杨梅树体健康状态的量化指标评价

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.09.13

浙江农业学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (9): 1945-1954.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.09.13

杨梅树体健康状态的量化指标评价

郑锡良(), 梁森苗, 俞浙萍, 任海英, 孙鹂, 林瑞, 张淑文, 戚行江()

浙江省农业科学院园艺研究所,浙江杭州310021

收稿日期:2022-07-21 出版日期:2022-09-25 发布日期:2022-09-30
通讯作者: 戚行江
作者简介:*戚行江,E-mail: qixj@zaas.ac.cn
郑锡良(1964—),男,浙江龙游人,高级实验师,主要从事杨梅等特色果树育种与栽培技术研究。E-mail: zhengxl@zaas.ac.cn
基金资助:
浙江省重点研发计划(2021C02009);浙江省重点研发计划(2019C02038);浙江省农业(果品)新品种选育重大科技专项(2021C02066-2)

Quantitative evaluation indicators of Chinese bayberry tree health status

ZHENG Xiliang(), LIANG Senmiao, YU Zheping, REN Haiying, SUN Li, LIN Rui, ZHANG Shuwen, QI Xingjiang()

Institute of Horticulture, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China

Received:2022-07-21 Online:2022-09-25 Published:2022-09-30
Contact: QI Xingjiang

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以健康、衰弱病和凋萎病的杨梅树为试材,测定不同状态树体的根系、叶片、花芽等组织中的过氧化氢酶(CAT)活性、过氧化氢(H₂O₂)含量、脂质过氧化物(LPO)含量、丙二醛(MDA)含量、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)活性、过氧化物酶(POD)活性、脱氢抗坏血酸(DHA)含量等生理指标,以及叶片拟盘多毛孢(Pestalotiopsis versicolor)ITS序列(PvITS)相对表达量,经统计分析去掉异常值后,建立可用于评价树体健康状态的量化指标和参考阈值。结果表明,健康树的根CAT、根DHA、枝条SOD指标与其他两种树体间存在极显著性差异,辅助评价树体健康状态的参考阈值分别是:117.52~280.67 nmol·min^-1·g^-1、1.02~1.58 μg·min^-1·g^-1、484.20~804.99 U·g^-1;PvITS相对表达量评价健康、衰弱病、凋萎病的参考阈值分别是0.78~1.15、1.76~3.91、9.54~29.62。通过筛选不同健康状态间差异量化指标,并结合树体典型表现,可更准确判断树的健康状态,为客观评价树体状态和正确采用防治措施提供科学依据。

关键词: 杨梅, 健康状态, 量化指标, 参考阈值, 准确评价

Abstract:

Taking the roots, leaves, branches, and buds of healthy, decline and twig blight disease Chinese bayberry trees as test materials, a large number of samples were used to determine the indexes such as catalase (CAT) activity, hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) content, lipid peroxide (LPO) content, malondialdehyde (MDA) content, superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity, peroxidase (POD) activity, dehydroascorbic acid (DHA) content, and qRT-PCR was used to determine the relative expression of ITS sequence (PvITS) of Pestalotiopsis versicolor in leaves. After statistical analysis and removing the abnormal value, the quantitative index and reference threshold that can be used to evaluate the health status of trees were established. The threshold of healthy trees were root CAT 117.52-254.52 nmol·min^-1·g^-1, root DHA 1.02-1.58 μg·min^-1·g^-1, and branches SOD 484.20-804.99 U·g^-1. And the reference thresholds of the relative expression of PvITS in healthy, decline and twig blight trees were 0.78-1.15, 1.76-3.91 and 9.54-29.62, respectively. Combined with the obvious performance of the tree, the tree health status could be accurately judged.

Key words: Chinese bayberry, health status, quantitative indicator, reference threshold, accurate evaluation

中图分类号:

S667.6

郑锡良, 梁森苗, 俞浙萍, 任海英, 孙鹂, 林瑞, 张淑文, 戚行江. 杨梅树体健康状态的量化指标评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(9): 1945-1954.

ZHENG Xiliang, LIANG Senmiao, YU Zheping, REN Haiying, SUN Li, LIN Rui, ZHANG Shuwen, QI Xingjiang. Quantitative evaluation indicators of Chinese bayberry tree health status[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(9): 1945-1954.

图/表 10

参考文献 30

[1]	LYU Q, WEN X, LIU Y L, et al. Comprehensive profiling of phenolic compounds in white and red Chinese bayberries (Morella rubra Sieb. et Zucc.) and their developmental variations using tandem mass spectral molecular networking[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2021, 69(2): 741-749. DOI URL
[2]	XIA W, GONG E S, LIN Y Y, et al. Comparison of phytochemical profiles, antioxidant and antiproliferative activities in Chinese bayberry (Myrica rubra Sieb. et Zucc.) fruits[J]. Journal of Food Science, 2021, 86(10): 4691-4703. DOI URL
[3]	朱奕凡, 王妍, 汪国云, 等. 不同杨梅品种果实游离氨基酸组成分析[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2021, 47(6): 736-742.
	ZHU Y F, WANG Y, WANG G Y, et al. Analysis of free amino acid composition in fruits of different bayberry (Morella rubra) varieties[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Agriculture and Life Sciences), 2021, 47(6): 736-742. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[4]	XIA W, LIN Y Y, GONG E S, et al. Wild pink bayberry fruit: the effect of in vitro gastrointestinal digestion on phytochemical profiles, and antioxidant and antiproliferative activities[J]. Food & Function, 2021, 12(5): 2126-2136.
[5]	ZHANG Q Z, HUANG Z J, WANG Y, et al. Chinese bayberry (Myrica rubra) phenolics mitigated protein glycoxidation and formation of advanced glycation end-products: a mechanistic investigation[J]. Food Chemistry, 2021, 361: 130102. DOI URL
[6]	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. DOI URL
[7]	任海英, 梁森苗, 郑锡良, 等. 杨梅凋萎病菌侵染、传播及树体内分布规律[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(4): 630-639.
	REN H Y, LIANG S M, ZHENG X L, et al. Infection, spread and distribution of pathogens of twig blight disease on bayberry[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2016, 28(4): 630-639. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	REN H Y, LI G, QI X J, et al. Identification and characterization of Pestalotiopsis spp. causing twig blight disease of bayberry (Myrica rubra Sieb. & Zucc) in China[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2013, 137(3): 451-461. DOI URL
[9]	REN H Y, LI G, LIANG S M, et al. Effects of culture media, carbon and nitrogen sources and environmental factors on mycelial growth and sporulation of Pestalotiopsis microspore strains, the agent of bayberry twig blight in southern China[J]. Asia Life Sciences, 2013, 22(2): 713-727.
[10]	郑锡良, 任海英, 徐云焕, 等. 凋萎病对杨梅的氮吸收和分配的影响[J]. 中国南方果树, 2013, 42(1): 64-66.
	ZHENG X L, REN H Y, XU Y H, et al. Effect of twig blight-diseased on nitrogen absorption and distribution of Myrica rubra[J]. South China Fruits, 2013, 42(1): 64-66. (in Chinese)
[11]	郑锡良, 任海英, 徐云焕, 等. 凋萎病对杨梅树体钙吸收和分配的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2013, 54(2): 183-185.
	ZHENG X L, REN H Y, XU Y H, et al. Effect of twig blight-diseased on calcium absorption and distribution of Myrica rubra[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 54(2): 183-185. (in Chinese)
[12]	任海英, 方丽, 戚行江, 等. 枝叶凋萎病对杨梅根际菌根的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2012, 24(1): 81-84.
	REN H Y, FANG L, QI X J, et al. Effect of Myrica rubra blight disease on mycorrhizal fungi[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2012, 24(1): 81-84. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	任海英, 徐巧, 戚行江, 等. 健康与凋萎病杨梅树体及根围菌群的差异[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(9): 3107-3118. DOI
	REN H Y, XU Q, QI X J, et al. Differences of bacterial and fungal communities in the tree and rhizosphere of the healthy and twig blight-diseased bayberry[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2021, 32(9): 3107-3118. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	任海英, 郑锡良, 张淑文, 等. 杨梅衰弱病病症及病树矿质营养分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(10): 2043-2048.
	REN H Y, ZHENG X L, ZHANG S W, et al. Symptom and mineral nutrition of weak diseased Chinese bayberry[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 61(10): 2043-2048. (in Chinese)
[15]	安笑笑, 王嵘, 张淑文, 等. 氧化剂对衰弱病杨梅树势和果实品质的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2022(2): 81-83.
	AN X X, WANG R, ZHANG S W, et al. Effects of HMAO on growth potential and fruit quality of waxberry with weakening disease[J]. Hunan Agricultural Sciences, 2022(2): 81-83. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	任海英, 王剑, 郑锡良, 等. 生物有机肥对衰弱病杨梅营养改良及强壮树势的作用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(16): 127-137.
	REN H Y, WANG J, ZHENG X L, et al. Effect of bio-organic fertilizer on the improvement of nutrition and vigor of weak bayberry[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(16): 127-137. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	汪兆, 任海英, 郑锡良, 等. 衰弱杨梅树根际土壤微生物多样性研究[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(6): 1123-1128, 1132.
	WANG Z, REN H Y, ZHENG X L, et al. Study on the rhizosphere soil microbial diversity of weak Chinese bayberry[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 62(6): 1123-1128, 1132. (in Chinese)
[18]	任海英, 王剑, 戚行江, 等. 10种杀菌剂对衰弱病杨梅的树势复壮作用[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(11): 2259-2262.
	REN H Y, WANG J, QI X J, et al. Study on the rejuvenation effect of ten fungicides on weak Chinese bayberry trees[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 62(11): 2259-2262. (in Chinese)
[19]	余柯达, 叶美娟, 陈文荣, 等. 蓝莓组织RNA提取方法的研究[J]. 浙江师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 39(1): 60-64.
	YU K D, YE M J, CHEN W R, et al. Methods for RNA isolation from blueberry tissues[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (Natural Sciences), 2016, 39(1): 60-64. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	ELLENDORFF U, FRADIN E F, DE JONGE R, et al. RNA silencing is required for Arabidopsis defence against Verticillium wilt disease[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2009, 60(2): 591-602. DOI URL
[21]	任海英, 戚行江, 梁森苗, 等. 利用常规PCR和实时荧光定量PCR检测杨梅凋萎病菌[J]. 植物病理学报, 2016, 46(1): 1-10.
	REN H Y, QI X J, LIANG S M, et al. Use of conventional and real-time quantitative PCR to detect Pestalotiopsis, the cause of bayberry twig blight[J]. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica, 2016, 46(1): 1-10. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[22]	明博, 谢瑞芝, 侯鹏, 等. 2005—2016年中国玉米种植密度变化分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2017, 50(11): 1960-1972.
	MING B, XIE R Z, HOU P, et al. Changes of maize planting density in China[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(11): 1960-1972. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[23]	REN H Y, WANG H Y, QI X J, et al. The damage caused by decline disease in bayberry plants through changes in soil properties, rhizosphere microbial community structure and metabolites[J]. Plants, 2021, 10(10): 2083. DOI URL
[24]	罗金燕, 郑锡良, 戚行江, 等. 杨梅衰弱病发生测报模型的建立[J]. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2022, 48(2): 163-171.
	LUO J Y, ZHENG X L, QI X J, et al. Establishment of a model for the occurrence and prediction of bayberry decline disease[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Agriculture and Life Sciences), 2022, 48(2): 163-171. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[25]	陈金峰, 王宫南, 程素满. 过氧化氢酶在植物胁迫响应中的功能研究进展[J]. 西北植物学报, 2008, 28(1): 188-193.
	CHEN J F, WANG G N, CHENG S M. Progress about catalase function in plant stress reactions[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2008, 28(1): 188-193. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[26]	ZHAO Y, TU K, SHAO X F, et al. Effects of the yeast Pichia guilliermondii against Rhizopus nigricans on tomato fruit[J]. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2008, 49(1): 113-120. DOI URL
[27]	徐靖. 超氧化物歧化酶及其应用的研究进展[J]. 食品工业科技, 2013, 34(12): 387-391.
	XU J. Research progress in superoxide dismutase and its application[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2013, 34(12): 387-391. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[28]	WANG Y S, TIAN S P, XU Y, et al. Changes in the activities of pro-and anti-oxidant enzymes in peach fruit inoculated with Cryptococcus laurentii or Penicillium expansum at 0 or 20 ℃[J]. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2004, 34(1): 21-28. DOI URL
[29]	窦俊辉, 喻树迅, 范术丽, 等. SOD与植物胁迫抗性[J]. 分子植物育种, 2010, 8(2): 359-364.
	DOU J H, YU S X, FAN S L, et al. SOD and plant stress resistance[J]. Molecular Plant Breeding, 2010, 8(2): 359-364. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[30]	杨怡帆, 吕新民, 鲁晓燕, 等. CaCl₂对NaCl胁迫下酸枣幼苗抗逆生理指标的影响[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 34(4): 415-423.
	YANG Y F, LYU X M, LU X Y, et al. Effects of CaCl₂ on physiological indexes of sour jujube seedlings under NaCl stress[J]. Journal of Shihezi University (Natural Science), 2016, 34(4): 415-423. (in Chinese with English abstract)

采集地点 Collection location	样本数量Number
采集地点 Collection location	衰弱病Decline	凋萎病Twig blight	健康Healthy	合计Total
文成Wencheng	15	9	15	39
青田Qingtian	18	9	9	36
仙居Xianju	12	9	9	30
兰溪Lanxi	15	9	12	36
上虞Shangyu	128	116	23	267
总计Total	188	152	68	408

采集地点 Collection location	样本数量Number
采集地点 Collection location	衰弱病Decline	凋萎病Twig blight	健康Healthy	合计Total
文成Wencheng	15	9	15	39
青田Qingtian	18	9	9	36
仙居Xianju	12	9	9	30
兰溪Lanxi	15	9	12	36
上虞Shangyu	128	116	23	267
总计Total	188	152	68	408

引物名称 Primer name	序列 Sequence (5'→3')	参考文献 Reference
MyTUB2_qF	TTTGAGATTCCCTGGACAGC	—
MyTUB2_qR	GTTCTTCGCATCCCACATTT	—
Pvm1L	GAAATGACGCTCGAACAGGC	[21]
Pvm1R	TGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGC	[21]

引物名称 Primer name	序列 Sequence (5'→3')	参考文献 Reference
MyTUB2_qF	TTTGAGATTCCCTGGACAGC	—
MyTUB2_qR	GTTCTTCGCATCCCACATTT	—
Pvm1L	GAAATGACGCTCGAACAGGC	[21]
Pvm1R	TGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGC	[21]

指标 Index	树体状态 Tree status	分布范围 Range	下四分位 Q₁	中位数 Q₂	上四分位 Q₃	平均数 Average	下异常值 Q₁-1.5I_QR	上异常值 Q₃+1.5I_QR	实际分布范围 Actual range
叶片CAT	衰弱病Decline	12.43~79.10	20.77	37.29	51.13	38.31	-24.78	96.68	12.43~79.10
Leaf CAT/(nmol·	凋萎病Twig blight	15.82~75.71	20.34	22.49	40.68	33.58	-10.17	71.19	15.82~71.19
min^-1·g^-1)	健康Healthy	20.34~88.14	26.27	38.99	55.09	45.53	-16.95	98.31	20.34~88.14
枝条CAT	衰弱病Decline	31.64~79.10	54.24	57.63	69.50	58.36	31.36	92.38	31.64~79.10
Branches CAT/	凋萎病Twig blight	33.90~89.27	56.50	58.76	83.62	65.97	15.82	124.30	33.90~89.27
(nmol·min^-1·g^-1)	健康Healthy	27.12~79.10	40.68	46.33	55.94	50.61	17.80	78.82	27.12~78.82
根CAT	衰弱病Decline	46.71~225.43	67.12	82.34	138.99	101.33	-40.67	246.78	46.71~225.43
Root CAT/(nmol·	凋萎病Twig blight	47.46~220.91	65.16	85.88	154.24	104.24	-68.45	287.86	47.46~220.91
min^-1·g^-1)	健康Healthy	117.52~386.46	168.37	172.32	213.29	203.67	100.98	280.67	117.52~280.67
花芽CAT	衰弱病Decline	61.02~216.96	108.06	124.30	140.26	126.71	59.76	188.56	61.02~188.56
Bud CAT/(nmol·	凋萎病Twig blight	20.34~171.76	92.48	108.48	143.23	113.27	16.36	219.35	20.34~171.76
min^-1·g^-1)	健康Healthy	27.12~164.98	93.34	105.09	114.70	103.47	61.29	146.75	61.29~146.75
叶片H₂O₂	衰弱病Decline	482.89~978.91	536.44	665.24	774.73	677.30	178.99	1132.18	482.89~978.91
Leaf H₂O₂/	凋萎病Twig blight	502.54-~794.89	561.73	651.28	720.07	645.41	324.21	957.59	502.54~794.89
(μmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	335.04~665.58	479.60	491.15	538.45	508.95	391.32	626.72	391.32~626.72
枝条H₂O₂	衰弱病Decline	119.89~276.82	137.54	172.74	182.40	170.83	70.23	249.71	119.89~249.71
Branches H₂O₂/	凋萎病Twig blight	115.25~268.88	133.15	147.22	215.33	167.64	9.88	338.61	115.25~268.88
(μmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	77.54~174.35	96.66	131.61	140.64	124.78	30.69	206.61	77.54~174.35
根H₂O₂	衰弱病Decline	128.01~254.42	167.60	181.48	203.38	187.46	113.94	257.04	128.01~254.42
Root H₂O₂/	凋萎病Twig blight	161.07~265.36	179.38	184.07	206.40	200.32	138.85	246.94	161.07~246.94
(μmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	138.29~245.04	173.84	189.24	219.13	192.73	105.90	287.08	138.29~245.04
花芽H₂O₂	衰弱病Decline	324.55~687.46	525.37	589.76	652.18	566.55	335.15	842.40	324.55~687.46
Bud H₂O₂/	凋萎病Twig blight	307.57~694.16	369.44	470.45	526.66	465.46	133.60	762.50	307.57~694.16
(μmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	437.11~644.58	502.27	553.24	593.66	548.57	365.17	730.76	437.11~644.58

杨梅树体健康状态的量化指标评价

Quantitative evaluation indicators of Chinese bayberry tree health status

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 30

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

指标 Index	树体状态 Tree status	分布范围 Range	下四分位 Q₁	中位数 Q₂	上四分位 Q₃	平均数 Average	下异常值 Q₁-1.5I_QR	上异常值 Q₃+1.5I_QR	实际分布范围 Actual range
叶片LPO	衰弱病Decline	319.74~741.98	410.26	455.15	611.67	499.13	108.15	913.78	319.74~741.98
Leaf LPO/	凋萎病Twig blight	348.86~756.54	491.55	511.93	731.94	568.92	130.95	1092.53	348.86~756.54
(nmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	305.18~744.89	377.98	494.46	599.29	496.10	46.01	931.26	305.18~744.89
枝条LPO	衰弱病Decline	194.52~468.25	241.11	280.43	325.56	291.45	114.44	452.23	194.52~452.23
Branches LPO/	凋萎病Twig blight	211.99~433.31	261.50	311.00	345.95	313.69	134.83	472.62	211.99~433.31
(nmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	232.38~348.86	261.50	278.97	305.18	281.88	195.98	370.70	232.38~348.86
根LPO	衰弱病Decline	255.67~592.91	410.74	469.71	557.79	466.02	190.15	778.38	255.67~592.91
Root LPO/	凋萎病Twig blight	153.75~727.04	427.48	471.16	526.49	463.88	278.97	675.00	278.97~675.00
(nmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	252.63~587.64	311.73	382.35	432.58	386.30	130.46	613.85	252.63~587.64
花芽LPO	衰弱病Decline	311.00~666.27	443.50	497.37	597.11	506.94	213.09	827.52	311.00~666.27
Bud LPO/	凋萎病Twig blight	366.33~749.35	392.54	421.66	683.74	521.80	-44.26	1 120.54	366.33~749.35
(nmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	354.68~692.47	455.87	545.42	654.62	548.04	157.76	952.73	354.68~692.47
叶片SOD	衰弱病Decline	625.45~1 012.98	825.80	907.07	979.11	883.66	595.84	1 209.07	625.45~1 012.98
Leaf SOD/	凋萎病Twig blight	608.97~996.68	744.62	801.54	851.42	809.07	584.41	1 011.63	608.97~996.68
(U·g^-1)	健康Healthy	450.71~910.21	528.96	608.80	742.10	639.08	209.24	1 061.82	450.71~910.21
枝条SOD	衰弱病Decline	745.79~1 621.98	925.26	1029.85	1 340.75	1119.46	302.02	1 963.98	745.79~1 621.98
Branches SOD/	凋萎病Twig blight	831.63~1 297.36	862.16	878.44	1 070.64	972.50	549.44	1 383.36	831.63~1 297.36
(U·g^-1)	健康Healthy	484.20~804.99	654.49	753.30	775.83	709.29	472.49	957.83	484.20~804.99
根SOD	衰弱病Decline	322.76~786.24	443.25	487.76	699.28	547.49	59.20	1 083.33	322.76~786.24
Root SOD/	凋萎病Twig blight	358.27~811.53	436.32	521.13	718.28	570.61	13.39	1 141.22	358.27~811.53
(U·g^-1)	健康Healthy	473.84~936.71	538.72	569.95	667.01	624.95	346.28	859.45	473.84~859.45
花芽SOD	衰弱病Decline	297.18~665.37	370.95	420.93	494.63	440.32	185.42	680.16	297.18~665.37
Bud SOD/	凋萎病Twig blight	270.63~565.81	306.68	334.48	477.43	383.30	50.56	733.55	270.63~565.81
(U·g^-1)	健康Healthy	341.32~549.01	395.13	426.23	459.28	429.96	298.90	555.51	341.32~549.01

指标 Index	树体状态 Tree status	分布范围 Range	下四分位 Q₁	中位数 Q₂	上四分位 Q₃	平均数 Average	下异常值 Q₁-1.5I_QR	上异常值 Q₃+1.5I_QR	实际分布范围 Actual range
叶片MDA	衰弱病Decline	36.81~91.07	48.55	54.57	65.19	59.08	23.60	90.14	36.81~90.14
Leaf MDA/	凋萎病Twig blight	29.15~88.32	46.53	57.07	64.41	54.98	19.69	91.25	29.15~88.32
(nmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	22.27~63.55	42.83	51.17	53.54	48.82	26.77	69.60	26.77~63.55
枝条MDA	衰弱病Decline	16.34~44.03	22.30	24.64	26.92	25.98	15.36	33.85	16.34~33.85
Branches MDA/	凋萎病Twig blight	15.14~45.84	22.62	24.68	29.15	25.79	12.81	38.96	15.14~38.96
(nmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	17.11~34.49	19.74	22.92	27.46	24.20	8.16	39.03	17.11~34.49
根MDA	衰弱病Decline	35.43~78.00	45.93	57.54	67.12	56.40	14.14	98.91	35.43~78.00
Root MDA/	凋萎病Twig blight	30.01~75.34	49.72	54.47	60.30	54.23	33.85	76.17	33.85~75.34
(nmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	23.56~59.10	31.97	47.08	55.99	43.54	-4.06	92.03	23.56~59.10
花芽MDA	衰弱病Decline	23.56~36.81	26.72	31.00	33.45	30.52	16.63	43.55	23.56~36.81
Bud MDA/	凋萎病Twig blight	21.24~39.13	24.25	28.21	29.30	28.77	16.68	36.88	21.24~36.88
(nmol·g^-1)	健康Healthy	22.96~49.97	29.05	31.13	34.44	32.07	20.95	42.54	22.96~42.54
根DHA	衰弱病Decline	0.42~0.78	0.52	0.60	0.68	0.60	0.29	0.92	0.42~0.78
Root DHA/	凋萎病Twig blight	0.37~0.73	0.42	0.54	0.64	0.54	0.09	0.97	0.37~0.73
(μg·min^-1·g^-1)	健康Healthy	1.02~1.59	1.23	1.30	1.37	1.30	1.02	1.58	1.02~1.58

指标 Index	健康叶片 Healthy leaves	衰弱病叶片 Decline leaves	凋萎病叶片 Twig blight leaves
最小值Minimum	0.78	1.01	3.39
下异常值Q₁-1.5I_QR	0.68	1.76	9.54
下四分位数Q₁	0.92	2.00	9.77
中位数Q₂	1.00	2.73	16.56
上四分位数Q₃	1.07	3.68	29.38
上异常值Q₃+1.5I_QR	1.31	3.91	29.62
最大值Maximum	1.15	9.23	99.04
平均值Average	0.99	3.12	22.60
方差Variance	0.10	1.64	9.96

[1]	潘旭婕, 刘瑞玲, 邓尚贵, 吴伟杰, 陈杭君, 郜海燕. 乳酸菌发酵杨梅果酱工艺优化及其风味成分分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(7): 1502-1512.
[2]	郑园园, 俞浙萍, 张淑文, 李有贵, 孙鹂, 郑锡良, 戚行江. 杨梅枝条醇提物对A375细胞增殖和凋亡的影响及其分子机制[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(5): 974-983.
[3]	蔡继业, 房祥军, 韩延超, 丁玉庭, 陈杭君, 吴伟杰, 郜海燕. 气调贮藏对东魁杨梅品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2022, 34(2): 352-359.
[4]	田培, 赵慧宇, 刘之炜, 王娇, 狄珊珊, 徐浩, 汪志威, 王新全, 齐沛沛. 杨梅中灭蝇胺及其代谢物检测方法与风险评估[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(3): 534-540.
[5]	马小华, 俞浙萍, 郑锡良, 胡晓金, 张淑文, 戚行江, 马靖艳. 靖州杨梅引种试验与表型聚类分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(11): 1987-1993.
[6]	张淑文, 梁森苗, 朱婷婷, 任海英, 郑锡良, 戚行江. 不同杨梅品种的耐低温能力比较[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(10): 1772-1779.
[7]	林瑞, 任海英, 安笑笑, 郑锡良, 梁森苗, 张淑文, 戚行江. 生物有机肥对杨梅凋萎病防控及其树势恢复的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(7): 1096-1104.
[8]	戴宝玲, 杨华, 戴贤君, 杨桂玲, 汪雯, 肖英平. 杨梅污染肺炎克雷伯氏菌的分离及其耐药特征和毒力基因[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(9): 1513-1518.
[9]	朱婷婷, 梁森苗, 张淑文, 郑锡良, 任海英, 戚行江. 早鲜杨梅果实发育和品质形成规律的研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(5): 764-770.
[10]	夏其乐, 曹艳, 陈剑兵, 韩延超, 刘瑞玲. 改善杨梅露酒色泽稳定性的研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(10): 1775-1781.
[11]	吴阳春, 任海英, 戚行江, 郑锡良, 梁森苗. 云南新产区杨梅枝枯的病原菌鉴定及土壤营养元素分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(2): 270-276.
[12]	丁烨毅, 杨栋, 陈鑫磊, 黄鹤楼, 罗小三. 杨梅降水气象指数保险产品设计—以慈溪市为例[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(12): 2032-2037.
[13]	梁森苗, 郭秀珠, 郑锡良, 张淑文, 温璐华, 黄品湖, 戚行江. 杨梅结果树各器官的矿质营养特性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(10): 1669-1677.
[14]	任海英1，梁森苗1，郑锡良1，戚行江1，*，朱潇婷2，颜丽菊2. 杨梅凋萎病菌侵染、传播及树体内分布规律[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(4): 630-.
[15]	徐云焕, 梁森苗, 郑锡良, 任海英, 戚行江. 叶面营养对杨梅果实产量和品质的影响及各指标的相关性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(10): 1711-1717.