Crops ›› 2024, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (1): 132-140.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2024.01.018

;

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of Grass Yield, Agronomic Traits and Forage Quality of Different Oat Varieties

Zhou Zhenlei1,2(), Liu Jianming1,2, Cao Dong2, Liu Baolong2, Wang Dongxia1(), Zhang Huaigang2   

  1. 1College of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, Qinghai University / Provincial and Ministry Joint Construction Key Laboratory of Plateau Ecology and Agriculture and Animal Husbandry of Three River Source Region, Xining 810016, Qinghai, China
    2Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences / Key Laboratory of Crop Molecular Breeding in Qinghai Province, Xining 810008, Qinghai, China
  • Received:2022-07-18 Revised:2022-11-16 Online:2024-02-15 Published:2024-02-20
  • Contact: Wang Dongxia E-mail:519250896@qq.com;wangdx@qhu.edu.cn

RichHTML

7

PDF (PC)

85

Abstract:

The superior oat varieties that are adaptive to planting in the Hulun Buir of Inner Mongolia were identified by a comparative analysis of nine oat types' grass yield, agronomic characteristics, and fodder quality. The findings indicated that BL series varieties had more fertile days than Qinghai 444 did. Nine oat cultivars were compared, and BL930 and BL936 both produced greater grass yields, agronomic features, and fodder quality than the other varieties. The comprehensive evaluation of the nine oat varieties in Tenihe Experimental Station was ranked as follows: BL930>BL936>BL929>BL931>BL932>BL935>Qinghai 444>BL933>BL934; and BL930>BL936>BL935>BL933>BL929>BL934>BL932>BL931>Qinghai 444 at Ewenke Experimental Station. BL930 and BL936 were found by using the membership function method to be the top two oat varieties those were suitable for cultivation and promotion in the Hulun Buir region.

Key words: Oat, Variety, Yield, Quality

Table 1

"

品种
Variety		 播种
Sowing		 出苗
Seedling emergence		 抽穗
Heading		 扬花
Flowering		 灌浆
Filling		 成熟
Mature		 生育天数
Growth days (d)
T E T E T E T E T E T E T E
BL929 05-22 05-19 06-01 05-26 07-14 07-11 07-26 07-17 08-11 07-23 08-23 08-14 93 83
BL930 05-22 05-19 06-01 05-26 07-16 07-12 07-28 07-20 08-11 07-26 08-25 08-18 95 85
BL931 05-22 05-19 06-01 05-26 07-13 07-11 07-26 07-17 08-11 07-24 08-23 08-14 93 83
BL932 05-22 05-19 06-01 05-26 07-14 07-10 07-26 07-17 08-11 07-24 08-23 08-14 93 83
BL933 05-22 05-19 06-01 05-26 07-13 07-10 07-26 07-17 08-11 07-24 08-23 08-14 93 83
BL934 05-22 05-19 06-01 05-26 07-14 07-11 07-26 07-19 08-11 07-25 08-23 08-14 93 83
BL935 05-22 05-19 06-01 05-26 07-15 07-11 07-26 07-19 08-11 07-25 08-25 08-17 95 85
BL936 05-22 05-19 06-01 05-26 07-17 07-12 07-28 07-19 08-11 07-25 08-23 08-14 93 83
青海444 Qinghai 444 05-22 05-19 05-29 05-24 07-06 07-06 07-15 07-09 07-27 07-15 08-12 08-04 82 76

Fig.1

Fresh yield, hay yield and dry to fresh ratio of different oat varieties Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05), the same below."

Table 2

Plant trait performance of different oat varieties (T)"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant
height (cm)		 穗位高
Ear height
(cm)		 重心高度
Height of
gravity (cm)		 穗长
Spike length
(cm)		 茎粗
Stem thickness
(mm)		 秆壁厚
Culm wall
thickness (mm)		 第二节长
Second section
length (cm)		 第三节长
Third section
length (cm)		 穗下节长
Underspike node
length (cm)
BL929 118.20±2.12abc 96.50±0.71bc 38.55±5.30ab 20.50±0.28a 4.40±0.01bc 0.46±0.08a 10.35±0.92f 16.05±0.35cd 40.40±2.69bc
BL930 114.65±3.32bc 100.85±1.63abc 28.65±0.92c 21.85±1.63a 4.69±0.04a 0.62±0.12a 14.50±0.71b 19.25±0.07b 38.00±1.41cd
BL931 118.80±4.95abc 102.00±4.67abc 30.90±1.27bc 16.85±0.21bcd 4.01±0.19d 0.51±0.10a 12.00±0.00de 17.80±0.71bc 38.80±0.71bcd
BL932 104.50±1.13d 86.15±1.63d 27.15±1.20c 18.35±0.49b 4.21±0.16cd 0.62±0.04a 11.20±0.71ef 17.15±1.63cd 39.15±0.21bcd
BL933 123.00±5.23a 105.50±7.35a 40.55±1.06ab 15.50±0.71de 3.99±0.03d 0.53±0.11a 12.20±0.71de 17.80±0.71bc 48.20±2.12a
BL934 111.85±4.45c 95.30±4.24c 42.60±6.51a 16.50±0.28cde 4.17±0.10cd 0.47±0.04a 13.85±0.21bc 17.35±0.49cd 41.45±1.06bc
BL935 120.35±0.49ab 103.30±2.83abc 35.30±0.00abc 15.15±0.21e 3.29±0.09e 0.46±0.02a 11.90±0.85de 15.85±0.21d 35.80±0.71d
BL936 121.80±0.71ab 101.40±0.57abc 33.15±7.28abc 20.40±0.14a 4.57±0.01ab 0.59±0.01a 12.90±0.14cd 17.50±0.71cd 40.15±1.20bc
青海444
Qinghai 444		 123.00±0.99a 105.15±1.63ab 36.50±3.11abc 17.80±0.71bc 4.33±0.01c 0.51±0.18a 19.70±0.00a 27.65±0.21a 42.00±0.99b

Fig.2

Stem number and spike number performance of different oat varieties"

Table 3

Plant trait performance of different oat varieties (E)"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant height
(cm)		 穗位高
Ear height
(cm)		 重心高度
Height of
gravity (cm)		 穗长
Spike length
(cm)		 茎粗
Stem thickness
(mm)		 秆壁厚
Culm wall
thickness (mm)		 第二节长
Second section
length (cm)		 第三节长
Third section
length (cm)		 穗下节长
Underspike node
length (cm)
BL929 120.65±6.58ab 99.05±3.89bc 66.90±6.51ab 18.25±2.05bcd 4.40±0.02ab 0.42±0.01b 8.75±0.64e 13.55±0.35e 38.10±0.85b
BL930 120.10±2.97ab 97.65±4.74cd 60.60±5.80bc 21.75±0.78a 4.43±0.25ab 0.40±0.04b 11.45±0.35c 15.05±0.35de 30.00±0.00d
BL931 123.40±1.27a 105.50±0.28a 68.75±0.78ab 17.25±0.07cd 4.58±0.06ab 0.55±0.08a 8.90±0.14e 15.40±0.14cde 43.85±2.33a
BL932 115.65±0.49bcd 96.75±4.74cd 55.25±3.18c 18.40±0.14bcd 4.35±0.29ab 0.61±0.02a 7.60±0.57f 13.50±0.28e 38.90±0.57b
BL933 113.30±2.12cd 96.40±2.26cd 67.85±1.91ab 16.90±0.14d 4.75±0.27a 0.43±0.01b 10.50±0.28d 15.85±0.21bcd 39.30±1.41b
BL934 119.70±2.83abc 100.50±2.12abc 66.50±0.99ab 19.20±0.71bc 4.57±0.15ab 0.44±0.01b 13.20±0.00b 17.90±0.85b 39.35±0.92b
BL935 121.65±0.92ab 102.00±0.42abc 64.10±2.69ab 19.65±0.49ab 4.54±0.18ab 0.45±0.04b 12.50±0.28b 17.55±1.06bc 38.05±1.06b
BL936 124.95±1.77a 104.40±0.57ab 61.30±0.71bc 21.50±0.99a 4.75±0.14a 0.57±0.02a 10.00±0.00d 16.35±0.21bcd 35.50±0.28c
青海444
Qinghai 444		 109.80±0.71d 92.95±1.77d 70.70±0.71a 18.10±0.85bcd 4.25±0.05b 0.41±0.04b 15.20±0.00a 20.90±2.26a 42.55±0.35a

Table 4

Lodging of different oat varieties"

品种
Variety		 扬花期Flowering stage 灌浆期Filling stage
日期（月-日）
Date (month-day)		 倒伏率
Lodging
rate (%)		 倒伏程度
Degree
of lodge		 倒伏测定日期（月-日）
Determination date of
lodging (month-day)		 倒伏率
Lodging
rate (%)		 倒伏程度
Degree
of lodge
T E T E T E T E T E T E
BL929 07-13 07-13 0 36 90° 23° 07-23 07-19 75 73 15° 23°
BL930 07-13 07-13 0 0 90° 90° 07-23 07-19 0 44 90° 28°
BL931 07-13 07-13 0 0 90° 90° 07-23 07-19 0 15 90° 30°
BL932 07-13 07-13 0 0 90° 90° 07-23 07-19 0 30 90° 28°
BL933 07-13 07-13 0 11 90° 22° 07-23 07-19 0 18 90° 18°
BL934 07-13 07-13 0 38 90° 15° 07-23 07-19 0 60 90° 33°
BL935 07-13 07-13 0 0 90° 90° 07-23 07-19 0 48 90° 30°
BL936 07-13 07-13 0 30 90° 13° 07-23 07-19 0 20 90° 45°
青海444 Qinghai 444 07-13 07-13 45 62 75° 28° 07-23 07-19 90 91 15° 45°

Table 5

Quality performance of different oat varieties (T) %"

品种
Variety		 粗蛋白含量
Crude protein
content		 粗脂肪含量
Crude fat
content		 灰分含量
Ash content		 钙含量
Ca content		 磷含量
P content		 酸性洗涤纤维含量
Acid detergent
fiber content		 中性洗涤纤维含量
Neutral detergent
fiber content
BL929 7.31±0.02ab 3.45±0.03a 10.09±0.24bc 0.12±0.03a 0.28±0.00a 38.98±0.40a 64.36±1.05a
BL930 7.68±0.83a 3.59±0.05a 11.09±0.12a 0.13±0.02a 0.27±0.00ab 37.19±1.22ab 62.77±0.55ab
BL931 5.00±0.08e 3.52±0.08a 9.63±0.16cd 0.05±0.01c 0.26±0.01bc 29.66±2.01cd 59.73±4.62abcd
BL932 5.00±0.13e 3.66±0.03a 10.15±0.06bc 0.12±0.01ab 0.25±0.00c 31.00±0.47cd 56.54±0.17bcde
BL933 6.71±0.45bc 3.58±0.04a 9.70±0.45cd 0.14±0.01a 0.26±0.01bc 25.91±1.15d 51.41±1.38e
BL934 5.15±0.04e 3.55±0.06a 9.22±0.64d 0.10±0.03ab 0.25±0.00c 33.66±0.04bc 57.81±2.38abcde
BL935 6.74±0.16bc 3.71±0.22a 10.25±0.16bc 0.07±0.01bc 0.25±0.00c 31.52±3.15c 55.13±2.97cde
BL936 6.10±0.06cd 3.11±0.09b 10.51±0.31ab 0.07±0.01bc 0.24±0.00c 37.62±1.40ab 61.17±1.39abc
青海444 Qinghai 444 5.53±0.08de 3.65±0.26a 9.25±0.30d 0.03±0.03c 0.26±0.02bc 29.37±4.63cd 54.15±4.87de

Table 6

Quality performance of different oat varieties (E) %"

品种
Variety		 粗蛋白含量
Crude protein
content		 粗脂肪含量
Crude fat
content		 灰分含量
Ash content		 钙含量
Ca content		 磷含量
P content		 酸性洗涤纤维含量
Acid detergent
fiber content		 中性洗涤纤维含量
Neutral detergent
fiber content
BL929 9.50±0.26bc 3.05±0.07b 9.36±0.28d 0.17±0.01a 0.31±0.01ab 38.24±0.10ab 66.01±0.69a
BL930 11.14±0.05a 3.16±0.07ab 10.60±0.04a 0.13±0.01bc 0.32±0.00a 39.61±0.45a 67.31±0.59a
BL931 8.55±0.79c 3.38±0.06ab 9.43±0.04d 0.08±0.01d 0.32±0.01ab 36.00±0.11c 61.28±0.33b
BL932 10.71±0.52ab 3.47±0.30a 10.13±0.00b 0.09±0.04d 0.32±0.00a 36.58±0.04bc 65.06±1.92a
BL933 11.36±0.74a 3.25±0.22ab 9.55±0.09cd 0.10±0.00cd 0.30±0.01b 38.19±0.62ab 65.66±0.59a
BL934 10.55±0.44ab 3.24±0.06ab 9.76±0.02c 0.16±0.01ab 0.31±0.01ab 38.32±0.85ab 65.32±0.04a
BL935 10.95±1.20ab 3.04±0.00b 10.23±0.04b 0.13±0.01bc 0.30±0.00b 38.66±0.17a 66.00±0.46a
BL936 10.34±0.64ab 3.45±0.16a 10.38±0.07ab 0.14±0.00ab 0.32±0.00a 38.88±1.83a 65.96±3.40a
青海444 Qinghai 444 8.57±0.25c 3.49±0.18a 8.40±0.08e 0.02±0.00e 0.31±0.01ab 31.83±0.59d 58.26±0.81b

Table 7

Correlation analysis between grass yield and quality traits %"

地点
Location		 性状
Trait		 粗蛋白含量
Crude protein
content		 粗脂肪含量
Crude fat
content		 灰分含量
Ash
content		 钙含量
Ca
content		 磷含量
P
content		 酸性洗涤纤维含量
Acid detergent
fiber content		 中性洗涤纤维含量
Neutral detergent
fiber content
T 鲜草产量 0.230 -0.236 0.599** 0.110 0.057 0.499** 0.418
干草产量 0.196 -0.162 0.403 -0.121 0.145 0.209 0.091
倒伏率 0.109 0.069 -0.312 -0.289 0.434 0.116 0.077
E 鲜草产量 0.605** -0.457 0.785** 0.688** 0.094 0.899** 0.756**
干草产量 0.581* -0.548* 0.645** 0.740** -0.003 0.895** 0.778**
倒伏率 -0.258 -0.060 -0.517* -0.037 -0.315 -0.422 -0.273

Table 8

Correlation analysis between grass yield and agronomic traits"

地点
Location		 性状
Trait		 株高
Plant
height		 穗位高
Ear
height		 重心高度
Height of
gravity		 穗长
Spike
length		 茎粗
Stem
thickness		 秆壁厚
Culm wall
thickness		 第二节长
Second
section length		 第三节长
Third section
length		 穗下节长
Underspike
node lenggth		 茎数
Stem
number		 穗数
Spike
number
T 鲜草产量 -0.147 -0.019 -0.385 0.566* 0.548* 0.396 0.137 -0.039 -0.304 -0.023 0.057
干草产量 0.096 0.157 -0.346 0.532* 0.555* 0.112 0.415 0.300 -0.019 0.024 0.117
倒伏率 0.302 0.141 0.232 0.214 0.240 -0.244 0.463* 0.616** 0.121 -0.062 0.084
E 鲜草产量 0.624** 0.542* -0.275 0.474* 0.531* -0.051 -0.199 -0.377 -0.621** 0.462 0.474*
干草产量 0.531* 0.377 -0.153 0.437 0.545* -0.158 -0.214 -0.413 -0.610** 0.359 0.365
倒伏率 -0.385 -0.531* 0.346 0.017 -0.428 -0.602** 0.569* 0.447 0.065 -0.136 -0.163

Table 9

Comprehensive evaluation and ranking of different oat varieties"

品种
Variety		 T E
隶属函数平均值
Average of
affiliation function		 排序
Ranking		 隶属函数平均值
Average of
affiliation function		 排序
Ranking
BL929 0.56 3 0.57 5
BL930 0.75 1 0.76 1
BL931 0.51 4 0.45 8
BL932 0.50 5 0.49 7
BL933 0.40 8 0.61 4
BL934 0.34 9 0.57 6
BL935 0.48 6 0.66 3
BL936 0.75 2 0.67 2
青海444
Qinghai 444		 0.41 7 0.13 9
[1] 潘庆民, 薛建国, 陶金, 等. 中国北方草原退化现状与恢复技术. 科学通报, 2018, 63(17):1642-1650.
[2] 沈海花, 朱言坤, 赵霞, 等. 中国草地资源的现状分析. 科学通报, 2016, 61(2):139-154.
[3] 杨海鹏, 孙泽民. 中国燕麦. 北京: 农业出版社, 1989.
[4] 林宝奇, 陈文贺, 蒋万波. 呼伦贝尔市发展饲草作物的现状和前景. 内蒙古农业科技, 2002(增1):24-26.
[5] 丁文强, 李平, 尹燕亭, 等. 可持续生计视角下中国北方草原区牧户脆弱性评价研究. 草业学报, 2017, 26(8):1-11.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2016414
[6] 迟晓雪, 义如格勒图, 赵育国, 等. 内蒙古呼伦贝尔牧草产业发展分析. 草原与草业, 2017, 29(3):11-14.
[7] 南铭, 景芳, 边芳, 等. 6个裸燕麦品种在甘肃中部引洮灌区的生产性能及饲用价值比较. 草地学报, 2020, 28(6):1635-1642.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2020.06.017
[8] 高山, 郭兴玉, 徐安凯, 等. 不同皮燕麦品种在公主岭地区的适应性研究. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2020(21):131-135.
[9] 蒋兆雄. 燕麦草在吉林省中西部地区的生长适应评价. 长春:吉林农业大学, 2017.
[10] 赵怡然, 高峰, 白倩, 等. 山东地区宜栽燕麦品种筛选. 青岛农业大学学报, 2018, 35(1):22-26.
[11] 王霞霞, 朱德建, 李岩, 等. 南方冬闲田饲用燕麦品种筛选的研究. 种子, 2016, 35(5):112-114.
[12] 孔令琪, 王照兰, 武自念, 等. 17份苜蓿品种种子萌发特性研究. 种子, 2017, 36(7):12-16.
[13] 王巍.吉林省西部地区21个燕麦品种生产性能和营养价值评价. 长春:东北师范大学, 2016.
[14] 史睿智, 仁增旺堆, 片多, 等. 4个燕麦品种在西藏那曲申扎县的适应性评价. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(2):49-54.
[15] 杨发林, 胡自治. 高寒牧区燕麦人工草地的营养物质产量及其光能转化率. 草地学报, 1991, 1(1):106-111.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.1991.01.012
[16] 徐长林. 高寒牧区不同燕麦品种生长特性比较研究. 草业学报, 2012, 21(2):280-285.
[17] 董世魁, 蒲小朋, 马金星, 等. 甘肃天祝高寒地区燕麦品种生产性能评价. 草地学报, 2001, 9(1):44-49.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2001.01.008
[18] 贾志锋, 周青平, 韩志林, 等. N、P肥对裸燕麦生产性能的影响. 草业科学, 2007, 24(6):19-22.
[19] 德科加, 周青平, 刘文辉, 等. 施氮量对青藏高原燕麦产量和品质的影响. 中国草地学报, 2007, 29(5):43-48.
[20] 孙乌日娜, 高欣梅, 王崴, 等. 燕麦农艺性状与产量的相关性分析. 内蒙古农业科技, 2014(6):19,43.
[21] 杨晶, 刘文辉, 梁国玲, 等. 高寒地区不同燕麦品系抗倒伏相关性状分析. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12):50-60.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2020022
[22] 王桃, 徐长林, 姜文清, 等. 高寒草甸区饲用燕麦品种营养价值综合评价研究. 中国草地学报, 2010, 32(3):68-75.
[23] 甘肃农业大学草原系. 草原学与牧草学实习实验指导书. 兰州: 甘肃科学技术出版社, 1989:136-144.
[24] 韩建国, 马春晖, 毛培胜, 等. 播种比例和施氮量及刈割期对燕麦与豌豆混播草地产草量和质量的影响. 草地学报, 1999, 7(2):87-93.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.1999.02.001
[25] 李春喜, 叶润蓉, 周玉碧, 等. 高寒牧区饲草物生产性能及品质分析. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2014, 49(6):125-130.
[26] 罗彩云, 赵亮, 赵新全, 等, 青海湖地区燕麦与箭筈豌豆最佳混播比例的筛选. 草原与草坪, 2019, 39(1):95-99.
[27] 徐广祥, 刘琳, 刘志萍, 等. 河套地区不同刈割期对春播饲草大麦产量及品质的影响. 中国奶牛, 2021(4):57-60.
[28] 赵世锋, 曹丽霞, 张立军, 等. 不同类型燕麦育成品种的品质与产量分析. 河北农业科学, 2012, 16(1):58-61,106.
[29] 陈丽雪, 张继宗, 李会彬, 等. 河北坝上地区4个燕麦品种饲草产量和品质对不同刈割期的响应. 山西农业科学, 2022, 50(8):1204-1208.
[30] 赵世锋, 田长叶, 陈淑萍, 等. 草用燕麦品种适宜刈割期的确定. 华北农学报, 2005(增1):132-134.
[1] Ji Ping, Liu Jinlong, Liu Hao, Kuang Jiali, Ye Shihe, Long Sha, Yang Hongtao, Peng Bo, Xu Chen, Liu Xiaolong. Effects of Heat Stress on Yield Components and Quality in Different Rice Varieties during Heading Stage [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 117-125.
[2] Xiong Xin, Deng Jun, Shang Liyan, Sheng Tian, Ye Jiayu, Liu Zichen, Huang Liying, Zhang Yunbo. Effects of Nitrogen and Potassium Fertilizer Interaction on Yield and Radiation Use Efficiency of Hybrid Rice [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 166-173.
[3] Liu Zhewen, Guo Dandan, Chang Xuhong, Wang Demei, Yang Yushuang, Liu Xiwei, Wang Yujiao, Shi Shubing, Wang Yanjie, Zhao Guangcai. Effects of Nitrogen Dressing Time and Proportion on Wheat Grain Filling and Its Physiological Mechanism [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 174-179.
[4] Hao Xiaocong, Li Xinyu, Hou Qiling, Yang Jifang, An Chunhui, Wang Changhua, Ye Zhijie, Zhang Fengting. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on the Quality of Two-Line Hybrid Wheat [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 187-192.
[5] Zhang Lu, Li Dengming, Zhai Xiaoyu, Wu Junying, Gao Shihua, Zhao Yufei. Differences in Agronomic and Quality Traits of Oat at Cutting Time and Their Relationships with Regeneration Performance [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 220-228.
[6] Shao Meihong, Zhu Defeng, Cheng Siming, Cheng Chu, Xu Qunying, Hu Chaoshui. Study on Seedling Quality and Yield of Machine Transplanting Early Rice with the Seedling Raising of Overlayed-Tray Emergence [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 229-232.
[7] Feng Yong, Hou Xuguang, Xue Chunlei, Zhang Laihou, Song Guodong, Su Minli, Fu Xiaohua, Sun Yuyan. Division of Suitable Ecological Regions of Maize Varieties in Inner Mongolia [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 23-30.
[8] Xie Keran, Gao Ti, Cui Kehui. Research Progress of Potassium Fertilizer Controlling Rice Yield under High Temperature [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 8-15.
[9] Xie Hao, Xue Zhangyi, Shu Chenchen, Zhang Weiyang, Zhang Hao, Liu Lijun, Wang Zhiqin, Yang Jianchang, Gu Junfei. Analysis of Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Base Fertilizer of Rice under Different Crop Management Practices by Using 15N Labeling [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 90-96.
[10] Wang Hongbo, Tang Maosong, Li Guohui, GaoYang , Wang Xingpeng. Construction and Evaluation of Cotton Yield Model Based on Logistic Model for Filmless Drip Irrigation in Southern Xinjiang [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 97-103.
[11] Liu Zhewen, Guo Dandan, Chang Xuhong, Wang Demei, Wang Yanjie, Yang Yushuang, Liu Xiwei, Wang Yujiao, Shi Shubing, Zhao Guangcai. Response of Nitrogen Accumulation and Translocation after Anthesis in Strong Gluten Wheat to Nitrogen Topdressing Period and Proportion [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 114-120.
[12] Zhou Xu, He Xiaolei, Cao Liang, Li Duo, Fu Chenye, Zhang Mingcong, Zhang Yuxian, Wang Mengxue. Effects of Different Water Stress and Rehydration at Seedling Stage on Antioxidant Properties and Yield of Soybean [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 135-142.
[13] Yang Shanwei, Liang Renmin, Zhao Haihong, Wei Guijian, He Dengmei, Huang Xumou, Hu Zhongyin, Wei Chunxiang, Xu Chang, Wei Minchao, Wei Shuang, Luo Jiteng, Xu Yingying, Zhang Xiuhua, Han Yi, Wang Shiqiang. Effects of Low Temperature Stress at Booting Stage on Yield and Its Components of High Quality Fragrant Rice [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 143-149.
[14] Liu Xiwei, Wang Demei, Wang Yanjie, Yang Yushuang, Zhao Guangcai, Chang Xuhong. Impacts Mechanism of Drought and Heat Stress in the Middle and Late Growing Period on Wheat Grain Yield Formation Process and Mitigation Measures [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 17-25.
[15] Dong Haosheng, Wang Qi, Yan Peng, Xu Yanli, Zhang Wei, Lu Lin, Dong Zhiqiang. Effects of ECK on the Lodging Resistance and Yield of Foxtail Millet Stem [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 181-189.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!