
中国水稻科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (3): 375-385.DOI: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2026.241111
陈子方1, 周泽源1, 钱嘉潞1, 马孝卫1, 李锦涛1, 曹玉贤2,*(
), 侯俊1,*(
)
收稿日期:2024-11-18
修回日期:2024-12-22
出版日期:2026-05-10
发布日期:2026-05-13
通讯作者:
*email: caoyx2018@yangtzeu.edu.cn;基金资助:
CHEN Zifang1, ZHOU Zeyuan1, QIAN Jialu1, MA Xiaowei1, LI Jintao1, CAO Yuxian2,*(
), HOU Jun1,*(
)
Received:2024-11-18
Revised:2024-12-22
Online:2026-05-10
Published:2026-05-13
摘要:
【目的】研究头季机收后同一时期内不同时间施用叶面氮肥(FNF)对再生季水稻生理特性、产量和品质的影响,为再生稻增产提质提供科学依据。【方法】头季稻机收后,在高肥力(HF)和低肥力(LF)田块采用大田裂区双因素试验设计。其中,碾压状况为主区,包括碾压和非碾压两个处理;FNF施用时间为副区,包括机收后当日喷施清水(CK),以及机收后1 d(D1)、3 d(D3)、7 d(D7)喷施FNF,测定再生季生理特性指标、产量和品质,阐明叶面施氮时间对再生季稻米产量及品质的影响。【结果】FNF能显著提高再生季叶片SPAD、干物质量、叶面积指数和有效穗数。在HF和LF两种条件下,FNF均能通过提高有效穗数进而提高产量25.6%~82.8%,非碾压区不同FNF喷施时间处理间无显著差异,但是有效穗数都较CK显著增加16.7%~30.6%,产量显著增加25.6%~36.7%。碾压区随着喷施时间的推迟增产效果逐渐降低,D1处理后在两种肥力条件下有效穗数分别显著提高61.5%和62.5%、产量分别显著提高74.9%和82.8%。FNF主要通过提高整精米率和降低垩白率提高再生季稻米品质,与CK相比,非碾压区施FNF处理整精米率显著提高9.5%~17.8%,垩白率显著降低8.1%~15.3%;碾压区施FNF处理整精米率显著提高15.0%~17.9%,垩白率显著降低9.2%~15.7%。【结论】头季机收后施叶面氮肥能有效提高再生季产量和品质,碾压区受喷施时间影响明显,以机收后当日喷施效果最好;非碾压区受喷施时间影响不明显,机收后7日内均可喷施。
陈子方, 周泽源, 钱嘉潞, 马孝卫, 李锦涛, 曹玉贤, 侯俊. 头季机收后叶面氮肥施用时间对再生季稻米产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(3): 375-385.
CHEN Zifang, ZHOU Zeyuan, QIAN Jialu, MA Xiaowei, LI Jintao, CAO Yuxian, HOU Jun. Effect of Foliar Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Timing on Yield and Quality of Ratoon Rice Under Mechanical Harvesting of the Main Crop[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2026, 40(3): 375-385.
| 试验地Site | 碾压处理 Rolling treatment | 喷施处理Spray- treatment | 有效穗数 Productive panicle No.(No./m2) | 每穗粒数 Grain number per panicle | 千粒重 Thousand grain weight(g) | 结实率 Seed setting rate (%) | 产量 Yield(kg/hm2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高施肥 | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 190.67±12.70 c | 71.14±0.28 a | 20.81±0.36 a | 77.90±0.21 b | 2200.32±177.30 c★ |
| HF | D1 | 308.00±22.00 a★ | 71.28±0.61 a | 21.58±0.06 a | 81.27±0.07 a | 3848.63±236.61 a★ | |
| D3 | 271.33±12.70 b★ | 72.11±0.04 a | 20.85±0.15 a | 80.16±1.13 a | 3269.09±113.61 b | ||
| D7 | 278.67±12.70 b | 71.48±0.42 a | 20.91±0.17 a | 81.66±2.12 a | 3399.63±140.98 b | ||
| 非碾压区 Non-rolled area | CK | 264.00±22.00 b | 78.76±2.02 a | 20.93±0.31 a★ | 80.39±0.58 b★ | 3498.33±318.07 b | |
| D1 | 344.67±12.70 a | 77.95±0.66 a | 20.94±0.58 a | 85.03±0.28 a★ | 4781.92±136.80 a★ | ||
| D3 | 337.33±12.70 a | 77.43±1.36 a | 20.79±0.26 a★ | 83.80±0.61 a | 4551.64±207.29 a★ | ||
| D7 | 337.33±12.70 a | 78.15±1.12 a | 20.98±0.60 a | 84.32±0.81 a★ | 4665.78±301.58 a★ | ||
| 低施肥 | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 176.00±22.00 b | 71.49±1.05 a | 20.84±0.47 a | 73.30±0.82 b | 1923.33±253.19 b |
| LF | D1 | 286.00±22.00 a | 71.86±0.39 a | 21.25±0.37 a | 80.59±0.67 a | 3516.57±198.65 a | |
| D3 | 249.33±33.61 a | 71.58±1.84 a | 21.17±0.38 a | 78.64±0.93 a | 2971.90±423.05 a | ||
| D7 | 264.00±22.00 a | 72.16±1.17 a | 21.38±0.32 a | 79.01±1.55 a | 3214.14±221.34 a | ||
| 非碾压区 Non-rolled area | CK | 220.00±22.00 b | 77.33±0.53 a | 20.94±0.18 a | 76.47±0.74 b | 2725.88±301.72 b | |
| D1 | 271.33±12.70 a | 77.48±1.69 a | 21.14±0.29 a | 81.16±0.17 a | 3605.52±128.74 a | ||
| D3 | 264.00±22.00 ab | 78.04±0.72 a | 21.07±0.30 a | 81.24±0.82 a | 3527.02±303.59 a | ||
| D7 | 256.67±33.61 ab | 78.15±0.66 a | 21.05±0.35 a | 81.05±0.61 a | 3423.97±476.96 a | ||
| F值 | 碾压处理 Rolling treatment(RT) | 32.595*** | 412.067*** | 1.396ns | 99.024*** | 109.713*** | |
| F value | 试验地 Site(S) | 52.595*** | 0.007ns | 1.674ns | 120.291*** | 74.588*** | |
| 喷施处理 Spray treatmet(ST) | 43.96*** | 0.246ns | 2.178ns | 75.071*** | 59.375*** | ||
| 碾压处理×试验地 RT×S | 17.357*** | 0.916ns | 0.006ns | 3.935ns | 25.838*** | ||
| 碾压处理×喷施处理 RT×ST | 2.944* | 0.324ns | 0.950ns | 0.698ns | 2.316ns | ||
| 试验地×喷施处理 S×ST | 0.595ns | 0.361ns | 0.771ns | 3.596* | 0.424ns | ||
| 碾压处理×试验地×喷施处理 RT×S×ST | 0.405ns | 1.013ns | 0.892ns | 2.339ns | 0.580ns |
表1 叶面肥施用时间对再生季稻米产量及其构成因子
Table 1. Effects of foliar fertilizer application timing on ratoon rice yield and its components
| 试验地Site | 碾压处理 Rolling treatment | 喷施处理Spray- treatment | 有效穗数 Productive panicle No.(No./m2) | 每穗粒数 Grain number per panicle | 千粒重 Thousand grain weight(g) | 结实率 Seed setting rate (%) | 产量 Yield(kg/hm2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高施肥 | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 190.67±12.70 c | 71.14±0.28 a | 20.81±0.36 a | 77.90±0.21 b | 2200.32±177.30 c★ |
| HF | D1 | 308.00±22.00 a★ | 71.28±0.61 a | 21.58±0.06 a | 81.27±0.07 a | 3848.63±236.61 a★ | |
| D3 | 271.33±12.70 b★ | 72.11±0.04 a | 20.85±0.15 a | 80.16±1.13 a | 3269.09±113.61 b | ||
| D7 | 278.67±12.70 b | 71.48±0.42 a | 20.91±0.17 a | 81.66±2.12 a | 3399.63±140.98 b | ||
| 非碾压区 Non-rolled area | CK | 264.00±22.00 b | 78.76±2.02 a | 20.93±0.31 a★ | 80.39±0.58 b★ | 3498.33±318.07 b | |
| D1 | 344.67±12.70 a | 77.95±0.66 a | 20.94±0.58 a | 85.03±0.28 a★ | 4781.92±136.80 a★ | ||
| D3 | 337.33±12.70 a | 77.43±1.36 a | 20.79±0.26 a★ | 83.80±0.61 a | 4551.64±207.29 a★ | ||
| D7 | 337.33±12.70 a | 78.15±1.12 a | 20.98±0.60 a | 84.32±0.81 a★ | 4665.78±301.58 a★ | ||
| 低施肥 | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 176.00±22.00 b | 71.49±1.05 a | 20.84±0.47 a | 73.30±0.82 b | 1923.33±253.19 b |
| LF | D1 | 286.00±22.00 a | 71.86±0.39 a | 21.25±0.37 a | 80.59±0.67 a | 3516.57±198.65 a | |
| D3 | 249.33±33.61 a | 71.58±1.84 a | 21.17±0.38 a | 78.64±0.93 a | 2971.90±423.05 a | ||
| D7 | 264.00±22.00 a | 72.16±1.17 a | 21.38±0.32 a | 79.01±1.55 a | 3214.14±221.34 a | ||
| 非碾压区 Non-rolled area | CK | 220.00±22.00 b | 77.33±0.53 a | 20.94±0.18 a | 76.47±0.74 b | 2725.88±301.72 b | |
| D1 | 271.33±12.70 a | 77.48±1.69 a | 21.14±0.29 a | 81.16±0.17 a | 3605.52±128.74 a | ||
| D3 | 264.00±22.00 ab | 78.04±0.72 a | 21.07±0.30 a | 81.24±0.82 a | 3527.02±303.59 a | ||
| D7 | 256.67±33.61 ab | 78.15±0.66 a | 21.05±0.35 a | 81.05±0.61 a | 3423.97±476.96 a | ||
| F值 | 碾压处理 Rolling treatment(RT) | 32.595*** | 412.067*** | 1.396ns | 99.024*** | 109.713*** | |
| F value | 试验地 Site(S) | 52.595*** | 0.007ns | 1.674ns | 120.291*** | 74.588*** | |
| 喷施处理 Spray treatmet(ST) | 43.96*** | 0.246ns | 2.178ns | 75.071*** | 59.375*** | ||
| 碾压处理×试验地 RT×S | 17.357*** | 0.916ns | 0.006ns | 3.935ns | 25.838*** | ||
| 碾压处理×喷施处理 RT×ST | 2.944* | 0.324ns | 0.950ns | 0.698ns | 2.316ns | ||
| 试验地×喷施处理 S×ST | 0.595ns | 0.361ns | 0.771ns | 3.596* | 0.424ns | ||
| 碾压处理×试验地×喷施处理 RT×S×ST | 0.405ns | 1.013ns | 0.892ns | 2.339ns | 0.580ns |
| 试验地Site | 碾压处理 Treatment | 喷施处理Spray- treatment | 精米率 Head rice rate (%) | 糙米率 Brown rice rate (%) | 整精米率 Head milled rice rate (%) | 垩白率 Chalkiness rate (%) | 长宽比 Length-width ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高施肥 | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 43.56±1.02 d | 72.67±1.20 c | 26.89±1.26 d | 46.87±1.36 a | 2.70±0.10 a |
| HF | D1 | 58.00±1.76 a | 78.11±1.39 a | 44.44±1.26 a | 35.17±0.25 d | 2.60±0.10 a | |
| D3 | 54.67±1.53 b | 72.89±1.17 c | 39.22±1.02 b | 36.80±0.36 c | 2.57±0.06 a | ||
| D7 | 50.67±1.33 c | 75.44±1.50 b✭ | 36.44±0.51 c | 38.73±0.47 b | 2.63±0.06 a | ||
| 非碾压区 Unrolled area | CK | 42.22±1.02 c | 71.33±1.20 b | 26.22±1.26 b | 46.67±1.36 a | 2.63±0.06 a | |
| D1 | 56.33±1.76 a | 74.78±0.69 a | 43.11±1.26 a | 34.97±0.25 c | 2.70±0.10 a | ||
| D3 | 54.56±1.39 ab | 72.22±1.26 ab | 41.56±1.64 a | 36.83±0.35 b | 2.63±0.06 a | ||
| D7 | 51.89±2.04 b | 71.22±2.14 b | 41.22±1.50 a | 37.43±0.68 b | 2.63±0.06 a | ||
| 低施肥 | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 50.33±0.88 b✭ | 79.33±1.20 a | 33.56±1.26 b | 41.87±1.36 a | 2.70±0.10 a |
| LF | D1 | 64.00±1.33 a✭ | 80.33±0.67 a✭ | 51.11±1.26 a | 27.67±1.20 b | 2.60±0.10 ab | |
| D3 | 62.11±1.39 a✭ | 80.56±1.17 a✭ | 50.89±1.35 a | 27.80±0.46 b✭ | 2.57±0.06 ab | ||
| D7 | 62.89±1.17 a✭ | 79.78±0.51 a | 51.33±1.67 a | 26.83±0.31 b | 2.53±0.06 b | ||
| 非碾压区 Unrolled area | CK | 45.22±1.07 b | 72.00±1.20 a | 33.56±1.26 b | 41.87±1.36 a | 2.70±0.10 a | |
| D1 | 58.11±1.17 a | 78.00±0.33 ab | 51.11±1.26 a | 26.40±0.46 b | 2.60±0.10 a | ||
| D3 | 56.89±0.51 a | 76.89±0.51 b | 51.44±1.35 a | 26.13±0.31 b | 2.57±0.06 a | ||
| D7 | 57.00±0.67 a | 75.78±1.58 c | 50.44±0.84 a | 26.17±0.31 b | 2.57±0.06 a | ||
| F值 | 碾压处理 Rolling treatment(RT) | 217.210*** | 151.270*** | 614.838*** | 1339.163*** | 2.133ns | |
| F value | 试验地 Site(S) | 62.710*** | 94.611*** | 2.623ns | 7.863** | 0.533ns | |
| 喷施处理 Spray treatmet(ST) | 262.122*** | 22.171*** | 477.380*** | 721.732*** | 3.956* | ||
| 碾压处理×试验地 RT×S | 44.522*** | 7.916* | 3.406ns | 1.060ns | 0.133ns | ||
| 碾压处理×喷施处理 RT×ST | 7.747*** | 4.457* | 11.602*** | 36.999*** | 1.156ns | ||
| 试验地×喷施处理 S×ST | 0.703ns | 3.061* | 0.677ns | 0.622ns | 0.952ns | ||
| 碾压处理×试验地×喷施处理 RT×S×ST | 0.952ns | 5.396** | 0.005ns | 1.336ns | 0.756ns |
表2 叶面肥施用时间对再生季稻米加工及外观品质
Table 2. Effects of foliar fertilizer application timing on processing and appearance quality of ratoon rice
| 试验地Site | 碾压处理 Treatment | 喷施处理Spray- treatment | 精米率 Head rice rate (%) | 糙米率 Brown rice rate (%) | 整精米率 Head milled rice rate (%) | 垩白率 Chalkiness rate (%) | 长宽比 Length-width ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高施肥 | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 43.56±1.02 d | 72.67±1.20 c | 26.89±1.26 d | 46.87±1.36 a | 2.70±0.10 a |
| HF | D1 | 58.00±1.76 a | 78.11±1.39 a | 44.44±1.26 a | 35.17±0.25 d | 2.60±0.10 a | |
| D3 | 54.67±1.53 b | 72.89±1.17 c | 39.22±1.02 b | 36.80±0.36 c | 2.57±0.06 a | ||
| D7 | 50.67±1.33 c | 75.44±1.50 b✭ | 36.44±0.51 c | 38.73±0.47 b | 2.63±0.06 a | ||
| 非碾压区 Unrolled area | CK | 42.22±1.02 c | 71.33±1.20 b | 26.22±1.26 b | 46.67±1.36 a | 2.63±0.06 a | |
| D1 | 56.33±1.76 a | 74.78±0.69 a | 43.11±1.26 a | 34.97±0.25 c | 2.70±0.10 a | ||
| D3 | 54.56±1.39 ab | 72.22±1.26 ab | 41.56±1.64 a | 36.83±0.35 b | 2.63±0.06 a | ||
| D7 | 51.89±2.04 b | 71.22±2.14 b | 41.22±1.50 a | 37.43±0.68 b | 2.63±0.06 a | ||
| 低施肥 | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 50.33±0.88 b✭ | 79.33±1.20 a | 33.56±1.26 b | 41.87±1.36 a | 2.70±0.10 a |
| LF | D1 | 64.00±1.33 a✭ | 80.33±0.67 a✭ | 51.11±1.26 a | 27.67±1.20 b | 2.60±0.10 ab | |
| D3 | 62.11±1.39 a✭ | 80.56±1.17 a✭ | 50.89±1.35 a | 27.80±0.46 b✭ | 2.57±0.06 ab | ||
| D7 | 62.89±1.17 a✭ | 79.78±0.51 a | 51.33±1.67 a | 26.83±0.31 b | 2.53±0.06 b | ||
| 非碾压区 Unrolled area | CK | 45.22±1.07 b | 72.00±1.20 a | 33.56±1.26 b | 41.87±1.36 a | 2.70±0.10 a | |
| D1 | 58.11±1.17 a | 78.00±0.33 ab | 51.11±1.26 a | 26.40±0.46 b | 2.60±0.10 a | ||
| D3 | 56.89±0.51 a | 76.89±0.51 b | 51.44±1.35 a | 26.13±0.31 b | 2.57±0.06 a | ||
| D7 | 57.00±0.67 a | 75.78±1.58 c | 50.44±0.84 a | 26.17±0.31 b | 2.57±0.06 a | ||
| F值 | 碾压处理 Rolling treatment(RT) | 217.210*** | 151.270*** | 614.838*** | 1339.163*** | 2.133ns | |
| F value | 试验地 Site(S) | 62.710*** | 94.611*** | 2.623ns | 7.863** | 0.533ns | |
| 喷施处理 Spray treatmet(ST) | 262.122*** | 22.171*** | 477.380*** | 721.732*** | 3.956* | ||
| 碾压处理×试验地 RT×S | 44.522*** | 7.916* | 3.406ns | 1.060ns | 0.133ns | ||
| 碾压处理×喷施处理 RT×ST | 7.747*** | 4.457* | 11.602*** | 36.999*** | 1.156ns | ||
| 试验地×喷施处理 S×ST | 0.703ns | 3.061* | 0.677ns | 0.622ns | 0.952ns | ||
| 碾压处理×试验地×喷施处理 RT×S×ST | 0.952ns | 5.396** | 0.005ns | 1.336ns | 0.756ns |
图1 叶面肥施用时间对再生季叶片SPAD值的影响 同一碾压处理, 不同小写字母表示喷施处理间差异达显著水平(P<0.05)。
Fig. 1. Effects of foliar fertilizer application timing on SPAD value of ratoon rice leaves HF represents the high-fertility experimental field, and LF represents the low-fertility experimental field. Under the same rolling treatment, different lowerase letters indicate significant difference among the spraying treatment(P<0.05).
| 试验地 Site | 碾压处理 Treatment | 喷施处理 Spray-treatment | 剑叶长 Flag leaf length (cm) | 剑叶宽 Flag leaf width (cm) | 平均叶长 Mean leaf length (cm) | 平均叶宽 Mean leaf width (cm) | LAI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高施肥HF | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 20.17±0.96 b | 0.91±0.05 b | 24.43±0.79 b | 1.10±0.12 a | 1.78±0.14 b |
| D1 | 23.22±0.42 a | 1.04±0.05 a | 27.11±0.72 a | 0.96±0.02 b | 1.99±0.09 a | ||
| D3 | 21.21±0.45 b | 0.91±0.05 b | 28.10±0.75 a | 0.88±0.08 b | 1.75±0.09 b | ||
| D7 | 20.23±0.50 b | 0.92±0.08 b | 18.69±1.43c | 0.92±0.02 b | 1.42±0.06 c | ||
| 非碾压区 Non-rolled area | CK | 18.20±0.37 b | 0.97±0.00 a | 19.78±1.08 c | 0.90±0.09 a | 1.98±0.20 a | |
| D1 | 20.79±0.88 a | 1.02±0.08 a | 20.32±0.35 c | 0.96±0.08 a | 1.87±0.03 a | ||
| D3 | 20.53±1.42 a | 0.96±0.10 a | 26.96±0.69 a | 0.89±0.10 a | 2.00±0.06 a | ||
| D7 | 19.23±0.58 ab | 0.99±0.08 a | 23.97±1.79 b | 1.02±0.02 a | 1.90±0.05 a | ||
| 低施肥LF | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 20.62±1.05 b | 1.06±0.07 a | 25.21±0.87 a | 1.12±0.12 a | 1.40±0.07 b |
| D1 | 24.72±0.96 a | 0.92±0.05 b | 25.84±0.62 a | 0.94±0.02 b | 1.61±0.07 a | ||
| D3 | 23.76±0.60 a | 1.04±0.02 a | 26.51±0.73 a | 0.97±0.06 b | 1.73±0.09 b | ||
| D7 | 24.49±0.99 a | 0.96±0.08 ab | 26.06±0.27 a | 0.94±0.02 b | 1.72±0.08 c | ||
| 非碾压区 Non-rolled area | CK | 19.46±0.44 b | 1.01±0.04 a | 21.68±1.15 b | 0.91±0.07 a | 1.57±0.07 b | |
| D1 | 20.86±0.57 a | 0.92±0.07 a | 23.68±0.36 a | 0.99±0.11 a | 1.69±0.03 a | ||
| D3 | 20.46±0.07 a | 0.87±0.09 a | 23.41±0.47 a | 1.01±0.04 a | 1.63±0.05 ab | ||
| D7 | 20.79±0.62 a | 0.90±0.09 a | 23.69±0.37 a | 0.99±0.11 a | 1.66±0.03 a |
表3 叶面肥施用时间对再生季叶片性状及叶面积指数
Table 3. Effects of foliar fertilizer application timing on leaf traits and leaf area index of ratoon rice
| 试验地 Site | 碾压处理 Treatment | 喷施处理 Spray-treatment | 剑叶长 Flag leaf length (cm) | 剑叶宽 Flag leaf width (cm) | 平均叶长 Mean leaf length (cm) | 平均叶宽 Mean leaf width (cm) | LAI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高施肥HF | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 20.17±0.96 b | 0.91±0.05 b | 24.43±0.79 b | 1.10±0.12 a | 1.78±0.14 b |
| D1 | 23.22±0.42 a | 1.04±0.05 a | 27.11±0.72 a | 0.96±0.02 b | 1.99±0.09 a | ||
| D3 | 21.21±0.45 b | 0.91±0.05 b | 28.10±0.75 a | 0.88±0.08 b | 1.75±0.09 b | ||
| D7 | 20.23±0.50 b | 0.92±0.08 b | 18.69±1.43c | 0.92±0.02 b | 1.42±0.06 c | ||
| 非碾压区 Non-rolled area | CK | 18.20±0.37 b | 0.97±0.00 a | 19.78±1.08 c | 0.90±0.09 a | 1.98±0.20 a | |
| D1 | 20.79±0.88 a | 1.02±0.08 a | 20.32±0.35 c | 0.96±0.08 a | 1.87±0.03 a | ||
| D3 | 20.53±1.42 a | 0.96±0.10 a | 26.96±0.69 a | 0.89±0.10 a | 2.00±0.06 a | ||
| D7 | 19.23±0.58 ab | 0.99±0.08 a | 23.97±1.79 b | 1.02±0.02 a | 1.90±0.05 a | ||
| 低施肥LF | 碾压区 Rolled area | CK | 20.62±1.05 b | 1.06±0.07 a | 25.21±0.87 a | 1.12±0.12 a | 1.40±0.07 b |
| D1 | 24.72±0.96 a | 0.92±0.05 b | 25.84±0.62 a | 0.94±0.02 b | 1.61±0.07 a | ||
| D3 | 23.76±0.60 a | 1.04±0.02 a | 26.51±0.73 a | 0.97±0.06 b | 1.73±0.09 b | ||
| D7 | 24.49±0.99 a | 0.96±0.08 ab | 26.06±0.27 a | 0.94±0.02 b | 1.72±0.08 c | ||
| 非碾压区 Non-rolled area | CK | 19.46±0.44 b | 1.01±0.04 a | 21.68±1.15 b | 0.91±0.07 a | 1.57±0.07 b | |
| D1 | 20.86±0.57 a | 0.92±0.07 a | 23.68±0.36 a | 0.99±0.11 a | 1.69±0.03 a | ||
| D3 | 20.46±0.07 a | 0.87±0.09 a | 23.41±0.47 a | 1.01±0.04 a | 1.63±0.05 ab | ||
| D7 | 20.79±0.62 a | 0.90±0.09 a | 23.69±0.37 a | 0.99±0.11 a | 1.66±0.03 a |
图5 不同叶面肥施用时间处理下再生季各因素间相关性分析 GPP:每穗粒数;TGW:千粒重;FR:结实率;NRS:再生芽数;EP:有效穗数;LSL:剑叶长;WSL:剑叶宽;SPAD:孕穗期SPAD;LAI:叶面积指数;SW:茎重;LW:叶重;PW:穗重;Yield:产量;MRR:整精米率;BRR:糙米率;HRY:整精米率;CR:垩白率;AR:长宽比;ST:叶面喷施时间;RT:碾压处理。其中,* P≤0.05,** P≤0.01, *** P≤0.001。
Fig. 5. Under various foliar fertilizer application timing on correlation analysis among various factors in ratoon rice GPP, Grains per panicle; TGW, Thousand grain weight; FR, Filled grain rate; NRS, Number of regenerated shoots; EP, Effective panicles; LSL, Length of flag leaf; WSL, Width of flag leaf; SPAD, SPAD value at booting stage; LAI, Leaf area index; SW, Stem weight; LW, Leaf weight; PW, Panicle weight; MRR, Milled rice ratio; BRR, Brown rice ratio; HRY, Head rice yield; CR, Chalkiness rate; AR, Aspect ratio; ST, Spray timing; RT, Rolling treatment. * indicates P≤0.05, ** indicates P≤0.01, and *** indicates P≤0.001.
| [1] | Liu B, Yuan S, Peng S. A synthesis analysis of the relationship between main and ratoon crop grain yields in ratoon rice[J]. Agronomy, 2024, 14(9): 2170. |
| [2] | Xu F, Zhang L, Zhou X, Guo X, Zhu Y, Liu M, Xiong H, Jiang P. The ratoon rice system with high yield and high efficiency in China: Progress, trend of theory and technology[J]. Field Crops Research, 2021, 272: 108282. |
| [3] | 宋美芳, 刘莉, 冉娇, 邹家龙, 李继福, 吴启侠, 朱建强. 南方再生稻高产理论与技术发展趋势[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2018, 46(22): 26-27, 37. |
| Song M F, Liu L, Ran J, Zou J L, Li J F, Wu Q X, Zhu J Q. High-yielding theory and technology development trend of southern ratoon rice[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(22): 26-27, 37. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [4] | 汪浩, 张强, 张文地, 李思宇, 黄健, 朱安, 刘立军. 腋芽萌发能力对再生稻产量影响的研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2020, 34(3): 205-216. |
| Wang H, Zhang Q, Zhang W D, Li S Y, Huang J, Zhu A, Liu L J. Advances in the effects of the ability of axillary bud germination on grain yield in ratoon rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2020, 34(3): 205-216. (in Chinese) | |
| [5] | 陈斌. 再生稻全程机械化高产栽培技术[J]. 杂交水稻, 2019, 34(3): 44-46. |
| Chen B. High-yielding cultivation techniques of ratoon rice with whole process mechanization operation[J]. Hybrid Rice, 2019, 34(3): 44-46. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [6] | Ding Z, Li J, Hu R, Xiao D, Huang F, Peng S, Huang J, Li C, Hou J, Tian Y, Zhou J, Cao B. Root-zone fertilization of controlled-release urea reduces nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia volatilization under two irrigation practices in a ratoon rice field[J]. Field Crops Research, 2022, 287: 108673. |
| [7] | Ding Z, Li J, Huang F, Hu R, Peng S, Huang J, Hou J, Zhou J, Li C, Su B, Xu M. One-time root-zone fertilization of controlled-release urea increases nitrogen use efficiency while reducing nitrogen loss risk in a ratoon rice field under two irrigation practices[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2024, 128(1): 13-33. |
| [8] | 陈晨, 陈雪琼, 陈月珍, 冯顾城, 束胜, 王俐翔, 陶建平, 谭国飞, 陈姝妍, 刘佩卓, 王雅慧, 熊爱生. 叶面施氮对芹菜叶绿素含量及代谢有关基因表达的影响[J]. 植物生理学报, 2023, 59(8): 1533-1542. |
| Chen C, Chen X Q, Chen Y Z, Feng G C, Shu S, Wang L X, Tao J P, Tan G F, Chen S Y, Liu P Z, Wang Y H, Xiong A S. Effects of foliar application of nitrogen fertilizer on chlorophyll content and expression of metabolism-related genes in celery[J]. Plant Physiology Journal, 2023, 59(8): 1533-1542. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [9] | Zhang Q, Brown P H. The mechanism of foliar zinc absorption in pistachio and walnut[J]. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 1999, 124(3): 312-317. |
| [10] | Amanullah, Yasir M, Khalil S K, Jan M T, Khan A Z. Phenology, growth, and grain yield of maize as influenced by foliar applied urea at different growth stages[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2009, 33(1): 71-79. |
| [11] | Yadav K, Singh S P, Yadav D K, Yadav K G, Singh K, Yadav M. Influence of phosphorous and foliar nitrogen on the growth, quality and yield of kasuri methi (Trigonella corniculatal)[J]. Legume Research, 2024, 47(8): 1306-1312. |
| [12] | 张钧浩. 后期叶面追氮对小麦产量、品质及氮素吸收利用的影响[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2022. |
| Zhang J H. Effects of late foliar N application on yield, quality and N uptake and utilization of wheat[D]. Baoding: Hebei Agricultural University, 2022. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [13] | 蔡可为, 陈兴良. 水稻抽穗灌浆后喷施尿素对茎叶及籽粒氮素吸收的影响[J]. 北方水稻, 2019, 49(5): 33-34. |
| Cai K W, Chen X L. Effect of nitrogen absorption on stems, leaves and seeds when spraying urea after rice tassel and grout[J]. North Rice, 2019, 49(5): 33-34. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [14] | Delfim J, Dameto L S, Moraes L A C, Moreira A. Nitrogen and nickel foliar application on grain yield, yield components, and quality of soybean[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2022, 53(10): 1226-1234. |
| [15] | 孙钰林. 不同施氮量和留桩高度对再生稻产量及氮肥利用率的影响[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2020. |
| Sun Y L. Effects of different nitrogen application rates and piling height on ratooning rice yield and nitrogen use efficiency[D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University, 2020. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [16] | Garde-Cerdan T, Gutiérrez-Gamboa G, Pérez-Álvarez E P, Rubio-Bretón P. Foliar application of methyl jasmonate to Graciano and Tempranillo vines: Effects on grape amino acid content during two consecutive vintages[J]. OENO One, 2019, 53(1): 1-9. |
| [17] | Ishfaq M, Kiran A, ur Rehman H, Farooq M, Ijaz N H, Nadeem F, Azeem I, Li X, Wakeel A. Foliar nutrition: Potential and challenges under multifaceted agriculture[J]. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2022, 200: 104909. |
| [18] | Lončarić Z, Ivezić V, Kerovec D, Rebekić A. Foliar zinc-selenium and nitrogen fertilization affects content of Zn, Fe, Se, P, and Cd in wheat grain[J]. Plants, 2021, 10(8): 1549. |
| [19] | Rodrigues V A, Crusciol C A C, Bossolani J W, Portugal J R, Moretti L G, Bernart L, Vilela R G, Galeriani T, Lollato R P. Foliar nitrogen as stimulant fertilization alters carbon metabolism, reactive oxygen species scavenging, and enhances grain yield in a soybean-maize rotation[J]. Crop Science, 2021, 61(5): 3687-3701. |
| [20] | 朱启东, 聂军, 廖育林, 鲁艳红, 李东晖, 高雅洁, 谢雪. 翻压紫云英对早稻产量、干物质积累及光合特性的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(6): 158-166. |
| Zhu Q D, Nie J, Liao Y L, Lu Y H, Li D H, Gao Y J, Xie X. Effect of pulverized milk vetch on yield, dry matter accumulation and photosynthetic characteristics of early rice[J]. Soils and Fertilizers Sciences in China, 2022(6): 158-166. (in Chinese) | |
| [21] | Jiang S, Du B, Wu Q, Zhang H, Zhu J. Increasing pit-planting density of rice varieties with different panicle types to improves sink characteristics and rice yield under alternate wetting and drying irrigation[J]. Food and Energy Security, 2023, 12(1): e335. |
| [22] | El-Sanatawy A M, Ash-Shormillesy S M A I, Abou El-Yazied A, El-Gawad H G A, Azab E, Gobouri A A, Sitohy M, Osman A. Enhancing grain yield and nitrogen accumulation in wheat plants grown under a Mediterranean arid environment by foliar spray with papain-released whey peptides[J]. Agronomy, 2021, 11(10): 1913. |
| [23] | Fan X, Zhao W, Li J. Dynamic responses of physiological indexes in maize leaves to different spraying fertilizers at varying concentrations[J]. Irrigation Science, 2023, 41(2): 309-320. |
| [24] | Danso O P, Wang Z, Zhang Z, Niu S, Wang Y, Wu G, Wang X, Zheng L, Dai J, Yin X, Zhu R. Effects of foliar selenium, biochar, and pig manure on cadmium accumulation in rice grains and assessment of health risk[J]. Environmental Research, 2024, 256: 119160. |
| [25] | Jarecki W. The reaction of winter oilseed rape to different foliar fertilization with macro- and micronutrients[J]. Agriculture, 2021, 11(6): 515. |
| [26] | Hirooka Y, Homma K, Kodo T, Shiraiwa T, Soben K, Chann M, Tsujimoto K, Tamagawa K, Koike T. Evaluation of cultivation environment and management based on LAI measurement in farmers’ paddy fields in Pursat Province, Cambodia[J]. Field Crops Research, 2016, 199: 150-155. |
| [27] | Lin F F, Qiu L F, Deng J S, Shi Y Y, Chen L S, Wang K. Investigation of SPAD meter-based indices for estimating rice nitrogen status[J]. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2010, 71: S60-S65. |
| [28] | 陈嘉军, 林祥, 谷淑波, 王威雁, 张保军, 朱俊科, 王东. 花后叶面喷施尿素对冬小麦氮素吸收利用和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(1): 277-285. |
| Chen J J, Lin X, Gu S B, Wang W Y, Zhang B J, Zhu J K, Wang D. Effects of foliar spraying of urea post anthesis on nitrogen uptake and utilization and yield in winter wheat[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2023, 49(1): 277-285. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [29] | 叶淑娟, 张宁, 成芳, 张成龙, 隋鲁鹏, 吴碧波, 巩养仓, 贺云新, 魏尚职, 屠小菊, 刘爱玉, 周仲华. 不同叶面肥喷施处理对棉花生长及产量品质的影响[J/OL]. 江苏农业科学, 2024, 52(22): 90-96. |
| Ye S J, Zhang N, Cheng F, Zhang C L, Sui L P, WU B B, Gong Y C, He Y X, Wei S Z, Tu X J, Liu A Y, Zhou Z H. Effects of different foliar fertilizer spraying treatments on cotton growth, yield and quality[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 52(22): 90-96. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [30] | Pannico A, Modarelli G C, Stazi S R, Giaccone M, Romano R, Rouphael Y, Cirillo C. Foliar nutrition influences yield, nut quality and kernel composition in hazelnut cv mortarella[J]. Plants, 2023, 12(11): 2219. |
| [31] | 董洪瑞, 朱杰, 周勇, 李皓轩, 杨伟, 蒋梦蝶, 朱波, 聂江文, 刘章勇. 穗肥施钾量和叶面肥对稻虾共作水稻生理特性、产量和品质的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2024, 53(5): 30-39. |
| Dong H R, Zhu J, Zhou Y, Li H X, Yang W, Jiang M D, Zhu B, Nie J W, Liu Z Y. Effects of panicle potassium fertilizer rates and foliar fertilizer on rice physiological characteristics, yield and quality under crayfish-rice integrated system[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 53(5): 30-39. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [32] | 宋聪. 叶面喷施氨基酸对香稻产量、品质和香气的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2022. |
| Song C. Effects of foliar spraying of amino acids on yield, quality and aroma of fragrant rice[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2022. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [33] | 闫政东, 郭平毅, 原向阳, 肖晓璐, 王东明. 叶面喷施氮肥对张杂谷10号光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 山西农业大学学报: 自然科学版, 2018, 38(2): 37-41. |
| Yan Z D, Guo P Y, Yuan X Y, Xiao X L, Wang D M. Effect of foliar application of nitrogen fertilizer on photosynthetic characteristics and yield of foxtail millet cultivar Zhangzagu 10 Setaria italic(L.) Beauv[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University: Natural Science Edition, 2018, 38(2): 37-41. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [34] | 王春晓, 郑永美, 矫岩林, 陈静, 李文金, 赵玉成, 华伟, 解晓梅, 孙学武, 于天一, 沈浦, 吴正锋, 王才斌. 以15N示踪技术分析叶面施氮对花生氮素吸收、分配及利用率的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2024, 46(4): 881-888. |
| Wang C X, Zheng Y M, Jiao Y L, Chen J, Li W J, Zhao Y C, Hua W, Xie X M, Sun X W, Yu T Y, Shen P, Wu Z F, Wang C B. Effects of foliar topdressing of labeled urea(15N) on nitrogen absorption, distribution and utilization of peanut[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2024, 46(4): 881-888. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [1] | 廖萍, 刘若彤, 孟轶, 翁文安, 都晗萌, 李骏, 高辉, 张洪程 . 一次性基施控释掺混肥对水稻产量和倒伏性状的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(4): 469-475. |
| [2] | 钟晓媛, 王众, 陈雷, 张晓丽, 黄严, 朱德峰, 王亚梁, 覃勇, 高国庆, 张隆葵, 唐茂艳 梁天锋. 精准条播育秧对广西机插水稻栽插质量、干物质生产及产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(4): 487-501. |
| [3] | 马义虎, 周翠, 朱练峰, 余山红. 关键栽培措施对优质超级稻华浙优261产量、品质形成及生育特性的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(4): 502-518. |
| [4] | 赵春芳, 罗磊, 赵庆勇, 庄丽华, 管菊, 陈涛, 朱镇, 张亚东, 王才林. 节水灌溉对优良食味粳稻产量形成及根系形态的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(4): 519-530. |
| [5] | 郑林娜, 凌霄霞, 杨显轲, 彭少兵, 黄见良, 熊栋梁. 春玉米-晚稻轮作模式的综合效益研究:现状、挑战与展望[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(3): 281-291. |
| [6] | 沈智达, 马世浩, 黄思远, 张洋洋, 廖世鹏, 李小坤. 种植方式和施肥对水稻根系形态、抗倒伏特性与产量的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(2): 253-263. |
| [7] | 李兴沂, 陈玲, 邵建韬, 肖素勤, 李金璐, 付惠仙, 殷富有, 张建红, 程在全, 刘丽. 水稻产量与淀粉品质协同调控的分子遗传研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(1): 1-17. |
| [8] | 王轶欣, 林参, 马刘洋, 陈龙, 奉保华, 倪深, 魏祥进, 贺记外, 陈天晓. 谷丙转氨酶基因OsAlaAT4调控水稻氮素吸收和产量[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(1): 51-60. |
| [9] | 肖无为, 张雨晴, 朱辰光, 田贵生, 蔡岳宏, 王飞, 熊栋梁, 黄见良, 彭少兵, 崔克辉. 促芽肥施用时期和施用量对再生稻产量和头季稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2026, 40(1): 118-130. |
| [10] | 陈玲, 林文英, 梁丽梅, 欧阳由男, 叶胜海, 季芝娟. 水稻开花习性及其在粳型三系不育系选育中的应用[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(6): 731-743. |
| [11] | 张兰兰, 刘迪林, 马晓智, 霍兴, 孔乐, 李金华, 付崇允, 廖亦龙, 朱满山, 曾学勤, 柳武革, 王丰. 华南早晚季不同施氮水平下影响籼稻米食味的品质性状[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(6): 832-846. |
| [12] | 卞金龙, 任高磊, 裘实, 许方甫, 胡忠磊, 张洪程, 魏海燕. 不同机插方式下控混肥施用方式对淮北地区优质食味粳稻产量及氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(6): 847-862. |
| [13] | 黎星, 张瑞春, 陈鸽, 解嘉鑫, 肖正午, 曹放波, 陈佳娜, 黄敏. 机插短生育期晚稻产量形成特点与光合特性研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(6): 863-872. |
| [14] | 罗孳孳, 张德军, 陈东东, 毕淼, 朱玉涵, 韩旭, 武强, 李月臣. 1981−2022年四川盆地再生稻抽穗灌浆期热量资源时空演变特征[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(6): 873-886. |
| [15] | 陆婷婷, 闫文惠, 苏新全, 曾罗华, 华丽琴, 谌江华, 奉保华, 王跃星, 胡江, 符冠富. 多年生稻产量品质抗逆响应形成的生理生态机制及其调控途径研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2025, 39(5): 586-600. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||