贵州省不同年代糯高粱品种（系）农艺性状演变分析

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.04.003

作物杂志,2019, 第4期: 17–23 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.04.003

• 遗传育种·种质资源·生物技术 • 上一篇下一篇

贵州省不同年代糯高粱品种（系）农艺性状演变分析

高杰¹,李青风¹,李晓荣²,封广才³,彭秋¹

1 贵州省旱粮研究所/贵州省农业科学院,550006,贵州贵阳
2 楚雄州农业科学院,675000,云南楚雄
3 黔东南州扶贫开发办公室,556000,贵州凯里

收稿日期:2019-03-28 修回日期:2019-06-20 出版日期:2019-08-15 发布日期:2019-08-06
通讯作者: 彭秋
作者简介:高杰,助理研究员,主要从事作物栽培、生理生化以及病虫害研究
基金资助:
黔农科院青年基金([2017]01号);国家现代农业产业体系建设专项“国家谷子高粱产业技术体系贵阳综合试验站”(CARS-06-13.5-B26);贵州省特色旱地粮食作物种质资源创新平台建设项目(黔科中引地（2018）4003);贵州山地优势特色杂粮研发与转化服务企业能力建设(黔科合服企[2018]4005);贵州特色植物种质资源利用与创新人才基地(RCJD2018-14)

Variation Analysis of Agronomic Traits of Waxy Sorghum Varieties (Lines) in Different Eras in Guizhou Province

Gao Jie¹,Li Qingfeng¹,Li Xiaorong²,Feng Guangcai³,Peng Qiu¹

1 Guizhou Institute of Upland Crops/Guizhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guiyang 550006, Guizhou, China
2 Chuxiong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chuxiong 675000, Yunnan, China
3 Qiandongnan Poverty Alleviation and Development Office, Kaili 556000, Guizhou, China

Received:2019-03-28 Revised:2019-06-20 Online:2019-08-15 Published:2019-08-06
Contact: Qiu Peng

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以贵州省不同年代酿酒用糯高粱品种（系）为研究对象,采用随机区组试验设计,对其农艺性状、产量构成以及抗性差异进行分析,结果表明：随着年代更替,贵州省酿酒用糯高粱单产逐步提高。新品种（红缨子、黔高8号）较老品系（黑壳糯、红壳糯）平均单产增幅25%以上;穗粒数、穗粒重增加显著,增幅分别为51.7%、62.7%;主穗一、二级枝梗数增加幅度分别为19.8%、62.7%;株高降低24.9%,茎粗增加9.5%;节间数增加0.9个,节间长缩短13.3cm;单株叶面积和叶面积指数增加显著;倒伏率、发病率下降显著,成穗率明显提升。各指标相关性分析显示,产量与穗粒数、穗粒重,穗粒数与主穗一、二级枝梗数呈极显著正相关;产量与株高、倒伏率极显著负相关,与茎粗正相关,相关系数分别为-0.981、-0.970和0.928,株高、茎粗与倒伏率相关显著,相关系数分别为0.964和-0.910;产量与叶面积指数正相关,与发病率显著负相关。总的结果表明,主穗一、二级枝梗数的增加提高了糯高粱的穗粒数,植株株高的降低、茎粗的增加促进了抗倒性的提升,抗病性的提升保证了后期叶片光合作用的持续进行,最终提高了糯高粱产量。

关键词: 高粱, 农艺性状, 产量构成, 抗逆性

Abstract:

The agronomic traits, yield composition and resistance differences of waxy sorghum for different eras in Guizhou Province were analyzed using a randomized block test design. The results showed that the yield of waxy sorghum increased gradually as the years changed. Compared with the old lines (Heikenuo, Hongkenuo), the new varieties (Hongyingzi, Qiangao 8) yield increased by more than 25%. The grain number per panicle and grain weight per panicle increased by 51.7% and 62.7%, respectively. The number of panicle primary and secondary branches increased by 19.8% and 62.7%, respectively. Plant height decreased by 24.9%, and stem diameter increased by 9.5%, respectively. The number of internodes increased by 0.9 and the length of internode shortened by 13.3cm, respectively. Leaf area per plant and leaf area index increased significantly. The stalk lodging rate and leaf morbidity rate decreased, the earbearing tiller rate increased. Correlation analysis of each index showed that yield was positively correlated with grain number per panicle and grain weight per panicle, and grain number per panicle was positively correlated with panicle primary and secondary branches. Yield was significantly negatively correlated with plant height and stalk lodging rate, and positively correlated with stem diameter, the correlation coefficent was -0.981, -0.970 and 0.928, respectively. Plant height and stem diameter were significantly correlated with stalk lodging rate (the correlation coefficent was 0.964 and -0.910, respectively). Yield was positively correlated with leaf area index and negatively correlated with leaf morbidity rate. All these suggests that the increase of panicle branches number increased grain number per panicle of waxy sorghum. lowered plant height, broadened stem diameter, promoted the lodging resistance, leaf disease resistance in turn provided the security of leaf photosynthesis after flowering and eventually led to the increase of waxy sorghum production.

Key words: Sorghum bicolor, Agronomic traits, Yield components, Stress tolerance

高杰,李青风,李晓荣,封广才,彭秋. 贵州省不同年代糯高粱品种（系）农艺性状演变分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019 (4): 17–23

Gao Jie,Li Qingfeng,Li Xiaorong,Feng Guangcai,Peng Qiu. Variation Analysis of Agronomic Traits of Waxy Sorghum Varieties (Lines) in Different Eras in Guizhou Province[J]. Crops, 2019(4): 17–23

图/表 8

表1

表2

图1

表3

图2

表4

表5

表6

参考文献 23

[1]	卢庆善, 邹剑秋, 朱凯 , 等. 试论我国高粱产业发展——论全国高粱生产优势区. 杂粮作物, 2009,29(2):78-80.
[2]	吕富堂, 韩爱清, 杜秀兰 , 等. 建国以来中国高粱发展历程及发展趋势. 山西农业科学, 2002(3):20-24.
[3]	宋仁本, 卢峰, 卢庆善 , 等. 我国高粱生产演变及发展前景分析. 杂粮作物, 2002(4):216-218.
[4]	Yared A, Scotta S . Grain sorghum yield with hybrid advancement and changes in agronomic practices from 1957 through 2008. Agronomy Journal, 2010,102(2):703-706.
[5]	李少昆, 王崇桃 . 玉米生产技术创新与扩散. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010: 1-32.
[6]	Duvick D N . The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L.). Advances in Agronomy, 2005,86(5):83-145.
[7]	Austin R B J, Bingham J, Blackwell R D , et al. Genetic improvements in winter wheat yields since 1900 and associated physiological changes. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 1980,94(3):675-689.
[8]	Duvick D N, Smith J S C, Cooper M . Long-term selection in a commercial hybrid maize breeding program. Plant Breeding Reviews, 2004,24(3):109-151.
[9]	Meghjim R, Dudley J W, Lambert R J , et al. Inbreeding depression,inbred and hybrid grain yields,and other traits of maize genotypes representing three eras. Crop Science, 1984,24(3):545-549.
[10]	Li J . Production,breeding and process of maize in China// Handbook of Maize:Its biology, New York:Springer, 2009: 563-576.
[11]	Miller F R, Kebede Y . Genetic contributions to yield gains in sorghum,1950 to 1980. //Genetic contributions to yield gains of five major crop plants, Madison:CSSA Special Publication, 1984: 1-14.
[12]	Dwyer L M, Stewart D W, Tollenaar M . Analysis of maize leaf photosynthesis under drought stress. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 1992,72(2):477-481.
[13]	Russell W A . Genetic improvement of maize yields. Advance in Agronomy, 1991,46:245-298.
[14]	关欣, 陈温福, 徐正进 , 等. 不同年代水稻品种穗部性状比较研究. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2004,35(2):81-84.
[15]	剧成欣, 陶进, 钱希旸 , 等. 不同年代中籼水稻品种的产量与氮肥利用效率. 作物学报, 2015,41(3):422-431. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2015.00422
[16]	王振华, 张喜英, 陈素英 , 等. 不同年代冬小麦品种产量性状和生理生态指标差异分析. 中国生态农业学报, 2007(3):75-79.
[17]	陆平 . 高粱种质资源描述规范和数据标准. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006: 8-26.
[18]	Ci X, Li M, Liang X , et al. Genetic contribution to advanced yield for maize hybrids released from 1970 to 2000 in China. Crop Science, 2011,51(1):1-8.
[19]	耿志训, 宋哲民, 张海峰 . 武功地区小麦品种改进在增产中作用大小的估算. 陕西农业科学, 1981,18(3):17-18.
[20]	Bruulsema T W, Tollenaar M, Heckman J R . Boosting crop yields in the next century. Better Crops, 2000,84(1):9-13.
[21]	宋荷仙, 李跃建, 冯君成 , 等. 小麦收获指数和源、库性状的遗传研究. 中国农业科学, 1993(3):21-26.
[22]	Duvick D N . Genetic progress in vield of United States maize (Zea mays L.). Maydica, 2005,50(3):193-202.
[23]	刘鑫, 谢瑞芝, 牛兴奎 , 等. 种植密度对东北地区不同年代玉米生产主推品种抗倒伏性能的影响. 作物杂志, 2012(5):126-130.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

材料名称Material name	材料类型Material type	来源Origin	鉴定时间Time of certification	应用年代Era of application
黑壳糯Heikenuo	品系	仁怀地方种	1989筛选	1990-1999
红壳糯Hongkenuo	品系	仁怀地方种	1989筛选	1990-1999
青壳洋Qingkeyang	品种	四川审定品种	2000引种	2000-2009
青选2号Qingxuan 2	品系	青壳洋系选	2002筛选	2002-2009
红缨子Hongyingzi	品种	贵州审定品种	2008省审	2008年以后
黔高8号Qiangao 8	品种	贵州审定品种	2009省审	2009年以后

年份Year	品种(系) Variety (line)	产量Yield (kg/hm²)	穗长PL (cm)	穗粒重GWP(g)	穗粒数GNP	千粒重TGW (g)
2016	黑壳糯Heikenuo	5 044.44b	33.57ab	51.08b	2 527.30b	20.66a
	红壳糯Hongkenuo	4 923.33b	34.20a	52.05b	2 385.95b	20.84a
	青壳洋Qingkeyang	6 111.67ab	32.33b	70.12a	3 629.79a	20.03a
	青选2号Qingxuan 2	6 105.56ab	32.77ab	68.76a	3 598.62a	19.12a
	红缨子Hongyingzi	6 352.22a	33.37ab	71.67a	3 684.76a	19.68a
	黔高8号Qiangao 8	6 360.01a	32.83ab	69.24a	3 627.40a	20.36a
2017	黑壳糯Heikenuo	3 529.42b	32.83ab	28.83b	1 524.01b	19.37a
	红壳糯Hongkenuo	3 508.33b	33.70a	29.04b	1 497.12b	19.66a
	青壳洋Qingkeyang	4 210.05a	31.73ab	47.08a	2 527.30a	18.46a
	青选2号Qingxuan 2	4 156.75a	31.40b	46.12a	2 588.29a	17.70a
	红缨子Hongyingzi	4 391.67a	31.87ab	48.57a	2 728.43a	17.69a
	黔高8号Qiangao 8	4 396.84a	31.37b	47.89a	2 604.21a	19.20a

年份 Year	品种(系) Variety (line)	节间数 IN	节间长 IL (cm)	主穗柄长 PSL (cm)
2016	黑壳糯Heikenuo	7.04e	39.01a	65.20b
	红壳糯Hongkenuo	6.83f	39.62a	68.42a
	青壳洋Qingkeyang	7.23d	30.49b	57.03c
	青选2号Qingxuan 2	7.60c	30.58b	54.65d
	红缨子Hongyingzi	7.83b	27.13c	50.17e
	黔高8号Qiangao 8	7.97a	24.91d	52.37f
2017	黑壳糯Heikenuo	7.07d	36.98b	64.75b
	红壳糯Hongkenuo	6.87e	39.46a	67.79a
	青壳洋Qingkeyang	7.25c	28.72c	56.92c
	青选2号Qingxuan 2	7.50b	28.79c	55.00d
	红缨子Hongyingzi	7.79a	25.41d	48.25e
	黔高8号Qiangao 8	7.88a	24.64d	52.13f

年份 Year	品种（系） Variety (line)	单株叶面积 LA (cm²)	叶面积指数 LAI
2016	黑壳糯Heikenuo	4 772.51b	5.37b
	红壳糯Hongkenuo	5 057.61b	5.69b
	青壳洋Qingkeyang	6 017.72a	6.77a
	青选2号Qingxuan 2	5 950.59a	6.69a
	红缨子Hongyingzi	6 146.79a	6.92a
	黔高8号Qiangao 8	6 023.79a	6.78a
2017	黑壳糯Heikenuo	3 030.59c	3.41c
	红壳糯Hongkenuo	2 557.72d	2.88d
	青壳洋Qingkeyang	3 409.33b	3.84b
	青选2号Qingxuan 2	3 934.77a	4.43a
	红缨子Hongyingzi	4 144.11a	4.66a
	黔高8号Qiangao 8	4 152.09a	4.67a

年份 Year	品种（系） Variety（line）	发病率 LMR (%)	倒伏率 SLR (%)	成穗率 ETR (%)
2016	黑壳糯Heikenuo	34.01a	11.10a	87.21c
	红壳糯Hongkenuo	36.33a	8.08b	87.77c
	青壳洋Qingkeyang	18.33b	2.34c	91.53b
	青选2号Qingxuan 2	16.67b	2.22c	91.59b
	红缨子Hongyingzi	3.67c	0.96d	94.01a
	黔高8号Qiangao 8	3.33c	0.76e	94.40a
2017	黑壳糯Heikenuo	100.00a	12.69a	85.28e
	红壳糯Hongkenuo	100.00a	10.04b	86.10d
	青壳洋Qingkeyang	56.33b	2.87c	91.63c
	青选2号Qingxuan 2	51.33b	2.67c	91.70c
	红缨子Hongyingzi	30.01c	1.40d	92.56b
	黔高8号Qiangao 8	28.33c	0.89e	94.48a

贵州省不同年代糯高粱品种（系）农艺性状演变分析

Variation Analysis of Agronomic Traits of Waxy Sorghum Varieties (Lines) in Different Eras in Guizhou Province

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 23

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

指标 Index	产量 Yield	穗粒重 GWP	穗粒数 GNP	株高 PH	茎粗 SD	一级枝梗数 PBN	二级枝梗数 SBN	节间长 IL	叶面积指数 LAI	发病率 LMR	倒伏率 SLR	成穗率 ETR
Yield	-1
GWP	-0.993^**	-1
GNP	-0.982^**	-0.993^**	-1
PH	-0.981^**	-0.961^**	-0.944^**	-1
SD	-0.928^**	-0.899^*	-0.875^*	-0.962^**	-1
PBN	-0.990^**	-0.975^**	-0.972^**	-0.967^**	-0.918^**	-1
SBN	-0.996^**	-0.997^**	-0.992^**	-0.977^**	-0.919^**	-0.981^**	-1
IL	-0.979^**	-0.951^**	-0.931^**	-0.996^**	-0.967^**	-0.972^**	-0.967^**	-1
LAI	-0.981^**	-0.966^**	-0.957^**	-0.996^**	-0.941^**	-0.967^**	-0.982^**	-0.988^**	-1
LMR	-0.980^**	-0.964^**	-0.950^**	-0.999^**	-0.960^**	-0.962^**	-0.980^**	-0.991^**	-0.998^**	-1
SLR	-0.970^**	-0.975^**	-0.948^**	-0.964^**	-0.910^**	-0.926^**	-0.974^**	-0.949^**	-0.962^**	-0.968^**	-1
ETR	-0.971^**	-0.950^**	-0.919^**	-0.991^**	-0.959^**	-0.944^**	-0.962^**	-0.989^**	-0.980^**	-0.988^**	-0.976^**	1

[1]	王小明,廖政达,何奕响,孙晓波,韦增林,韦喜,苏喜德. 糖料蔗等价配方施肥农艺及品质性状比较分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (4): 191–195
[2]	穆云森,温晓蕾,杨燕萍,刘欣欣,郭娟,崔敬,宋楠,左学丽,车永和. 新疆杂草黑麦基本农艺性状分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (4): 42–48
[3]	曲志华,白苇,张丽丽,李峰,胡杨,乔海明. 170份亚麻种质资源主要农艺性状分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (4): 77–83
[4]	张自强,王良,白晨,张惠忠,李晓东,付增娟,赵尚敏,鄂圆圆,张辉,张必周. 104份甜菜种质资源主要农艺性状分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (3): 29–36
[5]	谭秦亮,朱鹏锦,程琴,李佳慧,吕平,庞新华,周全光. 不同甘蔗品种（系）的产量构成因素及品质比较[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (3): 49–54
[6]	任洪雷,李春霞,龚士琛,李国良,扈光辉,王明泉,杨剑飞. 利用SPSS实现玉米杂交种主要农艺性状与产量的相关和通径分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (3): 86–90
[7]	付颖,沈轶男,刘艳春,柴晓娇,王显瑞,白晓雷,李书田. 不同春谷品种支链淀粉含量与营养品质指标及农艺性状的相关性分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 90–93
[8]	梁茜,刘文亚,葛均筑,赵明,侯海鹏,杨永安,辛德财. 条带深旋小双行精播技术对夏玉米产量调控效应研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 111–115
[9]	王小明,李大成,廖政达,甘远初,陈辉袖,苏喜德,韦增林. 糖料蔗新品种农艺性状及产量的比较[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 50–55
[10]	任瑞玉,何继红,董孔军,张磊,刘天鹏,杨天育. 四个糜子主栽品种在甘肃会宁的适宜播期分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 152–158
[11]	李春宏,陆相龙,张培通,苏衍菁,王仪明,郭文琦,殷剑美,韩晓勇,王立,火恩杰. 防除甜高粱田杂草的除草剂筛选[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (6): 158–161
[12]	王蕾,张想平,李润喜,牛小霞,杨世梅,严宗山,张自强. 大麦农艺性状和子粒支链淀粉的多元分析与评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 71–76
[13]	张一中,周福平,张晓娟,邵强,杨彬,柳青山. 高粱种质材料光合特性和水分利用效率鉴定及聚类分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 45–53
[14]	张瑞栋,曹雄,岳忠孝,梁晓红,刘静,黄敏佳. 氮肥和密度对高粱产量及氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 110–115
[15]	张建华,郭瑞峰,曹昌林,范娜,江佰阳,李光,史丽娟,彭之东,白文斌. 几种茎叶除草剂防除高粱田杂草药效和安全性研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (5): 162–166