中国农业科学 ›› 2019, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (4): 629-638.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.04.005
徐田军,吕天放,陈传永,刘月娥,张译天,刘秀芝,赵久然(),王荣焕(
)
收稿日期:
2018-11-06
接受日期:
2018-12-29
出版日期:
2019-02-16
发布日期:
2019-02-27
通讯作者:
赵久然,王荣焕
作者简介:
徐田军,Tel:010-51502461;E-mail: 基金资助:
XU TianJun,LÜ TianFang,CHEN ChuanYong,LIU YueE,ZHANG YiTian,LIU XiuZhi,ZHAO JiuRan(),WANG RongHuan(
)
Received:
2018-11-06
Accepted:
2018-12-29
Online:
2019-02-16
Published:
2019-02-27
Contact:
JiuRan ZHAO,RongHuan WANG
摘要:
【目的】研究并明确种植密度和植物生长调节剂对玉米茎秆性状的影响,可为合理密植、构建适宜群体结构、实现玉米高产抗逆栽培提供理论依据和技术支撑。【方法】以JK968为试验材料,设置6.0×10 4株/hm 2(D1)、7.5×10 4株/hm 2(D2)和9.0×10 4株/hm 2(D3)3个密度水平,以及乙烯利矮壮素复配剂(EC)和喷施清水为对照(CK)2个处理,研究种植密度对玉米茎秆性状的影响以及茎秆性状对化学调控的响应。 【结果】(1)倒伏率随种植密度增加呈升高趋势,其中在D1密度条件下,JK968的倒伏率分别比D2和D3低69.1%和83.4%;EC处理可显著降低倒伏率,在D1、D2和D3密度条件下分别比对照降低了5.0%、19.8%和41.0%。(2)株高、穗位高、穗位系数和重心高度在不同种植密度和化控处理间均存在极显著差异,具体表现为随种植密度增加呈升高趋势;EC处理后显著降低了地上部第6节以下的节间长度,增加了地上部第7节以上的节间长度,株高和穗位系数略降低,而穗位高和重心高度显著降低。(3)茎秆抗折力和茎秆外皮穿刺强度在不同处理间均存在极显著差异。大喇叭口期至成熟期呈先升高后降低趋势,在乳熟期达最大值。随种植密度增加,地上部第3、4和5节茎秆抗折力和茎秆外皮穿刺强度呈降低趋势;不同节间茎秆抗折力和茎秆外皮穿刺强度表现为地上部第3节>第4节>第5节;EC处理后显著增加了地上部第3、4和5节茎秆抗折力和茎秆外皮穿刺强度。(4)穗粒数和百粒重随种植密度增加呈降低趋势;EC处理后,穗粒数、百粒重和产量均较对照增加。在D1、D2和D3密度条件下,EC处理后产量分别较对照高438.8 kg·hm -2、1041.3 kg·hm -2和3376.5 kg·hm -2,增幅分别为3.6%、8.2%和27.8%。 【结论】随种植密度增加,玉米株高增加、重心高度上移、基部节间伸长、基部节间充实度和抗折力下降。EC处理显著降低了地上部第6节以下的节间长度,显著增加了地上部第7节以上的节间长度,株高略降低,重心高度和穗位高显著降低,基部节间长度缩短、基部节间充实度提高,从而提高了茎秆的抗倒伏能力。由此可见,在风灾倒伏频发地区以及种植密度过大等倒伏风险较大条件下,喷施植物生长调节剂可显著增加玉米茎秆的抗折力和茎秆外皮穿刺强度,显著降低穗位高、重心高度和倒伏率,有利于玉米高产稳产。
徐田军,吕天放,陈传永,刘月娥,张译天,刘秀芝,赵久然,王荣焕. 种植密度和植物生长调节剂对玉米茎秆性状的影响及调控[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(4): 629-638.
XU TianJun,LÜ TianFang,CHEN ChuanYong,LIU YueE,ZHANG YiTian,LIU XiuZhi,ZHAO JiuRan,WANG RongHuan. Effects of Plant Density and Plant Growth Regulator on Stalk Traits of Maize and Their Regulation[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(4): 629-638.
表1
玉米生育期内的气象条件"
月份 Month | 降水量 Precipitation (mm) | 平均气温 Average temperature (℃) | 最大瞬时风速 Maximum instantaneous wind speed (m·s-1) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | |
5 | 68.4 | 89.6 | 20.7 | 20.3 | 7.9 | 7.5 |
6 | 150.6 | 69.8 | 24.1 | 24.7 | 9.2 | 8.6 |
7 | 126.2 | 222.2 | 25.8 | 26.7 | 10.3 | 9.5 |
8 | 81.2 | 45.6 | 25.3 | 26.2 | 7.3 | 6.4 |
9 | 83.1 | 76.8 | 19.7 | 20.4 | 8.4 | 8.1 |
表2
不同处理条件下的倒伏情况"
密度 Planting density (×104 plant/hm2) | 处理 Treatment | 倒伏发生时期 Lodging stage | 倒伏分级 Lodging degree | 倒伏率 Lodging percentage (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | ||
6.0 (D1) | CK | V14 | V12 | 2 | 2 | 8.9 | 8.7 |
TR | V14 | V12 | 0 | 0 | 5.6 | 2.1 | |
7.5 (D2) | CK | V14 | V12 | 3 | 3 | 23.3 | 33.7. |
TR | V14 | V12 | 1 | 0 | 8.9 | 8.5 | |
9.0 (D3) | CK | V14 | V12 | 4 | 4 | 51.2 | 54.9 |
TR | V14 | V12 | 1 | 1 | 11.6 | 12.5 |
表3
不同处理条件下玉米株高、穗位高、重心高度和节间长度的变化"
年际 Year | 密度 Planting density (×104 plant/hm2) | 处理 Treatment | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 穗位高 Ear height (cm) | 穗位系数 Ear position coefficients | 重心高度 Culm gravity height (cm) | 1-6节间长度 Internodes length between one to six node (cm) | 7节以上节间长度 Internodes length above seven (cm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 6.0 (D1) | CK | 311.0c | 110.2c | 0.35b | 77.5d | 95.3bc | 181.1f | |
TR | 306.2d | 104.3e | 0.34b | 72.2e | 85.4d | 196.7c | |||
7.5 (D2) | CK | 314.5b | 116.6b | 0.37a | 86.3b | 103.8a | 187.2e | ||
TR | 306.3d | 106.2d | 0.35b | 79.8c | 93.0c | 202.5b | |||
9.0 (D3) | CK | 325.8a | 124.4a | 0.38a | 90.3a | 109.5a | 193.6d | ||
TR | 317.0b | 109.3e | 0.32c | 84.7b | 96.4b | 209.4a | |||
2016 | 6.0 (D1) | CK | 276.7bc | 112.1bc | 0.37a | 95.7c | 83.6c | 172.7e | |
TR | 272.7c | 94.0d | 0.35ab | 87.0d | 76.2e | 183.2cd | |||
7.5 (D2) | CK | 281.7b | 118.3ab | 0.38a | 100.7b | 88.8 b | 179.9d | ||
TR | 278.7bc | 96.7cd | 0.36ab | 90.5d | 78.0e | 190.4b | |||
9.0 (D3) | CK | 287.7a | 124.0a | 0.39a | 106.0a | 91.5a | 186.6bc | ||
TR | 284.7a | 103.0ab | 0.37a | 93.7c | 82.0d | 198.1a | |||
变异来源 Source of variation | 密度 Planting density | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ||
年际 Year | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |||
EC | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |||
密度×EC Plant density× EC | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |||
EC×年际 EC×Year | NS | ** | NS | * | NS | NS | |||
密度×年际 Plant density×Year | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |||
密度×EC×年际 Planting density×EC×Year | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
表4
不同处理水平下玉米茎秆抗折力的变化"
年际 Year | 密度 Planting density (×104 plant/hm2) | 处理 Treatment | 节位 Node | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12展叶期 V12 | 吐丝期Silking stage | 乳熟期Milk stage | 收获期 Harvest stage | ||||||||||||||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||
2015 | 6.0 (D1) | CK | 358.7bc | 250.9b | 244.7ab | 500.9b | 350.8b | 275.8b | 648.1b | 605.7b | 431.7b | 523.4b | 468.9b | 403.3b | |||||
TR | 542.9a | 384.6a | 278.2a | 639.2a | 421.3a | 388.0a | 779.2a | 670.1a | 589.4a | 634.6a | 568.9a | 521.6a | |||||||
7.5 (D2) | CK | 270.9d | 244.3bc | 164.1cd | 366.0c | 286.5c | 193.6d | 555.8c | 479.6d | 381.2c | 419.7d | 309.9d | 251.2e | ||||||
TR | 385.0b | 288.6b | 222.5b | 538.5ab | 329.1b | 290.3b | 627.7b | 539.8c | 458.1b | 489.7c | 386.6c | 348.9c | |||||||
9.0 (D3) | CK | 247.2d | 189.9c | 122.6d | 326.9c | 204.9d | 176.5d | 436.7d | 403.5e | 281.1d | 333.4e | 287.7e | 204.6f | ||||||
TR | 304.8cd | 236.1bc | 170.0c | 487.5b | 268.4c | 234.6c | 526.2c | 495.0d | 381.7c | 402.3d | 312.3d | 283.6d | |||||||
2016 | 6.0 (D1) | CK | 330.5c | 290.9b | 231.2b | 505.3b | 401.4b | 374.9b | 654.8b | 522.6c | 477.0b | 546.5b | 365.5c | 302.4c | |||||
TR | 527.4a | 343.4a | 253.3a | 619.9a | 510.6a | 437.8a | 744.1a | 606.4a | 513.2a | 615.4a | 470.6a | 380.6a | |||||||
7.5 (D2) | CK | 255.2f | 232.5d | 148.2d | 362.5d | 280.1d | 294.9d | 568.9d | 445.2e | 362.9e | 504.1d | 332.5d | 267.1d | ||||||
TR | 349.2 b | 268.5c | 208.5c | 458.8c | 350.3c | 238.9c | 632.3c | 535.2b | 422.7c | 534.4c | 399.3b | 318.5b | |||||||
9.0 (D3) | CK | 202.9e | 176.0e | 109.7e | 276.5f | 217.3f | 176.1f | 467.9f | 367.0f | 272.4f | 396.8f | 238.2f | 192.2e | ||||||
TR | 297.0d | 223.2d | 148.5d | 302.1e | 255.4e | 194.4e | 587.5e | 468.4d | 391.0d | 452.3e | 297.7e | 274.7d | |||||||
变异来源 Source of variation | 密度 Plant density | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ||||||
年际 Year | * | NS | * | ** | ** | ** | NS | ** | * | ** | ** | ** | |||||||
EC | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |||||||
密度×EC Plant density×EC | * | NS | NS | NS | * | * | NS | NS | NS | ** | ** | * | |||||||
EC×年际 EC×Year | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ** | NS | NS | * | ** | NS | ** | |||||||
密度×年际 Plant density× Year | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | ** | NS | NS | NS | ** | NS | ** | |||||||
密度×EC×年际 Plant density× EC× Year | NS | NS | NS | NS | * | ** | NS | NS | ** | * | ** | ** |
表5
不同处理条件下玉米茎秆外皮穿刺强度变化"
年际 Year | 密度 Plant density (×104 plant/hm2) | 处理 Treatment | 节位 Node | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12展叶期 V12 | 吐丝期Silking stage | 乳熟期Milk stage | 收获期 Harvest stage | ||||||||||||||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||
2015 | 6.0 (D1) | CK | 27.9bc | 20.9c | 17.8c | 50.4b | 43.6bc | 38.4b | 60.1b | 54.0b | 48.2b | 56.3b | 50.2b | 43.6b | |||||
TR | 42.6a | 37.5a | 27.1a | 56.6a | 52.9a | 48.7a | 65.1a | 63.3a | 58.5a | 60.9a | 57.8a | 53.1a | |||||||
7.5 (D2) | CK | 24.2cd | 17.2d | 14.1d | 43.5c | 39.6cd | 35.5c | 55.6c | 50.0bc | 43.5c | 52.3d | 45.9cd | 38.9d | ||||||
TR | 31.2b | 29.0b | 24.2a | 48.1b | 44.6b | 38.7b | 58.5b | 53.1b | 47.7b | 54.8cd | 49.3b | 42.7bc | |||||||
9.0 (D3) | CK | 21.8d | 15.0d | 13.0d | 34.9e | 31.5e | 25.4d | 42.2d | 39.5d | 35.4d | 40.6e | 36.5e | 32.1e | ||||||
TR | 29.7b | 25.5b | 21.0b | 40.0d | 37.1d | 32.7c | 53.3c | 47.5c | 43.7c | 52.2d | 45.5cd | 40.8c | |||||||
2016 | 6.0 (D1) | CK | 26.4c | 18.8d | 16.6d | 48.5b | 42.0b | 36.5b | 56.8b | 49.9b | 45.8b | 54.4b | 48.6b | 40.5b | |||||
TR | 39.3a | 36.2a | 25.8a | 53.4 a | 51.2a | 45.6a | 63.3a | 60.4a | 56.1a | 58.2a | 55.3a | 51.4a | |||||||
7.5 (D2) | CK | 22.6d | 16.0e | 13.2e | 41.3d | 37.7c | 33.4c | 52.3c | 47.4c | 41.2d | 49.0d | 43.3d | 36.5d | ||||||
TR | 29.6b | 26.7b | 23.2b | 46.9c | 42.9b | 35.5b | 55.0b | 51.3b | 43.7bc | 50.7c | 46.0c | 40.9b | |||||||
9.0 (D3) | CK | 20.1e | 14.3f | 12.7e | 33.5f | 30.0e | 23.6e | 40.7d | 37.7e | 34.7e | 37.7e | 34.6e | 30.4e | ||||||
TR | 27.0c | 23.5c | 19.8c | 37.6e | 36.0d | 30.8d | 50.5c | 44.8d | 41.3cd | 48.9d | 42.5d | 38.0c | |||||||
变异来源 Source of variation | 密度Plant density | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ||||||
年际 Year | ** | ** | * | ** | * | ** | * | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |||||||
EC | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |||||||
密度×EC Plant density× EC | * | ** | NS | NS | NS | ** | NS | * | * | ** | * | ** | |||||||
EC×年际 EC×Year | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |||||||
密度×年际 Plant density×Year | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |||||||
密度×EC×年际 Plant density× EC× Year | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
表6
不同处理条件下的产量及构成因素"
密度 Planting density (×104 plant/hm2) | 处理 Treatment | 穗粒数Ear grain | 百粒重 100-grain weight (g) | 产量 Yield (kg·hm-2) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | ||
6.0 (D1) | CK | 679.5a | 613.5b | 39.2ab | 33.7ab | 12831.5d | 11433.0e |
TR | 687.8a | 636.7 a | 40.2a | 34.6a | 13401.6cd | 11740.4d | |
7.5 (D2) | CK | 646.0c | 576.3cd | 38.8b | 32.1d | 13540.5c | 11970.0c |
TR | 659.7b | 586.5c | 39.7a | 33.0c | 14903.0b | 12690.0b | |
9.0 (D3) | CK | 580.9e | 546.0e | 36.1d | 32.0d | 13283.4e | 11018.3f |
TR | 626.3d | 575.6d | 37.4c | 32.7cd | 16372.0a | 14682.5a | |
变异来源 Source of variation | 密度Plant density | ** | ** | ** | |||
年际 Year | ** | ** | ** | ||||
EC | ** | ** | ** | ||||
密度×EC Plant density× EC | ** | NS | ** | ||||
EC×年际 EC×Year | NS | NS | NS | ||||
密度×年际 Plant density×Year | ** | NS | ** | ||||
密度×EC×年际 Plant density× EC× Year | * | NS | ** |
[1] |
赵久然, 王荣焕 . 中国玉米生产发展历程、存在问题及对策. 中国农业科技导报, 2013,15(3):1-6.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0864.2013.03.01 |
ZHAO J R, WANG R H . Development process, problem and countermeasure of maize production in China. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2013,15(3):1-6. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0864.2013.03.01 |
|
[2] |
白永新, 张润生, 李鹏, 魏振飞, 白宇皓, 张建华, 郭盛 . 玉米品种抗倒伏关联特性的鉴定. 山西农业科学, 2016,44(11):1592-1596.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2016.11.04 |
BAI Y X, ZHANG R S, LI P, WEI Z F, BAI Y H, ZHANG J H, GUO S . Identification of traits associated with lodging resistance in maize. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2016,44(11):1592-1596. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2016.11.04 |
|
[3] |
FLINT-GARCIA S A, DARRAH L L, MCMULLEN M D, HIBBARD B E . Phenotypic versus marker-assisted selection for stalk strength and second-generation European corn borer resistance in maize. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2003,107(7):1331-1336.
doi: 10.1007/s00122-003-1387-9 pmid: 12928781 |
[4] |
田保明, 杨光圣 . 农作物倒伏及其评价方法. 中国农学通报, 2005,21(7):111-114.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2005.07.034 |
TIAN B M, YANG G S . The performance of lodging and developing a standard test for lodging resistance in crops. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2005,21(7):111-114. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2005.07.034 |
|
[5] |
TOLLENAAR M, LEE E A . Yield potential, yield stability and stress tolerance in maize. Field Crops Research, 2002,88:161-169.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00024-2 |
[6] |
KHOSRAVI G R, ANDERSON I C . Growth, yield, and yield components of ethephon-treated corn. Plant Growth Regulation, 1991,10(1):27-36.
doi: 10.1007/BF00035128 |
[7] | 王群英, 胡昌浩 . 玉米茎秆抗倒特性的解剖研究. 作物学报, 1991,17(1):70-75. |
WANG Q Y, HU C H . Studies on the anatomical structures of the stalks of maize with different resistance to lodging. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 1991,17(1):70-75. (in Chinese) | |
[8] | 程富丽, 杜雄, 刘梦星, 靳小利, 崔彦宏 . 玉米倒伏及其对产量的影响. 玉米科学, 2011,19(1):105-108. |
CHENG F L, DU X, LIU M X, JIN X L, CUI Y H . Lodging of summer maize and the effects on grain yield. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2011,19(1):105-108. (in Chinese) | |
[9] |
PEIFFER J A, FLINT-GARCIA S A, DE LEON N, MCMULLEN M D, KAEPPLER S M, BUCKLER E S . The genetic architecture of maize stalk strength. PLoS ONE, 2013,8(6):e67066.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067066 pmid: 3688621 |
[10] |
WILKINSON S, DAVIES W J . ABA-based chemical signaling: The co-ordination of responses to stress implants. Plant Cell and Environment, 2002,25(2):195-210.
doi: 10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00824.x pmid: 11841663 |
[11] |
PENG S B, BURESH R J, HUANG J L, ZHONG X H, ZOU Y B, YANG J C, WANG G H, LIU Y Y, TANG Q Y, CUI K H, ZHANG F S, DOBERMANN A . Improving nitrogen fertilization in rice by site-specific N management. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2010,30(3):649-656.
doi: 10.1051/agro/2010002 |
[12] |
任佰朝, 李利利, 董树亭, 刘鹏, 赵斌, 杨今胜, 王丁波, 张吉旺 . 种植密度对不同株高夏玉米品种茎秆性状与抗倒伏能力的影响. 作物学报, 2016,42(12):1864-1872.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2016.01864 |
REN B C, LI L L, DONG S T, LIU P, ZHAO B, YANG J S, WANG D B, ZHANG J W . Effects of plant density on stem traits and lodging resistance of summer maize hybrids with different plant heights. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016, 42(12):1864-1872. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2016.01864 |
|
[13] | 刘明, 齐华, 张卫建, 张振平, 李雪霏, 宋振伟, 于吉琳, 吴亚男 . 深松方式与施氮量对玉米茎秆解剖结构及倒伏的影响. 玉米科学, 2013,21(1):57-63. |
LIU M, QI H, ZHANG W J, ZHANG Z P, LI X F, SONG Z W, YU J L, WU Y N . Effects of deep loosening and nitrogen application on anatomical structures of stalk and lodging in maize. Journal of Maize Science, 2013,21(1):57-63. (in Chinese) | |
[14] |
宋朝玉, 张继余, 张清霞, 陈希群, 李祥云, 王圣健 . 玉米倒伏的类型、原因及预防、治理措施. 作物杂志, 2006(1):36-38.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2006.01.016 |
SONG C Y, ZHANG J Y, ZHANG Q X, CHEN X Q, LI X Y, WANG S J . Corn lodging types, causes and prevention and treatment measures. Crops, 2006(1):36-38. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2006.01.016 |
|
[15] | 汪黎明, 姚国旗, 穆春华, 李建生, 戴景瑞 . 玉米抗倒性的遗传研究进展. 玉米科学, 2011,19(4):1-4. |
WANG L M, YAO G Q, MU C H, LI J S, DAI J R . Advances in genetic research of maize lodging resistance. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2011,19(4):1-4. (in Chinese) | |
[16] | 孙世贤, 顾慰连, 戴俊英 . 密度对玉米倒伏及其产量的影响. 沈阳农业大学学报, 1989,20(4):413-416. |
SUN S X, GU W L, DAI J Y . The effect of density on lodging of crop. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 1989,20(4):413-416. (in Chinese) | |
[17] |
高鑫, 高聚林, 于晓芳, 王志刚, 孙继颖, 苏治军, 胡树平, 叶君, 王海燕, 崔超, 李维敏 . 高密植对不同类型玉米品种茎秆抗倒特性及产量的影响. 玉米科学, 2012,20(4):69-73.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0906.2012.04.015 |
GAO X, GAO J L, YU X F, WANG Z G, SUN J Y, SU Z J, HU S P, YE J, WANG H Y, CUI C, LI W M . Stalks lodging-resistance characteristics and yield traits among different maize varieties under high close planting. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2012,20(4):69-73. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0906.2012.04.015 |
|
[18] | 田再民, 黄智鸿, 陈建新, 史宝林, 魏东, 瞿文洁, 李环 . 种植密度对3个紧凑型玉米品种抗倒伏性和产量的影响. 玉米科学, 2016,24(5):83-88. |
TIAN Z M, HUANG Z H, CHEN J X, SHI B L, WEI D, QU W J, LI H . Effects of planting density on lodging resistance and yield of three erectophile maize varieties. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2016,24(5):83-88. (in Chinese) | |
[19] |
勾玲, 黄建军, 张宾, 李涛, 孙锐, 赵明 . 群体密度对玉米茎秆抗倒力学和农艺性状的影响. 作物学报, 2007,33(10):1688-1695.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0496-3490.2007.10.019 |
GOU L, HUANG J J, ZHANG B, LI T, SUN R, ZHAO M . Effects of population density on stalk lodging resistant mechanism and agronomic characteristics of maize. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2007,33(10):1688-1695. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0496-3490.2007.10.019 |
|
[20] |
PICKETT L K, LILJEDAHL J B, HAUGH G G, ULLSTRUP A J . Rheological properties of corn stalk subjected to transverse loading. Transactions of the American Society Agricultural Engineers, 49(157):53-58.
doi: 10.7209/tanso.1993.53 |
[21] |
姚敏娜, 施志国, 薛军, 杨再文, 勾玲, 张旺锋 . 种植密度对玉米茎秆皮层结构及抗倒伏能力的影响. 新疆农业科学, 2013,12(5):56-60.
doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2013.11.007 |
YAO M N, SHI Z G, XUE J, YANG Z W, GOU L, ZHANG W F . The effects of different planting densities on the cortex structure of steam and lodging resistance in maize. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2013,12(5):56-60. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2013.11.007 |
|
[22] |
卫晓轶, 张明才, 李召虎, 段留生 . 不同基因型玉米对乙烯利调控反应敏感性的差异. 作物学报, 2011,37(10):1819-1827.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.01819 |
WEI X Y, ZHANG M C, LI Z H, DUAN L S . Differences in responding sensitivity to ethephon among different maize genotypes. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2011,37(10):1819-1827. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.01819 |
|
[23] | 董学会, 段留生, 孟繁林, 何钟佩, 李召虎 . 30%已·乙水剂对玉米产量和茎秆质量的影响. 玉米科学, 2006,14(1):138-140. |
DONG X H, DUAN L S, MENG F L, HE Z P, LI Z H . Effects of spraying 30% DTA-6 ethephon solution on yield and straw quality of maize. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2006,14(1):138-140. (in Chinese) | |
[24] | 张倩, 张海燕, 谭伟明, 段留生 . 30%矮壮素·烯效唑微乳剂对水稻抗倒伏性状及产量的影响. 农药学学报, 2011,13(2):144-148. |
ZHANG Q, ZHANG H Y, TIAN W M, DUAN L S . Effects of chlormequat-uniconazole 300 micro-emulsion on lodging resistance and yield of rice. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science, 2011,13(2):144-148. (in Chinese) | |
[25] |
杨锦忠, 陈明利, 张洪生 . 中国1950s到2000s玉米产量-密度关系的Meta分析. 中国农业科学, 2013,46(17):3562-3570.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.17.004 |
YANG J Z, CHEN M L, ZHANG H S . Meta-analysis of the relationship between maize crop yield and plant density from 1950s to 2000s in China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2013,46(17):3562-3570. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.17.004 |
|
[26] |
王楷, 王克如, 王永宏, 赵健, 赵如浪, 王喜梅, 李健, 梁明晰, 李少昆 . 密度对玉米产量(>15000kg·hm -2)及其产量构成因子的影响 . 中国农业科学, 2012,45(16):3437-3445.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.16.025 |
WANG K, WANG K R, WANG Y H, ZHAO J, ZHAO R L, WANG X M, LI J, LIANG M X, LI S K . Effects of density on maize yield and yield components. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2012,45(16):3437-3445. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.16.025 |
|
[27] |
卢霖, 董志强, 董学瑞, 焦浏, 李光彦, 高娇 . 乙矮合剂对不同密度夏玉米茎秆抗倒伏能力及产量的影响. 作物杂志, 2015(2):70-77.
doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2015.02.015 |
LU L, DONG Z Q, DONG X R, JIAO L, LI G Y, GAO J . Effects of ethylene-chlormequat-potassium on stem lodging resistance and yield of summer maize under different sowing densities. Crops, 2015(2):70-77. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2015.02.015 |
|
[28] | 张洪生, 赵明, 吴沛波, 翟延举, 姜雯 . 种植密度对玉米茎秆和穗部性状的影响. 玉米科学, 2009,17(5):130-133. |
ZHANG H S, ZHAO M, WU P B, ZHAI Y J, JIANG W . Effects of the plant density on the characteristics of maize stem and ear. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2009,17(5):130-133. (in Chinese) | |
[29] |
叶德练, 王庆燕, 张钰石, 李建民, 段留生, 张明才, 李召虎 . 乙烯利和氮肥对玉米基部节间性状和抗折断力的调控研究. 中国农业大学学报, 2015,20(6):1-8.
doi: 10.11841/j.issn.1007-4333.2015.06.01 |
YE D L, WANG Q Y, ZHANG Y S, LI J S, DUAN L S, ZHANG M C, LI Z H . Study of ethehon and nitrogen rate in regulating the basal internode characteristics and breaking resistance of maize. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2015,20(6):1-8. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.11841/j.issn.1007-4333.2015.06.01 |
|
[30] |
张子学, 朱仕燕, 李文阳, 刘正 . 化控剂-乙烯利对玉米植株主要性状和产量的影响. 中国农学通报, 2014,30(3):209-213.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2013-1067 |
ZHANG Z X, ZHU S Y, LI W Y, LIU Z . Effect of chemical control agent-ethephon on main characters and yield of maize. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014,30(3):209-213. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2013-1067 |
|
[31] | 薛珠政, 卢和顶, 林建新, 杨人震 . 种植密度对玉米单株和群体效应的影响. 玉米科学, 1999,7(2):52-54. |
XUE Z Z, LU H D, LIN J X, YANG R Z . Effect on single plant and population efficiency by different density on maize. Journal of Maize Sciences, 1999,7(2):52-54. (in Chinese) | |
[32] | 李宁, 李建民, 翟志席, 李召虎, 段留生 . 化控技术对玉米植株抗倒伏性状农艺性状及产量的影响. 玉米科学, 2010,18(6):38-42. |
LI N, LI J M, ZHAI Z X, LI Z H, DUAN L S . Effects of chemical regulator on the lodging resistance traits, agricultural characters and yield of maize. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2010, 18(6):38-42. (in Chinese) | |
[33] |
马延华, 孙德全, 李绥艳, 林红, 潘丽艳, 李东林, 陈绍江 . 玉米乳熟期茎秆木质素含量的遗传分析. 玉米科学, 2016,21(1):19-23.
doi: 10.13597/j.cnki.maize.science.20160104 |
MA Y H, SUN D Q, LI S Y, LIN H, PAN L Y, LI D L, CHEN S J . Genetic analysis of lignin content in maize stalk at milk stage. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2016,21(1):19-23. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.13597/j.cnki.maize.science.20160104 |
|
[34] | 王永学, 张战辉, 刘宗华 . 玉米抗倒伏性状的配合力效应及通径分析. 河南农业大学学报, 2011,45(1):1-6. |
WANG Y X, ZHANG Z H, LIU Z H . Combining ability and path analysis of lodging resistance traits in maize. Journal of Henan Agricultural University, 2011,45(1):1-6. (in Chinese) | |
[35] |
丰光, 黄长玲, 邢锦丰 . 玉米抗倒伏的研究进展. 作物杂志, 2008(4):12-14.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2008.04.004 |
FENG G, HUANG C L, XING J F . The research progress in lodging resistance of maize. Crops, 2008(4):12-14. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2008.04.004 |
[1] | 赵政鑫,王晓云,田雅洁,王锐,彭青,蔡焕杰. 未来气候条件下秸秆还田和氮肥种类对夏玉米产量及土壤氨挥发的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 104-117. |
[2] | 柴海燕,贾娇,白雪,孟玲敏,张伟,金嵘,吴宏斌,苏前富. 吉林省玉米穗腐病致病镰孢菌的鉴定与部分菌株对杀菌剂的敏感性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 64-78. |
[3] | 李周帅,董远,李婷,冯志前,段迎新,杨明羡,徐淑兔,张兴华,薛吉全. 基于杂交种群体的玉米产量及其配合力的全基因组关联分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(9): 1695-1709. |
[4] | 熊伟仡,徐开未,刘明鹏,肖华,裴丽珍,彭丹丹,陈远学. 不同氮用量对四川春玉米光合特性、氮利用效率及产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(9): 1735-1748. |
[5] | 李易玲,彭西红,陈平,杜青,任俊波,杨雪丽,雷鹿,雍太文,杨文钰. 减量施氮对套作玉米大豆叶片持绿、光合特性和系统产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(9): 1749-1762. |
[6] | 马小艳,杨瑜,黄冬琳,王朝辉,高亚军,李永刚,吕辉. 小麦化肥减施与不同轮作方式的周年养分平衡及经济效益分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(8): 1589-1603. |
[7] | 李前,秦裕波,尹彩侠,孔丽丽,王蒙,侯云鹏,孙博,赵胤凯,徐晨,刘志全. 滴灌施肥模式对玉米产量、养分吸收及经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(8): 1604-1616. |
[8] | 张家桦,杨恒山,张玉芹,李从锋,张瑞富,邰继承,周阳晨. 不同滴灌模式对东北春播玉米籽粒淀粉积累及淀粉相关酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(7): 1332-1345. |
[9] | 谭先明,张佳伟,王仲林,谌俊旭,杨峰,杨文钰. 基于PLS的不同水氮条件下带状套作玉米产量预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(6): 1127-1138. |
[10] | 冯宣军, 潘立腾, 熊浩, 汪青军, 李静威, 张雪梅, 胡尔良, 林海建, 郑洪建, 卢艳丽. 南方地区120份甜、糯玉米自交系重要目标性状和育种潜力分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(5): 856-873. |
[11] | 刘苗,刘朋召,师祖姣,王小利,王瑞,李军. 氮磷配施下夏玉米临界氮浓度稀释曲线的构建与氮营养诊断[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(5): 932-947. |
[12] | 乔远,杨欢,雒金麟,汪思娴,梁蓝月,陈新平,张务帅. 西北地区玉米生产投入及生态环境风险评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(5): 962-976. |
[13] | 黄兆福, 李璐璐, 侯梁宇, 高尚, 明博, 谢瑞芝, 侯鹏, 王克如, 薛军, 李少昆. 不同种植区玉米生理成熟后田间站秆脱水的积温需求[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(4): 680-691. |
[14] | 石习, 宁丽华, 葛敏, 邬奇, 赵涵. 玉米氮状况相关生物标记物的筛选和应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(3): 438-450. |
[15] | 张建军, 党翼, 赵刚, 王磊, 樊廷录, 李尚中. 覆膜时期和施氮量对陇东旱塬玉米产量和水氮利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(3): 479-490. |
|