《2022年The,Distribution,of,Relative,Light,Intensity,in,a,Peach,Tree,Canopy,Affects,Fruit,Yield,and,Texture.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2022年The,Distribution,of,Relative,Light,Intensity,in,a,Peach,Tree,Canopy,Affects,Fruit,Yield,and,Texture.docx（16页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、2022年The,Distribution,of,Relative,Light,Intensity,in,a,Peach,Tree,Canopy,Affects,Fruit,Yield,and,Texture Zhaoyuan WANG Qihang TIAN Yong GUO Ruifeng CHANG Guojian LIU Hu CHEN Yonghong LI Abstract Light is crucial to the uniform production of high-quality fruit since it is the driving force for leaf p
2、hotosynthesis and hence overall plant nutrition. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the distribution of relative light intensity in the peach tree canopy and the yield and texture of peach fruits. The canopy of 7-year-old Qiuyan was divided into cubical volumes and
3、the relative light intensity distribution was measured for each cube, along with yield distribution and fruit textural properties at different growing times. The relative light intensity decreased gradually from outside to inside the canopy and from top to bottom. The yield distribution and the rela
4、tive light intensity were clearly correlated. The percentage of the canopy receiving 80% relative light intensity was 32.72%, 17.28%, and 10.96%, respectively. Consistent with this, peaches were found in the upper and middle portions of the canopy, within 1.5-3.0 m of the top. The regression equatio
5、n showed that fruit texture index correlated significantly with relative light intensity. Relative light intensity is the main factor affecting peach yield and texture and must be above 41.83% for good peach quality. Orchardists should carefully plan summer pruning strategies to adjust the number an
6、d spatial distribution of branches accordingly. Key words Canopy; Central leader form; Relative light intensity; Yield; Texture property Received: March 3, 2022 Accepted: May 4, 2022 Supported by China Agriculture Research System ; China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA ; Hebei Province K
7、ey Research and Development Project . Zhaoyuan WANG , male, P. R. China, associate researcher, devoted to research about fruit tree cultivation and breeding. *Corresponding author. The texture of fresh fruits and fruit products is a key quality influencing acceptability to consumers1-3. Taniwaki dev
8、eloped a texture measurement system based on an acoustic vibration technique4. The measurement system is capable of a high sampling rate , and thus enables high-resolution measurement based on the probe speed at 22 mm/s, which is similar to the actual speed of human mastication. The textural propert
9、ies of fruits are important indicators of quality and include hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, and chewiness5-7. Luckett8 reported that the attributes affecting texture are usually highly interrelated. Gao et al.9 noted that hardness, fracture, springiness, and chewiness could be used as the mai
10、n indices to evaluate fruit texture, while parameters such as adhesiveness and cohesiveness are responsible for more subtle textural changes. There have been many attempts to investigate and measure the relationship between fruit texture index and light intensity. Light availability is critical to t
11、he production of quality fruits, since light is the driving force for leaf photosynthesis, which provides energy for fruit development and sugar accumulation and influences fruit yield and the natural life of a tree10. Therefore, improving the light distribution within the tree canopy and the utiliz
12、ation of the available light is expected to improve fruit texture. Wagenmakers11 observed that when the light levels on the lower layer of a canopy reached 35%, the distribution of yield increased gradually from top to bottom and from inside to outside. To date, researchers have focused mainly on co
13、nventional fruit quality index and relative light intensity. It has been reported that the fruit quality in different layers of a canopy clearly varies and that the quality factors are related to light intensity12-13. Xu and Chen14 showed that different canopy positions with different relative light
14、 intensities resulted in significantly different average fruit weight, firmness, soluble solids content, and anthocyanin content. However, little research has examined the distribution of light intensity and its influence on fruit textural attributes, despite the importance of texture to fruit quali
15、ty. Texture analyzer is about the character of force with food texture, and the result is sensitive and objective. Therefore, our aim in this study was to investigate the relationships between fruit textural properties and relative light intensity. Materials and Methods Plant materials and experimen
16、tal site Trials were performed in the Qiuyan peach orchard of Changling, China . The trees were trained to a central leader form and were 7 years old. Tree spacing was 2 m4 m and oriented north-south. The experimental site contained a sandy loam soil and benefited from a good irrigation and manageme
17、nt system. The fruit trees were pruned in the normal manner in winter and summer. Experimental set-up The test was based on a single tree design repeated three times. Each canopy was divided into different layers and positions using 0.5 m0.5 m0.5 m cubes located by bamboo poles according to the meth
18、od of Wei12. Horizontal positions of the canopy were classified as inside , central , and outside . The vertical extent of the canopy was divided into six levels . Relative light intensity The relative light intensity at different levels and positions of the canopy was measured on typical sunny days
19、 during the young fruit period in May, the hard core period in June, and the mature period in July, using a digital illuminometer . Measurements were taken at 8 am, 11 am, 2 pm, and 5 pm. Three sets of readings were obtained, each 25 d apart. The values of relative light intensity at different level
20、s and positions were calculated using average values for the four time points on each day and three days for the first and final period of leaf screen formation. Texture parameters Fruits were picked at the time of commercial maturity , and the numbers within each cube were recorded. After harvest,
21、each fruit was weighed with a centigram balance and its textural properties were measured using a texture profile analyzer , according to the method of Li et al.15. A TA39 probe was employed, and a 7-mm travel distance and a speed of 10 mm/s in the cycle mode were chosen as operating parameters. Tex
22、tural properties were analyzed. Statistical analysis All analyses were carried out in triplicate corresponding to three individual peach fruits, and mean differences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA followed by the post-hoc Tukey HSD test at a significance level of Poutsideinside . Thus, peach fruit p
23、roduction has a definite connection to light intensity. This agrees with the results of Yue on pears 18. Relationships between light intensity and texture We used a texture profile analyzer to determine texture parameters to provide an objective assessment of fruit texture. Different areas and level
24、s within the canopy showed differences in textural properties, including fruit hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, and chewiness. In the horizontal direction, hardness and springiness both decreased in the order insidecentraloutside; and in the vertical direction, these parameters gradually diminis
25、hed from top to bottom, and the hardness of the fruits from the bottom layer of the tree was significantly greater than that of fruits from the upper layer. The cohesiveness and chewiness of the fruits showed an opposite relationship with light intensity, decreasing from outside to inside and from t
26、op to bottom. Thus, desirable fruit texture qualities were positively associated with the relative light intensity . Based on the analysis of these different aspects of fruit texture and the relative light intensity distribution, we found that fruit textural properties have a strong and positive ass
27、ociation with the relative intensity of light under which the fruits develop. Additionally, we found that fruit hardness was positively associated with relative light intensity. This contrasts with the findings of Zhang that the light intensity did not affect fruit firmness, but is consistent with t
28、he report of Wanmi peach19. He that light conditions influence apple fruit color and soluble solid content20. The difference between our results and those of Zhang may have to do with characteristics of varieties and tree species, and the underlying mechanism needs further exploration19. Regression
29、analysis of relationships between light intensity and texture property We used regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between fruit texture parameters and the relative light intensity in May, June, and July. Taking relative light intensity within each cube as the independent variable, we d
30、erived quadratic polynomial regression equations to relate fruit textural properties and relative light intensity . The regression equations for hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, and chewiness as functions of relative light intensity in May, June, and July are listed in Table 3. We verified the r
31、eliability and efficiency of the equations, confirming that these could be used as predictive equations in experimental research. In combination, these equations indicate that the optimal levels of different fruit textural property parameters require different relative light intensities. The relatio
32、nships between fruit textural properties and relative light intensity also vary over time. To determine the best relative light intensity for each peach fruit textural property, we obtained derivatives from the regression equations and set them to zero . The resulting equations would be expected to
33、identify the optimal relative light intensity levels to maximize any one property among those listed. Light timing also appears to contribute differently to different texture properties. For example, the contribution of relative light intensity to fruit cohesiveness and chewiness was significantly h
34、igher in May than in June and July. This suggests that maximizing these properties requires a higher level of accumulated light at the young fruit period than later. By contrast, the effect of relative light intensity on fruit springiness was higher in July than in May and June. This shows that frui
35、t springiness springiness depended on light intensity, not the reverse. Therefore, in the near-mature period, the fruit textural properties could be effectively improved through summer pruning and other technical measures. Our synthetic analysis indicated that, to achieve high yield and optimal text
36、ure, the relative light intensity should be 41.83% at all levels and positions of a Qiuyan peach canopy with a central leader form. This agrees with the results of He on peaches and Wei on apples, though the recommended minimum relative light intensity is slightly higher12, 20. The lowest relative l
37、ight intensity for peach fruits seems to be higher than that for apples, and the lowest relative light intensity for the central leader form of peach is higher than that for the open central form, suggesting that peaches benefit more than apples from high light intensity. Conclusions We show that th
38、e distribution of relative light intensity in the peach canopy affects peach fruit yield. Fruits were distributed in the upper and middle parts of the canopy, within 1.5-3.0 m of the top. Fruit textural properties correlated with relative light intensities in the canopy and gradually worsen from the
39、 upper to the lower levels and from the outer to the inner layers of the canopy. Through analysis of the ratio of different relative light intensity at different periods of fruit growth and development in canopy volume, we found that the leaf curtain formed in May resulted in a high proportion of th
40、e canopy having a relative light intensity of 30%. Therefore, further trimming is advisable as the canopy grows. Regression equations for the relationships between relative light intensity distribution and fruit textural properties showed that the hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, and chewiness o
41、f individual fruits were positively correlated with the relative light intensity in which each fruit was grown. Finally, we showed that high quality peaches at all levels and positions of Qiuyan peaches grown with a central leader form relied on a relative light intensity of above 41.83%. References
42、 1 ZHANG LF, CHEN FS, YANG HS, et al. Changes in firmness, pectin content and nanostructure of two crisp peach cultivars after storageJ. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 2022: 26-32. 2 LABAKYABC P, GROSMAIREB L, RICCIA J, et al. Innovative non-destructive sorting technique for juicy stone fruits: te
43、xtural properties of fresh mangos and pureesJ. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 2022: 188-98. 3 VAN BS, SILA DN, DUVETTER T, et al. Pectins in processed fruits and vegetables: Part III texture engineeringJ. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2022: 105-117. 4 TANIWAKI M, HANADA T,
44、 SAKURAI N. Device for acoustic measurement of food texture using a piezoelectric sensor J. Food Research International, 2022: 1099-105. 5 HARKER FR, REDGWELL RJ, HALLETT IC, et al. Texture of fresh fruitJ. Horticultural Reviews, 1997: 121-124. 6 SZCZESNIAK AS. Texture is a sensory propertyJ. Food Q
45、uality and Preference, 2002: 215-125. 7 PREDIERI S, RAGAZZINI P, RONDELLI R. Sensory evaluation and peach fruit qualityJ. Acta Hortic, 2022: 429-434. 8 CURTIS RL, HAN SS. Consumer attitudes toward texture and other food attributesJ. Journal of Texture Studies, 2022, 46: 46-57. 9 GAO H, JIA Y, WEI J,
46、 et al. Studies on the post-harvested fruit texture changes of Yali and Jingbaili pears by using texture analyzerJ. Acta Hortic.Sin., 2022: 1359-1364. 10 ZHAN L, HU H, PANG L, et al. Light exposure during storage preserving soluble sugar and l-ascorbic acid content of minimally processed romaine let
47、tuce J. Food Chem, 2022: 273-278. 11 WAGENMAKERS PS. Effects of light and temperature on potential apple productionJ. Acta Horticulture, 1996: 191-197. 12 SHU YW, SU SC, MA LY, et al. Effects of canopy microclimate on fruit yield and quality of Camellia oleiferaJ. Scientia Horticulturae, 2022: 132-1
48、41. 13 WEI QP, LU RQ, ZHANG XC, et al. Relationships between distribution of relative light intensity and yield and quality in different tree canopy shapes for Fuji appleJ. Acta Hortic. Sin, 2004: 291-296. 14 XU SL, CHEN XQ. Light distribution and setting fruit position on quality of Xiang pear trees trained in hedgerowJ. Shanxi Fruits, 2004: 3-5. 15 LI YH， WANG ZY，CHANG RF, et al. Characteristics of canopy structure and its relationship with fruit t