Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (3): 107-119.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2023127
Qin FENG1,2(), Xiao-li HE4, Bin WANG1,2, Teng-fei WANG1,2, Wang NI1,2, Xia MA1,2, Xue-hua MING1,2, Jian-qiang DENG1,2, Jian LAN1,2,3()
Received:
2023-04-18
Revised:
2023-07-10
Online:
2024-03-20
Published:
2023-12-27
Contact:
Jian LAN
Qin FENG, Xiao-li HE, Bin WANG, Teng-fei WANG, Wang NI, Xia MA, Xue-hua MING, Jian-qiang DENG, Jian LAN. A study of mixed sowing effects for oat and common vetch in the Ningxia Yellow River Irrigation Area[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(3): 107-119.
材料 Material | 纯净度 Purity (%) | 发芽率 Germination rate (%) | 千粒重 Thousand seed weight (g) | 来源 Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
燕麦 A. sativa | 98.0 | 94.0 | 36.7 | 北京百斯特草业有限公司Beijing Best Grass Industry Co., Ltd |
箭筈豌豆 V. sativa | 92.0 | 80.0 | 65.5 |
Table 1 Information of test materials
材料 Material | 纯净度 Purity (%) | 发芽率 Germination rate (%) | 千粒重 Thousand seed weight (g) | 来源 Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
燕麦 A. sativa | 98.0 | 94.0 | 36.7 | 北京百斯特草业有限公司Beijing Best Grass Industry Co., Ltd |
箭筈豌豆 V. sativa | 92.0 | 80.0 | 65.5 |
处理 Treatment | 燕麦播种量 The seeding rate of oats | 箭筈豌豆播种量 The seeding rate of common vetch |
---|---|---|
A | 180 | - |
A5V5 | 106 | 120 |
A6V4 | 127 | 100 |
A7V3 | 148 | 80 |
A8V2 | 169 | 60 |
V | - | 150 |
Table 2 Test processing information (kg·hm-2)
处理 Treatment | 燕麦播种量 The seeding rate of oats | 箭筈豌豆播种量 The seeding rate of common vetch |
---|---|---|
A | 180 | - |
A5V5 | 106 | 120 |
A6V4 | 127 | 100 |
A7V3 | 148 | 80 |
A8V2 | 169 | 60 |
V | - | 150 |
项目 Items | 单价 Unit price |
---|---|
燕麦种子 Oat seed (元Yuan·kg-1) | 12 |
箭筈豌豆种子 Common vetch seed (元Yuan·kg-1) | 8 |
机械 Machine (元Yuan·hm-2) | 400 |
肥料 Fertilizer (元Yuan·hm-2) | 500 |
灌溉 Irrigation (元Yuan·hm-2) | 2000 |
人工 Artificial (元Yuan·hm-2) | 4000 |
收割 Harvest (元Yuan·hm-2) | 1000 |
燕麦干草 Oat hay (元Yuan·t-1) | 2100 |
箭筈豌豆干草 Common vetch hay (元Yuan·t-1) | 2400 |
Table 3 Price information of each item
项目 Items | 单价 Unit price |
---|---|
燕麦种子 Oat seed (元Yuan·kg-1) | 12 |
箭筈豌豆种子 Common vetch seed (元Yuan·kg-1) | 8 |
机械 Machine (元Yuan·hm-2) | 400 |
肥料 Fertilizer (元Yuan·hm-2) | 500 |
灌溉 Irrigation (元Yuan·hm-2) | 2000 |
人工 Artificial (元Yuan·hm-2) | 4000 |
收割 Harvest (元Yuan·hm-2) | 1000 |
燕麦干草 Oat hay (元Yuan·t-1) | 2100 |
箭筈豌豆干草 Common vetch hay (元Yuan·t-1) | 2400 |
项目 Items | 燕麦产量Hay yield of oats | 箭筈豌豆产量Hay yield of common vetch | 总干草产量Total hay yield |
---|---|---|---|
茬次 Cutting times | 13.10** | 96.21** | 32.77** |
比例 Ratio | 5.96** | 923.39** | 37.55** |
茬次×比例 Cutting times×ratio | 3.34* | 38.01** | 2.90* |
Table 4 Significance test of forage yield (F value)
项目 Items | 燕麦产量Hay yield of oats | 箭筈豌豆产量Hay yield of common vetch | 总干草产量Total hay yield |
---|---|---|---|
茬次 Cutting times | 13.10** | 96.21** | 32.77** |
比例 Ratio | 5.96** | 923.39** | 37.55** |
茬次×比例 Cutting times×ratio | 3.34* | 38.01** | 2.90* |
项目 Items | 箭筈豌豆的偏土地当量比Partial land equivalent ratio for common vetch ( | 燕麦的偏土地当量比Partial land equivalent ratio for oats ( | 土地当量比Land equivalent ratio ( | 箭筈豌豆的相对产量 Relative yield for common vetch ( | 燕麦的相对产量 Relative yield for oats ( | 相对产量总和 Total relative yield ( | 箭筈豌豆的侵略强度Aggressivity for common vetch ( | 燕麦的侵略强度Aggressivity for oats ( | 箭筈豌豆的竞争比率 Competitive ratio for common vetch ( | 燕麦的竞争比率 Competitive ratio for oats ( |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
茬次 Cutting times | ns | 19.76** | 19.63** | ns | 19.38** | 18.73** | 16.12** | 16.12** | ns | ns |
比例 Ratio | 12.18** | 4.21* | ns | 2.96* | 6.72** | ns | 7.25** | 7.25** | 5.86** | ns |
茬次×比例 Cutting times×ratio | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
Table 5 Significance test of pasture land productivity and competition index (F value)
项目 Items | 箭筈豌豆的偏土地当量比Partial land equivalent ratio for common vetch ( | 燕麦的偏土地当量比Partial land equivalent ratio for oats ( | 土地当量比Land equivalent ratio ( | 箭筈豌豆的相对产量 Relative yield for common vetch ( | 燕麦的相对产量 Relative yield for oats ( | 相对产量总和 Total relative yield ( | 箭筈豌豆的侵略强度Aggressivity for common vetch ( | 燕麦的侵略强度Aggressivity for oats ( | 箭筈豌豆的竞争比率 Competitive ratio for common vetch ( | 燕麦的竞争比率 Competitive ratio for oats ( |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
茬次 Cutting times | ns | 19.76** | 19.63** | ns | 19.38** | 18.73** | 16.12** | 16.12** | ns | ns |
比例 Ratio | 12.18** | 4.21* | ns | 2.96* | 6.72** | ns | 7.25** | 7.25** | 5.86** | ns |
茬次×比例 Cutting times×ratio | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
茬次 Cutting times | 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
第1茬 The first cutting | A | 9.96±0.10cd | 60.46±0.52abc | 35.98±0.17bc | 93.67±0.99abc |
A5V5 | 13.10±0.14ab | 58.08±0.37bc | 37.36±0.49abc | 95.80±1.21ab | |
A6V4 | 11.57±0.08abc | 61.48±0.26ab | 39.74±0.13a | 87.67±0.24bc | |
A7V3 | 10.80±0.26bc | 63.50±0.95a | 41.25±0.91a | 83.23±2.30c | |
A8V2 | 10.21±0.20c | 63.62±1.12a | 39.27±0.53ab | 85.33±2.06bc | |
V | 18.01±0.09a | 46.41±0.21c | 35.58±0.20c | 122.64±0.42a | |
第2茬 The second cutting | A | 7.51±0.52d | 68.75±2.96a | 42.00±2.33a | 76.49±5.51bc |
A5V5 | 12.19±0.34ab | 65.14±0.20abc | 40.36±0.70ab | 82.07±1.03abc | |
A6V4 | 11.35±0.18abc | 63.07±0.51bc | 39.47±0.74ab | 85.78±1.26ab | |
A7V3 | 10.20±0.24cd | 66.59±1.51ab | 42.94±0.77a | 77.55±2.15c | |
A8V2 | 10.64±0.04bcd | 65.50±0.86ab | 43.59±1.57a | 78.02±0.88bc | |
V | 25.97±0.18a | 45.53±0.22c | 34.87±0.96b | 126.13±0.97a | |
平均Average | A | 8.74±0.59c | 64.61±2.28a | 38.99±1.70ab | 85.08±4.58ab |
A5V5 | 12.65±0.26ab | 61.61±1.59ab | 38.86±0.77ab | 88.93±3.15ab | |
A6V4 | 11.46±0.10abc | 62.28±0.43ab | 39.61±0.34ab | 86.73±0.71ab | |
A7V3 | 10.50±0.20bc | 65.05±1.05a | 42.09±0.65a | 80.39±1.89b | |
A8V2 | 10.42±0.13bc | 64.56±0.75a | 41.43±1.21a | 81.67±1.91b | |
V | 21.99±1.78a | 45.97±0.24b | 35.23±0.46b | 124.38±0.91a | |
茬次 Cutting times | 26.51** | 29.94** | 16.57** | 34.72** | |
比例 Ratio | 820.41** | 87.50** | 11.79** | 127.69** | |
茬次×比例 Cutting times×ratio | 122.55** | 4.98** | 3.46* | 6.68** |
Table 6 Comparison of nutrient quality of herbage in different mixed sowing ratio
茬次 Cutting times | 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
第1茬 The first cutting | A | 9.96±0.10cd | 60.46±0.52abc | 35.98±0.17bc | 93.67±0.99abc |
A5V5 | 13.10±0.14ab | 58.08±0.37bc | 37.36±0.49abc | 95.80±1.21ab | |
A6V4 | 11.57±0.08abc | 61.48±0.26ab | 39.74±0.13a | 87.67±0.24bc | |
A7V3 | 10.80±0.26bc | 63.50±0.95a | 41.25±0.91a | 83.23±2.30c | |
A8V2 | 10.21±0.20c | 63.62±1.12a | 39.27±0.53ab | 85.33±2.06bc | |
V | 18.01±0.09a | 46.41±0.21c | 35.58±0.20c | 122.64±0.42a | |
第2茬 The second cutting | A | 7.51±0.52d | 68.75±2.96a | 42.00±2.33a | 76.49±5.51bc |
A5V5 | 12.19±0.34ab | 65.14±0.20abc | 40.36±0.70ab | 82.07±1.03abc | |
A6V4 | 11.35±0.18abc | 63.07±0.51bc | 39.47±0.74ab | 85.78±1.26ab | |
A7V3 | 10.20±0.24cd | 66.59±1.51ab | 42.94±0.77a | 77.55±2.15c | |
A8V2 | 10.64±0.04bcd | 65.50±0.86ab | 43.59±1.57a | 78.02±0.88bc | |
V | 25.97±0.18a | 45.53±0.22c | 34.87±0.96b | 126.13±0.97a | |
平均Average | A | 8.74±0.59c | 64.61±2.28a | 38.99±1.70ab | 85.08±4.58ab |
A5V5 | 12.65±0.26ab | 61.61±1.59ab | 38.86±0.77ab | 88.93±3.15ab | |
A6V4 | 11.46±0.10abc | 62.28±0.43ab | 39.61±0.34ab | 86.73±0.71ab | |
A7V3 | 10.50±0.20bc | 65.05±1.05a | 42.09±0.65a | 80.39±1.89b | |
A8V2 | 10.42±0.13bc | 64.56±0.75a | 41.43±1.21a | 81.67±1.91b | |
V | 21.99±1.78a | 45.97±0.24b | 35.23±0.46b | 124.38±0.91a | |
茬次 Cutting times | 26.51** | 29.94** | 16.57** | 34.72** | |
比例 Ratio | 820.41** | 87.50** | 11.79** | 127.69** | |
茬次×比例 Cutting times×ratio | 122.55** | 4.98** | 3.46* | 6.68** |
处理 Treatment | 毛收入Gross income | 净收入Net income | 平均Average | 年净收入 Annual net income | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
第1茬 The first cutting | 第2茬 The second cutting | 第1茬 The first cutting | 第2茬 The second cutting | 支出 Expenditure | 毛收入 Gross income | 净收入 Net income | ||
A | 12855 | 16962 | 2795 | 6902 | 10060 | 14909 | 4849 | 9697 |
A5V5 | 15173 | 16421 | 5041 | 6289 | 10132 | 15797 | 5665 | 11330 |
A6V4 | 17356 | 17863 | 7132 | 7639 | 10224 | 17610 | 7386 | 14771 |
A7V3 | 14974 | 19210 | 4658 | 8893 | 10316 | 17092 | 6776 | 13551 |
A8V2 | 18131 | 19104 | 7723 | 8695 | 10408 | 18617 | 8209 | 16418 |
V | 8670 | 13045 | -429 | 3945 | 9100 | 10858 | 1758 | 3516 |
Table 7 Comparison of grassland expenditure, gross income and net income under different treatments (元Yuan·hm-2)
处理 Treatment | 毛收入Gross income | 净收入Net income | 平均Average | 年净收入 Annual net income | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
第1茬 The first cutting | 第2茬 The second cutting | 第1茬 The first cutting | 第2茬 The second cutting | 支出 Expenditure | 毛收入 Gross income | 净收入 Net income | ||
A | 12855 | 16962 | 2795 | 6902 | 10060 | 14909 | 4849 | 9697 |
A5V5 | 15173 | 16421 | 5041 | 6289 | 10132 | 15797 | 5665 | 11330 |
A6V4 | 17356 | 17863 | 7132 | 7639 | 10224 | 17610 | 7386 | 14771 |
A7V3 | 14974 | 19210 | 4658 | 8893 | 10316 | 17092 | 6776 | 13551 |
A8V2 | 18131 | 19104 | 7723 | 8695 | 10408 | 18617 | 8209 | 16418 |
V | 8670 | 13045 | -429 | 3945 | 9100 | 10858 | 1758 | 3516 |
1 | Yang C, Zhang Y X, Zhang H, et al. Recent advances in understanding the ecosystem functioning of diverse forage mixtures. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(9): 206-219. |
杨策, 张玉雪, 张鹤, 等. 牧草混播生态系统功能研究进展. 草业学报, 2022, 31(9): 206-219. | |
2 | Feng Q, Wang B, Hai Y R, et al. Effects of mixed sowing of vetch and oat on community competition and biomass allocation of oats. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(9): 2423-2429. |
冯琴, 王斌, 海艺蕊, 等. 毛苕子不同播种量与燕麦混播对群落竞争及燕麦生物量分配的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2423-2429. | |
3 | Yang L. Effect of water and nitrogen utilization and crop yield of maize and soybean intercropping system in yellow river irrigation area of Ningxia. Yangling: Northwest A & F University, 2022. |
杨玲. 宁夏引黄灌区玉米||大豆对田间水氮利用及作物产量的影响. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2022. | |
4 | 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. | |
5 | 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. | |
6 | Wang B, Li M Y, Li X Y, et al. Evaluation of mixed sowing methods for oats and vetch under drip irrigation in arid areas of Ningxia. Pratacultural Science, 2021, 38(7): 1329-1338. |
王斌, 李满有, 李小云, 等. 宁夏干旱区滴灌条件下燕麦与毛苕子的混播方式. 草业科学, 2021, 38(7): 1329-1338. | |
7 | Salama H S A. Mixture cropping of berseem clover with cereals to improve forage yield and quality under irrigated conditions of the Mediterranean basin. Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 65(2): 159-167. |
8 | Pużyńska K, Pużyński S, Synowiec A, et al. Grain yield and total protein content of organically grown oats-vetch mixtures depending on soil type and oats’ cultivar. Agriculture, 2021, 11(1): 79. |
9 | Wang J H, Li G, Yin M H, et al. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation on the soil environment and forage growth of mixed-species forage plantings in China’s high-cold desert area. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(1): 95-106. |
汪精海, 李广, 银敏华, 等. 调亏灌溉对高寒荒漠区人工混播草地土壤环境与牧草生长的影响. 草业学报, 2022, 31(1): 95-106. | |
10 | Rinke N, Kautz T, Aulrich K, et al. The effect of long- and short-stemmed oat in vetch-oat intercropping on weed infestation, agronomic performance, and grain quality in low input systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 2022, 140, DOI: 10.1016/J.EJA.2022.126611. |
11 | 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. | |
12 | Liu Y P, Xue S M, Zhong S L, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of mixed grassland of triticale and feeding pea in high-elevation of Northwestern Yunnan. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(9): 2497-2504. |
刘彦培, 薛世明, 钟绍丽, 等. 滇西北高海拔地区小黑麦与饲用豌豆混播草地综合评价. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2497-2504. | |
13 | Wei K T, Yu X J, Bai M M, et al. Effect of mixed sowing ratio on the forage yield and quality of grazing mixed sowing grassland in semi-arid area. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(9): 56-65. |
魏孔涛, 鱼小军, 白梅梅, 等. 混播比例对半干旱区放牧型混播草地草产量及品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(9): 56-65. | |
14 | Yang P N, Du W H, Tian X H. Study on the mixed effect of Canadian forage oats and peas in Gannan alpine pasture area. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(3): 39-48. |
杨鹏年, 杜文华, 田新会. 甘南高寒牧区加拿大饲用燕麦与豌豆的混播效果研究. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(3): 39-48. | |
15 | Feng T X, De K J, Xiang X M, et al. Effects of different mixtures and proportions of Avena sativa and pea on forage yield and quality in alpine cold region. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(2): 487-494. |
冯廷旭, 德科加, 向雪梅, 等. 高寒地区燕麦与豌豆不同混播组合和比例对饲草产量及品质的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(2): 487-494. | |
16 | Zhang W X, Pei Y B, Tian X H, et al. Differences of the photosynthetic performance between mono- and grass-legume mixture of the double cropped pasture in Gannan alpine pasture. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(8): 52-60. |
张文轩, 裴亚斌, 田新会, 等. 甘南高寒牧区复种单播和禾豆混播草地光合性能的差异. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(8): 52-60. | |
17 | Baxevanos D, Tsialtas I T, Vlachostergios D N, et al. Cultivar competitiveness in pea-oat intercrops under Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Research, 2017, 214: 94-103. |
18 | Liu Q Y, Yun L, Chen Y F, et al. The dynamic analysis of forage yield and interspecific competition in alfalfa-grass mixed pasture. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(3): 181-191. |
刘启宇, 云岚, 陈逸凡, 等. 苜蓿-禾草混播草地牧草产量及种间竞争关系的动态研究. 草业学报, 2022, 31(3): 181-191. | |
19 | Liang B, Ma Y W, Shi K, et al. Appropriate bandwidth achieves a high yield by reducing maize intraspecific competition in additive maize-soybean strip intercropping. European Journal of Agronomy, 2023, 142, DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2022.126658. |
20 | Gong X W, Dang K, Lyu S M, et al. Interspecific competition and nitrogen application alter soil ecoenzymatic stoichiometry, microbial nutrient status, and improve grain yield in broomcorn millet/mung bean intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 2021, 270, DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108227. |
21 | Gitari H I, Nyawade S O, Kamau S, et al. Revisiting intercropping indices with respect to potato-legume intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 2020, 258, DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107957. |
22 | Ma X D, Sun J J, Wang P B, et al. Effects of mixed sowing of Avena sativa and legumes on grass yield and quality in the Sanjiangyuan region of Qinghai. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2021, 43(7): 21-27. |
马晓东, 孙金金, 汪鹏斌, 等. 青海三江源区燕麦与豆类混播对草产量和品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(7): 21-27. | |
23 | Feng Q, Wang B, Wang T F, et al. Effects of mixed sowing of vetch and oat on production performance and nutrient quality of grassland. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(12): 3439-3446. |
冯琴, 王斌, 王腾飞, 等. 不同播种量毛苕子与燕麦混播对草地生产性能及营养品质的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(12): 3439-3446. | |
24 | Shen X P, Qi H P, Liu X N, et al. Implementation of two-factor nonparametric analysis of variance in SPSS. Chinese Journal of Health Statistics, 2013, 30(6): 913-914. |
申希平, 祁海萍, 刘小宁, 等. 两因素非参数方差分析在SPSS中的实现. 中国卫生统计, 2013, 30(6): 913-914. | |
25 | Bacchi M, Monti M, Calvi A, et al. Forage potential of cereal/legume intercrops: agronomic performances, yield, quality forage and LER in two harvesting times in a Mediterranean environment. Agronomy-Basel, 2021, 11(1): 121. |
26 | Sun J, Gong L, Lian L, et al. Effect of altitude and mixed-sowing ratio on forage production and quality of oat and common vetch. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(10): 2438-2449. |
孙杰, 巩林, 连露, 等. 海拔高度和混播比例对燕麦与箭筈豌豆产草量及质量的影响. 草业科学, 2018, 35(10): 2438-2449. | |
27 | 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. | |
28 | Guo C Y, Wang W, Pu X J, et al. Effects of sowing method and row spacing on production performance and interspecific relationship of oat/forage pea mixed grassland. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(9): 2483-2491. |
郭常英, 王伟, 蒲小剑, 等. 播种方式和行距对燕麦/饲用豌豆混播草地生产性能及种间关系的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(9): 2483-2491. | |
29 | Xie K Y, Zhao Y, Li X L, et al. Relationships between grasses and legumes in mixed grassland: A review. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(3): 284-296. |
谢开云, 赵云, 李向林, 等. 豆-禾混播草地种间关系研究进展. 草业学报, 2013, 22(3): 284-296. | |
30 | Ye T, Wu X J, Lu Y X, et al. Effect of planting ratio on the stability of forage yield and population density in two alfalfa-grass mixtures. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(5): 127-137. |
叶婷, 吴晓娟, 芦奕晓, 等. 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. 草业学报, 2023, 32(5): 127-137. | |
31 | Wang B, Deng J Q, Wang T F, et al. Effect of seeding options on interspecific competition in oat (Avena sativa L.)-common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) forage crops. Agronomy-Basel, 2022, 12(12), DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12123119. |
32 | Lithourgidis A S, Vasilakoglou I B, Dhima K V, et al. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research, 2006, 99(2): 106-113. |
33 | 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. |
[1] | Wen-long LI, Feng LI, Zhong-juan ZHANG, Dian-qing WANG, Huan WANG, Hui-qing JIN, Mu-re TE, Zhi-ling HU, Ya TAO. A performance evaluation of two crops of forage oats per year in the northern Ordos Plateau [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(1): 159-168. |
[2] | Jia-min ZHANG, Hao GUAN, Hai-ping LI, Zhi-feng JIA, Xiang MA, Wen-hui LIU, You-jun CHEN, Shi-yong CHEN, Yong-mei JIANG, Li GAN, Qing-ping ZHOU, Li-xue YANG. Effects of oat∶feed pea sowing ratio and lactic acid bacteria addition on crop silage fermentation and ruminal degradation characteristics of the resulting total mixed ration [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2024, 33(1): 169-181. |
[3] | Chun-yan REN, Guo-ling LIANG, Wen-hui LIU, Kai-qiang LIU, Jia-lei DUAN. Screening and adaptability evaluation of early maturing oats in alpine regions of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(9): 116-129. |
[4] | Yong-hong SHI, Peng GAO, Zhi-hong FANG, Xiang ZHAO, Wei HAN, Jiang-ming WEI, Lin LIU, Jin-zhen LI. Evaluation of resistance to Colletotrichum cereale and analysis of loss in a field of fifteen imported oat cultivars [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(9): 130-142. |
[5] | Zhen-fen ZHANG, Rong HUANG, Xiang-yang LI, Bo YAO, Gui-qin ZHAO. Seed-borne bacterial diversity of oat and functional analysis based on Illumina MiSeq high-throughput sequencing [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(7): 96-108. |
[6] | Zi-fan WANG, Xiao-qing ZHANG, Zhi-ming ZHONG, Xin QUAN. Effects of oat hay and oat cubes on feeding behavior and production performance of Pengbo semi-fine wool sheep [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(5): 171-179. |
[7] | Yi-dan YAN, Ying-ying NIE, Li-jun XU, Xing-fa GAO, Yan-zhang RAO, Xiong RAO, Hong-zhi ZHANG, Cha-shu ZHAO, Yan-ping ZHU, Yu-bo ZHU. Potential excavation and evaluation of functional oat varieties in winter fallow field of southwest mountainous area [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(4): 42-53. |
[8] | Le-le SU, Yan QIN, Zhao-min WANG, Yong-chao ZHANG, Wen-hui LIU. Soil nutrient and microbial activity responses to nitrogen and phosphorus addition in oats and arrowhead peas in monocrop and mixed sowings [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(3): 56-66. |
[9] | Lu-ping WEI, Qing-ping ZHOU, Fang LIU, Ji-zhen LIN, Yuan ZHAN, Hui WANG. Variation in ear characteristics and estimation of photosynthetic contributions to oat ear development using techniques of ear shading and glume removal [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(2): 110-118. |
[10] | Jian-xin LIU, Rui-rui LIU, Xiu-li LIU, Xiao-bin OU, Hai-yan JIA, Ting BU, Na LI. Effects of exogenous hydrogen sulfide on amino acid metabolism in naked oat leaves under saline-alkali stress [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(2): 119-130. |
[11] | Xue-ling YE, Zhen GAN, Yan WAN, Da-bing XIANG, Xiao-yong WU, Qi WU, Chang-ying LIU, Yu FAN, Liang ZOU. Advances and perspectives in forage oat breeding [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(2): 160-177. |
[12] | Ming NAN, Xing-rong WANG, Jing LI, Yan-ming LIU, Cheng-jun ZHANG, Ji-kuan CHAI, Gui-qin ZHAO. Differences in traits related to lodging resistance among oat genotypes [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(11): 106-118. |
[13] | Ya TAO, Li-jun XU, Feng LI, Wen-long LI, Qi-zhong SUN, Chang XU, Ke-jian LIN. The Leymus chinensis industry in China needs to be urgently revitalized [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(11): 188-198. |
[14] | Feng LI, Wen-long LI, Xue LI, Zhong-juan ZHANG, Lin-po BAI, Yu-fei ZHAO, Ya TAO. A multi-trait evaluation of the performance of 16 forage oat varieties in central and southern Heilongjiang Province [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(10): 82-92. |
[15] | Ji-peng TIAN, Bei-yi LIU, Hong-ru GU, Cheng-long DING, Yun-hui CHENG, Zhu YU. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and calcium propionate on fermentation quality and mycotoxin contents of whole plant maize and oat silages [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(8): 157-166. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||