草业学报 ›› 2020, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (12): 50-60.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020022
杨晶(), 刘文辉, 梁国玲(), 贾志锋, 刘凯强, 张燕, 吴瑞, 杨钰洁
收稿日期:
2020-01-20
修回日期:
2020-03-23
出版日期:
2020-12-28
发布日期:
2020-12-28
通讯作者:
梁国玲
作者简介:
Corresponding author. E-mail: qhliangguoling@163.com基金资助:
Jing YANG(), Wen-hui LIU, Guo-ling LIANG(), Zhi-feng JIA, Kai-qiang LIU, Yan ZHANG, Rui WU, Yu-jie YANG
Received:
2020-01-20
Revised:
2020-03-23
Online:
2020-12-28
Published:
2020-12-28
Contact:
Guo-ling LIANG
摘要:
为明确影响燕麦抗倒伏性的关键性状,选用高寒地区一组抗倒伏能力较强的燕麦资源(QYJ301、QYJ386、QYJ322、QYJ986、QYJ211)与另一组较易倒伏的燕麦资源(QYJ272、QYJ224、QYJ288、QYJ320、QYJ280、QYJ055)对与抗倒伏相关的25个性状进行方差分析。结果表明,抗倒伏组品系与易倒伏组品系的株高(抗倒伏组:103.00~117.40 cm;易倒伏组:125.80~144.18 cm)、穗长(抗倒伏组:17.82~21.94 cm;易倒伏组:23.82~27.10 cm)、重心高度(抗倒伏组:50.24~56.34 cm;易倒伏组:56.70~59.24 cm)、穗位高(抗倒伏组:84.54~95.46 cm;易倒伏组:98.80~117.08 cm)、基部节长、茎粗、茎粗系数、倒伏指数与茎基部力学性状均存在显著(P<0.05)或极显著(P<0.01)差异,且不同倒伏性能的燕麦资源在抗倒伏相关性状上表现不同。利用上述存在显著差异的22个相关性状进行聚类分析,以相对距离10作为划分,将11个燕麦资源聚成两类,即抗倒伏组与易倒伏组。进一步通过相关性分析发现,株高、穗长、重心高度、穗位高、茎粗系数、茎基部力学性状均与倒伏指数存在显著(P<0.05)或极显著(P<0.01)相关关系,均可作为评价燕麦抗倒伏性能的重要指标,这些性状综合影响燕麦的抗倒伏能力。
杨晶, 刘文辉, 梁国玲, 贾志锋, 刘凯强, 张燕, 吴瑞, 杨钰洁. 高寒地区不同燕麦品系抗倒伏相关性状分析[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 50-60.
Jing YANG, Wen-hui LIU, Guo-ling LIANG, Zhi-feng JIA, Kai-qiang LIU, Yan ZHANG, Rui WU, Yu-jie YANG. Traits correlated with lodging resistance of oat strains in the alpine region[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 50-60.
资源名称Resource name | 资源编号Resource number | 资源属性Resource attributes | 倒伏情况Lodging condition | 来源信息Source information |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rex | 青永久301 QYJ301 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 丹麦Denmark |
Trophee | 青永久386 QYJ386 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 丹麦Denmark |
Stal sv. | 青永久322 QYJ322 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 丹麦Denmark |
- | 青永久986 QYJ986 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 挪威Norway |
Binder | 青永久211 QYJ211 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 丹麦Denmark |
Nova abed | 青永久272 QYJ272 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
Comewell | 青永久224 QYJ224 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
Plougftrup | 青永久288 QYJ288 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
Skansk provsti | 青永久320 QYJ320 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
Pajbjerg | 青永久280 QYJ280 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
- | 青永久055 QYJ055 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 罗马尼亚Romania |
表1 试验材料名称及基本信息
Table 1 Name of test materials and basic information
资源名称Resource name | 资源编号Resource number | 资源属性Resource attributes | 倒伏情况Lodging condition | 来源信息Source information |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rex | 青永久301 QYJ301 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 丹麦Denmark |
Trophee | 青永久386 QYJ386 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 丹麦Denmark |
Stal sv. | 青永久322 QYJ322 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 丹麦Denmark |
- | 青永久986 QYJ986 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 挪威Norway |
Binder | 青永久211 QYJ211 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 抗倒伏Lodging-resistance | 丹麦Denmark |
Nova abed | 青永久272 QYJ272 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
Comewell | 青永久224 QYJ224 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
Plougftrup | 青永久288 QYJ288 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
Skansk provsti | 青永久320 QYJ320 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
Pajbjerg | 青永久280 QYJ280 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 丹麦Denmark |
- | 青永久055 QYJ055 | 皮燕麦A. sativa | 易倒伏Lodging-susceptible | 罗马尼亚Romania |
品系 Cultivar | 资源编号 Resource number | 株高 PH (cm) | 穗长 LE (cm) | 穗位高 EH (cm) | 重心高度GCH (cm) | 穗高系数 EPC (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
抗倒伏组 Lodging-resistance (LRC) | QYJ301 | 105.18±5.64bc | 20.64±1.14ab | 84.54±5.29b | 56.34±0.88a | 80.35±1.14b |
QYJ386 | 112.06±7.10ab | 20.44±0.56b | 91.62±7.21ab | 54.72±1.49b | 81.70±1.28ab | |
QYJ322 | 123.40±3.72a | 21.94±0.83a | 95.46±3.95a | 54.52±0.94b | 82.19±0.94a | |
QYJ986 | 108.42±3.66bc | 19.68±0.56b | 88.74±3.89ab | 50.24±1.11d | 81.83±0.93a | |
QYJ211 | 103.00±6.88c | 17.82±1.76c | 85.18±5.30b | 51.64±0.69c | 82.72±0.77a | |
F(组内In the group) | 5.205** | 10.029** | 3.741* | 27.630** | 3.687* | |
易倒伏组 Lodging-susceptible (LSC) | QYJ272 | 140.72±5.46a | 23.82±0.46b | 116.90±5.39a | 56.70±3.74a | 83.05±0.68a |
QYJ224 | 126.00±2.26b | 24.72±0.99b | 101.28±3.22b | 58.36±4.44a | 80.37±1.12c | |
QYJ288 | 125.80±4.17b | 27.00±0.79a | 98.80±4.30b | 59.24±0.70a | 78.52±0.97d | |
QYJ320 | 139.38±9.34a | 26.52±1.04a | 112.86±9.38a | 58.28±2.81a | 80.90±1.49bc | |
QYJ280 | 139.38±8.91a | 24.78±1.60b | 114.60±9.28a | 57.72±5.55a | 82.15±1.76ab | |
QYJ055 | 144.18±2.74a | 27.10±0.86a | 117.08±2.36a | 57.08±4.98a | 81.20±0.49bc | |
F(组内 In the group) | 8.368** | 9.352** | 8.292** | 0.264NS | 8.870** | |
F(组间 Between group) | 136.749** | 157.230** | 90.737** | 25.116** | 2.916NS |
表2 不同燕麦资源株高及穗部特征比较
Table 2 Comparison of plant height and ear characteristics of different oat resources
品系 Cultivar | 资源编号 Resource number | 株高 PH (cm) | 穗长 LE (cm) | 穗位高 EH (cm) | 重心高度GCH (cm) | 穗高系数 EPC (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
抗倒伏组 Lodging-resistance (LRC) | QYJ301 | 105.18±5.64bc | 20.64±1.14ab | 84.54±5.29b | 56.34±0.88a | 80.35±1.14b |
QYJ386 | 112.06±7.10ab | 20.44±0.56b | 91.62±7.21ab | 54.72±1.49b | 81.70±1.28ab | |
QYJ322 | 123.40±3.72a | 21.94±0.83a | 95.46±3.95a | 54.52±0.94b | 82.19±0.94a | |
QYJ986 | 108.42±3.66bc | 19.68±0.56b | 88.74±3.89ab | 50.24±1.11d | 81.83±0.93a | |
QYJ211 | 103.00±6.88c | 17.82±1.76c | 85.18±5.30b | 51.64±0.69c | 82.72±0.77a | |
F(组内In the group) | 5.205** | 10.029** | 3.741* | 27.630** | 3.687* | |
易倒伏组 Lodging-susceptible (LSC) | QYJ272 | 140.72±5.46a | 23.82±0.46b | 116.90±5.39a | 56.70±3.74a | 83.05±0.68a |
QYJ224 | 126.00±2.26b | 24.72±0.99b | 101.28±3.22b | 58.36±4.44a | 80.37±1.12c | |
QYJ288 | 125.80±4.17b | 27.00±0.79a | 98.80±4.30b | 59.24±0.70a | 78.52±0.97d | |
QYJ320 | 139.38±9.34a | 26.52±1.04a | 112.86±9.38a | 58.28±2.81a | 80.90±1.49bc | |
QYJ280 | 139.38±8.91a | 24.78±1.60b | 114.60±9.28a | 57.72±5.55a | 82.15±1.76ab | |
QYJ055 | 144.18±2.74a | 27.10±0.86a | 117.08±2.36a | 57.08±4.98a | 81.20±0.49bc | |
F(组内 In the group) | 8.368** | 9.352** | 8.292** | 0.264NS | 8.870** | |
F(组间 Between group) | 136.749** | 157.230** | 90.737** | 25.116** | 2.916NS |
品系 Cultivar | 资源编号 Resource number | 茎粗 SD (mm) | 秆壁厚 CWT (mm) | 节长 LNI (cm) | 茎粗系数 SPC (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
第二节 SD2 | 第三节 SD3 | 第二节 CWT2 | 第三节 CWT3 | 第二节 LNI2 | 第三节 LNI3 | 第二节 SPC2 | 第三节 SPC3 | ||
抗倒伏组 LRC | QYJ301 | 0.446±0.033a | 0.470±0.031a | 0.076±0.007ab | 0.060±0.011b | 12.34±1.38a | 16.32±1.44ab | 0.42±0.03a | 0.45±0.02a |
QYJ386 | 0.398±0.044a | 0.480±0.017a | 0.081±0.008a | 0.058±0.007b | 12.30±1.41a | 15.42±2.07b | 0.35±0.03b | 0.43±0.01a | |
QYJ322 | 0.425±0.037a | 0.500±0.034a | 0.087±0.019a | 0.071±0.010a | 11.60±1.38a | 15.90±2.66b | 0.34±0.03b | 0.40±0.01a | |
QYJ986 | 0.397±0.033a | 0.464±0.037a | 0.063±0.012b | 0.055±0.009b | 10.56±1.08a | 15.06±1.14b | 0.37±0.04b | 0.43±0.03a | |
QYJ211 | 0.395±0.022a | 0.437±0.017a | 0.064±0.012b | 0.057±0.008b | 11.22± 2.60a | 19.46±3.76a | 0.38±0.01ab | 0.43±0.03a | |
F(组内 In the group) | 1.901NS | 2.856NS | 3.880* | 4.165* | 1.029NS | 2.677NS | 5.456** | 2.229NS | |
易倒伏组 LSC | QYJ272 | 0.333±0.024c | 0.380±0.016b | 0.078±0.011a | 0.068±0.003ab | 11.04±3.15c | 15.00±1.48b | 0.24±0.02c | 0.27±0.02c |
QYJ224 | 0.416±0.042a | 0.420±0.011a | 0.072±0.016a | 0.054±0.005c | 13.26±1.67bc | 19.38±1.40a | 0.33±0.03a | 0.33±0.01a | |
QYJ288 | 0.360±0.049bc | 0.364±0.037b | 0.066±0.004a | 0.061±0.008bc | 13.68±0.55bc | 18.84±1.12a | 0.29±0.03b | 0.29±0.03bc | |
QYJ320 | 0.386±0.024ab | 0.435±0.033a | 0.084±0.015a | 0.072±0.006a | 12.12±1.56bc | 15.60±1.94b | 0.28±0.02b | 0.31±0.03ab | |
QYJ280 | 0.410±0.013ab | 0.372±0.025b | 0.054±0.010a | 0.040±0.008d | 17.78±1.18a | 20.74±1.45a | 0.30±0.02ab | 0.27±0.01c | |
QYJ055 | 0.409±0.050ab | 0.418±0.018a | 0.072±0.026a | 0.053±0.008c | 14.76±2.51b | 19.18±2.92a | 0.28±0.04b | 0.29±0.01bc | |
F(组内 In the group) | 4.400** | 6.868** | 2.272NS | 15.032** | 7.130** | 7.927** | 5.487** | 9.710** | |
F(组间 Between group) | 4.479* | 59.964** | 0.340NS | 1.445NS | 11.475** | 5.335* | 72.266** | 325.140** |
表3 不同燕麦资源基部茎秆表型特征比较
Table 3 Comparison of phenotypic characteristics of stems from different oat resources
品系 Cultivar | 资源编号 Resource number | 茎粗 SD (mm) | 秆壁厚 CWT (mm) | 节长 LNI (cm) | 茎粗系数 SPC (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
第二节 SD2 | 第三节 SD3 | 第二节 CWT2 | 第三节 CWT3 | 第二节 LNI2 | 第三节 LNI3 | 第二节 SPC2 | 第三节 SPC3 | ||
抗倒伏组 LRC | QYJ301 | 0.446±0.033a | 0.470±0.031a | 0.076±0.007ab | 0.060±0.011b | 12.34±1.38a | 16.32±1.44ab | 0.42±0.03a | 0.45±0.02a |
QYJ386 | 0.398±0.044a | 0.480±0.017a | 0.081±0.008a | 0.058±0.007b | 12.30±1.41a | 15.42±2.07b | 0.35±0.03b | 0.43±0.01a | |
QYJ322 | 0.425±0.037a | 0.500±0.034a | 0.087±0.019a | 0.071±0.010a | 11.60±1.38a | 15.90±2.66b | 0.34±0.03b | 0.40±0.01a | |
QYJ986 | 0.397±0.033a | 0.464±0.037a | 0.063±0.012b | 0.055±0.009b | 10.56±1.08a | 15.06±1.14b | 0.37±0.04b | 0.43±0.03a | |
QYJ211 | 0.395±0.022a | 0.437±0.017a | 0.064±0.012b | 0.057±0.008b | 11.22± 2.60a | 19.46±3.76a | 0.38±0.01ab | 0.43±0.03a | |
F(组内 In the group) | 1.901NS | 2.856NS | 3.880* | 4.165* | 1.029NS | 2.677NS | 5.456** | 2.229NS | |
易倒伏组 LSC | QYJ272 | 0.333±0.024c | 0.380±0.016b | 0.078±0.011a | 0.068±0.003ab | 11.04±3.15c | 15.00±1.48b | 0.24±0.02c | 0.27±0.02c |
QYJ224 | 0.416±0.042a | 0.420±0.011a | 0.072±0.016a | 0.054±0.005c | 13.26±1.67bc | 19.38±1.40a | 0.33±0.03a | 0.33±0.01a | |
QYJ288 | 0.360±0.049bc | 0.364±0.037b | 0.066±0.004a | 0.061±0.008bc | 13.68±0.55bc | 18.84±1.12a | 0.29±0.03b | 0.29±0.03bc | |
QYJ320 | 0.386±0.024ab | 0.435±0.033a | 0.084±0.015a | 0.072±0.006a | 12.12±1.56bc | 15.60±1.94b | 0.28±0.02b | 0.31±0.03ab | |
QYJ280 | 0.410±0.013ab | 0.372±0.025b | 0.054±0.010a | 0.040±0.008d | 17.78±1.18a | 20.74±1.45a | 0.30±0.02ab | 0.27±0.01c | |
QYJ055 | 0.409±0.050ab | 0.418±0.018a | 0.072±0.026a | 0.053±0.008c | 14.76±2.51b | 19.18±2.92a | 0.28±0.04b | 0.29±0.01bc | |
F(组内 In the group) | 4.400** | 6.868** | 2.272NS | 15.032** | 7.130** | 7.927** | 5.487** | 9.710** | |
F(组间 Between group) | 4.479* | 59.964** | 0.340NS | 1.445NS | 11.475** | 5.335* | 72.266** | 325.140** |
品系 Cultivar | 资源编号 Resource number | 穿刺强度 SRPS (N) | 茎秆折断力 BR (N) | 弯曲性能 BP (N) | 弯曲力矩 BM (g·cm) | 折断弯矩 BS (N) | 倒伏指数 LI (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
抗倒伏组LRC | QYJ301 | 9.98±0.70e | 14.48±1.34bc | 11.70±1.07d | 742.19±141.65b | 7240±668bc | 10.35±2.21b |
QYJ386 | 12.12±0.79d | 13.54±1.37c | 13.48±1.46c | 859.18±248.51b | 6770±683c | 13.06±4.42ab | |
QYJ322 | 17.44±1.23a | 15.44±0.29b | 21.98±0.50a | 1368.08±332.58a | 7720±144b | 17.76±4.51a | |
QYJ986 | 14.64±1.01b | 14.80±0.77bc | 15.62±1.48b | 855.71±181.14b | 7400±387bc | 11.61±2.59b | |
QYJ211 | 13.36±0.46c | 18.26±0.67a | 15.66±1.40b | 882.68±282.04b | 9130±337a | 9.68±3.11b | |
F(组内 In the group) | 50.312** | 16.699** | 49.235** | 4.907** | 16.699** | 3.721* | |
易倒伏组LSC | QYJ272 | 7.46±0.11c | 9.68±0.37b | 10.36±0.48b | 1083.04±164.38c | 4840±185cd | 22.38±3.35ab |
QYJ224 | 5.44±0.17d | 10.28±0.66b | 7.30±0.47d | 874.31±154.11c | 5140±329cd | 17.03±2.87bc | |
QYJ288 | 8.22±0.66b | 9.02±0.98b | 9.06±0.88c | 1107.10±144.98bc | 4510±488d | 24.53±1.77a | |
QYJ320 | 9.42±0.87a | 12.44±1.52a | 11.76±0.76a | 1474.82±251.00a | 6220±760ab | 24.76±6.43a | |
QYJ280 | 9.88±0.55a | 12.18±1.55a | 11.38±1.01a | 859.09±130.22c | 5650±1248bc | 15.79±4.05c | |
QYJ055 | 9.36±0.35a | 13.48±0.86a | 11.42±0.74a | 1357.94±266.45ab | 6740±429a | 20.36±4.94abc | |
F(组内 In the group) | 49.756** | 13.426** | 26.769** | 9.058** | 8.048** | 4.105** | |
F(组间 Between group) | 79.585** | 65.009** | 51.421** | 5.231* | 66.300** | 39.613** |
表4 不同燕麦资源基部第二茎节力学特征比较
Table 4 Comparison of mechanical characteristics of the second stem node of the base of different oat resources
品系 Cultivar | 资源编号 Resource number | 穿刺强度 SRPS (N) | 茎秆折断力 BR (N) | 弯曲性能 BP (N) | 弯曲力矩 BM (g·cm) | 折断弯矩 BS (N) | 倒伏指数 LI (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
抗倒伏组LRC | QYJ301 | 9.98±0.70e | 14.48±1.34bc | 11.70±1.07d | 742.19±141.65b | 7240±668bc | 10.35±2.21b |
QYJ386 | 12.12±0.79d | 13.54±1.37c | 13.48±1.46c | 859.18±248.51b | 6770±683c | 13.06±4.42ab | |
QYJ322 | 17.44±1.23a | 15.44±0.29b | 21.98±0.50a | 1368.08±332.58a | 7720±144b | 17.76±4.51a | |
QYJ986 | 14.64±1.01b | 14.80±0.77bc | 15.62±1.48b | 855.71±181.14b | 7400±387bc | 11.61±2.59b | |
QYJ211 | 13.36±0.46c | 18.26±0.67a | 15.66±1.40b | 882.68±282.04b | 9130±337a | 9.68±3.11b | |
F(组内 In the group) | 50.312** | 16.699** | 49.235** | 4.907** | 16.699** | 3.721* | |
易倒伏组LSC | QYJ272 | 7.46±0.11c | 9.68±0.37b | 10.36±0.48b | 1083.04±164.38c | 4840±185cd | 22.38±3.35ab |
QYJ224 | 5.44±0.17d | 10.28±0.66b | 7.30±0.47d | 874.31±154.11c | 5140±329cd | 17.03±2.87bc | |
QYJ288 | 8.22±0.66b | 9.02±0.98b | 9.06±0.88c | 1107.10±144.98bc | 4510±488d | 24.53±1.77a | |
QYJ320 | 9.42±0.87a | 12.44±1.52a | 11.76±0.76a | 1474.82±251.00a | 6220±760ab | 24.76±6.43a | |
QYJ280 | 9.88±0.55a | 12.18±1.55a | 11.38±1.01a | 859.09±130.22c | 5650±1248bc | 15.79±4.05c | |
QYJ055 | 9.36±0.35a | 13.48±0.86a | 11.42±0.74a | 1357.94±266.45ab | 6740±429a | 20.36±4.94abc | |
F(组内 In the group) | 49.756** | 13.426** | 26.769** | 9.058** | 8.048** | 4.105** | |
F(组间 Between group) | 79.585** | 65.009** | 51.421** | 5.231* | 66.300** | 39.613** |
品系 Cultivar | 资源编号 Resource number | 穿刺强度 SRPS (N) | 茎秆折断力 BR (N) | 弯曲性能 BP (N) | 弯曲力矩 BM (g·cm) | 折断弯矩 BS (N) | 倒伏指数 LI (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
抗倒伏组LRC | QYJ301 | 9.82±0.66b | 11.52±0.82c | 12.32±1.02b | 634.25±126.64b | 5760±408c | 11.06±2.34ab |
QYJ386 | 10.62±0.71ab | 12.80±0.32c | 11.28±0.73c | 740.28±207.93b | 6400±162c | 11.52±3.00ab | |
QYJ322 | 11.40±0.64a | 16.16±1.31a | 13.32±0.77a | 1213.91±314.91a | 8080±656a | 15.25±4.78a | |
QYJ986 | 9.96±0.84b | 14.20±0.91b | 11.40±0.30bc | 757.36±170.19b | 7100±457b | 10.67±2.31b | |
QYJ211 | 11.40±0.95a | 16.58±1.36a | 13.84±0.67a | 750.81±260.00b | 8290±679a | 8.99±2.84b | |
F(组内 In the group) | 4.833** | 22.519** | 11.941** | 5.018** | 22.519** | 2.615NS | |
易倒伏组LSC | QYJ272 | 7.80±1.27b | 11.16±1.35a | 8.58±1.45ab | 974.25±171.28 bc | 5580±676a | 17.50±2.52bc |
QYJ224 | 6.24±0.18c | 8.96±1.38b | 7.48±0.86b | 760.34±145.14cd | 4480±691b | 16.91±0.72bc | |
QYJ288 | 7.88±0.47b | 9.44±1.02b | 7.44±0.38b | 959.48±128.28bcd | 4720±511b | 20.35±2.09ab | |
QYJ320 | 8.80±0.22a | 11.98±0.58a | 9.60±0.76a | 1342.14±240.56a | 5990±292a | 22.56±4.85a | |
QYJ280 | 8.94±0.61a | 9.30±0.76b | 8.70±1.92ab | 716.45±101.95d | 4650±382b | 15.49±2.49c | |
QYJ055 | 9.48±0.62a | 11.28±0.51a | 9.56±0.83a | 1185.75±249.96ab | 5640±253a | 20.93±3.77ab | |
F(组内 In the group) | 14.859** | 8.090** | 3.411* | 8.838** | 8.090** | 4.046** | |
F(组间 Between group) | 64.473** | 61.743** | 118.879** | 4.893* | 61.743** | 56.154** |
表5 不同燕麦资源基部第三茎节力学特征比较
Table 5 Comparison of mechanical characteristics of the third stem node of the base of different oat resources
品系 Cultivar | 资源编号 Resource number | 穿刺强度 SRPS (N) | 茎秆折断力 BR (N) | 弯曲性能 BP (N) | 弯曲力矩 BM (g·cm) | 折断弯矩 BS (N) | 倒伏指数 LI (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
抗倒伏组LRC | QYJ301 | 9.82±0.66b | 11.52±0.82c | 12.32±1.02b | 634.25±126.64b | 5760±408c | 11.06±2.34ab |
QYJ386 | 10.62±0.71ab | 12.80±0.32c | 11.28±0.73c | 740.28±207.93b | 6400±162c | 11.52±3.00ab | |
QYJ322 | 11.40±0.64a | 16.16±1.31a | 13.32±0.77a | 1213.91±314.91a | 8080±656a | 15.25±4.78a | |
QYJ986 | 9.96±0.84b | 14.20±0.91b | 11.40±0.30bc | 757.36±170.19b | 7100±457b | 10.67±2.31b | |
QYJ211 | 11.40±0.95a | 16.58±1.36a | 13.84±0.67a | 750.81±260.00b | 8290±679a | 8.99±2.84b | |
F(组内 In the group) | 4.833** | 22.519** | 11.941** | 5.018** | 22.519** | 2.615NS | |
易倒伏组LSC | QYJ272 | 7.80±1.27b | 11.16±1.35a | 8.58±1.45ab | 974.25±171.28 bc | 5580±676a | 17.50±2.52bc |
QYJ224 | 6.24±0.18c | 8.96±1.38b | 7.48±0.86b | 760.34±145.14cd | 4480±691b | 16.91±0.72bc | |
QYJ288 | 7.88±0.47b | 9.44±1.02b | 7.44±0.38b | 959.48±128.28bcd | 4720±511b | 20.35±2.09ab | |
QYJ320 | 8.80±0.22a | 11.98±0.58a | 9.60±0.76a | 1342.14±240.56a | 5990±292a | 22.56±4.85a | |
QYJ280 | 8.94±0.61a | 9.30±0.76b | 8.70±1.92ab | 716.45±101.95d | 4650±382b | 15.49±2.49c | |
QYJ055 | 9.48±0.62a | 11.28±0.51a | 9.56±0.83a | 1185.75±249.96ab | 5640±253a | 20.93±3.77ab | |
F(组内 In the group) | 14.859** | 8.090** | 3.411* | 8.838** | 8.090** | 4.046** | |
F(组间 Between group) | 64.473** | 61.743** | 118.879** | 4.893* | 61.743** | 56.154** |
指标 Index | 株高 PH | 穗长 LE | 穗位高EH | 重心高度GCH | 茎粗 SD | 节长 LNI | 茎粗系数SPC | 穿刺强度SRPS | 茎秆折断力BR | 弯曲性能BP | 弯曲力矩BM | 折断弯矩BS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
第二茎节Second stem | 0.695** | 0.755** | 0.639** | 0.445** | -0.171 | 0.027 | -0.624* | -0.344* | -0.658* | -0.281* | 0.794** | -0.659** |
第三茎节Third stem | 0.755** | 0.827** | 0.692** | 0.495** | -0.266* | -0.068 | -0.660** | -0.391** | -0.460** | -0.524** | 0.805** | -0.460** |
表6 基部茎节倒伏指数与各性状间的相关性分析
Table 6 Correlation analysis between basal stem node lodging index and various traits
指标 Index | 株高 PH | 穗长 LE | 穗位高EH | 重心高度GCH | 茎粗 SD | 节长 LNI | 茎粗系数SPC | 穿刺强度SRPS | 茎秆折断力BR | 弯曲性能BP | 弯曲力矩BM | 折断弯矩BS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
第二茎节Second stem | 0.695** | 0.755** | 0.639** | 0.445** | -0.171 | 0.027 | -0.624* | -0.344* | -0.658* | -0.281* | 0.794** | -0.659** |
第三茎节Third stem | 0.755** | 0.827** | 0.692** | 0.495** | -0.266* | -0.068 | -0.660** | -0.391** | -0.460** | -0.524** | 0.805** | -0.460** |
1 | Wang L. Effect of different cultivating methods on growth and yield of oat. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2009. |
王林. 不同栽培措施对燕麦生长发育及产量影响. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2009. | |
2 | Kelbert A J, Spaner D, Briggs K, et al. The association of culm anatomy with lodging susceptibility in modern spring wheat genotypes. Euphytica, 2004, 136(2): 211-221. |
3 | Chen X G. Relationship between stem characteristics and lodging and its regulation study in wheat. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2011. |
陈晓光. 小麦茎秆特征与倒伏的关系及调控研究. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2011. | |
4 | Ma Q H. The expression of caffeic acid 3-O-Methyltransferase in two wheat genotypes differing in lodging resistance. Japanese Journal of Veterinary Research, 2009, 60(9): 2763-2771. |
5 | Wang J, Zhu J M, Un Q Q. Effects of stem structure and cell wall components on bending strength in wheat. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2006, 51(7): 815-823. |
6 | Ma Q H. Functional analysis of a cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase involved in lignin biosynthesis in wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2010, 61(10): 2735-2744. |
7 | Liang G L, Zhang Y C, Jia Z F, et al. A study of the relation between phenotypic trait, stem mechanical traits and lodging resistance of oat varieties for alpine regions. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(4): 58-69. |
梁国玲, 张永超, 贾志锋, 等. 高寒区不同燕麦品种(系)表型性状和茎秆力学特征与抗倒伏性的关系研究. 草业学报, 2019, 28(4): 58-69. | |
8 | Chen Y J, Zhou Q P, Sun J, et al. Comparison of lodging resistance among different oats (Avena sativa L.). Crops, 2016(5): 44-49. |
陈有军, 周青平, 孙建, 等. 不同燕麦品种田间倒伏性状研究. 作物杂志, 2016(5): 44-49. | |
9 | Liu G, Zhao G Q. Application of the grey systematic theory to integrated evaluation of lodging resistance in oat. Pratacultural Science, 2006, 23(10): 23-27. |
刘刚, 赵桂琴. 灰色系统理论在燕麦抗倒伏综合评价中的应用. 草业科学, 2006, 23(10): 23-27. | |
10 | Nan M, Zhao G Q, Li J, et al. Research of lodging-resistance and the stem morphological characteristics of different Avena sativa varieties. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(6): 1382-1391. |
南铭, 赵桂琴, 李晶, 等. 不同燕麦品种茎秆形态特征与抗倒伏性的关系. 草地学报, 2018, 26(6): 1382-1391. | |
11 | Li G H, Zhong X H, Tian K, et al. Effect of nitrogen application on stem lodging resistance of rice and its morphological and mechanical mechanisms. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2013, 46(7): 1323-1334. |
李国辉, 钟旭华, 田卡, 等. 施氮对水稻茎秆抗倒伏能力的影响及其形态和力学机理. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(7): 1323-1334. | |
12 | Bian D H, Liu M X, Niu H F, et al. Effect of nitrogen application times on stem traits and lodging of summer maize (Zea mays L.) in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(12): 2294-2304. |
边大红, 刘梦星, 牛海峰, 等. 施氮时期对黄淮海平原夏玉米茎秆发育及倒伏的影响. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(12): 2294-2304. | |
13 | Gu L M, Qiao J F, Zhang M W, et al. Effect of planting density on stalk characteristics and lodging-resistant capacity of different density-resistant summer maize varieties. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2017, 25(5): 91-97. |
谷利敏, 乔江方, 张美微, 等. 种植密度对不同耐密夏玉米品种茎秆性状与抗倒伏能力的影响. 玉米科学, 2017, 25(5): 91-97. | |
14 | Ren B Z, Zhang J W, Li X, et al. Effects of waterlogging on stem lodging resistance of summer maize under field conditions. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2013, 46(12): 2440-2448. |
任佰朝, 张吉旺, 李霞, 等. 大田淹水对高产夏玉米抗倒伏性能的影响. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(12): 2440-2448. | |
15 | Lei X L, Liu L, Gou W, et al. Effects of planting methods on culm lodging resistance of Indica hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.). Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2013, 39(10): 1814-1825. |
雷小龙, 刘利, 苟文, 等. 种植方式对杂交籼稻植株抗倒伏特性的影响. 作物学报, 2013, 39(10): 1814-1825. | |
16 | Ma J,Ma W B,Tian Y H, et al. The culm lodging resistance of heavy panicle type of rice. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2004, 30(2): 143-148. |
马均, 马文波, 田彦华, 等. 重穗型水稻植株抗倒伏能力的研究. 作物学报, 2004, 30(2): 143-148. | |
17 | Ookawat, Shi Y B, Lü W Y. Variety differences in stem physical properties affecting lodging resistance in rice. Saline Use, 1995(2): 46-48. |
大川太一郎, 石原邦, 吕文彦. 影响水稻抗倒伏性的茎秆物理性状的品种间差异. 盐碱地利用, 1995(2): 46-48. | |
18 | Cai Z Q. A study on culm breaking-resistant strength and relevant culm traits of rice. Nanning: Guangxi University, 2008. |
蔡中全. 水稻茎秆抗折力及其相关性状研究. 南宁: 广西大学, 2008. | |
19 | Yang S R, Zhang L B, Chen W F, et al. Theories and methods of rice breeding for maximum yield. Acta Agronomia Sinica, 1996(3): 295-304. |
杨守仁, 张龙步, 陈温福, 等. 水稻超高产育种的理论和方法. 作物学报, 1996(3): 295-304. | |
20 | Zhu X K, Wang X J, Guo K Q, et al. Stem characteristics of wheat with stem lodging and effects of lodging on grain yield and quality. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2006, 26(1): 87-92. |
朱新开, 王祥菊, 郭凯泉, 等. 小麦倒伏的茎秆特征及对产量与品质的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2006, 26(1): 87-92. | |
21 | Liang G L, Liu W H, Qin Y, et al. Study of correlation between biomass composition, stem traits and lodging in different oats resources. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(5): 1339-1346. |
梁国玲, 刘文辉, 秦燕, 等. 不同燕麦资源生物量构成和茎秆特征与倒伏间的相关性研究. 草地学报, 2019, 27(5): 1339-1346. | |
22 | Wang D, Ding W H, Feng S W, et al. Stem characteristics of different wheat varieties and its relationship with lodging-resistance. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016, 27(5): 159-165. |
王丹, 丁位华, 冯素伟, 等. 不同小麦品种茎秆特性及其与抗倒性的关系. 应用生态学报, 2016, 27(5): 159-165. | |
23 | Hu H, Li S S, Hua H, et al. Research on stalk morphological structure characteristics and its relationship between with the lodging of different wheat varieties. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2017, 37(10): 83-88. |
胡昊, 李莎莎, 华慧, 等. 不同小麦品种主茎茎秆形态结构特征及其与倒伏的关系. 麦类作物学报, 2017, 37(10): 83-88. | |
24 | Kaack K, Schwarz K U, Brander P E. Variation in morphology, anatomy and chemistry of stems of miscanthus genotypes differing in mechanical properties. Industrial Crops & Products, 2003, 17(2): 131-142. |
25 | Liu X, Xie R Z, Niu X K, et al. Effect of planting density on lodging resistance performance of maize varieties of different eras in North-east China. Crops, 2012(5): 132-136. |
刘鑫, 谢瑞芝, 牛兴奎, 等. 种植密度对东北地区不同年代玉米生产主推品种抗倒伏性能的影响. 作物杂志, 2012(5): 132-136. | |
26 | An Z C, Huang Y F, Zhao Y N, et al. Relationship between plant nitrogen nutrition and lodging of winter wheat. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2018, 24(3): 751-757. |
安志超, 黄玉芳, 赵亚南, 等. 植株氮营养状况与冬小麦倒伏的关系. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2018, 24(3): 751-757. | |
27 | Nan M, Zhao G Q, Chai J K. Study on lodging resistance of 20 forage oat (Avena sativa) varieties. Grassland and Turf, 2019, 39(5): 62-68. |
南铭, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽. 20份饲草型燕麦品种的抗倒伏性研究. 草原与草坪, 2019, 39(5): 62-68. | |
28 | Cheng F L. Effects of plant density, potash fertilizer on lodging resistance ability of summer maize. Baoding: Heibei Agricultural University, 2010. |
程富丽. 密度和钾肥对夏玉米抗倒伏能力影响的研究. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2010. | |
29 | Feng G, Jing X Q, Li Y Y, et al. Correlation and path analysis of lodging resistance with maize stem characters. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2010, 25(8): 72-74. |
丰光, 景希强, 李妍妍, 等. 玉米茎秆性状与倒伏性的相关和通径分析. 华北农学报, 2010, 25(8): 72-74. | |
30 | Dunn G J, Briggs K G. Variation in culm anatomy among barley cultivars differing in lodging resistance. Canadian Journal of Botany, 1989, 67(6): 1838-1843. |
[1] | 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. |
[2] | 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. |
[3] | 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. |
[4] | 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. |
[5] | 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. |
[6] | 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. |
[7] | 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. |
[8] | 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. |
[9] | 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. |
[10] | 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. |
[11] | 王苗苗, 周向睿, 梁国玲, 赵桂琴, 焦润安, 柴继宽, 高雪梅, 李娟宁. 5份燕麦材料苗期耐盐性综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(8): 143-154. |
[12] | 马千虎, 张学梅, 王自奎, 杨惠敏. 基于APSIM模型的高寒地区燕麦灌溉制度优化[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 1-10. |
[13] | 雷雄, 游明鸿, 白史且, 陈丽丽, 邓培华, 熊毅, 熊艳丽, 余青青, 马啸, 杨建, 张昌兵. 川西北高原50份燕麦种质农艺性状遗传多样性分析及综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(7): 131-142. |
[14] | 聂秀美, 赵桂琴, 孙浩洋, 柴继宽, 兰晓君, 周恒, 黎蓉, 琚泽亮, 焦润安, 孙雷雷. 甘肃省燕麦主产区叶斑病调查及病原鉴定[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 157-167. |
[15] | 肖燕子, 徐丽君, 辛晓平, 乌仁其其格null, 孙林, 姜超. 呼伦贝尔地区不同燕麦品种的营养价值及发酵品质评价研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 171-179. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||