Abundance Evaluation of Nutrient Content in Tobacco Soil of Longlin

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19010073

Abstract

Abstract:

The paper aims to evaluate the status of soil nutrient abundance in tobacco planting areas in Longlin, and provide reference for tobacco planting and rational fertilization. The Longlin tobacco-growing area was used as the evaluation unit, and the mathematical statistics were adopted to study the nutrient content and nutrient abundance status of the tobacco soil. The results showed that the soil pH value and total nitrogen were relatively good in the tobacco-growing area of Longlin, soil organic matter, available sulfur, available potassium, available phosphorus, exchangeable magnesium were less appropriate, soil active chlorine, available boron, exchangeable calcium had high suitability. The soil nutrient content in the tobacco-growing area was evaluated for abundance and deficiency, and the results indicated that in the process of tobacco planting, scientific fertilization should be carried out, to control nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorine and calcium, increase potassium, sulfur, magnesium and boron, and reduce the large-scale application of alkaline fertilizers, with more application of organic fertilizers, to achieve the goal of organic, high quality, ecological, characteristic and safe production of tobacco leaves.

Key words: Longlin, tobacco, soil nutrient, abundance evaluation, soil fertility evaluation

CLC Number:

Zilin Li, Leifeng Zhao, Yachun Lu, Wenliang Zhou, Gang Luo, Xiaolin Liao, Fuzhao Nian, Dongsheng Fan. Abundance Evaluation of Nutrient Content in Tobacco Soil of Longlin[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(10): 25-32.

Figures/Tables 12

References 27

[1]	王宏伟,张留臣,普云飞,等.云南省峨山县植烟土壤肥力的综合评价及变异分析[J].湖南农业大学学报:自然科学版,2012,38(5):531-534.
[2]	李集勤,陈俊标,袁清华,等.客土改良对植烟土壤营养及烟草青枯病的影响[J].中国烟草科学,2017,38(1):48-52.
[3]	何元胜,赵磊峰,年夫照,等.临沧烟区土壤肥力综合评价[J].中国烟草科学,2014,35(3):23-26.
[4]	陈海生,魏跃伟,刘国顺,等.河南省烤烟种植区土壤综合肥力评价[J].水土保持研究,2011,18(3):131-137.
[5]	李强,周冀衡,杨荣生,等.曲靖植烟土壤养分空间变异及土壤肥力适宜性评价[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(4):950-956.
[6]	庞夙,陶晓秋,黄玫,等.四川省植烟区土壤肥力评价[J].中国烟草科学,2013,34(1):40-44.
[7]	顾剑红,王玉杰,王云琦,等.土地利用变化对生态服务价值的影响[J].中国水土保持科学,2016,14(5):100-108.
[8]	宋淑芳,周冀衡,邓小华,等.大理植烟土壤养分含量及其对烟叶生产的适宜性[J].湖南农业大学学报:自然科学版,2012,38(2):16-20.
[9]	李梅,张学雷.基于GIS的农田土壤肥力评价及其与土体构型的关系[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(1):129-136.
[10]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2000.
[11]	陈江华,刘建利,李志宏.中国植烟土壤及烟草养分综合管理[M].北京:科学出版社,2008:39.
[12]	李强,周冀衡,解燕,等.基于地统计学的曲靖植烟土壤主要养分丰缺评价[J].烟草科技,2012(11):69-73.
[13]	张隆伟,伍仁军,王昌全,等.四川凉攀烟区植烟土壤有效铜和有效锌空间变异特征[J].中国烟草科学,2014,35(3):1-6.
[14]	张倩,王昌全,李冰,等.攀西植烟土壤有机质和全氮空间变异性研究[J].核农学报,2013,27(4):501-508.
[15]	李强,周冀衡,杨荣生,等.曲靖植烟土壤养分空间变异及土壤肥力适宜性评价[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(4):950-956.
[16]	刘逊,邓小华,周米良,等.湘西植烟土壤有机质含量分布及其影响因素[J].核农学报,2012,26(7):1037-1042.
[17]	胡玲,周丽娟,王娟,等.云南烟区植烟土壤养分状况综合评价[J].河南农业科学,2014.43(7):52-59.
[18]	李强,周冀衡,杨荣生.等.曲靖植烟土壤养分空间变异及土壤肥力适宜性评价[J].应用生态学报,2011,22(4):950-956.
[19]	冯诚,莫光森.广西百色典型烟草种植区土壤肥力评价[J].广西农学报,2016,31(5):47-52.
[20]	石媛媛,邓明军,林北森,等.基于GIS和地统计学的百色植烟土壤养分空间分析[J].南方农业学报,2014,45(8):1403-1409.
[21]	Shi X D, Liu X Q, Wang Z H.et al.Studies on absorption and distribution of nitrogen in flue-curedtobacco plants by ¹⁵N tracer[J], Acta Tabacaria Sinica,2013,19(6):55-58.
[22]	高华军,韦忠,罗刚,等.百色市植烟土壤状况及保育和修复技术[J].作物研究,2016,30(6):736-740.
[23]	Lin Xuelian, Li Suxia, Lu Liangfan.Investigation on Heavy Metal Contents and Fertility of Panax pseudoginseng-growing Soil in Guangxi[J]. Agricultural Science & Technology,2016,17(5):1149-1151,1172.
[24]	唐俊华. 对地观测技术与精细农业[M].北京:科学出版社,2011:122-127.
[25]	潘明,陈艺.3S技术在精准农业中的应用[J].现代农业装备,2012(6):87-90.
[26]	母金梅,申志永.3S技术在我国农业领域的应用[J].农业工程,2015(2):56-61.
[27]	Zhao Liang, Wei Xuecheng, Huang Guoyi.Evaluation and Classification of Cultivated Land Fertility in Karst Area[J]. Agricultural Engineering,2013,8:232-241.

适宜性	pH	有机质/<break/>(g/kg)	活性氯/<break/>(mg/kg)	全氮/<break/>(g/kg)	有效磷/<break/>(mg/kg)	有效钾/<break/>(mg/kg)	有效硫/<break/>(mg/kg)	有效硼/<break/>(mg/kg)	交换性钙/<break/>(mg/kg)	交换性镁/<break/>(mg/kg)
偏低	(0,5)	(0,20)	(0,10)	(0,1)	(0,10)	(0,100)	(0,15)	(0,1.5)	(0,800)	(0,100)
适宜	[5,7]	[20,35]	[10,30]	[1,2]	[10,40]	[100,300]	[15,30]	[1.5,3.0]	[800,1200]	[100,200]
偏高	(7,+∞)	(35,+∞)	(30,+∞)	(2,+∞)	(40,+∞)	(300,+∞)	(30,+∞)	(3.0,+∞)	(1200,+∞)	(200,+∞)

适宜性	pH	有机质/<break/>(g/kg)	活性氯/<break/>(mg/kg)	全氮/<break/>(g/kg)	有效磷/<break/>(mg/kg)	有效钾/<break/>(mg/kg)	有效硫/<break/>(mg/kg)	有效硼/<break/>(mg/kg)	交换性钙/<break/>(mg/kg)	交换性镁/<break/>(mg/kg)
偏低	(0,5)	(0,20)	(0,10)	(0,1)	(0,10)	(0,100)	(0,15)	(0,1.5)	(0,800)	(0,100)
适宜	[5,7]	[20,35]	[10,30]	[1,2]	[10,40]	[100,300]	[15,30]	[1.5,3.0]	[800,1200]	[100,200]
偏高	(7,+∞)	(35,+∞)	(30,+∞)	(2,+∞)	(40,+∞)	(300,+∞)	(30,+∞)	(3.0,+∞)	(1200,+∞)	(200,+∞)

地点	样品数	均值	变异系数/%	变幅	适宜比例/%
地点	样品数	均值	变异系数/%	变幅	偏低	适宜	偏高
岩茶	42	6.34±0.87a	13.75	4.78~7.96	7.14	71.43	21.43
克长	16	6.02±0.72a	12.03	4.72~7.56	6.25	81.25	12.50
隆或	20	6.46±0.46a	7.14	5.59~7.29	0.00	90.00	10.00
介廷	6	6.34±0.80a	12.56	5.49~7.4	0.00	66.67	33.33
德峨	25	6.30±0.61a	9.66	4.81~7.7	4.00	84.00	12.00
蛇场	25	6.56±0.70a	10.68	4.69~8.81	4.00	72.00	24.00
隆林	134	6.36±0.73	11.43	4.69~8.81	4.48	77.61	17.91

地点	样品数	均值	变异系数/%	变幅	适宜比例/%
地点	样品数	均值	变异系数/%	变幅	偏低	适宜	偏高
岩茶	42	6.34±0.87a	13.75	4.78~7.96	7.14	71.43	21.43
克长	16	6.02±0.72a	12.03	4.72~7.56	6.25	81.25	12.50
隆或	20	6.46±0.46a	7.14	5.59~7.29	0.00	90.00	10.00
介廷	6	6.34±0.80a	12.56	5.49~7.4	0.00	66.67	33.33
德峨	25	6.30±0.61a	9.66	4.81~7.7	4.00	84.00	12.00
蛇场	25	6.56±0.70a	10.68	4.69~8.81	4.00	72.00	24.00
隆林	134	6.36±0.73	11.43	4.69~8.81	4.48	77.61	17.91

地点	样品数	均值/(g/kg)	变异系数/%	变幅/(g/kg)	适宜性/%
地点	样品数	均值/(g/kg)	变异系数/%	变幅/(g/kg)	偏低	适宜	偏高
岩茶	42	2.11±0.60bc	28.46	0.93~3.34	4.76	40.48	54.76
克长	16	2.25±0.46b	20.60	1.19~3.00	0.00	37.50	62.50
隆或	20	2.74±0.34a	12.33	1.96~3.34	0.00	5.00	95.00
介廷	6	2.18±0.88bc	40.22	1.48~3.78	0.00	66.67	33.33
德峨	25	1.82±0.37cd	20.46	1.19~2.97	0.00	80.00	20.00
蛇场	25	1.59±0.37d	23.14	0.86~2.52	4.00	88.00	8.00
隆林	134	2.07±0.60	28.86	0.86~3.78	2.24	52.24	45.52