行距和矮壮素对晋东南谷子倒伏与产量的影响

doi:10.7668/hbnxb.20196036

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究行距与矮壮素处理对晋东南地区谷子抗倒伏特性及产量的影响,以晋谷21为材料,采用两因素随机区组设计。试验设3个行距水平(30,40,50 cm,分别记为D30、D40、D50)和3个矮壮素处理(喷施清水(CK)、六叶期喷施1次(T1)、六叶期和八叶期各喷施1次(T2)),两因素交叉共形成9个处理,研究不同处理对谷子茎秆性状、倒伏率、产量及其构成因素的影响。结果表明:在不同行距条件下喷施矮壮素均能显著增强谷子茎秆抗折力,显著降低株高、茎秆重心高度和田间倒伏率。其中,D40+T2处理的茎秆抗折力最高,达94.59 N;且株高(161.53 cm)、茎秆重心高度(80.3 cm)和田间倒伏率(16.31%)均为最低。在产量方面,随着行距增加,CK、T1和T2处理的产量均呈递减趋势,其中D30+T1处理的产量最高,为4 923.83 kg/hm²。相关性分析表明,在不同行距与矮壮素处理下,谷子产量与株高、穗部性状多呈正相关,而与倒伏率始终呈负相关,表明通过优化行距与矮壮素可有效调控关键农艺性状。综上,通过优化行距配置并配合适宜矮壮素处理,可在保证产量的同时有效降低倒伏风险,其中,D30+T1处理的综合表现最佳,可在晋东南地区谷子种植中进行推广。

关键词: 谷子, 行距, 矮壮素, 倒伏, 产量

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of row spacing and chlormequat chloride application on lodging resistance and yield performance of foxtail millet in Southeastern Shanxi,a two-factor randomized block design was employed,utilizing Jingu 21 as the experimental material.The experimental design included three row spacing levels(30,40,and 50 cm,designated as D30,D40,and D50,respectively)and three chlormequat chloride treatment regimes:spraying with water only(CK),single application at the six-leaf stage(T1),and sequential applications at both the six-and eight-leaf stages(T2).This resulted in a total of nine treatment combinations.The study evaluated the impacts of these treatments on stem morphological characteristics,lodging incidence,grain yield,and its component traits.Results showed that chlormequat chloride application under varying row spacing conditions significantly improved stem breaking resistance while significantly reducing plant height,center-of-gravity height,and field lodging rate.The D40+T2 treatment exhibited the highest stem breaking resistance(94.59 N)and concurrently achieved the lowest values for plant height(161.53 cm),center-of-gravity height(80.3 cm),and lodging rate(16.31%).In terms of yield,as row spacing increased,the yield of CK,T1,and T2 treatments all showed a decreasing trend.Among them,the D30+T1 treatment achieved the highest yield of 4 923.83 kg/ha.Correlation analysis indicated that under different row spacing and chlormequat treatments,millet yield was mostly positively correlated with plant height and panicle traits,while consistently negatively correlated with lodging rate.This demonstrates that optimizing row spacing and chlormequat application can effectively regulate key agronomic traits.In conclusion,optimizing row spacing along with appropriate chlormequat treatment can effectively minimize the risk of lodging while maintaining yield.The D30+T1 treatment demonstrated superior overall performance and is therefore recommended for broader adoption in foxtail millet cultivation in Southeastern Shanxi.

Key words: Foxtail millet, Row spacing, Chlormequat chloride, Lodging, Yield

中图分类号:

郭伟. 行距和矮壮素对晋东南谷子倒伏与产量的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2026, 41(1): 105-110. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20196036.

GUO Wei. Effects of Row Spacing and Chlormequat Chloride on Lodging and Yield of Foxtail Millet in Southeast Shanxi[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2026, 41(1): 105-110. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20196036.

http://www.hbnxb.net/CN/Y2026/V41/I1/105

图/表 6

参考文献 21

[1]	Lu H Y, Zhang J P, Liu K B, Wu N Q, Li Y M, Zhou K S, Ye M L, Zhang T Y, Zhang H J, Yang X Y, Shen L C, Xu D K, Li Q. Earliest domestication of common millet(Panicum miliaceum)in East Asia extended to 10 000 years ago[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009, 106(18):7367-7372.doi:10.1073/pnas.0900158106.
[2]	山西省地方志编纂委员会. 山西农业志[M]. 北京: 方志出版社, 2018:124-137.
	Compilation Committee of Shanxi Provincial Local Records. Records of Shanxi agriculture[M]. Beijing: Fangzhi Press, 2018:124-137.
[3]	丁贵江, 栾素荣, 王艳芝, 张玲, 梁秋华. 北方春谷区谷子倒伏的原因及对策[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2013(11):167-168. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6400.2013.11.069.
	Ding G J, Luan S R, Wang Y Z, Zhang L, Liang Q H. Causes and countermeasures for lodging of foxtail millet in the northern spring millet region[J]. Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2013(11):167-168.
[4]	Shah A N, Tanveer M, Rehman A U, Ahmad Anjum S, Iqbal J, Ahmad R. Lodging stress in cereal-effects and management:an overview[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2017, 24(6):5222-5237.doi:10.1007/s11356-016-8237-1. URL
[5]	Berry P M, Spink J. Predicting yield losses caused by lodging in wheat[J]. Field Crops Research, 2012, 137:19-26.doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2012.07.019. URL
[6]	Berry P M. Lodging resistance in cereals[M]// Sustainable Food Production. New York: Springer New York, 2013: 1096-1110. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5797-8_228.
[7]	魏珊珊, 王祥宇, 董树亭. 株行距配置对高产夏玉米冠层结构及籽粒灌浆特性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(2):441-450.doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.2014.0048.
	Wei S S, Wang X Y, Dong S T. Effects of row spacing on canopy structure and grain-filling characteristics of high-yield summer maize[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(2):441-450.
[8]	金容. 密度和株行距配置对夏玉米群体结构、抗倒特性及产量的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2019.doi:10.27345/d.cnki.gsnyu.2019.000525.
	Jin R. Effects of density and row spacing on population structure,lodging resistance and yield of summer maize[D]. Ya'an: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2019.
[9]	夏雪岩, 师志刚, 刘猛, 张婷, 赵宇, 李顺国, 程汝宏. 矮壮素和缩节胺对谷子杂交种生长发育和产量的调控效应[J]. 河北农业科学, 2015, 19(3):8-11. doi:10.16318/j.cnki.hbnykx.2015.03.002.
	Xia X Y, Shi Z G, Liu M, Zhang T, Zhao Y, Li S G, Cheng R H. Regulation effects of ccc and dpc to growth and yield of millet hybrid[J]. Journal of Hebei Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 19(3):8-11.
[10]	杨忠义, 范春晖, 郭平毅. 苯磺隆、多效唑对小麦壮苗及除草效果的影响[J]. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 28(2):168-171. doi:10.13842/j.cnki.issn1671-8151.2008.02.015.
	Yang Z Y, Fan C H, Guo P Y. Effect of methyl benzene and paclobutrazol on weed control and wheat growth regulation[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural University(Natural Science Edition), 2008, 28(2):168-171.
[11]	程亮, 庞建新, 汪胜军. 植物生长调节剂在小麦上的应用研究[J]. 山西农业科学, 2009, 37(6):39-41.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2009.06.011.
	Cheng L, Pang J X, Wang S J. Application of plat growth regulators to wheat[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2009, 37(6):39-41.
[12]	张倩, 张海燕, 谭伟明, 段留生. 30%矮壮素·烯效唑微乳剂对水稻抗倒伏性状及产量的影响[J]. 农药学学报, 2011, 13(2):144-148. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1008-7303.2011.02.08.
	Zhang Q, Zhang H Y, Tan W M, Duan L S. Effects of chlormequat-uniconazole 300 micro-emulsion on lodging resistance and yield of rice[J]. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science, 2011, 13(2):144-148.
[13]	常海霞, 郭红亮, 刘永忠, 李万星, 曹晋军, 靳鲲鹏, 李丹. 不同行距配比对玉米光合生理指标及茎秆特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(17):16-20.doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19020076.
	Chang H X, Guo H L, Liu Y Z, Li W X, Cao J J, Jin K P, Li D. Effect of row spacing rate on stem mechanic property and photosynthetic physiological indexes of maize[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(17):16-20. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19020076
[14]	陈晓光, 石玉华, 王成雨, 尹燕枰, 宁堂原, 史春余, 李勇, 王振林. 氮肥和多效唑对小麦茎秆木质素合成的影响及其与抗倒伏性的关系[J]. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(17):3529-3536. doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2011.17.005.
	Chen X G, Shi Y H, Wang C Y, Yin Y P, Ning T Y, Shi C Y, Li Y, Wang Z L. Effects of nitrogen and PP₃₃₃ application on the lignin synthesis of stem in relation to lodging resistance of wheat[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2011, 44(17):3529-3536.
[15]	于洪喜, 徐年龙, 陈春英, 王振, 王升, 叶仁宏. 不同植物生长调节剂对水稻抗倒性和产量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2015, 43(30):71-73. doi:10.13989/j.cnki.0517-6611.2015.30.028.
	Yu H X, Xu N L, Chen C Y, Wang Z, Wang S, Ye R H. Effects of different plant growth regulators on lodging resistance and yield of rice[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 43(30):71-73.
[16]	薛金涛, 张保明, 董志强, 赵明, 黄长玲. 化学调控对玉米抗倒性及产量的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2009, 17(2):91-94,98.doi:10.13597/j.cnki.maize.science.2009.02.024.
	Xue J T, Zhang B M, Dong Z Q, Zhao M, Huang C L. Effects of chemical regulation on lodging and yield of maize[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2009, 17(2):91-94,98.
[17]	岳茂林, 薛蔚荣, 张瑞栋, 岳忠孝, 吕瑞洲, 郭鹏燕. 不同行距配置对谷子农艺性状及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018(2):93-96. doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2018.02.016.
	Yue M L, Xue W R, Zhang R D, Yue Z X, Lyu R Z, Guo P Y. Effects of different row spaces on agronomic traits and yield of millet[J]. Crops, 2018(2):93-96.
[18]	杜艳伟, 赵晋锋, 王高鸿, 李颜方, 赵根有, 阎晓光. 密度与行距配置对春谷子农艺性状及产量的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2019, 47(1):49-52. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2019.01.12.
	Du Y W, Zhao J F, Wang G H, Li Y F, Zhao G Y, Yan X G. Effects of different density and row spacing on agronomictraits and yield of spring millet[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 47(1):49-52.
[19]	周海燕, 李进. 矮壮素处理对荠菜生长的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2021, 27(2):40-42. doi:10.16377/j.cnki.issn1007-7731.2021.02.014.
	Zhou H Y, Li J. Effect of chlormequat on the growth of capsella bursa-pastoris[J]. Anhui Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 27(2):40-42.
[20]	抗艳红, 许寅生, 张丽萍, 龚学臣, 田再民, 乔海明. 多效唑和矮壮素对冀张薯8号产量的影响[J]. 长江蔬菜, 2011(8):37-39. doi:10.3865/j.issn.1001-3547.2011.08.012.
	Kang Y H, Xu Y S, Zhang L P, Gong X C, Tian Z M, Qiao H M. Effects of paclobutrazol and chlorocholine chloride on potato yield index[J]. Journal of Changjiang Vegetables, 2011(8):37-39.
[21]	Turner A P, Jackson J J, Sama M P, Montross, M D. Impact of delayed harvest on corn yield and harvest losses[J]. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 2021, 37(4):595-604.doi:10.13031/aes.14561. URL

处理 Treatment		穗长/cm Panicle length	穗粗/cm Panicle diameter	单穗质量/g Weight per ear	穗粒质量/g Grain weight per ear	千粒质量/g 1000-grain weight	产量/(kg/hm²) Yield
D30	CK	21.99±0.87a	2.66±0.08a	26.40±1.64ab	20.65±0.80ab	3.03±0.13a	4 844.52±90.88a
	T1	23.09±1.48a	2.70±0.22a	28.49±2.04a	21.57±1.09a	3.03±0.29a	4 923.83±120.80a
	T2	21.13±1.37a	2.77±0.30a	25.18±0.38b	19.39±0.29b	3.12±0.21a	4 497.82±15.04b
D40	CK	22.74±1.50ab	2.72±0.19a	26.47±1.50a	20.70±0.80a	2.92±0.09a	4 696.93±48.48a
	T1	24.00±1.69a	2.73±0.13a	26.13±1.25a	19.78±0.40ab	3.00±0.08a	4 571.51±245.43ab
	T2	20.91±1.08b	2.78±0.11a	25.07±0.87a	19.30±0.77b	2.97±0.16a	4 265.30±160.71b
D50	CK	23.41±0.86a	2.68±0.09a	25.73±1.75a	19.81±1.33a	2.91±0.14a	4 351.50±138.55a
	T1	23.73±2.44a	2.62±0.23a	25.18±1.97a	20.05±1.21a	2.81±0.09a	4 135.50±172.00a
	T2	21.00±0.53a	2.78±0.31a	20.95±1.47b	16.84±0.41b	2.87±0.09a	4 078.50±159.11b

处理 Treatment		穗长/cm Panicle length	穗粗/cm Panicle diameter	单穗质量/g Weight per ear	穗粒质量/g Grain weight per ear	千粒质量/g 1000-grain weight	产量/(kg/hm²) Yield
D30	CK	21.99±0.87a	2.66±0.08a	26.40±1.64ab	20.65±0.80ab	3.03±0.13a	4 844.52±90.88a
	T1	23.09±1.48a	2.70±0.22a	28.49±2.04a	21.57±1.09a	3.03±0.29a	4 923.83±120.80a
	T2	21.13±1.37a	2.77±0.30a	25.18±0.38b	19.39±0.29b	3.12±0.21a	4 497.82±15.04b
D40	CK	22.74±1.50ab	2.72±0.19a	26.47±1.50a	20.70±0.80a	2.92±0.09a	4 696.93±48.48a
	T1	24.00±1.69a	2.73±0.13a	26.13±1.25a	19.78±0.40ab	3.00±0.08a	4 571.51±245.43ab
	T2	20.91±1.08b	2.78±0.11a	25.07±0.87a	19.30±0.77b	2.97±0.16a	4 265.30±160.71b
D50	CK	23.41±0.86a	2.68±0.09a	25.73±1.75a	19.81±1.33a	2.91±0.14a	4 351.50±138.55a
	T1	23.73±2.44a	2.62±0.23a	25.18±1.97a	20.05±1.21a	2.81±0.09a	4 135.50±172.00a
	T2	21.00±0.53a	2.78±0.31a	20.95±1.47b	16.84±0.41b	2.87±0.09a	4 078.50±159.11b

处理 Treatment		穗长 Panicle length	穗粗 Panicle diameter	单穗质量 Weight per ear	穗粒质量 Grain weight per ear	千粒质量 1000-grain weight	倒伏率 Lodging rate	株高 Plant height	抗折力 Breaking resistance	茎秆重心高度 Height of centre gravity
D30	CK	0.265	0.198	0.857^*	0.756^*	0.660	-0.683	0.904^**	-0.222	-0.152
	T1	0.285	0.138	0.301	0.871^**	0.258	-0.784^*	0.719	-0.885^**	-0.769^*
	T2	0.607	0.922^**	0.955^**	0.968^**	0.982^**	-0.420	0.809	0.154	0.440
D40	CK	0.816^*	0.767^*	0.223	0.584	0.863^*	-0.804^*	0.782^*	0.149	-0.656
	T1	0.750	0.371	0.659	0.516	0.236	-0.556	0.685	-0.642	-0.170
	T2	0.466	0.420	0.378	0.414	0.406	-0.373	0.634	-0.130	-0.152
D50	CK	0.576	0.325	0.750	0.742	0.356	-0.344	0.913^**	-0.951^**	0.105
	T1	0.950^**	0.435	0.993^**	0.949^**	0.444	-0.949^**	0.735	-0.699	-0.895^**
	T2	0.505	0.350	0.272	0.473	0.295	-0.734	0.723	0.429	0.126

处理 Treatment		穗长 Panicle length	穗粗 Panicle diameter	单穗质量 Weight per ear	穗粒质量 Grain weight per ear	千粒质量 1000-grain weight	倒伏率 Lodging rate	株高 Plant height	抗折力 Breaking resistance	茎秆重心高度 Height of centre gravity
D30	CK	0.265	0.198	0.857^*	0.756^*	0.660	-0.683	0.904^**	-0.222	-0.152
	T1	0.285	0.138	0.301	0.871^**	0.258	-0.784^*	0.719	-0.885^**	-0.769^*
	T2	0.607	0.922^**	0.955^**	0.968^**	0.982^**	-0.420	0.809	0.154	0.440
D40	CK	0.816^*	0.767^*	0.223	0.584	0.863^*	-0.804^*	0.782^*	0.149	-0.656
	T1	0.750	0.371	0.659	0.516	0.236	-0.556	0.685	-0.642	-0.170
	T2	0.466	0.420	0.378	0.414	0.406	-0.373	0.634	-0.130	-0.152
D50	CK	0.576	0.325	0.750	0.742	0.356	-0.344	0.913^**	-0.951^**	0.105
	T1	0.950^**	0.435	0.993^**	0.949^**	0.444	-0.949^**	0.735	-0.699	-0.895^**
	T2	0.505	0.350	0.272	0.473	0.295	-0.734	0.723	0.429	0.126

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容