Effects of Different Microbial Agents on Tobacco Growth and Control of

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0856

Abstract

Abstract:

To screen out the biocontrol functional microbial agent with good control effect on " Two Black and One Green " (tobacco black shank, root black rot and bacterial wilt) of Shuangjiang tobacco and to provide technical support for the green production of Shuangjiang flue-cured tobacco in Lincang with consideration of the production status, a plot experiment was conducted. The effects of different microbial agents on the growth of tobacco plants and the control effects of tobacco black shank, root black rot and bacterial wilt were investigated. A total of 5 treatments were set up: a control (CK) treatment and 4 experimental treatments. The results showed that the application of different functional microbial agents could promote the growth of tobacco plants, improve the disease resistance of tobacco plants, the economic traits of flue-cured tobacco and the quality of tobacco leaves. The application effect of T₂ treatment was the best in promoting the growth of tobacco plants, followed by T₃; T₂ treatment had the best effect on disease prevention and control, followed by T₁; for improving the economic traits of flue-cured tobacco, the improvement effect of T₂ treatment was the best, followed by T₁ and T₃ treatments, T₄ treatment was slightly worse, and the control ( CK ) was the worst; in terms of appearance quality, T₁ and T₄ were the best, and T₂ was poor; T₂ had the best coordination of chemical composition, followed by T₃; T₂ and T₄ were the best in sensory evaluation of tobacco leaves. The comprehensive advantages of ‘Genjudi No.1’ applied in T₂ treatment were more prominent, which was more conducive to the prevention and control of tobacco “Two Black and One Green " and the improvement of tobacco leaf quality. It was recommended as the biocontrol functional microbial agent in Shuangjiang.

Key words: microbial agent, tobacco, quality of tobacco leaves, pest prevention and control, effect of inquiry

HUANG Xiaojie, FU Limei, LI Siying, ZHU Yongli, LI Cai, ZHAO Xuetong, ZHANG Zelin, KONG Guangchao, LI Xinghong, CHEN Houren, DAO Jinhua, ZHANG Zhihong. Effects of Different Microbial Agents on Tobacco Growth and Control of "Two Black and One Green"[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(27): 133-139.

Figures/Tables 10

References 25

[1]	沈晗, 杨凯, 任伟, 等. 影响上部烟叶感官质量的主要化学成分分析[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2019, 25(6):18-26.
[2]	郭洋, 王相凡, 李学红, 等. 环糊精对烟草浸提液浓缩过程中化学成分挥发性的影响[J]. 烟草科技, 2020, 53(4):59-68.
[3]	王刚. 我国烟草病虫害防治研究策略探讨[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2003, 24(4):37-39.
[4]	王彦亭, 朱贤朝. 烟草病虫害预测预报及综合防治技术研究进展[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2002.
[5]	吴钜文, 侯陶谦, 彩万志. 中国烟草昆虫种类及害虫综合治理[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2003.
[6]	王东飞, 吕大树, 徐玮, 等. 贵州主产烟区烤烟上部烟叶质量的差异[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2021, 49(12):26-32.
[7]	张顺. 烟草“两黑病”的防治措施[J]. 吉林农业, 2017(4):89.
[8]	夏振远, 谷医林, 张宏越, 等. 复合微生物制剂改善土壤生物学特性和防治烟草黑胫病的研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(1):192-196.
[9]	欧源斐. 生物防治在烟草病虫害防治中的应用思路构建[J]. 农村科学实验, 2021(14):2.
[10]	周训军, 王静, 杨玉文, 等. 烟草青枯病研究进展[J]. 微生物学通报, 2012, 39(10):1479-1486.
[11]	刘雅娴, 杜传印, 刘冰, 等. 不同施氮量下采收时间对烤烟经济性状及品质的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2021, 34(2):334-339.
[12]	霍沁建, 张深, 王若焱. 烟草青枯病研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(8):364-368.
[13]	张英, 周桂夙, 曾淑华, 等. 烟草病害控制技术初探[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2010(3):599-602.
[14]	唐周俊, 张峻, 黄飞燕, 等. 增施不同生物钾肥对烤烟生长发育及烟叶品质的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2016(7):53-56.
[15]	李梦娇, 魏家翮, 焦哲恒. 云南烟草病虫害绿色防控实践技术探究[J]. 农村经济与科技, 2018, 29(22):48-49.
[16]	戴鑫. 浅议烟草病虫害的绿色防控[J]. 新农业, 2022(6):16.
[17]	方敦煌, 黄学跃, 秦西云, 等. 云南烟草病虫害绿色防控实践与思考[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2017, 37(10):76-79.
[18]	常换换, 张立猛, 崔永和, 等. 微生物肥料在中国烤烟生产中的应用研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(10):214-220. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-2280
[19]	陈心想, 何绪生, 耿增超, 等. 生物炭对不同土壤化学性质、小麦和糜子产量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2013, 33(20):6534-6542.
[20]	龚林, 李德文, 石成广, 等. 微生物菌肥对植烟酸性土壤改良及烟叶品质的影响研究[J]. 云南农业科技, 2022(2):28-31.
[21]	黄聪光, 李群岭, 齐永杰, 等. 微生物技术在烟草种植中的应用分析[J]. 南方农业, 2018, 12(30):26-27.
[22]	濮永瑜, 包玲凤, 何翔, 等. 烟草青枯病和黑胫病拮抗细菌的筛选、鉴定及防效研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(7):116-123. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0375
[23]	李祥英, 张英华, 胥丽娜, 等. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌对烟草叶片光合特性的影响[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 49(3):518-522.
[24]	樊祖清, 芦阿虔, 王海涛, 等. 施用解淀粉芽孢杆菌对烟株生长和根际土壤微生物区系的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2019, 48(4):33-40.
[25]	徐玉茹, 字韶兴, 王正源, 等. 不同药剂对烟草黑胫病的防治效果[J]. 辽宁农业科学, 2021(5):36-40.

处理	移栽期（月-日）	团棵期（月-日）	旺长期（月-日）	现蕾期（月-日）	封顶期（月-日）	烟叶成熟期（月-日）	生育期/d
_CK	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135
T₁	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135
T₂	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135
T₃	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135
T₄	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135

处理	移栽期（月-日）	团棵期（月-日）	旺长期（月-日）	现蕾期（月-日）	封顶期（月-日）	烟叶成熟期（月-日）	生育期/d
_CK	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135
T₁	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135
T₂	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135
T₃	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135
T₄	04-13	06-09	06-29	07-09	07-14	08-26	135

处理	株高/cm	茎围/cm	有效叶片数/片	最大叶长/cm	最大叶宽/cm
CK	8.00b	3.34a	7.60a	27.80a	16.20a
T₁	10.87a	3.06a	8.07a	29.07a	15.73a
T₂	11.20a	3.46a	8.33a	31.33a	16.87a
T₃	10.90a	3.16a	8.33a	31.73a	17.20a
T₄	10.27ab	3.01a	8.20a	31.07a	17.26a

处理	株高/cm	茎围/cm	有效叶片数/片	最大叶长/cm	最大叶宽/cm
CK	8.00b	3.34a	7.60a	27.80a	16.20a
T₁	10.87a	3.06a	8.07a	29.07a	15.73a
T₂	11.20a	3.46a	8.33a	31.33a	16.87a
T₃	10.90a	3.16a	8.33a	31.73a	17.20a
T₄	10.27ab	3.01a	8.20a	31.07a	17.26a

处理	株高	茎围	节距	有效叶片数	上部叶		中部叶		下部叶
处理	株高	茎围	节距	有效叶片数	最大叶长	最大叶宽	最大叶长	最大叶宽	最大叶长	最大叶宽
CK	56.0a	5.76a	4.3b	15.4a	26.4a	15.9a	60.8a	25.6ab	56.8a	29.0a
T₁	58.5a	5.85a	4.8ab	15.7a	27.7a	10.9b	62.2a	26.1ab	57.6a	29.6a
T₂	59.4a	6.08a	5.0a	15.6a	26.9a	12.3ab	62.3a	27.1a	55.5a	28.1a
T₃	57.5a	5.78a	4.9ab	15.5a	24.5a	12.1ab	62.2a	26.2ab	57.7a	28.8a
T₄	55.8a	5.68a	5.0a	15.8a	25.2a	14.0ab	57.9a	25.3a	57.2a	28.5a