
Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (20): 29-34.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0751
Previous Articles Next Articles
ZHANG Xinyao(
), HUANG Pingjun, GAO Junping, WANG Shuaibin, HE Xinxi, LIU Wanfeng, YANG Xiaonian(
)
Received:2025-09-21
Revised:2026-01-11
Online:2026-10-25
Published:2026-10-26
CLC Number:
ZHANG Xinyao, HUANG Pingjun, GAO Junping, WANG Shuaibin, HE Xinxi, LIU Wanfeng, YANG Xiaonian. Breeding and Characteristics of New Flue-cured Tobacco Variety ‘Xiangyan 8’[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(20): 29-34.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0751
| 品种(系) | 株型 | 叶形 | 叶色 | 主脉粗细 | 田间整齐度 | 成熟特性 | 生长势 | 大田生育期/d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 栽后30 d | 栽后50 d | ||||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 筒型 | 长椭圆 | 绿色 | 中等 | 整齐 | 分层落黄 | 较强+ | 较强+ | 121 |
| K326 | 筒型 | 长椭圆 | 绿色 | 中等 | 较整齐 | 分层落黄 | 较强- | 中 | 124 |
| 云烟87 | 筒型 | 长椭圆 | 绿色 | 中等 | 较整齐 | 分层落黄 | 较强+ | 强 | 121 |
| 品种(系) | 株型 | 叶形 | 叶色 | 主脉粗细 | 田间整齐度 | 成熟特性 | 生长势 | 大田生育期/d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 栽后30 d | 栽后50 d | ||||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 筒型 | 长椭圆 | 绿色 | 中等 | 整齐 | 分层落黄 | 较强+ | 较强+ | 121 |
| K326 | 筒型 | 长椭圆 | 绿色 | 中等 | 较整齐 | 分层落黄 | 较强- | 中 | 124 |
| 云烟87 | 筒型 | 长椭圆 | 绿色 | 中等 | 较整齐 | 分层落黄 | 较强+ | 强 | 121 |
| 试验 | 品种 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 产值/(元/hm2) | 均价/(元/kg) | 上等烟比例/% | 上中等烟比例/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018年全国区试 | 湘烟8号 | 2274.90c | 55269.30cd | 24.39b | 49.07cd | 92.26ab |
| K326 | 2287.65c | 53615.55d | 23.36d | 47.39de | 87.91e | |
| 云烟87 | 2323.95c | 58830.90bc | 25.24a | 52.99b | 90.11cd | |
| 2019年全国区试 | 湘烟8号 | 2048.85de | 50380.05c | 24.52cde | 49.90bc | 90.73abc |
| K326 | 1983.90e | 46917.60d | 23.71e | 45.29c | 88.80cd | |
| 云烟87 | 2092.65cd | 53272.50c | 25.40abc | 51.79b | 91.76ab | |
| 2020年全国生产示范 | 湘烟8号 | 2257.50 | 56866.50 | 25.20 | 49.10 | 93.90 |
| K326 | 2145.00 | 51028.50 | 23.80 | 45.00 | 90.70 | |
| 云烟87 | 2173.50 | 59781.00 | 27.50 | 59.90 | 97.70 | |
| 2017年湖南省区试 | 湘烟8号 | 2431.20 | 50286.90 | 20.70 | 44.74 | 92.93 |
| K326 | 1954.20 | 37554.90 | 19.03 | 29.19 | 82.85 | |
| 云烟87 | 2021.40 | 46528.50 | 21.08 | 48.85 | 82.76 | |
| 2018年湖南省区试 | 湘烟8号 | 2537.40 | 66129.45 | 26.13 | 67.71 | 89.71 |
| K326 | 2260.50 | 56245.50 | 24.90 | 62.71 | 91.17 | |
| 云烟87 | 2499.90 | 61418.40 | 24.37 | 63.85 | 83.50 | |
| 平均 | 湘烟8号 | 2310.00 | 55786.50 | 24.19 | 52.10 | 91.91 |
| K326 | 2126.25 | 49072.35 | 22.96 | 45.92 | 88.29 | |
| 云烟87 | 2222.25 | 55966.20 | 24.72 | 55.48 | 89.17 | |
| 比‘K326’增加% | 8.64 | 13.68 | 5.35 | 13.48 | 4.10 | |
| 比‘云烟87’增加% | 3.95 | -0.32 | -2.14 | -6.08 | 3.07 |
| 试验 | 品种 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 产值/(元/hm2) | 均价/(元/kg) | 上等烟比例/% | 上中等烟比例/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018年全国区试 | 湘烟8号 | 2274.90c | 55269.30cd | 24.39b | 49.07cd | 92.26ab |
| K326 | 2287.65c | 53615.55d | 23.36d | 47.39de | 87.91e | |
| 云烟87 | 2323.95c | 58830.90bc | 25.24a | 52.99b | 90.11cd | |
| 2019年全国区试 | 湘烟8号 | 2048.85de | 50380.05c | 24.52cde | 49.90bc | 90.73abc |
| K326 | 1983.90e | 46917.60d | 23.71e | 45.29c | 88.80cd | |
| 云烟87 | 2092.65cd | 53272.50c | 25.40abc | 51.79b | 91.76ab | |
| 2020年全国生产示范 | 湘烟8号 | 2257.50 | 56866.50 | 25.20 | 49.10 | 93.90 |
| K326 | 2145.00 | 51028.50 | 23.80 | 45.00 | 90.70 | |
| 云烟87 | 2173.50 | 59781.00 | 27.50 | 59.90 | 97.70 | |
| 2017年湖南省区试 | 湘烟8号 | 2431.20 | 50286.90 | 20.70 | 44.74 | 92.93 |
| K326 | 1954.20 | 37554.90 | 19.03 | 29.19 | 82.85 | |
| 云烟87 | 2021.40 | 46528.50 | 21.08 | 48.85 | 82.76 | |
| 2018年湖南省区试 | 湘烟8号 | 2537.40 | 66129.45 | 26.13 | 67.71 | 89.71 |
| K326 | 2260.50 | 56245.50 | 24.90 | 62.71 | 91.17 | |
| 云烟87 | 2499.90 | 61418.40 | 24.37 | 63.85 | 83.50 | |
| 平均 | 湘烟8号 | 2310.00 | 55786.50 | 24.19 | 52.10 | 91.91 |
| K326 | 2126.25 | 49072.35 | 22.96 | 45.92 | 88.29 | |
| 云烟87 | 2222.25 | 55966.20 | 24.72 | 55.48 | 89.17 | |
| 比‘K326’增加% | 8.64 | 13.68 | 5.35 | 13.48 | 4.10 | |
| 比‘云烟87’增加% | 3.95 | -0.32 | -2.14 | -6.08 | 3.07 |
| 品种(系) | 颜色 | 成熟度 | 叶片结构 | 身份 | 油分 | 色度 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 湘烟8号 | 正黄3.3% 金黄86.7% 深黄0.8% 微带青4.2% 杂色5.0% | 成熟87.5% 尚熟12.54% | 疏松78.3% 尚疏松20.8% 稍密0.8% | 中等51.7% 稍薄38.3% 薄0.8% 稍厚9.2% | 有50.0% 稍有47.5% 少2.5% | 中87.5% 弱12.5% |
| K326 | 正黄2.5% 金黄79.2% 微带青15.0% 杂色3.3% | 成熟76.8% 尚熟23.3% | 疏松78.3% 尚疏松20% 稍密1.7% | 中等71.7% 稍薄26.7% 稍厚1.7% | 有39.2% 稍有60.8% | 强5.8% 中88.3% 弱5.8% |
| 云烟87 | 正黄2.5% 金黄83.3% 微带青7.5% 杂色6.7% | 成熟77.5% 尚熟22.5% | 疏松59.2% 尚疏松39.2% 稍密1.7% | 中等65.0% 稍薄20.8% 稍厚14.2% | 有57.5% 稍有42.5% | 强1.7% 中88.3% 弱10.0% |
| 品种(系) | 颜色 | 成熟度 | 叶片结构 | 身份 | 油分 | 色度 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 湘烟8号 | 正黄3.3% 金黄86.7% 深黄0.8% 微带青4.2% 杂色5.0% | 成熟87.5% 尚熟12.54% | 疏松78.3% 尚疏松20.8% 稍密0.8% | 中等51.7% 稍薄38.3% 薄0.8% 稍厚9.2% | 有50.0% 稍有47.5% 少2.5% | 中87.5% 弱12.5% |
| K326 | 正黄2.5% 金黄79.2% 微带青15.0% 杂色3.3% | 成熟76.8% 尚熟23.3% | 疏松78.3% 尚疏松20% 稍密1.7% | 中等71.7% 稍薄26.7% 稍厚1.7% | 有39.2% 稍有60.8% | 强5.8% 中88.3% 弱5.8% |
| 云烟87 | 正黄2.5% 金黄83.3% 微带青7.5% 杂色6.7% | 成熟77.5% 尚熟22.5% | 疏松59.2% 尚疏松39.2% 稍密1.7% | 中等65.0% 稍薄20.8% 稍厚14.2% | 有57.5% 稍有42.5% | 强1.7% 中88.3% 弱10.0% |
| 品种 | 厚度/mm | 叶面密度/(g/m²) | 单叶质量/g | 平衡含水率/% | 拉力/N | 伸长率/% | 填充值/(cm³/g) | 含梗率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 湘烟8号 | 0.16 | 74.58 | 10.82 | 12.49 | 1.73 | 17.14 | 3.97 | 31.02 |
| K326 | 0.17 | 76.12 | 9.81 | 12.80 | 1.70 | 17.07 | 3.73 | 29.97 |
| 云烟87 | 0.16 | 71.96 | 9.71 | 12.65 | 1.58 | 17.58 | 4.02 | 30.61 |
| 品种 | 厚度/mm | 叶面密度/(g/m²) | 单叶质量/g | 平衡含水率/% | 拉力/N | 伸长率/% | 填充值/(cm³/g) | 含梗率/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 湘烟8号 | 0.16 | 74.58 | 10.82 | 12.49 | 1.73 | 17.14 | 3.97 | 31.02 |
| K326 | 0.17 | 76.12 | 9.81 | 12.80 | 1.70 | 17.07 | 3.73 | 29.97 |
| 云烟87 | 0.16 | 71.96 | 9.71 | 12.65 | 1.58 | 17.58 | 4.02 | 30.61 |
| 品种 | 总植物碱/% | 总氮 | 还原糖 | 总糖 | 钾 | 氯 | 淀粉 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 湘烟8号 | 2.92 | 2.21 | 19.68 | 24.66 | 2.82 | 0.51 | 5.46 |
| K326 | 2.76 | 2.18 | 20.28 | 25.30 | 2.85 | 0.50 | 4.28 |
| 云烟87 | 2.45 | 2.02 | 21.09 | 26.10 | 2.77 | 0.43 | 4.59 |
| 品种 | 总植物碱/% | 总氮 | 还原糖 | 总糖 | 钾 | 氯 | 淀粉 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 湘烟8号 | 2.92 | 2.21 | 19.68 | 24.66 | 2.82 | 0.51 | 5.46 |
| K326 | 2.76 | 2.18 | 20.28 | 25.30 | 2.85 | 0.50 | 4.28 |
| 云烟87 | 2.45 | 2.02 | 21.09 | 26.10 | 2.77 | 0.43 | 4.59 |
| 品种 (系) | 广东韶关 | 湖南郴州 | 福建三明 | 评价企业 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 质量分值 | 与对照相比 | 质量分值 | 与对照相比 | 质量分值 | 与对照相比 | ||||
| 湘烟8号 | 64.1 | 主对照:-5.37% 副对照:-4.52% | 63.7 | 主对照:6.83% 副对照:1.99% | 62.0 | 主对照:-10.64% 副对照:22.48% | 工业1 | ||
| 主对照 | 67.8 | 59.6 | 69.4 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 67.2 | 62.4 | 50.6 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 71.6 | 主对照:5.32% 副对照:1.13% | 81.6 | 主对照:6.99% 副对照:15.14% | 69.1 | 主对照:-1.06% 副对照:-0.10% | 工业2 | ||
| 主对照 | 68.0 | 76.2 | 69.9 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 70.8 | 70.8 | 69.2 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 68.4 | 主对照:2.30% 副对照:3.41% | 66.2 | 主对照:1.05% 副对照:-2.28% | 66.7 | 主对照:-0.64% 副对照:-1.29% | 工业3 | ||
| 主对照 | 66.8 | 65.5 | 67.2 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 66.1 | 67.7 | 67.6 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 68.3 | 主对照:2.50% 副对照:-0.65% | 68.7 | 主对照:1.06% 副对照:3.17% | 68.7 | 主对照:12.55% 副对照:8.79% | 工业4 | ||
| 主对照 | 66.6 | 68.0 | 61.1 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 68.7 | 66.6 | 63.2 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 65.7 | 主对照:-3.62% 副对照:1.70% | 69.6 | 主对照:9.06% 副对照:3.63% | 67.6 | 主对照:-2.04% 副对照:8.72% | 工业5 | ||
| 主对照 | 68.1 | 63.9 | 69.0 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 64.6 | 67.2 | 62.2 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 67.3 | 主对照:5.39% 副对照:-1.06% | 76.3 | 主对照:4.72% 副对照:18.74% | 78.6 | 主对照:4.58% 副对照:11.14% | 工业6 | ||
| 主对照 | 63.8 | 72.9 | 75.2 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 68.0 | 64.3 | 70.8 | ||||||
| HN2146 | 69.1 | 主对照:1.92% 副对照:1.53% | 71.5 | 主对照:2.83% 副对照:5.14% | 66.6 | 主对照:3.00% 副对照:-5.76% | 工业7 | ||
| 主对照 | 67.8 | 69.5 | 64.7 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 68.0 | 68.0 | 70.7 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 53.8 | 主对照:-14.93% 副对照:-10.65% | 67.7 | 主对照:2.80% 副对照:3.94% | 66.8 | 主对照:7.85% 副对照:4.70% | 工业8 | ||
| 主对照 | 63.3 | 65.9 | 61.9 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 60.2 | 65.1 | 63.8 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 71.7 | 主对照:7.35% 副对照:15.28% | 66.7 | 主对照:-4.63% 副对照:-10.51% | 67.6 | 主对照:3.10% 副对照:8.00% | 工业9 | ||
| 主对照 | 66.8 | 69.8 | 69.7 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 62.2 | 74.6 | 72.6 | ||||||
| 试验点 结论 | 优于主对照 (6优于、0相当、3低于) 优与副对照 (5优于、1相当、3低于) | 优与主对照 (8优于、0相当、1低于) 优于副对照 (7优于、0相当、2低于) | 与主对照相当 (4优于、1相当、4低于) 优于副对照 (5优于、1相当、3低于) | — | |||||
| 综合结论 | 优与主对照(2个试验点高于,1个试验点相当,0个试验点低于) 优于副对照(3个试验点高于,0个试验点相当,0个试验点低于) | ||||||||
| 品种 (系) | 广东韶关 | 湖南郴州 | 福建三明 | 评价企业 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 质量分值 | 与对照相比 | 质量分值 | 与对照相比 | 质量分值 | 与对照相比 | ||||
| 湘烟8号 | 64.1 | 主对照:-5.37% 副对照:-4.52% | 63.7 | 主对照:6.83% 副对照:1.99% | 62.0 | 主对照:-10.64% 副对照:22.48% | 工业1 | ||
| 主对照 | 67.8 | 59.6 | 69.4 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 67.2 | 62.4 | 50.6 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 71.6 | 主对照:5.32% 副对照:1.13% | 81.6 | 主对照:6.99% 副对照:15.14% | 69.1 | 主对照:-1.06% 副对照:-0.10% | 工业2 | ||
| 主对照 | 68.0 | 76.2 | 69.9 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 70.8 | 70.8 | 69.2 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 68.4 | 主对照:2.30% 副对照:3.41% | 66.2 | 主对照:1.05% 副对照:-2.28% | 66.7 | 主对照:-0.64% 副对照:-1.29% | 工业3 | ||
| 主对照 | 66.8 | 65.5 | 67.2 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 66.1 | 67.7 | 67.6 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 68.3 | 主对照:2.50% 副对照:-0.65% | 68.7 | 主对照:1.06% 副对照:3.17% | 68.7 | 主对照:12.55% 副对照:8.79% | 工业4 | ||
| 主对照 | 66.6 | 68.0 | 61.1 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 68.7 | 66.6 | 63.2 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 65.7 | 主对照:-3.62% 副对照:1.70% | 69.6 | 主对照:9.06% 副对照:3.63% | 67.6 | 主对照:-2.04% 副对照:8.72% | 工业5 | ||
| 主对照 | 68.1 | 63.9 | 69.0 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 64.6 | 67.2 | 62.2 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 67.3 | 主对照:5.39% 副对照:-1.06% | 76.3 | 主对照:4.72% 副对照:18.74% | 78.6 | 主对照:4.58% 副对照:11.14% | 工业6 | ||
| 主对照 | 63.8 | 72.9 | 75.2 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 68.0 | 64.3 | 70.8 | ||||||
| HN2146 | 69.1 | 主对照:1.92% 副对照:1.53% | 71.5 | 主对照:2.83% 副对照:5.14% | 66.6 | 主对照:3.00% 副对照:-5.76% | 工业7 | ||
| 主对照 | 67.8 | 69.5 | 64.7 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 68.0 | 68.0 | 70.7 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 53.8 | 主对照:-14.93% 副对照:-10.65% | 67.7 | 主对照:2.80% 副对照:3.94% | 66.8 | 主对照:7.85% 副对照:4.70% | 工业8 | ||
| 主对照 | 63.3 | 65.9 | 61.9 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 60.2 | 65.1 | 63.8 | ||||||
| 湘烟8号 | 71.7 | 主对照:7.35% 副对照:15.28% | 66.7 | 主对照:-4.63% 副对照:-10.51% | 67.6 | 主对照:3.10% 副对照:8.00% | 工业9 | ||
| 主对照 | 66.8 | 69.8 | 69.7 | ||||||
| 副对照 | 62.2 | 74.6 | 72.6 | ||||||
| 试验点 结论 | 优于主对照 (6优于、0相当、3低于) 优与副对照 (5优于、1相当、3低于) | 优与主对照 (8优于、0相当、1低于) 优于副对照 (7优于、0相当、2低于) | 与主对照相当 (4优于、1相当、4低于) 优于副对照 (5优于、1相当、3低于) | — | |||||
| 综合结论 | 优与主对照(2个试验点高于,1个试验点相当,0个试验点低于) 优于副对照(3个试验点高于,0个试验点相当,0个试验点低于) | ||||||||
| [1] |
李雪君, 孙计平, 孙焕, 等. 烤烟新品种许金101的选育及特征特性[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2021, 42(5):1-6.
|
| [2] |
刘仁祥, 朱峻, 喻奇伟, 等. 烤烟新品种贵烟202选育及其特征特性[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2016, 37(6):8-13.
|
| [3] |
马文广, 周义和. 我国烤烟品种的发展现状及对策展望[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2018, 24(1):116-122.
|
| [4] |
杨志晓, 王轶, 刘红峰, 等. 我国主栽烤烟品种亲缘关系及育种[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2013, 19(2):34-41.
|
| [5] |
王晓云, 邓云龙, 邵丽, 等, 国外烤烟育种和品种工作概况[J]. 云南农业科技, 1999(5):16-19.
|
| [6] |
张玉, 刘杨, 王元英, 等. 烤烟新品种中川208的选育及特征特性[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2019, 40(5):1-7.
|
| [7] |
黄平俊, 易建华, 王松峰, 等. 烤烟新品种湘烟4号的选育及其特征特性[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2012, 33(5):9-13.
|
| [8] |
罗经仁, 李宏光, 李云霞, 等. 烤烟新品种湘烟6号的选育及其特征特性[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2019, 40(4):1-6,13.
|
| [9] |
胡日生, 赵松义, 杨全柳, 等. 烤烟新品种湘烟3号的选育及其特征特性[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2012, 33(1):7-11.
|
| [10] |
胡日生, 向世鹏, 蒲文宣, 等. 烤烟新品种湘烟7号的选育及其特征特性[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2022, 43(4):1-5
|
| [11] |
徐安传. 烤烟品种种植结构对烟叶原料和卷烟产品的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2009, 15(5):82-86.
|
| [12] |
王全永, 陈刚, 张忠锋, 等. 我国烤烟抗病育种研究进展[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2020, 41(2):118-126.
|
| [13] |
王树声, 刘新民, 徐宜民, 等. 我国优质烤烟育种目标与育种策略[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2015, 21(2):1-8.
|
| [14] |
刘艳霞, 杨铁钊, 丁永乐, 等. 烤烟青枯病抗性遗传及育种研究进展[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2017, 23(3):122-129.
|
| [15] |
陈初, 张一扬, 周冀衡. 湖南烟区主要病害发生规律及综合防控技术[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2018(7):81-84.
|
| [16] |
李建伟, 王元英, 刘艳华. 烟草黑胫病抗性鉴定与抗病育种研究进展[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2014, 35(4):112-118.
|
| [17] |
张忠锋, 刘建利, 王雪云, 等. 烤烟品种区域化布局与特色烟叶开发[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2016, 37(3):88-93.
|
| [18] |
周冀衡, 张一扬, 李强. 湖南烤烟生产现状与高质量发展对策[J]. 湖南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 47(S1):1-5.
|
| [19] |
杨立均, 张要旭, 张丹. 多抗、优质烤烟新品种选育实践与思考[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(25):21-26.
|
| [20] |
王刚, 王静, 杨铁钊. 烤烟易烤性遗传与育种研究进展[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2019, 25(4):119-126.
|
| [1] | YI Yong, LI Minhua. Evaluation Method and Classification of Climate Quality of Myrica rubra [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(9): 130-137. |
| [2] | FANG Ruiyuan, GUO Feng, SUN Qing, LI Xiaoying, PENG Meixiang, ZHAO Xiaodong, TIAN Lei, SUN Wei. Breeding and Adaptability Evaluation of New Irradiation-Induced Peanut Variety‘Linhua 16’ [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(9): 16-23. |
| [3] | CHENG Yuan, WANG Hui, DONG Siyuan, YANG Wei, JIANG Rongyue, LIU Ning, ZHANG Conghe. Overview of Maize Ear Rot and Genetic Research Progress in Resistance Breeding [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(9): 171-176. |
| [4] | WANG Yi, LIU Tingting, JIN Fengwei, MA Xiaowei, DONG Yun. Effects of Several Stem and Leaf Herbicides on Yield and Quality in Spring Rapeseed of Brassica napus L. [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(9): 190-196. |
| [5] | ZHANG Yulong, ZHOU Lijuan, GUO Song, CHEN Jing, LIN Caixia, WAN Macao. Study on Planting Performance of Eight Highland Barley Varieties in High-altitude Environments [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(9): 9-15. |
| [6] | GAO Licong, FENG Guojun, LIU Dajun, YANG Xiaoxu, ZHANG Taifeng, LIU Chang. Crop Stay-green Trait: Research Progress and Breeding Trends [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(8): 77-83. |
| [7] | JIANG Yuanbin. New Dual-purpose Sweet Potato Variety 'Funingshu NO.24' with Multi-resistance: Screening and Virus-free Seedling Breeding [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(8): 17-22. |
| [8] | MA Yongpeng, LIU Yuanjian, LONG Yunxing, QUAN Shenchun, YUE Kai, GAO Chaowen, PAN Zengrong, WANG Xi. Study on Responses of Yield and Quality of Angelica sinensis In Yunnan Province to Altitude and Climatic Factors [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(8): 30-37. |
| [9] | HUANG Jian, JING Jiyue, LIN Haohan. Research Progress on Application of Different Types of Fertilizers in Tea [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(7): 97-104. |
| [10] | WANG Shuo, YANG Hetuan, WANG Fang, ZHANG Lichun, YANG Run, MA Yulian, LI Shanshan, YANG Nan, HU Qianqian, FU Changhao, LI Mingyu, LIANG Yanli. Screening of Dominant Germplasm of Dipsacus asperoides and Comparison of Agronomic Traits of Plants with Different Colored Anthers [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(7): 113-120. |
| [11] | ZHOU Liyao, LIU Juan, LIU Haijiao, CUI Yanan, LIU Bing, LUO Yilong, YU Longcheng, CHEN Yafei, XU Risheng, MA Tengfei. Research Progress on Application of Biochar in Peanut Cultivation [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(7): 15-21. |
| [12] | GAO Qin, CHEN Huanhuan, ZHU Qifa, XIA Hao, YU Fei, SHEN Jia, JIANG Chaoqiang. Study on Relationship Between Chemical Composition and Sensory Quality of Tobacco Middle Leaves in Southern Anhui Tobacco Area [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(7): 204-209. |
| [13] | YANG Xin, ZHANG Mingjin, LI Bin, ZHANG Yonghui, XIE Qiang, WANG Jian’an. Effect of Different Harvesting Methods with Stems on Curing Quality of Upper Leaves [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(7): 210-218. |
| [14] | ZHANG Guizhi, ZHAO Hongjun, WANG Wenliang, CHEN Lan, ZHANG Xiaojie, LIU Guodong. Effects of Defoliation and Ripening Agent on Yield and Fiber Quality of Cotton Cultivars in Light and Simplified Regional Trials [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(7): 22-29. |
| [15] | ZHANG Dongdong, ZHANG Benqiang, FENG Junxi, ZHANG Yang, ZHAO Hongdong, WEI Cheng, LIU Shuwei, DONG Xiaowei, LI Xikun. Effects of Water Supply on Leaf Physical Characteristics of ‘Honghua Dajinyuan’ in High Altitude Tobacco Growing Areas [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(7): 38-47. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||