一年生野生大豆的饲草生产性能及栽培利用技术研究
|
摘要
一年生野生大豆(Glycine soja Sieb.et Zucc.)为豆科草本植物,在中国、朝鲜、日本和俄罗斯远东地区有广泛分布,其中中国一年生野生大豆资源最为丰富,占世界总数的90%以上。一年生野生大豆是栽培大豆(Glycine max(L.)Merr.)的祖先种,具有适应性广,生态类型多,种子蛋白含量高,抗逆性强的特点,是优质高产栽培大豆育种中重要的遗传资源,正越来越被关注和重视。栽培大豆作为一年生野生大豆后代,用于饲草生产已有很长的历史,但对一年生野生大豆饲草生产性能和用于饲草进行栽培利用的研究国内外至今尚未见报道。为深入了解一年生野生大豆的生长发育规律和饲草生产性能,为一年生野生大豆资源饲草性开发和利用提供参考依据,本试验研究了栽培条件下一年生野生大豆饲草生产性能和栽培措施对饲草生产性能的影响,结果表明:
一年生野生大豆具有良好的环境适应性和生长发育的可塑性。不同生态型一年生野生大豆间形态性状、饲草产量和营养价值的差异,主要与原产地生长环境类型有关。供试的8个生态型按生长习性、茎叶比等可以分为4大类型,原产地生长环境类型Ⅱ型中的生态型的全株、叶片、茎和荚的产量以及全株相蛋白含量均显著高于其它原产地生长环境类型(Ⅰ型、Ⅲ型和Ⅳ型)中的生态型,而NDF和ADF含量低于其它生态型.一年生野生大豆的形态性状影响饲草产量和质量,叶片多的生态型饲草产量和粗蛋白含量均高于叶片少的生态型;叶片长的生态型ADF含量较高;茎节数多和节间长度长的生态型NDF含量较高。
供试一年生野生大豆8个生态型均有较好饲草生产性能,干物质产量为2.2-4.1t/hm~2;不同时间种植的一年生野生大豆生态型平均粗蛋白含量为137.1g kg~(-1),相对饲料价(RFV)平均值为147。种植时间对一年生野生大豆的生长发育影响显著。推迟种植,各生态型一年生野生大豆的出苗时间均缩短,单位面积苗株数增多,营养生长期和全生育期均延长。不同生态型一年生野生大豆生长发育随环境温热变化的趋势相似,营养生长期的生长发育速率与生长积温(GDD)存在极显著的线性关系。
温度变化对一年生野生大豆和栽培大豆的生长发育均有影响,一年生野生大豆和栽培大豆的叶片数均与GDD呈显著线性关系。一年生野生大豆和栽培大豆出叶速率差异显著,栽培大豆出叶速率显著高于一年生野生大豆;栽培大豆达到30片叶所需的GDD显著低于一年生野生大豆;种植时间由4月推迟至6月,一年生野生大豆出叶速率提高,栽培大豆出叶速率则减缓。
一年生野生大豆比栽培大豆晚熟,茎长度比栽培大豆长73cm,叶片、茎和全株饲草产量比栽培大豆分别高54.3%,86.1%和22.6%,但栽培大豆荚产量是一年生野生大豆的6.4倍.试验中栽培大豆的生育期、形态性状和干物质积累无品种间差异,但一年生野生大豆不同生态型间的生育期、形态性状和物质积累差异显著,引自低纬度地区的生态型FJW-9不仅成熟晚,而且全株、叶片和茎的产量均显著高于引自高纬度地区的生态型HWL-18和当地生态型SDW-12;但FJW-9的荚产量低于HWL-18和SDW-12并且更易倒伏.
一年生野生大豆产草量随收获时间的变化,可用相应的回归方程估算,一年生野生大豆最高草产量的收获时间为种植后的145d至155d;一年生野生大豆CP含量第二个峰值出现在播种后的150d至155d;收获时间推迟,一年生野生大豆叶片重提高;晚收获的叶片重是早收获的16倍以上;落叶增多会降低一年生野生大豆饲草产量.
不同收获时期栽培大豆全株产量显著高于一年生野生大豆,盛花期、结荚期和成熟期分别高55.7%,36.4%和34.6%;盛花期,栽培大豆的叶茎产量比一年生野生大豆高20.4%,但结荚期和成熟期,则比一年生野生大豆分别低52.9%和78.1%;一年生野生大豆全株IVDMD高于栽培大豆,但CP含量却低于栽培大豆;一年生野生大豆叶片和茎的IVDMD和CP含量均显著高于栽培大豆;一年生野生大豆全株、叶片和茎的NDF和ADF含量均低于栽培大豆.栽培大豆和一年生野生大豆全株产量均为结荚期最高,分别达7.25thm~(-2)和5.32t hm~(-2).推迟收获,一年生野生大豆和栽培大豆叶片产量均下降而茎产量均提高;全株的IVDMD均显著下降(P＜0.05),全株的平均CP含量结荚期最高,比盛花期和成熟期分别高13.8%和32.6%;叶片和茎的IVDMD和CP含量随收获时间推迟而下降,全株、叶片和茎的NDF和ADF含量随收获时间推迟而提高.不同生态型一年生野生大豆全株、叶片和茎的产量均为:FJW-9＞SDW-12＞HLW-18;全株、叶片和茎的IVDMD以及叶片和茎的CP含量均是FJW-9＞SDW-12＞HLW-18;全株、叶片和茎NDF和ADF含量均是HLW-18＞SDW-12＞FJW-9.
施用N、P和K肥对一年生野生大豆的全株、叶片和茎的产量和质量影响存在差异.全株产量的施肥效应比较,施用N肥提高最多,施用P肥次之,施用K肥最低;全株CP含量效应比较,施用N肥最高,K肥次之,施用P肥的最低。施用N肥和K肥对叶片生长和产量影响较大,而施用P肥影响较小;施用P和K肥对叶片CP含量的影响无显著差异,在施肥水平75kg hm~(-2)时,施用N肥的一年生野生大豆叶片CP含量显著高于施用P肥和施用K肥.施用P肥对一年生野生大豆茎产量提高最多,施N肥次之,K肥提高最少;施用P肥时,一年生野生大豆茎的CP含量提高,而施用N肥和K肥茎的CP含量下降.
肥料施用方法对一年生野生大豆生长发育、草产量和质量的影响存在差异。单施和配施肥料处理的均能提高一年生野生大豆的草产量。P,N和K肥单施,一年生野生大豆草产量分别比对照提高48.2,31.7和23.5%;肥料配施时,N、P和K三肥配施或N和P肥配施处理的一年生野生大豆草产量比对照分别提高了104.6和93.2%。施肥能提高一年生野生大豆冠层高度和主茎长度;肥料配施时,现蕾期、盛花期和结荚期一年生野生大豆草CP含量比对照平均提高21%,NDF和ADF含量则分别比对照平均低12.02和11.05%。
单作和与禾本科作物间作的一年生野生大豆生长发育和草产量存在差异。生长前期,单作的全株、叶片和茎的产量以及叶面积指数、生长速率、净同化率和比叶面积系数均显著高于间作;但生长后期,间作的产量和叶面积指数、生长速率、净同化率和比叶面积系数均显著高于单作;与苏丹草[Sorghum sudanense(Piper)Stapf.L.]间作的一年生野生大豆的全株、叶片、茎和结荚的产量均高于与墨西哥玉米(Euchlaenamexicana Schrader.L.)间作。
与苏丹草间作的一年生野生大豆草产量高于单作;间作降低野生大豆成熟度,而提高野生大豆的CP含量和IVDMD,比单作分别高10和7.2%,间作降低野生大豆的ADF、NDF和ADL含量,比单作分别低15.3,18.1和25.7%。间作一年生野生大豆的产量和质量与收获时间有关,收获期推后,间作对一年生野生大豆产量和质量的影响增大。间作对一年生野生大豆上部缠绕部分产量的影响大于对下部未缠绕部分,对茎产量的影响比对叶片产量的影响大。
一年生野生大豆与不同禾本科作物间作时,单位面积植株数、间作草干物质和粗蛋白产量存在差异,一年生野生大豆与苏丹草间作的单位面积植株数、干物质和CP产量均高于与墨西哥玉米间作;间作时苏丹草和墨西哥玉米播种量增加,间作草干物质和CP产量均提高,间作中苏丹草和墨西哥玉米单位面积植株数均增加,但对一年生野生大豆单位面积植株数影响不显著。
间作配置方式和间作苏丹草播种量影响苏丹草与一年生野生大豆的间作性能。不同间作配置对苏丹草、一年生野生大豆和间作混合草干物质产量均有显著影响,均表现为1x1＞2x2＞4x4;不同间作配置下,以干物质产量为基础和以CP产量为基础的土地当量比间作混合草分别为1.02-1.19和1.05-1.32;苏丹草分别为0.54-0.66和0.55-0.82;一年生野生大豆为0.48-0.53和0.36-0.49;间作中苏丹草生长优势明显。间作中苏丹草播种量增加,苏丹草和间作混合草的干物质产量和以干物质为基础的土地当量比均提高,但一年生野生大豆的土地当量比下降;苏丹草、一年生野生大豆和间作混合草的CP含量以及以CP产量为基础的土地当量比均提高。
Wild soybean(Glycine soja Sieb.et Zucc.) is an annual legumous plant,which is widely distributed in China,Korea,Japan and the far eastern area of Russia.China is the main distribution country of wild soybean,with 90%of total distribution area all over the world.Wild soybean is considered to be the progenitor of soybean(Glycine max(L) Merr.). Wild soybean has been thought to be an important genetic resource with rare characters,for example,wide adaptability,abundant in ecotypes,high-protein and strong resistance.The cultivated type of soybean has been used as forage crop for a long time,but there are few reports on the forage properties of wild soybean.To better understand the growth pattern and forage performance of wild soybean and to develop and utilize wild soybean resources scientifically,the study on forage performance of wild soybean was conducted.The results were as follows:
Eight wild soybean ecotypes collected from different growth environments were studied for plant morphological traits,yield and nutritive value.The results showed that the difference of wild soybean ecotypes in plant morphological traits,yield and nutritive value was mainly caused by the types of growth environment.There were no significant differences among different ecotypes in the same environment type.The wild soybean ecotypes in the environment typeⅡhad higher total heritage yield,leaf yield,stem yield, pod yield and crude protein(CP) concentration for than those in other environment types. The neutral detergent fiber(NDF) and acid detergent fiber(ADF) concentrations for wild soybean ecotypes in the environment typeⅡwere the lowest,and ecotypes in environment typeⅣ＞typeⅠ＞typeⅢ＞typeⅡ.The plant morphological traits,yield and nutritive value of wild soybean ecotypes changed with different growth environments, planting years and harvest dates indicated wild soybean had good adaptability and plasticity.
The plant morphological traits of wild soybean could affect its yield and quality,the effects of plant morphological traits of 8 wild soybean ecotypes on their yield and quality were analyzed with correlation analysis and path coefficient analysis.The results showed the yield of the wild soybean ecotypes with more leaf numbers was higher than those with fewer leaves.The correlation between leaf numbers of wild soybean ecotypes and CP concentration was significantly positive,the direct path coefficient and indirect path coefficient between leaf numbers of wild soybean ecotypes and CP concentration were both positive and great.These analysis results meant the CP concentration of wild soybean ecotypes with more leaves was higher than those with fewer leaves.The correlation between leaf length of wild soybean and the ADF concentration was positive,the direct path coefficient and indirect path coefficient between leaf length of wild soybean ecotypes and ADF concentration were both positive and great,this showed ADF concentration of the wild soybean ecotypes with long leaves was high.The node number and internode length positively correlated with NDF concentration,the direct path coefficient and indirect path coefficient between node number and internode length of wild soybean ecotypes and NDF concentration were both positive and great,the NDF concentration of the wild soybean ecotypes with more node numbers and long internode length was higher than those with fewer nodes and short internodes.
The growth,development and forage production performance of wild soybean were affected by the ecotypes and planting dates.Eight different wild soybean ecotypes were studied to determine the effects of ecotypes and planting dates on growth,development, yield and nutritive value of wild soybean.The results indicated the forage production performance of all wild soybean ecotypes tested in this trail was good.Average dry matter yields were from 2.2 to 4.1 t hm~(-2);average CP concentration was 137.1 g kg~(-1) and relative feed value(RFV) was 147 for three planting dates.The growth and development of wild soybean was significantly affected by the planting dates,the later the wild soybean was planted,the shorter the days needed for emergency were and the more the plants for per acreage were.The planting dates also affected the vegetative growth stage,reproductive growth stage and whole growth stage of wild soybean,both of vegetative and whole growth stages of wild soybean became longer with delay of planting dates,there was a significant linear regression between the vegetative growth stage and whole growth stage.There were no consistent changes of the reproductive growth stages of wild soybean with the delay of planting dates.The linear regression was significant between the rate of growth and development of wild soybean ecotypes and the accumulated growth degree day(GDD) at vegetative stages,the results showed the effects of environment temperature and heating unit on the growth and development of wild soybean ecotypes.
Temperature is one of the most important factors that affect growth and development of crops.Study on the effects of temperature and heating unit on the growth and development of wild soybean could help to optimize its forage production.Effect of planting date on leaf appearance rates(LAR) of wild soybean and soybean cultivar[Glycine max(L) Merr]were studied in this experiment.The results indicated that the leaf numbers of wild soybean and soybean cultivar were both significantly linear regressed with GDD, and all determination coefficients(R~2) of linear regression functions were very high,these functions could be used to predict the leaf growth of wild soybean and soybean cultivar. LAR significantly differed between wild soybean and:soybean cultivar,LAR of soybean cultivar was higher than that of wild soybean,the GDD needed by soybean cultivar to reach 30 leaves was 300 and 350℃·day in 2004 and 2005 lower than that needed by wild soybean.Because LAR of wild soybean and soybean cultivar were affected by temperature, the different planting dates would cause the changes of temperature or GDD,the planting date could affect the LAR of wild soybean and soybean cultivar.With the delay of planting date from 20 April to 20 June,the LAR of wild soybean increased,but the LAR of soybean cultivar decreased.
The growth,development and dry matter accumulation of three wild soybean ecotypes and two soybean cultivars were studied.The results showed wild soybean could potentially produce more forages than soybean cultivars.The wild soybean matured later than soybean cultivars.At the later growth stage,the two year average main stem length of wild soybean was 73 cm longer than that of soybean cultivars,the leaf,stem and whole plant yields of wild soybean were 54.3,86.1 and 22.6%higher than those of soybean cultivars,but the flower-pod yields of soybean cultivars were 6.4 times more than those of wild soybean, the lower flower-pod yields of wild soybean ecotypes would affect the quality of whole plant herbage.There was no difference in growth and development stages,morphological traits and dry matter accumulation between two soybean cultivars,but the differences in characteristics of growth and development and dry matter accumulation were significant among the wild soybean ecotypes.The leaf,stem and whole plant yields of wild soybean ecotype FJW-9 originated from the low attitude area were significantly higher than ecotype HLW-18 originated from the high attitude area and local ecotype SDW-12,the flower-pod yield of FJW-9 was lower than that of HLW-18 or SDW-12.The main stem length and node number of main stem of FJW-9 were longer and more than of HLW-18 or SDW-12,the ecotype FJW-9 also matured later than HLW-18 and SDW-12.The susceptibility of ecotype FJW-9 to lodging was higher than HLW-18 and SDW-12.
Total herbage yield and CP concentration of wild soybean herbage changing with delaying the harvest date could be estimated by functions.Total herbage yields were greatest from 145 to 155d after planting and CP concentration of herbage reached the second highest peak within from150 to 155d after planting.The leaf weights increased with the delaying harvesting time,the leaf weights harvested in latter date were 16 times higher than those harvested in earlier date;Defoliation of wild soybean decreased its herbage yields.
The herbage yields of two soybean cultivars were 55.7,36.4 and 34.6%greater than those of wild soybean ecotypes at full-blooming,podding and mature stages,respectively; Although leaf/stem ratio of soybean cultivars was higher than that of wild soybean ecotypes at full blooming stage,the leaf/stem ratios of wild soybean ecotypes were higher than those of soybean cultivars both at podding stage and mature.The in vitro dry matter digestibility(IVDMD)of wild soybean whole plant was greater than soybean cultivars,but the CP concentration of wild soybean was lower than soybean cultivars.Both of IVDMD and CP concentration in wild soybean leaf and stem were higher than those of soybean cultivars;the NDF and ADF concentrations in wild soybean whole plant,leaf and stem were lower than soybean cultivars.The harvest stages affected the yields and nutritive values of wild soybean and soybean cultivars,the highest yields were harvested at podding stage,the herbage yields for soybean cultivars and wild soybean ecotypes were 7.25and 5.32Mgha~(-1),respectively.For soybean and wild soybean,the leaf yields decreased but the stem yields increased with delaying harvest stage;the IVDMD of whole plant harvested at mature was significantly lower than those at full-blooming and podding stages(p＜0.05;the highest CP concentration in whole plant harvested at podding stage was 20.4%,it was 13.8 and 32.6%higher than those in whole plant harvested at full bloom and mature stages;the IVDMD and CP concentrations of leaf and stem decreased with increasing maturity, full-blooming stage＞podding stage＞mature stage,NDF and ADF concentrations in whole plant,leaf and stem increased with the increasing maturity.Contrast of yields of whole plant,leaf and stem among different wild soybean ecotypes,there was a constant tendency as follows:FJW-9＞SDW-12＞HLW-18.The nutritive value of different wild soybean ecotypes were compared,the IVDMD and CP concentration of whole plant,leaf and stem were FJW-9＞SDW-12＞HLW-18,NDF and ADF concentrations in whole plant,leaf and stem were HLW-18＞SDW-12＞FJW-9.
Fertilizer is the important nutrient basis for forage crop growth and development, fertilizer application has the potential to increase forage,crop productivity and to improve the forage quality.The study showed the effect of N,P and K fertilizer on the wild soybean yield and CP concentration was different.The increase in total herbage yield of wild soybean was the highest with N fertilizer application,the P fertilizer application followed and the lowest with K fertilizer application.The CP concentration of total herbage was highest with N application,K fertilizer application followed and the lowest with P application.The total herbage yield of wild soybean with P application was higher than that with K application,but CP concentration in total herbage of wild soybean with P application was lower than that with K application.The effects of N and K application on wild soybean leaf yields were greater than that of P application,there were no significant difference in effects on leaf CP concentration between P and K application,leaf CP concentration of wild soybean with N application at 75kg hm~(-2) application rate was higher than with P or K application.The fertilizer application could increase stem yield,the increase in stem yields of wild soybean with P application was the highest,followed by N application and the lowest with K application.The stem CP concentration was improved by P application,N and K application might lower the stem CP concentration.
Fertilizer application has the potential to improve the wild soybean productivity,but the effects of different fertilizers and combination of different fertilizers on wild soybean yield and quality were different.This study was to determine the effects of single and combined fertilizer application on the growth and development,yield and quality of wild soybean.The results indicated both single and combined fertilizer application could increase wild soybean dry matter yield.The 34.5%of average yield of wild soybean was increased by single fertilizer application compared with no fertilizer application.The combined fertilizer application increased the yield of wild soybean by 77.3%.The wild soybean yield was increased by 48.2,31.7 and 23.5%,respectively,when P,N and K fertilizer were single applied.The yields of wild soybean with N,P and K fertilizer combined application and N and P fertilizer combined application were 104.6 and 93.2% higher than those in control.The fertilizer application could increase the canopy height and main stem length of wild soybean,the canopy height of wild soybean applied with P or K fertilizer was 11.3 and 11cm higher than that applied with N,respectively,the main stem length of wild soybean applied with P or K was 27.3 and 25.3cm longer than that applied with N.The P and K combined application or N,P and K combined application could increase the canopy height and main stem length.There was no significant difference in CP concentration of wild soybeans between single-applied with N,P or K and no fertilizer applied at budding and flowering stages,but CP concentration of wild soybean single -applied with fertilizer was significantly higher than no fertilizer applied at pod-setting stage.The NDF and ADF concentration of wild soybean single-applied with N,P or K were not significantly different with control at three growth stages.The combined fertilizer application increased CP concentration of wild soybean herbage and decreased NDF and ADF concentration,CP concentration in herbage of wild soybean applied with combined fertilizer was 21%higher than that of control,NDF and ADF concentration in herbage of wild soybean applied with combined fertilizer were 12.02%and 11.05%lower than that of control.
The growth,development and yield of wild soybean grown in monocropping and intercropping with sudangrass[Sorghum sudanense(Piper)Stapf.L.]and teosinte (Euchlaena mexicana Schrader.L.) were studied.The results indicated that total herbage yield,leaf yield and stem yield of monocropping wild soybean were higher than those of intercropping wild soybean at the early growth stage,but the intercropping wild soybean were higher than monocropping wild soybean at the later stage.Leaf area index(LAI),crop growth rate(CGR),net assimilated rate(NAR) and specific leaf area(SLA) of monocropping wild soybean were higher than those of intercropping wild soybean at early stage,but were lower than those of intercropping wild soybean at later stage;There was no significant difference in leaf to stem ratio(L/S) between monocropping and intercropping wild soybean during the whole growth period.Total herbage yield,leaf yield,and stem yield of wild soybean intercropped with sudangrass were higher than those intercropped with teosinte.At the middle growth stage,LAI,CGR and SLA of wild soybean intercropped with sudangrass were significantly higher than those intercropped with teosinte,but there were no significant difference in LA/,CGR and SLA of wild soybean between two intercrops at the early or later stage.The NAR and L/S of wild soybean were not significantly different between intercropping with sudangrass and teosinte during the whole growth period.The growth,development and yield of wild soybean monocropped or intercropped could be evaluated by the regression functions,the determination coefficients of all functions were higher.
The yield of intercrops between wild soybean and sudangrass was significantly higher than that of monocropping wild soybean.Wild soybean intercropping with sudangrass was less mature than that of monocropping.Intercropped wild soybean had 10%more CP concentrations and 7.2%higher IVDMD than monocropping wild soybean,but ADF,NDF and acid detergent lignin(ADL) concentrations in intercropped wild soybean were 13%, 18.1and 25.7%lower than those in monocropping wild soybean.The twined plant part of wild soybean on the top were more affected than the untwined part on the base by intercropping,stem yields of wild soybean were more affected than leaf yield by intercropping,and the leaf and stem yields of twined plant part on the top were affected more than the untwined plant part on the base by intercropping.
The plant numbers per square meters of wild soybean intercropping with sudangrasss were significantly higher than those with teosinte.The dry matter yields and crude protein yields of intercrops of wild soybean intercropping with sudangrass were higher than those of intercrops of wild soybean intercropping with teosinte.The plant numbers per square meters of wild soybean were not affected by the cereal seeding rate,but the cereal plant numbers per square meters increased with their increasing,seeding rates.Dry matter yield and crude protein yield of intercrops were increased by the sowing rate of cereal increased.
The advantages of Intercropping sudangrass with wild soybean were dependent on the intercropping configuration and the sowing rates of sudangrass.The results were as follows:The effects of intercropping configuration on dry matter yields of intercrop components were significant,1×1＞2×2＞4×4.The land equivalent ratio(LER) of intercrops ranged from 1.02 to 1.19 on a dry matter yield basis and from 1.05 to 1.32 on a protein yield basis,indicating a production advantage of sudangrass-wild soybean intercropping. The LER of sudangrass in intercropping ranged from 0.54 to 0.66 on a dry matter yield basis and from 0.55 to 0.82 on a protein yield basis,the LER of wild soybean in intercropping ranged from 0.48 to 0.53 on a dry matter yield basis and from 0.36 to 0.49 on a protein yield basis,indicating a growth advantage of sudangrass over wild soybean in intercropping.The dry matter yields and LER on a dry matter yield basis of sudangrass and intercropping combined forage yields were increased with sudangrass sowing rate increased, but the dry matter yields and LER on a dry matter yield of wild soybean were decreased at the same time.With increasing sudangrass sowing rate,CP concentration and LER on a protein yield basis of sudangrass,wild soybean and sudangrass-wild soybean were all increased.
一年生野生大豆具有良好的环境适应性和生长发育的可塑性。不同生态型一年生野生大豆间形态性状、饲草产量和营养价值的差异,主要与原产地生长环境类型有关。供试的8个生态型按生长习性、茎叶比等可以分为4大类型,原产地生长环境类型Ⅱ型中的生态型的全株、叶片、茎和荚的产量以及全株相蛋白含量均显著高于其它原产地生长环境类型(Ⅰ型、Ⅲ型和Ⅳ型)中的生态型,而NDF和ADF含量低于其它生态型.一年生野生大豆的形态性状影响饲草产量和质量,叶片多的生态型饲草产量和粗蛋白含量均高于叶片少的生态型;叶片长的生态型ADF含量较高;茎节数多和节间长度长的生态型NDF含量较高。
供试一年生野生大豆8个生态型均有较好饲草生产性能,干物质产量为2.2-4.1t/hm~2;不同时间种植的一年生野生大豆生态型平均粗蛋白含量为137.1g kg~(-1),相对饲料价(RFV)平均值为147。种植时间对一年生野生大豆的生长发育影响显著。推迟种植,各生态型一年生野生大豆的出苗时间均缩短,单位面积苗株数增多,营养生长期和全生育期均延长。不同生态型一年生野生大豆生长发育随环境温热变化的趋势相似,营养生长期的生长发育速率与生长积温(GDD)存在极显著的线性关系。
温度变化对一年生野生大豆和栽培大豆的生长发育均有影响,一年生野生大豆和栽培大豆的叶片数均与GDD呈显著线性关系。一年生野生大豆和栽培大豆出叶速率差异显著,栽培大豆出叶速率显著高于一年生野生大豆;栽培大豆达到30片叶所需的GDD显著低于一年生野生大豆;种植时间由4月推迟至6月,一年生野生大豆出叶速率提高,栽培大豆出叶速率则减缓。
一年生野生大豆比栽培大豆晚熟,茎长度比栽培大豆长73cm,叶片、茎和全株饲草产量比栽培大豆分别高54.3%,86.1%和22.6%,但栽培大豆荚产量是一年生野生大豆的6.4倍.试验中栽培大豆的生育期、形态性状和干物质积累无品种间差异,但一年生野生大豆不同生态型间的生育期、形态性状和物质积累差异显著,引自低纬度地区的生态型FJW-9不仅成熟晚,而且全株、叶片和茎的产量均显著高于引自高纬度地区的生态型HWL-18和当地生态型SDW-12;但FJW-9的荚产量低于HWL-18和SDW-12并且更易倒伏.
一年生野生大豆产草量随收获时间的变化,可用相应的回归方程估算,一年生野生大豆最高草产量的收获时间为种植后的145d至155d;一年生野生大豆CP含量第二个峰值出现在播种后的150d至155d;收获时间推迟,一年生野生大豆叶片重提高;晚收获的叶片重是早收获的16倍以上;落叶增多会降低一年生野生大豆饲草产量.
不同收获时期栽培大豆全株产量显著高于一年生野生大豆,盛花期、结荚期和成熟期分别高55.7%,36.4%和34.6%;盛花期,栽培大豆的叶茎产量比一年生野生大豆高20.4%,但结荚期和成熟期,则比一年生野生大豆分别低52.9%和78.1%;一年生野生大豆全株IVDMD高于栽培大豆,但CP含量却低于栽培大豆;一年生野生大豆叶片和茎的IVDMD和CP含量均显著高于栽培大豆;一年生野生大豆全株、叶片和茎的NDF和ADF含量均低于栽培大豆.栽培大豆和一年生野生大豆全株产量均为结荚期最高,分别达7.25thm~(-2)和5.32t hm~(-2).推迟收获,一年生野生大豆和栽培大豆叶片产量均下降而茎产量均提高;全株的IVDMD均显著下降(P＜0.05),全株的平均CP含量结荚期最高,比盛花期和成熟期分别高13.8%和32.6%;叶片和茎的IVDMD和CP含量随收获时间推迟而下降,全株、叶片和茎的NDF和ADF含量随收获时间推迟而提高.不同生态型一年生野生大豆全株、叶片和茎的产量均为:FJW-9＞SDW-12＞HLW-18;全株、叶片和茎的IVDMD以及叶片和茎的CP含量均是FJW-9＞SDW-12＞HLW-18;全株、叶片和茎NDF和ADF含量均是HLW-18＞SDW-12＞FJW-9.
施用N、P和K肥对一年生野生大豆的全株、叶片和茎的产量和质量影响存在差异.全株产量的施肥效应比较,施用N肥提高最多,施用P肥次之,施用K肥最低;全株CP含量效应比较,施用N肥最高,K肥次之,施用P肥的最低。施用N肥和K肥对叶片生长和产量影响较大,而施用P肥影响较小;施用P和K肥对叶片CP含量的影响无显著差异,在施肥水平75kg hm~(-2)时,施用N肥的一年生野生大豆叶片CP含量显著高于施用P肥和施用K肥.施用P肥对一年生野生大豆茎产量提高最多,施N肥次之,K肥提高最少;施用P肥时,一年生野生大豆茎的CP含量提高,而施用N肥和K肥茎的CP含量下降.
肥料施用方法对一年生野生大豆生长发育、草产量和质量的影响存在差异。单施和配施肥料处理的均能提高一年生野生大豆的草产量。P,N和K肥单施,一年生野生大豆草产量分别比对照提高48.2,31.7和23.5%;肥料配施时,N、P和K三肥配施或N和P肥配施处理的一年生野生大豆草产量比对照分别提高了104.6和93.2%。施肥能提高一年生野生大豆冠层高度和主茎长度;肥料配施时,现蕾期、盛花期和结荚期一年生野生大豆草CP含量比对照平均提高21%,NDF和ADF含量则分别比对照平均低12.02和11.05%。
单作和与禾本科作物间作的一年生野生大豆生长发育和草产量存在差异。生长前期,单作的全株、叶片和茎的产量以及叶面积指数、生长速率、净同化率和比叶面积系数均显著高于间作;但生长后期,间作的产量和叶面积指数、生长速率、净同化率和比叶面积系数均显著高于单作;与苏丹草[Sorghum sudanense(Piper)Stapf.L.]间作的一年生野生大豆的全株、叶片、茎和结荚的产量均高于与墨西哥玉米(Euchlaenamexicana Schrader.L.)间作。
与苏丹草间作的一年生野生大豆草产量高于单作;间作降低野生大豆成熟度,而提高野生大豆的CP含量和IVDMD,比单作分别高10和7.2%,间作降低野生大豆的ADF、NDF和ADL含量,比单作分别低15.3,18.1和25.7%。间作一年生野生大豆的产量和质量与收获时间有关,收获期推后,间作对一年生野生大豆产量和质量的影响增大。间作对一年生野生大豆上部缠绕部分产量的影响大于对下部未缠绕部分,对茎产量的影响比对叶片产量的影响大。
一年生野生大豆与不同禾本科作物间作时,单位面积植株数、间作草干物质和粗蛋白产量存在差异,一年生野生大豆与苏丹草间作的单位面积植株数、干物质和CP产量均高于与墨西哥玉米间作;间作时苏丹草和墨西哥玉米播种量增加,间作草干物质和CP产量均提高,间作中苏丹草和墨西哥玉米单位面积植株数均增加,但对一年生野生大豆单位面积植株数影响不显著。
间作配置方式和间作苏丹草播种量影响苏丹草与一年生野生大豆的间作性能。不同间作配置对苏丹草、一年生野生大豆和间作混合草干物质产量均有显著影响,均表现为1x1＞2x2＞4x4;不同间作配置下,以干物质产量为基础和以CP产量为基础的土地当量比间作混合草分别为1.02-1.19和1.05-1.32;苏丹草分别为0.54-0.66和0.55-0.82;一年生野生大豆为0.48-0.53和0.36-0.49;间作中苏丹草生长优势明显。间作中苏丹草播种量增加,苏丹草和间作混合草的干物质产量和以干物质为基础的土地当量比均提高,但一年生野生大豆的土地当量比下降;苏丹草、一年生野生大豆和间作混合草的CP含量以及以CP产量为基础的土地当量比均提高。
Wild soybean(Glycine soja Sieb.et Zucc.) is an annual legumous plant,which is widely distributed in China,Korea,Japan and the far eastern area of Russia.China is the main distribution country of wild soybean,with 90%of total distribution area all over the world.Wild soybean is considered to be the progenitor of soybean(Glycine max(L) Merr.). Wild soybean has been thought to be an important genetic resource with rare characters,for example,wide adaptability,abundant in ecotypes,high-protein and strong resistance.The cultivated type of soybean has been used as forage crop for a long time,but there are few reports on the forage properties of wild soybean.To better understand the growth pattern and forage performance of wild soybean and to develop and utilize wild soybean resources scientifically,the study on forage performance of wild soybean was conducted.The results were as follows:
Eight wild soybean ecotypes collected from different growth environments were studied for plant morphological traits,yield and nutritive value.The results showed that the difference of wild soybean ecotypes in plant morphological traits,yield and nutritive value was mainly caused by the types of growth environment.There were no significant differences among different ecotypes in the same environment type.The wild soybean ecotypes in the environment typeⅡhad higher total heritage yield,leaf yield,stem yield, pod yield and crude protein(CP) concentration for than those in other environment types. The neutral detergent fiber(NDF) and acid detergent fiber(ADF) concentrations for wild soybean ecotypes in the environment typeⅡwere the lowest,and ecotypes in environment typeⅣ＞typeⅠ＞typeⅢ＞typeⅡ.The plant morphological traits,yield and nutritive value of wild soybean ecotypes changed with different growth environments, planting years and harvest dates indicated wild soybean had good adaptability and plasticity.
The plant morphological traits of wild soybean could affect its yield and quality,the effects of plant morphological traits of 8 wild soybean ecotypes on their yield and quality were analyzed with correlation analysis and path coefficient analysis.The results showed the yield of the wild soybean ecotypes with more leaf numbers was higher than those with fewer leaves.The correlation between leaf numbers of wild soybean ecotypes and CP concentration was significantly positive,the direct path coefficient and indirect path coefficient between leaf numbers of wild soybean ecotypes and CP concentration were both positive and great.These analysis results meant the CP concentration of wild soybean ecotypes with more leaves was higher than those with fewer leaves.The correlation between leaf length of wild soybean and the ADF concentration was positive,the direct path coefficient and indirect path coefficient between leaf length of wild soybean ecotypes and ADF concentration were both positive and great,this showed ADF concentration of the wild soybean ecotypes with long leaves was high.The node number and internode length positively correlated with NDF concentration,the direct path coefficient and indirect path coefficient between node number and internode length of wild soybean ecotypes and NDF concentration were both positive and great,the NDF concentration of the wild soybean ecotypes with more node numbers and long internode length was higher than those with fewer nodes and short internodes.
The growth,development and forage production performance of wild soybean were affected by the ecotypes and planting dates.Eight different wild soybean ecotypes were studied to determine the effects of ecotypes and planting dates on growth,development, yield and nutritive value of wild soybean.The results indicated the forage production performance of all wild soybean ecotypes tested in this trail was good.Average dry matter yields were from 2.2 to 4.1 t hm~(-2);average CP concentration was 137.1 g kg~(-1) and relative feed value(RFV) was 147 for three planting dates.The growth and development of wild soybean was significantly affected by the planting dates,the later the wild soybean was planted,the shorter the days needed for emergency were and the more the plants for per acreage were.The planting dates also affected the vegetative growth stage,reproductive growth stage and whole growth stage of wild soybean,both of vegetative and whole growth stages of wild soybean became longer with delay of planting dates,there was a significant linear regression between the vegetative growth stage and whole growth stage.There were no consistent changes of the reproductive growth stages of wild soybean with the delay of planting dates.The linear regression was significant between the rate of growth and development of wild soybean ecotypes and the accumulated growth degree day(GDD) at vegetative stages,the results showed the effects of environment temperature and heating unit on the growth and development of wild soybean ecotypes.
Temperature is one of the most important factors that affect growth and development of crops.Study on the effects of temperature and heating unit on the growth and development of wild soybean could help to optimize its forage production.Effect of planting date on leaf appearance rates(LAR) of wild soybean and soybean cultivar[Glycine max(L) Merr]were studied in this experiment.The results indicated that the leaf numbers of wild soybean and soybean cultivar were both significantly linear regressed with GDD, and all determination coefficients(R~2) of linear regression functions were very high,these functions could be used to predict the leaf growth of wild soybean and soybean cultivar. LAR significantly differed between wild soybean and:soybean cultivar,LAR of soybean cultivar was higher than that of wild soybean,the GDD needed by soybean cultivar to reach 30 leaves was 300 and 350℃·day in 2004 and 2005 lower than that needed by wild soybean.Because LAR of wild soybean and soybean cultivar were affected by temperature, the different planting dates would cause the changes of temperature or GDD,the planting date could affect the LAR of wild soybean and soybean cultivar.With the delay of planting date from 20 April to 20 June,the LAR of wild soybean increased,but the LAR of soybean cultivar decreased.
The growth,development and dry matter accumulation of three wild soybean ecotypes and two soybean cultivars were studied.The results showed wild soybean could potentially produce more forages than soybean cultivars.The wild soybean matured later than soybean cultivars.At the later growth stage,the two year average main stem length of wild soybean was 73 cm longer than that of soybean cultivars,the leaf,stem and whole plant yields of wild soybean were 54.3,86.1 and 22.6%higher than those of soybean cultivars,but the flower-pod yields of soybean cultivars were 6.4 times more than those of wild soybean, the lower flower-pod yields of wild soybean ecotypes would affect the quality of whole plant herbage.There was no difference in growth and development stages,morphological traits and dry matter accumulation between two soybean cultivars,but the differences in characteristics of growth and development and dry matter accumulation were significant among the wild soybean ecotypes.The leaf,stem and whole plant yields of wild soybean ecotype FJW-9 originated from the low attitude area were significantly higher than ecotype HLW-18 originated from the high attitude area and local ecotype SDW-12,the flower-pod yield of FJW-9 was lower than that of HLW-18 or SDW-12.The main stem length and node number of main stem of FJW-9 were longer and more than of HLW-18 or SDW-12,the ecotype FJW-9 also matured later than HLW-18 and SDW-12.The susceptibility of ecotype FJW-9 to lodging was higher than HLW-18 and SDW-12.
Total herbage yield and CP concentration of wild soybean herbage changing with delaying the harvest date could be estimated by functions.Total herbage yields were greatest from 145 to 155d after planting and CP concentration of herbage reached the second highest peak within from150 to 155d after planting.The leaf weights increased with the delaying harvesting time,the leaf weights harvested in latter date were 16 times higher than those harvested in earlier date;Defoliation of wild soybean decreased its herbage yields.
The herbage yields of two soybean cultivars were 55.7,36.4 and 34.6%greater than those of wild soybean ecotypes at full-blooming,podding and mature stages,respectively; Although leaf/stem ratio of soybean cultivars was higher than that of wild soybean ecotypes at full blooming stage,the leaf/stem ratios of wild soybean ecotypes were higher than those of soybean cultivars both at podding stage and mature.The in vitro dry matter digestibility(IVDMD)of wild soybean whole plant was greater than soybean cultivars,but the CP concentration of wild soybean was lower than soybean cultivars.Both of IVDMD and CP concentration in wild soybean leaf and stem were higher than those of soybean cultivars;the NDF and ADF concentrations in wild soybean whole plant,leaf and stem were lower than soybean cultivars.The harvest stages affected the yields and nutritive values of wild soybean and soybean cultivars,the highest yields were harvested at podding stage,the herbage yields for soybean cultivars and wild soybean ecotypes were 7.25and 5.32Mgha~(-1),respectively.For soybean and wild soybean,the leaf yields decreased but the stem yields increased with delaying harvest stage;the IVDMD of whole plant harvested at mature was significantly lower than those at full-blooming and podding stages(p＜0.05;the highest CP concentration in whole plant harvested at podding stage was 20.4%,it was 13.8 and 32.6%higher than those in whole plant harvested at full bloom and mature stages;the IVDMD and CP concentrations of leaf and stem decreased with increasing maturity, full-blooming stage＞podding stage＞mature stage,NDF and ADF concentrations in whole plant,leaf and stem increased with the increasing maturity.Contrast of yields of whole plant,leaf and stem among different wild soybean ecotypes,there was a constant tendency as follows:FJW-9＞SDW-12＞HLW-18.The nutritive value of different wild soybean ecotypes were compared,the IVDMD and CP concentration of whole plant,leaf and stem were FJW-9＞SDW-12＞HLW-18,NDF and ADF concentrations in whole plant,leaf and stem were HLW-18＞SDW-12＞FJW-9.
Fertilizer is the important nutrient basis for forage crop growth and development, fertilizer application has the potential to increase forage,crop productivity and to improve the forage quality.The study showed the effect of N,P and K fertilizer on the wild soybean yield and CP concentration was different.The increase in total herbage yield of wild soybean was the highest with N fertilizer application,the P fertilizer application followed and the lowest with K fertilizer application.The CP concentration of total herbage was highest with N application,K fertilizer application followed and the lowest with P application.The total herbage yield of wild soybean with P application was higher than that with K application,but CP concentration in total herbage of wild soybean with P application was lower than that with K application.The effects of N and K application on wild soybean leaf yields were greater than that of P application,there were no significant difference in effects on leaf CP concentration between P and K application,leaf CP concentration of wild soybean with N application at 75kg hm~(-2) application rate was higher than with P or K application.The fertilizer application could increase stem yield,the increase in stem yields of wild soybean with P application was the highest,followed by N application and the lowest with K application.The stem CP concentration was improved by P application,N and K application might lower the stem CP concentration.
Fertilizer application has the potential to improve the wild soybean productivity,but the effects of different fertilizers and combination of different fertilizers on wild soybean yield and quality were different.This study was to determine the effects of single and combined fertilizer application on the growth and development,yield and quality of wild soybean.The results indicated both single and combined fertilizer application could increase wild soybean dry matter yield.The 34.5%of average yield of wild soybean was increased by single fertilizer application compared with no fertilizer application.The combined fertilizer application increased the yield of wild soybean by 77.3%.The wild soybean yield was increased by 48.2,31.7 and 23.5%,respectively,when P,N and K fertilizer were single applied.The yields of wild soybean with N,P and K fertilizer combined application and N and P fertilizer combined application were 104.6 and 93.2% higher than those in control.The fertilizer application could increase the canopy height and main stem length of wild soybean,the canopy height of wild soybean applied with P or K fertilizer was 11.3 and 11cm higher than that applied with N,respectively,the main stem length of wild soybean applied with P or K was 27.3 and 25.3cm longer than that applied with N.The P and K combined application or N,P and K combined application could increase the canopy height and main stem length.There was no significant difference in CP concentration of wild soybeans between single-applied with N,P or K and no fertilizer applied at budding and flowering stages,but CP concentration of wild soybean single -applied with fertilizer was significantly higher than no fertilizer applied at pod-setting stage.The NDF and ADF concentration of wild soybean single-applied with N,P or K were not significantly different with control at three growth stages.The combined fertilizer application increased CP concentration of wild soybean herbage and decreased NDF and ADF concentration,CP concentration in herbage of wild soybean applied with combined fertilizer was 21%higher than that of control,NDF and ADF concentration in herbage of wild soybean applied with combined fertilizer were 12.02%and 11.05%lower than that of control.
The growth,development and yield of wild soybean grown in monocropping and intercropping with sudangrass[Sorghum sudanense(Piper)Stapf.L.]and teosinte (Euchlaena mexicana Schrader.L.) were studied.The results indicated that total herbage yield,leaf yield and stem yield of monocropping wild soybean were higher than those of intercropping wild soybean at the early growth stage,but the intercropping wild soybean were higher than monocropping wild soybean at the later stage.Leaf area index(LAI),crop growth rate(CGR),net assimilated rate(NAR) and specific leaf area(SLA) of monocropping wild soybean were higher than those of intercropping wild soybean at early stage,but were lower than those of intercropping wild soybean at later stage;There was no significant difference in leaf to stem ratio(L/S) between monocropping and intercropping wild soybean during the whole growth period.Total herbage yield,leaf yield,and stem yield of wild soybean intercropped with sudangrass were higher than those intercropped with teosinte.At the middle growth stage,LAI,CGR and SLA of wild soybean intercropped with sudangrass were significantly higher than those intercropped with teosinte,but there were no significant difference in LA/,CGR and SLA of wild soybean between two intercrops at the early or later stage.The NAR and L/S of wild soybean were not significantly different between intercropping with sudangrass and teosinte during the whole growth period.The growth,development and yield of wild soybean monocropped or intercropped could be evaluated by the regression functions,the determination coefficients of all functions were higher.
The yield of intercrops between wild soybean and sudangrass was significantly higher than that of monocropping wild soybean.Wild soybean intercropping with sudangrass was less mature than that of monocropping.Intercropped wild soybean had 10%more CP concentrations and 7.2%higher IVDMD than monocropping wild soybean,but ADF,NDF and acid detergent lignin(ADL) concentrations in intercropped wild soybean were 13%, 18.1and 25.7%lower than those in monocropping wild soybean.The twined plant part of wild soybean on the top were more affected than the untwined part on the base by intercropping,stem yields of wild soybean were more affected than leaf yield by intercropping,and the leaf and stem yields of twined plant part on the top were affected more than the untwined plant part on the base by intercropping.
The plant numbers per square meters of wild soybean intercropping with sudangrasss were significantly higher than those with teosinte.The dry matter yields and crude protein yields of intercrops of wild soybean intercropping with sudangrass were higher than those of intercrops of wild soybean intercropping with teosinte.The plant numbers per square meters of wild soybean were not affected by the cereal seeding rate,but the cereal plant numbers per square meters increased with their increasing,seeding rates.Dry matter yield and crude protein yield of intercrops were increased by the sowing rate of cereal increased.
The advantages of Intercropping sudangrass with wild soybean were dependent on the intercropping configuration and the sowing rates of sudangrass.The results were as follows:The effects of intercropping configuration on dry matter yields of intercrop components were significant,1×1＞2×2＞4×4.The land equivalent ratio(LER) of intercrops ranged from 1.02 to 1.19 on a dry matter yield basis and from 1.05 to 1.32 on a protein yield basis,indicating a production advantage of sudangrass-wild soybean intercropping. The LER of sudangrass in intercropping ranged from 0.54 to 0.66 on a dry matter yield basis and from 0.55 to 0.82 on a protein yield basis,the LER of wild soybean in intercropping ranged from 0.48 to 0.53 on a dry matter yield basis and from 0.36 to 0.49 on a protein yield basis,indicating a growth advantage of sudangrass over wild soybean in intercropping.The dry matter yields and LER on a dry matter yield basis of sudangrass and intercropping combined forage yields were increased with sudangrass sowing rate increased, but the dry matter yields and LER on a dry matter yield of wild soybean were decreased at the same time.With increasing sudangrass sowing rate,CP concentration and LER on a protein yield basis of sudangrass,wild soybean and sudangrass-wild soybean were all increased.
引文
[1]全国野生大豆考察组.中国野生大豆资源考察报告.吉林农业科学[J],1983,(3):1-14.
[2]Tanksley S D,Mccouch S R.Seed banks and molecular maps:unlocking genetic potential from the wild.Science.1997,277:1063-1066.
[3]王绶,吕世霖.大豆[M].太原:山西人民出版社.1984.
[4]李星华.山东省主要大豆品种系谱分析[J].山东农业科学.1987,(3):4-84.
[5]范彦英.河南省主要大豆品种系谱分析[A].第六届全国大豆学术讨论会论文摘要汇编[C].1997,35-36.
[6]赵团结,崔章林,盖钧镒.中国大豆育成品种中江苏种质的遗传贡献[A].第六届全国大豆学术讨论会论文摘要汇编[C].1997,24:158-161.
[7]田佩占,袁全,孙永纯.1975-1995年吉林省大豆主要推广品种及其遗传关系LA].第六届全国大豆学术讨论会论文摘要汇编[C].1997,30-31.
[8]钱吉,马玉虹.烟豆小种群的PAPD研究[J].遗传,2003,25(3):314-316.
[9]郑惠玉,陈化东.吉林省野生大豆资源研究初报[J].中国农业科学,1980,4:26-32.
[10]徐豹.中国野生大豆(G.soja)研究十年[J].吉林农业科学,1989,15-12.
[11]李福山.中国野生大豆资源的地理分布及生态分化研究[J].中国农业科学,1993,26(2):47-55.
[12]王连铮.大豆的起源演化与传播[J].大豆科学.1985,3(4):327-331.
[13]Hymowitz T,Singh R..I.,Taxonomy,et al.Soybean:Improvement,production and uses[A].In:Wilcox J.R.2 ed.Agronomy[C].ASA CSSA SSCA Publishers,1987:23-45.
[14]徐豹,路琴华,庄炳昌.中国野生大豆生态类型的研究[J].中国农业科学,1987,20(s):29-35.
[15]庄炳昌.中国野生大豆生物学研究[M].科学出版社.1999.
[16]徐豹,路琴华,庄炳昌.中国不同纬度野生大豆的光温生态分析[J].大豆科学,1983,2(3):155-168.
[17]徐树传.野生大豆光温反映观察研究[J].福建农业科学,1985,5:19-20.
[18]李福山,常汝镇,舒世珍.栽培、野生、半野生大豆蛋白质含量及氨基酸组成的初步分析[J].大豆科学,1986,5(1):65-71.
[19]陆静梅,刘有良,胡波.中国野生大豆盐腺的发现[J].科学通报,1993,38(1):535-536.
[20]林红.野生大豆的利用和优异种质资源的创新[J].中国油料,1996,18(4):70-72.
[21]马淑时,王伟.大豆品种资源抗盐碱性研究[J].作物品种资源,1994,4:69-72.
[22]於丙军,刘有良.大豆耐盐性研究进展[J].大豆科学,2000,19(2):154-159.
[23]於丙军,罗庆云,刘友良.盐胁迫对野大豆生长和离子分布的影响[J].作物学报,2001, 27(6):776-780.
[24]张美云,钱吉,钟扬,等.野生大豆若干耐盐生理指标的研究[J].复旦学报(自然科学版),2002,41(6):669～673.
[25]杨晓英,章文华,王庆亚,等.江苏野生大豆的耐盐性和离子在体内的分布及选择性运输[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(12):2237-2340.
[26]乔亚科,李桂兰,高书国,等.昌黎沿海野生大豆的分布与耐盐性[J].河北职业技术师范学院学报,2001,15(2):9-13.
[27]王洪新,胡志昂,钟敏.盐渍条件下野生大豆群体的遗传分化和生理适应:同工酶和随机扩增多态DNA研究[J].植物学报,1997,39(1):39-42.
[28]刘学义,张小虎.黄淮海地区大豆种质资源抗旱性鉴定及其研究[J].山西农业科学,1993,21(1):19-24.
[29]栾谦益.天津野生大豆的观察[J].大豆科学,1989,8(1):97-100.
[30]山仑,陈元培.旱地农业生理生态基础[M].北京:科学出版社,1998:98-105.
[31]孔照胜,武云帅,岳爱琴.不同大豆品种抗旱性生理指标综合分析[J].华北农学报,2000,16(3):40-45.
[32]王国勋,常汝镇,李莹.山西野生大豆资源考察报告[A].大豆遗传资源研究论文集[C],太原:山西科学技术出版社,1991:1-13.
[33]刘学义.大豆抗旱性评定方法探讨[J].中国油料,1986,4(2):23-26.
[34]史宏,刘学义.野生大豆抗旱性鉴定研究[J].大豆科学,2003,22(4):264-268.
[35]朱文英,寿惠霞.野生大豆种质资源在大豆育种中的利用[J].大豆通报,1996,5:26-27.
[36]林红.野生大豆特异种质资源的鉴定和利用[J].黑龙江农业科学,1997,1:40-42.
[37]王洪新,胡志昂.北京地区野生大豆天然遗传结构[J].植物学报,1985,27(6):599-604.
[38]李福山.大豆起源及其演化研究[J].大豆科学,1994,13(1):61-66.
[39]Li Z L,Nelson R L.RAPD marker diversity among cultivated and wild soybean accessions from four Chinese provinces.Crop Sci.,2002,42:1737-1742.
[40]王洪新,胡志昂.中国栽培大豆代表品种和野生大豆部分群体脲酶等位酶的分析[J].大豆科学,1994,13(1):67-71.
[41]Buttery,Buzzell.Properties and inheritance of usease isoenzymes in soybean seads.Can.J.of Bot.,1971,49:1101-1105.
[42]Mervesh,T L,Hymowitz T.Screening of the USDA Glysine soja collection for urease variants.Soybean Genet.,Newst.1987,14:265-267.
[43]李军.同工酶水平上野生大豆种群内分化的研究[J].植物学报,1995,37(9):669-676.
[44]李军.野生大豆种子库中同工酶水平的遗传多样性的初步研究[J].应用生态学报,1998, 9(2):145-149.
[45]庄炳昌,惠东威,王玉民,等.中国不同纬度不同进化类型大豆的RAPD分析[J].科学通报,1994,39(23):2178-2180.
[46]谢华,常汝镇,曹永生,张明辉,冯忠孚,邱丽娟.利用中国秋大豆(Glycine max(L.)Merr)筛选S S R核心位点的研究[J].中国农业科学,2003,36(4):360-366.
[47]Hui Dong wei.Study on systemitics in Glycine with RAPD fingerprinting[J].Chinese Science Bulletin,1994,39(9):766-771.
[48]惠东威.RAPD重建大豆属植物的亲缘关系[J].遗传学报,1996,23(6):460-468.
[49]钱吉.不同纬度野生大豆种群间的遗传变异[J].复旦学报,1998,37(2):208
[50]张德水.用栽培大豆和半野生大豆间的杂种F1群体构建基因组分子标记连锁框架图[J].科学通报,1997,4(12):1326-1330.
[51]张德水.栽培大豆和半野生大豆杂种F2群体中RFLP标记的偏分离及其形成原因的分析[J].遗传学报,1997,24(4):362-367.
[52]李莹,焦广晋,王国勋.山西省野生大豆生态分析[A].大豆遗传资源研究论文[C].太原:山西科学技术出版社,1991,14-21.
[53]胡志昂,王洪新.中国栽培大豆82个代表品种SP1,Ti和E_P各等位基因频率[J].植物学报,1984,26(3):328-332.
[54]Doyle J J,Beachy R N.Ribosomal gene variation in soybean(Glycine) and its wild relatives.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1985.70:369-376.
[55]Doyle J J.5S ribosomal gene variation in soybean(Glycine) and its progenitor.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1988,75:621-3624.
[56]Shoemaker R C,Haffield P M,Palmer R G,et al.Chloroplast DNA variation and evolution in the genus Glycine subgenus Soja.J.Hered.,1986,77:26-30.
[57]Juvik G,Bernard R L,Chang R Z,et al.Evaluation of the USDA Wild Soybean Germplasm Collection:Maturity Group 000 to IV(PI 65.549 to PI 483.464).U.S.Department of Agriculture.Tech.Bull.1761,U.S.Gov.Print.Office,Washington D C,1989.
[58]Walker A K,Cooper R L Adaptation of soybean cultivars to low-yield environments.Crop Sci.,1982,22:678-680.
[59]Chen Y W,Nelson R L.Variation in Early Plant Height in Wild Soybean.Crop Sci.,2006,46:865-869.
[60]Mian M A R,Ashley D A,Vcncill W K,et al.QTLs conditioning early growth in a soybean population segregating for growth habit.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1998,92:516-523.
[61]Dong Y S,Sun H,Zhuang B,et al.The genetic diversity in annual wild soybean.1999,p.147-155. In Proceed. World Soybean Research Conference VI, Chicago, IL.
[62] Bernard R L, Weiss, M G Qualitative genetics, p.117-154. In B. E. Caldwell (ed.) Soybean: Improvement, production, and uses. Agron., Monogr. 16. ASA, Madison, WI, 1973.
[63] Domingo W E. Inheritance of number of seeds per pod and leaflet shape in the soybean. J. Agric, Res., 1945,70:251-268
[64] Sawada S. Inheritance of leaflet shape in soybean. Soybean Genet., Newsl. 1988,15:61-65.
[65] Sawada S. Time of determination and variations within and between plants in leaf shape of soybean. Jpn. J. Crop Sci., 1992,61:96-100.
[66] Takahashi N. Linkage relation between the genes for the forms of leaves and the number of seeds per pod of soybean. Jpn. J. Genet., 1934,9:208-225.
[67] You M D, Liu Y B, Zhou T J, et al. Effects of leaf shape on seed yield and its components in soybeans. Soybean Genet., Newsl., 1995,22:66-70.
[68] Fukui, J., and S. Sunaga. Comparative investigation on morphological interstrain variation among Siberian (USSR), northeastern Chinese, South Korean and Japanese strains of wild soybean, Glycine soja Sieb, and Zucc. J. Faculty Agric, Iwate Univ., 1978,14:81-94.
[69] Zheng H Y, Chen H D. A preliminary study on the resources of wild soybean in Jilin province. Sci., Agric, Sinica., 1980,13:26-32.
[70] Li F S. Chinese G soja collection catalog. China Agricultural Press, Beijing, China. 1990.
[71] Li F S. Chinese G soja collection catalog (continued). China Agricultural Press, Beijing, China. 1994.
[72] Chen YW, Nelson R L. Evaluation and Classification of Leaflet Shape and Size in Wild Soybean. Crop Sci., 2004,44:671-677.
[73] Ahrent D K, Caviness C E. Natural cross pollination of twelve soybean cultivars in Arkansas. Crop Sci., 1994,34:376-378.
[74] Chiang Y C, Kiang Y T. Geometric position of genotypes, honeybee foraging patterns and out-crossing in soybean. Bot. Bull. Acad. Sinica., 1987,28:1-11.
[75] Fujita R, Ohara M, Okazaki K, et al. The extent of natural cross-pollination wild soybean (Glycine soja). J. Hered., 1997,88:124-128.
[76] Kiang Y T, Chang Y C, Kaizuma N. Genetic diversity in natural populations of wild soybean in Iwate prefecture. J. Hered., 1992, 83:325-329.
[77] Xu Z Y, Chang R Z, Qiu L J, et al. Evaluation of soybean germplasm in China. 1999, p.156-165. Proceedings of Global Soy Forum 99. World Soybean Research Conference, VI, Chicago, IL. 4-7, Aug. 1999.
[78]Chang R Z,Qiu L J,Sun J Y,et al.Collection and conservation of soybean germplasm in China.1999,p.172-176.In Proc.World Soybean Research Conference VI.Chicago,IL.4-7 August 1999.National Soybean Research Lab.,Urbana,IL.
[79]Bult C J,Kiang Y T,Devine T E,et al.Testing for genetic linkage of morphological and electrophoretic loci in the cultivated soybean.Soybean Genet.,Newsl.1989,16:168-174.
[80]Kiang Y T,Gorman M B.Soybean.1983.p.295-328.In S.D.Tanksley and T.J.Orton(ed.)Isozymes in plant genetics and breeding,Part B.Elsevier Science Publishing Co.New York.
[81]Bult C J,Kiang Y T,Devine T E,et al.Testing for genetic linkage of morphological and electrophoretic loci in the cultivated soybean.Soybean Genet.,Newsl.,1989,16:168-174.
[82]Yu H,Kiang Y T.Re-examination of the recombination frequency between acid phosphatase and Kunitz tripsin inhibitor loci in soybean.Soybean Genet.,Newsl.,1990,17:106-108.
[83]Kane M V,Grabau L J.Early planted early maturing soybean cropping system:Growth,development and yield.Agron.J.,1992,84:769-773.
[84]Sisson V A,Miller P A,Campell W V,et al.Evidence of inheritance of resistance to the Mexican bean beetle in soybeans.Crop Sci.,1976,16:835-837.
[85]Apuya N,Frazier B,Keim P,Roth E J,et al.Restriction length polymorphisms as genetic markers in soybean,Glycine max(L.) Merr.Theor.AppL Genet.,1988,75:889-901.
[86]Keim P,Shoemaker R C,Palmer R G.Restriction fragment length polymorphism diversity in soybean.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1989.77:786-792.
[87]Williams J G K,Kubelik A R,Livak K J,et al.DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers.Nucleic Acids Res.,1990,18:6531-6535.
[88]Bassam B J,Caetano-AnoHes G,Gresshoff P M.Fast and sensitive silver staining of DNA in Polyacrylamide gels.Anal.Biochem.,1991,196:80-83.
[89]Caetano-Anolles G,Callahan L M,Williams P E,et al.DNA amplification fingerprinting analysis of bermudagrass(Cynodon):Genetic relationships between species and interspecific crosses.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1995,91:228-235(erratum:92:498).
[90]Caetano-Anolles G,Gresshoff P M.DNA amplification fingerprinting using arbitrary mini-hair pin oligonucleotide primers.Biotech.,1994,12:619-623.
[91]Akkaya M S,Bhagwat A A,Cregan P B.Length polymorphism of simple sequence repeat DNA in soybean.Genetics,1992,132:1131-1139.
[92]Rongwen J,Akkaya M S,Bhagwat A A,et al.The use of microsatellite DNA markers for soybean genotype identification.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1995,90:43-48.
[93]许占友,邱丽娟,常汝镇,等.利用SSR标记鉴定大豆种质[J].中国农业科学,1999,32(增 刊):40-48.
[94]许东河,高忠,盖钧镒,等.中国野生大豆与栽培大豆等位酶、RFLP和RAPD标记的遗传多样性与演化趋势分析[J].中国农业科学,1999,32(6):16-22.
[95]杨光宇,纪锋.中国野生大豆蛋白质含量及其氨基酸组成的研究进展[J].大豆科学,1999,18(1):57-61
[96]徐豹.中国大豆的蛋白资源[J].大豆科学,1984,3(4):329-331.
[97]王金陵.野生大豆蛋白质含量和性状间相关及通径分析[J].东北学院学报,1984,17(1):1-5.
[98]王颢.甘肃省野生大豆资源蛋白质含量分析[J],甘肃农业科技,1991,(5):12-14.
[99]王连铮.黑龙江省野生大豆的考察与研究[J].植物研究,1983,3:116-129.
[100]徐豹,张明,陆琴华.野生大豆的高含硫氨基酸种质[J].大豆科学,1993,12(3):265-266.
[101]杨光宇,尹爱平.野生大豆(G.soja)氨基酸组成的初步分析研究[J].大豆科学,1986,5(2):175-180.
[102]刘兴媛等.中国野生大豆子脂肪、蛋白质含量与农艺性状的关系[J].中国油料,1992,4:61-65.
[103]Hymowitz T,Singh R J,Kollipara K P.The genomes of the Glycine.Plant Breeding Reviews,1998,16:289-317.
[104]Menancio D I,Hepburn A G,Hymowitz T.Restriction fragment length polymorphyism(RFLP) of wild perennial relatives of soybean.Theoretical and Applied Genetics,1990,79:235-240.
[105]Taylor-Grant N,Soliman K M.Detection of polymorphic DNA and taxonomic relationships among 10 wild perennial soybean species using specific and arbitrary nucleotide primers.Biologia Plantarum,1999,42(1):25-37.
[106]李莹.大豆种间杂交产量形状的遗传变异[J].华北农学报,1986,(3):10-17.
[107]郑惠玉,陈化东.利用野生大豆种质育成小粒大豆新品种“吉林小粒1号”的选育报告[J].吉林农业科学,1991,3:9-11.
[108]王金陵.回交对克服栽培大豆与野生和半野生大豆杂交后代蔓生性状倒伏性的效应[J].大豆科学,1986,5(3):181-187.
[109]孙寰.大豆质-核互作不育系研究[J].科学通报,1993,38(16):1535-1536.
[110]吴冈梵.栽培大豆与野生大豆杂交问题探讨[J].中国油料,1988,(2):4-7.
[111]杨光宇.克服大豆种间杂种蔓生、小粒等不良性状技术的初步研究[J].大豆科学,1993,12(4):275-282
[112]李莹.野生大豆的利用[A].大豆品种资源:多样性、保存、鉴定和利用[C].太原:山西科学技术出版社,1990,106-112
[113]盖钧镒,许东河,高忠,等.中国栽培大豆和野生大豆不同生态类型群体间遗传演化关系的 研究[J].作物学报,2000,26(5):513-520
[114]Dong Y S,Zhuang B C,Zhao L M,et al.The genetic diversity of annual wil soybeans grown in China.Theoretical and Applied Genetics,2001,103:98-103.
[115]Fukuda Y.Cytogenetical studies on the wild and cultivated Manchurian soybeans(Glycine L).Japanese Journal of Botany,1933,6:489-506.
[116]董英山,庄炳昌,赵丽梅,等.中国野生大豆遗传多样性中心[J].作物学报,2000,26(5):521-527.
[117]Nesbitt T C,Tanksley S D.Comparative sequencing in the genus Lycopersicon:Implications for the evolution of fruit size in the domestication of cultivated tomatoes.Genetics,2002,162:365-379.
[118]姚振纯,林红,来永才.大豆种间杂交新种质遗传潜力评价[J].大豆科学.1996,15(4):310-316
[119]王克晶,李福山.野生大豆种质杂交导入的育种效果[J].植物遗传资源科学.2000,1(3):34-38
[120]杨光宇.东北地区野生、半野生大豆在育种中利用研究进展[J].大豆科学.1997,16(3):259-263
[121]Fukui J.Collection and preservation of wild soybeans(Glycine soja) and its significance on the breeding program.Japanese J of Breeding 1977,27,167-173
[122]Williams TA.The soy bean as a forage crop.USDA Farmers' Bull.1897,58.
[123]Arny A C.The influence of time of cutting on the quality of crops.Agron.J.,1926,18:684-703.
[124]Hackleman J C.The future of the soybean as a forage crop.Agron.J.,1924,16:228-236.
[125]Smith K J,Huyser W.World distribution and significance of soybean[A].In J.R.Wilcox(ed.)Soybeans:Improvement,production,and uses[C].ASA,Madison,WI.1987,3-22.
[126]Sheaffer C C,Orf J H,Devine T E,et al.Yield and quality of forage soybean.Agron.J.,2001,93:99-106.
[127]Koivisto J M,Devine T E,Gerry P F,et al.Forage soybeans(Glycine max(L.) Merr.) in the United Kingdom:test of new cultivars.Agronomie,2003,(23):287-291.
[128]Devine T E,Harley E O.Registration of donegal forage soybean.Crop Sci.,1998,38:1719-1720.
[129]Devine T E,Harley E O,Starner D E.Registration of 'Deny' forage soybean.Crop Sci.,1998a,38:1719-1720.
[130]Devine T E,Harley E O,Starner D E.Registration of 'Tyrone' forage soybean.Crop Sci.,1998b,38:1720.
[131]Seiter S,Altemose C E,Davis M H.Forage Soybean Yield and Quality Responses to Plant Density and Row Distance. Agron. J., 2004,96: 966-970.
[132] Hintz R W, Albrecht K A, Oplinger E S. Yield and quality of soybean forage as affected by cultivar and management practices. Agron. J., 1992, 84:795-798.
[133] Witjaksana D, Matthew M, Harbur D R, et al. Growth, Development, and Yield of Soybean Lines Developed for Forage. Agron. J., 2001, 93:1028-1034.
[134] Bernard R L, Juvik G A, Hartwig E E, et al. Origin and pedigrees of public soybean varieties in the United States and Canada. USDA Tech. Bull. 1988,1746.
[135] Rao S C, Mayeux H S, Northup B K. Performance of Forage Soybean in the Southern Great Plains. Crop Sci., 2005,45:1973-1977.
[136] Hintz R W, Albrecht K A. Dry matter partitioning and forage nutritive value of soybean plant components. Agron. J., 1994,86:59-62.
[137] Akin D E. Histological and physical factors affecting digestibility of forages. Agron. J., 1989, 81:17-25.
[138] Esau K. Anatomy of seed plants. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977.
[139] Fehr W R, Caviness C E, Burmood D T, et al. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci., 1971,11:929-931.
[140] Munoz A E, Holt E C, Weaver R W. Yield and quality of soybean hay as influenced by stage of growth and plant density. Agron. J., 1983,75:147-149.
[141] Fehr W R, Caviness C E. Stages of soybean development. Iowa Coop.Ext. Service, Iowa Agric, Home. Exp.Stn. Spec. Rep.80. Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA. 1977.
[142] Good E S. Late-cut vs. early-cut soybean hay for Stocker cattle. Kentucky. Agric, Exp.Stn. Bull. 435. Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 1942.
[143] Miller M D, Edwards R T, Williams W A. Soybean for forage and green manure[A]. In B. H. Beard and P.E Knowels (ed.) Soybean research in California[C]. California Agric, Exp.Stn. Bull. 862.1973, 60-63.
[144] Frame, J., J. F. L. Charlton, and A. S. Laidlaw. 1998. Temperate forage legumes. CAB Int., New York
[145] Linkemer G, Board J E, Musgrave M E. Water logging effects on growth and yield components in late-planted soybean. Crop Sci., 1998,38:1576-1584.
[146] Griffin J L, Saxton A M. Response of solid-seeded soybean to flood irrigation. II. Flood duration. Agron. J., 1988, 80:885-888.
[147] Johnson D R, Major D J. Harvest index of soybean as affected by planting date and maturity rating. Agron. J., 1979,71:538-541.
[148]Caffaro S V,Nakayama E Vegetative activity of the main stem terminal bud under photoperiod and flower removal treatments in soybean.Aust.J.Plant Physiol.,1988,15:475-480.
[149]Naeve S.Planting.1999,p.8-11.In J.M.Bennett(ed.) The Minnesota Soybean Field Book.Univ.Minnesota Ext.,St.Paul,MN.
[I50]Parvez A Q,Gradner F P,Boote K J.Determinate and indeterminate type soybean cultivar responses to pattern,density,and planting date.Crop Sci.,1989,29:150-157.
[151]Savoy B R,Cothren J T.Soybean biomass accumulation and leaf area index in early-season production environments.Agron.J.,1992.,84:956-959.
[152]Hicks D R,Lueschen W E,Ford J H.Effect of stand density and thinning on soybean.J.Prod.Agric.,1990,3:587-590.
[153]Ocumpeugh,W.R.,A.G.Matches,and V.D.Luedders.1981.Sod-seeded soybeans for forage.Agron.J.,73:571-574.
[154]Redfearn,Daren D.,Dwayne R.Buxton,and Tom E.Devine.Sorghum Intercropping Effects on Yield,Morphology,and Quality of Forage Soybean.Crop Sci.,1999 39:1380-1384.
[155]Willard C J.The time of harvesting soybean for hay andseed.J.Am.Soc.Agron.,1925.17:157-168.
[156]垦利县畜牧局,垦利县野生大豆资源调查[内部交流材料].1996,4.
[157]董宽虎,沈益新.饲草生产学[M].中国农业出版社,2003.
[158]肖文一,陈德新,吴渠来.饲用植物栽培与利用[M].农业出版社,1991.
[159]贾慎修.中国饲用植物志[M].农业出版社,1987
[160]石凤翎,王明玖,王建光.豆科牧草栽培[M].2003,3.
[161]吴立新.新型饲料源-野大豆草粉[J].畜禽业,2004,9:61-62.
[162]Kilcher M R,Heinrichs D H.A grass-alfalfa mixture compared with cereal grains for fodder production under semi-arid conditions.Can.J.Plant Sci.,1961,41:799-80.
[163]Baron V S,Najda H G,Salmon D F,et al.Post-flowering forage potential of spring and winter cereal mixtuRes.,Can.J.Plant Sci.,1992,72:137-145.
[164]Carr P M,Martin G B,Caton J S,et al.Forage and nitrogen yield of barley-pea and oat-pea intercrops.Agron.J.,1998,90:79-84.
[165]Willms W D,Rode L M,Freeze B S.Winter performance of hereford cows on rescue prairie and in drylot as influenced by fall grazing.Can.J.Anita.Sci.,1993,73:881-889.
[166]Adams D C,Clark R T,Coady S A,et al.Extended grazing systems for improving economic returns from Nebraska sandhills cow/calf operations.J.Range Manage.,1994,47:258-263.
[167]Manske L L,Nelson J L.Grazing annual forages on cropland in western North Dakota.Range Res., RepDREC 95-1010. North Dakota State Univ., Dickinson Res., Ext. Cent., Dickinson, 1995.
[168] MacAlpine N D, Engstrom D F, Kirtz J, et al. Resources for beef industry expansion in Alberta. Alberta Agric., Food and Rural Dev., Edmonton, AB, Canada. 1997.
[169] McLeod J G, Gan Y, Salmon D F, et al. Triticale? Biomass potential and quality on the Canadian prairies[A]. In P.E. Juskiw (ed.) Proc. Int. Triticale Symp.[C], 4th, Red Deer, AB, Canada. 26-31 July 1998. Vol. 2. Agric, and Agric-Food Can., Lacombe, AB. 1998,264-267
[170] Stallknecht G F, Wichman D M. The evaluation of winter and spring triticale (x Triticosecale Wittmack) for grain and forage production under dryland cropping in Montana, USA[A]. In P.E. Juskiw (ed.) Proc. Int. Triticale Symp[C]., 4th, Red Deer, AB, Canada. 26-31 July 1998. Vol. 2. Agric, and Agric-Food Can., Lacombe, AB. 1998,272-278.
[171] Berkenkamp B, MeeRes J. Mixtures of annual crops for forage in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1987,67:175-183.
[172] Chapko L B, Brinkman M A, Albrecht K A. Oat, oat-pea, barley, and barley-pea for forage yield, forage quality, and alfalfa establishment. J. Prod. Agric, 1991,4:486-491.
[173] Mustafa A F, Christensen D A, McKinnon J J. Effects of pea, barley, and alfalfa silage on ruminal nutrient degradability and performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 2000,83:2859-2865.
[174] Malm N R, Arledge J S, Barnes C E. Forage production from winter small grains in southeastern New Mexico. Bull. 607. New Mexico State Univ. Agric, Exp.Stn., Las Cruces, NM. 1973.
[175] Rao S C, Coleman S W, Volesky J D. Yield and quality of wheat, triticale, and elytricum forage in the Southern Plains. Crop Sci., 2000,40:1308-1312.
[176] Anil L, Park J, Phipps R H, Miller F A. Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: A review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK Grass Forage Sci., 1998, 53:301-317.
[177] Hall M H, Kephart K D. Management of spring-planted pea and triticale mixtures for forage production. J. Prod. Agric, 1991,4:213-218.
[178] Edmisten K L, Green J T, Mueller J J P, et al. Winter annual small grain forage potential: II. Quantification of nutritive characteristics of four small grain species at six growth stages. Commun. Soil Sci., Plant Anal., 1998,29:881-899.
[179] Jedel P E, Helm J H. Forage potential of pulse-cereal mixtures in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1993,73:437-444.
[180] Robinson R G Oat-pea or oat-vetch mixtures for forage or seed. Agron. J., 1960,52:546-549
[181] Simmons S R, Martin N P, Sheafer C C, et al. Companion crop forage establishment: Producer practices and perceptions. J. Prod. Agric, 1992,5:67-72.
[182]Zhu Y,Sheaffer C C,Barnes D k.Forage yield and quality of six annual Medicago species in the north.central USA.Agron.J.,1996,88:955-960.
[183]Moynihan J M,Simmons S R,Sheaffer C C.Intercropping annual medic with conventional height and semidwarf barley grown for grain.Agron.J.,1996,88:823-828.
[184]De Haan R L,Sheaffer C C,Barnes D K.Effect of annual medic smother plants on weed control and yield in corn.Agron.J.,1997,89:813-821.
[185]Zhu Y,Sheaffer C C.Growth analysis of spring and summer seeded annual Medicago spp.Crop Sci.,1997,37:1514-1519.
[186]Hardin B.Inter-cropping,for more forage and less erosion.Agric.,Res.,1996,44(3):15.
[187]Alford C M,Krall J M,Miller S D.Intercropping Irrigated Corn with Annual Legumes for Fall Forage in the High Plains.Agron.J.,2003,95:520-525.
[188]Elliott K,White A S.Competitive effects of various grasses and forbs on ponderosa pine seedlings.For.Sci.,1987,33:356-366.
[189]Doormaar J F,Naeth M A,Willms W D,et al.Effect of native prairie,crested wheatgtrass (Agropyron cristatum(L.) Gaertn.) and Russian wildrye(Elymus junceus Fisch.) on soil chemical properties.J.Range Manage.,1995,48:258-263.
[190]杨胜.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:北京农业大学出版社,1999.
[191]SAS Institute.The SAS system for Windows.Release 9.1.SAS Inst.,Cary,NC.2002.
[192]莫惠栋.农业试验统计[M].上海科学技术出版社,1984.396-446.
[193]徐国平.T型杂种小麦恢复度及几个产量性状的基因型、环境、基因型×环境互作的通径分析[J].河南农业大学学报,1986,3(2):221-227.
[194]乔春贵.建立作物产量最优多元回归方程新方法通径系数测验法[J].吉林农业大学学报,1986,8(3):26-31.
[195]杨铁钊.玉米籽粒灌浆性状与产量性状的相关拉遗传研究[J].河南农业大学学报,1985,12(3):326-340.
[196]Aitken Y.Plant development and shoot structure,p.20-40.In Flowering time,climate and genotype.Melbourne University Press,Carlton,Australia.(2 ed.) 1974.
[197]Clarkson N M,Russell J S.Flowering responses to vernalization and photopedod in annual medics (Medicago spp.).Aust.J.Agric.,Res.,1975,26:831-838.
[198]Clarkson N M,Russell J S.1976.Effect of water stress on the phasic development of annual Medicago species.Aust.J.Agric.,Res.,27:227-234
[199]Van-Heerden J M.Influence of temperature and daylength on the phenological development of annual Medicago species with particular reference to M.truncatula,cv.Jemalong.S.Afr.J.Plant Soil 1984,1:73-78.
[200] Crawford E J, Lake AW H, Boyce K G Breeding annual Medicago species for semiarid conditions in southern Australia. Adv. Agron., 1989,42:399-437.
[201] Dufault R J. Determining heat unit requirements for broccoli in coastal South Carolina. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci., 1997,122:169-174.
[202] Linn J G, Martin N P.Forage quality tests and interpretations. Bull. FO-02367. Univ. of Minnesota Coop.Ext. Serv., St. Paul. 1999.
[203] Undersander D, Howard W T, Smith T. Making forage analysis work for you in balancing livestock rations and marketing hay[A]. Bull. A 3325[C], Univ. of Wisconsin Coop.Ext. Serv., Madison. 1985.
[204] Casler M D. Cultivar and cultivar x environment effects on relative feed value of temperate grasses. Crop Sci., 1990,30:722-728.
[205] Palle P, Lauer J G. Soybean Growth and Development in Various Management Systems and Planting Dates. Crop Sci., 2004,44:508-515.
[206] Bowers, G. R. 1995. An early soybean production system for drought avoidance. J. Prod. Agric, 8:112-119.
[207] Heatherly L G, Elmore C D. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) to planting in untilled, weedy seedbed on clay soil. Weed Sci., 1983,31:93-99.
[208] Palle P, Lauer J G. Soybean Growth and Development in Various Management Systems and Planting Dates. Crop Sci., 2004,44:508-515.
[209] Kiniry J R, Rosenthal W D, Jackson B S, et al. Predicting leaf development of crop plants[A]. In T. Hodges (ed.). Predicting crop phenology[C]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 1991,29-42.
[210] Van Esbroeck G A, Hussey M A, Sanderson M. A. Leaf appearance and final leaf number of switchgrass cultivars. Crop Sci., 1997,37:864-870.
[211] Baker J T, Pinter P J, Reginato J R J, et al. Effect of temperature on leaf appearance rates in spring and winter wheat cultivars. Agron. J., 1986,78:605-613
[212] Ney B, Turc O. Heat-unit based description of the reproductive development of pea. Crop Sci., 1993,33:510-514.
[213] Crauford P Q, Subedi M, Summerfield R J. Leaf appearance in cowpeas: Effects of temperature and photoperiod. Crop Sci., 1997,37:167-171.
[214] Raguse C A, Menke J W, Sumner D C. Developmental morphology of seedling subterranean and rose clover leaves. Crop Sci., 1974,14:333-334.
[215] Sinclair T R. Leaf area development in field-grown soybeans Agron. J., 1984,76:141-146.
[216] Truong H H, Duthion C. Time of flowering of pea (Pisum sativum L.) as a function of leaf appearance rate and node of first flower. Ann. Bot. 1993,72:133--142.
[217] Caldwell B E. Soybean: Improvement, production and uses. Agron., Mono. 16. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. 1973.
[218] Ritchie S W, Hanway J J, Thompson H E, et al. How a soybean plant develops. Spec. Rep.53. Iowa State Univ. Coop.Ext. Service, Ames, IA. 1982.
[219] Mancuso N, Caviness C E. Association of selected plant traits with lodging of four determinate soybean cultivars. Crop Sci., 1991,31:911-914.
[220] Caballero R, Barro C, Rebole A, et al. Yield components and forage quality of common vetch during pod filling. Agron. J., 1996,88:797-800.
[221] Elias S G, Copeland L O. Physiological and harvest maturity of canola in relation to seed quality. Agron. J., 2001,93:1054-1058.
[222] Alzueta C, Caballero R, Rebole A, et al. Crude protein fractions in common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) fresh forage during pod filling. J. Anim. Sci., 2001,79:2449-2455.
[223] Buxton D R, Hornstein J S. Cell-wall concentration and components in stratified canopies of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and red clover. Crop Sci., 1986,26:180-184.
[224] Hoffman P C, Sievert S J, Shaver R D, et al. Insitu dry matter, protein, and fiber degradation of perennial forages. J. Dairy Sci., 1993,76:2632-2643
[225] Eagles C F, Othman O B. Variation in growth attributes of contrasting populations of Trifolium repens L. Ann. Appl. Biol., 1986,108:619-628
[226] Davies A, Evans M E. The pattern of growth in swards of two contrasting varieties of white clover in winter and spring. Grass Forage Sci., 1982,37:199-207.
[227] Cassida K A, Griffin T S, Rodriguez J, et al. Protein Degradability and Forage Quality in Maturing Alfalfa, Red Clover, and Birdsfoot Trefoil. Crop Sci., 2000,40:209-215.
[228] Griffin T S, Cassida K A, Hesterman O B, et al. Alfalfa maturity and cultivar effects on chemical and in situ estimates of protein degradability. Crop Sci., 1994,34:1654-1661.
[229] Coleman S W. Plant-animal interface. J. Prod. Agric, 1992,5:7-13.
[230] Nelson C J, Moser L E. Plant factors affecting forage quality. In: Fahey G C, J, 2ed. Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, 1994:115-154.
[231] Kilcher M R, Troelsen J E. Contribution of stems and leaves to the composition and nutrient content of irrigated bromegrass at different stages of development. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1973, 53:767-771
[232] Buxton D R. Cell wall components in divergent germplasms of four perennial forage grass species. Crop Sci., 1990,30:402-408.
[233] Casler M D. Causal effects among forage yield and quality measures of smooth bromegrass. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1986,66:591-600.
[234] Goto I, Minson D. Prediction of the dry matter digestibility of tropical grasses using a pepsin- cellulase essay[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1977, (2):247-253.
[235] Van Soest P J. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Corvallis, OR: O & B Books, 1982.
[236] Buxton D R, Hornstein J S. Cell-wall concentration and components in stratified canopies of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and red clover. Crop Sci., 1986, 26:180-184.
[237] Fick G W, Holthausen R S. Significance of parts other than blades and stems in leaf-stem separations of alfalfa herbage. Crop Sci., 1975,15:259-262
[238] Kilcher M. R., Heinrichs D. H. Contribution of stems and leaves to the yield and nutrient level of irrigated alfalfa at different stages of development. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1974,54:739-742
[239] Kilcher M. R., Troelsen J. E. Contribution of stems and leaves to the composition and nutrient content of irrigated bromegrass at different stages of development. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1973, 53:767-771.
[240] Fick G W, Holthausen R S. Significance of parts other than blades and stems in leaf-stem separations of alfalfa herbage. Crop Sci., 1975,15:259-262.
[241] Sheaffer C C, Martin N P, Lamb J F S, et al. Leaf and Stem Properties of Alfalfa Entries. Agron. J., 2000,92:733-739.
[242] Afza R, Hardarson G, Zapata F. Effects of delayed soil and foliar N fertilization on yield and N_2 fixation of soybean. Plant Soi., 1987,97:361-368
[243] Al-Ithawi B, Deibert E J, Olson R A. Applied N and moisture level effects on yield, depth of root activity and nutrient uptake by soybean. Agron. J., 1980,72:827-832.
[244] Touchton J T, Rickerl D H. Soybean growth and yield response to starter fertilizers. Soil Sci., Soc. Am. J., 1986,50:234-237.
[245] Wood C W, Torbert H A, Weaver D B. Nitrogen fertilizer effects on soybean growth, yield, and seed composition. J. Prod. Agric., 1993,6:354-360.
[246] Ham G E, Caldwell A C. Fertilizer placement effects on soybean seed yield, N_2 fixation, and ~(33)P uptake. Agron. J., 1978,70:779-783.
[247] Hariston J E, Jones W F, Marshall L K, et al. Tillage and fertilizer management effects on soybean growth and yield on three Mississippi Soils. J. Prod. Agric, 1990, 3:317-323.
[248] Starling M E, Wood C W, Weaver D B. Starter nitrogen and growth habit effects on late-planted soybean. Agron. J., 1998,90:658-662.
[249] Eaglesham A R J, Houssouna S, Seegars R. Fertilizer-N effects on N_2 fixation by cowpea and soybean. Agron. J., 1983,75:61-66.
[250] Varco J J. Nutrition and fertility requirements. Soybean production in the Midsouth[A], In L. G. Heatherly and H. F. Hodges (ed.). CRC Press[C], Washington, DC. 1999,53-70.
[251] Sharpley A N, Smith S J, Bain W R. Nitrogen and phosphorus fate from long-term poultry application to Oklahoma soils. Soil Sci., Soc. Am. J., 1993,57:1131-1137.
[252] Marschner H. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1998.
[253] Mills H A, Jones J B J. Plant analysis handbook: II. A practical sampling, preparation, analysis, and interpretation guide[M]. MicroMacro Publ., Inc., Jefferson City, MO. 1996,80
[254] Jones G D, Lutz, Jr. J A, Smith T J. Effects of phosphorus and potassium on soybean nodules and seed yield. Agron. J., 1977, 69:1003-1006.
[255] Barker, Daniel W., and John E. Sawyer. Nitrogen Application to Soybean at Early Reproductive Development. Agron. J., 2005 97: 615-619.
[256] Schmitt M A, Lamb J A, Randall G W, et al. In-Season Fertilizer Nitrogen Applications for Soybean in Minnesota. Agron. J., 2001, 93:983-988.
[257] Raper D C, Kramer P J. Stress physiology. Soybeans: Improvement, production, and uses[A]. In J. R. Wilcox (ed.)[C].2nd ed. Agron., Monogr. 16. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. 1987, p.589-641.
[258] Kasperbauer M J. Spectral distribution of light in a tobacco canopy and effect of end-of-day light quality on growth and development. Plant Physiol. 1971,47:775-778.
[259] Devine T E, Lucey R F, Hatley E O, et al. Performance of forage soybean in mid and northern Atlantic states[A]. In H. E. Kauffman (ed.) Proc[C]. World Soybean Res., Conf., VI., Chicago, Il. 4-7 Aug. 1999. Superior Printing, Champaign, IL, 1999,681-682.
[260] Koivisto J M, Devine T E, Sawyer C S, et al. Evaluation of forage soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Men.) in the United Kingdom[A]. In Proc. Eur. Grassl[C]. Federation, La Rochelle, France. 2002, 27-30.
[261] Nayigihugu V, Kellogg W, Longer D, et al. Performance and ensiling characteristics of tall growing soybean lines used for forage. 2000, p. 142-147. Anim. Sci., Dep.Rep.470. Arkansas Agric, Exp.Stn., Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
[262] Shibles R M. Soybean nitrogen acquisition and utilization. 1998, p.5-11. In Proc. North Central Ext.-Industry Soil Fert. Conf., 28th, St. Louis, MO. 11-12 Nov. 1998. Potash & Phosphate Inst., Brookings, SD
[263] Hanway J J, Weber C R.N, P, and K percentages in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) plant parts. Agron. J. 1971, 63:286-290.
[264] Min D H, Vough L R, Reeves J. Dairy slurry effects on forage quality of orchardgrass, reed canarygrass, and alfalfa-grass mixtuRes., Anim. Feed Sci., Technol. III. 2002, 95:143-157.
[265] Johnson R C, Reiling B A, Mislevy P, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilization and harvest date on yield, digestibility, fiber, and protein fractions of tropical grasses. J. Anim. Sci., 2001, 79:2439- 2448.
[266] Anderson M A, McKenna J R, Martens D C, et al. Nitrogen recovery by timothy from surface application of dairy slurry. Commun. Soil Sci., Plant Anal. 1993,24:1139-1151.
[267] Rogers J R, Harvey R W, Poore M H, et al. Application of nitrogen from swine lagoon effluent to bermudagrass pasture: Seasonal changes in forage nitrogenous constituents and effects of energy and escape protein supplementation on beef cattle performance. J.Anim. Sci., 1996,74:1126-1133.
[268] Jeranyama P, Hesterman O B, Sheaffer C C. Medic planting date effect on dry matter and nitrogen accumulation when clear-eeded or intercropped with corn. Agron. J., 1998,90: 616-622.
[269] Scott T W, Pleasant J Mt, Burt R F, et al. Contributions of ground cover, dry matter, and nitrogen from intercrops and cover crops in a corn polyculture system. Agron. J., 1987,79:792-798.
[270] Agboola A A, Fayemi A A A. Fixation and excretion of nitrogen by tropical legumes. Agron. J., 1972,64:409-412.
[271] Walton P D. Annual forages seeding rates and mixtures for central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1975, 55:987-993.
[272] Izaurralde R C, Juma N. G., McGill W B. Plant and nitro gen yield of barley-field pea intercrop in cryoboreal-subhumid central Alberta. Agron. J., 1990, 82:295-301.
[273] Droushiotis D N. Mixtures of annual legumes and small-grain cereals for forage production under low rainfall. J. Agric., Sci., 1989,113:249-253
[274] Nordquist P T, Wicks G A. Establishment methods for alfalfa in irrigated corn. Agron. J., 1974, 66:337-380.
[275] Sturgul S J, Daniel T C, Mueller D H. Tillage and canopy cover effects on interrill erosion from first-year alfalfa. Soil Sci., Soc. Am. J. 1990,54:1733-1739.
[276] Clawson K L, Specht J E, Blad B L. Growth analysis of soybean isolines differing in pubescence density. Agron. J., 1986,78:64-172.
[277] Yusuf R I, Siemens J C, Bullock D G Growth analysis of soybean under no-tillage and conventional tillage systems. Agron. J., 1999, 91:928-933.
[278] Holland J B, Brummer E C. Cultivar effects on oat-berseem clover intercrops. Agron. J., 1999, 91:321-329.
[279]Juskiw P E,Helm J.H.,Salmon D F.Competitive ability in mixtures of small grain cereals.Crop Sci.,2000,40:159-164.
[280]Wahua T A T,Miller D A.Relative yield totals and yield components of intercropped sorghum and soybeans.Agron.J.,1978,70:287-291.
[281]Mohta N K,De R.Intercropping maize and sorghum with soya beans.J.Agric.,Sci.,(Cambridge)1980,95:117-122.
[282]Ofori F,Stern W R.Cereal-legume intercropping systems.Adv.Agron.,1987,41:41-90.
[283]Dalal R C.Effects of intercropping maize with pigeon peas on grain yield and nutrient uptake.Exp.Agric.,1974,10:219-224.
[284]Hauggaard-Nielsen H,Jensen E S.Evaluating pea and barley cultivars for complementarity in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability.Field Crops Res.,2001,72:185-195.
[285]Drolsom P N,smith D.Adapting species for mixtures[A].In R.L Papendick et al.(ed.).Multiple cropping[C].ASA,CSSA,and SSSA,Madison,W.1976,223-234.
[286]Berdahl J D,Karn J F,Hendrickson J R.Nutritive Quality of Cool-Season Grass Monocultures and Binary Grass-AlfaLfa Mixtures at Late Harvest.Agron.J.,2004,96:951-955.
[287]Contreras-Govea,Francisco E,Albrecht K A.Mixtures of Kura Clover with Small Grains or Italian Ryegrass to Extend the Forage Production Season in the Northern USA.Agron.J.,2005,97:131-136.
[288]Curran B S,Kephart K D,TwidweH E K.Oat companion crop management in alfalfa establishment.Agron.J.,1993,85:998-1003.
[289]Walgenbach R P,Marten G C.Release of soluble protein and nitrogen in alfalfa Ⅲ.Influence of shading.Crop Sci.,1981,21:859-862.
[290]Kephart K D,Buxton D R,Taylor S E.Growth of C_3 and C_4 perennial grasses in reduced irradiance.Crop Sci.,1992,32:1033-1038.
[291]Lauriault L M,Kirksey R E,Yield and Nutritive Value of Irrigated Winter Cereal Forage Grass-Legume Intercrops in the Southern High Plains,USA.Agron.J.,2004,96:352-358.
[292]Wong C C,Wilson J R.Effects of shading on the growth and nitrogen content of green panic and siratro in pure and mixed swards defoliated at two frequencies.Aust.J.Agric.,Res.,1982,31:269-285.
[293]Kephart K D,Buxton D R.Forage quality responses of C_3 and C_4 perennial grasses to shade.Crop Sci.,1993,33:831-837.
[294]Ross S M,King J R,O'Donovan J T,et al.Forage potential of intercropping berseem clover with barley,oat,or triticale.Agron.J.,2004,96:1013-1020.
[295] Berkenkamp B, MeeRes J. Mixtures of annual crops for forage in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1987, 67:175-183.
[296] Jedel P E, Salmon D F. Forage potential of Wapiti triticale mixtures in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1994, 74:515-519.
[297] Ross S M, King J R, O'Donovan J T, et al. Seeding rate effects in oat-berseem clover intercrops. Can. J. Plant Sci., 2003,83:769-778.
[298] Cousens R. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1985, 07:239- 252.
[299] De Wit C T, Van Den Bergh J P. Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric, Sci., 1965, 13:212-221.
[300] Willey R W. Intercropping: Its importance and research needs: I. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crop Abstr. 1979,32:1-10.
[301] Lesoing G W, Francis C A. Strip intercropping effects on yield and yield components of corn, grain sorghum, and soybean. Agron. J., 1999,91:807-813.
[302] Brundage A L, Taylor R L, Burton V L. Relative yields and nutritive values of barley, oats, and peas harvested at four successive dates for forage. J. Dairy Sci., 1979, 62:740-745.
[303] Boehner P, Lesoing G, Francis C A. Strip cropping of grain sorghum/soybeans under dryland and irrigation in eastern Nebraska[A]. In Agronomy abstracts 1991[C]. ASA, Madison, WI. 1991,139.
[304] Crookston R K, Hill D S. Grain yields and land equivalent ratios from intercropping corn and soybeans in Minnesota. Agron. J., 1979,71:41-44.
[305] Fortin M C, Culley J, Edwards M. Soil water, plant growth, and yield of strip-intercropped corn. J. Prod. Agric, 1994, 7:63-69.
[306] Lesoing G W, Francis C A. Strip cropping of corn and soybean under dryland and irrigated conditions[A]. In Agronomy abstracts 1990[C]. ASA, Madison, WI. 1990,150.
[2]Tanksley S D,Mccouch S R.Seed banks and molecular maps:unlocking genetic potential from the wild.Science.1997,277:1063-1066.
[3]王绶,吕世霖.大豆[M].太原:山西人民出版社.1984.
[4]李星华.山东省主要大豆品种系谱分析[J].山东农业科学.1987,(3):4-84.
[5]范彦英.河南省主要大豆品种系谱分析[A].第六届全国大豆学术讨论会论文摘要汇编[C].1997,35-36.
[6]赵团结,崔章林,盖钧镒.中国大豆育成品种中江苏种质的遗传贡献[A].第六届全国大豆学术讨论会论文摘要汇编[C].1997,24:158-161.
[7]田佩占,袁全,孙永纯.1975-1995年吉林省大豆主要推广品种及其遗传关系LA].第六届全国大豆学术讨论会论文摘要汇编[C].1997,30-31.
[8]钱吉,马玉虹.烟豆小种群的PAPD研究[J].遗传,2003,25(3):314-316.
[9]郑惠玉,陈化东.吉林省野生大豆资源研究初报[J].中国农业科学,1980,4:26-32.
[10]徐豹.中国野生大豆(G.soja)研究十年[J].吉林农业科学,1989,15-12.
[11]李福山.中国野生大豆资源的地理分布及生态分化研究[J].中国农业科学,1993,26(2):47-55.
[12]王连铮.大豆的起源演化与传播[J].大豆科学.1985,3(4):327-331.
[13]Hymowitz T,Singh R..I.,Taxonomy,et al.Soybean:Improvement,production and uses[A].In:Wilcox J.R.2 ed.Agronomy[C].ASA CSSA SSCA Publishers,1987:23-45.
[14]徐豹,路琴华,庄炳昌.中国野生大豆生态类型的研究[J].中国农业科学,1987,20(s):29-35.
[15]庄炳昌.中国野生大豆生物学研究[M].科学出版社.1999.
[16]徐豹,路琴华,庄炳昌.中国不同纬度野生大豆的光温生态分析[J].大豆科学,1983,2(3):155-168.
[17]徐树传.野生大豆光温反映观察研究[J].福建农业科学,1985,5:19-20.
[18]李福山,常汝镇,舒世珍.栽培、野生、半野生大豆蛋白质含量及氨基酸组成的初步分析[J].大豆科学,1986,5(1):65-71.
[19]陆静梅,刘有良,胡波.中国野生大豆盐腺的发现[J].科学通报,1993,38(1):535-536.
[20]林红.野生大豆的利用和优异种质资源的创新[J].中国油料,1996,18(4):70-72.
[21]马淑时,王伟.大豆品种资源抗盐碱性研究[J].作物品种资源,1994,4:69-72.
[22]於丙军,刘有良.大豆耐盐性研究进展[J].大豆科学,2000,19(2):154-159.
[23]於丙军,罗庆云,刘友良.盐胁迫对野大豆生长和离子分布的影响[J].作物学报,2001, 27(6):776-780.
[24]张美云,钱吉,钟扬,等.野生大豆若干耐盐生理指标的研究[J].复旦学报(自然科学版),2002,41(6):669～673.
[25]杨晓英,章文华,王庆亚,等.江苏野生大豆的耐盐性和离子在体内的分布及选择性运输[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(12):2237-2340.
[26]乔亚科,李桂兰,高书国,等.昌黎沿海野生大豆的分布与耐盐性[J].河北职业技术师范学院学报,2001,15(2):9-13.
[27]王洪新,胡志昂,钟敏.盐渍条件下野生大豆群体的遗传分化和生理适应:同工酶和随机扩增多态DNA研究[J].植物学报,1997,39(1):39-42.
[28]刘学义,张小虎.黄淮海地区大豆种质资源抗旱性鉴定及其研究[J].山西农业科学,1993,21(1):19-24.
[29]栾谦益.天津野生大豆的观察[J].大豆科学,1989,8(1):97-100.
[30]山仑,陈元培.旱地农业生理生态基础[M].北京:科学出版社,1998:98-105.
[31]孔照胜,武云帅,岳爱琴.不同大豆品种抗旱性生理指标综合分析[J].华北农学报,2000,16(3):40-45.
[32]王国勋,常汝镇,李莹.山西野生大豆资源考察报告[A].大豆遗传资源研究论文集[C],太原:山西科学技术出版社,1991:1-13.
[33]刘学义.大豆抗旱性评定方法探讨[J].中国油料,1986,4(2):23-26.
[34]史宏,刘学义.野生大豆抗旱性鉴定研究[J].大豆科学,2003,22(4):264-268.
[35]朱文英,寿惠霞.野生大豆种质资源在大豆育种中的利用[J].大豆通报,1996,5:26-27.
[36]林红.野生大豆特异种质资源的鉴定和利用[J].黑龙江农业科学,1997,1:40-42.
[37]王洪新,胡志昂.北京地区野生大豆天然遗传结构[J].植物学报,1985,27(6):599-604.
[38]李福山.大豆起源及其演化研究[J].大豆科学,1994,13(1):61-66.
[39]Li Z L,Nelson R L.RAPD marker diversity among cultivated and wild soybean accessions from four Chinese provinces.Crop Sci.,2002,42:1737-1742.
[40]王洪新,胡志昂.中国栽培大豆代表品种和野生大豆部分群体脲酶等位酶的分析[J].大豆科学,1994,13(1):67-71.
[41]Buttery,Buzzell.Properties and inheritance of usease isoenzymes in soybean seads.Can.J.of Bot.,1971,49:1101-1105.
[42]Mervesh,T L,Hymowitz T.Screening of the USDA Glysine soja collection for urease variants.Soybean Genet.,Newst.1987,14:265-267.
[43]李军.同工酶水平上野生大豆种群内分化的研究[J].植物学报,1995,37(9):669-676.
[44]李军.野生大豆种子库中同工酶水平的遗传多样性的初步研究[J].应用生态学报,1998, 9(2):145-149.
[45]庄炳昌,惠东威,王玉民,等.中国不同纬度不同进化类型大豆的RAPD分析[J].科学通报,1994,39(23):2178-2180.
[46]谢华,常汝镇,曹永生,张明辉,冯忠孚,邱丽娟.利用中国秋大豆(Glycine max(L.)Merr)筛选S S R核心位点的研究[J].中国农业科学,2003,36(4):360-366.
[47]Hui Dong wei.Study on systemitics in Glycine with RAPD fingerprinting[J].Chinese Science Bulletin,1994,39(9):766-771.
[48]惠东威.RAPD重建大豆属植物的亲缘关系[J].遗传学报,1996,23(6):460-468.
[49]钱吉.不同纬度野生大豆种群间的遗传变异[J].复旦学报,1998,37(2):208
[50]张德水.用栽培大豆和半野生大豆间的杂种F1群体构建基因组分子标记连锁框架图[J].科学通报,1997,4(12):1326-1330.
[51]张德水.栽培大豆和半野生大豆杂种F2群体中RFLP标记的偏分离及其形成原因的分析[J].遗传学报,1997,24(4):362-367.
[52]李莹,焦广晋,王国勋.山西省野生大豆生态分析[A].大豆遗传资源研究论文[C].太原:山西科学技术出版社,1991,14-21.
[53]胡志昂,王洪新.中国栽培大豆82个代表品种SP1,Ti和E_P各等位基因频率[J].植物学报,1984,26(3):328-332.
[54]Doyle J J,Beachy R N.Ribosomal gene variation in soybean(Glycine) and its wild relatives.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1985.70:369-376.
[55]Doyle J J.5S ribosomal gene variation in soybean(Glycine) and its progenitor.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1988,75:621-3624.
[56]Shoemaker R C,Haffield P M,Palmer R G,et al.Chloroplast DNA variation and evolution in the genus Glycine subgenus Soja.J.Hered.,1986,77:26-30.
[57]Juvik G,Bernard R L,Chang R Z,et al.Evaluation of the USDA Wild Soybean Germplasm Collection:Maturity Group 000 to IV(PI 65.549 to PI 483.464).U.S.Department of Agriculture.Tech.Bull.1761,U.S.Gov.Print.Office,Washington D C,1989.
[58]Walker A K,Cooper R L Adaptation of soybean cultivars to low-yield environments.Crop Sci.,1982,22:678-680.
[59]Chen Y W,Nelson R L.Variation in Early Plant Height in Wild Soybean.Crop Sci.,2006,46:865-869.
[60]Mian M A R,Ashley D A,Vcncill W K,et al.QTLs conditioning early growth in a soybean population segregating for growth habit.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1998,92:516-523.
[61]Dong Y S,Sun H,Zhuang B,et al.The genetic diversity in annual wild soybean.1999,p.147-155. In Proceed. World Soybean Research Conference VI, Chicago, IL.
[62] Bernard R L, Weiss, M G Qualitative genetics, p.117-154. In B. E. Caldwell (ed.) Soybean: Improvement, production, and uses. Agron., Monogr. 16. ASA, Madison, WI, 1973.
[63] Domingo W E. Inheritance of number of seeds per pod and leaflet shape in the soybean. J. Agric, Res., 1945,70:251-268
[64] Sawada S. Inheritance of leaflet shape in soybean. Soybean Genet., Newsl. 1988,15:61-65.
[65] Sawada S. Time of determination and variations within and between plants in leaf shape of soybean. Jpn. J. Crop Sci., 1992,61:96-100.
[66] Takahashi N. Linkage relation between the genes for the forms of leaves and the number of seeds per pod of soybean. Jpn. J. Genet., 1934,9:208-225.
[67] You M D, Liu Y B, Zhou T J, et al. Effects of leaf shape on seed yield and its components in soybeans. Soybean Genet., Newsl., 1995,22:66-70.
[68] Fukui, J., and S. Sunaga. Comparative investigation on morphological interstrain variation among Siberian (USSR), northeastern Chinese, South Korean and Japanese strains of wild soybean, Glycine soja Sieb, and Zucc. J. Faculty Agric, Iwate Univ., 1978,14:81-94.
[69] Zheng H Y, Chen H D. A preliminary study on the resources of wild soybean in Jilin province. Sci., Agric, Sinica., 1980,13:26-32.
[70] Li F S. Chinese G soja collection catalog. China Agricultural Press, Beijing, China. 1990.
[71] Li F S. Chinese G soja collection catalog (continued). China Agricultural Press, Beijing, China. 1994.
[72] Chen YW, Nelson R L. Evaluation and Classification of Leaflet Shape and Size in Wild Soybean. Crop Sci., 2004,44:671-677.
[73] Ahrent D K, Caviness C E. Natural cross pollination of twelve soybean cultivars in Arkansas. Crop Sci., 1994,34:376-378.
[74] Chiang Y C, Kiang Y T. Geometric position of genotypes, honeybee foraging patterns and out-crossing in soybean. Bot. Bull. Acad. Sinica., 1987,28:1-11.
[75] Fujita R, Ohara M, Okazaki K, et al. The extent of natural cross-pollination wild soybean (Glycine soja). J. Hered., 1997,88:124-128.
[76] Kiang Y T, Chang Y C, Kaizuma N. Genetic diversity in natural populations of wild soybean in Iwate prefecture. J. Hered., 1992, 83:325-329.
[77] Xu Z Y, Chang R Z, Qiu L J, et al. Evaluation of soybean germplasm in China. 1999, p.156-165. Proceedings of Global Soy Forum 99. World Soybean Research Conference, VI, Chicago, IL. 4-7, Aug. 1999.
[78]Chang R Z,Qiu L J,Sun J Y,et al.Collection and conservation of soybean germplasm in China.1999,p.172-176.In Proc.World Soybean Research Conference VI.Chicago,IL.4-7 August 1999.National Soybean Research Lab.,Urbana,IL.
[79]Bult C J,Kiang Y T,Devine T E,et al.Testing for genetic linkage of morphological and electrophoretic loci in the cultivated soybean.Soybean Genet.,Newsl.1989,16:168-174.
[80]Kiang Y T,Gorman M B.Soybean.1983.p.295-328.In S.D.Tanksley and T.J.Orton(ed.)Isozymes in plant genetics and breeding,Part B.Elsevier Science Publishing Co.New York.
[81]Bult C J,Kiang Y T,Devine T E,et al.Testing for genetic linkage of morphological and electrophoretic loci in the cultivated soybean.Soybean Genet.,Newsl.,1989,16:168-174.
[82]Yu H,Kiang Y T.Re-examination of the recombination frequency between acid phosphatase and Kunitz tripsin inhibitor loci in soybean.Soybean Genet.,Newsl.,1990,17:106-108.
[83]Kane M V,Grabau L J.Early planted early maturing soybean cropping system:Growth,development and yield.Agron.J.,1992,84:769-773.
[84]Sisson V A,Miller P A,Campell W V,et al.Evidence of inheritance of resistance to the Mexican bean beetle in soybeans.Crop Sci.,1976,16:835-837.
[85]Apuya N,Frazier B,Keim P,Roth E J,et al.Restriction length polymorphisms as genetic markers in soybean,Glycine max(L.) Merr.Theor.AppL Genet.,1988,75:889-901.
[86]Keim P,Shoemaker R C,Palmer R G.Restriction fragment length polymorphism diversity in soybean.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1989.77:786-792.
[87]Williams J G K,Kubelik A R,Livak K J,et al.DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers.Nucleic Acids Res.,1990,18:6531-6535.
[88]Bassam B J,Caetano-AnoHes G,Gresshoff P M.Fast and sensitive silver staining of DNA in Polyacrylamide gels.Anal.Biochem.,1991,196:80-83.
[89]Caetano-Anolles G,Callahan L M,Williams P E,et al.DNA amplification fingerprinting analysis of bermudagrass(Cynodon):Genetic relationships between species and interspecific crosses.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1995,91:228-235(erratum:92:498).
[90]Caetano-Anolles G,Gresshoff P M.DNA amplification fingerprinting using arbitrary mini-hair pin oligonucleotide primers.Biotech.,1994,12:619-623.
[91]Akkaya M S,Bhagwat A A,Cregan P B.Length polymorphism of simple sequence repeat DNA in soybean.Genetics,1992,132:1131-1139.
[92]Rongwen J,Akkaya M S,Bhagwat A A,et al.The use of microsatellite DNA markers for soybean genotype identification.Theor.Appl.Genet.,1995,90:43-48.
[93]许占友,邱丽娟,常汝镇,等.利用SSR标记鉴定大豆种质[J].中国农业科学,1999,32(增 刊):40-48.
[94]许东河,高忠,盖钧镒,等.中国野生大豆与栽培大豆等位酶、RFLP和RAPD标记的遗传多样性与演化趋势分析[J].中国农业科学,1999,32(6):16-22.
[95]杨光宇,纪锋.中国野生大豆蛋白质含量及其氨基酸组成的研究进展[J].大豆科学,1999,18(1):57-61
[96]徐豹.中国大豆的蛋白资源[J].大豆科学,1984,3(4):329-331.
[97]王金陵.野生大豆蛋白质含量和性状间相关及通径分析[J].东北学院学报,1984,17(1):1-5.
[98]王颢.甘肃省野生大豆资源蛋白质含量分析[J],甘肃农业科技,1991,(5):12-14.
[99]王连铮.黑龙江省野生大豆的考察与研究[J].植物研究,1983,3:116-129.
[100]徐豹,张明,陆琴华.野生大豆的高含硫氨基酸种质[J].大豆科学,1993,12(3):265-266.
[101]杨光宇,尹爱平.野生大豆(G.soja)氨基酸组成的初步分析研究[J].大豆科学,1986,5(2):175-180.
[102]刘兴媛等.中国野生大豆子脂肪、蛋白质含量与农艺性状的关系[J].中国油料,1992,4:61-65.
[103]Hymowitz T,Singh R J,Kollipara K P.The genomes of the Glycine.Plant Breeding Reviews,1998,16:289-317.
[104]Menancio D I,Hepburn A G,Hymowitz T.Restriction fragment length polymorphyism(RFLP) of wild perennial relatives of soybean.Theoretical and Applied Genetics,1990,79:235-240.
[105]Taylor-Grant N,Soliman K M.Detection of polymorphic DNA and taxonomic relationships among 10 wild perennial soybean species using specific and arbitrary nucleotide primers.Biologia Plantarum,1999,42(1):25-37.
[106]李莹.大豆种间杂交产量形状的遗传变异[J].华北农学报,1986,(3):10-17.
[107]郑惠玉,陈化东.利用野生大豆种质育成小粒大豆新品种“吉林小粒1号”的选育报告[J].吉林农业科学,1991,3:9-11.
[108]王金陵.回交对克服栽培大豆与野生和半野生大豆杂交后代蔓生性状倒伏性的效应[J].大豆科学,1986,5(3):181-187.
[109]孙寰.大豆质-核互作不育系研究[J].科学通报,1993,38(16):1535-1536.
[110]吴冈梵.栽培大豆与野生大豆杂交问题探讨[J].中国油料,1988,(2):4-7.
[111]杨光宇.克服大豆种间杂种蔓生、小粒等不良性状技术的初步研究[J].大豆科学,1993,12(4):275-282
[112]李莹.野生大豆的利用[A].大豆品种资源:多样性、保存、鉴定和利用[C].太原:山西科学技术出版社,1990,106-112
[113]盖钧镒,许东河,高忠,等.中国栽培大豆和野生大豆不同生态类型群体间遗传演化关系的 研究[J].作物学报,2000,26(5):513-520
[114]Dong Y S,Zhuang B C,Zhao L M,et al.The genetic diversity of annual wil soybeans grown in China.Theoretical and Applied Genetics,2001,103:98-103.
[115]Fukuda Y.Cytogenetical studies on the wild and cultivated Manchurian soybeans(Glycine L).Japanese Journal of Botany,1933,6:489-506.
[116]董英山,庄炳昌,赵丽梅,等.中国野生大豆遗传多样性中心[J].作物学报,2000,26(5):521-527.
[117]Nesbitt T C,Tanksley S D.Comparative sequencing in the genus Lycopersicon:Implications for the evolution of fruit size in the domestication of cultivated tomatoes.Genetics,2002,162:365-379.
[118]姚振纯,林红,来永才.大豆种间杂交新种质遗传潜力评价[J].大豆科学.1996,15(4):310-316
[119]王克晶,李福山.野生大豆种质杂交导入的育种效果[J].植物遗传资源科学.2000,1(3):34-38
[120]杨光宇.东北地区野生、半野生大豆在育种中利用研究进展[J].大豆科学.1997,16(3):259-263
[121]Fukui J.Collection and preservation of wild soybeans(Glycine soja) and its significance on the breeding program.Japanese J of Breeding 1977,27,167-173
[122]Williams TA.The soy bean as a forage crop.USDA Farmers' Bull.1897,58.
[123]Arny A C.The influence of time of cutting on the quality of crops.Agron.J.,1926,18:684-703.
[124]Hackleman J C.The future of the soybean as a forage crop.Agron.J.,1924,16:228-236.
[125]Smith K J,Huyser W.World distribution and significance of soybean[A].In J.R.Wilcox(ed.)Soybeans:Improvement,production,and uses[C].ASA,Madison,WI.1987,3-22.
[126]Sheaffer C C,Orf J H,Devine T E,et al.Yield and quality of forage soybean.Agron.J.,2001,93:99-106.
[127]Koivisto J M,Devine T E,Gerry P F,et al.Forage soybeans(Glycine max(L.) Merr.) in the United Kingdom:test of new cultivars.Agronomie,2003,(23):287-291.
[128]Devine T E,Harley E O.Registration of donegal forage soybean.Crop Sci.,1998,38:1719-1720.
[129]Devine T E,Harley E O,Starner D E.Registration of 'Deny' forage soybean.Crop Sci.,1998a,38:1719-1720.
[130]Devine T E,Harley E O,Starner D E.Registration of 'Tyrone' forage soybean.Crop Sci.,1998b,38:1720.
[131]Seiter S,Altemose C E,Davis M H.Forage Soybean Yield and Quality Responses to Plant Density and Row Distance. Agron. J., 2004,96: 966-970.
[132] Hintz R W, Albrecht K A, Oplinger E S. Yield and quality of soybean forage as affected by cultivar and management practices. Agron. J., 1992, 84:795-798.
[133] Witjaksana D, Matthew M, Harbur D R, et al. Growth, Development, and Yield of Soybean Lines Developed for Forage. Agron. J., 2001, 93:1028-1034.
[134] Bernard R L, Juvik G A, Hartwig E E, et al. Origin and pedigrees of public soybean varieties in the United States and Canada. USDA Tech. Bull. 1988,1746.
[135] Rao S C, Mayeux H S, Northup B K. Performance of Forage Soybean in the Southern Great Plains. Crop Sci., 2005,45:1973-1977.
[136] Hintz R W, Albrecht K A. Dry matter partitioning and forage nutritive value of soybean plant components. Agron. J., 1994,86:59-62.
[137] Akin D E. Histological and physical factors affecting digestibility of forages. Agron. J., 1989, 81:17-25.
[138] Esau K. Anatomy of seed plants. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977.
[139] Fehr W R, Caviness C E, Burmood D T, et al. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci., 1971,11:929-931.
[140] Munoz A E, Holt E C, Weaver R W. Yield and quality of soybean hay as influenced by stage of growth and plant density. Agron. J., 1983,75:147-149.
[141] Fehr W R, Caviness C E. Stages of soybean development. Iowa Coop.Ext. Service, Iowa Agric, Home. Exp.Stn. Spec. Rep.80. Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA. 1977.
[142] Good E S. Late-cut vs. early-cut soybean hay for Stocker cattle. Kentucky. Agric, Exp.Stn. Bull. 435. Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 1942.
[143] Miller M D, Edwards R T, Williams W A. Soybean for forage and green manure[A]. In B. H. Beard and P.E Knowels (ed.) Soybean research in California[C]. California Agric, Exp.Stn. Bull. 862.1973, 60-63.
[144] Frame, J., J. F. L. Charlton, and A. S. Laidlaw. 1998. Temperate forage legumes. CAB Int., New York
[145] Linkemer G, Board J E, Musgrave M E. Water logging effects on growth and yield components in late-planted soybean. Crop Sci., 1998,38:1576-1584.
[146] Griffin J L, Saxton A M. Response of solid-seeded soybean to flood irrigation. II. Flood duration. Agron. J., 1988, 80:885-888.
[147] Johnson D R, Major D J. Harvest index of soybean as affected by planting date and maturity rating. Agron. J., 1979,71:538-541.
[148]Caffaro S V,Nakayama E Vegetative activity of the main stem terminal bud under photoperiod and flower removal treatments in soybean.Aust.J.Plant Physiol.,1988,15:475-480.
[149]Naeve S.Planting.1999,p.8-11.In J.M.Bennett(ed.) The Minnesota Soybean Field Book.Univ.Minnesota Ext.,St.Paul,MN.
[I50]Parvez A Q,Gradner F P,Boote K J.Determinate and indeterminate type soybean cultivar responses to pattern,density,and planting date.Crop Sci.,1989,29:150-157.
[151]Savoy B R,Cothren J T.Soybean biomass accumulation and leaf area index in early-season production environments.Agron.J.,1992.,84:956-959.
[152]Hicks D R,Lueschen W E,Ford J H.Effect of stand density and thinning on soybean.J.Prod.Agric.,1990,3:587-590.
[153]Ocumpeugh,W.R.,A.G.Matches,and V.D.Luedders.1981.Sod-seeded soybeans for forage.Agron.J.,73:571-574.
[154]Redfearn,Daren D.,Dwayne R.Buxton,and Tom E.Devine.Sorghum Intercropping Effects on Yield,Morphology,and Quality of Forage Soybean.Crop Sci.,1999 39:1380-1384.
[155]Willard C J.The time of harvesting soybean for hay andseed.J.Am.Soc.Agron.,1925.17:157-168.
[156]垦利县畜牧局,垦利县野生大豆资源调查[内部交流材料].1996,4.
[157]董宽虎,沈益新.饲草生产学[M].中国农业出版社,2003.
[158]肖文一,陈德新,吴渠来.饲用植物栽培与利用[M].农业出版社,1991.
[159]贾慎修.中国饲用植物志[M].农业出版社,1987
[160]石凤翎,王明玖,王建光.豆科牧草栽培[M].2003,3.
[161]吴立新.新型饲料源-野大豆草粉[J].畜禽业,2004,9:61-62.
[162]Kilcher M R,Heinrichs D H.A grass-alfalfa mixture compared with cereal grains for fodder production under semi-arid conditions.Can.J.Plant Sci.,1961,41:799-80.
[163]Baron V S,Najda H G,Salmon D F,et al.Post-flowering forage potential of spring and winter cereal mixtuRes.,Can.J.Plant Sci.,1992,72:137-145.
[164]Carr P M,Martin G B,Caton J S,et al.Forage and nitrogen yield of barley-pea and oat-pea intercrops.Agron.J.,1998,90:79-84.
[165]Willms W D,Rode L M,Freeze B S.Winter performance of hereford cows on rescue prairie and in drylot as influenced by fall grazing.Can.J.Anita.Sci.,1993,73:881-889.
[166]Adams D C,Clark R T,Coady S A,et al.Extended grazing systems for improving economic returns from Nebraska sandhills cow/calf operations.J.Range Manage.,1994,47:258-263.
[167]Manske L L,Nelson J L.Grazing annual forages on cropland in western North Dakota.Range Res., RepDREC 95-1010. North Dakota State Univ., Dickinson Res., Ext. Cent., Dickinson, 1995.
[168] MacAlpine N D, Engstrom D F, Kirtz J, et al. Resources for beef industry expansion in Alberta. Alberta Agric., Food and Rural Dev., Edmonton, AB, Canada. 1997.
[169] McLeod J G, Gan Y, Salmon D F, et al. Triticale? Biomass potential and quality on the Canadian prairies[A]. In P.E. Juskiw (ed.) Proc. Int. Triticale Symp.[C], 4th, Red Deer, AB, Canada. 26-31 July 1998. Vol. 2. Agric, and Agric-Food Can., Lacombe, AB. 1998,264-267
[170] Stallknecht G F, Wichman D M. The evaluation of winter and spring triticale (x Triticosecale Wittmack) for grain and forage production under dryland cropping in Montana, USA[A]. In P.E. Juskiw (ed.) Proc. Int. Triticale Symp[C]., 4th, Red Deer, AB, Canada. 26-31 July 1998. Vol. 2. Agric, and Agric-Food Can., Lacombe, AB. 1998,272-278.
[171] Berkenkamp B, MeeRes J. Mixtures of annual crops for forage in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1987,67:175-183.
[172] Chapko L B, Brinkman M A, Albrecht K A. Oat, oat-pea, barley, and barley-pea for forage yield, forage quality, and alfalfa establishment. J. Prod. Agric, 1991,4:486-491.
[173] Mustafa A F, Christensen D A, McKinnon J J. Effects of pea, barley, and alfalfa silage on ruminal nutrient degradability and performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 2000,83:2859-2865.
[174] Malm N R, Arledge J S, Barnes C E. Forage production from winter small grains in southeastern New Mexico. Bull. 607. New Mexico State Univ. Agric, Exp.Stn., Las Cruces, NM. 1973.
[175] Rao S C, Coleman S W, Volesky J D. Yield and quality of wheat, triticale, and elytricum forage in the Southern Plains. Crop Sci., 2000,40:1308-1312.
[176] Anil L, Park J, Phipps R H, Miller F A. Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: A review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK Grass Forage Sci., 1998, 53:301-317.
[177] Hall M H, Kephart K D. Management of spring-planted pea and triticale mixtures for forage production. J. Prod. Agric, 1991,4:213-218.
[178] Edmisten K L, Green J T, Mueller J J P, et al. Winter annual small grain forage potential: II. Quantification of nutritive characteristics of four small grain species at six growth stages. Commun. Soil Sci., Plant Anal., 1998,29:881-899.
[179] Jedel P E, Helm J H. Forage potential of pulse-cereal mixtures in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1993,73:437-444.
[180] Robinson R G Oat-pea or oat-vetch mixtures for forage or seed. Agron. J., 1960,52:546-549
[181] Simmons S R, Martin N P, Sheafer C C, et al. Companion crop forage establishment: Producer practices and perceptions. J. Prod. Agric, 1992,5:67-72.
[182]Zhu Y,Sheaffer C C,Barnes D k.Forage yield and quality of six annual Medicago species in the north.central USA.Agron.J.,1996,88:955-960.
[183]Moynihan J M,Simmons S R,Sheaffer C C.Intercropping annual medic with conventional height and semidwarf barley grown for grain.Agron.J.,1996,88:823-828.
[184]De Haan R L,Sheaffer C C,Barnes D K.Effect of annual medic smother plants on weed control and yield in corn.Agron.J.,1997,89:813-821.
[185]Zhu Y,Sheaffer C C.Growth analysis of spring and summer seeded annual Medicago spp.Crop Sci.,1997,37:1514-1519.
[186]Hardin B.Inter-cropping,for more forage and less erosion.Agric.,Res.,1996,44(3):15.
[187]Alford C M,Krall J M,Miller S D.Intercropping Irrigated Corn with Annual Legumes for Fall Forage in the High Plains.Agron.J.,2003,95:520-525.
[188]Elliott K,White A S.Competitive effects of various grasses and forbs on ponderosa pine seedlings.For.Sci.,1987,33:356-366.
[189]Doormaar J F,Naeth M A,Willms W D,et al.Effect of native prairie,crested wheatgtrass (Agropyron cristatum(L.) Gaertn.) and Russian wildrye(Elymus junceus Fisch.) on soil chemical properties.J.Range Manage.,1995,48:258-263.
[190]杨胜.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].北京:北京农业大学出版社,1999.
[191]SAS Institute.The SAS system for Windows.Release 9.1.SAS Inst.,Cary,NC.2002.
[192]莫惠栋.农业试验统计[M].上海科学技术出版社,1984.396-446.
[193]徐国平.T型杂种小麦恢复度及几个产量性状的基因型、环境、基因型×环境互作的通径分析[J].河南农业大学学报,1986,3(2):221-227.
[194]乔春贵.建立作物产量最优多元回归方程新方法通径系数测验法[J].吉林农业大学学报,1986,8(3):26-31.
[195]杨铁钊.玉米籽粒灌浆性状与产量性状的相关拉遗传研究[J].河南农业大学学报,1985,12(3):326-340.
[196]Aitken Y.Plant development and shoot structure,p.20-40.In Flowering time,climate and genotype.Melbourne University Press,Carlton,Australia.(2 ed.) 1974.
[197]Clarkson N M,Russell J S.Flowering responses to vernalization and photopedod in annual medics (Medicago spp.).Aust.J.Agric.,Res.,1975,26:831-838.
[198]Clarkson N M,Russell J S.1976.Effect of water stress on the phasic development of annual Medicago species.Aust.J.Agric.,Res.,27:227-234
[199]Van-Heerden J M.Influence of temperature and daylength on the phenological development of annual Medicago species with particular reference to M.truncatula,cv.Jemalong.S.Afr.J.Plant Soil 1984,1:73-78.
[200] Crawford E J, Lake AW H, Boyce K G Breeding annual Medicago species for semiarid conditions in southern Australia. Adv. Agron., 1989,42:399-437.
[201] Dufault R J. Determining heat unit requirements for broccoli in coastal South Carolina. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci., 1997,122:169-174.
[202] Linn J G, Martin N P.Forage quality tests and interpretations. Bull. FO-02367. Univ. of Minnesota Coop.Ext. Serv., St. Paul. 1999.
[203] Undersander D, Howard W T, Smith T. Making forage analysis work for you in balancing livestock rations and marketing hay[A]. Bull. A 3325[C], Univ. of Wisconsin Coop.Ext. Serv., Madison. 1985.
[204] Casler M D. Cultivar and cultivar x environment effects on relative feed value of temperate grasses. Crop Sci., 1990,30:722-728.
[205] Palle P, Lauer J G. Soybean Growth and Development in Various Management Systems and Planting Dates. Crop Sci., 2004,44:508-515.
[206] Bowers, G. R. 1995. An early soybean production system for drought avoidance. J. Prod. Agric, 8:112-119.
[207] Heatherly L G, Elmore C D. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) to planting in untilled, weedy seedbed on clay soil. Weed Sci., 1983,31:93-99.
[208] Palle P, Lauer J G. Soybean Growth and Development in Various Management Systems and Planting Dates. Crop Sci., 2004,44:508-515.
[209] Kiniry J R, Rosenthal W D, Jackson B S, et al. Predicting leaf development of crop plants[A]. In T. Hodges (ed.). Predicting crop phenology[C]. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL 1991,29-42.
[210] Van Esbroeck G A, Hussey M A, Sanderson M. A. Leaf appearance and final leaf number of switchgrass cultivars. Crop Sci., 1997,37:864-870.
[211] Baker J T, Pinter P J, Reginato J R J, et al. Effect of temperature on leaf appearance rates in spring and winter wheat cultivars. Agron. J., 1986,78:605-613
[212] Ney B, Turc O. Heat-unit based description of the reproductive development of pea. Crop Sci., 1993,33:510-514.
[213] Crauford P Q, Subedi M, Summerfield R J. Leaf appearance in cowpeas: Effects of temperature and photoperiod. Crop Sci., 1997,37:167-171.
[214] Raguse C A, Menke J W, Sumner D C. Developmental morphology of seedling subterranean and rose clover leaves. Crop Sci., 1974,14:333-334.
[215] Sinclair T R. Leaf area development in field-grown soybeans Agron. J., 1984,76:141-146.
[216] Truong H H, Duthion C. Time of flowering of pea (Pisum sativum L.) as a function of leaf appearance rate and node of first flower. Ann. Bot. 1993,72:133--142.
[217] Caldwell B E. Soybean: Improvement, production and uses. Agron., Mono. 16. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. 1973.
[218] Ritchie S W, Hanway J J, Thompson H E, et al. How a soybean plant develops. Spec. Rep.53. Iowa State Univ. Coop.Ext. Service, Ames, IA. 1982.
[219] Mancuso N, Caviness C E. Association of selected plant traits with lodging of four determinate soybean cultivars. Crop Sci., 1991,31:911-914.
[220] Caballero R, Barro C, Rebole A, et al. Yield components and forage quality of common vetch during pod filling. Agron. J., 1996,88:797-800.
[221] Elias S G, Copeland L O. Physiological and harvest maturity of canola in relation to seed quality. Agron. J., 2001,93:1054-1058.
[222] Alzueta C, Caballero R, Rebole A, et al. Crude protein fractions in common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) fresh forage during pod filling. J. Anim. Sci., 2001,79:2449-2455.
[223] Buxton D R, Hornstein J S. Cell-wall concentration and components in stratified canopies of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and red clover. Crop Sci., 1986,26:180-184.
[224] Hoffman P C, Sievert S J, Shaver R D, et al. Insitu dry matter, protein, and fiber degradation of perennial forages. J. Dairy Sci., 1993,76:2632-2643
[225] Eagles C F, Othman O B. Variation in growth attributes of contrasting populations of Trifolium repens L. Ann. Appl. Biol., 1986,108:619-628
[226] Davies A, Evans M E. The pattern of growth in swards of two contrasting varieties of white clover in winter and spring. Grass Forage Sci., 1982,37:199-207.
[227] Cassida K A, Griffin T S, Rodriguez J, et al. Protein Degradability and Forage Quality in Maturing Alfalfa, Red Clover, and Birdsfoot Trefoil. Crop Sci., 2000,40:209-215.
[228] Griffin T S, Cassida K A, Hesterman O B, et al. Alfalfa maturity and cultivar effects on chemical and in situ estimates of protein degradability. Crop Sci., 1994,34:1654-1661.
[229] Coleman S W. Plant-animal interface. J. Prod. Agric, 1992,5:7-13.
[230] Nelson C J, Moser L E. Plant factors affecting forage quality. In: Fahey G C, J, 2ed. Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, 1994:115-154.
[231] Kilcher M R, Troelsen J E. Contribution of stems and leaves to the composition and nutrient content of irrigated bromegrass at different stages of development. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1973, 53:767-771
[232] Buxton D R. Cell wall components in divergent germplasms of four perennial forage grass species. Crop Sci., 1990,30:402-408.
[233] Casler M D. Causal effects among forage yield and quality measures of smooth bromegrass. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1986,66:591-600.
[234] Goto I, Minson D. Prediction of the dry matter digestibility of tropical grasses using a pepsin- cellulase essay[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 1977, (2):247-253.
[235] Van Soest P J. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Corvallis, OR: O & B Books, 1982.
[236] Buxton D R, Hornstein J S. Cell-wall concentration and components in stratified canopies of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and red clover. Crop Sci., 1986, 26:180-184.
[237] Fick G W, Holthausen R S. Significance of parts other than blades and stems in leaf-stem separations of alfalfa herbage. Crop Sci., 1975,15:259-262
[238] Kilcher M. R., Heinrichs D. H. Contribution of stems and leaves to the yield and nutrient level of irrigated alfalfa at different stages of development. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1974,54:739-742
[239] Kilcher M. R., Troelsen J. E. Contribution of stems and leaves to the composition and nutrient content of irrigated bromegrass at different stages of development. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1973, 53:767-771.
[240] Fick G W, Holthausen R S. Significance of parts other than blades and stems in leaf-stem separations of alfalfa herbage. Crop Sci., 1975,15:259-262.
[241] Sheaffer C C, Martin N P, Lamb J F S, et al. Leaf and Stem Properties of Alfalfa Entries. Agron. J., 2000,92:733-739.
[242] Afza R, Hardarson G, Zapata F. Effects of delayed soil and foliar N fertilization on yield and N_2 fixation of soybean. Plant Soi., 1987,97:361-368
[243] Al-Ithawi B, Deibert E J, Olson R A. Applied N and moisture level effects on yield, depth of root activity and nutrient uptake by soybean. Agron. J., 1980,72:827-832.
[244] Touchton J T, Rickerl D H. Soybean growth and yield response to starter fertilizers. Soil Sci., Soc. Am. J., 1986,50:234-237.
[245] Wood C W, Torbert H A, Weaver D B. Nitrogen fertilizer effects on soybean growth, yield, and seed composition. J. Prod. Agric., 1993,6:354-360.
[246] Ham G E, Caldwell A C. Fertilizer placement effects on soybean seed yield, N_2 fixation, and ~(33)P uptake. Agron. J., 1978,70:779-783.
[247] Hariston J E, Jones W F, Marshall L K, et al. Tillage and fertilizer management effects on soybean growth and yield on three Mississippi Soils. J. Prod. Agric, 1990, 3:317-323.
[248] Starling M E, Wood C W, Weaver D B. Starter nitrogen and growth habit effects on late-planted soybean. Agron. J., 1998,90:658-662.
[249] Eaglesham A R J, Houssouna S, Seegars R. Fertilizer-N effects on N_2 fixation by cowpea and soybean. Agron. J., 1983,75:61-66.
[250] Varco J J. Nutrition and fertility requirements. Soybean production in the Midsouth[A], In L. G. Heatherly and H. F. Hodges (ed.). CRC Press[C], Washington, DC. 1999,53-70.
[251] Sharpley A N, Smith S J, Bain W R. Nitrogen and phosphorus fate from long-term poultry application to Oklahoma soils. Soil Sci., Soc. Am. J., 1993,57:1131-1137.
[252] Marschner H. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1998.
[253] Mills H A, Jones J B J. Plant analysis handbook: II. A practical sampling, preparation, analysis, and interpretation guide[M]. MicroMacro Publ., Inc., Jefferson City, MO. 1996,80
[254] Jones G D, Lutz, Jr. J A, Smith T J. Effects of phosphorus and potassium on soybean nodules and seed yield. Agron. J., 1977, 69:1003-1006.
[255] Barker, Daniel W., and John E. Sawyer. Nitrogen Application to Soybean at Early Reproductive Development. Agron. J., 2005 97: 615-619.
[256] Schmitt M A, Lamb J A, Randall G W, et al. In-Season Fertilizer Nitrogen Applications for Soybean in Minnesota. Agron. J., 2001, 93:983-988.
[257] Raper D C, Kramer P J. Stress physiology. Soybeans: Improvement, production, and uses[A]. In J. R. Wilcox (ed.)[C].2nd ed. Agron., Monogr. 16. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. 1987, p.589-641.
[258] Kasperbauer M J. Spectral distribution of light in a tobacco canopy and effect of end-of-day light quality on growth and development. Plant Physiol. 1971,47:775-778.
[259] Devine T E, Lucey R F, Hatley E O, et al. Performance of forage soybean in mid and northern Atlantic states[A]. In H. E. Kauffman (ed.) Proc[C]. World Soybean Res., Conf., VI., Chicago, Il. 4-7 Aug. 1999. Superior Printing, Champaign, IL, 1999,681-682.
[260] Koivisto J M, Devine T E, Sawyer C S, et al. Evaluation of forage soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Men.) in the United Kingdom[A]. In Proc. Eur. Grassl[C]. Federation, La Rochelle, France. 2002, 27-30.
[261] Nayigihugu V, Kellogg W, Longer D, et al. Performance and ensiling characteristics of tall growing soybean lines used for forage. 2000, p. 142-147. Anim. Sci., Dep.Rep.470. Arkansas Agric, Exp.Stn., Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
[262] Shibles R M. Soybean nitrogen acquisition and utilization. 1998, p.5-11. In Proc. North Central Ext.-Industry Soil Fert. Conf., 28th, St. Louis, MO. 11-12 Nov. 1998. Potash & Phosphate Inst., Brookings, SD
[263] Hanway J J, Weber C R.N, P, and K percentages in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) plant parts. Agron. J. 1971, 63:286-290.
[264] Min D H, Vough L R, Reeves J. Dairy slurry effects on forage quality of orchardgrass, reed canarygrass, and alfalfa-grass mixtuRes., Anim. Feed Sci., Technol. III. 2002, 95:143-157.
[265] Johnson R C, Reiling B A, Mislevy P, et al. Effects of nitrogen fertilization and harvest date on yield, digestibility, fiber, and protein fractions of tropical grasses. J. Anim. Sci., 2001, 79:2439- 2448.
[266] Anderson M A, McKenna J R, Martens D C, et al. Nitrogen recovery by timothy from surface application of dairy slurry. Commun. Soil Sci., Plant Anal. 1993,24:1139-1151.
[267] Rogers J R, Harvey R W, Poore M H, et al. Application of nitrogen from swine lagoon effluent to bermudagrass pasture: Seasonal changes in forage nitrogenous constituents and effects of energy and escape protein supplementation on beef cattle performance. J.Anim. Sci., 1996,74:1126-1133.
[268] Jeranyama P, Hesterman O B, Sheaffer C C. Medic planting date effect on dry matter and nitrogen accumulation when clear-eeded or intercropped with corn. Agron. J., 1998,90: 616-622.
[269] Scott T W, Pleasant J Mt, Burt R F, et al. Contributions of ground cover, dry matter, and nitrogen from intercrops and cover crops in a corn polyculture system. Agron. J., 1987,79:792-798.
[270] Agboola A A, Fayemi A A A. Fixation and excretion of nitrogen by tropical legumes. Agron. J., 1972,64:409-412.
[271] Walton P D. Annual forages seeding rates and mixtures for central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1975, 55:987-993.
[272] Izaurralde R C, Juma N. G., McGill W B. Plant and nitro gen yield of barley-field pea intercrop in cryoboreal-subhumid central Alberta. Agron. J., 1990, 82:295-301.
[273] Droushiotis D N. Mixtures of annual legumes and small-grain cereals for forage production under low rainfall. J. Agric., Sci., 1989,113:249-253
[274] Nordquist P T, Wicks G A. Establishment methods for alfalfa in irrigated corn. Agron. J., 1974, 66:337-380.
[275] Sturgul S J, Daniel T C, Mueller D H. Tillage and canopy cover effects on interrill erosion from first-year alfalfa. Soil Sci., Soc. Am. J. 1990,54:1733-1739.
[276] Clawson K L, Specht J E, Blad B L. Growth analysis of soybean isolines differing in pubescence density. Agron. J., 1986,78:64-172.
[277] Yusuf R I, Siemens J C, Bullock D G Growth analysis of soybean under no-tillage and conventional tillage systems. Agron. J., 1999, 91:928-933.
[278] Holland J B, Brummer E C. Cultivar effects on oat-berseem clover intercrops. Agron. J., 1999, 91:321-329.
[279]Juskiw P E,Helm J.H.,Salmon D F.Competitive ability in mixtures of small grain cereals.Crop Sci.,2000,40:159-164.
[280]Wahua T A T,Miller D A.Relative yield totals and yield components of intercropped sorghum and soybeans.Agron.J.,1978,70:287-291.
[281]Mohta N K,De R.Intercropping maize and sorghum with soya beans.J.Agric.,Sci.,(Cambridge)1980,95:117-122.
[282]Ofori F,Stern W R.Cereal-legume intercropping systems.Adv.Agron.,1987,41:41-90.
[283]Dalal R C.Effects of intercropping maize with pigeon peas on grain yield and nutrient uptake.Exp.Agric.,1974,10:219-224.
[284]Hauggaard-Nielsen H,Jensen E S.Evaluating pea and barley cultivars for complementarity in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability.Field Crops Res.,2001,72:185-195.
[285]Drolsom P N,smith D.Adapting species for mixtures[A].In R.L Papendick et al.(ed.).Multiple cropping[C].ASA,CSSA,and SSSA,Madison,W.1976,223-234.
[286]Berdahl J D,Karn J F,Hendrickson J R.Nutritive Quality of Cool-Season Grass Monocultures and Binary Grass-AlfaLfa Mixtures at Late Harvest.Agron.J.,2004,96:951-955.
[287]Contreras-Govea,Francisco E,Albrecht K A.Mixtures of Kura Clover with Small Grains or Italian Ryegrass to Extend the Forage Production Season in the Northern USA.Agron.J.,2005,97:131-136.
[288]Curran B S,Kephart K D,TwidweH E K.Oat companion crop management in alfalfa establishment.Agron.J.,1993,85:998-1003.
[289]Walgenbach R P,Marten G C.Release of soluble protein and nitrogen in alfalfa Ⅲ.Influence of shading.Crop Sci.,1981,21:859-862.
[290]Kephart K D,Buxton D R,Taylor S E.Growth of C_3 and C_4 perennial grasses in reduced irradiance.Crop Sci.,1992,32:1033-1038.
[291]Lauriault L M,Kirksey R E,Yield and Nutritive Value of Irrigated Winter Cereal Forage Grass-Legume Intercrops in the Southern High Plains,USA.Agron.J.,2004,96:352-358.
[292]Wong C C,Wilson J R.Effects of shading on the growth and nitrogen content of green panic and siratro in pure and mixed swards defoliated at two frequencies.Aust.J.Agric.,Res.,1982,31:269-285.
[293]Kephart K D,Buxton D R.Forage quality responses of C_3 and C_4 perennial grasses to shade.Crop Sci.,1993,33:831-837.
[294]Ross S M,King J R,O'Donovan J T,et al.Forage potential of intercropping berseem clover with barley,oat,or triticale.Agron.J.,2004,96:1013-1020.
[295] Berkenkamp B, MeeRes J. Mixtures of annual crops for forage in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1987, 67:175-183.
[296] Jedel P E, Salmon D F. Forage potential of Wapiti triticale mixtures in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci., 1994, 74:515-519.
[297] Ross S M, King J R, O'Donovan J T, et al. Seeding rate effects in oat-berseem clover intercrops. Can. J. Plant Sci., 2003,83:769-778.
[298] Cousens R. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1985, 07:239- 252.
[299] De Wit C T, Van Den Bergh J P. Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric, Sci., 1965, 13:212-221.
[300] Willey R W. Intercropping: Its importance and research needs: I. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crop Abstr. 1979,32:1-10.
[301] Lesoing G W, Francis C A. Strip intercropping effects on yield and yield components of corn, grain sorghum, and soybean. Agron. J., 1999,91:807-813.
[302] Brundage A L, Taylor R L, Burton V L. Relative yields and nutritive values of barley, oats, and peas harvested at four successive dates for forage. J. Dairy Sci., 1979, 62:740-745.
[303] Boehner P, Lesoing G, Francis C A. Strip cropping of grain sorghum/soybeans under dryland and irrigation in eastern Nebraska[A]. In Agronomy abstracts 1991[C]. ASA, Madison, WI. 1991,139.
[304] Crookston R K, Hill D S. Grain yields and land equivalent ratios from intercropping corn and soybeans in Minnesota. Agron. J., 1979,71:41-44.
[305] Fortin M C, Culley J, Edwards M. Soil water, plant growth, and yield of strip-intercropped corn. J. Prod. Agric, 1994, 7:63-69.
[306] Lesoing G W, Francis C A. Strip cropping of corn and soybean under dryland and irrigated conditions[A]. In Agronomy abstracts 1990[C]. ASA, Madison, WI. 1990,150.