4.7 Article

Evaluation of main-crop stubble height on ratoon rice growth and development

期刊

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
卷 114, 期 3, 页码 396-403

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.09.011

关键词

Rice; Ratoon; Yield

类别

资金

  1. Louisiana Rice Research Board

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) ratooning is the production of a second rice crop from the stubble left behind after the main-crop harvest. Lowering the main-crop stubble height by harvesting the main crop at a lower than traditional height is believed to alter growth parameters and increase ratoon yields. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of main-crop stubble height on ratoon grain yield, agronomics, and cumulative/weekly panicle growth parameters (density, point of origin, and weight). Main-crop 'Cocodrie' and 'Trenasse' rice cultivars; were harvested to leave either a 40- or 20-cm stubble height. When the main-crop stubble was harvested at 20 cm, ratoon rice grain yield in 2007 was increased by 375 and 190 kg ha(-1) for Cocodrie and Trenasse, respectively. Yield was not improved in 2006 using the low (20 cm) harvest height. The yield advantage in 2007 was associated with the increased weight of the basal panicles when the main crop was harvested at 20 cm. When the main-crop stubble was 20 cm, basal and axial panicle points of origin were numerically similar 5 weeks after main-crop harvest (WAH), while panicles originating from basal nodes were predominant 6 WAH and beyond. In contrast, when the main-crop stubble was 40 cm, approximately 75% of the emerged panicles originated from axial nodes 5 WAH, panicles from both axial and basal points of origin were nearly identical 6 WAH, and basal panicles were dominant thereafter. Results from this study indicate that when the initial stubble height is reduced from 40 to 20 cm the growth of the ratoon crop is altered by shifting panicle point of origin during the early growth period and delaying maturity. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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