紫花苜蓿与冰草混播当年对牧草品质的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2025.02.025

新疆农业科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 62 ›› Issue (2): 474-483.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2025.02.025

• 草业·畜牧兽医·农业经济 • 上一篇下一篇

紫花苜蓿与冰草混播当年对牧草品质的影响

许莹月¹(), 侯钰荣²(), 周晨烨¹, 王静¹, 李有政¹, 周齐¹, 兰吉勇², 柯梅², 魏鹏², 王玉祥¹

1.新疆农业大学草业学院,乌鲁木齐 830052
2.新疆畜牧科学院草业研究所,乌鲁木齐 830000

收稿日期:2024-08-13 出版日期:2025-02-20 发布日期:2025-04-17
通信作者: 侯钰荣(1982-),女,新疆玛纳斯人,研究员,博士,硕士生导师,研究方向为牧草栽培、草地生态,(E-mail)houyurong0994@126.com
作者简介:许莹月(1996-),女,陕西西安人,硕士研究生,研究方向为农艺与种业,(E-mail)905557038@qq.com
基金资助:
新疆维吾尔自治区创新团队项目(2022D14013);农业生物育种重大项目(2022ZD040110405);新疆维吾尔自治区“天山英才”培养计划项目(2022SNGGNT096)

Effects of mixed sowing of Medicago sativa and Agropyron cristatum on forage quality

XU Yingyue¹(), HOU Yurong²(), ZHOU Chenye¹, WANG Jing¹, LI Youzheng¹, ZHOU Qi¹, LAN Jiyong², KE Mei², WEI Peng², WANG yuxiang¹

1. College of Grassland Science, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China
2. Institute of Grassland Science, Xinjiang Academy of Animal Husbandry, Urumqi 830000, China

Received:2024-08-13 Published:2025-02-20 Online:2025-04-17
Supported by:
Innovation Team Project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region(2022D14013);Major Project of Agricultural Biology Breeding(2022ZD040110405);Tianshan Talent Development Programme of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region(2022SNGGNT096)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】筛选紫花苜蓿(Medicago sativa)和冰草(Agropyron cristatum)最佳混播比例,为获得高品质牧草提供混播组合和理论依据。【方法】分别设置7个处理,分别为豆(豆科牧草)∶禾(禾本科牧草)为A(3∶7)、B(4∶6)、C(5∶5)、D(6∶4)、E(7∶3)、单播紫花苜蓿(MX)和单播冰草(BC),利用牧草养分指标检测技术和数理统计方法,分析不同比例豆禾混播对牧草品质的影响。【结果】混播当年牧草品质与混播比例差异显著,各混播处理与紫花苜蓿单播相比粗脂肪含量均有显著提升(P<0.05);C处理下中性洗涤纤维和酸性洗涤纤维含量较低,分别为38.64%、27.51%;粗蛋白含量为19.01%;全碳、全氮、可溶性糖含量较高,分别为40.21%、3.04%和41.77%。不同处理采用灰色关联度综合评价排序结果为BC>C>A>D>E>B>MX。【结论】紫花苜蓿和冰草混播可改善牧草的品质,混播牧草品质优于紫花苜蓿单播,且在混播各处理中以豆禾5∶5为最佳混播比例。

关键词: 紫花苜蓿; 冰草; 同行混播; 混播比例; 牧草品质; 播种当年; 人工草地

Abstract:

【Objective】To screen the optimal mixed seeding ratio of Medicago sativa and Agropyron cristatum in the hope of providing a theoretical basis for the establishment of high quality artificial grassland in northern Xinjiang.【Methods】The effects of mixed sowing of legume and grass on forage quality were analyzed by means of forage nutrient index detection technique and mathematical statistics method. The ratios of legume-grass mixtures of the seven treatments were A (3∶7), B (4∶6), C (5∶5), D (6∶4), E (7∶3), M. sativa and A. cristatum. 【Results】There were significant differences in forage nutrition quality and proportion of mixed sowing in mixed sowing year, and the crude fat content of mixed sowing treatment was significantly increased compared with that of single sowing of alfalfa (P<0.05). Under C (5∶5) treatment, the contents of neutral and acid detergent fibers were lower (38.64% and 27.51%, respectively), crude protein content was 19.01%, total carbon, total nitrogen content and soluble sugar content were higher (40.21%, 3.04% and 41.77%, respectively). The results of the comprehensive evaluation of grey correlation degree for different treatments were BC > C (5∶5) > A (3∶7) > D (6∶4) > E (7∶3) > B (4∶6) > MX.【Conclusion】 M. sativa and A. cristatum can improve the nutritional quality of herbage, and the nutritional quality of mixed sowing herbage is better than that of MX, and the best mixed sowing ratio of 5∶5 is used in the mixed sowing treatments.

Key words: Medicago sativa; Agropyron cristatum; mixed cropping; mixed sowing ratio; forage quality; the year of planting; artificial grassland

中图分类号:

S5517

许莹月, 侯钰荣, 周晨烨, 王静, 李有政, 周齐, 兰吉勇, 柯梅, 魏鹏, 王玉祥. 紫花苜蓿与冰草混播当年对牧草品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(2): 474-483.

XU Yingyue, HOU Yurong, ZHOU Chenye, WANG Jing, LI Youzheng, ZHOU Qi, LAN Jiyong, KE Mei, WEI Peng, WANG yuxiang. Effects of mixed sowing of Medicago sativa and Agropyron cristatum on forage quality[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 62(2): 474-483.

图/表 11

表1 播前土壤养分信息

Tab.1 Message of soil nutrients before sowing

土层 Soil layer (cm)	全氮 Total nitrogen (g/kg)	全磷 Total phosphorus (g/kg)	全钾 Total potassium (g/kg)	速效氮 Available nitrogen (mg/kg)	速效磷 Available phosphorus (mg/kg)	速效钾 Available potassium (mg/kg)	土壤容重 Soil bulk density (g/cm³)	有机质 Organic matter (g/kg)
0~10	1.55	1.01	14.09	35.65	37.92	188.44	1.55	8.35
10~20	0.87	1.04	13.92	47.20	36.99	126.08	1.61	9.48
20~30	1.02	1.09	14.90	27.56	15.34	120.74	1.63	8.49
30~40	0.78	0.91	14.29	33.72	14.92	123.75	1.65	5.39

表2 试验设计

Tab.2 Experimental design

处理 Treatments	播种量Sowing quantity( kg/hm²)
处理 Treatments	紫花苜蓿 Medicago sativa var.Jianeng	冰草 Agropyron cristatum
MX	18.00	0.00
BC	0.00	45.00
A(3∶7)	5.40	31.50
B(4∶6)	7.20	27.00
C(5∶5)	9.00	22.50
D(6∶4)	10.80	18.00
E(7∶3)	12.60	13.50

图1 小区试验

Fig.1 Plot test diagram

图2 各处理下中性洗涤纤维含量和酸性洗涤纤维含量的变化注:图中不同小写字母表示处理间差异显著(P<0.05),下同

Fig.2 Changes of neutral detergent fibers content and acidic detergent fibers content under different treatments Notes:Different lowercase letters in the figure indicate significant differences between the treatments (P<0.05),the same as below

图3 各处理下植物粗脂肪含量和全碳含量的变化

Fig.3 Changes of crude fat content and total carbon content of plants under different treatments

图4 各处理下全氮含量和全磷含量的变化

Fig.4 Changes of total nitrogen contents and total phosphorus contents under different treatments

图5 各处理下淀粉含量和可溶性糖含量的变化

Fig.5 Changes of starch content and soluble sugar content under different treatments

图6 各处理下半纤维素含量和纤维素含量的变化

Fig.6 Changes of hemicellulose content and cellulose content under different treatments

图7 各处理下粗蛋白含量和酸性洗涤木质素含量的变化

Fig.7 Changes of crude protein content and acid washing lignin content under different treatments

表3 不同营养价值的权重

Tab.3 Weights of different nutritional values

指标 Indexes	权重系数 Weight coefficient	排序 Ranking
中性洗涤纤维Neutral detergent fibre	0.078 8	8
酸性洗涤纤维Acid detergent fibre	0.092 2	2
粗脂肪Crude fat	0.089 0	4
全碳Total carbon	0.076 8	11
全氮Total nitrogen	0.089 9	3
全磷Total phosphorus	0.078 5	9
淀粉Starch	0.099 1	1
可溶性糖Soluble sugar	0.077 2	10
半纤维素Hemicellulose	0.082 3	6
纤维素Cellulose	0.080 0	7
粗蛋白Crude protein	0.071 9	12
木质素Lignin	0.084 3	5

表4 各混播处理的营养价值灰色关联度排序

Tab.4 Ranking of grey correlation degree of nutritional value of each mixed sowing treatment

处理 Treatments	加权关联系数 Weighted correlation coefficient	排序 Ranking
MX	0.465	7
BC	0.784	1
A(3∶7)	0.537	3
B(4∶6)	0.485	6
C(5∶5)	0.556	2
D(6∶4)	0.525	4
E(7∶3)	0.510	5

参考文献 36

[1]	谢开云, 赵云, 李向林, 等. 豆-禾混播草地种间关系研究进展[J]. 草业学报, 2013, 22(3): 284-296. DOI
	XIE Kaiyun, ZHAO Yun, LI Xianglin, et al. Relationships between grasses and legumes in mixed grassland: a review[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(3): 284-296. DOI
[2]	Sun T J. Effect of artificial grassland establishing on the vegetation restoration in the degraded ecosystem[J]. Advanced Materials Research, 2014, 955/956/957/958/959: 3474-3478.
[3]	李莉, 王元素, 王堃. 喀斯特地区永久性禾草+白三叶混播草地群落种间竞争与共存[J]. 草业科学, 2014, 31(10): 1943-1950.
	LI Li, WANG Yuansu, WANG Kun. Interspecific competition and co-existence in permanent grasses +Trifolium Repens mixed pasture in Karst region[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2014, 31(10): 1943-1950.
[4]	刘芬. 水肥组合对苜蓿和老芒麦混播效益的研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2012.
	LIU Fen. Study on the benefit of treatment of irrigation and fertilizer on mixed sowing alfalfa and siberian wildryegrass[D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2012.
[5]	Spehn E M, Hector A, Joshi J, et al. Ecosystem effects of biodiversity manipulations in European grasslands[J]. Ecological Monographs, 2005, 75(1): 37-63.
[6]	Wang C T, Wang G X, Liu W, et al. Effects of establishing an artificial grassland on vegetation characteristics and soil quality in a degraded meadow[J]. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution, 2013, 59(3): 141-153.
[7]	Beyhaut E, Larson D L, Allan D L, et al. Legumes in prairie restoration: evidence for wide cross-nodulation and improved inoculant delivery[J]. Plant and Soil, 2014, 377(1): 245-258.
[8]	张永亮, 滕泽, 张玉霞. 苜蓿-无芒雀麦混播方式和比例对禾草叶片碳氮代谢的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(12): 3744-3749. DOI
	ZHANG Yongliang, TENG Ze, ZHANG Yuxia. Effects of the pattern and proportion of mixed sowing alfalfa to smooth brome on the carbon and nitrogen metabolism in its leaves[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(12): 3744-3749. DOI
[9]	鲁富宽, 王建光. 紫花苜蓿和无芒雀麦混播草地适宜刈割高度研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2014, 36(1): 49-52, 57.
	LU Fukuan, WANG Jianguang. Study on cutting height of mixed sowing of alfalfa with smooth brome[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2014, 36(1): 49-52, 57.
[10]	陈积山, 朱瑞芬, 高超, 等. 苜蓿和无芒雀麦混播草地种间竞争研究[J]. 草地学报, 2013, 21(6): 1157-1161. DOI
	CHEN Jishan, ZHU Ruifen, GAO Chao, et al. Interspecific competition of mixed grassland of Bromegrass(Bromus inermis L.) and Alfalfa(Medicago sativa L.)[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2013, 21(6): 1157-1161. DOI
[11]	谢开云, 曹凯, 万江春, 等. 新疆半干旱区不同豆科/禾本科牧草混播草地生产力的变化研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(4): 29-40. DOI
	XIE Kaiyun, CAO Kai, WAN Jiangchun, et al. Change in productivity of swards of different forage legume and grass species monocultures and combinations in the semi-arid region of Xinjiang Province[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(4): 29-40. DOI
[12]	马晓东, 孙金金, 汪鹏斌, 等. 青海三江源区燕麦与豆类混播对草产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(7): 21-27.
	MA Xiaodong, SUN Jinjin, WANG Pengbin, et al. Effects of mixed sowing of Avena sativa and legumes on grass yield and quality in the Sanjiangyuan Region of Qinghai[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2021, 43(7): 21-27.
[13]	孙杰, 巩林, 连露, 等. 海拔高度和混播比例对燕麦与箭筈豌豆产草量及质量的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2018, 35(10): 2438-2449.
	SUN Jie, GONG Lin, LIAN Lu, et al. Effect of altitude and mixed-sowing ratio on forage production and quality of oat and common vetch[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2018, 35(10): 2438-2449.
[14]	李佶恺, 孙涛, 旺扎, 等. 西藏地区燕麦与箭筈豌豆不同混播比例对牧草产量和质量的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2011, 19(5): 830-833. DOI
	LI Jikai, SUN Tao, WANG Zha, et al. Effects on mixture sowing ratio on the yield and quality of both vetch and oat in Tibet[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2011, 19(5): 830-833. DOI
[15]	刘敏, 龚吉蕊, 王忆慧, 等. 豆禾混播建植人工草地对牧草产量和草质的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2016, 33(1): 179-185.
	LIU Min, GONG Jirui, WANG Yihui, et al. Effects of legume-grass mixed sowing on forage grass yield and quality in artificial grassland[J]. Arid Zone Research, 2016, 33(1): 179-185.
[16]	焦志军, 韩冰, 王树彦, 等. 渗透胁迫下扁穗冰草生理变化与PLD基因的表达差异[J]. 内蒙古农业科技, 2014, 42(4): 1-3.
	JIAO Zhijun, HAN Bing, WANG Shuyan, et al. Physiological changes and PLD gene differential expression of Agropyron cristatum in osmotic stress[J]. Inner Mongolia Agricultural Science and Technology, 2014, 42(4): 1-3.
[17]	富海江. 杂种冰草与扁穗冰草耐盐性、抗旱性及综合性状的比较评价[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2019.
	FU Haijiang. Evaluation of salt tolerance, drought resistance and comprehensive trait of two kinds of wheatgrass[D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2019.
[18]	王丹, 王俊杰, 李凌浩, 等. 旱作条件下苜蓿与冰草不同混播方式的产草量及种间竞争关系[J]. 中国草地学报, 2014, 36(5): 27-31.
	WANG Dan, WANG Junjie, LI Linghao, et al. Forage yield and interspecific competition of mixed sowing of alfalfa and wheatgrass under dry farming[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2014, 36(5): 27-31.
[19]	玉柱, 贾玉山, 李存福. 饲草产品检验[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013: 28-43.
	YU Zhu, JIA Yushan, LI Cunfu. Forage Product Inspection[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2013: 28-43.
[20]	丁琼, 夏运红, 程明军, 等. 四川丘陵地区4个狼尾草属牧草品种(系)的生产性能比较[J]. 中国草地学报, 2023, 45(11): 145-150.
	DING Qiong, XIA Yunhong, CHENG Mingjun, et al. Comparative analysis on yield performance among four forage cultivars (lines) of the genus Pennisetum in the hilly region of Sichuan Province[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2023, 45(11): 145-150.
[21]	徐远东, 冉启凡. 红三叶种质资源营养价值灰色关联度分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(9): 2002-2007.
	XU Yuandong, RAN Qifan. Evaluation of nutritional value of red clover germplasm resources by grey relational grade analysis[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 32(9): 2002-2007.
[22]	富新年, 潘正武, 孟祥君, 等. ‘甘引1号’黑麦农艺性状与鲜草产量的关系[J]. 草地学报, 2017, 25(2): 433-436. DOI
	FU Xinnian, PAN Zhengwu, MENG Xiangjun, et al. The relationship of agronomic traits and fresh forage yield of Secale cereale L. ‘ganyin No1’[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2017, 25(2): 433-436. DOI
[23]	姜慧敏. 豆科牧草与禾本科牧草的根系特征与生理生态指标的比较研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古大学, 2013.
	JIANG Huimin. A comparative study of forage legumes and grasses root characteristics and physiological indexes[D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia University, 2013.
[24]	魏正业, 张海星, 石薇, 等. 种植方式与施氮对西北旱区饲草作物产量、品质和水分利用的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(10): 2638-2653. DOI
	WEI Zhengye, ZHANG Haixing, SHI Wei, et al. Effects of planting methods and nitrogen application on forage crop yield, quality and water use in arid area of Northwest China[J]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2022, 48(10): 2638-2653. DOI
[25]	Hamacher M, Malisch C S, Reinsch T, et al. Evaluation of yield formation and nutritive value of forage legumes and herbs with potential for diverse grasslands due to their concentration in plant specialized metabolites[J]. European Journal of Agronomy, 2021, 128: 126307.
[26]	林淼, 张建刚, 陈志远, 等. 饲粮中性洗涤纤维与非纤维性碳水化合物比例对湖羊瘤胃还原硝态氮的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2014, 26(12): 3659-3665. DOI
	LIN Miao, ZHANG Jiangang, CHEN Zhiyuan, et al. Effects of dietary neutral detergent fiber to non-fiber carbohydrates ratio on ruminal nitrate reduction of hu sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2014, 26(12): 3659-3665.
[27]	郑伟, 加娜尔古丽, 唐高溶, 等. 混播种类与混播比例对豆禾混播草地浅层土壤养分的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2015, 32(3): 329-339.
	ZHENG Wei, Jia naerguli, TANG Gaorong, et al. Effects of mixed species, mixed ratios of legume to grass on soil nutrients in surface soils of legume-grass mixture pasture[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2015, 32(3): 329-339.
[28]	王博杰, 唐海萍, 何丽, 等. 农牧交错区旱作条件下苜蓿和冰草人工草地稳定性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2016, 25(4): 222-229. DOI
	WANG Bojie, TANG Haiping, HE Li, et al. Stability of alfalfa and wheatgrass pasture under dry farming in a pastoral agronomy area[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(4): 222-229. DOI
[29]	崔敬. 冰草属优异牧草品系鉴定及综合评价[D]. 秦皇岛: 河北科技师范学院, 2021.
	CUI Jing. Identification and comprehensive evaluation of excellent forage strains of Agropyron Gaertn[D]. Qinhuangdao: Hebei Normal University of Science & Technology, 2021.
[30]	吴姝菊. 紫花苜蓿与无芒雀麦、扁穗冰草混播效果研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2010, 32(2): 15-18, 46.
	WU Shuju. Effect of mixed seeding alfalfa with smooth bromegrass and crested wheat grass[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2010, 32(2): 15-18, 46.
[31]	许莹月, 柯梅, 魏鹏, 等. 佳能紫花苜蓿和扁穗冰草混播比例对播种当年牧草生产性能的影响[J]. 草食家畜, 2023(3): 20-25, 41.
	XU Yingyue, KE Mei, WEI Peng, et al. Effects of canon alfalfa-flatgrass ratio on pasture performance in the year of sowing[J]. Grass-Feeding Livestock, 2023(3): 20-25, 41.
[32]	杨鹏年, 杜文华, 田新会. 甘南高寒牧区加拿大饲用燕麦与豌豆的混播效果研究[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(3): 39-48.
	YANG Pengnian, DU Wenhua, TIAN Xinhui. Study on the mixed effect of Canadian forage oats and peas in Gannan alpine pasture area[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2022, 44(3): 39-48.
[33]	张永亮, 于铁峰, 郝凤, 等. 施肥与混播比例对豆禾混播牧草产量及氮磷钾利用效率的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(11): 91-101. DOI
	ZHANG Yongliang, YU Tiefeng, HAO Feng, et al. Effects of fertilization and legume-grass ratio on forage yield and NPK utilization efficiency[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(11): 91-101. DOI
[34]	郭川, 赵艳兰, 李香君, 等. 不同豆禾混播比例对植物种间关系及草地生产力的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2022, 39(11): 2307-2316.
	GUO Chuan, ZHAO Yanlan, LI Xiangjun, et al. Effect of sowing ratio on interspecific relationships between species and grassland productivity in legume-grass mixtures[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2022, 39(11): 2307-2316.
[35]	李恩慧, 王玉慧, 杨慎骄, 等. 小麦间套作苜蓿对土壤养分及作物养分吸收效率的影响[J]. 中国草地学报, 2020, 42(5): 110-117.
	LI Enhui, WANG Yuhui, YANG Shenjiao, et al. Effects of wheat-alfalfa intercropping system on soil nutrients and plant nutrient absorption efficiency[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2020, 42(5): 110-117.
[36]	关正翾, 娜尔克孜, 朱亚琼, 等. 不同混播方式下燕麦+箭筈豌豆混播草地的生产性能及土壤养分特征[J]. 草业科学, 2019, 36(3): 772-784.
	GUAN Zhengxuan, Naerkezi, ZHU Yaqiong, et al. Effect of different sowing patterns on production performance and soil nutrients in Avena sativa + Vicia sativa mixtures[J]. Pratacultural Science, 2019, 36(3): 772-784.

紫花苜蓿与冰草混播当年对牧草品质的影响

Effects of mixed sowing of Medicago sativa and Agropyron cristatum on forage quality

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 36

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	马勇, 刘慧, 高红梅, 康雪, 马春晖. 不同氮素水平下紫花苜蓿与多年生黑麦草混播对其产量和营养品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(7): 1793-1804.
[2]	孙萌, 颜安, 李靖言, 卢前成, 范君, 孙哲, 袁以琳. 不同水氮处理对紫花苜蓿生长发育、品质及水肥利用效率的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(6): 1512-1526.
[3]	代元帅, 鲁为华, 申磊, 王秀媛, 张文龙, 张伟. 林草复合系统中杨树-紫花苜蓿间作对苜蓿生长发育及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(5): 1182-1189.
[4]	麦合穆提·拜合提, 丁峰, 李彦, 党龙芯. 基于熵权-TOPSIS的浅埋式滴灌紫花苜蓿灌水定额的综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(10): 2537-2546.
[5]	马明杰, 赵经华, 李冬民, 杨胜春, 王克贤, 李池. 不同灌溉方式对苜蓿土壤水分与灌溉水利用效率的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2306-2313.
[6]	周勃, 任海龙, 张龑, 高强, 徐麟, 邹集文. 金花菜与苜蓿属主要物种基因组SSR分布特征的比较分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2217-2223.
[7]	郭江龙, 高占林, 刘振宇, 窦亚楠, 安静杰, 刘忠宽, 党志红, 李耀发. 苜蓿盲蝽对紫花苜蓿植株生长和营养品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(4): 1001-1008.
[8]	苏力合, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 宋磊, 俞雪, 贺婷婷, 马春晖. 自然覆雪对5个不同秋眠级紫花苜蓿越冬率及抗寒性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(11): 2122-2132.
[9]	柯梅, 侯钰荣, 张一弓. 碱胁迫下冰草根系pH值与有机酸含量变化[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(10): 1929-1937.
[10]	马铁成, 张慧. 氮磷肥施量对阿苇灌区苜蓿生长指标和产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(8): 1535-1541.
[11]	早热古丽·热合曼, 叶尔兰·对山别克, 万江春, 艾比布拉·伊马木. 添加香梨残次果汁渣对苜蓿青贮发酵品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(6): 1136-1141.
[12]	张玲, 席琳乔, 张凡凡, 王旭哲, 马春晖. 残次枣粉添加青贮苜蓿中微生物、发酵和营养品质动态规律[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(10): 1929-1938.
[13]	曹彪,白云岗,陈俊克,肖军. 不同灌水处理对寒旱区紫花苜蓿叶面积指数的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(4): 737-745.
[14]	任灵通, 赵俊威, 吴新春, 程敏, 张前兵, 吴昊, 于磊, 马春晖, 鲁为华. 灌溉定额分配及水磷耦合对滴灌苜蓿生长规律的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(1): 164-174.
[15]	金西子;张博;陈爱萍;李陈建. 紫花苜蓿小孢子发育时期与花器形态的相关性研究[J]. , 2016, 53(7): 1337-1345.