六十份甘薯种质资源对基腐病的抗性评价与抗病相关指标分析

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20231410

浙江农业学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (7): 1616-1625.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20231410

六十份甘薯种质资源对基腐病的抗性评价与抗病相关指标分析

韩清宇¹(), 程林润², 李月红³, 仇智灵⁴, 后猛⁵, 楼兵干¹^,^*()

1.浙江大学生物技术研究所,浙江杭州 310058
2.金华市农业科学研究院,浙江金华 321017
3.金华市植物保护站,浙江金华 321017
4.杭州市临安区植物检疫站,浙江杭州 311300
5.江苏徐淮地区徐州农业科学研究所,江苏徐州 221131

收稿日期:2023-12-20 出版日期:2024-07-25 发布日期:2024-08-05
作者简介:韩清宇(1999—),女,浙江杭州人,硕士研究生,研究方向为植物真菌病害。E-mail: 415772856@qq.com
通讯作者: *楼兵干,E-mail: bglou@zju.edu.cn

Evaluation of resistance to foot rot and analysis of disease resistance related indexes of 60 sweet potato germplasm resources

HAN Qingyu¹(), CHENG Linrun², LI Yuehong³, QIU Zhiling⁴, HOU Meng⁵, LOU Binggan¹^,^*()

1. Institute of Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058,China
2. Jinhua Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinhua 321017, Zhejiang,China
3. Plant Protection Station of Jinhua City, Jinhua, 321017, Zhejiang, China
4. Hangzhou Lin’an Plant Quarantine Station, Hangzhou 311300, China
5. Xuzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences in Jiangsu Xuhuai District, Xuzhou 221131, Jiangsu, China

Received:2023-12-20 Online:2024-07-25 Published:2024-08-05

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

近年来甘薯基腐病是浙江甘薯生产上发生的重大病害,严重影响了甘薯的产量与品质。本研究旨在发掘高抗基腐病的甘薯栽培品种,并解析抗性相关的生理指标以及抗病相关基因表达特征,为甘薯品种改良提供科学依据。本文采用伤口接种法,对60份不同甘薯种质资源进行了基腐病抗性评价,并分析了抗、感病甘薯品种接种基腐病病原菌后抗氧化酶活性、丙二醛(MDA)含量以及抗病相关基因表达水平的差异。结果表明,60份参试甘薯材料中,仅3份表现为高抗甘薯基腐病,分别为徐D1-26、徐D10-139、J7-44。10份表现为抗病、18份表现为感病、29份表现为高感。甘薯对基腐病病原菌的抗性水平与甘薯抗氧化能力、膜脂过氧化水平以及茉莉酸信号途径调控有关。接种甘薯基腐病病原菌后,高抗品种的过氧化物酶(POD)、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)和过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性明显高于高感品种,接种第120 h,高抗品种POD和SOD活性分别是高感品种的1.81倍和3.75倍,接种后48 h,高抗品种CAT活性是高感品种的2.93倍,而高抗品种MDA含量显著低于高感品种;qRT-PCR分析表明,茉莉酸信号途径调控的抗病相关基因IbWRKY1、IbBBX24和IbNAC1在高抗品种中均表达上调,接种后168 h,其表达量分别是高感品种的2.72倍、3.15倍和1.91倍。

关键词: 甘薯, 种质资源, 甘薯基腐病病原菌, 抗性评价, 抗性指标

Abstract:

Foot rot of sweet potato is the main disease of sweet potato in Zhejiang Province in recent years, which seriously affects the yield and quality of sweet potato. The purpose of this study was to explore sweet potato varieties with high resistance and to explore the characteristics of resistance-related physiological indexes and resistance-related genes, so as to provide scientific basis for the improvement of sweet potato varieties. The resistance to foot rot of 60 sweet potato germplasm resources was determined by wound inoculation method. The representative resistant and susceptible sweet potato varieties were selected to infect the Phomopsis destruens and the differences in the activities of antioxidant enzymes, malondialdehyde (MDA) content and the expression levels of resistance-related genes were analyzed. The results showed that among the 60 sweet potato germplasm resources, 3 varieties were highly resistant to the disease, including Xu D1-26, Xu D10-139, and J7-44. Meanwhile, 10 resistant, 18 susceptible and 29 highly susceptible varieties were identified, respectively. Moreover, the resistance level of sweet potato to foot rot was related to the antioxidant capacity, membrane lipid peroxidation level and jasmonic acid signaling pathway regulation of sweet potato. We found that the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) in highly resistant varieties were significantly increased compared to highly susceptible varieties. By 120 hours post inoculation (hpi), the activities of POD and SOD in highly resistant varieties were 1.81 times and 3.75 times higher than those in highly susceptible varieties, and the activity of CAT in highly resistant varieties was 2.93 times higher by 48 hpi. However, the MDA content of highly resistant varieties was significantly lower than that of highly susceptible varieties. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis showed that expression levels of the resistance-related genes IbWRKY1, IbBBX24 and IbNAC1 were up-regulated by 2.72, 3.15 and 1.91 times in highly resistant varieties compared with highly susceptible varieties at 168 hpi.

Key words: sweet potato, germplasm resource, Phomopsis destruens, resistance evaluation, resistance index

中图分类号:

S531

韩清宇, 程林润, 李月红, 仇智灵, 后猛, 楼兵干. 六十份甘薯种质资源对基腐病的抗性评价与抗病相关指标分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(7): 1616-1625.

HAN Qingyu, CHENG Linrun, LI Yuehong, QIU Zhiling, HOU Meng, LOU Binggan. Evaluation of resistance to foot rot and analysis of disease resistance related indexes of 60 sweet potato germplasm resources[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(7): 1616-1625.

图/表 6

参考文献 27

[1]	马代夫, 李强, 曹清河, 等. 中国甘薯产业及产业技术的发展与展望[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2012, 28(5): 969-973.
	MA D F, LI Q, CAO Q H, et al. Development and prospect of sweetpotato industry and its technologies in China[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 28(5): 969-973.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	黄立飞, 罗忠霞, 房伯平, 等. 我国甘薯新病害-茎腐病的研究初报[J]. 植物病理学报, 2011, 41(1): 18-23.
	HUANG L F, LUO Z X, FANG B P, et al. A new bacterial stem and root rot disease of sweet potato in Guangdong, China[J]. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica, 2011, 41(1): 18-23.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	GAI Y P, MA H J, CHEN X L, et al. Stem blight, foot rot and storage tuber rot of sweet potato caused by Plenodomus destruens in China[J]. Journal of General Plant Pathology, 2016, 82(4): 181-185.
[4]	余继华, 林飞荣, 石建尧, 等. 甘薯2种新入侵有害生物的防控研究[J]. 农学学报, 2019, 9(2): 18-23.
	YU J H, LIN F R, SHI J Y, et al. Prevention and control of two newly-invasive diseases of sweet potato[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2019, 9(2): 18-23.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	HARTER L L. Foot rot, a new disease of the sweet potato[J]. Phytopathology, 1913 (3): 243-245.
[6]	LOPES C A, BOFF P, DUARTE V. Foot rot of sweet-potato in brazil[J]. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 1994, 29(9): 1407-1410.
[7]	MAEDA A, MINOSHIMA A, KAWANO S, et al. Foot rot disease of sweet potato in Japan caused by Diaporthe destruens: first report, pathogenicity and taxonomy[J]. Journal of General Plant Pathology, 2022, 88(1): 33-40.
[8]	黄巧雯, 庄明富, 曾显雄. 由Phomopsis destruens引起甘薯基腐病[J]. 植物病理学会刊, 2012, 21(1): 47-52.
	HUANG Q W, ZHUAG M F, ZENG X Q. Occurrence of foot rot disease of sweet potato caused by Phomopsis destruens in Taiwan[J]. Journal of Plant Pathology, 2012, 21(1): 47-52.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	高岩. 甘薯基腐病病原鉴定与杀菌剂的室内筛选[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2020.
	GAO Y. Identification of sweet potato foot rot pathogens and indoor screening of fungicides[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University, 2020.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	LIU D, WEN J, LIU J, et al. The roles of free radicals in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: reactive oxygen species and elevated oxidation of protein, DNA, and membrane phospholipids[J]. FASEB Journal, 1999, 13(15): 2318-2328.
[11]	刘美艳, 孙厚俊, 王景景, 等. 甘薯块根抗黑斑病酚类物质代谢的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(24): 226-230.
	LIU M Y, SUN H J, WANG J J, et al. The study on phenol metabolism in sweet potato infected by Ceratocystis fimbriata Ellis et Halsted[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2012, 28(24): 226-230.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	刘守伟, 吴凤芝, 马艳玲. 枯萎病菌对不同抗性黄瓜品种几种酶活性的影响[J]. 植物保护, 2009, 35(1): 82-85.
	LIU S W, WU F Z, MA Y L. Effects of Fusarium wilt pathogen on the enzyme activity of cucumber cultivars of different resistance[J]. Plant Protection, 2009, 35(1): 82-85.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	SHINOZAKI K, YAMAGUCHI-SHINOZAKI K, SEKI M. Regulatory network of gene expression in the drought and cold stress responses[J]. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 2003, 6(5): 410-417.
[14]	冯晓晓, 许燎原, 周小军, 等. 甘薯基腐病病原菌分离鉴定及对甘薯品种的致病性测定[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(5): 1001-1003.
	FENG X X, XU L Y, ZHOU X J, et al. Foot rot of sweetpotato: isolation, identification and pathogenicity assessment of sweet potato foot rot disease agent[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 62(5): 1001-1003.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	沈升法, 刘也楠, 李兵, 等. 基于田间自然诱导法的甘薯基腐病种质资源抗性鉴定与评价研究[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2022, 23(4): 985-995.
	SHEN S F, LIU Y N, LI B, et al. Study on identification and evaluation of resistance to foot rot of sweetpotato germplasm resources based on natural field induction method[J]. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 2022, 23(4): 985-995.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	方中达. 植病研究方法[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998.
[17]	ZHANG H, ZHANG Q, ZHAI H, et al. IbBBX24 promotes the jasmonic acid pathway and enhances Fusarium wilt resistance in sweet potato[J]. The Plant Cell, 2020, 32(4): 1102-1123.
[18]	RAJENDRAN S, LIN I W, CHEN M J, et al. Differential activation of sporamin expression in response to abiotic mechanical wounding and biotic herbivore attack in the sweet potato[J]. BMC Plant Biology, 2014, 14: 112.
[19]	BOEREMA G H, LOERAKKER W M, HAMERS MARIA E C. Contributions towards a monograph of Phoma(Coelomycetes)-III 2[J]. Persoonia, 1996, 16(2): 141-189.
[20]	WANG K, LIU F, CAI L. A name list of common agricultural phytopathogenic fungi in China[J]. Mycosystema, 2022, 41(3): 361-386.
[21]	HIROOKA Y, MINOSHIMA A, ROSSMAN A Y. Nomenclatural novelties[J]. Index Fungorum, 2020, 429:1.
[22]	李新, 司龙亭. 黄瓜不同品种苗期感染枯萎病菌后几种酶活性的变化[J]. 华北农学报, 2007, 22(S1): 9-11.
	LI X, SI L T. Changes of several enzyme activities of different cucumber varieties infected with Fusarium oxysporum at seedling stage[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica, 2007, 22(S1): 9-11.(in Chinese)
[23]	WEN F, WU X Z, LI T J, et al. Characterization of the WRKY gene family in Akebia trifoliata and their response to Colletotrichum acutatum[J]. BMC Plant Biology, 2022, 22(1): 115.
[24]	HAO F, YANG G, ZHOU H J, et al. Genome-wide identification and transcriptional expression profiles of transcription factor WRKY in common walnut (Juglans regia L.)[J]. Genes, 2021, 12(9): 1444.
[25]	RIECHMANN J L, HEARD J, MARTIN G, et al. Arabidopsis transcription factors: genome-wide comparative analysis among eukaryotes[J]. Science, 2000, 290(5499): 2105-2110.
[26]	KIEŁBOWICZ-MATUK A. Involvement of plant C₂H₂-type zinc finger transcription factors in stress responses[J]. Plant Science, 2012, 185/186: 78-85.
[27]	MAO C J, HE J M, LIU L N, et al. OsNAC2 integrates auxin and cytokinin pathways to modulate rice root development[J]. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 2020, 18(2): 429-442.

编辑推荐

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

352

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	6	0	0	346

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	267	85
比例	76%	24%

摘要

161

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	160

	来源	本网站

	次数	161
	比例	100%

病级 Grade of disease	标准 Standard
0	无病斑Without lesion
1	0 cm<病斑长度≤3 cm 0 cm<Lesion length≤3 cm
3	3 cm<病斑长度≤6 cm 3 cm<Lesion length≤6 cm
5	病斑长度>6 cm Lesion length>6 cm

病级 Grade of disease	标准 Standard
0	无病斑Without lesion
1	0 cm<病斑长度≤3 cm 0 cm<Lesion length≤3 cm
3	3 cm<病斑长度≤6 cm 3 cm<Lesion length≤6 cm
5	病斑长度>6 cm Lesion length>6 cm

引物 Primers	引物序列(5’-3’) Primer sequences(5’-3’)
β-Actin-F	AGCAGCATGAAGATTAAGGTTGTAGCAC
β-Actin-R	TGGAAAATTAGAAGCACTTCCTGTGAAC
IbBBX24-Q-F	GAGCCACAGCCACCGAAAC
IbBBX24-Q-R	AGGTCATCAACGGCCCAAG
IbWRKY1-F	GGAATTGAGATGGCTGTAGAGTTGTTG
IbWRKY1-R	GAAAACCCACTAACTTGCGGCTGAGA
IbNAC1-F	CGGCCGGGGATACAAATTTGTAAGCTT
IbNAC1-R	GAATCGGAATCCCGGCGGCATCTC

引物 Primers	引物序列(5’-3’) Primer sequences(5’-3’)
β-Actin-F	AGCAGCATGAAGATTAAGGTTGTAGCAC
β-Actin-R	TGGAAAATTAGAAGCACTTCCTGTGAAC
IbBBX24-Q-F	GAGCCACAGCCACCGAAAC
IbBBX24-Q-R	AGGTCATCAACGGCCCAAG
IbWRKY1-F	GGAATTGAGATGGCTGTAGAGTTGTTG
IbWRKY1-R	GAAAACCCACTAACTTGCGGCTGAGA
IbNAC1-F	CGGCCGGGGATACAAATTTGTAAGCTT
IbNAC1-R	GAATCGGAATCCCGGCGGCATCTC

来源 Resource	名称 Name	类型 Typle	病情指数DI				抗性等级RG
来源 Resource	名称 Name	类型 Typle	14 d	21 d	28d	42 d	28 d	42 d
金华市农业科学研究院	金20-17 Jin20-17	淀粉型Starch type	0	2	2	6	HR	R
Jinhua Academy of	济薯26 Jishu26	鲜食型Fresh-eating type	0	2	8	10	R	R
Agricultural Sciences	薯绿1号Shulv 1	菜用型Vegetable use type	2	2	8	12	R	S
	金徐薯69 Jinxushu 69	鲜食型Fresh-eating type	4	8	12	16	S	S
	金21-16新苗Jin21-16xin	淀粉型Starch type	0	10	14	22	S	HS
	金20-3 Jin20-3	淀粉型Starch type	4	8	16	22	S	HS
	金20-6 Jin20-6	淀粉型Starch type	4	6	18	22	S	HS
	金16S1-39 Jin16S1-39	淀粉型Starch type	2	8	22	22	HS	HS
	金徐薯22 Jinxushu 22	淀粉型Starch type	2	12	18	24	S	HS
	金18S3-18 Jin18S3-18	淀粉型Starch type	4	10	14	26	S	HS
	金17A-22 Jin17A-22	淀粉型Starch type	6	14	24	30	HS	HS
	金18S2-64 Jin18S2-64	淀粉型Starch type	4	12	22	30	HS	HS
	金徐薯67 Jinxushu 67	淀粉型Starch type	0	6	18	32	S	HS
	烟薯25 Yanshu 25	鲜食型Fresh-eating type	2	14	20	34	S	HS
	金徐薯23 Jinxushu 23	淀粉型Starch type	4	10	12	34	S	HS
	金21-16假植苗Jin21-16jia	淀粉型Starch type	8	16	26	40	HS	HS
	金薯926 Jinshu926	鲜食型Fresh-eating type	6	14	34	42	HS	HS
	金18S4-2 Jin18S4-2	淀粉型Starch type	8	10	20	44	HS	HS
	金18S1-14 Jin18S1-14	淀粉型Starch type	8	18	34	50	HS	HS
	金17A-39 Jin17A-39	淀粉型Starch type	0	16	36	54	HS	HS
	济薯21 Jishu 21	淀粉型Starch type	0	16	38	62	HS	HS
	浙薯13 Zheshu 13	鲜食型Fresh-eating type	18	28	46	70	HS	HS
徐州农业科学研究所	J7-44	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	0	0	0	HR	HR
Xuzhou Institute of	徐D10-139 Xu D10-139	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	0	0	0	HR	HR
Agricultural Sciences	徐D1-26 Xu D1-26	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	0	4	4	HR	HR
	徐D1-248 Xu D1-248	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	0	2	6	HR	R
	徐42 Xu 42	淀粉型Starch type	0	0	4	6	HR	R
	徐D6-118 Xu D6-118	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	0	4	8	HR	R
	徐D11-80 Xu D11-80	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	2	8	8	R	R
	徐E21-21 Xu E21-21	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	0	6	8	R	R
	徐F10-311 XuF10-311	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	2	6	8	R	R
	徐D1-95 Xu D1-95	兼用型Dual-purpose type	2	6	8	8	R	R
	徐紫12 Xuzi12	高花青素High anthocyanin	0	6	8	10	R	R
	徐D6-111 Xu D6-111	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	2	10	12	R	S
	徐41 Xu 41	淀粉型Starch type	4	6	10	12	R	S
	徐F10-295 Xu F10-295	兼用型Dual-purpose type	2	8	10	14	R	S
	徐D6-140 Xu D6-140	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	8	10	14	R	S
	徐D6-24 Xu D6-24	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	0	8	16	R	S
	徐紫11 Xuzi 11	高花青素High anthocyanin	0	2	12	16	S	S
	徐紫7 Xuzi 7	高花青素High anthocyanin	0	4	8	16	R	S
	徐D11-49 Xu D11-49	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	10	14	16	S	S
	徐D10-152 Xu D10-152	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	10	16	16	S	S
	徐D1-243 Xu D1-243	兼用型Dual-purpose type	6	8	12	16	S	S
	徐紫10 Xuzi 10	高花青素High anthocyanin	0	2	8	18	R	S
	J3-24	兼用型Hual-purpose type	6	8	12	18	S	S
	J10-68	兼用型Hual-purpose type	0	0	16	18	S	S
	徐紫8 Xuzi 8	高花青素High anthocyanin	0	0	12	20	S	S
	徐37 Xu 37	淀粉型Starch type	0	10	18	20	S	S
	J9-25	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	8	14	20	S	S
	D10-81	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	12	18	22	S	HS
	徐B21-38 Xu B21-38	兼用型Dual-purpose type	8	12	20	22	S	HS
	K4-1	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	0	18	24	S	HS
	徐A6-30 Xu A6-30	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	10	22	24	HS	HS
	E21-46	兼用型Dual-purpose type	6	12	26	28	HS	HS
	徐E21-74 Xu E21-74	兼用型Dual-purpose type	8	14	22	28	HS	HS
	徐28 Xu 28	淀粉型Starch type	4	12	26	28	HS	HS
	J12-33	兼用型Dual-purpose type	0	18	26	28	HS	HS
	徐F6-36 Xu F6-36	兼用型Dual-purpose type	8	18	30	34	HS	HS
	F10-23	兼用型Dual-purpose type	10	24	36	38	HS	HS
	J10-49	兼用型Dual-purpose type	10	28	38	42	HS	HS

六十份甘薯种质资源对基腐病的抗性评价与抗病相关指标分析

Evaluation of resistance to foot rot and analysis of disease resistance related indexes of 60 sweet potato germplasm resources

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 27

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	沈升法, 项超, 孟羽莎, 李兵, 吴列洪. 高光效甘薯品种浙薯86的选育、产量与品质特征[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(7): 1469-1480.
[2]	李清超, 杨珊, 张登峰, 刘建新, 孙开利, 吴迅. 四百八十七份玉米地方种质资源穗部性状的表型多样性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(7): 1481-1491.
[3]	汪宝根, 陈小央, 吴健, 李潇, 汪颖, 王尖, 吴晓花, 鲁忠富, 孙玉燕, 董文其, 李国景, 吴新义. 浙江豇豆地方品种的遗传多样性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(7): 1569-1582.
[4]	朱艳宇, 于文涛, 高水练, 吕水源, 王攀, 靳宛旻, 贵文静, 林浥, 叶乃兴. 福建安溪茶树种质资源遗传多样性与铁观音衍生品种遗传关系[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(7): 1591-1601.
[5]	柴荣耀, 游雨欣, 邱海萍, 郭峻宁, 张震, 李斌, 沈升法, 王艳丽. 甘薯抗茎腐病鉴定技术的建立及种质资源抗性分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(3): 569-578.
[6]	张小利, 朱灵龙, 李付振, 唐秀梅, 夏友霖, 游宇, 钟瑞春. 115份花生种质资源农艺与品质性状鉴评及分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(9): 2033-2044.
[7]	潘攀, 张建华, 郑晓明, 周国民, 胡林, 冯全, 柴秀娟. 深度学习在作物及其近缘种抗病性智能鉴定上的研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(8): 1993-2012.
[8]	白鼎臣, 赵支飞, 龚雪, 刘源, 牛素贞, 陈正武. 贵州栽培型地方茶树叶片气孔性状全基因组关联分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(7): 1550-1563.
[9]	卜远鹏, 刘娜, 张古文, 冯志娟, 王斌, 龚亚明, 许林英. 菜用大豆种质资源的农艺性状多样性评价及核心种质与食味品质评价体系的构建[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(6): 1307-1314.
[10]	戚建莉, 张荣, 吴文俊, 姜成英, 赵梦炯, 金高明, 陈炜青. 油橄榄种质资源表型性状多样性分析与评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(5): 1001-1015.
[11]	罗勤川, 唐伟, 马居奎, 陈晶伟, 杨冬静, 高方园, 孙厚俊, 谢逸萍, 张成玲. 腐皮镰刀菌侵染甘薯的转录组分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(5): 1097-1107.
[12]	朱丽, 薛新如, 梁宗旭, 许琳玉, 余国峰, 唐懿, 李焕秀. 辣椒种质资源辣椒素含量与农艺性状的相关性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(4): 862-872.
[13]	孟羽莎, 王寅, 赖齐贤, 刘雷, 项超, 吴永华, 郑嫣然, 顾兴国, 方豪, 苗苗, 吴列洪, 汤勇. 甘薯近缘野生种ISBP分子标记的开发及其在遗传多样性分析和品种鉴定中的应用[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2023, 35(3): 489-498.
[14]	郑福顺, 王晓敏, 李国花, 李洪磊, 刘珮君, 胡新华, 付金军. 宁夏地区番茄种质资源核心种质构建策略[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1877-1888.
[15]	杨海龙, 王晖, 雷锦超, 蔡金洋. 浙江省早籼稻种质资源的表型多样性分析与评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(8): 1571-1581.