Effect of Different Organic Materials on the Main Quality Indicators of Soil and Tobacco
-
摘要: 通过大田试验，研究了施用不同有机物料对土壤碳氮含量和烟叶碳/氮及感官质量的影响。结果表明，施用腐熟麦秸秆、绿肥和绿肥配施菌肥能提高土壤微生物商和前期土壤中有机碳、全氮、微生物量碳、微生物量氮含量，土壤微生物量碳/微生物量氮平均值在5左右。烟叶质量分析表明，烟叶碳/氮在移栽后60 d前增长缓慢，之后进入快速增长期，烘烤后下降，烤后烟叶感官质量得到改善。相关分析结果表明，土壤碳氮含量与评吸总分呈显著或极显著正相关，烟叶碳/氮与评吸总分不存在线性相关关系，但与香气量、刺激性、余味和劲头呈负相关，与香气质、浓度呈正相关。综合分析，以绿肥配施微生物菌剂的处理效果最好。Abstract: Field experiment was carried out to study the effect of different organic materials on soil carbon and nitrogen and C/N, sensor quality of flue-cured tobacco. Results showed that rotten wheat straw, green manure and green manure with microbial agents could increase microbial quotient and antecedent soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, microbial biomass C, microbial biomass N, with microbial biomass C/N averaged at about 5. The analysis of tobacco quality showed that tobacco leaf C/N increased slowly before 60d after transplanting then entered the period of rapid growth. Leaf C/N decreased after flue-curing and the sensory quality of flue-cured tobacco was improved. Correlation analysis showed that soil carbon and nitrogen content had significant or extremely significant positive correlations with total score of sensory quality. Tobacco leaf C/N had no linear correlation with total score of sensory quality, but had negative correlations with the aroma, pungent, aftertaste and momentum, had positive correlations with quality and concentration of aroma. Green manure with microbial agents rendered the best effect.
-
-
[1] H L Chen, G S Liu, Y F Yang, et al. Effects of rotten wheat straw on organic carbon and microbial biomass carbon of tobacco-planted soil[J]. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 2013, 11(1):1017-1021.
[2] Qiao Y M, Wang Z Q, Duan Z H. Effects of different land-use types on soil carbon and nitrogen contents in the northern region of Qinghai Lake[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2009, 18(6):105-112.
[3] Yang C D, Long R J, Cheng X R, et al. Characteristics of carbon,nitrogen and phosphorus density in top soil under different alpine grasslands on the eastern Qilian Mountains[J]. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2008, 30(1):1-5.
[4] 韩锦峰,史宏志,官春云, 等. 不同施氮水平和氮素来源烟叶碳氮比及其与碳氮代谢的关系[J]. 中国烟草学报,1996(1):19-25. [5] 史宏志,韩锦峰,刘国顺,等. 烤烟碳氮代谢与烟叶香吃味关系的研究[J]. 中国烟草学报,1998,4(2):56-63. [6] 南雄雄,田霄鸿,张琳,等. 小麦和玉米秸秆腐解特点及对土壤中碳、氮含量的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报,2010,16(3):626-633. [7] 徐祥玉,孟贵星,袁家富,等. 翻压绿肥对植烟土壤活性有机质和土壤酶的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学,2011,32(10):103-107. [8] 李正,刘国顺,叶协锋,等. 绿肥翻压年限对植烟土壤微生物量C、N和土壤C、N的影响[J]. 江西农业学报,2010,22(4):62-65,68. [9] 薄国栋,张继光,申国明,等. 秸秆还田对植烟土壤有机质及团聚体特征的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学,2014,35(3):12-16. [10] 曾宇,符云鹏,叶协锋,等. 烟田施用腐熟小麦秸秆对烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 中国烟草科学,2014,35(5):40-44. [11] 吴金水,林启美,黄巧云,等. 土壤微生物生物量测定方法及其应用[M].北京:气象出版社,2006:54-68. [12] 鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,2000:39-60,57-79,99-107. [13] 李文军,彭保发,杨奇勇. 长期施肥对洞庭湖双季稻区水稻土有机碳、氮积累及其活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学,2015,48(3):488-500. [14] 慕平,张恩和,王汉宁,等. 连续多年秸秆还田对玉米耕层土壤理化性状及微生物量的影响[J]. 水土保持学报,2012,25(5):81-85. [15] 邓小华,石楠,周米良,等. 不同种类绿肥翻压对植烟土壤理化性状的影响[J]. 烟草科技,2015,48(2):7-10,20. [16] 夏振远,李云华,杨树军. 微生物菌肥对烤烟生产效应的研究[J]. 中国烟草科学,2002,23(3):28-30. [17] 胡诚,曹志平,叶钟年,等. 不同的土壤培肥措施对低肥力农田土壤微生物生物量碳的影响[J]. 生态学报,2006,26(3):808-814. [18] 沈其荣. 土壤生物态氮研究进展[J]. 北京:北京农业大学出版社,1992. [19] Campbell C A, Biederbeck V O, Zentner R P, et al. Effect of crop rotations and cultural practices on soil organic matter, microbial biomass and respiration in a thin black chernozem[J]. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 1991, 71(3):363-376.
[20] 史宏志,韩锦峰. 烤烟碳氮代谢几个问题的探讨[J]. 烟草科技,1998(2):34-36. [21] 王小东,田晓莉,许自成,等. 不同土壤有机质水平对烤烟内在品质的影响[J]. 西北农业学报,2011,20(5):99-105. [22] 姚忠达,胡海洲,刘新民,等. 烤烟烟叶碳氮平衡与感官质量关系分析[J]. 安徽农业大学学报,2014,41(2):312-316.
计量
- 文章访问数: 146
- HTML全文浏览量: 0
- PDF下载量: 124
下载:
