Crops ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (6): 144-148.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2018.06.022

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Soil Tillage and Fertilization on Root Microstructure and Yield in Maize

Zhang Shaoyun1,Li Xiangling1,Liu Pan1,Zhang Yue2,Zhai Dashuai1,Yin Baozhong3   

  1. 1 College of Agronomy, Hebei Agricultural University/Hebei Key Laboratory of Crop Growth Regulation, Baoding 071001, Hebei, China
    2 Cangzhou Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Cangzhou 061000, Hebei, China
    3 College of Plant Protection, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071001, Hebei, China
  • Received:2018-04-18 Revised:2018-06-23 Online:2018-12-15 Published:2018-12-06

RichHTML

12

PDF (PC)

301

Abstract:

In the summer maize season of 2016, Xianyu 335 was used as the test material at the Xinji experimental station, Hebei Agricultural University. The characteristics of soil microorganisms and root microstructure were studied in treatments of subsoiling and applying fertilizer (SAF), Subsoiling seeding and layer fertilizer I (SLF1), subsoiling and layer fertilizer II (SLF2) and no-tillage sowing and fertilization (CK) at seedling stage, jointing stage and tasseling stage and filling stage. The results showed that: Compared with CK, SLF and SAF could increase the number of root canal and reduce the proportion of the medullary cavity to the middle column. The yields of maize treated by SAF, SLF1 and SLF2 were significantly higher than those of CK treatment, which increased by 7.4%, 6.9% and 13.9%, respectively. Therefore, SLF2 could increase the grain yield of maize.

Key words: Summer maize, Subsoiling and applying fertilizer, Root system, Microstructure

Fig.1

Root microstructure (stele) of summer maize at different stages A. No-tillage seeding, B. Subsoiling and applying fertilizer, C. Subsoiling and layer fertilizer (N fertilizer on the upper layer), D. Subsoiling and layer fertilizer (slow-controlled release in N fertilizer on the upper layer); 0. Seedling stage, 1. Jointing stage, 2. Tasseling stage, 3. Filling stage; a. Vessel, b. Pulp cavity, c. Stele"

Table 1

Comparison of root microstructure of summer maize under different treatments"

处理
Treatment		 中柱直径Stele diameter (μm) 髓腔占中柱面积比例Proportion of pith by stele area (%) 导管直径Vessel diameter (μm)
苗期
Seedling		 拔节期
Jointing		 抽雄期
Tasseling		 灌浆期
Filling		 苗期
Seedling		 拔节期
Jointing		 抽雄期
Tasseling		 灌浆期
Filling		 苗期
Seedling		 拔节期
Jointing		 抽雄期
Tasseling		 灌浆期
Filling
CK 41.7c 97.7b 98.0c 104.7b 13.3d 71.7ab 69.3a 67.7b 6.7b 9.7b 6.7c 9.3b
SAF 50.0a 101.0a 102.0b 106.0a 15.7b 74.7a 65.3b 73.7a 6.3c 9.0c 6.7c 8.0d
SLF1 47.4b 103.7a 105.3b 107.3a 14.0c 75.0a 71.3a 57.3d 11.3a 8.6d 10.6a 8.6c
SLF2 47.3b 74.7c 114.0a 101.3b 16.7a 69.7b 66.6b 60.7c 11.0a 11.0a 8.6b 10.3a

Table 2

The number of soil fungi and bacteria in different periods under different treatments ×103CFU/g"

种类
Kind		 处理
Treatment		 土层Soil depth 0~15cm
土层Soil depth 15~30cm
播前
Before seeding		 苗期
Seedling		 拔节期
Jointing		 抽雄期
Tasseling		 灌浆期
Filling		 播前
Before seeding		 苗期
Seedling		 拔节期
Jointing		 抽雄期
Tasseling		 灌浆期
Filling
真菌 CK 1.5a 2.3c 5.7b 2.0c 1.7c 0.6a 1.3b 5.0a 3.0b 2.3b
Fungi SAF 1.4a 1.7d 4.3c 3.0b 4.0b 0.7a 2.0a 3.7c 2.0c 3.0a
SLF1 1.6a 3.0b 3.0d 4.7a 5.3a 0.5a 2.3a 4.3b 1.7d 2.0b
SLF2 1.7a 4.7a 6.0a 2.0c 0.3d 0.7a 1.0b 1.0d 5.3a 3.0a
细菌 CK 2.7a 8.7a 5.3c 17.0b 4.3c 0.9a 2.0c 4.0d 24.7a 3.3c
Bacteria SAF 2.6a 4.0d 6.7b 21.0a 11.7a 1.0a 2.0c 8.7a 9.3c 3.0c
SLF1 2.7a 7.7b 2.7d 8.0d 6.7b 0.9a 2.3b 5.0c 9.3c 8.3b
SLF2 2.6a 6.0c 14.7a 15.0c 4.3c 1.0a 3.7a 6.3b 10.0b 11.0a

Table 3

Yield component of corn in different treatments"

处理
Treatment		 穗长(cm)
Ear length		 穗粗(cm)
Ear diameter		 穗数(×104/hm2)
Ear number		 穗粒数
Kernels per ear		 千粒重(g)
1000-grain weight		 产量(kg/hm2)
Yield
CK 19.3b 15.7a 6.0a 480.1c 301.2b 8 676.0c
SAF 20.1a 16.1a 6.0a 495.6b 313.6a 9 325.5b
SLF1 20.1a 16.0a 6.0a 505.1b 306.1b 9 276.0b
SLF2 20.2a 16.1a 6.0a 520.1a 316.9a 9 889.5a
[1] Rogers E D, Benfey P N . Regulation of plant root system architecture: implications for crop advancement. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 2015,32:93-98.
doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2014.11.015 pmid: 25448235
[2] Pandey D, Agrawal M, Bohra J S , et al. Recalcitrant and labile carbon pools in a sub-humid tropical soil under different tillage combinations:A case study of rice-wheat system. Soil & Tillage Research, 2014,143(12):116-122.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2014.06.001
[3] 张丽民, 左民, 吴迪 . 玉米免耕播种苗期存在的问题分析. 中国农业信息, 2015(18):97-98.
[4] 刘明, 齐华, 张卫建 , 等. 深松与施氮方式对春玉米子粒灌浆及产量和品质的影响. 玉米科学, 2013,21(3):115-119,130.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0906.2013.03.022
[5] Zhang S, Chen X, Jia S , et al. The potential mechanism of long-term conservation tillage effects on maize yield in the black soil of Northeast China. Soil & Tillage Research, 2015,154(4):84-90.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2015.06.002
[6] 梁建斌, 刘今河, 杨涛 . 不同耕作方式对玉米根系生长发育及土壤水分的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2006,34(11):2353-2354.
[7] Salem H M, Valero C, Muñoz M Á , et al. Short-term effects of four tillage practices on soil physical properties,soil water potential,and maize yield. Geoderma, 2015,237/238:60-70.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.08.014
[8] 尹宝重, 张永升, 甄文超 . 海河低平原渠灌区麦田深松的节水增产效应研究. 中国农业科学, 2015,48(7):1311-1320.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2015.07.06
[9] 王宁, 齐永志, 时荣荣 , 等. 草莓根系的石蜡切片制作及侧根发育过程的观察. 河北农业大学学报, 2013,36(3):34-38.
[10] 毛晓霞 . 石蜡切片制作方法的改良. 安徽农学通报, 2013(8):15-16.
[11] 李峰 . 植物石蜡切片制作(paraffin section)的试验流程探讨. 科技信息, 2012(5):104-105.
[12] 孙海涛 . 中国黄土高原苹果产区土壤真菌群落多样性及生防放线菌菌株筛选. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2012.
doi: 10.7666/d.y2116909
[13] 尹宝重, 甄文超, 马燕会 . 深松一体化播种对夏玉米农田土壤水热特征及微生物动态的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2015,23(3):285-293.
doi: 10.13930/j.cnki.cjea.140971
[14] 邱红波, 何腾兵, 龙友华 , 等. 免耕栽培对玉米根系性状及其产量的影响. 贵州农业科学, 2011,39(9):55-57.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-3601.2011.09.014
[15] 李冬梅, 郭华, 朱海燕 , 等. 耕作方式对玉米生长发育、根分布及产量形成的影响. 玉米科学, 2014,22(5):115-119.
[16] 栗维, 朱海燕, 逄焕成 , 等. 深松方式对玉米根系分布及水分利用效率的影响. 作物杂志, 2014(3):77-80.
[17] 尹宝重, 甄文超, 冯悦 . 海河低平原深松播种对夏玉米根系生理的影响及其节水增产效应. 作物学报, 2015,41(4):623-632.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2015.00623
[18] 王庭梁 . 不同密度下玉米营养器官结构与产量的关系. 郑州:河南农业大学, 2008.
doi: 10.7666/d.y1336592
[19] 夏光利, 毕军, 史桂芳 , 等. 分层施肥对冬小麦产量及氮素效应的影响研究. 山东农业科学, 2016,48(4):72-74.
doi: 10.14083/j.issn.1001-4942.2016.04.017
[1] Wu Ronghua,Zhuang Kezhang,Liu Peng,Zhang Chunyan. Response of Summer Maize Yield to Meteorological Factors in Lunan Region [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(5): 104-109.
[2] Yuan Wang,Ze Guo,Xiaohui Li,Shixiao Xu,Xuexia Xing,Siqi Zhang,Jia He,Chao Liu,Fang Chen,Tiezhao Yang. Effects of Meloidogyne incognita Infection on Tobacco Root System under Different Temperatures [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 161-166.
[3] Juan Zhong,Zhiqiang Fu,Li Liu,Zhijuan Zhu,Huabin Zheng. Correlation Analysis of Methane Transport Capacity and Root Characteristics in Rice [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 105-112.
[4] Jiao Wang,Yongqing Zhang. Observation on Growth Pattern of Root System in Different Adzuki Bean Varieties under Drought Stress [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(6): 112-119.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!