|Table of Contents|

Evaluation of Ornamental Value of Ginkgo biloba L. in Beijing City Based on AHP Method

《北方园艺》[ISSN:1001-0009/CN:23-1247/S]

Issue:
2021年22
Page:
90-97
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
Evaluation of Ornamental Value of Ginkgo biloba L. in Beijing City Based on AHP Method
Author(s):
SONG Min1; 2; YU Ping1; 2; ZHANG Huihui1; 2; LI Dalu1; 2; CAO Fuliang2; 3; ZHU Zunling1; 2; 4
(1.College of Landscape Architecture,Nanjing Forestry University,Nanjing,Jiangsu 210037;2.Co-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China,Nanjing Forestry University,Nanjing,Jiangsu 210037;3.College of Forestry,Nanjing Forestry University,Nanjing,Jiangsu 210037;4.College of Art & Design,Nanjing Forestry University,Nanjing,Jiangsu 210037)
Keywords:
Ginkgo biloba L.; analytic hierarchy process; ornamental characteristics; evaluation system
PACS:
-
DOI:
10.11937/bfyy.20210966
Abstract:
Taking 205 individuals of Ginkgo biloba L. as the main research object,and the ornamental characters of 205 individuals of Ginkgo biloba L. in Beijing city were investigated and counted.Four evaluation criteria like tree shape (A1),branch shape (A2),leaf shape (A3),leaf color (A4) and 16 evaluation factors were selected to establish the evaluation system of ornamental characters of Ginkgo biloba L. in Beijing city,and then divided the ornamental grades of 205 individuals of Ginkgo biloba L. in Beijing city,in order to provide theoretical guidance and reference for the future application of Ginkgo biloba L. in landscaping and the breeding of ornamental varieties.The results showed that among the total ranking values,leaf color (A4) had the largest weight and had the largest binding force on the ornamental value of Ginkgo biloba L.；among the 16 evaluation factors,leaf color (B14),leaf color stage (B16) and leaf base shape (B11) were the main indexes affecting the ornamental value of Ginkgo biloba L..This research proved that was scientific,reliable and practical to establish a comprehensive evaluation system for ornamental characters of Ginkgo biloba L. in Beijing city by using AHP.

References:

[1]丁之恩.银杏叶的利用价值及其研究进展[J].经济林研究,2003(4):128-130.[2]钮兆花,何国俊.银杏在景观绿化中的应用[J].上海农业科技,2010(2):99-100.[3]邢世岩,刘晓静,吴岐奎,等.山东省银杏种质资源评述[J].山东林业科技,2014(3):118-125.[4]李士美,崔希峰,王成生,等.银杏观赏品种的叶片形态特性[J].林业科技开发,2006(2):33-36.[5]BANTAYAN N C,BISHOP I D.Linking objective and subjective modelling for landuse decision-making[J].Landscape and Urban Planning,1998,43(1):35-48.[6]郝杨,周育真,吴沙沙,等.基于层次分析法的佛子岩景区植物景观美学评价[J].西南林业大学学报,2014,34(1):67-72.[7]陈俊愉.中国梅花品种分类新系统[J].北京林学院学报,1981(2):48-62.[8]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.[9]韩文衡.基于观赏价值的重庆梅花品种资源综合评价[J].西南师范大学学报(自然科学版),2016,41(7):133-137.[10]刘安成,王庆,李淑娟,等.西安地区忍冬属藤本植物观赏性状综合评价[J].西北林学院学报,2017,32(4):274-278.[11]盛宝龙,赵洪亮,马连宝,等.银杏叶片形态研究[J].植物遗传资源学报,2004(1):65-68.[12]汪浩,马达.层次分析标度评价与新标度方法[J].系统工程理论与实践,1993(5):24-26.[13]徐明,蔡建国,臧毅,等.杭州地区34种观果植物的综合评价与分析[J].西北林学院学报,2016,31(3):281-284,303.[14]李碧洳,翁殊斐,冯嘉仪,等.基于AHP法构建龙船花属植物园林应用综合评价体系[J].亚热带植物科学,2016,45(2):167-171.[15]冷寒冰.20个观赏竹品种引种价值综合评价研究[J].竹子学报,2017,36(2):21-28.[16]DANIEL T C.Whither scenic beauty visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century[J].Landscape & Urban Planning,2001,54(1-4):267-281.[17]许玉凤,于瀚翔,伊宏峰,等.熵AHP层次分析法对引种玉簪品种的综合评价[J].北方园艺,2016(16):75-80.[18]梁鸣,孙波,杨轶华,等.黑龙江省秋季红叶植物资源观赏性评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2008(7):84-86.[19]尹娟,蔡秀珍,刘蕴哲,等.基于AHP的凤仙花属石山组植物观赏价值评价[J].北方园艺,2018(22):93-97.[20]吴林源,黄稚清,丁释丰,等.基于AHP法的润楠属树种观赏性评价[J].福建林业科技,2019,46(4):70-72,82.[21]张利,丁彦芬,谌金芳,等.宁波梅山岛观赏植物应用价值综合评价[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2014,38(S1):93-98.[22]张继强,仇贵芳,刘冬皓,等.基于AHP的甘肃省14种野生季节变色植物观赏价值评价[J].水土保持通报,2018,38(3):334-338.[23]牛淑华,刘彬,刘旭丽,等.天山托木尔大峡谷野生观赏植物资源综合评价[J].北方园艺,2014(14):78-81.[24]田利颖.北方城市地被植物应用质量评价方法探讨[J].河北林果研究,2007(3):329-335.[25]李霞,安雪,潘会堂.北京市园林彩叶植物种类及园林应用[J].中国园林,2010(3):62-68.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2022-02-16