Acta Horticulturae Sinica ›› 2024, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (4): 832-846.doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2023-0131
• Cultivation · Physiology & Biochemistry • Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Wenjun, WANG Jingjing*(), CHEN Qiling, ZHENG Qiangqing
Received:
2023-11-06
Revised:
2023-12-12
Online:
2024-04-25
Published:
2024-04-26
Contact:
WANG Jingjing
WANG Wenjun, WANG Jingjing, CHEN Qiling, ZHENG Qiangqing. Parameter Determination and Modeling of Central Leader Tree Shape for High Quality and High Yield Production of Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(4): 832-846.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.ahs.ac.cn/EN/10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2023-0131
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of central leader tree shape pruning of Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’ 1-15:Pruning of trees with treatment numbers 1-15;a:Plant height;b:Main branches;c:Secondary branches;d:Jujube stock.
处理编号 Treatment number | X1 株高/m Plant height | X2 主枝数 Number of main branches | X3 每主枝二次枝数 Number of secondary branches per main branch | X4 每二次枝枣股数 Number of jujube stock per secondary branch |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2.5(2) | 8.0(2) | 4.0(1) | 8.0(3) |
2 | 2.0(1) | 9.0(3) | 5.0(2) | 7.0(2) |
3 | 2.5(2) | 11.0(5) | 6.0(3) | 6.0(1) |
4 | 2.0(1) | 11.0(5) | 7.0(4) | 8.0(3) |
5 | 2.0(1) | 10.0(4) | 4.0(1) | 9.0(4) |
6 | 3.0(3) | 8.0(2) | 6.0(3) | 9.0(4) |
7 | 3.0(3) | 11.0(5) | 5.0(2) | 10.0(5) |
8 | 3.0(3) | 7.0(1) | 7.0(4) | 8.0(3) |
9 | 3.0(3) | 9.0(3) | 4.0(1) | 6.0(1) |
10 | 2.5(2) | 10.0(4) | 7.0(4) | 9.0(4) |
11 | 2.0(1) | 7.0(1) | 6.0(3) | 10.0(5) |
12 | 2.5(2) | 9.0(3) | 8.0(5) | 10.0(5) |
13 | 3.0(3) | 10.0(4) | 8.0(5) | 7.0(2) |
14 | 2.0(1) | 8.0(2) | 8.0(5) | 6.0(1) |
15 | 2.5(2) | 7.0(1) | 5.0(2) | 7.0(2) |
Table 1 Mixed level uniform experimental design code and experimental scheme
处理编号 Treatment number | X1 株高/m Plant height | X2 主枝数 Number of main branches | X3 每主枝二次枝数 Number of secondary branches per main branch | X4 每二次枝枣股数 Number of jujube stock per secondary branch |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2.5(2) | 8.0(2) | 4.0(1) | 8.0(3) |
2 | 2.0(1) | 9.0(3) | 5.0(2) | 7.0(2) |
3 | 2.5(2) | 11.0(5) | 6.0(3) | 6.0(1) |
4 | 2.0(1) | 11.0(5) | 7.0(4) | 8.0(3) |
5 | 2.0(1) | 10.0(4) | 4.0(1) | 9.0(4) |
6 | 3.0(3) | 8.0(2) | 6.0(3) | 9.0(4) |
7 | 3.0(3) | 11.0(5) | 5.0(2) | 10.0(5) |
8 | 3.0(3) | 7.0(1) | 7.0(4) | 8.0(3) |
9 | 3.0(3) | 9.0(3) | 4.0(1) | 6.0(1) |
10 | 2.5(2) | 10.0(4) | 7.0(4) | 9.0(4) |
11 | 2.0(1) | 7.0(1) | 6.0(3) | 10.0(5) |
12 | 2.5(2) | 9.0(3) | 8.0(5) | 10.0(5) |
13 | 3.0(3) | 10.0(4) | 8.0(5) | 7.0(2) |
14 | 2.0(1) | 8.0(2) | 8.0(5) | 6.0(1) |
15 | 2.5(2) | 7.0(1) | 5.0(2) | 7.0(2) |
处理 Treatment | 株产/kg Plant yield | 一级以上果率/% First grade and above fruit rate | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||
1 | 3.27 ± 0.042 jk | 3.35 ± 0.095 k | 3.24 ± 0.074 i | 33.13 ± 1.265 c | 33.49 ± 1.961 c | 31.21 ± 1.622 c | |
2 | 2.86 ± 0.055 m | 2.96 ± 0.114 m | 2.86 ± 0.055 l | 28.21 ± 1.504 e | 28.71 ± 1.962 f | 27.63 ± 0.527 e | |
3 | 3.43 ± 0.066 i | 3.50 ± 0.096 i | 3.45 ± 0.108 h | 24.00 ± 1.572 h | 24.38 ± 2.267 i | 23.69 ± 0.547 g | |
4 | 3.67 ± 0.092 g | 3.74 ± 0.104 g | 3.71 ± 0.040 f | 15.36 ± 2.097 m | 16.92 ± 1.283 o | 16.00 ± 0.695 k | |
5 | 3.04 ± 0.106 l | 3.10 ± 0.148 l | 3.04 ± 0.071 k | 22.88 ± 0.859 i | 23.42 ± 1.514 j | 22.83 ± 0.775 g | |
6 | 4.00 ± 0.057 c | 4.10 ± 0.046 c | 4.07 ± 0.035 c | 29.69 ± 1.769 d | 30.32 ± 2.325 e | 28.87 ± 0.848 d | |
7 | 3.81 ± 0.042 e | 3.89 ± 0.091 e | 3.85 ± 0.035 e | 19.65 ± 1.650 k | 20.31 ± 1.544 l | 19.19 ± 0.325 i | |
8 | 4.08 ± 0.104 b | 4.23 ± 0.066 b | 4.15 ± 0.042 b | 30.57 ± 1.441 d | 31.29 ± 2.049 d | 30.05 ± 0.744 cd | |
9 | 3.21 ± 0.038 k | 3.30 ± 0.097 k | 3.16 ± 0.096 j | 35.74 ± 1.314 a | 36.31 ± 1.865 a | 34.05 ± 1.684 a | |
10 | 3.88 ± 0.042 d | 3.96 ± 0.089 d | 3.93 ± 0.047 d | 19.43 ± 0.486 k | 19.41 ± 1.426 m | 18.73 ± 0.422 i | |
11 | 3.74 ± 0.074 f | 3.82 ± 0.064 f | 3.78 ± 0.031 ef | 27.33 ± 1.359 f | 27.47 ± 2.072 g | 26.63 ± 0.548 e | |
12 | 4.26 ± 0.085 a | 4.37 ± 0.047 a | 4.33 ± 0.040 a | 18.46 ± 0.656 l | 18.51 ± 1.058 n | 17.38 ± 1.084 j | |
13 | 3.93 ± 0.035 d | 4.01 ± 0.081 d | 3.99 ± 0.040 d | 21.87 ± 0.493 j | 22.06 ± 1.356 k | 21.21 ± 0.513 h | |
14 | 3.32 ± 0.035 j | 3.43 ± 0.105 j | 3.31 ± 0.056 i | 24.99 ± 1.245 g | 25.44 ± 1.865 h | 24.98 ± 0.825 f | |
15 | 3.53 ± 0.108 h | 3.62 ± 0.104 h | 3.56 ± 0.085 g | 34.29 ± 0.891 b | 34.73 ± 1.630 b | 32.70 ± 1.646 b |
Table 2 Effect of different pruning treatments on Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’plant yield and first grade and above fruit rate
处理 Treatment | 株产/kg Plant yield | 一级以上果率/% First grade and above fruit rate | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||
1 | 3.27 ± 0.042 jk | 3.35 ± 0.095 k | 3.24 ± 0.074 i | 33.13 ± 1.265 c | 33.49 ± 1.961 c | 31.21 ± 1.622 c | |
2 | 2.86 ± 0.055 m | 2.96 ± 0.114 m | 2.86 ± 0.055 l | 28.21 ± 1.504 e | 28.71 ± 1.962 f | 27.63 ± 0.527 e | |
3 | 3.43 ± 0.066 i | 3.50 ± 0.096 i | 3.45 ± 0.108 h | 24.00 ± 1.572 h | 24.38 ± 2.267 i | 23.69 ± 0.547 g | |
4 | 3.67 ± 0.092 g | 3.74 ± 0.104 g | 3.71 ± 0.040 f | 15.36 ± 2.097 m | 16.92 ± 1.283 o | 16.00 ± 0.695 k | |
5 | 3.04 ± 0.106 l | 3.10 ± 0.148 l | 3.04 ± 0.071 k | 22.88 ± 0.859 i | 23.42 ± 1.514 j | 22.83 ± 0.775 g | |
6 | 4.00 ± 0.057 c | 4.10 ± 0.046 c | 4.07 ± 0.035 c | 29.69 ± 1.769 d | 30.32 ± 2.325 e | 28.87 ± 0.848 d | |
7 | 3.81 ± 0.042 e | 3.89 ± 0.091 e | 3.85 ± 0.035 e | 19.65 ± 1.650 k | 20.31 ± 1.544 l | 19.19 ± 0.325 i | |
8 | 4.08 ± 0.104 b | 4.23 ± 0.066 b | 4.15 ± 0.042 b | 30.57 ± 1.441 d | 31.29 ± 2.049 d | 30.05 ± 0.744 cd | |
9 | 3.21 ± 0.038 k | 3.30 ± 0.097 k | 3.16 ± 0.096 j | 35.74 ± 1.314 a | 36.31 ± 1.865 a | 34.05 ± 1.684 a | |
10 | 3.88 ± 0.042 d | 3.96 ± 0.089 d | 3.93 ± 0.047 d | 19.43 ± 0.486 k | 19.41 ± 1.426 m | 18.73 ± 0.422 i | |
11 | 3.74 ± 0.074 f | 3.82 ± 0.064 f | 3.78 ± 0.031 ef | 27.33 ± 1.359 f | 27.47 ± 2.072 g | 26.63 ± 0.548 e | |
12 | 4.26 ± 0.085 a | 4.37 ± 0.047 a | 4.33 ± 0.040 a | 18.46 ± 0.656 l | 18.51 ± 1.058 n | 17.38 ± 1.084 j | |
13 | 3.93 ± 0.035 d | 4.01 ± 0.081 d | 3.99 ± 0.040 d | 21.87 ± 0.493 j | 22.06 ± 1.356 k | 21.21 ± 0.513 h | |
14 | 3.32 ± 0.035 j | 3.43 ± 0.105 j | 3.31 ± 0.056 i | 24.99 ± 1.245 g | 25.44 ± 1.865 h | 24.98 ± 0.825 f | |
15 | 3.53 ± 0.108 h | 3.62 ± 0.104 h | 3.56 ± 0.085 g | 34.29 ± 0.891 b | 34.73 ± 1.630 b | 32.70 ± 1.646 b |
模型 Mode | 变异来源 Source of variation | 平方和 Square sum | 自由度 Degree of freedom | 均方 Mean Square | F | P | R 相关系数 Correlation coefficient | Ra 调整相关系数 Adjusting correlation coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yy | 回归Regression | 2.3713 | 14 | 0.169380952 | 1.18358E + 12 | 7.2043E-07 | 0.999999 | 0.999985 |
残差Residual | 1.4211E-13 | 1 | 1.42109E-13 | |||||
总变异Total variation | 2.3713 | 15 | ||||||
Yg | 回归Regression | 510.6706 | 14 | 36.47646952 | 2.7074E + 12 | 4.76338E-07 | 0.999999 | 0.999985 |
残差Residual | -1.3472E-11 | 1 | -1.34719E-11 | |||||
总变异Total variation | 510.6706 | 15 |
Table 3 Analysis of variance in regression model for plant yield(Yy)and first grade and above fruit rate(Yg)of Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’
模型 Mode | 变异来源 Source of variation | 平方和 Square sum | 自由度 Degree of freedom | 均方 Mean Square | F | P | R 相关系数 Correlation coefficient | Ra 调整相关系数 Adjusting correlation coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yy | 回归Regression | 2.3713 | 14 | 0.169380952 | 1.18358E + 12 | 7.2043E-07 | 0.999999 | 0.999985 |
残差Residual | 1.4211E-13 | 1 | 1.42109E-13 | |||||
总变异Total variation | 2.3713 | 15 | ||||||
Yg | 回归Regression | 510.6706 | 14 | 36.47646952 | 2.7074E + 12 | 4.76338E-07 | 0.999999 | 0.999985 |
残差Residual | -1.3472E-11 | 1 | -1.34719E-11 | |||||
总变异Total variation | 510.6706 | 15 |
Fig. 2 Single factor effect analysis of the model for plant yield(Yy)and first grade and above fruit rate(Yg)of Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’ X1:Plant height;X2:Number of main branches;X3:Number of secondary branches per main branch;X4:Number of jujube stocks per secondary branch.
Fig. 3 Analysis of the interaction effect of two factors in the model for plant yield(Yy)and first grade and above fruit rate(Yg)of Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’ X1:Plant height;X2:Number of main branches;X3:Number of secondary branches per main branch;X4:Number of jujube stocks per secondary branch.
Fig. 4 Marginal effect analysis of the model for plant yield(left)and first grade and above fruit rate(right)of Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’ X1:Plant height;X2:Number of main branches;X3:Number of secondary branches per main branch;X4:Number of jujube stocks per secondary branch. dYy/dX:Marginal utility of various factors on plant yield;dYg/dX:Marginal utility of various factor on first grade or above fruit rate.
模型 Model | X1s | X2s | X3s | X4s |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yy | 4.382260912 | 7.912715787 | 14.18578810 | 8.165429570 |
Yg | 3.727576066 | 3.711235997 | 7.431575893 | 7.598120353 |
Table 4 Values of various variables at the stable point of the model for plant yield(Yy)and first grade and above fruit rate(Yg)of Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’
模型 Model | X1s | X2s | X3s | X4s |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yy | 4.382260912 | 7.912715787 | 14.18578810 | 8.165429570 |
Yg | 3.727576066 | 3.711235997 | 7.431575893 | 7.598120353 |
因子水平 Factor level | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | ||||
1 | 1 | 0.091 | 4 | 0.360 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
2 | 1 | 0.091 | 1 | 0.091 | 1 | 0.091 | 0 | 0 | |||
3 | 1 | 0.091 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.091 | 0 | 0 | |||
4 | 1 | 0.091 | 1 | 0.091 | 1 | 0.091 | 0 | 0 | |||
5 | 7 | 0.640 | 5 | 0.450 | 8 | 0.730 | 11 | 1 | |||
加权平均值Average($\bar{X}$) | 2.7386 | 9.1818 | 7.4545 | 10 | |||||||
标准误Standard error(SE) | 0.1095 | 0.5577 | 0.2978 | 0 | |||||||
95%置信区间(农艺方案) 95% Confidence interval (Agronomic scheme) | 2.5240 ~ 2.9533 | 8.0887 ~ 10.2749 | 6.8710 ~ 8.0381 | 10 | |||||||
平均预期产出/(kg · plant-1) Average expected yield | 4.5905 |
Table 5 Frequency distribution of variable values in 11 schemes with plant yield greater than 4.5 kg for Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’
因子水平 Factor level | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | ||||
1 | 1 | 0.091 | 4 | 0.360 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
2 | 1 | 0.091 | 1 | 0.091 | 1 | 0.091 | 0 | 0 | |||
3 | 1 | 0.091 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.091 | 0 | 0 | |||
4 | 1 | 0.091 | 1 | 0.091 | 1 | 0.091 | 0 | 0 | |||
5 | 7 | 0.640 | 5 | 0.450 | 8 | 0.730 | 11 | 1 | |||
加权平均值Average($\bar{X}$) | 2.7386 | 9.1818 | 7.4545 | 10 | |||||||
标准误Standard error(SE) | 0.1095 | 0.5577 | 0.2978 | 0 | |||||||
95%置信区间(农艺方案) 95% Confidence interval (Agronomic scheme) | 2.5240 ~ 2.9533 | 8.0887 ~ 10.2749 | 6.8710 ~ 8.0381 | 10 | |||||||
平均预期产出/(kg · plant-1) Average expected yield | 4.5905 |
因子水平 Factor level | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | ||||
1 | 1 | 0.14 | 6 | 0.86 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 0.86 | |||
2 | 1 | 0.14 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.14 | |||
3 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
4 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
5 | 3 | 0.43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
加权平均值Average($\bar{X}$) | 2.5893 | 7.1429 | 4 | 6.1429 | |||||||
标准误Standard error(SE) | 0.1444 | 0.1323 | 0 | 0.1323 | |||||||
95%置信区间(农艺方案) 95% Confidence interval (Agronomic scheme) | 2.3062 ~ 2.8724 | 6.8836 ~ 7.4021 | 4 | 5.8836 ~ 6.4021 | |||||||
平均预期产出/% Average expected output | 36.3532 |
Table 6 Frequency distribution of variable values in seven schemes with first grade and above fruit rate greater than 36.0% for Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’
因子水平 Factor level | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | 次数 Count | 频率 Frequency | ||||
1 | 1 | 0.14 | 6 | 0.86 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 0.86 | |||
2 | 1 | 0.14 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.14 | |||
3 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
4 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
5 | 3 | 0.43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
加权平均值Average($\bar{X}$) | 2.5893 | 7.1429 | 4 | 6.1429 | |||||||
标准误Standard error(SE) | 0.1444 | 0.1323 | 0 | 0.1323 | |||||||
95%置信区间(农艺方案) 95% Confidence interval (Agronomic scheme) | 2.3062 ~ 2.8724 | 6.8836 ~ 7.4021 | 4 | 5.8836 ~ 6.4021 | |||||||
平均预期产出/% Average expected output | 36.3532 |
类别Classification | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | 株产/kg Plant yield | 一级以上果率/% First grade and above fruit rate | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量 Yield | 品质 Quality | ||||||
高High | 高High | 2.80 ± 0.18 | 7.28 ± 0.45 | 6.39 ± 1.34 | 8.53 ± 1.42 | 4.12 ± 0.21 | 28.57 ± 2.15 |
高High | 中Medium | 2.60 ± 0.29 | 9.00 ± 0.89 | 6.78 ± 1.22 | 8.82 ± 1.39 | 3.93 ± 0.23 | 22.78 ± 1.86 |
高High | 低Low | 2.33 ± 0.28 | 10.90 ± 0.30 | 7.58 ± 0.67 | 9.77 ± 0.43 | 4.40 ± 0.18 | 11.22 ± 1.54 |
中Medium | 高High | 2.74 ± 0.21 | 7.26 ± 0.44 | 4.78 ± 0.75 | 6.86 ± 0.82 | 3.70 ± 0.20 | 34.10 ± 1.39 |
中Medium | 中Medium | 2.53 ± 0.27 | 8.01 ± 0.83 | 6.33 ± 1.25 | 7.84 ± 1.26 | 3.68 ± 0.16 | 28.22 ± 1.72 |
中Medium | 低Low | 2.42 ± 0.34 | 10.47 ± 0.91 | 6.81 ± 1.21 | 8.53 ± 1.46 | 3.89 ± 0.35 | 17.59 ± 2.65 |
低Low | 高High | 2.42 ± 0.32 | 8.07 ± 0.94 | 4.62 ± 0.80 | 6.78 ± 0.76 | 3.20 ± 0.15 | 33.29 ± 1.34 |
低Low | 中Medium | 2.36 ± 0.31 | 9.47 ± 1.11 | 5.06 ± 1.10 | 7.28 ± 1.01 | 3.14 ± 0.22 | 28.49 ± 2.08 |
低Low | 低Low | 2.32 ± 0.28 | 10.30 ± 0.77 | 5.64 ± 1.78 | 7.97 ± 1.23 | 3.41 ± 0.19 | 22.75 ± 1.28 |
Table 7 Classification of plant yield and first grade and above fruit rate of Ziziphus jujuba‘Huizao’
类别Classification | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | 株产/kg Plant yield | 一级以上果率/% First grade and above fruit rate | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量 Yield | 品质 Quality | ||||||
高High | 高High | 2.80 ± 0.18 | 7.28 ± 0.45 | 6.39 ± 1.34 | 8.53 ± 1.42 | 4.12 ± 0.21 | 28.57 ± 2.15 |
高High | 中Medium | 2.60 ± 0.29 | 9.00 ± 0.89 | 6.78 ± 1.22 | 8.82 ± 1.39 | 3.93 ± 0.23 | 22.78 ± 1.86 |
高High | 低Low | 2.33 ± 0.28 | 10.90 ± 0.30 | 7.58 ± 0.67 | 9.77 ± 0.43 | 4.40 ± 0.18 | 11.22 ± 1.54 |
中Medium | 高High | 2.74 ± 0.21 | 7.26 ± 0.44 | 4.78 ± 0.75 | 6.86 ± 0.82 | 3.70 ± 0.20 | 34.10 ± 1.39 |
中Medium | 中Medium | 2.53 ± 0.27 | 8.01 ± 0.83 | 6.33 ± 1.25 | 7.84 ± 1.26 | 3.68 ± 0.16 | 28.22 ± 1.72 |
中Medium | 低Low | 2.42 ± 0.34 | 10.47 ± 0.91 | 6.81 ± 1.21 | 8.53 ± 1.46 | 3.89 ± 0.35 | 17.59 ± 2.65 |
低Low | 高High | 2.42 ± 0.32 | 8.07 ± 0.94 | 4.62 ± 0.80 | 6.78 ± 0.76 | 3.20 ± 0.15 | 33.29 ± 1.34 |
低Low | 中Medium | 2.36 ± 0.31 | 9.47 ± 1.11 | 5.06 ± 1.10 | 7.28 ± 1.01 | 3.14 ± 0.22 | 28.49 ± 2.08 |
低Low | 低Low | 2.32 ± 0.28 | 10.30 ± 0.77 | 5.64 ± 1.78 | 7.97 ± 1.23 | 3.41 ± 0.19 | 22.75 ± 1.28 |
[1] |
|
白岗栓, 杜社妮, 王建平. 2021. 陕北山地苹果树形改造研究. 中国农业大学学报, 26 (12):54-66.
|
|
[2] |
|
丛娟. 2006. 均匀试验设计在金融市场中的应用研究[硕士论文]. 南京: 南京信息工程大学.
|
|
[3] |
|
丁想. 2021. 库尔勒香梨纺锤形树形冠层结构评价及关键修剪技术研究[硕士论文]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆农业大学.
|
|
[4] |
|
胡震东, 贾光辉, 黄海. 2009. 基于均匀试验设计的Whipple结构弹道极限方程数值仿真研究. 宇航学报, 30 (6):2118-2121.
|
|
[5] |
|
方开泰. 1980. 均匀设计——数论方法在试验设计的应用. 应用数学学报,(4):363-372.
doi: 10.12387/C1980037 |
|
[6] |
|
金磊, 刘国杰, 王立军, 蒋瑞山, 刘旭东, 王世生, 张启森. 2009. 篱壁式栽培条件下富士苹果树冠光照分布与果实产量品质的关系. 中国农业大学学报, 14 (6):46-50.
|
|
[7] |
|
李霏霞, 曾声奎, 庞怡, 郭建彬. 2010. 均匀试验设计在无人机关键参数设计中的应用. 火力与指挥控制, 35 (1):122-125.
|
|
[8] |
|
李国梁, 王锦锋, 徐巨涛. 2018. 陇东旱作‘长富2号’苹果郁闭园间伐改形试验研究. 中国果树,(1):41-44.
|
|
[9] |
|
李梅, 李志强. 2002. 应用均匀试验设计研究PVC阻燃电缆料. 工程塑料应用,(2):15-18.
|
|
[10] |
|
李盼盼, 秦伟, 玉苏甫 · 阿不力提甫, 乌仁其米格. 2018. 阿克苏地区灰枣园优化空间结构对果实品质的影响. 新疆农业大学学报, 41 (6):396-401.
|
|
[11] |
|
蔺金龙, 张琦, 吴翠云, 陈江, 蒋媛, 位杰. 2016. 红枣直播建园不同树形光照与果实分布特点的研究. 新疆农业科学, 53 (3):437-444.
|
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
林琭, 李志强, 蔚露, 王红宁, 牛自勉. 2020. 苹果两种树形叶片对光强和CO2浓度互作的光合响应及光抑制特性. 园艺学报, 47 (11):2073-2085.
|
|
[14] |
|
林雅铃, 毛葱, 张安强, 简丽琼, 王炼石. 2009. 均匀试验设计在水溶性药物聚乳酸微球制备中的应用. 中国医院药学杂志, 29 (7):531-534.
|
|
[15] |
|
刘丹花. 2014. 不同修剪留枝量连续多年处理对富士苹果生长和结果的效应[硕士论文]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学.
|
|
[16] |
|
卢明艳, 宋锋惠, 史彦江, 故里米热 · 卡克什, 王灵哲. 2022. 树形对骏枣叶片生理状态及产量和品质的影响. 西南农业学报, 35 (12):2794-2800.
|
|
[17] |
|
卢明艳, 宋锋惠, 史彦江, 故里米热 · 卡克什, 吴正保, 王灵哲. 2021. 骏枣不同树形冠层结构、产量和果实品质的比较. 经济林研究, 39 (4):10-17.
|
|
[18] |
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2019-0193 |
马小龙, 马豆豆, 史继东, 韩明玉, 杨伟伟, 张东. 2020. 双主干并棒树形对矮化自根砧苹果幼树生长和结果的影响. 园艺学报, 47 (3):541-550.
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2019-0193 |
|
[19] |
|
牛茹萱, 赵秀梅, 王晨冰, 张帆, 张雪冰, 王发林. 2019. 桃不同树形的冠层特征及对果实产量、品质的影响. 果树学报, 36 (12):1667-1674.
|
|
[20] |
|
苏亚娟. 2018. 均匀试验设计与DSGE模型参数估计[博士论文]. 石家庄: 河北师范大学.
|
|
[21] |
|
孙朝阳, 田宗全, 王学火, 吴梓新. 2012. 均匀试验设计法对PTT合成工艺的优化研究. 合成纤维工业, 35 (6):9-11.
|
|
[22] |
|
王红宁, 牛自勉, 蔚露, 林琭, 孙俊宝. 2020a. 乔化富士果园树形改造中树相参数对产量及品质的影响. 甘肃农业大学学报, 55 (5):101-112.
|
|
[23] |
|
王红宁, 孙俊宝, 牛自勉, 张生智, 吴晓璇. 2020b. 主枝选留对高纺锤形苹果产量及品质的影响. 福建农业学报, 35 (5):519-524.
|
|
[24] |
|
王文军, 陈奇凌, 郑强卿, 花东来, 王晶晶, 王振东. 2021a. 灰枣不同栽培模式的产量构成与果实商品性评价. 果树学报, 38 (5):739-748.
|
|
[25] |
|
王文军, 陈奇凌, 郑强卿, 王晶晶, 王振东. 2021b. 不同树形对灰枣叶片光合及叶绿素荧光特性的影响. 新疆农业科学, 58 (4):616-624.
|
|
[26] |
|
王文军, 林敏娟, 王振磊. 2019. 灰枣主干形和小冠疏层形产量及品质对比分析. 新疆农业科学, 56 (6):1041-1051.
doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2019.06.007 |
|
[27] |
|
夏燕. 2012. 证券组合投资决策的均匀试验设计优化研究[硕士论文]. 青岛: 青岛大学.
|
|
[28] |
|
谢鹏, 蔚露, 牛自勉, 李志强, 王红宁, 李小平. 2018. 主枝数差异对苹果叶片叶绿素荧光特性的影响. 山西农业科学, 46 (6):905-909.
|
|
[29] |
|
徐玮. 2022 基于三维模型的甜樱桃不同树形冠层结构、光截获效率及其光合作用研究[硕士论文]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学.
|
|
[30] |
|
兖攀, 王久照, 姜继元, 陈奇凌. 2021. 不同枝量对金红苹果产量及品质的影响. 黑龙江农业科学,(3):78-81.
|
|
[31] |
|
杨婷斐, 刘丹花, 邹养军, 党志明, 张军科. 2014. 不同留枝量对‘玉华早富’苹果光合、养分含量和开花坐果的影响. 西北农业学报, 23 (9):177-182.
|
|
[32] |
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2019-0146 |
蔚露, 牛自勉, 林琭, 姜闯道, 王红宁, 谢鹏, 李志强, 郭晋鸣. 2020. 小冠开心形和细型主干形‘玉露香’梨光能截获与光合作用差异. 园艺学报, 47 (1):11-22.
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2019-0146 |
|
[33] |
|
张琦, 白团辉, 吴翠云, 王合理, 刘家材, 党学敏. 2013. 红枣直播建园不同树形产量与品质调查研究. 北方园艺,(14):18-23.
|
|
[34] |
|
赵先英, 刘毅敏, 肖湘, 刘海红, 粟永萍, 李明春. 2010. 均匀试验设计在利多卡因缓释纳米微球制备中的应用. 第三军医大学学报, 32 (21):2300-2302.
|
|
[35] |
|
邹亮, 汪国强. 2003. 均匀试验设计在遗传算法中的应用. 华南理工大学学报(自然科学版),(5):90-92.
|
[1] | LI Jie, WU Chao, JIA Xiangqian, WANG Juan. Screening of Ziziphus jujuba‘Hupingzao’Fruit Coloring Substances and Their Related Genes [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(8): 1728-1742. |
[2] | YUAN Quan, LU Wei, WANG Jun, CHEN Ru, LI Yansu, YU Xianchang, HE Chaoxing, SUN Mintao, YAN Yan. Effects of Irrigation Lower Limits on Early-Spring Cucumber Grown Under Different Soil Textures in the Solar Greenhouse [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(6): 1377-1385. |
[3] | XIA Hongyi, LIU Qiao, PENG Jiaqing, WU Wei, GONG Linzhong. Effects of f-Shaped Tree Shape on Photosynthetic Characteristics and Fruit Quality in‘Shine Muscat’Grapevines with Rain-Shelter Cultivation [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(3): 560-570. |
[4] | GUO Chunlei, CAO Fei, WANG Dongsheng, ZHANG Jingzheng, QI Yongshun, WANG Tongkun, CAI Deyi, TONG Jingmei. A Late Ripening and High Quality Castanea mollissima Cultivar‘Yanbao’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(3): 697-698. |
[5] | ZHAO Xia, LI Gang, LIU Lifeng, HU Panpan, SONG Yanhong, and ZHOU Houcheng. A New Strawberry Cultivar‘Huafeng 1’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(S1): 35-36. |
[6] | LI Renjie , WANG Chenggang , ZHANG Shengnan , SHAN Guolei , CHEN Guohu , HOU Jinfeng , HUANG Xingxue , and YUAN Lingyun, . A Non Heading Chinese Cabbage Cultivar‘Xiakang 718’with Heat Resistance [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(S1): 43-44. |
[7] | YAN Xi, HE Lei, LAI Wei, LIU Chongzheng, YANG Hong , and JIANG Hong. A New Pepper Cultivar‘Qianla 16’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(S1): 71-72. |
[8] | ZHENG Xinqiang , LI Zeyu, LI Kai, LU Jianliang , ZHAO Dong , YE Jianhui , Ye Jingjing , LI Cunyu , and LIANG Yuerong, . An Early-sprouting and Elite New Tea Cultivar‘Zhenong 301’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(S1): 201-202. |
[9] | LI Jinling , ZHAO Zhi, LUO Chunli, LIU Hongchang, WANG Hualei, LUO Fulai, and HUANG Mingjin . A New Uncaria rhynchophylla Cultivar‘Guigou 1’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(S1): 207-208. |
[10] | YU Yan, JIANG Yuanyuan, WANG Long, WU Yichao, YANG Ruiwu, ZHOU Yonghong, XU Zhigang, ZHANG Li. A New Salvia miltiorrhiza Cultivar‘Chuandan 2’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(6): 1387-1388. |
[11] | ZHENG Jinrong, NIE Jun, LI Yanhong, TAN Delong, XIE Yuming, ZHANG Changyuan. A Cherry Tomato Cultivar‘Yuekeda 101’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(4): 909-910. |
[12] | LI Yuting, REN Lihui, WANG Yuan, ZHOU Aiying, YANG Wei, HUANG Jian. Photosynthetic Characteristics of Ziziphus jujuba‘Dongzao’Under Protected Cultivation [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(3): 647-656. |
[13] | DUAN Kaihang, WANG Xiaoling, MAO Yongmin, WANG Yao, REN Yongxiang, REN Liuliu, SHEN Lianying. Analysis of Genetic Diversity of Wild Jujube Germplasm Resources Based on Quantitative Characters [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(12): 2568-2576. |
[14] | CHEN Jiajing, LIU Yuan, WU Yanuo, XU Juan, ZHANG Hongyan. Sensory Fuzzy Modeling and Sugar and Acid Analysis Based Evaluation of Fruit Quality Difference in Different‘Ehime Kashi 28’Samples [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(11): 2466-2476. |
[15] | PENG Ling, FENG Lu, SONG Aiyun, DONG Linshui, LI Qingjun, LIU Jingtao. Interaction of Different Concentrations of Salt and Nitrogen Treatment on Fruit Quality Formation of Ziziphus jujuba‘Dongzao’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(10): 2192-2206. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||
Copyright © 2012 Acta Horticulturae Sinica 京ICP备10030308号-2 国际联网备案号 11010802023439
Tel: 010-82109523 E-Mail: yuanyixuebao@126.com
Support by: Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd