The effects of lodging at different filling stages on grain yield and rice quality were investigated with a twoline hybrid rice Liangyoupeijiu and a conventional japonica rice CY6. The results showed that except for brown rice rate, ratio of length to width, gelatinization temperature and gel consistency, almost all indices for yield and rice quality were significantly influenced by lodging and thus deteriorated. Regression analysis suggested that, lodging of CY6 and Liangyoupeijiu one day earlier could cause 2.71% and 2.66% of yield loss, 1.8 and 2.1 percentage points decrease of seed setting rate, 0.32 and 0.26 g reduction of 1000grain weight, 0.097 and 0.155 percentage points decrease of milled rice rate, also it increased chalky grain rate by 0.13 and 0.27 percentage points, and protein content by 0.021 and 0.024 percentage points, and subsequently lowered the eating quality.
LANG You-Zhong*, YANG Xiao-Dong, WANG Mei-E, ZHU Qing-Sen
. Effects of Lodging at Different Filling Stages on Rice Grain Yield and Quality[J]. Chinese Journal OF Rice Science, 2011
, 25(4)
: 407
-412
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7216.2011.04.010
[1]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.
[2]Hitaka H. Studies on the lodging of rice plants. Jpn Agric Res，1969, 4(3)：1-6.
[3]Kashiwagi T, Sasaki H, Ishimaru K. Factors responsible for decreasing sturdiness of the lower part in lodging of rice(Oryza sativa L.). Plant Prod Sci, 2005, 8(2): 166-172.
[4]张秋英, 欧阳由男, 戴伟民, 等. 水稻基部伸长节间性状与倒伏相关性分析及 QTL定位. 作物学报， 2005， 31（6）： 712-717.
[5]肖应辉， 罗丽华， 闫晓燕， 等. 水稻品种倒伏指数QTL分析.作物学报， 2005， 31（3）： 348-354.
[6]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.
[7]张忠旭, 陈温福, 杨振玉, 等. 水稻抗倒伏能力与茎秆物理性状的关系及其对产量的影响. 沈阳农业大学学报, 1999, 30(2) : 81-85.
[8]万宜珍, 马国辉. 超级杂交稻抗倒生理与形态机能研究： Ⅱ. 培矮64S/E32与汕优63茎秆抗倒力学差异. 湖南农业大学学报, 2003, 29(2): 92-94.
[9]中华人民共和国农业部. NY/T83-1988 米质测定方法. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1988.
[10]孙成效， 段彬伍， 谢黎虹， 等. 利用近红外透射光谱技术同步测定糙米的多项品质指标初报. 中国水稻科学, 2006, 20(4): 451-454.
[11]张亚洁， 陈莹莹， 闫国军， 等. 不同种植方式下氮素营养对陆稻中旱3号和水稻扬粳9538米质的影响. 作物学报， 2009, 35(10): 1866-1874.
[12]张磊, 吴冬云, 朱碧岩, 等. 灌浆期不同温光对水稻叶、籽粒可溶性蛋白质及可溶性糖动态变化的影响. 华南师范大学学报： 自然科学版, 2002(2): 98-101.
[13]钟连进， 程方民. 水稻籽粒灌浆过程直链淀粉的积累及其相关酶的品种类型间差异.作物学报， 2003， 29（3）: 452-456.
[14]李刚， 邓其明， 李双成， 等. 稻米淀粉 RVA谱特征与品质性状的相关性. 中国水稻科学, 2009, 23(1): 99-102.
