Crops ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (4): 62-68.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2022.04.009

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comprehensive Evaluation of 11 Feed Oat Varieties in Southern Shandong by DTOPSIS Method Based on Entropy Weighting

Zhang Chunyan1(), Zhuang Kezhang1(), Wu Ronghua1, Li Jing1, Li Xinxin1, Wang Heng2, Dong Xichen1, Xu Geng3, Wu Benhua3   

  1. 1Linyi Agricultural Academy of Sciences, Linyi 276012, Shandong, China
    2Agricultural Technology Service Center of Rizhao City, Rizhao 276826, Shandong, China
    3Animal Husbandry Development Promotion Center of Yiʼnan County, Linyi 276300, Shandong, China
  • Received:2021-03-29 Revised:2021-07-26 Online:2022-08-15 Published:2022-08-22
  • Contact: Zhuang Kezhang E-mail:zhangchunyan1216@163.com;943219857@qq.com

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

243

Abstract:

By DTOPSIS method based on entropy weighting, comprehensive analysis of plant height, fresh grass and hay yield, stem-leaf ratio, crude protein content, neutral detergent fibre content, acid detergent fibre content and relative forage quality was made for screening forage oat varieties in southern Shandong and exploring a new method of comprehensive evaluation of oat varieties. The results showed that the entropy value method could evaluate objectively the importance of indicators in the evaluation system. The index with the largest weight was the stem-leaf ratio, followed by fresh yield, crude fat content, relative quality forage grass, hay yield, crude protein content, plant height, neutral detergent fiber content, crude ash content and acid detergent fiber content, which conformed to the requirements for oats feed. The top five Ci values were Forage plus, Haymaker, Charisma, Baler and Sweet oat. The five varieties not only had higher yield, but also had better comprehensive characteristics, and were suitable for planting and popularizing in southern Shandong.

Key words: Feed oat, Southrtn Shandong, DTOPSIS method, Entropy value, Comprehensive evaluation

Table1

The origin of oat varieties"

品种Variety 来源Origin
林纳Linna 中国青海
枪手Shooter 加拿大
领袖Souris 美国
牧王Haymaker 加拿大
贝勒Baler 加拿大
甜燕麦Sweet oat 中国青海
魄力Charisma 美国
青引1号Qingyin No.1 中国青海
青海444 Qinghai 444 中国青海
燕王Forage plus 加拿大
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 加拿大

Table 2

The quality properties and yields of 11 oat varieties"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant height
(cm)		 鲜草产量
Fresh yield
(t/hm2)		 干草产量
Hay yield
(t/hm2)		 茎叶比
Stem-
leaf ratio		 NDF
(%)		 ADF
(%)		 EE
(%)		 CP
(%)		 ASH
(%)		 RFQ
林纳Linna 95.5d 29.83i 9.63e 2.12b 56.37ab 35.06bc 8.88cd 10.07ab 10.09ab 198.1abc
枪手Shooter 118.5ab 40.76f 12.78d 1.77b 58.28ab 41.52a 9.18cd 9.00bc 8.79bc 175.9bc
领袖Souris 95.7d 34.46h 13.34d 2.10b 60.36a 38.34b 10.38bcd 8.82bc 10.43ab 177.3bc
牧王Haymaker 112.6b 57.62b 16.12a 1.34b 62.02a 42.63a 7.62d 9.36abc 10.70ab 162.8c
贝勒Baler 106.5c 50.77d 15.93ab 1.82b 49.29bc 36.06bc 8.70cd 9.72ab 8.38bc 223.7ab
甜燕麦Sweet oat 113.9b 47.62e 14.64bc 1.96b 54.13abc 34.13c 11.60ab 9.87ab 10.47ab 208.7ab
魄力Charisma 93.7de 52.40cd 14.82abc 1.49b 59.05ab 35.09bc 12.57a 10.96ab 9.71abc 189.0abc
青引1号Qingyin No.1 117.4ab 38.72g 13.71cd 2.18b 46.28c 33.47c 12.22a 12.33a 9.81abc 246.1a
青海444 Qinghai 444 122.3a 41.13f 14.64bc 3.11a 46.35c 40.91ab 8.14d 9.36abc 8.61bc 223.1ab
燕王Forage plus 88.0e 66.70a 14.82abc 1.37b 63.18a 42.15a 9.60bcd 9.23bc 11.76a 160.9c
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 119.1ab 53.17c 15.56ab 2.23b 54.80abc 33.11c 10.38bc 7.61c 9.90abc 208.8ab

Table 3

Dimensionless matrix of 11 oat varieties"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant
height		 鲜草产量
Fresh
yield		 干草产量
Hay
yield		 茎叶比
Stem-
leaf ratio		 NDF ADF EE CP ASH RFQ
林纳Linna 0.7811 0.4472 0.5977 0.6344 0.8210 0.9444 0.7064 0.8172 0.8581 0.8048
枪手Shooter 0.9689 0.6111 0.7931 0.7853 0.7941 0.7975 0.7308 0.7303 0.7474 0.7148
领袖Souris 0.7824 0.5167 0.8276 0.6414 0.7667 0.8635 0.8258 0.7155 0.8868 0.7203
牧王Haymaker 0.9213 0.8639 1.0000 1.0000 0.7462 0.7767 0.6065 0.7595 0.9095 0.6614
贝勒Baler 0.8712 0.7611 0.9885 0.7391 0.9389 0.9183 0.6926 0.7889 0.7127 0.9087
甜燕麦Sweet oat 0.9316 0.7139 0.9080 0.6873 0.8549 0.9701 0.9231 0.8005 0.8899 0.8479
魄力Charisma 0.7667 0.7861 0.9195 0.9005 0.7837 0.9436 1.0000 0.8892 0.8251 0.7679
青引1号Qingyin No.1 0.9599 0.5806 0.8506 0.6156 1.0000 0.9894 0.9725 1.0000 0.8339 1.0000
青海444 Qinghai 444 1.0000 0.6167 0.9080 0.4328 0.9984 0.8094 0.6479 0.7595 0.7323 0.9063
燕王Forage plus 0.7195 1.0000 0.9195 0.9801 0.7324 0.7856 0.7641 0.7485 1.0000 0.6536
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 0.9741 0.7972 0.9655 0.6029 0.8445 1.0000 0.8256 0.6171 0.8420 0.8482

Table 4

Specific gravity matrix of 11 oat varieties"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant height		 鲜草产量
Fresh yield		 干草产量
Hay yield		 茎叶比
Stem-leaf ratio		 NDF ADF EE CP ASH RFQ
林纳Linna 0.0807 0.0581 0.0618 0.0986 0.0924 0.0850 0.0812 0.0947 0.0929 0.0911
枪手Shooter 0.1001 0.0794 0.0819 0.0825 0.0955 0.1007 0.0840 0.0847 0.0809 0.0809
领袖Souris 0.0809 0.0671 0.0855 0.0975 0.0989 0.0930 0.0950 0.0829 0.0960 0.0815
牧王Haymaker 0.0952 0.1123 0.1033 0.0626 0.1017 0.1034 0.0697 0.0880 0.0985 0.0749
贝勒Baler 0.0900 0.0989 0.1021 0.0846 0.0808 0.0874 0.0797 0.0915 0.0771 0.1029
甜燕麦Sweet oat 0.0963 0.0928 0.0938 0.0910 0.0887 0.0828 0.1062 0.0928 0.0963 0.0960
魄力Charisma 0.0792 0.1022 0.0950 0.0695 0.0968 0.0851 0.1150 0.1031 0.0893 0.0869
青引1号Qingyin No.1 0.0992 0.0755 0.0879 0.1016 0.0759 0.0811 0.1118 0.1159 0.0903 0.1132
青海444 Qinghai 444 0.1033 0.0801 0.0938 0.1445 0.0760 0.0992 0.0745 0.0880 0.0793 0.1026
燕王Forage plus 0.0743 0.1300 0.0950 0.0638 0.1036 0.1022 0.0879 0.0868 0.1083 0.0740
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 0.1007 0.1036 0.0998 0.1038 0.0898 0.0803 0.0950 0.0715 0.0911 0.0960

Table 5

Contribution of 11 oat varieties to characters"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant height		 鲜草产量
Fresh yield		 干草产量
Hay yield		 茎叶比
Stem-leaf ratio		 NDF ADF EE CP ASH RFQ
林纳Linna -0.2032 -0.1654 -0.1720 -0.2284 -0.2200 -0.2095 -0.2039 -0.2233 -0.2207 -0.2183
枪手Shooter -0.2304 -0.2012 -0.2050 -0.2058 -0.2243 -0.2311 -0.2081 -0.2090 -0.2034 -0.2035
领袖Souris -0.2034 -0.1814 -0.2103 -0.2270 -0.2289 -0.2208 -0.2236 -0.2065 -0.2250 -0.2044
牧王Haymaker -0.2239 -0.2455 -0.2345 -0.1734 -0.2324 -0.2346 -0.1857 -0.2139 -0.2282 -0.1941
贝勒Baler -0.2168 -0.2288 -0.2330 -0.2090 -0.2033 -0.2131 -0.2015 -0.2187 -0.1977 -0.2340
甜燕麦Sweet oat -0.2253 -0.2206 -0.2220 -0.2181 -0.2149 -0.2062 -0.2381 -0.2206 -0.2254 -0.2249
魄力Charisma -0.2009 -0.2331 -0.2236 -0.1853 -0.2260 -0.2096 -0.2487 -0.2342 -0.2158 -0.2123
青引1号Qingyin No.1 -0.2292 -0.1950 -0.2137 -0.2324 -0.1956 -0.2038 -0.2450 -0.2498 -0.2171 -0.2466
青海444 Qinghai 444 -0.2346 -0.2023 -0.2220 -0.2796 -0.1958 -0.2292 -0.1935 -0.2139 -0.2009 -0.2336
燕王Forage plus -0.1932 -0.2652 -0.2236 -0.1756 -0.2348 -0.2331 -0.2137 -0.2121 -0.2407 -0.1927
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 -0.2311 -0.2349 -0.2299 -0.2351 -0.2165 -0.2025 -0.2236 -0.1887 -0.2183 -0.2250

Table 6

Entropy weights and weights of different oat indicators"

指标
Index		 株高
Plant height		 鲜草产量
Fresh yield		 干草产量
Hay yield		 茎叶比
Stem-leaf ratio		 NDF ADF EE CP ASH RFQ
Ej 0.9975 0.9897 0.9966 0.9882 0.9978 0.9982 0.9948 0.9971 0.9981 0.9964
Wj 0.0545 0.2250 0.0741 0.2583 0.0489 0.0402 0.1134 0.0643 0.0425 0.0789

Table 7

Dcision matrix of 11 oat varieties"

品种
Variety		 株高
Plant height		 鲜草产量
Fresh yield		 干草产量
Hay yield		 茎叶比
Stem-leaf ratio		 NDF ADF EE CP ASH RFQ
林纳Linna 0.0425 0.1006 0.0443 0.1639 0.0401 0.0380 0.0801 0.0525 0.0364 0.0635
枪手Shooter 0.0528 0.1375 0.0588 0.1958 0.0388 0.0321 0.0829 0.0469 0.0317 0.0564
领袖Souris 0.0426 0.1162 0.0613 0.1657 0.0375 0.0348 0.0937 0.0460 0.0377 0.0568
牧王Haymaker 0.0502 0.1944 0.0741 0.2583 0.0365 0.0313 0.0688 0.0488 0.0386 0.0522
贝勒Baler 0.0474 0.1712 0.0733 0.1909 0.0459 0.0370 0.0785 0.0507 0.0303 0.0717
甜燕麦Sweet oat 0.0507 0.1606 0.0673 0.1775 0.0418 0.0390 0.1047 0.0515 0.0378 0.0669
魄力Charisma 0.0418 0.1769 0.0682 0.2326 0.0383 0.0380 0.1134 0.0572 0.0350 0.0606
青引1号Qingyin No.1 0.0523 0.1306 0.0630 0.1590 0.0489 0.0398 0.1103 0.0643 0.0354 0.0789
青海444 Qinghai 444 0.0545 0.1387 0.0673 0.1118 0.0488 0.0326 0.0735 0.0488 0.0311 0.0715
燕王Forage plus 0.0392 0.2250 0.0682 0.2531 0.0358 0.0316 0.0866 0.0481 0.0425 0.0516
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 0.0531 0.1794 0.0716 0.1557 0.0413 0.0402 0.0936 0.0397 0.0358 0.0669

Table 8

Calculation results of DTOPSIS method"

品种Variety Si+ Si- Si++Si- Ci Ci值排序Ci value sorting 产量排序Yield sorting
林纳Linna 0.1644 0.0571 0.2215 0.2579 10 11
枪手Shooter 0.1175 0.0954 0.2129 0.4482 7 10
领袖Souris 0.1487 0.0649 0.2136 0.3037 9 9
牧王Haymaker 0.0644 0.1772 0.2416 0.7334 2 1
贝勒Baler 0.0954 0.1136 0.2090 0.5436 4 2
甜燕麦Sweet oat 0.1057 0.1020 0.2077 0.4909 5 6
魄力Charisma 0.0611 0.1531 0.2142 0.7148 3 5
青引1号Qingyin No.1 0.1377 0.0837 0.2214 0.3780 8 8
青海444 Qinghai 444 0.1761 0.0538 0.2299 0.2338 11 7
燕王Forage plus 0.0476 0.1912 0.2388 0.8007 1 4
加燕2号Jiayan No.2 0.1177 0.1003 0.2180 0.4601 6 3
[1] 刘刚. 青藏高原饲用燕麦种质资源评价与筛选. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2006.
[2] 杨海鹏, 孙泽民. 中国燕麦. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1989.
[3] 梁国玲, 刘文辉, 周青平. 高寒区燕麦I-D新品系与亲本光合特性和生产性能研究. 中国草地学报, 2017, 39(4):15-21.
[4] 郭金桂, 宋灵峰, 玉柱, 等. 混合比例对紫花苜蓿与燕麦混贮品质的动态影响. 中国草地学报, 2018, 40(1):73-79.
[5] 李志强. 燕麦干草质量评价. 中国奶牛, 2013(9):1-3.
[6] 忠勇. 燕麦干草在奶牛生产中的优势及应用. 中国奶牛, 2015(17):12-15.
[7] 刘欢欢, 郭雁华, 张巧娥, 等. 燕麦草营养价值评定方法的研究进展. 饲料研究, 2019(7):110-113.
[8] 赵得明. 燕麦草生产利用现状及发展趋势. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2016(22):177-179.
[9] 王茜, 李志坚, 李晶, 等. 不同类型燕麦农艺和饲草品质性状分析. 草业学报, 2019, 28(12):149-158.
[10] 王建丽, 马利超, 申忠宝, 等. 基于遗传多样性评估燕麦品种的农艺性状. 草业学报, 2019, 28(2):133-141.
[11] 昝凯, 周青, 张志民, 等. 灰色关联度和DTOPSIS法综合分析河南区域试验中大豆新品种(系)的农艺性状表现. 大豆科学, 2018, 37(5):664-671.
[12] 吴志会, 白玉龙, 董玉武, 等. DTOPSIS法综合评价冀中北冬小麦新品种的初步研究. 麦类作物学报, 2005, 25(6):116-119.
[13] 蒋聪, 刘慰华, 杨旭昆, 等. 灰色关联度分析和 DTOPSIS法在云南粳稻品种综合评价中的应用. 西北农业学报, 2020, 33(5):907-912.
[14] 刘松涛, 王萱, Zenda T, 等. 基于DTOPSIS法的河北省不同生态区夏玉米品种适宜性综合评价. 贵州农业科学, 2018, 46(5):8-11,15.
[15] 崔新菊, 董世磊, 任洪松, 等. DTOPSIS法在作物品种综合评价中的应用. 辽宁农业科学, 2016(4):68-71.
[16] Zou Z H, Yun Y, Sun J N. Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2006(5):1020-1023.
[17] 王彦超, 宋磊, 王旭哲. 新疆塔城和石河子地区燕麦品种生产性能比较研究. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2020(14):103-107.
[18] 丰明, 李韬, 王英杰, 等. 5种燕麦饲草品种在沈阳地区的评价与筛选. 辽宁农业科学, 2017(5):11-15.
[19] 魏小星, 阿啟兰, 刘勇, 等. 青海东部农区不同饲用燕麦品种生产性能及营养品质的比较. 干旱地区农业研究, 2019, 37(6):24-28.
[20] 王运涛, 杨志敏, 刘建成, 等. 冀西北地区21个燕麦品种生产性能与营养品质综合评价. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5):1311-1318.
[21] 郭兴燕, 梁丹妮, 兰剑. 宁夏引黄灌区燕麦品种生产性能及营养价值研究. 作物杂志, 2016(4):105-111.
[22] 蒋兆雄. 燕麦草在吉林省中西部地区的地区的生长适应评价. 长春:吉林农业大学, 2017.
[23] 闫亚飞. 河套灌区不同饲草生产性能与品质研究. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2016.
[24] 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.
[25] 翟苗苗. 饲草燕麦在辽西半干旱地区的产量与品质效应研究. 沈阳:辽宁大学, 2014.
[26] 杨凤. 动物营养学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1999.
[27] 王满红, 张海峰, 刘建国, 等. 膨化饲料中粗脂肪含量测定方法的研究. 实验动物科学, 2013, 30(1):35-37,41.
[28] 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.
[29] 史京京, 薛盈文, 郭伟, 等. 引进燕麦种质资源饲草产量与饲用营养价值评价. 麦类作物学报, 2019, 39(9):1063-1071.
[30] 周启龙, 多吉顿珠, 益西央宗, 等. 拉萨地区16个燕麦引进品种的灰色关联度评价. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2):389-396.
[31] 周启龙. 西藏阿里19个燕麦引进品种的灰色关联度评价. 作物杂志, 2021(1):26-31.
[32] 宫晓旭, 李志刚, 刘鹏, 等. 西辽河平原地区引种多个品种燕麦产量与营养品质分析及评价. 江西农业, 2020(4):104-107.
[33] 南铭, 赵桂琴, 李晶, 等. 西北半干旱区引种燕麦品种产量与品质的关联分析及评价. 草地学报, 2018, 26(1):125-133.
[34] 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.
[35] 刘岳华, 姚明久, 高燕蓉, 等. 5个美国燕麦品种在成都平原的适应性分析. 草学, 2018(6):26-31.
[36] 王霞, 赵金花, 李青丰, 等. 5个饲用燕麦品种在乌兰察布不同地区的品质性状比较分析. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2021(1):118-123.
[37] 娜日苏, 梁庆伟, 杨秀芳, 等. 阿鲁科尔沁旗燕麦新品种的灰色关联度评价. 饲料研究, 2019(3):83-86.
[38] 孙焕, 李雪君, 马浩波, 等. 用DTOPSIS法综合评价烤烟区试品种. 西南农业学报, 2012(4):1197-1200.
[39] 黄志勇. DTOPSIS法在棉花品种评价中的应用. 江西棉花, 2002(6):16-19.
[40] 周长军. 不同分析方法在黑龙江省玉米联合体试验中的应用及比较分析. 中国种业, 2020(6):41-45.
[41] 姜永平, 刘水东, 薛晨霞, 等. DTOPSIS法和灰色关联度法在番茄品种综合评价中的应用比较. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(22):259-263.
[42] 李彦平, 李淑, 吴娟霞, 等. DTOPSIS法和灰色关联度法在新引烤烟新品种综合评价中的应用比较. 中国烟草学报, 2012, 18(4):35-40.
[43] 杨昆, 吴才文, 覃伟, 等. DTOPSIS法和灰色关联度法在甘蔗新品种综合评价中的应用比较. 西南农业学报, 2015, 28(4):1542-1547.
[44] 宋秀丽, 吴玥, 杨锡朗, 等. 基于熵值赋权的DTOPSIS法与灰色关联度分析在玉米品种综合评价中的比较. 玉米科学, 2020, 28(2):41-46.
[45] 杨禹伟, 陈华, 姜波, 等. 一种加工番茄品质的多性状评价方法. 中国农业大学学报, 2017, 22(3):131-137.
[46] 吴玥, 李威, 马德志, 等. 基于熵值赋权的DTOPSIS法对不同玉米品种综合评价研究. 玉米科学, 2019, 27(4):32-41.
[47] 夏来坤, 齐建双, 谷利敏, 等. 基于熵权的DTOPSIS法和灰色局势决策法在宜机收玉米品种综合评价中的应用. 南方农业学报, 2019, 50(9):1953-1959.
[1] Lü Jianzhen, Ren Ying, Wang Hongyong, Zhang Tingjun, Ma Jianping, Zhao Kai. Comprehensive Phenotype Evaluation of 264 Major Foxtail Millet Bred Varieties (Lines) [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(4): 22-31.
[2] Gao Zhanning, Wang Shujie, Feng Hui, Xue Zhenggang, Yang Yongqian, Song Xiaopeng, Jie Yuanfen. Comprehensive Evaluation of Two-Rowed Barley Varieties (Lines) [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(1): 70-76.
[3] Wang Yuting, Miao Xingfen, Wang Di. Screening and Evaluation of Atrazine-Resistant Germplasm Resources of Foxtail Millet at Germination Stage [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(5): 194-204.
[4] Liu Xin, Yang Fang, Deng Junbo, Wang Aiai, He Nian, Chen Yan. Phenotypic Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Soybean Strains in Jianghan Plain of China [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(5): 57-63.
[5] Guo Qiang, Ma Wenqing, Qin Changxian, Shi Zesheng, Peng Chong, Bi Dejin, He Hongliang, Liang Yongjian, Tang Liqiu. Comprehensive Evaluation of New Sugarcane Clones by DTOPSIS Method [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 32-37.
[6] Feng Yanfei, Yang Wei, Ren Guoxin, Deng Jie, Li Wenlong, Gao Shuren. Comprehensive Evaluation of Some Maize Hybrids in Heilongjiang Province [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 46-50.
[7] Li Zilin, Lu Yachun, Zhao Leifeng, Fan Dongsheng, Wei Zhong, Zhou Wenliang, Huang Liguang, Huang Yang, Huang Jingpeng, Gu Xinquan, Nian Fuzhao. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Suitability of Tobacco Planting Soil Fertility in Jingxi City [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 155-160.
[8] Qu Xiangchun, Wang Nai, Shi Guishan, Yu Miao, Li Haiqing, Gao Yue, Xu Ning, Chen Bingru. Application in Similarity-Difference Analysis Method on Evaluation of Grain Sorghum Hybrids [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 46-50.
[9] Zhou Qilong. Grey Relational Grade Evaluation of 19 Oat Varieties Introduced in Ali of Tibet [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(1): 26-31.
[10] Qi Jianshuang, Xia Laikun, Huang Bao, Li Chunying, Ma Zhiyan, Ding Yong, Gu Limin, Zhang Jun, Zhang Fengqi, Mu Xinyuan, Tang Baojun, Zhao Faxin, Zhang Lanxun. Discussion on the Application in the Regional Experiment of Maize Varieties by Entropy DTOPSIS Mode and Grey Situation Decision Methods [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(1): 60-67.
[11] Zhang Yang, Zhang Wei, Zhao Weijun, Shao Rongfeng, Wang Guan, Xue Dingding, Li Jinmei. Variety Screening and Study of Cultivation Technology for Forage Triticale Varieties Based on Principal Component and Grey Relation Analysis [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(3): 117-124.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[15] ,Lili Zhang,Ying Shi. Screening of Drought Resistant Germplasm Resources in Potato [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(4): 72-77.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!