Study on Lodging Resistance and Its Influencing Factors of 9 Oat Varieties in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.06.022

Acta Agrestia Sinica ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (6): 1788-1797.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.06.022

Previous Articles Next Articles

Study on Lodging Resistance and Its Influencing Factors of 9 Oat Varieties in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau

HU Wei, LIANG Guo-ling, LIU Kai-qiang, LIU Wen-hui, LI Wen

Qinghai University Qinghai Academy of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Key Laboratory of Superior Forage Germplasm in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Xining, Qinghai Province 810016, China

Received:2022-12-17 Revised:2023-02-22 Online:2023-06-15 Published:2023-06-30

青藏高原9个燕麦品种抗倒伏能力及其影响因素研究

胡伟, 梁国玲, 刘凯强, 刘文辉, 李文

青海大学畜牧兽医科学院, 青海省青藏高原优良牧草种质资源利用重点实验室, 青海西宁 810016

通讯作者: 梁国玲,E-mail:qhliangguoling@163.com
作者简介:胡伟(1997-)，男，汉族，河北保定人，硕士研究生，主要从事牧草栽培育种方面的研究，E-mail:scihw123@163.com
基金资助:
青海省科技厅重点实验室发展专项“青海省青藏高原优良牧草种质资源利用重点实验室”(2020-ZJ-Y03)；国家现代农业产业技术体系(CARS-34)；“昆仑英才乡村振兴人才”专项农业农村科技攻关团队资助

Abstract

Abstract: In order to explore the differences in the lodging resistance of different oat germplasm resources and identify the main factors affecting the lodging resistance of oats,this experiment took 9 oat varieties from the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau as the research materials,and their phenotypic traits,stem mechanical properties,microstructure and root characteristics were systematically studied;and furthermore the path and path coefficient of the effects of the characteristics of various parts of oats on the lodging rate were analyzed by using structural equation model. The results show that:A. sativa 'LENA’ variety had the strongest lodging resistance among 9 Oat varieties,its ear length,plant height,height of gravity center and length of the second internode in stem were significantly lower than those of A. sativa 'Qingyin No.2’ and A. sativa 'Qingyongjiu 870’ varieties(P<0.05). The wall thickness of the second internode in stem,bending property,puncture strength,stem broken strength,root weight per plant,main root length and capillary root length were significantly higher than those of 'Qingyin No.2’ and 'Qingyongjiu 870’ (P<0.05). Structural equation model analysis showed that stem morphology had the largest direct effect on lodging resistance,while root characteristics had significant indirect and total effects on lodging resistance. Therefore,the stem morphology and root characteristics should be considered comprehensively into the breeding of lodging resistant oat varieties,so as to improve the accuracy of breeding.

Key words: Oats, Anti lodging, Phenotypic traits, Stem mechanics, Microstructure

摘要： 为探究不同燕麦种质资源抗倒伏能力差异，明确影响燕麦(Avena sativa L.)抗倒伏的主要因素，本试验以青藏高原地区9个燕麦品种为研究材料，对其表型性状、茎部力学特性、显微结构及根系特征进行系统研究，并利用结构方程模型分析燕麦各部位性状特征对燕麦倒伏率影响的路径及路径系数。结果表明：9份燕麦品种中'林纳’(A. sativa 'LENA’)的抗倒伏能力最强，其穗长、株高、重心高、第二节节长显著低于'青引2号’(A. sativa 'Qingyin No.2’)和'青永久870’(A. sativa 'Qingyongjiu 870’)(P＜0.05)，而第二节壁厚、弯曲性能、穿刺强度、茎秆折断力、单株根重、主根长和毛细根长均显著高于'青引2号’和'青永久870’(P＜0.05)。结构方程模型分析表明，茎部形态结构对燕麦抗倒伏能力直接效应最大，根系特征对燕麦抗倒伏能力的间接效应和总效应突出。因此，进行抗倒伏燕麦品种选育时，应综合考虑茎部形态结构和根系特征，以提高品种选育的准确性。

关键词: 燕麦, 抗倒伏, 表型性状, 茎秆力学, 显微结构

CLC Number:

S543+.7

HU Wei, LIANG Guo-ling, LIU Kai-qiang, LIU Wen-hui, LI Wen. Study on Lodging Resistance and Its Influencing Factors of 9 Oat Varieties in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(6): 1788-1797.

胡伟, 梁国玲, 刘凯强, 刘文辉, 李文. 青藏高原9个燕麦品种抗倒伏能力及其影响因素研究[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(6): 1788-1797.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.06.022

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/Y2023/V31/I6/1788

References

[1] 吕梦琪,SUNNGHWAN JUNG,麻志宏,等. 基于力学平台的水稻倒伏分析(英文)[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版),2022：1-12
[2] 南铭,赵桂琴,柴继宽. 20份饲草型燕麦品种的抗倒伏性研究[J]. 草原与草坪,2019,39(5):62-68
[3] 彭记永,韩耀杰,李树岩,等. 乳熟期倒伏对夏玉米农田蒸散量的影响[J]. 灌溉排水学报,2022,41(7):8-15
[4] SEKHON R S,JOYNER C N,ACKERMAN A J,et al. Stalk bending strength is strongly associated with maize stalk lodging incidence across multiple environments [J]. Field Crops Research,2020,249(C):107737-107737
[5] HU X Q,SUN L,GU X H,et al. Assessing the self-recovery ability of maize after lodging using UAV-LiDAR data [J]. Remote Sensing,2021,13(12):2270
[6] 潘志远,段燕燕,常宝学,等. 不同株高杂交种玉米抗倒伏特性及杂种优势[J]. 新疆农业科学,2022,59(7):1590-1597
[7] 邵庆勤,周琴,王笑,等. 不同小麦品种物质积累转运与抗倒性差异及其对多效唑的响应[J]. 核农学报,2018,32(12):2438-2447
[8] 卢杰,董连生,常成,等. 种植密度对不同小麦品种产量构成及抗倒伏性的影响[J]. 麦类作物学报,2021,41(1):81-87
[9] 李宏,陈卫国,杨进文,等. 不同施肥方式对小麦倒伏性状的影响[J]. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版),2021,41(5):35-42
[10] 姜洁锋,杨欧,江冰,等. 利用水稻茎秆充实突变体创建新材料的抗倒伏评价[J]. 农业与技术,2021,41(17):24-27
[11] 庞战士. 水稻茎秆性状与抗倒伏的相关性研究[J]. 园艺与种苗,2022,42(3):58-59
[12] 杜杰,陈小荣,钟蕾,等. 种植密度对自动调节力差异型双季稻产量、抗倒伏性及杂草发生的影响[J]. 江西农业大学学报,2021,43(5):951-960
[13] 娄洪祥,姬建利,蒯婕,等. 种植密度对油菜正反交组合产量与倒伏相关性状的影响[J]. 作物学报,2021,47(9):1724-1740
[14] 李宝军,任奕林,李猛,等. 基于茎秆生物力学特性的油菜抗倒调控机制研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报,2020,22(12):68-76
[15] 孟凡凡,张云峰,孙星邈,等. 东北大豆RIL群体不同生育时期倒伏的农艺性状多因子分析[J]. 大豆科学,2020,39(4):535-542
[16] 龚万灼,杜成章,龙珏臣,等. TIBA对不同耐荫性大豆套作苗期生长和倒伏率的影响[J]. 大豆科学,2019,38(4):570-575
[17] 于海飞,杜晓宇,殷贵鸿,等. 普通小麦抗倒伏相关性状的全基因组关联分析[J]. 植物遗传资源学报,2022,23(1):147-159
[18] 欧阳慧,杨贤莉,王立志,等. 水稻抗倒伏性评价方法及机理的研究现状与展望[J]. 中国稻米,2023,29(2):12-17
[19] 万华雄. 浙优21茎秆抗倒伏性状的相关性及通径分析[J]. 中国种业,2021,319(10):70-74
[20] LUO X Y,WU Z F,FU L,et al. Evaluation of lodging resistance in rice based on an optimized parameter from lodging index [J]. Crop Science,2022,62(3):1318-1332
[21] 王东磊,王志权,李青,等. 油菜素类固醇相关基因调控植株矮化研究进展[J]. 植物遗传资源学报,2021,22(4):921-929
[22] 张成君,任生兰,边芳,等. 陇中黄土高原半干旱区9个燕麦品种籽粒产量及其营养价值研究[J]. 草地学报,2022,30(11):3082-3089
[23] 梁国玲,刘文辉,张永超,等. 倒伏发生对燕麦籽粒灌浆进程及非结构性碳水化物的影响[J]. 草地学报,2020,28(4):1024-1033
[24] CHEN L,YI Y,WANG W,et al. Innovative furrow ridging fertilization under a mechanical direct seeding system improves the grain yield and lodging resistance of early indica rice in South China [J]. Field Crops Research,2021,270:108184
[25] 梁国玲,张永超,贾志锋,等. 高寒区不同燕麦品种(系)表型性状和茎秆力学特征与抗倒伏性的关系研究[J]. 草业学报,2019,28(4):58-69
[26] SILVEIRA D C,SCHEFFER-BASSO S M,EBONE L A,et al. Morphological traits of stem to indirect selection of resistance to lodging in Avena sativa L. [J]. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology,2022,25(1):39-50
[27] 袁新捷,刘潇,陈国兴. 水稻核心种质资源茎秆抗倒伏性研究[J]. 华中农业大学学报(自然科学版),2021,40(1):147-153
[28] 赵宝平,刘景辉,任长忠. 燕麦产量形成生理机制研究进展[J]. 作物杂志,2021,37(3):1-7
[29] 郑殿升,王晓鸣,张京. 燕麦种质资源描述规范和数据标准[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,2006:56-57
[30] 刘鑫,谢瑞芝,牛兴奎,等. 种植密度对东北地区不同年代玉米生产主推品种抗倒伏性能的影响[J]. 作物杂志,2012(5):126-130
[31] 李国辉,钟旭华,田卡,等. 施氮对水稻茎秆抗倒伏能力的影响及其形态和力学机理[J]. 中国农业科学,2013,46(7):1323-1334
[32] 于治广,赵宝平,闫洁,等. 不同水分条件下燕麦穗颈维管束结构与穗部性状的关系[J]. 麦类作物学报,2022,42(3):342-351
[33] 尚赏,郭书亚,张艳,等. 不同收获期玉米籽粒穿刺强度差异及其与破碎率的相关性分析[J]. 江苏农业科学,2022,50(12):81-87
[34] YAO X,RUI Z,ZHAO G H,et al. Mechanical properties of soybean plants under various plant densities [J]. Crop and Pasture Science,2020,71(3):249-259
[35] 贾志锋. 施氮量和播种密度对高寒区燕麦种子产量及其相关性状的影响研究[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学,2021:62
[36] 王越,李小雨,李青青,等. 不同杂种优势群玉米茎秆维管束性状比较分析[J]. 河北农业大学学报,2021,44(5):14-20,56
[37] 程艳双,胡美艳,杜志敏,等. 减氮对辽粳5号/秋田小町RIL群体茎秆维管束、穗部和产量性状的影响及其相互关系[J]. 作物学报,2021,47(5):964-973
[38] LI D,NI H W,JIAO S,et al. Coexistence patterns of soil methanogens are closely tied to methane generation and community assembly in rice paddies [J]. Microbiome,2021,9:1-13
[39] 安志超,黄玉芳,赵亚南,等. 植株氮营养状况与冬小麦倒伏的关系[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报,2018,24(3):751-757
[40] KAACK K,KAI-UWE S,Brander P E. Variation in morphology,anatomy and chemistry of stems of Miscanthus genotypes differing in mechanical properties [J]. Industrial Crops and Products,2003,17(2):131-142
[41] 刘瑞,陈佳钰,尚心悦,等. 大麦、小麦茎秆和穗部性状与抗倒性的关系[J]. 大麦与谷类科学,2022,39(3):14-21
[42] 贾小平,董普辉,张红晓,等. 谷子抗倒伏性和株高、穗部性状的相关性研究[J]. 植物遗传资源学报,2015,16(6):1188-1193
[43] 汪灿,阮仁武,袁晓辉,等. 不同荞麦品种抗倒伏能力与根系及茎秆性状的关系[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版),2015,37(1):65-71
[44] 杨洪昌,范源洪,吴正焜,等. 甜高粱抗倒伏性状评价及其倒伏系数初探[J]. 作物杂志,2008,124(3):54-56
[45] 晏小凤,汤雯雯,周玉姝,等. 玉米倒伏研究进展及应对倒伏的措施[J]. 山东农业科学,2022,54(10):153-160
[46] 王政权,郭大立. 根系生态学[J]. 植物生态学报,2008,(6):1213-1216
[47] 陈德龙. 不同抗倒能力玉米品种茎秆及根系等相关特征研究[D]. 长春:吉林农业大学,2015:30-31
[48] 范存留,杨国涛,范永义,等. 钾、硅肥处理对杂交水稻Ⅱ优838抗倒伏性的作用研究[J]. 云南大学学报(自然科学版),2015,37(4):623-631
[49] 张静,王洪章,任昊,等. 夏玉米根系构型与抗根倒性能间的关系[J]. 作物学报:2023,49(1):188-199
[50] 王程,胡夏嵩,刘昌义,等. 黄河源区六种草本植物根系抗拔力特征及其影响因素研究[J]. 草地学报,2023,31(1):157-165
[51] 梁国玲,刘文辉,秦燕,等. 不同燕麦资源生物量构成和茎秆特征与倒伏间的相关性研究[J]. 草地学报,2019,27(5):1339-1346
[52] 陈有军,周青平,孙建,等. 不同燕麦品种田间倒伏性状研究[J]. 作物杂志,2016,32(5):44-49
[53] NAKHFOROOSH A,KUMAR S,FETCH T,et al. Peduncle breaking resistance:a potential selection criterion to improve lodging tolerance in oat [J]. Canadian Journal of Plant Science,2020,100(6):707-719
[54] 南铭. 燕麦抗倒伏生理机制及茎秆木质素合成基因表达研究[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学,2021:53-54

Study on Lodging Resistance and Its Influencing Factors of 9 Oat Varieties in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau

青藏高原9个燕麦品种抗倒伏能力及其影响因素研究

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	NAN Ming, LI Jing, WANG Chang, LI Yong-sheng, XIANG Da-bing, JING Fang, LIU Yan-ming. Comparative Study on Yield and Quality of Spring Sowing Oat at Different Mowing Stages in Northwest Arid Region [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(6): 1878-1885.
[2]	GUO Chang-ying, WANG Wei, PU Xiao-jian, FU Yun-jie, WANG Long-ran, WEI Xiao-li, PENG Dan, XU Cheng-ti. Effect of Plant Row Space on the Forage Value and Soil Characteristics of Forage Oats in Alpine Regions [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(6): 1886-1893.
[3]	WANG Zhen-long, DU Jiang, NIU Yong, YAO Tuo. Screening and Growth-promoting characteristics of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria of Oat Rhizosphere in Alpine Reseeding Grassland of Zoige [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(5): 1406-1413.
[4]	WANG Bo, XIA Fang-shan, DONG Qiu-li, CEN Hui-fang, LI Yin-lin, ZHANG Jie-min. Effect of Exogenous Brassinosteroids Priming on Antioxidant Characteristics of Deteriorated Oat Seeds [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(5): 1461-1468.
[5]	WU Jing-ye, MA Lin, WU Xin-ming, SHI Yong-hong, CHEN Fei-er, WANG Xue-min, ZHAO Wei. Study on Phenotypic Genetic Diversity of 180 Feed Oat Germplasms [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(5): 1501-1510.
[6]	LI Jing, NAN Ming, LIU Yan-ming, ZHANG Cheng-jun, REN Sheng-lan, BIAN Fang. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Yield,Quality and Feeding Performance on Different Oat Varieties [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(4): 1089-1098.
[7]	QUAN Xin, WU Jun-xi, YANG Pei-zhi, YU Cheng-qun, ZHONG Zhi-ming, HU Tian-ming. Study on the Relationship between Productivity and Species in Grassland with Mixed-sowed Gramineous and Leguminous Forages in Lhasa River Valley [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(3): 657-667.
[8]	YANG Li, ZHAO Gui-qin, ZHOU Xiang-rui, CHAI Ji-kuai, DU Wen-pan. K⁺,Na⁺ Accumulation and AsSOS1 Gene Expression in Response to Salt Stress in Oat [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(2): 337-348.
[9]	LONG Feng, HU Meng-fei, CHEN Sheng, LIU Xiao-zhen, CHEN Shui-hong. Effects of Endophytic Fungi on the Anatomical Structure of the host Hordeum bogdanii under Alkali Stress [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(2): 358-364.
[10]	XIE Wen-hui, ZHAO Wen-wu, WANG Lei-ting, ZHAO Li-li, WANG Pu-chang. Genetic Diversity Analysis of 22 Lotus corniculatus Germplasm Resources Based on Phenotypic Quantitative Traits [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(1): 173-179.
[11]	HE Ji-tong, MA Xiang, JU Ze-liang, LIU Kai-qiang, ZHAO Ji-xiu, MA Xiao-long, JIA Zhi-feng. Effects of Intercropping between Oat and Broad Bean on Crop Growth and Yield in Alpine Region [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(9): 2514-2521.
[12]	WANG Qi, ZHENG Jia-hua, ZHAO Meng-li, ZHANG Jun. Plastic Response of Phenotypic Traits in Stipa breviflora to Simulated Sheep Feeding in Desert Steppe [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(7): 1748-1754.
[13]	WANG Teng-fei, CHANG Yi-ran, DENG Xue, SHEN Xiao-tian, WANG Bin, LI Man-you, NI Wang, LAN Jian. Adaptability Evaluation of Feed Oat Varieties in Rainfed Area of Ningxia [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(7): 1755-1762.
[14]	GUO Chang-ying, WANG Wei, DE Ke-jia, PU Xiao-jian, WEI Xiao-li, DUAN Na-ning, PENG Dan, XU Cheng-ti. Effects of Sowing Methods on Yield and Quality of Oats and Forage Peas [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(7): 1882-1890.
[15]	JIN Yan-li, YAO Tuo, LAN Xiao-jun, LI Chang-ning, MA Ya-chun. Screening of Antagonistic Bacteria of Oat Root Rot and Studies of Antibacterial Properties [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(5): 1095-1101.