Crops ›› 2019, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (1): 127-133.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.01.021

;

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Water Management and Potash Application on Grain Yield and Lodging Resistance of Rice

Haibing Wu,Daohong Liu,Ming Zhong,Youyuan Wang   

  1. Tianmen Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Tianmen 431700, Hubei, China
  • Received:2018-08-09 Revised:2018-11-14 Online:2019-02-15 Published:2019-02-01
  • Contact: Daohong Liu

RichHTML

6

PDF (PC)

233

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the effects of different water and potash management on rice to provide a theoretical basis of water and potash management for rice production in cold area. A local rice variety Longjing 31 was used as the testing material, to compare the effects of three potash management methods (no potash fertilizer, basal potash fertilizer and basal fertilizer:heading stage fertilizer=5:5) on grain yield and lodging resistance under the mode of flood irrigation and dry-wet alternate irrigation.When comparing the two modes of water management, the average yield of dry-wet alternate management was 8.33t/hm 2, which was 3.48% more than that of the flood irrigation. The treatment of dry-wet alternate irrigation was beneficial to the low gravity of rice plants. The first basal internode (N1) and second basal internode (N2) shortened the dry weight per unit length of internode increase, thereby increasing the internode folding resistance, N1, N2, and third basal internode (N3) lodging index decreased by 13.23%, 17.48% and 15.27%, respectively. Comparing three potash management methods, potassium could significantly increase yield, the yield followed a trend of basal fertilizer:heading stage fertilizer=5:5>basal potash fertilizer>no potash fertilizer; Potassium could promote the height, fresh weight, internode diameter, culm wall thickness, dry weight per unit length of internode and breaking resistance, thus improving the anti-lodging performance. The lodging index of N1, N2, N3 in the potash fertilizer management was basal fertilizer:heading stage fertilizer=5:5>basal potash fertilizer>no potash fertilizer. Compared with no potash fertilizer, the lodging index of N1, N2 and N3 in basal potash fertilizer treatment decreased by 22.27%, 22.04% and 27.53%, respectively. Basal fertilizer:heading stage fertilizer=5:5 treatment decreased by 34.56%, 35.48% and 41.01%, respectively. The results showed that dry-wet alternate irrigation and reasonable management of potash fertilizer could significantly improve grain yield and lodging resistance.

Key words: Water management, Potash fertilizer management, Rice in cold area, Yield, Lodging resistance

Table 1

Effects of water management and potash fertilizer on the yield and component factors of rice in cold area"

年份
Year		 水分处理
Water treatment		 钾肥处理
Potash treatment		 有效穗数
(×104/hm2)
Effective panicles		 穗粒数
Grains per
panicle		 千粒重(g)
1000-grain
weight		 结实率(%)
Filled
grain rate		 理论产量
(t/hm2)
Theoretical yield		 实际产量
(t/hm2)
Actual yield
2015 淹水灌溉FI 不施钾NPF 487.14c 83.25c 24.26f 75.90c 7.47e 7.11e
钾肥基施BPF 493.99b 89.75b 25.13d 81.17b 9.04c 8.54c
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5 BF∶HSF=5∶5 497.74a 89.58b 25.95a 81.23b 9.40b 8.82b
干湿交替DWAI 不施钾NPF 483.22d 84.03c 24.90e 76.46c 7.73d 7.23d
钾肥基施BPF 494.32ab 90.45ab 25.35c 82.93a 9.40b 8.82b
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5 BF∶HSF=5∶5 496.13a 90.91a 25.61b 83.25a 9.61a 9.02a
2016 淹水灌溉FI 不施钾NPF 488.89bc 82.38d 23.78e 76.90d 7.36f 7.04f
钾肥基施BPF 491.53b 88.80c 24.68d 81.57c 8.79d 8.23d
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5 BF∶HSF=5∶5 496.57a 89.59b 24.89c 82.46b 9.13c 8.58c
干湿交替DWAI 不施钾NPF 482.32d 82.13d 24.82cd 77.42d 7.61e 7.12e
钾肥基施BPF 490.30b 90.43a 25.38b 83.40a 9.39b 8.82b
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5 BF∶HSF=5∶5 491.60b 90.14ab 25.93a 83.73a 9.60a 8.98a

Fig.1

Effects of water management and potash fertilizer on plant height and internode N1, N2, N3 and N4-Top represent the first, second, third internode length and fourth internode to top length, respectively"

Table 2

Effects of water management and potash fertilizer on characteristics of rice culm"

年份
Year		 水分处理
Water treatment		 钾肥处理
Potash treatment		 节间粗(mm)
Internode diameter		 茎壁厚度(mm)
Culm wall thickness		 节间干重(g)
Dry weight of internode		 单位长度节间干重(mg/cm)
Dry weight per unit length of internode
N1 N2 N3 N1 N2 N3 N1 N2 N3 N1 N2 N3
2015 淹水灌溉FI 不施钾NPF 4.08b 3.12b 2.89c 0.60bc 0.54b 0.43a 0.09a 0.10c 0.14a 22.55b 7.24c 3.40a
钾肥基施BPF 4.38a 3.26a 3.01ab 0.63bc 0.59a 0.45a 0.09a 0.11bc 0.14a 26.75a 8.05b 3.38a
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5
BF∶HSF=5∶5		 4.40a
 3.29a
 3.06a
 0.65a
 0.61a
 0.46a
 0.09a
 0.12ab
 0.14a
 27.03a
 8.38b
 3.33a
干湿交替DWAI 不施钾NPF 4.10b 3.13b 2.93bc 0.59c 0.53b 0.41a 0.07b 0.10c 0.14a 27.97a 7.56c 3.34a
钾肥基施BPF 4.36a 3.27a 3.02ab 0.62bc 0.58ab 0.44a 0.07b 0.12a 0.14a 27.15a 8.90a 3.37a
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5
BF∶HSF=5∶5		 4.39a
 3.26a
 3.03a
 0.65ab
 0.60a
 0.46a
 0.071b
 0.12a
 0.14a
 28.28a
 8.97a
 3.39a
2016 淹水灌溉FI 不施钾NPF 4.05c 3.10b 2.81b 0.58b 0.56b 0.42ab 0.09a 0.10b 0.14a 23.15b 7.04c 3.34a
钾肥基施BPF 4.28b 3.21a 2.97a 0.62ab 0.57b 0.43ab 0.09b 0.12a 0.14a 23.96b 8.26b 3.37a
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5
BF∶HSF=5∶5		 4.29b
 3.23a
 3.03a
 0.65a
 0.60a
 0.46a
 0.09ab
 0.12a
 0.14a
 24.90ab
 8.29b
 3.32a
干湿交替DWAI 不施钾NPF 4.01c 3.10b 2.81b 0.59b 0.55b 0.41b 0.06c 0.10b 0.14a 26.18a 7.45c 3.35a
钾肥基施BPF 4.38ab 3.26a 3.03a 0.58b 0.56b 0.43ab 0.07c 0.12a 0.14a 26.06a 8.69ab 3.35a
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5
BF∶HSF=5∶5		 4.42a
 3.28a
 3.03a
 0.64a
 0.60a
 0.46a
 0.06c
 0.12a
 0.14a
 25.81a
 8.92a
 3.31a

Table 3

Effects of water management and potash fertilizer on lodging resistance"

年份
Year		 水分处理
Water treatment		 钾肥处理
Potash treatment		 抗折力(N)
Breaking resistance		 弯曲力矩(cm·g)
Bending moment		 倒伏指数
Lodging index
N1 N2 N3 N1 N2 N3 N1 N2 N3
2015 淹水灌溉FI 不施钾NPF 4.32e 3.28e 2.11e 722.85b 689.87b 573.16c 163.85a 205.94a 265.80a
钾肥基施BPF 5.42c 4.27c 3.08c 751.46a 724.23a 605.08ab 135.97c 166.35c 192.35c
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5 BF∶HSF=5∶5 5.63b 4.76b 3.31b 751.27a 723.26a 602.86ab 130.76d 148.99d 178.28d
干湿交替DWAI 不施钾NPF 4.61d 4.00d 2.45d 724.45b 703.47b 591.62b 153.89b 172.56b 236.97b
钾肥基施BPF 5.70b 4.82b 3.11c 748.74a 727.74a 613.09a 128.77d 147.86d 192.99c
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5 BF∶HSF=5∶5 7.97a 6.41a 4.89a 751.90a 730.62a 615.41a 92.49e 111.70e 123.43e
2016 淹水灌溉FI 不施钾NPF 4.02f 2.96e 2.03f 721.32b 688.41b 571.71c 175.70a 227.75a 276.45a
钾肥基施BPF 5.32d 4.22c 2.99d 753.80a 723.65a 604.64a 138.86c 167.91c 198.26c
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5 BF∶HSF=5∶5 6.78c 5.06b 3.51c 758.76a 728.10a 607.66a 109.62d 140.92d 169.50d
干湿交替DWAI 不施钾NPF 4.32e 3.61d 2.37e 719.38b 699.35b 588.10b 163.07b 190.02b 242.84b
钾肥基施BPF 6.89b 5.15b 3.84b 750.21a 729.11a 614.87a 106.71e 138.66d 157.06e
基肥∶穗肥=5∶5 BF∶HSF=5∶5 7.63a 6.40a 4.59a 752.82a 732.08a 617.09a 96.74f 112.15e 131.74f

Table 4

Correlation coefficients of breaking resistance, lodging index and main characteristics of rice culm (n=18)"

年份
Year		 处理Treatment 抗折力Breaking resistance (N) 倒伏指数Lodging index
N1 N2 N3 N1 N2 N3
2015 株高Plant height 0.386 0.392 0.394 -0.402 -0.409 -0.451
鲜重Fresh weight 0.611** 0.624** 0.638** -0.635** -0.63** -0.709**
重心高Height of gravity center -0.745** -0.838** -0.742** 0.79** 0.876** 0.766**
穗长Spike length 0.307 0.335 0.314 -0.288 -0.325 -0.302
节间长度Internode length -0.533* -0.527* -0.12 0.583* 0.55* 0.142
节间粗Internode diameter 0.673** 0.546* 0.618** -0.729** -0.573* -0.71**
茎壁厚度Culm wall thickness 0.582* 0.595** 0.485* -0.574* -0.608** -0.502*
节间干重Dry weight of internode 0.392 0.801** 0.022 0.427 -0.823** 0.056
单位长度节间干重Dry weight per unit length of internode 0.533* 0.868** 0.093 -0.568* -0.891** -0.006
2016 株高Plant height 0.476 0.424 0.435 -0.513* -0.501* -0.528*
鲜重Fresh weight 0.777** 0.729** 0.744** -0.779** -0.739** -0.779**
重心高Height of gravity center -0.717** -0.689** -0.65** 0.725** 0.729** 0.675**
穗长Spike length 0.154 0.149 0.168 -0.124 -0.122 -0.142
节间长度Internode length -0.422 -0.481* -0.125 0.43 0.488* 0.096
节间粗Internode diameter 0.894** 0.813** 0.821** -0.891** -0.806** -0.853**
茎壁厚度Culm wall thickness 0.411 0.533* 0.559* -0.392 -0.482* -0.523*
节间干重Dry weight of internode -0.359 0.838** -0.134 0.366 -0.852** 0.123
单位长度节间干重Dry weight per unit length of internode 0.415 0.903** -0.096 -0.418 -0.915** 0.097
[1] Seck P A, Diagne A, Mohanty S , et al. Crops that feed the world 7:Rice. Food Security, 2012,4(1):7-24.
doi: 10.1007/s12571-012-0168-1
[2] 国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2016.
[3] 孙海正 . 黑龙江省水稻生产的制约因素与对策. 中国种业, 2017(12):19-20.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-895X.2011.12.008
[4] 虞国平, 陈惠哲, 鄂志国 . 黑龙江水稻生产发展及品种推广. 中国稻米, 2010,16(6):69-71.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2010.06.024
[5] 宿敏敏, 黄珊瑜, 赵光明 , 等. 黑龙江垦区农户水稻管理现状与对策分析. 北方水稻, 2012,42(2):28-33.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6737.2012.02.009
[6] 赵光明 . 寒地水稻高产与养分高效利用的综合管理技术研究与示范. 北京:中国农业大学, 2014.
[7] Bouman B A M, Humphreys E, Tuong T P , et al. Rice and water. Advances in Agronomy, 2007,92(4):187-237.
doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(04)92004-4
[8] 王丹 . 不同密度下肥水优化对寒地水稻抗倒伏性能的影响. 哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2011.
doi: 10.7666/d.y1973731
[9] 王建涛 . 氮钾对寒地水稻抗倒伏性能的影响. 哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2012.
[10] 杨长明, 杨林章, 颜廷梅 , 等. 不同养分和水分管理模式对水稻抗倒伏能力的影响. 应用生态学报, 2004,15(4):646-650.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2004.01.010
[11] 沈阿林, 刘春增, 张付申 , 等. 不同水分管理对水稻生长与氮素利用的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017(2):111-116.
doi: 10.11674/zwyf.1997.0203
[12] 郑桂萍, 李金峰, 钱永德 , 等. 土壤水分对水稻产量与品质的影响. 作物学报, 2006,32(8):1261-1264.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0496-3490.2006.08.027
[13] 刘立军, 薛亚光, 孙小淋 , 等. 水分管理方式对水稻产量和氮肥利用率的影响. 中国水稻科学, 2009,23(3):282-288.
[14] Yang J, Zhang J, Liu L , et al. Carbon remobilization and grain filling in japonica/Indica hybrid rice subjected to postanthesis water deficits. Agronomy Journal, 2002,94(1):102-109.
doi: 10.2134/agronj2002.0102
[15] Yang J, Zhang J, Wang Z , et al. Postanthesis water deficits enhance grain filling in two-line hybrid rice. Crop Science, 2003,43(6):2099-2108.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2003.2099
[16] 邓环 . 不同灌溉方式下水稻生理生态特性研究. 武汉:华中农业大学, 2006.
doi: 10.7666/d.Y1004699
[17] 张国发, 崔玉波, 尤娟 , 等. 钾肥用量对寒地水稻产量和品质的影响. 土壤通报, 2010,41(2):413-416.
[18] 刘丽华, 赵永敬, 李明杰 , 等. 钾肥施用时期对水稻产量及穗部结实的影响. 东北农业大学学报, 2011,42(4):22-26.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9369.2011.04.005
[19] 鲁艳红, 廖育林, 聂军 , 等. 五年定位试验钾肥用量对双季稻产量和施钾效应的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017(3):34-38.
doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2014.0310
[20] 金正勋, 郑冠龙, 朱立楠 , 等. 不同氮钾肥施用方法对水稻产量及抗倒伏性的影响. 东北农业大学学报, 2015,46(3):9-14.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9369.2015.03.002
[21] 唐建海, 张仁杰, 毛龙飞 , 等. 早稻抛栽的平衡施肥技术研究. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(2):7-9.
[22] 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, 1993,26(6):1-11.
[23] 顾慧玲, 王铁书 . 浅论水稻施钾效应与途径 . 上海农业科技, 2000( 1): 29, 31.
[24] 唐拴虎, 陈建生, 徐培智 , 等. 一次性全层施肥增强水稻抗倒伏性效应研究初报. 广东农业科学, 2017(1):32-34.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-874X.2004.01.012
[25] 辛柳, 赵宏伟, 雷万钧 , 等. 施钾量对寒地粳稻抗倒伏能力的影响. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(4):93-100.
doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20150416
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] Yajun Liu,Fengli Chu,Wenjing Wang,Qiguo Hu,Aimei Yang. Effects of Different Supporting Cultivation Measures on the Yield and Weeds Control of Sweet Potato cv. Shangshu 9 [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 179-184.
[4] Lifeng Dong,Xiaohu Lin,Chunrong Liu,Guishuang Hou,Chunlu Zhang,Jinfeng Fu,Fengbao Wang. Effects of Compound Seed Coating Agents on Pea Growth and Yield [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 185-191.
[5] Yunqing Gao,Shutong Li,Qibing Shang,Junchun Shi,Dongxu Xu. Nodules and Yield of Faba Bean under Different Fertilizer Treatments [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 164-167.
[6] Huihui Tang,Yanli Xu,Qingyan Wang,Zhengbo Ma,Guangyan Li,Hui Dong,Zhiqiang Dong. Effects of Foliar Spraying 5-Aminolevulinic Acid on Spring Maize Growth and Yield under Different Planting Densities [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 136-141.
[7] Deming Xiang,Mingfa Zhang,Shuguang Peng,Feng Tian,Jianxin Luo,Wu Chen,Yunfan Cai,Minghui Tian,Qisong Lü. Effects of Consecutive Applying Different New Type Fertilizers on Soil Fungal Communities and Tobacco Quality and Yield [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 156-163.
[8] Xiaojun Xiao,Weisheng Lü,Paolan Yu,Wei Zheng,Yazhen Li,Lei Hu,Fuliang Xiao,Shaowen Zhang,Tianbao Huang,Guobin Xiao. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on Yield Formation and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Early Rice under Rape Straw Returning in Triple Cropping [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 103-109.
[9] Xingqi Ou,Xiujuan Ren,Xinhua Li,Yangjuan Ou. Effects of Side-Row Marginal Advantage and Inner-Row Performance on Plot Yield and Yield Components of Wheat [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 97-102.
[10] Kainan Zhao,Xuhong Chang,Demei Wang,Zhiqiang Tao,Yushuang Yang,Ruiqi Ma,Yingjie Zhu,Zheli Xu,Baojun Zhang,Guangcai Zhao. Effects of Tridimensional Uniform Sowing and Fertilizer on Grain and Physiological Characteristics of Winter Wheat [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 103-110.
[11] Qian Liang,Wenya Liu,Junzhu Ge,Ming Zhao,Haipeng Hou,Yong′an Yang,Decai Xin. Regulation Effects of Narrow-Double Row Precision Sowing with Subsoiling on Yield in Summer Maize [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 111-115.
[12] Yang Zhang,Huilin Yu,Yanbo Wang. Study on Yield and Related Traits of Maize Varieties in Different Ecological Regions of Eastern North China [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 38-43.
[13] Jinghong Tan,Luping Zhang,Qixia Wu,Jianqiang Zhu,Zaizhen Zhang. Comparative Research on the Effects of Reducing Nitrogen from Different Fertilizers on Cotton [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 134-140.
[14] Xiaoming Wang,Dacheng Li,Zhengda Liao,Yuanchu Gan,Huixiu Chen,Xide Su,Zenglin Wei. Comparation of Agronomic Traits and Yield among Sugarcane Varieties [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 50-55.
[15] Shuping Hu,Tiantian Meng,Hui Zhao,Haizhu Bao. Effects of Subsoiling on Photosynthetic Performance and Yield of Sunflower [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 116-120.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Guangcai Zhao,Xuhong Chang,Demei Wang,Zhiqiang Tao,Yanjie Wang,Yushuang Yang,Yingjie Zhu. General Situation and Development of Wheat Production[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 1 -7 .
[2] Baoquan Quan,Dongmei Bai,Yuexia Tian,Yunyun Xue. Effects of Different Leaf-Peg Ratio on Photosynthesis and Yield of Peanut[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 102 -105 .
[3] Xuefang Huang,Mingjing Huang,Huatao Liu,Cong Zhao,Juanling Wang. Effects of Annual Precipitation and Population Density on Tiller-Earing and Yield of Zhangzagu 5 under Film Mulching and Hole Sowing[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 106 -113 .
[4] Wenhui Huang, Hui Wang, Desheng Mei. Research Progress on Lodging Resistance of Crops[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 13 -19 .
[5] Yun Zhao,Cailong Xu,Xu Yang,Suzhen Li,Jing Zhou,Jicun Li,Tianfu Han,Cunxiang Wu. Effects of Sowing Methods on Seedling Stand and Production Profit of Summer Soybean under Wheat-Soybean System[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 114 -120 .
[6] Mei Lu,Min Sun,Aixia Ren,Miaomiao Lei,Lingzhu Xue,Zhiqiang Gao. Effects of Spraying Foliar Fertilizers on Dryland Wheat Growth and the Correlation with Yield Formation[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 121 -125 .
[7] Xiaofei Wang,Haijun Xu,Mengqiao Guo,Yu Xiao,Xinyu Cheng,Shuxia Liu,Xiangjun Guan,Yaokun Wu,Weihua Zhao,Guojiang Wei. Effects of Sowing Date, Density and Fertilizer Utilization Rate on the Yield of Oilseed Perilla frutescens in Cold Area[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 126 -130 .
[8] Pengjin Zhu,Xinhua Pang,Chun Liang,Qinliang Tan,Lin Yan,Quanguang Zhou,Kewei Ou. Effects of Cold Stress on Reactive Oxygen Metabolism and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities of Sugarcane Seedlings[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 131 -137 .
[9] Jie Gao,Qingfeng Li,Qiu Peng,Xiaoyan Jiao,Jinsong Wang. Effects of Different Nutrient Combinations on Plant Production and Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Utilization Characteristics in Waxy Sorghum[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 138 -142 .
[10] Na Shang,Zhongxu Yang,Qiuzhi Li,Huihui Yin,Shihong Wang,Haitao Li,Tong Li,Han Zhang. Response of Cotton with Vegetative Branches to Plant Density in the Western of Shandong Province[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 143 -148 .