耕作方式和氮肥运筹对旱地小麦耗水特性和产量形成的影响
|
摘要
1耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦耗水特性和产量形成的影响
试验于2009~2012小麦生长季在淄博市临淄区边河村大田进行，为无水浇条件的旱地。3个试验年度的供试品种依次为济麦22、山农16和烟农0428。试验设置4种耕作方式，分别为条旋耕(strip rotary tillage, SR)、旋耕(rotary tillage, R)、深松+条旋耕(striprotary tillage after subsoiling, SRS)和深松+旋耕(rotary tillage after subsoiling, RS)，其中深松作业于2009~2010生长季试验播前进行，以后不再深松；每种耕作方式设置6个施氮水平，纯氮量分别为0(N0)、90kg hm~(-2)(N1)、120kg hm~(-2)(N2)、150kg hm~(-2)(N3)、180kghm~(-2)(N4)和210kg hm~(-2)(N5)。
1.1耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦耗水特性的影响
同一耕作方式下，N3处理拔节至成熟期耗水量与N4处理无显著差异，显著高于N0、N1和N2处理；N3处理100~200cm土层土壤贮水消耗量与N4处理无显著差异，显著高于N0、N1和N2处理，土壤贮水消耗量及其占总耗水量的比例显著提高，N5处理100~200cm深层土壤贮水消耗量与N3和N4处理无显著差异；N3处理灌浆中后期旗叶水势与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理；N3处理拔节后棵间蒸发量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著低于其它处理。表明N3处理有利于小麦利用深层土壤贮水，提高拔节至成熟期耗水量，满足拔节后水分需求，降低拔节后棵间蒸发量。
同一施氮水平下，深松有利于夏季雨水下渗，在2009年度首次深松后，2010和2011年度深松处理播前土壤含水量高于未深松处理；深松+条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理土壤贮水消耗量无显著差异，显著高于条旋耕和旋耕处理，表明深松有利于小麦利用土壤贮水；条旋耕和深松+条旋耕处理播种至拔节期耗水量显著低于旋耕和深松+旋耕处理，拔节至成熟期耗水量以深松+条旋耕处理最高，旋耕处理最低；条旋耕和深松+条旋耕处理各生育时期棵间蒸发量显著低于旋耕和深松+旋耕处理，深松+条旋耕处理开花后旗叶水势较高，旋耕处理最低。表明深松+条旋耕处理有利于小麦利用土壤贮水，降低播种至拔节期耗水量，提高拔节至成熟期耗水量，满足拔节后水分需求，降低土壤水分向大气中的扩散。
1.2耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦碳代谢的影响
同一耕作方式下，N3处理灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率和磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性与N4处理无显著差异，显著高于N0、N1和N2处理，有利于旗叶蔗糖的积累；施氮量增加至N5，灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率和磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性降低；2009~2010生长季和2011~2012生长季， N3处理拔节期、开花期和成熟期植株干物质积累量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理；2010~2011生长季，N3处理成熟期植株干物质积累量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理。同一耕作方式下，N3和N4处理开花后干物质积累量显著高于其它处理，开花前营养物质贮藏干物质转运量较高。
同一施氮水平下，深松+条旋耕处理灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率显著高于其它处理，条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理无显著差异，旋耕处理最低；深松+条旋耕处理灌浆中后期旗叶磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性显著高于其它处理，有利于旗叶蔗糖的合成；深松+条旋耕处理成熟期植株干物质积累量显著高于其它处理，条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理无显著差异，旋耕处理最低；深松+条旋耕处理开花后干物质积累量及其对籽粒的贡献率显著高于其它处理，旋耕处理最低。表明深松+条旋耕处理有利于灌浆中后期光合产物的积累，成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量显著提高。
1.3耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦氮代谢的影响
同一耕作方式下，N3处理开花期和成熟期植株氮素积累量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理，开花前营养器官贮藏氮素向籽粒的转运量提高；2009~2010生长季和2011~2012生长季，N3处理开花后氮素吸收量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理，2010~2011生长季，N3和N4处理开花后氮素吸收量较高，表明N3处理有利于提高开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量和开花后氮素吸收量。随施氮量增加，各时期土壤硝态氮含量升高，N3处理成熟期0~100cm土层土壤硝态氮含量与N2处理无显著差异，有利于小麦对0~100cm土层土壤硝态氮的吸收，N5处理在120~180cm土层形成硝态氮积累峰。
同一施氮水平下，深松+条旋耕处理成熟期植株氮素积累量显著高于其它处理，条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理无显著差异，旋耕处理最低；深松+条旋耕处理开花前营养器官贮藏氮素的转运量较高，开花后氮素吸收量显著高于其它处理，旋耕处理最低。深松+条旋耕处理成熟期0~100cm土层土壤硝态氮含量显著低于其它处理，120~180cm土层土壤硝态氮含量显著低于深松+旋耕处理，表明深松+条旋耕处理有利于开花后氮素的吸收转运，有利于利用0~100cm土层土壤硝态氮，深松+旋耕处理在120~180cm土层形成硝态氮积累峰。
1.4耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦籽粒产量和水分与氮素利用效率的影响
同一耕作方式下，N3处理籽粒产量显著高于N0、N1和N2处理，水分利用效率较高；N4处理籽粒产量和水分利用效率与N3处理无显著差异，氮肥生产效率和氮肥农学效率显著低于N3处理；施氮量继续增加至N5，籽粒产量降低，水分利用效率、氮肥生产效率和氮肥农学效率显著降低。施氮量为150kg hm2(N3处理)是本试验条件下适宜施氮量。
同一施氮水平下，深松+条旋耕处理籽粒产量最高，条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理无显著差异，旋耕处理最低；同时深松+条旋耕处理氮肥农学效率显著提高，水分利用效率和氮肥生产效率较高，是本试验条件下最优的耕作方式处理。
2施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦耗水特性和产量形成的影响
试验于2010~2012小麦生长季在淄博市临淄区边河村大田进行，为无水浇条件的旱地。2个试验年度供试品种依次为山农16和烟农0428。试验设置4个施氮水平，纯氮量分别为0(N0)、90kg hm~(-2)(N1)、150kg hm~(-2)(N3)和210kg hm~(-2)(N5)；4个氮肥施用深度，分别为氮肥表面撒施(D1)、施氮深度10cm(D2)、20cm(D3)和30cm(D4)。
2.1施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦耗水特性的影响
N1条件下，两年度D2、D3和D4处理土壤贮水消耗量和开花至成熟期耗水量显著高于D1处理；2010~2011生长季，D2、D3和D4处理灌浆期棵间蒸发量显著低于D1处理。N3和N5条件下，两年度D3和D4处理拔节至成熟期耗水量及灌浆中后期旗叶水势显著高于D1和D2处理；2010~2011生长季，D3和D4处理土壤贮水消耗量和60~140cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于D1和D2处理，灌浆期棵间蒸发量显著低于D1和D2处理；2011~2012生长季，D3和D4处理40~160cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于D1和D2处理。表明D3和D4处理有利于小麦利用深层土壤贮水，提高拔节至成熟期耗水量，满足拔节后水分需求，降低灌浆期棵间蒸发量，维持灌浆中后期较高的旗叶水势。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理60~140cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于N1处理，拔节至开花期耗水量和灌浆中后期旗叶水势显著高于N1处理。2010~2011生长季，各施氮深度下，N3和N5处理开花期棵间蒸发量显著低于N1处理；D1和D4条件下，N3和N5处理开花至成熟期耗水量显著高于N1处理。2011~2012生长季，D1、D3和D4条件下，N3和N5处理开花至成熟期耗水量显著高于N1处理，D2条件下以N3处理最高；D3和D4条件下，N3和N5处理140~160cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于N1处理。表明N3处理有利于小麦利用120~160cm深层土壤贮水，满足拔节后水分需求，提高灌浆中后期旗叶水势，降低开花期土壤水分向大气中的扩散。
2.2施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦碳代谢的影响
N1条件下，两年度D2、D3和D4处理灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率、磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性和灌浆中期蔗糖含量显著高于D1处理，成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量显著高于D1处理。N3和N5条件下，两年度D3和D4处理灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率、磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性和灌浆中期蔗糖含量显著高于D1和D2处理，成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量显著高于D1和D2处理。表明D3和D4处理有利于保持开花后较高的干物质积累量，提高成熟期植株干物质积累量。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理灌浆期旗叶光合速率高于N1处理；D3和D4条件下，两年度N3和N5处理灌浆期旗叶磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性和灌浆中期蔗糖含量显著高于N1处理。2010~2011生长季，D1、D3和D4条件下，N3和N5处理成熟期植株干物质积累量显著高于N1处理，D2条件下以N3和N5处理较高；2011~2012生长季，各施氮深度下，N3和N5处理成熟期植株干物质积累量显著高于N1处理。各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理开花后干物质积累量显著高于N1处理。表明N3处理有利于灌浆期旗叶保持较高的光合速率，开花后干物质积累量显著提高。
2.3施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦氮代谢的影响
N1条件下，两年度D2、D3和D4处理成熟期植株氮素积累量和开花后氮素吸收量显著高于D1处理；N3和N5条件下，两年度D3和D4处理成熟期植株氮素积累量和开花后氮素吸收量显著高于D1和D2处理，开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量较高。2011~2012生长季，各施氮条件下，D3处理成熟期40~100cm土层土壤硝态氮含量与D2处理无显著差异；N1条件下，D3处理40~100cm土层土壤硝态氮含量显著低于D4处理；N3和N5条件下为60~140cm土层显著低于D4处理。表明D3和D4处理有利于成熟期植株氮素的积累和开花后氮素的吸收转运，D3处理有利于开花后40~100cm土层土壤硝态氮的吸收利用，D4处理在120~140cm土层形成硝态氮积累峰。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理成熟期植株氮素积累量和开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量显著高于N1处理。2010~2011生长季，D1条件下，N3和N5处理开花后氮素吸收量显著高于N1处理，D2、D3和D4条件下无显著差异。2011~2012生长季，D1、D3和D4条件下，N3和N5处理开花后氮素吸收量显著高于N1处理，D2条件下无显著差异；D1条件下，N3处理成熟期0~60cm土层土壤硝态氮含量与N1处理无显著差异，D2、D3和D4条件下为0~80cm土层与N1处理无显著差异；D1和D2条件下，N5处理20~120cm土层土壤硝态氮含量最高，D3条件下为0~140cm土层最高，D4条件下为40~180cm土层最高。表明N3处理有利于开花后氮素的吸收转运，提高表层土壤硝态氮的吸收利用，N5处理在140~180cm土层形成硝态氮积累峰。
2.4施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦旗叶衰老和根系活力的影响
2010~2011生长季，N1条件下，D2、D3和D4处理灌浆中后期旗叶超氧化物歧化酶活性、可溶性蛋白质含量和根系活力显著高于D1处理，丙二醛含量显著低于D1处理；N3和N5条件下，D3和D4处理灌浆中后期旗叶超氧化物歧化酶活性、可溶性蛋白含量质和根系活力显著高于D1和D2处理，丙二醛含量显著低于D1和D2处理。2011~2012生长季，N1条件下，D2、D3和D4处理开花后根系活力显著高于D1处理；N3和N5条件下，D3和D4处理灌浆前中期根系活力显著高于D1和D2处理。表明D3和D4处理有利于延缓小麦开花后旗叶和根系衰老。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理灌浆中后期旗叶旗叶超氧化物歧化酶活性、可溶性蛋白质含量和灌浆中后期根系活力显著高于N1处理，旗叶丙二醛含量显著低于N1处理。表明N3处理有利于延缓小麦开花后旗叶和根系衰老。
2.5施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦籽粒产量和水分与氮素利用效率的影响
N1条件下，两年度D2、D3和D4处理的籽粒产量、氮素吸收效率和氮肥生产效率显著高于D1处理，水分利用效率无显著差异；N3和N5条件下，两年度D3和D4处理籽粒产量、氮素吸收效率、氮肥表观利用率和氮肥农学效率显著高于D1和D2处理。施氮深度为20cm(D3处理)是本试验条件下适宜的施氮深度。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3处理籽粒产量与N5处理无显著差异，显著高于N1处理。2010~2011生长季，D1条件下，N3和N5处理水分利用效率较高，D2、D3和D4条件下则无显著差异；2011~2012生长季，各施氮深度下，各处理水分利用效率无显著差异。各施氮深度下，随施氮量增加，氮素吸收效率、氮肥表观利用率、氮肥农学效率和氮肥生产效率显著降低。施氮量为150kg hm~(-2)(N3处理)是本试验条件下适宜的施氮量。
3不同小麦品种耗水特性和产量的差异研究
试验于2008~2009小麦生长季在泰安山东农业大学农场试验田进行。选用山农15、济麦22、烟农21、山农8355、潍麦8号和泰9818共6个小麦品种，每个品种设置4个水分处理：W0(全生育期不灌水)、W1(拔节期70%，开花期70%)、W2(拔节后8d70%，开花后8d70%)和W3(拔节后8d75%，开花后8d70%)。
3.1不同小麦品种耗水特性的差异
依据不同品种的籽粒产量和水分利用效率2个因子对供试品种进行聚类分析，将其划分为高水分利用效率组(Ⅰ组)、中水分利用效率组(Ⅱ组)和低水分利用效率组(Ⅲ组)。从Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组中分别取1个品种，山农8355、山农15和潍麦8号进一步分析。
各灌水处理下，山农8355播种至拔节期耗水量显著低于潍麦8号，拔节至开花期耗水量较低，开花至成熟期耗水量显著高于山农15和潍麦8号。W0和W1条件下，山农8355100~140cm土层土壤耗水量最高；W2条件下，山农835580~120cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于山农15，100~160cm土层显著高于潍麦8号；W3条件下，山农8355100~120cm土层土壤耗水量最高。表明山农8355有利于小麦利用深层土壤贮水，降低开花前耗水量，满足灌浆期水分需求。
3.2不同小麦品种干物质积累与转运的差异
W0条件下，山农8355成熟期植株干物质积累量与山农15无显著差异，显著高于潍麦8号，开花前营养器官贮藏干物质转运量最高；W1和W3条件下，山农8355成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量最高，开花前营养器官贮藏干物质转运量较高；W2条件下，山农8355成熟期植株干物质积累量显著高于潍麦8号，开花后干物质积累量最高，开花前营养器官贮藏干物质转运量较高。表明山农8355有利于提高成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量，开花前营养器官贮藏干物质转运量较高。
3.3不同小麦品种氮素积累与转运的差异
W0、W1和W3条件下，各品种成熟期植株氮素积累量无显著差异；W2条件下，山农8355成熟期植株氮素积累量显著高于潍麦8号。W0条件下，山农8355和山农15开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量和转运氮对籽粒氮的贡献率显著高于潍麦8号；W1条件下，山农8355和山农15开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量较高；W2条件下，山农15开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量最高；W3条件下，各品种开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量、转运率和转运氮对籽粒氮的贡献率无显著差异。
1Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer on the water consumption characteristics andgrain yield formation in dryland farming systems of wheat
The field experiment was conducted in the hilly dryland region of the Bianhe village inLinzi, Shandong Province during the2009to2012growing seasons. The winter wheatcultivars Jimai22, Shannong16, and Yannong0428were used for the2009to2010,2010to2011, and2011to2012wheat growing seasons, respectively. The treatments included fourtillage patterns and six levels of N, which was applied before sowing. The tillage patternswere, namely, strip rotary tillage (SR), strip rotary tillage after subsoiling (SRS), rotary tillage(R), and rotary tillage after subsoiling (RS). The nitrogen treatments were six levels of Napplied before sowing:0,90,120,150,180, and210kg N ha1, designated as N0to N5,respectively. Subsoiling treatments were only conducted during the2009to2010growingseason.
1.1Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer rate on water consumption characteristics indryland farming systems of wheat
Under the same tillage condition, the amount of water consumption in the N3treatmentfrom jointing to maturity was significantly higher than that in N0, N1, and N2treatments. Bycontrast, no significant differences were observed in the water consumption of the N3and N4treatments from jointing to maturity. The N3treatment had the capability to absorb morewater from deep soil layers below100cm, as compared with the N0, N1, and N2treatments.The amount of soil water consumption and its ratio to the amount of total water consumptionwere significantly increased as the N rate increased from N0to N3. The amount of waterconsumed from deep soil layers below100cm did not significant change as the N rateincreased from N3to N5. The water potential of the flag leaf during the middle and late grainfilling stages in the N3treatment was not significantly different from the N4or N5treatments, but it was significantly higher than that of the N0, N1, and N2treatments. The soilevaporation after jointing in the N3treatment was not significantly different from that in theN4or N5treatments, but it was significantly lower than that in the N0, N1, and N2treatments.These results suggested that N3treatment allowed for sufficient soil water consumption indeep soil layers, with higher amounts of water consumed after jointing. The N3treatment alsoreduced the level of soil evaporation after the jointing stage.
Under the same N rate condition, the soil water content before sowing with subsoilingwas increased after subsoiling in the first growing season. The amount of soil water consumedin the SRS and RS treatments were not significantly difference, but were significantly higherthan those in the SR and R treatments. This finding suggested that subsoiling improved theconsumption of soil water. The amount of water consumed from the sowing to the jointingstage in the SR and SRS treatments was significantly lower than that in the R and RStreatments. The amounts of water consumed from the jointing to the maturity stages in theSRS treatment were the highest, whereas the amounts in the R treatment were the lowest. Thesoil evaporation at various stages was significantly lower in the SR and SRS treatments thanin the R and RS treatments. The SRS treatment had the advantages of the improved use of soilwater by wheat and the reduced level of soil evaporation after jointing. This treatmentconsumed a larger amount of water amount after jointing, despite its lower amount of waterconsumption before jointing; this trend was beneficial to meet the water demand afterjointing.
1.2Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer rate on carbon metabolism in drylandfarming systems of wheat
Under the same tillage conditions, the photosynthetic rate and SPS activity of the flag leafat the middle and late grain filling stages in the N3treatment were not significantly differentfrom those in the N4treatment. However, these rate and activity were significantly higherthan those in the N0, N1, and N2treatments, which promoted sucrose accumulation. Theseresults were reduced when the nitrogen application rate was increased in the N5treatment.During the2009to2010and the2011to2012growing seasons, the dry matter accumulationafter jointing in the N3treatment was not significantly different from that in the N4and N5treatments; however, it was significantly higher than those in the N0, N1, and N2treatments. During the2010to2011growing season, the dry matter accumulation at maturity in the N3treatment was not significantly different as compared with that in the N4or N5treatment butwas significantly higher than that in N0, N1, and N2treatments. The dry matter accumulationafter anthesis in the N3and N4treatments was significantly higher than that in the other Ntreatments. The N3and N4treatments under the same tillage conditions likewise hadrelatively higher dry matter translocation after anthesis.
The photosynthetic rate of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages underthe same N rate conditions was not significantly different in the SR and RS treatments, butthis rate was significantly higher in the SRS treatment. This photosynthetic rate in the Rtreatment was the lowest among all treatments. The SPS activity of the flag leaf at the middleand late grain filling stages in the SRS treatment was significantly higher than that in othertreatments, which was beneficial for sucrose synthesis. The SRS treatment had the highest drymatter accumulation at maturity. This accumulation was not significantly different among theSR and RS treatments, whereas the R treatment had the lowest value of all the treatments. Thedry matter accumulation after anthesis and its contribution to grain in the SRS treatment weresignificantly higher than those in other treatments, whereas the R treatment had the lowestvalues. These results suggested that the SRS treatment had a favorable effect on dry matteraccumulation after anthesis.
1.2Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer rate on nitrogen metabolism in drylandfarming systems of wheat
The nitrogen accumulation at anthesis and maturity in the N3, N4, and N5treatmentswas significantly higher than that in N0, N1, and N2treatments, given the same tillageconditions. The N3, N4, and N5treatments had relatively higher accumulation of nitrogentranslocated from absorbed N before anthesis to grain. During the2009to2010and2011to2012growing seasons, the nitrogen absorption after anthesis in the N3and N4treatments wasnot significantly different, as compared with the N5treatment, but these values weresignificantly higher than those in the N0, N1, and N2treatments. During the2010to2011growing season, the N3and N4treatments had relatively higher nitrogen absorption afteranthesis. These results suggested that the N3treatment led to sufficient nitrogen accumulationtranslocation and absorption after anthesis. The nitrate nitrogen contents of the different soil layers increased with the increasing N rates. The nitrate nitrogen contents of soil layers from0cm to100cm at maturity in the N3treatment were not significantly different, as comparedwith those in the N2treatment. The N5treatment had a nitrate accumulation peak at soillayers from120cm to180cm.
The nitrogen accumulation at maturity under the same N rate conditions was notsignificantly different in the SR and RS treatments, but it was significantly lower than that inthe SRS treatment. The R treatment had the lowest nitrogen accumulation among all thetreatments. The SRS treatment had relatively higher nitrogen translocated from the absorbedN before anthesis to grain, with the highest nitrogen absorption after anthesis. By contrast, theR treatment had the lowest nitrogen absorption after anthesis. The nitrate nitrogen contents atsoil layers from0cm to100cm at maturity in the SRS treatment were significantly lowerthan those in other treatments. In addition, the nitrate nitrogen contents at120cm to180cmwere significantly lower than those in the RS treatment. The SRS treatment allowed wheat toutilize the nitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from0cm to100cm, whereas the RStreatment demonstrated a nitrate accumulation peak at soil layers from120cm to180cm.1.3Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer rate on the grain yield, water use efficiency,and nitrogen use efficiency in dryland farming systems of wheat
The grain yield in the N3treatment was significantly higher than that in N0, N1, and N2treatments under the same tillage conditions. The N3treatment also had relatively higherwater use efficiency. The grain yield and water use efficiency in the N4treatment was notsignificantly different from the N3treatment. The N5treatment had relatively lower grainyield, as compared with the N3and N4treatments. As the N rates increased in the N3to N5treatments, the N productive efficiency and N agronomic efficiency were significantlydecreased. The N application of150kg ha1was considered to be optimum rate under thegiven experimental conditions.
The SRS treatment gained the highest grain yield under the same N rate conditions,whereas the SR and RS treatments were not significantly different. The R treatment had thelowest yield. The SRS treatment also had relatively higher water use efficiency and Nproductive efficiency; this treatment was considered to be the optimum method for the givenexperimental conditions.
2Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on water consumption characteristicsand grain yield formation in dryland farming systems of wheat
The field experiment was conducted in the hilly dryland region of the Bianhe village inLinzi, Shandong Province during the2010to2012growing seasons. The winter wheatcultivars Shannong16and Yannong0428were used for the2010to2011and the2011to2012wheat growing seasons, respectively. The treatments included four levels of N rateapplied before sowing combined with four nitrogen application depths. The N rates included0,90,150, and210kg N ha1, designated as N0, N1, N3, and N5, respectively. The nitrogenapplication depths were designed to have four levels, namely, surface application (D1) as wellas the application depths of10cm (D2),20cm (D3), and30cm (D4).
2.1Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on water consumption characteristicsin dryland farming systems of wheat
Under the N1condition during the2010to2012growing seasons, the amounts of soilwater consumption and water consumption from anthesis to maturity in the D2, D3, and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D2treatment. During the2010to2011growing season, the soil evaporation after anthesis in the D2, D3, and D4treatments wassignificantly lower than that in the D1treatment. Under the N3and N5conditions during the2010to2012growing seasons, the amount of water consumption from jointing to maturity aswell as the water potential of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in D1and D2treatments. During the2010to2011growing season, the amounts of water consumption and soil water consumptionat soil layers from60cm to140cm in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higherthan those in the D1and D2treatments. The soil evaporation after anthesis in the D3and D4treatments was significantly lower those in the D1and D2treatments. During the2011to2012growing season, the amount of soil water consumption at soil layers from40cm to160cm was significantly higher in the D3and D4treatments than in the D1and D2treatments. The D3and D4treatments promoted the use of soil water by wheat and reducedthe soil evaporation after jointing. The D3and D4treatments likewise had higher waterconsumption from jointing to maturity as well as higher water potential of the flag leaf at themiddle and late grain filling stages; these properties were beneficial to meet the water demand after jointing.
Under the same nitrogen application depths during the2010to2012growing seasons,the amounts of soil water consumption at soil layers from60cm to140cm in the N3and N5treatments were significantly higher than that in the N1treatment. The amount of waterconsumed from jointing to anthesis as well as the water potential of the flag leaf at the middleand late grain filling stages in the N3and N5treatments were likewise significantly higherthan those in the N1treatment. In the2010to2011growing seasons, the soil evaporation atanthesis stage of the N3and N5treatments was significantly lower than that in the N1treatment for all nitrogen application depths. The amounts of water consumption fromanthesis to maturity in the N3and N5treatments were significantly higher than that in the N1treatment. Under the D1, D3, and D4conditions during the2011to2012growing seasons, theamount of water consumed from anthesis to maturity in the N3and N5treatments wassignificantly higher than that in the N1treatment. The N3treatment had the highest amount ofwater consumption under the D2condition. The amount of soil water consumption at soillayers from60cm to140cm was significantly higher in the N3and N5treatments than in theN1treatment under the D3and D4conditions. The N3treatment promoted the use of soilwater at soil layers from120cm to160cm and reduced the soil evaporation at anthesis. TheN3treatment demonstrated the higher amounts of water consumption after jointing and higherwater potential of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages; both properties werebeneficial for meeting the water demand after jointing.
2.2Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on carbon metabolism in drylandfarming systems of wheat
Under the N1condition during the2010to2012growing seasons, the photosyntheticrate and SPS activity of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages as well assucrose content of flag leaf at middle grain filling in the D2, D3, and D4treatments weresignificantly higher than those in the D1treatment. The dry matter accumulation at maturityand dry matter accumulation after anthesis in the D2, D3, and D4treatments were alsosignificantly higher than those in the D1treatment. Under the N3and N5conditions duringthe2010to2012growing seasons, the photosynthetic rate and SPS activity and the sucrosecontent of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1and D2treatments. The dry matteraccumulation at maturity and dry matter accumulation after anthesis in the D3and D4treatments were also significantly higher than those in the D1and D2treatments. The D3andD4treatments demonstrated higher dry matter accumulation after anthesis and dry matteraccumulation at maturity.
Under all nitrogen application depth conditions during the2010to2012growing seasons,the photosynthetic rate of flag leaf at grain filling in the N3and N5treatments wassignificantly higher than that in the N1treatment. The SPS activity of flag leaf at grain fillingand sucrose content of flag leaf at middle grain filling were significantly higher in the N3andN5treatments than in the N1treatment under the D3and D4conditions. During the2010to2011growing seasons, the dry matter accumulation at maturity in the N3and N5treatmentswas significantly higher than that in the N1treatment under the D1, D3, and D4conditions.The N3and N5treatments had relatively higher dry matter accumulation at maturity under theD2condition. During the2011to2012growing seasons, the dry matter accumulation atmaturity in the N3and N5treatments was significantly higher than that in the N1treatmentfor all nitrogen application depths. During the2010to2012growing seasons, the dry matteraccumulation after anthesis in the N3and N5treatments was significantly higher than that inthe N1treatment under all nitrogen application depths. The N3treatment promoted the higherphotosynthetic rate of the flag leaf at grain filling, and the accumulation of dry matter afteranthesis was significantly increased.
2.3Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on nitrogen metabolism in drylandfarming systems of wheat
During the2010to2012growing seasons, the nitrogen accumulation at maturity, as wellas the nitrogen absorption after anthesis, was significantly higher in the D2, D3, and D4treatments than in the D1treatment under the N1conditions. Under the N3and N5conditions,the D3and D4treatments had relatively higher nitrogen translocation from absorbed N beforeanthesis to grain. The nitrogen accumulation at maturity and the nitrogen absorption afteranthesis in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1and D2treatments. Under different N rates during the2011to2012growing season, the nitratenitrogen contents at soil layers from40cm to100cm at maturity in the D3treatment had no significant difference compared with those in the D2treatment. Under the N1condition, thenitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from40cm to100cm at maturity were significantlylower in the D3treatment than in the D4treatment. Under the N3and N5conditions, thenitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from60cm to140cm at maturity in the D3treatmentwere significantly lower than those in the D4treatment. These results suggested that the D3and D4treatments were beneficial for nitrogen accumulation at maturity as well as thenitrogen absorption and translocation after anthesis. The D3treatment allowed wheat toabsorb nitrate nitrogen in soil layers from40cm to100cm, whereas the D4treatment formeda nitrate accumulation peak at soil layers from120cm to140cm.
Under all nitrogen application depths during the2010to2012growing seasons, thenitrogen accumulation at maturity and the nitrogen translocation from absorbed N beforeanthesis to grain were significantly higher in the N3and N5treatments than in the N1treatment. During the2010to2011growing season, the nitrogen absorption after anthesis inthe N3and N5treatments was significantly higher than that in the N1treatment under the D1conditions. No significant differences were observed between the different nitrogenapplication depths in nitrogen absorption after anthesis under the D2, D3, and D4conditions.During the2011to2012growing seasons, the nitrogen absorption after anthesis in the N3andN5treatments was significantly higher than that in the N1treatment under the D1, D3, andD4conditions. The effects of the different nitrogen application depths were not significantlydifferent in terms of the nitrogen absorption after anthesis under the D2condition. The nitratenitrogen contents at soil layers from0cm to60cm at maturity in the N3treatment was notsignificantly different, as compared with those in the N1treatment under the D1conditions.No significant differences existed between the N1and N3treatments in terms of the nitratenitrogen contents at soil layers from0cm to80cm at maturity under the D2, D3, and D4conditions. The nitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from20cm to120cm at maturity weresignificantly higher in the N5treatment than in the other treatments under the D1and D2conditions. The N5treatment had the highest nitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from0cmto140cm at maturity. Under the D4conditions, the N5treatment had the highest nitratenitrogen contents at soil layers from40cm to180cm. These results suggested that the N3treatment was beneficial for nitrogen absorption and translocation. The N3treatment promoted the absorption of nitrate nitrogen by wheat from the surface soil layers, whereas theN5treatment had a nitrate accumulation peak at soil layers from140cm to180cm.
2.4Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on the senescence of flag leaf and rootsystems in dryland farming systems of wheat
Under the N1condition during the2010to2011growing season, the SOD activity andsoluble protein content of the flag leaf as well as the root activity at the middle and late grainfilling stages in the D2, D3, and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1treatment. By contrast, the MDA contents were significantly lower in the D2, D3, and D4treatments than in the D1treatment. Under the N3and N5conditions, the SOD activity andsoluble protein content of the flag leaf as well as the root activity at the middle and late grainfilling stages in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1andD2treatments. The MDA contents were significantly lower than those in the D1and D2treatments. Under the N1condition during the2011to2012growing season, the root activityafter anthesis in the D2, D3, and D4treatments was significantly higher than that in the D1treatment. The root activity at middle and late grain filling was significantly higher in the D3and D4treatments than in the D1and D2treatments under the N3and N5conditions. Theseresults suggested that D3and D4treatments delays the senescence of flag leaves and rootsystems after anthesis.
Under all nitrogen application depth conditions during the2010to2012growing seasons,SOD activity and soluble protein content of flag leaf and root activity at middle and late grainfilling in the N3and N5treatments were significantly higher than those in the N1treatment.The MDA contents were significantly lower in most treatments, as compared with those in theD1treatment. Therefore, the N3treatment could delay the senescence of the flag leaf and rootsystem after anthesis.
2.5Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on the grain yield, water use efficiency,and nitrogen use efficiency in dryland farming systems of wheat
During the2010to2012growing seasons, the grain yield, N uptake efficiency, and Nproductive efficiency in the D2, D3, and D4treatments were significantly higher than those inthe D1treatment under the N1conditions. No significant differences were observed in thewater use efficiency between different nitrogen application depths. The grain yield, N uptake efficiency, nitrogen fertilizer apparent efficiency, and N productive efficiency in the D3andD4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1and D2treatments under the N3and N5conditions. The nitrogen application depth of20cm was the optimal soil depth ofnitrogen fertilizer application under the experimental conditions.
Under all nitrogen application depths during the2010to2012growing seasons, the grainyield in the N3treatment was not significantly different from that in the N5treatment, but itwas significantly higher than that in the N1treatment. During the2010to2011growingseason, the N3and N5treatments had relatively higher water use efficiency under the D1conditions. No significant differences in the water use efficiency were observed betweendifferent nitrogen application depths under the D2, D3, and D4conditions. Under all nitrogenapplication depths during the2011to2012growing season, the water use efficiency did notsignificantly differ between the different nitrogen application depths. With the increasing Nrates, the N uptake efficiency, nitrogen fertilizer apparent efficiency, N agronomic efficiency,and N productive efficiency in all different nitrogen application depths were significantlydecreased. The optimal nitrogen application rate under the experimental conditions was150kg ha1.
3Evaluation of water consumption and grain yield in different wheat cultivars
The field experiment was conducted at the experimental farm of the ShandongAgricultural University during the2008to2009growing season. The winter wheat cultivarsShannong15, Jimai22, Yannong21, Shannong8355, Weimai8, and Tai9818were used.Four irrigation regimes were designed for each cultivar: W0had no irrigation; W1had arelative content of70%at the jointing and anthesis stages; W2had relative contents of70%at8d after jointing and70%at8d after anthesis; W3had relative contents of75%at8d afterjointing and70%at8d after anthesis.
3.1Water consumption characteristics in different wheat cultivars
The six wheat cultivars were divided into three groups based on the cluster analysis ofgrain yield and water use efficiency. The three groups were, namely, the high water useefficiency group (Group I), the moderate water use efficiency group (Group II), and the lowwater use efficiency group (Group III). The Shannong8355, Shannong15, and Weimai8cultivars were selected for further analysis from Groups I to III, respectively.
Under the conditions of different irrigation treatments, the amount of water consumptionfrom sowing to jointing in Shannong8355was significantly lower than that in Weimai8.Shannong8355had relatively lower amounts of water consumed from jointing to anthesis.The amount of water consumption from the anthesis to maturity stage in Shannong8355wassignificantly higher than that in Shannong15and Weimai8. Under the W0and W1conditions,the amount of water consumed at soil layers from100cm to140cm was highest in Shannong8355. The amount of water consumed at soil layers from80cm to120cm in Shannong8355was significantly higher than that in Shannong15under the W2conditions. By contrast, theamount of water consumed at soil layers from100cm to160cm in Shannong8355wassignificantly higher than that in Weimai8. Under the W3conditions, the amount of waterconsumption at soil layers from80cm to120cm was the highest in Shannong8355. Theseresults suggested that Shannong8355could most efficiently use soil water from deep soillayers. The Shannong8355cultivar reduced the amount of water consumption before anthesis,which was beneficial for meeting the water demand during grain filling.
3.2Dry matter accumulation and transporation in different wheat cultivars
Under the W0condition, the dry matter accumulation at anthesis and maturity inShannong8355was not significantly different from that in Shannong15, but wassignificantly higher than that in Weimai8. Shannong8355had the highest dry mattertranslocation after anthesis to grain. The dry matter transporation ratio, contribution of drymatter translocation after anthesis to grain, and dry matter accumulation after anthesis in weresignificantly higher in Shannong8355than in Weimai8. Under the W1and W3conditions,Shannong8355gained the highest dry matter accumulation at maturity and dry matteraccumulation after anthesis. This cultivar had relatively higher dry matter translocation afteranthesis to grain. Under W2condition, the dry matter accumulation at maturity in Shannong8355was significantly higher than that in Weimai8. Shannong8355demonstrated the highestdry matter accumulation after anthesis and had relatively higher dry matter translocation afteranthesis to grain. The results suggested that Shannong8355had higher dry matteraccumulation at maturity and dry matter accumulation after anthesis. Furthermore, Shannong8355had relatively higher dry matter translocation after anthesis to grain.
3.3Nitrogen accumulation and transporation in different wheat cultivars
Under the W0, W1, and W3conditions, no significant differences were observed innitrogen accumulation at maturity between the different wheat cultivars. Under the W2condition, the nitrogen accumulation at maturity in Shannong8355was significantly higherthan that in Weimai8. Under the W0condition, the nitrogen translocation from absorbed Nbefore anthesis to grain and its contribution to grain nitrogen in Shannong8355and Shannong15were significantly higher than those in Weimai8. Under the W1condition, Shannong8355and Shannong15had relatively higher nitrogen translocation from absorbed N before anthesisto grain. Under the W2condition, Shannong15had the highest nitrogen translocation fromabsorbed N before anthesis to grain. Under the W3condition, the cultivars were notsignificantly different in terms of the nitrogen translocation from absorbed N before anthesisto grain, the nitrogen translocation ratio, and the contribution of nitrogen translocation tograin nitrogen.
试验于2009~2012小麦生长季在淄博市临淄区边河村大田进行，为无水浇条件的旱地。3个试验年度的供试品种依次为济麦22、山农16和烟农0428。试验设置4种耕作方式，分别为条旋耕(strip rotary tillage, SR)、旋耕(rotary tillage, R)、深松+条旋耕(striprotary tillage after subsoiling, SRS)和深松+旋耕(rotary tillage after subsoiling, RS)，其中深松作业于2009~2010生长季试验播前进行，以后不再深松；每种耕作方式设置6个施氮水平，纯氮量分别为0(N0)、90kg hm~(-2)(N1)、120kg hm~(-2)(N2)、150kg hm~(-2)(N3)、180kghm~(-2)(N4)和210kg hm~(-2)(N5)。
1.1耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦耗水特性的影响
同一耕作方式下，N3处理拔节至成熟期耗水量与N4处理无显著差异，显著高于N0、N1和N2处理；N3处理100~200cm土层土壤贮水消耗量与N4处理无显著差异，显著高于N0、N1和N2处理，土壤贮水消耗量及其占总耗水量的比例显著提高，N5处理100~200cm深层土壤贮水消耗量与N3和N4处理无显著差异；N3处理灌浆中后期旗叶水势与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理；N3处理拔节后棵间蒸发量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著低于其它处理。表明N3处理有利于小麦利用深层土壤贮水，提高拔节至成熟期耗水量，满足拔节后水分需求，降低拔节后棵间蒸发量。
同一施氮水平下，深松有利于夏季雨水下渗，在2009年度首次深松后，2010和2011年度深松处理播前土壤含水量高于未深松处理；深松+条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理土壤贮水消耗量无显著差异，显著高于条旋耕和旋耕处理，表明深松有利于小麦利用土壤贮水；条旋耕和深松+条旋耕处理播种至拔节期耗水量显著低于旋耕和深松+旋耕处理，拔节至成熟期耗水量以深松+条旋耕处理最高，旋耕处理最低；条旋耕和深松+条旋耕处理各生育时期棵间蒸发量显著低于旋耕和深松+旋耕处理，深松+条旋耕处理开花后旗叶水势较高，旋耕处理最低。表明深松+条旋耕处理有利于小麦利用土壤贮水，降低播种至拔节期耗水量，提高拔节至成熟期耗水量，满足拔节后水分需求，降低土壤水分向大气中的扩散。
1.2耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦碳代谢的影响
同一耕作方式下，N3处理灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率和磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性与N4处理无显著差异，显著高于N0、N1和N2处理，有利于旗叶蔗糖的积累；施氮量增加至N5，灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率和磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性降低；2009~2010生长季和2011~2012生长季， N3处理拔节期、开花期和成熟期植株干物质积累量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理；2010~2011生长季，N3处理成熟期植株干物质积累量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理。同一耕作方式下，N3和N4处理开花后干物质积累量显著高于其它处理，开花前营养物质贮藏干物质转运量较高。
同一施氮水平下，深松+条旋耕处理灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率显著高于其它处理，条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理无显著差异，旋耕处理最低；深松+条旋耕处理灌浆中后期旗叶磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性显著高于其它处理，有利于旗叶蔗糖的合成；深松+条旋耕处理成熟期植株干物质积累量显著高于其它处理，条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理无显著差异，旋耕处理最低；深松+条旋耕处理开花后干物质积累量及其对籽粒的贡献率显著高于其它处理，旋耕处理最低。表明深松+条旋耕处理有利于灌浆中后期光合产物的积累，成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量显著提高。
1.3耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦氮代谢的影响
同一耕作方式下，N3处理开花期和成熟期植株氮素积累量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理，开花前营养器官贮藏氮素向籽粒的转运量提高；2009~2010生长季和2011~2012生长季，N3处理开花后氮素吸收量与N4和N5处理无显著差异，显著高于其它处理，2010~2011生长季，N3和N4处理开花后氮素吸收量较高，表明N3处理有利于提高开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量和开花后氮素吸收量。随施氮量增加，各时期土壤硝态氮含量升高，N3处理成熟期0~100cm土层土壤硝态氮含量与N2处理无显著差异，有利于小麦对0~100cm土层土壤硝态氮的吸收，N5处理在120~180cm土层形成硝态氮积累峰。
同一施氮水平下，深松+条旋耕处理成熟期植株氮素积累量显著高于其它处理，条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理无显著差异，旋耕处理最低；深松+条旋耕处理开花前营养器官贮藏氮素的转运量较高，开花后氮素吸收量显著高于其它处理，旋耕处理最低。深松+条旋耕处理成熟期0~100cm土层土壤硝态氮含量显著低于其它处理，120~180cm土层土壤硝态氮含量显著低于深松+旋耕处理，表明深松+条旋耕处理有利于开花后氮素的吸收转运，有利于利用0~100cm土层土壤硝态氮，深松+旋耕处理在120~180cm土层形成硝态氮积累峰。
1.4耕作方式和施氮量对旱地小麦籽粒产量和水分与氮素利用效率的影响
同一耕作方式下，N3处理籽粒产量显著高于N0、N1和N2处理，水分利用效率较高；N4处理籽粒产量和水分利用效率与N3处理无显著差异，氮肥生产效率和氮肥农学效率显著低于N3处理；施氮量继续增加至N5，籽粒产量降低，水分利用效率、氮肥生产效率和氮肥农学效率显著降低。施氮量为150kg hm2(N3处理)是本试验条件下适宜施氮量。
同一施氮水平下，深松+条旋耕处理籽粒产量最高，条旋耕和深松+旋耕处理无显著差异，旋耕处理最低；同时深松+条旋耕处理氮肥农学效率显著提高，水分利用效率和氮肥生产效率较高，是本试验条件下最优的耕作方式处理。
2施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦耗水特性和产量形成的影响
试验于2010~2012小麦生长季在淄博市临淄区边河村大田进行，为无水浇条件的旱地。2个试验年度供试品种依次为山农16和烟农0428。试验设置4个施氮水平，纯氮量分别为0(N0)、90kg hm~(-2)(N1)、150kg hm~(-2)(N3)和210kg hm~(-2)(N5)；4个氮肥施用深度，分别为氮肥表面撒施(D1)、施氮深度10cm(D2)、20cm(D3)和30cm(D4)。
2.1施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦耗水特性的影响
N1条件下，两年度D2、D3和D4处理土壤贮水消耗量和开花至成熟期耗水量显著高于D1处理；2010~2011生长季，D2、D3和D4处理灌浆期棵间蒸发量显著低于D1处理。N3和N5条件下，两年度D3和D4处理拔节至成熟期耗水量及灌浆中后期旗叶水势显著高于D1和D2处理；2010~2011生长季，D3和D4处理土壤贮水消耗量和60~140cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于D1和D2处理，灌浆期棵间蒸发量显著低于D1和D2处理；2011~2012生长季，D3和D4处理40~160cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于D1和D2处理。表明D3和D4处理有利于小麦利用深层土壤贮水，提高拔节至成熟期耗水量，满足拔节后水分需求，降低灌浆期棵间蒸发量，维持灌浆中后期较高的旗叶水势。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理60~140cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于N1处理，拔节至开花期耗水量和灌浆中后期旗叶水势显著高于N1处理。2010~2011生长季，各施氮深度下，N3和N5处理开花期棵间蒸发量显著低于N1处理；D1和D4条件下，N3和N5处理开花至成熟期耗水量显著高于N1处理。2011~2012生长季，D1、D3和D4条件下，N3和N5处理开花至成熟期耗水量显著高于N1处理，D2条件下以N3处理最高；D3和D4条件下，N3和N5处理140~160cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于N1处理。表明N3处理有利于小麦利用120~160cm深层土壤贮水，满足拔节后水分需求，提高灌浆中后期旗叶水势，降低开花期土壤水分向大气中的扩散。
2.2施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦碳代谢的影响
N1条件下，两年度D2、D3和D4处理灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率、磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性和灌浆中期蔗糖含量显著高于D1处理，成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量显著高于D1处理。N3和N5条件下，两年度D3和D4处理灌浆中后期旗叶光合速率、磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性和灌浆中期蔗糖含量显著高于D1和D2处理，成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量显著高于D1和D2处理。表明D3和D4处理有利于保持开花后较高的干物质积累量，提高成熟期植株干物质积累量。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理灌浆期旗叶光合速率高于N1处理；D3和D4条件下，两年度N3和N5处理灌浆期旗叶磷酸蔗糖合成酶活性和灌浆中期蔗糖含量显著高于N1处理。2010~2011生长季，D1、D3和D4条件下，N3和N5处理成熟期植株干物质积累量显著高于N1处理，D2条件下以N3和N5处理较高；2011~2012生长季，各施氮深度下，N3和N5处理成熟期植株干物质积累量显著高于N1处理。各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理开花后干物质积累量显著高于N1处理。表明N3处理有利于灌浆期旗叶保持较高的光合速率，开花后干物质积累量显著提高。
2.3施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦氮代谢的影响
N1条件下，两年度D2、D3和D4处理成熟期植株氮素积累量和开花后氮素吸收量显著高于D1处理；N3和N5条件下，两年度D3和D4处理成熟期植株氮素积累量和开花后氮素吸收量显著高于D1和D2处理，开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量较高。2011~2012生长季，各施氮条件下，D3处理成熟期40~100cm土层土壤硝态氮含量与D2处理无显著差异；N1条件下，D3处理40~100cm土层土壤硝态氮含量显著低于D4处理；N3和N5条件下为60~140cm土层显著低于D4处理。表明D3和D4处理有利于成熟期植株氮素的积累和开花后氮素的吸收转运，D3处理有利于开花后40~100cm土层土壤硝态氮的吸收利用，D4处理在120~140cm土层形成硝态氮积累峰。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理成熟期植株氮素积累量和开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量显著高于N1处理。2010~2011生长季，D1条件下，N3和N5处理开花后氮素吸收量显著高于N1处理，D2、D3和D4条件下无显著差异。2011~2012生长季，D1、D3和D4条件下，N3和N5处理开花后氮素吸收量显著高于N1处理，D2条件下无显著差异；D1条件下，N3处理成熟期0~60cm土层土壤硝态氮含量与N1处理无显著差异，D2、D3和D4条件下为0~80cm土层与N1处理无显著差异；D1和D2条件下，N5处理20~120cm土层土壤硝态氮含量最高，D3条件下为0~140cm土层最高，D4条件下为40~180cm土层最高。表明N3处理有利于开花后氮素的吸收转运，提高表层土壤硝态氮的吸收利用，N5处理在140~180cm土层形成硝态氮积累峰。
2.4施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦旗叶衰老和根系活力的影响
2010~2011生长季，N1条件下，D2、D3和D4处理灌浆中后期旗叶超氧化物歧化酶活性、可溶性蛋白质含量和根系活力显著高于D1处理，丙二醛含量显著低于D1处理；N3和N5条件下，D3和D4处理灌浆中后期旗叶超氧化物歧化酶活性、可溶性蛋白含量质和根系活力显著高于D1和D2处理，丙二醛含量显著低于D1和D2处理。2011~2012生长季，N1条件下，D2、D3和D4处理开花后根系活力显著高于D1处理；N3和N5条件下，D3和D4处理灌浆前中期根系活力显著高于D1和D2处理。表明D3和D4处理有利于延缓小麦开花后旗叶和根系衰老。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3和N5处理灌浆中后期旗叶旗叶超氧化物歧化酶活性、可溶性蛋白质含量和灌浆中后期根系活力显著高于N1处理，旗叶丙二醛含量显著低于N1处理。表明N3处理有利于延缓小麦开花后旗叶和根系衰老。
2.5施氮量和施氮深度对旱地小麦籽粒产量和水分与氮素利用效率的影响
N1条件下，两年度D2、D3和D4处理的籽粒产量、氮素吸收效率和氮肥生产效率显著高于D1处理，水分利用效率无显著差异；N3和N5条件下，两年度D3和D4处理籽粒产量、氮素吸收效率、氮肥表观利用率和氮肥农学效率显著高于D1和D2处理。施氮深度为20cm(D3处理)是本试验条件下适宜的施氮深度。
各施氮深度下，两年度N3处理籽粒产量与N5处理无显著差异，显著高于N1处理。2010~2011生长季，D1条件下，N3和N5处理水分利用效率较高，D2、D3和D4条件下则无显著差异；2011~2012生长季，各施氮深度下，各处理水分利用效率无显著差异。各施氮深度下，随施氮量增加，氮素吸收效率、氮肥表观利用率、氮肥农学效率和氮肥生产效率显著降低。施氮量为150kg hm~(-2)(N3处理)是本试验条件下适宜的施氮量。
3不同小麦品种耗水特性和产量的差异研究
试验于2008~2009小麦生长季在泰安山东农业大学农场试验田进行。选用山农15、济麦22、烟农21、山农8355、潍麦8号和泰9818共6个小麦品种，每个品种设置4个水分处理：W0(全生育期不灌水)、W1(拔节期70%，开花期70%)、W2(拔节后8d70%，开花后8d70%)和W3(拔节后8d75%，开花后8d70%)。
3.1不同小麦品种耗水特性的差异
依据不同品种的籽粒产量和水分利用效率2个因子对供试品种进行聚类分析，将其划分为高水分利用效率组(Ⅰ组)、中水分利用效率组(Ⅱ组)和低水分利用效率组(Ⅲ组)。从Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组和Ⅲ组中分别取1个品种，山农8355、山农15和潍麦8号进一步分析。
各灌水处理下，山农8355播种至拔节期耗水量显著低于潍麦8号，拔节至开花期耗水量较低，开花至成熟期耗水量显著高于山农15和潍麦8号。W0和W1条件下，山农8355100~140cm土层土壤耗水量最高；W2条件下，山农835580~120cm土层土壤耗水量显著高于山农15，100~160cm土层显著高于潍麦8号；W3条件下，山农8355100~120cm土层土壤耗水量最高。表明山农8355有利于小麦利用深层土壤贮水，降低开花前耗水量，满足灌浆期水分需求。
3.2不同小麦品种干物质积累与转运的差异
W0条件下，山农8355成熟期植株干物质积累量与山农15无显著差异，显著高于潍麦8号，开花前营养器官贮藏干物质转运量最高；W1和W3条件下，山农8355成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量最高，开花前营养器官贮藏干物质转运量较高；W2条件下，山农8355成熟期植株干物质积累量显著高于潍麦8号，开花后干物质积累量最高，开花前营养器官贮藏干物质转运量较高。表明山农8355有利于提高成熟期植株干物质积累量和开花后干物质积累量，开花前营养器官贮藏干物质转运量较高。
3.3不同小麦品种氮素积累与转运的差异
W0、W1和W3条件下，各品种成熟期植株氮素积累量无显著差异；W2条件下，山农8355成熟期植株氮素积累量显著高于潍麦8号。W0条件下，山农8355和山农15开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量和转运氮对籽粒氮的贡献率显著高于潍麦8号；W1条件下，山农8355和山农15开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量较高；W2条件下，山农15开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量最高；W3条件下，各品种开花前营养器官贮藏氮素转运量、转运率和转运氮对籽粒氮的贡献率无显著差异。
1Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer on the water consumption characteristics andgrain yield formation in dryland farming systems of wheat
The field experiment was conducted in the hilly dryland region of the Bianhe village inLinzi, Shandong Province during the2009to2012growing seasons. The winter wheatcultivars Jimai22, Shannong16, and Yannong0428were used for the2009to2010,2010to2011, and2011to2012wheat growing seasons, respectively. The treatments included fourtillage patterns and six levels of N, which was applied before sowing. The tillage patternswere, namely, strip rotary tillage (SR), strip rotary tillage after subsoiling (SRS), rotary tillage(R), and rotary tillage after subsoiling (RS). The nitrogen treatments were six levels of Napplied before sowing:0,90,120,150,180, and210kg N ha1, designated as N0to N5,respectively. Subsoiling treatments were only conducted during the2009to2010growingseason.
1.1Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer rate on water consumption characteristics indryland farming systems of wheat
Under the same tillage condition, the amount of water consumption in the N3treatmentfrom jointing to maturity was significantly higher than that in N0, N1, and N2treatments. Bycontrast, no significant differences were observed in the water consumption of the N3and N4treatments from jointing to maturity. The N3treatment had the capability to absorb morewater from deep soil layers below100cm, as compared with the N0, N1, and N2treatments.The amount of soil water consumption and its ratio to the amount of total water consumptionwere significantly increased as the N rate increased from N0to N3. The amount of waterconsumed from deep soil layers below100cm did not significant change as the N rateincreased from N3to N5. The water potential of the flag leaf during the middle and late grainfilling stages in the N3treatment was not significantly different from the N4or N5treatments, but it was significantly higher than that of the N0, N1, and N2treatments. The soilevaporation after jointing in the N3treatment was not significantly different from that in theN4or N5treatments, but it was significantly lower than that in the N0, N1, and N2treatments.These results suggested that N3treatment allowed for sufficient soil water consumption indeep soil layers, with higher amounts of water consumed after jointing. The N3treatment alsoreduced the level of soil evaporation after the jointing stage.
Under the same N rate condition, the soil water content before sowing with subsoilingwas increased after subsoiling in the first growing season. The amount of soil water consumedin the SRS and RS treatments were not significantly difference, but were significantly higherthan those in the SR and R treatments. This finding suggested that subsoiling improved theconsumption of soil water. The amount of water consumed from the sowing to the jointingstage in the SR and SRS treatments was significantly lower than that in the R and RStreatments. The amounts of water consumed from the jointing to the maturity stages in theSRS treatment were the highest, whereas the amounts in the R treatment were the lowest. Thesoil evaporation at various stages was significantly lower in the SR and SRS treatments thanin the R and RS treatments. The SRS treatment had the advantages of the improved use of soilwater by wheat and the reduced level of soil evaporation after jointing. This treatmentconsumed a larger amount of water amount after jointing, despite its lower amount of waterconsumption before jointing; this trend was beneficial to meet the water demand afterjointing.
1.2Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer rate on carbon metabolism in drylandfarming systems of wheat
Under the same tillage conditions, the photosynthetic rate and SPS activity of the flag leafat the middle and late grain filling stages in the N3treatment were not significantly differentfrom those in the N4treatment. However, these rate and activity were significantly higherthan those in the N0, N1, and N2treatments, which promoted sucrose accumulation. Theseresults were reduced when the nitrogen application rate was increased in the N5treatment.During the2009to2010and the2011to2012growing seasons, the dry matter accumulationafter jointing in the N3treatment was not significantly different from that in the N4and N5treatments; however, it was significantly higher than those in the N0, N1, and N2treatments. During the2010to2011growing season, the dry matter accumulation at maturity in the N3treatment was not significantly different as compared with that in the N4or N5treatment butwas significantly higher than that in N0, N1, and N2treatments. The dry matter accumulationafter anthesis in the N3and N4treatments was significantly higher than that in the other Ntreatments. The N3and N4treatments under the same tillage conditions likewise hadrelatively higher dry matter translocation after anthesis.
The photosynthetic rate of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages underthe same N rate conditions was not significantly different in the SR and RS treatments, butthis rate was significantly higher in the SRS treatment. This photosynthetic rate in the Rtreatment was the lowest among all treatments. The SPS activity of the flag leaf at the middleand late grain filling stages in the SRS treatment was significantly higher than that in othertreatments, which was beneficial for sucrose synthesis. The SRS treatment had the highest drymatter accumulation at maturity. This accumulation was not significantly different among theSR and RS treatments, whereas the R treatment had the lowest value of all the treatments. Thedry matter accumulation after anthesis and its contribution to grain in the SRS treatment weresignificantly higher than those in other treatments, whereas the R treatment had the lowestvalues. These results suggested that the SRS treatment had a favorable effect on dry matteraccumulation after anthesis.
1.2Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer rate on nitrogen metabolism in drylandfarming systems of wheat
The nitrogen accumulation at anthesis and maturity in the N3, N4, and N5treatmentswas significantly higher than that in N0, N1, and N2treatments, given the same tillageconditions. The N3, N4, and N5treatments had relatively higher accumulation of nitrogentranslocated from absorbed N before anthesis to grain. During the2009to2010and2011to2012growing seasons, the nitrogen absorption after anthesis in the N3and N4treatments wasnot significantly different, as compared with the N5treatment, but these values weresignificantly higher than those in the N0, N1, and N2treatments. During the2010to2011growing season, the N3and N4treatments had relatively higher nitrogen absorption afteranthesis. These results suggested that the N3treatment led to sufficient nitrogen accumulationtranslocation and absorption after anthesis. The nitrate nitrogen contents of the different soil layers increased with the increasing N rates. The nitrate nitrogen contents of soil layers from0cm to100cm at maturity in the N3treatment were not significantly different, as comparedwith those in the N2treatment. The N5treatment had a nitrate accumulation peak at soillayers from120cm to180cm.
The nitrogen accumulation at maturity under the same N rate conditions was notsignificantly different in the SR and RS treatments, but it was significantly lower than that inthe SRS treatment. The R treatment had the lowest nitrogen accumulation among all thetreatments. The SRS treatment had relatively higher nitrogen translocated from the absorbedN before anthesis to grain, with the highest nitrogen absorption after anthesis. By contrast, theR treatment had the lowest nitrogen absorption after anthesis. The nitrate nitrogen contents atsoil layers from0cm to100cm at maturity in the SRS treatment were significantly lowerthan those in other treatments. In addition, the nitrate nitrogen contents at120cm to180cmwere significantly lower than those in the RS treatment. The SRS treatment allowed wheat toutilize the nitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from0cm to100cm, whereas the RStreatment demonstrated a nitrate accumulation peak at soil layers from120cm to180cm.1.3Effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilizer rate on the grain yield, water use efficiency,and nitrogen use efficiency in dryland farming systems of wheat
The grain yield in the N3treatment was significantly higher than that in N0, N1, and N2treatments under the same tillage conditions. The N3treatment also had relatively higherwater use efficiency. The grain yield and water use efficiency in the N4treatment was notsignificantly different from the N3treatment. The N5treatment had relatively lower grainyield, as compared with the N3and N4treatments. As the N rates increased in the N3to N5treatments, the N productive efficiency and N agronomic efficiency were significantlydecreased. The N application of150kg ha1was considered to be optimum rate under thegiven experimental conditions.
The SRS treatment gained the highest grain yield under the same N rate conditions,whereas the SR and RS treatments were not significantly different. The R treatment had thelowest yield. The SRS treatment also had relatively higher water use efficiency and Nproductive efficiency; this treatment was considered to be the optimum method for the givenexperimental conditions.
2Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on water consumption characteristicsand grain yield formation in dryland farming systems of wheat
The field experiment was conducted in the hilly dryland region of the Bianhe village inLinzi, Shandong Province during the2010to2012growing seasons. The winter wheatcultivars Shannong16and Yannong0428were used for the2010to2011and the2011to2012wheat growing seasons, respectively. The treatments included four levels of N rateapplied before sowing combined with four nitrogen application depths. The N rates included0,90,150, and210kg N ha1, designated as N0, N1, N3, and N5, respectively. The nitrogenapplication depths were designed to have four levels, namely, surface application (D1) as wellas the application depths of10cm (D2),20cm (D3), and30cm (D4).
2.1Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on water consumption characteristicsin dryland farming systems of wheat
Under the N1condition during the2010to2012growing seasons, the amounts of soilwater consumption and water consumption from anthesis to maturity in the D2, D3, and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D2treatment. During the2010to2011growing season, the soil evaporation after anthesis in the D2, D3, and D4treatments wassignificantly lower than that in the D1treatment. Under the N3and N5conditions during the2010to2012growing seasons, the amount of water consumption from jointing to maturity aswell as the water potential of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in D1and D2treatments. During the2010to2011growing season, the amounts of water consumption and soil water consumptionat soil layers from60cm to140cm in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higherthan those in the D1and D2treatments. The soil evaporation after anthesis in the D3and D4treatments was significantly lower those in the D1and D2treatments. During the2011to2012growing season, the amount of soil water consumption at soil layers from40cm to160cm was significantly higher in the D3and D4treatments than in the D1and D2treatments. The D3and D4treatments promoted the use of soil water by wheat and reducedthe soil evaporation after jointing. The D3and D4treatments likewise had higher waterconsumption from jointing to maturity as well as higher water potential of the flag leaf at themiddle and late grain filling stages; these properties were beneficial to meet the water demand after jointing.
Under the same nitrogen application depths during the2010to2012growing seasons,the amounts of soil water consumption at soil layers from60cm to140cm in the N3and N5treatments were significantly higher than that in the N1treatment. The amount of waterconsumed from jointing to anthesis as well as the water potential of the flag leaf at the middleand late grain filling stages in the N3and N5treatments were likewise significantly higherthan those in the N1treatment. In the2010to2011growing seasons, the soil evaporation atanthesis stage of the N3and N5treatments was significantly lower than that in the N1treatment for all nitrogen application depths. The amounts of water consumption fromanthesis to maturity in the N3and N5treatments were significantly higher than that in the N1treatment. Under the D1, D3, and D4conditions during the2011to2012growing seasons, theamount of water consumed from anthesis to maturity in the N3and N5treatments wassignificantly higher than that in the N1treatment. The N3treatment had the highest amount ofwater consumption under the D2condition. The amount of soil water consumption at soillayers from60cm to140cm was significantly higher in the N3and N5treatments than in theN1treatment under the D3and D4conditions. The N3treatment promoted the use of soilwater at soil layers from120cm to160cm and reduced the soil evaporation at anthesis. TheN3treatment demonstrated the higher amounts of water consumption after jointing and higherwater potential of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages; both properties werebeneficial for meeting the water demand after jointing.
2.2Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on carbon metabolism in drylandfarming systems of wheat
Under the N1condition during the2010to2012growing seasons, the photosyntheticrate and SPS activity of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages as well assucrose content of flag leaf at middle grain filling in the D2, D3, and D4treatments weresignificantly higher than those in the D1treatment. The dry matter accumulation at maturityand dry matter accumulation after anthesis in the D2, D3, and D4treatments were alsosignificantly higher than those in the D1treatment. Under the N3and N5conditions duringthe2010to2012growing seasons, the photosynthetic rate and SPS activity and the sucrosecontent of the flag leaf at the middle and late grain filling stages in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1and D2treatments. The dry matteraccumulation at maturity and dry matter accumulation after anthesis in the D3and D4treatments were also significantly higher than those in the D1and D2treatments. The D3andD4treatments demonstrated higher dry matter accumulation after anthesis and dry matteraccumulation at maturity.
Under all nitrogen application depth conditions during the2010to2012growing seasons,the photosynthetic rate of flag leaf at grain filling in the N3and N5treatments wassignificantly higher than that in the N1treatment. The SPS activity of flag leaf at grain fillingand sucrose content of flag leaf at middle grain filling were significantly higher in the N3andN5treatments than in the N1treatment under the D3and D4conditions. During the2010to2011growing seasons, the dry matter accumulation at maturity in the N3and N5treatmentswas significantly higher than that in the N1treatment under the D1, D3, and D4conditions.The N3and N5treatments had relatively higher dry matter accumulation at maturity under theD2condition. During the2011to2012growing seasons, the dry matter accumulation atmaturity in the N3and N5treatments was significantly higher than that in the N1treatmentfor all nitrogen application depths. During the2010to2012growing seasons, the dry matteraccumulation after anthesis in the N3and N5treatments was significantly higher than that inthe N1treatment under all nitrogen application depths. The N3treatment promoted the higherphotosynthetic rate of the flag leaf at grain filling, and the accumulation of dry matter afteranthesis was significantly increased.
2.3Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on nitrogen metabolism in drylandfarming systems of wheat
During the2010to2012growing seasons, the nitrogen accumulation at maturity, as wellas the nitrogen absorption after anthesis, was significantly higher in the D2, D3, and D4treatments than in the D1treatment under the N1conditions. Under the N3and N5conditions,the D3and D4treatments had relatively higher nitrogen translocation from absorbed N beforeanthesis to grain. The nitrogen accumulation at maturity and the nitrogen absorption afteranthesis in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1and D2treatments. Under different N rates during the2011to2012growing season, the nitratenitrogen contents at soil layers from40cm to100cm at maturity in the D3treatment had no significant difference compared with those in the D2treatment. Under the N1condition, thenitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from40cm to100cm at maturity were significantlylower in the D3treatment than in the D4treatment. Under the N3and N5conditions, thenitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from60cm to140cm at maturity in the D3treatmentwere significantly lower than those in the D4treatment. These results suggested that the D3and D4treatments were beneficial for nitrogen accumulation at maturity as well as thenitrogen absorption and translocation after anthesis. The D3treatment allowed wheat toabsorb nitrate nitrogen in soil layers from40cm to100cm, whereas the D4treatment formeda nitrate accumulation peak at soil layers from120cm to140cm.
Under all nitrogen application depths during the2010to2012growing seasons, thenitrogen accumulation at maturity and the nitrogen translocation from absorbed N beforeanthesis to grain were significantly higher in the N3and N5treatments than in the N1treatment. During the2010to2011growing season, the nitrogen absorption after anthesis inthe N3and N5treatments was significantly higher than that in the N1treatment under the D1conditions. No significant differences were observed between the different nitrogenapplication depths in nitrogen absorption after anthesis under the D2, D3, and D4conditions.During the2011to2012growing seasons, the nitrogen absorption after anthesis in the N3andN5treatments was significantly higher than that in the N1treatment under the D1, D3, andD4conditions. The effects of the different nitrogen application depths were not significantlydifferent in terms of the nitrogen absorption after anthesis under the D2condition. The nitratenitrogen contents at soil layers from0cm to60cm at maturity in the N3treatment was notsignificantly different, as compared with those in the N1treatment under the D1conditions.No significant differences existed between the N1and N3treatments in terms of the nitratenitrogen contents at soil layers from0cm to80cm at maturity under the D2, D3, and D4conditions. The nitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from20cm to120cm at maturity weresignificantly higher in the N5treatment than in the other treatments under the D1and D2conditions. The N5treatment had the highest nitrate nitrogen contents at soil layers from0cmto140cm at maturity. Under the D4conditions, the N5treatment had the highest nitratenitrogen contents at soil layers from40cm to180cm. These results suggested that the N3treatment was beneficial for nitrogen absorption and translocation. The N3treatment promoted the absorption of nitrate nitrogen by wheat from the surface soil layers, whereas theN5treatment had a nitrate accumulation peak at soil layers from140cm to180cm.
2.4Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on the senescence of flag leaf and rootsystems in dryland farming systems of wheat
Under the N1condition during the2010to2011growing season, the SOD activity andsoluble protein content of the flag leaf as well as the root activity at the middle and late grainfilling stages in the D2, D3, and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1treatment. By contrast, the MDA contents were significantly lower in the D2, D3, and D4treatments than in the D1treatment. Under the N3and N5conditions, the SOD activity andsoluble protein content of the flag leaf as well as the root activity at the middle and late grainfilling stages in the D3and D4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1andD2treatments. The MDA contents were significantly lower than those in the D1and D2treatments. Under the N1condition during the2011to2012growing season, the root activityafter anthesis in the D2, D3, and D4treatments was significantly higher than that in the D1treatment. The root activity at middle and late grain filling was significantly higher in the D3and D4treatments than in the D1and D2treatments under the N3and N5conditions. Theseresults suggested that D3and D4treatments delays the senescence of flag leaves and rootsystems after anthesis.
Under all nitrogen application depth conditions during the2010to2012growing seasons,SOD activity and soluble protein content of flag leaf and root activity at middle and late grainfilling in the N3and N5treatments were significantly higher than those in the N1treatment.The MDA contents were significantly lower in most treatments, as compared with those in theD1treatment. Therefore, the N3treatment could delay the senescence of the flag leaf and rootsystem after anthesis.
2.5Effects of nitrogen application rate and depth on the grain yield, water use efficiency,and nitrogen use efficiency in dryland farming systems of wheat
During the2010to2012growing seasons, the grain yield, N uptake efficiency, and Nproductive efficiency in the D2, D3, and D4treatments were significantly higher than those inthe D1treatment under the N1conditions. No significant differences were observed in thewater use efficiency between different nitrogen application depths. The grain yield, N uptake efficiency, nitrogen fertilizer apparent efficiency, and N productive efficiency in the D3andD4treatments were significantly higher than those in the D1and D2treatments under the N3and N5conditions. The nitrogen application depth of20cm was the optimal soil depth ofnitrogen fertilizer application under the experimental conditions.
Under all nitrogen application depths during the2010to2012growing seasons, the grainyield in the N3treatment was not significantly different from that in the N5treatment, but itwas significantly higher than that in the N1treatment. During the2010to2011growingseason, the N3and N5treatments had relatively higher water use efficiency under the D1conditions. No significant differences in the water use efficiency were observed betweendifferent nitrogen application depths under the D2, D3, and D4conditions. Under all nitrogenapplication depths during the2011to2012growing season, the water use efficiency did notsignificantly differ between the different nitrogen application depths. With the increasing Nrates, the N uptake efficiency, nitrogen fertilizer apparent efficiency, N agronomic efficiency,and N productive efficiency in all different nitrogen application depths were significantlydecreased. The optimal nitrogen application rate under the experimental conditions was150kg ha1.
3Evaluation of water consumption and grain yield in different wheat cultivars
The field experiment was conducted at the experimental farm of the ShandongAgricultural University during the2008to2009growing season. The winter wheat cultivarsShannong15, Jimai22, Yannong21, Shannong8355, Weimai8, and Tai9818were used.Four irrigation regimes were designed for each cultivar: W0had no irrigation; W1had arelative content of70%at the jointing and anthesis stages; W2had relative contents of70%at8d after jointing and70%at8d after anthesis; W3had relative contents of75%at8d afterjointing and70%at8d after anthesis.
3.1Water consumption characteristics in different wheat cultivars
The six wheat cultivars were divided into three groups based on the cluster analysis ofgrain yield and water use efficiency. The three groups were, namely, the high water useefficiency group (Group I), the moderate water use efficiency group (Group II), and the lowwater use efficiency group (Group III). The Shannong8355, Shannong15, and Weimai8cultivars were selected for further analysis from Groups I to III, respectively.
Under the conditions of different irrigation treatments, the amount of water consumptionfrom sowing to jointing in Shannong8355was significantly lower than that in Weimai8.Shannong8355had relatively lower amounts of water consumed from jointing to anthesis.The amount of water consumption from the anthesis to maturity stage in Shannong8355wassignificantly higher than that in Shannong15and Weimai8. Under the W0and W1conditions,the amount of water consumed at soil layers from100cm to140cm was highest in Shannong8355. The amount of water consumed at soil layers from80cm to120cm in Shannong8355was significantly higher than that in Shannong15under the W2conditions. By contrast, theamount of water consumed at soil layers from100cm to160cm in Shannong8355wassignificantly higher than that in Weimai8. Under the W3conditions, the amount of waterconsumption at soil layers from80cm to120cm was the highest in Shannong8355. Theseresults suggested that Shannong8355could most efficiently use soil water from deep soillayers. The Shannong8355cultivar reduced the amount of water consumption before anthesis,which was beneficial for meeting the water demand during grain filling.
3.2Dry matter accumulation and transporation in different wheat cultivars
Under the W0condition, the dry matter accumulation at anthesis and maturity inShannong8355was not significantly different from that in Shannong15, but wassignificantly higher than that in Weimai8. Shannong8355had the highest dry mattertranslocation after anthesis to grain. The dry matter transporation ratio, contribution of drymatter translocation after anthesis to grain, and dry matter accumulation after anthesis in weresignificantly higher in Shannong8355than in Weimai8. Under the W1and W3conditions,Shannong8355gained the highest dry matter accumulation at maturity and dry matteraccumulation after anthesis. This cultivar had relatively higher dry matter translocation afteranthesis to grain. Under W2condition, the dry matter accumulation at maturity in Shannong8355was significantly higher than that in Weimai8. Shannong8355demonstrated the highestdry matter accumulation after anthesis and had relatively higher dry matter translocation afteranthesis to grain. The results suggested that Shannong8355had higher dry matteraccumulation at maturity and dry matter accumulation after anthesis. Furthermore, Shannong8355had relatively higher dry matter translocation after anthesis to grain.
3.3Nitrogen accumulation and transporation in different wheat cultivars
Under the W0, W1, and W3conditions, no significant differences were observed innitrogen accumulation at maturity between the different wheat cultivars. Under the W2condition, the nitrogen accumulation at maturity in Shannong8355was significantly higherthan that in Weimai8. Under the W0condition, the nitrogen translocation from absorbed Nbefore anthesis to grain and its contribution to grain nitrogen in Shannong8355and Shannong15were significantly higher than those in Weimai8. Under the W1condition, Shannong8355and Shannong15had relatively higher nitrogen translocation from absorbed N before anthesisto grain. Under the W2condition, Shannong15had the highest nitrogen translocation fromabsorbed N before anthesis to grain. Under the W3condition, the cultivars were notsignificantly different in terms of the nitrogen translocation from absorbed N before anthesisto grain, the nitrogen translocation ratio, and the contribution of nitrogen translocation tograin nitrogen.
引文
艾应伟,陈实,张先婉,徐佩. N肥深施深度对小麦吸收利用N的影响[J].土壤学报,1997,34(2):146-151.
包红静,安景文,解占军,汪仁,张俊奇,张艳君.一次深施肥对玉米供肥规律的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(31):13710-13712.
柴彦君,熊又升,黄丽,袁家富,徐祥玉,刘晔.施氮对不同品种冬小麦氮素累积和运转的影响[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(10):2040-2046.
陈辉林,田霄鸿,王晓峰,曹玉贤,吴玉红,王朝辉.不同栽培模式对渭北旱塬区冬小麦生长期间土壤水分、温度及产量的影响[J].生态学报,2010,30(9):2424-2433.
陈培元,李英,蒋永罗,傅左.渭北旱塬小麦的耗水特性与抗旱增产措施[J].植物生态学与地植物学学报,1986,10(1):59-67.
陈四龙,陈素英,孙宏勇,张喜英,裴冬.耕作方式对冬小麦棵间蒸发及水分利用效率的影响[J].土壤通报,2006,37(4):817-820.
程杰,高亚军,强秦.渭北旱塬小麦不同栽培模式对土壤硝态氮残留的影响[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(4):104-110.
程宪国,汪德水,张美荣,周涌,金轲,郭世昌,王自力,王书子.不同土壤水分条件下对冬小麦生长及养分吸收的影响[J].中国农业科学,1996,29(4):67-74.
崔欢虎,张松令,闫翠萍,靖华,马爱萍.黄土高原旱地小麦最佳土壤库容深度模拟研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4):110-112.
党廷辉,郝明德.黄土塬区不同水分条件下冬小麦氮肥效应与土壤氮素调节[J].中国农业科学,2000,33(4):62-67.
丁庆堂.不同耕法对草甸黑土肥力的影响[J].土壤通报,1986,17(7):61-64.
董宝娣,张正斌,刘孟雨,张依章,李全起,石磊,周永田.小麦不同品种的水分利用特性及对灌溉制度的响应[J].农业工程学报,2007,23(9):27-33.
杜金哲,李文雄,胡尚连,刘锦红.春小麦不同品质类型氮的吸收、转化利用及与籽粒产量和蛋白质含量的关系[J].作物学报,2001,27(2):253-260.
杜少勇,熊淑萍,赵鹏,马新明,张英武,蔺世召,张心玲,刘红君.豫北高地力条件下施氮量对冬小麦花后氮代谢特征及产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2011,31(5):882-886.
杜太生,康绍忠,王振昌,王峰,杨秀英,苏兴礼.隔沟交替灌溉对棉花生长、产量和水分利用效率的调控效应[J].作物学报,2007,33(12):1982-1990.
房全孝,陈雨海.冬小麦节水灌溉的生理生态基础研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究,2003,21(1):21-26.
房全孝,王建林,于舜章.华北平原小麦－玉米两熟制节水潜力与灌溉对策[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(7):37-44.
方日尧,赵惠青,同延安.渭北旱原冬小麦深施肥沟播综合效应研究[J].农业工程学报,2000,16(1):49-52.
高会军,周勋波,齐林,杨国敏,董浩,刘岩,陈雨海.种植方式与施氮量对冬小麦光合生理特性及光能利用率的影响[J].山东农业科学,2010,11:16-18,23.
高秀君,张仁陟,杨招弟.不同耕作方式对旱地土壤酶活性动态的影响[J].土壤通报,2008,39(5):1012-1016.
高亚军,杨君林,陈玲,朱刚,者星毅,刘炜,李生秀.旱地冬小麦不同栽培模式、施氮量和种植密度土壤水分利用状况[J].干旱地区农业研究,2007,25(3):45-50.
耿伟,薛绪掌,王志敏.肥料分层深施对旱地冬小麦光合生理特性及产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2006,26(3):166-168.
郭栋,党廷辉,戚龙海.黄土旱塬不同氮肥用量下冬小麦干物质累积和氮素吸收利用过程研究[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(5):138-141.
郝代成,高国华,朱云集,郭天财,叶优良,王晨阳,谢迎新.施氮量对超高产冬小麦花后光合特性及产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(2):346-352.
何晓雁,郝明德,李慧成,蔡志风.黄土高原旱地小麦施肥对产量及水肥利用效率的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(6):1333-1340.
何照范.粮油籽粒品质及其分析技术[M].北京:中国农业科学出版社,1985.
侯贤清,韩清芳,贾志宽,李永平,杨宝平.半干旱区夏闲期不同耕作方式对土壤水分及小麦水分利用效率的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(5):52-58.
胡立峰,胡春胜,安忠民,张爱军,陈阜.不同土壤耕作法对作物产量及土壤硝态氮淋失的影响[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(6):186-189.
胡梦芸,张正斌,徐萍,董宝娣,李魏强,李景娟.亏缺灌溉下小麦水分利用效率与光合产物积累运转的相关研究[J].作物学报,2007,33(11):1884-1891.
胡亚妮,刘文兆,王俊,党廷辉,李双江,王兵.黄土塬区氮磷配施对冬小麦光合作用、产量形成及水分利用的影响[J].水土保持学报,2007,21(6):159-161,178.
胡延吉,兰进好,赵坦芳,高法振.不同穗型的两个冬小麦品种冠层结构及光合特性的研究[J].作物学报,2000,26(6),905-912.
黄昌勇,李保国,潘根兴,徐建明,黄巧云.土壤学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000:101-102.
黄明,吴金芝,李友军,姚宇卿,张灿军,蔡典雄,金轲.不同耕作方式对旱作冬小麦旗叶衰老和籽粒产量的影响[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(6):1355-1361.
黄明,吴金芝,李友军,姚宇卿,张灿军,蔡典雄,金轲.不同耕作方式对旱作区冬小麦生产和产量的影响[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(1):50-54.
贾秀领,赛家利,马瑞昆,鲁建立.高产冬小麦水分利用效率及其组分特征分析[J].作物学报,1999,25(3):309-314.
蒋会利,温晓霞,廖允成.施氮量对冬小麦产量的影响及土壤硝态氮运转特性[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(1):237-241.
康红,朱保安,洪利辉,董成俊.免耕覆盖对旱地土壤肥力和小麦产量的影响[J].陕西农业科学,2001,(9):1-3.
吉春荣,李世清,伍维模,魏益民,张兴昌,邵明安.半湿润农田生态条件下施氮对不同冬小麦品种氮素转移的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2005,11(5):569-577.
靳奇峰,牛俊义.施肥深度对地膜春小麦干物质积累的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2010,45(5):63-66.
雷艳,张富仓,寇雯萍,冯磊磊.不同生育期水分亏缺和施氮对冬小麦产量及水分利用效率的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2010,38(5):167-174,180.
李彩霞,马三力.小麦的需水规律[J].农业与技术,2005,25(4):68-69.
李合生,孙群,赵世杰,章文华.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000,119-121.
李华,王朝辉,李生秀.旱地小麦地表覆盖对土壤水分硝态氮累积分布的影响[J].农业环境科学学报,2011,30(7):1371-1377.
李军,王立祥.宁南半干旱偏旱区施肥对旱作春小麦田水分动态与平衡的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2001,21(3):55-59.
李瑞奇,李雁鸣,何建兴,李国春,郝秀钗,王芳.施氮量对冬小麦氮素利用和产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2011,31(2):270-275.
李生秀,李世清,高亚军,王喜庆,贺海香,杜建军.施用氮肥对提高早地作物土坡水分利用的作用机理和效果[J].干旱地区农业研究,1994,12(1):38-46.
李世娟,周殿玺,诸叶平,等.水分和氮肥运筹对小麦氮素吸收分配的影响[J].华北农学报,2002,17(1):69-75.
李世清,田霄鸿,李生秀.养分对早地小麦水分胁迫的生理补偿效应[J].西北植物学报,2000,20(l):22-28.
李廷亮,谢英荷,任苗苗,邓树元,单杰,雷振宇,洪坚平,王朝辉.施肥和覆膜垄沟种植对旱地小麦产量及水氮利用的影响[J].生态学报,2011,31(1):212-220.
李新平,李素俭,黄土高原旱作土壤水分动态及提高水分利用率的研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(1):75-79.
李杏,黄莺,杨宏敏,毛国军,王天书.尿素深施对提高氮素利用率的影响[J].耕作与栽培,1999,增刊,37-38.
李艳,董中东,郝西,崔党群.不同小麦品种氮素利用效率差异研究[J].中国农业科学,2007,40(3):472-477.
李友军,吴金芝,黄明,姚宇卿,张灿军,蔡典雄,金轲.不同耕作方式对小麦旗叶光合特性和水分利用效率的影响[J].农业工程学报,2006,22(12):44-48.
李友军,黄明,吴金芝,姚宇卿,吕军杰.不同耕作方式对豫西旱区坡耕地水肥利用与流失的影响[J].水土保持学报2006,20(2):42-45,101.
李裕元,郭永杰,邵明安.施肥对丘陵旱地冬小麦生长发育和水分利用的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2000,18(1):15-21.
李运生,王菱,刘士平,王吉顺.土壤-根系界面水分调控措施对冬小麦根系和产量的影响[J].生态学报,2002,22(10):1680-1687.
廖允成,韩思明,温晓霞.黄土台源旱地小麦土壤水分特征及水分利用效率研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2002,10(3):55-58.
刘恩科,梅旭荣,龚道枝,严昌荣,庄严.不同生育时期干旱对冬小麦氮素吸收与利用的影响[J].植物生态学报,2010,34(5):555-562.
刘瑞,戴相林,周建斌,张鹏,崔亚胜,王天泰.不同氮肥用量下冬小麦土壤剖面累积硝态氮及其与氮素表观盈亏的关系[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2011,17(6):1335-1341.
刘青林,张恩和,王琦,王田涛,刘朝巍,尹辉,俞华林.灌溉与施氮对留茬免耕春小麦氮素吸收和氮肥损失的影响[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(4):104-109.
刘新宇,巨晓棠,张丽娟,李鑫,袁丽金,刘楠.不同施氮水平对冬小麦季化肥氮去向及土壤氮素平衡的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(2):296-303.
刘增进,李宝萍,李远华,崔远来.冬小麦水分利用效率与最优灌溉制度的研究[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(4):58-63.
骆洪义,丁方军.土壤学实验[M].成都:成都科技大学出版社,1995,91.
罗珠珠,黄高宝,辛平,张国盛.陇中旱地不同保护性耕作方式表层土壤结构和有机碳含量比较分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,2008,26(4):53-58.
罗珠珠,黄高宝,张仁陟,蔡立群,李玲玲,谢军红, Li G D.长期保护性耕作对黄土高原旱地土壤肥力质量的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2010,18(3):458-464.
吕殿青,高华,方日尧,谷洁,李旭晖.渭北旱塬冬小麦产区提前深耕一次深施肥料的肥水效应与理论分析[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2009,15(2):269-275.
吕军杰,姚宇卿,张洁,王育红,李俊红,丁志强,吴剑峰,于新峰.不同耕作方式对坡耕旱地土壤环境及小麦产量的影响[J].河南农业科学,2011,40(1):41-44.
吕丽华,胡玉昆,李雁鸣,王璞.灌水方式对不同小麦品种水分利用效率和产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2007,27(1):88-92.
马东辉,王月福,赵长星,林琪.施氮量和花后土壤含水量对小麦氮素代谢特性和子粒蛋白质含量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2008,14(6):1035-1041.
马冬云,郭天财,宋晓,王晨阳,韩巧霞,岳艳军,查菲娜.施氮对冬小麦旗叶RuBP羧化酶活性及叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(11):2197-2202.
马兴华,王东,于振文,王西芝,许振柱.不同施氮量下灌水量对小麦耗水特性和氮素分配的影响[J].生态学报,2010,30(8):1955-1965.
马玉珍,王久志,杨治平,周怀平,王静.旱地秋季深施肥对土壤微生物的影响[J].土壤1997,(6):311-314.
苗果园,尹钧,高志强,卢布, Adams W A.旱地小麦降水年型与氮素供应对产量的互作效应与土壤水分动态的研究[J].作物学报,1997,23(3):263-270.
宁东峰,李志杰,孙文彦,马卫萍,黄绍文,赵秉强.限水灌溉下施氮量对冬小麦产量、氮素利用及氮平衡的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(6):1312-1318.
祁有玲,张富仓,李开峰.水分亏缺和施氮对冬小麦生长及氮素吸收的影响[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(10):2399-2405.
秦红灵,高旺盛,马月存,马丽,尹春梅.两年免耕后深松对土壤水分的影响[J].中国农业科学,2008,41(1):78-85.
屈会娟,李金才,沈学善,魏凤珍,王成雨,郅胜军.种植密度和播期对冬小麦兰考矮早八干物质和氮素积累与转运的影响[J].作物学报,2009,35(1):124-131.
全国农业技术推广服务中心.土壤分析技术规范.第二版.北京:中国农业出版社,2006:47-49.
司纪升,王法宏,李升东,孔令安,冯波,张宾.旱地保护性耕作对土壤理化性状和冬小麦生理特性的影响[J].山东农业科学,2008,(7):9-12.
隋鹏,张海林,许翠,高旺盛.节水抗旱与喜水肥型小麦品种土壤水分消耗特性的比较研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2005,23(4):26-31.
山仑,徐萌.节水农业及其生理生态基础[J].应用生态学报,1991,2(1):70-76.
沈新磊,付秋萍,王全九.施氮量对黄土旱塬区冬小麦产量和土壤水分动态的影响[J].生态经济,2009,(11):107-110,119.
沈玉芳,李世清,邵明安.水肥空间组合对冬小麦生物学性状及生物量的影响[J].中国农业科学,2007,40(8):1822-1829.
史金,茹园园,谭金芳,王宜伦,陈峰,苗子胜,韩燕来.施氮对冬小麦旗叶蔗糖含量及籽粒淀粉合成的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2007,27(3):497-502.
史晓楠,王全九,黄国琴.施肥方式对土壤水肥分布特征影响[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(1):191-196.
师日鹏,上官宇先,马巧荣,王林权.密度与氮肥配合对垄沟覆膜栽培冬小麦干物质累积及产量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2011,17(4):823-830.
苏正义,韩晓日,李春全,李文学,娄春荣,路钰.氮肥深施对作物产量和氮肥利用率的影响[J].沈阳农业大学学报,1997,28(4):292-296.
石岩,林琪,位东斌,于振文,余松烈.土壤水分胁迫对冬小麦耗水规律及产量的影响[J].华北农学报,1997,12(2):76-81.
石岩,位东斌,于振文,余松烈.施肥深度对旱地小麦花后旗叶衰老及产量的影响[J].西北植物学报,1999,19(6):139-142.
石岩,位东斌,于振文,余松烈.施肥深度对旱地小麦氮素利用及产量的影响[J].核农学报,2001,15(3):180-183.
石岩,位东斌,于振文,余松烈.施肥深度对旱地小麦花后根系衰老的影响[J].应用生态学报,2001,12(4):573-575.
石岩,于振文,位东斌,余松烈.施肥深度对旱地小麦花后根系干重及产量的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2000,18(1):38-42.
孙宏勇,刘昌明,张永强,张喜英.微型蒸发器测定土壤蒸发的试验研究[J].水利学报,2004,35(8):114-118.
王兵,刘文兆,党廷辉,高长青.黄土高原氮磷肥水平对旱作冬小麦产量与氮素利用的影响[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(8):101-107.
王兵,刘文兆,党廷辉,高长青,陈杰,甘卓亭.黄土塬区旱作农田长期定位施肥对冬小麦水分利用的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2008,14(5):829-834.
王兵,刘文兆,党廷辉,高长青,李志,甘卓亭.长期施肥条件下旱作农田土壤水分剖面分布特征[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2007,13(3):411-416.
王东,于振文,李延奇,史桂萍.施氮量对济麦20光合特性和蔗糖合成及籽粒产量的影响[J].作物学报,2007,33(6):903-908.
王东,于振文,张永丽.山东强筋和中筋小麦品质形成的气象条件及区划[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(10):2269-2276.
王桂良,叶优良,李欢欢,朱云集.施氮量对不同基因型小麦产量和干物质累积的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(1):116-122.
王靖,林琪,倪永君,刘义国,王炳军.旱地保护性耕作对冬小麦光合特性及产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2009,29(3):480-483.
王克武,王志平,郑雅莲,张娜,朱青艳.小麦高WUE品种筛选和田间耗水规律研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(2):69-73.
王立明.播种密度对旱地不同类型冬小麦产量和水分利用效率的影响[J].中国种业,2010,(3):41-43.
王佩玲,许育彬,宋淑英,沈玉芳,李世清.大气CO2浓度倍增和施氮对冬小麦光合及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].西北植物学报,2011,31(1):144-151.
王天铎.黄淮海平原水资源的农业利用问题之二-水利用的效率[J].农业现代化研究,1991,12(4):33-37.
王小燕,于振文.不同施氮量条件下灌溉量对小麦氮素吸收转运和分配的影响[J].中国农业科学,2008,41(10):3015-3024.
王晓英,贺明荣,刘永环,张洪华,李飞,华芳霞,孟淑华.水氮耦合对冬小麦氮肥吸收及土壤硝态氮残留淋溶的影响[J].生态学报,2008,28(2):685-694.
王应君,王淑珍,郑义.肥料深施对小麦生育性状、养分吸收及产量的影响[J].土壤肥料科学,2006,2(9):276-280.
王育红,姚宇卿,吕军杰.豫西旱地冬小麦农田耗水特征及调控措施的研究[J].中国农学通报,2001,17(5):27-29.
王育红,姚宇卿,吕军杰,杨波,檀尊社,王海洋.豫西坡耕地不同耕作方式麦田水分动态及其生态效益[J].西北农业学报,2001,10(4):55-57.
王元学,冯明学,田正林.碳酸氢铵施用深度不同对小麦产量的影响[J].耕作与栽培,2007,(5):37-38.
王月福,程金亮,王炳军,王岳光,王丽丽,隋春青.山东省旱地小麦发展回顾及展望[J].莱阳农学院学报,2003,20(3):200-205.
王月福,李素美,王岳光,徐丽娟,初欣平.不同耐旱性小麦品种产量形成适宜土壤水分的研究[J].莱阳农学院学报,1998,15(1):18-22.
王月福,于振文,潘庆民,李素美.不同小麦品种经济合理肥水指标探讨[J].山东农业科学,1998,(4):7-10.
王振华,张喜英,陈素英,孙宏勇,朱波.分层施肥及供水对冬小麦生理特性、根系分布和产量的影响[J].华北农学报,2008,23(6):176-180.
王志敏,王树安,苏宝林.小麦茎秆贮藏物质的积累与再转运[J].北京农业大学学报,1994,20(4):369-374.
魏艳丽,王辉,冯毅,张玲丽,闵东红,李学军,孙道杰.减源对不同穗型小麦品种干物质积累及其运转的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2008,28(3),507-512.
魏爱丽,王志敏.小麦茎秆贮藏物质对籽粒灌浆的影响[J].中国农学通报,2001,17(2):53-56.
吴金芝,黄明,李友军,陈明灿,姚宇卿,郭大勇,黄海霞.不同耕作方式对冬小麦光合作用产量和水分利用效率的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2008,26(5):17-21.
吴俊森,陈淑芬,王兆菡.山东省水资源特点与可持续性利用对策的研究[J].农机化研究,2006,(9):201-203.
吴清丽,高茂盛,廖允成,温晓霞.氮素对冬小麦光合物质贮运及籽粒灌浆进程的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(2):120-124,137.
吴同彦,冯大领,白志英,杨学举,刘霞,郑永圃.小麦抗旱机制研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究2009,27(5):97-100.
谢英荷,李廷亮,洪坚平,刘丽萍,庞娇,冯倩,邓树元,单杰.施氮和垄膜沟播种植对晋南旱地冬小麦水分利用的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(8):2038-2044.
徐佩,艾应伟,张先婉.分层施肥对小麦植株含N量的影响[J].山地研究,1997,15(3):205-208.
许育彬,沈玉芳,李世清. CO2浓度升高和施氮对冬小麦花前贮存碳氮转运的影响[J].作物学报,2011,37(8):1465-1474.
许振柱,于振文.限量灌溉对水分利用的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2003,21(1):6-10.
薛澄,王朝辉,李富翠,赵护兵,周玲,李小涵.渭北旱塬不同施肥与覆盖栽培对冬小麦产量形成及土壤水分利用的影响[J].中国农业科学,2011,44(21):4395-4405.
闫翠萍,裴雪霞,王姣爱,杨峰,曹勇,张晶,党建友.秸秆还田与施氮对冬小麦生长发育及水肥利用率的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2011,19(2):271-275.
杨培培,杨明欣,董文旭,陈素英,胡春胜.保护性耕作对土壤养分分布及冬小麦吸收与分配的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2011,19(4):755-759.
杨荣,苏永中.农作制度对黑河中游沙质土壤硝态氮积累及作物产量的影响[J].农业环境科学学报,2011,30(1):120-126.
杨玉惠,张仁陟.氮肥施用对黄土高原中部雨养农业区土壤硝态氮分布与累积的影响[J].土壤通报,2007,38(4):672-676.
杨云马,贾树龙,孟春香,孙颜铭.不同耕作及秸秆还田条件下冬小麦养分利用率研究[J].华北农学报,2010,25(增刊):202-204.
杨占平,薛毅芳,李保昌,史福刚,张新文.丘陵旱地一年两熟制条件下小麦、玉米阶段耗水量研究[J].河南农业科学,2010,(10):57-60.
尹晓芳,同延安,张树兰,曾艳娟,高鹏程,周军,杨宪龙.关中地区小麦/玉米轮作农田硝态氮淋溶特点[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(3):640-646.
于佳,于显枫,郭天文,张绪成,马一凡.施氮和大气CO2浓度升高对春小麦拔节期光合作用的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(4):651-655.
於建新.植物生理学实验手册[M].上海:科学技术出版社,1985,148-150.
张炳勇,崔日鲜.氮肥运筹对冬小麦光合特性和产量的影响[J].青岛农业大学学报(自然科学版),2010,27(3):195-199.
张宏,周建斌,刘瑞,张鹏,郑险峰,李生秀.不同栽培模式及施氮对半旱地冬小麦/夏玉米氮素累积、分配及氮肥利用率的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2011,17(1):1-8.
张宏,周建斌,王春阳,董放,李凤娟.不同栽培模式及施氮对玉米小麦轮作体系土壤肥力及硝态氮累积的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2010,18(4):693-697.
张宏,周建斌,王春阳,董放,郑险峰,李生秀.栽培模式及施氮对冬小麦-夏玉米体系产量与水分利用效率的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(5):1078-1085.
张雷明,上官周平,毛明策,于贵端.长期施氮对旱地小麦叶绿色荧光参数的影响[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(5):695-698.
张寄阳,孙景生,肖俊夫,李晓东,刘小飞,申孝军.灌水控制下限对冬小麦产量及水分利用效率的影响[J].中国农学通报,2005,21(11):387-391.
张均华,刘建立,吕菲,李慧霞.施氮对稻麦轮作区小麦地上器官干物质及氮素累积运转的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2009,29(5):892-896.
张均华,刘建立,张佳宝,赵夫涛,程亚南,王伟鹏.施氮量对稻麦干物质转运与氮肥利用的影响[J].作物学报,2010,36(10):1736-1742.
张立新,李立科,徐福利,梁连友,赵二龙.渭北旱塬不同降水年型冬小麦施肥技术的研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,1998,16(4):15-20.
张铭,蒋达,缪瑞林,许轲,刘艳阳,张军,张洪程.稻茬田肥力水平与施氮量对小麦籽粒产量和物质生产的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(2):330-336.
张睿,文娟,王玉娟,赵英震,王朝辉,王志敏.渭北旱塬小麦高效施肥的产量及水分效应[J].麦类作物学报,2011,31(5):911-915.
张岁岐,李秧秧.施肥促进作物水分利用机理对产量的影响的研究[J].水土保持研究,1996,3(1):185-191.
张岁歧,山仑.氮素营养对春小麦抗旱适应性及水分利用的影响[J].水土保持研究,1995,2(1):31-35.
张文玲,王文科,李桂花.施肥方式对不同小麦品种生长和氮肥利用率的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2009,(2):47-51.
张绪成,于显枫,马一凡.施氮和大气CO2浓度升高对小麦旗叶光合电子传递和分配的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(3):673-680.
张旭东,柯晓新,杨兴国,万信.甘肃河东小麦需水规律及其分布特征[J].干旱地区农业研究,1999,17(1):39-44.
张永清,李华,苗果园.施肥深度对春小麦根系分布及后期衰老的影响[J].土壤,2006,38(1):110-112.
张永清,苗果园.冬小麦根系对施肥深度的生物学响应研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2006,14(4):72-75.
张云舒,徐万里,刘骅.土壤盐渍化特性和施肥方法对氮肥氨挥发影响初步研究[J].西北农业学报,2007,16(1):13-16.
张忠学,于贵瑞.不同灌水处理对冬小麦生长及水分利用效率的影响[J].灌溉排水学报,2003,22(2):14.
赵广才.中国小麦种植区划(一)[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(5):886-895.
赵聚宝,刁凤贵.秸秆覆盖对旱地作物水分利用效率的影响[J].中国农业科学,1996,29(2):59-66.
赵俊晔,于振文.高产条件下施氮量对冬小麦氮素吸收分配利用的影响[J].作物学报,2006,32(4):484-490.
赵新春,王朝辉.半干旱黄土区不同施氮水平冬小麦产量形成与氮素利用[J].干旱地区农业研究,2010,28(5):65-70,91.
赵之重,王晋民,王俊鹏.青海东部浅山旱地土壤水分状况及其作物利用研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2004,22(4):97-100.
郑成岩,于振文,马兴华,王西芝,白洪立.高产小麦耗水特性及干物质的积累与分配[J].作物学报,2008,34(8):1450-1458.
周静,张仁陟.不同耕作措施下春小麦应对干旱胁迫的生理相应[J].干旱区研究,2010,27(1):39-43.
邹兵,董召荣,王竞绍,张健,谭娟,徐晓光,刘亚,李小伟.不同穗型小麦花后物质运转及产量对氮肥的相应[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(12):63-67.
Alike L. Soil and crop response to different tillage practices in a ferruginous soil in theNigeriavarm[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,1986,6:26l-272.
Al-Rawashdeh Y A, Abdel-Ghani A H. Effect of nitrogen application timing on dry matterand nitrogen assimilation and partitioning in six wheat cultivars under rain-fed conditionsof Jordan. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science,2008,54(2):149-162.
Angus J F, van Herwaarden A F. Inerease water use and water use efficiency in drylandwheat[J]. Agronomy Journal,2001,93:290-295.
Araya T, Cornelis W M, Nyssen J, Govaerts B, Raes D, Saire K D, Deckers S. Buildingresilience against drought and soil erosion: impact of field water conservation in thedrought prone Vertisol areas of northern Ethiopia[J]. Agro-Enviromental,2012,8:1-5.
Bahrani A, Sharifabad H H, Sarvestani Z T, Moafpourian G H, Band A A. Remobilization ofdry matter in wheat: effects of nitrogen application and post-anthesis water deficit duringgrain filling[J]. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science,2011,39:279-293.
Barber J S. Factors in fluencing the grain yield and quality inirrigated wheat[J]. Journal ofAgricultural Science, Cambridge,1987,109(1):19-26.
Bassoa B, Cammaranob D, Troccoli A, Chend D, Joe T R. Long-term wheat response tonitrogen in a rainfed Mediterranean environment: Field data and simulation analysis[J].European Journal of Agronomy,2010,33:132-138.
Baumhardt R L, Jones O R. Residue management and tillage effects on soil-water storage andgrain yield of dryland wheat and sorghum for a clay loam in Texas[J]. Soil and TillageResearch,2002,68:71-82.
Blevins R, Thmas G W, Smith M S, Frye W W. Changes in soil properties after10yearscontinuous Non-tilled and conventionally tilled com[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,1983,3:135-146.
Caesar-TonThat T C, Lenssen A W, Caesar, A J, Sainju U M, Gaskin J F.. Effects of tillage onmicrobial populations associated to soil aggregation in dryland spring wheat system[J].European Journal of Soil Biology,2010,46:119-127.
Campell C A, Cameron D R. Effeets of fertilize N and soil moisture on growth, N content andmoisture use by spring wheat[J]. Canadian Journal of Soil Science,1977,57:259-320.
Carter M R, Sanderson J B, Ivany J A, White R P. Influence of rotation and tillage on foragemaize productivity weed species and soil quality of a fine sandy loam in the cool-humidclimate of Atlantic Canada[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2002,67:85-98.
Chen H Q, Hou R X, Gong Y S, Li H W, Fan M S, Kuzyakov Y. Effects of11years ofconservation tillage on soil organic matter fractions in wheat monoculture in LoessPlateau of China[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2009,106:85-94.
Dang T H, Cai G X, Guo S L, Hao M D, Heng L K. Effect of nitrogen management on yieldand water use efficiency of rainfed wheat and maize in Northwest China[J]. Pedosphere,2006,16:495-504.
De Vita P, Di Paolo E, Fecondo G, Di Fonzo N, Pisante M. No-tillage and conventional tillageeffects on durum wheat yield, grain quality and soil moisture content in southern Italy[J].Soil and Tillage Rsearch,2007,92:69-78.
De Giorgio D, Montemurro F. Nutritional status and nitrogen utilization efficiency of durumwheat in a semiarid Mediterranean environment[J]. Agric Mediterranea,2006,160:91-101.
Delaune P B, Sij J W. Impact of tillage on runoff in long term no-till wheat systems[J]. Soiland Tillage Research,2012,124:32-35.
Despo K P, Gagianas A A. Nitrogen and dry matter accumulation, remobilization, and lossesfor Mediterranean wheat during grain filling[J]. Agronomy Journal,1991,83:864–870.
Doehlert D C, Kuo T M, Felker F C. Enzymes of sucrose and hexose metabolism indeveloping kernels of two inbreds of maize[J]. Plant Physiology,1988,86:1013-1019.
Ercoli L, Lulli L, Mariotti M, Masoni A, Arduini I. Post-anthesis dry matter and nitrogendynamics in durum wheat as affected by nitrogen supply and soil water availability[J].European Journal of Agronomy,2008,28(2),138-147.
Fabrizzi K P, Garc a F O, Costa J L, Picone L I. Soil water dynamics, physical properties andcorn and wheat responses to minimum and no-tillage systems in the southern Pampas ofArgentina. Soil and Tillage Research,2005,81:57-69.
Fan J, Hao M D, Malhi S. S. Accumulation of nitrate-N in the soil profile and its implicationsfor the environment under dryland agriculture in northern China: A review[J]. CanadianJournal of Soil Science,2010,90:429-440.
Fan J, Hao M D, Shao M A. Nitrate accumulation in soil profile of dry land farming inNorthwest China[J]. Pedosphere,2003,13(4):367-374.
Fan T L, Steward B A, Wang Y, Luo J J, Zhou G Y. Long-term fertilization effects on grainyield, water use efficiency and soil fertility in the dryland of Loess Plateau in China[J].Agricuture Ecosystem and Environment,2005,106:313-329.
Fang Q, Ma L, Yu Q, Ahuja L R, Malone R W, Hoogenboom G. Irrigation strategies toimprove the water use efficiency of wheat–maize double cropping systems in North ChinaPlain[J]. Agricultural Water Management,2010,97:1165-1174.
Ferrise R, Triossi A, Stratonovitch P, Bindi M, Martre P. Sowing date and nitrogen fertilisationeffects on dry matter and nitrogen dynamics for durum wheat: An experimental andsimulation study[J]. Field Crops Research,2010,117:245-257.
Foulkes M J, Scott R K, Sylvester-Bradley R. The ability of wheat cultivars to withstanddrought in UK conditions: formation of grain yield[J]. The Journal of AgricultureScience,2002,138:153-169.
Gao Y J, Li Y, Zhang J C, Liu W G, Dang Z P, Cao W X, Qiang Q. Effects of mulch, Nfertilizer, and plant density on wheat yield, wheat nitrogen uptake, and residual soilnitrate in a dryland area of China[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,2009,85:109-121.
Gevrek M N, Atasoy G D. Effect of post anthesis drought on certain agronomicalcharacteristics of wheat under two different nitrogen application conditions[J]. TurkishJournal of Field Crops,2012,17:19-23.
Govaerts B, Sayre K D, Deckers J. Stable high yields with zero tillage and permanent bedplanting?[J]. Field Crops Research,2005,94:33-42.
Halvorson A D, Nielsen D C, Reule C A. Nitrogen fertilization and rotation effects on no-tilldryland wheat production[J]. Agronomy Journal,2004,96(4):1196-1201.
Khan I M, Jan A, Hussain N, Jan M T, Qadoos M. Rainfed wheat response to tillage andnitrogen[J]. Sarhad J. Agric,2011,27(4):519-523.
He J, Li H W,Wang X Y, McHugh A D, Li W Y, Gao H W, Kuhn N J. The adoption of annualsubsoiling as conservation tillage in dryland maize and wheat cultivation in northernChina[J]. Soil and Tillage Rearch,2007,94:493-502.
Heitholt J J. Water use effieiency and dry matter distribution in nitrogen and water stressedwinter wheat[J]. Agronomy Journal,1989,51:464-469.
Hemmat A, Eskandari I. Tillage system effects upon productivity of a dryland winterwheat–chickpea rotation in the northwest region of Iran[J].Soil and Tillage Rearch,2004,78:69-81.
Hemmat A, Eskandari I. Dryland winter wheat response to conservation tillage in acontinuous cropping system in northwestern Iran[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2006,86:99-109.
Hou X Q, Li R, Jia Z K, Han Q F, Wang W, Yang B P. Effects of rotational tillage practiceson soil properties, winter wheat yields and water-use efficiency in semi-arid areas ofnorth-west China[J]. Field Crops Research,2012,129:7-13.
Hu C, Saseendran S A, Green T R, Ma L, Li X, Ahuja L R. Evaluating nitrogen and watermanagement in a double-cropping system using RZWQM[J]. Vadose Zone Journal,2006,5(1):493-505.
Huang G. B, Zhang R Z, Li G D, Li L L, Chan K Y, Heenan D P, Chen W, Unkovich M J,Robertson M J, Cullis B R, Bellotti W D. Productivity and sustainability of a springwheat–field pea rotation in a semi-aridenvironment under conventional and conservationtillage systems[J]. Feild Crop Resesrch,2008,107:43-55.
Izumi Y, Yoshida T, Iijima M. Effects of subsoiling to the non-tilled field of wheat-soybeanrotation on the root system development, water uptake, and yield[J]. Plant ProductionScience,2009,12:327-335.
Johnson-Maynard J L, Umiker K J, Guy S O. Earthworm dynamics and soil physicalproperties in the first three years of no-tillage management[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2007,94:338-345.
Khaledian M R, Mailhol J C, Ruelle P, Mubarak I. Impacts of direct seeding into mulch on theyield, water use efficiency and nitrogen dynamics of corn, sorghum and durum wheat[J].Irrigation and Drainage,2012,61:398-409.
Kang S Z, Zhang L, Liang Y L, Hu X T, Cai H J, Gu B J. Effects of limited irrigation on fieldand water use efficiency of winter wheat in the Loess Plateau of China[J]. AgriculturalWater Management,2002,55:203-216.
Koch H J, Stochfisch N. Loss of soil organic matter upon ploughing under a loess soil afterseveral years of conservation tillage[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2006,86:73-83.
Kong F L, Cai W T, Shi L G, Chen F. The Characteristics of Annual Water Consumption forWinter Wheat and Summer Maize in North China Plain[J]. Procedia Engineering,2012,28:376-381.
Krobel R, Campbell C A, Zentner R P, Lemke R, Steppuhn H, Desjardins R L, Jong R De.Nitrogen and phosphorus effects on water use efficiency of spring wheat grown in asemi-arid region of the Canadian prairies[J]. Canadian Journal of Soil Science,2012,92:573-587.
Kumar, S, Sharma, P K, Anderson S H, Saroch, K. Tillage and rice-wheat cropping sequenceinfluences on some soil physical properties and wheat yield under water deficitconditions[J]. Open Journal of Soil Science,2012,2:71-81.
Li Q Q, Chen Y H, Liu M Y, Zhou X B, Yu S L, Dong B D. Effects of irrigation and plantingpatterns on radiation use efficiency and yield of winter wheat in North China[J].Agricultural Water Management,2008,95:469-476.
Li Y J, Huang M. Effects of tillage managements on soil rapidly available nutrient content andthe yield of winter wheat in West Henan province, China[J]. Procedia. Environmental.Sciences,2011,11,843-849.
Liao L J, Zhang L, Bengtsson L. Soil moisture variation and water consumption of springwheat and their effects on crop yield under drip irrigation[J]. Irrigation and DrainageSystems,2008,22(3-4):253-270.
Liu X J, Ju X T, Zhang F S, Pan J R, Christie P. Nitrogen dynamics and budgets in a winterwheat-maize cropping system in the North China Plain[J]. Field Crop Research,2003,83(2):111-124.
Lopez-Bellido L, Lopez-Bellido R J, Redondo R. Nitrogen efficiency in wheat under rainfedMediterranean conditions as affected by split nitrogen application[J]. Field Crop Research,2005,94:86-97.
Lopez-Bellido R J, Lopez-Bellido L. Efficiency of nitrogen in wheat under Mediterraneanconditions: effect of tillage, crop rotation and N fertilization[J]. Field Crops Research,2001,71:31-46.
Loutfy N, El-Tayeb M A, Hassanen A M, Moustafa, Mahmoud F M, Sakuma Y, Inouhe M.Changes in the water status and osmotic solute contents in response to drought and salicylicacid treatments in four different cultivars of wheat (Triticum aestivum)[J]. Journal of PlantResearch,2012,125:173-184.
Macmaster G S, Palic D B, Dunn G H. Soil management alters seedling emergence andsubsequent autumn growth and yield in dryland winter wheat-fallow systems in theCentral Great Plains ona clay loam soil[J]. Soil and Tillage Rearch,2002,65:193-206.
Mahler R L, Koehler F E, Luteher L K. Nitrogen soure, timing of applieation, and placementeffeets on winter wheat produetion[J]. Agronomy Journal,1994,86:637-642.
Mahmood S, Abid R, Yasin G, Arif H, Irshad A. Growth and yield parameters as potentialindicators of selection for moisture deficit tolerance in some Pakistani wheat (Triticumaestivum L.) cultivars[J]. African Journal of Agricultural Research,2012,7:782-789.
Mainard S D, Jeuffroy M H. Partitioning of dry matter and nitrogen to the spike throughoutthe spike growth period in wheat crops subjected to nitrogen deficiency[J]. Field CropsResearch,2001,70:153-165.
Martínez I G, Prat C, Ovalle C, Pozo A del, Stolpe N, Zagal E. Subsoiling improvesconservation tillage in cereal production of severely degraded Alfisols under Mediterraneanclimate[J]. Geoderma,2012,189-190:10-17.
Masoni A, Ercoli L, Mariotti M, Arduini I. Post-anthesis accumulation and remobilization of dry matter,nitrogen and phosphorus in durum wheat as affected by soil type[J]. European Journal of Agronomy,2007,26:179-186.
Matthews A M, Armstrong A C, Leeds-Harrison P B. Development and testing of a model forpredicting tillage effects on nitrate leaching from cracked clay soils[J]. Soil and TillageResearch,2000,53:245-254.
Miller P R, Holmes J A. Short Communicaiton: Comparative soil water use by annual crops ata semiarid site in Montana[J]. Canadian Journal of Plant Science,2012,92:803-807.
Miranzadeh H, Emam Y, Pilesj P, Seyyedi H. Water use efficiency of four dryland wheatcultivars under different levels of nitrogen fertilization[J]. Journal of Agricultural Scienceand Technology,2011,13:843-854.
Moll R H, Kamprath E J, Jackson W A. Analysis and interpretation of is factors whichcontribute to efficiency of nitrogen utilization. Agronomy Journal,1982,74:562-564.
Mori M, Inagaki M N. Root development and water-uptake under water deficit stress indrought-adaptive wheat genotypes[J]. Cereal Research Communicaiton,2012,40:44-52.
Motavalli P P, Stevens W E, Hartwig G. Remediation of subsoil compaction and compactioneffects on corn N availability by deep tillage and application of poultry manure in asandy-textured soil[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2003,71,121-131.
Mu oz-Romero V, Benítez-Vega J, López-Bellido R J, Fontán J M, López-Bellido L. Effect oftillage system on the root growth of spring wheat[J]. Plant Soil,2010,326:97-107.
Musick J T, Jones O R, Stewart B A, Dusek D A.Water-yield relationship for irrigated anddryland wheat in the U.S. southern plains[J]. Agronomy Journal,1994,86(6):980-986.
Nazirbay I, Yulduz D, Jumanazar R, Ruzumbay E, Clemens S, Kirsten K, John P A, LamersM B. Optimal Irrigation and N-fertilizer management for sustainable winter wheatproduction in Khorezm, Uzbekistan[J]. Cotton, Water, Salts and Soums,2012,11:171-180.
Nielsen D C, Vigil M F. Legume green fallow effect on soil water content at wheat plantingand wheat yield[J]. Agronomy Journal,2005,97(3):684-689.
Ozpinar S.Effects of tillage systems on weed population and economics for winter wheatproduction under the Mediterranean dryland conditions[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2006,87:1-8.
Papakosta, D.K., Gagianas, A.A.1991. Nitrogen and dry matter accumulation, translocation,and losses for Mediterranean wheat during grain filling[J]. Agronomy Journal,1991,83,864-870.
Przulj N, Momcilovic V. Genetic variation for dry matter and nitrogen assimilation andtranslocation in two-rowed spring barley Ⅱ. Nitrogen translocation[J]. European Journalof Agronomy,2001,15:255-265.
Putte A V, Govers G, Diels J, Langhans C, Clymans W, Vanuytrecht E, Merckx R, Raes, D.Soil functioning and conservation tillage in the Belgian Loam Belt[J]. Soil and TillageResearch122,1-11.
Rahimizadeh M, Kashani A, Zare-Feizabadi A, Koocheki A R, Nassiri-Mahallati M. Nitrogenuse efficiency of wheat as affected by preceding crop, application rate of nitrogen and cropresidues[J]. Australian Journal of Crop Science,2010,4(5):363-368.
Rajkannan B, Selvi D. Effect of tillage, organics and nitrogen on root behaviour and yield ofsorghum in soil with sub soil hardpan at shallow depth[J]. Journal of MaharashtraAgricultural Universities,2002,27:213-215.
Rizza F, Badeck F W, Cattivelli L, Lidestri O, Di Fonzo N, Stanca A M. Use of a water stressindex to identify barley genotypes adapted to rained and irrigated conditions[J]. CropScience,2004,44(6):2127-2137.
Roldán A, Caravaca F, Hernández M T, García C, Sánchez-Brito C, Velásquez M, Tiscare oM. No-tillage, crop residue additions and legume covercropping effects on soil qualitycharacteristics under maize in Patzcuaro watershed (Mexico)[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2003,72:65-73.
Ryan J, Sommer R, Ibrikci H. Fertilizer best management practices: A perspective from thedryland West Asia-North Africa region[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,2012,198:57-67.
Sadeghi H, Bahrani M J. Effects of crop residue and nitrogen rates on yield and yieldcomponents of two dryland wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars[J]. Plant ProductionScience,2009,12(4):497-502.
Sadras V O, Lawson C, Hooper P, McDonald G K. Contribution of summer rainfall andnitrogen to the yield and water use efficiency of wheat in Mediterranean-typeenvironments of South Australia[J]. European Journal of Agronomy,2012,36:41-54.
Salima Y, Maria D S, Antonio J M, Jordi V, José L A. Combined use of δ13C, δ18O and δ15Ntracks nitrogen metabolism and genotypic adaptation of durum wheat to salinity and waterdeficit[J]. New Phytologist,2012,194:230-244.
Shama B R, Chaudhary T N. Wheat root growth, grain yield and water uptake as influencedby soil water regime and depth of nitrogen placement in a loamy sand soil[J].Agricultural Water Management,1983,6:365-373.
Shearman V J, Sylvester-Bradley R, Scott P K, Foulkes M J. Physiological processesassociated with wheat yield progress in the UK[J]. Crop Science,2005,45:175-185.
Sepaskhah A R, Azizian A, Tavakoli A R. Optimal applied water and nitrogen for winterwheat under variable seasonal rainfall and planning scenarios for consequent crops in asemi-arid region[J]. Agricultural Water Management,2006,84:113-122.
Shao H B, Liang Z S, Shao M G, Sun S M, Hu Z M. Investigation on dynamic changes ofphotosynthetic characteristics of10wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes during twovegetative-growth stages at water deficit[J]. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces,2005,43(3-4):221-227.
Sharipova G V, Veselov D S, Kudoyarova G R, Timergalin M D, Wilkinson S. Effect ofethylene perception inhibitor on growth, water relations, and abscisic acid content inwheat plants under water deficit[J]. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology,2012,59:573-580.
Sinclair T R, Pinter Jr P J, Kimball B A, Adamsen F J, LaMorte R L, Wall G W, Hunsaker D J,Adam N, Brooks T J, Garcia R L, Thompson T, Leavitt S, Matthias A. Leaf nitrogenconcentration of wheat subjected to elevated CO2and either water or N deficits[J].Agriculture Ecosystems Environment,2000,79:53-60.
Singh A K, Jain G L. Effect of sowing time, irrigation and nitrogen on grain yield and qualityof durum wheat(Triticum durum)[J]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2000,70(8):532-533.
Smith C J, Whitfield D M. Nitrogen accumulation and redistribution of late applied ofN15-labelled fertilizer by wheat[J]. Field Crop Research,1990,24(3-4):211-226.
Soon Y K., Malhi S S, Wang Z H, Brandt S, Schoenau J. Effect of seasonal rainfall, Nfertilizer and tillage on N utilization by dryland wheat in a semi-arid environment[J].Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,2008,82:149-160.
Su Z Y, Zhang J S, Wu W L, Ca D X, Lv J J, Jiang G H, Huang J, Gao J, Hartmann R,Gabriels D. Effects of conservation tillage practices on winterwheat water-use efficiencyand crop yield on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Agricultural Water Management,2007,87:307-314.
Sun H Y, Liu C M, Zhang X Y, Shen Y J, Zhang Y Q. Effects of irrigation on water balance,yield and WUE of winter wheat in the North China Plain[J]. Agricultural WaterManagement,2006,85:211218.
Tolk J A, Howell T A, Evett S R. Effect of mulch, irrigation and soil type on water use andyield of maize[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,1999,50:137-147.
Tsai-Mei Ou-Lee, Setter T L. Enzymes of increased temperature in apical regions of Maizeears on starch-synthesis enzymes and accumulation of sugars and starch[J]. PlantPhysiology,1985,79:852-855.
Wahl N A, Bens O, Buczko U, Hangen E, Huttl R F. Effects of conventional and conservationtillage on soil hydraulic properties of a silty-loamy soil[J]. Physics and Chemistry of theEarth,2004,29:821-829.
Wang Q, Li F R, Zhao L, Zhang E H, Shi S L, Zhao W Z, Song W X, Vance M M. Effects ofirrigation and nitrogen application rates on nitrate nitrogen distribution and fertilizernitrogen loss, wheat yield and nitrogen uptake on a recently reclaimed sandy farmland[J].Plant and Soil,2010,337:325-339.
Wang X B, Wu H J, Dai K, Zhang D C, Feng Z H, Zhao Q S, Wu X P, Jin K, Cai D X,Oenema O, Hoogmoed W B. Tillage and crop residue effects on rainfed wheat and maizeproduction in northern China[J]. Field Crops Research,2012,132:106-116.
Wardlaw I F, Willenbrink J. Carbonhydrate stronge and mobilization by the culm of wheatbetween heading and grain maturity: The relation to sucrose synthase andsucrose-phosphate synthase[J]. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology,1994,21:251-271.
Wasson A P, Richards R A, Chatrath R, Misra S C, Sai Prasad, S V, Rebetzke G J,Kirkegaard J A, Christopher J, Wattl M. Traits and selection strategies to improve rootsystems and water uptake in water-limited wheat crops[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany,2012,63:3485-3498.
Williams J D, Wuest S B, Schillinger W F, Gollany H T. Rotary subsoiling newly plantedwinter wheat fields to improve infiltration in frozen soil. Soil and Tillage Research,2006.86,141-151.
Xu Z Z, Yu Z W, Wang D, and Zhang Y L. Nitrogen accumulation and translocation for winterwheat under diferent irrigation regimes[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,2005,191:439-449.
Xue X H, Hao M D. Nitrate leaching on loess soils in north-west China: Appropriate fertilizerrates for winter wheat[J]. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil and PlantScience,2011,61(3):253-263.
Yang J C, Zhang J H, Wang Z Q, Zhu Q S, Liu L J. Water deficit-induced senescence and itsrelationship to the remobilizaiton of pre-stored carbon in wheat during grain filling[J].Agronomy Journal,2001,93:196-206.
Zeng S C, Su Z Y, Chen B G, Wu Q T, Ouyang Y. Nitrogen and Phosphorus runof losses fromorchard soils in South China as afected by fertilization depths and rates[J]. Pedosphere,2008,18(1):45-53.
包红静,安景文,解占军,汪仁,张俊奇,张艳君.一次深施肥对玉米供肥规律的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(31):13710-13712.
柴彦君,熊又升,黄丽,袁家富,徐祥玉,刘晔.施氮对不同品种冬小麦氮素累积和运转的影响[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(10):2040-2046.
陈辉林,田霄鸿,王晓峰,曹玉贤,吴玉红,王朝辉.不同栽培模式对渭北旱塬区冬小麦生长期间土壤水分、温度及产量的影响[J].生态学报,2010,30(9):2424-2433.
陈培元,李英,蒋永罗,傅左.渭北旱塬小麦的耗水特性与抗旱增产措施[J].植物生态学与地植物学学报,1986,10(1):59-67.
陈四龙,陈素英,孙宏勇,张喜英,裴冬.耕作方式对冬小麦棵间蒸发及水分利用效率的影响[J].土壤通报,2006,37(4):817-820.
程杰,高亚军,强秦.渭北旱塬小麦不同栽培模式对土壤硝态氮残留的影响[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(4):104-110.
程宪国,汪德水,张美荣,周涌,金轲,郭世昌,王自力,王书子.不同土壤水分条件下对冬小麦生长及养分吸收的影响[J].中国农业科学,1996,29(4):67-74.
崔欢虎,张松令,闫翠萍,靖华,马爱萍.黄土高原旱地小麦最佳土壤库容深度模拟研究[J].水土保持学报,2003,17(4):110-112.
党廷辉,郝明德.黄土塬区不同水分条件下冬小麦氮肥效应与土壤氮素调节[J].中国农业科学,2000,33(4):62-67.
丁庆堂.不同耕法对草甸黑土肥力的影响[J].土壤通报,1986,17(7):61-64.
董宝娣,张正斌,刘孟雨,张依章,李全起,石磊,周永田.小麦不同品种的水分利用特性及对灌溉制度的响应[J].农业工程学报,2007,23(9):27-33.
杜金哲,李文雄,胡尚连,刘锦红.春小麦不同品质类型氮的吸收、转化利用及与籽粒产量和蛋白质含量的关系[J].作物学报,2001,27(2):253-260.
杜少勇,熊淑萍,赵鹏,马新明,张英武,蔺世召,张心玲,刘红君.豫北高地力条件下施氮量对冬小麦花后氮代谢特征及产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2011,31(5):882-886.
杜太生,康绍忠,王振昌,王峰,杨秀英,苏兴礼.隔沟交替灌溉对棉花生长、产量和水分利用效率的调控效应[J].作物学报,2007,33(12):1982-1990.
房全孝,陈雨海.冬小麦节水灌溉的生理生态基础研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究,2003,21(1):21-26.
房全孝,王建林,于舜章.华北平原小麦－玉米两熟制节水潜力与灌溉对策[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(7):37-44.
方日尧,赵惠青,同延安.渭北旱原冬小麦深施肥沟播综合效应研究[J].农业工程学报,2000,16(1):49-52.
高会军,周勋波,齐林,杨国敏,董浩,刘岩,陈雨海.种植方式与施氮量对冬小麦光合生理特性及光能利用率的影响[J].山东农业科学,2010,11:16-18,23.
高秀君,张仁陟,杨招弟.不同耕作方式对旱地土壤酶活性动态的影响[J].土壤通报,2008,39(5):1012-1016.
高亚军,杨君林,陈玲,朱刚,者星毅,刘炜,李生秀.旱地冬小麦不同栽培模式、施氮量和种植密度土壤水分利用状况[J].干旱地区农业研究,2007,25(3):45-50.
耿伟,薛绪掌,王志敏.肥料分层深施对旱地冬小麦光合生理特性及产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2006,26(3):166-168.
郭栋,党廷辉,戚龙海.黄土旱塬不同氮肥用量下冬小麦干物质累积和氮素吸收利用过程研究[J].水土保持学报,2008,22(5):138-141.
郝代成,高国华,朱云集,郭天财,叶优良,王晨阳,谢迎新.施氮量对超高产冬小麦花后光合特性及产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(2):346-352.
何晓雁,郝明德,李慧成,蔡志风.黄土高原旱地小麦施肥对产量及水肥利用效率的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(6):1333-1340.
何照范.粮油籽粒品质及其分析技术[M].北京:中国农业科学出版社,1985.
侯贤清,韩清芳,贾志宽,李永平,杨宝平.半干旱区夏闲期不同耕作方式对土壤水分及小麦水分利用效率的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(5):52-58.
胡立峰,胡春胜,安忠民,张爱军,陈阜.不同土壤耕作法对作物产量及土壤硝态氮淋失的影响[J].水土保持学报,2005,19(6):186-189.
胡梦芸,张正斌,徐萍,董宝娣,李魏强,李景娟.亏缺灌溉下小麦水分利用效率与光合产物积累运转的相关研究[J].作物学报,2007,33(11):1884-1891.
胡亚妮,刘文兆,王俊,党廷辉,李双江,王兵.黄土塬区氮磷配施对冬小麦光合作用、产量形成及水分利用的影响[J].水土保持学报,2007,21(6):159-161,178.
胡延吉,兰进好,赵坦芳,高法振.不同穗型的两个冬小麦品种冠层结构及光合特性的研究[J].作物学报,2000,26(6),905-912.
黄昌勇,李保国,潘根兴,徐建明,黄巧云.土壤学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000:101-102.
黄明,吴金芝,李友军,姚宇卿,张灿军,蔡典雄,金轲.不同耕作方式对旱作冬小麦旗叶衰老和籽粒产量的影响[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(6):1355-1361.
黄明,吴金芝,李友军,姚宇卿,张灿军,蔡典雄,金轲.不同耕作方式对旱作区冬小麦生产和产量的影响[J].农业工程学报,2009,25(1):50-54.
贾秀领,赛家利,马瑞昆,鲁建立.高产冬小麦水分利用效率及其组分特征分析[J].作物学报,1999,25(3):309-314.
蒋会利,温晓霞,廖允成.施氮量对冬小麦产量的影响及土壤硝态氮运转特性[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(1):237-241.
康红,朱保安,洪利辉,董成俊.免耕覆盖对旱地土壤肥力和小麦产量的影响[J].陕西农业科学,2001,(9):1-3.
吉春荣,李世清,伍维模,魏益民,张兴昌,邵明安.半湿润农田生态条件下施氮对不同冬小麦品种氮素转移的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2005,11(5):569-577.
靳奇峰,牛俊义.施肥深度对地膜春小麦干物质积累的影响[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2010,45(5):63-66.
雷艳,张富仓,寇雯萍,冯磊磊.不同生育期水分亏缺和施氮对冬小麦产量及水分利用效率的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2010,38(5):167-174,180.
李彩霞,马三力.小麦的需水规律[J].农业与技术,2005,25(4):68-69.
李合生,孙群,赵世杰,章文华.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000,119-121.
李华,王朝辉,李生秀.旱地小麦地表覆盖对土壤水分硝态氮累积分布的影响[J].农业环境科学学报,2011,30(7):1371-1377.
李军,王立祥.宁南半干旱偏旱区施肥对旱作春小麦田水分动态与平衡的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2001,21(3):55-59.
李瑞奇,李雁鸣,何建兴,李国春,郝秀钗,王芳.施氮量对冬小麦氮素利用和产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2011,31(2):270-275.
李生秀,李世清,高亚军,王喜庆,贺海香,杜建军.施用氮肥对提高早地作物土坡水分利用的作用机理和效果[J].干旱地区农业研究,1994,12(1):38-46.
李世娟,周殿玺,诸叶平,等.水分和氮肥运筹对小麦氮素吸收分配的影响[J].华北农学报,2002,17(1):69-75.
李世清,田霄鸿,李生秀.养分对早地小麦水分胁迫的生理补偿效应[J].西北植物学报,2000,20(l):22-28.
李廷亮,谢英荷,任苗苗,邓树元,单杰,雷振宇,洪坚平,王朝辉.施肥和覆膜垄沟种植对旱地小麦产量及水氮利用的影响[J].生态学报,2011,31(1):212-220.
李新平,李素俭,黄土高原旱作土壤水分动态及提高水分利用率的研究[J].土壤侵蚀与水土保持学报,1997,3(1):75-79.
李杏,黄莺,杨宏敏,毛国军,王天书.尿素深施对提高氮素利用率的影响[J].耕作与栽培,1999,增刊,37-38.
李艳,董中东,郝西,崔党群.不同小麦品种氮素利用效率差异研究[J].中国农业科学,2007,40(3):472-477.
李友军,吴金芝,黄明,姚宇卿,张灿军,蔡典雄,金轲.不同耕作方式对小麦旗叶光合特性和水分利用效率的影响[J].农业工程学报,2006,22(12):44-48.
李友军,黄明,吴金芝,姚宇卿,吕军杰.不同耕作方式对豫西旱区坡耕地水肥利用与流失的影响[J].水土保持学报2006,20(2):42-45,101.
李裕元,郭永杰,邵明安.施肥对丘陵旱地冬小麦生长发育和水分利用的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2000,18(1):15-21.
李运生,王菱,刘士平,王吉顺.土壤-根系界面水分调控措施对冬小麦根系和产量的影响[J].生态学报,2002,22(10):1680-1687.
廖允成,韩思明,温晓霞.黄土台源旱地小麦土壤水分特征及水分利用效率研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2002,10(3):55-58.
刘恩科,梅旭荣,龚道枝,严昌荣,庄严.不同生育时期干旱对冬小麦氮素吸收与利用的影响[J].植物生态学报,2010,34(5):555-562.
刘瑞,戴相林,周建斌,张鹏,崔亚胜,王天泰.不同氮肥用量下冬小麦土壤剖面累积硝态氮及其与氮素表观盈亏的关系[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2011,17(6):1335-1341.
刘青林,张恩和,王琦,王田涛,刘朝巍,尹辉,俞华林.灌溉与施氮对留茬免耕春小麦氮素吸收和氮肥损失的影响[J].水土保持学报,2011,25(4):104-109.
刘新宇,巨晓棠,张丽娟,李鑫,袁丽金,刘楠.不同施氮水平对冬小麦季化肥氮去向及土壤氮素平衡的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(2):296-303.
刘增进,李宝萍,李远华,崔远来.冬小麦水分利用效率与最优灌溉制度的研究[J].农业工程学报,2004,20(4):58-63.
骆洪义,丁方军.土壤学实验[M].成都:成都科技大学出版社,1995,91.
罗珠珠,黄高宝,辛平,张国盛.陇中旱地不同保护性耕作方式表层土壤结构和有机碳含量比较分析[J].干旱地区农业研究,2008,26(4):53-58.
罗珠珠,黄高宝,张仁陟,蔡立群,李玲玲,谢军红, Li G D.长期保护性耕作对黄土高原旱地土壤肥力质量的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2010,18(3):458-464.
吕殿青,高华,方日尧,谷洁,李旭晖.渭北旱塬冬小麦产区提前深耕一次深施肥料的肥水效应与理论分析[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2009,15(2):269-275.
吕军杰,姚宇卿,张洁,王育红,李俊红,丁志强,吴剑峰,于新峰.不同耕作方式对坡耕旱地土壤环境及小麦产量的影响[J].河南农业科学,2011,40(1):41-44.
吕丽华,胡玉昆,李雁鸣,王璞.灌水方式对不同小麦品种水分利用效率和产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2007,27(1):88-92.
马东辉,王月福,赵长星,林琪.施氮量和花后土壤含水量对小麦氮素代谢特性和子粒蛋白质含量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2008,14(6):1035-1041.
马冬云,郭天财,宋晓,王晨阳,韩巧霞,岳艳军,查菲娜.施氮对冬小麦旗叶RuBP羧化酶活性及叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].西北植物学报,2010,30(11):2197-2202.
马兴华,王东,于振文,王西芝,许振柱.不同施氮量下灌水量对小麦耗水特性和氮素分配的影响[J].生态学报,2010,30(8):1955-1965.
马玉珍,王久志,杨治平,周怀平,王静.旱地秋季深施肥对土壤微生物的影响[J].土壤1997,(6):311-314.
苗果园,尹钧,高志强,卢布, Adams W A.旱地小麦降水年型与氮素供应对产量的互作效应与土壤水分动态的研究[J].作物学报,1997,23(3):263-270.
宁东峰,李志杰,孙文彦,马卫萍,黄绍文,赵秉强.限水灌溉下施氮量对冬小麦产量、氮素利用及氮平衡的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(6):1312-1318.
祁有玲,张富仓,李开峰.水分亏缺和施氮对冬小麦生长及氮素吸收的影响[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(10):2399-2405.
秦红灵,高旺盛,马月存,马丽,尹春梅.两年免耕后深松对土壤水分的影响[J].中国农业科学,2008,41(1):78-85.
屈会娟,李金才,沈学善,魏凤珍,王成雨,郅胜军.种植密度和播期对冬小麦兰考矮早八干物质和氮素积累与转运的影响[J].作物学报,2009,35(1):124-131.
全国农业技术推广服务中心.土壤分析技术规范.第二版.北京:中国农业出版社,2006:47-49.
司纪升,王法宏,李升东,孔令安,冯波,张宾.旱地保护性耕作对土壤理化性状和冬小麦生理特性的影响[J].山东农业科学,2008,(7):9-12.
隋鹏,张海林,许翠,高旺盛.节水抗旱与喜水肥型小麦品种土壤水分消耗特性的比较研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2005,23(4):26-31.
山仑,徐萌.节水农业及其生理生态基础[J].应用生态学报,1991,2(1):70-76.
沈新磊,付秋萍,王全九.施氮量对黄土旱塬区冬小麦产量和土壤水分动态的影响[J].生态经济,2009,(11):107-110,119.
沈玉芳,李世清,邵明安.水肥空间组合对冬小麦生物学性状及生物量的影响[J].中国农业科学,2007,40(8):1822-1829.
史金,茹园园,谭金芳,王宜伦,陈峰,苗子胜,韩燕来.施氮对冬小麦旗叶蔗糖含量及籽粒淀粉合成的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2007,27(3):497-502.
史晓楠,王全九,黄国琴.施肥方式对土壤水肥分布特征影响[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(1):191-196.
师日鹏,上官宇先,马巧荣,王林权.密度与氮肥配合对垄沟覆膜栽培冬小麦干物质累积及产量的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2011,17(4):823-830.
苏正义,韩晓日,李春全,李文学,娄春荣,路钰.氮肥深施对作物产量和氮肥利用率的影响[J].沈阳农业大学学报,1997,28(4):292-296.
石岩,林琪,位东斌,于振文,余松烈.土壤水分胁迫对冬小麦耗水规律及产量的影响[J].华北农学报,1997,12(2):76-81.
石岩,位东斌,于振文,余松烈.施肥深度对旱地小麦花后旗叶衰老及产量的影响[J].西北植物学报,1999,19(6):139-142.
石岩,位东斌,于振文,余松烈.施肥深度对旱地小麦氮素利用及产量的影响[J].核农学报,2001,15(3):180-183.
石岩,位东斌,于振文,余松烈.施肥深度对旱地小麦花后根系衰老的影响[J].应用生态学报,2001,12(4):573-575.
石岩,于振文,位东斌,余松烈.施肥深度对旱地小麦花后根系干重及产量的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2000,18(1):38-42.
孙宏勇,刘昌明,张永强,张喜英.微型蒸发器测定土壤蒸发的试验研究[J].水利学报,2004,35(8):114-118.
王兵,刘文兆,党廷辉,高长青.黄土高原氮磷肥水平对旱作冬小麦产量与氮素利用的影响[J].农业工程学报,2011,27(8):101-107.
王兵,刘文兆,党廷辉,高长青,陈杰,甘卓亭.黄土塬区旱作农田长期定位施肥对冬小麦水分利用的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2008,14(5):829-834.
王兵,刘文兆,党廷辉,高长青,李志,甘卓亭.长期施肥条件下旱作农田土壤水分剖面分布特征[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2007,13(3):411-416.
王东,于振文,李延奇,史桂萍.施氮量对济麦20光合特性和蔗糖合成及籽粒产量的影响[J].作物学报,2007,33(6):903-908.
王东,于振文,张永丽.山东强筋和中筋小麦品质形成的气象条件及区划[J].应用生态学报,2007,18(10):2269-2276.
王桂良,叶优良,李欢欢,朱云集.施氮量对不同基因型小麦产量和干物质累积的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(1):116-122.
王靖,林琪,倪永君,刘义国,王炳军.旱地保护性耕作对冬小麦光合特性及产量的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2009,29(3):480-483.
王克武,王志平,郑雅莲,张娜,朱青艳.小麦高WUE品种筛选和田间耗水规律研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(2):69-73.
王立明.播种密度对旱地不同类型冬小麦产量和水分利用效率的影响[J].中国种业,2010,(3):41-43.
王佩玲,许育彬,宋淑英,沈玉芳,李世清.大气CO2浓度倍增和施氮对冬小麦光合及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].西北植物学报,2011,31(1):144-151.
王天铎.黄淮海平原水资源的农业利用问题之二-水利用的效率[J].农业现代化研究,1991,12(4):33-37.
王小燕,于振文.不同施氮量条件下灌溉量对小麦氮素吸收转运和分配的影响[J].中国农业科学,2008,41(10):3015-3024.
王晓英,贺明荣,刘永环,张洪华,李飞,华芳霞,孟淑华.水氮耦合对冬小麦氮肥吸收及土壤硝态氮残留淋溶的影响[J].生态学报,2008,28(2):685-694.
王应君,王淑珍,郑义.肥料深施对小麦生育性状、养分吸收及产量的影响[J].土壤肥料科学,2006,2(9):276-280.
王育红,姚宇卿,吕军杰.豫西旱地冬小麦农田耗水特征及调控措施的研究[J].中国农学通报,2001,17(5):27-29.
王育红,姚宇卿,吕军杰,杨波,檀尊社,王海洋.豫西坡耕地不同耕作方式麦田水分动态及其生态效益[J].西北农业学报,2001,10(4):55-57.
王元学,冯明学,田正林.碳酸氢铵施用深度不同对小麦产量的影响[J].耕作与栽培,2007,(5):37-38.
王月福,程金亮,王炳军,王岳光,王丽丽,隋春青.山东省旱地小麦发展回顾及展望[J].莱阳农学院学报,2003,20(3):200-205.
王月福,李素美,王岳光,徐丽娟,初欣平.不同耐旱性小麦品种产量形成适宜土壤水分的研究[J].莱阳农学院学报,1998,15(1):18-22.
王月福,于振文,潘庆民,李素美.不同小麦品种经济合理肥水指标探讨[J].山东农业科学,1998,(4):7-10.
王振华,张喜英,陈素英,孙宏勇,朱波.分层施肥及供水对冬小麦生理特性、根系分布和产量的影响[J].华北农学报,2008,23(6):176-180.
王志敏,王树安,苏宝林.小麦茎秆贮藏物质的积累与再转运[J].北京农业大学学报,1994,20(4):369-374.
魏艳丽,王辉,冯毅,张玲丽,闵东红,李学军,孙道杰.减源对不同穗型小麦品种干物质积累及其运转的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2008,28(3),507-512.
魏爱丽,王志敏.小麦茎秆贮藏物质对籽粒灌浆的影响[J].中国农学通报,2001,17(2):53-56.
吴金芝,黄明,李友军,陈明灿,姚宇卿,郭大勇,黄海霞.不同耕作方式对冬小麦光合作用产量和水分利用效率的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2008,26(5):17-21.
吴俊森,陈淑芬,王兆菡.山东省水资源特点与可持续性利用对策的研究[J].农机化研究,2006,(9):201-203.
吴清丽,高茂盛,廖允成,温晓霞.氮素对冬小麦光合物质贮运及籽粒灌浆进程的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2009,27(2):120-124,137.
吴同彦,冯大领,白志英,杨学举,刘霞,郑永圃.小麦抗旱机制研究进展[J].干旱地区农业研究2009,27(5):97-100.
谢英荷,李廷亮,洪坚平,刘丽萍,庞娇,冯倩,邓树元,单杰.施氮和垄膜沟播种植对晋南旱地冬小麦水分利用的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(8):2038-2044.
徐佩,艾应伟,张先婉.分层施肥对小麦植株含N量的影响[J].山地研究,1997,15(3):205-208.
许育彬,沈玉芳,李世清. CO2浓度升高和施氮对冬小麦花前贮存碳氮转运的影响[J].作物学报,2011,37(8):1465-1474.
许振柱,于振文.限量灌溉对水分利用的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2003,21(1):6-10.
薛澄,王朝辉,李富翠,赵护兵,周玲,李小涵.渭北旱塬不同施肥与覆盖栽培对冬小麦产量形成及土壤水分利用的影响[J].中国农业科学,2011,44(21):4395-4405.
闫翠萍,裴雪霞,王姣爱,杨峰,曹勇,张晶,党建友.秸秆还田与施氮对冬小麦生长发育及水肥利用率的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2011,19(2):271-275.
杨培培,杨明欣,董文旭,陈素英,胡春胜.保护性耕作对土壤养分分布及冬小麦吸收与分配的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2011,19(4):755-759.
杨荣,苏永中.农作制度对黑河中游沙质土壤硝态氮积累及作物产量的影响[J].农业环境科学学报,2011,30(1):120-126.
杨玉惠,张仁陟.氮肥施用对黄土高原中部雨养农业区土壤硝态氮分布与累积的影响[J].土壤通报,2007,38(4):672-676.
杨云马,贾树龙,孟春香,孙颜铭.不同耕作及秸秆还田条件下冬小麦养分利用率研究[J].华北农学报,2010,25(增刊):202-204.
杨占平,薛毅芳,李保昌,史福刚,张新文.丘陵旱地一年两熟制条件下小麦、玉米阶段耗水量研究[J].河南农业科学,2010,(10):57-60.
尹晓芳,同延安,张树兰,曾艳娟,高鹏程,周军,杨宪龙.关中地区小麦/玉米轮作农田硝态氮淋溶特点[J].应用生态学报,2010,21(3):640-646.
于佳,于显枫,郭天文,张绪成,马一凡.施氮和大气CO2浓度升高对春小麦拔节期光合作用的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(4):651-655.
於建新.植物生理学实验手册[M].上海:科学技术出版社,1985,148-150.
张炳勇,崔日鲜.氮肥运筹对冬小麦光合特性和产量的影响[J].青岛农业大学学报(自然科学版),2010,27(3):195-199.
张宏,周建斌,刘瑞,张鹏,郑险峰,李生秀.不同栽培模式及施氮对半旱地冬小麦/夏玉米氮素累积、分配及氮肥利用率的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2011,17(1):1-8.
张宏,周建斌,王春阳,董放,李凤娟.不同栽培模式及施氮对玉米小麦轮作体系土壤肥力及硝态氮累积的影响[J].中国生态农业学报,2010,18(4):693-697.
张宏,周建斌,王春阳,董放,郑险峰,李生秀.栽培模式及施氮对冬小麦-夏玉米体系产量与水分利用效率的影响[J].植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(5):1078-1085.
张雷明,上官周平,毛明策,于贵端.长期施氮对旱地小麦叶绿色荧光参数的影响[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(5):695-698.
张寄阳,孙景生,肖俊夫,李晓东,刘小飞,申孝军.灌水控制下限对冬小麦产量及水分利用效率的影响[J].中国农学通报,2005,21(11):387-391.
张均华,刘建立,吕菲,李慧霞.施氮对稻麦轮作区小麦地上器官干物质及氮素累积运转的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2009,29(5):892-896.
张均华,刘建立,张佳宝,赵夫涛,程亚南,王伟鹏.施氮量对稻麦干物质转运与氮肥利用的影响[J].作物学报,2010,36(10):1736-1742.
张立新,李立科,徐福利,梁连友,赵二龙.渭北旱塬不同降水年型冬小麦施肥技术的研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,1998,16(4):15-20.
张铭,蒋达,缪瑞林,许轲,刘艳阳,张军,张洪程.稻茬田肥力水平与施氮量对小麦籽粒产量和物质生产的影响[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(2):330-336.
张睿,文娟,王玉娟,赵英震,王朝辉,王志敏.渭北旱塬小麦高效施肥的产量及水分效应[J].麦类作物学报,2011,31(5):911-915.
张岁岐,李秧秧.施肥促进作物水分利用机理对产量的影响的研究[J].水土保持研究,1996,3(1):185-191.
张岁歧,山仑.氮素营养对春小麦抗旱适应性及水分利用的影响[J].水土保持研究,1995,2(1):31-35.
张文玲,王文科,李桂花.施肥方式对不同小麦品种生长和氮肥利用率的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2009,(2):47-51.
张绪成,于显枫,马一凡.施氮和大气CO2浓度升高对小麦旗叶光合电子传递和分配的影响[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(3):673-680.
张旭东,柯晓新,杨兴国,万信.甘肃河东小麦需水规律及其分布特征[J].干旱地区农业研究,1999,17(1):39-44.
张永清,李华,苗果园.施肥深度对春小麦根系分布及后期衰老的影响[J].土壤,2006,38(1):110-112.
张永清,苗果园.冬小麦根系对施肥深度的生物学响应研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2006,14(4):72-75.
张云舒,徐万里,刘骅.土壤盐渍化特性和施肥方法对氮肥氨挥发影响初步研究[J].西北农业学报,2007,16(1):13-16.
张忠学,于贵瑞.不同灌水处理对冬小麦生长及水分利用效率的影响[J].灌溉排水学报,2003,22(2):14.
赵广才.中国小麦种植区划(一)[J].麦类作物学报,2010,30(5):886-895.
赵聚宝,刁凤贵.秸秆覆盖对旱地作物水分利用效率的影响[J].中国农业科学,1996,29(2):59-66.
赵俊晔,于振文.高产条件下施氮量对冬小麦氮素吸收分配利用的影响[J].作物学报,2006,32(4):484-490.
赵新春,王朝辉.半干旱黄土区不同施氮水平冬小麦产量形成与氮素利用[J].干旱地区农业研究,2010,28(5):65-70,91.
赵之重,王晋民,王俊鹏.青海东部浅山旱地土壤水分状况及其作物利用研究[J].干旱地区农业研究,2004,22(4):97-100.
郑成岩,于振文,马兴华,王西芝,白洪立.高产小麦耗水特性及干物质的积累与分配[J].作物学报,2008,34(8):1450-1458.
周静,张仁陟.不同耕作措施下春小麦应对干旱胁迫的生理相应[J].干旱区研究,2010,27(1):39-43.
邹兵,董召荣,王竞绍,张健,谭娟,徐晓光,刘亚,李小伟.不同穗型小麦花后物质运转及产量对氮肥的相应[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(12):63-67.
Alike L. Soil and crop response to different tillage practices in a ferruginous soil in theNigeriavarm[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,1986,6:26l-272.
Al-Rawashdeh Y A, Abdel-Ghani A H. Effect of nitrogen application timing on dry matterand nitrogen assimilation and partitioning in six wheat cultivars under rain-fed conditionsof Jordan. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science,2008,54(2):149-162.
Angus J F, van Herwaarden A F. Inerease water use and water use efficiency in drylandwheat[J]. Agronomy Journal,2001,93:290-295.
Araya T, Cornelis W M, Nyssen J, Govaerts B, Raes D, Saire K D, Deckers S. Buildingresilience against drought and soil erosion: impact of field water conservation in thedrought prone Vertisol areas of northern Ethiopia[J]. Agro-Enviromental,2012,8:1-5.
Bahrani A, Sharifabad H H, Sarvestani Z T, Moafpourian G H, Band A A. Remobilization ofdry matter in wheat: effects of nitrogen application and post-anthesis water deficit duringgrain filling[J]. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science,2011,39:279-293.
Barber J S. Factors in fluencing the grain yield and quality inirrigated wheat[J]. Journal ofAgricultural Science, Cambridge,1987,109(1):19-26.
Bassoa B, Cammaranob D, Troccoli A, Chend D, Joe T R. Long-term wheat response tonitrogen in a rainfed Mediterranean environment: Field data and simulation analysis[J].European Journal of Agronomy,2010,33:132-138.
Baumhardt R L, Jones O R. Residue management and tillage effects on soil-water storage andgrain yield of dryland wheat and sorghum for a clay loam in Texas[J]. Soil and TillageResearch,2002,68:71-82.
Blevins R, Thmas G W, Smith M S, Frye W W. Changes in soil properties after10yearscontinuous Non-tilled and conventionally tilled com[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,1983,3:135-146.
Caesar-TonThat T C, Lenssen A W, Caesar, A J, Sainju U M, Gaskin J F.. Effects of tillage onmicrobial populations associated to soil aggregation in dryland spring wheat system[J].European Journal of Soil Biology,2010,46:119-127.
Campell C A, Cameron D R. Effeets of fertilize N and soil moisture on growth, N content andmoisture use by spring wheat[J]. Canadian Journal of Soil Science,1977,57:259-320.
Carter M R, Sanderson J B, Ivany J A, White R P. Influence of rotation and tillage on foragemaize productivity weed species and soil quality of a fine sandy loam in the cool-humidclimate of Atlantic Canada[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2002,67:85-98.
Chen H Q, Hou R X, Gong Y S, Li H W, Fan M S, Kuzyakov Y. Effects of11years ofconservation tillage on soil organic matter fractions in wheat monoculture in LoessPlateau of China[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2009,106:85-94.
Dang T H, Cai G X, Guo S L, Hao M D, Heng L K. Effect of nitrogen management on yieldand water use efficiency of rainfed wheat and maize in Northwest China[J]. Pedosphere,2006,16:495-504.
De Vita P, Di Paolo E, Fecondo G, Di Fonzo N, Pisante M. No-tillage and conventional tillageeffects on durum wheat yield, grain quality and soil moisture content in southern Italy[J].Soil and Tillage Rsearch,2007,92:69-78.
De Giorgio D, Montemurro F. Nutritional status and nitrogen utilization efficiency of durumwheat in a semiarid Mediterranean environment[J]. Agric Mediterranea,2006,160:91-101.
Delaune P B, Sij J W. Impact of tillage on runoff in long term no-till wheat systems[J]. Soiland Tillage Research,2012,124:32-35.
Despo K P, Gagianas A A. Nitrogen and dry matter accumulation, remobilization, and lossesfor Mediterranean wheat during grain filling[J]. Agronomy Journal,1991,83:864–870.
Doehlert D C, Kuo T M, Felker F C. Enzymes of sucrose and hexose metabolism indeveloping kernels of two inbreds of maize[J]. Plant Physiology,1988,86:1013-1019.
Ercoli L, Lulli L, Mariotti M, Masoni A, Arduini I. Post-anthesis dry matter and nitrogendynamics in durum wheat as affected by nitrogen supply and soil water availability[J].European Journal of Agronomy,2008,28(2),138-147.
Fabrizzi K P, Garc a F O, Costa J L, Picone L I. Soil water dynamics, physical properties andcorn and wheat responses to minimum and no-tillage systems in the southern Pampas ofArgentina. Soil and Tillage Research,2005,81:57-69.
Fan J, Hao M D, Malhi S. S. Accumulation of nitrate-N in the soil profile and its implicationsfor the environment under dryland agriculture in northern China: A review[J]. CanadianJournal of Soil Science,2010,90:429-440.
Fan J, Hao M D, Shao M A. Nitrate accumulation in soil profile of dry land farming inNorthwest China[J]. Pedosphere,2003,13(4):367-374.
Fan T L, Steward B A, Wang Y, Luo J J, Zhou G Y. Long-term fertilization effects on grainyield, water use efficiency and soil fertility in the dryland of Loess Plateau in China[J].Agricuture Ecosystem and Environment,2005,106:313-329.
Fang Q, Ma L, Yu Q, Ahuja L R, Malone R W, Hoogenboom G. Irrigation strategies toimprove the water use efficiency of wheat–maize double cropping systems in North ChinaPlain[J]. Agricultural Water Management,2010,97:1165-1174.
Ferrise R, Triossi A, Stratonovitch P, Bindi M, Martre P. Sowing date and nitrogen fertilisationeffects on dry matter and nitrogen dynamics for durum wheat: An experimental andsimulation study[J]. Field Crops Research,2010,117:245-257.
Foulkes M J, Scott R K, Sylvester-Bradley R. The ability of wheat cultivars to withstanddrought in UK conditions: formation of grain yield[J]. The Journal of AgricultureScience,2002,138:153-169.
Gao Y J, Li Y, Zhang J C, Liu W G, Dang Z P, Cao W X, Qiang Q. Effects of mulch, Nfertilizer, and plant density on wheat yield, wheat nitrogen uptake, and residual soilnitrate in a dryland area of China[J]. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,2009,85:109-121.
Gevrek M N, Atasoy G D. Effect of post anthesis drought on certain agronomicalcharacteristics of wheat under two different nitrogen application conditions[J]. TurkishJournal of Field Crops,2012,17:19-23.
Govaerts B, Sayre K D, Deckers J. Stable high yields with zero tillage and permanent bedplanting?[J]. Field Crops Research,2005,94:33-42.
Halvorson A D, Nielsen D C, Reule C A. Nitrogen fertilization and rotation effects on no-tilldryland wheat production[J]. Agronomy Journal,2004,96(4):1196-1201.
Khan I M, Jan A, Hussain N, Jan M T, Qadoos M. Rainfed wheat response to tillage andnitrogen[J]. Sarhad J. Agric,2011,27(4):519-523.
He J, Li H W,Wang X Y, McHugh A D, Li W Y, Gao H W, Kuhn N J. The adoption of annualsubsoiling as conservation tillage in dryland maize and wheat cultivation in northernChina[J]. Soil and Tillage Rearch,2007,94:493-502.
Heitholt J J. Water use effieiency and dry matter distribution in nitrogen and water stressedwinter wheat[J]. Agronomy Journal,1989,51:464-469.
Hemmat A, Eskandari I. Tillage system effects upon productivity of a dryland winterwheat–chickpea rotation in the northwest region of Iran[J].Soil and Tillage Rearch,2004,78:69-81.
Hemmat A, Eskandari I. Dryland winter wheat response to conservation tillage in acontinuous cropping system in northwestern Iran[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2006,86:99-109.
Hou X Q, Li R, Jia Z K, Han Q F, Wang W, Yang B P. Effects of rotational tillage practiceson soil properties, winter wheat yields and water-use efficiency in semi-arid areas ofnorth-west China[J]. Field Crops Research,2012,129:7-13.
Hu C, Saseendran S A, Green T R, Ma L, Li X, Ahuja L R. Evaluating nitrogen and watermanagement in a double-cropping system using RZWQM[J]. Vadose Zone Journal,2006,5(1):493-505.
Huang G. B, Zhang R Z, Li G D, Li L L, Chan K Y, Heenan D P, Chen W, Unkovich M J,Robertson M J, Cullis B R, Bellotti W D. Productivity and sustainability of a springwheat–field pea rotation in a semi-aridenvironment under conventional and conservationtillage systems[J]. Feild Crop Resesrch,2008,107:43-55.
Izumi Y, Yoshida T, Iijima M. Effects of subsoiling to the non-tilled field of wheat-soybeanrotation on the root system development, water uptake, and yield[J]. Plant ProductionScience,2009,12:327-335.
Johnson-Maynard J L, Umiker K J, Guy S O. Earthworm dynamics and soil physicalproperties in the first three years of no-tillage management[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2007,94:338-345.
Khaledian M R, Mailhol J C, Ruelle P, Mubarak I. Impacts of direct seeding into mulch on theyield, water use efficiency and nitrogen dynamics of corn, sorghum and durum wheat[J].Irrigation and Drainage,2012,61:398-409.
Kang S Z, Zhang L, Liang Y L, Hu X T, Cai H J, Gu B J. Effects of limited irrigation on fieldand water use efficiency of winter wheat in the Loess Plateau of China[J]. AgriculturalWater Management,2002,55:203-216.
Koch H J, Stochfisch N. Loss of soil organic matter upon ploughing under a loess soil afterseveral years of conservation tillage[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2006,86:73-83.
Kong F L, Cai W T, Shi L G, Chen F. The Characteristics of Annual Water Consumption forWinter Wheat and Summer Maize in North China Plain[J]. Procedia Engineering,2012,28:376-381.
Krobel R, Campbell C A, Zentner R P, Lemke R, Steppuhn H, Desjardins R L, Jong R De.Nitrogen and phosphorus effects on water use efficiency of spring wheat grown in asemi-arid region of the Canadian prairies[J]. Canadian Journal of Soil Science,2012,92:573-587.
Kumar, S, Sharma, P K, Anderson S H, Saroch, K. Tillage and rice-wheat cropping sequenceinfluences on some soil physical properties and wheat yield under water deficitconditions[J]. Open Journal of Soil Science,2012,2:71-81.
Li Q Q, Chen Y H, Liu M Y, Zhou X B, Yu S L, Dong B D. Effects of irrigation and plantingpatterns on radiation use efficiency and yield of winter wheat in North China[J].Agricultural Water Management,2008,95:469-476.
Li Y J, Huang M. Effects of tillage managements on soil rapidly available nutrient content andthe yield of winter wheat in West Henan province, China[J]. Procedia. Environmental.Sciences,2011,11,843-849.
Liao L J, Zhang L, Bengtsson L. Soil moisture variation and water consumption of springwheat and their effects on crop yield under drip irrigation[J]. Irrigation and DrainageSystems,2008,22(3-4):253-270.
Liu X J, Ju X T, Zhang F S, Pan J R, Christie P. Nitrogen dynamics and budgets in a winterwheat-maize cropping system in the North China Plain[J]. Field Crop Research,2003,83(2):111-124.
Lopez-Bellido L, Lopez-Bellido R J, Redondo R. Nitrogen efficiency in wheat under rainfedMediterranean conditions as affected by split nitrogen application[J]. Field Crop Research,2005,94:86-97.
Lopez-Bellido R J, Lopez-Bellido L. Efficiency of nitrogen in wheat under Mediterraneanconditions: effect of tillage, crop rotation and N fertilization[J]. Field Crops Research,2001,71:31-46.
Loutfy N, El-Tayeb M A, Hassanen A M, Moustafa, Mahmoud F M, Sakuma Y, Inouhe M.Changes in the water status and osmotic solute contents in response to drought and salicylicacid treatments in four different cultivars of wheat (Triticum aestivum)[J]. Journal of PlantResearch,2012,125:173-184.
Macmaster G S, Palic D B, Dunn G H. Soil management alters seedling emergence andsubsequent autumn growth and yield in dryland winter wheat-fallow systems in theCentral Great Plains ona clay loam soil[J]. Soil and Tillage Rearch,2002,65:193-206.
Mahler R L, Koehler F E, Luteher L K. Nitrogen soure, timing of applieation, and placementeffeets on winter wheat produetion[J]. Agronomy Journal,1994,86:637-642.
Mahmood S, Abid R, Yasin G, Arif H, Irshad A. Growth and yield parameters as potentialindicators of selection for moisture deficit tolerance in some Pakistani wheat (Triticumaestivum L.) cultivars[J]. African Journal of Agricultural Research,2012,7:782-789.
Mainard S D, Jeuffroy M H. Partitioning of dry matter and nitrogen to the spike throughoutthe spike growth period in wheat crops subjected to nitrogen deficiency[J]. Field CropsResearch,2001,70:153-165.
Martínez I G, Prat C, Ovalle C, Pozo A del, Stolpe N, Zagal E. Subsoiling improvesconservation tillage in cereal production of severely degraded Alfisols under Mediterraneanclimate[J]. Geoderma,2012,189-190:10-17.
Masoni A, Ercoli L, Mariotti M, Arduini I. Post-anthesis accumulation and remobilization of dry matter,nitrogen and phosphorus in durum wheat as affected by soil type[J]. European Journal of Agronomy,2007,26:179-186.
Matthews A M, Armstrong A C, Leeds-Harrison P B. Development and testing of a model forpredicting tillage effects on nitrate leaching from cracked clay soils[J]. Soil and TillageResearch,2000,53:245-254.
Miller P R, Holmes J A. Short Communicaiton: Comparative soil water use by annual crops ata semiarid site in Montana[J]. Canadian Journal of Plant Science,2012,92:803-807.
Miranzadeh H, Emam Y, Pilesj P, Seyyedi H. Water use efficiency of four dryland wheatcultivars under different levels of nitrogen fertilization[J]. Journal of Agricultural Scienceand Technology,2011,13:843-854.
Moll R H, Kamprath E J, Jackson W A. Analysis and interpretation of is factors whichcontribute to efficiency of nitrogen utilization. Agronomy Journal,1982,74:562-564.
Mori M, Inagaki M N. Root development and water-uptake under water deficit stress indrought-adaptive wheat genotypes[J]. Cereal Research Communicaiton,2012,40:44-52.
Motavalli P P, Stevens W E, Hartwig G. Remediation of subsoil compaction and compactioneffects on corn N availability by deep tillage and application of poultry manure in asandy-textured soil[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2003,71,121-131.
Mu oz-Romero V, Benítez-Vega J, López-Bellido R J, Fontán J M, López-Bellido L. Effect oftillage system on the root growth of spring wheat[J]. Plant Soil,2010,326:97-107.
Musick J T, Jones O R, Stewart B A, Dusek D A.Water-yield relationship for irrigated anddryland wheat in the U.S. southern plains[J]. Agronomy Journal,1994,86(6):980-986.
Nazirbay I, Yulduz D, Jumanazar R, Ruzumbay E, Clemens S, Kirsten K, John P A, LamersM B. Optimal Irrigation and N-fertilizer management for sustainable winter wheatproduction in Khorezm, Uzbekistan[J]. Cotton, Water, Salts and Soums,2012,11:171-180.
Nielsen D C, Vigil M F. Legume green fallow effect on soil water content at wheat plantingand wheat yield[J]. Agronomy Journal,2005,97(3):684-689.
Ozpinar S.Effects of tillage systems on weed population and economics for winter wheatproduction under the Mediterranean dryland conditions[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2006,87:1-8.
Papakosta, D.K., Gagianas, A.A.1991. Nitrogen and dry matter accumulation, translocation,and losses for Mediterranean wheat during grain filling[J]. Agronomy Journal,1991,83,864-870.
Przulj N, Momcilovic V. Genetic variation for dry matter and nitrogen assimilation andtranslocation in two-rowed spring barley Ⅱ. Nitrogen translocation[J]. European Journalof Agronomy,2001,15:255-265.
Putte A V, Govers G, Diels J, Langhans C, Clymans W, Vanuytrecht E, Merckx R, Raes, D.Soil functioning and conservation tillage in the Belgian Loam Belt[J]. Soil and TillageResearch122,1-11.
Rahimizadeh M, Kashani A, Zare-Feizabadi A, Koocheki A R, Nassiri-Mahallati M. Nitrogenuse efficiency of wheat as affected by preceding crop, application rate of nitrogen and cropresidues[J]. Australian Journal of Crop Science,2010,4(5):363-368.
Rajkannan B, Selvi D. Effect of tillage, organics and nitrogen on root behaviour and yield ofsorghum in soil with sub soil hardpan at shallow depth[J]. Journal of MaharashtraAgricultural Universities,2002,27:213-215.
Rizza F, Badeck F W, Cattivelli L, Lidestri O, Di Fonzo N, Stanca A M. Use of a water stressindex to identify barley genotypes adapted to rained and irrigated conditions[J]. CropScience,2004,44(6):2127-2137.
Roldán A, Caravaca F, Hernández M T, García C, Sánchez-Brito C, Velásquez M, Tiscare oM. No-tillage, crop residue additions and legume covercropping effects on soil qualitycharacteristics under maize in Patzcuaro watershed (Mexico)[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,2003,72:65-73.
Ryan J, Sommer R, Ibrikci H. Fertilizer best management practices: A perspective from thedryland West Asia-North Africa region[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,2012,198:57-67.
Sadeghi H, Bahrani M J. Effects of crop residue and nitrogen rates on yield and yieldcomponents of two dryland wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars[J]. Plant ProductionScience,2009,12(4):497-502.
Sadras V O, Lawson C, Hooper P, McDonald G K. Contribution of summer rainfall andnitrogen to the yield and water use efficiency of wheat in Mediterranean-typeenvironments of South Australia[J]. European Journal of Agronomy,2012,36:41-54.
Salima Y, Maria D S, Antonio J M, Jordi V, José L A. Combined use of δ13C, δ18O and δ15Ntracks nitrogen metabolism and genotypic adaptation of durum wheat to salinity and waterdeficit[J]. New Phytologist,2012,194:230-244.
Shama B R, Chaudhary T N. Wheat root growth, grain yield and water uptake as influencedby soil water regime and depth of nitrogen placement in a loamy sand soil[J].Agricultural Water Management,1983,6:365-373.
Shearman V J, Sylvester-Bradley R, Scott P K, Foulkes M J. Physiological processesassociated with wheat yield progress in the UK[J]. Crop Science,2005,45:175-185.
Sepaskhah A R, Azizian A, Tavakoli A R. Optimal applied water and nitrogen for winterwheat under variable seasonal rainfall and planning scenarios for consequent crops in asemi-arid region[J]. Agricultural Water Management,2006,84:113-122.
Shao H B, Liang Z S, Shao M G, Sun S M, Hu Z M. Investigation on dynamic changes ofphotosynthetic characteristics of10wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes during twovegetative-growth stages at water deficit[J]. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces,2005,43(3-4):221-227.
Sharipova G V, Veselov D S, Kudoyarova G R, Timergalin M D, Wilkinson S. Effect ofethylene perception inhibitor on growth, water relations, and abscisic acid content inwheat plants under water deficit[J]. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology,2012,59:573-580.
Sinclair T R, Pinter Jr P J, Kimball B A, Adamsen F J, LaMorte R L, Wall G W, Hunsaker D J,Adam N, Brooks T J, Garcia R L, Thompson T, Leavitt S, Matthias A. Leaf nitrogenconcentration of wheat subjected to elevated CO2and either water or N deficits[J].Agriculture Ecosystems Environment,2000,79:53-60.
Singh A K, Jain G L. Effect of sowing time, irrigation and nitrogen on grain yield and qualityof durum wheat(Triticum durum)[J]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2000,70(8):532-533.
Smith C J, Whitfield D M. Nitrogen accumulation and redistribution of late applied ofN15-labelled fertilizer by wheat[J]. Field Crop Research,1990,24(3-4):211-226.
Soon Y K., Malhi S S, Wang Z H, Brandt S, Schoenau J. Effect of seasonal rainfall, Nfertilizer and tillage on N utilization by dryland wheat in a semi-arid environment[J].Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems,2008,82:149-160.
Su Z Y, Zhang J S, Wu W L, Ca D X, Lv J J, Jiang G H, Huang J, Gao J, Hartmann R,Gabriels D. Effects of conservation tillage practices on winterwheat water-use efficiencyand crop yield on the Loess Plateau, China[J]. Agricultural Water Management,2007,87:307-314.
Sun H Y, Liu C M, Zhang X Y, Shen Y J, Zhang Y Q. Effects of irrigation on water balance,yield and WUE of winter wheat in the North China Plain[J]. Agricultural WaterManagement,2006,85:211218.
Tolk J A, Howell T A, Evett S R. Effect of mulch, irrigation and soil type on water use andyield of maize[J]. Soil and Tillage Research,1999,50:137-147.
Tsai-Mei Ou-Lee, Setter T L. Enzymes of increased temperature in apical regions of Maizeears on starch-synthesis enzymes and accumulation of sugars and starch[J]. PlantPhysiology,1985,79:852-855.
Wahl N A, Bens O, Buczko U, Hangen E, Huttl R F. Effects of conventional and conservationtillage on soil hydraulic properties of a silty-loamy soil[J]. Physics and Chemistry of theEarth,2004,29:821-829.
Wang Q, Li F R, Zhao L, Zhang E H, Shi S L, Zhao W Z, Song W X, Vance M M. Effects ofirrigation and nitrogen application rates on nitrate nitrogen distribution and fertilizernitrogen loss, wheat yield and nitrogen uptake on a recently reclaimed sandy farmland[J].Plant and Soil,2010,337:325-339.
Wang X B, Wu H J, Dai K, Zhang D C, Feng Z H, Zhao Q S, Wu X P, Jin K, Cai D X,Oenema O, Hoogmoed W B. Tillage and crop residue effects on rainfed wheat and maizeproduction in northern China[J]. Field Crops Research,2012,132:106-116.
Wardlaw I F, Willenbrink J. Carbonhydrate stronge and mobilization by the culm of wheatbetween heading and grain maturity: The relation to sucrose synthase andsucrose-phosphate synthase[J]. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology,1994,21:251-271.
Wasson A P, Richards R A, Chatrath R, Misra S C, Sai Prasad, S V, Rebetzke G J,Kirkegaard J A, Christopher J, Wattl M. Traits and selection strategies to improve rootsystems and water uptake in water-limited wheat crops[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany,2012,63:3485-3498.
Williams J D, Wuest S B, Schillinger W F, Gollany H T. Rotary subsoiling newly plantedwinter wheat fields to improve infiltration in frozen soil. Soil and Tillage Research,2006.86,141-151.
Xu Z Z, Yu Z W, Wang D, and Zhang Y L. Nitrogen accumulation and translocation for winterwheat under diferent irrigation regimes[J]. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,2005,191:439-449.
Xue X H, Hao M D. Nitrate leaching on loess soils in north-west China: Appropriate fertilizerrates for winter wheat[J]. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil and PlantScience,2011,61(3):253-263.
Yang J C, Zhang J H, Wang Z Q, Zhu Q S, Liu L J. Water deficit-induced senescence and itsrelationship to the remobilizaiton of pre-stored carbon in wheat during grain filling[J].Agronomy Journal,2001,93:196-206.
Zeng S C, Su Z Y, Chen B G, Wu Q T, Ouyang Y. Nitrogen and Phosphorus runof losses fromorchard soils in South China as afected by fertilization depths and rates[J]. Pedosphere,2008,18(1):45-53.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |