Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (12): 2969-2978.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.12.012
• Crop Genetics and Breeding · Cultivation Physiology · Germplasm Resources • Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Zhenyang1(), WANG Jichuan1(), YUAN Jie2, WANG Fengbin3
Received:
2021-12-30
Online:
2022-12-20
Published:
2023-01-30
Correspondence author:
WANG Jichuan
Supported by:
通讯作者:
王冀川
作者简介:
王振洋(1996-),男,新疆乌鲁木齐人,硕士研究生,研究方向为作物栽培生理,(E-mail)583775080@qq.com
基金资助:
CLC Number:
WANG Zhenyang, WANG Jichuan, YUAN Jie, WANG Fengbin. Effects of Different Nitrogen Application Rates and Planting Densities on Population Growth and Yield Components of Rice[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(12): 2969-2978.
王振洋, 王冀川, 袁杰, 王奉斌. 不同施氮量与栽插密度对水稻群体生长及产量构成的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(12): 2969-2978.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.xjnykx.com/EN/10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.12.012
Fig.1 Response of growth and decline of tillers of rice population at different stages to different planting densities and nitrogen application rates Note:RS, ETS, MTS, LTS, MJS, FHS, FS,WRS and FRS of the abscissa axis represent rejuvenation stage, early tillering stage, middle tillering stage, late tillering stage, Jointing stage, full heading stage, filling stage,wax ripening stage and full ripe stage respectively. Different small in the same column meant significant difference (P<0.05) in different density treatments at the same irrigation level, The same as below
处理 Treatment | 回归方程 Regression equation | R2 | K (t/hm2) | t1 (d) | t2 (d) | tm (d) | Vm (t/(hm2·d)) | t (d) | Gt (t/hm2) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
施氮量 N rate (kg/hm2) | N0 | Y=14.485 5/[1+e(3.874 7-0.046 434X1)] | 0.993 8 | 14.53 | 54.90 | 112.24 | 83.57 | 0.17 | 57.34 | 9.57 |
N1 | Y=17.162 0/[1+e(3.538 8-0.045 648X1)] | 0.992 0 | 17.23 | 48.43 | 106.96 | 77.69 | 0.19 | 58.53 | 11.35 | |
N2 | Y=23.395 1/[1+e(3.422 8-0.041 222X1)] | 0.991 3 | 23.56 | 50.83 | 115.98 | 83.41 | 0.24 | 65.14 | 15.51 | |
N3 | Y=27.608 2/[1+e(3.288 8-0.036 424X1)] | 0.986 8 | 27.99 | 53.96 | 128.36 | 91.16 | 0.25 | 74.40 | 18.43 | |
插秧密度 Planting density (104 /hm2) | D1 | Y=17.100 6/[1+e(3.478 4-0.043 147X1)] | 0.990 4 | 17.19 | 49.81 | 111.90 | 80.86 | 0.18 | 62.09 | 11.32 |
D2 | Y=18.547 7/[1+e(3.500 1-0.042 354X1)] | 0.990 5 | 18.65 | 51.28 | 114.55 | 82.92 | 0.19 | 63.27 | 12.28 | |
D3 | Y=20.479 0/[1+e(3.525 1-0.041 581X1)] | 0.991 5 | 20.60 | 52.85 | 117.30 | 85.07 | 0.21 | 64.45 | 13.56 | |
D4 | Y=24.640 2/[1+e(3.462 8-0.039 423X1)] | 0.990 6 | 24.84 | 54.19 | 122.39 | 88.29 | 0.24 | 68.19 | 16.36 | |
D5 | Y=22.021 8/[1+e(3.365 5-0.040 986X1)] | 0.992 0 | 22.19 | 49.70 | 115.35 | 82.52 | 0.22 | 65.65 | 14.61 | |
施氮量 ×插秧 密度 N rate × Planting density | N0×D1 | Y=11.997 9/[1+e(3.967 6-0.047 916X1)] | 0.991 5 | 12.03 | 55.15 | 110.66 | 82.90 | 0.14 | 55.52 | 7.92 |
N0×D2 | Y=13.384 1/[1+e(4.014 1-0.047 545X1)] | 0.993 8 | 13.41 | 56.53 | 112.46 | 84.49 | 0.16 | 55.93 | 8.83 | |
N0×D3 | Y=15.128 4/[1+e(3.999 5-0.045 962X1)] | 0.993 2 | 15.17 | 58.22 | 116.03 | 87.12 | 0.17 | 57.81 | 9.99 | |
N0×D4 | Y=15.821 6/[1+e(3.774 2-0.045 637X1)] | 0.994 9 | 15.87 | 53.62 | 112.01 | 82.82 | 0.18 | 58.39 | 10.45 | |
N0×D5 | Y=16.094 4/[1+e(3.716 9-0.046 189X1)] | 0.993 9 | 16.16 | 51.76 | 109.52 | 80.64 | 0.18 | 57.76 | 10.64 | |
N1×D1 | Y=15.547 9/[1+e(3.615 1-0.046 392X1)] | 0.992 0 | 15.60 | 49.34 | 106.82 | 78.08 | 0.18 | 57.48 | 10.27 | |
N1×D2 | Y=16.275 1/[1+e(3.631 5-0.046 514X1)] | 0.989 9 | 16.33 | 49.52 | 106.86 | 78.19 | 0.19 | 57.33 | 10.75 | |
N1×D3 | Y=16.962 6/[1+e(3.606 0-0.046 651X1)] | 0.990 3 | 17.02 | 48.84 | 106.05 | 77.45 | 0.20 | 57.21 | 11.21 | |
N1×D4 | Y=19.851 9/[1+e(3.389 1-0.041 754X1)] | 0.989 7 | 19.99 | 49.32 | 113.69 | 81.50 | 0.20 | 64.37 | 13.16 | |
N1×D5 | Y=17.298 3/[1+e(3.532 0-0.048 119X1)] | 0.996 1 | 17.37 | 45.77 | 101.36 | 73.56 | 0.21 | 55.59 | 11.44 | |
N2×D1 | Y=19.753 0/[1+e(3.454 1-0.043 165X1)] | 0.989 8 | 19.87 | 49.26 | 111.37 | 80.31 | 0.21 | 62.11 | 13.08 | |
N2×D2 | Y=20.460 7/[1+e(3.435 7-0.042 894X1)] | 0.991 6 | 20.59 | 49.13 | 111.68 | 80.40 | 0.22 | 62.55 | 13.56 | |
N2×D3 | Y=23.404 9/[1+e(3.465 7-0.040 996X1)] | 0.992 0 | 23.57 | 52.15 | 117.65 | 84.90 | 0.24 | 65.50 | 15.52 | |
N2×D4 | Y=28.377 2/[1+e(3.520 1-0.040 164X1)] | 0.991 7 | 28.59 | 54.63 | 121.48 | 88.05 | 0.28 | 66.85 | 18.83 | |
N2×D5 | Y=25.033 0/[1+e(3.282 8-0.040 307X1)] | 0.990 3 | 25.26 | 48.46 | 115.39 | 81.92 | 0.25 | 66.93 | 16.63 | |
N3×D1 | Y=21.069 5/[1+e(3.196 4-0.039 018X1)] | 0.986 8 | 21.29 | 47.84 | 117.18 | 82.51 | 0.20 | 69.35 | 14.02 | |
N3×D2 | Y=24.363 9/[1+e(3.272 3-0.037 122X1)] | 0.985 3 | 24.67 | 52.43 | 125.36 | 88.90 | 0.22 | 72.93 | 16.24 | |
N3×D3 | Y=26.804 3/[1+e(3.341 9-0.037 162X1)] | 0.988 9 | 27.14 | 54.31 | 127.06 | 90.68 | 0.25 | 72.75 | 17.87 | |
N3×D4 | Y=35.484 6/[1+e(3.387 4-0.035 015X1)] | 0.985 7 | 36.08 | 59.12 | 136.55 | 97.83 | 0.31 | 77.43 | 23.76 | |
N3×D5 | Y=30.774 4/[1+e(3.253 8-0.035 350X1)] | 0.986 9 | 31.29 | 54.67 | 131.57 | 93.12 | 0.27 | 76.90 | 20.60 |
Table 1 Dynamic characteristic values of rice dry matter accumulation under different nitrogen application rates and transplanting densities
处理 Treatment | 回归方程 Regression equation | R2 | K (t/hm2) | t1 (d) | t2 (d) | tm (d) | Vm (t/(hm2·d)) | t (d) | Gt (t/hm2) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
施氮量 N rate (kg/hm2) | N0 | Y=14.485 5/[1+e(3.874 7-0.046 434X1)] | 0.993 8 | 14.53 | 54.90 | 112.24 | 83.57 | 0.17 | 57.34 | 9.57 |
N1 | Y=17.162 0/[1+e(3.538 8-0.045 648X1)] | 0.992 0 | 17.23 | 48.43 | 106.96 | 77.69 | 0.19 | 58.53 | 11.35 | |
N2 | Y=23.395 1/[1+e(3.422 8-0.041 222X1)] | 0.991 3 | 23.56 | 50.83 | 115.98 | 83.41 | 0.24 | 65.14 | 15.51 | |
N3 | Y=27.608 2/[1+e(3.288 8-0.036 424X1)] | 0.986 8 | 27.99 | 53.96 | 128.36 | 91.16 | 0.25 | 74.40 | 18.43 | |
插秧密度 Planting density (104 /hm2) | D1 | Y=17.100 6/[1+e(3.478 4-0.043 147X1)] | 0.990 4 | 17.19 | 49.81 | 111.90 | 80.86 | 0.18 | 62.09 | 11.32 |
D2 | Y=18.547 7/[1+e(3.500 1-0.042 354X1)] | 0.990 5 | 18.65 | 51.28 | 114.55 | 82.92 | 0.19 | 63.27 | 12.28 | |
D3 | Y=20.479 0/[1+e(3.525 1-0.041 581X1)] | 0.991 5 | 20.60 | 52.85 | 117.30 | 85.07 | 0.21 | 64.45 | 13.56 | |
D4 | Y=24.640 2/[1+e(3.462 8-0.039 423X1)] | 0.990 6 | 24.84 | 54.19 | 122.39 | 88.29 | 0.24 | 68.19 | 16.36 | |
D5 | Y=22.021 8/[1+e(3.365 5-0.040 986X1)] | 0.992 0 | 22.19 | 49.70 | 115.35 | 82.52 | 0.22 | 65.65 | 14.61 | |
施氮量 ×插秧 密度 N rate × Planting density | N0×D1 | Y=11.997 9/[1+e(3.967 6-0.047 916X1)] | 0.991 5 | 12.03 | 55.15 | 110.66 | 82.90 | 0.14 | 55.52 | 7.92 |
N0×D2 | Y=13.384 1/[1+e(4.014 1-0.047 545X1)] | 0.993 8 | 13.41 | 56.53 | 112.46 | 84.49 | 0.16 | 55.93 | 8.83 | |
N0×D3 | Y=15.128 4/[1+e(3.999 5-0.045 962X1)] | 0.993 2 | 15.17 | 58.22 | 116.03 | 87.12 | 0.17 | 57.81 | 9.99 | |
N0×D4 | Y=15.821 6/[1+e(3.774 2-0.045 637X1)] | 0.994 9 | 15.87 | 53.62 | 112.01 | 82.82 | 0.18 | 58.39 | 10.45 | |
N0×D5 | Y=16.094 4/[1+e(3.716 9-0.046 189X1)] | 0.993 9 | 16.16 | 51.76 | 109.52 | 80.64 | 0.18 | 57.76 | 10.64 | |
N1×D1 | Y=15.547 9/[1+e(3.615 1-0.046 392X1)] | 0.992 0 | 15.60 | 49.34 | 106.82 | 78.08 | 0.18 | 57.48 | 10.27 | |
N1×D2 | Y=16.275 1/[1+e(3.631 5-0.046 514X1)] | 0.989 9 | 16.33 | 49.52 | 106.86 | 78.19 | 0.19 | 57.33 | 10.75 | |
N1×D3 | Y=16.962 6/[1+e(3.606 0-0.046 651X1)] | 0.990 3 | 17.02 | 48.84 | 106.05 | 77.45 | 0.20 | 57.21 | 11.21 | |
N1×D4 | Y=19.851 9/[1+e(3.389 1-0.041 754X1)] | 0.989 7 | 19.99 | 49.32 | 113.69 | 81.50 | 0.20 | 64.37 | 13.16 | |
N1×D5 | Y=17.298 3/[1+e(3.532 0-0.048 119X1)] | 0.996 1 | 17.37 | 45.77 | 101.36 | 73.56 | 0.21 | 55.59 | 11.44 | |
N2×D1 | Y=19.753 0/[1+e(3.454 1-0.043 165X1)] | 0.989 8 | 19.87 | 49.26 | 111.37 | 80.31 | 0.21 | 62.11 | 13.08 | |
N2×D2 | Y=20.460 7/[1+e(3.435 7-0.042 894X1)] | 0.991 6 | 20.59 | 49.13 | 111.68 | 80.40 | 0.22 | 62.55 | 13.56 | |
N2×D3 | Y=23.404 9/[1+e(3.465 7-0.040 996X1)] | 0.992 0 | 23.57 | 52.15 | 117.65 | 84.90 | 0.24 | 65.50 | 15.52 | |
N2×D4 | Y=28.377 2/[1+e(3.520 1-0.040 164X1)] | 0.991 7 | 28.59 | 54.63 | 121.48 | 88.05 | 0.28 | 66.85 | 18.83 | |
N2×D5 | Y=25.033 0/[1+e(3.282 8-0.040 307X1)] | 0.990 3 | 25.26 | 48.46 | 115.39 | 81.92 | 0.25 | 66.93 | 16.63 | |
N3×D1 | Y=21.069 5/[1+e(3.196 4-0.039 018X1)] | 0.986 8 | 21.29 | 47.84 | 117.18 | 82.51 | 0.20 | 69.35 | 14.02 | |
N3×D2 | Y=24.363 9/[1+e(3.272 3-0.037 122X1)] | 0.985 3 | 24.67 | 52.43 | 125.36 | 88.90 | 0.22 | 72.93 | 16.24 | |
N3×D3 | Y=26.804 3/[1+e(3.341 9-0.037 162X1)] | 0.988 9 | 27.14 | 54.31 | 127.06 | 90.68 | 0.25 | 72.75 | 17.87 | |
N3×D4 | Y=35.484 6/[1+e(3.387 4-0.035 015X1)] | 0.985 7 | 36.08 | 59.12 | 136.55 | 97.83 | 0.31 | 77.43 | 23.76 | |
N3×D5 | Y=30.774 4/[1+e(3.253 8-0.035 350X1)] | 0.986 9 | 31.29 | 54.67 | 131.57 | 93.12 | 0.27 | 76.90 | 20.60 |
施氮量 N rate | 密度 Density | 有效穗数 Effective panicles (104/hm2) | 穗粒数 Grains per ear (Grain/ear) | 结实率 Seed setting rate (%) | 千粒重 1000-Grain Weight (g) | 产量 Yield (t/hm2) | 分蘖成穗率 Percentage of tillers formed (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N0 | D1 | 192.58±6.94d | 122.60±6.65a | 84.02±1.74b | 24.53±1.36b | 5.77±0.21c | 88.18±7.27a |
D2 | 218.77±8.67c | 114.81±2.41b | 86.34±1.36a | 25.03±1.61b | 6.27±0.29bc | 87.66±2.39a | |
D3 | 223.02±11.56c | 113.52±4.62b | 87.13±5.55a | 27.35±0.60a | 6.90±0.49a | 77.15±4.09b | |
D4 | 263.38±6.94a | 111.63±5.78b | 87.34±1.36a | 24.48±0.21b | 7.20±0.50a | 77.65±5.16b | |
D5 | 235.06±2.31b | 107.85±1.93c | 88.13±4.55a | 26.33±0.41a | 6.68±0.29ab | 58.49±2.41c | |
平均Mean | 226.56±7.28 | 114.08±4.28 | 86.59±2.91 | 25.54±0.84 | 6.57±0.36 | 77.83±4.26 | |
N1 | D1 | 254.88±4.62d | 132.99±0.87a | 77.16±1.40c | 23.85±0.67ab | 8.09±0.43b | 87.15±3.57a |
D2 | 266.68±6.94c | 126.97±5.78ab | 81.99±3.13b | 25.01±0.40a | 8.49±0.74ab | 79.33±4.44ab | |
D3 | 276.12±2.89bc | 126.14±1.83b | 83.12±1.60b | 23.82±0.59ab | 8.30±0.17ab | 73.73±0.70b | |
D4 | 318.60±11.95a | 118.00±6.36c | 86.20±0.52a | 24.29±0.39ab | 9.14±0.69a | 74.66±3.62b | |
D5 | 288.86±9.25b | 110.92±4.62d | 88.04±0.88a | 23.32±0.91b | 7.46±0.26c | 61.59±3.11c | |
平均Mean | 281.03±7.13 | 123.00±3.89 | 83.30±1.51 | 24.06±0.59 | 8.29±0.46 | 75.29±3.09 | |
N2 | D1 | 313.88±7.32d | 149.62±4.05a | 76.14±2.07c | 23.15±0.96b | 10.87±0.49c | 87.19±3.44a |
D2 | 336.54±10.79c | 140.54±7.03b | 77.18±1.90c | 23.19±0.68b | 10.95±0.12c | 87.02±3.75a | |
D3 | 356.95±11.08b | 137.47±0.48b | 80.95±2.50b | 24.17±0.98ab | 11.88±0.89b | 77.65±4.68b | |
D4 | 399.08±25.24a | 136.05±2.60b | 83.65±1.70ab | 25.13±1.27a | 13.61±0.43a | 75.12±4.59b | |
D5 | 381.85±6.94a | 123.31±4.53c | 85.14±3.54a | 23.23±0.18ab | 10.95±0.69bc | 60.15±2.88c | |
平均Mean | 357.66±12.27 | 137.40±3.74 | 80.61±2.34 | 23.78±0.82 | 11.65±0.53 | 77.43±3.87 | |
N3 | D1 | 291.70±9.25d | 133.34±5.40a | 72.25±1.10c | 22.76±0.33c | 8.84±0.20c | 70.70±4.98a |
D2 | 318.60±14.45c | 129.80±5.40ab | 72.90±0.52bc | 22.53±0.02c | 9.34±0.82bc | 72.57±3.71a | |
D3 | 344.56±12.91b | 126.02±3.85bc | 73.42±0.73bc | 22.72±0.83c | 9.86±0.43b | 66.71±3.39ab | |
D4 | 371.46±3.47a | 120.71±4.53c | 75.68±1.91ab | 28.83±1.43a | 12.94±1.01a | 60.68±2.93b | |
D5 | 360.61±3.08ab | 112.44±3.96d | 76.89±0.35a | 25.32±1.45b | 10.25±0.31b | 49.38±1.95c | |
平均Mean | 337.39±8.63 | 124.46±4.63 | 74.23±0.92 | 24.43±0.81 | 10.25±0.55 | 64.01±3.39 | |
ANOVA检验F值F value of ANOVA | |||||||
F | N | 386.15** | 12.80** | 49.65** | 10.10** | 459.54** | 103.97** |
D | 65.23** | 40.36** | 27.71** | 5.83** | 20.01** | 51.74** | |
N×D | 1.17 | 0.96 | 2.00 | 5.71** | 2.66* | 0.74 |
Table 2 Effects of different nitrogen application rates and transplanting density on rice yield and its components
施氮量 N rate | 密度 Density | 有效穗数 Effective panicles (104/hm2) | 穗粒数 Grains per ear (Grain/ear) | 结实率 Seed setting rate (%) | 千粒重 1000-Grain Weight (g) | 产量 Yield (t/hm2) | 分蘖成穗率 Percentage of tillers formed (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N0 | D1 | 192.58±6.94d | 122.60±6.65a | 84.02±1.74b | 24.53±1.36b | 5.77±0.21c | 88.18±7.27a |
D2 | 218.77±8.67c | 114.81±2.41b | 86.34±1.36a | 25.03±1.61b | 6.27±0.29bc | 87.66±2.39a | |
D3 | 223.02±11.56c | 113.52±4.62b | 87.13±5.55a | 27.35±0.60a | 6.90±0.49a | 77.15±4.09b | |
D4 | 263.38±6.94a | 111.63±5.78b | 87.34±1.36a | 24.48±0.21b | 7.20±0.50a | 77.65±5.16b | |
D5 | 235.06±2.31b | 107.85±1.93c | 88.13±4.55a | 26.33±0.41a | 6.68±0.29ab | 58.49±2.41c | |
平均Mean | 226.56±7.28 | 114.08±4.28 | 86.59±2.91 | 25.54±0.84 | 6.57±0.36 | 77.83±4.26 | |
N1 | D1 | 254.88±4.62d | 132.99±0.87a | 77.16±1.40c | 23.85±0.67ab | 8.09±0.43b | 87.15±3.57a |
D2 | 266.68±6.94c | 126.97±5.78ab | 81.99±3.13b | 25.01±0.40a | 8.49±0.74ab | 79.33±4.44ab | |
D3 | 276.12±2.89bc | 126.14±1.83b | 83.12±1.60b | 23.82±0.59ab | 8.30±0.17ab | 73.73±0.70b | |
D4 | 318.60±11.95a | 118.00±6.36c | 86.20±0.52a | 24.29±0.39ab | 9.14±0.69a | 74.66±3.62b | |
D5 | 288.86±9.25b | 110.92±4.62d | 88.04±0.88a | 23.32±0.91b | 7.46±0.26c | 61.59±3.11c | |
平均Mean | 281.03±7.13 | 123.00±3.89 | 83.30±1.51 | 24.06±0.59 | 8.29±0.46 | 75.29±3.09 | |
N2 | D1 | 313.88±7.32d | 149.62±4.05a | 76.14±2.07c | 23.15±0.96b | 10.87±0.49c | 87.19±3.44a |
D2 | 336.54±10.79c | 140.54±7.03b | 77.18±1.90c | 23.19±0.68b | 10.95±0.12c | 87.02±3.75a | |
D3 | 356.95±11.08b | 137.47±0.48b | 80.95±2.50b | 24.17±0.98ab | 11.88±0.89b | 77.65±4.68b | |
D4 | 399.08±25.24a | 136.05±2.60b | 83.65±1.70ab | 25.13±1.27a | 13.61±0.43a | 75.12±4.59b | |
D5 | 381.85±6.94a | 123.31±4.53c | 85.14±3.54a | 23.23±0.18ab | 10.95±0.69bc | 60.15±2.88c | |
平均Mean | 357.66±12.27 | 137.40±3.74 | 80.61±2.34 | 23.78±0.82 | 11.65±0.53 | 77.43±3.87 | |
N3 | D1 | 291.70±9.25d | 133.34±5.40a | 72.25±1.10c | 22.76±0.33c | 8.84±0.20c | 70.70±4.98a |
D2 | 318.60±14.45c | 129.80±5.40ab | 72.90±0.52bc | 22.53±0.02c | 9.34±0.82bc | 72.57±3.71a | |
D3 | 344.56±12.91b | 126.02±3.85bc | 73.42±0.73bc | 22.72±0.83c | 9.86±0.43b | 66.71±3.39ab | |
D4 | 371.46±3.47a | 120.71±4.53c | 75.68±1.91ab | 28.83±1.43a | 12.94±1.01a | 60.68±2.93b | |
D5 | 360.61±3.08ab | 112.44±3.96d | 76.89±0.35a | 25.32±1.45b | 10.25±0.31b | 49.38±1.95c | |
平均Mean | 337.39±8.63 | 124.46±4.63 | 74.23±0.92 | 24.43±0.81 | 10.25±0.55 | 64.01±3.39 | |
ANOVA检验F值F value of ANOVA | |||||||
F | N | 386.15** | 12.80** | 49.65** | 10.10** | 459.54** | 103.97** |
D | 65.23** | 40.36** | 27.71** | 5.83** | 20.01** | 51.74** | |
N×D | 1.17 | 0.96 | 2.00 | 5.71** | 2.66* | 0.74 |
施氮量 N rate | 密度 Density | 食味值 Taste value | 直链淀粉 Amylose (%) | 蛋白质 Protein (%) | 糙米率 Brown rice rate (%) | 精米率 Milled rice rate (%) | 长宽比 Aspect ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N0 | D1 | 78.60±1.99a | 18.81±0.33ab | 7.31±0.22a | 80.83±1.63a | 66.43±0.93bc | 1.88±0.03a |
D2 | 77.80±31.81a | 18.30±0.36c | 7.25±0.13a | 81.07±1.44a | 66.67±1.39abc | 1.90±0.02a | |
D3 | 78.76±1.96a | 19.26±0.43a | 7.11±0.16a | 81.22±1.35a | 67.41±0.99abc | 1.88±0.04a | |
D4 | 77.89±0.93a | 19.11±0.33ab | 7.15±0.20a | 81.45±1.73a | 68.39±1.05ab | 1.93±0.05a | |
D5 | 78.80±2.23a | 19.35±0.25a | 7.20±0.14a | 81.56±1.45a | 68.56±1.77a | 1.90±0.03a | |
平均Mean | 78.37±1.78 | 18.96±0.34 | 7.20±0.17 | 81.22±1.52 | 67.49±1.23 | 1.90±0.03 | |
N1 | D1 | 77.72±2.08a | 18.75±0.28ab | 7.60±0.16ab | 81.64±1.10a | 68.96±2.28b | 1.90±0.05b |
D2 | 77.00±1.33ab | 18.65±0.46ab | 7.71±0.16ab | 81.64±1.73a | 69.19±1.48b | 1.99±0.05a | |
D3 | 74.84±1.93b | 19.05±0.34a | 7.50±0.19b | 81.82±2.08a | 69.36±2.08b | 1.88±0.04b | |
D4 | 76.67±1.90ab | 18.25±0.31ab | 7.80±0.14a | 82.02±1.68a | 71.13±0.91ab | 1.91±0.03b | |
D5 | 76.93±1.15ab | 17.40±0.40b | 7.80±0.16a | 83.03±1.73a | 73.68±0.98a | 1.92±0.04ab | |
平均Mean | 76.63±1.68 | 18.42±0.36 | 7.68±0.16 | 82.03±1.67 | 70.46±1.55 | 1.92±0.04 | |
N2 | D1 | 72.79±1.36ab | 16.30±0.17a | 8.36±0.25ab | 83.05±1.67a | 73.84±1.84a | 1.95±0.04a |
D2 | 74.17±1.61a | 15.80±0.33a | 8.20±0.17b | 83.07±1.66a | 73.91±0.89a | 1.93±0.03ab | |
D3 | 73.11±1.56ab | 16.21±0.77a | 8.36±0.21ab | 83.91±1.65a | 73.94±1.80a | 1.88±0.04b | |
D4 | 71.27±1.31b | 15.80±0.33a | 8.25±0.17b | 83.78±1.68a | 74.11±0.91a | 1.96±0.02a | |
D5 | 72.45±1.35ab | 15.06±0.20b | 8.61±0.27a | 84.03±2.80a | 74.21±0.87b | 1.92±0.04ab | |
平均Mean | 72.76±1.44 | 15.83±0.36 | 8.35±0.21 | 83.57±1.89 | 74.00±1.26 | 1.93±0.44 | |
N3 | D1 | 69.23±0.80a | 14.41±0.33ab | 9.25±0.29ab | 84.59±2.48a | 76.00±1.47b | 1.94±0.04ab |
D2 | 68.60±1.89a | 14.91±0.24a | 9.00±0.08b | 84.68±2.83a | 76.88±3.66b | 1.98±0.02a | |
D3 | 69.34±1.12a | 14.05±0.34b | 9.56±0.23a | 86.39±1.95a | 76.90±1.82b | 1.93±0.04ab | |
D4 | 68.66±1.19a | 14.20±0.25ab | 9.31±0.17ab | 87.17±1.94a | 77.73±2.46ab | 1.91±0.05b | |
D5 | 67.72±1.02a | 14.51±0.24ab | 9.45±0.13a | 87.52±1.83a | 80.64±1.94a | 1.92±0.04ab | |
平均Mean | 68.71±1.21 | 14.41±0.28 | 9.31±0.18 | 86.07±2.21 | 77.63±2.27 | 1.94±0.04 | |
ANOVA检验F值 | |||||||
F | N | 70.55** | 349.08** | 432.25** | 13.88** | 81.42** | 13.11** |
D | 0.44 | 3.06* | 1.37 | 0.89 | 3.53* | 2.25 | |
N×D | 0.59 | 3.94** | 1.15 | 0.15 | 0.51 | 0.73 |
Table 3 Effects of nitrogen application rate and density on rice quality
施氮量 N rate | 密度 Density | 食味值 Taste value | 直链淀粉 Amylose (%) | 蛋白质 Protein (%) | 糙米率 Brown rice rate (%) | 精米率 Milled rice rate (%) | 长宽比 Aspect ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N0 | D1 | 78.60±1.99a | 18.81±0.33ab | 7.31±0.22a | 80.83±1.63a | 66.43±0.93bc | 1.88±0.03a |
D2 | 77.80±31.81a | 18.30±0.36c | 7.25±0.13a | 81.07±1.44a | 66.67±1.39abc | 1.90±0.02a | |
D3 | 78.76±1.96a | 19.26±0.43a | 7.11±0.16a | 81.22±1.35a | 67.41±0.99abc | 1.88±0.04a | |
D4 | 77.89±0.93a | 19.11±0.33ab | 7.15±0.20a | 81.45±1.73a | 68.39±1.05ab | 1.93±0.05a | |
D5 | 78.80±2.23a | 19.35±0.25a | 7.20±0.14a | 81.56±1.45a | 68.56±1.77a | 1.90±0.03a | |
平均Mean | 78.37±1.78 | 18.96±0.34 | 7.20±0.17 | 81.22±1.52 | 67.49±1.23 | 1.90±0.03 | |
N1 | D1 | 77.72±2.08a | 18.75±0.28ab | 7.60±0.16ab | 81.64±1.10a | 68.96±2.28b | 1.90±0.05b |
D2 | 77.00±1.33ab | 18.65±0.46ab | 7.71±0.16ab | 81.64±1.73a | 69.19±1.48b | 1.99±0.05a | |
D3 | 74.84±1.93b | 19.05±0.34a | 7.50±0.19b | 81.82±2.08a | 69.36±2.08b | 1.88±0.04b | |
D4 | 76.67±1.90ab | 18.25±0.31ab | 7.80±0.14a | 82.02±1.68a | 71.13±0.91ab | 1.91±0.03b | |
D5 | 76.93±1.15ab | 17.40±0.40b | 7.80±0.16a | 83.03±1.73a | 73.68±0.98a | 1.92±0.04ab | |
平均Mean | 76.63±1.68 | 18.42±0.36 | 7.68±0.16 | 82.03±1.67 | 70.46±1.55 | 1.92±0.04 | |
N2 | D1 | 72.79±1.36ab | 16.30±0.17a | 8.36±0.25ab | 83.05±1.67a | 73.84±1.84a | 1.95±0.04a |
D2 | 74.17±1.61a | 15.80±0.33a | 8.20±0.17b | 83.07±1.66a | 73.91±0.89a | 1.93±0.03ab | |
D3 | 73.11±1.56ab | 16.21±0.77a | 8.36±0.21ab | 83.91±1.65a | 73.94±1.80a | 1.88±0.04b | |
D4 | 71.27±1.31b | 15.80±0.33a | 8.25±0.17b | 83.78±1.68a | 74.11±0.91a | 1.96±0.02a | |
D5 | 72.45±1.35ab | 15.06±0.20b | 8.61±0.27a | 84.03±2.80a | 74.21±0.87b | 1.92±0.04ab | |
平均Mean | 72.76±1.44 | 15.83±0.36 | 8.35±0.21 | 83.57±1.89 | 74.00±1.26 | 1.93±0.44 | |
N3 | D1 | 69.23±0.80a | 14.41±0.33ab | 9.25±0.29ab | 84.59±2.48a | 76.00±1.47b | 1.94±0.04ab |
D2 | 68.60±1.89a | 14.91±0.24a | 9.00±0.08b | 84.68±2.83a | 76.88±3.66b | 1.98±0.02a | |
D3 | 69.34±1.12a | 14.05±0.34b | 9.56±0.23a | 86.39±1.95a | 76.90±1.82b | 1.93±0.04ab | |
D4 | 68.66±1.19a | 14.20±0.25ab | 9.31±0.17ab | 87.17±1.94a | 77.73±2.46ab | 1.91±0.05b | |
D5 | 67.72±1.02a | 14.51±0.24ab | 9.45±0.13a | 87.52±1.83a | 80.64±1.94a | 1.92±0.04ab | |
平均Mean | 68.71±1.21 | 14.41±0.28 | 9.31±0.18 | 86.07±2.21 | 77.63±2.27 | 1.94±0.04 | |
ANOVA检验F值 | |||||||
F | N | 70.55** | 349.08** | 432.25** | 13.88** | 81.42** | 13.11** |
D | 0.44 | 3.06* | 1.37 | 0.89 | 3.53* | 2.25 | |
N×D | 0.59 | 3.94** | 1.15 | 0.15 | 0.51 | 0.73 |
[1] | 贾春平, 王奉斌, 袁杰, 等. 水氮互作对新疆粳稻’新稻11号’产量、品质和群体结构的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2022, 20(2):555-563. |
JIA Chunping, WANG Fengbing, YUAN Jie, et al. Effects of water and nitrogen interaction on yield, quality and population structure of japonica rice ‘Xindao 11’ in Xinjiang[J]. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2022, 20(2):555-563. | |
[2] |
吴培, 陈天晔, 袁嘉琦, 等. 施氮量和直播密度互作对水稻产量形成特征的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2019, 33(3):269-281.
DOI |
WU Pei, CHEN Tianye, YUAN Jiaqi, et al. Effects of interaction between nitrogen application rate and direct-sowing density on yield formation characteristics of rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2019, 33(3):269-281.
DOI |
|
[3] | 买文选, 布哈丽且木·阿不力孜, 张波, 等. 不同栽培模式下水稻产量差异的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(36):1-5. |
MAI Wenxuan, Buhaliqiem Abliz, ZHANG Bo, et al. Rice Yield under different cultivation patterns[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(36):1-5. | |
[4] | 吴子帅, 李虎, 黄秋要, 等. 施氮量和栽插密度对桂育11号产量和稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(8):154-162. |
WU Zisuai, LI Hu, HUANG Qiuyao, et al. Influences of nitrogen fertilizer application rate and planting density on the yield and rice quality of Guiyu 11[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(8):154-162.
DOI |
|
[5] |
罗亢, 曾勇军, 石庆华, 等. 施氮量和密度对机直播双季稻产量与氮素利用率的影响研究[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(12):2850-2859.
DOI |
LUO Kang, ZHENG Yongjun, SHI Qianghua, et al. Effects of nitrogen application rate and density on yield and nitrogen use efficiency of double cropping rice under mechanized direct-seeding[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 35(12):2850-2859. | |
[6] | 张大光, 阎晓艳, 边秀芝. 玉米群体全生育期干物质积累特性的数学分析[J]. 吉林农业科学, 1999, 24(3):11-16. |
ZHANG Daguang, YAN Xiaoyan, BIAN Xiuzhi. Mathematical analysis of dry matter accumulation characteristics of maize population in the whole growth period[J]. Jilin Agricultural Sciences, 1999, 24(3):11-16. | |
[7] | 汤国平, 周建兵, 黄仁良, 等. 优质高产三系杂交水稻新组合软华优安占[J/OL]. 杂交水稻:1-3[2022-06-06]. |
TANG Guoping, ZHOU Jianbing, HUANG Rengliang, et al. Ruanhuayou Anzhan, a new three-line hybrid rice combination with good quality and high yield[J/OL]. Hybrid Rice:1-3[2022-06-06]. | |
[8] |
Zhang W J,; Li G H, Yang Y M, et al. Effects of nitrogen application rate and ratio on lodging resistance of super rice with different genotypes[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2014, 13(1):63-72.
DOI URL |
[9] | 秦炎, 秦亚平. 种植密度对水稻群体质量和产量形成的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2017, 56(12):2222-2225. |
QING Yan, QIN Yaping. Effects of planting density on rice population quality and grain yield formation[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 56(12):2222-2225. | |
[10] | 金芝辉, 柴有忠, 王起. 密度和施氮量对水稻甬优7850分蘖动态与产量的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2019, 60(8): 1378-1380,1384. |
JING Zhihui, CAI Youzhong, WANG Qi. Effects of transplanting density and nitrogen fertilizer on tiller growth and grain yield of rice variety Yougyou 7850[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 60(8): 1378-1380, 1384. | |
[11] | 朱聪聪, 张洪程, 郭保卫, 等. 钵苗机插密度对不同类型水稻产量及光合物质生产特性的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(1): 122-133. |
ZHU Chongchong, ZHANG Hongcheng, GUO Baowei, et al. Effect of planting density on yield and photosynthate production characteristics in different types of rice with bowl mechanical-transplanting method[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2014, 40(1): 122-133.
DOI URL |
|
[12] |
龙文飞, 傅志强, 钟娟, 等. 节水灌溉条件下氮密互作对双季晚稻丰源优299物质生产特性的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2017, 32(2):185-193.
DOI |
LONG Wengfei, FU Zhiqiang, ZHONG Juan, et al. Effects of nitrogen application and planting density on late rice Fengyuanyou 299 material production characteristics under the condition of water saving irrigation[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2017, 32(2):185-193. | |
[13] | 邓安凤, 杨从党, 陈清华, 等. 不同施肥方式对不同密度下直播稻的产量及群体光合物质生产的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2017, 23(4): 123-129. |
DENG Anfeng, YANG Chongdang, CHEN Qinghua, et al. Effects of different fertilization methods on yield and photosynthetic material production of direct seeding rice at different densities[J]. China Rice, 2017, 23(4): 123-129.
DOI |
|
[14] |
陈健晓, 王小娟, 屠乃美, 等. 高氮密植栽培对湘两优 900 产量形成及氮利用效率的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2019. 33(8) :1602-1610.
DOI |
CHEN Jianxiao, WANG Xiaojuan, TU Naimei, et al. Effects of high nitrogen rate combined with high plant density on yield formation and nitrogen utilization efficiency of Xiangliangyou 900[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019. 33(8):1602-1610. | |
[15] | 张明聪, 史国庆, 战英策, 等. 不同施肥模式与种植密度对寒地水稻分蘖动态和产量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(2):30-33. |
ZHANG Mingchong, SHI Guoqing, ZAN Yinche, et al. Effects of different fertilization patterns and planting densities on tillering dynamics and yield of rice in cold regions[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(2):30-33. | |
[16] | 李虎, 陈传华, 刘广林, 等. 种植密度和施氮量对桂育9号农艺性状及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019,(6):99-103. |
LI Hu, CHEN Chuanhua, LIU Guangling, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer application rate and planting density on agronomic traits and yield of Guiyu 9[J]. Crops, 2019,(6):99-103. | |
[17] |
Li G H, Chen Y L, Ding Y F, et al. Charactering protein fraction concentrations as influenced by nitrogen application in low-glutelin rice cultivars[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2016, 15(3) :537-544.
DOI URL |
[18] |
魏海燕, 王亚江, 孟天瑶, 等. 机插超级粳稻产量、品质及氮肥利用率对氮肥的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(2):488-496.
PMID |
WEI Haiyan, WANG Yajiang, MENG Tianyao, et al. Response of yield, quality and nitrogen use efficiency to nitrogen fertilizer from mechanical transplanting super japonica rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(2):488-496.
PMID |
|
[19] | 周培南, 冯惟珠, 许乃霞, 等. 施氮量和移栽密度对水稻产量及稻米品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业研究, 2001, 22(1):27-31. |
ZOU Peinan, FENG Weizu, XU Naixia, et al. Effect of nitrogen and density on yield and grain quality of rice[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Research, 2001, 22(1):27-31. | |
[20] | 金正勋, 秋太权, 孙艳丽, 等. 氮肥对稻米垩白及蒸煮食味品质特性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2001, 7(1):31-35. |
JIN Zhengxun, QIU Taiquan, SUN Yanli, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer on chalkiness ratio and cooking and eating quality properties of rice grain[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2001, 7(1):31-35. | |
[21] |
兰宇辰, 郭晓红, 李猛, 等. 施氮量与移栽密度互作对垦粳7号稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报 2021, 23(1):136-145.
DOI |
LAN Yucheng, GUO Xiaohong, SUN Yanli, et al. Influences of the Interaction between nitrogen fertilizer application rate and transplanting density on Kenjing 7 rice quality[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(1):136-145. |
[1] | LIU Haijun, ZHANG Hao, WANG Yifan, CHEN Maoguang, WU Fengquan, LIN Tao, TANG Qiuxiang. Effects of different mulching materials and irrigation on yield formation and effective accumulated temperature production efficiency of machine-picked cotton [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2091-2100. |
[2] | WANG Lihong, ZHANG Hongzhi, ZHANG Yueqiang, LI Jianfeng, WANG Zhong, GAO Xin, SHI Jia, WANG Chunsheng, XIA Jianqiang, FAN Zheru. Analysis of dry matter production, transport and nitrogen fertilizer utilization caused by yield Gap at different yield levels of winter wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2152-2162. |
[3] | WANG Xiaoyu, WANG Xiaoping, SHI Wenyu, LIU Meiyan, MA Jian, GUO Yunpeng, SONG Ruixin, WANG Qingtao. Responses of photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter accumulation and yield to drought stress in winter wheat at jointing stage [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2163-2172. |
[4] | XI Li, LI Siyao, XIA Xiaoying, CHEN Yuwen, LI Lin, WANG Jie, MA Xiaolong, Mierzhati Kenijialimu, Aliye Maimaiti, WANG Weixia. Study on soil nutrient characteristics of Picea schrenkiana var. Tianschanica forest with different canopy densities [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(9): 2216-2222. |
[5] | DONG Yanxue, JIA Yonghong, ZHANG Jinshan, LI Dandan, WANG Kai, LUO Siwei, WANG Runqi, SHI Shubing. Effects of different ecological conditions on dry matter accumulation and yield of spring wheat varieties [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1848-1857. |
[6] | LI Huaisheng, AI Hongyu, MENG Ling, WANG Heya, ZHANG Lei, AI Haifeng. Effects of chasing rate during peak nutrient uptake of transport under n Reduction on spring wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1866-1872. |
[7] | ZHANG Yanhong, HOU Tianyu, BA Yinhua, ZHAO Caiyue, LYU Yuping, Buhalikeimu Abunzi, ZHAO Zhiqiang, LI Dong, DU Xiaojing, YUAN Jie, WANG Fengbin. Identification and evaluation of salt tolerance of rice recombinant inbred lines at bud and seedling stages [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(5): 1041-1049. |
[8] | TIAN Wenqiang, GOU Fei, NIE Lingfan, SUN Ganggang, WANG Hongyi, SHI Yongqing, SHANG Yanming, WU Li, SHI Shubing, ZHANG Jinshan. Effects of super late sowing on photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter accumulation and yield of winter wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(5): 1059-1066. |
[9] | WANG Zepeng, LIANG Zhiguo, LIU Shengyao, JIA Songnan, FAN Fengcui, ZHANG Zhe, DU Fenghuan, QIN Yong. Effects of different nitrogen application rates on the yield, quality and nutrient accumulation of greenhouse eggplant [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(4): 951-957. |
[10] | CHENG Shaoyu, LIN Tao, WU Fengquan, HOU Peike, ZHANG Liying, TANG Qiuxiang. Effects of Density and Irrigation Quota under Drip Irrigation on Nitrate Distribution and Nitrogen Utilization in Cotton Field with Constant Row Spacing of 76 cm [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(3): 521-531. |
[11] | ZHANG Jianxun, REN Jintao, WU Haijun, WANG Cong, ZHANG Jianxin. Effect of Densities on Flower and Pod Formation and Yield of Spring Soybean Varieties with Different Plant Types [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(3): 539-546. |
[12] | ZHANG Fengjiao, WU Gang, QIN Wenbin, WANG Hui, LIU Chunyan, HE Liangrong. Effects of Different Topping Agents on Cotton Dry Matter, Yield and Quality [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(2): 279-285. |
[13] | MA Jun, WANG Jing, LI Chunyan, WANG Liang, SHI Weijun, CUI Jianping, TIAN Liwen, GUO Rensong. Effect of subsoiling depth on canopy photosynthetic characteristics and yield of cotton [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(12): 2878-2884. |
[14] | WANG Jiayong, LI Chunmei, XU Wenxiu, LI Pengcheng, ZHANG Na, LI Ling, MA Yunzhen, WANG Fang. Effects of planting density on canopy structure, canopy temperature and humidity and yield of 76 cm machine-picked cotton with equal row spacing [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(11): 2609-2617. |
[15] | WANG Haitao, LIU Cunjing, TANG Liyuan, ZHANG Sujun, CAI Xiao, LI Xinghe, MA Wenna, HAN Junwei, ZHANG Xiangyun, ZHANG Jianhong. The influence of different planting densities on agronomic traits, yield and quality of machine-picked cotton varieties [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(11): 2638-2645. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||