Quantitative evaluation indicators of Chinese bayberry tree health status

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.09.13

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2022, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (9): 1945-1954.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2022.09.13

• Horticultural Science • Previous Articles Next Articles

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

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

S667.6

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.

Figures/Tables 10

References 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

Quantitative evaluation indicators of Chinese bayberry tree health status

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 10

References 30

Related Articles 8

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

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]	ZHENG Yuanyua, YU Zheping, ZHANG Shuwen, LI Yougui, SUN Li, ZHENG Xiliang, QI Xingjiang. Effect of alcohol extracts from Chinese bayberry branch on proliferation and apoptosis of A375 cells and its molecular mechanism [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(5): 974-983.
[2]	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.
[3]	ZHANG Shuwen, LIANG Senmiao, ZHU Tingting, REN Haiying, ZHENG Xiliang, QI Xingjiang. Cold tolerance of different Chinese bayberry varieties [J]. , 2020, 32(10): 1772-1779.
[4]	LIANG Senmiao, GUO Xiuzhu, ZHENG Xiliang, ZHANG Shuwen, WEN Luhua, HUANG Pinhu, QI Xingjiang. Mineral nutritional characteristics of different organs in fruit-bearing tree of Myrica rubra Lour. [J]. , 2017, 29(10): 1669-1677.
[5]	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.
[6]	CHEN Wei1， LIANG Sen\\|miao2， GUO Xiu\\|zhu1， HUANG Pin\\|hu1， QIU Ying\\|ying2， QI Xing\\|jiang2，*. Effects of foliar nutrition on fruit quality and postharvest storage of Chinese bayberry [J]. , 2014, 26(6): 1491-.
[7]	CAO Xue-dan;QI Xing-jiang;FANG Xiu-gui;ZHAO Kai. Drying properties and quality of Chinese bayberry fruit [J]. , 2010, 22(3): 0-369.
[8]	GUO Xiu-zhu;Qiu Ying-ying;HUANG Pin—hu;WANG Kang-qiang;ZENG Ai-ping;QI Xing-Jiang;*. Effect of diferent fertilization methods on quality of Chinese bayberry fruit(Myrica Rubra Sieb．＆ Zucc．) [J]. , 2009, 21(4): 0-361.