我们的网站为什么显示成这样?

可能因为您的浏览器不支持样式,您可以更新您的浏览器到最新版本,以获取对此功能的支持,访问下面的网站,获取关于浏览器的信息:

|Table of Contents|

基于层次分析法的5个黑莓杂交品系综合评价(PDF)

《南京林业大学学报(自然科学版)》[ISSN:1000-2006/CN:32-1161/S]

Issue:
2019年01期
Page:
135-140
Column:
专题报道
publishdate:
2019-01-28

Article Info:/Info

Title:
Comprehensive evaluation of five blackberry hybrid strains by analytic hierarchy process(AHP)
Article ID:
1000-2006(2019)01-0135-06
Author(s):
HUANG Zhengjin1 WEI Yunli1 ZHANG Chunhong1 LYU Lianfei1 LI Weilin2* WU Wenlong1*
1. Institute of Botany, Jiangsu Province and Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210014, China; 2. Co-Innovation Center for the Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, College of Forestry, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
Keywords:
Blackberry(Rubus spp.) analytic hierarchy process(AHP) hybrid strains comprehensive evaluation
Classification number :
S663.2
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201805006
Document Code:
A
Abstract:
【Objective】This study was performed in order to provide scientific data for blackberry breeding by a comprehensive evaluation of hybrid strains. 【Methods】 For the five blackberry hybrid strains(5-8-2, 6-6-3, 7-7-4, 7-10-2 and 7-10-6)and their parental cultivars(‘Hull’, ‘Chester’, ‘Triple Crown’, ‘Arapaho’ and ‘Kiowa’), the biological characters(fruit ripening period, thorn trait, SPAD value and growth trait)and economic characters(fruit cluster number, fruit weight, fruit quality and yield)were overall investigated and statistically analyzed, and the comprehensive evaluation value and rank were determined by the analytic hierarchy process(AHP)method. 【Results】Fruit yield and quality were decided as core indicators by comprehensive evaluation for blackberry breeding. The comprehensive evaluation rank of hybrid strain 6-6-3 was class Ⅰ, strain 5-8-2 and cultivar ‘Kiowa’ were class Ⅱ, strains 7-7-4, 7-10-6 and cultivars ‘Hull’, ‘Chester’, ‘Triple Crown’, ‘Arapaho’ were class Ⅲ, strain 7-10-2 was calculated as class Ⅳ. Strain 6-6-3 and 5-8-2 showed outstanding performance of growth and fruiting in Nanjing. 【Conclusion】 Strains 5-8-2 and 6-6-3 are promising candidate of new excellent blackberry cultivar because of their high comprehensive evaluation value and heterobeltiosis, the strains 7-7-4 and 7-10-6 are not clear, strain 7-10-2 should be eliminated in subsequent breeding program due to its low evaluation value.

References

[1] SAATY T L. The analytic hierarchy process [M]. New York: McGraw Hill Inc, 1980: 50.
[2] 蒋文伟, 向其柏. 层次分析法在干旱区园林树木评选中的应用[J]. 南京林业大学学报, 2000, 24(6): 63-67. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2000.06.015.
JIANG W W, XIANG Q B. Application of analytic hierarchy process to evaluation and selection of garden trees in arid regions [J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University, 2000, 24(6): 63-67.
[3] 丁香乾, 石硕. 层次分析法在项目风险管理中的应用[J]. 中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 34(1): 97-102. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-5174.2004.01.009.
DING X Q, SHI S. Application of the analytic hierarchy process to project risk management [J]. Journal of Ocean University of China(Natural Science Edition), 2004, 34(1): 97-102.
[4] 李昆仑. 层次分析法在城市道路景观评价中的运用[J]. 武汉大学学报(工学版), 2005, 38(1): 143-147. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-8844.2005.01.032.
LI K L. Using analytic hierarchy process in urban road landscape evaluation [J]. Engineering Journal of Wuhan University(Engineering Edition), 2005, 38(1): 143-147.
[5] 喻良, 伊武军. 层次分析法在城市生态环境质量评价中的应用[J]. 四川环境, 2002, 21(4):38-40. DOI:10.14034/j.cnki.schj.2002.04.011.
YU L, YI W J. Application research of analytic hierarchy process(AHP)in urban ecotope quality evaluation [J].Sichuan Environment, 2002, 21(4): 38-40.
[6] 陈金富, 赵云飞, 周任军. 层次分析法及其在电力系统中的应用[J]. 华北电力技术, 2004(12): 20-23. DOI:10.16308/j.cnki.issn1003-9171.2004.12.007.
CHEN J F, ZHAO Y F, ZHOU R J. Analytic hierarchy process and its application in power system [J]. North China Electric Power, 2004(12):20-23.
[7] 黄启堂, 游水生, 黄榕辉, 等. 运用层次分析法评价木质藤本观赏植物资源[J]. 福建林学院学报, 1997,17(3): 269-272. DOI: 10.13324 /j.cnki.jfcf.1997.03.019.
HUANG Q T, YOU S S, HUANG R H, et al. Appraising ornamental wooden vines resources by analytic hierarchy process [J]. Journal of Fujian College of Forestry, 1997, 17(3):269-272.
[8] 黄清平. 利用层次分析法评价三明市野生观赏植物的引种驯化效果[J]. 中国园林, 2009, 25(12): 93-96. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6664.2009.12.029.
HUANG Q P. Evaluation on the introduction and domestication of wild ornamental plants by analytic hierarchy process(AHP)in Sanming City [J]. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2009, 25(12):93-96.
[9] 岳超源. 决策理论与方法[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2003.
YUE C Y. Decision theory and method [M].Beijing: Science Press, 2003.
[10] 闾连飞, 吴文龙, 李维林, 等. 黑莓优良品种扦插和压条繁殖技术[J]. 林业科技开发,2009,23(1):85-87. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-8101.2009.01.025.
LV L F, WU W L, LI W L, et al. Cuttage and strip propagation techniques of Blackberry [J].China Forestry Science and Technology, 2009, 23(1):85-87.
[11] 吴文龙, 孙醉君, 蔡剑华. 黑莓适宜栽植密度与修剪量的研究[J]. 落叶果树,1998(3):26-27.
WU W L, SUN Z J, CAI J H. Study on the suitable planting density and pruning of blackberry [J].Deciduous Fruits,1998(3):26-27.
[12] 闾连飞, 黄钢, 吴文龙, 等. 不同品种黑莓在南京地区的生长表现[J]. 经济林研究, 2008(3):74-79. DOI:10.14067/j.cnki.1003-8981.2008.03.011.
LV L F, HUANG G, WU W L, et al. Growth performance of different blackberry cultivars in Nanjing [J]. Nonwood Forest Research, 2008(3):74-79.
[13] 刘豹, 许树柏, 赵焕臣, 等. 层次分析法——规划决策的工具[J]. 系统工程, 1984(2):23-30.
LIU B, XU S B, ZHAO H C, et al. Analytic hierarchy process: a tool for planning decision [J]. Systems Engineering, 1984(2):23-30.
[14] 芦建国,杜毅. 层次分析法在高速公路缀花草地评价中的应用[J].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2010,34(3):161-164. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.2010.03.033.
LU J G, DU Y. Application of analytic hierarchy process for evaluating flower meadow in expressway greening [J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition), 2010, 34(3):161-164.
[15] 吴祈宗, 李有文. 层次分析法中矩阵的判断一致性研究[J]. 北京理工大学学报, 1999, 19(4): 502-505. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-0645.1999.04.024.
WU Q Z, LI Y W. Uniformity of judgement matrix in analytic hierarchy process [J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology, 1999, 19(4): 502-505.
[16] 梁维坚, 解明. 榛子新品种选育研究[J]. 中国果树, 2000(2): 4-6. DOI:10.16626/j.cnki.issn1000-8047.2000.02.002.
LIANG W J, XIE M. Study on the selection and breeding of new hazelnut varieties [J]. China Fruits, 2000(2): 4-6.
[17] 景士西. 关于编制我国果树种质资源评价系统若干问题的商榷[J]. 园艺学报, 1993(4): 353-357.
JING S X. On some problems concerned with compiling the descriptors of fruit germplasm in China [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 1993(4): 353-357.
[18] 孙升. 李属资源若干数量性状评价标准探讨[J]. 园艺学报, 1999, 26(1): 7-12. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:0513-353X.1999.01.002.
SUN S. Study on the evaluating criteria of some quantitative character of plum resources [J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica, 1999, 26(1): 7-12.
[19] 王海波, 陈学森, 辛培刚, 等. 几个早熟苹果品种果实糖酸组分及风味品质的评价[J]. 果树学报, 2007, 24(4): 513-516. DOI:10.13925/j.cnki.gsxb.2007.04.022.
WANG H B, CHEN X S, XIN P G, et al. Study on sugar and acid constituents in several early apple cultivars and evaluation of their flavor quality [J].Journal of Fruit Science, 2007, 24(4): 513-516.
[20] 孙玉刚. 甜樱桃种质资源评价与高效种植技术调查研究[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2004.
SUN Y G. Study on evaluation of germplasm and cultivated technology in sweet cherry [D]. Tai’an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2004.
[21] 刘遵春, 包东娥, 廖明安. 层次分析法在金花梨果实品质评价上的应用[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2006, 34(8): 125-128. DOI:10.3321/j.issn:1671-9387.2006.08.025.
LIU Z C, BAO D E, LIAO M A. Application of analytic hierarchy process in evaluating Jinhua pear quality [J].Journal of Northwest A&F University(Natural Science Edition), 2006, 34(8): 125-128.
[22] 夏永秀. 9个甜樱桃品种特性比较与评价及其选优研究[D]. 雅安:四川农业大学, 2011.
XIA Y X. The characteristics comparison and evaluation of 9 sweet cherry varieties and elite selection study [D]. Yaan: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2011.
[23] 吴文龙, 闾连飞, 李维林, 等. 不同品种黑莓在南京地区的结实表现[J]. 林业科技开发, 2008, 22(4): 24-29. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-8101.2008.04.006.
WU W L, LV L F, LI W L, et al. The fruit characters of different blackberry cultivars in Nanjing [J]. China Forestry Science and Technology, 2008, 22(4): 24-29.

Last Update: 2019-01-28