营养液配方对水培菜用甘薯生长、产量和营养品质的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250355

浙江农业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (7): 1297-1312.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250355

营养液配方对水培菜用甘薯生长、产量和营养品质的影响

马文清(), 庞林江, 王思雨, 舒兴, 崔鹏, 徐锡明, 吕尊富, 陆国权^*()

浙江农林大学现代农学院, 浙江杭州 311300

收稿日期:2025-05-06 出版日期:2026-07-25 发布日期:2026-08-20
作者简介:马文清,研究方向为薯类作物生理生化与代谢调控。E-mail:mawenqing0222@163.com
通讯作者: *陆国权,E-mail: lugq@zafu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家甘薯产业技术体系(CARS-10-Sweetpotato)

Effects of nutrient solution formulation on growth, yield and nutritional quality of hydroponic vegetable sweet potato

MA Wenqing(), PANG Linjiang, WANG Siyu, SHU Xing, CUI Peng, XU Ximing, LYU Zunfu, LU Guoquan^*()

College of Modern Agriculture, Zhejiang A&F University, Hangzhou 311300, China

Received:2025-05-06 Published:2026-07-25 Online:2026-08-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

菜用甘薯作为一种新型叶菜,其水培目前缺乏专用营养液配方。为研究不同营养液配方对水培菜用甘薯生长、产量和品质的影响,本研究采用营养液膜技术(nutrient film technique, NFT)进行水培,以菜用甘薯品种薯绿1号(品种A)、徐菜观1号(品种B)和农林紫白(品种C)为试验材料,设置6个营养液配方处理:Hoagland通用配方(对照,CK)、日本园试配方(T1)、华南农业大学叶菜A配方(T2)、日本山崎茼蒿配方(T3)、Cooper通用配方(T4)和荷兰温室配方(T5)。通过测定不同营养液配方处理下各品种的生长指标、质构指标和品质指标,研究不同配方对菜用甘薯生长、产量和品质的影响。基于主成分分析构建综合品质评价模型,通过综合得分评价品质,以筛选最适营养液配方和品种。结果表明,不同营养液配方处理下,各菜用甘薯品种的指标变化趋势存在差异。在T2处理下,3个品种的地上部干物率、可溶性糖含量、淀粉含量和维生素C含量均达到最高,硝酸盐含量最低;其余指标在不同配方间的变化趋势不一致,例如,单株产量在CK、T1和T3处理下较高。不同配方处理下菜用甘薯的综合得分呈现较一致的趋势,3个品种在T2处理下的综合得分均最高,且显著高于CK和其他处理组;品种B和品种C在各处理下的得分相近,且均显著高于品种A。综上所述,在6种营养液配方中,华南农业大学叶菜A配方(T2)为最优配方,能显著提升水培菜用甘薯的品质;徐菜观1号(品种B)和农林紫白(品种C)的品质较为相似,且均优于薯绿1号(品种A)。

关键词: 菜用甘薯, 营养液配方, 水培, 品质, 综合评价模型

Abstract:

Vegetable sweet potato, as a novel leafy vegetable, currently lacks specialized nutrient solution formulations for hydroponic cultivation. To investigate the effects of different nutrient solution formulations on the growth, yield and quality of hydroponic vegetable sweet potato, this study used the nutrient film technique (NFT) for hydroponic cultivation. Three vegetable sweet potato varieties, Shulyu 1 (variety A), Xucaiguan 1 (variety B), and Nonglin Zibai (variety C), were used as experimental materials. Six nutrient solution formulation treatments were established: Hoagland universal formulation (control, CK), Japanese garden trial formulation (T1), South China Agricultural University leafy vegetable A formulation (T2), the Japanese Yamazaki Chrysanthemum formulation (T3), Cooper universal formulation (T4) and Dutch greenhouse formulation (T5). By measuring growth indicators, texture indicators and quality indicators of each variety under different nutrient solution formulations, the effects of different formulations on the growth, yield and quality of vegetable sweet potato were studied. A comprehensive quality evaluation model was constructed based on principal component analysis, and quality was evaluated through comprehensive scores to screen for the optimal nutrient solution formulation and variety. The results showed that under different nutrient solution formulations, the trends of indicator changes varied among the vegetable sweet potato varieties. Under the T2 treatment, the shoot dry matter rate, soluble sugar content, starch content and vitamin C content of all three varieties reached their highest levels, while nitrate content was the lowest. The trends for other indicators were inconsistent among different formulations; for example, yield per plant was higher under CK, T1 and T3 treatments. The comprehensive scores of vegetable sweet potatoes under different formulation treatments showed a relatively consistent trend. The comprehensive scores of all three varieties under the T2 treatment were the highest and significantly higher than those of CK and other treatment groups. The comprehensive scores of variety B and variety C under each treatment were similar and both were significantly higher than that of variety A. In conclusion, among the six nutrient solution formulations, the South China Agricultural University leafy vegetable A formulation was the optimal formulation, significantly improving the quality of hydroponic vegetable sweet potato. The qualities of Xucaiguan 1 (variety B) and Nonglin Zibai (variety C) were relatively similar and both were superior to that of Shulyu 1 (variety A).

Key words: vegetable sweet potato, nutrient solution formulation, hydroponics, quality, comprehensive evaluation model

中图分类号:

S531

马文清, 庞林江, 王思雨, 舒兴, 崔鹏, 徐锡明, 吕尊富, 陆国权. 营养液配方对水培菜用甘薯生长、产量和营养品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(7): 1297-1312.

MA Wenqing, PANG Linjiang, WANG Siyu, SHU Xing, CUI Peng, XU Ximing, LYU Zunfu, LU Guoquan. Effects of nutrient solution formulation on growth, yield and nutritional quality of hydroponic vegetable sweet potato[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(7): 1297-1312.

图/表 13

参考文献 33

[1]	黄杰, 王文希, 邢丹英. 甘薯高产高效栽培技术[J]. 农村实用技术, 2020(6): 49-50.
	Huang J, Wang W X, Xing D Y. High-yield and high-efficiency cultivation techniques of sweet potato[J]. Nongcun Shiyong Jishu, 2020(6): 49-50.
[2]	望宇洪, 杨新笋, 姚国新, 等. 菜用甘薯的特征特性与研究现状[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2011, 50(10): 2028-2030.
	Wang Y H, Yang X S, Yao G X, et al. Research status and characteristics of sweetpotato for vegetable[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2011, 50(10): 2028-2030.
[3]	Nguyen H C, Chen C C, Lin K H, et al. Bioactive compounds, antioxidants, and health benefits of sweet potato leaves[J]. Molecules, 2021, 26(7): 1820.
[4]	Almoraie N M. The role of ipomoea batatas leaves extract on the treatment of diabetes induced by streptozotocin[J]. Pharmacophore, 2019, 10(3): 14-20.
[5]	Gundala S R, Yang C H, Lakshminarayana N, et al. Polar biophenolics in sweet potato greens extract synergize to inhibit prostate cancer cell proliferation and in vivo tumor growth[J]. Carcinogenesis, 2013, 34(9): 2039-2049.
[6]	Karna P, Gundala S R, Gupta M V, et al. Polyphenol-rich sweet potato greens extract inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cells in vitro and in vivo[J]. Carcinogenesis, 2011, 32(12): 1872-1880.
[7]	Liao W C, Lai Y C, Yuan M C, et al. Antioxidative activity of water extract of sweet potato leaves in Taiwan[J]. Food Chemistry, 2011, 127(3): 1224-1228.
[8]	陈彤, 李丽洪, 陈小河, 等. “龙薯24号”叶提取物对CCl4肝损伤小鼠的保护作用[J]. 龙岩学院学报, 2017, 35(2): 115-120.
	Chen T, Li L H, Chen X H, et al. Protective effects of “Longshu 24” leaf extracts on CCl4 liver injury mice[J]. Journal of Longyan University, 2017, 35(2): 115-120.
[9]	吕晓玲, 王婷婷, 李凯, 等. 紫甘薯提取物对自然衰老更年期大鼠生理状态的改善[J]. 营养学报, 2015, 37(2): 196-200.
	Lyu X L, Wang T T, Li K, et al. Physiological status is improved by purple sweet potato extract in aging climacteric rats[J]. Acta Nutrimenta Sinica, 2015, 37(2): 196-200.
[10]	Zhang L, Tu Z C, Yuan T, et al. Antioxidants and α-glucosidase inhibitors from Ipomoea batatas leaves identified by bioassay-guided approach and structure-activity relationships[J]. Food Chemistry, 2016, 208: 61-67.
[11]	曹清河, 季志仙, 李强, 等. 菜用甘薯新品种薯绿1号的选育[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2017(3): 70-72.
	Cao Q H, Ji Z X, Li Q, et al. A new vegetable-used sweet-potato variety: ‘Shulyu No.1’[J]. China Vegetables, 2017(3): 70-72.
[12]	郭世荣. 无土栽培学[M]. 2版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2011.
[13]	林黄昉, 林碧英, 彭雨欣, 等. 水培小白菜营养液配方及管理模式的筛选[J]. 江西农业学报, 2022, 34(11): 45-49.
	Lin H F, Lin B Y, Peng Y X, et al. Selection of nutrient solution formula and management mode of hydroponic pakchoi[J]. Acta Agriculturae Jiangxi, 2022, 34(11): 45-49.
[14]	乔佳乐, 郭美玲, 窦煜炜, 等. 营养液配方优化及其对水培生菜生长和生产效率的影响[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 54(2): 166-172.
	Qiao J L, Guo M L, Dou Y W, et al. Optimization of nutrient solution formula and its effect on growth and production efficiency of hydroponic lettuce[J]. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University(Natural Science Edition), 2023, 54(2): 166-172.
[15]	樊晓刚, 李昌伟, 陈素贤, 等. 不同营养液配方对水培韭菜生长发育和品质的影响[J]. 中国果菜, 2023, 43(10): 67-70.
	Fan X G, Li C W, Chen S X, et al. Effects of different nutrient solution formulas on the growth, development, and quality of hydroponic Chinese chives[J]. China Fruit & Vegetable, 2023, 43(10): 67-70.
[16]	张允刚, 房伯平. 甘薯种质资源描述规范和数据标准[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[17]	赵世杰, 苍晶. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2016.
[18]	李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2000.
[19]	高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006.
[20]	曹建康, 姜微波, 赵玉梅. 果蔬采后生理生化实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 2007.
[21]	刘家尧, 刘新. 植物生理学实验教程[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2010.
[22]	Ha S T, Wilkins C L, Abidi S L. Analysis of antimycin A by reversed-phase liquid chromatography/nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry[J]. Analytical Chemistry, 1989, 61(5): 404-408.
[23]	赵波, 张青, 张晓宇, 等. 茎尖菜用甘薯品种产量及品质分析[J]. 北京农学院学报, 2011, 26(1): 1-3.
	Zhao B, Zhang Q, Zhang X Y, et al. Analysis on yield and quality traits of stem tips in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) used for vegetable[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Agriculture, 2011, 26(1): 1-3.
[24]	张倩, 李军生, 黄国霞, 等. 过氧化钙对苋菜常温活体保鲜效果的影响[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2013, 52(1): 174-176.
	Zhang Q, Li J S, Huang G X, et al. Effects of CaO₂ on in vitro preservation of Amaranthus tricolor at normal temperature[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 52(1): 174-176.
[25]	王彦荣, 华泽田, 陈温福, 等. 粳型超级杂交稻辽优3225根系生理特性研究[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2003, 17(1): 37-41.
	Wang Y R, Hua Z T, Chen W F, et al. Root physiological characteristics of super Japonica hybrid rice Liaoyou 3225[J]. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 2003, 17(1): 37-41.
[26]	Liu J J, Wei Z, Li J H. Effects of copper on leaf membrane structure and root activity of maize seedling[J]. Botanical Studies, 2014, 55(1): 47.
[27]	吕小红, 陈温福, 宋玉婷, 等. 施氮条件下不同株型水稻品种的根系活力研究[J]. 北方水稻, 2014, 44(4): 7-11.
	Lyu X H, Chen W F, Song Y T, et al. Study on root activity between different plant type rice under several nitrogen levels[J]. North Rice, 2014, 44(4): 7-11.
[28]	孟焕文, 程智慧, 苏莉, 等. 大蒜不同品种硝酸盐积累规律研究[J]. 西北植物学报, 2006, 26(10): 2051-2055.
	Meng H W, Cheng Z H, Su L, et al. Patterns of nitrate accumulation in different garlic varieties[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2006, 26(10): 2051-2055.
[29]	韩珑, 王婷, 高俊杰, 等. 施氮量对有机基质栽培韭菜生长、品质及氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2024, 37(10): 141-148.
	Han L, Wang T, Gao J J, et al. Effects of nitrogen application on growth, quality and nitrogen utilization of Chinese chives in organic substrate culture[J]. China Cucurbits and Vegetables, 2024, 37(10): 141-148.
[30]	刘明月, 秦玉芝, 蔡雁平, 等. N P K施用量与芹菜硝酸盐积累和产量的相关性[J]. 中国蔬菜, 1998(6): 4-7.
	Liu M Y, Qin Y Z, Cai Y P, et al. Study on the relationship between the application rate of N, P, K and the accumulation of nitrate and yield of celery[J]. China Vegetables, 1998(6): 4-7.
[31]	黄静艳. 不同培养条件对甘薯芽菜营养品质及产量的研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2018.
	Huang J Y. Nutritional quality and yield of sweetpotato sprouts with different culture conditions[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang A&F University, 2018.
[32]	王锐, 欧行奇, 李新华. 叶菜型甘薯品种‘百薯1号’茎尖不同部位淀粉含量变化的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2013, 29(30): 60-63.
	Wang R, Ou X Q, Li X H. Study on the change of starch content in different parts of stem apex of sweet potato variety ‘Baishu No.1’[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2013, 29(30): 60-63.
[33]	管文杰. 蔬用甘蓝型油菜的产量与品质性状研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2021.
	Guan W J. Study on yield and quality characters of vegetable Brassica napus L[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2021.

配方 Formulation	盐类化合物质量浓度/(mg·L^-1) Mass concentration of salt compounds/(mg·L^-1)
配方 Formulation	Ca(NO₃)₂·4H₂O	KNO₃	NH₄NO₃		NH₄H₂PO₄		KH₂PO₄	(NH₄)₂SO₄		K₂SO₄	MgSO₄·7H₂O
CK	945	607	0		115		0	0		0	493
T1	945	809	0		153		0	0		0	493
T2	472	267	53		0		100	0		116	264
T3	472	809	0		153		0	0		0	493
T4	1 062	505	0		0		140	0		0	738
T5	886	303	0		0		204	33		218	247
配方 Formulation	元素浓度/(mmol·L^-1) Element concentration/(mmol·L^-1)
配方 Formulation	氮(铵态氮) Nitrogen (ammonium nitrogen)			磷P		钾K			钙Ca	镁Mg		硫S
CK	15.00(1.00)			1.00		6.00			4.0	2.0		2.0
T1	17.33(1.33)			1.33		8.00			4.0	2.0		2.0
T2	8.00(0.67)			0.74		4.74			2.0	1.0		2.0
T3	13.33(1.33)			1.33		8.00			2.0	2.0		2.0
T4	14.00(0)			1.03		6.03			4.5	3.0		3.0
T5	11.00(0.50)			1.50		7.00			3.7	1.0		2.5

配方 Formulation	盐类化合物质量浓度/(mg·L^-1) Mass concentration of salt compounds/(mg·L^-1)
配方 Formulation	Ca(NO₃)₂·4H₂O	KNO₃	NH₄NO₃		NH₄H₂PO₄		KH₂PO₄	(NH₄)₂SO₄		K₂SO₄	MgSO₄·7H₂O
CK	945	607	0		115		0	0		0	493
T1	945	809	0		153		0	0		0	493
T2	472	267	53		0		100	0		116	264
T3	472	809	0		153		0	0		0	493
T4	1 062	505	0		0		140	0		0	738
T5	886	303	0		0		204	33		218	247
配方 Formulation	元素浓度/(mmol·L^-1) Element concentration/(mmol·L^-1)
配方 Formulation	氮(铵态氮) Nitrogen (ammonium nitrogen)			磷P		钾K			钙Ca	镁Mg		硫S
CK	15.00(1.00)			1.00		6.00			4.0	2.0		2.0
T1	17.33(1.33)			1.33		8.00			4.0	2.0		2.0
T2	8.00(0.67)			0.74		4.74			2.0	1.0		2.0
T3	13.33(1.33)			1.33		8.00			2.0	2.0		2.0
T4	14.00(0)			1.03		6.03			4.5	3.0		3.0
T5	11.00(0.50)			1.50		7.00			3.7	1.0		2.5

主成分 Principal component	特征值 Eigenvalue	方差贡献率/% Variance contribution rate/%	累计方差贡献率/% Cumulative variance contribution rate/%
1	8.229	35.779	35.779
2	4.542	19.748	55.526
3	3.318	14.428	69.954
4	1.739	7.562	77.516
5	1.224	5.320	82.836
6	1.010	4.390	87.226

主成分 Principal component	特征值 Eigenvalue	方差贡献率/% Variance contribution rate/%	累计方差贡献率/% Cumulative variance contribution rate/%
1	8.229	35.779	35.779
2	4.542	19.748	55.526
3	3.318	14.428	69.954
4	1.739	7.562	77.516
5	1.224	5.320	82.836
6	1.010	4.390	87.226

性状 Trait	主成分Principal component
性状 Trait	1	2	3	4	5	6
X₂₂	0.923	-0.080	0.146	0.123	-0.167	-0.062
X₁₆	0.920	-0.084	0.015	0.094	-0.139	-0.152
X₂₁	0.879	-0.193	0.144	0.134	0.072	-0.195
X₂₃	-0.872	0.031	0.244	-0.136	0.132	0.158
X₁₁	0.820	-0.161	0.422	-0.200	-0.162	0.035
X₁	-0.793	-0.131	-0.521	-0.004	-0.086	-0.041
X₁₃	0.759	0.255	0.019	-0.315	0.216	0.349
X₂	0.745	-0.123	-0.187	0.078	0.285	0.281
X₆	0.685	0.490	-0.181	-0.095	0.403	-0.059
X₂₀	0.613	-0.536	-0.298	0.111	0.044	0.279
X₁₀	0.579	-0.527	-0.282	-0.123	-0.416	0.259
X₉	0.525	0.369	0.446	-0.168	-0.175	0.106
X₇	-0.072	0.871	0.168	0.213	-0.209	-0.013
X₈	0.299	0.851	-0.14	0.051	-0.034	0.085
X₁₇	-0.292	-0.808	0.424	-0.088	0.024	0.160
X₁₈	-0.228	-0.759	0.521	-0.130	0.054	0.191
X₄	0.487	-0.332	-0.735	0.092	0.245	-0.005
X₁₉	0.233	0.112	-0.687	-0.364	0.177	-0.060
X₅	0.585	0.203	0.674	-0.194	0.024	-0.075
X₃	0.024	-0.376	-0.046	0.743	0.097	0.091
X₁₄	0.152	0.353	-0.087	0.667	-0.334	0.297
X₁₂	-0.049	0.076	0.597	0.450	0.599	-0.007
X₁₅	-0.467	0.526	-0.008	-0.134	0.066	0.618

营养液配方对水培菜用甘薯生长、产量和营养品质的影响

Effects of nutrient solution formulation on growth, yield and nutritional quality of hydroponic vegetable sweet potato

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 13

参考文献 33

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	Y₁	Y₂	Y₃	Y₄	Y₅	Y₆	Y	综合排序 Comprehensive ranking
A	CK	-4.065	1.896	-2.498	0.406	1.522	-0.151	-1.335 b	16
	T1	-2.734	-1.150	-2.628	-0.712	-0.401	0.184	-1.652 b	17
	T2	-2.013	3.034	2.311	-1.612	-0.448	0.875	0.105 a	11
	T3	-3.859	-1.484	1.118	2.167	-0.127	0.614	-1.328 b	15
	T4	-4.036	0.174	1.208	-0.374	1.688	0.434	-1.155 b	14
	T5	-5.333	-0.850	0.182	-1.980	-1.652	-1.066	-2.334 c	18
B	CK	2.424	0.275	-1.541	0.104	1.496	-1.303	0.729 b	5
	T1	2.987	-2.552	-2.878	-2.075	-0.307	0.248	-0.013 c	13
	T2	3.249	0.977	2.170	-1.064	1.137	-1.063	1.602 a	2
	T3	2.125	-3.645	0.632	0.404	0.354	-0.164	0.174 c	10
	T4	0.929	-1.910	2.414	0.093	1.553	0.599	0.419 bc	7
	T5	1.919	-3.036	1.008	-0.594	-0.521	1.584	0.230 bc	9
C	CK	1.884	2.505	-1.967	0.202	0.471	-0.464	0.905 b	3
	T1	1.722	1.696	-2.325	1.023	-0.463	2.087	0.760 bc	4
	T2	3.235	3.971	1.328	-0.617	-1.270	0.551	2.043 a	1
	T3	0.552	-0.222	-0.177	2.759	-1.371	-0.415	0.246 de	8
	T4	0.276	1.001	1.141	1.541	-0.209	-0.735	0.534 cd	6
	T5	0.736	-0.681	0.503	0.329	-1.452	-1.815	0.069 e	12

品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	可溶性糖含量/% Soluble sugar content/%	维生素C含量/(mg·g^-1) Vitamin C content/(mg·g^-1)	硝酸盐含量/(mg·g^-1) Nitrate content/(mg·g^-1)
A	CK	0.13±0.01 c	0.68±0.07 b	0.91±0.10 c
	T1	0.15±0.01 c	0.73±0.08 b	1.61±0.14 a
	T2	0.34±0.04 a	0.89±0.09 a	0.65±0.04 d
	T3	0.19±0.02 b	0.60±0.03 b	1.10±0.09 b
	T4	0.11±0.01 c	0.72±0.06 b	1.05±0.10 bc
	T5	0.12±0.01 c	0.62±0.07 b	0.89±0.08 c
B	CK	0.17±0.02 c	1.08±0.09 ab	1.33±0.13 c
	T1	0.18±0.02 c	1.00±0.09 b	2.31±0.23 a
	T2	0.28±0.01 a	1.22±0.12 a	1.28±0.08 c
	T3	0.23±0.03 b	0.85±0.04 c	2.24±0.27 a
	T4	0.19±0.02 c	1.00±0.12 b	1.88±0.05 b
	T5	0.18±0.02 c	1.12±0.15 ab	1.88±0.15 b
C	CK	0.22±0.02 b	1.07±0.09 b	1.64±0.16 b
	T1	0.18±0.01 c	1.09±0.11 ab	2.21±0.20 a
	T2	0.30±0.03 a	1.26±0.11 a	1.21±0.10 c
	T3	0.19±0.02 bc	0.69±0.08 d	1.47±0.14 bc
	T4	0.17±0.02 c	0.87±0.11 c	1.62±0.14 b
	T5	0.18±0.01 c	0.63±0.05 d	1.42±0.14 bc

[1]	张丹珂, 王丽, 李海润, 李浩晶, 曹静, 徐国伟. 缓释肥及外源物质对再生稻头季籽粒灌浆特性及品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(7): 1313-1326.
[2]	孙达, 毛斌瑀, 黄旦益, 崔宏春, 夏兵, 郑旭霞. 基于土壤特性因素的不同区域西湖龙井茶品质研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(6): 1087-1098.
[3]	李文珍, 梅涵一, 王树林, 聂晶, 李春霖, 张永志, 邓丰涛, 袁玉伟. 基于近红外光谱技术的西藏牦牛酥油掺假快速无损鉴别[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(6): 1112-1125.
[4]	李坤峰, 李诚, 高华奇, 何威羚, 黄凌霞. 十字型平面棚架栽培省力化管理对果桑品种大10生长、桑椹产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(6): 1209-1217.
[5]	葛方赢, 岳文浩, 蔡康锋, 宋秀娟, 汪军妹, 刘磊. 啤酒大麦主要麦芽品质性状研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(5): 1024-1034.
[6]	张昊, 谭烽, 周禹, 王大臣, 周宏平, 姜洪喆. 高光谱成像技术在农作物品质与安全原位感知中的研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(5): 1035-1047.
[7]	李洋, 刘战群, 贺润平, 赵飞, 邢鲲, 杨存弟, 蒲秀兰. 微生物菌肥对土壤养分、甜瓜品质与病虫害防治效果的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(5): 909-918.
[8]	李佳奇, 胡宽莲, 沈子靖, 史建国, 何韵. 不同霜冻胁迫时间下霜桑叶品质的变化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(5): 934-943.
[9]	覃响, 邓翔鸿, 黄展锐, 袁驰, 陈浩, 胡连花, 何婉莹, 赵良忠. 鹌鹑蛋脉冲真空卤制工艺优化及其品质分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(5): 998-1007.
[10]	石尹, 汪艳霞, 王娟英, 黄小贞. 贵州野生古茶树单株TZRR1与福鼎大白茶的持嫩性和品质比较[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(4): 621-631.
[11]	王华杰, 崔宏春, 赵芸, 黄海涛, 祝凌平. 抹茶品质与安全评价体系研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(4): 809-823.
[12]	杜辰飞, 李文珏, 魏春艳, 蔡丹英, 王月志, 施泽彬, 戴美松, 高永彬. 果树遗传图谱构建与果实主要品质性状QTL定位研究进展[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(3): 609-620.
[13]	张悦, 王镜然, 周强, 陈美玲, 王颜红. 外源喷施叶酸对稻米叶酸含量及品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(2): 197-205.
[14]	刘静, 王尖, 黄钰, 吴晓花, 郭轩赫, 汪颖, 李国景, 许小江. 南瓜果实品质评价的指标筛选与模型构建[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(2): 248-257.
[15]	许卫猛, 徐妍, 陈国立. 基于多种分析方法的糯玉米品质综合评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(9): 1840-1848.