15. Aarons S. R., Danesh D and Young N. D. (1993), Mapping genes for bacterial wilt resistance in tomato with DNA markers, In: Hartman G. I and Hayward A.C (eds) Bacterial Wilt. Proceedings of an international sympsium, Kaoh-siung, Taiwan, ROC, 28-31 Ocober 1992. ASIAR Proceeding 45, 170-175, ACIAR, Canberra.
16. Abo-El-Dahab M., and El-Goorani M. (1969), Antagonism among strains of Pseudomonas solanacearum, Phytopathology 59, pp. 1005-1007.
17. Anuratha C., Anuratha C., and Gnanamanickam S. (1990), Biological control of bacterial wilt cause by Pseudomonas solanacearum in India with antagonistic bacteria, Plant and Soil 124, pp. 109-116.
18. Aoki M., Uehara K., Koseki K., Tsuji K., Injima M., Ono K., and Samejima T. (1991), An antimicrobial substance produced by Pseudomonas cepacia B5 agaist the bacterial wilt disease pathogen Pseudomonas solanaearum, Agricultural and Biological Chemistry55, pp. 715-722.
19. Arnheim, N., Erlich, H (1992), Polymerase chain reaction stratgy.
Annu. Rev. Biochem.61, pp. 131 – 156.
20. Aspiras r. B and Cruz A.R. (1986), Potential biological control of bacterial wilt in tomato and potato with Bacillus polymyxa Fu6 and Pseudomonas fluorescences. In: Presley. G.J. ed., bacterial wilt in Asia and the South Pacific, ACIAR Proceeding, 13, pp. 89-92.
21. AVRDC Internal Review and Planning Workshop. (2000), 5-7 December, 2000 at Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre, Tainan 741, Taiwan.
22. Bacterial wilt endophyte (2003),
http:/www.ppws.vt.edu/bacteria/PHYLOGEN99.pdf.
23. Benhamou, N., Belanger, R.R., and Paulitz, T. (1996). Ultrastructural and cytochemial aspects of the interaction between pseudomonas fluorescences and RRT - DNA transformed pea roots: host reponse to colonozation by Pythium ultimum Trow. Planta, 199:pp. 105 - 117.
24. Boucher C.A., Gough C.L., and Arlat M. (1992), “Molecular genertics of pathogenicity determinants of Pseudomonas solanacearum with special emphasis on hrp genes”, Annual Review of phytopathology 30, pp. 443-461.
25. Brooks, D.S., Gonzalez, C.F., Appel, D.N. and Filer, T.H. (1994).
Evaluation of endophytic bacteria as potential biological control agents for oak wilt. Biol. Con. 4, pp. 373- 381.
26. Buddenhagen I. W., and Kelman A.(1964). “Biological and physiological aspects of bacterial wilt caused by Pseudomonas solanacearum”, Annu.Rev. Phytopathology No2, pp. 203-230.
27. Caetno- Anolles, G., Bassam, B.J., Gresshoff, P.M. (1991). “DNA amplification fingerprinting using very short arbitrary oligonucleotides”. Bio – technology 9, pp. 553-557.
28. Chae Gun Phae., Mokoto Shoda., Nobuhiro Kita. (1992), “Control of crown and root rot and bacterial wilt of tomato by Bacillus subtilis NB22”, Phytophat. Soc. Japan 58, pp. 329-339.
29. Chen, C., Beuske, E.M., Musson, G., and Kloepper, J.W. (1994).
“Biological control potential and population dynamics of endophytic bacterial in cotton/ Fusarium wilt system”. In improving plant productivity with rhizosphere bacteria. Edited by M.H. Ryder, P.M.
Stephens, and G.D. Bowen. Graphic Services, Adelaide, Australia .pp.191-193.
30. Chen, C., Beuske, E.M., Musson, G., Rodriguez-Kabana, R., and Kloepper, J.W. (1995). Biological control of Fusarium wilt on cotton by use of Endophytic bacteria. Biol. Control, 5.pp. 83-91.
31. Chen W., and Echadi E. (1984), “Effect of avirulent bacteriocin producing strains of Pseudomonas solanacearum on the control of bacterial wilt of tobacco”, Plant Pathology 33, pp.245-253.
32. Clay, K. (1988), Fungal endophytes of glasses: a defensive mutual-ism between plants and fungi. Ecology, 69, pp.10-16.
33. Cook D., Barlow E., and Sequeira L. (1989), Gentic diversity of Pseudomonas solanacearum detection of restriction fragment lentgh polymorphisms with DNA probes that specify virulence and the hypersentitive response, Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 2,pp.
113-121.
34. Cook D., Sequeira L. (1991), “Gentic and biochemical characterization of a Pseudomonas cluster required for extracellular polysaccharide production and virulence”, Journal of Bacteriology 173, pp. 1654-1662.
35. Cuppels A., Hanson R., and Kelman A. (1978), “Isolation and characterization of a bacteriocin produced by Pseudomonas solanacearum” , Journal of General Microbiology 109, pp. 295-303.
36. Denny, -TP; Black, -SR. (1991), “Genetic evidence thatextracellular polysaccharide is a virulence factor of Pseudomonas solanacearum”
Science 220, pp.1214-1335.
37. Duuijff, B.J., Gianinazzi-Pearson, V. and Lemancaeu, P. (1997), Involverment of the outer menbrane lipopolysaccharides in the endophytic colonization of tomato roots by biocontrol Pseudomonas fluorescens strain WCS417r. New Phytol.135, pp.325-334.
38. FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]
(1992), FAO Statistics Series 104.FAO Yearbook production 1990 45,130-1.
39. Fravel D.R. (1988), “Role of antibiosis in the biocontrol of plant disaese”, Annu. Rev. Phytopathol 26, pp.75-91.
40. Geels and Schipper. (1983), “Selection of Antagonistic Fluorescent Pseudomonas sp. and their Root Colonization and Persistance folloiwing Treatment of Seed Potato”, Phytopath. Z, 108, pp. 193 - 206.
41. Hamidah S., and Lum K.Y. (1993), BW of groundnut in Malaysia, pp.
6-10 in G.B.W: procceeding of the Second Working Group meeting, 2 Nov. 1992, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center , Tainan, Taiwan.
42. Hara H., and Ono K. (1991), “Effect of weekly-virulent bacteriocin- producing strain of Pseudomonas solanacearum on the protection of tobacco plant from bacterial wilt”, Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Jpn 57, pp.24-31.
43. Hartman G.I., Hong W.F., Hanudin and Hayward A.C. (1993),
“Potential of Biological and chemical control of bacterial wilt. In: : Hartman G.I. and Hayward A.C (eds) Bacterial Wilt”. Proceedings of an international sympsium, Kaoh Siung, Taiwan, ROC, 28-31 Octorber 1992. ASIAR Proceeding 45, 322-326, ACIAR, Canberra.
44. Hayward A.C. (1960), “Characteristics of Pseudomonas solanacearum”. Journal of Appled Bacteriology 27, pp. 265-277.
45. Hayward A.C., Fegan M., Taghavi M. (1997), Phylogeny, diversity and molecular diagnostics of Ralstonia solanacaerum, The 2nd IBWS, Guadelloupe, France, 22-27 June 1997, Book of abstract, pp. 14.
46. He, L.Y, Sequeira, L., and Kelman, A,.(1983). Characteristics of strains of Pseudomonas solanacearum from China. Plant Disease 67, pp. 1357-1362.
47. Hilton, D.M., and Bacon, C.W.(1995), “Enterobacter cloacae is an endophytic symbiont of corn”. Mycopathologia, 129, pp.117-125.
48. Kelman A., and Person L.H. (1961), Strain of P. solanacearum differing in pathogenicity to tobacco and peanut, Phytopathology 51,pp.
158-161.
49. Kelman A, (1997) “One hundred and one years of research on Bacterial wilt”. Reports of the Second International Bacterial Wilt Symposium held in France 22-27 June, pp1-5
50. Kelman A. (1954), “The relationship of pathogenicity in P.
solanacearum to colony appearance on a Tetrazolium medium”, Phytopathology 44, pp.693-695.
51. Kelman A., Hartman C.L., and Hayward A.C. (1994), Introduction in Bacterial Wilt, Hayward A.C and Hartman G. L. (Eds), CAB, pp. 1-5.
52. Kelman A., and Hruschka J. (1973), “The role of motility and aerotaxis in the selective increase of avirulent bacteria in still broth cultures of Pseudomonas solanacearum”, Journal of general Microbiology 76, pp. 177-188
53. Kelman A., and L.Seiquera. (1965), “Root-to-root spread of Pseudomonas solanacearum”. Phytopathol 55, pp. 304-309.
54. Kemp J., and Sequeira L.(1983), Biological control of bacterial wilt on potatoes: Attempts to induce resistance by treating tubers with bacteria.
Plant Dis 647, pp. 499-503.
55. Latour, X., T. Corberand., G. Laguerre., F.Allard., and P.Lemanceau.
(1996), The composition of fluorescence Pseudomonas populations associated with roots is influenced by plant and soil type, Appl.
Environ. Microbiol 62,pp. 2449-2456.
56. Li, W.R; Chen, C.R; Xu, Z.Y. (1981). Studies on bacterial wilt of peanut II. Investigation of disease epidemiology in East Hubei, Oil crops of China No1, pp. 43-47.
57. Machmud, M (1992). Bacterial wilt in Indonesia. Bacterial wilt disease in Asia and South Pacific, ACIAR proc. No13 (persley G.J, .eds), ACIAR, Canberra, Australia, pp. 30-34.
58. Martin G.B., Williams J.G.K., and Tanksley S.D.(1991), “Rapid identification of markers linked to a Pseudomonas resistance gene in tomato using random primers and near-isogenic lines”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 88,pp. 2336-2340.
59. McLaughlin R.J., and Sequeira L. (1988), “Evaluation of an avirulent strain of Pseudomonas solanacearum for biological control of bacterial wilt of potato”, American potato Journal 65, pp. 255-268.
60. Mclnroy, J,A. and Klopper, J.W. (1995a). “Population dynamic of endophytic bacteria in field-grown sweet corn and cotton”. Canadian Journal of Microbiogy 41, pp.895-901.
61. Mclnroy, J.A., Musson, G. and Kloeppe, J.W. (1996), Marking of antibiotic-resistance upon recovery of endophytic bacteria , Plant and Soil 186, pp. 213-218.
62. Mehan V.K., Liao B. S. and Tan Y.J., Robinson A., Smith, Donald D.Mc., Hayward A.C. (1994). Bacterial wilt groundnut. ICRISAT information bulletin No 35, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India, pp.23
63. Nesmith W., and Jenkins W. (1985), “Influence of antagonists and controlled matric potential on the survival of Pseudomonas solanacearum in the four North Carolina soil”, Phytopathology 75, pp.
1182-1187.
64. Orgambide G., Montrozier H., Servin P., Roussel J., Demery D., and Trigalet A. (1991), “High heterogenity of the exopolysaccharides of Pseudomonas solanacearum strain GMI 1000 and the complet structure of the major polysaccharide”, J. Biol. Chem 266, pp. 8312-8321.
65. Sequeira L. (1983), “Mechanisms of induces resistance in plants”, Annu. Rev. Microbiol 37, pp. 51-79.
66. Sequeira L., and William P.H. (1963), “Synthesis of IAA by wilt and mutants strains of Pseudomonas solanacearum”, Abstr., Plant Physiol 28, pp. 27.
67. Sneath, P.H. A., Stevens, M. and Sackin, M.J. (1981), Numerical taxonomy of Pseudomonas based on published records of substrate utilization. Antonie van Leeuvenhoek Journal of Microbiology and Serology 47, pp. 423-448.
68. Tan, Y.J., Duan, N.X, Liao, B.S and Zeng, D.F (1994). ACIAR bacterial wilt Newsletter 10, pp.8.
69. Tanaka H., Negishi H and Maeda H. (1990), “Control of tobaco Bacterial wilt byan avirulent strain of Pseudomonas solanacearum M4S and its bacteriophage”, Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan, 56, pp. 243-246.
70. Tong, Y.H., Ji, Z.L., Xu, J.Y., Chen, X.J. (2003), “Colonization of antagonistic bacteria against Botrytis cinerea on tomato”. Chinese Journal of Biologycal control, vol. 19 (2), pp. 78-81.
71. Trigalet – Demery, D., Trigalet, A., Montrozier, H., Patry, V., Adam, O., Navarro, L., Cotelle, V. (1992). Exopolysaccharides of Pseudomonas solanacearum relation to virulence. [ Conference paper].
72. Trigalet A., Frey P., and Trigalet- Demery D. (1994), "Biological control of Bacterial wilt caused by Pseudomonas solanacearum: State of the Art and understanding. Bacterial wilt: The disease and its causative agent, Pseudomonas solanacearum", Journal of Genral Plant Pathology 36,pp. 225- 233.
73. Trigalet A., Demery, D. (1986), “Invasivness in tomato plants on T5 – induced avirulent mutants of Pseudomonas solanacearum”, Physiol Mol Plant Dis 67, pp. 423-430.
74. Vander, J.E. (1978), “Plant, genetic and molecular basis of plant pathogenesis”, pp. 508-606.
75. Vasse J., Genin S., Frey P., Boucher C., Brito B. (2000), The hrpB and hrpG regulatory genes of Ralstonia solanacearum are required for different stages of the tomato root infection process. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 13, pp.259-267.
76. Wakimoto, S., K. Hirayae, K. Tsuchiya, Y. Kushima, N.Furuya and N.Matsuyama (1987), “Production of antibiotics by plant pathogenic Pseudomonas”. Ann. Phytopath. Soc. Jpn, 52, pp. 835-842.
77. Wall G. C and Sanchez J.L. (1992), “A Biocontrol Agent for Pseudomonas solanacearum. In: Hartman G.I. and Hayward A.C (eds) Bacterial Wilt. Proceedings of an international sympsium, Kaoh Siung, Taiwan, ROC, 28-31 Octorber 1992”. ASIAR Proceeding 45, 320-321, ACIAR, Canberra.
78. Wang., J.S. Hou., and Hu B.J. (1983), “Studies on the control of bacterial wilt of peannut”. Acta phytophylactica 10, pp. 79- 84.
79. Wiehe, W., Schloter, M., Hartmann, A., and Hoflich, G. (1996),
“Detection of colonization by Pseudomonas PsIA12 of inoculated roots of Lupinus albus and Pisum sativumin greenhouse experiment with immunological techniques”. Symbiosis, 20,pp.129-145.
80. Winstead, N.N. and Kelman, A. (1952), “Inoculation techniques for evaluateting resistance to Pseudomonas solanacearum”.
Phytopathology 42, pp.628-634.
81. Yabuuchi, E., Kosaco, Y.H., Yano, I., Hotta, H., Hashimoto, Y., Ezaki, T and Arakawa, M. (1992), Proposal of Burkhoderia gen.nov. and transfer of severe species of the genus Pseudomonas homology group II to the new genus , with the types species Burkhoderia cepacia (Palleroni and Holmes) comb. Nov. Microbiol. And Immunol. 36, pp.
1251-1275.
Phô lôc
Phụ lục 1. kết quả xử lý số liệu thống kê 1. Kết quả kích thích sinh tr−ởng trên cây lạc trong điều kiện nhà kính
1.1. Giống lạc Thiên Hoa 1.1.1. Cao th©n
Groups Count Sum A ve rage Va rianc e
DC 5 90 18 54.625
CI41 4 77.5 19.375 13.22917
CI42 6 162.1 27.01667 8.357667
NA4 4 118 29.5 11.69333
Ci15 6 133 18.16667 9.366667
ANOVA Source o f
Variation S S df M S F P- v alue F c rit
Between
Groups 446.2764 4 111.5691 5.84301 0.002777 2.866081 Within
Groups 381.8892 20 19.09446
Total 828.1656 24
1.1.2 Dài rễ
Gro ups
C ount Sum A verage Variance
DC 5 61 12.2 19.075
CI41 4 71 17.75 9.416667
CI42 6 114 19 5.2
NA4 4 81.3 20.325 1.089167
Ci15 6 112 18.66667 13.86667
ANOVA
Source of Vari ation SS df S F P- value F c rit
Between Groups 194.1596 4 48.53989 4.778705 0.007191 2.866081 Within Groups 203.1508 20 10.15754
Total 397.3104 24
1.1.3. Trọng l−ợng cây t−ơi
Groups
Count Sum Av erage Variance
DC 5 18.07 3.614 1.78998
CI41 4 24.63 6.1575 3.015292
CI42 6 41.25 6.875 0.78347
NA4 4 28.38 7.095 1.337767
Ci15 6 32.2 5.366667 0.763947
ANOVA
Source of Vari ation SS df MS F P - value F c rit
Between Groups 39.16389 4 9.790971 7.004513 0.001074 2.866081 Within Groups 27.95618 20 1.397809
Total 67.12006 24
1.1.4. Trọng l−ợng cây khô
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
DC 5 12.54 2.508 1.62962
CI41 4 19.56 4.89 2.174333
CI42 6 33.83 5.638333 0.816697
NA4 4 23.19 5.7975 1.276092
Ci15 6 23.49 3.915 0.55939
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P -v alue F crit
Between Groups 37.01043 4 9.252607 7.791607 0.00059 2.866081 Within Groups 23.75019 20 1.187509
Total 60.76062 24
1.2. Giống lạc Thiên Ngọc 1.2.1. Cao th©n
Groups
Count Sum Av erage Variance
DC 11 209 19 2.3
CI41 9 202 22.44444 38.52778
CI42 9 240 26.66667 9.375
NA4 9 262 29.11111 21.11111
CI15 5 117.5 23.5 2.625
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P - value F crit
Between Groups 597.0866 4 149.2716 9.686159 1.68E-
05 2.618988 Within Groups 585.6111 38 15.41082
Total 1182.698 42
1.2.2. Dài rễ
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
DC 11 105.5 5.590909 4.690909
CI41 9 82 9.111111 2.673611
CI42 9 110 12.22222 2.819444
NA4 9 133 14.77778 5.131944
CI15 5 48 9.6 2.3
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P - value F crit
Between Groups 204.9374 4 51.23436 13.79717 4.86E-
07 2.618988 Within Groups 141.1091 38 3.713397
Total 346.0465 42
12.3. Trọng l−ợng cây t−ơi
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
DC 11 42.29 3.844545 0.747967
CI41 9 38.1 4.233333 0.422
CI42 9 44.04 4.893333 0.807125
NA4 9 46.88 5.208889 1.140111
CI15 5 19.35 3.87 0.1406
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P -v alue F crit
Between Groups 13.07787 4 3.269467 4.60216 0.00396 2.618988 Within Groups 26.99596 38 0.71042
Total 40.07383 42
1.2.4. Trọng l−ợng cây khô
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
DC 11 29.81 2.71 0.527967
CI41 9 29.34 3.26 0.526
CI42 9 35.01 3.89 0.806125
NA4 9 37.89 4.21 1.040111
CI15 5 14.15 2.83 0.1206
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P -v alue F crit
Between Groups 12.05687 4 3.159467 4.32516 0.00395 2.618988 Within Groups 24.99636 38 0.61042
Total 37.05323 42
2. Kết quả kích thích sinh tr−ởng lên cây vừng trong nhà kính
2.1. Trên giống vừng V6 2.1.1. Cao th©n
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
dc 9 318.4 35.37778 28.21194
ci41 14 459.5 32.82143 64.79258
ci42 8 336.07 42.00875 8.59347
na4 9 379.8 42.2 3.615
ci15 7 259.5 37.07143 12.03571
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P - value F c rit
Between Groups 707.8946 4 176.9736 6.046504 0.000617 2.594263 Within Groups 1229.288 42 29.26875
Total 1937.182 46
2.1.2.Dài rễ
SUMMARY
Groups Count S um Av erage Variance
dc 9 134 14.88889 2.111111
ci41 14 221 15.78571 6.027473
ci42 8 152 19 1.5
na4 9 173.4 19.26667 2.44
ci15 7 117 16.71429 3.904762
ANOVA
Sou rce of Variation S S df MS F P - value F crit
Between Groups 139.5109 4 34.87773 9.851499 1.03E-05 2.594263 Within Groups 148.6946 42 3.540348
Total 288.2055 46
2.1.3. Trọng l−ợng cây t−ơi
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Varianc e
dc 9 54.82 6.091111 5.313736
ci41 14 89.42 6.387143 5.260684
ci42 8 82.61 10.32625 2.053112
na4 9 95.51 10.61222 0.914069
ci15 7 56.7 8.1 9.1123
ANOVA Sourc e of
Variation SS df MS F P- val ue F crit
Between
Groups 173.7887 4 43.44716 9.744798 1.14E-05 2.594263
Within Groups 187.2569 42 4.458498
Total 361.0456 46
2.1.4. Trọng l−ợng cây khô
SUMMARY
Groups Count S um Av erage Variance
dc 9 26.17 2.907778 0.828344
ci41 14 45.62 3.258571 2.487567
ci42 8 44.39 5.54875 1.092213
na4 9 51.24 5.693333 0.745825
ci15 7 31.2 4.457143 2.993557
ANOVA
Sou rce of Variation S S df MS F P - value F crit
Between Groups 62.49117 4 15.62279 9.302109 1.78E-05 2.594263 Within Groups 70.53856 42 1.679489
Total 133.0297 46
2.2. Trên giống vừng địa phương 2.2.1. Cao th©n
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
dc 9 307.4 34.15556 44.24528
ci41 14 452.5 32.32143 55.94643
ci42 11 428.8 38.98182 18.22964
na4 10 400.65 40.065 15.61781
ci15 7 245.5 35.07143 21.70238
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P - value F c rit
Between Groups 489.1199 4 122.28 3.666 0.011295 2.574035 Within Groups 1534.337 46 33.35515
Total 2023.457 50
2.2.2. Dài rễ
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
dc 9 129 14.33333 3.25
ci41 14 205.6 14.68571 9.229011
ci42 11 195.8 17.8 2.36
na4 10 178.3 17.83 5.293444
ci15 7 117 16.71429 3.904762
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P - value F c rit
Between Groups 120.0384 4 30.0096 5.736382 0.000785 2.574035 Within Groups 240.6467 46 5.23145
Total 360.6851 50
2.2.3. Trọng l−ợng cây t−ơi
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
dc 9 51.42 5.713333 3.669125
ci41 14 81.37 5.812143 5.17328
ci42 11 88.24 8.021818 3.247896
na4 10 81.31 8.131 5.469921
ci15 7 52.67 7.524286 8.766595
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P - value F c rit
Between Groups 60.77699 4 15.19425 3.026828 0.026852 2.574035 Within Groups 230.9135 46 5.019858
Total 291.6905 50
2.2.4. Trọng l−ợng cây khô
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Variance
dc 9 24.56 2.728889 0.709361
ci41 14 39.93 2.852143 0.999157
ci42 11 49.9 4.536364 1.058005
na4 10 48.02 4.802 0.614751
ci15 7 25.1 3.585714 2.037429
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P- val ue F crit
Between Groups 38.45382 4 9.613456 9.408652 1.21E-05 2.574035 Within Groups 47.00131 46 1.021768
Total 85.45513 50
3. Bảng số liệu kích thích sinh tr−ởng trên cây lạc ngoài đồng ruộng
3.1 Cao th©n
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum A verage Variance
dc- 23 716 31.13043 16.75494
dc+ 11 309 28.09091 19.69091
ci41 13 343 26.38462 21.25641
ci42 16 542 33.875 39.31667
na4 20 703 35.15 35.29211
ci15 11 369 33.54545 31.87273
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation S S df MS F P- value F crit
Between Groups 869.1865 5 173.8373 6.375039 4.26E-05 2.318053 Within Groups 2399.622 88 27.26843
Total 3268.809 93
3.2.Dài rễ
SUMMARY
Grou ps Count Sum A verage Variance
dc- 23 319 13.86957 15.93676
dc+ 9.7 106.7 13.0845 12.3652
ci41 13 126 9.692308 6.730769
ci42 16 211 13.1875 11.09583
na4 20 332 16.6 30.67368
ci15 11 144 13.09091 12.49091
ANOVA
Source of Variat ion S S df MS F P - value F crit
Between Groups 65535 5 65535 65535 2.67E-05 2.333309
Within Groups 65535 77 65535
Total 1691.157 82
3.3. Trọng l−ợng cây t−ơi
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum A verage Variance
dc- 23 1264.54 54.98 589.1882
dc+ 11 368.14 33.46727 322.7758
ci41 13 499.77 38.44385 665.7459
ci42 16 1050.09 65.63063 707.1312
na4 20 1914.31 95.7155 3134.243
ci15 11 679.46 61.76909 999.8803
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation S S df M S F P- v alue F c rit
Between Groups 40220.1 5 8044.019 6.784608 2.15E-05 2.318053 Within Groups 104335.2 88 1185.628
Total 144555.3 93
3.4. Trọng l−ợng cây khô
SUMMARY
Groups C ount Sum A verage Variance
dc- 23 1069.96 46.52 521.7459
dc+ 11 260.37 23.67 256.7758
ci41 13 379.08 29.16 322.7459
ci42 16 933.12 58.32 578.1882
na4 20 1730.8 86.54 3015243
ci15 11 561.99 51.09 512.8803
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P- valu e F crit
Between Groups 39202.1 5 8021.019 6.52106 2.15E-
05 2.318053
Within Groups 104301.2 88 1163.628
Total 143503.3 93
3.5. Số củ trên cây
SUMMARY
Groups Count S um A verage Va rianc e
dc- 23 226 9.826087 19.87747
dc+ 11 77 7 16.4
ci41 13 131 10.07692 28.57692
ci42 16 200 12.5 39.86667
na4 20 373 18.65 92.02895
ci15 11 117 10.63636 37.25455
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation S S df MS F P - value F crit
Between Groups 1340.507 5 268.1014 6.440306 3.82E-05 2.318053 Within Groups 3663.323 88 41.62867
Total 5003.83 93
3.6. Cân nặng trung bình/ củ
SUMMARY
Groups Count S um A verage Va rianc e
dc- 23 62.4 2.713043 0.404158
dc+ 11 19.62 1.783636 0.073105
ci41 13 30.27 2.328462 0.157781
ci42 16 46.46 2.90375 0.240385
na4 20 62.31 3.1155 0.196658
ci15 11 23.12 2.101818 0.176696
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation S S df MS F P - value F crit
Between Groups 18.10394 5 3.620788 15.44859 6.93E-11 2.318053 Within Groups 20.62514 88 0.234377
Total 38.72909 93
4. Kết quả đối kháng vi khuẩn gây bệnh trên cây lạc ngoài đồng ruộng phạm vi hẹp
4.1. So sánh ĐC (-) và ĐC (+)
SUMMARY
Groups Count S um A verage Variance
DC- 4 0 0 0
dc+ 4 262.09 65.5225 387.3757
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P -v alue F cri t
Between Groups 8586.396 1 8586.396 44.3311 0.000555 5.987378 Within Groups 1162.127 6 193.6878
Total 9748.523 7
4.2. So sánh CI4 -1 và ĐC (+)
SUMMARY
Groups Count S um A verage Variance
dc+ 4 262.09 65.5225 387.3757
ci41 4 165.63 41.4075 120.0185
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P -v alue F cri t
Between Groups 1163.066 1 1163.066 4.584469 0.076031 5.987378 Within Groups 1522.183 6 253.6971
Total 2685.249 7
4.3. So sánh CI4-2 với ĐC (+)
SUMMARY
Groups Count S um A verage Variance
dc+ 4 262.09 65.5225 387.3757
ci42 4 99.93 24.9825 66.77729
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P -v alue F cri t
Between Groups 3286.983 1 3286.983 14.47522 0.008919 5.987378 Within Groups 1362.459 6 227.0765
Total 4649.442 7
4.4. So sánh NA4 với ĐC (+)
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Ave rage Variance
dc+ 4 262.09 65.5225 387.3757
na4 4 110.56 27.64 92.29233
ANOVA
Sourc e of Variation S S d f M S F P- value F crit
Between Groups 2870.168 1 2870.168 11.96731 0.013477 5.987378
Within Groups 1439.004 6 239.834
Total 4309.172 7
4.5. So sánh CI1-5 với ĐC (+)
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Av erage Varianc e
dc+ 4 262.09 65.5225 387.3757
ci15 4 124.19 31.0475 78.18536
ANOVA
S ourc e of Variation S S df MS F P- v alue F crit
Between Groups 2377.051 1 2377.051 10.21156 0.018705 5.987378 Within Groups 1396.683 6 232.7805
Total 3773.734 7
Phụ lục 2. Bảng số liệu nhiệt độ và ẩm độ tại Hà nội từ tháng 7/2006 đến 7/2007
Trạm: Láng
Kinh ủ ộ: 105o48'
Tỉnh(tp): Hà Nội
Nhiệt độ Trung bình
ngày Vĩ ủộ:
21o01'
ð ơn vị: oC
Năm: 2006 Năm: 2007
Ngày
VII VIII IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII
1 27.8 27.2 29.4 28.5 26.8 18.3 18.7 18.5 23.7 27.8 26.0 31.2 29.9 2 28.1 29.3 30.6 26.4 24.9 18.0 20.9 17.9 24.0 26.9 26.7 31.7 28.5 3 28.9 28.9 31.4 26.5 24.1 16.3 22.1 16.6 24.1 19.4 26.3 30.8 30.2 4 29.9 21.2 30.8 27.2 23.7 17.7 16.1 17.3 25.0 17.0 22.6 29.9 29.6 5 29.6 28.8 27.4 28.2 24.1 19.0 15.7 19.8 24.6 16.7 21.9 29.8 30.2 6 30.7 26.7 28.9 27.8 24.6 20.5 16.3 20.7 17.1 18.7 25.3 31.6 30.1 7 31.7 26.2 30.7 27.8 24.1 23.5 15.6 20.8 13.8 20.3 26.6 30.9 29.5 8 32.6 26.1 30.5 28.5 23.9 24.8 16.0 20.9 13.7 20.8 26.3 33.5 29.9 9 31.4 28.5 26.5 24.7 25.4 21.5 15.9 20.7 14.4 20.6 26.0 33.8 30.0 10 31.8 29.9 24.7 26.4 27.0 16.2 16.0 21.2 16.5 20.6 26.6 29.3 28.6 11 29.6 29.5 25.8 26.3 27.1 15.2 17.4 21.1 17.0 21.9 27.8 26.9 28.1 12 29.4 28.9 26.6 26.6 26.3 15.2 18.3 21.6 18.0 22.6 26.1 28.0 29.0 13 29.7 29.2 27.7 28.1 25.5 18.1 18.6 23.2 19.9 22.5 25.6 27.0 31.2 14 32.1 29.8 28.9 28.4 25.3 18.4 18.0 23.1 23.2 24.1 25.8 26.0 29.6 15 32.6 28.7 28.4 28.5 26.1 18.8 18.9 22.9 24.1 25.5 27.0 28.5 30.1 16 32.7 27.0 28.9 28.4 26.4 19.2 21.2 24.1 24.5 25.3 28.3 29.0 30.0 17 28.6 26.4 28.8 28.6 27.0 17.4 17.4 24.5 21.1 26.4 25.4 29.2 29.5
18 29.1 25.7 28.8 28.5 27.2 16.3 14.3 24.9 15.6 24.6 26.7 29.7 28.4 19 29.1 26.7 28.1 28.7 26.7 16.7 13.5 23.6 15.7 23.2 25.5 30.4 29.6 20 29.6 26.9 26.7 28.2 24.7 16.1 13.0 24.3 17.3 24.7 27.6 31.0 31.8 21 30.8 27.8 27.5 27.9 24.8 17.0 14.5 22.9 18.8 25.9 30.1 31.2 31.4 22 30.9 29.1 28.1 27.4 23.1 16.4 15.5 23.9 19.9 27.8 31.3 31.3 27.0 23 31.6 28.7 27.8 28.0 21.3 16.6 15.6 22.4 22.4 27.7 32.8 31.4 28.7 24 32.0 27.1 28.4 27.2 22.2 16.6 16.7 23.9 23.4 28.1 33.9 31.2 27.9 25 28.9 27.8 26.2 27.3 25.1 17.9 17.1 24.5 24.4 22.5 30.0 31.2 29.1 26 30.6 29.4 26.0 26.8 26.3 19.4 17.4 22.8 24.5 24.0 29.7 31.0 28.4 27 32.5 28.7 26.9 26.4 26.2 20.8 16.3 23.0 25.9 25.3 28.1 29.7 26.6 28 29.1 29.0 28.6 26.3 20.8 21.2 16.7 22.6 25.6 25.9 26.3 32.0 27.3 29 25.8 28.1 28.5 26.6 22.0 19.8 16.6 25.8 22.1 28.3 31.9 27.4 30 26.7 27.5 29.4 26.7 19.6 17.3 16.9 25.4 24.5 27.7 28.0 28.3 31 26.2 28.3 26.8 18.1 17.6 26.1 29.3 29.0
Tổng 929.
7 862.7 846.6 849.
7 742.3 568.3 524.8 613.7 655.5 703.4 847.6 907.1 904.9 T.bình 30.0 27.8 28.2 27.4 24.7 18.3 16.9 21.9 21.1 23.4 27.3 30.2 29.2
Max 37.7 35.9 36.0 33.4 32.3 29.5 26.9 29.9 29.9 34.2 38.9 38.5 36.7
Ngày 14 10 3 19 18 8 3 18 31 10 24 8 20
Min 24.9 24.2 22.8 22.8 17.0 11.9 10.9 12.7 11.8 14.3 19.9 23.2 22.4
Ngày 28 18 11 10 30 20 29 0.3 8 5 5 14 16
ð ặc Nhiệt ủộ cao nhất: 38.9 oC Ngày 24 Thỏng XI
trưng Nhiệt ủộ thấp
nhất: 10.9 oC Ngày 29 Tháng VII
năm Trung bình năm : 25.1 oC
T rạm: L áng
Ki nh ủ ộ:
105o4 8'
Tỉnh( tp) : Hà Nội ẨM ð Ộ KHễ NG KHÍ TƯ ƠN G ð ỐI T R UNG B è N H N GÀY Vĩ ủ ộ: 2 1o01'
ð ơn vị: %
Năm: 2 006 Năm: 2 007
Ngày
VII V III IX X XI XII I II III IV V VI VII
1 88 8 9 79 72 60 79 86 61 85 81 66 70 79
2 85 8 0 79 80 61 71 86 52 90 77 64 73 87
3 83 7 9 79 80 63 83 85 62 92 63 77 76 81
4 78 7 9 77 78 67 87 71 75 88 69 94 75 81
5 79 7 8 88 79 65 84 63 81 86 75 87 76 75
6 79 9 1 84 83 71 86 58 81 83 73 72 76 77
7 69 9 2 81 82 57 90 42 83 78 75 65 76 78
8 63 9 3 84 76 69 90 43 80 81 74 63 63 79
9 66 8 2 84 81 80 85 48 81 86 78 67 64 80
10 67 8 1 63 75 83 75 58 86 95 81 78 76 82
11 79 7 8 53 81 74 85 69 80 94 78 80 88 88
12 82 7 8 57 81 72 92 80 83 95 79 78 85 83
13 78 7 4 59 77 75 82 75 84 93 88 61 87 77
14 71 7 5 61 76 77 66 77 82 91 84 80 89 79
15 66 7 6 67 73 79 74 78 86 91 83 83 83 73
16 66 8 9 65 75 81 62 81 86 90 87 80 82 78
17 90 9 3 70 72 80 58 75 83 95 85 78 84 73
18 78 9 5 64 74 80 57 65 81 94 63 79 82 78
19 79 9 1 68 76 84 63 68 83 80 60 90 77 75
20 77 9 1 74 75 86 66 90 79 72 83 85 73 72
21 77 8 4 74 75 86 67 77 89 77 87 72 71 76
22 61 7 8 65 75 75 68 68 88 94 83 62 68 87
23 74 7 3 65 72 85 67 75 90 91 81 52 71 83
24 72 8 5 63 79 83 72 57 89 91 82 50 72 86
25 86 7 4 82 79 86 70 71 83 92 86 63 77 84
26 74 8 0 88 81 80 78 69 86 90 84 77 72 85
27 70 8 5 82 70 81 85 66 87 86 84 78 80 91
28 82 8 6 72 72 77 71 54 90 76 84 89 69 88
29 95 8 3 71 71 78 66 61 86 88 83 73 86
30 88 8 8 70 71 85 77 71 89 70 88 88 84
31 91 8 6 71 79 70 86 81 83
Tổng 2 388 25 83 216 4 2 362 228 0 2 335 213 7 2 271 271 7 2365 2 322 229 6 2 508
T. bình 77 8 3 72 76 76 75 69 81 88 79 75 77 81
Mi n 50 5 4 37 49 36 31 24 35 51 46 39 44 56
Ngày 8 1 3 12 8 3 17 28 2 20 18 23 8 20