论文部分内容阅读
对山西省果树研究所、北京市林业果树研究所和北京市昌平果树研究所保存的28份SH系苹果砧木进行鉴定,结果表明:山西果树所的SH9与北京林果所的SH9,相似性高达100%,属于同名同物;山西果树所的SH17、SH18、SH40与北京昌平的SH17、SH18、SH40的相似性分别为68.9%、55.1%和65.6%,属于同名异物;山西果树所、北京林果所及北京昌平的SH38,三者间最高相似性为61.2%,均为不同材料;山西的SH18与SHb(100%),北京昌平的SH17与山西的SHd,山西的SHa与山西的SHe,山西的SH18(28)与山西的SH40,相似性均在99%以上,属于同一种材料,而相似性比较高的还有昌平的SH18与昌平的SH38(98.4%),并且山西的SH12与山西的SH17及SH29三者相似性在97.2%～98.9%之间;不同保存地的SH1、SH3、SH6、SH8-11、SH9-hf、SH19、SH28、SH29、SHc、SHd和SHf为异名异物材料。
The results showed that SH9 of Shanxi fruit tree and SH9 of Beijing fruit tree were similar in similarity to SH9, which were preserved in Shanxi Fruit Tree Research Institute, Beijing Forestry Fruit Institute and Beijing Changping Fruit Research Institute. 100% belong to the same name. The similarity of SH17, SH18, SH40 in Shanxi fruit tree and SH17, SH18 and SH40 in Changping, Beijing is 68.9%, 55.1% and 65.6% The highest similarities among the three were SH.22 and SHb (100%) in Shanxi, SH17 in Beijing Changping and SHd in Shanxi, SHa in Shanxi and SHe in Shanxi, The similarity between SH18 (28) in Shanxi Province and SH40 in Shanxi Province is above 99%, which belong to the same kind of material, while the similarities are SH18 in Changping and SH38 in Changping (98.4%), and SH12 in Shanxi and Shanxi The SH1, SH3, SH6, SH8-11, SH9-hf, SH19, SH28, SH29, SHc, SHd and SHf in different conserved areas were different from each other material.