| Effect of different mechanization methods of straw returning on growth, yield and quality of cotton |
|
View Fulltext View/Add Comment Download reader |
| |
| DOI：10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2021.01.03 |
| Key Words: mechanization methods of straw returning cotton growth yield quality benefits |
| Author Name | Affiliation | | WANG Jing | Institute of Water Conservation and Architectural Engineering, Xinjiang Shihezi Vocational College, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832003， China | | CHEN Bing | Cotton Institute, Xinjiang Academy Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi, Xinjiang, 832000, China | | WANG Jiliang | Cotton Institute, Xinjiang Academy Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi, Xinjiang, 832000, China | | LU Yongtao | Cotton Institute, Xinjiang Academy Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi, Xinjiang, 832000, China | | WANG Ming | Cotton Institute, Xinjiang Academy Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi, Xinjiang, 832000, China | | SONG Yong | Cotton Institute, Xinjiang Academy Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi, Xinjiang, 832000, China
Agronomy College of Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832003, China | | HAN Huanyong | Cotton Institute, Xinjiang Academy Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi, Xinjiang, 832000, China | | WANG Fangyong | Cotton Institute, Xinjiang Academy Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi, Xinjiang, 832000, China |
|
| Hits: 821 |
| Download times: 355 |
| Abstract: |
| 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. |
|
|
|