Effect of different fruit bags on the fruit appearance quality of Sunshine Muscat grape

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20250160

Abstract

Abstract:

This experiment used 6-year-old grafted Sunshine Muscat grapes as materials and conducted bagging treatment during the young fruit stage to explore the effects of four different fruit bags on fruit appearance quality. The results showed that compared with CK，the single grain weight significantly（p<0.05）increased by 6.4% and 8.2% treated with green fruit bags（M1）and three-color fruit bags（M4）. Compared with CK，the single ear weight increased by 4.3% and 7.4% after treatments with new semi-transparent fruit bag（M3）and three-color fruit bags（M4）. The M4 treatment had the highest single ear weight. Bagging treatments had no significant effect on the stem thickness. The hardness of the fruit peel treated with M4 was significantly higher than that of CK. Bagging treatments significantly increased the L^* value and b^* value，with M4 treatment showing the best effect. In summary，three-color fruit bags had a significant effect on improving appearance quality of Sunshine Muscat grapes.

Key words: Sunshine Muscat grape, fruit bagging, appearance quality, color index

CLC Number:

S663.1

ZHAO Zhiqiang, BIAN Fengxia, LIU Weiying, LI Dou, WANG Fuxia. Effect of different fruit bags on the fruit appearance quality of Sunshine Muscat grape[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2026, 67(4): 949-952.

Figures/Tables 3

Fig.1 Single grain weight，single ear weight，number of grains per ear，fruit shape index，longitudinal and transverse diameter of grape under different types of fruit bag treatments

Fig.2 Fruit hardness，peel hardness，stem thickness，ear length，and ear width of grape under different types of fruit bag treatments

Table 1 Color index of Shine Muscat grape fruit under different types of fruit bag treatments

处理	L^?值	a^?值	b^?值	C^?值	色泽指数
M1	47.13±0.12 a	-6.91±0.10 b	17.48±0.04 c	17.69±0.30 c	1.48±0.05 b
M2	44.85±0.77 b	-7.09±0.13 c	18.13±0.13 b	18.05±0.03 b	1.52±0.03 b
M3	45.08±2.01 b	-7.50±0.05 d	16.94±0.08 d	18.89±0.05 a	1.54±0.05 b
M4	47.93±0.58 a	-7.37±0.08 d	18.52±0.08 a	17.06±0.27 e	1.63±0.05 a
CK	44.63±0.78 b	-6.67±0.16 a	16.40±0.05 e	17.65±0.86 d	1.66±0.08 a

References 11

[1]	古雅良，玉富成，邓筱艳，等. 套袋对荔枝产量、品质和效益影响初探［J］. 中国南方果树，2017，46（1）：93-94
	GU Y L， YU F C， DENG X Y，et al. Preliminary study on the effect of bagging on litchi yield，quality and benefit［J］. South China Fruits，2017，46（1）：93-94
[2]	谢蜀豫，曹慕明，黄秋凤，等. 有机肥、微生物肥与化肥配施对阳光玫瑰葡萄果实品质及香气物质的影响［J］. 西南农业学报，2022，35（1）：153-161.
	XIE S Y， CAO M M， HUANG Q F，et al. Effect of organic fertilizer，microbial fertilizer combined with chemical fertilizer on fruit quality and aroma components in Shine Muscat grape［J］. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences，2022，35（1）：153-161.
[3]	杨治元，陈哲. 阳光玫瑰葡萄规模种植情况调查初报［J］. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒，2017（1）：59-60.
	YANG Z Y， CHEN Z. Preliminary report on scale planting of Shine Muscat grape［J］. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine，2017（1）：59-60.
[4]	魏志峰，李秋利，高登涛，等. 果实套袋对果实品质影响研究进展［J］. 江苏农业科学，2018，46（24）：36-41.
	WEI Z F， LI Q L， GAO D T，et al. Effects of bagging on fruit quality：a review［J］. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences，2018，46（24）：36-41.
[5]	冀晓昊，王宝亮，王志强，等. 套袋对设施栽培'87-1'葡萄果实品质的影响［J］. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒，2022（2）：56-59.
	JI X H， WANG B L， WANG Z Q，et al. Effects of bagging on fruit quality of ‘87-1’ grape under protected cultivation［J］. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine，2022（2）：56-59.
[6]	潘佑找，肖青华. 葡萄套袋效应初报［J］. 安徽农业科学，2006，34（11）：2368，2412.
	PAN Y Z， XIAO Q H. Effect of bagging technique on the grape quality［J］. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences，2006，34（11）：2368，2412.
[7]	彭言劼，廖婧，宋春草，等. 果袋种类对阳光玫瑰果实品质的影响［J］. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒，2022（1）：44-47.
	PENG Y J， LIAO J， SONG C C，et al. Effect of fruit bag type on fruit quality of ‘Shine Muscat’［J］. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine，2022（1）：44-47.
[8]	满坤. 不同光质对‘阳光玫瑰’葡萄香气组分及风味的影响［D］. 杭州：浙江大学，2020.
	MAN K. Effect of different light quality on aroma components and flavor of ‘Shine Muscat’ grape［D］. Hangzhou：Zhejiang University，2020.
[9]	赵建波，罗俊霞，肖蓉萍，等. 套袋对葡萄果实品质影响的试验［J］. 落叶果树，2004，36（5）：13-15.
	ZHAO J B， LUO J X， XIAO R P，et al. Influence of bagging on grape berry quality［J］. Deciduous Fruits，2004，36（5）：13-15.
[10]	吴世涛，佘文琴，李水祥，等. 套袋对三红蜜柚果实着色的影响［J］. 果树学报，2020，37（5）：687-695.
	WU S T， SHE W Q， LI S X，et al. Effects of bagging on rind pigmentation of Sanhongmiyou fruit［J］. Journal of Fruit Science，2020，37（5）：687-695.
[11]	丁勤，韩明玉，田玉命. 套袋对油桃果实裂果及品质的影响［J］. 西北农林科技大学学报（自然科学版），2004，32（9）：81-83.
	DING Q， HAN M Y， TIAN Y M. Effect of bagging on nectarine fruit quality and fruit cracking［J］. Journal of Northwest A&F University（Natural Science Edition），2004，32（9）：81-83.

Related Articles 15

[1]	REN Jiajia, CAO Dunqi. Application effect of biogas slurry on Shine Muscat grape [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2026, 67(4): 953-957.
[2]	WANG Liru, FANG Congling, SHEN Qunchao, FAN Linjie, HU Zhiming, PAN Zaiping, ZHOU Shuyi. Introduction performance of eleven fresh grape cultivars in Cixi City [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(10): 2381-2387.
[3]	WANG Qinghua, YUE Lixin, LIU Zezhou, GAO Limin. Effects of NaCl stress on the germination of different types of welsh onions [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(9): 2157-2164.
[4]	CHEN Zhe, XU Chao, LI Xiaoting, HUANG Yali, ZHU Zuoyi, DAI Fen. Effects of plant growth regulators on the fruit flavor quality of Shine Muscat grape [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(4): 952-957.
[5]	LI Huoliang, HAN Kefeng. Effect of comprehensive nutrient management model on yield and soil nutrient content of Vitis vinifera L. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(3): 608-613.
[6]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 64(9): 2165-2172.
[7]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 64(9): 2188-2190.
[8]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 64(8): 1969-1971.
[9]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 64(8): 1877-1880.
[10]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 64(8): 1900-1904.
[11]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 63(11): 2581-2586.
[12]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 63(8): 1765-1767.
[13]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 63(8): 1755-1757.
[14]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 63(8): 1752-1754.
[15]	. [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 63(6): 1318-1321.