Comparing the Fruit Characteristics and Quality of Four Fusarium Wilt-Resistant Varieties of Banana

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.03.025

Abstract

Abstract:

Banana Fusarium wilt is the main disease threatening the development of the banana industry worldwide. Breeding resistant varieties is an effective measure to control Fusarium wilt. In this study, the fruit characteristics, fruit quality, and sensory qualities of four Fusarium wilt-resistant varieties of banana were analyzed, using Brazil banana as the control. ‘Zhongjiao 9’ had a significantly higher ear weight, combs kept number, and fruit diameter, and its yield per plant was 21.9% higher than that of Brazil banana. The ear weight, combs kept number, and fruit number of both ‘Nantianhong’ and ‘Nantianhuang’ were significantly lower than those of Brazil banana, while these same characteristics in ‘Zhongjiao 4’ were not significantly different from those of Brazil banana. The water content of ‘Nantianhong’ was significantly higher than that of Brazil banana, while tha of the other three varieties was not significantly different from that of Brazil banana. The edible rate of ‘Zhongjiao 4’ was significantly higher than that of Brazil banana, but there was no significant difference between the edible rate of the other three varieties and that of Brazil banana. Both fruit hardness and vitamin C content of ‘Zhongjiao 9’ were significantly lower than corresponding values of Brazil banana, while the soluble solid content was significantly higher than that of Brazil banana. The tannin content of ‘Zhongjiao 9’ and ‘Nantianhong’ was significantly lower than that of Brazil banana, while the tannin content of ‘Nantianhuang’ was significantly higher than that of Brazil banana. Sensory evaluation of flesh color, smell, sweetness, and taste of ‘Nantianhong’ and ‘Zhongjiao 9’ revealed values that were all significantly higher than the corresponding values of Brazil banana, while the other two varieties showed no significant difference from Brazil banana in terms of these parameters. From the results of a comprehensive analysis using the membership function method, the comprehensive performance of the four Fusarium wilt-resistant banana varieties could be divided into three grades: ‘Nantianhong’ and ‘Zhongjiao 9’ constitute the first grade, ‘Zhongjiao 4’ constitute the second grade, and ‘Nantianhuang’ constitute the third grade. In conclusion, ‘Zhongjiao 9’ has a high yield per plant and excellent comprehensive characteristics, which can be further demonstrated and popularized in a large area.

Key words: banana Fusarium wilt, resistant varieties, fruit characters, fruit quality, sensory evaluation

CLC Number:

S668.1

HE Qinqin, HUANG Xinmin, LAI Lixian, ZHONG Sheng, CHEN Guangquan, FENG Shenghai, HAN Hanbing. Comparing the Fruit Characteristics and Quality of Four Fusarium Wilt-Resistant Varieties of Banana[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2021, 42(3): 782-788.

Figures/Tables 6

References 29

[1]	Singh B, Singh J P, Kaur A, et al. Bioactive compounds in banana and their associated health benefits - A review[J]. Food Chemistry, 2016,206:1-11. DOI URL PMID
[2]	Dale J, James A, Paul J Y, et al. Transgenic Cavendish bananas with resistance to Fusarium wilt tropical race 4[J]. Nature Communications, 2017,8(1):1496. URL PMID
[3]	林妃, 孙佩光, 丁哲利, 等. 3个不同香蕉抗病品种(系)的农艺性状及产量初步比较[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019,40(12):2328-2332.
[4]	金钊, 刘菊华. 浅谈科学技术在中国香蕉产业中的作用[J]. 热带农业科学, 2018,38(9):100-104.
[5]	张锡炎. 香蕉产业发展面临的重大问题和对策措施[J]. 中国果业信息, 2017,34(1):7-10.
[6]	Ploetz R C. Management of Fusarium wilt of banana: A review with special reference to tropical race 4[J]. Crop Protection, 2015,73:7-15. DOI URL
[7]	李敏慧, 苑曼琳, 姜子德, 等. 香蕉枯萎病菌致病机理研究进展[J]. 果树学报, 2019,36(6):803-811.
[8]	Diane M, Molina A B, Jeff D, et al. The distribution and host range of the banana Fusarium wilt fungus, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense, in Asia[J]. PLoS One, 2017,12(7):e0181630. URL PMID
[9]	Bubici G, Kaushal M, Prigigallo M I, et al. Biological control agents against Fusarium wilt of banana[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019,10:616. URL PMID
[10]	Kaushal M, Swennen R, Mahuku G. Unlocking the microbiome communities of banana (Musa spp.) under disease stressed (Fusarium wilt) and non-stressed conditions[J]. Microorganisms, 2020,8(3):443. DOI URL
[11]	Liu Y P, Zhu A P, Tan H M, et al. Engineering banana endosphere microbiome to improve Fusarium wilt resistance in banana[J]. Microbiome, 2019,7:74. URL PMID
[12]	解华云, 周洁琼, 邓筱艳. 抗枯萎病香蕉新品种引种试验[J]. 东南园艺, 2017,5(1):1-3.
[13]	孙雪丽, 郝向阳, 王天池, 等. 香蕉枯萎病防控和抗病育种研究进展[J]. 果树学报, 2018,35(7):870-879.
[14]	唐粉玲, 林妃, 王安邦, 等. 香蕉新品种“中蕉9号”在海南引种试验[J]. 热带农业工程, 2018,42(5):1-3.
[15]	黄素梅, 韦绍龙, 韦莉萍, 等. 8种香蕉种质对枯萎病的抗性比较与分析[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019,40(11):2189-2196.
[16]	何应对, 林妃, 王丽霞, 等. 香蕉新品种“南天黄”在琼北试验研究[J]. 中国南方果树, 2019,48(3):53-56, 62.
[17]	李小泉, 苏祖祥, 韦莉萍, 等. 4个抗枯萎病香蕉品种在广西的抗性及主要性状比较[J]. 种子, 2019,38(2):61-63.
[18]	陈广全, 冯声海, 钟声, 等. 4个香蕉新品种在茂名的试种研究初报[J]. 中国热带农业, 2020(2):43-46.
[19]	田青兰, 刘洁云, 吴艳艳, 等. ‘中蕉9号’在不同移栽期下的产量及品质比较[J]. 热带作物学报, 2020,41(4):640-648.
[20]	李国良, 姚丽贤, 杨苞梅, 等. 香蕉适宜留果梳数试验研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2011,13(2):88-92.
[21]	许林兵, 黄秉智, 肖维强. 抗枯萎病香蕉新品种‘南天黄’的特征与栽培技术要点[J]. 中国热带农业, 2016(4):24-27.
[22]	冯声海, 陈广全, 钟声, 等. 中蕉4号的引种表现及高效益栽培管理技术[J]. 中国热带农业, 2019(3):26-28.
[23]	中华人民共和国农业部. 农作物种质资源鉴定技术规程香蕉: NY/T 1319—2007[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2007.
[24]	林雪茜, 彭淼, 吴少平, 等. ‘中蕉9号’与‘巴西蕉’果实后熟过程中可溶性糖积累差异的原因分析[J]. 果树学报, 2019,36(11):1524-1539.
[25]	Soltani M, Alimardani R, Omid M. Evaluating banana ripening status from measuring dielectric properties[J]. Journal of Food Engineering, 2011,105(4):625-631. DOI URL
[26]	苏源, 王维民, 谌素华, 等. 不同冻藏温度对香蕉品质的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2017,44(7):117-124.
[27]	李德友, 张少峰, 冯春莹, 等. 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.
[28]	郝蔚, 王丽丽, 景伟文, 等. 接种落叶型黄萎病菌棉株的棉酚和单宁含量与抗病性的关系[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2016,44(2):147-151.
[29]	Ayaka F, Satoko T, Takahiro H, et al. Ascorbic acid accumulates as a defense response to Turnip mosaic virus in resistant Brassica rapa cultivars[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2016,67(14):4391-4402. DOI URL PMID

项目 Items	评分标准 Evaluation standard	评分Score
果肉色泽	香蕉表面和截面均为米白色	16~25
	香蕉表面和截面稍暗或稍黄	8~16
	香蕉表面和截面褐变或为浅棕色	0~8
气味	只有香蕉独特的清香	16~25
	香蕉清香味稍淡,有轻微的发酵味	8~16
	有香蕉清香,但发酵味较浓	0~8
甜味	清甜适口	16~25
	稍清甜	8~16
	无甜味	0~8
口感	果肉柔软糯滑,酸甜适中	16~25
	入口有轻微的沙砾感,较酸或较甜	8~16
	入口有纤维质感,过酸或过甜,有涩味	0~8

项目 Items	评分标准 Evaluation standard	评分Score
果肉色泽	香蕉表面和截面均为米白色	16~25
	香蕉表面和截面稍暗或稍黄	8~16
	香蕉表面和截面褐变或为浅棕色	0~8
气味	只有香蕉独特的清香	16~25
	香蕉清香味稍淡,有轻微的发酵味	8~16
	有香蕉清香,但发酵味较浓	0~8
甜味	清甜适口	16~25
	稍清甜	8~16
	无甜味	0~8
口感	果肉柔软糯滑,酸甜适中	16~25
	入口有轻微的沙砾感,较酸或较甜	8~16
	入口有纤维质感,过酸或过甜,有涩味	0~8

品种 Varieties	单穗重 Ear weight/kg	果梳数 Combs kept number	果梳重 Combs kept weight/kg	每梳果指数 Fruits number	果指直径 Fruit diameter/mm
中蕉9号	33.41±0.67^a	9.33±0.67^a	3.67±0.18^a	16.77±0.16^ab	50.26±0.24^a
中蕉4号	25.39±1.44^bc	7.00±0.00^b	3.41±0.22^ab	16.52±0.42^ab	45.14±0.26^b
南天红	23.02±0.61^c	7.00±0.00^b	3.09±0.09^b	16.19±0.64^b	44.25±0.77^b
南天黄	19.58±0.46^d	6.33±0.33^b	2.95±0.13^b	14.09±0.42^c	45.74±0.70^b
巴西蕉	27.40±0.74^b	7.00±0.00^b	3.62±0.11^a	17.86±0.22^a	44.24±0.19^b

品种 Varieties	单穗重 Ear weight/kg	果梳数 Combs kept number	果梳重 Combs kept weight/kg	每梳果指数 Fruits number	果指直径 Fruit diameter/mm
中蕉9号	33.41±0.67^a	9.33±0.67^a	3.67±0.18^a	16.77±0.16^ab	50.26±0.24^a
中蕉4号	25.39±1.44^bc	7.00±0.00^b	3.41±0.22^ab	16.52±0.42^ab	45.14±0.26^b
南天红	23.02±0.61^c	7.00±0.00^b	3.09±0.09^b	16.19±0.64^b	44.25±0.77^b
南天黄	19.58±0.46^d	6.33±0.33^b	2.95±0.13^b	14.09±0.42^c	45.74±0.70^b
巴西蕉	27.40±0.74^b	7.00±0.00^b	3.62±0.11^a	17.86±0.22^a	44.24±0.19^b

品种 Varieties	果肉色泽分值 Pulp color score	气味分值 Smell score	甜味分值 Sweetness score	口感分值 Taste score	感官评价总分 Total score
中蕉9号	21.00±0.40^b	19.57±0.50^b	20.87±0.47^ab	20.77±0.40^ab	82.20±1.35^ab
中蕉4号	19.50±0.52^cd	19.03±0.45^bc	20.07±0.55^bc	19.33±0.48^bc	77.93±1.50^b
南天红	20.63±0.35^bc	21.80±0.28^a	21.97±0.31^a	21.37±0.38^a	85.77±0.84^a
南天黄	23.03±0.27^a	17.83±0.71^c	19.17±0.61^c	18.90±0.89^c	78.93±1.76^b
巴西蕉	18.55±0.60^d	20.97±0.39^a	20.66±0.43^ab	18.48±0.75^c	78.66±1.78^b