脱叶剂对机采棉不同种植模式脱叶效果、产量及品质的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.11.008

新疆农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (11): 2661-2666.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.11.008

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学·土壤肥料 • 上一篇下一篇

脱叶剂对机采棉不同种植模式脱叶效果、产量及品质的影响

蒋从军¹^,²(), 阿里甫·艾尔西¹^,², 林涛¹^,², 沙红¹, 郑子漂¹, 努尔曼古丽·吾甫尔³, 蒋争军³, 崔建平¹^,², 郭仁松¹^,², 王亮¹, 张娜¹

1.新疆农业科学院经济作物研究所,乌鲁木齐 830091
2.农业农村部荒漠绿洲作物生理生态与耕作重点实验室,乌鲁木齐 830091
3.巴楚县农业技术推广中心,新疆巴楚 843800

收稿日期:2023-01-30 出版日期:2023-11-20 发布日期:2023-12-07
作者简介:蒋从军(1965-),男,新疆乌鲁木齐人,推广研究员,研究方向为棉花栽培,(E-mail)1612786082@qq.com
基金资助:
农业农村部荒漠绿洲作物生理生态与耕作重点实验室开放课题(25107020-201907);棉花生物学国家重点实验室开放课题(CB2019A16)

Effects of defoliants on defoliation, yield and quality of machine-picked cotton in different planting modes

JIANG Congjun¹^,²(), Alifu Aierxi¹^,², LIN Tao¹^,², SHA Hong¹, ZHENG Zipiao¹, Nuermanguli Wupuer³, JIANG Zhengjun³, CUI Jianping¹^,², GUO Rensong¹^,², WANG Liang¹, ZHANG Na¹

1. Institute of Economic Crops, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Urumqi 830091, China
2. Key Laboratory of Desert-Oasis Crop Physiology, Ecology and Cultivation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Urumqi 830091, China
3. Bachu Agricultural Technology Extension Center, Bachu Xinjiang 843800,China

Received:2023-01-30 Online:2023-11-20 Published:2023-12-07
About author:JIANG Congjun (1965-), Male, Urumqi, Xinjiang, promotion research fellow of, The research direction is cotton cultivation,(E-mail)1612786082@qq.com
Supported by:
The Open Project of Key Laboratory of Desert-Oasis Crop Physiology, Ecology and Cultivation, MOARA(25107020-201907);The Open Project of the National Key Laboratory(CB2019A16)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 研究脱叶剂对新疆南疆机采棉不同种植模式脱叶效果、产量及品质的影响。【方法】 设4种机采棉种植模式,1膜6行K₁[(12 cm+64 cm+12 cm+64 cm+12 cm)+64 cm]×11 cm;1膜3行K₂[(76 cm+76 cm)+76 cm]×5.6 cm;1膜3行K₃[(76 cm+76 cm)+76 cm]×9.5 cm;1膜4行K₄[(12 cm+64 cm+12 cm)+64 cm]×11 cm。在棉花吐絮期喷施脱叶催熟剂,分析对棉花不同种植模式脱叶效果、产量及品质的影响。【结果】 不同种植模式喷施脱叶催熟剂后25 d脱叶率无显著差异、吐絮率无显著差异。K₁种植模式产量最高,籽棉产量分别较K₂、K₃、K₄种植模式高5.15%、8.7%、4.5%。喷施脱叶催熟剂后,不同种植模式间棉纤维长度整齐度、断裂比强度、马克隆值、断裂伸长率、短纤维指数、成熟度间无显著差异。棉纤维上半部平均长度K₁、K₂、K₃间无显著差异,K₂与K₃较K₄高,有显著差异。【结论】 喷施脱叶催熟剂后不同种植模式间脱叶率、吐絮率均无显著差异。喷施脱叶催熟剂对棉纤维品质影响较小。1膜6行模式棉花产量最高。

关键词: 棉花; 脱叶剂; 种植模式; 脱叶效果; 品质

Abstract:

【Objective】 To study the effects of defoliants on defoliation, yield and quality of machine-picked cotton in southern Xinjiang. 【Methods】 The 4 machine-picked cotton planting modes were set up, one film six lines K₁[(12 cm+64 cm+12 cm+64 cm+12 cm)+64 cm]×11 cm; one film three lines K₂[(76 cm+76 cm)+76 cm]×5.6 cm; one film three lines K₃[(76 cm+76 cm)+76 cm]×9.5 cm; one film four lines K₄[(12 cm+64 cm+12 cm)+64]cm×11 cm. during the cotton fluffing period, the effects of defoliation, yield and quality were analyzed under different planting patterns after spraying defoliation ripening agent. 【Results】 There were no significant difference in defoliation rate and fluffing rate in 25 days after spraying defoliation and ripening agent in different planting modes. The K₁ planting mode had the highest yield, and the seed cotton yield was respectively 5.15%, 8.7%, and 4.5% higher than those of the K₂, K₃, and K₄ planting modes in 2020. After spraying the defoliant ripening agent, there was no significant difference in uniformity of length of cotton fiber, specific breaking strength, micronaire, elongation at break, staple fibre index and maturity between different planting patterns.【Conclusion】 There is no significant difference in defoliation rate and flocculation rate among different planting modes after spraying defoliation and ripening agent. Spraying defoliation and ripening agent has little effect on cotton fiber quality,cotton yield is the highest under the mode of one film six lines.

Key words: cotton; defoliant; planting pattern; defoliation effect; quality

中图分类号:

S562

蒋从军, 阿里甫·艾尔西, 林涛, 沙红, 郑子漂, 努尔曼古丽·吾甫尔, 蒋争军, 崔建平, 郭仁松, 王亮, 张娜. 脱叶剂对机采棉不同种植模式脱叶效果、产量及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2661-2666.

JIANG Congjun, Alifu Aierxi, LIN Tao, SHA Hong, ZHENG Zipiao, Nuermanguli Wupuer, JIANG Zhengjun, CUI Jianping, GUO Rensong, WANG Liang, ZHANG Na. Effects of defoliants on defoliation, yield and quality of machine-picked cotton in different planting modes[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(11): 2661-2666.

图/表 4

参考文献 21

[1]	张鲁云, 陈永成. 新疆生产建设兵团机采棉现状及建议[J]. 农业机械, 2011,(5) : 80-82.
	ZHANG Luyun, CHEN Yongcheng. Xinjiang state farm group cottonpicker machine status and recommendations[J]. Farm Mach., 2011,(5) : 80-82.
[2]	Yang G Z, Luo X J, Nie Y C, et al. Effects of plant density on yield and canopy micro environment in hybrid cotton[J]. J. Integrative Agric., 2014, l3(10) : 2154-2163.
[3]	胥钟仁. 如何提高机采棉花质量[J]. 中国纤检, 2005,(12):43.
	XU Zhongren. How to Improve the Quality of Machine-picked Cotton[J]. China Fiber Inspection, 2005,(12):43.
[4]	王冬, 张巨松. 南疆沙井子垦区机采棉适宜株行距配置试验[J]. 新疆农垦科技, 2015, 38(6):14-15.
	WANG Dong, ZHANG Jusong. Experiment on the Configuration of Suitable Row Spacing for Machine-picked Cotton in Shajingzi Reclamation Area of Southern Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Reclamation Technology, 2015, 38(6):14-15.
[5]	孙巍, 杨宝玲, 高振江, 等. 浅析我国棉花机械采收现状及制约因素[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2013, 34(6) : 9-13.
	SUN Wei, YANG Baoling, GAO Zhenjiang, et al. Analysis of mechanicalharvest situation and restricting factors of cotton[J]. J. Chin.Agric. Mechan., 2013, 34(6) : 9-13.
[6]	王聪. 棉花机采模式下行距变化对植株生长发育和产量形成的影响[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2015.
	WANG Cong. A research of machine-picked cotton growth and yield formation under different row space[D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2015.
[7]	李岩, 陈契, 马丽芸, 等. 新疆机采棉品质现状与分析[J]. 棉纺织技术, 2016, 44(2) : 4-9.
	LI Yan, CHEN Qi, MA Liyun, et al. Status and analyses of Xinjiang machine picked cotton quality[J]. Cotton TextileTechnol., 2016, 44(2) : 4-9.
[8]	张山鹰. 新疆机采棉发展现状及发展方向的思考[J]. 农业工程, 2012, 2(7) : 1-6.
	ZHANG Shanying. Consideration about status quo and developmentdirection of machine pick up cotton in Sinkiang province[J]. Agric. Engin., 2012, 2(7) : 1-6.
[9]	周先林, 覃琴, 王龙, 等. 脱叶剂对两种机采模式下棉花脱叶效果及纤维品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(11):144-152. DOI
	ZHOU Xianlin, QIN Qin, WANG Long, et al. Influence of defoliant on defoliation effevt and fiberquality of cotton unfer two kinds of meachanical harvesting modes[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(11):144-152.
[10]	张文, 逯涛, 赵富强, 等. 不同行距配置下脱叶剂对棉花产量的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2019, 46(1):34-37.
	ZHANG Wen, LU Tao, ZHAO Fuqiang, et al. Effects of Defoliants on Cotton Yield Under Different Row Spacing Configurations[J]. China Cotton, 2019, 46(1):34-37.
[11]	李建伟, 石洪亮, 李春艳, 等. 喷施脱叶剂对不同机采种植模式下棉花脱叶效果及纤维品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业大学学报, 2017, 40(2):70-84.
	LI Jianwei, SHI Hongliang, LI Chunyan, et al. Effects of Spraying Defoliant on Cotton Defoliation and Fiber Quality Under Different Machine-harvesting Planting Modes[J]. Journal of Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2017, 40(2):70-84.
[12]	石峰, 田雨, 时晓娟, 等. 北疆机采棉等行密植模式下脱叶效果、产量及纤维品质研究[J]. 石河子大学学报, 2022, 40(2):166-171.
	SHI Feng, TIAN Yu, SHI Xiaojuan, et al. Study on Defoliation Effect, Yield and Fiber Quality of Machine-picked Cotton in Northern Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Shihezi University, 2022, 40(2):166-171.
[13]	李建峰. 机采模式下株行距配置对棉花冠层特征及成铃特性的影响[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2016.
	LI Jianfeng. Effects of Plant-row Spacing Configuration on Cotton Canopy Characteristics and Boll-forming Characteristics Under Machine-picking Mode[D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2016.
[14]	徐新霞. 行距配置对机采棉花产量形成及采收品质的影响[D]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2015.
	XU Xinxia. Effect of row spacing pattern on machine-harvested cotton yield formation and harvest quality[D]. Urumqi: Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2015.
[15]	蔡晓莉, 马丽娟, 逯涛, 等. 不同种植模式和密度对Z1112 产量及纤维品质的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2018, 45(6) : 24-26.
	CAI Xiaoli, MA Lijuan, LU Tao, et al. Effects of different cultivation patterns and densities on yield and fiber quality of a cottonvariety Z1112[J]. China Cotton, 2018, 45(6) : 24-26.
[16]	杨秀理, 朱江, 李鲁华. 不同配置方式对棉花生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2006, 43(5):421-425.
	YANG Xiuli, ZHU Jiang, LI Luhua. Effects of Different Configuration Methods on Cotton Growth, Development and Yield[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2006, 43(5):421-425.
[17]	张丽娟, 夏绍南, 崔爱花, 等. 鄱阳湖棉区棉花株行距配置对产量与性状的影响[J]. 棉花科学, 2014,(2):13-18.
	ZHANG Lijuan, XIA Shaonan, CUI Aihua, et al. Effects of Row Spacing Configuration on Yield and Traits of Cotton in Poyang Lake Cotton Area[J]. Cotton Sciences, 2014, (2):13-18.
[18]	Shakeel A A, Saleem M F, 王龙昌, 等. 行距对棉花生长发育尧产量及早熟性指数的影响的研究(英文)[J]. 棉花学报, 2010, 22(6):611-616.
	Shakeel A A, Saleem M F, WANG Longchang, et al. A Study on the Effect of Row Spacing on Cotton Growth, Yield and Early Maturity Index (English)[J]. Cotton Science, 2010, 22(6):611-616.
[19]	田景山, 王文敏, 王聪, 等. 机械采收方式对新疆棉品质的影响[J]. 纺织学报, 2016,(7):13-17.
	TIAN Jingshan, WANG Wenmin, WANG Cong, et al. Effect of cotton mechanical picking on fiber qualities inXinjiang[J]. Journal of Textile Research, 2016,(7):13-17.
[20]	ANJUM S A, FARRUK S M, 王龙昌, 等. 不同行距对陆地棉品种纤维品质性状的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2010, 22(2) : 181-185.
	Anjum S A, Farruk S M, WANG Longchang, et al. Varietal comparison of some fibre quality traits of cotton (Gossypiumhirsutum L.) under different row spacings[J]. Cotton Science, 2010, 22(2) : 181-185.
[21]	崔岳宁, 高振江, 杨宝玲. 不同行距种植模式下机采棉品质比较分析[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2016, 37(7) : 235-240.
	CUI Yuening, GAO Zhenjiang, YANG Baoling. Quality analysis of different mechanical harvesting cotton planting patterns[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2016, 37(7) : 235-240.

处理 Treatment	施药第14 d 脱叶率(%) The defoliation rate on the 14 th day of defoliant spraying	施药第25 d 脱叶率(%) The defoliation rate on the 25 th day of defoliant spraying
K₁	71.70^a	81.87^a
K₂	71.05^a	82.48^a
K₃	75.17^a	84.45^a
K₄	71.96^a	82.08^a

处理 Treatment	施药第14 d 脱叶率(%) The defoliation rate on the 14 th day of defoliant spraying	施药第25 d 脱叶率(%) The defoliation rate on the 25 th day of defoliant spraying
K₁	71.70^a	81.87^a
K₂	71.05^a	82.48^a
K₃	75.17^a	84.45^a
K₄	71.96^a	82.08^a

处理 Treat- ment	施药前吐絮率 The boll opening rate before the defoliant spraying(%)	施药第14 d 吐絮率 The boll opening rate on the 14 th day of defoliant spraying(%)	施药第25 d 吐絮率 The boll opening rate on the 25 th day of defoliant spraying(%)
K₁	41.76^b	88.45^b	98.11^a
K₂	44.74^b	91.11^b	98.19^a
K₃	52.97^a	94.77^a	98.59^a
K₄	46.20^b	89.38^b	98.26^a

处理 Treat- ment	施药前吐絮率 The boll opening rate before the defoliant spraying(%)	施药第14 d 吐絮率 The boll opening rate on the 14 th day of defoliant spraying(%)	施药第25 d 吐絮率 The boll opening rate on the 25 th day of defoliant spraying(%)
K₁	41.76^b	88.45^b	98.11^a
K₂	44.74^b	91.11^b	98.19^a
K₃	52.97^a	94.77^a	98.59^a
K₄	46.20^b	89.38^b	98.26^a

处理 Treatment	单位面积总铃数 Total bolls per unit area (10⁴个/hm²)	单铃重 Single boll weight (g)	衣分 Lint (%)	籽棉产量 Yield of seed cotton (kg/hm²)	皮棉产量 Lint yield of cotton (kg/hm²)
K₁	115.01^a	6.10^a	44.93^a	6 317.0^a	2 840.47^a
K₂	105.39^b	6.37^a	43.9b	6 007.5^c	2 638.40^c
K₃	100.56^b	6.43^a	44.97^a	5 811.5^d	2 613.60^c
K₄	108.99^ab	6.13^a	45.00^a	6 045.0^b	2 721.47^b

脱叶剂对机采棉不同种植模式脱叶效果、产量及品质的影响

Effects of defoliants on defoliation, yield and quality of machine-picked cotton in different planting modes

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 21

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

处理 Treatments		上半部平均长度 Upper half mean Length (mm)	长度整齐度指数 Uniformity index (%)	断裂比强度 Specific strength at break (CN/tex)	断裂伸长率 Elongation at break (%)	短纤维指数 Short fibre index (%)	马克隆值 Micronaire	成熟度 Maturity
K₁	清水	29.80^a	85.80^a	31.00^a	11.73^bc	5.17^a	4.37^a	0.82^a
K₁	脱叶剂	29.53^ab	85.47^a	29.80^a	11.93^abc	5.60^a	3.97^a	0.82^a
K₂	清水	29.87^a	84.53^a	29.27^a	11.73^bc	5.93^a	4.60^a	0.83^a
K₂	脱叶剂	29.90^a	85.30^a	29.67^a	11.33^c	5.80^a	4.33^a	0.82^a
K₃	清水	30.10^a	85.13^a	28.83^a	13.03^a	5.93^a	4.23^a	0.81^a
K₃	脱叶剂	30.07^a	85.40^a	29.93^a	11.67^bc	5.23^a	4.37^a	0.82^a
K₄	清水	29.23^ab	85.17^a	27.90^a	12.77^ab	6.17^a	4.43^a	0.82^a
K₄	脱叶剂	28.40^b	84.23^a	29.90^a	11.93^abc	5.80^a	4.10^a	0.82^a

[1]	陈茂光, 林涛, 张昊, 刘海军, 王一帆, 汤秋香. 地膜类型对棉花生长的影响及自身降解和回收特性分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2101-2108.
[2]	杨川, 张凯, 陈冰, 张慧, 柳萍, 常松, 盛建东. 棉花植株形态特征对不同水分状况的响应[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2120-2127.
[3]	杨国江, 陈云, 林祥群, 何江勇, 刘盛林, 曲永清. 氮肥减施下有机肥替代对滴灌棉花产量、氮素吸收利用及土壤硝态氮的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2138-2145.
[4]	杨红梅, 张跃强, 史应武, 吾买尔江·库尔班, 林青, 王宁, 楚敏, 曾军. 不同类型叶面肥喷施对冬小麦籽粒产量和品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2182-2188.
[5]	刘玉芳, 张志刚, 李长城, 李宏, 程平, 杨璐. 不同温度和成熟度对杏贮藏期腐烂率和品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2189-2197.
[6]	巩多蕊, 杨莉玲, 韩江, 杨忠强, 刘佳, 文钰, 朱占江, 崔宽波. 模拟冷链处理下不同储藏温度对杏果实贮藏期细胞膜脂过氧化及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2198-2207.
[7]	李自芹, 陈雅, 李文绮, 贾文婷, 郭慧静, 宋方圆, 赵志永, 刘成江. 不同预冷方式结合H₂O₂处理对绿糖心冬枣贮藏期间品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2208-2215.
[8]	王心, 林涛, 崔建平, 吴凤全, 唐志轩, 崔来园, 郭仁松, 王亮, 郑子漂. 种植模式与灌溉定额对机采长绒棉产量及纤维品质形成的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1821-1829.
[9]	李雪玲, 郭俊先, 陈莉, 宋鹤岭, 张众. 不同覆膜宽度对棉花农田环境的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1840-1847.
[10]	韩守安, 王敏, 麦合木提·图如普, 谢辉, 艾尔买克·才卡斯木, 刘佳乐, 张雯, 潘明启. 不同光质处理对赤霞珠葡萄叶片光合特性及果实品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1894-1903.
[11]	肖乐乐, 李志强, 冶军, 蒲敏, 阮向阳, 刘怀金. 肽肥与镁配施对森田尼无核葡萄品质和产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1904-1912.
[12]	张超, 白云岗, 郑明, 肖军, 丁平. 极端干旱区葡萄水肥协同效应[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1931-1939.
[13]	王苹, 孔娜, 潘俨, 孙席平, 徐斌, 张婷. ClO₂熏蒸处理对湿鲜核桃贮藏效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1940-1949.
[14]	郑贺云, 姚军, 李超, 张翠环, 耿新丽. 不同贮藏温度对甜瓜品质的影响及预测模型建立[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1950-1957.
[15]	阳妮, 玛依拉·玉素音, 杨延龙, 李春平, 张大伟, 徐海江, 赖成霞. 黄萎病枯斑型与黄化型病症棉花叶片的植物挥发物对比[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1975-1986.