Impact of Different Crop Rotation Patterns on Quality of Premium-tasting Japonica Rice and Regulatory Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0627

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aimed to investigate the effects of different crop rotation patterns and nitrogen fertilizer strategies on the quality of premium-tasting japonica rice. Experiments were conducted by using three crop rotation patterns, including rice-wheat, rice-milk vetch, and rice-morchella. Two nitrogen fertilizer levels were set, including 10% reduction and the regular application rate. Additionally, four nitrogen fertilizer ratios were set based on the base tiller fertilizer to panicle fertilizer ratio. The results indicated that the rice-morchella rotation pattern, combined with 10% reduction in fertilizer application and 6:4 nitrogen fertilizer strategies, was most effective in optimizing the processing and appearance quality of rice. The brown rice rate, milled rice rate, and heading rice rate reached 85.17%, 80.38%, and 72.60%, respectively. The chalky grain rate, chalky size, and chalkiness were 7.33%, 18.17%, and 1.33%, respectively. In terms of cooking taste and nutritional quality, the rice-milk vetch rotation combined with 10% reduction in nitrogen fertilizer and 6:4 nitrogen fertilizer ratio was the best, and the amylose content, gel consistency, and protein content were 13.68%, 83.94 mm, and 6.65 g/100g, respectively. The rice-morchella rotation, with 10% reduction and 6:4 fertilizer ratio, amylose content, gel consistency, and protein content were 12.41%, 85.14 mm, and 6.23 g/100 g, respectively, which was a relatively better combination. RVA spectrum analysis revealed that both the rice-milk vetch and rice-morchella rotations demonstrated elevated peak viscosity, hot paste viscosity, and breakdown values under 10% reduction and 6:4 ratio. In conclusion, the study confirmed that the quality of premium-tasting japonica rice could be effectively enhanced through reasonable crop rotation and nitrogen fertilizer management strategy. The rice-morchella and rice-milk vetch rotations had positive effects on the processing quality, appearance, cooking taste, nutritional attributes, and RVA spectrum values of rice when subjected to 10% nitrogen reduction and 6:4 fertilizer strategies.

Key words: crop rotation patterns, nitrogen fertilizer strategies, rice quality, premium-tasting japonica rice, RVA spectrum characteristics

SONG Yunsheng, GU Junrong, JIN Meijuan, CAO Penghui, YU Yajie, YUAN Caiyong, DONG Minghui. Impact of Different Crop Rotation Patterns on Quality of Premium-tasting Japonica Rice and Regulatory Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(20): 1-8.

Figures/Tables 8

References 34

[1]	王才林, 张亚东, 朱镇, 等. 水稻优质抗病高产育种的研究与实践[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2012, 28(5):921-927.
[2]	吕川根. 栽培密度和施肥方法对稻米品质影响的研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 1988, 2(3):141.
[3]	王淑彬, 林青, 黄国勤. 轮作对稻米品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(33):137-141.
[4]	剧成欣, 陈尧杰, 赵步洪, 等. 实地氮肥管理对不同氮响应粳稻品种产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2018, 32(3):237-246. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2018.7102 237
[5]	袁晓娟, 孙知白, 杨永刚, 等. 3种复种模式下秸秆还田对机插杂交籼稻产量形成及品质的影响[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2022, 40(3):319-330.
[6]	高菊生, 徐明岗, 曹卫东, 等. 长期稻-稻-紫云英轮作28年对水稻产量及田间杂草多样性影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010(17):155-159.
[7]	何琳华, 徐蕊, 嵇伟彬, 等. 苏南地区稻茬羊肚菌栽培关键技术[J]. 食用菌, 2019, 41(1):54-55.
[8]	吴玉红, 王吕, 崔月贞, 等. 轮作模式及秸秆还田对水稻产量,稻米品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2021, 27(11):1926-1937.
[9]	巨晓棠, 张翀. 论合理施氮的原则和指标[J]. 土壤学报, 2021, 58(1):1-13.
[10]	魏海燕, 王亚江, 孟天瑶, 等. 机插超级粳稻产量,品质及氮肥利用率对氮肥的响应[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(2):488-496.
[11]	贾东, 孙雅君, 韩雷, 等. 氮肥不同用量对北方粳稻群体质量及品质的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2017, 23(2):71-74. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2017.02.018
[12]	殷春渊, 王书玉, 薛应征, 等. 水稻高产,优质和氮高效协同的氮素调控研究[J]. 西北农业学报, 2015, 24(1):68-72.
[13]	BAI N, ZHANG H, LI S, et al. Long-term effects of straw and straw-derived biochar on soil aggregation and fungal community in a rice-wheat rotation system[J]. PeerJ, 2019, 6:e6171.
[14]	SAIKIA R, SHARMA S, THIND H S, et al. Temporal changes in biochemical indicators of soil quality in response to tillage, crop residue and green manure management in a rice-wheat system[J]. Ecological indicators, 2019, 103:383-394.
[15]	颜志雷, 方宇, 陈济琛, 等. 连年翻压紫云英对稻田土壤养分和微生物学特性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014(5):1151-1160.
[16]	林郸, 李郁, 孙永健, 等. 不同轮作模式下秸秆还田与氮肥运筹对杂交籼稻产量及米质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2020, 28(10):1581-1590.
[17]	刘天海, 羊淑琴, 刘付彭, 等. 麦秸鸡粪发酵有机肥对六妹羊肚菌连作的影响[J]. 生物技术通报, 2022, 38(12):263-273. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2022-0123
[18]	张津京, 高子琼, 杜军华, 等. 栽培梯棱羊肚菌对上海设施蔬菜大棚土壤理化性质和酶活力的影响[J]. 食用菌学报, 2020, 27(4):65-71.
[19]	王杰鹏, 王德琦, 姚利, 等. 农用微生物菌剂对水稻产量的影响[J]. 天津农林科技, 2019(1):16-18.
[20]	汤文光, 唐海明, 罗尊长, 等. 不同种植模式对稻田土壤重金属含量及晚稻稻米品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2011, 37(8):1457-1464.
[21]	周玲红, 魏甲彬, 唐先亮, 等. 冬季种养结合对稻田土壤微生物量及有效碳氮库的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(11):103-114. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2016032
[22]	田伟, 李刚, 陈秋会, 等. 等氮条件下化学肥料与有机肥连续大量施用下的环境风险[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2017, 33(5):440-445.
[23]	张国发, 侯朋福, 章建伟, 等. 长江下游典型稻麦轮作农田作物生产的限制养分分析[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2022, 45(3):465-473.
[24]	胡群, 夏敏, 张洪程, 等. 氮肥运筹对钵苗机插优质食味水稻产量及品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(3):420-431.
[25]	刘代银, 伍菊仙, 任万军, 等. 氮肥运筹对免耕高留茬抛秧稻氮素吸收,运转和子粒品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2009(3):514-521.
[26]	陈梦云, 李晓峰, 程金秋, 等. 秸秆全量还田与氮肥运筹对机插优质食味水稻产量及品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(12):1802-1816. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2017.01802
[27]	吴宏亮, 康建宏, 陈阜, 等. 不同轮作模式对砂田土壤微生物区系及理化性状的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(6):674-680.
[28]	刘沛松, 李军, 贾志宽, 等. 不同草田轮作模式对土壤养分动态的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2012, 32(3):81-122.
[29]	周静, 张仁陟. 不同耕作措施下春小麦应对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 干旱区研究, 2010(1):39-43.
[30]	黄晶, 刘淑军, 张会民, 等. 水稻产量对双季稻-不同冬绿肥轮作及环境的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016, 25(8):1271-1276. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2016.08.003
[31]	马兆惠, 李坤, 程海涛, 等. 表观直链淀粉和蛋白质双低型粳稻食味的关联性状分析[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2019, 50(1):10-18.
[32]	刘建, 魏亚凤, 徐少安. 蘖穗肥氮素配比对水稻产量,品质及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2006, 25(3):223-227.
[33]	胡雅杰, 钱海军, 吴培, 等. 秸秆还田条件下氮磷钾用量对软米粳稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(3):817-824.
[34]	赵春芳, 岳红亮, 黄双杰, 等. 南粳系列水稻品种的食味品质与稻米理化特性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019(5):909-920. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.05.012

因素	糙米率	精米率	整精米率
A	**	**	**
B	**	**	**
C	**	**	**
A×B	**	**	**
A×C	**	**	**
B×C	**	**	**
A×B×C	**	**	**

因素	糙米率	精米率	整精米率
A	**	**	**
B	**	**	**
C	**	**	**
A×B	**	**	**
A×C	**	**	**
B×C	**	**	**
A×B×C	**	**	**

处理组合	糙米率/%	精米率/%	整精米率/%
A₁B₁C₁	72.21 n	65.24 m	51.51 o
A₁B₁C₂	73.19 m	65.72 l	52.97 n
A₁B₁C₃	76.70 fg	70.24 h	63.13 h
A₁B₁C₄	74.89 jk	68.41 j	61.57 i
A₁B₂C₁	74.32 kl	65.80 l	52.76 n
A₁B₂C₂	75.97 hi	67.57 k	56.86 l
A₁B₂C₃	79.85 c	72.28 f	65.60 ef
A₁B₂C₄	69.69 o	58.14 o	54.04 m
A₂B₁C₁	76.55 fgh	68.64 j	60.94 j
A₂B₁C₂	77.04 ef	73.29 e	68.22 c
A₂B₁C₃	76.44 fgh	70.16 h	65.44 f
A₂B₁C₄	75.88 hi	69.90 hi	64.38 g
A₂B₂C₁	67.50 p	63.30 n	59.92 k
A₂B₂C₂	76.12 ghi	71.29 g	66.03 ef
A₂B₂C₃	75.51 ij	69.62 i	65.83 ef
A₂B₂C₄	74.02 l	64.96 m	61.42 ij
A₃B₁C₁	78.44 d	72.18 f	63.02 h
A₃B₁C₂	85.17 a	80.38 a	72.60 a
A₃B₁C₃	80.08 c	78.52 b	69.28 b
A₃B₁C₄	79.96 c	75.70 d	68.45 c
A₃B₂C₁	77.67 e	72.14 f	66.21 e
A₃B₂C₂	83.38 b	78.12 c	68.25 c
A₃B₂C₃	77.75 de	72.46 f	67.11 d
A₃B₂C₄	76.93 f	70.04 h	65.95 ef

处理组合	糙米率/%	精米率/%	整精米率/%
A₁B₁C₁	72.21 n	65.24 m	51.51 o
A₁B₁C₂	73.19 m	65.72 l	52.97 n
A₁B₁C₃	76.70 fg	70.24 h	63.13 h
A₁B₁C₄	74.89 jk	68.41 j	61.57 i
A₁B₂C₁	74.32 kl	65.80 l	52.76 n
A₁B₂C₂	75.97 hi	67.57 k	56.86 l
A₁B₂C₃	79.85 c	72.28 f	65.60 ef
A₁B₂C₄	69.69 o	58.14 o	54.04 m
A₂B₁C₁	76.55 fgh	68.64 j	60.94 j
A₂B₁C₂	77.04 ef	73.29 e	68.22 c
A₂B₁C₃	76.44 fgh	70.16 h	65.44 f
A₂B₁C₄	75.88 hi	69.90 hi	64.38 g
A₂B₂C₁	67.50 p	63.30 n	59.92 k
A₂B₂C₂	76.12 ghi	71.29 g	66.03 ef
A₂B₂C₃	75.51 ij	69.62 i	65.83 ef
A₂B₂C₄	74.02 l	64.96 m	61.42 ij
A₃B₁C₁	78.44 d	72.18 f	63.02 h
A₃B₁C₂	85.17 a	80.38 a	72.60 a
A₃B₁C₃	80.08 c	78.52 b	69.28 b
A₃B₁C₄	79.96 c	75.70 d	68.45 c
A₃B₂C₁	77.67 e	72.14 f	66.21 e
A₃B₂C₂	83.38 b	78.12 c	68.25 c
A₃B₂C₃	77.75 de	72.46 f	67.11 d
A₃B₂C₄	76.93 f	70.04 h	65.95 ef

因素	垩白粒率	垩白大小	垩白度
A	**	**	**
B	ns	**	*
C	**	**	**
A×B	ns	**	ns
A×C	ns	**	**
B×C	ns	ns	ns
A×B×C	ns	ns	ns