Analysis of Adaptability of Eight Introduced Alfalfa Varieties in Tumushuke Reclamation Area

SHAO Qinglong; MA Xiqing; WEI Junmei; WANG Wanrong; YAO Xiaoqin; WU Yurong; ZHANG Donghai; SHAO Ming

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0642

PDF(1296 KB)

Chin Agric Sci Bull ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (23) : 117-124. DOI: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0642

Analysis of Adaptability of Eight Introduced Alfalfa Varieties in Tumushuke Reclamation Area

Author information +

History +

Abstract

To screen high-quality alfalfa varieties suitable for the climatic conditions of Tumushuke, this study used eight introduced alfalfa varieties, including 'WL366' and 'Zhongmu No.1', as experimental materials. A plot cultivation experiment was conducted to collect and analyze nine indicators of the eight varieties, including plant height and fresh stem-leaf ratio. The results showed that the highest annual fresh forage yield was observed in 'Zhongmu No.1' (19017.99 kg/hm²), while the highest annual dry forage yield was achieved by 'Gongnong No.1' (6248.55 kg/hm²). 'Zhonglan No.2' exhibited the lowest fresh stem-leaf ratio (0.94) and dry stem-leaf ratio (0.91), indicating a high leaf content and good palatability. The protein content ranged from 20.05% to 21.66%. Based on comprehensive evaluation scores, the best-performing variety was 'WL366', followed by 'Gongnong No.1' and 'Dayinhe'. Correlation analysis revealed that plant height, growth rate, and daily growth are key factors influencing dry forage yield, higher values of these indicators lead to greater dry forage production. Additionally, the fresh stem-leaf ratio shows a positive correlation with fresh forage yield, meaning a higher ratio results in the increase of fresh forage production. Furthermore, a smaller stem-leaf ratio indicates a higher leaf proportion and greater protein content.

Key words

alfalfa / variety comparison test / introduction of varieties / forage yield / crude protein content / Tumushuke

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

SHAO Qinglong , MA Xiqing , WEI Junmei , et al . Analysis of Adaptability of Eight Introduced Alfalfa Varieties in Tumushuke Reclamation Area[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin. 2025, 41(23): 117-124 https://doi.org/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0642

References

List( Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within ) Chart analysis

[1]	刘沛松, 贾志宽, 李军, 等. 宁南旱区苜蓿土壤干层水分特征及时空动态[J]. 自然资源学报, 2009, 24(4):663-673. Cited in this article [1]

[2]	高海娟, 柴凤久, 刘泽东, 等. 苜蓿的价值与利用[J]. 饲料博览, 2014(3):22-25. Cited in this article [1]

[3]	胡自治. 人工草地在我国21世纪草业发展和环境治理中的重要意义[J]. 草原与草坪, 2000(1):12-15. Cited in this article [1]

[4]	DA SILVA L S, BURT J C, MULLENIX M K, et al. 174 Forage production and nutritive value of alfalfa-bermudagrass mixtures managed under contrasting defoliation strategies in the southeast US[J]. Journal of animal science, 2021, 99(3):96. Cited in this article [1]

[5]	尹俊程. 紫花苜蓿适应NaCl胁迫的机理及VIGS体系探究[D]. 扬州: 扬州大学, 2023. Cited in this article [1]

[6]	韩博, 张攀, 王卫栋, 等. 关中地区紫花苜蓿生产性能和利用年限的研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报, 2012, 40(2):51-56. Cited in this article [2]

[7]	马晓霞, 秘一先, 陈宏亮, 等. 14个引进紫花苜蓿品种在宁夏引黄灌区的生产性能和营养价值综合分析[J]. 草业科学, 2022, 39(2):328-342. Cited in this article [1]

[8]	刘志帅. 国外4个苜蓿品种在土默川地区的引种适应性评价[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2019. Cited in this article [1]

[9]	王贽, 李源, 孙桂枝, 等. 国内外16个紫花茵蓿品种生产性能比较研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2008, 22(12):4-10. Cited in this article [1]

[10]	杨青川, 孙彦. 中国苜蓿育种的历史、现状与发展趋势[J]. 中国草地学报, 2011, 33(6):95-101. Cited in this article [1]

[11]	何万荣. 阿拉尔地区优质饲草引种栽培与饲用品质评价[D]. 阿拉尔: 塔里木大学, 2022. Cited in this article [1]

[12]	T/CAAA086—2022苜蓿草粉质量分级[J]. 畜牧产业, 2023(7):28-31. Cited in this article [1]

[13]	乌日拉嘎. 苜蓿不同品种生产性能及品质比较研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2022. Cited in this article [1]

[14]	张谋草, 赵满来, 靳正平, 等. 不同紫花苜蓿品种在陇东地区的种植适应性分析[J]. 草业科学, 2008, 25(8):46-50. Cited in this article [1]

[15]	康俊梅, 张爱萍, 满都拉. 影响苜蓿草产量相关因素研究进展[J]. 内蒙古草业, 2008(1):59-63. Cited in this article [1]

[16]	郭海明, 于磊, 林祥群. 新疆北疆绿洲区4个紫花苜蓿品种生产性能比较[J]. 草业科学, 2009, 26(8):72-76. Cited in this article [1]

[17]	刘进娣, 邓红山, 金杰, 等. 11个紫花苜蓿品种在干热河谷区的生产性能及营养价值评定[J]. 中国草食动物科学, 2023, 43(6):23-28. Cited in this article [1]

[18]	魏臻武, 符听, 曹致中, 等. 苜蓿生长特性和产草量关系的研究[J], 草业学报, 2007, 16(4):3-10. Cited in this article [1]

[19]	徐航, 何霖, 宋美琪, 等. 8个紫花苜蓿品种在柴达木旱区的生产性能综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2024, 42(2):33-40. Cited in this article [1]

[20]	张杰, 贾志宽, 韩清芳. 不同养分对苜蓿茎叶比和鲜干比的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2007, 16(4):121-125. Cited in this article [1]

[21]	康爱民, 龙瑞军, 师尚礼, 等. 苜蓿的营养与饲用价值[J]. 草原与草坪, 2002, 22(3):31-33. Cited in this article [1]

[22]	陈彩锦, 金学平, 马克成, 等. 宁夏南部山区不同苜蓿品种引种试验[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2018(7):141-144. Cited in this article [1]

[23]	王虹, 师尚礼. 紫花苜蓿多元杂交后代优良株系的评价与筛选[J]. 草业科学, 2015, 32(11):1838-1846. Cited in this article [1]

[24]

戚志强, 玉永雄, 曾昭海, 等. 紫花苜蓿建植期四种刈割频次下的产量、品质及再生性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2010, 19(1):134-142.

Cited in this article [1] Abstract

收获制度是苜蓿生产管理的关键环节。为明确不同刈割制度下建植期苜蓿生长规律,本研究利用盆栽试验,通过人工控制苜蓿生长温度、水肥条件,完善测定指标体系,进行苜蓿刈割频次的研究,分析连续生产情况下不同收获制度对不同类型苜蓿建植期产量、品质、再生能力及持续生产力的影响。研究结果表明,高频刈割会显著降低苜蓿的生产力和持久性。连续高频刈割后延长收获间隔可以恢复苜蓿茎密度和再生能力,但不能恢复到适宜刈割频次的水平。不同品种间生育期、耐刈性与再生性、产量分布以及营养价值存在显著差异,并导致相同收获频次下饲草产量、饲草品质以及持续生产力的差异。在建植期及低龄草地,维克多(Vector)和得龙(Durango)2个国外引进品种适于间隔为25~35 d高频度刈割;我国东北地区育成低休眠级苜蓿品种公农1号适于间隔为35~45 d的刈割频度。