Crops ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (1): 189-196.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2026.01.024

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Different Microbial Fertilizers on Growth, Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco

Shi Nuo1(), Zhu Hongqiang2, Yang Mengxuan1, Zhou Yanbin2, Dai Huijuan2, Lü Penghui2, Liu Bo2, Wang Shengfeng2, Mu Wenpo2, Du Yu1()   

  1. 1College of Tobacco, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China
    2China Tobacco Hebei Industrial Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang 050051, Hebei, China
  • Received:2024-06-27 Revised:2024-08-15 Online:2026-02-15 Published:2026-02-10

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

50

Abstract:

A field experiments was conducted to investigate the effects of different microbial fertilizers of biological and compound formulations on soil physicochemical properties, growth and development, disease resistance, photosynthetic characteristics, economic traits, chemical composition, and sensory evaluation of tobacco leaves. The results showed that the application of microbial fertilizer could effectively improve the soil available nutrients, ameliorate soil acidification, and promote the growth and development of flue-cured tobacco, showing better plant height, leaf length, stem girth and effective leaf number. Among all the treatments, the treatment of biological agents, purple spotted fungus had the most obvious effect. In addition, the application of purple spotted fungus increased the net photosynthetic rate, intercellular CO2 concentration and relative chlorophyll content (SPAD value). Compared with the CK treatment, the application of microbial fertilizer affected the occurrence of tobacco disease. The application of root rot control agent (double dosage) and thick- walled verticillium improved the resistance to common mosaic virus, while the application of root rot control agent, purple spotted fungus, oxmayl and fluorescent pseudomonad improved the resistance to black shank disease. The appearance quality of flue-cured tobacco, economic properties, chemical composition of cured tobacco leaves and the total score of sensory evaluation were the best in the treatment of biological agents. This indicated that the application of purple spotted fungus in biological-based microbial fertilizer could improve soil physicochemistry properties to a certain extent, promote the growth and development of flue-cured tobacco and improve disease resistance. At the same time, it could cause changes in the appearance quality and chemical composition of flue-cured tobacco, thus improving the quality and yield quality of flue-cured tobacco.

Key words: Flue-cured tobacco, Microbial fertilizer, Growth and development, Yield, Quality

Table 1

Experiment design"

处理Treatment 菌肥Bacterial fertilizer 施用量及方法Application dosage and method
CK 常规施肥 －
S1 常规施肥+淡紫紫孢菌 0.5 g/株（将菌肥溶解于100 mL水中，灌根处理）
S2 常规施肥+荧光假单胞杆菌 0.6 g/株（将菌肥溶解于100 mL水中，灌根处理）
S3 常规施肥+厚孢轮枝菌 2 g/株（将菌肥溶解于100 mL水中，灌根处理）
F1 常规施肥+根腐宁 菌肥稀释1000倍，每处理的喷施总量为5 L
F2 常规施肥+根腐宁（双倍） 菌肥稀释1000倍，每处理的喷施总量为10 L
F3 常规施肥+奥线灵 2 g/株（将菌肥溶解于100 mL水中，灌根处理）

Table 2

Score for appearance quality of tobacco leaves"

指标Indicator 评分Rating
成熟度Maturity 成熟（7~10）、完熟（6~9）、尚熟（4~7）、欠熟（0~4）、假熟（3~5）
颜色Color 橘黄（7~10）、柠檬黄（6~9）、红棕（3~7）、微带青（3~6）、青黄（1~4）、杂色（0~3）
色度Chroma 浓（8~10）、强（6~8）、中（4~6）、弱（2~4）、淡（0~2）
油分Oil content 多（8~10）、有（5~8）、稍有（3~5）、少（0~3）
叶片结构Blade structure 疏松（8~10）、尚疏松（5~8）、稍密（3~5）、紧密（0~3）
身份Thickness 中等（7~10）、稍薄（4~7）、稍厚（4~7）、薄（0~4）、厚（0~4）

Table 3

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on soil physicochemical properties of flue-cured tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 碱解氮
Alkali
hydrolyzed
nitrogen (mg/kg)		 速效钾
Available
potassium
(mg/kg)		 有效磷
Available
phosphorus
(mg/kg)		 pH 有机质
Organic
matter
(g/kg)
CK 136.72e 86.70e 47.36c 4.68c 69.21a
S1 187.97a 110.88d 60.35a 4.90a 62.23b
S2 182.63a 81.21e 35.55d 5.21a 50.31c
S3 176.52b 112.97d 32.91d 4.89b 42.65d
F1 167.02c 242.61b 51.90b 4.56c 64.85b
F2 154.51d 364.58a 35.88d 4.92b 45.62d
F3 163.17c 122.20c 49.27b 4.98a 61.54b

Table 4

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on growth period of flue-cured tobacco 月-日month-day"

处理
Treatment		 移栽期
Transplanting
stage		 现蕾期
Budding
stage		 中心花开放期
Central
flowering stage		 脚叶成熟期
Foot leaf
maturity
CK 04-25 06-27 04-07 07-12
S1 04-25 06-27 04-07 07-12
S2 04-25 06-27 04-07 07-12
S3 04-25 06-26 03-07 07-12
F1 04-25 06-27 04-07 07-12
F2 04-25 06-26 03-07 07-12
F3 04-25 06-27 04-07 07-12

Table 5

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on the agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 株高
Plant height (cm)		 茎围
Stem girth (cm)		 最大叶长
Maximum leaf length (cm)		 最大叶宽
Maximum leaf width (cm)		 有效叶片数
Effective number of leaves
CK 107.17bc 9.08bc 73.80ab 29.78c 20.67ab
S1 120.20a 10.05a 77.32a 33.13a 22.00a
S2 117.37a 9.57ab 72.70ab 32.08ab 21.17ab
S3 101.72c 9.22bc 71.05b 29.03c 20.17b
F1 109.45b 9.47ab 75.82a 32.08ab 21.17ab
F2 110.23b 9.60ab 74.67ab 30.55bc 20.83ab
F3 100.45c 8.75c 69.82b 29.28c 19.83b

Table 6

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on main morbidity and disease index of flue-cured tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 烟草花叶病Tobacco mosaic disease 烟草黑胫病Tobacco black shank 气候性斑点病Weather fleck
发病率
Morbidity (%)		 病情指数
Disease index		 发病率
Morbidity (%)		 病情指数
Disease index		 发病率
Morbidity (%)		 病情指数
Disease index
CK 9.56a 7.65a 2.87c 2.29c 0.00c 0.00c
S1 0.62c 0.49c 2.45d 1.96d 0.00c 0.00c
S2 0.56c 0.45c 1.64f 1.31e 0.53b 0.42b
S3 0.00d 0.00d 5.41a 4.32a 0.00c 0.00c
F1 3.98b 3.18b 2.25e 1.80d 0.00c 0.00c
F2 0.00d 0.00d 3.39b 2.71b 0.56b 0.44b
F3 0.58c 0.46c 1.20g 0.96f 0.62a 0.49a

Table 7

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on the photosynthetic characteristics of flue-cured tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 净光合速率
Pn [μmol/(m2?s)]		 气孔导度
Gs [mol/(m2?s)]		 胞间CO2浓度
Ci (μmol/m2)		 蒸腾速率
Tr [mmol/(m2?s)]		 SPAD值
SPAD value
CK 8.41c 0.55b 233.47c 1.54b 48.65b
S1 11.16a 0.71a 256.17a 1.58b 51.23a
S2 9.78b 0.52b 232.18c 1.59b 46.82b
S3 9.51b 0.58b 218.47d 1.37c 39.98c
F1 10.25a 0.69a 254.47a 1.74a 48.94b
F2 9.98b 0.75a 244.25b 1.60b 47.21b
F3 10.98a 0.68a 235.48c 1.79a 44.34b

Table 8

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on the economic traits of flue-cured tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 产量
Yield
(kg/hm2)		 均价
（元/kg）
Mean price
(yuan/kg)		 产值（元/hm2）
Production
value
(yuan/hm2)		 中上等烟比例
Proportion of
medium to high
tobacco (%)
CK 2397.00b 22.50b 53 932.50c 79.10b
S1 2482.50a 24.50a 60 820.50a 84.70a
S2 2529.00a 23.30a 58 926.00a 82.90a
S3 2347.50c 22.10c 51 880.50c 73.50c
F1 2455.50a 23.10a 56 721.00a 81.60b
F2 2484.50c 21.80c 54 379.50c 78.70b
F3 2341.50c 22.30b 52 216.50c 75.80c

Table 9

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on appearance quality of raw tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 成熟度
Maturity		 颜色
Color		 色度
Chroma		 油分
Oil
content		 叶片结构
Blade
structure		 身份
Thickness
CK 成熟 橘黄 中 中等 疏松 稍薄
S1 成熟 橘黄 中 充足 疏松 中等
S2 成熟 橘黄 中 中等 疏松 稍薄
S3 成熟 橘黄 中 充足 疏松 中等
F1 成熟 橘黄 中 充足 疏松 中等
F2 成熟 橘黄 中 中等 疏松 稍薄
F3 成熟 橘黄 中 中等 疏松 稍薄

Table 10

Comprehensive evaluation results of appearance quality"

处理
Treatment		 成熟度
Maturity		 颜色
Color		 色度
Chroma		 油分
Oil
content		 叶片结构
Blade
structure		 身份
Thickness		 总分
Total
score
CK 8 8 5 8 8 8 45
S1 8 8 6 9 9 9 49
S2 8 7 4 7 8 7 41
S3 9 9 6 8 8 8 48
F1 9 8 6 8 8 8 47
F2 7 8 5 7 8 7 42
F3 7 7 4 7 8 7 40

Table 11

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on the chemical composition of tobacco leaves"

处理
Treatment		 总糖
Total sugar (%)		 还原糖
Reducing sugar (%)		 烟碱
Nicotine (%)		 总氮
Total N (%)		 氯
Cl (%)		 钾
K (%)		 钾氯比
K/Cl		 糖碱比
Total sugar/nicotine		 氮碱比
Total N/nicotine
CK 25.03a 12.95a 1.48b 2.12b 0.09d 2.72a 21.23ab 8.31ab 1.55ab
S1 28.82a 21.06a 2.39ab 2.29ab 0.27b 2.29ab 8.81bc 10.96ab 1.12bc
S2 26.57a 20.27a 1.43b 1.90b 0.19bc 2.91a 16.10abc 15.64a 1.47ab
S3 29.88a 18.61a 1.66b 2.11b 0.12cd 2.39ab 23.60a 11.30ab 1.27abc
F1 32.30a 22.61a 3.27a 2.65a 0.41a 1.82b 4.44c 6.92b 0.81c
F2 23.80a 14.16a 1.42b 2.16b 0.11cd 2.58ab 23.55a 10.79ab 1.62ab
F3 24.04a 21.66b 1.52b 2.34ab 0.21b 2.93a 13.85abc 15.58a 1.68a

Table 12

Comprehensive evaluation results of chemical quality"

处理
Treatment		 总糖
Total sugar (%)		 还原糖
Sugar (%)		 烟碱
Nicotine (%)		 总氮
Toatl N (%)		 氯
Cl (%)		 钾
K (%)		 钾氯比
K/Cl		 总分
Total score
CK 69.5 48.0 46.0 100.0 100.0 98.76 30.00 78.88
S1 100.0 100.0 25.0 95.8 100.0 94.16 95.33 97.45
S2 100.0 43.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 53.60 46.00 71.84
S3 100.0 66.0 100.0 97.8 100.0 92.80 83.00 90.04
F1 97.0 53.0 100.0 86.4 68.8 89.20 90.67 82.05
F2 80.8 42.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.84 16.00 76.92
F3 100.0 52.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 54.20 4.00 69.83

Table 13

Effects of different microbial fertilizers on the sensory evaluation and smoking quality of flue-cured tobacco"

处理
Treatment		 香型
Fragrance
type		 香气质
Aroma
quality		 香气量
Aroma
volume		 浓度
Concentration		 刺激性
Irritancy		 杂气
Off-flavor		 劲头
Strength		 余味
Aftertaste		 柔细度
Smoothness		 甜度
Sweetness		 总分
Total
score
CK 6 8.0ab 7.7ab 8.0a 7.8a 7.7a 8.0a 8.0a 8.0a 8.0a 65.2a
S1 6 8.3a 7.8ab 7.8a 7.8a 8.0a 7.8a 7.8a 8.0a 7.8a 65.5a
S2 6 8.3a 7.8ab 7.7a 7.8a 7.7a 7.5a 7.8a 8.2a 8.0a 64.8a
S3 6 8.2ab 7.8ab 8.0a 8.0a 7.7a 8.0a 7.8a 7.8a 7.8a 65.3a
F1 6 8.0ab 8.2a 8.0a 7.7a 7.7a 7.8a 8.0a 8.0a 8.0a 65.3a
F2 6 8.2ab 7.8ab 8.0a 7.8a 7.7a 7.7a 7.8a 8.0a 8.2a 65.0a
F3 6 7.7b 7.5b 7.7a 8.0a 7.7a 7.3a 7.8a 8.0a 7.7a 63.7a
[1] 杨魁琼. 无公害烟草生产技术及其发展方向. 农家参谋, 2017(6):178.
[2] 郭玉鸽, 申洪涛, 李丽华, 等. 微生物菌肥对不同酸碱度土壤及烤烟生长和致香物质的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(3):54-62.
[3] 邹云峰, 赵洪祥. 绿色无公害烟叶生产技术. 吉林农业, 2016 (18):108.
[4] 梁永进, 尚海丽, 盘文政, 等. 微生物菌肥对‘K326’烤烟生长发育及产质量的影响. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(23):45-51.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0661
[5] 蒋岁寒, 刘艳霞, 孟琳, 等. 生物有机肥对烟草青枯病的田间防效及根际土壤微生物的影响. 南京农业大学学报, 2016, 39(5):784-790.
[6] 付道艳, 敖金成, 杨玉标, 等. 有机和常规种植方式对红花大金元生长发育及烟叶品质的影响. 安徽农学通报, 2012, 18 (23):68-70.
[7] 卢文钰, 何忠伟. 中国有机肥料产业发展现状、问题及对策. 科技和产业, 2022, 22(9):258-262.
[8] 李生秀. 有机肥料的缺点是养分含量低. 中国农资, 2005(9):550-552.
[9] 李茜, 苏国权, 危月辉, 等. 增施微生物菌肥对烤烟生长发育及烟叶品质的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(19):123-129.
[10] 王润芝, 孙璐. 浅谈微生物菌肥的特点与功效. 新农业, 2022(3):18.
[11] 符艺潇. 微生物菌肥在农业种植上应用效果的调研报告. 大连: 大连工业大学, 2019.
[12] 武杞蔓, 刘朋宇, 张颖, 等. 微生物菌肥对番茄生长、品质及糖代谢相关酶的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(24):125-130.
[13] 段迪瀚, 刘情宇, 荣梦瑶, 等. 微生物菌肥的特点及其作用机制研究进展. 农业技术与装备, 2022(8):98-99,103.
[14] 石慧敏, 陆蓝翔, 王焱, 等. 五种促生微生物菌肥对巨峰葡萄生长和果实品质的影响. 分子植物育种. (2023-01-17)[2024- 06-27]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/46.1068.S.20220916.1222.040.
[15] 张煜. 微生物菌肥对烟草品质及土壤细菌多样性影响的研究. 哈尔滨:东北林业大学, 2020.
[16] Li X Q, Lu Q J, Li D Y, et al. Effects of different microbial fertilizers on growth and rhizosphere soil properties of corn in newly reclaimed land. Plants, 2022, 11(15):1978.
doi: 10.3390/plants11151978
[17] Zhao Y G, Lu G X, Jin X, et al. Effects of microbial fertilizer on soil fertility and alfalfa rhizosphere microbiota in alpine grassland. Agronomy, 2022, 12(7):1722.
doi: 10.3390/agronomy12071722
[18] 王书娟, 陈文钊, 齐合玉, 等. 微生物菌肥对大棚辣椒生长及产量的影响. 蔬菜, 2022(7):26-29.
[19] 王雄英. 微生物菌肥对大豆生长发育的影响. 农业工程技术, 2022, 42(17):31-33.
[20] 国家烟草专卖局.烟草农艺性状调查测量方法:YC/T 142- 2010. 北京: 中国标准出版社,2010.
[21] 全国烟草标准化技术委员会.烟草病虫害分级及调查方法:GB/T 23222-2008. 北京: 中国标准出版社,2008.
[22] 蔡宪杰, 王信民, 尹启生. 烤烟外观质量指标量化分析初探. 烟草科技, 2004(6):37-39.
[23] 王彦亭, 谢剑平, 李志宏. 中国烟草种植区划. 北京: 科学出版社, 2010.
[24] 谢晋, 严玛丽, 陈建军, 等. 不同铵态氮硝态氮配比对烤烟产量、质量及其主要化学成分的影响. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(4):1030-1037.
[25] 胡诚, 曹志平, 罗艳蕊, 等. 长期施用生物有机肥对土壤肥力及微生物生物量碳的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2007(3):48-51.
[26] 王豹祥, 李富欣, 张朝辉, 等. 应用PGPR菌肥减少烤烟生产化肥的施用量. 土壤学报, 2011, 48(4):813-822.
[27] 韦建玉, 王政, 黄崇峻, 等. 增施微生物菌肥对植烟土壤理化性质及微生物量的影响. 贵州农业科学, 2018, 46(11):57-61.
[28] 潘锋华, 艾永峰, 熊承飞, 等. 施用不同微生物肥对烤烟生长发育及品质的影响. 农村经济与科技, 2020, 31(20):29-30.
[29] 张伟娜, 朱先志, 刘莉, 等. 地恩地微生物菌肥对烤烟品种CF225产量及质量的影响. 现代农业科技, 2017(20):11-13.
[30] 王梦雅, 符云鹏, 贾辉, 等. 不同菌肥对土壤养分、酶活性和微生物功能多样性的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2018, 39(1):57-63.
[31] 王辉, 李小艳, 云菲, 等. 微生物菌剂对烤烟光合特性及产质量的影响. 江西农业学报, 2018, 30(6):52-56.
[32] 陈玉国, 王海涛, 李小杰, 等. 沃益多微生物菌肥对烤烟生长发育和抗病性的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2015, 36(3):63-67.
[33] 刘展展, 宋洪昌, 徐钟晨, 等. 增施微生物菌肥对烤烟产量和质量的影响. 浙江农业科学, 2018, 59(8):1357-1359,1364.
doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20180810
[34] 王政, 敖金成, 张真, 等. 微生物菌肥对烤烟生长发育和品质的影响. 湖北农业科学, 2018, 57(10):79-82,87.
[35] 徐宗昌, 李天卫, 蔡宪杰, 等. 3种微生物菌肥对烤烟生长发育及烟叶产量和质量的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2020, 48(16):108-114.
[36] 夏振远, 李云华, 杨树军. 微生物菌肥对烤烟生产效应的研究. 中国烟草科学, 2002(3):28-30.
[1] Zhou Wenli, Hao Miaoyi, Zhang Renhe. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Maize Root Growth and Nitrogen Metabolism under High-Density Planting [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 125-132.
[2] Ma Xiaoming, Qi Xiangkun, Tan Xue, Shi Mengyu, Wang Yufeng, Fu Jian, Yang Kejun. Effects of No-tillage with Straw Mulching on Soil Aggregate Stability and Maize Yield in Semi-Arid Region [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 152-159.
[3] Xie Fuxin, Jiang Xiaolin, Li Chenghuan, Zhang Wenjing, Wang Feixue, Hu Weili, Mei Hongxian, He Geming, Liu Yan. Effects of Harvesting Period on Main Economic Yield Traits and Comprehensive Benefit Analysis of Sesame Leaf Vegetable [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 160-166.
[4] Zhang Le, Han Yunfei, Du Erxiao, Li Baocheng, San Xintong, Liu Xinyu, Wang Yanli, Zhao Peiyi, Ren Yongfeng. Effects of Organic Fertilization Measures on Photosynthetic Characteristics, Nutrient Content and Yield of Potato [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 197-207.
[5] Xu Hao, Wei Quanquan, Tan Hongwei, Gou Jiulan, Ran Xuesong, Zhang Meng, Song Nanling, Liu Lingling, Gu Xiaofeng, Lü Xibin. Effect of Organic-Inorganic Compound Fertilizer from Distillerʼs Grains on Yield, Quality, Nutrient Uptake and Utilization of Sorghum [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 208-216.
[6] Ye Xiaojuan, Liu Qiang. Simulation of Spring Wheat Yield Response to Precipitation, Nitrogen Application, and Straw Mulching under Different Precipitation Year Types [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 217-224.
[7] Sang Ruijuan, Dong Chunyang, Zhang Hongmei, He Yun, Sun Hao, Liu Boshuai, Zhu Xiaoyan, Ma Sen, Li Defeng. Effects of Mowing at Different Growth Stages on Forage Yield, Quality and Silage Fermentation Quality of Triticale in Northern Henan Province [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 225-230.
[8] Yang Wengao, Yuan Wenjue, Li Zhaoguang, He Guiqing, He Qiongji, Wang Rui, Li Yan, Ye Lei, Hou Zhijiang. Effects of Winter Sowing Date on Agronomic Traits and Yield of Quinoa in Northwestern Yunnan, China [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 257-265.
[9] Gao Fengyun, Yi Liuxi, Zhou Yu, Siqinbateer , He Ruichao, Jia Xiaoyun. Analysis of Genetic Diversity of Flax Germplasm Resources [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 60-71.
[10] Yu Qiuzhu, Qiu Junhua, Du Hanmei, Wang Anhu. Comprehensive Evaluation of Growth, Development, and Selenium Response Characteristics in Different Tartary Buckwheat Germplasm Resources [J]. Crops, 2026, 42(1): 72-84.
[11] Li Qingxin, Jin Xiuliang, Song Xiao, Zhang Keke, Guo Tengfei, Huang Shaomin, Yue Ke, Ding Shijie, Huang Ming, Li Youjun. Effects of Partial Replacement of Nitrogen Fertilizer with Organic Fertilizer on Growth of Winter Wheat and Soil Properties in Eastern Henan [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 121-131.
[12] Chen Lei, Tang Maoyan, Zhang Zhanying, Zhong Xiaoyuan, Gao Guoqing, Zhang Xiaoli, Liang Tianfeng, Pan Yinghua. Analysis and Evaluation of Grain Appearance Quality Traits in Rice Germplasm Resources under Heat Stress during Flowering Stage [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 132-139.
[13] Gao Wenrui, Sun Yanjun, Han Bing, Zhang Xiaoqing, Wang Xiansheng, Zheng Zisong. Effects of Exogenous Organic Selenium on Yield and Fruit Quality of Facility Cherry Tomato [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 140-147.
[14] Chen Zhihao, Wang Ting, Chang Xuhong, Wang Yanjie, Liu Xiwei, Yang Yushuang, Wang Yujiao, Wang Demei, Zhao Guangcai. Comprehensive Analysis of Yield and Quality Traits of Wheat Lines in the Northern Huang-Huai Winter Wheat Region [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 148-155.
[15] Lan Xiu, Liang Zhenhua, Yang Haixia, Li Hengrui, Ruan Lixia, Wei Wanling, Chen Huixian, He Hongliang, Huang Ruolan, Zhao Chunhui, Tang Danfeng. Effects of Sugarcane and Platostoma palustre Intercropping on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Crop Yield [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(6): 156-163.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!