叶面喷施多效唑对苦荞产量及茎秆抗倒伏性的调节作用

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.04.029

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 茎秆倒伏是影响苦荞高产优质的主要因素之一，有效降低倒伏对保障苦荞稳产具有重要意义。在大田条件下，以苦荞品种“川荞1号”为材料，研究在苦荞盛花期叶面喷施多效唑10（T1）、20（T2）、40（T3）、80（T4）、160 μg/mL（T5）对苦荞抗倒伏性、籽粒产量及构成因素的调节作用，清水处理（T0）为对照。结果表明，盛花期叶面喷施多效唑显著改变了苦荞植株主茎形态及产量性状，不同浓度喷施处理主茎节数、分枝数和结实率存在显著差异（P<0.05），喷施一定浓度的多效唑对苦荞有增产作用。多效唑喷施能显著降低苦荞株高和茎秆重心高度，高浓度处理（T5）较T0处理分别降低27%和49%。同时，多效唑能抑制苦荞茎秆基部节间纵向生长，茎秆基部第2节间茎粗、秆壁厚、节间密度和充实度随喷施浓度的增大而增大，T4处理茎秆基部第2节间茎粗最大，茎长最小，T5处理茎秆抗折力最大，倒伏指数最小。株高、茎秆重心高度、基部第2节间茎粗及主茎节数与茎秆抗倒伏指数呈显著负相关（P<0.05），而基部第2节间茎长、茎壁厚、茎秆密度、茎秆充实度及抗折力与抗倒伏指数呈显著正相关（P<0.05），茎秆抗倒伏指数与苦荞籽粒产量及其构成要素间均呈负相关关系，而与主茎分枝数呈正相关关系。灰色关联度综合分析表明，不同浓度处理效果为T5>T0>T4>T2>T1>T3，在本试验条件下叶面喷施多效唑80 μg/mL时相关度为3.1127，在增产的同时可以有效增强苦荞的抗倒伏能力，是较适宜的防倒增产栽培措施。

关键词: 苦荞, 多效唑, 产量, 茎秆特性, 抗倒伏性

Abstract:

Lodging is one of the main factors affecting the yield and quality of tartary buckwheat. Effectively reducing lodging incidence is of great significance to ensure stable yield of tartary buckwheat. Under field conditions, a study was conducted to investigate the regulatory effects of leaf spraying paclobutrazol at the full flowering stage on lodging resistance, grain yield, and its components in the tartary buckwheat variety Chuanqiao No.1. The applied concentrations were 10 (T1), 20 (T2), 40 (T3), 80 (T4), and 160 μg/mL (T5), with a water treatment (T0) serving as the control. The results showed that the main stem morphology and yield traits of tartary buckwheat plants were significantly changed by the application of paclobutrazol at full flowering stage. There were significant differences in the number of main stem nodes, number of branches and seed-setting rates among different concentrations of spraying (P < 0.05), and spraying a certain concentration could increase the yield of tartary buckwheat. The plant height and stem height of center of gravity of tartary buckwheat were significantly reduced by paclobutrazol application. High concentration treatment (T5) was 27% and 49% lower than control (T0), respectively. At the same time, paclobutrazol could restrain the longitudinal internode growth of tartary buckwheat stem, and the stem thickness, stem wall thickness, stem density and fullness at the second internode increased with the increase of spraying concentration. The second internode under the T4 treatment showed the largest stem thickness and the shortest stem length, and the T5 treatment showed the highest stem bending strength and the lowest lodging index. There were significant negative correlations between plant height, stem height of center of gravity, stem thickness and number of main stem nodes and lodging resistance index (P < 0.05), while there were significant positive correlations between stem length, stem wall thickness, stem density, stem fullness, stem bending strength and lodging resistance index (P < 0.05). There was a negative correlation between stem lodging resistance index and grain yield and its components, but a positive correlation with number of main stem branches. According to the comprehensive analysis of grey correlation degree, the effects of different concentrations were T5 > T0 > T4 > T2 > T1 > T3. Under the experimental conditions, the correlation of leaf spraying with paclobutrazol at 80 μg/mL was 3.1127, which could effectively enhance the lodging resistance ability of tartary buckwheat while increasing its yield, and was a more suitable cultivation measure for preventing lodging and increasing yield.

Key words: Tartary buckwheat, Paclobutrazol, Yield, Stem morphology, Lodging resistance

李云, 王静, 刘艳昆, 赵光辉, 郑敏娜. 叶面喷施多效唑对苦荞产量及茎秆抗倒伏性的调节作用[J]. 作物杂志, 2025 (4): 231–237

Li Yun, Wang Jing, Liu Yankun, Zhao Guanghui, Zheng Minna. Regulation of Yield and Lodging Resistance of Stem in Tartary Buckwheat by Paclobutrazol Leaf Spraying[J]. Crops, 2025(4): 231–237

图/表 9

表1

图1

表2

表3

表4

图2

表5

图3

表6

参考文献 33

[1]	唐宇, 邵继荣, 周美亮. 中国荞麦属植物分类学的修订. 植物遗传资源学报, 2019, 20(3):646-653. doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20181210001
[2]	Ohnishi O. Search for the wild ancestor of buckwheat III. The wild ancestor of cultivated common buckwheat, and of tatary buckwheat. Economic Botany, 1998, 52(2):123-133.
[3]	Tsuji K, Ohnishi O. Origin of cultivated tatary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum Gaertn.) revealed by RAPD analyses. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 2000, 47(4):431-438.
[4]	何伟俊, 曾荣, 白永亮, 等. 苦荞麦的营养价值及开发利用研究进展. 农产品加工, 2019(12):69-75.
[5]	Tian X R, Weixie L Y, Wang S Y, et al. Effect of polylactic acid microplastics and lead on the growth and physiological characteristics of buckwheat. Chemosphere, 2023, 337:139356.
[6]	杨武德, 郝晓玲, 杨玉. 荞麦光合产物分配规律及其与结实率关系的研究. 中国农业科学, 2002, 35(8):934-938.
[7]	Hagiwara M, Izusawa H, Inoue N, et al. Varietal differences of shoot growth characters related to lodging in tartary buckwheat. Fagopyrum, 1999, 16:67-72.
[8]	杨利艳, 杨武德. 多效唑对荞麦生长、生理及产量影响的研究. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 25(4):328-330.
[9]	潘瑞炽. 植物生长延缓剂的生化效应. 植物生理学通讯, 1996, 32(3):161-168.
[10]	高芳. 喷施多效唑对植物生长、生理生化和形态结构影响的研究进展. 农业科技与信息, 2016(29):77-78.
[11]	耿小丽, 武慧娟, 付萍, 等. 叶面喷施多效唑、矮壮素、缩节胺对燕麦抗倒伏性和种子产量的调节作用. 草业科学, 2023, 40(9):2340-2347.
[12]	邵玺文, 牟金猛, 杨志鑫, 等. 多效唑施用方式对水稻抗倒伏能力及产量的影响. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2023, 54(1):1-9.
[13]	马瑞琦, 亓振, 常旭虹, 等. 化控剂对冬小麦植株性状及产量品质的调节效应. 作物杂志, 2018(1):133-140.
[14]	刘星贝, 吴东倩, 汪灿, 等. 喷施烯效唑对甜荞茎秆抗倒性能及产量的影响. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(24):4903-4915. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.24.005
[15]	董扬. 多效唑对甜高粱农艺性状及抗倒伏性状的影响. 天津农林科技, 2023(1):14-16,30.
[16]	李志华, 穆婷婷, 杨金慧, 等. 多效唑和矮壮素对糜子抗倒伏性及产量的影响. 山西农业科学, 2023, 51(10):1219-1225.
[17]	聂萌恩, 柳青山, 白文斌, 等. 喷施多效唑对谷子农艺性状及抗倒伏力的影响. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(33):35-41. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18060097
[18]	陈秋静, 杨招娣, 王仕玉, 等. 植物生长延缓剂对藜麦抗倒伏能力及产量的影响. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(11):42-48.
[19]	宗兴梅, 李双情, 杨尚琼, 等. 不同浓度多效唑对大麦生长和产量的影响. 大麦与谷类科学, 2016, 33(2):54-55.
[20]	陈晓光, 王振林, 彭佃亮, 等. 种植密度与喷施多效唑对冬小麦抗倒伏能力和产量的影响. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(6):1465-1470.
[21]	黄胜东, 姚金保, 姚国才, 等. 多效唑拌种对小麦形态及增产效应探讨. 江苏农业科学, 2001(2):16-18
[22]	Crook M J, Ennos A R. The effect of nitrogen and growth regulators on stem and root characteristics associated with lodging in two cultivars of winter wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1995, 46(8):931-938.
[23]	杨明君, 杨媛, 杨芳, 等. 植物生长调节剂在苦荞麦上的利用研究. 农业科技通讯, 2011(5):49-50.
[24]	常庆涛, 张新江, 管云霞. 多效唑对荞麦产量及经济性状的影响. 上海农业科技, 2002(2):93-94.
[25]	徐芹, 贾赵东, 刘金根. 施用多效唑对荞麦生长发育及产量的影响研究. 耕作与栽培, 2006(4):22-23.
[26]	刘刚, 赵桂琴. 灰色系统理论在燕麦抗倒伏综合评价中的应用. 草业科学, 2006, 23(10):23-27.
[27]	陈新军, 戚存扣, 浦惠明, 等. 甘蓝型油菜抗倒性评价及抗倒性与株型结构的关系. 中国油料作物学报, 2007, 29(1):54-57,62.
[28]	张立明. 多效唑防止小麦倒伏的机理研究. 第一届全国青年作物栽培作物生理学术会文集. 北京: 中国园艺学会, 1993.
[29]	高翔, 郝志萍, 吕慧卿, 等. 荞麦抗倒性研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(13):6-11. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18110108
[30]	姜龙, 曲金玲, 孙国宏, 等. 矮壮素、烯效唑和多效唑对水稻倒伏及产量的影响. 中国林副特产, 2018(2):10-13,18.
[31]	陈一酉, 汪军成, 姚立蓉, 等. 2种生长延缓剂对青稞抗倒伏、生长及品质的影响. 大麦与谷类科学, 2019, 36(5):24-31.
[32]	王耀, 孙小娟, 方子森. 多效唑叶喷施对胡麻抗倒伏能力和籽粒产量的影响. 土壤与作物, 2018, 7(3):338-348.
[33]	鱼冰星, 王宏富, 王振华, 等. 多效唑对谷子茎秆特征及抗倒性的影响. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(8):37-44.

相关文章 15

[1]	王生态, 赵宝勰, 杜世坤, 李雨阳, 俞华林, 李榕鑫. 中度盐碱地胡麻耐盐性鉴定及品种筛选[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 111–117
[2]	李秀诗, 李英桃, 付瑜华, 罗仁山, 李守岭, 尚昆, 朱加保, 於春. 不同生态条件对薏苡品种产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 157–163
[3]	王兴亚, 陈宇涵, 张孟雯, 孙琳琳, 陈利容, 郭玉秋, 龚魁杰. 不同时期施用脱落酸对玉米籽粒灌浆和脱水的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 173–180
[4]	周琦, 张靖, 王振龙, 施志国, 邓超超, 常浩, 柳洋, 周彦芳. 绿肥还田和减量施氮对甘肃河西灌区土壤质量及燕麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 188–196
[5]	严定伟, 杨建新, 郭杰, 梁一凡, 罗菲, 付光明, 李军正, 常剑波, 张玉林, 姬小明. 不同保水剂对植烟土壤细菌群落结构及烤烟产量和质量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 197–205
[6]	董扬, 闫锋, 赵富阳, 侯晓敏, 李清泉, 李青超, 刘悦, 兰英, 杨慧莹, 王冰雪, 徐妍. 不同除草剂喷施方案对谷子生长及土壤微生物的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 238–244
[7]	雒兴刚, 万海元, 安丽蓉, 李永海, 雒兴玉, 张学凯, 梁维云, 朱建强. 垄作条播下春小麦不同品种与施氮量对边行效应、产量与水分利用效率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 251–258
[8]	吴凤婕, 侯楠, 齐翔鲲, 杨克军, 付健, 王玉凤. 不同施氮量对半干旱区糯玉米主要营养品质及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 267–275
[9]	王志刚, 刘强, 王谨, 巩敬锦, 姚群英. 未来气象条件下旱地春小麦产量及生物量对施氮量和播期变化的响应模拟[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (4): 276–282
[10]	贺云霞, 马建辉, 张黛静, 刘东华, 晁晓燕, 陈慧平, 李春喜. 不同氮肥增效剂对减少豫北麦田气态氮损失及其增产效果研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 108–115
[11]	王祎, 任永福, 张正鹏, 丁德芳, 张靖, 刘祎鸿, 孙多鑫, 陈光荣. 不同覆盖材料对河西灌区土壤环境及玉米产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 149–155
[12]	曹正男, 赵振东, 胡博, 于涵, 宁晓海, 赵泽强, 曹立勇. 氮肥与促腐菌肥配施对寒地水稻秸秆还田腐解效果及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 172–177
[13]	侯楠, 吴凤婕, 齐翔鲲, 王玉凤, 杨克军, 付健. 不同施氮水平对黑土区糯玉米灌浆期碳代谢的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 178–184
[14]	朱金籴, 朱学刚, 杜文青, 邱拓宇, 赵新彬. 化肥减量配施有机肥对设施番茄光合特性、品质和产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 185–189
[15]	李虎, 黄秋要, 吴子帅, 刘广林, 陈传华, 罗群昌, 朱其南. 种植密度和施氮量对优质常规稻桂育12产量和米质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2025, (3): 195–201

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

指标Index	五月May	六月June	七月July	八月August	九月September
日均最高气温Average daily maximum temperature (℃)	23.3	27.9	29.6	28.4	22.4
日均最低气温Average daily minimum temperature (℃)	13.7	18.8	21.0	23.9	16.2
总降水量Total precipitation (mm)	74.5	27.4	51.2	19.3	30.8
日照时数Sunshine duration (h)	433.7	444.0	440.9	415.8	370.3

处理Treatment	T0	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5
饱满率Plumpness rate (%)	91.67±0.01abA	92.33±0.03aA	91.00±0.03abA	91.00±0.03abA	91.67±0.02abA	92.33±0.03aA
杂粒率Impurity rate (%)	7.00±0.04bB	9.00±0.05aA	7.00±0.04bB	8.00±0.05abAB	8.00±0.05abAB	9.00±0.05aA
结实率Seed-setting rate (%)	39.47±0.05bAB	40.50±0.05bAB	40.17±0.05bAB	40.47±0.06bAB	42.27±0.06abA	43.50±0.07aA
单株粒数Grains per plant	353.03±193.20aA	273.87±69.00bB	180.20±113.36eE	187.80±153.43eE	252.67±132.95cC	207.77±103.14dD
单株粒重 Grain weight per plant (g)	5.95±2.77aA	4.30±1.35abAB	3.41±1.95bB	3.24±2.31bB	4.03±2.10abAB	3.75±1.94bB
单株鲜重 Fresh weight per plant (g)	94.47±39.28aA	91.47±37.78bB	90.27±35.98bcBC	89.47±34.28cBC	89.17±36.14cBC	91.33±35.36bB
千粒重1000-grain weight (g)	16.53±1.51abA	16.93±1.36abA	16.87±1.03abA	17.53±1.53aA	15.93±1.01bAB	16.73±1.14abA
籽粒干物质积累量 Grain dry matter accumulation (g)	62.77±36.26aA	58.93±34.26bcB	57.80±33.29dBC	59.07±31.97bcB	59.27±33.86bcB	60.87±34.20bB

处理 Treatment	小区产量Plot yield (kg/10 m²)			折合产量 Equivalent yield (kg/hm²)	较对照增减 Increase or decrease compared with CK (±%)	排序 Rank
处理 Treatment	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	折合产量 Equivalent yield (kg/hm²)	较对照增减 Increase or decrease compared with CK (±%)	排序 Rank
T0	1.79±0.87aA	2.06±1.12aA	2.40±1.61aA	2081.22±1144.01cB	－	6
T1	1.74±0.84aA	1.95±0.97aA	2.01±1.01abAB	1898.98±910.62dBC	-8.76	5
T2	1.94±0.95aA	2.19±1.16aA	1.95±0.91abAB	2025.66±993.33cB	-2.67	4
T3	2.00±0.95aA	2.47±1.48aA	2.23±1.16aA	2234.56±1183.31aA	7.37	1
T4	2.04±0.94aA	1.99±0.87aA	2.45±1.17aA	2157.89±986.54bAB	3.68	3
T5	1.94±0.75aA	2.31±1.06aA	2.31±0.73aA	2184.55±806.74bAB	4.96	2

变异来源 Source of variation	平方和 SS	自由度 df	均方 MS	F值 F-value	P_0.05	P_0.01
区组间Groups	0.9694	3	0.4467	11.125^**	0.9786	0.4052
处理间Treatments	0.4854	4	0.1022	3.846	0.0503	0.0196
误差Error	0.7699	10	0.0771
总变异Total variation	2.2247	17

处理 Treatment	基部第2节间The second internode of base stem
处理 Treatment	茎秆壁厚 Stem wall thickness (mm)	茎秆鲜重 Stem fresh weight (g)	茎秆密度 Stem density (g/cm³)	茎秆充实度 Stem fullness (g/cm)	茎秆抗折力 Stem bending strength (gf)	茎秆倒伏指数 Stem lodging index
T0	1.15±0.76abAB	0.64±0.11bA	1.12±0.11abA	0.34±0.01abA	318.89±18.36dD	2.79±0.82aA
T1	1.35±0.08abAB	0.80±0.14abA	1.18±0.27abA	0.41±0.01abA	336.67±22.69cdC	2.36±0.67abA
T2	1.31±0.42abAB	0.86±0.22abA	1.27±0.43abA	0.39±0.01abA	353.33±28.35cC	2.19±0.40abAB
T3	1.58±0.13abA	0.97±0.22aA	1.34±0.45abA	0.48±0.01aA	380.00±27.71bB	2.10±0.78abAB
T4	1.84±0.66aA	1.04±0.10aA	1.41±0.29aA	0.56±0.01aA	394.44±25.72bAB	1.94±0.79abAB
T5	1.79±0.71aA	1.06±0.08aA	1.47±0.34aA	0.69±0.01aA	412.22±21.91aA	1.76±0.14bB