CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (6): 1077-1086.doi: 10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2020352
Previous Articles Next Articles
Jian-qiu LIANG(), Xiao-bo YU, Ze-min HE, Jian-gang AN, Jia WANG, Zhao-qiong ZENG, Wen-ying YANG, Hai-ying WU(
), Ming-rong ZHANG(
)
Received:
2020-12-09
Online:
2021-12-22
Published:
2021-12-23
Contact:
Hai-ying WU,Ming-rong ZHANG
E-mail:liangjianqiu142@163.com;470797370@qq.com;zhangminron@126.com
CLC Number:
Jian-qiu LIANG, Xiao-bo YU, Ze-min HE, Jian-gang AN, Jia WANG, Zhao-qiong ZENG, Wen-ying YANG, Hai-ying WU, Ming-rong ZHANG. Comparative study on the agronomic traits and yield of soybean varieties with different maturity in maize-soybean intercropping system[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 1077-1086.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jouroilcrops.cn/EN/10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2020352
Table 1
Soybean varieties used in this experiment
品种类型 Cultivar type | 名称 Name | 全生育期 Maturity / d | 生育期组 Maturity group | 来源 Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
早熟 (EM) | 中黄39 Zhonghuang 39 | 94 | Ⅱ | 中国农业科学院油料作物研究所 Oil Crops Research Institute of Chinese Academy of Agriculture Science |
中豆39 Zhongdou 39 | 88 | Ⅱ | ||
中豆40 Zhongdou 40 | 88 | Ⅱ | ||
中豆41 Zhongdou 41 | 95 | Ⅱ | ||
油6019 You 6019 | 97 | Ⅱ | ||
中熟 (MM) | 冀豆17 Jidou 17 | 105 | Ⅲ | 河北省农业科学院 Hebei Academy of Agricultural Science |
南农43 Nannong 43 | 107 | Ⅲ | 南京农业大学 Nanjing Agricultural University | |
南农48 Nannong 48 | 108 | Ⅲ | ||
南充95-3 Nanchong 95-3 | 110 | Ⅲ | 南充市农业科学院 Nanchong Institute of Agriculture Science | |
南夏豆35 Nanxiadou 35 | 108 | Ⅲ | ||
晚熟 (LM) | 南农99-6 Nannong 99-6 | 124 | Ⅳ | 南京农业大学 Nanjing Agricultural university |
华夏10号 Huaxia 10 | 121 | Ⅳ | 华南农业大学 South China Agricultural University | |
南夏豆25 Nanxiadou 25 | 121 | Ⅳ | 南充市农业科学院 Nanchong Institute of Agriculture Science | |
南H52-31 Nan H52-31 | 125 | Ⅳ | 南充市农业科学院 Nanchong Institute of Agriculture Science | |
南H52-28 Nan H52-28 | 125 | Ⅳ | 南充市农业科学院 Nanchong Institute of Agriculture Science | |
南 808-7 Nan 808-7 | 127 | Ⅳ | 南充市农业科学院 Nanchong Institute of Agriculture Science |
Table 3
Statistics on each growth stage time of soybean planted under different treatments
年份 Year | 品种类型 Cultivar type | 处理 Treatment | 营养生长期 VP /d | 生殖生长期 RP /d | 复光期 LRD /d | 全生育期 M /d | 玉豆共生期 PT /d | 共生期/全生育期 PT/M /% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 早熟 (EM) | MSI | 32.6 | 56.6 | 6.0 | 89.2 | 83.2 | 93.3% |
SS | 33.2 | 59.2 | — | 92.4 | — | — | ||
中熟 (MM) | MSI | 38.2 | 69.6 | 24.3 | 107.8 | 83.5 | 77.5% | |
SS | 37.2 | 70.8 | — | 108 | — | — | ||
晚熟 (LM) | MSI | 47.3 | 77.5 | 41.8 | 124.8 | 83 | 66.5% | |
SS | 44 | 78 | — | 122 | — | — | ||
2019 | 早熟 (EM) | MSI | 33.8 | 58.1 | 7.4 | 91.9 | 84.5 | 91.9% |
SS | 34.6 | 60 | — | 94.6 | — | — | ||
中熟 (MM) | MSI | 38.8 | 70.5 | 25.3 | 109.3 | 84 | 76.9% | |
SS | 38.2 | 71.4 | — | 109.6 | — | — | ||
晚熟 (LM) | MSI | 47.5 | 79.2 | 42.4 | 126.7 | 84.3 | 66.5% | |
SS | 44.8 | 78.7 | — | 123.5 | — |
Table 4
Growth characteristics of soybean planted under different treatments
项目 Item | 品种类型 Cultivar Type | 处理 Treatment | 株高 Plant height /cm | 底荚高 Height of the first pod to ground /cm | 主茎节数 Node number | 平均节间长 Internode length /cm | 有效分枝 Number of effective branches |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TV(2018) | 早熟 (EM) | MSI | 64.5 c | 16.1 c | 11.7 d | 5.5 b | 2.5 bc |
SS | 46.5 d | 11.9 d | 11.1 d | 4.2 c | 2.8 ab | ||
中熟 (MM) | MSI | 94.1 b | 21.1 b | 14.4 c | 6.6 a | 1.8 de | |
SS | 70.3 c | 23.4 ab | 14.9 bc | 4.8 c | 2.2 cd | ||
晚熟 (LM) | MSI | 107.3 a | 24.4 ab | 15.6 b | 6.9 a | 3.1 a | |
SS | 90.1 b | 25.5 a | 17.0 a | 5.4 b | 1.6 e | ||
品种类型 (Cultivar type) | 125.28** | 43.99** | 97.24** | 20.12** | 6.60** | ||
处理(Treatment) | 479.08** | 0.15 | 5.64 | 2198.65** | 6.97 | ||
品种类型×处理 (CT×T) | 0.81 | 3.98* | 4.01* | 0.64 | 22.36** | ||
RV (2018) | 早熟(EM) | 1.39 a | 1.35 a | 1.05 a | 1.31 b | 0.89 b | |
中熟(MM) | 1.34 b | 0.90 b | 0.97 b | 1.38 a | 0.82b | ||
晚熟(LM)) | 1.19 c | 0.95 b | 0.92 c | 1.28 b | 1.94a | ||
TV (2019) | 早熟 (EM) | MSI | 58.8 d | 15.8 c | 12.1 c | 4.9 c | 2.4 b |
SS | 43.9 e | 12.2 c | 11.1 d | 3.9 d | 2.8 ab | ||
中熟 (MM) | MSI | 85.0 b | 20.5 b | 14.1 b | 6.0 b | 1.7 c | |
SS | 66.5 c | 23.3 b | 13.3 b | 5.0 c | 1.6 c | ||
晚熟 (LM) | MSI | 100.1 a | 23.8 b | 15.2 a | 6.7 a | 3.0 a | |
SS | 80.3 b | 28.7 a | 15.4 a | 5.3 c | 1.0 d | ||
品种类型 (Cultivar type) | 108.78** | 44.1** | 66.35** | 29.68** | 14.15** | ||
处理 (Treatment) | 319.39** | 1.96 | 6.09 | 3324.6** | 78.69** | ||
品种类型×处理 (CT×T) | 0.47 | 5.35** | 2.18 | 0.79 | 24.84** | ||
RV (2019) | 早熟 (EM) | 1.34 a | 1.30 a | 1.09 a | 1.26 a | 0.86 b | |
中熟 (MM) | 1.28 b | 0.88 b | 1.06 b | 1.20 b | 1.06 b | ||
晚熟 (LM) | 1.21 c | 0.84 b | 0.99 c | 1.26 a | 3.0 a |
Fig. 1
Lodging rate of soybean under different treatmentsNote: EM-MSI: early-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; EM-SS: early-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; MM-MSI:medium-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; MM-SS:medium-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; LM-MSI:medium-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; LM-SS:medium-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; Treatments followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level
Table 5
Yield and its component of soybean planted under different treatments
项目 Item | 品种类型 Cultivar type | 处理 Treatment | 单株有效荚 Pod number per plant | 每荚粒数 Seed number per pod | 单株粒数 Seed number per plant | 百粒重 100-seed weight /g | 单株产量 Yield per plant /g | 折合公顷产量 Yield /kg·hm–2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TV(2018) | 早熟 (EM) | MSI | 21.4 c | 1.76 ab | 37.4 d | 18.9 c | 6.1 e | 783.1 e |
SS | 24.4 c | 1.92 a | 46.9 c | 21.0 bc | 9.2 d | 2171.9 b | ||
中熟 (MM) | MSI | 31.8 ab | 1.68 b | 53.2 b | 21.3 bc | 10.3 c | 1342.7d | |
SS | 30.8 ab | 1.81 ab | 55.7ab | 22.4 ab | 11.4b | 2766.3a | ||
晚熟 (LM) | MSI | 35.0 a | 1.73 b | 59.6 a | 23.4 ab | 13.0 a | 1748.1 c | |
SS | 29.2 b | 1.79ab | 51.4 bc | 25.4 a | 12.2 ab | 2912.3 a | ||
品种类型(Cultivar type) | 22.55** | 1.51 | 15.65** | 8.83** | 134.67** | 124.5** | ||
处理(Treatment) | 1.98 | 289.83** | 0.81 | 104.87** | 10.1* | 3002.29** | ||
品种类型×处理 (CT×T) | 4.46* | 0.37 | 5.98** | 0.17 | 21.49** | 3.42* | ||
RV (2018) | 早熟(EM) | 0.88 c | 0.92 b | 0.80 c | 0.90 b | 0.66 c | 0.36 c | |
中熟(MM) | 1.03 b | 0.93 b | 0.96 b | 0.95 a | 0.90 b | 0.49 b | ||
晚熟(LM)) | 1.20 a | 0.97 a | 1.16 a | 0.92 ab | 1.07 a | 0.60 a | ||
TV (2019) | 早熟 (EM) | MSI | 20.3 c | 1.72 ab | 34.8 c | 18.9 c | 5.9 e | 787.4 e |
SS | 24.2 b | 1.86 a | 45.0 b | 20.1 c | 8.4 d | 2063.2 b | ||
中熟 (MM) | MSI | 31.5 a | 1.67 b | 51.8 a | 21.5 ab | 10.2 c | 1364.3 d | |
SS | 29.6 a | 1.81 ab | 53.6 a | 21.5 ab | 10.6 bc | 2630.7 a | ||
晚熟 (LM) | MSI | 32.7 a | 1.72 ab | 56.3 a | 23.8 a | 12.2 a | 1682.5 c | |
SS | 28.8 a | 1.78 ab | 50.7 ab | 24.2 a | 11.2 b | 2749.1 a | ||
品种类型(Cultivar type) | 25.71** | 0.48 | 22.79** | 8.93** | 104.69** | 114.74** | ||
处理(Treatment) | 0.77 | 71.26** | 2.55 | 7.24* | 4.8 | 1528.16** | ||
品种类型×处理 (CT×T) | 4.71* | 0.46 | 6.32** | 0.16 | 15.19** | 2.54 | ||
RV (2019) | 早熟(EM) | 0.84 b | 0.92 b | 0.77 c | 0.94 b | 0.70 c | 0.38 c | |
中熟(MM) | 1.06 a | 0.92 b | 0.97 b | 1.0 a | 0.96 b | 0.52 b | ||
晚熟(LM)) | 1.14 a | 0.97 a | 1.11 a | 0.98 a | 1.09 a | 0.61 a |
Fig. 2
Available pods per plant of soybean planted under different treatmentsNote: EM-MSI: early-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; EM-SS: early-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; MM-MSI:medium-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; MM-SS:medium-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; LM-MSI:medium-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; LM-SS:medium-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; Treatments followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level
Fig. 3
Full grain rate of soybean planted under different treatmentsNote: EM-MSI: early-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; EM-SS: early-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; MM-MSI:medium-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; MM-SS:medium-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; LM-MSI:medium-maturity cultivar in maize-soybean intercropping; LM-SS:medium-maturity cultivar in soybean sole cropping; Treatments followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level
Table 6
Correlation analysis of growth, yield component and maturity characteristics of soybean in intercropping system
PL | NN | IL | AP | SN | SWP | Y | APR | FGR | LR | M | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NN | 0.722** | ||||||||||
IL | 0.855** | 0.265 | |||||||||
AP | 0.331 | 0.550** | 0.064 | ||||||||
SN | 0.334 | 0.588** | 0.046 | 0.890** | |||||||
SWP | 0.763** | 0.870** | 0.426* | 0.734** | 0.720** | ||||||
Y | 0.765** | 0.878** | 0.420* | 0.720** | 0.719** | 0.997** | |||||
APR | 0.822** | 0.751** | 0.602** | 0693** | 0.658** | 0.920** | 0.913** | ||||
FGR | 0.614** | 0.676** | 0.344 | 0.566** | 0.571** | 0.821** | 0.816** | 0.756** | |||
LR | 0.885** | 0.717** | 0.698** | 0.476** | 0.439* | 0.829** | 0.837** | 0.856** | 0.692** | ||
M | 0.828** | 0.800** | 0.568** | 0.623** | 0.612** | 0.910** | 0.916** | 0.940** | 0.770** | 0.919** | |
SPMS/M | -0.838** | -0.805** | -0.580** | -0.647** | -0.629** | -0.925** | -0.928** | -0.953** | -0.780** | -0.907** | -0.994** |
1 | 中国产业信息网行业数据.2015-2019年中国大豆进口数量、进口金额及增速统[EB/OL]. [2020-2-14]. |
2 |
尹宗伦. 担起重振我国大豆产业的任务[J]. 中国食品学报, 2006, 6(4): 1-5. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1009-7848.2006.04.001.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-7848.2006.04.001 |
3 |
雍太文, 杨文钰, 任万军, 等. 发展套作大豆促进四川大豆产业发展[J]. 作物杂志, 2007(6): 5-8. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2007.06.002.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2007.06.002 |
4 | 杨文钰. 套作大豆优势突出农民欢迎发展潜力巨大: 国家大豆产业体系专家考察四川套作大豆纪实[J]. 大豆科技, 2009(6): 14-15. |
5 | Zhang J, Smith D L, Liu W, et al. Effects of shade and drought stress on soybean hormones and yield of main-stem and branch[J]. Afr J Biotechnol, 2011, (10):14392–14398. |
6 | 龚万灼, 吴雨珊, 雍太文, 等. 玉米-大豆带状套作中荫蔽及光照恢复对大豆生长特性与产量的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2015, 37(4): 475-480. |
7 | 杨春杰, 谭春燕, 陈佳琴, 等. 间作玉米对大豆鼓粒期产量与农艺性状及干物质积累的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2015, 43(11): 38-42. |
8 | 陈小林, 杨文钰, 陈忠群, 等. 不同施氮水平下净、套作大豆茎秆特征比较研究[J]. 大豆科学, 2011, 30(1): 101-104. |
9 |
于晓波, 张明荣, 吴海英, 等. 净套作下不同耐荫性大豆品种农艺性状及产量分布的研究[J]. 大豆科学, 2012, 31(5): 757-761. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-9841.2012.05.014.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9841.2012.05.014 |
10 | Yang F, Huang S, Gao R, et al. Growth of soybean seedlings in relay strip intercropping systems in relation to light quantity and red:far-red ratio[J]. Field Crops Res, 2014, 155: 245–253. |
11 | 宋艳霞, 杨文钰, 李卓玺, 等. 不同大豆品种幼苗叶片光合及叶绿素荧光特性对套作遮荫的响应[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2009, 31(4): 474-479. |
12 | 王竹, 杨文钰, 吴其林. 玉/豆套作荫蔽对大豆光合特性与产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2007, 33(9): 1502-1507. |
13 | 王竹, 杨文钰, 伍晓燕, 等. 玉米株型和幅宽对套作大豆初花期形态建成及产量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2008, 19(2): 323-329. |
14 |
陈怀珠, 孙祖东, 杨守臻, 等. 荫蔽对大豆主要性状的影响及大豆耐荫性鉴定方法研究初报[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2003, 25(4): 78-82. DOI:10.3321/j.issn: 1007-9084.2003.04.018.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn: 1007-9084.2003.04.018 |
15 | 武晓玲, 梁海媛, 杨峰, 等. 大豆苗期耐荫性综合评价及其鉴定指标的筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015, 48(13): 2497-2507. |
16 | 曹鹏鹏, 任自超, 高凤菊, 等. 鲁西北地区大豆/玉米间作适宜品种组合筛选[J]. 山东农业科学, 2019, 51(12): 31-35,39. |
17 | 卜伟召, 刘鑫, 武晓玲, 等. 黄淮海带状间作大豆品种的筛选与鉴定[J]. 大豆科学, 2015, 34(2): 191-198. |
18 | 赵银月, 黄国贤, 詹和明, 等. 云南省适宜与玉米间作大豆品种的筛选与鉴定[J]. 大豆科学, 2018, 37(1): 75-80. |
19 | 罗健, 鲁有均, 唐永金. 间作对大豆主要经济性状的影响及适宜品种筛选[J]. 作物杂志, 2010(6): 109-111. |
20 | 李金霞, 章建新, 朱昱. 不同熟期大豆品种花荚形成及垂直分布比较[J]. 新疆农垦科技, 2013, 36(9): 5-6. |
21 | 金剑, 刘晓冰, 王光华, 等. 不同熟期及产量类型的大豆生殖生长期生理特性的比较研究[J]. 作物学报, 2004, 30(12): 1225-1231. |
22 | Fehr WR, Caviness C E. Stages of soybean development[R]. Special report 80, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, 1997. |
23 | 王艺陶, 周宇飞, 李丰先, 等. 基于主成分和SOM聚类分析的高粱品种萌发期抗旱性鉴定与分类[J]. 作物学报, 2014, 40(1): 110-121. |
24 | 蔡昆争,骆世明.不同生育期遮光对水稻的生长发育及产量形成的影响[J].应用生态学报,1999,(2):193–196. |
25 |
刘贤赵, 康绍忠. 番茄不同生育阶段遮荫对光合作用与产量的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2002, 29(5): 427-432. DOI:10.3321/j.issn: 0513-353X.2002.05.006.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn: 0513-353X.2002.05.006 |
26 | 董钻. 大豆产量生理[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000. |
27 |
李初英, 孙祖东, 陈怀珠, 等. 不同遮光胁迫对大豆生长发育进程及形态性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2006, 22(9): 170-173. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2006.09.041.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6850.2006.09.041 |
28 |
黄其椿, 李初英, 吴建明, 等. 不同遮光处理对菜用大豆产量的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2012, 31(1): 81-84,91. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-9841.2012.01.018.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9841.2012.01.018 |
29 |
赵明, 李建国, 张宾, 等. 论作物高产挖潜的补偿机制[J]. 作物学报, 2006, 32(10): 1566-1573. DOI:10.3321/j.issn: 0496-3490.2006.10.023.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn: 0496-3490.2006.10.023 |
30 | Zhang L, van der werf W, Bastiaans L, et al. Light interception and utilization in relay intercrops of wheat and cotton[J]. Field Crop Res, 2007, 107(1): 29-42. |
31 | 杨峰, 崔亮, 武晓玲, 等. 不同空间配置套作大豆后期农学参数及光谱特征分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2012, 34(3): 268-272. |
32 | 王一, 杨文钰, 张霞, 等. 不同生育时期遮阴对大豆形态性状和产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2013, 39(10): 1871-1879. |
33 | 梁建秋, 于晓波, 吴海英, 等. 密度及烯效唑喷施对套作大豆南夏豆25抗倒性及产量的影响[J]. 大豆科学, 2017, 36(1): 33-40. |
34 | 黄中文, 王伟, 徐新娟, 等. 大豆动态株高及其生长速率与产量的相关分析[J]. 河南科技学院学报, 2010(2): 16-19. |
35 | 吴雨珊, 龚万灼, 谭千军, 等. 套作大豆农艺性状与产量的关系研究[J]. 大豆科学, 2015, 34(3): 394-401. |
36 | 刘卫国, 邹俊林, 袁晋, 等. 套作大豆农艺性状研究[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2014, 36(2): 219-223. |
37 | 裴占江, 李淑芹, 佟玉新, 等. 大豆生育期农艺性状与产量相关性研究[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2007, 38(3): 299-303. |
38 |
郎有忠, 窦永秀, 王美娥, 等. 水稻生育期对籽粒产量及品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2012, 38(3): 528-534. DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2012.00528.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2012.00528 |
[1] | Yang ZHOU, Xiao-feng YUE, Xiao-qian TANG, Hong-lin YAN, Qi ZHANG, Pei-wu LI. A preliminary study on the coupling effect of aflatoxin green control and super-nodulation [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 947-960. |
[2] | Wei-ming ZENG, Yan-zhu SU, Zhen-guang LAI, Shou-zhen YANG, Huai-zhu CHEN, Yu-rong TAN, Zu-dong SUN, Jun-yi GAI. Identification of candidate gene controlling shade-tolerant by BSA-Seq in soybean [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 1006-1015. |
[3] | Yi-qiang HAN, Ya-mei GAO, Yan-li DU, Yu-xian ZHANG, Ji-dao DU, Wen-hui ZHANG, Shao-yu PAN. Identification of saline-alkali tolerant germplasm resources of soybean during the whole growth stage [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 1016-1024. |
[4] | Kang CHEN. Effect of density and nitrogen fertilizer on SPAD, plant and pod yield characteristics under single seed planting in peanut [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 1070-1076. |
[5] | Peng ZHONG, Li-li MIAO, Jie LIU, Jian-li WANG, Hai-yan LU, Hong-jiu YU, Nan ZHANG. Effects of densities and planting mode on photosynthetic characteristics and yield of Cyperus esculentus during tuber growth stage [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 1099-1107. |
[6] | Yu DUAN, Xia FAN, Hao AN, Jun ZHANG, Jun-mei LIANG, Ting-ting ZHANG, Yu-peng JING, Bo WANG. Effect study on sunflower nutrient expert system for fertilization recommendation [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 1108-1114. |
[7] | Ju-xiang WU, Man-lin XU, Xia ZHANG, Jing YU, Zhi-qing GUO, Ying LI, Xin-ying SONG, Kang HE, Xin-guo LI, Ru-jun ZHOU, Yu-cheng CHI, Shu-bo WAN. Evaluation of resistance of Shandong peanut varieties to Sphaceloma arachidis [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 1126-1131. |
[8] | Ji-liang WANG, Chun-mei ZONG, De-liang WANG, Yan-ping WANG, Hong-xin JIANG, Dan-xia YANG, Meng-meng FU, Lei WANG, Hai-xiang REN, Tuan-jie ZHAO, Wei-guang DU, Jun-yi GAI. Identification, evaluation and improvement utilization of northeast China Soybean Germplasm Population in Jiamusi [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 996-1005. |
[9] | YANG Yong-qing, CHEN Sheng-nan, LI Xin-xin, ZHAO Qing-song, FU Ya-shu, YANG Chun-Yan, ZHANG Meng-chen, LIAO Hong. Genetic analysis and QTL mapping of soybean leaf shape under rhizobia inoculated environment [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(5): 825-. |
[10] | ZHANG Yao, GE Jun-zhu, ZHOU Guang-sheng, YANG Yong-an, HOU Hai-peng, WU Xi-dong, WANG Jin-long, LIANG Qian, MA Zhi-qi. Effects of sowing date on forage yield and quality of forage rape [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(5): 851-. |
[11] | XU Ying, YU Zhen-hua, LI Yan-sheng, JIN Jian, WANG Guang-hua, LIU Xiao-bing. Impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on carbohydrate accumulation in different organs of soybean plant [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(5): 859-. |
[12] | WANG Hua-mei, REN Chun-yuan, JIN Xi-jun, WANG Xue-meng, CAO Liang, ZHANG Ming-cong, ZHAO Qiang, YU Gao-bo, ZHANG Yu-xian . Effects of exogenous melatonin on nitrogen metabolism and growth of soybean under high nitrogen [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(5): 872-. |
[13] | LIU Na, XIE Chang, GAO Shi-jie, YAO Rui, SONG Hai-ling, YU Hai-qiu, WANG Jing, JIANG Chun-ji, ZHAO Xin-hua, WANG Xiao-guang . Effect of different potassium levels on the photosynthetic characteristics and yield of peanut [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(5): 883-. |
[14] | QIN Wen-jie, GUO Run-ze, ZOU Xiao-xia, ZHANG Xiao-jun, YU Xiao-na, WANG Yue-fu, SI Tong. Effects of fertilizer topdressing on growth and yield of peanut with drip irrigation under film [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(5): 891-. |
[15] | JIN Xin-xin, SONG Ya-hui, WANG Jin, CHENG Zeng-shu, LI Yu-rong, CHEN Si-long. Effects of sowing dates on agronomic traits, yield, and quality of peanut [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(5): 898-. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||