Ehime University Institutional Repository

TAKAHASHI, Motoyasu

English

A 'Parallel and Contrast' Study of English and Japanese Village Histories: Features of Family Continuity

HOSSAIN, A. B. M. Sharif

MIZUTANI, Fusao

ONGUSO, J. M.

EL-SHEREIF, A. R.

RUTTO, K. L.

Introduction
Slender spindle bush types are commonly applied on
compact-sized fruit trees. Peach trees grafted on Prunus
tomentosa and some other Prunus species can be dwarfed
but show graft-incompatibility (Ferree, 1988; Andrews
and Serrano, 1992). It is difficult to maintain trees grafted
on vigorous rootstocks as slender spindle types by winter
pruning. The growth of current-year shoots is so great that
the inner parts of the trees are shaded resulting in poor
growth and even death of shoots near the trunk. Such
poor light penetration also causes poor fruit pigmentation.
Moreover, the vigorous shoot growth competes with fruit
growth eventually affecting the quality of harvested fruit.
A number of reasons have been given to support the
practice of summer pruning in peach. Summer pruning
was reported to reduce vegetative growth, improve light
penetration, enhance fruit quality, concentrate fruit
maturation and increase the number of flower buds
(Hyden and Emerson, 1976; Ritter, 1983; Rom and
Ferree, 1984). Summer pruning has been regarded as less
invigorating than dormant pruning (Hyden and Emerson,
1976; Utermark, 1977).
Summer pruning has recently received much attention
as a potential method of controlling tree size and reducing
pruning costs in orchard operations (Taylor and Ferree,
1984). It may, however, alter tree physiological processes
in ways that are not yet fully understood (Rom and
Ferree, 1984; Taylor and Ferree, 1986; Marini, 1985).
Summer pruning of woody plants has resulted in altered
levels of endogenous growth regulators and shoot
carbohydrates (Rom and Ferree, 1984). In the previous
work, we reported that summer pruning was a useful
practice for maintaining slender spindle bush type by
using an early maturing selection (‘Akatsuki’ x unknown
‘Banto’) peach trees grafted on vigorous rootstocks
(Hossain et al., 2004). Here we further studied the
usefulness of summer pruning for maintaining slender
spindle bush type by using another early maturing peach
cultivar ‘Hikawahakuho’ grafted on vigorous wild form
peach rootstocks.
Materials and Methods
Experiment I
Site
The experiment was carried out in an orchard in the
Ehime University Farm located in southern Japan, 33°57′,
N, 132°47′, E at an elevation of about 20 m above sea
level. The area has a mild temperate climate characterized
by hot humid summers and cold dry winters. The average
annual temperature and precipitation are 14.5℃ and 1,200
mm, respectively.
Effect of Summer Pruning on Shoot Growth and Fruit Quality
in Peach Trees Trained as Slender Spindle Bush Type
A.B.M. Sharif HOSSAIN＊, Fusao MIZUTANI＊, Justus M. ONGUSO＊, A.R. El-SHEREIF＊ and K.L. RUTTO＊
Abstract
Summer pruning experiments were carried out to maintain slender spindle bush type in ‘Hikawahakuho’ peach
(Prunus persica Batsch) trees grafted on wild form vigorous rootstocks. In the first experiment in which five-year-old
trees were used, summer pruning was performed in mid-July after fruit were harvested, while winter pruning in mid-
March as the control. Summer pruning produced regeneration of terminal and lateral shoots. Terminal shoot growth
was greater than lateral shoot. Leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) was greater but the percentage of flower buds
was lower in summer-pruned than winter-pruned trees. In the following season, the total shoot length was greatly
reduced in summer pruned trees. Fruit maturation seemed to be accelerated in summer-pruned trees, which resulted in
higher soluble solids content (SSC) and lower titratable acidity (TA) in the fruit. Furthermore, in the second
experiment, effects of two successive years of summer pruning were determined. The weight of pruned shoots was
lower in the two-successive-year-summer-pruned (SP) trees than single-year-summer-pruned (SP) trees. This
suggests the gradual reduction in the vegetative growth of trees by annual summer pruning. SSC of fruit was slightly
higher in SP than SP trees. Thus, summer pruning in mid-July after fruit harvest is a useful practice for
maintaining slender spindle bush type of peach trees grafted on vigorous rootstocks.
Key words: Dwarfing, Flower bud, Shoot growth, Slender spindle bush, Summer pruning.
Received 27 March 2006.
Accepted 22 June 2006.
＊Laboratory of Agricultural (Biological) Production Manage-
ment, The Experimental Farm, Faculty of Agriculture, Ehime
University, 498 Ko, Hattanji, Matsuyama, 799-2424, Japan
９愛媛大学農学部紀要（Mem. Fac. Agr., Ehime Univ.）
５１：９－１３（２００６）
Plant materials, treatment and measurement
Five-year-old peach (Prunus persica Batsch cv.
‘Hikawahakuho’) trees grafted on wild form vigorous
peach rootstocks and planted at a spacing of 2 x 3 m were
used. They had been trained as slender spindle bush type
by winter pruning before the experiment started. Eight
trees were randomly selected and four trees each subjected
to summer and winter pruning respectively. Summer
pruning consisted of heading back of current shoots to
about 10 cm length and removal of vigorous shoots,
which was conducted after fruit harvest on July 15, 2003.
On the other hand, winter pruning was done in early
March 2004. The number of regenerated shoots was
recorded starting after summer pruning and the terminal
and lateral shoot length was measured for four months.
The other parameters such as leaf drop percent, vegetative
and flower bud number were determined. Leaf chlorophyll
was measured in early September and early November
2003 using a SPAD chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502,
Minolta Co. Japan). Leaves were selected in the middle
part of regenerated shoots in the summer-pruned trees and
of current-year shoots in the winter-pruned trees. In 2004,
the total shoot length was measured before summer
pruning. Fruit were harvested on June 28, 2004. Fruit
number per tree and fruit weight were recorded
immediately after harvest. Ten fruit per tree were
randomly selected and used to determine total soluble
solids content (SSC) and titratable acidity (TA).
Experiment II
Plant materials, treatment and measurement
In 2004, another group of six-year-old ‘Hikawahakuho’
peach trees grafted on vigorous wild form peach
rootstocks were selected from the same plots of
Experiment and a similar experiment was conducted
again. Summer pruned trees were designated as SP and
winter pruned trees as WP. Moreover, the trees used in
Experiment were successively summer and winter
pruned in the second season. These trees were designated
as SP and WP, respectively. In 2004, summer
pruning was conducted on July 15 after fruit harvest,
while winter pruning in early March 2005. The number of
regenerated shoots was counted after summer pruning, and
the weight of pruned branches was also recorded. Fruit
were harvested on June 29, 2005. Fruit number per tree
and fruit weight were recorded immediately after harvest
and SSC and TA were determined.
Results
Experiment I
The pruned shoot weight was higher in summer-pruned
than in winter-pruned trees (Fig. 1). Shoot regeneration
started one week after pruning and stopped by mid-
September (Fig. 2). The growth of regenerated shoots was
observed to continue up to mid-October (Fig. 3). There
was no difference in leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD
values) in September but in November the content was
higher in summer-pruned than in winter-pruned trees (Fig.
4). Leaf drop started two months earlier in winter-pruned
than in summer-pruned trees (Fig. 5). There were fewer
flower buds in summer-pruned trees than winter-pruned
trees (Table 1). In the following year, the total shoot
length of summer-pruned trees was approximately half of
that of winter-pruned trees (Table 1). There were no
significant differences in fruit number per tree, fruit
weight, or yield between the two treatments (Table 2).
However, soluble solids content (SSC) of harvested fruit
was greater and titratable acid content (TA) lower in
Fig. 1. Effect of summer pruning on pruned branch weight of
peach trees in 2003－2004. SP＝summer pruning; WP
＝winter pruning. Vertical bars represent SE (n＝4).
Summer-pruned branches include leaves.
Fig. 2. Effect of summer pruning conducted in mid-July on
regenerated shoot numbers of peach trees in 2003.
Vertical bars represent SE (n＝4).
１０ A.B.M. Sharif HOSSAIN, Fusao MIZUTANI, Justus M. ONGUSO, A.R. El-SHEREIF and K.L. RUTTO
summer-pruned than in winter-pruned trees (Table 2).
Experiment II
In 2004, there was little difference in pruned shoot
weight between SP and WP. However, the pruned
shoot weight was lower in SP than SP (Fig. 6). Fruit
number per tree was a little lower in summer-pruned than
in winter-pruned trees in both single-year and two-
successive-year treatments (Table 3). However, the fruit
diameter was slightly greater in summer-pruned trees but
Treatment
Flower buds
(%)
Total shoot length
(m)
SP
WP
z 17.2±4.5 z
65.7±8.7
21.8±4.9
45.0±9.0
Fig. 5. Effect of summer pruning on leaf drop in peach trees
from late September to late January in 2003－2004.
Vertical bars represent SE (n＝4).
Fig. 3. Effect of summer pruning on average regenerated shoot
length of peach trees in 2003. Vertical bars represent
SE (n＝4).
Fig. 6. Effect of summer and winter pruning on pruned shoot
weight of peach trees in 2004. Vertical bars represent
SE (n＝4). SP＝Summer pruning, WP＝Winter
pruning. Summer-pruned branches include leaves. SP
, WP and SP, WP indicate single-year and
two-successive-year pruning, respectively.
Table 1. Effect of summer pruning on flower bud formation
and total shoot length of peach trees in the
following year 2004.Fig. 4. Effect of summer pruning on leaf chlorophyll of peach
trees in September and November in 2003. Vertical
bars represent SE (n＝4).
Z Mean ± SE (n＝4)
１１Effect of Summer Pruning on Shoot Growth and Fruit Quality in Peach Trees Trained as Slender Spindle Bush Type
there were no significant differences in yield per tree.
Table 3 shows that SSC of harvested fruit was greater and
TA lower in summer-pruned than in winter-pruned trees,
when compared within single-year treatments (SP and
WP) and two-successive-year treatments (SP and WP
). Furthermore, SSC was greater and TA was lower in
SP than SP.
Discussion
In Experiment, the pruned shoot weight was higher
in summer-pruned than in winter-pruned trees (Fig. 1).
This is probably because summer pruning was conducted
for the first time, and because summer-pruned branches
included leaves. The growth of regenerated shoots
continued up to mid-October reaching a mean length of
14.7cm. Marini (1984) reported that only 2% of the
shoots in summer-pruned peach trees exhibited re-growth
with mean re-growth length being 7.3 cm. It seems that
the growth of regenerated shoots depends on the time of
summer pruning. Mizutani et al. (2000) reported that the
earlier summer pruning resulted in the greater shoot length
and shoot numbers in apple trees. Summer pruned trees
showed greater leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD values) in
November (Fig. 4). Mierowska et al. (2002) also reported
that in apple spur leaves total chlorophyll content was
higher in summer-pruned than in non-pruned trees during
November-March.
Summer pruning caused the reduction in flower bud
formation (Fig. 6). Mizutani et al. (2000) reported a
decrease in flower bud formation with delayed summer
pruning in apple trees. Hossain et al. (2004) stated that
flowers were less in summer-pruned than in winter-pruned
trees, and that bud-break occurred three to four days
earlier in summer-pruned compared with winter-pruned
trees. Erez (1982) observed that in a mechanized meadow
orchard system of peach trees, four to five months are
required for sufficient shoot regeneration and flower bud
formation. Therefore, he insists that the system can be
applicable to only early maturing cultivars, with a long
enough growing season after fruit harvest.
Ferree et al. (1984) reported that re-growth increases
when pruning is done early in the growing season. This
observation may be due to changes in phytohormone
levels with time within the growing season. We reported
that SSC was higher and TA was lower in summer-pruned
than in winter-pruned trees by employing ‘Akatsuki’ x
unknown ‘Banto’ peach selection (Hossain et al. 2004).
The increasing SSC and lowering TA were found in trees
after two-successive-year summer pruning in this
experiment (Table 3). This tendency was also observed in
the previous work (Hossain et al., 2005).
In conclusion, summer pruning in mid-July after harvest
may be a useful practice for controlling tree size in early
maturing cultivar peach trees grafted on vigorous
rootstocks in which slender spindle bush type training is
applied.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan for
providing funds for this work.
References
Andrews, P .K. and C.M. Serrano (1992) . Graft
incompatibility. Hort. Rev. 15: 183-232.
Erez, A. (1982). Peach meadow orchard: two feasible systems.
HortSci. 17: 138-142.
Ferree, D.C., S.C. Myers, C.R. Rom and B.H. Taylor (1984).
Physiological aspects of summer pruning. Acta Hort. 146:
243-252.
Treatment Fruit No./tree
Fruit weight
(g)
Yield
(kg/tree)
Soluble solids
content (%)
Titratable acidity
(%)
SP
WP
z 10.8±5.8 z
15.7±1.1
146.5±12.9
137.4±15.4
1.66±0.84
2.18±0.08
11.04±0.26
10.25±0.26
0.37±0.05
0.54±0.04
Treatment
Fruit
No./tree
Fruit weight
(g)
Fruit diameter
(mm)
Fruit length
(mm)
Yield
(kg/tree)
Maturity
degreez
Soluble solids
content (%)
Titratable
acidity (%)
y SPy
WP
SP
WP
x28.1±4.1x
41.1±5.8
22.2±3.6
30.4±4.3
131.0±0.5
128.1±0.4
136.2±6.0
128.6±0.4
62.8±0.6
60.5±0.4
63.6±0.7
60.6±0.5
61.7±0.6
59.6±0.3
62.8±0.6
59.7±0.4
3.7±0.7
5.3±1.0
3.0±0.6
3.9±0.8
3.5±0.4
2.7±0.2
3.9±0.3
2.9±0.3
12.8±0.24
11.8±0.21
13.7±0.25
12.7±0.20
0.27±0.03
0.39±0.03
0.24±0.02
0.38±0.03
Table 2. Effect of summer pruning on yield and quality of peach fruit in the following year 2004.
z Mean ± SE (n＝4)
Table 3. Effect of summer and winter pruning on fruit yield and quality of peach in 2005.
z Maturity degree was determined visually by giving a score of 0 (green skin color) to 5 (red fully ripen) depending on fruit
maturity.
y SP＝Summer pruning, WP＝Winter pruning. SP, WP and SP, WP indicate single-year and two-successive-year
pruning, respectively.
x Means ± SE (n＝4).
１２ A.B.M. Sharif HOSSAIN, Fusao MIZUTANI, Justus M. ONGUSO, A.R. El-SHEREIF and K.L. RUTTO
Ferree, D.C. (1988). Role of rootstocks and spur-type scions
for controlling vegetative growth of apple and peach trees.
HortSci. 23: 464-467.
Hossain, A.B.M.S., F. Mizutani and J.M. Onguso (2004).
Effect of summer pruning on maintaining the shape of
slender spindle bush of peach tree grafted on vigorous
rootstock. J. Japan. Agr. Tech. Man. 11: 55-62.
Hossain, A.B.M.S., F. Mizutani, J.M. Onguso and H. Yamada
(2005). Effect of summer and winter pruning of peach as
slender spindle bush type on growth, yield and quality. J.
Appl. Hort. 7: 11-15.
Hyden, R.A. and F.H. Emerson (1976). The case of summer
pruning. Amer. Fruit Grower 95: 27-28.
Marini, R.P. (1984). Vegetative growth of peach trees
following the pruning treatments. Acta Hort. 146: 287-292.
Marini, R.P. (1985). Vegetative growth, yield and fruit quality
of peach as influenced by dormant pruning, summer
pruning and summer topping. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 110:
133-139.
Mierowska, A., N. Keutgen, M. Huysamer and V. Smith
(2002). Photosynthetic acclimation of apple spur leaves to
summer pruning. Sci. Hort. 92: 9-27.
Mizutani, F., T. Kogami, D.G. Moon, R.C. Bhusal, K.L. Rutto
and H. Akiyoshi (2000). Effects of summer pruning on the
number of apical buds near the trunk in slender-spindle-
trained apple trees grafted on semi-dwarfing rootstocks.
Bull. Exp. Farm Coll. Agr., Ehime Univ. 22: 1-10.
Ritter, C.M. (1983). Summer pruning of peach trees. The
Mountainer Grower 448: 16-19.
Rom, C.M. and D.C. Ferree (1984). The influence of summer
pruning current season shoots on growth, floral bud
development and winter injury of mature peach trees.
HortSci. 19: 543-545.
Taylor, B.H. and D.C. Ferree (1984). The influence of summer
pruning and cropping on growth and fruiting of apple. J.
Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 109: 17-24.
Taylor, B.H. and D.C. Ferree (1986). The influence of summer
pruning and fruit cropping on the carbohydrate, nitrogen
and nutrient composition of apple trees. J. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 111: 342-346.
Utermark, H. (1977). Summer pruning to control growth and
maintain fruiting in mature apple trees. Compact Fruit Trees
10: 86-90.
摘 要
A.B.M.シャリフ フセイン・水谷房雄・J.M.オングソ・
A.R.エル‐シェリフ・K.L.ルット：細型紡錘形に仕立てた
強勢台モモ樹における枝の生長，果実品質に及ぼす夏季
剪定の効果
強勢台木の野生モモに接いだ５年生の‘日川白鳳’を
用いて，樹形を細型紡錘形に維持するために，夏季剪定
の実験を行った．果実が収穫された後，７月中旬に夏季
剪定を行った．一方，対照区として冬季剪定は３月中旬
に行った．夏季剪定によって，頂芽や側芽からの２次新
梢の発生が見られた．側芽からの２次新梢に比べて頂芽
からの２次新梢のほうが生長が良かった．冬季剪定に比
べて，夏季剪定区のほうが葉のクロロフィル含量（SPAD
値）が高かったが，花芽の割合が低かった．翌年，夏季
剪定区で全枝長が小さくなった．果実の成熟は夏季剪定
区で促進される傾向が見られ，その結果，夏季剪定区で
果実の糖度は高く，酸度は低かった．さらに，続いて２
年連続の夏季剪定の効果を調査した．２年連続して夏季
剪定をすると，剪定枝重は単年だけの夏季剪定区に比べ
て，小さくなった．これは，連年の夏季剪定によって樹
体の栄養生長が抑制されていることを示すものと思われ
る．また，連年の夏季剪定によって果実の糖度はやや高
くなる傾向が認められた．したがって，果実収穫後の７
月中旬の夏季剪定は，強勢台木に接いだモモを細型紡錘
形に維持するのに有効な管理だと思われる．
１３Effect of Summer Pruning on Shoot Growth and Fruit Quality in Peach Trees Trained as Slender Spindle Bush Type



Effect of Summer Pruning on Shoot Growth and Fruit Quality in Peach Trees Trained as Slender Spindle Bush Type

樋上, 喜信

梶原, 誠司

市原, 英行

高松, 雄三

Japanese

Reduction of test application time for logic circuits

山口, 正隆

大福, 学

畑田, 佳男

野中, 浩一

Analysis of Year-Long Variability of Wave Height on the Coastal Area around Sagami Bay, the Pacific Coasts of Japan

宇戸, 寿幸

大上, 健二

On Structure and Design of Multiwavelets

砂田, 大樹

榊原, 正幸

四国中央部三波川帯の国領川地域において発見された含電気石角閃岩

中村, 千怜

愛媛大学理学部紀要第１２巻3943ページ，2006年
Ｍ画、FEC・SciEhineUniwL1ゐ1.12,ｐ､3943,2006
細粒火山ガラスのEDSによる定量化学分析技術の開発
Developmentofquantitativeanalyticaltechniquesoffine-gminedvolcanicglassshardsbymeansof
eneIgydispersionX-mymlcroanalyzer
●
中村千怜’榊原正幸２
Ｃｈｊｓα#CMU伽””αJ”dMzsfりﾉ28肘
釦jtzIjtj6”α２
'愛媛大学大学院理工学研究科
GrBduateSchoolofScienccandEnginecring,Ehimc
Univeusi峡2-SBun幻o-dlO,MgtslⅣama790-8577,JBpan
2愛媛大学理学部地球科学科
DepartmentofEarlhScience,FaculWofSciences,Ehime
Universi眺2-5Bunl9o･cho,MatSuyHma790-8577,Japan
はじめに
Abstract
恥phraisanimportantnaturallaboratoryfbrstudying
processesofmagmagenesiganderupti⑪n．TheanaIysisdefncit
generally正nectsaccidentaIimersectionofmountingepoxy
adjacenttoglaSsfragmentsorof皿seenmicmvesiclegwithin
glassfragmentsbytheanalyticalbeam･Ipwtotalsofthe
analySiga雁ｍ０ｒｅｃ⑪ｍｍｏｎｉｎｆｉｎ←gminedsamples
(<0.25ｍｍ).Inthisstudybquantitativechemicalanalysison
fine-grainedvolcanicglassshards(<0.25ｍｍ)hasbeencarried
outbynewtechniquefbrmountingsmallv0lcanicglass
shards･ThinCuSheethasbeenusedfbrmoImtingglass
shards．Ｖblcanicglassmustbepolishedumtilitsthickness
becomeabouthalfinpitsoftheCusheet･Ｔｈｅｒｅsultsuggests
thatthismethodisavailablefbrthequantitativeanalysisof
fine-grainedglassghards(<0.25ｍｍ)．
Ｋｅｙｗｏｒｄｓ：tephra,fine-grainedvolcanicglass,ＥＤＳ,Cusheet，
anabﾉticaltechnique
降下火山砕屑物層･火砕流堆積物などテフラ層の同
定・対比には，野外観察に加えて火山ガラス・鉱物
の屈折率，本質斑晶鉱物の量比などが主要な示標と
して用いられてきた（新井ほか，1977)。しかし，上
記の手法によっては,岩石記載的特徴が類似したテフ
ラ層（例えば，同じ火山から繰り返し噴出したもの）の
区別が困難な場合もある。そのため，近年，火山ガ
ラスの化学組成分析がテフラの対比や岩石学的検討に
用いられるようになった。一般に，火山ガラスの主成
分はＸ線マイクロアナライザーによって測定されてい
る。Ｘ線マイクロアナライザーには波長分散型(WDS）
とエネルギー分散型（EDS）がある。前者は高精度の
定量が可能であるが，低感度のために大きな試料電
流を必要とし，火山ガラスを分析する際，電子線によ
るダメージによって軽元素（特に，ＮａおよびＫ）が減
衰し，正しい値が得られない(たとえば,Keller,1981；
NielsenandSigurdsson，１９８１；HuntandHill，１９９３
など)。一方，後者は高感度であるため小さな試料電
流で充分に定量分析を行え，試料ダメージはほとんど
考慮する必要がない。また，ｘ線検出器の改良に伴っ
てその分解能が向上した結果，軽元素の定量分析が
充分に行えるようになった。
火山ガラスは非晶質であるため風化に対して脆弱で
あり，地層に含まれる火山ガラスは，その化学成分が
地下水や降水によって溶脱し,変質する可能性が大き
い(岩崎・榊原，2004)。例えば，水和の過程で，ガ
ラス中のＫ２０およびＮａ２０が周縁部や割れ目に沿って
溶脱しやすいということが分かっている（中村，
2005Ｍs)。一般に細粒なガラスほど変質しやすいと考
えられている。
従来のＥＤＳ分析に用いる火山ガラス薄片の作成方
－３９－
富誕、盛罰｡患‘窪‘
蕊蔑ろ、
中村千怜・榊原正幸
Ｉ
Fig.２．PhotomicrographsofCusheetsfbr
mountingglassshards．
Fig.１．Photomicrogfaphofvolcanicglassshards
inOHTL2tephra。
盛蕊』E；
－４０－
ｉ
Ｉ
’
一
籾
■
■
・
一
霊
呈
］色蕊翻ｇ愚
『
ｑ塵
●
一
一
・
一
崎
担
三
・
２
．
全
》
距
閲
学
》
卓
鮮
聯
一
懇
．
‐
か
，
』
鱗
邑蕊３ 鑓冨２Ｓ
Fig.４．SEMimageofglassesinthesheets．
寓弾㈲剰禰即吟
■幽幽噸嘩
Ｆ=一一~可
●
ｆ
蓬
ｉ
尋
>;g霊室識’
一丁弓展耐
」
一画、｡雷
Fig.３．Photomicrographsofmountedglassesin
theCusheet．
三一一■－．．４卑些”
細粒火山ヵﾗｽのEDSによる定量化学分析技術の開発
法は，スライドガラス上に火山ガラス片を載せ，エポキ
シ樹脂で封入するという簡単な方法である（たとえば，
奥村，１９９１；黒川，1999)。しかしながら，この方法
では，火山ガラス片が表面に露出する程度しか研磨し
ないため，変質の影響を最小限に抑えることが難しく，
ガラスの変質部を分析する可能性が極めて高いと考え
られる。また，Ｘ線発生領域の深さや横方向への広が
りのため，ガラスの薄い部分を測定すると，測定値に
ばらつきが生じる（岩崎，2004ＭS)。
以上のことから，火山ガラス片の周縁部および亀裂
周辺から数１０叩、以上離れた核部に電子線を照射す
ることによって，火山ガラスの変質による影響を最小限
に抑えることができる。また，一試料から多数の火山
ガラスを分析するもしくは一つの火山ガラス片における
分析点を増やし，著しくトータルの低い，すなわちＨ２０
の多い,分析値を除くことによって分析の正確さを確保
することが可能であることが明らかにされた（岩崎・榊
原，2004)。ただし，岩崎・榊原（2004）の方法で
は，長径0.5ｍｍ以下のガラス片の研磨試料を作成す
ることは困難であった。そこで，本研究では，従来，
まったく分析されなかった長径0.25ｍｍ以下の細粒火
山ガラスを分析するための薄片試料の作成方法を提案
し，その分析例を示す。
今回，火山ガラスの定量分析は愛媛大学理学部生
物地球圏科学科に設置している走査電子顕微鏡
(JEOLJSM‐5400）にOxfbrd社製Ｘ線検出器を装
着したEDSを使用した。本研究で分析に用いた試料
は愛媛県野村町大田，堆肥場裏の露頭において採取
したテフラ（以下，ＯＨＴ－２と呼ぶ）中の火山ガラス片
である。このテフラは水野・吉川（1991）によってＮｇ‐
１に相当すると考えられている。
試料と分析
(1)測定に使用した試料
本研究で用いた試料は愛媛県野村町大田，堆肥場
裏の露頭において採取したＯＨＴ－２中の火山ガラス片
を用いた｡それらはバプルウォール型～中間型のやや
肉厚の白色ガラスである（Fig.１)。
(2)従来の薄片作成の問題点
野外で採取したテフラを超音波洗浄で水洗処理し，
恒温器で乾燥させた後，その試料を，蹄で径4.0ｍｍ
以上，４．０～2.0ｍｍ，２．０～1.0ｍｍ，１．０～0.5ｍｍ，
0.5～0.25ｍｍ，および0.25ｍｍ以下の大きさに分別す
る。分析用試料は，通常径１．０～0.5ｍｍまたは0.5～
0.25ｍｍの火山ガラス片を使用し，岩崎・榊原(2004）
の手順に従ってガラスを研磨する。しかしながら，
OHT－２試料中の火山ガラス片はすべて径0.25ｍｍ以
下であるため，岩崎･榊原（2004）による薄片作成方
法では，微小なガラス片（長径0.25ｍｍ以下）を仕切
りの中に立てて，封入するという作業が極めて困難で
あった。
(3)新しい薄片試料作成方法
本研究における微小なガラス片の薄片試料作成方法
を以下に示す。
１あらかじめ，長軸径をそろえた火山ガラス片を
用意する。本研究では約0.25ｍｍ径の火山ガラスを使
用した。以下の作業は実体顕微鏡下で行う。
２火山ガラス片の長軸径（ここでは0.25ｍｍ）の
半分よりやや薄くなるように銅製のシートメッシュ(応研
商事株式会社製の国産メッシュの75/200メッシュ（厚
さは約0.05ｍｍ）；Fig.２）を重ねて（ここでは２枚）エ
ポセットで貼り合わせる。重ねたシートがずれないよう
に，エポセットを硬化させる。
３スライドガラス上にエポセットを薄くのばして②で
作成した銅製シートを貼り付ける。
４火山ガラス片をスリットの中に立てて入れる。こ
のとき，③で薄くひいたエポセットによってガラス片は
弱く固定される（Fig.３)。
５エポセットを硬化させ，ガラス片を完全に固定
する。
６乾燥後，シートからはみ出たガラスおよびシー
ト全体をエポセットで封入する。
７エポセット硬化後,ノギスを用いて火山ガラス片
の長軸径がほぼl/２になるまでl仏ｍのダイヤモンドス
ラリーで研磨する。
８さらに0.251人ｍのダイヤモンドスラリーでポリツ
シュする。
９蒸着する。
工程④において，板状火山ガラスを立てて封入する
ことで電子線による励起範囲よりも大きく火山ガラスの厚
さを確保し，工程⑦において火山ガラスの約半分まで
研磨することで，変質程度の低い核部を分析すること
ができる（Fig.４)。
－４１－
由
○
倒
竪
へ
:偶
置
彦
）
◎
。
。
”
○
⑲
』
－４２－
中村千怜・榊原正幸
○つ｡‐
● ● ● ●
、 《判一○
○
・
○
卜
○
・
画
ト
咽
稲
拙
減
翻
○
切
○
・
に
つ
。
＠
ト
○
・
ｍ
卜
○
．
寸
へ ト○
．
寸
函
・
寸
・
嚇
○
罫
、
。
い
つ
。
。
、
０
℃
ｍ
・
雨
・
試
○
ざ
ｚ
ｍ
０
ｍ
ｃ
ｏ
寸
○
・
Ｎ
ま。ｏ、 い、
量~､３｡‐
屋
。
．
『
○
画
。
恥
。
［
つ
・
ぺ
。
。
。
碗
。
。
。
。
。
（
》
《
ご
窪
）
○
・
○
画
ぺ
‐
Ｐ
函
○
日
○
垣
＄
閉
里
函
。
胃
ｇ
｛
。
Ｅ
名
目
島
吋
弓
圃
曽
畠
・
咽
・
函
塵
。
。
つ
め
。
。
●
qの‐Ｑ、。
● ● ■ ●
－ － °。
３
武
○
個
』
○
・
○
ト
Ｃ
Ｏ
蝉
トgｐ
○
．
ト
ト
㈲
○
切
へ
’
○
・
【
恥
．
【
迫
金
一
壷
二
。
‐
》
ト
。
。
、
ト
つ
。
寸
。
。
｛
【
○
・
劇
【
○
．
寸
一
。
、
図
面
○
ぎ
く
トロ
・
○
両
．
。
○
貝
冨
恥
。
。
”
。
。
。
。
【
細粒火山ヵﾗｽのEDSによる定量化学分析技術の開発
(4)分析結果
本研究では，長径約0.25ｍｍ，厚さ約０．１１ｍ､の合
計22個の火山ガラスを測定した。これは径0.25ｍｍ以
下のガラス片では，１個のガラス片で多数の分析点を
確保してその平均値を出すということが困難なため,分
析ガラス片を多数分析することで分析精度を確保する
ためである。火山ガラスの測定条件は，倍率5000倍，
加速電圧１５ｋＶ，電流値4.00×10.10Ａおよび測定時間
30secである。測定対象元素はSi，Ｔｉ，Ａｌ，Ｐ，Ｆｅ，
Ｍｎ，Ｍｇ，Ｃａ，ＮａおよびＫの１０元素である。分析
値をｍｂｌｅｌに示す。
本研究で提案した方法での組成範囲の幅は，ＳｉＯ２
が約1.6Ｗt､％，ＴｉＯ２が約０．６ｗｔ・％，Al203が約
1.lwt､％，P20sが約0.7wt・％，ＦｅＯが約0.9wt・％，ＭｎＯ
が約0.2ｗｔ､％，ＭｇＯが約0.5ｗｔ・％，ＣａＯが約０．５
wt,％，Ｎａ２０が約0.7wt､％およびＫ２０が約１．４ｗｔ､％
と明瞭にデータが収束している（Fig.５)。
以上のように，本研究で提案した分析試料作成法は
細粒火山ガラスの定量分析において極めて有効であ
る。
まとめ
テフラ中の細粒火山ガラス片(長径0.25ｍｍ以下)の
EDSによる定量分析精度を高める試料作成方法につ
いて提案した。その結果，微細な火山ガラス片におい
ても核部を分析することで，火山ガラスの変質の影響
を最小限に抑えることができ，一試料から多数の火山
ガラスを分析し，著しくＨ２０ｗｔ､％の多い分析値を除く
ことによって，分析の正確さを確保することが可能で，
本研究で提案した火山ガラス試料作成法は電子線によ
る励起範囲および変質の影響を考慮しており，細粒ガ
ラスでの定量分析において極めて有効である。
引用文献
Hunt,』.Ｂ・ａｎｄＨｉｌｌＲＧ，1993,Tbphrageochemistry:a
discussionofsomepersistentanalyticalPloblems．
Ｈひﾉ“,3,271-278．
岩崎仁美・榊原正幸，2004,火山ガラスのEDSによ
る定量化学分析技術に関する改善点．愛媛大学理
学部紀要．９．１０，９－１５．
鹿島愛彦・白石邦幸･本村泰久・高橋和・高橋治郎，
1982，四国西部，伊予灘海岸および野村盆地の
段丘堆積物よりテフラ層の発見とその意義.愛媛大
学紀要自然科学Ｄシリーズ(地学)．４，３，１７－２６．
Kekker,』.,1981,Quatemarytephrocronologyinthe
Mediterrenian､伽Ｓｅ〃Ｓα”Ｓｐ”肺,Ｒ・ＳＪ:eds.，
Tbphrastudies,Reidel,Dordrecht,227-244．
水野清秀・吉川清志，1991,中期更新世テフラ，Ｎｇ‐
１火山灰の広域性の検討．第四紀研究．３０(5)，
435-438．
Nielsen,Ｃ､Ｈ・andSigurdsson,Ｈ､,1981,Quantitative
methodfbrelectronmicroprobeanalysisofsodium
innaturalandsyntheticglasses．』腕.Ｍｉ"・ＳＪ;６６，
547-552.
－４３－


細粒火山ガラスのEDSによる定量化学分析技術の開発

西村, 勝志

企業社会における法の社会規範性

白松, 賢

Drug abuse prevention program based on life history

森, 貴子

New Attitudes Towards Historical Sources : A Recent Historiography of British and Irish Medieval Studies in Japan

Not a member yet