| 应用综合赋权法评价植烟土壤肥力 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 褚旭,李雨,杜坚,魏建荣,张建强,杨康,胡钟胜,汤洋,何亚浩.应用综合赋权法评价植烟土壤肥力[J].中国烟草学报,2019,25(4):42-49. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 褚旭 李雨 杜坚 魏建荣 张建强 杨康 胡钟胜 汤洋 何亚浩 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 江苏中烟工业有限责任公司, 南京市建邺区梦都大街30号 210019 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 江苏中烟工业有限责任公司科技项目“提高贵州基地烟叶在苏产细支卷烟配方的适用性研究”合同号Y040201815 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的 在植烟土壤肥力评价中探索更加合理的指标赋权方法。 方法 以江苏中烟云南12个基地单元的土壤样本为研究对象，采用单一和综合赋权法评价土壤肥力综合状况，并对赋权及评价结果进行对比分析。 结果 （1）土壤肥力指标中土壤pH、有机质、水溶性氯及 < 0.01 mm物理性粘粒含量分别达到6.31、3.4%、30.64 mg/kg和58.69%，含量适宜。速效磷、速效钾为28.76 mg/kg和184.15 mg/kg，含量适中，碱解氮达121.6 mg/kg，含量较高。不同有效微量元素含量高低不均；（2）单一赋权法中权重系数最大的分别是土壤pH指标0.159（层次分析法），速效钾指标0.088（标准差法），有效钼指标0.168（熵值法），方差平均值（Rmean2）为5.25；（3）综合赋权法中权重系数最大和最小的均为土壤pH指标和有效硼指标，权重系数分别为0.105、0.051，0.098、0.059，0.103、0.052，Rmean2为0.28；（4）3种综合赋权法中，基于离差平方和的综合赋权法评价得分差距更大，基于博弈论的综合赋权法评价结果间相关性更好，基于单位化约束的综合赋权法评价得分更高。 结论 3种综合赋权法较之单一赋权法计算得到的权重差异更小，评价结果收敛性更好，能够在植烟土壤的肥力评价中更加合理的对不同肥力指标进行赋权。
|
| 关 键 词： | 烤烟 土壤肥力状况 单一赋权法 综合赋权法 |
| 收稿时间： | 2018-12-07 |
Evaluating fertility of tobacco growing soil by comprehensive weighting method |
| |
| Affiliation: | China Tobacco Jiangsu Industrial Co., Ltd., Nanjing 210019, China |
| |
| Abstract: | In order to explore a more reasonable index weighting method in evaluation of fertility status of tobacco growing soil, soil samples from 12 leaf production base units of China Tobacco Jiangsu Industrial Co., Ltd. were collected. These soil samples were evaluated by single weighing method and comprehensive weighting method, respectively. Evaluation and weighing results were compared. Results showed that: (1) Soil pH, organic matter content, water-soluble chlorine content and content of physical clay < 0.01 mm were 6.31, 3.4%, 30.64 mg/kg and 58.69%, respectively, which were suitable. The contents of available phosphorus and potassium were moderate, which were 28.76 mg/kg and 184.15 mg/kg, respectively. The content of alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen reached 121.6 mg/kg, which was a high level. The contents of different effective trace elements were signifcantly different. (2) The highest weighting coefficients in three single weighting methods were 0.159 for soil pH index in AHP, 0.088 for available potassium index in standard deviation method and 0.168 for effective molybdenum index in entropy method. R2 mean for single weighting method was 5.25. (3) The maximum and minimum weight coefficients in the comprehensive weighting method were soil pH index (0.105, 0.098 and 0.103) and effective boron index (0.051, 0.059 and 0.052). R2 mean for comprehensive weighting method was 0.28. (4) The comprehensive weighting method based on the sum of deviation squares revealed larger gaps among evaluation scores, and the comprehensive weighting method based on game theory had better correlations among evaluation results, while the comprehensive weighting method based on unit constraints had higher evaluation scores. The weights calculated by three comprehensive weighting methods were slightly different, and the evaluation and ranking results were generally better than those of single weighting methods. Comprehensive weighting method was more consistent and reasonable, which was suitable for the evaluation of fertility index of tobacco growing soil. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《中国烟草学报》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《中国烟草学报》下载全文 |
|
