The Distribution Characteristics of Waterlogging Disaster Risk of Winter Rape (Brassica napus L.) at Seedling Stage in Southwest China

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2022-0129

Abstract

Abstract:

Studying the distribution characteristics of crop meteorological disaster risk has scientific significance for optimizing crop production planning, preventing disasters and reducing damages. Southwest China is one of the major winter rape (Brassica napus L.) producing areas, and the risk of waterlogging disaster at winter rape seedling stage is affected by autumn rain in western China. Based on studying the spatial distribution characteristics of winter rape at seedling stage in southwest China, we analyzed the distribution characteristics of waterlogging disaster risk by using the definition and computing method of the waterlogging disaster index of winter rape in the industry standard. The results showed that the eastern and central regions of Sichuan Province, Chongqing City, and eastern Guizhou Province were the earliest areas for winter rapeseed to enter the seedling stage. The winter rape seedling stage in southern Yunnan started from early to middle October, and that in northeastern Yunnan and western Guizhou began in late October. Southwestern Sichuan and northern Yunnan were the regions with the latest winter rape seedling stage in the study area. (2) The intensity index of mild, moderate and severe waterlogging disaster of winter rape at seedling stage was 0.69, 1.28 and 1.65, respectively. The probability of mild waterlogging disaster was higher than that of moderate and severe waterlogging disaster in the study area. Areas with high occurrence of different grades of waterlogging disaster at winter rape seedling stage were mainly concentrated in southeastern Sichuan, southwestern Chongqing and northern Guizhou. (3) The risk of waterlogging disaster at winter rape seedling stage in the study area showed the distribution characteristic of high in the east and low in the west. The waterlogging disaster risk at winter rape seedling stage in Yunnan and southwestern and northern Sichuan was low. By contrast, the risk in Chongqing, Guizhou and central and eastern Sichuan was relatively high, especially in Yibin and Luzhou of Sichuan, Jiangjin, Qijiang, Yongchuan and Nanchuan of Chongqing, and Zunyi, Bijie and Guiyang of Guizhou. Therefore, measures such as improving variety structure or optimizing spatial distribution of planting should be adopted in Chongqing, Guizhou, and central and eastern Sichuan to reduce the impact of waterlogging disaster on winter rape at seedling stage.

Key words: waterlogging disaster risk, spatial distribution characteristics, winter rape at seedling stage, southwest China

HU Ke, HE Peng, GAO Wenbo. The Distribution Characteristics of Waterlogging Disaster Risk of Winter Rape (Brassica napus L.) at Seedling Stage in Southwest China[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2023, 13(10): 62-69.

Figures/Tables 9

References 35

[1]	范雨娴, 霍治国, 杨宏毅, 等. 湖南省油菜春季涝渍过程灾变判别指标[J]. 应用气象学报, 2018, 29(2):141-153.
[2]	吕丽莉, 孔锋, 王品. 1961-2016年中国四季降雨事件演变特征的空间差异分析[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2018, 18(22):1-14.
[3]	PATRICIO G, GUILLERMO V I, MONICA L P, et al. Responses to short-term water logging during grain filling in sunflower[J]. Field crop research, 2007(101):352-363.
[4]	刘秋霞, 任涛, 韩上, 等. 苗期渍水对直播冬油菜产量和农学利用率的影响及油菜在不同氮肥施用下的响应[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2020, 42(4):594-602.
[5]	刘波, 魏全全, 鲁剑巍, 等. 苗期渍水和氮肥用量对直播冬油菜产量及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(1):144-153.
[6]	张宇, 蒋跃林. 花期渍水胁迫对冬油菜生长及产量的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2014, 4(10):24-27.
[7]	秦鹏程, 刘志雄, 万素琴, 等. 基于决策树和随机森林模型的湖北油菜产量限制因子分析[J]. 中国农业气象, 2016, 37(6):691-699.
[8]	刘莉, 戴黎, 雷廷海, 等. 持续受渍对油菜叶片光谱特性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(05):57-60.
[9]	宋丰萍, 胡立勇, 周广生, 等. 渍水时间对油菜生长及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2010, 36(1):170-176. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2010.00170
[10]	刘凯文, 苏荣瑞, 潘建成, 等. 春季湿渍害对油菜产量结构的影响与减产效应[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(5):63-66.
[11]	ZOU X L, ZENG L, LU G Y, et al. Comparison of transcriptomes undergoing waterlogging at the seedling stage between tolerant and sensitive varieties of Brassica napus L.[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2015, 14(9):1723-1734. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61138-8 URL
[12]	宋楚崴, 曹宏鑫, 张文宇, 等. 施肥和花期渍水胁迫对油菜产量及其形成影响的模型研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(4):662-674. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.04.006
[13]	霍治国, 李世奎, 王素艳, 等. 主要农业气象灾害风险评估技术及其应用研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2003, 18(6):692-703.
[14]	霍治国, 盛绍学, 贺楠, 等. QX/T 107-2009,冬小麦、油菜涝渍等级[S]. 北京: 气象出版社, 2009:5-8.
[15]	刘瑞娜, 杨太明, 王晓东, 等. 近50年安徽省油菜涝渍灾害时空变化分析[J]. 农学学报, 2016, 6(1):110-116. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas15050016
[16]	鞠英芹, 杨霏云, 马德栗, 等. 江淮地区油菜渍害的时空分析[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2017, 26(6):136-146.
[17]	郭翔, 赵金鹏, 王茹琳, 等. 四川盆区油菜播期涝渍害时空特征及危险性[J]. 生态学杂志, 2022, 41(7):1406-1413.
[18]	陈红琳, 陈尚洪, 王昌桃, 等. 苗期渍水胁迫对免耕直播油菜产量和品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2014, 30(2):259-263.
[19]	张树杰, 王汉中. 我国油菜生产应对气候变化的对策和措施分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2012, 34(1):114-122.
[20]	蒋梓淳, 徐嘉昕, 黄平, 等. 川西平原油菜种植区域时空变化分析[J]. 中国农业信息, 2021, 33(2):24-30.
[21]	高文波, 林正雨, 王明田, 等. 1971-2020年西南茶区灌木型茶树晚霜冻害危险性时空演变特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(11):4029-4038. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202111.012
[22]	吴进明, 吴森, 姜永秀. 2012-2013年度云南省油菜生产旱灾损失评估[J]. 云南农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2013, 7(5):60-62.
[23]	原小燕, 符明联, 张云云, 等. 云南芥菜型油菜资源品质及苗期耐旱性评价[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2020, 42(4):573-584.
[24]	符明联, 邹平, 吴建华, 等. 黔油系列杂交油菜品种引种云南的表现[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2002(5):10-12.
[25]	程德荣. 泸西县稻田直播油菜轻简化高产栽培技术[J]. 中国农业信息, 2016(14):73-74.
[26]	刘灿, 徐前进, 陈志军, 等. 重庆地区油菜精细化气候区划研究[J]. 高原山地气象研究, 2014, 34(1):77-80.
[27]	皮竟, 黄桃翠, 黄华磊, 等. 重庆油菜产业现状及发展对策[J]. 农学学报, 2020, 10(10):50-54. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas20200300044
[28]	张媛. 四川盆地区油菜农业气象灾害风险评估及区划[D]. 成都: 成都理工大学, 2020.
[29]	何鹏, 涂美艳, 高文波, 等. 四川省猕猴桃生态气象适宜性分析及精细区划研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(36):124-132. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18080082
[30]	廖顺宝, 李泽辉. 气温数据栅格化中的几个具体问题[J]. 气象科技, 2004, 32(5):352-356.
[31]	石艳, 李刚, 谭健. 近31a贵州低温阴雨天气时空分布特征[J]. 中低纬山地气象, 2019, 43(3):71-74.
[32]	张顺谦, 马振峰, 陈文秀, 等. 西南地区秋绵雨变化趋势与周期性特征的区域差异. 自然资源学报, 2014, 29(2): 275-284. doi: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2014.02.009
[33]	王欢, 李晶, 庞玥. 伴有区域暴雨的重庆秋季连阴雨及其暴雨特征[J]. 高原山地气象研究, 2017, 37(4):28-33.
[34]	孙照渤, 黄艳艳, 倪东鸿. 我国秋季连阴雨的气候特征及大气环流特征[J]. 大气科学学报, 2016, 39(4):480-489.
[35]	张菡, 郑昊, 王明田, 等. 基于GIS的秋季连阴雨对农业生产影响的风险评估—以四川省盆地区为例[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(8):2569-2576.

生育期	致灾等级
生育期	轻度	中度	重度
苗期	2旬平均 0.9>Q_w≥0.8	2旬平均 1.0>Q_w≥0.9	2旬平均 Q_w≥1.0
减产率参考值/%	5~10	10~20	>20

生育期	致灾等级
生育期	轻度	中度	重度
苗期	2旬平均 0.9>Q_w≥0.8	2旬平均 1.0>Q_w≥0.9	2旬平均 Q_w≥1.0
减产率参考值/%	5~10	10~20	>20

项目		高程x₃	纬度x₁+高程x₃	纬度x₁+经度x₂	经度x₂+高程x₃	纬度x₁+经度x₂+高程x₃
决定系数R²		0.135	0.135	0.098	0.255	0.255
F值		7.476	3.676	2.562	8.058	5.258
P值		0.009	0.0329	0.088	0.001	0.003
方差		159.963	163.269	170.245	140.599	143.656
常数项b		275.717	280.945	252.825	43.643	43.721
系数	a₁	—	-0.169	-1.840	—	-0.002
	a₂	—	—	0.779	2.146	2.146
	a₃	0.009	0.008	—	0.016	0.016

项目		高程x₃	纬度x₁+高程x₃	纬度x₁+经度x₂	经度x₂+高程x₃	纬度x₁+经度x₂+高程x₃
决定系数R²		0.135	0.135	0.098	0.255	0.255
F值		7.476	3.676	2.562	8.058	5.258
P值		0.009	0.0329	0.088	0.001	0.003
方差		159.963	163.269	170.245	140.599	143.656
常数项b		275.717	280.945	252.825	43.643	43.721
系数	a₁	—	-0.169	-1.840	—	-0.002
	a₂	—	—	0.779	2.146	2.146
	a₃	0.009	0.008	—	0.016	0.016

危险级别	危险性指数阈值区间	面积占比/%
低	[0.00，0.17]	39.20
较低	[0.18，0.40)	20.40
中等	[0.41，0.63]	19.00
较高	[0.44，0.91]	13.32
高	[0.92，1.45]	8.09