Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (22): 15-19.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0217
Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Peng1,2(), LIN Yong3, XIE Xiaodan2, HUANG Shiliang3, GU Li1, LI Mingjie1, QIAN Sheng1, ZHANG Zhongyi1()
Received:
2022-03-30
Revised:
2022-05-18
Online:
2022-08-05
Published:
2022-08-22
Contact:
ZHANG Zhongyi
E-mail:wpftc@126.com;hauzzy@163.com
CLC Number:
WANG Peng, LIN Yong, XIE Xiaodan, HUANG Shiliang, GU Li, LI Mingjie, QIAN Sheng, ZHANG Zhongyi. Effects of Different Transplanting Measures on Quality and Sensory Characteristics of Flue-cured Tobacco ‘CB-1'[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(22): 15-19.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0217
处理 | 移栽期(月/日) | 团棵期(月/日) | 现蕾期(月/日) | 初花期(月/日) | 打顶期(月/日) | 脚叶成熟期(月/日) | 腰叶成熟期(月/日) | 顶叶成熟期(月/日) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 1/1 | 3/1 | 4/2 | 4/23 | 4/3 | 5/1 | 5/25 | 6/22 |
T2 | 1/1 | 3 | 4/2 | 4/19 | 4/2 | 5 | 5/19 | 6/18 |
T3 | 1/1 | 3 | 4/2 | 4/17 | 4/2 | 4/3 | 5/16 | 6/15 |
T4 | 1/1 | 2/3 | 4/1 | 4/14 | 4/2 | 4/3 | 5/12 | 6/1 |
处理 | 移栽期(月/日) | 团棵期(月/日) | 现蕾期(月/日) | 初花期(月/日) | 打顶期(月/日) | 脚叶成熟期(月/日) | 腰叶成熟期(月/日) | 顶叶成熟期(月/日) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 1/1 | 3/1 | 4/2 | 4/23 | 4/3 | 5/1 | 5/25 | 6/22 |
T2 | 1/1 | 3 | 4/2 | 4/19 | 4/2 | 5 | 5/19 | 6/18 |
T3 | 1/1 | 3 | 4/2 | 4/17 | 4/2 | 4/3 | 5/16 | 6/15 |
T4 | 1/1 | 2/3 | 4/1 | 4/14 | 4/2 | 4/3 | 5/12 | 6/1 |
处理 | 株高/cm | 茎围/cm | 节距/cm | 有效叶数/片 | 最大叶面积/cm2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 100.6cD | 9.5aB | 6.1cC | 11dD | 1601.23cC |
T2 | 103.8bC | 9.6aB | 6.5bB | 12cC | 1609.67cC |
T3 | 105.5bB | 10.1aA | 6.5bB | 13bB | 1657.96bB |
T4 | 107.6aA | 10.7aA | 6.8aA | 15aA | 1706.87aA |
处理 | 株高/cm | 茎围/cm | 节距/cm | 有效叶数/片 | 最大叶面积/cm2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 100.6cD | 9.5aB | 6.1cC | 11dD | 1601.23cC |
T2 | 103.8bC | 9.6aB | 6.5bB | 12cC | 1609.67cC |
T3 | 105.5bB | 10.1aA | 6.5bB | 13bB | 1657.96bB |
T4 | 107.6aA | 10.7aA | 6.8aA | 15aA | 1706.87aA |
处理 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 产值/(元/hm2) | 均价/(元/kg) | 上等烟比例/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 149bB | 5256.72dC | 36.61bB | 89.60bA |
T2 | 151bB | 5553.78cB | 36.78bB | 90.43bA |
T3 | 156aA | 5779.82bA | 36.73bB | 89.62bA |
T4 | 158aA | 5803.34aA | 37.05aA | 92.06aA |
处理 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 产值/(元/hm2) | 均价/(元/kg) | 上等烟比例/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 149bB | 5256.72dC | 36.61bB | 89.60bA |
T2 | 151bB | 5553.78cB | 36.78bB | 90.43bA |
T3 | 156aA | 5779.82bA | 36.73bB | 89.62bA |
T4 | 158aA | 5803.34aA | 37.05aA | 92.06aA |
等级 | 处理 | 烟碱/% | 总糖/% | 还原糖/% | 氧化钾/% | 总氮/% | 两糖差 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X2F | T1 | 1.52dC | 16.29dD | 18.87cC | 3.63bA | 1.69bB | 3.34aA |
T2 | 1.63bB | 17.62cC | 19.43bB | 3.78aA | 1.96aA | 3.27bA | |
T3 | 1.59cB | 18.15bB | 19.56bB | 2.98dC | 1.78bB | 3.12cB | |
T4 | 1.76aA | 18.91aA | 21.6aA | 3.23cB | 1.26cC | 3.39aA | |
C3F | T1 | 2.53cB | 23.58cC | 20.62dC | 3.63aA | 2.16dD | 2.67bB |
T2 | 2.98aA | 25.76bB | 22.36cB | 2.51bB | 2.63aA | 2.32cC | |
T3 | 2.65bB | 27.16aA | 23.15bB | 2.17cC | 2.53bB | 3.19aA | |
T4 | 2.68bB | 25.73bB | 25.73aA | 3.23bA | 2.37cC | 2.06dD | |
B2F | T1 | 3.48aA | 21.16bB | 17.29cC | 2.65bB | 2.36bB | 1.95bB |
T2 | 3.44aA | 20.92bB | 18.63bB | 2.78aA | 2.49aA | 2.43aA | |
T3 | 3.41bA | 23.17aA | 18.92bB | 2.67bB | 2.51aA | 1.57cC | |
T4 | 3.40bA | 23.07aA | 20.73aA | 2.58cB | 2.35bB | 2.02bB |
等级 | 处理 | 烟碱/% | 总糖/% | 还原糖/% | 氧化钾/% | 总氮/% | 两糖差 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X2F | T1 | 1.52dC | 16.29dD | 18.87cC | 3.63bA | 1.69bB | 3.34aA |
T2 | 1.63bB | 17.62cC | 19.43bB | 3.78aA | 1.96aA | 3.27bA | |
T3 | 1.59cB | 18.15bB | 19.56bB | 2.98dC | 1.78bB | 3.12cB | |
T4 | 1.76aA | 18.91aA | 21.6aA | 3.23cB | 1.26cC | 3.39aA | |
C3F | T1 | 2.53cB | 23.58cC | 20.62dC | 3.63aA | 2.16dD | 2.67bB |
T2 | 2.98aA | 25.76bB | 22.36cB | 2.51bB | 2.63aA | 2.32cC | |
T3 | 2.65bB | 27.16aA | 23.15bB | 2.17cC | 2.53bB | 3.19aA | |
T4 | 2.68bB | 25.73bB | 25.73aA | 3.23bA | 2.37cC | 2.06dD | |
B2F | T1 | 3.48aA | 21.16bB | 17.29cC | 2.65bB | 2.36bB | 1.95bB |
T2 | 3.44aA | 20.92bB | 18.63bB | 2.78aA | 2.49aA | 2.43aA | |
T3 | 3.41bA | 23.17aA | 18.92bB | 2.67bB | 2.51aA | 1.57cC | |
T4 | 3.40bA | 23.07aA | 20.73aA | 2.58cB | 2.35bB | 2.02bB |
序号 | 等级 | 香味风格 | 甜感 | 换算得分 | 风格特征得分 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
香型 | 分值 | 特征 | 分值 | |||||
T1 | X2F | 清香 | 6.5 | 清甜 | 7 | 67 | 26.8 | |
T2 | 清香 | 6.5 | 清甜 | 7 | 67 | 26.8 | ||
T3 | 清香 | 7 | 清甜 | 7.5 | 72 | 28.8 | ||
T4 | 清香 | 7 | 清甜 | 7.5 | 72 | 28.8 | ||
T1 | C3F | 清香 | 8 | 清甜 | 8 | 80 | 32 | |
T2 | 清香 | 8 | 清甜 | 8 | 80 | 32 | ||
T3 | 清香 | 8.5 | 清甜 | 8.5 | 85 | 34 | ||
T4 | 清香 | 8.5 | 清甜 | 8.5 | 85 | 34 | ||
T1 | B2F | 清香 | 7.5 | 清甜 | 7.5 | 75 | 30 | |
T2 | 清香 | 7.5 | 清甜 | 7.5 | 75 | 30 | ||
T3 | 清香 | 8 | 清甜 | 8 | 80 | 32 | ||
T4 | 清香 | 8 | 清甜 | 8 | 80 | 32 |
序号 | 等级 | 香味风格 | 甜感 | 换算得分 | 风格特征得分 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
香型 | 分值 | 特征 | 分值 | |||||
T1 | X2F | 清香 | 6.5 | 清甜 | 7 | 67 | 26.8 | |
T2 | 清香 | 6.5 | 清甜 | 7 | 67 | 26.8 | ||
T3 | 清香 | 7 | 清甜 | 7.5 | 72 | 28.8 | ||
T4 | 清香 | 7 | 清甜 | 7.5 | 72 | 28.8 | ||
T1 | C3F | 清香 | 8 | 清甜 | 8 | 80 | 32 | |
T2 | 清香 | 8 | 清甜 | 8 | 80 | 32 | ||
T3 | 清香 | 8.5 | 清甜 | 8.5 | 85 | 34 | ||
T4 | 清香 | 8.5 | 清甜 | 8.5 | 85 | 34 | ||
T1 | B2F | 清香 | 7.5 | 清甜 | 7.5 | 75 | 30 | |
T2 | 清香 | 7.5 | 清甜 | 7.5 | 75 | 30 | ||
T3 | 清香 | 8 | 清甜 | 8 | 80 | 32 | ||
T4 | 清香 | 8 | 清甜 | 8 | 80 | 32 |
部位 | 处理 | 香气特征 | 烟气特征 | 口感特征 | 质量特征得分 | 综合得分 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
香气质 | 香气量 | 杂气 | 换算得分 | 细腻度 | 浓度 | 劲头 | 换算得分 | 刺激性 | 余味 | 换算得分 | ||||||
下部叶 | T1 | 7 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 67 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 7 | 66.5 | 7 | 6.5 | 67.5 | 40.14 | 66.94 | ||
T2 | 7 | 6.5 | 7 | 68.5 | 6.5 | 7 | 7 | 68 | 7 | 7 | 70 | 41.16 | 67.96 | |||
T3 | 7.5 | 7 | 7 | 72 | 7 | 7 | 7.5 | 71.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 43.44 | 72.24 | |||
T4 | 7 | 7 | 7.5 | 71.5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 70 | 7 | 7 | 70 | 42.36 | 71.16 | |||
中部叶 | T1 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 7.5 | 8 | 8 | 78 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 47.52 | 79.52 | ||
T2 | 8 | 8 | 8.5 | 81.5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 48.36 | 80.36 | |||
T3 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 8 | 8.5 | 82.5 | 50.7 | 84.7 | |||
T4 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 51 | 85 | |||
上部叶 | T1 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 73.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 7.5 | 7 | 72.5 | 44.34 | 74.34 | ||
T2 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 7.5 | 8 | 7.5 | 76.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 45.36 | 75.36 | |||
T3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 7.5 | 8 | 7.5 | 76.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 45.36 | 77.36 | |||
T4 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 7.5 | 8 | 7.5 | 76.5 | 8 | 7.5 | 77.5 | 46.86 | 78.86 |
部位 | 处理 | 香气特征 | 烟气特征 | 口感特征 | 质量特征得分 | 综合得分 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
香气质 | 香气量 | 杂气 | 换算得分 | 细腻度 | 浓度 | 劲头 | 换算得分 | 刺激性 | 余味 | 换算得分 | ||||||
下部叶 | T1 | 7 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 67 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 7 | 66.5 | 7 | 6.5 | 67.5 | 40.14 | 66.94 | ||
T2 | 7 | 6.5 | 7 | 68.5 | 6.5 | 7 | 7 | 68 | 7 | 7 | 70 | 41.16 | 67.96 | |||
T3 | 7.5 | 7 | 7 | 72 | 7 | 7 | 7.5 | 71.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 43.44 | 72.24 | |||
T4 | 7 | 7 | 7.5 | 71.5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 70 | 7 | 7 | 70 | 42.36 | 71.16 | |||
中部叶 | T1 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 7.5 | 8 | 8 | 78 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 47.52 | 79.52 | ||
T2 | 8 | 8 | 8.5 | 81.5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 48.36 | 80.36 | |||
T3 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 8 | 8.5 | 82.5 | 50.7 | 84.7 | |||
T4 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 85 | 51 | 85 | |||
上部叶 | T1 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 73.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 7.5 | 7 | 72.5 | 44.34 | 74.34 | ||
T2 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 7.5 | 8 | 7.5 | 76.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 45.36 | 75.36 | |||
T3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 7.5 | 8 | 7.5 | 76.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 75 | 45.36 | 77.36 | |||
T4 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 80 | 7.5 | 8 | 7.5 | 76.5 | 8 | 7.5 | 77.5 | 46.86 | 78.86 |
[1] | 王初亮, 宋文峰, 关罗浩, 等. 云南红河烟区覆膜方式及移栽苗龄对烤烟产质量形成的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2021(6):95-100. |
[2] | 高卫锴, 徐岩, 刘海业, 等. 移栽深度及覆膜和培土方式对烤烟产质量形成的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2018, 32(1):35-41. |
[3] | 赵萍. 烤烟膜内小苗不同苗龄移栽研究及大田示范[J]. 作物研究, 2014, 28(7):801-803. |
[4] | 董维光, 王涛, 林绍武, 等. 不同移栽方式对烤烟中下部烟叶质量的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2020, 32(2):92-97. |
[5] | 段昶, 周家新, 金康, 等. 不同移栽方式对烟叶产质量的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2021, 27(19):45-46. |
[6] | 程亚东, 贾孟, 孔明, 等. 不同井窖式移栽方式对烤烟生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2021, 33(4):69-73. |
[7] | 郭金平, 林水良, 陈德涵, 等. 不同覆盖方式对‘翠碧一号'小苗移栽产质量的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(28):31-36. |
[8] | 梁兵, 倪凤萍, 邵小东, 等. 不同海拔、移栽期及移栽方式对烤烟生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2017, 30(12):2648-2653. |
[9] | 曾宇, 朱启元, 韩助君, 等. 不同移栽期及移栽方式对烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 农业科学与技术, 2017, 18(11):2088-2091,2154. |
[10] | 谢勇波, 黄松青, 张万良, 等. 提高烤烟量与品质的研究进展[J]. 江西农业学报, 2012, 24(10):77. |
[11] | 包正元, 薛小平, 杨林, 等. 不同移栽期及移栽方式对“云烟85”生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2017(3):20-22. |
[12] | 刘天波, 段淑辉, 杨坤, 等. 长沙烟区不同移栽方式对烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2017, 31(1):55-58,81. |
[13] |
TENG W, LI W Q, LI C J. Comparison of N uptake and internal use efficiency in two tobacco varieties[J]. The crop journal, 2015, 3(1):80-86.
doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2014.08.008 URL |
[14] | LI Y L, CHENG J ZH, LI X Q, et al. Effects of biochar-based fertilizers on nutrient leaching in a tobacco-planting soil[J]. Chinese journal of geochemistry, 2019, 38(1):1-7. |
[15] | XIE Z J, HE Y Q, XU CH X, et al. Effects of transplanting time on 15-nitrogen utilization and industrial quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 2017,41. |
[16] | 张国建. 烤烟品种CB-1化学成分变异分析[J]. 西南农业学报, 2013, 26(3):914-917. |
[17] | 张鹏程, 陆引罡, 远红伟, 等. 不同移栽方式对烤烟田间长势和产质量影响的研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2007, 35(35):11491-11516. |
[18] | 侯加民, 张忠锋. 烤烟根系发育与烟叶产量质量关系的研究[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2003(2):16-18. |
[19] | 韩锦峰, 汪耀富, 张新堂. 土壤水分对烤烟根系发育和根系活力的影响[J]. 中国烟草, 1992(3):14-l7. |
[20] | 侯加民, 张忠锋. 烤烟根系发育与烟叶产量质量关系的研究[J]. 中国烟草, 2003(2):16-18 |
[21] | 马新明, 刘国顺, 王小纯, 等. 烟草根系发育与地上部相关性的研究[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2002(3):26-29 |
[22] | 王育军. 影响上部烟叶烟碱含量的主要农艺措施[J]. 中国农业文摘:农业工程, 2016, 28(4):44-46. |
[23] | 张黎明, 张明发, 田峰, 等. 湘西州烤烟烟碱含量的区域特征及其与烟叶评吸质量的关系[J]. 烟草科技, 2014(12):57-61. |
[24] | 沈晗, 杨凯, 任伟, 等. 影响上部烟叶感官质量的主要化学成分分析[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2019, 25(6):18-26. |
[25] | 陈伟, 王三根, 王玉明, 等. 不同生态区烤烟烟碱含量的变异分析[J]. 中国生态农业学报(中英文), 2009, 17(2):285-290. |
[26] | 陈伟, 陈懿, 黄磊. 土壤与气候对烤后烟叶烟碱和钾含量的影响[J]. 土壤, 2013, 45(4):713-717. |
[27] | 刘国顺, 王彦亭, 汪耀富, 等. 烟草栽培学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003. |
[1] | 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. |
[2] | SONG Lei, TSERING Yangjin, WANG Xiaoqiang, HE Yan. Response Mechanism of Wheat to High Temperature Stress: A Review [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(36): 6-12. |
[3] | Liu Qiaozhen, Guo Fangyang, Yan Xiaomao, Cai Xianjie, Wu Zhaohui, Xu Chengyue, Xu Wenzheng, Han Huige, Wang Mengmeng. Effects of ‘Dongmu 70’ Treatments on Soil Improvement, Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(34): 29-33. |
[4] | 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. |
[5] | Wang Ruoyan, Hua Cui, Tan Longyan, Wang Daoping, Zhang Zhong, Wu Yuejun. Effect of Chinese Herbal Compound Antibacterial Agent on the Disease Control and Yield and Quality of Radix Pseudostellariae in Continuous Cropping Field [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(13): 108-114. |
[6] | Zheng Mingqiang, Wang Ruoyan, Wang Daoping, Pan Weidong, Liu Xiaolan, Yang Ying, Li Chunyan, Li Zhong, Xiao Minlian, Zhang Zhong. Effect of Traditional Chinese Medicine Antiviral Compounds on Virus Controlling, Yield and Quality of Radix Pseudostellariae [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(4): 123-129. |
[7] | Guo Jinping, Lin Shuiliang, Chen Dehan, Xu Xiaowu, Xu Zhiqiang. Effects of Mulching Methods on the Yield and Quality of ‘Cuibi No.1’ Seedlings [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(28): 31-36. |
[8] | Lu Yusheng, Gu Wenjie, Li Jiqin, Yang Shaohai, Liu Lan, Li Shuling, Shi Chaohong, Li Wanling, Wu Hangtao. Effects of Organic Fertilizer Partial Substitution for Chemical Fertilizer on Yield, Soil Physic-chemical Properties and Enzyme Activities of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(16): 22-27. |
[9] | . Effect of Deep Transplant Combined with Hilling on Root Development, Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(35): 52-58. |
[10] | 宋柏权,郝学明,董一帆,杨思源,王响玲,王孝纯,王秋红 and 周建朝. Effects of Soil Moisture Preserving Methods and Boron on Sugarbeet Yield and Quality [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(26): 35-39. |
[11] | . Effects of Altitude, Transplanting Time and Topping Modes on Yield and Quality of‘CB-1’Tobacco Leaf [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019, 35(16): 39-45. |
[12] | . Effects of Microbial Fertilizers on Growth and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(26): 37-41. |
[13] | . Effect of Nitrogen Application Amounts on Agronomic Traits, Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco Variety‘Xiangyan 5’ [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(26): 31-36. |
[14] | 庞法松. Effects of Water Soluble Fertilizers on Yield and Quality of Brassica campestris ssp. chinensis Lee Under Chemical Fertilizer Reduction [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(21): 48-53. |
[15] | . Effect of Fertilization Level on Yield and Quality of Different Genotype Peanut Varieties on Shajiang Black Soil [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(18): 6-10. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||