南瓜果实品质评价的指标筛选与模型构建

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250508

浙江农业学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (2): 248-257.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20250508

南瓜果实品质评价的指标筛选与模型构建

刘静¹(), 王尖², 黄钰¹, 吴晓花², 郭轩赫¹, 汪颖², 李国景², 许小江¹^,^*()

1.绍兴市农业科学研究院, 浙江绍兴 312003
2.浙江省农业科学院蔬菜研究所, 浙江杭州 310021

收稿日期:2025-07-25 出版日期:2026-02-25 发布日期:2026-03-24
作者简介:刘静,研究方向为葫芦科蔬菜育种。E-mail:172547603@qq.com
通讯作者: ^*许小江,E-mail:13858539612@163.com
基金资助:
浙江省农业科学院院地合作项目(ZJTY2024-A-58);绍兴市科技计划项目(2023A12001);浙江省农业(蔬菜)新品种选育重大科技专项(2021C02065-2-3)

Indicator screening and model development for evaluating pumpkin fruit quality

LIU Jing¹(), WANG Jian², HUANG Yu¹, WU Xiaohua², GUO Xuanhe¹, WANG Ying², LI Guojing², XU Xiaojiang¹^,^*()

1. Shaoxing Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shaoxing 312003, Zhejiang, China
2. Institute of Vegetables, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China

Received:2025-07-25 Online:2026-02-25 Published:2026-03-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为构建南瓜果实品质综合评价模型,本研究以51份中国南瓜(Cucurbita moschata)和95份印度南瓜(Cucurbita maxima)为材料,测定其11项果实品质指标,综合运用相关分析、因子分析与聚类分析方法,结合公因子二维分布图,建立南瓜果实品质评价模型。结果表明,中国南瓜的含水量、纤维素含量、可溶性糖含量、β-胡萝卜素含量和甜度均显著高于印度南瓜;印度南瓜的淀粉含量、直链淀粉含量、黏度、干湿度和纤维感均极显著高于中国南瓜。11项品质指标的变异系数范围为9.00%~69.04%,其中含水量变异系数最小,可溶性糖含量变异系数最大。通过因子分析提取出5个公因子,累计方差贡献率为90.27%;第一公因子(F₁)的方差贡献率最高(34.60%),主要关联含水量、可溶性糖含量、淀粉含量和直链淀粉含量。基于此构建南瓜果实品质评价模型:Y=0.383 2F₁+0.263 2F₂+0.132 1F₃+0.127 5F₄+0.094 0F₅。通过相关分析与聚类分析,进一步将11项品质指标简化为淀粉含量、纤维感和可溶性糖含量3个代表性指标。F₁与第二公因子(F₂)的散点图显示,模型预测值与实际测定值高度一致。本研究建立的评价模型可为南瓜果实品质评价提供方法依据,对高品质南瓜品种选育具有参考价值。

关键词: 南瓜, 果实, 品质, 因子分析, 聚类分析, 综合评价

Abstract:

To establish a comprehensive evaluation model for pumpkin fruit quality, 51 accessions of Cucurbita moschata and 95 accessions of Cucurbita maxima were used as materials. Eleven fruit quality indicators were measured, and correlation analysis, factor analysis, cluster analysis, and two-dimensional factor ordination were applied to construct the evaluation model. The results indicated that moisture content, cellulose, soluble sugar, β-carotene content, and sweetness of C. moschata were significantly higher than those in C. maxima. In contrast, starch content, amylose content, viscosity, dryness/wetness, and fibrous texture in C. maxima were significantly higher than those in C. moschata. The coefficients of variation for the 11 fruit quality indicators ranged from 9.00% to 69.04%. Moisture content showed the smallest coefficient of variation, while soluble sugar content exhibited the largest. Factor analysis extracted five common factors, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 90.27%. The first common factor (F₁) had the highest variance contribution rate (34.60%) and was primarily associated with moisture content, soluble sugar content, starch content, and amylose content. Based on this, an evaluation model for pumpkin fruit quality was established: Y=0.383 2F₁+0.263 2F₂+0.132 1F₃+0.127 5F₄+0.094 0F₅. Furthermore, correlation analysis and cluster analysis simplified the eleven original quality indicators into three representative indicators: starch content, fibrous texture, and soluble sugar content. The scatter distribution of F₁ and the second common factor (F₂) confirmed high consistency between model-predicted values and actual measured values. The evaluation model developed in this study provides a methodological basis for pumpkin fruit quality assessment and serves as a reference for breeding high-quality pumpkin varieties.

Key words: pumpkin, fruit, quality, factor analysis, cluster analysis, comprehensive quality evaluation

中图分类号:

S642.1

刘静, 王尖, 黄钰, 吴晓花, 郭轩赫, 汪颖, 李国景, 许小江. 南瓜果实品质评价的指标筛选与模型构建[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(2): 248-257.

LIU Jing, WANG Jian, HUANG Yu, WU Xiaohua, GUO Xuanhe, WANG Ying, LI Guojing, XU Xiaojiang. Indicator screening and model development for evaluating pumpkin fruit quality[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2026, 38(2): 248-257.

图/表 7

参考文献 23

[1]	黄峰华, 李晓晨, 王敏, 等. 中国南瓜产业优势及贸易竞争力分析[J]. 农业展望, 2023, 19(11): 87-94.
	HUANG F H, LI X C, WANG M, et al. Analysis on China’s industry advantages and trade competitiveness of pumpkin[J]. Agricultural Outlook, 2023, 19(11): 87-94.
[2]	李俊星, 钟玉娟, 罗文龙, 等. 广东南瓜的品种改良及发展[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2019, 32(2): 50-52.
	LI J X, ZHONG Y J, LUO W L, et al. Variety improvement and development of pumpkin in Guangdong[J]. China Cucurbits and Vegetables, 2019, 32(2): 50-52.
[3]	熊建华, 罗秋水, 闵嗣璠, 等. 蜜本南瓜不同部位营养成分分析与评价[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2009, 48(9): 2239-2241.
	XIONG J H, LUO Q S, MIN S F, et al. Analysis and evaluation on the nutritional components in different parts of Miben pumpkin[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2009, 48(9): 2239-2241.
[4]	任广乾, 杨世康, 卞世杰, 等. 基于相关性和主成分分析评价南瓜的营养品质[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2023, 36(6): 37-42.
	REN G Q, YANG S K, BIAN S J, et al. Evaluation of pumpkin nutrient quality based on correlation and principal component analysis[J]. China Cucurbits and Vegetables, 2023, 36(6): 37-42.
[5]	杨宏, 李跃建, 王长林, 等. 南瓜口感评价与营养成分的相关性和回归分析[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2016(11): 25-32.
	YANG H, LI Y J, WANG C L, et al. Correlation and regression analysis of pumpkin taste evaluation and nutritional components[J]. China Vegetables, 2016(11): 25-32.
[6]	闫春冬, 王云莉, 田金丽, 等. 肉用印度南瓜营养品质的简易鉴定方法[J]. 北方园艺, 2018(21): 76-80.
	YAN C D, WANG Y L, TIAN J L, et al. A simple method for identifying nutritional quality of Indian pumpkin[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2018(21): 76-80.
[7]	鲍江峰, 夏仁学, 邓秀新, 等. 用主成分分析法选择纽荷尔脐橙品质的评价因素[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2004, 23(6): 663-666.
	BAO J F, XIA R X, DENG X X, et al. The quality evaluation factors selection of Newhall orange by the principal component analysis[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2004, 23(6): 663-666.
[8]	张海英, 韩涛, 王有年, 等. 桃果实品质评价因子的选择[J]. 农业工程学报, 2006, 22(8): 235-239.
	ZHANG H Y, HAN T, WANG Y N, et al. Selection of factors for evaluating peach(Prunus persica) fruit quality[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2006, 22(8): 235-239.
[9]	张淑文, 梁森苗, 郑锡良, 等. 杨梅优株果实品质的主成分分析及综合评价[J]. 果树学报, 2018, 35(8): 977-986.
	ZHANG S W, LIANG S M, ZHENG X L, et al. Principal component analysis and comprehensive evaluation of fruit quality in some advanced selections of Chinese bayberry[J]. Journal of Fruit Science, 2018, 35(8): 977-986.
[10]	徐强, 刘进生, 陈学好, 等. 加工类型黄瓜品质性状的主成分及聚类分析[J]. 扬州大学学报, 2003, 24(4): 78-81.
	XU Q, LIU J S, CHEN X H, et al. Principal component and cluster analysis of quality characters of pickling cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)[J]. Journal of Yangzhou University, 2003, 24(4): 78-81.
[11]	王佳豪, 段雅倩, 乜兰春, 等. ‘羊角脆’类甜瓜果实品质因子分析及综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019, 52(24): 4582-4591.
	WANG J H, DUAN Y Q, NIE L C, et al. Factor analysis and comprehensive evaluation of the fruit quality of ‘Yangjiaocui’ melons[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(24): 4582-4591.
[12]	汪颖, 王尖, 冯子珊, 等. 瓠瓜果实品质性状因子分析和综合评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(2): 334-343.
	WANG Y, WANG J, FENG Z S, et al. Factor analysis and comprehensive evaluation of the fruit quality of bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria)[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(2): 334-343.
[13]	尹玲, 王长林, 王迎杰, 等. 南瓜的感官品质、质构及生化分析[J]. 食品科学, 2013, 34(5): 26-30.
	YIN L, WANG C L, WANG Y J, et al. Sensory quality, texture and chemical composition analysis of pumpkin[J]. Food Science, 2013, 34(5): 26-30.
[14]	高俊凤. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006.
[15]	刘襄河, 郑丽璇, 郑丽勉, 等. 双波长法测定常用淀粉原料中直链淀粉、支链淀粉及总淀粉含量[J]. 广东农业科学, 2013, 40(18): 97-100.
	LIU X H, ZHENG L X, ZHENG L M, et al. Determination of amylose and amylopectin in the commonly used starch materials by dual-wavelength spectrophotometry[J]. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 40(18): 97-100.
[16]	吴明隆. SPSS统计应用实务[M]. 北京: 中国铁道出版社, 2000.
[17]	公丽艳, 孟宪军, 刘乃侨, 等. 基于主成分与聚类分析的苹果加工品质评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2014, 30(13): 276-285.
	GONG L Y, MENG X J, LIU N Q, et al. Evaluation of apple quality based on principal component and hierarchical cluster analysis[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2014, 30(13): 276-285.
[18]	杨鹏鸣, 李桂荣, 李孝伟, 等. 南瓜主要营养品质性状的变异及相关性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2006, 22(2): 285-288.
	YANG P M, LI G R, LI X W, et al. Investigation on variation and correlation of pumpkin’s main quality traits[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2006, 22(2): 285-288.
[19]	JUDITH M T, EMMANUEL Y, BALOGOUN I, et al. Agromorphological, chemical and biochemical characterization of pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima and Cucurbita moschata, Cucurbitaceae) morphotypes cultivated in Cameroon[J]. Research in Plant Sciences, 2015, 3(1): 12-17.
[20]	KISTLER L, NEWSOM L A, RYAN T M, et al. Gourds and squashes (Cucurbita spp.) adapted to megafaunal extinction and ecological anachronism through domestication[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015, 112(49): 15107-15112.
[21]	XU Y C, WANG M M, ABBAS H M K, et al. Comparing the differences in quality profiles and antioxidant activity in seven pumpkin cultivars (Cucurbita moschata and Cucurbita maxima) at harvest and during postharvest storage[J]. Food Chemistry: X, 2024, 22: 101383.
[22]	任晓婧. 印度南瓜淀粉和可溶性固形物含量性状的QTL定位分析[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2021.
	REN X J. QTL Mapping and analysis of starch and soluble solid content traits in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima Duch.)[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2021.
[23]	褚盼盼, 向长萍. 中国南瓜营养品质的变化规律和相关性[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2007(12): 15-19.
	CHU P P, XIANG C P. Changes and correlation of nutritional quality of pumpkin in China[J]. China Vegetables, 2007(12): 15-19.

感官指标 Sensory indicator	评分范围Score range
感官指标 Sensory indicator	0~2	3~5	6~7
柔软度Softness	柔软Soft	较硬Relative hard	非常硬Very hard
黏度Viscosity	很黏Very viscous	黏性一般Viscous	不黏Not viscous
干湿度Dryness/wetness	口感干燥Dry taste	口感较为潮湿Wet taste	口感湿润潮湿Very wet taste
纤维感Fibrous texture	光滑、无纤维感Smooth, no fibrous feeling	中度纤维感Moderate fibrous feeling	纤维感强Strong fibrous feeling
甜度Sweetness	无甜味Not sweet	较甜Sweet	非常甜Very sweet

感官指标 Sensory indicator	评分范围Score range
感官指标 Sensory indicator	0~2	3~5	6~7
柔软度Softness	柔软Soft	较硬Relative hard	非常硬Very hard
黏度Viscosity	很黏Very viscous	黏性一般Viscous	不黏Not viscous
干湿度Dryness/wetness	口感干燥Dry taste	口感较为潮湿Wet taste	口感湿润潮湿Very wet taste
纤维感Fibrous texture	光滑、无纤维感Smooth, no fibrous feeling	中度纤维感Moderate fibrous feeling	纤维感强Strong fibrous feeling
甜度Sweetness	无甜味Not sweet	较甜Sweet	非常甜Very sweet

栽培种 Cultivar	含水量/% Moisture content/%	纤维素含量/ (mg·g^-1) Cellulose content/ (mg·g^-1)	可溶性糖含量/ (mg·g^-1) Soluble sugar content/ (mg·g^-1)	淀粉含量/ (mg·g^-1) Starch content/ (mg·g^-1)	直链淀粉含量/ (mg·g^-1) Amylose content/ (mg·g^-1)	β-胡萝卜素含量/ (μg·g^-1) β-Carotene content/ (μg·g^-1)	柔软度 Softness	黏度 Viscosity	干湿度 Dryness/ wetness	纤维感 Fibrous texture	甜度 Sweetness
印度南瓜	79.43	3.41	9.83	57.66	11.62	27.10	5.00	4.35	4.81	4.91	3.32
Cucurbita maxima
中国南瓜	89.54^***	5.03^***	26.57^***	22.84^***	5.86^***	43.49^***	5.13^ns	3.41^**	3.65^***	3.47^***	3.79^*
Cucurbita moschata

栽培种 Cultivar	含水量/% Moisture content/%	纤维素含量/ (mg·g^-1) Cellulose content/ (mg·g^-1)	可溶性糖含量/ (mg·g^-1) Soluble sugar content/ (mg·g^-1)	淀粉含量/ (mg·g^-1) Starch content/ (mg·g^-1)	直链淀粉含量/ (mg·g^-1) Amylose content/ (mg·g^-1)	β-胡萝卜素含量/ (μg·g^-1) β-Carotene content/ (μg·g^-1)	柔软度 Softness	黏度 Viscosity	干湿度 Dryness/ wetness	纤维感 Fibrous texture	甜度 Sweetness
印度南瓜	79.43	3.41	9.83	57.66	11.62	27.10	5.00	4.35	4.81	4.91	3.32
Cucurbita maxima
中国南瓜	89.54^***	5.03^***	26.57^***	22.84^***	5.86^***	43.49^***	5.13^ns	3.41^**	3.65^***	3.47^***	3.79^*
Cucurbita moschata

指标 Quality indicators	平均值 Average	最大值 Maximum	最小值 Minimum	标准差 Standard deviation	变异系数 Coefficient of variation/%
含水量/%Moisture content/%	82.92	97.54	68.53	7.46	9.00
纤维素含量/(mg·g^-1)Cellulose content/(mg·g^-1)	3.97	14.12	1.72	1.81	45.59
可溶性糖含量/(mg·g^-1)Soluble sugar content/(mg·g^-1)	15.60	43.12	1.83	10.77	69.04
淀粉含量/(mg·g^-1)Starch content/(mg·g^-1)	45.65	84.00	3.23	23.96	52.49
直链淀粉含量/(mg·g^-1)Amylose content/(mg·g^-1)	9.64	22.03	0.77	5.22	54.18
β-胡萝卜素含量/(μg·g^-1) β-Carotene content/(μg·g^-1)	32.75	64.98	13.97	12.61	38.49
柔软度Softness	5.34	6.80	2.80	0.95	17.80
黏度Viscosity	4.04	7.00	0.60	1.48	36.64
干湿度Dryness/wetness	4.01	7.20	0.70	1.43	35.66
纤维感Fibrous texture	4.53	7.06	1.20	1.34	29.59
甜度Sweetness	3.41	6.40	0.08	1.33	38.84

南瓜果实品质评价的指标筛选与模型构建

Indicator screening and model development for evaluating pumpkin fruit quality

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 23

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

指标Indicators	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅
含水量Moisture content	-0.808 6	-0.333 9	0.238 9	0.048 7	0.302 2
纤维素含量Cellulose content	-0.488 6	-0.297 4	0.158 3	-0.063 8	0.769 6
可溶性糖含量Soluble sugar content	-0.850 3	-0.088 4	0.319 6	-0.049 4	-0.034 3
淀粉含量Starch content	0.886 7	0.230 5	-0.198 9	0.067 5	-0.270 9
直链淀粉含量Amylose content	0.889 8	0.203 6	-0.023 1	-0.019 1	-0.166 6
β-胡萝卜素含量β-Carotene content	-0.266 1	-0.100 4	0.931 2	-0.012 7	0.100 4
柔软度Softness	-0.019 5	0.211 8	-0.019 8	0.964 6	-0.030 9
黏度Viscosity	0.389 0	0.724 7	-0.188 4	0.407 8	-0.166 5
干湿度Dryness/wetness	0.454 6	0.837 2	-0.103 7	-0.097 8	0.006 1
纤维感Fibrous texture	0.427 1	0.616 3	-0.414 7	0.236 6	-0.092 6
甜度Sweetness	-0.049 9	0.805 3	0.046 5	0.298 5	-0.315 6

[1]	张悦, 王镜然, 周强, 陈美玲, 王颜红. 外源喷施叶酸对稻米叶酸含量及品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(2): 197-205.
[2]	欧阳宇, 刘朔, 李萌民, 张鹏. 轻量化改进的苹果园果实识别模型CS_YOLOv7[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(2): 383-396.
[3]	何苏悦, 李燕, 丁云倩, 李欣泽, 韩庆辉, 陈小央. 基于SSR标记的浙江省地方玉米种质遗传关系分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(1): 24-34.
[4]	王璐瑶, 周湘怡, 王国荣, 陈梦丽, 吴慧明. 爪哇虫草菌ZN-S21的培养特征及其对南亚果实蝇的室内杀虫活性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2026, 38(1): 95-104.
[5]	许卫猛, 徐妍, 陈国立. 基于多种分析方法的糯玉米品质综合评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(9): 1840-1848.
[6]	朱为静, 吴佳, 洪春来, 朱凤香, 洪磊东, 张涛, 张硕, 诸惠芬. 秸秆覆盖对土壤水热肥及蟠桃产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(9): 1924-1932.
[7]	贺世雄, 杨蕾, 齐安民, 程籍, 王敏, 李英奎, 洪林. 中间砧对3种杂柑叶片光合特性、理化指标和果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(8): 1680-1693.
[8]	张顺昌, 徐继根, 符成悦, 蒲占湑, 胡丽鹏, 吴昊, 李俊兵, 辛亮, 雷元军. 喷施氨基酸钙对红美人杂柑果皮龟裂与品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(8): 1706-1715.
[9]	严福林, 郎云虎, 简应权, 陈雄飞, 魏巍, 王志威, 安江勇, 任得强, 丁宁, 魏升华. 八爪金龙药材产量与品质对土壤理化性状的响应[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(8): 1766-1775.
[10]	王呈阳, 刘洁雅, 吴敏怡, 谢博伊, 洪德成, 冷锋, 吴国泉. 钙处理对涝害下寒香蜜葡萄果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(7): 1451-1458.
[11]	张若楠, 门小明, 秦凯鹏, 王彬彬, 吴杰, 丁向彬, 徐子伟, 齐珂珂. 绿嘉黑猪的不同杂交组合生长性能、胴体品质、产肉性能和收益比较研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1203-1211.
[12]	陶鹏, 丁小雅, 岳智臣, 赵彦婷, 雷娟利, 胡齐赞, 臧运祥, 李必元. 南瓜果胶含量的全基因组关联分析与候选基因预测[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1244-1251.
[13]	项缨, 丛建民, 潘丹红, 陶永刚. 春大棚有机种植不同品种番茄的生育进程分析和综合评价研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1252-1261.
[14]	刘文琦, 胡齐赞, 岳智臣, 陶鹏, 雷娟利, 李必元, 赵彦婷, 王华森. 夏季高温对叶用芥菜外观与营养品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1262-1271.
[15]	张程程, 范涛, 章检明, 赵风亮, 忻晓庭, 牛海月, 刘大群. 缙云梅干菜腌制过程中细菌群落与品质的变化[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2025, 37(6): 1336-1343.