浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版)  2016, Vol. 42 Issue (5): 556-564
文章快速检索     高级检索
引用本文
0
方萍, 刘卫国, 刘孝德, 刘婷, 池晓玉, 许燕, 庞婷, 彭霄, 蔡凌, 杨文钰. 玉-豆间作对菜用大豆品质的影响[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2016, 42(5): 556-564. DOI:10.3785/j.issn.1008-9209.2016.02.031
FANG Ping, LIU Weiguo, LIU Xiaode, LIU Ting, CHI Xiaoyu, XU Yan, PANG Ting, PENG Xiao, CAI Ling, YANG Wenyu. Effect of maize-soybean intercropping on quality of vegetable soybean[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University(Agriculture & Life Sciences), 2016, 42(5): 556-564.  DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9209.2016.02.031.
玉-豆间作对菜用大豆品质的影响[PDF全文]
方萍1,2, 刘卫国1,2, 刘孝德3, 刘婷1,2, 池晓玉1, 许燕1, 庞婷1, 彭霄1,2, 蔡凌1,2, 杨文钰1,2    
1. 四川农业大学生态农业研究所, 成都611130;
2. 农业部西南作物生理生态与耕作重点实验室, 成都611130;
3. 四川省三台县刘营镇农业服务中心, 四川 绵阳621100
基金项目: 四川省育种攻关项目(16ZC2860)，四川省富民强县项目(001Z3200)
通信作者 (Corresponding author): 刘卫国 (http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1804-0276) E-mail:lwgsy@126.com
杨文钰 (http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5885-3450) E-mail:mssiyangwy@sicau.edu.cn
第一作者 (First author): 方萍 (http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-2269) E-mail:fangping630@163.com
收稿日期(Received): 2016-02-03; 接受日期(Accepted): 2016-06-22; 网络出版日期(Published online): 2016-09-18
摘要: 通过田间试验, 研究了玉米-大豆间作种植方式对3个菜用大豆品种外观性状、营养物质和食味主要成分的影响.结果表明:与净作相比, 在间作模式下菜用大豆的外观品质除百粒鲜质量增大外, 百荚鲜质量、百荚粒质量、一粒荚数、二粒荚数、三粒荚数和二粒荚率均降低; 营养品质表现出菜用大豆的优良特性, 其中蛋白质、可溶性糖均高于净作, 浙鲜豆4号和沈鲜6号的游离氨基酸高于净作.青酥5号间作模式的外观品质表现较优, 浙鲜豆4号次之, 沈鲜6号较差, 而营养品质则是沈鲜6号表现较优, 青酥5号较差.对品种与种植方式2因素的交互作用分析结果表明, 外观品质主要受栽培方式影响, 而营养品质受栽培方式和品种的共同影响.对各品质指标的相关分析表明, 百荚鲜质量与粗脂肪、百粒鲜质量呈显著负相关, 百荚粒质量和甜味氨基酸、游离氨基酸呈显著正相关.可见, 选用适当的菜用大豆品种, 采用玉-豆间作种植可以达到较好的品质效果.
关键词: 菜用大豆    间作    品质    
Effect of maize-soybean intercropping on quality of vegetable soybean
FANG Ping1,2, LIU Weiguo1,2, LIU Xiaode3, LIU Ting1,2, CHI Xiaoyu1, XU Yan1, PANG Ting1, PENG Xiao1,2, CAI Ling1,2, YANG Wenyu1,2    
1. Institute of Ecological Agriculture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China;
2. Key Laboratory of Crop Ecophysiology and Farming System in Southwest China of the Ministry of Agriculture, Chengdu 611130, China;
3. Agricultural Service Center of Liuyin Town, Santai County, Mianyang 621100, Sichuan, China
Abstract: Many researches have been done on the high economic benefit, stable yield and superior seed quality of monocropping vegetable soybean. But with the arrival of the food crisis, intercropping is more and more popular. Whether vegetable soybean can maintain the excellent qualities mentioned above still needs more research. We explored the effects of maize-soybean strip intercropping on seed quality of vegetable soybean with field experiment. Maize (Zhenghong 505) was planted two lines in narrow row while vegetable soybean was sowed two lines in wide row at the same time (May 5th, 2015). Three vegetable soybean varieties were adapted in this experiment: Zhexiandou 4, Qingsu 5 and Shenxian 6. At the beginning of R6, samples were taken to determine the agronomic characters and nutrition quality of vegetable soybean. The seed agronomic characters include the fresh mass per 100-pod, fresh mass per 100-pod seeds, fresh mass per 100-seed mass, flat pods number per plant, one-pod number per plant, two-pod number per plant, three-pod number per plant and two-pod rate per plant. The nutrition quality contained protein, free amino acid, crude fat, soluble sugar, starch, and moisture. As the results showed, the agronomic characters of intercropping vegetable soybean decreased compared with those of monocropping, but 100-seed mass increased. The contents of protein and soluble sugar of intercropping vegetable soybean seeds were higher than those in monoculture. Moreover, the free amino acid of Zhexiandou 4, Shenxian 6 was higher than that in monoculture, but Qingsu 5 was lower. Comparing these three vegetable soybeans, we concluded that as for appearance quality Qingsu 5 was the best, and Zhexiandou 4 took the second, Shenxian 6 was poor. However, with regard to nutrition, Shenxian 6 was the best, Qingsu 5 was the last. As the interactive analysis showed, both appearance and nutrition quality of vegetable quality were mainly determined by cropping pattern. But there were some difference among different varieties. The correlation analysis suggested that fresh mass per 100-seed mass was significantly negatively correlated with crude fat, and it was the same as fresh mass per 100-seed mass and moisture. Fresh mass per 100-pod seeds was significantly positively correlated with sweet amino acid and free amino acid. In summary, when the appearance quality is good, the nutrition quality will be poor. Thus, it is necessary to coordinate appearance quality and nutrition quality. Because the appearance quality of vegetable soybean is affected by cropping pattern and the nutrition are affected by pattern and variety, we should screen out well adaptability and good quality varieties. At the same time, we must focus on techniques including line spacing, crop allocation, density, fertilization management and harvest time, so that we can achieve high quality and high yield vegetable soybean in an intercropping pattern.
Key words: vegetable soybean    intercropping    quality    
1 材料与方法 1.1 材料

试验采用生育时期相近(约80 d)的3个(浙鲜豆4号、青酥5号、沈鲜6号)菜用大豆品种和1个玉米(正红505)品种(表 1).

表1 试验使用的菜用大豆和玉米品种 Table 1 Vegetable soybean and maize varieties used in the experiment
点击放大
1.2 种植方法

试验于2015年在四川农业大学雅安教学科研园区进行.试验用土为壤土, 肥力全氮为0.324%, 全磷为0.312%, 全钾为1.96%, 有机质为3.663%.试验采用2因素裂区试验设计, 主区因素为种植方式, 设大豆净作和玉米-大豆间作2个处理; 副因素为3个菜用大豆品种, 3次重复, 小区面积为20 m2.大豆净作采用等行距种植, 行距为50 cm, 穴距为10 cm, 每穴留1株.在玉米-大豆间作体系下, 每个品种连续种2带, 带长5 m、带宽2 m, 采用玉米-大豆2:2宽窄行带状种植, 玉米宽行160 cm, 窄行40 cm, 玉米宽行内种2行大豆, 大豆行距40 cm, 玉米与大豆行距60 cm; 玉米穴距20 cm, 每穴留1株, 密度为52 000株/hm2; 大豆穴距10 cm, 每穴留2株, 密度为204 000株/hm2, 玉米底肥施尿素37.5 kg/hm2、过磷酸钙600 kg/hm2、氯化钾150 kg/hm2, 苗肥施尿素90 kg/hm2, 拔节期施尿素150 kg/hm2, 大喇叭口期施碳铵750 kg/hm2; 大豆底肥施氯化钾60 kg/hm2、过磷酸钙600 kg/hm2.玉米采用育苗移栽, 4月28日播种, 5月6日移栽, 8月20日收获; 大豆5月6日播种, 8月22日收获.

1.3 品质指标测定

在菜用大豆R6期(粒鼓满期)取样测定以下指标:

外观品质:用电子天平测定百荚鲜质量、百荚粒质量、百粒鲜质量; 人工数20株材料的总瘪荚数、一粒荚数、二粒荚数、三粒荚数.

营养品质:用日立L-8800氨基酸自动分析仪测定大豆中的氨基酸, 称取0.500 g籽粒粉样置50-mL具塞试管中, 加入30 mL 0.1 mol/L HCl, 在18 ℃的恒温摇床中振荡24 h后移取2 mL上清液，以12 000 r/min离心10 min, 移取0.5 mL上清液与10%的磺基水杨酸按1:3混合后静置15 min, 再次以12 000 r/min离心10 min, 移取1.5 mL离心后的上清液，上机测定游离氨基酸含量.蛋白质采用FOSS8400全自动凯氏定氮仪测定, 称取0.100 g粉样, 加入10 mL浓硫酸和1粒硝煮片, 380 ℃硝煮2.5 h, 冷却后上机测定.粗脂肪采用Hanon SOX500脂肪测定仪测定, 称取1.000 g粉样及脱脂滤纸和脱脂棉线的质量, 包好后上机以石油醚80 ℃提取380 min, 循环时间为35 min.可溶性糖、淀粉采用熊庆娥[18]的蒽酮比色法进行测定; 根据GB 5009.3—2010《食品中水分的测定》[19], 采用体积法和质量法测定含水率.

1.4 数据统计与分析

用Excel 2007、SPSS17和OriginPro 8对数据进行统计分析和图表制作, 用最小显著差数法(LSD)进行差异显著性检验.

2 结果与分析 2.1 间作对菜用大豆外观性状的影响

与净作相比, 玉米大豆间作中3个菜用大豆的百荚鲜质量、百荚粒质量、一粒荚数、二粒荚数和二粒荚率均显著降低; 浙鲜豆4号和青酥5号的百粒鲜质量和瘪荚数较净作升高, 而沈鲜6号降低.百荚鲜质量、百荚粒质量、百粒鲜质量和三粒荚数，均受种植模式、品种及两者的交互作用; 除瘪荚数外, 其余外观品质指标均受种植方式的影响, 而瘪荚数主要是受种植方式和品种的交互作用.在3个品种中, 浙鲜豆4号的百荚鲜质量和百荚粒质量最高, 百粒鲜质量和二粒荚率则低于其余2个品种; 在净作模式下, 浙鲜豆4号的百荚鲜质量比青酥5号和沈鲜4号分别高出39.6 g和13.425 g, 百荚粒质量分别高出11.831 g和2.111 g, 而百粒鲜质量分别比青酥5号和沈鲜4号低10.685 g和9.082 g, 二粒荚率分别低6%和4.52%;在间作模式下, 浙鲜豆4号的百荚鲜质量比青酥5号和沈鲜6号分别高出24.914 g和28.833 g, 百荚粒质量分别高出11.743 g和24.635 g, 而百粒鲜质量低18.296 g和3.036 g, 二粒荚率分别低1.95%和6.53%(表 2).

表2 不同种植方式下菜用大豆外观品质 Table 2 Appearance quality of vegetable soybeans in different planting patterns
点击放大
2.2 间作对菜用大豆蛋白质及脂肪的影响

从图 1可以看出, 采用与玉米间作种植的3个品种菜用大豆的蛋白质含量较净作有显著提高, 由净作中353.657~377.837 mg/g提高到360.41~390.413 mg/g.粗脂肪含量有所降低, 但差异并不显著.在3个品种中, 沈鲜6号的蛋白质和精脂肪2种物质含量在2种种植方式中均表现最佳.

图1 不同种植方式下菜用大豆蛋白质和粗脂肪 Fig. 1 Protein and crude fat contents of vegetable soybeans in different planting patterns
2.3 间作对菜用大豆氨基酸的影响

不同品种的游离氨基酸在不同种植方式中有不同表现(表 3), 其中, 浙鲜豆4号的鲜味氨基酸、甜味氨基酸、苦味氨基酸、芳香族氨基酸及总游离氨基酸在间作种植后含量均有所提高；而青酥5号的5类氨基酸含量表现相反, 沈鲜6号各类氨基酸在2种种植方式中的差异不显著.间作中浙鲜豆4号的总游离氨基酸含量较净作中显著升高, 而青酥5号显著降低, 沈鲜6号有一定升高但不显著.

表3 不同种植方式下菜用大豆氨基酸 Table 3 Free amino acid contents of vegetable soybeans in different planting patterns
点击放大
2.4 间作对菜用大豆淀粉和可溶性糖的影响

淀粉含量在不同种植方式和不同品种中差异不显著, 但不同品种含量变化趋势表现不同, 其中沈鲜6号在间作种植方式中淀粉含量有所提高, 而其余2个品种降低.间作后菜用大豆的可溶性糖含量均升高, 其中沈鲜6号差异显著.沈鲜6号的淀粉和可溶性糖含量在净作中的含量均较其余2个品种低, 但在间作种植中均表现最佳(图 2).

图2 不同种植方式下菜用大豆淀粉和可溶性糖 Fig. 2 Starch and soluble sugar contents of vegetable soybeans in different planting patterns
2.5 种植方式与品种互作对菜用大豆品质的影响

2因素方差分析(表 4)表明, 种植方式对菜用大豆的蛋白质含量、可溶性糖、鲜味氨基酸、甜味氨基酸、芳香族氨基酸及总游离氨基酸有显著影响, 而粗脂肪、淀粉和苦味氨基酸含量不受种植方式的影响; 品种对菜用大豆的蛋白质、粗脂肪和各类游离氨基酸含量有显著影响, 对可溶性糖和淀粉无影响; 种植方式和品种2因素的交互作用对蛋白质及各类氨基酸含量均有显著影响, 对粗脂肪、可溶性糖和淀粉无影响.

表4 菜用大豆品质的2因素方差分析 Table 4 Two-way ANOVA analysis of quality for vegetable soybeans
点击放大
2.6 菜用大豆品质性状的相关性分析

由表 5可知, 在净作模式中, 瘪荚数和鲜味氨基酸、甜味氨基酸、淀粉, 蛋白质和淀粉呈显著负相关; 瘪荚数和游离氨基酸, 三粒荚数和芳香族氨基酸、可溶性糖呈极显著负相关; 二粒荚率和粗脂肪, 游离氨基酸和蛋白质、鲜味氨基酸, 甜味氨基酸和淀粉, 芳香族氨基酸和可溶性糖呈极显著正相关.在间作模式中, 百荚鲜质量和二粒荚数、粗脂肪, 瘪荚数和蛋白质, 百粒鲜质量和含水率呈显著负相关; 一粒荚数和淀粉呈极显著负相关; 甜味氨基酸和百荚粒质量、鲜味氨基酸、苦味氨基酸呈显著正相关; 游离氨基酸和百荚粒质量、苦味氨基酸呈极显著正相关.

表5 菜用大豆品质指标的相关性分析 Table 5 Correlation coeffients among quality traits of vegetable soybean
点击放大
3 讨论

亚洲蔬菜研究与发展中心(AVRDC)认为适合做菜用大豆的外观品质应具以下特点:粒大, 百粒质量不少于30 g, 荚大.500 g鲜荚包装不超过175个荚; 粒多, 成品荚每荚粒数应大于2粒; 荚和种子的颜色浅绿.荚上的茸毛较少且为白毛或灰毛, 灰脐或浅褐脐[20].李之国，等[2]研究发现, 菜用大豆外观品质的主要限制因素是百粒鲜质量、百荚鲜质量和二粒荚百分比.大豆产量构成因素主要为每亩株数、每株荚数、每荚粒数、百粒质量, 瘪荚数、一粒荚数、二粒荚数是单株荚数、单株粒数的另一种表现, 荚和粒的大小以及二粒荚、三粒荚, 罗建，等[21]和卢秉升，等[22]研究表明在间作下大豆的株荚数、百粒质量和株粒质量较净作降低.在本研究中, 3个品种菜用大豆的百荚鲜质量、百荚粒质量、二粒荚率和总荚数间作均低于净作, 外观品质和产量下降.间作中浙鲜豆4号的百荚鲜质量、百荚粒质量最高, 但其百粒鲜质量、二粒荚数、二粒荚率最低, 缺乏产量优势, 且与净作相比百荚鲜质量降低28.406 g, 而百粒鲜质量仅增加2.443 g; 青酥5号具有最高的一粒荚数、百粒鲜质量和瘪荚数, 其余指标在3个品种中处于中等水平, 其百荚鲜质量间作与净作相比下降3.72 g, 百粒鲜质量增加11.454 g, 具有相对良好的适应性; 沈鲜6号除二粒荚数和二粒荚率外, 其余指标均处于较低水平, 间作的百荚鲜质量和百粒鲜质量分别比净作降低43.714 g和2.208 g.以上所述, 3个品种在外观品质方面青酥5号表现较优, 浙鲜豆4号次之, 沈鲜6号较差.

一般甜度高的菜用大豆口感好, 对甜味起决定作用的是甜度较高的果糖、葡萄糖和蔗糖等可溶性糖[7].在本研究中, 净作模式表现出含糖量与蛋脂总量呈负相关, 与前人[23]研究结果一致, 但在间作模式中表现出呈正相关, 蛋脂总量高的品种其可溶性糖和淀粉含量也高.蛋白质含量低、油分含量高的品种, 鲜食时质地较为松软, 蛋白质是主要的营养品质, 脂肪经加工时发生一系列如美拉德反应(Maillard reaction)和脂质氧化作用等复杂的化学反应, 产生具有一定挥发性和味觉特性的风味物质, 增加其口感和食味品质[24].游离氨基酸是水溶物质中的呈味物质, 也是香味形成前体物质.有分析表明菜用大豆游离氨基酸的含量比粒用大豆高出1倍[25].氨基酸根据其呈味特征可分为鲜味氨基酸(赖氨酸Lys、谷氨酸Glu、天冬氨酸Asp)、甜味氨基酸(甘氨酸Gly、丙氨酸Ala、丝氨酸Ser、苏氨酸Thr、脯氨酸Pro、组氨酸His)、苦味氨基酸(缬氨酸Val、亮氨酸Leu、异亮氨酸Ile、蛋氨酸Met、色氨酸Trp、精氨酸Arg)和芳香族氨基酸(苯丙氨酸Phe、酪氨酸Tyr、胱氨酸Cys)[26].李秋英，等[27]对30份菜用大豆的研究发现, 菜用大豆采收期籽粒中蛋白质含量平均达426 mg/g, 籽粒中脂肪含量差异较大, 平均含量为185.94 mg/g, 变化范围为143.99~217 mg/g; 可溶性糖平均含量为59.7 mg/g; 菜用大豆籽粒中游离氨基酸平均含量为15.1 mg/g，含量最高的品种可达19.5 mg/g, 比含量最低的品种多出8.0 mg/g.徐兆生，等[9]对55份菜用大豆品质的测定结果表明, 粗蛋白质的含量范围在35.25％～45.48%;淀粉含量的变化范围9.44%~17.28%.在本研究中, 间作的3个菜用大豆品种除青酥5号、沈鲜6号的游离氨基酸含量外各营养品质指标均达到前人研究的平均水平; 间作下, 蛋白质含量显著增加, 可溶性糖含量有所升高, 但差异不显著, 粗脂肪有所降低, 差异也不显著; 在间作中, 浙鲜豆4号的甜味氨基酸、鲜味氨基酸、苦味氨基酸、总游离氨基酸含量和含水率最高, 粗脂肪、可溶性糖、淀粉含量最低; 青酥5号的蛋白质含量最低, 其余指标处于中间水平; 沈鲜6号的蛋白质、粗脂肪、可溶性糖、淀粉含量最高, 各类氨基酸及含水率最低, 可溶性糖、淀粉、游离氨基酸、蛋白质含量高于净作.所以, 沈鲜6号在3个品种中表现出较优的营养品质, 浙鲜豆4号次之, 青酥5号较差.与外观品质相反.

在本研究中, 种植模式和品种均是除对瘪荚数无影响外, 对其余外观品质有显著影响, 种植模式和品种的交互作用对一粒荚数、二粒荚率无影响.在营养品质方面, 种植模式对苦味氨基酸、粗脂肪、淀粉含量无显著影响, 对鲜味氨基酸、蛋白质、可溶性糖影响显著; 品种对可溶性糖、淀粉含量无影响; 两者交互作用对粗脂肪、可溶性糖、淀粉、含水率无影响; 鲜食大豆淀粉含量较稳定, 不受种植模式、品种及其交互作用的影响.在相关分析中, 百荚鲜质量与粗脂肪、百粒鲜质量与含水率呈显著负相关, 百荚粒质量和甜味氨基酸、游离氨基酸呈显著正相关.外观品质与营养、食味品质需进一步协调.

4 结论

与玉米间作种植的菜用大豆, 其外观质量虽然有所降低, 但除游离氨基酸外, 蛋白质、粗脂肪、淀粉和可溶性糖能表现出较好的菜用大豆特性, 品种本身也是差异的来源之一.因此, 在进一步研究间作下菜用大豆品质形成机制的基础上, 筛选适合间作的优质菜用大豆品种是发展该模式的关键.

参考文献
[1] 李锡春. 新鲜果蔬的品质及其分析方法, 1994: 253-255.
LI X C. Quality of Fresh Fruit and its Analytical Method, 1994: 253-255. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2] 李之国, 张彩英, 常文锁. 不同来源菜用大豆的品质研究. 植物遗传资源学报, 2006, 7(2): 183-187.
LI Z G, ZHANG C Y, CHANG W S. Study on quality properties in vegetable soybeans of various sources. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2006, 7(2): 183-187. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3] 张惠君, 敖雪, 王海英, 等. 菜用大豆与普通大豆产量及品质的比较. 大豆科学, 2009, 28(6): 1011-1015.
ZHANG H J, AO X, WANG H Y, et al. Comparison on seed yield and quality among vegetable-type and grain-type soybean [Glycinemax (Merr.) L.] cultivars. Soybean Science, 2009, 28(6): 1011-1015. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4] 王丹英, 汪自强, 方勇, 等. 菜用大豆食昧品质及其与内含物关系研究. 金华职业技术学院学报, 2002, 15(3): 15-18.
WANG D Y, WANG Z Q, FANG Y, et al. Studies on the relationship between vegetable soybean eating quality and its components. Journal of Jinhua Polytechnic, 2002, 15(3): 15-18. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[5] YANAGISAWA Y, AKAZAWA T, ABE T, et al. Changes in free amino and Kjeldahl N concentrations in seeds from vegetable-type and grain-type soybean cultivars during the cropping season. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1997, 45(5): 1720-1724. DOI:10.1021/jf960594i
[6] 张国栋. 青毛豆. 大豆通报, 1994(6): 29.
ZHANG G D. Green soybean. Soybean Bulletin, 1994(6): 29. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7] 张玉梅, 赵晋铭, 王明军, 等. 南方菜用大豆资源营养品质性状的遗传变异. 大豆科学, 2006, 25(3): 239-242.
ZHANG Y M, ZHAO J M, WANG M J, et al. Genetic variation of nutritional quality traits of soybean germplasm resources in south China. Soybean Science, 2006, 25(3): 239-242. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8] RESPONSABLES S. Vegetable soybean: research need for production and quality improvement. Asian Vegetable Research Development Center, 1991, 151: 103-108.
[9] 徐兆生, 王素, 魏民, 等. 菜用大豆种质资源营养品质分析. 作物品种资源, 1995(3): 40-42.
XU Z S, WANG S, WEI M, et al. Analysis of nutritional quality of vegetable soybean germplasm resources. Crop Germplasm Resources, 1995(3): 40-42. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10] 杨文钰, 雍太文, 王小春, 等.大豆玉米时空错位利用栽培方法.CN102067774A, 2011.
YANG W Y, YONG T W, WANG X C, et al. Cultivation method of spatial and temporal dislocation of soybean and maize. CN102067774A, 2011. (in Chinese)
[11] 陈光荣, 张国宏, 王立明, 等. 西北沿黄灌区不同作物间套作大豆产出效果分析. 大豆科学, 2013, 32(5): 614-619.
CHEN G R, ZHANG G H, WANG L M, et al. Quantitative evaluation and analysis on different cropping patterns of soybean in Northwest irrigation districts along Yellow River. Soybean Science, 2013, 32(5): 614-619. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[12] 宁堂原, 焦念元, 安艳艳, 等. 间套作资源集约利用及对产量品质影响研究进展. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(4): 159-163.
NING T Y, JIAO N Y, AN Y Y, et al. Advances in resources intensive utilization, yield and quality in intercropping or relay cropping systems. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2007, 23(4): 159-163. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13] 向达兵, 雍太文, 杨文钰, 等. 不同种植模式对西南坡地水土保持及作物产值的影响. 应用生态学报, 2010, 21(6): 1461-1467.
XIANG D B, YONG T W, YANG W Y, et al. Effects of planting system on soil and water conservation and crop output value in a sloping land of Southwest China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2010, 21(6): 1461-1467. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14] 吕越, 吴普特, 陈小莉, 等. 玉米/大豆间作系统的作物资源竞争. 应用生态学报, 2014, 25(1): 139-145.
LV Y, WU P T, CHEN X L, et al. Resource competition in maize/soybean inter cropping system. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25(1): 139-145. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15] 刘俊利, 唐永金, 梁云云, 等. 玉米、大豆品种及行数对间作大豆产量和品质的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2014, 40(7): 84-85.
LIU J L, TANG Y J, LIANG Y Y, et al. Effects of maize, soybean variety and row number on yield and quality of soybean. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 40(7): 84-85. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16] 赵洪涛, 李初英, 杨守臻, 等. 果蔗间种菜用大豆的主要性状表现及其相关性分析. 大豆科学, 2012, 31(4): 609-621.
ZHAO H T, LI C Y, YANG S Z, et al. Agronomic performance and correlation analysis of vegetable soybean when interplanted with chewing cane. Soybean Science, 2012, 31(4): 609-621. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17] 黄洪明, 吴美娟, 毛协勤. 蔗田问作鲜食春大豆效果与技术措施. 作物杂志, 2011(1): 94-96.
HUANG H M, WU M J, MAO X Q. The Effect and technical measures of vegetable soybean when interplanted in sugarcane field. Crops, 2011(1): 94-96. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18] 熊庆娥. 植物生理学实验教材, 2003: 81-83.
XIONG Q E. Plant Physiology, 2003: 81-83. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19] 卫生部食品卫生监督检验所.GB5009.3—2010食品安全国家标准食品中水分的测定.北京:中国标准出版社, 2010.
Institute of Food Safety Control and Inspection, Ministry of the Public Health. GB 5009.3—2010 National Food Safety Standard Determination of Moisture in Foods. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2010. (in Chinese)
[20] 颜清上, 邵桂花. AVRDC的菜用大豆育种研究. 大豆通报, 2000(5): 27-28.
YAN Q S, SHAO G H. Study on the vegetable soybean breeding of AVRDC. Soybean Bulletin, 2000(5): 27-28. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[21] 罗健, 鲁有均, 唐永金. 间作对大豆主要经济性状的影响及适宜品种筛选. 作物杂志, 2010(6): 109-111.
LUO J, LU Y J, TANG Y J. Effects of intercropping on main economic characters of soybean and screening of suitable varieties. Crops, 2010(6): 109-111. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22] 卢秉生, 李妍妍, 丰光. 玉米大豆间作系统产量与经济效益的分析. 辽宁农业职业技术学院学报, 2006, 8(4): 4-6.
LU B S, LI Y Y, FENG G. Analysis of yield and economic benefit of maize-soybean intercropping system. Journal of Liaoning Agricultural College, 2006, 8(4): 4-6. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23] Association between protein, oil and sugar in vegetable soybean//Paper Presented at the 2nd International Vegetable Soybean Conference, Tacoma: Washington State University, 2001:157-160.
[24] 韩立德.夏播菜用大豆种质资源品质性状鉴定方法、遗传变异及发育过程的研究及发育过程的研究.南京:南京农业大学, 2000.
HAN L D.A study on evaluation method, genetic variation, and developmental process of quality traits in genetic resource of summer-planted vegetable soybean.Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2000.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[25] TSOU S C S. HONG T L. Application of N IRS for quality evaluation of soybean and vegetable soybean. Production of the Symposium on Improving Nutrition Through Soybean. Jilin, China, 1990.
[26] 王艳.食荚菜豆特征风味物质鉴定及主要影响因素研究.吉林:吉林农业大学, 2015.
WANG Y. Identification of characteristic flavour compounds in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. chinensis Hort.) and analysis on influence factors. Jilin: Jilin Agricultural University, 2015. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[27] 张秋英, 李彦生, 刘长锴, 等. 菜用大豆食用品质关键组分及其积累动态研究. 作物学报, 2015, 41(11): 1692-1700.
ZHANG Q Y, LI Y S, LIU C K, et al. Key Components of eating quality and their dynamic accumulation in vegetable soybean varieties [Glycine max (L.) Merr]. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2015, 41(11): 1692-1700. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1006.2015.01692