Crops ›› 2019, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (2): 156-163.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.02.024

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Consecutive Applying Different New Type Fertilizers on Soil Fungal Communities and Tobacco Quality and Yield

Deming Xiang1,Mingfa Zhang1,Shuguang Peng3,Feng Tian1,Jianxin Luo2,Wu Chen2,Yunfan Cai1,Minghui Tian1,Qisong Lü1   

  1. 1 Production Technology Center, Xiangxi Prefectural Tobacco Company, Hunan Provincial Tobacco Company, Jishou 416000, Hunan, China
    2 College of Agronomy, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha 410128, Hunan, China
    3 Hunan Provincial Tobacco Company, Changsha 410004, Hunan, China
  • Received:2018-12-03 Revised:2019-02-20 Online:2019-04-15 Published:2019-04-12
  • Contact: Mingfa Zhang

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

189

Abstract:

In order to improve the quality of soil and tobacco, a field experiment was conducted to study the effects of applying different new type fertilizers on soil fungal communities and yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco leaves. The results indicated that application of new type fertilizer decreased the diversity and evenness of soil fungal communities, the relative abundance of glomeromycota, proportion of high-grade leaves, yield and output value, content of potassium of leaves and smoking quality. The fragrance quality and delicate- finish of mid upper leaves were increased in the four new type fertilizer treatments compared with tradition production treatment. The contents of total nitrogen and nicotine in leaves were decreased in new type fertilizer D treatment, the sensory quality and yield and output value were the best, and soil fungal communities composition had a maximum difference compared with control group. So the new type fertilizer D treatment was the optimum combination in tobacco-growing region of Xiangxi.

Key words: Tobacco, New type fertilizer, Fungal communities, Quality, Yield

Table 1

Field experiment treatments"

处理Treatment 设计Design
对照组[T5(CK)]

 烟草专用基肥750kg/hm2+生物有机肥
300kg/hm2+提苗肥75kg/hm2+专用追肥300kg/hm2+硫酸钾300kg/hm2
新型肥料A组(T1) 新型肥料A 1500kg/hm2+提苗肥75kg/hm2
新型肥料B组(T2) 新型肥料B 1500kg/hm2+提苗肥75kg/hm2
新型肥料C组(T3) 新型肥料C 1387.5kg/hm2+提苗肥75kg/hm2
新型肥料D组(T4) 新型肥料D 1387.5kg/hm2+提苗肥75kg/hm2

Table 2

Effects of different new type fertilizers on soil physical and chemical properties"

处理
Treatment		 有机质(g/kg)
Organic matter		 全氮(g/kg)
Total nitrogen		 速效氮(mg/kg)
Available nitrogen		 速效钾(mg/kg)
Available potassium		 速效磷(mg/kg)
Available phosphorus		 粘粒(%)
Clay
T5(CK) 28.84±1.37d 1.74±0.06d 148.08±0.91d 223.99±19.51d 38.99±1.31e 30.33±2.59a
T1 29.04±1.42c 1.89±0.09c 160.55±1.02c 252.55±20.13c 40.27±1.92d 28.78±2.01b
T2 29.98±1.59c 1.96±0.11c 189.33±1.22b 263.77±28.90bc 46.95±2.88c 25.33±1.92c
T3 30.33±1.71b 2.08±0.19b 195.67±1.69ab 289.12±30.55b 51.21±3.56ab 24.03±1.88cd
T4 32.01±1.95a 2.21±0.21a 201.08±1.73a 301.08±31.79a 59.16±4.89a 20.41±1.52e

Fig.1

The dilution curve of metagenome sequencing"

Table 3

The diversity-index and the even-index of fungal communities"

项目Item 对照组
CK		 新型肥料A组
New type fertilizer A		 新型肥料C组
New type fertilizer C		 新型肥料B组
New type fertilizer B		 新型肥料D组
New type fertilizer D
多样性指数Diversity-index 4.358138 3.753036 4.508063 3.485315 0.916097
均一性指数Even-index 0.703737 0.617776 0.741415 0.574788 0.171387
Chao值Chao value 1 558.299 1 559.214 1 521.302 1 561.509 988.1448

Table 4

Dissimilarity analysis among groups"

项目Item 新型肥料A组
New type fertilizer A		 新型肥料C组
New type fertilizer C		 新型肥料B组
New type fertilizer B		 新型肥料D组
New type fertilizer D
对照组CK 0.0171 0.0036 0.0117 0.0009
新型肥料A组 New type fertilizer A 0.0117 0.0090 0.0009
新型肥料C组 New type fertilizer C 0.0018 0.0009
新型肥料B组 New type fertilizer B 0.0009
新型肥料D组 New type fertilizer D

Fig.2

Fungal communities DCA"

Fig.3

The composition of each community at the phylum level"

Table 5

Economic benefits and fungal amount of different treatments"

年份
Year		 处理
Treatment		 真菌(×104cfu/g)
Fungi		 产量(kg/hm2)
Yield		 产值(元/hm2)
Output value (yuan/hm2)		 上等烟比例(%)
Supper tobacco rate		 施肥用工(元/hm2)
Fertilizer employment (yuan/hm2)
2015 T5(CK) 4.00±0.65b 1 854.43±39.87d 33 087.92±94.85c 13.27±1.98c 2 852±59a
T1 4.96±0.80b 2 348.05±46.88c 39 584.30±80.35b 17.22±1.15b 1 431±39b
T2 5.03±0.40b 2 431.32±29.86b 43 132.22±96.65ab 24.28±1.55ab 1 419±77b
T3 5.99±0.60a 2 596.95±61.24a 45 281.68±91.02a 24.66±1.98a 1 434±86b
T4 7.03±0.56a 2 664.24±50.25a 45 788.93±85.96a 24.78±1.75a 1 417±58b
2016 T5(CK) 4.31±0.60c 1 892.28±42.31c 33 763.19±89.56d 13.54±0.86b 2 910±66a
T1 5.33±0.70b 2 395.95±66.01c 40 392.14±96.21c 17.58±1.05b 1 460±97b
T2 5.40±0.86b 2 480.94±18.99b 44 012.47±93.46b 24.77±1.71a 1 448±85b
T3 6.44±0.43ab 2 649.95±65.21a 46 205.79±97.66a 25.16±1.68a 1 463±78b
T4 7.56±0.64a 2 718.61±36.69a 46 723.40±91.96a 25.29±1.23a 1 446±38b
2017 T5(CK) 4.63±0.69c 1 950.80±77.26c 34 807.41±88.67d 13.96±0.78b 3 000±23a
T1 5.73±0.46bc 2 470.05±44.21b 41 641.38±95.59c 18.12±0.95b 1 505±56b
T2 5.81±0.92bc 2 557.67±56.78b 45 373.68±91.23b 25.54±1.50a 1 493±95b
T3 6.92±0.75ab 2 731.91±71.33a 47 634.84±64.56a 25.94±1.28a 1 508±74b
T4 8.13±0.65a 2 802.69±68.22a 48 168.45±59.99a 26.07±1.57a 1 491±65b

Table 6

Effects of different new type fertilizers on tobacco chemical components %"

项目Item 处理Treatment 总糖Total sugar 还原糖Reducing sugar 总氮Total nitrogen 烟碱Nicotine K2O 氯Chlorine
下部叶Lower leaves (X2F) CK 21.91b 17.14c 1.57b 1.41c 1.06c 0.17
T1 26.11a 22.65a 1.68ab 1.64bc 1.61a 0.42
T2 21.15b 17.10c 1.85a 1.97b 1.63a 0.32
T3 26.17a 20.67b 1.77a 2.20a 1.59ab 0.33
T4 21.89b 17.03c 1.50b 1.37c 1.53b 0.38
中部叶Middle leaves (C3F) CK 21.24b 17.06b 1.68b 2.25b 1.39c 0.24
T1 21.67b 17.37b 1.92ab 2.62a 1.67ab 0.52
T2 21.05b 16.50c 2.15a 2.45a 1.85a 0.52
T3 25.10a 21.20a 2.05a 2.34ab 2.00a 0.47
T4 20.65c 17.04b 1.61b 2.20b 1.86a 0.38
上部叶Upper leaves (B2F) CK 19.68b 17.08c 1.76b 2.46c 1.30c 0.37
T1 20.86b 19.60b 1.95a 2.72a 1.56b 0.58
T2 19.11b 16.46c 2.09a 3.30a 1.71b 0.53
T3 25.22a 21.86a 1.88a 2.57b 1.74b 0.41
T4 19.10b 16.09c 1.68b 2.26c 1.86a 0.43

Table 7

Effects of different new type fertilizers on smoking quality of medium to upper tobacco leaves"

处理
Treatment		 等级
Grade		 香气质
Quality of
aroma		 香气量
Concentration
of aroma		 浓度Concentration 杂气
Offensive odor		 劲头
Strength		 刺激性
Irritation		 余味
After
taste		 燃烧性Combustibility 灰色
Ash
color		 质量档次
Quality grade
CK C3F 6.0 6 6 6.0 7.5 5.6 6 8 6 中等Medium
T1 6.0 6 6 6.1 7.5 5.9 6 8 6 中偏上Mid to upper
T2 6.1 6 6 6.1 7.5 5.9 6 8 6 中偏上Mid to upper
T3 6.3 6 6 6.1 7.5 6.0 6 8 6 中偏上Mid to upper
T4 6.4 6 6 6.2 7.5 6.0 6 8 6 中偏上Mid to upper
CK B2F 6.0 6 6 6.0 7.5 6.0 6 8 6 中等Medium
T1 6.1 6 6 6.2 7.5 6.0 6 8 6 中偏上Mid to upper
T2 6.1 6 6 6.2 7.5 6.0 6 8 6 中偏上Mid to upper
T3 6.1 6 6 6.2 7.5 6.0 6 8 6 中偏上Mid to upper
T4 6.2 6 6 6.2 7.5 6.0 6 8 6 中偏上Mid to upper
[1] 王树林, 史万华, 刘好宝 , 等. 烟草轻简高效栽培技术研究Ⅲ. M型宽垄双行种植模式对烟草生长及产质量的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2011,32(5):29-33.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2011.05.007
[2] 王树林, 刘好宝, 邢小军 , 等. 烟草轻简高效栽培技术研究Ⅳ. M型宽垄双行种植模式对土壤理化性状的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2012,33(5):42-48.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2012.05.008
[3] 靳志丽, 罗井清, 张双双 , 等. 大穴环施新型肥料对烤烟碳氮代谢关键酶及烟叶内在品质的影响. 作物研究, 2016,6(3):709-713.
doi: 10.16848/j.cnki.issn.1001-5280.2016.06.25
[4] 刘国顺, 李正, 敬海霞 , 等. 连年翻压绿肥对植烟土壤微生物量及酶活性的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010,16(6):1472-1478.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20110328
[5] Niwa S, Kaneko N, Okada H , et al. Effects of fine-scale simulation of deer browsing on soil micro-foodweb structure and N mineralization rate in a temperate forest. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2008,40(3):699-708.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.10.004
[6] 马琨, 张丽, 杜茜 , 等. 马铃薯连作栽培对土壤微生物群落的影响. 水土保持学报, 2010,21(4):229-233.
doi: 10.11934/j.issn.1673-4831.2015.05.015
[7] 牛世全, 龙洋, 李海云 , 等. 应用IlluminaMiSeq高通量测序技术分析河西走廊地区盐碱土壤微生物多样性. 微生物学通报, 2017,44(9):2067-2078.
doi: 10.13344/j.microbiol.china.160824
[8] 闫克玉, 赵献章 . 烟叶分级 . 北京:中国农业出版社, 2003.
[9] 王瑞新, 韩富根, 杨素勤 , 等. 烟草化学品质分析法. 郑州: 河南科学技术出版社, 1998.
[10] 丁辉, 胡干文, 龚玉刚 . 施加草酸钾对卷烟燃烧性、焦油及吸味的影响. 烟草科技, 1998,10(4):14-15.
[11] Ding J J, Zhang Y G, Deng Y , et al. Integrated metagenomics and network analysis of soil microbial community of the forest timberline. Scientific Reports, 2015,5(2):7991-7994.
doi: 10.1038/srep07991 pmid: 25612888
[12] 刘义新, 江玉平, 韩移旺 , 等. 结晶有机肥在烤烟生产中的应用及其在土壤中的释放动态研究. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2000,6(3):306-311.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-2421.1999.05.008
[13] 杨宇虹, 陈冬梅, 晋艳 , 等. 不同肥料种类对连作烟草根际土壤微生物功能多样性的影响. 作物学报, 2011,37(1):105-111.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.00105
[14] Zhang Y G, Cong J, Lu H , et al. Soil bacterial diversity patterns and drivers along an elevational gradient on Shennongjia Mountain,China. Microbial Biotechnology, 2015,8(4):739-746.
doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.12288 pmid: 26032124
[15] 张于光, 宿秀江, 丛静 , 等. 神农架土壤微生物群落的海拔梯度变化. 林业科学, 2014,50(9):161-166.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20140922
[16] 徐波 . 高山生态系统土壤微生物群落特征及氮素动态研究进展. 安徽农学通报, 2018,24(16):35-38.
[17] 刘云, 曹莉, 秦舒浩 . 缓释尿素对土壤微生物群落、酶活性及辣椒产量的影响. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2018,53(4):41-48.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4315.2018.04.007
[18] 李贺, 张楠楠, 马琨 . 宁夏荒漠草原区土地利用方式对AM真菌多样性的影响. 西北农业学报, 2018,27(9):1-8.
doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2018.09.016
[19] 聂江文, 王幼娟, 吴邦魁 , 等. 施氮对冬种紫云英不还田条件下稻田土壤微生物数量与结构的影响. 生态学杂志, 2018,27(4):1-8.
doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.201812.006
[20] 张志红, 冯宏, 肖相政 , 等. 生物肥防治香蕉枯萎病及对土壤微生物多样性的影响. 果树学报, 2010,27(4):575-579.
[21] 袁英英, 李敏清, 胡伟 , 等. 生物有机肥对番茄青枯病的防效及对土壤微生物的影响. 农业环境科学学报, 2011,30(7):1344-1350.
[22] 朱震, 陈芳, 肖同建 , 等. 拮抗菌生物有机肥对番茄根结线虫的防治作用. 应用生态学报, 2011,22(4):1033-1038.
[23] 李广才, 李富欣, 王留河 . 饼肥和腐殖酸对植烟土壤养分及烤烟生长影响. 烟草科技, 2017(3):39-41.
[24] 张云伟, 徐智, 汤利 , 等. 不同有机肥对烤烟根际土壤微生物的影响. 应用生态学报, 2013,24(9):2551-2556.
[25] Fuhrman J A . Microbial community structure and its functional implications. Nature, 2009,459:193-199.
doi: 10.1038/nature08058
[26] 张玉凤, 冯固, 李晓林 . 丛枝菌根真菌对三叶草根系分泌的有机酸组分和含量的影响. 生态学报, 2003,23(1):30-37.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0933.2003.01.005
[27] Kapoor R, Kaur M, Mukerji K G . VAM and phosphorus induced changes in the rhizosphere ecology of Anethu graveolens L. Journal of Environmental Biology, 2000,21(3):185-191.
[28] 孙馨宇, 张枭, 张鹏 , 等. 温度、水分及有机物料对苹果园土壤有机碳转化和微生物群落多样性的影响. 土壤通报, 2018,49(4):822-833.
doi: 10.19336/j.cnki.trtb.2018.04.10
[29] 王寒, 林锐锋, 彭琛 , 等. 采收时间对烤烟碳氮代谢关键酶活性和烟叶化学成分的影响. 烟草科技, 2017(8):79-84.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0861.2013.08.018
[30] 李洪臣, 杨志晓, 武云杰 , 等. 氮肥用量和施用方式对烟草中部叶碳氮代谢的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2013,41(3):65-68.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1302.2013.03.024
[31] 尹启生, 蔡宪杰, 王信民 , 等. 大田中后期烤烟淀粉酶活性及淀粉含量的变化. 烟草科技, 2017(9):55-57,64.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0861.2006.09.015
[32] 史宏志, 韩锦峰, 赵鹏 , 等. 不同氮量与氮源下烤烟淀粉酶和转化酶活性动态变化. 中国烟草科学, 2017(3):5-8.
[33] 杨焕文, 李佛琳, 耿宗泽 , 等. 烤烟大田生长期淀粉酶变化及淀粉的积累. 西南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2017(4):321-323.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9868.2003.04.012
[34] 刘国顺, 朱凯, 武雪萍 , 等. 施用有机酸和氨基酸对烤烟生长及氮素吸收的影响. 华北农学报, 2004,19(4):51-54.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-7091.2004.04.014
[35] 王树会, 纳红艳, 陈发荣 , 等. 有机肥与化肥配施对烤烟品质及土壤的影响. 中国农业科技导报, 2011,13(4):110-114.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0864.2011.04.17
[36] 冯帅, 刘小利, 吴小丽 , 等. 不同水分条件对玉米根际微生物群落的影响. 作物杂志, 2017(1):127-134.
doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2017.01.023
[37] 蒋玉兰, 陆凯明, 夏仕明 , 等. 干湿交替灌溉对水稻产量、品质和土壤生物学性状的影响. 作物杂志, 2017(6):20-25.
doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2016.06.004
[38] 刘振东, 王波, 薛蓓 , 等. 高原作物青稞根及根际内生细菌群落结构的高通量分析.作物杂志, 2017(6):49-52.
doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2016.06.009
[39] 王春蕾, 方志军, 许艳蕊 , 等. 基于高通量测序技术分析使它隆对玉米根系内生菌多样性的影响.作物杂志, 2017(1):160-165.
[1] Jie Xu,Lei Pan,Shuai Yang,Lianhong Chen,Shibing Geng,Wenguang Ma. Research Progress of Tobacco Pollen Vitality [J]. Crops, 2019, 190(3): 10-14.
[2] Yonggang Wang,Mingze Ji,Xuhan Zhao,Lihe Yu,Yingwen Xue. Effects of Sowing Dates on Yield of Baiyan 7 in Midwest of Heilongjiang Province [J]. Crops, 2019, 190(3): 106-111.
[3] Dongmei Zhang,Xuefang Huang,Chunxia Jiang,Wei Zhang,Xiaojuan Wang,Huatao Liu,Liuying Yan,Enke Liu,Guangqian Zhai. Effects of Micro-Ridge Film Mulching on Soil Water and Temperature and Yield of Dryland Maize in Cold Areas [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 115-121.
[4] Yufei Zhang,Lizhi Liu,Yuxuan Ma,Xiaochun Wang,Jianjun Dai. Effects of Tillage and Straw Returning Methods on Maize Yield and Potassium Accumulation and Transport [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 122-127.
[5] Yajun Liu,Fengli Chu,Wenjing Wang,Qiguo Hu,Aimei Yang. Effects of Different Supporting Cultivation Measures on the Yield and Weeds Control of Sweet Potato cv. Shangshu 9 [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 179-184.
[6] Lifeng Dong,Xiaohu Lin,Chunrong Liu,Guishuang Hou,Chunlu Zhang,Jinfeng Fu,Fengbao Wang. Effects of Compound Seed Coating Agents on Pea Growth and Yield [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 185-191.
[7] Yunqing Gao,Shutong Li,Qibing Shang,Junchun Shi,Dongxu Xu. Nodules and Yield of Faba Bean under Different Fertilizer Treatments [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 164-167.
[8] Xinqi Geng,Huijuan Yang,Yanqing Qin,Xingyou Yang,Shimin Zhao,Hongzhi Shi. Development and Application of Tobacco SSR Markers Based on Genome Re-Sequencing of Different Tobacco Types [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 84-89.
[9] Ying Fu,Yinan Shen,Yanchun Liu,Xiaojiao Chai,Xianrui Wang,Xiaolei Bai,Shutian Li. Correlation Analysis of Amylopectin Content, Nutritional Quality and Agronomic Traits in Spring Millet Varieties [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 90-93.
[10] Huihui Tang,Yanli Xu,Qingyan Wang,Zhengbo Ma,Guangyan Li,Hui Dong,Zhiqiang Dong. Effects of Foliar Spraying 5-Aminolevulinic Acid on Spring Maize Growth and Yield under Different Planting Densities [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 136-141.
[11] Xiaojun Xiao,Weisheng Lü,Paolan Yu,Wei Zheng,Yazhen Li,Lei Hu,Fuliang Xiao,Shaowen Zhang,Tianbao Huang,Guobin Xiao. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rate on Yield Formation and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Early Rice under Rape Straw Returning in Triple Cropping [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(2): 103-109.
[12] Fang Chen,Shixiao Xu,Xiaohui Li,Chao Liu,Jianfei Zhou,Yuan Wang,Pei Tian,Tiezhao Yang. Construction of Molecular Fingerprinting and Analysis of Genetic Diversity for 80 Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) Germplasms Based on SSR Markers [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 22-31.
[13] Xingqi Ou,Xiujuan Ren,Xinhua Li,Yangjuan Ou. Effects of Side-Row Marginal Advantage and Inner-Row Performance on Plot Yield and Yield Components of Wheat [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 97-102.
[14] Kainan Zhao,Xuhong Chang,Demei Wang,Zhiqiang Tao,Yushuang Yang,Ruiqi Ma,Yingjie Zhu,Zheli Xu,Baojun Zhang,Guangcai Zhao. Effects of Tridimensional Uniform Sowing and Fertilizer on Grain and Physiological Characteristics of Winter Wheat [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 103-110.
[15] Qian Liang,Wenya Liu,Junzhu Ge,Ming Zhao,Haipeng Hou,Yong′an Yang,Decai Xin. Regulation Effects of Narrow-Double Row Precision Sowing with Subsoiling on Yield in Summer Maize [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(1): 111-115.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Wenhui Huang, Hui Wang, Desheng Mei. Research Progress on Lodging Resistance of Crops[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 13 -19 .
[2] 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 .
[3] Ying Chai,Yongqing Xu,Yao Fu,Xiuyu Li,Fumeng He,Yingqi Han,Zhe Feng,Fenglan Li. Characteristics of Cell Wall Degradation Enzyme Produced by Main Pathogenic Fusarium spp. in Potato Dry Rot[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 154 -160 .
[4] . [J]. Crops, 2006, 22(6): 4 -8 .
[5] Menghan Wei, Huifang Xie, Lu Xing, Hui Song, Shujun Wang, Suying Wang, Haiping Liu, Nan Fu, Jinrong Liu. Comprehensive Evaluation of Yield and Agronomic Characters of Foxtail Millet Germplasms from North China[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 42 -47 .
[6] Zhongguo He,Tongguo Zhu,Yufa Li,Baizhong Wang,Hailong Niu,Hongxin Liu,Weitang Li,Shujing Mu. Current Situation and Development Direction of Peanut Breeding in Jilin[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 8 -12 .
[7] Zhengui Yuan,Pingping Chen,Lili Guo,Naimei Tu,Zhenxie Yi. Varietal Difference in Yield and Cd Accumulation and Distribution in Panicle of Rice Affected by Soil Cd Content[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 107 -112 .
[8] Zhanning Gao,Hui Feng,Zhenggang Xue,Yongqian Yang,Shujie Wang,Zhengmao Pan. Analysis of Main Agronomic Traits of 28 Barley Varieties (Lines)[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 77 -82 .
[9] Jiachen Cao,Youfei Zheng,Hui Zhao,Jingxin Xu. Influence of Open-Top Chamber on Growth and Yield of Winter Wheat[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 88 -95 .
[10] . [J]. Crops, 2003, 19(5): 17 -18 .