• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Changes in leaflet shape and seeds per pod modify crop growth parameters,canopy light environment,and yield components in soybean

    2020-04-21 13:47:00JulietaBianchiAlvaroQuijanoCarlosGospariniEligioMorandi
    The Crop Journal 2020年2期

    Julieta S. Bianchi, Alvaro Quijano, Carlos O.Gosparini, Eligio N.Morandi,*

    aLaboratorio de Fisiología Vegetal,Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias,Universidad Nacional de Rosario(UNR),Campo Experimental J.Villarino,P.O.Box 14,2125 Zavalla,Santa Fe,Argentina

    bInstituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario(IICAR),Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas(CONICET)–UNR,Campo Experimental J.Villarino,P.O.Box 14,2125 Zavalla,Santa Fe,Argentina

    cConsejo de Investigaciones de la UNR(CIUNR),Campo Experimental J.Villarino,P.O. Box 14,2125 Zavalla,Santa Fe,Argentina

    A B S T R A C T

    1. Introduction

    Seed number(SN)is the component most strongly associated with yield in soybean [1-4]. SN depends on pod number (PN)and seeds per pod (SPP). PN is the result of the balance between pods initiated (PI) and pods abscised and is strongly influenced by environmental and management factors. In contrast,SPP is a highly heritable trait only slightly influenced by environment [5-8]. The early reproductive period, from flowering to beginning seed filling (R1 to R5, respectively [9]),is considered critical for PN definition because reproductive structures are established during this period [7,8]. However,other components that begin to develop during the vegetative period, such as the number of nodes, are important in PN determination, given that reproductive structures develop on axillary buds located on the main stem and branch nodes[10].

    Photoperiod [11-13], water stress [14], temperature [15],nitrogen availability [16] and solar radiation [17,18] are environmental factors that affect PN. Crop growth rate (CGR)has commonly been used as an estimator of canopy net photosynthesis in soybean [19,20], and several studies[4,7,17,20] have shown linear associations between CGR from R1 to R5(CGRR1-R5)and PN.This association held when CGRR1-R5was severely reduced by defoliation or shading, but for CGRR1-R5higher than 14-15 g m-2day-1no differences in PN or SN and yield were found [21,22], suggesting that other factor/s participate in the regulation of PN when CGR is not limiting.

    CGR is a function of the fraction of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation(IPAR)and leaf area index(LAI)[23],both parameters determined by canopy architecture. Canopy architecture may be altered by management practices such as planting density, sowing date, and space between rows as well as by plant morphological traits such as leaflet shape and leaflet number[24,25].In particular,leaflet shape in cultivated soybean can be classified into two main categories: ovate (O)and lanceolate (L). L canopies reduced LAI by about 30%compared to O canopies[24,26,27].Despite differences in LAI,IPAR was similar for both leaflet shapes during the vegetative and early reproductive periods [24,25]. Given that L canopies showed similar IPAR with lower LAI than O canopies,it seems evident that the former must have higher IPAR efficiency(IPARE) than the later. However, IPARE and its possible contribution to net assimilation rate (NAR)and CGR have not been measured in soybean canopies with different leaflet shapes.

    Canopy architecture can also change the balance of photomorphogenic light wavelengths perceived by plants.Light quality signals are perceived by specific plant photoreceptors including phytochromes, cryptochromes,phototropins, and the UV-B photoreceptor UVR8, and play a central role in controlling the physiology and development of weeds and crop plants [28,29]. Internode elongation [28,30],branching [30,31], flowers, and pod abscission [32,33], are among the developmental processes controlled by photomorphogenic light wavelengths. Heindl and Brun [32]and Myers et al. [33] reported that whereas supplemental red(R) and white light reduced abscission and increased seed weight per node, shading flowers and pods produced the opposite effect. These authors also observed that shading flowers and pods reduced their capacity to accumulate14Cphotoassimilates, concluding that both photoassimilate accumulation and the abscission of reproductive structures are photomorphogenic responses. Quijano and Morandi [8] reported that even though leaflet removal at flowering strongly reduced LAI and IPAR,PI was increased.Moreover,PI was not associated with CGRR1-R5. These authors suggested that photomorphogenic factors are involved in the regulation of PI.Considering that the architecture of L canopies differs from its O counterpart, the balance of photomorphogenic light wavelengths inside both canopies must also be different.However, the effect of leaflet shape on the balance between photomorphogenic light wavelengths and its possible effect on pod initiation and yield in soybean canopies have not been studied.

    L plants tend to have more SPP than O plants [34-36].Despite the differences in leaflet area and SPP, no significant differences in seed yield have been found between the two leaflet shapes in previous studies [24,25,35,37,38]. Some authors suggested that the lack of yield differences between L and O isolines could be associated with yield component compensation, particularly between SPP and PN [27] or seed size(SZ)[35,38].However,a recent study using various pairs of isolines showed that different combinations of PN, SPP, and SZ resulted in different seed yields per plant, suggesting that levels of compensation among yield components may be affected by the genetic background[36].Also,previous studies comparing the yields of L and O isolines were performed using old, low-yielding cultivars, with small or null proportion of four-seeded pods[35,37].We used high-yield potential L and O soybean near-isogenic lines with respectively high and low proportions of four-seeded pods to assess i) the effect of leaflet shape and plant density on crop growth parameters,canopy R/FR ratio,and their relationships with pod initiation,PN, SN, and yield, and ii) the effect on SPP of increasing the proportion of four-seeded pods and its relationship with PN,SN,and yield.

    2. Materials and methods

    2.1. Plant material and experimental design

    Two pairs of near-isogenic lines differing in leaflet shape were developed using the repetitive heterozygote selection method[35,39]. Briefly, F2populations were obtained from crosses between L experimental lines (female parent) and O experimental lines (male parents). Given that L and O are respectively recessive and dominant traits,leaflet shape was used as the selection criterion. In each generation, starting from the F2,L plants were discarded and 12-15 O plants(which could be either homozygous or heterozygous for leaflet shape) were sown in progeny rows and advanced to the next generation.In each generation,O plants were repeatedly selected from rows segregating for leaflet shape until the F6generation,when one L and one O plant were selected from the same row to form each pair.These plants were advanced to the F8generation to check homozygosity and increase seed number.Thus, each L and O pair was established in the F8generation from a single heterozygous F6plant.Each pair obtained in this manner was expected to have ~97% of genes in common and thus be nearly isogenic.

    Besides differences in leaflet shape, L and O lines also differed in the proportion of four-seeded pods. Whereas L lines set 60%four-seeded and 40%three-seeded pods,O lines set 7% four-seeded, 90% three-seeded, and 3% two-seeded pods. Thus, the potential SPP (SPPP) of L and O lines was calculated as a weighted mean of pods with different numbers of seeds:

    SPPP= [(l oc2×2)+ (l oc3×3)+ (l oc4×4)]/total pod number per plant(1)

    where loc2, loc3, and loc4 are numbers of pods with respectively two,three,and four loculi.

    A locule was counted if a remnant of seed structure was visible in a partially or fully developed pod locule. Thus,applying Eq. (1), SPPPwas respectively 3.6 and 3.0 for L and O lines. All lines showed indeterminate growth habit and belonged to relative maturity group 5.9 [40]. Near-isogenic lines pairs were FV9-L/FV9-O and FV15-L/FV15-O (Table 1).FV9-L and FV15-L lines had the L leaflet shape and FV9-O and FV15-O lines had the O leaflet shape.

    Field trials were conducted during the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 growing seasons (GS), henceforth GS 1 and GS 2,respectively. Field experiments were performed at the Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, located in Zavalla, Santa Fe, Argentina (33°01′ S,60°52′ W). Soil type was a silty clay loam Vertic Argiudoll,Roldán series. Seasonal dynamics of incident radiation (Fig.S1) and daily mean temperature (Fig. S2) for each growing season can be found in the supplementary data.

    The experimental design was a randomized complete block with three replications in each year. Individual plots were 5.50 m long and 2.08 m wide, with 0.52 m row spacing.Plots were overseeded and hand-thinned at phenological stage V2 (according to Fehr and Caviness [9]) to a final plant density of 16 and 30 plants m-2in GS 1 and 14 and 28 plants m-2in GS 2, for respectively low (LD) and high (HD) density.Emergence dates were December 28 in GS 1 and December 24 in GS 2. Plots were drip irrigated when necessary to prevent water deficit. Insects, diseases and weeds were chemically controlled following local agronomic practices during both GS.Soybean was the preceding crop in both years.

    Table 1-Characteristics of the two pairs of soybean nearisogenic lines.

    2.2. Plant measurements

    Phenological stages were recorded every two days in the two central rows of each plot according to Fehr and Caviness [9].Stages V5,R2,R5,R6,and R8 occurred at respectively 26,47,73,97, and 124 days after emergence (DAE) in GS 1; and V7, V13,R2, R5, R6, and R8 occurred at respectively 28, 42, 49, 76, 103,and 124 DAE in GS 2.

    Destructive samples of 0.5 m2were taken from the two central rows at V5,R2,R5,and R6 in GS 1 and at V7,V13,R2,R5,and R6 in GS 2. In all cases a 0.25 m separation was maintained between sample areas and from the plot edge.All plants were separated into stems, branches, petioles,leaflets, pod wall, and seeds (when present). At R5, the numbers of branches, main stem and branch nodes, main stem and branch reproductive nodes,and PI in the main stem and in the branches were recorded. A pod was counted as initiated when it was visible (≥2 mm). The number of pods was recorded in all sampled plants.At maturity,1 m2of each plot was harvested by cutting the plants at ground level.Harvested plants were separated into main stems, branches,seeds, and pod walls. All samples were dried at 65 °C in a forced-air dryer for at least 72 h and weighed.Dry matter was expressed as g m-2(land basis). Branch number, main stem and branch nodes,and PN were also recorded.SZ(mg seed-1)was calculated as the mean dry weight of 480 randomly sampled seeds and mature SN (seeds m-2) was estimated as seed yield (g m-2) divided by SZ. PN (pods m-2) was obtained by counting all pods present at maturity in the samples evaluated.Percentage of pod abscission was calculated as PN/PI×100.SPPPwas calculated using Eq.(1).Developed SPP was estimated as SN/PN. Percentage of seed abortion was calculated as (SPP/SPPP)×100.

    Photosynthetically active radiation(PAR, 400-700 nm)was measured above and below the canopy with a line quantum sensor connected to a LI-1000 data logger(LI-COR,Lincoln,NE,USA). For the below-canopy measurements, the sensor was placed on the ground between plot rows,oriented diagonally.PAR measurements were taken on clear days between 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM. In each plot, two readings were taken at randomly selected positions at 26,39,47,54,62,and 69 DAE in GS 1,and at 28,32,39,48,56,and 64 DAE in GS 2.Percentage of PAR intercepted(IPAR, %) was calculated in each plot from readings made above and below the canopy. Leaf area was measured with a LI-3100 leaf area meter (LI-COR) to estimate leaf area index(LAI).IPAR efficiency(IPARE,%)was calculated as IPAR/LAI. CGR [g m-2day-1] and NAR [g m-2leafday-1]between V5 and R2 and between V7 and R2 in GS 1 and GS 2,respectively, and between R2 and R5 for both GS, were determined by stepwise regression[41].

    Fluxes of red (R, 650-670 nm) and far red (FR, 720-740 nm)radiation were measured during GS 2 with an equipment developed in our laboratory in collaboration with Consultar SRL,Rosario, SF, Argentina. This equipment had photodiodes(Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.,Hamamatsu City,Japan)covered with specific acetate filters (LEE Filters, Andover, UK) to restrict the sensitivity peak to the desired wavelength. The G1115 photodiode covered with one LEE 106 (primary red)filter was used to measure the R wavelength and the G1735 photodiode cover with one LEE 118 (light blue) plus one LEE 021 (gold amber) filter was used to measure FR. Photodiodes were attached to 2-cm diameter disks and covered with a white acrylic glass hemisphere as a cosine corrector (sensor unit).The sensor units were remotely connected to a recorder(SAD 9000 PLT, Consultar SRL) that received the signals and accumulated the output values. The sensors were calibrated against a LI-1800 spectroradiometer (LI-COR) and measurements were made in the canopies of the FV15-L and FV15-O lines.Four sensors were used for each line:two in LD and two in HD.Sensors were located between two adjacent plants in a row and in the middle of the inter-row space.Daily R/FR ratio was the mean of within-row and between-row measurements made from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM at 30 min interval,during the V7-R5 period.As plants grew, sensors were moved to remain at the midpoint of plant height (i.e., at the canopy middle stratum)following Board[31].

    2.3. Data analysis

    Total dry matter was transformed to its natural logarithm and regressed on time to obtain CGR and NAR. Linear, quadratic,and cubic components of each regression equation were successively tested for significance and included in the equation if they significantly reduced the residual sum of squares. Three sample dates were used in all treatments and CGR and NAR were obtained for each period as the mean of fitted values over samples. Significant differences were determined by t-tests using standard errors calculated by the regression program[41].

    The evolution of the R/FR ratio at canopy middle stratum,R/FRM, was fitted to a function using the TBL Curve V 2.0 program [42]. The comparisons of the values at V7, R2, and R5 were made by Student's t-test [43] using the adjusted value of the function and its standard errors.For FV9-L and FV9-O lines, the R/FR ratio was estimated in the same experiment using a regression of the R/FR as a function of LAI obtained for the FV15-L/FV15-O near-isogenic line pair.The coefficient of determination (R2) for this function was 99%.

    Analysis of variance(ANOVA)with separation of means by LSD was used to analyze the data. Before the ANOVA was performed, the normal distribution of residuals and homogeneity of variance were verified.The linear ANOVA model used was as follows:

    where Y is the response variable, μ is the general mean, ρithe effect of block i, αjthe effect of growing season j, βkthe effect of plant density k,γlthe effect of leaflet shape l,τm(l)the effect of line m nested in leaflet shape l, (αβ)jkthe interaction between growing season j and plant density k, (αγ)jlthe interaction between growing season j and leaflet shape l,(βγ)klthe interaction between plant density k and leaflet shape l(αβγ)jklthe interaction among growing season j, plant density k, and leaflet shape l,(ατ)jm(l)the interaction between growing season j and line m nested in leaflet shape l, (βτ)km(l)the interaction between plan density k and line m nested in leaflet shape l, (αβτ)jkm(l)the interaction among growing season j,plant density k, and line m nested in leaflet shape l, and εijklmthe residual effect ε~N(0; σ2).

    The effects of block, growing season, plant density, leaflet shape, line nested in leaflet shape, and their interactions were treated as fixed effects [44,45]. The relationships between variables were analyzed by linear and nonlinear regression.All statistical analyses (ANOVA, regression, t-tests, and LSD tests) were performed using SAS University Edition (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

    3. Results

    3.1. Effects of L and O canopies on crop growth parameters

    Crop growth parameters for the vegetative and early reproductive periods are presented for GS because of significant interactions between this variable and other sources of variation (Table S1, Table S2). During the vegetative period(V5/V7-R2)LAI was greater in O than in L canopies in both GS.However, except for the FV9-L line at LD in GS 2, IPAR was equal in L and O canopies and IPARE was always higher in L than in O canopies(Table 2).Also,L canopies showed higher NAR than O canopies for both GS (7.0 and 6.0 g m-2leafday-1for respectively L and O in GS 1;3.5 and 3.3 g m-2leafday-1for L and O in GS 2),with the difference significant in GS 1(P <0.05).Consequently, despite the differences in LAI, L and O canopies showed similar CGR during the vegetative period(Table 2).

    During the early reproductive period(R2-R5),LAI and IPAR were above their critical threshold (5 and 95% for LAI and IPAR, respectively) for all treatments. The LAI and IPAR,however, were lower for L than for O canopies in GS 1,whereas differences between L and O canopies occurred only for IPAR in GS 2 (Table 3). The IPARE was lower during this period than during the vegetative period (compare Table 2 with Table 3), being significantly higher in L than in O canopies only in GS 1 (Table 3). The CGRR2-R5was greater in O than in L canopies in GS 1 but not in GS 2 (Table 3). No differences were observed in NAR during the R2-R5 period for leaflet shape in either GS.

    3.2. Evolution of the R/FRM ratio in L and O canopies

    The R/FRMratio was always higher in L than in O canopies,with the greatest differences observed at LD during the vegetative period. As the canopy developed, R/FRMdeclined exponentially for both leaflet shapes and plant densities (Fig.1). Thus, differences between L and O canopies for the R/FRMratio were observed from V7 to R5 in LD(Fig.1-A)and from V7 to R2 in HD(Fig.1-B).

    ?

    hen P-value of ANOVA was not significant,letters following Table 3-Leaf area index(LAI),intercepted photosynthetically active radiation(IPAR),IPAR efficiency(IPARE)and crop growth rate(CGR)during the early reproductive period(R2-R5) for two pairs of lanceolate (L) and ovate (O) soybean near-isogenic lines, grown in low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) plant populations in 2013/2014 growing CGR(g m-2 day-1)HD 26.3 25.8 28.4 28.3 LD 17.6 18.6 19.8 21.0 23.1 23.4 19.3 b 27.2 a-----IPARE(%)HD 14.0 13.5 12.7 12.6 GS 2 LD 15.0 13.1 13.9 14.8 13.9 13.5 14.2 a 13.2 b ns*ns ns ns IPAR (%)HD 99.0 99.5 99.2 99.3 LD 97.2 99.3 98.7 99.3 98.5 b 99.3 a 98.6 b 99.2 a***ns ns ns HD 7.1 7.4 7.9 7.9 LAI LD 6.5 7.6 7.2 6.7 7.2 7.4 7.0 b 7.6 a ns*ns ns ns(P <0.05)for LAI,IPAR,and IPARE.W-2 day-1)HD 16.7 22.8 23.4 27.4 CGR(g m LD 19.5 23.5 22.2 25.7 20.5 b 24.8 a 22.6 22.7-----IPARE (%)HD 17.3 14.1 15.9 13.9 season(GS 1), and in 2014/2015 growing seasons(GS 2).LD GS 1 18.8 14.8 17.1 13.1 17.3 a 14.0 b 16.0 15.3**ns ns ns ns IPAR (%)HD 97.2 98.6 97.5 98.8 LD 97.1 98.3 97.4 98.2 97.3 b 98.5 a 97.7 98.0**ns ns ns ns ed for this variable.HD 5.7 7.0 6.4 7.2 LAI LD 5.2 6.7 5.8 7.5 5.8 b 7.1 a 6.3 6.6**ns ns ns ns Lines FV9-L FV9-O FV15-L FV15-O Mean for leaflet shape (LS)eans were omitted for clarity.LO Mean for density (D)LD HD ANOVA LS D LS × D Li(LS)Li(LS) × D ANOVA, analysis of variance; Li(LS), lines nested in leaflet shape.Different letters indicate significant differences according to t-test(P <0.05)for CGR and according to LSD the m*and ** indicate significant differences at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively.ns, non-significant difference.“-” indicate that ANOVA was not perform

    Fig.1-Evolution of the canopy middle stratum red/far-red ratio(R/FRM)as a function of days after emergence(DAE)for soybean near-isogenic lines FV15-L(filled circles)and FV15-O(open circles)grown at low(A)and high(B)density in 2014/2015 growing season(GS 2).Data points are daily means of R/FRM values of sensors located between two adjacent plants in a row and in the middle of the inter-row space.Measurements were taken from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM,at 30 min intervals.Arrows indicate phenological stages V7(seven-leaf stage),R2(full bloom)and R5(beginning seed).Continuous and dashed lines represent the fitted regression equations for data points of lines FV15-L and FV15-O,respectively. Parameters of the fitted regressions and coefficients of determination (R2)are also shown.

    3.3. Effects of L and O canopies on PI

    PI, RN, and PI/RN are presented for GS because of significant interactions between GS and other sources of variation(Table S3).PI was higher in L than in O canopies in both GS(Table 4).Variations in PI were the result of changes in RN and PI/RN.RN was higher in L than in O canopies for both GS, with the difference significant in GS 2 (Table 4). PI/RN was also higher in L than in O canopies,except for HD in GS 1(Table 4).

    The variation in total PI (main stem and branches) was associated with PI on branches in all treatments and GS (Fig.2). As there was no difference in the number of branches between leaflet shape(P >0.10 for both GS),variation in PI was associated with changes in number of reproductive nodes perbranch (R2= 0.77, P <0.001) and with pods per reproductive branch node (R2= 0.73, P <0.001). Because branch development started before flowering and reproductive structures develop on axillary buds located on the main stem and branch nodes, the relationships of PI with LAI, IPAR, and R/FRMratio from V5 to R5(GS 1)and from V7 to R5(GS 2)were analyzed.PI decreased with increase in LAI for L and O canopies in both GS(Fig. 3). Similarly to LAI, an inverse relationship was also observed for PI and IPAR (R2= 0.44, P <0.10 and R2= 0.47,P <0.10,for GS 1 and GS 2,respectively).In contrast,PI showed a linear and positive association with R/FRMratio for both leaflet shapes and plant densities in GS 2 (Fig.4).

    Table 4-Numbers of pods initiated (PI), reproductive nodes (RN) and pods initiated per reproductive node (PI/RN) at R5 stage,for two pairs of lanceolate(L)and ovate(O)soybean near-isogenic lines,grown in low-density(LD)and high-density(HD) plant populations in 2013/2014 growing season(G1), and in 2014/2015 growing season(GS 2).

    3.4.Effects of L and O canopies on yield and yield components at maturity

    At maturity there were no significant interactions among GS and the other sources of variation for none of the variables measured (Table S4). Accordingly, the results of both GS are presented jointly(Table 5).

    Variation in yield was tightly associated with changes in SN(R2=0.77,P <0.0001)but not with SZ(R2=0.0005,ns).At LD,L canopies had higher yield than O canopies, whereas at HD there were no differences between L and O canopies(Table 5).The higher yield in L-LD than in O-LD was associated with greater SN,which was the result of higher PN and higher SPP,in the L-LD combination.This yield increase in L-LD occurred despite its lower SZ (Table 5). At HD, even though PN was similar for both leaflet shapes, SN remained higher in L than in O canopies because the higher SPP of L lines was not affected by plant density(Table 5).

    Fig.2-Relationship between pods initiated(PI)and pods initiated on branches,for lanceolate(L,squares)and ovate(O,circles)soybean near-isogenic lines,grown at low plant density(LD,open symbols)and high plant density(HD,filled symbols)in 2013/2014 growing season(GS 1), and in 2014/2015 growing season(GS 2).Data points correspond to triplicate replicates for each line,density,and GS.Continuous line represents a regression fitted to replicate values for all treatments.Parameters of the fitted regression,coefficient of determination(R2), and probability value(P)are also shown.

    Fig.4-Pods initiated(PI)as function of the mean red/far-red ratio measured in the middle stratum of the canopy(R/FRM)during the V7-R5 period in 2014/2015 growing season,for lanceolate(L,squares)and ovate(O,circles)soybean near-isogenic lines grown at low plant density(LD, open symbols)and high plant density(HD,filled symbols).Data points are means of three replicates for each line and density.Vertical bars indicate standard error of the mean.Continuous line represents the fitted function to mean values for all treatments.Parameters of the fitted regression,coefficient of determination(R2)and probability value(P) are also shown.

    Whereas PI was greater in L than in O canopies,either at LD and HD in both GS (Table 4), pods abscised were differently affected by leaflet shape and plant density. At LD, L and O canopies showed the same percentage of pod abscission(31%,ns).Thus,the higher PI in L-LD than in O-LD canopies(Table 4)explained the higher PN at harvest in the L-LD combination(Table 5).In contrast,at HD,greater pod abscission occurred in L than in O canopies (37% and 23% for L and O, respectively,P <0.001).Thus,a similar PN was observed in both treatments(Table 5),despite the higher PI in L-HD than in O-HD(Table 4).

    SPP depends on SPPPand seed abortion. Whereas L lines showed higher values of SPPPthan O lines (3.6 and 2.9 for L and O, respectively, Table 5), seed abortion was greater in L(27%)than in O(22%)lines(P <0.001).Despite this increase in seed abortion, L lines retained greater developed SPP than Olines at harvest(2.7 and 2.3 for L and O,respectively,Table 5),and this difference was maintained irrespective of GS and plant density (Fig. 5). Although L lines had lower SZ compare to O lines(Table 5),no association was found between SZ and SPP (R2= 0.32,ns).

    Table 5-Maturity pod number(PN),seed per pod potential(SPPP),seed per pod(SPP),seed number(SN),seed size(SZ)and yield,for two pairs of lanceolate(L)and ovate(O)soybean near-isogenic lines,grown in low-density(LD)and high-density(HD) plant populations.Data are averaged across 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 growing seasons.

    ANOVA, analysis of variance.Li(LS),lines nested in leaflet shape.Different letters indicate significant differences according to LSD (P <0.05). When P-value of ANOVA was not significant, letters following the means were omitted for clarity.*, **, and *** indicate significant differences at probability level of 0.05,0.01, and 0.001, respectively.ns, non-significant difference.

    Fig.5- Seed number(SN)as a function of pod number(PN)and seed per pod(SPP)for lanceolate (L,squares)and ovate(O,circles)soybean near-isogenic lines,grown at low plant density(LD,open symbols)and high plant density(HD,filled symbols),for both growing seasons(GS).Data points correspond to triplicate replicates for each line,density and GS. Continuous and dashed lines are functions fitted to replicate values for L and O lines,respectively.The dotted vertical arrows starting at the abscissa axis indicate mean PN for respectively O and L lines,and their corresponding dotted horizontal arrows pointed at the ordinate axis indicate mean SN for respectively O and L lines.ΔPN(horizontal filled arrow)indicates the mean increase in PN of L compared to O lines,whereas ΔSPP(vertical filled arrow)indicates the mean increase in SPP of L compared to O lines.ΔSNSPP and ΔSNPN(vertical open arrows)indicate the mean increase in SN due to the increase in SPP and PN,respectively.Parameters of the fitted regressions, coefficient of determination(R2)and probability(P)values are also shown.

    3.5. SN and its components PN and SPP

    Variation in SN was highly associated with changes in PN for L and O canopies(Fig.5).However,the values of SN were always higher in L than in O canopies throughout the range of PN generated by growing seasons and densities (P <0.001; compare fitted lines for L and O in Fig. 5). This difference was explained by the higher SPP of L than of O lines.

    L canopies showed higher minimum and maximum values of PN than O canopies: 1132-1821 pods m-2and 1062-1725 pods m-2,for L and O canopies,respectively.As a result,the mean PN was 1447 and 1354 pods m-2for L and O canopies,respectively(Fig.5,start of dotted vertical arrows at the abscissa axis). The mean SN corresponding to each mean PN was 3860 and 3091 seeds m-2for L and O canopies,respectively (Fig.5,dotted horizontal arrows pointed at the ordinate axis). The higher mean SN in L than in O canopies was the result of the added effects of the mean increase in SPP of L lines and the mean increase of PN in L canopies(vertical and horizontal filled arrows, respectively, in Fig. 5).

    Another interesting result was that the LD and HD points for L canopies were grouped in respectively the upper and lower sectors of the fitted line(Fig.5,compare open and filled squares), whereas no grouping was observed as a function of the density for O canopies(Fig.5, open and filled circles).

    4. Discussion

    4.1. Crop growth parameters and canopy light environment

    During the vegetative period, no difference in CGR was observed between L and O canopies, indicating that lower LAI was compensated by an increase in NAR of L canopies.Higher NAR in L canopies has been attributed [26] to a higher photosynthetic rate per unit leaf area,associated with a more uniform distribution of light into the canopy.Also,it has been suggested [46] that greater leaf photosynthetic capacity in L than in O lines was a consequence of higher Rubisco activity and more chloroplasts per unit leaf area in the former. Our results suggest that the increase in NAR can be attributed to higher IPARE in L than in O canopies before flowering (Table 2).This result is the first experimental evidence for the effect of leaflet shape on IPARE and its connection with NAR and CGR before canopy closure in soybean.

    Likewise,Board[31]and Carpenter and Board[47]reported that the similar CGR in low and high plant density was the result of the increase in the IPARE and NAR of plants sown at low density. In our experimental conditions a similar response was observed in GS 1(Table 2).

    With respect to the balance of photomorphogenic radiation, L canopies consistently showed higher R/FRMratio than O canopies at both plant densities. Although the greatest differences between L and O canopies occurred during the vegetative period, these differences persisted until R5, especially at LD (Fig. 1). Variation in R/FR ratios within soybean canopies with different plant populations and row spacing had been previously reported [30,31,48,49]. However, the results presented here provided the first experimental evidence that changes in leaf morphology (e.g. lanceolate vs.ovate)modify the R/FR balance within soybean canopies.

    4.2. L and O canopies and PI

    No difference was found between L and O lines in the duration of the R2-R5 period,which lasted 26 days in GS 1 and 27 days in GS 2.However,L canopies always showed higher PI than O canopies in both GS and plant densities. In previous studies[8,21],at CGRR2-R5above 14-15 g m-2day-1the response of PN to CGR was saturated.Under our experimental conditions,the mean CGRR2-R5was >20 g m-2day-1in all treatments(Table 3)suggesting that the CGRR2-R5was not the limiting factor in the determination of PN. In addition, PI was inversely related to LAI(Fig.3)and IPAR but directly associated with pods initiated on branches in both GS (Fig. 2). Similar results were reported by Quijano and Morandi[8]working with artificial defoliation imposed at flowering. Thus, two different experimental approaches have shown that, whether LAI reduction was achieved by leaflet removal or by genetic reduction of leaflet area, PI was always inversely related to LAI and IPAR, and no relationship was found between PI and CGRR2-R5.

    Remarkably, PI was directly associated with the canopy R/FR ratio of the V7-R5 period,for both leaflet shapes and plant densities (Fig. 4). In soybean, the reproductive structures differentiate in axillary racemes located at the nodes which start to develop well before flowering. In the present study,50% (GS 1) and 70% (GS 2) of branch nodes were generated before flowering and the increase in total PI was a consequence of the increase in PI at branch nodes (Fig. 2). It is known [29,31,50] that branching in soybean, like tillering in grasses, is a developmental process controlled by the R/FR ratio and that the photoreceptor involved is phytochrome B.Negative effects of phytochrome B mutation and low R/FR ratio on branching in Arabidopsis were largely a result of reductions in bud outgrowth due to an increased degree of correlative inhibition acting on the buds [51]. It is thus reasonable to infer that the effect of the R/FR signals on the PI begins before flowering,via its effect on the development of branch nodes.

    The highest value of PI/RN occurred in L-LD in both growing seasons (Table 4). As L-LD was the treatment that showed the highest R/FR ratio, it may be hypothesized that this response results from an intra-nodal process triggered by high levels of R/FR ratio,as suggested by Heindl and Brun[32]and Myers et al.[33].Testing this hypothesis,however,would require the design of new experiments.

    In this context, it is worth noting that even though LAI influences both IPAR and R/FR ratio, the photoreceptors involved are different. Whereas PAR is absorbed by chlorophylls, requires high irradiation levels, and functions in photosynthesis and assimilates production, the R/FR ratio is sensed by phytochromes, does not necessarily require high levels of radiation, and plays a controlling role in many developmental processes [28,29]. Fig. 6 shows that while the response to IPAR was almost saturated at LAI of 5(95%IPAR or LAI critical, LAIc), the canopy R/FR ratio decreased from around 0.80 to 0.25 with the increase in LAI from about 2.5 to 8.0. Moreover, the association between PI and canopy R/FR ratio was linear and direct for R/FRMratios from 0.23 to 0.53(Fig.4)which corresponded to LAIs of about 8 to 3,respectively(Fig. 6). These results show that, in intact soybean canopies,pod initiation was directly associated with R/FRMand that this association was sustained across different leaflet shapes and plant densities (Fig. 4). Furthermore, the association between PI and R/FRMremained valid above as well as below LAIc. To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence of a direct association between pod initiation and R/FR ratio in intact soybean canopies.

    Fig.6- Evolution of photosynthetically active radiation intercepted (IPAR)and the red/far-red ratio(R/FRM) as function of leaf area index(LAI). Filled circles show the evolution of the percentage of IPAR(left axis)for the pairs of soybean near-isogenic lines FV9-L/FV9-O and FV15-L/FV15-O grown at low and high plant density in 2014/2015 growing season(GS 2).Data points are means of three replicate samples for each line grown at low and high plant density.Continuous line is the fitted function for data points of%IPAR.Dotted arrow pointed at the abscissa indicates the critical LAI(LAIc=5)for 95%IPAR.Open circles show the evolution of the R/FRM(right axis)as a function of LAI for the pair of near-isogenic lines FV15-L/FV15-O grown at low and high plant density in GS 2.Dashed line is the fitted function for data points of R/FRM.Parameters of the fitted regressions and coefficients of determination (R2)are also shown.

    4.3. L and O canopies, yield components, and yield

    As in other studies[1-4,52],yield was directly associated with SN but not with SZ. SN is the product of PN and SPP. As PN depends on the balance between PI and pods abscised, the increase in PI may eventually be offset by the increase in pod abscission.In both GS and densities,PI was higher in L than in O canopies (Table 4). As at LD there was no difference in pod abscission between L and O, the increase in PI explained the higher PN at harvest in L-LD than in O-LD canopies (Table 5).At HD,however,L showed 14%more abscised pods than O,so that PN at harvest remained similar for L-HD and O-HD canopies(Table 5).Whereas some authors[18,53-55]consider that pod abscission is controlled by the assimilatory capacity,others [32,33] propose that the abscission of reproductive structures in soybean is photomorphogenically regulated.The process of abscission is controlled by developmental and environmental cues in which plant hormones such as cytokinins, auxins, and ethylene are involved [56-59]. In tobacco, the synthesis of ethylene was stimulated by a low R/FR ratio [59]. The main peak of pod abscission in soybean occurs immediately after R5 [8,18]. Under our experimental conditions the LAI during the main abscission period was above LAIc in all treatments,suggesting that the assimilatory capacity was not limiting. However, the causes of the differences in pod abscission remain unknown.

    The other component that determines SN is the SPP,which depends on SPPPand seed abortion. The L lines used in this study had 20%more SPPPthan O lines(3.6 and 2.9 for L and O,respectively, Table 5). This difference was explained by the higher percentage of four-seeded pods in L (60%) than in O(7%)lines.At harvest, SPPPdropped to a SPP of 2.7 and 2.3 for respectively in L and O lines,owing to seed abortion(Table 5).Even though L lines showed 5% more seed abortion than O lines,the differences in harvest SPP remained 17%higher in L than in O lines, increasing the SN of the former at both plant densities(Table 5).

    Fig.5 summarizes the relationships among PN,SPP and SN found in this study.The range of variation in PN observed for L and O canopies was generated by the combination of different growing seasons and densities. The finding that the position of the fitted function for L was always above that for O in Fig.5, may be explained by genetic differences in SPPPbetween L and O lines (Table 1, Table 5). Moreover,the difference in SPP between the two leaflet shapes remained stable over the entire range of variation in PN(Fig.5).The stability of the SPP component is consistent with previous reports [6-8] that SPP is a highly heritable trait only slightly influenced by environment.Our results show that the effect of increasing SPP on the increase of SN was direct and independent of PN, showing that there was no compensation between SPP and PN.

    PN in L canopies was clearly separated into two groups depending on density (Fig. 5, compare open and filled squares), whereas no grouping as a function of density was observed in O canopies (Fig. 5, open and filled circles). The differing responses to density of L and O canopies may be explained by differences in pod initiation and pod abscission.Thus, for L canopies the increase in pod initiation was reinforced by a decrease in pod abscission in L-LD compared to L-HD, magnifying the differences in PN between the two treatments(Fig.5).In contrast,for O canopies,the higher PI in O-LD than in O-HD was partially offset by the increase in pod abscission in the former, preventing a clear separation of PN between the two densities(Fig.5).

    Although O lines showed higher SZ than their L counterparts,this difference was not reflected in yield. At LD,the SN of L lines outweighed their low SZ,allowing higher yields in LLD than in O-LD canopies,whereas at HD,yield of L-HD and OHD canopies remained unchanged because SN and SZ compensated for each other(Table 5).

    Previous studies [27,35,37,60,61] evaluating lanceolate leaflets effect on yield suggested that this trait offers neither a yield advantage nor a disadvantage compared to ovate leaflets. However, these studies were conducted with older varieties whose mean yield was around 2600 kg ha-1(2100 to 3200 kg ha-1) whereas the lines used in this study had an mean yield of around 5430 kg ha-1(4460 to 6570 kg ha-1,Table 5). Traits such as leaflet shape may require a suitable genetic background to maximize yield potential [36,62]. In addition,crop management decisions such as the choice of plant density must be adjusted properly to optimize the effect of leaflet shape on the components of yield under diverse environmental conditions. We suggest that the deployment of the L trait, together with an appropriate selection of plant density, would increase the canopy R/FR ratio, increasing PI and pods retained. Given that the L trait is controlled by a single gene, it would be simple to incorporate it into elite soybean germplasm.

    Also, the introgression, by conventional or marker-assisted breeding,of the high percentage of four-seeded pods into modern soybean germplasm will increase SPP and impact positively on SN,the component most associated with yield in soybean.

    5. Conclusions

    The results presented in this study show for the first time that L canopies had higher IPARE than O canopies. The higher IPARE may explain the increase in NAR observed for L canopies that allowed them to achieve similar CGR than O canopies,particularly before canopy closure.PI increased with the increase in the canopy R/FR ratio.This positive association was maintained across different leaflet shapes and plant densities and was sustained above as well as below LAIc.This finding provides strong experimental evidence that R/FR ratio is positively associated with PI in intact soybean canopies.Increasing SPP increased SN irrespective of PN and plant density.

    Declaration of competing interest

    Authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

    Acknowledgements

    We are grateful to Darío Dardo Rocha for his help in the design and assembly of the equipment for the measurement of red and far-red light in the field. We also thank María Gabriela Borgognone and Celina Beltrán for their advice with statistical analysis. This research was partially supported by Project PUE 22920160100043, IICAR-CONICET, Argentina; and Project 2010-205-13 Ministerio de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación Productiva, Santa Fe Province,Argentina.

    Appendix A. Supplementary data

    Supplementary data for this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2019.09.011.

    午夜影院在线不卡| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 一级毛片我不卡| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀 | 一边亲一边摸免费视频| av片东京热男人的天堂| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播 | 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 免费在线观看影片大全网站 | 18在线观看网站| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区 | 9热在线视频观看99| www.自偷自拍.com| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看 | 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| av在线app专区| 成人国产一区最新在线观看 | 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 一级片免费观看大全| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 手机成人av网站| 午夜福利视频精品| 91老司机精品| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| av天堂在线播放| 国产在线视频一区二区| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 国产成人欧美| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 黄色 视频免费看| 乱人伦中国视频| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 免费看十八禁软件| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 乱人伦中国视频| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 一本久久精品| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看 | 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 岛国毛片在线播放| 捣出白浆h1v1| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 女人久久www免费人成看片| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 1024香蕉在线观看| av网站在线播放免费| av视频免费观看在线观看| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 99国产精品99久久久久| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看 | 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o | 免费在线观看日本一区| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 国产麻豆69| 最黄视频免费看| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 桃花免费在线播放| 亚洲综合色网址| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 亚洲伊人色综图| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 99香蕉大伊视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 午夜免费鲁丝| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 精品福利观看| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 在线看a的网站| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| 免费在线观看日本一区| 美女福利国产在线| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 黄片小视频在线播放| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看 | 50天的宝宝边吃奶边哭怎么回事| 飞空精品影院首页| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| www.999成人在线观看| 久久av网站| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 日本a在线网址| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 久久国产精品影院| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 777米奇影视久久| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 国产在线免费精品| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| a级毛片黄视频| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 久久久久网色| 欧美日韩黄片免| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 精品少妇内射三级| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 91国产中文字幕| 在线观看国产h片| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 午夜视频精品福利| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 国产主播在线观看一区二区 | 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 国产主播在线观看一区二区 | 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 免费看不卡的av| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 9热在线视频观看99| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 男女边摸边吃奶| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 日韩电影二区| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索 | 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区 | 青青草视频在线视频观看| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 一区二区av电影网| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 日韩中文字幕视频在线看片| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 热re99久久国产66热| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡 | 人人澡人人妻人| 在线观看人妻少妇| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 天天添夜夜摸| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 黄频高清免费视频| 一级毛片 在线播放| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美 | 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 一本综合久久免费| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 黄色 视频免费看| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 国产精品三级大全| 9热在线视频观看99| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 宅男免费午夜| 黄频高清免费视频| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 一区二区av电影网| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 黄色视频不卡| 我的亚洲天堂| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 久久久国产一区二区| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看 | 香蕉国产在线看| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 曰老女人黄片| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 黄片播放在线免费| 蜜桃在线观看..| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 一本综合久久免费| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 久久久久视频综合| 色播在线永久视频| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 777米奇影视久久| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 大陆偷拍与自拍| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密 | 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 成人国产av品久久久| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 国产精品成人在线| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 久久国产精品影院| 午夜福利,免费看| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 免费观看av网站的网址| 婷婷色综合www| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 脱女人内裤的视频| 久久久久久人人人人人| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 中文欧美无线码| 久久青草综合色| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 一级片免费观看大全| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 一本久久精品| 男女之事视频高清在线观看 | 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 国产三级黄色录像| 成人国产av品久久久| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 成人免费观看视频高清| 亚洲国产av新网站| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 美女午夜性视频免费| 两性夫妻黄色片| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 精品福利永久在线观看| 下体分泌物呈黄色| a级毛片在线看网站| 久久久久网色| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 成人国产av品久久久| 免费av中文字幕在线| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 中文字幕制服av| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | av不卡在线播放| 香蕉丝袜av| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 国产男女内射视频| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 国产麻豆69| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 亚洲伊人色综图| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 婷婷成人精品国产| 老司机影院毛片| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 国产精品免费视频内射| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 久久人人爽人人片av| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 亚洲精品在线美女| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 最新在线观看一区二区三区 | 久久狼人影院| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 香蕉丝袜av| 欧美另类一区| 999久久久国产精品视频| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 亚洲精品第二区| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 男女之事视频高清在线观看 | 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 国产精品三级大全| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| www.999成人在线观看| 777米奇影视久久| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| av网站在线播放免费| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 日本wwww免费看| 老熟女久久久| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 午夜91福利影院| 欧美97在线视频| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 91精品三级在线观看| 在线av久久热| 一级黄片播放器| 在线天堂中文资源库| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 多毛熟女@视频| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 777米奇影视久久| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 老熟女久久久| 18在线观看网站| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 国产在视频线精品| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 性少妇av在线| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密 | 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 91国产中文字幕| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| av欧美777| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 亚洲人成电影观看| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 欧美日韩av久久| 看免费av毛片| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 香蕉丝袜av| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 成人手机av| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 美女中出高潮动态图| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 曰老女人黄片| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 午夜免费鲁丝| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 18禁观看日本| av福利片在线| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 99久久综合免费| 国产成人一区二区在线| 国产精品三级大全| 亚洲伊人色综图| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码 | 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 国产成人影院久久av| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 午夜91福利影院| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 久久久久久人人人人人| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 亚洲久久久国产精品| av国产精品久久久久影院| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久 | 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 国产麻豆69| 午夜两性在线视频| 永久免费av网站大全| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 中国国产av一级| 国产成人精品在线电影| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 美女中出高潮动态图| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 桃花免费在线播放| 免费看不卡的av| 色播在线永久视频| 中国美女看黄片| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| xxx大片免费视频| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 蜜桃在线观看..| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 国产成人影院久久av| 97在线人人人人妻| 久久影院123| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| av网站在线播放免费| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 美女中出高潮动态图| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 亚洲九九香蕉| 精品少妇内射三级| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 免费av中文字幕在线| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 久久久久久久精品精品| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| av一本久久久久| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 一区二区av电影网| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 女警被强在线播放| 成年动漫av网址| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 国产在线视频一区二区| 亚洲国产欧美网| 亚洲九九香蕉| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 国产av国产精品国产| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 另类亚洲欧美激情| 久久热在线av| 91精品三级在线观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 999久久久国产精品视频| 伦理电影免费视频| 亚洲九九香蕉| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 免费av中文字幕在线| 国产在线免费精品| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 青草久久国产| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看 | 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 久久国产精品影院| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 久久久久久人人人人人| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 欧美在线黄色| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 午夜免费鲁丝| 久久久国产精品麻豆| av电影中文网址| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 一级黄片播放器| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 久久av网站|