耐亚磷酸盐马铃薯的筛选与评价

doi:10.11983/CBB23108

植物学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (4): 544-557.DOI: 10.11983/CBB23108

耐亚磷酸盐马铃薯的筛选与评价

张锋, Richard Dormatey, 刘寅笃, 李成举, 王云姣, 张春利, 张莹, 范又方, 姚攀锋, 毕真真, 刘玉汇, 白江平^*(), 孙超^*()

甘肃农业大学农学院/干旱生境作物学国家重点实验室/甘肃省作物遗传改良与种质创新重点实验室, 兰州 730070

收稿日期:2023-08-09 接受日期:2023-11-14 出版日期:2024-07-10 发布日期:2024-07-10
通讯作者: 白江平,孙超
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(32060502);甘肃省科技计划(21JR7RA804);国家现代农业产业技术体系(CARS-09-P10);省部共建干旱生境作物学国家重点实验室开放基金(GSCS-2022-Z01)

Screening and Evaluation of Phosphite-tolerant Potatoes

Feng Zhang, Richard Dormatey, Yindu Liu, Chengju Li, Yunjiao Wang, Chunli Zhang, Ying Zhang, Youfang Fan, Panfeng Yao, Zhenzhen Bi, Yuhui Liu, Jiangping Bai^*(), Chao Sun^*()

Gansu Key Lab of Crop Improvement & Germplasm Enhancement/State Key Laboratory of Aridland Crop Science/College of Agronomy, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China

Received:2023-08-09 Accepted:2023-11-14 Online:2024-07-10 Published:2024-07-10
Contact: Jiangping Bai, Chao Sun

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 磷是植物生长发育不可或缺的营养元素之一, 正磷酸盐(P)在土壤中含量丰富, 但由于土壤的固定作用, 其中能被植物吸收利用的有效磷含量并不高, 提高植物对土壤磷的吸收利用能力, 或优化磷肥施用, 已成为亟待解决的问题。土壤中亚磷酸盐(PH)的含量仅次于正磷酸盐, 其具有更高的溶解度, 可在植物木质部与韧皮部之间进行双向运输, 不易被土壤固定, 但亚磷酸盐作为磷肥替代正磷酸盐和选育耐亚磷酸盐作物品种的研究鲜有报道。基于此, 该研究选取5份引进的马铃薯(Solanum tuberosum)品种和1个商业品种青薯9号(QS9)为实验材料, 经驯化炼苗后直接栽入试验田, 设置正常磷肥处理和亚磷酸盐替代处理, 测定不同品种的表型、光合作用效率和干物质等指标, 以各单项耐亚磷酸盐系数(PTC)为衡量依据, 利用主成分分析等方法对不同马铃薯品种的PH耐性进行综合评价。结果表明, 6个马铃薯品种可分为高度耐亚磷酸盐型(C115和D13)、弱耐亚磷酸盐型(C20、C31和QS9)和亚磷酸盐敏感型(C80) 3类。该研究评价了不同马铃薯品种对亚磷酸盐的耐受性, 旨在为马铃薯耐亚磷酸盐品种选育和亚磷酸盐新型肥料开发提供科学依据。

关键词: 马铃薯, 耐亚磷酸盐系数, 主成分分析, 隶属函数分析, 聚类分析, 综合评价

Abstract: Phosphorus is one of the indispensable nutrients for plant growth and development. Orthophosphate (P) content in the soil is particularly rich, but due to the fixation of the soil, the effective phosphorus content that can be absorbed and utilized by plants is not high. Therefore improving the absorption and utilization capacity of plants to soil phosphorus, or optimizing the application of phosphate fertilizer has become an urgent problem that needs to be solved. The content of phosphite (PH) in soil is second only after orthophosphate, which has the characteristics of higher solubili- ty, two-way transport between plant xylem and phloem, but is not easy to be fixed by soil. Research on phosphite as phosphate fertilizer to replace orthophosphate fertilizer and phosphite-tolerant crop varieties breeding has rarely been reported. Therefore, in this study, five introduced potato (Solanum tuberosum) genotypes and one commercial variety Qingshu No.9 (QS9) were selected as research materials, and the seedlings were directly planted into the test field after domestication and refining, and normal phosphate fertilizer treatment and phosphite substitution treatment were set up to determine the phenotype, photosynthesis, dry matter and other indicators of different genotypes. Moreover, the phosphite tolerant coefficient (PTC) of each indicator was used as the measurement basis. Comprehensive evaluation of the PH resistance of different potato genotypes was conducted based on principal component analysis and other methods. The obtained results showed that the six potato varieties can be classified into three types: highly phosphite-tolerant (C115, and D13), weakly phosphite-tolerant (C20, C31, and QS9) and phosphite-sensitive (C80). This study evaluated the tole- rance of different potato genotypes to phosphite, thus providing scientific basis for the selection of phosphite-tolerant varieties and the development of new phosphite fertilizers.

Key words: potato, phosphite tolerant coefficient, principal component analysis, membership function analysis, cluster analysis, comprehensive evaluation

张锋, Richard Dormatey, 刘寅笃, 李成举, 王云姣, 张春利, 张莹, 范又方, 姚攀锋, 毕真真, 刘玉汇, 白江平, 孙超. 耐亚磷酸盐马铃薯的筛选与评价. 植物学报, 2024, 59(4): 544-557.

Feng Zhang, Richard Dormatey, Yindu Liu, Chengju Li, Yunjiao Wang, Chunli Zhang, Ying Zhang, Youfang Fan, Panfeng Yao, Zhenzhen Bi, Yuhui Liu, Jiangping Bai, Chao Sun. Screening and Evaluation of Phosphite-tolerant Potatoes. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2024, 59(4): 544-557.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.chinbullbotany.com/CN/10.11983/CBB23108

https://www.chinbullbotany.com/CN/Y2024/V59/I4/544

图/表 15

参考文献 38

[1]	陈磊, 王盛锋, 刘荣乐, 汪洪 (2012). 不同磷供应水平下小麦根系形态及根际过程的变化特征. 植物营养与肥料学报 18, 324-331.
[2]	戴海芳, 武辉, 阿曼古丽·买买提阿力, 王立红, 麦麦提·阿皮孜, 张巨松 (2014). 不同基因型棉花苗期耐盐性分析及其鉴定指标筛选. 中国农业科学 47, 1290-1300. DOI
[3]	雷菲, 潘孝忠, 吴宇佳, 曾新宇, 曾建华, 张冬明 (2021). 基施亚磷酸钾对“琼辣3号”线椒养分吸收和土壤环境的影响. 分子植物育种 19, 8279-8286.
[4]	李宝玉, 高明杰, 高春雨, 余婧婧 (2017). 亚磷酸盐在农业上的应用及机制研究进展. 南京农业大学学报 40, 949-956.
[5]	李宝玉, 刘富强, 郭燕枝 (2021). 亚磷酸钾在马铃薯上的增产及抗病效果. 中国蔬菜 (9), 63-68.
[6]	李彩斌, 郭华春 (2017). 马铃薯品种耐弱光性评价及其指标的筛选. 中国农业科学 50, 3461-3472. DOI
[7]	刘明, 范文静, 赵鹏, 靳容, 张强强, 朱晓亚, 王静, 李强 (2023). 甘薯耐低钾基因型苗期筛选及综合评价. 作物学报 49, 926-937. DOI
[8]	屈冬玉, 谢开云, 金黎平, 庞万福, 卞春松, 段绍光 (2005). 中国马铃薯产业发展与食物安全. 中国农业科学 38, 358- 362.
[9]	任士伟, 王亮亮, 张萍萍, 王娜 (2019). 喷施亚磷酸钾对番茄生长发育的影响. 黑龙江农业科学 (6), 50-53.
[10]	石瑶 (2002). 利用亚磷酸防治作物疫病. 中国农村科技 (5), 18.
[11]	孙璐, 周宇飞, 汪澈, 肖木辑, 陶冶, 许文娟, 黄瑞冬 (2012). 高粱品种萌发期耐盐性筛选与鉴定. 中国农业科学 45, 1714- 1722. DOI
[12]	王吉祥, 宫焕宇, 屠祥建, 郭侲洐, 赵嘉楠, 沈健, 栗振义, 孙娟 (2021). 耐亚磷酸盐紫花苜蓿品种筛选及评价指标的鉴定. 草业学报 30(5), 186-199. DOI
[13]	王宁, 焦晓燕, 武爱莲, 王劲松, 董二伟, 郭珺, 丁玉川, 王立革 (2016). 生物炭对土壤磷、钾养分影响研究进展. 山西农业科学 44, 1402-1405, 1420.
[14]	杨春婷, 张永清, 马星星, 陈伟, 董璐, 张楚, 路之娟 (2018). 苦荞耐低磷基因型筛选及评价指标的鉴定. 应用生态学报 29, 2997-3007. DOI
[15]	张邦喜, 李渝, 秦松, 李国学, 蒋太明 (2016). 长期施肥下黄壤无机磷组分空间分布特征. 华北农学报 31(3), 212-217. DOI
[16]	张汝, 李晓荣, 张美俊, 乔治军, 陈凌 (2017). 苗期耐亚磷酸盐糜子品种的筛选. 山西农业科学 45, 1310-1314.
[17]	张韫 (2011). 土壤·水·植物理化分析教程. 北京: 中国林业出版社. pp. 229-232.
[18]	Achary VMM, Ram B, Manna M, Datta D, Bhatt A, Reddy MK, Agrawal PK (2017). Phosphite: a novel P fertilizer for weed management and pathogen control. Plant Biotechnol J 15, 1493-1508. DOI PMID
[19]	Baker A, Ceasar SA, Palmer AJ, Paterson JB, Qi WJ, Muench SP, Baldwin SA (2015). Replace, reuse, recycle: improving the sustainable use of phosphorus by plants. J Exp Bot 66, 3523-3540. DOI PMID
[20]	Broschat TK (2006). Effects of phosphorous and phosphoric acids on growth and phosphorus concentrations in container-grown tropical ornamental plants. HortTechnology 16, 105-108.
[21]	Cordell D, White S (2011). Peak phosphorus: clarifying the key issues of a vigorous debate about long-term phosphorus security. Sustainability 3, 2027-2049.
[22]	Dawson CJ, Hilton J (2011). Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy 36, S14-S22.
[23]	Dormatey R, Sun C, Ali K, Qin TY, Xu DR, Bi ZZ, Bai JP (2021). Influence of phosphite supply in the MS medium on root morphological characteristics, fresh biomass and enzymatic behavior in five genotypes of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Horticulturae 7, 265.
[24]	Fang ZY, Shao C, Meng YJ, Wu P, Chen M (2009). Phosphate signaling in Arabidopsis and Oryza sativa. Plant Sci 176, 170-180.
[25]	Glinicki R, Sas-Paszt L, Jadczuk-Tobjasz E (2010). The effect of plant stimulant/fertilizer “Resistim” on growth and development of strawberry plants. J Fruit Ornam Plant Res 18, 111-124.
[26]	Grant CA, Flaten DN, Tomasiewicz DJ, Sheppard SC (2001). The importance of early season phosphorus nutrition. Can J Plant Sci 81, 211-224.
[27]	King M, Reeve W, Van der Hoek MB, Williams N, McComb J, O’Brien PA, Hardy GESJ (2010). Defining the phosphite-regulated transcriptome of the plant pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi. Mol Genet Genom 284, 425-435.
[28]	Lobato MC, Olivieri FP, Altamiranda EAG, Wolski EA, Daleo GR, Caldiz DO, Andreu AB (2008). Phosphite compounds reduce disease severity in potato seed tubers and foliage. Eur J Plant Pathol 122, 349-358.
[29]	López-Arredondo DL, Leyva-González MA, González- Morales SI, López-Bucio J, Herrera-Estrella L (2014). Phosphate nutrition: improving low-phosphate tolerance in crops. Annu Rev Plant Biol 65, 95-123. DOI PMID
[30]	Lovatt CJ, Mikkelsen RL (2006). Phosphite fertilizers: what are they? Can you use them? What can they do? Better Crops 90, 11-13.
[31]	McDonald AE, Grant BR, Plaxton WC (2001). Phosphite (phosphorous acid): its relevance in the environment and agriculture and influence on plant phosphate starvation response. J Plant Nutr 24, 1505-1519.
[32]	Rickard DA (2000). Review of phosphorus acid and its salts as fertilizer materials. J Plant Nutr 23, 161-180.
[33]	Schachtman DP, Reid RJ, Ayling SM (1998). Phosphorus uptake by plants: from soil to cell. Plant Physiol 116, 447- 453. DOI PMID
[34]	Schroetter S, Angeles-Wedler D, Kreuzig R, Schnug E (2006). Effects of phosphite on phosphorus supply and growth of corn (Zea mays). Landbauforschung Volkenrode 56, 87-99.
[35]	Singh VK, Wood SM, Knowles VL, Plaxton WC (2003). Phosphite accelerates programmed cell death in phosphate-starved oilseed rape (Brassica napus) suspension cell culture. Planta 218, 233-239.
[36]	Thao HTB, Yamakawa T (2009). Phosphite (phosphorous acid): fungicide, fertilizer or bio-stimulator? Soil Sci Plant Nutr 55, 228-234.
[37]	Ticconi CA, Delatorre CA, Abel S (2001). Attenuation of phosphate starvation responses by phosphite in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 127, 963-972. PMID
[38]	Varadarajan DK, Karthikeyan AS, Matilda PD, Raghothama KG (2002). Phosphite, an analog of phosphate, suppresses the coordinated expression of genes under phosphate starvation. Plant Physiol 129, 1232-1240. DOI PMID

No.	Name	Origin
QS9	Qingshu 9	China
C20	CIP398180.253	CIP
C31	CIP301029.18	CIP
C80	CIP397036.7	CIP
C115	CIP302476.108	CIP
D13	CIP301045.74	CIP

No.	Name	Origin
QS9	Qingshu 9	China
C20	CIP398180.253	CIP
C31	CIP301029.18	CIP
C80	CIP397036.7	CIP
C115	CIP302476.108	CIP
D13	CIP301045.74	CIP

Fertilization categories	Treatments	CH₄N₂O	KNO₃	(NH₄)₂HPO₄	KH₂PO₃
Base fertilizer (kg∙hm^-2)	CK	78.0	244.5	244.5
Base fertilizer (kg∙hm^-2)	T	222.0	81.0		198.0
Top dressing (kg∙hm^-2)	CK	8.6	66.0	23.3
Top dressing (kg∙hm^-2)	T	25.5	46.5		23.0

Fertilization categories	Treatments	CH₄N₂O	KNO₃	(NH₄)₂HPO₄	KH₂PO₃
Base fertilizer (kg∙hm^-2)	CK	78.0	244.5	244.5
Base fertilizer (kg∙hm^-2)	T	222.0	81.0		198.0
Top dressing (kg∙hm^-2)	CK	8.6	66.0	23.3
Top dressing (kg∙hm^-2)	T	25.5	46.5		23.0

Indexes	Treatments	C20	C31	C80	C115	D13	QS9
RD (g)	CK	5.97±0.98 a	11.55±1.76 a	5.31±0.43 a	4.03±0.74 a	2.42±0.70 a	7.64±0.35 a
	T	5.56±0.83 a	11.15±1.83 a	4.12±0.40 a	9.32±1.97 b	6.65±1.01 b	8.12±1.37 a
	PSI	0.07	0.04	0.22	-1.31	-1.74	-0.06
SD (g)	CK	59.72±1.45 a	96.99±1.69 a	76.42±2.05 a	52.45±2.34 a	43.77±2.23 a	105.91±2.93 a
	T	72.94±1.81 b	119.61±0.78 b	52.99±2.40 b	54.78±1.11 a	63.88±2.19 b	117.87±2.61 b
	PSI	-0.221	-0.233	0.307	-0.044	-0.459	-0.113
LD (g)	CK	43.30±2.54 a	74.90±1.93 a	38.38±2.26 a	47.52±2.80 a	41.09±2.86 a	51.36±2.06 a
	T	49.23±1.64 a	90.08±1.18 b	31.63±2.49 a	60.22±2.67 b	50.99±3.44 a	54.67±1.45 a
	PSI	-0.14	-0.20	0.18	-0.27	-0.24	-0.06
TD (g)	CK	165.51±5.35 a	175.19±3.45 a	311.63±7.48 a	228.54±2.85 a	192.10±2.79 a	264.21±3.27 a
	T	122.89±2.45 b	176.88±7.17 a	218.88±4.45 b	307.70±2.11 b	204.84±4.21 b	263.15±4.66 a
	PSI	0.257	-0.010	0.298	-0.346	-0.066	0.004
DP (g)	CK	274.50±8.14 a	358.62±3.14 a	431.74±5.54 a	332.55±4.39 a	279.38±6.89 a	429.11±6.11 a
	T	250.63±4.06 b	397.72±6.93 b	307.62±6.77 b	432.02±4.94 b	326.37±8.43 b	443.81±6.46 a
	PSI	0.09	-0.11	0.29	-0.30	-0.17	-0.03

耐亚磷酸盐马铃薯的筛选与评价

Screening and Evaluation of Phosphite-tolerant Potatoes

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

PDF (Mobile)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 15

参考文献 38

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

Indexes	Treatments	C20	C31	C80	C115	D13	QS9
PR (mg)	CK	9.88±0.02 a	18.1±0.07 a	10.72±0.04 a	6.81±0.02 a	3.97±0.03 a	12.83±0.02 a
	T	11.95±0.03 b	20.92±0.10 b	5.87±0.04 b	15.62±0.20 b	12.12±0.03 b	15.27±0.08 b
	PSI	-0.21	-0.16	0.45	-1.29	-2.05	-0.19
PS (mg)	CK	66.55±0.38 a	113.53±1.57 a	74.15±0.63 a	44.55±0.17 a	49.90±0.17 a	73.09±0.47 a
	T	80.7±1.03 b	193.88±0.57 b	51.58±0.60 b	72.05±0.70 b	61.07±0.71 b	113.61±1.38 b
	PSI	-0.21	-0.71	0.30	-0.62	-0.22	-0.55
PL (mg)	CK	91.54±0.99 a	130.20±1.36 a	75.73±0.36 a	77.71±0.41 a	75.95±0.37 a	82.53±0.70 a
	T	106.58±1.51 b	183.15±0.97 b	60.85±0.37 b	112.06±1.21 b	88.3±0.40 b	104.38±0.36 b
	PSI	-0.16	-0.41	0.20	-0.44	-0.16	-0.26
PT (mg)	CK	322.66±1.09 a	265.50±0.85 a	665.54±1.63 a	497.46±2.16 a	430.84±1.44 a	433.26±1.01 a
	T	287.15±1.54 b	338.44±1.78 b	404.94±1.84 b	649.72±1.49 b	398.13±1.76 b	436.25±0.96 b
	PSI	0.11	-0.27	0.39	-0.31	0.08	-0.01
PP (mg)	CK	490.62±0.81 a	527.32±1.62 a	826.13±1.14 a	626.53±2.42 a	560.66±1.16 a	601.71±0.25 a
	T	486.37±1.46 b	736.38±1.71 b	523.25±2.38 b	849.45±2.21 b	559.61±2.20 b	669.51±2.41 b
	PSI	0.009	-0.396	0.367	-0.356	0.002	-0.113
PUT (%)	CK	0.51±0.002 a	0.66±0.002 a	0.47±0.001 a	0.46±0.002 a	0.45±0.001 a	0.61±0.001 a
	T	0.43±0.002 b	0.52±0.003 b	0.54±0.002 b	0.47±0.001 b	0.51±0.002 b	0.60±0.001 b
	PSI	0.17	0.21	-0.15	-0.03	-0.15	0.01
PUP (%)	CK	0.56±0.0009 a	0.68±0.0021 a	0.52±0.0007 a	0.53±0.0021 a	0.50±0.0010 a	0.71±0.0003 a
	T	0.52±0.0016 b	0.54±0.0013 b	0.59±0.0027 b	0.51±0.0013 b	0.58±0.0023 b	0.66±0.0024 b
	PSI	0.07	0.21	-0.13	0.04	-0.16	0.07

PTC	LI	EM	GSW	RD	SD	TD	DP	PR	PS	PL	PT	PP	PUT	NP	WP
Average	1.06	0.90	0.74	1.46	1.13	0.98	1.04	1.58	1.34	1.21	1.00	1.08	0.99	1.05	1.09
Maximum	1.41	1.09	0.87	2.74	1.46	1.35	1.30	3.05	1.71	1.44	1.31	1.40	1.15	1.35	1.58
Minimum	0.85	0.63	0.46	0.78	0.69	0.70	0.71	0.55	0.70	0.80	0.61	0.63	0.79	0.83	0.78
Range	0.56	0.46	0.42	1.97	0.77	0.64	0.59	2.51	1.01	0.64	0.70	0.76	0.36	0.52	0.81
Coefficient of variation (%)	18.97	19.27	21.76	57.29	22.64	24.05	19.80	58.29	28.08	19.07	26.05	25.87	15.54	18.88	29.09

Genotypes	LI	EM	GSW	RD	SD	TD	DP	PR	PS	PL	PT	PP	PUT	NP	WP
C20	0.97	0.99	0.85	0.93	1.22	0.74	0.91	1.21	1.21	1.16	0.89	0.99	0.83	0.97	0.83
C31	0.91	1.09	0.87	0.97	1.23	1.01	1.11	1.16	1.71	1.41	1.27	1.40	0.79	1.02	1.04
C80	0.85	0.63	0.46	0.78	0.69	0.70	0.71	0.55	0.70	0.80	0.61	0.63	1.15	0.83	0.78
C115	1.11	0.79	0.66	2.31	1.04	1.35	1.30	2.29	1.62	1.44	1.31	1.36	1.03	1.35	1.58
D13	1.41	1.03	0.85	2.74	1.46	1.07	1.17	3.05	1.22	1.16	0.92	1.00	1.15	1.21	1.36
QS9	1.10	0.86	0.75	1.06	1.11	1.00	1.03	1.19	1.55	1.26	1.01	1.11	0.99	0.90	0.94

Indexes	PC1	PC2	PC3
LI	0.214	0.294	0.315
EM	0.200	-0.261	0.416
GSW	0.211	-0.260	0.410
RD	0.241	0.355	0.093
SD	0.245	-0.073	0.460
TD	0.292	0.127	-0.284
DP	0.330	0.049	-0.106
PR	0.263	0.287	0.196
PS	0.272	-0.251	-0.165
PL	0.296	-0.204	-0.170
PT	0.285	-0.187	-0.263
PP	0.282	-0.230	-0.211
PUT	-0.069	0.499	-0.007
NP	0.286	0.208	-0.105
WP	0.282	0.245	-0.166
Eigen values	8.893	3.638	2.110
Contribution rate (%)	59.287	24.255	14.064
Cumulative contribution rate (%)	59.287	83.542	97.606

Genotypes	F(X₁)	F(X₂)	F(X₃)	U(X₁)	U(X₂)	U(X₃)	D value	Total ranking
C20	3.61	0.42	0.56	0.49	0.24	0.80	0.48	5
C31	4.27	0.11	0.14	0.80	0.00	0.46	0.55	3
C80	2.50	0.81	0.17	0.00	0.81	0.34	0.25	6
C115	5.16	1.51	0.02	1.00	0.79	0.00	0.80	2
D13	5.08	2.08	1.10	0.90	1.00	1.00	0.94	1
QS9	3.89	0.54	0.23	0.60	0.40	0.46	0.53	4
W_j				0.607	0.249	0.144

Categories	The average value of the phosphite tolerant coefficient of each determination index
Categories	LI	EM	GSW	RD	SD	TD	DP	PR	PS	PL	PT	PP	PUT	NP	WP
First	0.85	0.63	0.46	0.78	0.69	0.70	0.71	0.55	0.70	0.80	0.61	0.63	1.15	0.83	0.78
Second	0.99	0.98	0.83	0.99	1.19	0.92	1.02	1.19	1.49	1.28	1.06	1.17	0.87	0.96	0.94
Third	1.26	0.91	0.75	2.53	1.25	1.21	1.23	2.67	1.42	1.30	1.12	1.18	1.09	1.28	1.47

[1]	刘寅笃, 脱军康, 李成举, 张锋, 张春利, 张莹, 王云姣, 范又方, 姚攀锋, 孙超, 刘玉汇, 刘震, 毕真真, 白江平. 耐低钾马铃薯品种的筛选与评价[J]. 植物学报, 2024, 59(1): 75-88.
[2]	郭书亚, 艾金祥, 陈虹宇, 邵烨瑶, 汪妍, 王倩, 叶怡彤, 张雅婷, 丁哲晓, 吴昊辰, 吴玉环, 张建新, 饶米德, 刘鹏. 基于主成分-聚类-逐步回归分析构建番茄苗期耐铝性综合评价体系[J]. 植物学报, 2022, 57(4): 479-489.
[3]	何雨龙, 王佳歌, 赵珊珊, 高锦, 常英英, 赵喜亭, 聂碧华, 杨清香, 张江利, 李明军. 马铃薯Y病毒RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a检测技术体系的建立与应用[J]. 植物学报, 2022, 57(3): 308-319.
[4]	翟琼, 陈容钦, 梁晓华, 曾楚淳, 胡博, 李玲, 李晓云. 一种花生快速遗传转化方法的建立与应用[J]. 植物学报, 2022, 57(3): 327-339.
[5]	许操. 而今迈步从头越: 马铃薯育种跨入“有种”时代[J]. 植物学报, 2021, 56(5): 516-519.
[6]	孙廷哲, 岂泽华, 梁可欣, 李沁, 饶玉春, 穆丹. 蚜害茶树挥发物组分变化的聚类分析[J]. 植物学报, 2021, 56(4): 422-432.
[7]	何杰丽,石甜甜,陈凌,王海岗,高志军,杨美红,王瑞云,乔治军. 糜子EST-SSR分子标记的开发及种质资源遗传多样性分析[J]. 植物学报, 2019, 54(6): 723-732.
[8]	刘勋,张娇,沈昱辰,谢德斌,李宏利,李春明,易小平,赵勇,唐道彬,吕长文,王季春. 基于光合系统参数建立马铃薯耐荫性综合评价体系[J]. 植物学报, 2019, 54(3): 360-370.
[9]	李巧丽, 延娜, 宋琼, 郭军战. 鲁桑叶绿体基因组序列及特征分析[J]. 植物学报, 2018, 53(1): 94-103.
[10]	周亚峰, 许彦宾, 王艳玲, 李琼, 胡建斌. 基于主成分-聚类分析构建甜瓜幼苗耐冷性综合评价体系[J]. 植物学报, 2017, 52(4): 520-529.
[11]	方琦, 董家红, 郑宽瑜, 张仲凯. 番茄环纹斑点病毒与马铃薯Y病毒复合侵染烟草的细胞病理特征[J]. 植物学报, 2014, 49(6): 704-709.
[12]	陈旭波, 孟世勇, 张小飞, 韩远彬, 刘全儒. 石竹科繁缕属与孩儿参属的数量分类[J]. 植物学报, 2014, 49(4): 432-439.
[13]	郁万文, 刘新亮, 曹福亮, 汪贵斌, 张往祥. 不同银杏无性系叶药用成分差异及聚类分析[J]. 植物学报, 2014, 49(3): 292-305.
[14]	王江民, 陈发棣, 房伟民, 陈素梅, 管志勇, 唐海艳. 基于叶形特征的切花菊品种鉴别[J]. 植物学报, 2013, 48(6): 608-615.
[15]	胡建斌, 马双武, 李建吾, 王吉明, 李琼, 王林忠. 国外甜瓜种质资源形态性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 植物学报, 2013, 48(1): 42-51.