
长期秸秆还田与耕作方式对水稻产量及品质的影响
第一作者:1106118343@qq.com
收稿日期: 2021-01-21
网络出版日期: 2021-05-20
基金资助
科技部重点研发计划项目(2016YFD 200107);科技部国家科技支撑计划(2015BAD01B03);江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目
Effects of Long-term Straw Returning and Tillage Ways on Yield and Quality of Rice
1st author: 1106118343@qq.com
Received date: 2021-01-21
Online published: 2021-05-20
通过稻麦两熟制下的长期定位试验,研究连续秸秆还田及不同耕作方式对水稻产量和品质的影响。结果显示,与“翻耕+秸秆不还田”(对照,CT)相比,“免耕+秸秆还田”处理(MTS)和“翻耕+秸秆还田”处理(CTS)改善了抽穗期水稻上3叶的氮素水平,显著提高了水稻产量,2年试验水稻产量CTS处理比CT处理增加6.9%~14.8%。从产量构成因素来看,MTS和CTS处理的有效穗数都显著提高,实粒数也有所增加;从稻米品质来看,MTS和CTS处理在一定程度上改善稻米的加工品质、外观品质及蒸煮食味品质。但“连续免耕+秸秆还田”处理(NTS)降低了水稻产量,产量比对照(CT)低10.9%~11.8%;与对照(CT)相比,NTS处理的每穗实粒数显著下降,外观品质和蒸煮食味品质变劣。
王子阳, 陈婉华, 袁伟, 周正萍, 刘世平 . 长期秸秆还田与耕作方式对水稻产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2021 , 27(3) : 17 -21 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2021.03.004
In a wheat-rice double cropping system, we made a long-term location experiment about the effects of the yield and quality of rice which cultivated with different tillage methods and straw returning. The results showed that, compared with “plowing + straw not returning to field” (control, CT), “no-tillage + straw returning to field” (MTS) and “plowing + straw returning to field” (CTS) treatment improved the fertilizer level of the top three leaves of rice during the heading stage, and significantly increased the grain yield. The grain yield of CTS treatment increased by 6.9%~14.8% compared with CT treatment in 2018 and 2019. From the perspective of yield components, the effective ear number of MTS and CTS treatments both increased significantly, and the number of real grains also increased; from the perspective of rice quality, MTS and CTS treatments improved the processing quality, appearance quality and cooking and eating quality of rice. However, the “continuous no-tillage + straw returning to field” treatment (NTS) reduced the grain yield, which was 10.9%~11.8% lower than the control (CT); compared with the control (CT), the number of kernels per ear under NTS treatment decreased significantly, and the appearance quality and cooking and eating quality deteriorated.
Key words: rice; straw returning; tillage methods; yield; quality
| [1] | 宁运旺,张辉,张永春. 江苏省水稻种植行为的南北差异及其对化肥投入的影响——以苏州、盐城为例[J]. 江苏农业学报,2018,34(3):533-539. |
| [2] | 王瑜,马加清,张士永,等. 稻田少免耕土壤生态学效应的研究进展[J]. 山东农业科学,2013,45(5):142-145. |
| [3] | 李瑞,卢钰升,徐培智,等. 浅谈水稻免耕抛秧栽培技术的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报,2015,31(3):1-6. |
| [4] | 丛宏斌,姚宗路,赵立欣,等. 中国农作物秸秆资源分布及其产业体系与利用路径[J]. 农业工程学报,2019,35(22):132-140. |
| [5] | 王亚静,毕于运,高春雨. 中国秸秆资源可收集利用量及其适宜性评价[J]. 中国农业科学,2010,43(9):1 852-1 859. |
| [6] | 司开玲. 秸秆焚烧与农村环境危机:基于“代谢断裂”理论的思考[J]. 中国农业大学学报(社会科学版),2018,35(4):61-68. |
| [7] | 李逢雨,孙锡发,冯文强,等. 麦秆、油菜秆还田腐解速率及养分释放规律研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报,2009,15(2):374-380. |
| [8] | 李书田,金继运. 中国不同区域农田养分输入、输出与平衡[J]. 中国农业科学,2011,44(20):4 207-4 229. |
| [9] | 孙小祥,常志州,靳红梅.太湖地区不同秸秆还田方式对作物产量与经济效益的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报,2017,33(1):94-99. |
| [10] | 郭瑞华,靳红梅,常志州,等. 秸秆还田模式对土壤有机碳及腐植酸含量的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报,2017,36(4):727-733. |
| [11] | 袁玲,张宣,杨静,等. 不同栽培方式和秸秆还田对水稻产量和营养品质的影响[J]. 作物学报,2013,39(2):350-359. |
| [12] | 黄国勤,杨滨娟,王淑彬,等. 稻田实行保护性耕作对水稻产量、土壤理化及生物学性状的影响[J]. 生态学报,2015,35(4):1 225-1 234. |
| [13] | 严奉君,孙永健,马均,等. 不同土壤肥力条件下麦秆还田与氮肥运筹对杂交稻氮素利用、产量及米质的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学,2015,29(1):56-64. |
| [14] | 陈新红,叶玉秀,许仁良,等. 小麦秸秆还田量对水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志,2009(1):54-57. |
| [15] | 李朝苏,汤永禄,黄钢,等. 麦稻轮作区周年耕作模式对作物产量和土壤特性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报,2012,25(3):786-791. |
| [16] | 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. |
| [17] | 季红娟,戴正元,赵步洪,等. 小麦秸秆还田对稻米蒸煮食用品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学,2013,41(12):55-57. |
| [18] | 符冠富,王丹英,徐春梅,等. 稻田冬季保护性耕作对土壤酶活性以及稻米品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报,2009,15(3):618-624. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |