Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2024, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (16): 13-20.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0518
Previous Articles Next Articles
WU Xiaoli(), LI Chaosu, LIU Miao, LI Ming, LI Shizhao, XIONG Tao, TANG Yonglu(
)
Received:
2023-07-19
Revised:
2023-10-22
Online:
2024-05-30
Published:
2024-05-30
WU Xiaoli, LI Chaosu, LIU Miao, LI Ming, LI Shizhao, XIONG Tao, TANG Yonglu. Effects of Tillage Method and Chemical Treatments on Yield of Wheat and Occurrence of Fusarium Head Blight[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(16): 13-20.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0518
年份 | 耕作方式 | 处理 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 千粒重/g | 穗粒数 | 有效穗/(万/hm2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | 旋耕+秸秆深埋 | T1 | 4635c | 54.44a | 31.38a | 4005b |
T2 | 4590c | 56.16a | 32.27a | 3945b | ||
T3 | 6180b | 53.20a | 33.63a | 4350ab | ||
免耕+秸秆覆盖 | T1 | 7275b | 56.75a | 35.29a | 6045a | |
T2 | 7290b | 54.61a | 35.91a | 5475ab | ||
T3 | 7785a | 54.70a | 34.86a | 6045a | ||
2022 | 旋耕+秸秆深埋 | T1 | 6585c | 51.70a | 41.08a | 5010b |
T2 | 7005bc | 53.06a | 44.98a | 5100b | ||
T3 | 7395bc | 51.06a | 37.96a | 4950b | ||
免耕+秸秆覆盖 | T1 | 7830b | 47.26b | 40.02a | 6450a | |
T2 | 8640a | 48.38b | 41.45a | 6615a | ||
T3 | 8265ab | 50.44a | 38.05a | 6495a |
年份 | 耕作方式 | 处理 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 千粒重/g | 穗粒数 | 有效穗/(万/hm2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020 | 旋耕+秸秆深埋 | T1 | 4635c | 54.44a | 31.38a | 4005b |
T2 | 4590c | 56.16a | 32.27a | 3945b | ||
T3 | 6180b | 53.20a | 33.63a | 4350ab | ||
免耕+秸秆覆盖 | T1 | 7275b | 56.75a | 35.29a | 6045a | |
T2 | 7290b | 54.61a | 35.91a | 5475ab | ||
T3 | 7785a | 54.70a | 34.86a | 6045a | ||
2022 | 旋耕+秸秆深埋 | T1 | 6585c | 51.70a | 41.08a | 5010b |
T2 | 7005bc | 53.06a | 44.98a | 5100b | ||
T3 | 7395bc | 51.06a | 37.96a | 4950b | ||
免耕+秸秆覆盖 | T1 | 7830b | 47.26b | 40.02a | 6450a | |
T2 | 8640a | 48.38b | 41.45a | 6615a | ||
T3 | 8265ab | 50.44a | 38.05a | 6495a |
指标 | 处理 | 川麦88 | 川麦618 | 内麦416 | 蜀麦133 | 绵麦902 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量/(kg/hm2) | T1 | 6495b | 6450c | 7035b | 7305b | 6975b | ||||||
T2 | 7995a | 7770b | 7860a | 7755a | 8775a | |||||||
T3 | 7770ab | 8415a | 7080b | 7995a | 7305b | |||||||
平均 | 7420 | 7545 | 7325 | 7685 | 7685 | |||||||
千粒重/g | T1 | 51.38a | 47.54a | 54.85a | 49.97a | 43.67b | ||||||
T2 | 51.90a | 49.23a | 53.19a | 50.05a | 49.21a | |||||||
T3 | 58.07a | 47.19a | 53.99a | 50.58a | 43.92b | |||||||
平均 | 53.78 | 47.99 | 54.01 | 50.20 | 45.60 | |||||||
穗粒数 | T1 | 39.56ab | 39.58b | 41.25a | 45.19a | 37.15b | ||||||
T2 | 42.57a | 45.51a | 42.02a | 42.00a | 43.99a | |||||||
T3 | 30.32b | 39.98b | 38.43b | 44.50a | 36.81b | |||||||
平均 | 37.48 | 41.69 | 40.57 | 43.90 | 39.32 | |||||||
穗数/(万/hm2) | T1 | 5790b | 5130b | 5325a | 5940a | 6450a | ||||||
T2 | 6045a | 5070b | 5430a | 5970a | 6225a | |||||||
T3 | 6195a | 5625a | 5115a | 5955a | 6300ab | |||||||
平均 | 6010 | 5275 | 5290 | 5955 | 6325 |
指标 | 处理 | 川麦88 | 川麦618 | 内麦416 | 蜀麦133 | 绵麦902 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量/(kg/hm2) | T1 | 6495b | 6450c | 7035b | 7305b | 6975b | ||||||
T2 | 7995a | 7770b | 7860a | 7755a | 8775a | |||||||
T3 | 7770ab | 8415a | 7080b | 7995a | 7305b | |||||||
平均 | 7420 | 7545 | 7325 | 7685 | 7685 | |||||||
千粒重/g | T1 | 51.38a | 47.54a | 54.85a | 49.97a | 43.67b | ||||||
T2 | 51.90a | 49.23a | 53.19a | 50.05a | 49.21a | |||||||
T3 | 58.07a | 47.19a | 53.99a | 50.58a | 43.92b | |||||||
平均 | 53.78 | 47.99 | 54.01 | 50.20 | 45.60 | |||||||
穗粒数 | T1 | 39.56ab | 39.58b | 41.25a | 45.19a | 37.15b | ||||||
T2 | 42.57a | 45.51a | 42.02a | 42.00a | 43.99a | |||||||
T3 | 30.32b | 39.98b | 38.43b | 44.50a | 36.81b | |||||||
平均 | 37.48 | 41.69 | 40.57 | 43.90 | 39.32 | |||||||
穗数/(万/hm2) | T1 | 5790b | 5130b | 5325a | 5940a | 6450a | ||||||
T2 | 6045a | 5070b | 5430a | 5970a | 6225a | |||||||
T3 | 6195a | 5625a | 5115a | 5955a | 6300ab | |||||||
平均 | 6010 | 5275 | 5290 | 5955 | 6325 |
指标 | 处理 | 川麦88 | 川麦618 | 内麦416 | 蜀麦133 | 绵麦902 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
病穗率 | T1 | 1.24a | 1.72a | 1.35a | 4.54a | 29.74a |
T2 | 0.33c | 0.58b | 0.48c | 0.78b | 7.52b | |
T3 | 0.90b | 1.55a | 0.95b | 3.28a | 23.53a | |
平均 | 0.82 | 1.28 | 0.93 | 2.87 | 20.26 | |
病穗防效 | T2 | 73.44a | 66.24a | 64.19a | 82.87a | 74.71a |
T3 | 26.96b | 9.88b | 29.63b | 27.72b | 20.88b | |
平均 | 33.74 | 25.80 | 31.58 | 37.82 | 38.62 | |
病籽率 | T1 | 0.13a | 0.57a | 1.19a | 1.39a | 15.65a |
T2 | 0.12a | 0.28b | 0.26c | 0.04c | 2.08c | |
T3 | 0.14a | 0.39b | 0.72b | 0.95b | 10.47b | |
平均 | 0.13 | 0.41 | 0.72 | 0.79 | 9.40 |
指标 | 处理 | 川麦88 | 川麦618 | 内麦416 | 蜀麦133 | 绵麦902 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
病穗率 | T1 | 1.24a | 1.72a | 1.35a | 4.54a | 29.74a |
T2 | 0.33c | 0.58b | 0.48c | 0.78b | 7.52b | |
T3 | 0.90b | 1.55a | 0.95b | 3.28a | 23.53a | |
平均 | 0.82 | 1.28 | 0.93 | 2.87 | 20.26 | |
病穗防效 | T2 | 73.44a | 66.24a | 64.19a | 82.87a | 74.71a |
T3 | 26.96b | 9.88b | 29.63b | 27.72b | 20.88b | |
平均 | 33.74 | 25.80 | 31.58 | 37.82 | 38.62 | |
病籽率 | T1 | 0.13a | 0.57a | 1.19a | 1.39a | 15.65a |
T2 | 0.12a | 0.28b | 0.26c | 0.04c | 2.08c | |
T3 | 0.14a | 0.39b | 0.72b | 0.95b | 10.47b | |
平均 | 0.13 | 0.41 | 0.72 | 0.79 | 9.40 |
层次 | 处理 | 3月10日 | 3月20日 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
旋耕+秸秆深埋 | 免耕+秸秆覆盖 | 旋耕+秸秆深埋 | 免耕+秸秆覆盖 | |||
0~1 cm | T1 | 176.7a | 171.8a | 975.3a | 306.1a | |
T2 | 68.8b | 70.7b | 787.2b | 209.3b | ||
T3 | 68.3b | 60.6c | 443.6c | 177.1c | ||
9~11 cm | T1 | 114.0a | 117.8a | 629.9a | 309.6a | |
T2 | 4.7b | 3.5b | 309.9b | 48.7b | ||
T3 | 16.1b | 9.7b | 121.8c | 70.4b |
层次 | 处理 | 3月10日 | 3月20日 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
旋耕+秸秆深埋 | 免耕+秸秆覆盖 | 旋耕+秸秆深埋 | 免耕+秸秆覆盖 | |||
0~1 cm | T1 | 176.7a | 171.8a | 975.3a | 306.1a | |
T2 | 68.8b | 70.7b | 787.2b | 209.3b | ||
T3 | 68.3b | 60.6c | 443.6c | 177.1c | ||
9~11 cm | T1 | 114.0a | 117.8a | 629.9a | 309.6a | |
T2 | 4.7b | 3.5b | 309.9b | 48.7b | ||
T3 | 16.1b | 9.7b | 121.8c | 70.4b |
品种 | 旋耕+秸秆旋埋 | 免耕+秸秆覆盖 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | ||
川麦88 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1685 | 1170 | 1280 | |
川麦618 | 64 | 8 | 21 | 845 | 625 | 763 | |
内麦416 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 551 | 493 | 790 | |
蜀麦133 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2613 | 244 | 478 | |
绵麦902 | 19 | 3 | 10 | 1618 | 668 | 936 |
品种 | 旋耕+秸秆旋埋 | 免耕+秸秆覆盖 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T1 | T2 | T3 | ||
川麦88 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1685 | 1170 | 1280 | |
川麦618 | 64 | 8 | 21 | 845 | 625 | 763 | |
内麦416 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 551 | 493 | 790 | |
蜀麦133 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2613 | 244 | 478 | |
绵麦902 | 19 | 3 | 10 | 1618 | 668 | 936 |
[1] |
陈怀谷. 小麦赤霉病综合防控技术[J]. 农村新技术, 2019(1):2.
|
[2] |
马忠华, 陈云, 尹燕妮. 小麦赤霉病流行成灾原因分析及防控对策探讨[J]. 中国科学基金, 2020, 34(4):464-469.
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
段云辉, 李勇, 孙国俊, 等. 长期不同施肥方式对稻麦轮作田小麦赤霉病发生危害的影响[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2017, 34(3):28-31.
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
刘同金, 李瑞娟, 宋国春, 等. 吡唑醚菌酯对小麦赤霉病的防效及在小麦籽粒中的残留[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(21):159-164.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18020073 |
[7] |
乔玉强, 曹承富, 赵竹, 等. 秸秆还田与施氮量对小麦产量和品质及赤霉病发生的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2013, 33(4):727-731.
|
[8] |
杨立军, 杨泽富, 张俊华, 等. 秸秆腐熟剂对稻麦轮作田小麦赤霉病发生的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2022, 50(5):132-134,169.
|
[9] |
葛昌斌, 秦素研, 张俊华, 等. 耕作方式对小麦赤霉病和产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022(5):235-240.
|
[10] |
姚克兵, 庄义庆, 尹升, 等. 江苏小麦赤霉病综合防控关键技术研究[J]. 植物保护, 2018, 44(1):205-209.
|
[11] |
籍增顺, 张乃生, 刘杰. 旱地玉米免耕整秸秆半覆盖技术体系及其评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 1995, 13(2):14-19.
|
[12] |
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05683-7 pmid: 30143616 |
[13] |
邓云, 江文清, 周仕全, 等. 南平市小麦赤霉病发生和气象条件的关系[J]. 福建稻麦科技, 2011, 29(4):32-35.
|
[14] |
赵亚丽, 郭海斌, 薛志伟, 等. 耕作方式与秸秆还田对土壤微生物数量、酶活性及作物产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(6):1785-1792.
|
[15] |
刘红军, 侯清松. 小麦赤霉病的发生发展及抗赤资源利用[J]. 小麦研究, 2014, 35(1):11-17.
|
[16] |
李朝苏, 李明, 吴晓丽, 等. 耕作播种方式对稻茬小麦生长和养分吸收利用的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(5):1435-1442.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202005.025 |
[17] |
李明, 李朝苏, 刘淼, 等. 耕作播种方式对稻茬小麦根系发育、土壤水分和硝态氮含量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(5):1425-1434.
doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202005.027 |
[18] |
|
[19] |
陈云, 王建强, 杨荣明, 等. 小麦赤霉病发生危害形势及防控对策[J]. 植物保护, 2017, 43(5):11-17.
|
[20] |
穆长安, 李志. 秸秆还田对黄淮地区农作物病虫害的影响及防治对策[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(11):179-180,189.
|
[21] |
张曼玉. 小麦赤霉病菌孢子释放规律研究[D]. 合肥: 安徽农业大学, 2021.
|
[1] | QIE Tianzhen, LI Fu, LI Yahua, WANG Lifang, ZHANG Tingting, ZHANG Jiaqian, WANG Hongwei, ZHANG Dejian. Effects of Tillage Methods on Soil Chemical Properties Under Straw Returning Condition [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(21): 58-69. |
[2] | ZHANG Qi, LIU Haitao, TIAN Jing, YAO Li, WANG Hong, LIN Chaowen. Effects of Tillage Methods on Heavy Metal Cadmium Accumulation in Rice-Wheat Rotation System in Chengdu Plain [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(19): 109-113. |
[3] | Luo Jinfeng, Xiao Xu, Jie Hongdong, Xing Hucheng, Jie Yucheng, Zhou Jinghua, Tian Zuqing. Effects on Agronomic Traits of Barley in Dongting Lake Area: Sowing Date, Tillage Methods and Fertilization [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(18): 16-21. |
[4] | . Effect of Tillage Method and Straw Mulching on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Peanut Yield [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2017, 33(5): 61-65. |
[5] | . Effects of Tillage and Seeding Patterns on Wheat Seedling Emergence and Yield with Rice Straw Return [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2017, 33(10): 19-22. |
[6] | . Study of Characteristic of Nutrient Releasing of Maize Straw with Two Tillage Methods [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(9): 133-136. |
[7] | peng pei hao and . Assessment of Accumulation Characteristics and Pollution of Lead and Cadmium in Soil-Ligusticum chuanxiong System Under Different Tillage Methods [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(31): 199-204. |
[8] | . Effects of Different Tillage Methods on Maize Yield and Soil Physical and Chemical Characters of Maize Field [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(12): 209-213. |
[9] | Yan Binlun, Li Shihu, Wang Ducai, Dai Yan, Shi Dongqing, Xu Jiatao, Xu Guocheng, Luo Gang. Application of Microbiological Preparation to Control of Water Quality in Factory Breeding of Eriocheir sinensis [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2005, 21(3): 329-329. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||