夏玉米不同阶段及类型倒伏对籽粒灌浆及产量的影响  

Effect of stage and type of lodging on grain filling and yield of summer maize

作　　者：李树岩[1] 杨光仙[1] 余卫东[1] 薛昌颖[1] 魏庆伟 周佳布 侯英雨 LI Shuyan;YANG Guangxian;YU Weidong;XUE Changying;WEI Qingwei;ZHOU Jiabu;HOU Yingyu(Henan Key Laboratory of Agrometeorological Support and Applied Technique,China Meteorological Administration/Henan Institute of Meteorological Sciences,Zhengzhou 450003,China;Hebi Meteorological Bureau,Hebi 458000,China;National Meteorological Center,Beiing 100081,China)

机构地区：[1]中国气象局河南省农业气象保障与应用技术重点实验室/河南省气象科学研究所,郑州450003 [2]鹤壁市气象局,鹤壁458000 [3]国家气象中心,北京100081

出　　处：《中国生态农业学报(中英文)》2025年第4期723-736,共14页Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture

基　　金：河南省自然科学基金项目(202300410530);河南省科技攻关项目(212102110240)资助。

摘　　要：倒伏是影响夏玉米高产稳产的重要灾害因素,为研究不同阶段和类型倒伏对夏玉米籽粒灌浆及产量的影响,本研究选取‘郑单1002’(稀植大穗型)和‘豫单9553’(密植小穗型)2个品种,在4个关键生育阶段[大喇叭口期(E1)、花期(E2)、籽粒建成期(E3)和灌浆中期(E4)]设定3种倒伏类型[轻度根倒伏(EQ)、重度根倒伏(EZ)和茎折倒伏(EJ)]的田间控制试验,利用Logistics曲线模拟了籽粒灌浆动态,分析倒伏后籽粒灌浆的速增期、渐增期、缓增期的持续时间及灌浆速率等参数的变化,定量评估不同倒伏处理的产量灾损。结果表明:Logistics曲线模拟夏玉米籽粒灌浆动态的决定系数均在0.98以上,拟合效果较好。籽粒灌浆模拟参数显示,在E3和E4阶段倒伏处理后,理论最大百粒重(K)显著降低,且‘郑单1002’的K值降幅高于‘豫单9553’。其中E3阶段倒伏K值显著下降8.8%~16.5%(EZ)和15.4%~22.3%(EJ),E4阶段倒伏K值显著下降6.0%~16.0%(EZ)和14.9%~18.8%(EJ)。除第一阶段外,倒伏发生后平均灌浆速率(Gavg)、最大灌浆速率(G_(max))以及灌浆速率最大时的籽粒质量(W_(max))均受到显著影响,两个品种平均灌浆速率E2阶段下降10.5%~11.8%(EZ)和12.4%~14.6%(EJ),E3阶段下降18.0%~18.1%(EZ)和17.6%~21.2%(EJ),E4阶段下降13.6%~16.6%(EZ)和14.1%~23.0%(EJ)。各阶段倒伏处理后,2个品种的3个灌浆时期的持续时间与对照差异均不显著,但灌浆速率下降明显,且差异主要体现在速增期和缓增期。E1阶段EJ处理后的速增期和缓增期的灌浆速率显著下降,E2、E3和E4阶段的EJ和EZ倒伏处理的速增期和缓增期的灌浆速率均显著下降。各阶段EQ倒伏对籽粒灌浆影响均不显著。分析倒伏后夏玉米产量变化,E2、E3和E4阶段对产量影响大,平均减产18.2%~21.1%(‘郑单1002’)和21.1%~24.0%(‘豫单9553’),其中EJ倒伏的减产幅度最高,其次是EZ倒伏,从总体产量水平来看倒伏对‘豫单9553’的产量�Lodging is a crucial factor affecting the yield of summer maize.To study the effects of different stages and types of lodging on the grain filling and yield of summer maize,this study selected two varieties,‘Zhengdan 1002’(sparsely planted with large ears)and‘Yudan 9553’(densely planted with small ears),and conducted a field control experiment at four key growth stages(E1:big trumpet stage;E2:flowering stage;E3:grain formation stage;and E4:middle grain filling stage)with three types of lodging(EQ:mild root lodging;EZ:severe root lodging;and EJ:stem loading).Using a Logistic curve to simulate the dynamics of grain filling.The study analyzed changes in the duration and rate of grain filling during the gradual increase phase,rapid increase phase,and slow increase phase,and quantitatively assessed the yield loss due to different lodging treatments.The Logistic simulation fit the grain-filling dynamics of summer maize well,with a determination coefficient of over 0.98.Post-lodging,significant reductions in the theoretical maximum 100-grain weight(K value)were observed at E3 and E4 stages,with‘Zhengdan 1002’experiencing greater reductions than‘Yudan 9553’.In particular,K values significantly decreased by 8.8%–16.5%(EZ)and 15.4%–22.3%(EJ)during E3 and 6.0%−16.0%(EZ)and 14.9%−18.8%(EJ)during E4.Excluding the E1 stage,the average grain filling rate(G_(avg)),maximum grain filling rate(G_(max)),and grain mass at maximum filling rate(Wmax)were significantly affected,with average filling rates of‘Zhengdan 1002’decreasing less than those of‘Yudan 9553’.Specifically,the average filling rates decreased by 10.5%–11.8%(EZ)and 12.4%–14.6%(EJ)during E2,18.0%–18.1%(EZ)and 17.6%–21.2%(EJ)during E3,and 13.6%–16.6%(EZ)and 14.1%–23.0%(EJ)during E4.The durations of the three grain-filling phases under lodging treatments at different stages were not significantly different from those of the control but a decline in the filling rate was evident,particularly during the rapid and slow increase phase

关 键 词：倒伏 籽粒灌浆 Logistics模拟 夏玉米 

分 类 号：S274.3[农业科学—农业水土工程]