedling quality: growth and development soil relationships, seedling growth and development, density control relationships. Pages 21-42 in Proc., North American forest tree nursery soils workshop (L. P. Abrahamson and D. H. Bickelhaupt, eds.). State Univ. New York, Coll. Environ. Sci. and Forestry, Syracuse. Burr, K.E. 1990. The target seedling concepts: bud dormancy and cold hardiness. In: Rose, R.; Campbell, S.J.; and Landis, T.D., eds. Target Seedling Symposium, Combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery associations; 1990 august 13–17; Roseburg, OR. general Technical Report RM–200. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of agriculture (USDa) Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range experiment Station: 79-90. Burdett, A.N. 1979. New methods for measuring root growth capacity: their value in assessing lodgepole pine stock quality. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 9: 63-67. Burdett, A.N., D.G. Simpson., and C.F. Thompson. 1983. Root development and plantation establishment success. Plant and Soil 71: 103-110. Dickson A., Leaf A.L. and Hosner J.F. 1960. Quality appraisal of white spruce and white pine seedling stock in nurseries. For. Chron. 36: 10–13. Dubey, R.S. 1997. Photosynthesis in plants under stressful conditions. In: Pessarakli M. (ed.), Handbook of Photosynthesis. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, p. 859-875. Dunsworth, G.B. 1997. Plant quality assessment: an industrial perspective. New For. 13: 439-448. Duryea, M.L. 1985. Evaluating seedling quality: importance to reforestation. In: Duryea M.L. (ed.), Evaluating Seedling Quality: Principles, Procedures, and Predictive Abilities of Major Tests. For. Res. Lab., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR, p. 1-6. Edwards, C. 1998. Testing plant quality. Forestry Commission Forest Practice Information Note No. 11. Filella, I., J. Peñuelas, L. Llorens., and M. Estiarte. 2004. Reflectance assessment of seasonal and annual changes in biomass and CO2 uptake of a Mediterranean shrubland submitted to experimental warming and drought. Remote Sensing of Environment 90: 308–318 Filella, I., A. Porcar-Castell., S. Munné-Bosch., J. Bäck., MF. Garbulsky., and J. Peñuelas. 2009. PRI assesment of long-term changes in carotenoids/chlorophyll ratio and short-term changes in de-epoxidation state of the xanthophyll cycle. International Journal of Remote Sensing 30: 4443-4455. Havaux, M., and R. Lannoye. 1985. Drought tolerance of hard wheat cultivars measured by a rapid chlorophyll fluorescence test. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 212-226. Hawkins C.D.B. and Binder W.D. 1990. State of the art seedling stock quality tests based on seedling physiology. In: Rose R., Campbell S.J. and Landis T.D. (eds), Target Seedling Symposium. Proceedings, Combined Meeting of the Western Forest Nursery Associations. USDA For. Serv., Roseburg, OR, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-200, pp. 91–121. Hermann, R.K. 1964. Importance of top-root ratios for survival of Douglas-fir seedlings. Tree Planter's Notes, 64: 7-11. Jacobs, D.F. and Seifert J.R. 2004. Re-evaluating the significance of the first-order lateral root grading criterion for hardwood seedlings. In: Yaussy D.A., Hix D.M., Long R.P. and Goebel P.C. (eds), Proceedings, 14th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. USDA For. Serv., North- eastern For. Exp. Sta., Newtown Square, PA, Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-316, p. 382-388. Jacobs, D.F., Salifu K.F. and Seifert J.R. 2006. Relative contribution of initial root and shoot morphology in predicting field performance of hardwood seedlings. New For. 30: 235–251. Kozlowski, T.T., Torrie J.H. and Marshall P.E. 1973. Predictability of shoot length from bud size in Pinus resinosa Ait. Can. J. For. Res. 3: 34–38. Lazár, D.1999. Chlorophyll a fluorescence induction. – Biochim. biophys. Acta. 1412: 1-28. Lazár, D., and P. Ilík. 1997. High-temperature induced chlorophyll fluorescence changes in barley leaves. Comparison of the critical temperatures determined from fluorescence induction and from fluorescence temperature curve. – Plant Sci.124: 159-164. Li, Y.C., A.K. Alva., D.V. Calvert., and M. Zhang. A Rapid Nondestructive Technique to Predict Leaf Nitrogen Status of Grapefruit Tree with Various Nitrogen Fertilization Practices. HortTechnology. 8: 81-86. Loh, F.C.W., J.C. Grabosky., and N.L. Bassuk. 2002. Using the SPAD 502 meter to assess chlorophyll and nitrogen content of Benjamin fig and cottonwood leaves. HortTechnol. 12: 682-686. Lopushinsky, W. 1990. Seedling moisture status. In: Rose, R., Campbell, S.J. and Landis, T.D., eds. proceedings, Target seedling symposium, Combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery associations. USDa Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range experiment Station, general Technical Report. RM–200: 123-138. Lopushinsky, W., and T. Beebe. 1976. Relationship of shoot-root ratio to survival and growth of outplanted Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine seedlings. USDA For. Ber. Res. Note PNM-274, p. 7. Nambiar, E.K.S. 1984. Significance of first-order lateral roots on the growth of young radiata pine under environmental stress. Aus. For. Res. 14: 187–199. Maire, G.L., C. Francois., and E. Dufrene. 2004. Towards universal broad leaf chlorophyll indices using PROSPECT simulated database and hyper spectral reflectance measurements .Remote Sensing of Environment , 89(1): 1-28. Madakadze, I.C., K.A. Stewart., R.M. Madakadze., P.R. Peterson., B.E. Coulman., and D.L.Smith. 1999. Field evaluation of the chlorophyll meter to predict yield and nitrogen concentration of switchgrass. Journal of Plant Nutrition , 22: 1001- 1010. Makarova, V., Kazimirko Y., Krendeleva T., Kukarskikh G., Lavrukhina O., Pogosyan S., Yakovleva O. and Garab G. 1998. Fv/Fm as a stress indicator for woody plants from urbanecosystem. In: Garab G. (ed.), Photosynthesis: Mechanisms and Effects, Volume V, Proceedings of the XI th International Congress on Photosynthesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,Netherlands, p. 4065-4068. Mattsson, a. 1997. predicting field performance using seedling quality assessment. New Forests. 13: 227-252. McCreary, D.D. and Duryea M.L. 1987. Predicting field performance of Douglas-fir seedlings: comparison of root growth potential, vigor and plant moisture stress. New For. 1: 153–169. Minotti, P.L., D.E. Halseth., and J.B. Sieczka. 1994. Field chlorophyll measurements to assess the nitrogen status of potato varieties. HortScience. 29:1497–1500. Miah, M.N.H., T. Yoshida., and Y. Yomamoto. 1997. Effect of nitrogen application during ripening period on photosynthesis and dry matter production and its impact on yield and yield components of semi dwarf indica rice varieties under water culture conditions. Soil Sci. and Plant Nut. 43(1): 205-217. Moulton, R.J. and Hernandez G. 1999. Tree planting in the United States – 1998. Tree Planters’Notes 49: 23–36. Mohammed, G.H.; Binder, W.D.; and gillies, S.L. 1995. Chlorophyll fluorescence: a review of its practical forestry applications and instrumentation. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 10: 383-410. Mullin, R.E. and Svaton, J. 1972. A grading :Study with white spruce nursery stock. Commonw. Forestry Review 51(l):62-69. Peng, S., P.V. Garcia, R.C. Laza, A. L. Sanico, R.M. Visperas, and K.G. Cassman. 1996. Increasd N-use efficiency using a chlorophyll metter on high-yielding irrigated rice. Field crop Res. 47: 243-252. Peñuelas, J., I. Filella., C. Biel., L. Serrano., and R. Save. 1993. The reflectanceat the 950 – 970 nm region as an indicator of plant water status. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 14: 1887-1905. Puttonen, P. 1989. Criteria for using seedling performance potential tests. New For. 3: 67-87. Puttonen, P. 1997. Looking for the ‘‘silver bullet’’ – can one test do it all? New For. 13: 9-27. Rhea, S.B. 1977. The effects of lifting time and cold storage on root regenerating potential and survival of sycamore, sweetgum, yellow poplar and loblolly pine seedlings. MSF Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C., p. 108. Ritchie, G.A. 1984. Assessing seedling quality. In: Duryea M.L. and Landis T.D. (eds), Forest Nursery Manual: Production of Bareroot Seedlings. For. Res. Lab., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR, p. 243-259. Ritchie, G.A., and J.R. Dunlap. 1980. Root growth potential-its development and expression in forest tree seedlings. N.Z.J. For. Sci. 10: 218-248. Ritchie, G.A., and Y. Tanaka. 1990. Root growth potential and the target seedling. In Target Seedling Symposium: Proc. Meeting Western Forest Nursery Assoc., Roseburg, OR. Eds. R. Rose, S.J. Campbell and T.D. Landis. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech Rept. RM-200, Fort Collins, CO, p. 37-52. Ritchie, G.A., Tanaka Y., Meade R. and Duke S.D. 1993. Field survival and early height growth of Douglas-fir rooted cuttings: relationship to stem diameter and root system quality. For. Ecol.Manage. 60: 237-56. Roller, K.J. 1977. Suggested Minimum Standards for Containerised Seedlings in Nova Scotia. Canadian Forestry Service. Department of the Environment. Information Report M-X. p. 69. Rouse, J.W., R.H. Haas., J.A. Schell., and D.W. Deering. 1974. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. In: Fraden S.C., Marcanti E.P. & Becker M.A. (eds.), Third ERTS-1 Symposium, 10-14 Dec. 1973, NASA SP-351, Washington D.C. NASA, p. 309-317. Rose R., Atkinson M., Gleason J. and Sabin T. 1991. Root volume as a grading criterion to improve field performance of Douglas-fir seedlings. New For. 5: 195–209. Ruehle, J.L. and Kormanik P.P. 1986. Lateral root morphology: a potential indicator of seedling quality in northern red oak. USDA For. Serv. Southeastern For. Exp. Sta, Res. Note SE-44, 6 p. Sawada, S., T. Hayakawa, K. Fukushi, and M. Kasai. 1986. Influence of carbohyd- rates on photosynthesis in single, rooted soybean leaves used as a source-sink model. Plant Cell Physiol. 27: 591-600. Schmidt-Vogt, H. 1981. Morphological and physiological characteristics of planting stock: present state of research and research tasks for the future. P. 433-446. In: Proc., IUFRO XVII World Congress. Kyoto, Japan. Simpson, D.G., and G.A. Ritchie. 1997. Does Rgp predict field performance? a debate. New Forests. 13: 253-277. Sims, D.A., and J.A Gamon. 2003. Estimation of vegetation water content and photosynthetic tissue area from spectral reflectance: a comparison of indices based on liquid water and chlorophyll absorption features. Remote Sensing of Environment, 84, 526-537. Solie, J.B., W.R. Raun., R.W. Whitney., M.L. Stone., and J.D. Ringer. 1996. Optical sensor based field element size and sensing strategy for nitrogen application. Trans. ASAE. 39: 1983-1992. Stone, E.C. 1955. Poor survival and the physiological condition of planting stock. For. Sci. 1: 90–94. Stone, E.C. and Jenkinson J.L. 1971. Physiological grading of ponderosa pine nursery stock. J. For.69: 31–33. Stone, M.L., J.B. Solie, W.R. Raun., R.W. Whitney., S.L. Taylor., and J.D. Ringer. 1996. Use of spectral radiance for correcting in-season fertilizer nitrogen deficiencies in winter wheat. Trans. ASAE. 39: 1623-1631. Strachan, I.B., E. Pattey., and J.B. Boisvert. 2002. Impact of nitrogen and environmental conditions on corn as detected by hyperspectral reflectance. Remote Sensing of Environment. 80: 213-224. Sutton, R.F. 1979. Planting stock quality and grading. For. Ecol. Manage 2: 123–132. Taiz, L., and E. Zeiger. 2006. Plant Physiology, Fourth Edition. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA. p. 764. Thomas, J.R., and H.W. Gausman. 1977.leaf chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrati- ons for eight crop. Agronomy Journal. 69: 799-802 Thompson, J.R., and R.C. Schultz. 1995. Root system morphology of Quercus rubra L. planting stock and 3-year field performance in Iowa. New For. 9: 225-236. Wang, Q., J. Chen., and Y. Li. 2004. Nondestructive and rapid estimation of leaf chlorophyll and nitrogen status of peace lily using a chlorophyll meter. J. Plant Nutr. 27: 557-569. Westerveld, S.M., A.W. McKeown., C.D. Scott-Dupree., and M.R. McDonald. 2003. Chlorophyll and nitrate meters as nitrogen monitoring tools for selected vegetables in Southern Ontario. Acta Hort. 627: 259-266. Williams, R.D. 1972. Root fibrosity proves insignificant in survival, growth of black walnut seedlings. Tree Planters’ Notes 23: 22–25. Wood, C.W., D.W. Reeves., R.R. Duffield., and K.L. Edmister. 1992. Field chlorophyll measurements for evaluation of corn nitrogen status. J. Plant Nutr. 15:487-500. Yang, C. M., and M. R. Su. 2000. Analysis of spectral characteristies of rice canopy under water deficiency. The 21 Asian Conference on Remote Sensing Dec. 4-8: 13-18 Yang, C. M., and C. H. Cheng. 2001. Spectral characteristics of rice plants infested by brown planthopper. Proc. Natl. Sci. Count. ROC(B). 25: 180-186. Zarco-Tejada, P. J., J.R. Miller., T.L. Noland.,G.H. Mohammed., and P.H. Sampson. 2001. Scaling-up and model inversion methods with narrow-band optical indices for chlorophyll content estimation in closed forest canopies with hyperspectral data. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/19791 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 幼苗是各種綠化的物質基礎,苗圃業者的任務,就是培育出品質良好的苗株。而品質指標則是評估幼苗優劣的重要工具,苗株品質的好壞,顯著的影響植株後續生長成敗,故幼苗品質的測(評)定為培育技術的重要環節之一。幼苗品質測(評)定的目的,就是為了保證了良好健壯苗株的生產和應用,切確的讓育苗者了解和掌握苗木品質狀況。是以本研究擬針對景觀植物的苗木品質測(評)定,來進行景觀植物苗木培育技術的觀察。
苗木品質的優劣會顯著的影響植株後續應用,且為育苗的成敗關鍵,因此,篩選優良指標為一重要的工作。本論文選定以日日春(Catharanthus roseus)為試驗對象,進行各種試驗觀察。另選定以羽狀雞冠花(Celosia argentea var. plumosus)穴盤苗作為驗證和參證的材料。 首先,透過高光(700μmol m-2s-1)、低光(100μmol m-2s-1)以及極低光5μmol m-2s-1)三種不同光度處理,使日日春幼苗產生品質差異,並於品質測(評)定後,將非破壞性的品質測值對應至植株後續的生長的破壞性測值,藉以找出相關性較高的指標來做為品質預測的基準點。其中莖徑、葉綠素計讀值、初始螢光Fo、最大光合產量Fv/ Fm、NDVI (R740–R660)/(R740+R660)、NDVI (R760–R550) /(R760+R550)、CHL (R750–R705) /(R750+R705 –2*R445)、CHL NDVI (R750–R705)/(R750+R705)、光化學反射指數PRI、SR(R760/ R550)、(R750/ R705)等上述指標與破壞性測值間具有較高的相關性。 其次,則以羽狀雞冠花穴盤苗作為試驗材料,並去除人為造成的干擾,進行前章節的驗證。本次試驗主在調查無處理之雞冠花植株之各項生長數據,並與其後續之破壞性測值進行關聯。試驗結果顯示在各指標相關性上與前試驗的結論有多處不同,株高、葉片數、簡易式NDVI儀測值與破壞性指標間有著不錯的相關程度;前試驗中與破壞性指標間具有顯著相關性的NDVI (R740–R660) / (R740 +R660),變成了無相關;但不同紅光、遠紅光波長組合的NDVI (R740–R660) /(R740+R660)、NDVI (R800–R660) /(R800+R660)、NDVI (R800– R640) /(R800+R640)於本試驗中則與破壞性測值間呈現高度相關。簡單比率的SR(R800/R660)、SR(R800/ R600)、SR(R750/ R705)也與破壞性測值間則呈現顯著相關性。除以上多處差異外,本驗證指標試驗與前章有相同結果的指標有很大可能性可以做為幼苗品質的預測指標,包括了莖徑、葉綠素計讀值CMR、植物反射光譜組合指標的葉綠素指標CHL系列以及光化學反射指數的PRI,未來印證試驗部分也應優先選取本次試驗挑選出的品質預測指標作為試驗的基礎。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T02:19:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R00628113-1.pdf: 1232501 bytes, checksum: e9a93397c8cfbe10d909434b67d8581a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄(Content)
目 錄 i 表目錄 iv 圖目錄 v 摘 要 viii Abstract x 第一章 前言(Introduction) 1 第二章 前人研究(Literature review) 2 一、 幼苗品質指標的簡介 2 二、 幼苗品質指標的類型 3 三、 苗木品質指標的介紹 3 (一) 幼苗形態指標 3 (二) 幼苗生理指標 6 (三) 幼苗活力指標 10 第三章 植物苗期品質指標的篩選(Selection of Quality Indicator of Plant in Seeding) 12 摘要(Abstract) 12 一、 前言(Introduction) 13 二、 材料方法 (Materials and Methods) 14 【日日春苗木品質指標篩選試驗】 14 (一) 植物材料 14 (二) 試驗方法 14 (三) 調查項目 14 三、 結果 (Results) 18 【日日春苗木品質指標篩選試驗】 18 (一) 不同光度處理後日日春之生長表現 18 (二) 由光度造成差異之日日春苗株換盆生長的後續表現 19 (三) 各苗木品質指標之間的相關性 20 四、 討論(Discussion) 23 【日日春苗木品質指標篩選試驗】 23 五、 結論(Conclusion) 27 表3.1 -表3.14(參見圖表目次) 28 圖3.1 -圖3.14(參見圖表目次) 38 第四章 植物苗期品質指標的驗證(Test and verification of ozone and nitrogen dioxide by turfgrasses) 54 摘要(Abstract) 54 一、 前言(Introduction) 55 二、 材料方法 (Materials and Methods) 56 【羽狀雞冠花苗木品質指標篩選試驗】 56 (一) 植物材料 56 (二) 試驗方法 56 (三) 調查項目 56 三、 結果 (Results) 60 【羽狀雞冠花苗木品質指標篩選試驗】 60 四、 討論(Discussion) 63 五、 結論(Conclusion) 66 表4.1 -表4.6(參見圖表目次) 67 圖4.1 -圖4.33(參見圖表目次) 73 參考文獻(References) 115 圖表目次 一、表目次 表3.1不同光度處理兩週後日日春植株株高、莖徑、開花數、花苞數、節數、葉片數、葉綠素計讀值、簡易式NDVI儀測值之差異 28 表3.2不同光度處理兩週後之日日春植株Fo、Fm、Fv/Fm、Yield、qP、qN測值之差異 28 表3.3不同光度處理兩週後日日春植株反射光譜之常態化植生指數之差異 29 表3.4不同光度處理兩週後日日春植株反射光譜之常態化色素指數、常態化脫鎂指數、水帶指數、葉綠素指數、常態化葉綠素指數之差異 29 表3.5不同光度處理兩週後日日春植株反射光譜之光化學反射指數、結構強化色素指數、簡單比率之差異 29 表3.6不同光度處理兩週後日日春植株反射光譜之簡單比率之差異 30 表3.7不同處理日日春植株結束調查之株高、莖徑、地上部乾重、地下部乾重值差異 31 表3.8不同處理日日春植株結束調查之枝根比、健壯商數、迪克森指數、根生長潛勢值之差異 31 日日春植株株高、莖徑、開花數、花苞數、節數、葉片數、葉綠素計讀值、簡易式NDVI儀測值與破壞性指標間的相關性分析 (r) 32 表3.10日日春植株綠素螢光測值Fo、Fm、Fv/Fm、Yield、qP、qN與破壞性指標間的相關性分析 (r) 33 表3.11日日春植株之反射光譜組合指標之常態化植生指數與破壞性指標間的相關性分析(r) 34 表3.12日日春植株之反射光譜組合指標之常態化色素指數、常態化脫鎂指數、水帶指數、葉綠素指數、常態化葉綠素指數與破壞性指標間的相關性分析(r) 35 表3.13日日春植株之反射光譜組合指標之光化學反射指數、結構強化色素指數、簡單比率與破壞性指標間的相關性分析 (r) 36 表3.14日日春植株之反射光譜組合指標之簡單比率與破壞性指標間的相關性分析 (r) 37 表4.1羽狀雞冠花植株株高、莖徑、花穗數、葉片數、葉綠素計讀值、簡易式NDVI儀測值與破壞性指標間的相關性分析 (r) 67 表4.2羽狀雞冠花綠素螢光測值Fo、Fm、Fv/Fm、Yield、qP、qN與破壞性指標間的相關性分析 (r) 68 表4.3羽狀雞冠花之反射光譜組合指標之常態化植生指數與破壞性指標間的相關性分析(r) 69 表4.4羽狀雞冠花之反射光譜組合指標之常態化色素指數、常態化脫鎂指數、水帶指數、葉綠素指數與破壞性指標間的相關性分析(r) 70 表4.5羽狀雞冠花之反射光譜組合指標之光化學反射指數、結構強化色素指數、簡單比率與破壞性指標間的相關性分析 (r) 71 表4.6羽狀雞冠花之反射光譜組合指標之簡單比率與破壞性指標間的相關性分析 (r) 72 二、圖目次 圖3.1日日春非破壞性外觀指標地徑測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 38 圖3.2日日春非破壞性外觀指標地徑測值與破壞性指標(A)迪克森指數(B)根生長潛勢之相關性分析 39 圖3.3日日春非破壞性外觀指標花苞數與破壞性指標之(A)迪克森指數(B)根生長潛勢之相關性分析 40 圖3.4日日春非破壞性外觀指標植株節數與破壞性之迪克森指數之相關性分析 40 圖3.5日日春非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素計讀值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 41 圖3.6日日春非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素計讀值與破壞性指標地下部乾重(g)之相關性分析 42 圖3.7日日春非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素螢光儀Fo測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 43 圖3.8日日春非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素螢光儀Fo測值與破壞性指標地下部乾重之相關性分析 44 圖 3.9日日春非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素螢光儀Fv/ Fm測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 45 圖3.10日日春非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素螢光儀Fv/ Fm測值與破壞性指標地下部乾重之相關性分析 46 圖3.11日日春之植物反射光譜組合指標NDVI (R760-R550)/(R760+R550)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 47 圖3.12日日春之植物反射光譜組合指標NDVI (R760-R550) /(R760+R550)測值與破壞性指標地下部乾種之相關性分析 48 圖3.13日日春之植物反射光譜組合指標CHL (R750-R705) / (R750 +R705-2*R445) 測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 49 圖3.14日日春之植物反射光譜組合指標CHL (R750–R705) / (R750+R705-2*R445) 測值與破壞性指標地下部乾重之相關性分析 50 圖3.15日日春之植物反射光譜組合指標CHL NDVI (R750–R705) / ( R750+R705) 測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 51 圖3.16日日春之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R760/R550)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 52 圖3.17(A)日日春之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R760/R550)測值與破壞性指標根生長潛勢之相關性分析 (B) 日日春之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R750/R705)測值與破壞性指標迪克森指數之相關性分析 53 圖4.1羽狀雞冠花非破壞性外觀指標地徑測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 73 圖4.2羽狀雞冠花非破壞性外觀指標地徑測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 74 圖4.3羽狀雞冠花非破壞性外觀指標花穗數與破壞性指標地上部乾重之相關性分析 75 圖4.4羽狀雞冠花非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素計讀值(SPAD-502 values)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 76 圖4.5羽狀雞冠花非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素計讀值(SPAD-502 values)測值與破壞性指標地下部乾重之相關性分析 77 圖4.6羽狀雞冠花非破壞性儀器指標簡易式NDVI儀 (PlantPen NDVI 300; (R740–R660)/(R740+R660))測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 78 圖4.7羽狀雞冠花非破壞性儀器指標簡易式NDVI儀 (PlantPen NDVI300; (R740 –R660)/(R740 + R660))測值與地下部乾重之相關性分析 79 圖4.8羽狀雞冠花非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素螢光儀Fo測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 80 圖 4.9羽狀雞冠花非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素螢光儀Fo測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 81 圖4.10羽狀雞冠花非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素螢光儀Fv/ Fm測值與破壞性指標地下部乾重之相關性分析 82 圖4.11羽狀雞冠花非破壞性儀器指標葉綠素螢光儀Fv/ Fm測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 83 圖4.12羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標NDVI (R800 –R640) /(R800+R640)測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 84 圖4.13羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標NDVI (R800–R640) /(R800+R640)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 85 圖4.14羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標NDPI (R680 –R430) /(R680 + R430)測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 86 圖4.15羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標NDPI (R680–R430)/(R680 + R430)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 87 圖4.16羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標標CHL (R750 –R705) /(R750+R705 -2*R445)測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 88 圖4.17羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標標CHL (R750–R705) /(R750+R705– 2*R445)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 89 圖4.18羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標CHL (R750–R705) /(R750+R705–2*R445)測值與破壞性指標枝根比之相關性分析 90 圖4.19羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標CHL NDVI (R750 –R705)/(R750+R705)測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 91 圖4.20羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標CHL NDVI (R750–R705)/(R750+R705)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 92 圖4.21羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標CHL NDVI (R750–R705)/(R750+R705)測值與破壞性指標枝根比之相關性分析 93 圖4.22羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標PRI(R531–R570) /(R531+R570)測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 94 圖4.23羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標PRI(R531–R570) /(R531+R570)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 95 圖4.24羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標PRI(R531–R570) /(R531+R570)測值與破壞性指標枝根比之相關性分析 96 圖4.25羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標SR(R660/R730)測值與破壞性指標(A)地下部乾重(B)根生長潛勢之相關性分析 97 圖4.26羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標SR(R660/R730)測值與破壞性指標迪克森指數之相關性分析 98 圖4.27羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標(A) SR(R800/R1650) (B) SR(R1450/ R1650)測值與破壞性指標枝根比之相關性分析 99 圖4.28羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R800/R660)測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 100 圖4.29羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R800/R660)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 101 圖4.30羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R800/R600)測值與破壞性指標(A)地下部乾重(B)根生長潛勢之相關性分析 102 圖4.31羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R750/R705)測值與破壞性指標(A)根生長潛勢(B)迪克森指數之相關性分析 103 圖4.32羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R750/R705)測值與破壞性指標(A)地上部乾重(B)地下部乾重之相關性分析 104 圖4.33. 羽狀雞冠花之植物反射光譜組合指標SR (R750/R705)測值與破壞性指標枝根比之相關性分析 105 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 日日春和雞冠花幼苗品質指標之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Studies on the Quality Indicators in seedlings of Vinca and Celosia | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 103-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 張育森(Yu-Sen Chang) | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 羅筱鳳(Hsiao-Feng Lo),熊同銓(Tung-Chuan Hsiung) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 苗木品質,迪克森指數,光譜反射率,葉綠素螢光,根生長潛勢, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | seedling quality,dickson quality index,spectral reflectance,Chlorophyll fluorescence,root growth potential, | en |
dc.relation.page | 112 | |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2015-08-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝暨景觀學系 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 園藝暨景觀學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-104-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.2 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。