Response Characteristics of Cotton Dry Matter Accumulation and Transportation to Density and Row Spacing Configuration

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0414

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to clarify the response mechanism of dry matter accumulation and transportation and yield traits to the difference of planting density and row spacing, and promote the popularization of cotton varieties and the innovation of planting technology, in this study, ‘Zhongmiansuo 641’ was used as the experimental material, and the planting patterns of 76 cm equal row (SP) and (66 cm+10 cm) wide and narrow row (DP) were adopted. Three planting densities were set, including I: low density of 1.2×10⁵ plants/hm²; II: medium density of 1.8×10⁵ plants/hm²; and Ⅲ: high density of 2.4×10⁵ plants/hm². The Logistic curve equation was applied to analyze the data. The ∆T of cotton treated with SP Ⅱ in 2020 and 2021 was 54.7 days and 55.6 days, respectively. The duration of rapid accumulation of dry matter in vegetative organs in 2020 and 2021 was 33.3 days and 38 days, respectively, and the maximum accumulation rate was 1.13 g /(plant·d), higher than that of other treatments. The duration of rapid accumulation of dry matter in reproductive organs was 35.26 days and 25.79 days in 2020 and 2021, respectively, and the maximum accumulation rate was 1.05 g/(plant·d). The two-year experimental data showed that the dry matter conversion per plant of cotton treated with SP Ⅱ was the highest before and after anthesis. The yield of seed cotton treated with SP Ⅱ was 5359.48 kg/hm² and 5151.00 kg/hm² in 2020 and 2021 respectively, and the number of bolls per plant was 6.12. The response of yield to row spacing difference is stronger than that to density difference. The equal row spacing planting mode of 1.8×10⁵ plants/hm² is conducive to making full use of light and heat resources, promoting dry matter accumulation and transportation, and improving the yield of seed cotton.

Key words: cotton, density, row spacing configuration, dry matter, yield

LIU Jintao, CHEN Guodong, WAN Sumei, ZHAI Yunlong, MAO Tingyong, LUO Lei, HU Qiang, MA Yunzhen, LI Yabing, FENG Lu, YANG Beifang, CAO Juan, ZHOU Xiang, LIN Feng. Response Characteristics of Cotton Dry Matter Accumulation and Transportation to Density and Row Spacing Configuration[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(14): 12-19.

Figures/Tables 9

References 30

[1]	马春玥, 买买提·沙吾提, 姚杰, 等. 1950—2015年中国棉花生产时空动态变化[J]. 地理学报, 2020, 75(8):1699-1710. doi: 10.11821/dlxb202008010
[2]	王俊铎, 梁亚军, 龚照龙, 等. 新疆植棉区2019年棉花种业报告[J]. 棉花科学, 2021, 43(1):3-10.
[3]	娄善伟, 董合忠, 田晓莉, 等. 新疆棉花“矮、密、早”栽培历史、现状和展望[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(4):720-732. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.04.005
[4]	毛树春, 李亚兵, 董合忠, 等. 中国棉花辉煌70年——我国走出了一条适合国情,具有中国特色的棉花发展道路,发展模式和发展理论[J]. 中国棉花, 2019, 46(7):1-14.
[5]	李雪源, 王俊铎, 梁亚军, 等. 新疆棉花质量效益规模分析与发展适度规模下的质量效益型棉业[C]. 中国农学会棉花分会2016年年会论文汇编, 2016:17-28.
[6]	毛树春. 我国棉花种植技术的应用和发展[J]. 中国棉花, 2009, 36(9):17-22.
[7]	李雪源, 王俊铎, 郑巨云, 等. 新疆棉花产业发展与供给侧改革[C]. 中国农学会棉花分会2017年年会暨第九次会员代表大会论文汇编, 2017:13-21.
[8]	吴博, 练文明, 喻树迅, 等. 无膜滴灌栽培条件下不同棉花品种、密度和播期对其生长的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(3):393-404. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2018.03.001
[9]	刘金仓, 阳会兵, 杨俊兴, 等. 密度与种植方式对棉花生育特性及产量品质影响[J]. 棉花科学, 2017, 39(1):22-27.
[10]	周相, 冯璐, 刘锦涛, 等. 不同种植方式和密度对棉花干物质积累特征及产量形成的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2022, 54(3):43-48.
[11]	李猛, 陈现平, 张建, 等. 不同密度与行距配置对紧凑型玉米产量效应的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(8):132-136.
[12]	朱云集, 郭汝礼, 郭天财, 等. 行距配置与密度对兰考906群体质量及产量的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2001(2):62-66.
[13]	刘丽平, 胡焕焕, 李瑞奇, 等. 行距配置和密度对冬小麦品种河农822群体质量及产量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2008(2):125-131. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2008.02.029
[14]	宋启建, 吴天侠, 邱家驯, 等. 夏大豆群体结构对不同类型品种产量及农艺性状的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 1995(1):40-46.
[15]	魏永鹏, 南丽丽, 于闯, 等. 种植密度和行距配置对紫花苜蓿群体产量及品质的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2017, 34(9):1898-1905.
[16]	王向阳, 孟战赢, 王育红, 等. 豫西地区株行距配置对夏玉米产量及灌浆特性的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2013, 21(4):94-100.
[17]	蒯婕, 李真, 汪波, 等. 密度和行距配置对油菜苗期性状及产量形成的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(11):2319-2332. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.11.006
[18]	李建峰, 王聪, 梁福斌, 等. 新疆机采模式下棉花株行距配置对冠层结构指标及产量的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2017, 29(2):157-165.
[19]	姜艳, 王鹏, 徐飞, 等. 种植模式对机采棉生长及棉田水分利用效率的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2021, 30(1):93-101.
[20]	NICHOLS S P, SNIPES C E, JONES M A, et al. Evaluation of row spacing and mepiquat chloride on cotton[J]. Journal of cotton science, 2015, 7:148-155.
[21]	BRODRICK R, BANGE M. Yield and maturity of ultra-narrow row cotton in high input production systems[J]. Agronomy journal, 2011, 102:843-848. doi: 10.2134/agronj2009.0473 URL
[22]	田艺心, 高凤菊, 曹鹏鹏, 等. 黄淮海夏大豆干物质积累、转运及产量对播期的响应特征[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(6):20-25. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0405
[23]	尔晨, 林涛, 张昊, 等. 行距对机采棉干物质积累及氮磷利用效率的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2020, 32(1):77-90.
[24]	程林, 郑新疆, 朱晓平, 等. 一膜三行等行距栽培模式对棉花生长及产量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2017, 45(1):44-45,48.
[25]	刘郁娜, 陈飞虎, 胥新强, 等. 杏棉间作田间配置对棉花生长发育及棉铃时空分布的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2013, 25(1):37-44.
[26]	辛明华, 王占彪, 李小飞, 等. 南疆棉区机采种植模式下棉花种植密度研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 2020, 52(1):46-52.
[27]	卜学平, 周永萍, 李书民, 等. 不同密度对棉花生长、结铃及产量的影响[J]. 现代农村科技, 2018(3):56.
[28]	霍飞超, 李鹏程, 李运海, 等. 棉花1膜3行模式下密度和缩节胺用量优化组合[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(6):1039-1048. doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2020.06.007
[29]	张旺锋, 王振林, 余松烈, 等. 种植密度对新疆高产棉花群体光合作用、冠层结构及产量形成的影响[J]. 植物生态学报, 2004(2):164-171. doi: 10.17521/cjpe.2004.0024
[30]	陈超, 潘学标, 张立祯, 等. 种植密度对棉花产量构成、成铃和棉铃性状分布的影响[J]. 中国棉花, 2012, 39(1):16-21.

年份	有机质含量/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	pH
2020	10.77	83.31	0.6	24.95	186.3	7.6
2021	10.81	82.44	0.58	25.02	179.4	7.7

年份	有机质含量/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	pH
2020	10.77	83.31	0.6	24.95	186.3	7.6
2021	10.81	82.44	0.58	25.02	179.4	7.7

月份	平均温度/℃		日辐射/[μmol/(s·m²)]		降雨量/mm		日照时间/h
月份	2020	2021	2020	2021	2020	2021	2020	2021
4	17.4	15	125	114	0.5	1.4	5.5	7.2
5	22.9	21.6	202.4	214.1	0	20.5	6.3	7.9
6	23.8	25.1	218.6	214,2	1.9	8.8	9.1	9.9
7	24.8	26.5	242.6	235.9	12.3	13	9.5	8.7
8	25.4	23.8	268.8	255.3	2.4	3.1	8.4	8.2
9	19.9	21.1	230.1	232.1	0.5	3.3	6.7	9.8
10	11.7	10.8	205.1	217.8	0	1.2	5.6	7.3

月份	平均温度/℃		日辐射/[μmol/(s·m²)]		降雨量/mm		日照时间/h
月份	2020	2021	2020	2021	2020	2021	2020	2021
4	17.4	15	125	114	0.5	1.4	5.5	7.2
5	22.9	21.6	202.4	214.1	0	20.5	6.3	7.9
6	23.8	25.1	218.6	214,2	1.9	8.8	9.1	9.9
7	24.8	26.5	242.6	235.9	12.3	13	9.5	8.7
8	25.4	23.8	268.8	255.3	2.4	3.1	8.4	8.2
9	19.9	21.1	230.1	232.1	0.5	3.3	6.7	9.8
10	11.7	10.8	205.1	217.8	0	1.2	5.6	7.3

年份	处理	TPA/(kg/hm²)	t₁/d	t₂/d	∆T/d	V_max/[kg/(hm²·d)]	R²
2020	SPⅠ	14270.7	44.0	91.1	47.1	199.4	0.95^**
	SPⅡ	16786.0	43.8	98.5	54.7	171.3	0.92^**
	SPⅢ	18260.7	46.0	92.6	45.6	241.5	0.87^**
	DPⅠ	12479.2	45.5	88.2	42.7	162.5	0.98^**
	DPⅡ	15787.1	45.9	79.3	33.4	263.9	0.98^**
	DPⅢ	17670.2	46.1	69.9	23.8	269.6	0.89^**
2021	SPⅠ	14622.3	50.8	96.8	46.0	213.9	0.97^**
	SPⅡ	16017.4	46.4	102	55.6	197.0	0.97^**
	SPⅢ	18196.9	51.5	95.6	44.1	284.8	0.86^**
	DPⅠ	13029.4	48.0	90.8	42.6	166.5	0.96^**
	DPⅡ	15763.0	48.2	86.3	38.1	272.9	0.86^**
	DPⅢ	17267.6	48.7	80.9	32.2	282.8	0.90^**