臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

蓮霧(Syzygium samarangense Merr. et Perry)為本省高屏地區相當重要之經濟果樹，但由於氣候高溫多溼，病蟲害相對提高，尤其是東方果實蠅肆虐相當嚴重。於蓮霧開花著果後如無適當之保護防治措施，則果實無一能倖免逃過果蠅為害。利用套袋雖可有效防止果蠅為害，但尚有許多不良的後遺症，許多果樹已採網室栽培。唯網室栽培是否適合蓮霧開花後之生產，則有待進一步探討。因此，本研究乃針對果實套袋，包括紙質套袋6種及塑膠套袋4種，外加果實不套袋之果園網室覆蓋等共11種處理來進行比較。
結果顯示，塑膠套袋對蓮霧果實大小之促進效果最強，但有降低果實脆度及硬度之趨勢。紙質套袋對果實大小之影響較小，但果實硬度及脆度較塑膠套袋者高。以紙質套袋之蓮霧果實，呈現較紅之趨勢，其中以白色通企及黃色良果紙袋之果實最紅，塑膠套袋有增加果實含水量，降低果實糖度及糖/酸比之現象，因此其內在品質及風味較差。
不同材質套袋，其袋內微氣候並不相同。就溫度而言，在中午(12:00)時段，塑膠套袋內溫度有較紙質套袋低之趨勢。在濕度方面，以塑膠套袋內之相對濕度最高，其次為紙質套袋者。就不同材質及色澤之套袋對遮光及袋內光強度之影響而言，有顏色(黃或藍)之套袋，其遮光效果較白色套袋者強。
至於套袋對蓮霧病蟲害及裂果之影響，利用果實套袋可明顯減少病蟲危害，但不同種類之套袋間仍有病蟲害發生高低之差異，病害率從8-53%，而蟲害率從0-21%不等，且不同地區亦因套袋前之田間病蟲害防治管理良寙，而顯著影響套袋對預防病蟲害發生之效果。但網室栽培，果實之病蟲害率，一般均顯著的降低。裂果方面，一般以塑膠套袋之裂果率較高(12-63%)，紙質套袋之裂果率較低(10-45%)，但利用網室栽培而不套袋之果實，其裂果率可明顯降低。
利用PE網室覆蓋而果實不套袋，以取代傳統套袋（白色富士紙袋），結果顯示，在中午時段(12：00)，傳統套袋內之溫度顯著高於網室內未套袋者。一般網室內相對濕度均顯著低於套袋內相對濕度。在樹冠內之光強度，則以PE網室者較傳統紙套袋內之光強度高。傳統紙袋之果實大小及重量略高於網室栽培者，而硬度與脆度則略低，但兩者除內埔地區之網室栽培者之硬度顯著較高外，兩者各項物性指標並無顯著差。果實色澤方面，亦幾無差異。至於果實之內在品質，兩種不同果實發育管理模式之間，除屏東試區(冬果)之糖/酸比較低，風味較差外，其餘各項品質指標亦均無差異。網室栽培之果實病害率顯著降低。傳統套袋之蟲害率高低受套袋前之田間蟲害防治良寙之影響。未套袋之網室栽培者，其裂果率均低於傳統套袋者，特別是在春果(內埔試區)之效果更為明顯。
傳統紙套袋及網室覆蓋兩種不同果實保護措施，網室栽培者除第一次因網室初期投資成本較高外，可從套袋之材料及人工成本上抵扣回收，且第二年後或開花2-3次後，生產成本就相對愈低，每年可節省成本10-15萬左右。而蓮霧採收後之可售重量，網室栽培者亦遠高於傳統套袋者。蓮霧採用網室栽培而不必套袋可明顯減少病蟲害及裂果，進而提高單位面積可售產量。以網室進行生產主要是以可售產量取勝的方式進行，故以PE網室栽培，配合適當的栽培管理及產期調節，不失為農民的一個增加收益的栽培模式，可提供農友參考採用。

Wax apple (Syzygium samarangense Merr. Et Perry) is one of the most important fruit crops in southern Taiwan. Due to the hot and humid weather conditions in this region, prevalence of insects and diseases is always the key factor affecting the production. Among the pests, oriental fruit-fly is none to the next. After flowering, if proper protection measures are not taken, no fruit can be harvested. Most of the farmers use bagging to prevent fruits from infestation by the insects. Although bagging is effective, deteriorate problems come after that. Some farmers, then, turn to another practice of netting the plants/field. However, netting of the wax-apple field after flowering is good or not for fruit production is still unclear, more studies are needed. This study is attempted to compare the effects from the treatments of 6 paper baggings and 4 plastic baggings of the fruits, and netting of the orchards.
Results indicated that plastic bagging increased fruit size, but decreased crispness and hardiness, and paper bagging was just the opposite. White and/or yellow paper bagging was found with heavier red fruits than the others. In fruit quality, plastic baggings did increase more water content of the fruits than other treatments, thus, sugar content, flavor and other parameters for quality were reduced.
Microenvironments varied in the treatments with different material of the bags. For temperature changes at different times in a day, plastic baggings were lower than that of the paper baggings at noon. Humidity at noon in the plastic baggings was higher than that in the paper baggings. Difference in material and/or color of the bags did affect sheddingness, colored bags (yellow or blue) were found with better shedding effect than white ones,
For the difference in cracking and pest severity of the fruits, fruit bagging significantly reduce pest severity. Disease incidence ranged between 8 and 53% and insects between 0 and 21%, they were greatly affect by the management situation/condition of the orchard before bagging. So was the efficacy of netting the orchard. Disease and insects were also significantly reduced in the net-house. Plastic bagged fruits were found with higher percentage of cracking than the paper bagged, the former was 12-63% and the latter 10-45%, respectively.A few cracking fruits were found in the net-house.
Comparing to the conventional method bagging in the white paper bags, if wax-apple trees were netted after flowering, the temperature at noon in the paper bags was much higher than that in the net-house without bagging, and so was the humidity. The light intensity inside the canopy of netted trees was higher than that of the paper bagged. Size and/or weight of fruit in the bags was larger than the netted, and hardiness and crispness were just the opposite. However, no statistic difference was observed between the two except the plot at Neipu which was found with significant difference in hardness for the fruits in the net-house. For fruit color, no difference was observed between the two treatments. The same trend was also obtained for fruit quality. Except the Pingtung plot which was found with less sugar content (low sugar/acid ratio) in the winter fruits, no difference was observed in the other quality parameters between the two treatments. For disease and insect severity, netting greatly reduced the incidence, and efficacy of the conventional bagging method was greatly affected by the management condition/situation of the orchard before bagging. Fruit cracking was found less in the netted fruits than that in the paper bagged ones, and it is significantly different in the spring fruits at Neipu plot.
In short, either conventional bagging or net-housing increased the production cost greatly. Although netting in the initial stage stands for a large portion of production cost, the cost, however, can be reimbursed or saved from bagging wages for every year/season, and the marketable yield for netting is also better. Therefore, this study revealed that the use of net-house for wax-apple production is worthy trying or it is profitable.

目　　錄
中文摘要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． Ⅰ
英文摘要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． Ⅳ
誌謝．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．ⅤⅡ
目　　錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．ⅤⅢ
表索引．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．ⅩⅠ
一、前言．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 1
二、前人研究．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 5
（一）網室設施栽培．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 5
（二）果實套袋保護措施．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 6
（三）果實保護措施對果實裂果．．．．．．．．．．． 9
三、材料與方法．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．11
（一）供試材料．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．11
1. 屏東市試區．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．11
2. 內埔試區．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．12
（二）試驗項目．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．12
（三）田間試驗設計．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．15
（四）調查及分析項目．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．16
1.氣象紀錄．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．16
2.不同套袋對蓮霧果實病害、蟲害、鳥害及裂果之影
響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．16
3.不同套袋對蓮霧果實品質之影響．．．．．．．．16
4.測定項目．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．17
四、結果．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．20
（一）不同材質果袋對蓮霧果實發育及品質之影響．．．20
1.不同材質果袋內溫度變化．．．．．．．．．．．．20
2.不同材質果袋內濕度變化．．．．．．．．．．．．21
3.不同材質果袋內光度變化．．．．．．．．．．．．25
4.網室內外光度變化．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．27
5.套袋對蓮霧果實大小之影響．．．．．．．．．．．29
6.套袋對蓮霧果實硬度及脆度之影響．．．．．．．．33
7.套袋對蓮霧果實顏色之影響．．．．．．．．．．．35
8.套袋對蓮霧果實糖度及酸度之影響．．．．．．．．39
9.套袋對蓮霧果實含水量之影響．．．．．．．．．．43
10.套袋對蓮霧果實病、蟲害率之影響．．．．．．． 45
11.套袋對蓮霧果實裂果之影響．．．．．．．．．． 48
（二）蓮霧網室栽培之可行性評估．．．．．．．．．．50
1.傳統套袋處理及網室栽培對蓮霧果實品質之影響．．50
2.傳統套袋處理栽培方式及網室栽培生產成本比較．．59
3.傳統套袋處理栽培方式及網室栽培對蓮霧可售產量之比
較．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．62
五、討論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．65
（一）不同材質套袋對蓮霧果實發育及品質之影響．．．65
（二）蓮霧簡易網室栽培與傳統套袋處理之微氣候、果實發育
、品質、病蟲害、裂果及成本與可售產量之比較．．68
六、參考文獻．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．70
表索引
表1.不同套袋處理之蓮霧果袋內溫度比較．．．．．．．23
表2.不同套袋處理之蓮霧果袋內濕度比較．．．．．．．24
表3.不同材質果袋透光光強度之比較．．．．．．．．．26
表4.網室內外光強度之比較．．．．．．．．．．．．．28
表5.套袋對蓮霧果實長度及寬度之影響．．．．．．．．31
表6.套袋對蓮霧果實重量及體積之影響．．．．．．．．32
表7.套袋對蓮霧果實硬度及脆度之影響．．．．．．．．34
表8.套袋對蓮霧果實色相角度及色彩濃度之影響．．．．37
表9.套袋對蓮霧果實亮度之影響．．．．．．．．．．．38
表10.套袋對蓮霧果實糖度及可滴定酸含量之影響．．． 41
表11.套袋對蓮霧果實糖酸比之影響．．．．．．．．． 42
表12.套袋對蓮霧果實含水量之影響．．．．．．．．． 44
表13.套袋對蓮霧果實病、蟲害率之影響．．．．．．． 47
表14.套袋對蓮霧果實裂果率之影響．．．．．．．．． 49
表15.傳統套袋（白色富士紙袋）與PE網室對溫度及濕度之影　
　　響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．53
表16.傳統套袋（白色富士紙袋）與PE網室對遮光率及光強度之影
　　響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．54
表17.傳統套袋（白色富士紙袋）與PE網室對果實物理性狀之影　
　　響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．55
表18.傳統套袋（白色富士紙袋）與PE網室對果實色澤之影　　　　　　　　響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．56
表19.傳統套袋（白色富士紙袋）與PE網室對果實品質之影
　　響．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．57
表20.傳統套袋（白色富士紙袋）與PE網室對果實病蟲害及裂果之影
　　響．　　　．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．58
表21、網室及套袋處理每公頃生產成本分析表．．．．．61
表22、網室及套袋處理每公頃產量分析表．．．．．．．64

參考文獻：
王少敏、高華君、劉嘉芬、劉寄明. 2000. 套袋短枝紅富士果實內含物及果皮色素的變化. 果樹科學17（1）：76-77
王德男、劉碧鵑. 1997. 蓮霧葉果比與果實品質之關係. 提昇果樹產業競爭力研討會專集Ⅰ：111-115
王德男. 1996. 遮光處理對蓮霧提早開花及品質的影響. 農業世界149:14~15
王德男. 1992. 化學藥劑及耕作處理對蓮霧摧花效果之影響. 果農合作540:27-30
王德男. 1991. 木瓜網室栽培注意要點. 農藥世界96：18-20
王德男. 1990. 蓮霧提早開花調節產期之生產技術. 果農合作508:21-26
王德男. 1990. 蓮霧之營養及肥培管理.果樹營養與果園管理研討會專集. 台中區農業改良場特刊第2O號pp:119-134
王德男. 1989. 木瓜網室栽培. 興農雜誌242：14-16
王德男. 1989. 蓮霧產期調節. 果樹產期調節. 豐年叢書pp:11-120
王德男. 1988. Auxines對蓮霧新梢生長及果實品質之影響. 中國園藝34(4):283~292
王德男. 1988. 植物生長調節劑在蓮霧栽培上之應用. 植物生長調節劑在園藝作物之應用研討會專集. 台中區農業改良場pp:253-265
王德男. 1985. 化學藥劑及耕作處理對蓮霧摧花效果之影響. 果樹產期調節研討會專集. 台中區農業改良場特刊第l號pp:109-120
王德男. 1983. 促進蓮霧提早開花產期之研究Ⅱ. 化學藥劑及耕作處理對蓮霧摧花效果之研究. 中華農業研究32:129~ 138
王鼎盛、邱文山. 1989 .溫室內溫度與濕度控制模式. 第二屆設施園藝研討會專輯p1-31
行政院農業委員會. 2000. 農業統計年報p104
安寶貞. 1983. 檬果炭疽病之研究. 植物保護學會會刊25（4）：308
何坤耀. 1988. 楊桃果實蛀蟲防治技術改進試驗. 植物保護學會會刊30：45-51
林美霞、李金龍. 1987. 設施園藝發展方向之探討. 設施園藝研討會專輯p185-191
林學正、侯鳳舞. 1987. 國內各設施栽培之現況介紹.設施園藝研討會專輯p31-42
林嘉興、張林仁. 1991. 簡易溫室環境對葡萄生育環境之影響. 園藝作物產期調節研討會專輯Ⅱ：p193-211
林嘉興、林信山. 1984. 葡萄產期調節.果樹產期調節研討會專輯p21-29
林嘉興、張林仁、林信山. 1987. 巨峰葡萄春果之生產. 園藝作物產期調節研討會專輯p165-174
林讚標. 1990. 植物葉部醣類的合成、配置、轉移之調節. 果樹營養與果園管理研討會專集. 台中區農業改良場特刊第20號pp:11-22
柯立祥、翁敏雄、柯定芳、王世昌. 1981. 香蕉PE套袋藍色深淺對果實日燒、色澤及後熟之影響. 中國園藝27：177-185
范青、楊會容. 1999. 果實套袋及其對果實品質的影響. 福建果樹107：23~24.
許仁宏、廖秀真、林慧玲、李國權. 1998. 蓮霧果實生育期間果實外部型態與內部有機成分的變化. 中國園藝44（4）：491~501.
陳秀文、李俊文. 1996. 芒果套袋可提高果實品質. 高雄區農業專訊17：9-12
張明聰. 1994. 網室栽培番木瓜可提高產量品質及收益. 興農雜誌302：86-94
張麗華. 1997. 印度棗網室栽培. 提昇果樹產業競爭力研討會專集Ⅲ：121-125
張豐吉. 1990. 水果套袋紙性質之研究. 國立中興大學森林學碩士論文
黃子彬. 1993. 蓮霧冬春果生產技術. 花蓮區農業專訊6:17- 21
黃子彬、楊耀祥、李金龍. 1984. 套袋對巨峰葡萄果實品質之影響. 台灣農業20（2）：29-33
黃阿賢. 1993. 套袋對文旦果實生長、品質與袋內溫度的影響中國園藝39（4）：198-208
黃碧海. 1997. 提昇果實品質及降低生產成本. 提昇果樹產業競爭力研討會專集Ⅰ：11-17
傅炳山. 1994. 簡易保溫設施對發育中蓮霧果實的防寒效果. 臺灣經濟果樹栽培技術及應用研究研討會專輯p15-24
湛有光、王鷹、宋儉. 2000. 蘋果育果袋物理性狀及其應用研究. 果樹科學17（4）：249-254
楊耀祥. 1984. 果實套袋技術. 八萬農業建設大軍訓練教材
劉孟哲. 1994. 套袋對蜜紅葡萄著色之影響. 國立中興大學園藝學研究所碩士論文
劉碧鵑. 2000. 楊桃栽培管理. 楊桃綜合管理p201-209
劉福建、蔣建國、張勇、潘文雄. 2001. 套袋對梨果實裂果之影響. 果樹學報18（4）：241-242
熊同銓. 1997. 套袋對楊桃果實品質之影響. 提昇果樹產業競爭力研討會專集Ⅲ：111-115
賴榮茂. 1997. 高雄區重要經濟果樹. 高雄區農業改良場pp:21-33
賴榮茂. 1997. 遮光對蓮霧摧花之影響. 國立中興大學園藝學研究所碩士論文
賴榮茂. 1997. 蓮霧摧花後之枝梢管理及肥培. 高雄區農業專訊21:22-23
顏昌瑞、林宗賢. 1991. 果實生長發育與果實品質之改進. 台灣果樹之生產及研究發展研討會專刊p55~60.
蕭政弘. 1997. 修剪與溫度對蓮霧營養及生殖生長之影響. 國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文
Bentley, W. and M. Viveros. 1992. Brown-bagging Granny Smith apples on trees stops codling moth damage. California Agric. 46（4）:30-32.
Brown, G., S. Wilson, W. Boucher, B. Graham and B. McGlasson. 1995. Effects of copper-calcium sprays on fruit cracking in sweet cherry (Prunus avium). Scientia Hort. 62：75~80.
Brown, G. and S. Wilson. 1990. Preharvest management effects on harvest fruit quality in apricots. In：Proc. Of the ⅩⅩⅢ Int. Horticultural congress, Italy, 1990. Internat. Soc. for Hort. Sci. Poster No.3335.
Bullock , R. M. 1952. A study of some inorganic compounds and growth promoting chemicals in relation to fruit cracking of Bing cherries at maturity. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 59：243-253.
Callan, N. C. 1986. Calcium hydroxide reduces splitting of ‘Lambert’ sweet cherry. J. Am. Soc. Hort. 111：173-175.
Cline, J. A. and E. J. Hanson. 1992. Relative humidity around apple fruit influences its accumulation of calcium. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117：542-546.
Considine, J. and K. Brown. 1981. Physical aspects of fruit growth. Theoretical analysis of distribution of surface growth forces in fruit in relation to cracking and splitting. Plant Physiol. 68：371~376.
Corey, K. A. and Z. Y. Tan. 1990. Induction of changes in internal gas pressure of bulky plant organs by temperature gradients. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 115（2）：308~312.
Crookston, R. K., T. Reharne, K. J. Ludford and J. L. Qzbun. 1975 Response of beans to shading. Crop Sci. 15:412-416.
Glenn, G. M. and B. W. Poovaiah. 1989. Cuticular properties and postharvest calcium applications influence cracking in sweet cherries. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 114：781-788.
Haynes, R. J. and K. M. Goh. 1980. Variation in the nutrient content of leaves and fruit with season and crown position for two apple varieties. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 31：739-748.
Hofman, P. J., L. G. Smith, D. C. Joyce, G. I. Johnson and G. F. Meiburg. 1997. Bagging of mango（Mangifera indica cv.‘Keitt’）fruit influences fruit quality and mineral composition. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 12：83~91.
Jackson, J. E. and J. W. Palmer. 1977. Effect of shade on growth and cropping of apple trees. Ⅱ. Effects on component of yield. J. Hort. Sci. 52:253-266.
Jackson, J. E., R. O. Sharpeles and J. W. Palmer. 1971. The influence of shade and within-tree position on apple fruit size, color, and storage quality. J. Hort. Sci. 46：277-287.
Ju, Z. 1998. Fruit bagging a useful method for studying anthocyanin synthesis and gene expression in apples. Scientia Hort. 77：155-164.
Kamimura, S., H. Yoshikawa and K. Ito. 1972. Studies on fruit cracking in tomoto. Bull. Hort. Res. Sta. Ministry of Agr. & For. Series C (Morioka) # 7.
Koske, T. J., J. E. Pallas and J. B. Jones. 1980. Influence of ground bed heating and cultivar on tomoto fruit cracking. HortSci. 15：760—762.
Meherouk, M., G. H. Neilsen and D. L. McKenzie. 1991. Incidence of rain splitting in sweet cherries treated with calcium or coating materials. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71：231~234.
Peet, M. M. 1992. Fruit cracking in tomato. HortTech. 2（2）：216~223.
Peet, M. M. and D. H. Willits. 1995. Role of excess water in tomato fruit cracking. Hort. Sci. 30（1）：65~68.
Pommier, P. 1987. Fruit cracking in cherry. Research on new control methods. Arbor. Fruit. 34：20-23. （Hort. Abstr. 57, No. 9211,1987）
Sekse, L. 1995. Fruit cracking in sweet cherries（Prunus avium L.）. Some physiological aspects — a mini review. Scientia Hort. 63：135~141.
Sorensen, L. 2000. Rheological basis of splitting in carrot storage roots. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 125（2）：212~216.
Vittrup, C. J. 1972. Cracking in cherries Ⅳ. Physiological studies of the mechanism of cracking. Acta Agric. Scand., 22：153-162.