草业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (8): 126-143.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021315
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
周大梁(), 石薇(), 蒋紫薇, 魏正业, 梁欢欢, 贾倩民
收稿日期:
2021-08-25
修回日期:
2021-11-29
出版日期:
2022-08-20
发布日期:
2022-07-01
通讯作者:
石薇
作者简介:
E-mail: weishi@lzu.edu.cn基金资助:
Da-liang ZHOU(), Wei SHI(), Zi-wei JIANG, Zheng-ye WEI, Huan-huan LIANG, Qian-min JIA
Received:
2021-08-25
Revised:
2021-11-29
Online:
2022-08-20
Published:
2022-07-01
Contact:
Wei SHI
摘要:
为探究沟垄集雨下青贮玉米叶片酶活性与水氮利用效率对种植密度和施氮量的响应,于2019和2020年在甘肃环县开展田间试验,设置4个种植密度(D1:6.0万株·hm-2;D2:7.5万株·hm-2;D3:9.0万株·hm-2;D4:10.5万株·hm-2)和4个施氮水平(N0:0 kg·hm-2;N1:120 kg·hm-2;N2:240 kg·hm-2;N3:360 kg·hm-2)。结果表明:1)在吐丝期和灌浆期,硝酸还原酶(nitrate reductase, NR)、超氧化物歧化酶(superoxide dismutase, SOD)、过氧化氢酶(catalase, CAT)活性随着密度的增加而降低,N2、N3处理的灌浆期NR、SOD和CAT活性显著高于N0。2)饲草产量(干草和鲜草)随着密度升高而逐渐增加,N3处理的平均饲草产量最高,但与N2处理无显著差异。3)D3、D4处理的降水利用效率(precipitation utilization efficiency, PUE)和生物量水分利用效率(biomass water use efficiency, WUEB)显著高于D1和D2,且D3处理的籽粒产量水分利用效率(grain yield water use efficiency, WUEG)最高。N2、N3处理的PUE、WUEB、WUEG均显著高于N0和N1,且N2处理的WUEB、WUEG最高。4)D3、D4处理的植株氮含量小于D1,而氮吸收量、氮肥农学效率(nitrogen agronomic efficiency, AEN)和氮肥利用效率(nitrogen use efficiency, NUE)显著高于D1。随着施氮量的提高,氮含量与氮吸收量提高,而AEN和NUE则随施氮量增加呈先增高后降低的趋势。密度与施氮的交互作用对叶片酶活性和水氮利用效率影响不显著。所有处理中D3-N2的NUE、WUEG和WUEB最高,同时获得较高的饲草产量,该措施是一种适宜黄土高原地区青贮玉米种植的管理模式。
周大梁, 石薇, 蒋紫薇, 魏正业, 梁欢欢, 贾倩民. 沟垄集雨下密度和施氮对黄土高原青贮玉米叶片酶活性及水氮利用的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(8): 126-143.
Da-liang ZHOU, Wei SHI, Zi-wei JIANG, Zheng-ye WEI, Huan-huan LIANG, Qian-min JIA. Effects of planting density and nitrogen application on leaf enzyme activity and water-nitrogen utilization of silage maize under ridge furrow rainwater harvesting in Loess Plateau[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 126-143.
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 吐丝期 Spinning period | 灌浆期 Filling stage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 80.9±6.37a | 83.8±5.36ab | 48.1±3.86abc | 56.2±3.99abcd |
N1 | 85.4±6.73a | 84.4±5.93ab | 49.5±4.14ab | 61.2±4.49ab | |
N2 | 84.3±6.85a | 88.6±5.90a | 53.2±3.71a | 63.3±5.33a | |
N3 | 83.9±6.05a | 89.5±6.72a | 53.7±4.75a | 65.1±4.98a | |
D2 | N0 | 80.7±4.94a | 80.6±6.37ab | 36.1±2.95defg | 50.2±3.57bcde |
N1 | 76.2±5.33a | 81.9±5.04ab | 39.8±2.91cdef | 54.9±4.19abcd | |
N2 | 78.0±5.86a | 85.4±7.33ab | 44.0±3.83abcd | 59.1±4.94abc | |
N3 | 80.6±7.79a | 86.9±6.96ab | 45.9±3.73abcd | 58.8±5.75abc | |
D3 | N0 | 71.7±5.70a | 72.8±6.79ab | 33.1±3.15efg | 43.7±3.25def |
N1 | 73.2±5.26a | 73.5±6.69ab | 36.6±2.79defg | 49.0±3.67bcde | |
N2 | 75.3±6.92a | 79.2±7.79ab | 39.1±3.81cdef | 53.0±5.33abcde | |
N3 | 77.0±7.55a | 81.7±8.74ab | 42.1±4.51bcde | 53.7±5.73abcd | |
D4 | N0 | 71.1±4.66a | 68.8±4.79b | 28.7±1.73g | 36.4±2.77f |
N1 | 70.4±5.94a | 71.7±5.25ab | 31.8±2.34fg | 41.0±3.22ef | |
N2 | 75.1±7.01a | 76.1±7.11ab | 35.9±3.18defg | 44.7±4.12def | |
N3 | 75.2±6.22a | 77.3±6.48ab | 39.1±3.45bcde | 46.8±4.05cdef | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 83.6±5.81A | 86.6±5.73A | 51.1±4.32A | 61.5±5.33A |
D2 | 78.9±5.54AB | 83.7±6.14A | 41.5±4.92B | 55.8±5.50B | |
D3 | 74.3±5.87B | 76.8±7.53B | 37.7±4.65C | 49.8±5.73C | |
D4 | 73.0±5.63B | 73.5±6.23B | 33.9±4.73D | 42.2±5.14D | |
N0 | 76.1±6.76A | 76.5±8.02B | 36.5±7.93B | 46.6±8.25B | |
N1 | 76.3±7.71A | 77.9±7.48AB | 39.4±7.24B | 51.5±8.50A | |
N2 | 78.2±6.88A | 82.3±7.92AB | 43.1±7.51A | 55.0±8.45A | |
N3 | 79.2±6.88A | 83.8±7.92A | 45.2±6.70A | 56.1±8.30A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ns | * | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
表1 不同处理下青贮玉米的硝酸还原酶活性
Table 1 Nitrate reductase activity of silage maize under different treatments (μg NO2·g-1 FW·h-1)
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 吐丝期 Spinning period | 灌浆期 Filling stage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 80.9±6.37a | 83.8±5.36ab | 48.1±3.86abc | 56.2±3.99abcd |
N1 | 85.4±6.73a | 84.4±5.93ab | 49.5±4.14ab | 61.2±4.49ab | |
N2 | 84.3±6.85a | 88.6±5.90a | 53.2±3.71a | 63.3±5.33a | |
N3 | 83.9±6.05a | 89.5±6.72a | 53.7±4.75a | 65.1±4.98a | |
D2 | N0 | 80.7±4.94a | 80.6±6.37ab | 36.1±2.95defg | 50.2±3.57bcde |
N1 | 76.2±5.33a | 81.9±5.04ab | 39.8±2.91cdef | 54.9±4.19abcd | |
N2 | 78.0±5.86a | 85.4±7.33ab | 44.0±3.83abcd | 59.1±4.94abc | |
N3 | 80.6±7.79a | 86.9±6.96ab | 45.9±3.73abcd | 58.8±5.75abc | |
D3 | N0 | 71.7±5.70a | 72.8±6.79ab | 33.1±3.15efg | 43.7±3.25def |
N1 | 73.2±5.26a | 73.5±6.69ab | 36.6±2.79defg | 49.0±3.67bcde | |
N2 | 75.3±6.92a | 79.2±7.79ab | 39.1±3.81cdef | 53.0±5.33abcde | |
N3 | 77.0±7.55a | 81.7±8.74ab | 42.1±4.51bcde | 53.7±5.73abcd | |
D4 | N0 | 71.1±4.66a | 68.8±4.79b | 28.7±1.73g | 36.4±2.77f |
N1 | 70.4±5.94a | 71.7±5.25ab | 31.8±2.34fg | 41.0±3.22ef | |
N2 | 75.1±7.01a | 76.1±7.11ab | 35.9±3.18defg | 44.7±4.12def | |
N3 | 75.2±6.22a | 77.3±6.48ab | 39.1±3.45bcde | 46.8±4.05cdef | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 83.6±5.81A | 86.6±5.73A | 51.1±4.32A | 61.5±5.33A |
D2 | 78.9±5.54AB | 83.7±6.14A | 41.5±4.92B | 55.8±5.50B | |
D3 | 74.3±5.87B | 76.8±7.53B | 37.7±4.65C | 49.8±5.73C | |
D4 | 73.0±5.63B | 73.5±6.23B | 33.9±4.73D | 42.2±5.14D | |
N0 | 76.1±6.76A | 76.5±8.02B | 36.5±7.93B | 46.6±8.25B | |
N1 | 76.3±7.71A | 77.9±7.48AB | 39.4±7.24B | 51.5±8.50A | |
N2 | 78.2±6.88A | 82.3±7.92AB | 43.1±7.51A | 55.0±8.45A | |
N3 | 79.2±6.88A | 83.8±7.92A | 45.2±6.70A | 56.1±8.30A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ns | * | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 吐丝期Spinning period | 灌浆期Filling stage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 791.9±57.30ab | 652.7±41.70abc | 596.4±44.60ab | 511.8±38.15abcd |
N1 | 797.7±53.28ab | 672.5±43.29abc | 612.4±43.52ab | 558.2±42.53ab | |
N2 | 838.3±56.91a | 708.8±51.45a | 655.4±55.54a | 577.1±47.15a | |
N3 | 847.4±77.34a | 712.1±61.17a | 660.5±49.42a | 593.7±55.28a | |
D2 | N0 | 759.8±49.51ab | 626.2±39.15abc | 459.1±35.35cde | 457.0±35.55bcde |
N1 | 773.4±60.36ab | 645.2±51.37abc | 501.6±36.66bcd | 500.6±36.60abcd | |
N2 | 807.6±66.98ab | 666.5±56.77abc | 550.1±42.16abc | 539.0±38.47abc | |
N3 | 821.6±72.34ab | 683.1±66.67ab | 571.7±58.25abc | 536.2±45.24abc | |
D3 | N0 | 684.3±52.12ab | 558.1±43.46abc | 424.5±35.50de | 397.0±38.01def |
N1 | 690.9±57.38ab | 611.0±54.41abc | 465.3±42.22cde | 446.4±38.95bcde | |
N2 | 746.8±71.69ab | 635.4±53.51abc | 494.0±44.84bcde | 482.5±41.71abcde | |
N3 | 770.9±80.99ab | 655.4±67.07abc | 528.1±48.40bcd | 489.1±54.29abcde | |
D4 | N0 | 644.2±46.38b | 519.3±30.12c | 375.0±23.68e | 333.0±26.51f |
N1 | 672.8±59.90ab | 551.4±44.93bc | 410.5±35.63de | 375.4±27.44ef | |
N2 | 716.1±61.27ab | 609.6±63.53abc | 456.6±39.00cde | 409.3±33.90def | |
N3 | 727.9±58.47ab | 602.4±42.19abc | 493.5±41.27bcde | 428.5±41.48cdef | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 818.8±58.61A | 686.5±49.98A | 631.2±50.31A | 560.2±50.75A |
D2 | 790.6±59.63A | 655.2±51.55AB | 520.6±59.11B | 508.2±48.16B | |
D3 | 723.2±68.49B | 615.0±60.53BC | 478.0±54.09C | 453.7±53.39C | |
D4 | 690.3±59.83B | 570.7±55.65C | 433.9±55.89D | 386.6±47.17D | |
N0 | 720.1±75.41B | 589.1±64.59B | 463.7±91.09C | 424.7±75.77B | |
N1 | 733.7±74.08AB | 620.0±62.88AB | 497.4±84.22BC | 470.1±77.19A | |
N2 | 777.2±74.58AB | 655.1±61.78A | 539.0±87.53AB | 502.0±74.53A | |
N3 | 792.0±78.55A | 663.2±66.44A | 563.5±77.83A | 511.9±76.16A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | * | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
表2 不同处理下青贮玉米的超氧化物歧化酶活性
Table 2 Superoxide dismutase activity of silage maize under different treatments (U·g-1 FW·min-1)
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 吐丝期Spinning period | 灌浆期Filling stage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 791.9±57.30ab | 652.7±41.70abc | 596.4±44.60ab | 511.8±38.15abcd |
N1 | 797.7±53.28ab | 672.5±43.29abc | 612.4±43.52ab | 558.2±42.53ab | |
N2 | 838.3±56.91a | 708.8±51.45a | 655.4±55.54a | 577.1±47.15a | |
N3 | 847.4±77.34a | 712.1±61.17a | 660.5±49.42a | 593.7±55.28a | |
D2 | N0 | 759.8±49.51ab | 626.2±39.15abc | 459.1±35.35cde | 457.0±35.55bcde |
N1 | 773.4±60.36ab | 645.2±51.37abc | 501.6±36.66bcd | 500.6±36.60abcd | |
N2 | 807.6±66.98ab | 666.5±56.77abc | 550.1±42.16abc | 539.0±38.47abc | |
N3 | 821.6±72.34ab | 683.1±66.67ab | 571.7±58.25abc | 536.2±45.24abc | |
D3 | N0 | 684.3±52.12ab | 558.1±43.46abc | 424.5±35.50de | 397.0±38.01def |
N1 | 690.9±57.38ab | 611.0±54.41abc | 465.3±42.22cde | 446.4±38.95bcde | |
N2 | 746.8±71.69ab | 635.4±53.51abc | 494.0±44.84bcde | 482.5±41.71abcde | |
N3 | 770.9±80.99ab | 655.4±67.07abc | 528.1±48.40bcd | 489.1±54.29abcde | |
D4 | N0 | 644.2±46.38b | 519.3±30.12c | 375.0±23.68e | 333.0±26.51f |
N1 | 672.8±59.90ab | 551.4±44.93bc | 410.5±35.63de | 375.4±27.44ef | |
N2 | 716.1±61.27ab | 609.6±63.53abc | 456.6±39.00cde | 409.3±33.90def | |
N3 | 727.9±58.47ab | 602.4±42.19abc | 493.5±41.27bcde | 428.5±41.48cdef | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 818.8±58.61A | 686.5±49.98A | 631.2±50.31A | 560.2±50.75A |
D2 | 790.6±59.63A | 655.2±51.55AB | 520.6±59.11B | 508.2±48.16B | |
D3 | 723.2±68.49B | 615.0±60.53BC | 478.0±54.09C | 453.7±53.39C | |
D4 | 690.3±59.83B | 570.7±55.65C | 433.9±55.89D | 386.6±47.17D | |
N0 | 720.1±75.41B | 589.1±64.59B | 463.7±91.09C | 424.7±75.77B | |
N1 | 733.7±74.08AB | 620.0±62.88AB | 497.4±84.22BC | 470.1±77.19A | |
N2 | 777.2±74.58AB | 655.1±61.78A | 539.0±87.53AB | 502.0±74.53A | |
N3 | 792.0±78.55A | 663.2±66.44A | 563.5±77.83A | 511.9±76.16A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | * | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 吐丝期Spinning period | 灌浆期 Filling stage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 10.60±0.67abc | 10.10±0.74abcd | 9.22±0.69abcd | 8.78±0.58abc |
N1 | 11.16±0.90ab | 11.11±0.90ab | 9.51±0.80abc | 9.59±0.66abc | |
N2 | 11.71±0.89a | 11.52±0.91ab | 10.30±0.81ab | 10.35±0.92a | |
N3 | 11.64±0.92a | 11.89±0.90a | 10.39±0.75a | 10.64±0.83a | |
D2 | N0 | 7.95±0.50defg | 8.90±0.56cdefg | 6.71±0.53efg | 8.03±0.55bcd |
N1 | 8.48±0.57defg | 9.85±0.67abcde | 7.49±0.60cdefg | 8.87±0.62abc | |
N2 | 9.72±0.67abcde | 10.69±0.89abc | 8.37±0.69bcdef | 9.55±0.87abc | |
N3 | 9.94±0.95abcd | 10.63±1.03abc | 8.77±0.78abcd | 9.83±0.97ab | |
D3 | N0 | 7.19±0.60fg | 7.59±0.58fg | 6.73±0.58efg | 6.66±0.55de |
N1 | 7.68±0.72efg | 8.67±0.72cdefg | 7.48±0.66cdefg | 7.54±0.60cde | |
N2 | 8.83±0.75cdef | 9.46±0.86bcdef | 8.01±0.83cdef | 8.60±0.73abcd | |
N3 | 9.46±0.97bcde | 9.60±1.04bcdef | 8.64±0.97abcde | 9.09±1.06abc | |
D4 | N0 | 6.48±0.37g | 6.12±0.42h | 5.82±0.43g | 5.97±0.41e |
N1 | 7.04±0.55fg | 7.05±0.61gh | 6.48±0.58fg | 6.62±0.50de | |
N2 | 7.84±0.78efg | 7.79±0.69efgh | 7.32±0.69defg | 7.63±0.67cde | |
N3 | 8.49±0.66defg | 8.21±0.64defgh | 8.00±0.77cdef | 7.91±0.72bcde | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 11.28±0.86A | 11.15±1.02A | 9.85±0.84A | 9.84±0.99A |
D2 | 9.02±1.05B | 10.02±1.03B | 7.84±1.00B | 9.07±0.98B | |
D3 | 8.29±1.15C | 8.83±1.09C | 7.72±0.99B | 7.97±1.18C | |
D4 | 7.46±0.95D | 7.29±0.97D | 6.91±1.02C | 7.03±0.96D | |
N0 | 8.05±1.69B | 8.18±1.63C | 7.12±1.41B | 7.36±1.24C | |
N1 | 8.59±1.74B | 9.17±1.68B | 7.74±1.28B | 8.16±1.31B | |
N2 | 9.53±1.63A | 9.87±1.63AB | 8.50±1.32A | 9.03±1.27A | |
N3 | 9.88±1.41A | 10.08±1.61A | 8.95±1.16A | 9.37±1.30A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
表3 不同处理下青贮玉米的过氧化氢酶活性
Table 3 Catalase activity of silage maize under different treatments (U·g-1 FW·min-1)
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 吐丝期Spinning period | 灌浆期 Filling stage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 10.60±0.67abc | 10.10±0.74abcd | 9.22±0.69abcd | 8.78±0.58abc |
N1 | 11.16±0.90ab | 11.11±0.90ab | 9.51±0.80abc | 9.59±0.66abc | |
N2 | 11.71±0.89a | 11.52±0.91ab | 10.30±0.81ab | 10.35±0.92a | |
N3 | 11.64±0.92a | 11.89±0.90a | 10.39±0.75a | 10.64±0.83a | |
D2 | N0 | 7.95±0.50defg | 8.90±0.56cdefg | 6.71±0.53efg | 8.03±0.55bcd |
N1 | 8.48±0.57defg | 9.85±0.67abcde | 7.49±0.60cdefg | 8.87±0.62abc | |
N2 | 9.72±0.67abcde | 10.69±0.89abc | 8.37±0.69bcdef | 9.55±0.87abc | |
N3 | 9.94±0.95abcd | 10.63±1.03abc | 8.77±0.78abcd | 9.83±0.97ab | |
D3 | N0 | 7.19±0.60fg | 7.59±0.58fg | 6.73±0.58efg | 6.66±0.55de |
N1 | 7.68±0.72efg | 8.67±0.72cdefg | 7.48±0.66cdefg | 7.54±0.60cde | |
N2 | 8.83±0.75cdef | 9.46±0.86bcdef | 8.01±0.83cdef | 8.60±0.73abcd | |
N3 | 9.46±0.97bcde | 9.60±1.04bcdef | 8.64±0.97abcde | 9.09±1.06abc | |
D4 | N0 | 6.48±0.37g | 6.12±0.42h | 5.82±0.43g | 5.97±0.41e |
N1 | 7.04±0.55fg | 7.05±0.61gh | 6.48±0.58fg | 6.62±0.50de | |
N2 | 7.84±0.78efg | 7.79±0.69efgh | 7.32±0.69defg | 7.63±0.67cde | |
N3 | 8.49±0.66defg | 8.21±0.64defgh | 8.00±0.77cdef | 7.91±0.72bcde | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 11.28±0.86A | 11.15±1.02A | 9.85±0.84A | 9.84±0.99A |
D2 | 9.02±1.05B | 10.02±1.03B | 7.84±1.00B | 9.07±0.98B | |
D3 | 8.29±1.15C | 8.83±1.09C | 7.72±0.99B | 7.97±1.18C | |
D4 | 7.46±0.95D | 7.29±0.97D | 6.91±1.02C | 7.03±0.96D | |
N0 | 8.05±1.69B | 8.18±1.63C | 7.12±1.41B | 7.36±1.24C | |
N1 | 8.59±1.74B | 9.17±1.68B | 7.74±1.28B | 8.16±1.31B | |
N2 | 9.53±1.63A | 9.87±1.63AB | 8.50±1.32A | 9.03±1.27A | |
N3 | 9.88±1.41A | 10.08±1.61A | 8.95±1.16A | 9.37±1.30A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 鲜草产量Fresh grass yield | 干草产量Hay yield | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 42.01±2.03h | 35.99±2.04f | 15.02±0.99j | 12.86±0.84d |
N1 | 45.83±2.30gh | 40.85±2.04ef | 16.10±0.92ij | 14.54±0.89cd | |
N2 | 49.38±3.65fgh | 45.21±2.69def | 17.94±1.31ghij | 16.35±1.27cd | |
N3 | 49.08±3.28fgh | 44.45±3.31ef | 17.78±1.27ghij | 16.13±1.25cd | |
D2 | N0 | 48.14±3.12fgh | 44.48±2.80ef | 16.67±0.75hij | 15.86±0.90cd |
N1 | 52.22±3.32efgh | 49.94±2.96cde | 18.27±1.37fghij | 17.91±1.10bc | |
N2 | 62.61±5.25bcde | 58.92±4.08abc | 21.86±1.56cdefg | 20.91±1.61ab | |
N3 | 61.15±4.87cde | 59.03±4.04abc | 21.40±1.78defgh | 21.04±1.71ab | |
D3 | N0 | 56.87±4.21defg | 48.49±3.82cde | 19.78±1.40efghi | 17.34±1.11bc |
N1 | 63.85±4.87bcde | 56.12±3.79bcd | 22.79±1.62bcdef | 20.60±1.64ab | |
N2 | 72.60±6.96abc | 65.97±5.59ab | 25.83±2.08abcd | 24.07±2.10a | |
N3 | 74.30±6.38ab | 65.75±5.59ab | 26.23±2.41abc | 23.87±1.94a | |
D4 | N0 | 60.52±4.01cdef | 49.18±3.36cde | 21.12±1.35efgh | 17.65±1.19bc |
N1 | 69.08±5.11abcd | 58.08±5.12abc | 24.22±2.21abcde | 21.03±1.80ab | |
N2 | 77.09±6.38a | 67.05±5.72ab | 27.19±2.20ab | 24.53±2.02a | |
N3 | 79.77±5.74a | 68.13±5.30a | 28.18±2.52a | 24.85±1.86a | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 46.58±4.12D | 41.63±4.54C | 16.71±1.64C | 14.97±1.69C |
D2 | 56.03±7.25C | 53.09±7.28B | 19.55±2.54B | 18.93±2.56B | |
D3 | 66.90±8.52B | 59.08±8.54A | 23.66±3.23A | 21.47±3.21A | |
D4 | 71.62±9.45A | 60.61±9.06A | 25.18±3.3A | 22.02±3.41A | |
N0 | 51.89±8.15C | 44.53±6.04C | 18.15±2.69C | 15.93±2.15C | |
N1 | 57.75±10.34B | 51.25±7.66B | 20.34±3.7B | 18.52±2.92B | |
N2 | 65.42±12.06A | 59.28±9.99A | 23.21±4.11A | 21.47±3.69A | |
N3 | 66.07±13.26A | 59.34±10.47A | 23.40±4.57A | 21.47±3.87A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
表4 不同处理下青贮玉米的鲜草和干草产量
Table 4 Fresh and hay grass yield of silage maize under different treatments (t·hm-2)
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 鲜草产量Fresh grass yield | 干草产量Hay yield | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 42.01±2.03h | 35.99±2.04f | 15.02±0.99j | 12.86±0.84d |
N1 | 45.83±2.30gh | 40.85±2.04ef | 16.10±0.92ij | 14.54±0.89cd | |
N2 | 49.38±3.65fgh | 45.21±2.69def | 17.94±1.31ghij | 16.35±1.27cd | |
N3 | 49.08±3.28fgh | 44.45±3.31ef | 17.78±1.27ghij | 16.13±1.25cd | |
D2 | N0 | 48.14±3.12fgh | 44.48±2.80ef | 16.67±0.75hij | 15.86±0.90cd |
N1 | 52.22±3.32efgh | 49.94±2.96cde | 18.27±1.37fghij | 17.91±1.10bc | |
N2 | 62.61±5.25bcde | 58.92±4.08abc | 21.86±1.56cdefg | 20.91±1.61ab | |
N3 | 61.15±4.87cde | 59.03±4.04abc | 21.40±1.78defgh | 21.04±1.71ab | |
D3 | N0 | 56.87±4.21defg | 48.49±3.82cde | 19.78±1.40efghi | 17.34±1.11bc |
N1 | 63.85±4.87bcde | 56.12±3.79bcd | 22.79±1.62bcdef | 20.60±1.64ab | |
N2 | 72.60±6.96abc | 65.97±5.59ab | 25.83±2.08abcd | 24.07±2.10a | |
N3 | 74.30±6.38ab | 65.75±5.59ab | 26.23±2.41abc | 23.87±1.94a | |
D4 | N0 | 60.52±4.01cdef | 49.18±3.36cde | 21.12±1.35efgh | 17.65±1.19bc |
N1 | 69.08±5.11abcd | 58.08±5.12abc | 24.22±2.21abcde | 21.03±1.80ab | |
N2 | 77.09±6.38a | 67.05±5.72ab | 27.19±2.20ab | 24.53±2.02a | |
N3 | 79.77±5.74a | 68.13±5.30a | 28.18±2.52a | 24.85±1.86a | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 46.58±4.12D | 41.63±4.54C | 16.71±1.64C | 14.97±1.69C |
D2 | 56.03±7.25C | 53.09±7.28B | 19.55±2.54B | 18.93±2.56B | |
D3 | 66.90±8.52B | 59.08±8.54A | 23.66±3.23A | 21.47±3.21A | |
D4 | 71.62±9.45A | 60.61±9.06A | 25.18±3.3A | 22.02±3.41A | |
N0 | 51.89±8.15C | 44.53±6.04C | 18.15±2.69C | 15.93±2.15C | |
N1 | 57.75±10.34B | 51.25±7.66B | 20.34±3.7B | 18.52±2.92B | |
N2 | 65.42±12.06A | 59.28±9.99A | 23.21±4.11A | 21.47±3.69A | |
N3 | 66.07±13.26A | 59.34±10.47A | 23.40±4.57A | 21.47±3.87A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 播前贮水量 Water storage before sowing | 收获期贮水量 Water storage at harvesting | 土壤蒸散量 Soil evapotranspiration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 412.6±23.55a | 388.5±17.78a | 320.8±15.24a | 309.6±18.84a | 504.9±26.84a | 432.5±21.85a |
N1 | 403.6±18.16a | 390.1±20.13a | 322.4±17.62a | 309.0±16.20a | 494.3±27.50a | 434.7±20.89a | |
N2 | 412.6±24.66a | 366.1±22.57a | 299.1±18.56a | 285.4±19.20a | 526.6±31.48a | 434.3±29.22a | |
N3 | 405.5±27.88a | 360.0±29.10a | 293.2±20.51a | 278.1±20.00a | 525.4±34.93a | 435.4±33.17a | |
D2 | N0 | 400.6±19.50a | 386.6±17.59a | 318.9±19.53a | 297.9±19.74a | 494.8±32.92a | 442.2±27.34a |
N1 | 406.0±25.13a | 387.0±27.64a | 319.4±21.56a | 298.3±17.42a | 499.7±32.24a | 442.3±26.30a | |
N2 | 412.6±28.32a | 364.0±25.15a | 297.0±19.10a | 278.6±21.91a | 528.6±42.40a | 439.0±32.01a | |
N3 | 403.1±30.44a | 357.7±23.09a | 291.0±21.25a | 273.2±21.94a | 525.2±42.09a | 438.1±32.46a | |
D3 | N0 | 402.1±23.45a | 392.7±28.69a | 324.8±22.98a | 303.2±19.87a | 490.3±37.47a | 443.1±32.67a |
N1 | 403.0±23.60a | 385.1±21.70a | 317.5±18.25a | 296.7±15.76a | 498.6±30.53a | 442.0±27.47a | |
N2 | 401.0±33.14a | 362.8±29.40a | 299.8±25.21a | 283.3±18.80a | 514.3±37.61a | 433.1±30.85a | |
N3 | 400.9±32.53a | 348.3±30.12a | 282.2±25.45a | 268.6±25.22a | 531.8±45.87a | 433.3±35.35a | |
D4 | N0 | 408.7±26.93a | 379.2±21.24a | 306.9±19.73a | 282.3±18.12a | 514.9±25.17a | 450.5±24.08a |
N1 | 414.2±32.78a | 382.3±25.48a | 308.0±20.95a | 286.2±18.85a | 519.4±38.00a | 449.6±29.23a | |
N2 | 412.5±32.88a | 363.7±29.27a | 286.9±24.25a | 271.9±18.94a | 538.7±42.41a | 445.4±36.94a | |
N3 | 415.5±28.80a | 359.4±29.95a | 270.9±20.89a | 258.1±19.18a | 557.6±41.62a | 454.9±37.97a | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 408.6±20.76A | 376.1±23.91A | 308.8±20.48A | 295.5±21.58A | 512.8±29.60A | 434.2±22.86A |
D2 | 405.5±22.81A | 373.8±24.42A | 306.6±21.90A | 287.0±20.97A | 512.1±35.78A | 440.4±25.36A | |
D3 | 401.8±24.37A | 372.2±29.95A | 306.1±26.22A | 287.9±22.11A | 508.8±36.58A | 437.9±27.49A | |
D4 | 412.7±26.11A | 371.1±24.96A | 293.2±24.37A | 274.6±19.65A | 532.6±36.52A | 450.1±27.99A | |
N0 | 406.0±20.69A | 386.7±19.27A | 317.9±18.08A | 298.2±19.43A | 501.2±28.23A | 442.1±23.80A | |
N1 | 406.7±22.21A | 386.1±20.62A | 316.8±17.69A | 297.6±16.84A | 503.0±29.34A | 442.2±22.97A | |
N2 | 409.7±26.07A | 364.1±22.85AB | 295.7±19.51B | 279.8±17.69AB | 527.1±34.25A | 437.9±28.07A | |
N3 | 406.2±26.21A | 356.3±24.56B | 284.3±20.96B | 269.5±20.07B | 535.0±37.89A | 440.4±30.99A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
NA | ns | * | ** | ** | ns | ns | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
表5 不同处理下的土壤贮水量和蒸散量
Table 5 Soil water storage and evapotranspiration under different treatments (mm)
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 播前贮水量 Water storage before sowing | 收获期贮水量 Water storage at harvesting | 土壤蒸散量 Soil evapotranspiration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 412.6±23.55a | 388.5±17.78a | 320.8±15.24a | 309.6±18.84a | 504.9±26.84a | 432.5±21.85a |
N1 | 403.6±18.16a | 390.1±20.13a | 322.4±17.62a | 309.0±16.20a | 494.3±27.50a | 434.7±20.89a | |
N2 | 412.6±24.66a | 366.1±22.57a | 299.1±18.56a | 285.4±19.20a | 526.6±31.48a | 434.3±29.22a | |
N3 | 405.5±27.88a | 360.0±29.10a | 293.2±20.51a | 278.1±20.00a | 525.4±34.93a | 435.4±33.17a | |
D2 | N0 | 400.6±19.50a | 386.6±17.59a | 318.9±19.53a | 297.9±19.74a | 494.8±32.92a | 442.2±27.34a |
N1 | 406.0±25.13a | 387.0±27.64a | 319.4±21.56a | 298.3±17.42a | 499.7±32.24a | 442.3±26.30a | |
N2 | 412.6±28.32a | 364.0±25.15a | 297.0±19.10a | 278.6±21.91a | 528.6±42.40a | 439.0±32.01a | |
N3 | 403.1±30.44a | 357.7±23.09a | 291.0±21.25a | 273.2±21.94a | 525.2±42.09a | 438.1±32.46a | |
D3 | N0 | 402.1±23.45a | 392.7±28.69a | 324.8±22.98a | 303.2±19.87a | 490.3±37.47a | 443.1±32.67a |
N1 | 403.0±23.60a | 385.1±21.70a | 317.5±18.25a | 296.7±15.76a | 498.6±30.53a | 442.0±27.47a | |
N2 | 401.0±33.14a | 362.8±29.40a | 299.8±25.21a | 283.3±18.80a | 514.3±37.61a | 433.1±30.85a | |
N3 | 400.9±32.53a | 348.3±30.12a | 282.2±25.45a | 268.6±25.22a | 531.8±45.87a | 433.3±35.35a | |
D4 | N0 | 408.7±26.93a | 379.2±21.24a | 306.9±19.73a | 282.3±18.12a | 514.9±25.17a | 450.5±24.08a |
N1 | 414.2±32.78a | 382.3±25.48a | 308.0±20.95a | 286.2±18.85a | 519.4±38.00a | 449.6±29.23a | |
N2 | 412.5±32.88a | 363.7±29.27a | 286.9±24.25a | 271.9±18.94a | 538.7±42.41a | 445.4±36.94a | |
N3 | 415.5±28.80a | 359.4±29.95a | 270.9±20.89a | 258.1±19.18a | 557.6±41.62a | 454.9±37.97a | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 408.6±20.76A | 376.1±23.91A | 308.8±20.48A | 295.5±21.58A | 512.8±29.60A | 434.2±22.86A |
D2 | 405.5±22.81A | 373.8±24.42A | 306.6±21.90A | 287.0±20.97A | 512.1±35.78A | 440.4±25.36A | |
D3 | 401.8±24.37A | 372.2±29.95A | 306.1±26.22A | 287.9±22.11A | 508.8±36.58A | 437.9±27.49A | |
D4 | 412.7±26.11A | 371.1±24.96A | 293.2±24.37A | 274.6±19.65A | 532.6±36.52A | 450.1±27.99A | |
N0 | 406.0±20.69A | 386.7±19.27A | 317.9±18.08A | 298.2±19.43A | 501.2±28.23A | 442.1±23.80A | |
N1 | 406.7±22.21A | 386.1±20.62A | 316.8±17.69A | 297.6±16.84A | 503.0±29.34A | 442.2±22.97A | |
N2 | 409.7±26.07A | 364.1±22.85AB | 295.7±19.51B | 279.8±17.69AB | 527.1±34.25A | 437.9±28.07A | |
N3 | 406.2±26.21A | 356.3±24.56B | 284.3±20.96B | 269.5±20.07B | 535.0±37.89A | 440.4±30.99A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
NA | ns | * | ** | ** | ns | ns | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 降水利用效率 Precipitation utilization efficiency | 籽粒产量水分利用效率 Water use efficiency of grain yield | 生物量水分利用效率 Water use efficiency of biomass | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 36.4±1.92j | 36.4±2.12d | 16.0±0.91f | 15.8±0.69g | 29.7±1.85e | 29.7±1.51e |
N1 | 39.0±2.93ij | 41.1±2.60cd | 17.7±0.98ef | 17.7±0.76fg | 32.6±2.35de | 33.5±1.88de | |
N2 | 43.4±2.69ghij | 46.2±3.24cd | 18.9±1.18def | 20.7±1.39def | 34.1±2.68de | 37.7±2.87cde | |
N3 | 43.1±3.22ghij | 45.6±2.97cd | 18.6±1.25def | 20.0±1.13def | 33.9±2.38de | 37.0±2.92de | |
D2 | N0 | 40.4±2.30hij | 44.9±2.77cd | 17.6±0.86ef | 19.0±1.07efg | 33.7±1.80de | 35.9±1.60de |
N1 | 44.2±3.29fghij | 50.7±3.59bc | 19.2±1.14def | 21.3±1.16def | 36.6±2.42de | 40.5±2.88bcd | |
N2 | 52.9±3.21cdefg | 59.1±4.70ab | 22.3±1.52bcd | 25.1±1.44abc | 41.4±2.82bcd | 47.6±3.73ab | |
N3 | 51.8±4.10defg | 59.5±4.91ab | 21.9±1.50bcd | 25.4±1.53abc | 40.7±2.81cd | 48.0±3.69ab | |
D3 | N0 | 47.9±3.70efghi | 49.0±3.26bc | 20.7±1.32cde | 19.5±1.21ef | 40.3±3.07cd | 39.1±2.77bcde |
N1 | 55.2±3.96bcdef | 58.3±4.10ab | 23.8±1.16abc | 23.6±1.00bcd | 45.7±3.55abc | 46.6±3.33abc | |
N2 | 62.5±5.04abcd | 68.1±6.22a | 26.2±1.74a | 27.9±1.72a | 50.2±4.03a | 55.6±5.04a | |
N3 | 63.5±5.71abc | 67.5±6.14a | 25.5±1.78ab | 27.7±2.11a | 49.3±4.17ab | 55.1±4.28a | |
D4 | N0 | 51.1±3.98efgh | 49.9±3.65bc | 19.6±1.16def | 18.2±0.91efg | 41.0±2.31bcd | 39.2±2.73bcde |
N1 | 58.6±4.53abcde | 59.5±5.10ab | 22.0±1.39bcd | 21.8±1.44cde | 46.6±3.70abc | 46.8±4.03abc | |
N2 | 65.8±5.72ab | 69.4±6.29a | 24.3±1.66abc | 25.8±1.65ab | 50.5±3.99a | 55.1±4.94a | |
N3 | 68.2±6.02a | 70.3±5.78a | 23.8±1.72abc | 25.2±1.72abc | 50.5±3.89a | 54.6±4.48a | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 40.5±3.86C | 42.3±4.77C | 17.8±1.48D | 18.5±2.19C | 32.6±2.68C | 34.5±3.88C |
D2 | 47.3±6.14B | 53.5±7.30B | 20.3±2.29C | 22.7±3.01B | 38.1±3.90B | 43.0±5.94B | |
D3 | 57.3±7.70A | 60.7±9.22A | 24.1±2.57A | 24.7±3.84A | 46.4±5.16A | 49.1±7.83A | |
D4 | 60.9±8.24A | 62.3±9.77A | 22.4±2.31B | 22.7±3.40B | 47.2±5.06A | 48.9±7.67A | |
N0 | 43.9±6.67C | 45.0±6.15C | 18.5±2.09C | 18.1±1.71C | 36.2±5.29C | 36.0±4.44C | |
N1 | 49.2±8.91B | 52.4±8.36B | 20.7±2.67B | 21.1±2.43B | 40.4±6.77B | 41.8±6.29B | |
N2 | 56.2±9.86A | 60.7±10.64A | 22.9±3.11A | 24.9±3.06A | 44.0±7.71A | 49.0±8.40A | |
N3 | 56.6±11.12A | 60.7±10.91A | 22.5±3.01A | 24.6±3.27A | 43.6±7.65A | 48.7±8.30A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
表6 不同处理下的降水利用效率和水分利用效率
Table 6 Precipitation use efficiency and water use efficiency under different treatments (kg·hm-2·mm-1)
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 降水利用效率 Precipitation utilization efficiency | 籽粒产量水分利用效率 Water use efficiency of grain yield | 生物量水分利用效率 Water use efficiency of biomass | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 36.4±1.92j | 36.4±2.12d | 16.0±0.91f | 15.8±0.69g | 29.7±1.85e | 29.7±1.51e |
N1 | 39.0±2.93ij | 41.1±2.60cd | 17.7±0.98ef | 17.7±0.76fg | 32.6±2.35de | 33.5±1.88de | |
N2 | 43.4±2.69ghij | 46.2±3.24cd | 18.9±1.18def | 20.7±1.39def | 34.1±2.68de | 37.7±2.87cde | |
N3 | 43.1±3.22ghij | 45.6±2.97cd | 18.6±1.25def | 20.0±1.13def | 33.9±2.38de | 37.0±2.92de | |
D2 | N0 | 40.4±2.30hij | 44.9±2.77cd | 17.6±0.86ef | 19.0±1.07efg | 33.7±1.80de | 35.9±1.60de |
N1 | 44.2±3.29fghij | 50.7±3.59bc | 19.2±1.14def | 21.3±1.16def | 36.6±2.42de | 40.5±2.88bcd | |
N2 | 52.9±3.21cdefg | 59.1±4.70ab | 22.3±1.52bcd | 25.1±1.44abc | 41.4±2.82bcd | 47.6±3.73ab | |
N3 | 51.8±4.10defg | 59.5±4.91ab | 21.9±1.50bcd | 25.4±1.53abc | 40.7±2.81cd | 48.0±3.69ab | |
D3 | N0 | 47.9±3.70efghi | 49.0±3.26bc | 20.7±1.32cde | 19.5±1.21ef | 40.3±3.07cd | 39.1±2.77bcde |
N1 | 55.2±3.96bcdef | 58.3±4.10ab | 23.8±1.16abc | 23.6±1.00bcd | 45.7±3.55abc | 46.6±3.33abc | |
N2 | 62.5±5.04abcd | 68.1±6.22a | 26.2±1.74a | 27.9±1.72a | 50.2±4.03a | 55.6±5.04a | |
N3 | 63.5±5.71abc | 67.5±6.14a | 25.5±1.78ab | 27.7±2.11a | 49.3±4.17ab | 55.1±4.28a | |
D4 | N0 | 51.1±3.98efgh | 49.9±3.65bc | 19.6±1.16def | 18.2±0.91efg | 41.0±2.31bcd | 39.2±2.73bcde |
N1 | 58.6±4.53abcde | 59.5±5.10ab | 22.0±1.39bcd | 21.8±1.44cde | 46.6±3.70abc | 46.8±4.03abc | |
N2 | 65.8±5.72ab | 69.4±6.29a | 24.3±1.66abc | 25.8±1.65ab | 50.5±3.99a | 55.1±4.94a | |
N3 | 68.2±6.02a | 70.3±5.78a | 23.8±1.72abc | 25.2±1.72abc | 50.5±3.89a | 54.6±4.48a | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 40.5±3.86C | 42.3±4.77C | 17.8±1.48D | 18.5±2.19C | 32.6±2.68C | 34.5±3.88C |
D2 | 47.3±6.14B | 53.5±7.30B | 20.3±2.29C | 22.7±3.01B | 38.1±3.90B | 43.0±5.94B | |
D3 | 57.3±7.70A | 60.7±9.22A | 24.1±2.57A | 24.7±3.84A | 46.4±5.16A | 49.1±7.83A | |
D4 | 60.9±8.24A | 62.3±9.77A | 22.4±2.31B | 22.7±3.40B | 47.2±5.06A | 48.9±7.67A | |
N0 | 43.9±6.67C | 45.0±6.15C | 18.5±2.09C | 18.1±1.71C | 36.2±5.29C | 36.0±4.44C | |
N1 | 49.2±8.91B | 52.4±8.36B | 20.7±2.67B | 21.1±2.43B | 40.4±6.77B | 41.8±6.29B | |
N2 | 56.2±9.86A | 60.7±10.64A | 22.9±3.11A | 24.9±3.06A | 44.0±7.71A | 49.0±8.40A | |
N3 | 56.6±11.12A | 60.7±10.91A | 22.5±3.01A | 24.6±3.27A | 43.6±7.65A | 48.7±8.30A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 氮含量Nitrogen content (%) | 氮吸收量Nitrogen uptake (kg·hm-2) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 1.11±0.06cdef | 1.02±0.06bcd | 166.83±16.28e | 131.0±13.01e |
N1 | 1.21±0.06abcd | 1.15±0.05ab | 194.72±20.64de | 167.0±19.89cde | |
N2 | 1.34±0.07a | 1.21±0.07a | 241.07±26.52cde | 198.0±23.50bcde | |
N3 | 1.33±0.06a | 1.21±0.08a | 235.94±30.68de | 195.9±25.66bcde | |
D2 | N0 | 1.01±0.05ef | 0.98±0.04cd | 168.86±17.80e | 155.5±16.86de |
N1 | 1.15±0.07bcde | 1.11±0.05abc | 210.00±27.50de | 199.5±23.18bcde | |
N2 | 1.29±0.07ab | 1.17±0.06ab | 281.50±36.08abcd | 243.9±29.95abc | |
N3 | 1.30±0.07ab | 1.17±0.05ab | 278.86±32.49abcd | 247.0±32.02ab | |
D3 | N0 | 0.97±0.05f | 0.96±0.05d | 191.53±23.02de | 166.5±20.39cde |
N1 | 1.10±0.06def | 1.07±0.06abcd | 250.20±28.13bcde | 221.0±25.24abcd | |
N2 | 1.26±0.08abcd | 1.18±0.07a | 326.31±41.43abc | 284.2±35.39a | |
N3 | 1.27±0.08abc | 1.18±0.06ab | 334.67±42.10ab | 280.9±36.20a | |
D4 | N0 | 0.96±0.04f | 0.93±0.03d | 202.08±22.73de | 164.6±16.50de |
N1 | 1.04±0.06ef | 1.05±0.07abcd | 250.50±32.38bcde | 221.8±29.12abcd | |
N2 | 1.23±0.06abcd | 1.14±0.06ab | 333.47±40.92ab | 279.4±35.52a | |
N3 | 1.22±0.05abcd | 1.14±0.06ab | 343.85±45.03a | 282.5±39.06a | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 1.25±0.11A | 1.15±0.10A | 209.64±37.99B | 172.99±33.60B |
D2 | 1.19±0.13BC | 1.11±0.09AB | 234.81±55.69B | 211.48±44.99A | |
D3 | 1.15±0.14BC | 1.10±0.11AB | 275.68±68.05A | 238.15±56.74A | |
D4 | 1.11±0.13C | 1.07±0.10B | 282.48±68.82A | 237.09±57.08A | |
N0 | 1.01±0.08C | 0.97±0.05C | 182.33±23.25C | 154.38±20.63C | |
N1 | 1.12±0.08B | 1.10±0.06B | 226.35±34.78B | 202.33±31.31B | |
N2 | 1.28±0.07A | 1.17±0.06A | 295.59±49.95A | 251.39±44.95A | |
N3 | 1.28±0.07A | 1.18±0.06A | 298.33±56.08A | 251.60±46.57A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | * | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
表7 不同处理下青贮玉米的氮含量和吸收量
Table 7 Nitrogen content and absorption of silage maize under different treatments
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 氮含量Nitrogen content (%) | 氮吸收量Nitrogen uptake (kg·hm-2) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N0 | 1.11±0.06cdef | 1.02±0.06bcd | 166.83±16.28e | 131.0±13.01e |
N1 | 1.21±0.06abcd | 1.15±0.05ab | 194.72±20.64de | 167.0±19.89cde | |
N2 | 1.34±0.07a | 1.21±0.07a | 241.07±26.52cde | 198.0±23.50bcde | |
N3 | 1.33±0.06a | 1.21±0.08a | 235.94±30.68de | 195.9±25.66bcde | |
D2 | N0 | 1.01±0.05ef | 0.98±0.04cd | 168.86±17.80e | 155.5±16.86de |
N1 | 1.15±0.07bcde | 1.11±0.05abc | 210.00±27.50de | 199.5±23.18bcde | |
N2 | 1.29±0.07ab | 1.17±0.06ab | 281.50±36.08abcd | 243.9±29.95abc | |
N3 | 1.30±0.07ab | 1.17±0.05ab | 278.86±32.49abcd | 247.0±32.02ab | |
D3 | N0 | 0.97±0.05f | 0.96±0.05d | 191.53±23.02de | 166.5±20.39cde |
N1 | 1.10±0.06def | 1.07±0.06abcd | 250.20±28.13bcde | 221.0±25.24abcd | |
N2 | 1.26±0.08abcd | 1.18±0.07a | 326.31±41.43abc | 284.2±35.39a | |
N3 | 1.27±0.08abc | 1.18±0.06ab | 334.67±42.10ab | 280.9±36.20a | |
D4 | N0 | 0.96±0.04f | 0.93±0.03d | 202.08±22.73de | 164.6±16.50de |
N1 | 1.04±0.06ef | 1.05±0.07abcd | 250.50±32.38bcde | 221.8±29.12abcd | |
N2 | 1.23±0.06abcd | 1.14±0.06ab | 333.47±40.92ab | 279.4±35.52a | |
N3 | 1.22±0.05abcd | 1.14±0.06ab | 343.85±45.03a | 282.5±39.06a | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 1.25±0.11A | 1.15±0.10A | 209.64±37.99B | 172.99±33.60B |
D2 | 1.19±0.13BC | 1.11±0.09AB | 234.81±55.69B | 211.48±44.99A | |
D3 | 1.15±0.14BC | 1.10±0.11AB | 275.68±68.05A | 238.15±56.74A | |
D4 | 1.11±0.13C | 1.07±0.10B | 282.48±68.82A | 237.09±57.08A | |
N0 | 1.01±0.08C | 0.97±0.05C | 182.33±23.25C | 154.38±20.63C | |
N1 | 1.12±0.08B | 1.10±0.06B | 226.35±34.78B | 202.33±31.31B | |
N2 | 1.28±0.07A | 1.17±0.06A | 295.59±49.95A | 251.39±44.95A | |
N3 | 1.28±0.07A | 1.18±0.06A | 298.33±56.08A | 251.60±46.57A | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | * | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 氮肥农学效率Nitrogen agronomic efficiency | 氮肥利用效率Nitrogen use efficiency | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N1 | 8.98±3.06e | 13.98±1.24cd | 0.23±0.04de | 0.30±0.06cde |
N2 | 12.18±1.39de | 14.53±1.93cd | 0.31±0.04cde | 0.28±0.05de | |
N3 | 7.68±1.59e | 9.07±1.50d | 0.19±0.04e | 0.18±0.04e | |
D2 | N1 | 13.33±4.93cde | 17.09±2.66c | 0.34±0.09bcde | 0.37±0.05abcd |
N2 | 21.61±3.44ab | 21.05±2.89abc | 0.47±0.08abc | 0.37±0.06abcd | |
N3 | 13.12±2.52cde | 14.38±2.64cd | 0.30±0.04cde | 0.26±0.04de | |
D3 | N1 | 25.06±2.51ab | 27.12±2.09ab | 0.49±0.04ab | 0.45±0.04abc |
N2 | 25.22±1.81ab | 28.01±3.63a | 0.56±0.08a | 0.49±0.06a | |
N3 | 17.91±2.70bcd | 18.13±2.89c | 0.40±0.06abcd | 0.32±0.04bcde | |
D4 | N1 | 25.84±2.10a | 28.20±4.27a | 0.40±0.08abcd | 0.48±0.11ab |
N2 | 25.29±2.98ab | 28.70±3.84a | 0.55±0.07a | 0.48±0.08ab | |
N3 | 19.62±2.48abc | 20.01±3.16bc | 0.39±0.06abcd | 0.33±0.07bcde | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 9.62±2.74C | 12.52±2.94C | 0.24±0.06C | 0.25±0.07C |
D2 | 16.02±5.31B | 17.51±3.74B | 0.37±0.10B | 0.33±0.07B | |
D3 | 22.73±4.16A | 24.42±5.37A | 0.48±0.09A | 0.42±0.09A | |
D4 | 23.58±3.71A | 25.64±5.35A | 0.45±0.10A | 0.43±0.10A | |
N1 | 18.30±8.15B | 21.60±6.87A | 0.37±0.11B | 0.40±0.09A | |
N2 | 21.08±5.99A | 23.07±6.60A | 0.47±0.12A | 0.40±0.11A | |
N3 | 14.58±5.25C | 15.40±4.91B | 0.32±0.10B | 0.27±0.07B | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
表8 不同处理下青贮玉米的氮肥农学效率和氮肥利用效率
Table 8 Nitrogen agronomic efficiency and nitrogen use efficiency of silage maize under different treatments (kg·kg-1)
种植密度 Planting density | 施氮水平 Nitrogen application | 氮肥农学效率Nitrogen agronomic efficiency | 氮肥利用效率Nitrogen use efficiency | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||
D1 | N1 | 8.98±3.06e | 13.98±1.24cd | 0.23±0.04de | 0.30±0.06cde |
N2 | 12.18±1.39de | 14.53±1.93cd | 0.31±0.04cde | 0.28±0.05de | |
N3 | 7.68±1.59e | 9.07±1.50d | 0.19±0.04e | 0.18±0.04e | |
D2 | N1 | 13.33±4.93cde | 17.09±2.66c | 0.34±0.09bcde | 0.37±0.05abcd |
N2 | 21.61±3.44ab | 21.05±2.89abc | 0.47±0.08abc | 0.37±0.06abcd | |
N3 | 13.12±2.52cde | 14.38±2.64cd | 0.30±0.04cde | 0.26±0.04de | |
D3 | N1 | 25.06±2.51ab | 27.12±2.09ab | 0.49±0.04ab | 0.45±0.04abc |
N2 | 25.22±1.81ab | 28.01±3.63a | 0.56±0.08a | 0.49±0.06a | |
N3 | 17.91±2.70bcd | 18.13±2.89c | 0.40±0.06abcd | 0.32±0.04bcde | |
D4 | N1 | 25.84±2.10a | 28.20±4.27a | 0.40±0.08abcd | 0.48±0.11ab |
N2 | 25.29±2.98ab | 28.70±3.84a | 0.55±0.07a | 0.48±0.08ab | |
N3 | 19.62±2.48abc | 20.01±3.16bc | 0.39±0.06abcd | 0.33±0.07bcde | |
平均值 Average | D1 | 9.62±2.74C | 12.52±2.94C | 0.24±0.06C | 0.25±0.07C |
D2 | 16.02±5.31B | 17.51±3.74B | 0.37±0.10B | 0.33±0.07B | |
D3 | 22.73±4.16A | 24.42±5.37A | 0.48±0.09A | 0.42±0.09A | |
D4 | 23.58±3.71A | 25.64±5.35A | 0.45±0.10A | 0.43±0.10A | |
N1 | 18.30±8.15B | 21.60±6.87A | 0.37±0.11B | 0.40±0.09A | |
N2 | 21.08±5.99A | 23.07±6.60A | 0.47±0.12A | 0.40±0.11A | |
N3 | 14.58±5.25C | 15.40±4.91B | 0.32±0.10B | 0.27±0.07B | |
显著性 Significance | PD | ** | ** | ** | ** |
NA | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
PD×NA | ns | ns | ns | ns |
1 | Ren Y J, Li J L, Zhao J X. Summary of rainfall resources utilization. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2000(1): 88-92. |
任杨俊, 李建牢, 赵俊侠. 国内外雨水资源利用研究综述. 水土保持学报, 2000(1): 88-92. | |
2 | Zhang W F, Dou Z X, He P, et al. New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013, 110(21): 8375-8380. |
3 | Sinha E, Michalak A M, Balaji V. Eutrophication will increase during the 21st century as a result of precipitation changes. Science, 2017, 357(6349): 405-408. |
4 | Huang G X, Huang Y Y, Hu H Y, et al. Remediation of nitrate-nitrogen contaminated groundwater using a pilot-scale two-layer heterotrophic-autotrophic denitrification permeable reactive barrier with spongy iron/pine bark. Chemosphere, 2015, 130: 8-16. |
5 | Wu W, Liao Y C. The research progress and prospects of ridge and furrow rainwater harvesting system in arid regions of China. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2014, 23(2): 1-9. |
吴伟, 廖允成. 中国旱区沟垄集雨栽培技术研究进展及展望. 西北农业学报, 2014, 23(2): 1-9. | |
6 | Jia Q M, Sun L F, Mou H Y, et al. Effects of planting patterns and sowing densities on grain-filling, radiation use efficiency and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in semi-arid regions. Agricultural Water Management, 2018, 201: 287-298. |
7 | Jia Q M, Xu Y Y, Ali S, et al. Strategies of supplemental irrigation and modified planting densities to improve the root growth and lodging resistance of maize (Zea mays L.) under the ridge-furrow rainfall harvesting system. Field Crops Research, 2018, 224: 48-59. |
8 | Yonezawa T, Sunohara Y, Matsumoto H. Involvement of heme synthesis in the growth stimulation of maize seedlings by 5‐aminolevulinic acid. Weed Biology and Management, 2015, 15(1): 53-60. |
9 | Nahar K, Hasanuzzaman M, Alam M M, et al. Insights into spermine-induced combined high temperature and drought tolerance in mung bean: Osmoregulation and roles of antioxidant and glyoxalase system. Protoplasma, 2017, 254(1): 445-460. |
10 | Li H Q, Lin H M, Liang S R, et al. Effects of planting densities and modes on activities of some enzymes and yield in summer maize. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2012, 32(20): 6584-6590. |
李洪岐, 蔺海明, 梁书荣, 等. 密度和种植方式对夏玉米酶活性和产量的影响. 生态学报, 2012, 32(20): 6584-6590. | |
11 | Yang Z F, Meng Y, Gu W R, et al. Effect of chemical regulation and density on spring maize leaf senescence and yield in Northeast China. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2015, 30(4): 117-125. |
杨振芳, 孟瑶, 顾万荣, 等. 化控和密度措施对东北春玉米叶片衰老及产量的影响. 华北农学报, 2015, 30(4): 117-125. | |
12 | Jia Q M. Effects of rainwater-harvesting planting with supplemental irrigation and planting densities on the growth and photosynthetic physiology of maize in the semi-arid regions. Xianyang: Northwest A&F University, 2018. |
贾倩民. 半干旱区集雨补灌与种植密度对玉米生长及光合生理特性的影响. 咸阳: 西北农林科技大学, 2018. | |
13 | Jia Q M, Chen K Y, Chen Y Y, et al. Mulch covered ridges affect grain yield of maize through regulating root growth and root-bleeding sap under simulated rainfall conditions. Soil & Tillage Research, 2018, 175: 101-111. |
14 | Rajcan I, Swanton C J. Understanding maize-weed competition: Resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crops Research, 2001, 71(2): 139-150. |
15 | Timlin D J, Naidu T C M, Fleisher D H, et al. Quantitative effects of phosphorus on maize canopy photosynthesis and biomass. Crop Science, 2017, 57(6): 3156-3169. |
16 | Liu T, Huang R, Cai T, et al. Optimum leaf removal increases nitrogen accumulation in kernels of maize grown at high density. Scientific Reports, 2017, DOI: 10.1038/srep39601. |
17 | Wang X, Turner N C, Wang G. Determining optimal mulching, planting density, and nitrogen application to increase maize grain yield and nitrogen translocation efficiency in Northwest China. BMC Plant Biology, 2020, 20(1): 5952-5959. |
18 | Liu Z P, Chen X, Yang M Y, et al. Effect of nitrogen amount and limited irrigation on physiological features of flag leaf and cellular protective enzyme activities in wheat. Journal of Triticiceae Crops, 2018, 38(2): 175-182. |
刘志鹏, 陈曦, 杨梦雅, 等. 氮量及减灌对冬小麦旗叶生理参数和细胞保护酶活性的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2018, 38(2): 175-182. | |
19 | Wang J L, Wang Z H, Li W H, et al. Effects of nitrogen application rate on photosynthetic characteristics and yield of silage maize. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2017, 35(5): 250-255. |
王久龙, 王振华, 李文昊, 等. 施氮量对复播青贮玉米光合特性和产量的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2017, 35(5): 250-255. | |
20 | Yadav M R, Kumar R, Parihar C M, et al. Strategies for improving nitrogen use efficiency: A review. Agricultural Reviews, 2017, 38(1): 29-40. |
21 | Xie T T, Su P X. Effects of irrigation and nitrogen application rates on yield and water and nitrogen use efficiency of silage maize in oasis sandy land in the middle reaches of Heihe River. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2011, 29(2): 72-76. |
解婷婷, 苏培玺. 灌溉与施氮量对黑河中游边缘绿洲沙地青贮玉米产量及水氮利用效率的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2011, 29(2): 72-76. | |
22 | Liu M, Liang Q, Ge J Z, et al. Effects of nitrogen and density on summer maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2019, 34(6): 153-159. |
刘梦, 梁茜, 葛均筑, 等.不同密度下施氮量对夏玉米产量和氮肥利用效率的影响. 华北农学报, 2019, 34(6): 153-159. | |
23 | Ge J Z, Li S Y, Zhong X Y, et al. Effects of nitrogen application and film mulching on yield performance parameters and nitrogen use efficiency of spring maize in the middle reaches of Yangtze River. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2014, 40(6): 1081-1092. |
葛均筑, 李淑娅, 钟新月, 等. 施氮量与地膜覆盖对长江中游春玉米产量性能及氮肥利用效率的影响. 作物学报, 2014, 40(6): 1081-1092. | |
24 | Barbieri P, Echarte L, Maggiora A D, et al. Maize evapotranspiration and water-use efficiency in response to row spacing. Agronomy Journal, 2012, 104(4): 939-944. |
25 | Teixeira E I, George M, Herreman T, et al. The impact of water and nitrogen limitation on maize biomass and resource-use efficiencies for radiation, water and nitrogen. Field Crops Research, 2014, 168: 109-118. |
26 | Wei S L, Wang Z G, Yu X F, et al. Interaction of nitrogen fertilizer rate and plant density on grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of maize. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2019, 25(3): 382-391. |
魏淑丽, 王志刚, 于晓芳, 等. 施氮量和密度互作对玉米产量和氮肥利用效率的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(3): 382-391. | |
27 | Zhang Y S. Experimental course of plant physiology. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2009. |
张义顺. 植物生理学实验教程. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2009. | |
28 | Wu Y, Jia Z K, Ren X L, et al. Effects of ridge and furrow rainwater harvesting system combined with irrigation on improving water use efficiency of maize (Zea mays L.) in semi-humid area of China. Agricultural Water Management, 2015, 158: 1-9. |
29 | Huang Y L, Chen L D, Fu B J, et al. The wheat yields and water-use efficiency in the loess plateau: Straw mulch and irrigation effects. Agricultural Water Management, 2004, 72(3): 209-222. |
30 | Zhang H, Zhou J B, Liu R, et al. Effects of different cultivation patterns and nitrogen fertilizer on accumulation, distribution and use efficiency of nitrogen in winter wheat/summer maize rotation system on semi-dryland farming. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2011, 17(1): 1-8. |
张宏, 周建斌, 刘瑞, 等. 不同栽培模式及施氮对半旱地冬小麦/夏玉米氮素累积、分配及氮肥利用率的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2011, 17(1): 1-8. | |
31 | Li L L. Studies on yield formation and physiological characteristics of summer maize varieties with different plant height and the regulation of plant density. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2012. |
李利利. 不同株高夏玉米品种产量形成的生理特性及种植密度调控的研究. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2012. | |
32 | Boomsma C R, Santini J B, Tollenaar M, et al. Maize morphophysiological responses to intense crowding and low nitrogen availability: An analysis and review. Agronomy Journal, 2009, 101(6): 1426-1452. |
33 | Prochazkova D, Saiaram R K, Srovatava G C, et al. Oxidative stress and antioxidant activity as the basis of senescence in maize leaves. Plant Science, 2001, 161(4): 765-771. |
34 | Shao H, Shi D F, Shi W J, et al. Nutrient accumulation and remobilization in relation to yield formation at high planting density in maize hybrids with different senescent characters. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2021, 67(4): 487-503. |
35 | Han C G, Wang J L, Li Z F, et al. Effects of planting density on leaf senescence and yield of summer maize. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 43(7): 62-64. |
韩晨光, 王金龙, 李子芳, 等. 种植密度对夏玉米叶片衰老及产量的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2015, 43(7): 62-64. | |
36 | Zhang L X, Li S X. Effects of nitrogen, potassium and glycinebetaine on the lipid peroxidation and protective enzyme activities in water-stressed summer maize. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2007, 33(3): 482-490. |
张立新, 李生秀. 氮、钾、甜菜碱对水分胁迫下夏玉米叶片膜脂过氧化和保护酶活性的影响.作物学报, 2007, 33(3): 482-490. | |
37 | Tian G L, Qi D L, Zhu J Q, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer rates and waterlogging on leaf physiological characteristics and grain yield of maize. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 2021, 67(7): 863-875. |
38 | Juan Y H, Sun W T, Han X R, et al. Response of spring maize to nitrogen application in physiological characteristics of functional leaves and grain yield. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 29(2): 391-396. |
隽英华, 孙文涛, 韩晓日, 等. 春玉米功能叶片生理特征及产量对施氮的响应. 核农学报, 2015, 29(2): 391-396. | |
39 | Szulc P, Bocianowski J, Rybus-Zając M. Response of nitrogen nutritional indices of maize leaves to different mineral-organic fertilization. Maydica, 2012, 57(3): 260-265. |
40 | Liu Y J, Kong Q X, Su S B. Study progress on maize nitrogen metabolism. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2009, 17(1): 135-138. |
刘弋菊, 孔箐锌, 苏胜宝. 玉米氮素代谢机制的研究进展. 玉米科学, 2009, 17(1): 135-138. | |
41 | Shao H, Xia T T, Wu D L, et al. Root growth and root system architecture of field-grown maize in response to high planting density. Plant and Soil, 2018, 430(1/2): 395-411. |
42 | Li J H, Zhang C M, Du Y Y, et al. Effect of density on summer maize yield and yield traits under chemical regulation. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2014, 22(3): 72-76. |
李军虎, 张翠绵, 杜义英, 等. 化控条件下密度对夏玉米产量及产量性状的影响. 玉米科学, 2014, 22(3): 72-76. | |
43 | Qiu S J, He P, Zhao S C, et al. Impact of nitrogen rate on maize yield and nitrogen use efficiencies in Northeast China. Agronomy Journal, 2015, 107(1): 305-313. |
44 | Zhao Y, Tong Y A, Zhao H B. Effects of different nitrogen levels on nutrient accumulation, translocation and yield of summer maize. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2006, 12(5): 622-627. |
赵营, 同延安, 赵护兵. 不同供氮水平对夏玉米养分累积、转运及产量的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2006, 12(5): 622-627. | |
45 | Zheng J, Fan J L, Zhang F C, et al. Mulching mode and planting density affect canopy interception loss of rainfall and water use efficiency of dryland maize on the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(5): 794-808. |
46 | Wang Q M, Fan Z L, Zhao Y H, et al. Effect of planting density on water consumption characteristics of maize in oasis irrigation area. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2017, 43(9): 1347-1356. |
王巧梅, 樊志龙, 赵彦华, 等. 绿洲灌区不同密度玉米群体的耗水特性研究. 作物学报, 2017, 43(9): 1347-1356. | |
47 | Tokatlidis I S, Has V, Melidis V, et al. Maize hybrids less dependent on high plant densities improve resource-use efficiency in rainfed and irrigated conditions. Field Crops Research, 2011, 120(3): 345-351. |
48 | Li C J, Wen X X, Wan X J, et al. Towards the highly effective use of precipitation by ridge-furrow with plastic film mulching instead of relying on irrigation resources in a dry semi-humid area. Field Crops Research, 2016, 188: 62-73. |
49 | Zhang P L, Guo T W, Liu X W, et al. Effect of plant density and nitrogen application rate on yield, nitrogen and water use efficiencies of spring maize under whole plastic-film mulching and double-furrow sowing. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2019, 25(4): 579-590. |
张平良, 郭天文, 刘晓伟, 等. 密度和施氮量互作对全膜双垄沟播玉米产量、氮素和水分利用效率的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(4): 579-590. | |
50 | Li Y K, Mei X R, Xia X, et al. Effect of nitrogen reduction and combined application of organic fertilizer on soil water dynamics and water and nitrogen use efficiency of summer maize in North China plain. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 25(5): 54-60. |
李银坤, 梅旭荣, 夏旭, 等. 减氮配施有机肥对华北平原夏玉米土壤水分及水氮利用的影响. 水土保持研究, 2018, 25(5): 54-60. | |
51 | Zhang J J, Fan T L, Dang Y, et al. Effect of film mulching period and nitrogen application rate on soil water consumption characteristics and maize yield in dryland. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2018, 32(6): 72-78. |
张建军, 樊廷录, 党翼, 等. 覆膜时期与施氮量对旱地玉米土壤耗水特征及产量的影响. 水土保持学报, 2018, 32(6): 72-78. | |
52 | Zhang Z, Sun Z X, Zhang Y Q, et al. Effects of crop residues incorporation and N-fertilizer on yield and water use efficiency of spring maize. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2016, 34(3): 144-152. |
张哲, 孙占祥, 张燕卿, 等. 秸秆还田与氮肥配施对春玉米产量及水分利用效率的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2016, 34(3): 144-152. | |
53 | Liu M, Zhang Z X, Zheng E N, et al. Photosynthesis, water and nitrogen use efficiency of maize as impacted by different combinations of water and nitrogen applications. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2018, 37(12): 27-34. |
刘明, 张忠学, 郑恩楠, 等. 不同水氮管理模式下玉米光合特征和水氮利用效率试验研究. 灌溉排水学报, 2018, 37(12): 27-34. | |
54 | Wang X J, He H J, Kou S R, et al. Effect of different planting densities on biomass yield and quality for various varieties of silage maize. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(1): 169-177. |
王晓娟, 何海军, 寇思荣, 等. 种植密度对不同品种青贮玉米生物产量和品质的影响. 草业科学, 2019, 36(1): 169-177. | |
55 | Cuomo G J, Redfearn D D, Blouin D C. Plant density effects on tropical corn forage mass, morphology, and nutritive value. Agronomy Journal, 1998, 90(1): 93-96. |
56 | Raymond F D, Alley M M, Parrish D J, et al. Plant density and hybrid impacts on corn grain and forage yield and nutrient uptake. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2009, 32(3): 396-409. |
57 | Han K, Yin F W, Liu P. Planting density and N application rate balance maize agronomic and environmental effect. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2020, 117(3): 1-13. |
58 | Zhang M W, Liu J B, Qiao J F, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer application on yield and nitrogen uptake and utilization of summer maize with different planting densities. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 49(5): 55-62. |
张美微, 刘京宝, 乔江方, 等. 施氮量对不同种植密度夏玉米产量和氮素吸收利用的影响. 河南农业科学, 2020, 49(5): 55-62. | |
59 | Tan H, Zou C L, Zheng D B, et al. Effects of fertilization level and planting density on yield and nitrogen utilization in maize. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2014, 30(21): 177-182. |
谭华, 邹成林, 郑德波, 等. 施肥水平与种植密度对玉米产量和氮素利用的效应. 中国农学通报, 2014, 30(21): 177-182. | |
60 | Lan H L, Wang H B. Effect of nitrogen application rate on yield and quality of summer sowing silage maize with different density. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(2): 73-75. |
兰宏亮, 王海波. 施氮量对不同密度夏播青贮玉米产量和品质的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(2): 73-75. | |
61 | Worku M, Bänziger M, Friesen D, et al. Nitrogen uptake and utilization in contrasting nitrogen efficient tropical maize hybrids. Crop Science, 2007, 47(2): 519-528. |
62 | Hussaini M A, Ogunlela V B, Ramalan A A, et al. Mineral composition of dry season maize (Zea mays L.) in response to varying levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and irrigation at Kadawa, Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2008, 4(6): 775-780. |
63 | Yang X L, Lu Y L, Ding Y, et al. Optimising nitrogen fertilisation: A key to improving nitrogen-use efficiency and minimising nitrate leaching losses in an intensive wheat/maize rotation (2008-2014). Field Crops Research, 2017, 206: 1-10. |
64 | Zhang G Q, Shen D P, Xie R Z, et al. Optimizing planting density to improve nitrogen use of super high-yield maize. Agronomy Journal, 2020, 112(5): 4147-4158. |
[1] | 蒋紫薇, 刘桂宇, 安昊云, 石薇, 常生华, 张程, 贾倩民, 侯扶江. 种植密度与施氮对玉米/秣食豆间作系统饲草产量、品质和氮肥利用的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7): 157-171. |
[2] | 撖冬荣, 姚拓, 李海云, 黄书超, 杨琰珊, 高亚敏, 李昌宁, 张银翠. 微生物肥料与化肥减量配施对多年生黑麦草生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(3): 136-143. |
[3] | 马文明, 刘超文, 周青平, 邓增卓玛, 唐思洪, 迪力亚尔·莫合塔尔null, 侯晨. 高寒草地灌丛化对土壤团聚体生态化学计量学及酶活性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(1): 57-68. |
[4] | 古丽娜扎尔·艾力null, 陶海宁, 王自奎, 沈禹颖. 基于APSIM模型的黄土旱塬区苜蓿——小麦轮作系统深层土壤水分及水分利用效率研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7): 22-33. |
[5] | 王红林, 左艳春, 严旭, 周晓康, 寇晶, 杨希智, 郭俊英, 蒲军, 张浩仁, 杜周和. 刈割高度与施氮量对饲料桑全株产量及营养品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11): 203-211. |
[6] | 程分生, 尤龙辉, 余锦林, 徐惠昌, 游惠明, 聂森, 李建民, 叶功富. 冷季型绿肥对锥栗园土壤生化性质及微生物群落的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11): 62-75. |
[7] | 周诗晶, 罗佳宁, 刘仲淼, 董超, 秦燕, 吴淑娟, 甘红军, 谢菲, 庄光辉, 伏兵哲, 牛得草. 箭筈豌豆种植密度对土壤微生物养分代谢的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(10): 63-72. |
[8] | 何海锋, 闫承宏, 吴娜, 刘吉利, 贾瑜琀. 不同施氮水平对柳枝稷光合特性及抗旱性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(1): 107-115. |
[9] | 宗文贞, 郭家昊, 贾云龙, 郑永兴, 杨旭, 胡芳弟, 王静. 单宁在植物-土壤氮循环中作用的研究进展[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 174-183. |
[10] | 才璐, 王林林, 罗珠珠, 李玲玲, 牛伊宁, 蔡立群, 谢军红. 中国苜蓿产量及水分利用效率对种植年限响应的Meta分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 27-38. |
[11] | 康彩睿, 谢军红, 李玲玲, 王嘉男, 郭喜军, 彭正凯, 王进斌, Setor kwami Fudjoe, 王林林. 种植密度与施氮量对陇中旱农区玉米产量及光合特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(5): 141-149. |
[12] | 冯军, 石超, 门胜男, Hafiz Athar Hussain, 柯剑鸿, Linna Cholidah, 陈锦芬, 郭欣, 武海燕, 冉泰霖, 向信华, 王龙昌. 不同降雨下旱地油菜节水节肥技术对土壤养分及酶活性的调控效应[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 51-62. |
[13] | 高丽敏, 苏晶, 田倩, 沈益新. 施氮对不同水分条件下紫花苜蓿氮素吸收及根系固氮酶活性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(3): 130-136. |
[14] | 张建军, 党翼, 赵刚, 王磊, 樊廷录, 李尚中, 雷康宁. 留膜留茬免耕栽培对旱作玉米田土壤养分、微生物数量及酶活性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2): 123-133. |
[15] | 方彦杰, 张绪成, 于显枫, 侯慧芝, 王红丽, 马一凡, 张国平, 雷康宁. 地膜覆盖和施肥对半干旱区苦荞土壤水分利用及产量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 46-56. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||