迟播和密度对不同油菜品种抗倒伏及产量的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2023.24248

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

研究迟播和密度对油菜抗倒伏及产量的影响, 为油菜机械化生产提供理论及技术支撑。以陕油28、秦优28及秦优7号为供试品种, 分别设置3个播期(T1: 9月24日、T2: 10月1日、T3: 10月8日)和3个密度(D1: 22.5万株 hm^-2、D2: 45.0万株 hm^-2、67.5万株 hm^-2)处理, 分析其产量及构成因素、倒伏相关指标、茎秆主要成分含量及显微结构等指标。结果表明: (1) T1、T2下, 随种植密度增加, 3个品种单株产量均下降, 群体产量均先增后降, 倒伏指数均先降后增, 维管束与茎秆横截面积均下降, 维管束面积/茎秆横截面积、茎秆木质素与纤维素含量均先增后降, D2时群体产量最大, 倒伏指数最小, 产量与抗倒伏能力协同增加。迟播条件(T3)下, 随密度增加, 3个品种单株产量、倒伏指数、茎秆木质素及纤维素含量、地上部鲜重、维管束面积及茎秆横截面积及二者之比均显著下降, 群体产量及抗倒性增强, 木质素含量与茎秆抗倒伏能力显著正相关, 群体产量及材料抗倒能力在D3时达最大值。与正常播期(T1)相比, 迟播条件(T3)下, 各密度下, 3个品种单株角果数、每角粒数、单株产量及群体产量、地上鲜重、倒伏指数均显著下降, 但抗倒伏能力增强。(2) 正常播期(T1)下, 3个品种群体产量最高时, 种植密度均为45.0万株 hm^-2。迟播(T3)后, 密度67.5万株 hm^-2时3个品种产量均最高, 其中陕油28的耐密性与耐迟播性最佳。综上所述, 迟播条件下, 选择耐密及耐迟播品种, 并适度增加密度, 可弥补单产不足, 显著提高茎秆木质素及纤维素含量、增强油菜抗倒伏能力, 有效协调高产与倒伏间的矛盾, 通过以密补迟实现迟播油菜高产抗倒。

关键词: 油菜, 播期, 密度, 产量, 抗倒性

Abstract:

To study the effects of late sowing and density on the lodging resistance and yield of rapeseed, and to provide the theoretical and technical support for the mechanized production of rapeseed, using three canola varieties (Shaanyou 28, Qinyou 28, and Qinyou 7) as the experimental materials, three sowing dates (T1: September 24, T2: October 1, and T3: October 8), and three densities (D1: 225,000 plants hm^-2, D2: 450,000 plants hm^-2, and D3: 675,000 plants hm^-2) were set up to analyze the yield and constituent factors, the indexes related to lodging, the main components of the stem and the microstructure of the stem. The results showed that: (1) Under T1 and T2 treatments, with the increase of plant density, the yield of each plant of the three varieties decreased, the group yield increased first and then decreased, the lodging index decreased first and then increased, the vascular bundle and stem cross-sectional area decreased, the vascular bundle area/stem cross-sectional area, stem lignin, and cellulose content increased first and then decreased, the group yield was the largest at D2, while the lodging index was the smallest, and the yield and lodging resistance increased synergistically. Under the late sowing condition (T3), with the increase of density, the yield, lodging index, stem lignin, and cellulose content, above-ground fresh weight, vascular bundle area, stem cross-sectional area, and their ratios of the three cultivars decreased significantly, the group yield and lodging resistance increased, the lignin content was significantly positively correlated with the lodging resistance of stems, and the population yield and material resistance reached the maximum at D3. Compared with the normal sowing period (T1), the effective pods per plant, seeds per pod, yield per plant, population yield, and above-ground fresh weight the lodging index of each plant decreased significantly under the late sowing condition (T3), but the lodging resistance was enhanced. (2) Under the normal sowing period (T1), when the yield of the three variety groups was the highest, planting density was 450,000 plants hm^-2. When the sowing date was delayed from T1 to T3, the yield of the three varieties was the highest at the density of 675,000 plants hm^-2, among which Shaanyou 28 had the best density tolerance and late sowing resistance. In conclusion, under the late sowing condition, selecting dense and late sowing tolerant varieties and moderately increasing the density can compensate for the lack of yield, significantly increase the lignin and cellulose content of the stem, enhance the lodging resistance of rapeseed, effectively coordinate the contradiction between high yield and lodging, and achieve high yield and lodging resistance of late sowing rapeseed by compensating late with dense.

Key words: rapeseed, sowing date, planting density, yield, lodging resistance

巩若琳, 宋波, 杨志叶, 路丽静, 董军刚. 迟播和密度对不同油菜品种抗倒伏及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2023, 49(10): 2777-2792.

GONG Ruo-Lin, SONG Bo, YANG Zhi-Ye, LU Li-Jing, DONG Jun-Gang. Effects of sowing date and density on lodging resistance and yield of different rapeseed cultivars[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2023, 49(10): 2777-2792.

图/表 11

表1

图1

表2

不同播期和密度对油菜农艺性状的影响"

品种 Variety	播期 Sowing date	密度 Density	根颈粗 Thick rhizome (mm)	株高 Plant height (cm)	分枝高度Branch height (cm)	主花序长度 Main inflorescence length (cm)	地下干重Underground dry weight (g)	地上干重 Dry weight above ground (g)
2019-2020
S28	T1	D1	25.37 ab	183.85 c	78.31 j	58.28 f	5.42 a	112.17 b
		D2	23.92 cd	178.35 de	79.81 hi	54.89 hi	5.07 ab	100.30 de
		D3	23.17 def	174.47 f	82.40 ef	53.41 j	4.90 abc	96.99 e
	T2	D1	24.17 cd	168.92 gh	77.85 j	53.96 ij	4.71 abcde	105.22 c
		D2	23.31 cde	166.42 hi	78.26 j	51.41 kl	4.36 bcdefg	101.66 d
		D3	23.30 cde	159.12 j	80.74 gh	50.49 lm	4.00 efghi	97.44 e
	T3	D1	19.27 i	153.02 k	78.87 ij	49.88 m	3.99 efghi	88.56 g
		D2	22.30 efgh	149.30 l	82.45 ef	51.83 k	4.36 bcdefg	92.53 f
		D3	23.74 cd	141.13 n	84.16 cd	52.17 k	4.62 cde	98.88 de
Q28	T1	D1	25.70 a	188.20 b	75.09 l	64.06 c	5.10 ab	115.81 a
		D2	24.39 bc	184.58 c	76.28 k	58.80 ef	4.84 abcd	97.78 e
		D3	23.35 cde	176.89 ef	79.76 hi	55.77 gh	4.39 bcdefg	85.80 g
	T2	D1	24.17 cd	171.26 g	78.57 j	59.68 e	4.75 abcde	100.60 de
		D2	24.05 cd	168.07 hi	80.76 gh	56.07 g	4.48 bcdefg	92.60 f
		D3	21.69 gh	165.16 i	81.66 fg	53.91 ij	4.24 cdefgh	88.82 g
	T3	D1	19.75 i	152.68 k	79.74 hi	51.01 kl	4.07 defghi	72.14 j
		D2	21.30 h	149.20 l	83.20 de	52.19 k	4.35 bcdefg	77.92 i
		D3	22.07 fgh	142.51 mn	85.11 bc	55.30 gh	4.56 bcdef	80.51 hi
Q7	T1	D1	25.46 ab	193.15 a	81.71 fg	66.36 b	5.12 ab	115.14 ab
		D2	24.39 bc	185.98 bc	80.90 gh	67.54 a	4.77 abcde	97.23 e
		D3	23.10 def	180.95 d	83.48 de	63.77 c	4.25 cdefgh	81.53 h
	T2	D1	24.01 cd	176.07 ef	80.05 h	63.21 c	4.05 defghi	97.48 e
		D2	23.93 cd	152.69 k	82.66 ef	61.45 d	3.81 fghi	85.65 g
		D3	23.28 cde	144.29 m	85.96 b	57.99 f	3.56 hi	70.17 jk
	T3	D1	22.38 efgh	160.89 j	83.77 d	53.48 j	3.33 i	68.62 k
		D2	22.52 efg	143.67 mn	85.81 b	54.00 ij	3.49 hi	70.93 jk
		D3	22.34 efgh	134.41 o	89.06 a	53.90 ij	3.61 ghi	79.37 hi
2020-2021
S28	T1	D1	22.44 a	180.17 bc	76.25 fghij	58.23 def	4.67 a	94.65 b
		D2	21.41 b	174.62 def	78.12 bcde	55.65 ghij	4.37 bc	85.66 efg
		D3	20.79 c	164.71 hi	78.41 bcd	52.81 l	3.81 fg	80.60 hij
	T2	D1	21.49 b	169.46 fgh	75.64 ghijk	57.77 def	4.69 a	87.23 def
		D2	20.54 c	162.69 i	76.50 efghi	54.51 ijk	4.50 ab	74.69 k
		D3	18.90 e	156.47 j	76.61 defghi	53.25 kl	3.92 ef	67.86 m
	T3	D1	19.00 e	148.23 kl	75.37 hijk	53.21 kl	3.72 fgh	72.85 kl
		D2	20.51 c	152.76 jk	75.92 ghijk	54.08 jkl	4.17 cd	77.75 j
		D3	21.17 b	147.74 kl	76.51 efghi	55.80 ghi	4.53 ab	86.52 efg
Q28	T1	D1	19.64 d	183.12 ab	74.25 kl	60.26 b	4.21 cd	96.02 b
		D2	18.63 ef	176.89 cd	75.43 hijk	57.93 def	3.83 fg	84.69 fg
		D3	17.89 g	173.74 def	76.83 defgh	56.67 fgh	3.59 hij	78.07 ij
Q28	T2	D1	18.74 e	172.03 defg	71.31 m	58.46 cde	3.83 fg	90.54 c
		D2	17.49 h	163.84 i	73.60 l	56.71 fgh	3.66 ghi	86.13 efg
		D3	16.76 jk	156.13 j	74.53 jkl	55.22 hij	3.52 ijk	70.82 lm
	T3	D1	17.04 ij	149.04 kl	71.56 m	54.50 ijk	3.31 lm	64.20 n
		D2	17.54 h	152.58 jk	73.21 l	55.37 ghij	3.65 ghi	72.84 kl
		D3	18.34 f	156.28 j	74.82 ijkl	56.11 ghi	3.87 efg	83.56 gh
Q7	T1	D1	17.18 hi	187.28 a	78.14 bcde	63.40 a	4.05 de	101.31 a
		D2	17.09 ij	175.70 cde	78.67 bc	60.42 c	3.73 fgh	90.92 c
		D3	15.90 mn	171.08 efg	80.66 a	58.44 cde	3.74 fgh	80.94 hi
	T2	D1	16.87 ij	167.52 ghi	77.30 cdefg	60.49 b	3.85 efg	96.56 b
		D2	16.22 lm	156.54 j	78.34 bcde	59.82 bc	3.70 fghi	88.32 cde
		D3	15.92 mn	152.35 jk	79.49 ab	58.13 def	3.38 kl	68.68 m
	T3	D1	15.43 o	146.33 l	75.65 ghijk	56.93 efg	3.15 m	70.23 lm
		D2	15.72 no	150.00 kl	77.75 bcdef	59.05 bcd	3.40 jkl	81.03 hi
		D3	16.43 kl	155.90 j	78.01 bcdef	60.43 b	3.79 fgh	90.27 cd
品种V			**	**	**	**	**	**
播期T			**	**	**	**	**	**
种植密度D			**	**	**	**	NS	**
V×T			**	**	**	**	*	**
V×D			**	**	NS	**	NS	**
T×D			**	**	**	**	**	**
V×T×D			**	**	**	**	NS	**
品种V			**	**	**	**	**	**
播期T			**	**	**	**	**	**
种植密度D			**	**	**	**	**	**
V×T			**	**	NS	*	**	**
V×D			**	*	NS	NS	**	**
T×D			**	**	NS	**	**	**
V×T×D			**	NS	NS	NS	**	**

表2

表3

不同播期和密度对油菜产量及产量构成的影响"

年份 Year	品种 Variety	播期 Sowing date	密度 Density	单株角果数Effective pods per plant	每角果粒数 Seeds per pod	千粒重 1000-seed weight (g)	单株产量 Yield per plant (g)	实收产量 Yield (kg hm^-2)
2019-2020	S28	T1	D1	266.05 a	21.73 a	4.37 a	23.08 a	3766.47 b
			D2	191.04 g	20.90 b	4.07 b	14.58 d	4271.16 a
			D3	105.97 n	20.27 cd	3.97 bc	7.67 h	3290.40 c
		T2	D1	257.88 b	20.79 b	3.98 bc	19.20 b	2951.13 de
			D2	175.49 i	20.08 de	3.80 cde	12.06 e	3246.03 c
			D3	100.51 opq	19.41 ghij	3.72 defg	6.61 ij	2647.15 fgh
		T3	D1	189.50 g	19.66 efg	3.56 ghij	12.09 e	1906.04 klm
			D2	144.53 k	19.43 fghi	3.38 ijklm	8.52 g	2372.30 hi
			D3	96.33 q	18.49 lm	3.36 jklmn	5.46 kl	2503.15 ghi
	Q28	T1	D1	250.45 c	21.41 a	3.99 bc	19.55 b	3071.99 cd
			D2	196.24 f	20.05 de	3.96 bc	14.22 d	3959.96 b
			D3	101.26 op	19.58 fgh	3.90 bcd	6.96 hi	2916.53 def
		T2	D1	243.15 d	19.88 def	3.86 bcd	17.16 c	2744.31 efg
			D2	172.86 i	19.36 ghij	3.55 ghij	10.74 f	3235.41 c
			D3	98.73 pq	18.78 klm	3.48 hijkl	6.01 jk	2280.73 ij
		T3	D1	176.70 hi	19.44 fghi	3.26 lmno	10.26 f	1653.44 m
			D2	126.63 l	18.98 jkl	3.16 no	6.95 hi	1900.72 klm
			D3	96.43 q	17.91 m	3.10 o	4.91 lm	2058.85 jk
	Q7	T1	D1	229.48 e	20.86 b	3.79 cdef	16.61 c	2560.91 ghi
			D2	180.15 h	20.63 bc	3.59 efghi	12.23 e	3314.77 c
			D3	103.60 no	19.44 fghi	3.40 ijklm	6.19 ijk	2531.39 ghi
		T2	D1	187.37 g	20.59 bc	3.57 fghij	12.57 e	1917.35 klm
			D2	142.59 k	19.74 efg	3.50 ghijk	9.04 g	2497.28 ghi
			D3	91.38 r	19.14 hijk	3.32 klmn	5.22 lm	2043.14 jk
		T3	D1	164.39 j	19.10 ijk	3.63 efgh	10.60 f	1676.16 m
			D2	115.35 m	18.58 lm	3.47 hijkl	6.55 ij	1739.68 lm
			D3	87.02 s	18.00 m	3.25 mno	4.54 m	1976.85 kl
2020-2021	S28	T1	D1	242.70 a	20.58 a	4.26 a	19.28 a	3062.74 a
			D2	172.11 cd	19.58 de	3.81 bc	11.38 d	3284.82 a
			D3	94.89 ij	18.74 gh	3.80 bc	6.02 hij	2415.76 bc
		T2	D1	239.71 a	19.85 cd	3.69 d	15.64 b	2376.56 bc
			D2	159.16 e	19.24 ef	3.53 ef	9.60 ef	2558.25 b
			D3	90.48 jk	18.48 ghi	3.47 g	5.19 jkl	2005.97 def
		T3	D1	180.18 c	19.42 e	3.26 j	10.33 e	1636.10 hijk
			D2	139.24 f	18.19 ijk	3.16 lm	6.71 h	1826.40 fghi
2020-2021			D3	86.29 jkl	17.56 m	3.14 m	4.29 mno	1975.98 defg
	Q28	T1	D1	232.13 ab	20.25 ab	3.81 b	16.18 b	2568.00 b
			D2	177.51 c	19.28 ef	3.76 bc	11.37 d	3281.50 a
			D3	93.02 jk	18.56 ghi	3.75 cd	5.75 ij	2367.90 bc
		T2	D1	232.63 ab	19.19 ef	3.80 bc	15.50 b	2503.75 b
			D2	158.22 e	18.60 ghi	3.38 hi	8.98 fg	2611.15 b
			D3	88.33 jkl	17.86 klm	3.33 i	4.84 klm	2087.25 de
		T3	D1	162.40 de	18.87 fg	3.12 m	8.68 g	1348.63 lm
			D2	116.39 gh	17.98 jkl	2.93 o	5.50 jk	1400.61 klm
			D3	83.08 jkl	17.02 n	2.83 p	3.63 o	1637.36 hijk
	Q7	T1	D1	223.22 b	20.02 bc	3.58 e	14.52 c	2222.13 cd
			D2	162.93 de	19.17 ef	3.40 h	9.61 ef	2613.72 b
			D3	84.29 jkl	18.61 ghi	3.25 jk	4.55 lmn	1861.85 efgh
		T2	D1	172.50 cd	19.30 e	3.26 j	9.77 ef	1431.02 klm
			D2	123.12 g	18.38 hij	3.13 m	6.45 hi	1745.68 ghij
			D3	80.55 kl	17.66 lm	3.06 n	3.86 no	1518.82 jklm
		T3	D1	152.99 e	18.22 ijk	3.49 fg	8.96 fg	1307.36 m
			D2	106.15 hi	17.45 m	3.25 jk	5.19 jkl	1433.84 klm
			D3	75.87 l	16.95 n	3.20 kl	3.69 o	1595.42 ijkl
2019-2020		品种V		**	**	**	**	**
		播期T		**	**	**	**	**
		种植密度D		**	**	**	**	**
		V×T		**	**	**	**	**
		V×D		**	NS	NS	**	NS
		T×D		**	NS	NS	**	**
		V×T×D		**	*	NS	**	*
2020-2021		品种V		**	**	**	**	**
		播期T		**	**	**	**	**
		种植密度D		**	**	**	**	**
		V×T		**	**	**	**	**
		V×D		**	NS	NS	**	NS
		T×D		**	NS	*	**	**
		V×T×D		**	NS	**	**	NS

表3

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

表4

表5

参考文献 39

[1]	中华人民共和国国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2021. p 261.
	National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China. China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China, 2021. p 261. (in Chinese)
[2]	蒯婕, 王积军, 左青松, 陈红琳, 高建芹, 汪波, 周广生, 傅廷栋. 长江流域直播油菜密植效应及其机理研究进展. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51: 4625-4632. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.24.004
	Kuai J, Wang J J, Zuo Q S, Chen H L, Gao J Q, Wang B, Zhou G S, Fu T D. Effects and mechanism of higher plant density on directly-sown rapeseed in the Yangtze river basin of China. Sci Agric Sin, 2018, 51: 4625-4632. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.24.004
[3]	李小勇, 周敏, 王涛, 张兰, 周广生, 蒯婕. 种植密度对油菜机械收获关键性状的影响. 作物学报, 2018, 44: 278-287. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2018.00278
	Li X Y, Zhou M, Wang T, Zhang L, Zhou G S, Kuai J. Effects of planting density on the mechanical harvesting characteristics of semi-winter rapeseed. Acta Agron Sin, 2018, 44: 278-287. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2018.00278
[4]	费维新, 王淑芬, 李强生, 吴晓芸, 陈凤祥, 侯树敏, 荣松柏, 郝仲萍, 高智谋, 胡宝成. 冬油菜适当迟播有效减轻油菜根肿病. 中国油料作物学报, 2016, 38: 502-507.
	Fei W X, Wang S F, Li Q S, Wu X Y, Chen F X, Hou S M, Rong S B, Hao Z P, Gao Z M, Hu B C. Reducing clubroot disease by late sowing of winter rapeseed. Chin J Oil Crop Sci, 2016, 38: 502-507. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	袁圆, 汪波, 周广生, 刘芳, 黄俊生, 蒯婕. 播期和种植密度对油菜产量和茎秆抗倒性的影响. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54: 1613-1626. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.08.004
	Yuan Y, Wang B, Zhou G S, Liu F, Huang J S, Kuai J. Effects of different sowing dates and planting densities on the yield and stem lodging resistance of rapeseed. Sci Agric Sin, 2021, 54: 1613-1626. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.08.004
[6]	蒯婕, 孙盈盈, 左青松, 廖庆喜, 冷锁虎, 程雨贵, 曹石, 吴江生, 周广生. 机械收获模式下直播冬油菜密度与行距的优化. 作物学报, 2016, 42: 898-908.
	Kuai J, Sun Y Y, Zuo Q S, Liao Q X, Leng S H, Cheng Y G, Cao S, Wu J S, Zhou G S. Optimization of plant density and row spacing for mechanical harvest in winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Acta Agron Sin, 2016, 42: 898-908. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2016.00898
[7]	Stamp P, Kiel C. Root morphology of maize and its relationship to root lodging. J Agron Crop Sci, 1992, 168: 113-118. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.1992.tb00987.x
[8]	刘唐兴, 官春云. 油菜倒伏指数和茎秆生化成分及农艺性状的灰色关联分析. 中国油料作物学报, 2008, 30: 152-156.
	Liu T X, Guan C Y. Grey relational analysis between lodging index and biochemistry components of stem, agronomic characteristics in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Chin J Oil Crop Sci, 2008, 30: 152-156. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	Alain M B, Shinya K, Jacqueline G P, Deborah G. Lignins and lignocellulosics: a better control of synthesis for new and improved uses. Trends Plant Sci, 2003, 8: 576-581. pmid: 14659706
[10]	Guo D, Chen F, Inoue K, Blount J W, Dixon R A. Downregulation of caffeic acid 3-O-methyltransferase and caffeoyl CoA 3-O-methyltransferase in transgenic alfalfa: impacts on lignin structure and implications for the biosynthesis of G and S lignin. Am Soc Plant Biol, 2001, 13: 73-88.
[11]	Wang J, Zhu J M, Lin X J, Li X J, Teng N J, Li Z S, Li B, Zhang A M, Lin J X. Effects of stem structure and cell wall components on bending strength in wheat. Chin Sci Bull, 2006, 51: 815-823.
[12]	Kaack K, Schwarz K U, Brander P E. Variation in morphology, anatomy and chemistry of stems of Miscanthus genotypes differing in mechanical properties. Ind Crops Prod, 2003, 17: 131-142. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6690(02)00093-6
[13]	卢昆丽, 尹燕枰, 王振林, 李勇, 彭佃亮, 杨卫兵, 崔正勇, 杨东清, 江文文. 施氮期对小麦茎秆木质素合成的影响及其抗倒伏生理机制. 作物学报, 2014, 40: 1686-1694. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.01686
	Lu K L, Yin Y P, Wang Z L, Li Y, Peng D L, Yang W B, Cui Z Y, Yang D Q, Jiang W W. Effect of nitrogen fertilization timing on lignin synthesis of stem and physiological mechanism of lodging resistance in wheat. Acta Agron Sin, 2014, 40: 1686-1694. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2014.01686
[14]	Song X, Liu F L, Zheng P Y, Zhang X K, Lu G Y, Fu G P, Cheng Y. Correlation analysis between agronomic traits and yield of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) for high-density planting. Sci Agric Sin, 2010, 43: 1800-1806.
[15]	Ozer H. Sowing date and nitrogen rate effects on growth, yield and yield components of two summer rapeseed cultivars. Eur J Agron, 2003, 19: 453-463. doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00136-3
[16]	Matinfar M, Matinfar M, Mahjoor M, Shirani R A H, Mahmodi R. Effect of plant density on yield and yield seed components of rapeseed (Brassica napus) cultivars. J Crop Ecophysiol, 2013, 6: 405-414.
[17]	Li H G, Cheng X, Zhang L P, Hu J H, Zhang F G, Chen B Y, Xu K, Gao G Z, Li H, Li L X, Huang Q, Li Z Y, Yan G X, Wu X M. An integration of genome-wide association study and geneco-expression network analysis identifies candidate genes of stem lodging-related traits in Brassica napus. Front Plant Sci, 2018, 9: 796. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00796
[18]	张喜娟, 李红娇, 李伟娟, 徐正进, 陈温福, 张文忠, 王嘉宇. 北方直立穗型粳稻抗倒性的研究. 中国农业科学, 2009, 42: 2305-2313. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2009.07.007
	Zhang X J, Li H J, Li W J, Xu Z J, Chen W F, Zhang W Z, Wang J Y. The lodging resistance of erect panicle japonica rice in northern China. Sci Agric Sin, 2009, 42: 2305-2313. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	Fukushima R S, Kerley M S, Ramos M H, Porter J H, Kallenbach R L. Comparison of acetyl bromide lignin with acid detergent lignin and Klason lignin and correlation with in vitro forage degradability. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 2015, 201: 25-37. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.12.007
[20]	王玉万, 徐文玉. 木质纤维素固体基质发酵物中半纤维素、纤维素和木质素的定量分析程序. 微生物学通报, 1987, 14(2): 81-84.
	Wang Y W, Xu W Y. Procedures for quantitative analysis of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin in lignocellulose solid substrate fermentation products. Microbiol China, 1987, 14(2): 81-84. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21]	Willemse M T M, Outer R W D. Stem anatomy and cell wall autofluorescence during growth of three maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars. Plant Biol, 1988, 37: 39-47.
[22]	Chen W Y, Liu Z M, Deng G B, Pan Z F, Liang J J, Zeng X Q, Tashi N M, Long H, Yu M Q. Genetic relationship between lodging and lodging components in barley (Hordeum vulgare) based on unconditional and conditional quantitative trait locus analyses. Genet Mol Res, 2014, 13: 1909-1925. doi: 10.4238/2014.March.17.19 pmid: 24668679
[23]	Kong E, Liu D, Guo X, Yang W, Sun J, Li X, Zhan K, Cui D, Lin J, Zhang A. Anatomical and chemical characteristics associated with lodging resistance in wheat. Crop J, 2013, 1: 43-49. doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2013.07.012
[24]	Ookawa T, Inoue K, Matsuoka M, Ebitani T, Takarada T, Yamamoto T, Ueda T, Yokoyama T, Sugiyama C, Nakaba, Satoshi, Funada R, Kato H, Kanekatsu M, Toyota K, Motobayashi T, Vazirzanjani, Mehran, Tojo S, Hirasawa T. Increased lodging resistance in long-culm, low-lignin gh2 rice for improved feed and bioenergy production. Sci Rep, 2014, 4: 6567. doi: 10.1038/srep06567
[25]	姜海杨, 孙万仓, 曾秀存, 方彦, 陈姣荣, 史鹏辉, 赵彩霞, 何丽. 播期对北方白菜型冬油菜生长发育及产量的影响. 中国油料作物学报, 2012, 34: 620-626.
	Jiang H Y, Sun W C, Zeng X C, Fang Y, Chen J R, Shi P H, Zhao C X, He L. Effect of sowing date on Brassica rapa growth and yield in northern China. Chin J Oil Crop Sci, 2012, 34: 620-626. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	张晓龙, 何俊龙, 宋海星, 荣湘民, 官春云. 播期、密度和施肥量对直播油菜重要农艺性状与产量的影响. 中国土壤与肥料, 2014, (5): 70-74.
	Zhang X L, He J L, Song H X, Rong X M, Guan C Y. Effects of seeding date, plant density and fertilizer amount on correlation between agronomic traits and yield of rapeseed. Soil Fert Sci China, 2014, (5): 70-74. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	李荣田, 姜廷波, 秋太权, 崔成焕, 龚振平. 水稻倒伏对产量影响及倒伏和株高关系的研究. 黑龙江农业科学, 1996, (1): 13-17.
	Li R T, Jiang T B, Qiu T Q, Cui C H, Gong Z P. Study on the effect of lodging on rice yield and the relationship between lodging and plant height. Heilongjiang Agric Sci, 1996, (1): 13-17. (in Chinese)
[28]	胡焕焕, 刘丽平, 李瑞奇, 李慧玲, 李雁鸣. 播种期和密度对冬小麦品种河农822产量形成的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2008, 28: 490-495.
	Hu H H, Liu L P, Li R Q, Li H L, Li Y M. Effect of sowing date and planting density on the yield formation of a winter wheat cultivar Henong 822. J Triticease Crops, 2008, 28: 490-495. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[29]	王慧, 朱冬梅, 王君婵, 陈明, 张晓, 高德荣. 扬麦16耐迟播早熟特性研究. 麦类作物学报, 2016, 36: 1657-1666.
	Wang H, Zhu D M, Wang J C, Chen M, Zhang X, Gao D R. Study on the early maturing characteristics of Yangmai 16 under late planting. J Triticeae Crops, 2016, 36: 1657-1666. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	Liu W G, Yang W Y, Luo L, Yuan X Q, Deng Y C. Relationship between cellulose accumulation and lodging resistance in the stem of relay intercropped soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Field Crops Res, 2016, 196: 261-267. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.07.008
[31]	崔海岩, 靳立斌, 李波, 张吉旺, 赵斌, 董树亭, 刘鹏. 遮阴对夏玉米茎秆形态结构和倒伏的影响. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45: 3497-3505. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.17.005
	Cui H Y, Jin L B, Li B, Zhang J W, Zhao B, Dong S T, Liu P. Effects of shading on stalks morphology, structure and lodging of summer maize in field. Sci Agric Sin, 2012, 45: 3497-3505. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[32]	佘恒志, 聂姣, 李英双, 刘星贝, 胡丹, 马珊, 次仁卓嘎, 汪灿, 吴东倩, 阮仁武, 易泽林. 不同抗倒伏能力甜荞品种茎秆木质素及其单体合成特征. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50: 1202-1209. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.07.003
	She H Z, Nie J, Li Y S, Liu X B, Hu D, Ma S, Cirenzhuoga, Wang C, Wu D Q, Ruan R W, Yi Z L. Lignin and lignin monomer synthetic characteristics of culm in common buckwheat with different lodging resistance capabilities. Sci Agric Sin, 2017, 50: 1202-1209. (in Chinese with English abstract) doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.07.003
[33]	李国辉, 钟旭华, 田卡, 黄农荣, 潘俊峰, 何庭蕙. 施氮对水稻茎秆抗倒伏能力的影响及其形态和力学机理. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46: 1323-1334. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2013.07.003
	Li G H, Zhong X H, Tian K, Huang N R, Pan J F, He T H. Effect of nitrogen application on stem lodging resistance of rice and its morphological and mechanical mechanisms. Sci Agric Sin, 2013, 46: 1323-1334. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[34]	董晓芳, 田保明, 姚永芳, 张艳, 张京涛, 孙弋媛, 刘云霞, 申龙, 苏彦华. 密度对油菜品种机械化收获特性的影响. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(3): 71-74.
	Dong X F, Tian B M, Yao Y F, Zhang Y, Zhang J T, Sun Y Y, Liu Y X, Shen L, Su Y H. Effects of the density on the characteristics of the mechanization harvest in Brassica napus L. Chin Agric Sci Bull, 2012, 28(3): 71-74. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[35]	勾玲, 黄建军, 张宾, 李涛, 孙锐, 赵明. 群体密度对玉米茎秆抗倒力学和农艺性状的影响. 作物学报, 2007, 33: 1688-1695.
	Gou L, Huang J J, Zhang B, Li T, Sun R, Zhao M. Effects of population density on stalk lodging resistant mechanism and agronomic characteristics of maize. Acta Agron Sin, 2007, 33: 1688-1695. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[36]	Kuai J, Sun Y Y, Zhou M, Zhang P P, Zuo Q S, Wu J S, Zhou G S. The effect of nitrogen application and planting density on the radiation use efficiency and the stem lignin metabolism in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Field Crops Res, 2016, 199: 89-98. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.025
[37]	Wang C, Hu D, Liu X B, She H Z, Ruan R W, Yang H, Yi Z L, Wu D Q. Effects of uniconazole on the lignin metabolism and lodging resistance of culm in common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum M.). Filed Crops Res, 2015, 180: 46-53.
[38]	南铭, 李晶, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 刘彦明. 茎秆基部节间特性和木质素合成与燕麦抗倒伏的关系. 草业学报, 2022, 31(11): 172-180. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021416
	Nan M, Li J, Zhao G Q, Chai J K, Liu Y M. Relationship between lodging resistance of oats and the basal internode stem characteristics and lignin synthesis. Acta Pratac Sin, 2022, 31(11): 172-180. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[39]	周海宇, 江禹奉, 杨明冲, 程伟东, 覃兰秋, 谢小东, 谢和霞, 覃宝祥, 王令强. 玉米茎秆强度与维管束数目及纤维含量的关系和评价. 植物遗传资源学报, 2022, 23: 1636-1643. doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20220419004
	Zhou H Y, Jiang Y F, Yang M C, Cheng W D, Qin L Q, Xie X D, Xie H X, Qin B X, Wang L Q. Relationship and evaluation of stalk strength, vascular bundle and fiber content in maize. J Plant Genet Resour, 2022, 23: 1636-1643. (in Chinese with English abstract)

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

品种 Variety	播期 Sowing date	密度 Density	2019-2020			2020-2021
品种 Variety	播期 Sowing date	密度 Density	生育期 Growth days (d)	有效积温 Effective accumulated temperature (℃)	降雨量 Rainfall (mm)	生育期 Growth days (d)	有效积温 Effective accumulated temperature (℃)	降雨量 Rainfall (mm)
S28	T1	D1	248	2860.4	109.6	248	2111.7	116.8
		D2	246	2806.1	109.6	246	2067.2	116.8
		D3	244	2759.2	66.4	244	2025.3	116.8
	T2	D1	239	2677.5	109.6	239	1942.8	115.8
		D2	238	2650.4	109.6	238	1921.9	115.8
		D3	237	2626.1	66.4	237	1900.6	115.8
	T3	D1	231	2521.7	109.6	231	1825.1	108.1
		D2	229	2470.5	109.6	229	1787.2	108.1
		D3	228	2443.1	66.4	227	1751.1	107.1
Q28	T1	D1	240	2677.6	109.6	240	1930.3	115.8
		D2	238	2521.9	109.6	238	1805.7	114.8
		D3	237	2375.3	66.4	237	1692.5	107.1
	T2	D1	233	2635.3	109.6	233	1892.6	115.8
		D2	231	2479.6	109.6	231	1786.6	114.8
		D3	230	2350.5	66.4	230	1675.2	107.1
	T3	D1	225	2610.5	109.6	225	1875.3	115.8
		D2	224	2454.8	109.6	224	1768.0	114.8
		D3	222	2296.6	66.4	222	1643.9	107.1
Q7	T1	D1	250	2942.7	109.6	250	2163.2	117.8
		D2	248	2886.5	109.6	248	2111.7	116.8
		D3	246	2833.2	66.4	246	2067.2	116.8
	T2	D1	241	2730.8	109.6	241	1987.1	115.8
		D2	240	2704.7	109.6	240	1964.4	115.8
		D3	238	2650.4	66.4	237	1900.7	115.8
	T3	D1	236	2654.7	109.6	237	1963.1	109.1
		D2	235	2626.5	109.6	235	1911.6	108.1
		D3	234	2600.4	66.4	234	1888.8	108.1

相关系数 Correlation index	木质素 Lignin	纤维素 Cellulose	倒伏指数 Lodging index	茎秆抗折力 Stem mechanical strength
木质素Lignin	1.000
纤维素Cellulose	0.821	1.000
倒伏指数Lodging index	0.766^**	-0.404^**	1.000
茎秆抗折力Stem mechanical strength	0.813^**	0.766^**	-0.791^**	1.000