库尔勒香梨3种树形冠层结构和产量品质的比较

江振斌，廖康，赵世荣，达梦香，徐桂香，章世奎，徐乐

(1.新疆农业大学林学与园艺学院特色果树研究中心，乌鲁木齐 830052；2.新疆农业科学院轮台果树资源圃，新疆轮台 841600)



库尔勒香梨3种树形冠层结构和产量品质的比较

江振斌1，廖康1，赵世荣1，达梦香1，徐桂香1，章世奎2，徐乐2

(1.新疆农业大学林学与园艺学院特色果树研究中心，乌鲁木齐 830052；2.新疆农业科学院轮台果树资源圃，新疆轮台 841600)

【目的】比较库尔勒香梨3种树形冠层结构以及果实产量与品质的差异，为库尔勒香梨树形的评价与选择提供理论基础。【方法】用LAI-2200冠层分析仪对水平棚架形、疏散分层形和自然开心形库尔勒香梨的冠层结构、产量、品质进行测定分析，比较其差异。【结果】水平棚架形库尔勒香梨的叶面积指数最大；疏散分层形总枝量最高，与水平棚架形和自然开心形相比，分别高出25.4%、13.8%，而水平棚架形总枝量最低。不同树形产量存在差异，3种树形单果质量和单株产量大小排序为水平棚架形>自然开心形>疏散分层形。水平棚架形特级果率最高，与疏散分层形相比，提高了18.5%。3种树形脱萼果率、宿萼果率、凸顶果率差异极显著(P>0.01)，水平棚架形脱萼果率最高。自然开心形和水平棚架形的脱萼果率与疏散分层形相比，分别提高了41.6%、23.3%。水平棚架形L值、b值最大，但其a值最小，自然开心形a值最大。水平棚架形与自然开心形的可滴定酸和VC存在显著差异，其可滴定酸和VC均高于自然开心形。自然开心形可溶性固形物、总糖、固酸比、糖酸比均最高，而硬度、可滴定酸最低。【结论】库尔勒香梨3种树形中，水平棚架形叶面积指数最大，疏散分层形次之。3种树形枝量差异较大，疏散分层形的总枝量最高，与水平棚架形和自然开心形相比，分别高出25.4%、13.8%。不同树形的产量存在差异，水平棚架形产量比疏散分层形高12.8%。水平棚架形优等果率和脱萼果率明显高于其它两种树形，与疏散分层形相比，分别高出18.5%、14.8%。水平棚架形和自然开心形果实内在品质较优且差异较小，而疏散分层形内在品质较差。

库尔勒香梨；冠层结构；产量；品质

0 引 言

【研究意义】库尔勒香梨原产于新疆巴音郭楞蒙古自治州、阿克苏等地，至今已有1 400多年的栽培历史，它以皮薄、肉脆、汁多、味甜、果香浓郁等特点受国内外消费者青睐。树形是果树优质栽培的基础，冠层是果树树形结构的主要组成部分，合理的冠层结构可以改善冠层内的通风透光，促进叶片与其附近大气的CO2交换，从而增强光合作用，提高果实产量与品质[1]。【前人研究进展】库尔勒香梨传统的整形方式多为疏散分层形或小冠疏层等相似的树形，近年来开心形和水平棚架形逐步受到关注。梨棚架式树形是日本特有的树形，在日本已有200多年栽培历史[2]，该树形没有中心干，枝条绑缚在水平网架上生长结果，具有通风透光好、防风、操作管理方便等优点[3]。伍涛等[4]研究丰水梨表明，棚架形果实品质优于疏散分层形而产量低于疏散分层形；蔡忠民等[5]研究黄金梨表明，棚架形对光能利用率高，果实重量均匀，优等果率高于纺锤形。【本研究切入点】有关水平棚架形在库尔勒香梨上的研究至今未见报道。试验以水平棚架形、疏散分层形和自然开心形库尔勒香梨为试材，测定各树形的叶面积指数、枝类与枝量，从单果质量、特级果率、萼片与果顶情况、果实着色、可溶性固形物和总糖含量等方面进行分析，比较不同树形产量与品质的差异。【拟解决的关键问题】通过对比单果质量、脱萼果率、固酸比等主要指标，探讨不同树形外在品质与内在品质的优劣，为库尔勒香梨合理的树形选择提供理论依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 材 料

试验地位于新疆巴音郭楞蒙古族自治州轮台县果树资源圃(41°47′N、84°13′E，海拔962 m)。该地区处于天山南麓，塔里木盆地北缘，地势平缓，属于暖温带大陆性干旱气候，年日照时数约2 608.8 h左右，年均太阳总辐射量可达到577.6 kJ/cm2，全年≥10℃积温为4 362～4 969℃，年平均气温约为11.9℃，最高气温为38℃，最低气温为-17℃，无霜期为219 d。

试验区库尔勒香梨砧木为杜梨，树龄28 a。树势中庸，树体健康，栽培管理条件一致，南北行向定植，株行距为5 m×6 m。选取长势一致，树形端正的水平棚架形、疏散分层形、自然开心形树各3株。

1.2 方 法

1.2.1 冠层结构测定

叶幕稳定期，在日出前，用LAI-2200冠层分析仪对3种树形叶面积指数(LAI)进行测定。落叶后至冬剪前，对3种树形的总枝量和枝类进行统计，并计算各类枝条所占总枝量的比例。将枝类分为4种，短枝：<15.0 cm，中枝：15.1～30.0 cm，长枝：30.1～60 cm，营养枝：>60 cm。

1.2.2 果实产量测定

于2014年9月12日，摘取每株试验树所有果实后准确称出其重量，测得单株产量后根据株行距折合成每亩产量。对每株试验树采下的果实进行分级测定，将果实按大小分为四个等级，特级果：>120 g、一级果：100～120 g、二级果：80～100 g等外果：<80 g，并统计100 g以上的优等果率。将果实萼片状况分为脱萼、宿萼和果顶凸出三种，果实脱萼率%=脱萼果实数量/果实总数量，再依次算出宿萼果、凸顶果所占的百分数，脱萼果%+宿萼果%+凸顶果%=1。最终将统计出的单株果实总个数/单株产量即为平均单果质量。

1.2.3 果实品质测定

每株试验树的树冠东、南、西、北随机共摘取30个果实，以株为单位将果实混合并做好标记，对果实外观品质和内在品质进行测定。果实纵径与横径用电子游标卡尺(0.01 mm)测定，果形指数为纵径与横径之比；果实着色用SC-80C型色差计测定；果实硬度(去皮)用GY-1型水果硬度计测定；可溶性固形物(TSS)含量用WYT-4型手持糖量计测定；总糖含量用斐林法测定；可滴定酸用NaOH滴定法测定；VC含量用2，6-二氯靛酚滴定法测定。

1.3 数据统计

运用Excel 2010对试验数据进行数据处理，采用SPSS 20.0 软件进行方差分析。

2 结果与分析

2.1 不同树形的基本特征

研究表明，3种树形间树高的差异均达到了极显著水平(P<0.01)，其排序从高到低为疏散分层形>自然开心形>水平棚架形。各树形间主干直径、主干高和冠幅均无显著差异，自然开心形主干直径略小于其它两种树形。表1

2.2 不同树形冠层结构差异

研究表明，3种树形冠层结构差异较大。各树形间LAI的差异达到了极显著水平(P<0.01)，其大小排序为水平棚架形>疏散分层形>自然开心形。水平棚架形短枝占总枝量比例最高，但其短枝数、中枝数、长枝数、营养枝数及营养枝占总枝量比例均最低。疏散分层形总枝量最高，与水平棚架形和自然开心形相比，分别高出25.4%、13.8%，而水平棚架形总枝量最低。表2

表1 库尔勒香梨3种树形的基本特征
Table 1 Basic characteristics of three tree shapes in Korla fragrant pear

树形Treeshapes树高(m)Treehigh主干直径(cm)Trunkdiameter主干高(m)Trunkhigh冠幅Crowndiameter(m)东-西(E-W)南-北(S-N)水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape2.4cC40.1aA0.48aA6.7aA6.5aA疏散分层形Evacuationshape5.4aA40.0aA0.52aA7.2aA6.4aA自然开心形Naturalopencentershape3.8bB36.5aA0.45aA6.6aA6.5aA

注：同一列中不同大写字母表示差异极显著(P<0.01)，不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)，下同

Note : Different letter indicated the significant differences, capital letter 1% level, small letter 5% level. The same as below

表2 库尔勒香梨3种树形叶面积指数和枝量
Table 2 The leaf area index and branch numbers of three tree shapes in Korla fragrant pear

树形Treeshapes叶面积指数Leafareaindex枝量(条)及其占总枝量的比例Branchnumbersandtheproportionofthemountoftotalbranchnumbers短枝Shortbranches中枝Mediumbranches长枝Longbranches营养枝Vegetativebranches总枝量(104条/667m2)Totalbranches水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape4.2aA430(38.6%)336(30.1%)296(26.5%)51(4.6%)37.1aB疏散分层形Evacuationshape3.9aA503(36.0%)406(29.0%)375(26.8%)113(8.1%)46.6bA自然开心形Naturalopencentershape2.8bB449(36.6%)368(30.0%)324(26.4%)86(7.0%)40.9aAB

2.3 不同树形果实产量差异

研究表明，3种树形单果质量和单株产量大小排序为水平棚架形>自然开心形>疏散分层形，其中，水平棚架形单果质量与其它树形的差异达到显著水平(P<0.05)，而各树形间单株产量差异不显著。水平棚架形特级果率最高，其次是自然开心形。水平棚架形特级果率与其它树形的差异达到极显著水平(P<0.01)，其优等果率与其它树形的差异达到显著水平(P<0.05)。水平棚架形特级果率和优等果率与疏散分层形相比，分别提高了18.5%、14.8%，自然开心形优等果率略大于疏散分层形。表3

表3 库尔勒香梨3种树形的果实产量
Table 3 Yield of three tree shapes in Korla fragrant pear

树形Treeshapes单果质量(g)Meanfruitmass单株产量(kg)Yieldperplant单产(kg/667m2)Muyield特级果率(%)Specialgradefruitrate一级果率(%)Firstgradefruitrate优等果率(%)Highqualityfruitrate水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape112.5aA148.4aA3264.1aA41.0aA42.4abA83.4aA疏散分层形Evacuationshape109.5bB131.6aA2894.8aA34.6bB39.4bA74.0bA自然开心形Naturalopencentershape109.7bB147.7aA3248.5aA31.8bB45.5aA77.3bA

2.4 不同树形果实外观品质差异

研究表明，3种树形间脱萼果率、宿萼果率、凸顶果率差异均达到了极显著水平(P<0.01)，水平棚架形脱萼果率最高，但其凸顶果率最低。水平棚架形和自然开心形的脱萼果率与疏散分层形相比，分别提高了41.6%、23.3%。水平棚架形果形指数、L值、b值与其它树形的差异均达到极显著水平(P<0.01)，而疏散分层形与自然开心形果形指数、L值、b值差异不显著。水平棚架形L值、b值最大，而其a值最小，自然开心形a值最大。表4

表4 库尔勒香梨3种树形果实外观品质
Table 4 Appearance quality of three tree shapes in Koral fragrant pear

树形Treeshapes果形指数Fruitshapeindex萼片与果顶情况(%)Sepalandfruittopstatus果实着色Fruitcoloring脱萼果率Leavingcalyxrate宿萼果率Persistentcalyxrate凸顶果率ConvexcalyxrateLaB水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape1.15bB74.26aA23.62cC2.12cC63.77aA-8.86bB43.50aA疏散分层形Evacuationshape1.21aA52.21cC35.59aA10.20aA61.83bB-8.43bAB41.26bB自然开心形Naturalopencentershape1.22aA64.40bB28.92Bb6.67bB61.24bB-6.43aA41.20bB

2.5 不同树形果实内在品质差异

研究表明，水平棚架形和自然开心形的可滴定酸和VC存在显著差异(P<0.05)，其可滴定酸和VC均高于自然开心形，但它们其余指标的差异均不显著。除疏散分层形的TSS和固酸与其它树形差异不显著外，其余各指标的差异均达到了极显著水平(P<0.01)。自然开心形TTS、总糖、固酸比、糖酸比均最高，而硬度、可滴定酸最低。表5

表5 库尔勒香梨3种树形的内在品质
Table 5 Internal quality of three shapes fruit in Koral fragrant pear

树形Treeshapes硬度(kg/cm2)Firmness可溶性固形物(%)Solublesolids总糖(mg/100g)Totalsugar可滴定酸(%)TitratableacidityVC(mg/100g)固酸比Solids-acidratio糖酸比Sugar-acidratio水平棚架形Leveltrellisshape7.29bA12.41Aa5.72aA0.406aAB4.33aA30.50aA14.11aA疏散分层形Evacuationshape7.45aA12.32aA5.19bB0.417aA3.62cC29.66aA12.53bB自然开心形Naturalopencentershape7.21bA12.43aA5.74aA0.396bB4.22bB31.41aA14.53aA

3 讨 论

树形决定冠层的形状，而冠层的形状决定冠层的枝叶量与树冠的通风透光，因此合理的树形结构是果树优质丰产的基础[1]。试验结果表明，库尔勒香梨3种树形中，水平棚架形LAI最高，疏散分层形次之，这与树形结构及枝叶的空间分布密切相关。水平棚架形虽没有中心干且总枝量最低，但其枝条绑缚在水平的架面上，枝叶几乎铺满了整个架面，因此其LAI最高；疏散分层形树体高大，总枝量最高且空间分布较为密集，所以其LAI也较高；自然开心形也没有中心干，枝叶空间分布较疏散分层形稀疏，因此其LAI最低。

3种树形单果质量与平均单株产量存在差异，其大小为排序水平棚架形>自然开心形>疏散分层形，水平棚架形和自然开心形与疏散分层形相比，产量有所提高，这与魏树伟等[6]的研究结果一致，但与伍涛等[4]的研究结果相反。特级果和一级果是影响香梨商品价值的重要因素之一，试验发现，各树形间特级果率和一级果率存在差异，自然开心形优等果率略大于疏散分层形，水平棚架形特级果率和优等果率与疏散分层形相比，分别提高了18.5%、14.8%，这与水平棚架形树形结构、冠内光分布及树体营养状况有密切关系[7]。

库尔勒香梨果实萼片状况分为三种:萼片脱落，简称“脱萼”，萼片宿存，简称“宿萼”，顶部及萼片凸出，简称“凸顶”。宿萼果俗称母梨，果实表面较为光滑，石细胞含量较少，肉质细腻，口感较好；而凸顶果俗称“公梨”，果实一般石细胞含量较高，口感较差[8]，因此，提高果实的脱萼果率、减少凸顶果率有利于提高香梨的商品价值。在花期使用植物生长调节剂可改变香梨花萼的生长情况，刚明慧等[9]研究表明，花期喷施多效唑、激动素和乙烯利可以提高库尔勒香梨的脱萼果率。丁家鸣等[10]研究表明，在花期夜间对香梨进行一定的低温处理能提高脱萼果率。试验表明，库尔勒香梨不同树形脱萼果率和凸顶果率有很大差异，3种树形脱萼果率大小排序为水平棚架形>自然开心形>疏散分层形，而其凸顶果率大小正好相反。水平棚架形和自然开心形的脱萼果率与疏散分层形相比，分别提高了41.6%、23.3%。这可能由于水平棚架形去除中心干且枝条绑缚在水平的架面上，抑制了新梢过旺生长，树体受光、营养状况比较均衡，果实萼片易脱落；而自然开心形也是去除中心干，冠内通风透光、树体营养优于疏散分层形。

L值表示果实表面颜色深浅，L值越大，表示颜色越浅，果实表面越有光泽；a值表示红绿的程度，a值为“+”表示红的程度，a值为“-”表示绿色；b值表示黄青的程度，b值为“+”表示黄的程度，b值为“-”表示青的程度[11]。试验表明，水平棚架形L值、b值最大，而其a值最小，说明水平棚架形果实表面比较有光泽、但红晕较少；自然开心形a值最大，说明果面红晕较多。不同树形间内在品质存在差异，自然开心形内在品质明显优于疏散分层形，这与李国栋[12]等对苹果、何凤梨[13]对桃、成小龙[14]对库尔勒香梨的研究结果一致，而水平棚架形与自然开心形果实内在品质差异不大。

4 结 论

库尔勒香梨3种树形中，水平棚架形LAI最大，疏散分层形次之。3种树形总枝量差异较大，疏散分层形的总枝量最高，与水平棚架形和自然开心形相比，分别高出25.4%、13.8%。不同树形的产量存在差异，水平棚架形产量比疏散分层形高12.8%。水平棚架形优等果率和脱萼果率明显高于其它两种树形，与疏散分层形相比，分别高出18.5%、14.8%。水平棚架形和自然开心形果实内在品质较优且差异较小，而疏散分层形内在品质较差。

References)

[1]王琰,范崇辉,江道伟,等.苹果不同树形树冠特性和果实品质的比较[J].西北农业学报,2011,20(12):93-97.

WANG Yan,FAN Chong-hui,JIANG Dao-wei,et al.(2011).Comparison on crown characteristics and fruit quality of different tree canopy shapes[J].ActaAgriculturaeBoreali-occidentalisSinica, 20(12):93-97.(in Chinese)

[2]伍涛,张绍铃,吴俊.梨树棚架栽培的优势及其在我国的应用前景[J].中国果业信息,2013,30(6):28-30.

WU Tao,ZHANG Shao-ling,WU Jun. (2013).The advantage of trellis cultivation in pear and its application prospect in China [J].ChinaFruitNews, 30(6):28-30.(in Chinese)

[3]魏树伟,王玮,王少敏.梨棚架栽培现状及展望[J].湖北农业科学,2011,50(7):1 394-1 396.

WEI Shu-wei,WANG Wei,WANG Shao-min.(2011).Current situation and prospect of trellis cultivation and prune of pear [J].HubeiagriculturalScience, 50(7):1,394-1,396.(in Chinese)

[4]伍涛,张绍铃,吴俊,等.'丰水'梨棚架与疏散分层冠层结构特点及产量品质的比较[J].园艺学报,2008,35(10):1 411-1 418.

WU Tao,ZHANG Shao-ling,WU Jun,et al.(2008).Comparative studies on canopy structure characteristics yield and fruit quality in horizontal trellis system and delayed-open central leader system of` 'Hosui' pear tree [J].ActaHorticulturaeSinica, 35(10):1,411-1,418. (in Chinese)

[5]蔡忠民.黄金梨棚架栽培及其光合作用变化规律研究[D]. 呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学硕士论文,2009.

CAI Zhong-ming.(2009).Studyonthecultivationandrelationshipbetweenthecultivationandphotosynthesisinleavesoftrellistrained'Whangkeumbae' [D].Master Dissertation. Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot.(in Chinese)

[6]魏树伟,李喆,刘斌,等.不同树形丰水梨的生长和果实品质调查[J].落叶果树,2012,44(5):15-17.

WEI Shu-wei,LI Zhe,LIU Bin,et al.(2012).Investigation on the growth of Fengshui pear and fruit quality in different tree shapes [J].DeciduousFruits, 44(5):15-17.(in Chinese)

[7]成永东,姚忠明,黄希贤,等.梨棚架栽培的优点和栽培技术[J].落叶果树,2002,34(5):48-50.

CHENG Yong-dong,YAO Zhong-ming,HUANG Xi-xian,et al.(2002).The advantages and cultivation techniques of pear trellis cultivation system [J].DeciduousFruits, 34(5):48-50.(in Chinese)

[8]何子顺,张虎平,阿衣木古丽·乌布力.梨果实的"公梨"与"母梨"分析[J].中国农学通报,2013,29(22):216-220.

HE Zi-shun,ZHANG Hu-ping,Ayimuguli Wubuli.(2013).Study on 'Male pear' and 'Female pear' of pear fruit [J].ChineseAgriculturalScienceBulletin, 29(22),216-220.(in Chinese)

[9]刚明慧,齐曼·尤努斯,覃伟铭,等.不同植物生长调节剂对库尔勒香梨坐果率、脱萼果率、果实形态及叶绿素含量的影响[J].新疆农业大学学报,2009,32(6):26-30.

GANG Ming-hui,Qiman Yunus,QIN Wei-ming,et al.(2009).Effect of different plant growth regulator on set fruit rate,calyx dropping fruit rate, fruit shape and chlorophyllcontents of Korla fragrant pear[J].JournalofXinjiangAgriculturalUniversity, 32(6):26-30.(in Chinese)

[10]丁家鸣,邵扬,崔顺利,等.花期低温处理对库尔勒香梨脱萼果率及果实品质的影响[J].新疆农业大学学报,2015,38(2):99-104.

DING Jia-ming,SHAO Yang,CUI Shun-li,et al.(2015).Effects of low temperature treatment on abscisic calyx fruit fate and fruit quality of Korla fragrant pear [J].JournalofXinjiangAgriculturalUniversity, 38(2):99-104.(in Chinese)

[11]张学英,张上隆,叶正文,等.不同颜色果袋对李果实着色及花色素苷合成的影响因素分析[J].果树学报,2007,24(5):605-610.

ZHANG Xue-ying,ZHANG Shang-long,YE Zheng-wen,et al.(2007).Influences of bagging on pigmentation development of plum and analysis of factors related with anthocyanin synthesis[J].JournalofFruitScience, 24(5):605-610.(in Chinese)

[12]李国栋,张军科,苏渤海,等.富士苹果3种树形的树冠生态因子比较研究[J].西北林学院学报,2008,23(1):121-125.

LI Guo-dong,ZHANG Jun-ke,SU Bo-hai,et al.(2008).Comparative study of the ecological factors in different tree canopy shapes for 'Fuji' apple [J].JournalofNorthwestForestryUniversity, 23(1):121-125.(in Chinese)

[13]何凤梨.桃开心形冠层微气候与果实产量品质关系的研究[D].杨凌：西北农林科技大学,2007.

HE Feng-li.(2007).Relationshipbetweenmicroclimateincanopyandyieldandqualityofpeachfruit[D].Master Dissertation. Northwest A & F University, Yangling.(in Chinese)

[14]成小龙,廖康,赵世荣,等.库尔勒香梨两种树形冠层内果实产量与品质差异性分析[J].新疆农业科学,2013,50(5):894-899.

CHENG Xiao-long,LIAO Kang,ZHAO Shi-rong,et al.(2013).Analysis of the differences of the fruit yield and quality of two varieties of Korla fragrant pear under crown canopy [J].XinjiangAgriculturalSciences, 50(5):894-899.(in Chinese)

Fund project:National scientific research project " The key technology research and demonstration of special forest fruit in Xinjiang"(201304701); The key discipline foundation for pomology in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Xinjiang; National science and technology infrastructure platform project "National special fruit tree germplasm resources platform (Luntai) " ( NICGR2015-060)

Comparison between Canopy Structure, Yield and Fruit Quality of Three Tree Shapes of Korla Fragrant Pear

JIANG Zhen-bin1，LIAO Kang1，ZHAO Shi-rong1，DA Meng-xiang1，XU Gui-xiang1，ZHANG Shi-kui2，XU Le2

(1.ResearchCenterofFeaturedFruitTrees，XinjiangAgriculturalUniversity，Urumqi830052，China；2.LuntaiNationalFruitGermplasmResourcesGardeninXinjiang,LuntaiXinjiang841600,China)

【Objective】 In order to provide a theoretical basis for the evaluation and selection of tree shapes of Korla fragrant pear, the difference of canopy structure, yield and fruit quality of three tree shapes were compared.【Method】Using LAI-2200 canopy analyzer to determine the canopy structure, yield and fruit quality of level trellis shape, evacuation shape and natural open center shape and comparing the difference among them.【Result】The leaf area index of level trellis shape was the highest in Korla fragrant pear. The total branch number of evacuation shape was the highest, which was 25.4% and 13.8% higher respectively than that of level trellis shape and natural open center shape, but the branch numbers of level trellis shape was the lowest. There were some differences in yield of different tree shapes; the order from high to low of mean fruit mass and yield per plant of three tree shapes was level trellis shape, natural open center shape and evacuation shape. The special fruit rate of level trellis shape was the highest, which was 18.5% higher than evacuation shape. The difference in leaving calyx rate and persistent calyx rate among three tree shapes was extremely significant (P>0.01), and the leaving calyx rate of level trellis shape was the highest. Compared with evacuation shape, the leaving calyx rate of natural open center shape and level trellis shape were increased by 41.6% and 23.3% respectively. TheLvalue andbvalue of level trellis shape were the largest, while theavalue was the smallest, but theavalue of natural open center shape was the largest. There were significant difference in titra
Table acidity and vitamin C of level trellis shape and natural open center shape, the titra
Table acidity and vitamin C of level trellis shape were higher than that of natural open center shape. The total soluble solid, total sugar, solids-acid ratio and sugar-acid ratio of natural open center shape were all the highest, while the firmness and titra
Table acidity of which were the lowest.【Conclusion】Among three tree shape of Korla fragrant pear, the leaf area index of level trellis shape was the highest, and that of evacuation shape took second place. There were large differences in the total branch numbers of different tree shapes, and those of evacuation shape was the highest. The total branch numbers of evacuation shape was 25.4% and 13.8% higher than those of level trellis shape and natural open center shape respectively. Also, there were some differences in yield among different tree shapes. The yield of level trellis shape, which was 12.8% higher than that of evacuation shape, was the highest. In addition, the high grade fruit rate and leaving calyx rate of level trellis shape were obviously higher than those of other two tree shapes, which were 18.5% and 14.8% higher than those of evacuation shape. The internal quality of natural open center shape and level trellis was better, which that of evacuation shape was worse.

Korla fragrant pear; canopy structure; yield; quality

10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2016.10.007

2016-04-06

国家公益性行业科研专项“新疆特色林果提质增效关键技术研究与示范”(201304701)；新疆维吾尔自治区果树重点学科基金；国家科技基础条件平台项目子课题“国家特色果树砧木种质资源平台(轮台)”(NICGR2015-060)

江振斌(1989-)，男，新疆焉耆人，硕士研究生，研究方向为果树种质资源，(E-mail)276997415@qq.com

廖康(1962-)，男，四川梓橦人，教授，博士生导师，研究方向为果树资源与栽培生理，(E-mail)liaokang01@163.com

S661.2

A

1001-4330(2016)10-1816-07