何艳, 严田蓉, 郭长春, 李娜, 彭志芸, 唐源, 马鹏, 余华清, 孙永健, 杨志远, 马均. 秸秆还田与栽插方式对水稻根系生长及产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(7): 105-114. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.07.013
    引用本文: 何艳, 严田蓉, 郭长春, 李娜, 彭志芸, 唐源, 马鹏, 余华清, 孙永健, 杨志远, 马均. 秸秆还田与栽插方式对水稻根系生长及产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(7): 105-114. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.07.013
    He Yan, Yan Tianrong, Guo Changchun, Li Na, Peng Zhiyun, Tang Yuan, Ma Peng, Yu Huaqing, Sun Yongjian, Yang Zhiyuan, Ma Jun. Effect of methods of straw returning and planting on root growth and rice yield[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2019, 35(7): 105-114. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.07.013
    Citation: He Yan, Yan Tianrong, Guo Changchun, Li Na, Peng Zhiyun, Tang Yuan, Ma Peng, Yu Huaqing, Sun Yongjian, Yang Zhiyuan, Ma Jun. Effect of methods of straw returning and planting on root growth and rice yield[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2019, 35(7): 105-114. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.07.013

    秸秆还田与栽插方式对水稻根系生长及产量的影响

    Effect of methods of straw returning and planting on root growth and rice yield

    • 摘要: 通过明确不同秸秆还田与栽插方式下水稻根系及产量形成的差异,为不同栽插方式下秸秆还田提供理论和实践依据,以迟熟型杂交籼稻F优498为试验材料,采用2因素裂区设计,主区设置秸秆不还田、覆盖还田和翻埋还田3种还田方式,副区为人工移栽和毯苗机插2种栽插方式,研究不同秸秆还田方式和栽插方式下水稻根干质量、根冠比、根系形态生理特征及产量形成的差异。结果表明:1)秸秆还田对根系生长的影响表现为前抑后促,抑制了分蘖盛期单茎和群体根系的生长,促进了拔节期至成熟期根系的生长,齐穗期翻埋还田水稻根系生长更好,成熟期则是覆盖还田根干质量、根数更高。各生育时期根系直径,分蘖盛期和成熟期的单茎、群体根系指标以及根干质量,拔节后15 d、齐穗后15 d和成熟期单茎伤流强度均表现为人工移栽>毯苗机插,但拔节期和齐穗期根系形态指标和群体根干质量小于毯苗机插。不同于翻埋还田对毯苗机插稻齐穗期根系生长有利,覆盖还田能有效促进人工移栽稻齐穗期根系生长,减缓花后根系衰老,维持单茎较大伤流强度。2)与秸秆不还田相比,秸秆还田平均使水稻增产3.50%,与人工移栽互作的增产率为2.03%~9.81%,与毯苗机插互作的增产不明显,其中又以秸秆覆盖还田与人工移栽互作增产效果最佳。3)分蘖盛期根干质量,成熟期根干质量、单茎根系指标和群体根系指标,分别与每穗粒数、总颖花量和产量显著正相关,分蘖单茎和群体根系形态指标与有效穗呈显著负相关。综上所述,秸秆还田后人工移栽均实现了增产,而毯苗机插多表现为减产,覆盖还田产量较翻埋还田高。覆盖还田与人工移栽互作下的水稻根系早生快发、衰老慢、单茎伤流强度大,产量最高,翻埋还田促进了毯苗机插中期的根系生长,但齐穗后根系衰老快,单茎伤流强度小。

       

      Abstract: This study was conducted to compare the rice root system and yield under different straw returning and planting methods. Our findings will provide the theoretical and practical basis for straw returning in different planting ways. In this study, we used a two-factor spilt-plot trail using hybrid rice cultivator F-you 498. The main plot was comprised of three different straw returning systems, i.e., no straw returning, straw mulching and straw soil-returning. The main plot was further divided into two subplots based on rice planting method, namely, the artificial transplanting and mechanical transplanting methods. The dry weight of rice root, root-shoot rate, root morphology, physiological features and yield formation under different straw returning and cultivation methods were studied. The results of our experiment are as follows: 1) Initially the root growth was restrained after straw returning, however, then the root growth was promoted. Root growth was restrained at active tillering stage and promoted from jointing stage. Better root growth was observed under straw soil-returning treatment at full heading stage and straw mulching treatment at maturing stage, respectively. The values of root diameter at each birth period, single stem and population root index, population dry weight of tillering and mature stage, root bleeding per stem of 15 days after jointing stage, 15 days after heading stage and maturing stage were higher in artificial transplanting compared to mechanical transplanting system. Mechanical transplanting system had higher root index at jointing and heading stages compared to artificial transplanting system. Different from that better root morphological index and population root dry weight were observed at heading stage in mechanical transplanting under straw soil-returning system, the root growth was comparatively better in artificial transplanting system during booting stage, and slower root aging (post-anthesis) and stronger root bleeding per stem were recorded under straw mulching system treatment. 2) Compared to no straw returning system, improved rice yield (3.50% on average) was observed in straw returning system, and straw mulching had the highest yield. The yield change rate of straw returning with artificial transplanting was 2.03%-9.81%, and that of straw returning with mechanical transplanting was -6.00%-1.30%. Straw mulching with artificial transplanting showed the highest yield-increasing rate. 3) The root dry weight at active tillering stage, root dry weight, root morphology index per stem and population root morphology index at mature stage were positively correlated with spikelets per panicle, total spikelets and yield. However, the root morphology index per stem and population root morphology index at tillering stage were negatively correlated with effective panicle number. To sum-up, in straw returning system, increased yield was observed in artificial transplanting, however, decreased yield was recorded in mechanical transplanting system. Moreover, straw mulching had higher yield than straw soil-returning. Whereas in straw mulching coupled with artificial transplanting system, early and fast root growth, slower aging and higher rate of root bleeding per stem, and higher overall yield were observed compared to other systems. Meanwhile, in straw soil-returning coupled with mechanical transplanting system, improved root growth was observed during the middle growing stage but comparatively higher and fast root aging rate and low bleeding intensity per stem were observed.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回