庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形冠層結(jié)構(gòu)和產(chǎn)量品質(zhì)的比較

江振斌，廖康，趙世榮，達(dá)夢(mèng)香，徐桂香，章世奎，徐樂(lè)

(1.新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)林學(xué)與園藝學(xué)院特色果樹(shù)研究中心，烏魯木齊 830052；2.新疆農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué)院輪臺(tái)果樹(shù)資源圃，新疆輪臺(tái) 841600)

?

庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形冠層結(jié)構(gòu)和產(chǎn)量品質(zhì)的比較

江振斌1，廖康1，趙世榮1，達(dá)夢(mèng)香1，徐桂香1，章世奎2，徐樂(lè)2

(1.新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)林學(xué)與園藝學(xué)院特色果樹(shù)研究中心，烏魯木齊 830052；2.新疆農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué)院輪臺(tái)果樹(shù)資源圃，新疆輪臺(tái) 841600)

【目的】比較庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形冠層結(jié)構(gòu)以及果實(shí)產(chǎn)量與品質(zhì)的差異，為庫(kù)爾勒香梨樹(shù)形的評(píng)價(jià)與選擇提供理論基礎(chǔ)?！痉椒ā坑肔AI-2200冠層分析儀對(duì)水平棚架形、疏散分層形和自然開(kāi)心形庫(kù)爾勒香梨的冠層結(jié)構(gòu)、產(chǎn)量、品質(zhì)進(jìn)行測(cè)定分析，比較其差異?！窘Y(jié)果】水平棚架形庫(kù)爾勒香梨的葉面積指數(shù)最大；疏散分層形總枝量最高，與水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形相比，分別高出25.4%、13.8%，而水平棚架形總枝量最低。不同樹(shù)形產(chǎn)量存在差異，3種樹(shù)形單果質(zhì)量和單株產(chǎn)量大小排序?yàn)樗脚锛苄?自然開(kāi)心形>疏散分層形。水平棚架形特級(jí)果率最高，與疏散分層形相比，提高了18.5%。3種樹(shù)形脫萼果率、宿萼果率、凸頂果率差異極顯著(P>0.01)，水平棚架形脫萼果率最高。自然開(kāi)心形和水平棚架形的脫萼果率與疏散分層形相比，分別提高了41.6%、23.3%。水平棚架形L值、b值最大，但其a值最小，自然開(kāi)心形a值最大。水平棚架形與自然開(kāi)心形的可滴定酸和VC存在顯著差異，其可滴定酸和VC均高于自然開(kāi)心形。自然開(kāi)心形可溶性固形物、總糖、固酸比、糖酸比均最高，而硬度、可滴定酸最低?！窘Y(jié)論】庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形中，水平棚架形葉面積指數(shù)最大，疏散分層形次之。3種樹(shù)形枝量差異較大，疏散分層形的總枝量最高，與水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形相比，分別高出25.4%、13.8%。不同樹(shù)形的產(chǎn)量存在差異，水平棚架形產(chǎn)量比疏散分層形高12.8%。水平棚架形優(yōu)等果率和脫萼果率明顯高于其它兩種樹(shù)形，與疏散分層形相比，分別高出18.5%、14.8%。水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形果實(shí)內(nèi)在品質(zhì)較優(yōu)且差異較小，而疏散分層形內(nèi)在品質(zhì)較差。

庫(kù)爾勒香梨；冠層結(jié)構(gòu)；產(chǎn)量；品質(zhì)

0 引 言

【研究意義】庫(kù)爾勒香梨原產(chǎn)于新疆巴音郭楞蒙古自治州、阿克蘇等地，至今已有1 400多年的栽培歷史，它以皮薄、肉脆、汁多、味甜、果香濃郁等特點(diǎn)受國(guó)內(nèi)外消費(fèi)者青睞。樹(shù)形是果樹(shù)優(yōu)質(zhì)栽培的基礎(chǔ)，冠層是果樹(shù)樹(shù)形結(jié)構(gòu)的主要組成部分，合理的冠層結(jié)構(gòu)可以改善冠層內(nèi)的通風(fēng)透光，促進(jìn)葉片與其附近大氣的CO2交換，從而增強(qiáng)光合作用，提高果實(shí)產(chǎn)量與品質(zhì)[1]?！厩叭搜芯窟M(jìn)展】庫(kù)爾勒香梨?zhèn)鹘y(tǒng)的整形方式多為疏散分層形或小冠疏層等相似的樹(shù)形，近年來(lái)開(kāi)心形和水平棚架形逐步受到關(guān)注。梨棚架式樹(shù)形是日本特有的樹(shù)形，在日本已有200多年栽培歷史[2]，該樹(shù)形沒(méi)有中心干，枝條綁縛在水平網(wǎng)架上生長(zhǎng)結(jié)果，具有通風(fēng)透光好、防風(fēng)、操作管理方便等優(yōu)點(diǎn)[3]。伍濤等[4]研究豐水梨表明，棚架形果實(shí)品質(zhì)優(yōu)于疏散分層形而產(chǎn)量低于疏散分層形；蔡忠民等[5]研究黃金梨表明，棚架形對(duì)光能利用率高，果實(shí)重量均勻，優(yōu)等果率高于紡錘形?！颈狙芯壳腥朦c(diǎn)】有關(guān)水平棚架形在庫(kù)爾勒香梨上的研究至今未見(jiàn)報(bào)道。試驗(yàn)以水平棚架形、疏散分層形和自然開(kāi)心形庫(kù)爾勒香梨為試材，測(cè)定各樹(shù)形的葉面積指數(shù)、枝類與枝量，從單果質(zhì)量、特級(jí)果率、萼片與果頂情況、果實(shí)著色、可溶性固形物和總糖含量等方面進(jìn)行分析，比較不同樹(shù)形產(chǎn)量與品質(zhì)的差異。【擬解決的關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題】通過(guò)對(duì)比單果質(zhì)量、脫萼果率、固酸比等主要指標(biāo)，探討不同樹(shù)形外在品質(zhì)與內(nèi)在品質(zhì)的優(yōu)劣，為庫(kù)爾勒香梨合理的樹(shù)形選擇提供理論依據(jù)。

1 材料與方法

1.1 材 料

試驗(yàn)地位于新疆巴音郭楞蒙古族自治州輪臺(tái)縣果樹(shù)資源圃(41°47′N、84°13′E，海拔962 m)。該地區(qū)處于天山南麓，塔里木盆地北緣，地勢(shì)平緩，屬于暖溫帶大陸性干旱氣候，年日照時(shí)數(shù)約2 608.8 h左右，年均太陽(yáng)總輻射量可達(dá)到577.6 kJ/cm2，全年≥10℃積溫為4 362～4 969℃，年平均氣溫約為11.9℃，最高氣溫為38℃，最低氣溫為-17℃，無(wú)霜期為219 d。

試驗(yàn)區(qū)庫(kù)爾勒香梨砧木為杜梨，樹(shù)齡28 a。樹(shù)勢(shì)中庸，樹(shù)體健康，栽培管理?xiàng)l件一致，南北行向定植，株行距為5 m×6 m。選取長(zhǎng)勢(shì)一致，樹(shù)形端正的水平棚架形、疏散分層形、自然開(kāi)心形樹(shù)各3株。

1.2 方 法

1.2.1 冠層結(jié)構(gòu)測(cè)定

葉幕穩(wěn)定期，在日出前，用LAI-2200冠層分析儀對(duì)3種樹(shù)形葉面積指數(shù)(LAI)進(jìn)行測(cè)定。落葉后至冬剪前，對(duì)3種樹(shù)形的總枝量和枝類進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計(jì)，并計(jì)算各類枝條所占總枝量的比例。將枝類分為4種，短枝：<15.0 cm，中枝：15.1～30.0 cm，長(zhǎng)枝：30.1～60 cm，營(yíng)養(yǎng)枝：>60 cm。

1.2.2 果實(shí)產(chǎn)量測(cè)定

于2014年9月12日，摘取每株試驗(yàn)樹(shù)所有果實(shí)后準(zhǔn)確稱出其重量，測(cè)得單株產(chǎn)量后根據(jù)株行距折合成每畝產(chǎn)量。對(duì)每株試驗(yàn)樹(shù)采下的果實(shí)進(jìn)行分級(jí)測(cè)定，將果實(shí)按大小分為四個(gè)等級(jí)，特級(jí)果：>120 g、一級(jí)果：100～120 g、二級(jí)果：80～100 g等外果：<80 g，并統(tǒng)計(jì)100 g以上的優(yōu)等果率。將果實(shí)萼片狀況分為脫萼、宿萼和果頂凸出三種，果實(shí)脫萼率%=脫萼果實(shí)數(shù)量/果實(shí)總數(shù)量，再依次算出宿萼果、凸頂果所占的百分?jǐn)?shù)，脫萼果%+宿萼果%+凸頂果%=1。最終將統(tǒng)計(jì)出的單株果實(shí)總個(gè)數(shù)/單株產(chǎn)量即為平均單果質(zhì)量。

1.2.3 果實(shí)品質(zhì)測(cè)定

每株試驗(yàn)樹(shù)的樹(shù)冠東、南、西、北隨機(jī)共摘取30個(gè)果實(shí)，以株為單位將果實(shí)混合并做好標(biāo)記，對(duì)果實(shí)外觀品質(zhì)和內(nèi)在品質(zhì)進(jìn)行測(cè)定。果實(shí)縱徑與橫徑用電子游標(biāo)卡尺(0.01 mm)測(cè)定，果形指數(shù)為縱徑與橫徑之比；果實(shí)著色用SC-80C型色差計(jì)測(cè)定；果實(shí)硬度(去皮)用GY-1型水果硬度計(jì)測(cè)定；可溶性固形物(TSS)含量用WYT-4型手持糖量計(jì)測(cè)定；總糖含量用斐林法測(cè)定；可滴定酸用NaOH滴定法測(cè)定；VC含量用2，6-二氯靛酚滴定法測(cè)定。

1.3 數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)

運(yùn)用Excel 2010對(duì)試驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)處理，采用SPSS 20.0 軟件進(jìn)行方差分析。

2 結(jié)果與分析

2.1 不同樹(shù)形的基本特征

研究表明，3種樹(shù)形間樹(shù)高的差異均達(dá)到了極顯著水平(P<0.01)，其排序從高到低為疏散分層形>自然開(kāi)心形>水平棚架形。各樹(shù)形間主干直徑、主干高和冠幅均無(wú)顯著差異，自然開(kāi)心形主干直徑略小于其它兩種樹(shù)形。表1

2.2 不同樹(shù)形冠層結(jié)構(gòu)差異

研究表明，3種樹(shù)形冠層結(jié)構(gòu)差異較大。各樹(shù)形間LAI的差異達(dá)到了極顯著水平(P<0.01)，其大小排序?yàn)樗脚锛苄?疏散分層形>自然開(kāi)心形。水平棚架形短枝占總枝量比例最高，但其短枝數(shù)、中枝數(shù)、長(zhǎng)枝數(shù)、營(yíng)養(yǎng)枝數(shù)及營(yíng)養(yǎng)枝占總枝量比例均最低。疏散分層形總枝量最高，與水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形相比，分別高出25.4%、13.8%，而水平棚架形總枝量最低。表2

表1 庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形的基本特征
Table 1 Basic characteristics of three tree shapes in Korla fragrant pear

樹(shù)形Treeshapes樹(shù)高(m)Treehigh主干直徑(cm)Trunkdiameter主干高(m)Trunkhigh冠幅Crowndiameter(m)東-西(E-W)南-北(S-N)水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape2.4cC40.1aA0.48aA6.7aA6.5aA疏散分層形Evacuationshape5.4aA40.0aA0.52aA7.2aA6.4aA自然開(kāi)心形Naturalopencentershape3.8bB36.5aA0.45aA6.6aA6.5aA

注：同一列中不同大寫(xiě)字母表示差異極顯著(P<0.01)，不同小寫(xiě)字母表示差異顯著(P<0.05)，下同

Note : Different letter indicated the significant differences, capital letter 1% level, small letter 5% level. The same as below

表2 庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形葉面積指數(shù)和枝量
Table 2 The leaf area index and branch numbers of three tree shapes in Korla fragrant pear

樹(shù)形Treeshapes葉面積指數(shù)Leafareaindex枝量(條)及其占總枝量的比例Branchnumbersandtheproportionofthemountoftotalbranchnumbers短枝Shortbranches中枝Mediumbranches長(zhǎng)枝Longbranches營(yíng)養(yǎng)枝Vegetativebranches總枝量(104條/667m2)Totalbranches水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape4.2aA430(38.6%)336(30.1%)296(26.5%)51(4.6%)37.1aB疏散分層形Evacuationshape3.9aA503(36.0%)406(29.0%)375(26.8%)113(8.1%)46.6bA自然開(kāi)心形Naturalopencentershape2.8bB449(36.6%)368(30.0%)324(26.4%)86(7.0%)40.9aAB

2.3 不同樹(shù)形果實(shí)產(chǎn)量差異

研究表明，3種樹(shù)形單果質(zhì)量和單株產(chǎn)量大小排序?yàn)樗脚锛苄?自然開(kāi)心形>疏散分層形，其中，水平棚架形單果質(zhì)量與其它樹(shù)形的差異達(dá)到顯著水平(P<0.05)，而各樹(shù)形間單株產(chǎn)量差異不顯著。水平棚架形特級(jí)果率最高，其次是自然開(kāi)心形。水平棚架形特級(jí)果率與其它樹(shù)形的差異達(dá)到極顯著水平(P<0.01)，其優(yōu)等果率與其它樹(shù)形的差異達(dá)到顯著水平(P<0.05)。水平棚架形特級(jí)果率和優(yōu)等果率與疏散分層形相比，分別提高了18.5%、14.8%，自然開(kāi)心形優(yōu)等果率略大于疏散分層形。表3

表3 庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形的果實(shí)產(chǎn)量
Table 3 Yield of three tree shapes in Korla fragrant pear

樹(shù)形Treeshapes單果質(zhì)量(g)Meanfruitmass單株產(chǎn)量(kg)Yieldperplant單產(chǎn)(kg/667m2)Muyield特級(jí)果率(%)Specialgradefruitrate一級(jí)果率(%)Firstgradefruitrate優(yōu)等果率(%)Highqualityfruitrate水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape112.5aA148.4aA3264.1aA41.0aA42.4abA83.4aA疏散分層形Evacuationshape109.5bB131.6aA2894.8aA34.6bB39.4bA74.0bA自然開(kāi)心形Naturalopencentershape109.7bB147.7aA3248.5aA31.8bB45.5aA77.3bA

2.4 不同樹(shù)形果實(shí)外觀品質(zhì)差異

研究表明，3種樹(shù)形間脫萼果率、宿萼果率、凸頂果率差異均達(dá)到了極顯著水平(P<0.01)，水平棚架形脫萼果率最高，但其凸頂果率最低。水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形的脫萼果率與疏散分層形相比，分別提高了41.6%、23.3%。水平棚架形果形指數(shù)、L值、b值與其它樹(shù)形的差異均達(dá)到極顯著水平(P<0.01)，而疏散分層形與自然開(kāi)心形果形指數(shù)、L值、b值差異不顯著。水平棚架形L值、b值最大，而其a值最小，自然開(kāi)心形a值最大。表4

表4 庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形果實(shí)外觀品質(zhì)
Table 4 Appearance quality of three tree shapes in Koral fragrant pear

樹(shù)形Treeshapes果形指數(shù)Fruitshapeindex萼片與果頂情況(%)Sepalandfruittopstatus果實(shí)著色Fruitcoloring脫萼果率Leavingcalyxrate宿萼果率Persistentcalyxrate凸頂果率ConvexcalyxrateLaB水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape1.15bB74.26aA23.62cC2.12cC63.77aA-8.86bB43.50aA疏散分層形Evacuationshape1.21aA52.21cC35.59aA10.20aA61.83bB-8.43bAB41.26bB自然開(kāi)心形Naturalopencentershape1.22aA64.40bB28.92Bb6.67bB61.24bB-6.43aA41.20bB

2.5 不同樹(shù)形果實(shí)內(nèi)在品質(zhì)差異

研究表明，水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形的可滴定酸和VC存在顯著差異(P<0.05)，其可滴定酸和VC均高于自然開(kāi)心形，但它們其余指標(biāo)的差異均不顯著。除疏散分層形的TSS和固酸與其它樹(shù)形差異不顯著外，其余各指標(biāo)的差異均達(dá)到了極顯著水平(P<0.01)。自然開(kāi)心形TTS、總糖、固酸比、糖酸比均最高，而硬度、可滴定酸最低。表5

表5 庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形的內(nèi)在品質(zhì)
Table 5 Internal quality of three shapes fruit in Koral fragrant pear

樹(shù)形Treeshapes硬度(kg/cm2)Firmness可溶性固形物(%)Solublesolids總糖(mg/100g)Totalsugar可滴定酸(%)TitratableacidityVC(mg/100g)固酸比Solids-acidratio糖酸比Sugar-acidratio水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape7.29bA12.41Aa5.72aA0.406aAB4.33aA30.50aA14.11aA疏散分層形Evacuationshape7.45aA12.32aA5.19bB0.417aA3.62cC29.66aA12.53bB自然開(kāi)心形Naturalopencentershape7.21bA12.43aA5.74aA0.396bB4.22bB31.41aA14.53aA

3 討 論

樹(shù)形決定冠層的形狀，而冠層的形狀決定冠層的枝葉量與樹(shù)冠的通風(fēng)透光，因此合理的樹(shù)形結(jié)構(gòu)是果樹(shù)優(yōu)質(zhì)豐產(chǎn)的基礎(chǔ)[1]。試驗(yàn)結(jié)果表明，庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形中，水平棚架形LAI最高，疏散分層形次之，這與樹(shù)形結(jié)構(gòu)及枝葉的空間分布密切相關(guān)。水平棚架形雖沒(méi)有中心干且總枝量最低，但其枝條綁縛在水平的架面上，枝葉幾乎鋪滿了整個(gè)架面，因此其LAI最高；疏散分層形樹(shù)體高大，總枝量最高且空間分布較為密集，所以其LAI也較高；自然開(kāi)心形也沒(méi)有中心干，枝葉空間分布較疏散分層形稀疏，因此其LAI最低。

3種樹(shù)形單果質(zhì)量與平均單株產(chǎn)量存在差異，其大小為排序水平棚架形>自然開(kāi)心形>疏散分層形，水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形與疏散分層形相比，產(chǎn)量有所提高，這與魏樹(shù)偉等[6]的研究結(jié)果一致，但與伍濤等[4]的研究結(jié)果相反。特級(jí)果和一級(jí)果是影響香梨商品價(jià)值的重要因素之一，試驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)，各樹(shù)形間特級(jí)果率和一級(jí)果率存在差異，自然開(kāi)心形優(yōu)等果率略大于疏散分層形，水平棚架形特級(jí)果率和優(yōu)等果率與疏散分層形相比，分別提高了18.5%、14.8%，這與水平棚架形樹(shù)形結(jié)構(gòu)、冠內(nèi)光分布及樹(shù)體營(yíng)養(yǎng)狀況有密切關(guān)系[7]。

庫(kù)爾勒香梨果實(shí)萼片狀況分為三種:萼片脫落，簡(jiǎn)稱“脫萼”，萼片宿存，簡(jiǎn)稱“宿萼”，頂部及萼片凸出，簡(jiǎn)稱“凸頂”。宿萼果俗稱母梨，果實(shí)表面較為光滑，石細(xì)胞含量較少，肉質(zhì)細(xì)膩，口感較好；而凸頂果俗稱“公梨”，果實(shí)一般石細(xì)胞含量較高，口感較差[8]，因此，提高果實(shí)的脫萼果率、減少凸頂果率有利于提高香梨的商品價(jià)值。在花期使用植物生長(zhǎng)調(diào)節(jié)劑可改變香梨花萼的生長(zhǎng)情況，剛明慧等[9]研究表明，花期噴施多效唑、激動(dòng)素和乙烯利可以提高庫(kù)爾勒香梨的脫萼果率。丁家鳴等[10]研究表明，在花期夜間對(duì)香梨進(jìn)行一定的低溫處理能提高脫萼果率。試驗(yàn)表明，庫(kù)爾勒香梨不同樹(shù)形脫萼果率和凸頂果率有很大差異，3種樹(shù)形脫萼果率大小排序?yàn)樗脚锛苄?自然開(kāi)心形>疏散分層形，而其凸頂果率大小正好相反。水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形的脫萼果率與疏散分層形相比，分別提高了41.6%、23.3%。這可能由于水平棚架形去除中心干且枝條綁縛在水平的架面上，抑制了新梢過(guò)旺生長(zhǎng)，樹(shù)體受光、營(yíng)養(yǎng)狀況比較均衡，果實(shí)萼片易脫落；而自然開(kāi)心形也是去除中心干，冠內(nèi)通風(fēng)透光、樹(shù)體營(yíng)養(yǎng)優(yōu)于疏散分層形。

L值表示果實(shí)表面顏色深淺，L值越大，表示顏色越淺，果實(shí)表面越有光澤；a值表示紅綠的程度，a值為“+”表示紅的程度，a值為“-”表示綠色；b值表示黃青的程度，b值為“+”表示黃的程度，b值為“-”表示青的程度[11]。試驗(yàn)表明，水平棚架形L值、b值最大，而其a值最小，說(shuō)明水平棚架形果實(shí)表面比較有光澤、但紅暈較少；自然開(kāi)心形a值最大，說(shuō)明果面紅暈較多。不同樹(shù)形間內(nèi)在品質(zhì)存在差異，自然開(kāi)心形內(nèi)在品質(zhì)明顯優(yōu)于疏散分層形，這與李國(guó)棟[12]等對(duì)蘋(píng)果、何鳳梨[13]對(duì)桃、成小龍[14]對(duì)庫(kù)爾勒香梨的研究結(jié)果一致，而水平棚架形與自然開(kāi)心形果實(shí)內(nèi)在品質(zhì)差異不大。

4 結(jié) 論

庫(kù)爾勒香梨3種樹(shù)形中，水平棚架形LAI最大，疏散分層形次之。3種樹(shù)形總枝量差異較大，疏散分層形的總枝量最高，與水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形相比，分別高出25.4%、13.8%。不同樹(shù)形的產(chǎn)量存在差異，水平棚架形產(chǎn)量比疏散分層形高12.8%。水平棚架形優(yōu)等果率和脫萼果率明顯高于其它兩種樹(shù)形，與疏散分層形相比，分別高出18.5%、14.8%。水平棚架形和自然開(kāi)心形果實(shí)內(nèi)在品質(zhì)較優(yōu)且差異較小，而疏散分層形內(nèi)在品質(zhì)較差。

References)

[1]王琰,范崇輝,江道偉,等.蘋(píng)果不同樹(shù)形樹(shù)冠特性和果實(shí)品質(zhì)的比較[J].西北農(nóng)業(yè)學(xué)報(bào),2011,20(12):93-97.

WANG Yan,FAN Chong-hui,JIANG Dao-wei,et al.(2011).Comparison on crown characteristics and fruit quality of different tree canopy shapes[J].ActaAgriculturaeBoreali-occidentalisSinica, 20(12):93-97.(in Chinese)

[2]伍濤,張紹鈴,吳俊.梨樹(shù)棚架栽培的優(yōu)勢(shì)及其在我國(guó)的應(yīng)用前景[J].中國(guó)果業(yè)信息,2013,30(6):28-30.

WU Tao,ZHANG Shao-ling,WU Jun. (2013).The advantage of trellis cultivation in pear and its application prospect in China [J].ChinaFruitNews, 30(6):28-30.(in Chinese)

[3]魏樹(shù)偉,王瑋,王少敏.梨棚架栽培現(xiàn)狀及展望[J].湖北農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué),2011,50(7):1 394-1 396.

WEI Shu-wei,WANG Wei,WANG Shao-min.(2011).Current situation and prospect of trellis cultivation and prune of pear [J].HubeiagriculturalScience, 50(7):1,394-1,396.(in Chinese)

[4]伍濤,張紹鈴,吳俊,等.'豐水'梨棚架與疏散分層冠層結(jié)構(gòu)特點(diǎn)及產(chǎn)量品質(zhì)的比較[J].園藝學(xué)報(bào),2008,35(10):1 411-1 418.

WU Tao,ZHANG Shao-ling,WU Jun,et al.(2008).Comparative studies on canopy structure characteristics yield and fruit quality in horizontal trellis system and delayed-open central leader system of` 'Hosui' pear tree [J].ActaHorticulturaeSinica, 35(10):1,411-1,418. (in Chinese)

[5]蔡忠民.黃金梨棚架栽培及其光合作用變化規(guī)律研究[D]. 呼和浩特：內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)碩士論文,2009.

CAI Zhong-ming.(2009).Studyonthecultivationandrelationshipbetweenthecultivationandphotosynthesisinleavesoftrellistrained'Whangkeumbae' [D].Master Dissertation. Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot.(in Chinese)

[6]魏樹(shù)偉,李喆,劉斌,等.不同樹(shù)形豐水梨的生長(zhǎng)和果實(shí)品質(zhì)調(diào)查[J].落葉果樹(shù),2012,44(5):15-17.

WEI Shu-wei,LI Zhe,LIU Bin,et al.(2012).Investigation on the growth of Fengshui pear and fruit quality in different tree shapes [J].DeciduousFruits, 44(5):15-17.(in Chinese)

[7]成永東,姚忠明,黃希賢,等.梨棚架栽培的優(yōu)點(diǎn)和栽培技術(shù)[J].落葉果樹(shù),2002,34(5):48-50.

CHENG Yong-dong,YAO Zhong-ming,HUANG Xi-xian,et al.(2002).The advantages and cultivation techniques of pear trellis cultivation system [J].DeciduousFruits, 34(5):48-50.(in Chinese)

[8]何子順,張虎平,阿衣木古麗·烏布力.梨果實(shí)的"公梨"與"母梨"分析[J].中國(guó)農(nóng)學(xué)通報(bào),2013,29(22):216-220.

HE Zi-shun,ZHANG Hu-ping,Ayimuguli Wubuli.(2013).Study on 'Male pear' and 'Female pear' of pear fruit [J].ChineseAgriculturalScienceBulletin, 29(22),216-220.(in Chinese)

[9]剛明慧,齊曼·尤努斯,覃偉銘,等.不同植物生長(zhǎng)調(diào)節(jié)劑對(duì)庫(kù)爾勒香梨坐果率、脫萼果率、果實(shí)形態(tài)及葉綠素含量的影響[J].新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào),2009,32(6):26-30.

GANG Ming-hui,Qiman Yunus,QIN Wei-ming,et al.(2009).Effect of different plant growth regulator on set fruit rate,calyx dropping fruit rate, fruit shape and chlorophyllcontents of Korla fragrant pear[J].JournalofXinjiangAgriculturalUniversity, 32(6):26-30.(in Chinese)

[10]丁家鳴,邵揚(yáng),崔順利,等.花期低溫處理對(duì)庫(kù)爾勒香梨脫萼果率及果實(shí)品質(zhì)的影響[J].新疆農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào),2015,38(2):99-104.

DING Jia-ming,SHAO Yang,CUI Shun-li,et al.(2015).Effects of low temperature treatment on abscisic calyx fruit fate and fruit quality of Korla fragrant pear [J].JournalofXinjiangAgriculturalUniversity, 38(2):99-104.(in Chinese)

[11]張學(xué)英,張上隆,葉正文,等.不同顏色果袋對(duì)李果實(shí)著色及花色素苷合成的影響因素分析[J].果樹(shù)學(xué)報(bào),2007,24(5):605-610.

ZHANG Xue-ying,ZHANG Shang-long,YE Zheng-wen,et al.(2007).Influences of bagging on pigmentation development of plum and analysis of factors related with anthocyanin synthesis[J].JournalofFruitScience, 24(5):605-610.(in Chinese)

[12]李國(guó)棟,張軍科,蘇渤海,等.富士蘋(píng)果3種樹(shù)形的樹(shù)冠生態(tài)因子比較研究[J].西北林學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào),2008,23(1):121-125.

LI Guo-dong,ZHANG Jun-ke,SU Bo-hai,et al.(2008).Comparative study of the ecological factors in different tree canopy shapes for 'Fuji' apple [J].JournalofNorthwestForestryUniversity, 23(1):121-125.(in Chinese)

[13]何鳳梨.桃開(kāi)心形冠層微氣候與果實(shí)產(chǎn)量品質(zhì)關(guān)系的研究[D].楊凌：西北農(nóng)林科技大學(xué),2007.

HE Feng-li.(2007).Relationshipbetweenmicroclimateincanopyandyieldandqualityofpeachfruit[D].Master Dissertation. Northwest A & F University, Yangling.(in Chinese)

[14]成小龍,廖康,趙世榮,等.庫(kù)爾勒香梨兩種樹(shù)形冠層內(nèi)果實(shí)產(chǎn)量與品質(zhì)差異性分析[J].新疆農(nóng)業(yè)科學(xué),2013,50(5):894-899.

CHENG Xiao-long,LIAO Kang,ZHAO Shi-rong,et al.(2013).Analysis of the differences of the fruit yield and quality of two varieties of Korla fragrant pear under crown canopy [J].XinjiangAgriculturalSciences, 50(5):894-899.(in Chinese)

Fund project:National scientific research project " The key technology research and demonstration of special forest fruit in Xinjiang"(201304701); The key discipline foundation for pomology in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Xinjiang; National science and technology infrastructure platform project "National special fruit tree germplasm resources platform (Luntai) " ( NICGR2015-060)

Comparison between Canopy Structure, Yield and Fruit Quality of Three Tree Shapes of Korla Fragrant Pear

JIANG Zhen-bin1，LIAO Kang1，ZHAO Shi-rong1，DA Meng-xiang1，XU Gui-xiang1，ZHANG Shi-kui2，XU Le2

(1.ResearchCenterofFeaturedFruitTrees，XinjiangAgriculturalUniversity，Urumqi830052，China；2.LuntaiNationalFruitGermplasmResourcesGardeninXinjiang,LuntaiXinjiang841600,China)

【Objective】 In order to provide a theoretical basis for the evaluation and selection of tree shapes of Korla fragrant pear, the difference of canopy structure, yield and fruit quality of three tree shapes were compared.【Method】Using LAI-2200 canopy analyzer to determine the canopy structure, yield and fruit quality of level trellis shape, evacuation shape and natural open center shape and comparing the difference among them.【Result】The leaf area index of level trellis shape was the highest in Korla fragrant pear. The total branch number of evacuation shape was the highest, which was 25.4% and 13.8% higher respectively than that of level trellis shape and natural open center shape, but the branch numbers of level trellis shape was the lowest. There were some differences in yield of different tree shapes; the order from high to low of mean fruit mass and yield per plant of three tree shapes was level trellis shape, natural open center shape and evacuation shape. The special fruit rate of level trellis shape was the highest, which was 18.5% higher than evacuation shape. The difference in leaving calyx rate and persistent calyx rate among three tree shapes was extremely significant (P>0.01), and the leaving calyx rate of level trellis shape was the highest. Compared with evacuation shape, the leaving calyx rate of natural open center shape and level trellis shape were increased by 41.6% and 23.3% respectively. TheLvalue andbvalue of level trellis shape were the largest, while theavalue was the smallest, but theavalue of natural open center shape was the largest. There were significant difference in titra
Table acidity and vitamin C of level trellis shape and natural open center shape, the titra
Table acidity and vitamin C of level trellis shape were higher than that of natural open center shape. The total soluble solid, total sugar, solids-acid ratio and sugar-acid ratio of natural open center shape were all the highest, while the firmness and titra
Table acidity of which were the lowest.【Conclusion】Among three tree shape of Korla fragrant pear, the leaf area index of level trellis shape was the highest, and that of evacuation shape took second place. There were large differences in the total branch numbers of different tree shapes, and those of evacuation shape was the highest. The total branch numbers of evacuation shape was 25.4% and 13.8% higher than those of level trellis shape and natural open center shape respectively. Also, there were some differences in yield among different tree shapes. The yield of level trellis shape, which was 12.8% higher than that of evacuation shape, was the highest. In addition, the high grade fruit rate and leaving calyx rate of level trellis shape were obviously higher than those of other two tree shapes, which were 18.5% and 14.8% higher than those of evacuation shape. The internal quality of natural open center shape and level trellis was better, which that of evacuation shape was worse.

Korla fragrant pear; canopy structure; yield; quality

10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2016.10.007

2016-04-06

國(guó)家公益性行業(yè)科研專項(xiàng)“新疆特色林果提質(zhì)增效關(guān)鍵技術(shù)研究與示范”(201304701)；新疆維吾爾自治區(qū)果樹(shù)重點(diǎn)學(xué)科基金；國(guó)家科技基礎(chǔ)條件平臺(tái)項(xiàng)目子課題“國(guó)家特色果樹(shù)砧木種質(zhì)資源平臺(tái)(輪臺(tái))”(NICGR2015-060)

江振斌(1989-)，男，新疆焉耆人，碩士研究生，研究方向?yàn)楣麡?shù)種質(zhì)資源，(E-mail)276997415@qq.com

廖康(1962-)，男，四川梓橦人，教授，博士生導(dǎo)師，研究方向?yàn)楣麡?shù)資源與栽培生理，(E-mail)liaokang01@163.com

S661.2

A

1001-4330(2016)10-1816-07