Crops ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (1): 89-95.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2023.01.013

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Study on the Effects of Application Straw Combined with Compound Bacteria Agent in Red Soil Sloping Farmland in Yunnan

Wang Zheng1(), Xu Tianyang2, Liu Jiuyu1, Peng Bo1, Xu Maohua1, Li Bo3, Ao Jincheng3(), Long Wei3   

  1. 1China Tobacco Guangxi Industrial Co., Ltd., Nanning 530001, Guangxi, China
    2Wenshan Tobacco Company, Yunnan Tobacco Corporation, Wenshan 663099, Yunnan, China
    3Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China
  • Received:2021-08-17 Revised:2021-10-08 Online:2023-02-15 Published:2023-02-22

RichHTML

6

PDF (PC)

117

Abstract:

The comprehensive application effects of conventional fertilization (CK) and adding compound bacteria agent A (T1), compound bacteria agent B (T2), straw (T3), straw+compound bacteria agent A (T4) and straw+compound bacteria agent B (T5) on red soil slope cropland in Yunnan were analyzed using field experiment and high-throughput sequencing technology. The results showed that, compared with CK treatment, single application of compound bacteria agent, straw returning and straw+compound bacteria agent could increase the richness and diversity of soil bacterial community, the contents of alkali-hydrolyzable N, available P and available K, cation exchange capacity, planting benefit, and improved the coordination of chemical components and sensory quality of upper tobacco leaves. The effects of the T5 treatment was better. In conclusion, the comprehensive effects of application straw+compound bacteria agent were better than that of single compound bacteria agent or straw, and had synergistic effects, indicating that straw+compound bacteria agent B model was more suitable for flue-cured tobacco cultivation in red soil sloping farmland in Yunnan.

Key words: Straw returning, Compound bacteria agent, Red soil, Slope cropland, Bacterial community

Table 1

Design of experiments"

处理Treatment 描述Description
CK
 对照，纯氮105.0kg/hm2，底肥和追肥分别为烟草专用复合肥和农用硝酸钾
T1
 在对照的基础上添加复合菌剂A（EM菌原液），45.0L/hm2
T2
 在对照的基础上添加复合菌剂B（播可润菌剂），45.0L/hm2
T3 在对照的基础上添加玉米秸秆2250.0kg/hm2（干基）
T4
 在对照的基础上添加玉米秸秆2250.0kg/hm2（干基）和复合菌剂A（EM菌原液），45.0L/hm2
T5
 在对照的基础上添加玉米秸秆2250.0kg/hm2（干基）和复合菌剂B（播可润菌剂），45.0L/hm2

Table 2

The analysis of soil bacteria Alpha community diversity"

处理
Treatment		 Sobs指数
Sobs index		 Shannon指数
Shannon index		 Simpson指数
Simpson index		 Ace指数
Ace index		 Chaol指数
Chaol index
CK 1590±201ab 5.6229±0.2309a 0.01±0.01a 2241.4±102.9a 2161.3±234.2b
T1 1665±151ab 5.8370±0.1372a 0.01±0.00a 2457.7±289.8a 2381.0±205.7ab
T2 1665±131ab 5.8921±0.1930a 0.01±0.00a 2392.1±34.0a 2295.8±61.8ab
T3 1865±237ab 5.9652±0.2008a 0.02±0.00a 2524.1±317.6a 2493.8±323.8ab
T4 1549±95b 5.6471±0.1892a 0.01±0.01a 2451.1±81.1a 2229.4±128.9ab
T5 1909±37a 5.7735±0.1544a 0.01±0.00a 2571.7±25.1a 2591.2±27.7a

Fig.1

Venn diagram of community composition"

Fig.2

Histogram of community composition"

Table 3

Effects of different treatments on the main chemical characteristics in the sloping farmland of red soil"

处理
Treatment		 pH 碱解氮
Alkali-hydrolyzale nitrogen (mg/kg)		 速效磷
Available phosphorus (mg/kg)		 速效钾
Available potassium (mg/kg)		 CEC
(cmol/kg)
CK 5.8±0.2a 64.8±4.9c 32.2±1.7a 441.9±10.8a 31.2±4.9a
T1 5.8±0.2a 79.0±4.5abc 47.8±5.5a 417.2±7.2a 33.5±4.5a
T2 5.4±0.0b 89.0±10.3ab 36.2±4.2a 462.9±5.6a 37.2±8.8a
T3 5.6±0.1ab 75.4±1.3abc 35.4±2.6a 453.0±4.6a 35.6±3.8a
T4 5.6±0.2ab 73.0±5.5abc 38.6±1.6a 459.5±5.0a 36.1±6.8a
T5 5.7±0.1ab 91.0±12.5a 47.8±4.1a 474.6±11.3a 41.3±4.5a

Table 4

Effects of different treatments on the chemical composition coordination of B2F grade tobacco leaves"

处理
Treatment		 总糖
Total sugar
(%)		 还原糖
Reducing
sugar (%)		 氯
Chlorine
(%)		 总植物碱
Total
alkaloids
(%)		 钾
Potassium
(%)		 总氮
Total
nitrogen
(%)		 淀粉
Starch
(%)		 糖碱比
Ratio of
sugar to
alkaloids		 氮碱比
Ratio of
nitrogen to
alkaloids		 钾氯比
Ratio of
potassium to
chlorine		 综合指数
Comprehensive index
CK 30.3±0.5B 23.1±0.9a 1.0±0.1a 3.5±0.1A 2.1±0.1b 2.2±0.1ab 8.5±0.7ab 8.7±0.3bc 0.6±0.0b 2.0±0.1a 78.6
T1 26.1±0.2C 21.0±0.5a 1.1±0.3a 3.6±0.2A 2.4±0.2a 2.5±0.1a 7.7±1.3b 7.2±0.3c 0.7±0.0ab 2.3±0.9a 79.8
T2 30.6±1.0B 21.0±1.6a 1.2±0.1a 3.7±0.1A 2.3±0.1ab 2.5±0.2a 10.4±1.1a 8.2±0.2bc 0.7±0.0ab 2.0±0.1a 80.2
T3 34.6±3.4A 23.7±3.3a 1.0±0.2a 3.3±0.0AB 2.1±0.0ab 2.1±0.1b 8.8±1.4ab 10.4±0.9ab 0.6±0.0b 2.3±0.5a 77.8
T4 30.6±1.1B 23.5±1.3a 0.8±0.1a 3.2±0.1B 2.1±0.1b 2.1±0.0b 9.5±0.5ab 9.6±0.4ab 0.7±0.7ab 2.5±0.5a 80.7
T5 32.5±1.9AB 22.5±2.7a 0.9±0.1a 2.9±0.1C 2.1±0.2ab 2.1±0.1b 7.4±0.9b 11.1±0.7a 0.7±0.1a 2.6±0.6a 83.6

Table 5

Effects of different treatments on the sensory quality of B2F grade tobacco leaf"

处理Treatment 香气质Quality of aroma 香气量Aroma 杂气Mixed gas 刺激性Irritant 余味After test 综合指数Comprehensive index
CK 欠细腻 有 略重 有 尚适 6.6
T1 中偏上 尚足 较轻 微有 较舒适 7.0
T2 中等 尚足 有 有 尚适 6.8
T3 中等 尚足 有 略大 较舒适 7.0
T4 中等 尚足 略重 略大 尚适 6.8
T5 较好 尚足 较轻 微有 较舒适 7.2

Table 6

Effects of different treatments on economic characters of tobacco leaves"

处理
Treatment		 产量
Yield
(kg/hm2)		 产值（元/hm2）
Output value
(yuan/hm2)		 均价（元/kg）
Average price
(yuan/kg)		 上等烟叶比例
Ratio of superior
tobacco leaf (%)		 中等烟叶比例
Ratio of medium
tobacco leaf (%)
CK 2479.0±21.6b 60 102.8±1021.2b 24.25±0.55c 50.3±3.2c 37.4±1.9a
T1 2480.0±79.8b 61 714.0±2130.0b 24.89±0.37abc 54.7±2.7abc 34.4±2.1a
T2 2528.0±118.7b 62 357.1±1346.7b 24.69±0.64bc 53.7±2.8abc 33.2±0.8a
T3 2511.5±26.6b 62 247.5±326.2b 24.79±0.16bc 51.6±1.8bc 32.8±6.5a
T4 2601.0±51.3ab 66 386.6±1526.6ab 25.52±0.09ab 56.0±0.4ab 34.4±0.4a
T5 2671.5±57.7a 68 733.0±2133.5a 25.73±0.39a 57.1±2.7a 36.9±6.4a
[1] 王伟, 贺莉莎. 云南省坡耕地现状调查及分析. 中国水土保持, 2019(4):20-23.
[2] 金慧芳, 史东梅, 钟义军, 等. 红壤坡耕地耕层土壤质量退化特征及障碍因子诊断. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(21):84-91.
[3] 韦建玉, 王政, 徐天养, 等. 秸秆覆盖与揭膜互作对坡耕地烟田土壤细菌群落及烟叶品质的影响. 土壤通报, 2021, 52(1):82-89.
[4] 樊俊, 谭军, 王瑞, 等. 秸秆还田和腐熟有机肥对植烟土壤养分、酶活性及微生物多样性的影响. 烟草科技, 2019, 52(2):12-18.
[5] 王振跃, 施艳, 李洪连. 玉米秸秆还田配施生防放线菌S024对麦田土壤微生物及小麦纹枯病的影响. 生态学杂志, 2011, 30 (2):311-314.
[6] 李春杰, 孙涛, 张兴义. 秸秆腐熟剂对寒地玉米秸秆降解率和土壤理化性状的影响. 华北农学报, 2015, 30(S1):507-510.
doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2015.S1.091
[7] 刘红波, 乔志刚, 王永铭, 等. 不同微生物菌肥对结球白菜产量和品质的影响. 北方农业学报, 2020, 48(6):45-49.
doi: 10.12190/j.issn.2096-1197.2020.06.07
[8] 敖金成, 郑武, 罗华元, 等. 增施生物菌肥对烤烟产量及内在品质的影响. 江西农业学报, 2012, 24(7):63-66.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 陆水凤, 王呈玉, 王天野, 等. 玉米秸秆配施菌剂还田对土壤养分及腐殖质组成的影响. 江苏农业学报, 2019, 35(4):834-840.
[12] 敖金成, 罗华元, 张晓龙, 等. 玉米秸秆还田方式对初烤烟叶品质及土壤肥力的影响. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(8):1456-1461.
[13] 钱海燕, 杨滨娟, 黄国勤, 等. 秸秆还田配施化肥及微生物菌剂对水田土壤酶活性和微生物数量的影响. 生态环境学报, 2012, 21(3):440-445.
[14] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[15] 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 159-2002. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2002.
[16] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品钾的测定火焰光度法:YC/T 173-2003. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2003.
[17] 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.
[18] 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.
[19] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品总氮的测定连续流动法:YC/T 161-2002. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2002.
[20] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品淀粉的测定连续流动法:YC/T 216-2013. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2013.
[21] 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.
[22] 国家烟草专卖局. 烟草及烟草制品感官评价方法:YC/T 138-1998. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1998.
[23] Williams S T, Foster P G, Littlewood D T J. The complete mitochondrial genome of a turbinid vetigastropod from MiSeq Ⅰllumina sequencing of genomic DNA and steps towards a resolved gastropod phylogeny. Gene, 2014, 533(1):38-47.
doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2013.10.005 pmid: 24120625
[24] Gomez-Alvarez V, Teal T K, Schmidt T M. Systematic artifacts in metagenomes from complex microbial communities. The ISME Journal, 2009, 3(11):1314-1317.
doi: 10.1038/ismej.2009.72
[25] 孙瑞莲, 朱鲁生, 赵秉强, 等. 长期施肥对土壤微生物的影响及其在养分调控中的作用. 应用生态学报, 2004, 15(3):469-472.
[26] 魏赛金, 黄国强, 倪国荣, 等. 稻草还田配施腐解菌剂对水稻土壤微生物的影响. 核农学报, 2016, 30(10):2026-2032.
doi: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2016.10.2026
[27] Acosta-Martinez V, Burow G, Zobeck T M, et al. Soil microbial communities and function in alternative systems to continuous cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2010, 74(4):1181-1192.
doi: 10.2136/sssaj2008.0065
[28] 李娟, 赵秉强, 李秀英, 等. 长期有机无机肥配施对土壤微生物学特性及土壤肥力的影响. 中国农业科学, 2008, 41(1):144-152.
[29] 青格尔, 于晓芳, 高聚林, 等. 腐解菌剂对玉米秸秆降解效果的研究. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 44(12):107-116.
[30] 李传宝, 王宏燕, 赵伟, 等. 秸秆还田配施微生物菌剂与有机肥施用对黑土微生物量碳的影响. 江苏农业科学, 2017, 45(5):265-268.
[31] 夏冰冰, 梁永红, 张扬, 等. 遵义烟区上部烟叶化学成分与感官评吸的相关性. 中国烟草科学, 2015, 36(1):30-34.
[32] 许自成, 李丹丹, 毕庆文, 等. 烤烟氯含量与挥发性香气物质及感官质量的关系研究. 中国烟草学报, 2008, 14(5):27-32.
[33] 汤浪涛, 周冀衡, 黄永, 等. 曲靖烟区烤烟化学指标及其相关性分析. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 24(6):829-834.
[34] 胡荣海, 邵岩. 云南烟草栽培学. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007.
[35] 邓小华, 周冀衡, 李晓忠, 等. 湘南烟区烤烟常规化学指标的对比分析. 烟草科技, 2006(9):22-26.
[1] Tang Jianghua, Du Xiaojing, Xu Wenxiu, Su Lili, Fang Yanfei, Xu Chao, An Chongxiao. Effects of Tillage Measures on Soil Nitrogen Characteristics under Total Straw Returning [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(5): 135-140.
[2] Ge Changbin, Qin Suyan, Huang Jie, Cao Yanyan, Liao Pingʼan. Effects of Tillage Methods on Fusarium Head Blight and Yield of Wheat [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(5): 235-240.
[3] Yu Bo, Xu Songhe, Ren Qin, Yang Yuting, Zhou Mengyang, Pan Yu. Research Progress of Straw Returning and Present Situation of Maize Straw Returning by Deep Ploughing in Inner Mongolia [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(2): 6-15.
[4] Cai Lijun, Zhang Jingtao, Liu Jingqi, Gai Zhijia, Guo Zhenhua, Zhao Guifan. Effects of Long-Term No-Tillage Straw Returning on Soil Organic Carbon and Soybean Yield in Cold Region [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(6): 189-192.
[5] Li Maosen, Gao Weikai, Ren Tianbao, Jiang Shixiang, He Xiaoya, Luo Leqin, Yun Fei, Ke Xiaoting. Analysis of Bacterial Community and Influencing Factors in Tobacco Soil at Different Altitudes in Zunyi [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(6): 193-198.
[6] Wang Guojiao, Song Peng, Yang Zhenzhong, Zhang Wenzhong. Effects of Straw Returning on Photosynthetic Matter Production Characteristics, Quality of Rice and Soil Nutrients [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 67-72.
[7] Liu Xuetong, Zheng Chunlian, Cao Wei, Dang Hongkai, Cao Caiyun, Li Xiaoshuang, Li Kejiang, Ma Junyong. Effects of Long-Term Located Fertilization on Soil Organic Matter, Nitrogen Forms and Crop Yields [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 130-135.
[8] Meng Xiangyu, Ran Cheng, Liu Baolong, Zhao Zhexuan, Bai Jingjing, Geng Yanqiu. Effects of Straw Returning to Field and Nitrogen Application on Soil Nutrients and Rice Yield in Black Soil Areas of Northeast China [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 167-172.
[9] Zhou Zhengping, Tian Baogeng, Chen Wanhua, Wang Ziyang, Yuan Wei, Liu Shiping. Effects of Different Tillage Methods and Straw Returning on Soil Nutrients and Wheat Yield and Quality [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 78-83.
[10] Wu Qihua, Chen Diwen, Zhou Wenling, Ao Junhua, Huang Ying, Huang Zhenrui, Li Shuang, Sun Donglei. Effects of Reducing Phosphorus Application in High-P Soils on the P Efficiency of Chewing Cane and Soil Enzyme Activity [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 91-98.
[11] Liu Jianzhao, Yuan Jingchao, Liang Yao, He Yu, Zhang Shuimei, Shi Haipeng, Cai Hongguang, Ren Jun. Analysis of Field Verification and Benefit on Full Maize Straw Returning with Deep Plowing Mode [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(2): 135-139.
[12] Huang Shaohui, Yang Junfang, Liu Xuetong, Yang Yunma, Xing Suli, Han Baowen, Liu Mengchao, Jia Liangliang, He Ping. Effects of Wheat Long-Term Straw Returning on Soil Phosphorus Content and Phosphorus Balance in Loamy Tidal Soil [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(6): 89-96.
[13] Luo Yuqiong, Yan Bo, Wu Ke, Xie Huimin, Liang He, Jiang Ligeng. Effects of No-Tillage and Straw Returning on Soil Fertility and Rice Yield in Farmland [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(5): 133-139.
[14] Song Qiulai, Wang Qi, Feng Yanjiang, Sun Yu, Zeng Xiannan, Lai Yongcai. Effects of Paddy-Upland Rotation and Straw Returning on Soil Related Enzyme Activities in Cold Region [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(3): 149-153.
[15] Qi Hua,Li Congfeng,Zhao Ming,Jiang Ying. Developments and Prospects of Conservation Tillage in the Dryland of Northern China [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(2): 16-19.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!