4.7 Article

The Responses of Stem and Leaf Functional Traits of Medicago sativa and Bromus inermis to Different Mixed Planting Patterns

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy13112733

关键词

Medicago sativa; Bromus inermis; sowing mode; stem-leaf characteristics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the differences in stem and leaf growth characteristics of Medicago sativa and Bromus inermis under different planting modes. The results showed that mixed sowing in alternating rows was the most suitable mode.
This study investigated the differences in stem and leaf growth characteristics of Medicago sativa and Bromus inermis in the Jiaozhou region of China during 2019-2020 under three different planting modes of the two forages: monoculture, mixed species sowing in the same rows, and mixed species sowing in alternating rows. No special management of the experimental plots was carried out in this study to simulate as much as possible the growth of forages in their natural state. The stem and leaf characteristics influencing the dry matter weight were calculated using grey correlation. These characteristics included leaf length, leaf width, leaf thickness, leaf area, leaf fresh weight, stem length, stem diameter, stem fresh weight, stem-leaf ratio, fresh matter yield, dry matter yield, and protein yield of M. sativa and B. inermis under different sowing methods in different years. The results showed that the weight pattern of the characteristics affecting the yield of M. sativa and B. inermis production was leaf area > stem diameter > leaf length > stem length > leaf width > leaf thickness, leaf area > leaf length > stem length > leaf width > leaf thickness > stem diameter. Considering all the growth factors, the production capacity was ranked as mixed sowing in alternating rows > mixed sowing in same rows > monoculture. Thus, the suitable mode for M. sativa-B. inermis sowing was mixed sowing in alternating rows.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据