施氮水平对甜高粱主要农艺性状及其与干物质产量相关关系的影响

doi:10.11686/cyxb2015400

草业学报 ›› 2016, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (6): 13-25.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2015400

施氮水平对甜高粱主要农艺性状及其与干物质产量相关关系的影响

渠晖, 程亮, 陈俊峰, 陆晓燕, 沈益新^*

南京农业大学动物科技学院,江苏南京 210095

收稿日期:2015-09-01 修回日期:2015-12-10 出版日期:2016-06-20 发布日期:2016-06-20
通讯作者: E-mail: yxshen@njau.edu.cn
作者简介:渠晖(1984-),男,内蒙古乌兰察布人,在读博士。E-mail: qhyulin@hotmail.com*
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划南方优质饲草高效生产加工利用关键技术研究与集成示范项目(2011BAD17B03)资助

Effects of nitrogen on agronomic traits and dry matter yield and their relationship in sweet sorghum

QU Hui, CHENG Liang, CHEN Jun-Feng, LU Xiao-Yan, SHEN Yi-Xin^*

College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China

Received:2015-09-01 Revised:2015-12-10 Online:2016-06-20 Published:2016-06-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探求甜高粱干物质产量与主要农艺性状的关系以及不同施氮水平对两者相互关系的影响,本研究以大力士甜高粱为材料,采用完全随机区组设计进行两年田间试验,测定不同施氮水平(0,100,200,300,400,500 kg N/hm²)下甜高粱的株高、茎粗、绿叶数、茎叶比、鲜干比、叶面积指数和干物质产量7个参数,并对上述参数进行了相关性分析、多元回归分析和通径分析。试验结果表明,株高,叶面积指数和茎粗均与干物质产量呈极显著正相关关系(P<0.01),相关系数分别为r=0.921^**,r=0.865^**,r=0.758^**。通径分析表明,株高是决定干物质产量的主要农艺性状,茎叶比和叶面积指数与干物质产量的关系对不同施氮水平有不同响应。较低施氮水平(0,100 kg N/hm²)下,茎叶比对干物质产量的直接作用最大(P=0.925),叶面积指数对干物质产量的直接作用最小(P=0.162)。中等施氮水平(200,300 kg N/hm²)下,茎叶比对干物质产量的影响降低(P=0.073),叶面积指数对干物质产量的直接作用增加(P=0.797)。较高施氮水平(400,500 kg N/hm²)下,茎叶比和叶面积指数对干物质产量的直接作用均为负值(P=-0.125,P=-0.040)。施氮量为200~400 kg N/hm²时,干物质产量较高。综上可知,在较高施氮条件下,合理密植是获得较高干物质产量的关键。当供氮水平较低时,应注意收获时间的选择,以便更好地兼顾干物质产量和饲草营养价值。

Abstract: This study was conducted to determine the relationship between dry matter (DM) yield and agronomic traits of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor cv. ‘Hunnigreen’) using correlation and path coefficient analysis under different rates of nitrogen (0, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 kg N/ha). The experiment was set up in eastern China during 2009-2010 and 7 agronomic traits of sorghum were evaluated. Results showed that DM yield was positively correlated (P<0.01) with plant height (r=0.921^**), leaf area index (LAI, r=0.865^**) and stem diameter (SD, r=0.758^**). Plant height and LAI produced the strongest path coefficient (P=0.638, P=0.391) for DM yield. Plant height was the best indicator of DM yield using stepwise regression analysis. The contribution of stem∶leaf ratio (S∶L ratio) and LAI to DM yield differed under different rates of N fertilizer. S∶L ratio and LAI had positive path coefficient (P=0.925, P=0.162) for DM yield under lower N fertilizer rate (0, 100 kg N/ha). LAI had a positive path coefficient (P=0.797) for DM yield under intermediate N fertilizer rates (200, 300 kg N/ha), but had a negative path coefficient for DM yield under higher N fertilizer rates (400, 500 kg N/ha). The Effect of S∶L ratio on DM yield decreased with increasing N rate. DM yield was highest at N rates of 200-400 kg N/ha. Plant population was important for higher DM yield at higher rates of N fertilizer. Under lower N fertilizer rates, harvest date was a key issue in terms of the trade-off between DM yield and nutritive value of sweet sorghum.

渠晖, 程亮, 陈俊峰, 陆晓燕, 沈益新. 施氮水平对甜高粱主要农艺性状及其与干物质产量相关关系的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(6): 13-25.

QU Hui, CHENG Liang, CHEN Jun-Feng, LU Xiao-Yan, SHEN Yi-Xin. Effects of nitrogen on agronomic traits and dry matter yield and their relationship in sweet sorghum[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(6): 13-25.

参考文献

[1] Elia A, Santamaria P, Serio F. Nitrogen nutrition, yield and quality of spinach. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 1998, 76(3): 341-346.
[2] Ferguson R, Hergert G, Schepers J, et al . Site-specific nitrogen management of irrigated maize. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2002, 66(2): 544-553.
[3] Samonte S, Wilson L, Medley J, et al . Nitrogen utilization efficiency: relationships with grain yield, grain protein and yield-related traits in rice. Agronomy Journal, 2006, 98(1): 168-176.
[4] Stewart W, Dibb D, Johnston A, et al . The contribution of commercial fertilizer nutrients to food production. Agronomy Journal, 2005, 97(1): 1-6.
[5] Reddy B, Sanjana Reddy P, Bidinger F, et al . Crop management factors influencing yield and quality of crop residues. Field Crops Research, 2003, 84(1): 57-77.
[6] Marsalis M, Angadi S, Contreras-Govea F. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of corn, forage sorghum, and BMR forage sorghum at different plant populations and nitrogen rates. Field Crops Research, 2010, 116(1): 52-57.
[7] Almodares A, Taheri R, Hadi M, et al . The effect of nitrogen and potassium fertilizers on the growth parameters. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 2006, 9(12): 2350-2353.
[8] Ding C L, Gu H R, Bai S J, et al . Influence of different rate of fertilizer application and plant densities on the yield of pennisetum glaucum. Grassland of China, 1999, (5): 12-14.
[9] Wei J S, Liu G D, Cai B Y. A study on effect of cutting period and fertilizing to yield and quality of panicum maximum. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2002, 10(2):139-143.
[10] Cao W X, Liu H D, Li W, et al . Nitrogen fertilizer effects on a 15 year old mixed species alpine pasture after two years. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(9): 130-137.
[11] Vasilakoglou I, Dhima K, Karagiannidis N, et al . Sweet sorghum productivity for biofuels under increased soil salinity and reduced irrigation. Field Crops Research, 2011, 120(1): 38-46.
[12] Ibrahim Y M. Comparative analysis of forage sorghum for best cutting time. Annals of Arid Zone, 1999, 38(1): 75-78.
[13] Mccaughey W P, Therrien M C, Mabon R. Forage sorghum in southern Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 1996, 76(1): 123-125.
[14] Rooney W L, Blumenthal J, Bean B, et al . Designing sorghum as a dedicated bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 2007, 1(2): 147-157.
[15] Chang J H, Xia X Y, Zhang L, et al . Analysis of the resistance gene to the sorghum aphid, Melanaphis sacchari , with SSR marker in Sorghum bicolor . Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2006, 15(2): 113-118.
[16] Sun S J, Wang Y, Zheng G C, et al . The feasibility research of breeding and application of Sorghum-Sudan grass hybrids. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 1999, 8(3): 39-39.
[17] Burke J, Franks C, Burow G, et al . Selection system for the stay-green drought tolerance trait in sorghum germplasm. Agronomy Journal, 2010, 102(4): 1118-1122.
[18] Li C X, Feng H S. A study on the adaptability of sweet sorghum planted in different altitudinal areas of the Qinghai plateau. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(3): 51-59.
[19] Marsalis M A, Angadi S, Contreras-Govea F E, et al . Harvest timing and byproduct addition effects on corn and forage sorghum silage grown under water stress. Research Bulletin BL-799[C]. Las Cruces, NM, USA: Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University, 2009.
[20] Zhang S J, Amerjan O, Xue X Z, et al . Quality analysis on different sweet sorghum silages in Southern Xinjiang compared with a corn silage. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(3): 232-240.
[21] Howell T, Evett S, Tolk J, et al . Evapotranspiration of corn and forage sorghum for silage. Proceedings of World Environmental and Water Resources Congress[C]. US: Hawaii, 2008: 1-14.
[22] Afzal M, Ahmad A U H, Zamir S I. Performance of multicut forage sorghum under various sowing methods and nitrogen application rates. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 2013, 23(1): 232-239.
[23] Zegada-Lizarazu W, Monti A. Are we ready to cultivate sweet sorghum as a bioenergy feedstock? A review on field management practices. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2012, (40): 1-12.
[24] Du J J, Chen Z W. Method of path analysis by using SPSS linear regression program. Bulletin of Biology, 2010, (2): 4-6.
[25] Tan H P, Wang G Y, Hu X N, et al . Multiple regression and path analysis of effective factors affecting maize yield. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2006, 18(4): 238-240.
[26] Wang Y L, Li X F, Shi S L, et al . Analysis and evaluation on the production performance components of different alfalfa. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2007, 29(5): 8-15.
[27] Yang W G, Yang F, Gao C F, et al . Studies on the genetic correlation of important traits of sweet sorghum. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 1995, 17(1): 29-31.
[28] Xiang Q H, Deng R, Zhang D H, et al . Application of path analysis on economical character of alfalfa. Guizhou Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2010, 34(5): 44-45.
[29] Fu X B, Wang J J, Du Jie-ciren, et al . Analysis of the contribution of the agronomic characters of Tibet spring naked barley under different N fertilizers and seeding dates to yield. Barley and Cereal Sciences, 2009, (2): 1-5.
[30] Zhang D Q, Zhou G Y, Wen D Z, et al . Effect of cutting frequency on yield and quality of forage grasses. Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany, 2000, (S1): 43-51.
[8] 丁成龙, 顾洪如, 白淑娟, 等. 不同施肥量, 密度对美洲狼尾草产量的影响. 中国草地, 1999, (5): 12-14.
[9] 韦家少, 刘国道, 蔡碧云. 刈割周期, 施肥量对坚尼草产草量和质量的影响. 草地学报, 2002, 10(2): 139-143.
[10] 曹文侠, 刘皓栋, 李文, 等. 连续两年施氮对15龄混作禾草草地的改良效果研究. 草业学报, 2015, 24(9): 130-137.
[15] 常金华, 夏雪岩, 张丽, 等. 高梁抗蚜基因的遗传分析和SSR标记定位. 草业学报, 2006, 15(2): 113-118.
[16] 孙守钧, 王云, 郑根昌, 等. 高粱—苏丹草杂交种的应用可行性研究及其选育. 草业学报, 1999, 8(3): 39-39.
[18] 李春喜, 冯海生. 甜高粱在青海高原不同海拔生态区的适应性研究. 草业学报, 2013, 22(3): 51-59.
[20] 张苏江, 艾买尔江·吾斯曼, 薛兴中, 等. 南疆玉米和不同糖分甜高梁的青贮品质分析. 草业学报, 2014, 23(3): 232-240.
[24] 杜家菊, 陈志伟. 使用SPSS线性回归实现通径分析的方法. 生物学通报, 2010, (2): 4-6.
[25] 谭禾平, 王桂跃, 胡贤女, 等. 影响玉米产量效应因子的多元回归与通径分析. 浙江农业学报, 2006, 18(4): 238-240.
[26] 王亚玲, 李晓芳, 师尚礼, 等. 紫花苜蓿生产性能构成因子分析与评价. 中国草地学报, 2007, 29(5): 8-15.
[27] 杨伟光, 杨福, 高春福, 等. 甜高粱主要农艺性状相关性研究. 吉林农业大学学报, 1995, 17(1): 29-31.
[28] 向清华, 邓蓉, 张定红, 等. 通径分析在紫花苜蓿农艺性状分析中的应用. 贵州畜牧兽医, 2010, 34(5): 44-45.
[29] 冯西博, 王金菊, 赵慧芬, 等. 西藏春青稞农艺性状在不同施氮量和播期水平下对产量贡献的分析. 大麦与谷类科学, 2009, (2): 1-5.
[30] 张德强, 周国逸, 温达志, 等. 刈割时间和次数对牧草产量和品质的影响. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2000, (S1): 43-51.

施氮水平对甜高粱主要农艺性状及其与干物质产量相关关系的影响

Effects of nitrogen on agronomic traits and dry matter yield and their relationship in sweet sorghum

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics