Crops ›› 2019, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (3): 91-98.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.03.015

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Row Spacing and Number of Seedling Per Hole on Yield and Quality of Rice in Cold Regions

Cao Liang,Huang Binglin,Wang Mengxue,Zhang Yuxian   

  1. College of Agronomy, Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, Daqing 163319, Heilongjiang, China
  • Received:2019-01-02 Revised:2019-04-02 Online:2019-06-15 Published:2019-06-12
  • Contact: Mengxue Wang,Yuxian Zhang

RichHTML

10

PDF (PC)

392

Abstract:

The split-plot design was adopted for the experimental study to determine the configuration of plant spacing, row spacing and seedling number per hole of Kendao 26 and Longjing 31 for high-yield and high-quality cultivation. Results showed that optimal rice population varied with rice variety, the best configuration of Kendao 26 for rice yield was plant spacing of 10cm, row spacing of 30cm and 5 seedlings/hole, while the best configuration of Longjing 31 for rice yield was plant spacing of 13.3cm, row spacing of 27cm and 9 seedlings/hole. Cultivation of rice Kendao 26 in the configuration of plant by row spacing of 10cm×30cm and 5 rice seedlings/hole was conducive to improve the milling quality of rice but had an adverse impact on the improvement of appearance quality. The relatively low nutrition content of rice had helped the improvement of eating quality of rice with the taste score of rice up to 86.5, which was significantly different from that of rice upon minimum processing. Rice Longjing 31 cultivated in the configuration of plant by row spacing of 13.3cm×27cm and 5 seedlings/hole had high milling quality. Cultivation in such configuration was not good for improving nutritional quality or appearance quality, but its eating quality was improved substantially with its taste score reached 86.0, which was significantly different from that of rice upon minimum processing. Therefore, the appropriate configuration of seedling number per hole, plant spacing and row spacing shall be chosen in respect of different rice varieties for high-yield and high-quality cultivation, and it is the fastest and the most economical and effective measure to achieve high-yield and high-quality of rice.

Key words: Rice, Row spacing, Seedling number, Yield, Quality

Table 1

Treatments of split-plot design"

主处理Main treatment 副处理Ub-treatment 重复区组Repeat groups
A1 B1 A1B1至A1B6 6个小区 A1B1至A1B6 6个小区 A1B1至A1B6 6个小区
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
A2 B1 A2B1至A2B6 6个小区 A2B1至A2B6 6个小区 A2B1至A2B6 6个小区
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
A3 B1 A3B1至A3B6 6个小区 A3B1至A3B6 6个小区 A3B1至A3B6 6个小区
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6

Table 2

Kendao 26 yield, yield components and the variation coefficient of different groups"

处理
Treatment		 单位面积穗数
Panicles per m2		 穗粒数
Spikelets per panicle		 结实率(%)
Setting percentage		 千粒重(g)
1000-grain weight		 产量(kg/hm2)
Yield
A1 B1 479.0aAB 97.0ijHI 92.4aA 25.4efEF 9 895.5ghFGH
B2 344.3jJ 110.8bcBC 86.5hiHI 26.3aAB 9 154.5jI
B3 391.7gH 108.5cdCD 86.1iIJ 26.0abcABCD 10 111.5fgEFG
B4 467.3bBC 102.8efgEFG 88.3fgEFGHI 25.2efF 10 888.5bcABC
B5 420.7eF 113.5bB 88.2fghFGHI 26.0abABC 11 239.5aA
B6 466.7bBC 105.4deDE 91.6abAB 25.5defCDEF 10 803.0bcBCD
A2 B1 407.0fG 101.5fghEFGH 84.1jJ 25.8bcdBCDE 9 847.5ghFGH
B2 449.7cD 96.2jIJ 90.0bcdeBCDEF 25.5defDEF 9 732.0hiGH
B3 422.7eEF 98.5hijGHI 89.3defCDEF 25.6cdeCDEF 9 510.0iHI
B4 348.3ijIJ 104.3efDEF 89.0defDEFG 25.3efEF 8 250.0kJ
B5 449.7cD 102.8efgEFG 89.6cdefBCDEF 25.6cdeCDEF 10 473.0deDE
B6 485.3aA 101.3fghEFGH 89.5cdefBCDEF 25.2fF 11 049.0abAB
A3 B1 435.3dE 100.1ghiFGHI 91.0abcABCD 25.2efF 9 547.5iHI
B2 357.0hiIJ 108.2cdCD 91.4abABC 25.1fF 8 395.5kJ
B3 360.3hI 113.8bB 88.7efEFGH 26.4aA 9 691.5hiH
B4 433.7dEF 92.3kJ 87.0ghiGHI 25.2efF 9 190.5jI
B5 385.7gH 119.4aA 90.5bcdABCDE 25.2fF 10 198.5efEF
B6 462.3bCD 98.8hijGHI 89.6cdefBCDEF 26.1abAB 10 621.5cdCD
变异系数Coefficient of variation (%) 11.1 7.2 2.4 1.7 15.6

Table 3

Longjing 31 yield, yield components and the variation coefficient of different groups"

处理
Treatment		 单位面积穗数
Panicles per m2		 穗粒数
Spikelets per panicle		 结实率(%)
Setting percentage		 千粒重(g)
1000-grain weight		 产量(kg/hm2)
Yield
A1 B1 488.7dCD 69.9jI 87.9cdeABCDE 24.5gFG 7 365.0iIJ
B2 457.7hH 78.3ghFG 84.8gG 25.1cdeCDE 7 629.0hHI
B3 483.3eDE 73.5iH 87.8cdeBCDEF 25.8aA 8 052.0fgFG
B4 428.3jJ 92.7bAB 89.9aA 25.6abAB 9 118.5bBC
B5 394.3mM 84.8dC 86.efEFG 24.8fEF 7 191.0iJ
B6 493.0cBC 80.3fEF 88.8abcABCD 24.0hH 8 439.0dE
A2 B1 408.3lL 83.6deCD 88.1bcdeABCDE 25.2cdBCDE 7 581.0hI
B2 475.0fF 78.9fghFG 87.0defCDEF 25.4bcBCD 8 262.0deEF
B3 452.3iHI 84.0dCD 85.9fgFG 25.4bcBC 8 289.0deEF
B4 497.3bB 79.4fgFG 88.3bcdABCDE 25.3bcBCD 8 829.0cD
B5 534.7aA 70.9jI 88.7abcABCDE 24.4gG 8 205.0efEF
B6 419.0kK 94.9aA 89.5abAB 25.6abAB 9 094.5bBC
A3 B1 466.0gG 77.3hG 87.1defCDEF 25.0defDE 7 857.0gGH
B2 486.7deD 82.2eDE 88.9abcABC 24.9defE 8 863.5cCD
B3 474.3fF 83.2deCD 89.0abcABC 24.9efEF 8 719.5cD
B4 478.3fEF 90.8cB 86.8defDEF 25.4bcBCD 9 556.5aA
B5 483.7eDE 83.7deCD 89.6abAB 25.6abAB 9 277.5bB
B6 449.0iI 91.5bcB 88.1bcdeABCDE 25.3bcBCD 9 159.0bB
变异系数Coefficient of variation (%) 9.5 8.7 1.6 1.9 8.4

Table 4

Correlation coefficient of yield components and yield of Kendao 26 and Longjing 31"

品种
Variety		 相关系数
Correlation coefficient		 穗粒数
Spikelets per panicle		 结实率
Setting percentage		 千粒重
1000-grain weight		 单位面积穗数
Panicles per m2		 产量
Yield
垦稻26 Kendao 26 穗粒数Spikelets per panicle -1
结实率Setting percentage -0.1491 -1
千粒重1000-grain weight -0.3440 -0.3901 -1
单位面积穗数Panicles per m2 -0.5002* -0.3439 -0.3324 1
产量Yield -0.2823 -0.0554 -0.1556 0.6335** 1
龙粳31 Longjing 31 穗粒数Spikelets per panicle -1
结实率Setting percentage -0.2557 -1
千粒重1000-grain weight -0.4424 -0.0223 -1
单位面积穗数Panicles per m2 -0.5834** -0.1405 -0.3517 1
产量Yield -0.6633** -0.5132* -0.3734 0.1951 1

Table 5

Effects of different treatments on milling quality of Kendao 26 and Longjing 31 %"

处理
Treatment		 垦稻26 Kendao 26 龙粳31 Longjing 31
糙米率
Brown rice
percentage		 精米率
Milled rice
percentage		 整精米率
Head rice
percentage		 糙米率
Brown rice percentage		 精米率
Milled rice percentage		 整精米率
Head rice
percentage
A1 B1 80.4cDEF 73.7abcAB 69.9abcABC 81.6eC 75.3fC 71.7bcdAB
B2 79.9deEFG 70.5dC 66.4efDE 82.7abcAB 76.3abcdeAB 72.8aA
B3 80.5cCDE 73.5bcAB 70.1abcABC 82.4bcABC 76.2abcdeAB 70.7defBCD
B4 79.7eG 73.0cB 69.4cdABC 83.1aA 76.8aA 73.0aA
B5 80.3cdDEF 73.8abcAB 70.1abcABC 82.1cdeBC 76.6abAB 72.6abA
B6 80.5cCD 74.1abAB 70.2abcABC 82.2bcdeABC 75.8cdefBC 71.6bcdAB
A2 B1 80.4cDEF 73.8abcAB 69.2cdBCD 82.3bcdABC 76.1bcdeABC 71.6bcdAB
B2 79.9deFG 66.4fD 62.7ghFG 82.3bcdABC 75.6efBC 70.9deBCD
B3 80.3cdDEF 66.9efD 60.9hG 82.4abcABC 76.3abcdeAB 71.8abcdAB
B4 80.4cDEF 67.1efD 68.2ghFG 82.2bcdeABC 76.1abcdeABC 72.7abA
B5 80.4cDEF 67.5eD 64.4fgEF 82.7abcAB 76.4abcAB 70.0efCD
B6 80.2cdDEFG 73.8abcAB 70.0abcABC 82.8abAB 76.4abcdAB 72.2abcAB
A3 B1 81.4abAB 73.8abcAB 69.2cdBCD 82.4abcABC 76.2abcdeABC 70.7defBCD
B2 81.2bAB 73.4bcAB 67.4deCD 82.2bcdeABC 75.8cdefBC 71.1cdeBCD
B3 81.4abAB 74.3abA 69.6bcABC 82.2bcdeBC 75.8cdefBC 69.8fD
B4 81.3abAB 73.9abcAB 69.5bcdABC 82.5abcABC 76.2abcdeABC 71.5cdABC
B5 81.0bBC 74.4aA 71.5abAB 82.4bcABC 76.0bcdeABC 71.0cdeBCD
B6 81.7aA 74.4aA 72.0aA 81.7deC 75.7defBC 71.6bcdAB

Table 6

Effects of different treatments on appearance quality of Kendao 26 and Longjing 31 %"

处理
Treatment		 垦稻26 Kendao 26 龙粳31 Longjing 31
垩白率
Chalk percentage		 垩白度
Chalkiness degree		 垩白率
Chalk percentage		 垩白度
Chalkiness degree
A1 B1 9.4cdeBCDE 5.2cdefBCDE 4.1abcAB 1.7cA
B2 13.0aA 7.4aA 4.5abcAB 2.3abcA
B3 9.1cdefCDEF 5.7cdefCDE 4.1abcAB 2.0abcA
B4 10.3bcdBCD 5.7bcdeBCD 3.9abcAB 2.0abcA
B5 11.3bAB 6.2bB 4.4abcAB 2.3abcA
B6 7.2ghFGH 3.8hijFGH 3.4cAB 1.8cA
A2 B1 9.1defCDEF 5.0efgCDE 5.2aA 2.6aA
B2 10.6bcBC 5.8bcdBC 5.0abAB 2.6aA
B3 10.5bcdBC 5.9bcBC 3.8abcAB 1.9abcA
B4 6.0hiGH 3.1jkGH 5.0abAB 2.5abA
B5 6.2hiGH 3.5ijkGH 4.2abcAB 2.1abcA
B6 5.4iH 2.9kH 4.0abcAB 2.0abcA
A3 B1 9.1defCDEF 5.0defgCDE 3.8abcAB 1.9abcA
B2 10.2bcdBCD 5.7bcdeBCD 3.7bcAB 2.0abcA
B3 8.4efgDEF 4.6fgDEF 4.2abcAB 2.1abcA
B4 10.3bcdBC 5.9bcBC 3.7bcAB 1.8bcA
B5 7.7fgEFG 4.2ghiEFG 4.0abcAB 2.0abcA
B6 9.9bcdBCD 5.7bcdeBCD 3.4cAB 1.7cA

Table 7

Effects of different treatments on nutritional quality of Kendao 26 and Longjing 31 %"

处理
Treatment		 垦稻26 Kendao 26 龙粳31 Longjing 31
蛋白质
Protein		 直链淀粉
Amylose		 蛋白质
Protein		 直链淀粉
Amylose
A1 B1 7.5efgCDE 17.9bcdBCD 8.0bABC 16.4fgE
B2 7.4fgDE 17.5eD 8.0abAB 16.5efgDE
B3 7.6cdeBCD 17.7deCD 7.8bcdeBCDE 17.1abAB
B4 7.4fgDE 17.6deCD 7.9bcdBCDE 16.9abcABCD
B5 7.4fgDE 17.8cdeBCD 8.0abAB 16.4gE
B6 7.9aA 17.6deCD 7.7deCDE 16.7cdefBCDE
A2 B1 7.4efgDE 18.1bcABC 7.8cdeBCDE 16.5defgCDE
B2 7.4fgDE 18.3abAB 7.6eE 16.9abcABCD
B3 7.3gE 18.1bcABC 7.8bcdeBCDE 17.1aAB
B4 7.7bcdABC 17.6deD 8.0bcABCD 17.1aAB
B5 7.8abAB 17.7deCD 7.9bcdBCDE 16.8bcdABCDE
B6 7.7abcABC 18.2abAB 8.2aA 16.8bcdeABCDE
A3 B1 7.5efCDE 18.1bcABC 7.6eE 17.0abcABC
B2 7.4fgDE 17.7deCD 7.7eE 17.2aA
B3 7.5defCDE 18.5aA 7.7deDE 16.8bcdeABCDE
B4 7.5efgCDE 17.7deCD 7.7deCDE 16.9abcABC
B5 7.5efCDE 17.7deCD 7.7deDE 17.1aAB
B6 7.4efgDE 17.8cdeBCD 7.7deDE 16.9abcABCD

Table 8

Effects of different treatments on eating quality of Kendao 26 and Longjing 31"

处理
Treatment		 垦稻26 Kendao 26 龙粳31 Longjing 31
食味评分
Taste score		 5%显著水平
Sig. at 5% level		 1%极显著水平
Sig. at 1% level		 食味评分
Taste score		 5%显著水平
Sig. at 5% level		 1%极显著水平
Sig. at 1% level
A1 B1 85.7 abc ABC 85.6 abc AB
B2 85.8 ab AB 85.9 a A
B3 84.2 cdef BCDE 85.2 abcd ABC
B4 85.5 abcd ABC 86.0 a A
B5 86.5 a A 82.0 i F
B6 81.9 h F 85.7 ab AB
A2 B1 84.0 def BCDE 85.0 abcde ABC
B2 83.7 efg CDEF 83.7 efgh CDEF
B3 85.8 ab AB 85.1 abcd ABC
B4 84.3 bcdef BCDE 84.4 bcdef ABCD
B5 82.3 gh EF 82.6 hi EF
B6 83.2 fgh DEF 82.6 hi EF
A3 B1 84.1 def BCDE 84.8 abcde ABCD
B2 85.4 abcd ABC 84.0 defg BCDE
B3 84.1 def BCDE 85.6 abc AB
B4 84.7 bcdef ABCD 83.4 fgh CDEF
B5 85.1 abcde ABCD 83.0 ghi DEF
B6 84.2 cdef BCDE 84.4 cdef ABCD
[1] Wang Z, Zhang W, Beebout S S , et al. Grain yield,water and nitrogen use efficiencies of rice as influenced by irrigation regimes and their interaction with nitrogen rates. Field Crops Research, 2016,193:54-69.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.03.006
[2] Wang L, Sun Y, Zhang H C , et al. Effect of zn and si fertilizers applied at different stages on yield and quality of japonica rice with good eating quality. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2017,43(6):885-898.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2017.00885
[3] 成臣, 曾勇军, 吕伟生 , 等. 南方稻区优质晚粳稻产量和品质调优的播期效应. 核农学报, 2018,32(10):2019-2030.
[4] 王夫玉, 张洪程 . 行株距配比对水稻群体特征的影响. 甘肃农业学报, 2001,13(3):38-42.
[5] 杨文钰, 屠乃美 . 作物栽培学各论(南方本). 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003: 8-11.
[6] 林文雄, 吴志强, 梁义元 , 等. 杂交水稻高产栽培技术体系的研究II:晚季汕优63高产栽培的数学模型分析. 福建农学院学报, 1989,18(3):269-274.
[7] 王雪仁, 梁康廷, 黄荣华 , 等. 籼型杂交水稻穗颖花数和莲秆特性的遗传分析. 福建农林大学学报, 2001,30(1):9-15.
[8] 吴志强, 林文雄, 梁义元 . 杂交水稻的高产栽培技术体系研究I:杂交早稻高产栽培的数学模型分析. 福建农学院学报, 1989,18(1):19-24.
[9] 凌启鸿 . 作物群体质量. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2000: 96-106.
[10] 陈万胜, 谢俊峰, 金海燕 , 等. 水稻单产徘徊不前的原因及其对策. 中国农学通报, 2003,19(1):102-103.
[11] 赵世龙, 金玉女, 田奉俊 , 等. 水稻大养稀栽培的根系生长研究. 吉林农业科学, 1999,24(3) 17-19.
[12] Zhang Z, Gu T, Zhao B , et al. Effects of common Echinochloa varieties on grain yield and grain quality of rice. Field Crops Research, 2017: 163-172.
[13] 耿雷跃, 张薇, 邹拓 , 等. 河北水稻地方种质品质多样性分析. 作物杂志, 2018(1):49-55.
[14] 王成瑷, 王伯伦, 张文香 , 等. 栽培密度对水稻产量及品质的影响. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2004,35(4):318-322.
[15] 杨国才, 游艾青, 胡刚 , 等. 施氮用量和栽插密度对杂交早稻W两优3418产量及米质的影响. 湖北农业科学, 2009,48(2):2944-2946.
[16] 叶全宝, 张洪程, 李华 , 等. 施氮水平和栽插密度对粳稻淀粉RVA谱特性的影响. 作物学报, 2005,31(1):124-130.
[17] 成臣, 曾勇军, 王祺 , 等. 施氮量对晚粳稻甬优1538产量、品质及氮素吸收利用的影响. 水土保持学报, 2018,32(5):222-228.
[18] 李军, 肖丹丹, 邓先亮 , 等. 镁锌肥追施时期对优良食味粳稻产量及品质的影响. 中国农业科学, 2018,51(8):1448-1463.
[19] 从夕汉, 施伏芝, 阮新民 , 等. 氮肥水平对不同基因型水稻氮素利用率、产量和品质的影响. 应用生态学报, 2017,28(4):1219-1226.
[20] 贺云梅, 时佩佩, 何爱萍 , 等. 氮肥运筹对钵苗水稻群体质量的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2018,46(9):49-50,62.
[21] 陈勇, 张海清, 刘爱民 , 等. 杂交水稻制种父本机插秧与施肥方式对其群体生长发育的影响. 作物研究, 2017,31(4):355-359,376.
[22] 唐启义 . DPS统计软件简介. 中国医院统计, 2009,16(1):99.
[23] 林洪鑫, 肖运萍, 袁展汽 , 等. 水稻合理密植及其优质高产机理研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2011,27(9):1-4.
[24] 凌启鸿, 张洪程, 蔡建中 , 等. 水稻高产群体质量及其优化控制探讨. 中国农业科学, 1993(6):1-11.
[25] 郑桂萍, 梁金国, 赵洋 , 等. 群体构建因素与寒地水稻产量关系的研究. 上海农业学报, 2014,30(3):56-61.
[26] 江海, 王秋菊, 赵宏亮 , 等. 寒地水稻不同群体密度品质优化研究. 黑龙江农业科学, 2010(12):10-13.
[27] 唐亮, 徐正进, 袁媛 . 水稻RIL群体产量性状和品质性状与穗部性状的关系. 种子, 2007,26(5):67-71.
[28] 江思民, 张子军 . 寒地水稻穗部性状与稻米品质的关系研究. 现代化农业, 2010(8):24-25.
[1] Zhang Meng,Gou Jiulan,Wei Quanquan,Chen Long,He Jiafang. Effects of Different Biological Organic Fertilizers on the Growth of Spring Potato and Soil Fertility at High Altitude Region in Guizhou Province [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 132-136.
[2] Quan Baoquan,Lü Ruizhou,Wang Guijiang,Ren Jiecheng. Effects of Different Cultivation Measures during Vegetative Propagation on Growth and Yield of Sweet Potato [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 158-161.
[3] Wang Yonggang,Ji Mingze,Zhao Xuhan,Yu Lihe,Xue Yingwen. Effects of Sowing Dates on Yield of Baiyan 7 in Midwest of Heilongjiang Province [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 106-111.
[4] Song Lifang,Feng Meichen,Zhang Meijun,Xiao Lujie,Wang Chao,Yang Wude,Song Xiaoyan. Effects of Exogenous Selenium on the Growth and Development of Tartary Buckwheat and Selenium Content in Grains [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 150-154.
[5] Wu Jianzhong,Li Suiyan,Lin Hong,Ma Yanhua,Pan Liyan,Li Donglin,Sun Dequan. Genetic Variation and Principal Component Analysis of Silage Maize Quality Traits [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 42-48.
[6] Gao Tongmei,Li Feng,Wu Yin,Wei Libin,Wang Dongyong,Tian Yuan,Fei Gaoliang,Wei Shuangling. Effects of Different Irrigation Regimes on Canopy Structure and Population Quality of Sesame [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 162-167.
[7] Zhang Yahong,Wang Furong,Lei Jianming,Wu Junyan,Fan Tiping,Zhang Jianxue. Effects of Sowing Date on the Yield and Quality of Perilla frutescens L.in the Dryland Hills Area [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 168-171.
[8] Feng Xuejin,Guo Xiujuan,Yang Jianchun,Wang Liqin. Effects of Spraying Selenium Fertilizer on Selenium Content, Yield and Quality of Flax Seed [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 155-157.
[9] Zhou Yili,Zhang Yaling,Zhao Hongsen,Jin Xuehui. Molecular Detection and Analysis of Rice Blast Resistance Genes in Main Rice Varieties in Heilongjiang Province [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 172-177.
[10] Ye Weijun,Yang Yong,Zhang Liya,Tian Dongfeng,Zhang Lingling,Zhou Bin. Effects of Nitrogen on Agronomic Traits and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Mung Bean Cultivar Wankelü 3 [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 137-141.
[11] Tan Qinliang,Zhu Pengjin,Cheng Qin,Li Jiahui,Lü Ping,Pang Xinhua,Zhou Quanguang. Comparison Study on the Yield Components and Quality of Different Sugarcane Varieties (Lines) [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 49-54.
[12] Ren Honglei,Li Chunxia,Gong Shichen,Li Guoliang,Hu Guanghui,Wang Mingquan,Yang Jianfei. Genetic Correlation and Path Analysis of Yield and Agronomic Characteristics of Maize Hybrids in SPSS Software [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 86-90.
[13] Duan Bin,Fang Ling,He Shijie,Li Huilong,Peng Bo,Song Xiaohua,Hu Yang. Effects of the Temperature Change Based on Sowing Date on the Period from Seeding to Heading and the Filling and Ripening Stage of Japonica Rice in Southern Henan Province [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 99-105.
[14] Dongmei Zhang,Xuefang Huang,Chunxia Jiang,Wei Zhang,Xiaojuan Wang,Huatao Liu,Liuying Yan,Enke Liu,Guangqian Zhai. Effects of Micro-Ridge Film Mulching on Soil Water and Temperature and Yield of Dryland Maize in Cold Areas [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 115-121.
[15] Yufei Zhang,Lizhi Liu,Yuxuan Ma,Xiaochun Wang,Jianjun Dai. Effects of Tillage and Straw Returning Methods on Maize Yield and Potassium Accumulation and Transport [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 122-127.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Yudong Fang,Tianfu Han. Research Progress in Speed Breeding of Crops[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 1 -7 .
[2] Zhang Meng,Gou Jiulan,Wei Quanquan,Chen Long,He Jiafang. Effects of Different Biological Organic Fertilizers on the Growth of Spring Potato and Soil Fertility at High Altitude Region in Guizhou Province[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 132 -136 .
[3] Fu Jing,Sun Ningning,Liu Tianxue,Ma Junfeng,Yang Yulong,Zhao Xia,Mu Xinyuan,Li Chaohai. The Effects of High Temperature at Spike Stage on Grain-Filling Physiology and Yield of Maize[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 118 -125 .
[4] Quan Baoquan,Lü Ruizhou,Wang Guijiang,Ren Jiecheng. Effects of Different Cultivation Measures during Vegetative Propagation on Growth and Yield of Sweet Potato[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 158 -161 .
[5] Lu Shouping,Zhang Hua,Meng Zhaodong,Mu Chunhua. Improvement of Grain Oil Content in Maize Inbred Lines by Molecular Markering Technology[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 24 -28 .
[6] Zhang Ziqiang,Wang Liang,Bai Chen,Zhang Huizhong,Li Xiaodong,Fu Zengjuan,Zhao Shangmin,E Yuanyuan,Zhang Hui,Zhang Bizhou. Analysis on Main Agronomic Traits of 104 Sugarbeet Germplasm Resources[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 29 -36 .
[7] Ma Mingchuan,Liu Longlong,Zhang Lijun,Cui Lin,Zhou Jianping. Morphological Identification and Analysis of EMS-Induced Mutants from Ciqiao[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 37 -41 .
[8] Fan Huiling,Bai Shengwen,Zhu Xuefeng,Li Zhenzhou,Qin Minggang,He Zhijun. Difference of Salt-Alkaline Tolerance of Three Rape and Its Two Relatives at Germination Stage[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 178 -184 .
[9] Ye Wenbin,He Yupeng,Wang Yu,Wang Han,Zhao Qingfang. Effects of Alkalized Olive Oil Processing Liquid Wastes on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Zea mays L.[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 185 -191 .
[10] Wang Yonggang,Ji Mingze,Zhao Xuhan,Yu Lihe,Xue Yingwen. Effects of Sowing Dates on Yield of Baiyan 7 in Midwest of Heilongjiang Province[J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 106 -111 .