Acta Prataculturae Sinica ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (1): 140-149.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020386
Previous Articles Next Articles
Hui-xin JIANG1(), Shan-shan BAI1, Bo WU2, Jing-yi SONG3, Guo-liang WANG2()
Received:
2020-06-29
Revised:
2020-09-27
Online:
2021-01-20
Published:
2021-01-08
Contact:
Guo-liang WANG
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.
编号Code | 品种Varieties | 来源Sources of varieties | 编号Code | 品种Varieties | 来源Sources of varieties |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 陇燕1号 Longyan No. 1 | 甘肃省 Gansu, China | 12 | 领袖 Souris | 美国 USA |
2 | 永久4号 Yongjiu No. 4 | 青海省 Qinghai, China | 13 | 贝勒 Baler | 加拿大Canada |
3 | 白燕7号 Baiyan No.7 | 吉林省 Jilin, China | 14 | 太阳神 Helios | 美国 USA |
4 | 青引1号 Qingyin No.1 | 青海省Qinghai, China | 15 | 福特 Foothill | 加拿大Canada |
5 | 青海甜燕麦Qinghai sweet oat | 青海省Qinghai, China | 16 | 甜燕1号 Sweety | 加拿大Canada |
6 | 青海444 Qinghai 444 | 青海省Qinghai, China | 17 | 甜燕2号Haywire | 加拿大Canada |
7 | 林纳 Linna | 青海省Qinghai, China | 18 | ESK | 澳大利亚 Australia |
8 | 加燕2号 Jiayan No.2 | 加拿大 Canada | 19 | 牧乐思 Molasses | 加拿大Canada |
9 | 美达 Monida | 美国 USA | 20 | 海威 Haiwee | 加拿大Canada |
10 | 燕王 Forage plus | 加拿大Canada | 21 | 莫妮卡 Monika | 加拿大Canada |
11 | 牧王 Haymaker | 加拿大Canada | 22 | 梦龙 Magnum | 澳大利亚Australia |
Table 1 The sources of 22 oat varieties
编号Code | 品种Varieties | 来源Sources of varieties | 编号Code | 品种Varieties | 来源Sources of varieties |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 陇燕1号 Longyan No. 1 | 甘肃省 Gansu, China | 12 | 领袖 Souris | 美国 USA |
2 | 永久4号 Yongjiu No. 4 | 青海省 Qinghai, China | 13 | 贝勒 Baler | 加拿大Canada |
3 | 白燕7号 Baiyan No.7 | 吉林省 Jilin, China | 14 | 太阳神 Helios | 美国 USA |
4 | 青引1号 Qingyin No.1 | 青海省Qinghai, China | 15 | 福特 Foothill | 加拿大Canada |
5 | 青海甜燕麦Qinghai sweet oat | 青海省Qinghai, China | 16 | 甜燕1号 Sweety | 加拿大Canada |
6 | 青海444 Qinghai 444 | 青海省Qinghai, China | 17 | 甜燕2号Haywire | 加拿大Canada |
7 | 林纳 Linna | 青海省Qinghai, China | 18 | ESK | 澳大利亚 Australia |
8 | 加燕2号 Jiayan No.2 | 加拿大 Canada | 19 | 牧乐思 Molasses | 加拿大Canada |
9 | 美达 Monida | 美国 USA | 20 | 海威 Haiwee | 加拿大Canada |
10 | 燕王 Forage plus | 加拿大Canada | 21 | 莫妮卡 Monika | 加拿大Canada |
11 | 牧王 Haymaker | 加拿大Canada | 22 | 梦龙 Magnum | 澳大利亚Australia |
项目 Item | 干物质产量 Dry matter yield (t·hm-2 ) | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 叶比重 Leaf ratio (%DM) | 茎比重 Stem ratio (%DM) | 穗比重 Spike ratio (%DM) | 茎叶比 Stem-leaf ratio | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
平均值Mean | 13.79 | 13.40 | 125.17 | 113.33 | 19.49 | 19.98 | 47.97 | 40.87 | 32.54 | 39.15 | 2.63 | 2.11 |
标准差Standard deviation | 1.68 | 1.70 | 8.24 | 11.12 | 5.62 | 4.02 | 4.02 | 4.34 | 7.82 | 6.84 | 0.64 | 0.40 |
最大值Maximum | 16.55 | 16.69 | 142.00 | 128.53 | 32.77 | 28.05 | 54.50 | 46.94 | 41.90 | 55.89 | 4.00 | 3.10 |
最小值Minimum | 11.12 | 10.74 | 110.80 | 91.37 | 11.80 | 12.65 | 41.03 | 30.63 | 12.73 | 29.88 | 1.40 | 1.43 |
极差Range | 5.43 | 5.95 | 31.20 | 37.16 | 20.97 | 15.40 | 13.47 | 16.31 | 29.17 | 26.01 | 2.60 | 1.67 |
变异系数Coefficient of variation (CV,%) | 12.18 | 12.69 | 6.58 | 9.81 | 28.84 | 20.12 | 8.38 | 10.62 | 24.03 | 17.47 | 24.33 | 18.96 |
Table 2 The difference of agronomical characteristics among 22 oat varieties
项目 Item | 干物质产量 Dry matter yield (t·hm-2 ) | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 叶比重 Leaf ratio (%DM) | 茎比重 Stem ratio (%DM) | 穗比重 Spike ratio (%DM) | 茎叶比 Stem-leaf ratio | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
平均值Mean | 13.79 | 13.40 | 125.17 | 113.33 | 19.49 | 19.98 | 47.97 | 40.87 | 32.54 | 39.15 | 2.63 | 2.11 |
标准差Standard deviation | 1.68 | 1.70 | 8.24 | 11.12 | 5.62 | 4.02 | 4.02 | 4.34 | 7.82 | 6.84 | 0.64 | 0.40 |
最大值Maximum | 16.55 | 16.69 | 142.00 | 128.53 | 32.77 | 28.05 | 54.50 | 46.94 | 41.90 | 55.89 | 4.00 | 3.10 |
最小值Minimum | 11.12 | 10.74 | 110.80 | 91.37 | 11.80 | 12.65 | 41.03 | 30.63 | 12.73 | 29.88 | 1.40 | 1.43 |
极差Range | 5.43 | 5.95 | 31.20 | 37.16 | 20.97 | 15.40 | 13.47 | 16.31 | 29.17 | 26.01 | 2.60 | 1.67 |
变异系数Coefficient of variation (CV,%) | 12.18 | 12.69 | 6.58 | 9.81 | 28.84 | 20.12 | 8.38 | 10.62 | 24.03 | 17.47 | 24.33 | 18.96 |
项目 Item | 粗蛋白 CP (%DM) | 粗脂肪 EE (%DM) | 灰分 Ash (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维NDF (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维ADF (%DM) | 酸性洗涤木质素ADL (%DM) | 相对饲用 价值 RFV | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
平均值Mean | 10.84 | 12.29 | 1.92 | 3.48 | 11.01 | 7.97 | 62.49 | 60.19 | 40.94 | 36.58 | 7.00 | 5.16 | 85.02 | 93.80 |
标准差Standard deviation | 0.97 | 1.10 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.82 | 0.59 | 2.17 | 3.22 | 1.92 | 2.57 | 0.57 | 0.52 | 4.95 | 8.49 |
最大值Maximum value | 12.30 | 13.88 | 2.28 | 4.02 | 11.88 | 8.52 | 67.77 | 65.51 | 45.20 | 40.73 | 7.80 | 5.90 | 94.47 | 114.94 |
最小值Minimum value | 9.61 | 10.55 | 1.55 | 2.94 | 10.23 | 7.11 | 58.39 | 52.59 | 38.05 | 30.72 | 6.21 | 3.95 | 73.70 | 81.23 |
极差Range | 2.69 | 3.33 | 0.73 | 1.08 | 1.65 | 1.41 | 9.38 | 12.92 | 7.15 | 10.01 | 1.59 | 1.95 | 20.77 | 33.71 |
变异系数Coefficient of variation (CV,%) | 8.95 | 8.95 | 16.67 | 10.92 | 7.45 | 7.40 | 3.47 | 5.35 | 4.69 | 7.03 | 8.14 | 10.08 | 5.82 | 9.05 |
Table 3 The difference of nutrient content and RFV among 22 oat varieties
项目 Item | 粗蛋白 CP (%DM) | 粗脂肪 EE (%DM) | 灰分 Ash (%DM) | 中性洗涤纤维NDF (%DM) | 酸性洗涤纤维ADF (%DM) | 酸性洗涤木质素ADL (%DM) | 相对饲用 价值 RFV | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
平均值Mean | 10.84 | 12.29 | 1.92 | 3.48 | 11.01 | 7.97 | 62.49 | 60.19 | 40.94 | 36.58 | 7.00 | 5.16 | 85.02 | 93.80 |
标准差Standard deviation | 0.97 | 1.10 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.82 | 0.59 | 2.17 | 3.22 | 1.92 | 2.57 | 0.57 | 0.52 | 4.95 | 8.49 |
最大值Maximum value | 12.30 | 13.88 | 2.28 | 4.02 | 11.88 | 8.52 | 67.77 | 65.51 | 45.20 | 40.73 | 7.80 | 5.90 | 94.47 | 114.94 |
最小值Minimum value | 9.61 | 10.55 | 1.55 | 2.94 | 10.23 | 7.11 | 58.39 | 52.59 | 38.05 | 30.72 | 6.21 | 3.95 | 73.70 | 81.23 |
极差Range | 2.69 | 3.33 | 0.73 | 1.08 | 1.65 | 1.41 | 9.38 | 12.92 | 7.15 | 10.01 | 1.59 | 1.95 | 20.77 | 33.71 |
变异系数Coefficient of variation (CV,%) | 8.95 | 8.95 | 16.67 | 10.92 | 7.45 | 7.40 | 3.47 | 5.35 | 4.69 | 7.03 | 8.14 | 10.08 | 5.82 | 9.05 |
项目Item | 株高Plant height | 叶比重Leaf ratio | 茎比重Stem ratio | 穗比重Spike ratio | 茎叶比Stem-leaf ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
干物质产量Dry matter yield | 0.306* | -0.062 | -0.066 | 0.079 | 0.050 |
粗蛋白CP | -0.276* | 0.514** | 0.237 | -0.476** | -0.470** |
相对饲用价值 RFV | -0.134 | -0.257* | -0.701** | 0.580** | -0.023 |
Table 4 Correlation coefficients between agronomics characteristics and dry matter yield, CP and RFV
项目Item | 株高Plant height | 叶比重Leaf ratio | 茎比重Stem ratio | 穗比重Spike ratio | 茎叶比Stem-leaf ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
干物质产量Dry matter yield | 0.306* | -0.062 | -0.066 | 0.079 | 0.050 |
粗蛋白CP | -0.276* | 0.514** | 0.237 | -0.476** | -0.470** |
相对饲用价值 RFV | -0.134 | -0.257* | -0.701** | 0.580** | -0.023 |
项目 Item | 类型 Types | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | |
干物质产量Dry matter yield (t·hm-2) | 13.50±1.24a | 13.67±1.28a | 13.75±1.87a | 13.43±1.69a |
株高Plant height (cm) | 111.17±11.21b | 114.53±4.32b | 125.21±9.58a | 115.42±10.60b |
叶比重Leaf ratio (%) | 16.72±2.46b | 22.19±1.79a | 17.22±3.17b | 23.71±4.76a |
茎比重Stem ratio (%) | 38.28±5.32c | 49.35±3.29a | 43.99±3.86b | 46.65±5.57ab |
穗比重Spike ratio (%) | 45.01±6.44a | 28.46±3.67c | 38.79±4.70b | 29.65±6.82c |
茎叶比Stem-leaf ratio (%) | 2.33±0.41ab | 2.24±0.23b | 2.65±0.58a | 2.06±0.53b |
粗蛋白CP (%) | 11.58±1.50ab | 11.23±0.73b | 11.11±1.10b | 12.17±1.20a |
粗脂肪EE (%) | 2.97±0.99a | 2.35±0.88a | 2.69±0.82a | 2.66±0.84a |
粗灰分Ash (%) | 9.00±1.70a | 9.95±1.47a | 9.37±1.64a | 9.77±1.75a |
中性洗涤纤维NDF (%) | 57.58±3.94c | 66.64±1.66a | 61.35±1.98b | 62.07±2.04b |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF (%) | 35.25±3.93c | 42.97±2.57a | 38.77±2.38b | 39.54±2.57b |
酸性洗涤木质素ADL (%) | 5.42±1.20b | 6.81±1.04a | 6.20±1.07ab | 6.09±0.95ab |
相对饲用价值 RFV | 100.03±11.86a | 77.47±4.56c | 89.17±5.51b | 87.23±5.49b |
Table 5 The comparison of agronomical characteristics, nutrient content and RFV among four oat types
项目 Item | 类型 Types | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Ⅰ | Ⅱ | Ⅲ | Ⅳ | |
干物质产量Dry matter yield (t·hm-2) | 13.50±1.24a | 13.67±1.28a | 13.75±1.87a | 13.43±1.69a |
株高Plant height (cm) | 111.17±11.21b | 114.53±4.32b | 125.21±9.58a | 115.42±10.60b |
叶比重Leaf ratio (%) | 16.72±2.46b | 22.19±1.79a | 17.22±3.17b | 23.71±4.76a |
茎比重Stem ratio (%) | 38.28±5.32c | 49.35±3.29a | 43.99±3.86b | 46.65±5.57ab |
穗比重Spike ratio (%) | 45.01±6.44a | 28.46±3.67c | 38.79±4.70b | 29.65±6.82c |
茎叶比Stem-leaf ratio (%) | 2.33±0.41ab | 2.24±0.23b | 2.65±0.58a | 2.06±0.53b |
粗蛋白CP (%) | 11.58±1.50ab | 11.23±0.73b | 11.11±1.10b | 12.17±1.20a |
粗脂肪EE (%) | 2.97±0.99a | 2.35±0.88a | 2.69±0.82a | 2.66±0.84a |
粗灰分Ash (%) | 9.00±1.70a | 9.95±1.47a | 9.37±1.64a | 9.77±1.75a |
中性洗涤纤维NDF (%) | 57.58±3.94c | 66.64±1.66a | 61.35±1.98b | 62.07±2.04b |
酸性洗涤纤维ADF (%) | 35.25±3.93c | 42.97±2.57a | 38.77±2.38b | 39.54±2.57b |
酸性洗涤木质素ADL (%) | 5.42±1.20b | 6.81±1.04a | 6.20±1.07ab | 6.09±0.95ab |
相对饲用价值 RFV | 100.03±11.86a | 77.47±4.56c | 89.17±5.51b | 87.23±5.49b |
品种 Varieties | 等权关联度分析Equal-weighted correlation analysis | 加权关联度分析Weighted correlation analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
等权关联度 Equal weight correlation degree | 排序 Order | 加权关联度 Weighted correlation degree | 排序 Order | |
陇燕1号 Longyan No. 1 | 0.635 | 17 | 0.657 | 16 |
永久4号 Yongjiu No. 4 | 0.612 | 20 | 0.631 | 20 |
白燕7号 Baiyan No.7 | 0.628 | 19 | 0.646 | 19 |
青引1号 Qingyin No.1 | 0.636 | 16 | 0.652 | 18 |
青海甜燕麦 Qinghai sweet oat | 0.631 | 18 | 0.656 | 17 |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 0.666 | 10 | 0.685 | 11 |
林纳 Linna | 0.732 | 3 | 0.753 | 3 |
加燕2号 Jiayan No.2 | 0.699 | 7 | 0.717 | 7 |
美达 Monida | 0.649 | 14 | 0.668 | 13 |
燕王 Forage plus | 0.607 | 21 | 0.624 | 21 |
牧王 Haymaker | 0.708 | 6 | 0.722 | 5 |
领袖 Souris | 0.759 | 2 | 0.773 | 2 |
贝勒 Baler | 0.788 | 1 | 0.805 | 1 |
太阳神 Helios | 0.664 | 11 | 0.690 | 10 |
福特 Foothill | 0.651 | 13 | 0.666 | 15 |
甜燕1号 Sweety | 0.653 | 12 | 0.670 | 12 |
甜燕2号Haywire | 0.587 | 22 | 0.604 | 22 |
ESK | 0.724 | 4 | 0.718 | 6 |
牧乐思 Molasses | 0.715 | 5 | 0.729 | 4 |
海威 Haiwee | 0.647 | 15 | 0.666 | 14 |
莫妮卡 Monika | 0.669 | 9 | 0.693 | 9 |
梦龙 Magnum | 0.677 | 8 | 0.702 | 8 |
Table 6 Grey correlative degree and order of 22 oat varieties
品种 Varieties | 等权关联度分析Equal-weighted correlation analysis | 加权关联度分析Weighted correlation analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
等权关联度 Equal weight correlation degree | 排序 Order | 加权关联度 Weighted correlation degree | 排序 Order | |
陇燕1号 Longyan No. 1 | 0.635 | 17 | 0.657 | 16 |
永久4号 Yongjiu No. 4 | 0.612 | 20 | 0.631 | 20 |
白燕7号 Baiyan No.7 | 0.628 | 19 | 0.646 | 19 |
青引1号 Qingyin No.1 | 0.636 | 16 | 0.652 | 18 |
青海甜燕麦 Qinghai sweet oat | 0.631 | 18 | 0.656 | 17 |
青海444 Qinghai 444 | 0.666 | 10 | 0.685 | 11 |
林纳 Linna | 0.732 | 3 | 0.753 | 3 |
加燕2号 Jiayan No.2 | 0.699 | 7 | 0.717 | 7 |
美达 Monida | 0.649 | 14 | 0.668 | 13 |
燕王 Forage plus | 0.607 | 21 | 0.624 | 21 |
牧王 Haymaker | 0.708 | 6 | 0.722 | 5 |
领袖 Souris | 0.759 | 2 | 0.773 | 2 |
贝勒 Baler | 0.788 | 1 | 0.805 | 1 |
太阳神 Helios | 0.664 | 11 | 0.690 | 10 |
福特 Foothill | 0.651 | 13 | 0.666 | 15 |
甜燕1号 Sweety | 0.653 | 12 | 0.670 | 12 |
甜燕2号Haywire | 0.587 | 22 | 0.604 | 22 |
ESK | 0.724 | 4 | 0.718 | 6 |
牧乐思 Molasses | 0.715 | 5 | 0.729 | 4 |
海威 Haiwee | 0.647 | 15 | 0.666 | 14 |
莫妮卡 Monika | 0.669 | 9 | 0.693 | 9 |
梦龙 Magnum | 0.677 | 8 | 0.702 | 8 |
1 | Li Z Q. Quality evaluation of oat hay. China Dairy Cattle, 2013(9): 1-3. |
李志强. 燕麦干草质量评价. 中国奶牛, 2013(9): 1-3. | |
2 | He Z Y. Advantage and application of oat hay in dairy cattle. China Dairy Cattle, 2015(17): 12-15. |
贺忠勇. 燕麦干草在奶牛生产中的优势及应用. 中国奶牛, 2015(17): 12-15. | |
3 | Liu H H, Guo Y H, Zhang Q E, et al. Research progress of nutritive value assessment method of oat grass. Feed Research, 2019(7): 110-113. |
刘欢欢, 郭雁华, 张巧娥, 等. 燕麦草营养价值评定方法的研究进展. 饲料研究, 2019(7): 110-113. | |
4 | Doran M P, Laca E A, Sainz R D. Total tract and rumen digestibility of mulberry foliage (Morus alba), alfalfa hay and oat hay in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2007, 138(3): 239-253. |
5 | Zhao D M. Current situation and development trend of oat production and utilization. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2016(22): 177-179. |
赵得明. 燕麦草生产利用现状及发展趋势. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2016(22): 177-179. | |
6 | Wang J F. The effect of forage quality on safety and health of dairy cows. China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2006, 33(1): 17-18. |
王吉峰. 牧草品质对奶牛安全健康生产的影响. 中国畜牧兽医, 2006, 33(1): 17-18. | |
7 | Zhang X K. Physiological characteristics and nutritional requirements of periparturient dairy cows. China Dairy Cattle, 2012(4): 62-65. |
张幸开. 围产期奶牛的生理特点和营养需求. 中国奶牛, 2012(4): 62-65. | |
8 | Oba M A, Allen M S. Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: Effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. Dairy Science, 1999, 82(3): 589-596. |
9 | Wang X W. Investigation report on feeding nutritional status of large-scale dairy farms in 16 provinces in China in 2013. China Dairy Cattle, 2015(159): 17-20. |
王兴文. 2013年全国16省(区、市)规模奶牛场饲料营养状况调查报告. 中国乳业, 2015(159): 17-20. | |
10 | Yang C, Wang G G, Wang M L. Production and trade of wild oat forage in China. Pratacultural Science, 2017, 34(5): 1129-1135. |
杨春, 王国刚, 王明利. 我国的燕麦草生产和贸易. 草业科学, 2017, 34(5): 1129-1135. | |
11 | Hou L Y, Zhu Z Y, Yang J, et al. Current status, problems and potentials of forage oat in China. Journal of Southwest Minzu University (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 | Wang Q, Li Z J, Li J, et al. Evaluation of agronomic and forage quality traits of a range of oat cultivars. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 149-158. |
王茜, 李志坚, 李晶, 等. 不同类型燕麦农艺和饲草品质性状分析. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12): 149-158. | |
13 | Wang J L, Ma L C, Shen Z B, et al. An evaluation of agronomic traits and genetic diversity among 51 oat germplasm accessions. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(2): 133-141. |
王建丽, 马利超, 申忠宝, 等. 基于遗传多样性评估燕麦品种的农艺性状. 草业学报, 2019, 28(2): 133-141. | |
14 | Shi J J, Xue Y W, Guo W, et al. Evaluation of forage yield and nutritional value of introduced oat germplasm resources. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2019, 39(9): 1063-1071. |
史京京, 薛盈文, 郭伟, 等. 引进燕麦种质资源饲草产量与饲用营养价值评价. 麦类作物学报, 2019, 39(9): 1063-1071. | |
15 | Sun J P, Dong K H, Kuai X Y, et al. Comparison of productivity and feeding value of introduced oat varieties in the agro-pasture ecotone of northern Shanxi. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(11): 222-230. |
孙建平, 董宽虎, 蒯晓妍, 等. 晋北农牧交错区引进燕麦品种生产性能及饲用价值比较. 草业学报, 2017, 26(11): 222-230. | |
16 | Ju Z L, Zhao G Q, Chai J K, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of nutritional value and silage fermentation quality of different oat varieties in central Gansu Province. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(9): 77-86. |
琚泽亮, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 等. 不同燕麦品种在甘肃中部的营养价值及青贮发酵品质综合评价. 草业学报, 2019, 28(9): 77-86. | |
17 | 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. | |
18 | Zhou Q L, Duo J D Z, Tu D Q P, et al. Genitic diversity anlysis of the main agronomic traits and nutritional in 18 oat cultivars introduced to Lhasa. Pratacultural Science, 2020, 37(3): 550-558. |
周启龙, 多吉顿珠, 土登群培, 等. 拉萨18个引进燕麦品种主要农艺性状和营养成分的遗传多样性分析. 草业科学, 2020, 37(3): 550-558. | |
19 | Lou C H, Wang B, Li D F, et al. Comparison of production performance and nutritional value of 16 oat varieties in Yellow River Beach area. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(7): 1843-1851. |
娄春华, 王博, 李德锋, 等. 黄河滩区16个春播燕麦品种的生产性能和营养品质. 草业科学, 2019, 36(7): 1843-1851. | |
20 | Wu Y, Zhang W H, Chen M H, et al. Productive performance comparison of different oat varieties in Yangzhou Region. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(7): 1728-1733. |
吴亚, 张卫红, 陈鸣晖, 等. 不同品种燕麦在扬州地区的生产性能. 草业科学, 2018, 35(1): 1728-1733. | |
21 | Zhao Y R, Gao F, Bai Q, et al. Screening of suitable oat varieties for early spring cultivation in Shandong Province. Journal of Qingdao Agricultural University (Natural Science), 2018, 35(1): 22-26. |
赵怡然, 高峰, 白仟, 等. 山东地区宜栽燕麦品种筛选. 青岛农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 35(1): 22-26. | |
22 | Yang S. Feed analysis and quality test technology. Beijing: Beijing Agricultural University Press, 1993: 21-28. |
杨胜. 饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术. 北京: 北京农业大学出版社, 1993: 21-28. | |
23 | Jiang H X, Bai S S, Wang Z F, et al. Effect of fineness and filter bag on NDF and ADF contents of forage. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2018, 26(2): 467-473. |
姜慧新, 柏杉杉, 王兆凤, 等. 粉碎细度与滤袋对饲草NDF与ADF含量的影响. 草地学报, 2018, 26(2): 467-473. | |
24 | Xiong Y, Xu Q F, Yu Z, et al. Evaluation of nutritional and feeding value of oat hay from different regions. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(10): 2457-2462. |
熊乙, 许庆方, 玉柱, 等. 不同产地燕麦干草养分及饲用价值. 草业科学, 2018, 35(10): 2457-2462. | |
25 | Wu J Y, Liu J H, Wang H D, et al. Yield performance of different oat varieties and correlation of its components. Crops, 2011(5): 36-40. |
武俊英, 刘景辉, 王怀栋, 等. 不同燕麦品种产量及其与构成因素的相关性研究. 作物杂志, 2011(5): 36-40. | |
26 | 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研究. 作物杂志, 2016(5): 44-49. | |
27 | Wang X, Rong X P, Wang F W, et al. Analysis of the main nutrients in whole plant, stem, leaf and panicle of mowing oat grass. Journal of Northern Agriculture, 2019, 47(1): 91-96. |
王鑫, 融晓萍, 王凤梧, 等. 刈青燕麦草全株及茎叶穗主要营养成分分析. 北方农业学报, 2019, 47(1): 91-96. | |
28 | Liang Q. The study on lignocellulose of 7 kinds of forage at different growth stages and evaluation of feeding. Taigu: Shanxi Agricultural University, 2019. |
梁琪. 7种饲草不同生育期木质纤维素及饲用评价. 太古: 山西农业大学, 2019. |
[1] | 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. |
[2] | YOU Yong-liang, LI Yuan, ZHAO Hai-ming, WU Rui-xin, LIU Gui-bo. Effects of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer application on yield and forage quality of forage triticale on the Haihe Plain [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(3): 137-146. |
[3] | ZHANG Yong-liang, YU Tie-feng, HAO Feng, GAO Kai. Effects of fertilization and legume-grass ratio on forage yield and NPK utilization efficiency [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11): 91-101. |
[4] | WANG Qian, LI Zhi-jian, LI Jing, ZHOU Bang-wei. Evaluation of agronomic and forage quality traits of a range of oat cultivars [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(12): 149-158. |
[5] | WANG Xue-Chun, WANG Hong-Ni, HUANG Jing, YANG Guo-Tao, HU Yun-Gao. Simulation of soil moisture dynamics and ryegrass growth in the hilly region of Sichuan Province using the environmental policy integrated climate model [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(9): 1-13. |
[6] | DUAN Qian-Wen, CHENG Hui, HOU Fu-Jiang. Using maturity to predict forage yield and nutritional quality of forage cereals in the Jingtai Oasis [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(6): 185-194. |
[7] | HUANG Yan, DUO Tian-Qi, YU Yao, YAO Feng-Jiao, JI Jing, KUANG Xiao, CUI Guo-Wen, HU Guo-Fu. Effect of fertilizer on the yield and forage quality of Glycine max [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(4): 211-217. |
[8] | LI Xiao-Dong, CAI Lu, ZHANG Yu, WANG Qian, MO Ben-Tian, HAN Yong-Fen, WANG Xiao-Li. AtmiR156a regulates the vegetative growth and forage quality of chicory (Cichorium intybus) [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(11): 160-166. |
[9] | YUE Yan-hong,QI Xiao,WANG Yan-rong,PENG Lan-qing,YU Ling. Persistence of 35 Medicago sativa varieties at the 10th year after establishment [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(1): 58-64. |
[10] | SHE Feng-xia, HAO Ming-de, ZANG Yi-fei. Alfalfa productivity and plateau characteristics in a gully region of the Loess Plateau [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(2): 313-317. |
[11] | DING Cheng-long, GU Hong-ru, XU Neng-xiang, CHENG Yun-hui. Effect of cutting time on the biomass production and forage quality of Lolium multiflorum [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(6): 186-194. |
[12] | LI Yan-zhong, NAN Zhi-biao, ZHANG Zhi-xin, LIU Yong-ru, GAO Xin-ye, ZHEN Jian-xun. Distribution of and damage caused by yellow stunt and root rot of Astragalus adsurgens in five northern provinces of China [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2011, 20(2): 39-45. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||