检索
E-mail
RSS
高级检索 图表检索

当期目录 我要投稿 过刊浏览
高级检索 图表检索

作物杂志,2019, 第1期: 141–145 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.01.023

所属专题： 杂粮作物

• 生理生化·植物营养·栽培耕作 • 上一篇    下一篇

春播谷子成熟期抗倒伏性研究

杜艳伟,赵晋锋,王高鸿,李颜方,赵根有,阎晓光   

  1. 山西省农业科学院谷子研究所,046011,山西长治
  • 收稿日期:2018-09-04 修回日期:2018-12-13 出版日期:2019-02-15 发布日期:2019-02-01
  • 通讯作者: 赵晋锋
  • 基金资助:
    山西省农业科学院特色农业技术攻关项目(YGG17021);山西“农谷”研发专项(YCX2018206)

Study of Lodging Resistance of Spring-Sowing Foxtail Millet in Maturity Stages

Yanwei Du,Jinfeng Zhao,Gaohong Wang,Yanfang Li,Genyou Zhao,Xiaoguang Yan   

  1. Millet Research Institute, Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changzhi 046011, Shanxi, China
  • Received:2018-09-04 Revised:2018-12-13 Online:2019-02-15 Published:2019-02-01
  • Contact: Jinfeng Zhao

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

155

摘要：

试验以长谷4号、长生13和晋谷21为材料,在成熟期（乳熟期、蜡熟期和完熟期）测定7个性状指标,分析其与倒伏性的关系。结果表明,3个品种的倒伏指数均以黄熟期最大,乳熟期最小;从基部第2节间~第6节间,倒伏指数依次增加,抗倒伏性依次降低。相关性分析表明,基部第2节间倒伏指数与重心高度和单株穗鲜重呈显著正相关,与株高、单株鲜重和基部第2节间长度呈正相关,与基部第2节间直径和基部第2节间机械强度呈负相关,但都未达到显著水平。通径分析结果表明,各性状对倒伏指数的直接影响从大到小排序为：基部第2节间机械强度、单株鲜重、重心高度、株高、基部第2节间直径、基部第2节间长度和单株穗鲜重。由研究结果可见,基部第2节间机械强度和重心高度可作为评价谷子成熟期抗倒伏性的通用指标,对选育抗倒伏谷子新品种具有重要指导意义。

关键词: 谷子, 成熟期, 茎秆性状, 倒伏指数

Abstract:

Changgu 4,Changsheng 13 and Jingu 21 were studied as materials in this experiment, the correlation of seven character indexes with lodging resistance at maturity stages (milk-ripe stage, waxy-ripe stage and yellow maturity stage) were analyzed. The results indicated that the lodging index of three varieties was the highest in yellow maturity stage and the lowest in milk-ripe stage. Lodging index increased gradually with increase of internodes (primary internode from two to six) whereas lodging resistance decreased stepwise. Correlation analysis showed that a significant positive correlation between lodging index of the second internode and height of the center of gravity, fresh weight of spike per plant existed. Some positive correlation existed between lodging index of the second internode and plant height, length of the second internode and fresh weight per plant, but a negative correlation existed between lodging index of the second internode basal and the diameter of the second internode basal, the mechanical strength of the second internode basal. Though they both didn’t reach significant level. Path analysis showed that those relevant traits had a direct effect on lodging index of the second internode from stronger to weaker followed the trend: mechanical strength of the second internode, fresh weight per plant, height of the center of gravity, plant height, the diameter of the second internode basal, length of the second internode basal and fresh weight of spike per plant. The results indicated that mechanical strength of the second internode basal, fresh weight per plant and height of the center of gravity were important traits parameter to evaluate crop-stem lodging resistance with the growing of millet, which has the extremely vital significance for selective lodging resistance breeding of the new millet cultivar.

Key words: Foxtail millet, Maturity, Traits, Lodging index

表1

不同品种在成熟期的倒伏指数"

品种Cultivar 成熟期Growth stage 第2节间
Second internode		 第3节间
Third internode		 第4节间
4th internode		 第5节间
5th internode		 第6节间
6th internode
长谷4号Changgu 4 乳熟期Milk-ripe stage 0.640a 0.657b 0.707a 0.779b 0.844b
蜡熟期Waxy-ripe stage 0.674a 0.732b 0.819a 0.871b 0.894b
黄熟期Yellow maturity stage 0.843a 1.042a 1.007a 1.140a 1.306a
长生13 Changsheng 13 乳熟期Milk-ripe stage 0.603a 0.644b 0.760b 0.858b 0.911b
蜡熟期Waxy-ripe stage 0.657a 0.800ab 0.866ab 1.013ab 1.134ab
黄熟期Yellow maturity stage 0.740a 1.089a 1.241a 1.499a 1.656a
晋谷21 Jingu 21 乳熟期Milk-ripe stage 0.585b 0.695a 0.764a 0.718b 0.736b
蜡熟期Waxy-ripe stage 0.666ab 0.848a 0.973a 0.968ab 1.077ab
黄熟期Yellow maturity stage 0.988a 0.978a 1.092a 1.303a 1.431a
显著水平Significance level c b b a a

表2

不同品种在成熟期抗倒伏性状的相关系数"

性状
Trait		 株高
Plant height
x1		 重心高度
Height of gravity
centre x2		 单株鲜重
Fresh weight
per plant x3		 单株穗鲜重
Fresh weight of
spike per plant x4		 节间长度
Internode
length x5		 节间直径
Internode diameter x6		 机械强度
Mechanical
strength x7		 倒伏指数Lodging
index y
x1 1
x2 0.882** 1
x3 0.810** 0.865** 1
x4 0.219 0.489 0.693* 1
x5 0.793* 0.654 0.423 -0.227 1
x6 0.709* 0.553 0.420 -0.227 0.751* 1
x7 0.780* 0.645 0.748* 0.189 0.520 0.830** 1
y 0.443 0.708* 0.621 0.687* 0.264 -0.157 -0.004 1

表3

不同品种在成熟期抗倒伏性状的通径系数"

通径Pathxi→y 直接作用Direct effect 间接作用Indirect effect
总和
Total		 株高
Plant height
→x1		 重心高度
Height of
gravity centre
→x2		 单株鲜重
Fresh weight
per plant
→x3		 单株穗鲜重
Fresh weight of spike per plant
→x4		 节间长度
Internode length
→x5		 节间直径
Internode diameter
→x6		 机械强度
Mechanical strength
→x7
x1→y -0.1722 0.6152 0.6514 0.7145 -0.0185 0.1027 -0.1205 -0.7144
x2→y 0.7384 0.1212 -0.1519 0.7627 -0.0415 0.0847 -0.0939 -0.5908
x3→y 0.8822 -0.1221 -0.1395 0.6384 -0.0587 0.0547 -0.0713 -0.6852
x4→y -0.0847 0.8092 -0.0377 0.3614 0.6117 -0.0294 0.0386 -0.1731
x5→y 0.1294 0.2710 -0.1366 0.4831 0.3727 0.0193 -0.1276 -0.4765
x6→y -0.1699 0.1349 -0.1221 0.4082 0.3703 0.0192 0.0972 -0.7600
x7→y -0.9160 0.9122 -0.1343 0.4763 0.6599 -0.016 0.0673 -0.1410
[1] Weibel R O, Pendleton J W . Effect of artificial lodging on winter wheat grain yield and quality. Agronomy Journal, 1964,56(5):487-488.
doi: 10.2134/agronj1964.00021962005600050013x
[2] Hitaka H . Studies on the lodging of rice plants. Jarq-Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 1969,4(3):1-6.
[3] 田伯红 . 禾谷类作物抗倒伏性的研究方法与谷子抗倒性评价. 植物遗传资源学报, 2013,14(2):265-269.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1810.2013.02.012
[4] Hoshikawa K, Wang S B . Studies on lodging in rice plants. I. A general observation on lodgedrice culms. Japanese Journal of Crop Sicience, 1990,59(4):809-814.
doi: 10.1626/jcs.59.809
[5] Ma D L, Xie R Z, Liu X , et al. Lodging-related stalk characteristics of maize varieties in China since the 1950s. Crop Science, 2014,54(6):2805-2813.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2014.04.0301
[6] Berry P M, Sterling M, Spink J H , et al. Understanding and reducing lodging in cereals. Advances in Agronomy, 2004,84:217-271.
doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(04)84005-7
[7] Worland T, Snape J W. Genetic control of plant stature//Bonjean A P, Angus W J. The world wheat book:A history of wheat breeding. Paris:Lavoisier Publishing, 2001: 67-71.
[8] 关玉萍, 沈枫 . 水稻抗倒伏能力与茎秆物理性状的关系及对产量的影响. 吉林农业科学, 2004,29(4):6-11.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-8701.2004.04.002
[9] 程富丽, 杜雄, 刘梦星 , 等. 玉米倒伏及其对产量的影响. 玉米科学, 2017(1):105-108.
[10] 王勇, 李晴棋 . 小麦品种抗倒性评价方法的研究. 华北农学报, 1995,10(3):54-55.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-7091.1995.03.018
[11] Tripathi S C, Sayre K D, Kaul J N . Planting systems on lodging behavior,yield components,and yield of irrigated spring breed wheat. Crop Science, 2005,45(4):1-8.
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2005.0001
[12] 闵东红, 王辉, 孟超敏 , 等. 不同株高小麦品种抗倒伏性与其亚性状及产量相关性研究. 麦类作物学报, 2001,21(4):76-79.
doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1009-1041.2001.04.108
[13] 朱新开, 王祥菊, 郭凯泉 , 等. 小麦倒伏的茎秆特征及对产量与品质的影响. 麦类作物学报, 2006,26(1):87-92.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-1041.2006.01.020
[14] 兰彩霞, 郭玉华, 赵鑫闻 , 等. 杂交粳稻及其亲本抗倒伏性的相关分析. 华北农学报, 2010,25(2):178-181.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2010.02.036
[15] 陈晓光, 石玉华, 王成雨 , 等. 氮肥和多效唑对小麦茎秆木质素合成的影响及其与抗倒伏性的关系. 中国农业科学, 2017(17):3529-3536.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2011.17.005
[16] Ookawa T, Todokoro Y, Ishihara K . Changes in physical and chemical characteristics of culm associated with lodging resistance in paddy rice (Oryza sativa) under different growth conditions and varietal difference of their changes. Japanese Journal of Crop Science, 1993,62:525-533.
doi: 10.1626/jcs.62.525
[17] 姚金保, 张平平, 任丽娟 , 等. 小麦抗倒指数遗传及其与茎秆特性的相关分析. 作物学报, 2011,37(3):452-458.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.00452
[18] 贾小平, 董普辉, 张红晓 , 等. 不同谷子品种(系)生长发育特性及抗倒性分析. 河南农业科学, 2015,44(8):27-31.
doi: 10.15933/j.cnki.1004-3268.2015.08.006
[19] 刘艳丽, 田伯红, 张立新 , 等. 谷子育成品种的抗倒性评价. 河北农业科学, 2014,18(4):8-12.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1088-1631.2014.04.003
[20] 袁立新 . 谷子株型对茎秆倒伏影响的研究. 吉林农业科学, 2017(4):36-37,53.
[21] 代小冬, 杨育峰, 陈煜 , 等. 施肥对谷子农艺性状、产量及抗倒伏能力的影响. 河南农业科学, 2014,43(10):47-52.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2014.10.012
[22] 王宇先, 李清泉, 赵蕾 , 等. 谷子矮化处理对倒伏性状及产量的影响. 黑龙江农业科学, 2017(11):23-25.
doi: 10.11942/j.issn1002-2767.2016.11.0023
[23] 高杨, 王杰, 石丽娟 , 等. 叶面喷施烯效唑对谷子抗倒伏性状及光合色素含量的影响. 山西农业科学, 2017,45(8):1232-1236.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2017.08.04
[24] 贾小平, 董普辉, 张红晓 , 等. 谷子抗倒伏性和株高、穗部性状的相关性研究. 植物遗传资源学报, 2015,16(6):1188-1193.
doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2015.06.008
[25] Zuber U, Winzeler H, Messmer M M , et al. Morphological traints associated with lodging resistance of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 1999,182(1):17-24.
doi: 10.1046/j.1439-037x.1999.00251.x
[26] Islam M S, Peng S, Visperas R M , et al. Lodging-related morphological traits of hybrid rice in a tropical irrigated ecosystem. Field Crops Research, 2007,101(2):240-248.
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2006.12.002
[27] Yang J C, Zhang J H . Grain filling of cereals under soil drying. New Phytologist, 2006,169(2):223-236.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01597.x pmid: 16411926
[28] Tian B H, Wang J G, Zhang L X , et al. Assessment of resistance to lodging of landrace and improved cultivars in foxtail millet. Euphytica, 2010,172:295-302.
doi: 10.1007/s10681-009-9999-z
[29] 王勇, 李斯深, 李安飞 , 等. 小麦种质抗倒性评价和抗倒性状的相关与通径分析. 西北植物学报, 2000,20(1):79-85.
[1] 刘韶光,赵夏童,宋喜娥,原向阳,董淑琦,郭美俊,郭平毅. 膜间喷施芽前除草剂对谷子安全性及对杂草防效的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 173–178
[2] 王小林,纪晓玲,张盼盼,张雄,张静. 黄土高原旱地谷子品种地上器官干物质分配与产量形成相关性分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 150–155
[3] 魏萌涵, 解慧芳, 邢璐, 宋慧, 王淑君, 王素英, 刘海萍, 付楠, 刘金荣. 华北地区谷子产量与农艺性状的综合评价分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (4): 42–47
[4] 李志华,穆婷婷,刘鑫,李会霞,田岗. 4个谷子不育系主要农艺性状的配合力分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (3): 61–67
[5] 岳茂林,薛蔚荣,张瑞栋,岳忠孝,吕瑞洲,郭鹏燕. 不同行距配置对谷子农艺性状及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (2): 93–96
[6] 孙冬雪,张爱军. 底施锌肥对谷子抗氧化性及干物质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (6): 160–164
[7] 郭瑞锋,张永福,任月梅,杨忠. 混合盐碱胁迫对谷子萌发、幼芽生长的影响及耐盐碱品种筛选[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (4): 63–66
[8] 宋国亮,冯小磊,范光宇,史高雷,李双东,王峰,王晓明,赵治海. 谷子新不育系的配合力分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (2): 44–50
[9] 代小冬,朱灿灿,秦娜,杨育峰,王雁楠,杨国红,司冰,刘诗慧,李君霞. 烯效唑和密度对谷子产量及产量相关性状的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (2): 104–108
[10] 邱双,闫双堆,刘利军. 不同谷子品种耐低磷能力研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (2): 139–144
[11] 赵丽娟,马金丰,李延东,李祥羽,李志江,袁红梅,郭文栋. 60Co-γ射线辐射谷子干种子诱变效应的研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (1): 38–43
[12] 穆婷婷,杜慧玲,景小兰,李志华,郭琦,田岗,李会霞,刘璋. 外源硒对谷子产量因子及硒含量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (1): 73–78
[13] 李志华,景小兰,李会霞,田岗,刘鑫,穆婷婷. 谷子苗期除草剂的安全性及杂草防效研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2017, (1): 150–154
[14] 代小冬,徐心志,朱灿灿,杨育峰,秦娜,王雁楠,王春义,杨晓平,杨国红,李君霞. 谷子氮、磷、钾肥的效应研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2016, (5): 147–151
[15] 景小兰,李志华,穆婷婷,张福耀. 抗除草剂杂交谷子晋谷50号轻简高效配套栽培技术研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2016, (2): 168–172
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 .