臺灣外銷用香蕉品種之研究

Studies on Exporting Banana Cultivars in Taiwan

朱慶國(Ching-Kuo Chu) ； 楊紹榮(Shaw-Rong Yang)

《中華農業研究》 24卷1&2期 (1975/09) Pp. 57-74

https://doi.org/10.29951/JARC.197509.0008

摘要

臺灣外銷香蕉品種主要爲仙人蕉及北蕉，目下此兩品種廣泛地混值於中南部蕉園，爲爾後栽培管理及推廣之參考，自民國60年7月迄63年2月進行兩品種一系列之調查。結果摘錄如下：
通常依雄苞片殘留在雄花軸上情形，可鑑別兩品種。仙人蕉之雄花軸並不殘留雄花苞片，北蕉則多少殘留一些雄苞片。大部份北蕉開完20~30幾個雄花後才開始殘留，然亦有少數開完3~10餘個雄花後即殘留，但在冬季低溫時期，常見苞片殘留之仙人蕉，因此常會誤認兩品種，此時必須再輔以其他性狀，才能鑑別。
植株自種植迄抽穗產生全部吸芽數目，仙人蕉單株平均11.18株（範圍5~18株），北蕉平均爲9.97株（範圍5~17株）；仙人蕉之株高不論任何收穫代數，皆比北蕉高，第一代平均高25.2cm, 第二代平均高24.04cm，因此仙人蕉較易受風害。兩品種之莖周則無甚大差異。
葉柄長第一代仙人蕉平均爲36.01cm，北蕉爲32.31cm。第二代則仙人蕉爲38.17cm，北蕉爲35.34cm，不論何代，仙人蕉葉柄皆比北蕉長。葉長，第一代仙人蕉平均爲224.92cm，北蕉201.07cm•第二代蕉株則仙人蕉平均爲257.20cm，北蕉平均爲222.59cm。兩品種之葉寬在第一代無何差異，然第二代仙人蕉(90.32cm)比北蕉(87.86cm)寬2.46cm，因此在田間觀察兩品種之蕉株，仙人蕉較長，近尖端有狹細之感，而北蕉則稍短，且近尖端呈橢圓狀。
兩品種之葉形比（葉長／葉寬），第一代仙人蕉平均爲2.71，大部份集中分佈於2.51~2.80（範圍2.10~3.47），而北蕉則爲2.42，大部份集中分佈於2.21~2.50（範圍1.61~3.11）。至於第二代蕉株，仙人蕉平均爲2.85，大部份集中分佈於2.61~2.90（範圍2.21~3.61），北蕉則爲2.53（範圍1.96 ~3.33），大部份集中分佈於2.41~2.60。因此以葉形比鑑定兩品種，亦不失爲一可行之法。
兩品種之葉片厚度，第一代仙人蕉距中肋5cm處爲0.7478mm，中間爲0.5046mm，距邊緣5cm處爲0.3317mm，而北蕉則爲0.7708mm、05160mm 及0.3426mm。第二代蕉株北蕉之葉厚平均爲0.8067mm、0.5229mm及0.3441mm，仙人蕉則爲0.7666mm、0.5073mm和0.3355mm，任何部位取樣，北蕉之葉片皆比仙人蕉厚。
假莖上葉片間之距離，在植株之東西兩側仙人蕉分別爲23.28cm和23.03cm，耐北蕉則爲22.61cm及22.83cm，仙人蕉比北蕉琉，然差異很小。
果手與果手之間距，兩品種並無差異，然果手序（第一果手至第四果手之直線距離，第二果手至第五果手………等）之距離則仙人蕉在第一代及第二代皆比北蕉長，換言之，第一果手與第四果手之排列（餘類推）仙人蕉較疏。
8、9、10三個月份採收之香蕉果實，仙人蕉之果柄及果指皆比北蕉長，然7月份採收的，則呈相反之現象。大多數情形，仙人蕉果指較直，且排列較佳，北蕉則較彎曲。
在室溫下採收迄果實生理斑點出現日數，仙人蕉平均比北蕉遲4.23日，採收迄果實腐爛日數，仙人蕉亦比北蕉遲4.07日。
從種植迄採收，仙人蕉須469.71天，北蕉則爲450.40天，提前19.31天採收。兩品種之果手數相差無幾，然第一代北蕉之產量優於仙人蕉，第二代則仙人蕉優於北蕉，惟差異皆很小。果指數第一代北蕉亦較多，然第二代則呈相反之現象。
目前仙人蕉已失去抗萎縮病之優勢，兩品種皆感染萎縮病。又在佳冬巴拿馬病區，依苞片殘留之情形及葉形比，兩品種皆會感染巴拿馬病。

並列摘要

The commercial cultivars of banana grown in Taiwan are ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” and ”Pei-Chiao”. The comparisons of characteristics of the agronomic, maturation period and aspects of fruit between these two cultivars have been studied at the Chai Yi Agricultural Experimental Station since July, 1971 to Feb, 1974. The results were summarized as follows:
1. In general, the bracts of the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” cultivar on the male axis are deciduous, whereas, the ”Pei-Chiao” cultivar are partially persistent. Most of ”Pei-Chiao” cultivar persists their bracts 20-30 male flowers after flowering, but there are few plants persists their bracts 3-15 male flowers after flowering. Yet, one thing must be to note that the behavior of bracts is different from reported as above during the winter season. Therefore, we can find the bracts partly persistent plants of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” cultivar and the bracts whole persistent plants, as Dwarf Cavendish, of ”Pei-Chaio” during the winter and early spring season. So, if we want to distinguish these two cultivars by means of the behavior of bracts on the male axis must be considered the effects of winter season with low temperature on bracts.
2. Suckers were recorded as soon as they appeared above the ground from planting to shooting. The total number of suckers produced by ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” was mean 11.18 (range 5-18) and by ”Pei-Chiao” was mean 9.97 (range 5-17).
3. Height was measured as the length of pseudostem from ground level to the throat along the pseudostem. The girth was measured as the circumference of the pseudostem at 100 cm above the ground level. The results showed that the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were taller in height than ”Pei-Chiao”. The mean difference were 25.2 cm and 24.04 cm for the first and second crop years respectively. There were no remarkable difference in circumference between these two cultivars.
4. The ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were longer in length of protecting leaf than those of ”Pei-Chiao”, but the data seemed not available.
5. The results showed that the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were longer in petiolar than ”Pei-Chiao”. The petiolar length of the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” was 36.01cm and of the ”Pei-Chiao” was mean 32.31cm for the first crop year. The mean difference was 3.7cm. In the second crop year, the petiolar length of the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” was mean 38.17 cm, and of the ”Pei—Chiao” was mean 35.34cm. The difference was 2.83cm.
6. The length of leaf produced by ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were mean 224.92cm and 257.20 cm and by ”Pei-Chiao” were mean 201.07cm and 222.59 cm for the first and second crop years respectively. The ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were longer in length of leaf than the ”Pei-Chiao”. The difference were mean 23.85 cm and 34.61 cm for the first and second crop years respectively. The width of leaf produced by ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were mean 82.94 cm and 90.32 cm and by ”Pei-Chiao” were mean 82.92 cm and 87.86 cm for the first and second crop years respectively. There were no difference between these two cultivars for the first crop year, but the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” was little wider in width of leaf than ”Pei-Chiao” for the second crop year. The difference was 2.46 cm.
The leaf ratio of the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were mean 2.71 (range 2.10-3.47) and 2.85 (range 2.21-3.61) for the first and second crop years respectively. In ”Pei-Chaio”, the leaf ratio were mean 2.42 (range 1.61-3.11) and 2.53 (range 1.96-3.33) for the first and second crop years respectively. The leaf ratio of these two cultivars were greater in the second crop year than those of the first crop year. The minimum range of leaf ratio were less than the data reported by Simmonds. The maximum range of leaf ratio was also greater than the data reported by Simmonds.
7. The leaf thickness of ”Pei-Chiao” of which the leaf position of sampling located near midrib were 0.7708 mm and 0.8067 mm, located near middle were 0.5160 mm and 0.5229 mm and located near margin were 0.3426 mm and 0.3441 mm for the first and second crop years respectively. In ”Hsien-Jen-Chaio”, the thickness of which the leaf position of sampling located near midrib were 0.7478 mm and 0.7666 mm, located near middle were 0.5046 mm and 0.5073 mm and located near margin were 0.3317 mm and 0.3355 mm for the first and second crop years respectively. The leaf thickness of the ”Pei-Chiao” were thicker than those of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” in any position of sampling for the first and second crop years. It is, however, interesting to note leaf thickness of the left direction of leaf which position of sampling located near midrib and middle were thicker than those from the right direction in these two cultivars, but the leaf thickness of the right direction of leaf of which position of sampling located near margin was thicker than this from the left direction.
8. The distance between leaves along the pseudostem were 23.28 cm and 23.03 cm in ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” for the east and west direction of plant, respectively, during the first crop year. The distance were 22.61 cm and 22.83cm in ”Pei-Chiao” for the east and west direction of plant, respectively, during the first crop year. The distance between leaves along the pseudostem of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were litte longer than those of ”Pei-Chiao”. The difference were 0.67 cm and 0.2 cm for the east and west direction of plant respectively.
9. The distance between hands of these two cultivars were no difference for the first and second crop years, but the distance among hands (such as lst-4th hand, 2nd-5th, …… etc) of the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were longer than those of ”Pei-Chiao” for the first and second crop years.
10. The length of fruit stalk and finger of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th hand of ”Pei-Chiao” were longer than those of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” for the second crop year in July, but, in Aug. Sep. and Oct. the length of fruit skalk and finger of the 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th hand of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were longer than those of ”Pei-Chiao” for the second crop year. In general, the fruit curvature of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were less than those of ”Pei-Chiao”
11. The storage days of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” was longer than that of ”Pei-Chiao”. The difference of storage days between these two cultivars were 4.23 days (from harvesting to flecking) and 4.07 days (from harvesting to rotting) respectively.
12. The mean days from planting to flowering for ”Pei-Chiao” (371.33 days) was shorter than those from ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” (387.54 days) during the first crop year. The ”Pei-Chiao” flowered 16.21 days earlier than those of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao”. The mean days from planting to harvesting for ”Pei-Chiao” (450.41 days) was also shorter than those from ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” (469.71 days) Therefore, the ”Pei-Chiao” harvested his bunch (from planting to harvesting) earlier about 19.3ldays than those of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao”.
13. There were a little difference in the number of hands per bunch between ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” and ”Pei-Chiao”. The mean number of hands produced by ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” were 8.40 and 10.63 and produced by ”Pei-Chiao” were 8.60 and 10.76 for the first and second crop years resprctively. The ”Pei-Chiao” had a greater number of fingers per bunch than of the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” for the first crop year. The difference was 16.6, but the number of fingers of ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” was greater than those of ”Pei-Chiao” for the second crop year. There were only a little difference in mean weight between these two cultivars for the first and second crop years. Thefore, the comparison of yield between these two cultivars must be studied in detail.
14. The ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” was more resistant to infection with Bunchy top disease than ”Pei-Chiao” in previous works, but the ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” has lost this vigor to resist Bunchy top disease in recently.
15. Some papers of early foreign workers showed that all Cavendish group are highly resistant to Panama disease, but now, the condition changed. The ”Hsien-Jen-Chiao” (belongs to Robusta) and ”Pei-Chiao” (belongs to Giant Cavendish), by means of observing leat ratio and behavior of persistence of bracts, have been affected with Panama disease in Chia Tung, ……… etc, south of Taiwan.