The Dtopsis Method was Used to Comprehensively Evaluate 50 Hybrid Combinations of Pink Fruit Tomato in Ningxia Solar Greenhouse

doi:10.7668/hbnxb.20193392

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to give Ningxia an excellent combination of high yield and disease resistance.Dtopsis method was used to evaluate 50 hybrid combinations of pink fruit and tomato and 2 controls(Fengshou 128 and Meifen 869)planted in solar greenhouse for two consecutive years(2020,2021),the botanical traits,fruit traits,yield traits and disease resistance traits were analyzed.The fruit characters of cross combinations were different from each other,but the ripening property was consistent.The optimal combination was 33,whose theoretical yield was more than 20% higher than that of the two controls in two years.It was "moderately resistant" to three diseases and above,with a hardness of more than 5.0 kg/cm² and a pulp thickness of more than 8.0 cm,which was a combination of storage and transportation resistance.The second was combination 47 and 1.The theoretical output of these two combinations was relatively large,and the theoretical output of 47 has increased by more than 45% in two years.Combination 1 had better commercial properties,higher soluble solid content,higher hardness,and better appearance quality.After two years' comprehensive evaluation,combinations 33,47 and 1 were finally selected to be suitable for solar greenhouse planting in Ningxia.

Key words: Pink tomato, Dtopsis method, Ningxia solar greenhouse, Hybrid combination, Comprehensive evaluation

LI Guohua, WANG Xiaomin, HU Xinhua, FU Jinjun, GAO Yanming, LI Jianshe. The Dtopsis Method was Used to Comprehensively Evaluate 50 Hybrid Combinations of Pink Fruit Tomato in Ningxia Solar Greenhouse[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2022, 37(S1): 35-43. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20193392.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/10.7668/hbnxb.20193392

http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/Y2022/V37/IS1/35

Figures/Tables 5

References 32

[1]	李天来. 设施蔬菜栽培学[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2011.
	Li T L. Facilities vegetable cultivation[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2011.
[2]	Beckles D M. Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato(Solanum lycopersicum L.)fruit[J]. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2012, 63(1): 129-140.doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016 URL
[3]	Santhosh S S, Chitdeshwari T, Jegadeeswari D, Kavitha C. Response of hybrid tomato(Solanum lycopersiucm L.)for calcium nutrition: growth,root traits and SPAD index[J]. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science, 2021, 33(21): 117-123.doi: 10.9734/IJPSS/2021/V33I2130662. doi: 10.9734/IJPSS/2021/V33I2130662
[4]	贾琪, 梁燕. 25个粉果番茄杂交组合比较试验[J]. 西北农业学报, 2020, 29(1): 83-92.doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1044-1389.2020.01.010. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1044-1389.2020.01.010
	Jia Q, Liang Y. Comparison experiment of 25 pink tomato hybrid combinations[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2020, 29(1): 83-92.
[5]	刘德兴, 荆鑫, 焦娟, 魏珉, 隋申利, 赵利华, 李艳玮, 赵娜, 巩彪, 史庆华. 嫁接对番茄产量、品质及耐盐性影响的综合评价[J]. 园艺学报, 2017, 44(6): 1094-1104. doi:10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2016-0947.html. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2016-0947.html
	Liu D X, Jing X, Jiao J, Wei M, Sui S L, Zhao L H, Li Y W, Zhao N, Gong B, Shi Q H. Comprehensive evaluation of yield,quality and salt stress tolerance in grafting tomato[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2017, 44(6): 1094-1104.
[6]	Feng X H, Guo K, Yang C, Li J, Liu X. Growth and fruit production of tomato grafted onto wolfberry(Lycium chinense)rootstock in saline soil[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2019, 255: 298-305.doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.05.028. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.05.028 URL
[7]	Nafees K, Kumar M, Bose B. Effect of different temperatures on germination and seedling growth of primed seeds of tomato[J]. Plant Physiology, 2019, 66(5): 778-784.doi: 10.1134/S1021443719050169. doi: 10.1134/S1021443719050169
[8]	Javed T, Afzal I. Impact of seed pelleting on germination potential,seedling growth and storage of tomato seed[J]. Acta Hortic, 2020(1273):417-424.doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1273.54. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1273.54
[9]	王晓敏, 赵宇飞, 袁东升, 刘珮君, 郑福顺, 胡新华, 付金军, 高艳明, 李建设. 三十三个番茄自交系数量性状的配合力和遗传力分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(12): 2025-2035.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2019.12.11. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2019.12.11
	Wang X M, Zhao Y F, Yuan D S, Liu P J, Zheng F S, Hu X H, Fu J J, Gao Y M, Li J S. Analysis of combining ability and heredity for quantitative traits of 33 tomato inbred lines[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2019, 31(12): 2025-2035. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2019.12.11
[10]	贾琪. 2017年番茄杂交组合的鉴定筛选[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2019.
	Jia Q. Identification and screening of tomato hybrid combinations in 2017[D]. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2019.
[11]	袁东升. 266份番茄种质资源遗传多样性分析及番茄杂交组合的评价[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2019.
	Yuan D S. Genetic diversity analysis of 266 tomato germplasm resources and evaluation of tomato hybrid combinations[D]. Yinchuan: Ningxia University, 2019.
[12]	胡德玉, 张条平, 郭志明, 何庆虎. 抗草甘膦棉花杂交组合筛选及优势分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2018, 46(27): 32-34,49.doi: 10.13989/j.cnki.0517-6611.2018.27.010. doi: 10.13989/j.cnki.0517-6611.2018.27.010
	Hu D Y, Zhang T P, Guo Z M, He Q H. Screening and advantage analysis cross combination of glyphosate-resistant cotton[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(27): 32-34,49.
[13]	李艳兰, 杨进成, 李祥, 刘坚坚, 王敬乔, 安正云, 蔡述江, 胡新洲, 李红彦. 杂交油菜高产组合产量与农艺性状的灰色关联度分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(13): 17-22.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19020053. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19020053
	Li Y L, Yang J C, Li X, Liu J J, Wang J Q, An Z Y, Cai S J, Hu X Z, Li H Y. High-yield combination of hybrid rapeseed: Grey relational analysis of yield and agronomic characters[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(13): 17-22.
[14]	蒋亚瑶, 陈坤豪, 马亚茹, 梁钧镅, 雷建军, 陈长明, 陈木溪. 芥蓝杂交组合主要经济性状比较试验[J]. 蔬菜, 2019(12): 29-33.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19020053. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19020053
	Jiang Y Y, Chen K H, Ma Y R, Liang J M, Lei J J, Chen C M, Chen M X. Comparative experiment on main economic characters of the cross combinations of Chinese kale[J]. Vegetables, 2019(12): 29-33.
[15]	李大忠, 张前荣. 苦瓜杂交组合比较试验[J]. 蔬菜, 2018(10): 70-74.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8336.2018.10.019. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8336.2018.10.019
	Li D Z, Zhang Q R. Comparison test of bitter gourd hybrid combinations[J]. Vegetables, 2018(10): 70-74.
[16]	周仂, 王英哲, 徐博, 谭晶, 徐安凯. 转Bar基因紫花苜蓿杂交组合的筛选与评价[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(5): 1163-1171.doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.05.007. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.05.007
	Zhou L, Wang Y Z, Xu B, Tan J, Xu A K. Screening and evaluation of hybrid combinations of the Bar transgenic alfalfa[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(5): 1163-1171.
[17]	闫海霞, 邓杰玲, 关世凯, 陶大燕, 蒋月喜, 黄昌艳, 卜朝阳. 蔷薇属植物杂交优良组合的筛选[J]. 南方农业学报, 2018, 49(9): 1705-1711.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2018.09.04. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2018.09.04
	Yan H X, Deng J L, Guan S K, Tao D Y, Jiang Y X, Huang C Y, Bu Z Y. Selection of fine hybrid combinations of Rosa[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2018, 49(9): 1705-1711.
[18]	王俊花, 闫建宾, 王瑞钢. 基于主成分、聚类和灰色关联度分析的超甜玉米杂交组合综合评价[J]. 南方农业学报, 2020, 51(5): 1108-1114.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2020.05.015. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2020.05.015
	Wang J H, Yan J B, Wang R G. Comprehensive evaluation of super sweet maize cross combinations based on principal component analysis,cluster analysis and gray correlation analysis[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2020, 51(5): 1108-1114.
[19]	朱文召. 番茄抗青枯病自交系筛选及其杂交组合选育[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2018.
	Zhu W Z. Selection of tomato inbred lines resistant to bacterial wilt and their hybrid crosses[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2018.
[20]	刘奇. 大果番茄杂交组合选育和种质创新[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2019. doi:10.7666/d.Y3586197. doi: 10.7666/d.Y3586197
	Liu Q. Innovation of germplasm and selection of hybrinds in large-fruited tomato[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2019.
[21]	芮文婧, 王晓敏, 张倩男, 胡学义, 胡新华, 付金军, 高艳明, 李建设. 番茄353份种质资源表型性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 园艺学报, 2018, 45(3): 561-570.doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2017-0274. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2017-0274
	Rui W J, Wang X M, Zhang Q N, Hu X Y, Hu X H, Fu J J, Gao Y M, Li J S. Genetic diversity analysis of 353 tomato germplasm resources by phenotypic traits[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2018, 45(3): 561-570.
[22]	李锡香, 杜永臣. 番茄种质资源描述规范和数据标准[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
	Li X X, Du Y C. Descriptors and data standard for tomato[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2006.
[23]	司天桃, 张国强, 薛琳, 杨德松. 加工番茄叶霉病的防治药剂筛选及其品种抗性鉴定[J]. 植物保护, 2017, 43(5): 225-228.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0529-1542.2017.05.038. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0529-1542.2017.05.038
	Si T T, Zhang G Q, Xue L, Yang D S. Screening of antifungal agents and identification of resistant variety against leaf mold of processed tomato[J]. Plant Protection, 2017, 43(5): 225-228.
[24]	张振粉, 杨成德, 陈秀蓉, 屈星, 张俊忠. 甘肃省番茄早疫病菌致病力测定及品种田间抗病性鉴定[J]. 甘肃农业大学学报, 2010, 45(6): 114-117,122.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4315.2010.06.023. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-4315.2010.06.023
	Zhang Z F, Yang C D, Chen X R, Qu X, Zhang J Z. Pathogenicity determination and species identification of field disease resistance against tomato early blight(Alternaria solani)in Gansu Province[J]. Journal of Gansu Agricultural University, 2010, 45(6): 114-117,122.
[25]	温晓涵, 张喜春. 引进番茄品种抗晚疫病苗期鉴定及抗性品种筛选[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(4): 189-194.
	Wen X H, Zhang X C. The indentification of introduced tomato varieties Phytophthora infestans(Mont.)de bary in the detched sage sequent and varieties selection[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2010, 26(4): 189-194.
[26]	刘翔宇, 赵龙, 巴哈尔古丽.先木西, 彭华, 阿不都热衣木.玉拉音. 新疆陆地棉种质资源的综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(24): 4679-4692.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.24.002. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2017.24.002
	Liu X Y, Zhao L, Bahargul X M X, Peng H, Abdureyim Y L Y. Comprehensive evaluation of germplasm resources of upland cotton in Xinjiang[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(24): 4679-4692.
[27]	王振. 番茄自交系鉴定及抗青枯病杂交组合比较试验[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2013.
	Wang Z. Identification of tomato inbred lines and comparative experiment of cross combinations resisting bacterial wilt[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2013.
[28]	陈新, 张宗文, 吴斌. 裸燕麦萌发期耐盐性综合评价与耐盐种质筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014, 47(10): 2038-2046.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.10.018. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.10.018
	Chen X, Zhang Z W, Wu B. Comprehensive evaluation of salt tolerance and screening for salt tolerant accessions of naked oat(Avena nuda L.)at germination stage[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014, 47(10): 2038-2046.
[29]	卢柏山, 董会, 史亚兴, 赵久然, 徐丽, 刘辉, 张翠芬. 不同品种鲜食玉米体外抗氧化能力综合评价[J]. 华北农学报, 2021, 36(S1): 101-110. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191766. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20191766
	Lu B S, Dong H, Shi Y X, Zhao J R, Xu L, Liu H, Zhang C F. Comprehensive evaluation of antioxidant capacity in vitro of different varieties of fresh corn[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2021, 36(S1):101-110.
[30]	杜娅丹, 曹红霞, 柳美玉, 李天星. 基于层次分析法和熵权法的TOPSIS模型在番茄生长综合评价中的应用[J]. 西北农业学报, 2015, 24(6):90-96. doi:10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2015.06.014. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2015.06.014
	Du Y D, Cao H X, Liu M Y, Li T X. Comprehensive evaluation of tomato growing with application of TOPSIS model based on AHP and entropy method[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2015, 24(6): 90-96.
[31]	孙峰成, 冯勇, 于卓, 赵瑞霞, 张来厚, 苏二虎, 刘志雄, 石海波. 12个玉米群体的主要农艺性状与产量、品质的灰色关联度分析[J]. 华北农学报, 2012, 27(1):102-105. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-7091.2012.01.019. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7091.2012.01.019
	Sun F C, Feng Y, Yu Z, Zhao R X, Zhang L H, Su E H, Liu Z X, Shi H B. Grey relativity analysis on main agronomic characters of 12 maize populations with their yields and traits[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2012, 27(1):102-105. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7091.2012.01.019
[32]	滕芝妍, 崔雨同, 应学兵, 郑伟尉, 臧运祥, 朱祝军. 不同南瓜品种的综合评价[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2020, 37(1): 143-150.doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2020.01.019. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2020.01.019
	Teng Z Y, Cui Y T, Ying X B, Zheng W W, Zang Y X, Zhu Z J. Comprehensive evaluation of pumpkin cultivars based on a principal component analysis[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A & F University, 2020, 37(1): 143-150.

年份 Years	性状 Trait	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	均值 Mean	标准差 s	变异系数/% CV
2020	首花序节	9.00	6.00	7.17	0.60	8.30
	花序类型	3.00	2.00	2.06	0.24	11.54
	叶长/cm	49.73	25.03	35.09	4.79	13.64
	叶宽/cm	45.63	24.80	33.64	4.68	13.92
	叶片类型	4.00	1.00	3.55	0.86	24.12
	萼片大小	3.00	1.00	1.86	0.69	37.22
	生长势	5.00	2.00	3.94	0.86	21.77
2021	首花序节	9.00	5.00	7.16	0.92	12.87
	花序类型	3.00	2.00	2.15	0.36	16.91
	叶长/cm	44.03	30.33	37.53	3.43	9.15
	叶宽/cm	43.89	22.85	33.44	4.20	12.56
	叶片类型	4.00	1.00	3.48	0.92	26.37
	萼片大小	3.00	1.00	2.25	0.74	32.78
	生长势	5.00	1.00	3.38	1.03	30.49

年份 Years	性状 Trait	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	均值 Mean	标准差 s	变异系数/% CV
2020	首花序节	9.00	6.00	7.17	0.60	8.30
	花序类型	3.00	2.00	2.06	0.24	11.54
	叶长/cm	49.73	25.03	35.09	4.79	13.64
	叶宽/cm	45.63	24.80	33.64	4.68	13.92
	叶片类型	4.00	1.00	3.55	0.86	24.12
	萼片大小	3.00	1.00	1.86	0.69	37.22
	生长势	5.00	2.00	3.94	0.86	21.77
2021	首花序节	9.00	5.00	7.16	0.92	12.87
	花序类型	3.00	2.00	2.15	0.36	16.91
	叶长/cm	44.03	30.33	37.53	3.43	9.15
	叶宽/cm	43.89	22.85	33.44	4.20	12.56
	叶片类型	4.00	1.00	3.48	0.92	26.37
	萼片大小	3.00	1.00	2.25	0.74	32.78
	生长势	5.00	1.00	3.38	1.03	30.49

年份 Years	性状 Trait	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	均值 Mean	标准差 s	变异系数/% CV
2020	单株结果数/个	45.00	19.00	30.54	6.10	19.97
	果梗洼大小/cm	29.88	12.00	18.20	4.34	23.85
	木栓化大小/cm	20.31	7.32	11.24	2.77	24.66
	商品果纵径/cm	66.96	37.67	50.88	7.07	13.90
	商品果横径/cm	87.72	38.80	58.63	10.06	17.15
	可溶性固形物/%	10.64	3.88	6.72	1.62	24.07
	果肉厚/cm	8.64	3.37	6.16	1.14	18.56
	硬度/(kg/cm²)	5.04	0.41	2.18	0.98	45.16
	单果质量/g	297.16	39.84	109.31	47.17	43.15
	果面棱沟	3.00	1.00	1.86	0.75	40.20
2021	单株结果数/个	35.00	13.00	21.30	5.02	23.58
年份 Years	性状 Trait	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	均值 Mean	标准差 s	变异系数/% CV
	果梗洼大小/cm	37.34	15.02	25.79	4.91	19.03
	木栓化大小/cm	25.08	7.16	14.20	3.92	27.62
	商品果纵径/cm	93.66	56.05	67.75	7.48	11.04
	商品果横径/cm	89.44	43.53	69.61	11.05	15.88
	可溶性固形物/%	7.20	4.22	5.36	0.73	13.67
	果肉厚/cm	10.22	5.01	7.75	1.17	15.07
	硬度/(kg/cm²)	4.81	2.12	3.02	0.60	19.94
	单果质量/g	348.96	78.68	184.00	63.42	34.47
	果面棱沟	3.00	1.00	1.63	0.60	36.40

年份 Years	性状 Trait	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	均值 Mean	标准差 s	变异系数/% CV
2020	单株结果数/个	45.00	19.00	30.54	6.10	19.97
	果梗洼大小/cm	29.88	12.00	18.20	4.34	23.85
	木栓化大小/cm	20.31	7.32	11.24	2.77	24.66
	商品果纵径/cm	66.96	37.67	50.88	7.07	13.90
	商品果横径/cm	87.72	38.80	58.63	10.06	17.15
	可溶性固形物/%	10.64	3.88	6.72	1.62	24.07
	果肉厚/cm	8.64	3.37	6.16	1.14	18.56
	硬度/(kg/cm²)	5.04	0.41	2.18	0.98	45.16
	单果质量/g	297.16	39.84	109.31	47.17	43.15
	果面棱沟	3.00	1.00	1.86	0.75	40.20
2021	单株结果数/个	35.00	13.00	21.30	5.02	23.58
年份 Years	性状 Trait	最大值 Max	最小值 Min	均值 Mean	标准差 s	变异系数/% CV
	果梗洼大小/cm	37.34	15.02	25.79	4.91	19.03
	木栓化大小/cm	25.08	7.16	14.20	3.92	27.62
	商品果纵径/cm	93.66	56.05	67.75	7.48	11.04
	商品果横径/cm	89.44	43.53	69.61	11.05	15.88
	可溶性固形物/%	7.20	4.22	5.36	0.73	13.67
	果肉厚/cm	10.22	5.01	7.75	1.17	15.07
	硬度/(kg/cm²)	4.81	2.12	3.02	0.60	19.94
	单果质量/g	348.96	78.68	184.00	63.42	34.47
	果面棱沟	3.00	1.00	1.63	0.60	36.40

编号 Number	2020			2021
编号 Number	理论产量/ (kg/hm²) Theoretical yield	较丰收128 增产/% Compare with Fengshou 128	较美粉869 增产/% Compare with Meifen 869	理论产量/ (kg/hm²) Theoretical yield	较丰收128 增产/% Compare with Fengshou 128	较美粉869 增产/% Compare with Meifen 869
1	93 171	-0.55	3.24	106 760	4.11	16.40
2	50 918	-45.65	-43.58	59 517	-41.96	-35.11
3	68 591	-26.79	-24.00	72 215	-29.58	-21.27
4	54 193	-42.16	-39.95	96 339	-6.05	5.03
5	127 186	35.76	40.93	105 932	3.31	15.49
6	59 617	-36.37	-33.94	87 885	-14.29	-4.18
7	81 319	-13.20	-9.89	104 489	1.90	13.92
8	44 210	-52.81	-51.01	57 859	-43.58	-36.92
9	89 150	-4.84	-1.21	31 786	-69.00	-65.34
10	42 078	-55.09	-53.37	50 770	-50.49	-44.65
11	85 114	-9.15	-5.69	49 688	-51.54	-45.83
12	45 902	-51.01	-49.14	72 553	-29.25	-20.90
13	72 170	-22.97	-20.03	42 406	-58.65	-53.77
14	35 699	-61.90	-60.44	54 931	-46.43	-40.11
15	77 031	-17.78	-14.64	79 814	-22.17	-12.98
16	48 403	-48.34	-46.37	91 366	-10.90	-0.39
17	47 830	-48.95	-47.00	90 394	-11.85	-1.45
18	60 504	-35.42	-32.96	58 662	-42.79	-36.04
19	52 164	-44.32	-42.20	83 936	-18.15	-8.49
20	43 275	-53.81	-52.05	96 727	-5.67	5.46
21	97 507	4.08	8.05	58 255	-43.19	-36.49
22	89 895	-4.05	-0.39	70 286	-31.46	-23.37
23	56 582	-39.61	-37.30	85 284	-16.83	-7.02
24	53 552	-42.84	-40.66	88 058	-14.13	-3.99
25	37 253	-60.24	-58.72	62 145	-39.40	-32.25
26	44 363	-52.65	-50.84	86 882	-15.27	-5.28
编号 Number	2020			2021
编号 Number	理论产量/ (kg/hm²) Theoretical yield	较丰收128 增产/% Compare with Fengshou 128	较美粉869 增产/% Compare with Meifen 869	理论产量/ (kg/hm²) Theoretical yield	较丰收128 增产/% Compare with Fengshou 128	较美粉869 增产/% Compare with Meifen 869
27	43 090	-54.01	-52.25	68 553	-33.15	-25.26
28	53 184	-43.23	-41.07	51 328	-49.94	-44.04
29	17 193	-81.65	-80.95	50 877	-50.39	-44.53
30	41 203	-56.02	-54.34	83 061	-19.00	-9.44
31	77 855	-16.90	-13.73	158 475	54.54	72.78
32	31 497	-66.38	-65.10	126 725	23.58	38.16
33	116 040	23.86	28.58	136 263	32.88	48.56
34	52 976	-43.46	-41.30	63 480	-38.09	-30.79
35	74 010	-21.00	-17.99	70 473	-31.28	-23.17
36	111 728	19.26	23.81	81 628	-20.40	-11.00
37	59 096	-36.92	-34.52	64 409	-37.19	-29.78
38	82 731	-11.69	-8.33	35 793	-65.09	-60.98
39	44 649	-52.34	-50.52	81 862	-20.17	-10.75
40	75 624	-19.28	-16.20	98 259	-4.18	7.13
41	37 730	-59.73	-58.19	65 203	-36.41	-28.91
42	96 313	2.80	6.72	115 188	12.33	25.58
43	47 821	-48.96	-47.01	75 101	-26.76	-18.12
44	82 052	-12.42	-9.08	67 612	-34.07	-26.29
45	53 687	-42.70	-40.51	62 295	-39.25	-32.08
46	52 425	-44.04	-41.91	70 065	-31.67	-23.61
47	137 401	46.66	52.25	152 028	48.26	65.75
48	103 546	10.52	14.74	84 016	-18.07	-8.40
49	135 911	45.07	50.60	142 601	39.06	55.47
50	14 960	-84.03	-83.42	47 753	-53.43	-47.94
51	93 687	0.00	3.81	102 543	0.00	11.80
52	90 245	-3.67	0.00	91 722	-10.55	0.00

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export