草业学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (4): 27-37.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2024214
王腾飞1,2(
), 马霞1,2, 刘金龙3, 王斌1,2, 张译尹1,2, 李佳旺1,2, 马江萍1,2, 王小兵1,2, 兰剑1,2(
)
收稿日期:2024-06-06
修回日期:2024-07-29
出版日期:2025-04-20
发布日期:2025-02-19
通讯作者:
兰剑
作者简介:Corresponding author. E-mail: ndlanjian@163.com基金资助:
Teng-fei WANG1,2(
), Xia MA1,2, Jin-long LIU3, Bin WANG1,2, Yi-yin ZHANG1,2, Jia-wang LI1,2, Jiang-ping MA1,2, Xiao-bing WANG1,2, Jian LAN1,2(
)
Received:2024-06-06
Revised:2024-07-29
Online:2025-04-20
Published:2025-02-19
Contact:
Jian LAN
摘要:
为探讨适合宁夏引黄灌区麦后复种燕麦种植模式,以燕麦、箭筈豌豆和毛苕子为试验材料,设置2种混播模式和3种单播模式,研究不同种植模式对草地种间竞争、生产性能和经济效益的影响。2年试验结果表明,复种燕麦混播模式相较燕麦单作在土地资源利用、生产力提升、营养品质改善和经济效益方面具有明显优势。复种燕麦混播模式土地当量比(LER)均大于1,土地利用效率平均提高21%,复种燕麦×箭筈豌豆对草地生产力提高效果明显,其中干草产量(8.37 t·hm-2)、粗蛋白产量(1049.58 kg·hm-2)和经济效益(8817元·hm-2)较复种燕麦单作显著提高了16.97%、42.49%和30.89%。复种燕麦×毛苕子对营养价值改善明显,其中粗蛋白含量(13.33%)和相对饲喂价值(114.55)较复种燕麦单作显著提高了29.92%和17.78%。综上,可根据实际需求选择不同麦后复种模式,对牧草需求量大,可优先选择燕麦×箭筈豌豆混播模式;对牧草营养品质要求较高,推荐燕麦×毛苕子混播模式。研究结果对宁夏引黄灌区耕地资源潜力的挖掘和种植结构的调整提供了实践依据。
王腾飞, 马霞, 刘金龙, 王斌, 张译尹, 李佳旺, 马江萍, 王小兵, 兰剑. 引黄灌区复种饲用燕麦种植模式产量、品质及经济效益分析[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(4): 27-37.
Teng-fei WANG, Xia MA, Jin-long LIU, Bin WANG, Yi-yin ZHANG, Jia-wang LI, Jiang-ping MA, Xiao-bing WANG, Jian LAN. Analysis of the yield, quality and economic benefits from multiple cropping of fodder oats in the Yellow River irrigation area[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(4): 27-37.
材料 Material | 品种 Variety | 纯净度 Purity (%) | 发芽率 Germination rate (%) | 千粒重Thousand seeds weight (g) | 来源 Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 燕麦A. sativa | 喜韵 Xiyun | 98 | 94 | 36.70 | 北京百斯特草业有限公司Beijing Best Grass Industry Co., Ltd. |
| 毛苕子V. villosa | 土库曼毛苕子 Turkmen hairy vetch | 98 | 85 | 22.70 | |
| 箭筈豌豆V. sativa | 普通箭筈豌豆Common vetch | 92 | 80 | 65.50 |
表1 供试材料信息
Table 1 Information of test materials
材料 Material | 品种 Variety | 纯净度 Purity (%) | 发芽率 Germination rate (%) | 千粒重Thousand seeds weight (g) | 来源 Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 燕麦A. sativa | 喜韵 Xiyun | 98 | 94 | 36.70 | 北京百斯特草业有限公司Beijing Best Grass Industry Co., Ltd. |
| 毛苕子V. villosa | 土库曼毛苕子 Turkmen hairy vetch | 98 | 85 | 22.70 | |
| 箭筈豌豆V. sativa | 普通箭筈豌豆Common vetch | 92 | 80 | 65.50 |
播种模式 Seeding mode | 处理 Treatment | 播种组合 Seeding combination | 播种量Seeding rate (kg·hm-2) |
|---|---|---|---|
间行混播 Inter-row mixed | YM | 燕麦×毛苕子 A. sativa×V. villosa | 127/52 |
| YJ | 燕麦×箭筈豌豆 A. sativa×V. sativa | 169/60 | |
单播 Monoculture | YD | 燕麦 A. sativa | 180 |
| MD | 毛苕子 V. villosa | 105 | |
| JD | 箭筈豌豆 V. sativa | 150 |
表2 试验处理
Table 2 Test treatment
播种模式 Seeding mode | 处理 Treatment | 播种组合 Seeding combination | 播种量Seeding rate (kg·hm-2) |
|---|---|---|---|
间行混播 Inter-row mixed | YM | 燕麦×毛苕子 A. sativa×V. villosa | 127/52 |
| YJ | 燕麦×箭筈豌豆 A. sativa×V. sativa | 169/60 | |
单播 Monoculture | YD | 燕麦 A. sativa | 180 |
| MD | 毛苕子 V. villosa | 105 | |
| JD | 箭筈豌豆 V. sativa | 150 |
| 项目 Item | 单价 Unit price |
|---|---|
| 燕麦种子 Oat seed (CNY·kg-1) | 8 |
| 毛苕子种子 Hairy vetch seed (CNY·kg-1) | 20 |
| 箭筈豌豆种子 Common vetch seed (CNY·kg-1) | 15 |
| 灌溉 Irrigation (CNY·hm-2) | 2000 |
| 肥料 Fertilizer (CNY·hm-2) | 650 |
| 人工 Labor (CNY·hm-2) | 3000 |
| 机械 Machinery (CNY·hm-2) | 700 |
| 收割 Harvest (CNY·hm-2) | 750 |
| 燕麦饲草 Oat forage (CNY·t-1) | 2100 |
| 毛苕子饲草 Hairy vetch forage (CNY·t-1) | 3000 |
| 箭筈豌豆饲草 Common vetch forage (CNY·t-1) | 2400 |
表3 投入与产出类别及饲草价格
Table 3 Input and output categories and forage prices
| 项目 Item | 单价 Unit price |
|---|---|
| 燕麦种子 Oat seed (CNY·kg-1) | 8 |
| 毛苕子种子 Hairy vetch seed (CNY·kg-1) | 20 |
| 箭筈豌豆种子 Common vetch seed (CNY·kg-1) | 15 |
| 灌溉 Irrigation (CNY·hm-2) | 2000 |
| 肥料 Fertilizer (CNY·hm-2) | 650 |
| 人工 Labor (CNY·hm-2) | 3000 |
| 机械 Machinery (CNY·hm-2) | 700 |
| 收割 Harvest (CNY·hm-2) | 750 |
| 燕麦饲草 Oat forage (CNY·t-1) | 2100 |
| 毛苕子饲草 Hairy vetch forage (CNY·t-1) | 3000 |
| 箭筈豌豆饲草 Common vetch forage (CNY·t-1) | 2400 |
图3 不同处理对株高和密度的影响图中不同小写字母表示同一年份不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05),YJ、YM、MD、JD和YD均为不同处理编号,YJ(Y)、YJ(J)、YM(Y)和YM(M)分别表示燕麦×箭筈豌豆混播中燕麦、燕麦×箭筈豌豆混播中箭筈豌豆、燕麦×毛苕子混播中燕麦和燕麦×毛苕子混播中毛苕子,下同。Different lowercase letters in the figure indicate significant differences among treatments in the same year (P<0.05). YJ, YM, MD, JD and YD were different treatment numbers. YJ(Y), YJ(J), YM(Y) and YM(M) represented oats in oat×common vetch mixed sowing, common vetch in oat×common vetch mixed sowing, oat in oat×hairy vetch mixed sowing and hairy vetch in oat×hairy vetch mixed sowing, respectively. The same below.
Fig.3 Effects of different treatments on plant height and density
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (%) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%) | 相对饲喂价值 Relative feed value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | YJ | 12.18±0.05d | 52.81±0.80b | 32.93±0.12b | 111.47±1.83c |
| YM | 13.71±0.08c | 51.30±0.49b | 31.66±0.49b | 116.53±1.82c | |
| MD | 18.12±0.04a | 38.79±2.42c | 24.25±0.82d | 169.00±9.09a | |
| JD | 17.32±0.17b | 40.04±0.35c | 30.29±0.12c | 151.75±1.53b | |
| YD | 10.64±0.08e | 60.47±0.37a | 35.38±0.08a | 94.37±0.68d | |
| 2023 | YJ | 12.93±0.03c | 52.73±0.34b | 32.35±0.44ab | 112.39±1.30c |
| YM | 12.95±0.05c | 53.51±1.08b | 31.10±0.81b | 112.56±3.32c | |
| MD | 18.85±0.19a | 35.45±0.05d | 24.54±0.51d | 183.14±1.32a | |
| JD | 17.99±0.29b | 38.85±0.71c | 27.14±0.22c | 162.36±3.25b | |
| YD | 9.88±0.22d | 58.49±1.03a | 33.36±0.14a | 100.13±1.93d |
表4 不同处理对饲草营养品质的影响
Table 4 Effects of different treatments on nutritional quality of forage
年份 Year | 处理 Treatment | 粗蛋白 Crude protein (%) | 中性洗涤纤维 Neutral detergent fiber (%) | 酸性洗涤纤维 Acid detergent fiber (%) | 相对饲喂价值 Relative feed value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | YJ | 12.18±0.05d | 52.81±0.80b | 32.93±0.12b | 111.47±1.83c |
| YM | 13.71±0.08c | 51.30±0.49b | 31.66±0.49b | 116.53±1.82c | |
| MD | 18.12±0.04a | 38.79±2.42c | 24.25±0.82d | 169.00±9.09a | |
| JD | 17.32±0.17b | 40.04±0.35c | 30.29±0.12c | 151.75±1.53b | |
| YD | 10.64±0.08e | 60.47±0.37a | 35.38±0.08a | 94.37±0.68d | |
| 2023 | YJ | 12.93±0.03c | 52.73±0.34b | 32.35±0.44ab | 112.39±1.30c |
| YM | 12.95±0.05c | 53.51±1.08b | 31.10±0.81b | 112.56±3.32c | |
| MD | 18.85±0.19a | 35.45±0.05d | 24.54±0.51d | 183.14±1.32a | |
| JD | 17.99±0.29b | 38.85±0.71c | 27.14±0.22c | 162.36±3.25b | |
| YD | 9.88±0.22d | 58.49±1.03a | 33.36±0.14a | 100.13±1.93d |
处理 Treatment | 总收入Gross income | 净收入Net income | 平均Average | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2023 | 2022 | 2023 | 支出Expenditure | 总收入Gross income | 净收入Net income | |
| YJ | 18864 | 16715 | 9891 | 7742 | 8973 | 17790 | 8817 |
| YM | 16975 | 15251 | 8165 | 6441 | 8810 | 16113 | 7303 |
| MD | 9174 | 8435 | 324 | -415 | 8850 | 8805 | -45 |
| JD | 8216 | 7719 | -759 | -1256 | 8975 | 7968 | -1007 |
| YD | 16116 | 13956 | 7816 | 5656 | 8300 | 15036 | 6736 |
表5 不同处理草地的成本与收益
Table 5 Costs and benefits of different treatments of grassland (CNY·hm-2)
处理 Treatment | 总收入Gross income | 净收入Net income | 平均Average | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2023 | 2022 | 2023 | 支出Expenditure | 总收入Gross income | 净收入Net income | |
| YJ | 18864 | 16715 | 9891 | 7742 | 8973 | 17790 | 8817 |
| YM | 16975 | 15251 | 8165 | 6441 | 8810 | 16113 | 7303 |
| MD | 9174 | 8435 | 324 | -415 | 8850 | 8805 | -45 |
| JD | 8216 | 7719 | -759 | -1256 | 8975 | 7968 | -1007 |
| YD | 16116 | 13956 | 7816 | 5656 | 8300 | 15036 | 6736 |
图6 混播处理主要性状相关性分析PHO: 燕麦株高 Plant height of oat; PHL: 豆科牧草株高 Plant height of legume; TD: 总密度 Total density; HY: 干草产量 Hay yield; CPY: 粗蛋白产量 Crude protein yield; SP: 系统生产力System productivity; LER: 土地当量比 Land equivalent ratio; CP: 粗蛋白 Crude protein; RFV: 相对饲喂价值 Relative feed value; *: P<0.05.
Fig.6 Correlation analysis of main traits of mixed sowing treatment
| 1 | Song M, Zhang A L. Cultivated land use transition from the “Greater Food” perspective: Realistic challenges, theoretical logic and implementation paths. China Land Science, 2023, 37(8): 31-41. |
| 宋敏, 张安录. 大食物观视阈下的耕地利用转型:现实挑战、理论逻辑与实现路径. 中国土地科学, 2023, 37(8): 31-41. | |
| 2 | Wang Z H, Li S X, Wang X N, et al. Nitrate nitrogen residue and leaching in dryland soil and influence factors. Soils, 2006, 38(6): 676-681. |
| 王朝辉, 李生秀, 王西娜, 等. 旱地土壤硝态氮残留淋溶及影响因素研究. 土壤, 2006, 38(6): 676-681. | |
| 3 | Sebilo M, Mayer B, Nicolardot B, et al. Long-term fate of nitrate fertilizer in agricultural soils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013, 110(45): 18185-18189. |
| 4 | Xu Q, Tian X H, Du W H. Effects of mixed sowing of rye and common vetch on forage yield and nutrient quality in alpine pastoral areas. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(8): 49-59. |
| 徐强, 田新会, 杜文华. 高寒牧区黑麦和箭筈豌豆混播对草产量和营养品质的影响研究. 草业学报, 2021, 30(8): 49-59. | |
| 5 | Zhang Y L, Yu T F, Hao F, et al. Effects of fertilization and legume-grass ratio on forage yield and NPK utilization efficiency. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11): 91-101. |
| 张永亮, 于铁峰, 郝凤, 等. 施肥与混播比例对豆禾混播牧草产量及氮磷钾利用效率的影响. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 91-101. | |
| 6 | Feng Q, He X L, Wang B, et al. A study of mixed sowing effects for oat and common vetch in the Ningxia Yellow River irrigation area. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(3): 107-119. |
| 冯琴, 何小莉, 王斌, 等. 宁夏引黄灌区燕麦与箭筈豌豆的混播效果研究. 草业学报, 2024, 33(3): 107-119. | |
| 7 | Yuan Y L, Tang D, Lu Y, et al. An investigation of multiple crop planting options when following wheat with mixed-cropped forage rape and oats in the Jilin area of northeast China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(7): 167-178. |
| 袁英良, 唐丹, 鲁英, 等. 吉林地区麦后复种饲用油菜与燕麦混播效应研究. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7): 167-178. | |
| 8 | Zhou J J, Baima G W, Wei W, et al. The effects of grass-legume mixing farming on forage nutritional quality and soil nutrient in alpine zone of Tibet. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2021, 39(2): 143-149. |
| 周娟娟, 白玛嘎翁, 魏巍, 等. 西藏高寒区禾-豆混播对牧草营养品质及土壤养分的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(2): 143-149. | |
| 9 | Mao L L, Zhang L Z, Li W Q, et al. Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research, 2012, 138: 11-20. |
| 10 | Quan X, Wu J X, Yang P Z, et al. Study on the relationship between productivity and species in grassland with mixed-sowed gramineous and leguminous forages in Lhasa river valley. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(3): 657-667. |
| 权欣, 武俊喜, 杨培志, 等. 拉萨河谷禾豆混播草地生产力与种间关系研究. 草地学报, 2023, 31(3): 657-667. | |
| 11 | Sadeghpour A, Jahanzad E, Esmaeili A, et al. Forage yield, quality and economic benefit of intercropped barley and annual medic in semi-arid conditions: Additive series. Field Crops Research, 2013, 148: 43-48. |
| 12 | Liu L L, Liu G H, Mai X F, et al. Comprehensive benefits evaluation of spring wheat multiple cropping forage grass in Ningxia Yellow River irrigation area. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2022, 40(1): 50-60. |
| 刘露露, 刘根红, 买晓凤, 等. 宁夏引黄灌区春小麦复种牧草模式的综合效益评价. 干旱地区农业研究, 2022, 40(1): 50-60. | |
| 13 | Zhao J H, Li Y, Qian B C, et al. Effects of straw return and tillage on soil properties and yield of multi-cropping peanut after wheat. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2019, 33(5): 272-280. |
| 赵继浩, 李颖, 钱必长, 等. 秸秆还田与耕作方式对麦后复种花生田土壤性质和产量的影响. 水土保持学报, 2019, 33(5): 272-280. | |
| 14 | Xie C H, Ma H Z, Xu H W, et al. Effects of nitrogen rate on growth, grain yield, and nitrogen utilization of multiple cropping proso millet after spring-wheat in irrigation area of Ningxia. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2022, 48(2): 463-477. |
| 谢呈辉, 马海曌, 许宏伟, 等. 施氮量对宁夏引黄灌区麦后复种糜子生长、产量及氮素利用的影响. 作物学报, 2022, 48(2): 463-477. | |
| 15 | Wei G Y, Tan J L, Li H, et al. Effects of nitrogen application rate and irrigation quota on yield and water and nitrogen utilization of post-spring wheat multiple cropping oilseed rape in Yellow River irrigation area. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2023, 31(11): 1745-1757. |
| 韦广源, 谭军利, 李红, 等. 施氮量和灌溉定额对引黄灌区麦后复种油菜产量和水氮利用的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2023, 31(11): 1745-1757. | |
| 16 | Fan L, He W S, Jia B. Growth and development rule and analysis of main characters of Brassica napus L. after spring wheat harvesting in irrigated area of Ningxia. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 31(7): 1355-1359. |
| 范玲, 何文寿, 贾彪. 宁夏引黄灌区麦后复种饲料油菜生长发育规律及其主要性状分析. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(7): 1355-1359. | |
| 17 | Zhang J L, Shi A, Liang X J, et al. Nutrition and feeding value evaluation of multiple cropping of sorghum, sorghum and silage corn after wheat in Ningxia Yellow River irrigation area. Feed Research, 2021, 44(4): 83-87. |
| 张俊丽, 施安, 梁小军, 等. 宁夏引黄灌区麦后复种高丹草、饲用高粱、青贮玉米营养及饲用价值评定. 饲料研究, 2021, 44(4): 83-87. | |
| 18 | Agegnehu G, Ghizaw A, Sinebo W. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 2006, 25(3): 202-207. |
| 19 | Ghosh P K. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research, 2004, 88(2/3): 227-237. |
| 20 | Loreau M, Hector A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature, 2001, 413(6855): 548. |
| 21 | Wilson J B, Agnew A D Q. Positive-feedback switches in plant communities. Advances in Ecological Research, 1992, 23(6): 263-336. |
| 22 | Jiang H. Study on yield, quality and degradation rate of alfalfa and Bromus inermis mixed grassland and its comprehensive evaluation. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2007. |
| 蒋慧. 紫花苜蓿与无芒雀麦混播草地产量、品质和降解率研究及其综合评价. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2007. | |
| 23 | Song Q H, Zhao C Z, Shi Y C, et al. Spatial distribution patterns of specific root lengths of Avena sativa L. and Vicia villosa Roth in mixed-sowing grassland under density dependence in northern slope of Qilian Mountains. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2015, 34(2): 497-503. |
| 宋清华, 赵成章, 史元春, 等. 祁连山北坡混播草地密度制约下燕麦和毛苕子比根长分布格局. 生态学杂志, 2015, 34(2): 497-503. | |
| 24 | Biswal A K, Kohli A. Cereal flag leaf adaptations for grain yield under drought: knowledge status and gaps. Molecular Breeding, 2013, 31(4): 749-766. |
| 25 | Li J, Du J Y, Yang L, et al. Effects of cross sowing at different times on grassland productivity in the third year of planting in northwest Hebei. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(8): 2167-2172. |
| 李军, 杜俊颖, 杨莉, 等. 冀西北地区错期交叉混播对第3年草地生产力的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(8): 2167-2172. | |
| 26 | Zhang Y L, Gao K, Yu T F, et al. Effects of sowing patterns on productivity and interspecific relationship of alfalfa-grass mixture system. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2020, 42(2): 47-57. |
| 张永亮, 高凯, 于铁峰, 等. 禾草种类与混播比例对苜蓿-禾草混播系统生产力及种间关系的影响. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(2): 47-57. | |
| 27 | Zhang Y S, Zhao X Q, Zhou X M. Mixed cropping of oat with three leguminous pasture species in alpine pastoral area. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2001, 10(1): 13-19. |
| 张耀生, 赵新全, 周兴民. 高寒牧区三种豆科牧草与燕麦混播的试验研究. 草业学报, 2001, 10(1): 13-19. | |
| 28 | Wang T F, Wang B, Deng J Q, et al. Effect of sowing rate on yield and forage quality of a Dolichos lablab-Sorghum bicolor mixture under drip irrigation in arid areas of Ningxia. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(3): 30-40. |
| 王腾飞, 王斌, 邓建强, 等. 宁夏干旱区滴灌条件下拉巴豆不同播种量与甜高粱混播饲草生产性能研究. 草业学报, 2023, 32(3): 30-40. | |
| 29 | Wang B, Dong X, Li M Y, et al. Effects of mixed planting of Dolichos lablab with different sowing rates and silage corn on grassland productivity and forage quality. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(4): 828-834. |
| 王斌, 董秀, 李满有, 等. 不同播量拉巴豆与青贮玉米混播对草地生产性能及牧草品质的影响. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 828-834. | |
| 30 | Wang C, Zhou L B, Zhang G B, et al. Responses of photosynthetic characteristics and dry matter formation in waxy sorghum to row ratio configurations in waxy sorghum-soybean intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 2021, 263. |
| 31 | Umesh M R, Angadi S, Begna S, et al. Intercropping and species interactions on physiological and light use characteristics of forage cereals-legumes combinations in semi-arid regions. Field Crops Research, 2023, 290. |
| 32 | Li X L, Shi S L, Huang Z C, et al. Effects of different forage mixed patterns on interspecific relationships in loess hilly areas. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(6): 1318-1326. |
| 李兴龙, 师尚礼, 黄宗昌, 等. 黄土丘陵区不同饲草混播模式对种间关系的影响. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1318-1326. | |
| 33 | Raza M A, Gul H, Wang J, et al. Land productivity and water use efficiency of maize-soybean strip intercropping systems in semi-arid areas: A case study in Punjab Province, Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 308. |
| [1] | 马江萍, 张译尹, 王腾飞, 王斌, 兰剑. 饲用高粱与拉巴豆混播对种间关系及草地生产力的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(3): 111-122. |
| [2] | 李鸿飞, 周帮伟, 张淼, 施树楠, 李志坚. 不同燕麦品种在呼伦贝尔地区的引种适应性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(4): 60-72. |
| [3] | 冯琴, 何小莉, 王斌, 王腾飞, 倪旺, 马霞, 明雪花, 邓建强, 兰剑. 宁夏引黄灌区燕麦与箭筈豌豆的混播效果研究[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(3): 107-119. |
| [4] | 张永亮, 滕泽, 郝凤, 于铁峰, 张玉霞. 苜蓿混播方式及比例对混播草地生产力和稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(2): 185-197. |
| [5] | 高兴发, 聂莹莹, 徐丽君, 杨敏, 徐树花, 朱孟. 干旱条件下乌蒙山区冬闲田燕麦引种适应性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(11): 215-227. |
| [6] | 张仲鹃, 郝曦煜, 王雪, 李峰, 李文龙. 齐齐哈尔地区适宜青贮玉米品种的筛选及综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(11): 228-240. |
| [7] | 王金兰, 王小军, 刘启林, 梁国玲, 琚泽亮, 石红梅, 汪小兵, 文培, 青梅然丁null, 李文. 不同燕麦品种在三江源区的生产性能和营养品质综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(10): 83-95. |
| [8] | 张珈敏, 关皓, 李海萍, 贾志锋, 马祥, 刘文辉, 陈有军, 陈仕勇, 蒋永梅, 甘丽, 周青平, 杨丽雪. 混播比例及乳酸菌剂对燕麦-饲用豌豆发酵TMR品质及瘤胃降解特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(1): 169-181. |
| [9] | 石永红, 高鹏, 方志红, 赵祥, 韩伟, 魏江铭, 刘琳, 李锦臻. 15个进口饲用燕麦品种炭疽病的抗病性评价及损失分析[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(9): 130-142. |
| [10] | 康燕霞, 姜渊博, 齐广平, 银敏华, 马彦麟, 汪精海, 贾琼, 唐仲霞, 汪爱霞. 红豆草与无芒雀麦混播草地生产力提升的水分调控模式研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(8): 115-128. |
| [11] | 蒋丛泽, 受娜, 高玮, 马仁诗, 沈禹颖, 杨宪龙. 陇东旱塬区不同青贮玉米品种生产性能和营养品质综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(7): 216-228. |
| [12] | 叶婷, 吴晓娟, 芦奕晓, 刘生娟, 姜卓慧, 杨惠敏. 混播比例对两种苜蓿混播草地产量和种群密度稳定性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 127-137. |
| [13] | 严翊丹, 聂莹莹, 徐丽君, 高兴发, 饶彦章, 饶雄, 张洪志, 赵查书, 竺艳萍, 朱玉波. 西南山区冬闲田功能型燕麦品种潜力挖掘评价[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(4): 42-53. |
| [14] | 王腾飞, 王斌, 邓建强, 李满有, 倪旺, 冯琴, 妥昀昀, 兰剑. 宁夏干旱区滴灌条件下拉巴豆不同播种量与甜高粱混播饲草生产性能研究[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(3): 30-40. |
| [15] | 苏乐乐, 秦燕, 王瞾敏, 张永超, 刘文辉. 氮磷添加对燕麦与箭筈豌豆不同种植方式草地土壤微生物-胞外酶化学计量特征的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(3): 56-66. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||