Studies on Stability and Regionalization of Potassium, Chlorine Content and Potassium-chlorine Ratio in ‘K326’ Tobacco Leaves of Chuxiong

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0011

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aims to reveal the stability characteristics and spatial distribution patterns of potassium (K), chloride (Cl^-) content, and potassium-chloride ratio (K/Cl) in flue-cured tobacco leaves of the main cultivated variety ‘K326’ in the Chuxiong tobacco-growing areas, so as to provide a scientific basis for the precise regulation of tobacco leaves quality. Based on the detection data of 6627 tobacco samples from the raw material bases of Chuxiong Cigarette Factory from 2018 to 2022, the stability of chemical quality was determined by the stability factor and critical value, the coefficient of variation (CV) was used to evaluate annual fluctuations, and township-level zoning analysis was carried out with ArcGIS technology. The results showed that the mean potassium content in upper, middle and lower leaves met the high-quality standard (1.60%-2.50%), but the overall level was low (5-year average: 2.09%-2.82%). The stability of lower leaves was poor (CV≥15%). The compliance rate in 2022 was close to 100%, which showed the optimization effect of cultivation techniques. The mean chloride content (0.44%-0.57%) met high-quality requirements, but annual fluctuations were significant (CV>50%). The proportion of lower leaves exceeding the target chlorine level reached 22.15%, and the chloride ion in the middle and lower leaves exceeded the standard in certain townships (e.g., Yipinglang Town in Lufeng City, Wande Town in Wuding County). The mean potassium-chloride (K/Cl) ratio (6.25-8.70) met the standard, but the compliance rate of sample points were only around 50%. The middle leaves had the worst stability, mainly due to higher and more variable chlorine content. The potassium-chlorine ratio consistently fell below the premium quality target in some regions such as Bajiao Town of Chuxiong City and Yipinglang Town of Lufeng City. In production practices, it is necessary to select tobacco varieties with low chloride content, weak chloride absorption capacity, high industrial acceptance, which can replace ‘K326’. The measures, such as appropriately increasing soil pH, applying organic fertilizer, using special fertilizer formulas, chloride ion inhibitors, and reasonable crop rotation, could also effectively reduce the chloride content in tobacco leaves, thereby increase the potassium chloride ratio of tobacco leaves. The potassium content of tobacco leaves in the Chuxiong area generally met the high-quality target requirements. However, the overall potassium content in tobacco leaves is still low and need further improvement. Precise attention should be given to regulating the potassium content in the upper and middle leaves at sampling points that fall below the target requirements for high-quality tobacco leaves. The strategies, such as using efficient potassium fertilizers, root-zone top-dressing of potassium fertilizer, application of bio-char or microbial fertilizers, and spraying dihydrogen phosphate or ethephon, could effectively increase the potassium content of tobacco leaves.

Key words: Chuxiong tobacco area, ‘K326’, potassium content, chlorine content, potassium-chlorine ratio, regionalization, stability regulation

GENG Shaowu, DING Yishu, FU Yanyan, BU Yunhong, CHAI Yunxia, WANG Yuejin, WANG Wenlun, WANG Huaguo, HU Yang, ZHANG Shengyu, LU Yao. Studies on Stability and Regionalization of Potassium, Chlorine Content and Potassium-chlorine Ratio in ‘K326’ Tobacco Leaves of Chuxiong[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(19): 20-29.

Figures/Tables 8

References 37

[1]	胡国松, 郑伟, 王震东, 等. 烤烟营养原理[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2000.
[2]	胡国松, 赵元宽, 曹志洪, 等. 我国主要产烟省烤烟元素组成和化学品质[J]. 中国烟草学报, 1997(6):36-43.
[3]	化党领, 介晓磊, 谭金芳, 等. 中国烟草钾营养研究现状(II)烟草生长过程中钾积累分配与钾素调控等研究综述[J]. 中国农学通报, 2005, 21(10):218-222.
[4]	冉法芬, 许自成, 李东亮, 等. 我国主产烟区烤烟钾、氯、钾氯比与评吸质量的关系分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2010, 23(4):1147-1150.
[5]	张静, 王超, 刘浩, 等. 云烟品牌省内原料基地烟叶钾含量区划及增钾技术研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2017, 23(增):122-126.
[6]	李永忠, 罗鹏涛. 氯在烟草体内的生理代谢功能及其应用[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 1995, 10(1):57-61.
[7]	张阳, 屠乃美, 康健, 等. 烤烟氯营养研究进展[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2015(3):139-143.
[8]	刘国顺. 烟草栽培学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003.
[9]	陈江华, 刘建利, 龙怀玉. 中国烟叶矿质营养及主要化学成分含量特征研究[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2004, 10(5):20-27.
[10]	张静, 严君, 杨景华, 等. 云烟品牌省内原料基地烟叶氯素特征、区划及分类调控[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(31):50-55. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18050048
[11]	谭军, 刘晓颖, 李强, 等. 文山烟区土壤和烟叶氯素特征及影响因子研究[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2016, 37(5):40-46.
[12]	肖志新, 郭应成, 张发明, 等. 云南保山市烤烟氯素含量及施氯量研究[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 2010, 25(5):655-658.
[13]	李湘伟, 杨继周, 陆俊平, 等. 玉溪烟区烟叶氯离子分布特征及影响因素研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2022, 61(增):265-269.
[14]	熊明彪. 烟草氮、钾、氯营养化学与产量、品质的关系[J]. 土壤农化通报, 1998, 13(3):61-66.
[15]	张喆. 烟叶主要化学成分与等级品质关系的研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2004.
[16]	阳苇丽, 王龙宪, 许自成, 等. 烤烟钾、氯含量及钾氯比与烟气指标的关系分析[J]. 江西农业学报, 2011, 23(12):109-112.
[17]	周敏, 董石飞, 雷靖, 等. 云烟品牌原料基地烟叶钾氯比分布特征及区划[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(5):1048-1054.
[18]	王跃金, 彭博, 晋珲, 等. 楚雄烟叶生产高质量发展现状与对策[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2019, 25(9):49-52.
[19]	王跃金, 柴云霞, 梁云高, 等. 楚雄烟区绿色生态特色烟叶开发现状及思考[J]. 安徽科技通讯, 2020, 12:35-38.
[20]	王瑞新. 烟草化学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003:16-45.
[21]	李伟, 王超, 张静, 等. 初烤烟叶化学成分稳定性的评价方法[P]. 中国专利, 201810988046.7, 2019-01-01.
[22]	薛正平, 杨星卫, 段项锁, 等. 土壤养分空间变异及合理取样数研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2002, 18(4):6-9.
[23]	黄跃, 谢晏芬, 朱宣全, 等. 植烟区烟叶氯含量风险评估及影响因素分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2024, 26(6):206-213.
[24]	姬兴杰, 孟寒冬, 左璇, 等. 河南烟区主要气候因子与烤烟烟叶化学成分的关系[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2017, 38(1):35-41.
[25]	蒋佳磊, 陆扬, 苏燕, 等. 我国主要烟叶产区烤烟化学成分特征与可用性评价[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2017, 23(2):13-27.
[26]	饶巍, 李春萍, 文晓阳, 等. 不同基因型烟草对氯离子吸收、积累与分配的差异性分析[J]. 河南农业科学, 2022, 51(11):56-64.
[27]	饶巍. 不同基因型烟草对氯离子吸收的差异及降氯措施研究[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2023.
[28]	张翔, 范艺宽. 烤烟吸收氯的主要来源及其在体内分布的研究[J]. 土壤肥料, 2006(2):62-64.
[29]	江苏农学院. 植物生理学[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1988:115-142.
[30]	商静, 许嘉阳, 范艺宽, 等. 高氯土壤条件下烤烟对Cl^-通道抑制剂的生理响应[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(2):460-467.
[31]	商静. 高氯土壤条件下烤烟对氯离子通道抑制剂的生理响应[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2017.
[32]	许倩. 烤烟氯离子通道抑制剂研究进展[J]. 中南农业科技, 2024, 45(1):236-240.
[33]	李冬雪, 刘新源, 宋正熊, 等. 矿物钾肥在中国典型植烟土壤中钾素转化特性及对烟叶提钾效果的初步评估[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(21):84-90. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0724
[34]	叶田会, 陈红, 冯长春, 等. 钾肥追施对植烟红壤供钾能力及烟叶钾含量的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2024(8):36-40.
[35]	李彩斌, 张久权, 何轶, 等. 生物炭用量对土壤速效钾含量和烟叶钾吸收的长期效应[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2024(5):89-95.
[36]	宋鹏, 李理想, 江厚龙, 等施用侧孢短芽孢杆菌对烤后烟叶钾含量及烟株生理特征的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(3):494-502. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20221821
[37]	曾淑华, 吴润生, 郭仕平, 等. 喷施磷酸二氢钾和乙烯利对烤烟上部烟叶同步成熟及质量的影响[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2022, 40(4):565-573.

指标	钾/%			氯离子/%			钾氯比
指标	下限L_i	上限U_i	临界值SF_ci	下限L_i	上限U_i	临界值SF_ci	下限L_i	上限U_i	临界值SF_ci
上部	1.60	2.50	0.2195	0.10	0.80	0.7778	4.00	10.00	0.4286
中部	1.70	2.50	0.1905	0.10	0.80	0.7778	4.00	10.00	0.4286
下部	1.90	2.50	0.1364	0.10	0.80	0.7778	4.00	10.00	0.4286

指标	钾/%			氯离子/%			钾氯比
指标	下限L_i	上限U_i	临界值SF_ci	下限L_i	上限U_i	临界值SF_ci	下限L_i	上限U_i	临界值SF_ci
上部	1.60	2.50	0.2195	0.10	0.80	0.7778	4.00	10.00	0.4286
中部	1.70	2.50	0.1905	0.10	0.80	0.7778	4.00	10.00	0.4286
下部	1.90	2.50	0.1364	0.10	0.80	0.7778	4.00	10.00	0.4286

等级	钾/%			氯离子/%			钾氯比
等级	上部叶	中部叶	下部叶	上部叶	中部叶	下部叶	上部叶	中部叶	下部叶
低于目标	[0,1.6)	[0,1.7)	[0,1.9)	[0,0.1)	[0,0.1)	[0,0.1)	[0,4)	[0,4)	[0,4)
达到目标	[1.6,+∞)	[1.7,+∞)	[1.9,+∞)	[0.1,0.6)	[0.1,0.6)	[0.1,0.6)	[4,10)	[4,10)	[4,10)
高于目标				[0.6,+∞)	[0.6,+∞)	[0.6,+∞)	[10,+∞)	[10,+∞)	[10,+∞)

等级	钾/%			氯离子/%			钾氯比
等级	上部叶	中部叶	下部叶	上部叶	中部叶	下部叶	上部叶	中部叶	下部叶
低于目标	[0,1.6)	[0,1.7)	[0,1.9)	[0,0.1)	[0,0.1)	[0,0.1)	[0,4)	[0,4)	[0,4)
达到目标	[1.6,+∞)	[1.7,+∞)	[1.9,+∞)	[0.1,0.6)	[0.1,0.6)	[0.1,0.6)	[4,10)	[4,10)	[4,10)
高于目标				[0.6,+∞)	[0.6,+∞)	[0.6,+∞)	[10,+∞)	[10,+∞)	[10,+∞)

指标	年度	钾/%			氯离子/%			钾氯比
指标	年度	上部	中部	下部	上部	中部	下部	上部	中部	下部
数值	2018	1.86±0.31	2.16±0.42	2.94±0.66	0.34±0.18	0.34±0.25	0.37±0.28	7.15±4.27	9.39±9.13	13.84±13.80
	2019	2.10±0.38	2.27±0.46	2.69±0.55	0.50±0.28	0.46±0.31	0.67±0.46	5.39±2.98	7.61±10.37	6.48±5.18
	2020	2.16±0.31	2.30±0.38	2.62±0.50	0.59±0.26	0.58±0.30	0.76±0.49	4.40±1.96	5.01±2.44	4.72±2.73
	2021	2.07±0.31	2.30±0.38	2.73±0.54	0.38±0.20	0.38±0.26	0.51±0.36	6.92±3.74	8.90±11.31	8.54±8.70
	2022	2.28±0.41	2.53±0.46	3.12±0.68	0.41±0.27	0.36±0.26	0.53±0.42	7.41±4.03	10.81±13.08	9.92±7.80
	平均	2.09±0.34	2.31±0.42	2.82±0.59	0.44±0.24	0.42±0.28	0.57±0.40	6.25±3.40	8.34±9.27	8.70±7.64
变异系数/%	2018	16.67	19.44	22.45	52.94	73.53	75.68	59.72	97.23	99.71
	2019	18.10	20.26	20.45	56.00	67.39	68.66	55.29	136.27	79.94
	2020	14.35	16.52	19.08	44.07	51.72	64.47	44.55	48.70	57.84
	2021	14.98	16.52	19.78	52.63	68.42	70.59	54.05	127.08	101.87
	2022	17.98	18.18	21.79	65.85	72.22	79.25	54.39	121.00	78.63
	平均	16.42	18.18	20.71	54.30	66.66	71.73	53.60	106.06	83.60