王秀领,
徐玉鹏,
王伟伟,
肖宇,
刘振敏,
黄素芳,
岳明强
沧州市农林科学院 沧州 061001
基金项目: 国家科技支撑计划项目2013BAD05B0504
国家重点研发计划项目2016YFD0300305
详细信息
作者简介:阎旭东, 主要从事旱地作物栽培技术的研究。E-mail:yxd7826@126.com
中图分类号:S513计量
文章访问数:1245
HTML全文浏览量:4
PDF下载量:965
被引次数:0
出版历程
收稿日期:2017-03-19
录用日期:2017-06-20
刊出日期:2018-01-01
Yield-increase effect of film-mulching and planting pattern on dryland spring maize
YAN Xudong,,WANG Xiuling,
XU Yupeng,
WANG Weiwei,
XIAO Yu,
LIU Zhenmin,
HUANG Sufang,
YUE Mingqiang
Cangzhou Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, Cangzhou 061001, China
Funds: the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of China2013BAD05B0504
the National Key Research and Development Project of China2016YFD0300305
More Information
Corresponding author:YAN Xudong, E-mail: yxd7826@126.com
摘要
HTML全文
图
参考文献
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件
访问统计
摘要
摘要:覆膜种植是旱地春玉米种植的重要方式，具有显著的增产作用。但前人对旱地春玉米在不同覆膜种植方式下的水分利用、根系发育及抗倒伏等增产机理方面研究较少。于2013-2015年在河北省沧州市农林科学院前营试验站开展田间试验，连续3年研究露地平作（CK）、平作覆膜膜下播种（FC-SUF）、平作覆膜膜侧播种（FC-FSS）、起垄覆膜膜下播种（RC-SUF）、起垄覆膜膜侧播种（RC-FSS）等5种种植模式下春玉米产量及产量构成要素、土壤水分、作物根系和抗倒伏情况。结果表明：RC-FSS、RC-SUF、FC-FSS和FC-SUF比CK 3年平均分别增产24.97%、17.75%、11.69%和8.67%，其中起垄覆膜侧播技术（RC-FSS）增产效果最优，其水分利用效率比CK平均提高26.27%。RC-FSS处理垄沟处0~20 cm土壤含水量比CK增幅达30.44%~47.66%，达极显著差异；RC-FSS处理的抗倒伏性最好，其倒伏率仅为0.9%，抗倒伏力最大为29.4 N，与CK差异达显著水平。在玉米整个生育期内，0~10 cm土壤温度各覆膜处理比CK平均增加0.3~2.3℃，以RC-SUF种植模式下增温最显著。成熟期RC-FSS模式下根系分布直径、根系干重明显优于RC-SUF、FC-SUF和CK，差异均达显著水平。研究表明，春玉米起垄覆膜侧播技术具有集雨保墒、促根壮苗、高抗倒伏、增产稳产的作用，在春季干旱少雨的滨海平原区有广阔的应用前景。
Abstract:Film mulching is the main mode of cultivation of spring maize in drylands. However, few studies have been conducted on the water use, root development and anti-collapse mechanisms of dry spring maize under different mulching conditions. A field research was carried out in 2013-2015 at Qianying Experimental Station of Cangzhou Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences. Spring maize (Zhengdan 958) was grown for 3 years under five film-mulching and planting patterns, which were flat planting without film mulching (CK), flat film mulching and sowing under film (FC-SUF), flat film mulching and film skirting sowing (FC-FSS), film mulching on ridge and sowing under film (RC-SUF), and film mulching on ridge and film skirting sowing (RC-FSS). Yield, yield components, soil moisture, roots and lodging resistance of spring maize were investigated at different growth stages. The results showed that yields of maize under RC-FSS, RC-SUF, FC-FSS and FC-SUF increased respectively by 24.97%, 17.75%, 11.69% and 17.75% over that of CK, with RC-FSS having the highest yield. Water use efficiency (WUE) under RC-FSS increased by 26.27% compared to CK. In the 0-20 cm soil layer, soil water content was increased by 30.44%-47.66% (P < 0.01) under RC-FSS compared with CK. Spring maize under RC-FSS had the maximum lodging resistance (29.4 N), which was significantly higher than that of CK (P < 0.05). Film mulching increased soil temperature in the 0-10 cm soil layer to 0.3-2.3℃, and RC-SUF had the maximum soil temperature. RC-FSS had greater root diameter and dry weight of spring maize than RC-SUF, FC-SUF and CK (P < 0.05). This study indicated that film mulching on ridge and film skirting sowing increased or maintained yield of spring maize by increasing rainwater storage and soil moisture conservation, root growth promotion and lodging resistance. It implied that it was possible to extensively apply film mulching in the coastal plain areas with drought and little rainfall in spring.
HTML全文
表1试验各处理概况
Table1.Each treatment of the experiment
| 耕作方式 Tillage pattern | 播种位置 Seeding position | 处理内容Processing content |
| CK | 露地平作 Flat planting without film mulching | |
| FC | SUF | 平作覆膜膜下播种 Flat film mulching and sowing under film |
| FSS | 平作覆膜膜侧播种 Flat film mulching and film skirting sowing | |
| RC | SUF | 垄作覆膜膜下播种 Film mulching on ridge and sowing under film |
| FSS | 垄作覆膜膜侧播种 Film mulching on ridge and film skirting sowing | |
下载: 导出CSV表2不同种植模式对春玉米生育期的影响
Table2.Effects of different planting patterns on maize growth stages
| 年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 播种期 (月-日) Sowing date (month-day) | 出苗期 (月-日) Seeding stage (month-day) | 吐丝期 (月-日) Silking stage (month-day) | 成熟期 (月-日) Maturity stage (month-day) | 出苗天数 Emergence days (d) | 营养生长期天数 Vegetative growth duration (d) | 生殖生长期天数 Reproductive growth duration (d) | 全生育期天数 Total growth duration (d) | |
| 2013 | CK | 05-01 | 05-15 | 07-22 | 08-25 | 14 | 68 | 34 | 102 | |
| FC | SUF | 05-01 | 05-11 | 07-15 | 08-25 | 10 | 65 | 41 | 106 | |
| FSS | 05-01 | 05-13 | 07-20 | 08-30 | 12 | 68 | 41 | 109 | ||
| RC | SUF | 05-01 | 05-11 | 07-15 | 08-25 | 10 | 65 | 41 | 106 | |
| FSS | 05-01 | 05-13 | 07-18 | 08-30 | 12 | 66 | 43 | 109 | ||
| 2014 | CK | 04-25 | 05-11 | 07-17 | 08-28 | 16 | 67 | 42 | 109 | |
| FC | SUF | 04-25 | 05-07 | 07-10 | 08-26 | 12 | 64 | 47 | 111 | |
| FSS | 04-25 | 05-09 | 07-15 | 08-28 | 14 | 67 | 44 | 111 | ||
| RC | SUF | 04-25 | 05-07 | 07-10 | 08-26 | 12 | 64 | 47 | 111 | |
| FSS | 04-25 | 05-09 | 07-13 | 08-31 | 14 | 65 | 49 | 114 | ||
| 2015 | CK | 04-30 | 05-14 | 07-20 | 08-31 | 14 | 67 | 42 | 109 | |
| FC | SUF | 04-30 | 05-10 | 07-13 | 08-29 | 10 | 64 | 47 | 111 | |
| FSS | 04-30 | 05-12 | 07-18 | 08-31 | 12 | 67 | 44 | 111 | ||
| RC | SUF | 04-30 | 05-10 | 07-13 | 08-29 | 10 | 64 | 47 | 111 | |
| FSS | 04-30 | 05-12 | 07-16 | 09-03 | 12 | 65 | 49 | 114 | ||
下载: 导出CSV表3不同种植模式对春玉米产量及产量要素的影响
Table3.Influence of different planting patterns on yield and yield components of spring maize
| 处理 Treatment | 公顷穗数 Ear number per hectare | 穗粒数 Grain number per ear | 百粒重 100-grain weight (g) | 籽粒产量 Grain yield (kg·hm-2) | 增产 Yield increase (%) | |||||||||||||||||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | |||||||||||
| CK | 4 142±156.25a | 4 042±350.08a | 4 708±30.86a | 379±6.12e | 467±48.54c | 370±19.52c | 35.9±2.17a | 34.48±1.34a | 34.53±2.60a | 8 351.85±215.02c | 8 686.65±1 214.37b | 8 646.68±113.12e | 0.00 | |||||||||
| FC | SUF | 4 424±235.87a | 4 110±116.69a | 4 727±47.84a | 428±1.50d | 510±85.54b | 386±24.99bc | 36.07±0.44a | 35.44±2.28a | 31.99±1.34a | 9 714.45±647.63b | 9 118.05±1 093.77b | 9 079.45±95.80d | 8.67 | ||||||||
| FSS | 4 306±52.93a | 4 042±350.08a | 4 730±60.66a | 446±3.84c | 511±100.96b | 401±7.20bc | 37.92±1.46a | 35.88±2.00a | 34.83±2.28a | 9 982.85±95.62b | 9 321.15±1 078.74b | 9 372.81±78.90c | 11.69 | |||||||||
| RC | SUF | 4 203±91.68a | 4 312±233.39a | 4 732±89.41a | 463±2.68b | 524±39.80ab | 420±14.90ab | 37.47±0.98a | 35.6±2.04a | 35.02±2.00a | 10 005.00±184.35b | 10 148.70±712.15b | 10 090.21±95.80b | 17.75 | ||||||||
| FSS | 4 407±200.06a | 4 379±116.69a | 4 742±178.04a | 475±5.07a | 537±13.00a | 439±23.42a | 38.43±2.60a | 36.32±1.89a | 34.08±2.04a | 11 330.40±343.36a | 10 458.90±1 804.89a | 10 404.24±107.24a | 24.97 | |||||||||
| F values | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 耕作方式 Tillage pattern (C) | 0.41ns | 4.27ns | 0.02ns | 245.58** | 25.78* | 10.83* | 1.09ns | 0.06ns | 1.03ns | |||||||||||||
| 播种位置 Seeding position (S) | 0.21ns | 0.00ns | 0.01ns | 55.10** | 18.33ns | 2.23ns | 2.36ns | 0.24ns | 0.71ns | |||||||||||||
| C×S | 2.92ns | 0.27ns | 0.00ns | 1.74 ns | 1.20 ns | 0.23ns | 0.24ns | 0.02ns | 2.82ns | |||||||||||||
| ???同列不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05), *和**分别表示0.05和0.01水平差异显著, ns表示无显著差异。Different letters within the same column mean significant differences (P < 0.05), * and ** indicate significant differences on 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively. ns means no significant difference. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
下载: 导出CSV表4不同种植模式对春玉米耕层土壤水分利用效率的影响
Table4.Water use efficiency of spring maize in plough layer under different planting patterns
| 处理 Treatment | 土壤含水量 Soil moisture content (%) | 农田耗水量 Field water consumption (mm) | 水分利用效率 Water use efficiency (kg·hm-2·mm-1) | |||||||||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | ||||
| CK | 1.53±0.34b | 5.27±0.15a | 12.54±0.13a | 482.23±0.34b | 260.17±0.15a | 416.74±0.13a | 17.32±0.21c | 33.39±4.65c | 20.75±0.09c | |||
| FC | SUF | 0.93±0.16b | 4.26±0.81a | 7.63±0.58b | 481.63±0.16b | 259.16±0.81a | 411.83±0.58b | 20.17±0.78b | 35.18±4.21b | 22.05±0.09b | ||
| FSS | 1.22±0.37b | 4.61±0.44a | 6.77±0.17b | 481.92±0.37b | 259.51±0.44a | 410.97±0.17b | 20.74±0.07ab | 35.92±2.77b | 22.81±0.18ab | |||
| RC | SUF | 4.83±1.03ab | 5.69±0.13a | 5.30±0.50b | 485.53±1.03ab | 260.59±0.13a | 409.50±0.50b | 20.61±0.31ab | 38.95±1.05ab | 24.64±0.24ab | ||
| FSS | 6.52±0.78a | 2.96±0.18a | 4.62±0.42b | 487.22±0.78a | 257.86±0.18a | 408.82±0.42b | 23.26±0.71a | 40.56±6.99a | 25.53±0.11a | |||
| ???2013—2015年玉米全生育期的降雨量分别为480.7 mm、254.9 mm和404.2 mm。同列不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。The total rainfall during the whole growth period of maize in 2013, 2014 and 2015 was 480.7 mm, 254.9 mm and 404.2 mm. Different letters within the same column mean significant differences (P < 0.05). | ||||||||||||
下载: 导出CSV表5模拟降雨量下不同起垄膜侧种植模式不同土层的土壤含水量
Table5.Soil moisture contents in different soil layers of planting pattern of film mulching on ridge and film skirting sowing under simulated rainfall conditions
| 模拟降雨量 Simulated rainfall (mm) | 0~20 cm | 20~40 cm | |||||
| RC-FSS | CK | 比CK增加 Increase over CK (%) | RC-FSS | CK | 比CK增加 Increase over CK (%) | ||
| 0 | 11.01±0.10d | 11.01±0.10c | 0.00 | 13.96a±0.24e | 13.24±0.33b | 0.00 | |
| 5 | 17.31±0.52c | 13.27±0.54b | 30.44 | 16.40b±0.46d | 13.87±0.48b | 16.39 | |
| 10 | 19.30±0.42b | 13.61±0.36b | 41.81 | 17.87c±0.06c | 14.38±0.33ab | 23.50 | |
| 15 | 20.92±0.44a | 14.56±0.11ab | 43.68 | 19.45d±0.36b | 15.33±0.54ab | 31.24 | |
| 20 | 22.37±0.12a | 15.15±0.31a | 47.66 | 21.24e±0.27a | 15.97±0.42a | 38.01 | |
| ???不同字母表示不同模拟降雨量间差异显著(P < 0.05)。Different letters within the same column mean significant differences (P < 0.05) among different simulated rainfalls. | |||||||
下载: 导出CSV表6不同种植模式在春玉米不同生育期的土壤增温效果
Table6.Influence of different planting patterns on soil temperature at different growth stages of spring maize
| ℃ | |||||||||||||
| 年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 苗期Seedling stage | 拔节期Jointing stage | 大喇叭口期Trumpet stage | 吐丝期Silking stage | ||||||||
| 平均 Average | 比CK增温 Increasing than CK | 平均 Average | 比CK增温 Increasing than CK | 平均 Average | 比CK增温 Increasing than CK | 平均 Average | 比CK增温 Increasing than CK | ||||||
| 2013 | CK | 27.93±0.23a | 0.00 | 35.43±0.23a | 0.00 | 28.17±1.60a | 0.00 | 27.50±0.10a | 0.00 | ||||
| FC | SUF | 28.20±1.50a | 0.27 | 38.47±0.51a | 3.04 | 28.82±1.31a | 0.65 | 27.63±0.06a | 0.13 | ||||
| FSS | 28.30±0.35a | 0.37 | 36.77±0.35a | 1.34 | 28.82±1.31a | 0.65 | 27.63±0.32a | 0.13 | |||||
| RC | SUF | 29.40±0.62a | 1.47 | 38.97±0.85a | 3.54 | 30.24±1.73a | 2.07 | 29.10±0.72a | 1.60 | ||||
| FSS | 28.67±1.01a | 0.74 | 36.77±1.02a | 1.34 | 29.49±1.55a | 1.32 | 28.43±1.12a | 0.93 | |||||
| 2014 | CK | 19.67±1.12a | 0.00 | 29.2±0.46a | 0.00 | 29.80±0.89a | 0.00 | 27.63±0.15a | 0.00 | ||||
| FC | SUF | 21.29±0.54a | 1.62 | 30.80±0.40a | 1.60 | 30.27±0.57a | 0.47 | 27.83±0.06a | 0.20 | ||||
| FSS | 19.64±0.25a | 0.03 | 29.37±0.31a | 0.17 | 30.27±0.55a | 0.47 | 27.77±0.06a | 0.14 | |||||
| RC | SUF | 22.23±0.46a | 2.56 | 31.43±0.70a | 2.23 | 32.23±0.83a | 2.43 | 28.57±0.07a | 0.94 | ||||
| FSS | 20.68±0.13a | 1.01 | 30.13±0.32a | 0.93 | 31.27±0.51a | 1.47 | 28.07±0.29a | 0.44 | |||||
| 2015 | CK | 27.53±1.33a | 0.00 | 28.53±0.06a | 0.00 | 27.47±0.78a | 0.00 | 27.80±0.78a | 0.00 | ||||
| FC | SUF | 30.33±1.11a | 2.80 | 29.87±0.40a | 1.34 | 28.30±0.53a | 0.83 | 28.40±0.53a | 0.60 | ||||
| FSS | 27.83±1.90a | 0.30 | 28.77±0.06a | 0.24 | 27.90±0.53a | 0.43 | 28.00±0.53a | 0.20 | |||||
| RC | SUF | 30.77±1.84a | 3.24 | 31.17±1.12a | 2.64 | 29.93±1.19a | 2.46 | 29.50±1.19a | 1.70 | ||||
| FSS | 29.93±0.21a | 2.40 | 29.47±0.32a | 0.94 | 28.87±0.50a | 1.40 | 28.70±0.50a | 0.90 | |||||
| ???同列同一年份不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。Different letters within the same column in the same year mean significant differences (P < 0.05). | |||||||||||||
下载: 导出CSV表7不同种植模式下春玉米成熟期的根系性状
Table7.Root characteristics of spring maize under different planting patterns at mature stage
| 处理 Treatment | 分布范围 Distribution rang (cm) | 侧根数 Lateral root number | 干重 Dry weight (g) | ||
| 直径 Diameter | 深度 Depth | ||||
| CK | 10.3±0.43c | 40.6±0.36a | 35.4±0.51b | 11.92±0.41c | |
| FC | SUF | 12.6±0.25a | 40.5±0.10a | 36.8±0.35b | 17.20±2.51bc |
| FSS | 11.8±0.55b | 40.6±0.47a | 35.9±0.40b | 21.10±1.46b | |
| RC | SUF | 12.5±0.15ab | 40.6±0.51a | 36.6±0.51b | 16.99±3.26bc |
| FSS | 12.9±0.25a | 41.0±2.24a | 40.2±2.13a | 32.84±7.36a | |
| ???同列不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。Different letters within the same column mean significant differences (P < 0.05). | |||||
下载: 导出CSV表8不同种植模式对春玉米倒伏率和抗倒伏力
Table8.Lodging rate and lodging resistant force of maize under different planting patterns
| 处理 Treatment | 倒伏率 Lodging rate (%) | 抗倒伏力 Lodging resistant force (N) | |
| CK | 24.7±15.49a | 19.3±0.40c | |
| FC | SUF | 14.3±0.70abc | 22.5±0.11b |
| FSS | 2.7±0.46bc | 24.3±1.33a | |
| RC | SUF | 15.6±3.91ab | 22.2±0.63b |
| FSS | 0.9±0.35c | 29.4±0.06a | |
| ???同列不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)。Different letters within the same column mean significant differences (P < 0.05). | |||
下载: 导出CSV参考文献
| [1] | 刘明, 陶洪斌, 王璞, 等.播期对春玉米生长发育与产量形成的影响[J].中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(1):18-23 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2009104&flag=1 LIU M, TAO H B, WANG P, et al. Effect of sowing date on growth and yield of spring-maize[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2009, 17(1):18-23 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2009104&flag=1 |
| [2] | 唐小明, 李尚中, 樊廷录, 等.不同覆膜方式对旱地玉米生长发育和产量的影响[J].玉米科学, 2011, 19(4):103-107 https://www.cnki.com.cn/huiyi-GSKX201210001009.html TANG X M, LI S Z, FAN T L, et al. Effects of different plastic film mulching modes on growth and yield of dry land maize[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2011, 19(4):103-107 https://www.cnki.com.cn/huiyi-GSKX201210001009.html |
| [3] | 孔维萍, 成自勇, 张芮, 等.不同覆盖及种植方式下旱地玉米前期水热及出苗效应[J].灌溉排水学报, 2014, 33(3):119-121 http://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/abstract/abstract11140.shtml KONG W P, CHENG Z Y, ZHANG R, et al. Effects of different covers modes and cropping patterns on water and heat in early stage and seeding rates of maize in dry land[J]. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2014, 33(3):119-121 http://www.plant-ecology.com/CN/abstract/abstract11140.shtml |
| [4] | 孙仕军, 樊玉苗, 许志浩, 等.东北雨养区地膜覆盖条件下种植密度对玉米田间土壤水分和产量的影响[J].生物学杂志, 2014, 33(10):2650-2655 http://www.cje.net.cn/CN/abstract/abstract8543.shtml SUN S J, FAN Y M, XU Z H, et al. Effects of planting density on soil moisture and corn yield under plastic film mulching in a rain-fed region of northeast China[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2014, 33(10):2650-2655 http://www.cje.net.cn/CN/abstract/abstract8543.shtml |
| [5] | 任新茂, 孙东宝, 王庆锁.覆膜和种植密度对旱作春玉米产量和蒸散量的影响[J].农业机械学报, 2017, 48(1):206-211 doi: 10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2017.01.027 REN X M, SUN D B, WANG Q S. Effects of plastic film mulching and plant density on yield and evapotranspiration of rainfed spring maize[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2017, 48(1):206-211 doi: 10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2017.01.027 |
| [6] | 高翔, 龚道枝, 顾峰雪, 等.覆膜抑制土壤呼吸提高旱作春玉米产量[J].农业工程学报, 2014, 30(6):62-70 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.06.008 GAO X, GONG D Z, GU F X, et al. Inhibiting soil respiration and improving yield of spring maize in fields with plastic film mulching[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2014, 30(6):62-70 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.06.008 |
| [7] | 胥凌霄, 段喜明, 刘瑞龙.不同沟垄种植模式对土壤理化性状及水分利用效率的影响[J].山西农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 37(2):83-88 http://www.oalib.com/paper/5082478 XU L X, DUAN X M, LIU R L. The effect of different ridge and furrow planting pattern on the physical and chemical characteristics of soil and efficient utilization of water[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University:Natural Science Edition, 2017, 37(2):83-88 http://www.oalib.com/paper/5082478 |
| [8] | 张俊鹏, 孙景生, 刘祖贵, 等.不同水分条件和覆盖处理对夏玉米籽粒灌浆特性和产量的影响[J].中国生态农业学报, 2010, 18(3):501-506 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=10310&flag=1 ZHANG J P, SUN J S, LIU Z G, et al. Effect of moisture and mulching on filling characteristics and yield of summer maize[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2010, 18(3):501-506 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=10310&flag=1 |
| [9] | LI J, XIE R Z, WANG K R, et al. Variations in maize dry matter, harvest index, and grain yield with plant density[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2015, 107(3):829-834 doi: 10.2134/agronj14.0522 |
| [10] | ANTONIETTA M, FANELLO D D, ACCIARESI H A, et al. Senescence and yield responses to plant density in stay green and earlier-senescing maize hybrids from Argentina[J]. Field Crops Research, 2014, 155:111-119 doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.09.016 |
| [11] | ZHOU L M, LI F M, JIN S L, et al. How two ridges and the furrow mulched with plastic film affect soil water, soil tem-perature and yield of maize on the semiarid Loess Plateau of China[J]. Field Crops Research, 2009, 113(1):41-47 doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.04.005 |
| [12] | BRUNS H A, ABBAS H K. Ultra-high plant populations and nitrogen fertility effects on corn in the Mississippi Valley[J]. Agronomy Journal, 2005, 97(4):1136-1140 doi: 10.2134/agronj2004.0295 |
| [13] | LI R, HOU X Q, JIA Z K, et al. Effects on soil temperature, moisture, and maize yield of cultivation with ridge and furrow mulching in the rained area of the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2013, 116:101-109 doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.10.001 |
| [14] | ZHOU L M, JIN S L, LIU C A, et al. Ridge-furrow and plas-tic-mulching tillage enhances maize-soil interactions:Oppor-tunities and challenges in a semiarid agroecosystem[J]. Field Crops Research, 2012, 126:181-188 doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.10.010 |
| [15] | 徐澜, 安伟, 郝建平.渗水地膜覆盖对旱作玉米生理特性、产量构成因素及产量的影响[J].干旱区资源与环境, 2010, 24(8):180-185 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GZZP201503012.htm XU L, AN W, HAO J P. The effect of water-osmosis plastic membrane on physiology、yield component and yield for drought maize[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Envi-ronment, 2010, 24(8):180-185 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GZZP201503012.htm |
| [16] | 李洪勋, 吴伯志.地膜覆盖对玉米生理指标的影响研究综述[J].玉米科学, 2004, 12(S1):66-69 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/dl/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_ymkx2004z1035 LI H X, WU B Z. Summary of polythene mulch on physio-logical index of maize[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2004, 12(S1):66-69 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/dl/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_ymkx2004z1035 |
| [17] | 刘晓伟, 何宝林, 郭天文.全膜双垄沟不同覆膜时期对玉米土壤水分和产量的影响[J].核农学报, 2012, 26(3):602-608 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4205371 LIU X W, HE B L, GUO T W. Effects of full mulching on double ridges with different mulching methods on soil water content and maize yield in dryland[J]. Acta Agriculturae Nu-cleatae Sinica, 2012, 26(3):602-608 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4205371 |
| [18] | 高玉红, 牛俊义, 闫志利, 等.不同覆膜栽培方式对玉米干物质积累及产量的影响[J].中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(4):440-446 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2012409&flag=1 GAO Y H, NIU J Y, YAN Z L, et al. Effects of different plastic-film mulching techniques on maize (Zea mays L.) dry matter accumulation and yield[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2012, 20(4):440-446 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2012409&flag=1 |
| [19] | 江晓东, 李增嘉, 侯连涛, 等.少免耕对灌溉农田冬小麦/夏玉米作物水、肥利用的影响[J].农业工程学报, 2005, 21(7):20-24 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/dl/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_nygcxb200507005 JIANG X D, LI Z J, HOU L T, et al. Impacts of minimum tillage and no-tillage systems on soil NO3--N content and water use efficiency of winter wheat/summer corn cultivation[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2005, 21(7):20-24 http://industry.wanfangdata.com.cn/dl/Detail/Periodical?id=Periodical_nygcxb200507005 |
| [20] | 侯连涛, 江晓东, 韩宾, 等.不同覆盖处理对冬小麦气体交换参数及水分利用效率的影响[J].农业工程学报, 2006, 22(9):58-63 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JSNY201502023.htm HOU L T, JIANG X D, HAN B, et al. Effects of different mulching treatments on the gas exchange parameters and water use efficiency of winter wheat[J]. Transactions of the CSAE, 2006, 22(9):58-63 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JSNY201502023.htm |
| [21] | 张晓辉.地膜集水技术在北方旱作玉米栽培中的应用[J].安徽农业科学, 2006, 34(23):6151-6153 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2006.23.036 ZHANG X H. Application of the technique of water-collecting with plastic film in corn cultivation in dry-land[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2006, 34(23):6151-6153 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0517-6611.2006.23.036 |
| [22] | 王耀林.花生玉米棉花西瓜地膜覆盖高产早熟栽培技术[M].北京:金盾出版社, 1988:66-69 WANG Y L. Cultivation Techniques of High Yield and Early Maturity for Peanut, Maize, Cotton and Watermelon Plastic Film Mulching[M]. Beijing:Golden Shield Press, 1988:66-69 |
| [23] | 马金虎, 田恩平, 王永成.秋季覆膜技术在玉米上应用效果试验初报[J].宁夏农林科技, 2007, (5):31-39 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/d416c0d9a1c7aa00b52acb85.html MA J H, TIAN E P, WANG Y C. Preliminary report on ap-plication effect of mulch film technology in maize in au-tumn[J]. Ningxia Agriculture and Forestry Science and Technology, 2007, (5):31-39 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/d416c0d9a1c7aa00b52acb85.html |
| [24] | 邢胜利, 魏延安, 李思训.陕西省农作物地膜栽培发展现状与展望[J].干旱地区农业研究, 2002, 20(1):10-13 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=ghdq200201001&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ XING S L, WEI Y A, LI S X. Present status and prospect of film-mulching cultivation of crops in Shaanxi Province[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2002, 20(1):10-13 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=ghdq200201001&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ |
