-
云南高原湖泊径流区是重要蔬菜和烤烟产区,化肥投入量大,导致面源污染问题严重,曾引发一系列湖泊污染事件[1]。抚仙湖位于滇中盆地中心,是中国蓄水量最大的淡水湖泊。由于其独特的低纬高原构造,动态水流少,换水周期长,生态脆弱[2−3],如何推动种植业结构调整,减少化学投入品引发的环境压力,是保护抚仙湖的重要手段。
抚仙湖流域是云南清甜香型烤烟的代表性区域和优质烟叶原料的核心产区[4]。由于烤烟连作导致土壤有效养分含量降低,有机质含量随年限增加而减少,影响烟株农艺性状;长期不合理施肥导致烟田土壤逐渐酸化板结,致使烟株主根短、须根少,难以吸收养分,肥料利用率降低[5−6];长期连作还会引起烟叶糖碱比、氮碱比降低,内在化学成分比例失调[7−8]。
绿肥作为清洁的有机肥源,是我国农作物种植制度中重要的轮作倒茬作物。绿肥通过富集或固定氮磷钾等养分资源,减少土壤无机态养分损失,同时增加植被覆盖度,改善土壤质地,减少水土流失,降低农业面源污染[9−11]。在烟区利用冬闲季节种植绿肥,既能培肥土壤,又能促进后茬烤烟的养分供给,保障烤烟产量和品质,是烟叶可持续生产的有效措施之一[5]。
不同种类绿肥对土壤养分转化、烤烟养分吸收以及产量的贡献有一定差异[12]。豆科绿肥具有较强的固氮效应,对增加土壤氮素、提高土壤肥力具有重要作用[11]。连年翻压光叶紫花苕能提高烟田有机质、硝态氮、速效钾含量,并可以提高中部烟叶烟碱和钾含量,降低烟叶氯含量,从而提高烟叶品质[13−14]。翻压箭筈豌豆和光叶紫花苕均可促进烟叶的农艺性状表现,大幅提高烟叶产质量[15−16];绿肥油菜翻压后显著提高土壤有机质和全磷含量,配合氮肥减施可提高烟叶产量[17−18]。选择合适的绿肥种类,建立适宜抚仙湖烟区的绿肥–烤烟制度,对于该区域烤烟生产提质增效具有重要意义。本研究通过两年的小区定位试验,分析了3种绿肥轮作翻压对植烟土壤养分及烤烟产质量的影响,筛选出适宜于抚仙湖流域核心烟区的绿肥品种资源,以期为优化当地烤烟制度提供参考。
-
试验于2019—2021年在云南省澄江县龙街镇后香村 (102°53′29.418′′E, 24°39′29.654′′N,海拔1753 m)开展,当地年平均气温16.4℃,年平均降水量823.7 mm,相对湿度76%,常年日照总时数1780.5 h[19]。土壤类型为红壤水稻土,基本养分状况为:pH 7.34,有机质含量35.1 g/kg,全氮含量2.52 g/kg,全磷含量2.60 g/kg,全钾含量16.3 g/kg,碱解氮含量205 mg/kg,有效磷含量97.5 mg/kg,速效钾含量446 mg/kg,氯离子含量52.2 mg/kg。
-
定位试验设4个处理,分别为:翻压油菜(Brassica campestris,BC)、翻压箭筈豌豆(Vicia sativa L.,VS)、翻压光叶紫花苕(Vicia villosa Roth var. glabrescens,VVR)、无绿肥冬闲(CK)。每处理重复3次,完全随机排列,小区面积60 m2 (10 m×6 m)。绿肥于每年10月上旬播种,绿肥播种量油菜为4.5 kg/hm2,箭筈豌豆和光叶紫花苕均为50 kg/hm2,播种方式为散播。绿肥油菜、箭筈豌豆和光叶紫花苕两年平均鲜重分别为32600、42805和45681 kg/hm2,含水量依次为84.3%、85.0%和84.6%。绿肥主要养分含量如表1所示。绿肥生长期间不施肥,次年3月绿肥就地全量翻压还田。同年4月底移栽烟苗,烤烟施肥量为N 90 kg/hm2、P2O5 45 kg/hm2、K2O 270 kg/hm2。施肥方式为40%肥料作为底肥塘施,20%作为提苗肥于移栽后15天兑水浇施,40%作为大压肥于掘膜培土时环施于烟株周围,施肥后覆土。烤烟于每年8月收获。供试烤烟品种为K326,绿肥品种油菜为云油杂27,箭筈豌豆为陇箭1号,光叶紫花苕为云光早苕。
表 1 绿肥主要养分含量(g/kg,干基)
Table 1. Main nutrient content in green manures (g/kg, dry basis)
绿肥 Green manure C N P K Cl 油菜 Brassica campestris (BC) 414.5 20.1 2.7 25.3 15.8 箭筈豌豆 Vicia sativa L. (VS) 398.1 32.2 3.9 25.1 22.7 光叶紫花苕 Vicia villosa Roth var. glabrescens (VVR) 420.7 34.2 3.5 21.8 20.1 -
于烟株移栽前 (每年4月底) 和烟叶采收结束后 (每年8月底),采用五点取样法在各小区内采集0—20 cm耕层土壤样品,去除石子、动植物残体等异物后,风干,分别过2和0.15 mm筛后用于分析测试。测定指标及方法如下[20]:有机质含量采用重铬酸钾外加热法测定,碱解氮采用碱解扩散法测定,有效磷含量采用 0.5 mol/L 碳酸氢钠浸提—钼锑抗比色法测定,速效钾采用采用1 mol/L醋酸铵提取—火焰光度法测定,氯离子采用硝酸银滴定法测定,土壤 pH 用酸度计电位法测定,水土比(v/m)为2.5。
-
于打顶后7天,每个小区随机选择15株烟株按YC/T 142—2010方法调查株高、茎围、有效叶数、最大叶长、最大叶宽。
-
以小区为单位挂牌采收和烘烤,烘烤结束后,实测各小区产量;根据2020和2021年云南省玉溪市烟叶收购价格测算均价、上等烟比例和产值。
-
选取烤后中部叶C3F和上部叶B2F等级烟叶各2 kg用于化学成分检测,测定指标及方法如下:水溶性总糖、还原糖含量按照国家标准连续流动法YC/T 159—2002测定;烟碱含量按照国家标准连续流动法YC/T 160—2002测定,总氮含量按照国家标准连续流动法YCT 161—2002测定,钾含量按照国家标准连续流动法YC/T 217—2007测定;氯含量按照国家标准连续流动法YC/T 162—2011测定,两糖差是总糖和还原糖的差值,糖碱比为还原糖与烟碱的比值;氮碱比是指总氮与烟碱的比值;钾氯比是钾和氯的比值[21]。
-
按照GB 2635—1992定性描述,依据云南中烟烟叶外观质量评价标准量化评分;按照《云南中烟烤烟原料风格与感官质量评价方法 (Q/YNZY.J07.030—2015)》定性描述感官质量和量化评分。
-
试验数据采用Excel 2017、SPSS Statistics 24.0进行处理和分析。利用R软件的random Forest (Version 4.6-14)软件包[22],分别以土壤化学性质和植株农艺性状为自变量,以烤烟产量为因变量,建立随机森林回归分析,利用函数A3软件包[23]估计模型显著性,使用自变量的平均误差的百分比增长值(Increase in mean squared error,%IncMSE)来衡量变量的重要性:即%IncMSE值越高,代表该变量更重要[24],对烤烟产量的贡献度越大。采用Origin 2021软件进行作图。
-
由表2可知,2020年,翻压绿肥土壤平均有机质含量烤烟种植前与冬闲土壤差异不大,烤烟收获后平均提高3.2 g/kg,其中翻压箭筈豌豆和光叶紫花苕分别提高了3.8和3.7 g/kg (P<0.05)。土壤碱解氮、有效磷和速效钾平均含量烤烟种植前分别较冬闲降低20.5、23.3和33.7 mg/kg,烤烟收获后分别提高6.8、10.1和84.8 mg/kg,以光叶紫花苕处理提高幅度最大。
表 2 不同绿肥处理烤烟栽培前和收获后土壤养分含量
Table 2. Soil nutrient content before transplanting and after harvest of tobacco under different green manure treatments
年份
Year取样时间
Sampling time处理
Treatment有机质
Organic matter
(g/kg)碱解氮
Available N
(mg/kg)有效磷
Available P
(mg/kg)速效钾
Available K
(mg/kg)氯离子
Cl−
(mg/kg)pH 2020 栽烟前
Before transplantingCK 34.6±1.4 ab 197.6±9.3 a 111.3±4.5 a 408.2±6.2 a 55.4±0.9 a 7.4±0.1 a BC 32.2±1.1 b 167.3±5.7 b 82.3±0.5 c 356.9±5.5 c 51.9±0.7 a 7.7±0.3 a VS 35.5±1.8 ab 183.7±8.1 ab 85.3±0.9 c 375.8±3.4 b 53.7±1.8 a 7.7±0.2 a VVR 36.5±0.2 a 180.1±8.6 ab 96.4±2.3 b 391.0±5.7 ab 54.7±1.0 a 7.2±0.1 a 收烟后
After harvestingCK 32.6±0.4 b 173.3±3.6 b 84.5±1.7 b 315.8±9.0 c 50.3±1.9 a 7.5±0.1 a BC 34.8±1.4 ab 168.2±3.1 b 92.4±0.8 a 362.6±10.8 b 48.4±0.6 a 7.7±0.1 a VS 36.4±0.4 a 185.4±2.9 a 95.6±1.4 a 416.1±8.1 a 47.6±0.7 a 7.7±0.1 a VVR 36.3±0.9 a 186.5±2.0 a 95.7±0.7 a 423.3±7.1 a 50.1±1.1 a 7.4±0.2 a 2021 栽烟前
Before transplantingCK 29.7±0.6 b 175.1±2.7 c 85.0±0.8 c 354.0±10.4 c 43.0±0.5 a 7.5±0.2 a BC 40.5±0.6 a 179.8±4.4 c 89.2±0.8 b 374.9±0.7 b 36.2±1.7 bc 7.3±0.2 a VS 38.0±1.2 a 204.1±3.3 b 99.0±1.9 a 393.7±3.6 ab 38.8±1.1 b 7.3±0.1 a VVR 38.6±1.8 a 215.3±2.6 a 96.4±0.8 a 410.2±5.0 a 34.1±1.5 c 7.4±0.1 a 收烟后
After harvestingCK 30.7±0.4 c 164.9±2.2 c 86.1±0.7 b 334.2±12.0 b 42.7±1.6 a 7.7±0.1 a BC 38.9±0.9 a 172.0±3.0 c 97.7±0.6 a 394.9±7.0 ab 35.8±1.1 b 7.5±0.1ab VS 36.0±0.7 b 192.6±0.2 b 94.2±1.3 a 410.1±33.6 a 35.9±0.7 b 7.6±0.1 a VVR 38.5±0.6 a 210.7±6.7 a 96.1±2.0 a 421.5±10.8 a 33.3±0.7 b 7.4±0.04 b 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3),同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3), different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05).2021年与2020年有明显不同,绿肥处理的土壤有机质和速效养分含量较冬闲均显著提高 (P<0.05),烤烟种植前绿肥处理的土壤有机质、碱解氮、有效磷和速效钾平均含量分别提高9.3 g/kg、24.6mg/kg、4.3 mg/kg和38.9 mg/kg,烤烟收获后分别提高7.2 g/kg、26.9 mg/kg、9.9 mg/kg和74.6 mg/kg。其中,油菜处理提高土壤有机质、光叶紫花苕处理提高土壤养分的效果最好。
土壤中适量的含氯量有利于烟株的生长[25]。试验第一年,各处理土壤氯离子含量无明显差异,但第二年各处理间呈现一定差异。第二年,冬闲处理的土壤氯离子含量显著高于各绿肥处理 (P<0.05)。
-
绿肥处理明显改善烤烟农艺性状,在第二年更为明显 (表3)。试验第二年,绿肥处理的烟株株高、茎围和最大叶宽显著高于冬闲处理 (P<0.05),分别提高了23.1、1.9、5.9 cm,其中,光叶紫花苕处理的株高、茎围和最大叶宽分别提高了26.6、2.2和6.9 cm。
表 3 不同绿肥处理烤烟的主要农艺性状
Table 3. Main agronomic characters of tobacco under different green manure treatments
年份
Year处理
Treatment株高
Plant height
(cm)茎围
Stem girth
(cm)有效叶数
Effective leaf
number per plant最大叶长
Maximum leaf length
(cm)最大叶宽
Maximum leaf width
(cm)2020 CK 92.5±4.2 a 9.6±0.5 ab 20.7±0.4 a 61.1±1.9 a 25.3±0.8 b BC 96.4±0.1 a 10.3±0.2 ab 20.7±0.6 a 67.4±2.6 a 27.2±1.9 ab VS 97.0±1.2 a 9.2±0.2 b 21.2±0.6 a 65.7±2.1 a 28.0±1.3 ab VVR 98.7±1.1 a 10.9±0.6 a 20.1±1.1 a 65.8±1.1 a 30.6±0.5 a 2021 CK 83.8±2.4 c 9.3±0.1 b 19.7±0.9 a 59.2±2.4 a 24.3±1.2 b BC 100.6±3.4 b 11.4±0.6 a 22.3±1.6 a 65.3±0.7 a 30.1±1.2 a VS 109.6±2.0 a 10.8±0.2 a 21.8±0.4 a 64.4±2.2 a 29.2±1.5 a VVR 110.4±1.1 a 11.5±0.1 a 22.5±1.1 a 64.5±3.7 a 31.2±0.7 a 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3),同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3), different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05).由表4可知,绿肥处理显著影响烤烟的产量和上等烟比例,且在第二年效果更好。与冬闲相比,绿肥处理的烤烟平均产量两年分别提高13.8%和22.6%,上等烟比例分别提高11.2%和24.7%。3种绿肥中,以光叶紫花苕处理的增产幅度和上等烟增长率最高。
表 4 不同绿肥处理烤烟产量与上等烟比例
Table 4. Yield of tobacco and ratio of high quality tobacco under different green manure treatments
年份
Year处理
Treatment产量 (kg/hm2)
Yield增产率 (%)
Increase上等烟比例 (%)
High quality tobacco增长率 (%)
Increase2020 CK 2381±43 b 58.0±2.3 a BC 2661±16 a 11.8 62.0±4.0 a 6.8 VS 2729±52 a 14.6 65.6±1.3 a 13.1 VVR 2740±13 a 15.1 66.0±1.5 a 13.7 2021 CK 2277±71 b 53.3±2.4 b BC 2768±58 a 21.5 64.1±2.6 a 20.3 VS 2802±35 a 23.0 66.8±0.2 a 25.2 VVR 2807±16 a 23.3 68.5±0.4 a 28.5 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3)。同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3). Different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05). -
由表5可知,绿肥处理对烤烟外观质量有较显著的影响,且试验第二年的得分增幅更大。与冬闲相比,2020年3个绿肥处理的中部叶片外观得分均显著增加,对中部叶感官分值没有显著影响,对上部叶片的感官分值增加显著,2021年绿肥处理烤烟中部叶和上部叶片的外观质量分别提高5.0~5.7和4.5~5.8分,感官质量分别提高2.0~2.7和3.6~4.2分,3个绿肥处理之间多无显著差异。
表 5 不同绿肥处理不同部位烟叶感官和外观质量评分
Table 5. Sensory and appearance quality rating of tobacco leaves at different positions as affected by green manures
年份
Year处理
Treatment外观 Appearance 感官 Sensory 中部叶 Middle leaf 上部叶 Upper leaf 中部叶 Middle leaf 上部叶 Upper leaf 2020 CK 72.0±0.3 c 70.8±0.5 b 82.0±0.3 a 80.7±0.2 b BC 73.7±0.2 b 72.7±0.4 a 82.9±0.4 a 82.0±0.3 a VS 74.3±0.3 ab 73.4±0.7 a 83.5±2.0 a 82.0±0.6 a VVR 74.7±0.3 a 74.0±0.3 a 83.5±0.5 a 82.2±0.2 a 2021 CK 70.0±0.9 b 69.0±0.6 b 80.8±0.4 c 79.2±0.6 b BC 75.0±0.3 a 73.5±0.3 a 82.8±0.2 b 82.8±0.2 a VS 75.3±0.2 a 74.3±0.3 a 84.0±0.1 a 82.9±0.1 a VVR 75.7±0.3 a 74.8±0.4 a 84.0±0.3 a 83.4±0.1 a 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3)。同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3). Different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year(P<0.05). -
由表6可知,试验第二年 (2021年) 光叶紫花苕处理的中部叶总糖、还原糖高于其他处理,其他处理间无显著差异。绿肥处理对中部叶和上部叶烟碱的影响差异不显著 (P>0.05),各处理间以及两年间均无明显差异。绿肥处理对烟叶钾含量有一定影响,试验第二年,光叶紫花苕处理显著 (P<0.05) 提高中部叶钾含量,箭筈豌豆处理显著 (P<0.05) 提高上部叶钾含量。
表 6 不同绿肥处理对烟叶化学成分的影响
Table 6. Effects of different green manure treatments on chemical composition of tobacco leaves
部位
Position年份
Year处理
Treatment总糖 (%)
Total sugar还原糖 (%)
Reducing sugar烟碱 (%)
Nicotine总氮 (%)
Total N钾 (%)
K氯 (%)
Cl−总糖与还原糖之差
Total sugar -
reducing sugar糖碱比
Total sugar /
nicotine氮碱比
Nitrogen /
nicotine钾氯比
K/Cl中部叶
Middle leaf2020 CK 37.78±0.49 a 27.89±0.36 a 2.77±0.04 a 2.46±0.10 a 1.92±0.12 a 0.58±0.01 a 9.89±0.25 a 10.06±0.26 a 0.89±0.05 a 3.34±0.23 a BC 37.67±0.57 a 29.05±0.63 a 2.91±0.07 a 1.88±0.21 b 1.81±0.05 a 0.54±0.03 a 8.62±0.39 b 10.01±0.43 a 0.65±0.08 b 3.36±0.11 a VS 37.81±0.88 a 30.58±1.19 a 2.75±0.21 a 2.31±0.21 ab 1.88±0.03 a 0.57±0.05 a 7.23±0.36 c 11.20±0.61 a 0.84±0.06 ab 3.36±0.25 a VVR 38.06±1.92 a 29.30±2.39 a 2.79±0.21 a 1.92±0.14 ab 1.94±0.14 a 0.53±0.06 a 8.76±0.49 ab 10.51±0.12 a 0.70±0.09 ab 3.70±0.15 a 2021 CK 34.26±0.94 ab 24.74±0.10 b 2.57±0.05 a 2.27±0.05 a 1.74±0.06 b 0.43±0 ab 9.51±0.98 a 9.62±0.23 a 0.88±0.03 ab 4.07±0.12 ab BC 33.85±0.46 b 25.98±0.57 b 2.84±0.14 a 2.15±0.04 a 1.87±0.03 ab 0.49±0.05 a 7.87±0.47 a 9.20±0.58 a 0.76±0.03 b 3.86±0.36 b VS 32.16±0.59 b 25.08±0.92 b 2.72±0.14 a 2.10±0.28 a 1.90±0.07 ab 0.40±0.03 b 7.08±1.48 a 9.27±0.69 a 0.76±0.06 b 4.71±0.14 a VVR 36.25±0.83 a 28.57±0.55 a 2.68±0.09 a 2.46±0.11 a 2.02±0.07 a 0.44±0 ab 7.68±0.28 a 10.7±0.4 a 0.92±0.01 a 4.59±0.16 a 上部叶
Upper leaf2020 CK 32.37±0.28 ab 24.02±0.37 a 3.78±0.02 a 3.11±0.08 a 1.77±0.13 a 0.53±0.02 a 8.36±0.44 ab 6.35±0.06 b 0.82±0.03 a 3.33±0.28 a BC 35.23±1.96 a 26.09±1.89 a 3.33±0.09 a 2.48±0.07 b 1.77±0.11 a 0.49±0.05 a 9.14±0.47 a 7.82±0.43 a 0.75±0.01 a 3.66±0.4 a VS 31.72±0.29 b 25.32±0.96 a 3.76±0.23 a 3.36±0.1 a 1.75±0.06 a 0.48±0.04 a 6.41±1.25 b 6.76±0.19 b 0.90±0.03 a 4.00±0.45 a VVR 33.11±0.66 ab 25.57±0.88 a 3.70±0.25 a 3.13±0.28 a 1.76±0.08 a 0.45±0.01 a 7.54±0.33 ab 6.95±0.35 ab 0.85±0.10 a 3.97±0.12 a 2021 CK 31.02±1.08 a 24.43±0.82 ab 3.71±0.13 a 3.43±0.04 a 1.70±0.03 b 0.49±0.03 a 6.59±0.67 a 6.59±0.05 a 0.93±0.02 a 3.50±0.17 a BC 33.02±1.02 a 26.69±0.46 a 3.64±0.12 a 3.18±0.2 a 1.81±0.02 ab 0.46±0.06 a 6.32±0.79 a 7.33±0.11 a 0.87±0.04 a 4.06±0.52 a VS 30.16±1.64 a 22.74±1.45 b 3.44±0.18 a 2.69±0.16 b 1.86±0.07 a 0.41±0.02 a 7.42±0.19 a 6.68±0.8 a 0.78±0.01 b 4.32±0.22 a VVR 29.95±0.61 a 23.23±0.66 b 3.56±0.1 a 3.03±0.13 ab 1.79±0.05 ab 0.42±0.06 a 6.72±0.11 a 6.55±0.33 a 0.85±0.02 ab 4.36±0.48 a 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3)。同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3). Different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05). -
随机森林回归分析结果 (图1) 表明,土壤有机质、氯离子和速效钾是影响烤烟产量的关键因素 (P< 0.05),土壤养分的相对贡献排序为有机质>氯离子>速效钾>有效磷>碱解氮;农艺性状中株高是影响烤烟产量的最重要因素 (P<0.01),最大叶宽和茎围也是影响烤烟产量的重要因素 (P<0.05),农艺性状对烤烟产量的相对贡献排序为株高>最大叶宽>茎围>最大叶长>有效叶数。
-
绿肥处理对烤烟的均价和产值均有较大影响 (表7),在试验第二年提高幅度更大。绿肥处理的烤烟均价在第二年提高7.4%~11.9%,产值提高30.5%~38.0%,其中光叶紫花苕处理经济效益表现最优。 表 7 不同绿肥处理的烤烟经济效益
Table 7. Economic benefits of tobacco under different green manure treatments
年份
Year处理
Treatment均价 (yuan/kg)
Average price增长率 (%)
Increase产值 (yuan/hm2)
Output增长率 (%)
Increase2020 CK 27.2±0.2 c 64575±1334 c BC 27.7±0.3 bc 2.0 73640±767 b 14.0 VS 28.1±0.1 ab 3.7 76772±1697 ab 18.9 VVR 28.3±0.1 a 4.4 77603±344 a 20.2 2021 CK 27.6±0.2 b 62947±2046 b BC 29.7±0.4 a 7.4 82137±554 a 30.5 VS 30.2±1.0 a 9.4 84658±2230 a 34.5 VVR 30.9±0.2 a 11.9 86855±1132 a 38.0 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3),同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3), different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05). -
种植翻压绿肥能改善土壤氮磷钾及其他微量元素的养分状况,有效提高土壤肥力。研究表明,豆科绿肥腐解过程中,土壤有机碳、速效钾和无机氮含量始终高于对照[26−29]。本试验中,第一年烤烟种植前的土壤速效养分含量与冬闲相比略有下降,其中油菜处理的碱解氮含量显著低于冬闲,而箭筈豌豆和光叶紫花苕处理与冬闲相比无显著差异,这可能与油菜的生长吸收利用土壤中的碱解氮、豆科绿肥的生物固氮作用缓减了土壤氮的耗竭有关[30−31]。另外,速效养分较低也与取样时期以及气候相关。土壤样品第一次采集为绿肥翻压还田后半个月左右,在此期间正值该试验区域高温少雨时期,不利于绿肥的腐解,且油菜的碳氮比大于箭筈豌豆和光叶紫花苕,前者的养分释放速率小于后者。然而,从第一年烤烟收获后至第二年整个试验阶段,绿肥提升土壤有机质和速效养分的作用更明显,表明连续种植翻压绿肥可以增强土壤的有机养分库容,提高土壤对养分的库存能力[32],其中豆科绿肥对烟田土壤肥力的提升表现出更大的潜力。
种植绿肥不仅能提升土壤肥力,还能对土壤的速效养分起到固持作用,减少因养分的淋失造成的环境污染问题。研究表明,云南烟区肥料的养分利用率在全国来说属较低水平[30],大量未被烟株吸收并带出的氮磷钾养分,除了部分累积在土壤中,还会通过淋洗、径流、反硝化等途径损失并进入水体,造成农业的面源污染。本试验中,在第二年烤烟移栽前,绿肥处理的有机质和速效养分含量较冬闲有显著的提高,这是因为一方面绿肥的连续种植翻压提高了土壤养分的库存能力,另一方面绿肥根系的穿透能力和团聚作用,增强了土壤对养分的固持效应,减少了烤烟种植过程中由于施肥过多而产生的盈余养分的损失[31−33]。在本试验中,光叶紫花苕处理对土壤养分的固持作用更明显,这与光叶紫花苕较高的生物产量有关;冬闲期间,光叶紫花苕较高的有机转化能力及养分吸收能力,一定程度上减少了养分的损失。
氯是烤烟正常生长发育所必需的营养元素之一,土壤中适量的氯含量有助于烟株对氯的吸收及铵态氮、钾、硼等营养元素的吸收[25],烟叶最佳含氯量为0.3%~0.8%,过低或过高的氯含量均会影响烟叶的品质。云南烟区烟叶含氯量普遍较低,由于气候和施肥等因素,土壤含氯量也较低[34]。优质烟生长要求土壤含氯量为25~30 mg/kg[35]。各处理的土壤含氯量在试验第一年均高出此范围,可能因为试验土壤在此之前种植的作物为水稻,施入的肥料含氯,因此整体氯含量偏高且没有较大差异;在试验第二年,各处理的土壤氯含量逐渐降低并呈现出差异,且绿肥处理低于冬闲处理,说明连续种植并翻压绿肥可降低土壤氯离子浓度[36−37]。主要原因是绿肥作物发达的根系在土壤中穿插生长,以及在翻压后的腐殖化作用改善了土壤的团粒结构,增加了土壤的总孔隙度,提高了土壤的渗透性[11],而氯离子是极易溶于水的活泼元素,易随着雨水和灌溉水而流失;其次,土壤胶体整体带负电荷[38],对带有负电荷的阴离子有排斥作用,而对于阳离子具有吸附作用,这也导致氯离子易随水迁移。结合烟叶氯离子含量来看,第二年烟叶氯含量并未随着土壤氯离子含量降低而减少,与冬闲处理并没有显著差异,表明绿肥的种植并翻压有助于烟株对氯的吸收。而当植烟土壤含氯量低于25 mg/kg时,可适当增施含氯化肥[39],例如氯化钾,研究表明,钾肥中氯化钾比例为15%~30%时,中上等烟比例可提高10.2~11.5个百分点[25]。
-
烤烟的质量与农艺性状密切相关。从不同绿肥处理的农艺性状表现来看,提升效果由大到小依次为光叶紫花苕、箭筈豌豆和油菜处理,主要体现在烤烟株高、茎围和最大叶宽上,在试验第二年较冬闲差异均达到显著水平。豆科绿肥,尤其是光叶紫花苕翻压还田后,其养分矿化速率与烟株生长的养分吸收规律适配度更高[40],使烟株具有更好的生长优势。结合绿肥处理的烤烟产量和上等烟比例,光叶紫花苕在第二年较冬闲分别提高20%以上,表明烤烟株高、茎围和最大叶宽的提高,有利于烤烟产量和上等烟比例的增长。随机森林回归分析表明(图1a、1b),土壤养分中的有机质、氯离子以及速效钾,农艺性状中烟株的株高、茎围和最大叶宽对烤烟产量均有显著贡献,说明绿肥翻压后提高土壤有机质、碱解氮等速效养分,主要农艺性状的改善,均有利于烤烟产量的提高。
研究表明,翻压绿肥能有效提高烤烟产值,增加经济效益[14−15,41]。本试验与前人研究结果一致(表7),绿肥处理的烤烟均价和产值在试验第二年均有大幅提高。进一步说明了绿肥与烤烟轮作通过对土壤性状的改善,促进了烤烟的养分吸收能力,使烤烟的农艺性状有更好的品质表现,也保障了烤烟产量的增加。然而,烤烟的产值不仅与产量相关,与烤烟的外观质量和感官质量优劣相关性更高[42]。外观质量一定程度上反映了烤烟的内在品质,而感官质量决定了烤烟的可用性,二者皆是烟叶收购和调拨的质量评价依据[43−44]。本试验中,绿肥处理的中部叶和上部叶的外观和感官质量评分在第二年分别提高5和2分以上,上部叶比中部叶的感官质量评分提高更多,且两年均达到显著水平,表明绿肥处理能通过提高烤烟的综合品质,提高烤烟的均价,从而增加烤烟的经济效益。
-
烟叶化学成分决定了烟叶质量的内在要素。烟叶化学成分含量及其比值直接影响着烟叶品质的优劣[45]。两糖总糖与还原糖差是衡量碳水化合物转化程度的指标之一,与烤烟的感官质量相关性较高[46],提高还原糖含量,降低两糖差可提高烟叶的吃味品质[47]。本试验中,绿肥处理的中部叶还原糖含量与冬闲相比差异虽不显著,但呈现逐渐升高的趋势,且光叶紫花苕处理提升最多,这与农艺性状表现一致。烟叶含糖量与烟株营养状况、施肥、烘烤、日照时数以及降雨等环境因素均相关[42],翻压光叶紫花苕处理的烟株长势更好,更有利于烟株的光合作用和糖分积累。同时两糖差也有一定程度下降,且2021年下降幅度更大,说明绿肥处理可能有助于烟叶中总糖向还原糖的转化,对烟叶内在品质的提高有潜在的促进作用。
钾是烟叶重要的品质元素。钾含量的高低与烟叶的香气、燃烧性和烟制品安全性相关,是感官质量重要的评价因子。我国烟叶的钾含量普遍偏低,影响烟叶钾吸收主要有土壤供钾条件、施肥技术、遗传因素和生态条件等因素[48]。绿肥种植期间可活化和富集土壤深层的钾元素,促进矿物钾转化为有效钾,翻压还田后又将大量速效钾释放,改善了土壤速效钾的转化和供应能力,从而提高钾的利用率[49]。在本试验中,绿肥处理的烟叶钾含量呈逐年上升趋势,各绿肥处理间差异不显著,但光叶紫花苕处理的中部叶钾含量为处理中最高,这与感官质量结果一致,且豆科绿肥处理的中部叶钾氯比在试验第二年均大于4,符合优质烟叶的钾氯比范围在4~10的标准[21],说明豆科绿肥处理更有利于烟叶钾吸收。
-
在云南抚仙湖径流区烤烟生产中,利用冬闲田种植绿肥并翻压作为烤烟有机肥,显著改善了烟田土壤有机质和养分有效性,增加了烟株高度和中部、上部叶片外观质量和感官质量,烤烟产量和上等烟比例、烤烟的经济效益也大幅提高。试验绿肥中,以光叶紫花苕的综合表现较好,是抚仙湖烟区与烤烟轮作的优选绿肥品种。
施用绿肥提高云南抚仙湖径流区烟田土壤养分和烤烟品质
Returning green manure to increase tobacco quality and soil fertility in the erosion area of Fuxian Lake in Yunnan Province
-
摘要:
【目的】 研究云南抚仙湖流域烟区种植利用绿肥对土壤养分、烤烟产量及品质的影响,明确适宜当地种植的绿肥品种,为优化烤烟养分管理,减少面源污染风险提供参考。 【方法】 于2019—2021年开展定位试验,设4个处理,三个冬季绿肥处理分别为油菜、箭筈豌豆和光叶紫花苕,以冬闲无绿肥为对照。测定绿肥还田后和烤烟收获后的土壤性状、烟株农艺性状、烤烟产量、上等烟比例,以及烟叶化学成分、外观和感官质量、产值。 【结果】 2020年烤烟种植前,各绿肥翻压处理土壤有机质、碱解氮、有效磷和速效钾含量与冬闲处理土壤无显著差异;烤烟收获后,平均有机质、碱解氮、有效磷和速效钾分别提高了3.2 g/kg,6.8 mg/kg、10.1 mg/kg和84.8 mg/kg,以光叶紫花苕处理的速效养分提高幅度最大。2021年烤烟种植前和收获后,绿肥处理的有机质和速效养分含量较冬闲均显著提高,以油菜处理的有机质含量最高,光叶紫花苕处理的速效养分提升效果最好;冬闲处理的土壤氯含量显著高于绿肥处理。2020和2021年,绿肥处理的烤烟平均产量分别提高了13.8%和22.6%,上等烟比例分别提高了11.2%和24.7%,两年均以光叶紫花苕处理的增产幅度最大。2021年,绿肥处理的烤烟农艺性状明显改善,以光叶紫花苕处理表现最优,其株高、茎围和最大叶宽分别较冬闲处理提高了26.6、2.2和6.9 cm;绿肥处理烤烟中部叶和上部叶的外观质量比冬闲处理分别提高5.0~5.7和4.5~5.8分,感官质量分别提高2.0~3.2和3.6~4.2分,且均以光叶紫花苕处理得分最高;烤烟均价显著提高7.4%~11.9%,产值显著提高30.5%~38.0%,其中光叶紫花苕处理经济效益表现最优。翻压绿肥降低了烟叶总糖与可溶性糖含量差,提高了烟叶钾含量。随机森林回归分析表明,影响烤烟产量的关键指标土壤性状为有机质、氯离子和速效钾含量,烤烟农艺性状指标为株高、最大叶宽和茎围。 【结论】 利用冬闲田种植并翻压绿肥可改善烤烟土壤养分性状,提升上等烟比例和烤烟品质,大幅提高经济效益,且翻压绿肥第二年效果更为显著。3种供试绿肥效果相比,以光叶紫花苕效果最佳,可以优先用作云南抚仙湖流域烟区绿肥。 Abstract:【Objectives】 Effects of planting and utilizing green manure on soil nutrients, yield, and quality of tobacco in the erosion area of Fuxian Lake in Yunnan, were studied to clarify the resources of suitable local green manure varieties, which provided reference for optimizing the local tobacco planting system. 【Methods】 The field experiment was conducted from 2019 to 2021, with four treatments: winter fallow, rape (Brassica campestris), common vetch (Vicia sativa L.), and smooth vetch (Vicia villosa Roth var. glabrescens). We measured the following indicators: soil properties after returning green manure to the field and harvesting flue-cured tobacco, agronomic traits of tobacco plants, yield of tobacco, proportion of top grade tobacco, chemical composition of tobacco leaves, appearance and sensory quality, and output value. 【Results】 In 2020, there was no significant difference in soil organic matter content before tobacco planting compared to winter fallow. The available nutrients, including alkali hydrolyzed nitrogen (AN), available phosphorus (AP) and available potassium (AK) slightly decreased. After tobacco harvest, soil organic matter increased by 3.2 g/kg, and the average available nutrients increased by 6.8 mg/kg, 10.1 mg/kg, and 84.8 mg/kg, respectively. The treatment of smooth vetch had the greatest increase in available nutrients. In 2021, both before and after tobacco planting and harvest, soil organic matter and available nutrient content of green manure treatment was significantly increased compared to winter fallow. Among them, soil organic matter content of rape treatment was the highest, and the available nutrient improvement effect of smooth vetch treatment was the best. The soil chlorine content in the winter fallow treatment was significantly higher than that in the green manure treatment. In 2020 and 2021, the average yield of tobacco treated with green manure increased by 13.8% and 22.6%, respectively, and the proportion of top grade tobacco increased by 11.2% and 24.7%, with the highest increase in yield observed in the treatment of smooth vetch. In 2021, the agronomic traits of tobacco were significantly improved, with the treatment of smooth vetch performing the best. Comparing to winter fallow, the plant height, stem girth, and maximum leaf width were increased by 26.6 cm, 2.2 cm, and 6.9 cm, respectively. The appearance quality of the middle and upper leaves of tobacco was improved by 5.0−5.7 points and 4.5−5.8 points respectively compared to winter fallow, and the sensory quality increased by 2.0−3.2 points and 3.6−4.2 points, respectively, with the highest score obtained from the treatment of smooth vetch. The average price of tobacco treated with green manure significantly increased by 7.4%−11.9% in the second year, and the output value significantly increased by 30.5%−38.0%. Among them, the economic benefits of the treatment of smooth vetch were the best. Retuning green manure reduced the difference in total sugar and reducing sugar content in tobacco leaves, and increased their potassium content. Random forest regression analysis showed that soil organic matter, chloride ion and available potassium content, as well as plant height, maximum leaf width and stem circumference of flue-cured tobacco were the key indicators affecting the yield of flue-cured tobacco. 【Conclusions】 Green manure and tobacco rotation can improve soil nutrient properties, and the effect is more significant in the second year. It can improve the proportion of high-quality tobacco and the quality of tobacco, significantly improving economic benefits. Overall, smooth vetch ( Vicia villosa Roth var. glabrescens ) can be the preferred green manure variety for tobacco rotation in the erosion area of Fuxian Lake in Yunnan Province. -
Key words:
- smooth vetch /
- green manure /
- tobacco /
- soil properties /
- tobacco quality
-
表 1 绿肥主要养分含量(g/kg,干基)
Table 1. Main nutrient content in green manures (g/kg, dry basis)
绿肥 Green manure C N P K Cl 油菜 Brassica campestris (BC) 414.5 20.1 2.7 25.3 15.8 箭筈豌豆 Vicia sativa L. (VS) 398.1 32.2 3.9 25.1 22.7 光叶紫花苕 Vicia villosa Roth var. glabrescens (VVR) 420.7 34.2 3.5 21.8 20.1 表 2 不同绿肥处理烤烟栽培前和收获后土壤养分含量
Table 2. Soil nutrient content before transplanting and after harvest of tobacco under different green manure treatments
年份
Year取样时间
Sampling time处理
Treatment有机质
Organic matter
(g/kg)碱解氮
Available N
(mg/kg)有效磷
Available P
(mg/kg)速效钾
Available K
(mg/kg)氯离子
Cl−
(mg/kg)pH 2020 栽烟前
Before transplantingCK 34.6±1.4 ab 197.6±9.3 a 111.3±4.5 a 408.2±6.2 a 55.4±0.9 a 7.4±0.1 a BC 32.2±1.1 b 167.3±5.7 b 82.3±0.5 c 356.9±5.5 c 51.9±0.7 a 7.7±0.3 a VS 35.5±1.8 ab 183.7±8.1 ab 85.3±0.9 c 375.8±3.4 b 53.7±1.8 a 7.7±0.2 a VVR 36.5±0.2 a 180.1±8.6 ab 96.4±2.3 b 391.0±5.7 ab 54.7±1.0 a 7.2±0.1 a 收烟后
After harvestingCK 32.6±0.4 b 173.3±3.6 b 84.5±1.7 b 315.8±9.0 c 50.3±1.9 a 7.5±0.1 a BC 34.8±1.4 ab 168.2±3.1 b 92.4±0.8 a 362.6±10.8 b 48.4±0.6 a 7.7±0.1 a VS 36.4±0.4 a 185.4±2.9 a 95.6±1.4 a 416.1±8.1 a 47.6±0.7 a 7.7±0.1 a VVR 36.3±0.9 a 186.5±2.0 a 95.7±0.7 a 423.3±7.1 a 50.1±1.1 a 7.4±0.2 a 2021 栽烟前
Before transplantingCK 29.7±0.6 b 175.1±2.7 c 85.0±0.8 c 354.0±10.4 c 43.0±0.5 a 7.5±0.2 a BC 40.5±0.6 a 179.8±4.4 c 89.2±0.8 b 374.9±0.7 b 36.2±1.7 bc 7.3±0.2 a VS 38.0±1.2 a 204.1±3.3 b 99.0±1.9 a 393.7±3.6 ab 38.8±1.1 b 7.3±0.1 a VVR 38.6±1.8 a 215.3±2.6 a 96.4±0.8 a 410.2±5.0 a 34.1±1.5 c 7.4±0.1 a 收烟后
After harvestingCK 30.7±0.4 c 164.9±2.2 c 86.1±0.7 b 334.2±12.0 b 42.7±1.6 a 7.7±0.1 a BC 38.9±0.9 a 172.0±3.0 c 97.7±0.6 a 394.9±7.0 ab 35.8±1.1 b 7.5±0.1ab VS 36.0±0.7 b 192.6±0.2 b 94.2±1.3 a 410.1±33.6 a 35.9±0.7 b 7.6±0.1 a VVR 38.5±0.6 a 210.7±6.7 a 96.1±2.0 a 421.5±10.8 a 33.3±0.7 b 7.4±0.04 b 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3),同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3), different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05).表 3 不同绿肥处理烤烟的主要农艺性状
Table 3. Main agronomic characters of tobacco under different green manure treatments
年份
Year处理
Treatment株高
Plant height
(cm)茎围
Stem girth
(cm)有效叶数
Effective leaf
number per plant最大叶长
Maximum leaf length
(cm)最大叶宽
Maximum leaf width
(cm)2020 CK 92.5±4.2 a 9.6±0.5 ab 20.7±0.4 a 61.1±1.9 a 25.3±0.8 b BC 96.4±0.1 a 10.3±0.2 ab 20.7±0.6 a 67.4±2.6 a 27.2±1.9 ab VS 97.0±1.2 a 9.2±0.2 b 21.2±0.6 a 65.7±2.1 a 28.0±1.3 ab VVR 98.7±1.1 a 10.9±0.6 a 20.1±1.1 a 65.8±1.1 a 30.6±0.5 a 2021 CK 83.8±2.4 c 9.3±0.1 b 19.7±0.9 a 59.2±2.4 a 24.3±1.2 b BC 100.6±3.4 b 11.4±0.6 a 22.3±1.6 a 65.3±0.7 a 30.1±1.2 a VS 109.6±2.0 a 10.8±0.2 a 21.8±0.4 a 64.4±2.2 a 29.2±1.5 a VVR 110.4±1.1 a 11.5±0.1 a 22.5±1.1 a 64.5±3.7 a 31.2±0.7 a 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3),同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3), different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05).表 4 不同绿肥处理烤烟产量与上等烟比例
Table 4. Yield of tobacco and ratio of high quality tobacco under different green manure treatments
年份
Year处理
Treatment产量 (kg/hm2)
Yield增产率 (%)
Increase上等烟比例 (%)
High quality tobacco增长率 (%)
Increase2020 CK 2381±43 b 58.0±2.3 a BC 2661±16 a 11.8 62.0±4.0 a 6.8 VS 2729±52 a 14.6 65.6±1.3 a 13.1 VVR 2740±13 a 15.1 66.0±1.5 a 13.7 2021 CK 2277±71 b 53.3±2.4 b BC 2768±58 a 21.5 64.1±2.6 a 20.3 VS 2802±35 a 23.0 66.8±0.2 a 25.2 VVR 2807±16 a 23.3 68.5±0.4 a 28.5 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3)。同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3). Different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05).表 5 不同绿肥处理不同部位烟叶感官和外观质量评分
Table 5. Sensory and appearance quality rating of tobacco leaves at different positions as affected by green manures
年份
Year处理
Treatment外观 Appearance 感官 Sensory 中部叶 Middle leaf 上部叶 Upper leaf 中部叶 Middle leaf 上部叶 Upper leaf 2020 CK 72.0±0.3 c 70.8±0.5 b 82.0±0.3 a 80.7±0.2 b BC 73.7±0.2 b 72.7±0.4 a 82.9±0.4 a 82.0±0.3 a VS 74.3±0.3 ab 73.4±0.7 a 83.5±2.0 a 82.0±0.6 a VVR 74.7±0.3 a 74.0±0.3 a 83.5±0.5 a 82.2±0.2 a 2021 CK 70.0±0.9 b 69.0±0.6 b 80.8±0.4 c 79.2±0.6 b BC 75.0±0.3 a 73.5±0.3 a 82.8±0.2 b 82.8±0.2 a VS 75.3±0.2 a 74.3±0.3 a 84.0±0.1 a 82.9±0.1 a VVR 75.7±0.3 a 74.8±0.4 a 84.0±0.3 a 83.4±0.1 a 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3)。同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3). Different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year(P<0.05).表 6 不同绿肥处理对烟叶化学成分的影响
Table 6. Effects of different green manure treatments on chemical composition of tobacco leaves
部位
Position年份
Year处理
Treatment总糖 (%)
Total sugar还原糖 (%)
Reducing sugar烟碱 (%)
Nicotine总氮 (%)
Total N钾 (%)
K氯 (%)
Cl−总糖与还原糖之差
Total sugar -
reducing sugar糖碱比
Total sugar /
nicotine氮碱比
Nitrogen /
nicotine钾氯比
K/Cl中部叶
Middle leaf2020 CK 37.78±0.49 a 27.89±0.36 a 2.77±0.04 a 2.46±0.10 a 1.92±0.12 a 0.58±0.01 a 9.89±0.25 a 10.06±0.26 a 0.89±0.05 a 3.34±0.23 a BC 37.67±0.57 a 29.05±0.63 a 2.91±0.07 a 1.88±0.21 b 1.81±0.05 a 0.54±0.03 a 8.62±0.39 b 10.01±0.43 a 0.65±0.08 b 3.36±0.11 a VS 37.81±0.88 a 30.58±1.19 a 2.75±0.21 a 2.31±0.21 ab 1.88±0.03 a 0.57±0.05 a 7.23±0.36 c 11.20±0.61 a 0.84±0.06 ab 3.36±0.25 a VVR 38.06±1.92 a 29.30±2.39 a 2.79±0.21 a 1.92±0.14 ab 1.94±0.14 a 0.53±0.06 a 8.76±0.49 ab 10.51±0.12 a 0.70±0.09 ab 3.70±0.15 a 2021 CK 34.26±0.94 ab 24.74±0.10 b 2.57±0.05 a 2.27±0.05 a 1.74±0.06 b 0.43±0 ab 9.51±0.98 a 9.62±0.23 a 0.88±0.03 ab 4.07±0.12 ab BC 33.85±0.46 b 25.98±0.57 b 2.84±0.14 a 2.15±0.04 a 1.87±0.03 ab 0.49±0.05 a 7.87±0.47 a 9.20±0.58 a 0.76±0.03 b 3.86±0.36 b VS 32.16±0.59 b 25.08±0.92 b 2.72±0.14 a 2.10±0.28 a 1.90±0.07 ab 0.40±0.03 b 7.08±1.48 a 9.27±0.69 a 0.76±0.06 b 4.71±0.14 a VVR 36.25±0.83 a 28.57±0.55 a 2.68±0.09 a 2.46±0.11 a 2.02±0.07 a 0.44±0 ab 7.68±0.28 a 10.7±0.4 a 0.92±0.01 a 4.59±0.16 a 上部叶
Upper leaf2020 CK 32.37±0.28 ab 24.02±0.37 a 3.78±0.02 a 3.11±0.08 a 1.77±0.13 a 0.53±0.02 a 8.36±0.44 ab 6.35±0.06 b 0.82±0.03 a 3.33±0.28 a BC 35.23±1.96 a 26.09±1.89 a 3.33±0.09 a 2.48±0.07 b 1.77±0.11 a 0.49±0.05 a 9.14±0.47 a 7.82±0.43 a 0.75±0.01 a 3.66±0.4 a VS 31.72±0.29 b 25.32±0.96 a 3.76±0.23 a 3.36±0.1 a 1.75±0.06 a 0.48±0.04 a 6.41±1.25 b 6.76±0.19 b 0.90±0.03 a 4.00±0.45 a VVR 33.11±0.66 ab 25.57±0.88 a 3.70±0.25 a 3.13±0.28 a 1.76±0.08 a 0.45±0.01 a 7.54±0.33 ab 6.95±0.35 ab 0.85±0.10 a 3.97±0.12 a 2021 CK 31.02±1.08 a 24.43±0.82 ab 3.71±0.13 a 3.43±0.04 a 1.70±0.03 b 0.49±0.03 a 6.59±0.67 a 6.59±0.05 a 0.93±0.02 a 3.50±0.17 a BC 33.02±1.02 a 26.69±0.46 a 3.64±0.12 a 3.18±0.2 a 1.81±0.02 ab 0.46±0.06 a 6.32±0.79 a 7.33±0.11 a 0.87±0.04 a 4.06±0.52 a VS 30.16±1.64 a 22.74±1.45 b 3.44±0.18 a 2.69±0.16 b 1.86±0.07 a 0.41±0.02 a 7.42±0.19 a 6.68±0.8 a 0.78±0.01 b 4.32±0.22 a VVR 29.95±0.61 a 23.23±0.66 b 3.56±0.1 a 3.03±0.13 ab 1.79±0.05 ab 0.42±0.06 a 6.72±0.11 a 6.55±0.33 a 0.85±0.02 ab 4.36±0.48 a 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3)。同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3). Different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05).表 7 不同绿肥处理的烤烟经济效益
Table 7. Economic benefits of tobacco under different green manure treatments
年份
Year处理
Treatment均价 (yuan/kg)
Average price增长率 (%)
Increase产值 (yuan/hm2)
Output增长率 (%)
Increase2020 CK 27.2±0.2 c 64575±1334 c BC 27.7±0.3 bc 2.0 73640±767 b 14.0 VS 28.1±0.1 ab 3.7 76772±1697 ab 18.9 VVR 28.3±0.1 a 4.4 77603±344 a 20.2 2021 CK 27.6±0.2 b 62947±2046 b BC 29.7±0.4 a 7.4 82137±554 a 30.5 VS 30.2±1.0 a 9.4 84658±2230 a 34.5 VVR 30.9±0.2 a 11.9 86855±1132 a 38.0 注:CK—冬闲对照;BC—翻压绿肥油菜;VS—翻压箭筈豌豆;VVR—翻压光叶紫花苕。表中数值为平均值±标准误差 (n=3),同列数据后不同小写字母代表同一年份处理间差异显著 (P<0.05)。
Note: CK—Winter fallow control; BC—Returning rapeseed; VS—Returning Vicia sativa L.; VVR—Returning Vicia villosa. Data are presented as mean ± SE (n=3), different lowercase letters after data within the same column indicate significant difference among treatments in the same year (P<0.05). -
[1] 赵祖军, 郑田甜, 赵筱青, 等. 云南高原湖泊流域种植业面源污染物的流失特征分析[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2018, 35(1): 40−47. Zhao Z J, Zheng T T, Zhao X Q, et al. Non-point source pollutants loss of planting industry in the Yunnan Plateau Lake Basin, China[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 2018, 35(1): 40−47. doi: 10.13254/j.jare.2017.0169 Zhao Z J, Zheng T T, Zhao X Q, et al . Non-point source pollutants loss of planting industry in the Yunnan Plateau Lake Basin, China[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment,2018 ,35 (1 ):40 −47 . doi: 10.13254/j.jare.2017.0169[2] 樊凯, 裴文娟, 余凤娇, 等. 云南省典型高原湖泊流域耕地自然质量等空间分布特征研究[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2018, 33(3): 529−538. Fan K, Pei W J, Yu F J, et al. Research on spatial distribution characteristics of arable land natural quality grade of representative Plateau Lake Basins in Yunnan Province[J]. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University (Natural Science), 2018, 33(3): 529−538. Fan K, Pei W J, Yu F J, et al . Research on spatial distribution characteristics of arable land natural quality grade of representative Plateau Lake Basins in Yunnan Province[J]. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University (Natural Science),2018 ,33 (3 ):529 −538 .[3] 牛远, 胡小贞, 王琳杰, 等. 抚仙湖流域山水林田湖草生态保护修复思路与实践[J]. 环境工程技术学报, 2019, 9(5): 482−490. Niu Y, Hu X Z, Wang L J, et al. Ideas and practice of ecological protection and restoration of mountain-river-forest-farmland-lake-grassland system in lake Fuxian Basin[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology, 2019, 9(5): 482−490. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.2019.08.010 Niu Y, Hu X Z, Wang L J, et al . Ideas and practice of ecological protection and restoration of mountain-river-forest-farmland-lake-grassland system in lake Fuxian Basin[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2019 ,9 (5 ):482 −490 . doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.2019.08.010[4] 杜彩艳, 吴迪, 周文兵, 等. 施氮水平对抚仙湖流域植烟区烤烟产质量及氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021, (6): 197−205. Du C Y, Wu D, Zhou W B, et al. Effects of nitrogen application level on yield, quality, nitrogen absorption and utilization of flue-cured tobacco in the tobacco-planting area of Fuxian Lake[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2021, (6): 197−205. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-6257.20743 Du C Y, Wu D, Zhou W B, et al . Effects of nitrogen application level on yield, quality, nitrogen absorption and utilization of flue-cured tobacco in the tobacco-planting area of Fuxian Lake[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China,2021 , (6 ):197 −205 . doi: 10.11838/sfsc.1673-6257.20743[5] 杨甲华, 余佳玲. 烟草连作障碍因子及其解决途径研究进展[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2016, (8): 113−116. Yang J H, Yu J L. Advance in obstruction factor and solution ways of tobacco continuous cropping[J]. Hunan Agricultural Sciences, 2016, (8): 113−116. doi: 10.16498/j.cnki.hnnykx.2016.08.033 Yang J H, Yu J L . Advance in obstruction factor and solution ways of tobacco continuous cropping[J]. Hunan Agricultural Sciences,2016 , (8 ):113 −116 . doi: 10.16498/j.cnki.hnnykx.2016.08.033[6] 李柘锦, 朱文桥, 黄坤, 等. 连作对烤烟农艺性状、根系形态与土壤养分的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(2): 67−72. Li Z J, Zhu W Q, Huang K, et al. Influences of continuous cropping on agronomic characters, root morphology and soil nutrients of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 50(2): 67−72. Li Z J, Zhu W Q, Huang K, et al . Influences of continuous cropping on agronomic characters, root morphology and soil nutrients of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2022 ,50 (2 ):67 −72 .[7] 付仲毅, 张晓远, 张晓帆, 等. 烤烟连作对植烟土壤碳库及烤后烟叶品质的影响[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 46(8): 16−22. Fu Z Y, Zhang X Y, Zhang X F, et al. Effect of continuous cropping on quality of flue-cured tobacco leaves and carbon pool in tobacco growing soil[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Natural Science Edition), 2018, 46(8): 16−22. doi: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2018.08.003 Fu Z Y, Zhang X Y, Zhang X F, et al . Effect of continuous cropping on quality of flue-cured tobacco leaves and carbon pool in tobacco growing soil[J]. Journal of Northwest A&F University (Natural Science Edition),2018 ,46 (8 ):16 −22 . doi: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2018.08.003[8] 刘巧真, 郭芳阳, 吴照辉, 等. 烤烟连作土壤障碍因子及防治措施[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012, 28(10): 87−90. Liu Q Z, Guo F Y, Wu Z H, et al. Controlling measures and factors of fuel-tobacco continuous cropping[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2012, 28(10): 87−90. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2011-3125 Liu Q Z, Guo F Y, Wu Z H, et al . Controlling measures and factors of fuel-tobacco continuous cropping[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin,2012 ,28 (10 ):87 −90 . doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2011-3125[9] 焦彬. 中国绿肥[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986. Jiao B. Chinese green manure[M]. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 1986. Jiao B. Chinese green manure[M]. Beijing: Agricultural Press, 1986. [10] 曹卫东, 包兴国, 徐昌旭, 等. 中国绿肥科研60年回顾与未来展望[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2017, 23(6): 1450−1461. Cao W D, Bao X G, Xu C X, et al. Reviews and prospects on science and technology of green manure in China[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2017, 23(6): 1450−1461. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.17291 Cao W D, Bao X G, Xu C X, et al . Reviews and prospects on science and technology of green manure in China[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers,2017 ,23 (6 ):1450 −1461 . doi: 10.11674/zwyf.17291[11] 樊志龙, 柴强, 曹卫东, 等. 绿肥在我国旱地农业生态系统中的服务功能及其应用[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(4): 1389−1402. Fan Z L, Chai Q, Cao W D, et al. Ecosystem service function of green manure and its application in dryland agriculture of China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31(4): 1389−1402. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202004.023 Fan Z L, Chai Q, Cao W D, et al . Ecosystem service function of green manure and its application in dryland agriculture of China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology,2020 ,31 (4 ):1389 −1402 . doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202004.023[12] 李尚军, 邱诗蕊, 王永达, 等. 不同绿肥类型替代化肥对宜宾地区烤烟生长和品质的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(6): 1253−1257. Li S J, Qiu S R, Wang Y D, et al. Effects of substituting fertilizers with different types of green manure on growth and quality of flue-cured tobacco in Yibin area[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 33(6): 1253−1257. doi: 10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2020.6.024 Li S J, Qiu S R, Wang Y D, et al . Effects of substituting fertilizers with different types of green manure on growth and quality of flue-cured tobacco in Yibin area[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2020 ,33 (6 ):1253 −1257 . doi: 10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2020.6.024[13] 佀国涵, 赵书军, 王瑞, 等. 连年翻压绿肥对植烟土壤物理及生物性状的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2014, 20(4): 905−912. Si G H, Zhao S J, Wang R, et al. Effects of consecutive overturning of green manure on soil physical and biological characteristics in tobacco-planting fields[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2014, 20(4): 905−912. Si G H, Zhao S J, Wang R, et al . Effects of consecutive overturning of green manure on soil physical and biological characteristics in tobacco-planting fields[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers,2014 ,20 (4 ):905 −912 .[14] 佀国涵, 吴文昊, 梅东海, 等. 不同光叶紫花苕子翻压量对烤烟产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2011, 32(S1): 82−86. Si G H, Wu W H, Mei D H, et al. Effect of different burying amount of vicia villosa on yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2011, 32(S1): 82−86. Si G H, Wu W H, Mei D H, et al . Effect of different burying amount of vicia villosa on yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2011 ,32 (S1 ):82 −86 .[15] 李集勤, 黄振瑞, 杨少海, 等. 八种绿肥对土壤营养和烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2020, 41(6): 24−29. Li J Q, Huang Z R, Yang S H, et al. Effects of eight kinds of green manure on soil nutrition, yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2020, 41(6): 24−29. doi: 10.13496/j.issn.1007-5119.2020.00.099 Li J Q, Huang Z R, Yang S H, et al . Effects of eight kinds of green manure on soil nutrition, yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2020 ,41 (6 ):24 −29 . doi: 10.13496/j.issn.1007-5119.2020.00.099[16] 刘建香, 曹卫东, 郭云周, 等. 红壤翻压绿肥对烟草农艺性状及线虫危害的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2015, (4): 123−127. Liu J X, Cao W D, Guo Y Z, et al. Effect of green manure application on agronomic characters and nematodes harm of tobacco in red soil[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2015, (4): 123−127. doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20150421 Liu J X, Cao W D, Guo Y Z, et al . Effect of green manure application on agronomic characters and nematodes harm of tobacco in red soil[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China,2015 , (4 ):123 −127 . doi: 10.11838/sfsc.20150421[17] 董章辉, 张艳丽, 王虎, 等. 我国绿肥油菜研究进展及发展前景展望[J]. 河北农业科学, 2021, 25(4): 67−70. Dong Z H, Zhang Y L, Wang H, et al. Research progress and development prospect of green manure rape in China[J]. Journal of Hebei Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 25(4): 67−70. Dong Z H, Zhang Y L, Wang H, et al . Research progress and development prospect of green manure rape in China[J]. Journal of Hebei Agricultural Sciences,2021 ,25 (4 ):67 −70 .[18] 刘领, 李继伟, 任鹏, 等. 不同芸薹属绿肥对烤烟生长及产量的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2017, 46(8): 52−56. Liu L, Li J W, Ren P, et al. Effects of different brassica green manure on growth and yield of tobacco[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 46(8): 52−56. doi: 10.15933/j.cnki.1004-3268.2017.08.009 Liu L, Li J W, Ren P, et al . Effects of different brassica green manure on growth and yield of tobacco[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences,2017 ,46 (8 ):52 −56 . doi: 10.15933/j.cnki.1004-3268.2017.08.009[19] 史海芝. 云南澄江引进蓝莓的生物学特性与扦插繁殖技术研究[D]. 云南昆明: 西南林业大学硕士学位论文, 2010. Shi H Z. Study on biological character and cutting technology of introduced blueberry in Chengjiang country of Yunnan[D]. Kunming, Yunnan: MS Thesis of Southwest Forestry University, 2010. Shi H Z. Study on biological character and cutting technology of introduced blueberry in Chengjiang country of Yunnan[D]. Kunming, Yunnan: MS Thesis of Southwest Forestry University, 2010. [20] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000. Bao S D. Soil and agriculture chemistry analysis[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000. Bao S D. Soil and agriculture chemistry analysis[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000. [21] 王彦亭, 谢剑平, 李志宏. 中国烟草种植区划[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2000. Wang Y T, Xie J P, Li Z H. Regionalization of tobacco planting in China[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2000. Wang Y T, Xie J P, Li Z H. Regionalization of tobacco planting in China[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2000. [22] Louppe G, Wehenkel L, Sutera A, et al. Understanding variable importances in forests of randomized trees[J]. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/. [23] Jiao S, Chen W, Wang J, et al. Soil microbiomes with distinct assemblies through vertical soil profiles drive the cycling of multiple nutrients in reforested ecosystems[J]. Microbiome, 2018, 6: 1−13. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0383-2 [24] Grömping U. Variable importance assessment in regression: Linear regression versus random forest[J]. The American Statistician, 2009, 63(4): 308−319. doi: 10.1198/tast.2009.08199 [25] 李明德, 肖汉乾, 汤海涛, 等. 氯素营养对烤烟生长发育和产量、品质的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2004, 10(6): 29−32. Li M D, Xiao H Q, Tang H T, et al. Effect of Cl nutrition on growth, yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Acta Tabacaria Sinica, 2004, 10(6): 29−32. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1004-5708.2004.06.005 Li M D, Xiao H Q, Tang H T, et al . Effect of Cl nutrition on growth, yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Acta Tabacaria Sinica,2004 ,10 (6 ):29 −32 . doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1004-5708.2004.06.005[26] 潘福霞, 鲁剑巍, 刘威, 等. 三种不同绿肥的腐解和养分释放特征研究[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2011, 17(1): 216−223. Pan F X, Lu J W, Liu W, et al. Study on characteristics of decomposing and nutrients releasing of three kinds of green manure crops[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2011, 17(1): 216−223. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2011.0130 Pan F X, Lu J W, Liu W, et al . Study on characteristics of decomposing and nutrients releasing of three kinds of green manure crops[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers,2011 ,17 (1 ):216 −223 . doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2011.0130[27] 杨叶华, 张松, 王帅, 等. 中国不同区域常见绿肥产量和养分含量特征及替代氮肥潜力评估[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(6): 39−55. Yang Y H, Zhang S, Wang S, et al. Yield and nutrient concentration in common green manure crops and assessment of potential for nitrogen replacement in different regions of China[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(6): 39−55. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019397 Yang Y H, Zhang S, Wang S, et al . Yield and nutrient concentration in common green manure crops and assessment of potential for nitrogen replacement in different regions of China[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica,2020 ,29 (6 ):39 −55 . doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019397[28] 高菊生, 黄晶, 杨志长, 等. 绿肥和稻草联合还田提高土壤有机质含量并稳定氮素供应[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2020, 26(3): 472−480. Gao J S, Huang J, Yang Z C, et al. Improving organic matter content and nitrogen supply stability of double cropping rice field through co-incorporation of green manure and rice straw[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2020, 26(3): 472−480. Gao J S, Huang J, Yang Z C, et al . Improving organic matter content and nitrogen supply stability of double cropping rice field through co-incorporation of green manure and rice straw[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers,2020 ,26 (3 ):472 −480 .[29] 潘福霞, 鲁剑巍, 刘威, 等. 不同种类绿肥翻压对土壤肥力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2011, 17(6): 1359−1364. Pan F X, Lu J W, Liu W, et al. Effect of different green manure application on soil fertility[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers, 2011, 17(6): 1359−1364. doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2011.1115 Pan F X, Lu J W, Liu W, et al . Effect of different green manure application on soil fertility[J]. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers,2011 ,17 (6 ):1359 −1364 . doi: 10.11674/zwyf.2011.1115[30] 陶芾, 滕婉, 李春俭, 张福锁. 我国烤烟生产体系中的养分平衡[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2007, 28(3): 1−5. Tao F, Teng W, Li C J, Zhang F S. Nutrient input and output balance in flue-cured tobacco production in China[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2007, 28(3): 1−5. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2007.03.001 Tao F, Teng W, Li C J, Zhang F S . Nutrient input and output balance in flue-cured tobacco production in China[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2007 ,28 (3 ):1 −5 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2007.03.001[31] 曹卫东, 黄鸿翔. 关于我国恢复和发展绿肥若干问题的思考[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2009, (4): 1−3. Cao W D, Huang H X. Ideas on restoration and development of green manures in China[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China, 2009, (4): 1−3. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6257.2009.04.001 Cao W D, Huang H X . Ideas on restoration and development of green manures in China[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China,2009 , (4 ):1 −3 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6257.2009.04.001[32] 石屹, 计玉, 姜鹏超, 等. 富钾绿肥籽粒苋对夏烟烟叶品质的影响研究[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2002, 23(3): 5−7. Shi Y, Ji Y, Jiang P C, et al. Studies on effects of green manure on quality of flue-cured tobacco transplanted in summer[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2002, 23(3): 5−7. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2002.03.005 Shi Y, Ji Y, Jiang P C, et al . Studies on effects of green manure on quality of flue-cured tobacco transplanted in summer[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2002 ,23 (3 ):5 −7 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2002.03.005[33] Xie Z J, Tu S X, Shah F, et al. Substitution of fertilizer-N by green manure improves the sustainability of yield in double-rice cropping system in south China[J]. Field Crops Research, 2016, 188: 142−149. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.01.006 [34] 吴玉萍, 师君丽, 赵立红, 等. 云南省不同品种和产区烤烟中氯含量的差异分析[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2011, 32(4): 71−74. Wu Y P, Shi J L, Zhao L H, et al. Chloride content variation in flue-cured tobacco among various varieties and locations in Yunnan[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2011, 32(4): 71−74. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2011.04.016 Wu Y P, Shi J L, Zhao L H, et al . Chloride content variation in flue-cured tobacco among various varieties and locations in Yunnan[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2011 ,32 (4 ):71 −74 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2011.04.016[35] 毛知耘. 肥料科学[M]. 北京: 中国农业科技出版社, 1997. Mao Z Y. Fertilizer science[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 1997. Mao Z Y. Fertilizer science[M]. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 1997. [36] 刘慧, 李子玉, 白志贵, 刘建国. 油菜绿肥翻压还田对新疆盐碱土壤的改良效果研究[J]. 农业资源与环境学报, 2020, 37(6): 914−923. Liu H, Li Z Y, Bai Z G, Liu J G. Effects of rape green manure returned to field on saline alkali soil improvement in Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment, 2020, 37(6): 914−923. doi: 10.13254/j.jare.2019.0566 Liu H, Li Z Y, Bai Z G, Liu J G . Effects of rape green manure returned to field on saline alkali soil improvement in Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment,2020 ,37 (6 ):914 −923 . doi: 10.13254/j.jare.2019.0566[37] 朱小梅, 温祝桂, 赵宝泉, 等. 种植绿肥对滨海盐渍土养分及盐分动态变化的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2017, 30(8): 1894−1898. Zhu X M, Wen Z G, Zhao B Q, et al. Effects of planting green manure on dynamic changes of saline soil nutrients and soluble salt ions[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 30(8): 1894−1898. doi: 10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2017.8.034 Zhu X M, Wen Z G, Zhao B Q, et al . Effects of planting green manure on dynamic changes of saline soil nutrients and soluble salt ions[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2017 ,30 (8 ):1894 −1898 . doi: 10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2017.8.034[38] 徐仁扣, 李九玉, 姜军. 可变电荷土壤中特殊化学现象及其微观机制的研究进展[J]. 土壤学报, 2014, 51(2): 207−215. Xu R K, Li J Y, Jiang J. Progresses in research on special chemical phenomena and their mechanisms in variable charge soils[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2014, 51(2): 207−215. Xu R K, Li J Y, Jiang J . Progresses in research on special chemical phenomena and their mechanisms in variable charge soils[J]. Acta Pedologica Sinica,2014 ,51 (2 ):207 −215 .[39] 徐安传, 李佛琳, 王超. 氯素对烤烟生长发育和品质的影响研究进展[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2007, 28(2): 6−9. Xu A C, Li F L, Wang C. Advance in effect of chloride on flue-cured tobacco growth and development and leaf quality[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2007, 28(2): 6−9. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2007.02.002 Xu A C, Li F L, Wang C . Advance in effect of chloride on flue-cured tobacco growth and development and leaf quality[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2007 ,28 (2 ):6 −9 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2007.02.002[40] 赵文军, 薛开政, 杨继周, 等. 烤烟–绿肥轮作对烤烟产量和品质的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(25): 8−15. Zhao W J, Xue K Z, Yang J Z, et al. Green manure rotation in tobacco field: Effects on the yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(25): 8−15. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0879 Zhao W J, Xue K Z, Yang J Z, et al . Green manure rotation in tobacco field: Effects on the yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin,2022 ,38 (25 ):8 −15 . doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0879[41] 覃勇, 杨丽丽, 邓小华 等. 绿肥还田量对烤烟生长发育和产质量的影响[J]. 天津农业科学, 2015, 21(2): 119−122. Qin Y, Yang L L, Deng X H, et al. Effects of different amount of green manure returned to field on flue-cured tobacco growth, development, yield and quality[J]. Tianjin Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 21(2): 119−122. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6500.2015.02.023 Qin Y, Yang L L, Deng X H, et al . Effects of different amount of green manure returned to field on flue-cured tobacco growth, development, yield and quality[J]. Tianjin Agricultural Sciences,2015 ,21 (2 ):119 −122 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6500.2015.02.023[42] 闫克玉, 赵铭钦. 烟草原料学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008. Yan K Y, Zhao M Q. Tobacco raw materials science[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2008. Yan K Y, Zhao M Q. Tobacco raw materials science[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2008. [43] 闫铁军, 马晓寒, 庞哲, 等. 我国主产烟区烟叶化学成分与感官舒适性关系分析[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2021, 42(6): 60−65. Yan T J, Ma X H, Pang Z, et al. Analysis of the relationship between chemical composition and sensory comfort of tobacco leaves in the main tobacco-producing areas in China[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2021, 42(6): 60−65. doi: 10.13496/j.issn.1007-5119.2021.06.009 Yan T J, Ma X H, Pang Z, et al . Analysis of the relationship between chemical composition and sensory comfort of tobacco leaves in the main tobacco-producing areas in China[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2021 ,42 (6 ):60 −65 . doi: 10.13496/j.issn.1007-5119.2021.06.009[44] 常爱霞, 杜咏梅, 付秋娟, 等. 烤烟主要化学成分与感官质量的相关性分析[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2009, 30(6): 9−12. Chang A X, Du Y M, Fu Q J, et al. Correlationship between main chemical components and sensory quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2009, 30(6): 9−12. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2009.06.003 Chang A X, Du Y M, Fu Q J, et al . Correlationship between main chemical components and sensory quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2009 ,30 (6 ):9 −12 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5119.2009.06.003[45] 左天觉. 烟草的生产、生理和生物化学[M]. 上海: 上海远东出版社, 1994. Zuo T J. Production, physiology, and biochemistry of tobacco[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Far East Publishers, 1994. Zuo T J. Production, physiology, and biochemistry of tobacco[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Far East Publishers, 1994. [46] 张佳佳, 过伟民, 翟振, 等. 不同香型区烤烟水溶性糖组分含量差异及与感官质量的关系[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2021, 42(4): 67−72. Zhang J J, Guo W M, Zhai Z, et al. Regional differences in water-soluble sugar components and content of flue-cured tobacco and their relationship with sensory quality[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science, 2021, 42(4): 67−72. doi: 10.13496/j.issn.1007-5119.2021.04.010 Zhang J J, Guo W M, Zhai Z, et al . Regional differences in water-soluble sugar components and content of flue-cured tobacco and their relationship with sensory quality[J]. Chinese Tobacco Science,2021 ,42 (4 ):67 −72 . doi: 10.13496/j.issn.1007-5119.2021.04.010[47] 吴玉萍, 赵立红, 李应金,等. 云南主产烟区不同烤烟品种总糖含量分析[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2010, 16(4): 15−18. Wu Y P, Zhao L H, Li Y J, et al. The variation of total sugar content from different varieties in different areas in Yunnan Province’s flue-cured tobacco[J]. Acta Tabacaria Sinica, 2010, 16(4): 15−18. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5708.2010.04.004 Wu Y P, Zhao L H, Li Y J, et al . The variation of total sugar content from different varieties in different areas in Yunnan Province’s flue-cured tobacco[J]. Acta Tabacaria Sinica,2010 ,16 (4 ):15 −18 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5708.2010.04.004[48] 介晓磊, 化党领, 谭金芳, 刘世亮. 中国烟草钾营养研究现状分析(Ⅰ) 烟草钾营养的各学科研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2005, 21(10): 212−217. Jie X L, Hua D L, Tan J F, Liu S L. The review of potassium nutrition in tobacco in China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2005, 21(10): 212−217. Jie X L, Hua D L, Tan J F, Liu S L. The review of potassium nutrition in tobacco in China[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2005, 21(10): 212−217. [49] 刘忠宽, 冯伟, 秦文利, 等. 绿肥种植的土壤肥料效应研究进展[J]. 草学, 2017, (4): 1−6. Liu Z K, Feng W, Qing W L, et al. Research advance of the soil and fertilizer effect of green manure[J]. Journal of Grassland and Forage Sciences, 2017, (4): 1−6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-3971.2017.04.001 Liu Z K, Feng W, Qing W L, et al . Research advance of the soil and fertilizer effect of green manure[J]. Journal of Grassland and Forage Sciences,2017 , (4 ):1 −6 . doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2096-3971.2017.04.001 -