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

20

PDF

800

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] 胡川, 赵凯男, 黄修利, 吴金芝, 任开明, 王贺正, 付国占, 黄明, 李友军. 一次灌溉下耕作方式和氮肥用量对旱地小麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1830-1846.
[2] 马胜乾, 王志平, 陈浩天, 窦淑贤, 张燕, 邓艾兴, 张卫建, 原向阳, 宋振伟. 秸秆还田下耕作方式与氮肥施用量对东北玉米产量及土壤团聚体的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(6): 1802-1816.
[3] 侯思宇, 王国璀, 韦金贵, 谢玮欣, 殷文, 樊志龙, 柴强, 胡发龙. 绿肥配施化学氮肥对西北干旱灌区小麦干物质积累及产量形成的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(4): 1208-1219.
[4] 于天一, 王春晓, 肖丽, 钟召迪, 王宣仓, 赵勇, 路亚, 吴月, 吴正锋. 不同结瘤特性花生品种氮素累积、产量及品质特性对氮肥用量的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 881-894.
[5] 李晓龙, 严清彪, 李正鹏, 殷文, 樊志龙, 胡发龙, 韩梅, 柴强. 氮肥减施协同绿肥过腹还田可降低青海高原小麦农田温室气体排放[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(3): 908-921.
[6] 李心怡, 陈欣童, 赵闯, 王茜, 丛佳慧, 林若薇, 邱渝欣, 杨晓光. 气候变化对作物病虫害影响的研究进展[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 331-348.
[7] 许倍铭, 郝紫瑞, 冯健超, 马耕, 王丽芳, 谢迎新, 王晨阳, 马冬云. 氮磷减施对不同强筋小麦品种产量和品质及其土壤生物学特性的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 603-619.
[8] 石吕, 石晓旭, 韩笑, 单海勇, 刘旭杰, 张晋, 严旖旎, 李赢, 刘海翠, 魏亚凤, 杨美英, 薛亚光, 刘建, 张祖建. 氮肥减量与追施方式对小麦产量和氮肥利用效率及麦田N2O排放的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 202-220.
[9] 朱家宝, 王先领, 樊友众, 王宗铠, 蒯婕, 汪波, 王晶, 徐正华, 赵杰, 周广生. 秸秆还田耦合氮肥运筹对稻茬油菜茎秆质量和抗倒伏性能的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 233-248.
[10] 陈宣伊, 张健伟, 张向前, 葛国龙, 路战远, 郭星星, 马子惠, 李欣艺, 陈立宇. 大豆玉米不同条带间作对玉米带水热时空动态变化及玉米产量效益的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 178-190.
[11] 付江鹏, 柳发财, 闫宝琴, 王永栋, 李利利, 魏玮, 周英霞. 控释肥替代普通尿素对旱作高粱干物质积累分配、产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2501-2513.
[12] 卓峰琦, 唐振三, 雷雨俊, 程李香, 赵甜甜, 吕汰, 杨晨, 张峰. 基于烹饪方式及回生温度筛选低升糖马铃薯品种(系)[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2538-2546.
[13] 樊友众, 王先领, 王宗铠, 王春云, 王天尧, 谢捷, 蒯婕, 汪波, 王晶, 徐正华, 赵杰, 周广生. 秸秆还田耦合氮肥运筹对稻茬油菜光合性能及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2139-2151.
[14] 尤根基, 谢昊, 梁毓文, 李龙, 王玉茹, 蒋晨炀, 郭剑, 李广浩, 陆大雷. 氮肥减施措施对江淮春玉米产量和氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2152-2163.
[15] 闫喆林, 任强, 樊志龙, 殷文, 孙亚丽, 范虹, 何蔚, 胡发龙, 闫丽娟, 柴强. 氮肥后移优化绿洲灌区小麦间作玉米种间关系提高氮素利用效率[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2190-2203.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

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