Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2024, Vol. 65 ›› Issue (12): 3005-3009.DOI: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230787
• Original article • Previous Articles Next Articles
XI Yuanxiao1(), LIU Zhongqing1, LI Sen2, GAO Zhengxu1, WANG Dequan1, WANG Yuhua1, FANG Min1
Received:
2023-07-31
Online:
2024-12-11
Published:
2024-12-25
CLC Number:
XI Yuanxiao, LIU Zhongqing, LI Sen, GAO Zhengxu, WANG Dequan, WANG Yuhua, FANG Min. Chemical composition difference and evaluation of different varieties of flue-cured tobacco in Weifang tobacco area[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(12): 3005-3009.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.zjnykx.cn/EN/10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230787
指标 | 初始特征值 | 提取载荷平方和 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总计 | 方差 百分比/% | 累积/ % | 总计 | 方差 百分比/% | 累积/ % | ||
总糖 | 5.799 | 44.607 | 44.607 | 5.799 | 44.607 | 44.607 | |
还原糖 | 2.593 | 19.949 | 64.556 | 2.593 | 19.949 | 64.556 | |
烟碱 | 1.872 | 14.400 | 78.956 | 1.872 | 14.400 | 78.956 | |
总氮 | 1.120 | 8.616 | 87.572 | 1.120 | 8.616 | 87.572 | |
钾 | 0.503 | 3.871 | 91.443 | ||||
氯 | 0.480 | 3.690 | 95.133 | ||||
淀粉 | 0.320 | 2.460 | 97.593 | ||||
蛋白质 | 0.164 | 1.263 | 98.856 | ||||
钾氯比 | 0.121 | 0.929 | 99.785 | ||||
糖碱比 | 0.019 | 0.145 | 99.930 | ||||
施木克值 | 0.009 | 0.067 | 99.996 | ||||
两糖差 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 99.999 | ||||
氮碱比 | 8.60×10-5 | 0.001 | 100.000 |
Table 1 Interpretation of variance by principal component analysis
指标 | 初始特征值 | 提取载荷平方和 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总计 | 方差 百分比/% | 累积/ % | 总计 | 方差 百分比/% | 累积/ % | ||
总糖 | 5.799 | 44.607 | 44.607 | 5.799 | 44.607 | 44.607 | |
还原糖 | 2.593 | 19.949 | 64.556 | 2.593 | 19.949 | 64.556 | |
烟碱 | 1.872 | 14.400 | 78.956 | 1.872 | 14.400 | 78.956 | |
总氮 | 1.120 | 8.616 | 87.572 | 1.120 | 8.616 | 87.572 | |
钾 | 0.503 | 3.871 | 91.443 | ||||
氯 | 0.480 | 3.690 | 95.133 | ||||
淀粉 | 0.320 | 2.460 | 97.593 | ||||
蛋白质 | 0.164 | 1.263 | 98.856 | ||||
钾氯比 | 0.121 | 0.929 | 99.785 | ||||
糖碱比 | 0.019 | 0.145 | 99.930 | ||||
施木克值 | 0.009 | 0.067 | 99.996 | ||||
两糖差 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 99.999 | ||||
氮碱比 | 8.60×10-5 | 0.001 | 100.000 |
指标 | 主成分1 | 主成分2 | 主成分3 | 主成分4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
总糖 | 0.862 | 0.316 | -0.182 | 0.219 |
还原糖 | 0.679 | 0.526 | 0.141 | 0.393 |
烟碱 | -0.806 | 0.340 | -0.392 | 0.025 |
总氮 | -0.852 | 0.395 | 0.085 | 0.240 |
钾 | -0.186 | -0.683 | 0.368 | 0.018 |
氯 | 0.211 | 0.547 | 0.421 | -0.628 |
淀粉 | 0.566 | 0.460 | -0.357 | 0.306 |
蛋白质 | -0.767 | 0.371 | 0.297 | 0.310 |
钾氯比 | -0.238 | -0.791 | -0.251 | 0.386 |
糖碱比 | 0.870 | -0.162 | 0.352 | 0.134 |
施木克值 | 0.947 | 0.014 | -0.267 | -0.024 |
两糖差 | 0.457 | -0.331 | -0.614 | -0.280 |
氮碱比 | 0.561 | -0.260 | 0.703 | 0.171 |
Table 2 Principal component matrix
指标 | 主成分1 | 主成分2 | 主成分3 | 主成分4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
总糖 | 0.862 | 0.316 | -0.182 | 0.219 |
还原糖 | 0.679 | 0.526 | 0.141 | 0.393 |
烟碱 | -0.806 | 0.340 | -0.392 | 0.025 |
总氮 | -0.852 | 0.395 | 0.085 | 0.240 |
钾 | -0.186 | -0.683 | 0.368 | 0.018 |
氯 | 0.211 | 0.547 | 0.421 | -0.628 |
淀粉 | 0.566 | 0.460 | -0.357 | 0.306 |
蛋白质 | -0.767 | 0.371 | 0.297 | 0.310 |
钾氯比 | -0.238 | -0.791 | -0.251 | 0.386 |
糖碱比 | 0.870 | -0.162 | 0.352 | 0.134 |
施木克值 | 0.947 | 0.014 | -0.267 | -0.024 |
两糖差 | 0.457 | -0.331 | -0.614 | -0.280 |
氮碱比 | 0.561 | -0.260 | 0.703 | 0.171 |
品种 | fac1 | fac2 | fac3 | fac4 | 得分 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
云烟301 | -0.43 | -0.36 | -0.66 | 0.43 | -0.32 |
中川208 | 0.14 | 0.39 | 0.31 | -0.02 | 0.18 |
中烟100 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.07 | -0.23 | 0.09 |
中烟101 | -0.17 | -0.14 | -0.03 | 0.00 | -0.11 |
中烟特香301 | 0.00 | -0.39 | -0.17 | 0.03 | -0.10 |
NC55 | -0.04 | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.06 |
Table 3 Principal component scores of different varieties
品种 | fac1 | fac2 | fac3 | fac4 | 得分 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
云烟301 | -0.43 | -0.36 | -0.66 | 0.43 | -0.32 |
中川208 | 0.14 | 0.39 | 0.31 | -0.02 | 0.18 |
中烟100 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.07 | -0.23 | 0.09 |
中烟101 | -0.17 | -0.14 | -0.03 | 0.00 | -0.11 |
中烟特香301 | 0.00 | -0.39 | -0.17 | 0.03 | -0.10 |
NC55 | -0.04 | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.06 |
聚类 | 总糖/ % | 还原糖/ % | 烟碱/ % | 总氮/ % | 钾/ % | 氯/ % | 淀粉/ % | 蛋白质/ % | 钾氯比 | 糖碱比 | 施木 克值 | 两糖差/ % | 氮碱比 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
第一类 | 28.28 | 24.92 | 1.58 c | 1.82 | 1.57 | 0.59 a | 4.87 | 9.64 | 4.00 c | 19.85 a | 3.01 | 3.38 | 1.21 A |
第二类 | 27.37 | 23.37 | 1.67 b | 1.82 | 1.65 | 0.43 b | 4.84 | 9.56 | 6.02 b | 18.31 b | 2.90 | 3.99 | 1.16 B |
第三类 | 26.88 | 22.57 | 1.92 a | 1.91 | 1.60 | 0.26 c | 5.02 | 9.83 | 8.29 a | 15.24 c | 2.80 | 4.31 | 1.03 C |
Table 4 Analysis of the significance of chemical composition of three types of varieties
聚类 | 总糖/ % | 还原糖/ % | 烟碱/ % | 总氮/ % | 钾/ % | 氯/ % | 淀粉/ % | 蛋白质/ % | 钾氯比 | 糖碱比 | 施木 克值 | 两糖差/ % | 氮碱比 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
第一类 | 28.28 | 24.92 | 1.58 c | 1.82 | 1.57 | 0.59 a | 4.87 | 9.64 | 4.00 c | 19.85 a | 3.01 | 3.38 | 1.21 A |
第二类 | 27.37 | 23.37 | 1.67 b | 1.82 | 1.65 | 0.43 b | 4.84 | 9.56 | 6.02 b | 18.31 b | 2.90 | 3.99 | 1.16 B |
第三类 | 26.88 | 22.57 | 1.92 a | 1.91 | 1.60 | 0.26 c | 5.02 | 9.83 | 8.29 a | 15.24 c | 2.80 | 4.31 | 1.03 C |
[1] | 杨铁钊. 烟草育种学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003. |
[2] | 马文广, 周义和, 刘相甫, 等. 我国烤烟品种的发展现状及对策展望[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2018, 24(1): 116-122. |
[3] | 喻奇伟, 罗贞宝, 张瑞亚, 等. 不同烤烟品种比较试验的灰色关联度分析[J]. 江西农业学报, 2022, 34(2): 140-145. |
[4] | 肖春生, 肖汉乾, 陈江华. 浓香型烟叶开发及其在低焦油卷烟中的应用[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2013, 19(5): 28-32. |
[5] | 唐珂, 毛多斌, 王荣梅, 等. 烤烟两糖差与感官品质之间的相关性研究[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2011, 17(1): 34-35, 44. |
[6] | 刘涛, 曹建敏, 郭存, 等. 不同烤烟品种化学成分及致香物质差异分析[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2023, 44(2): 74-82. |
[7] | 王竞, 殷红慧, 李鹏飞, 等. 基于指数和法的文山烤烟主要化学成分协调性分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2018, 46(2): 163-165. |
[8] | 高玉珍, 李伟, 王运锋, 等. 影响烤烟烟叶糖和淀粉含量的因素研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2006, 22(6): 70-75. |
[9] | 丁冉, 马宇平, 周浩, 等. 烟草中蛋白质研究概述[J]. 广州化工, 2014, 42(5): 5-8, 26. |
[10] | 陈胜利, 张玉林, 张占军, 等. 烤烟主产区烟叶糖碱比的变异分析[J]. 烟草科技, 2012, 45(10): 73-76. |
[11] | 喻奇伟, 符云鹏, 李炜, 等. 毕节烟区烤烟糖碱比的区域分布特点及与感官品质的关系[J]. 烟草科技, 2015, 48(3): 14-18, 46. |
[12] | 许志文, 谢新乔, 王梦雅, 等. 玉溪烟区烤烟化学成分特征分析[J]. 天津农业科学, 2022, 28(11): 12-19. |
[13] | 杨淳婷, 张梦玥, 赵园园, 等. 低烟碱品种及栽培模式对烤烟化学成分及感官质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2022, 28(6): 85-93. |
[14] | 别瑞, 周婷云, 周显升, 等. 基于XGBoost算法的山东烟叶质量预测模型初探[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2022, 43(5): 80-86, 93. |
[1] | LIU Guoxia, WANG Shaomei, XU Fangzheng, CHENG Tingming, MAO Dongping, ZHANG Guangyu, GENG Ruimei, JIANG Caihong, ZHU Qifa. Research on ecological adaptability positioning and screening of high quality flue-cured tobacco varieties (lines) in Southern Anhui [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(9): 2075-2085. |
[2] | CHEN Zhenhua, LIU Dan. Assessment and source analysis of heavy metal contamination in agricultural soils around abandoned lead-zinc mine in Jingning County [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(9): 2231-2235. |
[3] | LEI Juanli, YUE Zhichen, CHEN Xiaoyang, LI Yan, TAO Peng, ZHAO Yanting, HU Qizan, LI Biyuan. Identification and evaluation of Cucurbita moschata germplasm resources [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(8): 1791-1801. |
[4] | XU Zhihao, FU Manman, DING Xiaoyu, WU Chao, GUO Fangqi. Selection of low-temperature-tolerant varieties of spray cut chrysanthemum and differences in the growth of tissue culture seedlings [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(8): 1843-1850. |
[5] | SHEN Fangqin, ZHANG Weijiang. Comparison and analysis evaluation of rice varieties [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(8): 1856-1859. |
[6] | NI Zheng, ZHU Yinchu, SUN Bingbing, YUN Tao, CHEN Liu, XU Hui, YE Weicheng, HUA Jionggang, ZHANG Cun. Evaluation of inactivation effect of commercial disinfectant on African swine fever virus based on model virus [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(8): 1944-1949. |
[7] | DING Li, ZHANG Lin, DU Guanghui, ZHANG Lixia, SHI Pengfei, NIE Liangpeng, LING Jingwei, PAN Ziliang, LYU Yuhu. Selection of summer green manure varieties and winter wheat rotation in southern Henan [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(8): 1957-1962. |
[8] | ZHANG Xiaoli, LI Fuzhen, LI Baoxian, CHEN Xiaoyang, LIU Bo, ZHANG Quanfeng, FANG Li, ZHU Linglong, FAN Feijun. Breeding and cultivation techniques of new peanut variety Zhehua 6 with high oleic acid content [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(7): 1563-1566. |
[9] | GU Qianqian, XU Yang, WANG Yanpeng, MA Xingcen, WANG Haoyu, GONG Bangchu, CHENG Wenqiang. Evaluation on the benefit of the combined management model of chestnut-medicine under different light transmittance [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(7): 1592-1598. |
[10] | YI Bo, XU Yunchen, WU Yun, YU Xiaohua, YUAN Can, LYU Qundan, XIA Yiping. Evaluation of ornamental and edible LA lily cultivars based on principal component and cluster analyses [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(7): 1639-1645. |
[11] | GU Xiuping, MA Xiaohui. Study on the evaluation index system for the training effect of high-quality farmers under the perspective of common prosperity ——Taking the training of high-quality farmers in Zhejiang Province as an example [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(7): 1737-1744. |
[12] | SUN Yuxiao, TIAN Jianwei, YANG Haizhou, LIU Yan, NIE Bin, ZHANG Ningxin, WANG Gang, YIN Zhongchun, PENG Wuxing. Effects of partial replacement of chemical nitrogen with organic nitrogen on the yield, quality, and chemical composition of flue-cured tobacco [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1340-1345. |
[13] | CAI Yi, YANG Jian, YANG Yang, CHENG Zhimin, XIE Bing, TANG Ming, YANG Yide, YAN Min. Comprehensive evaluation of new flue-cured tobacco varieties in Yibin [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1346-1350. |
[14] | KANG Hui, CHEN Siyuan, LUO Yunxia, ZHANG Bao, MA Yangyang, ZHOU Hang, CHEN Hongli, YANG Aiyong. Research progress on potassium increase and chlorine reduction technology for flue-cured tobacco [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1351-1357. |
[15] | HU Litao, LI Hang, SU Mengdi, ZHAO Longjie, AO Fei, HUANG Langping, FU Chunmei, LUO Junzhao, CHEN Junhua, MA Xiao, ZHANG Songtao. Comprehensive evaluation of tobacco soil fertility in Fengdu County of Chongqing [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1358-1363. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||