Heterosis Analysis of Lodging Resistance Related Traits and Lodging Resistance Evaluation Based on Principal Component Analysis in Maize

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0081

Abstract

Abstract:

The aim was to evaluate lodging resistance of germplasm in maize, and then breed maize hybrids with strong lodging resistance. In this study, four maize hybrids which were currently promoted in production were used as materials. Through measuring the lodging resistance related traits, mid-parent heterosis and over-parent heterosis of related traits were calculated. The results showed that there were significant or extremely significant differences in crushing strength, pushing strength and stem strength among different varieties, 'Shuoyu 172' had higher crushing strength and stem strength, and 'Shuoyu 173' had higher pushing strength. Compared with different lodging resistant related traits, mid-parent heterosis and over-parent heterosis of 5^th internode length, stem diameter, plant height, ear height, and tassel branch number of 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th internode were relatively higher, indicating that the heterosis of these traits was relatively strong. Compared with the different materials, the parents of 'Shuoyu 172', 'Zheng 58' and 'H7235', and the parents of 'Shuoyu 173', 'Z33-1' and 'H7875S', had strong heterosis in crushing strength, stalk strength, tassel branch number, tassel main axis length and angle of ear. The stem diameter plant height, ear height, ear leaf length and width of 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th internode between the parents of 'Baojing 186', 'Z33-1' and 'H7875A', and the parents of 'Zhengdan 958', 'Zheng 58' and 'Chang 7-2' had strong heterosis. Principal component analysis were used to evaluated lodging resistance of different varieties, the results showed that the lodging resistance of 'Shuoyu 172' was the strongest (Y: 1.401), followed by 'Shuoyu 173'. This study indicated that both of 'Shuoyu 172' and 'Shuoyu 173' had strong lodging resistance.

Key words: maize, hybrid, lodging resistance, heterosis, principal component analysis, mid-parent heterosis, over-parent heterosis

WEI Feng, WEI Xiaoyi, SUN Pei, LIU Junheng, SHI Dakun, LI Fangjie, WANG Ruiping, LIU Hongyu, SONG Binbin. Heterosis Analysis of Lodging Resistance Related Traits and Lodging Resistance Evaluation Based on Principal Component Analysis in Maize[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(35): 6-13.

Figures/Tables 7

References 21

[1]	李锁强. 中国农业统计资料(1949—2019)[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社,2020.
[2]	SEKHON R S, JOYNER C N, ACKERMAN A J, et al. Stalk bending strength is strongly associated with maize stalk lodging incidence across multiple environments[J]. Field crops research, 2020, 249:107737.
[3]	DUVICK D. Genetic contributions to advances in yield of US maize[J]. Maydica, 1992, 37:69-79.
[4]	SHAO H, SHI D F, SHI W J, et al. The impact of high plant density on dry matter remobilization and stalk lodging in maize genotypes with a different stay-green degree[J]. Archiv für acker-und pflanzenbau und bodenkunde, 2021, 67(4):504-518.
[5]	李婷, 王亚鹏, 董远, 等. 基于杂交群体解析玉米籽粒大小相关性状及其配合力的分子遗传机制[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(10):2451-2462. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.13052
[6]	刘世梦倪, 宋敏. 品种改良对玉米单产的贡献率分析[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2021, 55(2):364-371.
[7]	张军刚, 郭海斌, 冯晓曦, 等. 20份玉米自交系主要性状配合力及杂种优势分析[J]. 种子, 2023, 42(8):126-133.
[8]	HOCHHOLDINGER F, HOECKER N. Towards the molecular basis of heterosis[J]. Trends in plant science, 2007, 12(9):427-432. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.005 pmid: 17720610
[9]	伍舒悦, 李秋祝, 李文莹, 等. 播种密度与氮肥施用量对玉米茎秆抗倒能力的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2021, 29(2):117-123,130.
[10]	黄磊玉, 吴广霞, 王玉梅, 等. 黄早四及衍生自交系株型性状研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2011, 19(1):27-30.
[11]	钟源, 赵小强, 李文丽, 等. 不同播深环境下玉米耐深播性状杂种优势及遗传效应解析[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(3):0556-0566.
[12]	余学杰, 文景茹, 柯永培, 等. 玉米苗期抗旱性杂种优势表现研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2021, 29(5):35-40.
[13]	赫黎仁, 樊元, 赫哲欧, 等. SPSS实用统计分析[M]. 北京: 中国水利水电出版社, 2003:10-12.
[14]	张文霖. 主成分分析在SPSS中的操作应用[J]. 市场研究, 2005(12):31-34.
[15]	何亮. 主成分分析在SPSS中的应用[J]. 山西农业大学学报, 2007, 6(5):20-22.
[16]	勾玲, 赵明, 黄建军, 等. 玉米茎秆弯曲性能与抗倒能力的研究[J]. 作物学报, 2008, 34(4):653-661.
[17]	程富丽, 杜雄, 刘梦星, 等. 玉米倒伏及其对产量的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2011, 19(1):105-108.
[18]	勾玲, 黄建军, 张宾, 等. 群体密度对玉米茎秆抗倒力学和农艺性状的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2007, 33(10):1688-1695.
[19]	黄海, 常莹, 胡文河, 等. 群体密度对玉米茎秆农艺性状及抗倒伏性的影响[J]. 玉米科学, 2014, 22(4):94-101.
[20]	徐国平, 王爱方, 李婷, 等. 玉米杂交种灌浆期和收获期抗倒性差异及其与茎秆性状的相关性分析[J]. 玉米科学, 2019, 27(5):52-61.
[21]	卫晓轶, 史大坤, 魏锋, 等. 新单系列玉米品种抗倒相关性状的杂种优势分析[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(8):67-73.

品种名称	来源	审定单位	审定编号
硕育172	郑58×H7235	河南硕实农业科技有限公司、鹤壁禾博士晟农科技有限公司	国审玉20200367
硕育173	Z33-1×H7875S	河南硕实农业科技有限公司、河南商道种业有限公司	国审玉20200368
宝景186	Z33-1×H7875A	河南硕实农业科技有限公司、河南宝景农业科技有限公司、鹤壁禾博士晟农科技有限公司	国审玉 20210415
郑单958	郑58×昌7-2	河南省农业科学院粮食作物研究所	国审玉20000009

品种名称	来源	审定单位	审定编号
硕育172	郑58×H7235	河南硕实农业科技有限公司、鹤壁禾博士晟农科技有限公司	国审玉20200367
硕育173	Z33-1×H7875S	河南硕实农业科技有限公司、河南商道种业有限公司	国审玉20200368
宝景186	Z33-1×H7875A	河南硕实农业科技有限公司、河南宝景农业科技有限公司、鹤壁禾博士晟农科技有限公司	国审玉 20210415
郑单958	郑58×昌7-2	河南省农业科学院粮食作物研究所	国审玉20000009

性状	硕育172	硕育173	宝景186	郑单958
压碎强度	6.00^*	6.43^*	6.70^*	8.12^*
推倒强度	0.58	4.35	2.66	0.92
茎秆强度	1.48	4.80	1.30	2.57
第3节间长度	2.77	7.12^*	3.97	0.59
第4节间长度	5.75^*	22.27^**	0.79	5.67^*
第5节间长度	6.70^*	23.18^**	28.45^**	32.53^**
第3节间粗度	2.15	4.00	13.62^**	18.21^**
第4节间粗度	2.29	5.85^*	43.82^**	21.50^**
第5节间粗度	2.41	8.74^*	31.57^**	13.78^**
株高	113.41^**	526.85^**	273.22^**	736.22^**
穗位高	71.87^**	281.53^**	709.61^**	203.33^**
总叶片数	0.05	16.56^**	4.52	18.06^**
穗上叶片数	8.72^*	180.00^**	19.14^**	164.25^**
雄穗分枝数	74.96^**	56.24^**	85.02^**	51.60^**
雄穗主轴长度	82.41^**	128.13^**	135.56^**	26.49^**
穗位叶叶长	286.32^**	530.60^**	181.01^**	105.10^**
穗位叶叶宽	8.18^*	55.50^**	43.80^**	15.44^**
果穗夹角	47.67^**	11.40^**	7.12^*	8.93^*

性状	硕育172	硕育173	宝景186	郑单958
压碎强度	6.00^*	6.43^*	6.70^*	8.12^*
推倒强度	0.58	4.35	2.66	0.92
茎秆强度	1.48	4.80	1.30	2.57
第3节间长度	2.77	7.12^*	3.97	0.59
第4节间长度	5.75^*	22.27^**	0.79	5.67^*
第5节间长度	6.70^*	23.18^**	28.45^**	32.53^**
第3节间粗度	2.15	4.00	13.62^**	18.21^**
第4节间粗度	2.29	5.85^*	43.82^**	21.50^**
第5节间粗度	2.41	8.74^*	31.57^**	13.78^**
株高	113.41^**	526.85^**	273.22^**	736.22^**
穗位高	71.87^**	281.53^**	709.61^**	203.33^**
总叶片数	0.05	16.56^**	4.52	18.06^**
穗上叶片数	8.72^*	180.00^**	19.14^**	164.25^**
雄穗分枝数	74.96^**	56.24^**	85.02^**	51.60^**
雄穗主轴长度	82.41^**	128.13^**	135.56^**	26.49^**
穗位叶叶长	286.32^**	530.60^**	181.01^**	105.10^**
穗位叶叶宽	8.18^*	55.50^**	43.80^**	15.44^**
果穗夹角	47.67^**	11.40^**	7.12^*	8.93^*

性状	中亲优势/超亲优势/%
性状	硕育172	硕育173	宝景186	郑单958
压碎强度	16.4/13.0	9.9/2.8	-12.3/-16.6	-12.5/-26.3
推倒强度	-4.3/-13.5	3.1/-16.9	-27.3/-29.6	5.7/-3.0
茎秆强度	9.1/7.4	11.8/1.8	-4.4/-10.1	-3.8/-10.9
第3节间长度	14.2/3.7	-10.6/-20.0	-19.0/-26.0	14.7/6.7
第4节间长度	15.7/9.3	16.1/1.8	3.3/0	35.5/33.3
第5节间长度	11.0/3.3	43.5/38.8	35.3/34.1	50.4/46.1
第3节间粗度	12.1/9.8	24.4/23.4	25.2/21.0	32.5/25.5
第4节间粗度	13.5/12.2	21.4/16.9	22.2/15.4	30.5/21.8
第5节间粗度	10.6/7.5	23.1/16.6	25.2/18.3	29.9/22.9
株高	13.0/-2.1	34.9/32.2	56.0/43.2	67.2/59.8
穗位高	20.1/15.0	29.1/8.2	80.5/59.1	43.2/23.2
总叶片数	0.9/0	11.5/3.3	5.5/0	-0.6/-6.2
穗上叶片数	0/-15.0	29.0/17.6	6.2/0	28.6/20.0
雄穗分枝数	81.8/15.4	113.8/82.4	8.1/-20.0	37.8/21.4
雄穗主轴长度	28.5/22.0	29.0/24.3	10.3/1.2	-6.0/-10.0
穗位叶叶长	4.8/-9.1	18.6/15.3	24.8/22.8	26.3/22.8
穗位叶叶宽	-4.5/-12.5	10.3/-2.0	18.1/8.9	10.1/6.9
果穗夹角	43.9/27.9	8.3/6.7	-4.8/-11.9	-9.1/-12.6