Pollen Application Methods Affecting Fruit Quality and Seed Formation in Artificial Pollination of Yellow-Fleshed Kiwifruit
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Materials
2.2. Pollen Preparation, Viability Testing, and Pollination
2.3. Observation of Pollen Tube Growth
2.4. Fruit Quality Analysis
2.5. Seed Number and Weight
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Repeated Pollination with Dry Pollen
3.2. Pretreatment of Stigma with Wetting Materials
3.3. Application of Dry Pollen or Pollen in Suspension
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Calderone, N.W. Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e37235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ayerza, R.; Coates, W. Supplemental pollination-increasing olive (Olea europaea) yields in hot, arid environments. Exp. Agric. 2004, 40, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopping, M.E.; Hacking, N.J.A. A comparison of pollen application methods for the artificial pollination of kiwifruit. Acta Hortic. 1983, 139, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaknin, Y.; GanMor, S.; Bechar, A.; Ronen, B.; Eisikowith, D. Effects of supplementary pollination on cropping success and fruit quality in pistachio. Plant Breed. 2002, 121, 451–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testolin, R.; Costa, G.; Biasi, R. Impollinazione e qualita dei frutti nelF actinidia. Rivista di Frutticoltura 1990, 10, 27–33. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez, M.M.; Coque, M.; Herrero, M. Stigmatic receptivity limits the effective pollination period in kiwifruit. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1995, 120, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costa, G.; Testolin, R.; Vizzotto, G. Kiwifruit pollination: An unbiased estimate of wind and bee contribution. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 1993, 21, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopping, M.E.; Jerram, E.M.I. Development of suspension media. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 1980, 23, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez, M.M.; Coque, M.; Herrero, M. Influence of pollination systems on fruit quality in kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa). Ann. Appl. Biol. 1998, 132, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopping, M.E. Floral biology, pollination and fruit set. In Kiwifruit Science and Management; Warrington, I.J., Weston, G.C., Eds.; Ray Richards Publisher: Auckland, New Zealand, 1990; pp. 71–96. [Google Scholar]
- Jeong, S.Y.; Yi, K.U.; Hyun, S.W.; Kang, H.H.; Song, K.J. Effect of pollen donor genotype and dilution ratio on the seed formation and fruit quality in yellow-fleshed kiwifruits. J. Korean Soc. Int. Agric. 2018, 30, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, E.U.; Jeong, S.Y.; Kim, J.Y.; Song, J.S. Response of fruit set and quality and seed formation to ploidy levels of pollen donor in yellow-fleshed kiwifruits. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2021, 62, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seal, A.G.; Dunn, J.K.; Jia, Y.L. Pollen parent effects on fruit attributes of diploid Actinidia chinensis ‘Hort16A’ kiwifruit. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2013, 41, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seal, A.G.; Dunn, J.K.; Silva, H.N.D.; McGhie, T.K.; Lunken, R.C.M. Choice of pollen parent affects red flesh color in seedlings of diploid Actinidia chinensis (kiwifruit). N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2013, 41, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seal, A.; McGhie, T.; Boldingh, H.; Rees, J.; Blackmore, A.; Jaksons, P.; Machin, T. The effect of pollen donor on fruit weight, seed weight and red colour development in Actinidia chinensis ‘Hort22D’. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2016, 44, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasiak, A.; Latocha, P.; Drzewiecki, J.; Hallmann, E.; Najman, K.; Leontowiez, H.; Leontowicz, M.; Lata, B. The choice of female or male parent affects some biochemical characteristics of fruit or seed of kiwiberry (Actinidia arguta). Euphytica 2019, 215, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lersten, N.R. Flowering Plant Embryology; Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 119–149. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.Y.; Li, Z.H.; Ning, Y.X. Preparation method and biological effects of pollen suspension liquid for spraying pollination of Actinidia chinensis. J. Fruit Sci. 2014, 31, 1105–1109. [Google Scholar]
- Naik, S.; Rana, V. Spray pollination: An efficient and labour saving method for kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa A. Chev.) production. J. Appl. Hortic. 2013, 15, 202–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tacconi, G.; Michelotti, V.; Cacioppo, O.; Vittone, G. Kiwifruit pollination: The interaction between pollen quality, pollination system and flowering stage. J. Berry Res. 2016, 6, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Razeto, B.; Reginato, G.; Larraín, A. Hand and machine pollination of kiwifruit. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2005, 5, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, K.H.; Lee, S.H. Effect of sodium chloride, PGDO and Arabic gum in pollen liquid diluent on suspensibility of kiwi pollen. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2013, 86, 133–137. [Google Scholar]
- Pok, P.; Oh, E.U.; Yi, K.U.; Kang, J.H.; Ko, B.Y.; Kim, H.B.; Song, K.J. Characterization of microspore development and pollen tube growth response to self- and cross-pollination in Jeju old local citrus species. Hortic. Environ. Biol. 2015, 56, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Distefano, G.; Casas, G.L.; Malfa, S.L.; Gentile, A.; Tribulato, E. Pollen tube behavior in different mandarin hybrids. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2009, 134, 583–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, H.B.; Lee, S.C.; Kim, S.L.; Lee, M.S.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, T.C.; Kim, Y.G.; Song, K.J. Fertilization and seed formation by artificial pollination of tea (Camellia sinensis). J. Korea Tea Soc. 2008, 14, 169–176. [Google Scholar]
- Burdon, J.; Pidakala, P.; Martin, P.; Billing, D.; Boldingh, H. Fruit maturation and the soluble solids harvest index for ‘Hayward’ kiwifruit. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 213, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashman, T.L.; Knight, T.M.; Steets, J.A.; Amarasekare, P.; Burd, M.; Campbell, D.R.; Dudash, M.R.; Johnston, M.O.; Mazer, S.J.; Mitchell, R.J.; et al. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: Ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 2004, 85, 2408–2421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aizen, M.A.; Harder, L.D. Expanding the limits of the pollen-limitation concept: Effects of pollen quantity and quality. Ecology 2007, 88, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broussard, M.A.; Goodwin, M.; McBrydie, H.M.; Evans, L.J.; Pattemore, D.E. Pollination requirements of kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis Planch.) differ between cultivars ‘Hayward’ and ‘Zesy002’. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2020, 49, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cacioppo, O.; Michelotti, V.; Vittone, G.; Tacconi, G. Pollination of kiwifruit: 30 years of applied research leads to a model system for studying the interaction between pollination and flowering stage. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1229, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, K.H.; Kim, W.S.; Lee, S.H. Effect of artificial pollination, pollination time, and pollen bulking agent on seed formation and fruit quality in the shelter greenhouse cultivation of kiwifruit. Prot. Hortic. Plant Fact. 2014, 23, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Year | Repeated Pollination | Fruit Weight (g) | Dry Matter (%) | Soluble Solids Content (°Brix) | Acidity (%) | Firmness (kgf) | Flesh Chromaticity | Seed Number | 100-Seed Weight (mg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h° | |||||||||
2018 | M x (once) | 77.8 ± 0.9 z b y | 13.0 ± 0.2 bc | 11.8 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.1 bc | 98.3 ± 0.7 | 408.0 ± 9.5 b | 12.0 ± 0.02 b |
MA (twice) | 82.6 ± 1.1 a | 13.7 ± 0.2 ab | 11.8 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.6 ± 0.2 ab | 99.9 ± 0.5 | 439.3 ± 11.0 a | 14.1 ± 0.01 a | |
MM (twice) | 84.3 ± 0.4 a | 14.5 ± 0.3 a | 11.6 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.2 a | 99.9 ± 0.5 | 441.6 ± 12.7 a | 14.3 ± 0.01 a | |
MAM (triple) | 81.0 ± 1.2 ab | 12.3 ± 0.3 c | 11.9 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 4.8 ± 0.1 c | 100.5 ± 0.7 | 428.4 ± 7.3 ab | 12.8 ± 0.01 b | |
Significance w | * | * | ns | ns | * | ns | * | * | |
2019 | M y (once) | 91.6 ± 3.3 b | 12.7 ± 0.2 | 11.4 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 108.3 ± 0.4 | 509.7 ± 9.0 b | 12.5 ± 0.01 b |
MA (twice) | 95.4 ± 3.2 ab | 13.1 ± 0.2 | 11.3 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.1 | 107.3 ± 0.5 | 547.1 ± 5.8 a | 14.9 ± 0.02 a | |
MM (twice) | 96.9 ± 3.5 a | 12.6 ± 0.3 | 13.5 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 107.9 ± 0.5 | 549.7 ± 8.1 a | 14.4 ± 0.01 a | |
MAM (triple) | 93.5 ± 3.2 ab | 12.5 ± 0.3 | 11.3 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 4.7 ± 0.1 | 107.4 ± 0.5 | 526.1 ± 8.6 ab | 13.1 ± 0.01 ab | |
Significance | * | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | * | * |
Year | Duplicate Pollination | Fruit Weight (g) | Dry Matter (%) | Soluble Solids Content (°Brix) | Acidity (%) | Firmness (kgf) | Flesh Chromaticity | Seed Number | 100-Seed Weight (mg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h° | |||||||||
2018 | M x (once) | 92.7 ± 1.2 z c y | 17.1 ± 0.1 bc | 12.4 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.6 ± 0.1 a | 110.6 ± 0.7 a | 808.2 ± 8.5 b | 11.8 ± 0.01 b |
MA (twice) | 98.0 ± 0.7 a | 18.3 ± 0.3 a | 12.3 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 a | 110.0 ± 0.7 a | 845.3 ± 5.5 a | 13.2 ± 0.02 a | |
MM (twice) | 97.5 ± 0.4 ab | 18.1 ± 0.3 ab | 12.3 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.1 a | 106.9 ± 1.1 b | 843.6 ± 7.4 ab | 13.6 ± 0.01 a | |
MAM (triple) | 94.1 ± 0.9 bc | 16.7 ± 0.3 c | 12.7 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 4.5 ± 0.1 b | 111.5 ± 0.2 a | 826.4 ± 8.6 ab | 12.5 ± 0.01 a | |
Significance w | * | * | ns | ns | * | * | * | * | |
2019 | M y (once) | 80.4 ± 0.6 c | 17.4 ± 0.2 ab | 13.1 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.1 ± 0.1 a | 108.5 ± 0.9 | 760.4 ± 7.6 b | 10.9 ± 0.02 b |
MA (twice) | 86.4 ± 0.5 a | 17.7 ± 0.2 a | 13.5 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 a | 107.1 ± 1.1 | 780.4 ± 9.1 a | 13.0 ± 0.01 a | |
MM (twice) | 87.2 ± 0.5 a | 17.6 ± 0.2 a | 13.3 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.1 ± 0.1 a | 107.9 ± 1.0 | 790.8 ± 8.2 a | 13.0 ± 0.01 a | |
MAM (triple) | 83.8 ± 0.8 b | 16.7 ± 0.2 b | 13.2 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 4.8 ± 0.1 b | 108.9 ± 0.9 | 785.6 ± 9.7 a | 12.3 ± 0.02 ab | |
Significance | * | * | ns | ns | * | ns | * | * |
Year | Mode of Pollination | Fruit Weight (g) | Dry Matter (%) | Soluble Solids Content (°Brix) | Acidity (%) | Firmness (kgf) | Flesh Chromaticity | Seed Number | 100-Seed Weight (mg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h° | |||||||||
2018 | No pretreatment | 80.6 ± 1.1 z a y | 13.5 ± 0.2 ab | 11.4 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.1 ab | 100.5 ± 0.7 ab | 413.8 ± 8.3 a | 12.0 ± 0.02 a |
WS (0) x | 71.7 ± 2.4 b | 13.0 ± 0.3 b | 11.2 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.1 b | 100.8 ± 0.7 a | 321.1 ± 10.9 b | 6.9 ± 0.02 b | |
WS (1) | 82.5 ± 0.9 a | 13.7 ± 0.2 ab | 11.8 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.1 ab | 99.9 ± 0.5 ab | 404.7 ± 10.2 a | 11.9 ± 0.03 a | |
SS (0) | 83.0 ± 0.7 a | 14.5 ± 0.3 a | 11.6 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.2 ab | 98.1 ± 0.6 b | 403.5 ± 9.9 a | 11.1 ± 0.01 a | |
SS (1) | 84.7 ± 0.8 a | 13.7 ± 0.3 ab | 11.9 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.7 ± 0.1 a | 98.8 ± 0.5 ab | 414.5 ± 12.3 a | 12.1 ± 0.02 a | |
Significance w | * | * | ns | ns | * | * | * | * | |
2019 | No pretreatment | 95.6 ± 3.4 a | 13.0 ± 0.3 bc | 11.5 ± 0.2 ab | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 ab | 105.1 ± 0.6 ab | 541.8 ± 9.3 a | 13.6 ± 0.01 a |
WS (0) y | 82.7 ± 1.8 b | 12.4 ± 0.2 c | 10.8 ± 0.1 c | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 4.9 ± 0.1 c | 107.1 ± 0.5 a | 472.3 ± 9.9 b | 10.7 ± 0.02 b | |
WS (1) | 95.3 ± 0.8 a | 13.2 ± 0.2 bc | 11.2 ± 0.1 bc | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.1 bc | 100.3 ± 0.6 c | 544.0 ± 9.8 a | 13.8 ± 0.02 a | |
SS (0) | 95.5 ± 0.7 a | 14.4 ± 0.3 a | 11.7 ± 0.1 ab | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.8 ± 0.1 a | 103.5 ± 0.4 b | 528.8 ± 9.0 a | 13.2 ± 0.01 ab | |
SS (1) | 96.7 ± 0.4 a | 13.8 ± 0.2 ab | 12.0 ± 0.1 a | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.6 ± 0.1 ab | 103.3 ± 0.4 b | 553.0 ± 8.5 a | 14.0 ± 0.02 a | |
Significance | * | * | * | ns | * | * | * | * |
Year | Mode of Pollination | Fruit Weight (g) | Dry Matter (%) | Soluble Solids Content (°Brix) | Acidity (%) | Firmness (kgf) | Flesh Chromaticity | Seed Number | 100-Seed Weight (mg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h° | |||||||||
2018 | No pretreatment | 94.3 ± 1.2 z a y | 18.7 ± 0.3 a | 12.6 ± 0.1 a | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.1 a | 109.5 ± 0.2 b | 832.9 ± 11.6 a | 12.0 ± 0.02 a |
WS (0) x | 88.4 ± 0.8 b | 16.8 ± 0.2 b | 11.9 ± 0.2 b | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 4.8 ± 0.1 b | 111.5 ± 0.2 a | 537.9 ± 13.8 b | 6.5 ± 0.01 b | |
WS (1) | 95.2 ± 0.8 a | 18.1 ± 0.2 a | 12.3 ± 0.2 a | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 a | 111.1 ± 0.2 a | 814.4 ± 11.4 a | 11.1 ± 0.02 a | |
SS (0) | 96.4 ± 0.5 a | 18.6 ± 0.3 a | 12.5 ± 0.2 a | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.3 ± 0.1 a | 110.2 ± 0.1 a | 807.5 ± 12.1 a | 11.7 ± 0.02 a | |
SS (1) | 95.8 ± 0.7 a | 18.7 ± 0.3 a | 12.7 ± 0.1 a | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.3 ± 0.2 a | 109.8 ± 0.7 b | 811.9 ± 10.4 a | 11.1 ± 0.01 a | |
Significance w | * | * | * | ns | * | * | * | * | |
2019 | No pretreatment | 80.2 ± 0.9 a | 17.4 ± 0.2 b | 13.5 ± 0.2 a | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 109.8 ± 0.9 | 743.1 ± 7.5 a | 11.6 ± 0.02 a |
WS (0) y | 73.4 ± 0.8 c | 16.7 ± 0.2 ab | 11.7 ± 0.1 b | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.2 | 107.1 ± 2.4 | 536.2 ± 17.6 b | 6.9 ± 0.01 b | |
WS (1) | 78.4 ± 1.1 ab | 19.0 ± 0.2 a | 12.3 ± 0.1 ab | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.1 | 110.7 ± 0.2 | 751.4 ± 14.2 a | 11.6 ± 0.01 a | |
SS (0) | 76.3 ± 0.5 b | 18.5 ± 0.2 ab | 12.3 ± 0.1 ab | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.1 | 110.7 ± 0.2 | 763.1 ± 9.4 a | 11.3 ± 0.02 a | |
SS (1) | 78.0 ± 0.5 b | 18.6 ± 0.2 ab | 12.3 ± 0.4 ab | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.1 ± 0.1 | 109.9 ± 0.1 | 752.4 ± 8.2 a | 11.1 ± 0.01 a | |
Significance | * | * | * | ns | ns | ns | * | * |
Cultivar | Year | Mode of Pollination | Fresh Weight (g) | Dry Matter (%) | Soluble Solids Content (°Brix) | Acidity (%) | Firmness (kgf) | Flesh Chromaticity | Seed Number | 100-Seeds Weight (mg) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h° | ||||||||||
Halla Gold | 2018 | Dry pollen | 80.6 ± 1.1 z | 13.5 ± 0.2 | 11.4 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.1 | 98.8 ± 0.5 | 413.8 ± 8.3 | 12.0 |
Wet pollen | 76.6 ± 1.9 | 13.7 ± 0.2 | 12.9 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.2 | 99.1 ± 0.6 | 397.9 ± 9.1 | 10.1 | ||
Significance | ns y | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||
2019 | Dry pollen | 95.6 ± 3.4 | 13.0 ± 0.3 | 11.5 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 107.1 ± 0.5 | 541.8 ± 9.3 | 12.6 | |
Wet pollen | 92.1 ± 3.3 | 13.3 ± 0.3 | 12.4 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 5.6 ± 0.1 | 108.6 ± 0.5 | 529.1 ± 8.4 | 12.2 | ||
Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||
Sweet Gold | 2018 | Dry pollen | 94.3 ± 1.2 | 17.7 ± 0.3 | 12.6 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 5.5 ± 0.1 | 111.1 ± 0.2 | 831.9 ± 11.6 | 12.0 |
Wet pollen | 89.1 ± 1.8 | 18.3 ± 0.3 | 12.7 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.3 ± 0.2 | 111.5 ± 0.2 | 810.1 ± 9.7 | 11.1 | ||
Significance w | * | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||
2019 | Dry pollen | 82.1 ± 0.9 | 17.5 ± 0.2 | 13.6 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 109.7 ± 0.9 | 744.1 ± 7.5 | 11.6 | |
Wet pollen | 77.4 ± 1.0 | 18.3 ± 0.2 | 13.0 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 5.1 ± 0.1 | 107.9 ± 1.0 | 733.7 ± 12.7 | 11.7 | ||
Significance | * | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oh, E.U.; Kim, S.C.; Lee, M.H.; Song, K.J. Pollen Application Methods Affecting Fruit Quality and Seed Formation in Artificial Pollination of Yellow-Fleshed Kiwifruit. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8020150
Oh EU, Kim SC, Lee MH, Song KJ. Pollen Application Methods Affecting Fruit Quality and Seed Formation in Artificial Pollination of Yellow-Fleshed Kiwifruit. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(2):150. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8020150
Chicago/Turabian StyleOh, Eun Ui, Seong Cheol Kim, Mock Hee Lee, and Kwan Jeong Song. 2022. "Pollen Application Methods Affecting Fruit Quality and Seed Formation in Artificial Pollination of Yellow-Fleshed Kiwifruit" Horticulturae 8, no. 2: 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8020150
APA StyleOh, E. U., Kim, S. C., Lee, M. H., & Song, K. J. (2022). Pollen Application Methods Affecting Fruit Quality and Seed Formation in Artificial Pollination of Yellow-Fleshed Kiwifruit. Horticulturae, 8(2), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8020150