Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (4): 214-223.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.04.027

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Cultivation Methods and Green Manure Return on Bacterial Community Structure and Function of Sugarcane Soil

Zhou Lingzhi1(), Zhou Jia1(), Li Yanying1, Lao Chengying1, Huang Yulan1, Shen Zhangyou1, Wei Benhui1, Wu Yuexian2()   

  1. 1Cash Crops Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, Guangxi, China
    2Guangxi Agricultural Vocational and Technical University, Nanning 530007, Guangxi, China
  • Received:2024-07-01 Revised:2024-09-20 Online:2025-08-15 Published:2025-08-12

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

135

Abstract:

To explore the effects of different cultivation methods and green manure returning on soil microorganisms in long-term continuous sugarcane cultivation, four treatments were set up: Fenlong tillage intercropping (FLJ), Fenlong tillage monoculture (FL), rotary tillage intercropping (CKJ) and rotary tillage monoculture (CK). High throughput sequencing was used to study the structure and function of soil bacterial communities in three growth stages of sugarcane. The results showed that cultivation methods significantly affected soil organic matter content and bacterial community richness, green manure returning significantly affected soil alkaline nitrogen, available potassium, organic matter and pH, and the growth stage significantly affected soil alkaline nitrogen, available potassium, pH and bacterial community alpha diversity. Soil microbial diversity was significantly correlated with pH. There were eight bacterial phylum and one genus under different treatments in three stages. Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, Acidobacteriota and Actinobacteriota were the main dominant bacterial phylum which ranged from 74.71% to 89.58%. With the growth process of sugarcane, the proportion of dominant bacterial phylum in soil was changing. FLJ treatment showed a downward trend in Proteobacteria and an upward trend in Chloroflexi. During the three periods, there were 47-75 types of soil bacterial functions, mainly including chemoheterotrophy, aerobic chemoheterotrophy, cellulolysis and nitrogen- fixation, ranged from 56.12% to 81.74%. After green manure returning, the cellulolysis in each treatment was enhanced. The nitrogen fixation of FLJ treatment at maturity stage was significantly higher than other treatments, increased by 51.77%-113.04%. 21-Feb and Acidothermus were significantly positively correlated with cellulolysis and nitrogen-fixation. In summary, the nutrients of sugarcane soil, the alpha diversity of soil bacterial communities, community structure and function all changed with the growth period. Green manure returning increased significantly the contents of alkaline nitrogen and organic matter of soil. Cultivation methods significantly changed the richness of soil bacterial communities.

Key words: Sugarcane, Fenlong tillage, Rotary tillage, Green manure returning, Soil bacterial community structure, Community function

Table 1

Effects of different treatments on soil nutrients"

生育期
Growth stage		 处理
Treatment		 碱解氮
AN (mg/kg)		 有效磷
AP (mg/kg)		 速效钾
AK (mg/kg)		 有机质
SOM (g/kg)		 pH
分蘖期Tillering stage FLJ 89.03±4.14ab 116.19±3.80a 400.58±12.36a 30.93±1.09a 5.21±0.01a
FL 90.41±1.99a 123.98±3.08a 406.46±26.91a 30.62±0.41a 4.82±0.12b
CKJ 80.54±3.81b 125.96±3.14a 399.51±31.06a 30.22±0.36a 5.38±0.08a
CK 90.07±3.01a 131.53±8.86a 419.70±4.01a 30.24±0.36a 4.85±0.18b
伸长期Elongation stage FLJ 82.01±7.22a 127.68±11.86a 394.92±7.90b 32.48±0.77a 4.54±0.15a
FL 83.07±6.51a 125.61±5.05a 386.94±30.20b 30.22±0.60b 4.53±0.10a
CKJ 95.03±5.84a 137.28±10.82a 333.63±5.59c 29.44±0.91b 4.61±0.03a
CK 87.85±7.41a 134.33±5.82a 462.40±18.08a 28.62±0.15b 4.71±0.02a
成熟期Maturity FLJ 97.91±4.95a 124.57±12.42a 331.62±7.70bc 31.18±3.15a 4.46±0.00a
FL 71.83±1.90c 119.13±7.75a 352.18±8.25ab 30.81±0.73a 4.41±0.00b
CKJ 84.46±6.84b 131.67±10.30a 328.07±3.23c 31.29±0.35a 4.38±0.02b
CK 74.65±3.49bc 132.49±7.39a 367.89±10.87a 27.89±0.23a 4.23±0.02c
耕作Tillage 0.873 0.127 0.267 0.001** 0.280
绿肥Green manure 0.006** 0.918 0.000** 0.003** 0.000**
生育期Growth stage 0.034* 0.642 0.000** 0.777 0.000**
耕作×绿肥Tillage×green manure 0.128 0.930 0.000** 0.559 0.472
耕作×生育期Tillage×growth stage 0.003** 0.994 0.996 0.159 0.003**
绿肥×生育期Green manure×growth stage 0.000** 0.772 0.008** 0.138 0.000**
耕作×绿肥×生育期Tillage×green manure×growth stage 0.023* 0.952 0.000** 0.048* 0.216

Table 2

The α diversity index of soil bacterial communities under different treatments"

生育期
Growth stage		 处理
Treatment		 Chao1指数
Chao1 index		 ACE指数
ACE index		 Shannon指数
Shannon index		 Simpson指数
Simpson index		 覆盖率
Coverage (%)
分蘖期Tillering stage FLJ 2546.24±49.15a 2534.67±71.02a 9.43±0.40a 0.0043±0.00a 99.27±0.00a
FL 2398.76±49.69b 2380.91±85.03ab 9.13±0.11a 0.0052±0.00a 98.97±0.00b
CKJ 2479.36±70.49ab 2460.41±38.42ab 9.39±0.11a 0.0049±0.00a 98.90±0.00b
CK 2385.55±31.50b 2358.79±47.78b 9.38±0.16a 0.0048±0.00a 99.41±0.00a
伸长期Elongation stage FLJ 2987.34±120.92a 3021.19±107.87a 6.63±0.08ab 0.9963±0.00a 97.18±0.00a
FL 3169.00±229.82a 3253.80±286.68a 6.49±0.13b 0.9955±0.00ab 96.61±0.00a
CKJ 3383.28±108.55a 3451.48±142.64a 6.78±0.03a 0.9967±0.00a 96.73±0.00a
CK 3282.24±193.24a 3375.15±189.19a 6.49±0.12b 0.9945±0.00b 96.93±0.00a
成熟期Maturity FLJ 3156.29±130.91a 3202.54±129.89a 6.80±0.07a 0.9972±0.00a 97.23±0.00a
FL 3830.48±326.90a 3852.04±295.79a 7.05±0.20a 0.9971±0.00a 97.08±0.00ab
CKJ 3879.41±521.88a 3957.80±588.57a 6.88±0.09a 0.9968±0.00a 96.64±0.00ab
CK 3684.35±138.16a 3785.05±42.37a 6.71±0.42a 0.9962±0.00a 96.01±0.00b
耕作Tillage 0.026* 0.019* 0.777 0.251 0.014
绿肥Green manure 0.461 0.414 0.120 0.063 0.171
生育期Growth stage 0.000** 0.000** 0.000** 0.000** 0.000**
耕作×绿肥Tillage×green manure 0.016* 0.026* 0.503 0.049* 0.100
耕作×生育期Tillage×growth stage 0.137 0.099 0.320 0.447 0.007**
绿肥×生育期Green manure×growth stage 0.137 0.163 0.292 0.016* 0.200
耕作×绿肥×生育期Tillage×green manure×growth stage 0.042* 0.080 0.112 0.723 0.038*

Fig.1

Correlation between soil bacterial diversity index and environmental factors “*”,“**”and“***”indicate significant correlation at P < 0.05, P < 0.01 and P < 0.001 levels, respectively. The same below."

Fig.2

Relative abundance of bacteria in different treatments at phylum level"

Fig.3

Relative abundance of bacteria in different treatments at genus level"

Table 3

FAPROTAX functional prediction of soil bacteria"

生育期Growth stage 功能Function FLJ FL CKJ CK
分蘖期Tillering stage 化能异养 31.55±0.18a 32.39±2.41a 26.48±1.04b 32.53±0.40a
好氧化能异养 30.48±0.50ab 31.81±2.83a 25.98±2.53b 32.03±0.31a
动物寄生或共生 4.32±0.21b 2.94±0.29c 6.10±0.22a 2.54±0.45b
人类病原体 4.30±0.20b 2.93±0.31c 6.03±0.22a 2.52±0.43c
人类关联 4.30±0.20b 2.93±0.31c 6.03±0.22a 2.52±0.43c
人类病原体肺炎 4.23±0.21b 2.84±0.42c 5.87±0.50a 2.43±0.40b
氮固定 3.65±0.17a 4.73±0.84a 4.34±0.22a 3.99±0.29a
纤维素水解作用 10.39±0.98a 9.96±1.16a 5.18±0.25b 2.99±0.23c
捕食性或外寄生性 2.28±0.28a 0.72±0.07c 1.69±0.11b 0.93±0.11c
尿素分解 1.28±0.02b 1.33±0.05b 1.37±0.13b 1.64±0.08a
伸长期Elongation stage 化能异养 31.83±2.60a 32.27±1.66a 30.97±1.33a 31.45±1.04a
好氧化能异养 31.55±2.64a 31.81±1.91a 30.11±1.40a 30.96±1.12a
纤维素水解作用 12.07±1.77a 11.16±0.74ab 7.26±0.63c 8.61±0.78bc
氮固定 5.52±0.67a 5.59±0.26a 4.73±0.83a 6.14±0.45a
尿素分解 2.35±0.40a 2.03±0.21a 2.71±0.51a 1.90±0.20a
动物寄生或共生 2.16±0.20a 2.03±0.19a 2.22±0.26a 2.04±0.23a
人类病原体 2.03±0.18a 1.88±0.25a 2.03±0.24a 1.95±0.17a
人类关联 2.04±0.19a 1.94±0.34a 2.16±0.24a 1.99±0.11a
人类病原体肺炎 1.81±0.18a 1.64±0.17a 1.60±0.24a 1.74±0.09a
硝酸盐还原 1.85±0.16a 0.95±0.14b 1.89±0.14a 1.75±0.19a
成熟期Maturity 化能异养 32.01±0.64a 26.21±2.71b 27.91±2.40ab 30.78±0.98ab
好氧化能异养 29.13±2.26a 22.39±3.60a 24.53±3.66a 28.63±2.39a
纤维素水解作用 12.78±1.58a 5.91±0.30b 7.35±0.89b 11.86±1.11a
发酵 3.24±0.49b 4.91±0.57a 5.38±0.50a 2.28±0.20b
氮固定 3.43±0.07a 1.61±0.22b 2.08±0.28b 2.26±0.38b
动物寄生或共生 2.08±0.20b 4.51±0.25a 4.04±0.30a 2.82±0.38b
人类关联 1.91±0.20b 4.37±0.67a 3.89±0.31a 2.42±0.16b
人类病原体 1.63±0.06b 3.07±0.37a 2.31±0.38ab 1.88±0.32b
人类病原体肺炎 1.47±0.11b 2.03±0.13a 1.66±0.16ab 1.57±0.18b
硝酸盐还原 0.97±0.16b 2.99±0.30a 2.45±0.36ab 1.50±0.11b

Fig.4

Correlations between function of soil bacteria and dominant bacteria genera in different treatments"

[1] 唐亮东. 广西甘蔗糖业高质量发展新途径探讨. 甘蔗糖业, 2023, 52(6):63-68.
[2] 张丽, 张中东, 郭正宇, 等. 深松耕作和秸秆还田对农田土壤物理特性的影响. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(1):102-106,117.
[3] 韩上, 武际, 李敏, 等. 深耕结合秸秆还田提高作物产量并改善耕层薄化土壤理化性质. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(2):276-284.
[4] 钟融, 王培如, 孙培杰, 等. 长年耕作对北方旱作麦田土壤细菌群落结构及理化性质的影响. 环境科学, 2023, 44(10):5800-5812.
[5] 周佳, 周灵芝, 劳承英, 等. 短期不同耕作方式对水稻根际土壤细菌群落结构多样性的影响. 南方农业学报, 2020, 51(10):2401-2411.
[6] 陈彦云, 夏皖豫, 赵辉, 等. 粉垄耕作对耕地土壤酶活性、微生物群落结构和功能多样性的影响. 生态学报, 2022, 42(12):5009-5021.
[7] 覃锋燕, 杨慰贤, 彭晓辉, 等. 粉垄耕作木薯根际与非根际土壤的细菌群落结构多样性差异. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(4):729-739.
[8] 丁冠中, 梁池嘉, 穆朋, 等. 粉垄对人参土壤理化性质和微生物群落结构的影响. 特产研究,(2023-12-06) [2024-06-25]. https://doi.org/10.16720/j.cnki.tcyj.2023.227.
[9] 黎佐生, 蒋代华, 韦本辉. 粉垄耕作对宿根蔗地根际微生物及酶活性的影响. 新农业, 2020(7):45-47.
[10] 陈子英, 孙小凤, 韩梅, 等. 国内外绿肥研究进展. 青海农林科技, 2020(3):54-58.
[11] 苏利荣, 谭裕模, 何铁光, 等. 新植蔗间作不同绿肥压青还田的试验研究及经济效益分析. 热带作物学报, 2021, 42(3):747-753.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.03.020
[12] 苏利荣, 谭裕模, 秦芳, 等. 绿豆/黑豆压青还田下减量施肥对宿根甘蔗产量和主要农艺性状的影响. 作物杂志, 2022(6):105-110.
[13] 刘鹏飞, 李向勇, 张正学, 等. 绿肥压青对甘蔗产量及抗旱性的影响. 贵州农业科学, 2015, 43(9):35-37,41.
[14] 毛莲英, 李海碧, 桂意云, 等. 基于高通量测序分析间作猫豆对甘蔗根际土壤微生物的影响. 南方农业学报, 2021, 52(2):332-340.
[15] 肖健, 陈思宇, 孙妍, 等. 甘蔗间作不同豆科作物对甘蔗植株内生细菌多样性的影响. 热带作物学报, 2021, 42(11):3188.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.11.018
[16] 周灵芝, 黄渝岚, 周佳, 等. 粉垄耕作和间作绿肥还田对甘蔗不同生长时期土壤微生物群落功能多样性的影响. 西南农业学报, 2023, 36(12):2640-2650.
[17] 鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000.
[18] 岳衡, 李闪闪, 段雅欣, 等. 深松耕对宁南山区马铃薯田土壤细菌多样性的影响. 中国农业气象, 2021, 42(12):998-1008.
[19] 麻仲花, 刘吉利, 吴娜, 等. 深旋耕配施有机肥对盐碱地玉米根际土壤细菌群落结构及功能的影响. 中国农业气象, 2023, 44(6):479-491.
[20] 刘洪, 韦本辉, 党柯柯, 等. 粉垄耕作对甘蔗土壤微生物群落的影响. 热带作物学报, 2022, 43(3):597-605.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2022.03.019
[21] 王飞, 徐茜, 陈志厚, 等. 翻压不同绿肥对植烟土壤细菌类群的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(11):317-321.
[22] Zhang X X, Zhang R J, Gao J S, et al. Thirty-one years of rice-rice-green manure rotations shape the rhizosphere microbial community and enrich beneficial bacteria. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2017, 104:208.
[23] 斯林林, 徐静, 曹凯, 等. 绿肥种植对红壤旱地生土细菌群落结构的影响. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8):1864-1875.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20221096
[24] 李丽娜, 席运官, 陈鄂, 等. 耕作方式与绿肥种植对土壤微生物组成和多样性的影响. 生态与农村环境学报, 2018, 34(4):342-348.
[25] 刘欣, 李志英, 刘瑞瑞, 等. 大豆不同生育期根际土壤细菌群落结构的变化. 广西植物, 2018, 38(10):1363-1370.
[26] 丁娜, 林华, 张学洪, 等. 植物根系分泌物与根际微生物交互作用机制研究进展. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(5):1212-1219.
[27] 康捷, 章淑艳, 韩韬, 等. 麻山药不同生长时期根际土壤微生物多样性及群落结构特征. 生物技术通报, 2019, 35(9):99-106.
doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2018-1041
[28] 魏宇飞, 覃仁柳, 丁点草, 等. 不同生育期番茄植株根际土壤微生物群落结构特征. 中农业大学学报, 2024, 43(1):9-21.
[29] 王峰, 陈玉真, 吴志丹, 等. 种植模式和坡位对茶园土壤细菌群落结构及功能类群的影响. 生态学报, 2022, 42(20):8435-8452.
[30] 王丽芳, 张德健, 张婷婷. 耕作方式对燕麦田土壤微生物群落多样性的影响. 作物杂志, 2021(3):57-64.
[31] 王金平, 黄荣珍, 朱丽琴, 等. 肥力提升措施对林地红壤生物结皮层微生物群落结构的影响. 土壤学报, 2023, 60(1):292-303.
[32] Lawson C E, Wu S, Bhattacharjee A S, et al. Metabolic network analysis reveals microbial community interactions in anammox granules. Nature Communications, 2017(8):15416.
[33] 鲜文东, 张潇橦, 李文均. 绿弯菌的研究现状及展望. 微生物学报, 2020, 60(9):1801-1820.
[34] 韦本辉, 甘秀芹, 申章佑, 等. 粉垄栽培甘蔗试验增产效果. 中国农业科学, 2011, 44(21):4544-4550.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2011.21.024
[35] 曾伟聪, 覃东爽, 韩世健, 等. 粉垄“145”模式在新植蔗上的应用效应及其生理生态基础. 广西植物, 2023, 43(2):357-367.
[36] Kuypers M M M, Marchant H K, Kartal B. The microbial nitrogen-cycling network. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2018, 16(5):263-276.
doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2018.9 pmid: 29398704
[37] 于淼, 郭玲玲, 池景良. 半干旱区玉米不同生育期土壤细菌群落结构动态变化. 四川农业大学学报, 2023, 41(4):626-630,697.
[38] 吕博, 丁亮, 过聪, 等. 复合微生物肥对棉田土壤养分及根际细菌群落的影响. 作物杂志, 2024(4):209-215.
[39] 刘辉, 韦璐璐, 朱龙发, 等. 鞘氨醇单胞菌的研究进展. 微生物学通报, 2023, 50(6):2738-2752.
[40] 余高, 赵仕龙, 冯顺梅, 等. 不同施肥对云贵高原黄壤细菌群落及柑橘品质的影响. 环境科学, 2024, 45(12):7337-7349.
[41] 张汴泓, 雷涵, 李日坤, 等. 深耕对烤烟产量产值及根际土壤微环境的影响. 南方农业学报, 2023, 54(8):2195-2206.
[42] Rivett D W, Bell T. Abundance determines the functional role of bacterial phylotypes in complex communities. Nat Microbiol, 2018, 3(7):767-772.
doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0180-0 pmid: 29915204
[1] Lan Xiu, Li Hengrui, He Hongliang, Ma Xianhua, Huang Xiaojuan, Li Tianyuan, Wei Haiqiu, Jiang Qingmei, Ruan Lixia, Yang Haixia, Liu Bingji, Tang Danfeng. Effects of Intercropping of Sugarcane and Platostoma palustre on Crop Yield, Quality and Economic Benefit [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 202-209.
[2] Huang Yuxin, Zhang Gemin, Zhou Shan, Duan Weixing, Yang Cuifang, Gao Yijing, Zhang Baoqing. Analysis of the Improvement Efficiency of F1 Hybrids between Intergeneric Hybrid (Tripidium arundinaceum×Saccharum spontaneum) and Sugarcane [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 23-29.
[3] Ou Kewei, Lu Yefei, Nong Zemei, Zhu Pengjin, Pang Xinhua, Song Qiqi, Lü Ping. Analysis of Cell Structure Characteristics and Polygalacturonase Content Changes in Sugarcane Leaves Abscission Zone at Maturity Stage [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 133-138.
[4] An Dongsheng, Zhao Baoshan, Liu Yang, Yan Chengming, Kong Ran, Huang Wenfu, Su Junbo. Effects of Drought Stress and Re-Watering on the Photosynthetic Phenotype and Leaf Characterization of New Sugarcane Varieties [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 208-213.
[5] Yang Lipei, Han Shijian, Wei Benhui, Li Zhigang, Li Ruiling, Zhu Shuifang, Xiao Jiming, Li Suli. Effects of Interaction between Organic Fertilizer and Fenlong on Photosynthetic Physiological Characteristics and Tissue and Cell Structure of Sugarcane [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(1): 148-156.
[6] Zhou Huiwen, Yan Haifeng, Qiu Lihang, Fan Yegeng, Zhou Zhongfeng, Luo Ting, Deng Yuchi, Zhang Xiaoqiu, Liang Yongjian, Chen Rongfa, Wu Jianming. Study on Effects of Operation Parameters on Deposition Distribution of UAV Droplets of Sugarcane during Elongating Stage [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(6): 121-126.
[7] Zhu Wenjuan, Ren Yuemei, Yang Zhong, Guo Ruifeng, Zhang Shou, Ren Guangbing. Structure and Predicted Functional Analysis of Microbial Community of Millet Soil [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(5): 170-178.
[8] Liang Yongjian, Wu Wenzhi, Shi Zesheng, Tang Liqiu, Song Xiupeng, Yan Meixin, Guo Qiang, Qin Changxian, He Hongliang, Zhang Xiaoqiu. Estimation of Sugarcane Plant Height Based on UAV RGB Remote Sensing [J]. Crops, 2023, 39(1): 226-232.
[9] Su Lirong, Tan Yumo, Qin Fang, Li Qin, Zeng Chengcheng, Li Zhongyi, Wei Caihui, Dong Wenbin, Liang Jun, He Tieguang. Effects of Reduced Chemical Fertilizer on Yield and Main Agronomic Traits of Ratoon Sugarcane under Conditions of Returning Green Mung Bean/Black Bean into Field [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 105-110.
[10] Yan Peng, Dong Xuerui, Lu Lin, Fang Mengying, Li Yijie, Wang Weizan, Dong Zhiqiang. Effects of NAA/KT Presoaking on Sugarcane Yield, Root Development and Lodging Resistance [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(4): 99-106.
[11] Tan Qinliang, Cheng Qin, Pan Chenglie, Zhu Pengjin, Li Jiahui, Song Qiqi, Nong Zemei, Zhou Quanguang, Pang Xinhua, Lü Ping. Effects of Drought Stress on Physiological Indexes of New Sugarcane Variety Guire 2 [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(3): 161-167.
[12] Cheng Qin, Tan Qinliang, Li Jiahui, Zhu Pengjin, Zhou Quanguang, Ou Kewei, Lu Yefei, Lü Ping, Pang Xinhua. Endogenous Hormones and Enzyme Activity Analysis in Sugarcane Varieties with Different Perennial Root Ages [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(3): 181-186.
[13] Liu Limin, Liu Hongjian, Li Aomei, He Weizhong. Effects of Light and Temperature on Photoautotrophic Rooting for in Vitro Sugarcane Plantlets [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(2): 153-157.
[14] Luo Hanmin, Xiong Faqian, Qiu Lihang, Liu Jing, Duan Weixing, Gao Yijing, Qin Xiayan, Wu Jianming, Li Yangrui, Liu Junxian. Application Study of Molecular Markers Associated with Traits in Sugarcane Molecular Breeding [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(2): 35-43.
[15] Li Jiahui, Cheng Qin, Ou Kewei, Tan Qinliang, Pang Xinhua, Zhou Quanguang, Lü Ping, Song Qiqi, Tang Yuwei, Zhu Pengjin. Comparison of Tiller Characters of Sugarcane Varieties (Lines) in Different Sugarcane Regions and Their Effects on Yield and Yield Components [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(5): 79-86.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!