Journal of Agriculture ›› 2020, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (12): 26-33.doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas20191000210
Special Issue: 小麦
Previous Articles Next Articles
Jing Jinlian1(), An Xiaodong1, Liu Lingling1, Li Shiping1(), Zheng Qinping1, Huang libo2, Mao Qiaoqiao3
Received:
2019-04-22
Revised:
2019-06-24
Online:
2020-12-20
Published:
2020-12-23
Contact:
Li Shiping
E-mail:lishiping851@163.com
CLC Number:
Jing Jinlian, An Xiaodong, Liu Lingling, Li Shiping, Zheng Qinping, Huang libo, Mao Qiaoqiao. Application Analysis of Entropy Weight Method in Regional Tests of Crops: Taking Wheat as an Example[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2020, 10(12): 26-33.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://nxxb.caass.org.cn/EN/10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas20191000210
品种名称 | 主要田间记载性状 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
越冬性 /级 | 耐春霜冻指数 | 最高分蘖/ (万/hm2) | 成穗率/ % | 白粉病 /级 | 熟相/ 级 | 成熟期 (日/月) | 株高/cm | |
烟1212 | 3.0 | 0.8773 | 1935.0 | 33.3 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 70.0 |
轮选266 | 2.0 | 0.9684 | 1182.0 | 45.7 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 73.0 |
石12-4025 | 3.0 | 0.9765 | 1410.0 | 50.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 75.0 |
淄麦29 | 3.0 | 1.0000 | 1908.0 | 32.2 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 80.0 |
福穗1号 | 2.0 | 0.9130 | 2295.0 | 25.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 9.0 | 76.0 |
邯13-4470 | 3.0 | 0.8450 | 1800.0 | 30.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 76.0 |
邯生730 | 3.0 | 0.8093 | 1620.0 | 30.6 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 75.0 |
荷麦0643-2 | 3.0 | 0.9318 | 2196.0 | 29.7 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 72.0 |
济麦44 | 4.0 | 0.8636 | 1665.0 | 34.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 75.0 |
冀麦120 | 3.0 | 0.7308 | 1638.0 | 32.5 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 80.0 |
山农1591 | 3.0 | 0.9750 | 1980.0 | 27.3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 65.0 |
婴泊700 | 3.0 | 0.9800 | 2196.0 | 24.6 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 75.0 |
济麦22 | 2.0 | 0.9818 | 1602.0 | 38.9 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 70.0 |
品种名称 | 籽粒性状 | 产量性状 | ||||||
饱满度/ 级 | 粒质/ 级 | 黑胚率/ % | 容重/ (g/L) | 有效穗数/ (万/hm2) | 穗粒数/ 粒 | 千粒质量/ g | 产量/ (kg/hm2) | |
烟1212 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 15.0 | 776.3 | 645.0 | 36.0 | 41.1 | 7083.0 |
轮选266 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 756.3 | 540.0 | 36.7 | 37.8 | 6625.5 |
石12-4025 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.9 | 747.3 | 705.0 | 33.7 | 33.7 | 6283.5 |
淄麦29 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 3.9 | 760.7 | 615.0 | 37.0 | 34.8 | 6700.5 |
福穗1号 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.2 | 724.0 | 585.0 | 30.3 | 36.4 | 6874.5 |
邯13-4470 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 19.2 | 766.0 | 540.0 | 35.3 | 44.5 | 7123.5 |
邯生730 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 745.3 | 495.0 | 33.7 | 41.4 | 7095.0 |
荷麦0643-2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 8.9 | 765.3 | 652.5 | 34.3 | 38.2 | 7080.0 |
济麦44 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.1 | 754.7 | 577.5 | 35.0 | 41.6 | 6864.0 |
冀麦120 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 712.3 | 532.5 | 35.3 | 34.3 | 5398.5 |
山农1591 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 761.3 | 540.0 | 33.0 | 35.3 | 6271.5 |
婴泊700 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 7.3 | 767.3 | 540.0 | 33.3 | 39.7 | 7363.5 |
济麦22 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 749.3 | 622.5 | 35.7 | 38.5 | 6808.5 |
品种名称 | 主要田间记载性状 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
越冬性 /级 | 耐春霜冻指数 | 最高分蘖/ (万/hm2) | 成穗率/ % | 白粉病 /级 | 熟相/ 级 | 成熟期 (日/月) | 株高/cm | |
烟1212 | 3.0 | 0.8773 | 1935.0 | 33.3 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 70.0 |
轮选266 | 2.0 | 0.9684 | 1182.0 | 45.7 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 73.0 |
石12-4025 | 3.0 | 0.9765 | 1410.0 | 50.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 75.0 |
淄麦29 | 3.0 | 1.0000 | 1908.0 | 32.2 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 80.0 |
福穗1号 | 2.0 | 0.9130 | 2295.0 | 25.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 9.0 | 76.0 |
邯13-4470 | 3.0 | 0.8450 | 1800.0 | 30.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 76.0 |
邯生730 | 3.0 | 0.8093 | 1620.0 | 30.6 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 75.0 |
荷麦0643-2 | 3.0 | 0.9318 | 2196.0 | 29.7 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 72.0 |
济麦44 | 4.0 | 0.8636 | 1665.0 | 34.7 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 75.0 |
冀麦120 | 3.0 | 0.7308 | 1638.0 | 32.5 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 80.0 |
山农1591 | 3.0 | 0.9750 | 1980.0 | 27.3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 65.0 |
婴泊700 | 3.0 | 0.9800 | 2196.0 | 24.6 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 75.0 |
济麦22 | 2.0 | 0.9818 | 1602.0 | 38.9 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 70.0 |
品种名称 | 籽粒性状 | 产量性状 | ||||||
饱满度/ 级 | 粒质/ 级 | 黑胚率/ % | 容重/ (g/L) | 有效穗数/ (万/hm2) | 穗粒数/ 粒 | 千粒质量/ g | 产量/ (kg/hm2) | |
烟1212 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 15.0 | 776.3 | 645.0 | 36.0 | 41.1 | 7083.0 |
轮选266 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 756.3 | 540.0 | 36.7 | 37.8 | 6625.5 |
石12-4025 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.9 | 747.3 | 705.0 | 33.7 | 33.7 | 6283.5 |
淄麦29 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 3.9 | 760.7 | 615.0 | 37.0 | 34.8 | 6700.5 |
福穗1号 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.2 | 724.0 | 585.0 | 30.3 | 36.4 | 6874.5 |
邯13-4470 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 19.2 | 766.0 | 540.0 | 35.3 | 44.5 | 7123.5 |
邯生730 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 745.3 | 495.0 | 33.7 | 41.4 | 7095.0 |
荷麦0643-2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 8.9 | 765.3 | 652.5 | 34.3 | 38.2 | 7080.0 |
济麦44 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 4.1 | 754.7 | 577.5 | 35.0 | 41.6 | 6864.0 |
冀麦120 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 712.3 | 532.5 | 35.3 | 34.3 | 5398.5 |
山农1591 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 761.3 | 540.0 | 33.0 | 35.3 | 6271.5 |
婴泊700 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 7.3 | 767.3 | 540.0 | 33.3 | 39.7 | 7363.5 |
济麦22 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 749.3 | 622.5 | 35.7 | 38.5 | 6808.5 |
目标层 | 准则层 | 指标层 | 权重 | 准则层 | 指标层 | 权重 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
综合表现 | 农艺性状 | 越冬性 | 0.0452 | 籽粒性状 | 饱满度 | 0.1052 |
耐春霜冻指数 | 0.0450 | 粒质 | 0.0386 | |||
最高分蘖 | 0.0816 | 黑胚率 | 0.0411 | |||
成穗率 | 0.0467 | 容重 | 0.0886 | |||
白粉病 | 0.0417 | 产量性状 | 有效穗数 | 0.0516 | ||
熟相 | 0.0460 | 穗粒数 | 0.0914 | |||
成熟期 | 0.0350 | 千粒重 | 0.0556 | |||
株高 | 0.0883 | 产量 | 0.0984 |
目标层 | 准则层 | 指标层 | 权重 | 准则层 | 指标层 | 权重 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
综合表现 | 农艺性状 | 越冬性 | 0.0452 | 籽粒性状 | 饱满度 | 0.1052 |
耐春霜冻指数 | 0.0450 | 粒质 | 0.0386 | |||
最高分蘖 | 0.0816 | 黑胚率 | 0.0411 | |||
成穗率 | 0.0467 | 容重 | 0.0886 | |||
白粉病 | 0.0417 | 产量性状 | 有效穗数 | 0.0516 | ||
熟相 | 0.0460 | 穗粒数 | 0.0914 | |||
成熟期 | 0.0350 | 千粒重 | 0.0556 | |||
株高 | 0.0883 | 产量 | 0.0984 |
品种名称 | 主要田间记载性状 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
越冬性/ 级 | 耐春霜冻 指数 | 最高分蘖 (万/hm2) | 成穗率/ % | 白粉病/ 级 | 熟相/ 级 | 成熟期/ (日/月) | 株高/ cm | |
烟1212 | 3.390 | 3.948 | 7.658 | 3.113 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 6.310 | 7.569 |
轮选266 | 4.520 | 4.358 | 5.397 | 4.267 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 6.310 | 6.812 |
石12-4025 | 3.390 | 4.394 | 6.438 | 4.670 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 6.310 | 6.307 |
淄麦29 | 3.390 | 4.500 | 7.767 | 3.011 | 3.038 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 5.046 |
福穗1号 | 4.520 | 4.109 | 6.457 | 2.381 | 3.038 | 2.760 | 3.786 | 6.055 |
邯13-4470 | 3.390 | 3.803 | 8.219 | 2.802 | 4.050 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 6.055 |
邯生730 | 3.390 | 3.642 | 7.397 | 2.854 | 2.025 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 6.307 |
荷麦0643-2 | 3.390 | 4.193 | 6.748 | 2.775 | 2.025 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 7.064 |
济麦44 | 2.260 | 3.886 | 7.603 | 3.240 | 4.050 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 6.307 |
冀麦120 | 3.390 | 3.289 | 7.479 | 3.036 | 3.038 | 0.920 | 6.310 | 5.046 |
山农1591 | 3.390 | 4.388 | 7.484 | 2.547 | 4.050 | 4.600 | 5.048 | 8.830 |
婴泊700 | 3.390 | 4.410 | 6.748 | 2.297 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 5.048 | 6.307 |
济麦22 | 4.520 | 4.418 | 7.315 | 3.629 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 6.310 | 7.569 |
品种名称 | 籽粒性状 | 产量性状 | ||||||
饱满度/ 级 | 粒质/ 级 | 黑胚率/ % | 容重/ g/L | 有效穗数/ (万/hm2) | 穗粒数/ 粒 | 千粒质量/ g | 产量/ (kg/hm2) | |
烟1212 | 10.520 | 2.316 | 3.426 | 8.860 | 4.721 | 8.893 | 5.135 | 9.465 |
轮选266 | 6.312 | 3.860 | 3.897 | 8.632 | 3.952 | 9.066 | 4.723 | 8.854 |
石12-4025 | 10.520 | 3.860 | 3.793 | 8.529 | 5.160 | 8.325 | 4.211 | 8.397 |
淄麦29 | 10.520 | 0.772 | 3.873 | 8.682 | 4.501 | 9.140 | 4.348 | 8.954 |
福穗1号 | 10.520 | 3.860 | 3.821 | 8.263 | 4.282 | 7.485 | 4.548 | 9.187 |
邯13-4470 | 8.416 | 3.860 | 3.256 | 8.742 | 3.952 | 8.720 | 5.560 | 9.519 |
邯生730 | 8.416 | 3.860 | 3.869 | 8.506 | 3.623 | 8.325 | 5.173 | 9.481 |
荷麦0643-2 | 10.520 | 3.860 | 3.672 | 8.734 | 4.776 | 8.473 | 4.773 | 9.461 |
济麦44 | 8.416 | 3.860 | 3.865 | 8.613 | 4.227 | 8.646 | 5.198 | 9.173 |
冀麦120 | 6.312 | 2.316 | 3.986 | 8.130 | 3.897 | 8.720 | 4.286 | 7.214 |
山农1591 | 6.312 | 2.316 | 3.990 | 8.689 | 3.952 | 8.152 | 4.411 | 8.381 |
婴泊700 | 10.520 | 3.860 | 3.736 | 8.757 | 3.952 | 8.226 | 4.960 | 9.840 |
济麦22 | 8.416 | 3.860 | 3.909 | 8.552 | 4.556 | 8.819 | 4.810 | 9.098 |
品种名称 | 主要田间记载性状 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
越冬性/ 级 | 耐春霜冻 指数 | 最高分蘖 (万/hm2) | 成穗率/ % | 白粉病/ 级 | 熟相/ 级 | 成熟期/ (日/月) | 株高/ cm | |
烟1212 | 3.390 | 3.948 | 7.658 | 3.113 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 6.310 | 7.569 |
轮选266 | 4.520 | 4.358 | 5.397 | 4.267 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 6.310 | 6.812 |
石12-4025 | 3.390 | 4.394 | 6.438 | 4.670 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 6.310 | 6.307 |
淄麦29 | 3.390 | 4.500 | 7.767 | 3.011 | 3.038 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 5.046 |
福穗1号 | 4.520 | 4.109 | 6.457 | 2.381 | 3.038 | 2.760 | 3.786 | 6.055 |
邯13-4470 | 3.390 | 3.803 | 8.219 | 2.802 | 4.050 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 6.055 |
邯生730 | 3.390 | 3.642 | 7.397 | 2.854 | 2.025 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 6.307 |
荷麦0643-2 | 3.390 | 4.193 | 6.748 | 2.775 | 2.025 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 7.064 |
济麦44 | 2.260 | 3.886 | 7.603 | 3.240 | 4.050 | 4.600 | 6.310 | 6.307 |
冀麦120 | 3.390 | 3.289 | 7.479 | 3.036 | 3.038 | 0.920 | 6.310 | 5.046 |
山农1591 | 3.390 | 4.388 | 7.484 | 2.547 | 4.050 | 4.600 | 5.048 | 8.830 |
婴泊700 | 3.390 | 4.410 | 6.748 | 2.297 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 5.048 | 6.307 |
济麦22 | 4.520 | 4.418 | 7.315 | 3.629 | 4.050 | 2.760 | 6.310 | 7.569 |
品种名称 | 籽粒性状 | 产量性状 | ||||||
饱满度/ 级 | 粒质/ 级 | 黑胚率/ % | 容重/ g/L | 有效穗数/ (万/hm2) | 穗粒数/ 粒 | 千粒质量/ g | 产量/ (kg/hm2) | |
烟1212 | 10.520 | 2.316 | 3.426 | 8.860 | 4.721 | 8.893 | 5.135 | 9.465 |
轮选266 | 6.312 | 3.860 | 3.897 | 8.632 | 3.952 | 9.066 | 4.723 | 8.854 |
石12-4025 | 10.520 | 3.860 | 3.793 | 8.529 | 5.160 | 8.325 | 4.211 | 8.397 |
淄麦29 | 10.520 | 0.772 | 3.873 | 8.682 | 4.501 | 9.140 | 4.348 | 8.954 |
福穗1号 | 10.520 | 3.860 | 3.821 | 8.263 | 4.282 | 7.485 | 4.548 | 9.187 |
邯13-4470 | 8.416 | 3.860 | 3.256 | 8.742 | 3.952 | 8.720 | 5.560 | 9.519 |
邯生730 | 8.416 | 3.860 | 3.869 | 8.506 | 3.623 | 8.325 | 5.173 | 9.481 |
荷麦0643-2 | 10.520 | 3.860 | 3.672 | 8.734 | 4.776 | 8.473 | 4.773 | 9.461 |
济麦44 | 8.416 | 3.860 | 3.865 | 8.613 | 4.227 | 8.646 | 5.198 | 9.173 |
冀麦120 | 6.312 | 2.316 | 3.986 | 8.130 | 3.897 | 8.720 | 4.286 | 7.214 |
山农1591 | 6.312 | 2.316 | 3.990 | 8.689 | 3.952 | 8.152 | 4.411 | 8.381 |
婴泊700 | 10.520 | 3.860 | 3.736 | 8.757 | 3.952 | 8.226 | 4.960 | 9.840 |
济麦22 | 8.416 | 3.860 | 3.909 | 8.552 | 4.556 | 8.819 | 4.810 | 9.098 |
品种名称 | 田间记载性状 | 籽粒性状 | 产量性状 | 总分数值 |
---|---|---|---|---|
烟1212 | 38.8 | 25.1 | 28.2 | 92.1 |
轮选266 | 38.5 | 22.7 | 26.6 | 87.8 |
石12-4025 | 38.3 | 26.7 | 26.1 | 91.1 |
淄麦29 | 37.7 | 23.8 | 26.9 | 88.5 |
福穗1号 | 33.1 | 26.5 | 25.5 | 85.1 |
邯13-4470 | 39.2 | 24.3 | 27.8 | 91.3 |
邯生730 | 37.5 | 24.7 | 26.6 | 87.8 |
荷麦0643-2 | 37.1 | 26.8 | 27.5 | 91.4 |
济麦44 | 38.3 | 24.8 | 27.2 | 90.3 |
冀麦120 | 32.5 | 20.7 | 24.1 | 77.4 |
山农1591 | 40.3 | 21.3 | 24.9 | 86.5 |
婴泊700 | 35.0 | 26.9 | 27.0 | 88.9 |
济麦22 | 40.6 | 24.7 | 27.3 | 92.6 |
品种名称 | 田间记载性状 | 籽粒性状 | 产量性状 | 总分数值 |
---|---|---|---|---|
烟1212 | 38.8 | 25.1 | 28.2 | 92.1 |
轮选266 | 38.5 | 22.7 | 26.6 | 87.8 |
石12-4025 | 38.3 | 26.7 | 26.1 | 91.1 |
淄麦29 | 37.7 | 23.8 | 26.9 | 88.5 |
福穗1号 | 33.1 | 26.5 | 25.5 | 85.1 |
邯13-4470 | 39.2 | 24.3 | 27.8 | 91.3 |
邯生730 | 37.5 | 24.7 | 26.6 | 87.8 |
荷麦0643-2 | 37.1 | 26.8 | 27.5 | 91.4 |
济麦44 | 38.3 | 24.8 | 27.2 | 90.3 |
冀麦120 | 32.5 | 20.7 | 24.1 | 77.4 |
山农1591 | 40.3 | 21.3 | 24.9 | 86.5 |
婴泊700 | 35.0 | 26.9 | 27.0 | 88.9 |
济麦22 | 40.6 | 24.7 | 27.3 | 92.6 |
品种(系) | 烟1212 | 轮选266 | 石12-4025 | 淄麦29 | 福穗1号 | 邯13-4470 | 邯生730 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
性状表现总分数值 | 92.1 | 87.8 | 91.1 | 88.5 | 85.1 | 91.3 | 87.8 |
产量转换值 | 93.1 | 87.1 | 82.6 | 88.0 | 90.3 | 93.6 | 93.2 |
品种(系) | 荷麦0643-2 | 济麦44 | 冀麦120 | 山农1591 | 婴泊700 | 济麦22 | |
性状表现总分数值 | 91.4 | 90.3 | 77.4 | 86.5 | 88.9 | 92.6 | |
产量转换值 | 93.0 | 90.2 | 70.9 | 82.4 | 96.7 | 89.5 |
品种(系) | 烟1212 | 轮选266 | 石12-4025 | 淄麦29 | 福穗1号 | 邯13-4470 | 邯生730 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
性状表现总分数值 | 92.1 | 87.8 | 91.1 | 88.5 | 85.1 | 91.3 | 87.8 |
产量转换值 | 93.1 | 87.1 | 82.6 | 88.0 | 90.3 | 93.6 | 93.2 |
品种(系) | 荷麦0643-2 | 济麦44 | 冀麦120 | 山农1591 | 婴泊700 | 济麦22 | |
性状表现总分数值 | 91.4 | 90.3 | 77.4 | 86.5 | 88.9 | 92.6 | |
产量转换值 | 93.0 | 90.2 | 70.9 | 82.4 | 96.7 | 89.5 |
[1] | 徐静斐. 品种稳定性参数的估算方法及其在品种区试中的应用[J]. 江苏农业科学, 1982(9). |
[2] | 温振民. 用高稳系数法估算玉米杂交种高产稳产性的探讨[J]. 作物学报, 1994,20(4):20. |
[3] | 张增善, 刘志生. 应用高稳系数法分析小麦新品种的高产稳产性[J]. 麦类作物, 1998,18(2):21-23. |
[4] | 李世平, 张哲夫, 安林利, 等. 品种稳定性参数和高稳系数在小麦区试的应用及其分析[J]. 华北农学报, 2000,15(3):10-15. |
[5] | 陈贤, 杨荣萍, 赵雁, 等. 运用层次分析法和排序法综合评价番茄果实的商品性[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2008,36(6):135-1378. |
[6] | 冯端, 冯步云. 熵[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1992:56-62. |
[7] | 郭亚军. 综合评判理论、方法和应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007:82-83. |
[8] | 秦寿康. 综合评价原理与应用[M]. 北京: 电子工业出版社, 2003:56-59. |
[9] | 林同智, 唐国强, 罗盛锋, 等. 基于改进熵值赋权法和TOPSIS模型的综合评价应用[J]. 桂林理工大学学报, 2015(3):622-627. |
[10] | 马菊红. 应用熵值法对工业经济效益综合评价的研究[J]. 商业研究, 2006,22(20):64-66. |
[11] | 刘行军, 陈维玉. 应用Topsis法综合评价食品卫生监督工作质量[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2005,22(2):97-98. |
[12] | 胡小飞. 珠江三角洲土地整治效益综合评价[D]. 广州:华南农业大学, 2010,62-64. |
[13] | 陈炼, 李淦. 基于改进熵权TOPSIS法的江西省土地利用效益综合评价[J]. 江西农业学报 2013(09):115-119. |
[14] | 陈仲常, 杨琳. 熵权模糊综合评判法在人口综合发展评价模型中的应用[J]. 统计与信息论坛, 2008,23(12):26-30. |
[15] | 陈贤, 赵雁, 龚元圣. 熵权法在番茄果实商品性状评价上的应用分析[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2008,47(11)1294-1296. |
[16] | 陈贤, 池涛, 杨德. AHP法在番茄果实评价上的应用分析[J]. 西北农业学报, 2008,21(2):432-435. |
[17] | 陈贤, 吴兴恩, 杨德, 等. 主成分权重法在番茄果实商品性综合评价上的应用[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2008,33(4):49-52. |
[18] | 周忠军, 张尊沛, 张浩 等. 基于熵权的多目标关联分析及其作物区试综合评估方法与应用[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009,21. |
[19] | 刘军. 基于熵权和TOPSIS集成的农作物综合评价[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2010,38(12):6078-6079. |
[20] | 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. |
[21] | 杨茂, 宋伟. 基于熵权法的河南粮食生产方式转变指标权重研究. 河南农业大学学报, 2013,47(5):629-632. |
[22] | 谢小丹, 陈顺辉, 潘建箐, 等. 烤烟新品种的模糊综合评判和灰色关联分析[J]. 福建农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2002,31(2):160-163. |
[23] | 姚旻辰. 经济发达地区土地行政管理绩效评价研究—以无锡市为例[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2011,43-45. |
[1] | LIN Tuanrong, WANG Yufeng, WANG Zhen, FAN Longqiu, ZHANG Zhicheng, WANG Wei, HUANG Wenjuan, JIAO Xinlei, WANG Yiqian, XING Jin, YIN Yuhe. Regional Trials of Mid-Late Maturing Potato Varieties in the North China Group 2019-2020 [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 16-21. |
[2] | ZHANG Xitai, XIAO Lei, DONG Ce, XIE Shuqin, LIN Guifen. Wild Wheat Seedlings in Field: The Determination of Pre-harvest Sprouting Resistance and Genetic Analysis [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 35-42. |
[3] | NIU Liya, YU Liang, ZHANG Yujie, ZOU Jingwei, LU Li, WANG Fengzhi, WANG Weiwei. Correlation Degree Between Water Stress and Wheat Yield Traits and Grain Bulk Density [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(8): 6-9. |
[4] | SUN Bin, ZHANG Jiajia, SONG Yujiao, HAI Fei, WANG Lei. 5% Prohexadione Calcium EA: Effects on Lodging Resistance, Yield and Its Related Factors of Wheat [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 14-17. |
[5] | SUN Qin, XU Xuexin, DENG Xiao, ZHU Zixin, ZHANG Yulu, GAO Guolong, GAI Hongmei, ZHAO Changxing. Effects of Salt Stress on Fluorescence Characteristics of Wheat Seedlings and Comprehensive Evaluation [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 5-13. |
[6] | ZHU Xiaoling. Current Status, Problems and Countermeasures of Cultivated Land Rotation and Fallow Subsidy [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 85-89. |
[7] | ZHANG Haiyan, XU Li, YANG Aiguo, ZHANG Yingui, DONG Fei, XU Jianhong. Efficacy of Cyanene·pentazolol Application Methods on Controlling Wheat Scab and DON Toxin [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(5): 1-5. |
[8] | MA Ye, YANG Jinwen, LI Ning, FAN Lijian, SHI Yugang. Synergistic Initiation Effect of Hydrogen Peroxide and PEG on Wheat Seed Vigor [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(4): 6-12. |
[9] | SUN Yingying, WANG Chao, WANG Ruixia, MU Qiuhuan, MI Yong, LV Guangde, QI Xiaolei, SUN Xianyin, CHEN Yongjun, QIAN Zhaoguo, WU Ke. Wheat Lodging: Cause and Mechanism and Its Effect on Wheat Yield and Quality [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 1-5. |
[10] | GAO Runqing, GAO Yue, HUANG Aibin, DAN Zhenrong, ZHENG Fenyan, WANG Ting, DU Jianjun, REN Qinqin, AI Rong, GAO Lirong. Wild Relatives of Common Buckwheat: Observation and Utilization [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 11-16. |
[11] | DENG Jianwei, JIN Yanzhao. The Optimized Sequence of Leading Crops in Shiyang River Basin Based on Comprehensive Benefits [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 35-39. |
[12] | AN Li, ZHANG Zhishan, MENG Qinglei, DONG Xuesa, ZHU Shuren, ZHU Yong’an. Morphological Characteristics and Parameters of 1-year-old Micropterus salmoides [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 59-64. |
[13] | LI Guoqing, LI Guoyu, CONG Xinjun, LI Ni. Intermission Seeding Under Millet and Peanut Intercropping: Effects on the Agronomic Traits and Yield of Millet [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 6-10. |
[14] | TIAN Ze, XIAO Qianqian, DING Xuhui. Coupling Coordination Degree of Population Urbanization and Land Urbanization in the Yangtze River Economic Belt [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(3): 79-85. |
[15] | WANG Gaige, REN Ning, WANG Yang, YE Youliang, HUANG Yufang. Winter Wheat in Henan Province: An Evaluation of Fertilization Status and Yield Increase Potential in 2014—2018 [J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(2): 8-15. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||