Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (4): 197-205.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.04.025

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Different Water-Retaining Agents on the Bacterial Community Structure of Tobacco-Planting Soil and the Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco

Yan Dingwei1(), Yang Jianxin2, Guo Jie3, Liang Yifan1, Luo Fei1, Fu Guangming1, Li Junzheng2, Chang Jianbo2, Zhang Yulin3(), Ji Xiaoming1()   

  1. 1College of Tobacco, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, Henan, China
    2Sanmenxia Tobacco Company of Henan Province, Sanmenxia 472000, Henan, China
    3Sanmenxia Company Lushi Branch of Henan Tobacco Company, Sanmenxia 472200, Henan, China
  • Received:2024-03-27 Revised:2024-04-26 Online:2025-08-15 Published:2025-08-12

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

167

Abstract:

To investigate the effects of different water-retaining agents on the bacterial community structure of tobacco-planting soil, as well as on the yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco, a field experiment was conducted. With no water-retaining agent applied as the control (CK), five treatments were set up: T1 (90 kg/ha commercial water retention agent), T2 (90 kg/ha long-acting potassium-type water retention agent), T3 [90 kg/ha self-made sodium carboxymethyl cellulose composite water retention agent (AM/CMC)], and T4 [self-made potassium humate composite water retention agent (AM/HAK) water retention agent] to examine the effects of different water-retaining agents on the nutrients, moisture content, and bacterial community structure, relative abundance of dominant bacteria, correlation of relative abundance of major phyla and soil chemical properties, yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco. The results showed that the effect of T4 was better, and the contents of soil moisture, organic matter, alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen, available phosphorus and available potassium were increased by 15.62%, 19.73%, 19.86%, 5.08% and 30.65%, respectively, compared with CK 60 days after transplanting. Compared with T1 treatment, they increased 13.81%, 15.51%, 14.32%, 1.56%, 24.07%, and compared with T2 treatment, they increased 11.02%, 10.85%, 8.42%, 0.72%, 15.65%, respectively. After T4 treatment, soil bacterial Shannon index, ACE index and Chao1 index were increased relative abundance of compared to CK, and increased Proteobacteria and Chloroflexi; the relative abundance of the major bacterial phyla was significantly correlated with most of the soil factors. The application of AM/HAK improved the yield and quality of roasted tobacco. In conclusion, the application of AM/HAK can improve soil quality and bacterial community structure, and improve the yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco.

Key words: Water-retaining agent, Flue-cured tobacco, Soil nutrients, Bacterial community structure, Yield, Quality

Table 1

Effects of different water-retaining agents on agronomic characteristics of tobacco plants at different growth stages"

移栽后天数
Days after
transplanting (d)		 处理
Treatment		 株高
Plant height
(cm)		 最大叶长
Maximum leaf
length (cm)		 最大叶宽
Maximum leaf
width (cm)		 茎围
Stem girth
(cm)		 有效叶数
Effective number
of leaves
45 CK 20.5±2.5c 27.5±1.5b 12.0±0.5c 4.3±0.3c 6.7±0.6c
T1 23.7±3.4c 27.9±0.6b 12.5±0.6c 4.4±0.2c 7.3±0.6bc
T2 27.8±4.7bc 30.6±4.7ab 13.8±2.9bc 4.9±0.3bc 7.7±0.6b
T3 30.00±2.4a 35.3±2.4a 17.0±0.3a 5.7±0.4a 9.0±0.0a
T4 29.2±5.2ab 33.6±1.0a 15.6±0.9ab 5.5±0.7ab 8.7±0.6a
60 CK 34.8±3.2c 40.7±1.9c 17.0±0.8c 5.6±0.4b 8.7±1.2d
T1 40.0±1.7b 42.0±1.7c 17.2±0.3b 5.9±0.8ab 10.3±0.6bc
T2 42.3±1.7ab 45.4±1.3b 18.1±0.2ab 6.4±1.1ab 11.7±0.6cd
T3 43.9±0.9ab 47.1±1.1b 19.7±0.4ab 6.5±0.8ab 14.0±1.7a
T4 45.1±2.2a 51.3±1.0a 21.2±1.9a 7.2±0.2a 13.3±0.6ab
75 CK 99.3±6.0c 56.0±2.3c 24.0±0.5c 8.8±0.8c 14.3±1.2b
T1 110.5±0.4b 58.5±0.3bc 24.9±2.3c 8.6±0.3b 14.0±1.0b
T2 114.2±3.0b 60.1±0.5b 25.8±0.6bc 9.2±0.3b 15.7±0.6ab
T3 125.9±5.2a 64.5±1.1a 28.7±1.0a 9.4±0.4a 16.7±0.6a
T4 130.3±1.5a 66.7±3.6a 28.2±1.3ab 9.9±0.1a 17.0±1.0a
90 CK 120.0±2.5c 59.1±2.0b 24.1±0.9d 9.0±0.4b 18.7±1.2a
T1 129.3±3.2b 61.6±4.6b 25.8±0.4c 9.8±0.5ab 18.7±1.5a
T2 130.2±0.9b 63.5±2.2b 27.2±0.5b 9.7±0.2ab 19.7±2.3a
T3 135.3±0.9a 64.4±1.8ab 29.0±0.4a 10.0±1.3ab 20.7±0.6a
T4 138.4±2.4a 68.8±2.3a 29.2±0.9a 10.4±0.6a 21.3±0.6a

Fig.1

Effects of different water-retaining agents on SPAD value of tobacco leaves Difference lowercase letter indicate significant differences at P < 0.05. The same below."

Fig.2

Effects of different water-retaining agents on soil moisture content"

Table 2

Effects of different water-retaining agents on soil nutrients"

处理
Treatment		 有机质
Organic matter
(g/kg)		 碱解氮
Available
nitrogen (mg/kg)		 有效磷
Effective phosphorus
(mg/kg)		 速效钾
Available
potassium (mg/kg)		 全碳
Total carbon
(g/kg)		 全氮
Total nitrogen
(g/kg)
CK 16.98±0.94d 110.37±3.16d 17.32±0.03d 226.85±10.61d 10.91±0.67c 1.18±0.02c
T1 17.60±0.77cd 115.73±3.86cd 17.92±0.18cd 238.88±10.61cd 12.31±0.20b 1.22±0.04bc
T2 18.34±0.57bc 122.03±2.83bc 18.07±0.07bc 256.26±10.09bc 13.73±0.43b 1.28±0.06bc
T3 19.58±0.77b 128.57±2.25b 18.14±0.19b 273.64±14.09b 15.81±0.78a 1.30±0.05b
T4 20.33±0.57a 132.30±2.52a 18.20±0.13a 296.37±10.09a 16.76±0.10a 1.48±0.10a

Fig.3

Bacterial communities OTU by each treatment"

Table 3

α diversity of bacterial communities"

处理
Treatment		 Sobs指数
Sobs index		 香农指数
Shannon index		 辛普森指数
Simpson index		 ACE指数
ACE index		 Chao1指数
Chao1 index		 覆盖度
Coverage
CK 3231.33±123.9a 6.39±0.17a 0.00987±0.00426a 3901.59±234.13a 3742.35±201.03a 0.9813±0.00074b
T1 3190.67±57.14a 6.46±0.07a 0.00750±0.00152a 3861.95±22.65a 3757.38±15.35a 0.9827±0.00032ab
T2 3162.67±249.67a 6.50±0.15a 0.00677±0.00129a 3782.68±285.39a 3672.35±209.74a 0.9836±0.00108a
T3 3358.67±3.79a 6.47±0.08a 0.00908±0.00404a 4028.29±44.76a 3858.95±72.24a 0.9823±0.00067ab
T4 3228.00±75.11a 6.45±0.14a 0.01059±0.00711a 4008.51±114.85a 3857.64±133.33a 0.9830±0.00202ab

Fig.4

Relative abundance of species at the level of different treated phyla"

Fig.5

PCA (a) and PcoA (b) analysis of bacterial communities at OTU level"

Fig.6

Correlation analysis of soil nutrients and bacterial communities at phylum level “*”indicates significant correlation (P < 0.05),“**”indicates extremely significant correlation (P < 0.01)."

Table 4

Conventional chemical components of roasted tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 烟碱
Nicotine
(%)		 还原糖
Reducing
sugar (%)		 总糖
Total sugar
(%)		 总氮
Total nitrogen
(%)		 钾
K (%)		 氯
Cl (%)		 钾氯比
Ratio of
K to Cl		 两糖比
Ratio of reducing
sugar to total sugar
CK 3.54±0.06a 17.00±0.72d 26.83±0.45d 2.52±0.26a 1.05±0.04c 0.37±0.05a 2.86±0.44b 0.63±0.02c
T1 2.78±0.05bc 18.97±0.64c 26.47±0.64d 2.20±0.02b 1.10±0.03bc 0.35±0.05ab 3.15±0.36b 0.72±0.01a
T2 2.87±0.07b 21.33±0.57b 29.30±0.69c 2.50±0.04a 1.12±0.04bc 0.35±0.04ab 3.22±0.44b 0.73±0.03a
T3 2.66±0.07c 20.73±0.49b 31.07±0.25b 1.96±0.09c 1.16±0.05b 0.28±0.03b 4.17±0.44a 0.67±0.02b
T4 2.34±0.10d 23.97±0.15a 33.40±0.36a 1.85±0.08c 1.23±0.05a 0.28±0.03b 4.40±0.66a 0.72±0.01a

Table 5

Economic properties of roasted tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 产量
Yield
(kg/hm2)		 产值（元/hm2）
Output value
(yuan/hm2)		 上等烟比例
Propotion of high-
quality tobacco (%)		 中上等烟比例
Proportion of medium and
high quality tobacco (%)		 均价（元/kg）
Average price
(yuan/kg)
CK 2000.00±75.12b 52 917.00±3330.36b 45.44±2.85b 89.07±2.10c 26.44±0.67c
T1 2047.50±46.84b 55 233.50±1340.06b 47.39±3.25b 90.81±0.41bc 26.98±0.35c
T2 2085.00±46.84b 56 556.00±1297.78b 48.55±0.50b 90.65±1.06bc 27.13±0.16bc
T3 2225.00±37.75a 61 998.50±1169.51a 52.92±2.25a 91.68±1.00b 27.86±0.06ab
T4 2257.50±32.69a 63 335.50±1973.25a 54.93±1.96a 94.35±1.02a 28.05±0.60a
[1] 梅雅楠, 赵世民, 赵铭钦, 等. 保水剂用量对豫西旱地土壤养分和烤烟质量的影响. 干旱地区农业研究, 2018, 36(3):149-155.
[2] 宋朝鹏, 张勇刚, 许自成, 等. 河南烤烟总糖含量的区域特征及其对评吸质量的影响. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 25(4):506-510.
[3] 吕永华, 高淑涛, 凌寿军, 等. 土壤水分状况与烤烟生长及磷肥利用的关系. 中国烟草科学, 2006, 27(1):45-47.
[4] Yang M, Shi Y. Categories and application fields and manufacturing process and action mechanism of water retaining agent. Advances in Polymer Technology, 2022, 2022:2211441.
[5] Wang Y S, Zhu Y F, Mu B, et al. From the waste semicoke to superabsorbent composite: synthesis, characterization and performance evaluation. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 2021, 29(12):4017-4026.
[6] 李红霞, 王海洋, 夏昊, 等. 分子筛复合凝胶对植烟土壤理化特性及烤烟产量和品质的影响. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 51(9):37-46.
[7] 夏茂林, 刘云飞, 张承吉, 等. 新型复合保水剂对半干旱区烤烟生长和生理特性的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2023, 44(1):32-37.
[8] 黄帮裕, 樊小林, 杜建军, 等. 有机-无机复合保水剂的制备及应用效果研究. 化工新型材料, 2019, 47(12):243-247.
[9] 孙光伟, 陈振国, 王玉军, 等. 烤烟上部叶采收时SPAD值与鲜烟组织结构、生理指标及烤后烟叶内在质量的关系. 中国烟草学报, 2019, 25(5):63-69,104.
[10] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[11] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品水溶性糖的测定连续流动法:YC/T 159-2019. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2019.
[12] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品钾的测定连续流动法:YC/T 217-2007. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2007.
[13] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品氯的测定连续流动法:YC/T 162-2011. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011.
[14] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品总植物碱的测定连续流动法:YC/T 160-2002. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2002.
[15] 郭维, 肖志鹏, 向鹏华, 等. 保水剂施用对植烟紫色土的改良效应及烤烟品质的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2023, 44(1):38-43.
[16] 马宇, 王硕立, 赵曦, 等. 保水剂对豫西南半湿润区雪茄烟田耕层土壤理化性质及烟株生长发育的影响. 河南农业科学, 2024, 53(2):46-55.
[17] 杜甫, 云菲, 姬小明, 等. 新型复合水凝胶AM/HAK的制备及其对烟草生长发育的影响. 中国烟草学报, 2021, 27(1):74-82.
[18] Li L B, Zhang H M, Zhou X M, et al. Effects of super absorbent polymer on scouring resistance and water retention performance of soil for growing plants in ecological concrete. Ecological Engineering, 2019, 138:237-247.
[19] Xerdiman D, Zhou H X, Li S C, et al. Effects of water-retaining agent dosages on slope-protection plants and soil nutrients on rocky slopes. Sustainability, 2022, 14(6):3615-3615.
[20] Fanin N, Kardol P, Farrell M, et al. The ratio of gram-positive to gram-negative bacterial PLFA markers as an indicator of carbon availability in organic soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2019, 128:111-114.
[21] Bell W C, Asao S, Calderon F, et al. Plant nitrogen uptake drives rhizosphere bacterial community assembly during plant growth. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2015, 85:170-182.
[22] Feng L J, Zhang Z L, Yang G F, et al. Microbial communities and sediment nitrogen cycle in a coastal eutrophic lake with salinity and nutrients shifted by seawater intrusion. Environmental Research, 2023, 225:115590.
[23] 夏晶晶. 锡林河流域厚壁菌群和拟杆菌群的生物地理学研究. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古大学, 2021.
[24] 张晓花, 王克勤, 宋娅丽, 等. 厨余垃圾堆肥对烤烟土壤酶活性和细菌群落结构的影响. 土壤, 2023, 55(2):321-330.
[25] Patra S K, Poddar R, Brestic M, et al. Prospects of hydrogels in agriculture for enhancing crop and water productivity under water deficit condition. International Journal of Polymer Science, 2022, 2022:4914836.
[26] Xu Y S, Gao Y, Li W B, et al. Effects of compound water retention agent on soil nutrients and soil microbial diversity of winter wheat in saline-alkali land. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 2023, 10(1):1-15.
[27] 程红胜, 孟海波, 沈玉君, 等. 生物炭―凹凸棒土―聚丙烯酰―腐殖酸复合保水剂制取及性能测试. 环境工程, 2020, 38(增):41-48.
[28] 韩雅婷, 郭天骄, 贾国涛, 等. 保水剂和抗蒸腾剂配施对土壤水分和云烟87化学成分、碳氮代谢的影响. 河南农业科学, 2023, 52(11):57-65.
[1] Sun Xianyin, Zhang Jibo, Lü Guangde, Qi Xiaolei, Sun Yingying, Mi Yong, Mu Qiuhuan, Yin Xundong, Wang Ruixia, Qian Zhaoguo, Gao Minggang. Comparison of High and Stable Yield Characteristics of Different Genotypes of Wheat under Dryland and Supplemental Irrigation Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 104-110.
[2] Wang Shengtai, Zhao Baoxie, Du Shikun, Li Yuyang, Yu Hualin, Li Rongxin. Identification of Salt Tolerance and Variety Screening of Flax in Moderately Saline-Alkali Soil [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 111-117.
[3] Li Xiushi, Li Yingtao, Fu Yuhua, Luo Renshan, Li Shouling, Shang Kun, Zhu Jiabao, Yu Chun. The Impact of Different Ecological Conditions on Yield of Coix Varieties [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 157-163.
[4] Wang Xingya, Chen Yuhan, Zhang Mengwen, Sun Linlin, Chen Lirong, Guo Yuqiu, Gong Kuijie. The Effects of ABA Application at Different Stages on Maize Grain Filling and Dehydration [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 173-180.
[5] Deng Zhou, Gong Chenxu, He Yuxuan, Zeng Yongjun, Huang Shan. Effects of Combined Lime and Pig Manure Application on Grain Quality of Double-Cropping High-Quality Rice [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 181-187.
[6] Zhou Qi, Zhang Jing, Wang Zhenlong, Shi Zhiguo, Deng Chaochao, Chang Hao, Liu Yang, Zhou Yanfang. Effects of Green Manure Incorporation and Nitrogen Fertilizer Reduction on Soil Quality, Oat Yield and Quality in Hexi Irrigation District of Gansu Province [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 188-196.
[7] Zhou Lingzhi, Zhou Jia, Li Yanying, Lao Chengying, Huang Yulan, Shen Zhangyou, Wei Benhui, Wu Yuexian. Effects of Cultivation Methods and Green Manure Return on Bacterial Community Structure and Function of Sugarcane Soil [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 214-223.
[8] Tao Zuhao, Wang Weiqin, Zheng Huabin, Xiang Jun, Tang Qiyuan. Effects of Water, Fertilizer and Chemical Regulation on Seedling Quality of Mechanized Casting Transplanting in Late Rice [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 224-230.
[9] Li Yun, Wang Jing, Liu Yankun, Zhao Guanghui, Zheng Minna. Regulation of Yield and Lodging Resistance of Stem in Tartary Buckwheat by Paclobutrazol Leaf Spraying [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 231-237.
[10] Dong Yang, Yan Feng, Zhao Fuyang, Hou Xiaomin, Li Qingquan, Li Qingchao, Liu Yue, Lan Ying, Yang Huiying, Wang Bingxue, Xu Yan. Effects of Different Herbicide Application Schemes on Foxtail Millet Growth and Soil Microorganisms [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 238-244.
[11] Luo Xinggang, Wan Haiyuan, An Lirong, Li Yonghai, Luo Xingyu, Zhang Xuekai, Liang Weiyun, Zhu Jianqiang. Effects of Different Varieties and Nitrogen Application Rate on Border Effect, Yield, and Water Use Efficiency of Spring Wheat under Ridge Tillage with Drill Sowing [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 251-258.
[12] Wu Fengjie, Hou Nan, Qi Xiangkun, Yang Kejun, Fu Jian, Wang Yufeng. Effects of Different Nitrogen Application Rates on Main Nutritional Quality and Yield of Waxy Corn in Semi-Arid Area [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 267-275.
[13] Wang Zhigang, Liu Qiang, Wang Jin, Gong Jingjin, Yao Qunying. Simulation of Response of Spring Wheat Yield and Biomass to Nitrogen Application Rate and Sowing Date in Dryland under Future Meteorological Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 276-282.
[14] Gao Shuguang, Xu Dongyang, Hu Minjie, Wang Ruixia, Zhang Chunhua, Xu Bohan, Li Weifeng, Zhang Liuping. Preliminary Identification and Evaluation of Quality Traits of Sesame Germplasm Resources [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 58-64.
[15] Du Bing, Yang Furong, Wang Cheng, Guo Haojie, Zhang Fuhou, Meng Chaomin. Analysis of Grain Calcium Content, Quality and Agronomic Characteristics of 66 Foxtail Millet Varieties [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 87-94.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!