不同类型果袋对霞晖10号桃果实品质的影响

张斌斌1,杜金华1,2,陈 鸿1,2,王晓俊1,张圆圆1,陈 政1,丁 辉1,颜志梅1,俞明亮1,马瑞娟1*

1江苏省农业科学院果树研究所·江苏省高效园艺作物遗传改良重点实验室,南京 210014;2南京农业大学园艺学院,南京 210095)

摘 要:【目的】果实套袋是改善果实品质、提高果实商品性的主要技术措施,研究不同类型果袋对霞晖10号桃果实品质的影响,以期筛选出适宜的果袋及其套袋栽培方式,为生产应用提供参考。【方法】以9年生霞晖10号桃为试验材料,以果实不套袋处理作为对照,采用白色单层袋、黄色单层袋、外黄内黑双层袋、外黄内白双层袋、外黑内白可拆袋(采前除袋)、外黑内黄可拆袋(采前除袋)6 种类型果袋进行套袋处理,比较单果质量和果实品质差异,筛选适宜袋型。【结果】不同类型果袋均可显著增加果实的单果质量。黄色单层袋、外黄内白双层袋、外黑内白可拆袋处理可显著提高果实去皮硬度。不同处理果实的亮度值(L)均较对照有所提高,其中外黄内黑双层袋和外黑内黄可拆袋处理效果最显著。不同处理果实的红色饱和度(a)、色饱和度(C)、红色饱和度/黄色饱和度(a/b)均较对照显著降低,而黄色饱和度(b)、色调角(h)则均较对照显著增加。套不透光的外黄内黑双层袋果实的红色色泽比套可拆袋的果实浅,白、黄色单层果袋处理的外观红色优于双层袋;套袋还使果实的鲜艳程度变淡,双层袋处理下果实的鲜艳程度更低。白色单层袋、黄色单层袋、外黑内白可拆袋、外黑内黄可拆袋处理果实的可溶性固形物含量(SSC)显著高于对照,而外黄内黑双层袋、外黄内白双层袋处理下SSC显著降低。使用不同类型果袋套袋,对桃果肉可溶性糖、糖醇和有机酸组分含量影响存在差异。【结论】套袋增加了霞晖10号桃果实质量,改善果实的外观品质,提高或保持果实硬度和味感品质。通过对不同袋型的套袋效果进行比较,发现白色单层袋、黄色单层袋、外黄内白双层袋、外黑内白可拆袋(采前除袋)处理下果实综合品质较高。在中国长江中下游产区,对7月上中旬成熟的桃品种,可根据生产和市场需求,因地制宜选择果袋。

关键词:桃;套袋;外观品质;内在品质

果实套袋能有效防止病虫侵害,避免农药的直接污染,提高果实食用安全性,还可改善外观光洁度,提高商品价值和市场竞争力[1-5]。市场上的果袋可按照作用、颜色、材质和层数等进行分类[6-8]。果树类型、品种类型、果实成熟期和人们的消费习惯等差异决定了生产者对果袋的选择。Liu 等[9]研究发现,白色无纺布聚丙烯果袋处理改善了湖景蜜露和玉露两个成熟期不同、红色果皮发育能力存在强弱差异的桃品种果皮的红色色泽,提高了花青素生物合成基因的表达量,可以用来代替生产上常用的黄色纸袋。Islam 等[10]报道,采用棕色纸袋、白色纸袋、特定波长塑料膜袋、平纹布袋等不同材质的果袋可提高杧果果实的单果质量以及总可溶性固形物、柠檬酸、还原糖和总糖含量。不同材质的果袋显著改善苹果和梨的果皮颜色、硬度,提高总可溶性固形物含量、抗坏血酸含量,促进花青素的合成[11-12]。Asrey 等[13]用不同颜色的果袋对Kandhari 石榴进行套袋试验,发现消费者对红袋处理下果实的接受度最高,但会使部分品质性状如种皮的钙、总酚流失。在果实套袋实践中,应通过对果实的外观品质和内在品质综合评价来进行果袋筛选。

桃果实套袋虽然耗费较多的用工和果袋成本,但面对长江中下游地区夏季高温多湿、病虫害频发、果实着色不良、商品性不高等问题[14-15],其仍然是当前生产中提高果实品质和商品果率的重要技术措施。霞晖10 号是江苏省农业科学院果树研究所育成的白肉桃新品种,果实着色程度高,留树时间较长,在长江中下游地区的成熟期为7月上中旬,为梅雨季结束后即成熟的品种,需要进行套袋栽培。笔者在本研究中选取了生产上常用的6 种果袋对霞晖10 号进行套袋试验,比较果实品质差异,以期筛选出适宜的果袋及其套袋栽培方式,为生产应用提供参考。

1 材料和方法

1.1 试验材料

试验于2023 年进行,试验地点位于江苏省南京市的江苏省农业科学院桃试验园。该试验地处于亚热带季风气候区,年平均气温15.7 ℃,年降水量1000~1100 mm,土壤类型为弱酸性土质,pH 值为6.8。

试材为生长健壮、长势基本一致的9 年生霞晖10 号桃,砧木为毛桃,树形为两主枝“Y”形,株行距2 m × 5 m,按照常规栽培措施进行管理。

1.2 试验设计

供试果袋有6 种,分别为白色单层袋(台果牌)、黄色单层袋(台果牌)、外黄内黑双层袋(台果牌)、外黄内白双层袋(台果牌)、外黑内白可拆袋(双层,山林牌)、外黑内黄可拆袋(双层,MoMo牌)。以果实不套袋作对照。每个处理以2 株树设为1 个小区,3 次重复。5 月上旬进行疏果,使单株间留果量基本一致,5 月下旬选择晴朗无风天气喷施一次杀虫杀菌剂后,选取大小、发育相对一致的正常果实进行套袋。根据霞晖10 号果实发育期和天气情况,在6 月30 日的16:00 后,将套外黑内白、外黑内黄可拆袋的果实外层黑袋轻轻拽下,内层果袋保留在果实上,使果实照光上色。待果皮底色由绿色转为黄白色、果实达到可采成熟度时采收果实。每株树每处理按东、西、南、北4 个方位随机采取果实,混匀,迅速带回实验室。所采用的果袋不同,果实的成熟时间也不一致,外黄内黑双层袋、外黑内白可拆袋、外黑内黄可拆袋处理的果实于7 月6 日采收,套白色单层袋、黄色单层袋、外黄内白双层袋的果实于7 月7 日采收。每处理随机选取20个果实,用于相关指标的测定分析,3 次重复。检测指标为单果质量、果皮色差、果实硬度、果肉可溶性固形物含量及糖酸组分含量。

1.3 试验方法

单果质量采用0.1 g 感量的电子天平称重。果皮色差采用ColorQuest XE 色差计、Hunter Lab 表色系统测定,分别以Lab 代表果皮亮度值、红色饱和度和黄色饱和度,色饱和度C=(a2+b21/2,色调角h=arctan(b/a[16-17]。果实硬度(带皮、去皮硬度)用TA. XT. Plus 型质构仪测定,测定部位为果实缝合线两侧中部位置,质构仪使用的探头直径为8 mm,测试深度为5 mm,贯入速度为1 mm·s-1[18]。果肉可溶性固形物含量用ATAGO 便携数显折光仪PAL-1在20 ℃下测定,测定部位为果实缝合线两侧中部位置。前述指标测定完成之后,削去果皮,将果肉剁碎,参照Zhang 等[18]的方法提取果肉中的可溶性糖(蔗糖、葡萄糖和果糖)、糖醇(山梨醇)和有机酸(苹果酸、奎尼酸和柠檬酸),用Agilent 1260 高效液相色谱仪测定各组分的含量。

1.4 数据分析

对单项指标进行主成分分析,将原来的单项指标转换为新的独立的综合指标(主成分)。综合指标的隶属函数值用公式UXi)=(XiXmin)/(XmaxXmin)计算,式中Xi为第i 个综合指标,UXi)为第i 个综合指标的隶属函数值,XmaxXmin分别表示第i 个综合指标的最大值和最小值。以各综合指标的平均隶属函数值作为综合评价值(D 值)。

采用Excel 软件进行数据处理及制图,采用SPSS 软件进行差异显著性分析,所有数据以邓肯氏新复极差法进行测验。

2 结果与分析

2.1 不同类型果袋处理下桃果实的外观性状

图1显示了不同袋型处理下霞晖10号的果实外观情况。不同类型果袋处理下,果实外观着色差别较大,这与果袋颜色、层数、采前除袋与否关系密切。

图1 不同袋型处理下霞晖10 号桃成熟期果实外观
Fig. 1 Fruit appearance under different types of fruit bags of Xiahui 10 peach

2.2 不同类型果袋对桃单果质量的影响

由图2 可见,套袋处理的霞晖10 号果实单果质量均显著大于对照,其中以黄色单层袋、外黄内白双层袋、外黑内白可拆袋及外黑内黄可拆袋处理表现最好,其次是白色单层袋、外黄内黑双层袋处理。表明果实套袋可使霞晖10号单果质量增大。

图2 套袋对霞晖10 号桃单果质量的影响
Fig. 2 Effect of bagging on single fruit mass of Xiahui 10 peach

2.3 不同类型果袋对桃果实硬度的影响

从图3 可以看出,外黄内黑双层袋、外黑内黄可拆袋处理的霞晖10 号果实带皮硬度差异不显著,且均显著低于对照,其他处理则均显著高于对照,以黄色单层袋、外黑内白可拆袋处理表现最好,其次是外黄内白双层袋处理。对于果实去皮硬度而言,白色单层袋、外黄内白双层袋、外黑内黄可拆袋处理的果实与对照差异不显著,其他处理间差异不显著但均显著高于对照。表明套袋可提高或保持霞晖10 号的果肉硬度,对果实的贮运有利。

图3 套袋对霞晖10 号桃果实硬度的影响
Fig. 3 Effect of bagging on fruit firmness of Xiahui 10 peach

2.4 不同类型果袋对桃果皮色差的影响

不同套袋处理下霞晖10 号果皮的外观色差指标差异见表1。各套袋处理果实的L 均显著高于对照,不同处理间表现为外黄内黑双层袋、外黑内黄可拆袋>外黑内白可拆袋>外黄内白双层袋>黄色单层袋>白色单层袋(p<0.05),表明在提高霞晖10 号果实光洁度方面,双层果袋的效果优于单层果袋。试验所有处理果实的aa/b 排序均为对照>白色单层袋>黄色单层袋>外黄内白双层袋>外黑内白可拆袋>外黑内黄可拆袋>外黄内黑双层袋(p<0.05),各处理果实的h 排序与以上排序相反,各处理间的差异也达显著水平(p<0.05)。表明套袋处理使霞晖10 号果实的外观红色变浅,套不透光的外黄内黑双层袋条件下果实红色色泽比套可拆袋的果实浅,白、黄色单层果袋处理的果实红色色泽优于双层袋处理。各套袋处理果实的C均显著低于对照,不同套袋处理表现为白、黄色单层袋>外黄内白双层袋、外黑内白可拆袋>外黄内黑双层袋>外黑内黄可拆袋(p<0.05)。表明套袋降低了霞晖10 号果实的鲜艳程度,双层袋处理下果实的鲜艳程度更低,桃果实外观品质形成与果实的光照程度关系密切。

表1 套袋对霞晖10 号桃果皮色差的影响
Table 1 Effect of bagging on skin color of Xiahui 10 peach

处理 Treatment对照 Control白色单层袋 White-single-layer bag黄色单层袋 Yellow-single-layer bag外黄内黑双层袋 Double-layer bag with yellow outside and black inside外黄内白双层袋 Double-layer bag with yellow outside and white inside外黑内白可拆袋 Removable bag with black outside and white inside外黑内黄可拆袋 Removable bag with black outside and yellow inside L a a/b 1.82 a 1.66 b 1.49 c 0.41 g 1.08 d 0.68 e 0.50 f b C h 43.38 f 48.43 e 53.78 d 68.17 a 60.75 c 66.22 b 67.62 a 28.23 a 26.31 b 25.19 c 9.84 g 20.23 d 14.57 e 10.95 f 15.54 g 16.54 f 17.59 e 24.47 a 19.74 d 23.82 b 22.63 c 32.68 a 31.32 b 31.01 b 26.58 d 28.83 c 28.64 c 25.72 e 28.62 g 33.50 f 36.78 e 69.60 a 47.37 d 62.14 c 66.43 b

2.5 不同类型果袋对桃果肉可溶性固形物含量的影响

由图4 可知,白色单层袋、黄色单层袋、外黑内白可拆袋、外黑内黄可拆袋处理间的霞晖10 号果实可溶性固形物含量(SSC)无显著差异但均显著高于对照,外黄内黑双层袋、外黄内白双层袋处理果实的SSC 均显著低于对照,以外黄内白双层袋处理表现最差。表明霞晖10 号套单层的白、黄果袋或双层可拆袋可提高果实内含物含量,套双层袋不拆袋的情况下,会导致内含物含量降低。

图4 套袋对霞晖10 号桃可溶性固形物含量的影响
Fig. 4 Effect of bagging on soluble solids content of Xiahui 10 peach

2.6 不同类型果袋对桃果肉糖、糖醇及有机酸含量的影响

从表2 可以看出,使用不同类型果袋的霞晖10号果肉可溶性糖、糖醇和有机酸组分含量存在差异。

表2 套袋对霞晖10 号桃果肉糖、糖醇及有机酸含量的影响
Table 2 Effect of bagging on sugar, sugar alcohol and organic acid content of Xiahui 10 peach

处理Treatment对照 Control白色单层袋 White-single-layer bag黄色单层袋 Yellow-single-layer bag外黄内黑双层袋Double-layer bag with yellow outside and black inside外黄内白双层袋Double-layer bag with yellow outside and white inside外黑内白可拆袋Removable bag with black outside and white inside外黑内黄可拆袋Removable bag with black outside and yellow inside w/(mg·g-1)蔗糖Sucrose 64.32 a 58.04 b 59.39 b 54.80 d葡萄糖Glucose 15.52 c 14.99 c 16.12 b 15.66 c果糖Fructose 20.07 b 18.62 c 21.22 b 20.65 b山梨醇Sorbitol 3.27 c 3.01 d 3.99 b 2.87 d苹果酸Malic acid 1.61 a 1.37 b 1.12 c 1.39 b奎尼酸Quinic acid 1.03 b 0.99 c 1.04 b 0.93 d柠檬酸Citric acid 1.31 a 1.15 b 1.05 c 1.03 c 54.28 d 14.41 d 18.00 c 2.70 e 1.58 a 1.01 c 1.38 a 63.14 a 21.51 a 23.89 a 4.67 a 1.37 b 1.09 a 1.18 b 56.68 c 20.27 a 20.49 b 3.57 c 1.10 c 0.97 c 1.06 c

对于蔗糖含量而言,外黑内白可拆袋处理的果实与对照差异不显著,其他处理均显著低于对照,其中以外黄内黑、外黄内白双层袋处理表现最差。白色单层袋、外黄内黑双层袋处理果实的葡萄糖含量与对照无显著差异,外黄内白双层袋处理显著低于对照,而其他处理均显著高于对照,尤以外黑内白、外黑内黄可拆袋处理表现最好。从果糖含量看,白色单层袋、外黄内白双层袋处理显著低于对照,而黄色单层袋、外黄内黑双层袋、外黑内黄可拆袋处理与对照无显著差异,外黑内白可拆袋则显著高于对照。白色单层袋、外黄内黑双层袋、外黄内白双层袋处理果实的山梨醇含量均显著低于对照,以外黄内白双层袋处理最低;外黑内黄可拆袋处理与对照无显著差异;黄色单层袋、外黑内白可拆袋处理均显著高于对照,以外黑内白可拆袋处理表现最好。

对于果实的苹果酸含量而言,外黄内白双层袋处理与对照差异不显著,其他处理均显著低于对照,以黄色单层袋、外黑内黄可拆袋处理表现最差。外黑内白可拆袋处理果实的奎尼酸含量显著高于对照,黄色单层袋处理与对照无显著差异,其他处理则显著低于对照,以外黄内黑双层袋处理表现最差。外黄内白双层袋处理果实的柠檬酸含量与对照无显著性差异,其他处理则显著低于对照,以黄色单层袋、外黄内黑双层袋、外黑内黄可拆袋处理表现最差。

可见,套外黑内白可拆袋且在采前除袋可起到保持蔗糖含量、提升其他糖组分含量的作用;黄色单层袋处理下,蔗糖含量降低,但其他糖组分含量得到保持或提高;除外黄内白双层袋外,多数套袋处理起到了降低果实有机酸组分含量的作用。

2.7 果实品质综合评判

对17 个单项指标进行主成分分析,前4 个主成分(综合指标,Z1Z4)的贡献率分别为44.234 2%、29.864 2%、13.016 4%、8.758 8%,累计贡献率达95.873 7%。表明前4 个综合指标代表了原有17 个指标的95.873 7%的信息,可分别用这4 个综合指标对霞晖10 号桃6 个套袋处理和对照果实的品质进行概括性分析。以所有综合指标的数值为原始依据,进行隶属函数分析,所得隶属函数值见表3。根据综合评价值(D 值),对试验处理的果实综合品质进行排序。发现对照的D 值最大(0.687 7),外黑内白可拆袋、黄色单层袋、外黄内白双层袋、白色单层袋处理的D 值相对较高,外黑内黄可拆袋、外黄内黑双层袋处理的D 值很低。表明套外黑内白可拆袋、黄色单层袋、外黄内白双层袋、白色单层袋的桃果实的综合品质更接近于对照。

表3 不同类型果袋处理下霞晖10 号桃果实品质综合评判
Table 3 Synthetic evaluation of fruit quality of Xiahui 10 peach under different types of fruit bags

处理Treatment对照 Control白色单层袋 White-single-layer bag黄色单层袋 Yellow-single-layer bag外黄内黑双层袋Double-layer bag with yellow outside and black inside外黄内白双层袋Double-layer bag with yellow outside and white inside外黑内白可拆袋Removable bag with black outside and white inside外黑内黄可拆袋Removable bag with black outside and yellow inside权重 Index weight综合指标值 Comprehensive index Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 D 排序No.4.126 8 2.586 8 1.087 8-2.895 9-0.052 7-0.947 1 2.337 4-2.949 3-1.079 6-1.097 8-0.151 9-0.471 9 1.665 1-0.713 5-2.079 6 0.709 8隶属函数值 Subordinate function value U(X1)1.000 0 0.804 4 0.614 0 0.108 0 U(X2)0.413 2 0.285 6 0.754 2 0.000 0 U(X3)0.045 9 0.041 9 0.250 8 0.180 1 U(X4)1.000 0 0.364 8 0.000 0 0.744 9 0.687 7 0.499 1 0.552 3 0.142 3 0.943 8-1.929 3 3.239 5-0.289 3 0.595 7 0.145 5 1.000 0 0.478 1 0.499 6-2.103 3 4.060 2 0.849 2 1.348 5 0.208 7 1.000 0 0.472 0 0.915 5 0.555 5-3.746 0-0.519 2-1.287 4-0.641 0 0.000 0 0.346 7 0.000 0 0.384 2 0.143 1 1 5 3 7 4 2 6 0.461 4 0.311 5 0.135 8 0.091 4

3 讨 论

3.1 不同袋型对桃果实外观品质的影响

套袋时间、果袋颜色、材质以及层数都可能影响果实的外观品质。套袋为果实生长发育营造了一个长期的微域环境。早套袋会影响幼果的细胞分裂进程,降低内源激素含量,使果实膨大受到限制,导致单果质量降低[19-21];而适当晚套袋则可避免内源激素受强光破坏,采前除袋的苹果果实赤霉素、生长素含量迅速增加,促进果实膨大,单果质量增加[22-24]。白世践等[25]在中国西北干旱区比较了不同颜色果袋对新郁葡萄果实品质的影响程度,认为红袋是改善果实着色、提高综合品质的果袋类型。果袋的材质和层数不同,透过光质、透光率、袋内微环境等都不相同,在改善果实品质方面的效果也有差异[9-11]。在本研究中采用单层袋、双层袋及可拆袋型处理下,霞晖10 号桃果实的单果质量均显著增加,推测不同类型果袋内的光照度、光质差异影响了内源激素的代谢,促进了光合同化产物向果实的运输,使果实增大。

果皮色差指标可客观反映果实的着色情况,其数值是果实外观色泽品质的直观体现。套袋增加了袋内微环境的温度和湿度[21],影响转化酶的活性。有研究表明,套袋使油梨果实多酚氧化酶、过氧化物酶活性增强,皮层分泌蜡质、木质素含量增加,提高了果实亮度[26]。本研究结果也表明,套袋处理的霞晖10 号桃果实亮度值均显著增加,双层袋提升果实光洁度的效果更好。果袋起到了对果实进行遮光的效果,导致果皮叶绿素降解基因PpCLH1PpSGR 提前高表达,使叶绿素提前降解,改变果皮底色[27];而依赖于光合成的花色苷在套袋条件下受到抑制[9,28-29],导致果实的外观红色色泽变淡。在本研究中,则表现为果皮的aa/b 降低而bh升高。不同袋型间比较,处于无光条件下的外黄内黑双层袋处理下的霞晖10 号桃果实红色色泽最淡,揭示黑暗条件下果皮花色苷合成困难;白色单层袋处理下果实红色色泽较好,aa/b 较对照降低程度最小,这与白色单层袋具有较高的透光率关系密切。果实成熟期将两种可拆袋型的外层黑袋去除后,果实底部开始照光上色,外黑内白可拆袋果实的红色色泽较外黑内黄可拆袋更深,白色单层袋处理下果实的红色色泽也优于黄色单层袋,这种差异与不同果袋透过的光照度和光质类型有关[30]。推测黑色外袋提供的无光条件使果皮叶绿素含量下降,光敏色素含量显著提高,而套袋果实对光的敏感度较高,较低的光辐射能促进果实着色,从而使拆袋后花色素苷迅速合成[31]。赵淼等[32]发现,短波光比长波光更容易促进草莓色素物质合成,黄光不利于花色苷的积累;而与白色果袋相比,黄色果袋的黄光透过率高,影响果实红色色泽的形成[30-31],与本试验的研究结果一致。

3.2 套袋对桃果实内在品质的影响

研究表明,果实果肉中的光合同化产物(糖、淀粉、山梨醇、有机酸等)主要来自叶片的光合作用[33-34],而果实的果皮中含有叶绿素,它也是一个比较重要的作为“源”的光合器官。叶片和果皮的光合同化产物都能够向果肉输送。前人研究发现,套3 层纸袋对康佛伦斯梨果实的蔗糖和山梨醇含量有负面影响[35],套双层袋的苹果果实的蔗糖、总糖含量明显下降[36-37],套袋血橙果实的可溶性固形物、可滴定酸和抗坏血酸含量降低,与参与分解代谢途径的基因量表达增加有关[38]。在本研究中,套外黄内黑双层袋、外黄内白双层袋的果实的蔗糖、山梨醇、可溶性固形物含量均显著降低,这可能是因为试验采用的两种双层袋透光率低,影响了果皮叶绿素的合成,降低了果皮的光合能力。一方面,果皮通过光合作用产生的光合产物可以输送到果肉;另一方面,果皮的正常生理活动也需要靠叶片制造的光合产物维持,此时,果皮则作为“库”存在于光合产物的运输途径中。双层袋内造成的弱光环境使果肉、果皮两个“库”对叶片制造的光合产物的竞争加剧,使果肉中积累的碳同化物减少,导致总糖、可溶性固形物含量降低[39-40]。还有报道指出,通过选择不同透光率果袋和对拆袋时间进行合理搭配,可缓解套袋对果实内在品质产生的负面影响[41],甚至可提高内含物含量。石莹等[4]用乳白色木浆纸质单层纸袋对椪柑进行套袋研究,发现可溶性固形物、蔗糖、果糖和葡萄糖含量均提高。笔者在本研究中也发现,套白、黄色单层袋果实的可溶性固形物含量均显著提高,采用可拆袋型套袋的果实在采前进行了去袋操作,促进了采前果实内含物的积累,可溶性固形物含量显著提高。而采用外黑内白可拆袋的果实蔗糖、葡萄糖、果糖、山梨醇含量均显著提高,促进了内在品质的提升,这与前人在清见橘橙[42]、红地球葡萄[43]上的研究结果类似。套袋果实的转化酶活性增强,库强提高,果实“库”从叶片中调运同化物的能力上升,同化物积累量增加,从而提高了糖组分、可溶性固形物含量[44]

有机酸对果实风味品质的影响不仅与其组成含量有关,也取决于糖的含量[45]。有研究认为,套袋可在一定程度上阻止酸的降解,甚至有利于酸的积累[4,46]。但多数研究均发现,套袋降低了总酸及其部分组分的含量[47-50]。Liu 等[51]报道,套袋显著抑制了澳洲青苹和金冠两个苹果品种果实大多数糖、苹果酸、柠檬酸等有机酸的合成,去袋后可显著促进糖、酸的积累。在本研究中,套外黑内白可拆袋的霞晖10 号果实的果糖、葡萄糖、山梨醇含量与对照相比显著提高,蔗糖含量变化小,苹果酸、柠檬酸含量下降明显,结合可溶性固形物含量,推测该类型果袋对综合品质的保持最有利,基于17 个指标的综合评判结果也验证了这一点。果实中有机酸的代谢过程极为复杂,苹果酸、奎尼酸、柠檬酸含量的变化受遗传因素、环境条件、树体营养状况等多重因素的调控,套袋降低果实有机酸含量的主要途径有待进一步研究[4]

4 结 论

套袋可增加霞晖10 号桃单果质量,改善外观品质,提高或保持果实硬度、味感品质;单层袋、外黄内白双层袋、外黑内白可拆袋处理下果实综合品质较高。在长江中下游产区,对7 月上中旬成熟的桃品种,可根据生产和市场需求,因地制宜选择果袋。

参考文献 References:

[1] ZHANG B B,MA R J,CAI Z X,YAN J,GUO J Y. Effects of bagging on fruit quality of ‘Ruiguang 47’ nectarine[J]. Acta Horticulturae,2015(1084):613-624.

[2] 樊淼淼,陶茹,张天皓,王辉,王爽,孙鲁龙,高华. 不同果袋对‘瑞雪’苹果果实品质的影响[J]. 果树学报,2020,37(9):1326-1335.FAN Miaomiao,TAO Ru,ZHANG Tianhao,WANG Hui,WANG Shuang,SUN Lulong,GAO Hua. Effect of fruit bagging with different types of bags on fruit quality of ‘Ruixue’ apple[J].Journal of Fruit Science,2020,37(9):1326-1335.

[3] ZHANG B B,WANG N,CHEN X X,WANG X J,ZHANG Y Y,GUO S L,YU M L,MA R J. Effect of fruit debagging before harvest on the accumulation of anthocyanins in peach (Prunus persica L.) fruit based on transcriptome analysis[J]. Scientia Horticulturae,2023,308:111582.

[4] 石莹,陈思怡,曾译可,唐俊,李迪平,李国敬,黄先彪,李春龙,谢宗周,刘继红. 套袋提升椪柑果实品质的作用机制[J]. 中国农业科学,2023,56(14):2776-2786.SHI Ying,CHEN Siyi,ZENG Yike,TANG Jun,LI Diping,LI Guojing,HUANG Xianbiao,LI Chunlong,XIE Zongzhou,LIU Jihong. Mechanism underlying the improved quality of bagged fruits in ponkan[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica,2023,56(14):2776-2786.

[5] 王璐伟,陈利娜,李好先,刘锐涛,李松开,杨庆华,杨雪花,严琼,鲁振华. 不同类型果袋对天使红石榴果实品质的影响[J].果树学报,2024,41(1):113-121.WANG Luwei,CHEN Lina,LI Haoxian,LIU Ruitao,LI Songkai,YANG Qinghua,YANG Xuehua,YAN Qiong,LU Zhenhua. Effects of different types of fruit bags on fruit quality in Tianshihong pomegranate[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2024,41(1):113-121.

[6] 吴世涛,佘文琴,李水祥,陈晶英,孙宇晨,马文,王杰. 套袋对‘三红蜜柚’果实着色的影响[J]. 果树学报,2020,37(5):687-695.WU Shitao,SHE Wenqin,LI Shuixiang,CHEN Jingying,SUN Yuchen,MA Wen,WANG Jie. Effects of bagging on rind pigmentation of ‘Sanhongmiyou’ fruit[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2020,37(5):687-695.

[7] 毛妮妮,苏西娅,王志娟,任俊鹏,吉沐祥,郭建,刘照亭. 果袋微环境对葡萄果实品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业学报,2021,37(5):1270-1277.MAO Nini,SU Xiya,WANG Zhijuan,REN Junpeng,JI Muxiang,GUO Jian,LIU Zhaoting. Effects of microenvironment changed inside different bags on grape fruit quality[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2021,37(5):1270-1277.

[8] 林玲,彭震宇,陈梦,汪军,刘钇,钟守生,宋伟,魏丹丽,李华雄. 不同类型果袋对大五星枇杷果实品质的影响[J]. 中国果树,2022(10):19-21.LIN Ling,PENG Zhenyu,CHEN Meng,WANG Jun,LIU Yi,ZHONG Shousheng,SONG Wei,WEI Danli,LI Huaxiong. Effects of different types of fruit bags on fruit quality of ‘Dawuxing’ loquat[J]. China Fruits,2022(10):19-21.

[9] LIU T,SONG S,YUAN Y B,WU D J,CHEN M J,SUN Q N,ZHANG B,XU C J,CHEN K S. Improved peach peel color development by fruit bagging. Enhanced expression of anthocyanin biosynthetic and regulatory genes using white non-woven polypropylene as replacement for yellow paper[J]. Scientia Horticulturae,2015,184:142-148.

[10] ISLAM M T,SHAMSUZZOHA M,RAHMAN M S,HAQUE M M,ALOM R. Influence of pre-harvest bagging on fruit quality of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Mollika[J]. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research,2017,15(1):1246-1254.

[11] SHARMA R R,PAL R K,ASREY R,SAGAR V R,DHIMAN M R,RANA M R. Pre-harvest fruit bagging influences fruit color and quality of apple cv. Delicious[J]. Agricultural Sciences,2013,4(9):443-448.

[12] ZHOU H J,YU Z F,YE Z W. Effect of bagging duration on peach fruit peel color and key protein changes based on iTRAQ quantitation[J]. Scientia Horticulturae,2019,246:217-226.

[13] ASREY R,KUMAR K,SHARMA R R,MEENA N K. Fruit bagging and bag color affects physico-chemical,nutraceutical quality and consumer acceptability of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) arils[J]. Journal of Food Science and Technology,2020,57(4):1469-1476.

[14] 张斌斌,蔡志翔,丁辉,倪林箭,马瑞娟. 采前铺设反光膜对晚熟桃果实品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学,2013,41(9):132-134.ZHANG Binbin,CAI Zhixiang,DING Hui,NI Linjian,MA Ruijuan. Effect of laying reflective film before harvest on fruit quality of late-maturing peach[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2013,41(9):132-134.

[15] 张斌斌,马瑞娟,宋宏峰,郭磊,俞明亮. 江苏省桃产业现状与发展对策[J]. 落叶果树,2021,53(6):30-33.ZHANG Binbin,MA Ruijuan,SONG Hongfeng,GUO Lei,YU Mingliang. Current situation and development countermeasures of peach industry in Jiangsu province[J]. Deciduous Fruits,2021,53(6):30-33.

[16] VOSS D H. Relating colorimeter measurement of plant color to the royal horticultural society colour chart[J]. HortScience,1992,27(12):1256-1260.

[17] KOUKOUNARAS A,SIOMOS A S,SFAKIOTAKIS E. Impact of heat treatment on ethylene production and yellowing of modified atmosphere packaged rocket leaves[J]. Postharvest Biology and Technology,2009,54(3):172-176.

[18] ZHANG B B,GUO J Y,MA R J,CAI Z X,YAN J,ZHANG C H. Relationship between the bagging microenvironment and fruit quality in ‘Guibao’ peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch][J].The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology,2015,90(3):303-310.

[19] 高华君,王少敏,刘嘉芬. 红色苹果套袋与除袋机理研究概要[J]. 中国果树,2000(2):46-48.GAO Huajun,WANG Shaomin,LIU Jiafen. The study summary of red apple bagging and bag removal mechanism[J]. China Fruits,2000(2):46-48.

[20] 辛贺明,张喜焕. 套袋对鸭梨果实内含物变化及内源激素水平的影响[J]. 果树学报,2003,20(3):233-235.XIN Heming,ZHANG Xihuan. Influence of bagging on the fruit inclusion and endogenous hormones of Yali pear variety[J].Journal of Fruit Science,2003,20(3):233-235.

[21] 张斌斌,马瑞娟,蔡志翔,张春华,颜志梅. 采前套袋微环境变化对桃果实品质的影响[J]. 植物生理学报,2015,51(2):233-240.ZHANG Binbin,MA Ruijuan,CAI Zhixiang,ZHANG Chunhua,YAN Zhimei. Effects of preharvest micro-environment inside baggs on peach fruit quality[J]. Plant Physiology Journal,2015,51(2):233-240.

[22] 李秀菊,刘用生,束怀瑞. 红富士苹果套袋果实色泽与激素含量的变化[J]. 园艺学报,1998,25(3):209-213.LI Xiuju,LIU Yongsheng,SHU Huairui. Effects of bagging on color and hormone contents in Red Fuji apple fruits[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica,1998,25(3):209-213.

[23] 赵志磊,顾玉红,李保国,郭素萍,齐国辉,胡永拴. 套袋长富2苹果去袋后果实发育及内源激素含量的变化[J]. 河北农业大学学报,2006,29(5):12-15.ZHAO Zhilei,GU Yuhong,LI Baoguo,GUO Suping,QI Guohui,HU Yongshuan. Study on the development of bagging Changfu 2 fruit and the changes of endogenous hormones content after bag removal[J]. Journal of Agricultural University of Hebei,2006,29(5):12-15.

[24] 徐锴,赵德英,袁继存,闫帅,张少瑜. 不同果袋对红色梨果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报,2019,31(12):2011-2018.XU Kai,ZHAO Deying,YUAN Jicun,YAN Shuai,ZHANG Shaoyu. Effect of different types of fruit bag on fruit quality of red pear[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis,2019,31(12):2011-2018.

[25] 白世践,户金鸽,赵荣华,陈光,古丽加汗·克然木,蔡军社. 不同颜色果袋对新郁葡萄着色及品质的影响[J]. 果树学报,2023,40(5):932-945.BAI Shijian,HU Jinge,ZHAO Ronghua,CHEN Guang,Gulijiahan·Keranmu,CAI Junshe. Effects of different color fruit bags on the coloration and quality of Xinyu grape[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2023,40(5):932-945.

[26] 李德友,张少峰,冯春莹,王锋,刘康德,吴凡,李萃玲,李绍鹏,李茂富. 套袋对油梨果实生长发育及品质动态变化的影响[J]. 西北植物学报,2018,38(1):102-111.LI Deyou,ZHANG Shaofeng,FENG Chunying,WANG Feng,LIU Kangde,WU Fan,LI Cuiling,LI Shaopeng,LI Maofu. Effect of bagging on growth and dynamic change in quality of avocado fruits[J]. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica,2018,38(1):102-111.

[27] 刘鑫,张晓煜,孟君仁,李昂,段文宜,孙世航,潘磊,曾文芳,王志强,牛良. 套袋对油桃果皮叶绿素降解及相关基因表达的影响[J]. 果树学报,2024,41(8):1513-1523.LIU Xin,ZHANG Xiaoyu,MENG Junren,LI Ang,DUAN Wenyi,SUN Shihang,PAN Lei,ZENG Wenfang,WANG Zhiqiang,NIU Liang. Effect of fruit bagging on chlorophyll degradation and related gene expression in nectarine peel[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2024,41(8):1513-1523.

[28] GUAN L,DAI Z W,WU B H,WU J,MERLIN I,HILBERT G,RENAUD C,GOMÈS E,EDWARDS E,LI S H,DELROT S. Anthocyanin biosynthesis is differentially regulated by light in the skin and flesh of white-fleshed and teinturier grape berries[J].Planta,2016,243(1):23-41.

[29] 姜新,陈伯伦,刘芸,张晋,黄继魁,王茜,李一伟. 不同果袋对红阳猕猴桃果实色泽及花青苷合成相关基因表达的影响[J].福建农业学报,2023,38(9):1054-1063.JIANG Xin,CHEN Bolun,LIU Yun,ZHANG Jin,HUANG Jikui,WANG Xi,LI Yiwei. Effects of various fruit- bagging pouches on coloration and anthocyanin synthesis-related gene expression of Hongyang kiwifruits[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2023,38(9):1054-1063.

[30] ZHANG B B,XU J L,ZHOU M,YAN D H,MA R J. Effect of light quality on leaf photosynthetic characteristics and fruit quality of peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batch][J]. Photosynthetica,2018,56(4):1113-1122.

[31] 马策,肖长城,胡红菊,黄小三,张绍铃,吴俊. 不同颜色果袋对‘云红梨2 号’果皮色泽形成的影响[J]. 应用生态学报,2014,25(3):813-818.MA Ce,XIAO Changcheng,HU Hongju,HUANG Xiaosan,ZHANG Shaoling,WU Jun. Effect of bagging with different colors on the fruit coloration of ‘Yunhongli No. 2’ pear[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,2014,25(3):813-818.

[32] 赵淼,林毅,蔡永萍,谢鸣,蒋桂华,吴延军. 不同光质对草莓果实成熟过程中色素类物质含量的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报,2008,20(1):64-66.ZHAO Miao,LIN Yi,CAI Yongping,XIE Ming,JIANG Guihua,WU Yanjun. Effect of different light quality on the contents of strawberry pigments during ripening[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis,2008,20(1):64-66.

[33] YEN C R,KOCH K E. Developmental changes in translocation and localization of 14C-labeled assimilates in grapefruit:Light and dark CO2 fixation by leaves and fruit[J]. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,1990,115(5):815-819.

[34] 吕英民,张大鹏. 果实发育过程中糖的积累[J]. 植物生理学通讯,2000,36(3):258-265.LÜ Yingmin,ZHANG Dapeng. Accumulation of sugars in developing fruits[J]. Plant Physiology Communications,2000,36(3):258-265.

[35] HUDINA M,STAMPAR F. Effect of fruit bagging on quality of‘Conference’ pear (Pyrus communis L.)[J]. European Journal of Horticultural Science,2012,76(5/6):176-181.

[36] JING C J,MA C Q,ZHANG J,JING S J,JIANG X B,YANG Y Z,ZHAO Z Y. Effect of debagging time on pigment patterns in the peel and sugar and organic acid contents in the pulp of‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Qinguan’ apple fruit at mid and late stages of development[J]. PLoS One,2016,11(10):e0165050.

[37] 刘美英,赵明,赵玲玲,唐岩,孙燕霞,刘大亮,张学勇,姜中武.4 个矮化自根砧短枝富士品种套袋与不套袋果实品质比较分析[J]. 中国农学通报,2020,36(22):38-43.LIU Meiying,ZHAO Ming,ZHAO Lingling,TANG Yan,SUN Yanxia,LIU Daliang,ZHANG Xueyong,JIANG Zhongwu.Bagged and non-bagged fruits of 4 dwarfing rootstocks shortshoot Fuji cultivars:Quality comparison[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin,2020,36(22):38-43.

[38] QI S,LI Z,XI W P,HE S L,YI S L,LV Q,ZENG Y Q,LIE D,XIE R J. Transcriptome analysis of blood orange (Citrus sinensis) following fruit bagging treatment by digital gene expression profiling[J]. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology,2014,89(4):397-407.

[39] HIRATSUKA S,YOKOYAMA Y,NISHIMURA H,MIYAZAKI T,NADA K. Fruit photosynthesis and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activity as affected by lightproof fruit bagging in Satsuma mandarin[J]. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,2012,137(4):215-220.

[40] 李杰,王雨,李永红,田启航,刘国俭,陈湖,常瑞丰,王召元. 套袋对日光温室桃果实品质及香气组分的影响[J]. 中国农业大学学报,2024,29(10):108-119.LI Jie,WANG Yu,LI Yonghong,TIAN Qihang,LIU Guojian,CHEN Hu,CHANG Ruifeng,WANG Zhaoyuan. Effect of bagging on fruit quality and aroma components of peach fruit in solar greenhouse[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University,2024,29(10):108-119.

[41] 谢婧蘅,杨莉,旦世浩,邱丽,张王妮,刘德春,胡威,刘勇. 套袋对马家柚果实外观及内在品质的影响[J]. 核农学报,2021,35(1):229-237.XIE Jingheng,YANG Li,DAN Shihao,QIU Li,ZHANG Wangni,LIU Dechun,HU Wei,LIU Yong. Effect of bagging on fruit appearance and inner quality of Majia pomelo[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences,2021,35(1):229-237.

[42] 曾海琼,廖玲,熊博,李清南,叶霜,高婧斐,曹淑燕,汪志辉.套袋对清见橘橙果实蔗糖代谢的影响[J]. 食品科学,2015,36(14):276-279.ZENG Haiqiong,LIAO Ling,XIONG Bo,LI Qingnan,YE Shuang,GAO Jingfei,CAO Shuyan,WANG Zhihui. Effects of bagging treatments on sucorse metabolism in Kiyomi tangor fruits[J]. Food Science,2015,36(14):276-279.

[43] 周兴本,郭修武. 套袋对红地球葡萄果实发育过程中糖代谢及转化酶活性的影响[J]. 果树学报,2005,22(3):207-210.ZHOU Xingben,GUO Xiuwu. Effects of bagging on the fruit sugar metabolism and invertase activities in Red Globe grape during fruit development[J]. Journal of Fruit Science,2005,22(3):207-210.

[44] CHENGAPPA S,GUILLEROUX M,PHILLIPS W,SHIELDS R. Transgenic tomato plants with decreased sucrose synthase are unaltered in starch and sugar accumulation in the fruit[J]. Plant Molecular Biology,1999,40(2):213-221.

[45] 李芳芳,张虎平,何子顺,陶书田,李格,张绍铃. 套袋对‘库尔勒香梨’果实糖酸组分与香气成分的影响[J]. 园艺学报,2014,41(7):1443-1450.LI Fangfang,ZHANG Huping,HE Zishun,TAO Shutian,LI Ge,ZHANG Shaoling. Effects of bagging on soluble sugars,organic acids,and aroma compounds in Pyrus sinkiangensis ‘Korla Xiangli’ fruit[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica,2014,41(7):1443-1450.

[46] 张振铭,张绍铃,乔勇进,陶书田. 不同果袋套袋对幸水梨品质的影响[J]. 上海农业学报,2007,23(1):30-33.ZHANG Zhenming,ZHANG Shaoling,QIAO Yongjin,TAO Shutian. Effect of different fruit bags on quality of pear (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai) kousui[J]. Acta Agriculturae Shanghai,2007,23(1):30-33.

[47] 丁勤,韩明玉,田玉命. 套袋对油桃果实裂果及品质的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2004,32(9):81-83.DING Qin,HAN Mingyu,TIAN Yuming. Effect of bagging on nectarine fruit quality and fruit cracking[J]. Journal of Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry,2004,32(9):81-83.

[48] ZAMPINI M,WANTLING E,PHILLIPS N,SPENCE C. Multisensory flavor perception:Assessing the influence of fruit acids and color cues on the perception of fruit-flavored beverages[J].Food Quality and Preference,2008,19(3):335-343.

[49] 郝燕燕,任宏伟,郭平毅. 苹果果实套袋对光合同化物积累与转化的影响[J]. 园艺学报,2011,38(2):233-239.HAO Yanyan,REN Hongwei,GUO Pingyi. Effects of bagging on the accumulation and transformation of photosynthates in apple fruits[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica,2011,38(2):233-239.

[50] CHEN B H,MAO J,HUANG B N,MI B Q,LIU Y L,HU Z J,MA Z H. Effect of bagging and time of harvest on fruit quality of ‘Red Fuji’ apple in high altitude area in China[J]. Fruits,2017,72(1):36-46.

[51] LIU Y L,ZHANG X J,ZHAO Z Y. Effects of fruit bagging on anthocyanins,sugars,organic acids,and color properties of ‘Granny Smith’ and ‘Golden Delicious’ during fruit maturation[J].European Food Research and Technology,2013,236(2):329-339.

Effects of different types of fruit bags on the quality of Xiahui 10 peaches

ZHANG Binbin1, DU Jinhua1,2, CHEN Hong1,2, WANG Xiaojun1, ZHANG Yuanyuan1, CHEN Zheng1,DING Hui1, YAN Zhimei1, YU Mingliang1, MA Ruijuan1*
(1Institute of Pomology, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Horticultural Crop Genetic Improvement,Nanjing 210014, Jiangsu, China; 2College of Horticulture, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, Jiangsu, China)

Abstract:【Objective】 Fruit bagging is a common practice used by growers to improve fruit quality,prevent pest and disease infestations, avoid direct pesticide contamination, enhance edibility, improve appearance, increase commercial value and raise market competitiveness. Although additional labor and costs are incurred, fruit bagging remains as an important technical measure to ensure quality and commercial production against high temperatures and humidity in summer, frequent pest and disease outbreaks, poor coloration and low commercial quality in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River region. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different types of fruit bags on the quality indices of Xiahui 10 peaches in order to select suitable bag types and supporting cultivation methods for improving production. 【Methods】 The Xiahui 10 peaches were harvested from 9-year-old trees.Peaches without bagging served as the control. Six types of fruit bags were tested:white-single-layer bags, yellow-single-layer bags, double-layer bags with yellow outside and black inside, double-layer bags with yellow outside and white inside, removable bags with black outside and white inside (removed before harvesting), and removable bags with black outside and yellow inside (removed before harvesting). Differences in the single fruit mass and other quality indices of single peaches were compared to screen suitable bag types. 【Results】 All types of fruit bags significantly increased the single fruit mass index, with the yellow-single-layer bags, double-layer bags with yellow outside and white inside, removable bags with black outside and white inside and removable bags with black outside and yellow inside achieving increases by14.08%, 15.04%, 13% and 17.29%, respectively, as compared to the control. The yellow-single-layer bags, double-layer bags with yellow outside and white inside, and removable bags with black outside and white inside significantly improved the fruit firmness with skin by 29.93%, 23.1% and 29.01%, respectively, while the other bags had no significant effect. The brightness value (L) of fruits protected with different bags increased from 11.64% to 57.15% as compared to the control, with the double-layer bags with yellow outside and black inside and the removable bags with black outside and yellow inside achieving the most significant effects. Additionally, the red saturation (a), color saturation (C) and red saturation/yellow saturation ratio (a/b) of the fruits were significantly lower than the control (6.8% vs 65.14%, 4.16% vs 21.3% and 8.79% vs 77.47%, respectively, p<0.05), while the yellow saturation (b) and hue angle (h) were significantly higher (6.44% vs 57.46% and 17.05% vs 143.19%, respectively, p<0.05). Furthermore, comparisons of the fruit appearance showed that different types of fruit bags lightened the red color, with the non-transparent double-layer bags with yellow outside and black inside achieving a lighter red color than the removable bags. The red appearance of fruits was improved with the use of the white- and yellow-single-layer bags as compared to the double-layer bags. The double-layer bags also reduced vividness. The white-single-layer bags, yellowsingle-layer bags, removable bags with black outside and white inside, and removable bags with black outside and yellow inside increased the soluble solid content (SSC) by 2.49%, 5.72%, 7.92% and 5.65%, respectively, while the double-layer bags with yellow outside and black inside and the doublelayer bags with yellow outside and white inside decreased the SSC by 7.78% and 14.16%, respectively.In addition, the SSC tended to decrease when double-layer bags were not removed before harvesting.Other than the removable bags with black outside and white inside, the bags significantly lowered the sucrose content of fruits as compared to the control (7.66% vs 15.61%, respectively, p<0.05), especially the double-layer bags with yellow outside and black inside and the double-layer bags with yellow outside and white inside. The glucose content of fruits protected with the yellow single-layer bags, removable bags with black outside and white inside, and removable bags with black outside and yellow inside was significantly higher than the control while significantly lower for fruits protected with the doublelayer bags with yellow outside and white inside. The fructose content of fruits protected with white-single-layer bags and double-layer bags with yellow outside and white inside was significantly lower than the control, while significantly higher with the removable bags with black outside and white inside.Moreover, the sorbitol content of fruits protected with white single-layer bags, double-layer bags with yellow outside and black inside, and double-layer bags with yellow outside and white inside was lower than the control, while higher with the yellow-single-layer bags and removable bags with black outside and white inside. Other than the double-layer bags with yellow outside and white inside, the malic acid content of bagged fruits was lower than the control by 13.65% to 31.64%, with the removable bags with black outside and yellow inside achieving the greatest reduction. The quinic acid content of fruits protected with white-single-layer bags, yellow-black-double-layer bags, yellow-white-double-layer bags,and black-yellow-double-layer removable bags was lower than the control, while increased with the black-white-double-layer removable bags as compared to the control. The citric acid content of fruits protected with yellow-white-double-layer bags was not significantly different from the control, but significantly decreased with the other bags. Overall, the white-single-layer bags, yellow-single-layer bags,and double-layer bags with white inner lining improved the fruit quality indices. 【Conclusion】 Bagging can increase the single fruit mass, improve fruit appearance, and enhance or maintain firmness, taste and overall quality of Xiahui 10 peaches. Furthermore, comparisons of the effectiveness of different bag types revealed superior quality of fruits protected with white-single-layer bags, yellow-single-layer bags, double-layer bags with yellow outside and white inside, and removable bags with black outside and white inside (removed before harvesting). In the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River region in China, for peach cultivars that mature from early to mid-July, appropriate fruit bags can be selected based on production, market demands, and adaptation to local conditions.

Key words:Peach; Bagging; Appearance quality; Internal quality

中图分类号:S662.1

文献标志码:A

文章编号:1009-9980(2025)03-0591-12

DOI:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20240565

收稿日期:2024-10-25

接受日期:2025-01-15

基金项目:国家现代农业产业技术体系项目(CARS-30);江苏省现代农业产业技术体系建设项目(JATS[2023]387)

作者简介:张斌斌,男,博士,研究方向为桃栽培生理。E-mail:binbin1714@163.com

*通信作者 Author for correspondence. E-mail:marj311@163.com