Influence of Potassium and Silicon Fertilizer on Characteristics of Stem Lodging-Resistance of Oil Flax

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0046

Abstract

Abstract:

To improve lodging resistance of oil flax with effective fertilization measures, taking ‘Longya 11’ and ‘Dingya 23’ as experimental materials, the effects of potash fertilizer and silicon fertilizer application on stem morphology, mechanical lodging resistance and yield of oil flax were studied through split zone design. The results showed that plant height, height of center gravity, stem diameter, wall thickness and bending strength of ‘Longya 11’ were significantly higher than those of ‘Dingya 23’. Under the comprehensive influence of stem morphology and mechanical lodging resistance, the lodging rate of ‘Longya 11’ increased by 21.24% and its yield decreased by 9.43% compared with those of ‘Dingya 23’. Potash fertilizer significantly improved the apparent morphological characteristics of stem lodging-resistance, enhanced stem diameter, wall thickness, stem bending strength and lodging-resistant index dramatically, while reduced plant height and height of center gravity obviously. 1000-grain weight and grain yield increased by 7.35% and 9.34%. The main effects of silicon fertilizer on stem morphology, mechanical properties and grain yield did not reach significant level, but the interaction between silicon fertilizer and potassium fertilizer significantly increased stem diameter. The comprehensive lodging resistance index was significantly affected by the morphological characteristics of stems, and was significantly and negatively correlated with plant height and height of center of gravity, and significantly and positively correlated with stem diameter and wall thickness. There was significant difference in stem lodging resistance between the varieties. Potassium fertilization significantly improved apparent morphology and mechanical properties of stems, and then increased lodging resistance. The positive interaction between potassium and silicon fertilization was significant when potassium supply was low.

Key words: potash fertilizer, silicon fertilizer, oil flax, stem characteristics, lodging resistance

CLC Number:

S565.9

Wang Yueping, Guo Lizhuo, Gao Yuhong, Liu Yahui, Gou Zhenyu, Xia Zhangxiang. Influence of Potassium and Silicon Fertilizer on Characteristics of Stem Lodging-Resistance of Oil Flax[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(36): 26-33.

Figures/Tables 7

References 43

[1]	田保明, 杨光圣, 曹刚强, 等. 农作物倒伏及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2006,22(4):163-167.
[2]	郝玉波, 于洋, 钱春荣, 等. 化控剂对东北春玉米抗倒伏性能及产量形成的影响[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2017(10):1-3.
[3]	饶玉春, 李跃, 董国军, 等. 水稻抗倒伏研究进展[J]. 中国稻米, 2009(6):15-19.
[4]	姚金保, 马鸿翔, 姚国才, 等. 小麦抗倒性研究进展[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2013,14(2):208-213.
[5]	孙盈盈, 刘婷婷, 杨海燕, 等. 油菜茎秆特性与抗倒性及产量的关联研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2014,53(20):4796-4801.
[6]	Crook M J, Ennos A R. Stem and root characteristics associated with lodging resistance in four 405 winter wheat cultivars[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1994,123:167-174.
[7]	党占海, 赵蓉英, 王敏, 等. 国际视野下胡麻研究的可视化分析[J]. 中国麻业科学, 2010,32(6):305-306.
[8]	张金. 胡麻籽的营养保健价值与产业前景[J]. 中国食品工业, 2006(03):32-34.
[9]	张雯丽. 世界亚麻籽生产、贸易格局演变与趋势探讨[J]. 世界农业, 2018(6):94-100.
[10]	万经中, 周祥春. 亚麻栽培与加工[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998.
[11]	何巧林, 张绍文, 李应洪, 等. 硅钾配施对水稻茎秆性状和抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 杂交水稻, 2017,32(01):66-73.
[12]	孙加威, 李娜, 王春雨, 等. 栽插方式和施钾量对杂交籼稻抗倒伏能力的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2017,31(12):2408-2417.
[13]	摄晓燕, 谢永生, 王辉, 等. 主要农用黄绵土典型剖面养分分布特征及历史演变[J]. 水土保持学报, 2010,24(04):69-72,77.
[14]	陈健晓, 屠乃美, 易镇邪, 等. 硅肥对超级早稻茎叶形态与抗倒伏特性的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2011,25(03):209-212.
[15]	刘唐兴, 官春云, 傅爱斌, 等. 不同抗倒性甘蓝型油菜主茎的硅钾含量初探[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2008(09): 3595, 3608.
[16]	陈道钳. 硅增强高粱耐盐及耐缺钾能力机制研究[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2017.
[17]	侯建英, 罗世武. 不同施肥水平与方法对胡麻的增产效应[J]. 内蒙古农业科技, 2009(04):33-34.
[18]	高珍妮. 油用亚麻抗倒伏特性及对栽培措施的响应[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2015.
[19]	陈新军, 戚存扣, 浦惠明, 等. 甘蓝型油菜抗倒性评价及抗倒性与株型结构的关系[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2007,29(1):54-57.
[20]	朱新开, 王祥菊, 郭凯泉, 等. 小麦倒伏的茎秆特征及对产量与品质的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2006,26(1):87-92. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1009-1041.2006.01.024 URL
[21]	鲁剑巍, 陈防, 刘冬碧, 等. 施钾水平对油菜生长发育的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2000(04):39-42.
[22]	周晓舟, 唐创业. 氮磷钾对秋玉米农艺性状和植株养分的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2008(09):27-29,33.
[23]	吴海兵, 申建宁, 胡珊珊. 硅肥对寒地水稻植株性状及产量的影响[J]. 北方水稻, 2014,44(06):12-15.
[24]	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[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2015(04):93-100.
[25]	许方雯, 徐铭泽, 孙治军, 等. 硅肥的不同施用方式对油菜生长发育的影响[J]. 现代园艺, 2018(01):11-13.
[26]	唐拴虎, 徐培智, 陈建生, 等. “新农科”水稻控释肥一次性施肥新技术示范应用效果与增产机理[J]. 广东农业科学, 2008(12):8-11.
[27]	管恩太, 赵凤兰, 陈常友, 等. 长效硅钾肥特点、营养机理与展望[J]. 地域研究与开发, 2000(04):72-74.
[28]	王显瑞, 赵敏, 张立媛, 等. 钾肥施用量对糜子产量农艺性状及倒伏性状的影响[J]. 河北农业科学, 2014,18(04):5-7,12.
[29]	邓欣, 邱财生, 陈信波, 等. 钾肥施用量影响亚麻抗倒伏性的研究[J]. 中国麻业科学, 2014,36(04):194-198.
[30]	范永义. 硅钾处理对杂交水稻B优827抗倒伏性和产量的影响[D]. 绵阳:西南科技大学, 2018.
[31]	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[J]. 作物学报, 2012,38(11):2093-2099. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2012.02093 URL
[32]	金正勋, 郑冠龙, 朱立楠, 等. 不同氮钾施用方法对水稻产量及抗倒伏性的影响[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2015,46(3):9-14.
[33]	Liang S J, Li Z Q, Li X J, et al. Effects of stem structural characters and silicon content on lodging resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L.)[J]. Research on Crops, 2013,14(3):621-636.
[34]	刘红芳. 硅对水稻倒伏和白叶枯病抗性的影响[D]. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2015.
[35]	Li W J, He P, Jin J Y. Effect of potassium on ultrastructure of maize stalk pith and young root and their relation to resistance to stalk rot[J]. Sci Agric Sin, 2010,43(4):729-736
[36]	Ookawa T, Ishihara K. Vari, et al. Varietal difference of physical characteristic of the culm related to lodging resistance in paddy rice[J]. Japanese Journal of Cop Science, 1992,61(3):419-425.
[37]	王艳红, 邓国季, 戴鹏, 等. 喷施叶面硅肥对Y两优143产量的影响[J]. 杂交水稻, 2017,32(04):51-53.
[38]	王思哲, 温圣贤, 邓文, 等. 硅肥在水稻上的应用研究进展[J]. 作物研究, 2007(S1):620-624.
[39]	范存留, 杨国涛, 范永义, 等. 钾、硅肥处理对杂交水稻Ⅱ优838抗倒伏性的作用研究[J]. 云南大学学报:自然科学版, 2015,37(04):623-631.
[40]	韦叶娜, 杨国涛, 范永义, 等. 不同肥料处理对‘Ⅱ优725’茎秆物理性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(09):15-19.
[41]	向达兵. 钾对套作大豆的抗倒伏效应与提高产量的机理研究[D]. 雅安:四川农业大学, 2012.
[42]	胡泓, 王光火. 钾肥对杂交水稻养分积累以及生理效率的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2003(02):184-189.
[43]	牟英辉, 陈志梁, 程艳波, 等. 硅肥对大豆农艺性状、产量及品质的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2012,31(04):625-629.

处理			倒伏程度	倒伏率/%
V1	K0	Si0	3	98.21a
	K0	Si1	3	93.42a
	K1	Si0	3	93.21a
	K1	Si1	3	93.69a
	K2	Si0	3	97.12a
	K2	Si1	3	97.6a
V2	K0	Si0	2	86.6ab
	K0	Si1	2	90.32a
	K1	Si0	2	87.21ab
	K1	Si1	3	69.87c
	K2	Si0	2	72.54bc
	K2	Si1	2	66.29c

处理			倒伏程度	倒伏率/%
V1	K0	Si0	3	98.21a
	K0	Si1	3	93.42a
	K1	Si0	3	93.21a
	K1	Si1	3	93.69a
	K2	Si0	3	97.12a
	K2	Si1	3	97.6a
V2	K0	Si0	2	86.6ab
	K0	Si1	2	90.32a
	K1	Si0	2	87.21ab
	K1	Si1	3	69.87c
	K2	Si0	2	72.54bc
	K2	Si1	2	66.29c

处理			株高/cm	重心高度/cm	茎粗/mm	壁厚/mm
V1	K0	Si0	72.12a	49.40a	3.56bcd	0.838ab
	K0	Si1	71.87a	47.90ab	3.70bcd	0.875a
	K1	Si0	68.52ab	47.40ab	3.80bc	0.897a
	K1	Si1	68.00ab	46.95ab	3.97ab	0.925a
	K2	Si0	65.72ab	39.58cd	4.32a	0.947a
	K2	Si1	66.02ab	43.70bc	3.81bc	0.812abc
V2	K0	Si0	62.45bc	36.63de	3.25d	0.655c
	K0	Si1	59.00cd	35.90de	3.40cd	0.688bc
	K1	Si0	56.12cd	35.78de	3.59bcd	0.812abc
	K1	Si1	53.63d	34.82de	3.912ab	0.882a
	K2	Si0	53.15d	32.58e	3.93ab	0.865a
	K2	Si1	54.83d	34.93de	3.64bcd	0.980a
V			95.706^**	40.323^**	7.218^*	4.715^*
K			9.611^**	53.371^**	9.378^**	7.188^**
Si			0.409	1.063	0.001	0.612
V*K			0.25	1.636	0.371	4.356*
V*Si			0.265	0.571	0.539	2.313
K*Si			0.522	1.627	5.2*	0.319
VKSi			0.305	1.846	0.133	1.525

处理			株高/cm	重心高度/cm	茎粗/mm	壁厚/mm
V1	K0	Si0	72.12a	49.40a	3.56bcd	0.838ab
	K0	Si1	71.87a	47.90ab	3.70bcd	0.875a
	K1	Si0	68.52ab	47.40ab	3.80bc	0.897a
	K1	Si1	68.00ab	46.95ab	3.97ab	0.925a
	K2	Si0	65.72ab	39.58cd	4.32a	0.947a
	K2	Si1	66.02ab	43.70bc	3.81bc	0.812abc
V2	K0	Si0	62.45bc	36.63de	3.25d	0.655c
	K0	Si1	59.00cd	35.90de	3.40cd	0.688bc
	K1	Si0	56.12cd	35.78de	3.59bcd	0.812abc
	K1	Si1	53.63d	34.82de	3.912ab	0.882a
	K2	Si0	53.15d	32.58e	3.93ab	0.865a
	K2	Si1	54.83d	34.93de	3.64bcd	0.980a
V			95.706^**	40.323^**	7.218^*	4.715^*
K			9.611^**	53.371^**	9.378^**	7.188^**
Si			0.409	1.063	0.001	0.612
V*K			0.25	1.636	0.371	4.356*
V*Si			0.265	0.571	0.539	2.313
K*Si			0.522	1.627	5.2*	0.319
VKSi			0.305	1.846	0.133	1.525

处理	茎秆抗折力	抗倒伏指数
V	6.537^*	2.336
K	4.642^**	13.526^*
Si	0.606	0.666
V*K	9.105^**	0.395
V*Si	0	0.159
K*Si	4.296^*	0.031
VKSi	0.359	0.095