Author Contributions
Formal analysis, writing-original draft preparation, M.W. and H.J.; Methodology, Z.W. (Zhiheng Wei); Conceptualization, W.L.; Software, K.G.; Investigation, M.W., Z.W. (Zhiheng Wei) and H.J.; Data curation, M.W.; Writing-review and editing, M.Y. and Z.W. (Zhihai Wu); Supervision, Y.D., J.C. and D.W.; Funding acquisition, P.T., X.W. and Z.W. (Zhihai Wu). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Relationship between M, WP and LI by whole plant of rice under dry cultivation under different N application rates in 2019 and 2020. Dotted lines indicate the LI. N0, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 refer to the N application rate being 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 and 350 kg ha−1, respectively. M: Breaking strength. WP: Bending moment of the whole plant. LI: lodging index.
Figure 1.
Relationship between M, WP and LI by whole plant of rice under dry cultivation under different N application rates in 2019 and 2020. Dotted lines indicate the LI. N0, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 refer to the N application rate being 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 and 350 kg ha−1, respectively. M: Breaking strength. WP: Bending moment of the whole plant. LI: lodging index.
Figure 2.
Relationship between SM, BS and M of rice under dry cultivation under different N application rate in 2019 and 2020. N0, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 refer to the N application rate being 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 and 350 kg ha−1, respectively. M: Breaking strength. SM: Section modulus. BS: Bending stress.
Figure 2.
Relationship between SM, BS and M of rice under dry cultivation under different N application rate in 2019 and 2020. N0, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 refer to the N application rate being 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 and 350 kg ha−1, respectively. M: Breaking strength. SM: Section modulus. BS: Bending stress.
Figure 3.
Relationship between SL, FW and WP of rice under dry cultivation under different N application rate in 2019 and 2020. N0, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 refer to the N application rate being 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 and 350 kg ha−1, respectively. WP: Bending moment of the whole plant. SL: The distance from the broken point to the panicle top. FW: The fresh weight from the broken point to the panicle top.
Figure 3.
Relationship between SL, FW and WP of rice under dry cultivation under different N application rate in 2019 and 2020. N0, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 refer to the N application rate being 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 and 350 kg ha−1, respectively. WP: Bending moment of the whole plant. SL: The distance from the broken point to the panicle top. FW: The fresh weight from the broken point to the panicle top.
Figure 4.
Internode length under different N application rates in 2019 and 2020. N0, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 refer to the N application rate being 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 and 350 kg ha−1, respectively. S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 denote the first internode to the fifth internode base from the stem base, respectively. Panicle length (PL). The same letter means they do not have significantly different at the 0.05, the different letter means they have significantly different at the 0.05.
Figure 4.
Internode length under different N application rates in 2019 and 2020. N0, N1, N2, N3, N4 and N5 refer to the N application rate being 0, 70, 140, 210, 280 and 350 kg ha−1, respectively. S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 denote the first internode to the fifth internode base from the stem base, respectively. Panicle length (PL). The same letter means they do not have significantly different at the 0.05, the different letter means they have significantly different at the 0.05.
Figure 5.
Relationships between grain yield, lodging percent and LI and N application rate in 2019 and 2020. LI: lodging index.
Figure 5.
Relationships between grain yield, lodging percent and LI and N application rate in 2019 and 2020. LI: lodging index.
Table 1.
Analysis of variance of LI and its related physical parameters in 2019 and 2020.
Table 1.
Analysis of variance of LI and its related physical parameters in 2019 and 2020.
Analysis of Variance | M (g cm) | SM (mm3) | BS (g mm−2) | WP (cm g) | SL (cm) | FW (g) | LI (%) |
---|
Year (Y) | 90.61 ** | 0.10ns | 6.25 * | 60.48 ** | 66.33 ** | 191.53 ** | 5.71 * |
Nitrogen (N) | 873.93 ** | 3.19 * | 65.50 ** | 909.91 ** | 1625.06 ** | 191.68 ** | 51.08 ** |
Y × N | 3.39 * | 0.01 ns | 0.14 ns | 1.41 ns | 0.591 ns | 1.25 ns | 0.05 ns |
Table 2.
Analysis of variance of internode length and panicle length.
Table 2.
Analysis of variance of internode length and panicle length.
Analysis of Variance | S1 (cm) | S2 (cm) | S3 (cm) | S4 (cm) | S5 (cm) | PL (cm) |
---|
Year (Y) | 5.18 * | 101.89 ** | 0.02 ns | 0.73 ns | 7.07 * | 0.02 ns |
Nitrogen (N) | 262.03 ** | 368.49 ** | 172.13 ** | 82.39 ** | 12.30 ** | 2.71 * |
Y×N | 0.01 ns | 0.04 ns | 0.14 ns | 0.26 ns | 0.08 ns | 0.00 ns |
Table 3.
Effect of N application rate on main stem characteristics of rice under dry cultivation in 2019 and 2020.
Table 3.
Effect of N application rate on main stem characteristics of rice under dry cultivation in 2019 and 2020.
Year | Treatment | Plant Height (cm) | Center of Gravity Height (cm) | Panicle Weight (g) | Dry Weight of Upper Three Leaves (g) |
---|
2019 | N0 | 75.90 ± 3.04 d | 43.40 ± 2.31 c | 1.49 ± 0.11 b | 0.26 ± 0.02 c |
N1 | 79.10 ± 3.61 cd | 45.10 ± 2.87 c | 1.53 ± 0.14 b | 0.29 ± 0.02 bc |
N2 | 84.10 ± 4.05 bc | 48.30 ± 3.31 bc | 1.89 ± 0.15 a | 0.32 ± 0.03 ab |
N3 | 89.90 ± 3.28 b | 52.00 ± 3.54 b | 2.01 ± 0.17 a | 0.34 ± 0.03 a |
N4 | 96.90 ± 3.54 a | 58.61 ± 4.02 a | 1.96 ± 0.18 a | 0.35 ± 0.03 a |
N5 | 98.10 ± 3.61 a | 59.01 ± 3.13 a | 1.97 ± 0.10 a | 0.36 ± 0.03 a |
2020 | N0 | 76.10 ± 2.65 c | 44.60 ± 2.31 c | 1.57 ± 0.12 b | 0.25 ± 0.02 c |
N1 | 79.20 ± 4.00 c | 46.20 ± 3.13 c | 1.61 ± 0.18 b | 0.27 ± 0.02 bc |
N2 | 84.30 ± 3.30 bc | 49.13 ± 2.48 bc | 1.97 ± 0.14 a | 0.30 ± 0.03 ab |
N3 | 90.00 ± 6.08 ab | 53.43 ± 3.07 b | 2.16 ± 0.19 a | 0.31 ± 0.03 ab |
N4 | 96.80 ± 6.00 a | 59.76 ± 3.34 a | 2.09 ± 0.21 a | 0.33 ± 0.03 a |
N5 | 98.20 ± 4.90 a | 60.68 ± 4.02 a | 2.08 ± 0.16 a | 0.34 ± 0.03 a |
Table 4.
Analysis of variance of main stem characteristics.
Table 4.
Analysis of variance of main stem characteristics.
Analysis of Variance | Plant Height (cm) | Center of Gravity Height (cm) | Panicle Weight (g) | Dry Weight of Upper Three Leaves (g) |
---|
Year (Y) | 0.01 ns | 1.67 ns | 5.67 * | 6.37 * |
Nitrogen (N) | 29.35 ** | 4.03 ** | 17.71 ** | 32.36 ** |
Y × N | 0.01 ns | 0.01 ns | 0.16 ns | 0.28 ns |
Table 5.
Effects of N application rate on morphological characteristics of the S2 basal internode of rice under dry cultivation in 2019 and 2020.
Table 5.
Effects of N application rate on morphological characteristics of the S2 basal internode of rice under dry cultivation in 2019 and 2020.
Year | Treatment | Dry Weight of Unit Leaf Sheath (mg cm−1) | Dry Weight Per Unit Culm (mg cm−1) | Minor Axis Diameter (mm) | Major Axis Diameter (mm) | Culm Diameter (mm) | Culm Wall Thickness (mm) |
---|
2019 | N0 | 16.32 ± 1.17 a | 18.31 ± 0.47 a | 3.31 ± 0.30 a | 4.05 ± 0.23 a | 3.68 ± 0.06 a | 0.45 ± 0.03 a |
N1 | 15.52 ± 1.11 ab | 17.93 ± 0.50 a | 3.30 ± 0.22 a | 4.00 ± 0.16 a | 3.65 ± 0.05 a | 0.44 ± 0.03 a |
N2 | 14.47 ± 1.03 bc | 17.68 ± 0.39 a | 3.18 ± 0.17 a | 3.96 ± 0.23 a | 3.57 ± 0.08 ab | 0.43 ± 0.03 a |
N3 | 13.56 ± 0.97 c | 17.51 ± 0.46 ab | 3.13 ± 0.15 a | 3.91 ± 0.27 a | 3.52 ± 0.06 bc | 0.44 ± 0.03 a |
N4 | 11.78 ± 0.84 d | 16.77 ± 0.39 bc | 3.11 ± 0.36 a | 3.81 ± 0.28 a | 3.46 ± 0.07 bc | 0.42 ± 0.03 a |
N5 | 10.10 ± 0.72 d | 16.56 ± 0.42 c | 3.10 ± 0.15 a | 3.78 ± 0.19 a | 3.44 ± 0.06 c | 0.41 ± 0.02 b |
2020 | N0 | 16.01 ± 1.14 a | 17.87 ± 0.43 a | 3.36 ± 0.32 a | 3.98 ± 0.23 a | 3.67 ± 0.08 a | 0.45 ± 0.02 a |
N1 | 15.11 ± 1.08 ab | 17.29 ± 0.39 b | 3.33 ± 0.27 a | 3.95 ± 0.21 a | 3.64 ± 0.04 a | 0.43 ± 0.03 a |
N2 | 13.99 ± 1.00 bc | 17.03 ± 0.44 b | 3.22 ± 0.17 a | 3.88 ± 0.23 a | 3.55 ± 0.07 ab | 0.44 ± 0.02 a |
N3 | 13.12 ± 0.94 cd | 16.88 ± 0.37 b | 3.20 ± 0.22 a | 3.84 ± 0.31 a | 3.52 ± 0.06 bc | 0.43 ± 0.03 a |
N4 | 11.42 ± 0.82 de | 16.13 ± 0.42 c | 3.19 ± 0.31 a | 3.73 ± 0.24 a | 3.46 ± 0.07 c | 0.41 ± 0.02 a |
N5 | 9.79 ± 0.70 e | 16.06 ± 0.36 c | 3.13 ± 0.14 a | 3.73 ± 0.15 a | 3.43 ± 0.09 c | 0.40 ± 0.03 b |
Table 6.
Analysis of variance of morphological characteristics of the S2 basal internode.
Table 6.
Analysis of variance of morphological characteristics of the S2 basal internode.
Analysis of Variance | Dry Weight of Unit Leaf Sheath (mg cm−1) | Dry Weight Per Unit Culm (mg cm−1) | Minor Axis Diameter (mm) | Major Axis Diameter (mm) | Culm Diameter (mm) | Culm Wall Thickness (mm) |
---|
Year (Y) | 1.41 ns | 17.20 ** | 0.38 ns | 0.75 ns | 0.14 ns | 0.09 ns |
Nitrogen (N) | 34.51 ** | 15.72 ** | 0.86 ns | 1.24 ns | 12.50 ** | 3.69 ** |
Y × N | 0.01 ns | 0.07 ns | 0.01 ns | 0.01 ns | 0.02 ns | 0.11 ns |
Table 7.
Effect of N application rate on carbohydrates contents of the S2 basal internode of the culm and sheath of rice under dry cultivation in 2019 and 2020.
Table 7.
Effect of N application rate on carbohydrates contents of the S2 basal internode of the culm and sheath of rice under dry cultivation in 2019 and 2020.
Year | Treatment | Leaf Sheath (mg cm−1) | Culm (mg cm−1) |
---|
Lignin | Cellulose | NSC | Lignin | Cellulose | NSC |
---|
2019 | N0 | 3.18 ± 0.20 a | 5.61 ± 0.28 a | 2.66 ± 0.12 a | 2.87 ± 0.14 a | 6.01 ± 0.11 a | 5.12 ± 0.09 a |
N1 | 2.73 ± 0.17 b | 5.29 ± 0.20 a | 2.24 ± 0.13 b | 2.51 ± 0.12 b | 5.53 + 0.16 b | 4.60 ± 0.14 b |
N2 | 2.51 ± 0.16 bc | 4.62 ± 0.16 b | 1.98 ± 0.11 c | 2.36 ± 0.09 c | 4.80 + 0.06 c | 4.43 ± 0.10 b |
N3 | 2.25 ± 0.13 c | 4.31 ± 0.22 b | 1.60 ± 0.07 d | 2.22 ± 0.10 c | 4.36 + 0.12 d | 3.94 ± 0.11 c |
N4 | 2.06 ± 0.14 d | 3.70 ± 0.19 c | 1.32 ± 0.08 e | 2.07 ± 0.07 d | 3.95 + 0.09 e | 3.06 ± 0.07 d |
N5 | 1.93 ± 0.08 e | 3.29 ± 0.16 d | 1.18 ± 0.07 e | 1.89 ± 0.06 e | 3.80 + 0.08 e | 2.49 ± 0.08 e |
2020 | N0 | 3.27 ± 0.20 a | 5.70 ± 0.29 a | 2.38 ± 0.10 a | 2.92 ± 0.15 a | 6.13 + 0.12 a | 5.24 ± 0.14 a |
N1 | 2.81 ± 0.18 b | 5.38 ± 0.27 a | 2.01 ± 0.11 b | 2.57 ± 0.09 b | 5.67 ± 0.14 b | 4.71 ± 0.17 b |
N2 | 2.60 ± 0.16 b | 4.77 ± 0.23 b | 1.72 ± 0.07 c | 2.41 ± 0.10 c | 4.89 ± 0.16 c | 4.36 ± 0.23 b |
N3 | 2.32 ± 0.15 c | 4.44 ± 0.18 b | 1.43 ± 0.08 d | 2.27 ± 0.11 d | 4.46 ± 0.09 d | 3.74 ± 0.05 c |
N4 | 2.18 ± 0.12 d | 3.80 ± 0.22 c | 1.18 ± 0.06 e | 2.12 ± 0.08 e | 4.09 ± 0.10 e | 2.88 ± 0.08 d |
N5 | 2.01 ± 0.09 d | 3.41 ± 0.17 c | 0.97 ± 0.05 f | 1.93 ± 0.06 f | 3.87 ± 0.12 e | 2.53 ± 0.07 e |
Table 8.
Analysis of variance of carbohydrates contents of the S2 basal internode of the culm and sheath.
Table 8.
Analysis of variance of carbohydrates contents of the S2 basal internode of the culm and sheath.
Analysis of Variance | Leaf Sheath (mg cm−1) | Culm (mg cm−1) |
---|
Lignin | Cellulose | NSC | Lignin | Cellulose | NSC |
---|
Year (Y) | 3.17 ns | 2.44 ns | 50.38 ** | 4.09 ns | 8.05 ** | 6.44 * |
Nitrogen (N) | 114.55 ** | 100.40 ** | 217.94 ** | 210.43 ** | 350.16 ** | 553.34 ** |
Y × N | 0.02 ns | 0.02 ns | 0.51 ns | 0.24 ns | 0.09 ns | 0.55 ns |
Table 9.
LI and its related parameters of the S2 basal internode in 2019 and 2020 (n = 18).
Table 9.
LI and its related parameters of the S2 basal internode in 2019 and 2020 (n = 18).
Indexes | 2019 | 2020 |
---|
LI | M | LI | M |
---|
M | −0.910 ** | 1 | −0.903 ** | 1 |
SM | 0.392 | −0.447 | 0.333 | −0.375 |
BS | −0.659 ** | 0.684 ** | −0.643 ** | 0.645 ** |
WP | 0.658 ** | −0.437 | 0.737 ** | −0.477 * |
SL | 0.948 ** | −0.806 ** | 0.939 ** | −0.804 ** |
FW | 0.674 ** | −0.510 * | 0.597 ** | −0.472 * |
Plant height | 0.921 ** | −0.761 ** | 0.900 ** | −0.693 ** |
center of gravity height | 0.838 ** | −0.531 * | 0.853 ** | −0.514 * |
Panicle weight | 0.640 ** | −0.570 * | 0.632** | −0.552 * |
Dry weight of upper three leaves | 0.641 ** | −0.567 * | 0.866 ** | −0.582 * |
The length of S2 internodes | 0.825 ** | −0.683 ** | 0.818 ** | −0.627 ** |
Dry weight of unit leaf sheath | −0.784 ** | 0.778 ** | −0.887 ** | 0.759 ** |
Dry weight per unit culm | −0.886 ** | 0.965 ** | −0.629 ** | 0.953 ** |
Minor axis diameter | −0.279 | 0.333 | −0.271 | 0.359 |
Major axis diameter | −0.364 | 0.293 | −0.356 | 0.216 |
Culm diameter | −0.656 ** | 0.639 ** | −0.649 ** | 0.597 ** |
Culm wall thickness | −0.472 | 0.228 | −0.491 | 0.251 |
Table 10.
Correlation coefficients between LI and the S2 basal internode of chemical composition in 2019 and 2020 (n = 18).
Table 10.
Correlation coefficients between LI and the S2 basal internode of chemical composition in 2019 and 2020 (n = 18).
Year | Indexes | Leaf Sheath (mg cm−1) | Culm (mg cm−1) |
---|
Lignin | Cellulose | NSC | Lignin | Cellulose | NSC |
---|
2019 | LI | −0.866 ** | −0.861 ** | −0.924 ** | −0.880 ** | −0.899 ** | −0.887 ** |
M | 0.834 ** | 0.901 ** | 0.805 ** | 0.855 ** | 0.841 ** | 0.871 ** |
2020 | LI | −0.852 ** | −0.852 ** | −0.935 ** | −0.891 ** | −0.948 ** | −0.863 ** |
M | 0.898 ** | 0.898 ** | −0.807 ** | 0.865 ** | 0.786 ** | 0.863 ** |
Table 11.
Effect of N application rate on grain yield and yield composition of rice under dry cultivation in 2019 and 2020.
Table 11.
Effect of N application rate on grain yield and yield composition of rice under dry cultivation in 2019 and 2020.
Year | Treatment | Effective Panicles (×104 ha−1) | Spikelets Per Panicle | Filled Grain Rate (%) | 1000-Grain Weight (g) | Grain Yield (kg ha−1) |
---|
2019 | N0 | 267.32 ± 20.52 c | 53.81 ± 3.12 e | 94.92 ± 1.62 a | 24.83 ± 0.68 a | 3.41 ± 0.61 e |
N1 | 315.75 ± 11.51 b | 70.75 ± 1.19 d | 93.11 ± 0.99 a | 25.17 ± 0.37 a | 5.22 ± 0.17 d |
N2 | 407.19 ± 9.50 a | 75.54 ± 0.19 c | 91.46 ± 0.23 b | 24.43 ± 0.61 a | 6.87 ± 0.23 c |
N3 | 430.73 ± 10.51 a | 86.53 ± 1.17 a | 89.76 ± 0.59 bc | 24.31 ± 0.63 a | 8.10 ± 0.18 a |
N4 | 427.31 ± 9.72 a | 80.66 ± 1.41 b | 88.22 ± 1.08 c | 25.04 ± 0.12 a | 7.66 ± 0.29 b |
N5 | 406.37 ± 5.83 a | 79.50 ± 2.53 b | 84.80 ± 0.78 d | 23.92 ± 0.91 a | 6.70 ± 0.54 c |
2020 | N0 | 249.67 ± 13.65 d | 51.15 ± 3.55 d | 93.07 ± 1.28 a | 24.65 ± 0.19 a | 2.92 ± 0.11 e |
N1 | 328.00 ± 9.17 c | 71.98 ± 3.00 c | 92.57 ± 1.70 ab | 24.53 ± 0.31 a | 5.36 ± 0.08 d |
N2 | 395.33 ± 8.14 b | 77.05 ± 3.58 bc | 90.27 ± 1.39 bc | 24.59 ± 0.11 a | 6.76 ± 0.21 c |
N3 | 426.33 ± 8.33 a | 83.64 ± 2.51 a | 89.18 ± 1.48 cd | 24.60 ± 0.52 a | 7.82 ± 0.26 a |
N4 | 420.75 ± 15.04 a | 81.76 ± 2.39 ab | 87.28 ± 1.01 d | 24.42 ± 0.16 a | 7.42 ± 0.35 b |
N5 | 401.67 ± 7.51 b | 78.47 ± 1.76 ab | 86.78 ± 4.62 d | 24.28 ± 0.19 a | 6.62 ± 0.22 c |
Table 12.
Analysis of variance of grain yield and yield composition.
Table 12.
Analysis of variance of grain yield and yield composition.
Analysis of Variance | Effective Panicles (×104 ha−1) | Spikelets Per Panicle | Filled Grain Rate (%) | 1000-Grain Weight (g) | Grain Yield (kg ha−1) |
---|
Year (Y) | 4.44 * | 0.31 ns | 1.84 ns | 1.07 ns | 4.77 * |
Nitrogen (N) | 246.42 ** | 134.94 ** | 43.49 ** | 1.50 ns | 202.34 ** |
Y × N | 0.43 ns | 1.01 ns | 1.96 ns | 0.87 ns | 0.35 ns |
Table 13.
Selected traits in stepwise regression analysis.
Table 13.
Selected traits in stepwise regression analysis.
Model | Parameter | Regression Coefficients | R2 | Significance (p < 0.05) |
---|
1 | Cellulose of culm | 0.323 | 0.931 | <0.001 |
2 | NSC of leaf sheath | 0.307 | 0.942 | <0.003 |
3 | M | 0.284 | 0.956 | <0.001 |
4 | WP | 0.199 | 0.968 | <0.028 |
5 | Center of gravity height | 0.118 | 0.985 | <0.018 |
6 | Dry weight per unit culm | 0.109 | 0.997 | <0.021 |
7 | Effective panicles | 0.081 | 0.999 | <0.015 |
Table 14.
Correlation between yield and yield components.
Table 14.
Correlation between yield and yield components.
Year | Indexes | Effective Panicles | Spikelets Per Panicle | Filled Grain Rate | 1000-Grain Weight |
---|
2019 | Grain yield | 0.986 ** | 0.953 ** | −0.706 | −0.319 |
2020 | 0.971 ** | 0.949 ** | −0.613 | −0.324 |