Growth adaptability of top grafting on blueberry variety V3

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230388

Abstract

Abstract:

V₃, a small-fruited processing blueberry variety widely planted in production, was used as the high grafting rootstock, and five annual shoots of Jewel, Emerald, Star, O'neal, and Misty, which were well performed in the current production, were used as the scion, and the method of seppudial grafting or cutting grafting was adopted. The results showed that the basal stem diameter, shoot length, branch number and survival rate of the five cultivars were significantly better than those of the ground planting control. After 3 years of top grafting, the basal stem diameter, branch length, branch number and survival rate of the five varieties were significantly better than those of the other combinations, while the growth potential and survival rate of the O'Neal and V₃ combinations were relatively poor. The statistical results of yield and quality after 3 years of grafting showed that the average yield of the five varieties after 3 years of high grafting was more than ground planting control, and the adaptability of each combination was higher than that of the ground planting control, especially the yield of Jewel and V₃ combination was 2.78 times of Jewel single planting.

Key words: blueberry, V₃, top grafting, rootstock combination, growth potential, yield, quality

CLC Number:

S663

Cite this article

YU Hongao, WU Shangjun, XIE Zhiliang, CHEN Yichao, LI Fei, HONG Fanglei, ZHENG Bosheng, WU Kunlong, CHEN Zhilong. Growth adaptability of top grafting on blueberry variety V₃[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1379-1382.

share this article

Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: http://www.zjnykx.cn/EN/10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230388

http://www.zjnykx.cn/EN/Y2024/V65/I6/1379

Figures/Tables 3

Table 1 Comparison of growth of different blueberry varieties under high grafting and common ground planting

品种	高嫁				地栽(对照)
品种	基茎粗度/ cm	枝条长度/ cm	分枝数	成活率/ %	基茎粗度/ cm	枝条长度/ cm	分枝数/	成活率/ %
O'neal	0.93±0.153^*	46.67±7.638	9.00±1.000	38.33±7.638^*	0.51±0.090	52.00±10.583	6.67±1.528	25.00±5.000
Jewel	2.18±0.372^*	146.00±32.094^*	26.80±3.420^*	67.80±3.564^*	1.34±0.127	100.00±18.028	19.00±3.606	55.00±5.000
Emerald	1.76±0.339^*	96.67±4.163	14.33±2.082	53.67±5.508^*	0.84±0.115	69.00±13.530	9.33±1.528	56.67±7.638
Star	1.27±0.230^*	70.67±17.926	11.67±3.055	46.67±7.638	0.83±0.137	58.30±20.820	7.67±2.517	43.67±7.095
Misty	1.30±0.242	127.00±24.138^*	21.50±6.245^*	62.50±5.000^*	1.03±0.099	84.30±9.290	13.00±3.000	51.70±10.410
平均	1.55±0.532^*	104.44±42.670^*	18.06±7.795^*	55.83±12.120	0.91±0.299	72.73±22.147	11.13±5.125	46.40±13.500

Table 1 Comparison of growth of different blueberry varieties under high grafting and common ground planting

品种	高嫁				地栽(对照)
品种	基茎粗度/ cm	枝条长度/ cm	分枝数	成活率/ %	基茎粗度/ cm	枝条长度/ cm	分枝数/	成活率/ %
O'neal	0.93±0.153^*	46.67±7.638	9.00±1.000	38.33±7.638^*	0.51±0.090	52.00±10.583	6.67±1.528	25.00±5.000
Jewel	2.18±0.372^*	146.00±32.094^*	26.80±3.420^*	67.80±3.564^*	1.34±0.127	100.00±18.028	19.00±3.606	55.00±5.000
Emerald	1.76±0.339^*	96.67±4.163	14.33±2.082	53.67±5.508^*	0.84±0.115	69.00±13.530	9.33±1.528	56.67±7.638
Star	1.27±0.230^*	70.67±17.926	11.67±3.055	46.67±7.638	0.83±0.137	58.30±20.820	7.67±2.517	43.67±7.095
Misty	1.30±0.242	127.00±24.138^*	21.50±6.245^*	62.50±5.000^*	1.03±0.099	84.30±9.290	13.00±3.000	51.70±10.410
平均	1.55±0.532^*	104.44±42.670^*	18.06±7.795^*	55.83±12.120	0.91±0.299	72.73±22.147	11.13±5.125	46.40±13.500

Fig.1 Survival rate and growth status of different varieties highly grafted with V3

Table 2 Yield and quality of blueberry under high grafting and common ground planting

年份	品种	高接			地栽
年份	品种	667 m²产量/kg	单果重/g	硬度、口感	667 m²产量/kg	单果重/g	硬度、口感
2020(第2年)	Jewel	148.3±52.52	3.60±0.361	酸甜、软	150.0±30.00	3.50±0.200	酸甜、软
	Misty	77.7±11.24	3.17±0.351	酸甜、硬	91.7±7.64	3.27±0.351	酸甜、硬
	O'neal	18.3±7.64	3.13±0.306	甜、软	51.7±7.64	3.03±0.153	甜、软
	Emerald	53.3±15.28	4.00±0.200	酸甜、硬	68.3±7.64	3.77±0.252	酸甜、硬
	Star	30.0±10.00	3.33±0.462	甜、硬	73.3±15.28^*	3.50±0.436	甜、硬
平均		65.5±19.33	3.45±0.330	酸甜、硬	68.2±13.60	3.41±0.270	酸甜、硬
2021/(第3年)	Jewel	603.3±130.51^**	3.63±0.321	酸甜、软	216.7±125.83	3.63±0.321	酸甜、软
	Misty	116.7±35.12	3.23±0.208	酸甜、硬	71.7±12.58	3.23±0.208	酸甜、硬
	O'neal	119.3±11.02	3.13±0.252	甜、软	70.0±10.00	3.13±0.252	甜、软
	Emerald	74.3±22.50	4.27±0.493	酸甜、硬	66.7±7.64	4.27±0.493	酸甜、硬
	Star	256.7±60.28^*	3.63±0.153	甜、硬	103.0±15.72	3.63±0.153	甜、硬
平均		234.1±51.88^*	3.58±0.285	甜、硬	105.6±34.35	3.58±0.285	甜、硬

Table 2 Yield and quality of blueberry under high grafting and common ground planting

年份	品种	高接			地栽
年份	品种	667 m²产量/kg	单果重/g	硬度、口感	667 m²产量/kg	单果重/g	硬度、口感
2020(第2年)	Jewel	148.3±52.52	3.60±0.361	酸甜、软	150.0±30.00	3.50±0.200	酸甜、软
	Misty	77.7±11.24	3.17±0.351	酸甜、硬	91.7±7.64	3.27±0.351	酸甜、硬
	O'neal	18.3±7.64	3.13±0.306	甜、软	51.7±7.64	3.03±0.153	甜、软
	Emerald	53.3±15.28	4.00±0.200	酸甜、硬	68.3±7.64	3.77±0.252	酸甜、硬
	Star	30.0±10.00	3.33±0.462	甜、硬	73.3±15.28^*	3.50±0.436	甜、硬
平均		65.5±19.33	3.45±0.330	酸甜、硬	68.2±13.60	3.41±0.270	酸甜、硬
2021/(第3年)	Jewel	603.3±130.51^**	3.63±0.321	酸甜、软	216.7±125.83	3.63±0.321	酸甜、软
	Misty	116.7±35.12	3.23±0.208	酸甜、硬	71.7±12.58	3.23±0.208	酸甜、硬
	O'neal	119.3±11.02	3.13±0.252	甜、软	70.0±10.00	3.13±0.252	甜、软
	Emerald	74.3±22.50	4.27±0.493	酸甜、硬	66.7±7.64	4.27±0.493	酸甜、硬
	Star	256.7±60.28^*	3.63±0.153	甜、硬	103.0±15.72	3.63±0.153	甜、硬
平均		234.1±51.88^*	3.58±0.285	甜、硬	105.6±34.35	3.58±0.285	甜、硬

References 7

[1]	李亚东, 裴嘉博, 陈丽, 等. 2020中国蓝莓产业年度报告[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2021, 43(1): 1-8.
[2]	狄华涛, 陈雪平, 霍恒志, 等. 蓝莓栽培土壤改良技术研究进展[J]. 现代园艺, 2021, 44(1): 44-45, 47.
[3]	於虹, 曾其龙, 杨曙方, 等. 中国蓝莓产业中品种资源的选用取向与创新[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2018, 59(6): 924-927.
[4]	李亚东, 孙海悦, 陈丽. 我国蓝莓产业发展报告[J]. 中国果树, 2016(5): 1-10.
[5]	童正仙, 陆寿忠, 吕萍. 乌饭树嫁接高丛越桔技术研究[J]. 中国南方果树, 2007, 36(6): 88-89.
[6]	张根柱, 姜惠铁, 杨曙方, 等. 蓝莓砧木与品种嫁接成活率试验初报[J]. 落叶果树, 2017, 49(3): 10-13.
[7]	顾莉莉, 沈朱俐, 宗宇, 等. 蓝莓不同砧穗组合嫁接亲和性研究[J]. 浙江师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 45(4): 427-436.

Related Articles 15

[1]	FANG Jinlin, JIN Ting, MAO Jisheng, YE Yong, DAI Fen. Analysis of the quality improvement and standardization implementation path of Kaihua Qingshui fish [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1282-1284.
[2]	BU Weishao, JIAN Xiaohong, ZHANG Dongping, YUAN Zhonghua, JIANG Hao, LIAO Damin, LYU Weibiao, LYU Sunjian, XU Xian'e. Thinking on the path of high-quality green development of fishery in Zhejiang mountainous area under the background of common prosperity [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1291-1296.
[3]	XU Jianfeng, WU Jiale, JIN Yuqing, CAI Jianjun, YE Zhengqian. Effects of side-deep placement of fertilizer on rice yield and nutrient absorption [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1297-1301.
[4]	JIN Yuqing, LU Yiling, WANG Qingqing, XU Jianfeng, TANG Xuejun. Effect of pot seedling machine transplanting on yield and quality of different hybrid late rice varieties [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1302-1306.
[5]	ZHOU Xuee, YE Bo, DONG Yueyong, CHEN Yupei, LU Ruohui, LIU Yinxiu. Effects of manure of black soldier fly under different fertilization modes on rice yield and soil environment [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1307-1311.
[6]	WANG Dongxing, TAO Juanhua, CHEN De, LI Xiao, SHI Qiwei, YE Xuezhu. Effects of optimizing fertilization on the yield and nitrogen utilization efficiency of early rice Zhongzao 39 [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1312-1315.
[7]	FEI Wei, FANG Hongling, ZHANG Hao, GU Kami, YANG Shaona. Effects of one-time application of slow-release nitrogen fertilizer on wheat yield and nitrogen use efficiency in Zhoushan Area [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1325-1328.
[8]	XU Youxiang, ZHU Zhenling, WANG Yufei, ZHOU Lingxiao. Effects of organic substitution of chemical fertilizers on yield, quality and soil fertility of fresh maize [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1329-1332.
[9]	YAO Yunfeng, HUA Wei, SHEN Huazhong, WANG Qifei, FAN Min, ZHU Jinghuan. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer management at different sowing dates on the economic characteristics and yield of the wheat cultivar Zhehua 1 [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1333-1336.
[10]	LYU Luqiong, ZHAO Qi, GUO Junning, XU Jie, LI Bin, HAN Jinqing, WANG Yanli. Effect of the application of compound microbial agents on grape yield and quality [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1383-1386.
[11]	LI Yifang, XIA Zhangyi, HU Chun, SUN Lifang, YU Hongao. A study on the potential adaptability of blueberries in southern mountainous areas: a case study of Taishun County, Wenzhou [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1392-1403.
[12]	QIU Xiaoying, CAO Siyu, CHEN Haodong, LIN Jie, LIANG Xiuhua. Digital analysis of the color space of strip- and spiral-shaped black tea made from Huangjinya and population resources [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1445-1450.
[13]	QI Fujian, GAO Junlong, WANG Chunxiao, CHEN Long, YANG Jianhua, HE Kan, DENG Yangyong. Study on the effect of storage temperature on the quality of hickory kernel [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1463-1467.
[14]	ZOU Wenxiong, GUAN Yajing, ZHAN Liwei, CAO Dongdong, YAN Jianfang. Current situation and improvement strategies of crop seed quality in Zhejiang Province [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1507-1511.
[15]	ZHU Yuqiang, DING Jinting, ZHANG Peng, WANG Xin, FANG Jieyun, ZHOU Shengjun. Effects of different grafting combinations on growth and quality of fruit cucumber [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(5): 1025-1030.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Comments

Abstract
Figures/Tables
References
Related Articles
Recommended Articles
Metrics
Comments

TOP

Growth adaptability of top grafting on blueberry variety V₃

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge