Crops ›› 2020, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (3): 117-124.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2020.03.018

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Variety Screening and Study of Cultivation Technology for Forage Triticale Varieties Based on Principal Component and Grey Relation Analysis

Zhang Yang, Zhang Wei, Zhao Weijun, Shao Rongfeng, Wang Guan, Xue Dingding, Li Jinmei   

  1. Sorghum Research Institute, Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinzhong 030600, Shanxi, China
  • Received:2019-07-09 Revised:2019-09-11 Online:2020-06-15 Published:2020-06-10

RichHTML

6

PDF (PC)

199

Abstract:

This study was designed to select the best triticale variety with optimum cultivation technology for good-quality and high-yield in Yanmenguan region of China. Principal component analysis and grey relation analysis were used to evaluate the yield and forage quality of different triticale varieties under different densities and fertilization conditions. The results showed that the variations of sugar and protein in the quality indexes of triticale were large, whereas, the variations of total digestible nutrients and energy quality were little. The correlation analysis showed that relative feed value (RFV) significantly correlated with crude protein content, rumen degradable protein content, alcohol soluble sugar content, total digestible nutrients, net energy of milk production, net energy of maintenance, net energy of weight gain, and relative feed quality (RFQ). Therefore, RFV could best reflect the quality of forage grass in a single indicator. Taking grey relational degree and principal component analysis method into consideration, Jinsicao1 (150kg/ha, compound fertilizer 750kg/ha, and urea 150kg/ha) was most suitable for planting in Yanmenguan area.

Key words: Principal component analysis, Grey relation analysis, Triticale, Good-quality and high-yield, Comprehensive evaluation

Table 1

The mean of each index in different treatments of triticale"

处理
Treatment		 株高
Plant height
(cm)		 穗长
Ear length
(cm)		 产量
Yield
(kg/hm2)		 粗蛋白
Crude protein
(DM%)		 瘤胃降解蛋白
Rumen degradable protein (DM%)		 NDFD30
(DM%)		 NDFD120
(DM%)		 NDFD240
(DM%)		 醇溶糖
Alcohol soluble sugar (DM%)		 淀粉
Starch
(DM%)		 粗脂肪
Crude fat
(DM%)		 总可消化养分
Total digestible
nutrients (DM%)		 NEL
(mcal/kg)		 NEm
(mcal/kg)		 NEg
(mcal/kg)		 RFV RFQ
A1B1C1 134.3 14.0 34 340.5 12.5 9.0 28.3 32.5 34.2 9.2 1.2 2.8 56.4 1.3 1.20 0.6 89.0 98.0
A1B2C1 134.3 14.0 37 953.6 13.4 9.7 26.8 30.8 32.4 8.2 1.2 2.5 55.4 1.2 1.10 0.6 86.0 83.0
A1B3C1 134.7 13.0 35 507.0 14.2 10.9 30.3 34.8 36.6 7.7 0.6 2.7 56.6 1.3 1.20 0.6 89.0 101.0
A2B1C1 115.3 9.0 34 857.7 11.8 9.1 28.8 33.0 34.8 5.9 1.0 2.7 53.2 1.2 1.05 0.5 79.0 75.0
A2B2C1 116.3 9.0 38 464.3 12.6 9.7 26.3 30.2 31.8 8.9 1.1 2.8 55.9 1.2 1.14 0.6 90.0 91.0
A2B3C1 115.7 9.7 35 118.3 13.0 10.2 28.4 32.6 34.3 9.1 0.7 2.8 56.8 1.3 1.17 0.6 88.0 98.0
A3B1C1 130.3 12.3 28 623.5 13.1 9.7 27.6 31.7 33.4 6.2 1.0 3.1 55.6 1.2 1.13 0.6 85.0 89.0
A3B2C1 131.7 12.3 39 475.3 13.0 9.5 29.9 39.4 41.5 5.4 0.8 3.4 56.7 1.3 1.18 0.6 85.0 96.0
A3B3C1 131.0 13.3 37 250.6 10.8 7.5 29.1 33.4 35.1 3.4 1.9 3.5 54.2 1.2 1.09 0.5 79.0 81.0
A1B1C2 133.7 14.0 36 031.0 12.8 9.6 29.8 38.6 40.6 8.6 1.0 2.7 57.1 1.3 1.18 0.6 90.0 104.0
A1B2C2 134.7 13.7 38 332.5 14.0 10.8 29.8 38.6 40.6 9.0 1.7 3.0 59.7 1.3 1.27 0.7 98.0 122.0
A1B3C2 133.0 12.7 35 860.5 13.5 10.5 27.8 32.0 33.6 9.1 1.1 3.0 57.9 1.3 1.21 0.7 95.0 106.0
A2B1C2 114.7 9.7 36 694.5 13.8 10.1 27.1 31.1 32.8 8.8 1.0 3.1 57.1 1.3 1.18 0.6 93.0 95.0
A2B2C2 115.7 9.7 39 038.0 13.3 10.1 28.7 32.9 34.6 8.9 1.5 2.9 57.9 1.3 1.21 0.7 91.0 102.0
A2B3C2 115.0 9.3 36 878.0 11.3 8.5 24.8 28.5 30.0 8.0 1.3 2.6 55.0 1.2 1.11 0.6 80.0 75.0
A3B1C2 130.7 12.7 28 810.5 9.7 7.1 29.3 33.7 35.4 7.4 1.1 2.8 54.9 1.2 1.11 0.6 74.0 78.0
A3B2C2 132.7 12.3 40 339.0 10.6 7.6 25.4 29.1 30.7 8.8 1.0 2.8 56.4 1.3 1.16 0.6 82.0 83.0
A3B3C2 131.3 12.3 37 524.0 12.6 9.0 22.0 25.2 26.6 7.6 0.8 3.0 56.3 1.3 1.16 0.6 84.0 75.0
A1B1C3 134.7 14.3 36 037.0 14.5 11.8 27.8 31.9 33.6 10.5 0.9 2.9 59.2 1.3 1.25 0.7 104.0 119.0
A1B2C3 134.3 14.0 38 326.0 12.9 9.8 27.9 32.1 33.8 9.2 1.0 3.0 57.9 1.3 1.22 0.7 92.0 105.0
A1B3C3 134.3 13.3 35 854.5 14.4 11.0 28.1 32.3 34.0 9.0 0.8 2.9 58.0 1.3 1.22 0.7 94.0 105.0
A2B1C3 115.7 9.3 41 692.0 13.7 10.8 28.0 32.2 33.9 10.8 0.9 2.9 59.0 1.3 1.25 0.7 96.0 114.0
A2B2C3 115.7 9.3 39 033.5 11.3 8.5 27.9 36.9 38.9 9.3 1.4 2.8 57.9 1.3 1.21 0.7 86.0 99.0
A2B3C3 116.3 9.0 36 886.5 11.3 8.3 26.2 30.0 31.6 10.9 1.5 2.6 57.6 1.3 1.20 0.6 88.0 97.0
A3B1C3 132.7 12.7 28 801.0 8.2 6.0 27.9 32.0 33.7 9.7 1.3 2.6 56.6 1.3 1.17 0.6 81.0 88.0
A3B2C3 133.0 12.7 40 338.5 10.5 7.8 24.8 28.5 30.0 6.6 0.9 2.3 53.6 1.2 1.06 0.5 73.0 63.0
A3B3C3 133.3 12.7 37 517.0 15.0 12.0 27.4 29.7 32.0 5.6 1.3 3.3 56.8 1.3 1.18 0.6 88.0 93.0
平均值
Mean		 127.2 11.9 36 503.1 12.5 9.4 27.6 32.4 34.1 8.2 1.1 2.9 56.7 1.3 1.20 0.6 87.4 93.9
变异系数
Coefficient of variation (%)		 6.7 16.2 9.1 12.9 15.3 6.7 10.0 9.9 21.4 27.4 9.3 2.8 3.2 4.70 8.4 8.2 15.2

Table 2

Correlation coefficient matrix between different indexes"

性状Trait 株高
Plant
height		 穗长
Ear
length		 产量
Yield		 粗蛋白
Crude
protein		 瘤胃降解蛋白
Rumen degradable protein		 NDFD30 NDFD120 NDFD240 醇溶糖
Alcohol soluble sugar		 淀粉
Starch		 粗脂肪
Crude
fat		 总可消化养分
Total digestible nutrients		 产奶
净能
NEL		 维持
净能
NEm		 增重
净能
NEg		 RFV RFQ
株高Plant height
穗长Ear length -0.969**
产量Yield -0.191 -0.193
粗蛋白Crude protein -0.088 0.136 0.311
瘤胃降解蛋白
Rumen degradable protein		 -0.047 0.089 0.288 -0.977**
NDFD30 -0.135 0.206 -0.230 -0.202 -0.230
NDFD120 -0.115 0.176 -0.038 -0.135 -0.138 -0.865**
NDFD240 -0.119 0.176 -0.034 -0.149 -0.153 -0.867** -0.999**
醇溶糖
Alcohol soluble sugar		 -0.219 -0.175 0.090 -0.095 -0.160 -0.101 -0.061 -0.073
淀粉Starch -0.113 -0.056 0.040 -0.278 -0.291 -0.099 -0.124 -0.128 -0.119
粗脂肪Crude fat -0.154 0.176 0.062 -0.360* -0.302 -0.295 -0.275 -0.291 -0.442* 0.187
总可消化养分
Total digestible nutrients		 -0.047 0.092 0.242 -0.515** -0.552** -0.225 -0.307 -0.310 -0.686** 0.016 0.238
产奶净能NEL -0.057 0.099 0.243 -0.496** -0.532** -0.254 -0.333* -0.338* -0.630** 0.046 0.322 0.993**
维持净能NEm -0.070 0.107 0.243 -0.511** -0.546** -0.238 -0.314 -0.318 -0.655** 0.012 0.280 0.997** 0.995**
增重净能NEg -0.054 0.096 0.246 -0.498** -0.536** -0.222 -0.298 -0.303 -0.662** 0.046 0.276 0.997** 0.996** 0.997**
RFV -0.035 0.117 0.241 -0.759** -0.784** -0.247 -0.227 -0.229 -0.581** -0.085 0.253 0.870** 0.849** 0.856** 0.859**
RFQ -0.076 0.153 0.149 -0.611** -0.654** -0.521** -0.515** -0.517** -0.559** 0.015 0.297 0.917** 0.912** 0.913** 0.910** 0.916** 1

Table 3

Component matrix and rotated component matrix of principal component analysis"

性状Trait 初始载荷矩阵Component matrix 旋转后因子载荷矩阵Rotated component matrix
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
株高Plant height 0.097 0.477 0.707 0.465 0.104 0.017 0.038 0.049 0.978 0.046
穗长Ear length 0.162 0.506 0.674 0.457 0.104 0.066 0.096 0.051 0.967 0.063
产量Yield 0.245 -0.348 -0.002 -0.420 0.289 0.239 -0.241 0.191 -0.340 0.417
粗蛋白Crude protein 0.679 -0.076 0.445 -0.505 -0.151 0.402 0.064 0.821 0.031 0.320
瘤胃降解蛋白Rumen degradable protein 0.709 -0.109 0.392 -0.476 -0.205 0.445 0.081 0.818 -0.011 0.252
NDFD30 0.427 0.762 -0.274 -0.088 -0.259 0.111 0.938 0.087 0.102 0.046
NDFD120 0.464 0.743 -0.380 -0.056 -0.170 0.185 0.949 -0.023 0.046 0.083
NDFD240 0.470 0.747 -0.371 -0.070 -0.161 0.185 0.949 -0.014 0.048 0.101
醇溶糖Alcohol soluble sugar 0.535 -0.576 -0.271 0.475 -0.245 0.787 -0.162 -0.054 -0.202 -0.536
淀粉Starch -0.030 0.181 -0.432 0.079 0.732 0.095 0.091 -0.701 -0.105 0.493
粗脂肪Crude fat 0.346 0.401 0.183 -0.419 0.529 0.114 0.241 0.111 0.164 0.811
总可消化养分Total digestible nutrients 0.951 -0.189 -0.069 0.180 0.095 0.975 0.124 0.123 0.018 0.071
产奶净能NEL 0.949 -0.139 -0.078 0.157 0.155 0.961 0.152 0.093 0.028 0.140
维持净能NEm 0.951 -0.163 -0.055 0.173 0.118 0.966 0.132 0.120 0.038 0.101
增重净能NEg 0.946 -0.179 -0.070 0.178 0.144 0.974 0.116 0.095 0.026 0.112
RFV 0.927 -0.197 0.126 -0.056 -0.050 0.843 0.097 0.432 0.011 0.114
RFQ 0.979 0.059 -0.082 0.052 -0.055 0.865 0.393 0.250 0.040 0.085
初始特征值Initial eigenvalue 7.506 2.994 1.997 1.631 1.241
贡献率Contribution (%) 44.150 17.610 11.747 9.592 7.302
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution rate (%) 44.150 61.761 73.508 83.099 90.401

Table 4

Ranking of comprehensive benefit value of principal component analysis"

处理Treatment F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F 排名Rank 处理Treatment F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F 排名Rank
A1B1C1 319.7 -395.3 51.3 -701.8 583.5 58.4 8 A2B3C2 319.4 -440.3 42.2 -766.0 629.0 45.3 26
A1B2C1 333.8 -445.8 53.4 -782.3 647.4 52.4 18 A3B1C2 272.7 -319.0 47.4 -581.7 489.5 55.0 12
A1B3C1 329.5 -408.0 50.5 -729.8 601.6 59.2 6 A3B2C2 345.1 -480.5 50.8 -833.2 690.0 48.9 23
A2B1C1 308.4 -406.4 40.0 -723.9 591.8 47.7 25 A3B3C2 324.7 -448.2 55.2 -773.6 643.2 48.3 24
A2B2C1 340.0 -460.2 41.9 -801.0 653.8 49.7 22 A1B1C3 344.7 -420.6 53.1 -739.5 610.5 64.1 1
A2B3C1 323.7 -412.1 40.3 -727.8 594.2 53.8 15 A1B2C3 347.7 -449.6 51.4 -789.3 652.0 57.8 9
A3B1C1 279.8 -319.9 50.9 -580.4 485.7 58.6 7 A1B3C3 334.3 -416.8 52.2 -736.5 608.5 59.9 4
A3B2C1 350.4 -457.0 45.5 -818.7 670.3 55.3 11 A2B1C3 372.6 -502.1 39.4 -871.3 706.6 53.9 14
A3B3C1 325.2 -431.2 48.6 -768.9 636.6 51.0 21 A2B2C3 347.7 -460.8 35.9 -812.5 661.7 52.0 19
A1B1C2 335.0 -412.0 47.3 -740.1 610.0 60.2 3 A2B3C3 332.3 -439.6 40.3 -764.0 626.8 51.5 20
A1B2C2 359.5 -443.5 47.4 -790.4 648.9 63.9 2 A3B1C3 278.3 -321.7 48.2 -578.3 489.7 57.7 10
A1B3C2 334.4 -417.8 51.0 -736.7 608.8 59.6 5 A3B2C3 333.1 -479.8 52.5 -834.4 691.7 43.4 27
A2B1C2 333.2 -435.9 41.5 -763.3 622.3 52.5 17 A3B3C3 336.3 -440.2 53.8 -775.7 639.6 54.9 13
A2B2C2 350.1 -464.5 39.5 -813.8 662.1 52.8 16

Table 5

The ranking of the comprehensive benefit value and the weighted correlation"

处理
Treatment		 灰色关联系数
Grey relevant
coefficient		 排名
Rank		 主成分综合值
Comprehensive
evaluation value		 排名
Rank
A1B2C2 0.850 1 63.9 2
A1B1C3 0.807 2 64.1 1
A2B1C3 0.737 3 53.9 14
A1B1C2 0.718 4 60.2 3
A1B3C3 0.713 5 59.9 4
A1B2C3 0.712 6 57.8 9
A3B3C3 0.705 7 54.9 13
A1B3C2 0.702 8 59.6 5
A3B3C1 0.695 9 51.0 21
A2B2C2 0.695 10 52.8 16
A3B2C1 0.686 11 55.3 11
A1B1C1 0.684 12 58.4 8
A1B3C1 0.682 13 59.2 6
A2B2C3 0.677 14 52.0 19
A2B3C3 0.677 15 51.5 20
A1B2C1 0.660 16 52.4 18
A2B1C2 0.647 17 52.5 17
A2B3C1 0.633 18 53.8 15
A3B1C3 0.629 19 57.7 10
A2B2C1 0.620 20 49.7 22
A3B1C1 0.617 21 58.6 7
A3B2C2 0.615 22 48.9 23
A3B3C2 0.594 23 48.3 24
A3B1C2 0.592 24 55.0 12
A2B3C2 0.576 25 45.3 26
A3B2C3 0.562 26 43.4 27
A2B1C1 0.562 27 47.7 25
[1] 马文馨, 宋谦, 田新会 , 等. 小黑麦不同材料的抗寒性评价. 草原与草坪, 2019,39(3):85-91.
[2] 郭建文, 李林渊, 田新会 , 等. 饲草型小黑麦新品系在甘肃高海拔地区的生产性能和品质研究. 草原与草坪, 2018,38(4):72-77.
[3] 游永亮, 李源, 赵海明 , 等. 饲用小黑麦在海河平原区的生产性能及适应性评价. 草原与草坪, 2015,35(3):32-38.
[4] 郑敏娜, 梁秀芝, 韩志顺 , 等. 不同苜蓿品种在雁门关地区的生产性能和营养价值研究. 草业学报, 2018,27(5):97-108.
[5] 代寒凌, 田新会, 杜文华 , 等. 半干旱灌区黑麦新品系的草产量和营养价值研究. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2018,53(4):107-115.
[6] 张朝阳, 许桂芳 . 利用隶属函数法对4种地被植物的耐热性综合评价. 草业科学, 2009,26(2):57-60.
[7] 王士强, 胡银岗, 佘奎军 , 等. 小麦抗旱相关农艺性状和生理生化性状的灰色关联度分析. 中国农业科学, 2007,40(11):2452-2459.
[8] 杨彦忠, 周文期, 连晓荣 , 等. 基于主成分分析综合评价一年生饲草的生产性能—以甘肃庄浪为例. 草业科学, 2018,35(6):1503-1509.
[9] 刘晶, 宋谦, 田新会 , 等. 基于隶属函数法和GGE双标图的饲草型小黑麦种质适应性评价. 草业学报, 2018,27(5):85-96.
[10] 邹永红, 谭建林 . 基于综合灰色关联度加权法的玉米品种评价. 南方农业学报, 2011,42(8):1007-1010.
[11] 黄斌, 王致和, 唐桃霞 . 不同小黑麦品种在甘肃西部地区的引种试验. 现代农业科技, 2017(21): 55, 57.
[12] 赵方媛, 王文, 陈平 , 等. 甘农2号小黑麦在云贵高原的生产性能研究. 草原与草坪, 2019,39(1):43-47,53.
[13] 董召荣, 田灵芝, 赵波 , 等. 小黑麦牧草产量与品质对施氮的响应. 草业科学, 2008,25(5):64-67.
[14] 李晶, 吉彪, 商文楠 , 等. 密度和氮素水平对小黑麦氮代谢相关酶活性和子粒营养品质的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010,16(5):1063-1068.
doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2010.0504
[15] 凌树礼 . 应用RFV评价鄂尔多斯荒漠草原优势牧草营养价值. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2014,35(10):15-16,19.
[16] 红敏, 高民, 卢德勋 , 等. 粗饲料品质评定指数新一代分级指数的建立及与分级指数(GI2001)和饲料相对值(RFV)的比较研究. 畜牧与饲料科学, 2011,32(9/10):143-146.
[17] 刘翔宇, 刘祖昕, 加帕尔 , 等. 基于主成分与灰色关联分析的甜高粱品种综合评价. 新疆农业科学, 2016,53(1):99-107.
[18] 薛帅, 秦烁, 王继师 , 等. 灰色系统理论在非粮柴油植物评价与筛选中的应用. 中国农业大学学报, 2012,17(6):225-230.
[1] Chang Shihao, Yang Qingchun, Shu Wentao, Li Jinhua, Li Qiong, Zhang Baoliang, Zhang Donghui, Geng Zhen. Comprehensive Analysis of Main Agronomic Traits of Summer Sowing Soybean Varieties (Lines) in Huang-Huai-Hai Region [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(3): 66-72.
[2] Li Jing,Nan Ming. Analysis of Agronomic Characters and Genetic Diversity of 62 Winter Wheat Germplasms from Russia and Ukraine in Northwest China [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(5): 9-14.
[3] Jin Yulong,Bai Ting,Zhu Mingxia,Liu Xiaojiao,Wang Shanshan,Zhang Zhiwei,Hu Yun,Zhang Yuhong. Comprehensive Evaluation of Quality of Nine Tibetan Barley Landlaces by Factor Analysis [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(4): 55-60.
[4] Guo Qingrui,Wang Mengfei,Guo Fengqin,Yin Jianjun,Zhang Xiaojuan,Wang Li. Comprehensive Evaluation of Grain and Forage Maize Varieties in High Latitude and Cold Area of Shanxi Province [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(4): 61-68.
[5] Wu Jianzhong,Li Suiyan,Lin Hong,Ma Yanhua,Pan Liyan,Li Donglin,Sun Dequan. Genetic Variation and Principal Component Analysis of Silage Maize Quality Traits [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(3): 42-48.
[6] Shuangqin Tang,Ziming Wu,Xueming Tan,Yongjun Zeng,Qinghua Shi,Xiaohua Pan,Yanhua Zeng. Identification of Cold Tolerance of Direct Seeded Early Rice Varieties at Bud Stage [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 159-167.
[7] ,Lili Zhang,Ying Shi. Screening of Drought Resistant Germplasm Resources in Potato [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 72-77.
[8] Xuechao Zhou,Surong Ding,Yunshan Wei,Yanfang Zhou,Xue Wei,Rina Na,Feng Li. Evaluation of Adaptability of Different Vegetable Soybean Cultivars (Lines) in Chifeng Area [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(3): 44-48.
[9] Lirong Bai,Liran Shi,Xiaoli Guo,Xiaona Zhang. Effects of Water Stress on Physiological Characteristics of Different Genotypes of Triticale and Rye Seedlings [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(4): 118-122.
[10] Jie Liu,Jinhua Sheng,Xiongjie Zhang. Grey Relation Analysis on Fagopyrum esculentum Moench Yield Related to Agronomic and Physi-Biochemical Traits [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(1): 46-50.
[11] . [J]. Crops, 2013, 29(3): 107-110.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!