
Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2026, Vol. 67 ›› Issue (2): 337-345.DOI: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240712
Previous Articles Next Articles
SHI Jiuchang1(
), LIANG Jiacheng2, JIAO Jinghua3, WANG Weimin1, LI Qiujian1, HAN Dan2, XU Zicheng2, ZHANG Li1(
)
Received:2024-09-04
Online:2026-02-28
Published:2026-03-07
CLC Number:
SHI Jiuchang, LIANG Jiacheng, JIAO Jinghua, WANG Weimin, LI Qiujian, HAN Dan, XU Zicheng, ZHANG Li. Effects of the interaction between irrigation method and potassium fertilizer on the growth and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2026, 67(2): 337-345.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.zjnykx.cn/EN/10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240712
| 颜色 | 分数 | 成熟度 | 分数 | 叶片结构 | 分数 | 身份 | 分数 | 油分 | 分数 | 色度 | 分数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 橘黄 | 7~10 | 成熟 | 7~10 | 疏松 | 8~10 | 中等 | 7~10 | 多 | 8~10 | 浓 | 8~10 |
| 柠檬黄 | 6~9 | 完熟 | 6~9 | 尚疏松 | 5~8 | 稍薄 | 4~7 | 有 | 6~8 | 强 | 6~8 |
| 红棕 | 3~7 | 尚熟 | 4~7 | 稍密 | 3~5 | 稍厚 | 4~7 | 稍有 | 3~5 | 中 | 4~6 |
| 微带青 | 3~6 | 假熟 | 3~5 | 紧密 | 0~3 | 薄 | 0~4 | 少 | 0~3 | 弱 | 2~4 |
| 青黄 | 1~4 | 欠熟 | 0~4 | 厚 | 0~4 | 淡 | 0~2 | ||||
| 杂色 | 0~3 |
Table 1 Scoring criteria for appearance quality of tobacco leaves
| 颜色 | 分数 | 成熟度 | 分数 | 叶片结构 | 分数 | 身份 | 分数 | 油分 | 分数 | 色度 | 分数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 橘黄 | 7~10 | 成熟 | 7~10 | 疏松 | 8~10 | 中等 | 7~10 | 多 | 8~10 | 浓 | 8~10 |
| 柠檬黄 | 6~9 | 完熟 | 6~9 | 尚疏松 | 5~8 | 稍薄 | 4~7 | 有 | 6~8 | 强 | 6~8 |
| 红棕 | 3~7 | 尚熟 | 4~7 | 稍密 | 3~5 | 稍厚 | 4~7 | 稍有 | 3~5 | 中 | 4~6 |
| 微带青 | 3~6 | 假熟 | 3~5 | 紧密 | 0~3 | 薄 | 0~4 | 少 | 0~3 | 弱 | 2~4 |
| 青黄 | 1~4 | 欠熟 | 0~4 | 厚 | 0~4 | 淡 | 0~2 | ||||
| 杂色 | 0~3 |
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 株高/cm | 茎围/cm | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 最大叶面积/cm2 | 有效叶数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 67.67±9.75 a | 7.62±0.49 a | 57.78±4.09 a | 36.00±4.33 a | 1 326.18±234.53 a | 12.33±1.00 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 73.00±7.78 a | 7.64±0.35 a | 59.78±3.77 a | 39.67±3.35 a | 1 508.77±201.81 a | 12.67±1.00 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 70.11±7.68 a | 7.83±0.32 a | 58.44±4.90 a | 37.44±3.75 a | 1 393.08±209.33 a | 12.56±1.01 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 61.78±6.00 a | 7.69±0.52 a | 51.67±5.34 a | 36.11±6.09 a | 1 190.04±259.37 a | 12.67±1.12 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 51.44±6.56 b | 7.77±0.53 a | 53.67±6.00 a | 32.44±3.32 a | 1 110.09±206.72 a | 12.33±1.00 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 56.56±5.08 a | 7.61±0.45 a | 54.22±3.27 a | 32.89±4.96 a | 1 134.49±210.24 a | 12.33±0.87 a |
Table 2 Agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments after 45 days of transplantation
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 株高/cm | 茎围/cm | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 最大叶面积/cm2 | 有效叶数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 67.67±9.75 a | 7.62±0.49 a | 57.78±4.09 a | 36.00±4.33 a | 1 326.18±234.53 a | 12.33±1.00 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 73.00±7.78 a | 7.64±0.35 a | 59.78±3.77 a | 39.67±3.35 a | 1 508.77±201.81 a | 12.67±1.00 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 70.11±7.68 a | 7.83±0.32 a | 58.44±4.90 a | 37.44±3.75 a | 1 393.08±209.33 a | 12.56±1.01 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 61.78±6.00 a | 7.69±0.52 a | 51.67±5.34 a | 36.11±6.09 a | 1 190.04±259.37 a | 12.67±1.12 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 51.44±6.56 b | 7.77±0.53 a | 53.67±6.00 a | 32.44±3.32 a | 1 110.09±206.72 a | 12.33±1.00 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 56.56±5.08 a | 7.61±0.45 a | 54.22±3.27 a | 32.89±4.96 a | 1 134.49±210.24 a | 12.33±0.87 a |
| 农艺性状 | 变异来源 | 平方和 | 自由度 | 均方 | F值 | p值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 株高 | 灌溉方式 | 2 787.85 | 1 | 2 787.85 | 26.21 | 0.04 |
| 施肥方式 | 66.33 | 2 | 33.17 | 0.66 | 0.52 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 563.59 | 2 | 281.80 | 5.64 | 0.01 | |
| 最大叶长 | 灌溉方式 | 405.63 | 1 | 405.63 | 7.33 | 0.11 |
| 施肥方式 | 40.48 | 2 | 20.24 | 1.01 | 0.37 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 10.70 | 2 | 5.35 | 0.27 | 0.77 | |
| 最大叶宽 | 灌溉方式 | 204.17 | 1 | 204.17 | 3.32 | 0.21 |
| 施肥方式 | 9.48 | 2 | 4.74 | 0.26 | 0.77 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 124.00 | 2 | 62.00 | 3.42 | 0.04 | |
| 茎围 | 灌溉方式 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.98 |
| 施肥方式 | 0.04 | 2 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.87 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 0.31 | 2 | 0.15 | 0.98 | 0.38 | |
| 最大叶面积 | 灌溉方式 | 944 242.00 | 1 | 944 242.00 | 6.67 | 0.12 |
| 施肥方式 | 28 501.02 | 2 | 14 250.51 | 0.31 | 0.74 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 155 321.66 | 2 | 77 660.83 | 1.69 | 0.20 | |
| 有效叶数 | 灌溉方式 | 0.07 | 1 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.91 |
| 施肥方式 | 0.04 | 2 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.98 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 1.15 | 2 | 0.57 | 0.65 | 0.53 |
Table 3 Variance analysis of agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments after 45 days of transplantation
| 农艺性状 | 变异来源 | 平方和 | 自由度 | 均方 | F值 | p值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 株高 | 灌溉方式 | 2 787.85 | 1 | 2 787.85 | 26.21 | 0.04 |
| 施肥方式 | 66.33 | 2 | 33.17 | 0.66 | 0.52 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 563.59 | 2 | 281.80 | 5.64 | 0.01 | |
| 最大叶长 | 灌溉方式 | 405.63 | 1 | 405.63 | 7.33 | 0.11 |
| 施肥方式 | 40.48 | 2 | 20.24 | 1.01 | 0.37 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 10.70 | 2 | 5.35 | 0.27 | 0.77 | |
| 最大叶宽 | 灌溉方式 | 204.17 | 1 | 204.17 | 3.32 | 0.21 |
| 施肥方式 | 9.48 | 2 | 4.74 | 0.26 | 0.77 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 124.00 | 2 | 62.00 | 3.42 | 0.04 | |
| 茎围 | 灌溉方式 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.98 |
| 施肥方式 | 0.04 | 2 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.87 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 0.31 | 2 | 0.15 | 0.98 | 0.38 | |
| 最大叶面积 | 灌溉方式 | 944 242.00 | 1 | 944 242.00 | 6.67 | 0.12 |
| 施肥方式 | 28 501.02 | 2 | 14 250.51 | 0.31 | 0.74 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 155 321.66 | 2 | 77 660.83 | 1.69 | 0.20 | |
| 有效叶数 | 灌溉方式 | 0.07 | 1 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.91 |
| 施肥方式 | 0.04 | 2 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.98 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 1.15 | 2 | 0.57 | 0.65 | 0.53 |
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 株高/cm | 茎围/cm | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 最大叶面积/cm2 | 有效叶数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 169.44±3.84 a | 11.26±0.50 a | 71.89±4.14 b | 47.56±6.06 b | 2 159.70±206.55 b | 22.56±1.33 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 178.33±5.60 a | 11.80±0.40 a | 77.33±2.35 a | 54.22±2.44 a | 2 660.81±148.19 a | 22.11±0.78 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 180.89±5.95 a | 11.62±0.33 a | 78.33±2.35 a | 54.22±2.44 a | 2 622.32±186.19 a | 22.22±0.83 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 167.67±3.87 a | 10.52±0.72 a | 74.44±2.13 a | 44.00±2.12 a | 2 078.62±122.11 a | 21.33±1.32 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 150.44±2.65 a | 10.79±0.50 a | 72.22±2.59 a | 46.89±2.20 a | 2 148.56±122.82 a | 22.11±0.78 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 168.00±3.94 a | 10.59±0.57 a | 72.22±2.64 a | 42.44±2.30 a | 1 947.28±163.18 b | 22.56±0.88 a |
Table 4 Agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments after 75 days of transplantation
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 株高/cm | 茎围/cm | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 最大叶面积/cm2 | 有效叶数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 169.44±3.84 a | 11.26±0.50 a | 71.89±4.14 b | 47.56±6.06 b | 2 159.70±206.55 b | 22.56±1.33 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 178.33±5.60 a | 11.80±0.40 a | 77.33±2.35 a | 54.22±2.44 a | 2 660.81±148.19 a | 22.11±0.78 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 180.89±5.95 a | 11.62±0.33 a | 78.33±2.35 a | 54.22±2.44 a | 2 622.32±186.19 a | 22.22±0.83 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 167.67±3.87 a | 10.52±0.72 a | 74.44±2.13 a | 44.00±2.12 a | 2 078.62±122.11 a | 21.33±1.32 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 150.44±2.65 a | 10.79±0.50 a | 72.22±2.59 a | 46.89±2.20 a | 2 148.56±122.82 a | 22.11±0.78 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 168.00±3.94 a | 10.59±0.57 a | 72.22±2.64 a | 42.44±2.30 a | 1 947.28±163.18 b | 22.56±0.88 a |
| 农艺性状 | 变异来源 | 平方和 | 自由度 | 均方 | F值 | p值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 株高 | 灌溉方式 | 2 716.46 | 1 | 2 716.46 | 10.91 | 0.08 |
| 施肥方式 | 918.93 | 2 | 459.46 | 2.29 | 0.11 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 1 545.37 | 2 | 772.69 | 3.85 | 8.00 | |
| 最大叶长 | 灌溉方式 | 112.67 | 1 | 112.67 | 3.63 | 0.20 |
| 施肥方式 | 43.82 | 2 | 21.91 | 3.97 | 0.03 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 202.33 | 2 | 101.17 | 18.32 | 0 | |
| 最大叶宽 | 灌溉方式 | 675.57 | 1 | 675.57 | 25.06 | 0.04 |
| 施肥方式 | 209.15 | 2 | 104.57 | 12.78 | 0 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 103.82 | 2 | 51.91 | 6.35 | 0 | |
| 茎围 | 灌溉方式 | 11.57 | 1 | 11.57 | 167.56 | 0.01 |
| 施肥方式 | 11.57 | 1 | 11.57 | 167.56 | 0.01 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 0.25 | 2 | 0.13 | 0.45 | 0.64 | |
| 最大叶面积 | 灌溉方式 | 2 413 126.56 | 1 | 2 413 126.56 | 176.72 | 0.01 |
| 施肥方式 | 740 001.15 | 2 | 370 000.58 | 16.87 | 0 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 847 807.07 | 2 | 423 903.53 | 19.32 | 0 | |
| 有效叶数 | 灌溉方式 | 1.19 | 1 | 1.19 | 4.92 | 0.16 |
| 施肥方式 | 1.82 | 2 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.44 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 6.04 | 2 | 3.02 | 2.78 | 0.07 |
Table 5 Variance analysis of agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments after 75 days of transplantation
| 农艺性状 | 变异来源 | 平方和 | 自由度 | 均方 | F值 | p值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 株高 | 灌溉方式 | 2 716.46 | 1 | 2 716.46 | 10.91 | 0.08 |
| 施肥方式 | 918.93 | 2 | 459.46 | 2.29 | 0.11 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 1 545.37 | 2 | 772.69 | 3.85 | 8.00 | |
| 最大叶长 | 灌溉方式 | 112.67 | 1 | 112.67 | 3.63 | 0.20 |
| 施肥方式 | 43.82 | 2 | 21.91 | 3.97 | 0.03 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 202.33 | 2 | 101.17 | 18.32 | 0 | |
| 最大叶宽 | 灌溉方式 | 675.57 | 1 | 675.57 | 25.06 | 0.04 |
| 施肥方式 | 209.15 | 2 | 104.57 | 12.78 | 0 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 103.82 | 2 | 51.91 | 6.35 | 0 | |
| 茎围 | 灌溉方式 | 11.57 | 1 | 11.57 | 167.56 | 0.01 |
| 施肥方式 | 11.57 | 1 | 11.57 | 167.56 | 0.01 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 0.25 | 2 | 0.13 | 0.45 | 0.64 | |
| 最大叶面积 | 灌溉方式 | 2 413 126.56 | 1 | 2 413 126.56 | 176.72 | 0.01 |
| 施肥方式 | 740 001.15 | 2 | 370 000.58 | 16.87 | 0 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 847 807.07 | 2 | 423 903.53 | 19.32 | 0 | |
| 有效叶数 | 灌溉方式 | 1.19 | 1 | 1.19 | 4.92 | 0.16 |
| 施肥方式 | 1.82 | 2 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.44 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 6.04 | 2 | 3.02 | 2.78 | 0.07 |
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 株高/cm | 茎围/cm | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 最大叶面积/cm2 | 有效叶数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 162.78±3.67 b | 11.97±0.38 a | 65.11±3.89 b | 40.33±1.58 a | 1 666.90±130.18 a | 15.33±1.00 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 172.78±3.15 a | 12.26±0.44 a | 69.89±4.51 a | 41.00±1.73 a | 1 814.39±67.25 a | 15.78±0.67 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 170.22±3.31 a | 12.36±0.43 a | 69.00±2.96 b | 40.44±1.33 a | 1 769.76±75.28 a | 15.67±0.87 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 171.44±2.55 a | 11.56±0.44 a | 72.56±2.19 a | 40.33±1.58 a | 1 857.46±104.51 a | 15.89±1.17 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 159.56±3.28 a | 11.38±0.47 a | 71.11±2.20 a | 40.44±1.88 a | 1 825.17±107.70 a | 14.89±0.78 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 172.33±3.12 a | 11.80±0.52 a | 70.22±1.39 a | 40.00±2.29 a | 1 782.17±106.36 a | 15.00±1.41 a |
Table 6 Agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments after 105 days of transplantation
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 株高/cm | 茎围/cm | 最大叶长/cm | 最大叶宽/cm | 最大叶面积/cm2 | 有效叶数 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 162.78±3.67 b | 11.97±0.38 a | 65.11±3.89 b | 40.33±1.58 a | 1 666.90±130.18 a | 15.33±1.00 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 172.78±3.15 a | 12.26±0.44 a | 69.89±4.51 a | 41.00±1.73 a | 1 814.39±67.25 a | 15.78±0.67 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 170.22±3.31 a | 12.36±0.43 a | 69.00±2.96 b | 40.44±1.33 a | 1 769.76±75.28 a | 15.67±0.87 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 171.44±2.55 a | 11.56±0.44 a | 72.56±2.19 a | 40.33±1.58 a | 1 857.46±104.51 a | 15.89±1.17 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 159.56±3.28 a | 11.38±0.47 a | 71.11±2.20 a | 40.44±1.88 a | 1 825.17±107.70 a | 14.89±0.78 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 172.33±3.12 a | 11.80±0.52 a | 70.22±1.39 a | 40.00±2.29 a | 1 782.17±106.36 a | 15.00±1.41 a |
| 农艺性状 | 变异来源 | 平方和 | 自由度 | 均方 | F值 | p值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 株高 | 灌溉方式 | 85.63 | 1 | 85.63 | 2.00 | 0.29 |
| 施肥方式 | 202.93 | 2 | 101.46 | 11.81 | 0 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 319.15 | 2 | 159.57 | 18.58 | 0 | |
| 最大叶长 | 灌溉方式 | 146.69 | 1 | 146.69 | 2.80 | 0.24 |
| 施肥方式 | 25.04 | 2 | 12.52 | 1.70 | 0.19 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 116.15 | 2 | 58.07 | 7.89 | 0 | |
| 最大叶宽 | 灌溉方式 | 1.50 | 1 | 1.50 | 0.55 | 0.54 |
| 施肥方式 | 2.48 | 2 | 1.24 | 0.48 | 0.62 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 0.78 | 2 | 0.39 | 0.15 | 0.86 | |
| 茎围 | 灌溉方式 | 4.57 | 1 | 4.57 | 29.63 | 0.03 |
| 施肥方式 | 1.28 | 2 | 0.64 | 3.48 | 0.04 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 0.73 | 2 | 0.36 | 1.97 | 0.15 | |
| 最大叶面积 | 灌溉方式 | 68 537.44 | 1 | 68 537.44 | 2.02 | 0.29 |
| 施肥方式 | 32 564.23 | 2 | 16 282.11 | 2.28 | 0.11 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 96 090.52 | 2 | 48 045.26 | 6.73 | 0 | |
| 有效叶数 | 灌溉方式 | 1.50 | 1 | 1.50 | 3.00 | 0.23 |
| 施肥方式 | 0.93 | 2 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.65 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 5.44 | 2 | 2.72 | 2.60 | 0.09 |
Table 7 Variance analysis of agronomic traits of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments after 105 days of transplantation
| 农艺性状 | 变异来源 | 平方和 | 自由度 | 均方 | F值 | p值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 株高 | 灌溉方式 | 85.63 | 1 | 85.63 | 2.00 | 0.29 |
| 施肥方式 | 202.93 | 2 | 101.46 | 11.81 | 0 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 319.15 | 2 | 159.57 | 18.58 | 0 | |
| 最大叶长 | 灌溉方式 | 146.69 | 1 | 146.69 | 2.80 | 0.24 |
| 施肥方式 | 25.04 | 2 | 12.52 | 1.70 | 0.19 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 116.15 | 2 | 58.07 | 7.89 | 0 | |
| 最大叶宽 | 灌溉方式 | 1.50 | 1 | 1.50 | 0.55 | 0.54 |
| 施肥方式 | 2.48 | 2 | 1.24 | 0.48 | 0.62 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 0.78 | 2 | 0.39 | 0.15 | 0.86 | |
| 茎围 | 灌溉方式 | 4.57 | 1 | 4.57 | 29.63 | 0.03 |
| 施肥方式 | 1.28 | 2 | 0.64 | 3.48 | 0.04 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 0.73 | 2 | 0.36 | 1.97 | 0.15 | |
| 最大叶面积 | 灌溉方式 | 68 537.44 | 1 | 68 537.44 | 2.02 | 0.29 |
| 施肥方式 | 32 564.23 | 2 | 16 282.11 | 2.28 | 0.11 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 96 090.52 | 2 | 48 045.26 | 6.73 | 0 | |
| 有效叶数 | 灌溉方式 | 1.50 | 1 | 1.50 | 3.00 | 0.23 |
| 施肥方式 | 0.93 | 2 | 0.46 | 0.44 | 0.65 | |
| 灌溉方式×施肥方式 | 5.44 | 2 | 2.72 | 2.60 | 0.09 |
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 叶片结构 | 身份 | 油分 | 色度 | 颜色 | 成熟度 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有 | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有 | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有+ | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 疏松 | 中等- | 有 | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有 | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有+ | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 |
Table 8 Appearance quality of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 叶片结构 | 身份 | 油分 | 色度 | 颜色 | 成熟度 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有 | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有 | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有+ | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 疏松 | 中等- | 有 | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有 | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 疏松 | 中等 | 有+ | 中 | 橘黄 | 成熟 |
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 叶片结构 | 身份 | 油分 | 色度 | 颜色 | 成熟度 | 总分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 8.70 | 7.50 | 6.50 | 5.00 | 7.80 | 7.50 | 7.21 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 8.90 | 8.20 | 7.20 | 5.20 | 8.50 | 8.50 | 7.80 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 9.20 | 8.50 | 8.20 | 5.30 | 8.70 | 8.80 | 8.19 | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 8.80 | 7.80 | 6.70 | 5.20 | 8.10 | 7.80 | 7.44 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 9.10 | 8.30 | 7.40 | 5.40 | 8.40 | 8.70 | 7.94 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 9.40 | 9.00 | 8.50 | 5.50 | 9.20 | 9.20 | 8.53 |
Table 9 Appearance quality score of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 叶片结构 | 身份 | 油分 | 色度 | 颜色 | 成熟度 | 总分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 8.70 | 7.50 | 6.50 | 5.00 | 7.80 | 7.50 | 7.21 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 8.90 | 8.20 | 7.20 | 5.20 | 8.50 | 8.50 | 7.80 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 9.20 | 8.50 | 8.20 | 5.30 | 8.70 | 8.80 | 8.19 | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 8.80 | 7.80 | 6.70 | 5.20 | 8.10 | 7.80 | 7.44 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 9.10 | 8.30 | 7.40 | 5.40 | 8.40 | 8.70 | 7.94 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 9.40 | 9.00 | 8.50 | 5.50 | 9.20 | 9.20 | 8.53 |
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 叶面密度/(g·m-2) | 抗张力/N | 平衡含水率/% | 含梗率/% | 厚度/mm | 抗张强度/(kN·m-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 67.87 b | 1.58 c | 12.85 b | 33.13 a | 0.17 a | 0.10 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 75.31 b | 1.95 a | 14.15 a | 30.37 b | 0.19 a | 0.12 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 80.49 a | 1.65 b | 14.33 a | 30.29 b | 0.19 a | 0.12 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 89.42 b | 1.86 a | 13.43 a | 28.70 a | 0.21 a | 0.14 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 86.15 b | 1.84 a | 11.19 b | 27.78 a | 0.23 a | 0.16 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 95.68 a | 1.89 a | 13.69 a | 27.84 a | 0.20 a | 0.15 a |
Table 10 Physical characteristics of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 叶面密度/(g·m-2) | 抗张力/N | 平衡含水率/% | 含梗率/% | 厚度/mm | 抗张强度/(kN·m-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 67.87 b | 1.58 c | 12.85 b | 33.13 a | 0.17 a | 0.10 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 75.31 b | 1.95 a | 14.15 a | 30.37 b | 0.19 a | 0.12 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 80.49 a | 1.65 b | 14.33 a | 30.29 b | 0.19 a | 0.12 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 89.42 b | 1.86 a | 13.43 a | 28.70 a | 0.21 a | 0.14 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 86.15 b | 1.84 a | 11.19 b | 27.78 a | 0.23 a | 0.16 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 95.68 a | 1.89 a | 13.69 a | 27.84 a | 0.20 a | 0.15 a |
灌溉 方式 | 施肥方式 | 总糖含量/% | 还原糖含量/% | 烟碱含量/% | 钾含量/% | 氯含量/% | 总氮含量/% | 两糖比 | 糖碱比 | 氮碱比 | 钾氯比 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 24.63 c | 19.64 c | 2.77 a | 1.62 b | 0.52 a | 2.16 a | 0.80 b | 7.10 c | 0.78 a | 3.12 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 27.19 b | 22.94 b | 2.26 b | 1.88 a | 0.61 a | 1.80 a | 0.84 b | 10.15 b | 0.79 a | 3.08 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 30.76 a | 27.87 a | 2.09 b | 1.89 a | 0.51 a | 1.44 b | 0.91 a | 13.33 a | 0.69 b | 3.71 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 25.41 b | 20.82 b | 2.91 a | 1.66 b | 0.68 a | 2.32 a | 0.82 a | 7.15 c | 0.80 b | 2.44 c |
| 喷施钾肥 | 26.16 b | 21.75 b | 2.25 b | 1.76 ab | 0.61 a | 2.12 a | 0.83 a | 9.65 b | 0.94 a | 2.89 b | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 30.20 a | 26.63 a | 2.21 b | 1.84 a | 0.34 b | 1.62 b | 0.88 a | 12.08 a | 0.74 b | 5.41 a |
Table 11 Chemical composition of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments
灌溉 方式 | 施肥方式 | 总糖含量/% | 还原糖含量/% | 烟碱含量/% | 钾含量/% | 氯含量/% | 总氮含量/% | 两糖比 | 糖碱比 | 氮碱比 | 钾氯比 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 24.63 c | 19.64 c | 2.77 a | 1.62 b | 0.52 a | 2.16 a | 0.80 b | 7.10 c | 0.78 a | 3.12 a |
| 喷施钾肥 | 27.19 b | 22.94 b | 2.26 b | 1.88 a | 0.61 a | 1.80 a | 0.84 b | 10.15 b | 0.79 a | 3.08 a | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 30.76 a | 27.87 a | 2.09 b | 1.89 a | 0.51 a | 1.44 b | 0.91 a | 13.33 a | 0.69 b | 3.71 a | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 25.41 b | 20.82 b | 2.91 a | 1.66 b | 0.68 a | 2.32 a | 0.82 a | 7.15 c | 0.80 b | 2.44 c |
| 喷施钾肥 | 26.16 b | 21.75 b | 2.25 b | 1.76 ab | 0.61 a | 2.12 a | 0.83 a | 9.65 b | 0.94 a | 2.89 b | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 30.20 a | 26.63 a | 2.21 b | 1.84 a | 0.34 b | 1.62 b | 0.88 a | 12.08 a | 0.74 b | 5.41 a |
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 香气质 | 香气量 | 透发性 | 杂气 | 细腻度 | 柔和度 | 圆润感 | 刺激性 | 干燥感 | 余味 | 总分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 11.0 | 11.5 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 61.5 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 62.5 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 12.0 | 12.5 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 63.0 | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 60.5 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 11.0 | 11.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 63.0 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 12.5 | 12.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 64.0 |
Table 12 Sensory quality score of flue-cured tobacco under different treatments
| 灌溉方式 | 施肥方式 | 香气质 | 香气量 | 透发性 | 杂气 | 细腻度 | 柔和度 | 圆润感 | 刺激性 | 干燥感 | 余味 | 总分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 围沟灌溉 | 清水 | 11.0 | 11.5 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 61.5 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 62.5 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 12.0 | 12.5 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 63.0 | |
| 滴灌灌溉 | 清水 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 60.5 |
| 喷施钾肥 | 11.0 | 11.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 63.0 | |
| 喷施钾肥+蔗糖脂肪酸酯 | 12.5 | 12.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 64.0 |
| [1] | 黄宁,周建云,赵一君,等. 烟草靶斑病病原鉴定及室内药剂毒力测定[J]. 山地农业生物学报,2023(3):70-75. |
| HUANG N, ZHOU J Y, ZHAO Y J,et al. Identification of the pathogens of target spot disease and screening of fungicides in tobacco[J]. Journal of Mountain Agriculture and Biology,2023(3):70-75. | |
| [2] | 喻保华,寇小杰,孙亚楠. 中国烤烟生产技术进步贡献率实证分析[J]. 安徽农业科学,2022,50(1):244-248. |
| YU B H, KOU X J, SUN Y N. Empirical analysis on contribution rate of tobacco production technology progress in China[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences,2022,50(1):244-248. | |
| [3] | 高卫红,林翠丽. 不同有机肥种类及不同施用时间对烤烟生长和产值量的影响[J]. 南方农业,2020,14(33):183-184. |
| GAO W H, LIN C L. Effects of different organic fertilizer types and different application time on growth and output of flue-cured tobacco[J]. South China Agriculture,2020,14(33):183-184. | |
| [4] | 李文婷,喻子豪,范丹,等. 灌溉方式差异对烟叶质量的影响:基于攀枝花市烟草调研的实证分析[J]. 中国农学通报,2023,39(21):26-32. |
| LI W T, YU Z H, FAN D,et al. Effects of different irrigation methods on the quality of tobacco-leaves:an empirical analysis based on tobacco survey in Panzhihua City[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin,2023,39(21):26-32. | |
| [5] | 谭荣雷. 移栽时期和种植密度对雪茄烟生长发育和生理特性的影响[D]. 武汉:华中农业大学,2023. |
| TAN R L. Effects of transplanting time and planting density on growth and physiological characteristics of cigar plants[D]. Wuhan:Huazhong Agricultural University,2023. | |
| [6] | 吴创,万德建,李秀妮,等. 酒糟有机肥对泸州雪茄烟叶品质的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料,2018(4):137-142,174. |
| WU C, WAN D J, LI X N,et al. Effects of wine lees bio-organic manure on the quality of cigar tobacco leaves in Luzhou[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China,2018(4):137-142,174. | |
| [7] | 贺国强,黄宗伟,张立锟,等. 不同施肥处理下烤后烟叶化学成分特点与综合评价[J]. 浙江农业科学,2023,64(1):225-229. |
| HE G Q, HUANG Z W, ZHANG L K,et al. Chemical composition characteristics and comprehensive evaluation of tobacco leaves after curing under different fertilizer conditions[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences,2023,64(1):225-229. | |
| [8] | CAVLEK M, TURSIC I, COSIC T. Study of growing flue-cured tobacco in Croatia under various conditions of irrigation and nitrogen nutrition[J]. Beiträge Zur Tabakforschung International,2006,22(2):125-132. |
| [9] | RADOJIČIĆ V, DJULANČIĆ N, SRBINOSKA M. Influence of mineral matter content on static burning rate of Virginia tobacco from different production areas in Serbia[J]. Industrial Crops and Products,2015,67:381-386. |
| [10] | DING J, WEI K S, SHANG X C,et al. Bacterial dynamic of flue-cured tobacco leaf surface caused by change of environmental conditions[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology,2023,14:1280500. |
| [11] | 陈思原,康辉,卢平,等. 水肥一体化技术下减量施肥对高氯土壤烤烟生长及产质量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学,2024,52(13):60-68. |
| CHEN S Y, KANG H, LU P,et al. Effects of reduced fertilization on growth,yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco in high chlorine soil under water and fertilizer integration technology[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2024,52(13):60-68. | |
| [12] | 于少藤. 烟叶有益微生物的筛选及其对烟叶品质改良的研究[D]. 南京:南京农业大学,2020. |
| YU S T. Screening of beneficial microorganisms in tobacco leaves and their research on improving tobacco quality[D]. Nanjing:Nanjing Agricultural University,2020. | |
| [13] | 戴勋,谢新乔,胡保文,等. 有机无机肥对德宏烟区烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学,2022,50(20):125-129. |
| DAI X, XIE X Q, HU B W,et al. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco in Dehong tobacco-growing area[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2022,50(20):125-129. | |
| [14] | 王全贞,潘义宏,杨森,等. 不同钾肥施用方式和施用量对烟叶品质和经济性状的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学,2018,46(8):84-88. |
| WANG Q Z, PAN Y H, YANG S,et al. Effects of different potassium fertilizer application methods and amount on tobacco quality and economic traits[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2018,46(8):84-88. | |
| [15] | 李湘伟,谢新乔,杨继周,等. 烤烟钾、氯质量分数及钾氯比对致香物质含量的影响[J]. 昆明学院学报,2021,43(6):31-39. |
| LI X W, XIE X Q, YANG J Z,et al. Effects of potassium chlorine quality scores and potassium-chlorine ratio on aroma content in flue-cured tobacco[J]. Journal of Kunming University,2021,43(6):31-39. | |
| [16] | 邓彬琳. 不同栽培模式下植烟土壤养分动态变化及烟叶品质分析[D]. 重庆:重庆三峡学院,2021. |
| DENG B L. Dynamic changes of soil nutrients and analysis of tobacco leaf quality under different cultivation modes[D]. Chongqing:Chongqing Three Gorges University,2021. | |
| [17] | 刘流,牛莉莉,陈晨,等. 不同灌溉方式对植烟土壤氯与烟叶钾氯含量的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学,2022,50(7):31-37. |
| LIU L, NIU L L, CHEN C,et al. Effects of different irrigation methods on chlorine content in tobacco-growing soil and potassium and chlorine content in tobacco leaves[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences,2022,50(7):31-37. | |
| [18] | 陈梦娟. 新时代烟草行业高质量发展的相关措施探讨[J]. 财经界,2023(33):21-23. |
| CHEN M J. Discussion on relevant measures for high-quality development of tobacco industry in the new era[J]. Money China,2023(33):21-23. | |
| [19] | 赵阳. 曲靖烟区大田期日照时数与烟叶品质的关系[D]. 郑州:河南农业大学,2012. |
| ZHAO Y. Relationship between sunshine hours during field period and tobacco quality in Qujing planting area[D]. Zhengzhou:Henan Agricultural University,2012. | |
| [20] | 任聪. 大麦掩青对改善临颍植烟土壤的作用[J]. 北京农业,2016(4):74-76. |
| REN C. Effect of barley shading on improving tobacco-growing soil in Linying[J]. Beijing Agriculture,2016(4):74-76. | |
| [21] | 李良木,温心怡,卢秀萍,等. 曲靖中海拔烟区土壤—烤烟钼含量状况及对烟叶感官质量的影响[J]. 中国土壤与肥料,2019(2):145-151. |
| LI L M, WEN X Y, LU X P,et al. The status of molybdenum in flue-cured tobacco and soil and its effects on tobacco quality in Qujing tobacco-growing area[J]. Soil and Fertilizer Sciences in China,2019(2):145-151. | |
| [22] | 郭佳毅,马啸,张凯,等. 不同栽培措施对丰都烟区云烟116生长、产量和质量的影响[J]. 扬州大学学报(农业与生命科学版),2023,44(6):36-46. |
| GUO J Y, MA X, ZHANG K,et al. Effects of different cultivation practices on the growth,yield and quality of Yunyan 116 in Fengdu tobacco planting area[J]. Journal of Yangzhou University(Agricultural and Life Science Edition),2023,44(6):36-46. | |
| [23] | 郑天军,阎轶峰. 烟:稻轮作模式中钾肥一体化施用对烟叶产量和品质的影响[J]. 现代农业科技,2023(19):42-44. |
| ZHENG T J, YAN Y F. Effect of integrated application of potassium fertilizer on yield and quality of tobacco leaves in tobacco-rice rotation mode[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology,2023(19):42-44. | |
| [24] | 田明慧,滕凯,朱子健,等. 断根对湘西烤烟烟碱与钾含量及经济性状的影响[J]. 作物研究,2023,37(6):615-619. |
| TIAN M H, TENG K, ZHU Z J,et al. Effects of root cutting on nicotine and potassium content and economic characters of flue-cured tobacco in western Hunan[J]. Crop Research,2023,37(6):615-619. | |
| [25] | 黄跃,谢晏芬,朱宣全,等. 植烟区烟叶氯含量风险评估及影响因素分析[J]. 中国农业科技导报,2024,26(6):206-213. |
| HUANG Y, XIE Y F, ZHU X Q,et al. Risk assessment and influencing factors analysis of chlorine content in tobacco leaves in tobacco planting areas[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology,2024,26(6):206-213. | |
| [26] | 范杰. 安徽省主产烟区烤烟外观质量与主要化学成分分析[D]. 北京:中国农业科学院,2012. |
| FAN J. Analysis on appearance quality and chemical components of flue-cured tobacco leaves in Anhui[D]. Beijing:Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,2012. | |
| [27] | 刘鹍鹏,杨正权,朱溥,等. 水肥一体化管理对烤烟农艺性状及经济效益的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学,2020,48(8):94-102. |
| LIU K P, YANG Z Q, ZHU P,et al. Effects of integrated management of water and fertilizer on agronomic traits and economic benefits of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences,2020,48(8):94-102. | |
| [28] | 刘华山,韩锦峰,曾涛,等. 烤烟喷施降碱增钾制剂的生理效应及对品质的影响[J]. 华北农学报,2005,20(3):46-49. |
| LIU H S, HAN J F, ZENG T,et al. Effects of reagent for decrease nicotine content and elevation potassium content on physiological properties and quality of flue-cured tobacco[J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica,2005,20(3):46-49. |
| [1] | LI Xuejun, LI Jianhua, GUO Jing, WANG Yale, SUN Jiping, SUN Huan, PING Wenli, LI Lihua. Creation and analysis of TMV⁃resistant flue⁃cured tobacco line TMV⁃3 based on variety Qushou 1 [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2026, 67(2): 361-368. |
| [2] | HUANG Shuyong, ZAN Jingyi, WANG Hui, WANG Xiaodong, WANG Xiaoguo. Relationship between composition of soil particle size and quality of flue⁃cured tobacco in western Henan [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2026, 67(2): 369-375. |
| [3] | ZHANG Shuhao, WANG Yujie, HE Bing, DU Jingshan, GE Menglong, WANG Hui, HE Mengying, JIAO Nianyuan, GAO Jiakai, WANG Yanfang, DENG Xuxian, LIU Ling. Effects of nitrogen application level and intercropping sweet potato on the growth, photosynthetic characteristics and nitrogen metabolism enzyme activities of flue-cured tobacco [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(9): 2117-2125. |
| [4] | JIN Lei, ZHANG Chi, SHAO Xiaodong, DU Jun, TIAN Jingjing, LIU Yu. Assessment of nitrogen content in flue-cured tobacco leaves based on UAV-loaded multiple spectrum [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(5): 1158-1162. |
| [5] | YANG Dehai, MA Junjie, PENG Xiaoci, ZHAO Weijin, XIE Yiyan, YANG Yan, FENG Canhu, PENG Ren, HUANG Wei, XUE Bo, WANG Yannan, OUYANG Chengren. Effects of different topping measures on yield and quality of K326 in Dali tobacco-growing areas [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(5): 1163-1166. |
| [6] | LI Qian, ZHANG Xiang, LI Liang, SI Xianzong, SUO Yanyan, CHENG Peijun, LI Hongliang, LI Jianhua, SONG Zhengxiong. Effects of fertilizer synergists on soil nutrients, agronomic traits and economic characteristics of tobacco [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(12): 2910-2915. |
| [7] | ZHU Hongqiang, SHI Nuo, ZHOU Yanbin, DAI Huijuan, LYU Penghui, LIU Bo, WANG Shengfeng, MU Wenpo. Effects of organic fertilizer application rate on yield and quality of Yunyan 87 [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(12): 2916-2922. |
| [8] | XIE Yanfen, HUANG Yue, ZHAO Yuting, ZHANG Yanyan, ZHANG Guohong, FANG Zhipeng, WANG Wenbo, XU Desheng, HAN Jiabao, WANG Na. Effects of potassium fertilizer application rate on potassium accumulation in tobacco plants and soil microbial community [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(11): 2601-2606. |
| [9] | PAN Xuhao, CHEN Zhiliang, CHANG Aixia, GUAN Yu, ZHANG Zongjin, ZHANG Yu, LUO Chenggang, CAI Xianjie, DU Wei, DENG Yuxiang, GENG Ruimei, YAN Ding. Effects of foliar application of potassium fertilizer on Zhongchuan 208 in the western Panzhihua tobacco-growing area [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(11): 2607-2611. |
| [10] | 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. |
| [11] | LIU Guoxia, WANG Shaomei, XU Fangzheng, CHENG Tingming, MAO Dongping, ZHANG Guangyu, GENG Ruimei, JIANG Caihong, ZHU Qifa. Research on ecological adaptability positioning and screening of high quality flue-cured tobacco varieties (lines) in Southern Anhui [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(9): 2075-2085. |
| [12] | KANG Hui, CHEN Siyuan, LUO Yunxia, ZHANG Bao, MA Yangyang, ZHOU Hang, CHEN Hongli, YANG Aiyong. Research progress on potassium increase and chlorine reduction technology for flue-cured tobacco [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1351-1357. |
| [13] | CAI Yi, YANG Jian, YANG Yang, CHENG Zhimin, XIE Bing, TANG Ming, YANG Yide, YAN Min. Comprehensive evaluation of new flue-cured tobacco varieties in Yibin [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1346-1350. |
| [14] | SUN Yuxiao, TIAN Jianwei, YANG Haizhou, LIU Yan, NIE Bin, ZHANG Ningxin, WANG Gang, YIN Zhongchun, PENG Wuxing. Effects of partial replacement of chemical nitrogen with organic nitrogen on the yield, quality, and chemical composition of flue-cured tobacco [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(6): 1340-1345. |
| [15] | CHEN Zhiliang, ZHU Qifa, CAO Yanan, LIU Guoxia, CAI Xianjie, CHENG Tingming, MA Chengxin, WANG Ke, ZHANG Zhaoting, YANG Yuezhang, CHANG Aixia, LUO Chenggang, ZHANG Yu, GENG Ruimei, YAN Ding. Study on the optimal number of remained leaves for a new flue-cured tobacco variety Zhongchuan 208 in southern Anhui [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 65(4): 937-941. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||