甜玉米不同生育期施用改良剂组合对其产量及河西走廊次生盐碱化土壤性质的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.07.007

新疆农业科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (7): 1615-1625.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.07.007

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学·耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇下一篇

甜玉米不同生育期施用改良剂组合对其产量及河西走廊次生盐碱化土壤性质的影响

钟辉丽¹(), 武均²(), 陆祥生¹

1.武威市农业技术推广中心,甘肃武威 733000
2.甘肃农业大学资源与环境学院,兰州 730070

收稿日期:2023-08-09 出版日期:2024-07-20 发布日期:2024-09-04
通信作者: 武均(1989-),男,甘肃人,讲师,博士,研究方向为保护性耕作、土壤生态学,(E-mail)wujun210@126.com
作者简介:钟辉丽(1990-),女,甘肃人,农艺师,硕士,研究方向为土壤改良及经济作物栽培,(E-mail)1073306149@qq.com
基金资助:
甘肃省中青年科技基金项目“滴灌模式下次生盐渍化土壤改良技术研究与示范”(20JR5RE636);甘肃省民生科技专项“戈壁农业优质蔬菜丰产栽培技术研究与示范推广”(20CX9NH172)

Effects of different growth stage application combinations of amendments on secondary salinized soil properties and sweet corn yield in Hexi Corrido

ZHONG Huili¹(), WU Jun²(), LU Xiangsheng¹

1. Wuwei Agricultural Technology Extension Center, Wuwei Gansu 733000,China
2. College of Resources and Environment, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070,China

Received:2023-08-09 Published:2024-07-20 Online:2024-09-04
Supported by:
Gansu science and technology fund for young and middle-aged people "Research and demonstration on improving technique of secondary salinization soil under drip irrigation"(20JR5RE636);Gansu province livelihood science and technology special "Study and demonstration on high yield cultivation technology of high quality vegetables in Gobi Agriculture"(20CX9NH172)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究前期筛选出禾康盐碱土改良剂不同生育期施用组合对河西走廊次生盐碱化土壤改良效果以及甜玉米生长的影响,以确定改良剂最佳施用方案。【方法】以甜玉2号为供试玉米,在整个玉米生育期结合6种不同组合的3次灌水施用盐碱土改良剂,研究其对河西走廊甜玉米出苗率、保苗率、株高、茎粗、植株鲜重、产量构成、产量、经济效益及土层盐碱指标的影响。【结果】随播种水施一次盐碱土改良剂,出苗率提高8.38%~11.00%,随苗水施第2次,保苗率提高13.31%~15.64%;吐丝期施第3次改良剂秃尖长缩短44.30%,一级品率最高达46.27%,且产量及经济效益最好;不同时期施入盐碱土改良剂可降低土壤盐碱指标:pH值、EC、ESP分别降低了0.15~0.35、31~146 μs/cm、0.8%~4.8%。【结论】施用禾康盐碱土改良剂改良土壤的最佳施用时期方案为播种期+改良剂37.5 kg/hm²、苗期+改良剂30 kg/hm²、吐丝期+改良剂15 kg/hm²。

关键词: 甜玉米; 生育期; 次生盐碱化; 聚马来酸

Abstract:

【Objective】To study the effects of different application combinations of Hexi Corridor saline-alkali soil improv on secondary saline-alkali soil improvement and sweet corn growth in Hexi Corridor, so as to determine the best application plan of improv.【Methods】Taking Tianyu 2 as the test crop, the effects of saline-alkali soil improv on seedling emergence rate, seedling preservation rate, plant height, stem diameter, plant fresh weight, yield composition, yield, economic benefit and soil saline-alkali index of sweet corn in the whole maize growth period were studied.【Results】The seedling emergence rate increased by 8.38%-11.00% when saline soil amendment was applied once with seeding water, and the seedling preservation rate increased by 13.31%-15.64% when saline soil amendment was applied twice with seeding water. The bald tip length of the third amendment was shortened by 44.30%, the rate of the first grade was up to 46.27%, and the yield and economic benefit were the best. Saline-alkali soil amendments applied in different periods can reduce soil saline-alkali indices, pH, EC and ESP by 0.15-0.35, 31-146 μs/cm and 0.8%-4.8%, respectively. 【Conclusion】In summary, the best application time scheme of Hokang saline-alkali soil improver for soil improvement is: sowing time + improver 37.5 kg/hm², seedling stage + improver 30 kg/hm², spinning stage + improver 15 kg/hm².

Key words: growth period; secondary salinization; polymaleic acid; sweet corne

中图分类号:

S156.4

钟辉丽, 武均, 陆祥生. 甜玉米不同生育期施用改良剂组合对其产量及河西走廊次生盐碱化土壤性质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(7): 1615-1625.

ZHONG Huili, WU Jun, LU Xiangsheng. Effects of different growth stage application combinations of amendments on secondary salinized soil properties and sweet corn yield in Hexi Corrido[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(7): 1615-1625.

图/表 12

参考文献 40

[1]	杨晓玲, 丁文魁, 孙占峰, 等. 近60年河西走廊东部气象干旱演变特征[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(1):242-248.
	YANG Xiaoling, DING Wenkui, SUN Zhanfeng, et al. Evolution characteristics of meteorological drought in eastern Hexi Corridor in recent 60 years[J]. Study on soil and water conservation, 2022, 29(1):242-248.
[2]	李菊, 张富仓, 王艳丽, 等. 灌水量和滴灌频率对甘肃省河西地区春玉米生长和水分利用的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2021, 26(10):8-20.
	LI Ju, ZHANG Fucang, WANG Yanli, et al. Effects of irrigation amount and drip irrigation frequency on growth and water use of spring maize in Hexi area of Gansu Province[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2021, 26(10):8-20.
[3]	Yao W W, Ma X Y,Li, et al. Simulation of point source wetting pattern of subsurface drip irrigation[J]. Irrigation Science, 2011, 29(4):331-339.
[4]	Elmaloglou S, Diamantopoulos E. Simulation of soil water dynamics under subsurface drip irrigation from line sources[J]. Water Resources Management, 2013, 27(12):4131-4148.
[5]	缑倩倩, 韩致文, 王国华. 中国西北干旱区灌区土壤盐渍化问题研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(29):246-250.
	GOU Qianqian, HAN Zhiwen, WANG Guohua. Research progress on soil salinization in arid areas of Northwest China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2011, 27(29):246-250.
[6]	刘新永, 田长彦. 棉花膜下滴灌盐分动态及平衡研究[J]. 水土保持学报, 2005, 19(6):84-87.
	LIU Xinyong, TIAN Changyan. Study on dynamic and balance of salt under mulch drip irrigation in cotton[J]. Journal of soil and water conservation, 2005, 19(6):84-87.
[7]	王志春, 李取生, 李秀军, 等. 松嫩平原盐碱化土地治理与农业持续发展对策[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2004, 12(2):161-163.
	Wang Zhichun, Li Qusheng, Li Xiujun, et al. Management of salinized land and countermeasures for sustainable agricultural development in Songnen Plain[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2004, 12(2):161-163.
[8]	高伟, 邵玉翠, 杨军, 等. 盐碱地土壤改良剂筛选研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(21):154-160.
	Gao Wei, Shao Yucui, Yang Jun, et al. Screening of soil amendments for saline-alkali soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2011, 27(21):154-160.
[9]	王斌, 马兴旺, 单娜娜, 等. 新疆盐碱地土壤改良剂的选择与应用[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2004, 28(72):111-115.
	Wang Bin, Ma Xingwang, Shan Nana, et al. Selection and application of soil amendments in Xinjiang Saline-alkali land[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2004, 28(72):111-115.
[10]	梁继华, 黄白红, 田学辉. 不同土壤改良剂对玉米产量及根际土壤微生物和酶活性的影响[J]. 山东农业科学. 2022, 54(1):80-85.
	Liang Jihua, Huang Baihong, Tian Xuehui. Effects of Different soil amendments on Maize yield and rhizosphere soil microbial and enzyme activities[J]. Journal of Shandong Agricultural Sciences. 2002, 54(1):80-85.
[11]	黄晶, 孔亚丽, 徐青山, 等. 盐渍土壤特征及改良措施研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2022, 54(1):18-24.
	Huang Jing, Kong Yali, Xu Qingshan, et al. Research progress on characteristics of saline soil and improvement measures[J]. Soil Science, 202, 54(1):18-24.
[12]	刘洋, 侯志研. 不同土壤改良剂对风沙土壤养分及玉米产量的影响[J]. 辽宁农业科学, 2020,(1):40-44.
	Liu Yang, HOU Zhiyan. Effects of different soil amendments on soil nutrients of aeolian sand and maize yield[J]. Liaoning Agricultural Sciences, 2020,(1):40-44.
[13]	张玉风, 林海涛, 王江涛, 等. 盐碱土壤调理剂对玉米生长及土壤的改良效果[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017,(1):124-138.
	Zhang Yufeng, Lin Haitao, Wang Jiangtao, et al. Effects of saline-alkali soil conditioner on maize growth and soil improvement[J]. Soil and Fertilizer, 2017,(1):124-138.
[14]	王涵, 张忠庆, 刘金华, 等. 不同改良剂对对苏打土的改良效果[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2020, 42(5):569-575.
	Wang Han, Zhang Zhongqing, Liu Jinhua, et al. Effect of different amendments on the improvement of soda soil[J]. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 20, 42(5):569-575.
[15]	屈忠义, 孙慧慧, 杨博, 等. 不同改良剂对盐碱地土壤微生物与加工番茄产量的影响[J]. 农业机械学报. 2021, 52(4):311-318,350.
	Qu Zhongyi, Sun Huihui, Yang Bo, et al. Effects of different amendments on soil microorganisms and yield of processed tomato in saline-alkali soil[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery. 2021, 52(4):311-318,350.
[16]	钟辉丽, 陆祥生, 刘兴成, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对滴灌模式下次生盐碱化土壤改良效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(32):89-95.
	ZHONG Huili, LU Xiangsheng, LIU Xingcheng, et al. Effect of different soil amendments on secondary salinized soil under drip irrigation[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(32):89-95.
[17]	赵军, 杨珍. 不同盐碱地土壤改良剂对玉米生长及产量的影响[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2020,(10):79-81.
	Zhao Jun, Yang Zhen. Effects of soil amendments on growth and yield of maize in different saline-alkali soils[J]. Agricultural Science and Technology Bulletin, 2020,(10):79-81.
[18]	侯志荣, 纪金生. 盐碱改良剂—禾康盐碱清除剂在棉地的使用效果[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2006,(2):30.
	Hou Zhirong, Ji Jinsheng. Application effect of Saline-alkali improved-Hekang saline-alkali scavenger in cotton field[J]. Agricultural Science and Technology Bulletin, 2006,(2):30.
[19]	茹先古丽·力提甫. 禾康盐碱土壤调理剂对棉田应用效果试验[J]. 农村科技, 2013,(5):26-27.
	Ruxian Guli. Li Tifu. Application effect test of Hekang saline-alkali soil conditioner on cotton field[J]. Rural Science and Technology, 2013,(5):26-27.
[20]	吴秀华. 水稻田应用禾康盐碱土壤调理剂示范总结[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2013,(5):45.
	Wu Xiuhua. Demonstration summary of application of Hekang Saline-alkali soil conditioner in paddy field[J]. Agricultural Development & Equipment, 2013,(5):45.
[21]	纪立东, 杨建国, 樊丽琴, 等. BGA土壤调理剂在盐碱障碍型土壤上的应用效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(12):135-141.
	JI Lidong, YANG Jianguo, FAN Liqin, et al. Study on the application effect of BGA soil conditioner on saline-alkali barrier soil[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2012, 28(12):135-141.
[22]	王文杰, 关宇, 祖元刚, 等. 施加改良剂对重度盐碱地土壤盐碱动态及草本植物生长的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(6):2835-2844.
	WANG Wenjie, GUAN Yu, ZU Yuangang, et al. Effects of amendments on soil saline-alkali dynamics and herbaceous plant growth in heavily saline-alkali soil[J]. Acta ecologica sinica, 2009, 29(6):2835-2844.
[23]	黄昌勇. 土壤学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1999,213-227.
	HUANG Changyong. Soil science[M]. Bei Jing: China Agriculture Press, 1999,213-227.
[24]	薛莲, 孙振荣, 蒲明, 等. 长效缓控复合肥与土壤改良剂配施对旱地春玉米产量及生育性状的影响[J]. 农业科技与信息, 2018,(15):14-15.
	Xue Lian, Sun Zhenrong, Pu Ming, et al. Effects of long-term slow control compound fertilizer combined with soil Amendment on yield and growth characters of spring maize in dryland[J]. Agricultural Science and Information, 2018,(15):14-15.
[25]	王金芬, 刘雪梅, 王希英. 土壤盐碱改良剂施用量及施用时期研究[J]. 安徽农业科学. 2007, 35(1):148-149.
	WANG Jinfen, LIU Xuemei, WANG Xiying. Study on the application rate and application period of soil saline-alkali amendment[J]. Agricultural Sciences of Anhui. 2007, 35(1):148-149.
[26]	肖国举, 罗成科, 张峰举, 等. 脱硫石膏施用时期和深度对改良碱化土壤效果的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2009, 27(6):197-203.
	XIAO Guoju, LUO Chengke, ZHANG Fengju, et al. Effect of applying period and depth of desulphurized gypsum on soil improvement[J]. Agricultural Research in Arid regions, 2009, 27(6):197-203.
[27]	郑普山, 冯悦晨, 郝保平, 等. 不同时期施用土壤改良剂对河灌区苏打盐碱地土壤及青贮玉米生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013, 29(30):55-59.
	ZHENG Pushan, FENG Yuechen, HAO Baoping, et al. Effects of soil amendments applied at different periods on the growth of silage maize and soda-saline soil in river irrigation area[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2013, 29(30):55-59.
[28]	王相平, 杨劲松, 张胜江, 等. 石膏和腐植酸配施对干旱盐碱区土壤改良及棉花生长的影响[J]. 土壤, 2020, 52(2):327-332.
	Wang Xiangping, Yang Jinsong, Zhang Shengjiang, et al. Effects of combined application of gypsum and humic acid on soil improvement and cotton growth in arid saline area[J]. Soil Science, 2020, 52(2):327-332.
[29]	蔺吉祥, 李晓宇, 唐佳红, 等. 盐碱胁迫对小麦种子萌发、早期幼苗生长及 Na⁺、K⁺代谢的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2011, 31(6):1148-1152.
	Lin Jixiang, Li Xiaoyu, Tang Jiahong, et al. Effects of Saline-alkali Stress on Seed germination,early seedling growth and Na+ and K+ metabolism in Wheat[J]. Journal of Wheat Crops, 2011, 31(6):1148-1152.
[30]	张燕, 冯浩, 汪有科, 等. 新型土壤改良剂水分特性及其对玉米苗期的影响研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2004, 28(72):111-115.
	Zhang Yan, Feng Hao, Wang Youke, et al. Water characteristics of novel soil amendments and their effects on maize seedling stage[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2004, 28(72):111-115.
[31]	韩政宇, 张江辉, 白云岗, 等. 土壤改良剂对南疆棉田“干播湿出”模式土壤性状和出苗率的影响研究究[J]. 节水灌溉, 2022,(8):46-52,59.
	HAN Z Y, ZHANG J H, BAI Y G, et al. Effects of soil amendments on soil properties and seedling emergence rate of dry sowing and wet emergence mode in cotton field in Southern Xinjiang[J]. Water Saving Irrigation, 2022,(8):46-52,59.
[32]	杜康瑞, 段喜明, 赵晋忠, 等. 盐碱地改良剂与肥料混配对土壤对土壤PH值及生育性状的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2019, 34(3):180-185.
	Du Kangrui, Duan Ximing, Zhao Jinzhong, et al. Effects of Saline-alkali soil amendment and fertilizer on soil PH value and growth characteristics[J]. Journal of North China Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 34(3):180-185.
[33]	刘兴舟, 李猛, 陈瑞佶, 等. 夏玉米穗部性状对种植密度的响应研究[J]. 农学学报, 2020, 10(10):12-18.
	LIU Xingzhou, LI Meng, CHEN Ruiji, et al. Study on the response of summer maize ear traits to planting density[J]. Journal of agronomy, 2020, 10(10):12-18.
[34]	张正, 董春林, 杨睿, 等. 不同类型玉米品种产量与穗部性状的相关性分析[J]. 中国种业, 2022, 2(23):80-84.
	ZHANG Zheng, DONG Chunlin, YANG Rui, et al. Correlation analysis between yield and ear traits of different maize varieties[J]. China Seed Industry, 2022, 2(23):80-84.
[35]	王学君, 董晓霞, 董亮, 等. 盐碱土壤改良剂对盐碱地理化性状的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2016,(7):103-105.
	Wang Xuejun, Dong Xiaoxia, Dong Liang, et al. Effects of saline-alkali soil amendments on physicochemical properties of saline-alkali soil[J]. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2016,(7):103-105.
[36]	崔文明, 张中东, 赵成萍, 等. 新型改良剂对盐碱地土壤性质和玉米生长的影响[J]. 山西农业大学学报(责任科学版), 2014, 34(6):531-534.
	Cui Wenming, Zhang Zhongdong, Zhao Chengping, et al. Effects of novel amendments on soil properties and maize growth in saline-alkali soil[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University(Responsible Science Edition), 2014, 34(6):531-534.
[37]	马列, 刘金华, 杨靖民, 等. 新型复合改良剂对苏打盐碱土的改良效果研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021,(5):144-149.
	Ma L, Liu J H, Yang J M, et al. Study on the improvement effect of new compound improvers on soda saline-alkali soil[J]. Soil and Fertilizer in China, 2021,(5):144-149.
[38]	Li Y B, Xu Q T. Study on the effect of the use of FGD gypsum into the alkalization soil to improve soil property[J]. Appl Mech Materials, 2014,448:482-487.
[39]	刘易, 冯耀祖, 黄建, 等. 土壤盐碱改良剂施用量及施用时期研究[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2015, 33(1):146-152.
	Liu Yi, Feng Yaozu, Huang Jian, et al. Study on application amount and application period of soil saline-alkali amendments[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2015, 33(1):146-152.
[40]	白旭明, 张文太, 张庆伟, 等. 北疆棉田施用土壤改良剂的增产控盐效果[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(11):77-81.
	Bai Xuming, Zhang Wentai, Zhang Qingwei, et al. Effects of soil amendments on yield increase and salt control in cotton fields in northern Xinjiang[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 48(11):77-81.

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	5	0	0	25

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	19	11
比例	63%	37%

摘要

139

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	139

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	46	93
比例	33%	67%

等级 Level	成熟度 Maturity	外观指标 Appearance of indicators	果穗长度 Spike length (mm)	单价(元/穗) Unit price(Yuan /ear)
一级Level 1	完熟期	籽粒排列整齐、无虫蛀、无残损、无霉变、新鲜、无失水。切除秃尖	L≥180	0.68
二级Level 2	完熟期		160≤L<180	0.43
三级Level 3	完熟期		L<160	0.20

等级 Level	成熟度 Maturity	外观指标 Appearance of indicators	果穗长度 Spike length (mm)	单价(元/穗) Unit price(Yuan /ear)
一级Level 1	完熟期	籽粒排列整齐、无虫蛀、无残损、无霉变、新鲜、无失水。切除秃尖	L≥180	0.68
二级Level 2	完熟期		160≤L<180	0.43
三级Level 3	完熟期		L<160	0.20

处理 Treatments	测定值Value				较对照增减百分数(%)
处理 Treatments	出苗数 Emergence number (株/hm²)	出苗率 Emergence efficiency (%)	成苗数 Seedling survive number (株/hm²)	成苗率 Seedling survive rate (%)	出苗数 Emergence number	出苗率 Emergence efficiency	成苗数 Seedling survive number	成苗率 Seedling survive rate
T₁	61 086±944^a	98.32±1.52^a	58 613±565^a	94.34±0.91^a	12.6	12.6	19.9	19.9
T₂	60 459±633^a	97.31±1.02^a	58 123±441^a	93.55±0.71^a	11.4	11.4	18.9	18.9
T₃	59 458±882^a	95.70±1.42^a	57 433±273^a	92.44±0.44^a	9.6	9.6	17.5	17.5
T₄	61 023±367^a	98.22±0.59^a	58 016±289^a	93.38±0.47^a	12.5	12.5	18.7	18.7
T₅	60 117±671^a	96.76±1.08^a	57 164±814^a	92.01±1.31^a	10.8	10.8	16.9	16.9
T₆	60 123±633^a	96.77±1.02^a	58 370±1740^a	93.95±2.80^a	10.8	10.8	19.4	19.4
CK	54 252±764^b	87.32±1.23^b	48 896±596^b	78.70±0.96^b	0	0	0	0

处理 Treatments	测定值Value				较对照增减百分数(%)
处理 Treatments	出苗数 Emergence number (株/hm²)	出苗率 Emergence efficiency (%)	成苗数 Seedling survive number (株/hm²)	成苗率 Seedling survive rate (%)	出苗数 Emergence number	出苗率 Emergence efficiency	成苗数 Seedling survive number	成苗率 Seedling survive rate
T₁	61 086±944^a	98.32±1.52^a	58 613±565^a	94.34±0.91^a	12.6	12.6	19.9	19.9
T₂	60 459±633^a	97.31±1.02^a	58 123±441^a	93.55±0.71^a	11.4	11.4	18.9	18.9
T₃	59 458±882^a	95.70±1.42^a	57 433±273^a	92.44±0.44^a	9.6	9.6	17.5	17.5
T₄	61 023±367^a	98.22±0.59^a	58 016±289^a	93.38±0.47^a	12.5	12.5	18.7	18.7
T₅	60 117±671^a	96.76±1.08^a	57 164±814^a	92.01±1.31^a	10.8	10.8	16.9	16.9
T₆	60 123±633^a	96.77±1.02^a	58 370±1740^a	93.95±2.80^a	10.8	10.8	19.4	19.4
CK	54 252±764^b	87.32±1.23^b	48 896±596^b	78.70±0.96^b	0	0	0	0

处理 Treatments	测定值 Value				较CK增加百分数
处理 Treatments	株高 (cm)	茎粗 (mm)	穗位高 (cm)	植株鲜重 (kg)	株高 (%)	茎粗 (%)	穗位高 (%)	植株鲜重 (%)
T₁	259.93^a	27.94^a	117.36^a	1.21^a	0.8	9.4	8	44
T₂	256.00^a	27.78^a	116.80^a	0.97^d	-0.7	8.8	7.5	15.5
T₃	259.20^a	27.27^a	115.73^a	1.01^c	0.5	6.8	6.5	20.2
T₄	261.63^a	26.84^ab	114.20^ab	1.09^b	1.4	5.1	5.1	29.8
T₅	255.42^a	26.69^b	110.87^b	0.97^d	-1	4.5	2.1	15.5
T₆	256.17^a	26.21^b	110.07^b	0.91^e	-0.7	2.7	1.3	8.3
CK	257.93^a	25.53^c	108.63^b	0.84^f	0	0	0	0

甜玉米不同生育期施用改良剂组合对其产量及河西走廊次生盐碱化土壤性质的影响

Effects of different growth stage application combinations of amendments on secondary salinized soil properties and sweet corn yield in Hexi Corrido

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 12

参考文献 40

相关文章 15

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

处理 Treatments	头水 First irrigate (4月22日)	二水 Second irrigate (6月2日)	三水 Third irrigate (6月14日)	四水 Tourth irrigate (6月24日)	五水 Fifth Irrigate (7月5日)	六水 Sixth irrigate (7月17日)	七水 Seventh irrigate (7月26日)	八水 Eighth irrigate (8月4日)
处理 Treatments	播种期	苗期	拔节期	大喇叭口期	抽穗期	吐丝期	灌浆期	乳熟期
T₁(拔节期)	37.5	30	15	—	—	—	—	—
T₂(大喇叭口期)	37.5	30	—	15	—	—	—	—
T₃(抽穗期)	37.5	30	—	—	15	—	—	—
T₄(吐丝期)	37.5	30	—	—	—	15	—	—
T₅(灌浆期)	37.5	30	—	—	—	—	15	—
T₆(乳熟期)	37.5	30	—	—	—	—	—	15
CK(不使用)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

处理 Treatments		穗长 Spike length (cm)	穗粗 Ear diameter (mm)	秃尖长 Bald length (cm)	穗行数 Rows per ear	行粒数 Grains per row	单果重 Single fruit weight (kg)	成穗数 Fruit number (个/hm²)	鲜穗产量 Fresh ear yield (kg/hm²)
测定值 Value	T₁	19.02±0.73^b	43.95±0.91^bc	2.70±0.27^d	14.67±0.67^ab	33.93±1.73b	0.285±0.06^de	58 521±524^a	14 676.43±1 300.30^d
	T₂	19.29±1.05^ab	55.47±1.24^a	2.55±0.24^e	14.40±0.40^ab	35.25±1.28^ab	0.293±0.04^d	58 001±307^a	15 994.29±2 320.04^cd
	T₃	19.18±1.12^ab	56.00±0.83^a	2.13±0.52^f	14.67±0.53^ab	35.53±1.13^ab	0.345±0.02^b	57 204±302^a	17 843.76±1 170.42^b
	T₄	20.09±1.10^a	56.65±0.53^a	2.10±0.94^f	15.26±0.45^a	36.20±1.20^a	0.364±0.07^a	57 915±436^a	18 980.68±1 054.02^a
	T₅	19.20±2.03^ab	46.03±2.61^b	3.37±0.79^c	14.51±0.93^ab	32.87±3.13^bc	0.322±0.02^c	55 005±789^b	17 964.04±1 646.93^b
	T₆	19.36±1.16^ab	45.79±1.36^b	3.55±0.59^b	15.07±0.78^a	32.12±3.80^bc	0.310±0.02^cd	52 099±981^bc	16 733.24±1 144.08^c
	CK	18.79±0.87^b	43.63±2.19^b	3.77±0.77^a	14.88±0.67^a	29.81±2.00^c	0.281±0.03^de	48 767±437^c	1 3703.53±1 463.01^e
较对照增减 Increase or decrease compared to the control (%)	T₁	1.2	0.7	-28.4	-1.4	13.8	1.4	20.0	7.1
	T₂	2.7	27.1	-32.4	-3.2	18.2	4.3	18.9	16.7
	T₃	2.1	28.4	-43.5	-1.4	19.2	22.8	17.3	30.2
	T₄	6.9	29.8	-44.3	2.6	21.4	29.5	18.8	38.5
	T₅	2.2	5.5	-10.6	-2.5	10.3	14.6	12.8	31.1
	T₆	3.0	5.0	-5.8	1.3	7.7	10.3	6.8	22.1
	CK	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

处理 Treatments	一级品率 First-grade product rate (%)	二级品率 Second-grade product rate (%)	三级品率 Third- grade product rate (%)	一级品率 First-grade product rate (%)	二级品率 Second- grade product rate (%)	三级品率 Third- grade product rate (%)	合计 Total (%)
T₁	20.10±4.94^d	47.23±6.47^a	32.61±5.13^c	20.1	47.23	32.61	100
T₂	41.52±8.96^b	32.17±6.60^d	26.31±5.60^d	41.5	32.2	26.3	100
T₃	45.61±5.12^a	40.20±6.00^c	14.19±2.35^e	45.6	40.2	14.2	100
T₄	46.27±7.03^a	43.39±7.47^b	10.34±6.20^f	46.3	43.4	10.3	100
T₅	26.85±7.72^c	22.73±4.40^e	50.42±7.53^a	26.9	22.7	50.4	100
T₆	17.39±3.83^e	33.63±7.33^d	48.98±5.47^ab	17.4	33.6	49	100
CK	13.12±4.97^f	45.55±3.10^ab	41.33±8.22^b	13.1	45.6	41.3	100

处理 Treatments	产出(元/hm²) Output (yuan/hm²)	投入(元/hm²) Input (yuan/hm²)	纯收益(元/hm²) Net value (yuan/hm²)	产投比 Input- output ratio	产出增减 Output (%)	投入增减 Input (%)	纯收益增减 Net value (%)
T₁	23 166.99^c	16 762.50^a	6 404.49^c	1.38^c	29.1	14	98
T₂	27 190.10^b	16 762.50^a	10 427.60^b	1.62^b	51.6	14	222.4
T₃	27 697.23^b	16 762.50^a	10 934.73^b	1.65^b	54.4	14	238.1
T₄	29 617.04^a	16 762.50^a	12 854.54^a	1.77^a	65.1	14	297.5
T₅	22 107.60^cd	16 762.50^a	5 345.10^d	1.32^c	23.2	14	65.2
T₆	22 046.96^d	16 762.50^a	5 284.46^d	1.32^c	22.9	14	63.4
CK	17 933.63^e	14 700.00^b	3 233.63^e	1.22^d	0	0	0

[1]	陈芳, 李字辉, 王兵跃, 孙孝贵, 张庭军. 微生物菌剂对冬小麦生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(8): 1853-1860.
[2]	杨彩霞, 顾炜, 关媛, 瞿静涛, 党冬冬, 吴鹏昊, 郑洪建. 甜玉米基因Sugary1(Su1)序列的变异分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(7): 1605-1614.
[3]	阿里别里根·哈孜太, 哈尼帕·哈再斯, 祖勒胡玛尔·乌斯满江, 姚庆, 守合热提·牙地卡, 侯献飞, 李强, 张正. 新疆伊犁河谷地区引进大豆品种适应性分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 326-335.
[4]	郭航, 张瑞, 王智, 乔坤云, 闫娜娜, 赵多勇. 库尔勒香梨果实生育期品质变化规律[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(2): 377-384.
[5]	马晓梅, 李保成, 王新, 赵素琴, 刘永昌, 韩焕勇, 周小凤, 董承光. 早熟陆地棉品种与气候因子互作对棉纤维品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(2): 216-226.
[6]	宋磊, 王彦超, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 张建, 马春晖. 不同收获期燕麦青贮品质分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(10): 1938-1946.
[7]	王俊铎, 郑巨云, 龚照龙, 艾先涛, 郭江平, 莫明, 李雪源, 梁亚军. 基于生育期和农艺性状的棉花品种(系)适应性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(8): 1393-1403.
[8]	布哈丽且木·阿不力孜, 袁杰, 朱小霞, 张燕红, 陈长青, 赵志强, 贾春平, 文孝荣, 康民泰, 唐福森, 王奉斌. 新疆稻区优质丰产水稻品种筛选与评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(11): 2108-2117.
[9]	王文军, 蔡勇, 陈奇凌, 郑强卿, 王晶晶, 支金虎, 王振东. 不同模式下整形方式对骏枣养分运转分配过程中光合特性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(1): 112-119.
[10]	岳春芳,孙珍珍,李艺珍. 滴灌棉田非生育期春灌温度和灌水量对土壤盐分的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(3): 414-419.
[11]	刘华君,陈友强,林明,白晓山,邓超宏,潘竟海,李承业. 基于生育期、经济产量籽瓜优良品系筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(3): 430-438.
[12]	唐怀君;谢小清;赵连佳;孙宝成;黎裕;王天宇;刘成. 欠量灌水方法用于玉米抗旱性鉴定和评价研究[J]. , 2017, 54(5): 804-810.
[13]	潘竟海;邓超宏;白晓山;林明;徐其江;王冬梅;朱光辉;陈友强;刘华君;廖晴;李承业. 两种玛咖品种类型繁育种株农艺性状的差异性比较[J]. , 2017, 54(2): 297-303.
[14]	田锋;范术丽;魏恒玲;王寒涛;赵树琪;庞朝友;胡守林;喻树迅. 短季棉生育期性状的遗传分析[J]. , 2017, 54(2): 197-205.
[15]	何苗;陈虹;潘存德;胡渊;肖真真;王蓓. 新温185号核桃叶片和果实矿质元素浓度时节变化及其相关性[J]. , 2015, 52(8): 1399-1405.