不同叶施时期和锌肥种类对水稻产量和品质的影响

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2026.03.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以水稻品种吉农大667为试验材料，于灌浆期和蜡熟期通过叶面喷施七水合硫酸锌、糖醇螯合锰铜锌以及氨基酸螯合锌3种锌肥，探究其对水稻产量、籽粒锌含量以及品质性状的影响。结果表明，在产量层面，2次喷施七水合硫酸锌效果最为理想，2年产量增幅分别高达57.3%和54.8%。在籽粒锌含量方面，2次喷施氨基酸螯合锌的提升幅度最大，2年颖壳中锌含量分别提高了724.8%和717.2%；糙米中锌含量分别增加了729.8%和788.2%；然而仅糖醇螯合锰铜锌处理的效果达到显著水平（P=0.014）。在品质方面，2次喷施糖醇螯合锰铜锌对外观与加工品质的改善最为显著，2年精米率分别提高了6.7%和5.9%，垩白度分别降低了54.5%和55.5%。同时能够同步提升营养品质，使蛋白质、钾、镁和锌含量分别增加11.8%、0.9%、7.4%和79.7%。此外，1次喷施该锌肥对蒸煮食味品质的提升效果最佳，2022年，胶稠度和食味值分别提升了9.9%和11.6%，2023年分别提升了9.2%和10.2%，且RVA谱特征值综合评价最高。综上所述，叶面喷施锌肥能够有效协同提高水稻产量、籽粒锌含量以及综合品质，其中糖醇螯合锰铜锌在多数品质指标上优势明显，而七水合硫酸锌增产效果突出。

关键词: 锌肥, 叶施, 水稻, 糖醇螯合锰铜锌, 产量, 品质

Abstract:

This study selected the rice variety Jinongda 667 as the experimental material. Three zinc fertilizers (zinc sulfate heptahydrate, sugar-alcohol chelated Mn-Cu-Zn, and amino acid-chelated zinc) were applied via foliar spraying at the grain-filling and dough stages to investigate their effects on rice yield, grain zinc concentration, and quality traits. The results showed that in terms of yield, two applications of zinc sulfate heptahydrate were the most effective, increasing yield by 57.3% and 54.8% over two years, respectively. Regarding grain zinc concentration, two applications of amino acid-chelated zinc resulted in the highest increase, with zinc content in the rice husk rising by 724.8% and 717.2% and zinc content in brown rice increasing by 729.8% and 788.2% over the two years. However, only the sugar-alcohol chelated Mn-Cu-Zn treatment showed significant results (P=0.014). In terms of quality, two applications of sugar-alcohol chelated Mn-Cu-Zn most significantly improved appearance and processing quality, increasing milled rice rate by 6.7% and 5.9%, and reducing chalkiness degree by 54.5% and 55.5% over two years. At the same time, it enhanced nutritional quality, increasing the contents of protein, potassium, magnesium, and zinc by 11.8%, 0.9%, 7.4%, and 79.7%, respectively. In addition, a single application of this zinc fertilizer yielded the best improvement in cooking and eating quality. Gel consistency and taste value increased by 9.9% and 11.6% in 2022, and by 9.2% and 10.2% in 2023, respectively, with the highest comprehensive evaluation score based on RVA profile characteristics. In summary, foliar spraying zinc application effectively synergized improvements in rice yield, grain zinc concentration, and overall quality. Sugar-alcohol chelated Zn-Mn-Cu demonstrated clear advantages in most quality indicators, while zinc sulfate heptahydrate showed outstanding yield-increasing effects.

Key words: Zinc fertilizer, Foliar spraying, Rice, Sugar-alcohol chelated Mn-Cu-Zn, Yield, Quality

张清芮, 凌凤楼, 高子婷, 王玉, 苏庆旺, 韩笑. 不同叶施时期和锌肥种类对水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026 (3): 38–47

Zhang Qingrui, Ling Fenglou, Gao Ziting, Wang Yu, Su Qingwang, Han Xiao. Effects of Different Foliar Spraying Periods and Zinc Fertilizer Types on Rice Yield and Quality[J]. Crops, 2026(3): 38–47

图/表 12

表1

图1

表2

表3

表4

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

表5

表6

2个时期3种锌肥处理对稻米RVA值的影响

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	峰值黏度 Peak viscosity(cP)	热浆黏度 Hot paste viscosity(cP)	冷浆黏度 Cold paste viscosity(cP)	糊化温度 Gelatinization temperature(℃)	崩解值 Breakdown value(cP)	回复值 Setback value(cP)	消减值 Trough value(cP)
2022	CK	1848.98±17.13d	1357.93±7.12c	2343.77±34.13b	76.56±0.21b	355.43±9.02d	997.33±3.75a	651.38±12.22a
	SCMZ-Ⅰ	2303.29±17.97ab	1595.83±28.60b	2420.75±21.18ab	72.92±0.30d	655.92±17.82a	791.92±6.83c	207.98±8.88f
	SCMZ-Ⅱ	2329.43±14.31a	1595.40±24.63b	2455.94±25.87a	74.93±0.23c	632.74±11.34a	865.32±10.23b	356.70±10.48e
	ZAAC-Ⅰ	2234.46±49.14b	1704.94±36.86a	2407.13±35.41ab	72.79±0.14d	569.30±12.75b	802.71±9.86c	233.16±3.02f
	ZAAC-Ⅱ	2014.12±30.11c	1568.57±35.41b	2402.75±22.00ab	76.03±0.06b	533.30±14.10b	786.59±14.78cd	460.43±2.31c
	ZSHO-Ⅰ	2032.42±19.83c	1547.42±13.52b	2362.94±18.62b	77.29±0.08a	464.96±12.14c	763.66±3.86d	398.69±8.79d
	ZSHO-Ⅱ	1754.80±36.23e	1361.93±7.78c	2355.56±17.95b	77.15±0.17a	429.68±17.67c	982.00±10.41a	568.97±8.33b
2023	CK	1903.08±17.67d	1397.88±29.73d	2370.38±19.05c	76.04±0.12b	378.59±13.81e	976.64±12.26a	656.60±7.61a
	SCMZ-Ⅰ	2324.49±45.67b	1600.22±33.03ab	2481.22±27.01a	73.08±0.18d	682.09±12.79a	789.90±16.90c	188.01±2.96g
	SCMZ-Ⅱ	2426.40±11.40a	1538.54±16.39bc	2496.09±30.61a	74.27±0.19c	655.24±18.64a	862.87±17.18b	345.33±11.31e
	ZAAC-Ⅰ	2283.36±4.56b	1642.64±14.57a	2395.27±19.73bc	71.99±0.16e	604.57±6.74b	789.25±6.61c	248.89±3.52f
	ZAAC-Ⅱ	2083.53±12.11c	1579.38±7.39abc	2457.26±15.33ab	76.18±0.36b	530.87±14.21c	781.43±6.90c	463.57±10.60c
	ZSHO-Ⅰ	2101.65±22.74c	1516.61±32.47c	2395.04±27.15bc	76.91±0.18a	450.98±8.53d	772.32±17.32c	403.31±6.04d
	ZSHO-Ⅱ	1757.19±22.67e	1330.01±25.34d	2346.53±32.61c	77.25±0.21a	432.28±4.37d	1012.07±10.53a	554.95±6.71b
方差分析 ANOVA	Y	**	ns	ns	*	ns	ns	ns
	T	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
	Y×T	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

表6

参考文献 20

[1]	FAOSTAT. FAO statistical databases. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, 2015.
[2]	苏素苗. 不同施锌方式对锌吸收与转运及稻米锌营养强化的影响. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2024.
[3]	顾文健. 水稻锌肥不同施用方式应用效果试验. 安徽农学通报, 2023, 29(9):71-73.
[4]	李俊丽, 钱干, 李海星, 等. 氮锌配施对水稻生长、产量和养分吸收分配的影响. 华中农业大学学报, 2021, 40(3):159-167.
[5]	聂录, 裴鑫宇. 微量元素锌对水稻产量和品质的影响. 现代化农业, 2019(5):20-21.
[6]	董扬. 叶面喷施锌肥对谷子籽粒产量及锌含量的影响. 黑龙江农业科学, 2023(6):29-33.
[7]	刘晓航, 王张民, 牛珊珊, 等. 生物强化提高水稻糙米锌含量及其生物有效性. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2023, 29(10):1783-1793.
[8]	唐梦珊, 吕志远, 赵晓涵, 等. 喷锌对黄土高原小麦籽粒营养品质及锌分布的影响. 农业环境科学学报, 2023, 42(1):27-36.
[9]	Hu J Y, Tao R H, Cao C, et al. Effect of leaf surface regulation of zinc fertilizer on absorption of cadmium, plumbum and zinc in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Sustainability, 2023, 15(3):1877. doi: 10.3390/su15031877
[10]	Soltani S M, Ebadi A A, Rashti K T, et al. Foliar spray of glycine-chelated zinc (Zn) and iron (Fe) lowered the effect of macronutrient deficiencies and enhanced rice yield components, yield, and grain biofortification. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2025, 48(1):147-163. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2024.2378923
[11]	陈振玲, 王锐, 陈洁, 等. 拔节期喷施纳米锌对水稻产量、品质和籽粒锌含量的影响. 江苏农业学报, 2024, 40(6):961-968.
[12]	梅清清. 螯合态锌肥用量及施用方式对水稻产量、锌含量及稻米品质的影响. 荆州: 长江大学, 2021.
[13]	梅清清, 田仓, 周青云, 等. 喷施螯合态锌肥对水稻产量、锌含量和稻米品质的影响. 湖北农业科学, 2022, 61(5):27-31.
[14]	范存敏, 胡现荣, 卜容燕. 当涂县水稻不同种类锌肥施用效果研究. 现代农业科技, 2023(21):9-12.
[15]	朱艳菊. 基于RVA谱的稻米食味品质评价及分子标记关联研究. 广州: 华南农业大学, 2018.
[16]	陈丽, 马静, 亢玲, 等. 杂草稻稻米RVA谱特征值与外观品质及蒸煮食味品质性状的相关性分析. 宁夏农林科技, 2020, 61(6):1-4.
[17]	Tang S L, Zhang H X, Liu W Z, et al. Nitrogen fertilizer at heading stage effectively compensates for the deterioration of rice quality by affecting the starch-related properties under elevated temperatures. Food Chemistry, 2019, 277:455-462. doi: S0308-8146(18)31920-4 pmid: 30502170
[18]	马晨怡. 绿色、有机稻米与常规稻米的营养品质比较研究. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2022.
[19]	孙丽丽, 贾浩杨, 李坤译, 等. 辽宁水稻新品系产量与米质的关系及高食味品系特征分析. 中国稻米, 2022, 28(3):52-57. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2022.03.009
[20]	徐巡军, 葛仁山, 李晓, 等. 锌肥种类对太湖地区水稻生长和稻米品质的影响. 化肥工业, 2019, 46(4):54-60.

相关文章 15

[1]	吴淼淼, 王素华, 田静, 袁星星, 陈新, 王丽侠. 2022-2024年国家食用豆产业技术体系普通豇豆新品种（系）联合鉴定分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 102–109
[2]	谢福平, 毛涛. 化肥减量配施生物有机肥对设施番茄产量、品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 197–203
[3]	史婵, 韩丽, 李秋卓, 张芳魁, 曾秀丽, 李玉蓉, 张兴端. 不同氮、磷、钾配比对紫甘薯花青素积累及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 204–209
[4]	郭威, 孙冬, 闫治霖, 丁蓓, 杜跃辰, 吴慧扬, 徐强, 窦志, 高辉. 灌浆结实期半深水灌溉对水稻产量、干物质转运及籽粒灌浆的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 21–29
[5]	刘冬, 李君霞, 马梦娟, 张骐飞, 李明, 付景, 王越涛, 王付华, 尹海庆, 王亚. 淹水深度对水稻胚芽鞘伸长的影响及其生理机制[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 216–224
[6]	谢章书, 荣志凌, 覃业玲, 李侃, 周仲华, 屠小菊, 汪启明, 刘爱玉. 夏播短季栽培模式下棉花产量及纤维品质对脱叶催熟剂喷施时间的响应[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 225–232
[7]	卢燕回, 宋战锋, 李虎, 刘广林, 陈传华, 罗群昌, 吴子帅. 秧龄对烟后水稻秧苗素质、产量及稻米品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 233–241
[8]	李春花, 吴晗, 加央多拉, 杨志雪, 王艳平, 冯博, 王春龙, 李雪英, 卜瑞, 郭来春, 任长忠. 播期对苦荞生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 242–249
[9]	罗亚伟, 梁阗, 卢文, 杨翠芳, 阳太亿, 周珊, 陆衫羽, 苏树权, 伍荣冬, 刘丽敏, 高轶静. 机械平茬对宿根蔗蔗蔸及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 250–256
[10]	王晓婷, 王立明, 杜世坤, 杨如萍, 张晓艳, 汤春晖, 陈光荣. 种植密度对西北不同生态区大豆产量及品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 48–55
[11]	吕建晔, 丁万红, 刘强, 张鹏鹏, 唐勇, 任红松, 薛军, 明博, 李少昆. 密植精准调控技术对新疆鲜食糯玉米商品品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 64–70
[12]	颜培启, 孔令捷, 池昇隆, 于洋, 孔德庸, 孙海燕. 植物生长调节剂复配腐植酸对玉米茎秆强度、籽粒灌浆及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (3): 71–79
[13]	袁博, 张晓, 方正武, 李曼, 寿路路, 汪尊杰, 江伟, 肖龙飞, 高德荣. 小麦面粉和鲜面片色泽及相关基因组成分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (2): 1–11
[14]	喻奇伟, 张月华, 贺帅, 张梁, 景延秋, 马黔, 马关凯, 朱国志, 王茂贤, 王秋领. 聚天门冬氨酸与壳聚糖配施对烤烟生长及烤后烟叶品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (2): 109–119
[15]	马愿强, 刘丽君, 马骊, 徐新宇, 张亚宏, 王娟, 蒲媛媛, 王旺田, 杨刚, 武军艳. 强冬性冬油菜抗裂角性鉴定筛选及其与相关农艺性状的相关性状分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (2): 12–22

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	穗数 Number of panicles	实粒数 Number of filled grains	千粒重 1000-grain weight (g)	秕粒数 Number of empty grains	结实率 Seed-setting rate (%)	每穴产量 Yield per hill (g)
2022	CK	23.63±0.26a	128.62±2.14c	21.41±0.33c	8.11±0.12b	94.80±0.26b	8063.83±89.03c
	SCMZ-Ⅰ	23.98±0.16a	127.80±4.20c	21.54±0.20c	5.42±0.08d	96.19±0.35a	8674.38±327.06c
	SCMZ-Ⅱ	21.88±0.35b	150.85±1.02b	27.93±0.14a	10.33±0.21a	92.62±0.17c	12 651.23±424.62a
	ZAAC-Ⅰ	20.74±0.21c	126.67±0.99c	22.53±0.30b	4.11±0.06e	96.58±0.21a	8601.68±104.20c
	ZAAC-Ⅱ	22.19±0.13b	144.05±2.51b	27.80±0.16a	5.85±0.11c	96.07±0.38a	12 010.76±417.82a
	ZSHO-Ⅰ	22.31±0.26b	162.97±3.21a	22.01±0.19bc	8.08±0.14b	94.84±0.36b	10 480.54±455.08b
	ZSHO-Ⅱ	21.77±0.38b	160.60±2.20a	27.28±0.15a	6.18±0.06c	96.49±0.16a	12 687.17±248.42a
2023	CK	24.36±0.09a	135.39±2.21c	21.40±0.14d	7.88±0.08c	95.20±0.33c	8563.18±371.63d
	SCMZ-Ⅰ	24.60±0.07a	129.59±2.61cd	21.66±0.18cd	5.16±0.05f	95.79±0.11bc	8011.33±176.93d
	SCMZ-Ⅱ	21.50±0.22bc	153.14±4.59ab	28.10±0.21a	10.31±0.06a	92.45±0.30d	12 874.72±291.94ab
	ZAAC-Ⅰ	21.26±0.31c	121.41±4.69d	22.16±0.22c	4.07±0.06g	97.04±0.20a	8026.94±340.56d
	ZAAC-Ⅱ	21.80±0.44bc	148.38±3.67b	27.39±0.19b	5.91±0.06e	96.24±0.13b	12 145.63±347.65b
	ZSHO-Ⅰ	22.31±0.32b	161.44±2.85a	21.81±0.22cd	8.14±0.04b	95.14±0.22c	10 835.31±253.99c
	ZSHO-Ⅱ	21.59±0.40bc	157.45±4.34ab	27.51±0.32ab	6.49±0.10d	96.13±0.39b	13 254.49±454.36a
方差分析 ANOVA	Y	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
	T	**	**	**	**	**	**
	Y×T	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

方差分析ANOVA	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F crit
Ⅰ组间Inter-group I	19.826	3.000	6.609	3.167	0.085	4.066
Ⅰ组内Intra-group I	16.696	8.000	2.087
Ⅰ总计Total for group I	36.522	11.000
Ⅱ组间Inter-group II	4172.270	3.000	1390.757	3.592	0.066	4.066
Ⅱ组内Intra-group II	3097.415	8.000	387.177
Ⅱ总计Total for group Ⅱ	7269.686	11.000

方差分析ANOVA	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F crit
ZSHO组间Inter-group ZSHO	5.665	2.000	2.833	3.849	0.084	5.143
ZSHO组内Intra-group ZSHO	4.415	6.000	0.736
ZSHO总计Total for group ZSHO	10.081	8.000
ZAAC组间Inter-group ZAAC	3927.823	2.000	1963.912	3.837	0.084	5.143
ZAAC组内Intra-group ZAAC	3070.942	6.000	511.824
ZAAC总计Total for group ZAAC	6998.765	8.000
SCMZ组间Inter-group SCMZ	129.303	2.000	64.651	9.489	0.014	5.143
SCMZ组内Intra-group SCMZ	40.879	6.000	6.813
SCMZ总计Total for group SCMZ	170.181	8.000

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	垩白度 Chalkiness degree	垩白大小 Chalk size	垩白粒率 Chalky grain rate	糙米率 Brown rice rate	精米率 Milled rice rate	整精米率 Head milled rice rate
2022	CK	6.32±0.01a	23.83±0.02a	23.87±0.01a	82.41±0.03a	70.25±0.02d	67.61±0.05d
	SCMZ-Ⅰ	3.70±0.03d	21.57±0.05c	20.88±0.04d	81.27±0.08c	74.06±0.04ab	70.94±0.14b
	SCMZ-Ⅱ	2.87±0.09e	17.38±0.01e	19.68±0.07e	81.92±0.22b	74.96±1.04a	73.55±0.09a
	ZAAC-Ⅰ	5.44±0.03b	22.17±0.05b	21.64±0.15c	81.06±0.03c	72.67±0.08c	69.09±0.26c
	ZAAC-Ⅱ	2.70±0.18e	19.10±0.07d	21.07±0.03d	81.86±0.16b	73.86±0.30abc	71.28±0.17b
	ZSHO-Ⅰ	6.14±0.02a	22.32±0.05b	22.36±0.05b	82.16±0.10ab	70.05±0.18d	67.66±0.06d
	ZSHO-Ⅱ	5.15±0.14c	21.41±0.11c	21.40±0.19c	81.22±0.03c	73.36±0.06bc	70.92±0.27b
2023	CK	6.32±0.01a	23.87±0.02a	23.87±0.03a	82.43±0.03a	70.23±0.00d	67.63±0.01d
	SCMZ-Ⅰ	3.79±0.01c	21.78±0.06c	21.01±0.03d	81.30±0.05cd	74.16±0.17a	71.14±0.17b
	SCMZ-Ⅱ	2.81±0.14e	17.38±0.02e	19.55±0.04e	81.45±0.12c	74.37±0.41a	73.50±0.07a
	ZAAC-Ⅰ	5.47±0.02b	22.24±0.07b	21.44±0.14c	81.08±0.05e	72.95±0.12c	68.82±0.13c
	ZAAC-Ⅱ	3.26±0.19d	19.07±0.03d	21.05±0.02d	81.93±0.04b	73.85±0.12ab	70.95±0.11b
	ZSHO-Ⅰ	6.19±0.06a	22.16±0.07b	22.23±0.02b	82.47±0.07a	70.11±0.11d	67.71±0.08d
	ZSHO-Ⅱ	5.53±0.05b	21.59±0.13c	21.32±0.07c	81.16±0.04de	73.36±0.01bc	70.91±0.10b
方差分析 ANOVA	Y	*	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
	T	**	**	**	**	**	**
	Y×T	*	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

年份 Year	处理 Treatment	直链淀粉 Amylose	胶稠度 Gel consistency	食味值 Taste value
2022	CK	14.35±0.11de	76.95±0.31d	67.50±0.26d
	SCMZ-Ⅰ	14.88±0.14cd	84.63±0.31a	75.33±0.50a
	SCMZ-Ⅱ	16.49±0.21b	79.74±0.49c	74.77±0.28a
	ZAAC-Ⅰ	15.07±0.24c	82.22±0.36b	73.06±0.11b
	ZAAC-Ⅱ	18.84±0.38a	78.68±0.38c	70.80±0.15c
	ZSHO-Ⅰ	13.74±0.14e	84.10±0.35a	71.54±0.15c
	ZSHO-Ⅱ	18.86±0.26a	78.60±0.50c	67.64±0.21d
2023	CK	14.07±0.04de	77.84±0.11e	68.31±0.26d
	SCMZ-Ⅰ	14.93±0.23c	84.99±0.27a	75.28±0.23a
	SCMZ-Ⅱ	16.11±0.35b	79.46±0.20d	75.41±0.47a
	ZAAC-Ⅰ	14.52±0.28cd	81.98±0.50c	73.34±0.20b
	ZAAC-Ⅱ	18.58±0.21a	78.52±0.39e	71.39±0.17c
	ZSHO-Ⅰ	13.65±0.22e	83.71±0.23b	71.68±0.42c
	ZSHO-Ⅱ	18.96±0.07a	78.59±0.21de	67.96±0.26d
方差分析 ANOVA	Y	ns	ns	*
	T	**	**	**
	Y×T	ns	ns	ns