| 王静,陈兵,王吉亮,卢勇涛,王敏,宋勇,韩焕勇,王方永.不同机械化秸秆还田方式对棉花生长、产量和品质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2021,39(1):18~24 |
| 不同机械化秸秆还田方式对棉花生长、产量和品质的影响 |
| Effect of different mechanization methods of straw returning on growth, yield and quality of cotton |
| |
| DOI：10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2021.01.03 |
| 中文关键词: 机械化秸秆还田方式 棉花 生长发育 产量 品质 效益 |
| 英文关键词:mechanization methods of straw returning cotton growth yield quality benefits |
| 基金项目:农业部公益专项(201503136-11)；新疆生产建设兵团重大科技项目(2016AA001-4)；新疆生产建设兵团重点领域创新团队建设计划(2017CB011） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 768 |
| 全文下载次数: 355 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 设置5种不同机械化秸秆还田处理，包括: 卧式棉秆春季常规还田（HT1）、棉花整秆起拔不还田（HT2）、卧式常规粉碎还田后起拔棉根不还田(HT3)、卧式常规粉碎还田后起拔棉根粉碎全量还田(HT4)、立式常规粉碎还田(HT5,CK）,对不同机械化秸秆还田方式下棉花生长发育指标和产量品质特征进行分析。结果表明：处理HT1出苗率最低，与其他处理(HT2~5)差异显著，HT2~4出苗率与对照（HT5）基本持平。整个生育期各处理的生物量、叶面积指数差异较大，为143.90~6 594.24 kg·hm-2、0.6~2.1；株高在苗期和蕾期差异显著（2~6 cm）；果枝台数和叶龄仅在蕾期差异显著。各处理除单铃重差异不大（4.87~5.59 g）外，单株铃数、收获株数均差异显著。不同机械化秸秆还田方式产量存在差异，其中HT1处理减产最大，为2 065.8 kg·hm-2，与其他处理差异达显著水平，HT2、HT3较对照增产261.90 kg·hm-2、316.65 kg·hm-2，HT4较对照减产265.95 kg·hm-2。HT1~4的绒长、比强度、整齐度、伸长率、成熟度指数和纺织均匀度指数大于对照0.58~1.05 mm，2.27~5.46 CN·tex-1，1.6%~2.5%，0.26%~0.46%，0.01~0.02，21~232；短纤维指数小于对照0.9%~1.33%；马克隆值有增有减。HT1、HT4处理降低了棉花效益，分别亏损了15 583.5元·hm-2、3 153.75元·hm-2，HT2、HT3增加了棉花效益，分别盈利了1 334.25元·hm-2、1 684.88元·hm-2。不同机械化还田方式对棉花生长发育特征及产量品质产生了较大的影响，综合考虑推荐棉花整秆起拔不还田、卧式常规粉碎还田后起拔棉根不还田在生产中应用。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| To compare the effects of different mechanical straw returning methods on the growth, development, yield, and quality of cotton, and provide a theoretical and practical basis for rational use of straw mulching in production, a comparative field experiment was conducted in 2016. The experiment was designed with five treatments including: Returned plant in spring by horizontal type (HT1); No returned plant after being plucked (HT2); No returned plant root after being plucked but returned plant by horizontal type (HT3); Returned full plant after being plucked root by horizontal type (HT4); Returned plant by vertical type (HT5:). Through investigation and sampling in cotton fields, the cotton characteristics of growth, yield, and quality were analyzed by variance analysis. The seedling emergence rate of treatment HT1 was the lowest, which was significantly different from the other treatments (HT2~5). The seedling emergence rate of HT2~4 were the same as that of CK. During the whole growth period, the biomass of HT1~5 and the leaf area index had significant difference, 143.90~6 594.24 kg·hm-2, 0.6~2.1, respectively. The plant height was significantly different between 2~6 cm between seedling stage and bud stage, the number of branches and leaf age was 0.1~1, and only significant at the bud stage. In addition to the single boll weight (4.87~5.59 g). It was significantly different to boll number per plant of 3.66, harvested plant of 103 500 plant·hm-2, in HT1~5. The yield was significantly different about 2 327.7 kg·hm-2. Compared with CK, HT1 deducted the yield about 2 065.8 kg·hm-2, HT2 and HT3 increased the yield about 261.90 kg·hm-2, 316.65 kg·hm-2, respectively. HT4 reduced the yield about 265.95 kg·hm-2. The LEN, STR, UI, ELG, MR, and SCI were all higher than that of CK about 0.58~1.05 mm, 2.27~5.46 CN·tex-1, 1.6%~2.5%, 0.26%~0.46%，0.01~0.02，21~232, respectively； SFI was lower than CK by 0.9%~1.33%, MIC was up and down，and they were all significant difference. HT1 and HT4 reduced the cotton benefit by 15583.50, 3 153.75 yuan·hm-2, respectively, and HT2 and HT3 increased the cotton benefit by 1 334.25 yuan·hm-2 and 1 684.88 yuan·hm-2, respectively. In conclusion, different mechanical methods of straw returning had a great impact on the growth and development characteristics and yield quality of cotton. Considering all the differences, HT2 (no returned plant after being plucked) and HT3 (no returned plant root after being plucked) but returned straw by horizontal type are recommended for use in production. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| | |