Quantitative Evaluation on Stem Cutting Effectiveness of Medicinal Tea Chrysanthemum

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0176

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aims to utilize comprehensive indicators to evaluate the rooting effect of chrysanthemum used in medicinal tea through cuttings. This approach seeks to overcome the limitations of using a single or a limited number of indicators, which may lead to subjective and one-sided evaluations. The ultimate goal is identifying chrysanthemum varieties with superior rooting effects for medicinal tea production. The quantitative evaluation of the rooting performance of different chrysanthemum varieties used for medicinal tea through cutting propagation is conducted in this study. Eight indicators, including root number, root length, longest root length, root diameter, maximum root diameter, plant height, canopy width, and survival rate, were measured after 30 days of cutting propagation. The rooting situation of the eight chrysanthemum varieties was quantitatively assessed using principal component analysis, subordination function method, and cluster analysis. The cutting propagation performance of the chrysanthemum varieties was ranked by transforming the eight individual indicators into five independent comprehensive indicators through principal component analysis and calculating comprehensive indicator values using the subordination function method. The results of grafting eight chrysanthemum varieties in descending order of effectiveness were ‘Huaibingju’, ‘Hangbaiju’, ‘Baigongju’, ‘Boju’, ‘Chuju’, ‘Jinsihuangju’, ‘Wuyuanhuangju’ and ‘Huanggongju’. Using the comprehensive evaluation value of eight medicinal tea chrysanthemum varieties as the index for cluster analysis, the results indicated that these varieties could be categorized into three groups based on their grafting effects: best, moderate, and poor. Specifically, ‘Huaibingju’, ‘Hangbaiju’ and ‘Baigongju’ exhibited the best grafting effects, while ‘Boju’, ‘Chuju’, ‘Jinsihuangju’ and ‘Wuyuanhuangju’ showed moderate effects, and ‘Huanggongju’ had the poorest grafting effect.

Key words: chrysanthemum, stem cutting effectiveness, principal component analysis, subordination function method, cluster analysis, comprehensive evaluation, medicinal tea chrysanthemum, rooting effect

TANG Guimei, HUANG Guolin, ZHAO Fan, LIU Yang, ZHANG Li, LI Weidong, XIAO Xiaoling. Quantitative Evaluation on Stem Cutting Effectiveness of Medicinal Tea Chrysanthemum[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(3): 42-47.

Figures/Tables 6

References 28

[1]	张清华, 张玲. 菊花化学成分及药理作用的研究进展[J]. 食品与药品, 2007, 9(2):60-63.
[2]	周衡朴, 任敏霞, 管家齐. 菊花化学成分、药理作用的研究进展及质量标志物预测分析[J]. 中草药, 2019, 50(19):4785-4795.
[3]	眭鸿, 王紫薇, 徐颂文, 等. 11个茶用菊花材料营养成分分析[J]. 湖北林业科技, 2023, 52(1):17-21.
[4]	谢占芳, 张倩倩, 朱凌佳, 等. 菊花化学成分及药理活性研究进展[J]. 河南大学学报(医学版), 2015, 34(4):290-300.
[5]	RAJIC A, AKIHISA T. Inhibition of trypsin and chymotrypsin by anti-inflammatory triterpenoids from Compositae flowers[J]. Planta medica, 2001, 67(7):599-604. pmid: 11582534
[6]	HU C Q, CHEN K, SHI Q, et al. Anti-AIDS agents, 10. Acacetin-7-O-β-D-galactopyranoside, an anti-HIV principle from Chrysanthemum morifolium and a structure-activity correlation with some related flavonoids[J]. Journal of natural products, 1994, 57(1):42-51.
[7]	杨雪萌, 房伟民, 陈发棣, 等. 综合权重法评价不同菊花品种的扦插生根能力[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2009(4):650-654.
[8]	吴海东, 郭风民, 孙桂琴, 等. 不同月季品种扦插效果的综合评价[J]. 河南科学, 2018, 36(5):699-703.
[9]	于秀林, 任雪松. 多元统计分析[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 1999:154-169.
[10]	孙炜, 于瑞宁, 张飞, 等. 菊花扦插生根能力的量化评价[J]. 园艺学报, 2019, 46(3):540-548. doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2018-0339
[11]	李荣华, 刘福春, 李宪友, 等. 23个名贵菊花品种在沧州市的扦插繁殖特性研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2012, 40(11):6422-6423.
[12]	郑成淑, 王文莉, 孙宪芝, 等. 喷施营养液对菊花扦插生根和生理生化代谢的影响[J]. 山东农业大学学报, 2007(4):561-565.
[13]	郑成淑, 王文莉, 孙宪芝, 等. 硝酸钙处理对菊花扦插生根及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2008, 35(2):263-268.
[14]	张孟仁. IBA和NAA处理菊花扦插生根试验[J]. 北方园艺, 2008(9):130-131.
[15]	廖伟彪, 张美玲, 吴永华, 等. 一氧化氮和过氧化氢对地被菊扦插生根的影响[J]. 园艺学报, 2009, 36(11):1643-1650.
[16]	刘浩杰, 江婷蕊, 张雪峰, 等. 39个传统秋菊品种扦插生根能力综合评价[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2024, 33(2):91-98.
[17]	邸葆, 杨际双, 何雪娜. 不同基质对菊花‘神马’扦插生根的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2012(4):69-71.
[18]	张玲玲, 公菲菲, 原喆, 等. 不同基质对杭白菊和金丝皇菊扦插生根的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2021, 49(1):54-58.
[19]	岳莉然, 陈楚怡, 刘铭宇, 等. 不同直插型基质对3种盆栽菊花生长的影响以及综合评价[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2024, 52(1):21-29.
[20]	符真珠, 杜君, 孟月娥, 等. 不同基质和设施条件对金叶复叶槭嫩枝扦插繁殖的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(31):25-29. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb15040214
[21]	张金云, 束冰, 潘海发, 等. 不同基质配比对百合切花品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(4):188-191.
[22]	唐有林, 周倩怡, 刘明庆, 等. 母株年龄及插穗部位对园林小菊扦插繁殖的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2023, 21(16):5397-5410.
[23]	赵玉芬, 李金霞, 储博彦, 等. 茶用菊花侧芽幼嫩茎尖的微扦插技术研究[J]. 河北林业科技, 2016(5):8-10.
[24]	吴永朋, 原雅玲, 肖娅萍. 不同扦插方法对菊花生根的影响[J]. 陕西林业科技, 2009(4):19-22.
[25]	李彦荣, 姚天明, 伏建增, 等. IBA和NAA不同浓度复配对金丝皇菊扦插生根的影响[J]. 寒旱农业科学, 2022, 1(2):171-174.
[26]	熊欢欢, 姜治国, 金胶胶, 等. 神农香菊扦插生根的影响因素研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(14):125-127.
[27]	张颖, 王晓立, 王芳, 等. NAA对菊花扦插繁殖的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2017, 23(24):103-104.
[28]	穆俊祥, 曹兴明, 于秀琴. NAA从浓度与浸泡时间对菊花扦插生根的影响[J]. 集宁师专学报, 2009, 31(4):32-36.

品种	最长根长/cm	平均根长/cm	平均根数/条	平均株高/cm	平均冠幅/cm	成活率/%	最大根径/mm	平均根径/mm
金丝皇菊	18.00±2.57BCc	13.22±2.37BCcd	31.2±2.39ABCDb	18.70±3.75Ccd	13.18±2.54Bb	92.60±2.88Aa	0.61±0.05Aa	0.47±0.01Aa
婺源皇菊	19.80±5.12BCb	14.94±5.02BCbc	32.6±2.88ABa	24.92±2.40ABab	12.44±0.64BCb	91.20±3.03Aa	0.58±0.02ABab	0.44±0.03ABCbc
杭白菊	14.06±3.19Cc	9.38±2.77Cd	22.6±7.13DEc	17.12±0.83Cd	11.64±0.52BCDbc	89.00±5.43Aa	0.56±0.04Bbc	0.43±0.02Cc
黄贡菊	14.60±3.51Cc	9.94±3.02Cd	22.6±5.59CDEc	19.42±3.79Ccd	8.96±0.90Dd	88.20±5.07Aa	0.54±0.03Bc	0.44±0.01Cbc
白贡菊	23.10±1.52ABb	18.18±1.51Bb	37.0±1.58Aa	20.62±1.27BCc	19.00±4.18Aa	89.00±2.55Aa	0.55±0.03Bbc	0.45±0.02ABCabc
亳菊	14.40±3.20Cc	9.82±2.83Cd	21.8±5.40Ec	19.04±3.57Ccd	8.30±1.15Dd	88.80±6.06Aa	0.56±0.02Bbc	0.47±0.02ABa
怀冰菊	29.10±5.32Aa	23.72±4.84Aa	25.8±4.97BCDEbc	27.24±1.28Aa	9.70±1.96CDcd	88.40±6.77Aa	0.55±0.01Bbc	0.44±0.02BCbc
滁菊	21.64±3.06Bb	16.74±2.90Bbc	20.6±2.70Ec	21.56±0.91Bbc	12.62±0.97BCb	84.60±3.78Aa	0.57±0.02ABbc	0.46±0.02ABCab
指标均值	19.34	14.49	26.78	21.08	11.98	88.98	0.57	0.45

品种	最长根长/cm	平均根长/cm	平均根数/条	平均株高/cm	平均冠幅/cm	成活率/%	最大根径/mm	平均根径/mm
金丝皇菊	18.00±2.57BCc	13.22±2.37BCcd	31.2±2.39ABCDb	18.70±3.75Ccd	13.18±2.54Bb	92.60±2.88Aa	0.61±0.05Aa	0.47±0.01Aa
婺源皇菊	19.80±5.12BCb	14.94±5.02BCbc	32.6±2.88ABa	24.92±2.40ABab	12.44±0.64BCb	91.20±3.03Aa	0.58±0.02ABab	0.44±0.03ABCbc
杭白菊	14.06±3.19Cc	9.38±2.77Cd	22.6±7.13DEc	17.12±0.83Cd	11.64±0.52BCDbc	89.00±5.43Aa	0.56±0.04Bbc	0.43±0.02Cc
黄贡菊	14.60±3.51Cc	9.94±3.02Cd	22.6±5.59CDEc	19.42±3.79Ccd	8.96±0.90Dd	88.20±5.07Aa	0.54±0.03Bc	0.44±0.01Cbc
白贡菊	23.10±1.52ABb	18.18±1.51Bb	37.0±1.58Aa	20.62±1.27BCc	19.00±4.18Aa	89.00±2.55Aa	0.55±0.03Bbc	0.45±0.02ABCabc
亳菊	14.40±3.20Cc	9.82±2.83Cd	21.8±5.40Ec	19.04±3.57Ccd	8.30±1.15Dd	88.80±6.06Aa	0.56±0.02Bbc	0.47±0.02ABa
怀冰菊	29.10±5.32Aa	23.72±4.84Aa	25.8±4.97BCDEbc	27.24±1.28Aa	9.70±1.96CDcd	88.40±6.77Aa	0.55±0.01Bbc	0.44±0.02BCbc
滁菊	21.64±3.06Bb	16.74±2.90Bbc	20.6±2.70Ec	21.56±0.91Bbc	12.62±0.97BCb	84.60±3.78Aa	0.57±0.02ABbc	0.46±0.02ABCab
指标均值	19.34	14.49	26.78	21.08	11.98	88.98	0.57	0.45

品种	最长根长		平均根长		平均根数		平均株高		平均冠幅		成活率		最大根径		平均根径
品种	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值
金丝皇菊	93.08	-0.228	91.22	-0.229	116.53	0.638	88.72	-0.607	110.02	0.332	104.07	0.766	108.27	1.397	104.89	1.009
婺源皇菊	102.39	0.079	103.09	0.081	121.76	0.840	118.23	0.981	103.84	0.127	102.50	0.470	102.61	0.441	98.22	-0.367
杭白菊	72.71	-0.899	64.72	-0.922	84.41	-0.602	81.22	-1.010	97.16	-0.094	100.03	0.005	99.07	-0.157	95.11	-1.009
黄贡菊	75.50	-0.807	68.59	-0.821	84.41	-0.602	92.14	-0.423	74.79	-0.835	99.13	-0.164	95.53	-0.755	97.33	-0.551
白贡菊	119.46	0.641	125.44	0.665	138.19	1.475	97.83	-0.117	158.60	1.942	100.03	0.005	97.30	-0.456	100.00	0.000
亳菊	74.47	-0.841	67.76	-0.842	81.42	-0.718	90.33	-0.520	69.28	-1.018	99.80	-0.037	99.07	-0.157	104.44	0.918
怀冰菊	150.48	1.663	163.67	1.664	96.36	-0.141	129.24	1.573	80.97	-0.631	99.35	-0.122	97.30	-0.456	97.78	-0.459
滁菊	111.91	0.392	115.51	0.405	76.94	-0.891	102.29	0.123	105.34	0.177	95.08	-0.925	100.84	0.142	102.22	0.459

品种	最长根长		平均根长		平均根数		平均株高		平均冠幅		成活率		最大根径		平均根径
品种	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值	α/%	标准化值
金丝皇菊	93.08	-0.228	91.22	-0.229	116.53	0.638	88.72	-0.607	110.02	0.332	104.07	0.766	108.27	1.397	104.89	1.009
婺源皇菊	102.39	0.079	103.09	0.081	121.76	0.840	118.23	0.981	103.84	0.127	102.50	0.470	102.61	0.441	98.22	-0.367
杭白菊	72.71	-0.899	64.72	-0.922	84.41	-0.602	81.22	-1.010	97.16	-0.094	100.03	0.005	99.07	-0.157	95.11	-1.009
黄贡菊	75.50	-0.807	68.59	-0.821	84.41	-0.602	92.14	-0.423	74.79	-0.835	99.13	-0.164	95.53	-0.755	97.33	-0.551
白贡菊	119.46	0.641	125.44	0.665	138.19	1.475	97.83	-0.117	158.60	1.942	100.03	0.005	97.30	-0.456	100.00	0.000
亳菊	74.47	-0.841	67.76	-0.842	81.42	-0.718	90.33	-0.520	69.28	-1.018	99.80	-0.037	99.07	-0.157	104.44	0.918
怀冰菊	150.48	1.663	163.67	1.664	96.36	-0.141	129.24	1.573	80.97	-0.631	99.35	-0.122	97.30	-0.456	97.78	-0.459
滁菊	111.91	0.392	115.51	0.405	76.94	-0.891	102.29	0.123	105.34	0.177	95.08	-0.925	100.84	0.142	102.22	0.459

	最长根长	平均根长	平均根数	平均株高	平均冠幅	成活率	最大根径
平均根长	0.998^**	1
平均根数	0.283	0.296	1
平均株高	0.471^**	0.485^**	0.281	1
平均冠幅	0.263	0.269	0.597^**	0.020	1
成活率	-0.202	-0.193	0.257	0.064	0.050	1
最大根径	0.112	0.099	0.285	-0.015	0.223	-0.045	1
平均根径	-0.078	-0.077	-0.045	-0.197	0.049	-0.041	0.363^*