中国农业科学 ›› 2020, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (11): 2161-2170.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.11.003
收稿日期:
2019-09-23
接受日期:
2019-12-16
出版日期:
2020-06-01
发布日期:
2020-06-09
通讯作者:
陆国权
作者简介:
李玲,E-mail: 2931656595@qq.com。
基金资助:
LI Ling,XU Shu,CAO RuXia,CHEN LingLing,CUI Peng,LÜ ZunFu,LU GuoQuan()
Received:
2019-09-23
Accepted:
2019-12-16
Online:
2020-06-01
Published:
2020-06-09
Contact:
GuoQuan LU
摘要:
【目的】质构品质是甘薯块根品质评价的重要指标,直接影响其鲜食和产后加工。质构品质评价是甘薯综合利用过程和品质育种的重要环节。完善甘薯块根质构品质评价体系,为其利用和育种提供参考。【方法】应用物性分析仪质地多面分析法对45个甘薯品种块根的硬度、黏附性、内聚性、弹性、胶黏性和咀嚼性进行测定,分析各质构参数间的相关性,采用主成分分析确定各个参数权重,并结合TOPSIS法对45个甘薯品种块根的质构品质进行综合评价。【结果】45个甘薯品种的质构参数均有一定差异,咀嚼性和黏附性变异系数较大,分别为35.23%和49.15%。咀嚼性变化范围为60.30—284.66 N,平均为149.29 N,浙薯13的咀嚼性最大,为284.66 N,166-7和龙薯14的咀嚼性较小,分别为60.30和77.28 N;黏附性变化范围为-10.4—-0.80 J,平均为-4.71 J,龙薯31的黏附性最大,为-1.34 J,冀紫薯2号和普薯32的黏附性较小,分别为-9.34和-10.40 J。内聚性和弹性的变异系数较小,分别为14.27%和15.75%。内聚性变化范围为0.15—0.28,平均为0.21,商薯19的内聚性最大,为0.28,红皮白心的内聚性最小,为0.15;弹性变化范围为5.01—8.93 mm,平均为6.59 mm,西农431的弹性最大,为8.93 mm,166-7的弹性最小,为5.01 mm。胶黏性变异系数为23.84%,变化范围为11.97—32.78 N,平均为22.20 N,普薯32的胶黏性最大,为32.78 N,166-7的胶黏性最小,为11.97 N;硬度变异系数为19.47%,变化范围为59.79—143.41 N,平均为105 N,绵粉1号、商徐紫1号和苏薯29的块根硬度大于140.00 N,166-7的块根硬度最小,为59.79 N。相关性分析表明,块根硬度与胶黏性、咀嚼性均呈极显著正相关,胶黏性与咀嚼性呈极显著正相关,内聚性与弹性、胶黏性、咀嚼性均呈极显著正相关,弹性与胶黏性、咀嚼性均呈极显著正相关。6个质构参数经主成分分析,被提取的3个主成分累计方差贡献率达94.674%,硬度、黏附性、内聚性、弹性、胶黏性和咀嚼性的权重分别为0.121、0.161、0.102、0.232、0.162和0.223。【结论】明确了淀粉型甘薯质构品质优良的品种为龙薯31、商薯19和冀薯982;鲜食型甘薯质构品质优良的品种为苏薯16、紫罗兰和徐薯32。
李玲,徐舒,曹如霞,陈玲玲,崔鹏,吕尊富,陆国权. 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 Ling,XU Shu,CAO RuXia,CHEN LingLing,CUI Peng,LÜ ZunFu,LU GuoQuan. Evaluation of Texture Quality of Sweetpotato Storage Roots Based on PCA-Entropy TOPSIS[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(11): 2161-2170.
表1
不同甘薯品种块根TPA试验质构参数"
品种 Cultivars | 硬度 Hardness (N) | 黏附性 Adhesiveness (J) | 内聚性 Cohesiveness | 弹性 Springiness (mm) | 胶黏性 Gumminess (N) | 咀嚼性 Chewiness (N) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
166-7 | 59.79±9.98 | -2.74±1.05 | 0.20±0.02 | 5.01±0.62 | 11.97±2.39 | 60.30±17.50 |
北京553 Beijing553 | 92.82±6.52 | -2.81±1.51 | 0.20±0.04 | 5.78±0.45 | 18.59±3.44 | 107.39±21.70 |
潮薯1号 Chaoshu 1 | 90.76±7.10 | -5.93±1.53 | 0.19±0.02 | 5.86±0.62 | 17.37±2.13 | 102.07±18.50 |
广薯87 Guangshu 87 | 99.50±5.58 | -5.21±1.46 | 0.19±0.03 | 5.98±0.41 | 18.44±3.41 | 110.96±25.50 |
红皮白心 Hongpibaixin | 92.92±8.18 | -2.35±1.51 | 0.15±0.04 | 6.33±1.06 | 14.26±4.14 | 91.76±35.20 |
红香蕉 Hongxiangjiao | 78.72±3.18 | -7.25±1.24 | 0.21±0.01 | 6.20±0.45 | 16.23±1.42 | 100.92±15.00 |
冀薯98 Jishu98 | 123.98±6.72 | -8.68±2.22 | 0.23±0.02 | 7.39±0.60 | 28.04±4.28 | 206.70±32.40 |
冀薯982 Jishu982 | 131.09±8.17 | -7.43±2.34 | 0.20±0.01 | 6.27±0.46 | 25.69±2.45 | 161.74±24.90 |
冀紫薯2号 Jizishu 2 | 115.06±5.97 | -9.34±2.95 | 0.23±0.02 | 6.83±0.39 | 26.54±2.51 | 181.53±23.50 |
龙薯14 Longshu 14 | 89.86±11.40 | -2.29±0.963 | 0.16±0.02 | 5.41±0.67 | 14.16±2.42 | 77.28±19.50 |
龙薯9号 Longshu 9 | 86.26±12.30 | -4.20±2.55 | 0.23±0.03 | 5.79±1.00 | 19.26±2.59 | 111.81±27.30 |
龙薯515 Longshu 515 | 80.66±6.57 | -5.08±1.40 | 0.20±0.01 | 6.00±0.76 | 16.01±2.02 | 96.68±20.60 |
龙薯31 Longshu 31 | 108.49±10.90 | -1.34±0.49 | 0.22±0.03 | 6.69±1.59 | 23.19±2.67 | 153.24±33.90 |
龙紫薯6号 Longzishu 6 | 99.40±4.06 | -2.53±0.86 | 0.20±0.02 | 5.15±0.67 | 20.24±2.26 | 103.52±13.00 |
绵粉1号 Mianfen 1 | 143.41±8.88 | -4.42±2.13 | 0.18±0.02 | 5.77±0.57 | 26.32±3.35 | 151.83±25.10 |
南薯007 Nanshu 007 | 93.81±4.27 | -3.73±1.81 | 0.25±0.02 | 8.78±0.25 | 23.64±1.67 | 207.51±17.00 |
宁薯10号 Ningshu 10 | 71.35±2.57 | -6.28±0.99 | 0.21±0.01 | 5.58±0.66 | 15.28±1.07 | 85.61±14.40 |
宁菜薯13 Ningcaishu 13 | 81.34±4.97 | -6.24±1.36 | 0.25±0.01 | 6.68±0.67 | 20.14±1.28 | 134.25±14.60 |
宁紫薯2号 Ningzushu 2 | 114.75±8.18 | -5.37±1.41 | 0.23±0.01 | 6.02±0.66 | 26.24±2.57 | 158.12±25.40 |
普薯32 Pushu 32 | 119.92±8.64 | -10.4±3.88 | 0.27±0.02 | 6.37±0.54 | 32.78±3.54 | 209.01±29.9 |
秦薯5号 Qinshu 5 | 101.17±14.50 | -6.57±1.64 | 0.19±0.02 | 6.2±0.26 | 18.88±2.52 | 117.31±17.70 |
秦紫薯2号 Qinzishu 2 | 137.64±12.2 | -7.40±2.91 | 0.22±0.02 | 6.51±0.69 | 30.33±3.94 | 196.04±21.10 |
商薯19 Shangshu 19 | 101.14±6.98 | -4.50±2.41 | 0.28±0.12 | 6.88±1.41 | 27.79±11.00 | 185.56±51.80 |
商薯8号 Shangshu 8 | 117.05±9.53 | -1.46±0.81 | 0.25±0.04 | 8.81±0.16 | 29.02±5.38 | 255.61±47.40 |
商徐紫1号 Shangxuzishu 1 | 140.14±9.08 | -4.14±1.73 | 0.19±0.02 | 6.14±0.43 | 26.32±3.05 | 162.29±26.50 |
苏薯16 Sushu 16 | 99.76±7.65 | -6.86±2.38 | 0.23±0.06 | 7.14±0.64 | 22.75±7.96 | 165.79±72.70 |
苏薯25 Sushu 25 | 89.19±4.11 | -8.19±1.93 | 0.24±0.01 | 5.89±0.80 | 21.10±1.41 | 124.06±17.50 |
苏薯29 Sushu 29 | 142.45±20.9 | -3.41±1.92 | 0.19±0.02 | 6.98±0.72 | 26.86±3.20 | 188.8±37.10 |
苏渝303 Suyu 303 | 108.41±14.6 | -3.15±3.03 | 0.18±0.04 | 6.26±1.13 | 19.60±6.76 | 125.92±54.60 |
台湾英沟 Taiwanyingou | 85.27±3.94 | -5.72±1.45 | 0.21±0.02 | 5.54±0.61 | 18.27±1.82 | 101.15±14.80 |
西农431 Xinong 431 | 91.14±4.19 | -3.99±0.617 | 0.24±0.01 | 8.93±0.15 | 21.88±2.17 | 195.51±21.00 |
湘薯98 Xiangshu 98 | 119.29±10.10 | -1.27±0.568 | 0.25±0.03 | 8.92±0.07 | 29.33±3.87 | 261.86±35.70 |
湘菜薯2号 Xiangcaishu 2 | 111.76±7.76 | -3.69±1.75 | 0.19±0.03 | 6.39±0.62 | 21.44±4.46 | 138.73±40.70 |
心香 Xinxiang | 131.07±13.50 | -2.31±1.29 | 0.16±0.02 | 6.09±0.379 | 21.28±2.66 | 129.47±17.80 |
徐薯22 Xushu 22 | 113.87±14.90 | -3.08±1.37 | 0.18±0.04 | 5.96±1.13 | 20.52±4.23 | 123.08±43.80 |
徐薯32 Xushu 32 | 119.70±23.40 | -4.59±1.94 | 0.2±0.03 | 6.57±0.94 | 22.90±3.06 | 149.99±26.10 |
徐紫薯8号 Xuzishu 8 | 132.04±6.57 | -6.70±1.38 | 0.22±0.03 | 6.00±0.73 | 29.03±4.61 | 174.17±35.20 |
徐紫薯5号 Xuzishu 5 | 85.27±14.30 | -2.98±3.03 | 0.18±0.03 | 7.10±1.58 | 15.31±4.40 | 111.3±47.90 |
遗字138 Yizi 138 | 104.72±11.50 | -2.99±1.02 | 0.18±0.01 | 6.22±0.22 | 18.85±1.84 | 117.26±11.60 |
豫薯10号 Yushu 10 | 77.86±10.50 | -7.62±1.49 | 0.24±0.02 | 6.32±0.34 | 18.25±1.79 | 115.22±12.50 |
浙薯33 Zheshu 33 | 113.39±6.62 | -2.69±1.11 | 0.20±0.02 | 5.91±0.55 | 22.31±3.17 | 130.86±16.20 |
浙薯13 Zheshu 13 | 120.36±7.09 | -0.80±0.354 | 0.27±0.02 | 8.89±0.12 | 32.03±2.99 | 284.66±27.40 |
浙紫薯1号 Zhezishu 1 | 138.07±9.14 | -2.80±1.66 | 0.22±0.02 | 8.52±1.09 | 30.63±2.33 | 260.41±36.20 |
郑薯20 Zhengshu 20 | 92.82±5.62 | -6.02±2.61 | 0.18±0.03 | 6.51±0.53 | 16.37±3.31 | 107.83±27.40 |
紫罗兰 Ziluolan | 104.64±5.80 | -5.47±2.37 | 0.23±0.05 | 7.82±1.16 | 23.41±5.10 | 182.91±46.60 |
平均Mean | 105.60 | -4.71 | 0.21 | 6.59 | 22.20 | 149.29 |
变异系数CV(%) | 19.47 | 49.15 | 14.27 | 15.75 | 23.84 | 35.23 |
表2
不同甘薯品种块根TPA质构参数相关性"
质构参数 Textural parameters | 硬度 Hardness | 黏附性 Adhesiveness | 内聚性 Cohesiveness | 弹性 Springiness | 胶黏性 Gumminess | 咀嚼性 Chewiness |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
硬度Hardness | 1 | |||||
黏附性Adhesiveness | 0.049 | 1 | ||||
内聚性Cohesiveness | -0.014 | -0.268 | 1 | |||
弹性Springiness | 0.264 | 0.216 | 0.537** | 1 | ||
胶黏性Gumminess | 0.794** | -0.116 | 0.585** | 0.541** | 1 | |
咀嚼性Chewiness | 0.628** | 0.068 | 0.638** | 0.840** | 0.903** | 1 |
表4
质构参数的载荷向量及权重"
性状 Trait | 主成份 Principal components | 权重 Evaluate weight | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||
硬度 Hardness | 0.660 | 0.432 | -0.612 | 0.121 |
黏附性 Adhesiveness | -0.008 | 0.832 | 0.494 | 0.161 |
内聚性 Cohesiveness | 0.672 | -0.597 | 0.326 | 0.102 |
弹性 Springiness | 0.789 | 0.086 | 0.490 | 0.232 |
胶黏性 Gumminess | 0.942 | -0.005 | -0.293 | 0.162 |
咀嚼性 Chewiness | 0.991 | 0.060 | 0.078 | 0.223 |
表5
淀粉型甘薯TOPSIS决策矩阵R和分析结果"
品种 Cultivars | 决策矩阵R | Ci | 排序 Sorting | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
硬度 Hardness (N) | 黏附性 Adhesiveness (J) | 内聚性 Cohesiveness | 弹性 Springiness (mm) | 胶黏性 Gumminess (N) | 咀嚼性 Chewiness (N) | |||
冀薯98 Jishu98 | 0.0558 | 0.0573 | 0.0769 | 0.1807 | 0.0729 | 0.1529 | 0.6140 | 6 |
冀薯982 Jishu982 | 0.0354 | 0.0990 | 0.0769 | 0.1479 | 0.1090 | 0.1989 | 0.6866 | 3 |
龙薯31 Longshu 31 | 0.1002 | 0.0180 | 0.0923 | 0.1971 | 0.1475 | 0.1823 | 0.7590 | 1 |
绵粉1号 Mianfen 1 | 0.0000 | 0.1206 | 0.0531 | 0.0891 | 0.0993 | 0.1795 | 0.5575 | 10 |
南薯007 Nanshu 007 | 0.0976 | 0.0977 | 0.0462 | 0.0176 | 0.1405 | 0.1513 | 0.5670 | 9 |
秦薯5号 Qinshu 5 | 0.1188 | 0.1276 | 0.0577 | 0.1401 | 0.1063 | 0.1118 | 0.6816 | 4 |
商薯19 Shangshu 19 | 0.1187 | 0.1233 | 0.0000 | 0.2194 | 0.0767 | 0.1943 | 0.7539 | 2 |
商薯8号 Shangshu 8 | 0.0757 | 0.0220 | 0.0462 | 0.0141 | 0.0578 | 0.0570 | 0.2807 | 11 |
苏薯29 Sushu 29 | 0.0028 | 0.0870 | 0.0615 | 0.2288 | 0.0910 | 0.1880 | 0.6784 | 5 |
湘薯98 Xiangshu 98 | 0.0692 | 0.0157 | 0.0462 | 0.0012 | 0.0531 | 0.0447 | 0.2367 | 12 |
徐薯22 Xushu 22 | 0.0848 | 0.0761 | 0.0523 | 0.1117 | 0.1315 | 0.1231 | 0.5964 | 7 |
徐紫薯5号 Xuzishu 5 | 0.0731 | 0.0727 | 0.0434 | 0.2143 | 0.0514 | 0.1000 | 0.5711 | 8 |
表6
鲜食型甘薯TOPSIS决策矩阵R和分析结果"
品种 Cultivars | 决策矩阵R | Ci | 排序 Sorting | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
硬度 Hardness (N) | 黏附性 Adhesiveness (J) | 内聚性 Cohesiveness | 弹性 Springiness (mm) | 胶黏性 Gumminess (N) | 咀嚼性 Chewiness (N) | |||
166-7 | 0.0000 | 0.0646 | 0.0795 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.1482 | 32 |
北京553 Beijing553 | 0.0948 | 0.0670 | 0.0769 | 0.0904 | 0.1018 | 0.0923 | 0.5385 | 24 |
潮薯1号 Chaoshu 1 | 0.0889 | 0.1489 | 0.0654 | 0.0994 | 0.0830 | 0.0819 | 0.5840 | 20 |
广薯87 Guangshu 87 | 0.1140 | 0.1471 | 0.0564 | 0.1137 | 0.0995 | 0.0994 | 0.6484 | 9 |
红皮白心 Hongpibaixin | 0.0951 | 0.0517 | 0.0000 | 0.1554 | 0.0352 | 0.0617 | 0.4107 | 28 |
红香蕉 Hongxiangjiao | 0.0543 | 0.1050 | 0.0923 | 0.1396 | 0.0655 | 0.0797 | 0.5521 | 22 |
冀紫薯2号 Jizishu 2 | 0.0814 | 0.0353 | 0.0769 | 0.2136 | 0.0960 | 0.2023 | 0.7260 | 7 |
龙薯14 Longshu 14 | 0.0863 | 0.0496 | 0.0128 | 0.0464 | 0.0337 | 0.0333 | 0.2698 | 31 |
龙薯9号 Longshu 9 | 0.0760 | 0.1133 | 0.0846 | 0.0911 | 0.1121 | 0.1010 | 0.5951 | 18 |
龙薯515 Longshu 515 | 0.0599 | 0.1427 | 0.0769 | 0.1162 | 0.0621 | 0.0713 | 0.5446 | 23 |
龙紫薯6号 Longzishu 6 | 0.1137 | 0.0577 | 0.0769 | 0.0164 | 0.1272 | 0.0848 | 0.4906 | 26 |
宁薯10号 Ningshu 10 | 0.0332 | 0.1373 | 0.0923 | 0.0669 | 0.0509 | 0.0496 | 0.4428 | 27 |
宁菜薯13 Ningcaishu 13 | 0.0619 | 0.1387 | 0.0462 | 0.1960 | 0.1256 | 0.1450 | 0.7341 | 5 |
宁紫薯2号 Ningzushu 2 | 0.0823 | 0.1523 | 0.0769 | 0.1185 | 0.1006 | 0.1918 | 0.7436 | 4 |
普薯32 Pushu 32 | 0.0674 | 0.0000 | 0.0154 | 0.1596 | 0.0000 | 0.1484 | 0.4022 | 29 |
秦紫薯2号 Qinzishu 2 | 0.0166 | 0.1000 | 0.0923 | 0.1760 | 0.0377 | 0.1738 | 0.6138 | 14 |
商徐紫1号 Shangxuzishu 1 | 0.0094 | 0.1113 | 0.0615 | 0.1326 | 0.0993 | 0.2000 | 0.6322 | 13 |
苏薯16 Sushu 16 | 0.1147 | 0.1180 | 0.0769 | 0.2101 | 0.1542 | 0.2069 | 0.9066 | 1 |
苏薯25 Sushu 25 | 0.0844 | 0.0737 | 0.0615 | 0.1033 | 0.1404 | 0.1250 | 0.6055 | 16 |
苏渝303 Suyu 303 | 0.1005 | 0.0783 | 0.0462 | 0.1467 | 0.1173 | 0.1287 | 0.6357 | 12 |
台湾英沟 Taiwanyingou | 0.0731 | 0.1560 | 0.0923 | 0.0622 | 0.0969 | 0.0801 | 0.5770 | 21 |
西农431 Xinong 431 | 0.0900 | 0.1063 | 0.0615 | 0.0000 | 0.1524 | 0.1748 | 0.6022 | 17 |
湘菜薯2号 Xiangcaishu 2 | 0.0908 | 0.0963 | 0.0615 | 0.1619 | 0.1456 | 0.1538 | 0.7308 | 6 |
心香 Xinxiang | 0.0354 | 0.0503 | 0.0189 | 0.1266 | 0.1432 | 0.1357 | 0.5249 | 25 |
徐薯32 Xushu 32 | 0.0681 | 0.1263 | 0.0769 | 0.1831 | 0.1519 | 0.1759 | 0.8051 | 3 |
徐紫薯8号 Xuzishu 8 | 0.0326 | 0.1233 | 0.0923 | 0.1162 | 0.0577 | 0.2167 | 0.6575 | 8 |
遗字138 Yizi 138 | 0.1110 | 0.0730 | 0.0462 | 0.1420 | 0.1058 | 0.1117 | 0.6069 | 15 |
豫薯10号 Yushu 10 | 0.0519 | 0.0927 | 0.0679 | 0.1534 | 0.0966 | 0.1077 | 0.5869 | 19 |
浙薯33 Zheshu 33 | 0.0862 | 0.0630 | 0.0769 | 0.1056 | 0.1590 | 0.1384 | 0.6475 | 10 |
浙薯13 Zheshu 13 | 0.0662 | 0.0000 | 0.0154 | 0.0047 | 0.0115 | 0.0000 | 0.1006 | 33 |
浙紫薯1号 Zhezishu 1 | 0.0153 | 0.0667 | 0.0923 | 0.0481 | 0.0331 | 0.0476 | 0.3119 | 30 |
郑薯20 Zhengshu 20 | 0.0948 | 0.1460 | 0.0462 | 0.1760 | 0.0677 | 0.0932 | 0.6421 | 11 |
紫罗兰 Ziluolan | 0.1113 | 0.1557 | 0.0769 | 0.1303 | 0.1441 | 0.1995 | 0.8417 | 2 |
[1] | LARYEA D, KOOMSON D, ODURO I, CAREY E . Evaluation of 10 genotypes of sweetpotato for fries. Food Science & Nutrition, 2019,7(2):589-598. |
[2] | 吴银亮, 王红霞, 杨俊, 范维娟, 杨楠, 殷旻昊, 张鹏 . 甘薯储藏根形成及其调控机制研究进展. 植物生理学报, 2017,53(5):749-757. |
WU Y L, WANG H X, YANG J, FAN W J, YANG N, YIN W H, ZHANG P . Advances in storage root development and regulation in sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.]. Plant Physiology Journal, 2017,53(5):749-757. (in Chinese) | |
[3] | FLIS B, TATAROWSKA B, MILCZAREK D, PLICH J . Effect of location on starch content and tuber texture characteristics in potato breeding lines and cultivars. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science, 2017,67(5):453-461. |
[4] | SATO A, TRUONG V D, JOHANNINGSMEIER S D, REYNOLDS R, PECOTA K V, YENCHO G C . Chemical constituents of sweetpotato genotypes in relation to textural characteristics of processed french fries. Food Chemistry, 2018,83(1):60-73. |
[5] | 潘超, 陈春晓, 叶夏芳, 吴鑫, 陈丽, 陆国权 . 甘薯块根质构特性的检测方法优化. 保鲜与加工, 2018,18(2):94-99. |
PAN C, CHEN C X, YE X F, WU X, CHEN L, LU G Q . Optimization of detection method of the texture properties of sweetpotato root tuber. Storage and Process, 2018,18(2):94-99. (in Chinese) | |
[6] | SZCZESNIAK A . Texture is a sensory property. Food Quality & Preference, 2002,13(4):215-225. |
[7] |
TANIWAKI M, KOHYAMA K . Mechanical and acoustic evaluation of potato chip crispness using a versatile texture analyzer. Journal of Food Engineering, 2012,112(4):268-273.
doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.05.015 |
[8] | 刘丙花, 王开芳, 王小芳, 梁静, 白瑞亮, 谢小锋, 孙蕾 . 基于主成分分析的蓝莓果实质地品质评价. 核农学报, 2019,33(5):93-101. |
LIU B H, WANG K F, WANG X F, LIANG J, BAI R L, XIE X F, SUN L . Evaluation of fruit texture quality of blueberry based on principal component analysis. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019,33(5):93-101. (in Chinese) | |
[9] |
SAMUEL O W, ASOGBON G M, SANGAIAH A K, PENG F, GUANGLIN L . An integrated decision support system based on ANN and fuzzy AHP for heart failure risk prediction. Expert Systems with Applications, 2017,68(2017):163-172.
doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.10.020 |
[10] | 骆汝九, 胡治球, 宋雯, 徐辰武 . 多性状综合评定的秩和差测验方法. 中国农业科学, 2010,43(10):2008-2015. |
LUO R J, HU Z Q, SONG W, XU C W . A rank-sum-difference testing method for multi-trait comprehensive ranking. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2010,43(10):2008-2015. (in Chinese) | |
[11] | SOUSA C C , DAMASCENO-SILVA K J, BASTOS E A, ROCHA M M. Selection of cowpea progenies with enhanced drought-tolerance traits using principal component analysis. Genetics and Molecular Research, 2015,14(4):1598-1605. |
[12] | 骆汝九, 胡治球, 宋雯, 徐辰武 . 多性状综合评定的秩和测验方法及其应用. 中国农业科学, 2009,42(8):2686-2694. |
LUO R J, HU Z Q, SONG W, XU C W . A rank-sum testing method for multi-trait comprehensive ranking and its application. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2009,42(8):2686-2694. (in Chinese) | |
[13] | 徐小万, 雷建军, 李颖, 罗少波, 王恒明, 徐晓美, 李涛 . 现蕾期辣椒耐高温多湿性CA-TOPSIS综合评定. 热带作物学报, 2013,34(9):1747-1751. |
XU X W, LEI J J, LI Y, LUO S B, WANG H M, XU X M, LI T . Comprehensive evaluation for high temperature and humidity resistance in pepper( Capsicum annuum L.)budding. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2013,34(9):1747-1751. (in Chinese) | |
[14] |
ZHOU S, LIU B, MENG J . Quality evaluation of raw moutan cortex using the AHP and gray correlation-TOPSIS method. Pharmacognosy Magazine, 2017,13(51):528-533.
doi: 10.4103/0973-1296.211029 |
[15] | ALESSANDRINI L, BALESTRA F, ROMANI S, ROCCULI P, ROSA M D . Physicochemical and sensory properties of fresh potato-based pasta (gnocchi). Journal of Food Science, 2010,75(9):542-547. |
[16] |
LIANG X D, LIU C M, LI Z . Measurement of scenic spots sustainable capacity based on PCA-entropy TOPSIS: A case study from 30 provinces, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2017,15(1):10-29.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph15010010 |
[17] |
SINGH V, GUIZANI N, AL-ALAWI A, CLAEREBOUDTB M, RAHMANA M S . Instrumental texture profile analysis (TPA) of date fruits as a function of its physico-chemical properties. Industrial Crops and Products, 2013,50(10):866-873.
doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.08.039 |
[18] |
LANZA B, AMORUSO F . Measurement of kinaesthetic properties of in-brine table olives by microstructure of fracture surface, sensory evaluation, and texture profile analysis (TPA). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2018,98(11):4142-4150.
doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2018.98.issue-11 |
[19] | 陈丽 . 甘薯块根质构特性的评价研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2013. |
CHEN L . Evaluation of the texture characteristics of sweetpotato roots[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, 2013. ( in Chinese) | |
[20] |
BIANCHI T, GUERRERO L, GRATACÓS-CUBARSÍ M, CLARET A, ARGYRIS J, GARCIA-MAS L, HORTÓS M, . Textural properties of different melon (Cucumis melo L.) fruit types: Sensory and physical-chemical evaluation. Scientia Horticulturae, 2016,201(30):46-56.
doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2016.01.028 |
[21] |
LI C Y, LUO J W, MACLEAN D . A novel instrument to delineate varietal and harvest effects on blue berry fruit texture during storage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2011,91(9):1653-1658.
doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4362 |
[22] | 杨玲, 肖龙, 王强, 张彩霞, 丛佩华, 田义 . 质地多面分析(TPA)法测定苹果果肉质地特性. 果树学报, 2014,31(5):977-985. |
YANG L, XIAO L, WANG Q, ZHANG C X, CONG P H, TIAN Y . Study on texture properties of apple flesh by using texture profile analysis. Journal of Fruit Science, 2014,31(5):977-985. (in Chinese) | |
[23] | 刘莉, 高星, 华德平, 刘翔, 李志文, 张平, 李三培, 张少慧 . 不同的质构检测方法对甜瓜果肉质构的评价. 天津大学学报(自然科学与工程技术版), 2016,49(8):875-881. |
LIU L, GAO X, HUA D P, LIU X, LI Z W, ZHANG P, LI S P, ZHANG S H . Evaluation of texture of melon pulp by different texture detection methods. Journal of Tianjin University(Natural Science and Engineering Technology Edition), 2016,49(8):875-881. (in Chinese) | |
[24] | 公丽艳, 孟宪军, 刘乃侨, 毕金峰 . 基于主成分与聚类分析的苹果加工品质评价. 农业工程学报, 2014,30(13):276-285. |
GONG L Y, MENG X J, LIU N Q, BI J F . Evaluation of apple quality based on principal component and hierarchical cluster analysis. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2014,30(13):276-285. (in Chinese) | |
[25] |
GOYENECHE R, ROURA S, DI SCALA K . Principal component and hierarchical cluster analysis to select hurdle technologies for minimal processed radishes. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 2014,57(2):522-529.
doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.02.022 |
[26] |
NAKAMURA Y, KURANOUCHI T, AKIKO O T, ISHIDA N, KODA I, IWASAWA N, MATSUDA T, KUMAGAI T . Cell structure, water status and starch properties in tuberous root tissue in relation to the texture of steamed sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam). Japanese Journal of Crop Science, 2010,79(3):284-295.
doi: 10.1626/jcs.79.284 |
[27] |
NAKAMURA Y, AKIKO O T, KURANOUCHI T, KATAYAMA K . Disintegration of steamed root tissues of sweetpotato and its relation to texture and the contents of starch, calcium and pectic substances. Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi, 2015,62(12):555-562.
doi: 10.3136/nskkk.62.555 |
[28] | ANDO T, YASUDA M, HISAKA H . Effect of storage period on free sugar and starch contents of six sweetpotato varieties with different taste on baking, and quantification of sweetness and texture. Horticultural Research, 2018,17(4):449-457. |
[29] |
YOON H, NO J, KIM W, SHIN M . Textural character of sweetpotato root of Korean cultivars in relation to chemical constituents and their properties. Food Science and Biotechnology, 2018,27(6):1627-1637.
doi: 10.1007/s10068-018-0429-7 |
[30] |
TRUONG V D, HAMANN D D, WALTER W M . Relationship between instrumental and sensory parameters of cooked sweetpotato texture. Journal of Texture Studies, 1997,28(2):163-185.
doi: 10.1111/jts.1997.28.issue-2 |
[31] | 林子龙, 郭其茂, 陈根辉, 黄艳霞, 杨立明 . 高产优质兼用型甘薯新品种龙薯31号的选育[J]. 福建农业学报, 2018,172(3):34-39. |
LIN Z L, GUO Q M, CHEN G H, HUANG Y X, YANG L M . Breeding a new sweetpotato variety, Longshu 31. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2018,172(3):34-39. (in Chinese) | |
[32] |
唐忠厚, 魏猛, 陈晓光, 史新敏, 张爱君, 李洪民, 丁艳锋 . 不同肉色甘薯块根主要营养品质特征与综合评价. 中国农业科学, 2014,47(9):1705-1714.
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.09.005 |
TANG Z H, WEI M, CHEN X G, SHI X M, ZHANG A J, LI H M, DING Y F . Characters and comprehensive evaluation of nutrient quality of sweetpotato storage root with different flesh colors. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2014,47(9):1705-1714. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.09.005 |
|
[33] | 鞠栋 . 薯渣复配粉营养与功能特性分析及馒头加工工艺研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2017. |
JU D . Study on the nutritional and functional properties of potato/ sweetpotato residue compound flour and steamed bread processing technology thereof[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2017. ( in Chinese) | |
[34] | 谢一芝, 郭小丁, 贾赵东, 马佩勇, 边小峰 . 食用甘薯新品种苏薯16号的选育及栽培技术. 江苏农业科学, 2012,40(7):104-105. |
XIE Y Z, GUO X D, JIA Z D, MA P Y, BIAN X F . Breeding and cultivation techniques of edible sweetpotato variety Sushu 16. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2012,40(7):104-105. (in Chinese) | |
[35] | 尹艳, 梁艳梅, 林善梦, 罗小梅, 宋冠华, 段纯 . 热浸提“紫罗兰”紫薯花青素的工艺条件优化研究. 北方园艺, 2015(18):136-139. |
YIN Y, LIANG Y M, LIN S M, LUO X M, SONG G H, DUAN C . Optimization of hot extraction conditions of anthocyanins from ‘Violet’ purple sweetpotato.Northern Gardening, 2015(18):136-139. (in Chinese) | |
[36] |
唐忠厚, 张爱君, 陈晓光, 魏猛, 靳容, 李洪民 . 优质鲜食型甘薯新品种‘徐薯32’的选育及特性分析. 植物科学学报, 2016,34(5):781-789.
doi: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2016.50781 |
TANG Z H, ZHANG A J, CHEN X G, WEI M, JIN R, LI H M . Breeding and appraisal of new sweetpotato cultivar ‘Xushu 32’with high quality. Plant Science Journal, 2016,34(5):781-789. (in Chinese)
doi: 10.11913/PSJ.2095-0837.2016.50781 |
[1] | 相玉婷, 王晓龙, 胡新中, 任长忠, 郭来春, 李璐. 燕麦品种间脂肪酶活性差异及低脂肪酶优质品种的预测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(21): 4104-4117. |
[2] | 刘丰,蒋佳丽,周琴,蔡剑,王笑,黄梅,仲迎鑫,戴廷波,曹卫星,姜东. 美国软麦籽粒品质变化趋势及对我国弱筋小麦标准达标度分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(19): 3723-3737. |
[3] | 崔鹏,赵逸人,姚志鹏,庞林江,陆国权. 低温对甘薯淀粉理化特性及代谢关键基因表达量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(19): 3831-3840. |
[4] | 郝静,李秀坤,崔顺立,邓洪涛,侯名语,刘盈茹,杨鑫雷,穆国俊,刘立峰. 花生每荚种子数相关性状QTL的定位[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(13): 2500-2508. |
[5] | 冯俊杰,赵文达,张新全,刘英杰,袁帅,董志晓,熊毅,熊艳丽,凌瑶,马啸. 引种日本多花黑麦草标准品种DUS性状变异分析及应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(12): 2447-2460. |
[6] | 范文静,刘明,赵鹏,张强强,吴德祥,郭鹏宇,朱晓亚,靳容,张爱君,唐忠厚. 甘薯苗期耐低氮基因型筛选及不同氮效率类型综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(10): 1891-1902. |
[7] | 张婷,王根平,罗焱杰,李琳,高翔,程汝宏,师志刚,董立,张喜瑞,杨伟红,许立闪. 色差分析在优质小米选育中的应用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(5): 901-908. |
[8] | 李凯峰,尹玉和,王琼,林团荣,郭华春. 不同马铃薯品种挥发性风味成分及代谢产物相关性分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(4): 792-803. |
[9] | 王欣,李强,曹清河,马代夫. 中国甘薯产业和种业发展现状与未来展望[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3): 483-492. |
[10] | 赵珊,仲伶俐,秦琳,黄世群,李曦,郑幸果,雷欣宇,雷绍荣,郭灵安,冯俊彦. 不同干燥方式对甘薯叶功能成分及抗氧化活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(21): 4650-4663. |
[11] | 靳容,刘明,赵鹏,张强强,张爱君,唐忠厚. 甘薯丝裂原活化蛋白激酶MPK6对低温胁迫的响应[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(20): 4265-4273. |
[12] | 赵付枚,王爽,田雨婷,乔奇,王永江,张德胜,张振臣. 甘薯病毒病发生关键因素研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(15): 3232-3240. |
[13] | 张斌斌,蔡志翔,沈志军,严娟,马瑞娟,俞明亮. 观赏桃种质资源表型性状多样性评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(11): 2406-2418. |
[14] | 尹思佳,李慧,徐志强,裴久渤,戴继光,刘雨薇,李艾蒙,于雅茜,刘维,汪景宽. 东北典型黑土区旱地耕层土壤肥力指标的纬度变化特征及其关系[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(10): 2132-2141. |
[15] | 赵鹏,刘明,靳容,陈晓光,张爱君,唐忠厚,魏猛. 长期施用有机肥对潮土区甘薯碳氮积累与分配的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(10): 2142-2153. |
|