欧洲葡萄‘无核白’10个营养系的性状研究
|
摘要
以欧洲葡萄‘无核白’及其自然变异营养系为材料,通过对其果实特性研究,对葡萄果粒白藜芦醇等酚类物质与多酚氧化酶活性的测定分析,在新疆鄯善田间栽培条件下对自然高温与强光胁迫下光合作用特性研究,以期评价供试营养系的生物生态学特性;同时开展‘无核白’葡萄果穗处理促进优质果生产技术研究。研究结果为‘无核白’系新品种选育提供依据,对于促进其商品果生产具有借鉴价值。研究取得如下主要结果:
1.果实特性研究表明,供试自然变异系间表现出多方面形态特征的差异。各营养系果粒均大于对照,其中大粒无核白、W3、长穗无核白、长粒无核白、W7的果粒重分别为对照的2.08、1.98、1.91、1.39、1.33倍;长粒无核白和大粒无核白的浆果耐压力分别是对照的1.23、1.01倍;长粒无核白、大粒无核白、W7、W3的果梗耐拉力分别为对照的1.59、1.05、1.01、1.01倍;果粒较大的W3、大粒无核白、长粒无核白等营养系可溶性固形物含量与对照无差异,均超过国标(18%)要求。综合评价认为供试营养系果粒性状优于对照,通过营养系选种有可能获得较大果粒或果型明显不同的‘无核白’葡萄营养系变异品系。
2.生化分析研究表明,不同营养系果皮中白藜芦醇的平均含量是全果的4.86倍,浆果白藜芦醇含量较高的五个营养系分别为W2、W3、W6、长穗无核白、W7,依次为3.56、2.88、2.56、2.10、1.97μg·g~(-1);果皮酚类物质平均含量(401.94μg·g~(-1))高于全果(277.53μg·g~(-1)),酚类物质浓度较低的营养系有大粒无核白、W3、长粒无核白和W8等;果皮中多酚氧化酶活性是全果的1.06～13.19倍,平均为2.81倍,全果中多酚氧化酶活性较低的营养系依次是W7、长穗无核白、W3、W8和长粒无核白。综合分析认为W3,大粒无核白、长粒无核白等营养系果实白藜芦醇含量较高,总酚含量与多酚氧化酶活性相对较低,可作为进一步鲜食、制干品种育种研究的材料;通过果粒的白藜芦醇与酚类物质含量,多酚氧化酶活性等指标测定分析可为‘无核白’系列葡萄鲜食与制干品种选育提供依据。
3.光合作用特性研究表明,供试营养系葡萄光合速率日均值均高于对照,其中W3、W7、长穗无核白、长粒无核白与大粒无核白的净光合速率日均值分别为对照的1.52、1.43、1.32、1.15、1.13倍。除长穗无核白、长粒无核白与对照‘无核白’外,其他营养系未见明显光合午休现象。各品种(系)净光合速率与其它光合指标均呈正相关,温度是影响葡萄光合作用的主要因子,各生理生态因子与Pn的相关性大小顺序为Tair>Tleaf>VpdL>Tr>Gs>PARi。营养系日均表观光能利用效率(LUE)是对照的1.23倍,其中营养系W3、长穗无核白、W7的光能利用率分别为对照的1.58、1.32、1.31倍,可见供试营养系光能利用效率有提高趋势,同时营养系保持较高水平LUE的时间延长。日均内在水分利用效率(WUEg)为对照的1.77倍,说明营养系比对照‘无核白’的WUEg更高,这可能是光合速率提高、果粒增大的原因之一。综合分析表明各营养系具有比对照‘无核白’相对优良的光合特性,具有适应当地自然环境(高温、强光、低湿度)条件的优势。通过对‘无核白’葡萄自然变异营养系的光合特性指标测定分析可为‘无核白’系列葡萄品种选育提供依据。
4.果穗不同物质处理试验表明,花后7～10天采用不同浓度组合GA3、CPPU和KH2PO4浸蘸‘无核白’葡萄果穗处理与空白处理对照在果粒单粒重、果梗耐拉力、果粒耐压力及果粒可溶性固形物四项指标方面均存在极显著差异,3种物质组配处理可有效提高果实单粒重、耐拉力、耐压力、可溶性固形物,可有效提高果实商品性;综合单粒重等四项指标结果认为,GA3 53.78 mg·L~(-1),CPPU 2.63 mg·L~(-1),KH2PO4 5 mg·L~(-1)组合溶液於花后7～10 d浸蘸果穗处理效果相对最佳,浆果单粒重可达3.93 g,耐拉力4.74 N,耐压力17.95×105 Pa,可溶性固形物19.37%,分别为空白对照的1.78、1.58、1.40、1.08倍。对于促进欧洲葡萄‘无核白’商品果生产具有借鉴价值。
In this study, Vitis vinifera cv. Thompson Seedless and its natural variations were used as materials to investigate fruit characteristics, including grape polyphenols such as resveratrol and polyphenol oxidase(PPO) activities. Moreover, the natural heat and light stress on photosynthesis characteristics were studied to evaluate the bio-ecological characteristics of different clones in the field cultivation conditions in Shanshan of Xinjiang. Grape bunch treatment of V. vinifera cv. Thompson Seedless was also carried out to promote the production of high-quality fruit. The results provide the basis for breeding new seedless varieties and have a reference value for the promotion of its commercial fruit production and optimizing the local economic development model. The main results were as follows:
1. Fruit characteristics analysis demonstrated that there were a wide range of morphological differences among natural variation. The berry sizes of clones were greater than that of control. Berry mass of Big-berry Thomson Seedless, W3, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless, Long-berry Thompson Seedless, and W7 were 2.08, 1.98, 1.91, 1.39 or 1.33 times of that of the control respectively. The berry compression resistances of Long-berry Thompson Seedless and Big-berry Thompson Seedless were 1.23, 1.01 times of that of the control respectively. The berry detachment force of Long-berry Thompson Seedless, Big-berry Thompson Seedless, W7 and W3 were 1.59, 1.05, 1.01 or 1.01 times of that of the control respectively. The total soluble solid of greater berry clones (viz W3, Big-berry Thompson Seedless, Long-berry Thompson Seedless) were excess the national standard requirements (18%). Comprehensive evaluation showed that the berry characteristics of the clones were better than the control and a significantly different fruit or fruit type of‘Thompson Seedless’variation was probablely obtained by the clonal breeding.
2. Biochemical analysis indicated that the contents of resveratrol in pericarps were 4.86 times higher than in whole berries. The 5 high resveratrol clones in berries were W2, W3, W6, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless and W7 with the contents of 3.56, 2.88, 2.56, 2.10, 1.97μg.g~(-1), respectively. The average concentration of phenolic compounds in pericarps (401.94μg.g~(-1)) was higher than the whole berries (277.53μg.g~(-1)). The clones of lower concentrations of phenolic compounds were Long-berry Thompson Seedless, W3, Big-berry Thompson Seedless and W8. The PPO activity in average of pericarp was 2.81 times of the whole berry. The clones of lower PPO activity were W7, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless, W3, W8 and Long-berry Thompson Seedless, respectively. Comprehensive analysis indicated that the higher levels of resveratrol were in the variants of W3, Big-berry Thompson Seedless and Long-berry Thompson Seedless, but total phenolic content and PPO activity in these clones were relatively low, which could be used for further table and raisin grape variety breeding. Moreover, the measurement of PPO activity and other indicators would provide a basis for breeding new table and raisin varieties of‘Thompson Seedless’line.
3. Photosynthesis characteristics assay displayed that the daily average net photosynthesis rates (Pn) of the clones tested, including, W3, W7, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless and Long-berry Thompson Seedless, were 1.52, 1.43, 1.32, 1.15 and 1.13 times higher than that of the control. In addition to Long-bunch Thompson Seedless, Long-berry Thompson Seedless and the control, there was no significant midday depression of photosynthesis on other clones. The Pn and other indicators of these varieties (variants) were in positive correlation. The temperature was the main factor that affects grape photosynthesis, followed by humidity. However, stomatal conductance (Gs), light and other factors were weak on photosynthesis. The order of the correlation between the ecological factors and Pn were the air temperature (Tair) > leaf temperature (Tleaf) > vapor deficit at the leaf surface (VpdL) > Tr > Gs >PARi. The daily average light use efficency of the clones were 1.23 times than that of the control, among which W3, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless and W7 were 1.58, 1.32 and 1.31 times as higher than controls. The results showed that the light use efficency of the clones had an increased tendency, and the clones maintained a high level of light use efficiency (LUE) with time extension. The intrinsic water use efficiency on average was 1.77 times as higher as the control, suggesting that the water use efficency of the clones were higher than that of the control. This might be one of the reasons to increase the photosynthetic rate and fruit berry. Comprehensive analysis revealed that the photosynthetic characteristics of the variants were better than that of the control, and had the advantages to adapt to local climate (high temperature, strong radiation and low air humidity) conditions. Analysis of photosynthetic index of natural variation in Thompson Seedless would provide a basis for selection variety from its natural variations.
4. Bunch treatment analysis showed that the bunch dipping treatment with a combination of different concentrations of GA3, CPPU and KH2PO4 were much better than that of the control on single berry mass, berry detachment force, compression resistance and fruit soluble solids, which could effectively improve the fruit commodity. Comprehensive analysis on the 4 indicators indicated that the combination of GA3 53.78 mg?L~(-1), CPPU 2.63 mg?L~(-1), KH2PO4 5 mg?L~(-1) to treat bunch 7~(-1)0 d after flowering could obtain ideal results. The single berry mass could reach to 3.93 g, the berry detachment force was 4.74 N, the berry compression resistance was 17.95×105 Pa and solube solids content was 19.37%, which were 1.78, 1.58, 1.40 and 1.08 times compared to the controls, respectively.
1.果实特性研究表明,供试自然变异系间表现出多方面形态特征的差异。各营养系果粒均大于对照,其中大粒无核白、W3、长穗无核白、长粒无核白、W7的果粒重分别为对照的2.08、1.98、1.91、1.39、1.33倍;长粒无核白和大粒无核白的浆果耐压力分别是对照的1.23、1.01倍;长粒无核白、大粒无核白、W7、W3的果梗耐拉力分别为对照的1.59、1.05、1.01、1.01倍;果粒较大的W3、大粒无核白、长粒无核白等营养系可溶性固形物含量与对照无差异,均超过国标(18%)要求。综合评价认为供试营养系果粒性状优于对照,通过营养系选种有可能获得较大果粒或果型明显不同的‘无核白’葡萄营养系变异品系。
2.生化分析研究表明,不同营养系果皮中白藜芦醇的平均含量是全果的4.86倍,浆果白藜芦醇含量较高的五个营养系分别为W2、W3、W6、长穗无核白、W7,依次为3.56、2.88、2.56、2.10、1.97μg·g~(-1);果皮酚类物质平均含量(401.94μg·g~(-1))高于全果(277.53μg·g~(-1)),酚类物质浓度较低的营养系有大粒无核白、W3、长粒无核白和W8等;果皮中多酚氧化酶活性是全果的1.06～13.19倍,平均为2.81倍,全果中多酚氧化酶活性较低的营养系依次是W7、长穗无核白、W3、W8和长粒无核白。综合分析认为W3,大粒无核白、长粒无核白等营养系果实白藜芦醇含量较高,总酚含量与多酚氧化酶活性相对较低,可作为进一步鲜食、制干品种育种研究的材料;通过果粒的白藜芦醇与酚类物质含量,多酚氧化酶活性等指标测定分析可为‘无核白’系列葡萄鲜食与制干品种选育提供依据。
3.光合作用特性研究表明,供试营养系葡萄光合速率日均值均高于对照,其中W3、W7、长穗无核白、长粒无核白与大粒无核白的净光合速率日均值分别为对照的1.52、1.43、1.32、1.15、1.13倍。除长穗无核白、长粒无核白与对照‘无核白’外,其他营养系未见明显光合午休现象。各品种(系)净光合速率与其它光合指标均呈正相关,温度是影响葡萄光合作用的主要因子,各生理生态因子与Pn的相关性大小顺序为Tair>Tleaf>VpdL>Tr>Gs>PARi。营养系日均表观光能利用效率(LUE)是对照的1.23倍,其中营养系W3、长穗无核白、W7的光能利用率分别为对照的1.58、1.32、1.31倍,可见供试营养系光能利用效率有提高趋势,同时营养系保持较高水平LUE的时间延长。日均内在水分利用效率(WUEg)为对照的1.77倍,说明营养系比对照‘无核白’的WUEg更高,这可能是光合速率提高、果粒增大的原因之一。综合分析表明各营养系具有比对照‘无核白’相对优良的光合特性,具有适应当地自然环境(高温、强光、低湿度)条件的优势。通过对‘无核白’葡萄自然变异营养系的光合特性指标测定分析可为‘无核白’系列葡萄品种选育提供依据。
4.果穗不同物质处理试验表明,花后7～10天采用不同浓度组合GA3、CPPU和KH2PO4浸蘸‘无核白’葡萄果穗处理与空白处理对照在果粒单粒重、果梗耐拉力、果粒耐压力及果粒可溶性固形物四项指标方面均存在极显著差异,3种物质组配处理可有效提高果实单粒重、耐拉力、耐压力、可溶性固形物,可有效提高果实商品性;综合单粒重等四项指标结果认为,GA3 53.78 mg·L~(-1),CPPU 2.63 mg·L~(-1),KH2PO4 5 mg·L~(-1)组合溶液於花后7～10 d浸蘸果穗处理效果相对最佳,浆果单粒重可达3.93 g,耐拉力4.74 N,耐压力17.95×105 Pa,可溶性固形物19.37%,分别为空白对照的1.78、1.58、1.40、1.08倍。对于促进欧洲葡萄‘无核白’商品果生产具有借鉴价值。
In this study, Vitis vinifera cv. Thompson Seedless and its natural variations were used as materials to investigate fruit characteristics, including grape polyphenols such as resveratrol and polyphenol oxidase(PPO) activities. Moreover, the natural heat and light stress on photosynthesis characteristics were studied to evaluate the bio-ecological characteristics of different clones in the field cultivation conditions in Shanshan of Xinjiang. Grape bunch treatment of V. vinifera cv. Thompson Seedless was also carried out to promote the production of high-quality fruit. The results provide the basis for breeding new seedless varieties and have a reference value for the promotion of its commercial fruit production and optimizing the local economic development model. The main results were as follows:
1. Fruit characteristics analysis demonstrated that there were a wide range of morphological differences among natural variation. The berry sizes of clones were greater than that of control. Berry mass of Big-berry Thomson Seedless, W3, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless, Long-berry Thompson Seedless, and W7 were 2.08, 1.98, 1.91, 1.39 or 1.33 times of that of the control respectively. The berry compression resistances of Long-berry Thompson Seedless and Big-berry Thompson Seedless were 1.23, 1.01 times of that of the control respectively. The berry detachment force of Long-berry Thompson Seedless, Big-berry Thompson Seedless, W7 and W3 were 1.59, 1.05, 1.01 or 1.01 times of that of the control respectively. The total soluble solid of greater berry clones (viz W3, Big-berry Thompson Seedless, Long-berry Thompson Seedless) were excess the national standard requirements (18%). Comprehensive evaluation showed that the berry characteristics of the clones were better than the control and a significantly different fruit or fruit type of‘Thompson Seedless’variation was probablely obtained by the clonal breeding.
2. Biochemical analysis indicated that the contents of resveratrol in pericarps were 4.86 times higher than in whole berries. The 5 high resveratrol clones in berries were W2, W3, W6, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless and W7 with the contents of 3.56, 2.88, 2.56, 2.10, 1.97μg.g~(-1), respectively. The average concentration of phenolic compounds in pericarps (401.94μg.g~(-1)) was higher than the whole berries (277.53μg.g~(-1)). The clones of lower concentrations of phenolic compounds were Long-berry Thompson Seedless, W3, Big-berry Thompson Seedless and W8. The PPO activity in average of pericarp was 2.81 times of the whole berry. The clones of lower PPO activity were W7, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless, W3, W8 and Long-berry Thompson Seedless, respectively. Comprehensive analysis indicated that the higher levels of resveratrol were in the variants of W3, Big-berry Thompson Seedless and Long-berry Thompson Seedless, but total phenolic content and PPO activity in these clones were relatively low, which could be used for further table and raisin grape variety breeding. Moreover, the measurement of PPO activity and other indicators would provide a basis for breeding new table and raisin varieties of‘Thompson Seedless’line.
3. Photosynthesis characteristics assay displayed that the daily average net photosynthesis rates (Pn) of the clones tested, including, W3, W7, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless and Long-berry Thompson Seedless, were 1.52, 1.43, 1.32, 1.15 and 1.13 times higher than that of the control. In addition to Long-bunch Thompson Seedless, Long-berry Thompson Seedless and the control, there was no significant midday depression of photosynthesis on other clones. The Pn and other indicators of these varieties (variants) were in positive correlation. The temperature was the main factor that affects grape photosynthesis, followed by humidity. However, stomatal conductance (Gs), light and other factors were weak on photosynthesis. The order of the correlation between the ecological factors and Pn were the air temperature (Tair) > leaf temperature (Tleaf) > vapor deficit at the leaf surface (VpdL) > Tr > Gs >PARi. The daily average light use efficency of the clones were 1.23 times than that of the control, among which W3, Long-bunch Thompson Seedless and W7 were 1.58, 1.32 and 1.31 times as higher than controls. The results showed that the light use efficency of the clones had an increased tendency, and the clones maintained a high level of light use efficiency (LUE) with time extension. The intrinsic water use efficiency on average was 1.77 times as higher as the control, suggesting that the water use efficency of the clones were higher than that of the control. This might be one of the reasons to increase the photosynthetic rate and fruit berry. Comprehensive analysis revealed that the photosynthetic characteristics of the variants were better than that of the control, and had the advantages to adapt to local climate (high temperature, strong radiation and low air humidity) conditions. Analysis of photosynthetic index of natural variation in Thompson Seedless would provide a basis for selection variety from its natural variations.
4. Bunch treatment analysis showed that the bunch dipping treatment with a combination of different concentrations of GA3, CPPU and KH2PO4 were much better than that of the control on single berry mass, berry detachment force, compression resistance and fruit soluble solids, which could effectively improve the fruit commodity. Comprehensive analysis on the 4 indicators indicated that the combination of GA3 53.78 mg?L~(-1), CPPU 2.63 mg?L~(-1), KH2PO4 5 mg?L~(-1) to treat bunch 7~(-1)0 d after flowering could obtain ideal results. The single berry mass could reach to 3.93 g, the berry detachment force was 4.74 N, the berry compression resistance was 17.95×105 Pa and solube solids content was 19.37%, which were 1.78, 1.58, 1.40 and 1.08 times compared to the controls, respectively.
引文
鲍露,徐昌杰,江文彬,陈履荣,陈昆松. 2005.葡萄AFLP技术体系建立及其在超藤与藤稔葡萄品种鉴别中的应用.果树学报, 22(4): 422~425
曹芳,吴迪,何勇,鲍一丹. 2009.基于可见、近红外反射光谱技术的葡萄品种鉴别方法的研究.光学学报, 29(2): 537~540
晁无疾,厉秀茹,张春和. 1997.设施栽培条件下葡萄光合特性初探.葡萄栽培与酿酒. 4: 4~7
车凤斌,杨承时.2000.新疆鲜食葡萄生产现状、气候资源及发展前景分析,中外葡萄与葡萄酒,l: 29~30
陈俊,唐晓萍,马小河,赵旗峰,梁福庆.2009.芽变红地球葡萄的倍性结构鉴定.果树学报, 26(5):619~622
陈雷,韩雅珊, 1999.葡萄不同品种和组织白藜芦醇含量的差异,园艺学报, 26 (2): 118~119
陈佰鸿,曹孜义,赵长增,毛娟,苏小玲. 2009.温度和光照对红地球葡萄试管苗光合特性的影响.园艺学报, 36 (4): 571~576
陈发河,蔡慧农,冯作山,张维一,廖康. 2002.葡萄浆果发育过程中激素水平的变化.植物生理与分子生物学学报, 28(5): 391~395
戴美松,姜卫兵,庄猛,费宪进,李传德. 2006.江南地区大棚促成—避雨栽培下葡萄品种光合特性的比较.园艺学报, 33(1): 17~22
房林,张振文,贾媛媛,李晨. 2009.杨凌地区3个葡萄品种光合特性比较.干旱地区农业研究. 27(5): 203~206
房玉林,惠竹梅,陈洁,何建林,张振文. 2006.水分胁迫对葡萄光合特性的影响.干旱地区农业研究, 24(2): 135~138
高园,房玉林,张昂,刘兆强,王华. 2009.葡萄枝条中多酚类物质的超声波辅助提取.西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 37(9): 77~82
高爱农,韩振海,张开春,许雪峰. 2002. RAPD技术在葡萄种质鉴定上的应用.农业生物技术学报, 10(2): 133~137
高庆玉,戴正.2008.膨大素对葡萄果实发育过程中内源激素的影响.东北农业大学学报, 39(9):29~31
郭景南,郑芳,刘崇怀,冯义彬,潘兴,樊秀彩,王新香. 2008.葡萄种质资源若干描述性状探讨.果树学报, 25 (3): 327~331
郭绍杰,李铭,苏学德,郑强卿,姜继元,吴鹏. 2010.专用膨大剂对红提葡萄光合特性影响的研究. 北方园艺, 20: 42~43
何永华,李朝銮,曹亚玲.1994.葡萄属营养器官的比较解剖学及其系统学意义.植物学报, 2:154~164
贺普超,牛立新. 1989.我国葡萄属野生种抗寒性的研究.园艺学报, 16(2): 81~88
贺普超,王跃进,王国英,任治邦,和纯成. 1991.中国葡萄属野生种抗病性的研究.中国农业科学, 24(3): 50~56
贺普超. 1999.葡萄学.北京:中国农业出版社
惠竹梅,焦旭亮,张振文. 2008.渭北旱塬‘赤霞珠’葡萄浆果膨大期光合特性研究.西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版) , 36(4): 111~122
姜建福,孙海生,刘崇怀,樊秀彩,张颖. 2010. 2000年以来中国葡萄育种研究进展.中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 3: 60~66
姜卫兵,戴美松,庄猛,费宪进. 2006.长三角地区大棚避雨栽培下不同生态适应型葡萄的光合特性. 应用生态学报, 17(8): 1439~1442
孔庆山,刘崇怀,潘兴,刘三军. 2002.国内外鲜食葡萄发展现状、趋势、问题与对策.中国农业信息快讯, 7: 3~6
孔庆山. 2004.中国葡萄志.北京:中国农业科学技术出版社. 151~152
李华,房玉林,莫海珍. 2001.葡萄品种学研究进展.中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 1: 7~9
李敬川,刘俊,武亚敬,王秀芬,张东风,汉瑞峰. 2010.防雹网对光照和葡萄光合速率影响的研究. 华北农学报, 25 (增刊): 128~132
李婷,李胜,张青松,张真,刘媛,吴媛媛. 2009.葡萄不同组织部位白藜芦醇含量的比较.甘肃农业大学学报, 44: 64~67
李晓东,何卿,郑先波,董建国,范培格. 2011.葡萄白藜芦醇研究进展.园艺学报, 38(1): 171~184
李志超,赵诚. 1986a.长无核白葡萄的研究初报,果树学报, 2: 5
李志超,赵诚. 1986b.大无核白葡萄的研究初报.果树学报, 4: 7
廖康. 2002.新疆葡萄生产现状和发展方向.新疆农业大学学报, 25(4): 54~56
刘崇怀,孔庆山,郭景南,潘兴. 2003.葡萄品种资源果实重要经济性状分析.中国农学通报, 9(2): 74~76, 79
刘崇怀,沈育杰,陈俊. 2006a.葡萄种质资源描述规范和数据标准.北京:中国农业出版社,
刘崇怀,帖锋,潘兴. 2006b.无核葡萄品种资源性状的聚类分析.果树学报, 23(4): 531~533
刘广勤. 1997. CPPU和GA3对巨峰葡萄坐果及果实发育的影响.果树科学, 14 (4) : 257~259
刘三军,孔庆山,顾红. 1998.我国野生葡萄过氧化物酶同工酶研究.果树科学, 15(4): 322~326
刘世秋,张振文,惠竹梅. 2008.干旱胁迫对酿酒葡萄赤霞珠光合特性的影响.干旱地区农业研究, 26(5): 169~172
刘廷松,李桂芬. 2003.设施栽培条件下葡萄盛花期的光合特性.园艺学报, 30(5): 568~570
罗素兰,贺普超,郑学勤. 2001.中国野生葡萄遗传多样性的RAPD分析.植物学报, 43(2): 158~163
骆强伟,孙锋,蔡军社,耿新丽,热比古丽. 2007.葡萄新品种‘新郁’.园艺学报, 34(3): 79
马桂珍,任宝君. 2008.几种植物生长调节剂的作用机理及其在葡萄上的应用.中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 5: 40~41
马之胜,贺普超. 1998.用过氧化物酶同工酶对中国葡萄属野生种分类和亲缘关系的研究.华北农学报, 13 (2): 122~126
倪克娥. 1995.低浓度赤霉素在巨峰葡萄上应用的效应简报.安徽农业大学学报, 22(1): 62~64
牛建新,蒋迪军. 1992.无核白葡萄及其芽变品种过氧化物酶同工酶研究.葡萄栽培与酿酒, 3: 17~19
牛立新,张延龙. 2000.中国野生葡萄花粉形态学研究.园艺学报, 27(5): 361~363
牛立新. 1995.葡萄品种学的研究进展.葡萄栽培与酿酒, 2: 12~14
綦伟,谭浩,翟衡. 2006.干旱胁迫对不同葡萄砧木光合特性和荧光参数的影响.应用生态学报, 17(5): 835~838
綦伟,翟衡,厉恩茂,谭皓. 2007.部分根区干旱对不同砧木嫁接葡萄光合作用的影响.园艺学报, 34(5): 1081~1086
王军. 2009.生物技术与葡萄遗传育种.中国农业科学, 42(8): 2862~2874
王铭,秦磊,潘肃,赫玉苹. 2010.吉林省4个产地酿酒葡萄浆果中白藜芦醇含量测定.吉林农业大学学报, 32: 268~270
王惠珠. 1984.长穗无核白葡萄.植物杂志, 5: 4
王姣,刘崇怀,樊秀彩,孙海生. 2008.葡萄种类和品种鉴定技术研究进展.植物遗传资源学报, 9(3): 401~405
王连君,王铭,冯玉才. 2008.盐碱胁迫对山葡萄光合特性的影响.北方园艺, 1: 41~43
王强,阮晓,马艳. 1999.高效液相色谱紫外法测定葡萄中低分子量酚类物质.新疆农业大学学报, 22(3): 193~19
王素贤. 2008.植物生长调节剂在葡萄上的应用现状.辽宁农业职业技术学院学报, 10(2): 24~25
王西平,王跃进,张剑侠,徐炎,杨克强. 2003.葡萄早熟芽变品种“早生高墨”的RAPD分析.西北植物学报, 23(3): 473~476
吴月燕. 2003.高湿和弱光对葡萄叶片某些光合特性的影响.园艺学报, 30(4): 443~445
吴月燕. 1999.藤稔葡萄芽变株系研究.果树科学. 16(2): 119~122
吴子龙,王军,沈育杰. 2008. 8个山葡萄及山欧杂种葡萄品种的SSR分析.植物遗传资源学报, 9(1): 105~109
徐德源,任水莲,喻树龙,郭擎宇. 2004.新疆葡萄品质气候区划.中国农业资源与区划,25(2): 27~31
闫鹏,骆强伟,廖康,孙锋. 2010.无核白葡萄芽变系的植物学性状特征及RAPD标记研究.新疆农业科学, 47(1): 110~114
严巧娣,苏培玺. 2005.不同土壤水分条件下葡萄叶片光合特性的比较.西北植物学报, 25(8): 1601~1606
杨承时. 2000.世界、中国、新疆葡萄业发展情况与分析(综述).吐鲁番科技, 1: 5~13
杨吉安,张艳,罗小华. 2009.化学调控技术在我国葡萄生产上的应用及研究进展.西北林学院学报, 24(5) : 92~95
尹克林,梁武,诸葛宏庆. 1998.酿酒葡萄品种“蛇龙珠”的叶形结构数值鉴别.园艺学报,25(2):189~190
郁松林,肖年湘,王春飞. 2008.植物生长调节剂对葡萄果实品质调控的研究进展.石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 26(4): 439~443
张昂,房玉林,王华. 2007.高效液相色谱切换波长法同时测定葡萄组织中单体酚.分析化学, 35(11): 1614~1618
张大鹏,黄丛林,王学臣. 1995.葡萄叶片光合速率与量子效率日变化的研究及利用.西北植物学报, 37(1): 25~33
张建伦. 2006.新疆葡萄产业发展探析.石河子大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 20(4): 14~16
张洁,李天来,徐晶. 2005.昼间亚高温对日光温室番茄光合作用及物质积累的影响.园艺学报, 32(2): 228~233
张玉刚,郭绍霞. 2005.葡萄种质资源鉴定方法研究进展.江西农业学报, 17(1): 70~74
张振文. 2000.葡萄品种学.西安:西安地图出版社
赵常青,何树松,张义飒. 1998.葡萄膨大剂应用试验.北方园艺, 6: 28~29
赵权,王军,段长青. 2010.山葡萄果实发育过程中花色苷和非花色苷酚成分及其含量的变化.植物生理学通讯, 46(1): 80~86
赵胜建,郭紫娟,马爱红. 2007.世界鲜食葡萄生产、贸易及品种构成分析.中外葡萄与葡萄酒,5: 65~69
朱广廉,钟诲文,张爱琴. 1990.植物生理学实验.北京:北京大学出版社
朱林,温秀云,李文武. 1994.中国野生种毛葡萄光合作用的研究.园艺学报, 21(1): 31~34
Ben-Asher J, Itaru T, Ben-Ami B, Moshe S. 2006.Irrigation of grapevines with saline water I.Leaf area index, stomatal conductance,transpiration and photosynthesis.Agricultural Water Management, (83):13~21
Bertamini M, Krishnasamy M, Michael R, Roberto Z, Riccardo V, Namachevayam N. 2006. Low-night temperature increased the photoinhibition of photosynthesis in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling) leaves. Environmental and Experimental Botany, (57): 25~31
Bigot A, Florence F, Christophe C, Nathalie V. 2007. Effect of the herbicide ?umioxazin on photosynthetic performance of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Chemosphere, (67): 1243~1251
Camara J S, M Arminda A, JoséC. M. 2006. Multivariate analysis for the classification and differentiation of Madeira wines according to main grape varieties. Talanta, (68): 1512~1521
Carlos H C, Gayle M C. 2002. Understanding American and Chinese consumer acceptance of‘Redglobe’table grapes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, (24): 155~162
Christov I, Detelin S, Tsvetan V, Vasilii G, Katya G, Penka A Yanka G, Nikolai C. 2007. The symptomless leaf infection with grapevine leafroll associated virus 3 in grown in vitro plants as a simple model system for investigation of viral effects on photosynthesis. Journal of Plant Physiology, (164): 1124~1133
Cipriani G., M T Marrazzo, E Peterlunger. 2010. Molecular characterization of the autochthonous grape cultivars of the region Friuli Venezia Giulia-North-Eastern Italy. Vitis, 49 (1): 29~38
Clément M V, Hirpara J L, Chawdhury S H, Pervaiz S. 1998. Chemopreventive agent resveratrol, a nature product derived from grapes, triggers CD95 signaling-dependent apoptosis in human tumer cells. Blood, 92: 996~1002
Considine J A, G Cass. 2009. Site, vine state and responsiveness to the application of growth regulator fruitsetting agents. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 15: 48~58
Corder R, Douthwaite J A, Lees D M, Khan N Q, Santos A, Wood E, Carrier M. 2001. Endothelin-1 synthesis reduced by red wine. Nature, 414: 863~864
Cuevas E, P Baeza, J R Lissarrague. 2006. Variation in stomatal behaviour and gas exchange between mid-morning and mid-afternoon of north–south oriented grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo) at different levels of soil water availability. Scientia Horticulturae, 108: 173~180
Dani C, Oliboni L S, Agostini F,Funchal C, Serafini L, Henriques J A, Salvador M. 2010. Phenolic content of grapevine leaves(Vitis labrusca var. Bordo)and its neuroprotective effect against peroxide damage. Toxicology in vitro, 24: 148~153
Downton W J S, W J R Grant, B R Lovey S. 1987. Diurnal changes in the photosynthesis of field-grown grapevines. New Phytologist, 105: 71~80
Ebadi A, J Erfani M, R Fatahi. 2009. Evaluation of 22 populations achieved from controlled crossing between some seeded×seedless grapevine cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae, 119: 371~376
Fang Y L, A Zhang, H Wang, H Li, Z W Zhang, S X Chen, L Y Luan. 2010. Health risk assessment of trace elements in Chinese raisins produced in Xinjiang province. Food Control, (21): 732~739
Franks T, Botta R, Thomas M R, 2002. Chimerism in grapevines: implications for cultivar identity, ancestry and genetic improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 104:192~199
Fung R W, Gonzalo M, Fekete C, Kovacs L G, He Y, Marsh E, McIntyre L M, Schachtman D P, Qiu W. 2008. Powdery mildew induces defense-oriented reprogramming of the transcriptome in a susceptible but not in a resistant grapevine. Plant Physiology, 146: 236~249
Dangl G S, Mary L M, Bernard H P, M Andrew W. 2001. Simple sequence repeat analysis of a clonally propagated species: A tool for managing a grape germplasm collection. Genome, 44(3): 432~438
Gambelli L, G P Santaroni. 2004. Polyphenols content in some Italian red wines of different geographicalorigins. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 17: 613~618
Geier T, Klaus E, Ralph S, Christopher Nickel. 2008. Production and rooting behaviour of rolB-transgenic plants of grape rootstock‘Richter 110’(Vitis berlandieri×V. rupestris). Plant Cell Tiss. Organ Cult.94:269~280
Grant R. C, Ali E, Jerome G, Richard L T, Elizabeth A R T, Marlene C B, Delphine V, Justin S, Jason E, Craig O, David Q, Karen A S, David A S, John C C. 2007. Water and salinity stress in grapevines: early and late changes in transcript and metabolite profiles. Functional & Integrative Genomics, 7: 111~134
Guerrero R F, Liazid A, Palma M, Puertas B, González-Barrio R, Gil-Izquierdo A, García-Barroso C, Cantos-Villar E. 2009. Phenolic characterisation of red grapes autochthonous to Andalusia. Food Chemistry, 112: 949~955
Herrera R, V Cares, M J Wilkinson, P D S Caligari. 2002. Characterisation of genetic variation between Vitis vinifera cultivars from central Chile using RAPD and Inter Simple Sequence Repeat markers. Euphytica, 124: 139~145
Hogan S, Zhang L, Li J R, Zoecklein B, Zhou K Q. 2009. Antioxidant properties and bioactive components of Norton (Vitis aestivalis) and Cabernet Franc (Vitis vinifera) wine grapes. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 42: 1269~1274
James A K, Mark A M, Andrew L W. 2000. Changes in grape seed polyphenols during fruit ripening. Phytochemistry, 55: 77~85
Jang M, Cai L, Udeani G O, Slowing K V, Thomas C F, Beecher C W, Fong H H, Farnsworth N R, Kinghorn A D, Mehta R G, Moon R C, Pezzuto J M. 1997. Cancer chemopreventive activity of resveratrol, a natural product derived from grapes. Science, 275 (5297): 218~220
Satisha J, Doshi P, Adsule P G. 2008. Influence of rootstocks on changing the pattern of phenolic compounds in Thompson Seedless grapes and its relationship to the incidence of Powdery Mildew. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 32: 1~9
JoséF V, Patrick E M, Ali E, G?khan S, Giorgi T, Carole P M, M Stella Grando. 2006. Genetic characterization and relationships of traditional grape cultivars from Transcaucasia and Anatolia. Plant Genetic Resources, 4(2): 144~158
Kopp P. 1998. Resveratrol, a phytoestrogen found in red wine. A possible explanation for the conundrum of the‘French paradox’? European Journal of Endocrinology, 138: 619~620
Korhammer S,Reniero F,Mattivi F. 1995. An oligostilbene from Vitis roots. Phytochemistry, 38:1501~1504
Laurent H, Maurizio P, Giorgia F, Stefania S, Barbara P, Francesca A,Mariano M. 2009. Simultaneous determination of polyphenolic compounds in red and white grapes grown in Sardinia by high performance liquid chromatography–electron spray ionisation-mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1216: 3402~3408
Liang Z C, Wu B H, Fan P G, Yang C X, Duan W, Zheng X B, Liu C Y, Li S H. 2008. Anthocyanin composition and content in grape berry skin in Vitis germplasm. Food Chemistry, 111: 837~844
Lopes M S, M Rodrigues dos Santos, J E Eiras Dias, D Mendon?a, A da C Machado. 2006. Discrimination of Portuguese grapevines based on microsatellite markers. Journal of Biotechnology, 127: 34~44
Lowe K M, M A Walker. 2006. Genetic linkage map of the interspecific grape rootstock cross Ramsey (Vitis champinii) x Riparia Gloire (Vitis riparia). Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 112(8):1582~1592
Lucie F. 2000. Biological effects of resveratrol. Life Sciences, 66(8):663~673
Martínez L, Pablo C, Ricardo M, JoséR. 2003. Evaluation of diversity among Argentine grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) varieties using morphological data and AFLP markers. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(3): 241~250
Matthew W F, L Peter Christensen, Donald G. K, David W. R. 2008. Early-ripening grapevine cultivars for Dry-on-vine raisins on an open-gable trellis. Horttechnology, 18(4): 740~745
Mattivi F, Vrhovsek U, Masuero D, Trainotti D. 2009. Differences in the amount and structure of extractable skin and seed tannins amongst red grape varieties. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 15: 27~35
Mickelbart M V, Peter C, Lucy C. 2006. Endogenous levels and exogenous application of glycinebetaine to grapevines. Scientia Horticulturae, 111: 7~16
Montealegre R R, Peces R R, Vozmediano J L, C Gascuena J M, Romero E G. 2006. Phenolic compounds in skins and seeds of ten grape Vitis vinifera varieties grown in a warm climate. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 19: 687~693
Moufida S T, Ines O, Wissem A W, Riadh K, Hassene Z, Brahim M, Mohamed E K. 2009. Valorization of three varieties of grape. Industrial Crops and Products, 30: 292~296
Niu Z M, Xu X F, Wang Y, Li T Z, Kong J, Han Z H. 2008. Effects of leaf-applied potassium, gibberellin and source–sink ratio on potassium absorption and distribution in grape fruits. Scientia Horticulturae, 115: 164~167
Nookaraju A M, S Barreto, G S Karibasappa, D C Agrawal. 2007. Synergistic effect of CPPU and benzyladenine on embryo rescue in six stenospermocarpic cultivars of grapevine. Vitis, 46(4): 188~191
Orak H H. 2007. Total antioxidant activities, phenolics, anthocyanins, polyphenoloxidase activities of selected red grape cultivars and their correlations. Scientia Horticulturae, 111: 235~241
Pace-Asciak C R, Rounova O, Hahn S E, Diamandis E P, Goldberg D M. 1996. Wines and grape juices as modulators of platelet aggregation in healthy human subjects. Clinica Chimica Acta, 246: 163~182
Petit A, Florence F, Christophe C, Nathalie V. 2009. Gating in grapevine: Relationship between application of the fungicide ?udioxonil and circadian rhythm on photosynthesis. Environmental Pollution, 157(1): 130~134
Poni S, F Bernizzoni, S Civardi. 2007. Response of‘Sangiovese’grapevines to partial root-zone drying: Gas-exchange, growth and grape composition. Scientia Horticulturae, 114: 96~103
Puspa R P, Hirotoshi T, Ikuo K, Ryosuke M. 2008. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of skins and seeds of five wild grapes and two hybrids native to Japan. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 21: 622~625
Rosa A, Francois L, Maria T de A, Javier I. 2002. Chloroplast microsatellite polymorphisms in Vitis species. Genome, 45(6): 1142~1149
Santesteban L G, C Miranda, J B Royo. 2009. Effect of water deficit and rewatering on leaf gas exchange and transpiration decline of excised leaves of four grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae, 121: 434~439
Sato A, Masahiko Y, Hiroshi I, Nobuyuki H. 2000. Optimal spatial and temporal measurement repetition for reducing environmental variation of berry traits in grape breeding. Scientia Horticulturae, 85:75~83
Scott K D, E M Ablett, L S Lee, R J Henry. 2000. AFLP markers distinguishing an early mutant of Flame Seedless grape. Euphytica, 113: 245~249
Sergio G A, Esteban G R, Isidro H G. 2007. HPLC analysis of diverse grape and wine phenolics using direct injection and multidetection by DAD and fluorescence. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 20: 618~626
Siemann E H, Creasy L L. 1992. Concentration of the phytoalexin resveratrol in wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 43: 49~52
Souza C R de, J P Maroco, T P dos Santos, M L Rodrigues, C Lopes, J S Pereira, M M Chaves. 2005.
Control of stomatal aperture and carbon uptake by deficit irrigation in two grapevine cultivars. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 106: 261~274
Soza J A, San J F, Valdivieso V. 2007. Effect of a polyethylene retractile cover on Vitis vinifera cv. Thompson Seedless in the final condition before rain events at pre-harvest. 5th International table grape symposium, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 21~23
Sun B S, Ana M R, M Conceic?o L, A Pedro B, M Isabel S. 2006. Stilbenes: Quantitative extraction from grape skins, contribution of grape solids to wine and variation during wine maturation. Analytica Chimica Acta. 563: 382~390
Taleb R. Abu-zahra. 2010. Berry size of Thompson Seedless as influenced by the application of Gibberellic acid and cane girdling. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42(3): 1755~1760
This P, A Jung, P Boccacci, J Borrego, R Botta, L Costantini, M Crespan, G S Dangl, C Eisenheld, F Ferreira-Monteiro. 2004. Development of a standard set of microsatellite reference alleles for identification of grape cultivars. Theor Appl Genet, 109(7): 1448~1458
This P, Thierry L, M R Thomas. 2006. Historical origins and genetic diversity of wine grapes. Trends in Genetics, 22(9): 511~519
Upadhyay A, M D Saboji, S Reddy, K Deokar, G S Karibasappa. 2007. AFLP and SSR marker analysis of grape rootstocks in Indian grape germplasm. Scientia Horticulturae, 112: 176~183
Wahid A, Gelani S, Ashraf M, 2007. Heat tolerance in plants: An overview. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 61: 99~223
Walker A R, E Lee, S P Robinson, 2006. Two new grape cultivars, bud sports of Cabernet Sauvignon bearing pale-coloured berries, are the result of deletion of two regulatory genes of the berry colour locus. Plant Molecular Biology, 62: 623~635
Yang J, Martinson T E, Liu R H. 2009. Photochemical profiles and antioxidant activities of wine grapes. Food Chemistry, 116: 332~339
Yu D J, S J Kim, H J Lee. 2009. Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations to photosynthesis in field-grown grapevine cultivars. Biologia Plantarum, 53(1): 133~137
Zhao Q, Duan Ch Q, Wang J. 2010, Anthocyanins profile of grape berries of Vitis amurensis, its hybrids and their wines. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 11: 2212~2228
曹芳,吴迪,何勇,鲍一丹. 2009.基于可见、近红外反射光谱技术的葡萄品种鉴别方法的研究.光学学报, 29(2): 537~540
晁无疾,厉秀茹,张春和. 1997.设施栽培条件下葡萄光合特性初探.葡萄栽培与酿酒. 4: 4~7
车凤斌,杨承时.2000.新疆鲜食葡萄生产现状、气候资源及发展前景分析,中外葡萄与葡萄酒,l: 29~30
陈俊,唐晓萍,马小河,赵旗峰,梁福庆.2009.芽变红地球葡萄的倍性结构鉴定.果树学报, 26(5):619~622
陈雷,韩雅珊, 1999.葡萄不同品种和组织白藜芦醇含量的差异,园艺学报, 26 (2): 118~119
陈佰鸿,曹孜义,赵长增,毛娟,苏小玲. 2009.温度和光照对红地球葡萄试管苗光合特性的影响.园艺学报, 36 (4): 571~576
陈发河,蔡慧农,冯作山,张维一,廖康. 2002.葡萄浆果发育过程中激素水平的变化.植物生理与分子生物学学报, 28(5): 391~395
戴美松,姜卫兵,庄猛,费宪进,李传德. 2006.江南地区大棚促成—避雨栽培下葡萄品种光合特性的比较.园艺学报, 33(1): 17~22
房林,张振文,贾媛媛,李晨. 2009.杨凌地区3个葡萄品种光合特性比较.干旱地区农业研究. 27(5): 203~206
房玉林,惠竹梅,陈洁,何建林,张振文. 2006.水分胁迫对葡萄光合特性的影响.干旱地区农业研究, 24(2): 135~138
高园,房玉林,张昂,刘兆强,王华. 2009.葡萄枝条中多酚类物质的超声波辅助提取.西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 37(9): 77~82
高爱农,韩振海,张开春,许雪峰. 2002. RAPD技术在葡萄种质鉴定上的应用.农业生物技术学报, 10(2): 133~137
高庆玉,戴正.2008.膨大素对葡萄果实发育过程中内源激素的影响.东北农业大学学报, 39(9):29~31
郭景南,郑芳,刘崇怀,冯义彬,潘兴,樊秀彩,王新香. 2008.葡萄种质资源若干描述性状探讨.果树学报, 25 (3): 327~331
郭绍杰,李铭,苏学德,郑强卿,姜继元,吴鹏. 2010.专用膨大剂对红提葡萄光合特性影响的研究. 北方园艺, 20: 42~43
何永华,李朝銮,曹亚玲.1994.葡萄属营养器官的比较解剖学及其系统学意义.植物学报, 2:154~164
贺普超,牛立新. 1989.我国葡萄属野生种抗寒性的研究.园艺学报, 16(2): 81~88
贺普超,王跃进,王国英,任治邦,和纯成. 1991.中国葡萄属野生种抗病性的研究.中国农业科学, 24(3): 50~56
贺普超. 1999.葡萄学.北京:中国农业出版社
惠竹梅,焦旭亮,张振文. 2008.渭北旱塬‘赤霞珠’葡萄浆果膨大期光合特性研究.西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版) , 36(4): 111~122
姜建福,孙海生,刘崇怀,樊秀彩,张颖. 2010. 2000年以来中国葡萄育种研究进展.中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 3: 60~66
姜卫兵,戴美松,庄猛,费宪进. 2006.长三角地区大棚避雨栽培下不同生态适应型葡萄的光合特性. 应用生态学报, 17(8): 1439~1442
孔庆山,刘崇怀,潘兴,刘三军. 2002.国内外鲜食葡萄发展现状、趋势、问题与对策.中国农业信息快讯, 7: 3~6
孔庆山. 2004.中国葡萄志.北京:中国农业科学技术出版社. 151~152
李华,房玉林,莫海珍. 2001.葡萄品种学研究进展.中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 1: 7~9
李敬川,刘俊,武亚敬,王秀芬,张东风,汉瑞峰. 2010.防雹网对光照和葡萄光合速率影响的研究. 华北农学报, 25 (增刊): 128~132
李婷,李胜,张青松,张真,刘媛,吴媛媛. 2009.葡萄不同组织部位白藜芦醇含量的比较.甘肃农业大学学报, 44: 64~67
李晓东,何卿,郑先波,董建国,范培格. 2011.葡萄白藜芦醇研究进展.园艺学报, 38(1): 171~184
李志超,赵诚. 1986a.长无核白葡萄的研究初报,果树学报, 2: 5
李志超,赵诚. 1986b.大无核白葡萄的研究初报.果树学报, 4: 7
廖康. 2002.新疆葡萄生产现状和发展方向.新疆农业大学学报, 25(4): 54~56
刘崇怀,孔庆山,郭景南,潘兴. 2003.葡萄品种资源果实重要经济性状分析.中国农学通报, 9(2): 74~76, 79
刘崇怀,沈育杰,陈俊. 2006a.葡萄种质资源描述规范和数据标准.北京:中国农业出版社,
刘崇怀,帖锋,潘兴. 2006b.无核葡萄品种资源性状的聚类分析.果树学报, 23(4): 531~533
刘广勤. 1997. CPPU和GA3对巨峰葡萄坐果及果实发育的影响.果树科学, 14 (4) : 257~259
刘三军,孔庆山,顾红. 1998.我国野生葡萄过氧化物酶同工酶研究.果树科学, 15(4): 322~326
刘世秋,张振文,惠竹梅. 2008.干旱胁迫对酿酒葡萄赤霞珠光合特性的影响.干旱地区农业研究, 26(5): 169~172
刘廷松,李桂芬. 2003.设施栽培条件下葡萄盛花期的光合特性.园艺学报, 30(5): 568~570
罗素兰,贺普超,郑学勤. 2001.中国野生葡萄遗传多样性的RAPD分析.植物学报, 43(2): 158~163
骆强伟,孙锋,蔡军社,耿新丽,热比古丽. 2007.葡萄新品种‘新郁’.园艺学报, 34(3): 79
马桂珍,任宝君. 2008.几种植物生长调节剂的作用机理及其在葡萄上的应用.中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 5: 40~41
马之胜,贺普超. 1998.用过氧化物酶同工酶对中国葡萄属野生种分类和亲缘关系的研究.华北农学报, 13 (2): 122~126
倪克娥. 1995.低浓度赤霉素在巨峰葡萄上应用的效应简报.安徽农业大学学报, 22(1): 62~64
牛建新,蒋迪军. 1992.无核白葡萄及其芽变品种过氧化物酶同工酶研究.葡萄栽培与酿酒, 3: 17~19
牛立新,张延龙. 2000.中国野生葡萄花粉形态学研究.园艺学报, 27(5): 361~363
牛立新. 1995.葡萄品种学的研究进展.葡萄栽培与酿酒, 2: 12~14
綦伟,谭浩,翟衡. 2006.干旱胁迫对不同葡萄砧木光合特性和荧光参数的影响.应用生态学报, 17(5): 835~838
綦伟,翟衡,厉恩茂,谭皓. 2007.部分根区干旱对不同砧木嫁接葡萄光合作用的影响.园艺学报, 34(5): 1081~1086
王军. 2009.生物技术与葡萄遗传育种.中国农业科学, 42(8): 2862~2874
王铭,秦磊,潘肃,赫玉苹. 2010.吉林省4个产地酿酒葡萄浆果中白藜芦醇含量测定.吉林农业大学学报, 32: 268~270
王惠珠. 1984.长穗无核白葡萄.植物杂志, 5: 4
王姣,刘崇怀,樊秀彩,孙海生. 2008.葡萄种类和品种鉴定技术研究进展.植物遗传资源学报, 9(3): 401~405
王连君,王铭,冯玉才. 2008.盐碱胁迫对山葡萄光合特性的影响.北方园艺, 1: 41~43
王强,阮晓,马艳. 1999.高效液相色谱紫外法测定葡萄中低分子量酚类物质.新疆农业大学学报, 22(3): 193~19
王素贤. 2008.植物生长调节剂在葡萄上的应用现状.辽宁农业职业技术学院学报, 10(2): 24~25
王西平,王跃进,张剑侠,徐炎,杨克强. 2003.葡萄早熟芽变品种“早生高墨”的RAPD分析.西北植物学报, 23(3): 473~476
吴月燕. 2003.高湿和弱光对葡萄叶片某些光合特性的影响.园艺学报, 30(4): 443~445
吴月燕. 1999.藤稔葡萄芽变株系研究.果树科学. 16(2): 119~122
吴子龙,王军,沈育杰. 2008. 8个山葡萄及山欧杂种葡萄品种的SSR分析.植物遗传资源学报, 9(1): 105~109
徐德源,任水莲,喻树龙,郭擎宇. 2004.新疆葡萄品质气候区划.中国农业资源与区划,25(2): 27~31
闫鹏,骆强伟,廖康,孙锋. 2010.无核白葡萄芽变系的植物学性状特征及RAPD标记研究.新疆农业科学, 47(1): 110~114
严巧娣,苏培玺. 2005.不同土壤水分条件下葡萄叶片光合特性的比较.西北植物学报, 25(8): 1601~1606
杨承时. 2000.世界、中国、新疆葡萄业发展情况与分析(综述).吐鲁番科技, 1: 5~13
杨吉安,张艳,罗小华. 2009.化学调控技术在我国葡萄生产上的应用及研究进展.西北林学院学报, 24(5) : 92~95
尹克林,梁武,诸葛宏庆. 1998.酿酒葡萄品种“蛇龙珠”的叶形结构数值鉴别.园艺学报,25(2):189~190
郁松林,肖年湘,王春飞. 2008.植物生长调节剂对葡萄果实品质调控的研究进展.石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 26(4): 439~443
张昂,房玉林,王华. 2007.高效液相色谱切换波长法同时测定葡萄组织中单体酚.分析化学, 35(11): 1614~1618
张大鹏,黄丛林,王学臣. 1995.葡萄叶片光合速率与量子效率日变化的研究及利用.西北植物学报, 37(1): 25~33
张建伦. 2006.新疆葡萄产业发展探析.石河子大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 20(4): 14~16
张洁,李天来,徐晶. 2005.昼间亚高温对日光温室番茄光合作用及物质积累的影响.园艺学报, 32(2): 228~233
张玉刚,郭绍霞. 2005.葡萄种质资源鉴定方法研究进展.江西农业学报, 17(1): 70~74
张振文. 2000.葡萄品种学.西安:西安地图出版社
赵常青,何树松,张义飒. 1998.葡萄膨大剂应用试验.北方园艺, 6: 28~29
赵权,王军,段长青. 2010.山葡萄果实发育过程中花色苷和非花色苷酚成分及其含量的变化.植物生理学通讯, 46(1): 80~86
赵胜建,郭紫娟,马爱红. 2007.世界鲜食葡萄生产、贸易及品种构成分析.中外葡萄与葡萄酒,5: 65~69
朱广廉,钟诲文,张爱琴. 1990.植物生理学实验.北京:北京大学出版社
朱林,温秀云,李文武. 1994.中国野生种毛葡萄光合作用的研究.园艺学报, 21(1): 31~34
Ben-Asher J, Itaru T, Ben-Ami B, Moshe S. 2006.Irrigation of grapevines with saline water I.Leaf area index, stomatal conductance,transpiration and photosynthesis.Agricultural Water Management, (83):13~21
Bertamini M, Krishnasamy M, Michael R, Roberto Z, Riccardo V, Namachevayam N. 2006. Low-night temperature increased the photoinhibition of photosynthesis in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling) leaves. Environmental and Experimental Botany, (57): 25~31
Bigot A, Florence F, Christophe C, Nathalie V. 2007. Effect of the herbicide ?umioxazin on photosynthetic performance of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Chemosphere, (67): 1243~1251
Camara J S, M Arminda A, JoséC. M. 2006. Multivariate analysis for the classification and differentiation of Madeira wines according to main grape varieties. Talanta, (68): 1512~1521
Carlos H C, Gayle M C. 2002. Understanding American and Chinese consumer acceptance of‘Redglobe’table grapes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, (24): 155~162
Christov I, Detelin S, Tsvetan V, Vasilii G, Katya G, Penka A Yanka G, Nikolai C. 2007. The symptomless leaf infection with grapevine leafroll associated virus 3 in grown in vitro plants as a simple model system for investigation of viral effects on photosynthesis. Journal of Plant Physiology, (164): 1124~1133
Cipriani G., M T Marrazzo, E Peterlunger. 2010. Molecular characterization of the autochthonous grape cultivars of the region Friuli Venezia Giulia-North-Eastern Italy. Vitis, 49 (1): 29~38
Clément M V, Hirpara J L, Chawdhury S H, Pervaiz S. 1998. Chemopreventive agent resveratrol, a nature product derived from grapes, triggers CD95 signaling-dependent apoptosis in human tumer cells. Blood, 92: 996~1002
Considine J A, G Cass. 2009. Site, vine state and responsiveness to the application of growth regulator fruitsetting agents. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 15: 48~58
Corder R, Douthwaite J A, Lees D M, Khan N Q, Santos A, Wood E, Carrier M. 2001. Endothelin-1 synthesis reduced by red wine. Nature, 414: 863~864
Cuevas E, P Baeza, J R Lissarrague. 2006. Variation in stomatal behaviour and gas exchange between mid-morning and mid-afternoon of north–south oriented grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo) at different levels of soil water availability. Scientia Horticulturae, 108: 173~180
Dani C, Oliboni L S, Agostini F,Funchal C, Serafini L, Henriques J A, Salvador M. 2010. Phenolic content of grapevine leaves(Vitis labrusca var. Bordo)and its neuroprotective effect against peroxide damage. Toxicology in vitro, 24: 148~153
Downton W J S, W J R Grant, B R Lovey S. 1987. Diurnal changes in the photosynthesis of field-grown grapevines. New Phytologist, 105: 71~80
Ebadi A, J Erfani M, R Fatahi. 2009. Evaluation of 22 populations achieved from controlled crossing between some seeded×seedless grapevine cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae, 119: 371~376
Fang Y L, A Zhang, H Wang, H Li, Z W Zhang, S X Chen, L Y Luan. 2010. Health risk assessment of trace elements in Chinese raisins produced in Xinjiang province. Food Control, (21): 732~739
Franks T, Botta R, Thomas M R, 2002. Chimerism in grapevines: implications for cultivar identity, ancestry and genetic improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 104:192~199
Fung R W, Gonzalo M, Fekete C, Kovacs L G, He Y, Marsh E, McIntyre L M, Schachtman D P, Qiu W. 2008. Powdery mildew induces defense-oriented reprogramming of the transcriptome in a susceptible but not in a resistant grapevine. Plant Physiology, 146: 236~249
Dangl G S, Mary L M, Bernard H P, M Andrew W. 2001. Simple sequence repeat analysis of a clonally propagated species: A tool for managing a grape germplasm collection. Genome, 44(3): 432~438
Gambelli L, G P Santaroni. 2004. Polyphenols content in some Italian red wines of different geographicalorigins. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 17: 613~618
Geier T, Klaus E, Ralph S, Christopher Nickel. 2008. Production and rooting behaviour of rolB-transgenic plants of grape rootstock‘Richter 110’(Vitis berlandieri×V. rupestris). Plant Cell Tiss. Organ Cult.94:269~280
Grant R. C, Ali E, Jerome G, Richard L T, Elizabeth A R T, Marlene C B, Delphine V, Justin S, Jason E, Craig O, David Q, Karen A S, David A S, John C C. 2007. Water and salinity stress in grapevines: early and late changes in transcript and metabolite profiles. Functional & Integrative Genomics, 7: 111~134
Guerrero R F, Liazid A, Palma M, Puertas B, González-Barrio R, Gil-Izquierdo A, García-Barroso C, Cantos-Villar E. 2009. Phenolic characterisation of red grapes autochthonous to Andalusia. Food Chemistry, 112: 949~955
Herrera R, V Cares, M J Wilkinson, P D S Caligari. 2002. Characterisation of genetic variation between Vitis vinifera cultivars from central Chile using RAPD and Inter Simple Sequence Repeat markers. Euphytica, 124: 139~145
Hogan S, Zhang L, Li J R, Zoecklein B, Zhou K Q. 2009. Antioxidant properties and bioactive components of Norton (Vitis aestivalis) and Cabernet Franc (Vitis vinifera) wine grapes. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 42: 1269~1274
James A K, Mark A M, Andrew L W. 2000. Changes in grape seed polyphenols during fruit ripening. Phytochemistry, 55: 77~85
Jang M, Cai L, Udeani G O, Slowing K V, Thomas C F, Beecher C W, Fong H H, Farnsworth N R, Kinghorn A D, Mehta R G, Moon R C, Pezzuto J M. 1997. Cancer chemopreventive activity of resveratrol, a natural product derived from grapes. Science, 275 (5297): 218~220
Satisha J, Doshi P, Adsule P G. 2008. Influence of rootstocks on changing the pattern of phenolic compounds in Thompson Seedless grapes and its relationship to the incidence of Powdery Mildew. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 32: 1~9
JoséF V, Patrick E M, Ali E, G?khan S, Giorgi T, Carole P M, M Stella Grando. 2006. Genetic characterization and relationships of traditional grape cultivars from Transcaucasia and Anatolia. Plant Genetic Resources, 4(2): 144~158
Kopp P. 1998. Resveratrol, a phytoestrogen found in red wine. A possible explanation for the conundrum of the‘French paradox’? European Journal of Endocrinology, 138: 619~620
Korhammer S,Reniero F,Mattivi F. 1995. An oligostilbene from Vitis roots. Phytochemistry, 38:1501~1504
Laurent H, Maurizio P, Giorgia F, Stefania S, Barbara P, Francesca A,Mariano M. 2009. Simultaneous determination of polyphenolic compounds in red and white grapes grown in Sardinia by high performance liquid chromatography–electron spray ionisation-mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1216: 3402~3408
Liang Z C, Wu B H, Fan P G, Yang C X, Duan W, Zheng X B, Liu C Y, Li S H. 2008. Anthocyanin composition and content in grape berry skin in Vitis germplasm. Food Chemistry, 111: 837~844
Lopes M S, M Rodrigues dos Santos, J E Eiras Dias, D Mendon?a, A da C Machado. 2006. Discrimination of Portuguese grapevines based on microsatellite markers. Journal of Biotechnology, 127: 34~44
Lowe K M, M A Walker. 2006. Genetic linkage map of the interspecific grape rootstock cross Ramsey (Vitis champinii) x Riparia Gloire (Vitis riparia). Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 112(8):1582~1592
Lucie F. 2000. Biological effects of resveratrol. Life Sciences, 66(8):663~673
Martínez L, Pablo C, Ricardo M, JoséR. 2003. Evaluation of diversity among Argentine grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) varieties using morphological data and AFLP markers. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(3): 241~250
Matthew W F, L Peter Christensen, Donald G. K, David W. R. 2008. Early-ripening grapevine cultivars for Dry-on-vine raisins on an open-gable trellis. Horttechnology, 18(4): 740~745
Mattivi F, Vrhovsek U, Masuero D, Trainotti D. 2009. Differences in the amount and structure of extractable skin and seed tannins amongst red grape varieties. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 15: 27~35
Mickelbart M V, Peter C, Lucy C. 2006. Endogenous levels and exogenous application of glycinebetaine to grapevines. Scientia Horticulturae, 111: 7~16
Montealegre R R, Peces R R, Vozmediano J L, C Gascuena J M, Romero E G. 2006. Phenolic compounds in skins and seeds of ten grape Vitis vinifera varieties grown in a warm climate. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 19: 687~693
Moufida S T, Ines O, Wissem A W, Riadh K, Hassene Z, Brahim M, Mohamed E K. 2009. Valorization of three varieties of grape. Industrial Crops and Products, 30: 292~296
Niu Z M, Xu X F, Wang Y, Li T Z, Kong J, Han Z H. 2008. Effects of leaf-applied potassium, gibberellin and source–sink ratio on potassium absorption and distribution in grape fruits. Scientia Horticulturae, 115: 164~167
Nookaraju A M, S Barreto, G S Karibasappa, D C Agrawal. 2007. Synergistic effect of CPPU and benzyladenine on embryo rescue in six stenospermocarpic cultivars of grapevine. Vitis, 46(4): 188~191
Orak H H. 2007. Total antioxidant activities, phenolics, anthocyanins, polyphenoloxidase activities of selected red grape cultivars and their correlations. Scientia Horticulturae, 111: 235~241
Pace-Asciak C R, Rounova O, Hahn S E, Diamandis E P, Goldberg D M. 1996. Wines and grape juices as modulators of platelet aggregation in healthy human subjects. Clinica Chimica Acta, 246: 163~182
Petit A, Florence F, Christophe C, Nathalie V. 2009. Gating in grapevine: Relationship between application of the fungicide ?udioxonil and circadian rhythm on photosynthesis. Environmental Pollution, 157(1): 130~134
Poni S, F Bernizzoni, S Civardi. 2007. Response of‘Sangiovese’grapevines to partial root-zone drying: Gas-exchange, growth and grape composition. Scientia Horticulturae, 114: 96~103
Puspa R P, Hirotoshi T, Ikuo K, Ryosuke M. 2008. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of skins and seeds of five wild grapes and two hybrids native to Japan. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 21: 622~625
Rosa A, Francois L, Maria T de A, Javier I. 2002. Chloroplast microsatellite polymorphisms in Vitis species. Genome, 45(6): 1142~1149
Santesteban L G, C Miranda, J B Royo. 2009. Effect of water deficit and rewatering on leaf gas exchange and transpiration decline of excised leaves of four grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae, 121: 434~439
Sato A, Masahiko Y, Hiroshi I, Nobuyuki H. 2000. Optimal spatial and temporal measurement repetition for reducing environmental variation of berry traits in grape breeding. Scientia Horticulturae, 85:75~83
Scott K D, E M Ablett, L S Lee, R J Henry. 2000. AFLP markers distinguishing an early mutant of Flame Seedless grape. Euphytica, 113: 245~249
Sergio G A, Esteban G R, Isidro H G. 2007. HPLC analysis of diverse grape and wine phenolics using direct injection and multidetection by DAD and fluorescence. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 20: 618~626
Siemann E H, Creasy L L. 1992. Concentration of the phytoalexin resveratrol in wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 43: 49~52
Souza C R de, J P Maroco, T P dos Santos, M L Rodrigues, C Lopes, J S Pereira, M M Chaves. 2005.
Control of stomatal aperture and carbon uptake by deficit irrigation in two grapevine cultivars. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 106: 261~274
Soza J A, San J F, Valdivieso V. 2007. Effect of a polyethylene retractile cover on Vitis vinifera cv. Thompson Seedless in the final condition before rain events at pre-harvest. 5th International table grape symposium, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 21~23
Sun B S, Ana M R, M Conceic?o L, A Pedro B, M Isabel S. 2006. Stilbenes: Quantitative extraction from grape skins, contribution of grape solids to wine and variation during wine maturation. Analytica Chimica Acta. 563: 382~390
Taleb R. Abu-zahra. 2010. Berry size of Thompson Seedless as influenced by the application of Gibberellic acid and cane girdling. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42(3): 1755~1760
This P, A Jung, P Boccacci, J Borrego, R Botta, L Costantini, M Crespan, G S Dangl, C Eisenheld, F Ferreira-Monteiro. 2004. Development of a standard set of microsatellite reference alleles for identification of grape cultivars. Theor Appl Genet, 109(7): 1448~1458
This P, Thierry L, M R Thomas. 2006. Historical origins and genetic diversity of wine grapes. Trends in Genetics, 22(9): 511~519
Upadhyay A, M D Saboji, S Reddy, K Deokar, G S Karibasappa. 2007. AFLP and SSR marker analysis of grape rootstocks in Indian grape germplasm. Scientia Horticulturae, 112: 176~183
Wahid A, Gelani S, Ashraf M, 2007. Heat tolerance in plants: An overview. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 61: 99~223
Walker A R, E Lee, S P Robinson, 2006. Two new grape cultivars, bud sports of Cabernet Sauvignon bearing pale-coloured berries, are the result of deletion of two regulatory genes of the berry colour locus. Plant Molecular Biology, 62: 623~635
Yang J, Martinson T E, Liu R H. 2009. Photochemical profiles and antioxidant activities of wine grapes. Food Chemistry, 116: 332~339
Yu D J, S J Kim, H J Lee. 2009. Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations to photosynthesis in field-grown grapevine cultivars. Biologia Plantarum, 53(1): 133~137
Zhao Q, Duan Ch Q, Wang J. 2010, Anthocyanins profile of grape berries of Vitis amurensis, its hybrids and their wines. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 11: 2212~2228