Correlation analysis between fruit quality indicators and soil fertility factors in Chinese bayberry

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230697

Abstract

Abstract:

Using soil from five representative orchards in the main production areas of Chinese bayberry in Zhejiang Province and the fruits of three main varieties, Dongkui, Biqi and Dingao. The key soil fertility factors affecting the quality of Chinese bayberry fruits were screened through correlation analysis, providing theoretical basis for research on the formation of fruit quality and the improvement of management techniques. Totally 13 soil fertility factors and 18 fruit quality indicators were measured, and correlation analysis was conducted. Soil organic carbon (SOC) and organic matter (OM) were significantly positively correlated with glucose (Glu), oxalic acid (OA), and vitamin C (V_C), respectively. The alkaline nitrogen (AN) of soil was significantly positively correlated with hardness (HN), total acid (TA), Glu, and OA, while the sugar acid ratio (AS) was significantly negatively correlated. Total phosphorus (TP) was significantly positively correlated with HN, TA, Glu, OA, and total flavonoids (TFC). Total potassium (TK) was significantly positively correlated with longitudinal diameter (LD), transverse diameter (BD), single fruit weight (FW), HN, soluble solids (TSS), Glu, V_C, and TFC. TK had the significant positive correlation with 8 fruit quality indicators, as the main soil factor affecting fruit quality formation. It was recommended that appropriately reduced nitrogen and phosphorus, while increased potassium in the cultivation and management process was beneficial to improve fruit quality of Chinese bayberry.

Key words: Chinese bayberry, fruit quality, soil indicators, correlation analysis

CLC Number:

S667.6

ZHENG Xiliang, SUN Li, QI Xingjiang, LIANG Senmiao, YU Zheping, ZHANG Qi, ZHANG Shuwen. Correlation analysis between fruit quality indicators and soil fertility factors in Chinese bayberry[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(9): 2112-2118.

Figures/Tables 5

References 22

[1]	张淑文, 梁森苗, 郑锡良, 等. 杨梅果实生长指标的数学模型及各指标间的相关性分析[J]. 核农学报, 2020, 34(5): 1020-1027.
[2]	张启, 梁森苗, 王嵘, 等. 杨梅果实维生素C与游离氨基酸含量的相关性分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(1): 135-139.
[3]	林雨晴, 杨颖, 陆胜民. 杨梅的功能特性及其综合利用[J]. 食品科技, 2020, 45(7): 108-111.
[4]	方波, 武峥, 杨丽, 等. 杨梅果实生物活性物质研究进展[J]. 南方农业, 2018, 12(28): 29-34,66.
[5]	张淑文, 俞浙萍, 孙鹂, 等. 基于重测序的杨梅InDel标记开发与果实性状关联分析[J]. 分子植物育种, 2022, 20(6): 1890-1900.
[6]	梁森苗, 张淑文, 郑锡良, 等. 杨梅生长指标与果实品质间的相关性分析[J]. 核农学报, 2019, 33(4): 751-758.
[7]	张淑文, 梁森苗, 郑锡良, 等. 杨梅优株果实品质的主成分分析及综合评价[J]. 果树学报, 2018, 35(8): 977-986.
[8]	毛力宾, 董灵江, 黄金道, 等. 透湿性反光膜覆盖对罗幔杨梅果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2022, 63(12): 2844-2846.
[9]	戚行江, 郑锡良, 李小白, 等. 不同颜色避雨膜形成的光质环境对杨梅果实成熟和品质的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2021, 48(9): 1794-1804.
[10]	陈正道, 娄艳华, 汤婧. 穹顶棚架栽培对杨梅果实品质的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2021, 11(9): 68-71.
[11]	郑鹏蕊, 李东立, 付亚波, 等. 一种自发气调包装袋对杨梅果实采后品质的影响[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2022, 22(6): 28-34.
[12]	CHEN H J, YANG H L, GAO H Y, et al. Effect of hypobaric storage on quality, antioxidant enzyme and antioxidant capability of the Chinese bayberry fruits[J]. Chemistry Central Journal, 2013, 7(1): 4.
[13]	NESTBY R, LIETEN F, PIVOT D, et al. Influence of mineral nutrients on strawberry fruit quality and their accumulation in plant organs[J]. International Journal of Fruit Science, 2005, 5(1): 139-156.
[14]	NEILSEN D, NEILSEN G. Nutritional effects on fruit quality for apple trees[J]. New York Fruit Quarterly, 2009, 17(3): 21-24.
[15]	王恩久, 刘春起, 韩贵杰, 等. 大兴安岭野生笃斯越桔适生立地条件研究[J]. 林业科技, 2010, 35(5): 61-63.
[16]	国家市场监督管理总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 食品中总酸的测定: GB/T 12456—2021[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2021.
[17]	张继民, 钟成义, 骆春华. 草酸的分光光度法测定[J]. 安徽机电学院学报(自然科学版), 1997, 12(4): 33-37.
[18]	黄玉松. 土壤对杨梅生长结果的影响分析[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2012 (6): 224-225.
[19]	徐丽, 张海燕, 辛国, 等. 核桃土壤养分水平与果实品质相关性分析[J]. 经济林研究, 2022, 40(1): 74-81.
[20]	刘淙, 杨艺, 江学友, 等. 龙安柚果实品质与土壤、叶片养分相关性研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2022, 61(S1): 247-252.
[21]	王英鹏, 张少博, 李建贵, 等. 土壤养分对灰枣品质的影响分析[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(14): 157-160.
[22]	ZHANG S W, YU Z P, SUN L, et al. An overview of the nutritional value, health properties, and future challenges of Chinese bayberry[J]. PeerJ, 2022, 10: e13070.

位置	经度	纬度	pH值	SOC/(g·kg^-1)	OM/(g·kg^-1)
黄岩东魁园	120°95'	28°68'	4.19±0.22	14.65±1.18	25.25±3.31
余姚荸荠种园	121°00'	30°06'	6.77±0.31	30.06±2.11	51.83±3.62
仙居东魁园	120°41'	28°47'	6.55±0.24	46.28±3.78	79.79±5.34
兰溪荸荠种、东魁园	119°59'	29°29'	5.70±0.38	19.64±1.61	33.85±2.55
瓯海丁岙杨梅园	120°72'	27°93'	4.91±0.12	15.79±1.14	27.22±1.96
位置	AP/(mg·kg^-1)	AN/(mg·kg^-1)	AK/(mg·kg^-1)	TN/(g·kg^-1)	TP/(g·kg^-1)
黄岩东魁园	589.91±55.21	178.55±20.13	534.69±20.35	1.22±0.11	0.94±0.14
余姚荸荠种园	343.01±14.82	263.06±17.88	2 127.01±23.49	2.63±0.15	1.45±0.28
仙居东魁园	167.42±6.32	496.51±10.14	2 190.47±20.24	3.81±0.71	5.11±0.41
兰溪荸荠种、东魁园	41.92±3.25	331.91±14.66	1 201.64±23.51	1.92±0.77	1.13±0.21
瓯海丁岙杨梅园	51.81±3.17	157.85±6.39	255.99±4.73	1.47±0.57	0.72±0.14
位置	TK/(g·kg^-1)	CAT/(U·g^-1)	ACP/(U·g^-1)	UER/(U·g^-1)	SUC/(U·g^-1)
黄岩东魁园	40.42±1.16	276.75±23.56	2.16±0.51	546.33±29.89	3.51±0.84
余姚荸荠种园	20.89±2.54	1 997.1±32.58	5.81±0.85	1 770.17±63.11	27.28±3.06
仙居东魁园	32.13±3.56	2 133.86±77.98	3.40±0.25	2 652.72±45.19	54.57±1.49
兰溪荸荠种、东魁园	22.03±1.58	1 394.58±34.39	5.07±0.25	2 690.82±160.98	21.36±1.13
瓯海丁岙杨梅园	18.29±1.56	654.49±58.96	4.22±0.17	2 107.68±138.71	6.61±0.59

位置	经度	纬度	pH值	SOC/(g·kg^-1)	OM/(g·kg^-1)
黄岩东魁园	120°95'	28°68'	4.19±0.22	14.65±1.18	25.25±3.31
余姚荸荠种园	121°00'	30°06'	6.77±0.31	30.06±2.11	51.83±3.62
仙居东魁园	120°41'	28°47'	6.55±0.24	46.28±3.78	79.79±5.34
兰溪荸荠种、东魁园	119°59'	29°29'	5.70±0.38	19.64±1.61	33.85±2.55
瓯海丁岙杨梅园	120°72'	27°93'	4.91±0.12	15.79±1.14	27.22±1.96
位置	AP/(mg·kg^-1)	AN/(mg·kg^-1)	AK/(mg·kg^-1)	TN/(g·kg^-1)	TP/(g·kg^-1)
黄岩东魁园	589.91±55.21	178.55±20.13	534.69±20.35	1.22±0.11	0.94±0.14
余姚荸荠种园	343.01±14.82	263.06±17.88	2 127.01±23.49	2.63±0.15	1.45±0.28
仙居东魁园	167.42±6.32	496.51±10.14	2 190.47±20.24	3.81±0.71	5.11±0.41
兰溪荸荠种、东魁园	41.92±3.25	331.91±14.66	1 201.64±23.51	1.92±0.77	1.13±0.21
瓯海丁岙杨梅园	51.81±3.17	157.85±6.39	255.99±4.73	1.47±0.57	0.72±0.14
位置	TK/(g·kg^-1)	CAT/(U·g^-1)	ACP/(U·g^-1)	UER/(U·g^-1)	SUC/(U·g^-1)
黄岩东魁园	40.42±1.16	276.75±23.56	2.16±0.51	546.33±29.89	3.51±0.84
余姚荸荠种园	20.89±2.54	1 997.1±32.58	5.81±0.85	1 770.17±63.11	27.28±3.06
仙居东魁园	32.13±3.56	2 133.86±77.98	3.40±0.25	2 652.72±45.19	54.57±1.49
兰溪荸荠种、东魁园	22.03±1.58	1 394.58±34.39	5.07±0.25	2 690.82±160.98	21.36±1.13
瓯海丁岙杨梅园	18.29±1.56	654.49±58.96	4.22±0.17	2 107.68±138.71	6.61±0.59

品种	BD/mm	LD/mm	FW/g	HN/(N·cm^-2)	TSS/%	TS/(mg·g^-1)
黄岩东魁	38.02±1.38	37.67±2.13	30.47±2.01	2.35±0.12	12.72±0.81	88.25±3.38
余姚荸荠种	23.87±0.97	24.48±0.75	8.16±0.64	2.87±0.60	10.86±0.71	72.79±1.35
仙居东魁	33.40±2.18	34.48±1.49	21.78±2.87	3.27±0.53	10.99±1.00	67.34±0.72
兰溪东魁	33.83±2.18	34.87±1.80	23.49±2.23	2.73±0.29	13.12±0.51	83.51±0.43
兰溪荸荠种	28.82±0.78	29.9±10.91	14.52±0.99	2.38±0.47	9.78±0.47	82.06±0.59
瓯海丁岙杨梅	25.07±0.84	26.50±0.64	11.44±1.00	2.11±0.26	9.92±0.43	77.81±0.45
品种	TA/(g·kg^-1)	AS	Glu/(mg·g^-1)	Fru/(mg·g^-1)	Suc/(mg·g^-1)	MA/(μg·g^-1)
黄岩东魁	6.22±0.77	14.18±1.67	5.78±0.30	55.45±1.44	48.42±2.16	21.64±0.16
余姚荸荠种	11.80±0.49	6.17±0.84	12.58±0.18	60.40±2.10	29.61±1.11	39.62±1.40
仙居东魁	15.37±0.50	7.38±0.50	17.66±0.21	60.13±1.33	30.09±0.29	35.42±1.44
兰溪东魁	8.11±0.74	10.29±1.53	5.61±0.20	68.36±1.44	49.57±0.81	59.05±0.95
兰溪荸荠种	7.22±0.74	11.36±1.86	4.29±0.12	73.59±1.05	15.47±1.18	63.00±0.59
瓯海丁岙杨梅	8.77±0.77	9.87±1.14	6.47±0.49	64.85±1.31	27.82±1.51	28.39±0.87
品种	CA/(mg·g^-1)	OA/(μg·g^-1)	V_C/(μg·g^-1)	TFC/(mg·g^-1)	TPC/(mg·g^-1)	AA/(mg·g^-1)
黄岩东魁	22.95±0.54	1.59±0.54	1 984.46±85.26	0.84±0.03	2.19±0.22	10.89±1.40
余姚荸荠种	15.42±0.34	15.35±0.76	2 611.21±19.17	1.50±0.16	1.72±0.29	18.52±1.14
仙居东魁	12.03±0.56	16.45±0.76	2 488.38±79.55	2.71±0.43	2.59±0.16	18.94±0.33
兰溪东魁	24.58±0.87	2.59±0.13	1 250.58±59.13	0.78±0.11	1.32±0.26	12.95±0.37
兰溪荸荠种	13.55±0.40	2.75±0.25	1 087.00±87.68	0.63±0.10	1.47±0.31	15.02±0.43
瓯海丁岙杨梅	17.31±0.68	2.31±0.49	1 685.12±122.38	1.17±0.29	2.92±0.33	13.01±0.35

品种	BD/mm	LD/mm	FW/g	HN/(N·cm^-2)	TSS/%	TS/(mg·g^-1)
黄岩东魁	38.02±1.38	37.67±2.13	30.47±2.01	2.35±0.12	12.72±0.81	88.25±3.38
余姚荸荠种	23.87±0.97	24.48±0.75	8.16±0.64	2.87±0.60	10.86±0.71	72.79±1.35
仙居东魁	33.40±2.18	34.48±1.49	21.78±2.87	3.27±0.53	10.99±1.00	67.34±0.72
兰溪东魁	33.83±2.18	34.87±1.80	23.49±2.23	2.73±0.29	13.12±0.51	83.51±0.43
兰溪荸荠种	28.82±0.78	29.9±10.91	14.52±0.99	2.38±0.47	9.78±0.47	82.06±0.59
瓯海丁岙杨梅	25.07±0.84	26.50±0.64	11.44±1.00	2.11±0.26	9.92±0.43	77.81±0.45
品种	TA/(g·kg^-1)	AS	Glu/(mg·g^-1)	Fru/(mg·g^-1)	Suc/(mg·g^-1)	MA/(μg·g^-1)
黄岩东魁	6.22±0.77	14.18±1.67	5.78±0.30	55.45±1.44	48.42±2.16	21.64±0.16
余姚荸荠种	11.80±0.49	6.17±0.84	12.58±0.18	60.40±2.10	29.61±1.11	39.62±1.40
仙居东魁	15.37±0.50	7.38±0.50	17.66±0.21	60.13±1.33	30.09±0.29	35.42±1.44
兰溪东魁	8.11±0.74	10.29±1.53	5.61±0.20	68.36±1.44	49.57±0.81	59.05±0.95
兰溪荸荠种	7.22±0.74	11.36±1.86	4.29±0.12	73.59±1.05	15.47±1.18	63.00±0.59
瓯海丁岙杨梅	8.77±0.77	9.87±1.14	6.47±0.49	64.85±1.31	27.82±1.51	28.39±0.87
品种	CA/(mg·g^-1)	OA/(μg·g^-1)	V_C/(μg·g^-1)	TFC/(mg·g^-1)	TPC/(mg·g^-1)	AA/(mg·g^-1)
黄岩东魁	22.95±0.54	1.59±0.54	1 984.46±85.26	0.84±0.03	2.19±0.22	10.89±1.40
余姚荸荠种	15.42±0.34	15.35±0.76	2 611.21±19.17	1.50±0.16	1.72±0.29	18.52±1.14
仙居东魁	12.03±0.56	16.45±0.76	2 488.38±79.55	2.71±0.43	2.59±0.16	18.94±0.33
兰溪东魁	24.58±0.87	2.59±0.13	1 250.58±59.13	0.78±0.11	1.32±0.26	12.95±0.37
兰溪荸荠种	13.55±0.40	2.75±0.25	1 087.00±87.68	0.63±0.10	1.47±0.31	15.02±0.43
瓯海丁岙杨梅	17.31±0.68	2.31±0.49	1 685.12±122.38	1.17±0.29	2.92±0.33	13.01±0.35

指标	pH值	AP	SOC	OM	AN	AK	TN	TP	TK	CAT	ACP	UER
AP	-0.11
SOC	0.38^*	0.20
OM	0.38^*	0.21	1.00^**
AN	0.58^*	0.28	0.76^**	0.75^**
AK	0.61^**	-0.11	0.09	0.09	0.66^*
TN	0.26	0.24	0.93^**	0.92^**	0.74^**	0.04
TP	0.56^**	0.20	0.68^**	0.63^**	0.61^*	0.26	0.55^**
TK	-0.16	0.42^*	0.06	0.06	0.24	-0.13	0.06	0.07
CAT	0.85^**	-0.13	0.57^**	0.56^**	0.47	0.40^*	0.49^**	0.64^**	-0.17
ACP	0.23	0.02	0.51^**	0.50^**	0.25	-0.03	0.46^*	-0.03	-0.07	0.46^*
UER	0.73^**	-0.11	0.36	0.36	0.29	0.37^*	0.31	0.56^**	-0.27	0.71^**	0.25
SUC	0.42^*	-0.04	0.74^**	0.73^**	0.61^*	0.11	0.66^**	0.64^**	0.01	0.67^**	0.39^*	0.33