Analysis of fruit quality and sensory evaluation of 36 kiwifruit (Actinidia) germplasm accessions
-
摘要:
以湖北省丹江口市同一猕猴桃（Actinidia）资源圃内的36份不同种质，包括：7个美味猕猴桃（变种）（A. chinensis var. deliciosa (A. Chev.) A. Chev.）、16个中华猕猴桃（原变种）（A. chinensis var. chinensis Planch.）、9个山梨猕猴桃（A. rufa (Sieb. & Zucc.) Planch. ex Mi.） × 中华猕猴桃和4个中华猕猴桃 × ‘超红’猕猴桃（A. eriantha Benth. × A. chinensis var. chinensis Planch.）的果实为研究对象，在可溶性固形物 ≥ 7.0%时采收，测定果实采收成熟度和软熟内在品质指标，并分析果实感官评价及其与内在品质的相关性。结果显示，36份猕猴桃种质果实品质性状表现出明显的差异性，尤其是单果重和维生素C（Vc）含量，其变异系数分别为43.61%和103.16%。这与山梨 × 中华及中华 × ‘超红’种类有关，两个种类均为小果型（< 45 g）；前者Vc含量最低（39.89 mg/100 g），后者最高（466.27 mg/100 g）。36份软熟果实样本中可溶性固形物、可溶性总糖和总酸的平均值分别为14.70%、8.96%和1.24%，其中可溶性固形物在美味种类中的平均值最高，最低为中华 × ‘超红’种类。果实感官评价在不同样本之间也表现出明显的差异性，就种类而言，山梨 × 中华的感官评价质量略高于其他种类。整体喜好度与风味喜好度、甜度紧密正相关（Pearson r ≥ 0.94），而与酸度有一定程度的负相关（r = −0.53）。可溶性固形物、可溶性总糖与整体喜好度的相关性明显高于总酸，但Vc与整体喜好度则无相关性。
Abstract:Thirty-six different accessions of kiwifruit (Actinidia), including seven Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa (A. Chev.) A. Chev., 16 A. chinensis var chinensis Planch., nine A. rufa (Sieb. & Zucc.) Planch. ex Mi. × A. chinensis var. chinensis Planch., and four A. chinensis var. chinensis × ‘Chaohong’ (A. eriantha Benth. × A. chinensis var. chinensis Planch.) grown in a same kiwifruit germplasm garden in Danjiangkou City, Hubei Province, were used as study materials. The fruits were harvested once soluble solids content (SSC) reached 7.0%. Fruit maturity at harvest and internal quality of ripe fruit were measured, and sensory evaluation and correlation with internal qualities were also analyzed. Results indicated significant differences in fruit quality traits among the 36 accessions, particularly fruit fresh weight and vitamin C (Vc) content, which had the highest coefficients of variation (43.61% and 103.16%, respectively). The significant variations were associated with samples from the A. rufa × A. chinensis and A. chinensis × ‘Chaohong’ groups. These two groups had small fruit size (< 45 g of average fresh weight), with the former having the lowest level of Vc (39.89 mg/100 g) and the latter having the highest (466.27 mg/100 g). Average SSC, soluble sugar, and total acidity of the 36 kiwifruit accessions were 14.70%, 8.96%, and 1.24%, respectively, and average SSC was highest in the A. chinensis var. deliciosa group and lowest in the A. chinensis × ‘Chaohong’ group. The sensory evaluation scores also revealed significant differences among samples, with the A. rufa × A. chinensis group showing the best sensory qualities. Overall liking was highly positively correlated with flavor liking and sweetness (Pearson r ≥ 0.94), but negatively correlated with acidity (r = −0.53). Overall liking revealed a higher correlation with sweetness indices (SSC and soluble sugar) than the acidity index (total acidity), but no clear correlation with Vc.
-
Keywords:
- Actinidia /
- Fruit quality /
- Sensory evaluation /
- Correlation
-
1 1，2）如需查阅附图内容请登录《植物科学学报》网站（http://www.plantscience.cn）查看本期文章。 -
![]()
图 1 36份猕猴桃种质软熟果实中的可溶性固形物含量
Figure 1. Soluble solids content in ripe fruit of 36 Actinidia accessions
![]()
图 2 36份猕猴桃种质软熟果实中的可溶性总糖含量
Figure 2. Soluble total sugar content in ripe fruit of 36 Actinidia accessions
![]()
图 3 36份猕猴桃种质软熟果实中的总酸含量
Figure 3. Total acidity content in ripe fruit of 36 Actinidia accessions
![]()
图 4 36份猕猴桃种质软熟果实中的维生素C含量
Figure 4. Vc content in ripe fruit of 36 Actinidia accessions
表 1 36份猕猴桃种质果实采收时的成熟度
Table 1 Fruit maturity at harvest of 36 Actinidia accessions
种类名称
Class name种质名称
Accession name单果重
Fresh weight / g硬度
Firmness / N可溶性固形物
Soluble solids content / %干物质
Dry matter / %美味 ‘金美’ 63.13 ± 0.94 78.07 ± 1.54 7.52 ± 0.30 23.48 ± 0.22 美味 ‘东玫’ 52.79 ± 2.02 84.92 ± 3.52 7.55 ± 0.35 21.19 ± 0.44 美味 ‘金魁’ 99.98 ± 3.90 88.94 ± 3.56 7.52 ± 0.21 19.80 ± 0.38 美味 ‘米良1号’ 104.65 ± 0.83 65.98 ± 2.26 7.88 ± 0.32 19.02 ± 0.26 美味 ‘徐香’ 78.15 ± 3.54 89.93 ± 3.05 7.61 ± 0.22 18.97 ± 0.27 美味 ‘楚红’ 50.10 ± 1.43 49.67 ± 3.08 7.04 ± 0.36 18.77 ± 0.24 美味 ‘海沃德’ 115.03 ± 1.23 67.91 ± 1.75 7.18 ± 0.24 16.56 ± 0.23 美味平均值 80.55 ± 1.98 75.06 ± 2.68 7.47 ± 0.29 19.68 ± 0.29 中华 ‘华优’ 84.01 ± 1.98 53.34 ± 1.64 9.78 ± 0.55 20.95 ± 0.31 中华 翠玉实生12617 74.83 ± 1.91 59.03 ± 2.42 10.74 ± 0.42 20.46 ± 0.24 中华 中华杂交CD611 61.49 ± 1.21 61.39 ± 1.72 9.15 ± 0.29 19.09 ± 0.20 中华 ‘翠玉’ 69.32 ± 3.28 62.77 ± 2.21 9.91 ± 0.45 18.72 ± 0.43 中华 ‘武植3号’ 82.76 ± 3.61 56.65 ± 3.71 9.24 ± 0.62 18.44 ± 0.31 中华 ‘金早’ 79.51 ± 1.76 56.11 ± 1.94 7.80 ± 0.43 18.38 ± 0.35 中华 中华杂交CD11129 55.53 ± 1.82 62.19 ± 1.99 8.34 ± 0.26 18.34 ± 0.26 中华 ‘金玉’ 107.01 ± 2.67 54.14 ± 1.80 8.01 ± 0.33 18.11 ± 0.27 中华 ‘东红’ 112.28 ± 2.92 53.26 ± 1.66 8.79 ± 0.52 16.81 ± 0.37 中华 ‘金霞’ 103.08 ± 0.98 53.87 ± 1.79 8.55 ± 0.35 16.47 ± 0.18 中华 ‘金桃’ 148.26 ± 7.88 55.61 ± 1.65 9.12 ± 0.45 16.29 ± 0.27 中华 ‘金农’ 95.09 ± 3.84 45.50 ± 3.34 8.32 ± 0.37 15.22 ± 0.24 中华 ‘金丰’ 109.61 ± 2.77 60.97 ± 2.14 8.45 ± 0.15 15.06 ± 0.18 中华 ‘丰悦’ 111.04 ± 2.04 46.84 ± 2.96 7.53 ± 0.37 14.74 ± 0.25 ‘金艳’ × 中华 ‘金圆’ 116.14 ± 2.39 60.95 ± 1.34 9.36 ± 0.39 16.71 ± 0.19 ‘金艳’ × 中华 ‘金梅’ 102.27 ± 2.18 59.26 ± 1.63 8.27 ± 0.19 16.68 ± 0.24 中华平均值 94.51 ± 2.70 56.37 ± 2.12 8.84 ± 0.38 17.53 ± 0.27 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕7号’ 43.65 ± 0.51 66.98 ± 2.45 8.07 ± 0.22 17.86 ± 0.32 山梨 × 中华 山梨 × 中华F1-AC17 43.93 ± 0.53 47.00 ± 3.05 9.82 ± 0.26 17.73 ± 0.13 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕8号’ 41.97 ± 0.73 58.52 ± 1.66 9.00 ± 0.24 17.51 ± 0.15 山梨 × 中华 山梨 × 中华F1-AC18 38.31 ± 0.88 59.79 ± 3.10 11.50 ± 0.22 17.00 ± 0.15 山梨 × 中华 山梨 × 中华F1-AC16 45.45 ± 0.79 46.83 ± 1.47 9.38 ± 0.21 16.69 ± 0.22 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕9号’ 48.99 ± 0.91 33.80 ± 3.04 11.78 ± 0.21 16.41 ± 0.13 山梨 × 中华 山梨 × 中华F1-AC15 45.61 ± 0.94 57.16 ± 2.69 9.66 ± 0.16 16.23 ± 0.13 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕6号’ 44.66 ± 0.58 46.75 ± 1.57 10.25 ± 0.19 15.87 ± 0.20 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕5号’ 41.92 ± 1.11 47.73 ± 1.88 10.05 ± 0.15 15.35 ± 0.19 山梨 × 中华平均值 43.83 ± 0.78 51.62 ± 2.32 9.95 ± 0.21 16.74 ± 0.18 中华 × ‘超红’ ‘中科绿猕12号’ 36.46 ± 0.63 67.20 ± 1.55 8.31 ± 0.16 18.31 ± 0.17 中华 × ‘超红’ ‘中科绿猕10号’ 28.34 ± 0.86 56.06 ± 2.78 9.75 ± 0.30 17.31 ± 0.12 中华 × ‘超红’ ‘中科绿猕11号’ 33.44 ± 0.84 35.76 ± 2.01 10.03 ± 0.16 15.51 ± 0.15 中华 × ‘超红’ 毛花b754 32.70 ± 0.77 45.94 ± 2.78 7.99 ± 0.15 12.92 ± 0.21 中华 × ‘超红’平均值 32.74 ± 0.78 51.24 ± 2.28 9.02 ± 0.19 16.01 ± 0.16 总体 平均值 72.26 58.25 8.87 17.58 最小值 28.34 33.80 7.04 12.92 最大值 148.26 89.93 11.78 23.48 标准差 31.51 12.71 1.19 2.06 变异系数 / % 43.61 21.81 13.39 11.72 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 36份猕猴桃种质的软熟果实感官评价
Table 2 Sensory evaluation of ripe fruit of 36 Actinidia accessions
种类名称
Class name种质名称
Accession name整体喜好度
Overall liking风味喜好度
Flavor liking风味强烈程度
Flavor intensity甜度
Sweetness酸度
Acidity接受度
Acceptance美味 ‘徐香’ 6.05 ± 0.25 6.00 ± 0.21 5.75 ± 0.19 5.90 ± 0.22 4.55 ± 0.33 85 美味 ‘金美’ 5.95 ± 0.26 6.11 ± 0.25 6.00 ± 0.22 5.37 ± 0.21 4.42 ± 0.29 73.68 美味 ‘东玫’ 5.85 ± 0.26 5.95 ± 0.32 5.85 ± 0.22 5.70 ± 0.22 4.85 ± 0.3 60 美味 ‘金魁’ 5.32 ± 0.26 5.26 ± 0.28 6.00 ± 0.24 5.12 ± 0.33 5.65 ± 0.36 58.82 美味 ‘米良1号’ 5.06 ± 0.22 5.22 ± 0.24 5.22 ± 0.22 4.83 ± 0.17 5.17 ± 0.25 44.44 美味 ‘楚红’ 4.74 ± 0.38 4.88 ± 0.39 5.03 ± 0.38 4.76 ± 0.48 5.00 ± 0.33 35.29 美味 ‘海沃德’ 4.20 ± 0.40 4.63 ± 0.48 5.47 ± 0.43 4.40 ± 0.36 5.97 ± 0.47 13.33 美味平均值 5.31 ± 0.29 5.44 ± 0.31 5.62 ± 0.27 5.15 ± 0.28 5.09 ± 0.33 52.94 中华 ‘华优’ 7.19 ± 0.37 7.31 ± 0.28 6.69 ± 0.31 7.06 ± 0.3 3.50 ± 0.42 87.5 中华 ‘东红’ 6.90 ± 0.31 6.65 ± 0.33 5.90 ± 0.24 6.20 ± 0.3 3.55 ± 0.45 70 中华 翠玉实生12617 6.00 ± 0.21 5.50 ± 0.17 6.05 ± 0.28 5.63 ± 0.25 5.08 ± 0.32 68.42 中华 ‘金桃’ 5.63 ± 0.31 5.70 ± 0.31 4.60 ± 0.32 5.15 ± 0.22 4.80 ± 0.32 65 中华 ‘金早’ 5.56 ± 0.36 5.50 ± 0.48 4.81 ± 0.4 4.97 ± 0.36 4.19 ± 0.42 81.25 中华 ‘金霞’ 5.43 ± 0.26 5.53 ± 0.29 5.60 ± 0.35 4.78 ± 0.25 5.70 ± 0.28 70 中华 ‘翠玉’ 5.06 ± 0.26 4.82 ± 0.33 5.06 ± 0.3 4.65 ± 0.3 4.06 ± 0.37 29.41 中华 ‘金农’ 4.83 ± 0.44 4.60 ± 0.52 5.37 ± 0.44 4.77 ± 0.41 5.60 ± 0.36 46.67 中华 ‘金玉’ 4.75 ± 0.4 4.95 ± 0.34 5.40 ± 0.26 5.55 ± 0.26 4.50 ± 0.34 40 中华 中华杂交CD611 4.70 ± 0.18 4.75 ± 0.19 5.30 ± 0.15 4.20 ± 0.37 6.30 ± 0.4 20 中华 ‘武植3号’ 4.38 ± 0.33 3.92 ± 0.31 5.54 ± 0.31 3.38 ± 0.27 6.69 ± 0.35 7.69 中华 中华杂交CD11129 4.26 ± 0.3 4.47 ± 0.16 5.05 ± 0.28 3.58 ± 0.33 6.53 ± 0.34 5.26 中华 ‘丰悦’ 3.63 ± 0.31 3.69 ± 0.36 3.06 ± 0.35 3.31 ± 0.38 4.50 ± 0.29 12.5 中华 ‘金丰’ 1.80 ± 0.29 2.50 ± 0.27 5.10 ± 0.86 1.90 ± 0.31 6.80 ± 0.66 0 ‘金艳’ × 中华 ‘金圆’ 5.47 ± 0.39 5.21 ± 0.37 5.84 ± 0.36 5.11 ± 0.37 5.63 ± 0.35 47 ‘金艳’ × 中华 ‘金梅’ 5.17 ± 0.29 5.33 ± 0.26 5.56 ± 0.23 5.17 ± 0.22 5.56 ± 0.29 38.89 中华平均值 5.05 ± 0.31 5.03 ± 0.31 5.31 ± 0.34 4.71 ± 0.31 5.19 ± 0.37 43.1 山梨 × 中华 山梨 × 中华F1-AC16 6.65 ± 0.24 6.50 ± 0.29 5.15 ± 0.24 6.08 ± 0.3 4.25 ± 0.2 65 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕9号’ 6.55 ± 0.29 6.15 ± 0.32 5.55 ± 0.21 5.80 ± 0.27 4.25 ± 0.3 80 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕7号’ 6.52 ± 0.25 6.38 ± 0.28 5.95 ± 0.31 5.86 ± 0.28 4.76 ± 0.45 76.19 山梨 × 中华 山梨 × 中华F1-AC15 6.14 ± 0.27 6.19 ± 0.34 7.00 ± 0.32 5.90 ± 0.35 4.71 ± 0.4 61.91 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕6号’ 5.81 ± 0.31 5.62 ± 0.35 5.45 ± 0.32 5.48 ± 0.34 3.71 ± 0.35 61.91 山梨 × 中华 山梨 × 中华F1-AC17 5.80 ± 0.26 5.65 ± 0.33 4.95 ± 0.3 5.30 ± 0.38 4.55 ± 0.21 60 山梨 × 中华 山梨 × 中华F1-AC18 5.70 ± 0.35 5.60 ± 0.33 5.80 ± 0.32 5.60 ± 0.28 4.65 ± 0.29 65 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕8号’ 5.19 ± 0.27 4.62 ± 0.28 4.67 ± 0.28 4.57 ± 0.3 4.05 ± 0.37 38.1 山梨 × 中华 ‘中科绿猕5号’ 4.95 ± 0.36 4.89 ± 0.39 5.11 ± 0.37 4.58 ± 0.4 4.42 ± 0.38 42.11 山梨 × 中华平均值 5.92 ± 0.29 5.73 ± 0.32 5.51 ± 0.3 5.46 ± 0.32 4.37 ± 0.33 61.14 中华 × ‘超红’ ‘中科绿猕12号’ 5.88 ± 0.18 5.81 ± 0.28 5.06 ± 0.41 5.06 ± 0.41 4.00 ± 0.68 68.75 中华 × ‘超红’ ‘中科绿猕11号’ 5.40 ± 0.28 4.93 ± 0.29 4.20 ± 0.32 4.40 ± 0.3 3.40 ± 0.47 55 中华 × ‘超红’ ‘中科绿猕10号’ 4.60 ± 0.35 4.15 ± 0.39 3.40 ± 0.43 3.85 ± 0.32 4.10 ± 0.4 30 中华 × ‘超红’ 毛花b754 3.73 ± 0.38 3.53 ± 0.42 3.37 ± 0.49 3.57 ± 0.35 3.67 ± 0.43 13.33 中华 × ‘超红’平均值 4.90 ± 0.3 4.61 ± 0.35 4.01 ± 0.41 4.22 ± 0.35 3.79 ± 0.5 41.77 总体 平均值 5.30 5.24 5.28 4.93 4.81 49.37 最小值 1.80 2.50 3.06 1.90 3.40 0.00 最大值 7.19 7.31 7.00 7.06 6.80 87.50 标准差 1.03 0.96 0.82 0.99 0.92 24.67 变异系数 / % 19.48 18.35 15.59 20.07 19.06 49.96
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 黄宏文. 猕猴桃属分类资源驯化栽培[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013: 2. [2] 钟彩虹,黄文俊,李大卫,张琼,李黎. 世界猕猴桃产业发展及鲜果贸易动态分析[J]. 中国果树,2021(7):101−108. Zhong CH,Huang WJ,Li DW,Zhang Q,Li L. Dynamic analysis of global kiwifruit industry development and fresh fruit trade[J]. China Fruits,2021 (7):101−108.
[3] 方金豹,钟彩虹. 新中国果树科学研究70年——猕猴桃[J]. 果树学报,2019,36(10):1352−1359. Fang JB,Zhong CH. Fruit scientific research in New China in the past 70 years:kiwifruit[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2019,36 (10):1352−1359.
[4] Zhong HC,Huang WJ,Wang ZP,Li L,Li DW,et al. The breeding progress and development status of the kiwifruit industry in China[J]. Acta Hortic,2022,1332:445−454.
[5] Huang HW,Wang Y,Zhang ZH,Jiang ZW,Wang SM. Actinidia germplasm resources and kiwifruit industry in China[J]. HortScience,2004,39 (6):1165−1172. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.39.6.1165
[6] 黄宏文,龚俊杰,王圣梅,何子灿,张忠慧,李建强. 猕猴桃属(Actinidia)植物的遗传多样性[J]. 生物多样性,2000,8(1):1−12. Huang HW,Gong JJ,Wang SM,He ZC,Zhang ZH,Li JQ. Genetic diversity in the genus Actinidia[J]. Chinese Biodiversity,2000,8 (1):1−12.
[7] Zhang HX,Zhao QY,Lan T,Geng TH,Gao CX,et al. Comparative analysis of physicochemical characteristics,nutritional and functional components and antioxidant capacity of fifteen kiwifruit (Actinidia) cultivars-comparative analysis of fifteen kiwifruit (Actinidia) cultivars[J]. Foods,2020,9 (9):1267. doi: 10.3390/foods9091267
[8] Ma TT,Sun XY,Zhao JM,You YL,Lei YS,et al. Nutrient compositions and antioxidant capacity of kiwifruit (Actinidia) and their relationship with flesh color and commercial value[J]. Food Chem,2017,218:294−304. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.09.081
[9] 黄文俊,江昌应,陈美艳,刘小莉,张琦,等. 三个产地猕猴桃品种‘金梅’在低温贮藏及货架期内的采后生理和品质变化[J]. 植物科学学报,2020,38(5):687−695. Huang WJ,Jiang CY,Chen MY,Liu XL,Zhang Q,et al. Changes in postharvest physiology and fruit quality of Actinidia chinensis Planch. ‘Jinmei’ from three different production regions during cool storage and shelf life[J]. Plant Science Journal,2020,38 (5):687−695.
[10] 刘璐,屈振江,张勇,李艳莉. 陕西猕猴桃果品气候品质认证模型构建[J]. 陕西气象,2017(4):21−25. [11] 肖涛,程均欢,刘涛,肖丽丽,王华玲,等. 不同授粉方式对猕猴桃果实性状的影响[J]. 中国南方果树,2022,51(3):122−125. [12] 易淑瑶,刘青,贾东峰,李亦淇,黄春辉,等. 不同结果母枝粗度对“东红”猕猴桃果实品质的影响[J]. 中国南方果树,2020,49(4):122−126. [13] Chai JX,Wang YT,Liu YF,Gu ZM,Liu ZD. High O2/N2 controlled atmosphere accelerates postharvest ripening of ‘Hayward’ kiwifruit[J]. Sci Hortic,2022,300:111073. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111073
[14] 王依,雷靖,陈成,徐明,邴昊阳,雷玉山. 美味猕猴桃新品种‘瑞玉’果实品质综合评价[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2018,46(10):101−107. Wang Y,Lei J,Chen C,Xu M,Bing HY,Lei YS. Comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality of a new delicious kiwifruit variety ‘Ruiyu’[J]. Journal of Northwest A& F University (Natural Science Edition)
,2018,46 (10):101−107. [15] 陈美艳,赵婷婷,刘小莉,韩飞,张鹏,钟彩虹. 猕猴桃品种‘金艳’果实品质因子分析与综合评价[J]. 植物科学学报,2021,39(1):85−92. Chen MY,Zhao TT,Liu XL,Han F,Zhang P,Zhong CH. Factor analysis and comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality of ‘Jinyan’ kiwifruit (Actinidia eriantha × Actinidia chinensis)[J]. Plant Science Journal,2021,39 (1):85−92.
[16] 刘磊,李争艳,雷华,高本旺,赵佳,李薇. 30个猕猴桃品种(单株)主要果实品质特征的综合评价[J]. 果树学报,2021,38(4):530−537. Liu L,Li ZY,Lei H,Gao BW,Zhao J,Li W. Comprehensive evaluation of main fruit quality characteristics with 30 kiwifruit cultivars (strains)[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2021,38 (4):530−537.
[17] 刘科鹏,黄春辉,冷建华,陈葵,严玉平,等. ‘金魁’猕猴桃果实品质的主成分分析与综合评价[J]. 果树学报,2012,29(5):867−871. Liu KP,Huang CH,Leng JH,Chen K,Yan YP,et al. Principal component analysis and comprehensive evaluation of the fruit quality of ‘Jinkui’ kiwifruit[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2012,29 (5):867−871.
[18] 郭琳琳,庞荣丽,王瑞萍,乔成奎,田发军,等. 猕猴桃营养品质综合评价[J]. 果树学报,2022,39(10):1864−1872. Guo LL,Pang RL,Wang RP,Qiao CK,Tian FJ,et al. Comprehensive trait evaluation for kiwifruit nutritional quality[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2022,39 (10):1864−1872.
[19] 李跃红,冉茂乾,徐孟怀,陈露,游元丁,等. 不同品种猕猴桃果实品质比较与综合评价[J]. 食品与发酵工业,2020,46(23):162−168. Li YH,Ran MQ,Xu MH,Chen L,You YD,et al. Comparison and comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality of different varieties of kiwifruit[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries,2020,46 (23):162−168.
[20] 赵金梅,高贵田,薛敏,耿鹏飞,孙翔宇,等. 不同品种猕猴桃果实的品质及抗氧化活性[J]. 食品科学,2014,35(9):118−122. Zhao JM,Gao GT,Xue M,Geng PF,Sun XY,et al. Fruit quality and antioxidant activity of different kiwifruit varieties[J]. Food Science,2014,35 (9):118−122.
[21] 陈永安,陈鑫,刘艳飞,杨宏. 基于模糊数学的猕猴桃感官评定分析[J]. 食品工业,2013,34(10):129−133. Chen YA,Chen X,Liu YF,Yang H. Analysis of an improved sensory comprehensive evaluation for kiwifruit based on fuzzy mathematics[J]. The Food Industry,2013,34 (10):129−133.
[22] 吕新刚,王智荣,杨琦,孟官丽. 不同处理对生鲜电商模式下“徐香”猕猴桃常温品质变化的影响[J]. 食品工业科技,2018,39(4):268−273,279. LÜ XG,Wang ZR,Yang Q,Meng GL. Effects of different treatment on quality changes of ‘Xu Xiang’ kiwifruit stored at room temperature under the supply pattern of e-commerce[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry,2018,39 (4):268−273,279.
[23] 陈璐,廖光联,杨聪,黄春辉,钟敏,等. 基于主成分分析与聚类分析的黄肉猕猴桃品种(系)主要果实性状的综合评价[J]. 江西农业大学学报,2018,40(6):1231−1240. Chen Lu,Liao GL,Yang C,Hung CH,Zhong M,et al. Comprehensive evaluation of main fruit characters of yellow flesh kiwifruit cultivars (strains) based on principal component analysis and cluster analysis[J]. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis,2018,40 (6):1231−1240.
[24] 赵治兵,谢国芳,曹森,马立志. 基于主成分分析评价不同基地“贵长”猕猴桃品质特性[J]. 保鲜与加工,2019,19(5):144−148. Zhao ZB,Xie GF,Cao S,Ma LZ. Evaluation of quality characteristics of ‘Guichang’ kiwifruit from different producing regions based on principal component analysis[J]. Storage and Process,2019,19 (5):144−148.
[25] 韩飞,陈美艳,李昆同,黄文俊,闫春林,等. 不同产地‘金圆’猕猴桃低温贮藏下的生理指标及贮藏性变化[J]. 植物科学学报,2018,36(3):381−392. Han F,Chen MY,Li KT,Huang WJ,Yan CL,et al. Changes in physiological indices and storage properties of ‘Jinyuan’ kiwifruit from different orchards under low temperature storage[J]. Plant Science Journal,2018,36 (3):381−392.
[26] 陈双双,贺艳群,徐小彪,陶俊杰,贾东峰,等. 江西省不同产地“金艳”猕猴桃果实品质比较分析[J]. 中国南方果树,2022,51(2):113−116. [27] Burdon J,McLeod D,Lallu N,Gamble J,Petley M,Gunson A. Consumer evaluation of “Hayward” kiwifruit of different at-harvest dry matter contents[J]. Postharvest Biol Technol,2004,34 (3):245−255. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.04.009
[28] Rossiter KL,Young H,Walker SB,Miller M,Dawson DM. The effects of sugars and acids on consumer acceptability of kiwifruit[J]. J Sens Stud,2000,15 (3):241−250. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2000.tb00269.x
[29] Crisosto G,Hasey JK,Zegbe JA,Crisosto CH. New quality index based on dry matter and acidity proposed for Hayward kiwifruit[J]. Calif Agric,2012,66 (2):70−75. doi: 10.3733/ca.v066n02p70
-
期刊类型引用(10)
1. 胡光明，肖涛，周志虎，彭家清，田华，汪志，江全，杨斌，王惠，李作洲，钟彩虹. 湖北秭归野生猕猴桃资源及其倍性分析. 种子. 2024(03): 67-72+81+157 . 
百度学术
2. 杨迪，宋程威，牛童非，刘兴巧，付国占，侯小改. 根际土壤理化性质及氮磷钾富集影响艾的表型特征与药用品质. 应用与环境生物学报. 2024(04): 767-776 . 百度学术
3. 唐玉凤，张露，田虹，赵登梅，王顺富，李慧龙，桑正林，全勇. 基于ITS序列的野生猕猴桃遗传多样性研究. 西南农业学报. 2024(09): 2012-2017 . 百度学术
4. 赖灯妮，张群，尚雪波，谭欢，周雨佳，郭薇丹，付湘晋. 氯吡脲处理对6种猕猴桃品质和货架期的影响. 食品安全质量检测学报. 2023(01): 146-155 . 百度学术
5. 张琦，蒲婷婷，王艺儒，韩卫娟，索玉静，白玉娥，傅建敏. 柿杂交F_1代果实性状的遗传多样性. 中南林业科技大学学报. 2023(05): 140-148 . 百度学术
6. 周鑫洋，饶盈，夏国华，马丹丹，陈涛梅，姚熠涵. 基于基因分型测序(GBS)技术的堇叶紫金牛遗传结构分析. 植物资源与环境学报. 2023(06): 11-21 . 百度学术
7. 胡光明，黎纯斌，杨斌，王周倩，申素云，李作洲，钟彩虹. 宜昌市72份野生中华猕猴桃果实性状多样性分析与综合评价. 果树学报. 2022(09): 1540-1552 . 百度学术
8. 李玉岭，张元帅，董爱辉，刘翠兰，董元夫，付茵茵，毛秀红. 七叶树种质资源调查和表型性状多样性分析. 南方林业科学. 2022(04): 17-23 . 百度学术
9. 李黎 ，潘慧 ，李文艺 ，韩飞 ，胡光明 ，张琦 ，钟彩虹 . 野生中华猕猴桃对细菌性溃疡病的抗性评价. 湖北民族大学学报(自然科学版). 2022(03): 241-248 . 百度学术
10. 吴昊，苏万龙，石美娟，薛晓芳，任海燕，王永康，赵爱玲，李登科. 枣种质果实性状多样性分析与综合评价. 植物遗传资源学报. 2022(06): 1613-1625 . 百度学术
其他类型引用(3)
-
其他相关附件
-
PDF格式
申素云附图1-2 点击下载(373KB)
-
计量
- 文章访问数: 313
- HTML全文浏览量: 35
- PDF下载量: 49
- 被引次数: 13
