Evaluation of Temporal and Spatial Differences of Flue-cured Tobacco Chemical Composition Usability in Sichuan Province Based on Comprehensive Weighting Method

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0411

Abstract

Abstract:

To analyze the temporal and spatial variations of tobacco chemical composition usability in Sichuan Province, a new comprehensive evaluation system was established to calculate the usability index of tobacco chemical components. Taking the chemical indexes of 316 samples of ‘Yunyan 87’ upper leaves from five regions of Sichuan from 2010 to 2015 and from 2017 to 2018 as data sets, the chemical indexes were reassigned by membership function. Then, each index is reweighed by subjective, principal component, coefficient of variation and comprehensive weighting method, to evaluate the usability of tobacco chemical components. The results showed that: (1) except potassium and the ratio of potassium to chlorine, most other indexes were strongly correlated with each other; (2) the contents of reducing sugar and total nicotine of tobacco leaves in Sichuan were higher than standard contents, while the content of nitrogen and the ratio of nitrogen to alkali were lower; the proportion of reducing sugar content in the optimal range was small, but the total nitrogen, nitrogen alkali ratio, potassium and potassium chloride ratio performed well; on the whole, the coordination of chemical components of tobacco in Sichuan was good; (3) the usability index of tobacco chemical components in 2010 and 2017 was significantly lower than that in other years (P<0.05); (4) the usability index of tobacco chemical components in Liangshan and Panzhihua were significantly higher than that in Yibin, and that of Liangshan was more stable; (5) compared with the single weighting method, the comprehensive weighting method reduced the comprehensive score, but increased the difference between samples. The correlation analysis shows that the combination weighting-based comprehensive evaluation method is more reliable. The chemical components of upper leaves of ‘Yunyan 87’ in Sichuan Province perform well, and the spatial and temporal variations are significant. The comprehensive weighting method could increase the variation of chemical composition usability index among samples, so it is more reliable to evaluate the chemical composition characteristics of tobacco in Sichuan Province.

Key words: tobacco, chemical constituent, usability index, comprehensive empowerment, membership function

CLC Number:

S572

Wang Xuan, Bian Jianfeng, Yang Minfeng, Du Weimin, Liu Yang, Guo Shiping, Li Bin, Liu Gangcai. Evaluation of Temporal and Spatial Differences of Flue-cured Tobacco Chemical Composition Usability in Sichuan Province Based on Comprehensive Weighting Method[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(22): 131-138.

Figures/Tables 12

References 35

[1]	龚道国. 探析烟草经济高质量发展新动能[J]. 湖南烟草, 2019(4):56-59.
[2]	杨新刚. 清代民国时期四川烟草产业地理研究[D]. 重庆:西南大学, 2016.
[3]	唐江云, 向平, 雷波, 等. 四川烟叶产业SWOT分析及发展策略研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(29):273-278.
[4]	谭馨. 泸州烤烟特色定位研究[D]. 雅安:四川农业大学, 2015.
[5]	鲁黎明, 朱靓, 雷强, 等. 四川烤烟主产区烟叶感官质量及主要化学成分分析[J]. 草业学报, 2012, 21(4):88-97.
[6]	王健强. 陕西主要烤烟产区烟叶质量特征研究[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2012.
[7]	王鹏, 李玉宝, 潘昊东, 等. 2017年四川省会东县嘎吉基地单元烤烟质量评价[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2020, 48(4):202-205,209.
[8]	陈刚, 周清明, 田云, 等. 含氮化合物对烟草质量及其在质量评价体系中的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2014(19):11-13.
[9]	Sugawara S, Kobashi U, Sakurai H. Studies on the Chemical Evaluation of Tobacco Quality[J]. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 2014, 35(4):596-603.
[10]	Zhang F, Zhang X H. Classification and quality evaluation of tobacco leaves based on image processing and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Sensors, 2011, 11(3):2369-2384. doi: 10.3390/s110302369 pmid: 22163744
[11]	杨超, 惠建权, 王芳, 等. 基于因子分析及曲线估计的卷烟叶组化学成分品质评价[J]. 烟草科技, 2017, 50(12):77-84.
[12]	邓小华, 周清明, 周冀衡, 等. 烟叶质量评价指标间的典型相关分析[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2011, 17(3):17-22.
[13]	郭松, 张万良, 翟争光, 等. 灰色系统理论及其在烟草质量评价上的应用[J]. 现代农业科技, 2014(1):307-309.
[14]	马京民, 刘国顺, 时向东, 等. 主成分分析和聚类分析在烟叶质量评价中的应用[J]. 烟草科技, 2009(7):57-60.
[15]	程卫国, 李亚斌, 苏燕, 等. 不同赋权方法的综合水质标识指数法对比分析[J]. 灌溉排水学报, 2019, 38(11):93-99.
[16]	Chen H Y, Liu G S, Yang Y S, et al. Comprehensive Evaluation of Tobacco Ecological Suitability of Henan Province Based on GIS[J]. Agricultural Sciences in China, 2010, 9(4):583-592. doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60132-2 URL
[17]	林帅, 闫伟, 贾学文, 等. 毛乌素沙地不同林型下土壤肥力综合评价[J]. 北方园艺, 2019(15):91-98.
[18]	吴克宁, 杨扬, 吕巧灵. 模糊综合评判在烟草生态适宜性评价中的应用[J]. 土壤通报, 2007(4):631-634.
[19]	徐兴阳, 罗华元, 饶智, 等. 应用隶属函数模型评价烟叶常规化学成分的方法[J]. 山地农业生物学报, 2015, 34(3):19-23.
[20]	Xu S G, Cui Y X, Yang C X, et al. The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) and the principal component analysis (PC) model simulation and its applications in water quality assessment of Nanas Lake Basin, China[J]. Environmental Engineering Research, 2021, 26(2):222-232.
[21]	颜惠琴, 牛万红, 韩惠丽. 基于主成分分析构建指标权重的客观赋权法[J]. 济南大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 31(6):519-523.
[22]	郭娇, 李金燕, 张翔. 基于主客观组合赋权的水资源模糊物元综合评价[J]. 人民长江, 2020, 51(7):106-111.
[23]	齐永杰, 邓小华, 徐文兵, 等. 基于卷烟品牌原料需求的桂阳烟叶化学成分可用性评价[J]. 云南农业大学学报:自然科学, 2017, 32(3):465-472.
[24]	李丹丹, 许自成, 邢小军, 等. 四川烟区烤烟主要化学成分的变异分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2008(5):1270-1274.
[25]	曹淋海. 四川烤烟质量及其与植烟区环境因子关系研究[D]. 雅安:四川农业大学, 2015.
[26]	王晓宾, 王军, 刘兰, 等. 广东烟区烤烟主要化学成分可用性评价[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2019, 40(2):64-72.
[27]	熊巍, 陶晓秋, 张海燕, 等. 海拔高度对四川烟区烤烟主要化学成分含量的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2018, 46(11):28-32.
[28]	曹学鸿, 申国明, 王永, 等. 恩施烟区海拔与烟叶化学成分的关系研究[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2011, 32(S1):21-24.
[29]	杨云芳, 叶协锋, 史双双, 等. 四川烟区烟叶化学成分与海拔的关系[J]. 西北农业学报, 2012, 21(8):118-124.
[30]	范幸龙, 杜坚, 魏建荣, 等. 丽江玉龙烤烟化学成分工业可用性与质量风格评价[J]. 云南农业大学学报:自然科学, 2017, 32(5):853-860.
[31]	蒋佳磊, 陆扬, 苏燕, 等. 我国主要烟叶产区烤烟化学成分特征与可用性评价[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2017, 23(2):13-27.
[32]	张勇刚. 烤烟感官质量评价方法研究[D]. 郑州:河南农业大学, 2011.
[33]	周泽弘. 凉攀烟区烟叶品质差异的主要生态因子识别及适宜区间提取[D]. 雅安:四川农业大学, 2017.
[34]	张红, 阳苇丽, 肖勇, 等. 四川省烤烟香型风格区划及特征[J]. 四川农业科技, 2018(5):10-13.
[35]	赵阿娟, 苏嘉颖, 丁春霞, 等. 长沙烟区气象因子与烟叶常规化学成分相关性分析[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2018(10):44-47.

指标	下临界值 x_min	最优下限值 x_a	最优上限值 x_b	上临界值 x_max
还原糖/%	11.0	22.0	24.0	32.0
总烟碱/%	1.6	2.5	2.9	3.8
糖碱比	2.0	8.0	9.0	16.0
钾/%	0.3			2.0
钾氯比	0.8			8.0
总氮/%	1.2	2.1	2.4	3.5
氮碱比	0.3	0.7	0.9	1.3
淀粉/%	3.5			7.5

指标	下临界值 x_min	最优下限值 x_a	最优上限值 x_b	上临界值 x_max
还原糖/%	11.0	22.0	24.0	32.0
总烟碱/%	1.6	2.5	2.9	3.8
糖碱比	2.0	8.0	9.0	16.0
钾/%	0.3			2.0
钾氯比	0.8			8.0
总氮/%	1.2	2.1	2.4	3.5
氮碱比	0.3	0.7	0.9	1.3
淀粉/%	3.5			7.5

指标(j)	主观赋权/%
还原糖	12.5
总烟碱	15.9
糖碱比	18.4
钾	10.2
钾氯比	7.3
总氮	10.9
氮碱比	13
淀粉	11.8

指标(j)	主观赋权/%
还原糖	12.5
总烟碱	15.9
糖碱比	18.4
钾	10.2
钾氯比	7.3
总氮	10.9
氮碱比	13
淀粉	11.8

化学指标	主观赋权	变异系数赋权	主成分赋权	综合赋权
还原糖	12.50	7.03	12.47	7.41
总烟碱	15.90	10.09	14.52	15.76
糖碱比	18.40	16.18	13.98	28.15
钾	10.20	8.14	10.11	5.67
钾氯比	7.30	29.66	8.08	11.84
总氮	10.90	6.54	14.24	6.87
氮碱比	13.00	7.59	13.78	9.19
淀粉	11.80	14.77	12.82	15.10