Fungicides and optimum time for control of pear rust in Tongxiang City, north Zhejiang, China

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.09.11

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (9): 1668-1675.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.09.11

• Plant Protection • Previous Articles Next Articles

Fungicides and optimum time for control of pear rust in Tongxiang City, north Zhejiang, China

WU Jiawei¹(), YAO Zhangliang¹^,^*(), HU Qiqi², ZHANG Jie¹, CHEN Yi¹, JIANG Jianrong³, ZHOU Guoxin², WANG Xia²^,^*()

1. Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of Tongxiang, Tongxiang 314500, China
2. Department of Plant Protection, Key Laboratory for Quality Improvement of Agriculture Products of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang A &F University, Hangzhou 311300, China
3. Agricultural Economic Service Center of Wuzhen, Tongxiang 314501, China

Received:2020-08-11 Online:2021-09-25 Published:2021-10-09
Contact: YAO Zhangliang,WANG Xia

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to know the outbreak regularity of pear rust disease, optimum control time, and effective fungicide, in this study, monitoring of forming and mature of pear rust’s pathogen teliospore and optimum time, and effects of eight fungicides for disease control were investigated. The results indicated the mature peak of teliospore appeared in mid-March. It was better to control pear rust by fungicide before the first two rain from late March. The control efficiency of fungicides 500×80% mancozeb(WP), 800×30% azole ether pentazolium(SC), and 800×10% difenoconazole (WG) to type Ⅰ bud leaves of pear varieties Yuguan and Chuiguan was 89.62%, 99.46%, 99.38% and 89.62%, 96.90%, 88.53% respectively. The control efficiency of three fungicides to typeⅠand typeⅡ bud leaves was similar except efficiency of 500×80% mancozeb(WP) to type Ⅱ bud leaves was apparently higher than typeⅠ. All three fungicides of 80% mancozeb(WP), 30% azole ether pentazolium(SC), and 10% difenoconazole (WG) could control pear rust effectively, considering their effects on fruit quality, 10% difenoconazole (WG) was the most optimal fungicide for pear rust control. The time of fungicides using was the most crucial factor to pear rust control, the optimum time was the first two rain from late March and spaying before raining was the best.

Key words: pear rust, teliospore, fungicide screening, optimum control time, fruit quality

CLC Number:

S436.612.1

WU Jiawei, YAO Zhangliang, HU Qiqi, ZHANG Jie, CHEN Yi, JIANG Jianrong, ZHOU Guoxin, WANG Xia. Fungicides and optimum time for control of pear rust in Tongxiang City, north Zhejiang, China[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(9): 1668-1675.

Figures/Tables 5

References 14

[1]	朱灿星, 徐鸿润, 吴伟芬. 梨锈病发生与防治的研究[J]. 浙江农业大学学报, 1984, 10(2):83-90.
	ZHU C X, XU H R, WU W F. Studies on the development of pear rust and its chemical control[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural University, 1984, 10(2):83-90.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	王杰花, 陈卫民, 韩丽丽, 等. 新疆梨树新病害梨锈病发生、流行规律及防治[J]. 北方园艺, 2019 (19):21-27.
	WANG J H, CHEN W M, HAN L L, et al. Occurrence and epidemic regularity and control of pear rust new disease in Xinjiang[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2019 (19):21-27.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	朱灿星, 徐鸿润, 吴伟芬. 梨锈病的流行规律研究及药剂防治试验简报(1962—1963年)[J]. 安徽农学院学报, 1964: 104-107.
	ZHU C X, XU H R, WU W F. The epidemic regularity research and chemicals control reports(1962-1963)[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University, 1964: 104-107.(in Chinese)
[4]	李瑶, 承河元. 安徽梨主栽品种对锈病的抗性差异及其空间格局的数学分析[J]. 生物数学学报, 1996, 11(3):206-214.
	LI Y, CHENG H Y. Studies on resistant difference of main pear cultivars to pear rust caused by Gymnosporangium haraeanum and their mathematical analysis of spatial pattern in Anhui[J]. Journal of Biomathematics, 1996, 11(3):206-214.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	李保华, 董向丽, 张振芳, 等. 莱阳地区梨锈病防治适期研究[J]. 植物保护, 2006, 32(1):69-73.
	LI B H, DONG X L, ZHANG Z F, et al. Optimum time for control of pear rust(Gymnosporangium haraeanum Syd.) with fungicides in Laiyang[J]. Plant Protection, 2006, 32(1):69-73.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	赵德英, 程存刚, 张少瑜, 等. 梨锈病侵染特征及防治适期研究[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2011, 31(5):9-11.
	ZHAO D Y, CHENG C G, ZHANG S Y, et al. Study on infection characteristics of pear rust and its optimum control period[J]. China Plant Protection, 2011, 31(5):9-11.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	马淑娥. 梨锈病发病规律及防治技术研究[J]. 中国果树, 1998(1):16-18.
	MA S E. Study on occurrence regularity and control technology of pear rust[J]. China Fruits, 1998(1):16-18.(in Chinese)
[8]	邹继生, 唐斌, 李育民, 等. 上海地区梨锈病的发生规律、灾变预警及防控技术[J]. 中国农技推广, 2018, 34(8):64-66.
	ZOU J S, TANG B, LI Y M, et al. The generating regularity, disater warning and control technology of pear rust in Shanghai[J]. China Agricultural Technology Extension, 2018, 34(8):64-66.(in Chinese)
[9]	杨健. 梨锈病的发病规律及防治方法[J]. 果农之友, 2016(7):42.
	YANG J. Study on occurrence regularity and control of pear rust[J]. Fruit Growers’ Friend, 2016(7):42.(in Chinese)
[10]	姚张良, 冯明慧, 吴嘉维, 等. 不同药剂对棚室内甜瓜白粉病的防治效果[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2019, 39(5):70-71.
	YAO Z L, FENG M H, WU J W, et al. The effects of different chemicals on powdery mildew of melon in greenhouse[J]. China Plant Protection, 2019, 39(5):70-71.(in Chinese)
[11]	徐红卫, 朱艳平. 杭州地区梨锈病发生规律及防治研究[J]. 中国果树, 1997(1):10-12.
	XU H W, ZHU Y P. Study on occurence regularity and control technology of pear rust in Hangzhou[J]. China Fruits, 1997(1):10-12.(in Chinese)
[12]	KIM S, PARK H, GRUSZEWSKI H A, et al. Vortex-induced dispersal of a plant pathogen by raindrop impact[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019, 116(11):4917-4922.
[13]	徐锴, 赵德英, 袁继存, 等. 不同果袋对红色梨果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(12):2011-2018.
	XU K, ZHAO D Y, YUAN J C, et al. Effect of different types of fruit bag on fruit quality of red pear[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2019, 31(12):2011-2018.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	王涛, 王海琴, 林媚, 等. 大棚栽培对翠冠梨果实碳水化合物积累的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2008, 20(4):236-239.
	WANG T, WANG H Q, LIN M, et al. Effects of greenhouse cultivation on carbohydrate accumulation in fruits of ‘Cueiguan’ pears[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2008, 20(4):236-239.(in Chinese with English abstract)

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	Ⅰ类芽上叶Type Ⅰ bud leaves				Ⅱ类芽上叶Type Ⅱ bud leaves
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	27.70± 3.24 c 5.95± 1.45 de 37.53± 3.10 b 12.43± 3.19 d 1.21± 0.85 e 0.36± 0.36 e 11.53± 2.39 d 0.45± 0.45 e 64.36± 2.43 a	56.02± 5.35 c 89.62± 2.65 ab 40.41± 5.22 d 79.93± 4.80 b 98.16± 1.27 a 99.46± 0.54 a 82.04± 3.64 b 99.38± 0.63 a —	0.66± 0.09 bc 0.09± 0.03 c 1.20± 0.17 b 0.30± 0.09 c 0.01± 0.01 c 0.01± 0.01 c 0.26± 0.06 c 0±0 c 10.44± 0.67 a	93.16± 1.07 c 99.04± 0.26 ab 87.95± 1.85 d 96.54± 1.00 b 99.88± 0.09 a 99.91± 0.09 a 97.19± 0.76 b 99.95± 0.05 a —	35.92± 5.72 b 6.42± 2.67 e 24.56± 6.09 c 19.75± 4.09 cd 4.63± 2.24 e 1.00± 1.00 e 9.13± 3.10 de 3.50± 2.64 e 76.67± 4.90 a	44.56± 11.56 d 92.08± 3.32 a 59.92± 10.50 cd 69.60± 7.56 bc 94.86± 2.52 a 98.75± 1.25 a 81.51± 8.97 ab 95.50± 3.12 a —	0.94± 0.20 b 0.07± 0.03 b 0.73± 0.29 b 0.41± 0.11 b 0.05± 0.02 b 0.01± 0.01 b 0.21± 0.11 b 0.06± 0.05 b 7.55± 0.94 a	81.23± 5.53 ab 98.81± 0.48 a 60.43± 27.81 b 83.70± 10.41 ab 99.47± 0.30 a 99.62± 0.38 a 83.40± 14.94 ab 99.50± 0.35 a —

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	Ⅰ类芽上叶Type Ⅰ bud leaves				Ⅱ类芽上叶Type Ⅱ bud leaves
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	27.70± 3.24 c 5.95± 1.45 de 37.53± 3.10 b 12.43± 3.19 d 1.21± 0.85 e 0.36± 0.36 e 11.53± 2.39 d 0.45± 0.45 e 64.36± 2.43 a	56.02± 5.35 c 89.62± 2.65 ab 40.41± 5.22 d 79.93± 4.80 b 98.16± 1.27 a 99.46± 0.54 a 82.04± 3.64 b 99.38± 0.63 a —	0.66± 0.09 bc 0.09± 0.03 c 1.20± 0.17 b 0.30± 0.09 c 0.01± 0.01 c 0.01± 0.01 c 0.26± 0.06 c 0±0 c 10.44± 0.67 a	93.16± 1.07 c 99.04± 0.26 ab 87.95± 1.85 d 96.54± 1.00 b 99.88± 0.09 a 99.91± 0.09 a 97.19± 0.76 b 99.95± 0.05 a —	35.92± 5.72 b 6.42± 2.67 e 24.56± 6.09 c 19.75± 4.09 cd 4.63± 2.24 e 1.00± 1.00 e 9.13± 3.10 de 3.50± 2.64 e 76.67± 4.90 a	44.56± 11.56 d 92.08± 3.32 a 59.92± 10.50 cd 69.60± 7.56 bc 94.86± 2.52 a 98.75± 1.25 a 81.51± 8.97 ab 95.50± 3.12 a —	0.94± 0.20 b 0.07± 0.03 b 0.73± 0.29 b 0.41± 0.11 b 0.05± 0.02 b 0.01± 0.01 b 0.21± 0.11 b 0.06± 0.05 b 7.55± 0.94 a	81.23± 5.53 ab 98.81± 0.48 a 60.43± 27.81 b 83.70± 10.41 ab 99.47± 0.30 a 99.62± 0.38 a 83.40± 14.94 ab 99.50± 0.35 a —

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	Ⅰ类芽上叶Type Ⅰ bud leaves				Ⅱ类芽上叶Type Ⅱ bud leaves
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	50.85± 3.19 b 6.30± 1.86 e 37.59± 2.69 c 35.46± 4.11 c 15.61± 3.16 d 1.78± 0.71 e 6.19± 1.64 e 6.64± 1.32 e 62.53± 2.79 a	15.98± 5.82 d 89.62± 3.05 a 37.00± 5.62 c 46.55± 6.87 c 73.66± 5.65 b 96.90± 1.25 a 90.04± 2.60 a 88.53± 2.44 a —	4.69± 0.66 b 0.08± 0.02 e 1.09± 0.11 cd 1.04± 0.23 c 0.36± 0.10 de 0.02± 0.01 e 0.09± 0.03 e 0.11± 0.03 e 11.80± 0.62 a	58.68± 5.76 c 99.37± 0.19 a 90.27± 1.12 b 87.38± 2.45 b 96.73± 0.89 a 99.83± 0.07 a 99.23± 0.25 a 99.04± 0.25 a —	51.17± 4.99 a 1.55± 1.07 e 28.30± 4.23 b 15.07± 4.61 cd 17.96± 3.58 bc 0±0 e 4.89± 2.12 de 6.88± 2.59 cde 56.36± 6.70 a	# 95.61± 3.08 a 39.12± 14.21 b 74.80± 11.87 ab 65.14± 9.51 ab 100.00± 0 a 92.69± 3.58 a 78.63± 9.42 ab —	2.35± 0.41 b 0.02± 0.02 b 0.49± 0.07 b 0.46± 0.21 b 0.42± 0.12 b 0±0 b 0.15± 0.07 b 0.14± 0.06 b 7.28± 2.31 a	29.09± 15.44 b 98.10± 1.41 a 85.48± 3.39 a 83.73± 12.71 a 82.36± 8.24 a 100.00± 0 a 97.93± 1.38 a 94.38± 2.93 a —

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	Ⅰ类芽上叶Type Ⅰ bud leaves				Ⅱ类芽上叶Type Ⅱ bud leaves
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	50.85± 3.19 b 6.30± 1.86 e 37.59± 2.69 c 35.46± 4.11 c 15.61± 3.16 d 1.78± 0.71 e 6.19± 1.64 e 6.64± 1.32 e 62.53± 2.79 a	15.98± 5.82 d 89.62± 3.05 a 37.00± 5.62 c 46.55± 6.87 c 73.66± 5.65 b 96.90± 1.25 a 90.04± 2.60 a 88.53± 2.44 a —	4.69± 0.66 b 0.08± 0.02 e 1.09± 0.11 cd 1.04± 0.23 c 0.36± 0.10 de 0.02± 0.01 e 0.09± 0.03 e 0.11± 0.03 e 11.80± 0.62 a	58.68± 5.76 c 99.37± 0.19 a 90.27± 1.12 b 87.38± 2.45 b 96.73± 0.89 a 99.83± 0.07 a 99.23± 0.25 a 99.04± 0.25 a —	51.17± 4.99 a 1.55± 1.07 e 28.30± 4.23 b 15.07± 4.61 cd 17.96± 3.58 bc 0±0 e 4.89± 2.12 de 6.88± 2.59 cde 56.36± 6.70 a	# 95.61± 3.08 a 39.12± 14.21 b 74.80± 11.87 ab 65.14± 9.51 ab 100.00± 0 a 92.69± 3.58 a 78.63± 9.42 ab —	2.35± 0.41 b 0.02± 0.02 b 0.49± 0.07 b 0.46± 0.21 b 0.42± 0.12 b 0±0 b 0.15± 0.07 b 0.14± 0.06 b 7.28± 2.31 a	29.09± 15.44 b 98.10± 1.41 a 85.48± 3.39 a 83.73± 12.71 a 82.36± 8.24 a 100.00± 0 a 97.93± 1.38 a 94.38± 2.93 a —

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	玉冠 Yuguan				翠冠 Cuiguan
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	平均单果质量 Mean fruit weight/g	横径 Width diameter/ cm	纵径 Vertical diameter/ cm	可溶性固形物含量 The content of soluble solids/%	平均单果质量 Mean fruit weight/g	横径 Width diameter/ cm	纵径 Vertical diameter/ cm	可溶性固形物含量 The content of soluble solids/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	194.22± 9.91 de 248.17± 10.99 bc 186.13± 10.51 e 270.83± 9.10 b 214.25± 12.64 cde 232.50± 14.47 bcd 268.40± 13.08 b 333.50± 21.98 a 130.98± 8.87 f	6.30± 0.10 d 7.17± 0.12 b 6.57± 0.11 cd 7.25± 0.14 b 6.93± 0.15 bc 7.05± 0.14 b 7.12± 0.08 b 7.87± 0.16 a 5.87± 0.15 e	6.27± 0.22 b 7.10± 0.17 a 6.35± 0.14 b 7.12± 0.41 a 6.40± 0.14 b 6.43± 0.19 b 7.15± 0.12 a 7.37± 0.25 a 5.45± 0.09 c	9.77± 0.55 a 9.23± 047 ab 10.07± 0.56 a 9.13± 0.47 ab 9.10± 0.50 ab 8.93± 0.26 ab 9.40± 0.64 a 10.43± 0.32 a 7.83± 0.30 b	273.25± 11.14 bc 301.78± 12.59 ab 265.12± 16.10 bc 290.10± 12.12 b 282.38± 20.98 bc 269.28± 7.42 bc 253.12± 16.73 bc 347.73± 16.73 a 233.75± 27.37 c	7.32± 0.11 bc 7.60± 0.12 ab 7.13± 0.14 bc 7.58± 0.10 ab 7.37± 0.10 bc 7.42± 0.14 bc 7.40± 0.27 bc 8.00± 0.19 a 6.95± 0.28 c	6.90± 0.14 abc 7.43± 0.18 ab 6.57± 0.08 c 6.83± 0.16 bc 6.83± 0.13 bc 6.85± 0.08 c 7.05± 0.24 abc 7.47± 0.22 a 6.83± 0.31 c	11.07± 0.87 a 11.47± 0.22 a 12.27± 0.19 a 12.23± 0.75 a 11.67± 0.47 a 13.03± 0.23 a 11.83± 1.09 a 12.50± 0.49 a 11.47± 0.75 a

Fungicides and optimum time for control of pear rust in Tongxiang City, north Zhejiang, China

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 14

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	ZHANG Zhigang, LIU Yufang, LI Changcheng, LI Hong, CHENG Ping, YANG Lu. Effect of different maturity on fruit quality of apricot [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(8): 1402-1408.
[2]	WANG Yingzhen, PAN Zhimei. Comprehensive evaluation of 22 Actinidia eriantha germplasm resources based on principal components analysis [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(5): 825-830.
[3]	LI Qingbin, QIN Benben, LI Yingying, FAN Kaifeng, YANG Dong, CHEN Lei, LIU Kun. Effects of continuous rain and sunless weather on microclimate, strawberry growth and quality in greenhouse [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(5): 831-839.
[4]	DENG Qian, WANG Yang, DENG Qunxian, XIN Yaning, LI Lei, LONG Xingyu, ZHU Jin, ZHANG Huifen, XIA Hui, LIANG Dong. Fruit development regulation and quality accumulation characteristics analysis of Zizyphus jujuba cv. Shucuizao [J]. , 2020, 32(4): 644-652.
[5]	MA Xiaohua, YU Zheping, ZHENG Xiliang, HU Xiaojin, ZHANG Shuwen, QI Xingjiang, MA Jingyan. Introduction experiment and phenotype cluster analysis of Chinese bayberry in Jingzhou [J]. , 2020, 32(11): 1987-1993.
[6]	WANG Bingliang, HAI Rui, JIN Bingsheng, JIANG Jianhong, SHI Xingren, LIN Yuquan, YE Hongxia. Effect of grafting methods on grafting working efficiency, seedling growth and fruit quality of melon (Cucumis melo L.) [J]. , 2020, 32(10): 1809-1815.
[7]	CHEN Xinyuan, YIN Yiming, ZHU Lixin, TAO Ningying, MAN Kun, JIA Huijuan. Effect of supplemental lighting with different light quality on fruit quality and related enzymes activities in pitaya [J]. , 2019, 31(7): 1079-1085.
[8]	XIAO Jinping, CHANG Luwei, ZHANG Huiqin, XIE Ming, GU Xianbin, XIONG Caizhen, WU Dajun. Effects of rain-sheltered cultivation on fruit quality in mid-late maturing juicy peach [J]. , 2019, 31(10): 1632-1638.
[9]	XUE Wanwan, GONG Ronggao, DING Jianlin, LI Keqiang, ZOU Jin, LI Rulong, PENG Honggui. Effect of gibberellin on fruit quality and anatomical structure of Hongdeng sweet cherry [J]. , 2018, 30(6): 978-984.
[10]	LI Qiuli, GAO Dengtao, WEI Zhifeng, WANG Zhiqiang, LIU Junwei, YANG Wenjia. Effect of different concentrations of methyl-jasmonate on fruit quality of Chunmi peach [J]. , 2018, 30(6): 985-991.
[11]	ZHANG Qing. Effects of storage temperature on fruit quality of strawberry varieties Yuexin and Akihime [J]. , 2018, 30(4): 600-606.
[12]	YE Shuang, XIONG Bo, QIU Xia, SUN Guochao, HUANG Shengjia, FU Jialing, WANG Zhihui. Establishment of comprehensive evaluation system of fruit quality and its application on Huangguogan fruit [J]. , 2017, 29(12): 2038-2050.
[13]	CHENG Ping, LI Changcheng, LI Hong, ZHANG Zhigang, LIU Bang, SUN Mingsen. Effects of different irrigation methods on sap flow and fruit quality of jujube in arid area [J]. , 2017, 29(1): 64-72.
[14]	LI Qingbin1， SUN Junbo1， FU Guohuai1， WEI Shasha1， LIU Kun2. Effects of different microclimatic factors in greenhouse with new greenhouse film or old one on yield and quality of cherry tomato [J]. , 2016, 28(3): 435-.
[15]	XU Yun-huan, LIANG Sen-miao, ZHENG Xi-liang, REN Hai-ying, QI Xing-jiang. Effects of foliar nutrition on fruit yield and quality of Chinese bayberry (Myrica rubra Sieb. et Zucc.) [J]. , 2016, 28(10): 1711-1717.