不同降水年型下饲用燕麦产量对降水变化的响应研究

doi:10.12160/j.issn.1672-5190.2023.01.013

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

[目的] 探究不同年型下饲用燕麦产量对各生育期降水变化的响应，为饲用燕麦抗旱与高效生产提供参考。[方法] 利用作物生长机理模型APSIM（agricultural production systems simulator），以山西省朔州市右玉县1980—2009年的历史气候气象数据作为原始情景，将饲用燕麦生育期划分为4个阶段[阶段1（播种—拔节）、阶段2（拔节—抽穗）、阶段3（抽穗—灌浆）、阶段4（灌浆—收获）]，并提取典型气候条件（干旱、平水、丰水）建立12个新的气候情景并进行模拟，分析饲用燕麦产量受降水变化的影响。[结果] 在干旱情景（DS）中，产量与水分利用效率（water use efficiency，WUE）较原始情景分别下降了38.0%~60.9%与31.8%~16.9%（P<0.01），其中，抽穗—灌浆期采用历史数据时，指标的下降幅度最小。对于平水情景（NS）来说，产量相对原始情景的变化为-3.4%~20.0%，WUE为0~10.0%，拔节—抽穗期及灌浆—收获期采用历史数据时指标的变化显著（P<0.05）。丰水情景（WS）中，饲用燕麦产量与WUE相对原始情景均显著提升（P<0.01），幅度分别达到33.3%~60.5%与6.8%~14.8%，且播种—拔节期的降水变化对指标有相对明显的影响（R²=0.377 7，P<0.01）。[结论] 饲用燕麦产草量和水分利用效率WUE在干旱、平水、丰水年型中都对灌浆—收获期的降水变化没有明显的敏感性；在干旱和平水年型下，饲草产量对抽穗—灌浆期的干旱更为敏感，WUE则对拔节—抽穗期及抽穗—灌浆期的干旱更为敏感；在丰水年型下，燕麦饲草产量对干旱最敏感的时期是播种—拔节期。有限的灌溉条件下，可将灌溉集中于WUE对降水变化最为敏感的阶段3（抽穗—灌浆）。

关键词: 作物模型, 降水年型, 饲用燕麦, 生产力, 水分利用效率

Abstract:

[Objective] This study aimed to explore the responses of forage oat yields to precipitation changes in varied growth periods under different precipitation year patterns, and to provide references for drought-resistant and high-efficient production of forage oats.[Method] A crop growth mechanism model of Agricultural Production Systems Simulator （APSIM） was employed. The historical meteorological data from the year of 1980 to 2009 of Youyu County, Shuozhou City, Shanxi Province was taken as the baseline scenario. The growth periods of forage oats were divided into 4 stages, including stage 1 being from sowing to jointing, stage 2 being from jointing to heading, stage 3 being from heading to grain filling, and stage 4 being from grain filling to harvesting. A total of 12 new climate scenarios were established and simulated based on the typical climate conditions （drought, normal and wet) to reveal the influences of precipitation changes on forage oat yields. [Result] For the drought scenario （DS）, the yields and water use efficiency （WUE） were decreased by 38.0%-60.9% and 31.8%-16.9% （P<0.01） respectively compared with the baseline scenario, and the reduction range of the indicators in the stage of heading to grain filling was the lowest when the historical data were used. For the normal scenario （NS）, the changing range of the yields and WUE were -3.4%-20.0% and 0-10.0% respectively compared with the baseline scenario, and the indicators altered significantly （P<0.05） in the stages of jointing to heading and grain filling to harvesting when the historical data were used. For the wet scenario （WS）, the yields and WUE showed significant （P<0.01） elevations compared with the baseline scenario with increasing rate of 33.3%-60.5% and 6.8%-14.8%, respectively, and the precipitation changes in the stage of sowing to jointing had relatively markedly effects on the indicators （R²=0.377 7, P<0.01）. [Conclusion] The forage oat yields and WUE present insignificant sensitivity to the precipitation changes in the stage of grain filling to harvesting under the precipitation year patterns of drought, normal and wet. Under the precipitation year patterns of drought and normal, the yields are more sensitive to drought stress in the stage of heading to grain filling, while WUE is more sensitive to drought stress in the stages of jointing to heading and heading to grain filling. Under the precipitation year pattern of wet, the most sensitive period of the yields to drought stress is the stage of sowing to jointing. Under the limited irrigation conditions, the irrigation should be concentrated in the stage of heading to grain filling in which WUE demonstrates the most sensitivity to the precipitation changes.

Key words: crop model, precipitation year pattern, forage oats, yields；, water use efficiency

中图分类号:

杨轩,栗国梁,贾鹏飞,侯青青,夏方山. 不同降水年型下饲用燕麦产量对降水变化的响应研究[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2023, 44(1): 80-90.

YANG Xuan,LI Guo-liang,JIA Peng-fei,HOU Qing-qing,XIA Fang-shan. Responses of Forage Oat Yields to Precipitation Changes under Different Precipitation Year Patterns[J]. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 2023, 44(1): 80-90.

图/表 12

图1

表1

表2

表3

图2

表4

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

参考文献 33

[1]	高惠君, 刘金铜. 灌溉因素订正的北方农牧交错带界定[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2021, 29(4):613-624.
[2]	李文龙, 石育中, 鲁大铭, 等. 北方农牧交错带干旱脆弱性时空格局演变[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(9):1599-1612. doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20170896
[3]	李刚, 郑敏娜, 李荫藩. 饲用燕麦品种在晋北农牧交错区的生产性能和营养价值研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2021, 23(12):42-53.
[4]	刘水华, 戴征煌, 于徐根, 等. 播种量和施肥对秋冬闲田种植燕麦草产量的影响[J]. 江西畜牧兽医杂志, 2018(3):37-39.
[5]	赵桂琴, 慕平, 魏黎明. 饲用燕麦研究进展[J]. 草业学报, 2007, 16(4):116-125.
[6]	白春利, 赵和平, 丁海君, 等. 饲用燕麦和草木樨混播栽培技术[J]. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2018, 39(9):62-64.
[7]	周磊, 王璐, 赵宝平, 等. 北方农牧交错区不同播期和刈割期对燕麦饲草产量和品质的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(10):2355-2363. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.10.028
[8]	付东青, 王彦超, 宋磊, 等. 施氮量和种植密度对石河子复播早熟饲用燕麦生产性能的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(10):2364-2371. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2021.10.029
[9]	张红娟, 李赟, 李雅丽, 等. 北方农牧交错带裸燕麦蒸散结构与灌溉制度优化研究[J]. 节水灌溉, 2022(3): 8-14.
[10]	娜日苏, 梁庆伟, 杨秀芳, 等. 沙地节水灌溉条件下苜蓿与饲用燕麦轮作的技术规程[J]. 当代畜禽养殖业, 2019(10):35-36.
[11]	赵宝平, 任鹏, 周磊, 等. 灌水模式对燕麦光合特性、干物质积累及产量的影响[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 42(3):6-11.
[12]	KEATING B A, MEINKE H. Assessing exceptional drought with a cropping systems simulator: A case study for grain production in northeast Australia[J]. Agricultural Systems, 1998, 57(3):315-332. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(98)00021-3
[13]	沈禹颖, 南志标, BELLOTTI B, 等. APSIM模型的发展与应用[J]. 应用生态学报, 2002, 13(8):1027-1032.
[14]	李广, 李玥, 黄高宝, 等. 基于APSIM模型旱地春小麦产量对温度和CO₂浓度升高的响应[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(8):1088-1095.
[15]	KEATING B A, ROBERTSON M J, MUCHOW R C, et al. Modelling sugarcane production systems Ⅰ. Development and performance of the sugarcane module[J]. Field Crops Research, 1999, 61(3):253-271. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(98)00167-1
[16]	ROBERTSON M J, CARBERRY P S, HUTH N I, et al. Simulation of growth and development of diverse legume species in APSIM[J]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 2002, 53(4):429-446. doi: 10.1071/AR01106
[17]	VERBURG K, KEATING B A, BRISTOW K L, et al. Evaluation of nitrogen fertiliser management strategies in Sugarcane using APSIM-SWIM[C]// Sugarcane:Research towards efficient and sustainable production.. Brisbane: CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, 1996:200-202.
[18]	PROBERT M E, DIMES J P, KEATING B A, et al. APSIM′s water and nitrogen modules and simulation of the dynamics of water and nitrogen in fallow systems[J]. Agricultural Systems, 1998, 56(1):1-28. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00028-0
[19]	RITCHIE J T. Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover[J]. Water Resources Research, 1972, 8(5):1204-1213. doi: 10.1029/WR008i005p01204
[20]	杨轩, 贾鹏飞, 侯青青, 等. 北方农牧交错带气候变化对粮草轮作生产的影响[J]. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 42(1):77-89.
[21]	冯仰强, 聂志刚, 王钧, 等. 基于APSIM模型研究不同降水年型下降水变化对旱地小麦产量的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2021, 35(2):108-111,140.
[22]	DUGGAN B L, DOMITRUK D R, FOWLER D B. Yield component variation in winter wheat grown under drought stress[J]. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2000, 80(4):739-745. doi: 10.4141/P00-006
[23]	罗兴雨, 李亚萍, 陈仕勇, 等. 高寒燕麦苗期抗旱性研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(9):1811-1816.
[24]	赵海超, 刘景辉, 任永峰, 等. 水分胁迫对内农大莜1号裸燕麦品种生长指标的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2010(1):73-76.
[25]	贺伟. 不同灌溉方式对燕麦光合及土壤生物特性的影响[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2013.
[26]	姬文琴, 杨智, 汪辉, 等. 不同生育阶段燕麦对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(1):58-67.
[27]	刘霞, 刘景辉, 李立军, 等. 耕作措施对燕麦田土壤水分、温度及出苗率的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2014, 34(5):692-697.
[28]	王朝云, 揭雨成. 水分胁迫对红麻生理特性和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 1995, 21(6):746-751.
[29]	张继波, 薛晓萍, 李楠, 等. 水分胁迫对扬花期冬小麦光合特性和干物质生产及产量的影响[J]. 干旱气象, 2019, 37(3):447-453.
[30]	孙宏勇, 刘昌明, 张永强, 等. 不同时期干旱对冬小麦产量效应和耗水特性研究[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2003, 22(2):13-16.
[31]	刘凯强. 水分胁迫对燕麦生长发育及产量构成的影响[D]. 西宁: 青海大学, 2020.
[32]	王冲, 林倩, 石晓宇, 等. 基于SIMETAW模型的不同地区燕麦需水量研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(3):131-139. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0017
[33]	亢秀丽, 靖华, 马爱平, 等. 黄淮海北片麦田微喷灌水量对土壤贮水耗水及水分利用效率的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(1):221-226.