Crops ›› 2017, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (4): 44-49.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2017.04.008

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comprehensive Evaluation on Salinity Performance of 10 Alfalfa Varieties by Comprehensive Index and Gray Correlation Methods

Liang Xiao1,Qi Yong2,Lin Yajie1,Shi Yijun1,Cao Weidong3,Liu Zhongkuan4,Liu Guixia1   

  1. 1 College of Life Science,Hebei University,Baoding 071002,Hebei,China
    2 Tianjin Lüyin Landscape and Ecology Construction Co.,Ltd,Tianjin 300383,China;
    3 Institute of Agro-resources and Enviroment,Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences,Shijiazhuang 050051,Hebei,China
    4 Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning,Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer,Ministry of Agriculture,Beijing 100081,China
  • Received:2017-03-28 Revised:2017-06-25 Online:2017-08-15 Published:2018-08-26
  • Contact: Guixia Liu

RichHTML

7

PDF (PC)

146

Abstract:

Alfalfa is a major green manure crop, playing an important role in the improvement of saline soil. 10 alfalfa varieties, the Zhongmu No.1, Algonquin, Aohan, Concept, Alfaqueen, WL343HQ, Derby, Sanditi, Sardi 5, Adrenalin were selected to analyze the germination and growing under salt stress in order to provide a theoretical basis for planting suitable varieties in saline soil. Based on the relative germination rate, relative germination speed, biomass of per unit area in the field, plant height, leaf stem ratio, fresh and dried ratio, and the chlorophyll content, aggregative index method and grey system theory correlation analysis were used to make salt-tolerant comprehensive evaluation of the 10 alfalfa varieties. Both methods showed that the salt tolerance of WL343HQ, Zhongmu No.1, Derby and Concept was good, Aohan was worst. Based on laboratory and field alfalfa growth performance, it suggested that grey correlation method was more suitable than comprehensive index method for the evaluation of salt tolerance of alfalfa.

Key words: Medicago sativa, Grey relational analysis, Salt tolerance, Evaluation

Table 1

Experimental materials and their sources"

品种名称Species name 英文名称English name 秋眠级Fall dormancy 千粒重1000-seed weight (g) 原产地Sources
先行者 Concept 3.0 2.85 加拿大
WL343HQ WL343HQ 3.9 2.23 美国
惊喜 Adrenalin 4.0 2.41 美国
德宝 Derby 4~5 2.29 法国
赛迪5 Sardi 5 5 2.42 澳大利亚
三得利 Sanditi 5~6 2.20 法国
皇后 Alfaqueen 2 2.24 美国
阿尔岗金 Algonquin 2~3 2.29 加拿大
敖汉 Aohan 2 2.51 中国内蒙古赤峰市
中苜1号 Zhongmu No.1 3~4 2.17 中国北京

Table 2

Mean value of 7 traits of different alfalfa varieties"

品种
Varieties		 英文名称
English name		 相对发芽率(%)
Relative germination percentage
K1		 相对发芽速度(%)
Relative germination speed
K2		 田间生物量(g/m2)
Biomass in field
K3		 叶绿素含量
SPAD
K4		 株高(cm)
Height
K5		 叶茎比
Leaf/Stem
K6		 干鲜比
Dry weight/
Fresh weight
K7
中苜1号 Zhongmu No.1 97.33 42.00 759.30 64.93 64.29 1.02 0.24
阿尔岗金 Algonquin 76.87 23.30 777.10 64.81 63.90 1.06 0.22
敖汉 Aohan 76.23 14.30 614.60 67.02 60.98 1.04 0.23
先行者 Concept 89.57 32.70 795.70 67.15 60.43 1.12 0.24
皇后 Alfaqueen 88.50 29.80 717.60 64.93 66.80 0.99 0.23
WL343HQ WL343HQ 93.77 46.93 916.40 68.10 60.13 1.03 0.24
德宝 Derby 94.07 33.77 753.20 64.24 67.60 1.06 0.24
三得利 Sanditi 79.80 31.47 727.20 65.35 65.18 1.00 0.24
惊喜 Adrenalin 91.40 30.73 718.40 68.09 58.04 1.10 0.23
赛迪5 Sardi 5 79.40 31.73 724.10 66.10 66.62 1.03 0.23

Table 3

Aggregative indexes of different alfalfa varieties under salt stress"

品种
Varieties		 英文名称
English name		 综合指标
Aggregative index		 耐盐性排序
Order of salt resistance
中苜1号 Zhongmu No.1 147.02 3
阿尔岗金 Algonquin 143.90 5
敖汉 Aohan 119.20 10
先行者 Concept 149.55 2
皇后 Alfaqueen 138.40 8
WL343HQ WL343HQ 169.51 1
德宝 Derby 144.88 4
三得利 Sanditi 138.61 6
惊喜 Adrenalin 138.28 9
赛迪5 Sardi 5 138.46 7

Table 4

Dimensionless processing result of 7 traits of different alfalfa varieties"

品种Varieties 英文名称English name K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7
中苜1号 Zhongmu No.1 1.0000 0.8949 0.8286 0.9535 0.9510 0.9107 1.0000
阿尔冈金 Algonquin 0.7897 0.4972 0.8480 0.9517 0.9453 0.9464 0.9167
敖汉 Aohan 0.7832 0.3047 0.6707 0.9841 0.9021 0.9286 0.9583
先行者 Concept 0.9202 0.6960 0.8683 0.9860 0.8939 1.0000 1.0000
皇后 Alfaqueen 0.9092 0.6342 0.7831 0.9535 0.9882 0.8839 0.9583
WL343HQ WL343HQ 0.9634 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.8895 0.9196 1.0000
德宝 Derby 0.9664 0.7195 0.8219 0.9433 1.0000 0.9464 1.0000
三得利 Sanditi 0.8199 0.6705 0.7935 0.9596 0.9642 0.8929 1.0000
惊喜 Adrenalin 0.9390 0.6548 0.7839 0.9999 0.8586 0.9821 0.9583
赛迪5 Sardi 5 0.8161 0.6761 0.7902 0.9706 0.9855 0.9196 0.9583

Table 5

│X0(k)-Xi(k)│"

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7
△1 0.0000 0.1051 0.1714 0.0465 0.0490 0.0893 0.0000
△2 0.2103 0.5028 0.1520 0.0483 0.0547 0.0536 0.0833
△3 0.2168 0.6953 0.3293 0.0159 0.0979 0.0714 0.0417
△4 0.0798 0.3040 0.1317 0.0140 0.1061 0.0000 0.0000
△5 0.0908 0.3658 0.2169 0.0465 0.0118 0.1161 0.0417
△6 0.0366 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1105 0.0804 0.0000
△7 0.0336 0.2805 0.1781 0.0567 0.0000 0.0536 0.0000
△8 0.1801 0.3295 0.2065 0.0404 0.0358 0.1071 0.0000
△9 0.0610 0.3452 0.2161 0.0001 0.1414 0.0179 0.0417
△10 0.1839 0.3239 0.2098 0.0294 0.0145 0.0804 0.0417

Table 6

Related coefficients of testing varieties and the reference varieties"

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7
ζ1 1.0000 0.7679 0.6698 0.8820 0.8765 0.7956 1.0000
ζ2 0.6231 0.4088 0.6958 0.8780 0.8640 0.8664 0.8067
ζ3 0.6159 0.3333 0.5136 0.9563 0.7803 0.8296 0.8929
ζ4 0.8133 0.5335 0.7253 0.9613 0.7662 1.0000 1.0000
ζ5 0.7929 0.4873 0.6158 0.8820 0.9672 0.7497 0.8929
ζ6 0.9048 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.7588 0.8122 1.0000
ζ7 0.9119 0.5535 0.6612 0.8598 1.0000 0.8664 1.0000
ζ8 0.6587 0.51340 0.6274 0.8959 0.9066 0.7645 1.0000
ζ9 0.8507 0.5018 0.6167 0.9997 0.7109 0.9510 0.8929
ζ10 0.6540 0.5177 0.6236 0.9220 0.9600 0.8122 0.8929

Table 7

Coefficient value, equal-weighted incidence value and its relative weighted value of different alfalfa varieties"

品种Varieties 英文名称English name K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7
中苜1号 Zhongmu No.1 1.0000 0.7678 0.6697 0.8819 0.8765 0.7956 1.0000
阿尔岗金 Algonquin 0.6231 0.4087 0.6957 0.8780 0.8640 0.8665 0.8066
敖汉 Aohan 0.6159 0.3333 0.5135 0.9564 0.7802 0.8295 0.8930
先行者 Concept 0.8133 0.5335 0.7252 0.9614 0.7662 1.0000 1.0000
皇后 Alfaqueen 0.7930 0.4873 0.6157 0.8819 0.9671 0.7497 0.8930
WL343HQ WL343HQ 0.9046 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.7588 0.8122 1.0000
三得利 Sanditi 0.6587 0.5133 0.6274 0.8959 0.9066 0.7644 1.0000
惊喜 Adrenalin 0.8508 0.5018 0.6167 0.9996 0.7108 0.9511 0.8930
赛迪5 Sardi 5 0.6540 0.5177 0.6236 0.9221 0.9600 0.8122 0.8930
等权关联度Equal-weighted incidence 0.7825 0.5617 0.6749 0.9237 0.8590 0.8448 0.9379
权重系数Weight coefficient 0.1401 0.1006 0.1208 0.1654 0.1538 0.1513 0.1679

Table 8

The weighted correlation degree of different alfalfa varieties under salt stress"

品种
Varieties		 英文名称
English name		 加权关联度值
Weighted correlation value		 排序
Order
中苜1号 Zhongmu No.1 0.7589 2
阿尔冈金 Algonquin 0.6625 9
敖汉 Aohan 0.6436 10
先行者 Concept 0.7449 4
皇后 Alfaqueen 0.6935 6
WL343HQ WL343HQ 0.8060 1
德宝 Derby 0.7511 3
三得利 Sanditi 0.6921 8
惊喜 Adrenalin 0.7111 5
赛迪5 Sardi 5 0.6931 7
[1] 赵可夫, 范海, 宋杰 , 等. 中国盐生植物的种类、类型、植被及其经济潜势//刘小京, 刘孟雨.盐生植物利用与区域农业可持续发展.北京:气象出版社, 2002: 1-9.
[2] 谢振宇, 杨光穗 . 牧草耐盐性研究进展. 草业科学, 2003,20(8):11-17.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0629.2003.08.004
[3] 王越, 赵辉, 马凤江 , 等. 盐碱地与耐盐碱牧草. 山西农业科学, 2006,34(1):55-57.
[4] 郭晔红, 张晓琴, 胡明贵 . 紫花苜蓿对次生盐渍化土壤的改良效果研究.甘肃农业大学学报, 2004(2):173-176.
[5] 刘晓忠, 王志霞, 李建坤 , 等. 低盐锻炼提高水稻幼苗耐盐性及其与活性氧毒害的关系. 中国水稻科学, 1997,11(1):33-38.
[6] Mccoy T J . Tissueculture evaluation of NaCl tolerance in medicago species. Plant Cell Reports, 1987,8:31-34.
[7] 耿华珠, 吴永敷, 曹致中, 等 .中国苜蓿 .北京:中国农业出版社, 1995.
[8] 郑普山, 郝保平, 冯悦晨 , 等. 紫花苜蓿对盐碱地的改良效果. 山西农业科学, 2012,40(11):1204-1206.
[9] 段玉, 曹卫东, 妥德宝 , 等. 内蒙古绿肥综合利用现状及存在问题.内蒙古农业科技, 2008(7):23-25.
[10] 张立全, 张凤英 , 哈斯阿古拉.紫花苜蓿耐盐性研究进展. 草业学报, 2012,21(6):296-305.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20120638
[11] 邓聚龙 . 社会经济灰色系统的理论与方法.中国社会科学, 1984(6):1-14.
[12] 杨曌, 张新全, 李向林 , 等. 应用灰色关联度综合评价17个不同秋眠级苜蓿的生产性能. 草业学报, 2009,18(5):67-72.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20090510
[13] 何毅, 李青, 王历宽 . 应用灰色关联度理论对高寒牧区引种的苜蓿进行综合评价. 草业科学, 2002,19(4):33-36.
[14] 温方, 陶雅, 孙启忠 . 用灰色关联系数法对26个苜蓿品种生产性能的综合评价. 华北农学报, 2006,21(专辑):66-71.
[15] 唐成斌, 龙绍云 . 灰色系统理论在牧草引种上的应用初探. 草业科学, 1991,8(6):44-47.
[16] 金玉国 . 一种测定权数的新方法:灰色关联分析.统计教育, 2002(4):12-15.
[17] 杨曌 . 不同秋眠级紫花苜蓿在湘西南地区引种适应性初步研究. 成都:四川农业大学, 2009.
[18] 龙明秀 . 关中地区紫花苜蓿品种优势性比较研究. 杨陵:西北农林科技大学, 2011.
[19] 姜丽丽, 吴立萍, 牟芮 , 等. 不同用途马铃薯离体条件下耐盐性鉴定.作物杂志, 2015(6):59-63.
doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2015.06.011
[20] 张学云, 袁庆华 . 盐胁迫对多花胡枝子种子萌发及生理特性的影响.作物杂志, 2011(6):14-18.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2011.06.004
[21] 蔡阿兴, 陈章英, 蒋正琦 , 等. 我国土壤盐碱地区盐分含量与电导率的关系.土壤, 1997(1):54-57.
[22] 葛莹, 李建东 . 盐生植被在土壤积盐脱盐过程中作用的初探. 草业学报, 1990,1(1):70-76.
[23] Rogers M E, Grieve C M, Shannon M C . The response of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) to sodium sulphate and chloride salinity. Plant and Soil, 1998,202:271-280.
doi: 10.1023/A:1004317513474
[24] Peng Y L, Gao Z W, Gao Y , et al. Eco-physiological characteristics of alfalfa seedlings in response to various mixed salt-alkaline stresses. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 2008,50(1):29-39.
doi: 10.1111/jipb.2008.50.issue-1
[25] Gao Z W, Zhu H, Gao J C , et al. Germination responses of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) seeds to various salt-alkaline mixed stress. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 2011,6(16):3793-3803.
[26] 王晨, 陈吉宝, 庞振凌 , 等. 甜高粱对混合盐碱胁迫的响应及耐盐碱种质鉴定.作物杂志, 2016(1):56-61.
[1] Zhang Xiangyu, Li Hai, Liang Haiyan, . Effects of Different Row Spacing and Planting Density#br# on the Growth Characteristics and Yield of Millet [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(5): 91-96.
[2] Haiyan Liang, Hai Li, Fengxian Lin, Xiangyu Zhang, Zhi Zhang, Xiaoqiang Song. Field Identification of Different Broom Corn Millet Varieties Lodging Resistance and Evaluation Index Selection and Analysis [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 37-41.
[3] Junchan Wang,Zhifu Gao,Dongsheng Li,Dongmei Zhu,Hongya Wu. The Application of Agricultural Information Technology in Wheat Breeding [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(3): 37-43.
[4] Yue Song,Dabing Xiang,Houbing Huang,Yu Fan,Shuang Wei,Sai Zhang. Lodging Resistance Identification and Evaluation of Different Tartary Buckwheat Cultivars [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(6): 65-71.
[5] Nannan Lu,Lihua Yan,Chongke Zheng,Haibo Yin,Shanli Guo,Xianzhi Xie. Effects of Salt Stress on Growth and Agronomic Traits of Yanfeng 47 and Yanjing 456 [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(5): 106-111.
[6] ,Lili Zhang,Ying Shi. Screening of Drought Resistant Germplasm Resources in Potato [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 72-77.
[7] Zheng Yan,Xiaohong Zhang,Zhengrong Wang. Application of Grey Multidimensional Relation Analysis in Evaluation of Purple Sweet Potato Varieties [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 58-62.
[8] Ruda Yang,Hai Li,Fengxian Lin,Haiyan Liang. Grey Relational Analysis of Characters and Yield of Broom Millet and Discussion on Characteristics of Variety Selection [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 50-57.
[9] Junzhi Duan,Ying Li,Mingzhong Zhao,Qingzhou Li,Li Zhang,Xiaochun Wei,Yinling Ren. Progress on Application of NAC Transcription Factors in Plant Abiotic Tolerance Genetic Engineering [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(2): 14-22.
[10] Kefei Cui,Huiping Dai,Jiani Zhu,Afang Zhang. Effects of Selenium Stress on the Physiological Characteristic of Medicago sativa L. [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(4): 133-136.
[11] Xiaodong Dai,Xinzhi Xu,Cancan Zhu,Yufeng Yang,Chunyi Wang,Xiaoping Yang,Guohong Yang,Junxia Li. Seeding Stage Response to Different Water Availability and Drought Resistance Evaluation of Foxtail Millet [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(1): 140-143.
[12] Chen Ye, Gao Haining, Zheng Tianxiang, Zhang Yong. Investigation and Hazard Evaluation on the Alien Plants of Farmland in Hexi Region of Gansu Province [J]. Crops, 2013, 29(1): 120-123.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Guangcai Zhao,Xuhong Chang,Demei Wang,Zhiqiang Tao,Yanjie Wang,Yushuang Yang,Yingjie Zhu. General Situation and Development of Wheat Production[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 1 -7 .
[2] Baoquan Quan,Dongmei Bai,Yuexia Tian,Yunyun Xue. Effects of Different Leaf-Peg Ratio on Photosynthesis and Yield of Peanut[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 102 -105 .
[3] Xuefang Huang,Mingjing Huang,Huatao Liu,Cong Zhao,Juanling Wang. Effects of Annual Precipitation and Population Density on Tiller-Earing and Yield of Zhangzagu 5 under Film Mulching and Hole Sowing[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 106 -113 .
[4] Wenhui Huang, Hui Wang, Desheng Mei. Research Progress on Lodging Resistance of Crops[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 13 -19 .
[5] Yun Zhao,Cailong Xu,Xu Yang,Suzhen Li,Jing Zhou,Jicun Li,Tianfu Han,Cunxiang Wu. Effects of Sowing Methods on Seedling Stand and Production Profit of Summer Soybean under Wheat-Soybean System[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 114 -120 .
[6] Mei Lu,Min Sun,Aixia Ren,Miaomiao Lei,Lingzhu Xue,Zhiqiang Gao. Effects of Spraying Foliar Fertilizers on Dryland Wheat Growth and the Correlation with Yield Formation[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 121 -125 .
[7] Xiaofei Wang,Haijun Xu,Mengqiao Guo,Yu Xiao,Xinyu Cheng,Shuxia Liu,Xiangjun Guan,Yaokun Wu,Weihua Zhao,Guojiang Wei. Effects of Sowing Date, Density and Fertilizer Utilization Rate on the Yield of Oilseed Perilla frutescens in Cold Area[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 126 -130 .
[8] Pengjin Zhu,Xinhua Pang,Chun Liang,Qinliang Tan,Lin Yan,Quanguang Zhou,Kewei Ou. Effects of Cold Stress on Reactive Oxygen Metabolism and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities of Sugarcane Seedlings[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 131 -137 .
[9] Jie Gao,Qingfeng Li,Qiu Peng,Xiaoyan Jiao,Jinsong Wang. Effects of Different Nutrient Combinations on Plant Production and Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Utilization Characteristics in Waxy Sorghum[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 138 -142 .
[10] Na Shang,Zhongxu Yang,Qiuzhi Li,Huihui Yin,Shihong Wang,Haitao Li,Tong Li,Han Zhang. Response of Cotton with Vegetative Branches to Plant Density in the Western of Shandong Province[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 143 -148 .