Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (33): 41-49.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0163
Special Issue: 马铃薯
Previous Articles Next Articles
Li Pingfang1(), Wang Hongmei2, Zhang Yanli2, Wang Haitao1, Wang Jianfeng1, Guo Xiaoyun1, Ding Weili1, Yang Yufeng3()
Received:
2021-02-20
Revised:
2021-06-13
Online:
2021-11-25
Published:
2022-01-06
Contact:
Yang Yufeng
E-mail:2350056230@qq.com;yyfyyf5@163.com
CLC Number:
Li Pingfang, Wang Hongmei, Zhang Yanli, Wang Haitao, Wang Jianfeng, Guo Xiaoyun, Ding Weili, Yang Yufeng. Planting Densities and NPK Ratios: Effects on Sweet Potato Yield and Commodity Rate[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(33): 41-49.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0163
密度 | 肥料配比 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
代号 | 水平/(万株/hm2) | 代号 | 水平(N、P、K比例) | N:P2O5:K2O | |
A1 | 3.00 | B1 | N8P4K10=1.6:0.8:2 | 120:60:150 | |
A2 | 3.75 | B2 | N4P4K10=0.8:0.8:2 | 60:60:150 | |
A3 | 4.50 | B3 | N12P4K10=2.4:0.8:2 | 180:60:150 | |
A4 | 5.25 | B4 | N8P6K10=1.6:1.2:2 | 120:90:150 | |
A5 | 6.00 | B5 | N8P4K5=1.6:0.8:1 | 120:60:75 | |
A6 | 6.75 | B6 | N8P4K15=1.6:0.8:3 | 120:60:225 | |
A7 | 7.50 | B7(ck) | N5P5K10=1:1:2 | 75:75:150 |
密度 | 肥料配比 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
代号 | 水平/(万株/hm2) | 代号 | 水平(N、P、K比例) | N:P2O5:K2O | |
A1 | 3.00 | B1 | N8P4K10=1.6:0.8:2 | 120:60:150 | |
A2 | 3.75 | B2 | N4P4K10=0.8:0.8:2 | 60:60:150 | |
A3 | 4.50 | B3 | N12P4K10=2.4:0.8:2 | 180:60:150 | |
A4 | 5.25 | B4 | N8P6K10=1.6:1.2:2 | 120:90:150 | |
A5 | 6.00 | B5 | N8P4K5=1.6:0.8:1 | 120:60:75 | |
A6 | 6.75 | B6 | N8P4K15=1.6:0.8:3 | 120:60:225 | |
A7 | 7.50 | B7(ck) | N5P5K10=1:1:2 | 75:75:150 |
年度 | 密度 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 商品率/% |
---|---|---|---|
2019、2020年度 | A1(3.00万株/hm2) | 20684.69 c C | 93.58 aA |
A2(3.75万株/hm2) | 22261.86 abc ABC | 91.60 bc BC | |
A3(4.50万株/hm2) | 22933.57 a A | 92.30 ab AB | |
A4(5.25万株/hm2) | 22611.41 ab AB | 90.40 cd CD | |
A5(6.00万株/hm2) | 22144.64 abc ABC | 91.28 bc BC | |
A6(6.75万株/hm2) | 21503.65 abc ABC | 90.15 cd CD | |
A7(7.50万株/hm2) | 21031.71 bc BC | 88.61 d D | |
平均值 | 21881.65 | 91.13 |
年度 | 密度 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 商品率/% |
---|---|---|---|
2019、2020年度 | A1(3.00万株/hm2) | 20684.69 c C | 93.58 aA |
A2(3.75万株/hm2) | 22261.86 abc ABC | 91.60 bc BC | |
A3(4.50万株/hm2) | 22933.57 a A | 92.30 ab AB | |
A4(5.25万株/hm2) | 22611.41 ab AB | 90.40 cd CD | |
A5(6.00万株/hm2) | 22144.64 abc ABC | 91.28 bc BC | |
A6(6.75万株/hm2) | 21503.65 abc ABC | 90.15 cd CD | |
A7(7.50万株/hm2) | 21031.71 bc BC | 88.61 d D | |
平均值 | 21881.65 | 91.13 |
年度 | 肥料配比(N:P:K) | 产量 | 商品率 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
平均值/(kg/hm2) | 比对照/% | 平均值/% | 比对照/% | |||
2019 2020年度 | B1(N8P4K10) (1.6:0.8:2) | 21649.86 bc BC | -9.73 | 91.13 ab AB | -1.82 | |
B2(N4P4K10) (0.8:0.8:2) | 22824.67 ab AB | -4.83 | 92.85 a A | 0.03 | ||
B3(N12P4K10) (2.4:0.8:2) | 20569.27 c C | -14.24 | 91.22 ab AB | -1.73 | ||
B4(N8P6K10) (1.6:1.2:1) | 21605.94 bc BC | -9.92 | 90.53 bc BC | -2.47 | ||
B5(N8P4K5) (1.6:0.8:1) | 21775.28 bc BC | -9.21 | 90.42 bc BC | -2.59 | ||
B6(N8P4K15) (1.6:0.8:3) | 20762.30 c C | -13.43 | 88.93 c C | -4.19 | ||
B7(N5P5K10) (1:1:2) | 23984.21 a A | -- | 92.82 a A | -- |
年度 | 肥料配比(N:P:K) | 产量 | 商品率 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
平均值/(kg/hm2) | 比对照/% | 平均值/% | 比对照/% | |||
2019 2020年度 | B1(N8P4K10) (1.6:0.8:2) | 21649.86 bc BC | -9.73 | 91.13 ab AB | -1.82 | |
B2(N4P4K10) (0.8:0.8:2) | 22824.67 ab AB | -4.83 | 92.85 a A | 0.03 | ||
B3(N12P4K10) (2.4:0.8:2) | 20569.27 c C | -14.24 | 91.22 ab AB | -1.73 | ||
B4(N8P6K10) (1.6:1.2:1) | 21605.94 bc BC | -9.92 | 90.53 bc BC | -2.47 | ||
B5(N8P4K5) (1.6:0.8:1) | 21775.28 bc BC | -9.21 | 90.42 bc BC | -2.59 | ||
B6(N8P4K15) (1.6:0.8:3) | 20762.30 c C | -13.43 | 88.93 c C | -4.19 | ||
B7(N5P5K10) (1:1:2) | 23984.21 a A | -- | 92.82 a A | -- |
密度肥料处理 | 产量 | 商品率 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
处理平均值/(kg/hm2) | 比较全部处理平均值/% | 处理平均值/% | 比较全部处理平均值/% | ||||
A1 B1 | 21071.78 | -3.70 | 93.68 | 2.79 | |||
A1 B2 | 21553.73 | -1.50 | 95.39 | 4.68 | |||
A1 B3 | 19405.48 | -11.32 | 93.76 | 2.88 | |||
A1 B4 | 20438.58 | -6.59 | 93.08 | 2.13 | |||
A1 B5 | 20590.05 | -5.90 | 92.96 | 2.01 | |||
A1 B6 | 19148.50 | -12.49 | 91.49 | 0.40 | |||
A1 B7 | 22584.70 | 3.21 | 94.68 | 3.89 | |||
A2 B1 | 21998.95 | 0.54 | 91.63 | 0.54 | |||
A2 B2 | 23205.90 | 6.05 | 93.34 | 2.43 | |||
A2 B3 | 20932.65 | -4.34 | 91.71 | 0.63 | |||
A2 B4 | 21965.75 | 0.38 | 91.03 | -0.12 | |||
A2 B5 | 22142.23 | 1.19 | 90.91 | -0.24 | |||
A2 B6 | 21200.67 | -3.11 | 89.44 | -1.85 | |||
A2 B7 | 24386.88 | 11.45 | 93.13 | 2.19 | |||
A3 B1 | 22667.09 | 3.59 | 92.33 | 1.31 | |||
A3 B2 | 23874.04 | 9.11 | 94.04 | 3.20 | |||
A3 B3 | 21600.79 | -1.28 | 92.41 | 1.40 | |||
A3 B4 | 22658.89 | 3.55 | 91.73 | 0.65 | |||
A3 B5 | 22810.36 | 4.24 | 91.61 | 0.52 | |||
A3 B6 | 21868.81 | -0.06 | 90.14 | -1.08 | |||
A3 B7 | 25055.01 | 14.50 | 93.83 | 2.96 | |||
A4 B1 | 21919.93 | 0.17 | 90.40 | -0.80 | |||
A4 B2 | 23626.88 | 7.98 | 92.12 | 1.08 | |||
A4 B3 | 21353.62 | -2.41 | 90.48 | -0.71 | |||
A4 B4 | 22386.73 | 2.31 | 89.80 | -1.46 | |||
A4 B5 | 22563.20 | 3.11 | 89.68 | -1.59 | |||
A4 B6 | 21621.65 | -1.19 | 88.22 | -3.20 | |||
A4 B7 | 24807.85 | 13.37 | 92.07 | 1.03 | |||
A5 B1 | 21881.73 | 0.00 | 91.35 | 0.24 | |||
A5 B2 | 23088.68 | 5.52 | 93.07 | 2.13 | |||
A5 B3 | 20815.43 | -4.87 | 91.43 | 0.33 | |||
A5 B4 | 21848.53 | -0.15 | 90.75 | -0.42 | |||
A5 B5 | 22025.00 | 0.66 | 90.63 | -0.55 | |||
A5 B6 | 21083.45 | -3.65 | 89.06 | -2.27 | |||
A5 B7 | 24269.65 | 10.91 | 92.68 | 1.70 | |||
A6 B1 | 21240.74 | -2.93 | 90.15 | -1.08 | |||
A6 B2 | 22447.69 | 2.59 | 91.87 | 0.81 | |||
A6 B3 | 20174.44 | -7.80 | 90.23 | -0.98 | |||
A6 B4 | 21207.54 | -3.08 | 89.55 | -1.73 | |||
A6 B5 | 21384.01 | -2.27 | 89.43 | -1.86 | |||
A6 B6 | 20442.46 | -6.58 | 87.97 | -3.47 | |||
A6 B7 | 23628.66 | 7.98 | 91.82 | 0.75 | |||
A7 B1 | 20768.80 | -5.09 | 88.40 | -3.00 | |||
A7 B2 | 21975.75 | 0.43 | 90.12 | -1.11 | |||
A7 B3 | 19702.50 | -9.96 | 88.48 | -2.90 | |||
A7 B4 | 20735.60 | -5.24 | 87.80 | -3.65 | |||
A7 B5 | 20912.08 | -4.43 | 87.68 | -3.78 | |||
A7 B6 | 19970.53 | -8.73 | 86.22 | -5.39 | |||
A7 B7 | 23156.73 | 5.83 | 91.57 | 0.48 | |||
平均值 | 21881.65 | -- | 91.13 | -- |
密度肥料处理 | 产量 | 商品率 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
处理平均值/(kg/hm2) | 比较全部处理平均值/% | 处理平均值/% | 比较全部处理平均值/% | ||||
A1 B1 | 21071.78 | -3.70 | 93.68 | 2.79 | |||
A1 B2 | 21553.73 | -1.50 | 95.39 | 4.68 | |||
A1 B3 | 19405.48 | -11.32 | 93.76 | 2.88 | |||
A1 B4 | 20438.58 | -6.59 | 93.08 | 2.13 | |||
A1 B5 | 20590.05 | -5.90 | 92.96 | 2.01 | |||
A1 B6 | 19148.50 | -12.49 | 91.49 | 0.40 | |||
A1 B7 | 22584.70 | 3.21 | 94.68 | 3.89 | |||
A2 B1 | 21998.95 | 0.54 | 91.63 | 0.54 | |||
A2 B2 | 23205.90 | 6.05 | 93.34 | 2.43 | |||
A2 B3 | 20932.65 | -4.34 | 91.71 | 0.63 | |||
A2 B4 | 21965.75 | 0.38 | 91.03 | -0.12 | |||
A2 B5 | 22142.23 | 1.19 | 90.91 | -0.24 | |||
A2 B6 | 21200.67 | -3.11 | 89.44 | -1.85 | |||
A2 B7 | 24386.88 | 11.45 | 93.13 | 2.19 | |||
A3 B1 | 22667.09 | 3.59 | 92.33 | 1.31 | |||
A3 B2 | 23874.04 | 9.11 | 94.04 | 3.20 | |||
A3 B3 | 21600.79 | -1.28 | 92.41 | 1.40 | |||
A3 B4 | 22658.89 | 3.55 | 91.73 | 0.65 | |||
A3 B5 | 22810.36 | 4.24 | 91.61 | 0.52 | |||
A3 B6 | 21868.81 | -0.06 | 90.14 | -1.08 | |||
A3 B7 | 25055.01 | 14.50 | 93.83 | 2.96 | |||
A4 B1 | 21919.93 | 0.17 | 90.40 | -0.80 | |||
A4 B2 | 23626.88 | 7.98 | 92.12 | 1.08 | |||
A4 B3 | 21353.62 | -2.41 | 90.48 | -0.71 | |||
A4 B4 | 22386.73 | 2.31 | 89.80 | -1.46 | |||
A4 B5 | 22563.20 | 3.11 | 89.68 | -1.59 | |||
A4 B6 | 21621.65 | -1.19 | 88.22 | -3.20 | |||
A4 B7 | 24807.85 | 13.37 | 92.07 | 1.03 | |||
A5 B1 | 21881.73 | 0.00 | 91.35 | 0.24 | |||
A5 B2 | 23088.68 | 5.52 | 93.07 | 2.13 | |||
A5 B3 | 20815.43 | -4.87 | 91.43 | 0.33 | |||
A5 B4 | 21848.53 | -0.15 | 90.75 | -0.42 | |||
A5 B5 | 22025.00 | 0.66 | 90.63 | -0.55 | |||
A5 B6 | 21083.45 | -3.65 | 89.06 | -2.27 | |||
A5 B7 | 24269.65 | 10.91 | 92.68 | 1.70 | |||
A6 B1 | 21240.74 | -2.93 | 90.15 | -1.08 | |||
A6 B2 | 22447.69 | 2.59 | 91.87 | 0.81 | |||
A6 B3 | 20174.44 | -7.80 | 90.23 | -0.98 | |||
A6 B4 | 21207.54 | -3.08 | 89.55 | -1.73 | |||
A6 B5 | 21384.01 | -2.27 | 89.43 | -1.86 | |||
A6 B6 | 20442.46 | -6.58 | 87.97 | -3.47 | |||
A6 B7 | 23628.66 | 7.98 | 91.82 | 0.75 | |||
A7 B1 | 20768.80 | -5.09 | 88.40 | -3.00 | |||
A7 B2 | 21975.75 | 0.43 | 90.12 | -1.11 | |||
A7 B3 | 19702.50 | -9.96 | 88.48 | -2.90 | |||
A7 B4 | 20735.60 | -5.24 | 87.80 | -3.65 | |||
A7 B5 | 20912.08 | -4.43 | 87.68 | -3.78 | |||
A7 B6 | 19970.53 | -8.73 | 86.22 | -5.39 | |||
A7 B7 | 23156.73 | 5.83 | 91.57 | 0.48 | |||
平均值 | 21881.65 | -- | 91.13 | -- |
产量 | 商品率 | 茎叶 鲜重 | 根鲜重 | 冠根比 | 商品薯块 鲜重 | 商品薯块个数 | 单商品 薯块鲜重 | 单株 结薯数 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量 | 1 | ||||||||
商品率 | 0.445** | 1 | |||||||
茎叶鲜重 | -0.421** | 0.327* | 1 | ||||||
根鲜重 | 0.244 | 0.620** | 0.592** | 1 | |||||
冠根比 | -0.646** | -0.389** | 0.152 | -0.693** | 1 | ||||
商品薯块鲜重 | 0.008 | 0.793** | 0.689** | 0.714** | -0.181 | 1 | |||
商品薯块个数 | 0.192 | 0.512** | 0.218 | 0.520** | -0.368** | 0.676** | 1 | ||
单商品薯块鲜重 | -0.19 | 0.439** | 0.647** | 0.326* | 0.195 | 0.523** | -0.265 | 1 | |
单株结薯数 | 0.346* | 0.520** | 0.119 | 0.444** | -0.357* | 0.622** | 0.902** | -0.233 | 1 |
产量 | 商品率 | 茎叶 鲜重 | 根鲜重 | 冠根比 | 商品薯块 鲜重 | 商品薯块个数 | 单商品 薯块鲜重 | 单株 结薯数 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量 | 1 | ||||||||
商品率 | 0.445** | 1 | |||||||
茎叶鲜重 | -0.421** | 0.327* | 1 | ||||||
根鲜重 | 0.244 | 0.620** | 0.592** | 1 | |||||
冠根比 | -0.646** | -0.389** | 0.152 | -0.693** | 1 | ||||
商品薯块鲜重 | 0.008 | 0.793** | 0.689** | 0.714** | -0.181 | 1 | |||
商品薯块个数 | 0.192 | 0.512** | 0.218 | 0.520** | -0.368** | 0.676** | 1 | ||
单商品薯块鲜重 | -0.19 | 0.439** | 0.647** | 0.326* | 0.195 | 0.523** | -0.265 | 1 | |
单株结薯数 | 0.346* | 0.520** | 0.119 | 0.444** | -0.357* | 0.622** | 0.902** | -0.233 | 1 |
[1] | 文芬. 脱毒甘薯一号不同移栽密度初探[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2007,(4):45,30. |
[2] | 赖小芳, 陈剑, 王伯诚, 等. 脱毒甘薯浙薯13扦插密度试验[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2014,(8):1154,1156. |
[3] | 杨爱梅, 王自立, 王家才. 甘薯平衡施肥与施用钾肥效果的研究[J]. 河北农业科学, 2009, 13(3):48-50. |
[4] | 王荫墀, 胡兆盛. 甘薯需肥特性的研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 1981, 1:7-12. |
[5] | 史春余, 王振林, 赵秉强, 等. 钾营养对甘薯某些生理特性和产量形成的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2002, 8(1):81-85. |
[6] | 史春余, 张晓冬, 张超, 等. 甘薯对不同形态氮素的吸收与利用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010, 16(2):389-394. |
[7] | 段文学, 张海燕, 解备涛, 等. 甘薯氮素营养研究进展[J]. 西北农业学报, 2015, 24(12):14-23. |
[8] | 姚立春, 谭学留, 姜新. 不同施氮量对食用甘薯生长及产量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2015, 43(23):33-35. |
[9] | 江苏省农业科学院, 山东省农业科学院. 中国甘薯栽培学[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1984. |
[10] | 唐忠厚, 李洪民, 张爱君, 等. 长期施用磷肥对甘薯主要品质性状与淀粉RVA特性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2011, 17(2):391-396. |
[11] | 盛锦寿. 氮磷钾配合施用对甘薯的增产效果[J]. 土壤肥料, 2005, 5:29-31. |
[12] | 姚宝全. 甘薯氮磷钾肥效与适宜用量研究[J]. 福建农业学报, 2007, 22(2):136-140. |
[13] | 张瑞栋, 曹雄, 岳忠孝, 等. 氮肥和密度对高粱产量及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018(5):110-115. |
[14] | 刘明, 李洪民, 张爱君, 等. 不同氮肥与密度水平对鲜食甘薯产量和品质的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2020, 35(1):122-130. |
[15] | 李树庭, 于捷, 岳钉伊, 等. 不同密度和氮素水平对设施袋培番茄产量、品质及冠层结构的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2016, 25(6):903-911. |
[16] | 周虹, 张超凡, 张亚, 等. 氮磷钾肥不同配比对甘薯性状及产量的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2013, 23:54-56,60. |
[17] | 孙哲, 刘桂玲, 郑建利, 等. 优化种植密度下的甘薯产量形成特性研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 2016, 48(11):61-64. |
[18] | 杨育峰, 张晓申, 王慧瑜, 等. 甘薯郑红22脱毒及适宜密度、肥料配比研究[J]. 河南农业科学, 2019, 48(8):34-38. |
[19] | 吕树立, 孙凤岭, 周玉玲, 等. 不同栽植密度对商薯19农艺性状及产量的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2011(8):53-54. |
[20] | 黄梅卿, 蔡开地, 姚宝金. 不同氮磷钾施用水平对甘薯经济指标的影响[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2004, 26(2):254-258. |
[1] | JIN Meijuan, SHE Xudong, SHEN Mingxing, LU Changying, TAO Yueyue, WANG Haihou. Production Effect of Strawberry Cultured by Constructing Ridge-type Soil Groove Coupling Substrate in Paddy Field [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(1): 71-76. |
[2] | ZHOU Dongdong, ZHANG Jun, GE Mengjie, LIU Zhonghong, ZHU Xiaohuan, LI Chunyan. Effects of Different Nitrogen Treatments on Grain Yield, Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency and Quality of Late-sowing Wheat ‘Huaimai 36’ Following Rice [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(1): 1-7. |
[3] | WANG Fuyu, CHEN Guiju, SUN Leiming, HUANG Ling, SHAO Minmin, ZHAO Kai, YANG Benzhou, ZHANG Yudan, YAN Lu, WANG Lin. Interaction Between Tillage Modes and Nitrogen Application Rates: Effects on the Growth, Yield and Quality of Wheat [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(9): 20-26. |
[4] | CHEN Yinghua, BAI Ruxiao, WANG Juan, ZHANG Xinjiang, LIU Linghui, LIU Xiaolong, FENG Guorui, WEI Changzhou. Foliar Spraying Uniconazole and Boron: Effects on Yield and Sugar Content of Sugar Beet in Taer Basin [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(9): 41-48. |
[5] | LI Xinghua, WANG Huan, ZHANG Sheng, CAI Xingxing, ZHOU Qiang, ZHOU Nan. Nitrogen Application Rate and Mode: Effects on Yield and Dry Matter Accumulation and Transport After Flowering of Late Indica Rice [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(9): 6-13. |
[6] | WANG Qiangqiang, YANG Zihui, GUO Shujiang, ZHANG Jianhui, WANG Duoze. Effect of Irrigation Amount on Growth and Yield of Jujube in Arid Desert Area of Minqin [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(9): 71-74. |
[7] | ZHOU Xiaohong. The Crop Yield Estimation Model Based on Multiple Regression Analysis [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(8): 152-156. |
[8] | QIN Naiqun, MA Qiaoyun, GAO Jingwei, YANG Pu, CAI Jinlan, HAO Yingchun, LI Yanmei, JI Hongce, LIAO Xiangzheng. Effects of Biogas Residue Application on Nutrient and Heavy Metal Content in Soil and Yield of Crops Under Peanut-wheat Rotation [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(8): 58-63. |
[9] | WU Zhibin, HUANG Chao, LEI Yuan, JING Feng, LIU Zhandong. Water and Fertilizer Utilization Characteristics of Winter Wheat Under Different Yield Levels [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(8): 64-71. |
[10] | ZHENG Benchuan, ZHANG Jinfang, JIANG Jun, CUI Cheng, CHAI Liang, HUANG Youtao, ZHOU Zhengjian, LI Haojie, JIANG Liangcai. Correlation Analysis of Main Traits and Yield of Brassica napus ‘Chuanyou’ Varieties with Different Maturity Stages [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(7): 7-17. |
[11] | LIU Xiaohang, MA Shuqing, ZHAO Jing, QUAN Hujie, DENG Kuicai, CHAI Qingrong. Yield Response of Japonica Rice of Northeast China to Low Temperature in Different Time Periods of Booting Stage [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(7): 91-98. |
[12] | FU Yanyan, LI Yunfeng, HAN Dong, MA Shuqing. Water Surplus and Deficit of Maize Growing Season and Its Effect on Yield in Major Grain Producing Areas of Jilin Province [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(7): 99-105. |
[13] | NIU Liya, WANG Weiwei, ZHANG Yujie, ZOU Jingwei, WANG Zhi, LU Li, WANG Fengzhi, WANG Wei, YU Liang. Wheat Quality and Yield Traits: Effects on Scores of Steamed Bread and Noodles [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(6): 129-133. |
[14] | YAO Jinbao, YANG Xueming, ZHOU Miaoping, ZHANG Peng. Analysis of Yield and Its Components of Wheat Varieties (Lines) in Jiangsu Province [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(6): 15-19. |
[15] | TIAN Yixin, GAO Fengju, CAO Pengpeng, GAO Qi. Dry Matter Accumulation and Transfer and Yield of Summer Soybean in Huang-huai-hai Region: The Response to Sowing Time [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(6): 20-25. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||