Effect of Different Innovative Bio-organic Fertilizers on Growth Uniformity and Benefit of Flue-cured Tobacco

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0051

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to identify the effect of new bio-organic fertilizers on growth uniformity and benefit of flue-cured tobacco, five treatments including bio-organic fertilizer A (Pennisetum giganteum), bio-organic fertilizer B (a controlled-release fertilizer), and conventional bio-organic fertilizer (control) were designed for a field-plot experimental study. By using a correlation analysis and partial least squares path model, we investigated the uniformity of major agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco plants during the maturation growth period, the relationship between fertilizer cost and the final yield value, as well as some related variabilities. Results showed that the application of the biological fertilizer A and B could improve the uniformity of the length of the middle- and upper-part tobacco leaves, and modulate the uniformity of leaf numbers. Among them, the treatment A had a significant effect on the middle leaf area, and the B treatment had a more obvious optimization of the middle leaf area uniformity. The yield was significantly positively correlated with plant height uniformity, upper leaf area uniformity and leaf number uniformity (P < 0.05), and the output value of T₃ (A type 450 kg /hm²) and T₅ (B type 450 kg /hm²) treatments increased by 8.28 % and 5.52 %, respectively, compared with the control. The partial least squares path model showed that plant height uniformity ( path coefficient 0.543 ), upper leaf area uniformity ( 0.423 ) and leaf number uniformity ( 0.335 ) were the main factors affecting yield, and the model fitting correlation coefficient was 0.946 (P < 0.05). The study confirmed that the new bio-organic fertilizer can improve the yield and economic benefits of flue-cured tobacco by improving the uniformity of the field, and provide a theoretical basis for the screening of bio-fertilizer and the optimization of cultivation techniques.

Key words: uniformity, bio-organic fertilizer, Pennisetum giganteum, flue-cured tobacco, correlation analysis, partial least squares path modelq

ZHANG Mingfa, ZHANG Di, ZHANG Sheng, CHAO Jin, TIAN Maocheng, LIU Laihua, TIAN Yongmei, MA Lin, QIN Lang, PENG Zhangqiang, PU Wenxuan. Effect of Different Innovative Bio-organic Fertilizers on Growth Uniformity and Benefit of Flue-cured Tobacco[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(20): 91-96.

Figures/Tables 9

References 29

[1]	GELADI P, KOWALSKI B R. Partial least-squares regression: A tutorial[J]. Analytica chimica acta, 1986, 185(1):1-17.
[2]	陆文, 蔡敬菊. 基于鲁棒子空间学习的粒子滤波跟踪算法[J]. 计算机应用研究, 2011, 28(9):3579-3584.
[3]	ROSIPAL R, KRÄMER N. Overview and recent advances in partial least squares[J]. Latent structures feature selection, 2006,3940:34-51.
[4]	ADRIANO D A G, SCHENONE A V. Unfolded partial least squares/residual bilinearization combined with the successive projections algorithm for interval selection enhanced excitation-emission fluorescence data modeling in the presence of the inner filter effect[J]. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2015, 22(5):30-37.
[5]	MOKHTARI A, KEYVANFARD M, EMAMI I. Simultaneous chemiluminescence determination of citric acid and oxalic acid using multi-way partial least squares regression[J]. RSC Advances, 2015, 37(5):29214-29221.
[6]	ELDEN L. Computing Frechet derivatives in partial least squares regression[J]. Linear algebra and applications, 2015, 473(11):316-338.
[7]	ADJORLOLO C, MUTANGA O, CHO M A. Predicting C₃ and C₄ grass nutrient variability using in situ canopy reflectance and partial least squares regression[J]. International journal of remote sensing, 2015, 36(6):1743-1761.
[8]	VASILEIOS T, ANDY M, ANDREAS A. Prediction of biomass production and nutrient uptake in land application using partial least squares regression analysis[J]. Water, 2015, 7(1):1-11.
[9]	陈明晶, 方源敏, 陈杰. 最小二乘法和迭代法圆曲线拟合[J]. 测绘科学, 2016, 41(1):194-197.
[10]	王鹏, 刁山菊, 张季谦. 基于最小二乘法的单摆实验数据处理[J]. 安庆师范学院学报(自然科学版), 2015, 36(1):136-139.
[11]	王俊, 许多宽, 肖勇, 等. 基于化学指标的烟叶产区正交偏最小二乘判别分析[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2017, 38(1):91-96.
[12]	林顺顺, 张晓鸣. 基于PLSR分析烟叶化学成分与感官质量的相关性[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2016, 37(1):78-82.
[13]	王一丁, 赵铭钦, 付博, 等. 利用可见-近红外光谱鉴定不同香型风格烤烟的方法[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2015, 36(6):88-93.
[14]	齐琛, 方秋莲. 偏最小二乘建模在R软件中的实现及实证分析[J]. 数学理论与应用, 2013, 33(2):103-111.
[15]	唐莉娜, 陈顺辉. 不同种类有机肥与化肥配施对烤烟生长和品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2008, 24(11):258-262.
[16]	彭华伟, 刘国顺, 吴学巧, 等. 生物有机肥对烤烟氮磷钾积累、吸收和含量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 200829(1):25-29.
[17]	扶海超, 夏阳, 杨丹丹, 等. 不同生物有机肥对土壤理化性状及烟叶生长发育的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2015, 43(30):86-89.
[18]	张西西, 谷强. 矮牵牛新品种“0210”的性状整齐度测验[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(2):184-186.
[19]	边少锋, 赵洪祥, 孟祥盟, 等. 超高产玉米品种穗部性状整齐度与产量的关系研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2008, 16(4):119-122.
[20]	施河丽, 谭军, 秦兴成, 等. 不同生物有机肥对烤烟生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2014, 35(2):74-78.
[21]	张焕裕. 作物农艺性状整齐度的指标方法新论[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2006(1):24-26.
[22]	赵悦, 焦玉生, 程广旭, 等. 不同有机肥种类对烤烟氮吸收以及产量产值的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2016, 29(4):874-878.
[23]	刘月华, 孙玉晓, 刘焰, 等. 不同种类生物有机肥对烤烟青枯病及烟叶生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015, 31(16):42-46. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb14120179
[24]	谢轶文. 生物有机肥在烟草生产上的应用现状及发展趋势[J]. 南方农业, 2015, 19(9):43-44.
[25]	杨旭初, 屠乃美, 侯方舟, 等. 烟草施用生物有机肥的田间效应[J]. 现代农业科技, 2015(20):12-13.
[26]	窦玉青, 屈建康, 陈刚, 等. 生物有机肥在四川烟区应用效果初报[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2015, 36(3):68-71.
[27]	张焕菊, 陈刚, 王树声, 等. 应用生物有机肥减少烤烟化肥用量试验研究[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2015, 36(1):48-53.
[28]	曾庆宾, 谢柠枍, 余伟, 等. 有机无机肥配施对烤烟生长及产质量的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2021, 49(3):12-18.
[29]	谭炳昱, 刘莉, 杨永花, 等. 施氮量对NC102品种生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2015, 36(2):66-70.

处理			上部叶长/ cm
T₁	114.00a	9.14a	61.33a	71.33b		17.00a		26.11a		749.79b		532.34a	21.56a	1896.30a
T₂	118.56a	9.34a	60.78a	72.67ab		17.00a		27.33a		822.79ab		484.00a	19.78a	1961.55a
T₃	114.56a	9.07a	65.22a	74.89a		17.78a		29.56a		891.23a		589.20a	22.44a	2052.30a
T₄	114.56a	8.96a	62.33a	68.44b	17.33a		26.11a		729.42ab		533.77a		21.67a	2031.90a
T₅	117.67a	9.10a	62.33a	72.78a	17.44a		27.33a		799.57ab		544.01a		21.44a	1947.45a

处理			上部叶长/ cm
T₁	114.00a	9.14a	61.33a	71.33b		17.00a		26.11a		749.79b		532.34a	21.56a	1896.30a
T₂	118.56a	9.34a	60.78a	72.67ab		17.00a		27.33a		822.79ab		484.00a	19.78a	1961.55a
T₃	114.56a	9.07a	65.22a	74.89a		17.78a		29.56a		891.23a		589.20a	22.44a	2052.30a
T₄	114.56a	8.96a	62.33a	68.44b	17.33a		26.11a		729.42ab		533.77a		21.67a	2031.90a
T₅	117.67a	9.10a	62.33a	72.78a	17.44a		27.33a		799.57ab		544.01a		21.44a	1947.45a

处理			上部叶长						上部叶宽
T₁	96.57ab	96.37a	93.69a	90.65b	94.91a	87.52a	79.24b	8 EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 2.68a	88.61a
T₂	95.55ab	96.70a	94.81a	94.96ab	94.53a	89.49a	84.89ab	81.20a	89.04a
T₃	97.38a	97.66a	91.79a	95.76a	94.91a	89.42a	84.33ab	83.16a	89.52a
T₄	95.01ab	94.43a	94.11a	92.88ab	95.00a	89.02a	82.91ab	79.60a	84.51a
T₅	91.88b	94.17a	89.51a	92.40ab	95.84a	93.52a	88.85a	83.99a	84.01a

处理			上部叶长						上部叶宽
T₁	96.57ab	96.37a	93.69a	90.65b	94.91a	87.52a	79.24b	8 EMBED Excel.Sheet.8 2.68a	88.61a
T₂	95.55ab	96.70a	94.81a	94.96ab	94.53a	89.49a	84.89ab	81.20a	89.04a
T₃	97.38a	97.66a	91.79a	95.76a	94.91a	89.42a	84.33ab	83.16a	89.52a
T₄	95.01ab	94.43a	94.11a	92.88ab	95.00a	89.02a	82.91ab	79.60a	84.51a
T₅	91.88b	94.17a	89.51a	92.40ab	95.84a	93.52a	88.85a	83.99a	84.01a

	X₁	X₂		X₃		X₄		X₅		X₆		X₇		X₈		X₉		Y
X₁		-0.257		-0.068		0.413		0.175		-0.120		0.019		0.178		0.049		0.478
X₂	0.005				-0.054		0.011		-0.303		-0.286		-0.311		-0.005		-0.031		-0.420
X₃	0.014		-0.013				-0.606		-0.052		0.739		0.307		-0.935		0.785		-0.636
X₄	0.449		0.171		0.203				0.051		-0.486		-0.200		0.689		-0.631		0.624
X₅	-0.446		-0.041		-0.294		0.165				-0.108		-0.220		-0.031		-0.050		0.425
X₆	-0.036		-0.323		0.359		-0.058		-0.072				0.786		-0.720		0.612		-0.347
X₇	-0.127		0.269		-0.374		0.123		-0.123		0.943				-0.246		0.442		-0.037
X₈	-0.116		-0.259		-0.219		0.138		-0.336		-0.766		0.685				-0.777		0.695
X₉	0.464		-0.235		0.407		-0.334		0.319		-0.694		0.806		-0.452				-0.614
Y	0.657		-0.265		0.124		-0.120		0.754		0.093		0.100		0.347		-0.394