王婷婷^1,,
张晓东¹,
鲁雪林¹,
张国新¹,
董梅英²,
王秀萍^1,,
1.河北省农林科学院滨海农业研究所/唐山市植物耐盐研究重点实验室/河北省盐碱地绿化工程技术研究中心 唐山 063299
2.怀来县农牧局 怀来 075400
基金项目: 河北省科技计划项目152776122D
河北省财政专项F14C16004


详细信息

作者简介:王婷婷, 主要研究方向为耐盐作物新品种选育。E-mail: bhswtt0615@163.com

通讯作者:王秀萍, 主要研究方向为滨海盐碱地改良与农业利用。E-mail: bhswxp@163.com

中图分类号:S565.5

计量

文章访问数:651
HTML全文浏览量:0
PDF下载量:862
被引次数:0

出版历程

收稿日期:2017-08-14
录用日期:2017-11-06
刊出日期:2018-05-01

Comprehensive analysis of oil sunflower traits in salinized coastal soils in Hebei Province

WANG Tingting^1,,
ZHANG Xiaodong¹,
LU Xuelin¹,
ZHANG Guoxin¹,
DONG Meiying²,
WANG Xiuping^1,,
1. Coastal Agricultural Institute, Hebei Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences/Tangshan Key Laboratory of Plant Salt Tolerance Research/Hebei Province Saline-alkali Afforestation Engineering Technology Research Center, Tangshan 063299, China
2. Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Bureau of Huailai County, Huailai 075400, China
Funds: the Technologies Program of Hebei Province152776122D
the Financial Special Project of Hebei ProvinceF14C16004


More Information

Corresponding author:Wang Xiuping, E-mail: bhswxp@163.com

摘要
HTML全文
图(1)表(8)
参考文献(26)
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件(0)
访问统计

摘要
摘要:盐渍逆境胁迫是影响盐渍土地区油葵产量和品质的主要自然环境因素，培育耐盐优质油葵品种是盐渍土油葵育种的主要任务之一。本文采用防雨棚盐碱原土鉴定法，研究土壤含盐量为6 g·kg^-1下9份油葵品种苗期株高、叶面积、生物量、出苗率和出苗指数的影响，并通过隶属函数法进行苗期耐盐性初步鉴定，了解不同品种苗期耐盐性能力差异；之后在滨海盐渍化土壤大田条件下观测生育期、植株形态、产量、籽粒品质等10个农艺性状，并进行相关性分析、主成分分析和聚类分析，为滨海盐渍土地区油葵耐盐种质资源的挖掘和遗传育种提供参考。结果表明，在6 g·kg^-1盐碱原土处理下，不同油葵品种的各测定指标与对照（1 g·kg^-1左右的中壤耕层土）相比均呈现下降趋势，但不同品种的变化率有显著差异，说明油葵品种对盐分的耐受能力差异较大。通过模糊数学隶属函数法对不同油葵品种进行耐盐性排序，‘T562’、‘滨葵1号’的耐盐性最好，‘先瑞1号’的耐盐能力最弱。在田间盐渍土地区，油葵农艺性状表现各异，各性状至少与2个其他性状呈显著或极显著相关。生育期与产量构成因子呈极显著负相关，表明油葵在盐渍土环境下生长时间越长受害就越严重，越不利于油葵产量提高。根据各农艺性状的表现将滨海盐渍土种植的油葵品种进行系统聚类分析，按成熟期、产量、品质综合分为高油中产晚熟品种、早熟中产低油品种和高产中熟中等含油量品种3个类群。主成分分析将不同品种农艺性状分成3个主成分，可将其归纳为生育期和形态因子、产量因子和籽粒品质因子，其总变异累积贡献率达69%。对不同油葵品种的综合表现进行加权求和，‘滨葵1号’排名第1。结合苗期耐盐性鉴定结果综合分析认为，‘滨葵1号’和‘T562’可以作为优质品种在滨海盐渍土地区栽培及油葵耐盐育种中加以利用。
关键词:滨海盐渍土/
油葵/
苗期/
耐盐性/
农艺性状/
种质资源
Abstract:Because of soil salinization, economic benefits of agricultural lands are low in saline coastal soils. It is therefore important to improve agricultural productivity of saline coastal soils. Though oil sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) has long been considered as economic oil crop with considerable tolerance to saline-alkaline soils, salinization-driven abiotic stress is a major natural environmental factor that adversely affects oil sunflower production and quality in saline coastal soils. To select salt tolerant oil sunflower variety with optimal traits, and provide reference for salt-tolerant germplasm resources and genetic breeding of oil sunflower, we conducted a controlled chamber test for evaluation of salt tolerance at seedling stage, and a field test for comprehensive assessment of agronomic traits of oil sunflower. In the chamber test, 9 oil sunflower accessions were cultivated in saline-alkali soil and loamy soil. The saline-alkali soil was coastal saline soil with 6 g·kg^-1 salt content adjusted by using weighting method. The loamy soil was a tillage layer of farmland with salt content of 1 g·kg^-1, used as the control. The emergence rate and index were analyzed every 3 days after sowing, and plant height, leaf area, biomass weight of oil sunflower seedlings were measured after 20 days of sowing. In the field experiment, 9 oil sunflower accessions were planted in coastal saline soil with > 4 g·kg^-1 salt content. Growth stage, growth and fruit traits were investigated. Salt tolerance of different oil sunflower accessions was evaluated using the fuzzy membership function. Correlation analysis, principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to explore properties of accessions and select suitable accessions for coastal saline soil cultivation. The results showed that while the investigated indexes of seedlings of 9 oil sunflower accessions decreased under 6 g·kg^-1 salt content soil, change degrees of 9 oil sunflower accessions were different. The fuzzy membership function analysis of salt tolerance of 9 oil sunflower accessions showed that 'Binkui 1' and 'T562' were strongly tolerant to salt stress, 'Xianrui 1' was the most sensitive to salt stress. The field experiment results showed that one trait was correlated (or extremely correlated) with at least two other traits. Growth period was extremely negatively correlated with production factors, indicating that suffering severe saline environments longer induced lower oil sunflower yield. Cluster analysis of agronomic traits divided 9 oil sunflower accessions into 3 groups. Group Ⅰ included 5 accessions which were high in oil content with medium yield and late maturity. Group Ⅱ included 3 accessions which were early maturing with medium yield and low oil content. Group Ⅲ included 1 accession with high yield, medium maturity and medium oil content. Principal component analysis showed that the three eigenvalues of cumulative variance proportions was 69%, which were growth period, yield factors and quality factors. The comprehensive score of 'Binkui 1' was highest in 9 oil sunflower accessions. Combined with the results of salt tolerance at seedling stage, comprehensive analysis suggested that 'Binkui 1' and 'T562' were excellent varieties of oil sunflower for salt tolerance breeding and cultivation in saline coastal soils.
Key words:Saline coastal soil/
Oil sunflower/
Seedling stage/
Salt tolerance/
Agronomic traits/
Germplasm resource

HTML全文


图1在滨海盐渍土田间栽培的9个油葵品种主要农艺性状间的聚类分析图
Figure1.Clustering analysis diagram of agronomic traits of 9 oil sunflower varieties field-planted in coastal saline-alkali soil


下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表1试验用油葵品种编号和来源
Table1.Codes and origins of the tested oil sunflower varieties

序号No.	品种Variety	来源Origin
1	T562	北京凯福瑞科技股份有限公司?Beijing KAFRY Technology CO., LTD.
2	S606	北京凯福瑞科技股份有限公司?Beijing KAFRY Technology CO., LTD.
3	先瑞1号Xianrui 1	酒泉市同庆种业有限责任公司?Jiuquan Tongqing Seed Industry CO., LTD
4	同庆1号Tongqing 1	酒泉市同庆种业有限责任公司?Jiuquan Tongqing Seed Industry CO., LTD
5	NWS101	侯马市农娃娃种业有限公司?Houma Nongwawa Seed Industry CO., LTD
6	NWS563	侯马市农娃娃种业有限公司?Houma Nongwawa Seed Industry CO., LTD
7	NWS529	侯马市农娃娃种业有限公司?Houma Nongwawa Seed Industry CO., LTD
8	滨葵1号Binkui 1	河北省农林科学院滨海农业研究所 Coastal Agricultural Institute, Hebei Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences
9	矮大头9650 Aidatou 9650	唐山市农业科学院种子市场 Seed Market of Tangshan Academy of Agricultural Sciences

下载: 导出CSV
表2盐胁迫对不同油葵品种苗期生长指标的影响
Table2.Effects of saline stress on growing indexes of different oil sunflower varieties at seedling stage

品种 序号 No. of variety	出苗率 Emergence rate (%)		变化率 Change rate(%)	出苗指数 Emergence index		变化率 Change rate(%)	株高 Plant height (cm)		变化率 Change rate (%)	叶面积 Leaf area (cm2)		变化率 Change rate (%)	生物量 Biomass (g)		变化率 Change rate (%)
	CK	T		CK	T		CK	T		CK	T		CK	T
1	70.2	49.1	30.06	1.11	0.8	27.93	18.11±3.41	15.92±2.64	12.09	41.95±3.46	22.91±1.64	45.39	0.32±0.10	0.21±0.05	34.38
2	84.4	44.4	47.39	1.98	0.76	61.62	18.56±2.89	11.75±1.01	36.69	26.62±2.09	11.52±1.09	56.72	0.32±0.08	0.18±0.04	43.75
3	72.2	41.7	42.24	1.73	0.71	58.96	15.32±3.09	11.44±2.08	25.33	36.47±3.09	15.15±2.04	58.46	0.25±0.07	0.10±0.02	60.00
4	75.0	47.8	36.27	1.80	0.45	75.00	19.34±1.01	13.01±1.00	32.73	40.55±2.01	20.34±1.08	49.84	0.42±0.04	0.18±0.02	57.14
5	72.2	37.8	47.65	1.71	0.53	69.01	19.01±0.64	11.43±2.12	39.87	42.57±4.64	14.43±2.21	66.10	0.40±0.04	0.13±0.01	67.50
6	75.0	50.0	33.33	1.76	0.65	63.07	13.13±1.41	11.55±2.26	12.03	31.94±3.21	17.79±2.06	44.30	0.24±0.07	0.11±0.03	54.17
7	77.8	43.9	43.573	1.71	0.23	86.55	19.48±0.64	12.28±2.10	36.96	40.73±3.64	24.95±2.10	38.74	0.39±0.06	0.13±0.03	66.67
8	69.4	46.1	33.57	1.53	0.62	59.48	18.14±2.47	14.87±2.46	18.03	28.64±2.07	21.32±2.23	25.51	0.27±0.09	0.14±0.01	48.15
9	73.53	44.1	40.02	1.57	0.49	68.79	16.61±2.01	11.24±1.19	32.33	34.14±2.85	16.51±1.57	51.64	0.29±0.05	0.15±0.02	48.28
CK:含盐量为1g·kg-1的中壤耕层土；T:含盐量为6g·kg-1的盐碱土。CK: loamytillage soil with1g·kg-1salt content; T:saline-alkali soil with 6 g·kg-1 salt content。

下载: 导出CSV
表3盐胁迫对油葵幼苗生长指标的隶属值
Table3.Subordinate function value of growth parameters of oil sunflower seedlings under saline stress

品种序号 No. of variety	出苗率 Emergence rate	出苗指数 Emergence index	株高 Plant height	叶面积 Leaf area	地上干重 Shoot dry weight	隶属函数值 Subordinative function value	耐盐顺序 Salt tolerance order
1	1.00	0.86	0.60	1.00	0.63	0.86	1
2	0.00	0.53	0.36	0.04	0.58	0.28	8
3	0.37	0.00	0.81	0.00	0.11	0.18	9
4	0.66	0.71	0.11	0.36	0.00	0.42	4
5	0.43	0.09	0.35	0.38	0.29	0.35	7
6	0.25	0.39	1.00	0.61	1.00	0.65	3
7	0.96	0.56	0.00	0.14	0.11	0.40	5
8	0.85	1.00	0.74	0.72	0.55	0.68	2
9	0.25	0.72	0.41	0.28	0.01	0.37	6

下载: 导出CSV
表4滨海盐碱地田间栽培的油葵品种主要农艺性状统计
Table4.Statistic summary of agronomic traits of oil sunflower varieties field-planted in coastal saline-alkali soil

	生育期 Growth period (d)	株高 Plant height (cm)	茎粗 Stem diameter (cm)	叶片数 Leaf number	花盘直径 Diameter of flower dish (cm)	百粒重 100-seed weight (g)	百仁重 100-kernel weight (g)	皮壳率 Shell rate (%)	籽实含油率 Seed oil content(%)	籽仁含油率 Kernel oil content (%)
最大值 Maximum	95.00	205.00	3.90	34.00	29.00	9.54	7.11	37.63	49.58	58.72
最小值 Minimum	82.00	87.00	1.60	13.00	15.00	5.57	4.36	20.73	32.78	45.94
均值 Average	88.70	149.15	2.86	24.52	22.82	6.87	5.20	28.49	40.07	54.69
变幅 Amplitude of variation	13.00	118.00	2.30	21.00	14.00	3.97	2.75	16.90	16.80	12.78
变异系数 Coefficient of variation (%)	4.48	17.78	16.08	17.51	11.27	14.47	12.34	12.76	7.53	4.90

下载: 导出CSV
表5滨海盐渍土田间栽培的不同油葵品种的农艺性状表现
Table5.Agronomic traits of different oil sunflower varieties field-planted in coastal saline-alkali soil

品种 序号 No. of variety	生育期 Growth period (d)	株高 Plant height (cm)	茎粗 Stem diameter (cm)	叶片数 Leaf number	花盘直径 Diameter of flower dish (cm)	百粒重 100-seed weight (g)	百仁重 100-kernel weight (g)	皮壳率 Shell rate (%)	籽实含油率 Seed oil content (%)	籽仁含油率 Kernel oil content (%)
1	88.01±0.46e	1.50±0.10c	2.83±0.25b	28.31±1.62a	25.76±1.34a	9.28±0.24a	6.75±0.15a	28.33±1.01c	40.89±0.87b	56.05±0.45b
2	90.06±0.95d	1.50±0.10c	2.59±0.41c	29.73±2.87a	22.13±2.62b	7.04±0.32e	5.16±0.23c	24.91±1.59f	41.65±0.79a	56.12±1.00b
3	91.99±0.88c	1.70±0.19a	2.72±0.35b	25.84±1.78c	22.16±3.91b	6.66±0.37f	4.86±0.29d	27.77±1.14d	40.88±1.55b	57.74±0.55a
4	82.11±0.86h	1.24±0.18d	2.20±0.30d	20.42±2.29e	21.48±2.37d	7.65±0.19c	5.51±0.17b	28.01±0.79d	39.82±1.09c	57.29±0.57a
5	88.03±0.54e	1.82±0.22a	3.21±0.32a	25.86±3.12c	23.04±2.05b	6.46±0.18f	4.77±0.16e	26.25±0.51e	40.34±1.03b	54.12±0.92c
6	84.22±0.55g	1.30±0.17d	2.62±0.29c	21.14±3.33d	23.33±1.85b	8.02±0.22b	5.42±0.13b	32.13±2.27b	41.46±5.08a	49.21±2.36e
7	87.01±0.44f	1.69±0.19ab	3.17±0.43a	23.62±3.29c	23.26±1.94b	7.27±0.23d	4.76±0.18e	35.45±1.55a	33.77±0.65d	52.91±0.97d
8	95.03±0.48a	1.66±0.13b	3.19±0.28a	27.61±1.85b	22.61±2.15b	6.86±0.18e	4.91±0.1d	28.74±0.86c	40.15±0.73c	54.50±0.51c
9	93.13±0.49b	1.30±0.09d	2.90±0.25b	23.28±2.14d	21.63±1.56c	5.87±0.55h	4.72±0.15e	24.81±3.08f	41.64±0.45a	54.30±0.91c
同列不同字母表示0.05水平差异显著。Different letters in the same column represent significant differences among varieties at 0.05 level.

下载: 导出CSV
表6滨海盐渍土田间栽培的油葵品种主要农艺性状相关系数
Table6.Correlation coefficients between agronomic traits of oil sunflower varieties field-planted in coastal saline-alkali soil

	生育期 Growth period	株高 Plant height	茎粗 Stem diameter	叶片数 Leaf number	花盘直径 Diameter of flower dish	百粒重 100-seed weight	百仁重 100-kernel weight	皮壳率 Shell rate	籽实含油率 Seed oil content	籽仁含油率 Kernel oil content
生育期 Growth period	1.00
株高 Plant height	0.31**	1.00
茎粗 Stem diameter	0.43**	0.55**	1.00
叶片数 Leaf number	0.35**	0.35**	0.31**	1.00
花盘直径 Diameter of flower dish	-0.06	0.01	0.20*	0.22*	1.00
百粒重 100-seed weight	-0.51**	-0.18	0.04	-0.22*	0.36**	1.00
百仁重 100-kernel weight	-0.36**	-0.24*	0.12	-0.26*	0.34**	0.88**	1.00
皮壳率 Shell rate	-0.35**	0.11	-0.26*	0.17	0.13	0.25*	0.02	1.00
籽实含油率 Seed oil content	0.16	-0.2	0.2	-0.19	0.02	-0.02	0.21*	-0.50**	1.00
籽仁含油率 Kernel oil content	0.21	0.11	0.34**	-0.13	-0.09	-0.06	0.12	-0.42**	0.15	1.00
*和**表示相关性在P < 0.05和P < 0.01显著。* and ** indicate significant correlation at 0.05 and 0.01 levels (2-tailed), respectively.

下载: 导出CSV
表7在滨海盐渍土田间栽培的9个油葵品种10个农艺性状的特征根与特征向量
Table7.Eigenvalue and eigenvector of 10 agronomic traits of 9 oil sunflower varieties field-planted in coastal saline-alkali soil

特征根与特征向量?Eigenvalue and eigenvector
	λ1	λ2	λ3
	2.79	2.11	1.99
累计贡献率 Cumulative contribution rate (%)	27.92	49.04	68.95
生育期Growth period	0.58	-0.43	0.42
株高Plant height	0.76	-0.11	-0.10
茎粗Stem diameter	0.75	0.24	0.46
叶片数 Leaf number	0.81	-0.10	-0.23
花盘直径 Diameter of flower dish	0.39	0.63	-0.07
百粒重 100-seed weight	-0.19	0.92	-0.11
百仁重 100-kernel weight	0.06	0.19	-0.85
皮壳率 Shell rate	-0.20	0.90	0.18
籽实含油率 Seed oil content	-0.15	0.10	0.71
籽仁含油率 Kernel oil content	0.10	0.02	0.65

下载: 导出CSV
表8在滨海盐渍土田间栽培的9个油葵品种综合主成分值
Table8.Comprehensive principal component values of 9 oil sunflower varieties field-planted in coastal saline-alkali soil

品种序号 No. of variety	Z1	Z2	Z3	Z	排名 Ranking
1	2.38	-2.10	1.30	0.48	4
2	0.17	-0.15	0.99	0.21	5
3	0.50	-0.44	5.08	1.06	2
4	-1.36	1.20	-15.01	-3.12	8
5	0.00	0.00	4.33	0.86	3
6	-0.86	0.76	-18.90	-3.85	9
7	-0.20	0.18	-4.01	-0.82	6
8	0.96	-0.85	24.20	4.91	1
9	-1.04	0.92	-10.51	-2.19	7

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(26)

[1]	刘小京, 刘孟雨.盐生植物利用与区域农业可持续发展[M].北京:气象出版社, 2002:1-19 LIU X J, LIU M Y. Halophyte Utilization and Regional Sustainable Development of Agriculture[M]. Beijing:China Meteorological Press, 2002:1-19
[2]	杨劲松.中国盐渍土研究的发展历程与展望[J].土壤学报, 2008, 45(5):837-845 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=trxb200805010 YANG J S. Development and prospect of the research on salt-affected soils in China[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2008, 45(5):837-845 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=trxb200805010
[3]	SCHNEITER A A. Sunflower Technology and Production[M]. Madison, Wisconsin, USA:Soil Science Society of America, 1997
[4]	DE LA VEGA A J, DELACY I H, CHAPMAN S C. Progress over 20 years of sunflower breeding in central Argentina[J]. Field Crops Research, 2007, 100(1):61-72 doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2006.05.012
[5]	刘宫社, 阿兰·博让, 彭克敬, 等.向日葵研究与开发[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社, 1994 LIU G S, ALAN B R, PENG K J, et al. Research and Development of the Sunflower[M]. Beijing:China Science and Technology Press, 1994
[6]	雷中华, 向理军, 石必显.向日葵9个主要性状之间的相互关系分析[J].新疆农业科学, 2006, 43(S1):31-33 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/96538X/2006B06/21940691.html LEI Z H, XIANG L J, SHI B X. Study on correlation of several main characters of sunflower[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2006, 43(S1):31-33 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/96538X/2006B06/21940691.html
[7]	LUAN Z H, XIAO M X, ZHOU D W, et al. Effects of salinity, temperature, and polyethylene glycol on the seed germination of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)[J]. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 2014:170418 http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25610896
[8]	遆晋松, 童文杰, 周媛媛, 等.河套灌区向日葵耐盐指标评价[J].中国生态农业学报, 2014, 22(2):177-184 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2014208&flag=1 TI J S, TONG W J, ZHOU Y Y, et al. Evaluation of salinity tolerance index of sunflower in Hetao Irrigation District[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2014, 22(2):177-184 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2014208&flag=1
[9]	郭园, 张玉霞, 于华荣, 等. 13个油葵品种苗期生长、生理指标比较及抗盐碱性分析[J].东北农业科学, 2016, 41(4):32-36 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=jlnk201604010&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ GUO Y, ZHANG Y X, YU H R, et al. Analysis of saline resistance and comparison of growth and physiological indicators of 13 oil-sunflower varieties at seeding period[J]. Journal of Northeast Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 41(4):32-36 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=jlnk201604010&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ
[10]	陈炳东, 岳云, 黄高宝, 等.油葵含油率及脂肪酸组成与土壤盐含量的关系[J].中国油料作物学报, 2007, 29(4):483-486 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zgylzwxb200704025 CHEN B D, YUE Y, HUANG G B, et al. The relationship between oil content of Helianthus annuus L. and salt concentration in soil[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2007, 29(4):483-486 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zgylzwxb200704025
[11]	马荣, 王成, 马庆, 等.向日葵芽苗期离子对复合盐胁迫的响应[J].中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(5):720-729 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20170510&flag=1 MA R, WANG C, MA Q, et al. Ion response of sunflower at sprouting stage to mixed salt stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2017, 25(5):720-729 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20170510&flag=1
[12]	张俊莲, 张国斌, 王蒂.向日葵耐盐性比较及耐盐生理指标选择[J].中国油料作物学报, 2006, 28(2):176-179 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zgylzwxb200602014 ZHANG J L, ZHANG G B, WANG D. Comparison and physiological index selection of salt tolerance on sunflower[J]. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences, 2006, 28(2):176-179 http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zgylzwxb200602014
[13]	孙志超, 邢跃先, 夏远锋, 等.玉米杂交种几个农艺性状的主成分分析[J].农业与技术, 2014, 34(8):129-130 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NYYS201408118.htm SUN Z C, XING Y X, XIA Y F, et al. Principal component analysis on agronomic traits of maize hybrid[J]. Agriculture and Technology, 2014, 34(8):129-130 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NYYS201408118.htm
[14]	梁万鹏, 徐振飞, 赫春杰, 等.应用聚类分析和主成分分析法评价饲用高粱生产性能[J].现代农业科技, 2015, (8):277-278 http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_ahny201508177.aspx LIANG W P, XU Z F, HE C J, et al. Evaluation of forage sorghum production performance using cluster analysis and principal component analysis methods[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2015, (8):277-278 http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical_ahny201508177.aspx
[15]	王军, 王溯, 王军强, 等.花生品种主要农艺性状的主成分分析[J].农业科技通讯, 2015, (4):103-106 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-KJTX201504035.htm WANG J, WANG S, WANG J Q, et al. Principal component analysis on agronomic traits of peanut varieties[J]. Agricultural Science and Technology Communication, 2015, (4):103-106 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-KJTX201504035.htm
[16]	朱新明, 常国军, 何丹, 等.应用聚类分析和主成分分析法评价洋葱新品种[J].甘肃农业科技, 2014, (10):25-28 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1463.2014.10.010 ZHU X M, CHANG G J, HE D, et al. Evaluation of new onion varieties using cluster analysis and principal component analysis methods[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2014, (10):25-28 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1463.2014.10.010
[17]	田智得, 朱方容, 林强. 175份桑树种质资源的结实性农艺性状主成分与聚类分析[J].蚕业科学, 2010, 36(1):1-11 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93797X/201001/33006097.html TIAN Z D, ZHU F R, LIN Q. Principal component and cluster analyses on agronomic traits of fruiting of 175 mulberry germplasm resources[J]. Science of Sericulture, 2010, 36(1):1-11 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93797X/201001/33006097.html
[18]	向长萍, 谢军, 聂启军, 等. 23个苦瓜品种(系)农艺性状的主成分分析[J].华中农业大学学报, 2001, 20(4):378-381 XIANG C P, XIE J, NIE Q J, et al. Principal component analysis on characters of balsam pear[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2001, 20(4):378-381
[19]	陈德明, 俞仁培, 杨劲松.盐渍条件下小麦抗盐性的隶属函数值法评价[J].土壤学报, 2002, 39(3):368-374 doi: 10.11766/trxb200101260311 CHEN D M, YU R P, YANG J S. Evaluation of salt resistance of wheat with subordinate function value method[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2002, 39(3):368-374 doi: 10.11766/trxb200101260311
[20]	杜强, 贾丽艳. SPSS统计分析从入门到精通[M].北京:人民邮电出版社, 2013:248-260 DU Q, JIA L Y. SPSS Statistic Analysis from Entry to Master[M]. Beijing:Posts and Telecommunications Press, 2013:248-260
[21]	KATERJI N, VAN HOORN J W, HAMDY A, et al. Salt tolerance classification of crops according to soil salinity and to water stress day index[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2000, 43(1):99-109 doi: 10.1016/S0378-3774(99)00048-7
[22]	KATERJI N, VAN HOORN J W, HAMDY A, et al. Salt tolerance of crops according to three classification methods and examination of some hypothesis about salt tolerance[J]. Agricultural Water Management, 2001, 47(1):1-8 doi: 10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00099-8
[23]	REYNOLDS M, FOULKES J, FURBANK R, et al. Achieving yield gains in wheat[J]. Plant, Cell & Environment, 2012, 35(10):1799-1823 http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22860982
[24]	MENCUCCINI M, MINUNNO F, SALMON Y, et al. Coordination of physiological traits involved in drought-induced mortality of woody plants[J]. New Phytologist, 2015, 208(2):396-409 doi: 10.1111/nph.2015.208.issue-2
[25]	REYNOLDS M, FOULKES M J, SLAFER G A, et al. Raising yield potential in wheat[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2009, 60(7):1899-1918 doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp016
[26]	LI M H, XIAO W F, SHI P L, et al. Nitrogen and carbon source-sink relationships in trees at the Himalayan treelines compared with lower elevations[J]. Plant, Cell & Environment, 2008, 31(10):1377-1387 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01848.x/full