[1]田宏,党志强,张鹤山,等.31份狼尾草种质资源的表型性状多样性分析和观赏性综合评价[J].江苏农业学报,2025,(07):1270-1279.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2025.07.003]
　TIAN Hong,DANG Zhiqiang,ZHANG Heshan,et al.Phenotypic trait diversity analysis and comprehensive ornamental evaluation of 31 Pennisetum alopecuroides germplasms[J].,2025,(07):1270-1279.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2025.07.003]
点击复制

31份狼尾草种质资源的表型性状多样性分析和观赏性综合评价()
分享到：

江苏农业学报[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

卷:
期数:
2025年07期
页码:
1270-1279
栏目:
遗传育种·生理生化
出版日期:
2025-07-31

文章信息/Info

Title:
Phenotypic trait diversity analysis and comprehensive ornamental evaluation of 31 Pennisetum alopecuroides germplasms
作者:
田宏1; 党志强2; 张鹤山1; 熊军波1; 陆姣云1; 吴新江1; 刘洋1
(1.湖北省农业科学院畜牧兽医研究所/湖北省动物胚胎工程及分子育种重点实验室,湖北武汉430064；2.武汉田牧绿化有限公司,湖北武汉430064)
Author(s):
TIAN Hong1; DANG Zhiqiang2; ZHANG Heshan1; XIONG Junbo1; LU Jiaoyun1; WU Xinjiang1; LIU Yang1
(1.Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science, Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Animal Embryo Engineering and Molecular Breeding of Hubei Province, Wuhan 430064, China；2.Wuhan Tianmu Landscaping Co., Ltd., Wuhan 430064, China)
关键词:
狼尾草; 表型性状多样性; 灰色关联度分析; 观赏价值; 综合评价
Keywords:
Pennisetum alopecuroides; phenotypic trait diversity; grey relational analysis; ornamental value; comprehensive evaluation
分类号:
S543
DOI:
doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2025.07.003
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
本研究对31份狼尾草种质资源的株高、花序长、花序宽、叶长、叶宽、始花期、花序色泽、花序形态、叶色、叶形、抗旱性共11个性状进行测定,通过变异系数、香农-维纳(Shannon-Wiener)多样性指数、灰色关联度和聚类分析对31份狼尾草种质资源进行评价。结果表明,31份狼尾草种质资源的表型性状变异系数均大于10%,其中始花期变异系数最高(51.51%),其次为花序色泽(23.53%)和叶长(20.46%),株高、花序长、花序宽、叶形和抗旱性变异系数较小(11.87%～10.16%)。31份狼尾草种质资源的株高香农-维纳多样性指数最大,叶形香农-维纳多样性指数最小。数量性状香农-维纳多样性指数总体高于质量性状。灰色关联度分析结果表明,种质资源LW1与理想品种的关联度最高(0.978),其次为LW20(0.957)和LW21(0.935)。LW15、LW4和LW3与理想品种的关联度较低。聚类分析结果显示,31份狼尾草种质资源被分为3类,第1类包括15份种质资源,该类种质资源抽穗开花早、花序形态美观、花序色泽鲜艳；第2类包括13份种质资源,该类种质资源植株高大、叶宽、花序较粗；第3类仅包括3份种质资源,该类种质资源抽穗开花晚、植株矮小。综合而言,LW1、LW20、LW21、LW13、LW25和LW29性状优良,可作为亲本用于观赏性狼尾草新品种的选育。本研究为中国本土狼尾草种质资源在观赏、生态、饲用等方面的开发利用提供了理论依据。
Abstract:
This study measured 11 traits of 31 Pennisetum alopecuroides germplasms, including plant height, inflorescence length, inflorescence width, leaf length, leaf width, flowering date, inflorescence color, inflorescence shape, leaf color, leaf shape, and drought resistance. The germplasms were evaluated using the coefficient of variation, Shannon-Wiener diversity index, grey relational analysis, and cluster analysis. The results showed that the coefficient of variation for all phenotypic traits of the 31 germplasms was greater than 10%. The highest coefficient of variation was observed for flowering date (51.51%), followed by inflorescence color (23.53%) and leaf length (20.46%). The coefficients of variation for plant height, inflorescence length, inflorescence width, leaf shape, and drought resistance were relatively low (11.87%-10.16%). The Shannon-Wiener diversity index for plant height was the highest among the 31 germplasms, while the Shannon-Wiener diversity index for leaf shape was the lowest. The Shannon-Wiener diversity index for quantitative traits was generally higher than that for qualitative traits. The grey relational analysis indicated that LW1 had the highest correlation with the ideal variety (0.978), followed by LW20 (0.957) and LW21 (0.935). LW15, LW4, and LW3 had relatively low correlations with the ideal variety. The results of cluster analysis showed that the 31 germplasms were divided into three categories. The first category included 15 germplasms, which were characterized by early heading and flowering, attractive inflorescence shape, and bright inflorescence color. The second category included 13 germplasms, which were tall, had wide leaves, and relatively thick inflorescences. The third category included only three germplasms, which were late heading and flowering and had short plants. In summary, LW1, LW20, LW21, LW13, LW25, and LW29 exhibited excellent traits and could be used as parents for the breeding of new ornamental P. alopecuroides varieties. This study provides a theoretical basis for the development and utilization of native Chinese P. alopecuroides germplasms in ornamental, ecological, and forage aspects.

参考文献/References:

[1]刘宗华,罗弦,张安才,等. 观赏草的研究与应用[J]. 安徽农业科学,2008(2):9958-9960.
[2]WOLFE J, ZAJICEK J M. Are ornamental grasses acceptable alternatives for low maintenance landscapes?[J]. Journal of Environmental Horticulture,1998,16（1）:8-11.
[3]武菊英,藤文军,王庆海. 狼尾草的生物学特性及在园林中的应用[J]. 中国园林,2005(12):57-59.
[4]闫辉群. 北京常见观赏草及其在园林中的应用研究[D]. 北京:北京林业大学,2016.
[5]杨云峰,孙中腾,王良桂. 观赏草在上海城市绿地中的应用调查研究[J]. 中国园林,2019,35(9):115-119.
[6]汤慧敏,李金泽,郭陈钦,等. 广州城市公园绿地中观赏草应用调查研究[J]. 南方农业,2020,14(34):37-41.
[7]朱桥明,沈荔荔,蒲婧婷. 广州市花境节约型植物应用调查与评价研究[J]. 广东园林,2019（4）:61-64.
[8]刘万辉,杨和平,熊琦. 华南低维护花境植物初步调研及建议[J]. 热带农业科技,2020,43(1):40-43.
[9]李晓芹,银征,杨金财,等. 23种观赏草在南京地区的适应性分析[J]. 江西农业学报,2022,34(4):192-198.
[10]郄亚微,韩玮. 成都市绿地中观赏草资源调查及综合评价[J]. 南方农业,2020,14(12):44-47.
[11]李达旭,吴聾,鄢家俊,等. 19 种多年生观赏草在成都地区的引种适应性研究[J]. 草学,2019(1):23-32.
[12]张晓燕,左小平,赵世霞,等. 20种观赏草在甘肃金昌地区的适应性[J]. 林业与环境科学,2017,33(5):72-77.
[13]李芝玉. 观赏草研究概况及其在太原市滨河两路的应用[J]. 山西林业,2021(2):42-43.
[14]吴菊英,滕文军,袁小环,等. 几种狼尾草属观赏植物在北京地区的生长特性[J]. 武汉植物学研究,2009,27(6):661-666.
[15]全国畜牧总站. GB/T 30395-2013 草品种审定技术规程[M]. 北京:中国标准出版社,2014.
[16]田宏,张鹤山,熊军波,等. 34份狼尾草萌发期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 中国草地学报,2024,46(4):11-24.
[17]王丽宏,李会彬,孙鑫博,等. 狼尾草主要表型性状的主成分和聚类分析[J]. 河北农业大学学报,2019,42(2):91-94.
[18]王丽宏,李会彬,孙鑫博,等. 狼尾草野生种质资源的评价与分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报,2016,18(3):134-140.
[19]陆彭城,郑燕,周小琴,等. 45个莲瓣兰品种的表型多样性研究[J]. 热带作物学报,2021,42(9):2518-2525.
[20]张斌斌,蔡志翔,沈志军,等. 观赏桃种质资源表型性状多样性评价[J]. 中国农业科学,2021,54(11):2406-2418.
[21]万映伶,朱梦婷,刘爱青,等. 中国观赏芍药表型多样性解析与资源评价[J]. 中国农业科学,2022,55(18):3629-3639.
[22]UPADHYAYA H D, REDDY K N, GOWDA C L L, et al. Phenotypic diversity in the pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) core collection[J]. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution,2007,54(6):1167-1184.
[23]PETRUCCELLI R, GANINO T, CIACCHERI L, et al. Phenotypic diversity of traditional cherry accessions present in the Tuscan region[J]. Scientia Horticulturae,2013,150(2):334-347.
[24]董胜君,王若溪,张皓凯,等. 不同种源东北杏果实表型性状多样性分析[J]. 植物资源与环境学报,2020,29(6):42-50.
[25]苏群,杨亚涵,田敏,等. 49份睡莲资源表型多样性分析及综合评价[J]. 西南农业学报,2019,32(11):2670-2681.
[26]SZAMOSI C, SOLMAZ I, SARI N, et al. Morphological evaluation and comparison of Hungarian and Turkish melon (Cucumismelo L.) germplasm[J]. Scientia Horticulturae,2010,124(2):170-182.
[27]火艳,招雪晴,黄厚毅,等. 观赏石榴表型遗传多样性分析[J]. 浙江农林大学学报,2020,37(5):939-949.
[28]董钠,李成儒,凌瑞,等. 基于表型性状的酢浆草属种质遗传多样性分析[J]. 分子植物育种,2022,20(16):5506-5509.
[29]郑荣佳,孔维一,冯嘉欣,等. 结缕草属植物表型多样性分析及优异种质筛选[J]. 草地学报,2022,30(9):2325-2335.
[30]张海平. 部分睡莲属植物的形态多样性及同工酶分析[D]. 南京:南京农业大学,2008.
[31]范义昌,柴珊珊,张曼曼,等. 宁夏沙枣种质资源表型多样性分析[J]. 北方园艺,2018,23(12):37-43.
[32]贺漫媚,代色平,陈秀萍,等. 17种石斛属植物表型性状多样性分析[J]. 植物资源与环境学报,2024,33(2):71-79.
[33]邓聚龙. 灰色系统综述[J]. 世界科学,1983(7):1-5.
[34]李鸿雁,李悦煊,李俊,等. 内蒙古143份冰草属种质资源表型多样性分析与综合评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报,2024,25(8):1254-1267.
[35]周瑜,李泽碧,黄娟,等. 高粱种质资源表型性状的遗传多样性分析[J]. 植物遗传资源学报,2021,22(3):654-664.
[36]刘胜男. 观赏海棠表型多样性分析与评价[D]. 郑州:河南农业大学,2022.
[37]李祖婵,庄长伟,玄锦,等. 广东省自然保护区野生观赏草开发应用评价[J]. 草业科学,2023,40(1):258-270.
[38]谢雪果,彭晓云,李云驹,等. 115份设施番茄表型性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 江苏农业学报,2024,40(8):1361-1370.
[39]李清超,陈小翠,刘朝峰,等. 辣椒种质资源表型性状多样性分析及综合评价[J]. 江苏农业科学,2024,52(14):141-148.
[40]陈芷涵,尚鑫,谢淦,等. 铁杉属花粉形态及其聚类分析研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2024,48(4):37-45.
[41]王琳琳,钟洋敏,缪叶旻子,等. 基于主成分和聚类分析的鲜食蚕豆农艺与品质性状综合评价[J]. 江苏农业学报,2023,39(3):788-797.
[42]王雪洁,周鹏,侯思璇,等. 冬青种质资源叶表型多样性分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2024,48(5):90-96.
[43]侯新村,滕珂,郭强,等. 狼尾草属牧草研究进展[J]. 植物学报,2022,57(6):814-825.
[44]农业农村部畜牧兽医局,全国畜牧总站. 中国审定登记草品种集(1987-2020)[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,2022.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2024-09-23基金项目:财政部和农业农村部国家牧草产业技术体系项目(CARS-34)；湖北省农业科技创新中心项目(2021-620-000-001-021)作者简介:田宏(1978-),女,陕西周至人,硕士,副研究员,主要研究方向为草种质资源评价和新品种选育。(E-mail)thdzq@126.com通讯作者:刘洋,(E-mail)liuyang430209@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2025-08-19