新疆奎屯棉花脱叶催熟剂的混用效果研究

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2018.03.016

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为筛选适宜于新疆奎屯垦区棉花的最佳脱叶催熟剂品种,开展了不同脱叶催熟剂对棉花脱叶效果及产量品质影响的田间小区试验。结果表明,至喷施后20d,所有脱叶催熟剂处理的叶片脱落率均达到70%以上,且T1、T2与T3、T4棉花叶片脱落率差异不大,但T1、T2处理均显著高于单施乙烯利处理。各处理棉铃吐絮率均在90%以上,且不同脱叶催熟剂处理间差异不大,说明所有脱叶催熟剂的催熟效果均较好。喷施脱叶催熟剂后棉花产量、单铃重、衣分、子指、绒长、整齐度指数、断裂比强度、马克隆值、短纤维指数、棉纤维成熟度比等指标较对照无明显差异,说明喷施脱叶催熟剂对棉花产量及品质影响不大。从喷施次数来看,2次喷施的脱叶和吐絮效果略优于1次喷施,但差异不大;棉花品质较1次喷施有轻微降低。因此,综合比较来看,T1处理的脱叶、吐絮效果均较好,且瑞脱龙价格适中,适宜在新疆奎屯垦区大面积推广。

关键词: 脱叶剂, 棉花, 脱叶, 吐絮, 品质

Abstract:

In order to screen the best defoliants for cotton in Kuitun reclamation area, field experiment was conducted to study the effect of different deodorizing agents on cotton leaf removal efficiency, yield and quality. The results showed that up to 20 days after spraying, all leave removal rate reached more than 70%, and the removal rates of Ruituolong and Tuotulong treatment had little difference, but T1 and T2 treatments were significantly higher than the single application of ethephon treatment. The boll opening rate of each treatment was more than 90%, and the difference between defoliant treatments was not significant, which indicated that all the defoliants had good ripening effect. There was no significant difference between the treatment and control in cotton yield, single bell weight, clothing and sub-index, length, uniformity index, break strength, micronaire, maturity ratio, short fibre index, indicating that sprying defoliation ripening agent had little effect on cotton yield and quality. On the basis of the number of spraying, the defoliation and boll opening effect of the twice spray was better than that of the once spraying, but the quality of cotton was slightly lower than that of the once spray. The results indicated that Ruituolong had the best accelerating effect in Kuitun reclamation area for its high efficiency and low cost.

Key words: Defoliant, Cotton, Defoliant, Boll opening, Quality

张文,逯涛,叶玉霞,刘铨义,冯杨. 新疆奎屯棉花脱叶催熟剂的混用效果研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2018 (3): 103–107

Wen Zhang,Tao Lu,Yuxia Ye,Quanyi Liu,Yang Feng. Studies on the Effect of Mixed Defoliant on Cotton in Kuitun District, Xinjiang[J]. Crops, 2018(3): 103–107

图/表 6

表1

图1

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 13

[1]	董合忠 . 棉花重要生物学和栽培特性及其在丰产简化栽培中的应用. 中国棉花, 2013,40(9):1-4. doi: 1000-632X(2013)09-0001-03
[2]	王爱玉, 高明伟, 王志伟 , 等. 棉花化学脱叶催熟技术应用研究进展. 农学学报, 2015,5(4):20-23. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.2014-xb0680
[3]	田晓莉, 李召虎, 段留生 , 等. 棉花化学催熟与脱叶技术. 中国棉花, 2006,33(1):4-6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-632X.2006.01.002
[4]	贾军成, 樊庆鲁 . 不同种类棉花脱叶剂比较试验研究. 新疆农垦科技, 2011,34(3):44-46.
[5]	雷斌, 张云生, 李忠华 , 等. 棉花脱叶剂的田间效果筛选. 新疆农业科学, 2011,48(12):2321-2324.
[6]	陈兵, 韩焕永, 张国蕾 , 等. 4种脱叶催熟剂在棉花上的应用效果研究. 中国棉花, 2017,44(1):26-28. doi: 10.11963/issn.1000-632X.201701008
[7]	孙泽江 . 稀植机采棉脱叶剂应用技术. 农村科技, 2013(10):9-10.
[8]	毕双杰, 刘政 . 催脱通悬浮剂在棉花上的应用效果评价. 新疆农垦科技, 2013(5):45-46.
[9]	王谊, 杨丽红 . 脱叶剂对棉花脱叶率和产量的影响. 中国棉花, 2014,41(4):28-30.
[10]	周春江, 田晓莉, 李松林 , 等. 增效乙烯利在棉花上的催熟脱叶效果. 中国棉花, 2007,34(1):15-16. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-632X.2007.01.008
[11]	王灵燕, 王学军, 李锦辉 , 等. 南疆棉区棉花脱叶剂的筛选. 新疆农业科学, 2004,41(5):392-394.
[12]	高丽丽, 李淦, 徐新霞 , 等. 4种棉花脱叶剂脱叶效果的比较研究. 新疆农业大学学报, 2016,39(1):35-39.
[13]	李飞, 郭利双, 何叔军 , 等. 不同脱叶剂在洞庭湖植棉区直播棉上的应用研究. 中国棉花, 2016,43(9):15-17. doi: 10.11963/issn.1000-632X.201609003

相关文章 15

[1]	赵鑫陈少锋王慧刘三才杨修仕张宝林. 晋北地区不同苦荞品种产量和品质研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 27–32
[2]	唐丽媛李兴河张素君王海涛刘存敬张香云张建宏. 陆地棉光合相关性状的QTL 定位分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 85–90
[3]	高文俊杨国义高新中玉柱许庆方原向阳孙耀武. 氮磷钾肥对青贮玉米产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 144–149
[4]	商娜,杨中旭,李秋芝,尹会会,王士红,李海涛,李彤,张晗. 鲁西地区常规棉聊棉6号留叶枝栽培的适宜密度研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 143–148
[5]	温辉芹,程天灵,裴自友,李雪,张立生,朱玫. 山西省近年审定小麦品种的综合性状分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 32–36
[6]	张丽丽,赵一洲,李鑫,毛艇,刘研,张战,倪善君,刘福才. ⁶⁰Co-γ射线辐照对不同粳稻品种后代稻米品质性状变异的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (3): 51–56
[7]	唐慧娟,臧巩固,程超华,唐蜻,李育君,赵立宁. 工业大麻产量和品质性状的对应分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (2): 52–55
[8]	刘颖慧,郭明,贾树利,尹建国. 影响青贮玉米品质因素研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (2): 6–10
[9]	段门俊,吴芸紫,田玉聪,刘永武,刘章勇,陈阜,金涛. 不同品种再生稻产量及品质比较研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (2): 61–67
[10]	杜志敏,杨宇尘,夏原野,宫彦龙,闫志强,徐海. 收获期对北方杂交粳稻和常规粳稻品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (1): 147–151
[11]	范昱,王红力,何凤,赖弟利,王佳俊,宋月,向达兵. 后熟对苦荞子粒营养品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (1): 96–101
[12]	耿雷跃,张薇,邹拓,郑振宇,耿立格,孙娟,张启星. 河北水稻地方种质品质多样性分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (1): 49–55
[13]	王洁,曾波,雷财林,赵志超,王久林,程治军. 北方国家水稻区域试验近15年参试品种分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (1): 71–76
[14]	马瑞琦,亓振,常旭虹,王德梅,陶志强,杨玉双,冯金凤,孙敏,赵广才. 化控剂对冬小麦植株性状及产量品质的调节效应[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (1): 133–140
[15]	朱英杰,常旭虹,王德梅,杨玉双,王雨,吕冰,马瑞琦,刘莹,王玉娇,赵广才,陶志强. 黑土与潮土对不同春小麦营养品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (6): 84–90

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

处理Treatment	脱叶剂组合Defoliant combination	喷施时间(月-日) Spraying time (Month-Day)	用量Dosage (g/hm²)
T1	瑞脱龙+助剂+乙烯利Ruituo dragon+assistant+ethephon	9-5	525+225+1500
T2	瑞脱龙+助剂+乙烯利Ruituo dragon+assistant+ethephon	9-5, 9-10	525+225+1500
T3	脱吐隆+速捷+乙烯利Tuotulong+ assistant+ethephon	9-5	225+1350+1500
T4	脱吐隆+速捷+乙烯利Tuotulong+ assistant+ethephon	9-5, 9-10	225+1350+1500
T5	乙烯利Ethephon	9-5	1500
T6	乙烯利Ethephon	9-5, 9-10	1500
T7	对照Contrast	-	-

处理 Treatment	施后2d 2d after spray	施后4d 4d after spray	施后6d 6d after spray	施后8d 8d after spray	施后10d 10d after spray	施后15d 15d after spray	施后20d 20d after spray
T1	4.6±0.2a	21.4±2.0a	50.1±4.7a	73.0±7.6a	78.0±7.3ab	83.6±8.7a	87.1±9.3a
T2	5.5±1.6a	21.7±3.1a	46.4±6.1a	73.1±5.7a	82.1±3.5a	86.9±2.5a	91.5±4.2a
T3	5.9±1.5a	16.3±5.2a	41.5±2.2abc	69.9±1.9a	74.4±3.7b	79.3±0.1ab	81.5±0.5ab
T4	4.7±1.0a	15.6±4.6a	42.0±8.1ab	66.4±5.9a	71.2±5.6b	79.7±7.3ab	81.9±6.9ab
T5	5.9±0.7a	15.9±0.5a	30.7±8.6bc	51.5±8.1b	59.6±7.8c	68.6±12.2bc	71.2±7.6b
T6	5.7±2.1a	19.7±4.7a	32.1±2.3bc	50.5±8.0b	55.1±8.4c	63.5±6.2c	71.6±1.2b
T7	3.2±0.1a	14.1±0.7a	17.7±3.8d	27.5±5.6c	32.3±6.8d	37.7±5.5d	41.2±5.6c

处理 Treatment	施前 Before spray	施后2d 2d after spray	施后4d 4d after spray	施后6d 6d after spray	施后8d 8d after spray	施后10d 10d after spray	施后15d 15d after spray	施后20d 20d after spray
T1	30.0±6.8ab	36.8±8.2ab	43.0±2.1ab	52.6±5.9ab	65.1±5.4ab	69.9±6.1ab	83.4±2.4ab	95.0±3.4a
T2	33.4±2.4ab	44.9±4.9a	52.3±0.1a	62.2±1.1a	70.7±0.7a	75.6±3.5a	86.5±0.7ab	94.4±1.2a
T3	30.0±8.1ab	37.9±10.5ab	46.4±5.9ab	59.4±8.4a	71.4±7.3a	76.6±8.6a	90.1±1.8a	93.3±0.3a
T4	40.2±8.5a	43.6±9.9a	47.6±10.6a	54.8±11.0ab	63.8±10.3ab	79.0±1.5a	91.7±3.1a	96.5±4.9a
T5	25.0±2.1b	30.5±1.5ab	40.2±6.5ab	49.4±4.9ab	61.1±6.0ab	66.3±8.2ab	80.8±5.8ab	90.6±1.0a
T6	21.6±7.6b	33.7±2.8ab	40.4±4.7ab	47.4±9.7ab	65.6±6.5ab	72.4±9.4ab	86.4±4.3ab	93.8±4.8a
T7	19.6±1.3b	25.4±1.4b	28.5±1.8b	33.7±0.3b	50.4±8.7b	54.8±7.4b	71.5±5.0b	79.5±9.7b

处理Treatment	单铃重Boll weight (g)	子指Seed (g)	衣分Lint percentage (%)	籽棉产量Seed cotton yield (kg/hm²)	实际密度Actual density (plant/hm²)
T1	6.4a	11.2a	42.5a	4 884 ±29a	104 805±123a
T2	6.1a	11.2a	41.1a	4 901 ±218a	103 695±108a
T3	6.2a	11.0a	42.1a	5 067±333a	101 132±46a
T4	6.3a	11.5a	41.3a	4 901±444a	103 561±189a
T5	6.2a	11.2a	40.8a	5 084±153a	103 321±213a
T6	6.0a	10.7a	41.5a	4 950±100a	102 987±186a
T7	6.1a	11.2a	41.6a	4 950±312a	103 389±98a

处理 Treatment	绒长(mm) Fibre length	整齐度指数(%)Uniformity index	马克隆值 Micronaire	断裂比强度(cN/tex) Breaking tenacity	短纤维指数(%) Short fiber index	棉纤维成熟度比 Cotton fiber maturity
T1	31.54a	86.57a	4.35a	33.85a	6.67a	0.84a
T2	32.18a	85.63a	4.27a	34.38a	6.42a	0.84a
T3	31.95a	86.38a	4.19a	33.95a	6.52a	0.84a
T4	32.13a	86.53a	4.20a	35.00a	6.48a	0.84a
T5	32.34a	85.92a	4.38a	34.22a	6.42a	0.85a
T6	32.25a	85.73a	4.50a	32.92a	6.45a	0.84a
T7	32.02a	86.22a	4.30a	34.20a	6.48a	0.84a