欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2009, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (10): 1923-1929.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2009.01923

• 耕作栽培·生理生化 • 上一篇    下一篇

12个国外引进苜蓿品种头茬单株干重与产量性状间的关系

龙明秀1，高景慧1,2,**，高阳1，呼天明1,*，史俊通3，吴振1，杨宏新1   

  1. 1西北农林科技大学动物科技学院；2生命学院；3农学院，陕西杨凌712100
  • 收稿日期:2008-12-31 修回日期:2009-04-28 出版日期:2009-10-12 网络出版日期:2009-07-04
  • 通讯作者: 呼天明, E-mail: hutianming@126.com
  • 基金资助:

    本研究由科技部国际科技合作项目(2006DFA33630)，西北农林科技大学校青年基金(08080247)，西北农林科技大学留学回国人员科研启动基金(01140518)资助。

Relationship Between Dry Matter Per Plant in First Cutting and the Yield-Related Traits in Twelve Alfalfa Varieties Introduced Overseas

LONG Ming-Xiu1,GAO Jing-Hui1,2,**,GAO Yang1,HU Tian-Ming1,*,SHI Jun-Tong3,WU Zhen1,YANG Hong-Xin1   

  1. 1 College of Animal Science and Technology; 2 College of Life Sciences; 3 College of Agronomy, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Yangling 712100, China
  • Received:2008-12-31 Revised:2009-04-28 Published:2009-10-12 Published online:2009-07-04
  • Contact: HU Tian-Peng, E-mail: hutianming@126.com

PDF

1366

被引次数

7

摘要：

2006—2008年调查了12个国外引进苜蓿品种头茬单株干重与产量性状间的关系。结果表明，主、侧枝数及主、侧枝节间数是构成苜蓿单株产量性状的第1主成分，占总方差的58.05%，其中侧枝数(r = 0.689)、侧枝节间数(r = 0.526)与单株干重显著相关(P<0.05)，可作为苜蓿高产品种选育主要目标性状；苜蓿株高与单株干重不相关，与主枝数(r = –0.650)、主枝节间数(r = –0.637)显著负相关(P<0.05)，栽培管理中适当限制植株高度有利于产草量的提高；依单株干重聚类的I类苜蓿(Pondus、WL-414)头茬年均侧枝数显著高于其他两类苜蓿，年均侧枝节间数与II类差异不显著，但显著高于III类(P<0.05)。I类苜蓿年均叶茎比分别比II类、III类提高了6.05%和10.91%，且与III类苜蓿差异显著(P<0.05)，是具高产优质的种质资源。

关键词: 紫花苜蓿, 单株干重, 产量性状, 头茬

Abstract:

Yield of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is closely related to its plant characteristics and the yield in 1st cutting contributes the majority to the annual harvest with the dry matter per plant (DMPP) determining the total community yield. The relationship between dry matter per plant in 1st cutting and yield-related traits (plant height, branch characteristics and leaf to stem ratio) of 12 introduced alfalfa varieties were studied in three continuous years (the 3–5 growth years) under field condition. There was a significant positive correlation between dry matter per plant and sub-branch number (SBN) (r = 0.689), and between DMPP and internode number of sub-branch (SBIN) (r = 0.526). The 1stprincipal component was composed of the branch number (BN), SBN, branch internode number (BIN) and SBIN, which accounted for 58.05 percent of total variance. This suggests that SBN and SBIN may be considered as the main objective characteristics for alfalfa breeding selection. The plant height (PH) had no significant correlation with DMPP, but a significant negative correlation with BN and BIN (r = –0.650 and –0.637, respectively), indicating that the control of the plant height of alfalfa by filed management appropriately is beneficial to the yield. The cluster analysis for DMPP showed that the 3-year average SBN in 1st cutting for group 1 varieties (the group with the highest DMPP including Pondus and WL-414) was significantly higher than other two groups. The SBIN had no significant difference between group 1 and group 2, but showed significant difference between group 1 and group 3 (P<0.05). The leaf to stem ratio (LSR) of group 1 was 6.05% higher than that of group 2 and 10.91% higher than that of group 3, and the difference was significant between group 1 and group 3 (P<0.05). Among the varieties, Pondus and WL-414 had higher breeding value in yield and palatability than other varieties.

Key words: Alfalfa, Dry matter per plant, Yield-related characteristics, 1st cutting


[1] Wei Z-W(魏臻武), Fu X(符昕), Cao Z-Z(曹致中), Wang X-J(王晓俊), Geng X-L(耿小丽), Zhao Y(赵艳), Zhu T-X(朱铁霞). Forage yield component and growth characteristics of Medicago sativa. Acta Pratac Sin (草业学报), 2007, 16(4): 1-8 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[2] Mu P(慕平), Wei Z-W(魏臻武), Li F-D(李发弟). Use of the grey relevancy coefficient method for comprehensive evaluation of the productive performance of alfalfa cultivars. Pratac Sci(草业科学),2004, 21(3): 26-29(in Chinese with English abstract)

[3] Frakes R V, Davis R L, Patterson F L. The breeding behavior of yield and related variables in alfalfa: II. Associations between characters. Crop Sci, 1961, 1: 207-209

[4] Han L(韩路), Jia Z-K(贾志宽), Han Q-F(韩清芳), Wang H-Z(王海珍). Path analysis of correlation traits affecting yield of single alfalfa plant. Acta Agric Boreali-Occidents Sin (西北农业学报), 2003, 12(1): 15-20 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[5] George H L, Liang L, William A R. Agronomic traits influencing forage and seed yield in alfalfa. Crop Sci, 1964, 4: 394-396

[6] Wang C-Z(王成章), Han J-F(韩锦峰), Shi Y-H(史莹华), Li Z-T(李振田), Li D-F(李德锋). Production performance in alfalfa with different classes of fall dormancy. Acta Agron Sin (作物学报), 2008, 34(1): 133-141 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[7] Zhao X(赵祥), Yue W-B(岳文斌), Ren Y-S(任有蛇), Dong K-H(董宽虎). Correlation analysis on quantitative characters of different fall-dormancy alfalfa cultivars. Acta Agrestia Sin (草地学报), 2005, 13(4): 282-285 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[8] Sun J-H(孙建华), Wang Y-R(王彦荣), Yu L(余玲). Growth characteristics and their correlation with the yield of Medicago sativa. Acta Pratacul Sin (草业学报), 2004, 13(4): 80-86 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[9] Hancock D W, Dougherty C T. Relationships between blue- and red-based vegetation indices and leaf area and yield of alfalfa. Crop Sci, 47:2547-2556

[10] Kallenbach R L, Nelson C J, Coutts J H. Yield, quality, and persistence of grazing-and hay-type alfalfa under three harvest frequencies. Agron J, 2002, 94: 1094-1103

[11] Teixeira E I, Moot D J, Brown H E, Fletcher A L. The dynamics of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) yield components in response to defoliation frequency. Eur J Agron, 2007, 26: 394-400

[12] Sun J-H(孙建华), Wang Y-R(王彦荣). Yield characteristics and genetic diversity of main alfalfa varieties in China. Chin J Appl Ecol (应用生态学报), 2004, 15(5): 803-808 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[13] Vaughn D L, Viands D R,LoweC C. Nutritive value and forage yield of alfalfa synthetics under three harvest-management systems. Crop Sci, 1990, 30: 699-703

[14] Kevin F. Lucerne Management Handbook, 3rd edn. Queensland: Department of Primary Industry, 1994. pp 121-123

[15] Humphries A W, Auricht G C. Breeding lucerne for Australia’s southern dryland cropping environments. Aust J Agric Res, 2001, 52: 153-169

[16] Perry L J, Larson K L. Influence of drought on tillering and internode number and length in alfalfa. Crop Sci, 1974, 14: 693-696

[17] Sun Q-Z(孙启忠), Gui R(桂荣).Factors affecting alfalfa forage yield and quality. Grassland China(中国草地), 2000, (1): 57-63 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[18] Coors J G, Lowe C C, Murphy P. Selection for improved nutritional quality of alfalfa forage. Crop Sci, 1986, 26: 843-848

[19] Geng H-Z(耿华珠), Wu Y-F(吴永敷), Cao Z-Z(曹致中). Chinese Alfalfa (中国苜蓿). Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 1995. pp 35-37 (in Chinese)

[20] Wang J-X(王建勋), Yang Q-C(杨青川), Cao Z-Z(曹致中), Guo W-S(郭文山), Kang J-M(康俊梅), Zhang D-H(张东红). Studying on regrowth characteristics and their correlative relationship of Medicago sativa individual plant. Acta Agrestia Sin (草地学报), 2007, 15(5): 423-428 (in Chinese with English abstract)

[21] Burton G W. The inheritance of various morphological characters in alfalfa and their relation to plant yields in New Jersey. New Jersey Agric Exp Sta Bull, 1937, (7): 628-630

[22] Nan H-M(南红梅), Wang J-P(王俊鹏), Yan J-B(闫建波). Comparative study on the growth characteristics of 8 foreign alfalfa cultivars. Acta Bot Boreali-Occident Sin (西北植物学报), 2004, 24(12): 2261-2265

[23] Rumbaugh M D. Effects of population density on some components of yield of alfalfa. Crop Sci, 1963, 3: 423-424

[24] Basu P K, Poushinsky G. A comparison of two methods for estimating common leaf spot severity and yield loss alfalfa. Plant Dis Rep,1978, 62: 1002-1005


[25] Davis R L, Baker R J. Predicting yields from associated characters in Medicago saliva L. Crop Sci, 1966, 6: 492-494
Volenec J J, Cherney J H, Johnson K D. Yield component, plant morphology, and forage quality of alfalfa as influenced by plant population. Crop Sci, 1987, 27: 321-326
[1] 解松峰,吉万全,张耀元,张俊杰,胡卫国,李俊,王长有,张宏,陈春环. 小麦重要产量性状的主基因+多基因混合遗传分析[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(3): 365-384.
[2] 马艳明, 冯智宇, 王威, 张胜军, 郭营, 倪中福, 刘杰. 新疆冬小麦品种农艺及产量性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(12): 1997-2007.
[3] 闫超,郑剑,段文静,南文斌,秦小健,张汉马,梁永书. 越冬栽培稻产量性状相关QTL定位[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(4): 522-537.
[4] 邓梅, 何员江, 苟璐璐, 姚方杰, 李健, 张雪梅, 龙黎, 马建, 江千涛, 刘亚西, 魏育明, 陈国跃. 小麦骨干亲本繁6产量相关性状关键基因组区段的遗传效应[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(05): 706-715.
[5] 吕品, 于海峰, 侯建华. 利用抗旱选择导入系定位向日葵产量性状QTL[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(03): 385-396.
[6] 胡大维,圣忠华,陈 炜,李潜龙,魏祥进,邵高能,焦桂爱,王建龙,胡培松,谢黎虹,唐绍清. 超级稻品种中嘉早17高产相关性状的QTL定位[J]. 作物学报, 2017, 43(10): 1434-1447.
[7] 谢辉,党小景,刘二宝,曾思远,洪德林. 江淮稻区杂交粳稻骨干亲本产量性状配合力的SSR标记位点鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2016, 42(03): 330-343.
[8] 张国华,高明刚,张桂芝,孙金杰,靳雪梅,王春阳,赵岩,李斯深. 黄淮麦区小麦品种(系)产量性状与分子标记的关联分析[J]. 作物学报, 2013, 39(07): 1187-1199.
[9] 江培顺,张焕欣,吕香玲,郝转芳,李博,李明顺,王宏伟,慈晓科,张世煌,李新海,史振声,翁建峰. 玉米产量相关性状Meta-QTL及候选基因分析[J]. 作物学报, 2013, 39(06): 969-978.
[10] 明博,朱金城,陶洪斌,徐丽娜,郭步庆,王璞. 黑龙港流域玉米不同生育阶段气象因子对产量性状的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2013, 39(05): 919-927.
[11] 聂元元，邹桂花，李瑶，刘国兰，蔡耀辉，毛凌华，颜龙安，刘鸿艳，罗利军. 水稻第2染色体上抗旱相关性状QTL的精细定位[J]. 作物学报, 2012, 38(06): 988-995.
[12] 王丽华, 李杰勤, 林平, 王培, 由振文, 詹秋文. 高粱bmr-6和bmr-12基因对产量和品质性状的效应比较[J]. 作物学报, 2011, 37(07): 1308-1312.
[13] 郭彦军, 倪郁, 郭芸江, 韩龙, 唐华, 玉永雄. 水热胁迫对紫花苜蓿叶表皮蜡质组分及生理指标的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2011, 37(05): 911-917.
[14] 张伟, 刘方, 黎绍惠, 王为, 王春英, 张香娣, 王玉红, 宋国立, 王坤波. 陆地棉重组近交系产量及其构成因素的QTL分析[J]. 作物学报, 2011, 37(03): 433-442.
[15] 朱见明, 严学兵, 史莹华, 王成章. 紫花苜蓿光敏色素B基因片段克隆及RNA干扰表达载体的构建[J]. 作物学报, 2011, 37(02): 374-379.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2