Effects of Turn-over Green Manure on the Quality and Economic Value of Flue-cured Tobacco in Heilongjiang

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18120127

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the improvement effect of turn-over green manure on the quality and economic value of flue-cured tobacco in Heilongjiang, this paper selected four types of green manure to turn down to study the effects. The green manure was decomposed on the spot after the harvest of flue-cured tobacco, and the physical and chemical indexes, the internal and external quality improvement of flue-cured tobacco were measured in the second year. The results showed that, at the end of July, interplanting green manure had little effect on the main economic characters and chemical composition of flue-cured tobacco, but the turn-over green manure could improve the chemical composition of flue-cured tobacco, among which the nicotine was decreased by 10.55%, the total nitrogen was decreased by 33.54%, the ratio of total nitrogen to nicotine was decreased by 25.93%, the total sugar was increased by 8.59%, the change of reducing sugar was not obvious, the ratio of total sugar to nicotine was increased by 21.41%, the content of potassium ions and chloride ions were increased by 12.50% and 12.00% respectively. Under the turn-over green manure, the leaf of flue-cured tobacco had good maturity, loose structure, high oil content and medium status. The weight of single leaf was increased by 15.46%, the leaf thickness was decreased by 17.86% and the ratio of tobacco stem to leaf was decreased by 5.93%. The species, content and aftertaste of the aroma were improved when the flue-cured tobacco was burned. The turn-over green manure could improve the chemical composition of flue-cured tobacco, the decomposition and transformation degree of carotenoids was increased by 12.95%, the conversion of aromatic amino acids was increased by 20.76%, the decomposition and transformation of Xibo-Alkanes was increased by 9.59%, the change of nonenzymatic browning was not obvious. The turn-over green manure could increase the production and economic value of flue-cured tobacco, among which the proportion of prime tobacco was increased by 35.59%, the production per hectare was increased by 5.65%, and the economic value per hectare was increased by 14.61%. Interplanting sweet clover and wheat has the best effect.

Key words: green manure, flue-cured tobacco, quality, economic value

CLC Number:

S5-33

Wang Hao, He Guoqiang, Wang Shusheng, Wu Zhijuan, Yao Yuan, Jin Kang. Effects of Turn-over Green Manure on the Quality and Economic Value of Flue-cured Tobacco in Heilongjiang[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(17): 42-50.

Figures/Tables 6

References 40

[1]	聂艳龙 . 黑龙江省农田黑土区腐殖物质结构差异及光谱特性分析[D]. 哈尔滨:东北农业大学, 2016.
[2]	段晓凤, 孙彦坤, 武帆 , 等. 黑龙江省黑土区气候—土壤生产潜力分析[J]. 中国农业气象, 2009,30(3):394-400.
[3]	雷国平, 代路, 宋戈 , 等. 黑龙江省典型黑土区土壤生态环境质量评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2009(7):243-248.
[4]	曹卫东, 黄鸿 . 关于我国恢复和发展绿肥若干问题的思考[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2009(4):1-3.
[5]	曹卫东, 徐昌旭 . 绿肥作物生产与利用技术规程[M]. 北京:中国农业科学技术出社, 2010: 1-3.
[6]	曹卫东, 包兴国, 徐昌旭 . 中国绿肥科研60年回顾与未来展望[J]. 植物营养与肥料学, 2017,23(6):1450-1461.
[7]	高嵩涓, 曹卫东, 白金顺 , 等. 长期冬种绿肥改变红壤稻田土壤微生物生物量特性[J]. 土壤学报, 2015,52(4):902-910.
[8]	雍太文, 杨文钰, 向达兵 , 等. 不同种植模式对作物根系生长、产量及根际土壤微生物数量的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2012,23(1):125-132.
[9]	刘国顺, 李正, 敬海霞 , 等. 连年翻压绿肥对植烟土壤微生物量及酶活性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2010,16(6):1472-1478. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2010.0624 URL
[10]	杨滨娟, 黄国勤, 王超 , 等. 稻田冬种绿肥对水稻产量和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013,21(10):1209-1216.
[11]	曾研华, 吴建富, 潘晓华 , 等. 稻草不同还田方式对双季水稻产量及稻米品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2013(3):534-542. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2013.0302 URL
[12]	张春 . 夏闲期种植不同绿肥作物对土壤形状及小麦生长的影响[D]. 杨凌:西北农林科技大学, 2013.
[13]	田明慧, 张明发, 田峰 , 等. 不同绿肥翻压对玉米产量及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(9):41-46.
[14]	王婷, 包兴国 . 河西绿洲灌区马铃薯间作绿肥高效种植模式研究[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2010(10):12-15.
[15]	李银平, 徐文修, 陈冰 , 等. 绿肥种植模式对连作棉田土壤肥力及棉花产量的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2010,19(9):149-153.
[16]	刘鹏飞, 李向勇, 张正学 , 等. 绿肥压青对甘蔗产量及抗旱性的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2015,43(9):35-37.
[17]	盛良学, 黄道友 . 红壤橘园间作经济绿肥的生态效应及对柑橘产量和品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2004,10(6):677-679. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2004.0624 URL
[18]	刘义平 . 新垦幼龄茶园套种经济绿肥的生态效应研究与应用[J]. 江西农业报, 2011,23(8):17-18
[19]	游璐 . 富钾肥籽粒苋腐解规律及翻压对油茶生长和林地土壤的影响[D]. 南昌:江西农业大学, 2016
[20]	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: 70-78.
[21]	李正 . 绿肥对植烟土壤培肥改良效应及烤烟产质量的影响[D]. 郑州:河南农业大学, 2010.
[22]	王斌, 周冀衡, 李强 , 等. 不同前茬对麒麟烟区烤烟化学成分及协调性的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2013,44(4):566-569.
[23]	石屹, 计玉, 姜鹏超 , 等. 富钾绿肥籽粒苋对夏烟烟叶品质的影响研究[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2002(3):5-7
[24]	王大海, 管恩森, 王毅 , 等. 诸城生态烟草农业发展研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2014,42(30):10489-10490,10493.
[25]	郭云周, 尹小怀, 王劲松 , 等. 翻压等量绿肥和化肥减量对红壤旱地烤烟产量产值的影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报, 2010,10(6):811-816.
[26]	齐耀程, 崔权仁, 周本国 , 等. 不同冬种绿肥对皖南烟区烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2016,37(6):32-36.
[27]	王修忠, 彭宇, 周曙光 , 等. 烤烟套作绿肥对土壤养分和上部烟叶品质的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2017,45(2):52-55
[28]	马哲, 邓昌斌 . 不同冬油菜翻压量对安康地区烤烟产量和品质的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2013,41(3):1015-1017.
[29]	胡颖梅 . 不同绿肥品种改良烟田土壤研究[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2011(5):50-53.
[30]	彭琳 . 湘西烟区种植绿肥对植烟主壤和烤烟生长发育及产质量的影响[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2015.
[31]	覃勇, 杨丽丽, 邓小华 , 等. 绿肥还田量对烤烟生长发育和产量的影响[J]. 天津农业科学, 2015,21(2):119-122.
[32]	罗华元, 程昌新, 王绍坤 , 等. 绿肥翻压量对烤烟大田期烟叶酶活性及烤后烟叶品质的影响[J]. 山地农业生物学报, 2010,29(6):495-501.
[33]	王超, 程昌新, 杨应明 , 等. 云南烟区烟叶致香物质与土壤养分的关系分析[J]. 郑州轻工业学院学报:自然科学版, 2013,28(1):32-37.
[34]	倪超, 宋小宁, 张松杰 , 等. 高碳基土壤修复肥对舞阳烟叶化学成和致香物质的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2017,29(12):63-67.
[35]	朱金峰, 贾健, 王蒙蒙 , 等. 绿肥掩青对烤烟土壤及烟叶致香成分的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2015(19):11-15.
[36]	扈强, 石锦辉, 王寒 , 等. 不同绿肥翻压对陕南烤烟土壤和烟叶钾营养、农艺性状及经济性状的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2015,21(10):58-61.
[37]	黄平娜, 秦道珠, 龙怀玉 , 等. 连续3年稻草还田对烤烟产量品质及后茬晚稻产量影响[J]. 土壤肥料科学, 2010(11):194-199.
[38]	江智敏, 田峰, 邓小华 , 等. 多年定位翻压绿肥对烤烟大田生长及经济性状的影响[J]. 栽培技术, 2015(3):35-39.
[39]	张明发, 田峰, 邓小华 , 等. 不同绿肥品种翻压对烤烟产质量及土壤性状的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2017,31(1):66-68.
[40]	曹海莲 . 不同种类绿肥翻压对植烟土壌理化性状和烤烟产质量的影响[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2015.

年份	处理	烟碱/%	总氮/%	总糖/%	还原糖/%	两糖差	氮碱比	糖碱比	钾/%	氯/%	钾氯比
2016	Y1	2.00a	1.55a	31.11b	29.68a	1.43a	0.78a	15.55b	1.03a	0.25a	4.12b
	Y2	2.16a	1.64a	32.93ab	31.31a	1.62a	0.76a	15.23b	1.16a	0.24a	4.83a
	Y3	1.84a	1.58a	31.51b	29.86a	1.65a	0.86a	17.14a	1.21a	0.25a	4.84a
	Y4	1.97a	1.65a	31.18b	29.60a	1.58a	0.84a	15.80ab	1.06a	0.25a	4.25b
	CK	2.00a	1.66a	33.24a	31.78a	1.46a	0.83a	16.62a	1.20a	0.26a	4.62ab
2017	Y1	1.85a	1.12a	34.82a	31.92ab	2.90a	0.61a	18.82a	1.21a	0.23b	5.26ab
	Y2	1.79ab	1.05b	35.73a	32.74a	2.99a	0.59a	19.96a	1.28a	0.22b	5.82a
	Y3	1.69b	1.08ab	33.55ab	30.59b	2.96a	0.64a	19.85a	1.32a	0.23b	5.74a
	Y4	1.79ab	1.01b	33.51ab	31.50ab	2.01ab	0.56a	18.72a	1.24a	0.21b	5.90a
	CK	1.95a	1.31a	32.97b	31.64ab	1.33b	0.67a	16.91b	1.16b	0.27a	4.30b

年份	处理	烟碱/%	总氮/%	总糖/%	还原糖/%	两糖差	氮碱比	糖碱比	钾/%	氯/%	钾氯比
2016	Y1	2.00a	1.55a	31.11b	29.68a	1.43a	0.78a	15.55b	1.03a	0.25a	4.12b
	Y2	2.16a	1.64a	32.93ab	31.31a	1.62a	0.76a	15.23b	1.16a	0.24a	4.83a
	Y3	1.84a	1.58a	31.51b	29.86a	1.65a	0.86a	17.14a	1.21a	0.25a	4.84a
	Y4	1.97a	1.65a	31.18b	29.60a	1.58a	0.84a	15.80ab	1.06a	0.25a	4.25b
	CK	2.00a	1.66a	33.24a	31.78a	1.46a	0.83a	16.62a	1.20a	0.26a	4.62ab
2017	Y1	1.85a	1.12a	34.82a	31.92ab	2.90a	0.61a	18.82a	1.21a	0.23b	5.26ab
	Y2	1.79ab	1.05b	35.73a	32.74a	2.99a	0.59a	19.96a	1.28a	0.22b	5.82a
	Y3	1.69b	1.08ab	33.55ab	30.59b	2.96a	0.64a	19.85a	1.32a	0.23b	5.74a
	Y4	1.79ab	1.01b	33.51ab	31.50ab	2.01ab	0.56a	18.72a	1.24a	0.21b	5.90a
	CK	1.95a	1.31a	32.97b	31.64ab	1.33b	0.67a	16.91b	1.16b	0.27a	4.30b

处理	叶长/cm	叶宽/cm	厚度/mm	单叶重/g	叶面密度/(g/m²)	含梗率/%	平衡含水率/%	拉力/N
Y1	54.73bc	19.41c	0.13a	8.61b	48.25a	22.08a	14.28a	0.69b
Y2	59.85a	24.26a	0.12a	8.76b	49.02a	20.83a	14.55a	1.28a
Y3	54.28b	21.83bc	0.10a	9.92ab	50.83a	20.85a	14.33a	0.98ab
Y4	52.35c	21.10bc	0.11a	9.85ab	50.33a	21.32a	14.63a	1.15a
CK	56.41b	23.74ab	0.14a	12.66a	51.99a	22.61a	14.24a	0.87b

处理	叶长/cm	叶宽/cm	厚度/mm	单叶重/g	叶面密度/(g/m²)	含梗率/%	平衡含水率/%	拉力/N
Y1	54.73bc	19.41c	0.13a	8.61b	48.25a	22.08a	14.28a	0.69b
Y2	59.85a	24.26a	0.12a	8.76b	49.02a	20.83a	14.55a	1.28a
Y3	54.28b	21.83bc	0.10a	9.92ab	50.83a	20.85a	14.33a	0.98ab
Y4	52.35c	21.10bc	0.11a	9.85ab	50.33a	21.32a	14.63a	1.15a
CK	56.41b	23.74ab	0.14a	12.66a	51.99a	22.61a	14.24a	0.87b

处理	等级	颜色	成熟度	叶片结构	身份	油分	色度
Y1	C3F	桔黄	成熟-	疏松+	中等	有-	中-
Y2	C3F	桔黄	成熟	疏松+	中等	有	中-
Y3	C3F	桔黄	成熟	疏松+	中等	有-	中
Y4	C3F	桔黄	成熟-	疏松	中等	有-	中-
CK	C3F	桔黄	成熟-	疏松	中等	有-	中-