Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (23): 52-60.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0654
Previous Articles Next Articles
Yu Yaoying1(), Wang Mingfu1, He Jixian2, Zhang Qili2, Chen Liping2, Jiang Hao3, Gu Huizhan2()
Received:
2020-11-12
Revised:
2021-01-28
Online:
2021-08-15
Published:
2021-08-26
Contact:
Gu Huizhan
E-mail:kellyyyzsj@163.com;39564259@qq.com
CLC Number:
Yu Yaoying, Wang Mingfu, He Jixian, Zhang Qili, Chen Liping, Jiang Hao, Gu Huizhan. Effects of N, P, K Dosage and Distribution of Basic and Topdressing Nutrients on Yield and Quality of Tobacco Leaves[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(23): 52-60.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0654
处理 | 水平 | 施肥量/(kg/hm2) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P2O5 | K2O | N | P2O5 | K2O | |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 82.5 | 105.0 | 270.0 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 82.5 | 127.5 | 315.0 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 82.5 | 150.0 | 360.0 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 97.5 | 105.0 | 315.0 |
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 97.5 | 127.5 | 360.0 |
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 97.5 | 150.0 | 270.0 |
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 112.5 | 105.0 | 360.0 |
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 112.5 | 127.5 | 270.0 |
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 112.5 | 150.0 | 315.0 |
处理 | 水平 | 施肥量/(kg/hm2) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | P2O5 | K2O | N | P2O5 | K2O | |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 82.5 | 105.0 | 270.0 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 82.5 | 127.5 | 315.0 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 82.5 | 150.0 | 360.0 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 97.5 | 105.0 | 315.0 |
5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 97.5 | 127.5 | 360.0 |
6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 97.5 | 150.0 | 270.0 |
7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 112.5 | 105.0 | 360.0 |
8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 112.5 | 127.5 | 270.0 |
9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 112.5 | 150.0 | 315.0 |
隶属度 | 抛物线型 | S型 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总糖 | 还原糖 | 总氮 | 烟碱 | 氮碱比 | 糖碱比 | 氯 | 钾 | 钾氯比 | |
x1 | 10.0 | 11.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.55 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
x2 | 20.0 | 19.0 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 0.95 | 8.5 | 0.3 | ||
x3 | 28.0 | 20.0 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 1.05 | 9.5 | 0.8 | ||
x4 | 35.0 | 27.0 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 1.45 | 15.0 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 8.0 |
权重 | 10.00 | 9.55 | 9.98 | 12.27 | 10.82 | 12.79 | 12.23 | 10.57 | 11.78 |
隶属度 | 抛物线型 | S型 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
总糖 | 还原糖 | 总氮 | 烟碱 | 氮碱比 | 糖碱比 | 氯 | 钾 | 钾氯比 | |
x1 | 10.0 | 11.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.55 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
x2 | 20.0 | 19.0 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 0.95 | 8.5 | 0.3 | ||
x3 | 28.0 | 20.0 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 1.05 | 9.5 | 0.8 | ||
x4 | 35.0 | 27.0 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 1.45 | 15.0 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 8.0 |
权重 | 10.00 | 9.55 | 9.98 | 12.27 | 10.82 | 12.79 | 12.23 | 10.57 | 11.78 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 131.707a | 6 | 21.951 | 2.520 | 0.06 | ||||
截距 | 20752.856 | 1 | 20752.856 | 2382.234 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 6.420 | 2 | 3.210 | 0.368 | 0.70 | |||||
P | 91.059 | 2 | 45.529 | 5.226 | 0.02 | |||||
K | 34.228 | 2 | 17.114 | 1.965 | 0.17 | |||||
误差 | 174.230 | 20 | 8.712 | |||||||
总计 | 21058.793 | 27 | ||||||||
校正总变异 | 305.937 | 26 | ||||||||
有效叶数 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 1.393b | 6 | 0.232 | 1.077 | 0.41 | ||||
截距 | 1761.763 | 1 | 1761.763 | 8168.918 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 0.727 | 2 | 0.363 | 1.685 | 0.21 | |||||
P | 0.127 | 2 | 0.063 | 0.294 | 0.75 | |||||
K | 0.540 | 2 | 0.270 | 1.252 | 0.31 | |||||
误差 | 4.313 | 20 | 0.216 | |||||||
总计 | 1767.470 | 27 | ||||||||
校正总变异 | 5.707 | 26 | ||||||||
最大叶长 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 36.406c | 6 | 6.068 | 1.635 | 0.19 | ||||
截距 | 41162.996 | 1 | 41162.996 | 11094.948 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 9.032 | 2 | 4.516 | 1.217 | 0.32 | |||||
P | 18.572 | 2 | 9.286 | 2.503 | 0.11 | |||||
K | 8.802 | 2 | 4.401 | 1.186 | 0.33 | |||||
误差 | 74.201 | 20 | 3.710 | |||||||
总计 | 41273.603 | 27 | ||||||||
校正总变异 | 110.607 | 26 | ||||||||
最大叶宽 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 16.749d | 6 | 2.792 | 1.945 | 0.12 | ||||
截距 | 12701.013 | 1 | 12701.013 | 8848.263 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 0.774 | 2 | 0.387 | 0.270 | 0.77 | |||||
P | 1.284 | 2 | 0.642 | 0.447 | 0.65 | |||||
K | 8.802 | 2 | 4.401 | 1.186 | 0.33 | |||||
误差 | 28.708 | 20 | 1.435 | |||||||
总计 | 12746.471 | 27 | ||||||||
校正总变异 | 45.458 | 26 | ||||||||
茎围 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 5.002e | 6 | 0.834 | 3.094 | 0.03 | ||||
截距 | 1114.256 | 1 | 1114.256 | 4134.813 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 1.079 | 2 | 0.539 | 2.001 | 0.16 | |||||
P | 3.362 | 2 | 1.681 | 6.239 | 0.01 | |||||
K | 0.561 | 2 | 0.281 | 1.041 | 0.37 | |||||
误差 | 5.390 | 20 | 0.269 | |||||||
总计 | 1124.648 | 27 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 131.707a | 6 | 21.951 | 2.520 | 0.06 | ||||
截距 | 20752.856 | 1 | 20752.856 | 2382.234 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 6.420 | 2 | 3.210 | 0.368 | 0.70 | |||||
P | 91.059 | 2 | 45.529 | 5.226 | 0.02 | |||||
K | 34.228 | 2 | 17.114 | 1.965 | 0.17 | |||||
误差 | 174.230 | 20 | 8.712 | |||||||
总计 | 21058.793 | 27 | ||||||||
校正总变异 | 305.937 | 26 | ||||||||
有效叶数 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 1.393b | 6 | 0.232 | 1.077 | 0.41 | ||||
截距 | 1761.763 | 1 | 1761.763 | 8168.918 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 0.727 | 2 | 0.363 | 1.685 | 0.21 | |||||
P | 0.127 | 2 | 0.063 | 0.294 | 0.75 | |||||
K | 0.540 | 2 | 0.270 | 1.252 | 0.31 | |||||
误差 | 4.313 | 20 | 0.216 | |||||||
总计 | 1767.470 | 27 | ||||||||
校正总变异 | 5.707 | 26 | ||||||||
最大叶长 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 36.406c | 6 | 6.068 | 1.635 | 0.19 | ||||
截距 | 41162.996 | 1 | 41162.996 | 11094.948 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 9.032 | 2 | 4.516 | 1.217 | 0.32 | |||||
P | 18.572 | 2 | 9.286 | 2.503 | 0.11 | |||||
K | 8.802 | 2 | 4.401 | 1.186 | 0.33 | |||||
误差 | 74.201 | 20 | 3.710 | |||||||
总计 | 41273.603 | 27 | ||||||||
校正总变异 | 110.607 | 26 | ||||||||
最大叶宽 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 16.749d | 6 | 2.792 | 1.945 | 0.12 | ||||
截距 | 12701.013 | 1 | 12701.013 | 8848.263 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 0.774 | 2 | 0.387 | 0.270 | 0.77 | |||||
P | 1.284 | 2 | 0.642 | 0.447 | 0.65 | |||||
K | 8.802 | 2 | 4.401 | 1.186 | 0.33 | |||||
误差 | 28.708 | 20 | 1.435 | |||||||
总计 | 12746.471 | 27 | ||||||||
校正总变异 | 45.458 | 26 | ||||||||
茎围 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 5.002e | 6 | 0.834 | 3.094 | 0.03 | ||||
截距 | 1114.256 | 1 | 1114.256 | 4134.813 | 0.00 | |||||
N | 1.079 | 2 | 0.539 | 2.001 | 0.16 | |||||
P | 3.362 | 2 | 1.681 | 6.239 | 0.01 | |||||
K | 0.561 | 2 | 0.281 | 1.041 | 0.37 | |||||
误差 | 5.390 | 20 | 0.269 | |||||||
总计 | 1124.648 | 27 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 166.89 | 6 | 27.82 | 1.42 | 0.25 | ||||||
截距 | 217288.35 | 1 | 217288.35 | 11127.77 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 65.28 | 2 | 32.64 | 1.67 | 0.21 | |||||||
P | 42.66 | 2 | 21.33 | 1.09 | 0.36 | |||||||
K | 31.20 | 2 | 15.60 | 0.80 | 0.46 | |||||||
误差 | 390.53 | 20 | 19.53 | |||||||||
总计 | 247289.56 | 27 | ||||||||||
校正总变异 | 557.43 | 26 | ||||||||||
有效叶数 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 14.10a | 6 | 2.35 | 1.30 | 0.30 | ||||||
截距 | 9139.66 | 1 | 9139.66 | 5069.97 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 4.67 | 2 | 2.33 | 1.29 | 0.30 | |||||||
P | 5.61 | 2 | 2.81 | 1.56 | 0.24 | |||||||
K | 4.36 | 2 | 2.18 | 1.21 | 0.32 | |||||||
误差 | 36.05 | 20 | 1.80 | |||||||||
总计 | 10287.67 | 27 | ||||||||||
校正总变异 | 50.15 | 26 | ||||||||||
最大叶长 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 82.90a | 6 | 13.82 | 2.69 | 0.05 | ||||||
截距 | 93525.14 | 1 | 93525.14 | 18177.45 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 42.07 | 2 | 21.03 | 4.09 | 0.03 | |||||||
P | 4.08 | 2 | 2.04 | 0.40 | 0.68 | |||||||
K | 41.56 | 2 | 20.78 | 4.04 | 0.03 | |||||||
误差 | 102.90 | 20 | 5.15 | |||||||||
总计 | 105804.61 | 27 | ||||||||||
校正总变异 | 185.80 | 26 | ||||||||||
最大叶宽 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 62.32a | 6 | 10.39 | 8.90 | 0.00 | ||||||
截距 | 21375.79 | 1 | 21375.79 | 18312.61 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 39.18 | 2 | 19.59 | 16.78 | 0.00 | |||||||
P | 31.29 | 2 | 15.64 | 13.40 | 0.00 | |||||||
K | 9.95 | 2 | 4.98 | 4.26 | 0.03 | |||||||
误差 | 23.35 | 20 | 1.17 | |||||||||
总计 | 24744.58 | 27 | ||||||||||
Corrected Total | 85.66 | 26 | ||||||||||
茎围 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 1.53a | 6 | 0.25 | 1.28 | 0.31 | ||||||
截距 | 1721.70 | 1 | 1721.70 | 8697.33 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 0.51 | 2 | 0.256 | 1.29 | 0.30 | |||||||
P | 0.41 | 2 | 0.20 | 1.03 | 0.38 | |||||||
K | 0.53 | 2 | 0.26 | 1.33 | 0.29 | |||||||
误差 | 3.96 | 20 | 0.20 | |||||||||
总计 | 1952.41 | 27 | ||||||||||
校正总变异 | 5.48 | 26 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株高 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 166.89 | 6 | 27.82 | 1.42 | 0.25 | ||||||
截距 | 217288.35 | 1 | 217288.35 | 11127.77 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 65.28 | 2 | 32.64 | 1.67 | 0.21 | |||||||
P | 42.66 | 2 | 21.33 | 1.09 | 0.36 | |||||||
K | 31.20 | 2 | 15.60 | 0.80 | 0.46 | |||||||
误差 | 390.53 | 20 | 19.53 | |||||||||
总计 | 247289.56 | 27 | ||||||||||
校正总变异 | 557.43 | 26 | ||||||||||
有效叶数 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 14.10a | 6 | 2.35 | 1.30 | 0.30 | ||||||
截距 | 9139.66 | 1 | 9139.66 | 5069.97 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 4.67 | 2 | 2.33 | 1.29 | 0.30 | |||||||
P | 5.61 | 2 | 2.81 | 1.56 | 0.24 | |||||||
K | 4.36 | 2 | 2.18 | 1.21 | 0.32 | |||||||
误差 | 36.05 | 20 | 1.80 | |||||||||
总计 | 10287.67 | 27 | ||||||||||
校正总变异 | 50.15 | 26 | ||||||||||
最大叶长 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 82.90a | 6 | 13.82 | 2.69 | 0.05 | ||||||
截距 | 93525.14 | 1 | 93525.14 | 18177.45 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 42.07 | 2 | 21.03 | 4.09 | 0.03 | |||||||
P | 4.08 | 2 | 2.04 | 0.40 | 0.68 | |||||||
K | 41.56 | 2 | 20.78 | 4.04 | 0.03 | |||||||
误差 | 102.90 | 20 | 5.15 | |||||||||
总计 | 105804.61 | 27 | ||||||||||
校正总变异 | 185.80 | 26 | ||||||||||
最大叶宽 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 62.32a | 6 | 10.39 | 8.90 | 0.00 | ||||||
截距 | 21375.79 | 1 | 21375.79 | 18312.61 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 39.18 | 2 | 19.59 | 16.78 | 0.00 | |||||||
P | 31.29 | 2 | 15.64 | 13.40 | 0.00 | |||||||
K | 9.95 | 2 | 4.98 | 4.26 | 0.03 | |||||||
误差 | 23.35 | 20 | 1.17 | |||||||||
总计 | 24744.58 | 27 | ||||||||||
Corrected Total | 85.66 | 26 | ||||||||||
茎围 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 1.53a | 6 | 0.25 | 1.28 | 0.31 | ||||||
截距 | 1721.70 | 1 | 1721.70 | 8697.33 | 0.00 | |||||||
N | 0.51 | 2 | 0.256 | 1.29 | 0.30 | |||||||
P | 0.41 | 2 | 0.20 | 1.03 | 0.38 | |||||||
K | 0.53 | 2 | 0.26 | 1.33 | 0.29 | |||||||
误差 | 3.96 | 20 | 0.20 | |||||||||
总计 | 1952.41 | 27 | ||||||||||
校正总变异 | 5.48 | 26 |
时间/d | 因素 | 水平 | 施用量/(kg/hm2) | 株高/cm | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 茎围/cm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
40 | P | 1 | 105.0 | 29.84a | 6.78a | ||
2 | 127.5 | 25.36b | 5.94b | ||||
3 | 150.0 | 27.97ab | 6.54a | ||||
60 | N | 1 | 82.5 | 61.94b | 30.06b | ||
2 | 97.5 | 64.24a | 31.60a | ||||
3 | 112.5 | 61.94b | 29.01b | ||||
P | 1 | 105.0 | 63.18a | 28.79b | |||
2 | 127.5 | 62.03a | 30.78a | ||||
3 | 150.0 | 62.82a | 30.43a | ||||
K | 1 | 270.0 | 60.89b | 30.02a | |||
2 | 315.0 | 62.98ab | 30.27a | ||||
3 | 360.0 | 63.77a | 30.37a |
时间/d | 因素 | 水平 | 施用量/(kg/hm2) | 株高/cm | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 茎围/cm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
40 | P | 1 | 105.0 | 29.84a | 6.78a | ||
2 | 127.5 | 25.36b | 5.94b | ||||
3 | 150.0 | 27.97ab | 6.54a | ||||
60 | N | 1 | 82.5 | 61.94b | 30.06b | ||
2 | 97.5 | 64.24a | 31.60a | ||||
3 | 112.5 | 61.94b | 29.01b | ||||
P | 1 | 105.0 | 63.18a | 28.79b | |||
2 | 127.5 | 62.03a | 30.78a | ||||
3 | 150.0 | 62.82a | 30.43a | ||||
K | 1 | 270.0 | 60.89b | 30.02a | |||
2 | 315.0 | 62.98ab | 30.27a | ||||
3 | 360.0 | 63.77a | 30.37a |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
40 d | 校正模型(变异来源) | 4.859a | 6.00 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.60 |
截距 | 49832.74 | 1.00 | 49832.74 | 47195.86 | 0.00 | |
N | 3.67 | 2.00 | 1.83 | 1.74 | 0.20 | |
P | 0.39 | 2.00 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.83 | |
K | 0.80 | 2.00 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.69 | |
误差 | 21.12 | 20.00 | 1.06 | |||
总计 | 49858.72 | 27.00 | ||||
校正总变异 | 25.98 | 26.00 | ||||
60 d | 校正模型(变异来源) | 86.63a | 6 | 14.44 | 4.72 | 0.00 |
截距 | 40024.65 | 1 | 40024.65 | 13082.86 | 0.00 | |
N | 54.11 | 2 | 27.05 | 8.84 | 0.00 | |
P | 0.47 | 2 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.93 | |
K | 13.07 | 2 | 6.54 | 2.14 | 0.14 | |
误差 | 61.19 | 20 | 3.06 | |||
总计 | 45099.76 | 27 | ||||
校正总变异 | 147.82 | 26 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
40 d | 校正模型(变异来源) | 4.859a | 6.00 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 0.60 |
截距 | 49832.74 | 1.00 | 49832.74 | 47195.86 | 0.00 | |
N | 3.67 | 2.00 | 1.83 | 1.74 | 0.20 | |
P | 0.39 | 2.00 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.83 | |
K | 0.80 | 2.00 | 0.40 | 0.38 | 0.69 | |
误差 | 21.12 | 20.00 | 1.06 | |||
总计 | 49858.72 | 27.00 | ||||
校正总变异 | 25.98 | 26.00 | ||||
60 d | 校正模型(变异来源) | 86.63a | 6 | 14.44 | 4.72 | 0.00 |
截距 | 40024.65 | 1 | 40024.65 | 13082.86 | 0.00 | |
N | 54.11 | 2 | 27.05 | 8.84 | 0.00 | |
P | 0.47 | 2 | 0.24 | 0.08 | 0.93 | |
K | 13.07 | 2 | 6.54 | 2.14 | 0.14 | |
误差 | 61.19 | 20 | 3.06 | |||
总计 | 45099.76 | 27 | ||||
校正总变异 | 147.82 | 26 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
校正模型(变异来源) | 674924.50a | 6 | 112487.42 | 7.45 | 0.00 |
截距 | 1.283E8 | 1 | 1.283E8 | 8500.16 | 0.00 |
N | 444331.50 | 2 | 222165.75 | 14.72 | 0.00 |
P | 210126.50 | 2 | 105063.25 | 6.96 | 0.05 |
K | 20466.50 | 2 | 10233.25 | 0.678 | 0.51 |
误差 | 301865.00 | 20 | 15093.25 | ||
总计 | 1.293E8 | 27 | |||
校正总变异 | 976789.50 | 26 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
校正模型(变异来源) | 674924.50a | 6 | 112487.42 | 7.45 | 0.00 |
截距 | 1.283E8 | 1 | 1.283E8 | 8500.16 | 0.00 |
N | 444331.50 | 2 | 222165.75 | 14.72 | 0.00 |
P | 210126.50 | 2 | 105063.25 | 6.96 | 0.05 |
K | 20466.50 | 2 | 10233.25 | 0.678 | 0.51 |
误差 | 301865.00 | 20 | 15093.25 | ||
总计 | 1.293E8 | 27 | |||
校正总变异 | 976789.50 | 26 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
上 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 935.74a | 6 | 155.96 | 1.93 | 0.38 |
截距 | 18454.77 | 1 | 18454.77 | 228.82 | 0.00 | |
N | 536.27 | 2 | 268.13 | 3.33 | 0.23 | |
P | 173.29 | 2 | 86.64 | 1.07 | 0.48 | |
K | 226.19 | 2 | 113.09 | 1.40 | 0.416 | |
误差 | 161.30 | 2 | 80.65 | |||
总计 | 19551.81 | 9 | ||||
校正总变异 | 1097.04 | 8 | ||||
中 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 355.83a | 6 | 59.31 | 4.60 | 0.19 |
截距 | 35741.42 | 1 | 35741.42 | 2773.47 | 0.00 | |
N | 242.44 | 2 | 121.22 | 9.41 | 0.05 | |
P | 5.98 | 2 | 2.99 | 0.23 | 0.81 | |
K | 107.40 | 2 | 53.70 | 4.17 | 0.19 | |
误差 | 25.77 | 2 | 12.89 | |||
总计 | 36123.02 | 9 | ||||
校正总变异 | 381.60 | 8 |
源 | 平方和 | df | 圴方 | F | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
上 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 935.74a | 6 | 155.96 | 1.93 | 0.38 |
截距 | 18454.77 | 1 | 18454.77 | 228.82 | 0.00 | |
N | 536.27 | 2 | 268.13 | 3.33 | 0.23 | |
P | 173.29 | 2 | 86.64 | 1.07 | 0.48 | |
K | 226.19 | 2 | 113.09 | 1.40 | 0.416 | |
误差 | 161.30 | 2 | 80.65 | |||
总计 | 19551.81 | 9 | ||||
校正总变异 | 1097.04 | 8 | ||||
中 | 校正模型(变异来源) | 355.83a | 6 | 59.31 | 4.60 | 0.19 |
截距 | 35741.42 | 1 | 35741.42 | 2773.47 | 0.00 | |
N | 242.44 | 2 | 121.22 | 9.41 | 0.05 | |
P | 5.98 | 2 | 2.99 | 0.23 | 0.81 | |
K | 107.40 | 2 | 53.70 | 4.17 | 0.19 | |
误差 | 25.77 | 2 | 12.89 | |||
总计 | 36123.02 | 9 | ||||
校正总变异 | 381.60 | 8 |
因素 | 水平 | 施用量/(kg/hm2) | 化学成分综合指标值 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
中部 | N | 1 | 82.5 | 56.20b |
2 | 97.5 | 68.78a | ||
3 | 112.5 | 64.07ab | ||
P | 1 | 105.0 | 58.24a | |
2 | 127.5 | 64.53a | ||
3 | 150.0 | 66.28a | ||
K | 1 | 270.0 | 61.93a | |
2 | 315.0 | 63.89a | ||
3 | 360.0 | 63.23a |
因素 | 水平 | 施用量/(kg/hm2) | 化学成分综合指标值 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
中部 | N | 1 | 82.5 | 56.20b |
2 | 97.5 | 68.78a | ||
3 | 112.5 | 64.07ab | ||
P | 1 | 105.0 | 58.24a | |
2 | 127.5 | 64.53a | ||
3 | 150.0 | 66.28a | ||
K | 1 | 270.0 | 61.93a | |
2 | 315.0 | 63.89a | ||
3 | 360.0 | 63.23a |
处理 | 株高/cm | 有效叶数 | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 节距/cm | 茎/cm | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
60 d | C1 | 109.37a | 19.80 a | 70.93a | 30.66 bcd | 5.67a | 9.87a |
C2 | 114.40a | 20.70a | 74.24a | 31.24abcd | 5.70a | 10.20a | |
C3 | 110.90a | 19.20a | 75.38a | 33.43a | 5.50a | 9.80a | |
C4 | 109.40a | 19.30a | 75.91a | 32.24abc | 5.60a | 10.15a | |
C5 | 110.85a | 19.10a | 75.33a | 32.94ab | 5.65a | 9.50a | |
C6 | 107.70a | 19.90a | 70.22a | 31.38abcd | 5.65a | 9.80a | |
C7 | 110.10a | 19.10a | 71.48a | 29.40d | 5.60a | 9.70a | |
C8 | 110.65a | 19.70a | 69.04a | 30.22cd | 5.75a | 9.25a | |
C9 | 114.85a | 19.70a | 76.71a | 31.79d | 5.45a | 9.70a |
处理 | 株高/cm | 有效叶数 | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 节距/cm | 茎/cm | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
60 d | C1 | 109.37a | 19.80 a | 70.93a | 30.66 bcd | 5.67a | 9.87a |
C2 | 114.40a | 20.70a | 74.24a | 31.24abcd | 5.70a | 10.20a | |
C3 | 110.90a | 19.20a | 75.38a | 33.43a | 5.50a | 9.80a | |
C4 | 109.40a | 19.30a | 75.91a | 32.24abc | 5.60a | 10.15a | |
C5 | 110.85a | 19.10a | 75.33a | 32.94ab | 5.65a | 9.50a | |
C6 | 107.70a | 19.90a | 70.22a | 31.38abcd | 5.65a | 9.80a | |
C7 | 110.10a | 19.10a | 71.48a | 29.40d | 5.60a | 9.70a | |
C8 | 110.65a | 19.70a | 69.04a | 30.22cd | 5.75a | 9.25a | |
C9 | 114.85a | 19.70a | 76.71a | 31.79d | 5.45a | 9.70a |
处理 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 产值/(元/hm2) |
---|---|---|
C1 | 199.85bc | 4270.96bc |
C2 | 211.23ab | 4230.97ab |
C3 | 229.85a | 5159.97a |
C4 | 175.69c | 3573.07c |
C5 | 208.85ab | 4371.86ab |
C6 | 188.25c | 3828.56c |
C7 | 203.12b | 3715.85b |
C8 | 176.54c | 3933.31c |
C9 | 203.69b | 4727.98b |
处理 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 产值/(元/hm2) |
---|---|---|
C1 | 199.85bc | 4270.96bc |
C2 | 211.23ab | 4230.97ab |
C3 | 229.85a | 5159.97a |
C4 | 175.69c | 3573.07c |
C5 | 208.85ab | 4371.86ab |
C6 | 188.25c | 3828.56c |
C7 | 203.12b | 3715.85b |
C8 | 176.54c | 3933.31c |
C9 | 203.69b | 4727.98b |
处理 | 风格特征 | 香气特征香气质量 | 烟气 | 吃味 | 排序 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
香型 | 香气质 | 香气量 | 杂气 | 浓度 | 劲头 | 刺激性 | 甜度 | 干净程度 | |||
种类 | 程度 | ||||||||||
C1 | 中 | 5 | 5 | 生青 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 3 |
C2 | 中 | 5.5 | 5 | 生青 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5 |
C3 | 中 | 6 | 5.5 | 生青 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 6 | 5.5 | 6 | 2 |
C4 | 中 | 6 | 5 | 生青 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 1 |
C5 | 中 | 5 | 5 | 生青 | 5.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
C6 | 中 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 生青 | 6 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 4 |
C7 | 中 | 5.5 | 5 | 生青、干枯 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 6 |
C8 | 中 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 生青 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
C9 | 中 | 5 | 5 | 生青、干枯 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 9 |
处理 | 风格特征 | 香气特征香气质量 | 烟气 | 吃味 | 排序 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
香型 | 香气质 | 香气量 | 杂气 | 浓度 | 劲头 | 刺激性 | 甜度 | 干净程度 | |||
种类 | 程度 | ||||||||||
C1 | 中 | 5 | 5 | 生青 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 3 |
C2 | 中 | 5.5 | 5 | 生青 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5 |
C3 | 中 | 6 | 5.5 | 生青 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 6 | 5.5 | 6 | 2 |
C4 | 中 | 6 | 5 | 生青 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 1 |
C5 | 中 | 5 | 5 | 生青 | 5.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
C6 | 中 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 生青 | 6 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 4 |
C7 | 中 | 5.5 | 5 | 生青、干枯 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 6 |
C8 | 中 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 生青 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
C9 | 中 | 5 | 5 | 生青、干枯 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 9 |
[1] | 谷海红, 李岩, 刘宏斌, 等. 土壤氮素矿化及其对烤烟品质的影响研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2008, 24(10):327-333. |
[2] | 朱毅, 李世琛, 李大肥, 等. 不同氮磷钾配比对烤烟生长及产质量的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2017, 58(2):221-223. |
[3] | 汪健, 王松峰, 毕庆文, 等. 氮磷钾用量对烤烟红花大金元产质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2009, 30(5):9-23. |
[4] | 张晨冬. 施氮量及氮磷钾比例对红土晒烟产质量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2008, 24(7):276-279. |
[5] | 潘艳华, 胡靖, 杨树明, 等. 土壤氮磷钾肥量比对烤烟产量品质的影响[J]. 西南农业大学学报, 2000, 22(2):120-122. |
[6] | 谢会雅, 高志强, 李小青, 等. 不同施氮量及氮磷钾配比对烤烟产量与质量的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2011, 25(4):331-335. |
[7] | 杨金陆. 不同氮磷钾养分比例配方对烤烟产量和质量的影响[J]. 南方农业, 2019, 13(6):13-15. |
[8] | 谭波. 氮肥基追比对烤烟产量和品质的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2018, 46(1):73-75. |
[9] | 汤宏, 李向阳, 王建伟, 等. 施磷量对黔东南州烤烟产量品抽及磷吸收利用的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2019, 50(6):1418-1425. |
[10] | 韦跃龙, 杨更, 覃建雄. 四川广元地质景观类型及其形成条件与综合评价[J]. 中国岩溶, 2007, 26(1):75-82. |
[11] | 吴丽君, 田旷达, 李倩倩, 等. 烟叶中六种成分OSC-PCR定量模型研究[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2013, 33(6):1517-1520. |
[12] | 王彦亭, 谢剑平, 李志宏. 中国烟草种植区划[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010: 3. |
[13] | 王永齐, 潘义宏, 周家新, 等. 追肥量和追肥时间对烟地品质和经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(28):32-37. |
[14] | 李晓婷, 亚平, 何元胜, 等. 云南省临沧烟区烤烟化学成分特征及空间分布[J]. 烟草技, 2013(1):53-57. |
[15] | 李君, 张云贵, 谢强, 等. 泸州烤烟养分管理的关键技术参数研究[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(2):100-106. |
[16] | 化党领, 曹荣, 魏修彬, 等. 不同氮磷钾施肥量对烤烟农艺性状及养分吸收的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2012(4):53-58. |
[17] | 钟晓兰, 张德远, 周生路, 等. 钾肥用量及基追肥比例对烤烟干物质累积和钾素吸收动态的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2006, 17(2):251-255. |
[18] | 陈义强. 氮磷钾肥对烤烟内在品质的影响及其施肥模型[D]. 郑州:河南农业大学, 2008. |
[19] | 钟晓兰, 张德远, 何宽信, 等. 红壤性水稻土上钾肥运筹对烤烟产量和品质的影响[J]. 土壤, 2006, 38(3):315-321. |
[20] | 刘国顺. 烟草栽培学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003. |
[21] | 王志刚, 刘莉, 刘勇 等. 烤烟常用氮肥基追比例与留叶数互作对烟叶质量的影响研究[J]. 现代农业, 2016(11):94-95. |
[22] | 张芬芬, 谭小兵. 不同施氮量及基追比对烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 安微农业科学, 2017, 45(22):29-31. |
[1] | HUANG Hao, XIE Jin, YUAN Wenbin, WANG Chuliang, CHEN Kunhua, ZENG Fandong, LIANG Zengfa, SU Zhao, WANG Wei. Effects of Different Organic Materials on Root Characteristics and Accumulation of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium in Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(8): 51-57. |
[2] | HU Yixuan, TIAN Shengni, FANG Chao, HU Weiming, XI Xiaoyu, LV Mengran. Effects of Topdressing Types on Photosynthetic Characteristics and Yield of Purple Sweet Potato Inside and Outside the Greenhouse [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(6): 31-36. |
[3] | HAN Min, YANG Pengwu, HE Yuqin, HU Xueqiong, ZHU Yong. Prediction of the Disaster Risk of Overcast and Rainy Days on Flue-cured Tobacco Planting in Yunnan [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(4): 69-75. |
[4] | GUAN Luohao, YANG Xin, LI Chao, ZHANG Yanling, ZHANG Guangfu, LI Yongliang, ZHOU Hanping, WANG Guangshan, ZHONG Shuai, DAI Huaxin. Influence of Remained Leaves on Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco in Tengchong [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(4): 10-15. |
[5] | HOU Jianlin, LI Sijun, HE Mingyu, XIAO Hanqian, XIANG Tiejun, HUANG Jie, LI Wujin, XIAO Yansong, JIANG Zhimin, XU Junhua, DENG Xiaohua. Effects of Different Fertilization Modes on the Growth, Dry Matter Accumulation, Yield and Quality of Paddy-tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(33): 39-43. |
[6] | ZHANG Zhiling, LIN Haibin, WANG Xinwang, LIN Long, CHEN Xingfeng, GAO Weimin, LIN Zubin, CHEN Qingwen. The Correlation Between the Starch Content and the Appearance Quality and Sensory Quality of Fujian Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(31): 136-141. |
[7] | WANG Yuemin, KE Yuqin, XIE Rongrong, LI Chunying, LI Wenqing. Effects of Spraying Microelement-fertilizer on Physiological Metabolism of Tobacco Plant at Mature Stage Under Localized Fertilization [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(31): 24-30. |
[8] | CHEN Jianfeng, ZHAO Wenjun, FU Libo, YIN Mei, WANG Zhiyuan, WANG Wei, WANG Yingxue, YANG Yanxian, CHEN Hua. Influence of Fertilization System of Nutrient Critical Value for Optimum Yield of Tobacco on Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco in Yuxi [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(28): 1-6. |
[9] | DONG Shiliang, ZHAN Siwen, HE Jiewang, QIU Tong, ZHANG Xueqiong, LIU Fengfeng. Quality Classification of Flue-cured Tobacco Based on HPLC Fingerprint Technique [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(25): 151-157. |
[10] | Abdurishid RAHMAN, Yiliminuer , Talipujiang ABUDOUKEREMU, Haliguli AINI, Ruxianguli YIGANMU. Effects of Different Topdressing Measures on the Growth of Current-year Cutting Seedlings of Elaeagnus mooraroftii [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(23): 39-48. |
[11] | ZHANG Yanyan, DAI Chen, ZHAO Baiying, LIU Meng, ZHANG Benqiang, WU Bo, GAO Yang, ZHANG Qiang. Correlation Between Chemical Compositions and Sensory Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco in Hilly Ecological Region of Yimeng [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(22): 145-150. |
[12] | WANG Jun, TIAN Junling, LIU Lan, ZONG Zhaohui, FAN Miaomiao, LUO Fuming. Effects of Different Fertilization Levels on Dry Matter and Nutrient Accumulation and Distribution in Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(22): 8-14. |
[13] | LIU Jing, YANG Wei, CHENG Dan, REN Yongjian, WANG Lijuan. Effects of Surface Diurnal Temperature Range on Chemical Constituents of Flue-cured Tobacco in Hubei Tobacco-growing Areas [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(20): 97-104. |
[14] | ZHOU Dong, ZHANG Yan, LV Jun, ZHANG Jiankui, DENG Kexuan, ZONG Xuefeng, DAI Xiumei. Aroma Substances of Flue-cured Tobacco ‘Yujinxiang No.1’ [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(19): 146-151. |
[15] | LI Yunxia, LI Lei, LI Sijun, ZHENG Weiwei, ZENG Bei. A New Flue-cured Tobacco Strain ‘HN2146’: Effects of Cultivation Measures on Agronomic Characters and Yield [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(16): 13-17. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||