不同酵母发酵对新疆毛桃果酒品质的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2025.07.023

新疆农业科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 62 ›› Issue (7): 1784-1793.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2025.07.023

不同酵母发酵对新疆毛桃果酒品质的影响

王治泽¹^,²(), 谭慧林¹(), 朱友娟², 李娟¹, 牛贵洋¹, 张志东³(), 王丽玲⁴

1.阿克苏地区检验检测中心, 新疆阿克苏 843000
2.阿克苏职业技术学院, 新疆温宿 843100
3.新疆维吾尔自治区农业科学院微生物研究所, 乌鲁木齐 830091
4.塔里木大学食品科学与工程学院/南疆特色农产品深加工兵团重点实验室, 新疆阿拉尔, 843300

收稿日期:2024-12-24 出版日期:2025-07-20 发布日期:2025-09-05
通信作者: 谭慧林(1977 -),女,正高级工程师,研究方向为食品加工与检测,(E-mail)45118707@qq.com;
张志东(1977 -),男,研究员,博士,研究方向为新疆特殊环境微生物及益生菌资源挖掘与利用,(E-mail)zhangzheedong@qq.com
作者简介:王治泽(1982-),男,高级工程师,硕士,研究方向为食品加工与检测,(E-mail)273577631@qq.com
基金资助:
天山英才-青年科技拔尖人才项目(2022TSYCJC0040);第三次新疆综合科学考察项目(2022xjkk1200);新疆维吾尔自治区重点研发计划项目(2022B02026-5);新疆维吾尔自治区重点研发计划项目(2022B02024-4)

Effects of different yeast fermentations on the quality of Xinjiang peach wine

WANG Zhize¹^,²(), TAN Huilin¹(), ZHU Youjuan², LI Juan¹, NIU Guiyang¹, ZHANG Zhidong³(), WANG Lilin⁴

1. Aksu Inspection and Testing Center, Aksu Xinjiang 843000, China
2. Aksu Vocational and Technical College, Wensu Xinjiang 843100, China
3. Institute of Microbiology Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wensu 843100, China
4. Key Laboratory of Intensive Processing of Characteristic Agricultural Products in Southern Xinjiang of XPCC / College of Food Science and Engineering, , Aral Xinjiang 843300, China

Received:2024-12-24 Published:2025-07-20 Online:2025-09-05
Supported by:
Tianshan Talents - Young Science and Technology Top-notch Talents Project(2022TSYCJC0040);Key R & D Program Project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region(2022B02026-5)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】筛选出适宜新疆毛桃果酒加工的优良酵母。【方法】以新疆毛桃为酿酒原料,选取7种商业酿酒酵母发酵制备果酒,分别测定成品果酒中的理化指标、抗氧化性物质含量和DPPH、超氧阴离子清除率,利用主成分分析(PCA)法进行综合评价;采用模糊综合评价法评价感官风味。【结果】不同商业酵母制备的新疆毛桃果酒理化及感官存在显著差异。SB酵母酿制的果酒总酸含量最低为4.8 g/L,PE酵母最高则为7.5 g/L;RW酵母酿制的果酒总多酚含量最低为143.4 mg/L,EC酵母最高则为214.7 mg/L;从10个指标中提取了3个主成分,主成分的累计贡献率达到80.904%,能较好体现果酒的综合品质,排名最高为SB酵母。SB酵母发酵的酒样评分最高,为85.1分,酵母BV818评分最低,为68.9分。【结论】 SB酵母更为适宜新疆毛桃果酒酿造,其酵造的果酒品质和风味最佳。

关键词: 新疆毛桃; 果酒; 酿酒酵母; 主成分分析; 模糊综合评价

Abstract:

【Objective】 In order to screen suitable fermentation strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for Xinjiang peach fruit wine. 【Methods】 Xinjiang peaches were used as raw materials, and seven strains of commercial yeasts were selected to ferment the fruit wine. And then, the physicochemical indicators, antioxidant substance content, DPPH, and superoxide anion scavenging rates were measured. During the process, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed for analysis and comprehensive evaluation. Additionally, sensory flavor evaluation was conducted using the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. 【Results】 Significant differences were observed in the physicochemical properties and sensory characteristics of Xinjiang peach fruit wines prepared using different commercial yeasts. The total acid content of the fruit wine fermented by the SB yeast was the lowest at 4.8 g/L, while that of the PE yeast was the highest at 7.5 g/L. The total polyphenol content of the fruit wine made with the RW yeast was the lowest at 143.4 mg/L, whereas that of EC yeast was the highest at 214.7 mg/L. The cumulative contribution rate of the three principal components reached 80.904%, which adequately reflected the overall quality of the fruit wines, with the highest ranking achieved by the wine fermented using SB yeast.The wine sample fermented by the SB yeast had the highest score of 85.1, while the sample with yeast BV818 had the lowest score of 68.9. 【Conclusion】 SB yeast is more suitable for the production of Xinjiang peach wine, as the wine it produces has the best quality and flavor.

Key words: Xinjiang peach; fruit wine; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; principal component analysis; fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

TS26
S662.1

王治泽, 谭慧林, 朱友娟, 李娟, 牛贵洋, 张志东, 王丽玲. 不同酵母发酵对新疆毛桃果酒品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(7): 1784-1793.

WANG Zhize, TAN Huilin, ZHU Youjuan, LI Juan, NIU Guiyang, ZHANG Zhidong, WANG Lilin. Effects of different yeast fermentations on the quality of Xinjiang peach wine[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 62(7): 1784-1793.

图/表 10

参考文献 29

[1]	中国植物物种信息数据库[OL]. http://db.kib.ac.cn/CNFlora/SearchEngine.aspx.
	China Plants Database [OL]. http://db.kib.ac.cn/CNFlora/SearchEngine.aspx.
[2]	熊孝涛. 四个桃品种果实营养成分及抗氧化活性研究[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2021.
	XIONG Xiaotao. Research on nutritional components and antioxidant activities of four peach varieties' fruits[D]. Changsha: Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2021.
[3]	李春曦, 纪仁芬, 顾志新, 等. 不同采果部位水蜜桃湖景蜜露果实软化的影响因素[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(23): 240-242.
	LI Chunxi, JI Renfen, GU Zhixin, et al. Factors influencing softening of Honeydew fruits from different picking sites[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 47(23): 240-242.
[4]	范少丽, 程平, 张志刚, 等. 新疆桃果酒发酵工艺优化及其品质评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(6): 1423-1431. DOI
	FAN Shaoli, CHENG Ping, ZHANG Zhigang, et al. Optimization of fermentation technology and quality evaluation of Xinjiang peach wine[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(6): 1423-1431. DOI
[5]	卢志红, 杨宇航, 高宇阳, 等. 4个品种柑橘果酒品质差异性分析[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2024, 46(7): 174-184.
	LU Zhihong, YANG Yuhang, GAO Yuyang, et al. Analysis of quality difference of Citrus wines from four varieties[J]. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2024, 46(7): 174-184.
[6]	李素岳, 江爱莲, 胡先望, 等. 基于模糊数学综合评价法优化猕猴桃果酒工艺[J]. 中国果菜, 2024, 44(2): 26-34.
	LI Suyue, JIANG Ailian, HU Xianwang, et al. Optimization of kiwi fruit wine technology based on fuzzy mathematical comprehensive evaluation method[J]. China Fruit & Vegetable, 2024, 44(2): 26-34.
[7]	赵文英, 薛颖, 花锦, 等. 不同酿酒酵母菌发酵树莓果酒的理化特性[J]. 中国酿造, 2022, 41(4): 120-125. DOI
	ZHAO Wenying, XUE Ying, HUA Jin, et al. Physicochemical characterization of raspberry wines fermented with different Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains[J]. China Brewing, 2022, 41(4): 120-125. DOI
[8]	GB 5009.157-H值2016. 食品安全国家标准食品中有机酸的测定[S].
	GB 5009.157-H值2016. National Food Safety Standards Determination of Food Organic Acids[S].
[9]	GB/T 15038-H值2006. 葡萄酒、果酒通用分析方法[S].
	GB/T 15038-H值2006. Analytical methods of wine and fruit wine[S].
[10]	NY 2637-H值2014. 可溶性固形物的测定[S].
	NY 2637-H值2014. Determination of soluble solids[S].
[11]	T/AHFIA 005-H值2018. 植物提取物及其制品中总多酚含量的测定分光光度法[S].
	T/AHFIA 005-H值2018. Determination of total polyphenol content in plant extracts and their products by spectrophotometric method[S].
[12]	NY/T 3903-H值2021. 枸杞中黄酮类化合物的测定[S].
	NY/T 3903-H值2021. Determination of flavonoids in wolfberry[S].
[13]	GB/T 39100-H值2020. 多肽抗氧化性测定DPPH和ABTS法[S].
	GB/T 39100-H值2020. Determination of antioxidant activity for polypeptides-H值DPPH and ABTS methods[S].
[14]	李万芳, 余登升, 刘敬民. 山东北虫草不同极性部位体外抗氧化活性研究[J]. 中国药业, 2020, 29(1): 23-25.
	LI Wanfang, YU Dengsheng, LIU Jingmin. The antioxidant activity in vitro in different polar parts of Cordyceps militaris in Shandong[J]. China Pharmaceuticals, 2020, 29(1): 23-25.
[15]	GB/T 41906-H值2022. 超氧化物歧化酶活性检测方法[S].
	GB/T 41906-H值2022. Assay method of superoxide dismutase activity[S].
[16]	李晓钟, 王欢. 互联网对我国经济发展影响的区域差异比较研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2020,(12): 22-32.
	LI Xiaozhong, WANG Huan. A comparative study on the regional differences of the effect of Internet on China’s economic development[J]. China Soft Science, 2020,(12): 22-32.
[17]	沈颖, 刘晓艳, 白卫东, 等. 果酒中有机酸及其对果酒作用的研究[J]. 中国酿造, 2012, 31(2): 29-32. DOI
	SHEN Ying, LIU Xiaoyan, BAI Weidong, et al. Organic acids in fruit wine and its effect on fruit wine[J]. China Brewing, 2012, 31(2): 29-32. DOI
[18]	曾竟蓝, 马胤鹏, 秦丹, 等. 果酒中有机酸的作用及检测方法研究[J]. 中国酿造, 2018, 37(6): 183-187. DOI
	ZENG Jinglan, MA Yinpeng, QIN Dan, et al. Research on effect and detection method of organic acids in fruit wine[J]. China Brewing, 2018, 37(6): 183-187. DOI
[19]	刘炎, 赵鹏涛, 赵擎豪, 等. 有机酸对果酒品质的影响及调控技术研究进展[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2023, 39(3): 904-912.
	LIU Yan, ZHAO Pengtao, ZHAO Qinghao, et al. Research progress on the effect of organic acids on fruit wine quality and regulation technology[J]. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 39(3): 904-912.
[20]	曹颖, 耿瑶, 韩乃瑄, 等. 果酒中的有机酸及降酸策略研究[J]. 食品工业科技, 2023, 44(14): 457-464.
	CAO Ying, GENG Yao, HAN Naixuan, et al. Research on organic acids in fruit wine and acid reduction strategies[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2023, 44(14): 457-464.
[21]	殷海松, 孙勇民. 食品发酵技术(3版)[M]. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 2024.
	YIN Haisong, SUN Yongmin. Food fermentation technology(3rd ed.)[M]. Beijing: China Light Industry Press, 2024.
[22]	许立伟, 王炳宇, 杨馨悦, 等. 5种浆果果酒抗氧化活性差异及综合评价[J]. 中国酿造, 2021, 40(9): 200-205. DOI
	XU Liwei, WANG Bingyu, YANG Xinyue, et al. Difference and comprehensive evaluation of antioxidant activity of 5 kinds of fruit wine[J]. China Brewing, 2021, 40(9): 200-205.
[23]	刘祯珍, 谢丹丹, 迟乃玉, 等. 不同发酵工艺对刺梨果酒抗氧化活性的影响[J]. 中国食品添加剂, 2024, 35(1): 194-202.
	LIU Zhenzhen, XIE Dandan, CHI Naiyu, et al. Effects of different fermentation processes on antioxidant activity of prickly pear cider[J]. China Food Additives, 2024, 35(1): 194-202.
[24]	贾孟军, 刘雅洁, 吕月标, 等. 新疆地产葡萄酒和果酒总酚与其抗氧化活性的相关性研究[J]. 酿酒科技, 2015,(7): 41-45, 50.
	JIA Mengjun, LIU Yajie, LV Yuebiao, et al. The relationships between total phenols content and the antioxidant activities of Xinjiang local grape wine and fruit wine[J]. Liquor-Making Science & Technology, 2015,(7): 41-45, 50.
[25]	Jiang B, Sun Z Y. Phenolic compounds, total antioxidant capacity and volatile components of Cabernet Sauvignon red wines from five different wine-producing regions in China[J]. Food Science and Technology, 2019, 39(3): 735-746.
[26]	Sun W S, Chen X W, Feng S N, et al. Effect of sequential fermentation with indigenous non-Saccharomyces cerevisiae combinations and Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the chemical composition and aroma compounds evolution of kiwifruit wine[J]. Food Chemistry, 2024, 460: 140758.
[27]	Zhou Y, Fei G X, Faridul Hasan K M, et al. Cultivar difference characterization of kiwifruit wines on phenolic profiles, volatiles and antioxidant activity[J]. Food Chemistry: X, 2023, 18: 100691.
[28]	Xiao F, Xu T, Lu B Y, et al. Guidelines for antioxidant assays for food components[J]. Food Frontiers, 2020, 1(1): 60-69. DOI
[29]	马宁原, 马博文, 姚凌云, 等. 模糊综合评判结合响应面优化黄桃酒发酵工艺[J]. 中国酿造, 2021, 40(10): 225-230. DOI
	MA Ningyuan, MA Bowen, YAO Lingyun, et al. Optimization of fermentation process of yellow peach wine by fuzzy comprehensive evaluation combined with response surface methodology[J]. China Brewing, 2021, 40(10): 225-230. DOI

质量指标 Quality indexes	等级 Grade
质量指标 Quality indexes	优Excellent	良Good	中Middle	差Bad
外观(10分) Exterior	色泽呈黄色,酒体透亮,有光泽,无悬浮物和沉淀	色泽呈黄色,光泽暗淡,酒体透亮,无明显悬浮物	色泽呈黄色,偏暗,存在少量悬浮物或沉淀	色泽偏暗、颜色深,偏暗,有明显悬浮物或沉淀
香气(30分) Sweet smell	果香和酒香浓馥幽雅,协调悦人	果香和酒香明显,香味协调,无异味	果香和酒香较淡,但无异味	果香、酒香均不足,或有异味,不协调
滋味(40分) Taste	酸甜可口,酒体丰满,有新鲜感,无苦味,舒服,爽口,回味绵延	酒质柔顺,柔和爽口,酸甜适当	酒体协调,纯正无杂	酒体寡淡、不协调,或有其他明显的缺陷
典型性(20分) Typicality	风格独特、优雅无缺	典型明确,风格良好	有典型性,不够怡雅	无典型性

质量指标 Quality indexes	等级 Grade
质量指标 Quality indexes	优Excellent	良Good	中Middle	差Bad
外观(10分) Exterior	色泽呈黄色,酒体透亮,有光泽,无悬浮物和沉淀	色泽呈黄色,光泽暗淡,酒体透亮,无明显悬浮物	色泽呈黄色,偏暗,存在少量悬浮物或沉淀	色泽偏暗、颜色深,偏暗,有明显悬浮物或沉淀
香气(30分) Sweet smell	果香和酒香浓馥幽雅,协调悦人	果香和酒香明显,香味协调,无异味	果香和酒香较淡,但无异味	果香、酒香均不足,或有异味,不协调
滋味(40分) Taste	酸甜可口,酒体丰满,有新鲜感,无苦味,舒服,爽口,回味绵延	酒质柔顺,柔和爽口,酸甜适当	酒体协调,纯正无杂	酒体寡淡、不协调,或有其他明显的缺陷
典型性(20分) Typicality	风格独特、优雅无缺	典型明确,风格良好	有典型性,不够怡雅	无典型性

酵母名称 Yeast name	苹果酸 Malic acid(g/L)	乳酸 Lactic acid(g/L)	琥珀酸 Succinic acid(g/L)	酒石酸 Tartaric acid(g/L)	柠檬酸 Citric acid(g/L)
SLF	1.550±0.195^b	1.439±0.085^a	1.150±0.037^c	0.518±0.018^d	0.148±0.005^b
SB	0.995±0.026^d	0.928±0.032^b	0.782±0.012^e	0.585±0.018^c	0.039±0.001^f
PE	1.233±0.102^c	0.249±0.005^f	1.436±0.043^a	0.478±0.021^e	0.055±0.004^e
EC	2.103±0.170^a	0.520±0.029^de	0.807±0.024^e	0.389±0.015^f	0.086±0.009^d
BV818	0.926±0.044^d	0.584±0.019^cd	1.217±0.051^b	0.631±0.039^b	0.046±0.003^ef
RW	1.676±0.125^b	0.625±0.036^c	0.907±0.030^d	0.465±0.013^e	0.109±0.003^c
SY	1.528±0.125^b	0.502±0.017^e	1.119±0.007^c	0.684±0.021^a	0.590±0.020^a

酵母名称 Yeast name	苹果酸 Malic acid(g/L)	乳酸 Lactic acid(g/L)	琥珀酸 Succinic acid(g/L)	酒石酸 Tartaric acid(g/L)	柠檬酸 Citric acid(g/L)
SLF	1.550±0.195^b	1.439±0.085^a	1.150±0.037^c	0.518±0.018^d	0.148±0.005^b
SB	0.995±0.026^d	0.928±0.032^b	0.782±0.012^e	0.585±0.018^c	0.039±0.001^f
PE	1.233±0.102^c	0.249±0.005^f	1.436±0.043^a	0.478±0.021^e	0.055±0.004^e
EC	2.103±0.170^a	0.520±0.029^de	0.807±0.024^e	0.389±0.015^f	0.086±0.009^d
BV818	0.926±0.044^d	0.584±0.019^cd	1.217±0.051^b	0.631±0.039^b	0.046±0.003^ef
RW	1.676±0.125^b	0.625±0.036^c	0.907±0.030^d	0.465±0.013^e	0.109±0.003^c
SY	1.528±0.125^b	0.502±0.017^e	1.119±0.007^c	0.684±0.021^a	0.590±0.020^a

酵母名称 Yeast name	酒精度 Alcohol content(% vol)	干浸出物 Dry extract(g/L)	总酸 Total acid(g/L)	总糖 Total sugar(g/L)	pH值 pH value
SLF	13.2±0.1^a	32.0±0.3^a	7.0±0.10^b	3.2±0.1^d	4.10±0.02^b
SB	12.7±0.1^b	30.2±0.3^b	4.8±0.09^d	4.2±0.06^a	4.12±0.06^b
PE	12.6±0.1^b	26.8±0.2^d	7.5±0.07^a	3.8±0.1^c	4.12±0.01^b
EC	11.7±0.1^d	27.1±0.2^d	7.0±0.1^b	4.2±0.06^a	3.95±0.05^c
BV818	12.4±0.0^c	26.1±0.2^e	7.0±0.2^b	4.0±0.0^b	4.22±0.06^a
RW	11.7±0.1^d	27.9±0.1^c	6.7±0.08^c	2.2±0.06^e	4.05±0.05^b
SY	11.5±0.1^e	27.6±0.2^c	6.7±0.10^c	3.1±0.2^d	4.12±0.07^b

不同酵母发酵对新疆毛桃果酒品质的影响

Effects of different yeast fermentations on the quality of Xinjiang peach wine

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 29

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

酵母名称 Yeast name	总多酚 Total polyphenols (mg/L)	VC (mg/100mL)	黄酮 Flavonoids (mg/L)	DPPH	超氧阴离子 Superoxide anion (%)
SLF	188.5±4.3^d	8.6±0.2^d	1 200.3±4.8^d	28.3±0.8^b	48.2±0.9^e
SB	203.4±3.0^bc	10.2±0.2^b	1 211.7±11.7^b	24.2±0.6^d	46.7±1.7^b
PE	206.0±3.1^b	8.7±0.2^d	1 223.6±7.8^c	30.4±1.0^a	44.8±1.0^d
EC	214.7±2.9^a	10.5±0.1^a	1 163.9±8.6^a	30.1±0.8^a	35.0±0.8^a
BV818	198.1±2.0^c	9.8±0.1^c	1 158.4±5.0^c	22.0±1.0^e	34.2±0.5^c
RW	143.4±1.6^f	6.3±0.1^f	1167.9±7.6^f	26.6±1.7^bc	36.1±1.0^f
SY	165.4±5.4^e	8.1±0.1^e	1 188.5±6.5^e	26.2±0.9^c	40.0±0.2^e

主成分 Principal component	特征值 Eigenvalue	贡献率 Contribution rate(%)	累积贡献率 Cumulative contribution rate(%)
1	4.834	48.336	48.336
2	1.9	19.001	67.337
3	1.357	13.567	80.904
4	0.915	9.152	90.056
5	0.755	7.546	97.603
6	0.129	1.295	98.897
7	0.07	0.697	99.594
8	0.017	0.165	99.759
9	0.016	0.155	99.914
10	0.009	0.086	100

指标 Indexes	主成分载荷矩阵 Principal Component Load Matrix
指标 Indexes	主成分1	主成分2	主成分3
酒精度Alcoholic strength	0.27	0.526	0.703
干浸出物Dry extract	-0.115	0.888	0.213
pH	-0.086	-0.057	0.785
总酸Total acid	-0.176	-0.68	0.085
总糖Total sugar	0.974	-0.022	0.094
总多酚Total poly phenols	0.961	0.019	0.115
VC	0.971	0.077	0.068
黄酮Flavone	0.976	0.066	0.11
DPPH	0.162	-0.515	0.466
超氧阴离子Superoxide anion	0.935	-0.022	-0.266

指标 Indexes	主成分 Principal component
指标 Indexes	1	2	3
酒精度Alcoholic strength	0.021	0.232	0.431
干浸出物Dry extract	-0.048	0.487	0.076
pH	-0.047	-0.098	0.551
总酸Total acid	-0.028	-0.389	0.124
总糖Total sugar	0.203	-0.038	0.03
总多酚Total poly phenols	0.199	-0.017	0.042
VC	0.202	0.02	0.004
黄酮Flavone	0.201	0.01	0.034
DPPH	0.026	-0.335	0.361
超氧阴离子Superoxide anion	0.208	-0.006	-0.218

酵母名称 Yeast name	F₁	F₂	F₃	F	排名 Ranking
SLF	-0.36	1.20	0.96	0.23	4
SB	0.85	1.59	0.04	0.87	1
PE	0.27	-0.61	0.45	0.11	5
EC	1.31	-0.48	-1.60	0.37	2
BV818	0.52	-1.17	1.28	0.28	3
RW	-1.72	-0.13	-0.73	-1.18	7
SY	-0.87	-0.39	-0.40	-0.68	6

酒样 Liquor samples	外观 Appearance				香气 Aroma				滋味 Taste				典型性 Typicalness
酒样 Liquor samples	优	良	中	差	优	良	中	差	优	良	中	差	优	良	中	差
1#	9	2	0	0	0	7	4	0	0	6	5	0	0	1	8	2
2#	0	1	9	1	9	2	0	0	1	9	1	0	6	5	0	0
3#	0	3	8	0	0	8	3	0	2	8	1	0	0	2	7	2
4#	3	8	0	0	0	2	8	1	0	7	4	0	0	6	5	0
5#	0	0	1	10	1	7	3	0	1	9	1	0	0	0	5	6
6#	2	9	0	0	1	9	1	0	0	9	2	0	0	0	11	0
7#	1	7	3	0	0	5	6	0	0	9	1	1	0	0	10	1

[1]	白锋, 罗春彦, 张恺, 于丽娟, 纳扎开提·艾尼万尔, 马军德, 居马恒·塔依尔别克, 塔力哈提·克麦勒巴依, 阿米妮古丽·阿不来孜, 玛尔孜娅·亚森, 周喜荣, 张艳花. 哈萨克羊体重体尺相关性及主成分分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(6): 1552-1560.
[2]	郝曦煜, 张仲鹃, 郑成栋, 张斯文, 张瑾, 郑春秀, 吴世凯, 王雪. 不同鲜食玉米品种(系)农艺性状与产量的比较分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(4): 837-849.
[3]	王贺亚, 罗静静, 孟玲, 李怀胜, 艾海峰, 贾东海. 基于主成分和聚类分析综合评价塔额盆地油菜新品种(系)[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2025, 62(1): 118-128.
[4]	范少丽, 程平, 张志刚, 李宏, 杨璐. 新疆桃果酒发酵工艺优化及其品质评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(6): 1423-1431.
[5]	林青, 时红玲, 秦新政, 李月, 王子涵, 高雁, 曾军, 王浩中, 娄恺, 霍向东. 基于非靶向代谢组学分析两种酵母培养物的成分差异[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(5): 1218-1226.
[6]	朱韬, 雷庆元, 马亮. 不同水氮用量对复播玉米生长发育、产量及利用效率的影响和选优模型验证[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(4): 835-844.
[7]	高沐甜, 肖艳梅, 廖志杰, 黄成. 玉米-大刍草渗入系群体籽粒及品质性状的综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(4): 885-891.
[8]	徐斌, 王征, 宋占腾, 玛尔哈巴·帕尔哈提, 朱靖蓉, 车凤斌, 李永海, 武凤艳, 苗福红. 11份野生沙棘种质资源果实品质分析与综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(12): 3020-3031.
[9]	唐丽, 田可川, 张昕宁, 刘黎, 阿布力克木·阿地力, 杨智, 杨存明, 张晓雪, 黄锡霞, 田月珍. 不同生长阶段和田羊体重体尺指标的聚类与主成分分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(11): 2853-2860.
[10]	欧阳单华, 赵康, 宋东博, 柳自清, 郭旺珍, 刘燕, 顾爱星, 阿扎提古丽·麦麦提图尔, 艾力卡尔江·艾麦尔. 35份棉花品系对黄萎病抗性鉴定及综合分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(1): 9-18.
[11]	赵连佳, 李淦, 徐麟, 颜国荣, 刘宁, 王帆, 邓超宏, 阿布都克尤木·阿不都热孜克, 王聪, 王威. 不同大豆品种在新疆生态区主要农艺性状表现及产量的相关分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(7): 1663-1670.
[12]	杨明花, 刘强, 廖必勇, 彭云承, 布阿依夏木·那曼提, 达吾来·杰克山. 不完全双列杂交玉米组合抗倒伏综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 832-840.
[13]	刘敏, 靳娟, 阿布都卡尤木·阿依麦提, 樊丁宇, 郝庆, 杨磊, 赵晓梅, 耿文娟. 新疆3个鲜食枣品种的抗寒性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 916-924.
[14]	郭阳, 郭俊先, 史勇, 刘丽, 方文艳, 刘彦岑. 特征波长筛选结合PCA-LSSVM对甜瓜叶片SPAD值的预测[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 616-623.
[15]	马旭, 赵英, 韩炜, 武胜利, 韩晓燕. 14种沙棘果实中氨基酸组成的主成分分析与综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 378-388.