Crops ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (6): 86-93.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2023.06.012

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Evaluation of Production Performance and Quality of Forage Pea in Alpine Region by Membership Function Method

Gao Xiaoli1,2(), Huang Haijiao1,2, Tian Pengjia1,2, Nimayangzong 1,2, Chang Zihui1,2, Labazhaxi 1,2, Liao Wenhua1,2, Yang Wencai1,3()   

  1. 1Research Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tibet Academy of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Sciences,Lhasa 850032, Tibet, China
    2State Key Laboratory of Hulless Barley and Yak Germplasm Resources and Genetic Improvement, Lhasa 850032, Tibet, China
    3Institute of Pratacultural Science, Tibet Academy of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Lhasa 850032, Tibet, China
  • Received:2023-06-15 Revised:2023-09-11 Online:2023-12-15 Published:2023-12-15

Abstract:

High-yield and high-quality legume forage is one of the main choices for the development of artificial forage in alpine regions. In order to breed new forage peas varieties (lines) suitable for planting in the valley agricultural areas of Tibet, the subordinate function method was used to comprehensively analyze and evaluate the agronomic traits, yield and quality indexes of peas. The results showed that the yield per plant was extremely significant positively correlated with the number of pods per plant (r=0.809**), and significant positively correlated with 100-grain weight (r=0.676*). The fresh yield and hay yield of G0002305 were the highest, 69 434.7 and 15 107.6kg/ha, respectively, followed by Lhasa black pea and LB1202. The correlation among crude protein, neutral detergent fibre and acid detergent fibre in straw were extremely significant. There were significant differences in NDF and ADF among different pea varieties (r=0.976**). The contents of mineral nutrient elements Ca, K and P were significantly different (P < 0.05). The average value of membership function of 24 related indexes of agronomic traits, yield and quality from high to low were Green bean > ATC196 > PG2020-28 > LB1202 > Lhasa black pea > K-13 > K-1541 > CS6007 > G0002305 > PG2020-40 > PG2014-87 > Grassland 7. Based on the above analysis, four pea varieties (lines) of Green bean, G0002305, LB1202 and Lhasa black pea can be used as high-quality forage peas.

Key words: Membership function, Evaluation, Forage peas, Production performance, Quality

Table 1

Source and main characteristics of tested varieties (lines)"

品种(系)
Variety (line)
来源
Source
粒色
Grain color
粒型
Grain type
复叶叶型
Compound leaf type
花色
Flower color
草原7号Grass 7 中国农业科学院作物科学研究所 翠绿 扁球 普通
PG2014-87 西藏自治区农牧科学院农业研究所 白色 球形 无叶
PG2020-40 西藏自治区农牧科学院农业研究所 麻豆 球形 普通
K-1541 中国农业科学院作物科学研究所 白色 球形 普通
G0002305 中国农业科学院作物科学研究所 白色 球形 普通
青豆Green bean 甘肃省农业科学院作物研究所 麻豆 球形 普通
ATC196 中国农业科学院作物科学研究所 白色 球形 普通
PG2020-28 西藏自治区农牧科学院农业研究所 斑纹 球形 普通
LB1202 中国农业科学院作物科学研究所 土黄 球形 普通
K-13 中国农业科学院作物科学研究所 白色 球形 普通
CS6007 中国农业科学院作物科学研究所 绿色 球形 普通
拉萨黑豌豆Lhasa black pea 西藏自治区农牧科学院农业研究所 黑色 球形 普通

Table 2

Maturity and main quantitative traits of different pea varieties (lines)"

品种(系)
Variety (line)
生育期
Growth
period (d)
株高
Plant height
(cm)
分枝数
Branch
number
主茎节数
Main stem
internodes
单株荚数
Pod number
per plant
单荚粒数
Seeds
per pod
单株产量
Yield per
plant (g)
百粒重
100-seed
weight (g)
草原7号Grass 7 113c 107.5cd 1.0bc 14.0d 7.9d 5.1ab 5.0e 14.22d
PG2014-87 113c 138.8ab 1.8a 18.5bc 18.0a 6.3ab 18.7b 17.89c
PG2020-40 117bc 147.5ab 1.1bc 16.2cd 8.5cd 5.8ab 9.5cd 21.34a
K-1541 117bc 138.2bc 1.2b 15.6cd 16.6ab 5.6ab 12.1cd 16.51cd
G0002305 113c 140.7ab 1.1bc 16.3cd 16.5ab 5.3ab 24.1a 21.26a
青豆Green bean 117bc 132.2bc 1.0bc 27.0a 11.0bc 5.8ab 7.1de 9.83f
ATC196 124a 113.0cd 1.3b 21.3bc 9.0cd 4.3b 5.4e 15.28cd
PG2020-28 113c 103.7cd 1.6a 16.2cd 12.7bc 5.9a 6.9e 11.95e
LB1202 124a 134.6bc 1.6a 17.0cd 9.8cd 4.8b 11.6cd 21.56a
K-13 117bc 98.8d 1.0bc 13.8d 11.8bc 5.1ab 8.4de 13.89cd
CS6007 117bc 104.6cd 1.2b 16.1cd 13.7bc 5.1ab 13.7cd 19.20b
拉萨黑豌豆Lhasa black pea 127a 131.3bc 1.3b 18.8bc 7.0d 5.3ab 3.6e 11.55d
平均值Average 124.23 1.34 8.03 18.73 11.87 5.36 6.01 16.21
标准差Standard deviation 17.32 0.49 2.27 7.31 3.68 0.52 0.43 4.08
CV (%) 13.94 36.69 28.20 39.03 31.05 9.79 7.08 25.17

Table 3

Correlation analysis of yield, nutrition and its components of forage pea"

指标
Index
株高
Plant
height
单株
荚数
Pod
number
per plant
单荚
粒数
Seeds
per
pod
单株
产量
Yield
per
plant
百粒重
100-seed
weight
籽粒
产量
Seed
yield
干草
产量
Hay
yield
鲜草
产量
Fresh
yield
秸秆
粗蛋白
Straw
crude
protein
秸秆
粗脂肪
Straw
crude
fat
秸秆中
性洗
涤纤维
Straw
NDF
秸秆酸
性洗
涤纤维
Straw
ADF
秸秆
粗淀粉
Straw crude
starch
籽粒
粗蛋白
Seed
crude
protein
籽粒粗
脂肪
Seed
crude
fat
籽粒
粗淀粉
Seed
crude
starch
籽粒
粗纤维
Seed
crude
fiber
株高
Plant height
1.000
单株荚数
Pod number
per plant
0.196 1.000
单荚粒数
Seeds per pod
0.390 0.465 1.000
单株产量
Yield per plant
0.428 0.809** 0.270 1.000
百粒重
100-seed weight
0.430 0.288 -0.118 0.676* 1.000
籽粒产量
Seed yield
0.383 0.634* 0.178 0.730** 0.776** 1.000
干草产量
Hay yield
0.658* 0.469 0.081 0.681* 0.451 0.597* 1.000
鲜草产量
Fresh yield
0.628* 0.130 -0.022 0.376 0.296 0.357 0.895** 1.000
秸秆粗蛋白
Straw crude
protein
0.132 -0.202 -0.484 -0.073 0.016 0.094 0.560 0.629* 1.000
秸秆粗脂肪
Straw crude fat
-0.064 -0.552 -0.215 -0.562 -0.480 -0.440 -0.082 0.131 0.524 1.000
秸秆中性
洗涤纤维
Straw NDF
0.088 -0.030 0.419 -0.294 -0.373 -0.162 -0.088 0.186 -0.211 0.071 1.000
秸秆酸性
洗涤纤维
Straw ADF
0.169 -0.101 0.373 -0.291 -0.378 -0.224 -0.027 0.272 -0.157 0.174 0.976** 1.000
秸秆粗淀粉
Straw crude
starch
0.364 0.302 -0.149 0.358 0.365 0.423 -0.083 -0.368 -0.183 -0.563 -0.600* -0.697* 1.000
籽粒粗蛋白
Seed crude
protein
0.358 0.134 -0.008 0.255 0.459 0.174 -0.007 -0.080 -0.293 -0.346 -0.237 -0.279 0.045 1.000
籽粒粗脂肪
Seed crude fat
-0.449 -0.201 -0.242 -0.306 -0.160 -0.072 -0.200 -0.133 0.017 -0.335 0.042 -0.043 0.372 -0.334 1.000
籽粒粗淀粉
Seed crude starch
0.073 -0.102 -0.276 0.294 0.583* 0.041 -0.167 -0.255 -0.312 -0.258 -0.484 -0.428 0.244 0.477 -0.383 1.000
籽粒粗纤维
Seed crude fiber
0.016 0.377 -0.118 0.554 0.512 0.379 0.124 -0.185 -0.004 -0.190 -0.648* -0.657* 0.510 0.294 -0.523 0.656* 1.000

Table 4

Comparative analysis of yields of different pea varieties (lines)"

品种(系)
Variety (line)
鲜草产量
Fresh yield (kg/hm2)
干草产量
Hay yield (kg/hm2)
干鲜比
Dry-fresh ratio
籽粒产量
Seed yield (kg/hm2)
草原7号Grass 7 33 616.8g 7303.65f 0.22±0.01bc 1078.32g
PG2014-87 55 027.5c 12 006.00bc 0.22±0.01bc 2123.28c
PG2020-40 51 425.7cd 10 905.45cb 0.21±0.01c 2456.78bc
K-1541 50 925.5de 11 905.95bc 0.23±0.01b 2679.12a
G0002305 69 434.7a 15 107.55a 0.22±0.01bc 2690.23a
青豆Green bean 47 690.5e 10 672.00bd 0.22±0.01bc 1156.13f
ATC196 57 862.3bc 12 346.17bc 0.21±0.01c 1578.57de
PG2020-28 51 192.3d 10 571.95cd 0.21±0.01c 1867.60d
LB1202 60 396.9ab 13 206.60ab 0.22±0.01bc 2390.08bc
K-13 36 184.8g 9704.85e 0.27±0.01a 1522.98de
CS6007 42 654.6ef 10 305.15cd 0.24±0.01b 2590.18ab
拉萨黑豌豆Lhasa black pea 65 232.6a 13 073.20bc 0.20±0.01c 1167.25f

Table 5

Main nutrient contents in straw and grain of different pea varieties (lines)"

品种(系)
Variety
(line)
秸秆Straw 籽粒Seed
水分
Water
(%)
粗蛋白
Crude
protein
(%)
粗脂肪
Crude
fat
(%)
中性洗
涤纤维
NDF
(%)
酸性洗
涤纤维
ADF
(%)
粗淀粉
Crude
starch
(%)

Ca
(g/kg)
总磷
Total P
(%)
总钾
Total K
(mg/kg)
粗蛋白
Crude
protein
(%)
粗脂肪
Crude
fat
(%)
粗淀粉
Crude
starch
(%)
粗纤维
Crude
fiber
(%)
草原7号Grass 7 7.8a 12.7g 2.4de 37.3cd 32.1c 14.3d 14.0cd 0.2a 7.8f 22.6bc 1.6a 48.8cd 8.6bc
PG2014-87 7.4bc 14.7f 1.9f 45.1a 38.0ab 12.6f 13.2d 0.1a 12.2bc 21.3c 1.5ab 51.8a 9.6a
PG2020-40 7.2dc 16.1d 2.5cd 37.6bc 32.5c 14.5d 15.1ab 0.3b 9.8de 22.6bc 1.5ab 49.4cd 8.0c
K-1541 7.5b 16.4d 2.1e 39.0b 32.2c 15.6cd 14.3cd 0.3b 10.5d 22.8bc 1.2b 58.8a 8.2bc
G0002305 7.2cd 18.3b 2.2e 30.6e 27.3d 17.1b 15.5ab 0.4bc 10.2d 22.4bc 1.4ab 51.4c 7.8cd
青豆Green bean 7.4bc 17.6c 3.7a 36.5cd 32.7c 11.2g 15.3ab 0.4d 12.6bc 20.6d 1.4ab 51.3c 9.4a
ATC196 7.5b 20.2a 3.1b 39.7b 34.9b 11.0g 15.2ab 0.4d 15.5b 22.7bc 1.4ab 48.9cd 7.3de
PG2020-28 6.6f 17.0cd 2.9bc 43.9ab 36.4ab 13.7e 13.1d 0.3bc 12.0bc 23.2ab 1.1b 46.5d 7.5cd
LB1202 6.8e 19.9ab 3.0bc 32.8d 27.5d 14.5d 13.5d 0.4d 11.4bc 21.3c 1.5ab 53.0bc 6.3f
K-13 6.1g 17.7c 2.2de 29.3e 23.4e 20.4a 10.6e 0.3bc 9.8de 23.6a 1.4ab 52.4bc 8.3bc
CS6007 7.0d 15.5e 2.3de 36.8bc 31.0c 20.5a 12.3ab 0.3bc 8.2e 22.3bc 1.5ab 53.4bc 8.7bc
拉萨黑豌豆Lhasa black pea 7.1d 18.6b 2.8bc 45.2a 39.3a 12.6f 15.5ab 0.5d 18.3a 23.3ab 1.2b 45.9de 9.4a

Table 6

The subordinate function value and ranking of main agronomic traits, yield and quality of different pea varieties (lines)"

品种(系)Variety (line) X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13
草原7号Grass 7 1.29 0.00 1.02 1.39 1.55 1.46 1.82 6.24 0.00 0.53 1.92 0.38 1.64
PG2014-87 0.99 0.67 0.00 2.74 2.61 0.71 1.36 0.00 2.14 0.19 1.41 0.77 2.35
PG2020-40 0.83 1.16 1.33 1.44 1.63 1.55 2.27 35.36 0.98 0.53 1.54 0.46 1.21
K-1541 1.06 1.24 0.44 1.68 1.57 2.04 1.82 35.36 1.31 0.59 0.47 0.38 1.35
G0002305 0.83 1.89 0.62 0.23 0.70 2.70 2.27 49.92 1.16 0.48 1.37 0.72 1.07
青豆Green bean 0.99 1.66 4.06 1.25 1.66 0.09 2.27 62.40 2.34 0.00 0.98 0.71 2.21
ATC196 1.06 2.52 2.73 1.81 2.05 0.00 2.27 56.16 3.75 0.56 1.11 0.39 0.71
PG2020-28 0.38 1.46 2.37 2.53 2.32 1.20 1.36 43.68 2.04 0.69 0.00 0.08 0.85
LB1202 0.53 2.44 2.48 0.61 0.73 1.55 1.36 64.48 1.75 0.19 1.62 0.93 0.00
K-13 0.00 1.69 0.73 0.00 0.00 4.17 0.00 41.60 0.96 0.80 1.15 0.85 1.21
CS6007 0.68 0.93 0.98 1.30 1.36 4.21 0.91 31.20 0.20 0.45 1.58 0.98 1.71
拉萨黑豌豆Lhasa black pea 0.76 2.00 2.04 2.76 2.84 0.71 2.27 66.56 5.12 0.72 0.43 0.00 2.21
CV 6.47 12.66 20.39 13.86 14.30 21.17 11.39 31.39 25.75 4.01 9.67 4.90 11.80
权重系数Weight coefficient 1.29 2.52 4.06 2.76 2.84 4.21 2.27 6.24 5.12 0.80 1.92 0.98 2.35
品种(系)Variety (line) X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 X22 X23 X24 X25 排名Ranking
草原7号Grass 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.58 0.06 0.52 0.77 3.99 55.11 3.36 12
PG2014-87 5.54 2.48 2.00 2.27 7.30 1.93 1.34 6.18 1.95 6.94 45.09 4.12 11
PG2020-40 6.39 2.07 1.53 2.77 0.28 2.02 0.68 0.82 1.44 8.40 30.06 4.45 10
K-1541 7.11 2.01 1.92 2.24 0.83 0.00 0.51 5.39 1.29 8.21 35.07 4.75 7
G0002305 7.23 4.15 3.30 2.39 0.28 0.31 0.72 5.32 1.02 10.28 10.02 4.54 9
青豆Green bean 1.45 1.64 1.43 1.90 0.00 1.24 7.76 2.25 1.49 10.14 20.04 5.41 1
ATC196 3.01 2.81 1.71 0.81 1.39 4.38 2.15 1.12 0.00 9.73 25.05 5.30 2
PG2020-28 4.70 2.03 1.33 0.27 2.50 0.62 0.68 3.19 1.57 7.90 40.08 5.16 3
LB1202 6.15 3.10 2.09 2.04 2.50 0.62 0.91 1.57 0.48 10.24 15.03 5.14 4
K-13 3.01 0.29 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 2.67 0.79 6.60 50.10 4.90 6
CS6007 7.23 1.05 1.16 0.33 0.93 1.50 0.66 3.77 0.82 7.68 40.08 4.65 8
拉萨黑豌豆Lhasa black pea 1.69 3.67 1.87 1.85 1.04 5.61 1.41 0.00 0.93 10.96 5.01 5.10 5
CV 36.35 20.88 16.58 13.94 36.69 28.20 39.03 31.05 9.79 57.31 25.17
权重系数Weight coefficient 7.23 4.15 3.30 2.77 7.30 5.61 7.76 6.18 1.95 11.40 5.01
[1] 万何平, 冉景鸿, 唐文彬, 等. 10种食用豆类植物种子粗蛋白质和粗脂肪含量比较分析. 江汉大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 50(4):22-30.
[2] 李春喜, 叶润蓉, 周玉碧, 等. 高寒牧区饲草作物生产性能及品质分析. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2014, 49(6):125-130,137.
[3] 金涛. 拉萨市适宜复种的饲草燕麦品种筛选研究. 西藏农业科技, 2021, 43(4):1-4.
[4] 郭志刚, 胡山鹰, 金涌, 等. 豌豆均衡营养肥对豌豆产量及品质的影响. 肥料与健康, 2020, 47(5):18-23.
[5] 鲍俊杰, 郭广振, 凡超杰, 等. 基于主成分分析和隶属函数分析研究收获期与青贮对甜玉米秸秆饲用品质的影响. 动物营养学报, 2023, 35(4):2677-2689.
doi: 10.12418/CJAN2023.250
[6] 马晓萍, 王明利, 张浩. “粮改饲”政策下肉牛养殖成本效率分析―基于8个省(区)22个试点的面板数据. 草业科学, 2022, 39(3):606-617.
[7] 李玲. 国内豌豆种质资源形态性状多样性分析. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2009.
[8] 张鹏, 鲍根生, 贾志锋, 等. 高寒区150份豌豆种质资源农艺性状的遗传多样性分析. 草地学报, 2023, 31(7):2116-2127.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.07.022
[9] 华和春, 张桂芬. 优质豌豆新品系古豌1号的选育研究. 草业科学, 2010, 27(7):168-171.
[10] 柳茜, 乔雪峰, 陶雅, 等. 燕麦与饲用豌豆混播对饲草产量和品质的影响. 中国奶牛, 2022(10):62-66.
[11] 杨鹏年, 杜文华, 田新会. 甘南高寒牧区加拿大饲用燕麦与豌豆的混播效果研究. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(3):39-48.
[12] 冯廷旭, 德科加, 向雪梅, 等. 高寒地区燕麦与豌豆不同混播组合和比例对饲草产量及品质的影响. 草地学报, 2022, 30(2):487-494.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.02.029
[13] 苟文龙, 李平, 马啸, 等. 混播比例和刈割茬次对一年生禾豆混播草地根系形态、土壤养分的影响. 草原与草坪, 2020, 40(4):1-7.
[14] 郭常英, 王伟, 彭丹, 等. 播种方式和行距对高寒地区燕麦/饲用豌豆草地土壤理化特性的影响. 草业科学, 2023, 40(3):654-664.
[15] 钱诗祎, 德科加, 冯廷旭, 等. 高寒地区一年生禾豆混播对土壤养分与牧草营养的影响. 青海畜牧兽医杂志, 2022, 52(4):34-40.
[16] 李锦华, 陈功, 时永杰. 高寒地区早熟豌豆引进品种的生产性能及其栽培技术的初步研究. 中兽医医药杂志, 2003(增1):66-70.
[17] 乔福云. 西藏山南地区农牧交错带草畜供求关系研究. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2021.
[18] 高小丽, 廖文华, 王姗姗, 等. 豌豆主要农艺和品质性状的相关性及灰色关联度分析. 作物杂志, 2016(5):56-60.
[19] 张晓庆, 参木友. 西藏草地畜牧业发展现状与重点任务. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(5):157-163.
[20] 钱拴, 毛留喜, 侯英雨, 等. 青藏高原载畜能力及草畜平衡状况研究. 自然资源学报, 2007(3):389-397,498.
[21] 宗绪晓. 豌豆种质资源描述规范和数据标准. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005.
[22] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会, 国家食品药品监督管理总局. 食品安全国家标准食品中蛋白质的测定:GB/T 5009.5-2016. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2016.
[23] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会, 国家食品药品监督管理总局. 食品安全国家标准食品中脂肪的测定:GB/T 5009.6-2016. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2016.
[24] 中华人民共和国卫生部, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 植物类食品中粗纤维的测定:GB/T 5009.10-2003. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2003.
[25] 中华人民共和国卫生部, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 植物类食品中淀粉的测定:GB/T 5009.3-2003. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2003.
[26] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 食品安全国家标准食品中灰分的测定:GB/T 5009.4-2016. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2016.
[27] 中华人民共和国卫生部. 食品安全国家标准预包装食品营养标签通则:GB/T 28050-2011. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011.
[28] 翟新秘, 秦利军, 项阳, 等. 隶属函数分析法对25份贵州玉米种质抗旱性评价研究. 种子, 2018, 37(9):51-55.
[29] 张士龙, 贺正华, 黄益勤, 等. 主成分分析和隶属函数法对含非洲种质青贮玉米的评价. 湖北农业科学, 2016, 55(15):3824-3828,3837.
[30] 周林森. 陕西渭北源苜蓿规范化栽培技术体系研究. 中国草地, 1992(3):1-7.
[31] 刘海聪, 刘杰, 李菁, 等. 西藏高原不同草地类型牧草干鲜比及其影响因素分析. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(8):28-36.
[32] 鲍宇红, 李锦扬, 普布卓玛, 等. 西藏作物秸秆营养成分及体外发酵特性比较研究. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(9):4980-4988.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2021.09.018
[33] 苗莉晨. 西藏主要农作物秸秆与禾本科、豆科牧草混合青贮的研究. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2015.
[34] 姜文清. 西藏牧草和作物秸秆营养类型研究. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2011.
[35] 田福平, 师尚礼, 洪绂曾, 等. 我国草田轮作的研究历史及现状. 草业科学, 2012, 29(2):320-326.
[36] 屈海珠, 高明艳, 祁军英, 等. 播种量对高寒地区饲用豌豆鲜草产量的影响. 畜牧业环境, 2020(3):55.
[37] 周勇辉, 刘玉萍, 李兆孟, 等. 青藏高原东北部3种野豌豆种子萌发特性的研究. 西南农业学报, 2016, 29(5):1193-1196.
[38] 李玲, 沈宝宇, 张艳红, 等. 菜用豌豆食用品质主要组分及其积累动态研究. 中国蔬菜, 2023(2):96-102.
[39] 杜笑村, 仁青扎西, 白史且, 等. 牧草种质资源综合评价方法概述. 草业与畜牧, 2010(11):8-10,20.
[1] 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.
[2] Duan Junya, Zhao Yuanyuan, Wei Jianyu, Wang Dexun, Wang Zheng, Wang Tingting, Shi Hongzhi. Effects of Foliar Spraying Polyaspartic Acid on Growth, Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 195-201.
[3] Hao Zhiyong, Yang Guangdong, Hu Zunyan, Li Jinghua, Sun Bangsheng, Chen Linqi. Effects of Different Fertilizers on Yield, Agronomic Characteristics and Quality of Early Maturing Sorghum [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 218-223.
[4] Zhao Lijie, Zhao Haiyan, Han Genlan, Wang Jiang, Nie Mengʼen, Du Huiling, Yuan Xiangyang, Dong Shuqi. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Combined with Organic Fertilizer on Quality of Millet [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 224-232.
[5] Ren Honglei, Zhang Fengyi, Han Xinchun, Hong Huilong, Zhu Xiao, Wang Guangjin, Qiu Lijuan. Drought Tolerance Evaluation of Soybean Mini Core Collections [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 94-100.
[6] Li Xinghe, Wang Haitao, Liu Cunjing, Tang Liyuan, Zhang Sujun, Cai Xiao, Zhang Xiangyun, Zhang Jianhong. QTL Mapping for Fiber Quality Traits Using Gossypium barbadense Chromosome Segment Introgression Lines [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 1-9.
[7] Wang Zhenlong, Su Cuicui, Zhou Qi, Deng Chaochao, Zhou Yanfang. The Effects of Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer and Applying Organic Fertilizer on the Yield, Quality, and Soil Quality of Helianthus tuberosus L. [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 104-109.
[8] Liu Qiuyuan, Li Meng, Gao Yangguang, Shi Mengyu, Wei Yunfei, Ji Xin, Li Li, Liu Yali, Wang Fujuan. Effects of Different Nitrogen Fertilization Patterns on Yield and Quality of Conventional Japonica Rice under Reduced Nitrogen [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 131-137.
[9] Liu Chen, Yang Mingfeng, Yang Long, Zhang Nan, Yu Tao. Effects of Wide-Narrow Row Configuration in Double-Row Concave Ridge on Growth and Quality of Upper Leaves of Flue-Cured Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 151-156.
[10] Guan Qinglin, Piao Shengyuan, Zhang Siwei, Wang Jun, Lei Yunkang, Zhong Qiu, Zhao Mingqin. Effects of Combined Application of Medium-Trace Elements on Photosynthetic Characteristics, Carbon and Nitrogen Metabolism, Yield and Quality of Cigar Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 187-196.
[11] Duan Junya, Zhao Yuanyuan, Peng Zhiliang, Zhang Yongfeng, Duan Weidong, Yang Qingxi, Wang Songling, Chen Xiaolong, Shi Hongzhi. Effects of Once-Over Harvesting Period on the Qualities of Upper Leaves of Flue-Cured Tobacco in Southern Shaanxi [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 231-237.
[12] Cao Qingjun, Li Gang, Yang Hao, Lou Yuyong, Yang Fentuan, Kong Fanli, Li Xinbei, Zhao Xinkai, Jiang Xiaoli. The Effects of Different Tillage Practices on Seedbed Quality and Its Relationships with Seedling Population Construction and Grain Yield of Spring Maize [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 249-254.
[13] Ge Changbin, Qin Suyan, Qiao Jiliang, Wang Jun, Qi Shuangli, Lu Wenying, Zhang Zhenyong. Comparative Analysis of Agronomic Traits, Quality and Disease Evolution of Approved Wheat Varieties in Southern Henan and Southern Huai River in Jiangsu from 2001 to 2021 [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 49-58.
[14] Gao Zhanning, Yang Yongqian, Wang Shujie, Feng Hui, Xue Zhenggang. Comprehensive Evaluation of 143 Barley Germplasm Resources [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 59-65.
[15] Zhang Mingwei, Ding Jinfeng, Zhu Xinkai, Guo Wenshan. Analysis of High-Yielding Planting Density and Nitrogen Application in Super-Late Sowing Wheat Following Rice [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(4): 126-135.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!