Rice Science ›› 2016, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (3): 132-143.DOI: 10.1016/j.rsci.2015.11.003
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
Chun-huo Zhou1, Zun-kang Zhao2, Xiao-hua Pan1(), Shan Huang1, Xue-ming Tan1, Jian-fu Wu1, Qing-hua Shi1
Received:
2015-09-11
Accepted:
2015-11-13
Online:
2016-06-08
Published:
2016-02-04
Chun-huo Zhou, Zun-kang Zhao, Xiao-hua Pan, Shan Huang, Xue-ming Tan, Jian-fu Wu, Qing-hua Shi. Integration of Growing Milk Vetch in Winter and Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Can Improve Rice Yield in Double-Rice Cropping System[J]. Rice Science, 2016, 23(3): 132-143.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
Treatment | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P2O5 | K2O | N | P2O5 | K2O | N | P2O5 | K2O | ||||
MRR | 122.7 | 72 | 180 | 86.7 | 72 | 180 | 119.6 | 72 | 180 | |||
FRR | 180 | 72 | 180 | 180 | 72 | 180 | 180 | 72 | 180 |
Table 1 Chemical fertilizer application of different treatments on early rice. kg/hm2
Treatment | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P2O5 | K2O | N | P2O5 | K2O | N | P2O5 | K2O | ||||
MRR | 122.7 | 72 | 180 | 86.7 | 72 | 180 | 119.6 | 72 | 180 | |||
FRR | 180 | 72 | 180 | 180 | 72 | 180 | 180 | 72 | 180 |
Year | Season | Sowing date | Transplanting date |
---|---|---|---|
(Month-Day) | (Month-Day) | ||
2010 | Early rice | 3月27日 | 4月27日 |
Late rice | 6月26日 | 7月25日 | |
2011 | Early rice | 3月28日 | 4月28日 |
Late rice | 6月29日 | 7月30日 | |
2012 | Early rice | 3月25日 | 4月26日 |
Late rice | 6月25日 | 7月26日 |
Table 2 Sowing and transplanting time of early and late rice.
Year | Season | Sowing date | Transplanting date |
---|---|---|---|
(Month-Day) | (Month-Day) | ||
2010 | Early rice | 3月27日 | 4月27日 |
Late rice | 6月26日 | 7月25日 | |
2011 | Early rice | 3月28日 | 4月28日 |
Late rice | 6月29日 | 7月30日 | |
2012 | Early rice | 3月25日 | 4月26日 |
Late rice | 6月25日 | 7月26日 |
Year | Season | Treatment | Yield (kg/hm2) | PN (× 104/hm2) | SPP | SSR (%) | TGW (g) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | Early rice | MRR | 7 653 ± 104 a | 397 ± 8.7 a | 130 ± 3.2 a | 77.0 ± 2.1 b | 27.9 ± 0.4 a |
FRR | 7 416 ± 119 a | 342 ± 12.9 b | 128 ± 4.9 a | 87.0 ± 4.6 a | 27.4 ± 2.8 a | ||
Late rice | MRR | 7 970 ± 134 a | 283 ± 9.1 a | 151 ± 2.9 a | 82.2 ± 1.3 a | 22.2 ± 0.1 a | |
FRR | 7 654 ± 69 b | 287 ± 5.3 a | 147 ± 4.8 a | 85.4 ± 2.8 a | 20.4 ± 0.3 a | ||
2011 | Early rice | MRR | 8 588 ± 159 a | 464 ± 18.4 a | 94 ± 1.7 a | 93.0 ± 1.7 b | 28.5 ± 0.9 a |
FRR | 8 459 ± 102 a | 430 ± 7.2 b | 93 ± 1.8 a | 96.1 ± 2.7 a | 29.0 ± 3.6 a | ||
Late rice | MRR | 9 783 ± 120 a | 421 ± 3.3 a | 165 ± 8.1 a | 73.8 ± 0.2 b | 23.5 ± 0.3 a | |
FRR | 9 353 ± 66 b | 401 ± 5.3 b | 153 ± 1.4 b | 75.7 ± 1.5 a | 23.6 ± 0.2 a | ||
2012 | Early rice | MRR | 9 437 ± 102 a | 391 ± 5.3 a | 110 ± 2.1 a | 84.5 ± 1.1 b | 29.1 ± 0.1 a |
FRR | 8 162 ± 78 b | 337 ± 7.3 b | 101 ± 2.1 b | 88.2 ± 1.3 a | 29.1 ± 0.1 a | ||
Late rice | MRR | 10 079 ± 110 a | 393 ± 4.2 a | 114 ± 3.3 a | 82.8 ± 2.4 b | 22.9 ± 1.0 a | |
FRR | 8 281 ± 87 b | 373 ± 8.2 b | 102 ± 1.9 b | 86.7 ± 1.7 a | 22.4 ± 2.4 a |
Table 3 Rice yield and yield components of different treatments (Mean ± SD, n = 3).
Year | Season | Treatment | Yield (kg/hm2) | PN (× 104/hm2) | SPP | SSR (%) | TGW (g) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | Early rice | MRR | 7 653 ± 104 a | 397 ± 8.7 a | 130 ± 3.2 a | 77.0 ± 2.1 b | 27.9 ± 0.4 a |
FRR | 7 416 ± 119 a | 342 ± 12.9 b | 128 ± 4.9 a | 87.0 ± 4.6 a | 27.4 ± 2.8 a | ||
Late rice | MRR | 7 970 ± 134 a | 283 ± 9.1 a | 151 ± 2.9 a | 82.2 ± 1.3 a | 22.2 ± 0.1 a | |
FRR | 7 654 ± 69 b | 287 ± 5.3 a | 147 ± 4.8 a | 85.4 ± 2.8 a | 20.4 ± 0.3 a | ||
2011 | Early rice | MRR | 8 588 ± 159 a | 464 ± 18.4 a | 94 ± 1.7 a | 93.0 ± 1.7 b | 28.5 ± 0.9 a |
FRR | 8 459 ± 102 a | 430 ± 7.2 b | 93 ± 1.8 a | 96.1 ± 2.7 a | 29.0 ± 3.6 a | ||
Late rice | MRR | 9 783 ± 120 a | 421 ± 3.3 a | 165 ± 8.1 a | 73.8 ± 0.2 b | 23.5 ± 0.3 a | |
FRR | 9 353 ± 66 b | 401 ± 5.3 b | 153 ± 1.4 b | 75.7 ± 1.5 a | 23.6 ± 0.2 a | ||
2012 | Early rice | MRR | 9 437 ± 102 a | 391 ± 5.3 a | 110 ± 2.1 a | 84.5 ± 1.1 b | 29.1 ± 0.1 a |
FRR | 8 162 ± 78 b | 337 ± 7.3 b | 101 ± 2.1 b | 88.2 ± 1.3 a | 29.1 ± 0.1 a | ||
Late rice | MRR | 10 079 ± 110 a | 393 ± 4.2 a | 114 ± 3.3 a | 82.8 ± 2.4 b | 22.9 ± 1.0 a | |
FRR | 8 281 ± 87 b | 373 ± 8.2 b | 102 ± 1.9 b | 86.7 ± 1.7 a | 22.4 ± 2.4 a |
Fig. 1. Total tillering number of rice.A, Early rice in 2010; B, Late rice in 2010; C, Early rice in 2011; D, Late rice in 2011. ANOVA was conducted among different treatments at the same growth stage. Vertical error bars are the standard error of means (n = 4). Different lowercase letters indicate significance at the 0.05 level.
Fig. 2. Dynamics of rice leaf area index.A, Early rice in 2010; B, Late rice in 2010; C, Early rice in 2011; D, Late rice in 2011. FTS, Full tillering stage; BS, Booting stage; FHS, Full heading stage; MS, Maturity stage.ANOVA was conducted among different treatments at the same growth stage. Vertical error bars are the standard error of means (n = 4). Different lowercase letters indicate significance at the 0.05 level.
Season | Treatment | FTS | BS | FHS | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R/S | RDW (g/hill) | R/S | RDW (g/hill) | R/S | RDW (g/hill) | |||||||||||
Early rice | MRR | 0.26 ± 0.02 a | 0.58 ± 0.06 b | 0.19 ± 0.03 a | 2.36 ± 0.25 a | 0.27 ± 0.01 a | 5.58 ± 0.82 a | |||||||||
FRR | 0.30 ± 0.03 a | 0.72 ± 0.04 a | 0.20 ± 0.01 a | 2.22 ± 0.29 a | 0.15 ± 0.01 b | 4.49 ± 0.28 b | ||||||||||
Late rice | MRR | 0.19 ± 0.02 a | 1.34 ± 0.13 a | 0.15 ± 0.02 a | 2.56 ± 0.23 a | 0.23 ± 0.01 a | 5.63 ± 0.35 a | |||||||||
FRR | 0.19 ± 0.01 a | 1.25 ± 0.08 a | 0.14 ± 0.01 a | 2.25 ± 0.18 a | 0.12 ± 0.02 b | 4.89 ± 0.34 b |
Table 4 Root/shoot ratio and dry weight of single hill rice root in different treatments in 2010 (Mean ± SD, n = 3).
Season | Treatment | FTS | BS | FHS | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R/S | RDW (g/hill) | R/S | RDW (g/hill) | R/S | RDW (g/hill) | |||||||||||
Early rice | MRR | 0.26 ± 0.02 a | 0.58 ± 0.06 b | 0.19 ± 0.03 a | 2.36 ± 0.25 a | 0.27 ± 0.01 a | 5.58 ± 0.82 a | |||||||||
FRR | 0.30 ± 0.03 a | 0.72 ± 0.04 a | 0.20 ± 0.01 a | 2.22 ± 0.29 a | 0.15 ± 0.01 b | 4.49 ± 0.28 b | ||||||||||
Late rice | MRR | 0.19 ± 0.02 a | 1.34 ± 0.13 a | 0.15 ± 0.02 a | 2.56 ± 0.23 a | 0.23 ± 0.01 a | 5.63 ± 0.35 a | |||||||||
FRR | 0.19 ± 0.01 a | 1.25 ± 0.08 a | 0.14 ± 0.01 a | 2.25 ± 0.18 a | 0.12 ± 0.02 b | 4.89 ± 0.34 b |
Year | Season | Treatment | Root dry weight in different soil layer depth (g/hill) | Total root dry weight | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0-5 cm | 5-10 cm | 10-20 cm | (g/hill) | ||||
2010 | Early rice | MRR | 3.72 ± 0.04 a | 3.35 ± 0.04 a | 0.59 ± 0.03 a | 7.66 ± 0.05 a | |
FRR | 2.82 ± 0.05 b | 2.58 ± 0.03 b | 0.19 ± 0.08 b | 5.59 ± 0.03 b | |||
Late rice | MRR | 3.63 ± 0.04 a | 3.64 ± 0.07 a | 0.54 ± 0.05 a | 7.81 ± 0.10 a | ||
FRR | 2.83 ± 0.21 b | 2.84 ± 0.08 b | 0.24 ± 0.08 b | 5.91 ± 0.26 b | |||
2011 | Early rice | MRR | 3.88 ± 0.09 a | 3.93 ± 0.06 a | 0.52 ± 0.01 a | 8.33 ± 0.03 a | |
FRR | 3.05 ± 0.06 b | 2.96 ± 0.18 b | 0.33 ± 0.04 b | 6.34 ± 0.14 b | |||
Late rice | MRR | 3.91 ± 0.07 a | 4.02 ± 0.04 a | 0.61 ± 0.03 a | 8.54 ± 0.25 a | ||
FRR | 3.08 ± 0.04 b | 3.11 ± 0.04 b | 0.37 ± 0.04 b | 6.56 ± 0.07 b |
Table 5 Root dry weight of rice at the maturity stage in various soil layers of different treatments in 2010 and 2011 (Mean ± SD, n = 3).
Year | Season | Treatment | Root dry weight in different soil layer depth (g/hill) | Total root dry weight | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0-5 cm | 5-10 cm | 10-20 cm | (g/hill) | ||||
2010 | Early rice | MRR | 3.72 ± 0.04 a | 3.35 ± 0.04 a | 0.59 ± 0.03 a | 7.66 ± 0.05 a | |
FRR | 2.82 ± 0.05 b | 2.58 ± 0.03 b | 0.19 ± 0.08 b | 5.59 ± 0.03 b | |||
Late rice | MRR | 3.63 ± 0.04 a | 3.64 ± 0.07 a | 0.54 ± 0.05 a | 7.81 ± 0.10 a | ||
FRR | 2.83 ± 0.21 b | 2.84 ± 0.08 b | 0.24 ± 0.08 b | 5.91 ± 0.26 b | |||
2011 | Early rice | MRR | 3.88 ± 0.09 a | 3.93 ± 0.06 a | 0.52 ± 0.01 a | 8.33 ± 0.03 a | |
FRR | 3.05 ± 0.06 b | 2.96 ± 0.18 b | 0.33 ± 0.04 b | 6.34 ± 0.14 b | |||
Late rice | MRR | 3.91 ± 0.07 a | 4.02 ± 0.04 a | 0.61 ± 0.03 a | 8.54 ± 0.25 a | ||
FRR | 3.08 ± 0.04 b | 3.11 ± 0.04 b | 0.37 ± 0.04 b | 6.56 ± 0.07 b |
Year | Season | Treatment | Transportation ratio of dry matter (%) | Transformation ratio of dry matter (%) | Photosynthetic potential | Photosynthetic potential/grain | Grain/leaf area | Total sink capacity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(× 104∙m2∙d) | ratio (m2∙d/grain) | ratio (grain/cm2) | (t/hm2) | |||||||||||
2010 | Early rice | MRR | 33.5 ± 2.9 a | 36.6 ± 0.3 a | 7.19 ± 1.92 a | 20.98 ± 2.33 a | 0.77 ± 0.04 b | 14.36 ± 0.99 a | ||||||
FRR | 33.0 ± 1.8 a | 35.5 ± 0.6 b | 6.06 ± 1.06 b | 20.72 ± 1.77 a | 0.91 ± 0.01 a | 12.03 ± 0.65 b | ||||||||
Late rice | MRR | 32.7 ± 2.3 a | 37.7 ± 1.0 a | 10.12 ± 1.25 a | 35.50 ± 1.01 a | 0.57 ± 0.01 b | 9.51 ± 0.76 a | |||||||
FRR | 30.3 ± 1.2 b | 36.3 ± 0.8 b | 8.42 ± 0.90 b | 29.94 ± 0.78 b | 0.68 ± 0.02 a | 8.59 ± 0.65 b | ||||||||
2011 | Early rice | MRR | 39.0 ± 1.4 a | 41.0 ± 2.7 a | 9.44 ± 0.56 a | 32.46 ± 0.25 a | 0.61 ± 0.00 a | 12.44 ± 0.19 a | ||||||
FRR | 36.8 ± 2.1 b | 35.0 ± 2.4 b | 8.26 ± 1.03 b | 31.10 ± 0.29 b | 0.64 ± 0.01 a | 11.56 ± 0.20 a | ||||||||
Late rice | MRR | 34.2 ± 2.6 a | 39.4 ± 4.2 a | 11.98 ± 1.16 a | 25.80 ± 2.34 a | 0.71 ± 0.03 a | 16.33 ± 1.44 a | |||||||
FRR | 29.1 ± 3.1 b | 32.7 ± 4.9 b | 10.48 ± 1.26 b | 25.63 ± 1.18 a | 0.75 ± 0.05 a | 14.46 ± 0.98 b |
Table 6 Transformation ratio of dry matter in clum and leaves and sink-source characteristics under different treatments from full heading to maturity stage of rice in 2010 and 2011 (Mean ± SD, n = 3).
Year | Season | Treatment | Transportation ratio of dry matter (%) | Transformation ratio of dry matter (%) | Photosynthetic potential | Photosynthetic potential/grain | Grain/leaf area | Total sink capacity | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(× 104∙m2∙d) | ratio (m2∙d/grain) | ratio (grain/cm2) | (t/hm2) | |||||||||||
2010 | Early rice | MRR | 33.5 ± 2.9 a | 36.6 ± 0.3 a | 7.19 ± 1.92 a | 20.98 ± 2.33 a | 0.77 ± 0.04 b | 14.36 ± 0.99 a | ||||||
FRR | 33.0 ± 1.8 a | 35.5 ± 0.6 b | 6.06 ± 1.06 b | 20.72 ± 1.77 a | 0.91 ± 0.01 a | 12.03 ± 0.65 b | ||||||||
Late rice | MRR | 32.7 ± 2.3 a | 37.7 ± 1.0 a | 10.12 ± 1.25 a | 35.50 ± 1.01 a | 0.57 ± 0.01 b | 9.51 ± 0.76 a | |||||||
FRR | 30.3 ± 1.2 b | 36.3 ± 0.8 b | 8.42 ± 0.90 b | 29.94 ± 0.78 b | 0.68 ± 0.02 a | 8.59 ± 0.65 b | ||||||||
2011 | Early rice | MRR | 39.0 ± 1.4 a | 41.0 ± 2.7 a | 9.44 ± 0.56 a | 32.46 ± 0.25 a | 0.61 ± 0.00 a | 12.44 ± 0.19 a | ||||||
FRR | 36.8 ± 2.1 b | 35.0 ± 2.4 b | 8.26 ± 1.03 b | 31.10 ± 0.29 b | 0.64 ± 0.01 a | 11.56 ± 0.20 a | ||||||||
Late rice | MRR | 34.2 ± 2.6 a | 39.4 ± 4.2 a | 11.98 ± 1.16 a | 25.80 ± 2.34 a | 0.71 ± 0.03 a | 16.33 ± 1.44 a | |||||||
FRR | 29.1 ± 3.1 b | 32.7 ± 4.9 b | 10.48 ± 1.26 b | 25.63 ± 1.18 a | 0.75 ± 0.05 a | 14.46 ± 0.98 b |
Year | Season | Treatment | SRBHS | SRBDAH | Nutrient uptake | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(mg/h) | (mg/h) | N | P2O5 | K2O | |||
2010 | Early rice | MRR | 1.28 ± 0.04 a | 0.67 ± 0.05 a | 167 ± 5.5 a | 50 ± 1.7 a | 196 ± 5.8 a |
FRR | 1.22 ± 0.01 a | 0.58 ± 0.03 b | 138 ± 3.1 b | 44 ± 1.9 b | 172 ± 4.8 b | ||
Late rice | MRR | 1.02 ± 0.05 a | 0.57 ± 0.03 a | 177 ± 3.9 a | 51 ± 1.3 a | 227 ± 7.2 a | |
FRR | 0.96 ± 0.06 a | 0.47 ± 0.04 b | 158 ± 2.1 b | 46 ± 2.1 b | 207 ± 4.9 b | ||
2011 | Early rice | MRR | 1.88 ± 0.10 a | 1.29 ± 0.12 a | 237 ± 6.5 a | 57 ± 2.6 a | 288 ± 8.1 a |
FRR | 1.73 ± 0.20 a | 1.02 ± 0.13 b | 211 ± 4.9 b | 51 ± 1.5 b | 258 ± 4.9 b | ||
Late rice | MRR | 1.18 ± 0.03 a | 0.80 ± 0.01 a | 218 ± 4.3 a | 57 ± 1.8 a | 278 ± 5.1 a | |
FRR | 1.14 ± 0.03 a | 0.73 ± 0.02 b | 184 ± 3.4 b | 52 ± 1.2 b | 233 ± 6.8 b |
Table 7 Spikelet-root bleeding intensity under different treatments in 2010 and 2011 (Mean ± SD, n = 3).
Year | Season | Treatment | SRBHS | SRBDAH | Nutrient uptake | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(mg/h) | (mg/h) | N | P2O5 | K2O | |||
2010 | Early rice | MRR | 1.28 ± 0.04 a | 0.67 ± 0.05 a | 167 ± 5.5 a | 50 ± 1.7 a | 196 ± 5.8 a |
FRR | 1.22 ± 0.01 a | 0.58 ± 0.03 b | 138 ± 3.1 b | 44 ± 1.9 b | 172 ± 4.8 b | ||
Late rice | MRR | 1.02 ± 0.05 a | 0.57 ± 0.03 a | 177 ± 3.9 a | 51 ± 1.3 a | 227 ± 7.2 a | |
FRR | 0.96 ± 0.06 a | 0.47 ± 0.04 b | 158 ± 2.1 b | 46 ± 2.1 b | 207 ± 4.9 b | ||
2011 | Early rice | MRR | 1.88 ± 0.10 a | 1.29 ± 0.12 a | 237 ± 6.5 a | 57 ± 2.6 a | 288 ± 8.1 a |
FRR | 1.73 ± 0.20 a | 1.02 ± 0.13 b | 211 ± 4.9 b | 51 ± 1.5 b | 258 ± 4.9 b | ||
Late rice | MRR | 1.18 ± 0.03 a | 0.80 ± 0.01 a | 218 ± 4.3 a | 57 ± 1.8 a | 278 ± 5.1 a | |
FRR | 1.14 ± 0.03 a | 0.73 ± 0.02 b | 184 ± 3.4 b | 52 ± 1.2 b | 233 ± 6.8 b |
[1] | Asagi N, Ueno H.2009. Nitrogen dynamics in paddy soil applied with various 15N-labelled green manures.Plant Soil, 322: 251-262. |
[2] | Ashraf M, Mahmood T, Azam F, Qureshi R M.2004. Comparative effects of applying leguminous and nonleguminous green manures and inorganic N on biomass yield and nitrogen uptake in flooded rice (Oryza sativa L.).Biol Fert Soils, 40(2): 147-152. |
[3] | Belefant-Miller H.2007. Poultry litter induces tillering in rice.J Sustain Agric, 31(1): 151-160. |
[4] | Bremner J M, Mulvaney C S.1982. Nitrogen-total. In: Page A L. Methods of Soil Analysis: II. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: American Society of Agronomy: 595-624. |
[5] | Budhar M N, Palaniappan S P.1996. Effect of integration of fertilizer and green manure nitrogen on yield attributes, nitrogen uptake and yield of lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.).J Agron Crop Sci, 176: 183-187. |
[6] | Cao S Q, Zhang R X, Tang Y L, Yang T N.2002. A new index for identifying the relationship between leaf photosynthesis and grain filling in grain filling stage of rice.Acta Agron Sin, 28: 516-520. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[7] | Cassman K G, Pingali P L.1995. Extrapolating trends from long-term experiments to farmers’ fields: The case of irrigated rice system in Asia. In: Barnett V, Payne R, Steiner R. Agricultural Sustainability: Economic, Environmental and Statistical Considerations. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons: 63-84. |
[8] | Chang H L, Park K D, Jung K Y, Muhammad A A, Dokyoung L, Gutierrez J, Kim P J.2010. Effect of Chinese milk vetch (Astragalus sinicus L.) as a green manure on rice productivity and methane emission in paddy soil.Agr Ecosyst Environ, 138: 343-347. |
[9] | Cherr C M, Avila L, Scholberg J M S, McSorley R.2006. Effects of green manure use on sweet corn root length density under reduced tillage conditions.Renew Agric Food Syst, 21(3): 165-173. |
[10] | Clement A, Ladha J K, Chalifour F P.1998. Nitrogen dynamics of various green manure species and the relationship to lowland rice production. Agron J, 90(2): 149-155. |
[11] | Deng M H, Shi X J, Tian Y H, Yin B, Zhang S L, Zhu Z L, Kimura S D.2012. Optimizing nitrogen fertilizer application for rice production in the Taihu Lake region, China.Pedosphere, 22(1): 48-57. |
[12] | Dobermann A, Witt C, Dawe D, Abdulrachman S, Gines H C, Nagarajan R, Satawathananont S, Son T T, Tan P S, Wang G H, Chien N V, Thoa V T K, Phung C V, Stalin P, Muthukrishnan P, Ravi V, Babu M, Chatuporn S, Sookthongsa J, Sun Q, Fu R, Simbahan G C, Adviento M A A.2002. Site-specific nutrient management for intensive rice cropping systems in Asia.Field Crops Res, 74(1): 37-66. |
[13] | Fageria N K, Baligar V C.2001. Lowland rice response to nitrogen fertilization.Commun Soil Sci Plan, 32: 1405-1429. |
[14] | Fageria N K, Baligar V C, Bailey B A.2005. Role of cover crops in improving soil and row crop productivity.Commun Soil Sci Plant, 36: 2733-2757. |
[15] | Fageria N K.2007. Green manuring in crop production.J Plant Nutr, 30(5): 691-719. |
[16] | Gabriel J L, Quemada M.2011. Replacing bare fallow with cover crops in a maize cropping system: Yield, N uptake and fertilizer fate.Eur J Agric, 34(3): 133-143. |
[17] | Gao J S, Cao W D, Dong C H, Xu M G, Zeng X B, Wen S L.2010. Effects of long-term rice-rice-green manure rotation on rice yield.Chin J Rice Sci, 24(6): 672-676. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[18] | Godfray H C J, Beddington J R, Crute I R, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir J F, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas S M, Toulmin C.2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people.Science, 327: 812-818. |
[19] | Guo J H, Liu X J, Zhang Y, Shen J L, Han W X, Zhang W F, Christie P, Goulding K W T, Vitousek P M, Zhang F S.2010. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands.Science, 327: 1008-1010. |
[20] | Hartwig N L, Ammon H U.2002. Cover crop and living mulches.Weed Sci, 50: 688-699. |
[21] | Hasanuzzaman M, Ahamed K U, Rahmatullah N M, Akhter N, Nahar K, Rahman M L.2010. Plant growth characters and productivity of wetland rice (Oryza sativa L.) as affected by application of different manures.Emir J Food Agric, 22(1): 46-58. |
[22] | Huang J, Gao J S, Liu S J, Cao W D, Zhang Y Z.2013. Effect of Chinese milk vetch in winter on rice yield and its nutrient uptake.Soil Fert Sci China, 1: 88-92. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[23] | Latt Y K, Myint A K, Yamakawa T, Ogata K.2009. The effects of green manure (Sesbania rostrata) on the growth and yield of rice.J Fac Agric Kyushu Univ, 54(2): 313-319. |
[24] | Lemaire G, Gastal F.1997. Nitrogen uptake and distribution in plant canopies. In: Lemaire G. Diagnosis of the Nitrogen Status in Crops. Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 3-43. |
[25] | Li D Q, Tang Q Y, Zhang Y B, Qin J Q, Li H, Chen L Q, Yang S H, Zou Y B, Peng S B.2012. Effect of nitrogen regimes on grain yield, nitrogen utilization, radiation use efficiency, and sheath blight disease intensity in super hybrid rice.J Integr Agric, 11(1): 134-143. |
[26] | Li S L, Li D R, Hu C, Qiao Y, Li S B, Chen Y F.2012. Impact of reducing chemical fertilizer combined with Chinese milk vetch on growth and yield of double cropping rice.Soil Fert Sci Chin, 1: 69-73. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[27] | Miao Y X, Stewart B A, Zhang F S.2011. Long-term experiments for sustainable nutrient management in China.Agron Sustain Dev, 31: 397-414. |
[28] | Nziguheba G, Merckx R, Palm C A, Mutuo P.2002. Combining Tithonia diversifolia and fertilizers for maize production in a phosphorus deficient soil in Kenya.Agroforestry Syst, 55(3): 165-174. |
[29] | Peng S B, Buresh R J, Huang J L, Yang J C, Zou Y B, Zhong X H, Wang G H, Zhang F S.2006. Strategies for overcoming low agronomic nitrogen use efficiency in irrigated rice systems in China.Field Crops Res, 96(1): 37-47. |
[30] | Peng S B, Huang J L, Zhong X H, Yang J C, Wang G H, Zou Y B, Zhang F S, Zhu Q S, Buresh R, Witt C.2002. Research strategy in improving nitrogen use efficiency of irrigated rice in China.Sci Agric Sin, 35(9): 1095-1103. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[31] | Peng S B, Huang J L, Zhong X H, Yang J C, Wang G H, Zou Y B, Zhang F S, Zhu Q S, Buresh R, Witt C.2002. Research strategy in improving nitrogen use efficiency of irrigated rice in China.Sci Agric Sin, 35(9): 1095-1103. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[32] | Peng X L, Liu Y Y, Luo S G, Fan L C, Song T X, Guo Y W.2007. Effects of site-specific nitrogen management on yield and dry matter accumulation of rice from cold areas of northeastern China.Agric Sci China, 6(6): 715-723. |
[33] | Phiri S, Rao I M, Barrios E, Singh B R.2003. Plant growth, mycorrhizal association, nutrient uptake and phosphorus dynamics in a volcanic ash soil in Colombia as affected by the establishment of Tithonia diversifolia.J Sustain Agric, 21(3): 41-59. |
[34] | Sangakkara U R, Liedgens M, Soldati A, Stamp P.2004. Root and shoot growth of maize (Zea mays) as affected by incorporation of Crotalaria juncea and Tithonia diversifolia as green manures.J Agron Crop Sci, 190: 339-346. |
[35] | Shahidullah S M, Musa M H, Ashrafuzzaman M, Ismail M R, Salam M A.2009. Tillering dynamics in aromatic rice genotypes.Int J Agric Biol, 11(5): 509-514. |
[36] | Sharma R K, Chauhan D S, Nagarajan S.1999. Current status of crop response to fertilisers in different agro-climatic regions- experience of the all India coordinated rice improvement project.Fert News, 44: 39-43. |
[37] | Sheehy J E, Dionora M J A, Mitchell P L.2001. Spikelet numbers, sink size and potential yield in rice.Field Crops Res, 71(2): 77-85. |
[38] | Siavoshi M, Laware S L, Laware S L.2011. Effect of organic fertilizer on growth and yield components in rice (Oryza sativa L.).J Agric Sci, 3(3): 217. |
[39] | Singh Y, Khind C S, Singh B.1991. Efficient management of leguminous green manures in wetland rice.Adv Agron, 45: 135-189. |
[40] | Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R, Schindler D, Schlesinger W H, Simberloff D, Swackhamer D.2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change.Science, 292: 281-284. |
[41] | Walinga I, Houba V J G, Novozamsky I.1995. Plant Analysis Manual. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher: 255-256. |
[42] | Wang F, Zhang G P, Bai P.2005. Achievement and prospects of research on evaluation of the relationship between source and sink in rice.Chin J Rice Sci, 19(6): 556-560. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[43] | Xu G W, Yang L N, Zhang H, Wang Z Q, Liu L J, Yang J C.2008. Absorption and utilization of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in rice plants under site-specific nitrogen management and wheat-residue incorporation.Acta Agron Sin, 34(8): 1424-1434. |
[44] | Yan J, Yu J, Tao G C, Vos J, Bouman B A M, Xie G H, Meinke H.2010. Yield formation and tillering dynamics of direct-seeded rice in flooded and nonflooded soils in the Huai River Basin of China.Field Crops Res, 116(3): 252-259. |
[45] | Yang J C, Zhu Q S, Wang Z Q, Lang Y Z.1997. Photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter accumulation and its translocation in intersubspecific hybrid rice.Acta Agron Sin, 23(1): 82-88. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[46] | Yang Z P, Xu M G, Zheng S X, Nie J, Gao J S, Liao Y L, Xie J .2012. Effects of long-term winter planted green manure on physical properties of reddish paddy soil under a double-rice cropping system.J Integr Agric, 11(4): 655-664. |
[47] | Yuan M M, Liu Q, Zhang S L, Chen W R, Yu H S.2011. Effects of biological nitrogen fixation and plow-down of green manure crop on rice yield and soil nitrogen in paddy field.Acta Pedol Sin, 48: 797-803. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
[48] | Zeng X M, Han B J, Xu F S, Huang J L, Cai H M, Shi L.2012. Effects of modified fertilization technology on the grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency of midseason rice.Field Crops Res, 137(20): 203-212. |
[49] | Zhang Q F.2007. Strategies for developing Green Super Rice.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 104: 16402-16409. |
[1] | LI Qianlong, FENG Qi, WANG Heqin, KANG Yunhai, ZHANG Conghe, DU Ming, ZHANG Yunhu, WANG Hui, CHEN Jinjie, HAN Bin, FANG Yu, WANG Ahong. Genome-Wide Dissection of Quan 9311A Breeding Process and Application Advantages [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 7-. |
[2] | JI Dongling, XIAO Wenhui, SUN Zhiwei, LIU Lijun, GU Junfei, ZHANG Hao, Tom Matthew HARRISON, LIU Ke, WANG Zhiqin, WANG Weilu, YANG Jianchang. Translocation and Distribution of Carbon-Nitrogen in Relation to Rice Yield and Grain Quality as Affected by High Temperature at Early Panicle Initiation Stage [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 12-. |
[3] | Prathap V, Suresh KUMAR, Nand Lal MEENA, Chirag MAHESHWARI, Monika DALAL, Aruna TYAGI. Phosphorus Starvation Tolerance in Rice Through a Combined Physiological, Biochemical and Proteome Analysis [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 8-. |
[4] | Serena REGGI, Elisabetta ONELLI, Alessandra MOSCATELLI, Nadia STROPPA, Matteo Dell’ANNO, Kiril PERFANOV, Luciana ROSSI. Seed-Specific Expression of Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Dimer in Rice Engineered Lines [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 6-. |
[5] | Sundus ZAFAR, XU Jianlong. Recent Advances to Enhance Nutritional Quality of Rice [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 4-. |
[6] | Kankunlanach KHAMPUANG, Nanthana CHAIWONG, Atilla YAZICI, Baris DEMIRER, Ismail CAKMAK, Chanakan PROM-U-THAI. Effect of Sulfur Fertilization on Productivity and Grain Zinc Yield of Rice Grown under Low and Adequate Soil Zinc Applications [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 9-. |
[7] | FAN Fengfeng, CAI Meng, LUO Xiong, LIU Manman, YUAN Huanran, CHENG Mingxing, Ayaz AHMAD, LI Nengwu, LI Shaoqing. Novel QTLs from Wild Rice Oryza longistaminata Confer Rice Strong Tolerance to High Temperature at Seedling Stage [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 14-. |
[8] | LIN Shaodan, YAO Yue, LI Jiayi, LI Xiaobin, MA Jie, WENG Haiyong, CHENG Zuxin, YE Dapeng. Application of UAV-Based Imaging and Deep Learning in Assessment of Rice Blast Resistance [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 10-. |
[9] | Md. Forshed DEWAN, Md. AHIDUZZAMAN, Md. Nahidul ISLAM, Habibul Bari SHOZIB. Potential Benefits of Bioactive Compounds of Traditional Rice Grown in South and South-East Asia: A Review [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 5-. |
[10] | Raja CHAKRABORTY, Pratap KALITA, Saikat SEN. Phenolic Profile, Antioxidant, Antihyperlipidemic and Cardiac Risk Preventive Effect of Chakhao Poireiton (A Pigmented Black Rice) in High-Fat High-Sugar induced Rats [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 11-. |
[11] | Nazaratul Ashifa Abdullah Salim, Norlida Mat Daud, Julieta Griboff, Abdul Rahim Harun. Elemental Assessments in Paddy Soil for Geographical Traceability of Rice from Peninsular Malaysia [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 486-498. |
[12] | Monica Ruffini Castiglione, Stefania Bottega, Carlo Sorce, Carmelina SpanÒ. Effects of Zinc Oxide Particles with Different Sizes on Root Development in Oryza sativa [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 449-458. |
[13] | Ammara Latif, Sun Ying, Pu Cuixia, Noman Ali. Rice Curled Its Leaves Either Adaxially or Abaxially to Combat Drought Stress [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 405-416. |
[14] | Liu Qiao, Qiu Linlin, Hua Yangguang, Li Jing, Pang Bo, Zhai Yufeng, Wang Dekai. LHD3 Encoding a J-Domain Protein Controls Heading Date in Rice [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 437-448. |
[15] | Lu Xuedan, Li Fan, Xiao Yunhua, Wang Feng, Zhang Guilian, Deng Huabing, Tang Wenbang. Grain Shape Genes: Shaping the Future of Rice Breeding [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 379-404. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||