Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (12): 3030-3046.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.12.019
• Crop Genetics and Breeding · Cultivation Physiology · Germplasm Resources • Previous Articles Next Articles
FU Kaiyun1(), WANG Dian2, DING Xinhua1, JIA Zunzun1, Tursun Ahmat1, ZHANG Guoliang3, FU Weidong3, WEN Jun4, Jiamaliding · Wulazahan4, WANG La2, GUO Wenchao1()
Received:
2022-02-23
Online:
2022-12-20
Published:
2023-01-30
Correspondence author:
FU Weidong, WEN Jun, Jiamaliding · Wulazahan, WANG La, GUO Wenchao
Supported by:
付开赟1(), 王钿2, 丁新华1, 贾尊尊1, 吐尔逊·阿合买提1, 张国良3, 付卫东3, 文俊4, 加马力丁·吾拉扎汗4, 王兰2, 郭文超1()
通讯作者:
付卫东,文俊,加马力丁·吾拉扎汗,王兰,郭文超
作者简介:
付开赟(1987-),男,浙江人,助理研究员,博士,研究方向为外来入侵生物综合防控,(E-mail)fukaiyun000@foxmail.com
基金资助:
CLC Number:
FU Kaiyun, WANG Dian, DING Xinhua, JIA Zunzun, Tursun Ahmat, ZHANG Guoliang, FU Weidong, WEN Jun, Jiamaliding · Wulazahan, WANG La, GUO Wenchao. Screening of Antagonistic Plants: Ragweed and Giant Ragweed[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(12): 3030-3046.
付开赟, 王钿, 丁新华, 贾尊尊, 吐尔逊·阿合买提, 张国良, 付卫东, 文俊, 加马力丁·吾拉扎汗, 王兰, 郭文超. 豚草和三裂叶豚草拮抗植物的筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(12): 3030-3046.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.xjnykx.com/EN/10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.12.019
种子名称 Seed name | 供体 Donor | 质量浓度 Mass concentration (g/L) | 发芽率GR Germination rate (%) | 化感效应指数Rl1 Allelopathy index | 发芽指数GI Germination Index | 化感效应指数Rl2 Allelopathy index | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
玉米 Zea mays | 叶 leaf | 0 | 95.20a | 0 | 48.46a | 0 | |
2.5% | 84.80b | -0.12 | 38.48b | -0.26 | |||
5.0% | 76.00c | -0.25 | 31.61c | -0.53 | |||
7.5% | 72.00c | -0.32 | 30.03c | -0.61 | |||
10.0% | 71.60c | -0.33 | 30.89c | -0.57 | |||
油葵 Helianthus annuus | 0 | 90.00a | 0 | 37.73a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 78.40b | -0.15 | 26.09b | -0.45 | |||
5.0% | 66.80c | -0.35 | 18.58c | -1.03 | |||
7.5% | 36.80d | -1.45 | 12.74d | -1.96 | |||
10.0% | 32.80d | -1.74 | 11.63d | -2.24 | |||
甜菜 Beta vulgaris | 叶 leaf | 0 | 50.00a | 0 | 10.82a | 0 | |
2.5% | 25.60b | -0.95 | 5.60b | -0.93 | |||
5.0% | 16.00c | -2.13 | 4.48b | -1.42 | |||
7.5% | 11.60cd | -3.31 | 2.81d | -2.86 | |||
10.0% | 11.20d | -3.46 | 3.09dc | -2.5 | |||
小麦 Triticum aestivum | 0 | 94.00a | 0 | 42.14a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 84.40b | -0.11 | 34.02b | -0.24 | |||
5.0% | 77.60c | -0.21 | 29.58c | -0.42 | |||
7.5% | 77.20c | -0.22 | 28.24c | -0.49 | |||
10.0% | 58.80d | -0.6 | 21.18d | -0.99 | |||
苜蓿 Medicago Sativa | 0 | 83.60a | 0 | 38.08a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 80.00a | -0.04 | 31.33b | -0.22 | |||
5.0% | 45.60b | -0.83 | 9.88c | -2.85 | |||
7.5% | 5.60c | -13.93 | 1.11d | -33.2 | |||
10.0% | 1.20d | -68.67 | 0.19d | -195.97 | |||
黑麦草 Lolium perenne | 0 | 97.60a | 0 | 45.83a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 85.20b | -0.15 | 30.94b | -0.48 | |||
5.0% | 58.40c | -0.67 | 17.37c | -1.64 | |||
7.5% | 44.40d | -1.2 | 10.26d | -3.47 | |||
10.0% | 32.00e | -2.05 | 6.03e | -6.61 | |||
早熟禾 Poa pratensis | 0 | 50.00a | 0 | 18.20a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 20.00b | -1.5 | 5.29b | -2.44 | |||
5.0% | 2.00c | -24 | 0.53c | -33.67 | |||
7.5% | 0.80c | -61.5 | 0.10c | -184.08 | |||
10.0% | 0.40c | -124 | 0.02c | -909 | |||
披碱草 Elymus dahuricus | 0 | 66.00a | 0 | 21.33a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 52.00b | -0.27 | 15.99b | -0.33 | |||
5.0% | 39.20c | -0.68 | 10.68c | -1 | |||
7.5% | 24.00d | -1.75 | 5.99d | -2.56 | |||
10.0% | 14.40e | -3.58 | 3.10e | -5.89 | |||
高羊茅 Festuca elata | 0 | 94.00a | 0 | 38.18a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 85.20b | -0.1 | 31.09b | -0.23 | |||
5.0% | 78.40b | -0.2 | 23.68c | -0.61 | |||
7.5% | 58.40c | -0.61 | 15.48d | -1.47 | |||
10.0% | 32.40d | -1.9 | 5.54e | -5.9 | |||
玉米 Zea mays | 根 root | 0 | 95.20a | 0 | 48.46a | 0 | |
2.5% | 88.00b | -0.08 | 44.73b | -0.08 | |||
5.0% | 86.80bc | -0.1 | 41.22c | -0.18 | |||
7.5% | 84.40cd | -0.13 | 40.34c | -0.2 | |||
10.0% | 83.20d | -0.14 | 38.27c | -0.27 | |||
油葵 Helianthus annuus | 0 | 90.00a | 0 | 37.73a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 78.00b | -0.15 | 32.84b | -0.15 | |||
5.0% | 70.00c | -0.29 | 29.68bc | -0.27 | |||
7.5% | 65.60c | -0.37 | 26.71cd | -0.41 | |||
10.0% | 65.60c | -0.37 | 25.28d | -0.49 | |||
甜菜 Beta vulgaris | 根 root | 0 | 50.00a | 0 | 10.82a | 0 | |
2.5% | 26.4b | -0.89 | 7.24b | -0.49 | |||
5.0% | 22.40b | -1.23 | 5.49b | -0.97 | |||
7.5% | 24.40b | -1.05 | 4.95b | -1.18 | |||
10.0% | 24.00b | -1.08 | 6.43b | -0.68 | |||
小麦 Triticum aestivum | 0 | 94.00a | 0 | 42.14a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 88.80b | -0.06 | 42.02a | 0 | |||
5.0% | 85.60c | -0.1 | 36.70b | -0.15 | |||
7.5% | 80.80d | -0.16 | 36.84b | -0.14 | |||
10.0% | 81.20d | -0.16 | 31.78b | -0.33 | |||
苜蓿 Medicago Sativa | 0 | 83.60a | 0 | 38.08a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 79.60b | -0.05 | 32.20b | -0.18 | |||
5.0% | 79.60b | -0.05 | 33.45b | -0.14 | |||
7.5% | 79.60b | -0.05 | 33.64bc | -0.13 | |||
10.0% | 79.20b | -0.06 | 30.03c | -0.27 | |||
黑麦草 Lolium perenne | 0 | 97.60a | 0 | 45.83a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 96.80ab | -0.01 | 41.19b | -0.11 | |||
5.0% | 96.00b | -0.02 | 35.60c | -0.29 | |||
7.5% | 96.40ab | -0.01 | 34.08c | -0.34 | |||
10.0% | 96.40ab | -0.01 | 34.33c | -0.34 | |||
早熟禾 Poa pratensis | 0 | 50.00a | 0 | 18.20a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 47.60ab | -0.05 | 8.78b | -1.07 | |||
5.0% | 41.20b | -0.21 | 7.04bc | -1.59 | |||
7.5% | 38.00b | -0.32 | 4.51cd | -3.04 | |||
10.0% | 25.20c | -0.98 | 2.89d | -5.29 | |||
披碱草 Elymus dahuricus | 0 | 66.00a | 0 | 21.33a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 59.20ab | -0.11 | 17.06b | -0.25 | |||
5.0% | 58.40bc | -0.13 | 16.20b | -0.32 | |||
7.5% | 60.00ab | -0.1 | 15.24b | -0.4 | |||
10.0% | 51.60c | -0.28 | 12.33c | -0.73 | |||
高羊茅 Festuca elata | 0 | 94.00a | 0 | 38.18a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 77.20b | -0.22 | 19.80b | -0.93 | |||
5.0% | 75.20b | -0.25 | 18.88b | -1.02 | |||
7.5% | 74.80b | -0.26 | 17.10c | -1.23 | |||
10.0% | 75.20b | -0.25 | 15.14d | -1.52 |
Table 1 Effects of leaf and root extracts from giant ragweed on seed Germination of five crops
种子名称 Seed name | 供体 Donor | 质量浓度 Mass concentration (g/L) | 发芽率GR Germination rate (%) | 化感效应指数Rl1 Allelopathy index | 发芽指数GI Germination Index | 化感效应指数Rl2 Allelopathy index | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
玉米 Zea mays | 叶 leaf | 0 | 95.20a | 0 | 48.46a | 0 | |
2.5% | 84.80b | -0.12 | 38.48b | -0.26 | |||
5.0% | 76.00c | -0.25 | 31.61c | -0.53 | |||
7.5% | 72.00c | -0.32 | 30.03c | -0.61 | |||
10.0% | 71.60c | -0.33 | 30.89c | -0.57 | |||
油葵 Helianthus annuus | 0 | 90.00a | 0 | 37.73a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 78.40b | -0.15 | 26.09b | -0.45 | |||
5.0% | 66.80c | -0.35 | 18.58c | -1.03 | |||
7.5% | 36.80d | -1.45 | 12.74d | -1.96 | |||
10.0% | 32.80d | -1.74 | 11.63d | -2.24 | |||
甜菜 Beta vulgaris | 叶 leaf | 0 | 50.00a | 0 | 10.82a | 0 | |
2.5% | 25.60b | -0.95 | 5.60b | -0.93 | |||
5.0% | 16.00c | -2.13 | 4.48b | -1.42 | |||
7.5% | 11.60cd | -3.31 | 2.81d | -2.86 | |||
10.0% | 11.20d | -3.46 | 3.09dc | -2.5 | |||
小麦 Triticum aestivum | 0 | 94.00a | 0 | 42.14a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 84.40b | -0.11 | 34.02b | -0.24 | |||
5.0% | 77.60c | -0.21 | 29.58c | -0.42 | |||
7.5% | 77.20c | -0.22 | 28.24c | -0.49 | |||
10.0% | 58.80d | -0.6 | 21.18d | -0.99 | |||
苜蓿 Medicago Sativa | 0 | 83.60a | 0 | 38.08a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 80.00a | -0.04 | 31.33b | -0.22 | |||
5.0% | 45.60b | -0.83 | 9.88c | -2.85 | |||
7.5% | 5.60c | -13.93 | 1.11d | -33.2 | |||
10.0% | 1.20d | -68.67 | 0.19d | -195.97 | |||
黑麦草 Lolium perenne | 0 | 97.60a | 0 | 45.83a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 85.20b | -0.15 | 30.94b | -0.48 | |||
5.0% | 58.40c | -0.67 | 17.37c | -1.64 | |||
7.5% | 44.40d | -1.2 | 10.26d | -3.47 | |||
10.0% | 32.00e | -2.05 | 6.03e | -6.61 | |||
早熟禾 Poa pratensis | 0 | 50.00a | 0 | 18.20a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 20.00b | -1.5 | 5.29b | -2.44 | |||
5.0% | 2.00c | -24 | 0.53c | -33.67 | |||
7.5% | 0.80c | -61.5 | 0.10c | -184.08 | |||
10.0% | 0.40c | -124 | 0.02c | -909 | |||
披碱草 Elymus dahuricus | 0 | 66.00a | 0 | 21.33a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 52.00b | -0.27 | 15.99b | -0.33 | |||
5.0% | 39.20c | -0.68 | 10.68c | -1 | |||
7.5% | 24.00d | -1.75 | 5.99d | -2.56 | |||
10.0% | 14.40e | -3.58 | 3.10e | -5.89 | |||
高羊茅 Festuca elata | 0 | 94.00a | 0 | 38.18a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 85.20b | -0.1 | 31.09b | -0.23 | |||
5.0% | 78.40b | -0.2 | 23.68c | -0.61 | |||
7.5% | 58.40c | -0.61 | 15.48d | -1.47 | |||
10.0% | 32.40d | -1.9 | 5.54e | -5.9 | |||
玉米 Zea mays | 根 root | 0 | 95.20a | 0 | 48.46a | 0 | |
2.5% | 88.00b | -0.08 | 44.73b | -0.08 | |||
5.0% | 86.80bc | -0.1 | 41.22c | -0.18 | |||
7.5% | 84.40cd | -0.13 | 40.34c | -0.2 | |||
10.0% | 83.20d | -0.14 | 38.27c | -0.27 | |||
油葵 Helianthus annuus | 0 | 90.00a | 0 | 37.73a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 78.00b | -0.15 | 32.84b | -0.15 | |||
5.0% | 70.00c | -0.29 | 29.68bc | -0.27 | |||
7.5% | 65.60c | -0.37 | 26.71cd | -0.41 | |||
10.0% | 65.60c | -0.37 | 25.28d | -0.49 | |||
甜菜 Beta vulgaris | 根 root | 0 | 50.00a | 0 | 10.82a | 0 | |
2.5% | 26.4b | -0.89 | 7.24b | -0.49 | |||
5.0% | 22.40b | -1.23 | 5.49b | -0.97 | |||
7.5% | 24.40b | -1.05 | 4.95b | -1.18 | |||
10.0% | 24.00b | -1.08 | 6.43b | -0.68 | |||
小麦 Triticum aestivum | 0 | 94.00a | 0 | 42.14a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 88.80b | -0.06 | 42.02a | 0 | |||
5.0% | 85.60c | -0.1 | 36.70b | -0.15 | |||
7.5% | 80.80d | -0.16 | 36.84b | -0.14 | |||
10.0% | 81.20d | -0.16 | 31.78b | -0.33 | |||
苜蓿 Medicago Sativa | 0 | 83.60a | 0 | 38.08a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 79.60b | -0.05 | 32.20b | -0.18 | |||
5.0% | 79.60b | -0.05 | 33.45b | -0.14 | |||
7.5% | 79.60b | -0.05 | 33.64bc | -0.13 | |||
10.0% | 79.20b | -0.06 | 30.03c | -0.27 | |||
黑麦草 Lolium perenne | 0 | 97.60a | 0 | 45.83a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 96.80ab | -0.01 | 41.19b | -0.11 | |||
5.0% | 96.00b | -0.02 | 35.60c | -0.29 | |||
7.5% | 96.40ab | -0.01 | 34.08c | -0.34 | |||
10.0% | 96.40ab | -0.01 | 34.33c | -0.34 | |||
早熟禾 Poa pratensis | 0 | 50.00a | 0 | 18.20a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 47.60ab | -0.05 | 8.78b | -1.07 | |||
5.0% | 41.20b | -0.21 | 7.04bc | -1.59 | |||
7.5% | 38.00b | -0.32 | 4.51cd | -3.04 | |||
10.0% | 25.20c | -0.98 | 2.89d | -5.29 | |||
披碱草 Elymus dahuricus | 0 | 66.00a | 0 | 21.33a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 59.20ab | -0.11 | 17.06b | -0.25 | |||
5.0% | 58.40bc | -0.13 | 16.20b | -0.32 | |||
7.5% | 60.00ab | -0.1 | 15.24b | -0.4 | |||
10.0% | 51.60c | -0.28 | 12.33c | -0.73 | |||
高羊茅 Festuca elata | 0 | 94.00a | 0 | 38.18a | 0 | ||
2.5% | 77.20b | -0.22 | 19.80b | -0.93 | |||
5.0% | 75.20b | -0.25 | 18.88b | -1.02 | |||
7.5% | 74.80b | -0.26 | 17.10c | -1.23 | |||
10.0% | 75.20b | -0.25 | 15.14d | -1.52 |
种子名称 Seed name | 供体 Donor | 质量浓度 Mass concentration (g/L) | 发芽率GR Germination rate (%) | 化感效应指数Rl1 Allelopathy index | 发芽指数GI Germination Index | 化感效应指数Rl2 Allelopathy index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
黑麦草 Lolium perenne | 叶 leaf | 0 | 98.50a | 0.00 | 48.17a | 0.00 |
2.5% | 96.50a | -0.02 | 42.74b | -0.13 | ||
5.0% | 95.50a | -0.03 | 40.79b | -0.18 | ||
7.5% | 94.50a | -0.04 | 39.23b | -0.23 | ||
10.0% | 94.00a | -0.05 | 31.71c | -0.52 | ||
早熟禾 Poa pratensis | 0 | 77.00a | 0.00 | 11.71a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 74.50a | -0.03 | 10.90a | -0.07 | ||
5.0% | 70.00ab | -0.10 | 10.08a | -0.16 | ||
7.5% | 67.50ab | -0.14 | 9.96a | -0.18 | ||
10.0% | 57.00b | -0.35 | 4.70b | -1.49 | ||
披碱草 Elymus dahuricus | 0 | 71.00a | 0.00 | 29.14a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 66.00a | -0.08 | 28.00a | -0.04 | ||
5.0% | 63.00a | -0.13 | 27.25a | -0.07 | ||
7.5% | 61.50a | -0.15 | 18.90b | -0.54 | ||
10.0% | 60.50a | -0.17 | 16.52b | -0.76 | ||
高羊茅 Festuca elata | 0 | 88.50a | 0.00 | 39.71a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 87.00a | -0.02 | 32.11b | -0.24 | ||
5.0% | 83.00ab | -0.07 | 29.61bc | -0.34 | ||
7.5% | 77.50bc | -0.14 | 26.05cd | -0.52 | ||
10.0% | 74.00c | -0.20 | 22.69d | -0.75 | ||
黑麦草 Lolium perenne | 根 root | 0 | 98.50a | 0.00 | 48.15a | 0.00 |
2.5% | 98.00a | -0.01 | 46.05ab | -0.05 | ||
5.0% | 97.50a | -0.01 | 41.00b | -0.17 | ||
7.5% | 96.50a | -0.02 | 35.74c | -0.35 | ||
10.0% | 91.00b | -0.08 | 30.21d | -0.59 | ||
早熟禾 Poa pratensis | 0 | 77.00a | 0.00 | 11.71a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 71.50a | -0.08 | 11.06a | -0.06 | ||
5.0% | 68.50a | -0.12 | 10.91a | -0.07 | ||
7.5% | 67.50a | -0.14 | 10.56a | -0.11 | ||
10.0% | 45.00b | -0.71 | 8.27b | -0.42 | ||
披碱草 Elymus dahuricus | 0 | 71.00a | 0.00 | 29.14a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 66.00a | -0.08 | 27.37ab | -0.06 | ||
5.0% | 62.50ab | -0.14 | 27.15ab | -0.07 | ||
7.5% | 62.00ab | -0.15 | 23.38b | -0.25 | ||
10.0% | 54.00b | -0.31 | 23.13b | -0.26 | ||
高羊茅 Festuca elata | 0 | 88.50a | 0.00 | 39.71a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 86.50a | -0.02 | 33.64b | -0.18 | ||
5.0% | 83.50a | -0.06 | 27.86c | -0.43 | ||
7.5% | 81.50a | -0.09 | 25.24c | -0.57 | ||
10.0% | 81.00a | -0.09 | 24.20c | -0.64 |
Table 2 Effects of leaf and root extracts of ragweed on seed Germination of four forages
种子名称 Seed name | 供体 Donor | 质量浓度 Mass concentration (g/L) | 发芽率GR Germination rate (%) | 化感效应指数Rl1 Allelopathy index | 发芽指数GI Germination Index | 化感效应指数Rl2 Allelopathy index |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
黑麦草 Lolium perenne | 叶 leaf | 0 | 98.50a | 0.00 | 48.17a | 0.00 |
2.5% | 96.50a | -0.02 | 42.74b | -0.13 | ||
5.0% | 95.50a | -0.03 | 40.79b | -0.18 | ||
7.5% | 94.50a | -0.04 | 39.23b | -0.23 | ||
10.0% | 94.00a | -0.05 | 31.71c | -0.52 | ||
早熟禾 Poa pratensis | 0 | 77.00a | 0.00 | 11.71a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 74.50a | -0.03 | 10.90a | -0.07 | ||
5.0% | 70.00ab | -0.10 | 10.08a | -0.16 | ||
7.5% | 67.50ab | -0.14 | 9.96a | -0.18 | ||
10.0% | 57.00b | -0.35 | 4.70b | -1.49 | ||
披碱草 Elymus dahuricus | 0 | 71.00a | 0.00 | 29.14a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 66.00a | -0.08 | 28.00a | -0.04 | ||
5.0% | 63.00a | -0.13 | 27.25a | -0.07 | ||
7.5% | 61.50a | -0.15 | 18.90b | -0.54 | ||
10.0% | 60.50a | -0.17 | 16.52b | -0.76 | ||
高羊茅 Festuca elata | 0 | 88.50a | 0.00 | 39.71a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 87.00a | -0.02 | 32.11b | -0.24 | ||
5.0% | 83.00ab | -0.07 | 29.61bc | -0.34 | ||
7.5% | 77.50bc | -0.14 | 26.05cd | -0.52 | ||
10.0% | 74.00c | -0.20 | 22.69d | -0.75 | ||
黑麦草 Lolium perenne | 根 root | 0 | 98.50a | 0.00 | 48.15a | 0.00 |
2.5% | 98.00a | -0.01 | 46.05ab | -0.05 | ||
5.0% | 97.50a | -0.01 | 41.00b | -0.17 | ||
7.5% | 96.50a | -0.02 | 35.74c | -0.35 | ||
10.0% | 91.00b | -0.08 | 30.21d | -0.59 | ||
早熟禾 Poa pratensis | 0 | 77.00a | 0.00 | 11.71a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 71.50a | -0.08 | 11.06a | -0.06 | ||
5.0% | 68.50a | -0.12 | 10.91a | -0.07 | ||
7.5% | 67.50a | -0.14 | 10.56a | -0.11 | ||
10.0% | 45.00b | -0.71 | 8.27b | -0.42 | ||
披碱草 Elymus dahuricus | 0 | 71.00a | 0.00 | 29.14a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 66.00a | -0.08 | 27.37ab | -0.06 | ||
5.0% | 62.50ab | -0.14 | 27.15ab | -0.07 | ||
7.5% | 62.00ab | -0.15 | 23.38b | -0.25 | ||
10.0% | 54.00b | -0.31 | 23.13b | -0.26 | ||
高羊茅 Festuca elata | 0 | 88.50a | 0.00 | 39.71a | 0.00 | |
2.5% | 86.50a | -0.02 | 33.64b | -0.18 | ||
5.0% | 83.50a | -0.06 | 27.86c | -0.43 | ||
7.5% | 81.50a | -0.09 | 25.24c | -0.57 | ||
10.0% | 81.00a | -0.09 | 24.20c | -0.64 |
Fig.1 Comparison of plant height between single and mixed treatments of giant ragweed and Ryegrass Note: HS11 represents the treatment of ryegrass and giant ragweed with a plant ratio of 1:1, and so on, -S represents the data of giant ragweed, -H represents the data of ryegrass; S1-S3 represent single species of giant ragweed respectively A control group of 1, 2, and 3 plants of grass, H1-H3 represents a control group of 1, 2, and 3 plants of single ryegrass, respectively, the same as below
Fig.4 Comparison of plant height of giant ragweed and Elymus Dahuricus in single and mixed treatments Note: PS11 represents the plant ratio of Elymus and giant ragweed at 1∶1, and so on, -S represents the data of giant ragweed,-P represents the data of Elymus trilobata; S1-S3 respectively represent a single species of trilobate A control group of 1, 2, and 3 ragweed plants, and P1-P3 represent a control group of 1, 2, and 3 single species of Elymus vulgaris, respectively, the same as below
Fig.7 Comparison of plant height between giant ragweed and tall fescue in single and mixed treatments Note: GS11 represents the plant ratio of tall fescue and giant ragweed treatment at 1:1, and so on, -S represents the data of giant ragweed, -G represents the data of tall fescue; S1-S3 represent single A control group of 1, 2, and 3 species of Ambrosia trilobata, H1-H3 represents a control group of 1, 2, and 3 single species of tall fescue, respectively, the same as below
Fig.10 Comparison of plant height of single and mixed ragweed and ryegrass treatments Note: HT11 represents the ratio of ryegrass to ragweed plants at 1:1, and so on, -T represents the data of ragweed, -H represents the data of ryegrass; T1-T3 represent single species of ragweed 1, 2, 3, respectively For the control group of plants, H1-H3 represent the control group of 1, 2, and 3 single ryegrass respectively, the same as below
Fig.13 Comparison of plant height of ragweed and Elymus dahuricus in single weight and mixed treatments Note: PT11 represents the ratio of Elymus and ragweed plants at 1:1, and so on, -T represents the data of ragweed, -P represents the data of Elymus ragweed; T1-T3 represent single species of ragweed 1, 2 respectively, 3 strains of the control group, H1-H3 respectively represent the single species of Elymus spp. 1, 2 and 3 strains of the control group, Same below
Fig.16 Comparison of plant height between ragweed and tall fescue under single weight and mixed treatments Note: GT11 represents tall fescue and ragweed plant ratio 1:1 treatment, and so on, -T represents the data of ragweed, -G represents the data of tall fescue; T1-T3 represent single species of ragweed 1, 2 respectively, 3 strains of control group, H1-H3 represents the control group of single species of tall fescue 1, 2 and 3 respectively, the same as below
竞争组合 Competitive Combination | 混种比例 Hybrid alignment | 牧草相对产量RYb Relative yield of forage grass | 三裂叶豚草 相对产量Rya Relative yield of giant ragweed | 三裂叶豚草的竞争 平衡指数Cba Giant Ragweed's Competitive Balance Index |
---|---|---|---|---|
高羊茅+三裂叶豚草 Festuca elata+ A. trifida | 1∶1 | 1.027 7±0.256 75a | 0.979 8±0.070 27a | 0.010 0±0.208 74c |
2∶1 | 0.681 4±0.035 78ab* | 0.830 4±0.04091a* | 0.198 2±0.102 11bc | |
3∶1 | 0.963 8±0.036 52a | 0.478 4±0.121 41a* | -0.757 6±0.265 88d** | |
1∶2 | 0.428 6±0.083 94b* | 1.052 4±0.061 8a | 0.932±0.141 04a** | |
1∶3 | 0.428 6±0.083 94b* | 1.095 6±0.451 49a | 0.821 5±0.204 89ab** | |
黑麦草+三裂叶豚草 Lolium perenne+ A. trifida | 1∶1 | 0.484 7±0.192 27a* | 0.605 8±0.041 26a* | 0.412 8±0.518 4a** |
2∶1 | 0.528 2±0.047 13a* | 0.550 9±0.087 72a* | 0.021 7±0.241 88a | |
3∶1 | 0.672 6±0.046 06a* | 0.519 5±0.106 76a* | -0.505 1±0.301 51a** | |
1∶2 | 0.423 9±0.053 61a* | 0.551 4±0.200 97a* | 0.052 4±0.093a | |
1∶3 | 0.538 7±0.107 54a* | 0.597 2±0.024 96a* | 0.148 5±0.266 97a | |
披碱草+三裂叶豚草 Elymus dahuricus+ A. trifida | 1∶1 | 0.934 7±0.065 53a | 0.738 2±0.038 8a* | -0.233 7±0.049 57a |
2∶1 | 0.731 5±0.165 62a* | 1.018 9±0.298 47a | 0.299 1±0.072 52a | |
3∶1 | 0.847 0±0.052 84a* | 0.836 1±0.243 87a | -0.093 8±0.230 17a | |
1∶2 | 0.731 1±0.020 95a* | 0.557 9±0.019 12a* | -0.270 6±0.046 54a | |
1∶3 | 0.612±0.155 68a* | 0.796 9±0.129 67a* | 0.309 3±0.406 63 |
Table 3 Relative yield and competitive equilibrium index of giant ragweed and 3 herbage species under different intercropping densities
竞争组合 Competitive Combination | 混种比例 Hybrid alignment | 牧草相对产量RYb Relative yield of forage grass | 三裂叶豚草 相对产量Rya Relative yield of giant ragweed | 三裂叶豚草的竞争 平衡指数Cba Giant Ragweed's Competitive Balance Index |
---|---|---|---|---|
高羊茅+三裂叶豚草 Festuca elata+ A. trifida | 1∶1 | 1.027 7±0.256 75a | 0.979 8±0.070 27a | 0.010 0±0.208 74c |
2∶1 | 0.681 4±0.035 78ab* | 0.830 4±0.04091a* | 0.198 2±0.102 11bc | |
3∶1 | 0.963 8±0.036 52a | 0.478 4±0.121 41a* | -0.757 6±0.265 88d** | |
1∶2 | 0.428 6±0.083 94b* | 1.052 4±0.061 8a | 0.932±0.141 04a** | |
1∶3 | 0.428 6±0.083 94b* | 1.095 6±0.451 49a | 0.821 5±0.204 89ab** | |
黑麦草+三裂叶豚草 Lolium perenne+ A. trifida | 1∶1 | 0.484 7±0.192 27a* | 0.605 8±0.041 26a* | 0.412 8±0.518 4a** |
2∶1 | 0.528 2±0.047 13a* | 0.550 9±0.087 72a* | 0.021 7±0.241 88a | |
3∶1 | 0.672 6±0.046 06a* | 0.519 5±0.106 76a* | -0.505 1±0.301 51a** | |
1∶2 | 0.423 9±0.053 61a* | 0.551 4±0.200 97a* | 0.052 4±0.093a | |
1∶3 | 0.538 7±0.107 54a* | 0.597 2±0.024 96a* | 0.148 5±0.266 97a | |
披碱草+三裂叶豚草 Elymus dahuricus+ A. trifida | 1∶1 | 0.934 7±0.065 53a | 0.738 2±0.038 8a* | -0.233 7±0.049 57a |
2∶1 | 0.731 5±0.165 62a* | 1.018 9±0.298 47a | 0.299 1±0.072 52a | |
3∶1 | 0.847 0±0.052 84a* | 0.836 1±0.243 87a | -0.093 8±0.230 17a | |
1∶2 | 0.731 1±0.020 95a* | 0.557 9±0.019 12a* | -0.270 6±0.046 54a | |
1∶3 | 0.612±0.155 68a* | 0.796 9±0.129 67a* | 0.309 3±0.406 63 |
竞争组合 Competitive Combination | 混种比例 Hybrid alignment | 牧草相对产量RYb Relative yield of forage grass | 豚草相对产量Rya Relative yield of ragweed | 豚草的竞争平衡指数Cba Competitive Balance Index of ragweed |
---|---|---|---|---|
高羊茅+豚草 Festuca elata+ A. artemisiifolia | 1∶1 | 0.552 3±0.087 6a* | 1.077 0±0.172 47a | 0.668 2±0.306 48a** |
2∶1 | 2.045 4±0.372 0a* | 0.690 2±0.313 99a | -1.253 4±0.650 83b** | |
3∶1 | 2.525 9±1.517 1a | 0.684 2±0.242 53a | -1.025 7±0.305 52b** | |
1∶2 | 0.621 6±0.112 2a* | 1.042 6±0.270 01a | 0.492 4±0.296 22a | |
1∶3 | 2.919 4±0.819 8a | 0.382 9±0.135 72a* | -2.049 7±0.178 55b** | |
黑麦草+豚草 Lolium perenne+ A. artemisiifolia | 1∶1 | 0.475 6±0.041 52b* | 1.081 3±0.285 22a | 0.764 8±0.228 73a** |
2∶1 | 1.582 3±0.236 23a* | 0.699 7±0.204 14a* | -0.8917±0.187 72b** | |
3∶1 | 0.977 5±0.105 93b | 0.422 9±0.157 33a* | -0.7816±0.333 90b** | |
1∶2 | 0.774 7±0.246 14b | 0.526 2±0.047 8a* | -0.2740±0.372 38ab | |
1∶3 | 0.913 8±0.134 71b | 0.421 4±0.195 15a* | -0.9558±0.518 08b** | |
披碱草+豚草 Elymus dahuricus+ A. artemisiifolia | 1∶1 | 0.613 3±0.156 77a* | 0.546 7±0.157 09a* | -0.120 9±0.386 8a |
2∶1 | 0.853 3±0.144 03a* | 0.846 7±0.108 06a* | 0.006 9±0.202 11a | |
3∶1 | 0.840 0±0.112 69a* | 0.570 0±0.060 28a* | -0.310 4±0.067 61a | |
1∶2 | 0.726 7±0.178 36a* | 0.843 3±0.214 04a | 0.140 2±0.535 51a | |
1∶3 | 0.846 7±0.149 48a* | 0.653 3±0.213 65a* | -0.328 0±0.135 39a |
Table 4 Relative yield of ragweed and three forages and competitive equilibrium index of ragweed under different mixed densities
竞争组合 Competitive Combination | 混种比例 Hybrid alignment | 牧草相对产量RYb Relative yield of forage grass | 豚草相对产量Rya Relative yield of ragweed | 豚草的竞争平衡指数Cba Competitive Balance Index of ragweed |
---|---|---|---|---|
高羊茅+豚草 Festuca elata+ A. artemisiifolia | 1∶1 | 0.552 3±0.087 6a* | 1.077 0±0.172 47a | 0.668 2±0.306 48a** |
2∶1 | 2.045 4±0.372 0a* | 0.690 2±0.313 99a | -1.253 4±0.650 83b** | |
3∶1 | 2.525 9±1.517 1a | 0.684 2±0.242 53a | -1.025 7±0.305 52b** | |
1∶2 | 0.621 6±0.112 2a* | 1.042 6±0.270 01a | 0.492 4±0.296 22a | |
1∶3 | 2.919 4±0.819 8a | 0.382 9±0.135 72a* | -2.049 7±0.178 55b** | |
黑麦草+豚草 Lolium perenne+ A. artemisiifolia | 1∶1 | 0.475 6±0.041 52b* | 1.081 3±0.285 22a | 0.764 8±0.228 73a** |
2∶1 | 1.582 3±0.236 23a* | 0.699 7±0.204 14a* | -0.8917±0.187 72b** | |
3∶1 | 0.977 5±0.105 93b | 0.422 9±0.157 33a* | -0.7816±0.333 90b** | |
1∶2 | 0.774 7±0.246 14b | 0.526 2±0.047 8a* | -0.2740±0.372 38ab | |
1∶3 | 0.913 8±0.134 71b | 0.421 4±0.195 15a* | -0.9558±0.518 08b** | |
披碱草+豚草 Elymus dahuricus+ A. artemisiifolia | 1∶1 | 0.613 3±0.156 77a* | 0.546 7±0.157 09a* | -0.120 9±0.386 8a |
2∶1 | 0.853 3±0.144 03a* | 0.846 7±0.108 06a* | 0.006 9±0.202 11a | |
3∶1 | 0.840 0±0.112 69a* | 0.570 0±0.060 28a* | -0.310 4±0.067 61a | |
1∶2 | 0.726 7±0.178 36a* | 0.843 3±0.214 04a | 0.140 2±0.535 51a | |
1∶3 | 0.846 7±0.149 48a* | 0.653 3±0.213 65a* | -0.328 0±0.135 39a |
[1] | 刘绍芹, 吕国忠. 豚草及豚草的综合治理[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 33(S1): 237-242. |
LIU Shaoqin, LU Guozhong. Integrated management of ragweed and ragweed[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Natural Science Edition), 2005, 33(S1): 237-242. | |
[2] | 包颖. 外来入侵物种豚草研究进展[J]. 吉林林业科技, 2018, 47(2): 37-39. |
BAO Yin. Research progress of invasive alien species ragweed[J]. Jilin Forestry Science and Technology, 2018, 47(2): 37-39. | |
[3] | 黄宝华. 豚草在国内的分布及危害调查[J]. 植物检疫, 1985,(1): 62-65. |
HUANG Baohua. Investigation on the distribution and harm of ragweed in China[J]. Plant Quarantine, 1985,(1):62-65. | |
[4] | 文俊, 杨光维, 乃比江. 新疆伊犁河谷豚草与三裂叶豚草主要危害及防治措施[J]. 畜牧兽医科学(电子版), 2020,(4): 53-54. |
WEN Jun, YANG Guangwei, NAI Bijiang. The main hazards and control measures of ragweed and giant ragweed in the Ili River Valley of Xinjiang[J]. Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science (Electronic Edition), 2020,(4): 53-54. | |
[5] | 曲波, 吕国忠, 杨红, 等. 豚草属植物的研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2006, 34(7): 1387-1388. |
QU Bo, LU Guozhong, YANG Hong, et al. Research progress on ragweed plants[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2006, 34(7): 1387-1388. | |
[6] | MacKay J, Kotanen P M. Local escape of an invasive plant, common ragweed (Ambrosia atemesifolia L. ), from above- ground and below-ground enemies in its native area[J]. Joumal of Ecology, 2008, (96): 1152-1161. |
[7] |
Cerber E, Schaffner U, Cassmann A, Hinz H L, et al. Prospeets for biological control of Ambrosia artemisifolia in Europe: learning from the past[J]. Weed Research, 2011, 51(6): 559-573.
DOI URL |
[8] | 王建军, 赵宝玉, 李明涛, 等. 生态入侵植物豚草及其综合防治[J]. 草业科学, 2006, 23(4): 71-74. |
WANG Jianjun, ZHAO Baoyu, LI Mingtao, et al. Ecological invasive plant ragweed and its integrated control[J]. Grassland Science, 2006, 23(4): 71-74. | |
[9] | 丁世强, 付开赟, 丁新华, 等. 普通豚草防控药剂筛选[J]. 生物安全学报, 2021, 30(2): 126-131. |
DING Shiqing, FU Kaiyun, DING Xinhua, et al. Screening of common ragweed control agents[J]. Journal of Biosafety, 2021, 30(2): 126-131. | |
[10] | 宋振, 王忠辉, 范志伟, 等. 薇甘菊替代植物的筛选及其防控效果试验[J]. 中国农业气象, 2020, 41(1): 24-33. |
SONG Zhen, WANG Zhonghui, FAN Zhiwei, et al. Screening of alternative plants of Mikania micrantha and its control effect test[J]. Chinese Agricultural Meteorology, 2020, 41(1): 24-33. | |
[11] | 高尚宾, 张宏斌, 孙玉芳, 等. 植物替代控制3种入侵杂草技术的研究与应用进展[J]. 生物安全学报, 2017, 26(1):18-22. |
GAO Shangbing, ZHANG Hongbing, SUN Yufang, et al. Progress in research and application of plant substitution control of three invasive weeds[J]. Journal of Biosafety, 2017, 26(1): 18-22. | |
[12] | 卢向阳, 张锦华, 左相兵, 等. 几种替代植物对入侵杂草紫茎泽兰的防控效果[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2012, 40(6): 103-106. |
LU Xiangyang, ZHANG Jinghua, ZUO Xiangbin, et al. The control effects of several alternative plants on the invasive weed Eupatorium adenophorum[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 40(6): 103-106. | |
[13] | 刘红梅, 皇甫超河, 常瑞恒, 等. 2种替代植物对黄顶菊入侵土壤养分及酶活性的影响[J]. 杂草学报, 2012, 30(2): 24-28. |
LIU Hongmei, HUANGFu Chaohe, CHANG Ruihen, et al. Effects of two alternative plants on soil nutrient and enzyme activity of Flaveria bidentis invaded[J]. Acta Weede Sinica, 2012, 30(2):24-28. | |
[14] | 岳茂峰, 崔烨, 冯莉, 等. 入侵植物飞机草与4种牧草的竞争效应[J]. 生物安全学报, 2016, 25(4):270-274. |
YUE Maofen, CUI Ye, FENG li, et al. Competitive effects of the invasive plant Phyllanthus spp. and 4 kinds of pastures[J]. Journal of Biosafety, 2016, 25(4):270-274. | |
[15] | 张瑞海, 付卫东, 张国良, 等. 紫花苜蓿和向日葵对黄顶菊的替代控制机理分析[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 34(2): 33-38. |
ZHANG Ruihai, FU Weidong, ZHANG Guoliang, et al. Analysis of Alfalfa and Sunflower's Alternative Control Mechanism for Festaria chinensis[J]. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2012, 34(2): 33-38. | |
[16] | 张瑞海, 付卫东, 宋振, 等. 河北地区黄顶菊土壤种子库特征及其对替代控制的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2016, 25(5): 775-782. |
ZHANG Ruihai, FU Weidong, SONG Zhen, et al. Characteristics of soil seed bank of Flaveria bidentis in Hebei and its response to alternative control[J]. Acta Eco-Environmental Sciences, 2016, 25(5): 775-782. | |
[17] | 张国良, 付卫东, 宋振. 黄顶菊入侵生态学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2014. |
ZHANG Guoliang, FU Weidong, SONG Zhen. Invasion ecology of Huangding chrysanthemum[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2014. | |
[18] | 赵晓红, 张国良, 宋振, 等. 刺萼龙葵入侵对不同生境土壤特征的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2017, 26(6): 924-930. |
ZHAO Xiaohong, ZHANG Guolaing, SONG Zhen, et al. Effects of Solanum sinensis invasion on soil characteristics in different habitats[J]. Acta Eco-Environmental Sciences, 2017, 26(6): 924-930. | |
[19] | 季长波. 草地早熟禾在丹东滨海湿地中对豚草的生物防治[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2008. |
JI Changbo. The biological control of ragweed by Poa pratensis in Dandong coastal wetland[D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University, 2008. | |
[20] | 万方浩, 王韧. 豚草生物防治概况[J]. 杂草科学, 1990,(1): 30-32. |
WAN Fanghao, WANG Ren. General situation of ragweed biological control[J]. Weed Science, 1990, (1): 30-32. | |
[21] | 孙备, 王果骄, 李建东, 等. 不同菊芋种植比例对三裂叶豚草地上部分生长量的控制效果[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2008, 39(5): 525-529. |
SUN Bei, WANG Guojiao, LI Jiandong, et al. The control effect of different planting ratios of Jerusalem artichoke on the growth of the above-ground part of Ambrosia trilobata[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2008, 39(5): 525-529. | |
[22] | 李建东, 孙备, 王国骄, 等. 菊芋对三裂叶豚草叶片光合特性的竞争机理[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2006, 37(4): 569-572. |
LI Jiandong, SUN Bei, WANG Guojiao, et al. The competition mechanism of Jerusalem artichoke on photosynthetic characteristics of Ambrosia trilobata leaves[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2006, 37(4): 569-572. | |
[23] | Milanova S, Vladimirov V, Maneva S. Suppressive effect of some forage plants on the growth of Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Iva xanthiifolia[J]. Pesticidii Fitomedicina, 2010, 25(2): 171-176. |
[24] | 关广清, 韩亚光, 尹睿, 等. 经济植物替代控制豚草的研究[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 1995,(3): 277-283. |
GUAN Guangqin, HAN Yaguang, YIN Ren, et al. Research on the substitution of economic plants to control ragweed[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 1995,(3): 277-283. | |
[25] | 曾任森. 化感作用研究中的生物测定方法综述[J]. 应用生态学报, 1999, 10(1): 123-126. |
ZENG Rensen. Summary of bioassay methods in allelopathy research[J]. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 1999, 10(1): 123-126. | |
[26] |
Williamson G B, Richardson D. Biossays for llopathay: measuring treatment responses with independent controls[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1988, 14(1): 181-187.
DOI PMID |
[27] |
Wilson J B, Shoot competition and root competition[J]. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 1988, 25(1): 279-296.
DOI URL |
[28] | 曹子林, 王晓丽, 涂環, 等. 紫茎泽兰不同处理方法水提液对云南松种子萌发的化感作用[J]. 种子, 2011, 30(8): 46-49, 54. |
CAO Ziling, WANG Xiaoli, TU Huan, et al. The allelopathy of different treatment methods of Eupatorium adenophorum on seed germination of Yunnan pine[J]. Seed, 2011, 30(8): 46-49, 54. | |
[29] | Yao S K, Li F L, Peng L N, et al. A study of the allelopathic effect of extracts from different parts of Iva xanthiifolia on five Brassicaceae species[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(9): 56-66. |
[30] | 陈锋, 孟永杰, 帅海威, 等. 植物化感物质对种子萌发的影响及其生态学意义[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(1): 36-46. |
CHEN Fen, MENG Yunjjie, SHUAI Haiwei, et al. and other plant allelochemicals on seed germination and its ecological significance[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2017, 25(1): 36-46. | |
[31] | 张霞, 魏芳敏, 李海云. 栾树叶片水浸液对4种草坪草的化感作用[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 47(3): 327-331. |
ZHANG Xia, WEI Fangmin, LI Haiyun, The allelopathy of water extracts from Luan tree leaves on four turfgrass[J]. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University (Natural Science Edition), 2016, 47(3): 327-331. | |
[32] | Wang Y, Fu L, Long F L, et al. Allelopathic effects of water extractions from two veronica species on 6 kinds of receiving crops[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University, 2013, 41(4): 178-190. |
[33] | Zhao X M, Wang J, Mo J J, et al. Allelopothic effects of leaf-stem ltter water aqueous extracts of three plant species on tobacco seedlings[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25 (9): 37-45. |
[34] | 韩国君. 豚草他感作用研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2015, 54(8): 1873-1875. |
HAN Guojun. Study on the effects of ragweed and other sense[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 54(8):1873-1875. | |
[35] | 宋振, 王忠辉, 范志伟, 等. 薇甘菊替代植物的筛选及其防控效果试验[J]. 中国农业气象, 2020, 41(1): 24-33. |
SONG Zhen, WANG Zhonghui, FAN Zhiwei, et al. Screening of alternative plants of Mikania micrantha and its control effect test[J]. Chinese Agricultural Meteorology, 2020, 41(1): 24-33. | |
[36] |
Horvitz N, Wang R, Wan F H, et al. Pervasive human-mediated large-scale invasion: analysis of spread patterns and their underlying mechanisms in 17 of China's worst invasive plants[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2017, 105(1): 85-94.
DOI URL |
[37] |
Shen S, Xu G, Clements D R, et al. Suppression of reproductive characteristics of the invasive plant Mikania micrantha by sweet potato competition[J]. BMC Ecology, 2016, 16(1): 1-9.
DOI URL |
[38] | Jiang N, He H C, Wang N N, et al. Effects of replacement control with forage species on the biomass allocation and photosynthetic characteristics of Flaveria bidentis[J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2012, 31(8): 1903-1910. |
[39] |
Keddy P, Nielsen K, Weiher E, Lawson R. Relative competitive performance of 63 species of terrestrial herba-ceousplants[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science, 2002, 13(1): 5-16.
DOI URL |
[40] | Watkinson A R. Density-dependence in single-species populations of plants[J]. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1980, 83(2): 354-357. |
[41] | 马杰, 易津, 皇甫超河, 杨殿林. 入侵植物黄顶菊与3种牧草竞争效应研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2010. 30(5): 1020-1028. |
MA Jie, YI Jin, HUANGFU Chaohe, et al. Study on the competitive effect of the invasive plant Flaveria bidentis with three pastures[J]. Northwestern Journal of Botany, 2010, 30(5): 1020-1028. |
[1] | LIU Jiajia, HAN Tao. Effect of pomegranate peel flesh extract on body weight gain and plasma Immunity-related indexes in adult mice [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 2074-2080. |
[2] | ZHOU Xiaoyun, ZHANG Jungao, ZHOU Jiayu, LI Jin, QIN Bingshuang, LIANG Jing, GONG Jingyun, LEI Bin. Preliminary study on the effects of three plant extracts on cotton seed germination and seedling growth [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(12): 2902-2910. |
[3] | Bahatiguli Manatibai, YAO Weiqin, Gaoshaer Kayierhali, GUO Hengxin, Dulati Kayimaerdan, Ailati gemadi, SHI Bo, GONG Zhiguo. Analysis of the volatile aromatic components in fresh horse milk by headspace solid phase microextraction-Gas chromatography-Mass spectrometry [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(12): 3080-3085. |
[4] | ZHENG Ruiming, WANG Li, ZHANG Jungao, YAN Rong, LI Jin, LIANG Jing, LEI Bin, ZHOU Xiaoyun. Screening and Evaluation of Wheat Germination and Seedling Growth Activity by 16 Plant Methanol Extracts [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(1): 32-42. |
[5] | ZHENG Ruiming, ZHOU Xiaoyun, LI Jin, ZHANG Jungao, CHENG Yong, MA Deying, LIANG Jing, GONG Jingyun, LEI Bin. Effects of Three Methanol Extracts from Plant on Stem Properties,Photosynthetic Characteristics and Yield of Wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(5): 1068-1076. |
[6] | WU Ruichen, YAO Xinkui, MENG Jun, ZENG Yaqi, WANG Chuankun, Arafat Aihemati, Nurtayi Kurbantai. Effects of Different Dosages of Bamboo Leaf Extract on Blood Biochemical Indexes of Yili Horse during Lactation [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(11): 2772-2778. |
[7] | ZHANG Xuemin, YAO Xinkui, MENG Jun, ZENG Yaqi, WANG Jianwen, Yerhanati Kadeerhan, Halisihan Bahayidin. Effects of Different Time of Yili Mare Supplementing Bamboo Leaf Extract on the Blood Biochemical Indexes of Young Foals [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(11): 2779-2785. |
[8] | MA Bingqiang, YAO Xinkui, MENG Jun, ZENG Yaqi, WANG Jiangwen, WANG Chuankun, Appidum Tursun. Effects of Different Levels of Bamboo Leaf Extract on Milk Yield and Milk Composition of Yili Horse during Lactation [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(11): 2786-2792. |
[9] | LIU Ting, YAO Xinkui, MENG Jun, ZENG Yaqi, WANG Chuankun, REN Wanlu, Busharemu Abudukadier, GAO Wanting. Effects of Bamboo Leaf Extract on Heart Rate Variability of Yili Horses during Milking [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(11): 2793-2799. |
[10] | DING Shiqiang, FU Kaiyun, DING Xinhua, HE Jiang, Tursun Ahmat, GUO Wenchao. Prevention and Control Techniques of Ragweed and Giant Ragweed Based on Synergistic Effect of Synergistic Agent and Herbicide [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(8): 1493-1500. |
[11] | LONG Xiang, ZHAO Qingzhan, WANG Xuewen, MA Yongjian, JIANG Ping. Analysis of Spectral Change of Cotton During Growth Period Based on Endmember Extraction of UAV Hyperspectral Image [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(7): 1207-1216. |
[12] | CHANG Rui, WANG Jun, FU Kaiyun, LIAO Lanlan, DING Xinhua, HE Jiang, GUO Wenchao, Toulxun Ahemat, REN Yu. Comparative Study on the Effect of 4 kind of dsRNA Extraction Methods form Prokaryotic Expression Double-stranded RNA [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(4): 700-711. |
[13] | Jincheng LÜ, Zhenxi WANG, Yongqiang YANG, Yanbin QU, Qiyao MA, Siming ZHU. Height Extraction and Growing Stock Inversion of Picea schrenkiana var. tianshanica in Tianshan Mountain Based on UAV Image [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(10): 1838-1845. |
[14] | Tao FANG, Jungao ZHANG, Guoquan FAN, Yong CHEN, Jing LIANG, Jin LI, Xiaoyun ZHOU, Li WANG, Ruiming ZHENG, Rong YAN, Bin LEI. Preliminary Study on Insecticidal Activity of 28 Plant Extracts from Xinjiang to Cotton Aphids [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(10): 1868-1875. |
[15] | ZHANG Feng, ZHAO Zhong-guo, LI Gang, CHEN Gang. Study on Classification and Extraction of Agricultural Land in Qitai County of Xinjiang Based on Different Classifiers [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 56(8): 1560-1568. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||