Welcome to Acta Agronomica Sinica，

Acta Agronomica Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (9): 1654-1665.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2021.04167

• RESEARCH PAPERS • Previous Articles     Next Articles

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 Online:2021-09-12 Published:2021-03-16
  • Contact: TIAN Xiao-Li E-mail:weiysdl@163.cm;tianxl@cau.edu.cn
  • 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)

RichHTML387

20

PDF

799

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

Table 1

Application time and rate of mepiquat chloride (DPC) during 2016-2018 cotton growing seasons (g hm-2) "

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

Table 2

Effect of row spacing and nitrogen rate on LAI during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

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

Table 3

Effect of row spacing and mepiquat chloride on LAI during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

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

Table 4

Effect of row spacing and nitrogen rate on MTA during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

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

Table 5

Effect of row spacing and mepiquat chloride on MTA during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

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

Table 6

Effect of row spacing and nitrogen rate on DIFN during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

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

Table 7

Effect of row spacing and mepiquat chloride on DIFN during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton (%)"

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

Fig. 1

Monthly weather data during cotton growing season in Hejian city, Hebei province (2016-2018)"

Fig. 2

Effect of row spacing and nitrogen rate on canopy temperature during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

Fig. 3

Effect of row spacing and nitrogen rate on canopy relative humidity during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

Fig. 4

Effect of row spacing and mepiquat chloride on canopy temperature during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

Fig. 5

Effect of row spacing and mepiquat chloride on canopy relative humidity during 2016-2018 growing seasons in cotton"

[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] Liang Jin-Yu, Yin Jia-De, Wang Hong-Li, Zhang Guo-Ping, Hou Hui-Zhi, Dong Bo, Ma Ming-Sheng. Estimation of leaf nitrogen content in dryland forage maize using UAV-based hyperspectral imaging and machine learning [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(6): 1788-1801.
[2] Jin Yu-He, Wang Xue-Fei, Xu Zhang-Yi-Wa, Miao Yi-Ning, Jiang Yun-Jie, Yi Ying, Miao De-Lin, Zhu Jing-Yi, Zhong Yi-Fan, Chen Ming-Heng, Fang Fang, Liu Peng. Effects of exogenous hormones on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and the antioxidant enzyme system in soybean leaves under low-temperature stress [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(6): 1817-1829.
[3] Ma Sheng-Qian, Wang Zhi-Ping, Chen Hao-Tian, Dou Shu-Xian, Zhang Yan, Deng Ai-Xing, Zhang Wei-Jian, Yuan Xiang-Yang, Song Zhen-Wei. Effects of tillage methods and nitrogen application rate on maize yield and soil aggregates in northeastern China under straw returning [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(6): 1802-1816.
[4] Lu Yi-Chu, Li Zhen-Ying, Mai Chun-Hai, Zhao Xiao-Rui, Wang Li-Xiang. Positively regulating role of the key evening complex gene AhLUX1 in peanut nodulation [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(6): 1658-1668.
[5] Hu Chuan, Zhao Kai-Nan, Huang Xiu-Li, Wu Jin-Zhi, Ren Kai-Ming, Wang He-Zheng, Fu Guo-Zhan, Huang Ming, Li You-Jun. Effects of tillage methods and nitrogen rates on yield and quality of dryland wheat under one-off irrigation [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(6): 1830-1846.
[6] Gao Pei-Yang, Li Jin-Xuan, Dong Yu-Kui, Shi Yu, Zhang Zhen, Zhang Yong-Li. Response of wheat tillering and spike formation to nitrogen rate under supplementary irrigation based on soil moisture content [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(6): 1847-1858.
[7] Ren Yi-Han, Zhao Man-Li, Dai Jing, Li Yin-Shui, Gu Chi-Ming, Yang Lu, Du Xue-Zhu, Hu Wen-Shi, Qin Lu. Effects of dynamic changes in leaf functional nitrogen on photosynthetic rate and photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency in Brassica napus [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(5): 1459-1471.
[8] Wang Zhuang-Zhuang, Wu Zi-Jun, Zhang Yong-Xin, Zhang Xin-Yuan, Yuan Li-Xue, Chen Ru-Xue, Liu Shi-Ju, Duan Jian-Zhao, Feng Wei, Wang Tong-Chao, Wang Yong-Hua. Optimized water-nitrogen synergy enhances winter wheat yield and nitrogen use efficiency in clay-loam fluvo-aquic soils of southeastern Henan, China [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(5): 1501-1521.
[9] Ma Hai-Hui, Zhang Guo-Ping, Yang Si-Cun, Wang Hong-Li. Effects of nitrogen application at different densities on carbon and nitrogen accumulation and translocation characteristics in forage maize in semi-arid regions [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(4): 1193-1207.
[10] Hou Si-Yu, Wang Guo-Cui, Wei Jin-Gui, Xie Wei-Xin, Yin Wen, Fan Zhi-Long, Chai Qiang, Hu Fa-Long. Effects of green manure combined with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on dry matter accumulation and yield formation of wheat in arid irrigation areas of northwestern China [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(4): 1208-1219.
[11] Yang Zong-Tao, Yang Ting, Wang Yu-Tong, Ai Jing, Li Yan-Ye, Liu Jia-Yong, Deng Jun, Zhao Yong, Zhang Yue-Bin. Identification and expression analysis of the CLC gene family in sugarcane [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(3): 722-734.
[12] Zhao Xiang, Li Jia-Yi, Li Shuang, Han Wen-Hui, Huang Jun-Xia, Yao Xing-Dong, Zhang Hui-Jun, Wang Hai-Ying, Xie Fu-Ti. Effects of high temperature on dry matter accumulation and sugar metabolism in different soybean varieties [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(3): 857-865.
[13] Yu Yong-Chao, Liu Ming, Jin Rong, Zhao Peng, Zhang Qiang-Qiang, Wang Jing, Zhu Xiao-Ya, Tang Zhong-Hou. Physiological mechanism and transcriptome analysis of sweet potato overgrowth under high-nitrogen conditions [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(3): 813-824.
[14] Yu Tian-Yi, Wang Chun-Xiao, Xiao Li, Zhong Zhao-Di, Wang Xuan-Cang, Zhao Yong, Lu Ya, Wu Yue, Wu Zheng-Feng. Response of nitrogen accumulation, yield, and quality characteristics of peanut varieties with different nodulation traits to nitrogen fertilizer application rate [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(3): 881-894.
[15] Liu Ning, Fan Ping, Wang Cheng, Chen Qi-Qi, Cheng Qing-Yue, Tie Xia-Na, Tang Jing-Sha, Liu Bin-Bin, Xie Hong-Kun, Wang Jia-Yue, Shi Yuan-Qing, Ma Jun. Effects of reduced nitrogen application combined with organic fertilizer on yield formation and nitrogen utilization in mechanically transplanted rice [J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2026, 52(3): 866-880.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Add: No. 80 Xueyuan South Rd, Beijing 100081, P. R. China E-mail: zwxb301@caas.cn
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd