Effects of Anti-pour Agent on Yield and Lodging Resistance of High Quality Rice

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0150

Abstract

Abstract:

Lodging is one of the important factors restricting rice production, and the lodging of high quality rice is more prominent. In order to improve the anti lodging cultivation technique of high-quality rice, this study used the representative high-quality rice variety ‘Meixiangzhan 2’ in Guangdong Province as the experimental material, set up three different nitrogen application rates, and used two factors randomized block design to explore the anti lodging effect of the anti-pour agent ‘Budaohan’. The results showed that the anti-pour agent reduced the stem and leaf weight and the total dry matter weight during the full heading and mature stages, but increased the economic coefficient, and had the effect of increasing yield. The height of rice during the entire growth period was reduced, reaching a significant level. Under low fertilizer conditions, the effects of reducing plant height were more significant. The length and lodging index of the second and third basal nodes during the wax ripening period were reduced, with the third basal node reaching a significant level. The length of each node during the ripening period, the lodging index in the field, and the bending moment of the third and fourth nodes were also significantly reduced. The bending strength and lodging index of the third and fourth nodes were also reduced to some extent, but didn’t reach a significant level. In summary, the anti-pour agent ‘Budaohan’ could significantly enhance the anti lodging ability of high-quality rice, and had the effect of increasing yield, which could be promoted and applied.

Key words: rice, anti-pour agent, high quality rice, yield, lodging

ZOU Dan, TANG Qiyuan, HUANG Yiguo, LIU Longsheng, FANG Shengliang, LV Guangdong, KUANG Na, LUO Youyi, MAO Ruiqing, ZHANG Ming. Effects of Anti-pour Agent on Yield and Lodging Resistance of High Quality Rice[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(33): 8-13.

Figures/Tables 8

References 29

[1]	汪浩, 张强, 张文地, 等. 腋芽萌发能力对再生稻产量影响的研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2020, 34(3):205-216. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2020.9097
[2]	DONG H, CHEN Q, WANG W, et al. The growth and yield of a wet-seeded rice-ratoon rice system in central China[J]. Field crops research, 2017, 208:55-59. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.04.003 URL
[3]	高雪, 李谷成, 郑宏运. 极端天气事件感知与收入水平对农户保护性耕作采用意愿的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2019, 24(10):187-197.
[4]	慕涛阳, 赵伟, 胡晓宇, 等. 基于改进的DeepLabV3+模型结合无人机遥感的水稻倒伏识别方法[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2022, 27(2):143-154.
[5]	苏雨婷. 氮肥运筹与化学调控对湘南双季稻抗倒伏能力与产量形成特性的影响[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2021.
[6]	梁青铎. 施氮量和机插密度对水稻生长、产量和氮肥利用效率的影响[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2020.
[7]	刘畅, 李来庚. 水稻抗倒伏性状的分子机理研究进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2016, 30(2):216-222. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2016.5118
[8]	王丹, 刘元英, 彭显龙, 等. 肥水优化管理对寒地水稻抗倒伏性能的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2012, 26(2):352-357. doi: 10.11869/hnxb.2012.02.0352
[9]	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[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 1999(2):81-85.
[10]	何永美, 湛方栋, 祖艳群, 等. 大田增强UV-B辐射对元阳梯田地方水稻茎秆性状和倒伏指数的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(1):39-45.
[11]	周楠. 应用FACE技术研究大气CO₂浓度增高对水稻倒伏抗性的影响[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2014.
[12]	赖上坤, 陈春, 赖尚科, 等. 水稻主要农艺性状和抗倒性的基因型差异及其相互关系[J]. 核农学报, 2018, 32(7):1256-1266. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2018.07.1256
[13]	汤云龙, 汪楠, 张欣, 等. 水稻倒伏与产量及食味的关系[J]. 北方水稻, 2021, 51(2):8-12.
[14]	赵雅静, 姜照伟, 李小萍, 等. 优质稻佳辐占抗倒力与施氮量的关联性观察[J]. 福建稻麦科技, 2014, 32(3):10-12.
[15]	胡振阳, 程宏, 卢臣, 等. 施氮量和植物生长调节剂对优质稻抗倒能力及产量的调控效应[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(6):52-60.
[16]	罗来杨, 吴晓峰, 刘凯丽, 等. 硅肥对优质稻产量、品质及抗倒伏性的影响[J]. 杂交水稻, 2023, 38(2):149-153.
[17]	曾仁杰. 硅肥对水稻产量、品质及抗倒伏特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(22):1-4. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0659
[18]	王丹丹, 孔祥清, 刘明, 等. 烯效唑对水稻抗性酶及节间长的影响[J]. 黑龙江八一农垦大学学报, 2022, 34(2):18-22.
[19]	张晓丽, 陶伟, 高国庆, 等. 直播栽培对双季早稻生育期、抗倒伏能力及产量效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(2):249-263. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.02.004
[20]	杨艳华, 朱镇, 张亚东, 等. 不同水稻品种(系)抗倒伏能力与茎秆形态性状的关系[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2011, 27(2):231-235.
[21]	章忠贵, 刘斌美, 许学, 等. 水稻株高突变系的农艺性状与抗倒伏研究[J]. 核农学报, 2010, 24(3):430-435. doi: 10.11869/hnxb.2010.03.0430
[22]	顾大路, 朱云林, 徐建明, 等. 复配抗倒剂在水稻后期应用的生物效应[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2004(4):27-30.
[23]	熊清云, 刘宗发, 胡金和, 等. 新型抗倒剂“立丰灵”对水稻产量及生长的影响[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2009(5):37-39.
[24]	尤圣阳, 周星, 徐年龙, 等. 不同抗倒剂对水稻生长及产量的影响[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2021, 38(1):37-41.
[25]	蒋晴, 李园畅, 耿辉辉, 等. 水稻拔节前化控抗倒伏研究[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2015(2):68-70.
[26]	颜士敏, 杨洪建, 李杰. “立丰灵”对水稻产量及其构建因子的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2013, 19(16):39-42.
[27]	吴思, 陶明德, 周迎鑫, 等. 化控对夏玉米产量与茎秆抗倒伏性状的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(1):91-98.
[28]	康靓, 张娜, 张永强, 等. 矮壮素滴施量对滴灌冬小麦茎秆特征及其抗倒伏性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(1):63-69. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.01.008
[29]	王佳慧. 综合管理和化控剂对水稻抗倒伏性能、产量及品质的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2021.

处理	有效穗数/m²	千粒重/g	每穗粒数	结实率/%	产量/(kg/hm²)
A₁	398 a	17.50 a	118 a	68.24 a	6255 a
A₂	387 a	17.62 a	110 a	64.23 a	6391 a
B₁	431 a	17.57 a	107 b	64.33 a	5790 b
B₂	417 a	17.53 a	113 ab	64.86 a	6292 b
B₃	329 b	17.57 a	122 a	69.55 a	6887 a

处理	有效穗数/m²	千粒重/g	每穗粒数	结实率/%	产量/(kg/hm²)
A₁	398 a	17.50 a	118 a	68.24 a	6255 a
A₂	387 a	17.62 a	110 a	64.23 a	6391 a
B₁	431 a	17.57 a	107 b	64.33 a	5790 b
B₂	417 a	17.53 a	113 ab	64.86 a	6292 b
B₃	329 b	17.57 a	122 a	69.55 a	6887 a

处理	齐穗期		成熟期
处理	茎叶/（g/3穴）	总干物质/（g/3穴）	茎叶/（g/3穴）	总干物质/（g/3穴）	经济系数/%
A₁	280.12 a	324.60 a	298.00 a	445.80 a	33.04 a
A₂	271.90 a	311.75 a	294.69 a	442.06 a	33.46 a
B₁	287.85 a	334.89 a	318.81 a	473.41 a	32.25 a
B₂	265.59 a	303.63 a	310.24 a	458.95 a	32.45 a
B₃	274.59 a	316.01 a	259.98 b	399.44 b	35.04 a

处理	齐穗期		成熟期
处理	茎叶/（g/3穴）	总干物质/（g/3穴）	茎叶/（g/3穴）	总干物质/（g/3穴）	经济系数/%
A₁	280.12 a	324.60 a	298.00 a	445.80 a	33.04 a
A₂	271.90 a	311.75 a	294.69 a	442.06 a	33.46 a
B₁	287.85 a	334.89 a	318.81 a	473.41 a	32.25 a
B₂	265.59 a	303.63 a	310.24 a	458.95 a	32.45 a
B₃	274.59 a	316.01 a	259.98 b	399.44 b	35.04 a

处理	第二基节长/cm	第二基节抗折力/N	第二基节重/g	第二基节倒伏指数/(g·cm/N)	第三基节长/cm	第三基节抗折力/N	第三基节重/g	第三基节倒伏指数/(g·cm/N)	株高/cm
A₁	3.60 a	35.90 a	14.52 a	59.31 a	8.50 a	11.59 a	12.20 a	124.30 a	118.31 a
A₂	3.52 a	35.63 a	12.52 b	46.83 a	8.49 a	10.78 a	10.31 a	106.07 b	110.44 b
B₁	3.95 a	36.17 a	14.07 a	53.78 a	8.35 a	11.82 a	11.60 a	107.28 a	113.70 a
B₂	3.65 a	32.57 a	13.00 a	57.67 a	8.52 a	11.22 a	10.92 a	113.08 a	114.52 a
B₃	3.08 a	38.57 a	13.50 a	47.77 a	8.62 a	10.52 a	11.25 a	125.18 a	114.92 a