中国水稻科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (2): 181-194.DOI: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2022.210809
张小鹏1, 宫彦龙1,2, 闫秉春1, 李丽1, 李坤译1, 王祎玮1, 鞠晓堂1, 程效义1,*(), 徐海1,*()
收稿日期:
2021-08-17
修回日期:
2021-10-17
出版日期:
2022-03-10
发布日期:
2022-03-11
通讯作者:
程效义,徐海
基金资助:
ZHANG Xiaopeng1, GONG Yanlong1,2, YAN Bingchun1, LI Li1, LI Kunyi1, WANG Yiwei1, JU Xiaotang1, CHEN Xiaoyi1,*(), XU Hai1,*()
Received:
2021-08-17
Revised:
2021-10-17
Online:
2022-03-10
Published:
2022-03-11
Contact:
CHEN Xiaoyi, XU Hai
摘要:
【目的】 研究抗倒酯对优质稻抗倒伏能力及产量与米质的影响。【方法】 以优质稻品种丰锦和沈农09001为试材,在分蘖期、拔节初期、孕穗期叶面喷施不同浓度(0、90、180和360 mg/L, 1200 L/hm2)的抗倒酯,以倒伏指数、抗折力以及抗推力作为评价植株抗倒伏能力的指标,研究抗倒酯对优质稻抗倒伏能力及产量和米质的影响。 【结果】 施用抗倒酯可以改善水稻茎秆的形态和解剖结构,提高植株抗倒伏能力。随着施用浓度的增加,株高降低,重心下移,基部第1、2、3节间长度缩短,茎秆粗度及茎壁厚度增加,大、小维管束数目、大维管束面积先增加后降低,抗折力和植株抗推力增加,倒伏指数降低,抗倒伏能力增加。不同施用时期处理间抗倒伏能力有显著差异,在孕穗期施用对提升抗倒伏能力最有效。随着施用浓度的增加,有效穗数、结实率、穗粒数显著降低,千粒重显著增加,而穗长显著降低,产量随之显著降低。施用时期越往后移,产量降幅越高。蛋白质含量随着施用浓度的增加而增加,大米食味值呈下降趋势,糙米率、精米率显著下降,对其他米质性状无显著影响。施用时期越晚对水稻外观品质及营养品质影响越小,稻米品质较好。【结论】 随着抗倒酯浓度的增加优质稻的抗倒伏能力随之增强,产量和加工品质及营养品质虽有所下降,但可以一定程度弥补因倒伏而造成损失,因此抗倒酯可以作为提高抗倒伏能力的作物生长调节物质应用于优质稻生产中,最佳施用浓度和施用时期组合为拔节始期时施用180 mg/L(1200 L/hm2)的抗倒酯。
张小鹏, 宫彦龙, 闫秉春, 李丽, 李坤译, 王祎玮, 鞠晓堂, 程效义, 徐海. 抗倒酯对北方优质稻抗倒伏能力、产量和米质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2022, 36(2): 181-194.
ZHANG Xiaopeng, GONG Yanlong, YAN Bingchun, LI Li, LI Kunyi, WANG Yiwei, JU Xiaotang, CHEN Xiaoyi, XU Hai. Effects of Trinexapac-ethyl on Lodging Resistance, Yield and Rice Quality of Northern Rice with Good Quality[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2022, 36(2): 181-194.
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 节间长度Internode length/cm | 株高Plant height/cm | 穗长Panicle length/cm | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 | N2 | N3 | ||||
丰锦 Toyonishiki | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
对照CK | 5.21 Aa | 12.64 Aa | 25.71 Aa | 118.61 Aa | 19.52 Aa | |
低浓度C1 | 4.32 Ab | 10.46 Bb | 21.30 Aab | 113.10 Ab | 19.31 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 2.89 Bc | 8.74 BCc | 18.61 Aab | 101.46 Bc | 17.27 Bb | |
高浓度C3 | 2.91 Bc | 8.17 Cc | 16.46 Ab | 85.66 Cd | 16.10 Bc | |
时期Stage(T) | ||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 4.35 Aa | 10.54 Aa | 19.89 Aa | 106.47 Aa | 19.18 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 4.05 Aa | 10.23 Aa | 23.89 Aa | 105.24 Aa | 17.68 Bb | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 3.10 Ab | 9.24 Aa | 17.79 Aa | 102.43 Aa | 17.29 Bb | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 15.60** | 17.17** | 2.54* | 111.42** | 24.03** |
时期Stage(T) | 7.57* | 1.42ns | 2.15ns | 3.19ns | 28.17** | |
C×T | 4.44** | 1.04ns | 0.99ns | 4.50** | 3.60* | |
沈农09001 Shennong 09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
对照CK | 6.03 Aa | 13.02 Aa | 17.91 Aa | 114.76 Aa | 19.44 Aa | |
低浓度C1 | 4.30 Bb | 10.14 Bb | 16.42 Aa | 103.10 Bb | 19.22 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 3.17 Cc | 8.15 Cc | 13.71 Bb | 91.24 Cc | 19.13 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 2.79 Cc | 5.51 Dd | 11.37 Cc | 76.26 Dd | 17.56 Bb | |
时期Stage(T) | ||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 4.51 Aa | 11.06 Aa | 15.40 Aa | 99.45 Aa | 19.78 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 3.63 Aa | 9.56 Ab | 15.29 Aa | 97.03 Aa | 18.64 Ab | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 4.07 Aa | 6.99 Bc | 13.88 Bb | 92.55 Bb | 18.09 Ab | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 40.61** | 51.35** | 33.06** | 186.00** | 15.70** |
时期Stage(T) | 1.35* | 42.23** | 16.02* | 25.98** | 10.97* | |
C×T | 2.57* | 1.17ns | 0.45ns | 3.86* | 5.23** |
表1 抗倒酯对优质稻穗长、基部各节间长度和株高的影响
Table 1 Effects of TE on panicle length, basal internode length and plant height of good quality rice.
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 节间长度Internode length/cm | 株高Plant height/cm | 穗长Panicle length/cm | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 | N2 | N3 | ||||
丰锦 Toyonishiki | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
对照CK | 5.21 Aa | 12.64 Aa | 25.71 Aa | 118.61 Aa | 19.52 Aa | |
低浓度C1 | 4.32 Ab | 10.46 Bb | 21.30 Aab | 113.10 Ab | 19.31 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 2.89 Bc | 8.74 BCc | 18.61 Aab | 101.46 Bc | 17.27 Bb | |
高浓度C3 | 2.91 Bc | 8.17 Cc | 16.46 Ab | 85.66 Cd | 16.10 Bc | |
时期Stage(T) | ||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 4.35 Aa | 10.54 Aa | 19.89 Aa | 106.47 Aa | 19.18 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 4.05 Aa | 10.23 Aa | 23.89 Aa | 105.24 Aa | 17.68 Bb | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 3.10 Ab | 9.24 Aa | 17.79 Aa | 102.43 Aa | 17.29 Bb | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 15.60** | 17.17** | 2.54* | 111.42** | 24.03** |
时期Stage(T) | 7.57* | 1.42ns | 2.15ns | 3.19ns | 28.17** | |
C×T | 4.44** | 1.04ns | 0.99ns | 4.50** | 3.60* | |
沈农09001 Shennong 09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
对照CK | 6.03 Aa | 13.02 Aa | 17.91 Aa | 114.76 Aa | 19.44 Aa | |
低浓度C1 | 4.30 Bb | 10.14 Bb | 16.42 Aa | 103.10 Bb | 19.22 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 3.17 Cc | 8.15 Cc | 13.71 Bb | 91.24 Cc | 19.13 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 2.79 Cc | 5.51 Dd | 11.37 Cc | 76.26 Dd | 17.56 Bb | |
时期Stage(T) | ||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 4.51 Aa | 11.06 Aa | 15.40 Aa | 99.45 Aa | 19.78 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 3.63 Aa | 9.56 Ab | 15.29 Aa | 97.03 Aa | 18.64 Ab | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 4.07 Aa | 6.99 Bc | 13.88 Bb | 92.55 Bb | 18.09 Ab | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 40.61** | 51.35** | 33.06** | 186.00** | 15.70** |
时期Stage(T) | 1.35* | 42.23** | 16.02* | 25.98** | 10.97* | |
C×T | 2.57* | 1.17ns | 0.45ns | 3.86* | 5.23** |
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 茎秆粗度Culm diameter/mm | 茎壁厚度Culm wall thickness/mm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 | N2 | N3 | N1 | N2 | N3 | |||
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 5.01 Aab | 4.50 Bb | 4.08 Aa | 0.81 Ab | 0.62 Bb | 0.52 Ab | |
低浓度C1 | 4.82 Ab | 4.49 Bb | 3.75 BCbc | 0.90 Aab | 0.70 ABa | 0.53 Aab | ||
中浓度C2 | 5.16 Aa | 4.68 Aa | 3.95 ABab | 0.93 Aab | 0.72 Aa | 0.54 Aab | ||
高浓度C3 | 5.09 Aab | 4.42 Bb | 3.63 Cc | 0.94 Aa | 0.68 ABa | 0.57 Aa | ||
时期Stage(T) | ||||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 5.03 Aa | 4.60 Aa | 3.90 Aa | 0.87 Aa | 0.68 Aa | 0.55 Aa | ||
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 4.91 Aa | 4.35 Aa | 3.74 Aa | 0.89 Aa | 0.68 Aa | 0.54 Aa | ||
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 5.12 Aa | 4.61 Aa | 3.92 Aa | 0.92 Aa | 0.69 Aa | 0.53 Aa | ||
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 2.13ns | 11.04** | 7.10** | 2.27ns | 5.09** | 2.78ns | |
时期Stage(T) | 1.29ns | 2.51ns | 4.66ns | 0.77ns | 0.07ns | 0.72ns | ||
C×T | 2.60* | 4.00* | 2.59* | 0.68ns | 1.08ns | 1.04ns | ||
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||||
Shennong 09001 | 对照CK | 5.09 Bb | 4.56 Ab | 3.77 Bb | 0.78 Cc | 0.58 Bc | 0.45 Bb | |
低浓度C1 | 5.13 Bb | 4.65Aab | 3.89 ABb | 0.81 BCc | 0.63 Bc | 0.48 Bb | ||
中浓度C2 | 5.53 Aa | 4.79 Aa | 4.07 Aa | 0.92 ABb | 0.73 Ab | 0.57 Aa | ||
高浓度C3 | 5.30 ABb | 4.73 Aab | 3.93 ABab | 1.02 Aa | 0.80 Aa | 0.58 Aa | ||
时期Stage(T) | ||||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 5.04 Bb | 4.43 Bb | 3.79 Bb | 0.83 Ab | 0.64 Ab | 0.49 Aa | ||
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 5.08 Bb | 4.63 ABb | 3.81 Bb | 0.87 Ab | 0.68 Aab | 0.53 Aa | ||
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 5.66 Aa | 4.99 Aa | 4.15 Aa | 0.94 Aa | 0.73 Aa | 0.54 Aa | ||
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 7.90** | 2.3* | 5.52** | 16.74** | 28.51** | 15.74** | |
时期Stage(T) | 19.58** | 13.34ns | 21.97** | 11.17* | 5.38ns | 2.56ns | ||
C×T | 7.31** | 3.76* | 0.74ns | 4.37** | 3.07* | 3.89* |
表2 抗倒酯对优质稻各节间茎秆粗度和茎壁厚度的影响
Table 2 Effects of TE on stem diameter and stem wall thickness of good quality rice.
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 茎秆粗度Culm diameter/mm | 茎壁厚度Culm wall thickness/mm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 | N2 | N3 | N1 | N2 | N3 | |||
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 5.01 Aab | 4.50 Bb | 4.08 Aa | 0.81 Ab | 0.62 Bb | 0.52 Ab | |
低浓度C1 | 4.82 Ab | 4.49 Bb | 3.75 BCbc | 0.90 Aab | 0.70 ABa | 0.53 Aab | ||
中浓度C2 | 5.16 Aa | 4.68 Aa | 3.95 ABab | 0.93 Aab | 0.72 Aa | 0.54 Aab | ||
高浓度C3 | 5.09 Aab | 4.42 Bb | 3.63 Cc | 0.94 Aa | 0.68 ABa | 0.57 Aa | ||
时期Stage(T) | ||||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 5.03 Aa | 4.60 Aa | 3.90 Aa | 0.87 Aa | 0.68 Aa | 0.55 Aa | ||
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 4.91 Aa | 4.35 Aa | 3.74 Aa | 0.89 Aa | 0.68 Aa | 0.54 Aa | ||
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 5.12 Aa | 4.61 Aa | 3.92 Aa | 0.92 Aa | 0.69 Aa | 0.53 Aa | ||
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 2.13ns | 11.04** | 7.10** | 2.27ns | 5.09** | 2.78ns | |
时期Stage(T) | 1.29ns | 2.51ns | 4.66ns | 0.77ns | 0.07ns | 0.72ns | ||
C×T | 2.60* | 4.00* | 2.59* | 0.68ns | 1.08ns | 1.04ns | ||
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||||
Shennong 09001 | 对照CK | 5.09 Bb | 4.56 Ab | 3.77 Bb | 0.78 Cc | 0.58 Bc | 0.45 Bb | |
低浓度C1 | 5.13 Bb | 4.65Aab | 3.89 ABb | 0.81 BCc | 0.63 Bc | 0.48 Bb | ||
中浓度C2 | 5.53 Aa | 4.79 Aa | 4.07 Aa | 0.92 ABb | 0.73 Ab | 0.57 Aa | ||
高浓度C3 | 5.30 ABb | 4.73 Aab | 3.93 ABab | 1.02 Aa | 0.80 Aa | 0.58 Aa | ||
时期Stage(T) | ||||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 5.04 Bb | 4.43 Bb | 3.79 Bb | 0.83 Ab | 0.64 Ab | 0.49 Aa | ||
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 5.08 Bb | 4.63 ABb | 3.81 Bb | 0.87 Ab | 0.68 Aab | 0.53 Aa | ||
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 5.66 Aa | 4.99 Aa | 4.15 Aa | 0.94 Aa | 0.73 Aa | 0.54 Aa | ||
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 7.90** | 2.3* | 5.52** | 16.74** | 28.51** | 15.74** | |
时期Stage(T) | 19.58** | 13.34ns | 21.97** | 11.17* | 5.38ns | 2.56ns | ||
C×T | 7.31** | 3.76* | 0.74ns | 4.37** | 3.07* | 3.89* |
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 抗折力Breaking resistance/N | 倒伏指数lodging index/(g·cm·N-1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 | N2 | N3 | N1 | N2 | N3 | |||
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 16.34 Bb | 10.74 Ab | 7.66 Aa | 11408.94 Aa | 13608.33 Aa | 13583.25 Aa | |
低浓度C1 | 19.14 Aa | 12.47 Aab | 7.38 Aa | 9006.10 Bb | 10127.09 Bb | 12734.24 Aab | ||
中浓度C2 | 17.83 Aa | 13.32 Aa | 8.04 Aa | 8515.16 Bb | 9515.70 Bb | 11238.77 Ab | ||
高浓度C3 | 18.60 Aa | 13.52 Aa | 8.41 Aa | 6273.97 Cc | 6870.78 Cc | 8407.52 Bc | ||
时期Stage(T) | ||||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 16.11 Ab | 11.79 Ab | 7.60 Aa | 9171.90 Aab | 10563.48 Aa | 11941.59 Aa | ||
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 16.76 Ab | 12.23 Aab | 7.86 Aa | 9454.56 Aa | 9845.19 Aa | 11275.56 Aa | ||
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 21.07 Aa | 13.53 Aa | 8.17 Aa | 7776.67 Ab | 9682.75 Aa | 11255.69 Aa | ||
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 1.77* | 3.30* | 1.60ns | 39.64** | 39.11** | 15.46** | |
时期Stage(T) | 9.34* | 5.29ns | 0.79ns | 6.33ns | 0.57ns | 1.13ns | ||
C×T | 1.30ns | 1.95ns | 2.81* | 6.46** | 2.95** | 2.27ns | ||
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||||
Shennong 09001 | 对照CK | 11.96 Bb | 8.65 Bb | 6.72 Cc | 16916.22 Aa | 16999.73 Aa | 15404.13 Aa | |
低浓度C1 | 13.97 Bb | 9.49 Bb | 7.27 Cc | 13990.12 Ab | 14111.39 Bb | 13287.17 Bb | ||
中浓度C2 | 21.13 Aa | 14.56 Aa | 8.99 Bb | 8806.27 Bc | 9550.14 Cc | 10365.94 Cc | ||
高浓度C3 | 24.48 Aa | 17.22 Aa | 10.73 Aa | 5494.76 Cd | 6001.77 Dd | 7013.21 Dd | ||
时期Stage(T) | ||||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 15.40 Aa | 10.22 Bb | 7.61 Bb | 11554.35 Aa | 12214.87 Aab | 11652.35 Aa | ||
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 16.39 Aa | 11.73 Bb | 8.43 ABab | 12345.39 Aa | 12527.41 Aa | 11649.22 Aa | ||
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 21.87 Aa | 15.50 Aa | 9.25 Aa | 10005.77 Aa | 10254.98 Ab | 11251.26 Aa | ||
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 14.24** | 19.65** | 21.68** | 41.29** | 57.00** | 66.72** | |
时期Stage(T) | 4.13* | 34.37** | 14.85* | 2.68ns | 4.73ns | 0.29ns | ||
C×T | 3.85* | 6.01** | 3.08* | 9.01** | 6.78** | 4.94** |
表3 抗倒酯对优质稻各节间抗折力和倒伏指数的影响
Table 3 Effects of TE on breaking resistance and lodging index of good quality rice.
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 抗折力Breaking resistance/N | 倒伏指数lodging index/(g·cm·N-1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 | N2 | N3 | N1 | N2 | N3 | |||
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 16.34 Bb | 10.74 Ab | 7.66 Aa | 11408.94 Aa | 13608.33 Aa | 13583.25 Aa | |
低浓度C1 | 19.14 Aa | 12.47 Aab | 7.38 Aa | 9006.10 Bb | 10127.09 Bb | 12734.24 Aab | ||
中浓度C2 | 17.83 Aa | 13.32 Aa | 8.04 Aa | 8515.16 Bb | 9515.70 Bb | 11238.77 Ab | ||
高浓度C3 | 18.60 Aa | 13.52 Aa | 8.41 Aa | 6273.97 Cc | 6870.78 Cc | 8407.52 Bc | ||
时期Stage(T) | ||||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 16.11 Ab | 11.79 Ab | 7.60 Aa | 9171.90 Aab | 10563.48 Aa | 11941.59 Aa | ||
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 16.76 Ab | 12.23 Aab | 7.86 Aa | 9454.56 Aa | 9845.19 Aa | 11275.56 Aa | ||
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 21.07 Aa | 13.53 Aa | 8.17 Aa | 7776.67 Ab | 9682.75 Aa | 11255.69 Aa | ||
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 1.77* | 3.30* | 1.60ns | 39.64** | 39.11** | 15.46** | |
时期Stage(T) | 9.34* | 5.29ns | 0.79ns | 6.33ns | 0.57ns | 1.13ns | ||
C×T | 1.30ns | 1.95ns | 2.81* | 6.46** | 2.95** | 2.27ns | ||
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||||
Shennong 09001 | 对照CK | 11.96 Bb | 8.65 Bb | 6.72 Cc | 16916.22 Aa | 16999.73 Aa | 15404.13 Aa | |
低浓度C1 | 13.97 Bb | 9.49 Bb | 7.27 Cc | 13990.12 Ab | 14111.39 Bb | 13287.17 Bb | ||
中浓度C2 | 21.13 Aa | 14.56 Aa | 8.99 Bb | 8806.27 Bc | 9550.14 Cc | 10365.94 Cc | ||
高浓度C3 | 24.48 Aa | 17.22 Aa | 10.73 Aa | 5494.76 Cd | 6001.77 Dd | 7013.21 Dd | ||
时期Stage(T) | ||||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 15.40 Aa | 10.22 Bb | 7.61 Bb | 11554.35 Aa | 12214.87 Aab | 11652.35 Aa | ||
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 16.39 Aa | 11.73 Bb | 8.43 ABab | 12345.39 Aa | 12527.41 Aa | 11649.22 Aa | ||
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 21.87 Aa | 15.50 Aa | 9.25 Aa | 10005.77 Aa | 10254.98 Ab | 11251.26 Aa | ||
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 14.24** | 19.65** | 21.68** | 41.29** | 57.00** | 66.72** | |
时期Stage(T) | 4.13* | 34.37** | 14.85* | 2.68ns | 4.73ns | 0.29ns | ||
C×T | 3.85* | 6.01** | 3.08* | 9.01** | 6.78** | 4.94** |
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 茎秆强度Strength of the stem/N | 抗推力 Plant thrust resistance/N | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 | N2 | N3 | |||
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | ||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 16.23 Ab | 11.72 Bb | 10.45 Aa | 10.09 Bb |
低浓度C1 | 17.22 Aab | 13.14 ABa | 9.12 Aa | 9.59 Bb | |
中浓度C2 | 17.89 Aab | 13.54 Aa | 10.00 Aa | 14.55 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 18.28 Aa | 13.58 Aa | 10.20 Aa | 13.27 Aa | |
时期Stage(T) | |||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 15.65 Bb | 12.46 Ab | 9.30 Aa | 10.58 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 18.42 Aa | 12.98 Aab | 10.13 Aa | 11.68 Aa | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 18.14 Aa | 13.55 Aa | 10.41 Aa | 13.37 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 2.80ns | 4.56* | 1.71ns | 12.68** |
时期Stage(T) | 26.14** | 5.52ns | 3.20ns | 2.71ns | |
C×T | 1.35ns | 4.74** | 1.73ns | 5.13** | |
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | ||||
Shennong09001 | 对照CK | 13.82 Bc | 9.96 Cc | 8.20 Bc | 13.95 Bb |
低浓度C1 | 14.94 Bc | 11.43 BCc | 9.19 Bc | 14.82 Bb | |
中浓度C2 | 18.72 Ab | 13.85 Bb | 11.10 Ab | 19.30 ABa | |
高浓度C3 | 20.87 Aa | 17.40 Aa | 12.61 Aa | 20.73 Aa | |
时期Stage(T) | |||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 15.92 Ab | 11.85 Bb | 8.98 Ab | 16.36 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 17.05 Aab | 12.31 Bb | 10.12 Aab | 17.83 Aa | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 18.30 Aa | 15.32 Aa | 11.73 Aa | 17.41 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 21.59** | 20.08** | 19.74** | 6.45** |
时期Stage(T) | 6.30ns | 18.42** | 10.48* | 0.63ns | |
C×T | 6.76** | 1.85ns | 1.53ns | 0.62* |
表4 抗倒酯对优质稻各节间茎秆强度和抗推力的影响
Table 4 Effects of TE on stem strength and thrust resistance of good quality rice.
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 茎秆强度Strength of the stem/N | 抗推力 Plant thrust resistance/N | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N1 | N2 | N3 | |||
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | ||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 16.23 Ab | 11.72 Bb | 10.45 Aa | 10.09 Bb |
低浓度C1 | 17.22 Aab | 13.14 ABa | 9.12 Aa | 9.59 Bb | |
中浓度C2 | 17.89 Aab | 13.54 Aa | 10.00 Aa | 14.55 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 18.28 Aa | 13.58 Aa | 10.20 Aa | 13.27 Aa | |
时期Stage(T) | |||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 15.65 Bb | 12.46 Ab | 9.30 Aa | 10.58 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 18.42 Aa | 12.98 Aab | 10.13 Aa | 11.68 Aa | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 18.14 Aa | 13.55 Aa | 10.41 Aa | 13.37 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 2.80ns | 4.56* | 1.71ns | 12.68** |
时期Stage(T) | 26.14** | 5.52ns | 3.20ns | 2.71ns | |
C×T | 1.35ns | 4.74** | 1.73ns | 5.13** | |
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | ||||
Shennong09001 | 对照CK | 13.82 Bc | 9.96 Cc | 8.20 Bc | 13.95 Bb |
低浓度C1 | 14.94 Bc | 11.43 BCc | 9.19 Bc | 14.82 Bb | |
中浓度C2 | 18.72 Ab | 13.85 Bb | 11.10 Ab | 19.30 ABa | |
高浓度C3 | 20.87 Aa | 17.40 Aa | 12.61 Aa | 20.73 Aa | |
时期Stage(T) | |||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 15.92 Ab | 11.85 Bb | 8.98 Ab | 16.36 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 17.05 Aab | 12.31 Bb | 10.12 Aab | 17.83 Aa | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 18.30 Aa | 15.32 Aa | 11.73 Aa | 17.41 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 21.59** | 20.08** | 19.74** | 6.45** |
时期Stage(T) | 6.30ns | 18.42** | 10.48* | 0.63ns | |
C×T | 6.76** | 1.85ns | 1.53ns | 0.62* |
试验因素 Experiment factor | 大维管束数目 Number of LVB | 小维管束数目 Number of SVB | 大维管束面积 LVA(×104 μm2) | 大维管束韧皮部面积 LVPA(×104 μm2) | 大维管束木质部面积 LVXA(×104 μm2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
对照CK | 27.89 ABb | 25.89 Ab | 42.77 Aa | 4.14 ABab | 15.69 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 28.33 Aa | 26.45 Aa | 44.96 Aa | 4.23 ABab | 15.88 Aa |
中浓度C2 | 27.52 Bb | 26.22 Aa | 43.71 Aa | 4.47 Aa | 15.95 Aa |
高浓度C3 | 27.26 Bb | 25.44 Ab | 35.07 Bb | 3.90 Bb | 12.76 Bb |
时期Stage(T) | |||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 27.72 Aa | 25.86 Aa | 39.41 Aa | 4.16 Aa | 15.03 Aa |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 28.30 Aa | 25.89 Aa | 41.88 Aab | 4.25 Aa | 14.90 Aa |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 27.22 Aa | 25.78 Aa | 43.59 Ab | 4.15 Aa | 15.29 Aa |
浓度Concentration(C) | 1.70ns | 1.49ns | 9.09** | 3.25* | 7.93** |
时期Stage(T) | 3.31ns | 0.04ns | 4.78ns | 0.12ns | 0.23ns |
C×T | 0.82ns | 1.19ns | 2.90* | 4.24** | 3.08* |
表5 抗倒酯对丰锦维管束性状的影响
Table 5 Effects of TE on vascular bundle traits of Toyonishiki.
试验因素 Experiment factor | 大维管束数目 Number of LVB | 小维管束数目 Number of SVB | 大维管束面积 LVA(×104 μm2) | 大维管束韧皮部面积 LVPA(×104 μm2) | 大维管束木质部面积 LVXA(×104 μm2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
对照CK | 27.89 ABb | 25.89 Ab | 42.77 Aa | 4.14 ABab | 15.69 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 28.33 Aa | 26.45 Aa | 44.96 Aa | 4.23 ABab | 15.88 Aa |
中浓度C2 | 27.52 Bb | 26.22 Aa | 43.71 Aa | 4.47 Aa | 15.95 Aa |
高浓度C3 | 27.26 Bb | 25.44 Ab | 35.07 Bb | 3.90 Bb | 12.76 Bb |
时期Stage(T) | |||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 27.72 Aa | 25.86 Aa | 39.41 Aa | 4.16 Aa | 15.03 Aa |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 28.30 Aa | 25.89 Aa | 41.88 Aab | 4.25 Aa | 14.90 Aa |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 27.22 Aa | 25.78 Aa | 43.59 Ab | 4.15 Aa | 15.29 Aa |
浓度Concentration(C) | 1.70ns | 1.49ns | 9.09** | 3.25* | 7.93** |
时期Stage(T) | 3.31ns | 0.04ns | 4.78ns | 0.12ns | 0.23ns |
C×T | 0.82ns | 1.19ns | 2.90* | 4.24** | 3.08* |
性状 Trait | 调控方向 Regulation direction | 施用时期和浓度最佳组合 Optimum combination of application time and concentration |
---|---|---|
倒伏指数Lodging index | 减小Decrease | T3C3 |
抗折力Breaking resistance | 增加Increase | T3C3 |
抗推力Plant thrust resistance | 增加Increase | T2C3 |
茎秆强度Stalk strength | 增加Increase | T3C3 |
节间长度Internode length | 减少Decrease | T3C3 |
茎秆粗度Culm diameter | 增加Increase | T3C2 |
茎壁厚度Culm wall thickness | 增加Increase | T3C2 |
株高Plant height | 降低Decrease | T1C3 |
重心高度Height of center of gravity | 降低Decrease | T1C3 |
表6 抗倒酯调控抗倒伏性状的最佳施用浓度与时期
Table 6 TE regulates the optimal application concentration and period of lodging resistance traits.
性状 Trait | 调控方向 Regulation direction | 施用时期和浓度最佳组合 Optimum combination of application time and concentration |
---|---|---|
倒伏指数Lodging index | 减小Decrease | T3C3 |
抗折力Breaking resistance | 增加Increase | T3C3 |
抗推力Plant thrust resistance | 增加Increase | T2C3 |
茎秆强度Stalk strength | 增加Increase | T3C3 |
节间长度Internode length | 减少Decrease | T3C3 |
茎秆粗度Culm diameter | 增加Increase | T3C2 |
茎壁厚度Culm wall thickness | 增加Increase | T3C2 |
株高Plant height | 降低Decrease | T1C3 |
重心高度Height of center of gravity | 降低Decrease | T1C3 |
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 糙米率 Brown rice rate/% | 精米率 Milled rice rate /% | 整精米率 Head rice rate /% | 垩白粒率 Chalky rice rate/% | 垩白度 Chalkiness degree/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 77.37 Aa | 64.18 Aa | 53.41 Aab | 8.21 Aa | 2.29 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 78.19 Aa | 64.58 Aa | 55.22 Aa | 7.57 Aa | 2.07 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 75.11 Aa | 62.46 Aa | 50.53 Ab | 7.53 Aa | 2.04 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 75.84 Aa | 62.45 Aa | 51.50 Aab | 7.34 Aa | 1.94 Aa | |
时期Stage(T) | ||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 77.49 Aa | 63.66 Aa | 53.23 Aa | 10.67 Aa | 2.82 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 76.83 Aa | 63.83 Aa | 52.99 Aa | 7.24 ABb | 2.05 ABab | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 75.57 Aa | 62.76 Aa | 51.74 Aa | 5.08 Bb | 1.39 Bb | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 1.48ns | 1.25ns | 2.20* | 0.24* | 0.31ns |
时期Stage(T) | 3.49ns | 0.91ns | 0.59ns | 15.54ns | 12.03* | |
C×T | 1.27ns | 1.50ns | 1.51ns | 0.68ns | 0.55ns | |
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
Shennong 09001 | 对照CK | 76.53 Aa | 63.92 Aa | 57.57 Aa | 2.66 Aa | 0.96 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 76.32 Aba | 62.00 ABab | 57.44 Aa | 2.57 Aa | 0.79 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 73.43 Cb | 60.67 Bb | 54.85 Aab | 2.56 Aa | 0.72 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 73.75 BCb | 60.00 Bb | 51.55 Ab | 2.12 Aa | 0.62 Aa | |
时期Stage(T) | ||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 76.63 Aa | 62.33 Aa | 56.17 Aa | 2.98 Aa | 1.00 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 74.77 Aa | 61.65 Aa | 56.20 Aa | 2.51 Aa | 0.78 Aa | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 73.62 Aa | 60.96 Aa | 53.64 Aa | 1.94 Aa | 0.54 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 6.73** | 5.87** | 5.41** | 0.50* | 1.30ns |
时期Stage(T) | 3.52ns | 0.83ns | 1.07ns | 3.01ns | 3.16* | |
C×T | 2.03ns | 1.79ns | 0.76ns | 1.54ns | 2.57ns |
表7 抗倒酯对优质稻加工品质和外观品质的影响
Table 7 Effect of TE on processing and appearance quality of good quality rice.
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 糙米率 Brown rice rate/% | 精米率 Milled rice rate /% | 整精米率 Head rice rate /% | 垩白粒率 Chalky rice rate/% | 垩白度 Chalkiness degree/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 77.37 Aa | 64.18 Aa | 53.41 Aab | 8.21 Aa | 2.29 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 78.19 Aa | 64.58 Aa | 55.22 Aa | 7.57 Aa | 2.07 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 75.11 Aa | 62.46 Aa | 50.53 Ab | 7.53 Aa | 2.04 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 75.84 Aa | 62.45 Aa | 51.50 Aab | 7.34 Aa | 1.94 Aa | |
时期Stage(T) | ||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 77.49 Aa | 63.66 Aa | 53.23 Aa | 10.67 Aa | 2.82 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 76.83 Aa | 63.83 Aa | 52.99 Aa | 7.24 ABb | 2.05 ABab | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 75.57 Aa | 62.76 Aa | 51.74 Aa | 5.08 Bb | 1.39 Bb | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 1.48ns | 1.25ns | 2.20* | 0.24* | 0.31ns |
时期Stage(T) | 3.49ns | 0.91ns | 0.59ns | 15.54ns | 12.03* | |
C×T | 1.27ns | 1.50ns | 1.51ns | 0.68ns | 0.55ns | |
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | |||||
Shennong 09001 | 对照CK | 76.53 Aa | 63.92 Aa | 57.57 Aa | 2.66 Aa | 0.96 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 76.32 Aba | 62.00 ABab | 57.44 Aa | 2.57 Aa | 0.79 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 73.43 Cb | 60.67 Bb | 54.85 Aab | 2.56 Aa | 0.72 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 73.75 BCb | 60.00 Bb | 51.55 Ab | 2.12 Aa | 0.62 Aa | |
时期Stage(T) | ||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 76.63 Aa | 62.33 Aa | 56.17 Aa | 2.98 Aa | 1.00 Aa | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 74.77 Aa | 61.65 Aa | 56.20 Aa | 2.51 Aa | 0.78 Aa | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 73.62 Aa | 60.96 Aa | 53.64 Aa | 1.94 Aa | 0.54 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 6.73** | 5.87** | 5.41** | 0.50* | 1.30ns |
时期Stage(T) | 3.52ns | 0.83ns | 1.07ns | 3.01ns | 3.16* | |
C×T | 2.03ns | 1.79ns | 0.76ns | 1.54ns | 2.57ns |
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 蛋白质含量 Protein/% | 直链淀粉含量 Amylose/% | 硬度 Hardness | 黏度 Viscosity | 平衡度 Balance degree | 食味值 Taste value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | ||||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 7.86 Bc | 18.10 Aa | 7.99 Ab | 4.94 Aa | 4.30 Aa | 81.89 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 7.96 Bbc | 18.17 Aa | 8.35 Aab | 4.77 Aa | 3.79 Aa | 81.22 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 8.27 ABb | 18.08 Aa | 8.63 Aa | 5.02 Aa | 4.09 Aa | 80.89 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 8.66 Aa | 18.10 Aa | 8.58 Aa | 3.56 Aa | 3.66 Aa | 79.44 Bb | |
时期Stage(T) | |||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 8.28 Aa | 18.18 Aa | 8.63 Aa | 4.14 Aa | 3.69 Ab | 80.33 Bb | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 8.22 Aa | 18.18 Aa | 8.09 Aa | 4.80 Aa | 4.24 Aa | 80.58 Bb | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 8.06 Ab | 17.98 Ab | 8.44 Aa | 4.78 Aa | 4.20 Aa | 81.67 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 8.83** | 0.35ns | 3.33* | 1.67ns | 1.29ns | 8.70** |
时期Stage(T) | 11.64* | 4.82* | 2.67ns | 0.32ns | 12.14* | 21.70** | |
C×T | 3.14* | 0.89ns | 0.88ns | 2.93ns | 0.88ns | 2.75* | |
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | ||||||
Shennong 09001 | 对照CK | 6.38 Bc | 18.24 Aa | 7.73 Ab | 5.46 Aa | 4.62 Aa | 84.56 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 6.48 Bbc | 18.13 Aa | 8.20 Aa | 4.86 Aab | 4.71 Aa | 84.78 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 6.62 Bb | 17.98 ABa | 8.02 Aab | 5.06 Aab | 4.75 Aa | 84.11 ABa | |
高浓度C3 | 7.74 Aa | 17.61 Bb | 8.16 Aa | 4.14 Ab | 4.32 Aa | 82.33 Bb | |
时期Stage(T) | |||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 7.01 Aa | 18.26 Aa | 8.18 Aa | 4.61 Aa | 4.55 Aa | 83.42 Ab | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 6.71 Ab | 17.88 ABb | 8.01 Aa | 5.10 Aa | 4.32 Aa | 83.83 Aa | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 6.70 Ab | 17.84 Bb | 7.89 Aa | 4.93 Aa | 4.17 Aa | 84.58 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 77.66** | 6.64** | 2.92ns | 1.95ns | 0.89ns | 4.62* |
时期Stage(T) | 3.00* | 13.81* | 0.86ns | 2.43ns | 0.11ns | 11.78* | |
C×T | 7.81** | 2.48ns | 2.53ns | 1.00ns | 1.60ns | 1.53* |
表8 抗倒酯对优质稻营养品质和蒸煮品质的影响
Table 8 Effects of TE on nutrition and cooking quality of good quality rice.
品种 Variety | 试验因素 Experiment factor | 蛋白质含量 Protein/% | 直链淀粉含量 Amylose/% | 硬度 Hardness | 黏度 Viscosity | 平衡度 Balance degree | 食味值 Taste value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
丰锦 | 浓度Concentration(C) | ||||||
Toyonishiki | 对照CK | 7.86 Bc | 18.10 Aa | 7.99 Ab | 4.94 Aa | 4.30 Aa | 81.89 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 7.96 Bbc | 18.17 Aa | 8.35 Aab | 4.77 Aa | 3.79 Aa | 81.22 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 8.27 ABb | 18.08 Aa | 8.63 Aa | 5.02 Aa | 4.09 Aa | 80.89 Aa | |
高浓度C3 | 8.66 Aa | 18.10 Aa | 8.58 Aa | 3.56 Aa | 3.66 Aa | 79.44 Bb | |
时期Stage(T) | |||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 8.28 Aa | 18.18 Aa | 8.63 Aa | 4.14 Aa | 3.69 Ab | 80.33 Bb | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 8.22 Aa | 18.18 Aa | 8.09 Aa | 4.80 Aa | 4.24 Aa | 80.58 Bb | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 8.06 Ab | 17.98 Ab | 8.44 Aa | 4.78 Aa | 4.20 Aa | 81.67 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 8.83** | 0.35ns | 3.33* | 1.67ns | 1.29ns | 8.70** |
时期Stage(T) | 11.64* | 4.82* | 2.67ns | 0.32ns | 12.14* | 21.70** | |
C×T | 3.14* | 0.89ns | 0.88ns | 2.93ns | 0.88ns | 2.75* | |
沈农09001 | 浓度Concentration(C) | ||||||
Shennong 09001 | 对照CK | 6.38 Bc | 18.24 Aa | 7.73 Ab | 5.46 Aa | 4.62 Aa | 84.56 Aa |
低浓度C1 | 6.48 Bbc | 18.13 Aa | 8.20 Aa | 4.86 Aab | 4.71 Aa | 84.78 Aa | |
中浓度C2 | 6.62 Bb | 17.98 ABa | 8.02 Aab | 5.06 Aab | 4.75 Aa | 84.11 ABa | |
高浓度C3 | 7.74 Aa | 17.61 Bb | 8.16 Aa | 4.14 Ab | 4.32 Aa | 82.33 Bb | |
时期Stage(T) | |||||||
分蘖末期Late tillering stage(T1) | 7.01 Aa | 18.26 Aa | 8.18 Aa | 4.61 Aa | 4.55 Aa | 83.42 Ab | |
拔节始期Early jointing stage(T2) | 6.71 Ab | 17.88 ABb | 8.01 Aa | 5.10 Aa | 4.32 Aa | 83.83 Aa | |
孕穗期Booting stage(T3) | 6.70 Ab | 17.84 Bb | 7.89 Aa | 4.93 Aa | 4.17 Aa | 84.58 Aa | |
F值F value | 浓度Concentration(C) | 77.66** | 6.64** | 2.92ns | 1.95ns | 0.89ns | 4.62* |
时期Stage(T) | 3.00* | 13.81* | 0.86ns | 2.43ns | 0.11ns | 11.78* | |
C×T | 7.81** | 2.48ns | 2.53ns | 1.00ns | 1.60ns | 1.53* |
[1] | 彭显龙, 梁辰, 于彩莲, 张晓辉, 刘智蕾. 氮肥优化管理对稻花香抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2017,48(8):45-50. |
Peng X L, Liang C, Yu C L, Zhang X H, Liu Z L. Effect of optimal nitrogen management on rice lodging resistance ability of Daohuaxiang-2[J]. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University, 2017,48(8):45-50. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[2] | 窦永秀. 水稻结实期抗倒性评价及倒伏对产量与品质影响的研究[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2008. |
Dou Y X. Evaluation of lodging resistance and effects of lodging on yield & rice quality during grain filling stage[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2008. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[3] | 张存銮, 黄宝林, 徐小兰, 刁凤玲. 水稻倒伏原因及防倒对策[J]. 作物杂志, 2000(5):19-20. |
Zhang C L, Huang B L, Xu X L, Diao F L. Causes of rice lodging and countermeasures against lodging[J]. Crops, 2000(5):19-20. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[4] | 徐正进, 张树林, 周淑清, 刘丽霞. 水稻穗型与抗倒伏性关系的初步分析[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 2004,(5):561-563. |
Xu Z J, Zhang S L, Zhou S Q, Liu L X. Primary analysis of relationship between rice panicle type and lodging resistance[J]. Plant Physiology Communication, 2004(5):561-563. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[5] | 李荣田, 姜廷波, 秋太权, 崔成焕, 龚振平. 水稻倒伏对产量影响及倒伏和株高关系的研究[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 1996(1):13-17. |
Li R T, Jiang Y B, Qiu T Q, Cui C H, Gong Z P. Study on effect of lodging to yield and relationship between lodging and plant height in rice[J]. Heilongjiang Agricultural Science, 1996(1):13-17. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[6] | 陈新宝, 刘会喜, 徐顺文, 柯贤文, 马国生. 水稻倒伏的危害程度及应对措施[J]. 中国种业, 2010(4): 56, 58. |
Chen X B, Liu H X, Xu S W, Ke X W, Ma G S. Harm degree and Countermeasures of rice lodging[J]. China Seed Industry, 2010(4): 56, 58. (in Chinese) | |
[7] | 郎有忠, 杨晓东, 王美娥, 朱庆森. 结实阶段不同时期倒伏对水稻产量及稻米品质的影响. 中国水稻科学, 2011,25(4):407-412. |
Lang Y Z, Yang X D, Wang M E, Zhu Q S. Effect of lodging at different filling stages on rice grain yield and quality[J]. Chinese Journa of Rice Science, 2011,25(4):407-412. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[8] | Songjiang Y C. Studies on palatability of rice grown in Northern Kyushu: II. Effects of harvest time on palatability and physicochemical properties of milled rice[J]. Chronicle of Japan Crop Society, 1991,60(4):497-503. |
[9] | 吕军, 姜秀英, 解文孝, 刘军, 蒋洪波, 沈枫, 韩勇. 辽宁省不同熟期水稻品质性状分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2020(1):17-21. |
Lü J, Jiang X Y, Xie W X, Liu J, Jiang H B, Shen F, Han Y. Analysis on quality traits of rice varieties (lines) with different maturity stages in Liaoning Province[J]. Crops, 2020(1):17-21. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[10] | 高敏, 王晓钟, 戴立言, 陈英奇. 抗倒酯的合成工艺[J]. 农药, 2006(8):535-536. |
Gao M, Wang X Z, Dai L Y, Chen Y Q. Synjournal of trinexapac-ethyl[J]. Agrochemicals, 2006(8):535-536. (in Chinese) | |
[11] | 马秀杰. 外施植物生长调节剂对多年生黑麦草低温和干旱胁迫生理响应研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2012. |
Ma X J. Effects of plant growth regulators foliar application on perennial ryegrass responses to drought stress and cold stress[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2012. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[12] | 朱占华. 植物生长调节剂对小麦茎秆抗倒伏能力及其产量和品质的影响[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2011. |
Zhu Z H. Effects of Plant Growth Regulators on Lodging Risistance of Stem and Yield, Quality in Wheat[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing AgrieuItural University, 2011. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[13] | 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[J]. 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[J]. Maize science, 2010,18(6):38-42. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[14] | Zahra B, Jesper R, Jesper C W, Christian A. Seed yield and lodging assessment in red fescue (Festuca rubra L.) sprayed with trinexapac-ethyl[J]. Agronomy, 2019,9(10). |
[15] | 解振兴, 张居念, 林祁, 刘锋, 张初长, 卓芳梅, 姜照伟, 卓传营. 植物生长调节剂对再生稻头季抗倒伏能力和两季产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2019,33(2):158-166. |
Xie Z X, Zhang J N, Lin Q, Liu F, Zhang C C, Zhuo F M, Jiang Z W, Zhuo C Y. Effect of plant growth regulators on rice lodging resistance and grain production of main-crop and ratooning rice[J]. Chinese Journa Rice Science, 2019,33(2):158-166. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[16] | 张巫军. 氮素对粳稻抗倒伏性的影响及其生理机制[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015. |
Zhang W J. Effects of notrogen application on lodging resistance of japonica rice and its physiological mechanism[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing AgrieuItural University, 2015. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[17] | 王丹, 刘元英, 彭显龙, 刘智蕾, 宋文博. 肥水优化管理对寒地水稻抗倒伏性能的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2012,26(2):352-357. |
Wang D, Liu Y Y, Peng X L, Liu Z L, Song W B. Effects of watre and fertilizer optimization on lodging resistance of rice in cold area of Northeastern China[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2012,26(2):352-357. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[18] | 申广勒. 水稻抗倒伏生理机制与评价方法研究[D]. 合肥: 安徽农业大学, 2008. |
Shen G L. Study on physiological mechanisms of lodging resistance and evaluating method in rice[D]. Hefei: Anhui Agricultural University, 2008. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[19] | Islam M S, Peng S, Visperas R M. Lodging-related morphological traits of hybrid rice in a tropical irrigated ecosystem[J]. Field Crops Research, 2007,101(2):240-248. |
[20] | 王文霞, 周燕芝, 曾勇军, 吴自明, 谭雪明, 潘晓华, 石庆华, 曾研华. 不同机直播方式对南方优质晚籼稻产量及抗倒伏特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2020,34(1):46-56. |
Wang W X, Zhou Y Z, Zeng Y J, Wu Z M, Tan X M, Pan X H, Shi Q H, Zeng Y H. Effects of different mechanical direct seeding patterns on yield and lodging resistance of high-quality late indica rice in south China[J]. Chinese Journa Rice Science, 2020,34(1):46-56. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[21] | 蒋明金, 王海月, 何艳, 王春雨, 李娜, 杨志远, 孙永健, 马均. 氮肥管理对直播杂交水稻抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2020,34(1):157-168. |
Jiang M J, Wang H Y, He Y, Wang C Y, Li N, Yang Z Y, Sun Y J, Ma J. Effects of nitrogen management on lodging resistance of direct-seeded rice[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2020,34(1):157-168. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[22] | 李杰, 张洪程, 龚金龙, 常勇, 戴其根, 霍中洋, 许轲, 魏海燕. 不同种植方式对超级稻植株抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2011,44(11):2234-2243. |
Li J, Zhang H C, Gong J L, Chang Y, Dai Q G, Huo Z Y, Xu K, Wei H Y. Effects of different planting methods on the culm lodging resistance of super rice[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2011,44(11):2234-2243. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[23] | 许俊伟, 孟天瑶, 荆培培, 张洪程, 李超, 戴其根, 魏海燕, 郭保卫. 机插密度对不同类型水稻抗倒伏能力及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2015,41(11):1767-1776. |
Xu J W, Meng T Y, Jing P P, Zhang H C, Li C, Dai Q G, Wei H Y, Guo B W. Effect of mechanical-transplanting density on lodging resistance and yield in different types of rice[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2015,41(11):1767-1776. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[24] | 龚金龙, 邢志鹏, 胡雅杰, 张洪程, 戴其根, 霍中洋, 许轲, 魏海燕, 高辉. 籼、粳超级稻茎秆抗倒支撑特征的差异研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2015,29(3):273-281. |
Gong J L, Xing Z P, Hu Y J, Zhang H C, Dai Q G, Huo Z Y, Xu K, Wei H Y, Gao H. Different in lodging resistance of culm between indica and japonica super rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2015,29(3):273-281. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[25] | 李国辉, 钟旭华, 田卡, 黄农荣, 潘俊峰, 何庭蕙. 施氮对水稻茎秆抗倒伏能力的影响及其形态和力学机理[J]. 中国农业科学, 2013,46(7):1323-1334. |
Li G, Zhong X H, Tian K, Huang N R, Pan J F, He T H. Effect of Nitrogen Application on stem lodging resistance of rice and its morphological and mechanical mechanisms[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2013,46(7):1323-1334. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[26] | 吴海兵, 刘道红, 钟鸣, 汪友元. 水分管理和钾肥施用对水稻产量和抗倒伏性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019(1):127-133. |
Wu H B, Liu D H, Zhong M, Wang Y Y. Effects of water management and potash application on grain yield and lodging resistance of rice[J]. Crops, 2019(1):127-133. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[27] | 夏敏, 胡群, 梁健, 张洪程, 郭保卫, 曹利强, 陈厚存. 壮秆剂及用量对水稻产量和抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2017,43(2):296-306. |
Xia M, Hu Q, Liang J, Zhang H C, Guo B W, Cao L Q, Chen H C. Effect of variety and application amount of stalk strengthening agent on yield and lodging resistance in rice[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2017,43(2):296-306. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[28] | 张明聪, 刘元英, 罗盛国, 彭显龙, 陈丽楠, 李宗云, 李佳. 养分综合管理对寒地水稻抗倒伏性能的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2010,43(21):4536-4542. |
Zhang M C, Liu Y Y, Luo S G, Peng X L, Chen L N, Li Z Y, Li J. Effects of integrated nutrient management on lodging resistance of rice in cold area[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2010,43(21):4536-4542. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[29] | 陈桂华, 邓化冰, 张桂莲, 唐文帮, 黄璜. 水稻茎秆性状与抗倒性的关系及配合力分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016,49(3):407-417. |
Chen G H, Deng H B, Zhang G L, Tang W B, Huang H. The correlation of stem characters and lodging resistance and combining ability analysis in rice[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016,49(3):407-417. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[30] | 孙永健, 陈宇, 孙园园, 徐徽, 许远明, 刘树金, 马均. 不同施氮量和栽插密度下三角形强化栽培杂交稻抗倒伏性与群体质量的关系[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2012,26(2):189-196. |
Sun Y J, Chen Y, Sun Y Y, Xu H, Xu Y M, Liu S J, Ma J. Relationship between culm lodging resistance and population quality of hybrids under triangle-planted system of rice intensification at different nitrogen application rates and planting densities[J]. Chinese Journa Rice Science, 2012,26(2):189-196. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[31] | Thomas G C, William C Y, Silberstein T B, Carol J G. Performance of trinexapac-ethyl on Lolium perenne seed crops in diverse lodging environments[J]. Field Crops Research, 2014,157:65-70. |
[32] | 孙旭春. 抗倒酯等3种生长调节剂对多花黑麦草种子生产影响的研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2011. |
Sun X C. A Study on the Effect of growth regulator on seed production of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2011. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[33] | 胡雅杰, 曹伟伟, 钱海军, 等. 钵苗机插密度对不同穗型水稻品种产量、株型和抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2015,41(5):743-757. |
HU Y J, CAO W W, QIAN H J, et al. Effect of planting density of mechanically transplanted pot seedlings on yield,plant type and lodging resistance in rice with different panicle types[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2015,41(5):743-757. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[34] | 蒋傲男, 闫静琦, 卢海博, 赵海超, 黄智鸿. 不同春玉米品种茎秆显微结构对抗折强度的响应[J]. 玉米科学, 2020,28(5):53-59. |
Jiang A N, Yan J Q, Lu H B, Zhao H C, Huang Z H. Response of stem microstructure of different spring maize varieties to bending strength[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2020,28(5):53-59. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[35] | 赵新勇, 邵在胜, 吴艳珍, 赵轶鹏, 王余龙, 王云霞, 杨连新. 花后人为模拟倒伏对超级稻生长、产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018,26(7):980-989. |
Zhao Z Y, Shao Z S, Wu Y Z, Zhao Y P, Wang Y L, Wang Y X, Yang L X. Influence of artificial lodging at grain-filling stage on plant growth, yield and quality of super rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2018,26(7):980-989. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[1] | 郭展, 张运波. 水稻对干旱胁迫的生理生化响应及分子调控研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 335-349. |
[2] | 韦还和, 马唯一, 左博源, 汪璐璐, 朱旺, 耿孝宇, 张翔, 孟天瑶, 陈英龙, 高平磊, 许轲, 霍中洋, 戴其根. 盐、干旱及其复合胁迫对水稻产量和品质形成影响的研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 350-363. |
[3] | 吕宙, 易秉怀, 陈平平, 周文新, 唐文帮, 易镇邪. 施氮量与移栽密度对小粒型杂交水稻产量形成的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(4): 422-436. |
[4] | 赵艺婷, 谢可冉, 高逖, 崔克辉. 水稻分蘖期干旱锻炼对幼穗分化期高温下穗发育和产量形成的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 277-289. |
[5] | 周甜, 吴少华, 康建宏, 吴宏亮, 杨生龙, 王星强, 李昱, 黄玉峰. 不同种植模式对水稻籽粒淀粉含量及淀粉关键酶活性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(3): 303-315. |
[6] | 彭显龙, 董强, 张辰, 李鹏飞, 李博琳, 刘智蕾, 于彩莲. 不同土壤条件下秸秆还田量对土壤还原性物质及水稻生长的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(2): 198-210. |
[7] | 朱旺, 张翔, 耿孝宇, 张哲, 陈英龙, 韦还和, 戴其根, 许轲, 朱广龙, 周桂生, 孟天瑶. 盐-旱复合胁迫下水稻根系的形态和生理特征及其与产量形成的关系[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(6): 617-627. |
[8] | 邹宇傲, 吴启侠, 周乾顺, 朱建强, 晏军. 孕穗期杂交中稻对淹涝胁迫的响应[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(6): 642-656. |
[9] | 袁沛, 周旋, 杨威, 尹凌洁, 靳拓, 彭建伟, 荣湘民, 田昌. 化肥减氮配施对洞庭湖区双季稻产量和田面水氮磷流失风险的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(5): 518-528. |
[10] | 肖大康, 胡仁, 韩天富, 张卫峰, 侯俊, 任科宇. 氮肥用量和运筹对我国水稻产量及其构成因子影响的整合分析[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(5): 529-542. |
[11] | 黄亚茹, 徐鹏, 王乐乐, 贺一哲, 王辉, 柯健, 何海兵, 武立权, 尤翠翠. 外源海藻糖对粳稻品系W1844籽粒灌浆特性及产量形成的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(4): 379-391. |
[12] | 高欠清, 任孝俭, 翟中兵, 郑普兵, 吴源芬, 崔克辉. 头季穗肥和促芽肥对再生稻再生芽生长及产量形成的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(4): 405-414. |
[13] | 王文婷, 马佳颖, 李光彦, 符卫蒙, 李沪波, 林洁, 陈婷婷, 奉保华, 陶龙兴, 符冠富, 秦叶波. 高温下不同施肥量对水稻产量品质形成的影响及其与能量代谢的关系分析[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(3): 253-264. |
[14] | 杨晓龙, 王彪, 汪本福, 张枝盛, 张作林, 杨蓝天, 程建平, 李阳. 不同水分管理方式对旱直播水稻产量和稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(3): 285-294. |
[15] | 魏晓东, 宋雪梅, 赵凌, 赵庆勇, 陈涛, 路凯, 朱镇, 黄胜东, 王才林, 张亚东. 硅锌肥及其施用方式对南粳46产量和稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2023, 37(3): 295-306. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||