【作者】 陈传华；

【导师】 徐建云； 陈超君；

【作者基本信息】 广西大学 ， 作物栽培学与耕作学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 本试验以新台糖22号(T22)为试验材料，设1.0m行距，单行种植(A)；1.25m行距，单行种植(B)；2.0m行距，宽窄行种植(C)；1.5M行距，宽窄行种植(D)四个处理，采用“吨糖田”综合栽培技术对其进行栽培管理，并对四个处理的农艺性状，田间生态环境因子，植株的生理状况，以及甘蔗经济性状指标进行测定，试验结果表明： 1．四个处理均明显的改善了蔗园生态系统的温湿条件。在分蘖末期、伸长初期蔗园系统内的日平均温度较系统外提高了0.5-1.5℃，而在伸长盛期较系统外降低了0.5-1.0℃，使得蔗园系统内的温度环境更适宜甘蔗的生长；在成熟期较系统外提高0.1-0.5℃，有利提高昼夜温差有利糖份的积累。在分蘖末期、伸长期使系统内日平均的湿度提高5％-15％，满足甘蔗前期生长对较高湿度的要求，在后期系统内的湿度提高10％-15％，在一定程度上抵御干旱的危害。通过调节系统内的温、湿度来影响甘蔗体内的P、K、Fe、Cu、Zn、Ca等元素的代谢和净光合速率等生理因子的变化来影响甘蔗的伸长生长是“吨糖田”蔗园生态系统调控甘蔗生长的主要途径之一。 2．除在分蘖末期D处理株间温度显著高于其它处理外，其它各时期 各处理的行、株间温度差异不显著，但各处理各时期的日平均行、 株间温度、地面温度均是C>D>B>A，都有随着行距增加而有所增 加的规律，在各时期D处理的地下温度均较高，A处理均较低， 不同种植结构的处理对蔗园系统的温度有一定的影响，但所引起 的差异不达显著水平。3.除伸长盛期A处理的日平均行间湿度显著的高于C处理，其它各 时期各处理的行、株间湿度的差异，及土壤水分的差异都不达显 著水平。但除分桑末期外，在其它各时期，A处理的行间株间湿 度均明显的高于C处理;B、D处理的土壤水分也明显高于C、A 处理。不同种植结构的处理对蔗园系统的湿度也有一定影响，但 在大多数时期所引起的差异也不达显著水平。4.各处理在生长的前期行间透光率的差异较大，在分萦末期C、B、 D三处理的行间透光率均显著高于A处理，在伸长初期C处理的 行间透光率显著的高于其它处理，在伸长盛期C处理的行间透光 率仍明显的高于其它三处理，而D处理在伸长初期和盛期的行间 透光率较低。而在生长后期的行间透光率及整个时期的株间透光 率的差异都不显著。不同种植结构的处理对甘蔗生长前期的行间 透光率的影响较大，而对生长后期的行间透光率及整个时期株间 透光率影响较小。5.不同种植结构的处理对甘蔗植株的净光合作用、蒸腾速率、叶温、 气孔导度、水分利用效率以及+l叶片营养元素等生理指标有略微 影响，但所引起的差异不达显著水平。6.四个处理的每667m2的蔗茎实际产量分别为，A，8456.97吨;B， 8426·89kg;C，7427.12kg;D，9168.87kg，D处理显著高于C处 理，其它各处理的差异不显著。各处理的蔗糖份都在15%以上， 各处理的差别不大。每667m2含糖量，A为i299.gskg，B为 1297·99kg，C为1138.02kg，D为1390.s8kg，各处理都在l吨以 上，达“吨糖田”的标准，D处理的每667m2的含糖量显著的高 于C处理，其它各处理的差异不显著。甘蔗生长前期C处理的行 间透光率过大，蔗行的光能不足，光能分布不合理是造成其蔗产 量与D处理差异显著的主要原因。7.D处理的光能分布较合理，蔗园系统在整个生长期的温度及土壤 水分都相对较高，故其蔗茎产量较生产中常用的1.0m行距，单行 种植的A处理每667m2增产712公斤，将其推广应用于生产中能 获得一定的增产效果，对现有的“吨糖田”栽培技术有一定改进作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 Taken T22 as the experimental material , set four treatments such as 1.0m rowspacing, single row planting(A), 1.25m row spacing ,single row p!anting(B),2.0mrow spacing, wide-narrow row planting(C), 1.50m row spacing, wide-narrow rowplanting(D),used the "1 ton sucrose per 667m2 field "cultivation, the experimentwas done with the agronomic characters, field ecological factors, physiologyfactors and economical characters being measured. The results were as followed.1. All of the four treatments improved the temperature and humidityenvironment of the sugarcane ecosystem , enhanced the system’s temperature0.5-1.5 C during the last tillering stage and initial extension, reduced0.5-1.0’Cduring the peak extension, and enhanced the system’s temperature0.1-0.5 C during the mature stage, so that the temperature of the systembecame more suitable for sugar cane plant to grow during all stages. The fourtreatments can enhance the system’s humidity 5-15% during the early stages,and 10-15% during the later stages for the sugar cane plant in the systems toresist the drought, and grow more easily. One of the way the " 1 ton sucroseper 667m2 field" ecosystem affecting the sugarcane plants’ growth wasregulating the system’s temperature and humidity to affect the metabolism ofsome nutrient elements such as P, K, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ca inside the sugarcane plant and the variation of some physiological factors such as net photosynthesis rate, transpiration rate, leaf temperature, stomatal conductance of sugar cane leaves.2. Except D treatment’s temperature between plants significantly higher than the other three treatments during the last tillering stage ,the difference of the row middle temperature and temperature between plants among the four treatments was not significant during the other stages. But the daily average row middle temperature, temperature between plants and up-ground temperature was C>D>B>A, the temperature increased by the row spacing. The under-ground temperature of D treatment was higher than the other treatments, and A treatments lower during all stages. So it can be concluded that, treatment of different planting structure has some effect on the sugarcane ecosystem’s temperature, but did not caused significant difference.3. Excepting the daily average row middle humidity of A treatment was significantly higher than the other treatments during the peak extension , and soil water of A treatment was higher than the other treatments during the last extension ,the difference of row middle humidity during the other stages, the humidity between plants during all stages, and the soil water of other stages among the four treatments was not significant. But ,except of the last tillering stage the humidity of row middle and between plants of A were obviously higher than C, during all stages. The soil water of B and D were alsoobviously higher than A and C during all stages. So it can also be concluded that, the treatment of different planting structure has some effect on the sugarcane ecosystem’s humidity,but did not caused significant difference.4. The difference of the row middle transmittance among the four treatments during the early stages was evident. Transmittance of C,B,D significantly higher than A during thelast tillering stage, C significantly higher than the other treatments during the initial extension, and C still obviously higher than the other treatments during the peak extension .D’s row middle transmittance is relatively low during the initial and peak extension. The difference of the row middle transmittance during the later stages among four treatments and the difference of transmittance between plants during all stages among four treatments were not significant. So it can be concluded that the treatment of different planting structure caused obvious difference of row middle transmittancy during the early stages and had relative little effect on transmittancy of row middle during the later stages and transmit更多还原