Effects of microbial agents on soil microorganisms and yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20231054

Abstract

Abstract:

The limited soil resources of flue-cured tobacco in Wushan are not good for continuous cultivation, coupled with the extensive use of chemical fertilizer and insufficient use of organic fertilizer, resulting in the common occurrence of soil-borne diseases such as tobacco black shank disease and bacterial wilt disease. Therefore, this study explored the effects of microbial agents on the main diseases and production quality of flue-cured tobacco in Wushan, in order to prevent and control tobacco black shank disease and bacterial wilt disease, and provide technical support for the production of high-quality flue-cured tobacco in Wushan tobacco area. A completely randomized block design was adopted, and four treatments were set up, namely CK, with local conventional fertilization; T1, with 7.5 kg of seaweed chitin refined potassium per 667 m² was added, diluted with water, and 1.35 kg per plant was irrigated; T2, with package fertilizer (1.5 kg potassium xanthohumate, 1.0 kg trichoderma harzianum, and 1.5 kg bacillus subtilis per 667 m²), dilute with water, and 1.35 kg per plant was irrigated; T3, with 5.0 kg of three-in-one antibacterial compound per 667 m² was added, diluted with water, and 1.35 kg per plant was irrigated. For three repetitions, the microbial inoculant was applied together with the first topdressing. The results showed that the application of microbial inoculants could increase the number of fungi in the soil in the middle period and the number of bacteria in the later period. T1 treatment could effectively improve the agronomic traits of tobacco plants and increase the tobacco maximum leaf area by 60.94% compared with the control. The incidence of black shank disease in T1 treatment was lower than that in other treatments. The incidence of bacterial wilt disease in T1 treatment was the lowest at 60-90 d. The total scores of appearance quality and sensory quality of tobacco leaves treated by T1 were the highest, which were 6.5 points and 6.0 points higher than that of control, respectively. The content of chemical composition is suitable and the coordination is good. The output value of T1 treatment was 4 822.49 yuan·hm^-2 higher than that of the control, and the proportion of high-grade tobacco was 4.66 percentage points higher than that of control. In general, T1 treatment with 7.5 kg of seaweed chitin refined potassium per 667 m² can change the number of fungi and bacteria in tobacco soil, improve the agronomic traits of tobacco plants, increase plant height and leaf area, significantly reduce the incidence of black shank disease and bacterial wilt disease, improve the appearance quality and sensory quality of tobacco leaves, the chemical content is suitable, the coordination is good, and the yield and output value are increased. The grade structure of tobacco leaves is improved.

Key words: microbial agent, soil microbe, plant diseases, yield and quality, flue-cured tobacco

CLC Number:

S572

LIU Jianjun, CAO Anquan, PENG Jiuhua, WANG Lixiang, CHEN Heqing, YANG Zaijun, ZHANG Fengshou, XUE Gang. Effects of microbial agents on soil microorganisms and yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(1): 79-85.

Figures/Tables 9

References 26

[1]	刘国顺. 烟草栽培学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2003.
[2]	李世金, 朱启法, 裴洲洋, 等. 烟草种植连作障碍产生的原因及防治对策[J]. 现代农业科技, 2018(4): 54-56, 58.
[3]	高峰. 烤烟连作障碍效应与消减技术初探[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2014.
[4]	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.
[5]	何振宇, 戴良英, 陈武. 烟草连作障碍及其防治技术研究进展[J]. 农学学报, 2015, 5(10): 64-69.
[6]	张仕祥, 过伟民, 李辉信, 等. 烟草连作障碍研究进展[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(5): 823-829.
[7]	王旭辉, 丁亚欣, 谈俊. 生物菌肥促生机制研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2010(4): 308-309.
[8]	KLOEPPER J W, LEONG J, TEINTZE M, et al. Enhanced plant growth by siderophores produced by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria[J]. Nature, 1980, 286: 885-886.
[9]	SCHIPPERS B, BAKKER A W, BAKKER P M. Interactions of deleterious and beneficial rhizosphere microorganisms and the effect of cropping practices[J]. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 1987, 25: 339-358.
[10]	师超, 余凤敏, 上官力, 等. 微生物菌剂对烤烟根茎病害的防治效果及产量的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(21): 107-109.
[11]	郑世燕, 陈弟军, 丁伟, 等. 烟草青枯病发病烟株根际土壤营养状况分析[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2014, 20(3): 13-21.
[12]	STEARMAN G. Soil microbial population and nitrogen-transforming bacteria from 11-year sorghum tillage plots[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 1992, 22(3/4): 299-310.
[13]	祝虹钰, 刘闯, 李蓬勃, 等. 微生物菌剂的应用及其研究进展[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2017, 56(5): 805-808.
[14]	余佳斌, 张晓强, 文锦涛, 等. 微生物菌剂对修文烟区植烟土壤理化性状及烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2018, 59(3): 382-387.
[15]	刘芳, 韩丹, 赵铭钦, 等. 微生物菌剂配施腐殖酸钾对植烟土壤改良及烤烟经济效益的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(7): 1064-1069.
[16]	蔡兴, 裴晓东, 邓小华, 等. 喷施微生物菌剂对烤烟生长发育和上部烟叶经济性状的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2017, 31(2): 166-169.
[17]	胡国松. 烤烟营养原理[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2000.
[18]	段玉琪, 陈冬梅, 晋艳, 等. 不同肥料对连作烟草根际土壤微生物及酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2012, 14(3): 122-126.
[19]	陈玉荣, 陈文涛. 微生物菌剂对上部烟叶外观质量与农艺性状的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2014(3): 31, 33.
[20]	张振荣, 布云红, 赖泳红, 等. 不同功能菌剂对连作烟叶农艺性状和根际土壤细菌的影响[J]. 云南大学学报(自然科学版), 2012(S1): 116-121.
[21]	李远远. 连作烟田土壤微生物多样性及微生物制剂应用研究[D]. 郑州: 郑州大学, 2017.
[22]	WAKELIN S A, GREGG A L, SIMPSON R J, et al. Pasture manngement clearly affects soil microbial community structure and N-cycling bacteria[J]. Pedobiologia, 2009, 52(4): 237-251.
[23]	张祯明, 罗学刚, 樊有国, 等. 地膜降解物对土壤微生物群落结构和多样性的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2016, 36(2): 181-184, 190.
[24]	徐蒋来, 胡乃娟, 张政文, 等. 两种除草剂对稻田土壤微生物数量和酶活性的影响[J]. 水土保持通报, 2015, 35(4): 168-171.
[25]	艾童非, 杨鹏九, 费洪波, 等. 微生物菌剂有机肥对植烟土壤环境及烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(18): 99-102, 119.
[26]	周家新, 段昶, 曹亚凡, 等. 微生物菌剂对烤烟植物学性状与农艺性状的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2021, 27(19): 40-42, 44.

处理	株高/ cm	茎围/ cm	节距/ cm	叶数/ 片	最大叶面积/cm²
CK	102.11 b	10.56 c	4.00 b	17.22 b	624.78 c
T1	129.20 a	13.60 a	4.70 a	20.00 a	1 005.50 a
T2	123.50 a	12.90 ab	4.60 a	18.20 b	810.09 b
T3	100.90 b	11.50 bc	4.60 a	17.80 b	633.87 c

处理	株高/ cm	茎围/ cm	节距/ cm	叶数/ 片	最大叶面积/cm²
CK	102.11 b	10.56 c	4.00 b	17.22 b	624.78 c
T1	129.20 a	13.60 a	4.70 a	20.00 a	1 005.50 a
T2	123.50 a	12.90 ab	4.60 a	18.20 b	810.09 b
T3	100.90 b	11.50 bc	4.60 a	17.80 b	633.87 c

处理	总糖含量/%	还原糖含量/%	烟碱含量/%	总氮含量/%	钾含量/ %	氯含量/ %	两糖比	糖碱比	氮碱比	钾氯比
CK	33.26 b	26.87 b	2.58 a	2.39 a	1.65 c	0.18 b	0.81 a	10.43 a	0.93 b	9.06 ab
T1	36.23 a	29.55 a	2.47 a	2.35 a	2.03 a	0.24 a	0.82 a	11.94 a	0.95 ab	8.38 b
T2	35.18 a	27.58 b	2.56 a	2.40 a	1.89 ab	0.21 ab	0.78 a	10.79 a	0.94 ab	8.90 b
T3	33.75 b	26.84 b	2.50 a	2.44 a	1.98 a	0.19 b	0.80 a	10.71 a	0.98 a	10.32 a

处理	总糖含量/%	还原糖含量/%	烟碱含量/%	总氮含量/%	钾含量/ %	氯含量/ %	两糖比	糖碱比	氮碱比	钾氯比
CK	33.26 b	26.87 b	2.58 a	2.39 a	1.65 c	0.18 b	0.81 a	10.43 a	0.93 b	9.06 ab
T1	36.23 a	29.55 a	2.47 a	2.35 a	2.03 a	0.24 a	0.82 a	11.94 a	0.95 ab	8.38 b
T2	35.18 a	27.58 b	2.56 a	2.40 a	1.89 ab	0.21 ab	0.78 a	10.79 a	0.94 ab	8.90 b
T3	33.75 b	26.84 b	2.50 a	2.44 a	1.98 a	0.19 b	0.80 a	10.71 a	0.98 a	10.32 a

处理	产量/ (kg·hm^-2)	均价/ (元·kg^-1)	产值/ (元·hm^-2)	上等烟比例/%
CK	1 944.22 b	33.91 b	65 921.26 b	69.17 b
T1	2 038.82 a	34.70 a	70 743.75 a	73.83 a
T2	2 004.41 ab	34.12 b	68 396.97 ab	69.10 b
T3	1 950.39 ab	34.26 ab	66 828.91 b	71.26 ab