Effect of Organic Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco in Weibei Loess Tableland

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0219

Abstract

Abstract:

Studying the effects of organic fertilizer on flue-cured tobacco yield and quality can provide a theoretical basis for the application of organic fertilizer partially replacing chemical fertilizer in flue-cured tobacco production regions in Weibei dry plateau of Shaanxi Province. Through a combination of field experiment, laboratory chemical analysis and sensory evaluation, the effects of partially replacing chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer on the growth, development, yield, chemical composition, sensory evaluation of smoking quality, and economic benefits of flue-cured tobacco were investigated. The results showed that replacing 20% to 40% of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer was beneficial for the early maturity of flue-cured tobacco. During the maturity stage, it led to a decrease in the SPAD value of the forth leaves of tobacco by 5.63% to 6.83%. Compared to conventional fertilization, the proportion of upper-medium grade tobacco leaves increased by 19.94% to 29.76% when organic fertilizer partially replaced 20% to 40% of chemical fertilizer. The total output value and net output value increased by 4.70% to 6.96% and 8.12% to 20.26%, respectively. The comprehensive consuming evaluation score was significantly higher in 10% of chemical fertilizer replaced by organic fertilizer treatment than other treatments. Principal component analysis was used to comprehensively evaluate the 11 indicators representing the quality of flue-cured tobacco. The treatment with organic fertilizer partially replacing 30% of chemical fertilizer obtained the highest overall score, followed by the treatment with organic fertilizer replacing 20% of chemical fertilizer, and then the treatment with organic fertilizer replacing 40% of chemical fertilizer. In the dry terraced tobacco area of the northern Wei River Valley in Shaanxi, replacing 20% to 40% of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer can promote the inherent coordination of tobacco chemical composition, significantly enhance tobacco maturity, increase the proportion of upper-medium grade tobacco leaves, and improve the economic benefits of flue-cured tobacco.

Key words: organic fertilizers, flue-cured tobacco, yield, quality, principal component analysis

ZHANG Shijie, YANG Bo, WANG Bingang, LIU Yun, ZHANG Xifeng, WANG Wenli, WANG Zeli, LI Shan. Effect of Organic Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco in Weibei Loess Tableland[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(8): 38-46.

Figures/Tables 13

References 28

[1]	何京, 王津军, 尹兴盛, 等. 深耕配施有机肥对云南保山植烟土壤肥力的快速提升效应[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2022, 43(1):27-34.
[2]	晁赢, 付钢锋, 阎祥慧, 等. 有机肥对作物品质、土壤肥力及环境影响的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(29):103-107. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0631
[3]	杨宏博, 刘彬, 张芬, 等. 不同类型有机肥对西南地区新菜地土壤肥力质量提升效果评价[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2022(10):20-27.
[4]	李越, 王颖, 熊子怡, 等. 有机肥配施生物质炭对根际/非根际土壤氮赋存形态的影响[J/OL]. 土壤学报, https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/32.1119.P.20221110.1250.004.html.
[5]	郑亚楠, 赵铭钦, 王一丁, 等. 增施不同有机肥料对烤烟中上部中性致香成分的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2017, 30(3):629-633.
[6]	范龙龙, 叶科媛, 何华, 等. 咖啡豆残渣有机肥对德阳雪茄根际土壤肥力及真菌群落的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2023, 29(2):122-132.
[7]	黄崇峻, 王政, 张晓龙, 等. 不同形态有机肥等氮替代无机肥对烤烟生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2017, 46(5):51-55.
[8]	陆亚春, 李自林, 年夫照, 等. 不同有机肥对烤烟生长及产质量的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2020, 32(9):102-106.
[9]	LIU E K, TECLEMARIAM S G, YAN C R, et al. Long-term effects of notillage management practice on soil organic carbon and its fractions in the northern China[J]. Geoderma, 2014, 213:379-384. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.021 URL
[10]	徐明岗. 化肥有机替代找回另一半农业[J]. 中国农村科技, 2016(2):37-39.
[11]	李青山, 王德权, 杜传印, 等. 有机无机肥与生物炭配施对烤烟生长发育和烟叶质量的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(6):1393-1401.
[12]	黄松青, 危跃, 屠乃美, 等. 控释肥对烤烟光合特性和产质量与氮钾利用率的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2015, 2(36):54-61.
[13]	陈防, 鲁剑巍. SPAD-502叶绿素计在作物营养快速诊断上的应用初探[J]. 湖北农业科学, 1996(2):31-34.
[14]	王忠. 植物生理学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000:130.
[15]	王瑛丽, 闫超超, 姜亚历, 等. 不同有机肥与无机肥配施对烤烟生长发育及产质量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(22):161-163,169.
[16]	叶沁鑫. 生物有机肥与无机肥配施对烤烟氮素供应及烤烟生长、品质的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2019.
[17]	杨德廉, 周昕, 李更新, 等. 有机肥施用对烟田土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(15):60-67. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19010118
[18]	蒋东来, 张保华, 张军仓, 等. 基施有机肥对烤烟生长和上部烟叶内在品质的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2021, 49(2):150-153.
[19]	李尚军, 邱诗蕊, 王永达, 等. 不同绿肥类型替代化肥对宜宾地区烤烟生长和品质的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(6):1253-1257.
[20]	白羽祥, 杨焕文, 徐照丽, 等. 不同锌肥水平对烤烟光合特性和产量及质量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2017(2):102-106.
[21]	刘魁, 王正旭, 田阳阳, 等. 不同商品有机肥对烤烟根际土壤环境及烟叶质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2020, 41(3):16-21.
[22]	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
[23]	卢成馨, 陈一飞, 孔淑珍, 等. 烤烟扳化按肥效试验初报[J]. 云南化工, 1994(2):33-34,43.
[24]	王玉华, 高政绪, 姜振玲, 等. 回潮水对烤后烟叶氯离子含量的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2018, 59(7):1264-1266.
[25]	窦玉青, 汤朝起, 王平, 等. 北方烤烟钾氯含量及其与吸食品质的关系研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2010, 26(17):86-92.
[26]	于建军, 庞天河, 刘国顺, 等. 烤烟香气质与化学成分的相关和通径分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2006, 22(1):71-73.
[27]	张亚飞, 姚瑶, 杜林笑, 等. 基于主成分分析的新疆多地酿酒葡萄‘赤霞珠’品质分析及最适采收期[J]. 食品工业科技, 2020, 41(2):227-232.
[28]	姜璐, 包怡红, 贾雨彤, 等. 18个品种蓝靛果营养成分分析及综合品质评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2022, 38(7):326-335.

赋值分数	100	100~90	90~80	80~70	70~60	<60
还原糖/%	18.00~22.00	18.00~16.00	16.00~14.00	14.00~13.00	13.00~12.00	<12
还原糖/%	18.00~22.00	22.00~24.00	24.00~26.00	26.00~27.00	27.00~28.00	>28
烟碱/%	2.20~2.80	2.20~2.00	2.00~1.80	1.80~1.70	1.70~1.60	<1.60
烟碱/%	2.20~2.80	2.80~2.90	2.90~3.00	3.00~3.10	3.10~3.20	>3.20
总氮/%	2.00~2.50	2.50~2.60	2.60~2.70	2.70~2.80	2.80~2.90	>2.90
总氮/%	2.00~2.50	2.00~1.90	1.90~1.80	1.80~1.70	1.70~1.60	<1.60
氯/%	0.40~0.60	0.60~0.70	0.70~0.80	0.80~0.90	0.90~1.00	>1
氯/%	0.40~0.60	0.40~0.30	0.30~0.25	0.25~0.20	0.20~0.15	<0.15
钾/%	≥2.50	2.50~2.00	2.00~1.50	1.50~1.20	1.20~1.00	<1.00
糖碱比	8.5~9.5	8.50~7.00	7.00~6.00	6.00~5.50	5.50~5.00	<5.00
糖碱比	8.5~9.5	9.50~12.00	12.00~13.00	13.00~14.00	14.00~15.00	>15.00
氮碱比	0.95~1.05	0.95~0.80	0.80~0.70	0.70~0.65	0.65~0.60	<0.60
氮碱比	0.95~1.05	1.05~1.20	1.20~1.30	1.30~1.35	1.35~1.40	>1.40
钾氯比	>8	8.00~6.00	6.00~5.00	5.00~4.50	4.50~4.00	<4.00

赋值分数	100	100~90	90~80	80~70	70~60	<60
还原糖/%	18.00~22.00	18.00~16.00	16.00~14.00	14.00~13.00	13.00~12.00	<12
还原糖/%	18.00~22.00	22.00~24.00	24.00~26.00	26.00~27.00	27.00~28.00	>28
烟碱/%	2.20~2.80	2.20~2.00	2.00~1.80	1.80~1.70	1.70~1.60	<1.60
烟碱/%	2.20~2.80	2.80~2.90	2.90~3.00	3.00~3.10	3.10~3.20	>3.20
总氮/%	2.00~2.50	2.50~2.60	2.60~2.70	2.70~2.80	2.80~2.90	>2.90
总氮/%	2.00~2.50	2.00~1.90	1.90~1.80	1.80~1.70	1.70~1.60	<1.60
氯/%	0.40~0.60	0.60~0.70	0.70~0.80	0.80~0.90	0.90~1.00	>1
氯/%	0.40~0.60	0.40~0.30	0.30~0.25	0.25~0.20	0.20~0.15	<0.15
钾/%	≥2.50	2.50~2.00	2.00~1.50	1.50~1.20	1.20~1.00	<1.00
糖碱比	8.5~9.5	8.50~7.00	7.00~6.00	6.00~5.50	5.50~5.00	<5.00
糖碱比	8.5~9.5	9.50~12.00	12.00~13.00	13.00~14.00	14.00~15.00	>15.00
氮碱比	0.95~1.05	0.95~0.80	0.80~0.70	0.70~0.65	0.65~0.60	<0.60
氮碱比	0.95~1.05	1.05~1.20	1.20~1.30	1.30~1.35	1.35~1.40	>1.40
钾氯比	>8	8.00~6.00	6.00~5.00	5.00~4.50	4.50~4.00	<4.00

处理	茎高/cm	茎围/cm	节距/cm	有效叶数/片	最大叶叶面积/cm²	最大叶干叶重/g
LT₁	161.0ab	11.9a	6.3b	21.0a	2296.83c	18.7bc
LT₂	161.9ab	11.4a	7.1a	19.7a	2282.71c	18.0c
LT₃	162.0ab	11.0a	6.8a	21.3a	2290.86c	19.0bc
LT₄	166.0a	10.8a	7.2a	20.7a	2612.61a	20.7a
LT₅	164.6a	11.0a	7.0a	20.0a	2461.35b	19.6ab

处理	茎高/cm	茎围/cm	节距/cm	有效叶数/片	最大叶叶面积/cm²	最大叶干叶重/g
LT₁	161.0ab	11.9a	6.3b	21.0a	2296.83c	18.7bc
LT₂	161.9ab	11.4a	7.1a	19.7a	2282.71c	18.0c
LT₃	162.0ab	11.0a	6.8a	21.3a	2290.86c	19.0bc
LT₄	166.0a	10.8a	7.2a	20.7a	2612.61a	20.7a
LT₅	164.6a	11.0a	7.0a	20.0a	2461.35b	19.6ab

处理	均价/(元/kg)	总产值/(元/hm²)	肥料成本/(元/hm²)	烘烤成本/(元/hm²)	总成本/(元/hm²)	净产值/(元/hm²)	产投比
LT₁	16.14c	33617.17b	1636.35	4999.68ab	25533.48c	8083.69b	1.32a
LT₂	16.64b	33649.84b	1917.15	4854.24bc	25668.84c	7981.00b	1.31a
LT₃	16.79b	35957.71a	2197.95	5140.80a	26236.20b	9721.51a	1.37a
LT₄	17.38a	35753.63a	2478.75	4936.32bc	26312.52b	9441.11ab	1.36a
LT₅	17.60a	35196.44ab	2759.55	4799.52c	26456.52a	8739.92ab	1.33a