脱叶剂对机采棉棉铃发育及纤维品质的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2025.02.002

新疆农业科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 62 ›› Issue (2): 270-277.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2025.02.002

• 作物遗传育种·耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇下一篇

脱叶剂对机采棉棉铃发育及纤维品质的影响

胡莎莎¹^,²(), 邵丽萍³, 陈丽华¹, 宋卫平², 赵海⁴, 张新宇¹, 孙杰¹()

1.石河子大学农学院/新疆生产建设兵团绿洲生态农业重点实验室,新疆石河子 832003
2.新疆生产建设兵团第四师农业科学研究所,新疆可克达拉 835219
3.新疆生产建设兵团第八师石河子市种子管理站,新疆石河子 832000
4.石河子农业科学研究院,新疆石河子 832011

收稿日期:2024-08-21 出版日期:2025-02-20 发布日期:2025-04-17
通信作者: 孙杰(1969-),男,江苏徐州人,教授,博士,硕士生/博士生导师,研究方向为棉花遗传育种,(E-mail)sunjie@shzu.edu.cn
作者简介:胡莎莎(1996-),女,新疆伊犁人,实习研究员,硕士,研究方向棉花遗传育种,(E-mail)m19914348820@163
基金资助:
新疆生产建设兵团国际科技合作项目“棉花分子辅助轮回选择育种体系的建立及新种质创制”(2021BC001);新疆石河子市重点领域科技攻关项目“优质高效杂交棉新品种选育与应用”(2022NY01)

Effect of defoliant on boll development and fiber quality of machine-picked cotton

HU Shasha¹^,²(), SHAO Liping³, CHEN Lihua¹, SONG Weiping², ZHAO Hai⁴, ZHANG Xinyu¹, SUN Jie¹()

1. Key Laboratory of Oasis Eco-Agriculture of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps / Agricultural College of Shihezi University, Shihezi Xinjiang 832003, China
2. Research Institute of Agricultural Sciences of the Fourth Division, Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, Kekedala Xinjiang 835219, China
3. Seed Manage Station of the Eighth Division, Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, Shihezi Xinjiang 832000, China
4. Shihezi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shihezi Xinjiang 832011, China

Received:2024-08-21 Published:2025-02-20 Online:2025-04-17
Supported by:
International S&T Cooperation Projects of XPCC“Establishment of Cotton Molecular Assisted Recurrent Selection Breeding System and Development of New Germplasm”(2021BC001);Key R& D Program Project of Shihezi City“Breeding and Application of New Hybrid Cotton Varieties with High Quality and Efficiency”(2022NY01)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究脱叶剂对熟性不同棉花品种棉铃发育及发育不同时间纤维品质的影响,为生产上合理选择脱叶剂剂型和棉花品种提供理论依据。【方法】以熟性不同的2个棉花品种(早熟品种和晚熟品系)为试验材料,使用有效成分不同的2种脱叶剂(瑞脱龙和叶落空)进行喷施处理。喷施3周后,分别收获脱叶剂喷施时发育30、35、40、45和50 d和自然吐絮(CK)棉铃籽棉,测定单铃重、衣分、纤维长度、纤维整齐度、马克隆值、断裂比强度和伸长率。【结果】(1)棉花早熟品种发育40 d以上、晚熟品系发育50 d以上棉铃喷施脱叶剂对铃重影响不大,相较瑞脱龙,叶落空对铃重的影响更大。喷施2种脱叶剂后,2种不同熟性棉花品种发育不足40 d棉铃衣分均显著降低,铃期达到45 d后棉铃衣分与CK差异不显著;(2)瑞脱龙对棉花早熟品种铃期分别达到45 d的马克隆值、40 d的伸长率、35 d的纤维长度和整齐度指数、30 d的断裂比强度影响差异不显著,对于晚熟品系,同样不受影响的铃期要比早熟品种增加5~10 d以上。相较瑞脱龙,叶落空对棉花纤维各项品质指标的影响更大,且在晚熟品种上表现更显著。【结论】早熟棉花品种石大棉268发育达到40 d、晚熟品系石大棉451发育达到45 d及以上铃期的棉铃各项指标受脱叶剂的影响较小。敌草隆成分较少的瑞脱龙对棉花铃重、纤维品质的影响更小。生产上应选用早熟品种和敌草隆成分较低的脱叶剂,同时铃期达到40 d以上时喷施脱叶剂。

关键词: 棉花; 脱叶剂; 棉铃; 纤维品质

Abstract:

【Objective】The aim of the study is to clarify the effects of defoliants on the development of cotton bolls and fiber quality at different development time of cotton varieties with different maturities in the hope of providing theoretical basis for the rational selection of defoliants suitable for the varieties deployed in cotton production. 【Methods】Field experiments were carried out in 2020 and 2021. Two cotton varieties(early maturing products Shidamian 268 and Late maturing varieties Shidamian 451) that were of early or late maturity were used as the experimental materials. They were sprayed with two kinds of defoliants with the active ingredient being Ruituolong or Yeluokong. Spraying was applied on cotton plants with cotton bolls that had developed for 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 d. Three weeks after spraying, cotton bolls were harvested from each treatment, measured for single boll weight, lint percentage, fiber length, fiber uniformity, micronaire value, fiber strength and elongation rate, and then compared with CK. 【Results】(1) Defoliants had little effect on boll weight when they were applied on early-maturing and late-maturing cotton variety with 40 and 50 d old bolls, respectively, but compared to Ruituolong, Yeluokong had a greater impact on boll weight. Both defoliants had significantly negative effect on lint percentage of cotton bolls that were less than 40 d old when defoliants were applied, but such negative effect on lint percentage was not significant for >45 d cotton bolls. (2) For the early-maturing variety, Ruituolong had no significant effect on micronaire of >45 d bolls, fiber elongation rate of >40 d bolls, fiber length and uniformity index of >35 d bolls, and fiber strength of >30 d bolls. For the late maturing variety, the unaffected traits were observed for fiber from bolls that were 5-10 d older compared to the early-maturing variety. Compared to Ruituolong, Yeluokong had a stronger impact on fiber quality, particularly on fiber of the late-maturing variety. 【Conclusion】The effect of defoliants on yield components and fiber quality is minimized for >40 d bolls of early-maturing precocious variety Shidamian 268 and >45 d bolls of late-maturing Strain Shidamian 451 variety. Compared with Yeluokong, Ruituolong with less Diuron has weaker effect on cotton boll weight and fiber quality. Choose early-maturing varieties and spray defoliants with a low concentration of Diuron when bolls have developed for more than 40 d.

Key words: cotton; defoliant; cotton boll; fiber quality

中图分类号:

S562

胡莎莎, 邵丽萍, 陈丽华, 宋卫平, 赵海, 张新宇, 孙杰. 脱叶剂对机采棉棉铃发育及纤维品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(2): 270-277.

HU Shasha, SHAO Liping, CHEN Lihua, SONG Weiping, ZHAO Hai, ZHANG Xinyu, SUN Jie. Effect of defoliant on boll development and fiber quality of machine-picked cotton[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 62(2): 270-277.

图/表 4

参考文献 24

[1]	周先林, 覃琴, 王龙, 等. 脱叶催熟剂在新疆棉花生产中的应用现状[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2020, 40(2): 26-32.
	ZHOU Xianlin, QIN Qin, WANG Long, et al. Application status of defoliation and ripening agents on cotton production in Xinjiang[J]. China Plant Protection, 2020, 40(2): 26-32.
[2]	孟璐, 杜明伟, 李亚兵, 等. 几种植物生长促进剂对棉花生长及脱叶催熟剂应用效果的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2020, 47(11): 16-21. DOI
	MENG Lu, DU Mingwei, LI Yabing, et al. Impact of plant grouth promoters on cotton development and chemical havest aid application[J]. China Cotton, 2020, 47(11): 16-21. DOI
[3]	Brar Z S, Sekhon K S, Deol J S. Effect of defoliants on growth and yield of timely and late sown cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)[J]. Journal Cotton Research and Development, 1965, 9(2): 227-230.
[4]	秦维彩, 薛新宇, 崔龙飞, 等. 棉花脱叶剂施药机喷雾参数优化与试验[J]. 中国农机化学报, 2017, 38(4): 25-32.
	QIN Weicai, XUE Xinyu, CUI Longfei, et al. Optimization and test for spraying parameters of cotton defoliant sprayer[J]. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2017, 38(4): 25-32.
[5]	Çopur O, Demirel U, Polat R, et al. Effect of different defoliants and application times on the yield and quality components of cotton in semi arid conditions[J]. African Journal of Biotechnology, 2010, 9.
[6]	张立杰. 机采棉与手采棉品质差异分析[J]. 中国棉花, 2013, 40(5): 16-19. DOI
	ZHANG Lijie. Quality analysis between mechanical harvesting and hand harvesting cotton[J]. China Cotton, 2013, 40(5): 16-19. DOI
[7]	李健伟, 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): 79-84.
	LI Jianwei, SHI Hongliang, LI Chunyan, et al. Effects of cotton defoliate and quality in different machine harvesting cotton planting patterns[J]. Journal of Xinjiang Agricultural University, 2017, 40(2): 79-84.
[8]	高瑜, 徐娇, 张冰, 等. 机采棉化学脱叶伴随着剧烈的乙烯及细胞分裂素信号响应[J]. 棉花学报, 2020, 32(6): 491-500. DOI
	GAO Yu, XU Jiao, ZHANG Bing, et al. Chemical defoliation of machine-harvested cotton was accompanied by intense ethylene and cytokinin signal responses[J]. Cotton Science, 2020, 32(6): 491-500.
[9]	Akhunov A A. The effect of retardant pix and defoliant dropp on the biosynthesis of proteins in the leaves and fiber of cotton[J]. Agrokhimiya, 2005,(9): 43-50.
[10]	Snipes C E, Baskin C C. Influence of early defoliation on cotton yield, seed quality, and fiber properties[J]. Field Crops Research, 1994, 37(2): 137-143.
[11]	Faircloth J C, Edmisten K L, Wells R, et al. The influence of defoliation timing on yields and quality of two cotton cultivars[J]. Crop Science, 2004, 44(1): 165-172.
[12]	王文敏, 田景山, 张煦怡, 等. 棉花喷施脱叶剂对棉铃蔗糖代谢影响及与纤维比强度的关系[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2016, 53(9): 1580-1586.
	WANG Wenmin, TIAN Jingshan, ZHANG Xuyi, et al. Effects of spraying defoliant on sucrose metabolism of cotton boll and its relationship with fiber strength[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 53(9): 1580-1586.
[13]	刘婵. 不同脱叶剂效果及对棉花产量品质的影响[D]. 阿拉尔: 塔里木大学, 2021.
	LIU Chan. Effects of different defoliants and their effects on cotton yield and quality[D]. Aral: Tarim University, 2021.
[14]	魏鑫, 马清倩, 李春艳, 等. 脱叶剂喷施时间对棉花产量品质及种子化学成分的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(9): 1648-1655. DOI
	WEI Xin, MA Qingqian, LI Chunyan, et al. Effects of defoliant spraying time on cotton yield, quality and chemical composition of seed[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(9): 1648-1655. DOI
[15]	马辉, 戴路, 李静, 等. 棉花脱叶催熟剂综合性状效果试验研究[J]. 中国棉花, 2013, 40(4): 15-17. DOI
	MA Hui, DAI Lu, LI Jing, et al. Study on comprehensive characters of maturation and defoliation of cotton[J]. China Cotton, 2013, 40(4): 15-17. DOI
[16]	刘素华, 彭小峰, 彭延. 一种新型脱叶剂对棉花品质及种子发芽影响初探[J]. 种子, 2019, 38(10): 149-151.
	LIU Suhua, PENG Xiaofeng, PENG Yan. A preliminary study on the effect of A new type of defoliant on cotton qualityand seed germination[J]. Seed, 2019, 38(10): 149-151.
[17]	刘继华, 于凤英, 尹承佾, 等. 棉花纤维品质育种中纤维长度整齐度问题的探讨[J]. 山东农业大学学报, 1991, 22(1): 42-48.
	LIU Jihua, YU Fengying, YIN Chengyi, et al. Study on the Tiber length uniformity of cotton breeding with fiber quality[J]. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University, 1991, 22(1): 42-48.
[18]	胡晓丽, 姜艳丽, 宋建中, 等. 脱叶剂对夏播棉产量、品质及种子活力的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2015, 42(12): 10-14. DOI
	HU Xiaoli, JIANG Yanli, SONG Jianzhong, et al. Effect of defoliant on summer cotton yield, fiber quality and seed vigor[J]. China Cotton, 2015, 42(12): 10-14. DOI
[19]	Bednarz C W, Shurley W D, Anthony W S. Losses in yield, quality, and profitability of cotton from improper harvest timing[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2002, 94(5): 1004-1011.
[20]	马龙. 不同脱叶剂脱叶效果及对棉花产量品质的影响[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2017.
	MA Long. Defoliation effect of different defoliants and its effect on cotton yield and quality[D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2017.
[21]	Chandrasekaran P, Ravichandran V, Sivakumar T, et al. Influence of heat units on defoliation, physiology and yield of cotton during defoliants application[J]. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 2020: 77-84.
[22]	刘婵, 马银虎, 李田甜, 等. 不同脱叶剂对棉花产量品质的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2020, 47(11): 11-15. DOI
	LIU Chan, MA Yinhu, LI Tiantian, et al. The effect of different defoliants on cotton yield and quality[J]. China Cotton, 2020, 47(11): 11-15. DOI
[23]	樊翠芹, 王贵启, 苏立军, 等. 50%噻苯隆在棉田的应用效果及气候因素的影响[J]. 河北农业科学, 2007, 11(1): 51-54.
	FAN Cuiqin, WANG Guiqi, SU Lijun, et al. Studies on 50% thidiazuron on leaves shedding and boll open percentage of cotton and influence of climatic factor[J]. Journal of Hebei Agricultural Sciences, 2007, 11(1): 51-54.
[24]	雷斌, 张云生, 李忠华, 等. 棉花脱叶剂的田间效果筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2011, 48(12): 2321-2324.
	LEI Bin, ZHANG Yunsheng, LI Zhonghua, et al. Screening test of different disleave agents for accelerating effect[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 48(12): 2321-2324.

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	18	0	0	20

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	30	8
比例	79%	21%

摘要

180

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	180

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	43	137
比例	24%	76%

脱叶剂 Defoliants	铃期 Period of boll (d)	纤维长度 Length (mm)	整齐度指数 Unifoormity (%)	断裂比强度 Strength (cN/tex)	马克隆值 Micronaire	伸长率 Elongation(%)
瑞脱龙 Ruituolong	30	29.33±0.41^b	85.46±0.26^b	33.82±0.25^a	3.22±0.27^d	6.73±0.07^b
	35	29.51±0.33^ab	85.52±0.42^ab	33.86±0.45^a	4.02±0.33^c	6.76±0.07^b
	40	29.52±0.36^ab	85.77±0.57^a	33.82±0.65^a	4.53±0.17^b	6.84±0.07^a
	45	29.55±0.41^ab	85.79±0.63^a	33.78±0.71^a	4.82±0.28^a	6.84±0.09^a
	50	29.85±0.39^a	85.98±0.70^a	33.80±0.61^a	4.83±0.32^a	6.84±0.07^a
	CK	29.86±0.52^a	86.00±0.39^a	33.90±0.60^a	4.81±0.09^a	6.86±0.09^a
叶落空 Yeluokong	30	28.37±0.19^b	85.20±0.40^b	33.16±0.48^b	3.09±0.19^b	6.72±0.07^c
	35	28.47±0.29^b	85.44±0.64^a	33.11±0.37^b	3.28±0.24^b	6.74±0.07^bc
	40	28.51±0.42^b	85.41±0.41^a	33.14±0.48^b	4.32±0.25^a	6.77±0.07^b
	45	28.56±0.17^b	85.49±0.36^a	33.40±0.34^b	4.38±0.31^a	6.80±0.07^ab
	50	28.65±0.21^b	85.50±0.48^a	33.53±0.22^ab	4.50±0.21^a	6.83±0.07^a
	CK	29.63±0.38^a	85.73±0.35^a	33.96±0.75^a	4.81±0.05^a	6.87±0.05^a

脱叶剂 Defoliants	铃期 Period of boll (d)	纤维长度 Length (mm)	整齐度指数 Unifoormity (%)	断裂比强度 Strength (cN/tex)	马克隆值 Micronaire	伸长率 Elongation(%)
瑞脱龙 Ruituolong	30	29.33±0.41^b	85.46±0.26^b	33.82±0.25^a	3.22±0.27^d	6.73±0.07^b
	35	29.51±0.33^ab	85.52±0.42^ab	33.86±0.45^a	4.02±0.33^c	6.76±0.07^b
	40	29.52±0.36^ab	85.77±0.57^a	33.82±0.65^a	4.53±0.17^b	6.84±0.07^a
	45	29.55±0.41^ab	85.79±0.63^a	33.78±0.71^a	4.82±0.28^a	6.84±0.09^a
	50	29.85±0.39^a	85.98±0.70^a	33.80±0.61^a	4.83±0.32^a	6.84±0.07^a
	CK	29.86±0.52^a	86.00±0.39^a	33.90±0.60^a	4.81±0.09^a	6.86±0.09^a
叶落空 Yeluokong	30	28.37±0.19^b	85.20±0.40^b	33.16±0.48^b	3.09±0.19^b	6.72±0.07^c
	35	28.47±0.29^b	85.44±0.64^a	33.11±0.37^b	3.28±0.24^b	6.74±0.07^bc
	40	28.51±0.42^b	85.41±0.41^a	33.14±0.48^b	4.32±0.25^a	6.77±0.07^b
	45	28.56±0.17^b	85.49±0.36^a	33.40±0.34^b	4.38±0.31^a	6.80±0.07^ab
	50	28.65±0.21^b	85.50±0.48^a	33.53±0.22^ab	4.50±0.21^a	6.83±0.07^a
	CK	29.63±0.38^a	85.73±0.35^a	33.96±0.75^a	4.81±0.05^a	6.87±0.05^a

脱叶剂 Defoliants	铃期 Period of boll (d)	纤维长度 Length (mm)	整齐度指数 Unifoormity (%)	断裂比强度 Strength (cN/tex)	马克隆值 Micronaire	伸长率 Elongation (%)
瑞脱龙 Ruituolong	30	29.87±0.59^c	80.26±0.84^d	27.52±0.66^c	2.31±0.11^e	6.58±0.07^d
	35	30.15±0.47^c	83.29±0.77^c	29.79±0.58^b	2.56±0.13^d	6.63±0.07^d
	40	29.93±0.48^bc	83.38±0.69^bc	30.04±0.62^b	3.13±0.12^c	6.73±0.05^c
	45	30.78±0.69^b	84.01±0.41^ab	31.03±0.59^a	3.59±0.14^b	6.85±0.05^b
	50	31.60±0.37^a	84.40±0.83^a	31.15±0.54^a	3.98±0.09^a	6.93±0.05^a
	CK	31.90±0.47^a	84.48±0.53^a	31.21±0.60^a	4.02±0.17^a	6.95±0.05^a
叶落空 Yeluokong	30	29.94±0.66^d	80.18±0.76^d	26.95±0.62^c	2.20±0.09^e	6.50±0.08^e
	35	30.43±0.33^c	83.00±0.63^c	29.51±0.86^b	2.49±0.23^d	6.64±0.05^d
	40	30.59±0.26^bc	83.08±0.55^c	29.50±0.66^b	2.98±0.36^c	6.73±0.07^c
	45	30.60±0.49^c	83.63±0.55^bc	30.88±0.75^a	3.49±0.29^b	6.84±009^b
	50	31.42±0.39^b	84.15±0.78^ab	31.17±0.68^a	3.86±0.29^a	6.91±0.06^a
	CK	31.90±0.47^a	84.48±0.53^a	31.21±0.60^a	4.02±0.17^a	6.95±0.05^a

脱叶剂 Defoliants	铃期 Period of boll (d)	纤维长度 Length (mm)	整齐度指数 Unifoormity (%)	断裂比强度 Strength (cN/tex)	马克隆值 Micronaire	伸长率 Elongation (%)
瑞脱龙 Ruituolong	30	29.87±0.59^c	80.26±0.84^d	27.52±0.66^c	2.31±0.11^e	6.58±0.07^d
	35	30.15±0.47^c	83.29±0.77^c	29.79±0.58^b	2.56±0.13^d	6.63±0.07^d
	40	29.93±0.48^bc	83.38±0.69^bc	30.04±0.62^b	3.13±0.12^c	6.73±0.05^c
	45	30.78±0.69^b	84.01±0.41^ab	31.03±0.59^a	3.59±0.14^b	6.85±0.05^b
	50	31.60±0.37^a	84.40±0.83^a	31.15±0.54^a	3.98±0.09^a	6.93±0.05^a
	CK	31.90±0.47^a	84.48±0.53^a	31.21±0.60^a	4.02±0.17^a	6.95±0.05^a
叶落空 Yeluokong	30	29.94±0.66^d	80.18±0.76^d	26.95±0.62^c	2.20±0.09^e	6.50±0.08^e
	35	30.43±0.33^c	83.00±0.63^c	29.51±0.86^b	2.49±0.23^d	6.64±0.05^d
	40	30.59±0.26^bc	83.08±0.55^c	29.50±0.66^b	2.98±0.36^c	6.73±0.07^c
	45	30.60±0.49^c	83.63±0.55^bc	30.88±0.75^a	3.49±0.29^b	6.84±009^b
	50	31.42±0.39^b	84.15±0.78^ab	31.17±0.68^a	3.86±0.29^a	6.91±0.06^a
	CK	31.90±0.47^a	84.48±0.53^a	31.21±0.60^a	4.02±0.17^a	6.95±0.05^a

脱叶剂对机采棉棉铃发育及纤维品质的影响

Effect of defoliant on boll development and fiber quality of machine-picked cotton

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 24

相关文章 15

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

[1]	王勇攀, 马君, 李晨宇, 姚梦瑶, 王子轩, 黄灵芝, 朱海艳, 刘皖蓉, 李波, 杨洋, 高文伟. 基于卷积神经网络和合成数据集训练鉴定棉花种子萌发期的耐盐性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(2): 261-269.
[2]	陆明昆, 李军宏, 尼陆排尔·于苏甫江, 潘喜鹏, 刘晓成, 张正贵, 潘占磊, 翟梦华, 张要朋, 赵文琪, 王丽宏, 王占彪. 追施硅肥对棉花生长发育及产量品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(2): 286-293.
[3]	王奕丁, 张凯, 张凌健, 张慧, 郭小梦, 陈国悦. 滴灌量对新疆棉花生长发育、产量形成和水分利用效率的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(2): 294-301.
[4]	王晓艳, 白云岗, 柴仲平, 卢震林, 刘洪波, 肖军, 阿曼尼萨. 休作期冬灌滴灌调控下“干播湿出”对棉花生长及产量影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(2): 302-313.
[5]	孙彩琴, 吴佳, 黄海, 郭家鑫, 闵伟, 郭慧娟. 不同盐碱胁迫对棉花根系蛋白质组的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(1): 146-160.
[6]	赖成霞, 杨延龙, 汪鹏龙, 朱梦宇, 杨栋, 李春平, 葛风伟, 玛依拉·玉素音, 阳妮, 马君. 新疆北疆部分棉区落叶型棉花黄萎病菌落形态特征及致病力鉴定[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(1): 174-181.
[7]	王伟, 张仁福, 刘海洋, 李晓维, 姚举. 新疆棉田花蓟马消长规律及空间分布[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(1): 202-209.
[8]	孙健博, 吴莉莉, 贾尊尊, 叶晓琴, 丁新华, 付开赟, 吐尔逊·阿合买提, 王哲, 李亚文, 付文君, 艾尔肯娜依·买买提江, 安尼瓦尔·库尔班, 郭文超. 新疆伊犁河谷玉米主要害虫田间一喷多防药效评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 12-18.
[9]	苗红萍, 王晓伟, 田聪华, 李志, 张玉新, 戴俊生. 塔里木河流域棉花生产与布局演变特征及驱动因素分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 217-226.
[10]	王俊铎, 崔豫疆, 梁亚军, 龚照龙, 郑巨云, 李雪源. 新疆棉花生产优势区域分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 60-69.
[11]	郑巨云, 龚照龙, 梁亚军, 耿世伟, 孙丰磊, 阳妮, 李雪源, 王俊铎. 新疆机采棉花生产关键技术模式[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 70-74.
[12]	李杰, 刘佳, 王亮, 张娜, 杨延龙, 郑子漂, 魏鑫, 王萌, 周子馨, 阳妮, 龚照龙, 侯献飞, 黄启秀, 阿不都卡地尔·库尔班, 张济鹏, 张鹏忠. “棉、油、糖”科技成果转化现状及应用分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 89-94.
[13]	扁青永, 付彦博, 祁通, 黄建, 蒲胜海, 孟阿静, 哈丽哈什·依巴提. 新疆南疆盐碱地棉花出苗影响因素及保苗措施分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 95-100.
[14]	李永泰, 高阿香, 李艳军, 张新宇. 脱叶剂对不同敏感性棉花品种生理特性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2094-2102.
[15]	张泽华, 叶含春, 王振华, 李文昊, 李海强, 刘健. 等氮配施脲酶抑制剂对滴灌棉花生长发育和产量及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2103-2111.