Effects of New Bio-organic Fertilizer on Growth of Flue-cured Tobacco

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0569

Abstract

Abstract:

This study aims to analyze the effects of a novel biological organic fertilizer on tobacco cultivation, specifically its regulatory impact on the growth and development of flue-cured tobacco plants. A pot experiment was conducted to study the impact of five treatments on root indicators, agronomic traits, and biomass of flue-cured tobacco. The treatments included tobacco-specific compound base fertilizer (CK), tobacco-specific compound base fertilizer with composted organic fertilizer (O), tobacco-specific compound base fertilizer with microbial agents (M), tobacco-specific compound base fertilizer with ordinary microbial fertilizer (BOF1) and tobacco-specific compound base fertilizer with novel biological organic fertilizer (BOF2). At vigorous growth stage, the stem diameter, maximum leaf length, maximum leaf width and SPAD value of the two bio-organic fertilizer treatments were significantly higher than those of the other treatments (P<0.05). The root length of each treatment showed the order of BOF2>BOF1>O>M>CK, the order of root surface area was BOF2>O>BOF1>CK>M (P<0.05). The total fresh weight, shoot dry weight and total dry weight of flue-cured tobacco in BOF2 treatment were significantly higher than those in other treatments. At the early maturity stage, the plant height, stem diameter, maximum leaf width and SPAD value of BOF2 treatment reached the maximum value, and the fresh and dry weights of aerial parts were also the highest, which were 44.95% and 61.31% higher than those of CK. The correlation analysis showed that the root morphology of flue-cured tobacco was significantly correlated with the maximum leaf length, the number of effective leaves and the fresh weight of aboveground parts. Compared with the other treatments, the new bio-organic fertilizer significantly improved many agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco, increased the growth rate of root system at early stage, enhanced the dry matter accumulation of aboveground and underground parts, and promoted the growth and development of flue-cured tobacco.

Key words: bio-organic fertilizer, tobacco, agronomic traits, biomass, root growth, chlorophyll content, correlation analysis

JIANG Kunlian, FENG Changchun, HAN Lihong, SUN Long, HUANG Kanghui, JIANG Hong, CAI Yan. Effects of New Bio-organic Fertilizer on Growth of Flue-cured Tobacco[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(1): 20-26.

Figures/Tables 7

References 29

[1]	李竹林. 甘肃省陇南市徽县烤烟产业发展探析[J]. 农业工程技术, 2024, 44(19):19-20.
[2]	江厚龙, 张春华, 王红锋, 等. 基于数字化技术的烟田精准施肥模式探索与实践[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(31):146-151. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0017
[3]	孔银亮, 屈晓然. 快大液肥对烤烟生长及产质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2000(1):40-42.
[4]	吕旭东, 孙世媛, 李亚楠, 等. 智能机械化分层施肥对中低产田小麦产量形成和养分利用的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2025, 31(4):657-670.
[5]	陈豪, 郑婷, 任宇, 等. 生物控草有机肥在水稻生产中的应用初探[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2024(4):145-148.
[6]	王丽丽, 朱诗君, 卢晓红, 等. 木霉菌W1生物有机肥对滨海番茄种植的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(7):100-106. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0479
[7]	谢志坚, 张海伟, 卢叶, 等. 生物炭与木霉生物有机肥对红壤稻田烤烟氮肥利用率与产量产值的影响[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2024, 46(5):1151-1162.
[8]	LUO J, RAN W, HU J. Application of bio-organic fertilizer significantly affected fungal diversity of soils[J]. Soil biology and biochemistry, 2010, 74(6):2039-2048.
[9]	蒋嘉伟, 张洁, 张闪烁, 等. 不同施肥措施对小麦-玉米轮作土壤温室气体排放和氮素运移的调控作用[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2025, 31(1):48-62.
[10]	全碧玉, 贺安娜, 苏蕾, 等. 微生物有机肥用量对多花黄精光合特性及农艺性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2024, 40(34):94-99. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0031
[11]	王瑞宝, 吴剑, 孔垂思, 等. 功能型生物有机肥在曲靖烟区的应用效果试验[J]. 云南农业科技, 2024(5):30-34.
[12]	何蔚娟. 生物有机肥料生产问题研究[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2018, 64(6):90-92.
[13]	张思奇, 刘红军, 沈宗专, 等. 外包木霉内含芽孢杆菌颗粒生物有机肥研制及其促生效应[J]. 土壤通报, 2022, 53(2):465-471.
[14]	马军妮, 刘玉涛, 李玉龙, 等. 两株链霉菌对玉米的促生增产作用及机理[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(1):315-326.
[15]	张鸿雁, 薛泉宏, 申光辉, 等. 放线菌制剂对人参生长及根域土壤微生物区系的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(8):2287-2293.
[16]	FENG J, CHEN L, XIA T, et al. Microbial fertilizer regulates C:N:P stoichiometry and alleviates phosphorus limitation in flue-cured tobacco planting soil[J]. Scientific reports, 2023, 13(1):10276. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37438-w pmid: 37355746
[17]	高家合, 杨祥, 李梅云, 等. 有机肥对烤烟根系发育及品质的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2009, 30(6):38-41.
[18]	纪耀坤, 刘艳侠, 贾利元, 等. 不同有机肥与基质长期配施对小麦根系生长及土壤改良效果的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2024, 52(17):65-72.
[19]	SPARLING G. Ratio of microbial biomass carbon to soil organic carbon as a sensitive indicator of changes in soil organic matter[J]. Soil research, 1992,30:195-207.
[20]	马芳, 曹媛媛, 白妙妍, 等. 密旋链霉菌Act12发酵液对石油胁迫下紫花苜蓿幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2024, 44(6):845-852.
[21]	刘汉军, 刘蕾, 刘轶豪, 等. 不同生物有机肥对烤烟产质量及土壤养分的影响[J]. 生态科学, 2018, 37(6):91-96.
[22]	袁杭杰, 粟贵俊, 杨文叶, 等. 不同微生物菌剂与土壤消毒剂配施对土壤微环境的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(10):109-114. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0573
[23]	吴素霞, 赵鹏, 范海荣, 等. 生物有机肥对谷子生长性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2025, 41(8):19-24. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0763
[24]	史海静, 徐明江, 朱银城, 等. 半夏病害生防菌的筛选及其生物有机肥促生防病效果[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2025, 44(2):212-220.
[25]	李朝文, 李响, 陈学卷, 等. 增施中药渣生物有机肥对烤烟生长、养分吸收及品质的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2024, 52(3):114-120.
[26]	杜彩艳, 蜂述先, 杨鹏, 等. 施用生物有机肥对云当归产量、品质及土壤养分的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2024(1):149-156.
[27]	张正杨, 郭山虎, 张锦韬, 等. 生物有机类肥料对‘云烟87’生长发育及烟叶产质量的影响[J]. 农学学报, 2022, 12(8):47-53.
[28]	李伟, 夏冰, 金江华, 等. 根区施用微生物菌肥对稻茬烤烟生长和干物质与养分积累的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2025(3):126-135.
[29]	晁逢春, 张福锁, 杨宇虹, 等. 影响烟草根系发育的几个因素探讨[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2003(2):5-8.

处理	烟草复合肥/[g/(kg·土)]	有机肥	单质肥料/[mg/(kg·土)]
处理	烟草复合肥/[g/(kg·土)]	有机肥	(NH₄)₂SO₄	Ca(HPO₄)₂	K₂SO₄
CK	0.7		19.7	21.0	11.8
O	0.7	腐熟有机肥1.0 g/(kg·土)
M	0.7	微生物菌剂0.03 g/(kg·土)	19.7	21.0	11.8
BOF1	0.7	普通生物有机肥1.0 g/(kg·土)
BOF2	0.7	新型生物有机肥1.0 g/(kg·土)

处理	烟草复合肥/[g/(kg·土)]	有机肥	单质肥料/[mg/(kg·土)]
处理	烟草复合肥/[g/(kg·土)]	有机肥	(NH₄)₂SO₄	Ca(HPO₄)₂	K₂SO₄
CK	0.7		19.7	21.0	11.8
O	0.7	腐熟有机肥1.0 g/(kg·土)
M	0.7	微生物菌剂0.03 g/(kg·土)	19.7	21.0	11.8
BOF1	0.7	普通生物有机肥1.0 g/(kg·土)
BOF2	0.7	新型生物有机肥1.0 g/(kg·土)

时期	处理	株高/cm	茎粗/cm	节距/cm	最大叶长/cm	最大叶宽/cm	有效叶数	SPAD
旺长期	CK	99.30±0.82b	1.20±0.01c	7.27±0.31a	48.60±0.85c	20.87±0.06b	13.67±0.58a	43.03±1.03d
	O	96.30±1.47c	1.29±0.04b	6.88±0.11b	50.80±0.10b	20.53±0.21b	14.00±0.00a	36.83±1.87e
	M	96.17±0.64c	1.32±0.01b	6.56±0.24b	47.77±0.15c	20.17±0.87b	14.67±0.58b	45.50±0.36c
	BOF1	98.93±0.71b	1.33±0.02b	6.32±0.28c	51.63±0.67b	23.53±0.32a	15.67±0.58a	49.67±0.15b
	BOF2	109.63±0.15a	1.34±0.03a	6.72±0.24b	57.37±0.76a	23.70±0.53a	16.33±0.58a	57.47±1.06a
成熟初期	CK	147.88±2.63e	1.28±0.06b	10.84±0.66a	46.53±0.56b	18.72±0.24c	13.67±0.58b	43.38±1.31d
	O	170.71±1.97b	1.50±0.08a	11.14±0.33a	53.38±0.60a	21.73±0.57b	15.33±0.58a	48.82±0.48b
	M	159.71±0.57c	1.50±0.07a	11.70±0.47a	47.15±0.39b	18.67±0.24c	13.67±0.58b	48.47±1.39b
	BOF1	154.53±2.99d	1.46±0.03a	11.32±0.26a	53.29±0.88a	21.76±0.42b	13.67±0.58b	46.09±0.71c
	BOF2	174.77±0.90a	1.56±0.04a	11.93±0.55a	52.63±0.59a	24.06±0.84a	14.67±0.58b	51.65±0.24a

时期	处理	株高/cm	茎粗/cm	节距/cm	最大叶长/cm	最大叶宽/cm	有效叶数	SPAD
旺长期	CK	99.30±0.82b	1.20±0.01c	7.27±0.31a	48.60±0.85c	20.87±0.06b	13.67±0.58a	43.03±1.03d
	O	96.30±1.47c	1.29±0.04b	6.88±0.11b	50.80±0.10b	20.53±0.21b	14.00±0.00a	36.83±1.87e
	M	96.17±0.64c	1.32±0.01b	6.56±0.24b	47.77±0.15c	20.17±0.87b	14.67±0.58b	45.50±0.36c
	BOF1	98.93±0.71b	1.33±0.02b	6.32±0.28c	51.63±0.67b	23.53±0.32a	15.67±0.58a	49.67±0.15b
	BOF2	109.63±0.15a	1.34±0.03a	6.72±0.24b	57.37±0.76a	23.70±0.53a	16.33±0.58a	57.47±1.06a
成熟初期	CK	147.88±2.63e	1.28±0.06b	10.84±0.66a	46.53±0.56b	18.72±0.24c	13.67±0.58b	43.38±1.31d
	O	170.71±1.97b	1.50±0.08a	11.14±0.33a	53.38±0.60a	21.73±0.57b	15.33±0.58a	48.82±0.48b
	M	159.71±0.57c	1.50±0.07a	11.70±0.47a	47.15±0.39b	18.67±0.24c	13.67±0.58b	48.47±1.39b
	BOF1	154.53±2.99d	1.46±0.03a	11.32±0.26a	53.29±0.88a	21.76±0.42b	13.67±0.58b	46.09±0.71c
	BOF2	174.77±0.90a	1.56±0.04a	11.93±0.55a	52.63±0.59a	24.06±0.84a	14.67±0.58b	51.65±0.24a

时期	处理	根长/cm	根表面积/cm²
旺长期	CK	1958.79±177.21c	4756.24±121.05d
	O	3120.84±102.6b	6021.31±655.07b
	M	2236.45±33.81c	4234.97±594.21d
	BOF1	3363.20±153.44b	5512.05±540.88c
	BOF2	3567.53±296.77а	6944.16±558.84a
成熟初期	CK	841.24±30.66c	608.00±53.76c
	O	870.81±27.95c	766.92±22.65а
	M	886.10±23.25b	655.71±44.89c
	BOF1	1056.18±27.44а	724.94±60.01b
	BOF2	869.94±14.15c	604.19±13.30c