Influence of Fertilization System of Nutrient Critical Value for Optimum Yield of Tobacco on Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco in Yuxi

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0960

Abstract

Abstract:

The paper aims to verify the validity and applicability of the fertilization system of nutrient critical value for optimum yield of tobacco. A field experiment with tobacco ‘K326’ was conducted in Yuxi to investigate the effects of the model on yield and quality of tobacco. It was found that the recommended fertilization amount (T3) by fertilization system of nutrient critical value for optimum yield of tobacco was 58.9 kg/hm² lower than that of the conventional recommended fertilization amount (T2). Reducing fertilizer application had little effect on agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco, but could improve yield and quality, fertilizer contribution rate and fertilizer agronomic utilization rate. In 2019, the yield of T3 was 7% higher than that of T2, the output value was 11% higher than that of T2, the fertilizer contribution rate was 5.1 percentage points higher than that of T2, and the fertilizer agronomic utilization rate was 53.8% higher than that of T2. In 2020, the yield of T3 was 7.2% higher than that of T2, the output value was 8.5% higher than that of T2, the fertilizer contribution rate was 4.9 percentage points higher than that of T2, and the fertilizer agronomic utilization rate was 43.9% higher than that of T2. The grey correlation analysis method was used to comprehensively evaluate chemical constituents of the middle and the upper leaves, then tobacco leaves of the three treatments were sorted. The order of middle leaves was T3> T1> T2, and the order of upper leaves was T3> T2> T1. The results of the two-year field experiment in this study showed that, compared with the conventional recommended fertilization, fertilization system of nutrient critical value for optimum yield of tobacco comprehensively and significantly improved the growth, yield and quality, economic benefit and fertilizer utilization rate of flue-cured tobacco, which could achieve the goal of precise fertilization and provide a practical way for the fertilization management in flue-cured tobacco production.

Key words: flue-cured tobacco, fertilization system of nutrient critical value for optimum yield of tobacco, fertilization model, yield and quality, fertilizer use efficiency

CLC Number:

S572

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.

Figures/Tables 5

References 33

[1]	胡荣海. 云南烟草栽培学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007:290-296.
[2]	中国农业科学院烟草研究所. 中国烟草栽培学[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2005:5-6.
[3]	朱浩, 张强, 孙渭. 等. 烟草品质性质影响因子的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018,34(34):25-29.
[4]	汤宏, 曾掌权, 张杨珠. 等. 化学氮肥配施有机肥对烟草品质、氮素吸收及利用率的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2019,34(4):183-191. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.201751264
[5]	赵书军, 饶雄飞, 袁家富. 等. 恩施州植烟区土壤养分现状及演变趋势[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2015(2):33-37,62.
[6]	张为涛. 控释钾肥对小麦/玉米和烟草养分吸收、产量及土壤养分的影响[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2017.
[7]	刘青丽, 张云贵, 焦永鸽. 等. 西南烟区氮素供应与烤烟氮素吸收的关系[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017,23(3):757-764.
[8]	闫芳芳, 朱波, 陈庆瑞. 等. 不同增钾肥配方对攀枝花烤烟烟叶产量、品质及土壤养分含量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2013,26(5):1957-1961.
[9]	朱佩, 张继光, 薛琳. 等. 不同质地土壤上烤烟氮素积累分配及利用率的研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2015,21(2):362-370.
[10]	汤宏, 张杨珠, 李向阳. 等. 不同施氮量对烟草生长及产量的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2018(11):63-67.
[11]	史彦江, 吴正保, 谷量. 等. 不同氮磷钾配比追肥对幼龄骏枣生长及其产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2014,1:42-47.
[12]	张海伟, 翟晶, 程小强. 等. 不同基追肥比例及施氮量对紫色土旱地烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2013,19(2):72-76.
[13]	张勇刚, 宋朝鹏, 李常军. 等. 烟叶感官质量评价研究进展[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2010,49(9):2271-2274.
[14]	杨舟非, 张明发, 田峰. 等. 湘西州植烟土壤有机质特征及与土壤养分的相关性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015,31(1):69-75.
[15]	陈检锋, 陈华, 尹梅. 等. 玉溪烤烟适产养分临界值施肥体系研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020,36(11):43-48.
[16]	中国烟叶生产购销公司. 中国烟叶生产实用技术指南[M]. 北京: 中国烟叶公司, 2016:34-37,52-55.
[17]	国家技术监督局. GB 2635—1992,中华人民共和国国家标准:烤烟[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1992:58.
[18]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2005:56-58,80-84,106-108.
[19]	黄文昌, 周永碧, 吴成林. 氮磷钾肥对白肋烟产量及肥料利用率的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2021(8):39-42.
[20]	李子双, 王薇, 张世文. 等. 氮磷与硅钙肥配施对辣椒产量和品质的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2015,21(2):458-466.
[21]	张明发, 田峰, 巢进. 等. 湘西州植烟土壤pH特征及与土壤有效养分的相关性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2014,30(25):267-272.
[22]	余小芬, 解燕, 杨树明. 等. 减施氮磷钾肥和氮肥基追比对云南曲靖烤烟产质量及养分利用的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020,33(4):848-854.
[23]	李亮, 张翔, 王亚宁. 等. 不同栽培方式与追钾时间对烤烟光合特性、钾含量及产质量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2018(4):67-74,113.
[24]	张硕, 沈晗, 裴洲洋. 等. 氮钾肥用量对皖南烤烟生长发育及养分吸收的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2019,34(4):167-173. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.201751224
[25]	聂天宏, 韩学博, 王海龙. 等. 不同种类生物质炭对植烟土壤保育及烤烟生长和品质的影响[J]. 水土保持学报, 2018,32(6):346-351,358.
[26]	姜桂英, 张弘, 张玉军. 等. 烟草农艺性状和烟叶化学成分对不同碳氮比有机物料的响应[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2017,35(4):61-66,136.
[27]	胡国松. 烤烟营养原理[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2000:83,110,141.
[28]	XI X Y, LI C J, ZHANG F S. Nitrogen supply after removing the shoot apex increases the nicotine concentration and nitrogen content of tobacco[J]. Plants annals of botany, 2005,96:793-797.
[29]	刘刚, 李浩, 董贤春. 等. 宜昌植烟区土壤养分含量特征[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2019,47(6):33-36,40.
[30]	朱佩, 张继光, 薛琳. 等. 不同质地土壤上烤烟氮素积累、分配及利用率的研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2015,21(2):362-370.
[31]	曹连福, 段曰亮. 水稻土有效养分与其校正系数的数学模型[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2012,5:73-76.
[32]	普匡. 新平县旱地植烟土壤养分状况分析及施肥水平建议[J]. 西南农业学报, 2010,23(4):1160-1165.
[33]	张明发, 田峰, 邓小华. 等. 不同新型肥料对土壤肥力及烤烟生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017,33(29):85-89.

年份	处理	株高/cm	茎围/cm	有效叶数/片	最大叶长/cm	最大叶宽/cm	叶面积系数	节距/cm
2019	T1	71.9b	7.1b	19.4a	61.0b	24.5b	2.19b	4.3b
	T2	102.2a	10.7a	20.2a	68.9a	30.6a	3.21a	5.1a
	T3	100.6a	10.1a	19.9a	71.2a	28.2a	2.96a	5.4a
2020	T1	72.3b	7.2b	19.5a	61.4b	25.0b	2.15b	4.4b
	T2	103.4a	10.5a	20.0a	68.8a	32.1a	3.28a	4.9a
	T3	102.1a	10.1a	19.8a	72.2a	32.2a	3.32a	4.8a

年份	处理	株高/cm	茎围/cm	有效叶数/片	最大叶长/cm	最大叶宽/cm	叶面积系数	节距/cm
2019	T1	71.9b	7.1b	19.4a	61.0b	24.5b	2.19b	4.3b
	T2	102.2a	10.7a	20.2a	68.9a	30.6a	3.21a	5.1a
	T3	100.6a	10.1a	19.9a	71.2a	28.2a	2.96a	5.4a
2020	T1	72.3b	7.2b	19.5a	61.4b	25.0b	2.15b	4.4b
	T2	103.4a	10.5a	20.0a	68.8a	32.1a	3.28a	4.9a
	T3	102.1a	10.1a	19.8a	72.2a	32.2a	3.32a	4.8a

年份	处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	产值/(元/hm²)	均价/(元/kg)	上等烟比例/%	中上等烟比例/%
2019	T1	2113.5b	50352.00c	23.83a	60.0b	81.3a
	T2	2613.0a	66633.00b	25.50a	61.8ab	84.7a
	T3	2788.5a	74017.50a	26.55a	68.2a	87.2a
2019	T1	1926.0b	48814.50b	25.34a	61.1b	81.0a
	T2	2634.0a	66843.00a	25.38a	62.6b	85.3a
	T3	2824.5a	72543.00a	25.68a	66.8a	87.5a

年份	处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	产值/(元/hm²)	均价/(元/kg)	上等烟比例/%	中上等烟比例/%
2019	T1	2113.5b	50352.00c	23.83a	60.0b	81.3a
	T2	2613.0a	66633.00b	25.50a	61.8ab	84.7a
	T3	2788.5a	74017.50a	26.55a	68.2a	87.2a
2019	T1	1926.0b	48814.50b	25.34a	61.1b	81.0a
	T2	2634.0a	66843.00a	25.38a	62.6b	85.3a
	T3	2824.5a	72543.00a	25.68a	66.8a	87.5a

年份	部位	处理	还原糖/%	烟碱/%	总氮/%	钾/%	两糖差	糖碱比	氮碱比	钾氯比	非烟碱氮/总氮
2019	C3F	T1	27.7	2.06	1.52	1.47	11.6	19.1	0.74	2.81	0.77
		T2	22.9	2.36	1.66	1.60	16.6	16.8	0.70	3.41	0.75
		T3	25.7	3.66	2.15	1.66	8.93	9.47	0.59	3.47	0.71
	B2F	T1	26.1	1.64	1.29	1.26	12.3	23.4	0.78	2.95	0.78
		T2	24.4	2.31	1.74	1.66	13.2	16.3	0.75	4.37	0.77
		T3	24.6	3.81	1.89	1.88	3.43	14.7	0.90	2.19	0.81
2020	C3F	T1	27.6	2.01	1.50	1.39	11.0	18.5	0.72	2.76	0.73
		T2	22.8	2.28	1.59	1.54	16.1	16.7	0.63	3.33	0.69
		T3	24.6	3.60	1.77	1.63	6.22	9.90	0.41	4.17	0.63
	B2F	T1	26.2	1.56	1.25	1.24	12.0	22.8	0.73	2.93	0.75
		T2	24.8	2.22	1.65	1.63	13.3	16.5	0.72	4.29	0.76
		T3	25.2	3.23	1.75	1.54	9.35	15.3	0.62	2.10	0.67