Acta Horticulturae Sinica ›› 2024, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (12): 2895-2912.doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2023-0992
• New Technologies and New Methods • Previous Articles Next Articles
GE Hang1, LI Xiaoying1, WANG Zhixuan1,2, ZHU Qixuan1,2, CHEN Junwei1, XU Hongxia1()
Received:
2024-03-21
Revised:
2024-09-03
Online:
2024-12-25
Published:
2024-12-13
Contact:
XU Hongxia
GE Hang, LI Xiaoying, WANG Zhixuan, ZHU Qixuan, CHEN Junwei, XU Hongxia. Evaluation of Freezing Tolerance in Loquat Young Fruit Based on the Survival Percentage of Fruit Clusters After Cold Spell[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(12): 2895-2912.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.ahs.ac.cn/EN/10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2023-0992
变量 Variable | 样本数量 Sample size | 最小值 Min. | 最大值 Max. | 中位数 Median | 均值 Mean | 方差 Variance | 偏度 Skewness | 峰度 Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X | 374 | 0 | 442 | 12 | 23.6 | 38.8 | 5.95 | 56.1 |
Y(b = 1) | 349 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.32 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 4.49 |
Z(a = 1,b = 1) | 331 | 0.03 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.49 | 0.27 | 0.24 | 2.05 |
Table 1 Statistical characteristics of variable X(number of survived young fruits),Y(average number of survived young fruits per fruit cluster)and Z(percentage of viable fruit clusters per plant)of loquat after cold spell
变量 Variable | 样本数量 Sample size | 最小值 Min. | 最大值 Max. | 中位数 Median | 均值 Mean | 方差 Variance | 偏度 Skewness | 峰度 Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X | 374 | 0 | 442 | 12 | 23.6 | 38.8 | 5.95 | 56.1 |
Y(b = 1) | 349 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.32 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 4.49 |
Z(a = 1,b = 1) | 331 | 0.03 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.49 | 0.27 | 0.24 | 2.05 |
Fig. 2 The skewness and kurtosis plot for variable X(survived young fruits per plant),variable Y(average number of survived young fruits per fruit cluster)and variable Z(percentage of viable fruit clusters per plant)of loquat after cold spell
b | 样本数量 Sample size | 最小值 Min. | 最大值 Max. | 中位数 Median | 均值 Mean | 方差 Variance | 偏度 Skewness | 峰度 Kurtosis | Shapiro测试 W值 | Shapiro测试 P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 374 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.28 | 1.24 | 1.29 | 4.42 | 0.872 | 4.99 × 10-17 |
2 | 349 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.32 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 4.49 | 0.872 | 2.03 × 10-16 |
3 | 337 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.32 | 1.21 | 1.33 | 4.53 | 0.874 | 5.38 × 10-16 |
4 | 322 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.30 | 1.18 | 1.37 | 4.79 | 0.872 | 1.04 × 10-15 |
5 | 308 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.32 | 1.20 | 1.38 | 4.77 | 0.872 | 2.39 × 10-15 |
Table 2 Statistical characteristics and Shapiro test result of variable Y(average number of surviving young fruits per inflorescence)with different value of parameter b
b | 样本数量 Sample size | 最小值 Min. | 最大值 Max. | 中位数 Median | 均值 Mean | 方差 Variance | 偏度 Skewness | 峰度 Kurtosis | Shapiro测试 W值 | Shapiro测试 P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 374 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.28 | 1.24 | 1.29 | 4.42 | 0.872 | 4.99 × 10-17 |
2 | 349 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.32 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 4.49 | 0.872 | 2.03 × 10-16 |
3 | 337 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.32 | 1.21 | 1.33 | 4.53 | 0.874 | 5.38 × 10-16 |
4 | 322 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.30 | 1.18 | 1.37 | 4.79 | 0.872 | 1.04 × 10-15 |
5 | 308 | 0 | 6.33 | 1 | 1.32 | 1.20 | 1.38 | 4.77 | 0.872 | 2.39 × 10-15 |
a | b | 样本数量 Sample size | 最小值 Min. | 最大值 Max. | 中位数 Median | 均值 Mean | 方差 Variance | 偏度 Skewness | 峰度 Kurtosis | Shapiro测试 W值 | Shapiro测试 P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 1 | 0.429 | 0.437 | 0.303 | 0.228 | 2.00 | 0.950 | 6.30×10-10 |
1 | 2 | 349 | 0 | 1 | 0.440 | 0.446 | 0.286 | 0.202 | 2.07 | 0.963 | 9.31×10-8 |
1 | 3 | 337 | 0 | 1 | 0.440 | 0.447 | 0.278 | 0.195 | 2.08 | 0.967 | 5.39×10-7 |
1 | 4 | 322 | 0 | 1 | 0.441 | 0.444 | 0.271 | 0.175 | 2.06 | 0.969 | 1.88×10-6 |
1 | 5 | 308 | 0 | 1 | 0.441 | 0.446 | 0.269 | 0.171 | 2.05 | 0.969 | 3.01×10-6 |
2 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 1 | 0.222 | 0.284 | 0.271 | 0.933 | 3.10 | 0.889 | 8.68×10-16 |
3 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 1 | 0.111 | 0.186 | 0.218 | 1.47 | 4.92 | 0.817 | 2.82×10-16 |
4 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 0.875 | 0.0617 | 0.123 | 0.166 | 1.75 | 5.88 | 0.760 | 5.72×10-23 |
5 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 0.875 | 0.00943 | 0.0840 | 0.136 | 2.25 | 8.75 | 0.678 | 4.54×10-26 |
Table 3 Statistical characteristics and Shapiro test result of variable Z(percentage of viable inflorescences per plant)with different value of parameter a and b
a | b | 样本数量 Sample size | 最小值 Min. | 最大值 Max. | 中位数 Median | 均值 Mean | 方差 Variance | 偏度 Skewness | 峰度 Kurtosis | Shapiro测试 W值 | Shapiro测试 P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 1 | 0.429 | 0.437 | 0.303 | 0.228 | 2.00 | 0.950 | 6.30×10-10 |
1 | 2 | 349 | 0 | 1 | 0.440 | 0.446 | 0.286 | 0.202 | 2.07 | 0.963 | 9.31×10-8 |
1 | 3 | 337 | 0 | 1 | 0.440 | 0.447 | 0.278 | 0.195 | 2.08 | 0.967 | 5.39×10-7 |
1 | 4 | 322 | 0 | 1 | 0.441 | 0.444 | 0.271 | 0.175 | 2.06 | 0.969 | 1.88×10-6 |
1 | 5 | 308 | 0 | 1 | 0.441 | 0.446 | 0.269 | 0.171 | 2.05 | 0.969 | 3.01×10-6 |
2 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 1 | 0.222 | 0.284 | 0.271 | 0.933 | 3.10 | 0.889 | 8.68×10-16 |
3 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 1 | 0.111 | 0.186 | 0.218 | 1.47 | 4.92 | 0.817 | 2.82×10-16 |
4 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 0.875 | 0.0617 | 0.123 | 0.166 | 1.75 | 5.88 | 0.760 | 5.72×10-23 |
5 | 1 | 374 | 0 | 0.875 | 0.00943 | 0.0840 | 0.136 | 2.25 | 8.75 | 0.678 | 4.54×10-26 |
变量 Variable | W值 W value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|
X | 0.532 | 2.50 × 10-30 |
Y(b = 1) | 0.855 | 1.87 × 10-17 |
Z(a = 1,b = 1) | 0.960 | 6.36 × 10-8 |
Table 4 Shapiro-Wilk test for variable X(survived young fruits per plant),variable Y(average number of survived young fruits per fruit cluster)and variable Z(percentage of viable fruit clusters per plant)of loquat after cold spells
变量 Variable | W值 W value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|
X | 0.532 | 2.50 × 10-30 |
Y(b = 1) | 0.855 | 1.87 × 10-17 |
Z(a = 1,b = 1) | 0.960 | 6.36 × 10-8 |
Fig. 3 Goodness-of-fit plots for the normal distribution that fitted to variable X(survived young fruits per plant),variable Y (average number of survived young fruits per fruit cluster)and variable Z(percentage of viable fruit clusters per plant)of loquat after cold spell Red solid lines indicate the theoretical value and columns or dots represent the empirical value. Parameter a means the expected yield and b means the total number of flower clusters. The same below.
变量 Variable | 参数a Parameter a | 参数b Parameter b | 偏度 Skewness | 峰度 Kurtosis | λ值 λ value | W值 W value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XT | 0.0036 | 2.79 | 0.09 | 0.985 | 1.50 × 10-3 | ||
YT | 1 | -0.070 | 2.48 | 0.29 | 0.992 | 9.25 × 10-2 | |
YT | 2 | -0.050 | 2.49 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.114 | |
YT | 3 | -0.060 | 2.50 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.118 | |
YT | 4 | -0.050 | 2.53 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.181 | |
YT | 5 | -0.060 | 2.53 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.154 | |
YT | 6 | -0.050 | 2.54 | 0.29 | 0.993 | 0.209 | |
YT | 7 | -0.060 | 2.55 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.247 | |
YT | 8 | -0.060 | 2.57 | 0.29 | 0.993 | 0.267 | |
YT | 9 | -0.050 | 2.65 | 0.29 | 0.994 | 0.357 | |
YT | 10 | -0.040 | 2.68 | 0.30 | 0.993 | 0.364 | |
YT | 11 | -0.040 | 2.69 | 0.29 | 0.990 | 0.430 | |
YT | 12 | -0.050 | 2.69 | 0.28 | 0.990 | 0.460 | |
YT | 13 | -0.060 | 2.63 | 0.28 | 0.990 | 0.380 | |
YT | 14 | -0.060 | 2.62 | 0.29 | 0.990 | 0.380 | |
YT | 15 | -0.050 | 2.61 | 0.29 | 0.990 | 0.340 | |
ZT | 1 | 1 | -0.15 | 2.11 | 0.62 | 0.972 | 4.19 × 10-6 |
ZT | 1 | 2 | -0.15 | 2.14 | 0.62 | 0.975 | 2.18 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 3 | -0.15 | 2.12 | 0.63 | 0.976 | 3.82 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 4 | -0.16 | 2.11 | 0.63 | 0.975 | 4.07 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 5 | -0.16 | 2.09 | 0.64 | 0.974 | 3.77 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 6 | -0.17 | 2.10 | 0.66 | 0.974 | 5.31 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 7 | -0.17 | 2.12 | 0.64 | 0.975 | 1.06 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 8 | -0.17 | 2.10 | 0.65 | 0.974 | 9.52 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 9 | -0.16 | 2.14 | 0.66 | 0.976 | 2.40 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 10 | -0.16 | 2.15 | 0.65 | 0.976 | 4.28 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 11 | -0.16 | 2.17 | 0.63 | 0.977 | 9.27 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 12 | -0.16 | 2.13 | 0.61 | 0.975 | 7.03 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 13 | -0.16 | 2.10 | 0.60 | 0.973 | 6.24 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 14 | -0.16 | 2.10 | 0.61 | 0.973 | 7.18 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 15 | -0.17 | 2.10 | 0.59 | 0.972 | 1.13 × 10-3 |
ZT | 1 | 1 | -0.15 | 2.11 | 0.62 | 0.972 | 4.19 × 10-6 |
ZT | 2 | 1 | -0.08 | 2.30 | 0.33 | 0.984 | 2.08 × 10-3 |
ZT | 3 | 1 | -0.04 | 2.30 | 0.17 | 0.988 | 2.54 × 10-2 |
ZT | 4 | 1 | -0.01 | 2.36 | 0.09 | 0.987 | 3.32 × 10-2 |
ZT | 5 | 1 | 0.02 | 2.12 | -0.05 | 0.980 | 8.94 × 10-3 |
ZT | 6 | 1 | 0.01 | 2.19 | -0.05 | 0.981 | 4.27 × 10-2 |
ZT | 7 | 1 | 0.00 | 2.34 | 0.00 | 0.985 | 0.245 |
ZT | 8 | 1 | 0.00 | 2.51 | -0.08 | 0.987 | 0.546 |
ZT | 9 | 1 | 0.02 | 2.67 | -0.18 | 0.988 | 0.816 |
ZT | 10 | 1 | 0.01 | 2.50 | -0.12 | 0.987 | 0.868 |
ZT | 11 | 1 | 0.03 | 2.48 | -0.20 | 0.982 | 0.828 |
ZT | 12 | 1 | 0.15 | 1.88 | -0.46 | 0.957 | 0.386 |
ZT | 13 | 1 | 0.14 | 1.57 | -0.35 | 0.924 | 0.152 |
ZT | 14 | 1 | -0.16 | 1.33 | 0.35 | 0.905 | 0.212 |
ZT | 15 | 1 | -0.45 | 3.44 | 1.27 | 0.979 | 0.960 |
Table 5 Shapiro-Wilk test for variable X(number of survived young fruits),Y(average number of survived young fruits per fruit cluster)and Z(percentage of viable fruit clusters per plant)after Box-Cox transformation
变量 Variable | 参数a Parameter a | 参数b Parameter b | 偏度 Skewness | 峰度 Kurtosis | λ值 λ value | W值 W value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XT | 0.0036 | 2.79 | 0.09 | 0.985 | 1.50 × 10-3 | ||
YT | 1 | -0.070 | 2.48 | 0.29 | 0.992 | 9.25 × 10-2 | |
YT | 2 | -0.050 | 2.49 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.114 | |
YT | 3 | -0.060 | 2.50 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.118 | |
YT | 4 | -0.050 | 2.53 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.181 | |
YT | 5 | -0.060 | 2.53 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.154 | |
YT | 6 | -0.050 | 2.54 | 0.29 | 0.993 | 0.209 | |
YT | 7 | -0.060 | 2.55 | 0.28 | 0.993 | 0.247 | |
YT | 8 | -0.060 | 2.57 | 0.29 | 0.993 | 0.267 | |
YT | 9 | -0.050 | 2.65 | 0.29 | 0.994 | 0.357 | |
YT | 10 | -0.040 | 2.68 | 0.30 | 0.993 | 0.364 | |
YT | 11 | -0.040 | 2.69 | 0.29 | 0.990 | 0.430 | |
YT | 12 | -0.050 | 2.69 | 0.28 | 0.990 | 0.460 | |
YT | 13 | -0.060 | 2.63 | 0.28 | 0.990 | 0.380 | |
YT | 14 | -0.060 | 2.62 | 0.29 | 0.990 | 0.380 | |
YT | 15 | -0.050 | 2.61 | 0.29 | 0.990 | 0.340 | |
ZT | 1 | 1 | -0.15 | 2.11 | 0.62 | 0.972 | 4.19 × 10-6 |
ZT | 1 | 2 | -0.15 | 2.14 | 0.62 | 0.975 | 2.18 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 3 | -0.15 | 2.12 | 0.63 | 0.976 | 3.82 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 4 | -0.16 | 2.11 | 0.63 | 0.975 | 4.07 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 5 | -0.16 | 2.09 | 0.64 | 0.974 | 3.77 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 6 | -0.17 | 2.10 | 0.66 | 0.974 | 5.31 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 7 | -0.17 | 2.12 | 0.64 | 0.975 | 1.06 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 8 | -0.17 | 2.10 | 0.65 | 0.974 | 9.52 × 10-5 |
ZT | 1 | 9 | -0.16 | 2.14 | 0.66 | 0.976 | 2.40 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 10 | -0.16 | 2.15 | 0.65 | 0.976 | 4.28 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 11 | -0.16 | 2.17 | 0.63 | 0.977 | 9.27 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 12 | -0.16 | 2.13 | 0.61 | 0.975 | 7.03 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 13 | -0.16 | 2.10 | 0.60 | 0.973 | 6.24 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 14 | -0.16 | 2.10 | 0.61 | 0.973 | 7.18 × 10-4 |
ZT | 1 | 15 | -0.17 | 2.10 | 0.59 | 0.972 | 1.13 × 10-3 |
ZT | 1 | 1 | -0.15 | 2.11 | 0.62 | 0.972 | 4.19 × 10-6 |
ZT | 2 | 1 | -0.08 | 2.30 | 0.33 | 0.984 | 2.08 × 10-3 |
ZT | 3 | 1 | -0.04 | 2.30 | 0.17 | 0.988 | 2.54 × 10-2 |
ZT | 4 | 1 | -0.01 | 2.36 | 0.09 | 0.987 | 3.32 × 10-2 |
ZT | 5 | 1 | 0.02 | 2.12 | -0.05 | 0.980 | 8.94 × 10-3 |
ZT | 6 | 1 | 0.01 | 2.19 | -0.05 | 0.981 | 4.27 × 10-2 |
ZT | 7 | 1 | 0.00 | 2.34 | 0.00 | 0.985 | 0.245 |
ZT | 8 | 1 | 0.00 | 2.51 | -0.08 | 0.987 | 0.546 |
ZT | 9 | 1 | 0.02 | 2.67 | -0.18 | 0.988 | 0.816 |
ZT | 10 | 1 | 0.01 | 2.50 | -0.12 | 0.987 | 0.868 |
ZT | 11 | 1 | 0.03 | 2.48 | -0.20 | 0.982 | 0.828 |
ZT | 12 | 1 | 0.15 | 1.88 | -0.46 | 0.957 | 0.386 |
ZT | 13 | 1 | 0.14 | 1.57 | -0.35 | 0.924 | 0.152 |
ZT | 14 | 1 | -0.16 | 1.33 | 0.35 | 0.905 | 0.212 |
ZT | 15 | 1 | -0.45 | 3.44 | 1.27 | 0.979 | 0.960 |
Fig. 4 Effect of parameter b(the total number of flower clusters on a single plant)on the variable S value and sample size of average number of survived young fruits per fruit cluster(variable Y)
Fig. 5 Influence of parameters a and b on the variable S and sample size of the variable Z(percentage of viable fruit clusters per plant) A:Variation in S value of variable Z under different values of parameter a;B:Variation in sample size of variable Z under different values of parameter a;C:Variation in S value of variable Z under different values of parameter b;D:Variation in sample size of variable Z under different values of parameter b;E:Effect of different values of parameter b on S value of variable Z when parameter a is fixed at the value of 4.
变量 Variable | 最佳λ值 Optimal λ value | 采用λ值 selected λ value | 变换类型 Type of trans- formation | 变换后偏度 Skewness after transformation | 变换后峰度 Kurtosis after transformation | 变换后W值 W value after transformation | 变换后P值 P value after transformation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XT | 0.09 | 0.09 | 无None | -0.860 | 3.70 | 0.951 | 1.21 × 10-6 |
YT(b = 12) | 0.28 | 0.28 | 无None | -0.046 | 2.69 | 0.993 | 0.463 |
ZT(a = 4,b = 12) | -0.01 | 0 | 对数变换 Logarithm transformation | 0.012 | 2.60 | 0.991 | 0.383 |
Table 6 The λ calculation of variants X,Y and Z which is used for Box-Cox transformation
变量 Variable | 最佳λ值 Optimal λ value | 采用λ值 selected λ value | 变换类型 Type of trans- formation | 变换后偏度 Skewness after transformation | 变换后峰度 Kurtosis after transformation | 变换后W值 W value after transformation | 变换后P值 P value after transformation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XT | 0.09 | 0.09 | 无None | -0.860 | 3.70 | 0.951 | 1.21 × 10-6 |
YT(b = 12) | 0.28 | 0.28 | 无None | -0.046 | 2.69 | 0.993 | 0.463 |
ZT(a = 4,b = 12) | -0.01 | 0 | 对数变换 Logarithm transformation | 0.012 | 2.60 | 0.991 | 0.383 |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
陈方永, 王引, 倪海枝, 颜帮国. 2019. “软条白沙”枇杷不同立地条件下冻害胁迫生理指标比较. 中国南方果树, 48 (1):36-40.
|
|
[4] |
|
陈俊伟, 孙钧, 李晓颖, 徐红霞, 周晓音, 姜路花. 2017. 白肉枇杷晚花避冻栽培技术探讨. 浙江农业科学, 58 (3):417-419,425.
doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20170316 |
|
[5] |
|
崔龙, 王雪松, 谭瑞, 张艳波, 陈蕾. 2023. 寒地杏种质自然越冬条件下枝条抗寒性鉴定方法优化及评价. 农业与技术, 43 (21):72-75.
|
|
[6] |
doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b03853 pmid: 31419123 |
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
范凯锋, 李清斌, 房玥, 黄新, 秦奔奔, 陈磊, 金志凤. 2022. 气象灾害对宁波枇杷的影响及防御措施建议. 浙江农业科学, 63 (8):1818-1820.
|
|
[10] |
|
简单, 陆韬, 邵小卫, 金杨. 2022. 兰溪枇杷花果期低温冻害预报模型初探. 浙江农业科学, 63 (7):1482-1486,1494.
doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20213010 |
|
[11] |
|
靳瑞萍, 王化坤, 王彤, 黄长兵, 张焕朝. 2019. 低温胁迫下外源SOD对枇杷幼果抗寒性的影响. 江苏农业科学, 47 (2):138-141.
|
|
[12] |
|
晋一棠, 铁万祝, 冯家平, 王凤屏, 廖莉莉, 王友富. 2023. 攀西地区枇杷低温冻害预防措施与对策. 中国热带农业,(2):78-80.
|
|
[13] |
|
金鹏, 吕慕雯, 孙萃萃, 郑永华, 孙明. 2012. MeJA与低温预贮对枇杷冷害和活性氧代谢的影响. 园艺学报, 39 (3):461-468.
|
|
[14] |
|
寇彬, 王岩, 任晓燕. 2016. 枣树抗寒性检测方法的筛选. 新疆农垦科技, 39 (2):43-45.
|
|
[15] |
|
李靖. 2020. 四川省枇杷冻害发生原因及预防对策. 现代农业科技,(1):84,86.
|
|
[16] |
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.02.011 |
李玲, 桂明春, 管艳, 毛常丽, 田海, 张凤良, 吴裕, 段安安, 梁国平. 2021. 恢复生长与电导法结合分析橡胶树抗寒性研究. 热带作物学报, 42 (2):370-377.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.02.011 |
|
[17] |
|
刘国强, 吴锦程, 朱颖, 刘美琼, 蔡小玲, 陈丽平. 2009. 水杨酸对低温胁迫下枇杷幼果若干生理生化指标的影响. 热带作物学报, 30 (3):254-258.
|
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
刘绍俊, 牛英, 陈国平, 刘冰浩, 刘萍, 范七君. 2014. 电导法配合Logistic方程测定柑桔品种幼树抗寒性的研究. 中国南方果树, 43 (2):57-59.
|
|
[20] |
|
刘政海, 董志刚, 李晓梅, 谭敏, 杨镕兆, 杨兆亮, 唐晓萍. 2021. 基于恢复生长法分析酿酒葡萄品种的抗寒性. 果树资源学报, 2 (2):5-8.
|
|
[21] |
|
娄晓鸣. 2018. 枇杷(Eriobotrya japonica Lindl.)抗寒种质鉴定及其抗寒机制[博士论文]. 南京: 南京农业大学.
|
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
doi: 10.1126/science.1191803 pmid: 20798281 |
[24] |
|
牛立新, 张延龙. 1996. 苹果品种抗寒性测定及其评价方法探讨. 落叶果树,(S1):1-2.
|
|
[25] |
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.12.009 |
潘翠萍, 谢红江, 王永清, 张卉, 邓群仙, 杨志武, 文露, 何珊珊. 2019. 6个枇杷品种对低温胁迫的生理响应及抗寒性评价. 热带作物学报, 40 (12):2369-2374.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.12.009 |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2022-0551 URL |
唐海霞, 杨雪梅, 冯立娟, 朱峰, 周继磊, 尹燕雷. 2023. 3个石榴品种越冬抗寒性及生理差异分析. 园艺学报, 50 (7):1563-1573.
|
|
[28] |
|
王国莉, 郭振飞. 2005. 低温对水稻不同耐冷品种幼苗光合速率和叶绿素荧光参数的影响. 中国水稻科学, 19 (4):381-383.
|
|
[29] |
|
王善波. 2012. 利用稳健中值方法研究近50年内蒙古极端气候[博士论文]. 扬州: 扬州大学.
|
|
[30] |
|
王晓辉, 郭启高, 何桥, 姚丹, 李晓林, 向素琼, 汪卫星, 孙海艳, 梁国鲁. 2012. 电导法结合Logistic方程鉴定三倍体枇杷的抗寒性研究. 西南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 37 (6):121-124.
|
|
[31] |
|
魏华兵, 陈正洪, 李桂红, 汪旭东, 罗翔, 袁观强. 2022. 鄂东南枇杷的冻、热害发生规律及风险分析. 热带农业科学, 42 (3):93-99.
|
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
吴瑶, 杜良敏, 刘长征, 张俊. 2022. Box-Cox正态转换在长江子流域极端降水气候事件判定中的应用. 暴雨灾害, 41 (1):94-100.
|
|
[34] |
|
肖象珍. 2011. 翅荚木胸径生长模型的Box-Cox变换研究. 林业科技, 36 (4):35-37.
|
|
[35] |
|
肖志坚. 2011. 福建柏树高—胸径一元线性模型的改进. 宁夏农林科技, 52 (7):56-57.
|
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2019-0271 URL |
徐红霞, 李晓颖, 陈俊伟. 2020. 枇杷花发育进程中氨基酸和碳水化合物代谢的变化. 园艺学报, 47 (2):233-241.
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2019-0271 URL |
|
[38] |
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021- 0219 URL |
徐红霞, 周慧芬, 李晓颖, 姜路花, 陈俊伟. 2021. 低温胁迫下枇杷不同发育阶段的花果转录组比较分析. 园艺学报, 48 (9):1680-1694.
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2021- 0219 URL |
|
[39] |
|
杨永娥, 张晓煜, 梁小娟, 马梦瑶, 卫建国. 2023. 苹果花期至幼果期花朵和果实对低温的敏感性研究. 西北植物学报, 43 (10):1694-1703.
|
|
[40] |
|
张东亚, 赵蕾, 孙守文, 陶秀冬. 2010. 密叶杨 × 胡杨6个杂交种抗寒性的初步鉴定. 新疆农业科学, 47 (4):711-714.
|
|
[41] |
|
张贺英. 2007. 低温胁迫对枇杷超微结构及生理代谢的影响[博士论文]. 福州: 福建农林大学.
|
|
[42] |
|
张立欣, 王庆杰, 陈纪龙. 2019. 基于Box-Cox变换的阿拉尔地区胡杨材积与胸径的关系分析. 数学的实践与认识, 49 (3):215-222.
|
|
[43] |
|
章加应, 张学英, 安海山, 蒋爽, 徐芳杰. 2021. 5份枇杷品种(系)的抗寒性生理评价. 上海农业学报, 37 (5):39-46.
|
|
[44] |
|
赵德英, 程存刚, 张少瑜, 张彦昌, 袁继存, 侯贵学. 2010. 果树对低温的响应及抗寒评价体系研究进展. 中国林副特产,(6):81-84.
|
|
[45] |
|
赵同生, 赵国栋, 张新生, 李春敏, 付友. 2018. 应用恢复生长法和组织褐变法比较几种苹果矮化砧木抗寒性. 中国果树,(3):23-25.
|
[1] | LIU Gangyun, DUAN Shixiang, XU Nana, GUO Yaomiao, DOU Junling, YANG Sen, NIU Huanhuan, LIU Dongming, YANG Luming, HU Jianbin, ZHU Huayu. Molecular Markers Assisted Construction of Cmerecta Near-Isogenic Line of Melon Dwarfing Gene [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(9): 2048-2062. |
[2] | WU You, JI Hongyu, DENG Shuwen, LIANG Cuiyi, WAN Zhiting, WU Shasha, ZHAI Junwen. Selection and Validation of Reference Genes for RT-qPCR of Flower Development in Calanthe triplicata [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(9): 2063-2074. |
[3] | ZHENG Chuanqi, TANG Yuchao, YANG Panpan, PENG Fuhai, XU Leifeng, TANG Le, ZHI Yongming, MING Jun. Advances in Bitter Taste of the Horticultural Plants [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(7): 1529-1546. |
[4] | TIAN Wen, LI Zichen, WANG Lin, WANG Dajiang, WANG Kun, SUN Simiao, WANG Guangyi, LIU Zhao, LU Xiang, FENG Jianrong, GAO Yuan. Advances in Genome-Wide Association Study Associated Important Traits in Apple [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(7): 1565-1579. |
[5] | DU Meixia, PANG Shuwei, DONG Liting, MO Kaiqin, HOU Mengyuan, WANG Shuai, ZOU Xiuping. Research Progress on the Molecular Mechanisms of Interactions Between Candidatus Liberibacter and Citrus [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(7): 1623-1638. |
[6] | ZHAO Chongbin, ZHANG Weiyin, LI Shuqing, GUO Yihan, XU Hongxia, CHEN Junwei, YANG Xianghui, PENG Ze. Quantitative Trait Locus Mapping and Analysis of Traits Related to Flower,Fruit,and Leaf in Loquat [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(6): 1189-1200. |
[7] | ZHU Qixuan, LI Xiaoying, WU Junkai, GE Hang, CHEN Junwei, XU Hongxia. Genetic Tendency Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of the Fruit Traits in Loquat F1 Generation [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(6): 1201-1215. |
[8] | HUANG Peng, DING Jie, LIU Chunyan, LI Hongying, LI Xinyu, LIU Yaowen, QIN Wen. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Edible Coating on Postharvest Quality of Blueberry [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(6): 1361-1376. |
[9] | LI Ken, ZHANG Wei, WU Yunpeng, PENG Dongxiu, ZHANG Ruowei. Development and Utilization of KASP Marker for Identification of Pulp Firmness in Melon [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(4): 773-786. |
[10] | WEI Jianming, HUANG Xin, LI Yunzhou, LIANG Yan. Tomato Brown Rugose Fruit Virus(ToBRFV)Research Progress [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(2): 439-452. |
[11] | YAO Xiangtan, SHEN Yaqiang, YUAN Ye, WANG Ruisen, SHEN Meng, QUAN Xinhua. A New Red Pericarp Non-horn Trapa Cultivar‘Nanhu Hongling’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(2): 455-456. |
[12] | BAI Lu, ZHANG Zhiguo, ZHANG Shijie, QIN Qiaoping. New Hemerocallis fulva Cultivars‘Christmas Baby’and‘Bolide’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(2): 459-460. |
[13] | LÜ Honghao, ZHANG Yangyong, $\boxed{\hbox{FANG Zhiyuan}}$, YANG Limei, ZHUANG Mu, LIU Yumei, WANG Yong, JI Jialei, LI Zhansheng, HAN Fengqing. A New Spring Cabbage Cultivar‘Zhonggan D22’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2024, 51(1): 213-214. |
[14] | CHEN Meiyuan , LIAO Jianhua, GUO Zhongjie , CAI Zhixin , LU Yuanping , WU Shaocong , and WANG Zesheng. A New Agaricus bisporus Cultivar‘Fumo 48’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(S1): 83-84. |
[15] | GONG Guanglu , LIU Hongyu , YANG Tongjing , WANG Sili , HU Tengwen , CHEN Mengtan , LIU Qingcheng , HUANG Wanbing , LU Yingying , SHANG Nianjie , HUANG Xiaorun , GUI Yang , and ZHU Guosheng, . A New Lentinula edodes Cultivar‘Lanmeng 1’ [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 2023, 50(S1): 85-86. |
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