|Table of Contents|

Comprehensive Evaluation of Biological Characters of Phalaenopsis Germplasm Resources

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2024年1
Page:
54-59
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Comprehensive Evaluation of Biological Characters of Phalaenopsis Germplasm Resources
Author(s):
ZHAO Yu′an; WANG Shiyao; ZHANG Guo; WANG Ruihua; JIANG Shuanli; YANG Shucai
(Zhengzhou Institute of Agriculture and Forestry Science，Zhengzhou，Henan 450005)
Keywords:
Phalaenopsis; germplasm resources; biological character; AHP; K-Means clustering analysis method
PACS:
S 682.31
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20232537
Abstract:
With 57 Phalaenopsis germplasm resources collected as research objects，23 biological traits were investigated and analyzed to clarify the main factors affecting the comprehensive evaluation of the biological traits of Phalaenopsis germplasm resources，and the hierarchical analysis method was combined with the K-Means clustering analysis to establish a comprehensive evaluation system of the biological traits of Phalaenopsis germplasm resources，so as to be able to evaluate the existing germplasm comprehensively and classify existing germplasm resources for reference in the utilization，selection and breeding of new varieties and cultivation promotion of Phalaenopsis.This system was intended to evaluate the existing germplasm in a more comprehensive way，to classify the existing germplasm resources，and to provide reference for the utilization of Phalaenopsis germplasm resources，the selection and breeding of new varieties，and the promotion of cultivation.The results showed that floral morphology (C1) was the main factor in the comprehensive trait evaluation of Phalaenopsis，flower color accounted for the largest proportion，pedicel morphology (C2) was the second largest，and plant morphology (C3) was the least weighted；the highest score in the comprehensive evaluation was ‘Guangmangsishe’ (score 4.270 6)；the highest scores in the evaluation of floral morphology were ‘Fortune Cat’ and ‘Guangmangsishe’ (score 2.501)，the highest scoring plant form was ‘Longshufengye’ (score 0.747 2)，and the highest scoring pedicel form was ‘1713’ (score 1.155 4)；57 germplasm were categorized into 4 grades based on the evaluation scores，including 9 excellent grades，accounting for 15.79%；18 good grades，accounting for 31.58%；20 medium grades，accounting for 35.09%；and 10 passing grades，accounting for 17.54%.

References:

［1］薛光卿.蝴蝶兰市场潜力旺,从业者信心足［N］.中国花卉报，2023-1-12(3).［2］陈剑锋，钟声远，陈宇华，等.基于花表型性状的蝴蝶兰品种资源多样性研究［J］.热带作物学报，2023，44(3)：494-505.［3］陈和明，吕复兵，李佐,等.蝴蝶兰品质性状综合评价体系的构建［J］.中国农业大学学报，2017，22(8)：83-94.［4］宋一岚，张英杰，孙纪霞，等.蝴蝶兰70份资源观赏性状综合评价［J］.热带作物学报，2020，41(1)：43-48.［5］SARI B，SEN T，KILIC S E.AHP model for the selection of partner companies in virtual enterprises［J］.The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology，2008，38(3/4)：367-376.［6］张亚琼,张伟,戴思兰，等.基于AHP的中国传统盆栽菊花产业花品种筛选［J］.中国农业科学，2011，44(21)：4438-4446.［7］卢学礼，刘凤君，李军,等.重瓣型子莲品种的综合评价与筛选［J］.植物资源与环境学报，2022，31(3)：93-100.［8］贾晓丽，陈忠萍，吴圆圆，等.15种大花月季在北疆地区的观赏特性综合评价［J］.江苏农业科学，2020，48(15)：182-186.［9］司宝华，罗建让，张延龙.基于专用目标的紫斑牡丹单株评价与筛选［J］.北方园艺，2023(10)：65-73.［10］艾叶，陈璐，兰思仁，等.基于层次分析法的建兰品种观赏价值综合评价［J］.福建农林大学学报(自然科学版)，2019，48(6)：736-741.［11］宋敏,余萍,张慧会等.基于AHP的北京市银杏单株观赏价值评价［J］.北方园艺，2021(22)：90-97.［12］苏梓莹,李斓,张茜莹,等.广东省特有兰科植物观赏性状综合评价［J］.热带作物学报，2020，41(8)：1560-1565.［13］王世尧，杨书才，蒋栓丽，等.蝴蝶兰响应低温胁迫研究进展［J］.北方园艺，2023(4)：124-131.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2024-01-22