欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (9): 1654-1665.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04167

• 研究论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

行距与氮肥或甲哌鎓化控对棉花冠层结构、温度和相对湿度的影响

颜为1(), 李芳军1, 徐东永2, 杜明伟1, 田晓莉1,*(), 李召虎1   

  1. 1中国农业大学农学院作物化控研究中心 / 植物生长调节剂教育部工程研究中心, 北京 100193
    2河北棉花种子工程技术研究中心, 河北河间 062450
  • 收稿日期:2020-07-23 接受日期:2021-01-21 出版日期:2021-09-12 网络出版日期:2021-03-16
  • 通讯作者: 田晓莉
  • 作者简介:E-mail: weiysdl@163.cm
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划项目“大田经济作物优质丰产的生理基础与调控”(2018YFD1000900)

Effects of row spacings and nitrogen or mepiquat chloride application on canopy architecture, temperature and relative humity in cotton

YAN Wei1(), LI Fang-Jun1, XU Dong-Yong2, DU Ming-Wei1, TIAN Xiao-Li1,*(), LI Zhao-Hu1   

  1. 1Engineering Research Center of Plant Growth Regulators / Crop Chemical Control Research Center, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
    2Hebei Cottonseed Engineering Technology Research Center, Hejian 062450, Hebei, China
  • Received:2020-07-23 Accepted:2021-01-21 Published:2021-09-12 Published online:2021-03-16
  • Contact: TIAN Xiao-Li
  • Supported by:
    National Key Research and Development Program of China “Physiological Basis and Agronomic Management for High-quality and High-yield of Field Cash Crops”(2018YFD1000900)

RichHTML

18

PDF

490

摘要：

实现机械采收是黄河流域棉区棉花生产的必然发展趋势, 但当前人工采收棉田的行距与摘锭式采棉机的行距不匹配, 需要在采棉机的可调行距范围(76~102 cm)内明确棉花适宜种植行距及其配套措施。研究于2016—2018年在河北省河间市秸秆还田条件下开展, 包括行距与氮(N)肥、行距与甲哌鎓(mepiquat chloride, DPC)化控2个独立试验, 探讨了各因素对冠层结构和冠层微环境的影响。试验采用裂区设计, 行距(76、92、102 cm)为主区, 施N量(0、105、210 kg hm-2)或DPC用量(0、140、281、394 g hm-2)为裂区, 等密度(90,000株 hm-2)种植。在天气条件相对正常的2016和2017年, 宽行距(92 cm和102 cm)与窄行距(76 cm)相比叶面积指数(leaf area index, LAI)有所增加、透光率(diffuse non-interceptance, DIFN)有所降低; 而在高温干旱的2018年, 宽行距的LAI明显降低、DIFN明显增加。施N对冠层结构的影响有限; DPC化控对冠层结构的影响较大, 主要表现为降低LAI、增加DIFN。与窄行距相比, 宽行距可在各年份不同程度增加冠层温度、降低相对湿度; 施氮对冠层微环境影响不大; DPC化控的冠层温度略高、相对湿度略低。行距与氮肥、行距与DPC对LAI等冠层结构、温度和相对湿度的互作效应均不显著。

关键词: 行距, 氮肥, 甲哌鎓, 冠层结构, 温度, 相对湿度

Abstract:

Mechanical harvesting is an inevitable trend of cotton production in the Yellow River Valley of China. However, the current row spacings for manual harvest do not match those of spindle-type pickers. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the appropriate row spacings within the adjustable range of cotton spindle pickers (76-102 cm) and to identify supporting agronomic measures. Field study was conducted under stalk incorporation in Hejian city, Hebei province, during 2016-2018, and consisted of two independent experiments of row spacing and nitrogen (N) rate, and row spacing and mepiquat chloride (1,1-dimethyl piperidinium chloride; DPC) rate. A split-plot design with four replicates was adopted; row spacings (76, 92, and 102 cm) were assigned as main plots at equal population of 90,000 plants hm -2, and N (0, 105, 210 kg hm-2) or DPC rates (0, 140, 281, and 394 g hm-2) as subplots. In normal years of 2016 and 2017, the wider row spacings (92 and 102 cm) showed a slight increase in leaf area index (LAI) and a slight decrease in diffuse non-interceptance (DIFN) relative to narrow row spacing (76 cm); however, in the hot and dry year of 2018, the LAI of wider rows was obviously lower and the DIFN was greater than that of 76 cm rows. The application of N fertilizer showed limited influences on the canopy structure, while the DPC application had strong effects characterized by a significant reduction in LAI and an increase in DIFN. Compared with 76 cm rows, the wider rows increased the average canopy temperature and decreased the relative humidity to different extents. The effect of N fertilizer on canopy microclimate was negligible, and DPC-treated canopy showed a mildly higher temperature and a mildly lower relative humidity. The row spacings did not interact with N or DPC rates to affect the cotton canopy architecture and microclimate.

Key words: row spacing, nitrogen, mepiquat chloride, canopy architecture, temperature, relative humidity

表1

甲哌鎓(DPC)应用时间和剂量"

处理
Treatment 		苗期
Seedling stage 		蕾期
Squaring stage 		初花期
Early blooming stage 		盛花期
Full blooming stage 		打顶后
After topping 		总剂量
Total rate
M0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M1 1.9 11.3 22.5 30.0 75.0 140.4
M2 3.8 22.5 45.0 60.0 150.0 281.3
M3 7.5 48.8 67.5 90.0 225.0 393.8

表2

行距和施氮量对2016-2018年棉花不同生育时期叶面积指数(LAI)的影响"

处理Treatment 2016 2017 2018
蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/23) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/1) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/15) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-
ing stage
(9/18) 		蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/18) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/3) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/14) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/20) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(6/29) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/12) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(7/29) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-
ing stage
(9/12)
行距 Row spacing (R) (cm)
76 1.3 a 2.1 a 3.7 a 5.5 a 3.6 a 0.9 b 2.2 a 4.6 a 5.6 a 2.1 a 1.4 a 2.1 a 3.3 a 2.7 a
92 1.2 a 2.1 a 3.9 a 5.9 a 3.9 a 1.2 a 2.2 a 4.7 a 6.1 a 2.2 a 1.5 a 1.9 ab 3.0 ab 2.9 a
102 1.3 a 2.0 a 3.6 a 5.3 a 3.5 a 1.2 a 2.3 a 4.6 a 5.5 a 2.1 a 1.4 a 1.6 b 2.4 b 3.3 a
氮肥 Nitrogen (N) (kg hm-2)
0 1.3 a 2.1 a 3.7 a 5.5 a 3.5 b 1.0 a 2.2 a 4.4 a 5.1 b 1.9 b 1.3 a 1.8 a 2.8 a 2.9 a
105 1.3 a 2.0 a 3.7 a 5.7 a 3.8 a 1.1 a 2.3 a 4.8 a 6.0 a 2.2 a 1.5 a 1.9 a 2.9 a 2.8 a
210 1.3 a 2.1 a 3.8 a 5.5 a 3.7 ab 1.1 a 2.3 a 4.7 a 6.2 a 2.2 a 1.5 a 2.0 a 3.0 a 3.3 a
变异来源 Source of variation
R 0.468 0.498 0.387 0.110 0.217 0.004 0.962 0.932 0.242 0.825 0.774 0.000 0.000 0.055
N 0.806 0.709 0.954 0.811 0.036 0.719 0.731 0.412 0.014 0.015 0.412 0.081 0.228 0.070
R×N 0.901 0.305 0.836 0.737 0.985 0.699 0.837 0.892 0.863 0.836 0.893 0.619 0.714 0.838

表3

行距和甲哌鎓对2016-2018年棉花不同生育时期叶面积指数(LAI)的影响"

处理
Treat-
ment 		2016 2017 2018
蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/23) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/1) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/15) 		盛铃期
Boll-
filling stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/18) 		蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/18) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/3) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/14) 		盛铃期
Boll-
filling stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/20) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(6/29) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/12) 		盛铃期
Boll-
filling stage
(7/29) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/12)
行距 Row spacing (R) (cm)
76 1.3 a 2.0 a 3.3 a 4.9 a 3.6 b 0.9 b 2.4 a 4.0 a 5.3 a 2.4 a 2.0 a 2.9 a 4.7 a 3.1 a
92 1.5 a 2.3 a 3.7 a 5.2 a 4.0 a 1.1 a 2.4 a 4.0 a 5.7 a 2.6 a 1.6 b 2.3 b 3.3 b 2.8 ab
102 1.2 a 2.0 a 3.4 a 5.2 a 4.2 a 1.1 a 2.5 a 4.0 a 5.5 a 2.7 a 1.5 b 2.1 b 3.1 b 2.5 b
甲派鎓 Mepiquat chloride (DPC) (g hm-2)
0 1.5 a 2.4 a 4.4 a 6.1 a 4.7 a 1.1 a 2.8 a 4.7 a 6.0 a 3.0 a 1.8 a 2.6 a 4.5 a 2.8 a
140 1.4 ab 2.0 b 3.2 b 4.9 b 3.8 b 1.0 a 2.4 a 4.0 b 5.5 a 2.5 b 1.7 a 2.4 a 3.8 ab 2.9 a
281 1.3 ab 2.0 b 3.1 b 4.8 b 3.6 b 0.9 a 2.2 a 3.6 b 5.2 a 2.4 b 1.6 a 2.3 a 3.3 b 2.7 a
394 1.2 b 2.0 b 3.1 b 4.6 b 3.6 b 0.9 a 2.3 a 3.6 b 5.2 a 2.4 b 1.6 a 2.3 a 3.3 b 2.9 a
变异来源 Source of variation
R 0.108 0.111 0.466 0.571 0.040 0.022 0.831 0.976 0.429 0.116 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009
DPC 0.034 0.035 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.390 0.124 0.002 0.104 0.001 0.435 0.117 0.000 0.789
R×DPC 0.928 0.761 0.794 0.518 0.496 0.885 0.968 0.843 0.225 0.993 0.492 0.939 0.654 0.857

表4

行距和施氮量对2016-2018年棉花不同生育时期叶倾角(MTA)的影响"

处理Treatment 2016 2017 2018
蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/23) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/1) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/15) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-
ing stage
(9/18) 		蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/18) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/3) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/14) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/20) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(6/29) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/12) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(7/29) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-
ing stage
(9/12)
行距 Row spacing (R) (cm)
76 39.6 b 41.4 a 44.4 a 44.5 a 45.0 a 44.9 a 50.5 b 45.7 a 42.9 b 49.8 a 44.2 a 49.1 a 52.9 a 50.0 a
92 44.8 a 41.4 a 46.3 a 44.4 a 44.3 a 37.6 a 53.4 ab 45.9 a 44.2 a 48.3 a 44.4 a 49.6 a 52.2 a 50.4 a
102 40.7 ab 40.6 a 46.5 a 44.4 a 44.2 a 37.2 a 55.3 a 48.0 a 45.1 a 47.5 a 45.5 a 52.1 a 50.3 a 47.7 a
氮肥 Nitrogen (N) (kg hm-2)
0 41.5 a 41.3 a 46.4 a 44.1 a 44.7 a 40.1 a 52.4 a 48.0 a 44.9 a 51.1 a 44.2 a 50.3 a 54.7 a 48.7 a
105 40.5 a 41.2 a 47.3 a 44.7 a 44.1 a 39.9 a 52.9 a 45.8 a 43.9 a 48.0 b 45.4 a 50.8 a 50.5 a 50.3 a
210 43.1 a 40.8 a 44.7 a 44.5 a 44.6 a 39.7 a 53.8 a 45.8 a 43.5 a 46.6 b 44.4 a 49.7 a 50.1 a 49.0 a
变异来源 Source of variation
R 0.027 0.672 0.168 0.962 0.747 0.153 0.049 0.275 0.013 0.320 0.903 0.268 0.642 0.443
N 0.370 0.874 0.185 0.670 0.876 0.996 0.738 0.321 0.169 0.019 0.912 0.865 0.230 0.756
R×N 0.259 0.344 0.692 0.772 0.027 0.638 0.374 0.172 0.406 0.563 0.203 0.311 0.959 0.349

表5

行距和甲哌鎓对2016-2018年棉花不同生育时期叶倾角(MTA)的影响"

处理
Treat-
ment 		2016 2017 2018
蕾期
Squar-
ing stage
(6/23) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/1) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/15) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-
ing stage
(9/18) 		蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/18) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/3) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/14) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/20) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(6/29) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/12) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-ing stage
(7/29) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/12)
行距 Row spacing (R) (cm)
76 41.1 a 41.4 a 45.2 b 45.9 a 43.3 a 46.2 a 51.4 a 47.2 a 41.8 b 44.4 a 49.3 a 51.5 b 47.5 b 48.4 a
92 41.8 a 41.2 a 47.6 ab 45.4 a 42.6 a 34.9 b 51.4 a 47.4 a 45.1 a 43.7 a 49.2 a 58.2 a 51.8 a 46.2 a
102 41.5 a 40.0 a 48.4 a 45.2 a 42.9 a 36.6 b 52.3 a 48.5 a 45.7 a 45.4 a 48.5 a 54.3 a 53.8 a 47.6 a
甲哌鎓 Mepiquat chloride (DPC) (g hm-2)
0 41.7 a 41.6 a 44.3 b 43.3 b 40.5 b 39.3 a 51.4 a 46.8 a 43.6 a 43.6 a 52.1 a 54.6 a 47.9 b 44.0 a
140 41.9 a 39.7 a 47.0 a 46.3 a 44.5 a 39.5 a 50.8 a 47.8 a 44.1 a 46.2 a 47.8 a 55.1 a 51.7 a 46.6 a
281 41.7 a 41.8 a 47.7 a 45.6 a 42.9 a 40.5 a 50.9 a 48.8 a 45.1 a 46.8 a 48.7 a 54.0 a 51.4 a 51.1 a
394 40.5 a 40.3 a 49.3 a 46.7 a 43.8 a 37.7 a 53.8 a 47.4 a 44.0 a 46.8 a 47.4 a 55.0 a 53.2 a 47.9 a
变异来源 Source of variation
R 0.866 0.609 0.009 0.798 0.808 0.000 0.881 0.653 0.000 0.107 0.914 0.000 0.001 0.712
DPC 0.716 0.562 0.002 0.023 0.013 0.816 0.585 0.691 0.499 0.161 0.169 0.897 0.036 0.147
R×DPC 0.094 0.708 0.717 0.193 0.268 0.120 0.829 0.916 0.126 0.902 0.937 0.445 0.761 0.870

表6

行距和施氮量对2016-2018年棉花不同生育时期透光率(DIFN)的影响"

处理Treatment 2016 2017 2018
蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/23) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/1) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/15) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-
ing stage
(9/18) 		蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/18) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/3) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/14) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/20) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(6/29) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/12) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(7/29) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-
ing stage
(9/12)
行距 Row spacing (R) (cm)
76 35.8 a 19.8 a 6.5 a 1.7 a 6.3 a 50.0 a 18.4 a 3.4 a 1.6 a 19.7 a 31.9 a 19.7 b 9.4 b 14.1 b
92 37.9 a 19.6 a 5.5 a 1.0 a 5.9 a 40.2 b 18.6 a 3.4 a 1.2 a 19.3 a 32.6 a 22.1 a 11.8 a 15.0 a
102 34.9 a 20.3 a 7.2 a 1.8 a 6.6 a 40.0 b 19.3 a 3.9 a 1.8 a 20.4 a 34.4 a 29.3 a 16.4 a 15.7 a
氮肥 Nitrogen (N) (kg hm-2)
0 35.3 a 19.1 a 6.2 a 1.6 a 7.1 a 44.4 a 20.1 a 4.5 a 2.5 a 23.3 a 33.8 a 25.2 a 14.0 a 12.0 a
105 37.1 a 20.5 a 6.8 a 1.5 a 5.3 a 43.4 a 18.4 a 3.1 a 1.1 b 18.2 b 32.6 a 23.6 a 12.0 a 13.6 a
210 36.2 a 20.1 a 6.0 a 1.4 a 5.5 a 42.4 a 17.8 a 3.1 a 1.0 b 17.8 b 32.5 a 22.3 a 11.5 a 9.2 a
变异来源 Source of variation
R 0.417 0.417 0.299 0.059 0.075 0.004 0.894 0.842 0.424 0.826 0.669 0.000 0.000 0.048
N 0.736 0.442 0.735 0.685 0.053 0.764 0.517 0.254 0.003 0.008 0.885 0.164 0.192 0.117
R×N 0.844 0.162 0.726 0.948 0.980 0.682 0.461 0.588 0.666 0.786 0.478 0.656 0.693 0.591

表7

行距和甲哌鎓对2016-2018年棉花不同生育时期透光率(DIFN)的影响"

处理
Treatment 		2016 2017 2018
蕾期
Squar-
ing stage
(6/23) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/1) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/15) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-ing stage
(9/18) 		蕾期
Squaring stage
(6/18) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(7/3) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/14) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(8/1) 		吐絮期
Boll-
opening stage
(9/20) 		初花期
Early
blooming stage
(6/29) 		盛花期
Full
blooming stage
(7/12) 		盛铃期
Boll-fill-
ing stage
(7/29) 		吐絮期
Boll-open-ing stage
(9/12)
行距 Row spacing (R) (cm)
76 36.7 a 24.5 a 10.5 a 4.1 a 7.5 a 51.8 a 16.8 a 5.8 a 2.3 a 16.4 a 21.4 b 11.6 b 3.2 b 11.0 a
92 35.3 a 22.6 a 8.4 a 3.0 a 5.6 a 42.8 b 15.4 a 6.0 a 2.1 a 13.0 b 32.2 a 18.6 a 10.5 a 12.0 a
102 38.4 a 21.1 a 9.8 a 2.3 a 4.2 a 43.8 b 16.6 a 6.0 a 1.8 a 13.5 b 29.2 a 22.8 a 9.7 a 13.6 a
甲哌鎓 Mepiquat chloride (DPC) (g hm-2)
0 31.7 b 16.3 b 4.0 b 0.9 b 2.8 b 43.4 a 12.7 a 3.2 b 1.4 a 9.9 b 26.2 a 15.3 a 4.2 b 10.6 a
140 34.8 a 20.8 a 10.7 a 3.3 a 6.1 a 44.8 a 15.9 a 5.7 a 1.9 a 14.9 a 26.7 a 17.2 a 7.6 a 12.0 a
281 36.0 a 22.6 a 11.3 a 3.5 a 6.5 a 48.1 a 17.6 a 7.9 a 2.6 a 16.1 a 29.2 a 19.2 a 9.8 a 13.7 a
394 39.3 a 24.6 a 12.3 a 4.7 a 7.7 a 48.3 a 18.7 a 6.9 a 2.4 a 16.3 a 28.4 a 19.0 a 9.7 a 12.4 a
变异来源 Source of variation
R 0.105 0.216 0.661 0.293 0.058 0.010 0.856 0.967 0.815 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.260
DPC 0.034 0.023 0.014 0.042 0.025 0.396 0.238 0.006 0.400 0.001 0.339 0.086 0.002 0.411
R×DPC 0.915 0.813 0.802 0.639 0.563 0.850 0.829 0.916 0.126 0.902 0.301 0.868 0.820 0.993

图1

2016-2018年河间市棉花生长季气象资料"

图2

行距和施氮量对2016-2018年棉花冠层温度的影响"

图3

行距和施氮量对2016-2018年棉花冠层相对湿度的影响"

图4

行距和甲哌鎓对2016-2018年棉花冠层温度的影响"

图5

行距和甲哌鎓对2016-2018年棉花冠层相对湿度的影响"

[1] Nichols S R, Snipes C E, Jones M A. Evaluation of row spacing and mepiquat chloride in cotton. J Cotton Sci, 2003, 7:148-155.
[2] 宁新柱, 林海, 宿俊吉, 李吉莲, 刘萍, 邓福军, 段理慧, 安刚. 不同种植密度对棉花产量性状的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2011, 39:8878-8880.
Ning X Z, Lin H, Su J J, Li J L, Liu P, Deng F J, Duan L H, An G. Influence of different planting densities on the yield traits of cotton. J Anhui Agric Sci, 2011, 39:8878-8880 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[3] Conaty W C, Mahan J R, Neilsen J E, Constable G A. Vapour pressure deficit aids the interpretation of cotton canopy temperature response to water deficit. Funct Plant Biol, 2014, 41:535-546.
doi: 10.1071/FP13223
[4] Marois J, Wright D, Wiatrak P J. Effect of row width and nitrogen on cotton morphology and canopy microclimate. Crop Sci, 2004, 44:870-877.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2004.8700
[5] Balkcom K S, Price A J, Van Santen E. Row spacing tillage system, and herbicide technology affects cotton plant growth and yield. Field Crops Res, 2010, 117:219-225.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2010.03.003
[6] Heitholt J J, Sassenrath-Cole G F. Inter-plant competition: growth responses to plant density and row spacing. In: Steward J M, Oosterhuis D, Heitholt J J, Mauney J R, eds. Physiology of Cotton. New York: Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. pp 179-186.
[7] Boquet D J, Coco A B. Yield response of cotton to row spacing, nitrogen rate and plant population density. Louisiana Agric, 1997, 40:22-23.
[8] Ahmad A S, Farrukh S M, 王龙昌, 薛兰兰, Shahid M F, Shafaqat A. 行距对棉花生长发育、产量及早熟性指数的影响的研究. 棉花学报, 2010, 22:611-616.
Ahmad A S, Farrukh S M, Wang L C, Xue L L, Shahid M F, Shafaqat A. Growth, lint yield and earliness index of cotton ( Gossypium hirsutumL.) cultivars under varying row spacing. Cotton Sci, 2010, 22:611-616 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[9] 李建峰, 王聪, 梁福斌, 陈厚川, 田景山, 康鹏, 张旺锋. 新疆机采模式下棉花株行距配置对冠层结构指标及产量的影响. 棉花学报, 2017, 29:157-165.
Li J F, Wang C, Liang F B, Chen H C, Tian J S, Kang P, Zhang W F. Row spacing and planting density affect canopy structure and yield in machine-picked cotton in Xinjiang. Cotton Sci, 2017, 29:611-616 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[10] Heitholt J J, Pettigrew W T, Meredith Jr W R. Growth, boll opening rate, and fiber properties of narrow row cotton. Agron J, 1993, 85:590-594.
doi: 10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500030013x
[11] Brodrick R, Bange M P. Determining physiological cutout in ultra-narrow row cotton. In: Dove H, Culvenor R A, eds. Food Security from Sustainable Agriculture. New Zealand: 15th Agronomy Conference, 2010. pp 15-18.
[12] Wang X R, Hou Y R, Du M W, Xu D Y, Lu H Y, Tian X L, Li Z H. Effect of planting date and plant density on cotton traits as relating to mechanical harvesting in the Yellow River valley region of China. Field Crops Res, 2016, 198:112-121.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.010
[13] 徐新霞, 雷建峰, 高丽丽, 郑慧, 李淦, 王立红, 锁忠程, 李君, 张巨松. 不同机采棉行距配置对棉花生长发育及光合物质生产的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2017, 35(2):51-56.
Xu X X, Lei J F, Gao L L, Zheng H, Li G, Wang L H, Suo Z C, Li J, Zhang J S. Effects of different row spacing patterns on growth and photosynthetic production of machine-harvested cotton. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2017, 35(2):51-56 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[14] Heitholt J J. Canopy characteristics associated with deficient and excessive cotton plant population densities. Crop Sci, 1994, 34:1291-1297.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400050028x
[15] Hesketh J D, Low A. Effect of temperature on components of yield and fibre quality of cotton varieties of diverse origin. Cotton Grow Rev, 1968, 45:243-257.
[16] 王江. 冬小麦主要发育期农田小气候与大气候相关规律的研究. 河南农业大学硕士毕业论文, 河南郑州, 2003.
Wang J. Relations on Microclimate and Climate of Winter Wheat in Its Main Development Stages. MS Thesis of Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China, 2003 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[17] Loka D A, Oosterhuis D M. Effect of high night temperatures on cotton respiration, ATP levels and carbohydrate content. Environ Exp Bot, 2010, 68:258-263.
doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.01.006
[1] 徐田军, 张勇, 赵久然, 王荣焕, 吕天放, 刘月娥, 蔡万涛, 刘宏伟, 陈传永, 王元东. 宜机收籽粒玉米品种冠层结构、光合及灌浆脱水特性[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(6): 1526-1536.
[2] 闫宇婷, 宋秋来, 闫超, 刘爽, 张宇辉, 田静芬, 邓钰璇, 马春梅. 连作秸秆还田下玉米氮素积累与氮肥替代效应研究[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(4): 962-974.
[3] 袁嘉琦, 刘艳阳, 许轲, 李国辉, 陈天晔, 周虎毅, 郭保卫, 霍中洋, 戴其根, 张洪程. 氮密处理提高迟播栽粳稻资源利用和产量[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(3): 667-681.
[4] 冯健超, 许倍铭, 江薛丽, 胡海洲, 马英, 王晨阳, 王永华, 马冬云. 小麦籽粒不同层次酚类物质与抗氧化活性差异及氮肥调控效应[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(3): 704-715.
[5] 张特, 王蜜蜂, 赵强. 滴施缩节胺与氮肥对棉花生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(2): 396-409.
[6] 张军, 周冬冬, 许轲, 李必忠, 刘忠红, 周年兵, 方书亮, 张永进, 汤洁, 安礼政. 淮北地区麦茬机插优质食味粳稻氮肥减量的精确运筹[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(2): 410-422.
[7] 张倩, 韩本高, 张博, 盛开, 李岚涛, 王宜伦. 控失尿素减施及不同配比对夏玉米产量及氮肥效率的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(1): 180-192.
[8] 蹇述莲, 李书鑫, 刘胜群, 李向楠. 覆盖作物及其作用的研究进展[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(1): 1-14.
[9] 王建国, 张佳蕾, 郭峰, 唐朝辉, 杨莎, 彭振英, 孟静静, 崔利, 李新国, 万书波. 钙与氮肥互作对花生干物质和氮素积累分配及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(9): 1666-1679.
[10] 张学林, 李晓立, 何堂庆, 张晨曦, 田明慧, 吴梅, 周亚男, 郝晓峰, 杨青华. 丛枝菌根真菌对玉米籽粒产量和氮素吸收的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(8): 1603-1615.
[11] 柯健, 陈婷婷, 徐浩聪, 朱铁忠, 吴汉, 何海兵, 尤翠翠, 朱德泉, 武立权. 控释氮肥运筹对钵苗摆栽籼粳杂交稻甬优1540产量及氮肥利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(7): 1372-1382.
[12] 赵杰, 李绍平, 程爽, 田晋钰, 邢志鹏, 陶钰, 周磊, 刘秋员, 胡雅杰, 郭保卫, 高辉, 魏海燕, 张洪程. “独秆”栽培模式下全程氮肥在分蘖中后期施用对旱直播水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(6): 1162-1174.
[13] 党科, 宫香伟, 吕思明, 赵冠, 田礼欣, 靳飞, 杨璞, 冯佰利, 高小丽. 糜子/绿豆间作模式下施氮量对绿豆叶片光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(6): 1175-1187.
[14] 董二伟, 王劲松, 武爱莲, 王媛, 王立革, 韩雄, 郭珺, 焦晓燕. 行距和密度对高粱籽粒灌浆、淀粉及氮磷钾累积特征的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(12): 2459-2470.
[15] 吴春花, 普雪可, 周永瑾, 勉有明, 苗芳芳, 李荣. 宁南旱区沟垄集雨结合覆盖对土壤水热肥与马铃薯产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(11): 2208-2219.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2