Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (7): 138-144.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0363
Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Huanhuan(), WANG Jingjing(
), CHEN Qiling
Received:
2024-06-03
Revised:
2024-11-15
Online:
2025-03-05
Published:
2025-03-03
WANG Huanhuan, WANG Jingjing, CHEN Qiling. Application of Three Mathematical Methods in Quality Evaluation of Jujube Fruit[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(7): 138-144.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0363
处理 | 果实纵径 (X1)/mm | 果实横径 (X2)/mm | 果形指数 (X3) | 单果重 (X4)/g | 单株产量 (X5)/kg | 总糖 (X6)/(mg/g) | 还原糖 (X7)/(mg/g) | 果糖 (X8)/(mg/g) | 淀粉 (X9)/(mg/g) | 纤维素 (X10)/(mg/g) | 维生素C (X11)/(μg/g) | 有机酸 (X12)/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 28.57 | 18.93 | 1.51 | 4.89 | 1.34 | 238.47 | 45.99 | 33.16 | 26.98 | 13.47 | 364.68 | 0.83 |
T1 | 29.48 | 21.06 | 1.40 | 6.28 | 1.92 | 240.58 | 46.03 | 33.58 | 26.75 | 12.85 | 370.67 | 0.81 |
T2 | 29.57 | 21.21 | 1.39 | 6.22 | 3.19 | 206.56 | 44.79 | 37.96 | 25.80 | 11.24 | 317.49 | 0.76 |
T3 | 29.35 | 21.14 | 1.39 | 5.88 | 3.04 | 209.41 | 43.55 | 34.16 | 24.59 | 11.73 | 313.18 | 0.73 |
均值 | 29.24 | 20.59 | 1.42 | 5.82 | 2.37 | 223.76 | 45.09 | 34.72 | 26.03 | 12.32 | 341.51 | 0.78 |
最大值 | 29.57 | 21.21 | 1.51 | 6.28 | 3.19 | 240.58 | 46.03 | 37.96 | 26.98 | 13.47 | 370.67 | 0.83 |
最小值 | 28.57 | 18.93 | 1.39 | 4.89 | 1.34 | 206.56 | 43.55 | 33.16 | 24.59 | 11.24 | 313.18 | 0.73 |
标准差 | 0.46 | 1.11 | 0.06 | 0.64 | 0.89 | 18.27 | 1.18 | 2.20 | 1.09 | 1.02 | 30.37 | 0.05 |
变异系数/% | 1.56 | 5.37 | 4.11 | 11.05 | 37.58 | 8.16 | 2.61 | 6.34 | 4.18 | 8.27 | 8.89 | 5.84 |
处理 | 果实纵径 (X1)/mm | 果实横径 (X2)/mm | 果形指数 (X3) | 单果重 (X4)/g | 单株产量 (X5)/kg | 总糖 (X6)/(mg/g) | 还原糖 (X7)/(mg/g) | 果糖 (X8)/(mg/g) | 淀粉 (X9)/(mg/g) | 纤维素 (X10)/(mg/g) | 维生素C (X11)/(μg/g) | 有机酸 (X12)/% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CK | 28.57 | 18.93 | 1.51 | 4.89 | 1.34 | 238.47 | 45.99 | 33.16 | 26.98 | 13.47 | 364.68 | 0.83 |
T1 | 29.48 | 21.06 | 1.40 | 6.28 | 1.92 | 240.58 | 46.03 | 33.58 | 26.75 | 12.85 | 370.67 | 0.81 |
T2 | 29.57 | 21.21 | 1.39 | 6.22 | 3.19 | 206.56 | 44.79 | 37.96 | 25.80 | 11.24 | 317.49 | 0.76 |
T3 | 29.35 | 21.14 | 1.39 | 5.88 | 3.04 | 209.41 | 43.55 | 34.16 | 24.59 | 11.73 | 313.18 | 0.73 |
均值 | 29.24 | 20.59 | 1.42 | 5.82 | 2.37 | 223.76 | 45.09 | 34.72 | 26.03 | 12.32 | 341.51 | 0.78 |
最大值 | 29.57 | 21.21 | 1.51 | 6.28 | 3.19 | 240.58 | 46.03 | 37.96 | 26.98 | 13.47 | 370.67 | 0.83 |
最小值 | 28.57 | 18.93 | 1.39 | 4.89 | 1.34 | 206.56 | 43.55 | 33.16 | 24.59 | 11.24 | 313.18 | 0.73 |
标准差 | 0.46 | 1.11 | 0.06 | 0.64 | 0.89 | 18.27 | 1.18 | 2.20 | 1.09 | 1.02 | 30.37 | 0.05 |
变异系数/% | 1.56 | 5.37 | 4.11 | 11.05 | 37.58 | 8.16 | 2.61 | 6.34 | 4.18 | 8.27 | 8.89 | 5.84 |
指标 | 因子1 | 因子2 | 因子3 |
---|---|---|---|
X1 | 0.204 | 0.836 | 0.103 |
X2 | 0.356 | 0.885 | -0.255 |
X3 | 0.360 | 0.743 | -0.376 |
X4 | 0.137 | 0.978 | -0.002 |
X5 | 0.831 | 0.532 | -0.152 |
X6 | -0.965 | -0.226 | 0.132 |
X7 | -0.805 | -0.126 | 0.513 |
X8 | 0.718 | 0.402 | 0.362 |
X9 | -0.759 | -0.202 | 0.548 |
X10 | 0.829 | 0.500 | -0.169 |
X11 | -0.961 | -0.169 | 0.203 |
X12 | 0.159 | 0.067 | -0.794 |
特征值 | 7.785 | 1.924 | 1.084 |
累计贡献率/% | 64.873 | 80.905 | 89.943 |
权重/% | 72.127 | 17.825 | 10.047 |
指标 | 因子1 | 因子2 | 因子3 |
---|---|---|---|
X1 | 0.204 | 0.836 | 0.103 |
X2 | 0.356 | 0.885 | -0.255 |
X3 | 0.360 | 0.743 | -0.376 |
X4 | 0.137 | 0.978 | -0.002 |
X5 | 0.831 | 0.532 | -0.152 |
X6 | -0.965 | -0.226 | 0.132 |
X7 | -0.805 | -0.126 | 0.513 |
X8 | 0.718 | 0.402 | 0.362 |
X9 | -0.759 | -0.202 | 0.548 |
X10 | 0.829 | 0.500 | -0.169 |
X11 | -0.961 | -0.169 | 0.203 |
X12 | 0.159 | 0.067 | -0.794 |
特征值 | 7.785 | 1.924 | 1.084 |
累计贡献率/% | 64.873 | 80.905 | 89.943 |
权重/% | 72.127 | 17.825 | 10.047 |
指标 | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | X12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
熵值 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.78 | 0.93 |
差异系数/% | 6.99 | 10.76 | 7.16 | 7.69 | 13.17 | 21.47 | 10.39 | 22.28 | 10.07 | 11.08 | 22.09 | 7.13 |
权重/% | 4.65 | 7.16 | 4.76 | 5.11 | 8.76 | 14.28 | 6.91 | 14.83 | 6.70 | 7.38 | 14.70 | 4.75 |
指标 | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 | X6 | X7 | X8 | X9 | X10 | X11 | X12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
熵值 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.78 | 0.93 |
差异系数/% | 6.99 | 10.76 | 7.16 | 7.69 | 13.17 | 21.47 | 10.39 | 22.28 | 10.07 | 11.08 | 22.09 | 7.13 |
权重/% | 4.65 | 7.16 | 4.76 | 5.11 | 8.76 | 14.28 | 6.91 | 14.83 | 6.70 | 7.38 | 14.70 | 4.75 |
目标层(A) | 准则层(B) | 指标层(C) | 综合权重 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
指标 | 权重 | 指标 | 权重 | |||
优良的灰枣品质 | 外在品质(B1) | 0.67 | 果实纵径(C1) | 0.14 | 0.10 | |
果实横径(C2) | 0.14 | 0.10 | ||||
果形指数(C3) | 0.08 | 0.05 | ||||
单果重(C4) | 0.51 | 0.34 | ||||
单株产量(C5) | 0.51 | 0.34 | ||||
内在品质(B2) | 0.33 | 总糖(C6) | 0.27 | 0.09 | ||
还原糖(C7) | 0.20 | 0.07 | ||||
果糖(C8) | 0.20 | 0.07 | ||||
淀粉(C9) | 0.05 | 0.02 | ||||
纤维素(C10) | 0.04 | 0.01 | ||||
维生素C(C11) | 0.22 | 0.07 | ||||
有机酸(C12) | 0.03 | 0.01 |
目标层(A) | 准则层(B) | 指标层(C) | 综合权重 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
指标 | 权重 | 指标 | 权重 | |||
优良的灰枣品质 | 外在品质(B1) | 0.67 | 果实纵径(C1) | 0.14 | 0.10 | |
果实横径(C2) | 0.14 | 0.10 | ||||
果形指数(C3) | 0.08 | 0.05 | ||||
单果重(C4) | 0.51 | 0.34 | ||||
单株产量(C5) | 0.51 | 0.34 | ||||
内在品质(B2) | 0.33 | 总糖(C6) | 0.27 | 0.09 | ||
还原糖(C7) | 0.20 | 0.07 | ||||
果糖(C8) | 0.20 | 0.07 | ||||
淀粉(C9) | 0.05 | 0.02 | ||||
纤维素(C10) | 0.04 | 0.01 | ||||
维生素C(C11) | 0.22 | 0.07 | ||||
有机酸(C12) | 0.03 | 0.01 |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
岳婉婉, 阿布都卡尤木·阿依麦提, 靳娟, 等. 不同植物生长调节剂对骏枣光合特性、果实品质及产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(12):3013-3021.
doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.12.017 |
[5] |
郑强卿, 陈奇凌, 王晶晶, 等. 不同植物生长调节剂对骏枣内源激素与果实品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2019, 56(3):430-437.
doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2019.03.005 |
[6] |
李慧, 李百云, 李超. 不同时间采收的灵武长枣果实品质综合评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2022, 40(3):265-272.
|
[7] |
袁野, 胡兰, 刘平, 等. ‘蜂蜜罐’枣实生后代果实性状变异分析与评价[J]. 植物遗传资源学报, 2018, 19(3):539-545.
doi: 10.13430/j.cnki.jpgr.2018.03.020 |
[8] |
王博. 宁夏引进枣种质资源生长表现及果实品质评价与分析[D]. 银川: 宁夏大学, 2022.
|
[9] |
王文军, 陈奇凌, 郑强卿, 等. 灰枣不同栽培模式的产量构成与果实商品性评价[J]. 果树学报, 2021, 38(5):739-748.
|
[10] |
樊保国, 李月梅, 张强, 等. 中阳木枣品种群果实制干品质性状及其综合评价[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 47(12):130-139.
|
[11] |
郭雪飞, 周晓凤, 冯一峰, 等. 两种糖积累型枣品种果实糖积累生理代谢机制研究[J]. 植物生理学报, 2019(6):837-846.
|
[12] |
段卞慧, 冯一峰, 林敏娟, 等. 引进16个鲜食枣品种品质性状的主成分分析和综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2017, 54(12):2198-2210.
doi: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2017.12.006 |
[13] |
田彦龙, 马永强, 王磊, 等. 西北不同生态区甜樱桃果实品质分析[J]. 果树学报, 2021, 38(4):509-519.
|
[14] |
张艳霞, 吕丹桂, 耿康奇, 等. 水分胁迫对赤霞珠葡萄果实品质和甲氧基吡嗪含量的影响[J]. 果树学报, 2022(6):1017-1028.
|
[15] |
梁丰志, 童盼盼, 张亚若, 等. 新疆南疆不同灰枣产区果实品质分析及优生区划分[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2021, 40(4):123-132.
|
[16] |
彭勇菲, 李学营, 彭建营. 19个早中熟鲜食枣品种果实品质分析与综合评价[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2019, 42(06):51-56.
|
[17] |
李慧, 魏天军. 基于主成分和灰色关联度分析的鲜食枣果实品质评价[J]. 经济林研究, 2021, 39(1):60-67.
|
[18] |
张梅, 王利娜, 王姝婧, 等. 基于层次-关联度的新疆骏枣品质性状分析及综合评价[J]. 中南林业科技大学学报, 2022, 42(1):78-85.
|
[19] |
贾朝爽, 王志华, 王文辉. 不同货架温度结合1-MCP处理对华红、华月苹果质地性状的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2022, 37(4):128-140.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.20192888 |
[20] |
韩晓, 刘凤之, 王孝娣, 等. 3种综合评价法在葡萄砧穗组合环境适应性中的应用[J]. 果树学报, 2017, 34(10):1349-1356.
|
[21] |
陈美艳, 赵婷婷, 刘小莉, 等. 猕猴桃品种‘金艳’果实品质因子分析与综合评价[J]. 植物科学学报, 2021, 39(1):85-92.
|
[22] |
王靖, 张金锁. 综合评价中确定权重向量的几种方法比较[J]. 河北工业大学学报, 2001(2):52-57.
|
[23] |
马文霞, 倪玉洁, 谢倩, 等. 鲜食百香果果实品质综合评价模型的建立及应用[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(13):53-60.
doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20190625-327 |
[24] |
王佳敏, 刘敏, 郭咏梅, 等. AHP法和灰色关联法在观赏辣椒果实外观品质评价中的应用[J]. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 39(1):73-78.
|
[1] | TANG Zhongjian, ZHANG Jinzhi, WANG Xiaomei, XU Wenjie, FU Yajie, ZHAO Mingyan, WU Ruyi, FAN Wenjuan, ZHANG Jie. Effects of Different Spike Trimming Length on Fruit Quality of ‘Summer Black’ Grape [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(7): 34-39. |
[2] | DONG Jianmei, HU Jiang, LI Jing, LIU Hongming, FU Xiaomeng, LAI Xinpu, DU Yuxia. Effect of Rootstocks on Mineral Nutrient Uptake in Lemon ‘Yunning No.1’ [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(7): 47-54. |
[3] | HUANG Wanli, ZHANG Dongmin, FU Xixi, CHEN Xinyi, ZHANG Chaokun, ZHENG Chengle. Effects of Types of Rootstocks on Growth, Fruit Yield and Quality of Guava ‘Hongxiang No.1’ [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(6): 73-79. |
[4] | LIU Fengfeng, BI Qingwen, ZHANG Guochao, HE Jiewang, SUN Fushan, DAI Yingpeng. Analysis of Key Influencing Factors of Upper Tobacco Leaves Quality in Stalk-Cutting and Curing [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(4): 126-133. |
[5] | MA Qianqian, PENG Guanyun, HUANG Tao, XIE Zhengwei, LI Shiyin. Effect of Fertilization Methods and Concentrations of Silicon Fertilizer on Fruit Quality of Plum ‘Qingcui’ [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(4): 39-43. |
[6] | WANG Min, HAN Shou’an, XIE Hui, LIU Xupeng, TURUP Mahmood, QI Ying, TIELIKE Adilitai, CAIKASIMU Aiermaike, PAN Mingqi, ZHANG Wen. Effects of Gibberellin Rachis Smearing Treatment on Grape Fruit Quality [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(4): 44-49. |
[7] | FAN Shanshan, CHEN Juan, WU Changchun, WANG Rui, ZHANG Xingang, CHEN Xiaohui, GAO Fei, WU Wenqiang. Effect of Alginic Acid Fertilizer on Growth, Yield and Quality of Strawberry [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(9): 60-65. |
[8] | PANG Yinghua, GU Wanfan, JIN Xin, ZHANG Zhouna, JIN Yahui, ZHENG Hongfu. Soil Nutrient Status and Fertility Quality Evaluation of Jingshan Tea Garden in Yuhang District of Hangzhou City [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(9): 97-105. |
[9] | JIANG Yan, YAN Wei, NI Zhangguang, CHEN Yufu, ZHANG Yong, WANG Tieyun, ZHANG Cuixian, LUO Xinping, YANG Linyuan, WANG Meicun. Introduction and Evaluation of Four Varieties of Lucuma nervosa in Menglian [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(28): 37-41. |
[10] | WANG Qiushuang, LI Bo, LIANG Jianqiu, QIN Dandan, WANG Qing, WU Hualing. Investigation and Analysis of Wild Tea Tree Germplasm Resources in Xiangwo Mountain of Yunfu [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(28): 76-82. |
[11] | HAO Jianyu, CHEN Wenchao, WANG Weijun, JING Gang, JIA Qingbing, WANG Yan, HU Yang, DING Jie, ZHANG Bochao. Effect of Spraying Time of Atailing on Prevention and Control of Grape Diseases and Grape Quality [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(22): 137-142. |
[12] | WU Penghui, KONG Lingjie, LANG Yishan, ZHAO Haimeng, ZHOU Haonan, JIANG Haonan, WU Xia. Effects of Potato Onion Accompaniment on Fruit Quality and Rhizosphere Soil Nutrients of Tomato [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(19): 33-39. |
[13] | ZHANG Yang, KONG Decai, DONG Xiaowei, SUN Yanguo, QU Yuankai, YAN Huifeng. Application of Principal Component Analysis in Quality Evaluation of Upper Flue-cured Tobacco Leaves in Shandong Province [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(18): 53-57. |
[14] | LIU Jia, LI Hongwen, CHEN Lijuan, WANG Dong, ZHANG Guowei. Fruit Quality Indexes Nondestructive Prediction of Cherry Using Near-infrared Spectroscopy [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(16): 150-155. |
[15] | YU Ran, GUO Peipei, WU Shuangshuang, ZHU Xinyi, ZUO Zhaorui, ZHANG Chunlong, ZHU Bo, XIAO Jiaxin. Effects of Two Rootstocks on Quality and Mineral Nutrition of ‘Eureka’ Blueberry Fruit [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(16): 57-62. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||