Effects of Organic-inorganic Compound Conditioner on Acidified Soil Properties and Tobacco Yield and Quality

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0096

Abstract

Abstract:

The study verified the field application effect of organic-inorganic compound conditioners on tobacco, aiming to provide a theoretical basis for the subsequent popularization and application. Five treatments were set up in field experiments, which were T1: no conditioner (CK), T2: organic-inorganic compound conditioner (1500 kg/hm²), T3: organic-inorganic compound optimal conditioner (1500 kg/hm²), T4: marine conditioner (1500 kg/hm²) and T5: biochar (1500 kg/hm²). A randomized block design was used to compare the effects of different treatments on soil properties and tobacco yield and quality. The results showed that: (1) the application of conditioners significantly improved the agronomic characters of tobacco plants, as well as the yield and quality of tobacco; the plant height, effective leaf number, stem circumference and maximum leaf length under organic-inorganic compound optimal conditioner were improved by 8.53%, 14.19%, 7.40% and 8.21%, respectively, compared to those of the control; and the yield, output value and average price were significantly improved by 28.76%, 46.98% and 14.16%, respectively, compared to those of the control; (2) the total nitrogen, nicotine, potassium, chlorine, protein contents and nitrogen-alkali ratio under all the treatments were within the appropriate range, and the chemical components of marine conditioner treatment were relatively coordinated; (3) compared to the control, the organic-inorganic compound optimal conditioner significantly increased the soil pH unit by 0.32, with its urease activity increased by 26.23%; the two organic-inorganic compound conditioners both increased the number of bacteria and actinomycetes in soil, and increased the content of available potassium by more than 20.53%; the content of exchangeable calcium and exchangeable magnesium under all conditioners were higher than those of the control; under marine conditioner treatment, the content of exchangeable calcium and exchangeable magnesium were 152.37% and 56.34% higher than those of the control, and the activity of invertase and dehydrogenase increased by 93.67% and 78.65% compared to those of the control. To sum up, the organic-inorganic compound optimal conditioner has the best effect on improving acid tobacco sandy mud field and tobacco yield and quality, followed by marine conditioner.

Key words: acidified soil, organic-inorganic conditioner, soil nutrients, tobacco, soil enzyme activity, microbial colony

CHEN Zhenlu, PAN Xiaoying, LU Yusheng, HUANG Zhenrui, GU Wenjie, GUO Junjie, WEI Bin, ZENG Yuling, LIU Yixuan, HE Jingwei, LI Jiqin. Effects of Organic-inorganic Compound Conditioner on Acidified Soil Properties and Tobacco Yield and Quality[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(3): 28-34.

Figures/Tables 6

References 37

[1]	郭亚利, 刘锦华, 王仕海. 植烟土壤保育及改良技术的研究进展[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2016, 44(4):79-85.
[2]	刘国顺. 烟草栽培学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003.
[3]	陈泽鹏. 广东植烟土壤与配方施肥[M]. 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2017.
[4]	孙蓟锋, 王旭. 土壤调理剂的研究和应用进展[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2013(1):1-7.
[5]	靳辉勇, 黎娟, 朱益, 等. 土壤调理剂对烤烟根系活力及根际土壤微生物碳代谢特征的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2019, 33(1):0158-0165.
[6]	靳辉勇, 齐绍武, 朱益, 等. 土壤调理剂对土壤养分含量及微生物功能多样性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2017, 19(5):100-105. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2016.796
[7]	卢钰升, 顾文杰, 李集勤, 等. 烟草新型土壤调理剂对植烟沙泥田土壤的改良及应用效果[J]. 热带作物学报, 2021, 42(4):1055-1060.
[8]	张玉树, 王英男, 郑祥洲, 等. 多功能调理剂在福建植烟土壤上的应用效果[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2017, 38(4):44-50,57.
[9]	黄化刚, 班国军, 陈垚, 等. 多孔改良剂对毕节烟区土壤性状及烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 土壤学报, 2017, 54(6):1427-1437.
[10]	邢世和, 熊德中, 周碧青, 等. 不同改良剂对烟区土壤肥力性状及烤烟产量和质量的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报:自然科学版, 2004, 33(3):384-389.
[11]	邢世和, 熊德中, 周碧青, 等. 不同土壤改良剂对土壤生化性质与烤烟产量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2005, 36(1):72-75.
[12]	淡俊豪, 齐绍武, 黎娟, 等. 土壤调理剂对植烟土壤微生物碳代谢指纹的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2018, 20(10):36-43. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2018.0199
[13]	敖俊华, 黄振瑞, 江永, 等. 石灰施用对酸性土壤养分状况和甘蔗生长的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(15):266-269.
[14]	易杰祥, 吕亮雪, 刘国道. 土壤酸化和酸性土壤改良研究[J]. 华南热带农业大学学报, 2006, 12(1):23-28.
[15]	国家标准化管理委员会.YC/T142-2010中华人民共和国行业标准:烟草农艺性状调查方法(第3版) [S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2003,227-231.
[16]	国家标准化管理委员会.GB2635-1992中华人民共和国国家标准:烤烟(第3版)[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2003:403-413.
[17]	鲁如坤. 土壤农业化学分析方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 2000.
[18]	关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,1986.
[19]	李振高, 骆永明, 滕应. 土壤与环境微生物研究法[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008.
[20]	简盛义, 蒋志利, 李文渊, 等. 土壤改良剂对贵阳烟区烤烟生长发育和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2018, 59(3):393-396,399.
[21]	邓小华, 张龙辉, 陈金, 等. 改良剂对酸性土壤理化特性及烤烟生长和品质的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2018, 39(6):14-20.
[22]	胡亚杰, 孙建生, 石保峰, 等. 土壤调理剂对贺州烤烟质量及植烟土壤理化特性的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2014(21):56-60.
[23]	张玉树, 陈哲, 郑祥洲, 等. 多功能土壤调理剂在酸性植烟土壤上应用效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(2):80-86.
[24]	孙延国, 闫慧峰, 石屹, 等. 海洋类土壤改良剂对土壤理化性状及烤烟生长和产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2017, 19(3):82-89. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2016.361
[25]	李集勤, 杨少海, 卢钰升, 等. 改良剂对烟叶产质量、土壤理化性质及土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2019, 46(5):9-15.
[26]	李集勤, 杨少海, 黄振瑞, 等. 两种土壤调理剂在梅州烟区麻沙泥田上的应用效果[J]. 热带作物学报, 2020, 41(8):1596-1601.
[27]	MEANS N E, STARBUCK C J, KREMER R J, et al. Effects of a food waste-based soil conditioner on soil properties and plant growth[J]. Compost science & utilization, 2005, 13(2):116-121.
[28]	NING C, GAO P, WANG B, et al. Impacts of chemical fertilizer reduction and organic amendments supplementation on soil nutrient, enzyme activity and heavy metal content[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2017, 16(8):1819-1831. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61476-4 URL
[29]	王富国, 宋琳, 冯艳, 等. 不同种植年限酸化果园土壤微生物学性状的研究[J]. 土壤通报, 2011(1):46-50.
[30]	王辉, 董元华, 李德成, 等. 不同种植年限大棚蔬菜土壤养分状况研究[J]. 土壤, 2005, 37(4):460-464.
[31]	韦婉羚, 罗兴录, 李亮, 等. 土壤调理剂不同用量对木薯产量和土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2017, 48(4):623-627.
[32]	邓小华, 向清慧, 刘勇军, 等. 施用改良剂对山地土壤pH和烤烟生长及产质量的效应[J]. 核农学报, 2020, 34(7):1568-1577. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2020.07.1568
[33]	王军, 刘兰, 田俊岭, 等. 广东烟区土壤有效磷区域分布及演变特征[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2019, 40(3):16-23.
[34]	柳开楼, 熊华荣, 胡惠文, 等. 特贝钙土壤调理剂对红壤旱地花生产量和阻控土壤酸化的影响[J]. 广东农业科学, 2017, 44(5):93-98.
[35]	王光飞, 高晓东, 马艳, 等. 生物有机类复合调理剂在设施叶菜障碍土壤上的应用效果[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2020(2):56-65.
[36]	武盼盼, 杨素芬, 刘书武, 等. 炭基土壤调理剂配施专用肥对玉米土壤微生物及酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(26):66-73.
[37]	邓小华, 杨哲宇, 李玉辉, 等. 施用改良剂对植烟土壤酶活性和养分含量的影响[J]. 烟草科技, 2019, 52(2):33-39.

处理	株高/cm	有效叶数/片	茎围/cm	最大叶长/cm	最大叶宽/cm
T1	93.75b	13.25b	8.39b	82.17b	25.04b
T2	99.88a	13.92ab	8.83a	87.33a	27.58a
T3	101.75a	15.13a	9.01a	88.92a	27.29a
T4	98.50a	14.25ab	8.87a	87.00a	26.83a
T5	98.33a	13.33b	8.84a	86.42a	26.92a

处理	株高/cm	有效叶数/片	茎围/cm	最大叶长/cm	最大叶宽/cm
T1	93.75b	13.25b	8.39b	82.17b	25.04b
T2	99.88a	13.92ab	8.83a	87.33a	27.58a
T3	101.75a	15.13a	9.01a	88.92a	27.29a
T4	98.50a	14.25ab	8.87a	87.00a	26.83a
T5	98.33a	13.33b	8.84a	86.42a	26.92a

处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	产值/(元/hm²)	上中等烟比例/%	均价/(元/kg)
T1	1776.58c	39154.99c	94.13a	22.04b
T2	2101.05ab	51515.14ab	96.19a	24.52a
T3	2287.60a	57551.95a	96.95a	25.16a
T4	2184.42ab	53998.99a	96.34a	24.72a
T5	2063.53b	49490.90b	94.94a	23.98ab

处理	产量/(kg/hm²)	产值/(元/hm²)	上中等烟比例/%	均价/(元/kg)
T1	1776.58c	39154.99c	94.13a	22.04b
T2	2101.05ab	51515.14ab	96.19a	24.52a
T3	2287.60a	57551.95a	96.95a	25.16a
T4	2184.42ab	53998.99a	96.34a	24.72a
T5	2063.53b	49490.90b	94.94a	23.98ab

处理	部位	总糖/%	还原糖/%	总氮/%	烟碱/%	钾/%	氯/%	蛋白质/%	氮碱比	糖碱比
T1	C3F	25.00a	23.02a	2.10a	2.14a	3.07a	0.44a	7.55a	0.98a	10.75a
T2		24.98a	23.07a	2.16a	2.18a	3.07a	0.51a	7.89a	0.99a	10.60a
T3		25.94a	24.28a	2.05a	2.11a	3.20a	0.42a	7.29a	0.97a	11.52a
T4		22.59b	20.35b	2.22a	2.86a	3.07a	0.54a	7.53a	0.78a	7.10b
T5		27.57a	25.23a	2.21a	2.39a	3.08a	0.51a	8.00a	0.92a	10.54a
T1	B2F	20.53a	18.42a	2.38a	3.08ab	2.72a	0.47a	8.31c	0.77a	5.97a
T2		17.12b	15.26b	2.76a	3.35a	2.78a	0.59a	10.40ab	0.82a	4.57ab
T3		17.07b	15.35b	2.84a	3.13ab	2.73a	0.58a	11.16a	0.91a	4.89ab
T4		17.49b	14.71b	2.81a	3.57a	2.68a	0.59a	10.46ab	0.79a	4.12b
T5		20.89a	18.03a	2.46a	2.91b	2.56a	0.41a	9.02bc	0.85a	6.19a