草业学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (10): 107-119.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2024353
• 研究论文 • 上一篇
马文艳1,2(
), 李杰东1,2, 周镇磊1,2, 曹东2, 刘宝龙2, 张怀刚2, 王东霞1(
)
收稿日期:2024-09-23
修回日期:2025-01-09
出版日期:2025-10-20
发布日期:2025-07-11
通讯作者:
王东霞
作者简介:E-mail: wangdx@qhu.edu.cn基金资助:
Wen-yan MA1,2(
), Jie-dong LI1,2, Zhen-lei ZHOU1,2, Dong CAO2, Bao-long LIU2, Huai-gang ZHANG2, Dong-xia WANG1(
)
Received:2024-09-23
Revised:2025-01-09
Online:2025-10-20
Published:2025-07-11
Contact:
Dong-xia WANG
摘要:
为揭示肥料、保水剂和播种量互作对呼伦贝尔地区燕麦综合生产性能的影响,本试验以‘青海444’为对象,采用正交试验设计,对不同处理组合下燕麦农艺性状、单株生物量、草产量及营养品质相关指标进行了观测和分析。结果表明:A3(N:89.00 kg·hm-2,P:41.00 kg·hm-2)水平下单株总生物量、茎秆生物量、粗蛋白、钙、磷含量显著高于A1(N:44.00 kg·hm-2,P:83.00 kg·hm-2)和A2(N:44.00 kg·hm-2,P:41.00 kg·hm-2)水平;随着保水剂浓度的增加,燕麦的苗数、穗数、分蘖成穗率、穗下节长、株高、重心高度、倒伏率和灰分含量均呈上升趋势,单株总生物量、根系生物量和叶片生物量呈下降趋势;随着燕麦播种量的增加,燕麦的茎数、穗数、重心高度、根系生物量和中性洗涤纤维含量呈上升趋势,单株粒数、穗下节长、穗长、株高、穗位高、单株总生物量、穗部生物量和酸性洗涤纤维含量呈下降趋势;9个处理组合中A3B1C3处理的茎数、第二节长、第三节长、茎粗、茎壁厚、粗蛋白、粗脂肪、钙、磷含量最高,酸性洗涤纤维含量最低,A3B2C1处理的穗位高、单株总生物量、茎秆生物量和穗部生物量最高。极差分析结果显示,肥料配施对燕麦扬花期产量和品质的影响最大,其次是保水剂,播种量影响最小。通过隶属函数综合分析筛选得到A3B1C3处理,肥料配比为N2P1K1(N:89.00 kg·hm-2,P:41.00 kg·hm-2,K:41.00 kg·hm-2),保水剂为60.00 kg·hm-2,播量为157.05 kg·hm-2时燕麦的产量和品种的综合表现最好,该结果可为呼伦贝尔地区燕麦的绿色高效栽培提供理论依据和技术指导。
马文艳, 李杰东, 周镇磊, 曹东, 刘宝龙, 张怀刚, 王东霞. 肥料、保水剂和播种量互作对燕麦综合生产性能的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(10): 107-119.
Wen-yan MA, Jie-dong LI, Zhen-lei ZHOU, Dong CAO, Bao-long LIU, Huai-gang ZHANG, Dong-xia WANG. Effects of interactions among fertilizer, water retention agent, and seeding rate on the yield production performance of oat (Avena sativa)[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2025, 34(10): 107-119.
处理组合 Treatment combination | 因素 Element | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| N | P2O5 | K2O | |||
| A1B1C1 | 44.00 | 83.00 | 41.00 | 60.00 | 87.15 |
| A1B2C2 | 44.00 | 83.00 | 41.00 | 75.00 | 122.10 |
| A1B3C3 | 44.00 | 83.00 | 41.00 | 90.00 | 157.05 |
| A2B1C2 | 44.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 60.00 | 122.10 |
| A2B2C3 | 44.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 75.00 | 157.05 |
| A2B3C1 | 44.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 90.00 | 87.15 |
| A3B1C3 | 89.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 60.00 | 157.05 |
| A3B2C1 | 89.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 75.00 | 87.15 |
| A3B3C2 | 89.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 90.00 | 122.10 |
表1 试验设计方案
Table 1 Experimental design scheme (kg·hm-2)
处理组合 Treatment combination | 因素 Element | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| N | P2O5 | K2O | |||
| A1B1C1 | 44.00 | 83.00 | 41.00 | 60.00 | 87.15 |
| A1B2C2 | 44.00 | 83.00 | 41.00 | 75.00 | 122.10 |
| A1B3C3 | 44.00 | 83.00 | 41.00 | 90.00 | 157.05 |
| A2B1C2 | 44.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 60.00 | 122.10 |
| A2B2C3 | 44.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 75.00 | 157.05 |
| A2B3C1 | 44.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 90.00 | 87.15 |
| A3B1C3 | 89.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 60.00 | 157.05 |
| A3B2C1 | 89.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 75.00 | 87.15 |
| A3B3C2 | 89.00 | 41.00 | 41.00 | 90.00 | 122.10 |
| 指标 Index | A1 | A2 | A3 | B1 | B2 | B3 | C1 | C2 | C3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 苗数 Number of seedlings (万苗Ten thousand seedling·hm-2) | 324.63±14.16a | 360.95±26.13a | 318.33±18.96a | 321.67±17.79a | 330.93±22.94a | 351.31±21.79a | 350.94±20.89a | 323.15±18.35a | 329.82±23.43a |
| 茎数 Number of stems (万茎Ten thousand stems·hm-2) | 499.92±16.30ab | 485.83±9.20b | 532.90±17.19a | 508.07±20.75a | 494.36±11.18a | 516.21±14.34a | 473.60±13.37b | 510.29±15.72ab | 534.75±11.37a |
| 穗数 Panicle number (万穗Ten thousand ears·hm-2) | 445.26±17.90a | 437.31±17.04a | 441.37±21.81a | 429.52±15.45b | 436.00±21.99b | 458.44±17.62a | 397.65±15.82b | 452.68±17.64a | 473.62±12.01a |
| 分蘖成穗率 Percentage of tillering to head (%) | 0.89±0.03a | 0.90±0.02a | 0.83±0.03a | 0.85±0.03a | 0.88±0.03a | 0.89±0.02a | 0.84±0.03a | 0.89±0.02a | 0.89±0.03a |
| 单株粒数 Number of grains per plant (粒·株-1 Grain·plant-1) | 43.87±3.12a | 45.11±4.50a | 37.64±3.80a | 40.29±3.78a | 43.86±3.64a | 42.47±4.49a | 50.06±4.30a | 39.97±2.38ab | 36.59±3.46b |
| 第二节长 Second section length (cm) | 24.51±0.91ab | 23.90±0.55b | 27.11±1.16a | 25.62±1.26a | 25.17±0.91a | 24.73±0.86a | 24.80±1.15a | 24.49±0.73a | 26.23±1.07a |
| 第三节长 Third section length (cm) | 46.49±1.24a | 47.19±1.11a | 49.69±1.85a | 48.49±1.39a | 46.68±1.18a | 48.20±1.83a | 48.38±1.20a | 46.40±1.45a | 48.59±1.74a |
| 穗下节长Subear length (cm) | 47.87±1.07a | 49.84±2.00a | 47.29±1.02a | 47.31±1.03a | 48.13±1.32a | 49.56±1.87a | 51.13±1.61a | 47.47±1.19ab | 46.40±1.03b |
| 穗长Panicle length (cm) | 17.22±0.44a | 17.96±0.61a | 17.42±0.30a | 17.98±0.42a | 16.60±0.36a | 18.02±0.48a | 18.22±0.47a | 17.24±0.49a | 17.13±0.38a |
| 株高Plant height (cm) | 117.98±1.53a | 118.38±2.74a | 118.31±2.80a | 116.38±2.06a | 118.58±2.51a | 119.71±2.53a | 121.13±2.13a | 118.07±2.35a | 115.47±2.38a |
| 穗位高Ear height (cm) | 100.76±1.48a | 100.42±2.32a | 100.80±2.75a | 98.40±1.80a | 101.98±2.44a | 101.69±2.23a | 102.91±2.14a | 100.82±2.13a | 98.33±2.16a |
| 重心高度 Height of center of gravity (cm) | 40.76±1.57a | 39.33±1.39a | 39.76±1.17a | 38.71±1.27a | 39.58±0.95a | 41.56±1.68a | 39.76±1.68a | 39.84±1.09a | 40.24±1.35a |
| 茎粗Thick stem (mm) | 4.30±0.08a | 4.19±0.12a | 4.46±0.06a | 4.43±0.10a | 4.18±0.08a | 4.33±0.10a | 4.41±0.10a | 4.24±0.08a | 4.29±0.11a |
| 茎壁厚Stem wall thickness (mm) | 1.03±0.04a | 0.92±0.05a | 1.01±0.05a | 1.02±0.05a | 0.94±0.05a | 1.00±0.05a | 1.04±0.04a | 0.95±0.04a | 0.98±0.06a |
| 倒伏率Lodging rate (%) | 0.49±0.08a | 0.71±0.08a | 0.66±0.09a | 0.51±0.12a | 0.65±0.07a | 0.70±0.06a | 0.54±0.11a | 0.68±0.07a | 0.63±0.08a |
表2 肥料、保水剂和播种量各因素水平对燕麦群体和植株性状的影响
Table 2 Effects of fertilizer, water retaining agent and seeding amount on population and plant characters of oat
| 指标 Index | A1 | A2 | A3 | B1 | B2 | B3 | C1 | C2 | C3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 苗数 Number of seedlings (万苗Ten thousand seedling·hm-2) | 324.63±14.16a | 360.95±26.13a | 318.33±18.96a | 321.67±17.79a | 330.93±22.94a | 351.31±21.79a | 350.94±20.89a | 323.15±18.35a | 329.82±23.43a |
| 茎数 Number of stems (万茎Ten thousand stems·hm-2) | 499.92±16.30ab | 485.83±9.20b | 532.90±17.19a | 508.07±20.75a | 494.36±11.18a | 516.21±14.34a | 473.60±13.37b | 510.29±15.72ab | 534.75±11.37a |
| 穗数 Panicle number (万穗Ten thousand ears·hm-2) | 445.26±17.90a | 437.31±17.04a | 441.37±21.81a | 429.52±15.45b | 436.00±21.99b | 458.44±17.62a | 397.65±15.82b | 452.68±17.64a | 473.62±12.01a |
| 分蘖成穗率 Percentage of tillering to head (%) | 0.89±0.03a | 0.90±0.02a | 0.83±0.03a | 0.85±0.03a | 0.88±0.03a | 0.89±0.02a | 0.84±0.03a | 0.89±0.02a | 0.89±0.03a |
| 单株粒数 Number of grains per plant (粒·株-1 Grain·plant-1) | 43.87±3.12a | 45.11±4.50a | 37.64±3.80a | 40.29±3.78a | 43.86±3.64a | 42.47±4.49a | 50.06±4.30a | 39.97±2.38ab | 36.59±3.46b |
| 第二节长 Second section length (cm) | 24.51±0.91ab | 23.90±0.55b | 27.11±1.16a | 25.62±1.26a | 25.17±0.91a | 24.73±0.86a | 24.80±1.15a | 24.49±0.73a | 26.23±1.07a |
| 第三节长 Third section length (cm) | 46.49±1.24a | 47.19±1.11a | 49.69±1.85a | 48.49±1.39a | 46.68±1.18a | 48.20±1.83a | 48.38±1.20a | 46.40±1.45a | 48.59±1.74a |
| 穗下节长Subear length (cm) | 47.87±1.07a | 49.84±2.00a | 47.29±1.02a | 47.31±1.03a | 48.13±1.32a | 49.56±1.87a | 51.13±1.61a | 47.47±1.19ab | 46.40±1.03b |
| 穗长Panicle length (cm) | 17.22±0.44a | 17.96±0.61a | 17.42±0.30a | 17.98±0.42a | 16.60±0.36a | 18.02±0.48a | 18.22±0.47a | 17.24±0.49a | 17.13±0.38a |
| 株高Plant height (cm) | 117.98±1.53a | 118.38±2.74a | 118.31±2.80a | 116.38±2.06a | 118.58±2.51a | 119.71±2.53a | 121.13±2.13a | 118.07±2.35a | 115.47±2.38a |
| 穗位高Ear height (cm) | 100.76±1.48a | 100.42±2.32a | 100.80±2.75a | 98.40±1.80a | 101.98±2.44a | 101.69±2.23a | 102.91±2.14a | 100.82±2.13a | 98.33±2.16a |
| 重心高度 Height of center of gravity (cm) | 40.76±1.57a | 39.33±1.39a | 39.76±1.17a | 38.71±1.27a | 39.58±0.95a | 41.56±1.68a | 39.76±1.68a | 39.84±1.09a | 40.24±1.35a |
| 茎粗Thick stem (mm) | 4.30±0.08a | 4.19±0.12a | 4.46±0.06a | 4.43±0.10a | 4.18±0.08a | 4.33±0.10a | 4.41±0.10a | 4.24±0.08a | 4.29±0.11a |
| 茎壁厚Stem wall thickness (mm) | 1.03±0.04a | 0.92±0.05a | 1.01±0.05a | 1.02±0.05a | 0.94±0.05a | 1.00±0.05a | 1.04±0.04a | 0.95±0.04a | 0.98±0.06a |
| 倒伏率Lodging rate (%) | 0.49±0.08a | 0.71±0.08a | 0.66±0.09a | 0.51±0.12a | 0.65±0.07a | 0.70±0.06a | 0.54±0.11a | 0.68±0.07a | 0.63±0.08a |
| 指标 Index | A1B1C1 | A1B2C2 | A1B3C3 | A2B1C2 | A2B2C3 | A2B3C1 | A3B1C3 | A3B2C1 | A3B3C2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 苗数Number of seedlings (万苗 Ten thousand seedlings·hm-2) | 337.97±16.40a | 291.28±12.02a | 344.64±31.37a | 344.64±28.60a | 362.43±39.15a | 375.77±35.37a | 282.38±16.85a | 339.08±26.43a | 333.53±24.30a |
| 茎数Number of stems (万茎Ten thousand stems·hm-2) | 471.38±38.24c | 500.29±27.16abc | 528.08±13.66abc | 481.39±22.48bc | 504.73±7.29abc | 471.36±12.80c | 571.44±12.82a | 478.05±22.48bc | 549.20±22.32ab |
| 穗数 Panicle number (万穗 Ten thousand ears·hm-2) | 402.45±4.77d | 441.36±27.95cd | 533.64±8.08a | 489.17±13.19abc | 490.28±11.65abc | 462.49±32.39bcd | 446.92±20.60bcd | 394.67±32.61d | 515.85±24.34ab |
| 分蘖成穗率 Percentage of tillering to head (%) | 0.83±0.02cd | 0.88±0.04bcd | 0.97±0.02a | 0.92±0.02ab | 0.80±0.05d | 0.82±0.01cd | 0.82±0.06cd | 0.82±0.04cd | 0.91±0.11abc |
| 单株粒数 Number of grains per plant (粒·株-1 Grains·plant-1) | 61.93±1.43a | 59.93±1.85ab | 59.80±0.72ab | 59.07±2.56ab | 58.40±0.76ab | 59.67±2.15ab | 43.53±0.95c | 54.00±2.87b | 58.47±3.43ab |
| 第二节长Second section length (cm) | 22.80±1.51b | 24.60±1.25ab | 26.13±0.76ab | 24.67±0.94ab | 23.17±0.77b | 23.87±1.37b | 29.40±1.24a | 27.73±1.67ab | 24.20±1.54b |
| 第三节长Third section length (cm) | 45.53±1.85a | 45.40±1.79a | 48.53±1.61a | 47.33±1.51a | 44.63±1.12a | 49.60±2.86a | 52.60±1.52a | 50.00±1.96a | 46.47±2.39a |
| 穗下节长Subear length (cm) | 49.20±1.38ab | 47.27±1.64ab | 47.13±0.98ab | 47.93±0.96ab | 47.27±1.63ab | 54.33±2.62a | 44.80±1.14b | 49.87±1.60ab | 47.20±1.42ab |
| 穗长Panicle length (cm) | 18.27±0.51ab | 16.40±0.57b | 17.00±0.52b | 17.80±0.57ab | 16.53±0.75b | 19.53±0.79a | 17.87±0.36ab | 16.87±0.66b | 17.53±0.56ab |
| 株高Plant height (cm) | 117.20±2.07a | 119.07±1.34a | 117.67±1.84a | 117.33±2.08a | 114.13±2.63a | 123.67±3.83a | 114.60±1.97a | 122.53±2.15a | 117.80±3.32a |
| 穗位高Ear height (cm) | 98.93±2.13a | 102.67±1.38a | 100.67±1.74a | 99.53±1.77a | 97.60±2.36a | 104.13±3.56a | 96.73±2.00a | 105.67±2.25a | 100.27±3.11a |
| 重心高度Height of center of gravity (cm) | 39.87±1.68a | 38.87±1.48a | 43.53±1.82a | 38.87±1.13a | 39.80±1.24a | 39.33±2.35a | 37.40±1.35a | 40.07±1.92a | 41.80±1.39a |
| 茎粗Thick stem (mm) | 4.54±0.15ab | 4.14±0.11ab | 4.21±0.10ab | 4.15±0.13ab | 4.05±0.12b | 4.36±0.16ab | 4.59±0.08a | 4.34±0.14ab | 4.44±0.14ab |
| 茎壁厚Stem wall thickness (mm) | 1.08±0.06a | 0.99±0.05a | 1.01±0.10a | 0.90±0.07a | 0.83±0.08a | 1.03±0.07a | 1.10±0.06a | 1.00±0.07a | 0.94±0.06a |
| 倒伏率Lodging rate (%) | 0.22±0.15b | 0.57±0.07ab | 0.68±0.03ab | 0.76±0.14a | 0.66±0.16ab | 0.70±0.18a | 0.55±0.22ab | 0.72±0.14a | 0.72±0.13a |
表3 肥料、保水剂和播种量处理组合对燕麦群体和植株性状的影响
Table 3 Effects of fertilizer, water retaining agent and sowing amount treatment combination on oat population and plant traits
| 指标 Index | A1B1C1 | A1B2C2 | A1B3C3 | A2B1C2 | A2B2C3 | A2B3C1 | A3B1C3 | A3B2C1 | A3B3C2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 苗数Number of seedlings (万苗 Ten thousand seedlings·hm-2) | 337.97±16.40a | 291.28±12.02a | 344.64±31.37a | 344.64±28.60a | 362.43±39.15a | 375.77±35.37a | 282.38±16.85a | 339.08±26.43a | 333.53±24.30a |
| 茎数Number of stems (万茎Ten thousand stems·hm-2) | 471.38±38.24c | 500.29±27.16abc | 528.08±13.66abc | 481.39±22.48bc | 504.73±7.29abc | 471.36±12.80c | 571.44±12.82a | 478.05±22.48bc | 549.20±22.32ab |
| 穗数 Panicle number (万穗 Ten thousand ears·hm-2) | 402.45±4.77d | 441.36±27.95cd | 533.64±8.08a | 489.17±13.19abc | 490.28±11.65abc | 462.49±32.39bcd | 446.92±20.60bcd | 394.67±32.61d | 515.85±24.34ab |
| 分蘖成穗率 Percentage of tillering to head (%) | 0.83±0.02cd | 0.88±0.04bcd | 0.97±0.02a | 0.92±0.02ab | 0.80±0.05d | 0.82±0.01cd | 0.82±0.06cd | 0.82±0.04cd | 0.91±0.11abc |
| 单株粒数 Number of grains per plant (粒·株-1 Grains·plant-1) | 61.93±1.43a | 59.93±1.85ab | 59.80±0.72ab | 59.07±2.56ab | 58.40±0.76ab | 59.67±2.15ab | 43.53±0.95c | 54.00±2.87b | 58.47±3.43ab |
| 第二节长Second section length (cm) | 22.80±1.51b | 24.60±1.25ab | 26.13±0.76ab | 24.67±0.94ab | 23.17±0.77b | 23.87±1.37b | 29.40±1.24a | 27.73±1.67ab | 24.20±1.54b |
| 第三节长Third section length (cm) | 45.53±1.85a | 45.40±1.79a | 48.53±1.61a | 47.33±1.51a | 44.63±1.12a | 49.60±2.86a | 52.60±1.52a | 50.00±1.96a | 46.47±2.39a |
| 穗下节长Subear length (cm) | 49.20±1.38ab | 47.27±1.64ab | 47.13±0.98ab | 47.93±0.96ab | 47.27±1.63ab | 54.33±2.62a | 44.80±1.14b | 49.87±1.60ab | 47.20±1.42ab |
| 穗长Panicle length (cm) | 18.27±0.51ab | 16.40±0.57b | 17.00±0.52b | 17.80±0.57ab | 16.53±0.75b | 19.53±0.79a | 17.87±0.36ab | 16.87±0.66b | 17.53±0.56ab |
| 株高Plant height (cm) | 117.20±2.07a | 119.07±1.34a | 117.67±1.84a | 117.33±2.08a | 114.13±2.63a | 123.67±3.83a | 114.60±1.97a | 122.53±2.15a | 117.80±3.32a |
| 穗位高Ear height (cm) | 98.93±2.13a | 102.67±1.38a | 100.67±1.74a | 99.53±1.77a | 97.60±2.36a | 104.13±3.56a | 96.73±2.00a | 105.67±2.25a | 100.27±3.11a |
| 重心高度Height of center of gravity (cm) | 39.87±1.68a | 38.87±1.48a | 43.53±1.82a | 38.87±1.13a | 39.80±1.24a | 39.33±2.35a | 37.40±1.35a | 40.07±1.92a | 41.80±1.39a |
| 茎粗Thick stem (mm) | 4.54±0.15ab | 4.14±0.11ab | 4.21±0.10ab | 4.15±0.13ab | 4.05±0.12b | 4.36±0.16ab | 4.59±0.08a | 4.34±0.14ab | 4.44±0.14ab |
| 茎壁厚Stem wall thickness (mm) | 1.08±0.06a | 0.99±0.05a | 1.01±0.10a | 0.90±0.07a | 0.83±0.08a | 1.03±0.07a | 1.10±0.06a | 1.00±0.07a | 0.94±0.06a |
| 倒伏率Lodging rate (%) | 0.22±0.15b | 0.57±0.07ab | 0.68±0.03ab | 0.76±0.14a | 0.66±0.16ab | 0.70±0.18a | 0.55±0.22ab | 0.72±0.14a | 0.72±0.13a |
因素水平 Factor level | 单株总生物量 Total biomass per plant | 根系生物量 Root biomass | 茎秆生物量 Stem biomass | 叶片生物量 Blade biomass | 穗部生物量 Panicle biomass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 3.01±0.06b | 0.33±0.02a | 1.22±0.04b | 0.21±0.02a | 1.25±0.02a |
| A2 | 2.98±0.16b | 0.37±0.04a | 1.17±0.06b | 0.21±0.02a | 1.24±0.08a |
| A3 | 3.43±0.12a | 0.33±0.03a | 1.51±0.07a | 0.24±0.02a | 1.36±0.09a |
| F | 4.46 | 0.50 | 9.14 | 1.17 | 0.83 |
| 显著性 Significance | * | NS | ** | NS | NS |
| B1 | 3.22±0.07a | 0.40±0.04a | 1.31±0.05a | 0.23±0.02a | 1.29±0.02a |
| B2 | 3.14±0.22a | 0.31±0.02b | 1.31±0.11a | 0.22±0.02a | 1.30±0.11a |
| B3 | 3.06±0.07a | 0.30±0.02b | 1.27±0.06a | 0.21±0.01a | 1.26±0.07a |
| F | 0.34 | 3.35 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.06 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | * | NS | NS | NS |
| C1 | 3.34±0.15a | 0.32±0.03a | 1.34±0.09ab | 0.21±0.02a | 1.48±0.07a |
| C2 | 3.20±0.04ab | 0.35±0.04a | 1.40±0.04a | 0.24±0.02a | 1.21±0.03b |
| C3 | 2.88±0.15b | 0.36±0.03a | 1.16±0.07b | 0.21±0.02a | 1.15±0.05b |
| F | 3.84 | 0.52 | 3.15 | 0.99 | 10.44 |
| 显著性 Significance | * | NS | NS | NS | ** |
表4 肥料、保水剂和播种量各因素水平对燕麦单株生物量的影响
Table 4 Effects of fertilizer, water retaining agent and seeding amount on biomass per plant of oat (g)
因素水平 Factor level | 单株总生物量 Total biomass per plant | 根系生物量 Root biomass | 茎秆生物量 Stem biomass | 叶片生物量 Blade biomass | 穗部生物量 Panicle biomass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 3.01±0.06b | 0.33±0.02a | 1.22±0.04b | 0.21±0.02a | 1.25±0.02a |
| A2 | 2.98±0.16b | 0.37±0.04a | 1.17±0.06b | 0.21±0.02a | 1.24±0.08a |
| A3 | 3.43±0.12a | 0.33±0.03a | 1.51±0.07a | 0.24±0.02a | 1.36±0.09a |
| F | 4.46 | 0.50 | 9.14 | 1.17 | 0.83 |
| 显著性 Significance | * | NS | ** | NS | NS |
| B1 | 3.22±0.07a | 0.40±0.04a | 1.31±0.05a | 0.23±0.02a | 1.29±0.02a |
| B2 | 3.14±0.22a | 0.31±0.02b | 1.31±0.11a | 0.22±0.02a | 1.30±0.11a |
| B3 | 3.06±0.07a | 0.30±0.02b | 1.27±0.06a | 0.21±0.01a | 1.26±0.07a |
| F | 0.34 | 3.35 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.06 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | * | NS | NS | NS |
| C1 | 3.34±0.15a | 0.32±0.03a | 1.34±0.09ab | 0.21±0.02a | 1.48±0.07a |
| C2 | 3.20±0.04ab | 0.35±0.04a | 1.40±0.04a | 0.24±0.02a | 1.21±0.03b |
| C3 | 2.88±0.15b | 0.36±0.03a | 1.16±0.07b | 0.21±0.02a | 1.15±0.05b |
| F | 3.84 | 0.52 | 3.15 | 0.99 | 10.44 |
| 显著性 Significance | * | NS | NS | NS | ** |
处理组合 Treatment combination | 单株总生物量 Total biomass per plant | 根系生物量 Root biomass | 茎秆生物量 Stem biomass | 叶片生物量 Blade biomass | 穗部生物量 Panicle biomass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1B1C1 | 2.97±0.11cd | 0.32±0.05ab | 1.19±0.03cd | 0.17±0.02b | 1.29±0.02c |
| A1B2C2 | 3.18±0.03bcd | 0.32±0.04ab | 1.33±0.05bc | 0.27±0.02a | 1.26±0.03c |
| A1B3C3 | 2.89±0.09d | 0.34±0.03ab | 1.13±0.07cd | 0.21±0.01ab | 1.20±0.03c |
| A2B1C2 | 3.34±0.03b | 0.46±0.09a | 1.37±0.05bc | 0.24±0.01a | 1.28±0.03c |
| A2B2C3 | 2.39±0.10e | 0.31±0.04ab | 0.96±0.03d | 0.16±0.01b | 0.97±0.04d |
| A2B3C1 | 3.21±0.16bc | 0.33±0.05ab | 1.18±0.07cd | 0.22±0.02ab | 1.48±0.11b |
| A3B1C3 | 3.36±0.06b | 0.42±0.05ab | 1.38±0.11bc | 0.27±0.04a | 1.29±0.05c |
| A3B2C1 | 3.84±0.12a | 0.29±0.06ab | 1.64±0.17a | 0.25±0.02a | 1.67±0.12a |
| A3B3C2 | 3.09±0.01bcd | 0.27±0.02b | 1.50±0.04b | 0.21±0.02ab | 1.11±0.02cd |
| F | 19.02 | 1.51 | 6.30 | 3.41 | 11.17 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | NS | ** | * | ** |
表5 肥料、保水剂和播种量间的处理组合对燕麦单株生物量的影响
Table 5 Effects of fertilizer, water retaining agent and seeding amount treatment combination on biomass per plant of oat (g)
处理组合 Treatment combination | 单株总生物量 Total biomass per plant | 根系生物量 Root biomass | 茎秆生物量 Stem biomass | 叶片生物量 Blade biomass | 穗部生物量 Panicle biomass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1B1C1 | 2.97±0.11cd | 0.32±0.05ab | 1.19±0.03cd | 0.17±0.02b | 1.29±0.02c |
| A1B2C2 | 3.18±0.03bcd | 0.32±0.04ab | 1.33±0.05bc | 0.27±0.02a | 1.26±0.03c |
| A1B3C3 | 2.89±0.09d | 0.34±0.03ab | 1.13±0.07cd | 0.21±0.01ab | 1.20±0.03c |
| A2B1C2 | 3.34±0.03b | 0.46±0.09a | 1.37±0.05bc | 0.24±0.01a | 1.28±0.03c |
| A2B2C3 | 2.39±0.10e | 0.31±0.04ab | 0.96±0.03d | 0.16±0.01b | 0.97±0.04d |
| A2B3C1 | 3.21±0.16bc | 0.33±0.05ab | 1.18±0.07cd | 0.22±0.02ab | 1.48±0.11b |
| A3B1C3 | 3.36±0.06b | 0.42±0.05ab | 1.38±0.11bc | 0.27±0.04a | 1.29±0.05c |
| A3B2C1 | 3.84±0.12a | 0.29±0.06ab | 1.64±0.17a | 0.25±0.02a | 1.67±0.12a |
| A3B3C2 | 3.09±0.01bcd | 0.27±0.02b | 1.50±0.04b | 0.21±0.02ab | 1.11±0.02cd |
| F | 19.02 | 1.51 | 6.30 | 3.41 | 11.17 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | NS | ** | * | ** |
图1 不同处理水平下燕麦草和籽粒产量差异不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异显著(P<0.05)。下同。Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatment (P<0.05). The same below.
Fig. 1 Differences in grass and grain yield of oat under different treatment levels
图2 肥料、保水剂和播种量间的处理组合对燕麦草和籽粒产量的影响
Fig. 2 Effects of fertilizer, water retaining agent and seeding amount treatment combination on grass and grain yield of oat
处理 Treatment | 显著性 Significance | 鲜草产量 Fresh grass yield | 干草产量 Hay yield | 干鲜比 Dry-fresh ratio | 籽粒产量 Grain yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
组合 Combination | F | 37.97 | 22.27 | 11.62 | 19.30 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
| A | F | 2.10 | 11.23 | 12.23 | 13.51 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | ** | ** | ** | |
| B | F | 25.10 | 7.31 | 2.83 | 1.04 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | * | NS | NS | |
| C | F | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.82 | 1.12 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | NS | NS | NS |
表6 肥料、保水剂和播种量间的不同水平处理和组合处理下各产量指标的方差分析
Table 6 Variance analysis of each yield index under different horizontal treatments and combined treatments among fertilizer, water retaining agent and seeding amount
处理 Treatment | 显著性 Significance | 鲜草产量 Fresh grass yield | 干草产量 Hay yield | 干鲜比 Dry-fresh ratio | 籽粒产量 Grain yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
组合 Combination | F | 37.97 | 22.27 | 11.62 | 19.30 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | ** | ** | ** | |
| A | F | 2.10 | 11.23 | 12.23 | 13.51 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | ** | ** | ** | |
| B | F | 25.10 | 7.31 | 2.83 | 1.04 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | * | NS | NS | |
| C | F | 0.14 | 0.19 | 0.82 | 1.12 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | NS | NS | NS |
因素水平 Factor level | 粗蛋白含量 Crude protein content | 粗脂肪含量 Crude fat content | 灰分含量 Ash content | 钙含量 Calcium content | 磷含量 Phosphorus content | 酸性洗涤纤维含量 Acid detergent fiber content | 中性洗涤纤维含量 Neutral detergent fiber content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 8.76±0.44b | 3.28±0.08a | 8.20±0.59a | 0.22±0.02b | 0.32±0.00b | 37.52±0.62a | 68.07±0.85a |
| A2 | 8.83±0.46b | 3.37±0.04a | 7.92±0.29a | 0.18±0.01b | 0.32±0.00b | 37.55±0.75a | 69.08±0.83a |
| A3 | 11.46±0.45a | 3.45±0.07a | 8.77±0.40a | 0.27±0.02a | 0.35±0.00a | 37.29±0.97a | 68.66±0.93a |
| F | 11.79 | 1.70 | 0.93 | 8.39 | 7.69 | 0.03 | 0.34 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | NS | NS | ** | ** | NS | NS |
| B1 | 10.05±0.63a | 3.39±0.07a | 7.74±0.17b | 0.21±0.02a | 0.33±0.01a | 36.85±0.58a | 68.55±0.63a |
| B2 | 8.91±0.57a | 3.33±0.04a | 8.08±0.42ab | 0.21±0.02a | 0.32±0.01a | 38.37±1.07a | 68.99±1.07a |
| B3 | 10.09±0.60a | 3.38±0.08a | 9.08±0.56a | 0.25±0.01a | 0.33±0.00a | 37.15±0.49a | 68.27±0.87a |
| F | 1.24 | 0.26 | 2.79 | 1.29 | 0.92 | 1.12 | 0.18 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| C1 | 9.92±0.28a | 3.39±0.03a | 8.21±0.48a | 0.22±0.01a | 0.33±0.00a | 37.67±0.94a | 67.72±0.97a |
| C2 | 9.49±0.66a | 3.28±0.03a | 8.14±0.32a | 0.21±0.01a | 0.33±0.01a | 37.53±0.62a | 68.97±0.64a |
| C3 | 9.64±0.81a | 3.43±0.10a | 8.54±0.55a | 0.24±0.02a | 0.33±0.01a | 37.17±0.79a | 69.12±0.91a |
| F | 0.12 | 1.54 | 0.21 | 0.83 | 0.45 | 0.10 | 0.81 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
表7 肥料、保水剂和播种量不同因素水平下燕麦的营养品质差异
Table 7 Difference of nutritional quality of oats under different factors of fertilizer, water retaining agent and sowing amount (%)
因素水平 Factor level | 粗蛋白含量 Crude protein content | 粗脂肪含量 Crude fat content | 灰分含量 Ash content | 钙含量 Calcium content | 磷含量 Phosphorus content | 酸性洗涤纤维含量 Acid detergent fiber content | 中性洗涤纤维含量 Neutral detergent fiber content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 8.76±0.44b | 3.28±0.08a | 8.20±0.59a | 0.22±0.02b | 0.32±0.00b | 37.52±0.62a | 68.07±0.85a |
| A2 | 8.83±0.46b | 3.37±0.04a | 7.92±0.29a | 0.18±0.01b | 0.32±0.00b | 37.55±0.75a | 69.08±0.83a |
| A3 | 11.46±0.45a | 3.45±0.07a | 8.77±0.40a | 0.27±0.02a | 0.35±0.00a | 37.29±0.97a | 68.66±0.93a |
| F | 11.79 | 1.70 | 0.93 | 8.39 | 7.69 | 0.03 | 0.34 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | NS | NS | ** | ** | NS | NS |
| B1 | 10.05±0.63a | 3.39±0.07a | 7.74±0.17b | 0.21±0.02a | 0.33±0.01a | 36.85±0.58a | 68.55±0.63a |
| B2 | 8.91±0.57a | 3.33±0.04a | 8.08±0.42ab | 0.21±0.02a | 0.32±0.01a | 38.37±1.07a | 68.99±1.07a |
| B3 | 10.09±0.60a | 3.38±0.08a | 9.08±0.56a | 0.25±0.01a | 0.33±0.00a | 37.15±0.49a | 68.27±0.87a |
| F | 1.24 | 0.26 | 2.79 | 1.29 | 0.92 | 1.12 | 0.18 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| C1 | 9.92±0.28a | 3.39±0.03a | 8.21±0.48a | 0.22±0.01a | 0.33±0.00a | 37.67±0.94a | 67.72±0.97a |
| C2 | 9.49±0.66a | 3.28±0.03a | 8.14±0.32a | 0.21±0.01a | 0.33±0.01a | 37.53±0.62a | 68.97±0.64a |
| C3 | 9.64±0.81a | 3.43±0.10a | 8.54±0.55a | 0.24±0.02a | 0.33±0.01a | 37.17±0.79a | 69.12±0.91a |
| F | 0.12 | 1.54 | 0.21 | 0.83 | 0.45 | 0.10 | 0.81 |
| 显著性 Significance | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
处理组合 Treatment combination | 粗蛋白含量 Crude protein content | 粗脂肪含量 Crude fat content | 灰分含量 Ash content | 钙含量 Calcium content | 磷含量 Phosphorus content | 酸性洗涤纤维含量 Acid detergent fiber content | 中性洗涤纤维含量 Neutral detergent fiber content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1B1C1 | 9.60±0.41b | 3.33±0.03a | 7.33±0.13a | 0.19±0.02cd | 0.33±0.01abc | 37.67±0.61a | 67.63±0.40a |
| A1B2C2 | 8.25±0.74b | 3.21±0.03a | 7.50±0.21a | 0.20±0.01bcd | 0.31±0.01c | 37.77±1.56a | 68.10±1.03a |
| A1B3C3 | 8.43±1.04b | 3.31±0.26a | 9.77±1.52a | 0.27±0.01ab | 0.33±0.01abc | 37.12±1.29a | 68.49±2.68a |
| A2B1C2 | 8.31±0.40b | 3.24±0.04a | 7.76±0.31a | 0.17±0.02d | 0.32±0.01bc | 37.20±1.40a | 69.63±1.80a |
| A2B2C3 | 8.26±1.18b | 3.39±0.05a | 7.71±0.34a | 0.17±0.01d | 0.32±0.01bc | 38.73±1.68a | 70.48±1.01a |
| A2B3C1 | 9.93±0.18ab | 3.37±0.02a | 8.30±0.84a | 0.21±0.02abcd | 0.33±0.00abc | 36.72±0.98a | 67.14±0.94a |
| A3B1C3 | 12.23±0.67a | 3.51±0.17a | 8.13±0.30a | 0.28±0.05a | 0.35±0.01a | 35.67±0.77a | 68.39±0.59a |
| A3B2C1 | 10.23±0.80ab | 3.38±0.05a | 9.01±1.14a | 0.26±0.02abc | 0.34±0.00abc | 38.60±2.89a | 68.40±3.14a |
| A3B3C2 | 11.91±0.38a | 3.38±0.06a | 9.17±0.51a | 0.26±0.01abc | 0.35±0.00a | 37.60±0.34a | 69.18±0.18a |
| F | 4.71 | 1.05 | 1.30 | 3.79 | 2.41 | 0.41 | 0.40 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | NS | NS | ** | NS | NS | NS |
表8 肥料、保水剂和播种量间的不同处理组合下燕麦营养品质差异
Table 8 Difference of nutritional quality of oats under different treatment combinations of fertilizer, water retaining agent and seeding amount (%)
处理组合 Treatment combination | 粗蛋白含量 Crude protein content | 粗脂肪含量 Crude fat content | 灰分含量 Ash content | 钙含量 Calcium content | 磷含量 Phosphorus content | 酸性洗涤纤维含量 Acid detergent fiber content | 中性洗涤纤维含量 Neutral detergent fiber content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1B1C1 | 9.60±0.41b | 3.33±0.03a | 7.33±0.13a | 0.19±0.02cd | 0.33±0.01abc | 37.67±0.61a | 67.63±0.40a |
| A1B2C2 | 8.25±0.74b | 3.21±0.03a | 7.50±0.21a | 0.20±0.01bcd | 0.31±0.01c | 37.77±1.56a | 68.10±1.03a |
| A1B3C3 | 8.43±1.04b | 3.31±0.26a | 9.77±1.52a | 0.27±0.01ab | 0.33±0.01abc | 37.12±1.29a | 68.49±2.68a |
| A2B1C2 | 8.31±0.40b | 3.24±0.04a | 7.76±0.31a | 0.17±0.02d | 0.32±0.01bc | 37.20±1.40a | 69.63±1.80a |
| A2B2C3 | 8.26±1.18b | 3.39±0.05a | 7.71±0.34a | 0.17±0.01d | 0.32±0.01bc | 38.73±1.68a | 70.48±1.01a |
| A2B3C1 | 9.93±0.18ab | 3.37±0.02a | 8.30±0.84a | 0.21±0.02abcd | 0.33±0.00abc | 36.72±0.98a | 67.14±0.94a |
| A3B1C3 | 12.23±0.67a | 3.51±0.17a | 8.13±0.30a | 0.28±0.05a | 0.35±0.01a | 35.67±0.77a | 68.39±0.59a |
| A3B2C1 | 10.23±0.80ab | 3.38±0.05a | 9.01±1.14a | 0.26±0.02abc | 0.34±0.00abc | 38.60±2.89a | 68.40±3.14a |
| A3B3C2 | 11.91±0.38a | 3.38±0.06a | 9.17±0.51a | 0.26±0.01abc | 0.35±0.00a | 37.60±0.34a | 69.18±0.18a |
| F | 4.71 | 1.05 | 1.30 | 3.79 | 2.41 | 0.41 | 0.40 |
| 显著性 Significance | ** | NS | NS | ** | NS | NS | NS |
| 指标 Index | A | B | C |
|---|---|---|---|
| 鲜草产量 Fresh grass yield (kg·hm-2) | 0.37 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 干草产量 Hay yield (kg·hm-2) | 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.00 |
| 干鲜比 Dry-fresh ratio (%) | 1.00 | 0.48 | 0.00 |
| 籽粒产量 Grain yield (kg·hm-2) | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.34 |
| 粗蛋白含量 Crude protein content (%) | 1.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 |
| 粗脂肪含量 Crude fat content (%) | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.86 |
| 灰分含量 Ash content (%) | 0.48 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 钙含量 Calcium content (%) | 1.00 | 0.09 | 0.00 |
| 磷含量 Phosphorus content (%) | 1.00 | 0.15 | 0.00 |
| 酸性洗涤纤维含量 Acid detergent fiber content (%) | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.18 |
| 中性洗涤纤维含量 Neutral detergent fiber content (%) | 0.42 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| 总极差值 Total range | 7.27 | 5.99 | 2.39 |
表9 产量指标和品质指标的极差分析
Table 9 Range analysis of yield index and quality index
| 指标 Index | A | B | C |
|---|---|---|---|
| 鲜草产量 Fresh grass yield (kg·hm-2) | 0.37 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 干草产量 Hay yield (kg·hm-2) | 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.00 |
| 干鲜比 Dry-fresh ratio (%) | 1.00 | 0.48 | 0.00 |
| 籽粒产量 Grain yield (kg·hm-2) | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.34 |
| 粗蛋白含量 Crude protein content (%) | 1.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 |
| 粗脂肪含量 Crude fat content (%) | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.86 |
| 灰分含量 Ash content (%) | 0.48 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 钙含量 Calcium content (%) | 1.00 | 0.09 | 0.00 |
| 磷含量 Phosphorus content (%) | 1.00 | 0.15 | 0.00 |
| 酸性洗涤纤维含量 Acid detergent fiber content (%) | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.18 |
| 中性洗涤纤维含量 Neutral detergent fiber content (%) | 0.42 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| 总极差值 Total range | 7.27 | 5.99 | 2.39 |
处理组合 Treatment combination | 平均隶属函数值 Average membership function value | 综合排名 Comprehensive ranking |
|---|---|---|
| A1B1C1 | 0.34 | 6 |
| A1B2C2 | 0.20 | 9 |
| A1B3C3 | 0.55 | 4 |
| A2B1C2 | 0.33 | 7 |
| A2B2C3 | 0.22 | 8 |
| A2B3C1 | 0.59 | 3 |
| A3B1C3 | 0.78 | 1 |
| A3B2C1 | 0.50 | 5 |
| A3B3C2 | 0.71 | 2 |
表10 产量指标和品质指标隶属函数分析
Table 10 Membership function analysis of output index and quality index
处理组合 Treatment combination | 平均隶属函数值 Average membership function value | 综合排名 Comprehensive ranking |
|---|---|---|
| A1B1C1 | 0.34 | 6 |
| A1B2C2 | 0.20 | 9 |
| A1B3C3 | 0.55 | 4 |
| A2B1C2 | 0.33 | 7 |
| A2B2C3 | 0.22 | 8 |
| A2B3C1 | 0.59 | 3 |
| A3B1C3 | 0.78 | 1 |
| A3B2C1 | 0.50 | 5 |
| A3B3C2 | 0.71 | 2 |
| [1] | Song J C, Gao J, Zhong Z F, et al. Analysis of grassland development status in Hulunbuir area. Yunnan Journal of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2024(6): 31-33. |
| 宋建成, 高建, 钟振福, 等. 呼伦贝尔地区草原发展现状分析. 云南畜牧兽医, 2024(6): 31-33. | |
| [2] | Pan Q M, Xue J G, Tao J, et al. Current status of grassland degradation and measures for grassland restoration in northern China. Science Bulletin, 2018, 63(17): 1642-1650. |
| 潘庆民, 薛建国, 陶金, 等. 中国北方草原退化现状与恢复技术. 科学通报, 2018, 63(17): 1642-1650. | |
| [3] | Yan H G, Deng D, Zhou P P, et al. Dissecting the genetic basis of grain weight and size in common oat by genome-wide association study. Journal of Cereal Science, 2023, 114(10): 3811. |
| [4] | Uma D, Dheeraj P, Pawan K, et al. Effect of nitrogen fertilizers on yield and quality of oats: A review. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 2019, 7(2): 1999-2005. |
| [5] | Liu Y. Study on grassland planting structure in typical pastoral areas of western China based on ecological water demand. Xi’an: Xi’an University of Technology, 2022. |
| 刘雨. 基于生态需水的西部典型牧区草地种植结构研究. 西安: 西安理工大学, 2022. | |
| [6] | Zhang Y. Effects of water and nitrogen regulation on water, nitrogen and salt transport and oat water consumption in saline-alkali soil. Taiyuan: Taiyuan University of Technology, 2021. |
| 张毅. 水氮调控对盐碱地水氮盐分布和燕麦耗水特性的影响. 太原: 太原理工大学, 2021. | |
| [7] | Kebede G, Worku W, Jifar H, et al. Effects of fertilizer levels and varieties on fodder yield productivity, nutrient use efficiency, and profitability of oat (Avena sativa L.) in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 2024, 16(10): 1161. |
| [8] | Huang W, Lai H Q, Du J X, et al. Effect of polymer water retaining agent on physical properties of silty clay. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 2022, 9(1): 47. |
| [9] | Yang Y H, Wu J C, Zhao S W. Effects of different macromolecule absorbent resins on the moisture characteristics of major soil type on Loess Plateau. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 2014, 26(17): 5755-5760. |
| [10] | Xu Y, Gao Y, Li W, et al. Effects of compound water retention agent on soil nutrients and soil microbial diversity of winter wheat in saline-alkali land. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 2023, 10(2): 4118. |
| [11] | Fu H Z, Wang Y F, Zhu Z Z, et al. Effects of water retention agent combined with nitrogen fertilizer on physical and chemical properties of drought resistance in cigar tobacco. Shandong Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 56(6): 88-95. |
| 付宏喆, 王亚飞, 朱治忠, 等. 保水剂与氮肥配施对雪茄烟抗旱性相关理化性状的影响. 山东农业科学, 2024, 56(6): 88-95. | |
| [12] | John F, Brendan B, John S. The effect of nitrogen timing and rate on radiation interception, grain yield and grain quality in autumn sown oats. Field Crops Research, 2019, 231(1): 130-140. |
| [13] | Xiao X J, Zhou Q P, Chen Y J, et al. Effect of seeding rate on production performance and photosynthetic characteristics of Avena sativa cv.LENA in alpine pastoral regions. Pratacultural Science, 2017, 34(4): 761-771. |
| 肖雪君, 周青平, 陈有军, 等. 播种量对高寒牧区林纳燕麦生产性能及光合特性的影响. 草业科学, 2017, 34(4): 761-771. | |
| [14] | Li X X, He Y Y, Yang W H, et al. Effects of different water conditions and plant density on the growth and interspecific competition of Hemarthria compressa and Cynodon dactylon. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2018, 38(9): 3046-3058. |
| 李晓雪, 贺燕燕, 杨文航, 等. 不同水分处理和密度配置对牛鞭草与狗牙根生长与种间竞争的影响. 生态学报, 2018, 38(9): 3046-3058. | |
| [15] | Zhao B W, Zhan Y, Fang J Q, et al. Mixing ratios effects on production performance and quality in oat and common vetch intercropping systems. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2024, 46(3): 81-90. |
| 赵保文, 詹圆, 方嘉琪, 等. 混播比例对燕麦与箭筈豌豆生产性能的影响. 中国草地学报, 2024, 46(3): 81-90. | |
| [16] | Ren B C, Liu P, Zhang J W, et al. Effect of plant density and nitrogen rate on yield, nitrogen uptake and use efficiency of summer maize hybrids with different plant height. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer, 2017, 23(2): 269-277. |
| 任佰朝, 刘鹏, 张吉旺, 等. 种植密度和施氮量对不同株高夏玉米产量和氮素利用的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(2): 269-277. | |
| [17] | Dumcam E G, O’sullivan C A, Roper M M, et al. Yield and nitrogen use efficiency of wheat increased with root length and biomass due to nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium interactions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2018, 181(3): 364-373. |
| [18] | Liu M, Liu W H, Liu K Q, et al. Seed yield response of ‘Qingyin No.1’ oats to nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers in the alpine zone. Pratacultural Science, 2024, 41(2): 345-355. |
| 刘慢, 刘文辉, 刘凯强, 等. 高寒区‘青引1号’燕麦种子产量对氮、磷、钾肥的响应. 草业科学, 2024, 41(2): 345-355. | |
| [19] | Zhang R, Bai G S. Application and development prospect of the super absorbent polymer in agricultural production. Journal of Agriculture, 2012, 2(7): 37-42, 78. |
| 张蕊, 白岗栓. 保水剂在农业生产中的应用及发展前景. 农学学报, 2012, 2(7): 37-42, 78. | |
| [20] | Eagle A J, Bird J A, Horwath W R, et al. Rice yield and nitrogen utilization efficiency under alternative straw management practices. Agronomy Journal, 2000, 92(6): 1096-1103. |
| [21] | Liu B, Wang X Z, Ma L, et al. Combined applications of organic and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers for improving crop yield and reducing reactive nitrogen losses from China’s vegetable systems: A meta-analysis. Environmental Pollution, 2021, 269(15): 116143. |
| [22] | Wang J F, Yang X Y, Huang S M, et al. Long-term combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers increases crop yield sustainability by improving soil fertility in maize-wheat cropping systems. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2025, 24(1): 290-305. |
| [23] | Xu Z H, Yu H Y, Yang H, et al. The effect of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer combined application on the yield and nutrition value in vegetative growth and reproductive growth stages of local Elymus sibiricus. China Feed, 2024(19): 137-145. |
| 徐正辉, 俞慧云, 杨浩, 等. 营养及生殖生长关键期氮磷肥配施对老芒麦产草量及营养价值的影响. 中国饲料, 2024(19): 137-145. | |
| [24] | Tian L H, Wang D D, Shen Y Y. Advances in utilisation of dual-purpose Triticeae crops. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(2): 185-193. |
| 田莉华, 王丹丹, 沈禹颖. 麦类作物粮饲兼用研究进展. 草业学报, 2015, 24(2): 185-193. | |
| [25] | Du C M. Combined application of nitrogen and phosphorus on the growth and development of oats and dry matter accumulation. Shenyang: Liaoning University, 2021. |
| 杜春明. 氮磷配施对燕麦生长发育及干物质积累的影响. 沈阳: 辽宁大学, 2021. | |
| [26] | Wang Y S, Cao H, Peng Z K, et al. Effects of different nitrogen and phosphorus application rates on the growth of summer-sown forage oats. Journal of Cold-Arid Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 3(2): 174-178. |
| 王亚士, 曹宏, 彭正凯, 等. 不同氮磷肥施用量对夏播饲用燕麦生长的影响. 寒旱农业科学, 2024, 3(2): 174-178. | |
| [27] | Wang Y F, Bi H M. Research on the application and development of super absorbent polymers. Journal of Heilongjiang Bayi Agricultural University, 2006(5): 77-80. |
| 王亚飞, 毕红梅. 保水剂的应用现状及发展前景. 黑龙江八一农垦大学学报, 2006(5): 77-80. | |
| [28] | Howard D D, Oosterhuisd M, Holman M, et al. Programmed slow release soil fertilizer to meet cotton nitrogen and potassium requirements. Proceedings, 1998, 1(1): 672-673. |
| [29] | Dang X L, Zhang Y L, Huang Y. Research status and prospect on application of water holding agents in agriculture. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 2006(2): 2352-2355. |
| 党秀丽, 张玉龙, 黄毅. 保水剂在农业上的应用与研究进展. 土壤通报, 2006(2): 2352-2355. | |
| [30] | Lu T, Liu J H, Zhang S, et al. Effects of strip cropping with reducing row spacing and super absorbent polymer on yield and water productivity of oat (Avena sativa L.) under drip irrigation in Inner Mongolia, China. Scientific Reports, 2022, 12(1): 11441. |
| [31] | Zhou Q P, Yan H B, Liang G L, et al. Analysis of the forage and grain productivity of oat cultivars. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(10): 120-130. |
| 周青平, 颜红波, 梁国玲, 等. 不同燕麦品种饲草和籽粒生产性能分析. 草业学报, 2015, 24(10): 120-130. | |
| [32] | Wu H J, Ma L X, Geng X L, et al. Effects of different sowing rates and row spacing on forage yield, seed yield and agronomic traits of ‘Xiayan No.1’. China Herbivore Science, 2023, 43(2): 23-27, 36. |
| 武慧娟, 马隆喜, 耿小丽, 等. 不同播量和行距对“夏燕1号”牧草产量、种子产量及农艺性状的影响. 中国草食动物科学, 2023, 43(2): 23-27, 36. | |
| [33] | Chen Y Y, Jiang Z, Zhang X, et al. Effects of sowing rate and method on the yield and quality of Avena sativa L.cv. Magnum. Journal of Grassland and Forage Science, 2023(3): 19-26. |
| 陈芸莹, 姜臻, 张新, 等. 播量与播种方式对四川阿坝地区燕麦牧草产量和品质的影响. 草学, 2023(3): 19-26. | |
| [34] | Fang Q, Wang H G, Ma B W. Effect of planting density and nitrogen application rate on population quality and yield formation of super high-yielding winter wheat. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2015, 35(3): 367. |
| 房琴, 王红光, 马伯威. 密度和施氮量对超高产冬小麦群体质量和产量形成的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2015, 35(3): 367. | |
| [35] | Yang W J, Jia Y H, Shi S B. Effect of sowing date and planting density on growth and yield of spring wheat Xinchun 26. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2016, 36(7): 913. |
| 杨卫君, 贾永红, 石书兵. 播期和密度对春小麦品种新春26号生长及产量的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2016, 36(7): 913. | |
| [36] | Lu H D, Xue J Q, Hao Y C. Effects of planting densities on the yields and forage nutritive values of different corn (Zea mays L.) varieties. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2014, 22(4): 865-870. |
| 路海东, 薛吉全, 郝引川. 密度对不同类型青贮玉米饲用产量及营养价值的影响. 草地学报, 2014, 22(4): 865-870. | |
| [37] | Chen X, Jiang W R, Gao M Y. Comparative study on feeding effect of different roughages alfalfa hay and rice straw on Hu sheep. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2020, 32(11): 5285-5292. |
| 陈希, 姜婉茹, 高铭谣. 不同粗饲料苜蓿干草和稻秸对湖羊饲喂效果的比较研究. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(11): 5285-5292. | |
| [38] | Wang J M, Zhang R, Tian Y P, et al. Effect of sowing date and sowing amount on yield and quality of common wheat variety Zhongmai 895. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2020, 40(11): 1375-1381. |
| 汪娟梅, 张睿, 田永平, 等. 播期播量对小麦中麦 895 产量和品质的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2020, 40(11): 1375-1381. | |
| [39] | Ren Y X. Studies on the regulation of fertilization and planting density on the growth of triticale and soil physical and chemical properties in the valley area of Tibet. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2024. |
| 任昱鑫. 施肥和种植密度对西藏河谷区小黑麦生长及土壤理化特性的调控作用研究. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2024. | |
| [40] | Ma L, Zhou Q P, Yan H B, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and super absorbent polymers on yield of Avena sativa cv. Qingyan No. 1. Pratacultural Science, 2014, 31(10): 1929-1934. |
| 马力, 周青平, 颜红波, 等. 氮肥与保水剂配施对青燕1号燕麦产量的影响. 草业科学, 2014, 31(10): 1929-1934. | |
| [41] | Mao S S, Robiul I M, Jia P F, et al. Effects of different superabsorbent polymer and fertilization rates on forage oat (Avena sativa L.) production in sandland. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2011, 31(2): 308-313. |
| 毛思帅, Robiul I M, 贾鹏飞, 等. 保水剂和施肥量对沙地燕麦生产的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2011, 31(2): 308-313. | |
| [42] | Tian L, Liu J H, Mi J Z, et al. Impact of planting spacing and soil amendment with water absorbent on root and leave senescence traits of drip irrigated oat. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2023, 42(7): 1-9. |
| 田露, 刘景辉, 米俊珍, 等. 缩行带状种植和保水剂对滴灌燕麦根系和叶片衰老特性的影响.灌溉排水学报, 2023, 42(7): 1-9. |
| [1] | 张志鹏, 蒋庆雪, 周昕越, 苗童, 唐俊, 仪登霞, 王学敏, 马琳. 转录组和蛋白组联合筛选饲用燕麦株高性状候选基因[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(9): 147-161. |
| [2] | 李长青, 宋亚茹, 肖凡, 缪春语, 孙梦宇, 纪萌, 孙志梅. 耐瘠高产型玉米品种主要农艺性状特征分析[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(9): 97-110. |
| [3] | 张译尹, 王斌, 王腾飞, 兰剑, 胡海英. 苜蓿种子田间作小黑麦对饲草产量、水分利用及苜蓿种子产量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(8): 43-53. |
| [4] | 项凌飞, 张峰举, 麻冬梅, 刘金龙, 兰剑, 邓建强, 胡海英, 王斌, 蔡春江, 马巧利. 氮磷钾配施对盐碱地湖南稷子生产性能和营养品质的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(7): 185-195. |
| [5] | 刘启林, 王小军, 王金兰, 刘文辉, 马巧玲, 李建辉, 张生原, 曹文侠, 李文. 氮磷配施对高寒区老芒麦饲草产量的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(6): 193-202. |
| [6] | 韩航琪, 王梓凡, 丁赫, 陈玉荣, 王琦, 张晓庆. 燕麦干草与燕麦草块对绵羊瘤胃发酵及微生物组成影响的比较分析[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(5): 212-222. |
| [7] | 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. |
| [8] | 王斌, 史佳梅, 王腾飞, 张译尹, 马江萍, 李佳旺, 王小兵, 邓建强, 兰剑. 施氮对饲用高粱/拉巴豆混播草地生产性能和氮肥贡献率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(4): 53-63. |
| [9] | 胡鹏飞, 叶雨浓, 王通锐, 王晶, 王星, 伏兵哲, 高雪芹. 紫花苜蓿半同胞家系农艺性状的遗传变异分析[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(3): 85-96. |
| [10] | 郭璟, 王越, 祁存英, 李静. 内生真菌浸种对燕麦生长和根部内生真菌群落的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(1): 151-160. |
| [11] | 王宝, 谢占玲, 郭璟, 唐永鹏, 孟清, 彭清青, 杨家宝, 董德誉, 徐鸿雁, 高太侦, 张凡, 段迎珠. 真菌发酵液浸种燕麦对其抗旱性及根际真菌群落结构的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(9): 126-139. |
| [12] | 关皓, 许多, 李海萍, 贾志锋, 马祥, 刘文辉, 陈有军, 李欣洋, 黄艳玲, 周青平, 陈仕勇. 高寒地区17个燕麦品种营养品质及瘤胃降解特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(9): 185-198. |
| [13] | 米春娇, 洪流, 马馼, 毛培胜. 谷胱甘肽引发对老化燕麦种胚线粒体抗氧化特性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(9): 51-59. |
| [14] | 马圆, 刘欢, 赵桂琴, 王敬龙, 张然, 姚瑞瑞. 燕麦sHSP基因家族的鉴定及其响应高温及老化的表达分析[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(8): 145-158. |
| [15] | 杜文盼, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 杨莉, 张建贵, 史怡超, 张官禄. 根系分隔方式对燕麦/豌豆间作地上生物量、土壤养分及根系性状的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(8): 25-36. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||