免费文献传递   相关文献

不同因子对秋闲田秣食豆生物产量的影响(英文)



全 文 :不同因子对秋闲田秣食豆生物
产量的影响
刘环 1,王新栋 2,王富贵 3,王新玉 4,周汉章 4*,
夏雪岩 4,侯升林 4* (1.深泽县农业局,河北深
泽 052560;2. 河北省农林科学院农业信息与
经济研究所,河北石家庄 050051;3.内蒙古巴
彦淖尔市农牧业科学研究院 , 巴彦淖尔市
015000;4.河北省农林科学院谷子研究所/国家
谷子改良中心/河北省杂粮研究重点实验室,
河北石家庄 050035)
摘 要 [目的 ]研究秋闲田秣食豆的高产栽
培技术。 [方法 ] 采用正交试验与软件 PASW
Statistics 18 的 LSD 法, 对秋闲田秣食豆播种
行距、种植密度与氮、磷、钾等 5 个影响因子进
行比较试验。 [结果]密度、行距与钾肥对秋闲
田秣食豆生物产量具有重要影响。 明确了秋
闲田秣食豆高产配套栽培技术的优化方案:留
苗密度 75 万株/hm2,并以氮肥(N)300 kg/hm2、
磷肥(P2O5)112.5 kg/hm2、钾肥 K2O)375 kg/hm2
做基肥,播种方式以 50 cm 的行距进行条播。
该方案的鲜草产量、干草产量分别为 6 661.67
2 723.64 kg/hm2,较产草量位居第二的优良组
合的鲜重、干重分别增产 24.17%、27.63%。 [结
论]为秋闲田栽培秣食豆的生产实践提了供理
论依据和技术支撑。
关键词 秋闲田;秣食豆;生物产量
基金项目 农业部公益性行业科研专项“牧区
饲草饲料资源开发利用技术研究与示范 ”
(20120304201)。
作者简介 刘环(1971-),女,河北深泽人,副
研究员,主要从事植物保护研究与农牧业科技
开 发 、 推 广 工 作 。 * 通 讯 作 者 ,E-mail:
shenglinhou@aliyun.com;Zhz5678@126.com。
收稿日期 2014-12-12
修回日期 2015-03-29
Effects of Different Factors on Biological Yield of
Fodder Soybean(Glycine max (L.) Merr.) in
Autumn Idle Land
Huan LIU1, Xindong WANG2, Fugui WANG3, Xinyu WANG4, Hanzhang ZHOU4* , Xueyan XIA4,
Shenglin HOU4*
1. Shenze County Agriculture Bureau, Shenze 052560, China;
2. Institute of Agricultural Information and Economics, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang 050035,
China;
3. Bayannaoer Academy of Agricultural and Animal Sciences,Bayannaoer 015000,China;
4. Institute of Millet Crops, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, National Foxtail Millet Improvement Center,
Hebei Branch of National Sorghum Improvement Center, Minor Cereal Crops Laboratory of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang 050035,
China
Supported by Special Fund for Agro - scientific Research in the Public Interest -
Research and Demonstration of Forage & Feed Resources Development and
Utilization Technology in Pasturing Areas (20120304201).
*Corresponding author. E-mail: shenglinhou@aliyun.com; Zhz5678@126.com
Received: December 12, 2014 Accepted: March 29, 2015A
Agricultural Science & Technology, 2015, 16(4): 679-686
Copyright訫 2015, Information Institute of HAAS. All rights reserved Agronomy and Horticultrue
T o alleviate the shortage of for-age grass for animal hus-bandry in winter and spring,
and effectively use water, heat, light
and land resources during August and
October, multiple cropping of fodder
soybean(Glycine max (L.) Merr.) as a
forage was carried out, the high-yield
cultivation technique of fodder soy-
bean in autumn idle land was deter-
mined, and the popularization and ap-
plication of the matching of fine breed
and good method was promoted.
In recent years, 75% pastoral
areas in our country lack grass in
winter and spring[1], which include In-
ner Mongolia, Sinkiang and Hebei
Province [2-4 ] , the shortage of forage
grass has already become a promi-
nent problem influencing livestock
husbandry development [5]. In farming
areas, pastoral areas and farming-
pastoral regions with 150-180 d frost-
free period, how to effectively use wa-
ter, heat and land resources during
August and October, carry out multiple
cropping for fodder crops, further ex-
pand forage grass sources, and in-
crease the production of forage and
feed in autumn idle land, have signifi-
cant practical significance to promote
the development of agriculture and
animal husbandry, for example, if fod-
der soybean is cropped again in au-
Abstract [Objective] The aim was to study the high-yield cultivation technique of
fodder soybean(Glycine max (L.) Merr.) in autumn idle land. [Methods] Such five in-
fluencing factors as line spacing, planting density, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and
potassium (K) of fodder soybean seeding in autumn idle land were compared using
orthogonal experiment method and LSD method of PASW 18 statistics software.
[Results] The results showed that density, line spacing and K2O had important ef-
fects on biological yield of fodder soybean in autumn idle land. Moreover, the opti-
mum proposal for high-yield matching cultivation technique of fodder soybean in au-
tumn idle land was determined as follows: planting density was 75×104 plants/hm2;
300 kg/hm2 N, 112.5 kg/hm2 P2O5 and 375 kg/hm2 K2O were viewed as basic fertiliz-
ers; the seedling style was sowing in drill with the line spacing of 50 cm. In the
proposal, fresh and hay grass yields were 6 661.67 and 2 723.64 kg/hm2, respec-
tively, which increased by 24.17% and 27.63% respectively compared to the second
fine combination. [Conclusions] The results provided a theoretical basis and technical
support for the production of fodder soybean in autumn idle land.
Key words Autumn idle land; Fodder soybean; Biological yield
DOI:10.16175/j.cnki.1009-4229.2015.04.013
Agricultural Science & Technology 2015
Table 2 L16(44×23) orthogonal experiment
No. A B C D E Blank Blank
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2
3 1 3 3 3 2 1 2
4 1 4 4 4 2 2 1
5 2 1 2 3 2 2 1
6 2 2 1 4 2 1 2
7 2 3 4 1 1 2 2
8 2 4 3 2 1 1 1
9 3 1 3 4 1 2 2
10 3 2 4 3 1 1 1
11 3 3 1 2 2 2 1
12 3 4 2 1 2 1 2
13 4 1 4 2 2 1 2
14 4 2 3 1 2 2 1
15 4 3 2 4 1 1 1
16 4 4 1 3 1 2 2
tumn idle land, which is not only con-
ducive to land use and land recovery,
but also beneficial to producing quality
green forage, thereby providing nec-
essary hay or silage for animal hus-
bandry breeding industry in winter and
spring, and alleviating the shortage of
forage grass for stock raising in winter
and spring[6].
Fodder soybean(Glycine max (L.)
Merr.), also called feed soybean or
liao dour, is annual fodder crop with
good quality and high yield in Legumi-
nosae [7]. Moreover, both mowing and
hay have the characteristics of rich
nutrient and good palatability, thus it is
better forage grass for flocks and
herds. Xiao Yiwen [8] first studied the
planting of fodder soybean in idle land.
Zhang Xiaoying et al.[9] researched the
cultivation and forage methods of fod-
der soybean. Zhang Shuyan et al. [10]
analyzed the effect of the mixed sow-
ing ratio of corn to fodder soybean on
group yield and yield composition.
Shen Huaimin et al. [11] reported the
study of mixed sowing of silage corn
and fodder soybean, and its feeding
effects. Zhang Yunying [12] discussed
several issues related to wheat/forage
crops multiple cropping. Gu Xueying
et al. [13] studied single and mixed stor-
age effects of whole crop corn and
fodder soybean. Currently, the study of
the optimum proposals for high-yield
cultivation technique of fodder soy-
bean in autumn idle land has not been
reported. Therefore, in this paper, fod-
der soybean was chosen to carry out
high-yield cultivation technique study
in autumn idle land, and effects of dif-
ferent line spacings and the combina-
tion of planting density and fertilizer on
the yield of grass were discussed, to
provide a theoretical basis and techni-
cal support for the production of fodder
soybean in autumn idle land.
Materials and Methods
Experimental materials
Experimental variety Mudanjiang
fodder soybean whose 100-kernel
weight was 12.5 g provided by Harbin
Chun You Sheng Grass Co., Ltd. was
chosen.
Experimental fertilizers Experimen-
tal fertilizers were urea (contains 46%
pure N), diammonium phosphate
(DAP) (contains 46% P2O5 and 18% N)
and potassium chloride (KCl)(contains
62% K2O), which were provided by
Shijiazhuang Sanyuan Fertilizer Co.,
Ltd.
Overview of experimental field
The experiment was carried out in
Yuanziqu Experimental Station of
Bayannaoer Academy of Agricultural
and Animal Sciences in Inner Mon-
golia in 2013. The experimental sta-
tion is located in the eastern suburbs
of Xiaba Town in Hangjin Rear Banner
of Bayannaoer City , the altitude is
1 024 m, the latitude and longitude are
107°07′ E and 40°51′ N; the soil tex-
ture is loamy soil, the previous crop of
experimental field is wheat, and the
essential nutrients of soil are: organic
matter and total N contents are 16.9
and 1.19 g/kg, respectively; available
N, rapid available P and rapidly avail-
able K contents are 94.2, 48.7 and 150
Table 1 Experimental factors and levels
No.
A B C D
Density∥×104
plants/hm2
N fertilizer∥kg/hm2 P fertilizer∥kg/hm2 K fertilizer∥kg/hm2
N Urea P DAP K KCl
1 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
2 45 225 489.15 112.5 244.5 225 362.85 60
3 60 300 652.2 150 326.1 300 483.9
4 75 375 815.25 187.5 407.55 375 604.8
E
Line
spacing∥cm
mg/kg, respectively; pH value is 7.5,
total salt content is 0.3 g/kg. Early frost
was on September 24, 2013.
Experimental methods
Experiment design Taking multiple
sowing of Mudanjiang fodder soy-
bean wheat stubble as the research
object, high-yield matching cultivation
technique of forage crops in autumn
idle land as the research programme,
effects of different factors were stud-
ied, such as planting density, fertilizer
(N-P-K) dosage and seeding method,
etc. Using orthogonal experimental
design of four-factor four-level and
one-factor two-level, the experiments
were carried out based on experi-
mental factors and experimental levels
in L16(44×23) orthogonal table (Table 2);
experimental factors and levels were
in Table 1, the experiments were total-
680
Agricultural Science & Technology2015
ly repeated for 3 times and arranged
randomly, the plot area was 20 m2.
The preceding crop was wheat,
and wheat harvest time was on July
20; after harvesting, stubble cleaning
must be carried out immediately; the
watering and seeding dates were on
July 26 and August 3, respectively; the
sowing style was sowing in drill; when
sowing, ditching and applying fertilizer
first, then ditching and sowing. N, P
and K fertilizers were used as base
fertilizers and applied once based on
experiment design; 5-8 cm furrow was
ditched between two sowing lines, fol-
lowed by fertilizer application and soil
covering, finally sowing; for the de-
signed densities of 30 ×104, 45 ×104,
60 ×104 and 75 ×104 plants/hm2, the
seeding quantities were 52.5, 75.0,
97.5 and 120 kg/hm2, respectively.
Survey of plant height Before
mowing, 10 plants of each plot were
chosen randomly, then the absolute
heights from ground to the highest part
of plants were measured, finally the
results were averaged.
Measurement of grass yield Mow-
ing and measuring before September
28, 2013; moreover, stubble should be
kept as low as possible. When mea-
suring, two edge rows should be got
rid of first, then 0.5 m top line in two
sides of each plot should also be ig-
nored, therefore, the above parts
should be moved away from each plot,
finally, yield of the rest was measured,
and the yield was calculated by actual
area. Scales with less than 0.1 kg
sensitive quality were required to
measure; when recording, two decimal
fractions should be kept.
After mowing and measuring, 3-5
bundles of grass samples in each plot
were chosen randomly, then the grass
samples were mixed evenly; after that,
1 kg samples were got, numbered and
marked, to be specific, the species,
variety, number, mowing date and
sampling time must be marked; in dry
climate conditions, the samples were
packed with hop-pocket or nylon
gauze, then they were hung and dried
in ventilation places until 10% -13% of
water content, then weighing and con-
verting then into dry weight, and calcu-
lating the ratio of dry weight to fresh
weight.
Statistical analysis As seen in
Table 2, variance analysis and multiple
comparisons [14 ] were carried out for
experimental data using LSD method
of PASW Statistics 18 software.
Results and Analyses
Main factors affecting grass yield,
the ratio of dry weight to fresh
weight and plant height of forage
fodder soybean in idle land
Variance analysis was carried out
for the experimental data (Table 3)
about biological yield, the ratio of dry
weight to fresh weight and plant height
of annual crops in autumn idle land,
the results in Table 4 showed that ef-
fects of such five factors as density, N,
P, K and line spacing on experimental
results were different, in which planting
density had extremely significant effect
on grass yield (including fresh weight
and dry weight) and plant height of for-
age fodder soybean in autumn idle
land (Sig. =0.000, P <0.01), and had
significant effect on the ratio of dry
weight to fresh weight(Sig.= 0.045, P<
0.05); N and P2O5 had no significant
effect on grass yield (including fresh
weight and dry weight), the ratio of dry
weight to fresh weight and plant height
of forage fodder soybean in autumn
idle land (Sig. value was between
0.057 and 0.198, P>0.05); K2O exerted
significantly effect on grass yield and
plant height of forage fodder soybean
(Sig.≤0.001, P<0.01),however, its ef-
fect on the ratio of dry weight to fresh
weight was smaller (Sig. ≤0.002, P<
0.01); line spacing also had extremely
significant effect on grass yield and
plant height of fodder soybean(Sig. ≤
0.002, P<0.01), and the effect on the
ratio of dry weight to fresh weight was
also smaller (Sig.= 0.719, P>0.05). In
sum, main factors affecting grass
yield (including fresh weight and dry
weight), the ratio of dry weight to
fresh weight and plant height of fod-
der soybean in autumn idle land fol-
lowed the following sequence: densi -
ty>line spacing>K2O>N>P2O5, den-
sity>P2O5 >line spacing >N >K2O and
density >K2O >line spacing >N >P2O5,
respectively.
Effects of different experiment fac-
tor levels on grass yield of forage
fodder soybean in autumn idle land
and the screening of the optimum
proposal
Effects of different experiment fac-
tor levels on biological yield, the ratio
of dry weight to fresh weight and plant
height of forage fodder soybean in au-
tumn idle land were different, and the
differences reached extremely signifi-
cant level (Table 5), indicating that the
above five factors all had crucially im-
portant effects. Finally, plant height,
the ratio of dry weight to fresh weight
and biological yield of forage crops as
performance appraisal indicators were
analyzed as follows.
Table 3Main factors affecting the yield of fodder soybean using L16(45) experiment
No. Combination
Fresh weight Dry weight The ratio of
dry weight to
fresh weight
Plant
height
cmkg/20 m2 kg/hm2 kg/20 m2 kg/hm2
1 A1B1C1D1E1 6.63 3 313.34 2.97 1 484.26 0.447 36.83
2 A1B2C2D2E1 9.31 4 652.67 3.91 1 954.02 0.42 41.71
3 A1B3C3D3E2 4.72 2 359.24 2.16 1 082.79 0.457 38.07
4 A1B4C4D4E2 7.14 3 571.13 3.07 1 532.57 0.429 42
5 A2B1C2D3E2 6.37 3 183.82 2.81 1 403.46 0.441 39
6 A2B2C1D4E2 7.09 3 544.06 2.99 1 495.09 0.422 41.28
7 A2B3C4D1E1 8.44 4 220.39 3.59 1 794.10 0.427 37.26
8 A2B4C3D2E1 7.03 3 513.24 3.06 1 529.24 0.437 40.02
9 A3B1C3D4E1 10.43 5 217.39 4.23 2 113.94 0.405 41.07
10 A3B2C4D3E1 8.14 4 067.97 3.76 1 879.06 0.461 39.64
11 A3B3C1D2E2 9.11 4 556.06 3.58 1 790.77 0.393 41.67
12 A3B4C2D1E2 6.77 3 385.81 2.92 1 461.77 0.431 40.18
13 A4B1C4D2E2 10 4 997.50 3.98 1 990.67 0.398 47
14 A4B2C3D1E2 10.23 5 114.11 4.19 2 094.79 0.409 46.17
15 A4B3C2D4E1 13.32 6 661.67 5.45 2 723.64 0.41 46.93
16 A4B4C1D3E1 10.73 5 364.82 4.27 2 133.93 0.399 42.67
681
Agricultural Science & Technology 2015
Effects of different experiment fac-
tor levels on plant height of forage
fodder soybean in autumn idle land
Effects of different experiment factor
levels on plant height of forage fodder
soybean in autumn idle land were dif-
ferent (Table 5). A. Comparing with the
planting densities of 30 ×104, 45 ×104
and 60×104 plants/hm2, plants with the
planting density of 75 ×104 plants/hm2
were the highest and reached 45.69
cm, the differences were extremely
significant, showing that the larger the
density was, the worse the perme-
ability of the field shade would be,
which was beneficial to plant growth,
thus it was the optimum density for
fodder soybean in autumn idle land;
when the planting density was 60×104
plants/hm2, the average plant height
was 40.63 cm,comparing with the
planting density of 30×104 plants/hm2,
the difference was not significant, and
comparing with the planting density of
45×104 plants/hm2, the difference was
significant; when the planting densities
were 45 ×104 and 30 ×104 plants/hm2,
the plant heights were 39.39 and
39.65 cm, respectively, indicating that
the difference was not remarkable.
B. Plants were the highest at the N
dosage of 225 kg/hm2, and the aver-
age value was 42.19 cm,the difference
was not prominent comparing with N
dosage of 375 kg/hm2, but the differ-
ences were significant compared to N
dosages of 300 and 0 kg/hm2; the plant
height was 41.22 cm at the N dosage
of 375 kg/hm2, and the differences
were not remarkable comparing with
300 and 0 kg/hm2; the differences
were also not remarkable between 300
and 0 kg/hm2 N dosages, all these
demonstrated that 225 and 375 kg/hm2
were the optimum N dosages. C.
Plants were the highest at the P2O5
dosage of 112.50 kg/hm2, and the av-
erage value was 41.95 cm,comparing
with P2O5 dosages of 187.5 and 150
kg/hm2, the differences were not sig-
nificant, however, the difference was
obvious compared to 0 kg/hm2 P2O5,
thereby 112.50 kg/hm2 was the suit-
able dosage; the differences were not
obvious between P2O5 dosages of
187.5, 150 kg/hm2 and no P2O5. D.
When K2O dosages were 375 and 225
kg/hm2, the plant heights were 42.82
and 42.60 cm,respectively, the differ-
ence between the two was not signifi-
cant obviously, conversely, compared
to K2O dosage of 300 and 0 kg/hm2,
the differences were significant; the
plant heights were 39.84 and 40.11 cm
at the K2O dosage of 300 and 0 kg/hm2,
respectively, the difference was not
obvious. E. The plant heights were
41.92 and 40.77 cm accordingly when
the line spacings were 60 and 50 cm,
thus the difference was significant.
Effects of different experiment fac-
tor levels on the ratio of dry weight
to fresh weight of forage fodder
soybean in autumn idle land Ef-
fects of different experiment factor lev-
els on the ratio of dry weight to fresh
weight of forage fodder soybean in au-
tumn idle land were different (Table 5),
Table 4 Variance analysis of L16(45)experiment
Source
Fresh weight Dry weight
Quadratic
sum of III
type
df Ms F Sig.
Quadratic
sum of III
type
df Ms F Sig.
Calibration model 199.071 a 15 13.271 14.909 0.000 27.062 a 15 1.804 12.515 0.000
Intercept 3 439.829 1 3 439.829 3 864.305 0.000 607.655 1 607.655 4 215.209 0.000
A 127.527 3 42.509 47.755 6.41E-12 15.848 3 5.283 36.646 1.83E-10
B 6.600 3 2.200 2.472 0.08 1.187 3 0.396 2.744 0.059
C 4.396 3 1.465 1.646 0.198 0.962 3 0.321 2.225 0.104
D 28.519 3 9.506 10.680 5.08E-05 3.129 3 1.043 7.234 0.001
E 29.766 1 29.766 33.439 2.04E-06 5.714 1 5.714 39.638 4.62E-07
Repetition 2.262 2 1.131 1.270 0.295 0.222 2 0.111 0.771 0.471
Error 28.485 32 0.890 4.613 32 0.144
Total 3 667.385 48 639.330 48
Corrected total 227.556 47 31.675 47
Source
The ratio of dry weight to fresh weight Plant weight
Quadratic
sum of III
type
df Ms F Sig.
Quadratic
sum of III
type
df Ms F Sig.
Calibration model 0.016 a 15 0.001 1.166 0.345 447.539 a 15 29.836 20.675 0.000
Intercept 8.639 1 8.639 9 744.389 0.000 82 038.403 1 82 038.403 56 850.311 0.000
A 0.008 3 0.003 3.008 0.045 313.062 3 104.354 72.314 2.41E-14
B 0.000 3 9.102E-5 0.103 0.958 12.012 3 4.004 2.775 0.057
C 0.001 3 0.000 0.500 0.685 11.108 3 3.703 2.566 0.072
D 0.005 3 0.002 2.052 0.126 90.362 3 30.121 20.873 1.12E-07
E 0.000 1 0.000 0.132 0.719 15.870 1 15.870 10.997 0.002
Repetition 0.000 2 0.000 0.183 0.833 5.125 2 2.563 1.776 0.186
Error 0.028 32 0.001 46.178 32 1.443
Total 8.682 48 82 532.120 48
Corrected total 0.044 47 493.717 47
682
Agricultural Science & Technology2015
thereinto, in the planting densities of
30×104, 45×104 and 60 ×104 plants/hm2,
the average ratios of dry weight to
fresh weight of forage fodder soybean
in autumn idle land were 0.438, 0.432
and 0.423, respectively, the differ-
ences were not significant; the differ-
ence on the ratio of dry weight to fresh
weight between 75 ×104 plants/hm2
whose average value was 0.404 and
30×104 plants/hm2 was extremely sig-
nificant, manifesting that the ratio of
dry weight to fresh weight of forage
fodder soybean in autumn idle land
decreased with the increase of cultiva-
tion density. The differences on the
ratio of dry weight to fresh weight of
forage fodder soybean in autumn idle
land with different N and P2O5 levels
were not obvious, showing that N and
P2O5 were of no significant effect on
the ratio of dry weight to fresh weight
of forage fodder soybean in autumn
idle land; when K2O dosage was 300
kg/hm2, the ratio of dry weight to fresh
weight was the highest, namely the
average value was 0.439, compared to
K2O dosage of 375 and 0 kg/hm2, the
differences were not obvious, but com-
pared to 225 kg/hm2, the difference
was remarkable; when K2O dosages
were 375, 225 and 0 kg/hm2, the ratios
of dry weight to fresh weight were
0.417, 0.412 and 0.429, respectively,
the differences among the three were
not obvious. When the line spacings
were 50 and 60 cm, the ratios of dry
weight to fresh weight were 0.426 and
0.423, respectively, the difference was
not remarkable.
Effects of different experiment fac-
tor levels on the grass yield of for-
age fodder soybean in autumn idle
land and the screening of the opti-
mum proposal As shown in Table
5, in four planting densities of fodder
soybean in autumn idle land, when the
density was 75 ×104 plants/hm2, the
yield of grass was the highest, and the
average values of fresh weight and dry
weight were 5 534.5 and 2 236 kg/hm2,
respectively, and comparing with other
planting densities, the differences of
grass yield were extremely significant,
for example, compared to 60 ×104
plants/hm2, the fresh weight of it in-
creased 1 227.5 kg/hm2 (namely in-
creased by 28.50% ) and the dry
weight increased 424.50 kg/hm2
(namely increased by 23.43% ), thus
75 ×104 plants/hm2 was the optimum
density; the second yield was 60×104
plants/hm2 density, its average values
of fresh and dry weights were 4 307
and 1 811.5 kg/hm2, respectively, the
grass yield of it was significantly dif-
ferent from other planting densities,
so it was the suitable density for the
experiment; for the planting densities
of 45×104 and 30×104 plants/hm2, the
average values of fresh weights were
3 615.5 and 3 474 kg/hm2, respec-
tively , and the average values of
dry weights were 1 555.5 and 1 513.5
kg/hm2, accordingly, there was obvious
significant difference between the two.
In the four N levels, when the N
dosage was 300 kg/hm2, the fresh
grass yield was higher, the average
values of fresh and dry weights were 4
449.50 and 1 848.00 kg/hm2, respec-
tively, compared to 225 and 0 kg/hm2
N, the differences were not prominent,
specifically, its fresh and dry weights
increased 271.5 (increased by 6.50%)
and 100 (increased by 5.72%) kg/hm2
respectively comparing with no nitro-
gen fertilizer; but compared to 375
kg/hm2 N, the difference was signifi-
cant, thereby 300 kg/hm2 was the most
suitable dosage of N; for the N
dosages of 375, 225 and 0 kg/hm2, the
average values of fresh weights were
3 959.00, 4 344.50 and 4 178.00
kg/hm2, respectively, and the average
values of dry weights were 1 664.50,
1 855.50 and 1 748.00 kg/hm2, respec-
tively, the differences among the three
were not obvious, in which when the N
dosage was 375 kg/hm2, the grass
yield was the lowest. In the four P2O5
levels, when P2O5 dosage was 112.5
Table 5 Single factor statistical results
Handling method
Average value
Plant height
Fresh weight Dry weight The ratio of dry
weight to fresh
weightkg/20 m2 kg/hm2 kg/20 m2 kg/hm2
A density∥×104 plants/hm2 30 39.650 bB 6.948 cC 3 474.00 3.027 cC 1 513.50 0.438 aA
45 39.392 cB 7.231 cC 3 615.50 3.111 cC 1 555.50 0.432 aAB
60 40.633 bB 8.614 bB 4 307.00 3.623 bB 1 811.50 0.423 abAB
75 45.692 aA 11.07 aA 5 534.50 4.472 aA 2 236.00 0.404 bB
B N∥kg/hm2 0 40.975 bA 8.356 abA 4 178.00 3.496 abA 1 748.00 0.423 aA
225 42.192 aA 8.689 abA 4 344.50 3.711 aA 1 855.50 0.428 aA
300 40.983 bA 8.899 aA 4 449.50 3.696 aA 1 848.00 0.422 aA
375 41.217 abA 7.918 bA 3 959.00 3.329 bA 1 664.50 0.424 aA
C P2O5∥kg/hm2 0 40.608 bB 8.389 abA 4 194.50 3.452 bA 1 726.00 0.415 aA
112.5 41.950 aA 8.942 aA 4 471.00 3.771 aA 1 885.50 0.426 aA
150 41.333 abAB 8.102 bA 4 051.00 3.410 bA 1 705.00 0.427 aA
187.5 41.475 abAB 8.428 abA 4 214.00 3.598 abA 1 799.00 0.429 aA
D K2O∥kg/hm2 0 40.108 bB 8.017 bBC 4 008.50 3.417 bcB 1 708.50 0.429 abA
225 42.600 aA 8.860 aAB 4 430.00 3.632 abAB 1 816.00 0.412 bA
300 39.842 bB 7.488 bC 3 744.00 3.250 cB 1 625.00 0.439 aA
375 42.817 aA 9.497 aA 4 748.50 3.933 aA 1 966.50 0.417 abA
E line spacing∥cm 50 40.767 bB 9.253 aA 4 626.50 3.903 aA 1 951.50 0.426 aA
60 41.917 aA 7.678 bB 3 839.00 3.213 bB 1 606.50 0.423 aA
683
Agricultural Science & Technology 2015
kg/hm2, the grass yield was the high-
est, the average values of fresh and
dry weights were 4 471.00 and 1 885.50
kg/hm2, respectively, there was no ob-
vious difference compared to 187.5
and 0 kg/hm2 P2O5, more specifically,
its fresh and dry weights increased
276.5 (increased by 6.59%)and 159.5
(increased by 9.24% )kg/hm2 respec-
tively compared to 0 kg/hm2 P2O5, but
there was significant difference com-
pared to 150 kg/hm2 P2O5, thus 112.5
kg/hm2 was the most suitable dosage
of P2O5; for the P2O5 dosages of
187.5, 150 and 0 kg/hm2, the average
values of fresh weights were 4 214.00,
4 051.00 and 4 194.50 kg/hm2, re-
spectively, and the average values of
dry weights were 1 799.00, 1 705.00
and 1 726.00 kg/hm2, respectively, the
differences among the three were not
obvious, in which when the dosage
was 150 kg/hm2, the grass yield was
the lowest. In the four K2O levels,
when K2O dosage was 375 kg/hm2, the
grass yield was the highest, the aver-
age values of fresh and dry weights
were 4 748.50 and 1 966.50 kg/hm2,
respectively, there was no obvious dif-
ference compared to 225 kg/hm2 K2O
and extremely significant differences
compared to 300 and 0 kg/hm2 K2O, to
be specific, its fresh and dry weights
increased 740 (increased by 18.46%)
and 258 (increased by 15.10%)kg/hm2
respectively compared to 0 kg/hm2
K2O, thus 375 kg/hm2 was the most
suitable dosage of K2O; when K2O
dosage was 225 kg/hm2, the grass
yield was higher, and the average
values of fresh and dry weights were
4 430.00 and 1 816.00 kg/hm2, re-
spectively, there was very significant
difference compared to K2O dosage of
300 kg/hm2 and significant difference
compared to 0 kg/hm2, on the contrary,
there was not obvious difference be-
tween 300 and 0 kg/hm2 K2O, and
when K2O dosage was 300 kg/hm2, the
grass yield was the lowest. When the
line spacing was 50 cm, the fresh
and dry weights were 4 626.50 and
1 951.50 kg/hm2, respectively, which
increased 787.5 and 345.00 kg/hm2
respectively comparing with the line
spacing of 60 cm whose fresh and dry
weights were 3 839.00 and 1 606.50
kg/hm2, respectively, that was, in-
creased by 20.51% and 21.48%, re-
spectively , apparently , the differ-
ence between the two was ex -
tremely obvious .
The experiment indicated that dif-
ferent experiment factor levels had dif-
ferent effects on fodder soybean in au-
tumn idle land, rational close planting,
scientific fertilization and appropriate
line spacing can effectively improve
the biological yield of fodder soybean
in autumn idle land. Without consider-
ing interaction effect, the optimum pro-
posal for high-yield culture technique
of fodder soybean in autumn idle land
was A4B3C2D4E1 or A4B4C3D2E1.
Determination of the optimum pro-
posal for high-yield matching culti-
vation technique of fodder soybean
in autumn idle land
The screening of fine combinations
based on coupling experiment of
densities, fertilizers and different
line spacings of fodder soybean
in autumn idle land From Table 6,
we found that in 16 treatment com-
binations of orthogonal table, the
grass yield of combination A4B3C2D4E1
was the highest, and its fresh and
dry weights per unit area yield were
6 661.67 and 2 723.64 kg/hm2, re-
spectively, and compared to other
combinations, the differences reached
extremely significant level; the sec-
ond grass yield was combination
A4B4C1D3E1, the fresh and dry weights
per unit area yield were 5 364.82 and
2 133.93 kg/hm2, respectively, com-
pared to combinations A3B1C3D4E1 and
A4B2C3D1E2, the differences were not
obvious, but compared to other combi-
nations, the differences were ex-
tremely obvious; for combinations
A3B1C3D4E1 and A4B2C3D1E2, the fresh
weights per unit area yield were
5 217.39 and 5 114.11 kg/hm2, respe-
ctively, the dry weights per unit area
yield were 2 113.94 and 2 094.79
kg/hm2, respectively, the differences
were not significant, and compared to
combination A4B1C4D2E2, the differ-
ence was not obvious, but compared
to other combinations, the differences
were extremely obvious; for combina-
tion A4B1C4D2E2, the grass yield was
higher, its fresh and dry weights per
unit area yield were 4 997 . 50 and
1 954.02 kg/hm2, respectively, com-
paring with other combinations, the
differences were extremely signifi-
cant; the grass yields of combinations
A1B2C2D2E1 and A3B3C1D2E2 were medi-
ate, the fresh weights per unit area
yield were 4 652.67 and 4 556.06
kg/hm2, respectively, and the dry
weights per unit area yield were
1 954.02 and 1 790.77 kg/hm2, respe-
ctively, the difference was not obvious,
but compared to other combinations,
the differences were extremely obvi-
ous; the grass yields of combinations
A2B3C4D1E1, A3B2C4D3E1, A1B4C4D4E2,
A2B2C1D4E2, A2B4C3D2E1, A3B4C2D1E2,
A1B1C1D1E1 and A2B1C2D3E2 decreased
in sequence, in which grass yield of
combination A1B3C3D3E2 was the low-
est, to be specific, the fresh and dry
Table 6 Experimental results of each L16(45) treatment combination
No. Combination
Fresh weight Dry weight
kg/20 m2 kg/hm2 kg/20 m2 kg/hm2
15 A4B3C2D4E1 13.32 aA 6 661.67 5.45 Aa 2 723.64
16 A4B4C1D3E1 10.73 bB 5 364.82 4.27 bB 2 133.93
9 A3B1C3D4E1 10.43 bcBC 5 217.39 4.23 bB 2 113.94
14 A4B2C3D1E2 10.23 bcBC 5 114.11 4.19 bcBC 2 094.79
13 A4B1C4D2E2 10.00 cC 4 997.50 3.98 cdCD 1 990.67
2 A1B2C2D2E1 9.31 dD 4 652.67 3.91 deDE 1 954.02
11 A3B3C1D2E2 9.11 dD 4 556.06 3.58 gF 1 790.77
7 A2B3C4D1E1 8.44 eE 4 220.39 3.59 fgF 1 794.10
10 A3B2C4D3E1 8.14 eE 4 067.97 3.76 efEF 1 879.06
4 A1B4C4D4E2 7.14 fF 3 571.13 3.07 hG 1 532.57
6 A2B2C1D4E2 7.09 fgF 3 544.06 2.99 hG 1 495.09
8 A2B4C3D2E1 7.03 fgF 3 513.24 3.06 hG 1 529.24
12 A3B4C2D1E2 6.77 fghFG 3 385.81 2.92 hiG 1 461.77
1 A1B1C1D1E1 6.63 ghFG 3 313.34 2.97 hiG 1 484.26
5 A2B1C2D3E2 6.37 hG 3 183.82 2.81 iG 1 403.46
3 A1B3C3D3E2 4.72 iH 2 359.24 2.17 jH 1 082.79
684
Agricultural Science & Technology2015
weights per unit area yield were
2 359.24 and 1 082.79 kg/hm2, resp-
ectively. The results showed that the
optimal combination was A4B3C2D4E1
whose fresh and dry weights in-
creased 1 296.85 and 589.71 kg/hm2
of the second fine combination
A4B4C1D3E1, respectively, in other
words, increased by 24.17% and
27.63%, respectively. According to the
analysis results of grass yields of fod-
der soybean and its differential signifi-
cance, combinations A4B3C2D4E1 and
A4B4C1D3E1 were preliminarily deter-
mined as the fine combinations of
high-yield matching cultivation tech-
nique of fodder soybean in autumn idle
land.
Determination of the optimum pro-
posal for high-yield matching culti-
vation technique of fodder soybean
in autumn idle land To select the
best one, the screened optimum com-
bination A4B3C2D4E1 or A4B4C3D2E1 was
compared to fine combinations
A4B3C2D4E1 and A4B4C1D3E1 from 16
experimental combinations, the results
demonstrated that combination
A4B3C2D4E1 was not only one of the
optimum proposals, but also the opti-
mum combination in the 16 experi-
mental combinations, so it was finally
determined as the optimum proposal
for high-yield matching cultivation
technique of fodder soybean in au-
tumn idle land, its specific configura-
tions were: the planting density was
75 ×104 plants/hm2, N, P2O5 and K2O
dosages were 300, 112.5 and 375
kg/hm2, respectively, the line spacing
was 50 cm.
Conclusions and Discus-
sions
Determination of effects of experi-
ment factors on grass yield, the ra-
tio of dry weight to fresh weight and
plant height of fodder soybean in
autumn idle land
Effects of planting density on grass
yield, the ratio of dry weight to fresh
weight and plant height of fodder
soybean in autumn idle land The
research showed that effects of plant-
ing density on grass yield, the ratio of
dry weight to fresh weight and plant
height of fodder soybean in autumn
idle land were the greatest, it was the
particularly important technical link in
high-yield cultivation of fodder soy-
bean in autumn idle land, so rational
close planting should be paid great at-
tention to. Unreasonable planting
density will directly affect grass yield of
fodder soybean, the less the planting
density was, the lower the biological
yield would be, and vice versa[15]. In the
experiment, the most suitable density
was 75 ×104 plants/hm2 whose plant
height, fresh weight and dry weight
increased by 12.450% , 28.50% and
23.43% respectively comparing with
the plant density with the second bio-
logical yield, but its ratio of dry weight
to fresh weight was lower (0.404),
which decreased by 4.49% comparing
with the plant density with the second
biological yield. When planting density
was larger, the leaf area would in-
crease, the field was shaded, bare soil
reduced, the wind ventilation and light
permeation were not good, evapora-
tion capacity of soil reduced [16], field
humidity was higher [17], water content
of plant was higher, and the ratio of dry
weight to fresh weight was the lowest,
all these affected the modulation of
fodder soybean hay in autumn idle
land. The most suitable density for the
yield increase of fodder soybean in
autumn idle land needed to be further
researched.
Effect of line spacing on grass yield
of fodder soybean in autumn idle
land Line spacing of sowing was one
of the important technical measures in
high-yield cultivation and management
of fodder soybean in autumn idle land,
which just behind the influence of
planting density. When the line spac-
ing of sowing was smaller, first, water
consumption of field reduced, second,
plant spacing of fodder soybean in au-
tumn idle land would be enlarged, so
the population tended to be uniform
distribution, plant competition would
reduce, the individual would grow in a
fine environment [18], finally, the growth
velocity of fodder soybean individual
would be improved obviously in the
early growth stage, thereby improving
the grass yield of fodder soybean[19]. In
the experiment, when the line spacing
was 50 cm, the biological yield was the
highest[20], its fresh and dry weights in-
creased by 20.51% and 21.48% re-
spectively comparing with the line
spacing of 60 cm.
Effect of chemical fertilizer on on
grass yield, the ratio of dry weight
to fresh weight and plant height of
fodder soybean in autumn idle land
When N and K2O dosages were 300
and 375 kg/hm2, respectively, both
fresh and dry weights of fodder soy-
bean in autumn idle land were the
highest. This indicated that N, P and K
were important elements for fodder
soybean in autumn idle land, we
should pay attention to rational appli-
cation of fertilizer. It was reported that
N, P and K promoted and restrained
each other, if lack of one, the absorp-
tion and utilization of the other two
would be restricted [21]. Fertilization for
fodder soybean was the same as that
for soybean, in which nitrogen was the
most important nutriment for fodder
soybean growth, its main sources
were nodule nitrogen fixation, soil ni-
trogen and nitrogen fertilizer; in pro-
duction, the parallel periods of vegeta-
tive growth and reproductive growth
were from one leaf stage to five leaves
stage, and the effect of nitrogen fertil-
izer was very small at that time, 5 -9
leaves stages were reproductive
stage, nitrogen nutrition was mainly
from nodule nitrogen fixation and soil
nitrogen[22], the effect of nitrogen fertil-
izer then was less. This was consistent
with Li Jinrong’s report [23], that was,
when hydrolyzable nitrogen content
was about 3 mg in 100 g soil, the yield-
increasing effect was remarkable,
however, when the content was more
than 5 mg, nitrogenous fertilizer appli-
cation effect was not obvious. P2O5
was also one of the main elements of
fodder soybean, from emergence
stage to full-bloom stage, the require-
ment of P for fodder soybean was the
most urgent, especially in seedling
stage; if lack of P, the growth of nutri-
tive organ would be restrained seri-
ously [20], so increasing P2O5 properly
was beneficial to breeding root system
and increasing root nodule [24]. Fodder
soybean of autumn idle land was sen-
sitive to K2O, thus increasing K2O had
obvious yield-increasing effect[25].
Determination of the optimum pro-
posal for high-yield matching culti-
vation technique of fodder soybean
in autumn idle land
In the experiment, based on the
effects of experiment factors on grass
685
Agricultural Science & Technology 2015
Responsible editor: Nanling WANG Responsible proofreader: Xiaoyan WU
yield of fodder soybean in autumn idle
land, the optimum proposal for high-
yield matching cultivation technique of
fodder soybean in autumn idle land
was determined, that was A4B3C2D4E1.
The aim of fodder soybean planting in
autumn idle land was to collect stem
leaves and alleviate forage grass
shortage in winter and spring, and the
biological yield of fodder soybean in
autumn idle land was systematically
studied as the main investigating in-
dex. The interaction among each fac-
tor should be further studied.
References
[1] CAI XY (蔡小艳), LAI ZQ(赖志强), WEI
JY (韦锦益), et al. The present situation
and development strategy of planting
grass to raise livestock in agriculture
area of our country (农区种草养畜之发
展现状及对策)[A]. (The second China
Grassland Agriculture Conference,
2012) [C]. National Grassland Industry
Association CAAA,China (中国畜牧业
协会草业分会):2012:26-30.
[2] WANG BY(王炳煜), HUANG WG(黄文
广), LU Y(鲁岩),et al. Discussion on so-
lutions to fodder shortage caused by
animal husbandry disaster (解决畜牧业
因灾造成饲草短缺问题的途径)[J]. To-
day Animay Husbandry and Veterinary
Medicine (今日畜牧兽医), 2013(4): 63.
[3] ZHANG LX (张丽霞). Fodder shortage
has become the bottleneck of Xinjiang
meat sheep planning and construction
(饲草短缺成新疆肉羊规划建设瓶颈)[N].
Sunday News of Chinese Animal Hus-
bandry and Veterinary (中国畜牧兽医
报),2014-5-11(011).
[4] LIU CM (刘春梅 ). There was short of
10 ×104 ton Wengniut Banner fodder
grass (翁牛特旗饲草料短缺 10 万吨 )
[N]. Sunday News of Chinese Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary (中国畜牧兽
医报),2012-12-16(015).
[5] XU AG (徐爱国). How to break through
the bottleneck of fodder shortage (草食
畜牧业如何突破饲草短缺瓶颈)[J]. Chi-
na Animal Husbandry Bulletin(中国牧业
通讯), 2004(15): 52-53.
[6] CHENG H (成慧 ), HOU FJ (侯扶江 ),
CHANG SH(常生华), et al. Effects of fall
sowing time on the forage productivity
of small grain planted in the Loess
Plateau (黄土高原秋播时间对 3 种小谷
物牧草生产性能的影响)[J]. Acta Agres-
tia Sinica(草地学报), 2013, 21(6): 1162-
1168.
[7] CUI GW (崔国文). A brief introduction of
good forage grass variety(III) (优良牧草
品种简介(三)) [J]. Technical Adviser for
Animal Husbandry (养殖技 术 顾 问 ),
2002(4): 14-15.
[8] XIAO WY (肖文一). Study on feed crops
planting in agricultural idle land (农区填
闲种植饲料作物的研究 ) [J]. Journal of
Northeast Agricultural University (东北
农学院学报),1964(4):25-36.
[9] ZHANG XY (张晓英), ZHAO YP (赵艳
平 ). The cultivation and forage method
of fodder soybean (秣食豆栽培及饲用
方法 )[J]. Special Economic Animal and
Plant(特种经济动植物), 2012(1): 34.
[10] ZHANG SY (张淑艳 ), ZHAN HY(战海
云 ), LI Q (李强 ), et al. Effect of corn
and semicultivated soybean propor-
tions on yield and yield components(玉
米秣食豆混播比例对群体产量及产量
构成的影响 ) [J]. Chinese Agricultural
Science Bulletin(中国农学通报), 2014,
30(3): 205-208.
[11] SHEN HM (沈怀民), LIU SS (刘树声),
XU J (徐健 ), et al. The mix sowing of
silage corn and fodder soybean and its
feeding effect (青贮玉米与秣食豆混播
及饲喂效果 )[J]. Technical Advisor for
Animal Husbandry (养殖技术顾问 ),
2004(4): 21.
[12] ZHANG YY(张云影), HE ZG(何中国),
MEI DL (梅冬林), et al. Discussion on
several issues in stubble multiple crop-
ping feed crops (麦茬复种饲料作物若
干问题的探讨)[J]. Agriculture & Tech-
nology (农业与技术),2004,24 (5):80-
82.
[13] GU XY (顾雪莹), YU G(玉柱), HUO YP
(郭艳萍 ), et al. Fermentation quality
and chemical composition in the mixed
silage of whole crop corn and soybean
(对全株玉米与秣食豆单竺混贮效果的
研究)[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica (草业学
报), 2011,19(1):132-136.
[14] LIU XH ( 刘 小 虎 ). Application of
SPSS12. 0 for windows in agricultural
experimental statistics (SPSS12.0 for
windows 在农业试验统计中的应用 )
[M].Shenyang: Northeast University
Press (沈阳: 东北大学出版社),2007:
89-94.
[15] HE XB (何贤彪 ), ZHOU C (周 翠 ),
YANG XT (杨祥田). Effects of planting
density and population configuration
on the yield of broad bean(密度与群体
配置对蚕豆产量的影响)[J]. Journal of
Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences (浙江农
业科学), 2010(4): 721-723.
[16] SUN HY (孙宏勇), LIU CM (刘昌明),
ZHANG XY (张喜英), et al. Effects of
different row spacings on soil evapo-
ration, evapotranspiration and yield of
winter wheat (不同行距对冬小麦麦田
蒸发 蒸散和产量的影响)[J]. Transac-
tions of the Chinese Society of Agri-
cultural Engineering (农业工程学报 ),
2006, 22(3): 22-26.
[17] SONG W (宋伟), ZHAO CX (赵长星),
WANG YF (王月福), et al. Influence of
different planting patterns on field mi-
croclimate effect and yield of peanut
(Arachis hypogea L. )(不同种植方式对
花生田间小气候效应和产量的影响)[J].
Acta Ecologica Sinica ( 生 态 学 报 ),
2011, 31(23): 7188-7195.
[18] YU FY (于凤瑶 ), XIN XJ (辛秀君 ),
ZHOU SQ(周顺启),et al. Factor analy-
sis of soybean traits under different
plant and row space (不同株行距下大
豆性状的因子分析)[J]. Liaoning Agri-
cultural Sciences(辽宁农业科学), 2010
( 1): 5-9.
[19]ZHOU XB (周勋波),YANG GM (杨国
敏 ), SUN SJ (孙淑娟 ),et al. Effect of
different row spacings on soil water
characteristics and yield of rained
summer soybean (不同行距对雨灌夏
大豆土壤水分特征及产量影响 ) [J].
Journal of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion (水土保持学报), 2008,22(6):217-
221.
[20] ZHANG JM(张巨明), WANG SM(王锁
民 ). Effects of row width and fertiliza-
tion on seed production of “Lanyin 3”
turf-type zayslagrass (行距及施肥量对
兰引 3 号结缕草种子产量的影响 )[J].
Acta Prataculturae Sinica (草业学报),
1997,6(3):46- 50.
[21] JI JH(姬景红), LI YY(李玉影), LIU SQ
(刘双全), et al. Effect of balanced fer-
tilization on yield of soybean and nutri-
ents balance of soil-crop system (平衡
施肥对大豆产量及土壤 -作物系统养分
收支平衡的影响)[J]. Soybean Science
(大豆科学), 2009, 28(4): 678-682.
[22] GONG ZP (龚振平), JIN XJ (金喜军),
MA CM (马春梅 ), et al. Study on the
absorption and utilization of various
source nitrogen by spring soybean (春
大豆对不同来源氮素吸收利用的研究)
[J]. Chinese Journal of Soil Science
(土壤通报), 2010, 41(5): 1138-1141.
[23] LI JR (李金荣 ). The scientific knowl-
edge of applying fertilizer technique for
soy bean (大豆的科学施肥技术 ) [J].
Journal of Jilin Agricultural Science
And Technology College (吉林农业科
技学院学报), 2005, 14(3): 20-21, 35.
[24] WANG Q(王强). Research progress of
efficient fertilization technique of soy-
bean (大豆高效施肥技术研究进展综
述 ) [J]. Agricultural Science and Tech-
nology(农家科技),2011(3):30.
[25] LIU HF (刘洪峰), SHI M(石敏), ZOU Y
(邹迎 ). Effects of different potassium
fertilizer rate on yield of Astragalus
sinicus L. (春钾肥不同施用量对紫云英
鲜草产量的影响)[J]. Tillage and Culti-
vation(耕作与栽培),2014(3):38.
686