Comprehensive Evaluation of Production Performance and Nutritional Quality of Different Oat Varieties in Alpine Region of Qinghai Province

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0120

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aims to screen optimal oat varieties adaptable to the alpine regions of Qinghai, so as to tackle long-standing problems including single forage cultivar structure and persistent imbalance between forage supply and livestock demand in the region. Using 20 oat varieties as test materials, a randomized block trial design was adopted. The introduction experiment was conducted from May to November 2024 in Ningxiu Town, Zeku County, Huangnan Prefecture. By comparing the differences in yield and nutritional indicators among various oat varieties, and combining K-means cluster analysis with the TOPSIS-multicriteria decision-making model, the optimal oat varieties suitable for local extension and cultivation were screened out. The results indicated significant differences in production performance and nutritional quality among the different oat varieties. A. sativa ‘Qingyan No.1’ had the tallest plant height (149.50 cm), A. sativa ‘Qingyan No.3’ had the largest flag leaf area (49.93 cm²), both A. sativa ‘Baiyan No.7’ and A. sativa ‘Qingyan No.3’ had the highest number of tillers (2.67 per plant), and A. sativa ‘Baiyan No.7’ achieved the highest dry hay yield (26.42 t/hm²). A. sativa ‘Qingyin No.4’ had the lowest stem-to-leaf ratio (1.59). In terms of nutritional quality, A. sativa ‘Qinghai’ had the highest crude protein content at 7.80%; A. sativa ‘Baiyan No.7’ showed the highest relative feed value at 87.84, and simultaneously the lowest fiber contents, with 36.06% acid detergent fiber and 55.96% neutral detergent fiber. Pearson correlation analysis showed significant positive correlations (P<0.05) between plant height, flag leaf length, flag leaf width, flag leaf area, and dry hay yield. Flag leaf length, flag leaf area, and stem-to-leaf ratio had extremely significant effects on crude protein content (P<0.01). Plant height and flag leaf width significantly influenced the relative feed value (P<0.05). The TOPSIS model evaluation demonstrated that A. sativa ‘Baiyan No.7’ and A. sativa ‘Qingyan No.3’ possess high-yield and high-quality potential in the alpine region, making them ideal oat varieties for cultivation in this area.

Key words: oat, alpine regions, production performance, nutritional quality, comprehensive evaluation

CLC Number:

Q544蜡

YANG Wei, ZHANG Chenxu, LIU Minjie, MA Guosheng, LIU Wenhui, BAO Gensheng, KONG Fanmei. Comprehensive Evaluation of Production Performance and Nutritional Quality of Different Oat Varieties in Alpine Region of Qinghai Province[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(19): 154-162.

Figures/Tables 6

References 32

[1]	李军豪, 杨国靖, 王少平. 青藏高原区退化高寒草甸植被和土壤特征[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(6):2109-2118. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202006.002
[2]	莫兴国, 刘文, 孟铖铖, 等. 青藏高原草地产量与草畜平衡变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(7):2415-2425. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202107.002
[3]	胡伟, 梁国玲, 刘凯强, 等. 青藏高原9个燕麦品种抗倒伏能力及其影响因素研究[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(6):1788-1797. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.06.022
[4]	李峰, 李文龙, 张彩霞, 等. 鄂尔多斯地区春播燕麦饲用价值和生产力综合评价[J]. 中国草地学报, 2022, 44(12):28-36.
[5]	起惠芳, 刘文辉, 刘凯强, 等. 青藏高原氮磷钾肥施用对‘青引1号’燕麦生物量积累的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2024, 33(6):1049-1060.
[6]	徐田伟, 赵新全, 张晓玲, 等. 青藏高原高寒地区生态草牧业可持续发展:原理、技术与实践[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(18):6324-6337.
[7]	王小军, 王金兰, 琚泽亮, 等. 环青海湖地区不同饲用燕麦品种生产性能和营养品质综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(19):3730-3742. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.19.002
[8]	党海红, 何克燕, 何丽丽, 等. 8个燕麦品种在玛多地区的生产性能及营养品质综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(34):112-120. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0535
[9]	陈彩锦, 马琳, 蒋庆雪, 等. 244份饲用燕麦种质资源表型性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2025, 58(23):4825-4836. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2025.23.002
[10]	丁淑慧, 郭佳怡, 郭浩悦, 等. 不同裸燕麦品种的种子萌发期抗旱性鉴定与评价[J]. 寒旱农业科学, 2025, 4(12):1128-1133.
[11]	达布那, 刘琳, 王杨, 等. 盐胁迫对5个燕麦品种萌发期的影响[J]. 种子, 2025, 44(8):152-159.
[12]	李晶, 南铭, 刘彦明, 等. 不同燕麦品种产量和品质及饲喂性能综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2023, 31(4):1089-1098. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2023.04.018
[13]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,2001:205-218.
[14]	侯龙鱼, 朱泽义, 杨杰, 等. 我国饲草用燕麦现状、问题和潜力[J]. 西南民族大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 45(3):248-253.
[15]	王小兵, 张巧仙, 王斌, 等. 引黄灌区小黑麦茬复种燕麦生产性能和营养品质评价[J]. 草地学报, 2025, 33(12):4200-4211. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2025.12.032
[16]	李鸿飞, 周帮伟, 张淼, 等. 不同燕麦品种在呼伦贝尔地区的引种适应性评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(4):60-72. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023247
[17]	李文龙, 李峰, 张仲鹃, 等. 鄂尔多斯高原北部一年两季燕麦种植模式生产性能评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(1):159-168. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023071
[18]	孙万斌. 不同生境下20个紫花苜蓿品种的综合评价及不同生育期营养特性的比较[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2016.
[19]	周阳, 周品, 张官禄, 等. 不同燕麦品种在甘肃半干旱区的适应性研究[J]. 寒旱农业科学, 2024, 3(8):705-710.
[20]	王亚士, 曹宏, 彭正凯, 等. 不同氮磷肥施用量对夏播饲用燕麦生长的影响[J]. 寒旱农业科学, 2024, 3(2):174-178.
[21]	孙建平, 董宽虎, 蒯晓妍, 等. 晋北农牧交错区引进燕麦品种生产性能及饲用价值比较[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(11):222-230. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2017021
[22]	李峰, 李文龙, 李雪, 等. 黑龙江中南部16个饲用燕麦品种生产性能综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(10):82-92. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2022473
[23]	张睿, 韩重阳, 蔡家邦, 等. 6个苇状羊茅(型)品种在成都平原区的生产性能评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(1):138-148. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2023072
[24]	杨凯, 慈恩, 刘彬, 等. 基于K-means聚类和图像分割的紫色土发生层边界识别[J]. 土壤学报, 2024, 61(4):939-951.
[25]	安光辉, 马蓉, 陈伟, 等. 基于K-均值聚类的绿洲农田管理分区提取的研究[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2011, 29(6):757-761.
[26]	陈幸, 陈盛华, 陈国华, 等. 基于改进模糊均值聚类算法的遥感图像分割技术[J]. 沈阳工业大学学报, 2023, 45(6):716-720. doi: 10.7688/j.issn.1000-1646.2023.06.20
[27]	耿智广, 张金霞, 李峰, 等. 基于K-means算法和TOPSIS模型的陇东旱区大豆品种饲用性能评价[J]. 饲料研究, 2023, 46(10):122-127.
[28]	王文虎, 梁国玲, 刘文辉, 等. 青藏高原区8份老芒麦资源农艺性状与生产性能综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2025, 34(2):123-132. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2024118
[29]	耿智广, 曹宏, 张金霞, 等. 基于熵权法TOPSIS的不同品种苜蓿综合生产性能评价[J]. 饲料研究, 2024, 47(1):114-119.
[30]	江甜甜, 黎亮, 余汛, 等. 基于RGB图像分析与熵权TOPSIS的田间玉米苗期整齐度评价方法[J]. 农业机械学报, 2026, 57(1):83-91.
[31]	吴尧, 揭春玉, 时焕斌, 等. 基于CRITIC-TOPSIS法的湖北省区试迟熟中稻品种综合评价[J]. 种子, 2025, 44(8):121-127.
[32]	王金兰, 王小军, 刘启林, 等. 不同燕麦品种在三江源区的生产性能和营养品质综合评价[J]. 草业学报, 2024, 33(10):83-95. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2024038