|Table of Contents|

Comparison of Tree Structure and Leaf Photosynthetic and Chlorophyll Fluorescence Parameters of Different Tree Shapes of Peach

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2023年14
Page:
30-35
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Comparison of Tree Structure and Leaf Photosynthetic and Chlorophyll Fluorescence Parameters of Different Tree Shapes of Peach
Author(s):
LI GuixiangNIE PeixianGAO XiaolanLI MiaoGONG QingtaoZHANG Anning
(Shandong Institute of Pomology,Tai′an,Shandong 271000)
Keywords:
peachtree shapephotosynthesischlorophyll fluorescence
PACS:
-
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20224137
Abstract:
Taking ‘LT1’ of Feicheng peach as the test material,the canopy structure,photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of three tree shapes,main trunk shape,Y shape and four main branches open heart shape were studied,in order to provide reference for the selection of peach tree shape from the perspective of photosynthetic physiology.The results showed that there were no significant differences in leaf area index (LAI),scattered radiation transmittance (TCDP),direct radiation transmittance (TCRP) and leaf distribution density (LD) among the three tree shapes.The average leaf inclination angle (MLA) and canopy extinction coefficient (K) of the main tree shape were significantly lower than those of the Y-shape and four main branches open heart shape.The net photosynthetic rate (Pn) of the main trunk shape was significantly higher than that of the Yshape and four main branches open heart shape.The Pn values of the different tree shapes at different heights showed the same changes,which were the upper layer (3.0 m)>the middle layer (2.0 m)>the lower layer (0.7 m).The actual photochemical efficiency φPSⅡ (main trunk shape)>φPSⅡ (Y-shape)>φPSⅡ (four main branches open heart shape),the maximum photochemical efficiency Fv/Fm (four main branches open heart shape)>Fv/Fm (Y-shape)>Fv/Fm (main trunk shape),the chemical quenching coefficient qP (main trunk shape)>qP (Y-shape)>qP (four main branches open heart shape),non-photochemical quenching coefficient NPQ (Y-shape)>NPQ (four main branches open heart shape)>NPQ (main trunk shape).In conculsion,by comparing the canopy structure,photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of the three tree shapes,the main branch shape is better than the Y shape and the four main branches open heart shape.

References:

[1]汪祖华,庄恩及.中国果树志:桃卷[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2001.[2]王力荣.我国桃产业现状与发展建议[J].中国果树,2021(10):1-5.[3]MINAS I S,TANOU G,MOLASSIOTIS A.Environmental and orchard bases of peach fruit quality[J].Scientia Horticulturae,2018,235:307-322.[4]ANTHONY B M,MINAS I S.Optimizing peach tree canopy architecture for efficient light use,increased productivity and improved fruit quality[J].Agronomy,2021,11(10):1961.[5]张抗萍,李荣飞,常耀栋,等.果树树形的形成机制与调控技术研究进展[J].果树学报,2017,34(4):495-506.[6]刘丽,李秋利,高登涛,等.树形对桃树生长,产量和品质的影响[J].果树学报,2022,39(1):36-46.[7]陈双建,赵雪辉,成继东,等.桃树树形研究进展[J].落叶果树,2019,51(1):34-36.[8]冯孝严,孙乃波,王宝申.桃树的主要树形与整形修剪技术[J].北方果树,2018(6):26-27,29.[9]聂佩显,薛晓敏,王来平,等.‘红富士’苹果郁闭园间伐处理对果园结构、光能利用以及产量品质的影响[J].果树学报,2019,36(4):438-446.[10]薛晓敏,韩雪平,王来平,等.苯嗪草酮对苹果坐果和光合生物学特征的影响[J].应用生态学报,2021,32(2):557-563.[11]牛茹萱,赵秀梅,王晨冰,等.桃不同树形的冠层特征及对果实产量、品质的影响[J].果树学报,2019,36(12):1667-1674.[12]李永红,王召元,常瑞丰,等.桃树主干形和开心形冠层结构特征与果实质地关系的研究[J].江西农业学报,2017,29(3):66-69,79.[13]王秋晓,韩明玉,赵彩平,等.桃不同树形光合特性的研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2009,37(4):145-150.[14]黄国嫣,唐宗福,彭雅婷,等.不同树形对‘丽江雪桃’光合作用强度及果实品质的影响[J].天津农业科学,2015,21(4):103-106.[15]李福瑞.桃不同树形光合特性、光合产物分配与激素含量差异分析[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2017.[16]张晶楠3种苹果树形的冠层结构与果实品质的相关性研究[D].泰安:山东农业大学,2010.[17]王文军.灰枣不同树形的冠层特性、光合特性与果实产量及品质关系的研究[D].阿拉尔:塔里木大学,2019.[18]〖JP2〗郭素娟,熊欢,李广会,等.树体结构对板栗冠层光辐射与光合特征及产量的影响[J].东北林业大学学报,2014,42(1):14-18.[19]李曼,王丽红,周青.双酚A对番茄和生菜幼苗叶绿素荧光参数的影响[J].农业环境科学学报,2014,33(6):1089-1094.[20]〖JP2〗张娅,施树倩,李亚萍,等.不同盐胁迫下小麦叶片渗透性调节和叶绿素荧光特性[J].应用生态学报,2021,32(12):4381-4390.[21]王文军,陈奇凌,郑强卿,等.不同树形对灰枣叶片光合及叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J].新疆农业科学,2021,58(4):616-624.[22]安佰义,谷娜,刘晓嘉,等.不同树形对李树冠层结构和光合特性的影响[J].北方园艺,2019(3):29-35.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2023-08-29