种植模式对敖汉苜蓿和老芒麦干物质积累及经济效益的影响
|
摘要
为区划农田牧草种植提供理论依据,在旱耕地条件下,以豆科牧草品种敖汉苜蓿和禾本科牧草老芒麦为材料,研究苜蓿单播、老芒麦单播、老芒麦与苜蓿2∶1混播对牧草各生育期的株高、茎秆干重、叶干重、地上植株总干重、产草量差异性和经济效益的影响。结果表明:在播种第1年刈割2次,在刈割期时,与单播种植模式相比,混播种植模式下老芒麦的株高增加8.93%,茎叶比增加63.55%,均在P<0.05水平下存在显著性差异,茎秆干重增加13.12%,叶片干重减少32.14%,植株干重减少1.51%;混播种植模式下敖汉苜蓿的株高减少27.49%,叶片干重增加13.39%,均在P<0.05水平下存在显著性差异,茎秆干重降低了3.30%,植株干重增加1.04%,茎叶比降低了8.09%;单播敖汉苜蓿当年干草总产量最高,为5 720.83 kg/hm~2,显著高于混播老芒麦+敖汉苜蓿(P<0.05)和极显著高于单播老芒麦(P<0.01),分别高出了16.46%和87.98%;单播敖汉苜蓿经济效益值为6 259.58元/hm~2,极显著高于混播老芒麦+敖汉苜蓿和单播老芒麦(P<0.01),分别高出了52.22%和889.67%。
Under the conditions of dry arable land, two forage species were selected as planting materials,which were Aohan Medicago sativa(Leguminous) and Elymus sibiricus(Gramineous), respectively. The effects of three classical planting patterns, including monoculture of Medicago sativa, monoculture of Elymus sibiricus and mixed sowing of Elymus sibiricus and Medicago sativa(E∶M=2∶1), on the plant characteristics and economic benefits were discussied. Detials were given for plant height, dry weight of stem, dry weight of leaves, total dry weight of aboveground, and total production during each growing season. The results showed that as the defoliation frequency was twice in the first sowing year, the plant height,stem-leaf ratio and dry weight of stem of Elymus sibiricus increased by 8.93%, 63.55% and 13.25%, respectively under the mixed sowing planting pattern compared with the monoculture planting pattern. Meanwhile, dry weight of leaves and plant weight decreased by 48.28% and 1.35%, respectively. The significant differences of all the above characteristics were at P <0.05 level. The dry weight of stem increased by 13.25%, the dry weight of leaves decreased by 48.28%, and the dry weight of plants decreased by 1.35%. In addition, the plant height, stem-leaf ratio, dry weight of leaves and dry weight ofstem of Aohan Medicago sativa decreased by 27.49%, 10.91%, 7.02% and 3.28% under the mixed sowing planting pattern,repectively, while plant dry weight increased by 1.04%. The significant differences of all the above characteristics were at P<0.05 level. Furthermore, Aohan Medicago sativa represented the highest total production with 5 720.83 kg/hm~2,which was significantly greater, by 16.46%, than that of mixed forage(P<0.05) and highly significantly greater, by 87.98%, than that of monoculture Elymus sibiricus(P<0.01). Aohan Medicago sativa represented the highest benefit value with 6 255.58 yuan/hm~2,which was highly significant greater by 52.22% and 559.66% than that of mixed forage(P <0.01) or monoculture Elymus sibiricus(P<0.01),respectively.
Under the conditions of dry arable land, two forage species were selected as planting materials,which were Aohan Medicago sativa(Leguminous) and Elymus sibiricus(Gramineous), respectively. The effects of three classical planting patterns, including monoculture of Medicago sativa, monoculture of Elymus sibiricus and mixed sowing of Elymus sibiricus and Medicago sativa(E∶M=2∶1), on the plant characteristics and economic benefits were discussied. Detials were given for plant height, dry weight of stem, dry weight of leaves, total dry weight of aboveground, and total production during each growing season. The results showed that as the defoliation frequency was twice in the first sowing year, the plant height,stem-leaf ratio and dry weight of stem of Elymus sibiricus increased by 8.93%, 63.55% and 13.25%, respectively under the mixed sowing planting pattern compared with the monoculture planting pattern. Meanwhile, dry weight of leaves and plant weight decreased by 48.28% and 1.35%, respectively. The significant differences of all the above characteristics were at P <0.05 level. The dry weight of stem increased by 13.25%, the dry weight of leaves decreased by 48.28%, and the dry weight of plants decreased by 1.35%. In addition, the plant height, stem-leaf ratio, dry weight of leaves and dry weight ofstem of Aohan Medicago sativa decreased by 27.49%, 10.91%, 7.02% and 3.28% under the mixed sowing planting pattern,repectively, while plant dry weight increased by 1.04%. The significant differences of all the above characteristics were at P<0.05 level. Furthermore, Aohan Medicago sativa represented the highest total production with 5 720.83 kg/hm~2,which was significantly greater, by 16.46%, than that of mixed forage(P<0.05) and highly significantly greater, by 87.98%, than that of monoculture Elymus sibiricus(P<0.01). Aohan Medicago sativa represented the highest benefit value with 6 255.58 yuan/hm~2,which was highly significant greater by 52.22% and 559.66% than that of mixed forage(P <0.01) or monoculture Elymus sibiricus(P<0.01),respectively.
引文
[1]董全民,施建军,马玉寿,等.人工调控措施下黑土滩人工草地的经济及生态效益分析[J].草地学报,2011,19(2):195-201.
[2]李泰君,陈加国.人工草地生态经济效益与高效建植管理模式研究[J].安徽农学通报,2009,15(9):83-85.
[3]曹仲华,魏军,杨富裕,等.人工草地在西藏的地位与发展前景[J].草业与畜牧,2007(4):49-52.
[4]洪绂曾,卢欣石,高洪文.苜蓿科学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2009.
[5]魏臻武,符昕,曹致中,等.苜蓿生长特性和产草量关系的研究[J].草业学报,2007(4):1-8.
[6]赵艳,魏臻武,吕林有,等.苜蓿根系生长性状及其与产草量关系的研究[J].草原与草坪,2008(6):1-4.
[7]张忠林,彭桂峰,田卫东,等.杂草稻种质资源农艺性状的主成分及聚类分析[J].西南农业学报,2004(S1):236-240.
[8]包爱科,王强龙,张金林,等.苜蓿基因工程研究进展[J].分子植物育种,2007(S1):160-168.
[9]韩路,贾志宽,韩清芳,等.紫花苜蓿主要性状的对应分析[J].中国草地,2003(5):39-43.
[10]明道绪.田间试验与统计分析(第二版)[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
[11]黄新善,张东鸿,刘晓霞,等.高寒干旱地区紫花苜蓿引种试验[J].中国草地,2002(6):71-73.
[12]毛培胜,韩建国,吴喜才.收获时间对老芒麦种子产量的影响[J].草地学报,2003(1):33-37.
[13]王亚玲,李晓芳,师尚礼,等.紫花苜蓿生产性能构成因子分析与评价[J].中国草地学报,2007(5):8-15.
[14]GENG H,AN KAI X U,LUAN B Y,et al.Analysis of the Yield Traits and the Study on Phenotypic Selection of Medicago[J].Prataculture&Animal Husbandry,2013(6):14-15.
[15]向清华,邓蓉,张定红,等.通径分析在紫花苜蓿农艺性状分析中的应用[J].贵州畜牧兽医,2010,34(5):44-45.
[16]刘东霞,刘贵河,杨志敏.种植及收获因子对紫花苜蓿干草产量和茎叶比的影响[J].草业学报,2015,24(3):48-57.
[17]潘正武,卓玉璞.高寒牧区多年生人工草地混播组合试验[J].草业科学,2007(11):53-55.
[18]ERCOLI L,MARIOTTI M,MASONI A,et al.Effect of irrigationand nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and efficiency ofenergy use in crop production of Miscanthus[J].Field Crops Research,1999,63:3-11.
[19]李富春,王琦,张登奎,等.坡地打结垄沟集雨对水土流失、紫花苜蓿干草产量和水分利用效率的影响[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(1):147-156.
[20]白音仓.不同播种方式及比例对紫花苜蓿和老芒麦混播草地的影响[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2011.
[21]庞丹波,李生宝,潘占兵,等.紫花苜蓿混播研究进展[J].安徽农业科学,2014,42(27):9395-9397.
[22]包乌云,赵萌莉,徐军.苜蓿与禾本科牧草的混播效果[J].草业科学,2013,30(11):1782-1789.
[2]李泰君,陈加国.人工草地生态经济效益与高效建植管理模式研究[J].安徽农学通报,2009,15(9):83-85.
[3]曹仲华,魏军,杨富裕,等.人工草地在西藏的地位与发展前景[J].草业与畜牧,2007(4):49-52.
[4]洪绂曾,卢欣石,高洪文.苜蓿科学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2009.
[5]魏臻武,符昕,曹致中,等.苜蓿生长特性和产草量关系的研究[J].草业学报,2007(4):1-8.
[6]赵艳,魏臻武,吕林有,等.苜蓿根系生长性状及其与产草量关系的研究[J].草原与草坪,2008(6):1-4.
[7]张忠林,彭桂峰,田卫东,等.杂草稻种质资源农艺性状的主成分及聚类分析[J].西南农业学报,2004(S1):236-240.
[8]包爱科,王强龙,张金林,等.苜蓿基因工程研究进展[J].分子植物育种,2007(S1):160-168.
[9]韩路,贾志宽,韩清芳,等.紫花苜蓿主要性状的对应分析[J].中国草地,2003(5):39-43.
[10]明道绪.田间试验与统计分析(第二版)[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
[11]黄新善,张东鸿,刘晓霞,等.高寒干旱地区紫花苜蓿引种试验[J].中国草地,2002(6):71-73.
[12]毛培胜,韩建国,吴喜才.收获时间对老芒麦种子产量的影响[J].草地学报,2003(1):33-37.
[13]王亚玲,李晓芳,师尚礼,等.紫花苜蓿生产性能构成因子分析与评价[J].中国草地学报,2007(5):8-15.
[14]GENG H,AN KAI X U,LUAN B Y,et al.Analysis of the Yield Traits and the Study on Phenotypic Selection of Medicago[J].Prataculture&Animal Husbandry,2013(6):14-15.
[15]向清华,邓蓉,张定红,等.通径分析在紫花苜蓿农艺性状分析中的应用[J].贵州畜牧兽医,2010,34(5):44-45.
[16]刘东霞,刘贵河,杨志敏.种植及收获因子对紫花苜蓿干草产量和茎叶比的影响[J].草业学报,2015,24(3):48-57.
[17]潘正武,卓玉璞.高寒牧区多年生人工草地混播组合试验[J].草业科学,2007(11):53-55.
[18]ERCOLI L,MARIOTTI M,MASONI A,et al.Effect of irrigationand nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and efficiency ofenergy use in crop production of Miscanthus[J].Field Crops Research,1999,63:3-11.
[19]李富春,王琦,张登奎,等.坡地打结垄沟集雨对水土流失、紫花苜蓿干草产量和水分利用效率的影响[J].水土保持学报,2018,32(1):147-156.
[20]白音仓.不同播种方式及比例对紫花苜蓿和老芒麦混播草地的影响[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2011.
[21]庞丹波,李生宝,潘占兵,等.紫花苜蓿混播研究进展[J].安徽农业科学,2014,42(27):9395-9397.
[22]包乌云,赵萌莉,徐军.苜蓿与禾本科牧草的混播效果[J].草业科学,2013,30(11):1782-1789.