Acta Horticulturae Sinica ›› 2025, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (7): 1817-1827.doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2024-0501
• Genetic & Breeding·Germplasm Resources·Molecular Biology • Previous Articles Next Articles
					
													ZHONG  Shengyuan1, LUO  Yuting2, CHEN  Jianfeng1, ZHONG  Haifeng1, CHEN  Yuhua1, and  LIU Zhonghua1,*(
)
												  
						
						
						
					
				
Received:2024-07-15
															
							
																	Revised:2024-11-09
															
							
															
							
																	Online:2025-07-23
															
							
																	Published:2025-07-23
															
						Contact:
								and  LIU Zhonghua   
																					ZHONG Shengyuan, LUO Yuting, CHEN Jianfeng, ZHONG Haifeng, CHEN Yuhua, and LIU Zhonghua. Grading of Quantitative Traits and Genetic Diversity in DUS Test of Phalaenopsis Cultivars[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(7): 1817-1827.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.ahs.ac.cn/EN/10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2024-0501
| 代码 Code | 性状 Trait  |  平均值Mean | 最大值 Max  |  最小值 Min  |  LSD0.05 | 级差(× LSD0.05) Classification range  |  分级数 Level  | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 植株大小/cm Plant length | 32.37 | 55.98 | 17.34 | 2.435 | 2 | 9 | 
| C2 | 叶长/cm Leaf length | 19.72 | 34.05 | 10.02 | 1.264 | 2 | 9 | 
| C3 | 叶宽/cm Leaf width | 7.43 | 10.77 | 4.10 | 0.394 | 2 | 9 | 
| C4 | 花序长/cm Inflorescence length | 18.55 | 50.96 | 3.50 | 3.167 | 2 | 9 | 
| C5 | 花数量 Flower number | 11.21 | 56.10 | 3.80 | 2.064 | 2 | 9 | 
| C6 | 花序梗长/cm Peduncle length | 30.76 | 62.12 | 4.86 | 2.740 | 2 | 9 | 
| C7 | 花序梗粗/cm Peduncle width | 0.50 | 0.88 | 0.20 | 0.036 | 2 | 9 | 
| C8 | 花长/cm Flower length | 6.78 | 10.96 | 2.32 | 0.297 | 4 | 9 | 
| C9 | 花宽/cm Flower width | 7.90 | 13.26 | 2.04 | 0.291 | 4 | 9 | 
| C10 | 萼片长/cm Dorsal sepal length | 4.02 | 6.57 | 1.20 | 0.158 | 4 | 9 | 
| C11 | 萼片宽/cm Dorsal sepal width | 3.03 | 5.35 | 0.64 | 0.142 | 4 | 9 | 
| C12 | 花瓣长/cm Petal length | 3.80 | 6.52 | 1.04 | 0.147 | 4 | 9 | 
| C13 | 花瓣宽/cm Petal width | 4.57 | 7.94 | 0.59 | 0.182 | 4 | 9 | 
| C14 | 中裂片长/cm Apical lobe length | 2.10 | 3.44 | 0.87 | 0.065 | 4 | 9 | 
| C15 | 中裂片宽/cm Apical lobe width | 2.01 | 3.09 | 0.85 | 0.065 | 4 | 9 | 
Table 1 Gradation and quantitative traits of Phalaenopsis cultivars
| 代码 Code | 性状 Trait  |  平均值Mean | 最大值 Max  |  最小值 Min  |  LSD0.05 | 级差(× LSD0.05) Classification range  |  分级数 Level  | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 植株大小/cm Plant length | 32.37 | 55.98 | 17.34 | 2.435 | 2 | 9 | 
| C2 | 叶长/cm Leaf length | 19.72 | 34.05 | 10.02 | 1.264 | 2 | 9 | 
| C3 | 叶宽/cm Leaf width | 7.43 | 10.77 | 4.10 | 0.394 | 2 | 9 | 
| C4 | 花序长/cm Inflorescence length | 18.55 | 50.96 | 3.50 | 3.167 | 2 | 9 | 
| C5 | 花数量 Flower number | 11.21 | 56.10 | 3.80 | 2.064 | 2 | 9 | 
| C6 | 花序梗长/cm Peduncle length | 30.76 | 62.12 | 4.86 | 2.740 | 2 | 9 | 
| C7 | 花序梗粗/cm Peduncle width | 0.50 | 0.88 | 0.20 | 0.036 | 2 | 9 | 
| C8 | 花长/cm Flower length | 6.78 | 10.96 | 2.32 | 0.297 | 4 | 9 | 
| C9 | 花宽/cm Flower width | 7.90 | 13.26 | 2.04 | 0.291 | 4 | 9 | 
| C10 | 萼片长/cm Dorsal sepal length | 4.02 | 6.57 | 1.20 | 0.158 | 4 | 9 | 
| C11 | 萼片宽/cm Dorsal sepal width | 3.03 | 5.35 | 0.64 | 0.142 | 4 | 9 | 
| C12 | 花瓣长/cm Petal length | 3.80 | 6.52 | 1.04 | 0.147 | 4 | 9 | 
| C13 | 花瓣宽/cm Petal width | 4.57 | 7.94 | 0.59 | 0.182 | 4 | 9 | 
| C14 | 中裂片长/cm Apical lobe length | 2.10 | 3.44 | 0.87 | 0.065 | 4 | 9 | 
| C15 | 中裂片宽/cm Apical lobe width | 2.01 | 3.09 | 0.85 | 0.065 | 4 | 9 | 
| 代码 Code  |  分级范围 Grading range | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| C1 | ≤ 15.29 | 15.29 ~ 20.17 | 20.17 ~ 25.05 | 25.05 ~ 29.93 | 29.93 ~ 34.81 | 34.81 ~ 39.69 | 39.69 ~ 44.57 | 44.57 ~ 49.45 | > 49.45 | 
| (0%) | (2.6%) | (10.6%) | (26.0%) | (27.6%) | (19.0%) | (10.6%) | (2.2%) | (1.4%) | |
| C2 | ≤ 10.89 | 10.89 ~ 13.41 | 13.41 ~ 15.93 | 15.93 ~ 18.45 | 18.45 ~ 20.97 | 20.97 ~ 23.49 | 23.49 ~ 26.01 | 26.01 ~ 28.53 | > 28.53 | 
| (0.7%) | (3.8%) | (15.4%) | (20.2%) | (20.4%) | (21.2%) | (11.8%) | (4.8%) | (1.7%) | |
| C3 | ≤ 4.63 | 4.63 ~ 5.43 | 5.43 ~ 6.23 | 6.23 ~ 7.03 | 7.03 ~ 7.83 | 7.83 ~ 8.63 | 8.63 ~ 9.43 | 9.43 ~ 10.23 | > 10.23 | 
| (1.4%) | (3.6%) | (12.7%) | (19.7%) | (23.6%) | (22.8%) | (9.9%) | (5.5%) | (0.7%) | |
| C4 | ≤ 6.34 | 6.34 ~ 12.68 | 12.68 ~ 19.02 | 19.02 ~ 25.36 | 25.36 ~ 31.7 | 31.7 ~ 38.04 | 38.04 ~ 44.38 | 44.38 ~ 50.72 | > 50.72 | 
| (1.4%) | (19.7%) | (40.9%) | (20.9%) | (10.3%) | (4.8%) | (1.2%) | (0.5%) | (0.2%) | |
| C5 | ≤ 4.14 | 4.14 ~ 8.28 | 8.28 ~ 12.42 | 12.42 ~ 16.56 | 16.56 ~ 20.7 | 20.7 ~ 24.84 | 24.84 ~ 28.98 | 28.98 ~ 33.12 | > 33.12 | 
| (0.7%) | (41.6%) | (31.3%) | (11.1%) | (6.3%) | (4.8%) | (1.9%) | (0.5%) | (1.9%) | |
| C6 | ≤ 11.58 | 11.58 ~ 17.06 | 17.06 ~ 22.54 | 22.54 ~ 28.02 | 28.02 ~ 33.5 | 33.5 ~ 38.98 | 38.98 ~ 44.46 | 44.46 ~ 49.94 | > 49.94 | 
| (4.3%) | (10.1%) | (15.9%) | (14.9%) | (13.2%) | (13.9%) | (12.5%) | (8.4%) | (6.7%) | |
| C7 | ≤ 0.251 | 0.251 ~ 0.323 | 0.323 ~ 0.395 | 0.395 ~ 0.467 | 0.467 ~ 0.539 | 0.539 ~ 0.611 | 0.611 ~ 0.683 | 0.683 ~ 0.755 | > 0.755 | 
| (1.0%) | (1.9%) | (11.5%) | (25.0%) | (27.9%) | (15.9%) | (11.5%) | (3.4%) | (1.9%) | |
| C8 | ≤ 2.58 | 2.58 ~ 3.78 | 3.78 ~ 4.98 | 4.98 ~ 6.18 | 6.18 ~ 7.38 | 7.38 ~ 8.58 | 8.58 ~ 9.78 | 9.78 ~ 10.98 | > 10.98 | 
| (0.5%) | (3.8%) | (12.7%) | (20.2%) | (21.6%) | (25.5%) | (12.7%) | (2.9%) | (0%) | |
| C9 | ≤ 3.7 | 3.7 ~ 4.9 | 4.9 ~ 6.1 | 6.1 ~ 7.3 | 7.3 ~ 8.5 | 8.5 ~ 9.7 | 9.7 ~ 10.9 | 10.9 ~ 12.1 | > 12.1 | 
| (1.9%) | (8.7%) | (13.5%) | (16.1%) | (16.6%) | (19.5%) | (15.9%) | (6.3%) | (1.7%) | |
| C10 | ≤ 1.78 | 1.78 ~ 2.42 | 2.42 ~ 3.06 | 3.06 ~ 3.7 | 3.7 ~ 4.34 | 4.34 ~ 4.98 | 4.98 ~ 5.62 | 5.62 ~ 6.26 | > 6.26 | 
| (1.4%) | (5.8%) | (14.4%) | (17.1%) | (19.5%) | (20.0%) | (16.6%) | (4.8%) | (0.5%) | |
| C11 | ≤ 0.93 | 0.93 ~ 1.53 | 1.53 ~ 2.13 | 2.13 ~ 2.73 | 2.73 ~ 3.33 | 3.33 ~ 3.93 | 3.93 ~ 4.53 | 4.53 ~ 5.13 | > 5.13 | 
| (0.7%) | (3.6%) | (12.5%) | (25.5%) | (20.4%) | (18.3%) | (12.7%) | (5.3%) | (1.0%) | |
| C12 | ≤ 1.7 | 1.7 ~ 2.3 | 2.3 ~ 2.9 | 2.9 ~ 3.5 | 3.5 ~ 4.1 | 4.1 ~ 4.7 | 4.7 ~ 5.3 | 5.3 ~ 5.9 | > 5.9 | 
| (1.4%) | (7.2%) | (15.9%) | (15.1%) | (18.0%) | (18.0%) | (17.1%) | (6.3%) | (1.0%) | |
| C13 | ≤ 1.91 | 1.91 ~ 2.67 | 2.67 ~ 3.43 | 3.43 ~ 4.19 | 4.19 ~ 4.95 | 4.95 ~ 5.71 | 5.71 ~ 6.47 | 6.47 ~ 7.23 | > 7.23 | 
| (3.1%) | (12.7%) | (14.9%) | (12.3%) | (13.5%) | (13.9%) | (14.7%) | (10.8%) | (4.1%) | |
| C14 | ≤ 1.12 | 1.12 ~ 1.4 | 1.4-1.68 | 1.68 ~ 1.96 | 1.96 ~ 2.24 | 2.24 ~ 2.52 | 2.52 ~ 2.8 | 2.8 ~ 3.08 | > 3.08 | 
| (0.2%) | (1.9%) | (12.7%) | (22.4%) | (26.9%) | (24.3%) | (9.1%) | (1.9%) | (0.5%) | |
| C15 | ≤ 1.03 | 1.03 ~ 1.31 | 1.31 ~ 1.59 | 1.59 ~ 1.87 | 1.87 ~ 2.15 | 2.15 ~ 2.43 | 2.43 ~ 2.71 | 2.71 ~ 2.99 | > 2.99 | 
| (1.2%) | (7.0%) | (12.5%) | (19.5%) | (20.4%) | (19.5%) | (14.7%) | (4.8%) | (0.5%) | |
Table 2 Grading range and distribution frequency of quantitative traits of Phalaenopsis cultivars
| 代码 Code  |  分级范围 Grading range | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| C1 | ≤ 15.29 | 15.29 ~ 20.17 | 20.17 ~ 25.05 | 25.05 ~ 29.93 | 29.93 ~ 34.81 | 34.81 ~ 39.69 | 39.69 ~ 44.57 | 44.57 ~ 49.45 | > 49.45 | 
| (0%) | (2.6%) | (10.6%) | (26.0%) | (27.6%) | (19.0%) | (10.6%) | (2.2%) | (1.4%) | |
| C2 | ≤ 10.89 | 10.89 ~ 13.41 | 13.41 ~ 15.93 | 15.93 ~ 18.45 | 18.45 ~ 20.97 | 20.97 ~ 23.49 | 23.49 ~ 26.01 | 26.01 ~ 28.53 | > 28.53 | 
| (0.7%) | (3.8%) | (15.4%) | (20.2%) | (20.4%) | (21.2%) | (11.8%) | (4.8%) | (1.7%) | |
| C3 | ≤ 4.63 | 4.63 ~ 5.43 | 5.43 ~ 6.23 | 6.23 ~ 7.03 | 7.03 ~ 7.83 | 7.83 ~ 8.63 | 8.63 ~ 9.43 | 9.43 ~ 10.23 | > 10.23 | 
| (1.4%) | (3.6%) | (12.7%) | (19.7%) | (23.6%) | (22.8%) | (9.9%) | (5.5%) | (0.7%) | |
| C4 | ≤ 6.34 | 6.34 ~ 12.68 | 12.68 ~ 19.02 | 19.02 ~ 25.36 | 25.36 ~ 31.7 | 31.7 ~ 38.04 | 38.04 ~ 44.38 | 44.38 ~ 50.72 | > 50.72 | 
| (1.4%) | (19.7%) | (40.9%) | (20.9%) | (10.3%) | (4.8%) | (1.2%) | (0.5%) | (0.2%) | |
| C5 | ≤ 4.14 | 4.14 ~ 8.28 | 8.28 ~ 12.42 | 12.42 ~ 16.56 | 16.56 ~ 20.7 | 20.7 ~ 24.84 | 24.84 ~ 28.98 | 28.98 ~ 33.12 | > 33.12 | 
| (0.7%) | (41.6%) | (31.3%) | (11.1%) | (6.3%) | (4.8%) | (1.9%) | (0.5%) | (1.9%) | |
| C6 | ≤ 11.58 | 11.58 ~ 17.06 | 17.06 ~ 22.54 | 22.54 ~ 28.02 | 28.02 ~ 33.5 | 33.5 ~ 38.98 | 38.98 ~ 44.46 | 44.46 ~ 49.94 | > 49.94 | 
| (4.3%) | (10.1%) | (15.9%) | (14.9%) | (13.2%) | (13.9%) | (12.5%) | (8.4%) | (6.7%) | |
| C7 | ≤ 0.251 | 0.251 ~ 0.323 | 0.323 ~ 0.395 | 0.395 ~ 0.467 | 0.467 ~ 0.539 | 0.539 ~ 0.611 | 0.611 ~ 0.683 | 0.683 ~ 0.755 | > 0.755 | 
| (1.0%) | (1.9%) | (11.5%) | (25.0%) | (27.9%) | (15.9%) | (11.5%) | (3.4%) | (1.9%) | |
| C8 | ≤ 2.58 | 2.58 ~ 3.78 | 3.78 ~ 4.98 | 4.98 ~ 6.18 | 6.18 ~ 7.38 | 7.38 ~ 8.58 | 8.58 ~ 9.78 | 9.78 ~ 10.98 | > 10.98 | 
| (0.5%) | (3.8%) | (12.7%) | (20.2%) | (21.6%) | (25.5%) | (12.7%) | (2.9%) | (0%) | |
| C9 | ≤ 3.7 | 3.7 ~ 4.9 | 4.9 ~ 6.1 | 6.1 ~ 7.3 | 7.3 ~ 8.5 | 8.5 ~ 9.7 | 9.7 ~ 10.9 | 10.9 ~ 12.1 | > 12.1 | 
| (1.9%) | (8.7%) | (13.5%) | (16.1%) | (16.6%) | (19.5%) | (15.9%) | (6.3%) | (1.7%) | |
| C10 | ≤ 1.78 | 1.78 ~ 2.42 | 2.42 ~ 3.06 | 3.06 ~ 3.7 | 3.7 ~ 4.34 | 4.34 ~ 4.98 | 4.98 ~ 5.62 | 5.62 ~ 6.26 | > 6.26 | 
| (1.4%) | (5.8%) | (14.4%) | (17.1%) | (19.5%) | (20.0%) | (16.6%) | (4.8%) | (0.5%) | |
| C11 | ≤ 0.93 | 0.93 ~ 1.53 | 1.53 ~ 2.13 | 2.13 ~ 2.73 | 2.73 ~ 3.33 | 3.33 ~ 3.93 | 3.93 ~ 4.53 | 4.53 ~ 5.13 | > 5.13 | 
| (0.7%) | (3.6%) | (12.5%) | (25.5%) | (20.4%) | (18.3%) | (12.7%) | (5.3%) | (1.0%) | |
| C12 | ≤ 1.7 | 1.7 ~ 2.3 | 2.3 ~ 2.9 | 2.9 ~ 3.5 | 3.5 ~ 4.1 | 4.1 ~ 4.7 | 4.7 ~ 5.3 | 5.3 ~ 5.9 | > 5.9 | 
| (1.4%) | (7.2%) | (15.9%) | (15.1%) | (18.0%) | (18.0%) | (17.1%) | (6.3%) | (1.0%) | |
| C13 | ≤ 1.91 | 1.91 ~ 2.67 | 2.67 ~ 3.43 | 3.43 ~ 4.19 | 4.19 ~ 4.95 | 4.95 ~ 5.71 | 5.71 ~ 6.47 | 6.47 ~ 7.23 | > 7.23 | 
| (3.1%) | (12.7%) | (14.9%) | (12.3%) | (13.5%) | (13.9%) | (14.7%) | (10.8%) | (4.1%) | |
| C14 | ≤ 1.12 | 1.12 ~ 1.4 | 1.4-1.68 | 1.68 ~ 1.96 | 1.96 ~ 2.24 | 2.24 ~ 2.52 | 2.52 ~ 2.8 | 2.8 ~ 3.08 | > 3.08 | 
| (0.2%) | (1.9%) | (12.7%) | (22.4%) | (26.9%) | (24.3%) | (9.1%) | (1.9%) | (0.5%) | |
| C15 | ≤ 1.03 | 1.03 ~ 1.31 | 1.31 ~ 1.59 | 1.59 ~ 1.87 | 1.87 ~ 2.15 | 2.15 ~ 2.43 | 2.43 ~ 2.71 | 2.71 ~ 2.99 | > 2.99 | 
| (1.2%) | (7.0%) | (12.5%) | (19.5%) | (20.4%) | (19.5%) | (14.7%) | (4.8%) | (0.5%) | |
| 代码 Code  |  性状 Trait  |  变异幅度 Variation range  |  变异系数/% Coefficient of variation | Shannon’s指数 I  |  Simpson指数 Simpson index  | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 品种间 Between the cultivars  |  品种内 Within the cultivars  | |||||
| C1 | 植株大小/cm Plant length | 50.00 | 20.45 | 7.59 | 1.736 | 0.796 | 
| C2 | 叶长/cm Leaf length | 29.40 | 20.58 | 6.38 | 1.892 | 0.831 | 
| C3 | 叶宽/cm Leaf width | 8.10 | 17.02 | 5.41 | 1.865 | 0.823 | 
| C4 | 花序长/cm Inflorescence length | 54.00 | 40.64 | 17.07 | 1.548 | 0.737 | 
| C5 | 花数量 Flower number | 66.00 | 58.87 | 13.90 | 1.504 | 0.710 | 
| C6 | 花序梗长/cm Peduncle length | 65.30 | 39.18 | 10.37 | 2.135 | 0.876 | 
| C7 | 花序梗粗/cm Peduncle width | 0.81 | 21.49 | 7.25 | 1.804 | 0.806 | 
| C8 | 花长/cm Flower length | 10.20 | 25.67 | 4.32 | 1.781 | 0.813 | 
| C9 | 花宽/cm Flower width | 12.60 | 27.82 | 3.63 | 2.002 | 0.853 | 
| C10 | 萼片长/cm Dorsal sepal length | 5.90 | 26.78 | 3.96 | 1.916 | 0.839 | 
| C11 | 萼片宽/cm Dorsal sepal width | 5.30 | 30.58 | 4.69 | 1.861 | 0.824 | 
| C12 | 花瓣长/cm Petal length | 5.70 | 28.29 | 3.81 | 1.966 | 0.848 | 
| C13 | 花瓣宽/cm Petal width | 8.40 | 35.96 | 3.91 | 2.109 | 0.873 | 
| C14 | 中裂片长/cm Apical lobe length | 2.80 | 17.66 | 3.13 | 1.705 | 0.793 | 
| C15 | 中裂片宽/cm Apical lobe width | 2.50 | 23.00 | 3.39 | 1.913 | 0.838 | 
Table 3 Analysis of variation degree of the quantitative traits of Phalaenopsis
| 代码 Code  |  性状 Trait  |  变异幅度 Variation range  |  变异系数/% Coefficient of variation | Shannon’s指数 I  |  Simpson指数 Simpson index  | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 品种间 Between the cultivars  |  品种内 Within the cultivars  | |||||
| C1 | 植株大小/cm Plant length | 50.00 | 20.45 | 7.59 | 1.736 | 0.796 | 
| C2 | 叶长/cm Leaf length | 29.40 | 20.58 | 6.38 | 1.892 | 0.831 | 
| C3 | 叶宽/cm Leaf width | 8.10 | 17.02 | 5.41 | 1.865 | 0.823 | 
| C4 | 花序长/cm Inflorescence length | 54.00 | 40.64 | 17.07 | 1.548 | 0.737 | 
| C5 | 花数量 Flower number | 66.00 | 58.87 | 13.90 | 1.504 | 0.710 | 
| C6 | 花序梗长/cm Peduncle length | 65.30 | 39.18 | 10.37 | 2.135 | 0.876 | 
| C7 | 花序梗粗/cm Peduncle width | 0.81 | 21.49 | 7.25 | 1.804 | 0.806 | 
| C8 | 花长/cm Flower length | 10.20 | 25.67 | 4.32 | 1.781 | 0.813 | 
| C9 | 花宽/cm Flower width | 12.60 | 27.82 | 3.63 | 2.002 | 0.853 | 
| C10 | 萼片长/cm Dorsal sepal length | 5.90 | 26.78 | 3.96 | 1.916 | 0.839 | 
| C11 | 萼片宽/cm Dorsal sepal width | 5.30 | 30.58 | 4.69 | 1.861 | 0.824 | 
| C12 | 花瓣长/cm Petal length | 5.70 | 28.29 | 3.81 | 1.966 | 0.848 | 
| C13 | 花瓣宽/cm Petal width | 8.40 | 35.96 | 3.91 | 2.109 | 0.873 | 
| C14 | 中裂片长/cm Apical lobe length | 2.80 | 17.66 | 3.13 | 1.705 | 0.793 | 
| C15 | 中裂片宽/cm Apical lobe width | 2.50 | 23.00 | 3.39 | 1.913 | 0.838 | 
| 性状Trait | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | C12 | C13 | C14 | C15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| C2 | 0.927** | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| C3 | 0.593** | 0.617** | 1 | |||||||||||||
| C4 | 0.523** | 0.498** | 0.465** | 1 | ||||||||||||
| C5 | -0.155** | -0.169** | -0.158** | 0.274** | 1 | |||||||||||
| C6 | 0.667** | 0.687** | 0.592** | 0.363** | -0.458** | 1 | ||||||||||
| C7 | 0.656** | 0.634** | 0.642** | 0.586** | -0.118* | 0.623** | 1 | |||||||||
| C8 | 0.652** | 0.675** | 0.589** | 0.369** | -0.546** | 0.807** | 0.619** | 1 | ||||||||
| C9 | 0.653** | 0.674** | 0.593** | 0.411** | -0.512** | 0.827** | 0.651** | 0.972** | 1 | |||||||
| C10 | 0.653** | 0.673** | 0.599** | 0.407** | -0.528** | 0.827** | 0.650** | 0.975** | 0.988** | 1 | ||||||
| C11 | 0.623** | 0.634** | 0.601** | 0.418** | -0.470** | 0.792** | 0.681** | 0.915** | 0.952** | 0.957** | 1 | |||||
| C12 | 0.646** | 0.666** | 0.597** | 0.406** | -0.511** | 0.816** | 0.645** | 0.967** | 0.992** | 0.989** | 0.946** | 1 | ||||
| C13 | 0.625** | 0.637** | 0.572** | 0.430** | -0.462** | 0.819** | 0.664** | 0.928** | 0.971** | 0.964** | 0.957** | 0.972** | 1 | |||
| C14 | 0.586** | 0.598** | 0.556** | 0.371** | -0.456** | 0.741** | 0.606** | 0.864** | 0.876** | 0.875** | 0.839** | 0.885** | 0.875** | 1 | ||
| C15 | 0.597** | 0.594** | 0.554** | 0.395** | -0.360** | 0.751** | 0.654** | 0.794** | 0.846** | 0.842** | 0.835** | 0.849** | 0.875** | 0.824** | 1 | |
Table 4 Correlation among quantitative traits of Phalaenopsis
| 性状Trait | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | C12 | C13 | C14 | C15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| C2 | 0.927** | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| C3 | 0.593** | 0.617** | 1 | |||||||||||||
| C4 | 0.523** | 0.498** | 0.465** | 1 | ||||||||||||
| C5 | -0.155** | -0.169** | -0.158** | 0.274** | 1 | |||||||||||
| C6 | 0.667** | 0.687** | 0.592** | 0.363** | -0.458** | 1 | ||||||||||
| C7 | 0.656** | 0.634** | 0.642** | 0.586** | -0.118* | 0.623** | 1 | |||||||||
| C8 | 0.652** | 0.675** | 0.589** | 0.369** | -0.546** | 0.807** | 0.619** | 1 | ||||||||
| C9 | 0.653** | 0.674** | 0.593** | 0.411** | -0.512** | 0.827** | 0.651** | 0.972** | 1 | |||||||
| C10 | 0.653** | 0.673** | 0.599** | 0.407** | -0.528** | 0.827** | 0.650** | 0.975** | 0.988** | 1 | ||||||
| C11 | 0.623** | 0.634** | 0.601** | 0.418** | -0.470** | 0.792** | 0.681** | 0.915** | 0.952** | 0.957** | 1 | |||||
| C12 | 0.646** | 0.666** | 0.597** | 0.406** | -0.511** | 0.816** | 0.645** | 0.967** | 0.992** | 0.989** | 0.946** | 1 | ||||
| C13 | 0.625** | 0.637** | 0.572** | 0.430** | -0.462** | 0.819** | 0.664** | 0.928** | 0.971** | 0.964** | 0.957** | 0.972** | 1 | |||
| C14 | 0.586** | 0.598** | 0.556** | 0.371** | -0.456** | 0.741** | 0.606** | 0.864** | 0.876** | 0.875** | 0.839** | 0.885** | 0.875** | 1 | ||
| C15 | 0.597** | 0.594** | 0.554** | 0.395** | -0.360** | 0.751** | 0.654** | 0.794** | 0.846** | 0.842** | 0.835** | 0.849** | 0.875** | 0.824** | 1 | |
| 成分Component | 特征根Characteristic-root | 贡献率/% Contribution rate | 累计贡献率/% Cumulative contribution rate | 
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.556 | 70.372 | 70.372 | 
| 2 | 1.722 | 11.480 | 81.852 | 
Table 5 Total variance explained for quantitative traits of Phalaenopsis
| 成分Component | 特征根Characteristic-root | 贡献率/% Contribution rate | 累计贡献率/% Cumulative contribution rate | 
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.556 | 70.372 | 70.372 | 
| 2 | 1.722 | 11.480 | 81.852 | 
| 性状 Trait  |  成分1 Component 1  |  成分2  Component 2  |  性状 Trait  |  成分1 Component 1  |  成分2 Component 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C10 | 0.971 | -0.160 | C6 | 0.872 | -0.054 | |
| C9 | 0.971 | -0.153 | C2 | 0.774 | 0.365 | |
| C12 | 0.969 | -0.158 | C1 | 0.762 | 0.393 | |
| C13 | 0.959 | -0.130 | C7 | 0.753 | 0.372 | |
| C8 | 0.950 | -0.180 | C3 | 0.694 | 0.314 | |
| C11 | 0.947 | -0.119 | C5 | -0.455 | 0.746 | |
| C14 | 0.892 | -0.142 | C4 | 0.499 | 0.690 | |
| C15 | 0.878 | -0.053 | 
Table 6 Quantitative traits component matrix of Phalaenopsis
| 性状 Trait  |  成分1 Component 1  |  成分2  Component 2  |  性状 Trait  |  成分1 Component 1  |  成分2 Component 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C10 | 0.971 | -0.160 | C6 | 0.872 | -0.054 | |
| C9 | 0.971 | -0.153 | C2 | 0.774 | 0.365 | |
| C12 | 0.969 | -0.158 | C1 | 0.762 | 0.393 | |
| C13 | 0.959 | -0.130 | C7 | 0.753 | 0.372 | |
| C8 | 0.950 | -0.180 | C3 | 0.694 | 0.314 | |
| C11 | 0.947 | -0.119 | C5 | -0.455 | 0.746 | |
| C14 | 0.892 | -0.142 | C4 | 0.499 | 0.690 | |
| C15 | 0.878 | -0.053 | 
																													Fig. 1 Two-dimensional loading plots of principal components of quantitative traits in Phalaenopsis C1-C15 represent 15 quantitative traits as table 1
| 性状 Trait  |  类群Group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
| C1 | 34.80 | 51.70 | 36.31 | 42.65 | 27.62 | 28.75 | 28.84 | |
| C2 | 21.01 | 29.46 | 22.23 | 25.86 | 16.80 | 17.46 | 19.00 | |
| C3 | 8.25 | 8.18 | 7.94 | 9.13 | 6.82 | 6.60 | 7.35 | |
| C4 | 35.44 | 41.28 | 19.48 | 27.93 | 13.68 | 19.44 | 20.09 | |
| C5 | 17.37 | 17.00 | 8.48 | 9.64 | 9.22 | 23.16 | 56.10 | |
| C6 | 26.40 | 24.51 | 39.80 | 51.77 | 23.72 | 16.91 | 9.30 | |
| C7 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.67 | 0.44 | 0.45 | 0.48 | |
| C8 | 7.11 | 8.32 | 7.95 | 8.90 | 6.00 | 4.59 | 3.42 | |
| C9 | 8.34 | 9.97 | 9.37 | 10.80 | 6.83 | 5.31 | 4.15 | |
| C10 | 4.24 | 5.03 | 4.73 | 5.46 | 3.50 | 2.73 | 2.00 | |
| C11 | 3.25 | 3.85 | 3.60 | 4.33 | 2.57 | 2.04 | 1.55 | |
| C12 | 4.05 | 4.77 | 4.50 | 5.21 | 3.28 | 2.53 | 1.98 | |
| C13 | 4.94 | 5.96 | 5.65 | 6.76 | 3.73 | 2.78 | 2.07 | |
| C14 | 2.20 | 2.32 | 2.31 | 2.54 | 1.94 | 1.70 | 1.56 | |
| C15 | 2.11 | 2.24 | 2.27 | 2.60 | 1.77 | 1.63 | 1.53 | |
Table 7 Mean values for each quantitative trait in seven group of Phalaenopsis
| 性状 Trait  |  类群Group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
| C1 | 34.80 | 51.70 | 36.31 | 42.65 | 27.62 | 28.75 | 28.84 | |
| C2 | 21.01 | 29.46 | 22.23 | 25.86 | 16.80 | 17.46 | 19.00 | |
| C3 | 8.25 | 8.18 | 7.94 | 9.13 | 6.82 | 6.60 | 7.35 | |
| C4 | 35.44 | 41.28 | 19.48 | 27.93 | 13.68 | 19.44 | 20.09 | |
| C5 | 17.37 | 17.00 | 8.48 | 9.64 | 9.22 | 23.16 | 56.10 | |
| C6 | 26.40 | 24.51 | 39.80 | 51.77 | 23.72 | 16.91 | 9.30 | |
| C7 | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.67 | 0.44 | 0.45 | 0.48 | |
| C8 | 7.11 | 8.32 | 7.95 | 8.90 | 6.00 | 4.59 | 3.42 | |
| C9 | 8.34 | 9.97 | 9.37 | 10.80 | 6.83 | 5.31 | 4.15 | |
| C10 | 4.24 | 5.03 | 4.73 | 5.46 | 3.50 | 2.73 | 2.00 | |
| C11 | 3.25 | 3.85 | 3.60 | 4.33 | 2.57 | 2.04 | 1.55 | |
| C12 | 4.05 | 4.77 | 4.50 | 5.21 | 3.28 | 2.53 | 1.98 | |
| C13 | 4.94 | 5.96 | 5.65 | 6.76 | 3.73 | 2.78 | 2.07 | |
| C14 | 2.20 | 2.32 | 2.31 | 2.54 | 1.94 | 1.70 | 1.56 | |
| C15 | 2.11 | 2.24 | 2.27 | 2.60 | 1.77 | 1.63 | 1.53 | |
| [1] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 陈海荣, 吕波, 顾晓君, 罗利军, 李荧, 王加红, 刘丽娟, 堵苑苑, 梁小花, 陈榕华, 韦祝山, 刘平. 2009. 上海地区植物新品种DUS测试技术体系的初步构建. 上海农业学报, 25 (1):37-42. 
																						 | 
										|
| [2] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 陈和明, 吕复兵, 李佐, 肖文芳, 朱根发. 2017. 蝴蝶兰品质性状综合评价体系的构建. 中国农业大学学报, 22 (8):83-94. 
																						 | 
										|
| [3] |  
											 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2023.03.006  | 
										
|  
											 陈剑锋, 钟声远, 陈宇华, 钟海丰, 张荟, 刘中华. 2023. 基于花表型性状的蝴蝶兰品种资源多样性研究. 热带作物学报, 44 (3):494-505.  
																							doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2023.03.006  | 
										|
| [4] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 陈玉水. 2005. 台湾蝴蝶兰的常规育种与生物技术概述. 西南园艺,(5):26-29. 
																						 | 
										|
| [5] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 成晓丹, 魏宇昆, 黄艳波, 史春羽, 慈惠婷, 王顺利, 张秀新. 2020. 鼠尾草属品种DUS测试指南的研制. 园艺学报, 47 (S2):3154-3163. 
																						 | 
										|
| [6] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 褚云霞, 陈海荣, 邓姗, 顾晓君, 李寿国, 黄志城. 2014. 非洲菊DUS测试数量性状影响因素研究. 热带作物学报, 35 (5):862-867. 
																						 | 
										|
| [7] |  
											 doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20190524004  | 
										
|  
											 邓姗, 陈海荣, 任丽, 章毅颖, 褚云霞. 2020. 玉簪属品种DUS测试中数量性状的测定方法探索. 植物遗传资源学报, 21 (2):347-358.  
																							doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20190524004  | 
										|
| [8] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 董小艳, 郑金生, 何俊平, 张思勉, 王江英. 2020. 不同保鲜处理对蝴蝶兰切花保鲜效应的影响. 安徽农学通报, 26 (19):59-62. 
																						 | 
										|
| [9] |  
											 doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2022-0931  | 
										
|  
											 段开行, 王晓玲, 毛永民, 王瑶, 任勇响, 任柳柳, 申连英. 2023. 酸枣种质资源果实数量性状遗传多样性分析. 园艺学报, 50 (12):2568-2576.  
																							doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2022-0931  | 
										|
| [10] |  
											 doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.05.012  | 
										
|  
											 郭燕, 张树航, 李颖, 张馨方, 王广鹏. 2022. 中国板栗36个叶片表型性状的多样性. 中国农业科学, 55 (5):991-1009.  
																							doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.05.012  | 
										|
| [11] |  
											 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2023.11.002  | 
										
|  
											 贺雅萍, 肖文芳, 陈和明, 吕复兵, 妟石娟, 艾叶, 李佐. 2023. 蝴蝶兰抽梗影响因素及调控方法研究进展. 热带作物学报, 44 (11):2149-2156.  
																							doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2023.11.002  | 
										|
| [12] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 纪军建, 付国庆, 寇淑君, 王瑶, 左振兴, 杨德智, 刘晓婕, 霍阿红. 2022. 谷子新品种DUS测试数量性状分级及遗传多样性研究. 种子, 41 (9):17-27. 
																						 | 
										|
| [13] |  
											 | 
										
| [14] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 吕复兵, 陈和明, 肖文芳, 李佐. 2024. 蝴蝶兰新品种‘娇红’. 园艺学报, 51 (3):701-702. 
																						 | 
										|
| [15] |  
											 doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021-0248  | 
										
|  
											 吕正鑫, 贺艳群, 贾东峰, 黄春辉, 钟敏, 廖光联, 朱壹, 袁开昌, 刘传浩, 徐小彪. 2022. 猕猴桃种质资源表型性状遗传多样性分析. 园艺学报, 49 (7):1571-1581.  
																							doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021-0248  | 
										|
| [16] |  
											 | 
										
| [17] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 曲晓慧, 张宁宁, 刘晨, 瞿辉, 邵和平. 2022. 不同低温与肥水处理对蝴蝶兰生长及开花的影响. 江苏农业科学, 50 (12):168-172. 
																						 | 
										|
| [18] |  
											 doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20230410001  | 
										
|  
											 任丽, 张余, 邓姗, 章毅颖, 赵洪, 褚云霞, 黄静艳, 李寿国, 陈海荣. 2023. 基于形态标记的新育成辣椒品种特性分析. 植物遗传资源学报, 24 (6):1676-1689.  
																							doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20230410001  | 
										|
| [19] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 唐浩, 李汝玉, 杨旭红. 2017. “特异性(可区别性)、一致性和稳定性审查总则和植物新品种统一描述的形成(TG/1/3)”的相关文件. 北京:中国农业出版社: 1-214. 
																						 | 
										|
| [20] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 王钦, 黄捷, 涂松, 康阳, 王菲, 陈秀铭, 彭东辉. 2023. 蝴蝶兰不同品种表型性状遗传多样性分析. 西南林业大学学报(自然科学), 43 (6):8-18. 
																						 | 
										|
| [21] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 王永行, 白立华, 单飞彪, 杜瑞霞, 郭宏强, 杨钦方, 刘春晖. 2017. 基于DUS测试性状的普通小麦测试品种的遗传多样性分析. 黑龙江农业科学,(1):4-8. 
																						 | 
										|
| [22] |  
											 doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20211027001  | 
										
|  
											 魏晓羽, 刘红, 瞿辉, 李风童, 袁媛, 刘春贵, 马辉, 张甜, 包建忠, 孙叶. 2022. 158份春兰种质资源的表型多样性分析. 植物遗传资源学报, 23 (2):398-411.  
																							doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.20211027001  | 
										|
| [23] |  
											 doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2020-0916  | 
										
|  
											 吴婷, 贾瑞冬, 杨树华, 赵鑫, 于晓南, 国圆, 葛红. 2022. 蝴蝶兰多倍体育种研究进展与展望. 园艺学报, 49 (2):448-462.  
																							doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2020-0916  | 
										|
| [24] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 许申平, 袁秀云, 张燕, 梁芳, 蒋素华, 牛苏燕, 崔波. 2023. 温度与光照强度对蝴蝶兰光合生理与花序发育的影响. 浙江农业学报, 35 (10):2389-2397.  
																							doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20221464  | 
										|
| [25] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 曾宝珰, 张锴滨, 刘燕榕, 张秀珊, 吴嘉纯, 黄茜莉, 王健蓉, 郑丹虹, 陈翠菊, 林天友. 2023. 蝴蝶兰新品种‘汕农幸运女神’. 园艺学报, 50 (S2):139-140. 
																						 | 
										|
| [26] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 张鹏, 王江民, 管俊娇, 刘艳芳, 杨晓洪, 马芙荣, 张建华. 2018. 蝴蝶兰品种数量性状与分组性状的DUS判定. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 46 (11):81-88. 
																						 | 
										|
| [27] |  
											 doi: 10.11869/j.issn.1000-8551.2024.06.1012  | 
										
|  
											 张文滔, 李嘉铭, 王铫铃, 崔永一. 2024. 蝴蝶兰种质资源倍性鉴定及育性相关性研究. 核农学报, 38 (6):1012-1023.  
																							doi: 10.11869/j.issn.1000-8551.2024.06.1012  | 
										|
| [28] |  
											 doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr. 20210415002  | 
										
|  
											 张学超, 任海龙, 唐式敏, 朱玲, 张胜军, 冉昪. 2021. 伊犁天山160 份野苹果种质资源表型性状的遗传多样性分析. 植物遗传资源学报, 22 (6):1521-1530.  
																							doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr. 20210415002  | 
										|
| [29] |  
											 doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.06.007  | 
										
|  
											 钟海丰, 陈剑锋, 陈宇华, 邱思鑫, 黄敏玲. 2020. 蝴蝶兰种质资源主要数量性状变异与概率分级. 热带作物学报, 41 (6):1117-1123.  
																							doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.06.007  | 
										|
| [30] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 钟海丰, 黄敏玲, 钟淮钦, 林兵. 2017. 中国农业植物新品种保护与DUS测试技术发展现状. 热带作物学报, 38 (6):1155-1162. 
																						 | 
										|
| [31] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 钟声远, 陈剑锋, 钟海丰, 陈宇华, 刘中华. 2023. 中国蝴蝶兰属植物新品种保护现状与发展趋势分析. 福建农业科技, 54 (8):32-39. 
																						 | 
										|
| [32] |  
											 | 
										
|  
											 钟声远, 钟海丰, 陈宇华, 陈剑锋, 张荟, 钟淮钦, 林兵, 刘中华, 邱思鑫, 黄敏玲. 2022. 建兰品种资源数量性状与分组性状的DUS判定. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 50 (3):115-124. 
																						 | 
										|
| [33] |  
											 doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.0510271  | 
										
|  
											 周俊义, 杨雷, 刘平, 刘孟军, 赵智慧, 杨莉, 李莉. 2005. 酸枣种质资源果实主要数量性状变异及相关性研究. 中国农学通报,(10):271-272,275. 
																						 | 
										
| [1] | JIANG Xiuna, GUO Yingduo, CHEN Junsheng, ZHENG Yunhuang, WEI Xiaolian, TANG Kai, LIN Hanrui, CHEN Chunlai, ZHENG Danhong, CHEN Li, HUANG Jinchao. A New Phalaenopsis Cultivar‘Shannong Yunü’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(S1): 187-188. | 
| [2] | SUN Yin, ZHANG Guangyi, LI Xiaorong, ZHANG Qian, WANG Yahui, TIAN Zexin, ZHANG Lanying. A New Phalaenopsis Cultivar‘Golden Lights’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(S1): 189-190. | 
| [3] | WEI Xiaolian, HONG Shengbiao, LIU Xia, ZHANG Kaibing, ZHANG Xiushan, LIU Yanrong, WANG Jianrong, XU Yi, LIN Tianyou, QIU Ge, YANG Bilan. A New Phalaenopsis Cultivar‘Shannong Furong’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(S1): 191-192. | 
| [4] | LÜ Fubing, XIAO Wenfang, CHEN Heming. A New Phalaenopsis Cultivar‘Xiaozhuangshi’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(S1): 193-194. | 
| [5] | CHEN Hui, HAN Xiangfeng, LI Zhifang, LÜ Fubing, XIAO Wenfang, ZHU Genfa, WANG Dong, CHEN Heming. A New Cultivar‘Fenguan’of Intergeneric Hybridization Between Phalaenopsis and Renanthera [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(S1): 195-196. | 
| [6] | LI Zuo, XIAO Wenfang, CHEN Heming, and LÜ Fubing. Genetic Diversity and Core Collection Construction of Phalaenopsis Germplasm Resources [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(6): 1519-1529. | 
| [7] | SUN Pei, ZHANG Hong, YANG Yuan, WANG Hua, LI Maofu, KANG Yanhui, SUN Xiangyi, JIN Wanmei. Genetic Diversity Analysis and Fingerprint Construction of Rosa Germplasm Resources Based on SSR Marker [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(6): 1539-1552. | 
| [8] | BI Qingrui, CUI Dongsheng, MA Xinyuan, XUE Yuran, ZHANG Shikui, FAN Guoquan, NIU Yingying. Genetic Diversity and Genetic Relationship of Local Pear Cultivars in Xinjiang [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(3): 561-574. | 
| [9] | LUO Sifang, YAN Xiang, XIE Lifang, SUN Jingxian, GUO Zijing, ZHANG Zuming, CHEN Zhaoxing. Development and Application of Insertion-Deletion(InDel)Markers in Gannan wild Fortunella hindsii Based on Whole Genome Re-sequencing Data [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(2): 267-278. | 
| [10] | ZHANG Lu, ZHANG Pingping, XIE Weijia, XU Feng, PENG Lüchun, SONG Jie, DU Guanghui, LI Shifeng. Genetic Diversity Analysis and SSR Fingerprint Construction of Evergreen Rhododendron Germplasms [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(2): 380-394. | 
| [11] | FAN Ronghui, WU Jianshe, FENG Zinan, ZHONG Shengyuan, ZHONG Huaiqin. Detection and Identification of Virus Infecting Phalaenopsis Based on Small RNA Deep Sequencing Technology and Multiple RT-PCR Identification [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(2): 503-512. | 
| [12] | XIAO Xi’ou, NIE Heng, LIN Wenqiu, WU Caiyu. Development of Whole-Genome SNP Markers of Eggplant [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2025, 52(1): 88-100. | 
| [13] | QIN Zilu, XU Zhengkang, DAI Xiaogang, CHEN Yingnan. Genetic Diversity Analysis and Core Collection Construction of Magnolia biondii Germplasm [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(8): 1823-1832. | 
| [14] | ZHAO Tianrong, LING Jiangang, REN Xiliang. Principal Component Analysis and Genetic Relationship Research on Cultivars of Schlumbergera truncata Based on Morphological Characteristics for DUS Testing [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(6): 1321-1331. | 
| [15] | YUAN Na, XU Qinyuan, XU Zhaolong, ZHOU Ling, LIU Xiaoqing, CHEN Xin, DU Jianchang. The Development and Verification of SNP Lquid Chips for Common Bean Based on Targeted Sequencing Technology [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(5): 1017-1032. | 
| Viewed | ||||||
| 
										Full text | 
									
										 | 
								|||||
| 
										Abstract | 
									
										 | 
								|||||
Copyright © 2012 Acta Horticulturae Sinica 京ICP备10030308号-2 国际联网备案号 11010802023439
Tel: 010-82109523 E-Mail: yuanyixuebao@126.com
Support by: Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd