Quality Assessment of Seedless Table Grapes Based on Hierarchy-relation and Principal Component Analysis
-
摘要: 通过对银川引种的10个无核鲜食葡萄果实品质的综合评价，筛选出品质优良品种，为宁夏地区鲜食葡萄发展提供可开发资源的科学依据。对供试品种的14个基本品质指标进行观察测定，应用层次-关联度和主成分分析综合评价了无核鲜食葡萄品质，并根据综合得分进行排序。结果表明，在层次-关联度分析中，建立了3个层次，分别是目标层、准则层、指标层，目标层即为果实综合品质，准则层分为外观品质和内在品质，内在品质权重值为0.6，外观品质权重值0.4，指标层香味、风味权重赋值最高，分别是0.1535和0.1413，而单粒重和单穗重是影响外在品质的重要因素，权重值是0.1087和0.1062，‘瑞峰无核’的外观品质表现最好，加权关联度是0.7477，‘爱神玫瑰’的内在品质表现最好，加权关联度是0.9131，综合品质表现最优是‘爱神玫瑰’，其次是‘无核翠宝’，然后是‘夏黑’，加权关联度依次是0.8006、0.7732、0.7291；主成分分析法提取了4个主成分，累积贡献率达到86.332%，第一主成分的总酸、固酸比、糖酸比、风味和香味起主要影响；第二主成分的果皮厚度、果粒整齐度、单穗重和果穗紧密度对其影响大；第三主成分的单粒重、可溶性固形物、可溶性总糖和风味对其的影响大；第四主成分的着色一致性和维生素C含量对其的影响大，综合得分最高的是‘无核翠宝’，其次是‘夏黑’，然后是‘爱神玫瑰’，得分依次是1.31、1.17、1.02，综合得分最低的是‘无核白鸡心’，得分为-2.11。两种分析方法综合得分排名前三的均是‘无核翠宝’、‘爱神玫瑰’和‘夏黑’，排名末位的均是‘无核白鸡心’，可作为今后优良品种区试推广的理论依据。Abstract: The objective of this study was to comprehensively evaluate fruit quality of 10 seedless table grapes cultivars cultivated in Yinchuan area by using analytic hierarchy process and principal component analysis,which was aimed to provide reference for selecting high-quality table grape cultivars. The 10 seedless table grapes were taken as materials,and 14 basic quality indicators were measured,the quality of fruit were further analyzed by using analytic hierarchy process and principal component analysis,and sorted according to the comprehensive score. The results showed that three levels were set up in the hierarchical-relational analysis,the target layer was the comprehensive quality of the fruits,and the criterion layer was divided into appearance quality and intrinsic quality. The intrinsic quality weight value was 0.6,and the appearance quality weight value was 0.4. The index layer had the highest flavor and flavor weights,which were 0.1535 and 0.1413,respectively. The spikelets and single grain weight were important factors affecting external quality,and the weight values were 0.1087 and 0.1062. ‘Ruifeng Wuhe’ had the best appearance quality,with a weighted correlation of 0.7477,and ‘Eros Rose’ had the best internal quality,with a weighted correlation of 0.9131. The best comprehensive quality performance was ‘Eros Rose’,followed by ‘Wuhecuibao’,then ‘Summer Black’,and the weighted correlations were 0.8006,0.7732,0.7291 in order. Four principal components were extracted by principal component analysis,and cumulative contribution rate reached 86.332%. The total acid,solid acid ratio,sugar-acid ratio,flavor and aroma of the first principal component played an important role. And the thickness of the second principal component,fruit grain uniformity,single panicle weight and fruit panicle compactness had a great influence on it. The single grain weight,soluble solids,soluble sugar and flavor of the third principal component had a great effect on it. The color consistency of the fourth principal component and the content of vitamin C had a great effect on it. The highest comprehensive score was ‘Wuhecuibao’,followed by ‘Summer Black’,and then ‘Eros Rose’,with 1.31,1.17 and 1.02 respectively. The lowest comprehensive score was ‘Centennial’,with-2.11. The top three scores were ‘Wuhecuibao’,‘Aishen Meigui’,and ‘Summer Black’,at the bottom of the ranking was ‘Centennial’,which comprehensive analyzed of analytic hierarchy process and principal component analysis. The combination of analytic hierarchy process and principal component analysis to evaluate fruit quality was reliable,which could be used as a theoretical basis for the regional test promotion of fine varieties in the future.
-
[1] 李玉鼎,张光弟,张新宁,等.宁夏鲜食葡萄产业的现状、问题及发展对策[J].宁夏农学院学报,2004(2):46-50. [2] Saaty T L.The analytic hierarchy process[M].New York:McGraw Hill Inc,1980:50.
[3] 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. [4] 姜雪峰,毛娟,徐巨涛,等.苹果品质评价模型的建立与验证[J].甘肃农业大学学报,2019,54(3):69-77. [5] 弓成林,郭爱民,汪小伟,等.灰色关联度和层次分析法在葡萄品质评价上的应用[J].西南农业学报,2002(1):79-82. [6] 焦艺,刘璇,毕金峰,等.基于灰色关联度和层次分析法的油桃果汁品质评价[J].中国食品学报,2014,14(12):154-163. [7] 李雪,梁叶星,许晶冰,等.重庆地区鲜食葡萄品质综合评价[J].食品与发酵工业,2019,45(11):219-227. [8] 白世践,李超,户金鸽,等.层次-关联分析法在引种鲜食葡萄品质综合评价中的应用[J].北方园艺,2016(16):1-8. [9] 沈甜,牛锐敏,陈卫平,等.应用层次-关联度和聚类分析法评价十八个鲜食葡萄品质[J].北方园艺,2017(23):64-72. [10] 宋江峰,刘春泉,姜晓青,等.基于主成分与聚类分析的菜用大豆品质综合评价[J].食品科学,2015,36(13):12-17. [11] 苏鹏飞,杨丽,张世杰,等.基于主成分分析的酿酒葡萄梅鹿辄的最佳采收期[J].中国食品学报,2017,17(7):274-283. [12] 潘照,周文化,肖玥惠子.基于主成分分析的不同种鲜食葡萄品质评价[J].食品与机械,2018,34(9):139-146. [13] 王建芳,高山,牟德华.基于主成分分析和聚类分析的不同品种燕麦品质评价[J].食品工业科技,2020,41(13):85-91. [14] 林蝉蝉,何舟阳,单文龙,等.基于主成分与聚类分析综合评价杨凌地区红色鲜食葡萄果实品质[J].果树学报,2020,37(4):520-532. [15] 于玉红,马运粮,赵小龙,等.154份西瓜育种材料果实性状的主成分分析及聚类分析[J].中国瓜菜,2019,32(11):6-12. [16] 王馨雨,王蓉蓉,杨绿竹,等.不同品种及内外百合鳞片游离氨基酸组成的主成分分析及聚类分析[J].食品科学,2020,41(12):211-220. [17] 张梦,张遥遥,胡悦,等.基于主成分分析和聚类分析的百合花瓣品质综合分析与评价[J].食品工业科技,2020,41(3):232-238 ,245.
[18] 王振龙,张筠筠,孙权,等.基于主成分和聚类分析法评价不同有机滴灌肥处理对酿酒葡萄和葡萄酒品质的影响[J].中国土壤与肥料,2019(5):104-111. [19] 邓健康,刘璇,吴昕烨,等.基于层次分析和灰色关联度法的苹果(等外果)汁品质评价[J].中国食品学报,2017,17(4):197-208. [20] 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. [21] 高俊风.植物生理学实验技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000:145-163. [22] 刘崇怀,沈育杰,陈俊,等.葡萄种质资源描述规范和数据标准[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2006:97-102. [23] 刘录祥,孙其信,王士芸.灰色系统理论应用于作物新品种综合评估初探[J].中国农业科学,1989(3):22-27. [24] 刘崇怀,樊秀彩,孙海生,等.NY/T 2023-2011农作物优异种质资源评价规范——葡萄[S].北京:中华人民共和国农业部,2011. [25] Girschik L,Jones J E,Kerslake F L,et al. Apple variety and maturity profiling of base ciders using UV spectroscopy[J].Food Chemistry,2017,228:323-329.
[26] 周向阳,刘晓颖,金肇熙,等.SB/T 10894-2012预包装鲜食葡萄流通规范[S].北京:中华人民共和国商务部,2012. [27] 周向阳,刘晓颖,金肇熙,等.DB440300/T25.4-2004预包装鲜食葡萄购销要求[S].北京:深圳市质量技术监督局,2004. [28] 吴茂玉,刘同鲁,赵静芳.GH/T 1022-2000鲜葡萄[S].北京:中华全国供销合作总社,2000. [29] 罗国光.鲜食葡萄的品质要求和品味评分标准[J].葡萄栽培与酿酒,1986(3):4-7. [30] 李橙,杨志新,刘树庆,等.河北省主产区葡萄品质综合评价方法的比较分析[J].安徽农业科学,2011(17):10229-10234. [31] 马林龙,曹丹,刘艳丽,等.基于主成分分析的不同茶树品种在湖北地区的适应性评价[J].热带作物学报,2020(7):63-74. [32] 许乃银,张国伟,李健,等.基于GGE双标图和比强度选择的棉花品种生态区划分[J].中国生态农业学报,2012,20(11):1500-1507. [33] 董星光,田路明,曹玉芬,等.我国南方砂梨主产区主栽品种果实品质因子分析及综合评价[J].果树学报,2014,31(5):815-822.
计量
- 文章访问数:
- HTML全文浏览量:
- PDF下载量:
下载:
