机直播条件下不同控草方式对抗除草剂水稻产量和品质差异性研究

doi:10.16819/j.1001-7216.2025.241001

中国水稻科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (4): 501-515.DOI: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2025.241001

• 专题：水稻生产机械化与智能化 • 上一篇下一篇

机直播条件下不同控草方式对抗除草剂水稻产量和品质差异性研究

朱鹏¹^,², 凌溪铁², 王金彦², 张保龙², 杨郁文², 许轲¹^,^*(), 裘实²^,^*()

¹江苏省作物遗传生理重点实验室 / 农业农村部长江流域稻作技术创新中心 / 粮食作物现代产业技术协同创新中心 / 扬州大学农学院，江苏扬州 225009
²江苏省农业科学院种质资源与生物技术研究所 / 卓越创新中心, 南京 210018

收稿日期:2024-10-08 修回日期:2024-11-23 出版日期:2025-07-10 发布日期:2025-07-21
通讯作者: ^*email: xuke@yzu.edu.cn,20190054@jaas.ac.cn
基金资助:
江苏省重点研发计划资助项目(BE2021361);江苏省农业科技自主创新资金资助项目(CX[21]1002)

Effects of Weed Control Methods on Grain Yield and Quality of Herbicide-resistant Rice Under Direct Seeding

ZHU Peng¹^,², LING Xitie², WANG Jinyan², ZHANG Baolong², YANG Yuwen², XU Ke¹^,^*(), QIU Shi²^,^*()

¹Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Physiology / Innovation Center of Rice Cultivation Technology in the Yangtze River Basin, Ministry of Agriculture / Collaborative Innovation Center of Modern Industrial Technology of Food Crops / College of Agriculture, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
²Institute of Germplasm Resources and Biotechnology / Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing 210014, China

Received:2024-10-08 Revised:2024-11-23 Online:2025-07-10 Published:2025-07-21
Contact: ^*email:xuke@yzu.edu.cn,20190054@jaas.ac.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】探讨机直播条件下不同控草方式对抗除草剂水稻生长及其产量、品质形成的影响。【方法】以粳型常规糯稻镇糯19 (Z19)、籼型恢复系水稻华占(HZ)、常规粳稻镇稻18 (Z18)和软米K6 (K6)的抗乙酰乳酸合成酶类(acetolactate synthase，ALS)除草剂品种与对相应除草剂敏感的野生型品种为材料进行田间试验，采用乳苗移栽模拟机直播的方式，设置三种除草方式即人工除草(T1)、甲氧咪草烟除草(T2)、常规除草(T3)。【结果】施药40 d后调查发现，人工除草处理杂草防效最好，其次为甲氧咪草烟处理，对田间总草株防效分别为95.43%、86.34%，比常规除草处理分别高34.32%、24.23%。此外，随着田间杂草危害的减轻，不同品种水稻的农艺性状特征(茎蘖数、成穗率、叶面积指数、结实期叶面积衰减率和干物质积累量)均不同程度地提高，但对SPAD值和稻米品质无显著影响。与常规除草方式(T3)相比，T1中镇糯19、华占、镇稻18和K6的产量分别提高35.0%、34.8%、31.9%和28.8%，T2中对应水稻的产量则分别提高17.6%、15.9%、14.1%和15.2%。【结论】以上结果表明，机直播条件下选用抗ALS类除草剂水稻品种配套相应除草剂除草技术可以高效除草并能维持较高的水稻产量，是一种值得推广的高产栽培方式。

关键词: 抗除草剂水稻, 除草方式, 农艺性状, 产量, 米质

Abstract:

【Objective】 The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different weed control methods on herbicide-resistant rice growth and yield formation. 【Method】 Field experiments were carried out with the ALS herbicide-resistant varieties of conventional glutinous rice Zhennuo 19 (Z19), indica restorer line rice Huazhan (HZ), conventional japonica rice Zhendao 18 (Z18), soft rice K6 (K6) and their corresponding herbicide sensitive wild-type varieties as materials. The method of direct seeding was adopted. Three weeding methods were employed, including, artificial-weeding (T1), imazamox-weeding (T2) and conventional-weeding (T3). 【Result】 The control effect of artificial weeding was the best, followed by metomiazol treatment, with weed control efficacies of 95.43% and 86.34%, which were 34.32% and 24.23% higher than that of conventional weeding at 40-day after treatment. In addition, the agronomic traits of tested rice varieties (number of tillers, heading rate, leaf area index, leaf area decay rate and dry matter accumulation) increased to different degrees, with no significant effect on SPAD value or rice quality. Compared with the conventional-weeding(T3), the yield of Zhennuo 19, Huazhan, Zhendao 18 and K6 in T1 increased by 35.0%, 34.8%, 31.9% and 28.8%, respectively, and the yield of corresponding rice varieties in T2 increased by 17.6%, 15.9%, 14.1% and 15.2%, respectively. 【Conclusion】 The above results indicate that selecting ALS herbicide-resistant rice varieties and applying corresponding herbicide control technology under mechanical direct seeding conditions can effectively control weeds and maintain high grain yield, which is a high-yield cultivation method worthy of promotion.

Key words: herbicide-resistant rice, weeding methods, agronomic traits, yield, rice quality

朱鹏, 凌溪铁, 王金彦, 张保龙, 杨郁文, 许轲, 裘实. 机直播条件下不同控草方式对抗除草剂水稻产量和品质差异性研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(4): 501-515.

ZHU Peng, LING Xitie, WANG Jinyan, ZHANG Baolong, YANG Yuwen, XU Ke, QIU Shi. Effects of Weed Control Methods on Grain Yield and Quality of Herbicide-resistant Rice Under Direct Seeding[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2025, 39(4): 501-515.

图/表 14

参考文献 42

[1]	Ehsanullah A N, Khawar J, Amjad A M. Weed management improves yield and quality of direct seeded rice[J]. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 2011, 5: 688-694.
[2]	Peng S B, Tang Q Y, Zou Y B. Current status and challenges of rice production in China[J]. Plant Production Science, 2009, 12(1): 3-8.
[3]	Liu H Y, Hussain S, Zheng M M, Peng S B, Huang J L, Cui K H, Nie L X. Dry direct-seeded rice as an alternative to transplanted-flooded rice in central China[J]. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35(1): 285-294.
[4]	Jiang Q W, Wang W Q, Chen Q, Peng S B, Huang J L. Cui K H, Nie L X. Response of first flood irrigation timing after rice dry-direct-seeding: Productivity and greenhouse gas emissions in Central China[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2016, 177: 241-247.
[5]	Chauhan B S, Abugho S B. Effects of water regime, nitrogen fertilization, and rice plant density on growth and reproduction of lowland weed Echinochloa crus-galli[J]. Crop Protection, 2013, 54: 142-147.
[6]	Li X Z, Dong J F, Zhu W, Zhao J L, Zhou L Y. Progress in the study of functional genes related to direct seeding of rice[J]. Molecular Breeding, 2023, 43(6): 46.
[7]	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 Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(7): 1273-1289. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	Burgos N R, Singh V, Tseng T M, Black H, Young N D, Huang Z, Hyma K E, Gealy D R, Caicedo A L. The impact of herbicide-resistant rice technology on phenotypic diversity and population structure of United States weedy rice[J]. Plant Physiology, 2014, 166(3): 1208-1220.
[9]	胡江博, 任正鹏, 丁翔, 王朝全, 冯阳, 王笑见, 张翔, 胥南飞. 稻田除草剂应用现状与抗除草剂水稻育种研究进展[J]. 中国稻米, 2023, 29(4): 13-19.
	Hu J B, Ren Z P, Ding X, Wang Z Q, Feng Y, Wang X J, Zhang X, Xu N F. Application of herbicides in rice fields and research progress on herbicide-resistant rice varieties breeding[J]. China Rice, 2023, 29(4): 13-19. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	Croughan T P. Clearfield rice: It’s not a GMO[J]. Louisiana Agriculture, 2003, 46: 24-26.
[11]	Chipman D, Barak Z, Schloss J V. Biosynthesis of 2-aceto-2-hydroxy acids: Acetolactate synthases and acetohydroxyacid synthases[J]. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1998, 1385(2): 401-419.
[12]	Liu Y D, Li Y Y, Wang X Y. Acetohydroxyacid synthases: Evolution, structure, and function[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2016, 100(20): 8633-8649.
[13]	姚坚, 邹飞, 金琴芳, 陆文娟. 气相色谱质谱法测定土壤中5 种除草剂残留[J]. 化学工程师, 2023, 37(12): 38-40+37.
	Yao J, Zou F, Jin Q F, Lu W J. Determination of five herbicide residues in soil by GC/MS[J]. Chemical Engineer, 2023, 37(12): 38-40+37.
[14]	项秉晗, 蔡新仪, 彭震, 黄卉, 董立尧. 甲氧咪草烟对耐咪唑啉酮类除草剂水稻后茬作物的安全性[J]. 农药, 2022, 61(12): 889-893+915.
	Xiang B H, Cai X Y, Peng Z, Huang H, Dong L Y. The safety of imazamox to the rotational crop after imidazolinone-tolerant rice[J]. Agrochemicals, 2022, 61(12): 889-893+915.
[15]	吴培. 施氮量和直播密度互作对优质食味水稻产量和品质的影响[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2019.
	Wu P. Effects of interaction between nitrogen application rate and direct-sowing density on yield and rice quality of rice with good eating quality[D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2019.
[16]	陈天子, 余月, 凌溪铁, 张保龙. EMS诱变水稻创制抗咪唑啉酮除草剂种质[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(2): 253-261.
	Chen T Z, Yu Y, Ling X T, Zhang B L. Screening of imidazolinone-resistant rice from EMS-mutated populations[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 35(2): 253-261. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	Singh B K, Stidham M A, Shaner D L. Assay of acetohydroxyacd synthase[J]. Analytical Biochemistry, 1988, 171(1): 173-179.
[18]	陈以峰, 李宜慰, 汤日圣, 李永丰, 梅传生, 翟其楷, 刘宁政. 乙酰乳酸合酶活性的简易测定方法建立[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 1996, 18(2): 213-218.
	Chen Y F, Li Y W, Tang R S, Li Y F, Mei C S, Zhai Q K, Liu N Z. Simplified assay of acetolactate synthase activities[J]. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 1996, 18(2): 213-218 (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	Seefeldt S S, Jensen J E, Fuerst E P. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships[J]. Weed Technology, 1995, 9(2): 218-227.
[20]	刘镕源, 王纪华, 杨贵军, 黄文江, 李伟国, 常红, 李小文. 冬小麦叶面积指数地面测量方法的比较[J]. 农业工程学报, 2011, 27(3): 220-224.
	Liu R Y, Wang J H, Yang G J, Huang W J, Li W G, Chang H, Li X W. Comparison of ground-based LAI measuring methods on winter wheat[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2011, 27(3): 220-224. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	Rajguru S N, Burgos N R, Shivrain V K, Stewart J M. Mutations in the red rice ALS gene associated with resistance to imazethapyr[J]. Weed Science, 2005, 53(5): 567-577.
[22]	Chen L, Gu G, Wang C X, Chen Z F, Yan W, Jin M, Xie G, Zhou J L, Deng X W, Tang X Y. Trp548Met mutation of acetolactate synthase in rice confers resistance to a broad spectrum of ALS-inhibiting herbicides[J]. Crop Journal, 2021, 9(4): 750-758.
[23]	Butts T R, Kouame K B, Norsworthy J K, Barber L T. Arkansas rice: herbicide resistance concerns, production practices, and weed management costs[J]. Frontiers in Agronomy, 2022, 4: 881667.
[24]	Avent T H, Norsworthy J K, Butts T R, Roberts T L, Bateman N R. Evaluation of rice tolerance and weed control with acetochlor and fenclorim[J]. Weed Technology, 2022, 36(6): 844-850.
[25]	宋英, 张自常, 顾俊荣, 董明辉. 稗草出苗时间和密度对机直播水稻产量的影响[J]. 杂草学报, 2021, 39(3): 67-73.
	Song Y, Zhang Z C, Gu J R, Dong M H. Barnyardgrass emergence time and density affect grain yield of mechanically dry-seeded rice[J]. Journal of Weed Science, 2021, 39(3): 67-73. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	谷承文, 赵媛媛, 杜凤阳, 戴魏真, 许锦程, 毕亚玲. 安徽省稻田稗草对五氟磺草胺的抗性测定[J]. 江汉大学学报: 自然科学版, 2023, 51(2): 51-60.
	Gu C W, Zhao Y Y, Du F Y, Dai W Z, Xu J C, Bi Y L. Resistant detection of Echinochloa Crus-galli from rice fields to Penoxsulam in Anhui Province[J]. Journal of Jianghan University, 2023, 51: 51-60. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	张昊, 张勇, 潘月敏, 周凤艳, 姚传春, 韩云静. 安徽省部分稻区稗草抗药性初探[J]. 杂草学报, 2021, 39(3): 44-50.
	Zhang H, Zhang Y, Pan Y M, Zhou F Y, Yao C C, Han Y J. Preliminary study on Echinochloa spp. resistance to herbicides in paddy fields of Anhui Province[J]. Journal of Weed Science, 2021, 39(3): 44-50. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	Kumar V, Liu R, Chauhan D, Perumal R, Morran S, Gaines T A, Jha P. Characterization of imazamox-resistant shattercane (Sorghum bicolor L.) populations from Kansas[J]. Weed Technology, 2023, 37(4): 376-382.
[29]	田志慧, 陆俊尧, 袁国徽, 沈国辉. 千金子与异型莎草对直播水稻产量的影响及其生态经济阈值研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2020, 28(3): 328-336.
	Tian Z H, Lu J Y, Yuan G H, Shen G H. Effects and eco-economic thresholds of Leptochloa chinensis and Cyperus difformis on the yield of direct-seeding rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2020, 28(3): 328-336. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	杨阳, 刘拓, 周成杰, 贺青. 南阳市直播稻田杂草发生情况及防治策略[J]. 现代农业科技, 2023, 11: 97-100.
	Yang Y, Liu T, Zhou C J, He Q. The occurrence of weeds in the paddy field and its control strategy in Nanyang City[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 11: 97-100. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[31]	朱阿秀, 王茂涛. 江苏省稻田稗草发生情况及治理对策[J]. 现代农药, 2019, 18(5): 1-3.
	Zhu A X, Wang M T. Present situation and management strategies of barnyardgrass in rice fields of Jiangsu Province[J]. Modern Agrochemicals, 2019, 18(5): 1-3. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[32]	高陆思, 崔海兰, 骆焱平, 李香菊. 异型莎草对不同除草剂的敏感性研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2015, 54(9): 2123-2126.
	Gao L S, Cui H L, Luo Y P, Li X J. Sensitivity research of Cyperus difformis to different herbicides[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 54(9): 2123-2126. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[33]	张自常, 李永丰, 张彬, 杨霞. 稗属杂草对水稻生长发育和产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(11): 3177-3184.
	Zhang Z C, Li Y F, Zhang B, Yang X. Influence of weeds in Echinochloa on growth and yield of rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(11): 3177-3184. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	苏祖芳, 郭宏文, 李永丰, 张洪程, 张海泉. 水稻群体叶面积动态类型的研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 1994, 4: 23-30.
	Su Z F, Guo H W, Li Y F, Zhang H C, Zhang H Q. Studies on the types of leaf area dynamics of population in rice[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 1994, 4: 23-30. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[35]	Marenco R A, Antezana-Vera S A, Nascimento H C S. Relationship between specific leaf area, leaf thickness, leaf water content and SPAD-502 readings in six Amazonian tree species[J]. Photosynthetica, 2009, 47(2): 184-190.
[36]	王振洋, 王冀川, 袁杰, 王奉斌. 不同肥密措施对南疆水稻抗倒伏及干物质生产特性和产量的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2024, 30(1): 101-107.
	Wang Z Y, Wang J C, Yuan J, Wang F B. Effects of nitrogen application rate and planting density on lodging-resistance, dry matter production and yield of rice in Southern Xinjiang[J]. China Rice, 2024, 30(1): 101-107. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[37]	温广月, 钱振官, 李涛, 沈国辉. 稻田鸭舌草田间发生消长规律及生态学特性[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 54(11): 201-203.
	Wen G Y, Qian X G, Li T, Shen G H. The regularity and ecological characteristics of the occurrence and growth of Anodynia japonica in paddy field[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Science, 2015, 54(11): 201-203. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[38]	石春海, 何慈信, 朱军. 稻米碾磨品质性状遗传主效应及其与环境互作的遗传分析[J]. 遗传学报, 1998, 25(1): 46-53.
	Shi C H, He C X, Zhu J. Analysis of genetic effects and genotype×environment interactions for milling quality traits of rice[J]. Journal of Genetics and Genomics, 1998, 25(1): 46-53. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[39]	郭银燕, 张云康, 陈润兴, 胡秉明, 陈昆荣. 早籼稻碾磨品质品种、地点、品种×地点互作效应的研究[J]. 遗传, 1997, 19(4): 12-16.
	Guo Y Y, Zhang Y K, Chen R X, Hu B M, Chen K R. Analysis of genotype, test site, genotype×site effects on milling qualities of early season indica rice[J]. Journal of Genetics and Genomics, 1997, 19(4): 12-16. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[40]	石春海, 陈国林, 朱军, 臧荣春, 吴建国, 陈双燕. 籼稻稻米直链淀粉含量的胚、胚乳、细胞质和母体遗传效应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2000, 26(6): 833-838.
	Shi C H, Chen G L, Zhu J, Zang R C, Wu J G, Chen S Y. Analysis of embryo, endosperm, cytoplasmic and maternal effects for amylose content trait in indica rice[J]. The Crop Journal, 2000, 26(6): 833-838. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[41]	Fan P, Xu J, Wei H, Liu G D, Zhang Z Z, Tian J Y, Zhang H C. Recent research advances in the development of chalkiness and transparency in rice[J]. Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 1123.
[42]	陆丹丹, 叶苗, 张祖建. 稻米蛋白质及其组分研究概况及其对稻米品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022(2): 28-34.
	Lu D D, Ye M, Zhang Z J. Research progress on rice protein and its components and their effects on rice quality[J]. Crops, 2022(2): 28-34. (in Chinese with English abstract)

引物 Primer	序列 Sequence (5’-3’)
OsALS-F	TCGCCCAAACCCAGAAACCC
OsALS-R	CTCTTTATGGGTCATTCAGGTC

引物 Primer	序列 Sequence (5’-3’)
OsALS-F	TCGCCCAAACCCAGAAACCC
OsALS-R	CTCTTTATGGGTCATTCAGGTC

品种 Variety	酶活抑制中量 IC₅₀ (μmol/L)	抗性指数 RI
Z19-WT	9.26	—
Z19-T4	219.62	23.72
HZ-WT	9.42	—
HZ-47	220.23	23.38
Z18-WT	12.62	—
Z18-43	291.36	23.09
K6-WT	12.78	—
K6-1	299.53	23.44

品种 Variety	酶活抑制中量 IC₅₀ (μmol/L)	抗性指数 RI
Z19-WT	9.26	—
Z19-T4	219.62	23.72
HZ-WT	9.42	—
HZ-47	220.23	23.38
Z18-WT	12.62	—
Z18-43	291.36	23.09
K6-WT	12.78	—
K6-1	299.53	23.44

品种 Variety	生长抑制中量 GR₅₀ (g/hm²)	抗性指数 RI
Z19-WT	18.09	—
Z19-T4	146.17	8.08
HZ-WT	18.61	—
HZ-47	149.26	8.02
18-WT	17.46	—
Z18-43	146.21	8.38
K6-WT	17.12	—
K6-1	142.95	8.35

机直播条件下不同控草方式对抗除草剂水稻产量和品质差异性研究

Effects of Weed Control Methods on Grain Yield and Quality of Herbicide-resistant Rice Under Direct Seeding

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 14

参考文献 42

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

施药后天数 Days after treatment	处理 Treatment	株防效Plant control efficacy (%)
施药后天数 Days after treatment	处理 Treatment	稗草 Barnyard grass	千金子 Asian sprangletop	马唐 Crabgrass	丁香蓼 Climbing seedbox	总草 Total grass
15	T1	98.17 a	99.12 a	97.63 a	98.24 a	95.71 a
	T2	64.33 c	65.45 c	63.22 c	64.63 c	62.35 c
	T3	78.22 b	79.43 b	77.11 b	79.18 b	75.11 b
30	T1	96.23 a	96.88 a	94.37 a	95.55 a	93.21 a
	T2	84.23 b	85.22 b	84.17 b	85.33 b	83.21 b
	T3	70.14 c	72.52 c	71.33 c	70.43 c	70.12 c
40	T1	37.62 a	98.48a	97.11 a	97.62 a	95.43 a
	T2	86.13 b	88.41 b	85.67 b	87.53 b	86.34 b
	T3	65.31 c	66.50 c	64.31 c	63.21 c	62.11 c

处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	穗数 Panicle number (×10⁴/hm²)	每穗颖花量 Spikelet number per panicle	结实率 Seed-setting rate (%)	千粒重 1000-grain weight (g)	2023年实产 Actual yield in 2023 (t/hm²)	2022年实产 Actual yield in 2022 (t/hm²)
T1	Z19-T4	322.45 a	131.18 a	90.39 a	25.57 a	9.77 a	9.71 a
	Z19-WT	322.75 a	132.24 a	90.54 a	25.66 a	9.91 a	9.84 a
T2	Z19-T4	310.32 b	122.71 b	88.26 b	25.33 a	8.51 b	8.44 b
T3	Z19-T4	301.18 c	114.26 c	84.44 c	24.92 b	7.24 c	6.92 c
	Z19-WT	300.75 c	113.44 c	84.75 c	24.93 b	7.21 c	6.98 c
T1	HZ-47	439.38 a	159.27 a	84.43 a	20.17 a	11.92 a	11.85 a
	HZ-WT	439.01 a	158.70 a	84.07 a	20.24 a	11.86 a	11.82 a
T2	HZ-47	425.39 b	147.74 b	81.34 b	20.05 a	10.25 b	10.17 b
T3	HZ-47	410.30 c	140.40 c	78.60 c	19.53 b	8.84 c	8.77 c
	HZ-WT	410.70 c	140.20 c	78.25 c	19.61 b	8.84 c	8.79 c
T1	Z18-43	301.52 a	128.52 a	93.32 a	26.23 a	9.48 a	9.42 a
	Z18-WT	301.55 a	128.24 a	93.33 a	26.22 a	9.46 a	9.44 a
T2	Z18-43	289.80 b	120.46 b	90.08 b	26.09 a	8.21 b	8.11 b
T3	Z18-43	280.39 c	112.22 c	88.26 c	25.89 b	7.19 c	7.10 c
	Z18-WT	280.61 c	112.44 c	88.07 c	25.89 b	7.19 c	7.11 c
T1	K6-1	326.51 a	130.68 a	91.34 a	25.81 a	10.06 a	9.98 a
	K6-WT	326.22 a	130.57 a	91.25 a	25.78 a	10.02 a	9.95 a
T2	K6-1	318.28 b	123.31 b	89.17 b	25.72 a	9.00 b	8.89 b
T3	K6-1	309.60 c	115.06 c	86.25 c	25.38 b	7.81 c	7.70 c
	K6-WT	309.38 c	115.26 c	86.28 c	25.38 b	7.82 c	7.73 c
方差分析 Analysis of variance
品种Variety (V)		**	**	**	**	**	**
处理Treatment (T)		**	**	**	**	**	**
品种×处理V×T		**	NS	**	*	**	**

处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	茎蘖数Number of stems and tillers (×10⁴/hm²)				茎蘖成穗率 Percentage of productive tillers (%)
处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	分蘖盛期 Tillering	拔节期 Jointing	抽穗期 Heading	成熟期 Maturity	茎蘖成穗率 Percentage of productive tillers (%)
T1	Z19-T4	426.41 a	416.37 a	362.36 a	322.45 a	77.44 b
	Z19-WT	426.60 a	416.56 a	362.30 a	322.75 a	77.48 b
T2	Z19-T4	400.28 c	391.89 c	351.67 b	310.32 b	79.18 a
T3	Z19-T4	410.41 b	398.65 b	340.35 c	301.18 c	75.55 c
	Z19-WT	410.42 b	398.77 b	340.52 c	300.75 c	75.42 c
T1	HZ-47	545.89 a	537.80 a	480.39 a	439.38 a	81.70 b
	HZ-WT	546.31 a	538.16 a	480.14 a	439.01 a	81.57 b
T2	HZ-47	515.80 c	508.74 c	470.40 b	425.39 b	83.61 a
T3	HZ-47	528.65 b	513.75 b	460.37 c	410.30 c	79.86 c
	HZ-WT	528.56 b	514.93 b	460.47 c	410.70 c	79.76 c
T1	Z18-43	410.22 a	395.64 a	348.70 a	301.52 a	76.21 b
	Z18-WT	410.50 a	395.75 a	348.39 a	301.55 a	76.19 b
T2	Z18-43	370.21 c	365.11 c	338.33 b	289.80 b	79.38 a
T3	Z18-43	390.31 b	377.66 b	329.35 c	280.39 c	74.25 c
	Z18-WT	390.35 b	377.67 b	329.31 c	280.61 c	74.30 c
T1	K6-1	420.39 a	409.49 a	361.40 a	326.51 a	79.74 b
	K6-WT	420.51 a	410.06 a	361.34 a	326.22 a	79.56 b
T2	K6-1	390.32 c	382.94 c	350.39 b	318.28 b	83.11 a
T3	K6-1	410.35 b	399.07 b	342.38 c	309.60 c	77.58 c
	K6-WT	410.34 b	398.43 b	342.35 c	309.38 c	77.65 c
方差分析 Analysis of variance
品种Variety (V)		**	**	**	**	**
处理Treatment (T)		**	**	**	**	**
品种×处理V×T		**	**	**	**	**

处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	SPAD
处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	分蘖期 Tillering	拔节期 Jointing	抽穗期 Heading	成熟期 Maturity
T1	Z19-T4	42.93 a	41.43 a	40.51 a	30.47 a
	Z19-WT	42.90 a	41.44 a	40.55 a	30.40 a
T2	Z19-T4	42.10 a	41.00 a	39.47 a	29.95 a
T3	Z19-T4	42.30 a	40.87 a	38.56 a	29.25 a
	Z19-WT	42.31 a	40.86 a	38.61 a	29.30 a
T1	HZ-47	43.13 a	41.00 a	32.51 a	12.39 a
	HZ-WT	43.11 a	41.06 a	32.56 a	12.31 a
T2	HZ-47	42.80 a	40.73 a	31.21 a	12.05 a
T3	HZ-47	41.93 a	40.10 a	30.88 a	11.98 a
	HZ-WT	41.95 a	40.15 a	30.92 a	11.94 a
T1	Z18-43	41.70 a	39.07 a	37.25 a	32.19 a
	Z18-WT	41.72 a	39.04 a	37.30 a	32.11 a
T2	Z18-43	41.17 a	38.83 a	36.78 a	31.85 a
T3	Z18-43	40.97 a	37.40 a	36.59 a	31.75 a
	Z18-WT	40.95 a	37.44 a	36.51 a	31.77 a
T1	K6-1	44.53 a	42.70 a	38.09 a	28.68 a
	K6-WT	44.56 a	42.71 a	38.00 a	28.61 a
T2	K6-1	43.27 a	42.47 a	37.31 a	27.98 a
T3	K6-1	42.50 a	41.90 a	36.73 a	27.84 a
	K6-WT	42.55 a	41.95 a	36.82 a	27.80 a
方差分析 Analysis of variance
品种 Variety (V)		**	**	**	**
处理 Treatment (T)		**	**	**	**
品种×处理 V×T		**	**	**	**

处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	拔节期 Jointing (t/hm²)	抽穗期 Heading (t/hm²)	成熟期 Maturity (t/hm²)	收获指数 Harvest index
T1	Z19-T4	4.58 a	9.82 a	17.48 a	0.57 a
	Z19-WT	4.59 a	9.86 a	17.46 a	0.56 a
T2	Z19-T4	4.24 c	9.53 b	16.87 b	0.51 b
T3	Z19-T4	4.41 b	9.13 c	16.10 c	0.44 c
	Z19-WT	4.41 b	9.17 c	16.10 c	0.43 c
T1	HZ-47	6.16 a	11.99 a	16.74 a	0.59 a
	HZ-WT	6.17 a	11.93 a	16.72 a	0.58 a
T2	HZ-47	5.65 c	11.59 b	16.17 b	0.52 b
T3	HZ-47	5.88 b	11.03 c	15.62 c	0.46 c
	HZ-WT	5.87 b	11.05 c	15.62 c	0.47 c
T1	Z18-43	4.19 a	9.73 a	16.55 a	0.57 a
	Z18-WT	4.19 a	9.69 a	16.58 a	0.56 a
T2	Z18-43	3.63 c	9.40 b	15.95 b	0.52 a
T3	Z18-43	3.94 b	9.10 c	15.27 c	0.46 a
	Z18-WT	3.91 b	9.07 c	15.24 c	0.46 a
T1	K6-1	4.58 a	10.97 a	18.98 a	0.63 a
	K6-WT	4.60 a	10.90 a	18.95 a	0.61 a
T2	K6-1	4.02 c	10.61 b	18.47 b	0.55 b
T3	K6-1	4.33 b	10.02 c	17.98 c	0.49 c
	K6-WT	4.32 b	10.04 c	17.96 c	0.50 c
方差分析 Analysis of variance
品种Variety(V)		**	**	**	**
处理Treatment(T)		**	**	**	**
品种×处理V×T		**	**	**	**

处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	糙米率 Brown rice rate (%)	精米率 Milled rice rate (%)	整精米率 Head rice rate (%)	垩白粒率 Chalky grain rate (%)	垩白度 Chalkiness degree (%)	直链淀粉含量 AC (%)	食味值 Taste value
T1	Z19-T4	84.21 a	76.88 a	68.14 a	87.09 a	63.60 a	2.25 a	69.23 a
	Z19-WT	84.23 a	76.93 a	68.18 a	87.03 a	63.61 a	2.10 a	69.24 a
T2	Z19-T4	84.16 a	76.67 a	68.07 a	87.10 a	63.60 a	2.25 a	69.01 a
T3	Z19-T4	84.04 a	76.01 a	68.01 a	87.15 a	63.66 a	2.40 a	68.05 a
	Z19-WT	84.09 a	76.16 a	68.03 a	87.12 a	63.62 a	2.35 a	68.47 a
T1	HZ-47	78.99 a	72.51 a	48.66 a	4.55 a	1.14 a	20.30 a	67.35 a
	HZ-WT	79.11 a	72.55 a	48.79 a	4.21 a	1.14 a	20.15 a	67.49 a
T2	HZ-47	78.91 a	72.40 a	48.53 a	4.58 a	1.16 a	20.50 a	67.35 a
T3	HZ-47	78.73 a	72.11 a	48.11 a	4.88 a	1.26 a	20.65 a	67.10 a
	HZ-WT	78.20 a	72.30 a	48.30 a	4.63 a	1.22 a	20.75 a	67.22 a
T1	Z18-43	82.11 a	72.73 a	63.88 a	20.26 a	7.42 a	16.75 a	64.51 a
	Z18-WT	82.23 a	72.81 a	63.93 a	20.20 a	7.40 a	16.65 a	64.93 a
T2	Z18-43	82.02 a	72.68 a	63.82 a	20.32 a	7.44 a	16.80 a	64.30 a
T3	Z18-43	81.70 a	72.35 a	63.65 a	20.67 a	7.48 a	16.95 a	63.21 a
	Z18-WT	81.79 a	72.51 a	63.77 a	20.55 a	7.45 a	16.90 a	63.88 a
T1	K6-1	84.40 a	75.66 a	59.52 a	47.51 a	23.60 a	15.70 a	75.81 a
	K6-WT	84.72 a	75.88 a	59.71 a	47.53 a	23.62 a	15.50 a	75.93 a
T2	K6-1	84.27 a	75.61 a	59.44 a	47.20 a	23.60 a	15.75 a	74.88 a
T3	K6-1	84.18 a	75.42 a	59.20 a	47.52 a	23.62 a	15.85 a	74.12 a
	K6-WT	84.20 a	75.55 a	59.31 a	47.51 a	23.61 a	15.75 a	74.51 a
方差分析 Analysis of variance
品种Variety (V)		**	**	**	**	**	**	**
处理Treatment (T)		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
品种×处理V×T		**	**	**	**	**	**	**

[1]	曹云, 陈雪芳, 黄兴海, 何咨霆, 汤菁莎, 陈坤, 汪爱羚, 罗贯洲, 廖琴, 孙园园, 郭翔, 杨志远, 马均, 孙永健. 播种量和取秧量对精量条播机插杂交稻高产群体构建及能效的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(4): 477-490.
[2]	韦还和, 汪璐璐, 马唯一, 张翔, 左博源, 耿孝宇, 朱旺, 朱济邹, 孟天瑶, 陈英龙, 高平磊, 许轲, 戴其根. 盐−旱复合胁迫下粳稻品种南粳9108籽粒灌浆特性及其与产量形成的关系[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(3): 373-386.
[3]	沈智达, 余秋华, 张斌, 曹玉东, 王少华, 王红飞, 伍永清, 戴志刚, 李小坤. 磷肥施用量对湖北省直播水稻产量、磷素积累及利用率的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(3): 399-411.
[4]	徐月梅, 彭诗燕, 孙志伟, 王志琴, 朱宽宇, 杨建昌. 不同耐低磷水稻品种的内源激素水平差异及其与产量和磷利用率的关系[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(2): 231-244.
[5]	唐承翰, 王晶卿, 陈惠哲, 张玉屏, 向镜, 张义凯, 王志刚, 怀燕, 陈佳峰, 王亚梁. 杂交稻条播育秧机插秧苗素质对产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(2): 245-254.
[6]	舒傲, 解嘉鑫, 曹威, 周传名, 李蓓蕾, 陈嘉馨, 李莉, 曹放波, 陈佳娜, 黄敏. 氮肥运筹对优质杂交中稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(2): 255-263.
[7]	陈书融, 朱练峰, 秦碧蓉, 王婕, 朱旭华, 田文昊, 朱春权, 曹小闯, 孔亚丽, 张均华, 金千瑜. 增氧灌溉下配施硝化抑制剂对水稻生长、产量和氮肥利用的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(1): 92-100.
[8]	冯向前, 王爱冬, 洪卫源, 李子秋, 覃金华, 詹丽钏, 陈里鹏, 张运波, 王丹英, 陈松. 基于低空无人机遥感的水稻产量估测方法研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(6): 604-616.
[9]	刘俊峰, 牟静怡, 赵红艳, 郭诗梦, 李漪濛, 梁超, 周婵婵, 王术, 黄元财. 施氮方式与行距配置对不同穗型粳稻品种产量和氮素利用率的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(6): 672-684.
[10]	曹玉东, 吴朋浩, 戴志刚, 王贵兵, 何帅, 巩细民, 李小坤. 侧深施肥对水稻产量、养分吸收及经济效益的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(6): 695-708.
[11]	蒋鹏, 张林, 周兴兵, 郭晓艺, 朱永川, 刘茂, 郭长春, 熊洪, 徐富贤. 冬水田轻简化栽培杂交稻蓄留再生稻产量形成特点[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(5): 544-554.
[12]	熊家欢, 张义凯, 向镜, 陈惠哲, 徐一成, 王亚梁, 王志刚, 姚坚, 张玉屏. 覆膜稻田施用炭基肥对水稻产量及氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(5): 567-576.
[13]	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.
[14]	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.
[15]	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.

处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	叶面积指数Leaf area index			结实期叶面积衰减率 Decreasing rate of leaf area at grain-filling stage (LAI/d)
处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	拔节期 Jointing	抽穗期 Heading	成熟期 Maturity
T1	Z19-T4	3.68 a	6.93 a	3.84 a	0.0771 c
	Z19-WT	3.68 a	6.96 a	3.84 a	0.0781 c
T2	Z19-T4	3.30 c	6.72 b	3.50 b	0.0806 b
T3	Z19-T4	3.39 b	6.61 c	3.21 c	0.0848 a
	Z19-WT	3.38 b	6.61 c	3.22 c	0.0846 a
T1	HZ-47	6.93 a	9.72 a	6.72 a	0.0857 c
	HZ-WT	6.92 a	9.70 a	6.71 a	0.0854 c
T2	HZ-47	6.66 c	9.59 b	6.53 b	0.0874 b
T3	HZ-47	6.74 b	9.43 c	6.30 c	0.0894 a
	HZ-WT	6.74 b	9.40 c	6.28 c	0.0893 a
T1	Z18-43	3.31 a	6.84 a	3.33 a	0.0879 c
	Z18-WT	3.31 a	6.82 a	3.32 a	0.0876 c
T2	Z18-43	3.06 c	6.68 b	3.05 b	0.0910 b
T3	Z18-43	3.14 b	6.61 c	2.92 c	0.0921 a
	Z18-WT	3.15 b	6.60 c	2.92 c	0.0919 a
T1	K6-1	3.54 a	7.78 a	3.51 a	0.1069 c
	K6-WT	3.52 a	7.78 a	3.49 a	0.1071 c
T2	K6-1	3.31 c	7.63 b	3.26 b	0.1093 b
T3	K6-1	3.40 b	7.49 c	3.01 c	0.1121 a
	K6-WT	3.41 b	7.49 c	3.02 c	0.1119 a
方差分析 Analysis of variance
品种Variety (V)		**	**	**	**
处理Treatment (T)		**	**	**	**
品种×处理V×T		**	**	**	**

处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	叶面积指数Leaf area index			结实期叶面积衰减率 Decreasing rate of leaf area at grain-filling stage (LAI/d)
处理 Treatment	品种 Variety	拔节期 Jointing	抽穗期 Heading	成熟期 Maturity
T1	Z19-T4	3.68 a	6.93 a	3.84 a	0.0771 c
	Z19-WT	3.68 a	6.96 a	3.84 a	0.0781 c
T2	Z19-T4	3.30 c	6.72 b	3.50 b	0.0806 b
T3	Z19-T4	3.39 b	6.61 c	3.21 c	0.0848 a
	Z19-WT	3.38 b	6.61 c	3.22 c	0.0846 a
T1	HZ-47	6.93 a	9.72 a	6.72 a	0.0857 c
	HZ-WT	6.92 a	9.70 a	6.71 a	0.0854 c
T2	HZ-47	6.66 c	9.59 b	6.53 b	0.0874 b
T3	HZ-47	6.74 b	9.43 c	6.30 c	0.0894 a
	HZ-WT	6.74 b	9.40 c	6.28 c	0.0893 a
T1	Z18-43	3.31 a	6.84 a	3.33 a	0.0879 c
	Z18-WT	3.31 a	6.82 a	3.32 a	0.0876 c
T2	Z18-43	3.06 c	6.68 b	3.05 b	0.0910 b
T3	Z18-43	3.14 b	6.61 c	2.92 c	0.0921 a
	Z18-WT	3.15 b	6.60 c	2.92 c	0.0919 a
T1	K6-1	3.54 a	7.78 a	3.51 a	0.1069 c
	K6-WT	3.52 a	7.78 a	3.49 a	0.1071 c
T2	K6-1	3.31 c	7.63 b	3.26 b	0.1093 b
T3	K6-1	3.40 b	7.49 c	3.01 c	0.1121 a
	K6-WT	3.41 b	7.49 c	3.02 c	0.1119 a
方差分析 Analysis of variance
品种Variety (V)		**	**	**	**
处理Treatment (T)		**	**	**	**
品种×处理V×T		**	**	**	**