Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology ›› 2022, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (7): 150-158.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0745
• BIO-MANUFACTURING & RESOURCE AND ECOLOGY • Previous Articles Next Articles
Jiazhi ZHANG(), Wenyu WANG, Xingyu WANG, Changyu ZHANG, Shuwen SHI, Yuxuan HE, Hongyuan ZHOU, Lihua LIU, Guiping ZHENG(
)
Received:
2021-07-08
Accepted:
2021-10-20
Online:
2022-07-15
Published:
2022-08-15
Contact:
Guiping ZHENG
张家智(), 王文玉, 王兴宇, 张常钰, 石书文, 何雨宣, 周红媛, 刘丽华, 郑桂萍(
)
通讯作者:
郑桂萍
作者简介:
张家智 E-mail:781325632@qq.com;
基金资助:
CLC Number:
Jiazhi ZHANG, Wenyu WANG, Xingyu WANG, Changyu ZHANG, Shuwen SHI, Yuxuan HE, Hongyuan ZHOU, Lihua LIU, Guiping ZHENG. Effect of Hole Seedling Number on Quality of Northern Japonica Rice Under Different Cultivation Modes[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(7): 150-158.
张家智, 王文玉, 王兴宇, 张常钰, 石书文, 何雨宣, 周红媛, 刘丽华, 郑桂萍. 不同耕作模式下穴苗数对北方粳稻品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(7): 150-158.
耕作模式 Tillage pattern | 穴苗处理 Seedling treatment | 施肥位置 Fertilizer placement | 基肥 Base fertilizer | 分蘖肥 Tillering fertilizer | 调节肥 Regulating fertilizer | 穗肥 Panicle fertilizer | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P2O5 | K2O | N | N | K2O | |||
A1 | B1 | 全层Whole layers | 78.00 | 57.55 | 60.12 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 |
B2 | 全层Whole layers | 78.00 | 57.55 | 60.12 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
B3 | 全层Whole layers | 78.00 | 57.55 | 60.12 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
B4 | 全层Whole layers | 78.00 | 57.55 | 60.12 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
A2 | B1 | 上层Upper layer | 30.50 | 23.62 | 23.93 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 |
下层Sublayer | 47.50 | 33.93 | 36.19 | — | — | — | ||
B2 | 上层Upper layer | 30.50 | 23.62 | 23.93 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
下层Sublayer | 47.50 | 33.93 | 36.19 | — | — | — | ||
B3 | 上层Upper layer | 30.50 | 23.62 | 23.93 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
下层Sublayer | 47.50 | 33.93 | 36.19 | — | — | — | ||
B4 | 上层Upper layer | 30.50 | 23.62 | 23.93 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
下层Sublayer | 47.50 | 33.93 | 36.19 | — | — | — |
Table 1 Fertilization type and amount in different treatments
耕作模式 Tillage pattern | 穴苗处理 Seedling treatment | 施肥位置 Fertilizer placement | 基肥 Base fertilizer | 分蘖肥 Tillering fertilizer | 调节肥 Regulating fertilizer | 穗肥 Panicle fertilizer | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P2O5 | K2O | N | N | K2O | |||
A1 | B1 | 全层Whole layers | 78.00 | 57.55 | 60.12 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 |
B2 | 全层Whole layers | 78.00 | 57.55 | 60.12 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
B3 | 全层Whole layers | 78.00 | 57.55 | 60.12 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
B4 | 全层Whole layers | 78.00 | 57.55 | 60.12 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
A2 | B1 | 上层Upper layer | 30.50 | 23.62 | 23.93 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 |
下层Sublayer | 47.50 | 33.93 | 36.19 | — | — | — | ||
B2 | 上层Upper layer | 30.50 | 23.62 | 23.93 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
下层Sublayer | 47.50 | 33.93 | 36.19 | — | — | — | ||
B3 | 上层Upper layer | 30.50 | 23.62 | 23.93 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
下层Sublayer | 47.50 | 33.93 | 36.19 | — | — | — | ||
B4 | 上层Upper layer | 30.50 | 23.62 | 23.93 | 10.35 | 10.35 | 31.13 | |
下层Sublayer | 47.50 | 33.93 | 36.19 | — | — | — |
处理 Treatment | 糙米率 BRR/% | 精米率 PRR/% | 整精米率 HRR/% | |
---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 82.03±0.71 bB | 71.25±0.60 bB | 60.78±0.71 bB | |
A2 | 82.70±0.75 aA | 71.57±0.60 aA | 63.05±0.61 aA | |
B1 | 83.28±0.32 aA | 72.20±0.31 aA | 62.77±1.26 aA | |
B2 | 82.63±0.49 bB | 71.56±0.17 bB | 62.06±0.99 bB | |
B3 | 82.10±0.58 cC | 71.12±0.29 cC | 61.58±1.33 cC | |
B4 | 81.47±0.24 dD | 70.77±0.38 dC | 61.26±1.50 cC | |
F检验 F test | FA | 64.89** | 9.55** | 414.28** |
FB | 86.29** | 36.58** | 34.85** | |
FA×B | 2.51 | 0.33 | 2.56 |
Table 2 Processing quality of different treatments
处理 Treatment | 糙米率 BRR/% | 精米率 PRR/% | 整精米率 HRR/% | |
---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 82.03±0.71 bB | 71.25±0.60 bB | 60.78±0.71 bB | |
A2 | 82.70±0.75 aA | 71.57±0.60 aA | 63.05±0.61 aA | |
B1 | 83.28±0.32 aA | 72.20±0.31 aA | 62.77±1.26 aA | |
B2 | 82.63±0.49 bB | 71.56±0.17 bB | 62.06±0.99 bB | |
B3 | 82.10±0.58 cC | 71.12±0.29 cC | 61.58±1.33 cC | |
B4 | 81.47±0.24 dD | 70.77±0.38 dC | 61.26±1.50 cC | |
F检验 F test | FA | 64.89** | 9.55** | 414.28** |
FB | 86.29** | 36.58** | 34.85** | |
FA×B | 2.51 | 0.33 | 2.56 |
处理 Treatment | 一次枝梗Primary branch | 二次枝梗Secondary branch | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
谷粒长 Grain length/mm | 谷粒宽 Grain width/mm | 谷粒厚 Grain thickness/mm | 长宽比 Aspect ratio | 谷粒长 Grain length/mm | 谷粒宽 Grain width/mm | 谷粒厚 Grain thickness/mm | 长宽比 Aspect ratio | ||
A1 | 6.933±0.15 aA | 3.280±0.11 aA | 2.265±0.07 aA | 2.115±0.04 aA | 6.643±0.17 aA | 3.214±0.9 aA | 2.236±0.07 aA | 2.068±0.05 aA | |
A2 | 6.847±0.14 aA | 3.291±0.10 aA | 2.281±0.05 aA | 2.081±0.05 aA | 6.587±0.16 aA | 3.204±0.07 aA | 2.238±0.05 aA | 2.055±0.05 aA | |
B1 | 7.038±0.19 aA | 3.370±0.07 aA | 2.330±0.06 aA | 2.090±0.04 aA | 6.653±0.24 aA | 3.267±0.10 aA | 2.273±0.08 aA | 2.037±0.04 aA | |
B2 | 6.878±0.13 bAB | 3.272±0.11 abA | 2.273±0.06 bAB | 2.103±0.05 aA | 6.602±0.09 aA | 3.230±0.02 aAB | 2.252±0.03 aA | 2.045±0.02 aA | |
B3 | 6.826±0.08 bB | 3.222±0.10 bA | 2.242±0.02 bB | 2.120±0.05 aA | 6.550±0.13 aA | 3.133±0.04 bB | 2.207±0.03 aA | 2.090±0.06 aA | |
B4 | 6.815±0.07 bB | 3.278±0.08 abA | 2.248±0.03 bB | 2.078±0.05 aA | 6.655±0.18 aA | 3.207±0.07 abAB | 2.218±0.07 aA | 2.075±0.07 aA | |
F检验 F test | FA | 3.22 | 0.07 | 0.90 | 3.48 | 0.61 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.29 |
FB | 4.63* | 2.24 | 6.44** | 0.96 | 0.47 | 4.07* | 2.20 | 1.02 | |
FA×B | 1.62 | 0.91 | 4.62* | 0.47 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 2.32 | 0.11 |
Table 3 Grain shape of different treatments
处理 Treatment | 一次枝梗Primary branch | 二次枝梗Secondary branch | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
谷粒长 Grain length/mm | 谷粒宽 Grain width/mm | 谷粒厚 Grain thickness/mm | 长宽比 Aspect ratio | 谷粒长 Grain length/mm | 谷粒宽 Grain width/mm | 谷粒厚 Grain thickness/mm | 长宽比 Aspect ratio | ||
A1 | 6.933±0.15 aA | 3.280±0.11 aA | 2.265±0.07 aA | 2.115±0.04 aA | 6.643±0.17 aA | 3.214±0.9 aA | 2.236±0.07 aA | 2.068±0.05 aA | |
A2 | 6.847±0.14 aA | 3.291±0.10 aA | 2.281±0.05 aA | 2.081±0.05 aA | 6.587±0.16 aA | 3.204±0.07 aA | 2.238±0.05 aA | 2.055±0.05 aA | |
B1 | 7.038±0.19 aA | 3.370±0.07 aA | 2.330±0.06 aA | 2.090±0.04 aA | 6.653±0.24 aA | 3.267±0.10 aA | 2.273±0.08 aA | 2.037±0.04 aA | |
B2 | 6.878±0.13 bAB | 3.272±0.11 abA | 2.273±0.06 bAB | 2.103±0.05 aA | 6.602±0.09 aA | 3.230±0.02 aAB | 2.252±0.03 aA | 2.045±0.02 aA | |
B3 | 6.826±0.08 bB | 3.222±0.10 bA | 2.242±0.02 bB | 2.120±0.05 aA | 6.550±0.13 aA | 3.133±0.04 bB | 2.207±0.03 aA | 2.090±0.06 aA | |
B4 | 6.815±0.07 bB | 3.278±0.08 abA | 2.248±0.03 bB | 2.078±0.05 aA | 6.655±0.18 aA | 3.207±0.07 abAB | 2.218±0.07 aA | 2.075±0.07 aA | |
F检验 F test | FA | 3.22 | 0.07 | 0.90 | 3.48 | 0.61 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.29 |
FB | 4.63* | 2.24 | 6.44** | 0.96 | 0.47 | 4.07* | 2.20 | 1.02 | |
FA×B | 1.62 | 0.91 | 4.62* | 0.47 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 2.32 | 0.11 |
Fig. 2 Grain thickness of primary branch under different treatmentsNote: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.05 level; different capital letters indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.01 level; *indicates significant difference at P<0.05 level.
处理Treatment | 垩白粒率CGR/% | 垩白度Chalkiness/% | |
---|---|---|---|
A1 | 4.23±1.50 bB | 2.28±0.89 bB | |
A2 | 4.88±1.41 aA | 2.70±0.79 aA | |
B1 | 2.69±0.40 dD | 1.43±0.29 dD | |
B2 | 4.12±0.07 cC | 2.19±0.09 cC | |
B3 | 5.00±0.91 bB | 2.77±0.55 bB | |
B4 | 6.42±0.13aA | 3.57±0.10 aA | |
F检验 F test | FA | 319.11** | 160.98** |
FB | 1 868.78** | 760.61** | |
FA×B | 104.75** | 45.54** |
Table 4 Appearance quality of different treatments
处理Treatment | 垩白粒率CGR/% | 垩白度Chalkiness/% | |
---|---|---|---|
A1 | 4.23±1.50 bB | 2.28±0.89 bB | |
A2 | 4.88±1.41 aA | 2.70±0.79 aA | |
B1 | 2.69±0.40 dD | 1.43±0.29 dD | |
B2 | 4.12±0.07 cC | 2.19±0.09 cC | |
B3 | 5.00±0.91 bB | 2.77±0.55 bB | |
B4 | 6.42±0.13aA | 3.57±0.10 aA | |
F检验 F test | FA | 319.11** | 160.98** |
FB | 1 868.78** | 760.61** | |
FA×B | 104.75** | 45.54** |
Fig. 3 Chalky grain percentage and chalkiness degree of different treatmentsNote: Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.05 level; different capital letters indicate significant differences between different treatments at P<0.01 level; ** indicates significant difference at P<0.05 level.
处理 Treatment | 直链淀粉含量 ASC/% | 蛋白质含量 RC/% | 水分含量 MC/% | |
---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 15.87±0.33 aA | 7.93±0.14 aA | 16.15±0.38 aA | |
A2 | 15.69±0.33 aA | 7.97±0.15 aA | 16.25±0.22 aA | |
B1 | 15.49±0.28 cB | 8.09±0.06 aA | 15.85±0.32 cB | |
B2 | 15.63±0.25 bcB | 8.01±0.13 aA | 16.48±0.12 aA | |
B3 | 15.82±0.18 bAB | 7.87±0.09 bB | 16.29±0.22 abA | |
B4 | 16.18±0.15 aA | 7.82±0.08 bB | 16.19±0.13 bA | |
F检验 F test | FA | 3.73 | 1.86 | 1.67 |
FB | 10.70** | 16.49** | 11.40** | |
FA×B | 0.51 | 4.27* | 2.68 |
Table 5 Comparison of nutritional quality
处理 Treatment | 直链淀粉含量 ASC/% | 蛋白质含量 RC/% | 水分含量 MC/% | |
---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 15.87±0.33 aA | 7.93±0.14 aA | 16.15±0.38 aA | |
A2 | 15.69±0.33 aA | 7.97±0.15 aA | 16.25±0.22 aA | |
B1 | 15.49±0.28 cB | 8.09±0.06 aA | 15.85±0.32 cB | |
B2 | 15.63±0.25 bcB | 8.01±0.13 aA | 16.48±0.12 aA | |
B3 | 15.82±0.18 bAB | 7.87±0.09 bB | 16.29±0.22 abA | |
B4 | 16.18±0.15 aA | 7.82±0.08 bB | 16.19±0.13 bA | |
F检验 F test | FA | 3.73 | 1.86 | 1.67 |
FB | 10.70** | 16.49** | 11.40** | |
FA×B | 0.51 | 4.27* | 2.68 |
处理Treatment | 香气Fragrance | 完整性Integrity | 光泽luster | 味道Taste | 口感Mouthfeel | 食味值Taste value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 7.70±0.06 aA | 7.14±0.09 bB | 8.24±0.29 aA | 8.32±0.11 aA | 8.03±0.29 aA | 81.90±1.99 aA | |
A2 | 7.67±0.05 aA | 7.21±0.09 aA | 8.26±0.27 aA | 8.30±0.12 aA | 8.09±0.28 aA | 82.12±2.32 aA | |
B1 | 7.67±0.08 aA | 7.21±0.12 aA | 8.16±0.30 aA | 8.25±0.14 bA | 7.98±0.28 aA | 80.99±2.33 aA | |
B2 | 7.69±0.05 aA | 7.15±0.07 aA | 8.34±0.18 aA | 8.32±0.07 abA | 8.14±0.22 aA | 82.46±1.33 aA | |
B3 | 7.70±0.05 aA | 7.15±0.08 aA | 8.31±0.28 aA | 8.34±0.11 aA | 8.06±0.35 aA | 82.26±2.32 aA | |
B4 | 7.69±0.05 aA | 7.19±0.78 aA | 8.20±0.33 aA | 8.34±0.11 aA | 8.07±0.29 aA | 82.31±2.35 aA | |
F检验 F test | FA | 4.03 | 8.54** | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.51 | 0.16 |
FB | 0.68 | 1.62 | 1.18 | 2.16 | 0.68 | 1.50 | |
FA×B | 0.89 | 2.24 | 0.82 | 1.90 | 1.47 | 2.54 |
Table 6 Comparison of taste value
处理Treatment | 香气Fragrance | 完整性Integrity | 光泽luster | 味道Taste | 口感Mouthfeel | 食味值Taste value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | 7.70±0.06 aA | 7.14±0.09 bB | 8.24±0.29 aA | 8.32±0.11 aA | 8.03±0.29 aA | 81.90±1.99 aA | |
A2 | 7.67±0.05 aA | 7.21±0.09 aA | 8.26±0.27 aA | 8.30±0.12 aA | 8.09±0.28 aA | 82.12±2.32 aA | |
B1 | 7.67±0.08 aA | 7.21±0.12 aA | 8.16±0.30 aA | 8.25±0.14 bA | 7.98±0.28 aA | 80.99±2.33 aA | |
B2 | 7.69±0.05 aA | 7.15±0.07 aA | 8.34±0.18 aA | 8.32±0.07 abA | 8.14±0.22 aA | 82.46±1.33 aA | |
B3 | 7.70±0.05 aA | 7.15±0.08 aA | 8.31±0.28 aA | 8.34±0.11 aA | 8.06±0.35 aA | 82.26±2.32 aA | |
B4 | 7.69±0.05 aA | 7.19±0.78 aA | 8.20±0.33 aA | 8.34±0.11 aA | 8.07±0.29 aA | 82.31±2.35 aA | |
F检验 F test | FA | 4.03 | 8.54** | 0.05 | 0.28 | 0.51 | 0.16 |
FB | 0.68 | 1.62 | 1.18 | 2.16 | 0.68 | 1.50 | |
FA×B | 0.89 | 2.24 | 0.82 | 1.90 | 1.47 | 2.54 |
指标 Index | 糙米率 Brown rice rate | 精米率 Polished rice rate | 整精米率 Head rice rate | 直链淀粉含量 Amylose starch content | 蛋白质含量 Protein content | 水分含量Moisture content | 垩白粒率 Chalky grain rate | 垩白度 Chalkiness |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
精米率 Polished rice rate | 0.95** | |||||||
整精米率 Head rice rate | 0.77* | 0.68* | ||||||
直链淀粉含量 Amylose starch content | -0.97** | -0.90** | -0.64 | |||||
蛋白质含量 Protein content | 0.94** | 0.92** | 0.63 | -0.90** | ||||
水分含量 Moisture content | -0.26 | -0.37 | -0.06 | 0.17 | -0.34 | |||
垩白粒率 Chalky grain rate | -0.72* | -0.84** | -0.21 | 0.79* | -0.77* | 0.42 | ||
垩白度 Chalkiness | -0.70* | -0.83** | -0.19 | 0.77* | -0.75* | 0.41 | 1.00** | |
食味值 Taste value | -0.29 | -0.41 | 0.06 | 0.22 | -0.48 | 0.83** | 0.49 | 0.47 |
Table 7 Correlation analysis among quality traits of rice
指标 Index | 糙米率 Brown rice rate | 精米率 Polished rice rate | 整精米率 Head rice rate | 直链淀粉含量 Amylose starch content | 蛋白质含量 Protein content | 水分含量Moisture content | 垩白粒率 Chalky grain rate | 垩白度 Chalkiness |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
精米率 Polished rice rate | 0.95** | |||||||
整精米率 Head rice rate | 0.77* | 0.68* | ||||||
直链淀粉含量 Amylose starch content | -0.97** | -0.90** | -0.64 | |||||
蛋白质含量 Protein content | 0.94** | 0.92** | 0.63 | -0.90** | ||||
水分含量 Moisture content | -0.26 | -0.37 | -0.06 | 0.17 | -0.34 | |||
垩白粒率 Chalky grain rate | -0.72* | -0.84** | -0.21 | 0.79* | -0.77* | 0.42 | ||
垩白度 Chalkiness | -0.70* | -0.83** | -0.19 | 0.77* | -0.75* | 0.41 | 1.00** | |
食味值 Taste value | -0.29 | -0.41 | 0.06 | 0.22 | -0.48 | 0.83** | 0.49 | 0.47 |
1 | 马盛群,王明海.不同肥源对稻米营养品质的影响[J].南京农专学报,2000(2):28-33. |
MA S Q, WANG M H. Effects of different fertilizer sources on the nutritional quality of rice [J]. J. Nanjing Agric. Technol. Coll., 2000(2):28-33. | |
2 | 张欣悦,汪春,李连豪,等.水稻植质钵育秧盘制备工艺及参数优化[J].农业工程学报,2013,29(5):153-162. |
ZHANG X Y, WANG C, LI L H, et al.. Preparation technology and parameter optimization of rice seedling trays with plant quality [J]. J. Agric. Eng., 2013, 29(5):153-162. | |
3 | 彭亚琼,郑华斌,扈婷,等.垄作梯式栽培对水稻根系生长的影响[J].作物研究,2012,26():14-17. |
PENG Y Q, ZHENG H B, HU T, et al.. The effect of ridge cultivation and ladder cultivation on the growth of rice root system [J]. Crop Res., 2012, 26(S2):14-17. | |
4 | 李文淑,曾玉清,吕泽林,等.水稻垄作栽培增产效果及原因分析[J].农业科技通讯,2014(12):118-122. |
LI W S, ZENG Y Q, LYU Z L, et al.. Yield-increasing effect and reason analysis of rice ridge cultivation [J]. Agric. Sci. Technol. Newslett., 2014(12):118-122. | |
5 | 莫惠栋.我国稻米品质的改良[J].中国农业科学,1993(4):8-14. |
MO H D. Improvement of rice quality in my country [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci., 1993(4):8-14. | |
6 | 张自常,李鸿伟,陈婷婷,等.畦沟灌溉和干湿交替灌溉对水稻产量与品质的影响[J].中国农业科学,2011,44(24):4988-4998. |
ZHANG Z C, LI H W, CHEN T T, et al.. The effect of border irrigation and alternate dry and wet irrigation on rice yield and quality [J]. China Agric. Sci., 2011, 44(24):4988-4998. | |
7 | 周晶.垄栽稻田养殖对水稻养分吸收及稻米营养品质的影响[D].长沙:湖南农业大学, 2019. |
ZHOU J.The effect of ridged rice cultivation on rice nutrient absorption and rice nutritional quality [D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University, 2019. | |
8 | 章秀福,王丹英,邵国胜.垄畦栽培水稻的产量、品质效应及其生理生态基础[J].中国水稻科学,2003(4):54-59. |
ZHANG X F, WANG D Y, SHAO G S. Yield and quality effects of ridge and border cultivation of rice and its physiological and ecological basis [J]. China Rice Sci., 2003(4):54-59. | |
9 | 陈立强,赵海成,赫臣,等.氮肥运筹模式下垄作双深对水稻产量及品质的影响[J].河南农业科学,2018,47(7):20-26. |
CHEN L Q, ZHAO H C, HE C, et al.. The effect of double-deep ridge cropping on rice yield and quality under nitrogen fertilizer management mode [J]. Henan Agric. Sci., 2018, 47(7):20-26. | |
10 | 薛亚光,魏亚凤,李波,等.麦秸还田和耕作方式对水稻产量和品质的影响[J].中国农学通报,2018,34(22):10-14. |
XUE Y G, WEI Y F, LI B, et al.. The effect of returning wheat straw to the field and farming methods on rice yield and quality [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2018, 34(22):10-14. | |
11 | 荆爱霞.移栽行距、密度对水稻超高产形成的影响[D].扬州:扬州大学,2008. |
JING A X. The effect of transplanting row spacing and density on the formation of super-high yield of rice [D]. Jiangsu Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2008. | |
12 | 徐春梅,王丹英,邵国胜,等.施氮量和栽插密度对超高产水稻中早22产量和品质的影响[J].中国水稻科学,2008,22(5):507-512. |
XU C M, WANG D Y, SHAO G S, et al.. Effects of nitrogen application rate and planting density on the yield and quality of super high-yield rice Zhongzao 22 [J]. China Rice Sci., 2008,22(5):507-512. | |
13 | 钱银飞,张洪程,李杰,等.不同基本苗配置对机插稻产量和品质的影响[J].华北农学报,2009,24():316-322. |
QIAN Y F, ZHANG H C, LI J, et al.. The effect of different basic seedling configurations on the yield and quality of machine-transplanted rice [J]. J. North China Agric., 2009, 24(S1):316-322. | |
14 | 董啸波.密度对南方双季晚粳稻产量和群体质量及品质的影响[D]. 扬州:扬州大学,2013. |
Dong X B. The effect of density on the yield and population quality and quality of southern double-cropping late japonica rice [D]. Yangzhou: Yangzhou University, 2013. | |
15 | 周培南,冯惟珠,许乃霞,等.施氮量和移栽密度对水稻产量及稻米品质的影响[J].江苏农业研究,2001(1):27-31. |
ZHOU P N, FENG W Z, XU N X, et al.. Effects of nitrogen application rate and transplanting density on rice yield and rice quality [J]. Jiangsu Agric. Res., 2001(1): 27-31. | |
16 | 张自常,李鸿伟,陈婷婷,等.畦沟灌溉和干湿交替灌溉对水稻产量与品质的影响[J].中国农业科学,2011,44(24):4988-4998. |
ZHANG Z C LI H W, CHEN T T, et al.. The effect of border irrigation and alternate dry and wet irrigation on rice yield and quality [J]. China Agric. Sci., 2011, 44(24):4988-4998. | |
17 | 程方民, 朱碧岩.气象生态因子对稻米品质影响的研究进展[J].中国农业气象, 1998,19(5) :39-45. |
CHENG F M, ZHU B Y. Research progress on the influence of meteorological and ecological factors on rice quality [J]. Chin. Agric. Meteorol., 1998, 19(5):39-45. | |
18 | 冯明友.遗传与环境因素对水稻品质影响的研究进展[J].贵州农业科学,1996(1):56-59. |
FENG M Y. Research progress on the influence of genetic and environmental factors on rice quality [J]. Guizhou Agric. Sci., 1996(1):56-59. |
[1] | Chenguang ZHAO, Siyun NIU, Xun CHEN, Li FANG, Haitao LI, Peixing WANG, Binbin SHEN, Yuanzhi SHI. Effects of Compound Fertilizer on Tea Yield, Quality and Fertility of Tea Garden Soil [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(6): 206-217. |
[2] | Liuxi YI, Rula SA, Xin FAN, Can ZHAO, Ru LI, Bateer SIQIN. Evaluation of Flax Germplasm Phenotype [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(5): 56-67. |
[3] | Yuan YI, Huiyun ZHANG, Liwei LIU, Jing WANG, Xuecheng ZHU, Na ZHAO, Guohua FENG. Effects of Slow-released Fertilizer Compound Humic Acid Instead of Urea on Grain Yield and Population Quality in Xumai New Varieties [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(4): 144-153. |
[4] | Guanglei CHENG, Jun QIU, Xiaoguang WANG, Tianjun XU, Chuanyong CHEN, Chunyuan ZHANG, Qianqian XIA, Yuanqi WU, Jiuran ZHAO, Ronghuan WANG. Changes of Agronomic Traits, Biomass Yield and Quality of National Silage Maize Combinations (Varieties) [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(4): 30-37. |
[5] | Ailin DAI, Yonggang ZHANG, Qiang AI, Xichao TENG, Limin YANG. Effects of Different Light Qualities on Growth, Physiological Characteristics and Flavonoids Accumulation of Epimedium koreanum [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(4): 85-92. |
[6] | Xuezhen XIONG, Chun YANG, Xiaoping MA. Situation of China's Animal Husbandry Development and High-quality Development Strategy Selection [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(3): 1-10. |
[7] | Yunping DONG, Yuzhou LONG, Xingjun LIN, Lizhen MO, Huakang ZHU, Qingyun ZHAO, Yan SUN. Effect of Different Fertilizer Applications on Yield, Quality and Economic Benefit of CoffeaArabica L. [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(3): 197-203. |
[8] | Qijun BAO, Yongdong PAN, Huayu ZHANG, Xiaoning LIU, Dongjia ZHANG, Feng ZHAO, Xiaoxia NIU, Jun CHEN. Analysis of Agronomic and Quality Characters of Beer Barley from Gansu and Europe, North America [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(3): 57-66. |
[9] | Xuan ZHOU, Pinling YANG, Jianwei PENG, Huiqing CHAI, Xuemei ZHONG, Xingrong KANG, Junyou LONG, Huiru ZHANG. Effects of Function Microbial Compound Fertilizer on Yield, Quality and Economic Benefit of Head Cabbage [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 184-192. |
[10] | Changjie CHEN, Lin MA, Yuhuan MIAO, Lanping GUO, Dahui LIU. Effects of Potassium Application on Growth, Yield and Quality of Artemisia argyi [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 201-209. |
[11] | Xing LIU, Jitao WANG, Zhijun HU, Yan LIU, Xiaoguo MU, Haijun ZHANG, Dalin ZHANG, Lei AN, Lin YE. Effects of Planting Density and Feeding Frequency on Growth and Quality of Crucian Carp under Aquaponics System [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(1): 192-201. |
[12] | HUANG Yulan§, LONG Shengfeng§, YE Xingzhi, LI Yanying, SHEN Zhangyou, ZHOU Jia, ZHOU Lingzhi, LAO Chengying, WEI Benhui. Study on the Agronomic Characters, Yield and Quality of Cassava in Enshi of Hubei Province [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 46-55. |
[13] | XI Min, XU Youzun, SUN Xueyuan, WU Wenge, ZHOU Yongjin. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Topdressing on Grain Filling and Milling Quality of the Rice with High Grain Chalkiness [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 144-151. |
[14] | LIU Yuanbo, WANG Jing, Zhu Xuejie, JIANG Weifeng, LIU Tian, ZHANG Jinzhong, LI Yaoxin, FU Yunpeng. Effects of Different Water and Fertilizer Management Modes on Nutrient Accumulation and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco Leaves [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 193-201. |
[15] | YIN Yan, YIN Liang, ZHANG Xuekun, GUO Jingli, WANG Jijun. Status and Countermeasure of The High-quality Development of Rapeseed Industry in China [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(8): 1-7. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||