种间距对不同结瘤特性套作大豆物质积累、 鼓粒及产量形成的影响

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.21.004

中国农业科学 ›› 2019, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (21): 3751-3762.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.21.004

• 专题：玉豆带状复合种植系统对光水的响应 • 上一篇下一篇

种间距对不同结瘤特性套作大豆物质积累、鼓粒及产量形成的影响

庞婷¹,陈平¹,袁晓婷¹,雷鹿²,杜青¹,付智丹¹,张晓娜¹,周颖¹,任建锐¹,王甜¹,汪锦¹,杨文钰¹,雍太文¹()

1 四川农业大学农学院/农业部西南作物生理生态与耕作重点实验室/四川省作物带状复合种植工程技术研究中心,成都 611130
2 四川省眉山市仁寿气象局,四川仁寿 620500

收稿日期:2019-03-17 接受日期:2019-06-05 出版日期:2019-11-01 发布日期:2019-11-12
通讯作者: 雍太文
作者简介:庞婷,E-mail： 18202806919@163.com。
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划(2016YFD030020205);国家自然科学基金(31671625);国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-04-PS19)

Effects of Row Spacing on Dry Matter Accumulation, Grain Filling and Yield Formation of Different Nodulation Characteristic Soybeans in Intercropping

PANG Ting¹,CHEN Ping¹,YUAN XiaoTing¹,LEI Lu²,DU Qing¹,FU ZhiDan¹,ZHANG XiaoNa¹,ZHOU Ying¹,REN JianRui¹,WANG Tian¹,WANG Jin¹,YANG WenYu¹,YONG TaiWen¹()

1 College of Agronomy, Sichuan Agricultural University/Key Laboratory of Crop Ecophysiology and Farming System in Southwest China, Ministry of Agriculture/Sichuan Engineering Research Center for Crop Strip Intercropping System, Chengdu 611130
2 Renshou Meteorological Bureau of Meishan City, Renshou 620500, Sichuan

Received:2019-03-17 Accepted:2019-06-05 Online:2019-11-01 Published:2019-11-12
Contact: TaiWen YONG

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的间套作是实现资源高效利用、解决粮食供求矛盾的重要途径,间套作体系下作物和谐共生受种间互作强度的重要影响。本研究以玉米-大豆套作系统为研究对象,探讨玉豆种间距对不同结瘤特性大豆干物质积累与产量形成的影响。方法 2016—2017年,连续2年进行大田试验,二因素随机区组设计,A因素为不同玉豆种间距,大豆净作（A1）与玉米大豆套作（4种玉豆种间距：30 cm,A2;45 cm,A3;60 cm,A4;75 cm,A5）,B因素为3个大豆品种（贡选1号,弱结瘤;桂夏3号,中度结瘤;南豆25号,强结瘤）,分析大豆干物质积累、鼓粒、产量构成的变化规律。结果玉豆种间距对不同结瘤大豆的物质积累分配有显著影响,鼓粒前期净作大豆的干物质积累量显著高于套作,R4期（盛荚期）达到最高;套作大豆的干物质积累则在R5期（始粒期）达到最高,并逐渐高于净作,以玉豆种间距45、60 cm下的物质积累量较高;玉豆种间距60 cm（A4）下的南豆25号在荚果分配率、成熟期干物质积累量和营养器官对荚果的贡献率等方面优于桂夏3号和贡选1号。各品种在套作下均以A4种间距下的鼓粒时间最长、达到最大鼓粒速率时的籽粒重最高,百粒重与产量最大,且与净作产量差异不显著;各玉豆种间距下以南豆25的鼓粒能力最强,A4种间距下南豆25的平均产量分别比桂夏3号、贡选1号高5.4%和6.3%。结论强结瘤的南豆25号能较好适应玉米大豆套作环境,且在种间距60 cm下表现最优,有利于干物质向籽粒分配和鼓粒,以增加百粒重,弥补荚数不足,达到套作与净作产量相当的目的。

关键词: 玉米-大豆套作, 种间距, 结瘤特性, 干物质, 产量

Abstract:

【Objective】 Intercropping is an important way to increase the efficient utilization of resources and to solve the contradiction between grain supply and demand. Under intercropping system, crop symbiosis is influenced by interspecific interaction intensity between the species. In this study, maize-soybean intercropping system was used to investigate the effects of strength of root interaction between maize and soybean on the dry matter accumulation and yield formation of different nodule characteristic soybeans, so as to analyze variation trend dry matter accumulation and yield formation of soybean. 【Method】 Field experiments were carried out for two consecutive years from 2016 to 2017 with randomized complete block factorial design: factor A was different row spacing between maize and soybean, intercropped soybean followed by different row spacing (A2: 30 cm, A3: 45 cm, A4: 60 cm, A5: 75 cm); factor B was three soybean varieties (Gongxuan 1: Weak nodulation, Guixia 3: Moderate nodulation, Nandou 25: Strong nodulation).【Result】 The row spacing between soybean and maize had a significant effect on the biomass accumulation and distribution of soybean with different nodulation. Under monoculture, dry matter accumulation of soybean was significantly higher than that of intercropping, and reached the highest at R4 (full pod stage). The dry matter accumulation of intercropping soybean reached the highest at R5 stage, and was gradually higher than monoculture. Soybean had a highest amount of biomass accumulation when the row spacing was 45 cm and 60 cm. In intercropping, each variety had the longest grain filling time under A4, and the maximum grain filling rate, 100-seeds weight and yield were achieved under A4. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between monoculture and intercropping yield. Nandou 25 had the strongest grain filling capacity under all row spacing. Under A4, the average yield of Nandou 25 was 5.435% and 6.3% higher than that of Guixia 3 and Gongxuan 1, respectively. 【Conclusion】 Nandou 25 with strong nodulation could adapt to the intercropping environment well, and showed the best performance at 60 cm. It could promote dry matter accumulation and stabilize the yield through increasing grain filling rate and 100-seeds weight in intercropping. Furthermore, it could be useful to achieve the goal of stable and optimal yield in intercropping and monoculture.

Key words: maize-soybean relay strip intercropping, row spacing, nodular varieties, dry matter accumulation, yield

庞婷,陈平,袁晓婷,雷鹿,杜青,付智丹,张晓娜,周颖,任建锐,王甜,汪锦,杨文钰,雍太文. 种间距对不同结瘤特性套作大豆物质积累、鼓粒及产量形成的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(21): 3751-3762.

PANG Ting,CHEN Ping,YUAN XiaoTing,LEI Lu,DU Qing,FU ZhiDan,ZHANG XiaoNa,ZHOU Ying,REN JianRui,WANG Tian,WANG Jin,YANG WenYu,YONG TaiWen. Effects of Row Spacing on Dry Matter Accumulation, Grain Filling and Yield Formation of Different Nodulation Characteristic Soybeans in Intercropping[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(21): 3751-3762.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.21.004

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2019/V52/I21/3751

图/表 9

表1

图1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图2

表6

不同处理下不同时期的大豆各营养器官的干物质分配率"

年份 Year	处理Treatment	V5			R2			R5				R8
年份 Year	处理Treatment	根 Root	茎 Steam	叶 Leaf	根 Root	茎 Steam	叶 Leaf	根 Root	茎 Steam	叶 Leaf	荚 Pod	根 Root	茎 Steam	叶 Leaf	荚 Pod
2016	A1B1	14.86a	36.53a	49.61a	12.68b	41.83ab	45.48a	12.26b	27.35a	32.83a	27.56b	18.60a	38.49a	3.12c	39.79b
	A2B1	15.41a	36.29a	48.30a	14.33a	41.49ab	44.18a	13.48a	26.41ab	31.05ab	29.06a	16.59 ab	30.36b	9.97a	43.08a
	A3B1	14.78a	35.59a	49.62a	14.27a	40.51b	45.22a	13.36a	25.64b	31.60ab	29.41a	15.02b	33.28b	6.02b	45.68a
	A4B1	15.35a	37.39a	47.25a	13.68a	42.92a	43.40a	12.69a	26.92ab	30.07b	30.32a	14.28b	37.28a	5.63b	42.81a
	平均Mean	15.10a	36.45a	48.70a	13.74a	41.69ab	44.60a	12.95a	26.58a	31.39ab	29.09a	16.12 ab	34.85b	6.18b	42.84a
	A1B2	14.21a	31.08c	54.71a	12.15b	36.48b	51.37a	11.67b	23.74b	36.96a	27.63c	13.85a	45.80a	4.61a	35.74c
	A2B2	15.24a	38.48a	46.27b	14.30a	43.66a	42.03b	13.20a	27.24a	28.97b	30.59ab	13.41a	37.98a	6.80a	41.81c
	A3B2	17.47a	35.68b	46.85b	14.30a	41.79a	43.91b	13.27a	26.21b	30.41b	30.11b	15.51a	30.71b	4.99a	48.78b
	A4B2	16.04a	36.42ab	47.54b	14.30a	41.96a	43.83b	12.84a	25.63b	29.58b	31.95a	12.96a	29.17c	5.39a	52.48a
	平均Mean	15.74a	35.41b	48.84a	13.74b	40.97a	45.29a	12.75a	25.71b	31.48a	30.07b	13.98a	35.92a	5.45a	44.70b
	A1B3	19.75ab	34.61ab	45.63 bc	14.42a	41.69ab	43.89ab	13.27b	25.94a	30.19a	30.60b	11.16b	46.74a	4.60b	37.50b
	A2B3	17.10b	33.05b	49.85a	15.44a	38.29c	46.27a	14.38a	24.12b	32.18a	29.32b	16.77a	30.12b	7.37a	45.74b
	A3B3	17.74ab	34.85ab	47.41 ab	14.36a	40.99b	44.64a	13.31b	25.69a	30.91a	30.09b	16.10a	22.36b	6.90ab	54.64ab
	A4B3	20.81a	36.01a	43.18c	14.36a	43.62a	41.85b	12.80b	25.95a	27.50b	33.76a	14.20ab	23.87b	5.19ab	56.74a
	平均Mean	18.85ab	34.63ab	46.52b	14.69a	41.15ab	44.16a	12.80b	25.42a	30.19a	30.94b	14.56ab	30.77b	6.01ab	48.65b
2017	A1B1	22.82a	34.87b	42.31 bc	24.14a	39.64b	36.22ab	8.87a	43.70a	21.29a	26.14a	10.57b	25.42a	15.25b	48.76a
	A2B1	16.21b	37.60ab	46.19a	21.58ab	45.33ab	33.09ab	7.42a	36.87a	27.15a	28.55a	7.69c	26.85a	26.02a	39.44b
	A3B1	15.11b	40.20a	44.69abc	17.16b	47.66a	35.18ab	8.60a	37.57a	23.41a	30.42a	8.31bc	24.02a	15.47b	52.19a
	A4B1	21.70a	36.49b	41.81c	26.55a	41.25ab	32.20b	7.89a	40.69a	24.07a	27.35a	8.69bc	28.68a	23.23a	39.40b
	A5B1	14.66b	40.01a	45.33ab	21.09ab	40.94ab	37.97a	7.38a	39.99a	22.67a	29.97a	13.23a	27.79a	17.27b	41.71b
	平均Mean	18.10b	37.84ab	44.07abc	22.10ab	42.97ab	34.93ab	8.03a	39.76a	23.72a	28.49a	9.70b	26.55a	19.45b	44.30b
	A1B2	20.93a	35.20c	43.87a	24.58a	43.21a	32.21c	11.15a	40.21a	21.08a	27.56c	8.33ab	29.00bc	16.68c	45.99ab
	A2B2	16.35a	38.68b	44.97a	14.61c	44.49a	40.90a	5.01b	30.70bc	26.87a	37.42ab	7.15b	23.77c	23.20a	45.88ab
	A3B2	16.24a	41.32b	42.44a	14.88c	46.79a	38.33ab	5.72b	37.60ab	25.29a	31.39bc	8.35ab	29.89ab	20.78ab	40.98b
	A4B2	18.82a	38.51bc	42.67a	23.34ab	45.65a	31.01c	6.77b	37.60ab	21.25a	34.38b	10.16a	30.53a	12.92d	46.39a
	A5B2	9.39b	47.60a	43.01a	17.87bc	47.19a	34.94bc	6.57b	27.41c	24.43a	41.59a	8.83ab	25.43bc	18.36bc	47.39a
	平均Mean	16.34a	40.26b	43.39a	19.06b	45.46a	35.48ab	7.04b	34.70b	23.78a	34.47b	8.56ab	27.72bc	18.39bc	45.33ab
	A1B3	20.28a	36.25c	43.47a	16.00b	44.88abc	39.11a	7.45ab	40.49a	15.36bc	36.70b	12.63ab	27.97a	16.46ab	42.94c
	A2B3	19.55a	39.03bc	41.42a	15.45b	49.83a	34.73a	6.62b	27.75b	24.47a	41.16ab	8.33c	23.68ab	19.15a	48.85b
	A3B3	18.37a	40.18b	41.45a	19.56b	41.86c	38.59a	8.85ab	32.33ab	18.37bc	40.44ab	10.71bc	23.51ab	14.53bc	51.25b
	A4B3	18.36a	39.96b	41.68a	28.02a	42.88bc	29.10b	9.61a	30.54b	13.37c	46.47a	11.39b	21.62b	9.35d	57.64a
	A5B3	11.62b	44.50a	43.88a	14.10b	48.87ab	37.02a	8.68ab	30.62b	21.12ab	39.58b	14.80a	23.14b	12.29cd	49.78b
	平均Mean	17.64a	39.98b	42.38a	18.63b	45.66ab	35.71a	8.24ab	32.35ab	18.54bc	40.87ab	11.57b	23.98ab	14.36bc	50.09b

表6

表7

参考文献 35

[1]	国家统计局农村社会经济调查总队. 中国农村统计年鉴2017. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2017.
	Rural Socio-Economic Survey Detachment of the National Bureau of Statistics. China Rural Statistical Yearbook 2017. Beijing: Statistics Press of China, 2017. (in Chinese)
[2]	LI L, LI S M, SUN J H, ZHOU L L, ZHANG F S . Diversity enhances agricultural productivity via rhizosphere phosphorus facilitation on phosphorus-deficient soils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 2007,104(27):1192-1196.
[3]	LITHOURGIDIS A S, DORDAS C A, DAMALAS C A, VLACHOSTERGIOS D N, VLACHOSTERGIOS D N . Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 2011,5(4):396-410.
[4]	HENRIK H N, MIKE J G, PER A, GUENAELLE C H, YVES C, DAHLMANN C, AUDREY D, PETER V F, AURELIO P, MICHELE M, ERIK S J . Pea-barley intercropping for efficient symbiotic N₂-fixation, soil N acquisition and use of other nutrients in European organic cropping systems. Field Crops Research, 2009,113(1):64-71.
[5]	MARIANNE K M, REINHOLD S . Biomass yield and nitrogen fixation of legumes mono-cropped and intercropped with rye and rotation effects on a subsequent maize crop. Plant and Soil, 2000,218(1/2):215-232.
[6]	CHU G X, SHEN Q R, CAO J L . Nitrogen fixation and N transfer from peanut to rice cultivated in aerobic soil in an intercropping system and its effect on soil N fertility. Plant and Soil, 2004,263(1/2):17-27.
[7]	高阳, 段爱旺, 刘祖贵, 孙景生, 陈金平, 王和洲 . 间作种植模式对玉米和大豆干物质积累与产量组成的影响. 中国农学通报, 2009,25(2):214-221.
	GAO Y, DUAN A W, LIU Z G, SUN J S, CHEN J P, WANG H Z . Effect of intercropping patterns on dry matter accumulation and yield components of maize and soybean. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2009,25(2):214-221. (in Chinese)
[8]	崔亮, 苏本营, 杨峰, 杨文钰 . 不同玉米-大豆带状套作组合条件下光合有效辐射强度分布特征对大豆光合特性和产量的影响. 中国农业科学, 2014,47(8):1489-150.
	CUI L, SU B Y, YANG F, YANG W Y . Effects of photo-synthetically active radiation on photosynthetic characteristics and yield of soybean in different maize-soybean relay strip intercropping systems. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014,47(8):1489-1501. (in Chinese)
[9]	王竹, 杨文钰, 吴其林 . 玉-豆套作荫蔽对大豆光合特性与产量的影响. 作物学报, 2007,33(9):1502-1507.
	WANG Z, YANG W Y, WU Q L . Effects of shading in maize-soybean relay-cropping system on the photosynthetic characteristics and yield of soybean. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2007,33(9):1502-1507. (in Chinese)
[10]	童平, 杨世民, 马均, 吴合洲, 傅泰露, 李敏, 王明田 . 不同水稻品种在不同光照条件下的光合特性及干物质积累. 应用生态学报, 2008,19(3):505-511 .
	TONG P, YANG S M, MA J, WU H Z, FU T L, LI M, WANG M T . Photosynthetic characteristics and dry matter accumulation of hybrid rice varieties under different light conditions. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2008,19(3):505-511. (in Chinese)
[11]	陈小林, 杨文钰, 陈忠群, 王晶晶 . 不同施氮水平下净、套作大豆茎秆特征比较研究. 大豆科学, 2011,30(1):101-104.
	CHEN X L, YANG W Y, CHEN Z Q, WANG J J . Characteristics of stem between sole-cropping and relay-cropping soybean under different nitrogen applied levels. Soybean Science, 2011,30(1):101-104. (in Chinese)
[12]	于晓波, 张明荣, 吴海英, 杨文钰 . 净套作下不同耐荫性大豆品种农艺性状及产量分布的研究. 大豆科学, 2012,31(5):757-761.
	YU X B, ZHANG M R, WU H Y, YANG W Y . Agronomic characters and yield distribution of different shade tolerance soybean under monoculture and relay strip intercropping systems. Soybean Science, 2012,31(5):757-761. (in Chinese)
[13]	YANG F, HUANG S, GAO R C, LIU W G, YONG T W, WANG X C, WU X L, YANG W Y . Growth of soybean seedlings in relay strip intercropping systems in relation to light quantity and red:far-red ratio. Field Crops Research, 2014,155:245-253.
[14]	宋艳霞, 杨文钰, 李卓玺, 于晓波, 郭凯, 向达兵 . 不同大豆品种幼苗叶片光合及叶绿素荧光特性对套作遮荫的响应. 中国油料作物学报, 2009,31(4):474-479.
	SONG Y X, YANG W Y, LI Z X, YU X B, GUO K, XIANG D B . The effects of shading on photosynthetic and fluorescent characteristics of soybean seedlings under maize-soybean relay cropping. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2009,31(4):474-479. (in Chinese)
[15]	王竹, 杨文钰, 伍晓燕, 吴其林 . 玉米株型和幅宽对套作大豆初花期形态建成及产量的影响. 应用生态学报, 2008,19(2):323-329.
	WANG Z, YANG W Y, WU X Y, WU Q L . Effects of maize plant type and planting width on the early morphological characters and yield of relay planted soybean. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2008,19(2):323-329. (in Chinese)
[16]	张昆, 万勇善, 刘风珍 . 苗期弱光对花生光合特性的影响. 中国农业科学, 2010,43(1):65-71.
	ZHANG K, WAN Y S, LIU F Z . Effects of weak Light on photosynthetic characteristics of peanut seedlings. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2010,43(1):65-71. (in Chinese)
[17]	于显枫, 张绪成 . 高CO₂ 浓度和遮荫对小麦叶片光能利用特性及产量构成因子的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2012,20(7):895-900.
	YU X F, ZHANG X C . Effects of elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentration and shading on leaf light utilization and yield of wheat. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2012,20(7):895-900. (in Chinese)
[18]	吴雨珊, 龚万灼, 廖敦平, 武晓玲, 杨峰, 刘卫国, 雍太文, 杨文钰 . 带状套作荫蔽及复光对不同大豆品种(系)生长及产量的影响. 作物学报, 2015,41(11):1740-1747.
	WU Y S, GONG W Z, LIAO D P, WU X L, YANG F, LIU W G, YONG T W, YANG W Y . Effects of shade and light recovery on soybean cultivars(lines) and its relationship with yield in relay strip intercropping system. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2015,41(11):1740-1747. (in Chinese)
[19]	杨峰, 娄莹, 廖敦平, 高仁才, 雍太文, 王小春, 刘卫国, 杨文钰 . 玉米-大豆带状套作行距配置对作物生物量、根系形态及产量的影响. 作物学报, 2015,41(4):642-650.
	YANG F, LOU Y, LIAO D P, GAO R C, YONG T W, WANG X C, LIU W G, YANG W Y . Effects of row spacing on crop biomass, root morphology and yield in maize-soybean relay strip intercropping system. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2015,41(4):642-650. (in Chinese)
[20]	苏本营, 陈圣宾, 李永庚, 杨文钰 . 间套作种植提升农田生态系统服务功能. 生态学报, 2013,33(14):4505-4514.
	SU B Y, CHEN S B, LI Y G, YANG W Y . Intercropping enhances the farmland ecosystem services. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2013,33(14):4505-4514. (in Chinese)
[21]	ERENA G Q, ESTÍBALIZ L, AMAIA S, JUAN L D, JOSEFA M A, MANUEL W, CESAR A L, STEFANIE W, ESTHER M G. Local inhibition of nitrogen fixation and nodule metabolism in drought-stressed soybean. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2013,64(8):2172-2182.
[22]	于晓波, 苏本营, 龚万灼, 罗玲, 刘卫国, 杨文钰, 张明荣, 吴海英, 曾宪堂 . 玉米-大豆带状套作对大豆根瘤性状和固氮能力的影响. 中国农业科学, 2014,47(9):1743-1753.
	YU X B, SU B Y, GONG W Z, LUO L, LIU W G, YANG W Y, ZHANG M R, WU H Y, ZENG X T . The nodule characteristics and nitrogen fixation of soybean in maize-soybean relay strip intercropping. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014,47(9):1743-1753. (in Chinese).
[23]	CARROLL B, MCNEIL D, GRESSHOFF P . Isolation and properties of soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.] mutants that nodulate in the presence of high nitrate concentrations. Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1985,82(12):4162-4166.
[24]	邱丽娟, 王署明 . 中国大豆品种志1993-2004 . 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007: 12.
	QIU L J, WANG S M. Chinese Soybean Variety 1993-2004. Beijing: China Agricultural Press, 2007: 12. (in Chinese)
[25]	陈渊, 梁江, 韦清源 . 优质夏大豆新品种——桂夏3号的选育. 作物杂志, 2008(8):417-418.
	CHEN Y, LIANG J, WEI Q Y . Breeding of a new high quality summer soybean variety, Guixia No.3.Crops, 2008(8):417-418. (in Chinese)
[26]	吴海英, 梁建秋, 于晓波, 杨鹏, 张明荣 . 大豆新品种南夏豆25的选育及配套高产栽培技术研究. 大豆科技, 2015(2):23-26.
	WU H Y, LIANG J Q, YU X B, YANG P, ZHANG M R . Breeding of a new soybean variety Nanxiadou 25 and its supporting high-yield cultivation techniques. Soybean Science & Technology. 2015(2):23-26. (in Chinese)
[27]	雍太文, 刘小明, 刘文钰, 苏本营, 宋春, 杨峰, 王小春, 杨文钰 . 减量施氮对玉米-大豆套作体系中作物产量及养分吸收利用的影响. 应用生态学报, 2014,25(2):474-482.
	YONG T W, LIU X M, LIU W Y, SU B Y, SONG C, YANG F, WANG X C, YANG W Y . Effects of reduced N application rate on yield and nutrient uptake and utilization in maize-soybean relay strip intercropping system. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014,25(2):474-482 .(in Chinese)
[28]	YANG J, ZHANG J, WANG Z, ZHU Q, WANG W . Hormonal changes in the grains of rice subjected to water stress during grain filling. Plant Physiology, 2001,127(1):315-323.
[29]	JIANG H, EGLI D B . Soybean seed number and crop growth rate during flowering. Agronomy Journal, 1995,87(2):264-267.
[30]	陈忠群 . 钼肥对净套作大豆固氮特性、光合生理及产量品质的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2011.
	CHEN Z Q . Effects of molybdenum on nitrogen fixation, character of photosynthesis, yield and quality of soybean in sole-cropping and relay strip inter-cropping system[D]. Ya’an: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2011. ( in Chinese)
[31]	伍晓燕, 王竹, 张含彬, 杨文钰 . 玉-豆套作对大豆开花后光合生产的影响. 作物杂志, 2006(3):30-33.
	WU X Y, WANG Z, ZHANG H B, YANG W Y . Effect of maize- soybean relay strip intercropping system on photosynthetic production of soybean after anthesis. Crops, 2006(3):30-33. (in Chinese)
[32]	杨继芝 . 播期和品种对套作大豆生长发育特性和产量及品质的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2006.
	YANG J Z . Effects of sowing date and Variety on growth and development characteristics, yield and quality of intercropping soybean[D]. Ya’an: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2006. ( in Chinese)
[33]	闫艳红, 杨文钰, 张新全, 陈小林, 陈忠群 . 施氮量对套作大豆花后光合特性、干物质积累及产量的影响. 草业学报, 2011,20(3):233-238.
	YAN Y H, YANG W Y, ZHANG X Q, CHEN X L, CHEN Z Q . Effects of different nitrogen levels on photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter accumulation and yield of relay strip intercropping Glycine max after blooming. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011,20(3):233-238. (in Chinese)
[34]	张正翼 . 不同密度与田间配置对套作大豆产量和品质的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2008.
	ZHANG Z Y . Effects of different densities and field configurations on yield and quality of intercropping soybean[D]. Ya’an: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2008. ( in Chinese)
[35]	陈雨海, 余松烈, 于振文 . 小麦生长后期群体光截获量及其分布与产量的关系. 作物学报, 2003,29(5):730-734.
	CHEN Y H, YU S L, YU Z W . Relationship between amount or distribution of PAR interception and grain output of wheat communities. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2003,29(5):730-734. (in Chinese)

主要特征 Main characteristic	贡选1号 Gongxuan 1	桂夏3号 Guixia 3	南豆25号 Nandou 25
生育期 Growth time (d)	120	108	134
叶形 Leaf shape	卵圆 Oval	椭圆 Ellipse	卵圆 Oval
株高 Plant height (cm)	96	59.9	67.5
结荚习性 Pod fertility	有限 limited	有限 limited	有限 limited
蛋白质 Protein (%)	47.00	43.62	49.10
脂肪 Fat (%)	17.20	20.11	17.50
始粒期单株平均根瘤个数 Number of nodules per plant at seed formation initiation stage	226.946	252.264	288.016
始粒期单株平均根瘤鲜重 Fresh weight of nodules per plant at seed formation initiation stage (g)	3.6830	4.2320	4.3963
始粒期单株根瘤固氮酶活性 C₂H₂ reduction per plant at seed formation initiation stage (mL·h^-1·g^-1)	0.5300	0.6519	1.0498

种间距 Row spacing	2016				2017
种间距 Row spacing	B1	B2	B3	平均 Mean	B1	B2	B3	平均 Mean
A1	1981.34a	1859.04a	2077.37a	1972.58a	1965.05a	1970.65ab	2175.21a	2036.97a
A2	1191.45b	1055.83b	1509.66b	1252.31b	1953.47a	1730.45c	1931.47b	1871.80b
A3	1328.67b	1323.31b	1795.36ab	1452.11b	1900.48a	1874.25b	1974.59b	1916.44b
A4	1807.99a	1819.78a	2007.11a	1878.29a	2015.97a	2039.67a	2071.52ab	2042.39a
A5	—	—	—	—	1947.57a	1799.39bc	1881.13b	1876.03b
平均 Mean	1627.36b	1491.74b	1847.37a	—	1956.51a	1882.88b	2006.78a	—

年份 Year	种间距 Row spacing	单株荚数 Pods per plant				单荚粒数 Seeds per pod				百粒重 Weight of 100-seeds (g)
年份 Year	种间距 Row spacing	B1	B2	B3	平均Mean	B1	B2	B3	平均Mean	B1	B2	B3	平均Mean
2016	A1	67.00a	71.67a	65.33a	68.00a	1.66b	1.80a	1.62a	1.69a	20.23a	19.27a	22.98a	20.83a
	A2	59.33b	44.33c	50.00c	48.22d	1.46c	1.70a	1.62a	1.59b	17.99c	16.06d	21.17b	18.41c
	A3	55.33b	48.33c	57.67b	53.78c	1.46c	1.69a	1.60a	1.59b	18.64b	17.06c	22.18a	19.29b
	A4	50.33b	54.67b	60.33a	58.11b	1.82a	1.82a	1.63a	1.76a	20.08a	18.53b	22.19a	20.26a
	平均 Mean	58.00b	54.75b	58.33b	—	1.60b	1.75a	1.62a	—	19.24b	17.73c	22.13a	—
2017	A1	63.00a	60.00a	49.00a	57.33a	1.46b	1.54a	1.45a	1.48c	18.24b	18.24a	26.10ab	20.86a
	A2	54.40a	57.60a	43.20a	51.73a	1.69a	1.60a	1.50a	1.60ab	18.19b	16.01b	25.43bc	19.87ab
	A3	56.00a	60.80a	46.90a	54.57a	1.55ab	1.61a	1.53a	1.56abc	18.68ab	16.39ab	23.59c	19.55b
	A4	49.20a	67.20a	43.80a	53.40a	1.70a	1.60a	1.54a	1.62a	20.59a	16.18ab	26.18ab	20.99a
	A5	52.80a	63.20a	41.80a	52.60a	1.60ab	1.56a	1.38a	1.51bc	19.72ab	15.59b	27.80a	21.04a
	平均 Mean	55.08a	61.76a	44.94a	—	1.60ab	1.58a	1.48a	—	19.08ab	16.48ab	25.82b	—

处理 Treatment	模拟方程 Simulative equation	相关系数 Correlation coefficient
A1B1	Y=17.5570/(1+e^{3.6696-0.1501x})^1/0.0806	0.9977**
A1B2	Y=17.1461/(1+e^{3.4713-0.1508x})^1/0.0841	0.9947**
A1B3	Y=24.4795/(1+e^{3.4113-0.2168x})^1/0.0134	0.9911**
A2B1	Y=18.7089/(1+e^{2.3874-0.1275x})^1/0.0417	0.9971**
A2B2	Y=15.4204/(1+e^{9.0364-0.2440x})^1/0.4750	0.9954**
A2B3	Y=23.4872/(1+e^{0.8381-0.1386x})^1/0.0131	0.9851**
A3B1	Y=18.5408/(1+e^{2.6195-0.1380x})^1/0.0420	0.9963**
A3B2	Y=16.2227/(1+e^{3.4650-0.1622x})^1/0.0540	0.9961**
A3B3	Y=24.2147/(1+e^{2.5246-0.1638x})^1/0.0269	0.9975**
A4B1	Y=19.9867/(1+e^{1.8642-0.1218x})^1/0.0342	0.9956**
A4B2	Y=16.8530/(1+e^{1.0419-0.0982x})^1/0.0514	0.9950**
A4B3	Y=25.6150/(1+e^{1.8951-0.1568x})^1/0.0191	0.9950**
A5B1	Y=18.2363/(1+e^{2.4845-0.1506x})^1/0.0245	0.9922**
A5B2	Y=18.0886/(1+e^{0.5033-0.1045x})^1/0.0196	0.9983**
A5B3	Y=26.2659/(1+e^{0.4055-0.1268x})^1/0.0136	0.9859**

处理 Treatment	R₀	Se (d)	Y_max (g)	V_max (g·d^-1)	(g·d^-1)	T_max (d)
A1B1	1.86e	27.71d	6.71e	12.03e	0.3822a	41.21d
A2B1	3.06d	32.03b	7.02b	21.08d	0.3754c	43.66a
A3B1	3.29c	29.60c	6.96c	22.43c	0.3755b	41.97c
A4B1	3.57b	33.40a	7.48a	26.23b	0.3741d	43.02b
A5B1	6.15a	26.89e	6.77d	41.26a	0.3723e	41.13e
平均 Mean	3.59	29.93	6.99	24.61	0.3759	42.20
A1B2	1.79d	27.64c	6.56c	11.31d	0.3828b	39.44d
A2 B2	0.51e	20.28e	6.80a	2.65e	0.4412a	40.08c
A3 B2	3.00b	25.33d	6.13e	17.92b	0.3776c	39.36e
A4 B2	1.91c	41.79a	6.36d	11.86c	0.3771d	40.85b
A5 B2	5.32a	38.66b	6.72b	35.40a	0.3715e	42.43a
平均 Mean	2.51	30.74	6.51	15.83	0.3900	40.43
A1 B3	16.22a	18.58e	9.07c	146.14a	0.3703d	35.64e
A2 B3	10.61b	29.05b	8.70e	91.73b	0.3703d	37.36b
A3 B3	6.08e	24.75d	9.03d	54.24e	0.3728a	37.49a
A4 B3	8.20d	25.75c	9.51b	77.34d	0.3714b	37.31c
A5 B3	9.34c	31.76a	9.73a	90.27c	0.3704c	37.11d
平均 Mean	10.09	25.98	9.21	91.94	0.3714	36.98

种间距对不同结瘤特性套作大豆物质积累、鼓粒及产量形成的影响

Effects of Row Spacing on Dry Matter Accumulation, Grain Filling and Yield Formation of Different Nodulation Characteristic Soybeans in Intercropping

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 35

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	张晓丽, 陶伟, 高国庆, 陈雷, 郭辉, 张华, 唐茂艳, 梁天锋. 直播栽培对双季早稻生育期、抗倒伏能力及产量效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(2): 249-263.
[2]	严艳鸽, 张水勤, 李燕婷, 赵秉强, 袁亮. 葡聚糖改性尿素对冬小麦产量和肥料氮去向的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(2): 287-299.
[3]	徐久凯, 袁亮, 温延臣, 张水勤, 李燕婷, 李海燕, 赵秉强. 畜禽有机肥氮在冬小麦季对化肥氮的相对替代当量[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(2): 300-313.
[4]	王彩香,袁文敏,刘娟娟,谢晓宇,马麒,巨吉生,陈炟,王宁,冯克云,宿俊吉. 西北内陆早熟陆地棉品种的综合评价及育种演化[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 1-16.
[5]	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.
[6]	张玮,严玲玲,傅志强,徐莹,郭慧娟,周梦瑶,龙攀. 播期对湖南省双季稻产量和光热资源利用效率的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(1): 31-45.
[7]	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.
[8]	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.
[9]	王浩琳,马悦,李永华,李超,赵明琴,苑爱静,邱炜红,何刚,石美,王朝辉. 基于小麦产量与籽粒锰含量的磷肥优化管理[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(9): 1800-1810.
[10]	桂润飞,王在满,潘圣刚,张明华,唐湘如,莫钊文. 香稻分蘖期减氮侧深施液体肥对产量和氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(8): 1529-1545.
[11]	廖萍,孟轶,翁文安,黄山,曾勇军,张洪程. 杂交稻对产量和氮素利用率影响的荟萃分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(8): 1546-1556.
[12]	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.
[13]	秦羽青,程宏波,柴雨葳,马建涛,李瑞,李亚伟,常磊,柴守玺. 中国北方地区小麦覆盖栽培增产效应的荟萃（Meta）分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(6): 1095-1109.
[14]	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.
[15]	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.

年份 Year	种间距 Row spacing	输出率 Output ratio				贡献率 Contribution ratio
年份 Year	种间距 Row spacing	B1	B2	B3	平均 Mean	B1	B2	B3	平均 Mean
2016	A1	48.19a	37.82c	35.35b	40.46b	43.98b	41.47b	53.42b	46.29c
	A2	50.81a	49.15ab	49.77a	49.91a	57.44a	51.68a	55.65ab	54.92a
	A3	50.03a	43.68b	46.54a	46.75a	50.01a	46.97b	55.74ab	50.89b
	A4	47.47a	49.93a	44.54a	47.31a	50.49a	49.35a	58.57a	52.80ab
	平均Mean	49.13a	45.15b	44.05a	—	50.50a	47.34b	55.85ab	—
2017	A1	41.79a	37.36a	44.06a	41.07a	53.64ab	53.70a	57.77a	55.04a
	A2	40.82a	38.84a	24.21b	34.62ab	57.70a	44.55b	24.25b	42.17b
	A3	44.07a	31.63ab	34.73ab	36.81a	57.96a	50.61ab	33.48b	47.35ab
	A4	31.95ab	34.25ab	46.74a	37.64a	39.02bc	37.93bc	57.75a	44.89b
	A5	26.69b	24.15b	34.43ab	28.43b	32.56c	23.80c	38.33b	31.56c
	平均Mean	37.06a	33.25ab	36.83ab	—	48.17b	42.12b	42.31ab	—

种间距对不同结瘤特性套作大豆物质积累、 鼓粒及产量形成的影响

Effects of Row Spacing on Dry Matter Accumulation, Grain Filling and Yield Formation of Different Nodulation Characteristic Soybeans in Intercropping

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 35

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

种间距对不同结瘤特性套作大豆物质积累、鼓粒及产量形成的影响