欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (10): 3037-3053.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2026.63016

• 耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同耐密性玉米品种根-冠协调及灌浆特性对增密的响应

李思源1(), 栗思佳1, 张森焱1, 乔泼1, 崔欣飞1, 杨梦涛1, 王义波4, 曾波2, 刘桂珍3, 李鸿萍1,*(), 刘天学1, 汤继华1,*()   

  1. 1 河南农业大学农学院 / 作物生长发育调控教育部重点实验室, 河南郑州 450046
    2 全国农业技术推广服务中心, 北京 100125
    3 河南省种业发展中心, 河南郑州 450046
    4 北京联创种业有限公司, 北京 100081
  • 收稿日期:2026-01-30 接受日期:2026-07-15 出版日期:2026-10-12 网络出版日期:2026-07-23
  • 通讯作者: 李鸿萍, E-mail: hongpingli2019@163.com; 汤继华, E-mail: tangjihua@henau.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:李思源, E-mail: lisiyuan2023@yeah.net
  • 基金资助:
    河南省重点研发专项(241111114300);2025 河南省科技攻关项目(252102111076)

Responses of root-shoot coordination and grain-filling characteristics to increased planting density in maize cultivars with varying density tolerance

Li Si-Yuan1(), Li Si-Jia1, Zhang Sen-Yan1, Qiao Po1, Cui Xin-Fei1, Yang Meng-Tao1, Wang Yi-Bo4, Zeng Bo2, Liu Gui-Zhen3, Li Hong-Ping1,*(), Liu Tian-Xue1, Tang Ji-Hua1,*()   

  1. 1 College of Agronomy, Henan Agricultural University / Key Laboratory of Crop Growth and Development Regulation, Ministry of Education, Zhengzhou 450046, Henan, China
    2 National Agro-Tech Extension and Service Center, Beijing 100125, China
    3 Henan Provincial Seed Industry Development Center, Zhengzhou 450046, Henan, China
    4 Beijing Lantron Seed Co., Ltd., Beijing 100081, China
  • Received:2026-01-30 Accepted:2026-07-15 Published:2026-10-12 Published online:2026-07-23
  • Contact: Li Hong-Ping, E-mail: hongpingli2019@163.com; Tang Ji-Hua, E-mail: tangjihua@henau.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    Henan Province Key Research and Development Special Project(241111114300);2025 Henan Province Science and Technology Research Project(252102111076)

RichHTML

1

PDF

80

摘要：

为研究不同耐密性玉米品种根-叶构型、冠层光资源利用和灌浆特性对增密的响应, 于2023年和2024年2个玉米生育季开展双因素试验, 以不同耐密性品种先玉335 (XY335)、郑单958 (ZD958)和MY73为试验材料, 设置5个种植密度, 6.00 (D1)、7.50 (D2)、9.00 (D3)、10.50 (D4)和12.00万株 hm-2 (D5), 测定了根-叶构型、冠层光分布、叶片光合参数、叶面积、光合有效辐射利用率和籽粒灌浆等相关性状。结果表明, XY335、ZD958和MY73分别在D1~D2、D2~D3、D3~D4密度范围内产量较高, 适宜推广密度分别在D1、D2、D3水平左右浮动。2年试验各密度下, 耐密品种MY73的根开角、根系投影面积、根条数、根冠比、叶向值、冠层各叶层透光率、高密度下净光合速率均显著高于ZD958和XY335; 而叶面积和干物质辐射利用率则显著低于ZD958和XY335。低密度下, XY335的产量及籽粒辐射利用率显著高于ZD958和MY73; 而高密度下, MY73显著高于XY335和ZD958。随密度增加, 各品种的根干重、根冠比、根构型、叶夹角、冠层各叶层透光率、不同叶序的叶面积均显著降低, 叶向值、干物质辐射利用率显著升高; 潜在粒重和最大灌浆速率呈下降趋势, 达最大灌浆速率的时间及活跃灌浆期呈增加趋势。随密度增加, 不同耐密性品种的指标变幅不同, 耐密品种MY73的根系投影面积和根干重在3个品种中降幅最小, 2年降幅均值较ZD958分别降低3.9%和4.4%, 较XY335分别降低16.1%和0.6%; MY73的穗位层叶夹角降幅较低(均值较ZD958低3.0%~47.9%)、叶向值增幅较大(均值较ZD958高14.0%~357.5%); MY73的冠层各叶层透光率降幅最小, 在冠层顶部与穗位之间的中点处2年平均降幅分别比ZD958和XY335低37.0%和46.9%, 穗位处分别低32.4%和49.6%; 各品种上部冠层叶面积受增密影响最大, MY73上部冠层2年降幅均值较ZD958和XY335分别低22.1%和32.3%。综上, 随密度增加, 耐密品种MY73根系性状劣化程度低、叶向值调控能力强、冠层各层透光特性好、高密度下叶片净光合速率大、单株叶面积降幅小、达最大灌浆速率用时短且活跃灌浆期长、高密度时籽粒辐射利用率高, 这些特征可能是其实现耐密高产的群体质量调控机制。

关键词: 玉米品种, 耐密性, 种植密度, 根-叶构型, 冠层光利用, 灌浆特性

Abstract:

This study investigated the responses of root and leaf architecture, canopy light utilization, and grain-filling characteristics to increased planting density in maize cultivars with varying density tolerance. A two-factor field experiment was conducted during the 2023 and 2024 maize growing seasons using three maize cultivars differing in density tolerance: Xianyu 335 (XY335), Zhengdan 958 (ZD958), and MY73. Five planting density treatments were established: 60,000 (D1), 75,000 (D2), 90,000 (D3), 105,000 (D4), and 120,000 plants hm-2 (D5). Traits related to root-leaf architecture, canopy light distribution, leaf photosynthetic parameters, leaf area, photosynthetically active radiation use efficiency, and grain filling were measured. The results showed that XY335, ZD958, and MY73 achieved high yields at D1-D2, D2-D3, and D3-D4, respectively, with their optimum density ranges centered around D1, D2, and D3. Across all density treatments in the two-year experiment, the density-tolerant cultivar MY73 had significantly greater root angle, root projected area, root number, root-shoot ratio, leaf orientation value, light transmittance in each canopy layer, and net photosynthetic rate under high density than ZD958 and XY335, whereas its leaf area and dry matter radiation use efficiency were significantly lower. At low densities, XY335 had significantly higher yield and grain radiation use efficiency than ZD958 and MY73, whereas under high-density conditions, MY73 significantly outperformed XY335 and ZD958. With increasing density, root biomass, root-shoot ratio, root architecture, leaf angle, light transmittance in each canopy layer, and leaf area at different leaf positions decreased significantly across cultivars, while leaf orientation value and dry matter radiation use efficiency increased significantly. Potential grain weight and the maximum grain-filling rate showed decreasing trends, whereas the time to reach the maximum grain-filling rate and the active grain-filling period increased. Cultivars with different density tolerance exhibited different magnitudes of trait variation in response to increased density. Among the three cultivars, the density-tolerant MY73 showed the smallest reductions in root projected area and root weight, with two-year mean reductions that were 3.9% and 16.1% lower than those of ZD958 and 4.4% and 0.6% lower than those of XY335, respectively. MY73 also showed a smaller reduction in leaf angle in the ear-leaf layer and a greater increase in leaf orientation value; the mean reduction in leaf angle was 3.0%-47.9% lower than that of ZD958, while the mean increase in leaf orientation value was 14.0%-357.5% greater. MY73 exhibited the smallest reduction in light transmittance in each canopy layer; its two-year mean reduction was 37.0% and 46.9% lower than that of ZD958 and XY335, respectively, at the midpoint between the canopy top and ear position, and 32.4% and 49.6% lower at the ear position. The leaf area in the upper canopy was the most sensitive to increased density across cultivars, and the two-year mean reduction in MY73 was 22.1% and 32.3% lower than that in ZD958 and XY335, respectively. In conclusion, the density-tolerant cultivar MY73 showed less deterioration in root traits, stronger regulation of leaf orientation, more favorable canopy light transmittance, higher leaf net photosynthetic rate under high density, and a smaller reduction in individual plant leaf area as density increased. It also maintained a shorter time to reach the maximum grain-filling rate, a longer active grain-filling period, and higher grain radiation use efficiency under high-density conditions. These characteristics may represent the population quality regulation mechanism underlying the high yield of MY73 under dense planting.

Key words: maize cultivar, density tolerance, planting density, root and leaf architecture, canopy light utilization, grain filling characteristics

表1

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下根系结构、生物量及根冠比的变化"

年地组合
Year-site combination		 品种
Cultivar		 种植
密度
Density		 根开角
Root opening angle (°)		 根系投影面积
Root projected area (cm2)		 最大根系宽度
Maximal width (cm)		 总结构投影长度Total projected structure length (cm) 根条数
Number of root		 根干重
Root dry weight (g)		 根冠比Root-shoot ratio (%)
2023-
Xuchang		 XY335 D1 114.5±1.0 aA 111.0±3.1 aA 15.1±0.2 aA 2022.8±71.4 aA 62.0±1.7 aB 20.3±0.1 aA 5.4±0.1 aB
D2 96.5±1.9 bA 81.3±7.6 bB 14.0±0.6 bA 1682.8±62.3 bA 53.0±1.0 bB 15.0±0.8 bA 4.1±0.2 bB
D3 84.2±1.9 cB 74.7±6.0 bB 11.8±0.6 cA 1417.4±71.0 cA 49.3±0.6 cB 10.4±0.4 cA 3.1±0.1 cB
D4 66.1±1.3 dB 63.8±4.1 cB 10.6±0.5 dA 1181.4±9.6 dA 48.0±2.0 cA 8.8±0.4 dA 3.1±0.1 cB
D5 56.5±1.9 eB 48.6±2.9 dB 9.5±0.5 eA 950.7±55.8 eA 44.3±0.6 dA 5.4±0.3 eB 2.1±0.0 dB
ZD958 D1 70.0±2.5 aB 84.1±4.1 aC 11.3±0.3 aB 1699.9±69.2 aB 55.7±0.6 aC 15.9±0.3 aC 5.6±0.1 aB
D2 68.9±0.9 aB 69.7±0.9 bC 10.9±0.4 aB 1375.1±32.2 bB 42.7±0.6 bC 10.5±0.4 bB 4.0±0.1 bB
D3 64.4±1.0 bC 63.6±4.1 cC 9.4±0.7 bB 1138.2±27.7 cB 40.7±0.6 cC 7.4±0.2 cC 2.9±0.1 cC
D4 60.4±2.3 cC 48.5±1.2 dC 8.7±0.2 bB 1009.1±49.0 dB 39.3±0.6 dB 6.4±0.5 dC 2.6±0.1 dC
D5 54.8±2.5 dB 45.9±2.1 dB 7.8±0.5 cB 845.9±50.5 eB 36.7±0.6 eB 4.9±0.4 eB 2.1±0.2 eB
MY73 D1 115.0±2.3 aA 104.9±0.9 aB 15.3±0.3 aA 2019.5±20.2 aA 66.0±1.7 aA 19.0±0.9 aB 7.2±0.3 aA
D2 96.5±1.9 bA 94.7±1.4 bA 13.6±0.1 bA 1815.1±93.9 bA 56.7±2.5 bA 15.0±0.6 bA 6.2±0.1 bA
D3 88.3±2.3 cA 87.7±2.4 cA 12.4±0.5 cA 1457.2±33.4 cA 53.0±0.0 cA 9.5±0.6 cB 4.1±0.1 cA
D4 83.6±0.3 dA 72.3±1.7 dA 11.2±0.3 dA 1257.4±45.7 dA 49.7±0.6 dA 7.3±0.5 dB 3.7±0.0 dA
D5 77.2±1.2 eA 63.6±1.6 eA 10.3±0.9 dA 1026.6±37.7 eA 45.3±3.1 eA 6.6±0.3 eA 3.3±0.1 eA
2024-
Hebi		 XY335 D1 104.8±3.3 aB 129.9±1.6 aB 15.8±0.6 aA 2218.8±95.6 aB 61.0±0.9 aB 22.3±1.4 aA 5.8±0.3 aB
D2 100.4±2.7 bA 103.5±3.4 bB 14.2±0.8 bA 1829.6±35.3 bA 49.3±0.4 cB 15.0±0.9 bA 4.5±0.1 bB
D3 90.4±1.4 cA 92.7±3.0 cA 13.5±0.6 bA 1598.5±77.0 cA 48.3±0.2 dB 11.4±0.2 cA 3.5±0.0 cB
D4 78.9±1.7 dB 74.0±5.5 dB 12.0±0.7 cA 1233.2±104.3 dA 53.3±0.4 bA 9.9±1.5 dA 3.2±0.1 dB
D5 67.0±1.9 eB 60.2±1.5 eB 10.8±0.8 dA 952.7±91.2 eA 53.3±0.6 bA 5.9±0.8 eB 4.3±0.1 bA
ZD958 D1 70.0±1.8 aC 94.5±4.0 aC 10.3±0.7 aB 1793.1±88.8 aC 57.3±0.1 aC 16.3±0.2 aB 4.8±0.1 aC
D2 63.7±1.0 bB 78.3±3.5 bC 8.8±0.1 bB 1454.6±20.4 bB 41.7±1.2 bC 10.5±3.4 bB 3.9±0.1 bC
D3 54.3±1.5 cB 64.9±1.3 cC 8.8±0.7 bB 1199.2±61.0 cC 42.7±0.8 bC 7.7±0.1 bcC 3.1±0.1 cC
D4 49.1±1.2 dC 54.6±1.7 dC 8.6±0.6 bB 1076.5±65.1 dB 39.3±1.2 cC 6.8±0.5 cB 2.8±0.1 dC
D5 47.6±3.1 dC 51.1±1.3 dC 7.6±0.6 cB 769.1±9.1 eB 38.0±0.3 cB 4.8±1.0 dB 2.4±0.2 eB
MY73 D1 110.8±0.3 aA 141.8±6.5 aA 16.5±0.3 aA 2466.3±126.1 aA 77.3±0.5 aA 21.0±1.4 aA 7.6±0.1 aA
D2 99.5±1.5 bA 112.0±1.2 bA 14.5±0.1 bA 1857.3±70.7 bA 56.3±1.0 bA 15.1±0.6 bA 6.0±0.1 bA
D3 88.4±2.1 cA 86.0±2.9 cB 12.6±0.9 cA 1475.4±37.8 cB 54.7±1.0 cA 8.7±0.1 cB 4.3±0.0 cA
D4 91.3±1.9 cA 79.0±4.1 cdA 11.4±0.2 dA 1343.2±29.4 dA 44.3±0.5 dB 7.6±0.3 cdB 4.2±0.1 cA
D5 73.2±1.9 dA 65.0±2.8 dA 11.0±0.4 dA 1043.0±8.1 eA 53.3±1.0 cA 7.1±0.1 dA 4.1±0.0 dA
变异来源
Source of variation		 年地组合
Year-site
combination (Y)		 ns * ns ns ns ns ns
密度Density (D) *** ** *** *** *** *** **
品种Cultivar (C) ** ** * ** ** ** **
Y×D ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
Y×C ns ns ** ns ns ns ns
D×C * ns * ns *** *** **
Y×D×C *** *** ns ** *** ns ***

图1

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下的根系形态差异 缩写和处理同表1。单个品种左侧为根系原始图像, 右侧为根系扫描解析图。扫描图标注数据从左至右分别为左侧根角、根开角、右侧根角。比例尺为10 cm。"

表2

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下穗位叶及其上两叶叶夹角和叶向值的变化"

年地组合
Year-site combination		 品种
Cultivar		 密度
Density		 叶夹角 Leaf angle (°) 叶向值 Leaf orientation value
穗位叶
Ear-leaf		 穗上1叶
1st leaf upper ear		 穗上2叶
2nd leaf upper ear		 穗位叶
Ear leaf		 穗上1叶
1st leaf upper ear		 穗上2叶
2nd leaf upper ear
2023-
Xuchang		 XY335 D1 35.2±1.1 aB 28.6±0.6 aA 27.9±3.3 aA 40.1±0.9 eC 48.1±0.4 eC 56.2±0.3 bB
D2 32.7±0.4 abA 26.6±1.0 bA 24.5±0.4 abA 43.7±0.8 dB 50.2±0.6 dC 56.3±0.6 bB
D3 32.0±1.2 bA 23.8±0.3 cA 22.8±0.3 bcA 46.8±0.8 cC 52.4±0.4 cC 56.2±0.7 bC
D4 23.9±2.0 cA 20.2±1.3 dA 19.8±2.6 cA 48.7±0.6 bC 54.3±0.3 bC 56.3±0.6 bC
D5 22.7±1.9 cA 20.9±1.2 dA 19.4±1.3 cA 51.3±0.6 aC 56.3±1.3 aB 58.6±0.3 aC
ZD958 D1 38.8±1.0 aA 26.5±0.6 aB 20.3±0.5 aB 43.2±0.2 eB 50.8±1.9 cB 56.8±0.4 dA
D2 31.2±1.7 bA 19.1±1.0 bC 18.0±0.5 bB 45.5±1.2 dB 55.0±0.7 bB 57.6±0.4 cdA
D3 28.4±0.6 cB 17.6±0.6 cC 17.7±0.8 bB 49.5±0.7 cB 56.8±0.7 abB 57.8±0.5 cB
D4 25.6±0.5 dA 16.6±0.4 cB 15.6±1.2 cB 53.5±0.5 bB 56.7±0.5 abB 59.1±0.4 bB
D5 19.1±0.9 eB 14.5±1.1 dC 12.7±0.4 dC 56.7±1.1 aB 58.0±0.6 aB 60.6±0.5 aB
MY73 D1 33.6±1.0 aB 24.6±1.3 aC 21.3±1.2 aB 56.4±1.0 cA 54.8±0.7 dA 57.0±0.3 eA
D2 32.1±1.1 aA 22.5±0.7 bB 18.5±0.5 bB 57.9±1.1 cA 59.3±1.0 cA 58.7±0.8 dA
D3 26.4±0.8 bC 21.8±0.9 bB 16.8±0.5 cB 61.9±0.6 bA 60.1±1.6 cA 62.7±0.2 cA
D4 20.2±1.1 cB 19.0±0.7 cA 15.5±0.6 cdB 69.8±1.1 aA 69.1±0.7 bA 69.0±1.1 bA
D5 19.1±0.9 cB 18.5±0.7 cB 15.2±0.7 dB 70.9±0.9 aA 70.9±0.6 aA 70.6±0.7 aA
2024-
Hebi		 XY335 D1 38.7±0.4 aB 28.4±0.8 aA 28.2±1.2 aA 39.0±1.9 cB 48.4±0.5 cC 59.2±1.0 aA
D2 33.3±0.2 bA 26.9±0.3 bA 25.9±1.5 bA 42.8±1.9 bB 53.4±1.0 bC 59.7±0.7 aA
D3 31.2±1.1 cA 24.3±0.3 cA 23.2±1.0 cA 44.6±2.0 bB 54.8±2.1 abB 55.5±0.3 cB
D4 24.3±1.4 dA 23.2±0.8 cA 23.1±0.4 cA 49.8±2.1 aB 55.6±0.4 aC 55.0±0.3 cC
D5 21.6±1.4 eA 21.0±0.9 dA 18.6±1.6 dA 51.5±1.4 aB 56.1±0.6 aB 57.7±0.6 bC
ZD958 D1 40.8±0.8 aA 24.0±1.1 aB 21.6±1.6 aB 37.5±2.6 dB 52.8±1.2 cB 56.7±0.6 bB
D2 32.0±0.5 bA 19.6±0.4 bC 18.8±0.4 bB 40.2±2.7 cB 55.2±1.1 bB 55.5±0.6 cC
D3 28.7±1.2 cA 18.3±0.5 bcC 17.5±1.2 bB 45.0±2.3 bB 55.1±1.9 bB 55.5±0.5 cB
D4 26.3±0.7 dA 16.9±0.6 cC 15.2±0.3 cC 48.6±3.7 aB 57.6±1.0 aB 60.2±0.5 aB
D5 19.9±2.3 eA 13.5±1.0 dB 12.4±0.2 dB 50.8±4.3 aB 57.5±0.6 aB 60.8±0.5 aB
MY73 D1 33.4±2.6 aC 26.0±1.6 aAB 21.8±1.2 aB 45.2±1.5 eA 55.1±0.4 dA 56.6±0.4 cB
D2 33.0±2.2 aA 23.6±0.4 bB 19.5±0.3 bB 50.8±1.0 dA 58.4±0.7 cA 57.5±0.9 cB
D3 24.3±2.1 bB 22.3±0.4 bcB 17.3±1.0 cB 56.4±2.1 cA 59.7±1.4 cA 63.8±0.6 bA
D4 21.1±1.6 bcB 21.1±0.4 cB 16.0±0.4 cB 62.7±0.9 bA 67.0±0.8 bA 64.6±0.4 bA
D5 19.9±2.0 cA 19.4±0.9 dA 14.1±1.0 dB 69.1±3.6 aA 70.1±1.4 aA 67.5±0.2 aA
变异来源
Source of variation		 年地组合
Year-site combination (Y)		 ns ns ns ns ns ns
密度Density (D) ** *** *** *** *** ***
品种Cultivar (C) ** ** ** ** * **
Y×D ns ** ns ns ns ns
Y×C ns ** ns ns * ns
D×C ** *** ** * * ***
Y×D×C *** ns ns ns ns *

图2

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下冠层各层透光率的变化 缩写和处理同表1。TE: 冠层顶部至穗位的中点处; E: 穗位处; EG: 穗位至地面的中点处; G: 地上20 cm处。不同小写字母表示同一品种的不同密度间在0.05水平差异显著。不同大写字母表示同一密度下不同品种间在0.05水平差异显著。"

表3

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下穗位叶光合特性的变化"

年地组合
Year-site combination		 品种
Cultivar		 密度
Density		 净光合速率
Pn
(μmol m-2 s-1)		 气孔导度
Gs
(mol m-2 s-1)		 胞间二氧化碳浓度
Ci
(μmol m-2 s-1)		 蒸腾速率
Tr
(mmol m-2 s-1)
2023-Xuchang XY335 D1 32.8±0.8 aA 0.40±0.03 aA 285.2±4.5 aA 7.85±0.50 aA
D2 27.5±0.8 bC 0.32±0.02 bA 259.1±6.3 bAB 6.38±0.80 bA
D3 24.1±0.6 cB 0.24±0.00 cB 226.2±2.2 cB 4.71±0.15 cB
D4 21.8±0.8 dB 0.20±0.00 dB 203.5±4.8 dB 3.98±0.03 dAB
D5 16.3±0.5 eA 0.16±0.01 eA 171.4±3.3 eB 3.28±0.23 eAB
ZD958 D1 33.8±1.3 aA 0.41±0.02 aA 276.0±7.9 aA 7.56±0.44 aA
D2 28.3±0.9 bB 0.31±0.04 bA 241.0±6.5 bB 5.67±0.33 bB
D3 24.7±0.8 cB 0.26±0.02 cA 233.8±2.9 bA 5.07±0.21 cAB
D4 23.0±0.7 dA 0.21±0.00 dA 201.7±2.0 cB 4.07±0.08 dA
D5 15.5±0.6 eB 0.16±0.00 eA 179.5±2.4 dA 3.32±0.03 eA
MY73 D1 32.9±0.5 aA 0.42±0.03 aA 277.0±7.7 aA 8.25±0.41 aA
D2 29.1±0.3 bA 0.35±0.03 bA 265.3±13.0 aA 6.48±0.17 bA
D3 26.7±0.8 cA 0.26±0.02 cA 237.6±4.2 bA 5.39±0.26 cA
D4 23.1±0.7 dA 0.20±0.01 dB 210.6±2.1 cA 3.88±0.01 dB
D5 13.9±1.0 eC 0.14±0.00 eB 169.5±2.3 dB 3.02±0.04 eB
2024-Hebi XY335 D1 27.1±0.3 aB 0.34±0.03 aA 253.6±4.5 aA 6.75±0.50 aA
D2 24.7±0.4 bA 0.26±0.02 bB 229.1±6.3 bA 5.66±0.80 bA
D3 23.2±0.9 bcA 0.23±0.00 cA 211.4±2.2 cB 5.06±0.15 cA
D4 21.3±1.3 cA 0.21±0.00 dA 200.7±4.8 dA 4.28±0.03 dA
D5 15.8±1.3 dA 0.13±0.01 eA 159.9±3.3 eB 3.71±0.23 eA
ZD958 D1 29.7±1.7 aA 0.34±0.02 aA 234.2±7.9 aB 6.44±0.44 aA
D2 24.7±0.9 bA 0.23±0.04 bB 209.5±6.5 bB 4.91±0.33 bB
D3 22.7±0.7 bcAB 0.19±0.02 cB 207.5±2.9 bB 4.33±0.21 cB
D4 21.0±0.6 cA 0.18±0.00 cB 176.3±2.0 cB 4.16±0.08 cAB
D5 16.3±0.4 dA 0.12±0.00 dA 178.8±2.4 cA 3.13±0.03 dB
MY73 D1 28.2±0.6 aAB 0.39±0.03 aA 257.5±7.7 aA 6.77±0.41 aA
D2 25.9±0.3 bA 0.29±0.03 bA 231.6±13.0 bA 5.78±0.17 bA
D3 22.4±1.1 cB 0.23±0.02 cA 221.3±4.2 bA 4.90±0.26 cA
D4 20.1±1.0 dA 0.15±0.01 dC 181.3±2.1 cB 3.91±0.01 dB
D5 12.2±1.0 eB 0.09±0.00 eB 177.6±2.3 cA 2.71±0.04 eC
变异来源
Source of variation		 年地组合
Year-site combination (Y)		 ns * ** *
密度Density (D) ** *** *** ***
品种Cultivar (C) * ns * **
Y×D ns * ns *
Y×C * ns ns ns
D×C ** * * **
Y×D×C *** * ns ns

图3

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下各叶序叶面积的变化 缩写和处理同表1。"

表4

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下辐射利用率和产量变化"

年地组合
Year-site
combination		 品种
Cultivar		 密度
Density		 籽粒产量辐射利用率
Radiation utilization of grain yield (g MJ-1)		 地上生物量辐射利用率
Radiation utilization of aboveground
dry matter (g MJ-1)		 产量
Yield
(t hm-2)
2023年许昌
2023-Xuchang		 XY335 D1 1.28±0.02 aA 2.29±0.04 dA 12,680±183 aA
D2 1.30±0.06 aA 2.73±0.06 cA 12,923±588 aA
D3 1.25±0.01 aA 3.00±0.04 bA 12,393±140 bA
D4 1.04±0.03 bB 3.01±0.02 bA 10,290±255 cC
D5 0.81±0.03 cB 3.17±0.15 aA 8012±325 dB
ZD958 D1 1.01±0.01 bB 1.73±0.04 eB 10,060±139 bB
D2 1.10±0.06 abB 2.00±0.02 dB 10,975±563 abB
D3 1.15±0.08 aB 2.35±0.06 cB 11,457±816 aB
D4 1.08±0.05 abB 2.55±0.00 bB 10,745±516 abB
D5 0.75±0.02 cB 2.79±0.08 aB 7460±173 cC
MY73 D1 0.93±0.04 cC 1.60±0.04 dC 9260±367 dC
D2 1.10±0.09 bB 1.84±0.07 cC 10,950±909 cB
D3 1.24±0.08 aA 2.11±0.02 bC 12,300±749 abA
D4 1.33±0.05 aA 2.22±0.03 bC 13,248±459 aA
D5 1.34±0.03 aA 2.41±0.15 aC 13,280±346 aA
2024年鹤壁
2024-Hebi		 XY335 D1 1.16±0.04 aA 2.39±0.01 dA 11,190±391 aA
D2 1.18±0.03 aA 2.68±0.06 cA 11,370±265 aB
D3 1.02±0.04 bC 3.00±0.01 bA 9855±345 bC
D4 0.76±0.01 cC 3.24±0.01 aA 7335±64 cC
D5 0.26±0.02 dC 1.76±0.09 eC 2490±164 dC
ZD958 D1 1.05±0.01 bB 2.08±0.01 cB 10,142±54 bB
D2 1.19±0.04 aA 2.12±0.01 cB 11,476±424 aB
D3 1.19±0.05 aB 2.34±0.07 bB 11,444±485 aB
D4 1.07±0.04 bB 2.76±0.04 aB 10,307±359 bB
D5 0.84±0.10 cB 2.30±0.04 bA 8067±940 cB
MY73 D1 1.05±0.01 dB 1.71±0.10 bC 10,157±75 dB
D2 1.23±0.01 bA 1.98±0.04 aC 11,915±136 bA
D3 1.32±0.04 aA 2.10±0.04 aC 12,702±365 aA
D4 1.27±0.02 bA 1.98±0.07 aC 12,279±181 bA
D5 1.17±0.02 cA 2.07±0.08 aB 11,316±216 cA
变异来源
Source of variation		 年地组合
Year-site combination (Y)		 ns ns ns
密度Density (D) *** ** **
品种Cultivar (C) ** ** ***
Y×D ns ns *
Y×C ** ** ns
D×C *** *** **
Y×D×C * *** ***

表5

不同耐密性玉米品种的丰产性指数与密度敏感性指数"

品种
Cultivar		 2023年许昌2023-Xuchang 2024年鹤壁2024-Hebi
丰产性指数
YPI (t hm-2)		 密度敏感性指数
DSI (%)		 最适密度
OSD		 丰产性指数
YPI (t hm-2)		 密度敏感性指数
DSI (%)		 最适密度
OSD
XY335 12,923 2.99 D2 11,370 7.45 D2
ZD958 11,457 5.21 D3 11,476 5.95 D2
MY73 13,248 3.70 D4 12,702 4.76 D3

图4

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下籽粒灌浆曲线的变化 缩写和处理同表1。"

表6

不同耐密性玉米品种在不同种植密度处理下籽粒灌浆特征的变化"

年地组合Year-site combination 品种Cultivar 密度Density 决定系数
R2		 潜在粒重
A		 参数B
Parameter B		 参数K
Parameter K		 达最大灌浆速率的天数
Tmax (d)		 最大灌浆速率
Gmax
(g d-1)		 活跃灌浆期
Active grain filling period (d)
2023-
Xuchang		 XY335 D1 0.9950 38.97 13.98 0.1051 25.10 1.02 57.09
D2 0.9945 37.11 16.05 0.1035 26.82 0.96 57.97
D3 0.9971 36.19 18.29 0.1030 28.22 0.93 58.25
D4 0.9943 36.70 19.30 0.1087 27.23 1.00 55.20
D5 0.9948 36.54 18.45 0.1074 27.14 0.98 55.87
ZD958 D1 0.9980 35.37 14.51 0.1139 23.48 1.01 52.68
D2 0.9989 34.80 16.09 0.1122 24.76 0.98 53.48
D3 0.9946 32.62 16.14 0.1105 25.17 0.90 54.30
D4 0.9980 33.19 16.47 0.1154 24.28 0.96 51.99
D5 0.9940 35.65 16.45 0.1140 24.56 1.02 52.63
MY73 D1 0.9978 29.54 11.88 0.1101 22.48 0.81 54.50
D2 0.9988 29.71 11.97 0.1069 23.22 0.79 56.13
D3 0.9972 29.72 12.43 0.1056 23.86 0.78 56.82
D4 0.9952 29.26 12.52 0.1029 24.56 0.75 58.31
D5 0.9967 28.99 13.60 0.1020 25.59 0.74 58.82
2024-Hebi XY335 D1 0.9911 38.26 24.70 0.1461 21.95 1.40 41.07
D2 0.9917 37.21 33.79 0.1459 24.13 1.36 41.12
D3 0.9926 36.55 34.01 0.1457 24.20 1.33 41.18
D4 0.9936 35.43 35.26 0.1410 25.27 1.25 42.55
ZD958 D1 0.9948 32.30 40.12 0.1546 23.88 1.25 38.81
D2 0.9941 32.03 38.89 0.1494 24.50 1.20 40.16
D3 0.9946 31.55 36.80 0.1455 24.78 1.15 41.24
D4 0.9977 31.14 39.78 0.1439 25.60 1.12 41.70
D5 0.9949 29.56 44.56 0.1426 26.63 1.05 42.08
MY73 D1 0.9900 30.32 25.99 0.1256 25.94 0.95 47.77
D2 0.9901 29.26 26.46 0.1268 25.83 0.93 47.32
D3 0.9910 28.48 29.79 0.1271 26.70 0.90 47.21
D4 0.9908 28.21 28.29 0.1273 26.26 0.90 47.13
D5 0.9903 27.80 25.89 0.1205 27.00 0.84 49.79

图5

基于玉米生物量、冠层透光性、光合特性及产量性状的Mantel test相关性分析 CLT: 冠层透光率; CS: 冠层结构; PC: 光合特性; RSA: 根系构型; ADMW: 单株地上生物量; GWE: 单穗粒重; HI: 收获指数; KR: 出籽率; HGW: 百粒重; HGV: 百粒体积; RUG: 籽粒产量辐射利用率; RUA: 生物量辐射利用率。**和*分别表示在P < 0.01和P < 0.05水平显著相关。"

[1] Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, et al. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2011, 108: 20260-20264.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1116437108 pmid: 22106295
[2] Luo N, Meng Q F, Feng P Y, et al. China can be self-sufficient in maize production by 2030 with optimal crop management. Nat Commun, 2023, 14: 2637.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-38355-2
[3] Liu B H, Chen X P, Meng Q F, et al. Estimating maize yield potential and yield gap with agro-climatic zones in China: distinguish irrigated and rainfed conditions. Agric For Meteor, 2017, 239: 108-117.
doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.02.035
[4] Tokatlidis I S, Koutroubas S D. A review of maize hybrids’ dependence on high plant populations and its implications for crop yield stability. Field Crops Res, 2004, 88: 103-114.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2003.11.013
[5] Hou P, Liu Y E, Liu W M, et al. How to increase maize production without extra nitrogen input. Resour Conserv Recycl, 2020, 160: 104913.
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104913
[6] Mansfield B D, Mumm R H. Survey of plant density tolerance in U.S. maize germplasm. Crop Sci, 2014, 54: 157-173.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2013.04.0252
[7] 吴希, 王家瑞, 郝淼艺, 等. 种植密度对不同生育期玉米品种光温资源利用率和产量的影响. 作物学报, 2023, 49: 1065-1078.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.23032
Wu X, Wang J R, Hao M Y, et al. Effects of planting density on solar and heat resource utilization and yield of maize varieties at different growth stages. Acta Agron Sin, 2023, 49: 1065-1078 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.23032
[8] Amelong A, Hernández F, Novoa A D, et al. Maize stand density yield response of parental inbred lines and derived hybrids. Crop Sci, 2017, 57: 32-39.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2016.02.0083
[9] Hashemi A M, Herbert S J, Putnam D H. Yield response of corn to crowding stress. Agron J, 2005, 97: 839-846.
doi: 10.2134/agronj2003.0241
[10] Ottaviano E, Camussi A. Phenotypic and genetic relationships between yield components in maize. Euphytica, 1981, 30: 601-609.
doi: 10.1007/BF00038787
[11] Li J, Xie R Z, Wang K R, et al. Variations in maize dry matter, harvest index, and grain yield with plant density. Agron J, 2015, 107: 829-834.
doi: 10.2134/agronj14.0522
[12] Troyer A F, Wellin E J. Heterosis decreasing in hybrids: yield test inbreds. Crop Sci, 2009, 49: 1969-1976.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2009.04.0170
[13] Russell W A. Genetic improvement of maize yields. In: Advances in Agronomy Volume 46. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1991. pp 245-298.
[14] Hammer G L, Dong Z S, McLean G, et al. Can changes in canopy and/or root system architecture explain historical maize yield trends in the U.S. corn belt? Crop Sci, 2009, 49: 299-312.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2008.03.0152
[15] Sangoi L, Gracietti M A, Rampazzo C, et al. Response of Brazilian maize hybrids from different eras to changes in plant density. Field Crops Res, 2002, 79: 39-51.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00124-7
[16] Shao H, Xia T T, Wu D L, et al. Root growth and root system architecture of field-grown maize in response to high planting density. Plant Soil, 2018, 430: 395-411.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-018-3720-8
[17] Shao H, Shi D F, Shi W J, et al. Genotypic difference in the plasticity of root system architecture of field-grown maize in response to plant density. Plant Soil, 2019, 439: 201-217.
doi: 10.1007/s11104-019-03964-8
[18] 杨吉顺, 高辉远, 刘鹏, 等. 种植密度和行距配置对超高产夏玉米群体光合特性的影响. 作物学报, 2010, 36: 1226-1233.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2010.01226
Yang J S, Gao H Y, Liu P, et al. Effects of planting density and row spacing on canopy apparent photosynthesis of high-yield summer corn. Acta Agron Sin, 2010, 36: 1226-1233 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2010.01226
[19] Piao L, Qi H, Li C F, et al. Optimized tillage practices and row spacing to improve grain yield and matter transport efficiency in intensive spring maize. Field Crops Res, 2016, 198: 258-268.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.08.012
[20] 孙磊康, 李孝永, 郭航兆, 等. 施氮量和种植密度对玉米冠层光截获、籽粒灌浆和产量的影响. 农业工程学报, 2025, 41(22): 101-113.
Sun L K, Li X Y, Guo H Z, et al. Effects of nitrogen application rate and planting density on light interception in different maize canopy layers, grain filling, and yield. Trans CSAE, 2025, 41(22): 101-113 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[21] 贾倩民. 半干旱区集雨补灌与种植密度对玉米生长及光合生理特性的影响. 西北农林科技大学博士学位论文, 陕西杨凌, 2018.
Jia Q M. Effects of Rainwater-harvesting Planting with Supplemental Irrigation and Planting Densities on the Growth and Photosynthetic Physiology of Maize in the Semi-arid Regions. PhD Dissertation of Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China, 2018 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[22] 张明, 宋振伟, 陈涛, 等. 不同春玉米品种干物质生产和籽粒灌浆对种植密度的响应. 玉米科学, 2015, 23(3): 57-65.
Zhang M, Song Z W, Chen T, et al. Differences in responses of biomass production and grain-filling to planting density between spring maize cultivars. J Maize Sci, 2015, 23(3): 57-65 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[23] 张倩, 张明才, 刘明, 等. 氮肥-生长调节剂对寒地春玉米植株形态及产量的互作效应研究. 中国农业大学学报, 2014, 19(5): 29-37.
Zhang Q, Zhang M C, Liu M, et al. Interaction of nitrogen fertilizer and plant growth regular on plant morphology and yield in spring maize of cold region. J China Agric Univ, 2014, 19(5): 29-37 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[24] 宋利, 刘广周, 张华, 等. 西南地区密植栽培下水肥一体化显著提升玉米产量、水肥利用效率和经济效益. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2025, 31: 2472-2482.
Song L, Liu G Z, Zhang H, et al. Integrated water and fertilizer management under high-density cultivation significantly improves maize yield, water and fertilizer utilization efficiency, and economic benefits in Southwest China. J Plant Nutr Fert, 2025, 31: 2472-2482 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[25] 杨锦忠, 赵延明, 宋希云. 玉米产量对密度的敏感性研究. 生物数学学报, 2015, 30(2): 243-252.
Yang J Z, Zhao Y M, Song X Y. Sensitivity of crop yield to plant density with an example in maize. J Biomath, 2015, 30(2): 243-252 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[26] 关雅静, 张茜, 孔德杰, 等. 种植方式和密度对宁夏中部干旱带玉米叶片特征和产量的影响. 北方农业学报, 2025, 53(4): 11-26.
doi: 10.12190/j.issn.2096-1197.2025.04.02
Guan Y J, Zhang Q, Kong D J, et al. Effects of planting patterns and densities on leaf characteristics and yield of maize in the arid zone of central Ningxia. J North Agric, 2025, 53(4): 11-26 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[27] 黄紫岳, 王园园, 马守田, 等. 种植品种与密度互作对玉米根系形态的影响. 生态学杂志, 2025, 44: 3613-3619.
Huang Z Y, Wang Y Y, Ma S T, et al. Interactive effects of cultivar and planting density on root morphology of summer maize. Chin J Ecol, 2025, 44: 3613-3619 (in Chinese with English abstract).
doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202511.017
[28] Legendre P, Legendre L. Numerical Ecology, 3rd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2012. pp 515-568.
[29] Rogers E D, Benfey P N. Regulation of plant root system architecture: implications for crop advancement. Curr Opin Biotechnol, 2015, 32: 93-98.
doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.11.015
[30] Wiesler F, Horst W J. Root growth and nitrate utilization of maize cultivars under field conditions. Plant Soil, 1994, 163: 267-277.
doi: 10.1007/BF00007976
[31] Zhang P, Wang Y Y, Sheng D C, et al. Optimizing root system architecture to improve root anchorage strength and nitrogen absorption capacity under high plant density in maize. Field Crops Res, 2023, 303: 109109.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109109
[32] Anderson E L. Tillage and N fertilization effects on maize root growth and root: shoot ratio. Plant Soil, 1988, 108: 245-251.
doi: 10.1007/BF02375655
[33] Hébert Y, Guingo E, Loudet O. The response of root/shoot partitioning and root morphology to light reduction in maize genotypes. Crop Sci, 2001, 41: 363-371.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2001.412363x
[34] 陈延玲, 吴秋平, 陈晓超, 等. 不同耐密性玉米品种的根系生长及其对种植密度的响应. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2012, 18: 52-59.
Chen Y L, Wu Q P, Chen X C, et al. Root growth and its response to increasing planting density in different maize hybrids. J Plant Nutr Fert, 2012, 18: 52-59 (in Chinese with English abstract).
[35] Liu F, Zhou F, Wang X L, et al. Optimizing nitrogen management enhances stalk lodging resistance and grain yield in dense planting maize by improving canopy light distribution. Eur J Agron, 2023, 148: 126871.
doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2023.126871
[36] Li R F, Zhang G Q, Liu G Z, et al. Improving the yield potential in maize by constructing the ideal plant type and optimizing the maize canopy structure. Food Energy Secur, 2021, 10: e312.
[37] Jaikumar N S, Stutz S S, Fernandes S B, et al. Can improved canopy light transmission ameliorate loss of photosynthetic efficiency in the shade? An investigation of natural variation in Sorghum bicolor. J Exp Bot, 2021, 72: 4965-4980.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab176 pmid: 33914063
[38] Wei S S, Wang X Y, Li G H, et al. Plant density and nitrogen supply affect the grain-filling parameters of maize kernels located in different ear positions. Front Plant Sci, 2019, 10: 180.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00180 pmid: 30881365
[39] Liu Z, Hao Z H, Sha Y, et al. High responsiveness of maize grain yield to nitrogen supply is explained by high ear growth rate and efficient ear nitrogen allocation. Field Crops Res, 2022, 286: 108610.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108610
[1] 张妍妍, 李迎, 刘栩辰, 黄超, 吕佳宁, 周海佳, 马守田, 秦安振, 高子乐, 吴光辉, 陈丹, 姬夏楠, 刘战东. 深松耕作条件下滴灌对冬小麦花后干物质积累及灌浆特性的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(11): 3065-3079.
[2] 崔栋, 王同超, 杨松林, 任佰朝, 高英波, 于宁宁, 张吉旺. 灌溉方式和种植密度优化协同提高夏玉米产量和水分利用效率[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(11): 3026-3037.
[3] 张琪祺, 陈杰昌, 蒯婕, 汪波, 王晶, 徐正华, 赵杰, 赵思明, 贾才华, 周广生. 高密度直播对油菜冷榨菜籽油品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(9): 2358-2370.
[4] 彭杰, 谢晓麒, 张钊, 姚晓芬, 邱深, 陈丹丹, 顾晓娜, 王玉洁, 王晨晨, 杨国正. 夏直播棉花产量与冠层微环境的关系[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(9): 2371-2382.
[5] 田红丽, 杨扬, 范亚明, 易红梅, 王蕊, 金石桥, 晋芳, 张云龙, 刘亚维, 王凤格, 赵久然. 用于玉米品种真实性鉴定的最优核心SNP位点集的研发[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(5): 1115-1123.
[6] 岳海旺, 魏建伟, 刘朋程, 陈淑萍, 卜俊周. 基于GYT双标图分析对黄淮海生态区玉米品种综合评价[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(4): 836-856.
[7] 聂晓玉, 李真, 王天尧, 周元委, 徐正华, 王晶, 汪波, 蒯婕, 周广生. 种植密度对角果期弱光胁迫油菜籽粒油脂积累的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(2): 493-505.
[8] 刘雨杭, 赵书宏, 祝婷婷, 梁振宇, 贺大海, 陈佳博, 任勇, 黄林, 樊高琼, 伍碧华. 二氢赤霉素对不同增密条件下蜀麦133冠层光能截获和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2024, 50(11): 2787-2800.
[9] 刘昕萌, 程乙, 刘玉文, 庞尚水, 叶秀芹, 卜艳霞, 张吉旺, 赵斌, 任佰朝, 任昊, 刘鹏. 黄淮海区域现代夏玉米品种产量与资源利用效率的差异分析[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(5): 1363-1371.
[10] 吴希, 王家瑞, 郝淼艺, 张宏军, 张仁和. 种植密度对不同生育期玉米品种光温资源利用率和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(4): 1065-1078.
[11] 张振博, 屈馨月, 于宁宁, 任佰朝, 刘鹏, 赵斌, 张吉旺. 施氮量对夏玉米籽粒灌浆特性和内源激素作用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(9): 2366-2376.
[12] 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.
[13] 李瑞东, 尹阳阳, 宋雯雯, 武婷婷, 孙石, 韩天富, 徐彩龙, 吴存祥, 胡水秀. 增密对不同分枝类型大豆品种同化物积累和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(4): 942-951.
[14] 田红丽, 赵紫薇, 杨扬, 范亚明, 班秀丽, 易红梅, 杨洪明, 刘少荣, 高玉倩, 刘亚维, 王凤格. 290个吉林省审定玉米品种SSR-DNA指纹构建及遗传多样性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(12): 2994-3003.
[15] 王利青, 于晓芳, 高聚林, 马达灵, 胡树平, 郭怀怀, 刘爱业. 不同年代玉米品种籽粒产量形成对种植密度的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(10): 2625-2637.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

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