浙江农业学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (12): 2751-2762.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20221732
浙北地区不同粒形优质粳稻产量和品质对播期调控的响应
张红梅(
), 王保君, 沈亚强, 程旺大()
- 嘉兴市农业科学研究院 生态环境研究所,浙江 嘉兴314016
-
收稿日期:2022-12-06出版日期:2023-12-25发布日期:2023-12-27 -
作者简介:张红梅(1976—),女,内蒙古赤峰人,正高级农艺师,硕士,主要从事水稻优质高效栽培、农产品安全等研究。E-mail: xiuyingyifei10@sina.com -
通讯作者:*程旺大,E-mail: chwd228@163.com -
基金资助:浙江省基础公益研究计划(LGN20C130003);嘉兴市科技计划(应用性基础研究)(2020AZ10002);嘉兴市科技计划(应用性基础研究)(2020AZ10001);嘉兴市科技计划(应用性基础研究)(2021AZ10014);浙江省粮油产业技术项目;浙江省“三农九方”科技协作计划(2022SNJF006)
Response of yield and quality of high-quality japonica rice with different grain shapes to regulation of sowing date in northern Zhejiang, China
ZHANG Hongmei(), WANG Baojun, SHEN Yaqiang, CHENG Wangda()
- Institute of Eco-Environmental Sciences, Jiaxing Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jiaxing 314016, Zhejiang, China
-
Received:2022-12-06Online:2023-12-25Published:2023-12-27
摘要：
为明确浙北地区不同粒形优质粳稻产量和品质对播期调控的响应,以期为该地区不同粒形优质粳稻合理安排播期提供依据。2019—2020年通过大田试验,采取二因素随机区组设计,品种设长粒粳稻嘉禾香1号(L)和圆粒粳稻浙禾香2号(R)2个水平,播期设5月15日(S1)、5月25日(S2)、6月4日(S3)、6月14日(S4)、6月24日(S5)5个水平,共10个处理,研究播期调控对浙北地区不同粒形优质粳稻产量和品质的影响。结果表明:随着播期延迟,L型和R型优质粳稻的播齐历期均不同程度缩短。在实际产量方面,L型优质粳稻不同播期处理间产量[(10.83±0.02)t·hm-2]表现基本平稳,差异不显著;R型优质粳稻年际间产量变化趋势有所差异,2019年R-S2产量显著(P<0.05)高于R-S1,2020年各处理间产量差异不显著。相关性网络分析表明,R型优质粳稻受播期调控的影响较大。随着播期推迟,水稻生育期内日照时数、积温和降水量显著降低,L型优质粳稻有效穗数、直链淀粉含量显著升高,籽粒长宽比和食味品质显著降低;R型优质粳稻的有效穗数、粒长、蛋白质含量显著升高,株高和精米率显著降低。主成分分析显示,长粒形优质粳稻综合得分为L-S4(0.902)>L-S3(0.045)>L-S5(0.013)>L-S2(-0.407)>L-S1(-0.552),圆粒形优质粳稻综合得分为R-S4(0.485)>R-S5(0.349)>R-S3(0.323)>R-S2(-0.216)>R-S1(-0.941)。综上所述,浙北地区长粒形和圆粒形优质粳稻的适宜播期在6月14日前后。
中图分类号:
引用本文
张红梅, 王保君, 沈亚强, 程旺大. 浙北地区不同粒形优质粳稻产量和品质对播期调控的响应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(12): 2751-2762.
ZHANG Hongmei, WANG Baojun, SHEN Yaqiang, CHENG Wangda. Response of yield and quality of high-quality japonica rice with different grain shapes to regulation of sowing date in northern Zhejiang, China[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(12): 2751-2762.
表1 2019—2020年不同处理播种日期和移栽期
Table 1 Sowing and transplanting date of different treatments from 2019 to 2020
| 品种Variety | 粒形Grain type | 处理Treatment | 播期Sowing date | 移栽期Transplanting date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 嘉禾香1号 | 长粒形(L) | L-S1 | 5月15日May 15th | 6月11日June 11th |
| Jiahexiang No.1 | Long-grained rice | L-S2 | 5月25日May 25th | 6月21日June 21st |
| L-S3 | 6月04日June 4th | 7月01日July 1st | ||
| L-S4 | 6月14日June 14th | 7月11日July 11th | ||
| L-S5 | 6月24日June 24th | 7月21日July 21st | ||
| 浙禾香2号 | 圆粒形(R) | R-S1 | 5月15日May 15th | 6月11日June 11th |
| Zhehexiang No.2 | Round-grained rice | R-S2 | 5月25日May 25th | 6月21日June 21st |
| R-S3 | 6月04日June 4th | 7月01日July 1st | ||
| R-S4 | 6月14日June 14th | 7月11日July 11th | ||
| R-S5 | 6月24日June 24th | 7月21日July 21st |
表1 2019—2020年不同处理播种日期和移栽期
Table 1 Sowing and transplanting date of different treatments from 2019 to 2020
| 品种Variety | 粒形Grain type | 处理Treatment | 播期Sowing date | 移栽期Transplanting date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 嘉禾香1号 | 长粒形(L) | L-S1 | 5月15日May 15th | 6月11日June 11th |
| Jiahexiang No.1 | Long-grained rice | L-S2 | 5月25日May 25th | 6月21日June 21st |
| L-S3 | 6月04日June 4th | 7月01日July 1st | ||
| L-S4 | 6月14日June 14th | 7月11日July 11th | ||
| L-S5 | 6月24日June 24th | 7月21日July 21st | ||
| 浙禾香2号 | 圆粒形(R) | R-S1 | 5月15日May 15th | 6月11日June 11th |
| Zhehexiang No.2 | Round-grained rice | R-S2 | 5月25日May 25th | 6月21日June 21st |
| R-S3 | 6月04日June 4th | 7月01日July 1st | ||
| R-S4 | 6月14日June 14th | 7月11日July 11th | ||
| R-S5 | 6月24日June 24th | 7月21日July 21st |
图1 2019—2020年播期调控对气象因子的影响
Fig.1 Impact of sowing date regulation on meteorological factors from 2019 to 2020
图1 2019—2020年播期调控对气象因子的影响
Fig.1 Impact of sowing date regulation on meteorological factors from 2019 to 2020
表2 2019—2020年播期调控对水稻齐穗期的影响
Table 2 Effect of sowing date regulation on full heading stage of rice from 2019 to 2020
| 处理 Treatment | 齐穗期Date of rice full heading | 播齐历期Period of sowing to full heading/d | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值Mean | |
| L-S1 | 9月2日September 2nd | 9月2日September 2nd | 110 | 110 | 110.0 |
| DWL-S2 | 9月7日September 7th | 9月7日September 7th | 105 | 105 | 105.0 |
| L-S3 | 9月10日September 10th | 9月11日September 11th | 98 | 99 | 98.5 |
| L-S4 | 9月9日September 9th | 9月17日September 17th | 87 | 95 | 91.0 |
| L-S5 | 9月13日September 13th | 9月20日September 20th | 81 | 88 | 84.5 |
| R-S1 | 9月4日September 4th | 9月2日September 2nd | 112 | 110 | 111.0 |
| R-S2 | 9月8日September 8th | 9月8日September 8th | 106 | 106 | 106.0 |
| R-S3 | 9月11日September 11th | 9月11日September 11th | 99 | 99 | 99.0 |
| R-S4 | 9月15日September 15th | 9月17日September 17th | 93 | 95 | 94.0 |
| R-S5 | 9月17日September 17th | 9月20日September 20th | 85 | 88 | 86.5 |
表2 2019—2020年播期调控对水稻齐穗期的影响
Table 2 Effect of sowing date regulation on full heading stage of rice from 2019 to 2020
| 处理 Treatment | 齐穗期Date of rice full heading | 播齐历期Period of sowing to full heading/d | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值Mean | |
| L-S1 | 9月2日September 2nd | 9月2日September 2nd | 110 | 110 | 110.0 |
| DWL-S2 | 9月7日September 7th | 9月7日September 7th | 105 | 105 | 105.0 |
| L-S3 | 9月10日September 10th | 9月11日September 11th | 98 | 99 | 98.5 |
| L-S4 | 9月9日September 9th | 9月17日September 17th | 87 | 95 | 91.0 |
| L-S5 | 9月13日September 13th | 9月20日September 20th | 81 | 88 | 84.5 |
| R-S1 | 9月4日September 4th | 9月2日September 2nd | 112 | 110 | 111.0 |
| R-S2 | 9月8日September 8th | 9月8日September 8th | 106 | 106 | 106.0 |
| R-S3 | 9月11日September 11th | 9月11日September 11th | 99 | 99 | 99.0 |
| R-S4 | 9月15日September 15th | 9月17日September 17th | 93 | 95 | 94.0 |
| R-S5 | 9月17日September 17th | 9月20日September 20th | 85 | 88 | 86.5 |
图2 2019—2020年播期调控对水稻株高的影响 柱上无相同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。
Fig.2 Effect of sowing date regulation on rice plant height from 2019 to 2020 The bars marked without the same lowercase letter indicated significant differences at P<0.05.
图2 2019—2020年播期调控对水稻株高的影响 柱上无相同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。
Fig.2 Effect of sowing date regulation on rice plant height from 2019 to 2020 The bars marked without the same lowercase letter indicated significant differences at P<0.05.
表3 播期调控对不同粒形水稻产量构成因素的影响
Table 3 Effect of sowing date regulation on yield components of rice with different grain shapes
| 处理 Treatments | 有效穗数 Effective panicles/ (×106 hm-2) | 每穗总粒数 Grains per panicle | 千粒重 1 000-grain weight/g | 结实率 Seed setting rate/% | 实际产量 Actual yield/ (t·hm-2) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | |
| L-S1 | 3.08± 0.17 ab | 2.99± 0.23 a | 3.04 | 117.20± 7.26 b | 121.69± 9.82 a | 119.45 | 29.48± 0.62 a | 30.25± 0.13 a | 29.87 | 85.90± 4.59 b | 90.52± 1.16 a | 88.21 | 10.53± 0.43 a | 10.82± 0.27 a | 10.68 |
| L-S2 | 2.86± 0.05 b | 3.27± 0.47 a | 3.07 | 136.06± 2.87 a | 114.72± 14.60 a | 125.39 | 29.35± 0.28 a | 29.76± 0.48 ab | 29.56 | 90.38± 2.56 ab | 85.28± 4.13 bc | 87.83 | 11.05± 0.36 a | 10.83± 0.21 a | 10.94 |
| L-S3 | 3.31± 0.05 a | 3.14± 0.42 a | 3.21 | 119.21± 9.70 b | 119.10± 16.65 a | 119.16 | 27.81± 1.06 a | 29.41± 0.36 bc | 28.61 | 89.75± 2.13 ab | 82.50± 2.62 c | 86.13 | 10.77± 0.67 a | 10.92± 0.22 a | 10.85 |
| L-S4 | 3.34± 0.26 a | 3.46± 0.28 a | 3.40 | 110.95± 10.51 b | 108.68± 13.14 a | 109.82 | 28.90± 1.31 a | 28.96± 0.33 cd | 28.93 | 90.87± 0.77 ab | 87.92± 2.81 ab | 89.40 | 10.79± 0.46 a | 10.56± 0.23 a | 10.67 |
| L-S5 | 3.39± 0.18 a | 3.37± 0.20 a | 3.38 | 112.64± 8.17 b | 118.33± 6.67 a | 115.49 | 29.01± 0.86 a | 28.45± 0.36 e | 28.73 | 92.48± 3.64 a | 90.50± 1.28 a | 91.49 | 10.99± 0.36 a | 10.85± 0.53 a | 10.92 |
| R-S1 | 3.17± 0.09 b | 2.92± 0.45 a | 3.05 | 124.89± 11.60 bc | 149.21± 28.71 a | 137.05 | 24.76± 0.61 a | 23.47± 0.29 a | 24.12 | 97.03± 1.74 a | 94.87± 1.58 a | 95.95 | 9.88± 0.33 b | 9.69± 0.37 a | 9.78 |
| R-S2 | 3.28± 0.05 b | 2.73± 0.31 a | 3.01 | 141.59± 9.72 a | 160.74± 24.60 a | 151.17 | 24.61± 0.85 a | 23.40± 0.26 a | 24.01 | 96.05± 1.37 a | 93.50± 1.22 bc | 94.78 | 10.84± 0.63 a | 9.88± 0.44 a | 10.36 |
| R-S3 | 3.25± 0.15 b | 3.21± 0.40 a | 3.23 | 131.08± 4.65 ab | 140.94± 19.32 a | 136.01 | 25.01± 1.60 a | 22.90± 0.46 a | 23.96 | 97.42± 0.76 a | 92.93± 0.80 c | 95.18 | 10.26± 0.40 ab | 10.07± 0.15 a | 10.17 |
| R-S4 | 3.48± 0.13 a | 3.75± 0.24 a | 3.62 | 119.49± 4.04 bc | 123.73± 8.49 a | 121.61 | 24.99± 0.90 a | 22.25± 0.45 b | 23.62 | 95.75± 0.73 a | 93.33± 1.88 ab | 94.54 | 10.19± 0.36 ab | 9.90± 0.35 a | 10.04 |
| R-S5 | 3.59± 0.09 a | 3.75± 0.38 a | 3.67 | 110.22± 6.16 c | 112.48± 12.17 a | 111.35 | 26.06± 0.51 a | 23.43± 0.09 a | 24.75 | 96.87± 1.04 a | 91.78± 1.57 a | 94.33 | 10.13± 0.50 ab | 9.54± 0.28 a | 9.83 |
表3 播期调控对不同粒形水稻产量构成因素的影响
Table 3 Effect of sowing date regulation on yield components of rice with different grain shapes
| 处理 Treatments | 有效穗数 Effective panicles/ (×106 hm-2) | 每穗总粒数 Grains per panicle | 千粒重 1 000-grain weight/g | 结实率 Seed setting rate/% | 实际产量 Actual yield/ (t·hm-2) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | |
| L-S1 | 3.08± 0.17 ab | 2.99± 0.23 a | 3.04 | 117.20± 7.26 b | 121.69± 9.82 a | 119.45 | 29.48± 0.62 a | 30.25± 0.13 a | 29.87 | 85.90± 4.59 b | 90.52± 1.16 a | 88.21 | 10.53± 0.43 a | 10.82± 0.27 a | 10.68 |
| L-S2 | 2.86± 0.05 b | 3.27± 0.47 a | 3.07 | 136.06± 2.87 a | 114.72± 14.60 a | 125.39 | 29.35± 0.28 a | 29.76± 0.48 ab | 29.56 | 90.38± 2.56 ab | 85.28± 4.13 bc | 87.83 | 11.05± 0.36 a | 10.83± 0.21 a | 10.94 |
| L-S3 | 3.31± 0.05 a | 3.14± 0.42 a | 3.21 | 119.21± 9.70 b | 119.10± 16.65 a | 119.16 | 27.81± 1.06 a | 29.41± 0.36 bc | 28.61 | 89.75± 2.13 ab | 82.50± 2.62 c | 86.13 | 10.77± 0.67 a | 10.92± 0.22 a | 10.85 |
| L-S4 | 3.34± 0.26 a | 3.46± 0.28 a | 3.40 | 110.95± 10.51 b | 108.68± 13.14 a | 109.82 | 28.90± 1.31 a | 28.96± 0.33 cd | 28.93 | 90.87± 0.77 ab | 87.92± 2.81 ab | 89.40 | 10.79± 0.46 a | 10.56± 0.23 a | 10.67 |
| L-S5 | 3.39± 0.18 a | 3.37± 0.20 a | 3.38 | 112.64± 8.17 b | 118.33± 6.67 a | 115.49 | 29.01± 0.86 a | 28.45± 0.36 e | 28.73 | 92.48± 3.64 a | 90.50± 1.28 a | 91.49 | 10.99± 0.36 a | 10.85± 0.53 a | 10.92 |
| R-S1 | 3.17± 0.09 b | 2.92± 0.45 a | 3.05 | 124.89± 11.60 bc | 149.21± 28.71 a | 137.05 | 24.76± 0.61 a | 23.47± 0.29 a | 24.12 | 97.03± 1.74 a | 94.87± 1.58 a | 95.95 | 9.88± 0.33 b | 9.69± 0.37 a | 9.78 |
| R-S2 | 3.28± 0.05 b | 2.73± 0.31 a | 3.01 | 141.59± 9.72 a | 160.74± 24.60 a | 151.17 | 24.61± 0.85 a | 23.40± 0.26 a | 24.01 | 96.05± 1.37 a | 93.50± 1.22 bc | 94.78 | 10.84± 0.63 a | 9.88± 0.44 a | 10.36 |
| R-S3 | 3.25± 0.15 b | 3.21± 0.40 a | 3.23 | 131.08± 4.65 ab | 140.94± 19.32 a | 136.01 | 25.01± 1.60 a | 22.90± 0.46 a | 23.96 | 97.42± 0.76 a | 92.93± 0.80 c | 95.18 | 10.26± 0.40 ab | 10.07± 0.15 a | 10.17 |
| R-S4 | 3.48± 0.13 a | 3.75± 0.24 a | 3.62 | 119.49± 4.04 bc | 123.73± 8.49 a | 121.61 | 24.99± 0.90 a | 22.25± 0.45 b | 23.62 | 95.75± 0.73 a | 93.33± 1.88 ab | 94.54 | 10.19± 0.36 ab | 9.90± 0.35 a | 10.04 |
| R-S5 | 3.59± 0.09 a | 3.75± 0.38 a | 3.67 | 110.22± 6.16 c | 112.48± 12.17 a | 111.35 | 26.06± 0.51 a | 23.43± 0.09 a | 24.75 | 96.87± 1.04 a | 91.78± 1.57 a | 94.33 | 10.13± 0.50 ab | 9.54± 0.28 a | 9.83 |
表4 播期调控对水稻粒形和外观品质的影响
Table 4 Effects of sowing date regulation on grain shape and appearance quality of rice
| 处理 Treatments | 粒长 Grain length/mm | 长宽比 Ratio of length/width | 垩白粒率 Chalking rice rate/% | 垩白度 Chalking degree/% | 透明度 Transparency grade | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | |
| L-S1 | 6.80 | 6.80 | 6.80 | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90 | 15.00 | 1.00 | 8.00 | 2.10 | 0.10 | 1.10 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.50 |
| L-S2 | 6.90 | 6.90 | 6.90 | 2.80 | 2.90 | 2.85 | 18.00 | 2.00 | 10.00 | 1.60 | 0.40 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| L-S3 | 6.80 | 6.90 | 6.85 | 2.80 | 2.90 | 2.85 | 12.00 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 1.20 | 0.40 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| L-S4 | 6.80 | 7.00 | 6.90 | 2.80 | 2.90 | 2.85 | 7.00 | 4.00 | 5.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.50 |
| L-S5 | 6.90 | 6.90 | 6.90 | 2.80 | 2.80 | 2.80 | 21.00 | 6.00 | 13.50 | 1.20 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| R-S1 | 4.80 | 4.90 | 4.85 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 45.00 | 3.00 | 24.00 | 5.70 | 0.30 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 2.50 |
| R-S2 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 47.00 | 2.00 | 24.50 | 5.90 | 0.30 | 3.10 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| R-S3 | 4.90 | 5.00 | 4.95 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 46.00 | 4.00 | 25.00 | 5.60 | 0.30 | 2.95 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| R-S4 | 4.90 | 5.00 | 4.95 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 43.00 | 1.00 | 22.00 | 5.20 | <0.01 | 2.60 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| R-S5 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 1.70 | 1.80 | 1.75 | 45.00 | 3.00 | 24.00 | 5.80 | 0.40 | 3.10 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
表4 播期调控对水稻粒形和外观品质的影响
Table 4 Effects of sowing date regulation on grain shape and appearance quality of rice
| 处理 Treatments | 粒长 Grain length/mm | 长宽比 Ratio of length/width | 垩白粒率 Chalking rice rate/% | 垩白度 Chalking degree/% | 透明度 Transparency grade | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均 Mean | |
| L-S1 | 6.80 | 6.80 | 6.80 | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90 | 15.00 | 1.00 | 8.00 | 2.10 | 0.10 | 1.10 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.50 |
| L-S2 | 6.90 | 6.90 | 6.90 | 2.80 | 2.90 | 2.85 | 18.00 | 2.00 | 10.00 | 1.60 | 0.40 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| L-S3 | 6.80 | 6.90 | 6.85 | 2.80 | 2.90 | 2.85 | 12.00 | 2.00 | 7.00 | 1.20 | 0.40 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| L-S4 | 6.80 | 7.00 | 6.90 | 2.80 | 2.90 | 2.85 | 7.00 | 4.00 | 5.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.50 |
| L-S5 | 6.90 | 6.90 | 6.90 | 2.80 | 2.80 | 2.80 | 21.00 | 6.00 | 13.50 | 1.20 | 0.80 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| R-S1 | 4.80 | 4.90 | 4.85 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 45.00 | 3.00 | 24.00 | 5.70 | 0.30 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | 2.50 |
| R-S2 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 4.90 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 47.00 | 2.00 | 24.50 | 5.90 | 0.30 | 3.10 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| R-S3 | 4.90 | 5.00 | 4.95 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 46.00 | 4.00 | 25.00 | 5.60 | 0.30 | 2.95 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| R-S4 | 4.90 | 5.00 | 4.95 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 1.80 | 43.00 | 1.00 | 22.00 | 5.20 | <0.01 | 2.60 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| R-S5 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 1.70 | 1.80 | 1.75 | 45.00 | 3.00 | 24.00 | 5.80 | 0.40 | 3.10 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
图3 2019—2020年播期调控对水稻加工品质的影响
Fig.3 Effect of sowing date regulation on rice processing quality from 2019 to 2020
图3 2019—2020年播期调控对水稻加工品质的影响
Fig.3 Effect of sowing date regulation on rice processing quality from 2019 to 2020
表5 播期调控对水稻蒸煮和营养品质的影响
Table 5 Effects of sowing date regulation on rice cooking and nutritional quality
| 处理 Treatments | 碱消值(级) Alkali spreading value | 胶稠度 Gel consistency/mm | 直链淀粉含量 Amylose content/% | 蛋白质含量 Protein content/% | 食味品质得分 Taste quality score | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | |
| L-S1 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 69.00 | 67.00 | 68.00 | 17.30 | 17.70 | 17.50 | 7.92 | 8.11 | 8.02 | 80.00 | 79.00 | 79.50 |
| L-S2 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 71.00 | 70.00 | 70.50 | 17.90 | 17.40 | 17.65 | 7.15 | 7.89 | 7.52 | 81.00 | 79.00 | 80.00 |
| L-S3 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 71.00 | 65.00 | 68.00 | 17.70 | 17.90 | 17.80 | 8.17 | 8.31 | 8.24 | 80.00 | 78.00 | 79.00 |
| L-S4 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 66.00 | 74.00 | 70.00 | 17.80 | 18.50 | 18.15 | 8.28 | 8.27 | 8.28 | 80.00 | 77.00 | 78.50 |
| L-S5 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 64.00 | 64.00 | 64.00 | 17.80 | 18.80 | 18.30 | 8.22 | 7.76 | 7.99 | 79.00 | 78.00 | 78.50 |
| R-S1 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 70.00 | 78.00 | 74.00 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 7.31 | 7.43 | 7.37 | 79.00 | 83.00 | 81.00 |
| R-S2 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 72.00 | 79.00 | 75.50 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 7.10 | 7.71 | 7.41 | 80.00 | 81.00 | 80.50 |
| R-S3 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 78.00 | 73.00 | 75.50 | 10.00 | 10.40 | 10.20 | 7.57 | 7.86 | 7.72 | 81.00 | 81.00 | 81.00 |
| R-S4 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 80.00 | 72.00 | 76.00 | 9.80 | 10.40 | 10.10 | 7.73 | 7.89 | 7.81 | 81.00 | 80.00 | 80.50 |
| R-S5 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 75.00 | 70.00 | 72.50 | 9.80 | 10.50 | 10.15 | 7.80 | 8.30 | 8.05 | 85.00 | 78.00 | 81.50 |
表5 播期调控对水稻蒸煮和营养品质的影响
Table 5 Effects of sowing date regulation on rice cooking and nutritional quality
| 处理 Treatments | 碱消值(级) Alkali spreading value | 胶稠度 Gel consistency/mm | 直链淀粉含量 Amylose content/% | 蛋白质含量 Protein content/% | 食味品质得分 Taste quality score | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | 2019 | 2020 | 平均值 Mean | |
| L-S1 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 69.00 | 67.00 | 68.00 | 17.30 | 17.70 | 17.50 | 7.92 | 8.11 | 8.02 | 80.00 | 79.00 | 79.50 |
| L-S2 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 71.00 | 70.00 | 70.50 | 17.90 | 17.40 | 17.65 | 7.15 | 7.89 | 7.52 | 81.00 | 79.00 | 80.00 |
| L-S3 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 71.00 | 65.00 | 68.00 | 17.70 | 17.90 | 17.80 | 8.17 | 8.31 | 8.24 | 80.00 | 78.00 | 79.00 |
| L-S4 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 66.00 | 74.00 | 70.00 | 17.80 | 18.50 | 18.15 | 8.28 | 8.27 | 8.28 | 80.00 | 77.00 | 78.50 |
| L-S5 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 64.00 | 64.00 | 64.00 | 17.80 | 18.80 | 18.30 | 8.22 | 7.76 | 7.99 | 79.00 | 78.00 | 78.50 |
| R-S1 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 70.00 | 78.00 | 74.00 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 7.31 | 7.43 | 7.37 | 79.00 | 83.00 | 81.00 |
| R-S2 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 72.00 | 79.00 | 75.50 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 7.10 | 7.71 | 7.41 | 80.00 | 81.00 | 80.50 |
| R-S3 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 78.00 | 73.00 | 75.50 | 10.00 | 10.40 | 10.20 | 7.57 | 7.86 | 7.72 | 81.00 | 81.00 | 81.00 |
| R-S4 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 80.00 | 72.00 | 76.00 | 9.80 | 10.40 | 10.10 | 7.73 | 7.89 | 7.81 | 81.00 | 80.00 | 80.50 |
| R-S5 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 7.00 | 75.00 | 70.00 | 72.50 | 9.80 | 10.50 | 10.15 | 7.80 | 8.30 | 8.05 | 85.00 | 78.00 | 81.50 |
图4 L型(a)和R型(b)优质粳稻相关性网络图 a,L型优质粳稻相关性网络图;b,R型优质粳稻相关性网络图。选择播期(SD)、积温(AT)、日照时数(SD)、降水量(P)、株高(RH)、有效穗数(EP)、穗粒数(SP)、千粒重(1000-GW)、结实率(SSR)、产量(Y)、粒长(GL)、长宽比(L/W)、垩白粒率(CR)、垩白度(CD)、透明度(TG)、糙米率(BR)、整精米率(HR)、精米率(MR)、胶稠度(GC)、直链淀粉含量(AC)、蛋白质含量(PC)、食味品质(TQ)2年均值进行皮尔森相关分析,构建生态网络图,红色连线表示显著正相关(P<0.05),蓝色连线表示显著负相关(P>0.05),黑色连线表示人为设定作图连线,无统计学意义。
Fig.4 Correlation network of L-type (a) and R-type (b) high-quality japonica rice a, Correlation network diagram of L-type high-quality japonica rice; b, Correlation network diagram of R-type high quality japonica rice. Select sowing date(SD), accumulated temperature(AT), sunshine duration(SD), precipitation(P), rice height(RH), effective panicles (EP), spikelets per panicle(SP), 1 000 grain weight(1 000-GW), seed setting rate(SSR), yield(Y), grain length(GL), length width ratio( L/W), chalky grain rate(CR), chalkiness degree(CD), transparency grade(TG), brown rice rate(BR), head rice rate(HR), milled rice rate(MR), gel consistency(GC), amylose content(AC), protein content(PC), and taste quality(TQ) to conduct Pearson correlation analysis, and build an ecological network diagram. The red line represents a significant positive correlation (P<0.05), the blue line represents a significant negative correlation (P<0.05), and the black line represents a manually set mapping line, which has no statistical significance.
图4 L型(a)和R型(b)优质粳稻相关性网络图 a,L型优质粳稻相关性网络图;b,R型优质粳稻相关性网络图。选择播期(SD)、积温(AT)、日照时数(SD)、降水量(P)、株高(RH)、有效穗数(EP)、穗粒数(SP)、千粒重(1000-GW)、结实率(SSR)、产量(Y)、粒长(GL)、长宽比(L/W)、垩白粒率(CR)、垩白度(CD)、透明度(TG)、糙米率(BR)、整精米率(HR)、精米率(MR)、胶稠度(GC)、直链淀粉含量(AC)、蛋白质含量(PC)、食味品质(TQ)2年均值进行皮尔森相关分析,构建生态网络图,红色连线表示显著正相关(P<0.05),蓝色连线表示显著负相关(P>0.05),黑色连线表示人为设定作图连线,无统计学意义。
Fig.4 Correlation network of L-type (a) and R-type (b) high-quality japonica rice a, Correlation network diagram of L-type high-quality japonica rice; b, Correlation network diagram of R-type high quality japonica rice. Select sowing date(SD), accumulated temperature(AT), sunshine duration(SD), precipitation(P), rice height(RH), effective panicles (EP), spikelets per panicle(SP), 1 000 grain weight(1 000-GW), seed setting rate(SSR), yield(Y), grain length(GL), length width ratio( L/W), chalky grain rate(CR), chalkiness degree(CD), transparency grade(TG), brown rice rate(BR), head rice rate(HR), milled rice rate(MR), gel consistency(GC), amylose content(AC), protein content(PC), and taste quality(TQ) to conduct Pearson correlation analysis, and build an ecological network diagram. The red line represents a significant positive correlation (P<0.05), the blue line represents a significant negative correlation (P<0.05), and the black line represents a manually set mapping line, which has no statistical significance.
表6 不同粒形优质粳稻播期调控主成分分析
Table 6 Principal component analysis of sowing date regulation of high-quality japonica rice with different grain shapes
| 粒型 Grain type | 主成分 Principal component | 特征值 Eigenvalue | 方差贡献率 Variance contribution rate/% | 累计方差贡献率 Cumulative variance contribution rate/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 长粒形 | 1 | 8.16 | 45.32 | 45.32 |
| Long-grained | 2 | 4.87 | 27.06 | 72.38 |
| 3 | 3.40 | 18.90 | 91.28 | |
| 4 | 1.57 | 8.72 | 100 | |
| 圆粒型 | 1 | 8.87 | 49.26 | 49.26 |
| Round-grained | 2 | 5.10 | 28.31 | 77.57 |
| 3 | 2.28 | 12.68 | 90.25 | |
| 4 | 1.75 | 9.75 | 100 |
表6 不同粒形优质粳稻播期调控主成分分析
Table 6 Principal component analysis of sowing date regulation of high-quality japonica rice with different grain shapes
| 粒型 Grain type | 主成分 Principal component | 特征值 Eigenvalue | 方差贡献率 Variance contribution rate/% | 累计方差贡献率 Cumulative variance contribution rate/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 长粒形 | 1 | 8.16 | 45.32 | 45.32 |
| Long-grained | 2 | 4.87 | 27.06 | 72.38 |
| 3 | 3.40 | 18.90 | 91.28 | |
| 4 | 1.57 | 8.72 | 100 | |
| 圆粒型 | 1 | 8.87 | 49.26 | 49.26 |
| Round-grained | 2 | 5.10 | 28.31 | 77.57 |
| 3 | 2.28 | 12.68 | 90.25 | |
| 4 | 1.75 | 9.75 | 100 |
表7 不同粒形优质粳稻播期调控主成分分析得分与排名
Table 7 Score and ranking of principal component analysis of sowing date regulation of high-quality japonica rice with different grain shapes
| 处理 Treatments | F1得分 F1 score | F2得分 F2 score | F3得分 F3 score | F4得分 F4 score | F综合的得分 F score | 排名 Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L-S1 | -0.997 | 0.611 | -1.348 | -0.126 | -0.552 | 5 |
| L-S2 | -0.936 | -0.827 | 0.820 | 0.983 | -0.407 | 4 |
| L-S3 | -0.119 | 0.211 | 0.919 | -1.515 | 0.045 | 2 |
| L-S4 | 0.966 | 1.206 | 0.348 | 0.831 | 0.902 | 1 |
| L-S5 | 1.087 | -1.201 | -0.739 | -0.173 | 0.013 | 3 |
| R-S1 | -1.150 | -0.903 | -1.024 | 0.113 | -0.941 | 5 |
| R-S2 | -0.741 | 0.377 | 1.163 | -1.075 | -0.216 | 4 |
| R-S3 | 0.019 | 0.222 | 0.743 | 1.612 | 0.323 | 3 |
| R-S4 | 0.505 | 1.366 | -1.015 | -0.222 | 0.485 | 1 |
| R-S5 | 1.368 | -1.062 | 0.134 | -0.427 | 0.349 | 2 |
表7 不同粒形优质粳稻播期调控主成分分析得分与排名
Table 7 Score and ranking of principal component analysis of sowing date regulation of high-quality japonica rice with different grain shapes
| 处理 Treatments | F1得分 F1 score | F2得分 F2 score | F3得分 F3 score | F4得分 F4 score | F综合的得分 F score | 排名 Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L-S1 | -0.997 | 0.611 | -1.348 | -0.126 | -0.552 | 5 |
| L-S2 | -0.936 | -0.827 | 0.820 | 0.983 | -0.407 | 4 |
| L-S3 | -0.119 | 0.211 | 0.919 | -1.515 | 0.045 | 2 |
| L-S4 | 0.966 | 1.206 | 0.348 | 0.831 | 0.902 | 1 |
| L-S5 | 1.087 | -1.201 | -0.739 | -0.173 | 0.013 | 3 |
| R-S1 | -1.150 | -0.903 | -1.024 | 0.113 | -0.941 | 5 |
| R-S2 | -0.741 | 0.377 | 1.163 | -1.075 | -0.216 | 4 |
| R-S3 | 0.019 | 0.222 | 0.743 | 1.612 | 0.323 | 3 |
| R-S4 | 0.505 | 1.366 | -1.015 | -0.222 | 0.485 | 1 |
| R-S5 | 1.368 | -1.062 | 0.134 | -0.427 | 0.349 | 2 |
| [1] | CHENG B, JIANG Y, CAO C G. Balance rice yield and eating quality by changing the traditional nitrogen management for sustainable production in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 312: 127793. |
| [2] | OLIVEIRA A C, PEGORARO C, VIANA V E. The future of rice demand: quality beyond productivity[M]. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2020. |
| [3] | 唐健, 唐闯, 郭保卫, 等. 氮肥施用量对机插优质晚稻产量和稻米品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(1): 117-130. |
| TANG J, TANG C, GUO B W, et al. Effect of nitrogen application on yield and rice quality of mechanical transplanting high quality late rice[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2020, 46(1): 117-130. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [4] | 张海鹏, 陈志青, 王锐, 等. 氮肥配施纳米镁对水稻产量、品质和氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022(4): 255-261. |
| ZHANG H P, CHEN Z Q, WANG R, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer combined with nano-magnesium on rice yield, grain quality and nitrogen use efficiency[J]. Crops, 2022(4): 255-261. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [5] | 秦叶波, 张慧. 水稻高温热害发生规律及防御措施[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2015, 56(9): 1362-1365. |
| QIN Y B, ZHANG H. Occurrence regularity and preventive measures of high temperature heat damage in rice[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 56(9): 1362-1365. (in Chinese) | |
| [6] | 臧倩, 王光华, 张明静, 等. 有机无机肥料及抽穗期气温升高对水稻籽粒淀粉合成相关酶活性及淀粉品质形成的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2022, 36(10): 2072-2083. |
| ZANG Q, WANG G H, ZHANG M J, et al. Effects of organic and conventional chemical fertilizers and rising temperature at heading stage on enzyme activities related to starch synthesis and starch quality formation in rice grains[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 36(10): 2072-2083. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [7] | 闫浩亮, 王松, 王雪艳, 等. 不同水稻品种在高温逼熟下的表现及其与气象因子的关系[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35(6): 617-628. |
| YAN H L, WANG S, WANG X Y, et al. Performance of different rice varieties under high temperature and its relationship with field meteorological factors[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2021, 35(6): 617-628. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [8] | 周宇娇, 张伟杨, 杨建昌. 高温胁迫导致水稻光温敏核不育系开颖与雌蕊受精障碍的研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2022(4): 1-8. |
| ZHOU Y J, ZHANG W Y, YANG J C. Research advances on high temperature induced-impairment in spikelet-opening and pistil-fertilization of photo-thermo-sensitive genic male sterile rice lines[J]. Crops, 2022(4): 1-8. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [9] | DING Y M, WANG W G, ZHUANG Q L, et al. Adaptation of paddy rice in China to climate change: the effects of shifting sowing date on yield and irrigation water requirement[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2020, 228: 105890. |
| [10] | 冯向前, 殷敏, 王孟佳, 等. 播期对长江下游不同类型晚稻品种产量的影响及其与水稻全育期温光资源配置间关系[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(10): 2597-2613. |
| FENG X Q, YIN M, WANG M J, et al. Effects of sowing date on the yield of different late rice variety types and its relationship with the allocation of temperature and light resources during the whole growth period of rice in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2022, 48(10): 2597-2613. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [11] | 董明辉, 陈培峰, 江贻, 等. 江苏太湖地区不同生育类型粳稻品种产量对不同播期气候因子的响应[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(5): 952-963. |
| DONG M H, CHEN P F, JIANG Y, et al. Response of yield of different growth types of japonica rice varieties to climatic factors at different sowing dates in Taihu region of Jiangsu Province[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2021, 47(5): 952-963. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [12] | 成臣, 曾勇军, 吕伟生, 等. 南方稻区优质晚粳稻产量和品质调优的播期效应[J]. 核农学报, 2018, 32(10): 2019-2030. |
| CHENG C, ZENG Y J, LYU W S, et al. Effect of sowing date on rice yield and quality of high-quality japonica rice during the late-rice cropping seasons in southern China[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 32(10): 2019-2030. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [13] | 徐俊豪, 解嘉鑫, 熊若愚, 等. 播期对南方双季晚籼稻温光资源利用、产量及品质形成的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2021, 27(5): 115-120. |
| XU J H, XIE J X, XIONG R Y, et al. E ffects of sowing date on temperature and light resource utilization, yield and quality formation of double-season late indica rice in South China[J]. China Rice, 2021, 27(5): 115-120. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [14] | 彭桂福, 毛晓梅, 解静, 等. 12个优质水稻品种在浙北稻麦(油菜)轮作区的性状表现[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2022, 63(2): 270-272, 276. |
| PENG G F, MAO X M, XIE J, et al. Performance of 12 high-quality rice varieties in rice-wheat (rape) rotation area in northern Zhejiang Province[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 63(2): 270-272, 276. (in Chinese) | |
| [15] | 沈浙南, 邱结华, 解军辉, 等. 浙江省主栽水稻品种抗稻瘟病基因的分子检测[J]. 中国稻米, 2021, 27(6): 28-33. |
| SHEN Z N, QIU J H, XIE J H, et al. Molecular detection of blast resistance genes in main rice varieties of Zhejiang Province[J]. China Rice, 2021, 27(6): 28-33. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [16] | 王亚梁, 张玉屏, 曾研华, 等. 水稻穗分化期高温对颖花分化及退化的影响[J]. 中国农业气象, 2015, 36(6): 724-731. |
| WANG Y L, ZHANG Y P, ZENG Y H, et al. Effect of high temperature stress on rice spikelet differentiation and degeneration during panicle initiation stage[J]. Chinese Journal of Agrometeorology, 2015, 36(6): 724-731. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [17] | 钟晓媛, 赵敏, 李俊杰, 等. 播栽期对机插超级杂交籼稻分蘖成穗的影响及与气象因子的关系[J]. 作物学报, 2016, 42(11): 1708-1720. |
| ZHONG X Y, ZHAO M, LI J J, et al. Effect of different seeding and transplanting dates on tillering characteristics of super indica hybrid rice with mechanized seeding and planting and its relationships with meteorological factors[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2016, 42(11): 1708-1720. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [18] | 刘猷红, 张俊, 唐傲, 等. 播期对寒地粳稻产量及温光资源利用的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2022, 28(6): 113-117. |
| LIU Y H, ZHANG J, TANG A, et al. Effects of sowing date on japonica rice yield and utilization of temperature and light resources in cold region[J]. China Rice, 2022, 28(6): 113-117. (in Chinese) | |
| [19] | 马义虎, 何贤彪, 朱练峰, 等. 播期对浙东南地区直播晚粳稻产量、生育期及温光利用的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2022, 36(12): 2462-2473. |
| MA Y H, HE X B, ZHU L F, et al. Effects of sowing date on yield, growth period and utilization of temperature and light of direct seeding late japonica rice in southeast Zhejiang Province[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 36(12): 2462-2473. (in Chinese) | |
| [20] | 詹可, 邹应斌. 水稻分蘖特性及成穗规律研究进展[J]. 作物研究, 2007, 21(S1): 588-592. |
| ZHAN K, ZOU Y B. Research progress on tillering characteristics and panicle formation law of rice[J]. Crop Research, 2007, 21(S1): 588-592. (in Chinese) | |
| [21] | 黄海祥, 钱前. 水稻粒形遗传与长粒型优质粳稻育种进展[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2017, 31(6): 665-672. |
| HUANG H X, QIAN Q. Progress in genetic research of rice grain shape and breeding achievements of long-grain shape and good quality japonica rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2017, 31(6): 665-672. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [22] | 刘姣, 王婧, 李妍依, 等. 不同粒型吉林粳稻食味品质及质构特性比较分析[J]. 中国稻米, 2022, 28(4): 44-49. |
| LIU J, WANG J, LI Y Y, et al. Comparison analysis of taste quality and texture characteristic of japonica rice with different grain shape from Jilin Province[J]. China Rice, 2022, 28(4): 44-49. (in Chinese with English abstract) | |
| [23] | 王才林, 张亚东, 陈涛, 等. 地点和播期对半糯粳稻食味品质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35(4): 373-382. |
| WANG C L, ZHANG Y D, CHEN T, et al. Effect of location and sowing date on eating quality of semi-waxy japonica rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2021, 35(4): 373-382. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| [1] | 张思雨, 林朝阳, 叶雨轩, 沈志成. 转cry1Ab-vip3Af2和cp4-epsps基因的抗虫耐除草剂水稻的研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1823-1833. |
| [2] | 杨坤, 侯冠军, 赵秀侠, 方婷, 王利军. 水生动植物协同净化系统对鳜鱼养殖池塘水质与经济效益的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(7): 1709-1719. |
| [3] | 王鑫彤, 万祖粱, 杨振中, 王国骄. 秸秆秋季湿耙还田对水稻不同生育时期叶片-土壤生态化学计量特征的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(6): 1243-1252. |
| [4] | 张雪楠, 王乐乐, 钮铭轩, 詹妮, 任浩杰, 徐浩聪, 杨昆, 武立权, 柯健, 尤翠翠, 何海兵. 基于叶片反射光谱和叶绿素荧光估测水稻叶片含水量[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(6): 1265-1277. |
| [5] | 叶雷, 张波, 杨学圳, 李小林, 张小平, 谭伟. 竹屑替代木屑栽培毛木耳的可行性及其品质综合评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(6): 1416-1426. |
| [6] | 张超正, 张旭鹏, 陈丹玲. 劳动力老龄化、耕地细碎化必然导致水稻生产成本增加吗?——基于鄂东南地区的微观调查[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(5): 1211-1222. |
| [7] | 夏小东, 张晓波, 施勇烽, 许如根. 水稻致死突变体基因克隆与分子机制研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(5): 1223-1234. |
| [8] | 蒋莹莹, 张华, 雷志伟, 徐恒, 张恒, 朱英. 茉莉酸信号关键转录因子OsMYC2影响水稻愈伤诱导和分化的功能初探[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(5): 973-982. |
| [9] | 马义虎, 曾孝元, 何贤彪, 周奶弟, 陈剑. 浙东南地区优质稻产量与品质对不同播期气候因子的响应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(4): 736-751. |
| [10] | 张斌, 冯晓庆, 郑芊, 陈稳, 滕杰. 抑制OsPUT5基因表达降低水稻低温抗性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(4): 780-788. |
| [11] | 樊闯, 赵子皓, 张雪松, 杨沈斌. 基于BP神经网络的一季稻发育期预测模型[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(2): 434-444. |
| [12] | 徐悦, 汪少敏, 谭晓菁, 罗英杰, 常婧一, 邓会, 刘秀丽, 崔维军, 周洁, 吴月燕, 严成其, 王栩鸣. D3基因在抗病防卫反应中的转录调控研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(12): 2763-2774. |
| [13] | 王如月, 罗莎莎, 甄紫怡, 吴嘉龙, 徐业勇, 孙雅丽, 胡晓静, 虎海防. 风味皇后杏李果实不同成熟度特性研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(12): 2865-2877. |
| [14] | 郝柳柳, 代梨梨, 彭亮, 陈思媛, 陶玲, 李谷, 张辉. 稻虾种养系统水稻根际土壤活性有机碳、微生物群落结构及其相互关系[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(12): 2901-2913. |
| [15] | 林小兵, 张鸿燕, 张秋梅, 周利军, 徐德胜, 郭乃嘉, 邱祥凤, 黄海平. 基于多指标的镉低积累水稻品种筛选[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(11): 2507-2515. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||
