30个紫花苜蓿品种对苜蓿花叶病毒病的田间抗性初步研究

引用本文

郭志鹏, 冯长松, 张靖雪, 王苗利, 曲根, 刘建宇, 管永卓, 张晓婷, 郭玉霞, 严学兵. 30个紫花苜蓿品种对苜蓿花叶病毒病的田间抗性初步研究. 草业学报, 2019,28(4): 157-167
GUO Zhi-peng, FENG Chang-song, ZHANG Jing-xue, WANG Miao-li, QU Gen, LIU Jian-yu, GUAN Yong-zhuo, ZHANG Xiao-ting, GUO Yu-xia, YAN Xue-bing. Field resistance to alfalfa mosaic virus among 30 alfalfa varieties. Acta Prataculturae Sinica,2019,28(4): 157-167 复制到剪切板

Doi:10.11686/cyxb2018259
Permissions

本文属于开放获取期刊。

30个紫花苜蓿品种对苜蓿花叶病毒病的田间抗性初步研究

郭志鹏¹, 冯长松², 张靖雪¹, 王苗利¹, 曲根¹, 刘建宇¹, 管永卓¹, 张晓婷¹, 郭玉霞^1,^*, 严学兵^3,^*

1.河南农业大学牧医工程学院,河南郑州 450002

2.河南省农业科学院畜牧所,河南郑州 450002

3.扬州大学动物科学与技术学院,江苏扬州 225000

*通信作者Corresponding author. E-mail: yuxiaguo@163.com; yxbbjzz@163.com

作者简介:郭志鹏(1991-),男,河南焦作人,在读硕士。Email: 15839186156@163.com

收稿日期: 2018-04-24

基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目(31502006),国家重点研发计划项目(2017YFD0502104)和河南省高等学校重点科研项目(15A230019)资助

摘要

为了比较不同紫花苜蓿品种对病毒病的抗性,对30个紫花苜蓿品种的病毒病发病情况进行了田间调查,利用小RNA深度测序技术结合RT-PCR技术检测鉴定各紫花苜蓿品种中的病毒种类,并测定了各紫花苜蓿品种的发病率、病情指数、相对株高、相对单株干重、相对茎秆直径、相对叶面积、相对叶长和相对叶宽,综合比较各紫花苜蓿品种的抗性,并对部分指标进行系统聚类分析。结果表明:30个紫花苜蓿品种均只受到苜蓿花叶病毒(alfalfa mosaic virus, AMV)的侵染,所有紫花苜蓿品种的田间发病率均超过94%,病情指数范围为31.53~55.50;30个紫花苜蓿品种中,抗性较强的品种有1个,为射手2号,抗性一般的品种有6个,其余23个品种的抗性较差,分别占供试品种的3.33%,20.00%和76.67%;聚类分析结果表明,抗性较强的射手2号与其他紫花苜蓿品种的亲缘关系较远,与其杂交有可能产生较大的杂种优势。

关键词: 苜蓿品种; 病毒病; 抗性; 聚类分析

Field resistance to alfalfa mosaic virus among 30 alfalfa varieties

GUO Zhi-peng¹, FENG Chang-song², ZHANG Jing-xue¹, WANG Miao-li¹, QU Gen¹, LIU Jian-yu¹, GUAN Yong-zhuo¹, ZHANG Xiao-ting¹, GUO Yu-xia^1,^*, YAN Xue-bing^3,^*

1.College of Animal and Veterinary Science, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, China

2.Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Zhengzhou 450002, China

3.College of Animal Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225000, China

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the resistance of different alfalfa varieties to virus disease. Virus loads of 30 alfalfa varieties were investigated in plants in the field. The virus species present in the alfalfa plants were detected and identified using small RNA high-throughput sequencing and RT-PCR technology. Data collected for the 30 alfalfa varieties included the virus incidence rate, disease index, relative plant height, relative dry weight per plant, relative stem diameter, relative leaf area, relative leaf length and relative leaf width, and these data were used to comprehensively compare the disease resistance of the 30 tested varieties. Cluster analysis of some traits was also carried out. Among the 30 tested alfalfa varieties, only alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV) infection was detected. The field incidence of AMV in all alfalfa varieties was more than 94%, and the values of the multivariate disease index ranged from 31.53 to 55.50. There was 1 resistant variety (Sheshou No.2); there were 6 partially resistant varieties, and 23 susceptible varieties. The cluster analysis indicated that Sheshou No.2 had an AMV resistance profile far different from all other alfalfa varieties, as indicated by the measured traits. It can be speculated that hybridization of other varieties with Sheshou No. 2 would produce high heterosis.

Keyword: alfalfa variety; virus disease; resistance; cluster analysis

Show Figures

紫花苜蓿(Medicago sativa)是世界上栽培最早、种植面积最大、利用价值最高的一种多年生优质豆科牧草^[1], 有“ 牧草之王” 的美誉^[2]。其在农牧业生产中有着不可替代的作用^[3]。我国是畜牧大国, 对苜蓿草的需求很大, 2015年我国的苜蓿商品干草产量为123万t, 进口苜蓿为121万t^[4]。农业部发布的苜蓿产业“ 十三五” 规划提出, 到2020年, 全国优质苜蓿产量将达到540万t^[5]。随着我国苜蓿种植面积的不断增加以及种植年限的延长, 苜蓿病毒病害的发生越来越严重, 已成为限制苜蓿产业发展的重要原因之一^[6]。目前国内对苜蓿病毒病的研究甚少, 韩玉静等^[7]、张丽^[8]、王瑜等^[9]、张蓉等^[10]、杨雨翠^[11]和张芯伪^[12]仅仅调查了苜蓿花叶病的田间发病率。周其宇等^[6]通过病原检测对侵染苜蓿的苜蓿花叶病毒、白三叶(Trifolium repens)花叶病毒、菜豆(Phaseolus vulgaris)黄花叶病毒和豇豆(Vigna unguiculata)花叶病毒进行了鉴定, 并测定了这4种病毒的寄主范围。南志标^[13]研究了苜蓿花叶病对苜蓿田间产量和质量的影响。国外的研究发现侵染苜蓿的病毒至少有31种^{[14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]}。

以往在苜蓿病毒病的研究中, 多是在病毒种类的鉴定上进行试验, 有关苜蓿不同品种对病毒病的抗性研究尚未见报道。目前, 国内栽培的苜蓿品种繁多, 不同地区不同品种的抗性表现不同, 在引种苜蓿时, 评价不同品种苜蓿对病毒病的抗性是很有必要的, 以筛选适应本地种植的优质高产的苜蓿品种。本研究利用小RNA深度测序技术结合RT-PCR技术检测鉴定30个紫花苜蓿品种中的病毒种类, 并测定各紫花苜蓿品种的发病率、病情指数、相对株高、相对单株干重、相对茎秆直径、相对叶面积、相对叶长和相对叶宽, 比较各紫花苜蓿品种的抗性表现, 筛选出抗性较强的品种, 同时测定病毒病对各紫花苜蓿品种茎叶比的影响。并分析病情指数等7个性状之间的相关性, 基于这7个性状表现, 对30个紫花苜蓿品种进行聚类分析, 以期为进一步开展苜蓿种质资源的评价和利用提供科学依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 试验地概况

试验地位于河南省新乡市原阳县平原示范区河南现代农业研究开发基地, 地处黄河流域下游, 地下水资源丰富, 常年平均地下水位在5~8 m, 属淡水, pH值为6~8, 适宜农作物灌溉; 土质为砂壤土, 土壤有机质含量高(10 g· kg^-1左右); 属暖温带季风气候, 春季干旱风沙多, 夏季炎热雨集中, 秋季光足温差大, 冬季干冷季节长。年平均气温14.4 ℃, 全年无霜期224 d, 全年日照1938 h, 灌区冬春季盛行东北风、西北风, 夏秋季盛行东南风、南风, 年平均风速为3.4 m· s^-1, 瞬时最大风速为24 m· s^-1。年季节变率较大, 旱涝交替出现, 但旱多于涝, 雨量多集中在6-9月, 占全年降水量的71%左右。

1.2 田间实验设计

试验地为河南省新乡市原阳县平原示范区河南现代农业研究开发基地内的一块连片的矩形平整地块, 播种前统一翻耙、整地, 并分好区块。于2013年9月随机播种30个紫花苜蓿品种(表1), 每个品种种植3个区块, 每个区块占地面积2 m× 5 m, 各区块间相隔0.5 m, 种植过程中正常管理, 不施肥、不喷洒农药, 仅进行人工除草。于2017年4月25日对苜蓿各项指标进行测定。

表1 参试紫花苜蓿品种及其来源 Table 1 Testing alfalfa varieties in the experiment and their resources

1.3 测定指标及方法

1.3.1 发病率和病情指数测定采用“ W” 形调查法, 每个苜蓿品种调查5个样方, 每个样方面积为0.71 m× 0.71 m, 每个样方调查20株, 共100株, 记录所调查苜蓿植株发病数, 计算发病率, 根据苜蓿病毒病的分级标准(表2)计算病情指数^[6], 具体如下:

发病率= $\frac{发病株数}{调查总株数}$ × 100%

病情指数= $\frac{\sum (各级病叶数 \times 各级代表值)}{调查总叶片数 \times 最高一级代表值} \times 100$

表 2 苜蓿病毒病分级标准 Table 2 Classification standard of alfalfa virus disease

1.3.2 相对株高、相对单株干重和相对茎秆直径的测定每个品种选取有代表性的健康植株和发病植株各6株, 测株高(地面量至最高处垂直距离)、单株干重(将单株鲜样放入信封袋中, 在烘箱中105 ℃杀青25 min, 65 ℃烘干24 h后测其干重)和茎秆直径(每株苜蓿从顶部下数第4节茎秆的中部测其直径)。根据如下公式计算相对株高、相对单株干重和相对茎秆直径:

相对株高= $\frac{各发病植株的实际高度}{各健康植株的高度平均值}$

相对单株干重= $\frac{各发病单株的实际干重}{各健康单株的干重平均值}$

相对茎秆直径= $\frac{各发病植株的实际茎秆直径}{各健康植株的茎秆直径平均值}$

1.3.3 相对叶面积、相对叶长、相对叶宽和相对叶茎比的测定选取植株从顶部下数第2节处的三小叶, 用数字式叶面积仪(ADC生物科学有限公司, 设备类型:AM300-002, 序列号:31848)测其叶面积、叶长和叶宽, 每个苜蓿品种选取健康植株和发病植株各9株。根据如下公式计算相对叶面积、相对叶长和相对叶宽:

相对叶面积= $\frac{各发病植株的实际叶面积}{各健康单株的叶面积平均值}$

相对叶长= $\frac{各发病植株的实际叶长}{各健康单株的叶长平均值}$

相对叶宽= $\frac{各发病植株的实际叶宽}{各健康单株的叶宽平均值}$

刈割留茬高度4 cm, 每个品种取健康植株和发病植株各500 g鲜草进行茎叶分离, 分别称重, 在烘箱中105 ℃杀青25 min, 65 ℃烘干24 h后称重, 计算叶茎比。根据如下公式计算相对叶茎比:

相对叶茎比= $\frac{各发病植株的实际叶茎比}{各健康单株的叶茎比平均值}$

1.4 苜蓿病毒种类的分子生物学验证

将调查采集的30个紫花苜蓿品种病叶样用锡箔纸包被并做好标记, 立即放入液氮速冻, 回到实验室后立即保存在-80 ℃冰箱备用, 用北京艾德莱生物科技有限公司的EASY spin植物micro RNA快速提取试剂盒, 分别提取30个紫花苜蓿品种的病样总RNA, 并送至北京百迈客生物科技有限公司进行小RNA深度测序。通过对测序数据的过滤、拼接、BLAST分析初步筛查病毒相关序列, 随后利用反转录PCR扩增和克隆测序技术进一步确定病毒种类。

1.5 数据统计分析

采用Microsoft Excel进行数据的处理, 采用SPSS 22.0软件对数据进行方差分析和多重比较^[21]; 利用DPS 6.55软件对30个紫花苜蓿品种的部分性状进行相关性分析和系统聚类分析。

2 结果与分析

2.1 苜蓿病毒病的田间症状类型

田间调查发现, 苜蓿感染病毒病原后, 主要有以下症状类型(图1)。黄斑花叶:沿叶脉产生相间的黄色条点, 严重的出现黄条斑, 并产生黄条状或者不规则形状花叶(图1A); 斑驳花叶:叶面整体凹凸不平, 出现黄绿斑点或者黄绿相间花叶(图1B); 黄化:植株叶面整体黄化发亮, 叶脉也出现黄化(图1C); 皱缩:叶片无规则扭曲皱缩, 不能展平, 叶片颜色并未发生变化(图1D); 花叶皱缩:叶面无规则扭曲皱缩, 不能展平, 叶片出现黄色斑点或者花色条纹, 植株出现褪绿现象(图1E); 丛簇矮化:植株明显矮小, 中上部叶片无规则扭曲皱缩, 不能展平, 有的皱缩叶片有坏死征兆(图1F)。

	Figure Option View Download New Window
	图1 苜蓿病毒病田间症状类型 A: 黄斑花叶Macular mosaic; B: 斑驳花叶Mottle mosaic; C: 黄化Etiolation; D: 皱缩Shrinkage; E: 花叶皱缩Mosaic shrinkage; F: 矮化Dwarf; G: 健康Healthy.Fig.1 Symptom types of alfalfa virus disease in the field

2.2 苜蓿样品病毒种类的检测

30个苜蓿品种病样经过小RNA测序、过滤、拼接后, 将拼接片段比对至NCBI病毒核酸数据库, BLASTn初步比对到3种病毒:苜蓿花叶病毒(alfalfa mosaic virus, AMV)、苜蓿卷叶病毒(alfalfa leaf curl virus, ALCV)和苜蓿矮缩病毒(alfalfa dwarf virus, ADV)。之后利用这些拼接片段设计引物, 利用RT-PCR和克隆测序技术进一步验证侵染苜蓿的病毒种类, 最终只有AMV扩增出特异片段(上游引物-F序列5'-3':AACGGTGCGTATAGATGCCG, 下游引物-R序列5'-3':TTAATCCACCCAGTGGAGGTCA), 该特异片段大小为876 bp, 其中包含AMV的外壳蛋白基因组全序列(图2)。之后将该片段克隆测序并与NCBI中的AMV外壳蛋白基因(GenBank数据库登录号:MF075254.1)进行同源性比对, 其同源性均超过了95%, 因此可以判定这30个苜蓿品种均受到了苜蓿花叶病毒的侵染。

	Figure Option View Download New Window
	图2 PCR验证AMV的存在 M代表DNA分子量标准; 1~30分别代表利用F和R引物对对30个苜蓿品种的病样扩增得到的特异条带。Fig.2 PCR validation for the presence of the AMV M represents DNA marker (DL 1000 DNA Marker). Lane 1 to 30 represent PCR using primers of F and R of 30 alfalfa varieties, respectively.

2.3 苜蓿病毒病的田间发病情况

30个苜蓿品种的田间发病率均超过了90%(表3), 除大富豪外的其余29个苜蓿品种的田间发病率均超过了95%, 惊喜、WL-903、三得利、金皇后、猎人河、维多利亚、飞马、爱菲尼特、赛迪和四季旺的田间发病率均为100%, 显著高于WL-525、和田大叶和大富豪(P< 0.05)。30个苜蓿品种的病情指数范围为31.53~55.50, 从病情指数上来看, 不同苜蓿品种间的抗病性有所不同, 其中, 顶点的抗病性最强(病情指数为31.53), 惊喜的抗病性最弱(55.50), 显著弱于除WL-903、敖汉、8920MF、兼用苜蓿、苜蓿王和皇后2000外的其余23个苜蓿品种(P< 0.05); 丰叶721、盛世、阿迪娜和大富豪的抗病性较强(33.95~37.19), WL-903、敖汉、8920MF、兼用苜蓿、苜蓿王和皇后2000的抗病性较弱(46.31~52.51), 其余18个苜蓿品种的抗病性中等。

表3 30个苜蓿品种的病毒病发病情况 Table 3 Incidence of alfalfa virus disease of 30 alfalfa varieties

2.4 苜蓿病毒病对30个紫花苜蓿品种表观指标的影响

30个苜蓿品种的表观指标与对照相比有所不同, 不同品种间的同一指标也各有差异(表4)。从相对株高来看, 30个苜蓿品种均低于对照, 其中, 敖汉的抗病性最强(相对株高为0.93), 显著强于除和田大叶、兼用苜蓿、苜蓿王、丰叶721和大富豪外的其余24个苜蓿品种(P< 0.05), 赛迪的抗病性最弱(0.43), 显著弱于除8920MF外的其余28个苜蓿品种(P< 0.05); 和田大叶、兼用苜蓿、苜蓿王、丰叶721和大富豪的抗病性较强(0.80~0.92), 8920MF、丰宝、WL-525、阿尔冈金、盛世和先行者的抗病性较弱(0.47~0.64), 其余17个苜蓿品种的抗病性中等。

表4 苜蓿病毒病对30个紫花苜蓿品种表观指标的影响 Table 4 Effect of alfalfa virus disease on plant appearance index of 30 alfalfa varieties

品种 Varieties	相对株高 Relative plant height	相对单株干重 Relative dry weight per plant	相对茎秆直径 Relative stem diameter	相对叶面积 Relative leaf area	相对叶长 Relative leaf length	相对叶宽 Relative leaf width
对照 CK	1.00a	1.00a	1.00ab	1.00a	1.00a	1.00bcd
苜蓿王 Alfaking	0.86bcde	0.56cdefg	0.74efghijk	0.78bcd	0.84bcd	0.89defghij
惊喜 Surprise	0.74defghij	0.32fghij	0.78defghi	0.65cdefgh	0.78cdefgh	0.84efghijk
WL-903	0.78cdefghi	0.47cdefghi	0.92abc	0.41jklm	0.57l	0.74jklm
敖汉 Aohan	0.93ab	0.41defghij	0.68ghijk	0.33m	0.44m	0.73klm
先行者 Pioneer	0.64hij	0.48cdefghi	0.74efghijk	0.43ijklm	0.55lm	0.76ijklm
WL-525	0.62j	0.32fghij	0.67hijk	0.77bcdef	0.71defghijk	1.05bc
WL-343	0.66ghij	0.35efghij	0.83cdefg	0.59defghijk	0.70efghijk	0.81ghijkl
三得利 Sanditi	0.78cdefghi	0.30fghij	0.69ghijk	0.57fghijk	0.76defghi	0.77ijklm
金皇后 Gold empress	0.74defghij	0.27ghij	0.75efghij	0.59defghijk	0.61jkl	0.99bcde
德宝 Derby	0.78cdefghi	0.58cdef	0.73fghijk	0.87ab	0.95ab	0.96bcdef
猎人河 Hunter river	0.79cdefgh	0.68bcd	0.75efghijk	0.58efghijk	0.79cdefg	0.72klm
丰宝 Powerplant	0.62j	0.43defghij	0.64ijk	0.41jklm	0.57l	0.74jklm
维多利亚 Victoria	0.72efghij	0.46cdefghij	0.92abcd	0.97a	0.82cdef	1.18a
射手2号 Sheshou No.2	0.69fghij	0.91ab	1.05a	0.99a	0.89abc	1.09ab
胖多 Pondus	0.66ghij	0.31fghij	0.76efghi	0.37lm	0.55lm	0.68lm
顶点 Dingdian	0.75defghij	0.38efghij	0.78defghi	0.61cdefghij	0.67ghijkl	0.89defghij
飞马 Grandeur	0.70fghij	0.74bc	0.91bcd	0.78bcde	0.83bcde	0.95cdefg
爱菲尼特 Affinity	0.75defghij	0.44defghij	0.65ijk	0.54ghijkl	0.65hijkl	0.84fghijk
赛迪 Sandy	0.43k	0.18j	0.64ijk	0.53ghijkl	0.66ghijkl	0.78ijklm
四季旺 Siriver	0.71efghij	0.46defghij	0.76efghi	0.66cdefgh	0.84bcde	0.75ijklm
和田大叶 Hetian daye	0.92abc	0.28ghij	0.87bcdef	0.64cdefgh	0.69fghijkl	0.93cdefgh
兼用苜蓿Jianyongxing	0.88abcd	0.47cdefghi	0.67hijk	0.41jklm	0.58kl	0.72klm
大富豪 Millionaire	0.80bcdefg	0.52cdefgh	0.80cdefgh	0.62cdefghi	0.73defghij	0.85efghijk
皇后2000 Queen 2000	0.76defghij	0.63cde	0.88bcde	0.52ghijklm	0.63ijkl	0.82fghijkl
8920MF	0.47k	0.41defghij	0.60k	0.71bcdefg	0.73defghij	0.90defghi
盛世 Millennmium	0.64ij	0.21ij	0.60jk	0.80bc	0.74defghij	1.09ab
THG	0.68fghij	0.23hij	0.63ijk	0.40klm	0.63ijkl	0.65m
阿迪娜 Adrenalin	0.79cdefgh	0.35efghij	0.69ghijk	0.49hijklm	0.67ghijkl	0.76ijklm
丰叶721 Amerileaf 721	0.82bcdef	0.49cdefghi	0.75efghij	0.54ghijkl	0.66ghijkl	0.79hijklm
阿尔冈金Algonguin	0.63ij	0.36efghij	0.72ghijk	0.68bcdefgh	0.76cdefghi	0.84efghijk

表4 苜蓿病毒病对30个紫花苜蓿品种表观指标的影响 Table 4 Effect of alfalfa virus disease on plant appearance index of 30 alfalfa varieties

从相对单株干重来看, 病毒病对各品种苜蓿的影响较大, 除了射手2号、飞马、猎人河和皇后2000外的其余26个苜蓿品种的相对单株干重均低于0.60, 其中, 射手2号的抗病性最强(相对单株干重为0.91), 显著强于除飞马和猎人河外的其余27个苜蓿品种(P< 0.05), 赛迪的抗病性最弱(0.18); 飞马的抗病性较强(0.74), 猎人河、皇后2000、德宝、苜蓿王和大富豪的抗病性中等(0.52~0.68), 其余22个苜蓿品种的抗病性较弱, 其相对单株干重均低于0.50。

从相对茎秆直径来看, 射手2号的抗病性最强(相对茎秆直径为1.05), 显著强于除WL-903和维多利亚外的其余27个苜蓿品种(P< 0.05), 8920MF和盛世的抗病性最弱(均为0.60); WL-903、维多利亚、飞马、皇后2000和和田大叶的抗病性较强(0.87~0.92), THG、赛迪、丰宝、爱菲尼特、兼用苜蓿、WL-525、敖汉、阿迪娜和三得利的抗病性较弱(0.63~0.69), 其余13个苜蓿品种的抗病性中等。

从相对叶面积来看, 射手2号的抗病性最强(相对叶面积为0.99), 显著强于除维多利亚和德宝外的其余27个苜蓿品种(P< 0.05), 敖汉的抗病性最弱(0.33), 显著弱于除胖多、THG、丰宝、兼用苜蓿和WL-903外的其余24个苜蓿品种(P< 0.05); 维多利亚、德宝和盛世的抗病性较强(0.80~0.97), 胖多、THG、WL-903、丰宝、兼用苜蓿、先行者和阿迪娜的抗病性较弱(0.37~0.49), 其余18个苜蓿品种的抗病性中等。

30个苜蓿品种间的相对叶长和相对叶宽的差异与叶面积类似, 从相对叶长来看, 德宝、射手2号、苜蓿王、四季旺、飞马、和维多利亚的抗病性较强(0.82~0.95); 敖汉、胖多、先行者、丰宝、WL-903和兼用苜蓿的抗病性较弱(0.44~0.58)。从相对叶宽来看, 维多利亚、射手2号、盛世、WL-525、金皇后、德宝、飞马、和田大叶和8920MF的抗病性较强(0.90~1.18); THG、胖多、兼用苜蓿、猎人河、敖汉、丰宝和WL903的抗病性较弱(0.65~0.74)。

2.5 苜蓿病毒病对30个紫花苜蓿品种叶茎比的影响

30个苜蓿品种的相对叶茎比与对照相比, 差异各有不同(图3), 有21个苜蓿品种的相对叶茎比高于对照, 其中, 丰宝(1.79)、赛迪(1.54)和先行者(1.40)的相对叶茎比极显著高于对照(P< 0.01), 惊喜(1.31)、大富豪(1.30)、WL-903(1.29)、维多利亚(1.28)、WL-525(1.28)和盛世(1.28)的相对叶茎比显著高于对照(P< 0.05), 其余12个苜蓿品种的相对叶茎比为1.00~1.24, 与对照相比差异不显著(P> 0.05); 剩余的9个苜蓿品种的相对叶茎比均低于对照, 其中兼用苜蓿(0.59)的相对叶茎比极显著均低于对照(P< 0.01), 其余8个苜蓿品种的相对叶茎比为0.75~1.00, 与对照相比差异不显著(P> 0.05)。

	Figure Option View Download New Window
	图3 苜蓿病毒病对30个苜蓿品种相对叶茎比的影响 * 表示在P< 0.05水平上显著差异, * * 表示在P< 0.01水平上极显著差异。Fig.3 Effect of alfalfa virus disease on plant appearance index of 30 alfalfa varieties * indicates significant difference at P< 0.05 level, * * indicates significant difference at P< 0.01 level.

2.6 不同苜蓿品种农艺性状间的相关分析

由表5可知, 相对单株干重与相对茎秆直径、相对叶面积、相对叶长的相关系数分别为0.61、0.37和0.41, 达到显著正相关(P< 0.05), 其中单株干重与相对茎秆直径达到极显著正相关(P< 0.01); 相对茎秆直径与相对叶面积的相关系数为0.38, 达到显著正相关(P< 0.05); 相对叶面积与相对叶长、相对叶宽的关系数均为0.87, 达到极显著正相关(P< 0.01); 相对叶长与相对叶宽的相关系数为0.54, 达到极显著正相关(P< 0.01); 病情指数与其余6个农艺性状间的相关性均不显著(P> 0.05)。

表5 30个苜蓿品种7个性状之间的相关系数 Table 5 The correlation coefficient of the 7 characters in 30 alfalfa varieties

2.7 不同品种之间7个性状的聚类分析

将各苜蓿品种的病情指数、株高、单株干重、茎秆直径、叶面积、叶长和叶宽分别作为指标, 由于各指标的调查量纲不同, 首先对各指标的平均数进行标准化处理, 采用系统聚类, 聚类距离运用欧氏距离, 采用最短距离法, 对30个苜蓿品种进行聚类分析(图4)。在2.60距离水平上, 30个苜蓿品种聚类分为2个组群, 第一组群只有射手2号一个苜蓿品种, 占3.33%; 第二组群有29个苜蓿品种, 占96.67%。在2.40距离水平上, 第二组群又可以分为3个亚群, 以此类推。从聚类结果可以看出, 综合抗病性较强的品种射手2号与其他苜蓿品种的亲缘关系较远, 利用射手2号品种与其他苜蓿品种杂交可能产生较大的杂交优势。

	Figure Option View Download New Window
	图4 30个苜蓿品种7个性状遗传关系聚类分析Fig.4 Dendrogram of genetic affinity based on the 7 characters analysis in 30 alfalfa varieties

3 结论与讨论

田间调查表明, 30个苜蓿品种的田间发病率为94.07%~100%, 说明在田间这些苜蓿品种对病毒病并无绝对抗性。本研究调查苜蓿病毒病的田间发病率和病情指数(31.53~55.50)均高于周其宇等^[6]的田间调查结果(田间发病率为16.08%~43.33%, 病情指数为6.25~26.08)。蓟马、蚜虫、传粉昆虫等均可传播病毒病^[22], 蓟马危害苜蓿后可加重苜蓿的病害表现^[6], 本研究试验地周围杂草较多, 夏季虫害较为严重, 伴随着害虫的繁殖, 将更加有利于苜蓿病毒病的传播, 加重病情^[23], 这可能是影响调查结果的一个主要原因; 另外苜蓿病害随着种植年限的增长而加重^[13], 本研究的苜蓿品种均为种植的第5个年头, 种植年限较长, 加重了病害程度的积累, 这可能是造成此结果的另一个主要原因。

从各指标的相关分析结果可以看出, 供试苜蓿品种的病情指数和株高、单株干重、茎秆直径、叶面积、叶长、叶宽均无显著相关性, 史凤玉等^[24]在野生大豆(Glycine soja)病毒病的调查中发现病情指数和株高、叶色、叶形、单荚粒数、茎色、茸毛色等农艺性状均无显著相关性, 本研究结果与此类似。在苜蓿病毒病对苜蓿品种叶茎比的影响中发现, 30个苜蓿品种中, 21个苜蓿品种的叶茎比高于对照, 9个苜蓿品种的叶茎比低于对照, 可能是病毒侵染苜蓿后, 对不同品种苜蓿叶和茎的影响不同, 仅从本研究可以看出病毒病对多数苜蓿品种茎的抑制作用要强于叶, 具体原因有待于进一步研究。

史凤玉等^[24]、彭冠云^[25]、陈博等^[26]对病毒病的抗性评价中仅以病情指数作为评价指标, 采用单一指标来评价苜蓿的抗病性存在不稳定性和片面性, 用多个指标进行综合评价才较为可靠^[27]。根据病情指数、株高、单株干重、茎秆直径、叶面积、叶长和叶宽指标的综合评定, 射手2号对苜蓿病毒病的抗性较强, 飞马、猎人河、德宝、大富豪、丰叶721和皇后2000对苜蓿病毒病的抗性一般, 其余23个苜蓿品种对苜蓿病毒病的抗性较差, 分别占供试品种的3.33%, 20.00%和76.67%。这与大豆在病毒病的抗性结果类似^[28], 也与苜蓿对其他叶部病害的抗性结果类似^{[29, 30]}, 大多数品种属于高感或者感病, 少数品种具有较好的抗性, 缺少高抗品种。

将遗传距离较远的2个材料进行杂交, 可能获得较大的杂种优势^[31]。通过聚类分析的方法可直观看出各品种间的距离^[32]。本研究通过对各苜蓿品种的7个农艺性状的聚类分析发现, 抗病毒病较好的射手2号与其他苜蓿品种的亲缘关系较远, 在苜蓿育种中, 通过射手2号与其他农艺性状表现良好的苜蓿品种进行杂交, 可能拓宽苜蓿遗传育种的种质, 选育出质优高产抗病的苜蓿品种。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

参考文献

View Option

[1]	Xie K Y, He F, Li X L, et al. Analysis of soil and plant nutrients in alfalfa fields in China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(3): 202-214. 谢开云, 何峰, 李向林, 等. 我国紫花苜蓿主产田土壤养分和植物养分调查分析. 草业学报, 2016, 25(3): 202-214. [本文引用:1]
[2]	Nan L L, Shi S L, Zhang J H. Study on root system development ability of different root-type alfalfa. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(2): 117-124. 南丽丽, 师尚礼, 张建华. 不同根型苜蓿根系发育能力研究. 草业学报, 2014, 23(2): 117-124. [本文引用:1]
[3]	Guo Y X, Nan Z B, Wang C Z, et al. Progress in research on root invading fungi of Medicago sativa. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(5): 243-249. 郭玉霞, 南志标, 王成章, 等. 苜蓿根部入侵真菌研究进展. 草业学报, 2009, 18(5): 243-249. [本文引用:1]
[4]	New feed edited. Analysis of production and marketing of alfalfa industry in 2016. Feed and Animal Husband ry: New Feed, 2017, (1): 13-15. 新饲料编辑. 2016年苜蓿草行业产销情况分析. 饲料与畜牧: 新饲料, 2017, (1): 13-15. [本文引用:1]
[5]	Guo Y X, Guo Z P, Zhang J X, et al. *Study on the pathogenicity of Fusarium acuminatum* and disease resistance of alfalfa varieties*. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica, 2018, 48(2): 213-222. 郭玉霞, 郭志鹏, 张靖雪, 等. 锐顶镰孢致病性及苜蓿品种间的抗病性研究*. 植物病理学报, 2018, 48(2): 213-222. [本文引用:1]
[6]	Zhou Q Y, Liang Q L, Han L. Symptoms and pathogen detection of alfalfa virus disease. Pratacultural Science, 2016, 33(7): 1297-1305. 周其宇, 梁巧兰, 韩亮. 紫花苜蓿病毒病症状类型及病原检测. 草业科学, 2016, 33(7): 1297-1305. [本文引用:5]
[7]	Han Y J, Liu X P, Du G M, et al. Investigation on leaf diseases of alfalfa and identification of pathogens in Daqing. Contemporary Animal Husband ry, 2013, (4): 53-55. 韩玉静, 刘香萍, 杜广明, 等. 大庆地区紫花苜蓿叶部病害调查和病原菌鉴定. 当代畜牧, 2013, (4): 53-55. [本文引用:1]
[8]	Zhang L. *Survey of alfalfa disease in the Northeast of China and studies on alfalfa Phoma* leaf spot*. Lanzhou: Gansu Agricultural University, 2015. 张丽. 东北地区苜蓿病害调查及苜蓿茎点霉叶斑病的研究*. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2015. [本文引用:1]
[9]	Wang Y, Yuan Q H, Miao L H, et al. The major types and epidemic trends of alfalfa disease in Northeast and North China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(3): 52-59. 王瑜, 袁庆华, 苗丽宏, 等. 东北与华北地区紫花苜蓿病害调查与主要病害流行规律研究. 草业学报, 2016, 25(3): 52-59. [本文引用:1]
[10]	Zhang R, Ma J H, Yang F, et al. Study on law of field development of alfalfa major disease in Ningxia. Journal of Shihezi University (Natural Science Edition), 2004, 22(s1): 168-171. 张蓉, 马建华, 杨芳, 等. 宁夏苜蓿主要病害田间发生规律的研究. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 22(s1): 168-171. [本文引用:1]
[11]	Yang Y C. Occurrence of alfalfa pests Shizuishan prediction and prevention and treatment measures. Xianyang: Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, 2012. 杨雨翠. 宁夏石嘴山市苜蓿病虫害发生规律、预测预报及防治方法研究. 咸阳: 西北农林科技大学, 2012. [本文引用:1]
[12]	Zhang X W. Molecular identification and detection of lucerne witches’ broom and mosaic disease in Xinjiang. Urumchi: Xinjiang Agriculture University, 2016. 张芯伪. 新疆苜蓿丛枝病和花叶病病原分子鉴定与检测. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学, 2016. [本文引用:1]
[13]	Nan Z B. The integrated control system of alfalfa diseases in China. Animal Science & Veterinary Medicine, 2001, 18(4): M1-M4. 南志标. 我国的苜蓿病害及其综合防治体系. 动物科学与动物医学, 2001, 18(4): M1-M4. [本文引用:2]
[14]	Hollings M, Nariani T K. *Some properties of Clover yellow vein, a virus from Trifolium repens* L*. Animal of Applied Biology*, 1965, 56: 99-109. [本文引用:1]
[15]	Pratt M J. Clover viruses in eastern Canada in 1967. Plant Disease, 1968, 48(3): 87-92. [本文引用:1]
[16]	Varma A, Gibbs A J, Wood R D. A comparative study of Red clover vein mosaic virus and some other plant viruses. Journal of General Virology, 1970, 8: 21-32. [本文引用:1]
[17]	Mclaughlin M R, Boykin D L. Virus diseases of seven species of forage legumes in the southeastern United States. Plant Disease, 1988, 72: 539-542. [本文引用:1]
[18]	Stuteville D L, Erwin D C. Compendium of alfalfa diseases. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN, USA: APS Press, 1990: 51-53. [本文引用:1]
[19]	Bejerman N, Trucco V, Breuil S D, et al. Genome characterization of an Argentinean isolate of alfalfa leaf curl virus. Archives of Virology, 2018, 163(3): 799-803. [本文引用:1]
[20]	Bejerman N, Giolitti F, De B S, et al. Complete genome sequence and integrated protein localization and interaction map for alfalfa dwarf virus, which combines properties of both cytoplasmic and nuclear plant Rhabdoviruses. Virology, 2015, 483: 275-283. [本文引用:1]
[21]	Lu W D. Statistical analysis of SPSS for Windows. Beijing: Electronic Industry Press, 2002. 卢纹岱. SPSS for Windows统计分析. 北京: 电子工业出版社, 2002. [本文引用:1]
[22]	Hull R. Matthews’ plant virology. Beijing: Science Press, 2007. 赫尔R. 马修斯植物病毒学. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007. [本文引用:1]
[23]	Wang Y G. Occurrence of legume virus disease and its control. New Agricultural Technology, 2005, (6): 21. 王有功. 豆科植物病毒病的发生与防治. 农业新技术, 2005, (6): 21. [本文引用:1]
[24]	Shi F Y, Zhu Y B, Long R, et al. *Evaluation, cluster analysis for Glycine soja* resistant to soybean mosaic virus (SMV) and correlation analysis between characters*. Soybean Science, 2010, 29(6): 976-981. 史凤玉, 朱英波, 龙茹, 等. 野生大豆抗大豆花叶病毒病评价、聚类及性状间相关分析*. 大豆科学, 2010, 29(6): 976-981. [本文引用:2]
[25]	Peng G Y. Screening of anti-TMV substances and its functionary mechanism on TMV. Changsha: Hunan Agriculture University, 2006. 彭冠云. 抗烟草花叶病毒物质筛选及作用机理初步研究. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2006. [本文引用:1]
[26]	Chen B, Wu W L, Zheng D H, et al. Identification and classification of susceptibility resistance of 41 tobacco varieties (lines) to PVY disease under artificial induction. Journal of Agricultural Science Yanbian University, 2017, 39(1): 9-15. 陈博, 吴委林, 郑大浩, 等. 人工诱发条件下41份烟草品种(系)对PVY的抗性鉴定及抗性分类. 延边大学农学学报, 2017, 39(1): 9-15. [本文引用:1]
[27]	Xin B B, Yuan Q H, Wang Y, et al. Evaluation on disease resistance of different varieties of alfalfa to Fusarium oxysporum. Chinese Journal of Grassland , 2016, 38(1): 74-80. 辛宝宝, 袁庆华, 王瑜, 等. 紫花苜蓿对尖孢镰刀菌的抗性评价. 中国草地学报, 2016, 38(1): 74-80. [本文引用:1]
[28]	Chen S Y, Zheng G J, Yang Z L, et al. Evaluation of resistance to SMV of soybean core collection from Southern China. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2009, 31(4): 513-516. 陈珊宇, 郑桂杰, 杨中路, 等. 我国大豆核心种质南方材料对SMV流行株系的抗性评价. 中国油料作物学报, 2009, 31(4): 513-516. [本文引用:1]
[29]	Li Y, Yuan Q H, Wang Y. Study of alfalfa germplasm resistance to alfalfa rust. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2015, 23(4): 830-837. 李跃, 袁庆华, 王瑜. 苜蓿种质资源对锈病的抗性研究. 草地学报, 2015, 23(4): 830-837. [本文引用:1]
[30]	Wang Y, Liu Y, Zhou B B, et al. *An evaluation of the resistance of alfalfa cultivars to Stemphylium* and Phoma leaf spot diseases*. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(7): 155-162. 王瑜, 刘怡, 周彬彬, 等. 苜蓿对匍柄霉叶斑病与茎点霉叶斑病的抗性评价研究*. 草业学报, 2015, 24(7): 155-162. [本文引用:1]
[31]	Staub J E, Chung S M, Fazio G. *Conformity and genetic relatedness estimation in crop species having a narrow genetic base: The case of cucumber ( Cucumis sativus* L. )*. Plant Breeding*, 2005, 124(1): 44-53. [本文引用:1]
[32]	Bai Y, Gao X K, Wang Y C, et al. Field comparison of the resistance of 33 alfalfa varieties to thrips. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(3): 187-194. 白宇, 高兴珂, 王业臣, 等. 33个苜蓿品种对蓟马的田间抗性比较. 草业学报, 2015, 24(3): 187-194. [本文引用:1]

2016

0.0

. 2016, 25(3):202-214 DOI:10.11686/cyxb2015206

Analysis of soil and plant nutrients in alfalfa fields in China

我国紫花苜蓿主产田土壤养分和植物养分调查分析

Xie K Y , He F , Li X L

谢开云, 何峰, 李向林

1.Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China; 2.College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730020, China

A scientific approach to fertilizer management is important to ensure optimal plant growth, high fertilizer use efficiency and to resolve the contradictions surrounding production and environmental issues. In order to understand fertilizer management in alfalfa production, a survey was conducted to investigate alfalfa yield at first cut, as well as soil nutrients and plant nutrient content in 49 alfalfa fields in northern China over two years (2012 and 2013). Simultaneously, a survey (questionnaire) was conducted to determine how alfalfa growers (including farmers and corporate growers) managed fertilizer application. Alfalfa was mostly planted in relatively barren sandy soils. Among 49 fields, 35 fields were sandy soil (71.4%), mainly in Inner Mongolia, Gansu and Xinjiang. Soil available nitrogen (N) was high in most fields and deficient in only 10% of fields, mainly due to extremely low organic matter content. Available phosphorus (P) was low in 24.5% of fields and very low in 10.2% of fields. Available potassium (K) was low in 10.2% of fields. Calcium and magnesium were plentiful in all soils. Analysis of micronutrients revealed that 32.2% fields had low available iron (mainly Gansu and Inner Mongolia); 7.1% of fields low available manganese (Gansu and Inner Mongolia); 14.3% of fields had low available copper (1 field Gansu, 3 Inner Mongolia); 50% of fields had low available zinc; 10.7% of fields had low available molybdenum (Mo) (mainly Inner Mongolia); conversely all fields were high in available boron. The alfalfa stands generally had good N nutrition but were low P and K. Among 49 fields 49% of fields had low Mo. Correlation analysis showed that soil total and available P were significantly positively correlated ( P <0.05) with alfalfa dry matter yield, suggesting that P fertilizer would significantly increase alfalfa yield. Growers of 18 fields, mostly farmers, didn't apply any fertilizer. 57.1% of growers applied N to increase yields, mostly corporate growers. Phosphate was applied to 41% of fields K to 26.5%. Organic fertilizer was only applied in 8 fields. Micronutrients were not applied to any crops. It was concluded that application of N to alfalfa was relatively common, contradicting the ability of the crop to biologically fix N. Soil P and K levels in soils were low, especially K in China, suggesting that many alfalfa crops would benefit from application of these nutrients. Molybdenum may be limiting in some alfalfa crops.

科学合理施肥是保证植物正常生长,提高肥料利用率,解决生产和环境问题矛盾的重要途径.为了掌握我国紫花苜蓿在生产中的施肥管理状况,在2012年和2013年两年对我国北方紫花苜蓿主产区49个样地土壤养分和植物养分以及苜蓿第一茬产量进行调查分析,并针对紫花苜蓿的施肥管理向种植户(包括企业)开展了问卷调查.结果表明, 1)我国紫花苜蓿主要集中种植在相对贫瘠的砂性土壤上.在调查的49个样地中,砂性土壤占总样点数的71.4%,主要在内蒙古,甘肃和新疆.大部分样地的土壤有效氮丰富,仅10%的样地因为沙质土壤中有机质含量极少而导致土壤有效氮缺乏.有24.5%的样地土壤速效磷缺乏,其中10.2%的样地速效磷处于极缺水平;有10.2%的样地土壤速效钾缺乏(样地数 N =49).土壤中量元素Ca和Mg较为充足.微量元素中有32.2%的样点有效铁缺乏( N =28),主要分布在甘肃和内蒙古;7.1%( N =28)的样点有效锰缺乏,分布在甘肃和内蒙古.有14.3%的样点有效铜缺乏( N =28),其中有一个分布在甘肃,其余3个样点在内蒙古;有50%的样点有效锌缺乏( N =28),其中8个处于极缺状态(甘肃,陕西各3个,内蒙古2个),6个处于缺乏状态(山东3个,河北,陕西和黑龙江各1个);有10.7%的样点有效钼含量缺乏( N =28),主要分布在内蒙古.有效硼含量处于丰富状态( N =28).2)苜蓿植株氮素营养状况较好,而磷钾营养状况较差.微量元素中钼有49%的样点出现缺乏( N =49).相关性分析结果表明土壤全磷和速效磷都与产量具有显著的正相关关系( P <0.05),说明施用磷肥对苜蓿具有显著的增产潜力.3)在调查的49个样点中有18个样点没有进行任何施肥措施,其中大多数为农户.施氮肥作为提高产量的手段占57.1%,大多数为企业种植者.磷肥重视程度高于钾肥,有41%的样地施用磷肥,仅有26.5%的样地施用钾肥.对有机肥重视不够(仅有8个样地施用有机肥).所有种植者均没有施用过微肥.总之,我国紫花苜蓿主产区在生产实践中应少施或不施氮肥,应重视磷钾肥的配施,也应重视微量元素的作用,尤其是钼元素.

... 紫花苜蓿(Medicago sativa)是世界上栽培最早、种植面积最大、利用价值最高的一种多年生优质豆科牧草^[1],有#cod#x0201c ...

2014

0.0

. 2014, 23(2):117-124 DOI:10.11686/cyxb20140214

Study on root system development ability of different root-type alfalfa

不同根型苜蓿根系发育能力研究

Nan L L , Shi S L , Zhang J H

南丽丽, 师尚礼, 张建华

College of Pratacultural Science,Gansu Agricultural University,Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecosystem of Ministry of Education,Pratacultural Engineering Laboratory of Gansu Province,Sino-U. S. Centers for Grazing land Ecosystem Sustainability,Lanzhou 730070,China

Alfalfa is generally credited as the world’s most important perennial leguminous grass,with a huge potential for development and utilization. Root types of alfalfa are divided into tap rooted,branch rooted,creeping rooted and rhizomatous rooted. Many alfalfa belong to the tap rooted variety,which are fitted to be mowed. The tap rooted alfalfa has an obvious taproot and a vertical standing stem. Many variegated alfalfa belong to branch rooted variety,which are fitted both to be mowed and grazed. The branch rooted alfalfa has many lateral roots extended in a large area and a vertical or semi-vertical standing stem,but has no an obvious taproot. Compared with no-creeping rooted alfalfa,creeping rooted alfalfa has a high resistance on cold,arid,grazing and a large shaped area. The creeping rooted alfalfa has many horizontal roots extended in a large area and many adventitious buds,and the adventitious bud became a new plant in late. Rhizomatous rooted alfalfa are used to establish grass lands both for grazing and mowing,which has a relatively low root crown. The low root crown generated a stem similar to a root and the stem became a vegetative branch in late. Review paper of the past year in retrospect,a great number of studies have been focused on collecting forage resource,introduction,breeding,resistance evaluation,productivity evaluation,and genetic diversity of tap rooted and creeping rooted alfalfa at home and abroad. Mechanism,genetic characters and environment impact branch rooted of alfalfa were studied,but only a few studies have been focused on the contrast of different root types. Therefore,the ability of different root-type alfalfa to development root systems were studied for three years in semi-humid regions of Tianshui,semi-arid regions of Lanzhou and arid regions of Wuwei in Gansu Province to analyze their adaptabilities. The results showed rhizomatous rooted Medicago sativa cv. Qingshui was found with the shortest tap root length,the thinnest diameter of tap root and lateral root,the fewest lateral root numbers; creeping rooted native M. falcata material and M. varia cv. Gannong No.2 were found with longer tap root length,relatively diameter of thicker tap root and lateral root,more lateral root numbers; the indexes of tap rooted M. sativa cv. Longdong were found between rhizomatous rooted alfalfa and creeping rooted alfalfa,and was much closer with creeping rooted alfalfa. Diameters of tap root and lateral root were found grew faster of higher temperature in summer and autumn seasons. The volume and biomass of different root-type alfalfa decreased from tap soil to deep soil and increased with the age growth. Based on the integrated performance,rhizomatous rooted alfalfa was suitable for planting on semi-humid regions of Tianshui due to its root system development ability,creeping rooted alfalfa had the greater root system development ability in semi-arid regions of Lanzhou and arid regions of Wuwei,tap rooted alfalfa had the greater root system development ability in semi-humid regions of Tianshui and semi-arid regions of Lanzhou.

从根系发育角度对根茎型清水苜蓿、直根型陇东苜蓿、根蘖型野生黄花苜蓿和甘农2号杂花苜蓿在甘肃省天水半湿润区、兰州半干旱区和武威干旱区生长前3年的适应性进行了连续研究。结果表明,不同根型苜蓿的根系特性差异明显。根茎型清水苜蓿主根长度最短,主根直径和侧根直径均最细,侧根数较少;根蘖型野生黄花苜蓿和甘农2号的主根长度较长,主根直径和侧根直径均较粗,侧根数较多;直根型陇东苜蓿各项根系指标介于根茎型和根蘖型苜蓿之间,与根蘖型苜蓿更接近。主根直径和侧根直径在温度较高的夏秋季增长较快。不同根型苜蓿根系体积、生物量在3个生态区均表现为从表层到深层逐次递减,随着年限的增长逐年增大。对各根型苜蓿综合分析,相对来说,根茎型清水苜蓿在天水半湿润区、根蘖型甘农2号和黄花苜蓿在兰州半干旱区和武威干旱区、直根型陇东苜蓿在天水半湿润区和兰州半干旱区具有较强的根系发育能力。

... 的美誉^[2] ...

2009

0.0

. 2009, 18(5):243-249 DOI:10.11686/cyxb20090531

Progress in research on root invading fungi of Medicago sativa

苜蓿根部入侵真菌研究进展

Guo Y X , Nan Z B , Wang C Z

郭玉霞, 南志标, 王成章

随着苜蓿种植面积的逐渐扩大和集约化程度的逐步提高，苜蓿病害的发生越来越严重，其中苜蓿根部病害是制约其生产的主要因素之一。本研究从引起苜蓿根部病害的真菌种类、真菌的致病性、测定方法以及影响苜蓿根部入侵真菌的因素，综述了２５年来国内外苜蓿根部病害的研究现状，提出了未来苜蓿根部入侵真菌研究的主要方向，有针对性地加强病害防治工作，以期为开展苜蓿病害研究和指导其防治提供科学依据。

... 其在农牧业生产中有着不可替代的作用^[3] ...

2017

0.0

... 我国是畜牧大国,对苜蓿草的需求很大,2015年我国的苜蓿商品干草产量为123万t,进口苜蓿为121万t^[4] ...

2018

0.0

... 规划提出,到2020年,全国优质苜蓿产量将达到540万t^[5] ...

2016

0.0

. 2016, 33(7):1297-1305 DOI:10.11829/j.issn.1001-0629.2015-0652

Symptoms and pathogen detection of alfalfa virus disease

紫花苜蓿病毒病症状类型及病原检测

Zhou Q Y , Liang Q L , Han L

周其宇, 梁巧兰, 韩亮

College of Grassland Science of Gansu Agricultural University, Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecosystem of MOE, Sino-U.S. Centers for Grazing Land Ecosystem Sustainability, Pratacultural Engineering Laboratory of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730070, China

In order to investigate the symptoms, pathogen and host range of alfalfa virus diseases in Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, alfalfa virus diseases were investigated in field and pathogens were tested by DAS-ELISA. The results showed that the viral disease of alfalfa widely spread in Anning District and Gaolan County of Lanzhou and Jingtai County of Baiyin City and the highest incidence and disease index were 43.33% and 26.08, respectively, which were in Jingtai. A total of 90 sample were collected and 30 of them were detected which brought the detection ratio of 30%. Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV), white clover mosaic virus(WCMV), bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) and cowpea mosaic virus (CPMV) were main viral pathogen which had detection rates of 100.00%, 50.00%, 75.00%, 75.00%, respectively, and their mixed infection rate of 50.00%. There were 6 families, 17 genera and 18 species for host range testing. AMV can infect 6 families, 15 species, WCMV can infect 4 families, 8 species, BYMV and CPMV could infect 3 families, 7 species, and four kinds of virus could co-infect 6 families, 14 species of plants.

本研究为了探明甘肃省兰州市紫花苜蓿( Medicago sativa )侵染病毒病的症状类型、病原种类以及寄主范围,进行了田间调查和室内酶联免疫检测。田间调查确定了苜蓿病毒病在兰州市安宁区和皋兰县以及白银市景泰县均有发生,其中景泰县的发病率和病情指数均最高,分别为43.33%和26.08;共采样90份,检查30份,检查比例为30%。检测到的病原有苜蓿花叶病毒(AMV)、白三叶草花叶病毒(WCMV)、菜豆黄花叶病毒(BYMV)和豇豆花叶病毒(CPMV)4种,检出率分别为100.00%、50.00%、75.00%和75.00%,且存在复合侵染现象,复合侵染率达50.00%;寄主范围测定供试植物共6科17属18种,经测定,AMV可以侵染6科15种植物,WCMV可以侵染4科8种植物,BYMV和CPMV可以侵染3科7种植物,4种病毒可复合侵染6科14种植物。

... 随着我国苜蓿种植面积的不断增加以及种植年限的延长,苜蓿病毒病害的发生越来越严重,已成为限制苜蓿产业发展的重要原因之一^[6] ...

... 周其宇等^[6]通过病原检测对侵染苜蓿的苜蓿花叶病毒、白三叶(Trifolium repens)花叶病毒、菜豆(Phaseolus vulgaris)黄花叶病毒和豇豆(Vigna unguiculata)花叶病毒进行了鉴定,并测定了这4种病毒的寄主范围 ...

... 71 m,每个样方调查20株,共100株,记录所调查苜蓿植株发病数,计算发病率,根据苜蓿病毒病的分级标准(表2)计算病情指数^[6],具体如下: ...

... 50)均高于周其宇等^[6]的田间调查结果(田间发病率为16 ...

... 蓟马、蚜虫、传粉昆虫等均可传播病毒病^[22],蓟马危害苜蓿后可加重苜蓿的病害表现^[6],本研究试验地周围杂草较多,夏季虫害较为严重,伴随着害虫的繁殖,将更加有利于苜蓿病毒病的传播,加重病情^[23],这可能是影响调查结果的一个主要原因 ...

2013

0.0

... 目前国内对苜蓿病毒病的研究甚少,韩玉静等^[7]、张丽^[8]、王瑜等^[9]、张蓉等^[10]、杨雨翠^[11]和张芯伪^[12]仅仅调查了苜蓿花叶病的田间发病率 ...

2015

0.0

... 目前国内对苜蓿病毒病的研究甚少,韩玉静等^[7]、张丽^[8]、王瑜等^[9]、张蓉等^[10]、杨雨翠^[11]和张芯伪^[12]仅仅调查了苜蓿花叶病的田间发病率 ...

2016

0.0

. 2016, 25(3):52-59 DOI:10.11686/cyxb2015260

The major types and epidemic trends of alfalfa disease in Northeast and North China

东北与华北地区紫花苜蓿病害调查与主要病害流行规律研究

Wang Y , Yuan Q H , Miao L H

王瑜, 袁庆华, 苗丽宏

1.Institute of Animal Science of CAAS, Beijing 100193, China; 2.College of Grassland Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Alfalfa diseases in Northeast China (Heilongjiang and Jilin Provinces) and North China (Hebei Province and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region) were investigated in 2013 and 2014. Fourteen alfalfa diseases were found in Northeast China, 12 in Heilongjiang Province and 10 in Jilin Province, and 17 diseases were found in North China, 10 in Hebei Province and 13 in Inner Mongolia. Common leaf spot, spring black stem and leaf spot, stemphylium leaf spot, downy mildew and Fusarium root rot were the five most prevalent diseases that would cause serious plant damage in Northeast China. The occurrence of these diseases peaked in July and August. Major differences existed in the disease varieties found at each investigation site in North China. There were five major diseases (downy mildew, rust, stemphylium leaf spot, spring black stem and leaf spot and Fusarium oxysporum root rot) which would cause serious damage in Inner Mongolia, especially when their occurrence peaked from June to September. Six diseases (common leaf spot, rust, stemphylium leaf spot, spring black stem and leaf spot, Fusarium equisetum root rot and anthracnose) were found in Langfang City and four (downy mildew, common leaf spot, rust and spring black stem and leaf spot) in Zhangjiakou City of Hebei Province. These diseases would cause serious damage, especially when their occurrence peaked from July to October for Langfang City and from June to October for Zhangjiakou City.

2013与2014年对东北地区(黑龙江省与吉林省)与华北地区(河北省,内蒙古自治区)的紫花苜蓿病害进行了调查.此次调查在东北地区共发现紫花苜蓿病害14种,其中黑龙江省12种,吉林省10种;在华北地区共发现紫花苜蓿病害17种,其中河北省10种,内蒙古自治区13种.东北地区在生产中易大面积发生且危害较严重的病害主要有5种,分别为褐斑病,春季黑茎与叶斑病,匍柄霉叶斑病,霜霉病,镰刀菌根腐病,7-8月为病害高发期.华北地区各调查点病害种类差异较大,内蒙古自治区危害较严重的病害主要有5种,分别为霜霉病,锈病,匍柄霉叶斑病,春季黑茎与叶斑病,尖孢镰刀菌根腐病,发病高峰期为6-9月;河北省廊坊市危害较严重的病害主要有6种,分别为褐斑病,锈病,匍柄霉叶斑病,春季黑茎与叶斑病,木贼镰刀菌根腐病,炭疽病,发病高峰期为7-10月;河北省张家口市危害较严重的病害主要有4种,分别为霜霉病,褐斑病,锈病,春季黑茎与叶斑病,发病高峰期为6-10月.

... 目前国内对苜蓿病毒病的研究甚少,韩玉静等^[7]、张丽^[8]、王瑜等^[9]、张蓉等^[10]、杨雨翠^[11]和张芯伪^[12]仅仅调查了苜蓿花叶病的田间发病率 ...

2004

0.0

... 目前国内对苜蓿病毒病的研究甚少,韩玉静等^[7]、张丽^[8]、王瑜等^[9]、张蓉等^[10]、杨雨翠^[11]和张芯伪^[12]仅仅调查了苜蓿花叶病的田间发病率 ...

2012

0.0

... 目前国内对苜蓿病毒病的研究甚少,韩玉静等^[7]、张丽^[8]、王瑜等^[9]、张蓉等^[10]、杨雨翠^[11]和张芯伪^[12]仅仅调查了苜蓿花叶病的田间发病率 ...

2016

0.0

... 目前国内对苜蓿病毒病的研究甚少,韩玉静等^[7]、张丽^[8]、王瑜等^[9]、张蓉等^[10]、杨雨翠^[11]和张芯伪^[12]仅仅调查了苜蓿花叶病的田间发病率 ...

2001

0.0

... 南志标^[13]研究了苜蓿花叶病对苜蓿田间产量和质量的影响 ...

... 另外苜蓿病害随着种植年限的增长而加重^[13],本研究的苜蓿品种均为种植的第5个年头,种植年限较长,加重了病害程度的积累,这可能是造成此结果的另一个主要原因 ...

1965

0.0