| 191 | 4 | 19 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
【目的】为客观评价红豆草新品系的生产性能,为新品系的示范推广及品种审定提供基础数据。【方法】试验以新疆农业大学选育的3个红豆草新品系ND056-1、ND056-2、ND056-3为材料,以奇台红豆草为对照(CK),通过观测生育期、株高、干鲜比、茎叶比、鲜草产量、干草产量等指标,对其生产性能进行综合评价。【结果】研究结果表明,四个材料的物候期无差异,ND056-3的平均株高最高为104.2 cm,ND056-2的次之为104.13 cm,CK最低为103.07 cm;ND056-1的干鲜比最高为30.15%,是对照的1.22倍,ND056-2最低为23.73%,是对照的0.96倍;ND056-3的叶茎比最高(1.2266),ND056-2次之(0.9918),分别是对照的1.1倍和1.38倍;全年鲜草产量中,ND056-3的最高为70.58 t/hm2,ND056-1次之为66.25 t/hm2,分别是对照的1.247倍和1.170倍;全年干草产量中,ND056-1的最高为19.89 t/hm2,ND056-3次之为19.32 t/hm2,分别是对照的1.30倍和1.27倍。【结论】综合分析认为,新品系ND056-3适合作为青鲜草利用,ND056-1适合作为干草利用。
Abstract:【Objective】In order to evaluate production performance of the new varieties of Onobrychis viciaefolia,and to provide basic data for their demonstrating and promoting as well as variety certification.【Methods】Three new varieties of Onobrychis viciaefolia (ND056-1,ND056-2 and ND056-3) cultivated by Xinjiang Agricultural University were used as experimental materials,and the Qitai variety as a control(CK),the production performance was comprehensively evaluated by observing indicators such as growth period,plant height,dry-fresh ratio,stem-leaf ratio,fresh grass yield,and hay yield.【Results】The results showed that there was no difference in the phenological period of the four varieties.The average plant height of ND056-3was the highest (104.2 cm),followed by ND056-2 (104.13 cm) and that of CK was the lowest (103.07 cm).The dry-fresh ratio of ND056-1 was the highest (30.15%),which was 1.22 times than that of the control,and ND056-2 was the lowest (23.73%),0.96times than the control.The leaf-stem ratio of ND056-3 was highest with 1.2266,followed by ND056-2 with 0.9918,which were1.1 and 1.38 times than the control,respectively.The highest of annual fresh grass yield was the ND056-3 with 70.58 t/hm2,followed by ND056-1 with 66.25 t/hm2,which were 1.247 and 1.170 times than the control.The highest annual hay yield was the ND056-1 with 19.89 t/hm2,followed by ND056-3 with 19.32 t/hm2,which were 1.30 and 1.27 times that of the control,respectively.【Conclusion】As a conclusion,the ND056-3 was suitable for use as fresh grass,while ND056-1 as hay.
[1]田丰,于闯,付双军,等.7份红豆草对低温的生理响应及抗寒性评价[J].甘肃农业科技,2018(10):21-26.
[2]陈洁,温素军,梁鹏飞,等.干旱胁迫对红豆草根系生长及生理特性的影响[J].草原与草坪,2022,42(06):101-109.
[3]刘鑫,汪堃,梁鹏飞,等.红豆草苗期耐盐种质筛选及综合评价[J].西南农业学报,2022,35(09):2171-2179.
[4]李旭谦.红豆草的特性和栽培技术[J].青海草业,2001(04):41-42.
[5]王春军.紫花苜蓿和红豆草的营养价值及饲喂效果评价[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学,2018.
[6]田莹俏,王乐乐,阿不夏合满·穆巴拉克,等.盐生植物在畜牧生产中的应用研究进展[J].草食家畜,2023(02):1-7.
[7]田新春.新疆牧草种质资源现状及保护对策[J].草食家畜,2022(06):51-55.
[8]李珍珍,张正芳,马晓兰,等.红豆草OvIF7GT基因克隆与表达分析[J].草业科学,2024(1):1-17.
[9]张正芳,王文颖,李珍珍,等.高寒牧草红豆草OvI7OMT基因的克隆及表达分析[J/OL].分子植物育种:2024(1):1-21.
[10]马彪,魏少萍,苗佳敏,等.基于ISSR分子标记的红豆草资源遗传多样性分析[J].四川农业大学学报,2023,41(04):619-625.
[11]司海灿,温素军,南丽丽,等.干旱胁迫对红豆草幼苗生长及根际土壤细菌群落的影响[J].草原与草坪,2023,43(03):92-99.
[12]何海鹏,南丽丽,马彪,等.红豆草种质苗期耐寒性筛选及评价[J].中国草地学报,2023,45(05):41-49.
[13]陈洁,魏少萍,梁鹏飞,等.不同红豆草材料耐低磷性评价及种质筛选[J].中国草地学报,2022,44(03):72-80.
[14]付萍,杨浩,孟祥君,等.红豆草在甘肃省不同生态区的生产性能及品质研究[J].中国饲料,2023(11):135-139.
[15]孙玉兰,陈爱萍,李瑞强,等.20份红豆草种质资源农艺与品质性状综合评价[J].新疆农业大学学报,2022,45(03):182-189.
[16]付萍,张榕,耿小丽,等.甘肃省二阴地区红豆草生产性能和营养品质评价[J].中国草食动物科学,2020,40(02):78-80.
[17]南丽丽,温素军,魏凡,等.红豆草新品系的草产量及营养价值研究[J].草地学报,2020,28(02):383-388.
[18]张磊,阿不力孜,张江玲,等.奇台红豆草品种的特征特性研究[J].草食家畜,2010(01):55-58.
[19]曹宏,章会玲,盖琼辉,等.22个紫花苜蓿品种的引种试验和生产性能综合评价[J].草业学报,2011,20(06):219-229.
[20]宋书红,杨云贵,张晓娜,等.不同刈割时期对紫花苜蓿和红豆草产量及营养价值的影响[J].家畜生态学报,2017,38(02):44-51.
[21]于闯.不同红豆草种质材料的抗逆性及品质特性研究[D].兰州:甘肃农业大学,2017.
[22]周栋昌,沈禹颖,武慧娟,等.陇中黄土高原混播草地生产性能[J].草业科学,2021,38(01):147-159.
[23]徐春明.不同苜蓿(Medicago Sativa)品种生长特性分析及评价[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2003.
[24]白永飞,徐志信.典型草原9种牧草生长发育规律的研究[J].中国草地,1994(06):21-27.
基本信息:
DOI:10.16863/j.cnki.1003-6377.2024.02.004
中图分类号:S541.4
引用信息:
[1]朱文煜,王玉祥.新疆地区4个红豆草新品系的生产性能评价[J].草食家畜,2024,No.225(02):21-28.DOI:10.16863/j.cnki.1003-6377.2024.02.004.
基金信息:
新疆维吾尔自治区重点研发项目“优良牧草品种引进与乡土草种驯化选育”(2022B02003-1)