Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2022, Vol. 9 Issue (4) : 614-626    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021430
RESEARCH ARTICLE
EVALUATING QUINOA LODGING RISK AND YIELD UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION THRESHOLDS, NITROGEN RATES AND PLANTING DENSITIES IN NORTH-WESTERN CHINA
Ning WANG1, Fengxin WANG1(), Clinton C. SHOCK2, Lei GAO1, Chaobiao MENG1, Zejun HUANG1, Jianyu ZHAO1
1. Center for Agricultural Water Research in China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
2. Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Ontario 97914, USA
 Download: PDF(6426 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

● A moderate irrigation threshold of −25 kPa gave the greatest actual yield.

● Nitrogen rates of 80−160 kg·ha−1 reduced lodging risk without yield decrease.

● Planting density of 30 plants·m−2 provided both high yield and lodging resistance.

● A lower-stem lodging index was best for prediction of quinoa lodging risk.

Lodging is a major yield-limiting factor of quinoa production. In 2018 and 2019, the orthogonal field experiments were conducted to investigate the responses of quinoa lodging risk and yield to irrigation threshold (soil matric potential of −15, −25 and −55 kPa), nitrogen rate (80, 160 and 240 kg·ha−1) and planting density (20, 30 and 40 plants m−2). Results showed that high irrigation thresholds and nitrogen rates significantly (P < 0.05) increased plant height and fresh weight per plant, and high planting densities reduced stem diameter and strength, all of those led to significantly ( P < 0.05) high lodging risks. The −15 and −55 kPa treatments gave the lowest actual yield ( P < 0.05) in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Higher lodging rate with a nitrogen rate of 240 kg·ha−1 resulted in a lower actual yield than 80 and 160 kg·ha−1 in both years. Planting density of 30 plants m−2 gave a significantly (P < 0.05) greater estimated yield than 20 plants m−2 and had a lower lodging rate than 40 plants m−2, resulting in the maximum actual yield among planting densities. In conclusion, a moderate irrigation threshold of −25 kPa, a nitrogen rate of 80−160 kg·ha−1 and an intermediate planting density of 30 plants m−2 were determined to be best for quinoa cultivation in North-western China. In addition, the lower-stem lodging index (quarter plant height) could evaluate lodging risk more accurately than middle-stem (half plant height) or upper-stem (three quarters plant height) lodging indexes.

Keywords lodging index      orthogonal design      soil matric potential      stem strength     
Corresponding Author(s): Fengxin WANG   
Just Accepted Date: 16 November 2021   Online First Date: 02 December 2021    Issue Date: 07 November 2022
 Cite this article:   
Ning WANG,Fengxin WANG,Clinton C. SHOCK, et al. EVALUATING QUINOA LODGING RISK AND YIELD UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION THRESHOLDS, NITROGEN RATES AND PLANTING DENSITIES IN NORTH-WESTERN CHINA[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2022, 9(4): 614-626.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2021430
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2022/V9/I4/614
Fig.1  Rainfall and average wind speed and maximum wind speed during quinoa growing seasons in 2018 (a) and 2019 (b). Wave, average wind speed; Wmax, maximum wind speed.
Experiment Irrigation threshold (kPa) Nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1) Planting density (plants m−2)
1 −15 80 20
2 −15 160 30
3 −15 240 40
4 −25 80 30
5 −25 160 40
6 −25 240 20
7 −55 80 40
8 −55 160 20
9 −55 240 30
Tab.1  Experimental layout using orthogonal design L9 (33)
Items PH CGH DL DM DU SSL SSM SSU FW LIL LIM LIU LRob Yes Yac
I 37.8** 5.9** 55.8** 3.7* 3.6* 3.9* 7.7** 3.8* 8.7** 12.1** 28.3** 24.6** 34.8** 45.6** 3.5*
N 112.4** 15.5** 24.5** 38.9** 21.6** 66.5** 15.2** 10.9** 20.9** 0.5ns 12.2** 14.2** 6.8** 6.1** 1.6ns
D 4.1* 1.2ns 121.9** 100.2** 57.0** 231.5** 129.7** 40.0** 82.6** 4.0* 0.1ns 4.5* 11.2** 24.6** 3.0ns
Y 0.18ns 4.3* 7.1** 1.6ns 45.9** 0.1ns 2.5ns 10.2** 3.5ns 1.2ns 11.5** 33.2** 221.0** 0.2ns 167.0**
I × N 2.1ns 82.1ns 61.6** 50.4** 29.2** 116.5** 65.2** 20.1** 41.6** 2.0ns 0.3ns 2.3ns 5.6** 12.5** 1.6ns
I × D 56.3** 7.8** 12.9** 19.8** 7.6** 34.0** 8.0** 5.5** 10.7** 0.3ns 6.3** 7.1** 3.4** 3.3* 0.9ns
I × Y 2.9ns 0.6ns 2.1ns 1.9ns 9.9** 0.2ns 1.0ns 0.2ns 0.2ns 0.3ns 0.5ns 0.5ns 3.0ns 0.8ns 10.0**
N × D 19.0** 3.0* 28.6** 2.1ns 2.5* 2.6* 4.2** 1.9ns 4.6** 6.1** 14.4** 12.4** 17.4** 23.0** 1.9ns
N × Y 1.7ns 0.1ns 0.7ns 4.0* 0.4ns 6.1** 1.9ns 0.04ns 0.4ns 0.4ns 0.9ns 0.3ns 2.3ns 0.4ns 6.7**
D × Y 0.8ns 0.1ns 5.9** 0.4ns 2.8ns 0.3ns 0.1ns 1.2ns 0.6ns 0.2ns 0.2ns 0.4ns 4.2* 0.03ns 6.5**
I × N × Y 0.9ns 0.1ns 4.5** 2.0ns 2.7* 0.17ns 0.2ns 1.3ns 0.3ns 0.1ns 0.4ns 0.6ns 2.2ns 0.5ns 3.3*
I × D × Y 1.4ns 0.1ns 1.9ns 3.8** 1.5ns 3.0* 1.1ns 0.7ns 0.2ns 0.2ns 0.7ns 0.6ns 1.2ns 0.7ns 3.4*
N × D × Y 2.0ns 0.3ns 2.6* 2.8* 6.2** 0.1ns 0.7ns 0.8ns 0.1ns 0.2ns 0.5ns 0.7ns 1.6ns 0.9ns 5.1**
Tab.2  F-values for multivariate ANOVA of irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate, planting density, year and their interactions on lodging-related traits, lodging indexes, observed lodging rate, estimated yield and actual yield
Fig.2  The effects of irrigation threshold (kPa) nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1), planting density (plants m−2) and year on plant height (a1–a4), center of gravity height (b1–b4) and fresh weight per plant (c1–c4) in 2018 and 2019. Values followed by the same letter with a year at different levels in the same treatment are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by post-hoc multiple comparison; values followed the same letters between years are significantly different by one-way ANOVA ( P > 0.05).
Fig.3  The effects of irrigation threshold (kPa), nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1), planting density (plants m−2) and year on lower (a1–a4), middle (b1–b4), upper stem diameters (c1–c4) in 2018 and 2019. Lower, middle and upper, 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; values followed by the same letter with a year at different levels in the same treatment are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by post-hoc multiple comparison; and values followed by the different same letter between years are not significantly different by one-way ANOVA ( P > 0.05).
Fig.4  The effects of irrigation threshold (kPa), nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1), planting density (plants m−2) and year on stem strength of lower (a1–a4), middle (b1–b4) and upper stem (c1–c4) in 2018 and 2019. Lower, middle, and upper, 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; values followed by the same letter within a year at different levels in the same treatment are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by post-hoc multiple comparison; and values followed by the same letters between years are not significantly different by one-way ANOVA ( P > 0.05).
Year Treatment LIL (cm·g·N−1) LIM (cm·g·N−1) LIU (cm·g·N−1) Observed lodging rate (%) Estimated yield (t·ha−1) Actual yield (t·ha−1)
2018 Irrigation threshold(kPa) −15 319 ± 40a 570 ± 55a 848 ± 69a 70 ± 9a 11.4 ± 2.3a 3.1 ± 1.4b
−25 309 ± 68a 542 ± 71a 795 ± 80a 52 ± 7b 9.4 ± 2.2b 4.5 ± 1.5a
−55 246 ± 38b 380 ± 40b 621 ± 51b 41 ± 7c 7.6 ± 1.9c 4.4 ± 1.6a
Nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1) 80 279 ± 31b 448 ± 52b 699 ± 67b 46 ± 8b 8.9 ± 1.6a 4.8 ± 1.3a
160 288 ± 56ab 489 ± 50b 720 ± 75b 58 ± 5a 9.8 ± 2.5a 3.7 ± 1.5b
240 308 ± 60a 555 ± 63a 845 ± 58a 60 ± 10a 9.7 ± 2.3a 3.5 ± 1.6b
Planting density (plants m−2) 20 268 ± 45b 493 ± 60a 797 ± 57a 44 ± 9b 7.9 ± 2.5b 4.4 ± 1.4ab
30 299 ± 43a 486 ± 60a 761 ± 91a 55 ± 8a 10.0 ± 2.1a 4.2 ± 1.6a
40 309 ± 58a 512 ± 45a 706 ± 52a 64 ± 6a 10.5 ± 1.8a 3.4 ± 1.4b
Average 291 ± 57a 497 ± 115a 754 ± 164a 54 ± 18a 9.5 ± 2.2a 4.0 ± 1.2b
2019 Irrigation threshold (kPa) −15 320 ± 14a 501 ± 36a 717 ± 35a 30 ± 4a 10.9 ± 1.2a 7.5 ± 2.4a
−25 281 ± 52a 436 ± 46a 599 ± 53b 22 ± 4b 9.8 ± 2.0a 7.6 ± 1.6a
−55 216 ± 29b 331 ± 35b 472 ± 49c 15 ± 2c 7.4 ± 1.4b 6.3 ± 1.3b
Nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1) 80 263 ± 30a 343 ± 25b 514 ± 35b 19 ± 3b 8.5 ± 1.5b 6.9 ± 1.9a
160 277 ± 42a 444 ± 50a 566 ± 49b 22 ± 4ab 9.8 ± 1.4a 7.5 ± 2.0a
240 279 ± 58a 481 ± 42a 709 ± 53a 26 ± 3a 9.7 ± 2.0a 7.1 ± 1.5a
Planting density (plants m−2) 20 234 ± 43b 413 ± 52a 661 ± 82a 20 ± 5a 7.9 ± 2.0b 6.3 ± 1.7b
30 277 ± 22ab 433 ± 17a 567 ± 21b 21 ± 2a 9.9 ± 1.6a 7.8 ± 2.0a
40 301 ± 64a 421 ± 48a 561 ± 34b 27 ± 4a 10.3 ± 1.0a 7.3 ± 1.7ab
Average 275 ± 77a 428 ± 126b 595 ± 169b 22 ± 9b 9.3 ± 2.1a 7.1 ± 1.2a
Tab.3  Lodging indexes, observed lodging rate, estimated yield and actual yield in 2018 and 2019
Fig.5  Pearson’ correlation between lodging-related traits, lodging indexes, observed lodging rate, estimated yield and actual yield for two years. PH, plant height; CGH, center of gravity height; DL, DM and DU, stem diameter at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; SSL, SSM and SSU, stem strength at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; FW, fresh weight per plant; LIL, LIM, and LIU, lodging index at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; LRob, observed lodging rate; Yes, estimated yield; Yac, actual yield; * and **, significant at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.
1 D Bazile, H D Bertero, C Nieto. Social and economic aspects. State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. Roma: FAO and CIRAD, 2015, 316–330
2 N Wang, F X Wang, C C Shock, C B Meng, L F Qiao. Effects of management practices on quinoa growth, seed yield, and quality. Agronomy, 2020, 10( 3): 445
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030445
3 X S Yang, P Y Qin, H M Guo, G X Ren. Quinoa industry development in China. International Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2019, 46( 2): 208–219
4 S Z Kang, X L Su, L Tong, P Z Shi, X Y Yang, A Yukuo, T S Du, Q L Shen, J H Zhang. The impacts of human activities on the water-land environment of Shiyang River Basin, an arid region in northwest China. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2004, 49( 3): 413–427
https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.49.3.413.54347
5 K J Yang, F X Wang, C C Shock, S Z Kang, Z L Huo, N Song, D Ma. Potato performance as influenced by the proportion of wetted soil volume and nitrogen under drip irrigation with plastic mulch. Agricultural Water Management, 2017, 179 : 260–270
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.014
6 Q Guo, G M Hunag, Y L Guo, M C Zhang, Y Y Zhou, L S Duan. Optimizing irrigation and planting density of spring maize under mulch drip irrigation system in the arid region of Northwest China. Field Crops Research, 2021, 266 : 108141
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108141
7 auf’m Erley G Schulte, H P Kaul, M Kruse, W Aufhammer. Yield and nitrogen utilization efficiency of the pseudocereals amaranth, quinoa, and buckwheat under differing nitrogen fertilization. European Journal of Agronomy, 2005, 22( 1): 95–100
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2003.11.002
8 R E Nurse, K Obeid, E R Page. Optimal planting date, row width, and critical weed-free period for grain amaranth and quinoa grown in Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2016, 96( 3): 360–366
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2015-0160
9 Y F Ren, Q Huan, Z M Wang, Y D Yang, L Mei, P Y Zha. Effect of chemical control on agronomic traits and yield of quinoa. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2018, 23( 8): 8–16
10 Y F Ren, Z M Wang, P Y Zhao, J Song, Y F Li, H Luo, W Y Deng. Ecological adaptability of quinoa in Northern foot of Yinshan in Inner Mongolia. Crops, 2016, 171(2): 79–82 (in Chinese)
11 C J Baker, P M Berry, J H Spink, R Sylvester-Bradley, J M Griffin, R K Scott, R W Clare. A method for the assessment of the risk of wheat lodging. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1998, 194( 4): 587–603
https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1998.0778
12 P M Berry, M Sterling, C J Baker, J Spink, D L Sparkes. A calibrated model of wheat lodging compared with field measurements. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2003, 119( 3–4): 3–4
13 J N Pan. The study on lodging-resistant properties and regulation mechanism of quinoa high-yielding population in Yinshan Hilly Region of Inner Mongolia. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2018 (in Chinese)
14 N Wang, F X Wang, C C Shock, C B Meng, Z J Huang, L Gao, J Y Zhao. Evaluating quinoa stem lodging susceptibility by a mathematical model and the finite element method under different agronomic practices. Field Crops Research, 2021, 271 : 108241
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108241
15 Y X Wang. Study on Growth and Physiological Characteristics of Different Varieties Quinoa in Horqin Sandy Land. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Hohhot, China: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2019 (in Chinese)
16 A Hirich, R Choukr-Allah, S E Jacobsen. Deficit irrigation and organic compost improve growth and yield of quinoa and pea. Journal Agronomy & Crop Science, 2014, 200( 5): 390–398
https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12073
17 S Bañon, J Ochoa, J A Franco, J J Alarcón, M J Sánchez-Blanco. Hardening of oleander seedlings by deficit irrigation and low air humidity. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2006, 56( 1): 36–43
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2004.12.004
18 S Álvarez, A Navarro, S Banon, M J Sanchez-Blanco. Regulated deficit irrigation in potted Dianthus plants: effects of severe and moderate water stress on growth and physiological responses. Scientia Horticulturae, 2009, 122( 4): 579–585
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.06.030
19 S C Ma, A W Duan, S T Ma, S J Yang. Effect of early-stage regulated deficit irrigation on stem lodging resistance, leaf photosynthesis, root respiration and yield stability of winter wheat under post-anthesis water stress conditions. Irrigation and Drainage, 2016, 65( 5): 673–681
https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2022
20 C C Shock, F X Wang. Soil water tension, a powerful measurement for productivity and stewardship. HortScience, 2011, 46( 2): 178–185
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.46.2.178
21 B Wang, D Nie, Y F Zhao, X L Huo, G J Huang, Q Zhang. The effects of water-nitrogen coupling on yield, nitrogen and water use efficiency of quinoa. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2020, 39(9): 87–94 (in Chinese)
22 F Z Wei, J C Li, C Y Wang, H J Qu, X S Shen. Effects of nitrogenous fertilizer application model on culm lodging resistance in winter wheat. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2008, 34(6): 2008−1085 (in Chinese)
23 S M Yang, L Xie, S L Zheng, J C Li, J Yuan. Effects of nitrogen rate and transplanting density on physical and chemical characteristics and lodging resistance of culms in hybrid rice. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2009, 35(1): 93–103 (in Chinese)
24 S E Jacobsen, I Jørgensen, O Stølen. Cultivation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) under temperate climatic conditions in Denmark. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1994, 122( 1): 47–52
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600065783
25 C R Spehar, J E da Silva Rocha. Effect of sowing density on plant growth and development of quinoa, genotype 4.5, in the Brazilian Savannah highlands. Bioscience Journal, 2009, 25( 4): 53–58
26 D L Easson, E M White, S J Pickles. The effects of weather, seed rate and cultivar on lodging and yield in winter-wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1993, 121( 2): 145–156
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600077005
27 L Gou, J J Huang, B Zhang, T Li, R Sun, M Zhao. Effects of population density on stalk lodging resistant mechanism and agronomic characteristics of maize. Acta Agronomia Sinica, 2007, 33(10): 2007−1695 (in Chinese)
28 M J Novacek, S C Mason, T D Galusha, M Yaseen. Twin rows minimally impact irrigated maize yield, morphology, and lodging. Agronomy Journal, 2013, 105( 1): 268–276
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0301
29 C J Baker, M Sterling, P Berry. A generalised model of crop lodging. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2014, 363 : 1–12
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.07.032
30 U Zuber, H Winzeler, M M Messmer, M Keller, B Keller, J E Schmid, P Stamp. Morphological traits associated with lodging resistance of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal Agronomy & Crop Science, 1999, 182( 1): 17–24
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037x.1999.00251.x
31 H A Esechie, V Rodriguez, H Al-Asmi. Comparison of local and exotic maize varieties for stalk lodging components in a desert climate. European Journal of Agronomy, 2004, 21( 1): 21–30
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(03)00060-1
32 M S Islam, S B Peng, R M Visperas, N Ereful, M S U Bhuiya, A W Julfiquar. Lodging-related morphological traits of hybrid rice in a tropical irrigated ecosystem. Field Crops Research, 2007, 101( 2): 240–248
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.12.002
33 D L Peng, X G Chen, Y P Yin, K L Lu, W B Yang, Y H Tang, Z L Wang. Lodging resistance of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): lignin accumulation and its related enzymes activities due to the application of paclobutrazol or gibberellin acid. Field Crops Research, 2014, 157 : 1–7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.11.015
34 M Zhang, H Wang, Y Yi, J Ding, M Zhu, C Li, W Guo, C Feng, X Zhu. Effect of nitrogen levels and nitrogen ratios on lodging resistance and yield potential of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). PLoS One, 2017, 12( 11): e0187543
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187543
35 W Zhang, L Wu, Y Ding, X Yao, X Wu, F Weng, G Li, Z Liu, S Tang, C Ding, S Wang. Nitrogen fertilizer application affects lodging resistance by altering secondary cell wall synthesis in japonica rice (Oryza sativa). Journal of Plant Research, 2017, 130( 5): 859–871
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10265-017-0943-3
36 P M Berry, J M Griffin, R Sylvester-Bradley, R K Scott, J H Spink, C J Baker, R W Clare. Controlling plant form through husbandry to minimise lodging in wheat. Field Crops Research, 2000, 67( 1): 59–81
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(00)00084-8
37 J Kuai, Y Y Sun, M Zhou, P P Zhang, Q S Zuo, J S Wu, G S Zhou. The effect of nitrogen application and planting density on the radiation use efficiency and the stem lignin metabolism in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Field Crops Research, 2016, 199 : 89–98
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.025
38 S E Jacobsen, J L Christiansen. Some agronomic strategies for organic quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal Agronomy & Crop Science, 2016, 202( 6): 454–463
https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12174
39 F R Yang. Breeding and application prospects of new variety Chenopodium quinoa cv. Longli 1. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2015, 12: 1–5 (in Chinese)
40 S J Fen. Experiment report on different planting density of quinoa in loess plateau in Longzhong. Agricultural Science-Technology and Information, 2019, 5: 11–12+17 (in Chinese)
41 S E Jacobsen, C R Jensen, H Pedersen. Use of the relative vegetation index for growth estimation in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 2005, 3( 2): 169–175
42 G Alandia, S E Jacobsen, N C Kyvsgaard, B Condori, F L Liu. Nitrogen sustains seed yield of quinoa under intermediate drought. Journal Agronomy & Crop Science, 2016, 202( 4): 281–291
https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12155
43 N E Mirabella, P E Abbate, M P Alonso, J S Panelo, A C Pontaroli. Identifying traits at crop maturity and models for estimation of lodging susceptibility in bread wheat. Crop & Pasture Science, 2019, 70( 2): 95–106
https://doi.org/10.1071/CP17347
44 D M Gimplinger, auf’m Erley G Schulte, G Dobos, H P Kaul. Optimum crop densities for potential yield and harvestable yield of grain amaranth are conflicting. European Journal of Agronomy, 2008, 28( 2): 119–125
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2007.05.007
45 P M Berry, M Sterling, J H Spink, C J Baker, R Sylvester-Bradley, S J Mooney, A R Tams, A R Ennos. Understanding and reducing lodging in cereals. Advances in Agronomy, 2004, 84 : 217–271
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(04)84005-7
46 Q Zhang, L Z Zhang, J Evers, W van der Werf, W Q Zhang, L S Duan. Maize yield and quality in response to plant density and application of a novel plant growth regulator. Field Crops Research, 2014, 164 : 82–89
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.06.006
47 R A Fischer, M Stapper. Lodging effects on high-yielding crops of irrigated semidwarf wheat. Field Crops Research, 1987, 17( 3–4): 3–4
48 D B Xiang, G Zhao, Y Wan, M L Tan, C Song, Y Song. Effect of planting density on lodging-related morphology, lodging rate, and yield of tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum). Plant Production Science, 2016, 19( 4): 479–488
https://doi.org/10.1080/1343943X.2016.1188320
49 P M Berry, R Sylvester-Bradley, S Berry. Ideotype design for lodging- resistant wheat. Euphytica, 2007, 154( 1–2): 1–2
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed