中国农业科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (22): 4550-4566.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.22.018
• 研究简报 • 上一篇
赵黎明(),黄安琪,王亚新,蒋文鑫,周行,沈雪峰,冯乃杰,郑殿峰(
)
收稿日期:
2022-03-14
接受日期:
2022-09-05
出版日期:
2022-11-16
发布日期:
2022-12-14
通讯作者:
郑殿峰
作者简介:
赵黎明,E-mail:基金资助:
ZHAO LiMing(),HUANG AnQi,WANG YaXin,JIANG WenXin,ZHOU Hang,SHEN XueFeng,FENG NaiJie,ZHENG DianFeng(
)
Received:
2022-03-14
Accepted:
2022-09-05
Online:
2022-11-16
Published:
2022-12-14
Contact:
DianFeng ZHENG
摘要:
【目的】 研究连续旋耕下深耕对不同优质粳稻生长动态、光合物质生产及产量形成过程的影响,为寒地优质粳稻高产高效栽培提供技术支撑。【方法】 2018—2019年以绥粳18、垦稻12和三江6为供试材料,在秸秆还田条件下,前茬连续2年旋耕基础上,设置深耕和旋耕2种耕作方式,研究耕作方式对优质粳稻生长动态及花后物质生产特性的影响。【结果】 年份间产量差异不显著,而耕作方式对寒地优质粳稻生长发育、花后光合物质生产特性及产量性状存在显著影响。与旋耕相比,深耕显著增加了每平方米分蘖数和有效穗数,剑叶展开时间晚且持续时间长,抽穗晚但持续时间无变化;增加了生物量和茎鞘干物质转运能力,其中齐穗期生物量和茎鞘干物质分别增加8.34%和5.36%;输出量、输出率及转化率增幅分别为13.19%、6.70%和9.17%,差异显著(P<0.05);提高了齐穗期与成熟期叶面指数,延长了绿叶面积持续时间,增加了群体生长速率;促进了主茎倒3、4节位的节间长度、叶片长度和宽度,增加了株高和穗长;每穗粒数和粒重分别增加7.05%和3.37%,收获指数增加1.90%,实现产量平均增幅12.78%。同一耕作方式条件下,在茎蘖数、光合物质生产能力、茎鞘干物质积累量及转运能力、产量及其构成上均以垦稻12表现最佳,绥粳18次之;而三江6花后叶面积指数、成熟期每穗粒数和粒重虽然较高,但并不能弥补其干物质转运能力、有效穗数和千粒重低的不足。在互作效应上,深耕×垦稻12处理表现出较高的每平方米有效穗数,花后光合物质生产及转运能力强,粒叶比和群体生长速率高,千粒重与收获指数高,增产9.15%—27.47%。【结论】 在连续旋耕稻田上搭配一次深耕的耕作方式是利于提高本区域优质粳稻产量的耕作制度。
赵黎明,黄安琪,王亚新,蒋文鑫,周行,沈雪峰,冯乃杰,郑殿峰. 连续旋耕下深耕对寒地优质粳稻产量形成的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(22): 4550-4566.
ZHAO LiMing,HUANG AnQi,WANG YaXin,JIANG WenXin,ZHOU Hang,SHEN XueFeng,FENG NaiJie,ZHENG DianFeng. Effect of Deep Tillage Under Continuous Rotary Tillage on Yield Formation of High-Quality Japonica Rice in Cold Regions[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(22): 4550-4566.
表1
供试品种特性简介"
品种* Variety | 生育期 Growth period (d) | 主茎叶片数 Number of leaves in the main stem | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 穗长 Spike length (cm) | 千粒重 1000-grain weight (g) | 每穗粒数 Grain number per plant (No./plant) | 食味评分 Taste score |
绥粳18 Suijing18 | 134 | 12 | 104.0 | 18.1 | 26.0 | 109.0 | 81-83 |
垦稻12 Kendao12 | 133 | 12 | 96.2 | 18.6 | 26.9 | 84.5 | 82-86 |
三江6 Sanjiang6 | 136 | 12 | 94.0 | 19.5 | 24.8 | 200.0 | 79-82 |
表2
耕作方式对水稻剑叶展开率和抽穗率的影响"
指标 Index | 日期 Date (M-D) | 深耕 DT | 旋耕 RT | ||||||||||
2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | ||||||||||
SJ18 | KD12 | SJ6H | SJ18 | KD12 | SJ6H | SJ18 | KD12 | SJ6H | SJ18 | KD12 | SJ6H | ||
剑叶展开率 Sword leaf expansion rate (%) | 07-14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.9 | 4.8 | — |
07-15 | — | — | — | 1.3 | 2.6 | — | 2.8 | 5.1 | — | 19.8 | 25.6 | 4.1 | |
07-16 | 2.2 | 3.9 | — | 11.6 | 15.9 | 1.5 | 17.5 | 24.1 | 3.7 | 32.5 | 37.7 | 23.9 | |
07-17 | 13.4 | 19.8 | 4.3 | 23.8 | 28.4 | 13.8 | 35.0 | 38.9 | 20.3 | 38.7 | 49.7 | 33.3 | |
07-18 | 24.7 | 30.3 | 23.8 | 30.6 | 39.9 | 24.9 | 44.9 | 50.1 | 30.4 | 51.1 | 61.7 | 43.6 | |
07-19 | 33.3 | 41.1 | 32.1 | 42.6 | 58.6 | 35.6 | 55.6 | 63.3 | 41.7 | 76.3 | 81.0 | 67.4 | |
07-20 | 48.7 | 55.4 | 44.3 | 67.1 | 70.2 | 54.4 | 73.6 | 79.2 | 58.8 | 88.6 | 93.3 | 82.2 | |
07-21 | 69.9 | 69.2 | 60.5 | 80.1 | 83.9 | 71.1 | 85.3 | 91.5 | 69.9 | 96.8 | 100.0 | 92.6 | |
07-22 | 81.4 | 82.2 | 71.4 | 92.5 | 93.6 | 85.6 | 92.1 | 100.0 | 81.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
07-23 | 91.2 | 93.1 | 83.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 91.5 | 100.0 | — | 92.8 | — | — | — | |
07-24 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.8 | — | — | 100.0 | — | — | 100.0 | — | — | — | |
07-25 | — | — | 100.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
抽穗率 Heading rate (%) | 07-22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2.9 | — |
07-23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2.1 | — | 3.7 | 15.9 | — | |
07-24 | — | 4.5 | — | 2.3 | 3.5 | — | 2.7 | 10.1 | — | 11.2 | 27.7 | 4.8 | |
07-25 | 3.7 | 15.1 | — | 11.7 | 14.9 | 1.1 | 11.9 | 21.7 | — | 25.3 | 56.3 | 18.9 | |
07-26 | 12.5 | 27.3 | — | 30.0 | 36.5 | 9.5 | 21.5 | 57.3 | 3.6 | 43.5 | 73.5 | 37.0 | |
07-27 | 23.5 | 59.9 | 2.1 | 49.2 | 59.0 | 23.0 | 42.3 | 85.1 | 20.5 | 72.2 | 87.3 | 56.9 | |
07-28 | 37.5 | 85.0 | 11.3 | 60.6 | 85.4 | 37.2 | 69.7 | 95.3 | 43.5 | 86.4 | 100.0 | 83.3 | |
07-29 | 60.2 | 97.4 | 39.5 | 85.3 | 95.9 | 79.0 | 82.6 | 100.0 | 68.6 | 94.8 | — | 95.5 | |
07-30 | 86.8 | 100.0 | 59.6 | 97.3 | 100.0 | 92.3 | 93.8 | — | 87.3 | 100.0 | — | 100.0 | |
07-31 | 95.7 | — | 75.6 | 100.0 | — | 100.0 | 100.0 | — | 96.5 | — | — | — | |
08-01 | 100.0 | — | 90.3 | — | — | — | — | — | 100.0 | — | — | — | |
08-02 | — | — | 100.0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
表3
耕作方式对水稻干物质生产及运转的影响"
年份Year | 耕作Tillage | 品种 Variety | 齐穗期Full heading | 成熟期 Maturity | 输出量 ET (g·m-2) | 输出率 ER (%) | 转化率 TR (%) | ||
BY (g·m-2) | DAS (g·m-2) | BY (g·m-2) | DAS (g·m-2) | ||||||
2018 | DT | SJ18 | 912.56ab | 687.93a | 1441.33abc | 502.42ab | 185.51ab | 25.84abc | 22.31a |
KD12 | 968.50a | 674.03ab | 1497.17a | 489.02bcd | 185.01ab | 27.11ab | 20.46abc | ||
SJ6 | 828.88cd | 662.03b | 1493.47ab | 515.31a | 146.72c | 22.17d | 18.62bcd | ||
RT | SJ18 | 838.74c | 636.82c | 1379.32de | 472.00de | 164.82bc | 25.88abc | 21.07ab | |
KD12 | 850.10bc | 663.38b | 1430.87cd | 473.43de | 189.95a | 28.63a | 20.77ab | ||
SJ6 | 746.12e | 621.20cd | 1427.46cd | 513.82a | 107.37d | 17.27f | 14.33e | ||
2019 | DT | SJ18 | 851.09bc | 622.72cd | 1438.60bc | 477.21cde | 145.51c | 23.34cd | 17.07de |
KD12 | 763.23de | 608.82de | 1361.61ef | 462.21ef | 146.60c | 24.04bcd | 17.59cd | ||
SJ6 | 848.13bc | 596.82e | 1415.24cde | 490.17bcd | 106.65de | 17.88ef | 13.97ef | ||
RT | SJ18 | 771.13de | 569.61f | 1308.09f | 450.79f | 118.82d | 20.85de | 15.74de | |
KD12 | 750.66e | 596.17e | 1315.91f | 452.22f | 143.95c | 24.14bcd | 18.08bcd | ||
SJ6 | 817.56cd | 569.02f | 1409.17cde | 492.23bc | 84.33e | 14.82f | 10.82f | ||
2018 | 857.48a | 657.56a | 1444.94a | 494.33a | 163.23a | 24.48a | 19.59a | ||
2019 | 800.30b | 593.86b | 1374.77b | 470.80b | 124.31b | 20.85b | 15.55b | ||
DT | 862.07a | 642.06a | 1441.23a | 489.39a | 152.67a | 23.40a | 18.34a | ||
RT | 795.72b | 609.37b | 1378.47b | 475.75b | 134.88b | 21.93b | 16.80a | ||
SJ18 | 843.38a | 629.67a | 1391.84b | 475.61b | 153.67b | 23.98b | 19.05a | ||
KD12 | 833.12ab | 635.60a | 1401.39b | 469.22b | 166.38a | 25.98a | 19.23a | ||
SJ6 | 810.17b | 612.27b | 1436.33a | 502.88a | 111.27c | 18.04c | 14.44b | ||
显著性Significance | |||||||||
年份Year (Y) | 22.75* | 2544.41** | 370.50** | 8994.71** | 5389.16** | 59.31* | 87.18* | ||
耕作 Tillage (T) | 66.29** | 44.31** | 513.23** | 70.95** | 15.50* | 8.18* | 6.05ns | ||
品种 Variety (V) | 4.12* | 23.09** | 4.42* | 24.46** | 52.64** | 59.07** | 42.25** | ||
年份×耕作 Y×T | 9.65* | 0.09ns | 0.53ns | 1.83ns | 0.02ns | 0.47ns | 0.11ns | ||
年份×品种 Y×V | 34.96** | 0.75ns | 4.64* | 0.00ns | 0.65ns | 0.05ns | 2.26ns | ||
耕作×品种 T×V | 0.37ns | 16.32** | 1.89ns | 3.95* | 4.45* | 5.00* | 6.13* | ||
年份×耕作×品种 Y×T×V | 2.79ns | 0.76ns | 2.18ns | 0.01ns | 0.75ns | 1.12ns | 0.15ns |
表4
耕作方式对水稻叶面积指数、粒叶比、群体生长速率和净同化率的影响"
年份Year | 耕作Tillage | 品种 Variety | 齐穗期叶面积指数 Leaf area index at full heading stage | 成熟期叶面积指数 Leaf area index at maturity | 粒叶比 Grain leaf ratio (mg·cm-2) | 群体生长速率 Population growth rate (g·m-2·d-1) | 净同化率 Net assimilation rate (g·m-2·d-1) |
2018 | DT | SJ18 | 4.46b | 2.08e | 17.96de | 12.12bc | 3.88de |
KD12 | 4.50b | 1.65g | 20.11b | 13.31a | 4.69bc | ||
SJ6 | 4.75a | 2.85a | 16.58f | 13.43a | 3.61e | ||
RT | SJ18 | 4.29c | 1.56h | 18.32cd | 12.13bc | 4.48c | |
KD12 | 4.17d | 1.31k | 21.63a | 13.29a | 5.39a | ||
SJ6 | 4.47b | 2.36d | 16.79ef | 13.43a | 4.06d | ||
2019 | DT | SJ18 | 3.66fg | 1.93f | 22.70a | 13.21ab | 4.88b |
KD12 | 3.70fg | 1.50i | 22.54a | 13.22ab | 5.43a | ||
SJ6 | 3.95e | 2.70b | 19.32bc | 12.31abc | 3.74de | ||
RT | SJ18 | 3.74f | 1.66g | 20.27b | 11.96c | 4.82bc | |
KD12 | 3.62g | 1.41j | 22.67a | 12.55abc | 5.47a | ||
SJ6 | 3.92e | 2.46c | 19.90b | 12.74abc | 4.06d | ||
2018 | 4.44a | 1.97a | 18.57b | 12.96a | 4.35b | ||
2019 | 3.76b | 1.94a | 21.23a | 12.67a | 4.74a | ||
DT | 4.17a | 2.12a | 19.87a | 12.94a | 4.37b | ||
RT | 4.03b | 1.79b | 19.93a | 12.69a | 4.72a | ||
SJ18 | 4.03b | 1.81b | 19.81b | 12.36b | 4.52b | ||
KD12 | 3.99b | 1.47c | 21.74a | 13.10a | 5.25a | ||
SJ6 | 4.27a | 2.60a | 18.15c | 12.98a | 3.87c | ||
显著性Significance | |||||||
年份Year (Y) | 240.46** | 395.82** | 201.50** | 2.98 ns | 60.16* | ||
耕作 Tillage (T) | 60.38** | 75.34** | 0.06ns | 5.90ns | 40.14** | ||
品种 Variety (V) | 111.44** | 6419.81** | 136.79** | 4.66* | 180.48** | ||
年份×耕作 Y×T | 52.62** | 75.34** | 5.60ns | 5.60ns | 19.54* | ||
年份×品种 Y×V | 0.00ns | 0.00ns | 7.37** | 3.52ns | 8.79** | ||
耕作×品种 T×V | 8.06** | 44.97** | 10.06** | 1.35ns | 0.40ns | ||
年份×耕作×品种 Y×T×V | 0.00ns | 0.00ns | 6.61** | 1.33ns | 2.17ns |
表5
耕作方式对水稻植株形态性状的影响"
年份Year | 耕作Tillage | 品种 Variety | 株高 Height (cm) | 穗长 Spike length (cm) | 节间长Internode length (cm) | FL (cm) | SL (cm) | TL (cm) | FTL (cm) | |||||||
FI | SI | TI | FTI | 长Length | 宽Width | 长Length | 宽Width | 长Length | 宽Width | 长Length | 宽Width | |||||
2018 | DT | SJ18 | 98.17b | 19.23c | 34.90a | 24.53a | 21.40ab | 8.87ab | 28.77a | 1.46b | 34.57b | 1.27b | 34.07b | 1.13a | 27.00ab | 1.07a |
KD12 | 100.33a | 20.87b | 33.57a | 25.13a | 20.33b | 7.20b | 26.90a | 1.28c | 36.00ab | 1.13b | 30.90c | 1.05b | 26.01b | 0.97a | ||
SJ6 | 95.67c | 21.90a | 33.53a | 24.47a | 22.23a | 10.50a | 25.23a | 1.60a | 39.00a | 1.43a | 38.00a | 1.05b | 33.43a | 1.03a | ||
RT | SJ18 | 96.67a | 18.23b | 34.33a | 22.43a | 19.07a | 6.37a | 34.77a | 1.47b | 33.83a | 1.30a | 30.83b | 1.10a | 25.33a | 1.00ab | |
KD12 | 95.87a | 19.73a | 30.80b | 25.20a | 18.57a | 6.03ab | 29.00b | 1.33c | 35.57a | 1.13b | 29.83b | 1.00b | 24.60a | 0.90b | ||
SJ6 | 93.33b | 20.20a | 33.17b | 18.60a | 15.63b | 4.37b | 31.73ab | 1.54a | 35.57a | 1.23ab | 34.67a | 1.02b | 29.33a | 1.03a | ||
2019 | DT | SJ18 | 98.67a | 19.63b | 34.73a | 24.73a | 21.40ab | 8.20b | 27.67b | 1.41b | 33.67b | 1.22a | 32.89b | 1.11a | 24.56b | 0.99a |
KD12 | 98.33a | 20.90a | 33.77ab | 25.20a | 20.20b | 7.67b | 29.78b | 1.28c | 33.39b | 1.08b | 30.39c | 1.01b | 23.61b | 0.90a | ||
SJ6 | 96.00a | 21.43a | 33.33b | 24.33a | 21.97a | 10.27a | 35.28a | 1.61a | 39.56a | 1.19ab | 34.66a | 1.08a | 28.89a | 0.97a | ||
RT | SJ18 | 97.00a | 18.60 b | 34.40a | 22.63a | 19.20a | 6.57a | 27.92b | 1.30b | 32.36b | 1.17a | 31.67b | 1.07a | 23.78a | 1.01a | |
KD12 | 96.90a | 19.73a | 30.50c | 22.50a | 18.53a | 6.07ab | 24.40c | 1.20b | 31.85b | 1.02b | 30.66b | 0.97b | 23.95a | 0.89b | ||
SJ6 | 94.83a | 19.80a | 33.70b | 18.37b | 15.57b | 4.73b | 38.44a | 1.48a | 41.22a | 1.13ab | 35.33a | 0.97b | 25.78a | 0.93ab | ||
2018 | 96.67a | 20.03a | 33.38a | 22.95a | 19.54a | 7.22a | 29.40a | 1.45a | 35.76a | 1.25a | 33.05a | 1.06a | 27.62a | 1.01a | ||
2019 | 96.96a | 20.02a | 33.33a | 22.96a | 19.48a | 7.25a | 30.58a | 1.38a | 35.34a | 1.13a | 32.60a | 1.03b | 25.09a | 0.95b | ||
DT | 97.86a | 20.66a | 33.97a | 24.73a | 21.26a | 8.78a | 28.94a | 1.44a | 36.03a | 1.22a | 33.48a | 1.07a | 27.25a | 0.99a | ||
RT | 95.77b | 19.38b | 32.74b | 21.18b | 17.76b | 5.69b | 31.04a | 1.39a | 35.07a | 1.16a | 32.17a | 1.02b | 25.46a | 0.96a | ||
SJ18 | 97.63a | 18.93c | 34.59a | 23.58a | 20.27a | 7.50a | 29.78b | 1.41b | 33.61b | 1.24a | 32.36b | 1.10a | 25.17b | 1.02a | ||
KD12 | 97.86a | 20.31b | 32.16c | 23.84a | 19.41ab | 6.70a | 27.52c | 1.27c | 34.20b | 1.09b | 30.45c | 1.01b | 24.54b | 0.91b | ||
SJ6 | 94.96b | 20.83a | 33.33b | 21.44a | 18.85b | 7.45a | 32.67a | 1.56a | 38.84a | 1.25a | 35.67a | 1.03b | 29.36a | 1.00a | ||
显著性Significance | ||||||||||||||||
年份Year (Y) | 0.34ns | 0.00ns | 0.01ns | 0.00ns | 0.07ns | 0.01ns | 14.44ns | 7.95ns | 0.42ns | 13.48ns | 0.54ns | 88.36* | 11.69ns | 208.00** | ||
耕作 Tillage (T) | 19.31* | 205.84** | 46.08** | 15.47** | 128.37** | 21.80* | 2.13ns | 4.05ns | 1.04ns | 5.03ns | 3.37ns | 18.08* | 2.22ns | 7.19ns | ||
品种 Variety (V) | 9.87** | 46.91** | 22.35** | 6.40* | 5.96* | 2.06ns | 13.31** | 96.32** | 23.54** | 14.12** | 38.33** | 18.89** | 7.22* | 8.62** | ||
年份×耕作 Y×T | 1.99ns | 0.00ns | 0.00ns | 0.00ns | 0.06ns | 0.07ns | 3.66ns | 3.89ns | 0.36ns | 0.00ns | 2.92ns | 0.96ns | 0.25ns | 4.44ns | ||
年份×品种 Y×V | 0.48ns | 2.02ns | 0.00ns | 0.02ns | 0.04ns | 0.17ns | 20.58** | 1.69ns | 7.38* | 1.13ns | 0.85ns | 0.22ns | 0.47ns | 0.96ns | ||
耕作×品种 T×V | 0.53ns | 1.42ns | 9.11** | 2.70ns | 20.04** | 16.09** | 5.62* | 2.00ns | 0.00ns | 1.81ns | 1.15ns | 0.64ns | 0.68ns | 0.05ns | ||
年份×耕作×品种 Y ×T×V | 0.61ns | 0.01ns | 0.19ns | 0.00ns | 0.00ns | 0.33ns | 0.54ns | 0.24ns | 2.12ns | 1.85ns | 0.66ns | 1.03ns | 0.01ns | 0.37ns |
表6
耕作方式对水稻产量及其构成的影响"
年份Year | 耕作Tillage | 品种 Variety | 每穗粒数 Grain number per plant (No.·plant-1) | 每穗粒重 Grain weight per plant (g) | 千粒重 1000-grain weight (g) | 结实率 Seed setting rate (%) | 收获指数 Harvest index | 产量 Grain weight (kg·hm-2) |
2018 | DT | SJ18 | 103.28b | 2.23a | 25.25b | 85.49ef | 0.603c | 8842.59b |
KD12 | 80.06d | 1.88de | 27.18a | 86.33def | 0.661a | 9491.59a | ||
SJ6 | 112.16a | 2.20a | 23.41c | 84.10f | 0.587d | 8295.24cd | ||
RT | SJ18 | 93.44c | 2.08c | 25.28b | 88.11cde | 0.576e | 7658.92efg | |
KD12 | 73.83ef | 1.78f | 27.12a | 89.06cd | 0.650b | 8273.36cd | ||
SJ6 | 103.38b | 2.11bc | 23.30c | 88.16cde | 0.575e | 7339.87g | ||
2019 | DT | SJ18 | 100.00b | 2.25a | 24.83b | 90.08bc | 0.525g | 8509.41bc |
KD12 | 77.96de | 1.94d | 26.93a | 92.56ab | 0.608c | 9448.15a | ||
SJ6 | 102.00b | 2.22a | 23.32c | 93.90a | 0548f | 8193.42cd | ||
RT | SJ18 | 94.86c | 2.24a | 25.56b | 92.82ab | 0526g | 8034.17cde | |
KD12 | 72.36f | 1.81ef | 26.73a | 93.53a | 0.608c | 7977.06def | ||
SJ6 | 99.67b | 2.20a | 23.90c | 92.79ab | 0.534g | 7518.53fg | ||
2018 | 94.36a | 2.05a | 25.26a | 86.88b | 0.609a | 8316.93a | ||
2019 | 91.14b | 2.11a | 25.21a | 92.61a | 0.559b | 8280.12a | ||
DT | 95.91a | 2.12a | 25.15a | 88.74b | 0.589a | 8796.73a | ||
RT | 89.59b | 2.04b | 25.32a | 90.74a | 0.578b | 7800.32b | ||
SJ18 | 97.90b | 2.20a | 25.23b | 89.13b | 0.558b | 8261.27b | ||
KD12 | 76.05c | 1.85b | 26.99a | 90.37a | 0.632a | 8797.54a | ||
SJ6 | 104.30a | 2.18a | 23.49c | 89.74b | 0.561b | 7836.77c | ||
显著性Significance | ||||||||
年份Year (Y) | 19.59* | 15.87ns | 0.05ns | 82.33* | 6745.14** | 0.20ns | ||
耕作 Tillage (T) | 484.94** | 67.40** | 2.72ns | 17.40* | 17.00* | 161.73** | ||
品种 Variety (V) | 593.38** | 230.80** | 644.90** | 3.28ns | 606.00** | 70.68** | ||
年份×耕作 Y×T | 46.87** | 7.69* | 4.56ns | 5.62ns | 5.79ns | 2.45ns | ||
年份×品种 Y×V | 7.15** | 0.87ns | 4.36* | 3.71* | 12.56** | 1.02ns | ||
耕作×品种 T×V | 0.71ns | 1.55ns | 3.67* | 0.80ns | 1.52ns | 6.94** | ||
年份×耕作×品种 Y×T×V | 1.50ns | 2.92ns | 3.04ns | 3.81* | 4.77* | 4.42* |
[1] |
PENG S B, TANG Q Y, ZOU Y B. Current status and challenges of rice production in china. Plant Production Science, 2009, 12(1): 3-8.
doi: 10.1626/pps.12.3 |
[2] | 韩上, 武际, 李敏, 陈峰, 王允青, 程文龙, 唐杉, 王慧, 郭熙盛, 卢昌艾. 深耕结合秸秆还田提高作物产量并改善耕层薄化土壤理化性质. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(2): 276-284. |
HAN S, WU J, LI M, CHEN F, WANG Y Q, CHENG W L, TANG S, WANG H, GUO X S, LU C A. Deep tillage with straw returning increase crop yield and improve soil physicochemical properties under topsoil thinning treatment. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2020, 26(2): 276-284. (in Chinese) | |
[3] | 田慎重, 郭洪海, 董晓霞, 董亮, 郑东峰, 孙泽强, 王学君, 刘盛林. 耕作方式转变和秸秆还田对土壤活性有机碳的影响. 农业工程学报, 2016, 32(增刊2): 39-45. |
TIAN S Z, GUO H H, DONG X X, DONG L, ZHENG D F, SUN Z Q, WANG X J, LIU S L. Effect of tillage method change and straw return on soil labile organic carbon. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2016, 32 (Suppl.2): 39-45. (in Chinese) | |
[4] | 张丽, 张中东, 郭正宇, 宫帅, 王若男, 陶洪斌, 王璞. 深松耕作和秸秆还田对农田土壤物理特性的影响. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(1):102-106, 117. |
ZHANG L, ZHANG Z D, GUO Z Y, GONG S, WANG R N, TAO H B, WANG P. Effects of subsoiling tillage and straw returning to field on soil physical properties. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2015, 35(1): 102-106, 117. (in Chinese) | |
[5] | BÜCHI L, WENDLING M, AMOSSÉ C, JEANGROS B, SINAJ S, CHARLES R. Long and short term changes in crop yield and soil properties induced by the reduction of soil tillage in a long term experiment in Switzerland. Soil & Tillage Research, 2017, 174: 120-129. |
[6] |
LOVARELLI D, BACENETTI J, FIALA M. Effect of local conditions and machinery characteristics on the environmental impacts of primary soil tillage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 140: 479-491.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.011 |
[7] | 汤军, 黄山, 谭雪明, 石庆华, 潘晓华. 不同耕作方式对机插双季水稻产量的影响. 江西农业大学学报, 2014, 36(5): 996-1001. |
TANG J, HUANG S, TAN X M, SHI Q H, PAN X H. Effect of different tillage regimes on rice yield under mechanical transplanting in a double rice cropping system. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 2014, 36(5): 996-1001. (in Chinese) | |
[8] |
黄佑岗, 冯跃华, 许桂玲, 李杰, 叶勇, 牟桂婷, 张佳凤, 管正策. 不同耕作方式对杂交籼稻生长特性和产量形成的影响. 中国稻米, 2017, 23(4): 139 -143.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2017.04.028 |
HUANG Y G, FENG Y H, XU G L, LI J, YE Y, MU G T, ZHANG J F, GUAN Z C. Effects of different tillage methods on growth characteristics and yield formation of indica hybrid rice. China Rice, 2017, 23(4): 139-143. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2017.04.028 |
|
[9] | 刘金花, 秦江涛, 张斌, 夏桂龙, 陆金贵, 甘三芽, 余瑞新. 赣东北双季水稻轻型种植和耕作模式评价. 土壤, 2012, 44(3): 482-491. |
LIU J H, QIN J T, ZHANG B, XIA G L, LU J G, GAN S Y, YU R X. Effects of different light cultivation on rice growth, yields and economic benefits in Northeast area of Jiangxi province. Soils, 2012, 44(3): 482-491. (in Chinese) | |
[10] | 谷子寒, 王元元, 帅泽宇, 陈平平, 敖和军, 屠乃美, 易镇邪, 周文新. 土壤耕作方式对水稻产量形成特性的影响初探. 作物研究, 2017, 31(2): 103-109. |
GU Z H, WANG Y Y, SHUAI Z Y, CHEN P P, AO H J, TU N M, YI Z X, ZHOU W X. Preliminary study about the effects of soil tillage ways on the yield formation characteristics of rice. Crop Research, 2017, 31(2): 103-109. (in Chinese) | |
[11] | 徐尚起, 张明园, 孙国峰, 汤文光, 陈阜, 张海林. 应用耕作指数评价耕作措施对双季稻田土壤质量的影响. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(19): 3999-4006. |
XU S Q, ZHANG M Y, SUN G F, TANG W G, CHEN F, ZHANG H L. Assessment of tillage effects on soil quality for double-rice paddy with tilth index. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2011, 44(19): 3999-4006. (in Chinese) | |
[12] | 周群. 不同栽培模式对水稻产量的影响及其生理基础[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2015. |
ZHOU Q. Effects of different cultivation patterns on rice yield and their physiological bases[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2015. (in Chinese) | |
[13] |
唐海明, 肖小平, 李超, 汤文光, 郭立君, 汪柯, 程凯凯, 潘孝晨, 孙耿. 不同土壤耕作模式对双季水稻生理特性与产量的影响. 作物学报, 2019, 45(5): 740-754.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2019.82030 |
TANG H M, XIAO X P, LI C, TANG W G, GUO L J, WANG K, CHENG K K, PAN X C, SUN G. Effects of different soil tillage systems on physiological characteristics and yield of double- cropping rice. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2019, 45(5): 740-754. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2019.82030 |
|
[14] | 凌启鸿, 张洪程, 蔡建中, 苏祖芳, 凌励. 水稻高产群体质量及其优化控制探讨. 中国农业科学, 1993, 26(6): 1-11. |
LING Q H, ZHANG H C, CAI J Z, SU Z F, LING L. Investigation on the population quality of high yield and its optimizing control programme in rice. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 1993, 26(6): 1-11. (in Chinese) | |
[15] |
PENG S, CASSMAN K G, VIRMANI S S, SHEEHY J, KHUSH G S. Yield potential trends of tropical rice since the release of IR8 and the challenge of increasing rice yield potential. Crop Science, 1999, 39: 1552-1559.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci1999.3961552x |
[16] | 陈温福, 徐正进, 张文忠, 马殿荣, 张树林. 中国超级稻育种研究进展与前景. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2007, 38(5): 662-666. |
CHEN W F, XU Z J, ZHANG W Z, MA D R, ZHANG S L. Advances and prospects in research of rice breeding for super high yield in China. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2007, 38(5): 662-666. (in Chinese) | |
[17] | 杨建昌, 王朋, 刘立军, 王志琴, 朱庆森. 中籼水稻品种产量与株型演进特征研究. 作物学报, 2006, 32(7): 949-955. |
YANG J C, WANG P, LIU L J, WANG Z Q, ZHU Q S. Evolution characteristics of grain yield and plant type for mid-season indica rice cultivars. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2006, 32(7): 949-955. (in Chinese) | |
[18] |
BADSHAH M A, TU N M, ZOU Y B, IBRAHIM M, WANG K. Yield and tillering response of super hybrid rice Liangyoupeijiu to tillage and establishment methods. The Crop Journal, 2014, 2(1): 79-86.
doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2013.11.004 |
[19] | WANG F, CHENG F M, ZHANG G P. Difference in grain yield and quality among tillers in rice genotypes differing in tillering capacity. Rice Science, 2007, 14(2): 135-140. |
[20] | AHMAD S, HUSAIN A, ALI H, AHMAD A. Transplanted fine rice (Oryza sativa L.) productivity as affected by plant density and irrigation regimes. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 2005, 7(3): 445-447. |
[21] | 凌启鸿. 作物群体质量. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2000. |
LING Q H. Quality of Crop Population. Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 2000. (in Chinese) | |
[22] |
王晓燕, 韦还和, 张洪程, 孙健, 张建民, 李超, 陆惠斌, 杨筠文, 马荣荣, 许久夫, 王珏, 许跃进, 孙玉海. 水稻甬优12产量13.5 t·hm-2 以上超高产群体的生育特征. 作物学报, 2014, 40(12): 2149-2159.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.02149 |
WANG X Y, WEI H H, ZHANG H C, SUN J, ZHANG J M, LI C, LU H B, YANG Y W, MA R R, XU J F, WANG Y, XU Y J, SUN Y H. Population characteristics for super-high yielding hybrid rice Yongyou12 (>13.5 t·hm-2). Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2014, 40(12): 2149-2159.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.02149 |
|
[23] | 王瑾瑜, 程文龙, 槐圣昌, 武红亮, 邢婷婷, 于伟家, 武际, 李敏, 卢昌艾. 深翻、 有机无机肥配施对稻田水分渗漏和氮素淋溶的影响. 中国农业科学 2021, 54(20): 4385-4395. |
WANG J Y, CHENG W L, HUAI S C, WU H L, XING T T, YU W J, WU J, LI M, LU C A. Effects of deep plowing and organic-inorganic fertilization on soil water and nitrogen leaching in rice field. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(20): 4385-4395. (in Chinese) | |
[24] | SHARMA A P, SINGH S P. Relationship of physiological attributes with grain yield in rice. Agricultural Science Digest, 2000, 20(3): 191-192. |
[25] |
YING J F, PENG S B, HE Q R, YANG H, YANG C D, VISPERAS R M, CASSMAN K G. Comparison of high-yield rice in tropical and subtropical environments: I. Determinants of grain and dry matter yields. Field Crops Research, 1998, 57(1): 71-84.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(98)00077-X |
[26] |
YANG J C, PENG S B, ZHANG Z J, WANG Z Q, VISPERAS R M, ZHU Q S. Grain yields and dry matter and partitioning of assimilates in japonica/indica hybrid rice. Crop Science, 2002, 42(3): 766-772.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2002.7660 |
[27] |
KARLEN D L, SADLER E J, CAMP C R. Dry matter nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium accumulation rate by corn on Norfolk Loamy Sand. Agronomy Journal, 1987, 79(4): 649-656.
doi: 10.2134/agronj1987.00021962007900040014x |
[28] |
HUANG L, LIU L, ZHANG T, ZHAO D, LI H, SUN H, KINNEY P, PITIRANGGON M, CHILLRUD S, MA L, NAVAS-ACIEN A, BI J, YAN B. An interventional study of rice for reducing cadmium exposure in a Chinese industrial town. Environment International, 2019, 122: 301-309.
doi: S0160-4120(18)31206-6 pmid: 30477816 |
[29] |
PAL R, MAHAJAN G, SARDANA V, CHAUHAN B S. Impact of sowing date on yield, dry matter and nitrogen accumulation, and nitrogen translocation in dry-seeded rice in North-West India. Field Crops Research, 2017, 206: 138-148.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.01.025 |
[30] | ZHAI H Q, ZHANG R X, KUANG T Y, CHENG S H, CAO S Q, LU W, MIN S K, WAN J M, LI L B, ZHU D F. Relationship between leaf photosynthetic function at grain filling stage and yield in super high-yielding hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L). Series C: Life Sciences), 2002, 45(6): 637-646. |
[31] |
邓飞, 王丽, 刘利, 刘代银, 任万军, 杨文钰. 不同生态条件下栽培方式对水稻干物质生产和产量的影响. 作物学报, 2012, 38(10): 1930-1942.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2012.01930 |
DENG F, WANG L, LIU L, LIU D Y, REN W J, YANG W Y. Effects of cultivation methods on dry matter production and yield of rice under different ecological conditions. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2012, 38(10): 1930-1942. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2012.01930 |
|
[32] | 李杰, 张洪程, 常勇, 龚金龙, 郭振华, 戴其根, 霍中洋, 许轲, 魏海燕, 高辉. 不同种植方式水稻高产栽培条件下的光合物质生产特征研究. 作物学报, 2011, 37(7): 1235-1248. |
LI J, ZHANG H C, CHANG Y, GONG J L, GUO Z H, DAI Q G, HUO Z Y, XU K, WEI H Y, GAO H. Characteristics of photosynthesis and matter production of rice with different planting methods under high-yielding cultivation condition. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2011, 37(7): 1235-1248. (in Chinese) | |
[33] |
GIUNTA F, MOTZO R, PRUNEDDU G. Has long-term selection for yield in durum wheat also induced changes in leaf and canopy traits. Field Crops Research, 2007, 106(1): 68-76.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.10.018 |
[34] | 李志宏, 刘宏斌, 张云贵. 叶绿素仪在氮肥推荐中的应用研究进展. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2006, 12(1): 125-132. |
LI Z H, LIU H B, ZHANG Y G. A review on chlorophyll meter application on nitrogen fertilizer recommendation. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science, 2006, 12(1): 125-132. (in Chinese) | |
[35] | HUANG M, JIANG L G, XIA B, ZOU Y B, JIANG P, AO H J. Yield gap analysis of super hybrid rice between two subtropical environments. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 2013, 7(5): 600-608. |
[36] |
XU L, ZHAN X W, YU TT, NIE L X, HUANG J, CUI K H, WANG F, LI Y, PENG S B. Yield performance of direct-seeded, double-season rice using varieties with short growth durations in central China. Field Crops Research, 2018, 227: 49-55.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.08.002 |
[37] |
LYNCH J P, DOYLE D, MCAULEY S, MCHARDY F, DANNEELS Q, BLACK L C, WHITE E M, SPINK J. The impact of variation in grain number and individual grain weight on winter wheat yield in the high yield potential environment of ireland. European Journal of Agronomy, 2007, 87: 40-49.
doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2017.05.001 |
[38] |
BORG J, KIAR L P, LECARPETIER C, GOLDRINGER I, GAUFFRETEAU A, SAINT J S, BAROT S, ENJABERT J. Unfolding the potential of wheat cultivar mixtures: a meta-analysis perspective and identification of knowledge gaps. Field Crops Research, 2018, 221: 298-313.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.09.006 |
[39] | 闫平, 张书利, 于艳敏, 牟凤臣, 武洪涛, 徐振华, 周劲松. 不同水稻品种干物质积累与产量性状的相关研究. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(18): 1-6. |
YAN P, ZHANG S L, YU Y M, MU F C, WU H T, XU Z H, ZHOU J S. Correlation research on dry matter accumulation and yield characters of different rice varieties. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2015, 31(18): 1-6. (in Chinese) | |
[40] |
TAO Z Q, MA S K, CHANG X H, WANG D M, WANG Y J, YANG Y S, ZHAO G C, YANG J C. Effects of tridimensional uniform sowing on water consumption, nitrogen use, and yield in winter wheat. The Crop Journal, 2019, 7(4): 480-493.
doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2018.12.006 |
[41] |
ZHU Y G, CHU J P, DAI X L, HE M R. Delayed sowing increases grain number by enhancing spike competition capacity for assimilates in winter wheat. European Journal of Agronomy, 2019, 104: 49-62.
doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2019.01.006 |
[42] |
GRAVOIS K A, HELMS R S. Path analysis of rice yield and yield components as affected by seeding rate. Agronomy Journal, 1992, 84(1): 1-4.
doi: 10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400010001x |
[43] |
LI G H, ZHANG J, YANG C D, SONG Y P, ZHENG C Y, WANG S H, LIU Z H, DING Y F. Optimal yield-related attributes of irrigated rice for high yield potential based on path analysis and stability analysis. The Crop Journal, 2014, 2(4): 235-243.
doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2014.03.006 |
[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. |
|