Comparison of three comprehensive evaluation methods to evaluate the quality of persimmon fruit

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202109034

JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2023, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (4): 61-72.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202109034

Special Issue: 乡村振兴视域下经济林果培育专题（Ⅱ）

Previous Articles Next Articles

Comparison of three comprehensive evaluation methods to evaluate the quality of persimmon fruit

CHENG Wenqiang¹^,²(), XU Yang¹, WU Kaiyun¹, ZHAO Xianmin¹, GONG Bangchu¹^,^*()

1. Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Hangzhou 311400, China
2. College of Forestry, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China

Received:2021-09-17 Revised:2021-11-27 Online:2023-07-30 Published:2023-07-20

1. .zip(6717KB)

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】 This research aims to evaluate the quality of persimmon fruits using three comprehensive methods in order to provide a theoretical basis for the precise selection and efficient utilization of high quality persimmon germplasm. 【Method】 We selected 85 persimmon germplasm resources in Zhejiang Province as the object of evaluation, and examined 13 quality indicators (weight per fruits, diameter of horizontal cross section, diameter of vertical cross section, content of the crude protein, vitamin C, starch, calcium and β-carotene, water content, content of the soluble solids, soluble sugar, tannin and crude fiber) of persimmon fruit. We employed the principal component analysis, the entropy evaluation method and the entropy-weighting TOPSIS method to evaluate fruit comprehensive quality. 【Result】 Fruit quality of different persimmon germplasm resources varied significantly with variation coefficients of 3.82%-87.89%. High variations were found in content of the β-carotene, tannin, starch, crude protein, vitamin C, calcium, fruit weight and crude fiber, and low variations were showed in horizontal and vertical cross section diameters, soluble sugar, soluble solids and water content. The principal component analysis revealed that top scoring persimmon germplasm fruits were Changxing 1, Fuyang 2, Fenghua 1 and Liandu 2. The entropy evaluation method ranked the top scoring persimmon fruits as Wuyi 3, Yongjia 10, Wuyi 4 and Huangyan 2. The entropy-weighting TOPSIS method gave top scoring persimmon fruits to Wuyi 3, Yongjia 10, Wuyi 4, and Chun'an 14. The entropy method and the entropy-weighting TOPSIS method showed relatively similar ranking, while the principal component analysis deviated from the other two methods in scoring. These three methods differ in their theoretical bases, in data standardization methods, and in an index weight assignment. The entropy-weighting TOPSIS based scoring overcame the complexity of the large amount of data on fruit trait indicators and the problem of small dispersion degree of key indicators, and matched best with the production performances and overall quality of different germplasm. 【Conclusion】 The entropy-weight based TOPSIS model simplifies and improves comprehensive evaluation of persimmon germplasm fruit quality compared with scoring by the principal component analysis and the entropy evaluation method.

Key words: Diospyros kaki (persimmon), fruit quality, principal component analysis (PCA), entropy evaluation method, entropy-weighting TOPSIS

CLC Number:

S665.2

CHENG Wenqiang, XU Yang, WU Kaiyun, ZHAO Xianmin, GONG Bangchu. Comparison of three comprehensive evaluation methods to evaluate the quality of persimmon fruit[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(4): 61-72.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

Numbers and names of different persimmon germplasm materials"

序号 No.	材料代号 sample code	材料类别/ 农家名 material type/ native name	序号 No.	材料代号 sample code	材料类别/ 农家名 material type/ native name	序号 No.	材料代号 sample code	材料类别/ 农家名 material type/ native name
1	安吉1 AJ1	优株plus tree	30	杭州1 HZ1	扁花柿bhs	59	衢江6 QJ6	新资源 new resource
2	安吉2 AJ2	新资源 new resource	31	海宁1 HN1	新资源 new resource	60	衢江11 QJ11	优株plus tree
3	安吉3 AJ3	优株plus tree	32	黄岩2 HY2	优株plus tree	61	瑞安2 RA2	长奶柿cns
4	安吉4 AJ4	新资源 new resource	33	缙云5 JY5	新资源 new resource	62	绍兴1 SX1	楠柿ns
5	苍南1 CN1	新资源 new resource	34	缙云7 JY7	火彭柿hps	63	松阳4 SY4	水柿ss
6	苍南2 CN2	新资源 new resource	35	开化1 KH1	八月柿bys	64	松阳5 SY5	新资源 new resource
7	常山1 CS1	优株plus tree	36	开化3 KH3	十月红syh	65	遂昌1 SC1	新资源 new resource
8	长兴1 CX1	优株plus tree	37	开化5 KH5	土柿ts	66	遂昌3 SC3	新资源 new resource
9	淳安2 CA2	无核柿whs	38	兰溪2 LX2	新资源 new resource	67	泰顺3 TS3	扁柿bs
10	淳安4 CA4	苹果柿pgs	39	兰溪3 LX3	新资源 new resource	68	泰顺4 TS4	八月黄byh
11	淳安5 CA5	新资源 new resource	40	兰溪4 LX4	金黄柿jhs	69	天台1 TT1	优株plus tree
12	淳安6 CA6	沙糖柿sts	41	兰溪5 LX5	新资源 new resource	70	武义3 WY3	优株plus tree
13	淳安8 CA8	冬柿ds	42	乐清1 LQ1	牛头柿nts	71	武义4 WY4	优株plus tree
14	淳安9 CA9	牛筋柿njs	43	乐清4 LQ4	新资源 new resource	72	仙居1 XJ1	新资源 new resource
15	淳安10 CA10	新资源 new resource	44	莲都2 LD2	优株plus tree	73	萧山2 XS2	团红柿ths
16	淳安11 CA11	磨盘柿2mps2	45	莲都4 LD4	牛奶柿nns	74	新昌1 XC1	牛心柿nxs
17	淳安12 CA12	沙糖柿sts	46	莲都6 LD6	新资源 new resource	75	鄞州2 YZ2	吊红dh
18	淳安13 CA13	枕头柿zts	47	龙泉2 LQ2	黄柿hs	76	永嘉2 YJ2	优株plus tree
19	淳安14 CA14	方柿fs	48	龙游2 LY2	新资源 new resource	77	永嘉6 YJ6	水扁柿sbs
20	淳安15 CA15	长柿cs	49	龙游3 LY3	优株plus tree	78	永嘉8 YJ8	玉环长柿yhcs
21	淳安16 CA16	圆柿ys	50	宁海1 NH1	南瓜柿ngs	79	永嘉9 YJ9	东皋长柿dgcs
22	德清2 DQ2	铜盆柿tps	51	浦江3 PJ3	优株plus tree	80	永嘉10 YJ10	八月红byh
23	德清5 DQ5	小柿子xsz	52	浦江5 PJ5	新资源 new resource	81	永康1 YK1	红柿hs
24	德清6 DQ6	新资源 new resource	53	庆元1 QY1	优株plus tree	82	永康5B YK5B	方山柿fss
25	奉化1 FH1	优株plus tree	54	青田1 QT1	朱红柿zhs	83	诸暨1 ZJ1	新资源 new resource
26	富阳2 FY2	优株plus tree	55	衢江2 QJ2	客柿ks	84	诸暨2 ZJ2	优株plus tree
27	富阳5 FY5	优株plus tree	56	衢江3 QJ3	绿柿ls	85	诸暨3 ZJ3	新资源 new resource
28	富阳6 FY6	新资源 new resource	57	衢江4 QJ4	新资源 new resource
29	海盐1 HY1	新资源 new resource	58	衢江5 QJ5	汤饼柿tbs

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.1

Table 3

Table 4

Comprehensive score ranking of different persimmon germplasm materials"

材料代号 sample code	综合得分 composite score	排序结果 sort result	材料代号 sample code	综合得分 composite score	排序结果 sort result	材料代号 sample code	综合得分 composite score	排序结果 sort result
长兴1 CX1	1.198	1	庆元1 QY1	0.154	30	永嘉10 YJ10	-0.192	59
富阳2 FY2	0.984	2	诸暨1 ZJ1	0.129	31	淳安4 CA4	-0.200	60
奉化1 FH1	0.966	3	天台1 TT1	0.077	32	宁海1 NH1	-0.214	61
莲都2 LD2	0.972	4	常山1 CS1	0.059	33	鄞州2 YZ2	-0.232	62
永嘉6 YJ6	0.875	5	衢江4 QJ4	0.058	34	永康1 YK1	-0.262	63
松阳4 SY4	0.745	6	淳安2 CA2	0.039	35	兰溪2 LX2	-0.283	64
兰溪3 LX3	0.677	7	德清6 DQ6	0.025	36	淳安12 CA12	-0.291	65
诸暨3 ZJ3	0.676	8	富阳6 FY6	0.032	37	富阳5 FY5	-0.296	66
新昌1 XC1	0.621	9	黄岩2 HY2	0.030	38	绍兴1 SX1	-0.297	67
永嘉2 YJ2	0.616	10	遂昌1 SC1	0.028	39	兰溪5 LX5	-0.316	68
永嘉9 YJ9	0.605	11	缙云7 JY7	-0.001	40	苍南2 CN2	-0.339	69
缙云5 JY5	0.548	12	淳安16 CA16	-0.026	41	海宁1 HN1	-0.367	70
兰溪4 LX4	0.551	13	安吉4 AJ4	-0.040	42	开化3 KH3	-0.402	71
永嘉8 YJ8	0.546	14	泰顺3 TS3	-0.037	43	苍南1 CN1	-0.430	72
乐清4 LQ4	0.495	15	衢江11 QJ11	-0.061	44	开化5 KH5	-0.485	73
安吉1 AJ1	0.481	16	安吉2 AJ2	-0.097	45	诸暨2 ZJ2	-0.490	74
仙居1 XJ1	0.460	17	松阳5 SY5	-0.106	46	衢江6 XJ6	-0.517	75
淳安11 CA11	0.427	18	永康5B YK5B	-0.110	47	淳安6 CA6	-0.566	76
瑞安2 RA2	0.413	19	安吉3 AJ3	-0.126	48	莲都6 LD6	-0.577	77
淳安8 CA8	0.379	20	龙游3 LY3	-0.134	49	淳安14 CA14	-0.679	78
淳安9 CA9	0.332	21	开化1 KH1	-0.143	50	浦江5 PJ5	-0.695	79
泰顺4 TS4	0.303	22	海盐1 HY1	-0.146	51	武义4 WY4	-0.728	80
浦江3 PJ3	0.201	23	衢江3 QJ3	-0.149	52	青田1 QT1	-0.768	81
淳安10 CA10	0.180	24	萧山2 XS2	-0.149	53	武义3 WY3	-0.898	82
淳安15 CA15	0.171	25	德清2 DQ2	-0.165	54	德清5 DQ5	-0.943	83
龙泉2 LQ2	0.174	26	杭州1 HZ1	-0.162	55	龙游2 LY2	-1.006	84
遂昌3 SC3	0.171	27	衢江5 QJ5	-0.171	56	淳安13 CA13	-1.031	85
淳安5 CA5	0.161	28	莲都4 LD4	-0.188	57
乐清1 LQ1	0.146	29	衢江2 QJ2	-0.186	58

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Comprehensive score ranking of different persimmon germplasm materials"

材料代号 sample code	综合得分 composite score	排序结果 sort result	材料代号 sample code	综合得分 composite score	排序结果 sort result	材料代号 sample code	综合得分 composite score	排序结果 sort result
武义3 WY3	0.021 64	1	富阳2 FY2	0.012 41	30	永嘉8 YJ8	0.010 14	59
永嘉10 YJ10	0.020 89	2	衢江3 QJ3	0.012 39	31	泰顺4 TS4	0.010 05	60
武义4 WY4	0.019 38	3	宁海1 NH1	0.012 37	32	缙云5 JY5	0.009 77	61
黄岩2 HY2	0.016 40	4	天台1 TT1	0.012 36	33	海盐1 HY1	0.009 66	62
永嘉9 YJ9	0.016 26	5	富阳5 FY5	0.012 19	34	衢江2 QJ2	0.009 53	63
淳安14 CA14	0.015 99	6	诸暨3 ZJ3	0.012 04	35	永康5B YK5B	0.009 50	64
青田1 QT1	0.015 87	7	德清2 DQ2	0.012 02	36	乐清1 LQ1	0.009 48	65
德清6 DQ6	0.015 73	8	萧山2 XS2	0.011 93	37	淳安13 CA13	0.009 45	66
莲都4 LD4	0.015 44	9	浦江3 PJ3	0.011 88	38	开化1 KH1	0.009 38	67
衢江5 QJ5	0.015 31	10	龙泉2 LQ2	0.011 73	39	淳安15 CA15	0.009 35	68
新昌1 XC1	0.015 26	11	兰溪5 LX5	0.011 60	40	富阳6 FY6	0.009 33	69
开化5 KH5	0.015 09	12	衢江11 QJ11	0.011 60	41	淳安8 CA8	0.009 30	70
莲都2 LD2	0.015 07	13	泰顺3 TS3	0.011 58	42	浦江5 PJ5	0.009 22	71
长兴1 CX1	0.014 75	14	鄞州2 YZ2	0.011 54	43	绍兴1 SX1	0.009 07	72
缙云7 JY7	0.014 71	15	遂昌3 SC3	0.011 47	44	衢江4 QJ4	0.008 88	73
瑞安2 RA2	0.013 92	16	安吉3 AJ3	0.011 46	45	兰溪2 LX2	0.008 83	74
莲都6 LD6	0.013 90	17	庆元1 QY1	0.011 33	46	淳安5 CA5	0.008 79	75
淳安6 CA6	0.013 89	18	苍南1 CN1	0.011 27	47	开化3 KH3	0.008 53	76
奉化1 FH1	0.013 88	19	德清5 DQ5	0.011 25	48	淳安10 CA10	0.008 43	77
永康1 YK1	0.013 68	20	淳安12 CA12	0.011 23	49	淳安11 CA11	0.008 16	78
乐清4 LQ4	0.013 63	21	遂昌1 SC1	0.011 15	50	兰溪4 LX4	0.008 15	79
永嘉6 YJ6	0.013 63	22	龙游3 LY3	0.010 90	51	龙游2 LY2	0.008 13	80
永嘉2 YJ2	0.013 56	23	淳安16 CA16	0.010 82	52	安吉4 AJ4	0.007 45	81
安吉2 AJ2	0.013 09	24	杭州1 HZ1	0.010 81	53	衢江6 QJ6	0.007 35	82
海宁1 HN1	0.012 78	25	淳安9 CA9	0.010 59	54	诸暨1 ZJ1	0.006 39	83
兰溪3 LX3	0.012 66	26	苍南2 CN2	0.010 56	55	淳安4 CA4	0.006 28	84
淳安2 CA2	0.012 54	27	诸暨2 ZJ2	0.010 39	56	松阳5 SY5	0.006 07	85
常山1 CS1	0.012 48	28	松阳4 SY4	0.010 30	57
仙居1 XJ1	0.012 42	29	安吉1 AJ1	0.010 26	58

Table 6

Table 7

Comprehensive evaluations of fruit quality of different persimmon germplasm"

材料代号 sample code	S⁺	S^-	K_i	排序结果 sort result	材料代号 sample code	S⁺	S^-	K_i	排序结果 sort result
武义3 WY3	0.073	0.082	0.528	1	富阳5 FY5	0.095	0.031	0.244	44
永嘉10 YJ10	0.066	0.070	0.514	2	淳安9 CA9	0.097	0.031	0.243	45
武义4 WY4	0.082	0.065	0.442	3	德清5 DQ5	0.093	0.030	0.243	46
淳安14 CA14	0.078	0.057	0.422	4	安吉3 AJ3	0.095	0.030	0.242	47
开化5 KH5	0.082	0.058	0.412	5	庆元1 QY1	0.094	0.030	0.240	48
青田1 QT1	0.076	0.052	0.406	6	泰顺3 TS3	0.097	0.030	0.233	49
淳安6 CA6	0.079	0.047	0.373	7	淳安12 CA12	0.097	0.029	0.231	50
黄岩2 HY2	0.076	0.044	0.367	8	苍南1 CN1	0.095	0.029	0.230	51
衢江5 QJ5	0.089	0.050	0.359	9	松阳4 SY4	0.103	0.031	0.229	52
德清6 DQ6	0.083	0.045	0.355	10	苍南2 CN2	0.098	0.029	0.228	53
缙云7 JY7	0.082	0.044	0.351	11	杭州1 HZ1	0.093	0.027	0.224	54
永嘉9 YJ9	0.086	0.045	0.344	12	遂昌1 SC1	0.100	0.029	0.224	55
莲都4 LD4	0.088	0.045	0.336	13	诸暨2 ZJ2	0.094	0.026	0.220	56
莲都2 LD2	0.095	0.045	0.322	14	龙游3 LY3	0.099	0.027	0.218	57
莲都6 LD6	0.092	0.043	0.319	15	衢江2 QJ2	0.099	0.026	0.209	58
新昌1 XC1	0.086	0.040	0.316	16	浦江5 PJ5	0.095	0.025	0.206	59
海宁1 HN1	0.085	0.037	0.305	17	兰溪2 LX2	0.101	0.026	0.205	60
长兴1 CX1	0.090	0.038	0.299	18	缙云5 JY5	0.103	0.026	0.204	61
淳安2 CA2	0.086	0.035	0.293	19	富阳6 FY6	0.103	0.026	0.204	62
瑞安2 RA2	0.091	0.037	0.288	20	安吉1 AJ1	0.100	0.025	0.202	63
永康1 YK1	0.089	0.036	0.286	21	淳安13 CA13	0.100	0.025	0.201	64
奉化1 FH1	0.091	0.036	0.284	22	乐清1 LQ1	0.099	0.025	0.200	65
浦江3 PJ3	0.096	0.037	0.278	23	开化1 KH1	0.098	0.024	0.198	66
天台1 TT1	0.090	0.035	0.277	24	永嘉8 YJ8	0.099	0.024	0.197	67
永嘉6 YJ6	0.090	0.035	0.277	25	海盐1 HY1	0.096	0.023	0.196	68
乐清4 LQ4	0.094	0.035	0.273	26	泰顺4 TS4	0.099	0.024	0.193	69
鄞州2 YZ2	0.088	0.033	0.273	27	淳安15 CA15	0.102	0.023	0.186	70
富阳2 FY2	0.100	0.038	0.273	28	绍兴1 SX1	0.100	0.022	0.183	71
兰溪5 LX5	0.088	0.033	0.270	29	开化3 KH3	0.100	0.022	0.183	72
常山1 CS1	0.095	0.035	0.268	30	兰溪4 LX4	0.105	0.023	0.181	73
萧山2 XS2	0.100	0.036	0.265	31	淳安8 CA8	0.102	0.022	0.179	74
永嘉2 YJ2	0.092	0.033	0.264	32	永康5B YK5B	0.099	0.022	0.179	75
安吉2 AJ2	0.089	0.032	0.263	33	龙游2 LY2	0.100	0.022	0.179	76
衢江3 QJ3	0.089	0.031	0.259	34	淳安5 CA5	0.098	0.021	0.178	77
兰溪3 LX3	0.093	0.032	0.259	35	淳安11 CA11	0.105	0.022	0.172	78
宁海1 NH1	0.089	0.031	0.258	36	淳安10 CA10	0.100	0.020	0.170	79
龙泉2 LQ2	0.100	0.035	0.258	37	衢江4 QJ4	0.101	0.020	0.168	80
淳安16 CA16	0.100	0.034	0.253	38	安吉4 AJ4	0.102	0.018	0.147	81
仙居1 XJ1	0.094	0.032	0.251	39	衢江6 QJ6	0.106	0.018	0.144	82
衢江11 QJ11	0.089	0.030	0.251	40	淳安4 CA4	0.105	0.016	0.132	83
诸暨3 ZJ3	0.096	0.032	0.248	41	诸暨1 ZJ1	0.106	0.016	0.131	84
遂昌3 SC3	0.099	0.032	0.246	42	松阳5 SY5	0.109	0.015	0.124	85
德清2 DQ2	0.091	0.030	0.245	43

Table 7

Table 8

References 35

[1]	杨勇, 阮小凤, 王仁梓, 等. 柿种质资源及育种研究进展[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2005, 20(2): 133-137,170.
	YANG Y, RUAN X F, WANG R Z, et al. Advances in research of germplasm resources and breeding of Dispyros kaki L[J]. J Northwest For Univ, 2005, 20(2): 133-137+170. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-7461.2005.02.035.
[2]	CHOE J H, KIM H Y, KIM Y J, et al. Antioxidant activity and phenolic content of persimmon peel extracted with different levels of ethanol[J]. Int J Food Prop, 2014, 17(8): 1779-1790. DOI:10.1080/10942912.2012.731460.
[3]	JUNG S T, PARK Y S, ZACHWIEJA Z, et al. Some essential phytochemicals and the antioxidant potential in fresh and dried persimmon[J]. Int J Food Sci Nutr, 2005, 56(2): 105-113.DOI:10.1080/09637480500081571.
[4]	GONZÁLEZ E, VEGARA S, MARTÍ N, et al. Physicochemical characterization of pure persimmon juice:nutritional quality and food acceptability[J]. J Food Sci, 2015, 80(3): C532-C539. DOI:10.1111/1750-3841.12772.
[5]	郭伟华, 张放. 柿树中3种主要活性成分研究进展[J]. 食品工业科技, 2015, 36(1):395-399.
	GUO W H, ZHANG F. Progress of three active components from Diospyros kaki L[J]. Sci Technol Food Ind, 2015, 36(1):395-399. DOI:10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2015.01.075.
[6]	梁志宏, 李小平, 茹慧玲, 等. 超高压处理对柿浆品质的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2018, 39(3): 163-168.
	LIANG Z H, LI X P, RU H L, et al. Effect of ultra-high pressure treatment on the quality of persimmon pulp[J]. Food Sci, 2018, 39(3):163-168.DOI:10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201803025.
[7]	王轩. 不同产地红富士苹果品质评价及加工适宜性研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2013.
	WANG X. Research on quality evaluation and processing suitability of Fuji apple from different Chinese origins[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2013.
[8]	艾呈祥, 秦志华, 陶吉寒, 等. 32个柿主栽品种SSR图谱构建及遗传变异分析[J]. 西北植物学报, 2011, 31(11):2185-2191.
	AI C X, QIN Z H, TAO J H, et al. SSR fingerprints and genetic variations of the 32 persimmon major cultivars[J]. Acta Bot Boreali Occidentalia Sin, 2011, 31(11):2185-2191.
[9]	林轿, 王仕玉, 龚洵, 等. 柿种质资源鉴定及柿属植物亲缘关系研究进展[J]. 热带农业科学, 2020, 40(10):83-89.
	LIN J, WANG S Y, GONG X, et al. Research progress in identification of persimmon germplasm resources and phylogenetic relationship of Diospyros plants[J]. Chin J Trop Agric, 2020, 40(10): 83-89. DOI:10.12008/j.issn.1009-2196.2020.10.014.
[10]	韩振诚, 潘学军, 安华明, 等. 贵州柿地方品种果实品质及发育动态研究[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 45(7):97-106.
	HAN Z C, PAN X J, AN H M, et al. Fruit quality and development dynamics of local persimmon cultivars in Guizhou[J]. J Northwest A & F Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2017, 45(7):97-106.DOI:10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2017.07.013.
[11]	杜洋文, 邓先珍, 程军勇, 等. 日本甜柿不同品种综合评价体系构建与应用[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 38(9): 53-57.
	DU Y W, DENG X Z, CHENG J Y, et al. Establishment and application of a comprehensive evaluation system for different varieties of Japanese sweet persimmon[J]. J Southwest Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2016, 38(9):53-57. DOI:10.13718/j.cnki.xdzk.2016.09.009.
[12]	吕英忠, 李卓, 张拥兵, 等. 不同柿果实品质分析及综合评价[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(18):180-186.
	LYU Y Z, LI Z, ZHANG Y B, et al. Analysis and comprehensive evaluation on fruit quality of different persimmon varieties[J]. Food Ferment Ind, 2020, 46(18):180-186.DOI:10.13995/j.cnki.11-1802/ts.024640.
[13]	王飞跃, 刘子琦, 李渊, 等. 石漠化治理区火龙果果实品质评价[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(4):867-874.
	WANG F Y, LIU Z Q, LI Y, et al. Evaluation of pitaya fruit quality in rocky desertification control area[J]. Southwest China J Agric Sci, 2020, 33(4):867-874.DOI:10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2020.4.028.
[14]	杨玉宁, 陈松树, 高尔刚, 等. 基于主成分分析的木通属植物果实品质评价[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2021, 47(9):191-200.
	YANG Y N, CHEN S S, GAO E G, et al. Fruit quality evaluation of Akebia Decne based on principal component analysis[J]. Food Ferment Ind, 2021, 47(9):191-200.DOI:10.13995/j.cnki.11-1802/ts.025657.
[15]	马宁, 刘艳霞, 李想, 等. 基于熵权法综合评价植物根际促生菌对烟草的促生作用[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2020, 43(5):887-895.
	MA N, LIU Y X, LI X, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of growth promotion effect of PGPR strains on tobacco based on entropy weight method[J]. J Nanjing Agric Univ, 2020, 43(5):887-895.DOI:10.7685/jnau.201910046.
[16]	李玲, 徐舒, 曹如霞, 等. 基于PCA-Entropy TOPSIS的甘薯品种块根质构品质评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(11):2161-2170.
	LI L, XU S, CAO R X, et al. Evaluation of texture quality of sweetpotato storage roots based on PCA-entropy TOPSIS[J]. Sci Agric Sin, 2020, 53(11):2161-2170.DOI:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.11.003.
[17]	杜娅丹, 曹红霞, 柳美玉, 等. 基于层次分析法和熵权法的TOPSIS模型在番茄生长综合评价中的应用[J]. 西北农业学报, 2015, 24(6):90-96.
	DU Y D, CAO H X, LIU M Y, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of tomato growing with application of TOPSIS model based on AHP and entropy method[J]. Acta Agric Boreali Occidentalis Sin, 2015, 24(6):90-96.DOI:10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2015.06.014.
[18]	刘忠玲, 李小艳, 王自力, 等. 基于组合赋权的甘薯品种抗病性的TOPSIS综合评价[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2018, 64(1):40-43.
	LIU Z L, LI X Y, WANG Z L, et al. TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation of disease resistance of sweet potato varieties based on combination weighting[J]. Shaanxi J Agric Sci, 2018, 64(1):40-43.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0488-5368.2018.01.013.
[19]	叶霜, 李承荧, 邱霞, 等. 基于组合赋权的TOPSIS模型在果实品质评价中的应用[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 45(10):111-121.
	YE S, LI C Y, QIU X, et al. Application of combination weighting based TOPSIS model in fruit quality evaluation[J]. J Northwest A & F Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2017, 45(10):111-121.DOI:10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2017.10.014.
[20]	高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006.
	GAO J F. Experimental guidance for plant physiology[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006.
[21]	于国萍. 食品生物化学实验[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2012.
	YU G P. Food biochemistry experiments[M]. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House, 2012.
[22]	赵献民, 龚榜初, 吴开云, 等. 浙江省农家柿品种果实营养成分的变异分析[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 43(1):125-133.
	ZHAO X M, GONG B C, WU K Y, et al. Variation analysis of fruit nutrients of native persimmon in Zhejiang Province[J]. J Northwest A & F Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2015, 43(1):125-133.DOI:10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2015.01.010.
[23]	荆瑞勇, 卫佳琪, 王丽艳, 等. 基于主成分分析的不同水稻品种品质综合评价[J]. 食品科学, 2020, 41(24):179-184.
	JING R Y, WEI J Q, WANG L Y, et al. Comprehensive quality evaluation of different rice varieties based on principal component analysis[J]. Food Sci, 2020, 41(24):179-184.DOI: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20191218-198.
[24]	杨士航, 李光林, 马驰, 等. 基于因子分析联合熵值法的重庆市璧山区设施葡萄经济效益分析与评价[J]. 南方农业学报, 2020, 51(2):477-484.
	YANG S H, LI G L, MA C, et al. Economic benefit analysis and evaluation of facility grape in Bishan District of Chongqing based on factor analysis and entropy method[J]. J South Agric, 2020, 51(2):477-484.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2020.02.030.
[25]	陈佳敏, 汪涛, 郭巧生, 等. 基于熵权TOPSIS法对不同产地野菊花醇提物抗氧化性抗炎活性的比较[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2021, 46(4):907-914.
	CHEN J M, WANG T, GUO Q S, et al. Comprehensive antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity of alcohol extracts from Chrysanthemum indicum in different areas based on entropy weight and TOPSIS methodology[J]. China J Chin Mater Med, 2021, 46(4):907-914.DOI:10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20201122.102.
[26]	郭松, 李在留, 薛建辉. 掌叶木种子及其籽油性状综合评价模型构建和优选[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(6):314-322.
	GUO S, LI Z L, XUE J H. Establishment and optimization of comprehensive evaluation model for seed and seed oil traits of Handeliodendron bodinieri[J]. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng, 2019, 35(6):314-322.DOI:10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.06.038.
[27]	张曦, 戴二玲, 黄嘉南. 建设项目社会稳定风险因素权重确定方法优选:基于肯德尔协同系数的运用[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 34(4):124-130.
	ZHANG X, DAI E L, HUANG J N. Optimization of method for determining weight of social stability risk factors in construction projects:based on application of Kendal synergy coefficient[J]. J Beijing Univ Aeronaut Astronaut (Soc Sci Ed), 2021, 34(4):124-130.DOI:10.13766/j.bhsk.1008-2204.2020.0169.
[28]	虞娜, 吴昌娟, 张玉玲, 等. 基于熵权的TOPSIS模型在保护地番茄水肥评价中的应用[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2012, 43(4):456-460.
	YU N, WU C J, ZHANG Y L, et al. Application of TOPSIS model method based on entropy weight to evaluate coupling effect of irrigation and fertilization of greenhouse tomato[J]. J Shenyang Agric Univ, 2012, 43(4):456-460.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2012.04.012.
[29]	付冬莹, 李贻学. 基于3种统计分析方法的山东省综合竞争力研究[J]. 中国人口资源与环境, 2016, 26(S2):369-372.
	FU D Y, LI Y X. Comprehensive competitiveness of Shandong Province based on three statistical methods[J]. China Popul Resour Environ, 2016, 26(S2):369-372.
[30]	刘磊, 李争艳, 雷华, 等. 30个猕猴桃品种(单株)主要果实品质特征的综合评价[J]. 果树学报, 2021, 38(4):530-537.
	LIU L, LI Z Y, LEI H, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of main fruit quality characteristics with 30 kiwifruit cultivars(strains)[J]. J Fruit Sci, 2021, 38(4):530-537.DOI:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20200227.
[31]	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.
	HAN X, LIU F Z, WANG X D, et al. Comparison of three comprehensive evaluation methods to evaluate the grape rootstock-scion combination environmental adaptability[J]. J Fruit Sci, 2017, 34(10):1349-1356.DOI:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.20170086.
[32]	李若帆, 马娟娟, 孙西欢, 等. 不同水肥管理模式下糯玉米水氮利用及熵权TOPSIS综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2020, 38(4):111-120.
	LI R F, MA J J, SUN X H, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of water and nitrogen utilization of waxy corn based on entropy weight TOPSIS model under different water and fertilizer treatments[J]. Agric Res Arid Areas, 2020, 38(4):111-120.DOI:10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2020.04.14.
[33]	敖礼林, 陈兆虎, 饶卫华, 等. 特色方柿丰产优质栽培技术[J]. 科学种养, 2020(4):57-59.
	AO L L, CHEN Z H, RAO W H, et al. Cultivation techniques for high yield and high quality of characteristic persimmon[J]. 2020(4):57-59.DOI:10.13270/j.cnki.kxzh.2020.04.022.
[34]	张载年. 石城牛心柿早期丰产栽培技术[J]. 中国果树, 2003(4):45-46.
	ZHANG Z N. Early high-yield cultivation techniques of Shicheng Niuxin persimmon[J]. China Fruits, 2003(4):45-46. DOI:10.16626/j.cnki.issn1000-8047.2003.04.023.
[35]	金光, 廖汝玉, 沈清标, 等. 优质早熟红柿品种‘早红’的选育[J]. 中国南方果树, 2010, 39(6):13-15.
	JIN G, LIAO R Y, SHEN Q B, et al. Breeding of a new high-quality and early-maturing astringent persimmon cultivar ‘Zaohong’[J]. South China Fruits, 2010, 39(6):13-15.DOI:10.13938/j.issn.1007-1431.2010.06.029.

Metrics

Comments

www.nldxb.njfu.edu.cn

Edited ＆ Published by Editorial Department of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition)
Address： No.159 Longpan Road,Nanjing 210037 Jiangsu,P.R.China
E-mail ：xuebao@njfu.edu.cn , xuebao@njfu.com.cn
Telephone +86-25-85428247,85427076
Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation P.O. Box 399, Beijing ,P.R. China

品质指标 quality index	单果质量/g single fruit quality	横径/mm horizontal diameter		纵径/mm longitudinal diameter		粗蛋白含量/ (g·kg^-1) crude protein content		维生素C含量/ (mg·kg^-1) Vitamin C content		淀粉含量/ (g·kg^-1) starch content	钙含量/ (mg·kg^-1) calcium content
最大值max	213.10	77.36		81.56		20.42		486.20		42.08	143.30
最小值min	40.96	33.77		24.91		1.21		9.20		0.43	26.10
均值mean	109.75	54.75		54.67		4.72		167.10		11.62	73.85
标准差SD	35.04	7.77		9.68		3.29		110.18		8.90	26.97
变异系数/%CV	31.93	14.19		17.70		69.58		65.93		76.64	36.52
品质指标 quality index	β-胡萝卜素含量/ (mg·kg^-1) β-carotene content		含水率/ (g·kg^-1) water content		可溶性固形物含量/ (g·kg^-1) soluble solids content		可溶性糖含量/ (g·kg^-1) soluble sugar content		单宁含量/ (g·kg^-1) tannin content		粗纤维含量/ (g·kg^-1) crude fiber content
最大值max	13.51		854.61		223.33		161.33		27.39		17.61
最小值min	0.18		674.26		120.38		77.26		1.01		4.12
平均值mean	2.36		790.76		170.23		115.59		8.81		8.09
标准差SD	2.07		30.17		20.33		18.48		6.77		2.57
变异系数/%CV	87.89		3.82		11.94		15.99		76.84		31.77

果实性状指标 fruit characters index	主成分principal component
果实性状指标 fruit characters index	Y₁	Y₂	Y₃	Y₄	Y₅	Y₆	Y₇
单果质量single fruit quality	0.811	0.244	0.135	-0.219	0.087	0.241	0.219
横径horizontal diameter	0.715	0.033	0.124	-0.356	0.063	0.262	0.423
纵径longitudinal diameter	0.323	0.639	0.097	0.364	0.155	0.244	-0.258
可溶性固形物含量soluble solids content	-0.777	0.332	0.100	-0.059	0.027	0.281	0.078
可溶性糖含量soluble sugar content	-0.473	0.302	0.389	0.062	0.125	-0.047	0.430
淀粉含量starch content	0.082	0.480	-0.114	0.025	-0.605	0.216	-0.288
含水量water content	0.739	-0.374	-0.002	0.181	0.019	-0.307	-0.104
单宁含量tannin content	-0.163	-0.270	-0.285	0.602	0.211	0.091	0.418
粗蛋白含量crude protein content	-0.066	-0.270	-0.114	-0.135	0.659	0.327	-0.471
维生素C含量vitamin C content	0.236	-0.097	0.636	0.555	0.020	0.284	-0.095
β-胡萝卜素含量β-carotene content	-0.279	-0.541	0.088	-0.287	-0.122	0.537	0.019
钙含量calcium content	-0.092	-0.625	0.540	0.027	-0.360	-0.014	-0.103
粗纤维含量crude fiber content	-0.152	0.248	0.577	-0.282	0.298	-0.402	-0.148
特征值eigenvalue	2.850	1.941	1.349	1.199	1.130	1.054	1.017
贡献率/% contribution rate	21.919	14.934	10.375	9.226	8.693	8.107	7.822
累计贡献率/% cumulative contribution rate	21.919	36.854	47.229	56.455	65.148	73.255	81.077

项目 item	单果质量 single fruit quality	横径 horizontal diameter		纵径 longitudinal diameter		粗蛋白含量 crude protein content		维生素C含量 VC content		淀粉含量 starch content		钙含量 calcium content
信息熵值 information entropy	0.970 4	0.982 9		0.986 9		0.934 1		0.945 8		0.931 9		0.963 5
信息效用值 information utility value	0.029 6	0.017 1		0.013 1		0.065 9		0.054 2		0.068 1		0.036 5
权重系数 weight coefficient	0.060 6	0.035 0		0.026 9		0.134 9		0.110 9		0.139 4		0.074 6
项目 item	β-胡萝卜素含量 β-carotene content		含水率 water content		可溶性固形物含量 soluble solids content		可溶性糖含量 soluble sugar content		单宁含量 tannin content		粗纤维含量 crude fiber content
信息熵值 information entropy	0.923 0		0.990 8		0.978 1		0.970 6		0.980 8		0.952 5
信息效用值 information utility value	0.077 0		0.009 2		0.021 9		0.029 4		0.019 2		0.047 5
权重系数 weight coefficient	0.157 4		0.018 8		0.044 8		0.060 2		0.039 3		0.097 2

Comparison of three comprehensive evaluation methods to evaluate the quality of persimmon fruit

RichHTML

PDF

Supplement

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 35

Related Articles 9

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

排序 rank	主成分分析法 principal component analysis	熵值法 entropy evaluation method	熵权TOPSIS法 entropy- weighting TOPSIS
1	长兴1 CY1	武义3 WY3	武义3 WY3
2	富阳2 FY2	永嘉10 YJ10	永嘉10 YJ10
3	奉化1 FH1	武义4 WY4	武义4 WY4
4	莲都2 LD2	黄岩2 HY2	淳安14 CA14
5	永嘉6 YJ6	永嘉9 YJ9	开化5 KH5
6	松阳4 SY4	淳安14 CA14	青田1 QT1
7	兰溪3 LX3	青田1 QT1	淳安6 CA6
8	诸暨3 ZJ3	德清6 DQ6	黄岩2 HY2
9	新昌1 XC1	莲都4 LD4	衢江5 QJ5
10	永嘉2 YJ2	衢江5 QJ5	德清6 DQ6

[1]	FAN Yaoyuwei, Renzeng Langjia, DONG Jianmei, REN Yuan, GE Dapeng, ZHAO Xueqing, YUAN Zhaohe. Comprehensive evaluation on important traits of wild pomegranate fruits from Tibet [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(4): 73-80.
[2]	SONG Zejun, LI Peipei, YUAN Lanfang, GUO Xiaolan, WANG Delu. Effects of soil water content on leaf physiology and fruit quality of blueberry [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(3): 147-156.
[3]	TANG Min, YANG Kaiyu, ZHANG Sainan, CHEN Liying, LIU Yang, ZHANG Xuemei, QI Guohui. Effects of selenium on the activities of antioxidant protective enzymes and fruit quality of walnut [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(5): 127-134.
[4]	CHEN Han, WANG Dongsheng, BAI Bing, LI Jiafeng, CHEN Kexin, CHENG Beibei. Phenotypic diversity of 21 Hibiscus cultivars [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(3): 117-126.
[5]	YUE Zhi, YING Tianhui, MA Qun. Algorithm and quantization in historical garden research in Xinghua Village, Nanjing, in the Ming and Qing dynasties [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(5): 25-33.
[6]	ZHAO Huifang, Lü Lianfei, YAO Bei, WU Wenlong, LI Weilin. The growth and fruiting characteristics of ‘Zhaixuan’ blueberry strains in Nanjing [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2019, 43(03): 163-168.
[7]	YANG Haiyan, DONG Shanshan, Lü Lianfei, HUANG Zhengjin, WU Wenlong, LI Weilin. An observation on three highbush blueberry cultivars cultivated in Nanjing [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2019, 43(03): 157-162.
[8]	HAN Zhiqiang, YUAN Deyi, CHEN Wentao, LI Chengxiang, XIE Kaiyao. Synthetical evaluation of the fruit quality of Ziziphus jujuba Mill. under different combinations of boron,zinc microelement fertilizer [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2015, 39(02): 40-46.
[9]	HUANG Haijing， FU Guohuai， YANG Zaiqiang*，ZHANG Jing，JIN Zhifeng. Effect of protected cultivation to the development and quality of Myrica rubra [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2012, 36(06): 47-52.