欢迎访问作物学报,今天是

作物学报 ›› 2006, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (01): 125-137.

• 研究论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同青贮玉米品种与紫花苜蓿的间作效应

刘景辉;曾昭海;焦立新;胡跃高;王莹; 李海   

  1. 内蒙古农业大学,内蒙古呼和浩特010018
  • 收稿日期:2004-08-16 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2006-01-12 网络出版日期:2006-01-12
  • 通讯作者: 刘景辉

Intercropping of Different Silage Maize Cultivars and Alfalfa

LIU Jing-Hui; ZENG Zhao-Hai; JIAO Li-Xin; HU Yue-Gao; WANG Ying; LI Hai   

  1. 1Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Huhhot 010018, Inner Mongolia
  • Received:2004-08-16 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2006-01-12 Published online:2006-01-12
  • Contact: LIU Jing-Hui

摘要:

不同青贮玉米品种与紫花苜蓿的间作表明,间作青贮玉米边际效应显著,并因品种和生育时期的不同而异。大喇叭口期,间作青贮玉米光照强度和透光率比单作的提高,在基部为15.3%~88.1%和15.1%~89.0%,在中部为52.1%~74.1%和51.2%~73.0%。全生育期内,间作青贮玉米平均透光率比单作的提高,在基部为49.5%~62.1%,中部为40.7%~56.6%。5~30 cm土层地温从上到下呈递减趋势,同一土层温度均为间作高于单作;5 cm土层生育期内的平均地温间作比单作提高了1.0%~1.8%。收获期,间作青贮玉米株高、茎粗和叶面积指数比相同种植面积的单作玉米分别提高了2.3%~20.9%、0.4%~7.6%和2.2%~19.6%。间作复合群体的粗脂肪和粗蛋白含量比单作玉米分别提高了30.8%~59.1%和99.4%~137.5%,而鲜草和干草产量比单作玉米分别降低了22.7%~32.3%和17.6%~28.2%,比单作紫花苜蓿分别提高了156.7%~202.4%和176.5%~197.5%。间作紫花苜蓿初花期鲜草和干草产量及粗脂肪和粗蛋白含量表现出边行劣势,但差异不显著。综合分析表明,间作复合群体可充分利用田间光照和地温条件,并且紫花苜蓿是多年生豆科牧草,具有覆盖地面、防风固沙、培肥地力的作用,第2年5~6月份即可收获第一茬,不仅可以解决内蒙古因缺草而影响养殖业发展的问题,而且为间作青贮玉米提供了较大的生长空间。

关键词: 青贮玉米, 紫花苜蓿, 间作, 光照强度

Abstract:

Intercropping has been studied and practiced widely for crop production, but it has seldom studied in the forage production. In this paper, intercropping system of different silage maize cultivars and alfalfa was studied in regard to physiological ecology of the system, yield and quality of products. Results showed that magrginal utility of silage maize was remarkable, and it changed with silage maize cultivars and growth stage. As compared with monocropping of silage maize, at male tatrad, light intensity and light transmission of intercropping silage maize was increased by 15.3%-88.1% and 15.1%-89.0% respectively at bottom of plants population, and 52.1%-74.1% and 51.2%-73.0% at middle layer of plant population; average light transmission for whole growth stage was increased by 49.5%-62.1% at bottom, and 40.7%-56.6% for middle part; average temperature of five centimeters soil layer at whole growth stage increased by 1.0%-1.8%. At the harvest period, plant height, stalk thickness and green leaf area of cultivars Keduo 4, Keduo 8, Keqing 1 in intercropping system were 2.3%-20.9%,0.4%-7.6% and 2.2%-19.6% greater than those for monocropping. Crude protein and crude fat contents in plant intercropping system were increased by 30.8%-59.1% and 99.4%-137.5% respectively compared with those for monocropping maize. The yields of green forage and hey for intercropping system were decreased by 22.7%-32.3% and 17.6%-28.2% as compared with monocropping maize, and increased by 156.7%-202.4% and 176.5%-197.5% as compared with monocropping alfalfa. Crude protein and crude fat contents, green forage and hey yields of alfalfa in intercropping system were slightly decreased at early flowering stage, but there were not significant difference between two cropping systems. Integrated analysis indicates that intercropping system can take advantage of light, temperature resources of local fields sufficiently. In addition, alfalfa is perennial legume, which can cover the fields, fix and fertilize soil, therefore protect soil from wind erosion. The harvest of alfalfa from May to June next year not only solves the problem of forage shortage for livestock husbandry in Inner Mongolia but also provide bigger space for the growth of intercropping silage maize.

Key words: Silage maize, Alfalfa, Intercropping, Illumination intensity

中图分类号: 

  • S513
[1] 林志敏, 秦贤金, 吴红淼, 庞孜钦, 林文雄. 不同太子参品种对连作胁迫差异响应及种内间作效应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(9): 2351-2365.
[2] 杨欢, 周颖, 陈平, 杜青, 郑本川, 蒲甜, 温晶, 杨文钰, 雍太文. 玉米-豆科作物带状间套作对养分吸收利用及产量优势的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(6): 1476-1487.
[3] 赵建华, 孙建好, 陈亮之, 李伟绮. 玉/豆间作产量优势中补偿效应和选择效应的角色[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(10): 2588-2596.
[4] 魏正业, 张海星, 石薇, 常生华, 张程, 贾倩民, 侯扶江. 种植方式与施氮对西北旱区饲草作物产量、品质和水分利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(10): 2638-2653.
[5] 宋丽君, 聂晓玉, 何磊磊, 蒯婕, 杨华, 郭安国, 黄俊生, 傅廷栋, 汪波, 周广生. 饲用大豆品种耐荫性鉴定指标筛选及综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(9): 1741-1752.
[6] 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.
[7] 王一帆, 殷文, 胡发龙, 范虹, 樊志龙, 赵财, 于爱忠, 柴强. 间作小麦光合性能对地上地下互作强度的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(5): 929-941.
[8] 刘少荣, 杨扬, 田红丽, 易红梅, 王璐, 康定明, 范亚明, 任洁, 江彬, 葛建镕, 成广雷, 王凤格. 基于农艺及品质性状与SSR标记的青贮玉米品种遗传多样性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(12): 2362-2370.
[9] 张金丹, 范虹, 杜进勇, 殷文, 樊志龙, 胡发龙, 柴强. 小麦玉米同步增密有利于优化种间关系而提高间作产量[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(12): 2481-2489.
[10] 王飞, 郭彬彬, 孙增光, 尹飞, 刘领, 焦念元, 付国占. 增温增CO2浓度对玉米||花生体系玉米生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(11): 2220-2231.
[11] 覃潇敏, 潘浩男, 肖靖秀, 汤利, 郑毅. 低磷条件下玉米大豆间作对大豆根瘤生长、固氮功能的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(11): 2268-2277.
[12] 任媛媛, 张莉, 郁耀闯, 张彦军, 张岁岐. 大豆种植密度对玉米/大豆间作系统产量形成的竞争效应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(10): 1978-1987.
[13] 杜进勇,柴强,王一帆,范虹,胡发龙,殷文,李登业. 地上地下互作强度对小麦间作玉米光合特性的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(9): 1398-1406.
[14] 党科,宫香伟,陈光华,赵冠,刘龙,王洪露,杨璞,冯佰利. 糜子绿豆带状种植下糜子的氮素积累、代谢及产量变化[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(12): 1880-1890.
[15] 程亚娇,范元芳,谌俊旭,王仲林,谭婷婷,李佳凤,李盛蓝,杨峰,杨文钰. 光照强度对大豆叶片光合特性及同化物的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(12): 1867-1874.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 李绍清, 李阳生, 吴福顺, 廖江林, 李达模. 水稻孕穗期在淹涝胁迫下施肥的优化选择及其作用机理[J]. 作物学报, 2002, 28(01): 115 -120 .
[2] 王兰珍;米国华;陈范骏;张福锁. 不同产量结构小麦品种对缺磷反应的分析[J]. 作物学报, 2003, 29(06): 867 -870 .
[3] 王艳;邱立明;谢文娟;黄薇;叶锋;张富春;马纪. 昆虫抗冻蛋白基因转化烟草的抗寒性[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 397 -402 .
[4] 郑希;吴建国;楼向阳;徐海明;石春海. 不同环境条件下稻米组氨酸和精氨酸的胚乳和母体植株QTL分析[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 369 -375 .
[5] 邢光南, 周斌, 赵团结, 喻德跃, 邢邯, 陈受宜, 盖钧镒. 大豆抗筛豆龟蝽Megacota cribraria (Fabricius)的QTL分析[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 361 -368 .
[6] 郑永美;丁艳锋;王强盛;李刚华;王惠芝;王绍华. 起身肥对水稻分蘖和氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 513 -519 .
[7] 秦恩华;杨兰芳. 烤烟苗期含硒量和根际硒形态的研究[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 506 -512 .
[8] 吕丽华;陶洪斌;夏来坤; 张雅杰; 赵明; 赵久然;王璞. 不同种植密度下的夏玉米冠层结构及光合特性[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(03): 447 -455 .
[9] 张书标;杨仁崔. e-杂交稻若干生物学特性研究[J]. 作物学报, 2003, 29(06): 919 -924 .
[10] 邵瑞鑫;上官周平. 外源一氧化氮供体SNP对受旱小麦光合色素含量和PS II光能利用能力的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(05): 818 -822 .