4.5 Article

Response of Grain Quality to Alternate Wetting and Moderate Soil Drying Irrigation in Rice

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 59, 期 3, 页码 1261-1272

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2018.11.0700

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFD0300206-4, 2017YFD0301306-01]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31471438, 31871559]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018M640528]
  4. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions [PAPD-02]
  5. Open Project from Joint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety of Yangzhou University [JRK2018004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alternate wetting and moderate soil drying irrigation (WMD) has been widely adopted in rice (Oryza sativa L.) production for saving irrigation water and increasing grain yield. However, limited information is available about the effect of WMD on rice grain quality. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of grain quality in response to WMD. Two rice varieties, Yangdao 6 (YD6, indica) and Hanyou 8 (HY8, japonica), were grown in the field, with two water management treatments, well-watered (WW) and WMD from 10 d after transplanting to maturity. In comparison with WW, WMD prominently increased grain yield by 7.57 to 9.72%, and improved some grain quality parameters such as milling, appearance, and eating and cooking qualities, including increases in head rice and decreases in chalkiness. The two varieties showed the same tendency. However, WMD had a negative impact on some nutritional quality traits in rice grains, such as reduction in the contents of amino acids and the micronutrient elements Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Se, and Zn. The WMD treatment also markedly decreased As content and exhibited no significant effect on Cd content in grains. The results demonstrated that WMD has an overall impact on rice grain quality with both positive and negative effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据