籼、粳超级稻茎秆抗倒支撑特征的差异研究

doi:10．3969/j．issn．1001G7216．2015．03．006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为阐明籼、粳超级稻茎秆抗倒支撑特征的差异,以当地主栽且具有代表性的2个超级杂交籼稻组合和2个常规粳型超级稻品种为试验材料,在稻麦两熟制条件下对籼、粳超级稻茎秆形态特征、充实性状和力学特性以及弯曲力矩、抗折力、倒伏指数、田间表观倒伏率和实收产量等进行了系统的比较研究。结果表明,1)粳稻实收产量较籼稻高12.30%,差异极显著;基部0~20 cm节间抗折力极显著高于籼稻、倒伏指数极显著低于籼稻,没有出现明显倒伏现象,而籼稻扬两优6号和两优培九两年平均田间表观倒伏率分别达11.97%和12.50%;2)粳稻基部四个节间弯曲力矩均极显著小于籼稻,抗折力均极显著大于籼稻,最终粳稻基部第1至第4节间的倒伏指数均极显著低于籼稻;3)粳稻各节间长度和株高以及基部节间外径、秆型指数、单穗质量、重心高和相对重心高度均小于籼稻,差异显著或极显著,而穗下节间长/秆长粳稻极显著大于籼稻;4)粳稻六个伸长节间的茎秆粗度和茎壁厚度均小于籼稻,其中,基部第1至第4伸长节间的茎秆粗度达到显著或极显著水平;5)粳稻各节间茎秆干质量均小于籼稻,两优培九各节间叶鞘干质量极显著高于其他3个品种,且粳稻基部第2节间单位节间茎秆干质量略高于籼稻,而基部第1、3、4、5、6节间粳稻单位节间茎秆干质量均低于籼稻;6)粳稻单穴固持力和抗弯阻力均显著或极显著大于籼稻,而按压恢复度显著或极显著小于籼稻。可见粳稻固持抗倒能力较强,籼稻抗倒恢复能力较强,且粳稻能协调实现高产与抗倒,这可能与其弯曲力矩小、抗折力大、株高矮、节间配置合理、重心低以及基部节间物质充实足等有关。

关键词: 超级稻, 籼稻, 粳稻, 倒伏, 物理特征, 充实性状, 力学特性

Abstract:

To reveal the difference in lodging resistance of culm between indica and japonica super rice, a field experiment was conducted by using two main representative super hybrid indica combinations and two conventional japonica super rice varieties as materials in the rice-wheat cropping regions. Characteristics of morphology, Filling and mechanics, breaking resistance, bending moment, lodging index, apparent lodging rate in the field and grain yield were analyzed systematically. Results showed that: 1) grain yield of japonica rice was significantly higher than that of indica rice, with a rate of 12.30%. For the culm of 0-20 cm from the bottom, the bending moment of japonica rice was significantly higher than indica rice and the lodging index followed an opposite trend without lodging, compared to the average apparent lodging rates in the field of 11.97%, 12.50% from 2011 to 2012 for Yangliangyou 6 and Liangyoupeijiu, respectively. 2) For all the four basal internodes, indica rice had significantly higher breaking resistance and lodging index, while bending moment followed an opposite tendency. 3) Length of each internode and plant height, outer diameter of basal internode, stalk type index, single panicle weight, height of gravity center and ratio of gravity center height to plant height of japonica rice were lower than that of indica rice significantly, with an opposite trend for ratio of neck internode length to stalk length. 4) Culm diameter and wall thickness for all the six elongated internodes of japonica rice were less than that of indica rice, with culm diameter from 1st internode from the bottom to the 4th internode from the bottom reaching a significant level. 5) Dry weight of culm of each internode in japonica rice was lower than that of indica rice and dry weight of leaf sheath of each internode in Liangyoupeijiu was significantly higher than that in the other three varieties. Dry weight per unit internode for the second internode from the bottom of japonica rice was slightly higher than indica rice, while the opposite trend was found for the others. 6) Retaining force per hill and buckling resistance of japonica rice were greater than indica rice significantly, while recovery after pushing followed an opposite tendency accordingly. Therefore, japonica rice was provided with strong ability of retaining and lodging, and indica rice had strong recovering ability. Moreover, for japonica rice, high yield and lodging resistance can be achieved at the same time, owing to its small breaking resistance, large bending moment, low plant height, appropriate internode charactericstics, low height of gravity center, enough dry matter of basal internode, and so on.

Key words: super rice, indica rice, japonica rice, lodging, filling characteristics, mechanical properties

中图分类号:

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.

Jin-long GONG, Zhi-peng XING, Ya-jie HU, Hong-cheng ZHANG, Qi-gen DAI, Zhong-yang HUO, Ke XU, Hai-yan WEI, Hui GAO. Difference in Lodging Resistance of Culm Between indica and japonica Super Rice[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2015, 29(3): 273-281.

图/表 7

参考文献 37

[1]	FAO. Statistical Databases.Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the Untied Nations, 2004.
[2]	龚金龙, 邢志鹏, 胡雅杰, 等. “籼改粳”的相对优势及生产发展对策. 中国稻米, 2013, 19(5): 1-6.
[3]	李旭毅, 池忠志, 姜心禄, 等. 成都平原两熟区籼粳稻品种籽粒灌浆特性. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(16): 3256-3264.
[4]	卜祥. 粳稻潜力待挖. 农经杂志, 2011(2): 42-44.
[5]	张洪程, 张军, 龚金龙, 等. “籼改粳”的生产优势及其形成机理. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(4): 686-704.
[6]	程飞虎, 周培建. 江西适度发展粳稻的探索与思考. 中国农技推广, 2012, 28(1): 7-9.
[7]	张似松, 汤颢军, 柴婷婷, 等. 加快粳稻发展,进一步做强湖北省水稻产业. 湖北农业科学, 2012, 51(3): 450-453.
[8]	宋世枝, 段斌, 扶定, 等. 粳稻在豫南晚播的生长发育及增产效果研究. 信阳师范学院学报:自然科学版, 2002, 15(1): 104-106.
[9]	龚金龙, 张洪程, 李杰, 等. 超级稻生态育种及超高产栽培特征与途径的研究进展. 中国农业科技导报, 2011, 13(1): 25-33.
[10]	申广勒, 石英尧, 黄艳玲, 等. 水稻抗倒伏特性及其与茎秆性状的相关性研究. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(12): 58-62.
[11]	李红娇, 张喜娟, 李伟娟, 等. 不同穗型粳稻品种抗倒伏性的比较. 中国水稻科学, 2009, 23(2): 191-196.
[12]	华泽田, 郝宪彬, 沈枫, 等. 东北地区超级杂交粳稻倒伏性状的研究. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2003, 34(3): 161-164.
[13]	杨世民, 谢力, 郑顺林, 等. 氮肥水平和栽插密度对杂交稻茎秆理化特性与抗倒伏性的影响. 作物学报, 2009, 35(1): 93-103.
[14]	刘立军, 袁莉民, 王志琴, 等. 旱种水稻倒伏生理原因分析与对策的初步研究. 中国水稻科学, 2002, 16(3): 225-230.
[15]	李杰, 张洪程, 龚金龙, 等. 不同种植方式对超级稻植株抗倒伏能力的影响. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(11): 2234-2243.
[16]	张庆, 殷春渊, 张洪程, 等. 水稻氮高产高效与低产低效两类品种株型特征差异研究. 作物学报, 2010, 36(6): 1011-1021.
[17]	李敏, 张洪程, 杨雄, 等. 不同氮利用效率基因型水稻茎秆特性比较. 作物学报, 2012, 38(7): 1277-1285.
[18]	Koutroubas S D, Ntanos D A.Genotypic differences for grain yield and nitrogen utilization in indica and japonica rice under Mediterranean conditions.Field Crops Res, 2003, 83(3): 251-260.
[19]	Ntanos D A, Koutroubas S D.Dry matter and N accumulation and translocation for indica and japonica rice under Mediterranean conditions.Field Crops Res, 2003, 74(1): 93-101.
[20]	Asai H, Saito K, Samson B, et al.Yield response of indica and tropical japonica genotypes to soil fertility conditions under rainfed uplands in northern Laos.Field Crops Res, 2009, 112: 141-148.
[21]	张洪程, 戴其根, 霍中洋, 等. 偏迟熟水稻北移及配套高产栽培技术的研究. 江苏农学院学报, 1996, 17(3): 51-56.
[22]	瀬古秀生, 佐本啓智, 鈴木嘉一郎. 水稲の倒伏に及ぼす二, 三栽培条件の影響(II). 日本作物学会紀事, 1959, 27(2): 173-176.
[23]	杨泽峰, 徐辰武, 顾世梁. SPSS农业试验数据分析实用教程. 南京: 南京大学出版社, 2009.
[24]	龚金龙, 邢志鹏, 胡雅杰, 等. 籼、粳超级稻根系形态生理特征的差异研究. 作物学报, 2014, 40(6): 1073-1089.
[25]	Setter T L, Laureles E V, Mazaredo A M.Lodging reduces yield of rice by self-shading and reductions in canopy photosynthesis.Field Crops Res, 1997, 49: 95-106.
[26]	龚金龙, 胡雅杰, 葛梦婕, 等. 南方粳型超级稻氮肥群体最高生产力及其形成特征的研究. 核农学报, 2012, 26(3): 558-572.
[27]	郭保卫, 张春华, 陈厚存, 等. 抛秧立苗的根系特点及其对水稻生长的影响. 中国水稻科学, 2011, 25(6): 623-630.
[28]	张倩, 张明才, 张海燕, 等. 30%矮·烯微乳剂对水稻茎秆理化特性的调控. 作物学报, 2013, 39(6): 1089-1095.
[29]	张洪程, 朱聪聪, 霍中洋, 等. 钵苗机插水稻产量形成优势及主要生理生态特点. 农业工程学报, 2013, 29(21): 50-59.
[30]	Kashiwagi T, Ishimaru K.Identification and functional analysis of a locus for improvement of lodging resistance in rice.Plant Physiol, 2004, 134(2): 676-683.
[31]	Ishimaru K, Togawa E, Ookawa T, et al.New target for rice lodging resistance and its effect in a typhoon.Planta, 2008, 227(3): 601-609.
[32]	刘立军, 王康君, 葛立立, 等. 旱种水稻基部节间性状与倒伏的关系及其生理机制. 作物学报, 2012, 38(5): 848-856.
[33]	郎有忠, 杨晓东, 王美娥, 等. 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.
[34]	孙永健, 陈宇, 孙园园, 等. 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. 中国水稻科学, 2012, 26(2): 189-196.
[35]	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. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2008.
[36]	雷小龙, 刘利, 苟文, 等. 种植方式对杂交籼稻植株抗倒伏特性的影响. 作物学报, 2013, 39(10): 1814-1825.
[37]	马均, 马文波, 田彦华, 等. 重穗型水稻植株抗倒伏能力的研究. 作物学报, 2004, 30(2): 143-148.

年份 Year	参数 Parameter	镇稻11号 Zhendao 11	武运粳24号 Wuyunjing 24	扬两优6号 Yangliangyou 6	两优培九 Liangyoupeijiu
2011	实收产量Grain yield/(t·hm^-2)	10.62 aAB	11.05 aA	9.42 bC	9.79 bBC
	表观倒伏率 Apparent lodging rate/%	-	-	11.58 aA	11.94 aA
2012	实收产量 Grain yield/(t·hm^-2)	10.94 aAB	11.31 aA	9.86 bC	10.05 bBC
	表观倒伏率 Apparent lodging rate/%	-	-	12.35 aA	13.05 aA

年份 Year	参数 Parameter	镇稻11号 Zhendao 11	武运粳24号 Wuyunjing 24	扬两优6号 Yangliangyou 6	两优培九 Liangyoupeijiu
2011	实收产量Grain yield/(t·hm^-2)	10.62 aAB	11.05 aA	9.42 bC	9.79 bBC
	表观倒伏率 Apparent lodging rate/%	-	-	11.58 aA	11.94 aA
2012	实收产量 Grain yield/(t·hm^-2)	10.94 aAB	11.31 aA	9.86 bC	10.05 bBC
	表观倒伏率 Apparent lodging rate/%	-	-	12.35 aA	13.05 aA

节间与参数 Internodes and parameters	镇稻11号 Zhendao 11	武运粳24号 Wuyunjing 24	扬两优6号 Yangliangyou 6	两优培九 Liangyoupeijiu
基部第1节间 The 1st internode from the bottom
弯曲力矩Breaking resistance/(cm·g)	1846.11 cC	1689.67 dC	2685.40 bB	2904.33 aA
抗折力 Bending moment/g	4815.04 aA	4674.93 bB	4314.04 dD	4478.74 cC
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g·g^-1)	38.34 bB	36.14 bB	62.25 aA	64.85 aA
基部第2节间 The 2nd internode from the bottom
弯曲力矩 Breaking resistance/(cm·g)	1724.29 cC	1584.41 dC	2459.64 bB	2646.91 aA
抗折力 Bending moment/g	2097.34 aA	2038.24 bA	1734.91 dC	1887.24 cB
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g ·g^-1)	82.21 bB	77.73 cB	141.77 aA	140.25 aA
基部第3节间 3rd internode from the bottom
弯曲力矩Breaking resistance/(cm·g)	1447.79 cB	1328.91 dB	2064.43 bA	2219.12 aA
抗折力 Bending moment/g	810.46 aA	767.56 bA	615.59 cB	638.80 cB
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g·g^-1)	178.64 cC	173.13 dC	335.36 bB	347.39 aA
基部第4节间 The 4th internode from the bottom
弯曲力矩 Breaking resistance/(cm·g)	1061.15 cB	966.30 dB	1537.89 bA	1658.90 aA
抗折力 Bending moment/g	454.70 aA	417.30 aA	296.49 bB	305.55 bB
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g·g^-1)	233.38 cC	231.56 cC	518.70 bB	542.92 aA
基部0~20 0-20 cm from the bottom
抗折力 Bending moment/g	852.34 aA	791.00 bA	502.73 cB	515.71 cB
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g ·g^-1)	216.59 cC	213.61 cC	534.17 bB	563.18 aA

节间与参数 Internodes and parameters	镇稻11号 Zhendao 11	武运粳24号 Wuyunjing 24	扬两优6号 Yangliangyou 6	两优培九 Liangyoupeijiu
基部第1节间 The 1st internode from the bottom
弯曲力矩Breaking resistance/(cm·g)	1846.11 cC	1689.67 dC	2685.40 bB	2904.33 aA
抗折力 Bending moment/g	4815.04 aA	4674.93 bB	4314.04 dD	4478.74 cC
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g·g^-1)	38.34 bB	36.14 bB	62.25 aA	64.85 aA
基部第2节间 The 2nd internode from the bottom
弯曲力矩 Breaking resistance/(cm·g)	1724.29 cC	1584.41 dC	2459.64 bB	2646.91 aA
抗折力 Bending moment/g	2097.34 aA	2038.24 bA	1734.91 dC	1887.24 cB
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g ·g^-1)	82.21 bB	77.73 cB	141.77 aA	140.25 aA
基部第3节间 3rd internode from the bottom
弯曲力矩Breaking resistance/(cm·g)	1447.79 cB	1328.91 dB	2064.43 bA	2219.12 aA
抗折力 Bending moment/g	810.46 aA	767.56 bA	615.59 cB	638.80 cB
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g·g^-1)	178.64 cC	173.13 dC	335.36 bB	347.39 aA
基部第4节间 The 4th internode from the bottom
弯曲力矩 Breaking resistance/(cm·g)	1061.15 cB	966.30 dB	1537.89 bA	1658.90 aA
抗折力 Bending moment/g	454.70 aA	417.30 aA	296.49 bB	305.55 bB
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g·g^-1)	233.38 cC	231.56 cC	518.70 bB	542.92 aA
基部0~20 0-20 cm from the bottom
抗折力 Bending moment/g	852.34 aA	791.00 bA	502.73 cB	515.71 cB
倒伏指数 Lodging index/(cm g ·g^-1)	216.59 cC	213.61 cC	534.17 bB	563.18 aA

品种 Cultivar	株高 Plant height /cm	穗下节间长/秆长 Ratio of neck internode length to stalk length/%	基部节间外径 Outer diameter of basal internode/cm	秆型指数 Stalk type index	重心高 Height of gravity center/cm	相对重心高度 Ratio of gravity center height to plant height/%	单穗质量 Single panicle weight/g
镇稻11号Zhendao 11	104.3 bB	40.24 aA	0.806 bBC	0.91 bA	48.4 bB	46.43 cB	3.33 dD
武运粳24号Wuyunjing 24	102.2 bB	40.33 aA	0.776 bC	0.90 bA	47.8 bB	46.82 cB	3.57 cC
扬两优6号Yangliangyou 6	120.6 aA	38.58 bB	0.967 aAB	1.00 abA	57.3 aA	47.50 bA	3.85 bB
两优培九Liangyoupeijiu	119.5 aA	38.39 bB	1.039 aA	1.09 aA	58.2 aA	48.67 aA	4.29 aA