|Table of Contents|

Establishment and Application of Ornamental Evaluation System for Malus spp.Varieties Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2022年23
Page:
61-67
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Establishment and Application of Ornamental Evaluation System for Malus spp.Varieties Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process
Author(s):
MAN Liting1; 2; ZHANG Jinmei1; 2; LIU Guiying1; 2
(1.Research Institute of Forestry Science of Xining,Xining,Qinghai 810003；2.Urban Forest Ecosystem Orientation Station of Xining in Qinhai Province,Xining,Qinghai 810003)
Keywords:
analytic hierarchy process; Malus spp.; ornamental evaluation; construction of evaluation system; Xining area
PACS:
-
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20221393
Abstract:
Taking the imported 22 Malus spp.varieties as the test materials,an evaluation system of the imported Malus spp. varieties was constructed in five aspects,overall branch shape,leaf characteristics,flower characteristics,fruit characteristics,growth performance and adaptability by using the AHP.The comprehensive evaluation system for the ornamental properties of imported Malus spp. varieties were studied,in order to screen the Malus spp. varieties suitable for introduction and cultivation in Xining area and with high ornamental properties.The results showed that among the 20 evaluation indicators,the indicators affecting the comprehensive ornamental evaluation of Malus spp.，the weight values ranked the top five in terms of fruit density (0.174 2),preservation rate (0.165 4),flowering period (0.106 8),flower diameter (0.083 2) and resistance to the coldness (0.082 7),had a great influence on the comprehensive quality of Malus spp.varieties.According to the comprehensive index score,the 22 varieties were divided into 4 grades.There were 4 species with the evaluation,Grade I of plants had the highest ornamental application value and could be introduced and applied in Xining as a key tree species；There were 7 species with evaluation Grade Ⅱ,which had high ornamental value,and should be selected according to actual needs during introduction and application；there were 7 species with evaluation Grade Ⅲ,and their application value was medium.There were 4 species with the evaluation Grade Ⅳ,which were of low ornamental value and could be preserved as germplasm resources,but were not suitable for introduction and cultivation in Xining area.The analytic hierarchy process could effectively evaluate and grade Malus spp.varieties comprehensively,and the evaluation results were basically consistent with the actual cultivation and ornamental application performance.

References:

[1]张哲,潘会堂.园林植物景观评价研究进展[J].浙江农林大学学报,2011,28(6):962-967.[2]刘新宪,朱道立.选择与判断：AHP(层次分析法)决策[M].上海:上海科学普及出版社,1990.[3]SAATY T L.The analytic hierarchy process[M].New York:Mc Craw-Hill Inc,1980.[4]董钠,李成儒,陈蕾,等.酢浆草属植物观赏性评价体系的建立与应用[J].热带作物学报,2020,41(9):1770-1778.[5]王莹,李玉娟,谈峰,等.8个彩叶紫薇品种观赏性及适应性评价[J].浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版),2020,46(3):327-333.[6]唐晓蓉.包头市几种园林花灌木的引种效果分析[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2011.[7]陈恒新.山东海棠品种分类与资源利用研究[D].南京:南京林业大学,2007.[8]陈红,王关祥,郑林,等.木瓜属(贴梗海棠)品种分类的研究历史与现状[J].山东林业科技,2006(5):70-71,78.[9]陈曦,汤庚国,郑玉红,等.苹果属山荆子遗传多样性的RAPD分析[J].西北植物学报,2008(10):1954-1959.[10]刘志强.华东地区海棠品种资源与园林应用研究[D].南京:南京林业大学,2002.[11]董建云.现代海棠视觉特征及其城市风景应用价值研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2007.[12]邱英杰.不同品种北美海棠观赏特性及耐寒性研究[D].秦皇鸟：河北科技师范学院,2018.[13]李淑娟.西安秋季色叶植物物候图谱构建及观赏性评价[D].杨凌：西北农林科技大学,2013.[14]李素华,韩浩章,蒋亚华,等.基于层次分析法的景天科多肉植物品种评价体系构建与应用[J].河南农业科学,2020,49(8):101-108.[15]SAATY T L.How to make a decision:The analytic hierarchy process[J].European Journal of Operational Research,1990,48(1):9-26.[16]刘毅.陕西主要栽培银杏的观赏性状评价研究[D].杨凌:西北农林科技大学,2007.[17]朱倩玉,姜新强,刘庆超,等.青岛地区彩叶树种的综合评价研究[J].中国农学通报,2016,32(31):13-19.[18]张燕莎,欧静,罗钱,等.贵阳市10种观赏草基于AHP方法的观赏适应性综合评价[J].亚热带植物科学,2021,50(1):26-32.[19]赵丽,刘平生,王佐良,等.忍冬属部分树种综合评价[J].北方园艺,2012(23):102-104.[20]张燕莎,欧静,罗钱,等.贵阳市10种观赏草基于AHP方法的观赏适应性综合评价[J].亚热带植物科学,2021,50(1):26-32.[21]黄雪方,刘海霞,金雅琴,等.香石竹观赏性评价研究[J].南京师大学报(自然科学版),2012,35(4):84-89.[22]刘凤栾,房义福,宋国防,等.31种欧美观赏海棠遗传多样性的 AFLP 分析[Ｊ].分子植物育种,2013,11(9)：1052-1059.[23]郑杨,曲晓玲,郭翎,等.观赏海棠资源谱系分析及育种研究进展[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2008(1):152-160.[24]刘凤栾,房义福,孙居文,等.36种欧美观赏海棠生长与光合生理特性分析[J].植物生理学报,2013,49(8):738-742.[25]吴晓星,刘凤栾,房义福,等.36个欧美观赏海棠品种(种)应用价值的综合评价[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2015,39(1):93-98.[26]韩勇,叶燕萍,陈发棣,等.多头切花菊品质性状综合评价体系构建[J].中国农业科学,2011,44(20):4265-4271.[27]赵国群,赵一凡,张晓腾,等.基于主成分与聚类分析的梨酒品质分析与综合评价[J].中国酿造,2018,37(2):111-116.[28]江锡兵,滕国新,范金根,等.长江中下游区板栗主栽品种果实表型和品质综合评价[J].林业科学研究,2022,35(1):70-81.[29]王镭,张英杰,张京伟,等.53个月季品种资源分析及观赏性综合评价[J].分子植物育种,2019,17(15):5154-5162.[30]管帮富,彭华,彭火辉,等.南昌地区引种大花及藤本月季品种的评估鉴定[J].江西农业学报,2013,25(12):19-26,31.[31]杨善云.春色叶树种资源的观赏性状综合评价与应用研究[J].西北林学院学报,2014,29(3):231-235.[32]刘胜男,彭洁,王瑞博,等.30种北美海棠表型多样性分析与观赏性综合评价[J/OL].分子植物育种,[2022-09-06]（2022-04-08）.http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/46.1068.S.20220126.1452.030.html.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2023-01-20