Crops ›› 2023, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (3): 139-147.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2023.03.019

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Difference and Correlation Analysis of Mineral Element Contents and Sensory Qualities between Yunnan Province of China and Nicaragua Cigar Tobacco Leaves

Wang Shuoli1(), Ding Songshuang1(), Wang Ronghao2, Li Linlin2, Wu Chuang2, Wang Jian2(), Shi Xiangdong1()   

  1. 1Key Laboratory of Tobacco Cultivation for Tobacco Industry, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450002, Henan, China
    2Sanxia Cigarette Factory, Hubei China Tobacco Industry Co., Ltd., Yichang 443100, Hubei, China
  • Received:2023-01-27 Revised:2023-03-28 Online:2023-06-15 Published:2023-06-16

RichHTML

4

PDF (PC)

111

Abstract:

In order to explore the main quality differences of leaves between Yunnan cigar of China and introduced Nicaragua cigar, using cigar tobacco varieties of China (Dehong, Lincang and Puer of Yunnan) and Nicaragua as materials, the difference indexes of mineral elements and sensory qualities of cigar tobacco leaves in different production areas were screened through OPLS-DA, and the relationship between mineral elements and sensory qualities of cigar tobacco leaves was explored based on factor analysis and canonical correlation analysis. The results showed that the different mineral elements of tobacco leaves were Cl, Ca, Na, B, Fe and Cu, and the different sensory quality indexes of tobacco leaves were volume of aroma, aroma quality, offensive odor and combustibility between China (Dehong, Lincang and Puer) and Nicaragua. The contents of Cl and Ca in tobacco leaves from Nicaragua were relatively low, and the scores of volume of aroma, aroma quality, offensive odor and combustibility of tobacco leaves from Nicaragua were higher than those from other areas. The Cl content of cigar tobacco leaves in Puer, China was close to that of Nicaragua, which was significantly lower than that of Dehong and Lincang tobacco leaves in China (P < 0.05). The contents of Ca, Fe and Cu in Dehong tobacco leaves were significantly higher than those in other production areas, with an average of 23.45%, 36.55% and 47.93%. The content of B in Puer tobacco leaves was 68.27% higher than in other production areas. The results of factor analysis and canonical correlation analysis showed that with the increase of B, Na and K contents, the aroma quality, volume of aroma and offensive odor score showed an upward trend, while the contents of Cl, Cu, Mn, Ca and Fe were on the contrary. With the increase of K content, the combustibility and soot color score showed an upward trend, while Cl content was on the contrary.

Key words: Cigar leaf, Mineral elements, Sensory quality, OPLS-DA, Factor analysis, Canonical correlation analysis

Table 1

Evaluation criteria for the sensory qualities of cigar tobacco leaves"

指标Index 特征Feature 分值Score
香气质Aroma quality 较好、好、很好 7~9
稍差、中、稍好 4~6
很差、差、较差 1~3
香气量Volume of aroma 较充足、充足、很充足 7~9
稍有、中、尚充足 4~6
很少、少、微有 1~3
余味Aftertaste 较舒适、舒适、很舒适 7~9
稍舒适、中、尚舒适 4~6
很差、差、较差 1~3
杂气Offensive odor 很小、小、较小 7~9
稍小、中、稍大 4~6
较大、大、很大 1~3
甜润感Sweet feeling 较显著、显著、很显著 7~9
稍显著、中、尚显著 4~6
无、少、微显著 1~3
刺激性Irritant 很小、小、较小 7~9
稍小、中、稍大 4~6
较大、大、很大 1~3
燃烧性Combustibility 很好、好、较好 7~9
稍好、中、稍差 4~6
较差、差、熄火 1~3
灰色Soot color 较白、白、很白 7~9
灰、中、灰白 4~6
黑、黑灰、灰黑 1~3

Table 2

Basic statistical characteristics of mineral element contents of cigar tobacco leaves in Yunnan, China and Nicaragua"

矿质元素
Mineral element		 产区
Production area		 最大值
Maximum		 最小值
Minimum		 平均值
Average		 中位数
Median		 偏度
Skewness		 峰度
Kurtosis		 标准差
Standard deviation		 变异系数
Coefficient of variation (%)
总氮Total N (%) 中国 德宏 4.19 3.14 3.78 3.90 -0.65 -1.15 0.36 9.62
临沧 4.68 3.21 4.07 4.23 -0.79 -0.58 0.43 10.55
普洱 4.32 2.58 3.29 3.26 0.49 0.19 0.44 13.39
尼加拉瓜 4.93 2.48 3.70 3.69 -0.15 -0.82 0.61 16.58
Cl (%) 中国 德宏 1.86 0.85 1.26 1.20 0.33 -1.54 0.37 29.52
临沧 1.01 0.54 0.79 0.75 -0.03 -0.87 0.13 15.88
普洱 0.94 0.35 0.56 0.54 0.73 -0.89 0.21 37.35
尼加拉瓜 1.57 0.23 0.65 0.55 1.07 1.20 0.35 53.60
K (%) 中国 德宏 4.90 4.19 4.49 4.47 0.41 -0.70 0.21 4.63
临沧 5.36 3.15 4.20 4.16 0.35 0.05 0.54 12.97
普洱 5.14 2.85 3.88 3.72 0.32 -0.71 0.65 16.77
尼加拉瓜 5.74 3.66 4.32 4.23 0.19 0.21 0.55 12.75
Ca (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 59 285.94 38 754.97 49 524.30 50 341.74 -0.46 -0.70 6166.08 12.45
临沧 51 445.45 27 150.75 38 224.74 37 398.64 0.44 0.04 5987.48 15.66
普洱 51 844.76 29 278.05 38 139.79 37 901.88 0.59 -0.12 6238.57 16.36
尼加拉瓜 51 777.61 29 140.71 37 373.41 36 618.34 0.73 -0.07 5224.14 13.98
Mg (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 7148.86 4587.09 5541.87 5332.26 1.12 0.38 765.79 13.82
临沧 9679.88 4748.39 7326.68 7186.69 0.06 0.22 1167.27 15.93
普洱 8531.18 3782.11 5738.52 5438.15 0.80 -0.33 1446.57 25.21
尼加拉瓜 9423.33 4328.84 7252.07 7612.19 0.00 -1.15 1605.70 22.14
P (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 2989.55 2112.47 2642.14 2706.50 -0.76 -0.13 245.94 9.31
临沧 3240.28 1728.33 2592.35 2669.46 -0.45 -0.87 452.14 17.44
普洱 3735.43 2595.66 3202.41 3313.65 -0.14 -1.67 394.26 12.31
尼加拉瓜 4009.18 2585.74 3115.76 3100.85 -0.27 0.46 302.29 9.70
B (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 36.13 16.76 26.02 25.51 0.08 -1.15 6.26 24.06
临沧 46.89 22.81 33.68 33.35 0.18 -0.62 6.59 19.58
普洱 126.72 68.70 94.66 93.70 0.02 -1.00 17.51 18.50
尼加拉瓜 40.51 24.05 30.42 29.64 1.61 1.29 4.76 15.64
Cu (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 36.97 20.11 27.22 26.01 0.36 -1.48 5.69 20.88
临沧 28.26 10.27 18.71 19.18 0.08 -0.72 4.96 26.52
普洱 18.33 2.50 6.76 4.22 1.53 1.33 4.74 70.19
尼加拉瓜 23.68 7.91 17.05 18.34 0.03 -0.29 4.67 27.37
Fe (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 611.96 309.96 423.67 388.16 0.60 -1.21 109.46 25.84
临沧 367.71 154.41 217.99 196.25 1.48 1.13 58.75 26.95
普洱 481.09 214.57 324.09 317.51 0.93 0.77 69.31 21.39
尼加拉瓜 486.31 166.93 264.42 218.88 1.03 0.44 98.22 37.15
Mn (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 374.05 119.64 239.52 245.22 0.04 -1.64 95.09 39.70
临沧 489.37 114.12 258.80 216.78 0.71 -0.55 113.99 44.04
普洱 152.10 85.45 114.31 105.49 0.19 -1.38 21.20 18.55
尼加拉瓜 374.41 38.18 157.46 125.18 1.07 0.28 89.63 56.93
Na (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 722.21 480.64 623.14 620.45 -0.72 -0.19 72.05 11.56
临沧 459.65 281.62 349.51 339.83 0.83 0.29 42.46 12.15
普洱 1047.42 587.53 861.86 928.91 -0.82 -0.65 144.11 16.72
尼加拉瓜 759.51 352.13 517.84 511.46 0.77 -0.35 102.77 19.85
Zn (mg/kg) 中国 德宏 134.28 76.90 100.41 97.55 0.41 -1.17 19.81 19.73
临沧 129.02 51.54 89.86 84.49 0.15 -0.45 19.99 22.24
普洱 80.24 51.12 64.39 65.55 0.24 -0.98 8.74 13.57
尼加拉瓜 133.94 42.08 73.52 71.07 0.56 -0.33 23.83 32.41

Table 3

Basic statistical characteristics of sensory quality scores of cigar tobacco leaves in Yunnan, China and Nicaragua"

指标
Index		 产区
Production area		 最大值
Maximum		 最小值
Minimum		 平均值
Average		 中位数
Median		 偏度
Skewness		 峰度
Kurtosis		 标准差
Standard deviation		 变异系数
Coefficient of variation (%)
香气质
Aroma quality		 中国 德宏 5.6 3.5 4.7 4.7 -0.32 -0.92 0.69 14.83
临沧 6.3 4.0 5.2 5.4 -0.25 -0.70 0.62 11.95
普洱 6.5 3.3 5.1 5.3 -0.24 -0.88 0.92 18.03
尼加拉瓜 8.0 4.9 6.2 6.2 0.06 0.13 0.71 11.29
香气量
Volume of aroma		 中国 德宏 5.9 3.4 4.5 4.4 0.68 0.26 0.72 16.17
临沧 6.2 3.9 4.9 5.0 0.14 -0.27 0.59 12.04
普洱 6.5 4.0 4.9 4.8 0.62 -0.74 0.81 16.42
尼加拉瓜 7.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 0.26 -0.64 0.71 11.92
杂气
Offensive odor		 中国 德宏 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 0.10 0.14 0.27 5.99
临沧 5.7 4.0 4.9 4.9 -0.06 -1.21 0.53 10.84
普洱 5.5 3.6 4.5 4.5 0.28 0.02 0.46 10.24
尼加拉瓜 7.2 4.5 5.8 5.9 0.63 -0.28 0.70 12.06
刺激性Irritant 中国 德宏 5.6 4.8 5.2 5.3 -0.48 -0.48 0.23 4.46
临沧 6.3 3.5 5.1 5.4 -0.42 -0.86 0.79 15.47
普洱 6.7 4.3 5.4 5.4 0.15 -0.53 0.64 11.93
尼加拉瓜 7.3 4.3 5.7 5.7 -0.02 0.21 0.77 13.51
余味Aftertaste 中国 德宏 5.4 4.3 4.9 4.9 -0.33 -0.99 0.33 6.80
临沧 5.7 3.8 4.7 4.8 -0.03 -0.86 0.51 10.89
普洱 6.7 4.4 5.3 5.2 0.62 -0.42 0.67 12.61
尼加拉瓜 7.3 4.5 5.6 5.5 0.77 0.58 0.74 13.39
甜润感
Sweet feeling		 中国 德宏 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.2 -1.11 0.26 0.47 9.32
临沧 5.8 3.9 4.8 4.6 0.37 -0.41 0.45 9.43
普洱 7.0 4.5 5.6 5.5 0.40 -1.25 0.76 13.45
尼加拉瓜 7.9 4.0 5.6 5.5 0.81 1.07 0.83 14.90
燃烧性
Combustibility		 中国 德宏 5.6 4.3 5.1 5.2 -0.63 -1.06 0.42 8.16
临沧 7.3 4.9 6.1 6.2 -0.07 -1.07 0.68 11.05
普洱 6.8 4.0 5.5 5.6 -0.33 -0.64 0.80 14.55
尼加拉瓜 7.5 5.0 6.5 6.6 -0.32 -0.69 0.60 9.16
灰色Soot color 中国 德宏 6.3 4.4 5.1 5.1 0.56 -0.30 0.53 10.39
临沧 7.0 3.9 5.6 5.7 -0.25 -1.04 0.89 16.00
普洱 6.7 4.6 5.7 5.8 -0.34 -0.75 0.59 10.41
尼加拉瓜 7.8 4.8 6.3 6.2 0.14 -0.21 0.81 12.93
总分Total score 中国 德宏 58.7 46.2 53.7 54.2 -0.82 0.22 3.79 7.05
临沧 61.5 48.3 56.6 57.5 -0.64 -0.38 3.66 6.46
普洱 67.0 52.7 58.0 57.9 0.71 -0.16 4.21 7.27
尼加拉瓜 81.1 54.1 66.0 65.9 0.66 2.11 5.51 8.34

Fig.1

Distribution of OPLS-DA model scores of mineral element contents and sensory quality scores"

Fig.2

OPLS-DA model VIP diagram of mineral elements and sensory quality indexes"

Fig.3

OPLS-DA verification model"

Table 4

Statistical analysis of difference indexes"

差异指标
Difference index		 中国China 尼加拉瓜
Nicaragua
德宏Dehong 临沧Lincang 普洱Puer
Cl (%) 1.26±0.09a 0.79±0.02b 0.56±0.04c 0.65±0.05c
Ca (mg/kg) 49 524.30±1453.36a 38 224.74±958.76b 38 139.79±1200.61b 37 373.41±754.04b
Na (mg/kg) 623.14±16.98b 349.51±6.80d 861.86±27.73a 517.84±14.83c
B (mg/kg) 26.02±1.48c 33.68±1.06b 94.66±3.37a 30.42±0.69bc
Fe (mg/kg) 423.67±25.80a 217.99±9.41d 324.09±13.34b 264.42±14.18c
Cu (mg/kg) 27.22±1.34a 18.71±0.79b 6.76±0.91c 17.05±0.67b
香气量Volume of aroma 4.48±0.17c 4.86±0.09b 4.91±0.15b 5.96±0.10a
香气质Aroma quality 4.67±0.16c 5.21±0.10b 5.11±0.18b 6.25±0.10a
杂气Offensive odor 4.48±0.06c 4.86±0.08b 4.49±0.09c 5.82±0.10a
燃烧性Combustibility 5.09±0.10d 6.12±0.11b 5.52±0.16c 6.54±0.09a

Table 5

Eigenvalue, variance contribution rate and cumulative contribution rate of extraction factors of mineral element contents in cigar tobacco leaves"

因子
Factor		 特征值
Eigenvalue		 方差贡献率
Variance
contribution rate (%)		 累计贡献率
Cumulative
contribution rate (%)
1 3.591 29.924 29.924
2 2.305 19.208 49.132
3 1.547 12.891 62.023
4 1.123 9.355 71.378
5 1.040 8.665 80.043

Table 6

Common factor load matrix and score coefficient matrix of mineral element contents in cigar tobacco leaves"

指标
Index		 载荷矩阵Load matrix 得分系数矩阵Score coefficient matrix
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Ca 0.259 0.821 -0.333 0.007 -0.087 0.072 0.356 -0.215 0.007 -0.084
K 0.306 0.497 -0.770 -0.083 -0.099 0.085 0.216 -0.498 -0.074 -0.095
P -0.475 0.269 -0.296 0.200 0.454 -0.132 0.117 -0.191 0.179 0.436
Cl 0.394 0.401 0.614 -0.428 -0.074 0.110 0.174 0.397 -0.381 -0.072
Mg 0.247 -0.227 0.006 -0.430 0.766 0.069 -0.099 0.004 -0.383 0.737
Mn 0.628 -0.114 0.272 0.603 -0.005 0.175 -0.049 0.176 0.538 -0.005
Na -0.734 0.440 0.293 0.017 0.098 -0.204 0.191 0.190 0.015 0.095
B -0.814 -0.032 0.175 0.225 -0.111 -0.227 -0.014 0.113 0.200 -0.107
Fe -0.242 0.753 0.334 -0.149 -0.103 -0.067 0.327 0.216 -0.133 -0.099
Cu 0.820 0.283 0.195 0.014 0.071 0.228 0.123 0.126 0.013 0.069
Zn 0.565 0.337 0.175 0.484 0.319 0.157 0.146 0.113 0.431 0.307
总氮Total N 0.586 -0.361 -0.091 -0.189 -0.291 0.163 -0.157 -0.059 -0.169 -0.280

Table 7

Eigenvalue, variance contribution rate and cumulative contribution rate of extracting factors for sensory quality score of cigar tobacco leaves"

因子
Factor		 特征值
Eigenvalue		 方差贡献率
Variance
contribution rate (%)		 累计贡献率
Cumulative
contribution rate (%)
1 3.899 48.732 48.732
2 1.488 18.601 67.334
3 1.112 13.904 81.238

Table 8

Common factor load matrix and score coefficient matrix of sensory quality scores of cigar tobacco leaves"

指标
Index		 载荷矩阵Load matrix 得分系数矩阵Score coefficient matrix
G1 G2 G3 G1 G2 G3
香气质Aroma quality 0.873 -0.135 -0.345 0.224 -0.091 -0.311
香气量Volume of aroma 0.866 -0.115 -0.332 0.222 -0.077 -0.298
杂气Offensive odor 0.815 0.210 0.068 0.209 0.141 0.061
余味Aftertaste 0.715 -0.473 0.283 0.183 -0.318 0.255
甜润感Sweet feeling 0.705 -0.499 -0.026 0.181 -0.335 -0.023
刺激性Irritant 0.370 -0.002 0.892 0.095 -0.002 0.802
燃烧性Combustibility 0.562 0.725 0.007 0.144 0.487 0.007
灰色Soot color 0.511 0.644 0.029 0.131 0.433 0.026

Table 9

Test of canonical correlation model coefficients"

典型变量
Canonical
variable		 相关系数
Correlation
coefficient		 特征值
Eigenvalue		 威尔克统计
Wilks
statistic		 F值
F-value		 自由度
df		 P
Ⅰ 0.623** 0.634 0.539 5.740 15.000 0.000
Ⅱ 0.324* 0.117 0.880 2.060 8.000 0.040
Ⅲ 0.130 0.017 0.983 0.717 3.000 0.544

Table 10

Typical variable composition of common factors of mineral elements and sensory qualities"

因子
Factor		 典型变量Ⅰ
Canonical variable Ⅰ		 典型变量Ⅱ
Canonical variable Ⅱ
mi rui mi rui
F1 0.789 0.527 0.022 0.163
F2 0.408 0.433 -0.961 -0.805
F3 0.612 0.504 0.554 0.293
F4 0.247 0.099 -0.055 -0.049
F5 -0.187 -0.399 -0.327 -0.177
G1 -0.383 -0.672 0.963 0.722
G2 -0.807 -0.923 -0.707 -0.294
G3 0.144 -0.015 0.347 0.278
[1] 周婷, 范静苑, 邢蕾, 等. 国产雪茄烟叶原料应用研究的探索和思考. 现代工业经济和信息化, 2021, 11(7):140-142,148.
[2] 张卫东, 尹健康, 宋红文, 等. 基于百度指数的长城雪茄销售探索. 市场周刊, 2020, 33(7):93-95.
[3] 张倩颖, 罗诚, 李东亮, 等. 雪茄烟叶调制及发酵技术研究进展. 中国烟草学报, 2020, 26(4):1-6.
[4] 李爱军, 秦艳青, 代惠娟, 等. 国产雪茄烟叶科学发展刍议. 中国烟草学报, 2012, 18(1):112-114.
[5] 孙敬国, 孙学成, 张允政, 等. 矿质养分对雪茄燃烧性的影响研究进展. 中南农业科技, 2022, 43(1):157-159.
[6] 左天觉. 烟草的生产、生理和生物化学. 上海: 远东出版社, 1994.
[7] 胡国松, 郑伟, 王震东, 等. 烤烟营养原理. 北京: 科学出版社, 2000.
[8] 李艳平, 任天宝, 李建华, 等. 烟秆有机肥对烤烟根系发育和矿质元素含量的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2016, 37(6):21-26.
[9] 李贵生, 陈良碧. 矿质营养对烟草品质的影响. 世界农业, 2000(4):31.
[10] 杜星霖, 杨万龙, 贺晓辉. 1.1万亩！从“0”到“1”的蜕变. 东方烟草报, 2022-2-26(4).
[11] 王琰琰, 刘国祥, 向小华, 等. 国内外雪茄烟主产区及品种资源概况. 中国烟草科学, 2020, 41(3):93-98.
[12] 许自成, 黎妍妍, 肖汉乾, 等. 湖南烤烟营养元素含量与总糖和烟碱的关系. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2008, 36(1):137-142,148.
[13] 杨玉坤, 罗家左, 王德勋, 等. 大理烟区烤烟矿质元素与感官质量的灰色关联分析. 天津农业科学, 2018, 24(7):62-66.
[14] 戴华鑫, 张仕祥, 王爱国, 等. 烤烟部分矿质营养元素含量状况及其与评吸质量的关系. 烟草科技, 2017, 50(4):1-9.
[15] 刘新民. 颜色量化分析在烤烟品质评价中的应用研究. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2004.
[16] Chung I M, Kim J K, Han J G, et al. Potential geo-discriminative tools to trace the origins of the dried slices of shiitake (Lentinula edodes) using stable isotope ratios and OPLS-DA. Food Chemistry, 2019, 295:505-513.
doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.05.143
[17] 黄浩, 余鹏辉, 赵熙, 等. 不同季节保靖黄金茶1号工夫红茶挥发性成分的HS-SPME-GC-MS分析. 食品科学, 2020, 41(12):188-196.
doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20190721-265
[18] 汪耀富, 张福锁, 刘占卿. 灌水和过量施钾对烤烟养分含量及烟叶产量品质的影响. 河南农业大学学报, 2002, 36(3):222-225.
[19] 程海涛, 马兆惠, 刘桂林, 等. 北方粳稻品种(系)资源淀粉RVA谱特征与品质性状典型相关分析. 作物杂志, 2017(2):59-66.
[20] 于建军, 叶贤文, 董高峰, 等. 土壤与烤烟中微量元素含量的相关性. 生态学杂志, 2010, 29(6):1127-1134.
[21] 许自成, 刘国顺, 刘金海, 等. 铜山烟区生态因素和烟叶质量特点. 生态学报, 2005, 25(7):1748-1753.
[22] 沈锦辉, 王政仁, 邓显明. 南雄烟区碱性紫色土施锰效应试验. 广东农业科学, 2000(2):28-30.
[23] 杨苏. 湖南烤烟主产区增施中、微量元素对烟叶产质量的影响. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2017.
[24] 穆童, 许自成, 李渊博, 等. 硼对烟草生理特性及品质影响的研究进展. 土壤通报, 2017, 48(3):757-761.
[25] 马静, 李雪利, 王鹏, 等. 土壤盐分对烤烟各器官干物质重及矿质元素吸收分配的影响. 中国烟草学报, 2020, 26(3):74-83.
[26] 孙燕鑫, 李子玮, 张豪洋, 等. 马龙和沾益烟区土壤与烟叶铁元素分布特征及其对烟叶感官质量的影响. 作物杂志, 2021(3):140-148.
[27] 许自成, 郑聪, 李丹丹, 等. 烤烟钾含量与主要挥发性香气物质及感官质量的关系分析. 河南农业大学学报, 2009, 43(4):354-358.
[28] 刘国顺, 叶协锋, 王彦亭, 等. 不同钾肥施用量对烟叶香气成分含量的影响. 中国烟草科学, 2004, 25(4):1-4.
[1] Jia Guotao, Zhang Junling, Wei Zhuangzhuang, Yuan Qishan, Wang Baolin, Wang Xiaoyu, Ma Shengtao, Yang Xinling, Zhang Ziying, Zhang Shiying, Jia Shiwei, Chen Yang, Liu Huimin. Research on the Regional Characteristics of Contents of Free Amino Acids in Flue-Cured Tobacco Based on Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis [J]. Crops, 2022, 38(5): 208-214.
[2] Liu Xin, Yang Fang, Deng Junbo, Wang Aiai, He Nian, Chen Yan. Phenotypic Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Soybean Strains in Jianghan Plain of China [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(5): 57-63.
[3] Zhang Jiawen, Lu Shaohao, Zhao Mingqin, Zhong Qiu, Wang Jun, Yi Kai, Xiang Huan. Effects of Nitrogen Application Rates on Carbon and Nitrogen Metabolism and Quality of Cigar Leaves in Sichuan [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(4): 159-165.
[4] Sun Yanxin, Li Ziwei, Zhang Haoyang, Guo Xiaoheng, Xu Zicheng. Distribution Characteristics of Fe in Soil and Tobacco Leaves in Malong and Zhanyi Tobacco Areas and Their Effects on the Sensory Quality of Tobacco Leaves [J]. Crops, 2021, 37(3): 140-148.
[5] Shen Hongtao,Zhang Fusheng,Li Dong,Qiu Jianhua,Cai Xinghong,Qin Yubao. Effects of Different Preceding Crops and Planting Density on Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco in Mudanjiang [J]. Crops, 2020, 36(2): 105-111.
[6] Jin Yulong,Bai Ting,Zhu Mingxia,Liu Xiaojiao,Wang Shanshan,Zhang Zhiwei,Hu Yun,Zhang Yuhong. Comprehensive Evaluation of Quality of Nine Tibetan Barley Landlaces by Factor Analysis [J]. Crops, 2019, 35(4): 55-60.
[7] Haitao Cheng,Zhaohui Ma,Guilin Liu,Ping Cao,Wenyan Lü. Canonical Correlation Analysis between RVA Profile Characteristics and Quality Traits of Japonica Rice Varieties [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(2): 59-66.
[8] Lianjie Xie,Nana Li,Yanting Pei,Jianxia Song,Lei Zhao,Zhiqiang Li,Hanfeng Ding. Absorption Characteristics of Soil Mineral Elements by Main Winter Wheat Varieties in Shandong Province in the Past 60 Years [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(1): 56-60.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!