草业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (4): 72-80.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2021318
吴海艳1,2(), 曲尼2, 曲珍2, 同桑措姆2, 达娃卓嘎2, 德央2, 尼玛卓嘎2, 刘昭明3, 马玉寿1()
收稿日期:
2021-08-25
修回日期:
2021-11-11
出版日期:
2022-04-20
发布日期:
2022-01-25
通讯作者:
马玉寿
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: mayushou@sina.com基金资助:
Hai-yan WU1,2(), Ni QU2, Zhen QU2, Tongsangcuomu2, Dawazhuoga2, Deyang2, Nimazhuoga2, Zhao-ming LIU3, Yu-shou MA1()
Received:
2021-08-25
Revised:
2021-11-11
Online:
2022-04-20
Published:
2022-01-25
Contact:
Yu-shou MA
摘要:
以6个燕麦品种为材料,用主成分分析法对其农艺性状、生产性能、营养品质及饲用价值共25个指标进行综合评价,以期筛选出适宜在日喀则昂仁县种植推广的兼具较高生产性能和品质的燕麦品种。结果表明:6个品种中除青海444能进入蜡熟期外,其余品种均处于乳熟期,且甜燕麦和青引1号株高达147 cm以上,显著高于其余品种(P<0.05);甜燕麦茎粗为6.39 mm,与青海444、加燕2号、青引1号无显著差异(P>0.05),但显著高于白燕2号和青引2号(P<0.05);6个品种鲜重和干重均无显著差异(P>0.05),甜燕麦干草产量最高(18420.13 kg·hm-2),青引2号干草产量最低(13617.96 kg·hm-2);6个燕麦品种的粗蛋白含量为5.66%~11.59%,粗脂肪含量为2.94%~3.50%,相对牧草质量最高的是青引2号,为174.76。主成分分析提取到4个主成分,累积贡献率91.78%。根据主成分综合得分排序,甜燕麦得分最高,为2.37。因此,最适宜在昂仁县推广种植的兼顾生产性能和饲草品质的燕麦品种为甜燕麦。
吴海艳, 曲尼, 曲珍, 同桑措姆, 达娃卓嘎, 德央, 尼玛卓嘎, 刘昭明, 马玉寿. 6个燕麦品种在昂仁县的生产性能及饲草品质比较[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(4): 72-80.
Hai-yan WU, Ni QU, Zhen QU, Tongsangcuomu, Dawazhuoga, Deyang, Nimazhuoga, Zhao-ming LIU, Yu-shou MA. Comparison of crop yield and forage quality of six oat varieties in Angren County, Shigatse[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(4): 72-80.
品种 Variety | 物候期 Phenophase | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 分蘖数 Tiler number | 根系数量 Number of roots | 主根长 Main root length (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 55.83±13.51ab | 3.33±0.58a | 22.67±11.59a | 10.10±4.42ab |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 51.83±22.67b | 4.67±3.51a | 26.67±13.05a | 7.13±0.83ab |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 51.03±16.38b | 4.00±1.00a | 26.00±15.59a | 6.63±2.45b |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | 抽穗期Heading stage | 85.07±10.55a | 6.00±2.00a | 31.67±8.02a | 10.63±2.31ab |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 83.33±14.68a | 5.00±2.65a | 33.33±18.23a | 8.83±1.61ab |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 65.00±20.48ab | 4.67±1.53a | 25.00±2.65a | 11.07±1.68a |
品种 Variety | 物候期 Phenophase | 种子埋深 Seeds buried depth (cm) | 叶片数 Number of leaves | 叶长 Leaf length (cm) | 叶宽 Leaf width (cm) |
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 1.50±0.50ab | 19.00±7.21a | 23.43±2.69a | 1.30±0.21a |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 1.37±1.23ab | 17.33±10.02a | 24.14±6.11a | 1.24±0.06a |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 2.10±0.85ab | 17.33±6.11a | 23.53±4.75a | 1.38±0.37a |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | 抽穗期Heading stage | 2.83±1.59a | 23.00±7.94a | 31.58±8.07a | 1.45±0.07a |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 1.93±0.31ab | 20.33±10.69a | 30.56±7.11a | 1.84±0.44a |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 1.17±0.29b | 18.00±5.57a | 25.54±0.70a | 1.54±0.72a |
表1 不同燕麦品种8月农艺性状表现
Table 1 Plant agronomic traits of different oat varieties in August
品种 Variety | 物候期 Phenophase | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 分蘖数 Tiler number | 根系数量 Number of roots | 主根长 Main root length (cm) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 55.83±13.51ab | 3.33±0.58a | 22.67±11.59a | 10.10±4.42ab |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 51.83±22.67b | 4.67±3.51a | 26.67±13.05a | 7.13±0.83ab |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 51.03±16.38b | 4.00±1.00a | 26.00±15.59a | 6.63±2.45b |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | 抽穗期Heading stage | 85.07±10.55a | 6.00±2.00a | 31.67±8.02a | 10.63±2.31ab |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 83.33±14.68a | 5.00±2.65a | 33.33±18.23a | 8.83±1.61ab |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 65.00±20.48ab | 4.67±1.53a | 25.00±2.65a | 11.07±1.68a |
品种 Variety | 物候期 Phenophase | 种子埋深 Seeds buried depth (cm) | 叶片数 Number of leaves | 叶长 Leaf length (cm) | 叶宽 Leaf width (cm) |
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 1.50±0.50ab | 19.00±7.21a | 23.43±2.69a | 1.30±0.21a |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 1.37±1.23ab | 17.33±10.02a | 24.14±6.11a | 1.24±0.06a |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 2.10±0.85ab | 17.33±6.11a | 23.53±4.75a | 1.38±0.37a |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | 抽穗期Heading stage | 2.83±1.59a | 23.00±7.94a | 31.58±8.07a | 1.45±0.07a |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 1.93±0.31ab | 20.33±10.69a | 30.56±7.11a | 1.84±0.44a |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | 抽穗期Heading stage | 1.17±0.29b | 18.00±5.57a | 25.54±0.70a | 1.54±0.72a |
品种 Variety | 物候期 Phenophase | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 茎粗 Stem diameter (mm) | 主根长 Main root length (cm) | 鲜草产量 Fresh yield (kg·hm-2) | 干草产量 Hay yield (kg·hm-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | MS | 92.50±4.65d | 5.31±0.25b | 11.80±1.11a | 46662.93±12329.53a | 13617.96±3598.21a |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | DS | 141.50±3.42b | 6.13±0.48ab | 11.90±1.17a | 45563.04±6624.15a | 15711.39±2284.19a |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | MS | 135.75±3.50bc | 5.55±0.37b | 13.05±1.60a | 42722.13±20110.89a | 13931.13±6557.90a |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | MS | 149.00±5.57a | 6.39±0.79a | 12.70±0.75a | 58349.48±11317.65a | 18420.13±3572.82a |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | MS | 131.00±5.57c | 6.10±0.42ab | 12.60±1.10a | 41687.75±7209.11a | 13829.34±2680.65a |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | MS | 147.75±4.65ab | 5.94±0.44ab | 13.35±0.88a | 54344.44±10296.08a | 17190.59±3256.92a |
表2 不同燕麦品种9月农艺性状表现
Table 2 Plant agronomic traits of different oat varieties in September
品种 Variety | 物候期 Phenophase | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 茎粗 Stem diameter (mm) | 主根长 Main root length (cm) | 鲜草产量 Fresh yield (kg·hm-2) | 干草产量 Hay yield (kg·hm-2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | MS | 92.50±4.65d | 5.31±0.25b | 11.80±1.11a | 46662.93±12329.53a | 13617.96±3598.21a |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | DS | 141.50±3.42b | 6.13±0.48ab | 11.90±1.17a | 45563.04±6624.15a | 15711.39±2284.19a |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | MS | 135.75±3.50bc | 5.55±0.37b | 13.05±1.60a | 42722.13±20110.89a | 13931.13±6557.90a |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | MS | 149.00±5.57a | 6.39±0.79a | 12.70±0.75a | 58349.48±11317.65a | 18420.13±3572.82a |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | MS | 131.00±5.57c | 6.10±0.42ab | 12.60±1.10a | 41687.75±7209.11a | 13829.34±2680.65a |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | MS | 147.75±4.65ab | 5.94±0.44ab | 13.35±0.88a | 54344.44±10296.08a | 17190.59±3256.92a |
品种 Variety | 水分 Moisture (%) | DM (%) | CP (%) | EE (%) | Ash (%) | ADF (%) | NDF (%) | ADL (%) | 淀粉 Starch (%) | TFA (%) | WSC (%) | RFQ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | 5.36 | 94.64 | 11.59 | 3.50 | 6.79 | 30.77 | 50.77 | 7.69 | 4.36 | 1.67 | 13.03 | 174.76 |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 4.27 | 95.73 | 5.66 | 3.05 | 6.57 | 35.69 | 56.68 | 9.77 | 5.58 | 1.35 | 12.19 | 118.03 |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | 4.94 | 95.06 | 7.57 | 3.13 | 7.64 | 36.38 | 58.45 | 7.95 | 2.79 | 1.27 | 12.03 | 127.18 |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | 5.87 | 94.13 | 8.94 | 2.94 | 6.19 | 35.58 | 55.61 | 9.03 | 3.48 | 1.37 | 13.41 | 148.59 |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | 4.47 | 95.53 | 5.78 | 3.29 | 5.58 | 35.13 | 58.77 | 8.96 | 5.28 | 1.39 | 12.30 | 120.42 |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | 4.81 | 95.19 | 10.19 | 3.02 | 6.45 | 36.11 | 57.94 | 9.27 | 3.84 | 1.39 | 9.69 | 139.45 |
表3 不同燕麦品种营养成分及饲草品质比较
Table 3 Comparison of nutritional content and feed value of different oat varieties
品种 Variety | 水分 Moisture (%) | DM (%) | CP (%) | EE (%) | Ash (%) | ADF (%) | NDF (%) | ADL (%) | 淀粉 Starch (%) | TFA (%) | WSC (%) | RFQ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | 5.36 | 94.64 | 11.59 | 3.50 | 6.79 | 30.77 | 50.77 | 7.69 | 4.36 | 1.67 | 13.03 | 174.76 |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 4.27 | 95.73 | 5.66 | 3.05 | 6.57 | 35.69 | 56.68 | 9.77 | 5.58 | 1.35 | 12.19 | 118.03 |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | 4.94 | 95.06 | 7.57 | 3.13 | 7.64 | 36.38 | 58.45 | 7.95 | 2.79 | 1.27 | 12.03 | 127.18 |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | 5.87 | 94.13 | 8.94 | 2.94 | 6.19 | 35.58 | 55.61 | 9.03 | 3.48 | 1.37 | 13.41 | 148.59 |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | 4.47 | 95.53 | 5.78 | 3.29 | 5.58 | 35.13 | 58.77 | 8.96 | 5.28 | 1.39 | 12.30 | 120.42 |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | 4.81 | 95.19 | 10.19 | 3.02 | 6.45 | 36.11 | 57.94 | 9.27 | 3.84 | 1.39 | 9.69 | 139.45 |
主成分 Principle component | 相关矩阵的特征值Eigenvalues of the correlation matrix | 提取因子载荷的平方和Sum of squares of factor loads | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
各主成分特征值 Eigenvalue | 各成分占总方差的比例 Proportion (%) | 累积百分比 Cumulative percentage (%) | 各因子特征值 Eigenvalue | 贡献率 Contribution (%) | 累积贡献率 Cumulative contribution (%) | |
1 | 9.49 | 37.95 | 37.95 | 9.49 | 37.95 | 37.95 |
2 | 6.84 | 27.36 | 65.32 | 6.84 | 27.36 | 65.32 |
3 | 3.99 | 15.97 | 81.29 | 3.99 | 15.97 | 81.29 |
4 | 2.62 | 10.49 | 91.78 | 2.62 | 10.49 | 91.78 |
表4 不同燕麦品种各性状的主成分方差贡献率
Table 4 Variance contribution rates of principal components of plant agronomic traits in different oat varieties
主成分 Principle component | 相关矩阵的特征值Eigenvalues of the correlation matrix | 提取因子载荷的平方和Sum of squares of factor loads | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
各主成分特征值 Eigenvalue | 各成分占总方差的比例 Proportion (%) | 累积百分比 Cumulative percentage (%) | 各因子特征值 Eigenvalue | 贡献率 Contribution (%) | 累积贡献率 Cumulative contribution (%) | |
1 | 9.49 | 37.95 | 37.95 | 9.49 | 37.95 | 37.95 |
2 | 6.84 | 27.36 | 65.32 | 6.84 | 27.36 | 65.32 |
3 | 3.99 | 15.97 | 81.29 | 3.99 | 15.97 | 81.29 |
4 | 2.62 | 10.49 | 91.78 | 2.62 | 10.49 | 91.78 |
性状 Trait | 主成分Principal component | 与主成分对应的特征向量Eigenvectors corresponding to principal components | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | |
X1 | 0.69 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.00 |
X2 | 0.94 | 0.29 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.30 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
X3 | 0.81 | 0.14 | 0.48 | -0.29 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.24 | -0.18 |
X4 | 0.09 | 0.76 | -0.06 | 0.58 | 0.03 | 0.29 | -0.03 | 0.36 |
X5 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.01 | -0.70 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.00 | -0.43 |
X6 | 0.47 | 0.82 | 0.29 | -0.15 | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.15 | -0.09 |
X7 | 0.77 | 0.49 | 0.38 | -0.09 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.19 | -0.06 |
X8 | 0.52 | 0.02 | 0.45 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.01 |
X9 | 0.89 | -0.21 | -0.40 | 0.06 | 0.29 | -0.08 | -0.20 | 0.04 |
X10 | 0.93 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.10 |
X11 | 0.51 | -0.06 | -0.59 | -0.05 | 0.16 | -0.02 | -0.29 | -0.03 |
X12 | 0.38 | 0.68 | -0.47 | 0.39 | 0.12 | 0.26 | -0.24 | 0.24 |
X13 | 0.64 | 0.41 | -0.45 | 0.37 | 0.21 | 0.16 | -0.22 | 0.23 |
X14 | -0.06 | 0.92 | -0.30 | -0.24 | -0.02 | 0.35 | -0.15 | -0.15 |
X15 | 0.06 | -0.92 | 0.30 | 0.24 | 0.02 | -0.35 | 0.15 | 0.15 |
X16 | -0.53 | 0.65 | -0.40 | 0.30 | -0.17 | 0.25 | -0.20 | 0.19 |
X17 | -0.78 | 0.07 | 0.55 | -0.07 | -0.25 | 0.03 | 0.27 | -0.04 |
X18 | -0.54 | -0.25 | -0.68 | -0.41 | -0.18 | -0.10 | -0.34 | -0.25 |
X19 | 0.79 | -0.45 | -0.40 | -0.13 | 0.26 | -0.17 | -0.20 | -0.08 |
X20 | 0.72 | -0.59 | -0.14 | -0.15 | 0.23 | -0.22 | -0.07 | -0.09 |
X21 | 0.72 | -0.29 | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.23 | -0.11 | 0.04 | 0.32 |
X22 | 0.03 | -0.33 | 0.78 | 0.45 | 0.01 | -0.13 | 0.39 | 0.28 |
X23 | -0.72 | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.35 | -0.23 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.21 |
X24 | -0.13 | 0.47 | 0.46 | -0.58 | -0.04 | 0.18 | 0.23 | -0.36 |
X25 | -0.60 | 0.77 | -0.11 | 0.16 | -0.20 | 0.30 | -0.05 | 0.10 |
表5 不同燕麦品种的主成分载荷矩阵及特征向量
Table 5 Loading matrix and eigenvectors of principal components to plant agronomic traits in different oat varieties
性状 Trait | 主成分Principal component | 与主成分对应的特征向量Eigenvectors corresponding to principal components | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | |
X1 | 0.69 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.00 |
X2 | 0.94 | 0.29 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.30 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
X3 | 0.81 | 0.14 | 0.48 | -0.29 | 0.26 | 0.05 | 0.24 | -0.18 |
X4 | 0.09 | 0.76 | -0.06 | 0.58 | 0.03 | 0.29 | -0.03 | 0.36 |
X5 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.01 | -0.70 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.00 | -0.43 |
X6 | 0.47 | 0.82 | 0.29 | -0.15 | 0.15 | 0.31 | 0.15 | -0.09 |
X7 | 0.77 | 0.49 | 0.38 | -0.09 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.19 | -0.06 |
X8 | 0.52 | 0.02 | 0.45 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.22 | 0.01 |
X9 | 0.89 | -0.21 | -0.40 | 0.06 | 0.29 | -0.08 | -0.20 | 0.04 |
X10 | 0.93 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.10 |
X11 | 0.51 | -0.06 | -0.59 | -0.05 | 0.16 | -0.02 | -0.29 | -0.03 |
X12 | 0.38 | 0.68 | -0.47 | 0.39 | 0.12 | 0.26 | -0.24 | 0.24 |
X13 | 0.64 | 0.41 | -0.45 | 0.37 | 0.21 | 0.16 | -0.22 | 0.23 |
X14 | -0.06 | 0.92 | -0.30 | -0.24 | -0.02 | 0.35 | -0.15 | -0.15 |
X15 | 0.06 | -0.92 | 0.30 | 0.24 | 0.02 | -0.35 | 0.15 | 0.15 |
X16 | -0.53 | 0.65 | -0.40 | 0.30 | -0.17 | 0.25 | -0.20 | 0.19 |
X17 | -0.78 | 0.07 | 0.55 | -0.07 | -0.25 | 0.03 | 0.27 | -0.04 |
X18 | -0.54 | -0.25 | -0.68 | -0.41 | -0.18 | -0.10 | -0.34 | -0.25 |
X19 | 0.79 | -0.45 | -0.40 | -0.13 | 0.26 | -0.17 | -0.20 | -0.08 |
X20 | 0.72 | -0.59 | -0.14 | -0.15 | 0.23 | -0.22 | -0.07 | -0.09 |
X21 | 0.72 | -0.29 | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.23 | -0.11 | 0.04 | 0.32 |
X22 | 0.03 | -0.33 | 0.78 | 0.45 | 0.01 | -0.13 | 0.39 | 0.28 |
X23 | -0.72 | 0.49 | 0.35 | 0.35 | -0.23 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.21 |
X24 | -0.13 | 0.47 | 0.46 | -0.58 | -0.04 | 0.18 | 0.23 | -0.36 |
X25 | -0.60 | 0.77 | -0.11 | 0.16 | -0.20 | 0.30 | -0.05 | 0.10 |
品种Variety | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F | 排序Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | -5.54 | 2.16 | 0.88 | 0.37 | -1.45 | 5 |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 0.31 | -2.92 | 0.55 | 0.79 | -0.56 | 4 |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | -1.01 | -1.97 | -1.99 | -2.48 | -1.63 | 6 |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | 3.26 | 4.01 | -0.57 | -0.68 | 2.37 | 1 |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | 2.04 | -0.87 | 3.21 | -0.36 | 1.10 | 2 |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | 0.94 | -0.41 | -2.07 | 2.37 | 0.17 | 3 |
表6 不同燕麦品种的主成分综合得分及其排序
Table 6 Scores and ranking of the principal component from different oat varieties
品种Variety | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F | 排序Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
青引2号Qingyin No.2 | -5.54 | 2.16 | 0.88 | 0.37 | -1.45 | 5 |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 0.31 | -2.92 | 0.55 | 0.79 | -0.56 | 4 |
白燕2号Baiyan No.2 | -1.01 | -1.97 | -1.99 | -2.48 | -1.63 | 6 |
甜燕麦Sweet oat | 3.26 | 4.01 | -0.57 | -0.68 | 2.37 | 1 |
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 | 2.04 | -0.87 | 3.21 | -0.36 | 1.10 | 2 |
青引1号Qingyin No.1 | 0.94 | -0.41 | -2.07 | 2.37 | 0.17 | 3 |
1 | Jiang H X, Bai S S, Wu B, et al. A multivariate evaluation of agronomic straits and forage quality of 22 oat varieties in the Huang-Huaihai area of China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 140-149. |
姜慧新, 柏杉杉, 吴波, 等. 22个燕麦品种在黄淮海地区的农艺性状与饲草品质综合评价. 草业学报, 2021, 30(1): 140-149. | |
2 | Nan M, Jing F, Bian F, et al. Comparison of production performance and feed value of six oat varieties at Tao River irrigation middle-area in Gansu province. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(6): 1635-1642. |
南铭, 景芳, 边芳, 等. 6个裸燕麦品种在甘肃中部引洮灌区的生产性能及饲用价值比较. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6): 1635-1642. | |
3 | Ni M Z X, Yu D L, Bian B, et al. Tibet produce oat of status and effect on stock breeding. Agricultural Science and Technology in Tibet, 2008, 30(3): 36-39. |
尼玛扎西, 禹代林, 边巴, 等. 燕麦在西藏畜牧业生产中的地位与作用. 西藏农业科技, 2008, 30(3): 36-39. | |
4 | Guan W X, Jin T, Song G Y, et al. The current growth and production of Tibetan oat. Agricultural Science and Technology in Tibet, 2010, 32(4): 4-7. |
关卫星, 金涛, 宋国英, 等. 西藏燕麦生产现状及发展. 西藏农业科技, 2010, 32(4): 4-7. | |
5 | Wu H Y, Qu Z, Liu Z M. Experimental study on herbage in Shigatse, Tibet. Graziery Veterinary Sciences (Electronic Version), 2019(17): 6-8. |
吴海艳, 曲珍, 刘昭明. 西藏日喀则市牧草试验研究. 畜牧兽医科学(电子版), 2019(17): 6-8. | |
6 | Liu Z M, La B D Z, Wu H Y, et al. Study on planting experiment of different oat varieties in Shigatse. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2020(5): 98-100. |
刘昭明, 拉巴顿珠, 吴海艳, 等. 日喀则市不同燕麦品种种植试验研究. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2020(5): 98-100. | |
7 | Liu Z M, La B D Z, Wu H Y, et al. Study on demonstration production of forage grass in Kangmar County, Tibet. Animal Husbandry in China, 2019(13): 55-57. |
刘昭明, 拉巴顿珠, 吴海艳, 等. 西藏康马县牧草示范生产研究. 中国畜牧业, 2019(13): 55-57. | |
8 | Zhou Q L. Grey relational grade evaluation of 19 oat varieties introduced in Ali of Tibet. Crops, 2021(1): 26-31. |
周启龙. 西藏阿里19个燕麦引进品种的灰色关联度评价. 作物杂志, 2021(1): 26-31. | |
9 | Zhou Q L, Duo J D Z, Yi X Y Z. Evaluation of grey relational grade analysis to 16 oats varieties introduced in Lhasa Region. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2020, 28(2): 389-396. |
周启龙, 多吉顿珠, 益西央宗. 拉萨地区16个燕麦引进品种的灰色关联度评价. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2): 389-396. | |
10 | Zhou Q L, Duo J D Z, Tu D Q P, et al. Genetic diversity analysis of the main agronomic traits and nutritional in 18 oat cultivars introduced to Lhasa. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(3): 550-558. |
周启龙, 多吉顿珠, 土登群培, 等. 拉萨18个引进燕麦品种主要农艺性状和营养成分的遗传多样性分析. 草业科学, 2020, 37(3): 550-558. | |
11 | Zhou Q L. Test of 16 oat introduced varieties in alpine pastoral region of Tibet. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020(1): 33-34. |
周启龙. 16个燕麦品种在西藏高寒牧区的引种试验. 现代农业科技, 2020(1): 33-34. | |
12 | Zhang G Y, Shen Z X, Shao X M, et al. A comparative study of yield and nutritive value of ten imported oat varieties in Damxung County of Xizang, China. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(4): 1083-1089. |
张光雨, 沈振西, 邵小明, 等. 西藏当雄10个引进燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质比较. 草地学报, 2019, 27(4): 1083-1089. | |
13 | Zhang G Y, Ma H P, Shao X M, et al. A comparative study of yield and nutritive value of nine imported oat varieties in the valley region of Tibet, China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(5): 121-131. |
张光雨, 马和平, 邵小明, 等. 西藏河谷区9个引进燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质比较研究. 草业学报, 2019, 28(5): 121-131. | |
14 | Wu H Y, Qu Z, La B D Z, et al. Present situation, problems and suggestions on development of artificial forage production in Rikaze City. Agricultural Science and Technology in Tibet, 2019(S1): 146-148. |
吴海艳, 曲珍, 拉巴顿珠, 等. 西藏日喀则市人工饲草生产发展的现状、问题及建议. 西藏农业科技, 2019(S1): 146-148. | |
15 | Rohweder D A, Barnes R F, Neal J. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 47(3): 747-759. |
16 | Wang Y Q, Yin Y L, Li S X. Physicochemical properties and enzymatic activities of alpine meadow at different degradation degrees. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2019, 28(6): 1108-1116. |
王玉琴, 尹亚丽, 李世雄. 不同退化程度高寒草甸土壤理化性质及酶活性分析. 生态环境学报, 2019, 28(6): 1108-1116. | |
17 | Wang Y C, Lu G X, Deng H, et al. Evaluation and screening of agricultural characters of silage maize varieties based on principal component analysis. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(6): 1725-1732. |
王英成, 芦光新, 邓晖, 等. 基于主成分分析的青贮玉米品种农艺性状评价及筛选研究. 草地学报, 2019, 27(6): 1725-1732. | |
18 | Geng X L, Han T H, Zhang S P, et al. Adaptability evaluation of 30 oat germplasm in Tianzhu. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(6): 1743-1750. |
耿小丽, 韩天虎, 张少平, 等. 30个燕麦品种(品系)在甘肃天祝地区的适应性评价. 草地学报, 2019, 27(6): 1743-1750. | |
19 | Wang J, Li Y F, Liang X Z, et al. Morphological diversity of main oat germplasm resources in Northern China. Crops, 2017(4): 27-32. |
王娟, 李荫藩, 梁秀芝, 等. 北方主栽燕麦品种种质资源形态多样性分析. 作物杂志, 2017(4): 27-32. | |
20 | Zhang S X, Jing Z, Wu F F, et al. The agronomic characters and SRAP genetic diversity analysis of 21 introduced male sterile lines of brown midrib forage sorghum. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(5): 1072-1079. |
张尚雄, 荆照, 吴菲菲, 等. 21份引进BMR饲草高粱不育系的农艺性状和SRAP遗传多样性. 草业科学, 2018, 35(5): 1072-1079. | |
21 | He Z F, He C G, Wang P, et al. Analysis of production performance and quality of different types of forage sorghum. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(7): 1446-1453. |
何振富, 贺春贵, 王裴, 等. 不同类型饲草高粱生产性能与饲用品质的差异分析. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1446-1453. | |
22 | Wu Y, Zhang W H, Chen M H, et al. Productive performance comparison of different oat varieties in Yangzhou region. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(7): 1728-1733. |
吴亚, 张卫红, 陈鸣晖, 等. 不同品种燕麦在扬州地区的生产性能. 草业科学, 2018, 35(7): 1728-1733. | |
23 | Sun J P, Dong K H, Kuai X Y, et al. Comparison of productivity and feeding value of introduced oat varieties in the agro-pasture ecotone of Northern Shanxi. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(11): 222-230. |
孙建平, 董宽虎, 蒯晓妍, 等. 晋北农牧交错区引进燕麦品种生产性能及饲用价值比较. 草业学报, 2017, 26(11): 222-230. | |
24 | De K J, Zhou Q P, Liu W H, et al. Effects of nitrogen application on the yield and quality of oat in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2007, 29(5): 43-48. |
德科加, 周青平, 刘文辉, 等. 施氮量对青藏高原燕麦产量和品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2007, 29(5): 43-48. | |
25 | Shi J J, Xue Y W, Guo W, et al. Evaluation of forage yield and nutritional value of introduced oat germplasm resources. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2019, 39(9): 1063-1071. |
史京京, 薛盈文, 郭伟, 等. 引进燕麦种质资源饲草产量与饲用营养价值评价. 麦类作物学报, 2019, 39(9): 1063-1071. | |
26 | Li Z Q. Quality evaluation of oat hay. China Dairy Cattle, 2013(19): 1-3. |
李志强. 燕麦干草质量评价. 中国奶牛, 2013(19): 1-3. | |
27 | Zheng X, Wei Z W, Wu Z N, et al. Adaptability evaluation of different Avena sativa varieties in Yangzhou Area. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2013, 21(2): 272-279. |
郑曦, 魏臻武, 武自念, 等. 不同燕麦品种(系)在扬州地区的适应性评价. 草地学报, 2013, 21(2): 272-279. | |
28 | Zhang G Y, Wang J W, Zhang H R, et al. Comparative study on production performance and nutritional quality of eight imported oat varieties in the Shigatse region of Tibet, China. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(4): 1117-1125. |
张光雨, 王江伟, 张豪睿, 等. 西藏日喀则地区8个引进燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质比较. 草业科学, 2019, 36(4): 1117-1125. |
[1] | 李满有, 杨彦军, 王斌, 沈笑天, 曹立娟, 李小云, 倪旺, 兰剑. 宁夏干旱区滴灌条件下燕麦与光叶紫花苕不同混播模式的生产性能、品质及综合评价研究[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(4): 62-71. |
[2] | 沈吉成, 王蕾, 赵彩霞, 叶发慧, 吕士凯, 刘德梅, 刘瑞娟, 张怀刚, 陈文杰. 77份裸燕麦品种籽粒相关性状分析[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(3): 156-167. |
[3] | 李俊年, 康绍华, 杨冬梅, 何纤, 李双, 陶双伦. 葛藤草粉替代苜蓿草粉对波杂山羊血清生化指标、养分表观消化率和生产性能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 146-153. |
[4] | 汪雪, 刘晓静, 赵雅姣, 王静. 根系分隔方式下紫花苜蓿/燕麦间作氮素利用及种间互馈特征研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 73-85. |
[5] | 袁英良, 唐丹, 鲁英, 冉桂霞, 郭艳芹. 吉林地区麦后复种饲用油菜与燕麦混播效应研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7): 167-178. |
[6] | 李进, 陈仕勇, 赵旭, 田浩琦, 陈智华, 周青平. 基于SCoT标记的饲用燕麦品种遗传结构及指纹图谱分析[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7): 72-81. |
[7] | 聂秀美, 慕平, 赵桂琴, 何海鹏, 吴文斌, 蔺豆豆, 苏伟娟, 张丽睿. 贮藏年限对裸燕麦种带真菌和真菌毒素的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(6): 106-120. |
[8] | 高鹏, 魏江铭, 李瑶, 张丽红, 赵祥, 杜利霞, 韩伟. 山西省大同市早播饲用燕麦叶部真菌病害病原鉴定及影响因素分析[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(6): 82-93. |
[9] | 肖逸, 杨忠富, 聂刚, 韩佳婷, 帅杨, 张新全. 12个多花黑麦草品种(系)在成都平原的生产性能和营养价值综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(5): 174-185. |
[10] | 刘凯强, 刘文辉, 贾志锋, 梁国玲, 马祥. 干旱胁迫对‘青燕1号’燕麦产量及干物质积累与分配的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(3): 177-188. |
[11] | 刘建新, 刘瑞瑞, 贾海燕, 卜婷, 李娜. NaHS引发提高裸燕麦种子活力的生理机制[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(2): 135-142. |
[12] | 张伟, 周青平, 陈有军, 潘静, 金晓明, 孙万斌, 贾志锋. 呼伦贝尔地区10个引进燕麦品种生产性能及饲草品质比较[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(12): 129-142. |
[13] | 蔺豆豆, 赵桂琴, 琚泽亮, 宫文龙. 15份燕麦材料苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11): 108-121. |
[14] | 刘建新, 刘瑞瑞, 贾海燕, 刘秀丽, 卜婷, 李娜. 外源半胱氨酸缓解裸燕麦镧胁迫的生理机制[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(11): 122-131. |
[15] | 旦增塔庆, Chapagain Purna Bhadra, Pant Shankar Raj, 杰布, 格桑顿珠, 陈少锋. 不同燕麦品种在尼泊尔北部山区的生长特性及其营养品质的研究[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(10): 73-82. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||