Effects of Trinexapac-ethyl on Lodging Resistance, Yield and Rice Quality of Northern Rice with Good Quality

doi:10.16819/j.1001-7216.2022.210809

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 The present study aims to evaluate the effect of trinexapac-ethyl spraying on rice lodging resistance,yield and quality performance of good quality rice.【Method】 Good quality rice varieties Toyonishiki and Shennong 09001 were used as test materials to investigate the effects of trinexapac-ethyl at different concentrations(CK, 0 mg/L; C1, 90 mg/L; C2, 180 mg/L; C3, 360 mg/L) during different growth stages(T1, late tillering stage; T2, early jointing stage; T3, booting stage) on lodging resistance, yield and quality of good-quality rice based on lodging index, bending resistance and thrust resistance.【Result】 The morphological and anatomical structure of stem, and the lodging resistance of rice plants were improved by trinexapac-ethyl application. With the increasing application concentration, the plant height decreased, the center of gravity moved down, the length of the first, second and third internodes at the base shortened, the stem diameter and stem wall thickness increased, the number of large and small vascular bundles and the area of large vascular bundles first increased and then decreased, the bending resistance and plant thrust resistance increased, the lodging index decreased and the lodging resistance increased. There were significant differences in lodging resistance among different application periods. Application during booting stage was the most effective to improve lodging resistance. With the increasing application concentration, the number of effective panicles, seed setting rate, grain number per panicle, the panicle length, and the yield significantly decreased, but the 1000-grain weight significantly increased. The grain yield was on a downward slide as the application of trinexapac-ethyl was postponed. The protein content increased with the increase of application concentration, the protein content significantly increased, the taste value of rice, the brown rice rate, and milled rice rate significantly decreased, which had no significant effect on other rice quality traits. Trinexapac-ethyl spraying exerted a declining influence on rice quality and nutritional quality for delayed application, and the rice quality was relatively good.【Conclusion】 With the increasing concentration, the lodging resistance of good quality rice increases. Although the yield, processing quality and nutritional quality decline, they can make up for the loss caused by lodging to a certain extent. Therefore, lodging resistance can be used as a plant growth regulator to improve lodging resistance in the production of good quality rice. The best combination of application concentration and application period was 180 mg/L (1200 L/hm²) during early jointing stage(T2C2).

Key words: good quality rice, trinexapac-ethyl, lodging resistance, yield, quality

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。

关键词: 抗倒酯, 优质稻, 抗倒伏, 产量, 米质

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.

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.

Figures/Tables 9

References 35

[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)

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
品种 Variety	试验因素 Experiment factor	N1	N2	N3	株高Plant height/cm	穗长Panicle length/cm
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	节间长度Internode length/cm			株高Plant height/cm	穗长Panicle length/cm
品种 Variety	试验因素 Experiment factor	N1	N2	N3	株高Plant height/cm	穗长Panicle length/cm
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
品种 Variety	试验因素 Experiment factor	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	茎秆粗度Culm diameter/mm			茎壁厚度Culm wall thickness/mm
品种 Variety	试验因素 Experiment factor	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）
品种 Variety	试验因素 Experiment factor	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**