Microsoft Word 左青松_new_.doc

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Microsoft Word 左青松_new_.doc"

嫩伊矫
7 years ago
Views:

1 作物学报 ACTA AGRONOMICA SINICA 204, 40(4): ISSN ; CODEN TSHPA9 DOI: /SP.J 不同收获时期对油菜机械收获损失率及籽粒品质的影响左青松周广生,2,* 黄海东曹石杨士芬廖庆喜冷锁虎 2 吴江生, ; 2, : 62, 70%,, 7.00%~5.80%,,, 7.80%~3.0%;,, 56.87%~92.20% 6.23%,, C/N %~3%, : ; ; ; Effects of Harvesting Date on Yield Loss Percentage of Mechanical Harvest and Seed Quality in Rapeseed ZUO Qing-Song,2, HUANG Hai-Dong, CAO Shi, YANG Shi-Fen, LIAO Qing-Xi, LENG Suo-Hu 2, WU Jiang-Sheng, and ZHOU Guang-Sheng,* College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan , China; 2 Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Physiology of Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou , China Abstract: A field experiment on mechanical harvest date of Huayouza 62 was conducted in the rapeseed season with harvesting stages ranging from 70% pod yellow to pod shattering significantly. The yield loss, moisture content, and seed quality were measured. The results showed that the percentage of total yield loss ranged from 7.00% to 5.80% in different treatments of harvest date, showing the trend of decreasing first and increasing later. The total yield loss in mechanical harvest was composed of shattering loss (SL), harvest loss by combine header (CHL), and cleaning and threshing loss (CTL), in which CTL accounted for the largest proportion of total yield loss (56.87% 92.90%), followed by CHL (7.80% 3.0%). The CTL percentage decreased with harvest date, whereas the CHL percentage was greater in later harvest treatment. Total yield loss percentage had positive correlations with moisture contents of seed, shell, main inflorescence and branches (P < 0.0). The highest 000-seed weight and oil content were obtained when the seed moisture content was 6.23%. Further reduction of seed moisture content resulted in slight decreases of 000-seed weight, oil content, carbon content, and C/N ratio. Our results indicate that seed or pod shell moisture content of % 3% was the optimal stage for mechanical harvest in rapeseed, when the final harvest yield, 000-seed weight, oil content, and oil yield are considerably high. Keywords: Rapeseed; Mechanical harvesting; Yield loss percentage; Seed quality, 30% [], ( ), (200BAD0B09), ( ) ( ) (nycytx-0050) * (Corresponding author):, zhougs@mail.hzau.edu.cn : qszuo@yzu.edu.cn Received( ): ; Accepted( ): ; Published online(): URL:

2 4 : 65 [2],,, [3] [4],,,, [5-7], [8], 0% [9-4] [5-6],,,, ;,,,,, 材料与方法 , mg kg 4.6 mg kg mg kg BFQ-6 2 m, 6,,, 45 hm 2 N P K (5%-5%-5%) 900 kg hm kg hm 2 35 kg hm 2,, 6, ,, 机械收获时小区实际产量.3.2 水分含量测定 0, (30 cm), 80, (72 h),.3.3 机械收获损失测定 36 m, 72 m 2 4LL-2.0D ( ), 30 cm 2/3() (25 cm 5 cm 5 cm), 0, (yield loss caused by shattering, SL) (yield loss caused by combine header, CHL), (yield loss from seeds in the field caused by combine header, CHL), 8 m 0 ; (yield loss from branches in the field caused by combine header, CHL2), 28 m (yield loss caused by cleaning and threshing, CTL), (yield loss caused by mixed straw and shell, ML) (yield loss caused by non-threshing pod, NTPL).3.4 绿籽率的测定 20 g,.3.5 碳和氮元素含量 (Vario MAX CN, Elementar Co., Germany).4 SPSS 0.0, Microsoft Excel(LSD) 2 结果与分析 2., , 0.6% 3.34%; 5 4 3, 5 4

3 ,, 5 4, kg hm 2, 7.00%~5.80%,, 5 5, 5.80%, 5 7, 7.00%, , 表不同收获时期油菜产量产油量和损失率 Table Grain yield, oil yield, and percentage of total yield loss at different harvesting dates Plot yield Yield of mechanical harvest Oil yield Percentage of total yield loss 5/ ±39.93 c ±3.85 d ±8.47 d 5.80±0.07 a 5/ ±5.08 b ±49. c ±7.24 c 2.69±0.4 b 5/ ±34.36 ab ±38.2 b 276.5±23.38 b 9.93±0.27 c 5/ ±30.3 a ±32.25 a ±9.25 a 7.70±0.6 d 5/ ±42.8 ab ±3.45 ab ±9.00 ab 7.00±0.24 e 5/ ±23.0 ab ±9.00 ab ±7.5 ab 7.66±0.2 d LSD, 0.05 Values followed by different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 according to LSD test , ( 2), %,,, , 39.69%,, %, 4.36%~4.57%,,,, %, ** * **, ,, 5 9, 2.2%; 7.80%~3.0%,, 56.87%~92.20%, 45.92%~68.9%,.06%~46.28%, 表 2 不同收获期不同部分损失率 Table 2 Proportions of yield loss percentage in different parts at different harvesting dates SL CHL CHL CHL2 CTL ML NTPL 5/5.23±0.06 d 0.4±0.03 e 0.82±0.05 ab 4.57±0.08 a 7.26±0.20 a 7.3±0.3 a 5/0.43±0.07 c 0.52±0.03 de 0.9±0.06 a.26±0.5 b 6.66±0.3 b 4.56±0.9 b 5/2 0.4±0.0 c.4±0.09 cd 0.63±0.04 cd 0.78±0.05 ab 8.38±0.32 c 6.43±0.5 b.95±0.6 c 5/4 0.2±0.0 bc.47±0.07 c 0.73±0.05 c 0.73±0.09 b 6.03±0.2 d 5.3±0.8 c 0.72±0.03 d 5/7 0.27±0.0 b.70±0.09 b 0.93±0.04 b 0.77±0.05 ab 5.03±0.2 e 4.59±0.20 d 0.45±0.02 de 5/9 0.93±0.05 a 2.37±0.07 a.6±0.05 a 0.76±0.05 ab 4.36±0.9 f 4.28±0.9 d 0.08±0.0 e LSD, 0.05 Values followed by different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 according to LSD test. stands for no determination. SL: shattering loss; CHL: harvest loss by combine header; CHL: seed loss by combine header; CHL2: branch loss by combine header; CTL: cleaning and threshing loss; ML: mixture in straw and shell loss; NTPL: non-threshing pod loss.

4 4 : 653 图不同收获期不同部分产量损失占总产量损失的比例 Fig. Ratio of yield loss in different parts to total yield loss at different harvesting dates SL: shattering loss; CHL: harvest loss by combine header; CHL: seed loss by combine header; CHL2: branch loss by combine header; CTL: cleaning and threshing loss; ML: mixture in straw and shell loss; NTPL: non-threshing pod loss., 2.3,,, 9.3%~35.82% ( 3);, 66.5%~85.84%,,, %;, 74.5% 74.68%;, %,, ** ** ** 表 3 不同收获时期油菜不同部位水分含量 Table 3 Moisture contents in various parts at different harvesting dates Seed Shell Main inflorescence and branches Upper stem Lower stem 5/ ±0.69 a 69.68±.0 a 72.7±0.85 a 8.99±0.73 a 85.84±0.67 a 5/0 24.4±0.83 b 40.29±0.7 b 58.99±0.63 b 79.52±0.85 b 83.90±.23 ab 5/2 6.23±0.3 c 2.06±0.65 c 43.89±.28 c 77.83±.35 b 82.32±0.62 bc 5/4 3.28±0.40 d 3.9±0.39 d 32.39±.09 d 74.50±.27 c 80.6±0.80 c 5/7.2±0.24 e 0.70±0.29 e 24.88±0.65 e 62.28±0.80 d 75.30±0.74 d 5/9 9.3±0.27 f 8.94±0.25 f 8.27±0.63 f 47.03±.5 e 66.5±.08 e LSD, 0.05 Values followed by different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 according to LSD test ,,, 5 5, 3.38 g,, , , 4.75%, 5 5, 3.76%~ 3.84%, 5 5, 56.53%, , 3 讨论 3.,,,,,,, ** ** **, 5 7, 7.00%,

5 654 40, 5 9,,,, %~3%, 8%, 3~4 d , 45 hm 2 ( 5) 表 4 不同收获期油菜千粒重和籽粒品质 Table seed weight and seed quality at different harvesting dates 000-seed weight Green seed percentage Oil content Nitrogen content Carbon content C /N (g) 5/5 3.38±0.04 b 35.33±0.52 a 39.59±0.26 b 3.84±0.06 a 56.53±0.38 b 4.74±0.30 a 5/0 3.57±0.08 a 3.75±.89 b 4.86±0.54 a 3.76±0.05 a 58.07±0.58 ab 5.47±0.36 a 5/2 3.67±0.06 a 3.3±0.38 c 42.44±0.25 a 3.78±0.03 a 58.77±0.65 a 5.55±0.30 a 5/4 3.64±0.05 a 42.23±0.32 a 3.80±0.05 a 58.3±0.50 a 5.3±0.3 a 5/7 3.6±0.04 a 42.7±0.43 a 3.8±0.05 a 57.93±0.63 ab 5.20±0.3 a 5/9 3.6±0.05 a 42.9±0.33 a 3.82±0.05 a 58.0±0.44 a 5.22±0.30 a LSD, 0.05 Values followed by different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 according to LSD test. stands for no determination. 表年度不同收获期籽粒水分含量产量和机械收获损失率 Table 5 Moisture content in seed, grain yield, and percentage of total yield loss at different harvesting dates in experiment Moisture content in seed Plot yield Yield of mechanical harvest Percentage of total yield loss 5/ ±0.25 a ±64.76 a ±48.22 b.52±0.32 a 5/5 5.62±0.52 b ±59.65 a ±58.9 ab 9.89±0.26 b 5/7 2.84±0.24 c 38.44±52.47 a ±52.38 ab 7.83±0.22 c 5/ 0.7±0.34 d 32.77±36.73 a ±35.67 a 7.23±0.9 c LSD, 0.05 Values followed by different letters are significantly different at P<0.05 according to LSD test , 5 5, 70%, ; 5 0, 85% ; 5 2, 95%, ; 5 4,,, 3/4, /4, ; ,,, %,, [7-9],, g, 3.38 g ( 4) 4.2%,,,, [20] 4 C,,, 20% 4 C, 20% ; [2] 6.23%, 3.67 g,, 42.44%,,,,, C/N 4 结论 70%,

6 4 : %~5.80%,,, 56.87%~92.20%,, %~3%,, ;,,,, 3~4 d,,,, References [].., 2007, 29: 0 05 Wang H Z. Strategy for rapeseed industry development based on the analysis of rapeseed production and demand in China. Chin J Oil Crop Sci, 2007, 29: 0 05 (in Chinese with English abstract) [2],.., 2009, (2): 3 6 Wu C Y, Yi Z Y. Selection of technology route of oilseed rape mechanization in entire production proceeding in China. Chin Agric Mech, 2009, (2): 3 6 (in Chinese with English abstract) [3],,,,.., 202, 34: Gao J Q, Pu H M, Long W H, Hu M L, Qi C K. Dynamics of oleic acid contents in organs of high-oleic rapeseed lines. Chin J Oil Crop Sci, 202, 34: (in Chinese with English abstract) [4],.., 2005, 26: Shen Q, Zhang S G. Potential on technology advanced and resources allocation of rapeseed production in China. Res Agric Modern, 2005, 26: (in Chinese with English abstract) [5],. 2BGKF-230U., 2002, (5): Lian Y J, Luo Y L. Development and test research on Shanghai 2BGKF-230U type rape direct seeder. Chin Agric Mech, 2002, (5): (in Chinese with English abstract) [6],,,.., 2003, (2): Zhang Y W, Zou J, Zhang W C, Li Q X. Precise seeding technology for rape and development of multi-functional precise seeding apparatus. Chin Agric Mech, 2003, (2): (in Chinese with English abstract) [7],,,,.. ( ), 2004, 30: Wu M L, Tang C Z, Xie F P, Zhao J H, Zhang L. The structure design of mounted sower for line seeding of rape in till-less paddy field. J Hunan Agric Univ (Nat Sci Edn), 2004, 30: (in Chinese with English abstract) [8],,,,.., 203, 52: Zhou G S, Zuo Q S, Liao Q X, Wu J S, Fu T D. Mechanical production status, existing problems and stpercentagegy discussion of rapeseed in China. Hubei Agric Sci, 203, 52: (in Chinese with English abstract) [9] Squices T M, Gruwel M L H, Zhou R, Sokhansanj S, Abrams S R, Cutler A J. Dehydration and dehiscence in siliques of Brassica napus and Brassica rapa. Can J Bot, 2003, 8: [0],,,,,,.., 2006, 22(): Tan X L, Zhang J F, Yang L, Zhang Z Y, Zhou J, Jiang S, Qi C K. Quantitive determination of the strength of rapeseed pod dehiscence. Trans CSAE, 2006, 22(): (in Chinese with English abstract) [],,,,,. ( )., 2008, 34: Wen Y C, Fu T D, Tu J X, Ma C Z, Shen J X, Zhang S F. Screening and analysis of resistance to silique shattering in rape (Brassica napus L.). Acta Agron Sin, 2008, 34: (in Chinese with English abstract) [2] Gan Y, Malhi S S, Brandt S A, McDonald C L. Assessment of seed shattering resistance and yield loss in five oilseed crops. Can J Plant Sci, 2008, 88: [3],,,.. ( ), 2006, 28(5): Zhang J, Chen J C, Tang Z L, Wang R. Study on the physicochemical properties of stem as related to lodging in rape. J Southwest Agric Univ (Nat Sci Edn), 2006, 28(5): (in Chinese with English abstract) [4] Irvine B, Lafond G P. Pushing canola instead of windrowing can be a viable alternative. Can J Plant Sci, 200, 90: [5],,,.. ( ), 2005, 26: Li Y M, Zhou J Z, Xu L Z, Deng L L. Experimental study on threshing and separating unit of rape combine. J Jiangsu Univ (Nat Sci Edn), 2005, 26: (in Chinese with English abstract) [6],, 啟. ANSYS., 2007, (0): Du W Y, Huang H D, Fan Q Z. Application of ANSYS in the flow field in the cleaning device of a rape s combine harvester. J Agric Mech Res, 2007, (0): (in Chinese with English abstract) [7],,.., 2003, 28(9): Xue Y L, Tian S M, Wu Z J. Determination method of chlorophyll content in rapeseed and rapeseed oil. China Oils Fats, 2003, 28(9): (in Chinese with English abstract) [8] Vera C L, Downey R K, Woods S M, Raney J P, McGregor D I, Elliott R H, Johnson E N. Yield and quality of canola seed as affected by stage of maturity at swathing. Can J Plant Sci, 2007, 87: 3 26 [9],,,,,.. ( ), 2008, 30(2): 48 50

7 Yi S L, Liang Y, Dai L T, Chen L, Chai Y R, Li J N. Effects of high temperature on post-harvest ripening-related characteristics in Brassica napus L. J Southwest Univ (Nat Sci Edn), 2008, 30(2): (in Chinese with English abstract) [20],,,. : I.., 990, (3): Wang Y L, Cai J Z, Xu Y L, Hua H L. Activity of grain capacity and its regulation in rice: I. The relationship between grain water content and capacity activity. J Jiangsu Agric Coll, 990, (3): (in Chinese with English abstract) [2],,,,,.. ( ), 2005, 26(2): 6 65 Chen J, Wang Z, Mo Y W, Ma X J, Sun Z C, Diao S Y. The relationship between caryops is filling and respiratory percentage of rice. J Yangzhou Univ (Agric Life Sci Edn), 2005, 26(2): 6 65 (in Chinese with English abstract)

Microsoft Word - 17--刘秀秀_new_.doc

Microsoft Word - 17--刘秀秀_new_.doc 土壤 (Soils), 2014, 46(5): 875 880 1 缺钾对油菜主序产量性状的影响及施钾效果 * ( 430070) (+K) ( K) 1 321 kg/hm 2 111% 50.1% 9.2% 33.6% 21.6% 10.3% 69.6% 41.7% 20.1% 124.4% S143.3 57.2% [1] [2] [3] [4 6] 2005