Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences ›› 2021, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (10): 2423-2430.DOI: 10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2021.10.2423
• Isotope Tracer Technique·Ecology and Environment·Physiology • Previous Articles Next Articles
MA Yilin1(), WU Guanghai2, SHEN Hongtao2,*(
), WANG Xinzhong2, ZHAO Shimin3, MA Junhong3, WANG Lihua3, LIU Ling1,*(
)
Received:
2020-08-13
Accepted:
2020-10-27
Online:
2021-10-10
Published:
2021-08-04
Contact:
SHEN Hongtao,LIU Ling
马宜林1(), 吴广海2, 申洪涛2,*(
), 王新中2, 赵世民3, 马君红3, 王丽华3, 刘领1,*(
)
通讯作者:
申洪涛,刘领
作者简介:
马宜林,男,主要从事烟草栽培与土壤改良研究。E-mail: myl950416@163.com
基金资助:
MA Yilin, WU Guanghai, SHEN Hongtao, WANG Xinzhong, ZHAO Shimin, MA Junhong, WANG Lihua, LIU Ling. Effects of Combined Application of Sheep Manure-Derived Organic Fertilizer and Chemical Fertilizer on Tobacco Growth and Soil Fertility[J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 35(10): 2423-2430.
马宜林, 吴广海, 申洪涛, 王新中, 赵世民, 马君红, 王丽华, 刘领. 羊粪有机肥与化肥配施对烤烟生长及土壤肥力特性的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2021, 35(10): 2423-2430.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.hnxb.org.cn/EN/10.11869/j.issn.100-8551.2021.10.2423
Fig.1 Effects of organic/inorganic fertilizer application ratios on the agronomic characters of flue-cured tobacco Note: Different lowercase letters in the same determination time indicate significant difference among different treatments at 0.05 level. The same as following.
时期 Time | 处理 Treatment | 总根长 Total root length/cm | 根表面积 Root surface area/cm2 | 根体积 Root volume/cm3 | 根尖数 Root tip number |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
移栽后30 d 30 d days after transplanting | CK | 234.6±4.2c | 535.7±33.7d | 45.7±4.9e | 1 948.7±33.6c |
T0 | 416.1±39.8a | 994.6±90.5a | 122.9±2.5a | 3 032.0±34.6a | |
T20 | 427.0±20.4a | 1 030.4±54.5a | 129.0±6.8a | 3 245.3±90.0a | |
T40 | 342.8±6.5b | 842.5±20.0b | 108.2±2.0b | 2 542.3±38.8b | |
T60 | 320.1±11.9b | 775.4±23.4b | 94.1±1.4c | 2 572.3±44.1b | |
T80 | 319.5±3.2b | 735.4±24.2bc | 88.9±0.9c | 2 518.7±174.7b | |
T100 | 282.5±5.2bc | 604.3±16.0cd | 72.8±3.9d | 2 427.7±210.6b | |
移栽后60 d 60 days after transplanting | CK | 811.9±4.2e | 1 353.4±64.9d | 100.8±5.9d | 6 534.7±182.2c |
T0 | 1 022.9±39.8cd | 1 737.5±18.5c | 178.8±5.1c | 8 196.7±337.8ab | |
T20 | 1 042.7±20.4bc | 1 795.0±27.1bc | 190.8±31.2bc | 8 373.0±280.7ab | |
T40 | 1 059.6±6.5ab | 1 971.1±88.1b | 226±5.2ab | 9 168.0±492.3a | |
T60 | 1 084.7±11.9a | 2 197.1±84.3a | 242.8±17a | 9 273.3±321.8a | |
T80 | 1 015.8±3.2cd | 1 721.9±55.3c | 174.2±5.1c | 8 137.7±398.7ab | |
T100 | 1 009.2±5.2d | 1 625.0±44.3c | 154.4±7.4c | 7 781.3±193.8b |
Table 1 Effects of organic/inorganic fertilizer application ratios on root morphological parameters of flue-cured tobacco
时期 Time | 处理 Treatment | 总根长 Total root length/cm | 根表面积 Root surface area/cm2 | 根体积 Root volume/cm3 | 根尖数 Root tip number |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
移栽后30 d 30 d days after transplanting | CK | 234.6±4.2c | 535.7±33.7d | 45.7±4.9e | 1 948.7±33.6c |
T0 | 416.1±39.8a | 994.6±90.5a | 122.9±2.5a | 3 032.0±34.6a | |
T20 | 427.0±20.4a | 1 030.4±54.5a | 129.0±6.8a | 3 245.3±90.0a | |
T40 | 342.8±6.5b | 842.5±20.0b | 108.2±2.0b | 2 542.3±38.8b | |
T60 | 320.1±11.9b | 775.4±23.4b | 94.1±1.4c | 2 572.3±44.1b | |
T80 | 319.5±3.2b | 735.4±24.2bc | 88.9±0.9c | 2 518.7±174.7b | |
T100 | 282.5±5.2bc | 604.3±16.0cd | 72.8±3.9d | 2 427.7±210.6b | |
移栽后60 d 60 days after transplanting | CK | 811.9±4.2e | 1 353.4±64.9d | 100.8±5.9d | 6 534.7±182.2c |
T0 | 1 022.9±39.8cd | 1 737.5±18.5c | 178.8±5.1c | 8 196.7±337.8ab | |
T20 | 1 042.7±20.4bc | 1 795.0±27.1bc | 190.8±31.2bc | 8 373.0±280.7ab | |
T40 | 1 059.6±6.5ab | 1 971.1±88.1b | 226±5.2ab | 9 168.0±492.3a | |
T60 | 1 084.7±11.9a | 2 197.1±84.3a | 242.8±17a | 9 273.3±321.8a | |
T80 | 1 015.8±3.2cd | 1 721.9±55.3c | 174.2±5.1c | 8 137.7±398.7ab | |
T100 | 1 009.2±5.2d | 1 625.0±44.3c | 154.4±7.4c | 7 781.3±193.8b |
时期 Time | 处理 Treatment | SPAD值 SPAD value | 净光合速率 Pn/[μmol(CO2)· m-2·s-1] | 蒸腾速率 Tr/[mmol(H2O)· m-2·s-1] | 气孔导度 Gs/[mol(CO2)· m-2·s-1] | 胞间CO2浓度 Ci/[μmol(CO2)· mol-1(air)] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
移栽后30 d 30 dyas after transplanting | CK | 39.37±0.55c | 8.66±0.54d | 2.25±0.25c | 0.11±0.01e | 313.34±2.29a |
T0 | 44.08±1.33ab | 15.22±0.77a | 4.05±0.17a | 0.18±0.01ab | 266.79±4.91c | |
T20 | 44.58±0.65a | 15.98±0.23a | 4.14±0.13a | 0.19±0.01a | 252.43±13.19c | |
T40 | 43.65±0.85ab | 13.40±0.29b | 3.75±0.08a | 0.18±0.01ab | 286.32±2.14b | |
T60 | 43.17±0.94ab | 13.28±0.18b | 3.02±0.21b | 0.15±0.01bc | 297.67±3.67ab | |
T80 | 42.73±1.25ab | 12.34±0.15bc | 2.89±0.18b | 0.14±0.01cd | 300.70±1.83ab | |
T100 | 41.47±0.93bc | 11.78±0.14c | 2.48±0.22bc | 0.12±0.01de | 301.98±1.19ab | |
移栽后60 d 60 days after transplanting | CK | 46.33±0.27e | 11.66±0.47d | 3.32±0.33c | 0.16±0.01d | 251.21±3.48a |
T0 | 58.70±0.92bc | 17.68±0.61bc | 4.46±0.19b | 0.28±0.01bc | 220.22±4.85bc | |
T20 | 59.93±1.33b | 18.03±0.34b | 5.73±0.35a | 0.31±0.02ab | 212.01±5.19c | |
T40 | 63.87±0.78a | 20.79±0.52a | 6.02±0.09a | 0.31±0.01a | 186.31±10.44d | |
T60 | 61.20±0.40b | 20.53±0.57a | 5.62±0.33a | 0.30±0.01ab | 205.68±4.03c | |
T80 | 56.13±1.04cd | 17.81±0.38b | 4.50±0.24b | 0.27±0.02c | 216.03±3.81c | |
T100 | 54.80±0.57d | 16.23±0.41c | 4.06±0.32bc | 0.26±0.01c | 237.47±0.94ab |
Table 2 Effects of organic/inorganic fertilizer application ratios on photosynthetic characteristics of flue-cured tobacco
时期 Time | 处理 Treatment | SPAD值 SPAD value | 净光合速率 Pn/[μmol(CO2)· m-2·s-1] | 蒸腾速率 Tr/[mmol(H2O)· m-2·s-1] | 气孔导度 Gs/[mol(CO2)· m-2·s-1] | 胞间CO2浓度 Ci/[μmol(CO2)· mol-1(air)] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
移栽后30 d 30 dyas after transplanting | CK | 39.37±0.55c | 8.66±0.54d | 2.25±0.25c | 0.11±0.01e | 313.34±2.29a |
T0 | 44.08±1.33ab | 15.22±0.77a | 4.05±0.17a | 0.18±0.01ab | 266.79±4.91c | |
T20 | 44.58±0.65a | 15.98±0.23a | 4.14±0.13a | 0.19±0.01a | 252.43±13.19c | |
T40 | 43.65±0.85ab | 13.40±0.29b | 3.75±0.08a | 0.18±0.01ab | 286.32±2.14b | |
T60 | 43.17±0.94ab | 13.28±0.18b | 3.02±0.21b | 0.15±0.01bc | 297.67±3.67ab | |
T80 | 42.73±1.25ab | 12.34±0.15bc | 2.89±0.18b | 0.14±0.01cd | 300.70±1.83ab | |
T100 | 41.47±0.93bc | 11.78±0.14c | 2.48±0.22bc | 0.12±0.01de | 301.98±1.19ab | |
移栽后60 d 60 days after transplanting | CK | 46.33±0.27e | 11.66±0.47d | 3.32±0.33c | 0.16±0.01d | 251.21±3.48a |
T0 | 58.70±0.92bc | 17.68±0.61bc | 4.46±0.19b | 0.28±0.01bc | 220.22±4.85bc | |
T20 | 59.93±1.33b | 18.03±0.34b | 5.73±0.35a | 0.31±0.02ab | 212.01±5.19c | |
T40 | 63.87±0.78a | 20.79±0.52a | 6.02±0.09a | 0.31±0.01a | 186.31±10.44d | |
T60 | 61.20±0.40b | 20.53±0.57a | 5.62±0.33a | 0.30±0.01ab | 205.68±4.03c | |
T80 | 56.13±1.04cd | 17.81±0.38b | 4.50±0.24b | 0.27±0.02c | 216.03±3.81c | |
T100 | 54.80±0.57d | 16.23±0.41c | 4.06±0.32bc | 0.26±0.01c | 237.47±0.94ab |
[1] | 施河丽, 向必坤, 彭五星, 尹忠春, 罗芳, 谭军. 有机无机肥料配施对植烟土壤养分及细菌群落结构的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(4):58-66 |
[2] | 刘光辉, 李迪秦, 陈一凡, 姚雪梅, 王海军, 王力伟, 刘俊军, 李素云, 肖波, 欧阳习田, 刘京. 烤烟生长发育特性及产质量对施肥技术的响应[J]. 核农学报, 2017, 31(10):2032-2038 |
[3] | 赵满兴, 刘慧, 白二磊, 张晓曦, 杨旭艳. 腐殖酸和生物有机肥替代化肥对烤烟生长及品质的影响[J]. 分子植物育种, 2019, 17(9):3105-3114 |
[4] |
Sharma N, Shukla Y R, Singh K, Mehta D K. Soil fertility, nutrient uptake and yield of bell pepper as influenced by conjoint application of organic and inorganic fertilizers[J]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2020, 51(12):1626-1640
DOI URL |
[5] | 汤宏, 曾掌权, 张杨珠, 李向阳, 王建伟, 刘伦沛, 严红光. 化学氮肥配施有机肥对烟草品质、氮素吸收及利用率的影响[J]. 华北农学报, 2019, 34(4):183-191 |
[6] | 彭桃军, 沈雪婷, 凌平, 李亚纯, 苏鹏飞, 单倩. 不同有机无机肥配比对烤烟生长发育和品质的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2017, 29(3):85-89 |
[7] | 季璇, 冯长春, 郑学博, 宋文静, 陈玉蓝, 况帅, 董建新, 杜如万. 饼肥等氮替代化肥对植烟土壤养分、酶活性和氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2019, 40(5):23-29 |
[8] | 沈方科, 闫金朋, 顾明华, 尹永强, 罗宝雄, 何虹华, 贾海江. 施用不同比例有机氮对烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(7):1498-1503 |
[9] | 李司童, 毛凯伦, 韦成才, 袁帅, 穆耀辉, 王平平, 张立新. 蚯蚓粪肥替代部分化肥对连作烟田土壤肥力的影响及评价[J]. 华北农学报, 2018, 33(S1):238-245 |
[10] | 邱吟霜, 王西娜, 李培富, 侯贤清, 王艳丽, 吴鹏年, 霍文斌. 不同种类有机肥及用量对当季旱地土壤肥力和玉米产量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(6):182-189 |
[11] | 闵星星, 马玉寿, 李世雄, 王彦龙. 羊粪对青海草地早熟禾草地生产力和土壤养分的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2014, 31(6):1039-1044 |
[12] | 殷端, 宋玉川, 屈生彬. 有机肥和化肥配合施用对香料烟产质量的影响研究[J]. 云南农业科技, 2013(1):23-25 |
[13] | 国家烟草专卖局. YC/T 142-2010烟草农业性状调查测量方法[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2010 |
[14] | 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000 |
[15] | 关松荫. 土壤酶及其研究法[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1986 |
[16] | 王艳丽, 刘国顺, 丁松爽, 王京, 李渊博, 董晓丽. 磷用量对烤烟根系及其与地上部关系的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015, 26(5):1440-1446 |
[17] | 王林虹. 不同比例有机肥对烤烟生长发育及品质的影响[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2014 |
[18] | 陈治锋, 邓小华, 周米良, 田峰, 巢进, 蔡云帆, 张明发. 秸秆和绿肥还田对烤烟光合生理指标及经济性状的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2017, 31(2):410-415 |
[19] | 霍昭光, 孙志浩, 邢雪霞, 卫宣志, 李晓辉, 刘超, 薛刚, 徐世晓, 杨铁钊. 北方烟区水肥一体化对烤烟生长、根系形态、生理及光合特性的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(9):1317-1325 |
[20] | 阳显斌, 李廷轩, 张锡洲, 唐彪, 陈晓明, 向先友. 烟蒜轮作与套作对土壤农化性状及烤烟产量的影响[J]. 核农学报, 2015, 29(5):980-985 |
[21] | 杨慧, 刘立晶, 刘忠军, 商稳奇, 曲晓健. 我国农田化肥施用现状分析及建议[J]. 农机化研究, 2014, 36(9):260-264 |
[22] | 林治安, 赵秉强, 袁亮, Hwat Bing-So. 长期定位施肥对土壤养分与作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2009, 42(8):2809-2819 |
[23] | 叶协锋, 杨超, 李正, 敬海霞. 绿肥对植烟土壤酶活性及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2013, 19(2):445-454 |
[24] | 施娴, 刘艳红, 张德刚, 何芳芳. 猪粪与化肥配施对植烟土壤酶活性和微生物生物量动态变化的影响[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(5):899-903 |
[25] |
Yang J K, Zhang J J, Yu H Y, Cheng J W, Miao L H. Community composition and cellulase activity of cellulolytic bacteria from forest soils planted with broad-leaved deciduous and evergreen trees[J]. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2014, 98(3):1449-1458
DOI URL |
[26] | 赵殿峰, 徐静, 罗璇, 饶智, 廖允成, 温晓霞, 孙渭, 徐世峰, 丁朋辉, 高明博. 生物炭对土壤养分、烤烟生长以及烟叶化学成分的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2014, 23(3):85-92 |
[27] |
Cui X W, Zhang Y Z, Gao J S, Peng F Y, Gao P. Long-term combined application of manure and chemical fertilizer sustained higher nutrient status and rhizospheric bacterial diversity in reddish paddy soil of Central South China[J]. Scientific Reports, 2018, 8:16554
DOI URL |
[28] | 冯焕德, 党志国, 倪斌, 陈鸿宇, 何翠翠, 魏志远, 陈业渊. 羊粪发酵肥替代化肥对芒果园土壤性状、叶片营养及果实品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2019(6):190-195 |
[29] |
Yan S, Niu Z Y, Yan H T, Zhang A G, Liu G S. Influence of soil organic carbon on the aroma of tobacco leaves and the structure of microbial communities[J]. Current Microbiology, 2020, 77(6):931-942
DOI URL |
[1] | PENG Cuiyun, WANG Haiyan, SHI Hongzhi, GUO Hui, YANG Huijuan. Physiological Indexes and Metabolomics Changes in the Upper Stalk Tobacco Leaves Under the Delaying Harvesting in Yuzhong Area [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 35(11): 2655-2663. |
[2] | DENG Xiaohua, XIANG Qinghui, LIU Yongjun, TIAN Feng, PENG Deyuan, WANG Zhenhua, PENG Shuguang, ZHANG Longhui. Effects of Amendments Application on Mountain Soil pH, Growth and Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 34(7): 1568-1577. |
[3] | WU Shengjiang, MO Jingjing, LOU Yuanfei, TU Yonggao, ZHAO Huina, ZHAN Jun, WEI Kesu, ZHAO Degang. Difference of Curing Characteristics of Upper Leaves With Different Maturity in Different Flue-cured Tobacco Varieties [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 34(6): 1337-1349. |
[4] | XIAO Shiqi, CHEN Xiaoming, QI Xin, TIAN Jia, DONG Faqin, HUANG Sen, GOU Jialei. Effect of the Uranium Contamination on Soil Enzyme Activities and Microbial Functional Diversity [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 34(4): 896-903. |
[5] | CHENG Yadong, BAI Yuxiang, SHI Puyou, YANG Chengcui, JIA Meng, YANG Huanwen, WANG Ge, CHEN Feng. Evaluation of Two Phenolic Acidifying Effects in Continuous Cropping of Tobacco Soil With Significant Accumulation Characteristics [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 34(10): 2307-2315. |
[6] | LIU Yuhui, ZHANG Qingwen, TIAN Xiuping, ZHANG Aiping, LIU Xingren, YANG Zhengli. Combined Effects of Chemical Fertilizer Reduction and Biofertilizer Application on Nitrogen Mineralization and Utilization [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 33(8): 1593-1601. |
[7] | ZHAO Li, ZHOU Yan, WANG Haiyan, SHI Hongzhi, ZHAO Shimin, CHANG Lingkang, YANG Qingmin, YANG Huijuan. Research on the Differential Physiological Responses in Different Flue-cured Tobacco Lines Under Drought Stress [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 33(3): 607-615. |
[8] | LI Diqin, WANG Yanni, ZHOU Zhenghong, LIU Yiyun, LU Zhengyan, XING Qin, YU Peng, ZHU Lieshu. Fuzzy Evaluation of the Ecological Adaptability of the New Flue-cured Tobacco Strain HKDN-2 [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 33(10): 2086-2093. |
[9] | JIN Huiyong, LI Juan, ZHU Yi, QI Shaowu, LIANG Zhongzhe, DAN Junhao. Effect of Soil Conditioner on Root Vigor and Carbon Metabolism Characteristics of Rhizosphere Soil Microorganisms in Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 33(1): 158-165. |
[10] | LIU Hui, ZHANG Liming, ZHOU Qingming, LI Juan, XIANG Deming. Effects of Continuous Application of Biochar Under Flue-cured Tobacco Continuous Cropping on Black Shank, Dry Matter and Yield and Quality of Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 32(7): 1435-1441. |
[11] | ZENG Yanhua, WU Jianfu, FAN Chenggen, ZENG Yongjun, TAN Xueming, PAN Xiaohua, SHI Qinghua. Effects of Straw Incorporation Supplying Silicon on Grain Yield and Silicon Absorption of Double Cropping Rice Under Chemical Fertilizer Reduced [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 32(2): 344-352. |
[12] | NI Guorong, PAN Xiaohua, SHI Qinghua, WU Jianfu, ZHOU Chunhuo. Effect of Sterilization Methods on Soil Nutrients of Red Soil Paddy and Rice Growth [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 32(12): 2431-2437. |
[13] | REN Zhiguang, YANG Lijun, GONG Zhixiang, HUANG Haitang, XU Zicheng, LEI Wei, ZHANG Sen, CHEN Zheng. Effects of Interaction Between Gibberellin and Potassium on Physiological Indexes and Chemical Components of Upper Leaves in Flue-cured Tobacco [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 32(11): 2232-2239. |
[14] | ZHAO Xiujuan, REN Yi, ZHANG Shuxiang. Evolution Characteristics of Cinnamon Soil Nutrients in 25 Years [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 31(8): 1647-1655. |
[15] | LI Qiang, ZHANG Yiyang, CHENG Changxin, LIU Hualin, WANG Ruibao, LIU Hao,YANG Yingming,ZHANG Fanying,ZHOU Jiheng. Characteristics of Potassium Content in Flue-cured Tobacco and Its Relationship With Main Ecological Factor in Qujing, China [J]. Journal of Nuclear Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 31(5): 918-926. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||