Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (3): 70-77.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.03.010

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Establishment and Application of a Comprehensive Evaluation System for Ornamental Quinoa Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process

Li Xiaoyu1(), Huang Jie2, Yang Zhao3, Chai Jikuan1, Yang Farong1,2(), Wei Yuming2, Liu Wenyu2, Bai Weijun1   

  1. 1College of Grassland Industry, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
    2Institute of Livestock, Grass and Green Agriculture, Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
    3Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, China
  • Received:2024-05-09 Revised:2024-07-09 Online:2025-06-15 Published:2025-06-03

RichHTML

0

PDF (PC)

14

Abstract:

In order to screen out quinoa materials with high ornamental value, expand the application field of quinoa and accelerate its popularization, 22 ornamental quinoa materials popularized in Dongxiang and Tianzhu of Gansu Province were used as test materials, and their spike length, spike color, spike shape, leaf color, leaf shape, pests and diseases, stem color, neatness and lodging resistance were identified. The analytic hierarchical process (AHP) was applied to make a comprehensive evaluation of ornamental properties. The results showed that of the ten evaluation indexes influencing the overall ornamental qualities of quinoa, neatness (0.1144), lodging (0.0742), and stem color (0.0471) had the highest weights in the hierarchical total ranking. The 22 materials suitable for planting in Tianzhu and Dongxiang respectively were categorized into four grades according to the composite index scores, and there were three materials evaluated at grade I, 12 materials at grade II, three materials at grade III, and four materials at grade IV in Tianzhu region, while there were four materials evaluated at grade I, seven materials at grade II, eight materials at grade III, and three materials at grade IV in Dongxiang region. The two regions of Dongxiang and Tianzhu had influence on the grading of some materials, such as XG662 was grade Ⅰ in Dongxiang while grade Ⅲ in Tianzhu. Using AHP can effectively perform a comprehensive evaluation and grading of quinoa, and the three indexes with a high weight proportion are important references for the screening and breeding of ornamental quinoa. CHLi-207, CHLi-211, CHLi-223 and CHLi-265 had high scores in the comprehensive evaluation and excellent performance in field, which can be promoted as excellent strains of ornamental quinoa.

Key words: Quinoa, Ornamental evaluation, Analytic hierarchy process, Agronomic trait

Table 1

The 22 quinoa resources epigenetic traits"

编号Number 名称Name 穗色Panicle color 茎色Stem color
1 CHLi-195 紫 紫
2 CHLi-207 紫 紫
3 CHLi-211 紫 紫
4 CHLi-223 紫 紫
5 CHLi-225 绿 绿
6 CHLi-251 绿 绿
7 CHLi-255 绿 绿
8 CHLi-265 紫 紫
9 CHLi-267 黄 黄
10 CHLi-295 紫 紫
11 Li-4F-1331 绿 绿
12 XG101 绿 绿
13 XG102-1 紫 绿
14 XG104-1 黄 黄
15 XG304 绿 绿
16 XG305 黄 绿
17 XG447-1 黄 黄
18 XG662 紫 紫
19 XG686 黄 黄
20 航228-28 黄 黄
21 航228-43 绿 绿
22 航228-49 绿 绿

Table 2

Evaluation model of ornamental value of ornamental quinoa"

层次
Arrangement of ideas		 层次分析法模型
AHP model
目标层（A）
Target layer (A)		 观赏藜麦的综合评价（A）
约束层（C）
Constraint layer (C)		 穗部特征（C1）、叶片形状（C2）、适应性（C3）、植株性状（C4）
标准层（P）
Standard layer (P)

 穗长（P1）、穗色（P2）、穗型（P3）、叶色（P4）、叶形（P5）、倒伏（P6）、病虫害（P7）、整齐度（P8）、茎色（P9）、分枝数（P10）

Table 3

The importance of correlation among factors"

标度Scale 定义与说明Definition and explanation
1 表示2个因素相比，具有相同重要性
3 表示2个因素相比，前者比后者稍重要
5 表示2个因素相比，前者比后者明显重要
7 表示2个因素相比，前者比后者强烈重要
9 表示2个因素相比，前者比后者极端重要
2，4，6，8 表示上述相邻判断的中间值
分数
Score		 若A比B重要，则在A行B列标5，若B比A重要，则标1/5

Table 4

Stochastic consistency indicators"

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

Table 5

Criteria for grading comprehensive evaluations"

地点Site 分级Grade 分级原则Principles of grading 评价等级Evaluation rating 含义Meaning
天祝Tianzhu Ⅰ 6<Probit 0.6452<WRSR 可广泛推广利用
Ⅱ 5<Probit≤6 0.5079<WRSR≤0.6452 可适度开发利用
Ⅲ 4<Probit≤5 0.3706<WRSR≤0.5079 可选择性开发利用
Ⅳ Probit≤4 WRSR≤0.3706 不推荐开发利用
东乡Dongxiang Ⅰ 6<Probit 0.5904<WRSR 可广泛推广利用
Ⅱ 5<Probit≤6 0.4348<WRSR≤0.5904 可适度开发利用
Ⅲ 4<Probit≤5 0.2792<WRSR≤0.4348 可选择性开发利用
Ⅳ Probit≤4 WRSR≤0.2792 不推荐开发利用

Table 6

Evaluation criteria for indicators"

编号
Number		 评价因子
Evaluation factor		 赋值标准Evaluation standard
5 4 3 2 1
1
 穗色
 色彩鲜艳（深粉、深红、
黄色、绿色、紫色		 色彩较为鲜艳
 略有淡色
 色彩暗淡，无观赏性
2
 穗长
 穗长一致，无过长或过短
 穗长几乎一致，少有
几株过长或过短		 部分长短不齐
 多数长短不齐
 整体长短不齐
3 穗型 紧 适中 适中偏散 散
4 茎色 色彩艳丽、光亮 有明显色 色暗淡 色暗淡、有斑
5 叶色 色彩艳丽、光亮 色明显、观赏性较好 色暗淡 色暗淡、有叶斑 叶褶皱，枯萎，叶斑严重
6
 叶形
 均匀、规则、有形
 叶生长均匀，几乎无不规则 叶生长均匀，偶有不一致 形不一致
 整体不规则，无明显形
7 病虫害 <10% <30% ≈50% >70% >90%
8 倒伏 无倒伏（高抗） 少数倒伏（抗） 一半倒伏（中抗） 多数倒伏（低抗） 几乎全倒伏（不抗）
9 有效分枝数 ≥15 ≥11 ≥8 ≥5 <5
10 整齐度 整齐性较高 少有几株过高过低 部分不齐 多数不齐 整体不齐

Table 7

Consistency test of judgment matrix"

层次模型Hierarchical model 判断矩阵Judgment matrix 一致性检验Consistency test
A-C Ci C1 C2 C3 C4 W CR：0.0386
λmax：4.1031
C1 1.0000 0.3333 0.2500 1.0000 0.1187
C2 3.0000 1.0000 0.5000 1.0000 0.2427
C3 4.0000 2.0000 1.000 3.0000 0.4715
C4 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333 1.0000 0.1671
C1-P C1-Pi P1 P2 P3 W CR：0.0517
λmax：3.0537
P1 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.1976
P2 2.0000 1.0000 2.0000 0.4905
P3 2.0000 0.5000 1.0000 0.3119
C2-P C2-Pi P4 P5 W CR：0.0000
λmax：2.0000
P4 1.0000 4.0000 0.8000
P5 0.2500 1.0000 0.2000
C3-P C3-Pi P6 P7 P8 W CR：0.0517
λmax：3.0538
P6 1.0000 3.0000 0.5000 0.3338
P7 0.3333 1.0000 0.3333 0.1416
P8 2.0000 3.0000 1.0000 0.5247
C4-P C4-Pi P9 P10 W CR：0.0000
λmax：2.0000
P9 1.0000 4.0000 0.8000
P10 0.2500 1.0000 0.2000

Table 8

Effect weights of ornamental quinoa factors"

一级指标Level 1 indicator 权重Weight 二级指标Level 2 indicator 权重Weight 总排序权重Total ranking weight
叶片性状Leaf trait 0.1187 叶色 0.0949 0.0113
叶形 0.0237 0.0028
植株性状Plant trait 0.2427 茎色 0.1942 0.0471
有效分枝数 0.0485 0.0118
适应性Adaptability 0.4715 倒伏 0.1574 0.0742
病虫害 0.0667 0.0314
整齐度 0.2474 0.1144
穗部特征Spike trait 0.1671 穗长 0.0330 0.0055
穗色 0.0820 0.0137
穗型 0.0521 0.0087

Table 9

Ornamental evaluation scores for 22 materials in Tianzhu"

编号
Number		 材料名称
Material name		 WRSR值
WRSR value		 等级
Grade
1 CHLi-223 0.7385 Ⅰ
2 CHLi-207 0.7298 Ⅰ
3 Li-4F-133-1 0.6811 Ⅰ
4 XG305 0.6453 Ⅱ
5 XG304 0.6253 Ⅱ
6 航228-49 0.6203 Ⅱ
7 CHLi-195 0.6197 Ⅱ
8 航228-28 0.6083 Ⅱ
9 CHLi-255 0.5742 Ⅱ
10 CHLi-267 0.5528 Ⅱ
11 CHLi-265 0.5518 Ⅱ
12 XG686 0.5443 Ⅱ
13 CHLi-211 0.5373 Ⅱ
14 CHLi-295 0.5256 Ⅱ
15 XG104-1 0.5012 Ⅱ
16 XG662 0.4520 Ⅲ
17 XG101 0.4469 Ⅲ
18 CHLi-251 0.4024 Ⅲ
19 XG102-1 0.2944 Ⅳ
20 CHLi-225 0.2904 Ⅳ
21 XG447-1 0.2823 Ⅳ
22 航228-43 0.2637 Ⅳ

Table 10

Ornamental evaluation scores for 22 materials in Dongxiang"

编号
Number		 材料名称
Material name		 WRSR值
WRSR value		 等级
Grade
1 XG662 0.7085 Ⅰ
2 CHLi-207 0.6927 Ⅰ
3 CHLi-211 0.6678 Ⅰ
4 CHLi-265 0.6349 Ⅰ
5 CHLi-255 0.5674 Ⅱ
6 CHLi-195 0.5564 Ⅱ
7 CHLi-295 0.5532 Ⅱ
8 航228-28 0.5493 Ⅱ
9 CHLi-223 0.5212 Ⅱ
10 XG305 0.5167 Ⅱ
11 CHLi-267 0.4184 Ⅱ
12 航228-49 0.4182 Ⅲ
13 XG304 0.3941 Ⅲ
14 XG101 0.3896 Ⅲ
15 XG102-1 0.3872 Ⅲ
16 CHLi-251 0.3812 Ⅲ
17 XG104-1 0.3406 Ⅲ
18 CHLi-225 0.3361 Ⅲ
19 Li-4F-133-1 0.3106 Ⅲ
20 XG686 0.2265 Ⅳ
21 航228-43 0.1911 Ⅳ
22 XG447-1 0.1576 Ⅳ

Fig.1

Three varieties with good ornamental properties"

Fig.2

Three varieties with poor ornamental quality"

[1] 任贵兴. 藜麦生产与应用. 北京: 科学出版社, 2014.
[2] 刘晓青. NaCl胁迫对藜麦种子萌发和幼苗生理生化特性的影响. 合肥:安徽农业大学, 2017.
[3] 肖正春, 张广伦. 藜麦及其资源开发利用. 中国野生植物资源, 2014, 33(2):62-66.
[4] 孙宇星, 迟文娟. 藜麦推广前景分析. 绿色科技, 2017(7):197-198.
[5] 张紫薇, 庞春花, 张永清, 等. 等渗NaCl和PEG胁迫及复水处理对藜麦种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 作物杂志, 2017(1):119-126.
[6] 薛爽, 饶丽莎, 左丹丹, 等. 植物低温胁迫响应机理的研究进展. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(33):17-19,48.
[7] 杨发荣, 刘文瑜, 黄杰, 等. 不同藜麦品种对盐胁迫的生理响应及耐盐性评价. 草业学报, 2017, 26(12):77-88.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2016412
[8] 戚维聪, 张体付, 陈曦, 等. 藜麦的耐盐性评价及在滨海盐土的试种表现. 核农学报, 2017, 31(1):145-155.
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2017.01.0145
[9] 刘敏国, 杨倩, 杨梅, 等. 藜麦的饲用潜力及适应性. 草业科学, 2017, 34(6):1264-1271.
[10] 吕树鸣, 莫庆忠, 邹盘龙, 等. 5个藜麦品种(系)在六盘水地区的适应性. 贵州农业科学, 2018, 46(7):15-17.
[11] 吴应齐, 姚理武, 吴丽芳, 等. 不同藜麦品种(系)在浙西南地区的适应性评价. 浙江林业科技, 2021, 41(6):30-36.
[12] 蒋欣琪, 戴红燕, 周世宇, 等. 秋播藜麦生长发育规律及观赏特性. 西昌学院学报(自然科学版), 2021, 35(3):12-16.
[13] Saaty T L. The analytic hierarchy process, New York: McGraw- Hill,1980.
[14] 梁磊. 叶菜类观赏蔬菜的评价及应用研究. 杭州:浙江农业大学.
[15] 封培波, 胡永红, 张启翔, 等. 上海露地宿根花卉景观价值的综合评价. 北京林业大学学报, 2003, 25(6):84-87.
[16] 唐东芹, 张思平, 高本年. 用AHP法对桂花品种应用的综合评价. 江苏林业科技, 1998(1):12-17.
[17] 董钠, 李成儒, 陈蕾, 等. 酢浆草属植物观赏性评价体系的建立与应用. 热带作物学报, 2020, 41(9):1770-1778.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.09.007
[18] 王莹, 李玉娟, 谈峰, 等. 8个彩叶紫薇品种观赏性及适应性评价. 浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2020, 46(3):327-333.
[19] 邵伟丽, 廖娣华, 刘志高, 等. 铁线莲栽培品种观赏性综合评价体系的建立与应用. 浙江农林大学学报, 2022, 39(6):1229-1237.
[20] 黄杰, 刘文瑜, 吕玮, 等. 38份藜麦种质资源农艺性状与产量的关系分析. 甘肃农业科技, 2018(12):72-75.
[21] 秦培友, 崔宏亮, 等. 藜麦种质资源描述规范和数据标准. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2020.
[22] 祁海艳, 李彦杰, 武冬梅, 等. 佳木斯市八种野生花卉引种适应性及观赏价值评价. 北方园艺, 2019(14):79-85.
[23] 李宇泊, 杨艳丽, 李永强, 等. 基于AHP的黄土高原乡土地被植物评价体系的建立与应用. 草地学报, 2022, 30(7):1846-1854.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.07.027
[24] 田凤调. 秩和比法及其应用. 北京: 中国统计出版社,1993.
[25] 王佳敏, 刘敏, 郭咏梅, 等. AHP法和灰色关联法在观赏辣椒果实外观品质评价中的应用. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 39(1):73-78.
[26] 孙明, 李萍, 张启翔. 基于层次分析法的地被菊品系综合评价研究. 西北林学院学报, 2011, 26(3):177-181.
[27] 苏大学. 天然草原在防治黄河上中游流域水土流失与土地荒漠化中的作用与地位. 草地学报, 2000, 8(2):77-81.
doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2000.02.001
[28] 王万鹏, 俞诗源, 钟芳. 兰州市南北两山植物动物资源. 兰州: 甘肃科学技术出版社,2010:1-118.
[29] 黄青云, 徐夙侠, 林春松. 观赏性藜麦在亚热带地区的引种研究//中国园艺学会观赏园艺专业委员会,张启翔. 中国观赏园艺研究进展2018. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2018.
[1] He Bing, Wang Xiaohang, Li Chao, Luo Liqiang, Zhang Qiang, Han Kangshun, Chen Dianyuan, Yan Guangbin, Liu Zhenjiao. Data Analysis of Approved Rice Varieties in Jilin Province from 1987 to 2022 [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 16-22.
[2] Zhang Shengchang, Wei Yuming, Ma Lina, Yang Zhao, Liu Wenyu, Huang Jie, Liu Huan, Yang Farong. Effects of Planting Density and Fertilization on Growth Characteristics of Forage Quinoa [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 128-134.
[3] Zhao Fuyang, Ma Bo, Hu Jifang, Tan Kefei, Liu Chuanzeng, Yan Feng, Dong Yang, Hou Xiaomin, Li Qingquan, Han Yehui. Evaluation of Photoperiod Sensitivity of Japonica Rice in Cold Regions under Different Photoperiod Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 135-140.
[4] Ji Jinghong, Liu Shuangquan, Ma Xingzhu, Hao Xiaoyu, Zheng Yu, Zhao Yue, Wang Xiaojun, Kuang Enjun. Effects of Different Controlled-Release Urea on Agronomic Traits, Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Cold Region Rice [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 149-154.
[5] Lu Jing, Yu Bo, Jiang Mi, Peng Lianxin, Ren Yuanhang, Wu Qi. Assessment of Genetic Diversity in 58 Germplasm Resources of Highland Barley [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 20-28.
[6] Luo Jianke, Zhang Kehou, Wang Zeyu, Zhang Pingzhen, Nan Ming. Research on the Production Performance of 18 Oat Varieties (Lines) in the Irrigation Area along the Yellow River in Baiyin City [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(2): 93-100.
[7] Yang Ruping, Jia Zhen, Wei Ying, Wei Yechou, Wang Liming, Chen Guangrong, Zhang Guohong, Song Wenwen. The Relationship between the Growth Period Traits of Soybean Varieties from Various Regions of Gansu and Meteorological Factors as well as Agronomic Traits [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 123-132.
[8] Jing Maoya, Zhang Ziyu, Zhang Meng, He Jiamin, Yan Fanfan, Gao Yanmei, Zhang Yongqing. Effects of Seed Soaking with Salicylic Acid on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Quinoa under Salt Stress [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 194-201.
[9] Yan Qunxiang, Pang Yuhui, Hong Zhuangzhuang, Bi Junge, Wang Chunping. Genetic Diversity Analysis and Specificity Evaluation of Main Traits of 141 Wheat Germplasm Resources at Domestic and Foreign [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(1): 26-34.
[10] Sun Mingmao, Liu Lixia, Sun Hu, Cui Di. Analysis of Anthocyanin and Important Agronomic Traits in a Population of Recombinant Inbred Lines of Rice [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 26-38.
[11] Ma Lina, Wei Yuming, Wen Lifang, Zhang Xuejian, Yang Zhao, Huang Jie, Zhang Shengchang, Li Xiaoyu, Liu Huan, Yang Farong. Analysis of Agronomic Traits and Nutritional Quality of 22 Quinoa Germplasms in Yuanmou Area of Yunnan Province [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 47-54.
[12] Sun Yuantao, Long Wenjing, Liu Tianpeng, Zhao Ganlin, Ding Guoxiang, Xiang Jianyu, Li Yuan, Huang Lei, Ni Xianlin. Combining Ability and Correlation Analysis of Main Traits of 12 Glutinous Sorghum Parents [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 84-90.
[13] Zhang Dongjie, Zhang Zhejun, Ayidingkuli·Shaheiduola , Sangtanati·Asikaer , Wumaierxiati·Tahan . Study on the Inheritance Rules of Agronomic Traits in the Progeny of Crosses between Local Species of Xinjiang Proso Millet [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(6): 97-102.
[14] Wang Shanshan, Yang Yulei, Liu Feihu, Yang Yang, Tang Kailei, Li Tao, Niu Longjiang, Du Guanghui. Effects of Concentrations and Treatment Periods of Polyazole on Inflorescence and Leaves Yield and Cannabidiol Content of Industrial Hemp [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 119-124.
[15] Li Junzhi, Wang Xiaodong, Dou Shuang, Xin Zongxu, Wu Hongsheng, Zhou Yufei, Xiao Jibing. Effects of L-Tryptophan on Growth and Development of Sorghum under Low Nitrogen Condition [J]. Crops, 2024, 40(5): 175-180.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!