Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Reduction Combined with Different Organic Fertilizers on Growth, Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2022-0091

Abstract

Abstract:

To screen out suitable types of organic fertilizers and corresponding chemical fertilizer reduction levels for flue-cured tobacco production in Ankang, a two-factor randomized block design was used in this study, and 9 treatments were set up, including 3 kinds of organic fertilizers and 3 reduction ratios of chemical fertilizers. A comparison experiment was conducted with conventional pure chemical fertilizer as the control (CK). The results showed that there were significant differences in plant height, stem girth, maximum leaf area, yield, output value and the proportion of superior tobacco under the application of different types of organic fertilizers. There were significant differences in plant height, stem girth, effective leaf number, maximum leaf area, yield, output value and the proportion of superior tobacco under different chemical fertilizer reduction levels. The interaction between the two factors was not significant. The effect of different types of organic fertilizers on the agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco was earthworm cast> oil cake> lees, while the effects on the economic traits was earthworm cast= oil cake> lees. Taking into consideration of the field growth and output value of flue-cured tobacco and the ecological effect, earthworm cast of 3000 kg/hm²+ tobacco special fertilizer of 810 kg/hm² (10% less than the conventional chemical fertilizer level) was the best treatment, followed by oil cake 750 kg/hm²+ tobacco special fertilizer 855 kg/hm² (5% less than the conventional chemical fertilizer level), and lees 750 kg/hm²+ tobacco special fertilizer 855 kg/hm² (5% less than the conventional chemical fertilizer level).

Key words: organic fertilizer, flue-cured tobacco, chemical fertilizer reduction, agronomic traits

ZHAO Peng, KE Meifu, YANG Jiahao. Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Reduction Combined with Different Organic Fertilizers on Growth, Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2023, 13(7): 38-43.

Figures/Tables 7

References 20

[1]	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.
[2]	李燕青, 李壮, 赵秉强. 有机无机结合施肥制度研究进展[J]. 农学学报, 2017, 7(7):22-30. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas17020011
[3]	邵孝侯, 刘旭, 周永波, 等. 生物有机肥改良连作土壤及烤烟生长发育的效应[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2011(2):65-67.
[4]	刘魁, 杨亚丽, 杨继周, 等. 化肥减量配施有机肥对田烟根际土壤细菌群落多样性的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2021, 34(10):2191-2196.
[5]	赵力光, 唐兴莹, 汤利, 等. 化肥减量配施生物有机肥对植烟土壤微生物区系的影响及其与烤烟青枯病的关系[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2018, 33(4):744-750.
[6]	李司童, 毛凯伦, 韦成才, 等. 蚯蚓粪肥替代部分化肥对连作烟田土壤肥力的影响及评价[J]. 华北农学报, 2018, 33(S1):238-245. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2018.S1.038
[7]	韩锦峰, 郭培国. 氮素用量、形态、种类对烤烟生长发育及产量品质影响的研究[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 1999(3):5-8.
[8]	王李芳, 王毅, 罗定林, 等. 酒糟有机肥对烟叶质量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 6:157-158,173.
[9]	石贤吉, 代超, 闫寒, 等. 饼肥与化肥不同配比对烤烟产量及质量的影响[J]. 延边大学农学学报, 2017, 39(3):39-43,49.
[10]	任杰, 柯美福, 饶智, 等. 陕南山地烟田不同植烟年限土壤养分的变化[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2015, 21(1):68-71.
[11]	赵鹏, 李小芳, 柯美福, 等. 安康烤烟绿色栽培技术[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2022(12):230-233.
[12]	崔鸣, 赵兴喜, 陈和润, 等. 饼肥不同用量对烤烟产量和品质影响效应试验[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2013, 59(2):92-93.
[13]	赵鹏, 薛峰, 朱峰, 等. 安康低海拔区域烤烟水肥一体化下氮肥减施效应研究[J]. 农学学报, 2020, 10(10):30-35. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas20190900198
[14]	国家烟草专卖局. YC/T 142—2010,烟草农艺性状调查测量方法[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2010.
[15]	国家烟草专卖局. GB 2635—1992,烤烟[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1992:491-500.
[16]	胡小平, 王长发. SAS基础及统计实例教程[M]. 西安: 地图出版社, 2001:82,88.
[17]	张云伟, 徐智, 汤利, 等. 不同有机肥对烤烟根际土壤微生物的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(9):2551-2556.
[18]	卢钰升, 顾文杰, 李集勤, 等. 化肥有机替代对烤烟产质量、土壤理化性质及酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(16):22-27. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19040052
[19]	程亚倩, 周洁, 李司童, 等. 蚯蚓粪肥对陕西烟区烤烟生长及品质的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(2):347-356.
[20]	赵鹏博, 郑璞帆, 李司童, 等. 蚯蚓粪与酒糟不同配比对土壤理化性质及烤烟品质的影响初探[J]. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(3):676-682.

差异来源	df	株高			茎围			节距			有效叶数			最大叶面积
差异来源	df	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P
区组间	2	5.33	0.50	0.62	0.26	0.72	0.50	0.16	1.23	0.32	0.67	1.14	0.34	0.0001	0.71	0.51
有机肥间	2	159.24	14.91	0.0002	8.41	23.30	<0.0001	0.22	1.70	0.21	0.22	0.38	0.69	0.0005	3.84	0.04
化肥减施量间	2	256.41	24.00	<0.0001	7.91	21.92	<0.0001	0.39	3.05	0.08	6.22	10.67	0.0011	0.0015	12.75	0.0005
互作间	4	17.73	0.83	0.53	0.94	1.31	0.31	0.53	2.10	0.13	0.22	0.19	0.94	0.0005	1.96	0.15

差异来源	df	株高			茎围			节距			有效叶数			最大叶面积
差异来源	df	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P
区组间	2	5.33	0.50	0.62	0.26	0.72	0.50	0.16	1.23	0.32	0.67	1.14	0.34	0.0001	0.71	0.51
有机肥间	2	159.24	14.91	0.0002	8.41	23.30	<0.0001	0.22	1.70	0.21	0.22	0.38	0.69	0.0005	3.84	0.04
化肥减施量间	2	256.41	24.00	<0.0001	7.91	21.92	<0.0001	0.39	3.05	0.08	6.22	10.67	0.0011	0.0015	12.75	0.0005
互作间	4	17.73	0.83	0.53	0.94	1.31	0.31	0.53	2.10	0.13	0.22	0.19	0.94	0.0005	1.96	0.15

主处理	株高/cm	茎围/cm	节距/cm	有效叶数/片	最大叶面积/m²
蚯蚓粪	127.97C	11.41A	6.10A	19.78A	0.14AB
油饼	131.13B	10.71B	6.08A	19.67A	0.15A
酒糟	133.91A	10.04C	5.90A	19.56A	0.14B
化肥减施5%	135.30A	11.36A	6.16A	20.33A	0.14B
化肥减施10%	129.49B	10.78B	6.06AB	19.44B	0.15A
化肥减施15%	128.22B	10.03C	5.87B	19.22B	0.14B

主处理	株高/cm	茎围/cm	节距/cm	有效叶数/片	最大叶面积/m²
蚯蚓粪	127.97C	11.41A	6.10A	19.78A	0.14AB
油饼	131.13B	10.71B	6.08A	19.67A	0.15A
酒糟	133.91A	10.04C	5.90A	19.56A	0.14B
化肥减施5%	135.30A	11.36A	6.16A	20.33A	0.14B
化肥减施10%	129.49B	10.78B	6.06AB	19.44B	0.15A
化肥减施15%	128.22B	10.03C	5.87B	19.22B	0.14B

差异来源	df	产量			产值			均价			上等烟比例			下等烟比例
差异来源	df	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P	SS	F	P
区组间	2	46.74	2.20	0.14	52565.14	2.21	0.14	1.32	2.17	0.15	7.74	1.49	0.25	0.70	1.72	0.21
有机肥间	2	79.73	3.76	0.05	103594.12	4.35	0.03	1.61	2.64	0.10	24.50	4.73	0.02	0.07	0.18	0.84
化肥减施量间	2	571.23	26.90	<0.0001	471392.32	19.82	<0.0001	1.02	1.68	0.22	79.90	15.42	0.0002	0.28	0.69	0.52
互作间	4	22.70	0.53	0.71	57184.94	1.20	0.35	1.93	1.58	0.23	10.93	1.06	0.41	0.52	0.64	0.64