| Literature DB >> 26984118 |
Peng Jiang1,2,3, Xiaobing Xie2, Min Huang4, Xuefeng Zhou2, Ruichun Zhang2, Jiana Chen2, Dandan Wu2, Bing Xia2, Hong Xiong1,3, Fuxian Xu1,3, Yingbin Zou2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of field studies have demonstrated that the yield potential of hybrid rice cultivars is higher than that of inbred cultivars, although the magnitude of difference between hybrid and inbred cultivars at different yield levels has not been described. The objective of this study is to compare the yield increase potential at different yield levels between hybrid and conventional rice. Ten field experiments were conducted at five locations in southern China in 2012 and 2013. At each location, two hybrid and two inbred cultivars were grown at three N levels: high (225 kg/hm(2)), moderate (161-191 kg/hm(2)) and the control, zero N (0 kg/hm(2)).Entities:
Keywords: Grain yield; Hybrid rice; Inbred rice; Yield superiority
Year: 2016 PMID: 26984118 PMCID: PMC4794477 DOI: 10.1186/s12284-016-0085-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rice (N Y) ISSN: 1939-8425 Impact factor: 4.783
Grain yield (t ha−1) of 4 rice cultivars grown under 3 N treatments at 5 locations in 2012 and 2013
| Cultivar | Huaiji | Binyang | Haikou | Changsha | Xingyi | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N1 | N2 | N3 | Mean | N1 | N2 | N3 | Mean | N1 | N2 | N3 | Mean | N1 | N2 | N3 | Mean | N1 | N2 | N3 | Mean | |
| 2012 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 7.17 | 6.86 | 4.15 | 6.06 | 7.79 | 7.88 | 6.75 | 7.47 | 9.68 | 8.85 | 6.93 | 8.49 | 9.33 | 10.48 | 8.67 | 9.49 | 13.18 | 13.20 | 10.93 | 12.44 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 7.67 | 7.19 | 4.41 | 6.42 | 7.13 | 7.25 | 5.66 | 6.68 | 9.48 | 9.15 | 6.61 | 8.41 | 9.84 | 9.88 | 8.81 | 9.51 | 12.91 | 13.68 | 10.58 | 12.39 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 6.80 | 6.77 | 4.14 | 5.90 | 7.19 | 6.72 | 5.03 | 6.31 | 8.90 | 8.73 | 6.98 | 8.20 | 8.83 | 9.49 | 8.19 | 8.84 | 10.68 | 10.78 | 9.07 | 10.18 |
| Huanghuazhan | 6.95 | 7.05 | 4.13 | 6.04 | 7.41 | 7.83 | 5.28 | 6.84 | 9.00 | 8.47 | 6.74 | 8.07 | 9.09 | 9.44 | 8.32 | 8.95 | 10.77 | 11.08 | 9.22 | 10.36 |
| Mean | 7.15 | 6.97 | 4.21 | 6.11 e | 7.38 | 7.42 | 5.68 | 6.83 d | 9.26 | 8.80 | 6.81 | 8.29 c | 9.27 | 9.82 | 8.50 | 9.20 b | 11.89 | 12.19 | 9.95 | 11.34 a |
| Analysis of variance | ||||||||||||||||||||
| genotype (G) | b | b | b | b | b | |||||||||||||||
| N treatment (N) | a | b | b | b | b | |||||||||||||||
| G × N | ns | ns | a | ns | ns | |||||||||||||||
| 2013 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 7.00 | 6.98 | 5.47 | 6.48 | 8.79 | 8.96 | 6.24 | 8.00 | 7.73 | 7.15 | 5.91 | 6.93 | 10.07 | 10.19 | 8.31 | 9.52 | 13.21 | 13.88 | 11.85 | 12.98 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 7.15 | 7.66 | 5.53 | 6.78 | 8.85 | 9.08 | 5.67 | 7.87 | 7.25 | 7.61 | 6.19 | 7.02 | 9.97 | 10.82 | 7.58 | 9.46 | 14.09 | 13.90 | 12.16 | 13.38 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 7.46 | 6.58 | 4.91 | 6.32 | 7.97 | 8.05 | 5.24 | 7.09 | 6.51 | 6.86 | 5.16 | 6.18 | 9.17 | 9.46 | 7.21 | 8.61 | 11.95 | 12.13 | 10.56 | 11.55 |
| Huanghuazhan | 6.89 | 7.12 | 4.99 | 6.33 | 8.20 | 7.77 | 4.43 | 6.80 | 6.76 | 7.17 | 5.32 | 6.42 | 10.53 | 10.46 | 6.61 | 9.20 | 11.73 | 11.77 | 9.79 | 11.10 |
| Mean | 7.13 | 7.09 | 5.23 | 6.48 d | 8.45 | 8.46 | 5.40 | 7.44 c | 7.06 | 7.20 | 5.65 | 6.64 d | 9.94 | 10.23 | 7.43 | 9.20 b | 12.75 | 12.92 | 11.09 | 12.25 a |
| Analysis of variance | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Genotype (g) | b | b | b | b | b | |||||||||||||||
| N treatment (N) | a | b | b | b | b | |||||||||||||||
| G × N | b | a | ns | ns | ns | |||||||||||||||
Within the row for each location, means followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to LSD at P = 0.05
aSignificant at the 0.05 level based on analysis of variance
bSignificant at the 0.01 level based on analysis of variance. ns denotes non-significance based on analysis of variance
Yield components of 4 rice cultivars grown under 3 N treatments at 5 locations in 2012. Data are averaged across 3 N treatments
| Cultivar | Panicles m−2 | Spikelets panicle−1 | Spikelets m−2 (× 103) | Spikelet filling (%) | Grain weight (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huaiji | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 186.6 | 161.4 | 30.4 | 74.3 | 23.6 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 197.3 | 147.4 | 29.5 | 79.6 | 24.0 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 176.5 | 180.2 | 31.9 | 78.6 | 19.8 |
| Huanghuazhan | 211.7 | 145.5 | 31.0 | 82.9 | 20.0 |
| Mean | 193.1 d | 158.6 d | 30.7 d | 78.8 c | 21.8 ab |
| LSD (0.05) | 17.2 | 8.7 | 1.7 | 3.6 | 0.4 |
| Binyang | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 204.1 | 147.2 | 30.1 | 81.8 | 24.3 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 205.2 | 139.1 | 28.8 | 75.4 | 24.3 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 167.5 | 179.0 | 29.9 | 84.3 | 21.1 |
| Huanghuazhan | 217.1 | 142.4 | 30.8 | 85.9 | 21.3 |
| Mean | 198.5 cd | 151.9 d | 29.9 d | 81.8 b | 22.8 a |
| LSD (0.05) | 14.1 | 7.8 | 2.0 | 2.9 | 0.3 |
| Haikou | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 227.1 | 151.0 | 34.4 | 85.9 | 25.3 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 214.8 | 157.4 | 34.1 | 83.8 | 25.1 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 194.9 | 211.9 | 41.3 | 88.5 | 20.2 |
| Huanghuazhan | 219.6 | 173.4 | 38.1 | 89.1 | 20.5 |
| Mean | 214.1 c | 173.4 c | 37.0 c | 86.8 a | 22.8 a |
| LSD (0.05) | 10.9 | 7.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 0.2 |
| Changsha | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 219.7 | 240.3 | 52.7 | 74.3 | 23.4 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 231.3 | 205.7 | 47.7 | 84.1 | 23.6 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 218.4 | 243.7 | 53.0 | 83.2 | 19.7 |
| Huanghuazhan | 287.1 | 171.2 | 48.8 | 84.0 | 20.0 |
| Mean | 239.1 b | 215.2 a | 50.5 b | 81.4 bc | 21.7 b |
| LSD (0.05) | 8.7 | 9.5 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 0.3 |
| Xingyi | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 277.6 | 188.3 | 52.5 | 83.4 | 24.6 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 284.9 | 185.2 | 52.9 | 86.3 | 24.9 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 257.9 | 230.9 | 59.5 | 85.6 | 20.0 |
| Huanghuazhan | 317.0 | 181.4 | 57.5 | 86.0 | 20.9 |
| Mean | 284.3 a | 196.4 b | 55.6 a | 85.3 a | 22.6 ab |
| LSD (0.05) | 16.5 | 8.4 | 4.3 | 2.7 | 0.5 |
Within the column for each location, means followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to LSD at P = 0.05
LSD values are for the comparison of cultivars for each parameter at each location
Yield components of 4 rice cultivars grown under 3 N treatments in 5 locations at 2013. Data are averaged across 3 N treatments
| Cultivar | Panicles m−2 | Spikelets panicle−1 | Spikelets m−2 (× 103) | Spikelet filling (%) | Grain weight (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huaiji | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 171.5 | 217.0 | 37.5 | 65.7 | 23.4 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 195.3 | 195.6 | 38.7 | 69.7 | 23.4 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 175.7 | 226.1 | 39.6 | 71.5 | 19.6 |
| Huanghuazhan | 197.4 | 184.3 | 36.2 | 82.0 | 19.6 |
| Mean | 184.9 c | 205.7 a | 38.0 b | 72.2 d | 21.5 b |
| LSD (0.05) | 16.2 | 14.9 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 0.4 |
| Binyang | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 206.4 | 171.5 | 35.5 | 80.2 | 24.8 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 201.6 | 155.3 | 31.6 | 82.2 | 25.3 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 196.7 | 183.7 | 35.9 | 83.8 | 20.5 |
| Huanghuazhan | 220.8 | 153.0 | 33.8 | 83.4 | 20.4 |
| Mean | 206.4 b | 165.9 b | 34.2 c | 82.4 b | 22.7 a |
| LSD (0.05) | 14.1 | 11.1 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 0.3 |
| Haikou | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 212.8 | 152.5 | 32.4 | 77.4 | 24.2 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 211.6 | 154.1 | 33.1 | 74.4 | 25.2 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 208.4 | 156.9 | 32.4 | 90.7 | 20.0 |
| Huanghuazhan | 228.3 | 144.2 | 32.7 | 90.5 | 20.8 |
| Mean | 215.3 b | 151.9 c | 32.6 c | 83.3 ab | 22.6 a |
| LSD (0.05) | 15.8 | 11.2 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 0.3 |
| Changsha | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 252.3 | 230.6 | 58.3 | 70.5 | 22.6 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 256.7 | 185.0 | 47.6 | 83.8 | 22.7 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 258.8 | 229.1 | 59.4 | 75.4 | 18.6 |
| Huanghuazhan | 315.2 | 192.5 | 59.5 | 77.5 | 17.9 |
| Mean | 270.7 a | 209.3 a | 56.2 a | 76.8 c | 20.5 c |
| LSD (0.05) | 20.3 | 16.7 | 4.1 | 4.7 | 0.4 |
| Xingyi | |||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 283.6 | 208.0 | 58.9 | 81.4 | 24.5 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 307.2 | 180.3 | 55.4 | 86.1 | 25.8 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 242.5 | 244.0 | 58.6 | 89.9 | 20.6 |
| Huanghuazhan | 334.0 | 164.1 | 54.0 | 88.5 | 22.3 |
| Mean | 291.8 a | 199.1 a | 56.7 a | 86.5 a | 23.3 a |
| LSD (0.05) | 19.1 | 16.1 | 4.2 | 2.7 | 0.5 |
Within the column for each location, means followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to LSD at P = 0.05
LSD values are for the comparison of cultivars for each parameter at each location
Total biomass and harvest index of 4 rice cultivars grown under 3 N treatments at 5 locations in 2012 and 2013. Data are averaged across 3 N treatments
| Cultivar | 2012 | 2013 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total biomass (g m−2) | Harvest index (%) | Total biomass (g m−2) | Harvest index (%) | |
| Huaiji | ||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 1051.3 | 50.1 | 1190.4 | 48.1 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 1048.5 | 52.9 | 1305.8 | 47.4 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 981.0 | 50.2 | 1103.8 | 49.9 |
| Huanghuazhan | 977.9 | 52.2 | 1130.6 | 51.4 |
| Mean | 1014.7 d | 51.3 c | 1182.7 c | 49.2 d |
| LSD (0.05) | 66.2 | 1.34 | 109.3 | 2.1 |
| Binyang | ||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 1258.8 | 47.6 | 1344.4 | 52.3 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 1227.3 | 42.7 | 1275.4 | 51.4 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 1180.4 | 45.1 | 1158.8 | 53.3 |
| Huanghuazhan | 1190.4 | 47.9 | 1098.8 | 52.5 |
| Mean | 1214.2 c | 45.8 d | 1219.4 c | 52.4 bc |
| LSD (0.05) | 60.4 | 1.6 | 57.1 | 1.5 |
| Haikou | ||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 1366.7 | 54.7 | 1186.0 | 51.3 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 1304.3 | 54.5 | 1199.9 | 50.7 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 1333.7 | 55.0 | 1135.5 | 51.8 |
| Huanghuazhan | 1302.2 | 53.4 | 1178.0 | 52.6 |
| Mean | 1326.7 c | 54.4 b | 1174.9 c | 51.6 c |
| LSD (0.05) | 47.1 | 0.9 | 57.4 | 1.7 |
| Changsha | ||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 1884.1 | 50.8 | 1910.4 | 53.8 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 1909.0 | 52.3 | 1857.4 | 55.7 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 1738.8 | 53.2 | 1742.4 | 50.2 |
| Huanghuazhan | 1729.0 | 50.5 | 1756.6 | 51.8 |
| Mean | 1815.2 b | 51.7 c | 1816.7 b | 52.9 b |
| LSD (0.05) | 74.4 | 1.1 | 94.0 | 1.6 |
| Xingyi | ||||
| Liangyoupeijiu | 2061.0 | 55.3 | 2060.0 | 56.8 |
| Y-liangyou 1 | 2104.7 | 57.2 | 2084.5 | 58.4 |
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 1957.1 | 55.5 | 1908.8 | 56.6 |
| Huanghuazhan | 2048.0 | 55.3 | 1881.5 | 58.0 |
| Mean | 2042.7 a | 55.8 a | 1983.7 a | 57.4 a |
| LSD (0.05) | 85.8 | 1.3 | 141.4 | 1.8 |
Within the column for each location, means followed by the same letters are not significantly different according to LSD at P = 0.05
LSD values are for the comparison of cultivars for each parameter at each location
Fig. 1Biomass accumulation from sowing to full heading (a, b) and from full heading to maturity (c, d) in 4 rice cultivars at 5 locations in 2012 (a, c) and 2013 (b, d). Data are averaged across 3 N treatments. Means followed by the same letters are not significant at the 0.05 level. Error bars are for the comparison of cultivars at each location
Fig. 2Crop growth rate (CGR) from sowing to full heading (a, b) and from full heading to maturity (c, d) of 4 rice cultivars at 5 locations in 2012 (a, c) and 2013 (b, d). Data are averaged across 3 N treatments. Means followed by the same letters are not significant at the 0.05 level. Error bars are for the comparison of cultivars in each location
Growth duration, and temperature and accumulative solar radiation during growing season of 4 rice cultivars grown at 5 sites in 2012 and 2013
| Year | Site | Cultivar | Growth duration (d) | Mean maximum temperature (°C) | Mean minimum temperature (°C) | Accumulative solar radiation (MJ m−2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SO-HDa | HD-MA | SO-HD | HD-MA | SO-HD | HD-MA | SO-HD | HD-MA | |||
| 2012 | Huaiji | Liangyoupeijiu | 112 | 25 | 28.0 | 34.1 | 20.6 | 24.8 | 2162 | 575 |
| Y liangyou 1 | 112 | 25 | 28.0 | 34.1 | 20.6 | 24.8 | 2162 | 575 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 106 | 25 | 27.9 | 32.9 | 20.3 | 24.8 | 2056 | 538 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 106 | 25 | 27.9 | 32.9 | 20.3 | 24.8 | 2056 | 538 | ||
| Mean | 109 | 25 | 27.9 | 33.5 | 20.4 | 24.8 | 2109 | 557 | ||
| Binyang | Liangyoupeijiu | 99 | 26 | 29.5 | 33.6 | 22.6 | 26.2 | 1871 | 530 | |
| Y liangyou 1 | 99 | 26 | 29.5 | 33.6 | 22.6 | 26.2 | 1871 | 530 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 90 | 29 | 29.3 | 32.6 | 22.3 | 26.0 | 1710 | 563 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 93 | 26 | 29.4 | 32.8 | 22.4 | 26.1 | 1767 | 507 | ||
| Mean | 95 | 27 | 29.4 | 33.1 | 22.5 | 26.1 | 1805 | 533 | ||
| Haikou | Liangyoupeijiu | 105 | 31 | 25.9 | 34.6 | 18.8 | 24.7 | 1722 | 722 | |
| Y liangyou 1 | 106 | 30 | 25.9 | 34.6 | 18.8 | 24.8 | 1749 | 699 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 103 | 30 | 25.7 | 34.7 | 18.7 | 24.6 | 1679 | 705 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 103 | 30 | 25.7 | 34.7 | 18.7 | 24.6 | 1679 | 705 | ||
| Mean | 104 | 30 | 25.8 | 34.7 | 18.7 | 24.7 | 1707 | 708 | ||
| Changsha | Liangyoupeijiu | 98 | 44 | 31.7 | 31.0 | 24.3 | 22.8 | 1999 | 823 | |
| Y liangyou 1 | 98 | 44 | 31.7 | 31.0 | 24.3 | 22.8 | 1999 | 823 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 89 | 37 | 31.6 | 33.0 | 24.1 | 25.0 | 1825 | 725 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 93 | 33 | 31.7 | 32.9 | 24.2 | 24.8 | 1907 | 644 | ||
| Mean | 95 | 40 | 31.7 | 32.0 | 24.3 | 23.8 | 1933 | 754 | ||
| Xingyi | Liangyoupeijiu | 121 | 42 | 26.6 | 27.8 | 18.4 | 19.4 | 2541 | 861 | |
| Y liangyou 1 | 121 | 42 | 26.6 | 27.8 | 18.4 | 19.4 | 2541 | 861 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 118 | 37 | 26.5 | 27.9 | 18.3 | 19.5 | 2478 | 766 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 118 | 37 | 26.5 | 27.9 | 18.3 | 19.5 | 2478 | 766 | ||
| Mean | 120 | 40 | 26.6 | 27.8 | 18.4 | 19.5 | 2510 | 814 | ||
| 2013 | Huaiji | Liangyoupeijiu | 111 | 26 | 27.5 | 33.1 | 20.1 | 24.5 | 2142 | 577 |
| Y liangyou 1 | 111 | 26 | 27.5 | 33.1 | 20.1 | 24.5 | 2142 | 577 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 101 | 27 | 26.9 | 33.5 | 19.6 | 24.8 | 1919 | 605 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 101 | 27 | 26.9 | 33.5 | 19.6 | 24.8 | 1919 | 605 | ||
| Mean | 106 | 27 | 27.2 | 33.3 | 19.8 | 24.6 | 2031 | 591 | ||
| Binyang | Liangyoupeijiu | 105 | 29 | 28.4 | 33.4 | 21.8 | 26.0 | 1932 | 595 | |
| Y liangyou 1 | 105 | 29 | 28.4 | 33.4 | 21.8 | 26.0 | 1932 | 595 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 99 | 30 | 28.1 | 33.6 | 21.5 | 26.2 | 1812 | 615 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 99 | 30 | 28.1 | 33.6 | 21.5 | 26.2 | 1812 | 615 | ||
| Mean | 102 | 30 | 28.3 | 33.5 | 21.6 | 26.1 | 1872 | 605 | ||
| Haikou | Liangyoupeijiu | 103 | 31 | 27.9 | 34.0 | 20.1 | 24.5 | 1803 | 701 | |
| Y liangyou 1 | 103 | 31 | 27.9 | 34.0 | 20.1 | 24.5 | 1803 | 701 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 102 | 30 | 27.8 | 33.8 | 20.1 | 24.6 | 1775 | 669 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 102 | 30 | 27.8 | 33.8 | 20.1 | 24.6 | 1775 | 669 | ||
| Mean | 103 | 31 | 27.9 | 33.9 | 20.1 | 24.5 | 1789 | 685 | ||
| Changsha | Liangyoupeijiu | 97 | 45 | 34.4 | 30.8 | 25.3 | 23.3 | 2202 | 783 | |
| Y liangyou 1 | 97 | 45 | 34.4 | 30.8 | 25.3 | 23.3 | 2202 | 783 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 93 | 37 | 34.1 | 32.4 | 25.1 | 25.0 | 2111 | 677 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 94 | 36 | 34.2 | 32.2 | 25.2 | 24.9 | 2134 | 652 | ||
| Mean | 95 | 41 | 34.3 | 31.6 | 25.2 | 24.2 | 2162 | 724 | ||
| Xingyi | Liangyoupeijiu | 120 | 43 | 27.5 | 26.5 | 18.9 | 18.6 | 2616 | 813 | |
| Y liangyou 1 | 120 | 43 | 27.5 | 26.5 | 18.9 | 18.6 | 2616 | 813 | ||
| Yuxiangyouzhan | 117 | 37 | 27.5 | 26.7 | 18.9 | 18.7 | 2562 | 714 | ||
| Huanghuazhan | 117 | 37 | 27.5 | 26.7 | 18.9 | 18.7 | 2562 | 714 | ||
| Mean | 119 | 40 | 27.5 | 26.6 | 18.9 | 18.7 | 2589 | 764 | ||
aSO–HD, from sowing to full heading; HD–MA, from full heading to maturity
Fig. 3The relationships of grain yield with mean maximum temperature (a), mean minimum temperature (c), accumulative solar radiation (e) from sowing to heading, and mean maximum temperature (b), mean minimum temperature (d), accumulative solar radiation (f) heading to maturity from heading to maturity of 4 rice cultivars at 5 locations in 2012 and 2013. Data are averaged across 3 N treatments and 4 rice cultivars
Soil properties of the experimental fields
| Site | pH | Organic matter (g kg−1) | Total N (g kg−1) | Available P (mg kg−1) | Available K (mg kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huaiji | 5.2 | 33.8 | 1.7 | 9.2 | 77.2 |
| Binyang | 5.1 | 28.9 | 1.6 | 34.1 | 183.8 |
| Haikou | 5.9 | 21.4 | 1.0 | 34.8 | 114.5 |
| Changsha | 5.8 | 27.7 | 1.6 | 54.5 | 63.2 |
| Xingyi | 7.9 | 52.6 | 2.6 | 16.5 | 257.2 |
Nitrogen application timing and rate in moderate N treatment at each experimental site in 2012 and 2013
| Year | Site | N application timing and rate (kg ha−1)a | Total N application rate (kg ha−1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basal | Tillering | Panicle initiation | Spikelet differentiation | |||
| 2012 | Huaiji | 56 | 60 | 30 | 15 | 161 |
| Binyang | 56 | 60 | 45 | 15 | 176 | |
| Haikou | 56 | 60 | 45 | 0 | 161 | |
| Changsha | 56 | 60 | 45 | 0 | 161 | |
| Xingyi | 56 | 60 | 45 | 0 | 161 | |
| 2013 | Huaiji | 56 | 60 | 60 | 15 | 191 |
| Binyang | 56 | 60 | 60 | 0 | 176 | |
| Haikou | 56 | 60 | 45 | 15 | 176 | |
| Changsha | 56 | 60 | 45 | 0 | 161 | |
| Xingyi | 56 | 60 | 45 | 0 | 161 | |
aA chlorophyll meter was used to guide N application at panicle initiation and spikelet differentiation. SPAD was measured on the 10 topmost fully expanded leaves per plot as described by Peng et al. (1993). At panicle initiation, if SPAD < 37, apply 60 kg ha−1; if between 37 and 39, apply 45 kg ha−1; if > 39, apply 30 kg ha−1. At spikelet differentiation, if SPAD < 37, apply 45 kg ha−1; if between 37 and 39, apply 30 kg ha−1; if between 39 and 42, apply 15 kg ha−1; if > 42, apply 0 kg ha−1