Effect of Nitrogen Application Rate and Planting Density on Flue-Cured Tobacco and Quantification of Reasonable Plant Type Index

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-0977

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to obtain a reasonable plant type for high-quality and high-yield cultivation of flue-cured tobacco, the ‘Zhongchuan 208’ variety was used as experimental material to carry out field experiment with different nitrogen application rates and planting densities to study the relationship between the characteristics of flue-cured tobacco plant type and the yield and quality of tobacco leaves. Regression analysis of plant type traits of flue-cured tobacco and leaf output value, Chemical Components Usability Index (CCUI) of flue-cured tobacco was carried out to put forward the reasonable plant type of flue-cured tobacco. The results showed that nitrogen application rate and planting density had significant effects on tobacco plant type traits, dry matter accumulation, economic traits of tobacco leaves, and chemical composition. Proper increase of nitrogen application rate could promote the growth and dry matter accumulation of tobacco main stems and leaves, increase the yield and output value of tobacco leaves, and improve the coordination of chemical composition. The increase of density could make the main stem of a single plant of flue-cured tobacco become taller and thinner, the leaves become smaller, and the accumulation of dry matter decrease. However, the yield and output value of population tobacco leaves increased, and the coordination of chemical components first increased and then decreased. The middle leaf is the key factor affects the output value and quality of tobacco. The regression equation of tobacco plant type traits with tobacco leaf output value and CCUI was constructed, and the reasonable plant type traits range of ‘Zhongchuan 208’ at flat top stage was calculated: plant height 124.77-128.70 cm, stem circumference 9.61-9.84 cm, pitch 6.20-6.35 cm, lower leaf length 56.06-58.05 cm, leaf width 28.15-30.57 cm, middle leaf length 63.74-69.05 cm, leaf width 29.93-30.36 cm, upper leaf length 48.44-49.32 cm, leaf width 21.03-21.75 cm, the ratio of lower leaf was 29.11%-30.86%, the ratio of middle leaf was 37.77%-38.12%, and the ratio of upper leaf was 29.18%-31.27%.

Key words: flue-cured tobacco, plant type, nitrogen application rate, planting density, yield and quality of tobacco leaves

WANG Yuhua, WANG Dequan, XIE Qing, SUN Yanguo, LIU Zhongqing, WU Teng, DONG Xiaowei, BAI Zhongyou, YANG Xiufeng, WANG Dahai, WANG Weizong. Effect of Nitrogen Application Rate and Planting Density on Flue-Cured Tobacco and Quantification of Reasonable Plant Type Index[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(35): 41-48.

Figures/Tables 9

References 30

[1]	刘国顺. 烟草栽培学(第2版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2016.
[2]	顾会战, 母明新, 史洪涛, 等. 关于烤烟“中棵烟”培育的若干思考[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2020, 26(6):89-96.
[3]	张旭, 王占森, 谢虹, 等. 玉米株型育种研究进展[J]. 种子, 2010, 29(2):52-55.
[4]	蔡星星, 张盛, 王欢, 等. 水稻株型基因的研究现状及应用前景[J]. 分子植物育种, 2017, 15(7):2809-2814.
[5]	王建永, 李朴芳, 程正国, 等. 旱地小麦理想株型与生长冗余[J]. 生态学报, 2015, 35(8):2428-2437.
[6]	傅蒙蒙, 王燕平, 任海祥, 等. 东北大豆种质资源株型和产量性状的生态特征分析[J]. 大豆科学, 2017, 36(1):1-11.
[7]	李新国, 郭峰, 万书波. 高产花生理想株型的研究[J]. 花生学报, 2013, 42(3):23-26.
[8]	DONALD C M. The breeding of crop ideotypes[J]. Euphytica, 1968(17):385-403.
[9]	杜永, 王艳, 王学红, 等. 黄淮地区不同粳稻品种株型、产量与品质的比较分析[J]. 作物学报, 2007(7):1079-1085.
[10]	沈杰, 王昌全, 何玉亭, 等. 合理密植对不同株型烤烟冠层结构及光合生产特性的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(2):284-295.
[11]	刘国敏, 邵兰军, 高卫锴, 等. 种植密度和施氮量对烟叶组织结构发育及化学成分的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2016, 31(4):206-213. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2016.04.032
[12]	王丰, 丁伟, 冯勇刚, 等. 烤烟优质适产理想株型探讨[J]. 种子, 2007(5):84-87.
[13]	郑登峰, 陈懿, 陈伟, 等. 烤烟株型与产量和质量的关系[J]. 土壤, 2018, 50(4):718-725.
[14]	黄丽芬, 董芙蓉, 霍中洋, 等. 氮素水平对不同氮效率基因型水稻的物质生产与分配的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2012, 26(9):1290-1297. doi: 10.11869/hnxb.2012.09.1290
[15]	杜薇, 王昌全, 李冰, 等. 攀枝花烟区不同施氮量对云烟85生长和产质量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2012, 25(1):193-197.
[16]	晏玲, 刘棋, 封幸兵, 等. 种植密度与施氮量对山地烟生长发育及烟叶品质特征的影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2020, 35(5):810-817.
[17]	贺凌霄, 张谦, 彭玉富, 等. 种植密度、施氮量和留叶数对烤烟生长特性及产质量的影响[J]. 扬州大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2020, 41(2):40-45.
[18]	邵惠芳, 刘志宏, 崔登科, 等. 基于氮素效应的烤烟叶面积指数动态模拟[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(9):1276-1286.
[19]	刘志宏. 基于氮素效应的烤烟群体结构特征及光合生理特性分析[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2018.
[20]	何文高, 陈伟, 宗学凤, 等. 不同处理对烤烟株型、光合特性及产质量的影响[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 37(7):37-43.
[21]	陈凤. 凉山烟区烤烟胞质雄性不育杂交组合的筛选[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2018.
[22]	李迪秦, 龚湛武, 陈一凡, 等. 不同播种移栽期对烤烟产量与品质影响的多指标模糊评价[J]. 核农学报, 2017, 31(11):2258-2264. doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2017.11.2258
[23]	宋志美, 刘乃雁, 王元英, 等. 灰色关联度法在烤烟品种重要性状综合评价中的运用[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2011, 32(2):17-19,23.
[24]	龚治翔. 不同栽培措施对烤烟株型的调控[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2018.
[25]	沈杰, 蔡艳, 何玉亭, 等. 种植密度对烤烟养分吸收及品质形成的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 44(10):51-58.
[26]	余小芬, 杨树明, 邹炳礼, 等. 云南多雨烟区增密减氮对烤烟产质量及养分利用率的调控效应[J]. 水土保持学报, 2020, 34(5):327-333.
[27]	汪代斌, 周开燕, 钟维勇, 等. 施氮量、种植密度及留叶数对重庆烟区云烟116生长和产质量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(12):2769-2775.
[28]	冯连军, 朱列书, 杨亚, 等. 烤烟新品种主要数量性状与产量产值的灰色关联分析[J]. 作物研究, 2011, 25(1):47-50.
[29]	徐兴阳, 欧阳进, 张俊文. 烤烟品种数量性状与烟叶产量和产值灰色关联度分析[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2008(2):23-26.
[30]	周亚军. 不同氮用量对湘西山地烤烟产质量的影响[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2016.

施氮量	种植密度	根干重/g		茎干重/g		叶干重/g		整株干重/g		下部叶比例/%		中部叶比例/%		上部叶比例/%
N₁	M₁	49.06e		90.45f		101.81f		241.32e		33.15a		39.11a		27.74b
	M₂	61.33cd		107.58e		123.69de		292.60d		31.28ab		38.01a		30.71a
	M₃	70.24bc		118.35cde		153.60b		342.19c		31.86ab		36.55a		31.59a
N₂	M₁	64.63bcd		110.63de		124.25de		299.51d		32.01ab		38.61a		29.38ab
	M₂	67.21bcd		122.86bcd		135.66cd		325.73c		30.96ab		38.25a		30.79a
	M₃	73.62b		133.62b		159.59b		366.84b		29.22b		38.50a		32.28a
N₃	M₁	58.17de		111.82de		118.09e		288.08d		32.99a		36.56a		30.46ab
	M₂	73.93b		127.33bc		140.84c		342.10c		30.77ab		38.22a		31.02a
	M₃	85.39a		154.87a		176.08a		416.34a		28.82b		38.83a		32.36a
P值
N			0.000**		0.000**		0.000**		0.000**		0.248		0.619		0.256
M			0.000**		0.000**		0.000**		0.000**		0.012*		0.956		0.002**
N×M			0.097		0.086		0.106		0.010*		0.651		0.081		0.746

施氮量	种植密度	根干重/g		茎干重/g		叶干重/g		整株干重/g		下部叶比例/%		中部叶比例/%		上部叶比例/%
N₁	M₁	49.06e		90.45f		101.81f		241.32e		33.15a		39.11a		27.74b
	M₂	61.33cd		107.58e		123.69de		292.60d		31.28ab		38.01a		30.71a
	M₃	70.24bc		118.35cde		153.60b		342.19c		31.86ab		36.55a		31.59a
N₂	M₁	64.63bcd		110.63de		124.25de		299.51d		32.01ab		38.61a		29.38ab
	M₂	67.21bcd		122.86bcd		135.66cd		325.73c		30.96ab		38.25a		30.79a
	M₃	73.62b		133.62b		159.59b		366.84b		29.22b		38.50a		32.28a
N₃	M₁	58.17de		111.82de		118.09e		288.08d		32.99a		36.56a		30.46ab
	M₂	73.93b		127.33bc		140.84c		342.10c		30.77ab		38.22a		31.02a
	M₃	85.39a		154.87a		176.08a		416.34a		28.82b		38.83a		32.36a
P值
N			0.000**		0.000**		0.000**		0.000**		0.248		0.619		0.256
M			0.000**		0.000**		0.000**		0.000**		0.012*		0.956		0.002**
N×M			0.097		0.086		0.106		0.010*		0.651		0.081		0.746

施氮量	种植密度	产量/(kg/hm²)		产值/（元/hm²）		均价/（元/kg）		中等烟比例/%		上等烟比例/%
N₁	M₁	2113.95bc		30773.40d		14.56c		43.65b		3.67b
	M₂	2062.35bc		33697.65cd		16.34ab		55.49a		5.67ab
	M₃	1821.15c		30234.45d		16.60ab		51.51a		8.06a
N₂	M₁	2373.90a		37610.85ab		15.84bc		47.70a		7.17b
	M₂	2295.30ab		38140.20ab		16.62ab		50.85a		9.02ab
	M₃	2109.75bc		36024.60bc		17.08a		51.64a		12.28a
N₃	M₁	2258.10ab		36243.45bc		16.05bc		47.96ab		8.47b
	M₂	2409.00a		40262.55a		16.71ab		48.94a		12.63b
	M₃	2096.10bc		34892.85bc		16.65ab		38.65b		21.72a
P值
N		0.013*		0.004**		0.133		0.097		0.017*
M			0.011*	0.024*	0.022*		0.066		0.001**
N×M			0.296	0.140	0.648		0.393		0.138

施氮量	种植密度	产量/(kg/hm²)		产值/（元/hm²）		均价/（元/kg）		中等烟比例/%		上等烟比例/%
N₁	M₁	2113.95bc		30773.40d		14.56c		43.65b		3.67b
	M₂	2062.35bc		33697.65cd		16.34ab		55.49a		5.67ab
	M₃	1821.15c		30234.45d		16.60ab		51.51a		8.06a
N₂	M₁	2373.90a		37610.85ab		15.84bc		47.70a		7.17b
	M₂	2295.30ab		38140.20ab		16.62ab		50.85a		9.02ab
	M₃	2109.75bc		36024.60bc		17.08a		51.64a		12.28a
N₃	M₁	2258.10ab		36243.45bc		16.05bc		47.96ab		8.47b
	M₂	2409.00a		40262.55a		16.71ab		48.94a		12.63b
	M₃	2096.10bc		34892.85bc		16.65ab		38.65b		21.72a
P值
N		0.013*		0.004**		0.133		0.097		0.017*
M			0.011*	0.024*	0.022*		0.066		0.001**
N×M			0.296	0.140	0.648		0.393		0.138

施氮量	种植密度		总糖/%		还原糖/%		总氮/%		烟碱/%	钾/%		氯/%	糖碱比		氮碱比			钾氯比		CCUI
N₁	M₁		23.91a		21.74a		1.40c		1.21c	1.16a		0.48a	16.21a		1.16a			2.45c		61.92b
	M₂		24.20a		21.74a		1.37c		1.25c	1.19a		0.41ab	15.71a		1.10ab			2.93bc		66.46b
	M₃		23.92a		21.52ab		1.39c		1.20c	1.15a		0.41ab	16.29a		1.17a			2.84bc		64.85b
N₂	M₁		22.10ab		19.97abc		1.66b		1.52b	1.17a		0.38bc	11.84b		1.09ab			3.08bc		84.77a
	M₂		21.32bc		19.25bcd		1.65b		1.61b	1.19a		0.38bc	11.48b		1.02ab			3.13bc		85.80a
	M₃		20.60bc		18.48cd		1.66b		1.75ab	1.18a		0.38bc	9.71bc		0.97bc			3.12bc		84.28a
N₃	M₁		19.58c		17.51d		1.86a		1.87a	1.18a		0.31c	8.45c		0.99bc			3.81a		83.83a
	M₂		19.13c		17.50d		1.84a		1.94a	1.18a		0.33bc	8.40c		0.95bc			3.55ab		84.01a
	M₃		19.28c		17.06d		1.81a		1.99a	1.18a		0.31c	7.84c		0.91c			3.81a		82.45a
P值
N		0.003**		0.004**		0.001**		0.002**		0.987	0.005**			0.000**		0.080	0.016*		0.002**
M		0.581		0.434		0.767		0.088		0.961	0.391			0.280		0.074	0.439		0.884
N×M		0.807		0.872		0.934		0.167		0.904	0.271			0.396		0.069	0.308		0.520