Effects of different tillage depth and amount of straw returned to the field on maize growth under drip-irrigation

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.01.02

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (1): 8-17.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.01.02

• Crop Science • Previous Articles Next Articles

Effects of different tillage depth and amount of straw returned to the field on maize growth under drip-irrigation

LIU Genhong(), XUE Yinxin, ZHANG Qian, ZHOU Jiarui, MAI Xiaofeng

College of Agriculture, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China

Received:2020-06-19 Online:2021-01-25 Published:2021-01-25

Abstract

Abstract:

Drip irrigation has gradually become a new resource-saving cultivation method in the irrigation area of Ningxia; however, the depth of tillage and the amount of straw returned to the field under drip irrigation were not clear. The experiment was conducted to study suitable tillage depth and the level of returning straw to field under drip irrigation. Tianci No. 19 was the test maize material, and the split-plot experiment design was adopted. The main plot was tillage depth with three levels of 0.25-0.30 m, 0.30-0.35 m, 0.35~0.40 m, and the amount of straw returned to field was quarter, one third and one half of the straw amount returned to field in conventional cultivation. The results showed that the effects of different treatments on the growth index and yield of maize were different, and the difference between the treatments was significant (P<0.01) at the level of 0.30~0.35 m of tillage depth and one third of the straw amount returned to field. In this treatment, the soil temperature of 0-0.2 m at seedling stage increased obviously, the maximum difference was 1.5 ℃, the increase rate was 8.6%, the photosynthetic rate (PSA) at silking-filling stage was 34.5% higher than the lowest treatment, the 100-grain weight was 6% higher than the lowest treatment, the filling rate (GFA) at 20 days after pollination was 26.9% higher than the lowest treatment, the yield was 14 781.9 kg·hm^-2, and the yield was 16.3% higher than the lowest treatment. But different treatments had different effects on plant height, leaf area index (LAI) and ear diameter. The treatment one half amount of straw returned to field and 0.25-0.30 m of tillage depth had significant effects on plant height, LAI at jointing stage and ear diameter. It was concluded that the main field growth characters were good at the level of 0.30-0.35 m tillage depth and one third of the straw amount returned to the field. The ear length, ear diameter and 100-grain weight of ear characters were all better than other treatments, and the yield was the highest, which was suitable for promotion in irrigation area.

Key words: maize, tillage depth, straw amount return to field, farming methods

CLC Number:

S513

LIU Genhong, XUE Yinxin, ZHANG Qian, ZHOU Jiarui, MAI Xiaofeng. Effects of different tillage depth and amount of straw returned to the field on maize growth under drip-irrigation[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(1): 8-17.

Figures/Tables 6

References 30

[1]	何奇瑾, 周广胜. 我国玉米种植区分布的气候适宜性[J]. 科学通报, 2012,57(4):267-275.
	HE Q J, ZHOU G S. The climatic suitability for maize cultivation in China[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2012,57(4):267-275.
[2]	翁凌云. 我国玉米生产现状及发展对策分析[J]. 中国食物与营养, 2010,16(1):22-25.
	WENG L Y. Status of corn production in China and its countermeasures[J]. Food and Nutrition in China, 2010,16(1):22-25.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	李新, 许志斌, 佘奎军, 等. 宁夏玉米产业的现状和发展[J]. 种子, 2009,28(9):104-106.
	LI X, XU Z B, SHE K J, et al. Status and development of maize industry in Ningxia Province[J]. 2009,28(9):104-106.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	马孝义, 康绍忠, 王凤翔, 等. 陕西省果树地下滴灌的应用前景、存在问题与建议[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 1999,17(2):3-5.
	MA X Y, KANG S Z, WANG F X, et al. Future application, existing problem and recommendation of Fruit tree subsurface irrigation in Shaanxi Province[J]. Agricultural Reseach in the Arid Areas, 1999,17(2):3-5.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	李伏生, 陆申年. 灌溉施肥的研究和应用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2000,6(2):233-240.
	LI F S, LU S N. Study on the fertigation and its application[J]. Plant Natrition and Fertilizen Science, 2000,6(2):233-240.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	梁海玲, 李文宝, 林明月, 等. 水肥一体化技术对鲜食甜糯玉米生长特性与产量的影响[J]. 广西农业科学, 2010,41(12):1314-1316.
	LIANG H L, LI W B, LIN M Y, et al. Effect of integrated irrigation and fertilizer management on growth characteristics and yield of fresh-consumable sweet-waxy maize[J]. Guangxi Agricultural Sciences, 2010,41(12):1314-1316.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	习金根, 汤海军, 周建斌. 不同灌溉施氮方式夏玉米生长效应[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2004,22(4):68-74.
	XI J G, TANG H J, ZHOU J B. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer fertigation on maize[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2004,22(4):68-74.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	刘永贤, 梁海玲, 农梦玲, 等. 不同施肥及滴灌方式对糯玉米生长及产量的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2012,43(7):981-985.
	LIU Y X, LIANG H L, NONG M L, et al. Effects of different drip irrigation modes on growth and yield of waxy corn under integrated management of water and fertilizer[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2012,43(7):981-985.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	黄智鸿, 申林, 孙刚, 等. 超高产玉米叶面积及地上部干物质积累与分配[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2007,35(8):2227-2228, 2230.
	HUANG Z H, SHEN L, SUN G, et al. Study on leaf area and dry matter accumulation and distribution in super high-yield maize[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2007,35(8):2227-2228, 2230.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	王士杰, 尹光华, 李忠, 等. 浅埋滴灌水肥耦合对辽西半干旱区春玉米产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020,31(1):139-147.
	Wang S J, Yin G H, Li Z, et al. Effects of water-fertilizer coupling on the yield of spring maize under shallow-buried drip irrigation in semi-arid region of western Liaoning Province].[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020,31(1):139-147. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	MURLEY C B, SHARMA S, WARREN J G , et al. Yield response of corn and grain Sorghum to row offsets on subsurface drip laterals[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2018,208:357-362.
[12]	徐灿, 孙建波, 宋建辰, 等. 滴灌水肥一体化不同施氮量对玉米叶绿素含量和荧光特性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018,46(10):54-58.
	XU C, SUN J B, SONG J C, et al. Impacts of different nitrogen application rate on chlorophyll content and fluorescence properties of corn under integration of water and fertilizer[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2018,46(10):54-58.(in Chinese)
[13]	SUI J, WANG J D, GONG S H , et al. Assessment of maize yield-increasing potential and optimum N level under mulched drip irrigation in the Northeast of China[J]. Field Crops Research, 2018,215:132-139.
[14]	陈江鲁, 杨京京, 丁变红, 等. 滴灌量对新疆高产玉米产量和蒸腾量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017,45(18):67-71.
	CHEN J L, YANG J J, DING B H, et al. Effect of dripirrigation on yield and transpiration of high yield maize in Xinjiang[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2017,45(18):67-71.(in Chinese)
[15]	李真朴, 刘学军, 翟汝伟, 等. 宁夏半干旱区玉米滴灌灌溉制度试验研究[J]. 水资源与水工程学报, 2017,28(5):242-246.
	LI Z P, LIU X J, ZHAI R W, et al. Experimental study on irrigation schedule of maize drip irrigation in semi-arid region of Ningxia Province[J]. Journal of Water Resources and Water Engineering, 2017,28(5):242-246.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	刘志, 贺正, 苗芳芳, 等. 基于无人机的水肥一体化玉米出苗率估算方法与试验[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019,31(6):977-985.
	LIU Z, HE Z, MIAO F F, et al. Method and experiment for estimating emergence rate of water and fertilizer integrated maize based on drone technology[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2019,31(6):977-985.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	CHAUHDARY J N, BAKHSH A, ENGEL B A , et al. Improving corn production by adopting efficient fertigation practices: Experimental and modeling approach[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2019,221:449-461. DOI URL
[18]	LI Y, SONG D P, DANG P F , et al. Combined ditch buried straw return technology in a ridge-furrow plastic film mulch system: Implications for crop yield and soil organic matter dynamics[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2020,199:104596. DOI URL
[19]	李忠南, 刘颖, 王影, 等. 玉米不同秸秆还田模式的保苗率及苗期叶片SPAD值研究[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2019(12):169-171, 175.
	LI Z N, LIU Y, WANG Y, et al. Study on seedling rate and SPAD value of maize leaves in seedling stage under different patterns of straw returning[J]. Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019(12):169-171, 175.(in Chinese)
[20]	ZHANG M L, GENG Y H, CAO G J , et al. Magnesium accumulation, partitioning and remobilization in spring maize (Zea mays L.) under magnesium supply with straw return in northeast China[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2020,100(6):2568-2578. URL PMID
[21]	王汉朋, 景殿玺, 周如军, 等. 玉米秸秆还田量对土壤性质、秸秆腐解及玉米纹枯病的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2018,26(6):160-164.
	WANG H P, JING D X, ZHOU R J, et al. Effects of maize straw returning amounts on soil characteristics, straw decomposition and corn sheath blight[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2018,26(6):160-164.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	吴鹏年, 王艳丽, 李培富, 等. 滴灌条件下秸秆还田配施氮肥对宁夏扬黄灌区春玉米产量和土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019,30(12):4177-4185.
	WU P N, WANG Y L, LI P F, et al. Effects of straw returning combined with nitrogen fertilizer on spring maize yield and soil physicochemical properties under drip irrigation condition in Yellow River pumping irrigation area, Ningxia, China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019,30(12):4177-4185.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	柴如山, 王擎运, 叶新新, 等. 我国主要粮食作物秸秆还田替代化学氮肥潜力[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2019,38(11):2583-2593.
	CHAI R S, WANG Q Y, YE X X, et al. Nitrogen resource quantity of main grain crop straw in China and the potential of synthetic nitrogen substitution under straw returning[J]. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 2019,38(11):2583-2593.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[24]	王桂跃, 苏婷, 韩海亮, 等. 长期施肥对水田和旱地土壤微生物群落结构、活性碳氮及酶活性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018,30(5):817-824.
	WANG G Y, SU T, HAN H L, et al. Soil microbial community structure, labile organic carbon and nitrogen and enzyme activities in paddy field and upland affected by long-term fertilization systems[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2018,30(5):817-824.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	徐莹莹, 王俊河, 刘玉涛, 等. 秸秆还田方式对玉米田AM真菌侵染效应及球囊霉素含量的影响[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2019(3):36-39, 45.
	XU Y Y, WANG J H, LIU Y T, et al. Effects of straw return method on AM fungi infection and glomalin content in maize field[J]. Heilongjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019(3):36-39, 45.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	姚毓香. 深松耕土壤水分入渗数值模拟及试验研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2019.
	YAO Y X. Numerical simulation and experimental study on soil infiltration of subsoiling[D]. Yangling, China: Northwest A & F University, 2019.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[27]	翟振, 李玉义, 郭建军, 等. 耕深对土壤物理性质及小麦-玉米产量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2017,33(11):115-123.
	ZHAI Z, LI Y Y, GUO J J, et al. Effect of tillage depth on soil physical properties and yield of winter wheat-summer maize[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2017,33(11):115-123.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	陈龙. 不同秸秆还田方式对玉米根系生长发育及产量的影响[D]. 吉林:吉林农业大学, 2019.
	CHEN L. Effects of different patterns of straw returning on growth and yield of maize[D]. Jilin: Jilin Agricultural University, 2019. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[29]	张宇飞. 耕作方式与秸秆还田对玉米产量及养分吸收的影响[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2019.
	ZHANG Y F. Effects of tillage and straw returning on corn yield and nutrient absorption[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2019.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	郭静, 周可金. 麦秸还田量和还田方式对砂姜黑土地玉米播种出苗质量及光合的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017,29(5):717-721.
	GUO J, ZHOU K J. Effects of returning amount and way of wheat straw on maize planting and seedling quality and photosynthetic parameters in lime concretion black soil field[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2017,29(5):717-721.(in Chinese with English abstract)

土壤深度 Soil depth/m	处理Treatment		生育时期Growth stages
土壤深度 Soil depth/m	耕深 Tillage depth/m	秸秆还田比率 Ratio of straw returned to field	SP	SL	BT	TL	SK	MT
0~0.2	0.25~0.30	1/4	16.8 b	17.5 b	24.2 a	24.5 c	25.0 b	19.7 a
		1/3	17.2 b	18.0 b	23.0 b	25.0 b	25.8 a	20.0 a
		1/2	18.0 a	18.5 a	22.1 b	26.2 a	26.0 a	20.5 a
	0.30~0.35	1/4	17.0 b	17.5 c	24.5 a	26.5 a	25.5 b	20.0 a
		1/3	17.7 a	18.5 b	24.2 a	26.2 a	26.0 a	20.2 a
		1/2	18.2 a	19.0 a	24.0 a	26.8 a	26.9 a	20.7 a
	0.35~0.40	1/4	17.0 b	17.5 a	24.5 a	26.5 a	25.6 a	19.8 a
		1/3	17.7 a	18.0 a	24.2 a	26.2 a	26.2 a	20.2 a
		1/2	18.4 a	18.3 a	24.1 a	26.1 a	27.0 a	21.0 a
0.2~0.4	0.25~0.30	1/4	16.5 a	16.8 a	24.0 a	24.6 a	26.0 a	20.5 a
		1/3	16.8 a	17.4 a	23.0 a	25.0 a	25.8 a	20.0 a
		1/2	17.3 a	17.5 a	22.5 b	24.5 a	27.0 a	21.0 a
	0.30~0.35	1/4	16.5 b	17.6 a	24.0 a	26.0 a	26.2 a	20.7 a
		1/3	16.8 b	17.8 a	23.7 b	25.7 a	25.8 a	20.2 a
		1/2	17.0 a	18.0 a	23.0 b	25.5 a	26.0 a	21.0 a
	0.35~0.40	1/4	16.8 a	18.3 a	24.1 a	26.1 b	26.2 a	20.5 b
		1/3	17.0 a	18.7 a	23.9 a	26.0 b	26.0 a	21.7 a
		1/2	16.5 a	19.0 a	23.6 a	27.0 a	26.2 a	21.8 a

土壤深度 Soil depth/m	处理Treatment		生育时期Growth stages
土壤深度 Soil depth/m	耕深 Tillage depth/m	秸秆还田比率 Ratio of straw returned to field	SP	SL	BT	TL	SK	MT
0~0.2	0.25~0.30	1/4	16.8 b	17.5 b	24.2 a	24.5 c	25.0 b	19.7 a
		1/3	17.2 b	18.0 b	23.0 b	25.0 b	25.8 a	20.0 a
		1/2	18.0 a	18.5 a	22.1 b	26.2 a	26.0 a	20.5 a
	0.30~0.35	1/4	17.0 b	17.5 c	24.5 a	26.5 a	25.5 b	20.0 a
		1/3	17.7 a	18.5 b	24.2 a	26.2 a	26.0 a	20.2 a
		1/2	18.2 a	19.0 a	24.0 a	26.8 a	26.9 a	20.7 a
	0.35~0.40	1/4	17.0 b	17.5 a	24.5 a	26.5 a	25.6 a	19.8 a
		1/3	17.7 a	18.0 a	24.2 a	26.2 a	26.2 a	20.2 a
		1/2	18.4 a	18.3 a	24.1 a	26.1 a	27.0 a	21.0 a
0.2~0.4	0.25~0.30	1/4	16.5 a	16.8 a	24.0 a	24.6 a	26.0 a	20.5 a
		1/3	16.8 a	17.4 a	23.0 a	25.0 a	25.8 a	20.0 a
		1/2	17.3 a	17.5 a	22.5 b	24.5 a	27.0 a	21.0 a
	0.30~0.35	1/4	16.5 b	17.6 a	24.0 a	26.0 a	26.2 a	20.7 a
		1/3	16.8 b	17.8 a	23.7 b	25.7 a	25.8 a	20.2 a
		1/2	17.0 a	18.0 a	23.0 b	25.5 a	26.0 a	21.0 a
	0.35~0.40	1/4	16.8 a	18.3 a	24.1 a	26.1 b	26.2 a	20.5 b
		1/3	17.0 a	18.7 a	23.9 a	26.0 b	26.0 a	21.7 a
		1/2	16.5 a	19.0 a	23.6 a	27.0 a	26.2 a	21.8 a

处理Treatment		生育时期Growth stages
耕深 Tillage depth/m	秸秆还田比率 Ratio of straw returned to field	SL	BT	TL	SK	MT
0.25~0.30	1/4	0.28 B	0.65 B	1.52 b	2.52 b	2.85 b
	1/3	0.35 A	0.79 A	1.71 a	2.75 a	3.11 a
	1/2	0.42 A	0.80 A	1.77 a	2.81 a	3.20 a
0.30~0.35	1/4	0.31 B	0.67 B	1.61 b	2.58 b	2.86 b
	1/3	0.32 B	0.70 B	1.74 b	2.86 a	3.19 a
	1/2	0.38 A	0.80 A	1.79 a	2.90 a	3.20 a
0.35~0.40	1/4	0.31 B	0.71 B	1.65 b	2.31 b	2.98 b
	1/3	0.38 A	0.82 A	1.80 a	2.91 a	3.22 a
	1/2	0.44 A	0.87 A	1.83 a	3.04 a	3.32 a

处理Treatment		生育时期Growth stages
耕深 Tillage depth/m	秸秆还田比率 Ratio of straw returned to field	SL	BT	TL	SK	MT
0.25~0.30	1/4	0.28 B	0.65 B	1.52 b	2.52 b	2.85 b
	1/3	0.35 A	0.79 A	1.71 a	2.75 a	3.11 a
	1/2	0.42 A	0.80 A	1.77 a	2.81 a	3.20 a
0.30~0.35	1/4	0.31 B	0.67 B	1.61 b	2.58 b	2.86 b
	1/3	0.32 B	0.70 B	1.74 b	2.86 a	3.19 a
	1/2	0.38 A	0.80 A	1.79 a	2.90 a	3.20 a
0.35~0.40	1/4	0.31 B	0.71 B	1.65 b	2.31 b	2.98 b
	1/3	0.38 A	0.82 A	1.80 a	2.91 a	3.22 a
	1/2	0.44 A	0.87 A	1.83 a	3.04 a	3.32 a

处理Treatment		生育时期Growth stages
耕深 Tillage depth/m	秸秆还田比率 Ratio of straw returned to field	SL	BT	TL	SK	MT
0.25~0.30	1/4	0.42 a	1.42 c	3.62 c	5.10 b	3.05 b
	1/3	0.45 a	2.20 b	4.10 b	5.31 b	3.51 a
	1/2	0.49 a	2.51 a	4.78 a	6.00 a	3.70 a
0.30~0.35	1/4	0.45 a	1.47 c	3.70 c	5.15 c	3.16 b
	1/3	0.48 a	2.10 b	4.20 b	5.71 b	3.39 b
	1/2	0.48 a	2.60 a	4.82 a	6.17 a	4.20 a
0.35~0.40	1/4	0.49 a	1.57 c	3.35 c	5.70 a	3.28 b
	1/3	0.52 a	2.12 b	3.82 b	5.92 a	3.52 b
	1/2	0.54 a	2.70 a	4.21 a	6.21 a	4.32 a

Effects of different tillage depth and amount of straw returned to the field on maize growth under drip-irrigation

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 30

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

处理Treatment		穗粗 Ear diameter/ cm	穗长 Ear length/cm	穗行数 Earrows	行粒数 Line grain number	秃尖 Bald tip/cm	穗重 Panicle weight/g	穗粒重 The panicle weight/g	百粒重 Hundred grain weight/ (g·100 grain^-1)	产量 Yield/ (kg·hm^-2)
耕深 Tillage depth/m	秸秆还田比率 Ratio of straw returned to field	穗粗 Ear diameter/ cm	穗长 Ear length/cm	穗行数 Earrows	行粒数 Line grain number	秃尖 Bald tip/cm	穗重 Panicle weight/g	穗粒重 The panicle weight/g	百粒重 Hundred grain weight/ (g·100 grain^-1)	产量 Yield/ (kg·hm^-2)
0.25~0.30	1/4	49.44 b	15.37 b	14.6 a	32.95 a	0.88 a	240.08 a	1721.24 a	35.22 c	12709.11 C
	1/3	49.34 b	17.28 b	15.07 a	33.83 a	0.73 a	242.21 a	177.54 a	36.56 b	14430.45 A
	1/2	50.16 a	17.47 a	15.640 a	34.50 a	1.03 a	236.30 a	183.55 a	35.19 c	13926.10 B
0.30~0.35	1/4	49.21 ab	17.28 a	15.21 a	34.77 a	1.24 a	261.50 a	187.95 a	36.69 ab	14273.55 B
	1/3	51.54 a	17.46 a	15.22 a	35.12 a	1.03 a	247.50 a	190.08 a	37.32 a	14781.9 A
	1/2	51.08 a	16.22 ab	15.23 a	33.22 a	0.76 a	232.14 a	160.72 a	35.43 c	14172.7 B
0.35~0.40	1/4	47.74 b	15.37 b	14.6 a	30.95 a	0.788 a	249.08 a	1621.24 a	35.22 bc	13309.16 BC
	1/3	51.51 a	15.28 b	14.07 a	31.83 a	0.73 a	247.21 a	167.54 a	36.36 bc	14530.45 A
	1/2	49.16 b	15.47 b	14.64 a	31.50 a	0.83 a	246.30 a	153.55 a	35.53 c	14278.13 AB

[1]	YAN Peizhong, CHEN Liang, ZHANG Shengyin, LIU Bin. Effects of water-fertilizer coupling regimes on maize yield and water and fertilizer use efficiency under mulched drip irrigation in Jingdian irrigation district of China [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(9): 1849-1859.
[2]	GUAN Xiusheng, LIU Tieshan, WANG Juan, ZHANG Maolin, LIU Chunxiao, DONG Rui, GUAN Haiying, LIU Qiang, XU Yang, HE Chunmei. Bioinformatics analysis and cloning of NF-YA family genes in maize(Zea mays) [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(8): 1605-1614.
[3]	XIAN Ruotong, MIAO Qingmei, PENG Cheng, CHEN Xiaoyun, YANG Lei, XU Xiaoli, WEI Wei, XU Junfeng, LI Yueying, WANG Xiaofu. Establishment and application of event-specific real-time PCR detection method of transgenic maize WYN17132 [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(7): 1397-1406.
[4]	WANG Wenqi, WANG Panpan, ZHANG Yanling, LIU Qingqing, HONG Shuangshuang, ZHAO Gaopeng, LIU Hongchang, WANG Cuiling. Screening of proteins interacting with circadian clock gene ZmPRR1-2 in maize [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(5): 977-986.
[5]	LI Qingchao, YANG Shan, ZHANG Dengfeng, LIU Jianxin, SUN Kaili, WU Xun. Phenotypic diversity of ear traits in 487 maize landraces [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(7): 1481-1491.
[6]	ZHOU Lili, FENG Haikuan, NIE Chenwei, XU Xiaobin, LIU Yuan, MENG Lin, XUE Beibei, MING Bo, LIANG Qiyun, SU Tao, JIN Xiuliang. Influence of unmanned aerial vehicle observation time on estimation of canopy chlorophyll density of maize [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(1): 18-31.
[7]	LENG Yifeng, LUO Fan, CHEN Congshun, DING Xin, CAI Guangze. Phylogenetic relationship and genetic differentiation of maize landraces revealed by genome-wide SNP developed by genotyping-by-sequencing in Daliangshan Mountain area, China [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(1): 32-47.
[8]	LEI Lian. Effects of regulated deficit drip irrigation under film on plant growth, yield and water use of seed-producing maize [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(7): 1542-1549.
[9]	WANG Ningke, ZHANG Rui, ZHANG Shengyong. Effects of mechanization service degree and farmland operation scale on maize production efficiency [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(3): 698-707.
[10]	ZHENG Ran, LYU Dan, WU Qinggui, DI Xiaohong, ZHU Tongtong, QIU Guanjie, LUO Hongbing. Analysis of biological, physiological and biochemical mechanism of abortion of C-type cytoplasmic male sterile line S37-2 in maize [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(2): 259-265.
[11]	YU Bo, WANG Yuyan, REN Qin, DANG Yulei, ZHANG Zhipeng, WANG Yu. Effects of straw returning on soil structure and spring maize growth [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(10): 2446-2455.
[12]	MENG Fanhao, YANG Hengshan, ZHANG Ruifu, ZHANG Yuqin, LI Weimin, ZHANG Yushan, ZHANG Mingwei. Effects of irrigation methods on yield and water and nitrogen utilization efficiency of spring maize in Xiliaohe Plain, China [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(9): 1826-1836.
[13]	HU Kaibo, YANG Qingxia, LI Yang, WU Kaixian, ZHAO Ping, LONG Guangqiang. Effect of application of amino acid fertilizer on spring maize cultivation under nitrogen reduction [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(4): 661-670.
[14]	JIA Liqiang, ZHAO Qiufang, CHEN Shu, DING Bo. Expression analysis of bZIP G subfamily genes in maize [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(2): 221-231.
[15]	CUI Wenfang, CHEN Jing, LU Fukuan, QIN Li, QIN Dezhi, WANG Liping, GAO Julin. Effects of biochar application combined with nitrogen reduction on yield and nitrogen use efficiency of maize [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(2): 248-254.