中国水稻科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (1): 59-68.DOI: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2021.0714
李睿, 董立强, 商文奇, 马亮, 王先俱, 王铮, 李跃东*()
收稿日期:
2020-07-21
修回日期:
2020-11-13
出版日期:
2021-01-10
发布日期:
2021-01-10
通讯作者:
李跃东
基金资助:
LIRui, DONGLiqiang, SHANGWenqi, MALiang, Xianju WANG, WANGZheng, LIYuedong*()
Received:
2020-07-21
Revised:
2020-11-13
Online:
2021-01-10
Published:
2021-01-10
Contact:
LIYuedong
摘要: 目的 探明适合水稻机械化播种+旱育秧模式下培育符合机插标准健壮秧苗的水分管理方式。方法 以辽粳401为供试材料,选用2种育苗载体(有机质型育苗基质和营养土),于秧苗1叶1心期设置3种喷水间隔处理(24h、48h、72h),研究不同喷水间隔下水稻秧苗素质、移栽质量及产量的变化规律。结果 喷水时间间隔由24h延长至72h,秧苗SPAD值升高,株高降低,根数增加,根冠比升高,秧苗的综合素质提高。间隔72h喷水处理秧苗机插伤株率和漏插率低,移栽后缓苗活棵迅速,新根数量多。移栽后间隔72h喷水处理秧苗对环境的适应性更强,其最大光化学量子产量(Fv/Fm)和实际光化学量子产量(Yield)、光化学猝灭(qP)和非光化学猝灭(NPQ)均处于较高水平。72h处理成熟期有效穗数最多,结实率最高,实际产量最高。结论 采用间隔72 h的水分管理方式,能够提高水稻机械化育苗的秧苗素质,提高机插质量,利于机插后缓苗,促进茎蘖成穗,从而提高水稻产量。
李睿, 董立强, 商文奇, 马亮, 王先俱, 王铮, 李跃东. 育秧基质和喷水间隔处理对机插秧苗素质及产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35(1): 59-68.
LIRui, DONGLiqiang, SHANGWenqi, MALiang, Xianju WANG, WANGZheng, LIYuedong. Effects of Seedling-raising Substrate and Water Spraying Interval on Seedling Quality and Grain Yield of MechanicallyTransplantedRice[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2021, 35(1): 59-68.
图2 水分处理期间含水量情况 J24、J48和J72分别表示基质育秧秧苗间隔24 h、48 h和72 h喷水处理;Y24、Y48和Y72分别表示营养土育秧秧苗间隔24 h、48 h和72 h喷水处理。下同。
Fig.2. Moisture content during water treatment. J24、J48 and J72 refer to substrate-nurtured rice seedlings with water spraying intervals of 24 h, 48 h and 72 h, respectively. Y24、Y48 and Y72, nutrient soil-raised seedlings with water spraying intervals of 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. The same as in tables and figures below.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 叶龄 Leaf age | SPAD值 SPAD value | 株高 Plant height/cm | 茎基宽 Basal stem width/mm | 百株地上部干质量 Dry shoot weight per 100 plants/g |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 3.2±0.0a | 28.1±1.0 b | 14.0±0.5 a | 2.2±0.0a | 2.25±0.16a |
J48 | 3.2±0.0a | 30.6±1.0ab | 13.5±0.5a | 2.3±0.1 a | 1.89±0.15ab | |
J72 | 3.1±0.1 a | 32.8±1.3 a | 12.2±0.3b | 2.2±0.0a | 1.74±0.11b | |
平均Mean | 3.15 | 30.5 | 13.24 | 2.23 | 1.96 | |
Y24 | 3.1±0.1 a | 27.8±1.4 b | 14.6±0.3 a | 2.2±0.0a | 2.21±0.14a | |
Y48 | 3.1±0.1a | 29.1±1.5b | 13.5±0.5ab | 2.2±0.0a | 1.94±0.07ab | |
Y72 | 3.1±0.0a | 34.1±0.5a | 12.4±0.6b | 2.2±0.2 a | 1.78±0.06b | |
平均Mean | 3.13 | 30.33 | 13.53 | 2.19 | 1.98 | |
2019 | J24 | 3.2±0.1 a | 31.5±0.6b | 18.7±0.7 a | 2.5±0.1 a | 2.31±0.07a |
J48 | 3.2±0.1 a | 34.7±1.9a | 17.5±1.0a | 2.5±0.0a | 2.18±0.11a | |
J72 | 3.2±0.0a | 35.4±0.7a | 14.0±0.6 b | 2.5±0.1 a | 1.86±0.06b | |
平均Mean | 3.18 | 33.88 | 16.74 | 2.51 | 2.12 | |
Y24 | 3.2±0.1 a | 31.0±2.4b | 19.2±0.1 a | 2.6±0.1 a | 2.34±0.17a | |
Y48 | 3.2±0.1 a | 33.1±1.7 ab | 18.1±0.4b | 2.5±0.0a | 2.24±0.12ab | |
Y72 | 3.1±0.0a | 35.4±0.7a | 15.3±0.3c | 2.5±0.1 a | 1.92±0.09b | |
平均Mean | 3.17 | 33.15 | 17.54 | 2.50 | 2.17 |
表1 水分处理对秧苗地上部性状的影响
Table1 Effects of water treatment on the aboveground part traits of rice seedlings.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 叶龄 Leaf age | SPAD值 SPAD value | 株高 Plant height/cm | 茎基宽 Basal stem width/mm | 百株地上部干质量 Dry shoot weight per 100 plants/g |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 3.2±0.0a | 28.1±1.0 b | 14.0±0.5 a | 2.2±0.0a | 2.25±0.16a |
J48 | 3.2±0.0a | 30.6±1.0ab | 13.5±0.5a | 2.3±0.1 a | 1.89±0.15ab | |
J72 | 3.1±0.1 a | 32.8±1.3 a | 12.2±0.3b | 2.2±0.0a | 1.74±0.11b | |
平均Mean | 3.15 | 30.5 | 13.24 | 2.23 | 1.96 | |
Y24 | 3.1±0.1 a | 27.8±1.4 b | 14.6±0.3 a | 2.2±0.0a | 2.21±0.14a | |
Y48 | 3.1±0.1a | 29.1±1.5b | 13.5±0.5ab | 2.2±0.0a | 1.94±0.07ab | |
Y72 | 3.1±0.0a | 34.1±0.5a | 12.4±0.6b | 2.2±0.2 a | 1.78±0.06b | |
平均Mean | 3.13 | 30.33 | 13.53 | 2.19 | 1.98 | |
2019 | J24 | 3.2±0.1 a | 31.5±0.6b | 18.7±0.7 a | 2.5±0.1 a | 2.31±0.07a |
J48 | 3.2±0.1 a | 34.7±1.9a | 17.5±1.0a | 2.5±0.0a | 2.18±0.11a | |
J72 | 3.2±0.0a | 35.4±0.7a | 14.0±0.6 b | 2.5±0.1 a | 1.86±0.06b | |
平均Mean | 3.18 | 33.88 | 16.74 | 2.51 | 2.12 | |
Y24 | 3.2±0.1 a | 31.0±2.4b | 19.2±0.1 a | 2.6±0.1 a | 2.34±0.17a | |
Y48 | 3.2±0.1 a | 33.1±1.7 ab | 18.1±0.4b | 2.5±0.0a | 2.24±0.12ab | |
Y72 | 3.1±0.0a | 35.4±0.7a | 15.3±0.3c | 2.5±0.1 a | 1.92±0.09b | |
平均Mean | 3.17 | 33.15 | 17.54 | 2.50 | 2.17 |
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 根数 Root number | 根长 Root length/cm | 百株根干质量 Dry root weight per 100 plants/g | 根冠比 Ratio of root to shoot/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 9.7±0.5 b | 9.0±1.1 a | 0.81±0.05b | 35.92±0.60c |
J48 | 9.7±0.6b | 7.7±0.5a | 0.92±0.03ab | 48.62±3.05b | |
J72 | 11.0±0.4a | 8.7±0.6 a | 1.00±0.06a | 57.68±3.34a | |
平均Mean | 10.12 | 8.46 | 0.91 | 47.41 | |
Y24 | 8.5±0.6 b | 8.7±1.3a | 0.73±0.05b | 32.99±2.57c | |
Y48 | 9.1±0.4 ab | 8.1±0.5a | 0.81±0.04b | 41.89±1.93b | |
Y72 | 9.7±0.6a | 7.9±0.5 a | 0.99±0.07a | 55.68±3.26a | |
平均Mean | 9.03 | 8.25 | 0.84 | 43.52 | |
2019 | J24 | 9.4±0.8b | 10.2±0.7 a | 0.84±0.1b | 36.21±3.21c |
J48 | 10.3±0.5b | 8.1±0.5b | 0.86±0.09b | 39.52±3.36b | |
J72 | 12.6±0.8 a | 8.7±0.6 ab | 0.94±0.07a | 50.61±3.01a | |
平均Mean | 10.77 | 8.97 | 0.88 | 42.11 | |
Y24 | 9.4±0.5 b | 9.8±0.5a | 0.76±0.05c | 32.63±0.20b | |
Y48 | 9.8±0.4b | 9.9±0.9a | 0.79±0.04b | 35.44±1.14b | |
Y72 | 11.7±1.0 a | 8.4±0.4 a | 0.88±0.04a | 46.03±3.59a | |
平均Mean | 10.27 | 9.38 | 0.81 | 38.03 |
表2 水分处理对秧苗根系的影响
Table 2 Effects of water treatment on roots of rice seedlings.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 根数 Root number | 根长 Root length/cm | 百株根干质量 Dry root weight per 100 plants/g | 根冠比 Ratio of root to shoot/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 9.7±0.5 b | 9.0±1.1 a | 0.81±0.05b | 35.92±0.60c |
J48 | 9.7±0.6b | 7.7±0.5a | 0.92±0.03ab | 48.62±3.05b | |
J72 | 11.0±0.4a | 8.7±0.6 a | 1.00±0.06a | 57.68±3.34a | |
平均Mean | 10.12 | 8.46 | 0.91 | 47.41 | |
Y24 | 8.5±0.6 b | 8.7±1.3a | 0.73±0.05b | 32.99±2.57c | |
Y48 | 9.1±0.4 ab | 8.1±0.5a | 0.81±0.04b | 41.89±1.93b | |
Y72 | 9.7±0.6a | 7.9±0.5 a | 0.99±0.07a | 55.68±3.26a | |
平均Mean | 9.03 | 8.25 | 0.84 | 43.52 | |
2019 | J24 | 9.4±0.8b | 10.2±0.7 a | 0.84±0.1b | 36.21±3.21c |
J48 | 10.3±0.5b | 8.1±0.5b | 0.86±0.09b | 39.52±3.36b | |
J72 | 12.6±0.8 a | 8.7±0.6 ab | 0.94±0.07a | 50.61±3.01a | |
平均Mean | 10.77 | 8.97 | 0.88 | 42.11 | |
Y24 | 9.4±0.5 b | 9.8±0.5a | 0.76±0.05c | 32.63±0.20b | |
Y48 | 9.8±0.4b | 9.9±0.9a | 0.79±0.04b | 35.44±1.14b | |
Y72 | 11.7±1.0 a | 8.4±0.4 a | 0.88±0.04a | 46.03±3.59a | |
平均Mean | 10.27 | 9.38 | 0.81 | 38.03 |
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 漏插率 Unplanted hill percentage/% | 伤株率 Injured seedling rate/% | 基本苗 Basic population/(×104·hm-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 4.0±0.5a | 4.1±0.6a | 87.33±5.77b |
J48 | 3.4±0.5ab | 3.8±0.5 a | 90.67±5.03ab | |
J72 | 2.5±0.5b | 2.8±0.6 b | 91.33±5.77a | |
平均Mean | 3.296 | 3.56 | 89.78 | |
Y24 | 4.3±0.5a | 4.4±0.8a | 85.33±3.06b | |
Y48 | 3.7±0.9a | 3.9±0.6b | 89.33±4.16a | |
Y72 | 2.8±0.9b | 3.1±0.6 c | 90.00±2.00a | |
平均Mean | 3.60 | 3.80 | 88.22 | |
2019 | J24 | 4.9±0.5a | 4.4±0.1a | 80.67±4.62b |
J48 | 3.7±0.9b | 3.9±0.3 b | 81.33±4.16b | |
J72 | 3.1±0.5b | 3.2±0.1c | 84.67±5.03a | |
平均Mean | 3.91 | 3.83 | 82.22 | |
Y24 | 5.3±0.5a | 4.6±0.1 a | 80.00±6.00b | |
Y48 | 4.0±0.5ab | 3.8±0.2ab | 80.67±4.16ab | |
Y72 | 3.4±0.5b | 3.5±0.4b | 84.00±5.29a | |
平均Mean | 4.22 | 3.94 | 81.56 |
表3 水分处理对秧苗移栽质量的影响
Table 3 Effects of water treatment on the quality of mechanically transplantedrice seedlings.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 漏插率 Unplanted hill percentage/% | 伤株率 Injured seedling rate/% | 基本苗 Basic population/(×104·hm-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 4.0±0.5a | 4.1±0.6a | 87.33±5.77b |
J48 | 3.4±0.5ab | 3.8±0.5 a | 90.67±5.03ab | |
J72 | 2.5±0.5b | 2.8±0.6 b | 91.33±5.77a | |
平均Mean | 3.296 | 3.56 | 89.78 | |
Y24 | 4.3±0.5a | 4.4±0.8a | 85.33±3.06b | |
Y48 | 3.7±0.9a | 3.9±0.6b | 89.33±4.16a | |
Y72 | 2.8±0.9b | 3.1±0.6 c | 90.00±2.00a | |
平均Mean | 3.60 | 3.80 | 88.22 | |
2019 | J24 | 4.9±0.5a | 4.4±0.1a | 80.67±4.62b |
J48 | 3.7±0.9b | 3.9±0.3 b | 81.33±4.16b | |
J72 | 3.1±0.5b | 3.2±0.1c | 84.67±5.03a | |
平均Mean | 3.91 | 3.83 | 82.22 | |
Y24 | 5.3±0.5a | 4.6±0.1 a | 80.00±6.00b | |
Y48 | 4.0±0.5ab | 3.8±0.2ab | 80.67±4.16ab | |
Y72 | 3.4±0.5b | 3.5±0.4b | 84.00±5.29a | |
平均Mean | 4.22 | 3.94 | 81.56 |
图3 水分处理对秧苗叶绿素荧光参数的影响
Fig.3. Effect of water treatment on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters. Fv/Fm, Maximum photochemical efficiency; Yield, Actual photochemical efficiency; qp, Photochemical quenching; NPQ, Non-photochemical quenching.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 3DAT | 6DAT | 9DAT | 12DAT | 3~6DAT | 6~9DAT | 9~12DAT | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 2.0±0.1b | 5.5±0.1c | 7.7±0.2c | 10.9±0.4 b | 3.5±0.2 b | 2.2±0.1c | 3.2±0.3 a | |
J48 | 2.2±0.2 b | 6.2±0.3b | 8.7±0.3b | 11.6±0.2ab | 4.0±0.2 ab | 2.5±0.2 b | 3.0±0.2 b | ||
J72 | 2.6±0.3 a | 6.9±0.4a | 9.5±0.4a | 11.9±0.3 a | 4.3±0.2a | 2.7±0.1a | 2.4±0.2 c | ||
平均Mean | 2.26 | 6.17 | 8.62 | 11.46 | 3.91 | 2.46 | 2.84 | ||
Y24 | 2.0±0.1b | 5.3±0.3 c | 7.6±0.4c | 10.7±0.5b | 3.3±0.2 b | 2.3±0.1c | 3.2±0.1a | ||
Y48 | 2.1±0.3 b | 5.8±0.3b | 8.3±0.4b | 10.8±0.4b | 3.6±0.2 b | 2.5±0.1b | 2.6±0.1b | ||
Y72 | 2.5±0.2 a | 6.6±0.4 a | 9.3±0.4a | 11.6±0.4 a | 4.1±0.2a | 2.7±0.1a | 2.4±0.1b | ||
平均Mean | 2.21 | 5.88 | 8.37 | 11.07 | 3.67 | 2.49 | 2.70 | ||
2019 | J24 | 2.4±0.1b | 6.0±0.3 c | 8.1±0.2c | 11.2±0.2b | 3.6±0.2c | 2.1±0.1b | 3.1±0.2 a | |
J48 | 2.4±0.2 b | 6.6±0.2b | 9.0±0.3b | 11.9±0.2 a | 4.2±0.2 b | 2.4±0.1ab | 2.9±0.2 b | ||
J72 | 3.0±0.2 a | 7.6±0.3a | 10.2±0.3a | 12.4±0.3 a | 4.7±0.2 a | 2.6±0.1a | 2.2±0.2 c | ||
平均Mean | 2.57 | 6.72 | 9.09 | 11.82 | 4.15 | 2.37 | 2.73 | ||
Y24 | 2.4±0.1b | 5.9±0.2 b | 8.0±0.4 b | 11.0±0.4b | 3.5±0.2b | 2.1±0.2b | 3.0±0.1a | ||
Y48 | 2.7±0.2ab | 6.4±0.3ab | 9.1±0.1a | 11.6±0.1 ab | 3.7±0.2 ab | 2.7±0.3 a | 2.5±0.1 b | ||
Y72 | 2.8±0.2a | 7.4±0.5 a | 10.1±0.4 a | 12.5±0.4 a | 4.5±0.3 a | 2.8±0.2a | 2.4±0.1b | ||
平均Mean | 2.64 | 6.56 | 9.08 | 11.71 | 3.92 | 2.52 | 2.64 |
Table 4 Effect of water treatment on the number of new roots of mechanically transplantedrice seedlings.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 3DAT | 6DAT | 9DAT | 12DAT | 3~6DAT | 6~9DAT | 9~12DAT | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 2.0±0.1b | 5.5±0.1c | 7.7±0.2c | 10.9±0.4 b | 3.5±0.2 b | 2.2±0.1c | 3.2±0.3 a | |
J48 | 2.2±0.2 b | 6.2±0.3b | 8.7±0.3b | 11.6±0.2ab | 4.0±0.2 ab | 2.5±0.2 b | 3.0±0.2 b | ||
J72 | 2.6±0.3 a | 6.9±0.4a | 9.5±0.4a | 11.9±0.3 a | 4.3±0.2a | 2.7±0.1a | 2.4±0.2 c | ||
平均Mean | 2.26 | 6.17 | 8.62 | 11.46 | 3.91 | 2.46 | 2.84 | ||
Y24 | 2.0±0.1b | 5.3±0.3 c | 7.6±0.4c | 10.7±0.5b | 3.3±0.2 b | 2.3±0.1c | 3.2±0.1a | ||
Y48 | 2.1±0.3 b | 5.8±0.3b | 8.3±0.4b | 10.8±0.4b | 3.6±0.2 b | 2.5±0.1b | 2.6±0.1b | ||
Y72 | 2.5±0.2 a | 6.6±0.4 a | 9.3±0.4a | 11.6±0.4 a | 4.1±0.2a | 2.7±0.1a | 2.4±0.1b | ||
平均Mean | 2.21 | 5.88 | 8.37 | 11.07 | 3.67 | 2.49 | 2.70 | ||
2019 | J24 | 2.4±0.1b | 6.0±0.3 c | 8.1±0.2c | 11.2±0.2b | 3.6±0.2c | 2.1±0.1b | 3.1±0.2 a | |
J48 | 2.4±0.2 b | 6.6±0.2b | 9.0±0.3b | 11.9±0.2 a | 4.2±0.2 b | 2.4±0.1ab | 2.9±0.2 b | ||
J72 | 3.0±0.2 a | 7.6±0.3a | 10.2±0.3a | 12.4±0.3 a | 4.7±0.2 a | 2.6±0.1a | 2.2±0.2 c | ||
平均Mean | 2.57 | 6.72 | 9.09 | 11.82 | 4.15 | 2.37 | 2.73 | ||
Y24 | 2.4±0.1b | 5.9±0.2 b | 8.0±0.4 b | 11.0±0.4b | 3.5±0.2b | 2.1±0.2b | 3.0±0.1a | ||
Y48 | 2.7±0.2ab | 6.4±0.3ab | 9.1±0.1a | 11.6±0.1 ab | 3.7±0.2 ab | 2.7±0.3 a | 2.5±0.1 b | ||
Y72 | 2.8±0.2a | 7.4±0.5 a | 10.1±0.4 a | 12.5±0.4 a | 4.5±0.3 a | 2.8±0.2a | 2.4±0.1b | ||
平均Mean | 2.64 | 6.56 | 9.08 | 11.71 | 3.92 | 2.52 | 2.64 |
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 有效穗数 Productivepanicle number/(×104·hm-2) | 每穗颖花数 Spikeletnumber per panicle | 结实率 Seed setting rate/% | 千粒重 1000-grain weight/g | 实际产量 Actual yield /(t·hm-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 386.67±5.03b | 136.4±2.8 a | 85.8±1.2 b | 22.28±0.50a | 9.63±0.18c |
J48 | 398.67±9.02ab | 137.4±2.7a | 87.9±1.0ab | 21.78±0.52a | 9.95±0.18b | |
J72 | 409.33±9.02a | 136.9±1.9 a | 89.5±1.1 a | 22.14±0.30a | 10.32±0.14a | |
平均Mean | 398.22 | 136.91 | 87.70 | 22.07 | 9.97 | |
Y24 | 382.67±5.03b | 138.3±2.1a | 86.7±1.3 b | 21.74±0.59a | 9.57±0.12c | |
Y48 | 389.33±8.33ab | 140.7±2.4a | 87.9±1.3ab | 21.53±0.36a | 9.90±0.16b | |
Y72 | 407.33±6.43a | 136.8±1.8 a | 89.4±1.3a | 22.15±0.35a | 10.27±0.32a | |
平均Mean | 393.11 | 138.60 | 87.99 | 21.81 | 9.91 | |
2019 | J24 | 398.33±8.62c | 135.9±1.5b | 89.1±0.5b | 21.94±0.42a | 9.89±0.28b |
J48 | 405.33±5.03b | 137.8±1.6ab | 90.6±0.7 ab | 22.25±0.22a | 10.34±0.43b | |
J72 | 416.67±7.57a | 138.8±2.4a | 92.1±0.6a | 22.14±0.32a | 10.90±0.51a | |
平均Mean | 406.78 | 137.48 | 90.62 | 22.11 | 10.38 | |
Y24 | 392.00±5.29b | 134.4±1.5 b | 89.4±0.9 b | 22.08±0.39a | 9.66±0.32b | |
Y48 | 398.67±9.87b | 138.8±1.8a | 90.0±0.6 b | 22.09±0.51a | 10.26±0.28ab | |
Y72 | 417.33±9.02a | 138.0±1.5 a | 91.6±0.6a | 21.97±0.29a | 10.79±0.20a | |
平均Mean | 402.67 | 137.06 | 90.33 | 22.05 | 10.24 |
Table 5 Effect of water treatment on rice grain yield and its components.
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 有效穗数 Productivepanicle number/(×104·hm-2) | 每穗颖花数 Spikeletnumber per panicle | 结实率 Seed setting rate/% | 千粒重 1000-grain weight/g | 实际产量 Actual yield /(t·hm-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | J24 | 386.67±5.03b | 136.4±2.8 a | 85.8±1.2 b | 22.28±0.50a | 9.63±0.18c |
J48 | 398.67±9.02ab | 137.4±2.7a | 87.9±1.0ab | 21.78±0.52a | 9.95±0.18b | |
J72 | 409.33±9.02a | 136.9±1.9 a | 89.5±1.1 a | 22.14±0.30a | 10.32±0.14a | |
平均Mean | 398.22 | 136.91 | 87.70 | 22.07 | 9.97 | |
Y24 | 382.67±5.03b | 138.3±2.1a | 86.7±1.3 b | 21.74±0.59a | 9.57±0.12c | |
Y48 | 389.33±8.33ab | 140.7±2.4a | 87.9±1.3ab | 21.53±0.36a | 9.90±0.16b | |
Y72 | 407.33±6.43a | 136.8±1.8 a | 89.4±1.3a | 22.15±0.35a | 10.27±0.32a | |
平均Mean | 393.11 | 138.60 | 87.99 | 21.81 | 9.91 | |
2019 | J24 | 398.33±8.62c | 135.9±1.5b | 89.1±0.5b | 21.94±0.42a | 9.89±0.28b |
J48 | 405.33±5.03b | 137.8±1.6ab | 90.6±0.7 ab | 22.25±0.22a | 10.34±0.43b | |
J72 | 416.67±7.57a | 138.8±2.4a | 92.1±0.6a | 22.14±0.32a | 10.90±0.51a | |
平均Mean | 406.78 | 137.48 | 90.62 | 22.11 | 10.38 | |
Y24 | 392.00±5.29b | 134.4±1.5 b | 89.4±0.9 b | 22.08±0.39a | 9.66±0.32b | |
Y48 | 398.67±9.87b | 138.8±1.8a | 90.0±0.6 b | 22.09±0.51a | 10.26±0.28ab | |
Y72 | 417.33±9.02a | 138.0±1.5 a | 91.6±0.6a | 21.97±0.29a | 10.79±0.20a | |
平均Mean | 402.67 | 137.06 | 90.33 | 22.05 | 10.24 |
[1] | 罗锡文,廖娟,胡炼,臧英,周志艳.提高农业机械化水平促进农业可持续发展[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(1):1-11. |
Luo X W, Liao J, Hu L, Zang Y, Zhou Z Y.Improving agricultural mechanization level to promote agricultural sustainable development[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2016, 32(1):1-11. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[2] | 张洪程,龚金龙.中国水稻种植机械化高产农艺研究现状及发展探讨[J].中国农业科学,2014,47(7):1273-1289. |
Zhang H C, Gong J L.Research status and development discussion on high-yielding agronomy of mechanized planting rice in China[J]. Scientia AgriculturaSinica, 2014, 47(7):1273-1289.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[3] | 朱德峰,陈惠哲.水稻机插秧发展与粮食安全[J].中国稻米,2009,15(6):4-7. |
Zhu D F, Chen H Z.Food security and development of rice mechanized transplanting technology in China[J]. China Rice, 2009, 15(6):4-7.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[4] | 金千瑜. 我国水稻生产机械化栽培现状与发展趋势[J].农业展望,2008,4(10):40-43. |
Jin Q Y.The development status and prospect of rice production mechanization in China[J].Agricultural Outlook, 2008, 4(10):40-43.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[5] | 徐一成,朱德峰,赵匀,陈惠哲.超级稻精量条播与撒播育秧对秧苗素质及机插效果的影响[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(1):99-103. |
Xu Y C,Zhu D F,Zhao Y,Chen H Z.Rice precision transplanting as achieved by use of mechanical transplanting[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2009, 25(1):99-103.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[6] | 周海波,马旭,姚亚利.水稻秧盘育秧播种技术与装备的研究现状及发展趋势[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(4):301-306. |
Zhou H B, Ma X, Yao Y L.Research advances and prospects in the seeding technology and equipment for tray nursing seedlings of rice[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2008, 24(4):301-306.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[7] | 林育炯,张均华,胡志华,朱练峰,禹盛苗,金千瑜.我国水稻机插秧育秧基质研究进展[J].中国稻米,2015,21(4):7-13. |
LinY J, Zhang J H, Hu Z H, Zhu L F, Yu S M, JinQ Y. Research on rice mechanized seedling substrate in China[J]. China Rice, 2015, 21(4):7-13.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[8] | 李跃东,沈枫,李睿,张悦,张睿,王之旭.辽宁省水稻工厂化育苗生产现状及发展对策[J].辽宁农业科学,2014,49(6):66-68. |
Li Y D, Shen F, Li R, Zhang Y, Zhang R, Wang Z X. Current situation and development countermeasure of rice industrial seedling cultivation in Liaoning Province[J]. Liaoning Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 21, 49(4):7-13.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[9] | 付立东,徐久升,王宇,展广军.水稻机械化生产现状与发展的有效途径[J].垦殖与稻作,2006,30(2):64-66. |
Fu L D, Xu J H, Wang Y, Zhan G J. Production status and efficient path to develop about rice mechanization[J]. Reclaiming and Rice Cultivation, 2006, 30(2):64-66.(in Chinese) | |
[10] | 马兴全,于广星,侯守贵,代贵金.辽宁省水稻机械化栽培现状与技术对策[J].北方水稻,2013,43(6):76-80. |
Ma X Q, Yu G X, Hou S G, Dai G J. Current situation and some technical measures on rice mechanized cultivation in Liaoning[J]. Nroth Rice, 2013, 43(6):76-80.(in Chinese) | |
[11] | 丁艳锋,王强盛,王绍华,黄丕生.水稻旱育秧苗与湿润秧苗根系生理活性的比较研究[J].南京农业大学学报,2001,24(3):1-5. |
DingY F, Wang S Q, Wang S H, Huang P H. Comparison studies of roots physiology activity between rice dry seedbed seedlings and wet seedbed seedlings[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2001, 24(3):1-5.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[12] | 沈建辉,曹卫星,朱庆森,薛艳凤,景启坚.不同育秧方式对水稻机插秧苗素质的影响[J].南京农业大学学报,2003,26(3):7-9. |
Shen J H, Cao W X, Zhu Q S, Xue Y F, Jing Q J.Effects of different seedling raising methods on rice seedling quality by mechanical transplanting[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2003, 26(3):7-9.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[13] | 赵言文,丁艳锋,陈留根,黄丕生.水稻旱育秧苗抗旱生理特性研究[J].中国农业科学,2001,34(3):283-291. |
ZhaoY W, DingY F, Chen L G, HuangP S. Physiological characteristics of drought resistance of rice dry nursery seedlings[J]. Scientia AgriculturaSinica, 2001, 34(3):283-291.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[14] | 杨建昌,王志琴,刘立军,郎有忠,朱庆森.旱种水稻生育特性与产量形成的研究[J].作物学报,2002,28(1):11-17. |
YangJ C, Wang Z Q, Liu L J, Lang Y Z, Zhu Q S. Growth and development characteristics and yield formation of dry-cultivated rice[J]. ActaAgronomicaSinica, 2002, 28(1):11-17.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[15] | 张永泰,吴怀珣,王忠, 熊飞,谢云峰,李爱民.水稻育秧环境对秧苗生长的影响[J].中国水稻科学,1999,13(2):22-26. |
Zhang Y T, WuH X, Wang Z,Xiong F, Xie Y F, Li A M. Effect of rice seedling raising conditions on rice seedling growth[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 1999, 13(2):22-26.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[16] | 文中华,刘喜雨,孟军,刘遵奇,史国宏.生物炭和腐熟秸秆组配基质对水稻幼苗生长的影响[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2020,51(1):10-17. |
WenZ H, LiuX Y, Meng J, LiuZ Q, Shi G H. Research on biochar and rotten straw-based matrix on the growth of rice seedlings[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2020, 51(1):10-17.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[17] | 林育炯,张均华,胡继杰,朱练峰,曹小闯,禹盛苗,金千瑜.不同类型基质对机插水稻秧苗生理特征及产量的影响[J].农业工程学报,2016,32(8):18-26. |
Lin Y J, Zhang J H, Hu JJ, Zhu L F, Cao X C, Yu S M, Jin Q Y.Effects of different seedling substrates on physiological characters and grain yield of mechanized-transplanted rice[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2016, 32(8):18-26.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[18] | 杨建昌,王志琴,朱庆森.不同土壤水分状况下氮素营养对水稻产量的影响及其生理机制的研究[J].中国农业科学,1996,29(4):58-66. |
YangJ C, WangZ Q, Zhu Q S. Effect of nitrogen nutrition on rice yield and its physiological mechanism under different status of soil moisture[J].Scientia AgriculturaSinica, 1996,29(4):58-66.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[19] | 宋鹏慧,方玉凤,王晓燕,庞荔丹,戴建军.不同有机物料育秧基质对水稻秧苗生长及养分积累的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2015,47(2):98-102. |
SongP H, Fang Y F, Wang X Y, Pang L D, Dai J J. Effect of different organic materials substrate on rice seedling growth and nutrients accumulation[J]. Soils and Fertilizers Sciences in China, 2015, 47(2):98-102.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[20] | 廖莎,谭雪明,李木英,胡凯,潘晓华,石庆华.芸薹素内酯对稻草基质育秧水稻秧苗生理特性及栽后生长的影响[J].中国水稻科学,2020,34(2):181-190. |
LiaoS, TanX M, Li M Y, Hu K, PanX H, ShiQ H. Effects of brassinolideon physiological characteristics and growth of straw substrate-cultured rice seedlings after transplanting[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2020, 34(2):181-190.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[21] | 成臣,雷凯,程慧煌,王盛亮,朱博,卢占军,高冰可,王斌强,石庆华,曾勇军.苗期不同浓度多效唑对南方晚粳稻秧苗素质、茎蘖动态及产量的影响[J].中国水稻科学,2020,34(2):150-158. |
ChengC, Lei K, Cheng HH, Wang S L, Zhu B, Lu Z J, Gao B K, Wang B Q, Shi Q H, Zeng Y J. Effects of different concentrations of paclobutrazolin seedling stage on seedling quality, Tilleringdynamics and grain yield of japonica rice during late cropping season in southern China[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2020, 34(2):150-158.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[22] | 张祖建,王君,郎有忠,于林惠,薛艳凤,朱庆森.机插稻超秧龄秧苗的生长特点研究[J].作物学报,2008,34(2):297-304. |
ZhangZ J, WangJ, LangY Z, Yu LH, XueY F, ZhuQ S. Growing characteristics of rice seedlings of over-optimum age for mechanical transplanting[J]. ActaAgronomicaSinica, 2008,34(2):297-304.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[23] | 李玉祥,何知舟,丁艳锋,王绍华,刘正辉,唐设,丁承强,陈琳,李刚华.播种量对机插水卷苗秧苗素质及产量形成的影响[J].中国水稻科学,2018,32(3):247-256. |
LiY X, HeZZ, DingY F, WangS H, LiuZ H, TangS, DingC Q, ChenL, LiG H. Effects of sowing densities on quality and yield formation of hydroponically grown long-mat rice seedlings under mechanical transplanting[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2018, 32(3):247-256.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[24] | 廖莎,谭雪明,李木英,胡凯,潘晓华,石庆华.稻草基质育秧不同水分管理对水稻秧苗生长的影响[J].中国稻米,2017,23(4):71-74. |
Liao S, Tan X M, LiM Y, HuK, PanX H, ShiQ H.Effects of different water management on seedling growth of rice in straw substrates[J]. China Rice, 2017, 23(4):71-74.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[25] | 陈新红,王志琴,杨建昌.不同氮素水平与水分胁迫对水稻秧苗素质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2007,25(1):78-81+93. |
ChenX H, Wang Z Q, Yang J C.Effect of different nitrogen levels and water stress on qualities of rice seedling[J]. Agricultural Research in The Arid Areas, 2007, 25(1):78-81+93.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[26] | 于林惠,丁艳锋,薛艳凤,凌启鸿,袁钊和.水稻机插秧田间育秧秧苗素质影响因素研究[J].农业工程学报,2006,22(3):73-78. |
Yu L H, Ding Y F, Xue Y F, Ling Q H, Yuan Z H.Factors affacting rice seedling quality of mechanical transplanting rice[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2006, 22(3):73-78.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[27] | 王强盛,丁艳锋,王绍华,黄丕生,缪宝山.苗床持续饱和水分对水稻旱育秧苗的生理影响[J].作物学报,2004,30(3):210-214. |
WangQ S, DingY F, WangS H, HuangP H, MiaoB S.Physiological effects of sustainable water saturation in seedbed on rice dry nursery seedlings[J]. ActaAgronomicaSinica, 2004, 30(3):210-214.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[28] | 吴文革,周永进,陈刚,蔡海涛,吴然然,李霞红,孙如银.不同育秧基质和水分管理对机插稻秧苗素质与产量的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2014,22(9):1057-1063. |
Wu W G, ZhouY J, Chen G, Cai H T, Wu Ra R, Li X H, SunR Y. Effects of different seedling nursery substrates and water management modes on seedling quality and yield of mechanically transplanted rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2014, 22(9):1057-1063. | |
(inChinese with English abstract) | |
[29] | 周蕴薇,刘艳萍,戴思兰.用叶绿素荧光分析技术鉴定植物抗寒性的剖析[J].植物生理学报,2006,42(5):945-950. |
ZhouY W, Liu Y P, DaiS L. Identification of cold resistant plants by chlorophyll fluorescence analysis technique[J].Plant Physiology Communications, 2006, 42(5):945-950.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[30] | 王可玢,许春辉,赵福洪,唐崇钦,戴云玲.水分胁迫对小麦旗叶某些体内叶绿素a荧光参数的影响[J].生物物理学报, 1997,13(2):273-278. |
WangK B, Xu C H, ZhaoF H, TangC Q, DaiY L. The effects of water stress on some in vivo Chlorophyll A fluorescence parameters of wheat flag leaves[J]. ActaBiophysicaSinica, 1997, 13(2):273-278.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[31] | ErlingÖgren. Prediction of photoinhibition of photosynthesis from measurements of fluorescence quenching components[J]. Planta,1991,184(4): 538-544. |
[32] | 曾永跃,唐国荣,江立庚,韦杰权,宋红,阮春芳.机插水稻缓苗期生长特点及生理机制研究[J].中国农机化学报,2016,37(10):205-209. |
Zeng YY, Tang G R, Jiang L G, Wei J Q, Song H, Ruan C F.Study on growth characteristics and physiological mechanism of machine-transplanted rice during recovering period[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2016, 37(10):205-209.(in Chinese with English abstract) | |
[33] | 许大全,张玉忠,张荣铣.植物光合作用的光抑制[J].植物生理学通讯,1992,28(4):237-243. |
Xu D Q, Zhang Y Z,Zhang R X. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in plants[J]. Plant Physiology Communications, 1992, 28(4):237-243.(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] | 景秀, 周苗, 王晶, 王岩, 王旺, 王开, 郭保卫, 胡雅杰, 邢志鹏, 许轲, 张洪程. 穗分化末期-灌浆初期干旱胁迫对优质食味粳稻根系形态和叶片光合特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(1): 33-47. |
[8] | 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. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | 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. |
[11] | 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. |
[12] | 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. |
[13] | 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. |
[14] | 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. |
[15] | 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. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||