Crops ›› 2020, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (5): 188-193.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2020.05.028

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Mepiquat Chloride and Chlorocholine Chloride on the Growth and Yield of Oat

Zhou Haitao1(), Zhao Mengyuan2(), Zhang Xinjun1, Li Tianliang1, Liu Wenting1, Liu Zhenning1, Yang Xiaohong1, Yuan Huifu2()   

  1. 1Zhangjiakou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Zhangjiakou 075000, Hebei, China
    2Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou 075000, Hebei, China
  • Received:2020-02-25 Revised:2020-04-24 Online:2020-10-15 Published:2020-10-12
  • Contact: Yuan Huifu E-mail:zht0206@163.com;373354268@qq.com;nkxyhf@163.com

RichHTML

4

PDF (PC)

236

Abstract:

Jizhangyou 7 was used as the experimental material to study the lodging resistance and to improve the yield of oat. The same amount of water was sprayed as the control (CK). The leaves were sprayed with different concentrations of mepiquat chloride (2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5mL/L) and chlorocholine chloride (2.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 8.0mL/L) before jointing and the effects of mepiquat chloride and chlorocholine chloride on the growth and development and yield of oat were observed. The results showed that spraying mepiquat chloride and chlorocholine chloride could decrease the plant height, increase the stem diameter, the total potassium and soluble sugar content, enhance the lodging-resistance and yield of oat. Spraying 3.5mL/L mepiquat chloride had the best yield increasing effect, which was 34.94% higher than that of CK, and the optimal concentration of chlorocholine chloride was 4.0mL/L, which was 20.95% higher than that of CK, and the effect of sparaying mepiquat chloride was better than that of chlorocholine chloride.

Key words: Mepiquat chloride, Chlorocholine chloride, Lodging-resistance, Yield index

Table 1

Effects of mepiquat chloride and chlorocholine chloride on growth indexes of oat"

生育期Growth stage 处理Treatment 茎粗Stem diameter (mm) 株高Plant height (cm) 叶面积Leaf area (cm2)
乳熟期 CK 3.53±0.21c 121.33±8.69a 45.03±12.53b
Milk ripe stage S1 3.42±0.17c 97.33±7.15ab 45.53±13.54b
S2 4.27±0.11ab 89.26±9.92b 45.10±12.01b
S3 4.43±0.15ab 91.80±4.85b 45.40±5.49b
S4 4.59±0.28a 86.70±10.56c 49.50±9.80a
A1 3.59±0.09c 97.36±7.09ab 51.00±12.62a
A2 4.16±0.12b 87.50±5.18c 51.13±8.72a
A3 3.66±0.20c 90.36±1.30b 49.60±7.15ab
A4 3.60±0.30c 93.30±6.02b 47.60±11.10b
完熟期 CK 4.53±0.30c 125.00±15.09a 48.63±7.87b
Full ripe stage S1 4.56±0.38c 121.96±2.91a 49.59±6.56b
S2 5.49±0.03b 110.50±8.60b 49.23±5.38b
S3 5.86±0.16a 103.30±3.75c 48.96±5.64b
S4 6.00±0.13a 97.30±3.73c 51.66±8.13a
A1 4.66±0.13c 121.93±6.78a 54.32±6.79a
A2 5.36±0.02b 109.43±5.72b 52.64±7.31a
A3 4.80±0.34c 112.66±4.04ab 50.34±8.54ab
A4 4.70±0.24c 123.73±7.21a 49.77±9.24ab

Table 2

Effects of mepiquat chloride and chlorocholine chloride on lodging resistance index and related indexes of oat"

生育期
Growth stage		 处理
Treatment		 全氮
Total nitrogen (g/kg)		 全钾
Total potasssium (g/kg)		 可溶性糖
Soluble sugar (%)		 抗折力
Flexural strength (kg)		 抗倒伏指数
Lodging resistance index
乳熟期 CK 1.79±0.03a 2.52±0.12b 2.23±0.15c 0.88±0.05b 1.48±0.18a
Milk ripe stage S1 1.51±0.05ab 2.57±0.09b 3.24±0.03b 1.03±0.08ab 1.01±0.05b
S2 1.52±0.07ab 2.59±0.11b 3.06±0.08b 0.96±0.13ab 1.05±0.18b
S3 1.41±0.02b 2.73±0.08ab 3.40±0.34ab 1.03±0.16ab 0.79±0.19b
S4 1.29±0.03c 3.06±0.15a 3.87±0.12a 1.21±0.25a 0.69±0.04c
A1 1.49±0.05ab 2.58±0.14b 2.82±0.18bc 1.16±0.44ab 1.07±0.37b
A2 1.23±0.06c 2.69±0.34ab 3.24±0.08b 1.23±0.36a 0.71±0.24c
A3 1.50±0.07ab 2.59±0.08b 2.86±0.14bc 1.17±0.30ab 1.04±0.21b
A4 1.82±0.05ab 2.54±0.16c 2.89±0.13bc 1.17±0.18ab 1.03±0.14b
完熟期 CK 1.44±0.13a 4.43±0.41b 2.43±0.18c 1.18±0.44b 1.05±0.31a
Full ripe stage S1 1.34±0.11ab 4.52±0.22b 2.94±0.05bc 1.16±0.22b 0.92±0.17b
S2 1.31±0.06ab 4.54±0.48b 3.19±0.07b 1.36±0.34ab 0.65±0.13bc
S3 1.18±0.03b 4.95±0.11a 3.48±0.36ab 1.45±0.71a 0.51±0.24c
S4 1.08±0.05c 5.23±0.39a 3.98±0.12a 1.78±0.19a 0.48±0.04c
A1 1.27±0.11ab 4.70±0.10ab 3.22±0.15ab 1.34±0.44ab 0.91±0.30b
A2 1.10±0.06c 4.78±0.26ab 3.24±0.08b 1.51±0.02a 0.61±0.11c
A3 1.21±0.07b 4.46±0.18b 2.96±0.15bc 1.30±0.02ab 0.97±0.13ab
A4 1.29±0.03ab 4.45±0.21b 2.99±0.14bc 1.32±0.62ab 0.92±0.37ab

Table 3

Effects of mepiquat chloride and chlorocholine chloride on yield indexes of oat"

处理
Treatment		 有效穗数
Effective panicles		 穗粒数
Number of grain per ear		 千粒重
1000-grain weight (g)		 籽粒产量
Grain yield (kg/hm2)
CK 301.20±9.30a 32.01±0.02c 22.31±0.98c 2 471.85±13.05d
S1 300.15±16.35a 36.42±0.07b 25.20±1.63bc 2 892.90±23.40b
S2 295.80±15.60a 38.86±0.06ab 26.04±1.74b 2 990.85±19.80b
S3 313.80±8.70a 40.81±0.24ab 26.46±0.72b 3 227.10±11.85a
S4 315.15±14.85a 46.96±0.09a 29.59±1.51a 3 335.55±20.40a
A1 307.20±12.30a 36.64±0.04b 26.05±1.20b 2 932.65±18.45bc
A2 294.25±9.90a 37.88±0.29b 26.81±0.84b 2 989.80±12.75b
A3 305.85±13.95a 33.88±0.25c 24.51±1.23bc 2 664.75±19.65cd
A4 302.25±5.40a 32.61±0.17c 24.72±0.34bc 2 557.20±8.55cd

Table 4

Comprehensive evaluation of the membership functions of oat under the treatment of mepiquat chloride and chlorocholine chloride"

处理Treatment X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 平均隶属函数Average membership function 排名Rank
CK 0.04 1.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.35 0.13 0.25 9
S1 0.05 1.00 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.59 0.16 0.28 6
S2 0.06 1.00 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.51 0.19 0.28 4
S3 0.06 1.00 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.58 0.23 0.29 2
S4 0.06 1.00 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.63 0.21 0.31 1
A1 0.04 1.00 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.16 0.26 5
A2 0.05 1.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.17 0.26 3
A3 0.04 1.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.32 0.15 0.24 7
A4 0.04 1.00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.14 0.24 8
[1] 尚文艳, 许志兴, 孙小金, 等. 食药饲保健美容多用植物——燕麦的高产栽培技术. 特种经济动植物, 2019,22(5):20-21.
[2] 尚文艳, 燕麦（Avena sativa L.）的营养成分与保健价值探讨. 麦类作物学报, 2004,24(4):147-149.
doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1009-1041.2004.04.194
[3] 张志慧, 张立峰. 冀西北坝上地区旱作生产与休耕补偿分析—以莜麦生产为例. 河北农业科学, 2019,23(2):98-103.
[4] 陈有军, 周青平, 孙建, 等. 不同燕麦品种田间倒伏性状研究. 作物杂志, 2016(5):44-49.
[5] 南铭, 赵桂琴, 李晶, 等. 不同燕麦品种茎秆形态特征与抗倒伏性的关系. 草地学报, 2018,26(6):1382-1391.
[6] 张曦. 番茄中矮壮素和缩节胺的检测方法及残留研究. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2010.
[7] 张忠旭, 陈温福, 杨振玉, 等. 水稻抗倒伏能力与茎秆物理性状的关系及其对产量的影响. 沈阳农业大学学报, 1999,30(2):81-85.
[8] 汤海军, 周建斌, 王春阳. 矮壮素浸种对不同小麦品种萌发生长及水分利用效率的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2005,23(5):29-34.
[9] 李九星. 多效唑和缩节胺对小麦形态及生理效应的研究. 河南农业大学学报, 1999,28(2):166-171.
[10] 何钟佩, 闵祥佳, 李丕明, 等. 植物生长延缓剂DPC对棉铃内源激素水平和棉铃发育影响的研究. 作物学报, 1990,16(3):252-264.
[11] 周抑强, 张巨松. DPC化学控制对棉花株型和产量的影响. 新疆农业大学学报, 1997,20(2):1-4.
[12] 任永峰, 黄琴, 王志敏, 等. 不同化控剂对藜麦农艺性状及产量的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2018,23(8):08-16.
[13] 周海涛, 张新军, 杨晓虹, 等. 粮草兼用裸燕麦新品种张莜7号的选育与高产栽培技术. 种子, 2017,36(5):105-107.
[14] 任清. 燕麦生产与综合加工利用. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2011.
[15] 梁玉超, 张永强, 石书兵, 等. 施氮量对滴灌冬小麦茎部特征及其抗倒伏性的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2017,37(11):1467-1472.
[16] 陆大彪. 中国燕麦资源研究及其利用. 北京: 中国科学技术出版社, 1990: 32-34.
[17] 陈晓光. 小麦茎秆特征与倒伏的关系及调控研究. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2011: 10-13.
[18] 王建国, 王陈, 于正茂. 矮壮素烯效唑微乳剂对水稻生长及产量的影响. 安徽农学通报, 2008,14(5):81-82.
[19] 刘春芳, 王志利, 罗湘宁, 等. 缩节胺（DPC）在棉花生产上的应用研究. 西北农业学报, 1997,6(1):81-83.
[20] 周运刚, 王俊刚, 马天文, 等. 不同DPC(缩节胺)处理对棉花生理生化特性的影响. 新疆农业科学, 2010,47(6):1142-1146.
[21] 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.
[22] 庄云, 马尧, 牟金明. 植物生长延缓剂对谷子生长及产量性状的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2007,35(33):10641-10644.
[23] 夏雪岩, 师志刚, 刘猛. 矮壮素和缩节胺对谷子杂交种生长发育和产量的调控效应. 河北农业科学, 2015,19(3):8-11.
[1] Yue Song,Dabing Xiang,Houbing Huang,Yu Fan,Shuang Wei,Sai Zhang. Lodging Resistance Identification and Evaluation of Different Tartary Buckwheat Cultivars [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(6): 65-71.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!