欢迎访问《棉花学报》! 今天是

棉花学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5): 425-437.doi: 10.11963/1002-7807.qhklzh.20200729

• 化学调控 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同棉区棉花DPC化学封顶技术研究

齐海坤1,王赛1,徐东永2,路正营3, 赵文超4,郝延杰5,张祥6,李蔚7,韩焕勇8,汪江涛9,王洪这2,陈洪章10,王林11,杜明伟1,田晓莉1*,李召虎1*
  

  1. 1.中国农业大学农学院作物化控研究中心/植物生长调节剂教育部工程研究中心,北京100193;2.河北省棉花种子工程技术研究中心,河北 河间0624502;3.邯郸市农业科学院,河北 邯郸056001;4.德州市农业科学研究院,山东 德州253000;5.滨州市农业机械化科学研究所,山东 滨州256600;6.扬州大学农学院,江苏 扬州225009;7.黄冈市农业科学院,湖北 黄冈438000;8.新疆农垦科学院棉花研究所,新疆 石河子832000;9.石河子大学农学院,新疆 石河子832000; 10.新疆守信种业科技有限责任公司,新疆 沙雅842200;11.新疆生产建设兵团农业技术推广总站,乌鲁木齐830001
  • 收稿日期:2019-08-14 出版日期:2020-09-15 发布日期:2020-10-09
  • 通讯作者: 田晓莉:tian_xiaoli@126.com,李召虎:lizhaohu@cau.edu.cn
  • 作者简介:齐海坤(1990―),男,博士研究生,1379105170@qq.com, ORCID:0000-0002-3517-4401
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划项目(2017YFD0201300);新疆生产建设兵团科技攻关项目(2018AB039)

Cotton Chemical Topping by Applying DPC in Different Cotton-Growing Regions 

Qi Haikun1, Wang Sai1, Xu Dongyong2, Lu Zhengying3, Zhao Wenchao4, Hao Yanjie5, Zhang Xiang6, Li Wei7, Han Huanyong8, Wang Jiangtao9, Wang Hongzhe2, Chen Hongzhang10, Wang Lin11, Du Mingwei1, Tian Xiaoli1, Li Zhaohu1   

  1. 1. Crop Chemical Control Research Center, College of Agricultural , China University/ Engineering Research Center of Plant Growth Regulator, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100193, China; 2. Research Center for Cotton Seed Engineering Technology, Hejian, Hebei 062450, China; 3. Handan Academy of Agricultural SciencesHandan, Hebei 056001,China; 4. Dezhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Dezhou, Shandong 253000, China; 5. Binzhou Agricultural Machinery Research InstituteBinzhou, Shandong 256600, China; 6. Agricultural College of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225001, China; 7. Huanggang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Huanggang, Hubei 438000, China; 8. Cotton Institute Ground, Xinjiang Academy Agricultural and Reclamation Science, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832000, China; 9. College of Agronomy, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang 832003, China; 10. Xinjiang Trustworthy Seed Industry Science and Technology Company of Limited Liability, Shaya, Xinjiang 842200, China; 11. Agricultural Technology Extension Station, Xinjiang Production and Construction Crops, Urumchi, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830001, China
  • Received:2019-08-14 Online:2020-09-15 Published:2020-10-09

摘要: 【目的】探讨应用98%甲哌鎓(1, 1-dimethyl-piperidinium chloride, DPC)粉剂(以下简称DPC)对棉花进行化学封顶的稳定性和普适性。【方法】于2018年在黄河流域棉区的河北河间、河北邯郸、山东德州、山东无棣,长江流域棉区的江苏大丰和湖北黄冈,北疆棉区的石河子Ⅰ和Ⅱ以及南疆棉区的轮台、沙雅共10个地点开展试验,供试棉花品种(系)为当地主栽品种(系)。采用随机区组设计,重复3~4次。在各地常规DPC系统化控技术的基础上,设早于人工打顶10 d(T1)、与人工打顶同期(T2)2个封顶时期,并设0、90、180、270 g·hm-2 4个DPC剂量,以人工打顶为第一对照,以不打顶为第二对照。【结果】DPC化学封顶时期显著影响株高(河北邯郸、山东无棣和山东德州除外)和果枝数(江苏大丰和湖北黄冈除外),表现为封顶早、控长作用强(植株较低,果枝数较少),封顶晚、控长作用弱(植株较高,果枝数较多)。河北河间和新疆石河子Ⅰ试验点T1期DPC化学封顶的平均株高不仅低于T2期,且分别较人工打顶低3.3 cm和4.6 cm。多数试验点T1期DPC化学封顶的果枝数较人工打顶每株增加2个左右,T2期增加较多,增加2.3~7.7。DPC封顶剂量越大,对株高的控长作用越强(湖北黄冈除外),中(180 g·hm-2)、高剂量(270 g·hm-2)DPC的株高在数个试验点甚至较人工打顶有不同程度的降低。清水对照的果枝数较人工打顶每株增加2.4~8.3,DPC化学封顶的果枝数显著少于清水对照,不同剂量之间的差异相对较小。河北邯郸T2期DPC化学封顶后遇高温干旱,与人工打顶相比铃数减少、产量显著降低;其他试验点DPC化学封顶除个别处理外对产量无显著影响。DPC化学封顶各处理喷施脱叶催熟剂前的吐絮率和一次花率不低于人工打顶,对熟期无不利影响。【结论】初步判断棉花应用DPC进行化学封顶具有较好的稳定性和普适性,生产中建议与人工打顶同期应用中、低剂量(90~180 g·hm-2)DPC进行化学封顶。

关键词: 棉花; 甲哌鎓; 化学封顶; 株高; 果枝数; 产量; 熟期

Abstract: [Objective] The objective of this study was to investigate the stability and universality of cotton chemical topping by applying mepiquat chloride (1,1-dimethyl-piperidinium chloride, DPC) in different cotton-growing regions. [Method] Field experiments were conducted in 2018 at 10 locations in the Yellow River basin (Hejian and Handan, Hebei province; Dezhou and Wudi, Shandong province), the Yangtze River basin (Dafeng, Jiangsu province; Huanggang, Hubei province), and Xinjiang area (Shihezi location I and loacation II, northern Xinjiang and Luntai and Shaya, southern Xinjiang). Local cultivars/lines were used, and the experiments were performed using a randomized complete block design with three or four replicates. Accompanied with typical DPC multi-application in each location, chemical topping was conducted at 10 days before manual topping (T1) or at the same time with manual topping (T2) by applying four dosages of DPC (0, 90, 180, 270 g·hm-2), manual topping was used as the first control and non-topping as the second control. [Result] The time of chemical topping significantly affected cotton plant height (except for the results in Handan, Dezhou and Wudi) and the number of fruit branches (except for the results in Dafeng and Huanggang). It was observed that earlier chemical topping would result in lower cotton plant height and a fewer fruit branches. In Hejian and Shihezi location I, the average plant height across DPC chemical topping at T1 stage was not only lower than that of T2 stage but also 3.3 cm and 4.6 cm lower than that of manual topping, respectively. In most locations, chemical topping at T1 stage increased around two fruit branches per plant compared with manual topping, while in T2 stage the increased fruit branches per plant ranged from 2.3 to 7.7. Also, we found that a higher dosage of DPC resulted in shorter plant height (except for that in Huanggang). In some locations, plant heights of chemical topping with 180 g·hm-2 or 270 g·hm-2 DPC were even shorter than that of manual topping. The number of fruit branches per plant of 0 g·hm-2 DPC increased by 2.4-8.3 compared with manual topping. However, chemical topping with 90-270 g·hm-2 DPC significantly reduced the number of fruit branches compared with 0 g·hm-2 DPC. There were no significant differences in the number of fruit branches among three DPC dosages (90, 180, and 270 g·hm-2). In Handan, seed cotton yield of chemical topping at T2 stage was significantly lower than that of manual topping due to the decreased boll number, which is possibly associated with the high temperature and drought weather after chemical topping. While at other locations, most treatments of chemical topping by using DPC did not produce significant effects on yield. In addition, chemical topping by using DPC did not delay cotton maturity, characterized by their similar boll-opening rate and the first harvest rate to those of manual topping before spraying harvest aids. [Conclusion] Cotton chemical topping with DPC is more stable and universal across different cotton-growing regions. We suggest that 90-180 g·hm-2 DPC could be used at the same time with manual topping for cotton chemical topping.

Key words: cotton; DPC; chemical topping; plant height; number of fruiting branches; yield; maturity