Combined Application of Different Proportions of Slow-release Fertilizer and Compound Fertilizer for Tobacco: Effects on Soil Fertility and Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0066

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effects of different proportions of slow-release fertilizers applied with tobacco specific compound fertilizers on tobacco-growing soil fertility and flue-cured tobacco yield and quality, a field test of five fertilizer combinations and CK were set up in the tobacco growing area of Reshui Town in Xuanwei City, and the soil and flue-cured tobacco leaves were sampled and analyzed. The results showed that the integrated fertility index (IFI) of the soil increased by 12.50%-23.21% under the five proportions of slow-release fertilizer combined with the special compound fertilizer for tobacco, compared with that of CK (single application of special compound fertilizers for tobacco), and IFI of soil was the best by replacing the compound fertilizer with 60%-100% of slow-release fertilizer (T3, T4 and T5 treatment). From the perspective of comprehensive quality of flue-cured tobacco, the average score of comprehensive quality of flue-cured tobacco increased by 0.19%-6.64% compared with that of CK by using different proportions of slow-release fertilizer instead of tobacco specific compound fertilizer. Among them, T4 treatment of 80% slow-release fertilizer replacement for compound fertilizer showed the best performance. T4 treatment had the best economic benefit, and the output value reached 59995.80 yuan/hm², which was higher than that of the control and other treatments. In conclusion, the ratio of slow-release fertilizer and compound fertilizer of 80%:20% could better improve the comprehensive quality of tobacco leaves, obtain good economic benefits of flue-cured tobacco leaves and improve the soil nutrient structure to a certain extent.

Key words: combined application of slow-release fertilizer and compound fertilizer, tobacco-growing soil fertility, fertility index (IFI), flue-cured tobacco quality, economic benefits

CLC Number:

S572

LI Xiancai, ZHANG Xiaolong, PAN Yihong, ZHENG Shifang, SUN Yonghua, ZHOU Fangfang, LEI Fuhou, CAO Jiayuan. Combined Application of Different Proportions of Slow-release Fertilizer and Compound Fertilizer for Tobacco: Effects on Soil Fertility and Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(36): 47-53.

Figures/Tables 8

References 25

[1]	唐汉, 王金武, 徐常塑, 等. 化肥减施增效关键技术研究进展分析[J]. 农业机械学报, 2019, 50(4):1-19.
[2]	张民, 史衍玺, 杨守祥, 等. 控释和缓释肥的研究现状与进展[J]. 化肥工业, 2001, 28(5):27-30,63.
[3]	粟晓万, 杜建军, 贾振宇, 等. 缓/控释肥的研究应用现状[J]. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(12):234-238.
[4]	蔡秋华, 赵正雄, 左进香, 等. 有机肥配施减量化肥对烤烟青枯病及其根际微生物的影响[J]. 烟草科技, 2018, 51(11):20-27.
[5]	尚怀国, 李莉, 王克健, 等. 甘蔗生产化肥农药减施增效技术研究进展[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(1):211-216.
[6]	施卫省, 罗小林, 唐辉, 等. 桐油包膜尿素养分释放机理的研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2006, 14(4):109-111.
[7]	徐松鹤, 赵博洋. 不同缓释肥配施对荞麦产量和品质的影响[J]. 北方农业学报, 2020, 48(4):67-70.
[8]	黄蕾. 不同缓释肥在水稻上的减肥效果初探[J]. 上海农业科技, 2020,(4): 112,136.
[9]	梁阗, 杨尚东, 何为中, 等. 新植蔗一次性施用甘蔗专用缓释肥的效果[J]. 南方农业学报, 2020, 51(3):552-557.
[10]	李会合, 林洁. 不同缓释肥对莴笋产量及品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2007, 23(7):395-397.
[11]	王鹏, 何跃兴, 林绍武, 等. 不同缓释肥对烤烟生长的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2012, 24(3):119-121.
[12]	朱亚, 赵永平, 郑仕伟, 等. 缓释肥与叶面肥配施对烟草生长发育和光合特性的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2018, 30(6):67-70.
[13]	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.
[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]. 烟草科技, 2013(1):53-57.
[15]	杨森, 潘义宏, 刘云霁, 等. 宣威典型植烟区土壤养分综合评价[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2019, 47(3):39-44.
[16]	胡小凤, 李文一, 王正银. 缓释复合肥料对酸性菜园土壤微生物数量特征的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(8):1594-1601.
[17]	毕小进. 不同缓释氮肥对辣椒生物学效应及土壤微生物数量的影响[D]. 武汉:华中农业大学, 2015.
[18]	岳书云, 范浩灵, 范伟玲. 微生物与土壤肥力的关系探讨[J]. 南方农机, 2020, 51(2):56.
[19]	胡可, 王曰鑫, 王利宾. 生物缓释肥对复垦土壤的肥效及微生物活性的研究[C].// 中国农业工程学会.纪念中国农业工程学会成立三十周年暨中国农业工程学会2009年学术年会(CSAE2009)论文集. 2009:1-5.
[20]	马春梅, 王家睿, 战厚强, 等. 稻草还田对土壤脲酶活性及土壤溶液无机氮含量影响[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2016, 47(3):38-43,79.
[21]	谢云波, 冯文强, 曾祥忠, 等. 烤烟的养分需求规律及施肥技术研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2010, 38(21):11115-11119.
[22]	陈晨, 高晓明, 胡宏, 等. 我国缓控释肥的研究进展[J]. 河北化工, 2010, 33(6):37-39.
[23]	张民, 史衍玺, 杨守祥, 等. 控释和缓释肥的研究现状与进展[J]. 化肥工业, 2001, 28(5):27-30,63.
[24]	楚召. 缓释/控释化肥的研究现状及进展[J]. 磷肥与复肥, 2007, 22(2):14-16.
[25]	蒋悦, 刘立明, 张战利, 等. 包膜型缓释肥的开发与研究进展[J]. 三峡大学学报:自然科学版, 2012, 34(1):95-100.

处理名称	处理方式
T1	80%复合肥（基肥）+20%缓释肥（基肥）
T2	60%复合肥（基肥）+40%缓释肥（基肥）
T3	40%复合肥（基肥）+60%缓释肥（基肥）
T4	20%复合肥（基肥）+80%缓释肥（基肥）
T5	100%缓释肥（基肥）
CK	70%复合肥（基肥）+30%复合肥（追肥）

处理名称	处理方式
T1	80%复合肥（基肥）+20%缓释肥（基肥）
T2	60%复合肥（基肥）+40%缓释肥（基肥）
T3	40%复合肥（基肥）+60%缓释肥（基肥）
T4	20%复合肥（基肥）+80%缓释肥（基肥）
T5	100%缓释肥（基肥）
CK	70%复合肥（基肥）+30%复合肥（追肥）

试验处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	全钾/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	IFI
T1	6.51	50.57	2.30	1.15	9.39	175.56	45.01	207.64	0.63
T2	6.96	48.79	2.15	1.04	11.59	159.10	36.66	179.00	0.63
T3	6.77	41.93	2.00	1.69	10.76	148.13	34.85	207.64	0.69
T4	6.76	40.55	1.59	0.77	12.06	134.41	28.13	205.25	0.65
T5	6.90	43.81	1.66	1.14	9.97	148.13	24.32	150.36	0.65
CK	6.37	46.27	1.96	0.78	8.15	150.87	23.23	319.81	0.56

试验处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/(g/kg)	全磷/(g/kg)	全钾/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	IFI
T1	6.51	50.57	2.30	1.15	9.39	175.56	45.01	207.64	0.63
T2	6.96	48.79	2.15	1.04	11.59	159.10	36.66	179.00	0.63
T3	6.77	41.93	2.00	1.69	10.76	148.13	34.85	207.64	0.69
T4	6.76	40.55	1.59	0.77	12.06	134.41	28.13	205.25	0.65
T5	6.90	43.81	1.66	1.14	9.97	148.13	24.32	150.36	0.65
CK	6.37	46.27	1.96	0.78	8.15	150.87	23.23	319.81	0.56

烟叶部位	处理	厚度/mm	含梗率/%	叶面密度/(g/m²)	抗张力/N	抗张强度/(KN/m）	平衡含水率/%	填充值/(cm³/g)	综合得分
C3F	T1	0.15	30.73	80.36	2.13	0.14	14.08	3.31	88.79
	T2	0.10	33.26	76.96	1.31	0.09	13.79	3.62	84.09
	T3	0.09	33.07	72.21	1.43	0.10	13.39	3.72	83.46
	T4	0.15	30.63	81.94	1.91	0.13	14.74	3.43	89.31
	T5	0.12	32.86	70.17	2.07	0.14	14.75	3.59	85.84
	CK	0.11	31.41	59.76	2.24	0.15	15.10	3.53	82.59
B2F	T1	0.15	28.28	98.92	2.27	0.15	14.78	3.13	84.73
	T2	0.14	29.24	90.99	2.22	0.15	14.84	3.02	86.50
	T3	0.17	26.71	95.67	2.49	0.17	14.58	3.14	86.06
	T4	0.17	26.74	100.73	1.85	0.12	14.68	2.93	87.84
	T5	0.16	28.40	99.14	2.68	0.18	14.68	3.16	81.65
	CK	0.15	29.37	102.34	1.73	0.12	14.55	3.09	83.77