鸭茅品种(系)表型分析及隶属函数综合评价

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2016.04.022

草地学报 ›› 2016, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (4): 859-867.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2016.04.022

鸭茅品种(系)表型分析及隶属函数综合评价

蒋林峰^1,2, 姚超³, 谢文刚⁴, 黄林凯¹, 张宗瑜⁴, 马啸¹, 严德飞¹, 张新全¹

1. 四川农业大学动物科技学院草业科学系, 四川温江 625014;
2. 重庆市垫江县畜牧生产站, 重庆垫江 408300;
3. 垫江县曹回镇畜牧兽医站, 重庆垫江 408300;
4. 兰州大学草地农业科技学院, 甘肃兰州 730020

收稿日期:2014-04-15 修回日期:2014-06-19 出版日期:2016-08-15 发布日期:2016-11-29
通讯作者: 张新全,E-mail:zhangxq@sicau.edu.cn
作者简介:蒋林峰(1989-),男,重庆垫江人,硕士,畜牧师主要从事草种质资源创新及育种研究,E-mail:jianglinfengsicau@163.com
基金资助:
国家现代牧草产业技术体系（CARS-35-05）；国家科技部973项目（2014CB138705）；国家自然科学基金（31372363）资助

Phenotypic Variation Analysis and Subordinate Function Comprehensive Evaluation of Cocksfoot Varieties (Lines)

JIANG Lin-feng^1,2, YAO Chao³, XIE Wen-gang⁴, HUANG Lin-kai¹, ZHANG Zong-yu⁴, MA Xiao¹, YAN De-fei¹, ZHANG Xin-quan¹

1. Department of grassland science, Animal Science and Technology College, Sichuan Agricultural University, Wenjiang, Sichuan Province 625014, China;
2. Department of Livestock Production Station, Dianjiang, Chongqing 408300, China;
3. Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Station, Caohui, Dianjiag, Chongqing 408300, China;
4. The State Kay Laboratory of Grassland Gro-ecosystems, College of Pastoral Agriclture Science and Technlogy, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730020, China

Received:2014-04-15 Revised:2014-06-19 Online:2016-08-15 Published:2016-11-29

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以32个鸭茅（Dactylis glomerata）品种（系）为研究对象，对其12个表型及产量相关性状进行研究分析，以期为鸭茅品种选育及改良提供参考。结果表明：不同鸭茅品种资源的表型特征存在广泛变异，其中以穗叶距变异最大，花序宽度和节间长度次之，而倒二叶宽度变异最小，品种内平均表型变异系数为26.71%（01472）~179.13%（金牛）。供试各性状间显著相关，叶片长而宽的鸭茅，植株高大，节间长，穗叶距长。主成分结果显示，前3个主成分累计贡献率达61.75%，反映了总体数据的大部分信息。隶属函数法分析表明，‘滇北’、‘Cristobal’、‘01472’、‘波特’、‘宝兴’、‘川东’在各供试鸭茅品种（系）中表现较优，是鸭茅新品种选育和改良的优异亲本材料。

关键词: 鸭茅, 品种(系), 表型变异, 隶属函数, 综合评价

Abstract:

Twelve phenotypic characteristics and 3 yield related characteristics of 32 Dactylis glomerata L. varieties (lines) were studied in this report, in order to provide the reference for the breeding and improvement of D. glomerata. There were widespread variation among D. glomerata varieties in all characters study, the most significant variation was in distant between flag leaf and inflorescence, followed by the inflorescence width and internode length, while the least variation in second leaf width, the average variable coefficients of tested varieties were ranged from 26.71%(01472)~179.13%(Aldebaran). There were significant correlations among tested characteristics; the plants of D. glomerata with long and wide leaves were tall plants with longer internode length and distance between flag leaf and inflorescence. The values of accumulative contribution rate for the first 3 principal components were 61.75%, and reflected the most information of D. glomerata. The analysis of subordinate function showed that Dianbei, Cristobal, 01472, Porto, Baoxing and Chuandong varieties had better performance compared to others, which provide excellent parent materials for the breeding and improvement of D. glomerata.

Key words: Dactylis glomerata, Varieties (Lines), Phenotypic variation, Subordinate function, Comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

S543.3

蒋林峰, 姚超, 谢文刚, 黄林凯, 张宗瑜, 马啸, 严德飞, 张新全. 鸭茅品种(系)表型分析及隶属函数综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2016, 24(4): 859-867.

JIANG Lin-feng, YAO Chao, XIE Wen-gang, HUANG Lin-kai, ZHANG Zong-yu, MA Xiao, YAN De-fei, ZHANG Xin-quan. Phenotypic Variation Analysis and Subordinate Function Comprehensive Evaluation of Cocksfoot Varieties (Lines)[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2016, 24(4): 859-867.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2016.04.022

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2016/V24/I4/859

参考文献

[1] Bushman B S, Larson S R, Tuna M, et al. Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) EST and SSR marker development, annotation, and transferability[J]. Theoretical and Applied Genetics,2011,123(1):119-129
[2] Lindner R, Garcia A. Geographic distribution and genetic resources of Dactylis in galicia (Northwest Spain)[J]. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution,1997,44(6):499-507
[3] Sanada Y, Tamura K, Yamada T. Relationship between water-soluble carbohydrates in fall and spring and vigor of spring regrowth in orchardgrass[J]. Crop Science,2010,50(1):380-390
[4] Lumaret R, Borrill M. Cytology, genetics, and evolution in the genus Dactylis [J]. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,1988,7(1):55-91
[5] Xie W G, Zhang X Q, Cai H W, et al. Genetic diversity analysis and transferability of cereal EST-SSR markers to orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.)[J]. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology,2010,38(4):740-749
[6] Gauthier P, Lumaret R, Bedecarrats A. Ectype differentiation and coexistence of two parapatric tetraploid subspecies of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.) in the Alps[J]. New Phytol,1998,139:741-750
[7] Hirata M, Yuyama N, Cai H W. Isolation and characterization of simple sequence repeat markers for the tetraploid forage grass Dactylis glomerata [J]. Plant Breeding,2011,130:503-506
[8] 彭燕,张新全. 鸭茅种质资源多样性研究进展[J]. 植物遗传资源学报,2003,4(2):179-183
[9] 高杨,张新全,谢文刚. 鸭茅的营养价值评定[J]. 草地学报,2009,17(2):222-226
[10] Liu C J. Geographical distribution of genetic variation in Stylosanthes scabra revealed by RAPD analysis[J]. Euphytica,1997,98:21-27
[11] Zeng B, Zhang Y, Huang L. K, et al. Genetic diversity of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) germplasms with resistance to rust diseases revealed by start codon targeted (SCoT) markers[J]. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology,2014,54:96-102
[12] Song Y H, Liu F X, Zhu Z F, et al. Construction of a simple sequence repeat marker-based genetic linkage map in the autotetraploid forage grass Dactylis glomerata L[J]. Grassland Science,2011,57(3):158-167
[13] Jiang L F, Zhang X Q, Ma X, et al. Identification of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) cultivars by using simple sequence repeat markers[J]. Genetics and Molecular Research,2013,12(4):5111-5123
[14] Xie W G, Robins J G, Bushman B S, et al. A genetic linkage map of tetraploid orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) and quantitative trait loci for heading date[J]. Genome,2012,55(5):360-369
[15] Semagn K, Bjornstad A, Ndjiondjop M. An overview of molecular marker methods for plants[J]. African Journal of Biotechnology,2006,5(25):2540-2568
[16] Tar'an B, Michaels T E, Pauls K P. Genetic mapping of agronomic traits in common bean[J]. Crop Science,2002,42(2):544-556
[17] Dainese M. Impact of land use intensity and temperature on the reproductive performance of Dactylis glomerata population in the southeastern Alps[J]. Plant Ecology,2011,212:651-661
[18] Falcinelli M, Cenci C A, Negri V. An assessment of Dactylis glomerata L. ecotypes. I. Botanical characteristics[J]. Rivistadi Agronomia,1983,17(2):305-313
[19] Etherington J R. Relationship between morphological adaptation to grazing, carbon balance and water logging tolerance in clones of Dactylis glomerata L.[J]. New Phytologist,1984,98(4):647-658
[20] Tosun M, Sagsoz S, Akgun I. Determination of some chemical characters of hay, hay and seed yield of wild orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.)[Z]. In:Turkey III. Pasture and Forage Congress, Erzurum (Turkey),1996:402-407
[21] 彭燕,张新全,曾兵. 野生鸭茅植物形态学特征变异研究[J]. 草业学报,2007,16(2):69-75
[22] 石永红,万里强,刘建宁,等. 多年生黑麦草抗旱性主成分及隶属函数分析[J]. 草地学报,2010,18(5):669-672
[23] 蒋林峰,张新全,黄琳凯,等. 鸭茅品种的SCoT遗传变异分析[J]. 草业学报,2014,23(1):229-238
[24] 邢毅,赵祥,董宽虎,等. 不同居群达乌里胡枝子形态变异研究[J]. 草业学报,2008,17(4):26-31
[25] Xie W G, Lu X F, Zhang X Q, et al. Genetic variation and comparison of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) cultivars and wild accessions as revealed by SSR markers[J]. Genetics and Molecular Research,2012,11(1):425-433
[26] 徐倩,才宏伟,刘艺衫,等. 16个国外鸭茅种质材料引种与初步评价[J]. 草业科学,2011,28(4):597-602
[27] 宋俊双,高洪文,王赞,等. 三种锦鸡儿植物表型多样性分析[J]. 草地学报,2005,14(3):123-130
[28] 富新年,王赞,高洪文,等. 国外引进鸭茅种质形态变异研究[J]. 草地学报,2012,20(2):358-362

鸭茅品种(系)表型分析及隶属函数综合评价

Phenotypic Variation Analysis and Subordinate Function Comprehensive Evaluation of Cocksfoot Varieties (Lines)

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	孙伟, 刘玉玲, 王德平, 赵敏, 杨合龙, 宋倩, 肖红, 王开丽, 曹婧, 戎郁萍. 补播羊草和黄花苜蓿对退化草甸植物群落特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1809-1817.
[2]	李春萍, 邱轶辉, 夏厚胤, 谭璐娜, 许环宇, 张瀚文, 高景慧. 紫花苜蓿多父本F₁代低蒸腾及产量性状的隶属函数分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1416-1422.
[3]	李红, 李波, 方志坚, 杨曌, 张超, 冯成龙, 金姗姗, 王思琦, 石婉莹. 冻融和冻融+苏打盐碱复合胁迫下苜蓿幼苗的生理响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1469-1476.
[4]	李满有, 马忠仁, 王斌, 杨雨琦, 沈笑天, 曹立娟, 李小云, 兰剑. 宁夏引黄灌区2个苜蓿品种不同行比混播模式研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 798-804.
[5]	李波, 李晨阳, 李红, 杨曌. 短期低温胁迫对‘龙牧807’苜蓿幼苗生理代谢的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(3): 515-521.
[6]	安明珠, 韩博, 姜华, 段新慧, 文亦芾, 周凯. 鸭茅物种起源与系统发育分析研究进展[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(12): 2637-2644.
[7]	谢楠, 刘振宇, 冯伟, 智健飞, 李梦, 杜姿璇, 刘忠宽. 饲用谷子在环渤海盐碱旱地的生产性能及饲用品质评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(1): 60-71.
[8]	李佳欢, 刘希强, 吕进英, 任成, 王开丽, 黄顶, 邓波, 王堃. 基于植株各器官生理响应对12种苜蓿抗旱性的综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(5): 1319-1328.
[9]	刘小慧, 王重丽, 王梦茹, 郇恒福, 刘一明, 刘国道. 圭亚那柱花草苗期抗旱性评价及抗旱种质鉴定[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 956-967.
[10]	王亚楠, 赵思明, 曹兵. PEG-6000模拟干旱胁迫下10种草本植物萌发期抗旱性比较[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 983-989.
[11]	李波, 刘畅, 李红, 杨曌. 外源氯化钙对‘龙牧807’苜蓿幼苗干旱缓解效应分析[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(4): 990-997.
[12]	周启龙, 多吉顿珠, 益西央宗. 拉萨地区16个燕麦引进品种的灰色关联度评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2): 389-396.
[13]	王平, 王沛, 孙万斌, 陈玖红, 张伟, 周青平. 8份披碱草属牧草苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(2): 397-404.
[14]	张则宇, 李雪, 王焱, 常巍, 高雪芹, 伏兵哲. 59份苜蓿种质材料苗期耐盐性评价及耐盐指标筛选[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 112-121.
[15]	杨丹, 张舒芸, 田新会, 杜文华. 不同黑麦品种(品系)对持续干旱胁迫的形态适应性研究[J]. 草地学报, 2020, 28(1): 122-129.