PDF(2749 KB)
河南20个鲜食枣品种的果实品质评价
智照坤, 张蒙蒙, 陈卓, 郭燕萌, 刘艺腾, 岳华峰, 李芳东, 朱高浦, 张树林
南京林业大学学报(自然科学版) ›› 2026, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (2) : 57-66.
PDF(2749 KB)
PDF(2749 KB)
河南20个鲜食枣品种的果实品质评价
Evaluation of the fruit quality in 20 fresh jujube cultivars in Henan Province
【目的】探究不同品种枣种质资源果实品质的差异,为枣优良品种选育与改良及河南地区枣栽培品种的选用提供科学依据。【方法】以河南地区主栽的20个枣品种成熟期果实为试材,采用主成分分析、聚类分析等多元统计分析方法,对8项品质指标进行了分析,并通过qRT-PCR技术检测5个与果实品质性状相关基因的表达量。【结果】不同枣品种果实表型性状差异显著,其中‘十月红’的单果质量最大(16.79 g);‘辣椒枣’的果形指数最高(2.62);‘嵩县大枣’的硬度最高(12.03 N);‘北京笨枣’的可溶性固形物含量最高(质量分数34.95%);‘鸡心红六号’的可滴定酸含量最高(体积分数0.767%)。相关性分析表明,果实硬度与脆度呈显著正相关;可溶性固形物含量与可溶性糖含量呈显著正相关,与单果质量和横径呈显著负相关;单果质量与横径呈显著正相关,果形指数与横径呈显著负相关、与纵径呈显著正相关。相关基因表达量分析表明,果实品质相关基因的表达水平在不同枣品种果实中存在显著差异,如参与糖代谢的基因Zj.jz036789032在‘鸡心枣’中的表达量约为‘北京笨枣’的150倍。【结论】黄淮地区主栽的20个枣品种果实品质相关性状存在显著差异,可将20个枣品种分为3类:高硬度高酸度类、高糖度低酸度类和低单果质量低硬度类,这3类枣品种的果实性状差异显著,具有不同的食用价值和市场前景。
【Objective】This study aims to investigate the differences in fruit quality among different jujube germplasm resources, so as to providing a scientific basis for the breeding and improvement of jujube varieties, and for the selection of cultivated varieties in Henan Province.【Method】Mature fruits of 20 main jujube cultivars in Huang-Huai region were used as experimental materials. Eight quality indicators were analyzed using principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis, and the expression levels of five genes related to fruit quality traits were detected by qRT-PCR.【Result】Significant differences were observed in the phenotypic traits of fruits among the cultivars: ‘Shiyuehong’ had the largest single fruit weight (16.79 g), ‘Lajiaozao’ had the highest fruit shape index (2.62), ‘Songxian Dazao’ had the highest hardness (12.03 N), ‘Beijing Benzao’ had the highest soluble solid content (mass fraction 34.95%), and ‘Jixinhong 6’ had the highest titratable acid content (volume fraction 0.767%). Correlation analysis showed that fruit hardness was significantly positively correlated with brittleness. Soluble solid content was significantly positively correlated with soluble sugar content, but significantly negatively correlated with single fruit weight and transverse diameter. In addition, single fruit weight was significantly positively correlated with transverse diameter, while fruit type index was significantly negatively correlated with transverse diameter and significantly positively correlated with vertical diameter. Gene expression analysis revealed significant differences in the expression levels of quality-related genes among cultivars. For example, the expression level of the sugar metabolism-related gene Zj.jz036789032 in ‘Jixinzao’ was about 150 times higher than that of ‘Beijing Benzao’.【Conclusion】Significant differences were found in the fruit quality traits of the 20 jujube cultivars studied. These cultivars can be divided into three categories: high hardness and high acidity, high sugar and low acidity, and low single fruit weight and low hardness. The fruit characteristics of the three types are significantly different, indicating distinct edible and market values.
枣品种 / 品质性状 / 基因表达 / 相关性分析 / 品质评价 / 河南省
jujube cultivars / quality traits / gene expression / correlation analysis / quality evaluation / Henan Province
| [1] |
宗亦臣. 不同处理对枣果贮藏效果的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2004, 25(10):319-322.
|
| [2] |
吾尔古丽·托合图木, 王振磊, 张川疆, 等. 不同鲜食枣品种果实品质的比较[J]. 塔里木大学学报, 2022, 34(3):47-52.
Wuerguli·Tuohetumu,
|
| [3] |
陶佳淋, 刘新月, 李天宇, 等. 不同成熟度鲜枣果实冰点温度及其影响因素[J]. 经济林研究, 2023, 41(4):191-199+208.
|
| [4] |
周晨城. 中国鲜食枣产业现状调研[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2023.
|
| [5] |
张坚, 赵文华, 陈君石. 营养素度量法——一个新的食物营养评价指标[J]. 营养学报, 2009, 31(1):1-5.
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
徐海泉, 卢士军, 周琳, 等. 以营养当量评价食物营养价值的方法学研究[J]. 营养学报, 2016, 38(4):341-344.
|
| [15] |
周昇昇, 李磊, 张丁, 等. 一种新的食物营养评价指数的初步建立和应用[J]. 营养学报, 2014, 36(1):63-68.
|
| [16] |
杜改改, 李泰山, 刁松锋, 等. 6个杏李品种果实甜酸风味品质分析[J]. 果树学报, 2017, 34(1):41-49.
|
| [17] |
李丹, 胡孟豪, 王连春, 等. 12个鲜食枣品种的综合评价[C]// 中国园艺学会2017年论文摘要集. 昆明: 西南林业大学林学院, 2017:60.
|
| [18] |
艾海提·克然木, 木合塔尔·扎热, 吴正保. ‘灰枣’果实外观品质性状相关性分析[J]. 浙江林业科技, 2023, 43(1):89-93.
|
| [19] |
申才蕊, 林敏娟, 吴翠云, 等. 16株枣实生优株生物学特性比较及其果实品质评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2023, 41(2):171-181.
|
| [20] |
杨磊, 贾平平, 靳娟, 等. 118个枣品种表型性状多样性分析[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2023, 32(1):50-60.
|
| [21] |
赵慧芳, 吴文龙, 黄正金, 等. 34个蓝莓品种果实品质评价[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2023, 32(4):44-53,72.
|
| [22] |
唐海霞, 裴广营, 张琼, 等. 枣果实相关性状QTL定位分析[J]. 园艺学报, 2023, 50(4):754-764.
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
陈红艳, 苑婷婷, 储成群. 微波消解-ICP-OES法测定拐枣中几种矿质元素的含量[J]. 山东化工, 2018, 47(9):63-65.
|
| [26] |
谢勇, 杨银, 徐智虎, 等. 拐枣氨基酸测定及其糖的制备工艺[J]. 铜仁学院学报, 2018, 20(9):24-29.
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
叶文斌, 樊亮, 王昱, 等. 拐枣多糖对环磷酰胺诱导免疫低下小鼠免疫功能的影响[J]. 现代食品科技, 2016, 32(7):26-32.
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
李欢. 枣果实成熟软化的细胞壁物质代谢及其基因表达研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2017.
|
| [32] |
许玲, 魏秀清, 章希娟, 等. 质构仪整果穿刺法评价3个毛叶枣品种果实质地参数[J]. 福建农业学报, 2018, 33(6):621-625.
|
| [33] |
段艳军, 田春娇, 朱英, 等. 不同取汁方法对枣果可溶性固形物含量测定的影响[J]. 中国南方果树, 2022, 51(6):218-220.
|
| [34] |
吴梦嘉. 枣和酸枣有机酸含量差异分析以及关键基因筛选[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2021.
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
吴晗彬, 王志勇, 袁稼营, 等. 新疆4个优质红枣品种果实营养成分评价[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2023, 41(3):416-424,445.
|
| [38] |
孙佩光, 程志号, 孙长君, 等. 16份火龙果种质资源果实营养品质分析[J]. 分子植物育种, 2022, 20(19):6585-6592.
|
| [39] |
李慧, 魏天军. 30个鲜食枣种质果实品质综合评价[J]. 中国果树, 2024(2):68-74.
|
| [40] |
李世鹏, 陈叶, 郭明欣, 等. 86份酸枣种质资源筛选和遗传多样性分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2019, 47(11):51-55.
|
| [41] |
刘秀云, 李慧, 刘志国. 基于SSR标记的255个枣品种亲缘关系和群体遗传结构分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(14):2772-2791.
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |