Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (3): 177-188.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020168
Previous Articles Next Articles
Kai-qiang LIU(), Wen-hui LIU(), Zhi-feng JIA, Guo-ling LIANG, Xiang MA
Received:
2020-04-13
Revised:
2020-07-08
Online:
2021-03-20
Published:
2021-03-09
Contact:
Wen-hui LIU
Kai-qiang LIU, Wen-hui LIU, Zhi-feng JIA, Guo-ling LIANG, Xiang MA. Effects of drought stress on yield and dry matter accumulation and distribution of Avena sativa cv. Qingyan No.1[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 177-188.
处理 Treatments | 胁迫程度Stress degree | 胁迫次数Stress times | 胁迫时期Stress period | 代码 Code |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 75% | 0 | CK | T1 |
2 | 60% | 1 | ST | T2 |
3 | 45% | 1 | ST | T3 |
4 | 30% | 1 | ST | T4 |
5 | 60% | 2 | SF | T5 |
6 | 45% | 2 | SF | T6 |
7 | 30% | 2 | SF | T7 |
8 | 60% | 2 | SH | T8 |
9 | 45% | 2 | SH | T9 |
10 | 30% | 2 | SH | T10 |
11 | 60% | 3 | SM | T11 |
12 | 45% | 3 | SM | T12 |
13 | 30% | 3 | SM | T13 |
Table 1 Treatments of drought stress
处理 Treatments | 胁迫程度Stress degree | 胁迫次数Stress times | 胁迫时期Stress period | 代码 Code |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 75% | 0 | CK | T1 |
2 | 60% | 1 | ST | T2 |
3 | 45% | 1 | ST | T3 |
4 | 30% | 1 | ST | T4 |
5 | 60% | 2 | SF | T5 |
6 | 45% | 2 | SF | T6 |
7 | 30% | 2 | SF | T7 |
8 | 60% | 2 | SH | T8 |
9 | 45% | 2 | SH | T9 |
10 | 30% | 2 | SH | T10 |
11 | 60% | 3 | SM | T11 |
12 | 45% | 3 | SM | T12 |
13 | 30% | 3 | SM | T13 |
因素Factors | 穗长Ls | 小穗数Ns | 穗粒数SNi | 小穗粒数SNs | 单序籽粒重SWi | 空铃数Ef | 百粒重HKW | 产量 Yield |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
胁迫程度Stress degree (SD) | 28.111** | 23.949** | 52.099** | 0.066 | 52.368** | 0.482 | 52.247** | 40.760** |
胁迫次数Stress times (ST) | 81.164** | 74.228** | 193.302** | 2.130 | 274.140** | 0.038 | 45.883** | 83.219** |
胁迫程度×胁迫次数SD×ST | 1.901 | 1.601 | 1.361 | 1.550 | 8.625** | 0.263 | 2.934* | 4.670** |
Table 2 The variance analysis of effects on yield and yield components of oat under drought stress
因素Factors | 穗长Ls | 小穗数Ns | 穗粒数SNi | 小穗粒数SNs | 单序籽粒重SWi | 空铃数Ef | 百粒重HKW | 产量 Yield |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
胁迫程度Stress degree (SD) | 28.111** | 23.949** | 52.099** | 0.066 | 52.368** | 0.482 | 52.247** | 40.760** |
胁迫次数Stress times (ST) | 81.164** | 74.228** | 193.302** | 2.130 | 274.140** | 0.038 | 45.883** | 83.219** |
胁迫程度×胁迫次数SD×ST | 1.901 | 1.601 | 1.361 | 1.550 | 8.625** | 0.263 | 2.934* | 4.670** |
Fig.1 Effects of different drought stress degree and times on relative values of yield and yield components in oatDifferent lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different stress times under the same stress degree (P<0.05); Capital letters indicate significant differences among different stress degrees under the same stress time (P<0.05).
因素 Factors | 穗干重 DWs | 茎干重 DWst | 根干重 DWr | 叶干重 DWl | 穗分配指数SDi | 茎分配指数DIs | 根分配指数RDi | 叶分配指数LDi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
胁迫程度Stress degree (SD) | 84.811** | 354.565** | 41.090** | 313.055** | 17.422** | 8.227** | 15.324** | 17.904** |
胁迫次数Stress times (ST) | 127.021** | 759.021** | 60.370** | 1340.744** | 17.997** | 4.176* | 49.233** | 6.208** |
胁迫程度×胁迫次数SD×ST | 7.324** | 38.519** | 10.476** | 40.770** | 2.355 | 1.722 | 6.470** | 5.537** |
Table 3 The variance analysis of effects on dry matter accumulation and distribution of oat under drought stress
因素 Factors | 穗干重 DWs | 茎干重 DWst | 根干重 DWr | 叶干重 DWl | 穗分配指数SDi | 茎分配指数DIs | 根分配指数RDi | 叶分配指数LDi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
胁迫程度Stress degree (SD) | 84.811** | 354.565** | 41.090** | 313.055** | 17.422** | 8.227** | 15.324** | 17.904** |
胁迫次数Stress times (ST) | 127.021** | 759.021** | 60.370** | 1340.744** | 17.997** | 4.176* | 49.233** | 6.208** |
胁迫程度×胁迫次数SD×ST | 7.324** | 38.519** | 10.476** | 40.770** | 2.355 | 1.722 | 6.470** | 5.537** |
指标 Index | 胁迫次数Stress time | 胁迫程度Stress degree | 指标 Index | 胁迫次数 Stress time | 胁迫程度Stress degree | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
60%FWC | 45%FWC | 30%FWC | 60%FWC | 45%FWC | 30%FWC | ||||
穗干重DWs | 1 | 0.73Aa | 0.54Ba | 0.31Ca | 穗分配指数SDi | 1 | 0.86Aa | 0.78Bab | 0.71Ca |
2 | 0.39Ab | 0.29Bb | 0.21Cb | 2 | 0.85Aa | 0.85Aa | 0.75Aa | ||
3 | 0.29Ac | 0.14Bc | 0.09Cc | 3 | 0.78Aa | 0.67Bb | 0.48Cb | ||
茎干重DWst | 1 | 1.03Aa | 0.82Ba | 0.52Ca | 茎分配指数DIs | 1 | 1.18Aa | 1.14Aa | 1.16Aa |
2 | 0.55Ab | 0.36Bb | 0.32Bb | 2 | 1.16Aa | 1.04Bb | 1.14Aa | ||
3 | 0.45Ac | 0.23Bc | 0.23Bc | 3 | 1.16Ba | 1.11Ba | 1.22Aa | ||
根干重DWr | 1 | 0.91Aa | 0.93Aa | 0.56Ba | 根分配指数RDi | 1 | 1.21Ab | 1.50Ab | 1.38Ab |
2 | 0.55ABc | 0.59Ab | 0.46Ba | 2 | 1.33Bb | 1.94Aa | 1.85Aa | ||
3 | 0.68Ab | 0.38Bc | 0.32Bb | 3 | 2.00Aa | 2.04Aa | 1.96Aa | ||
叶干重DWl | 1 | 0.77Aa | 0.69Ba | 0.47Ca | 叶分配指数LDi | 1 | 0.87Ca | 0.97Ba | 1.04Aa |
2 | 0.42Ab | 0.31Bb | 0.26Cb | 2 | 0.90Aa | 0.90Aa | 0.91Ab | ||
3 | 0.32Ac | 0.22Bc | 0.22Cc | 3 | 0.83Ca | 1.01Ba | 1.13Aa |
Table 4 Effects of different drought stress degree and times on relative values of dry matter accumulation and distribution in oat
指标 Index | 胁迫次数Stress time | 胁迫程度Stress degree | 指标 Index | 胁迫次数 Stress time | 胁迫程度Stress degree | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
60%FWC | 45%FWC | 30%FWC | 60%FWC | 45%FWC | 30%FWC | ||||
穗干重DWs | 1 | 0.73Aa | 0.54Ba | 0.31Ca | 穗分配指数SDi | 1 | 0.86Aa | 0.78Bab | 0.71Ca |
2 | 0.39Ab | 0.29Bb | 0.21Cb | 2 | 0.85Aa | 0.85Aa | 0.75Aa | ||
3 | 0.29Ac | 0.14Bc | 0.09Cc | 3 | 0.78Aa | 0.67Bb | 0.48Cb | ||
茎干重DWst | 1 | 1.03Aa | 0.82Ba | 0.52Ca | 茎分配指数DIs | 1 | 1.18Aa | 1.14Aa | 1.16Aa |
2 | 0.55Ab | 0.36Bb | 0.32Bb | 2 | 1.16Aa | 1.04Bb | 1.14Aa | ||
3 | 0.45Ac | 0.23Bc | 0.23Bc | 3 | 1.16Ba | 1.11Ba | 1.22Aa | ||
根干重DWr | 1 | 0.91Aa | 0.93Aa | 0.56Ba | 根分配指数RDi | 1 | 1.21Ab | 1.50Ab | 1.38Ab |
2 | 0.55ABc | 0.59Ab | 0.46Ba | 2 | 1.33Bb | 1.94Aa | 1.85Aa | ||
3 | 0.68Ab | 0.38Bc | 0.32Bb | 3 | 2.00Aa | 2.04Aa | 1.96Aa | ||
叶干重DWl | 1 | 0.77Aa | 0.69Ba | 0.47Ca | 叶分配指数LDi | 1 | 0.87Ca | 0.97Ba | 1.04Aa |
2 | 0.42Ab | 0.31Bb | 0.26Cb | 2 | 0.90Aa | 0.90Aa | 0.91Ab | ||
3 | 0.32Ac | 0.22Bc | 0.22Cc | 3 | 0.83Ca | 1.01Ba | 1.13Aa |
处理 Treatments | 穗干重 DWs (g·3 plant-1) | 茎干重 DWst (g·3 plant-1) | 根干重 DWr (g·3 plant-1) | 叶干重 DWl (g·3 plant-1) | 穗分配指数 SDi | 茎分配指数 DIs | 根分配指数 RDi | 叶分配指数LDi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 2.47a | 2.74a | 1.66a | 0.49a | 0.33a | 0.38h | 0.07cde | 0.23bc |
T2 | 1.79b | 2.82a | 1.28b | 0.45a | 0.28bc | 0.45b | 0.07cde | 0.20de |
T3 | 1.32c | 2.23b | 1.15c | 0.45a | 0.26cd | 0.43cde | 0.09bc | 0.22bc |
T4 | 0.76fg | 1.41d | 0.78d | 0.27cd | 0.23d | 0.44bcd | 0.08bcd | 0.24b |
T5 | 1.08d | 1.44d | 0.75d | 0.30bc | 0.30ab | 0.41efg | 0.08bcd | 0.21cd |
T6 | 0.93de | 1.16e | 0.54f | 0.34b | 0.31ab | 0.39gh | 0.12a | 0.18f |
T7 | 0.62gh | 0.92f | 0.42g | 0.27cd | 0.28bc | 0.41efg | 0.12a | 0.19ef |
T8 | 0.84ef | 1.56c | 0.65e | 0.24d | 0.26cd | 0.47a | 0.07cde | 0.20de |
T9 | 0.52hi | 0.82g | 0.49f | 0.24d | 0.25cd | 0.40gh | 0.11a | 0.23bc |
T10 | 0.41ij | 0.85fg | 0.43g | 0.18e | 0.22d | 0.46ab | 0.10b | 0.23bc |
T11 | 0.71fg | 1.23e | 0.53f | 0.33b | 0.26cd | 0.44bcd | 0.12a | 0.19ef |
T12 | 0.34jk | 0.64h | 0.36h | 0.19e | 0.22d | 0.42def | 0.12a | 0.23bc |
T13 | 0.22k | 0.64h | 0.36h | 0.16e | 0.16e | 0.46ab | 0.12a | 0.26a |
Table 5 Effects of drought stress on dry matter accumulation and distribution of oat
处理 Treatments | 穗干重 DWs (g·3 plant-1) | 茎干重 DWst (g·3 plant-1) | 根干重 DWr (g·3 plant-1) | 叶干重 DWl (g·3 plant-1) | 穗分配指数 SDi | 茎分配指数 DIs | 根分配指数 RDi | 叶分配指数LDi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 2.47a | 2.74a | 1.66a | 0.49a | 0.33a | 0.38h | 0.07cde | 0.23bc |
T2 | 1.79b | 2.82a | 1.28b | 0.45a | 0.28bc | 0.45b | 0.07cde | 0.20de |
T3 | 1.32c | 2.23b | 1.15c | 0.45a | 0.26cd | 0.43cde | 0.09bc | 0.22bc |
T4 | 0.76fg | 1.41d | 0.78d | 0.27cd | 0.23d | 0.44bcd | 0.08bcd | 0.24b |
T5 | 1.08d | 1.44d | 0.75d | 0.30bc | 0.30ab | 0.41efg | 0.08bcd | 0.21cd |
T6 | 0.93de | 1.16e | 0.54f | 0.34b | 0.31ab | 0.39gh | 0.12a | 0.18f |
T7 | 0.62gh | 0.92f | 0.42g | 0.27cd | 0.28bc | 0.41efg | 0.12a | 0.19ef |
T8 | 0.84ef | 1.56c | 0.65e | 0.24d | 0.26cd | 0.47a | 0.07cde | 0.20de |
T9 | 0.52hi | 0.82g | 0.49f | 0.24d | 0.25cd | 0.40gh | 0.11a | 0.23bc |
T10 | 0.41ij | 0.85fg | 0.43g | 0.18e | 0.22d | 0.46ab | 0.10b | 0.23bc |
T11 | 0.71fg | 1.23e | 0.53f | 0.33b | 0.26cd | 0.44bcd | 0.12a | 0.19ef |
T12 | 0.34jk | 0.64h | 0.36h | 0.19e | 0.22d | 0.42def | 0.12a | 0.23bc |
T13 | 0.22k | 0.64h | 0.36h | 0.16e | 0.16e | 0.46ab | 0.12a | 0.26a |
指标 Index | 小穗数 Ns | 穗粒数 SNi | 小穗粒数SNs | 单序籽粒重SWi | 空铃数 Ef | 百粒重HKW | 穗长 Ls | 穗干重DWs | 茎干重DWst | 根干重DWr | 叶干重DWl | 穗分配指数SDi | 茎分配指数DIs | 根分配指数RDi | 叶分配指数LDi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
穗粒数SNi | 0.856** | ||||||||||||||
小穗粒数SNs | -0.057 | 0.446** | |||||||||||||
单序籽粒重SWi | 0.768** | 0.927** | 0.455** | ||||||||||||
空铃数Ef | 0.050 | -0.001 | -0.105 | -0.017 | |||||||||||
百粒重HKW | 0.742** | 0.835** | 0.371** | 0.871** | 0.024 | ||||||||||
穗长Ls | 0.722** | 0.893** | 0.477** | 0.925** | -0.034 | 0.911** | |||||||||
穗干重DWs | 0.628** | 0.872** | 0.576** | 0.922** | -0.025 | 0.870** | 0.938** | ||||||||
茎干重DWst | 0.754** | 0.931** | 0.459** | 0.935** | 0.000 | 0.862** | 0.892** | 0.938** | |||||||
根干重DWr | 0.739** | 0.870** | 0.390** | 0.904** | 0.001 | 0.808** | 0.862** | 0.883** | 0.890** | ||||||
叶干重DWl | 0.657** | 0.888** | 0.558** | 0.946** | 0.002 | 0.864** | 0.921** | 0.961** | 0.961** | 0.866** | * | ||||
穗分配指SDi | 0.516** | 0.642** | 0.373** | 0.615** | -0.044 | 0.651** | 0.712** | 0.733** | 0.565** | 0.667** | 0.554** | ||||
茎分配指DIs | -0.076 | -0.233 | -0.370** | -0.277* | -0.022 | -0.260 | -0.415** | -0.408** | -0.123 | -0.370** | -0.265 | -0.704** | |||
根分配指RDi | -0.571** | -0.731** | -0.419** | -0.713** | 0.015 | -0.731** | -0.716** | -0.730** | -0.778** | -0.472** | -0.785** | -0.394** | -0.049 | ||
叶分配指数LDi | -0.345* | -0.263 | 0.098 | -0.182 | 0.067 | -0.231 | -0.205 | -0.230 | -0.201 | -0.366** | -0.022 | -0.654** | 0.199 | -0.082 | |
产量Yield | 0.831** | 0.921** | 0.368** | 0.922** | -0.021 | 0.911** | 0.908** | 0.868** | 0.878** | 0.883** | 0.839** | 0.752** | -0.299* | -0.673** | -0.429** |
Table 6 Correlation analysis of yield and yield components of oat under different drought stresses
指标 Index | 小穗数 Ns | 穗粒数 SNi | 小穗粒数SNs | 单序籽粒重SWi | 空铃数 Ef | 百粒重HKW | 穗长 Ls | 穗干重DWs | 茎干重DWst | 根干重DWr | 叶干重DWl | 穗分配指数SDi | 茎分配指数DIs | 根分配指数RDi | 叶分配指数LDi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
穗粒数SNi | 0.856** | ||||||||||||||
小穗粒数SNs | -0.057 | 0.446** | |||||||||||||
单序籽粒重SWi | 0.768** | 0.927** | 0.455** | ||||||||||||
空铃数Ef | 0.050 | -0.001 | -0.105 | -0.017 | |||||||||||
百粒重HKW | 0.742** | 0.835** | 0.371** | 0.871** | 0.024 | ||||||||||
穗长Ls | 0.722** | 0.893** | 0.477** | 0.925** | -0.034 | 0.911** | |||||||||
穗干重DWs | 0.628** | 0.872** | 0.576** | 0.922** | -0.025 | 0.870** | 0.938** | ||||||||
茎干重DWst | 0.754** | 0.931** | 0.459** | 0.935** | 0.000 | 0.862** | 0.892** | 0.938** | |||||||
根干重DWr | 0.739** | 0.870** | 0.390** | 0.904** | 0.001 | 0.808** | 0.862** | 0.883** | 0.890** | ||||||
叶干重DWl | 0.657** | 0.888** | 0.558** | 0.946** | 0.002 | 0.864** | 0.921** | 0.961** | 0.961** | 0.866** | * | ||||
穗分配指SDi | 0.516** | 0.642** | 0.373** | 0.615** | -0.044 | 0.651** | 0.712** | 0.733** | 0.565** | 0.667** | 0.554** | ||||
茎分配指DIs | -0.076 | -0.233 | -0.370** | -0.277* | -0.022 | -0.260 | -0.415** | -0.408** | -0.123 | -0.370** | -0.265 | -0.704** | |||
根分配指RDi | -0.571** | -0.731** | -0.419** | -0.713** | 0.015 | -0.731** | -0.716** | -0.730** | -0.778** | -0.472** | -0.785** | -0.394** | -0.049 | ||
叶分配指数LDi | -0.345* | -0.263 | 0.098 | -0.182 | 0.067 | -0.231 | -0.205 | -0.230 | -0.201 | -0.366** | -0.022 | -0.654** | 0.199 | -0.082 | |
产量Yield | 0.831** | 0.921** | 0.368** | 0.922** | -0.021 | 0.911** | 0.908** | 0.868** | 0.878** | 0.883** | 0.839** | 0.752** | -0.299* | -0.673** | -0.429** |
因子 Factors | 相关系数 Correlation coefficient | 直接作用 Direct action | 间接作用 Indirect action | 合计 Sum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
→SWi | →LDi | →HKW | →SNi | →DWst | ||||
单序籽粒重SWi | 0.922 | 0.442 | - | 0.078 | 0.793 | 0.854 | 0.821 | 2.546 |
叶分配指数LDi | -0.429 | -0.213 | -0.168 | - | -0.210 | -0.242 | -0.176 | -0.797 |
百粒重HKW | 0.911 | 0.391 | 0.803 | 0.099 | - | 0.769 | 0.757 | 2.428 |
穗粒数SNi | 0.921 | 0.371 | 0.855 | 0.113 | 0.761 | - | 0.817 | 2.546 |
茎干重DWst | 0.878 | -0.261 | 0.862 | 0.086 | 0.785 | 0.857 | - | 2.590 |
Table 7 Path analysis of yield and yield components of oat under different drought stresses
因子 Factors | 相关系数 Correlation coefficient | 直接作用 Direct action | 间接作用 Indirect action | 合计 Sum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
→SWi | →LDi | →HKW | →SNi | →DWst | ||||
单序籽粒重SWi | 0.922 | 0.442 | - | 0.078 | 0.793 | 0.854 | 0.821 | 2.546 |
叶分配指数LDi | -0.429 | -0.213 | -0.168 | - | -0.210 | -0.242 | -0.176 | -0.797 |
百粒重HKW | 0.911 | 0.391 | 0.803 | 0.099 | - | 0.769 | 0.757 | 2.428 |
穗粒数SNi | 0.921 | 0.371 | 0.855 | 0.113 | 0.761 | - | 0.817 | 2.546 |
茎干重DWst | 0.878 | -0.261 | 0.862 | 0.086 | 0.785 | 0.857 | - | 2.590 |
1 | Zhang X F, Kong H Y, Li P F, et al. Recent advances in research on drought-induced proteins and the related genes in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2011, 31(9): 2641-2653. |
张小丰, 孔海燕, 李朴芳, 等. 小麦干旱诱导蛋白及相关基因研究进展. 生态学报, 2011, 31(9): 2641-2653. | |
2 | Chen J, Dai J Y. Effects of drought on photosynthesis and yield of different tolerance maize varieties. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 1996, 22(6): 757-763. |
陈军, 戴俊英. 干旱对不同耐性玉米品种光合作用及产量的影响. 作物学报, 1996, 22(6): 757-763. | |
3 | Liu Q M, Tang Y Q, Xiao R P, et al. Progress on molecular research of drought resistance in rice. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2019, 17(9): 2841-2849. |
刘强明, 唐永群, 肖人鹏, 等. 水稻耐旱的分子研究进展. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(9): 2841-2849. | |
4 | Dong X S, Niu J Y, Gao Y H, et al. Comparative test of characteristics for potato varieties in semi-arid region. Chinese Potato Journal, 2015, 29(3): 129-132. |
董旭生, 牛俊义, 高玉红, 等. 半干旱区马铃薯品种性状比较试验. 中国马铃薯, 2015, 29(3): 129-132. | |
5 | John M C, Ronald M D, Fred T S. Evaluation of methods for quantification of drought tolerance in wheat. Crop Science, 1992, 32(3): 723-728. |
6 | Pragya M, Nisha S, Ajay J, et al. Identification of cis-regulatory elements associated with salinity and drought stress tolerance in rice from co-expressed gene interaction networks. Bioinformation, 2018, 14(3): 123-131. |
7 | Lou L L, Li X R, Chen J X, et al. Photosynthetic and ascorbate-glutathione metabolism in the flag leaves as compared to spikes under drought stress of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). PLoS One, 2018, 13(3): e0194625. |
8 | Wang L N, Wang Y R, Zhang W, et al. Comparative study on soil water utilization characteristics of Viola poapratensis and Poa pratensis L.populations under long-term soil drought stress. Journal of Northern Agriculture, 2008(1): 28-30. |
王丽娜, 王艳荣, 张玮, 等. 土壤持续干旱条件下早开堇菜与草地早熟禾对土壤水分利用特征的比较研究. 北方农业学报, 2008(1): 28-30. | |
9 | Du J X, Shi S L, Liu J R, et al. Effects of drought stress and rewatering on physiological characteristics of three kentucky bluegrass cultivars. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2010, 18(1): 73-77. |
杜建雄, 师尚礼, 刘金荣, 等. 干旱胁迫和复水对草地早熟禾3个品种生理特性的影响. 草地学报, 2010, 18(1): 73-77. | |
10 | Lin Y C, Zeng Z H, Guo L C, et al. Response to water stress and re-watering of oat at different growth stages. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2012, 32(2): 284-288. |
林叶春, 曾昭海, 郭来春, 等. 裸燕麦不同生育时期对干旱胁迫后复水的响应. 麦类作物学报, 2012, 32(2): 284-288. | |
11 | Hou L Y, Zhu Z Y, Yang J, et al. Current status, problems and potentials of forage oat in China. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 45(3): 248-253. |
侯龙鱼, 朱泽义, 杨杰, 等. 我国饲草用燕麦现状、问题和潜力. 西南民族大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 45(3): 248-253. | |
12 | Cui X X, Hou F J, Chang S H, et al. Comparison of yield and nutritional quality of two oat (Avena sativa) varieties grown in the alpine pastoral region of China. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(6): 1489-1495. |
崔雄雄, 侯扶江, 常生华, 等. 高寒牧区两个燕麦品种的产量与品质比较. 草业科学, 2018, 35(6): 1489-1495. | |
13 | Liang G L, Qin Y, Wei X X, et al. Evaluation on productivity and quality of oat strain I-D in the alpine regions of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(4): 130-140. |
梁国玲, 秦燕, 魏小星, 等. 青藏高原高寒区I-D燕麦品系饲草生产性能及品质评价. 草地学报, 2018, 26(4): 130-140. | |
14 | Rgia A O, Mohammed H M, Jones P J. Cholesterol-lowering effects of oat β-glucan. Nutrition Reviews, 2011, 69(6): 299-309. |
15 | Peter J W. Evaluation of oat bran as a soluble fibre source. Characterization of oat β-glucan and its effects on glycaemic response. Elsevier, 1994, 25(4): 331-336. |
16 | Liu W Y, Zhou F, Yang R Q, et al. A study of Avena nuda L.seeding under drought stress. Journal of Shanxi Datong University (Social Science Edition), 2013(4): 53-55. |
刘文英, 周凤, 杨瑞卿, 等. 干旱胁迫对裸燕麦幼苗生长的影响. 山西大同大学学报(自然科学版), 2013(4): 53-55. | |
17 | Zhai M M. Research on the effect of yield and quality of forage oats in semi-arid areas of Western Liaoning Province. Shenyang: Liaoning University, 2014. |
翟苗苗. 饲草燕麦在辽西半干旱地区的产量与品质效应研究. 沈阳: 辽宁大学, 2014. | |
18 | Duggan B L, Domitruk D R, Fowler D B. Yield component variation in winter wheat grown under drought stress. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2000, 80(4): 739-745. |
19 | Dong C C, Yong I J, Jung H N, et al. Early drought effect on canopy development and tuber growth of potato cultivars with different maturities. Field Crops Research, 2018, 215: 156-162. |
20 | Huang M, Wu J Z, Li Y J, et al. Differences of yield components and nitrogen uptake and utilization in winter wheat with different yield levels in drylands. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2019, 39(2): 41-48. |
黄明, 吴金芝, 李友军, 等. 旱地不同产量水平小麦的产量构成及氮素吸收利用的差异. 麦类作物学报, 2019, 39(2): 41-48. | |
21 | Hu T H. Effects of LCO and TH17 on the morphological, physiological indicators of oat and soil rhizosphere environment under drought stress. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2014. |
胡廷会. 干旱胁迫下LCO和TH17对燕麦形态、生理指标及根际土壤环境的影响. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2014. | |
22 | Sun D Z, Zhou F P, Wang S G, et al. Drought resistance analysis of hexaploid triticale at grain filling stage. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2007, 23(7): 236-240. |
孙黛珍, 周福平, 王曙光, 等. 六倍体小黑麦灌浆期抗旱性分析. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(7): 236-240. | |
23 | Kumar R, Sarawgi A K, Ramos C, et al. Partitioning of dry matter during drought stress in rainfed lowland rice. Field Crops Research, 2006, 98(1): 1-11. |
24 | Chen Z Q, Liu Y,Yin Y J, et al. Expression of AtGA2ox1 enhances drought tolerance in maize. Plant Growth Regulation, 2019, 89(2): 203-215. |
25 | Jonathan H, Christopher H, Christian D, et al. Reducing stomatal density in barley improves drought tolerance without impacting on yield. Plant Physiology, 2017, 174(2): 776-787. |
26 | Zhang M X. Anaiysis of different wheat varieties yield and its related factors in Huanghuai wheat area. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2013. |
张明响. 黄淮麦区不同小麦品种的产量及其相关因素分析. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2013. | |
27 | Tian J C, Deng Z Y, Hu R B, et al. Yield components of super wheat cultivars with different types and the path coefficient analysis on grain yield. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2006, 32(11): 1699-1705. |
田纪春, 邓志英, 胡瑞波, 等. 不同类型超级小麦产量构成因素及籽粒产量的通径分析. 作物学报, 2006, 32(11): 1699-1705. | |
28 | Yue W. Correlation and grey correlation analysis of main agronomic traits and yield of oats. Liaoning Agricultural Sciences, 2017(2): 33-36. |
岳武. 燕麦主要农艺性状与产量的相关性及灰色关联度分析. 辽宁农业科学, 2017(2): 33-36. |
[1] | Yi-yao HOU, Xiao LI, Rui-cai LONG, Qing-chuan YANG, Jun-mei KANG, Chang-hong GUO. Effect of overexpression of the alfalfa MsHB7 gene on drought tolerance of Arabidopsis [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(4): 170-179. |
[2] | Xin-you WANG, Wen-xia CAO, Xiao-jun WANG, Yu-zhen LIU, Rui GAO, Shi-lin WANG, Hai-tao AN, Xiu-xia DENG, Wen-hu WANG. Herbage production and forage quality responses to cutting height and fertilization of legume-grass mixtures in the Hexi region [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(4): 99-110. |
[3] | Wan-jun XIAO, Feng-xia GUO, Yuan CHEN, Lan-lan LIU, Yong-zhong CHEN, Xu-sheng JIAO, Bi-quan ZHANG, Gang BAI, Jian-qin JIN. Effect of organic fertilizer application on the medicinal character, yield and disease resistance of Angelica sinensis [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 189-199. |
[4] | Yu-lei JIA, Zhen LIAO, Li-fang WANG, Jian-chao BU, Biao-sheng LIN, Hui LIN, De-wei SU, Guo-dong LU, Zhan-xi LIN. Effects of chemical fertilizer reduction and co-application with a JUNCAO nitrogen-fixing biofertilizer on growth and nutritional quality of Pennisetum giganteum and soil nutrient status [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 215-223. |
[5] | Mang-li XIONG, Xu-jin WU, Xiao-fu ZHU, Wen-juan ZHANG. Effects of different apple pomace levels on lactation performance, nutrient apparent digestibility, serum biochemical indices and the rumen pH of Guanzhong dairy goats [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(3): 81-88. |
[6] | Bai-ping SHA, Ying-zhong XIE, Xue-qin GAO, Wei CAI, Bing-zhe FU. Effects of coupling of drip irrigation water and fertilizer on yield and quality of alfalfa in the yellow river irrigation district [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(2): 102-114. |
[7] | Li-rong TONG, Shun-gang NI, Ya-nan ZHOU, Juan WANG, Fang-shan XIA. Effects of different seed coating formulations on seed germination and seedling growth of Lespedeza davurica [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(2): 124-134. |
[8] | Jian-xin LIU, Rui-rui LIU, Hai-yan JIA, Ting BU, Na LI. Physiological mechanism of NaHS priming improvement of seed vigor in naked oat [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(2): 135-142. |
[9] | Ji-qing WANG, Ji-yuan SHEN, Xiu LIU, Shao-bin LI, Yu-zhu LUO, Meng-li ZHAO, Zhi-yun HAO, Na KE, Yi-ze SONG, Li-rong QIAO. Comparative analysis of meat production traits, meat quality, and muscle nutrient and fatty acid contents between Ziwuling black goats and Liaoning cashmere goats [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(2): 166-177. |
[10] | Le-zheng WANG, Fang-jing HUA, Peng-peng CAO, Feng-ju GAO, Wen-rong XIA. Yield and dynamic responses of yield components of adzuki bean to insolation, temperature and rainfall across five sowing dates [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 116-129. |
[11] | Dong LI, Hong-tao SHEN, Yan-fang WANG, Yue-hua WANG, Li-jun WANG, Shi-min ZHAO, Ling LIU. Effects of exogenous melatonin on photosynthetic carbon assimilation and endogenous hormones in tobacco seedlings under drought stress [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 130-139. |
[12] | Hui-xin JIANG, Shan-shan BAI, Bo WU, Jing-yi SONG, Guo-liang WANG. A multivariate evaluation of agronomic straits and forage quality of 22 oat varieties in the Huang-Huai-Hai area of China [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(1): 140-149. |
[13] | YU Xiao-bo, LIANG Jian-qiu, HE Ze-min, ZHOU Quan-lu, WU Hai-ying, ZHANG Ming-rong. Response of stem characteristics and yield to sowing rate in soybean [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(9): 117-124. |
[14] | TONG Chang-chun, LIU Xiao-jing, LIN Fang, YU Tie-feng. Yield effect of optimisation of photosynthetic characteristics of alfalfa through balanced fertilization [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(8): 70-80. |
[15] | Zaituniguli Kuerban, Tuerxun Tuerhong, TU Zhen-dong, WANG Hui, Shan Qimike, Aikebaier Yilahong. Effects of fertilization on growth and yield of continuously cropped sweet sorghum [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(8): 81-92. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||