¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ / v.13, no.3, 2004³â, pp.130-134

( Effects of Cultivation Method and Preservative Solution on the Vase Life of Cut Rose 'Rote Rose' )
;;; ;;;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
Experiments were conducted to evaluate quality and vase life of cut rose ¡®Rote Rose¡¯ cultivated either in soil or hydroponically in rockwool. Rose stems were put in four different preservative solutions, 0.5% chrysal RVB, BS (2% sucrose + 200 mg. L$^{-1}$ 8HQS + 0.3% Chrysal RVB), Sonk1 (BS + 0.1 mM ethionine), and double distilled $H_2O$. Flower stems were displayed at $20pm1^{circ}C$, RH 60%, and light intensity of $8.1mu$mol.$m^{-2}$ .$s^{-1}$ provided by fluorescent lamps for 16 h¤ý$d^{-1}$ Fresh weight and flower diameter during vase life were affected by cultivation method and were greater in hydroponically-grown roses than in soil-grown roses. Among preservative solutions, BS and Sonkl were superior to Chrysal RVB in terms of extending vase life. Vase life of cut rose in Chrysal RVB, BS, and Sonkl over the control was prolonged by about one day.
 
Ű¿öµå
hydroponics;fresh weight;stem length;flower diameter;
 
»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸÁö / v.13, no.3, 2004³â, pp.130-134
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1229-4675
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200411922995609)
¾ð¾î : ¿µ¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿