Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (2): 128-134.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.02.018

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Planting Density and Fertilization on Growth Characteristics of Forage Quinoa

Zhang Shengchang1,2(), Wei Yuming2, Ma Lina1,2, Yang Zhao3, Liu Wenyu2, Huang Jie2, Liu Huan1, Yang Farong1,2()   

  1. 1College of Grassland Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
    2Institute of Pasture and Green Agriculture, Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
    3Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
  • Received:2024-01-03 Revised:2024-03-14 Online:2025-04-15 Published:2025-04-16

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

34

Abstract:

In order to promote the steady and sustainable development of quinoa industry in Tianzhu, Gansu, improve the biological yield of quinoa and reduce the lodge rate of quinoa, quinoa strain 1661-1 was chosen as the experimental material through field splitting experiment. The effects of three different planting densities of 8.25×104, 11.85×104, 16.50×104 plants/ha, and four different fertilization rates of 0, 300, 450, 600 kg/ha on the agronomic traits, yield and lodging rate of quinoa were investigated. The results showed that with the increase of planting density, plant height and lodging rates increased, while stem diameter, branch number, biological yield per plant, stem puncture strength and stem strength gradually decreased. The lodging rate increased gradually with the increase of fertilizer application rate, and the plant height, stem diameter, branch number, biological yield, stem puncture strength and stem strength increased first and then decreased. The biological yield of this quinoa strain was 19 333.33 kg/ha under the planting density of 8.25×104 plants/ha and fertilizer application rate of 450 kg/ha, the agronomic characteristics were good, and the lodging rate was low.

Key words: Forage quinoa, Agronomic traits, Planting density, Fertilizer application rate, Lodging rate

Table 1

Analysis of plant morphological indexes under different densities and fertilization treatments"

处理Treatment 株高Plant height (cm) 茎粗Stem diameter (mm) 分枝数Branch number 单株叶面积Leaf area per plant (cm2)
A1B1 140.00±7.75a 17.53±0.57ab 30.67±4.84a 43.67±4.33ab
A1B2 141.67±5.78a 17.62±1.32ab 32.33±2.33a 48.33±9.70a
A1B3 146.12±15.33a 18.14±1.79a 33.33±3.17a 50.33±3.17a
A1B4 145.33±1.52a 15.33±0.19ab 33.00±1.00a 41.33±5.78abc
A2B1 152.22±5.95a 16.50±1.07ab 29.00±0.00ab 37.33±2.33abcd
A2B2 153.89±3.67a 14.67±1.29b 30.00±0.57ab 30.00±1.15cde
A2B3 169.22±9.79a 18.43±0.65a 22.67±0.88c 23.33±4.40e
A2B4 133.78±20.89a 14.81±1.15b 24.00±1.00bc 34.00±1.52bcde
A3B1 155.44±11.10a 15.33±0.76ab 22.00±1.00c 27.00±3.51de
A3B2 163.33±12.75a 15.62±0.76ab 18.67±1.85c 23.67±1.33e
A3B3 169.24±10.39a 15.81±0.45ab 19.67±2.02c 22.00±1.15e
A3B4 138.67±10.40a 15.13±0.51ab 20.00±.057c 23.33±3.33e

Table 2

Plant fresh weight at the filling stage of quinoa under different densities and fertilization treatments g"

处理Treatment 穗Panicle 茎秆Stem 单株Single plant
A1B1 77.22±8.73a 175.56±3.38a 243.33±49.10a
A1B2 79.89±5.17a 185.56±42.44a 285.56±24.82a
A1B3 110.00±24.40a 224.56±58.10a 320.00±89.21a
A1B4 95.44±33.90a 223.44±59.77a 303.33±57.38a
A2B1 65.56±13.52a 167.78±7.78a 240.22±6.99a
A2B2 78.89±19.28a 165.56±10.60a 244.44±29.59a
A2B3 102.00±9.87a 195.78±43.31a 297.78±36.58a
A2B4 81.67±13.47a 197.22±25.41a 278.89±19.28a
A3B1 57.78±10.94a 154.44±35.76a 216.67±13.47a
A3B2 62.22±22.31a 165.00±4.41a 268.89±24.82a
A3B3 58.89±7.22a 152.22±3.38a 211.11±4.84a
A3B4 72.78±14.02a 181.67±37.68a 254.44±51.00a

Table 3

Analysis of biological yield and fresh-dry ratio of quinoa under different densities and fertilization treatments"

处理
Treatment		 小区生物产量
Plot biological yield (kg)		 生物产量
Biological yield (kg/hm2)		 单株干重
Dry weight per plant (g)		 单株鲜重
Fresh weight per plant (g)		 鲜干比
Fresh-dry ratio
A1B1 46.42±0.95cd 15 472.22±315.49cd 111.11±22.31a 243.33±49.10a 2.04±0.20a
A1B2 47.92±2.13cd 15 972.22±708.74cd 126.67±6.94a 285.56±24.82a 2.26±0.17a
A1B3 58.00±7.21a 19 333.33±2403.70a 146.67±14.53a 320.00±89.21a 2.20±0.07a
A1B4 56.67±1.76ab 18 888.89±585.27ab 133.33±48.34a 303.33±57.38a 2.54±0.29a
A2B1 45.17±2.57d 15 055.55±855.27d 107.67±2.40a 240.22±6.99a 2.24±0.19a
A2B2 45.67±0.58d 15 222.22±192.45d 116.67±12.62a 244.44±29.59a 2.14±0.32a
A2B3 52.00±3.46abcd 17 333.34±1154.70abcd 133.33±7.69a 297.78±36.58a 2.23±0.24a
A2B4 54.67±2.02abc 18 222.22±673.57abc 117.78±2.22a 278.89±19.28a 2.37±0.14a
A3B1 43.33±2.89d 14 444.44±962.25d 101.11±6.76a 216.67±13.47a 2.16±0.22a
A3B2 47.17±5.92cd 15 722.22±1974.37cd 120.00±3.85a 268.89±24.82a 2.24±0.20a
A3B3 49.00±10.54bcd 16 333.34±3511.88bcd 105.56±2.94a 211.11±4.84a 2.01±0.10a
A3B4 44.25±2.70d 14 750.00±901.39d 96.67±17.64a 254.44±51.00a 2.71±0.56a

Table 4

Variance analysis of stem mechanical characteristics of quinoa under different densities and fertilization treatments"

处理
Treatment		 茎折力
Stem breaking
force (N)		 茎秆穿刺强度
Stem puncture
strength (N/cm2)		 茎秆强度
Stem strength
(N/mm2)
A1B1 3.16±0.42a 41.00±0.00a 96.67±13.05b
A1B2 3.88±0.78a 41.49±0.82a 102.33±7.19ab
A1B3 4.34±0.90a 54.74±6.55a 148.33±17.24a
A1B4 4.06±0.58a 49.82±10.59a 128.90±35.42ab
A2B1 3.09±0.00a 40.82±0.00a 94.00±0.00b
A2B2 4.02±1.18a 50.87±6.42a 108.33±7.36ab
A2B3 3.41±0.67a 38.67±7.04a 115.00±11.40ab
A2B4 3.71±0.24a 43.86±3.11a 97.70±13.68b
A3B1 3.01±0.80a 40.31±9.64a 93.00±0.00b
A3B2 3.13±0.17a 35.48±5.65a 118.81±4.08ab
A3B3 3.16±0.26a 44.23±4.99a 117.33±17.17ab
A3B4 2.91±0.45a 34.12±8.27a 93.33±13.89b

Fig.1

Comparison of lodging of quinoa population under different densities and fertilization treatments Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among treatments at the 5% level."

Fig.2

Correlation of plant traits and yield of quinoa with lodging rate, density and fertilizer application rate “*”and“**”mean significant correlations at 5% and 1% levels, respectively."

[1] 肖正春, 张广伦. 藜麦及其资源开发利用. 中国野生植物资源, 2014, 33(2):62-66.
[2] Vega-Gálvez A, Miranda M, Vergara J, et al. Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.), an ancient Andean grain: a review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2010, 90(15):2541-2547.
doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4158 pmid: 20814881
[3] González J A, Roldán A, Gallardo M, et al. Quantitative determinations of chemical compounds with nutritional value from Inca crops: Chenopodium quinoa(ʻquinoaʼ). Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 1989, 39(4):331-337.
pmid: 2631089
[4] 金寿莲. 探究藜麦的机械化种植技术. 农业开发与装备, 2020 (8):200,204.
[5] Tan M. Macro- and micromineral contents of different quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) varieties used as forage by cattle. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 2020, 44(1):46-53.
[6] 李想, 朱丽丽, 张业猛, 等. 青海高原藜麦资源农艺性状评价及产量相关分析. 东北农业大学学报, 2020, 51(10):20-27.
[7] 邓杰, 赵钢, 徐漪沙, 等. 四川地区2种藜麦营养成分的比较分析. 粮食与油脂, 2021, 34(2):43-46.
[8] Matiacevich S B, Castellión M L, Maldonado S B, et al. Water- dependent thermal transitions in quinoa embryos. Thermochimica Acta, 2006, 448(2):117-122.
[9] 梅丽, 郭自军, 王立臣, 等. 15份藜麦资源在北京地区的生态适应性评价. 中国农业大学学报, 2019, 24(9):27-36.
[10] 吴文强, 杨箐, 陈天青, 等. 藜麦种质资源的遗传多样性分析. 种子, 2021, 40(2):13-19.
[11] 陈志婧, 廖成松. 7个不同品种藜麦营养成分比较分析. 食品工业科技, 2020, 41(23):266-271.
[12] 王志恒, 黄思麒, 李成虎, 等. 13种藜麦萌发期抗逆性综合评价. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 49(1):25-36.
[13] 陈光, 孙旸, 王刚, 等. 藜麦全植株的综合利用及开发前景. 吉林农业大学学报, 2018, 40(1):1-6.
[14] 博亚. 正确认识草业地位保障畜牧业和生态环境的健康发展. 农业技术与装备, 2011(15):7-8.
[15] 卢立华, 农友, 李华, 等. 保留密度对杉木人工林生长和生物量及经济效益的影响. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(3):717-724.
[16] 张永平, 潘佳楠, 郭占斌, 等. 不同种植密度对藜麦群体抗倒伏性能及产量的影响. 华北农学报, 2021, 36(4):108-115.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191823
[17] 冯朝成, 胡福平. 施肥量对旱作区藜麦生物性状及产量的影响. 甘肃农业科技, 2022, 53(5):38-40.
[18] 李波, 张吉旺, 崔海岩, 等. 施钾量对高产夏玉米抗倒伏能力的影响. 作物学报, 2012, 38(11):2093-2099.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2012.02093
[19] 宋雨桐, 王建丽, 刘杰淋, 等. 施肥和种植密度对5个燕麦品种产量和品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(6):149-156,164.
[20] 田保明, 杨光圣, 曹刚强, 等. 农作物倒伏及其影响因素分析. 中国农学通报, 2006(4):163-167.
[21] 魏玉明, 杨发荣, 黄杰, 等. 海拔和经纬度对藜麦生长及品质的影响. 甘肃农业科技, 2022, 53(2):42-47.
[22] 弓文艳. 辽东大伙房水库防护林林分结构及其水土保持功能研究. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2020
[23] 王凯, 赵成姣, 张日升, 等. 不同密度樟子松人工林土壤碳氮磷化学计量特征. 生态学杂志, 2020, 39(3):741-748.
[24] 刘伟. 种植密度对高产夏玉米产量及生理特性影响的研究. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2011.
[25] 吴明, 吴柏林, 曹永慧, 等. 不同施肥处理对笋用红竹林土壤特性的影响. 林业科学研究, 2006, 19(3):353-357.
[26] 马宁宁, 李天来, 武春成, 等. 长期施肥对设施菜田土壤酶活性及土壤理化性状的影响. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(7):1766-1771.
[27] 魏志敏, 盖颜欣, 裴美燕, 等. 藜麦播种密度对个体和群体关系的影响. 农业科技通讯, 2022(12):143-146.
[28] 李斌, 赵军, 唐峻岭. 不同种植密度对藜麦生长及产量等性状的影响. 农业科技通讯, 2021(7):64-67.
[29] 王爽, 龚明强, 周定邦, 等. 不同施氮量对藜麦生长发育的影响. 安徽农业科学, 2022, 50(20):140-143.
[30] 魏国强, 孙治强, 常高正, 等. 不同施肥量对温室基质栽培番茄产量与品质的影响. 河南农业大学学报, 2000, 34(4):385-387.
[1] Zhao Fuyang, Ma Bo, Hu Jifang, Tan Kefei, Liu Chuanzeng, Yan Feng, Dong Yang, Hou Xiaomin, Li Qingquan, Han Yehui. Evaluation of Photoperiod Sensitivity of Japonica Rice in Cold Regions under Different Photoperiod Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 135-140.
[2] Ji Jinghong, Liu Shuangquan, Ma Xingzhu, Hao Xiaoyu, Zheng Yu, Zhao Yue, Wang Xiaojun, Kuang Enjun. Effects of Different Controlled-Release Urea on Agronomic Traits, Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Cold Region Rice [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 149-154.
[3] Lu Jing, Yu Bo, Jiang Mi, Peng Lianxin, Ren Yuanhang, Wu Qi. Assessment of Genetic Diversity in 58 Germplasm Resources of Highland Barley [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 20-28.
[4] Luo Jianke, Zhang Kehou, Wang Zeyu, Zhang Pingzhen, Nan Ming. Research on the Production Performance of 18 Oat Varieties (Lines) in the Irrigation Area along the Yellow River in Baiyin City [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 93-100.
[5] Yang Ruping, Jia Zhen, Wei Ying, Wei Yechou, Wang Liming, Chen Guangrong, Zhang Guohong, Song Wenwen. The Relationship between the Growth Period Traits of Soybean Varieties from Various Regions of Gansu and Meteorological Factors as well as Agronomic Traits [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 123-132.
[6] Zhou Miaomiao, He Ruitong, Li Lan, Wang Hongxin, Peng Haoyuan, Zhang Yubo, Zhang Dan, Wang Jinbin, Luo Xinning, Qi Bingqin. Effects of Growth Regulators “EDAH” on Photosynthetic Characteristics and Yield Formation of Maize under High Planting Density [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 162-169.
[7] Zhu Zijian, Chen Nana, Wu Yueying, Rang Zhongwen, Dai Linjian, Tian Minghui, Tian Feng, Yi Zhenxie. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate, Planting Density and Retained Leaf Number on Yield and Quality of Xiangyan 7 in Tobacco Region of Western Hunan [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 179-186.
[8] Yan Qunxiang, Pang Yuhui, Hong Zhuangzhuang, Bi Junge, Wang Chunping. Genetic Diversity Analysis and Specificity Evaluation of Main Traits of 141 Wheat Germplasm Resources at Domestic and Foreign [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 26-34.
[9] Sun Mingmao, Liu Lixia, Sun Hu, Cui Di. Analysis of Anthocyanin and Important Agronomic Traits in a Population of Recombinant Inbred Lines of Rice [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 26-38.
[10] Ma Lina, Wei Yuming, Wen Lifang, Zhang Xuejian, Yang Zhao, Huang Jie, Zhang Shengchang, Li Xiaoyu, Liu Huan, Yang Farong. Analysis of Agronomic Traits and Nutritional Quality of 22 Quinoa Germplasms in Yuanmou Area of Yunnan Province [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 47-54.
[11] Sun Yuantao, Long Wenjing, Liu Tianpeng, Zhao Ganlin, Ding Guoxiang, Xiang Jianyu, Li Yuan, Huang Lei, Ni Xianlin. Combining Ability and Correlation Analysis of Main Traits of 12 Glutinous Sorghum Parents [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 84-90.
[12] Zhang Dongjie, Zhang Zhejun, Ayidingkuli·Shaheiduola , Sangtanati·Asikaer , Wumaierxiati·Tahan . Study on the Inheritance Rules of Agronomic Traits in the Progeny of Crosses between Local Species of Xinjiang Proso Millet [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 97-102.
[13] Sun Guangxu, Liu Ying, Wang Xinyi, Kong Deyong, Wei Na, Xing Liwen, Guo Wei. Effects of Population Density and Fulvic Acid on Yield and Nutritional Quality of Kidney Bean [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 110-118.
[14] Wang Shanshan, Yang Yulei, Liu Feihu, Yang Yang, Tang Kailei, Li Tao, Niu Longjiang, Du Guanghui. Effects of Concentrations and Treatment Periods of Polyazole on Inflorescence and Leaves Yield and Cannabidiol Content of Industrial Hemp [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 119-124.
[15] Li Junzhi, Wang Xiaodong, Dou Shuang, Xin Zongxu, Wu Hongsheng, Zhou Yufei, Xiao Jibing. Effects of L-Tryptophan on Growth and Development of Sorghum under Low Nitrogen Condition [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 175-180.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!