作物杂志,2017, 第4期: 134–142 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2017.04.023

• 生理生化·植物营养·栽培耕作 • 上一篇    下一篇

PEG胁迫对小豆苗期抗旱生理指标的影响及抗旱鉴定体系建立

郝曦煜1,王红丹2,尹智超3,梁杰1,尹凤祥1,郝建军2   

  1. 1 吉林省白城市农业科学院,137000,吉林白城
    2 沈阳农业大学生物科学技术学院,110866,辽宁沈阳
    3 吉林大学植物科学学院,130062,吉林长春
  • 收稿日期:2017-04-12 修回日期:2017-07-01 出版日期:2017-08-15 发布日期:2018-08-26
  • 通讯作者: 郝建军
  • 作者简介:郝曦煜,研究实习员,研究方向为食用豆类育种与栽培
  • 基金资助:
    国家食用豆产业技术体系(CARS-09-G10)

Effects of PEG Stress on Drought Resistance at Seedling Stage of Adzuki Beans and the Establishment of Drought Resistance Identification System

Hao Xiyu1,Wang Hongdan2,Yin Zhichao3,Liang Jie1,Yin Fengxiang1,Hao Jianjun2   

  1. 1 Baicheng Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Baicheng 137000,Jilin,China
    2 School of Biological Science and Technology,Shenyang Agricultural University,Shenyang 110161,Liaoning,China
    3 College of Plant Science,Jilin University,Changchun 130062,Jilin,China
  • Received:2017-04-12 Revised:2017-07-01 Online:2017-08-15 Published:2018-08-26
  • Contact: Jianjun Hao

摘要:

本研究致力于筛选出小豆苗期抗旱性的生理指标并据此鉴定品种抗旱性。以白红3号、白红4号、白红6号、冀红352等小豆品种为材料,对各品种苗期进行不同浓度(5%、10%、20%)PEG模拟水分胁迫处理,在处理后的3、6、9d取样(功能叶片),测定各抗旱生理指标。结果表明:5%PEG处理后6d的超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性、5%PEG处理后6d的脱落酸(ABA)含量、10% PEG处理后6d的可溶性糖含量、5%PEG处理后3d的相对电导率、5%PEG处理后6d的超氧阴离子(O2 -·)产生速率,均可作为鉴定小豆苗期抗旱性生理指标。利用上述抗旱生理指标,初步确定白红6号和白红4号为较抗旱品种,白红3号和冀红352的抗旱性较弱。

关键词: 小豆, 苗期, 生理指标, 水分胁迫, 抗旱性

Abstract:

The drought-resistant cultivars including Baihong 3, Baihong 4, Baihong 5 and Jihong 352 as materials and PEG with different concentrations (5%, 10%, 20%) simulating water stress treatment in seedling stage of adzuki beans were used in this study. The function leaf on the third, sixth and ninth day was picked to determine drought resistance physiological indicators. The results showed that the indicators that could be used to identify the drought-resistance of adzuki bean were the SOD activity of 5% PEG treatment on the sixth day, the ABA content of 5% PEG treatment on the sixth day, the soluble sugar content of 10% PEG treatment on the sixth day, the electrical conductivity of 5% PEG treatment on the third day, the superoxide anion produce rate of 5% PEG treatment on the sixth day. The conclusion showed that Baihong 6 and Baihong 4 were both drought-resistance cultivars but Baihong 3 and Jihong 352 were less drought-resistance cultivars.

Key words: Adzuki bean, Seeding stage, Physiological index, Water stress, Drought-resistance

表1

PEG处理对苗期各小豆品种SOD活性的影响"

品种
Cultivar
处理后天数(d)
The days of after treatment
对照
CK
5%PEG处理
5%PEG treatment
10%PEG处理
10%PEG treatment
20%PEG处理
20%PEG treatment
BH3 3 209.4671±2.8463 155.1778±11.1877* 194.7201±18.9780 200.8397±18.3817
6 204.4266±2.7343 240.8097±6.5492* 163.2722±29.2989* 267.7708±7.8024*
9 188.9510±17.1194 151.3179±20.5139* 168.0344±24.5121 144.7581±10.6570*
BH4 3 188.8430±0.3934 212.5512±6.2515* 234.2907±20.6791* 249.2962±10.6128**
6 185.0924±9.0046 248.5793±37.9914** 220.3664±1.4740* 157.6365±3.9680
9 231.5903±16.5768 204.4819±14.4766 204.8112±3.1630 248.7730±26.9031
BH6 3 152.1572±10.6956 144.6495±21.0837 131.0072±8.7254 146.1382±6.1430
6 86.5172±20.8143 171.4747±15.8480** 161.0846±9.5873** 126.3513±0.0000*
9 151.4920±2.0927 152.6208±2.3511 159.6148±5.8287 138.8985±21.0171
JH 3 142.1069±18.8383 90.1260±9.3786* 128.7792±18.6243 144.2592±15.7399
6 99.4462±1.9758 159.5897±15.3910* 146.8714±11.7565* 162.0526±21.8594*
9 129.2765±14.1346 166.3537±4.7483* 145.6508±25.4374 135.0340±25.7760

表2

PEG处理对苗期各小豆品种 POD活性的影响"

品种
Cultivar
处理后天数(d)
The days after treatment
对照
CK
5%PEG处理
5%PEG treatment
10%PEG处理
10%PEG treatment
20%PEG处理
20%PEG treatment
BH3 3 669.4607±32.0534 816.5082±35.7519** 844.5634±164.1243* 1 709.6340±32.1336**
6 944.6142±41.0331 1 458.2040±21.0823* 1 747.4420±55.5970** 1 717.4370±89.5941**
9 1 290.8950±48.5743 2 353.3730±60.8441** 1 822.2240±41.5332* 1 964.1530±58.1343**
BH4 3 713.5628±51.3608 813.1334±25.3332 1 209.3500±49.0023* 1 257.4260±193.0693*
6 1 109.4300±85.9260 1 383.7750±86.3887* 2 121.1230±175.9553** 2 103.9290±101.5647**
9 1 243.7140±49.9979 1 463.8031±2.6839** 1 651.9430±45.9024** 825.7638±27.3096**
BH6 3 672.3924±37.8112 1 075.4060±18.4207** 914.1072±66.2568** 1 483.5920±9.0981**
6 1 091.5310±49.2799 1 720.6720±60.8116** 1 766.7150±64.1127** 3 321.1050±118.5647**
9 1 279.3980±35.8979 2 406.4410±112.6528** 1 995.9270±76.0345** 1 915.5950±11.4213**
JH 3 790.6764±24.1842 897.2048±20.1691* 1 023.8000±41.5188** 1 533.7030±66.6677**
6 989.7014±54.0183 1 284.2290±110.6980* 2 083.7270±154.8725** 1 893.7760±87.6365**
9 1 222.1110±47.6711 1 340.1710±71.6815 2 174.8650±50.6280** 2 252.6170±136.5277**

表3

PEG处理对苗期各小豆品种 ABA含量的影响"

品种
Cultivar
处理后天数(d)
The days of after treatment
对照
CK
5%PEG处理
5%PEG treatment
10%PEG处理
10%PEG treatment
20%PEG处理
20%PEG treatment
BH3 3 2 100.8500±148.2395 1 227.0800±3.0055** 1 655.0720±27.7170** 2 755.4330±333.3842*
6 1 347.1590±205.9270 778.0419±62.1796* 647.5509±39.4069* 1 485.8220±256.9520
9 1 611.3770±39.5107 2 440.8650±181.9251* 3 249.8250±575.2702* 3 601.0810±133.8049**
BH4 3 1 027.1840±150.0540 2 824.3520±9.9047** 1 130.6690±28.1881 2 607.3490±251.1899**
6 161.1756±24.7874 1 760.3010±99.8748** 637.9509±30.7409** 410.4254±119.2663*
9 1 258.3460±155.2239 2 769.6230±28.4783** 2 848.5640±311.0739** 3 077.1160±394.0654**
BH6 3 809.6446±18.2296 910.8683±3.8282** 762.1882±135.9778 2 657.2630±165.9192**
6 632.5677±227.1386 1 669.4410±247.5309** 1 205.5860±174.1826* 965.5097±209.9071
9 2 152.7610±79.7255 1 935.7820±50.0916 1 741.8820±319.1856 3 585.6020±287.2455**
JH 3 177.1649±5.0752 648.8794±1.4098** 958.4502±2.1028** 2 249.6610±11.9558**
6 351.3065±17.5732 1 619.1970±104.1080** 1 104.7560±90.3621** 983.8583±98.7873**
9 2 699.2700±27.6832 2 359.9380±225.1262 2 752.9020±150.6624 5 393.9120±754.3244**

表4

PEG处理对苗期各小豆品种可溶性糖含量的影响"

品种
Cultivar
处理后天数(d)
The days of after treatment
对照
CK
5%PEG处理
5%PEG treatment
10%PEG处理
10%PEG treatment
20%PEG处理
20%PEG treatment
BH3 3 2.7659±0.0352 3.2933±0.1098** 2.8417±0.1845 4.2388±0.0585**
6 2.3396±0.3172 2.4559±0.2408 3.2516±0.0983* 5.6213±0.0231**
9 4.4259±1.0191 3.8302±0.1202 3.1022±0.1895* 3.7034±0.1646
BH4 3 3.0655±0.1908 2.9458±0.1322 2.6507±0.0640* 3.4349±0.3005*
6 2.0265±0.0329 2.2695±0.6243 4.1954±0.0917** 6.4368±0.3261**
9 6.7551±1.5043 5.1418±0.3036* 4.4948±0.0871* 4.3183±0.3905*
BH6 3 3.1182±0.1908 2.5287±0.1038* 2.7812±0.0676* 2.9971±0.1902
6 2.0807±0.1788 2.6683±0.7653 3.3385±0.1384* 3.6029±0.0511*
9 3.3951±0.0224 3.0882±0.0796* 3.6827±0.2172* 3.7548±0.1629*
JH 3 2.8258±0.1199 2.7313±0.0606 3.4111±0.3140* 3.6270±0.1734*
6 2.3380±0.1846 2.7217±0.5721 3.2323±0.1516* 4.3383±0.3260**
9 3.4199±0.4897 4.3833±0.2201** 3.6036±0.1032 3.9701±0.0000*

表5

PEG处理对苗期各小豆品种 MDA含量的影响"

品种
Cultivar
处理后天数(d)
The days of after treatment
对照
CK
5%PEG处理
5%PEG treatment
10%PEG处理
10%PEG treatment
20%PEG处理
20%PEG treatment
BH3 3 21.7605±0.8478 20.0989±0.8814 19.7361±1.4952 31.1533±1.1950**
6 31.8538±1.7966 30.0016±1.0715 26.3886±0.6059* 33.7942±1.0241
9 32.6741±2.3629 30.1034±4.3906 30.4844±1.1389 32.2909±1.3137
BH4 3 23.2361±1.5525 27.4701±2.3455* 17.8709±1.6886* 27.5671±0.9221*
6 29.1395±4.6508 21.3543±4.1138* 34.3946±1.9222 19.5738±2.8550*
9 27.2298±2.6975 25.0627±1.6173 26.6464±2.5250 26.8870±5.1578
BH6 3 24.8503±0.3068 25.2697±0.5852 29.3818±1.7590* 28.8575±1.5906*
6 29.6741±3.8452 24.4033±0.6927* 26.4576±1.2531 24.1422±1.2456*
9 29.9255±1.0973 29.1734±1.9957 28.3136±1.9809 25.3335±1.3580*
JH 3 29.6140±0.6444 30.5791±0.3185 37.4831±3.0639* 34.6157±7.0842
6 28.0198±0.7722 37.0707±1.9111** 32.5315±1.5175* 26.5262±0.5342
9 43.9681±1.7816 42.9565±0.2789 40.3243±1.6394* 41.2091±1.5021*

表6

PEG处理对苗期各小豆品种相对电导率的影响"

品种
Cultivar
处理后天数(d)
The days of after treatment
对照
CK
5%PEG处理
5%PEG treatment
10%PEG处理
10%PEG treatment
20%PEG处理
20%PEG treatment
BH3 3 10.8463±2.3192 6.7481±0.7416* 2.4209±0.8775** 3.8629±0.0286**
6 8.9370±2.6676 5.6232±1.2408 2.5567±4.0876** 5.8012±1.7782
9 6.0982±0.2475 5.3524±1.4591 7.2823±2.5553 10.1222±2.9359*
BH4 3 8.5270±0.6610 4.7164±1.1247* 3.0461±0.7166* 3.8522±1.8803*
6 11.6379±2.3651 4.0962±0.2142* 4.5183±0.5400* 24.9411±6.2024*
9 5.7667±1.6149 3.0853±0.7584 8.6574±4.6170 9.1369±0.8324
BH6 3 7.5184±0.2030 4.8940±0.6005* 2.7208±0.8222** 6.4064±1.6796
6 5.4259±0.6087 4.2957±1.2036 3.7440±0.2356* 14.9121±0.5540**
9 5.7393±2.2537 6.0981±0.7395 3.9793±0.7688 7.8652±2.1686
JH 3 9.0817±1.3497 6.4634±0.3537* 4.1015±0.6174** 6.4549±1.0952*
6 4.8730±1.3660 3.4424±0.5934 4.4968±0.3912 15.0880±0.1867*
9 5.7671±2.2777 4.5557±1.1841 4.8623±2.7127 9.0253±0.4168

表7

PEG处理对苗期各小豆品种O2-·产生速率的影响"

品种
Cultivar
处理后天数(d)
The days of after treatment
对照
CK
5%PEG处理
5%PEG treatment
10%PEG处理
10%PEG treatment
20%PEG处理
20%PEG treatment
BH3 3 6.8862±0.2433 6.5553±0.1675 6.7508±0.2726 6.9182±0.1090
6 6.6025±0.0815 9.2417±0.3278* 10.3100±0.4340** 13.6347±0.2188**
9 7.8150±0.0900 11.2547±0.2417** 8.7460±0.1546** 11.2746±0.2053**
BH4 3 8.7751±0.4516 7.8602±1.0144 6.3302±0.0688* 7.4489±0.1797*
6 6.3709±0.0373 8.0933±0.2004** 14.3207±0.9337** 14.4628±0.2881**
9 8.6537±0.2253 9.2629±0.0814* 11.1661±0.2419** 17.5643±0.1044**
BH6 3 9.4807±0.2353 7.3479±0.4774** 6.0421±0.2452** 6.9413±0.1893**
6 7.5731±0.0705 8.9099±0.4593* 14.1430±0.6850** 14.3759±0.1438*
9 8.0628±0.0505 10.6628±0.1815** 9.0768±0.1424** 11.5582±0.3133**
JH 3 6.6864±0.1144 6.5879±0.4716 5.7940±0.2848* 5.9760±0.0936*
6 6.6782±0.1120 8.8939±0.1328* 11.7599±0.6501** 14.3341±0.2086**
9 10.4811±0.1990 9.5870±0.1604** 13.0856±0.0290** 9.1546±0.0743**

表8

苗期各小豆品种抗旱生理指标的相对变化"

指标Index 处理Treatment BH3 BH4 BH6 JH
SOD活性SOD activity CK 204.43 185.09 86.52 99.45
处理Treatment 240.81 248.58 171.47 159.59
△% 17.80 34.30 98.19 60.47
ABA含量ABA content CK 1347.16 161.18 632.57 351.31
处理Treatment 778.04 1 760.30 1 669.44 1 619.20
△% -42.25 992.13 163.91 360.90
可溶性糖含量Soluble sugar content CK 2.34 2.03 2.08 2.34
处理Treatment 3.25 4.20 3.34 3.23
△% 38.89 106.90 60.58 38.03
相对电导率Relative electric conductivity CK 10.85 8.53 7.52 9.08
处理Treatment 6.75 4.72 4.90 6.46
△% -37.79 -44.67 -19.70 -28.85
O2-·产生速率O2-·product rate CK 6.60 6.37 7.57 6.68
处理Treatment 9.24 8.09 8.91 8.89
△% 40.00 27.00 17.70 33.08

表9

苗期各小豆品种的抗旱级别"

品种
Cultivar
SOD活性
SOD activity
ABA含量
ABA content
可溶性糖含量
Contents of soluble sugar
相对电导率
Relative conductivity
O2-·产生速率
O2-·producing rate
抗旱级数
Drought resisting series
BH3 1 1 2 3 1 8
BH4 2 4 4 4 3 17
BH6 4 2 3 1 4 14
JH 3 3 1 2 2 11
[1] 周显青 . 食用豆类加工与利用技术.北京: 化学工业出版社, 2003.
[2] Hori Y, Sato S, Hatai A . Antibacterial activity of plant extracts from azuki beans (Vignaangularis) in vitro. Phytotherapy Research, 2006,20(2):162-164.
doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1573
[3] Sato S, Hori Y, Yamate J , et al. Protective effect of dietary adzuki bean (Vignaangularis) seed coats against renal interstitial fibrosis of rats induced by cisplatin. Nutrition, 2005,21(4):504-511.
doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2004.07.019
[4] 王述民, 曹永生 , Redden R J, 等. 我国小豆种质资源形态多样性鉴定与分类研究. 作物学报, 2002,28(6):727-733.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0496-3490.2002.06.002
[5] 王瑾, 刘桂茹, 杨学举 , 等. PEG胁迫下不同抗旱性小麦品种幼苗形态及主要理化特性的比较. 河北农业大学学报, 2007,28(5):6-10.
[6] Atree S M, Fowke L C . Embryogeny of gymnosperms: advances in synthetic seed technology of conifers.Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 1993,35(1):1-35.
doi: 10.1007/BF00043936
[7] 张盼盼, 冯佰利, 王鹏科 , 等. PEG胁迫下糜子苗期抗旱指标鉴选研究. 中国农业大学学报, 2012,17(1):53-59.
[8] 郭数进, 李贵全 . 大豆生理指标与抗旱性关系的研究. 河南农业科学, 2009,38(6):38-41.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2009.06.010
[9] 郝建军, 黄春花, 卢环 , 等. 不同小豆品种抗旱生理指标比较的研究.辽宁农业科学, 2012(5):21-25.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1728.2012.05.005
[10] 郝建军, 康宗利, 于洋 . 植物生理学实验技术.北京: 化学工业出版社, 2007.
[11] 刘学义 . 大豆抗旱性评定方法探讨.北京: 中国学术期刊电子杂志出版社, 1986.
[12] 汪耀富, 韩锦峰, 林学梧 . 烤烟生长前期对干旱胁迫的生理生化响应研究. 作物学报, 1996,22(1):117-121.
[13] 刘世鹏, 曹娟云, 刘冲 , 等. 水分胁迫对绿豆幼苗渗透调节物质的影响. 延安大学学报(自然科学版), 2008,27(1):55-58.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-602X.2008.01.020
[14] 李楠, 黄佳丽, 曲波 , 等. 干旱胁迫对委陵菜膜脂过氧化作用及保护酶活性的影响. 中国草地学报, 2011,33(4):73-77.
[15] Daie J, Campbell W F . Response of tomato plants to stressful temperatures. Plant Physiology, 1981,67(1):26-29.
doi: 10.1104/pp.67.1.26
[16] Ti-Da G E, Sui F G, Bai L P , et al. Effects of water stress on the protective enzyme activities and lipid peroxidation in roots and leaves of summer maize. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2006,5(4):291-298.
[17] Dhindsa R S, Dhindsa P L, Thorpe T A . Leaf senescence:Correlated with increased level of membrane permeability lipid peroxidation and decreased superoxide dismutase and catalase. Journal of Experimental Botany, 1981,32(1):93-101.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/32.1.93
[18] 陈郡雯, 吴卫, 郑有良 , 等 .聚乙二醇(PEG-6000)模拟干旱条件下白芷苗期抗旱性研究. 中国中药杂志, 2010,35(2):149-154.
[19] 谭晓荣, 吴兴泉, 戴媛 , 等. 小麦幼苗叶片活性氧清除能力对干旱胁迫的响应. 河南农业科学, 2007,36(1):27-30.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2007.01.008
[1] 张晓勇,杨友联,李树江,熊荣川,向红. 外源激素对低温胁迫下脱毒马铃薯扦插苗早衰的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 95–101
[2] 刘晨旦,张泽燕,张耀文. 不同基因型绿豆品种芽期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (3): 77–83
[3] 张明聪,战英策,何松榆,金喜军,王孟雪,任春元,张玉先. 氮密交互对红小豆干物质积累规律及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (1): 141–146
[4] 王曙光,史雨刚,史华伟,曹亚萍,孙黛珍. 春小麦光合特性与抗旱性的关系研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (6): 23–29
[5] 曹哲群,肖芙荣,陈疏影,何丽莲,李富生. 7个蔗茅野生种及其后代材料苗期耐寒性鉴定[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (5): 43–48
[6] 李国龙,孙亚卿,邵世勤,张永丰. 甜菜幼苗叶片抗氧化系统对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (5): 73–79
[7] 刘振兴,周桂梅,陈健,马志. 不同药剂对小豆花叶病毒病防治效果研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (4): 165–168
[8] 赵媛媛,张丽莉,石瑛. 马铃薯抗旱种质资源的筛选[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (4): 72–77
[9] 杨宁,赵浡彤,包雨卓,吕岩,彭瞰看,田宇,王军虹,孟婧,苍晶. 外源ABA及其抑制剂氟啶酮对冬小麦分蘖节抗寒指标的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (4): 117–122
[10] 吉雯雯,张泽燕,张耀文,孙黛珍. 不同地区小豆资源芽期抗旱性鉴定[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (3): 54–59
[11] 徐畅,刘景辉,杨彦明,白雪,马斌,张兴隆,孙梦媛,张梦玉. 菌肥与氮磷肥配施对覆膜马铃薯抗旱生理指标及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (1): 94–99
[12] 郭建华,于崧,于立河,郭伟,薛盈文,金珊珊,梁海芸,段君君. 种植方式和密度对小豆产量及干物质积累的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (1): 113–118
[13] 李雪妹,刘畅,刘倩雯,张煜笛,李雪梅. PEG预处理对水分胁迫下水稻叶片抗氧化酶同工酶及其表达的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2016, (6): 107–111
[14] 王姣,张永清. 干旱胁迫下不同小豆品种根系生长规律研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2016, (6): 112–119
[15] 张春明,赵雪英,闫虎斌,朱慧珺,张泽燕,张耀文. 间作栽培模式下不同小豆品种的光合特性研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2016, (6): 67–72
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 赵广才,常旭虹,王德梅,陶志强,王艳杰,杨玉双,朱英杰. 小麦生产概况及其发展[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 1 –7 .
[2] 权宝全,白冬梅,田跃霞,薛云云. 不同源库关系对花生光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 102 –105 .
[3] 黄学芳,黄明镜,刘化涛,赵聪,王娟玲. 覆膜穴播条件下降水年型和群体密度对张杂谷5号分蘖成穗及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 106 –113 .
[4] 黄文辉, 王会, 梅德圣. 农作物抗倒性研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 13 –19 .
[5] 赵云,徐彩龙,杨旭,李素真,周静,李继存,韩天富,吴存祥. 不同播种方式对麦茬夏大豆保苗和生产效益的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 114 –120 .
[6] 陆梅,孙敏,任爱霞,雷妙妙,薛玲珠,高志强. 喷施叶面肥对旱地小麦生长的影响及与产量的关系[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 121 –125 .
[7] 王晓飞,徐海军,郭梦桥,肖宇,程薪宇,刘淑霞,关向军,吴耀坤,赵伟华,魏国江. 播期、密度及施肥对寒地油用型紫苏产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 126 –130 .
[8] 朱鹏锦,庞新华,梁春,谭秦亮,严霖,周全光,欧克维. 低温胁迫对甘蔗幼苗活性氧代谢和抗氧化酶的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 131 –137 .
[9] 高杰,李青风,彭秋,焦晓燕,王劲松. 不同养分配比对糯高粱物质生产及氮磷钾利用效率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 138 –142 .
[10] 商娜,杨中旭,李秋芝,尹会会,王士红,李海涛,李彤,张晗. 鲁西地区常规棉聊棉6号留叶枝栽培的适宜密度研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 143 –148 .