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]	HE Shixiong, YANG Lei, QI Anmin, CHENG Ji, WANG Min, LI Yingkui, HONG Lin. Effects of interstock on leaf photosynthetic characteristics, physicochemical properties and fruit quality of three mandarin hybrids [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(8): 1680-1693.
[2]	ZHANG Shunchang, XU Jigen, FU Chengyue, PU Zhanxu, HU Lipeng, WU Hao, LI Junbing, XIN Liang, LEI Yuanjun. Effect of amino acid calcium spraying on peel cracking and quality of citrus hybrid Hongmeiren [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(8): 1706-1715.
[3]	WANG Chengyang, LIU Jieya, WU Minyi, XIE Boyi, HONG Decheng, LENG Feng, WU Guoquan. Effect of calcium treatment on the fruit quality of Reliance grape under waterlogging [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(7): 1451-1458.
[4]	XIANG Ying, CONG Jianmin, PAN Danhong, TAO Yonggang. Comprehensive evaluation of the growth process of different tomato varieties under spring organic greenhouse planting [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(6): 1252-1261.
[5]	WANG Li, CHEN Liming, WANG Pengfei, ZHANG Bin, MU Xiaopeng. Effects of organic fertilizer combined with bacterial fertilizer on fruit quality and soil properties of Cerasus humilis [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(4): 820-830.
[6]	XIONG Tao, YAN Miao, WU Ting, MA Chao, YANG Juntao, HU Guozhi. Effects of potassium fulvic acid on soil microecology, root morphology in root zone of melon and fruit quality [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(10): 2066-2076.
[7]	SUN Li, ZHANG Shuwen, YU Zheping, ZHENG Xiliang, LIANG Senmiao, REN Haiying, QI Xingjiang. Effects of potassium humate on soil improvement, tree growth and fruiting of Chinese bayberry (Myrica rubra) [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(8): 1878-1886.
[8]	ZHU Xuehui, XIE Hui, HAN Shouan, WANG Min, BAI Shijian, MA Yunlong, WANG Yanmeng, MAI Sile, PAN Mingqi, ZHANG Wen. Effect of two plant growth regulators on the fruit quality of ‘Centennial Seedless’ grapes [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(6): 1309-1319.
[9]	WANG Ying, WANG Jian, FENG Zishan, WANG Baogen, WU Xinyi, LU Zhongfu, SUN Yuyan, DONG Wenqi, LI Guojing, WU Xiaohua. Factor analysis and comprehensive evaluation of the fruit quality of bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(2): 334-343.
[10]	LUO Shasha, WANG Ruyue, ZHEN Ziyi, WU Jialong, XU Yeyong, Bahetiyaer KERIM, SUN Yali, HU Haifang. Effect of irrigation time and amount on cracking rate and quality of apricot plum fruit [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(2): 365-372.
[11]	MA Ling, ZHANG Zhenwu, FANG Yingzi, WU Huixin, XING Chenghua. Effects of nitrogen reduction and biochar application on growth and development of Citurs reticulata Blanco cv. ‘Ponkan’ and soil properties [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(12): 2739-2747.
[12]	YUE Zongwei, LI Jiaxiao, SUN Xiangyang, LIU Guoliang, LI Suyan, WANG Chenchen, ZHA Guichao, WEI Ningxian. Effects of chemical fertilizer combined with organic fertilizer on soil properties, cherry fruit quality and yield [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(9): 2192-2201.
[13]	ZHAO Yuhong, HE Wen, LI Gen, WANG Qiang, XIE Rui, WANG Yan, CHEN Qing, WANG Xiaorong. Fruit quality of Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merrill and its bud mutants varieties in Sichuan area [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(5): 995-1004.
[14]	CAI Jiye, FANG Xiangjun, HAN Yanchao, DING Yuting, CHEN Hangjun, WU Weijie, GAO Haiyan. Effect controlled atmosphere storage on postharvest preservation of Dongkui bayberry [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(2): 352-359.
[15]	HAO Jinlian, YANG Yuqi, WANG Ru, YANG Mengsi, LIAO Chenyu, CHEN Hong, HU Haifang. Effects of different harvest time on quality of walnut varieties Wen 185 and Xinxin 2 [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(10): 2188-2198.