检索
E-mail
RSS
高级检索 图表检索

当期目录 我要投稿 过刊浏览
高级检索 图表检索

作物杂志,2026, 第3期: 38–47 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2026.03.006

• 第二十八届中国科协年会学术论文专栏（主要粮食作物产能品质提升与高质量发展路径） • 上一篇    下一篇

不同叶施时期和锌肥种类对水稻产量和品质的影响

张清芮1(), 凌凤楼1, 高子婷1, 王玉1, 苏庆旺2, 韩笑1()   

  1. 1 吉林农业大学农学院， 130118， 吉林长春
    2 吉林大农种业有限公司， 130118， 吉林长春
  • 收稿日期:2025-10-11 修回日期:2025-10-22 出版日期:2026-06-15 发布日期:2026-06-17
  • 通讯作者: 韩笑，主要从事水稻育种研究，E-mail：hanxiaoyy@jlau.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:张清芮，主要从事水稻育种研究，E-mail：1095490411@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    吉林省科技发展计划项目(20240101201JC);吉林省科技发展计划项目(20240601061RC)

Effects of Different Foliar Spraying Periods and Zinc Fertilizer Types on Rice Yield and Quality

Zhang Qingrui1(), Ling Fenglou1, Gao Ziting1, Wang Yu1, Su Qingwang2, Han Xiao1()   

  1. 1 College of Agriculture, Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun 130118, Jilin, China
    2 Jilin Danong Seed Co., Ltd., Changchun 130118, Jilin, China
  • Received:2025-10-11 Revised:2025-10-22 Online:2026-06-15 Published:2026-06-17

RichHTML

4

PDF (PC)

182

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

表1

2个时期3种锌肥处理对水稻产量及其构成因素的影响

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

图1

2个时期3种锌肥处理后锌含量增长率

表2

不同时期同种锌肥锌含量ANOVA分析

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

表3

相同时期不同锌肥水稻含锌量ANOVA分析

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

表4

2个时期3种锌肥对稻米外观加工品质指标的影响

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

图2

不同时期喷洒ZSHO对水稻营养品质的影响 不同小写字母表示同一营养元素在同一年份内不同处理间在P < 0.05水平差异显著。下同。

图3

不同时期喷洒ZAAC对水稻营养品质的影响

图4

不同时期喷洒SCMZ对水稻营养品质的影响

图5

灌浆期喷洒3种锌肥对水稻营养品质的影响

图6

灌浆期和蜡熟期喷洒3种锌肥对水稻营养品质的影响

表5

2个时期3种锌肥处理对稻米食味蒸煮品质指标的影响

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

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
[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.
[1] 殷佳, 张男, 孙茹梦, 汝艳, 景文疆, 张耗. 根系分泌物在水稻氮素吸收利用中的作用机制及氮肥调控研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 1–7
[2] 赵永满, 李瑞奇, 王红光. 拔节前补灌追氮对小麦叶片干物质积累量和产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 101–109
[3] 许芸菲, 贾浩杨, 李叶彤, 曹瑞, 高梓淇, 赵喆, 陈立强, 梁潇. 氮肥用量及运筹对优良食味粳稻越光产量形成及根系形态的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 117–128
[4] 吴子帅, 黄秋要, 陈传华, 罗芳媚, 张世冠, 刘广林, 路一平, 罗群昌, 李虎. 施氮量和栽插密度对桂香99产量和稻米品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 140–145
[5] 阮新民, 从夕汉, 杜弘杨, 岳伟, 施伏芝, 罗彦长, 王元垒, 罗志祥. 江淮稻作区氮肥用量对高产优质中籼稻产量、品质及氮肥利用效率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 146–154
[6] 李行, 陈广周, 王运韬, 连世昊, 李家豪, 田文强, 张金汕, 石书兵. 宽幅匀播对新疆春小麦光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 164–170
[7] 阙涛, 吴娴, 王忠妮, 吴钱蓉, 龙武华, 王倩, 朱速松. 利用CRISPR/Cas9技术编辑GS3、GS9和GW2基因改良水稻粒型[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 17–26
[8] 陈京都, 洪叶, 唐建鹏, 邓沁宇, 刘绍贵, 张彦, 冯烨. 土壤修复剂与不同肥料运筹模式对稻茬小麦产量及品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 180–187
[9] 侯晓敏, 闫锋, 董扬, 赵富阳, 李清泉, 卢环, 张金东, 张巩亮. 调环酸钙对糜子茎秆特征及抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 207–213
[10] 张卓, 聂江力, 邱晓坤, 宿珈嘉, 任俊涵, 刘广慧, 刘艳军, 裴毅. 蚯蚓粪肥部分替代化肥对兰州百合光合特性、品质和产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 221–227
[11] 李君保, 吴银环, 冉文秀, 李华明, 冉元龙, 丁梦琦, 张颖韬. 播种方式及肥料运筹对苦荞产量、品质及肥料利用率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 228–237
[12] 樊海潮, 张志恒, 赵中亭, 张桂花. 种植密度与整枝方式对蒜后直播棉产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 238–245
[13] 黄新元, 张英, 陶迎梅, 江青山, 魏丕伟. 水稻OsDOG1-like基因家族突变体种子的萌发势及其GA敏感性的研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2026, (4): 36–45
[14] 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
[15] 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
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!