Crops ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (5): 188-194.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2022.05.027

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Operation and Plant Spacing on Yield and Quality of Yunyan 116 in Pu’er Tobacco Area

Zhang Xi1(), Xie Jin1(), Huang Hao1, Gao Renji1, Lu Chao2, Zhou Yilin2, Liang Zengfa3, Wang Wei3   

  1. 1China Tobacco Guangdong Industrial Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 510385, Guangdong, China
    2Pu’er Jingdong County Branch, Yunnan Tobacco Company, Pu’er 676200, Yunnan, China
    3College of Agronomy, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, Guangdong, China
  • Received:2021-06-29 Revised:2021-07-21 Online:2022-10-15 Published:2022-10-19

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

197

Abstract:

In order to explore the optimal nitrogen application rate, nitrogen fertilizer base chasing ratio and planting spacing for the new roasted tobacco variety Yunyan 116 in Pu’er tobacco area, the effects of different treatments on the economic traits, chemical composition coordination and sensory evaluation quality of roasted tobacco were investigated through a field plot test using L9(34) non-interactive orthogonal test design. The results showed that Yunyan 116 performed best in economic traits and overall quality at row spacing (1.20m×0.50m), low N level (112.5kg/ha), and N fertilizer base chasing ratio of 5:5. Compared with conventional production measures, Yunyan 116 should strictly control the amount of nitrogen fertilizer, which was 7.5-15.0kg/ha lower than the main variety of Yunyan 87. The ratio of nitrogen fertilizer base to dressing could be adjusted appropriately, decreasing the ratio of base fertilizer and increasing the proportion of dressing fertilizer appropriately.

Key words: Yunyan 116, Nitrogen application rate, Ratio of base to dressing, Plant spacing, Yield, Quality

Table 1

Orthogonal test table"

施氮量
N application
amount (kg/hm2)		 氮肥基追比例
N base and
topdressing ratio		 株距
Plant spacing
(m)		 试验组合
Experiment
combination
112.5 3:7 0.45 A1B1C1
112.5 5:5 0.50 A1B2C2
112.5 7:3 0.55 A1B3C3
127.5 3:7 0.50 A2B1C2
127.5 5:5 0.55 A2B2C3
127.5 7:3 0.45 A2B3C1
142.5 3:7 0.55 A3B1C3
142.5 5:5 0.45 A3B2C1
142.5 7:3 0.50 A3B3C2

Table 2

The method of assigning values for chemical composition indexes of flue-cured tobacco (C3F)"

指标
Index		 分值Point 权重
Proportion
100 99~91 90~81 80~71 70~61 ≤60
烟碱Nicotine (%) 2.21~2.80 2.01~2.20 1.81~2.00 1.71~1.80 1.61~1.70 ≤1.60 0.17
2.81~2.90 2.91~3.00 3.01~3.10 3.11~3.20 ≥3.20
总氮Nitrogen (%) 2.01~2.50 1.91~2.00 1.81~190 1.71~180 1.61~170 ≤1.60 0.09
2.51~2.60 2.61~2.70 2.71~2.80 2.81~2.90 ≥2.90
还原糖Reducing sugar (%) 22.01~26.00 20.01~22.00 18.01~20.00 16.01~18.00 15.01~16.00 ≤15.00 0.14
26.01~28.00 28.01~30.00 30.01~31.00 31.01~32.00 ≥32.00
钾Potassium (%) ≥2.50 2.01~2.50 1.51~2.00 1.21~1.50 1.01~1.20 ≤1.00 0.08
淀粉Starch (%) ≤3.50 3.51~4.50 4.51~5.00 5.01~5.50 5.51~6.00 ≥6.01 0.07
糖碱比Sugar-nicotine ratio 12.01~14.00 11.01~12.00 10.01~11.00 9.01~10.00 8.01~9.00 ≤8.00 0.25
14.01~15.00 15.01~16.00 16.01~17.00 17.01~18.00 ≥18.01
氮碱比Nitrogen-nicotine ratio 0.81~1.05 0.76~0.80 0.71~0.75 0.66~0.75 0.61~0.65 ≤0.60 0.11
1.06~1.10 1.11~1.15 1.16~1.20 1.21~1.25 ≥1.26
钾氯比Potassium-chlorine ratio ≥8.00 6.01~8.00 5.01~6.00 4.51~5.00 4.01~4.50 ≤4.00 0.09

Table 3

Sensory quality evaluation method"

指标
Index		 分值Point 权重
Proportion
7.6~9.0 6.1~7.5 4.6~6.0 3.1~4.5 ≤3.0
香气质Aroma quality 好、较好 中偏上 中等 中偏下 较差、差 0.25
香气量Aroma amount 足、较足 尚足 有 较少 少 0.25
杂气Savors 轻 较轻 有 较重 重 0.17
刺激性Irritating 小 较小 有 较大 大 0.13
余味Aftertaste 舒适 较舒适 尚舒适 欠舒适 滞舌 0.20

Table 4

Economic indicators in different treatments"

处理
Treatment		 产量
Yield
(kg/hm2)		 产值（元/hm2）
Output value
(yuan/hm2)		 均价（元/kg）
Average price
(yuan/kg)		 上中等烟比例
Upper-middle
grade ratio (%)
A1B1C1 2418.75a 51 422.63ab 21.26ab 90.75a
A1B2C2 2497.65a 61 142.47a 24.48a 90.12a
A1B3C3 2224.35a 36 145.69b 16.25bc 71.12ab
A2B1C2 2120.85a 44 092.47b 20.79ab 85.77a
A2B2C3 2294.85a 33 390.07b 14.55c 71.79ab
A2B3C1 2093.10a 37 508.35b 17.92bc 80.65ab
A3B1C3 2498.85a 37 232.87b 14.90bc 63.22b
A3B2C1 2511.30a 45 479.64ab 18.11bc 79.43ab
A3B3C2 2451.75a 41 557.16b 16.95bc 78.17ab

Fig.1

Intuitive analysis of economic traits-factor level average graphs"

Table 5

Contents and scores of routine chemical indicators in different treatments"

处理
Treatment		 总氮
Total
nitrogen (%)		 烟碱
Nicotine
(%)		 还原糖
Reducing
sugar (%)		 钾
Potassium
(%)		 淀粉
Starch
(%)		 糖碱比
Sugar-nicotine
ratio		 氮碱比
Nitrogen-
nicotine ratio		 钾氯比
Potassium-
chlorine ratio		 总分
Total
score
A1B1C1 1.76~76.50 2.24~100.00 26.89~95.50 3.90~100.00 3.38~100.00 14.17~98.30 0.79~89.50 12.94~100.00 95.68
A1B2C2 1.97~97.30 2.76~100.00 24.72~100.00 3.84~98.60 3.64~98.60 10.78~98.70 0.71~81.40 14.22~100.00 97.29
A1B3C3 1.89~89.40 2.63~100.00 26.32~98.40 3.07~100.00 4.01~94.90 11.58~94.20 0.72~82.20 8.53~100.00 95.06
A2B1C2 1.95~95.00 2.50~100.00 27.98~90.10 3.62~100.00 3.96~95.40 13.01~100.00 0.78~88.00 15.08~100.00 94.36
A2B2C3 1.99~99.60 2.47~100.00 24.28~100.00 2.57~100.00 3.82~96.80 10.85~88.50 0.81~92.20 5.98~82.50 94.43
A2B3C1 1.97~97.20 2.96~84.30 25.24~100.00 3.23~100.00 3.67~98.30 9.87~78.70 0.67~74.30 10.42~100.00 88.81
A3B1C3 1.88~88.10 2.59~100.00 28.58~87.10 3.48~100.00 3.34~100.00 12.50~95.00 0.73~83.60 16.57~100.00 94.07
A3B2C1 2.14~100.00 2.81~98.70 21.90~64.70 2.65~100.00 3.61~98.90 11.84~98.40 0.76~86.60 7.16~95.80 92.54
A3B3C2 1.83~83.30 2.86~94.10 27.03~94.80 3.48~100.00 3.66~98.40 10.99~89.90 0.66~72.40 12.00~100.00 91.12

Table 6

Sensory evaluation of smoking quality of flue-cured tobacco leaves in different treatments (C3F)"

处理
Treatment		 劲头
Strength		 浓度
Density		 香气质
Aroma quality		 香气量
Aroma amount		 杂气
Savors		 刺激性
Irritating		 余味
Aftertaste		 总分
Total score
A1B1C1 6.50 6.50 6.60 6.65 6.60 6.60 6.80 73.84
A1B2C2 6.65 6.75 6.65 6.80 6.50 6.50 6.85 74.18
A1B3C3 6.50 6.75 6.60 6.75 6.50 6.45 6.50 73.05
A2B1C2 6.50 6.50 6.55 6.50 6.75 6.80 6.75 73.75
A2B2C3 6.50 6.60 6.50 6.80 6.60 6.60 6.80 73.98
A2B3C1 6.50 6.50 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.60 6.50 73.04
A3B1C3 6.50 6.50 6.55 6.50 6.60 6.60 6.75 73.18
A3B2C1 6.50 6.75 6.60 6.50 6.60 6.60 6.75 73.32
A3B3C2 6.60 7.00 6.55 6.55 6.50 6.45 6.50 72.36

Table 7

The statistical analysis of the comprehensive score of chemical composition coordination and the comprehensive score of sensory quality"

分析方法
Method		 项目 化学成分Chemical composition 感官质量Sensory quality
A B C A B C
方差分析
Variance analysis		 SS（平方和） 101.46 57.65 25.73 2.25 4.58 0.45
df（自由度） 2 2 2 2 2 2
MS（均方） 50.73 28.83 12.86 1.13 2.29 0.22
F值 215.70 122.56 54.70 28.09 57.16 5.58
P值 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
极差分析
Range analysis		 K1 288.03 284.12 277.03 221.07 220.77 220.20
K2 277.60 284.26 282.78 220.77 221.47 220.28
K3 277.73 274.99 283.56 218.85 218.44 220.21
K1* 96.01 94.71 92.34 73.69 73.59 73.40
K2* 92.53 94.75 94.98 73.59 73.82 73.43
K3* 92.58 91.66 94.52 72.95 72.81 73.40
R 3.47 3.09 1.92 0.74 1.01 0.03
主次顺序Sequence A>B>C B>A>C
最优组合Optimal A1B2C2 A1B2C2

Table 8

Different index leading factors and optimal combination statistics"

指标
Index		 试验因素排序
Sorting of experimental factors		 主导因素
Dominant factor		 最优组合
Optimal combination
产量Yield A B C A A3B2C2
产值Output value C A B C A1B2C2
均价Average price C A B C A1B2C2
上中等烟比例Upper-middle grade ratio C A B C A1B2C2
化学成分综合得分Chemical composition score A B C A A1B2C2
评吸质量综合得分Comment quality score B A C B A1B2C2
[1] 王发勇, 袁清华, 廖宜树, 等. 栽培措施对烤烟生育进程的影响研究进展. 中国烟草科学, 2016, 37(2):89-94.
[2] 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. 扬州大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2020, 41(2):40-45.
[3] 李松, 李永忠, 晋艳, 等. 种植密度与施氮量及其交互作用对烤烟烟气特性的影响. 烟草科技, 2021, 54(6):15-21.
[4] 杨成翠, 徐照丽, 史普酉, 等. 氮肥运筹对烤烟养分积累和产质量的影响. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(6):176-185.
doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0325
[5] 雷佳, 吕永华, 李淮源, 等. 烤烟碳氮代谢调节机理及其指标研究进展. 广东农业科学, 2018, 45(12):20-26.
[6] 刘继坤, 徐立国, 黄择祥, 等. 密度和施氮量互作对烤烟叶片组织结构的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2018, 39(1):24-31.
[7] 张海伟, 何宽信, 刘润生, 等. 施氮量与株距互作对烤烟生长及产质量的影响. 江西农业大学学报, 2018, 40(4):680-688.
[8] 樊红柱, 曾祥忠, 顾会战, 等. 氮肥形态及运筹对烤烟产量与品质的影响. 西南农业学报, 2016, 29(4):879-882.
[9] 余小芬, 解燕, 杨树明, 等. 减施氮磷钾肥和氮肥基追比对云南曲靖烤烟产质量及养分利用的影响. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(4):848-854.
[10] 徐晓武, 李静超, 余铭华, 等. 不同种植密度对烤烟产质量的影响. 湖南农业科学, 2019(1):12-14.
[11] 龙晓彤, 金亚波, 李栋梁. 不同种植密度对烤烟生长及产质量的影响. 天津农业科学, 2017, 23(4):93-97.
[12] 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. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(12):2769-2775.
[13] 刘新, 车永梅, 刘洪庆, 等. 植物生理学实验指导. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2015.
[14] 毛绍春, 孔光辉. 烟草化学. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2017.
[15] 王彦亭, 谢剑平, 李志宏, 等. 中国烟草种植区划. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010.
[16] 国家烟草专卖局. 烤烟烟叶质量风格特色感官评价方法: YC/T 530-2015. 北京: 中国烟草专卖局, 2015.
[17] 欧阳文, 陈雨, 李佛琳, 等. 基于卷烟品牌的云南省烟叶基地烟叶常规化学成分隶属度评价. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(25):79-82.
[18] 焦芳婵, 吴兴富, 张谊寒, 等. 烤烟品种云烟116的选育及其特征特性. 种子, 2017, 36(12):100-102.
[19] 程智敏, 杨懿德, 蔡毅, 等. 不同栽培措施对烤烟新品种云烟116产质量的影响. 作物研究, 2020, 34(5):447-451.
[20] 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. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(12):2769-2775.
[21] 梁琼月, 罗宝雄, 沈方科, 等. 氮肥基肥追肥比例对烤烟产质量的影响. 广东农业科学, 2018, 45(2):75-79.
[22] 马兴华, 管恩森, 王永, 等. 氮肥后移对烤烟氮素吸收、利用及品质的影响. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(1):36-40.
[23] 李佳韵, 童菊秀, 夏传安, 等. 降雨条件下农田氮素地表径流流失特征研究. 灌溉排水学报, 2016, 35(7):8-15.
[24] 喻晓, 吴绍军, 尹振华, 等. 氮肥形态与运筹对烤烟产量及品质的影响. 贵州农业科学, 2016, 44(7):54-57.
[1] Zhou Hao, Qiu Xianjin, Xu Jianlong. Advance in Effects of Magnetized Water Irrigation on Crop Growth and Development [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 1-6.
[2] Wen Rui, Chen Qianwu, Zhao Yajie, Jia Yiming, Lu Xudong, Zhang Jihong, Li Huanchun, Zhao Peiyi, Zhang Yonghu. Study on Water Temperature Effects and Water Use Efficiency of Paddy Field under Different Plastic Film Mulching Planting Patterns in Arid Area of Loess Plateau in Northwest China [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 111-117.
[3] Xiong Yousheng, Xiong Hanfeng, Guo Yanlong, Wang Haisheng, Liu Wei, Yan Yuxiang, Xie Yuanyuan, Zhou Jianxiong, Yang Lijun. Effects of Reducing Fertilizer Application Models on Wheat Yield and Nutrient Use Efficiencies in Rice-Wheat Cropping System [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 118-123.
[4] Chen Yan, Chen Qiang, He Yi, Yu Huiping, Gao Junyi, Zhao Erwei, Lu Yingang. Effects of Tobacco Planting Ecoregions, Varieties and Their Interactions on Polyphenol Content and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 132-138.
[5] Yang Yan, Xu Ningsheng, Pan Zhechao, Li Yanshan, Yang Qiongfen, Zhang Lei. Effects of Paclobutrazol and Nitrogen on Yield and Economic Benefit of Potato [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 139-144.
[6] Mei Li. Research Progress and Development Prospect of Adaptive Cultivation of Quinoa in Beijing [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 14-22.
[7] Qin Meng, Cui Shize, He Xiaodong, Zhai Lingxia, Tao Bo, Wang Zhaojun, Zhao Haicheng, Li Hongyu, Zheng Guiping, Liu Lihua. Effects of Straw Puffing Returning on Rice Yield, Quality and Soil Nutrients [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 159-166.
[8] Guo Juxian, Huang Jiaxin, Li Guihua, Fu Mei, Luo Wenlong, Wang Jun, Lu Meilian. Volatiles Metabolites Analysis and Evaluation on Quality Traits of Different Tora Varieties [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 167-173.
[9] Ma Chunmei, Tian Yangqing, Zhao Qiang, Li Jiangyu, Wu Xueqin. Effects of Plant Growth Regulator Compound on Cotton Yield [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 181-185.
[10] Qiao Jiangfang, Zhang Panpan, Shao Yunhui, Liu Jingbao, Li Chuan, Zhang Meiwei, Huang Lu. Effects of Different Planting Densities and Varieties on Dry Matter Production and Yield Components of Summer Maize [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 186-192.
[11] Hui Chao, Yang Weijun, Deng Tianchi, Chen Yuxin, Song Shilong, Zhang Jinshan, Shi Shubing. Effects of Biochar Dosage on Accumulation and Transport of Dry Matter and Nitrogen and Yield of Spring Wheat in Irrigated Area [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 201-207.
[12] Wang Heshou. Effects of Different Nitrogen Application Rates on Nutritional Quality of Vegetable Sweet Potato [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 208-213.
[13] Feng Yu, Xing Baolong. Research on the Growth Characteristics and Forage Quality of Different Cowpea Varieties in Cold Region [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 220-225.
[14] Shi Guanyan, Wang Juanfei, Ma Huifang, Zhao Xiongwei. Correlation and Regression Analysis between Yield and Main Agronomic Traits in Foxtail Millet Hybrids [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 82-87.
[15] Zhu Qidi, Li Yanyan, Lu Meng, Lin Shengzhe, Yu Chengqiang, Liu Ke. Analysis of Wheat Kernel Quality and Morphological Characteristics at Different Spikelet Positions [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(6): 88-92.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Mei Lu,Min Sun,Aixia Ren,Miaomiao Lei,Lingzhu Xue,Zhiqiang Gao. Effects of Spraying Foliar Fertilizers on Dryland Wheat Growth and the Correlation with Yield Formation[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 121 -125 .
[2] Xiaofei Wang,Haijun Xu,Mengqiao Guo,Yu Xiao,Xinyu Cheng,Shuxia Liu,Xiangjun Guan,Yaokun Wu,Weihua Zhao,Guojiang Wei. Effects of Sowing Date, Density and Fertilizer Utilization Rate on the Yield of Oilseed Perilla frutescens in Cold Area[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 126 -130 .
[3] Yuan Wang,Ze Guo,Xiaohui Li,Shixiao Xu,Xuexia Xing,Siqi Zhang,Jia He,Chao Liu,Fang Chen,Tiezhao Yang. Effects of Meloidogyne incognita Infection on Tobacco Root System under Different Temperatures[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 161 -166 .
[4] Jingwen Fang,Yan Wu,Zhihua Liu. Effects of Salt Stress on Seed Germination and Physiological Characteristics of Apocynum venetum[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 167 -174 .
[5] Chengxun Li,Aiping Li,Xiaoyu Xu,Kaibin Zheng. Discussion on the Mechanism of Stress Resistance of Pigeonpea and Application Prospect in Fujian Province[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 28 -31 .
[6] Xingchuan Zhang, Wenxuan Huang, Kuanyu Zhu, Zhiqin Wang, Jianchang Yang. Effects of Nitrogen Rates on the Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Agronomic Traits of Different Rice Cultivars[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 69 -78 .
[7] Mingcong Zhang,Yingce Zhan,Songyu He,Xijun Jin,Mengxue Wang,Chunyuan Ren,Yuxian Zhang. Effects of Different Nitrogen Fertilizer and Density Level on Dry Matter Accumulation and Yield of Adzuki Bean[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 141 -146 .
[8] Chunlei Wang,Zhijun Fang,Yanrui Xu,Xiaoping Lu,Chunhua Mu,Kai Shan,Lujiang Hao. Effects of Starane on the Community Diversity of Maize Root Endophytes Analyzed Using High-Throughput Sequencing Technology[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 160 -165 .
[9] Yanfang Hao,Liangqun Wang,Yong Liu,Wei Zhang,Wei Yang,Hongyan Bai,Bo Wu. Establishment of Sorghum Cell Suspensions with Young Leaves[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 35 -40 .
[10] Wei Zhang,Liangqun Wang,Yong Liu,Yanfang Hao,Wei Yang,Hongyan Bai,Bo Wu. Optimization of the Factors Related to the Efficiency of Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Sorghum[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(1): 56 -61 .