| Literature DB >> 33199769 |
Zuoxin Tang1, Lulu Chen2, Zebin Chen1, Yali Fu3, Xiaolu Sun4, Binbin Wang5, Tiyuan Xia6.
Abstract
Flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) is a major cash crop in Yunnan, China, and the yield, chemical components, and their proportions decide the quality of tobacco leaves. To understand the effects of environmental factors (soil and climatic factors) on the yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco and determine the main regulating factors, we selected three flue-cured tobacco cultivars [K326, Yunyan87 (Yun87), and Honghuadajinyuan (Hongda)] grown in the Honghe Tobacco Zone. Indices related to yield and economic traits, chemical component properties, soil physical and chemical properties, and climatic factors at different planting sites, were evaluated. We used variance analysis, correlation analysis, and redundancy analysis (RDA) in this study. The results showed that the yield and chemical component properties of flue-cured tobacco, except for the number of left leaves and plant total sugar (PTS) content, were significantly correlated with climatic factors. Particularly, the yield increased in drier and sunnier weather. In terms of the carbon supply capacity, PTS, petroleum ether (PPE), and starch contents (PS) were higher under high-altitude and high-latitude climatic conditions, whereas for the nitrogen supply capacity, plant nitrogen (PTN) and nicotine (PN) contents improved under low-altitude and low-latitude climatic conditions. PTS, reducing sugar (PRS), potassium (PTK), chlorine (PCL), and PPE contents were negatively related to soil clay content, soil pH, and soil organic matter, whereas PRS and PTK contents were positively correlated with alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen (AN). According to RDA, the soil clay, AN, available phosphorus (AP), and soil chlorine content (SCL) strongly affected the quality of flue-cured tobacco. The quality of the K326 and Yun87 cultivars was mostly influenced by moisture, whereas the quality of the Hongda cultivar was mostly affected by temperature. In conclusion, compared with soil properties, climatic factors more significantly affect the yield and quality of Honghe flue-cured tobacco leaves.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33199769 PMCID: PMC7669845 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76919-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Basic information of flue-cured tobacco planting sites.
| Sites | Jianshui (JS) | Luxi (LX) | Mile (ML) | Shiping (SP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation | 1217–2051 | 1491–2071 | 1206–2154 | 1380–2198 |
| Longitude | 23.39–24.05 | 24.19–24.72 | 23.90–24.56 | 23.40–24.03 |
| Latitude | 102.38–103.13 | 103.39–104.01 | 103.16–103.63 | 102.22–102.67 |
| Soil type | Red soil, yellow soil, paddy soil | Red soil, yellow soil, paddy soil | Red soil, yellow soil, clay soil, purple soil | Red soil, yellow soil, paddy soil |
| Tobacco area (ha) | 5866.67 | 11,866.67 | 11,866.67 | 6833.33 |
| Tobacco area ratio (%) | 13.04 | 26.37 | 26.37 | 15.19 |
| Field rainfall (mm) | 573.38 ± 4.47 | 662.01 ± 3.73 | 579.13 ± 1.30 | 589.45 ± 5.18 |
| Field temperature (℃) | 18.1 ± 0.16 | 14.8 ± 0.10 | 16.5 ± 0.19 | 17.1 ± 0.23 |
| Field sunshine hours (h) | 623.40 ± 1.01 | 605.14 ± 0.82 | 625.11 ± 0.37 | 626.04 ± 0.76 |
| Field relative abundance (%) | 76.60 ± 0.05 | 78.81 ± 0.04 | 77.25 ± 0.05 | 76.97 ± 0.03 |
| Clay (%) | 54.46 ± 2.25 | 61.42 ± 1.26 | 59.18 ± 1.20 | 55.24 ± 2.38 |
| pH | 6.19 ± 0.16 | 6.69 ± 0.10 | 6.29 ± 0.11 | 5.52 ± 0.15 |
| SOM (g/kg) | 19.80 ± 1.81 | 25.65 ± 1.25 | 24.40 ± 1.16 | 23.78 ± 1.40 |
| AN (mg/kg) | 90.35 ± 7.82 | 102.47 ± 4.60 | 105.85 ± 4.49 | 109.17 ± 6.53 |
| AP (mg/kg) | 32.59 ± 5.01 | 30.78 ± 3.02 | 31.64 ± 3.45 | 37.45 ± 5.69 |
| AK (mg/kg) | 203.57 ± 16.84 | 218.60 ± 11.34 | 201.60 ± 10.16 | 188.72 ± 14.26 |
| CL-1 (mg/kg) | 11.78 ± 2.39 | 5.69 ± 0.67 | 7.69 ± 0.77 | 12.00 ± 1.74 |
The elevation, the longitude and the latitude is the range value of the sampling samples in Jianshui (JS), Luxi (LX), Mile (ML) and Shiping (SP) these four study sites. Soil type is determined by the classification of Chinese Soil Taxonomy (CST); Tobacco area is the planting area of flue-cured tobacco in Jianshui (JS), Luxi (LX), Mile (ML) and Shiping (SP) these four study sites; Tobacco area ratio is the proportion of the above planting areas that accounted for the total planting area in Hani-Yi Autonomous Prefecture of Honghe in 2015; the field rainfall, field temperature, field sunshine hours and field relative humidity mean the variation of rainfall, temperature, sunshine hours and relative humidity in the field time (from May to August). Soil clay, soil pH, soil organic matter (SOM), soil alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen (AN), soil available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK) and soil chlorine content (SCL), these data in the table are the means ± standard error.
Figure 1Distribution of soil samples of four main tobacco-growing sites [Jianshui (JS), Luxi (LX), Mile (ML) and Shiping (SP)] in Hani-Yi Autonomous Prefecture of Honghe. The elevation data were obtained from the Global Map data archives (https://globalmaps.github.io/), the spatial coordinate system is GCS-WGS84, with a 1-km resolution, and plot site distribution was according to our sampling point, with ArcGIS10.1.
Variations of tobacco-plant production properties.
| Yield (kg/ha) | Economic value (USD/ha) | Prop (%) | Left leaves | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JS | 9.23 ± 0.21b | 36.03 ± 0.17b | 95.83 ± 0.67a | 21.25 ± 0.23c |
| LX | 8.13 ± 0.06a | 36.41 ± 0.40b | 94.54 ± 0.28a | 19.19 ± 0.18a |
| ML | 9.05 ± 0.18b | 39.27 ± 0.67c | 93.49 ± 1.19a | 19.87 ± 0.21b |
| SP | 8.38 ± 0.15a | 34.19 ± 0.91a | 94.97 ± 1.10a | 18.80 ± 0.25a |
| JS | 9.04 ± 0.18b | 46.43 ± 0.94bc | 93.97 ± 0.34b | 18.27 ± 0.18b |
| LX | 8.83 ± 0.11b | 47.74 ± 0.84c | 91.25 ± 0.85a | 18.24 ± 0.17b |
| ML | 8.82 ± 0.03b | 44.09 ± 0.26ab | 91.18 ± 0.27a | 16.64 ± 0.15a |
| SP | 8.30 ± 0.18a | 42.09 ± 1.33a | 95.74 ± 0.91b | 18.31 ± 0.12b |
| JS | 8.34 ± 0.01a | 36.69 ± 0.72a | 92.88 ± 0.48a | 20.13 ± 0.13b |
| LX | 8.14 ± 0.01a | 36.85 ± 0.79a | 92.91 ± 0.27a | 19.50 ± 0.37a |
| ML | 9.62 ± 0.16b | 39.63 ± 0.62b | 94.68 ± 0.79a | 18.21 ± 0.27a |
| SP | 8.39 ± 0.02a | 36.32 ± 0.87a | 95.53 ± 0.88a | 19.20 ± 0.39ab |
| Site | 25.43 (< 0.001) | 10.05 (< 0.001) | 5.97 (< 0.001) | 23.20 (< 0.001) |
| Cultivar | 0.632 (0.534) | 158.41 (< 0.001) | 6.94 (0.001) | 79.44 (< 0.001) |
| Site × cultivar | 9.25 (< 0.001) | 6.94 (< 0.001) | 3.32 (0.004) | 11.80 (< 0.001) |
The yield is the weight of leaves samples; the Economic value is a value that flue-cured tobacco’s value multiplies with crop yield to establish overall crop economic value; Prop is the proportion of superior middle tobacco (middle grade levels plus superior grade levels); left leaves is the number of remaining effective leaves after removing the lowest leaves (lugs) and the apical meristem of flue-cured tobacco. Data in the table are the means ± standard error, and different letters indicate significant differences at 5% under Duncan’s test.
Variations of tobacco-plant quality properties.
| PTN (%) | PN (%) | PTS (%) | PRS (%) | PTK (%) | PCL (%) | PPE (%) | PS (%) | PSA | PNA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JS | 2.15 ± 0.08b | 3.04 ± 0.09c | 33.41 ± 0.85b | 26.31 ± 0.69a | 1.71 ± 0.08b | 0.44 ± 0.10ab | 5.42 ± 0.21ab | 3.38 ± 0.29a | 11.17 ± 0.50a | 0.71 ± 0.02a |
| LX | 1.82 ± 0.05a | 2.36 ± 0.11ab | 35.28 ± 0.54b | 27.96 ± 0.55a | 1.41 ± 0.06a | 0.62 ± 0.09b | 4.97 ± 0.14a | 4.92 ± 0.34b | 16.33 ± 1.01b | 0.80 ± 0.02ab |
| ML | 1.81 ± 0.06a | 2.18 ± 0.11a | 35.42 ± 0.75b | 28.09 ± 0.47a | 1.89 ± 0.05b | 0.32 ± 0.04a | 5.21 ± 0.11ab | 4.08 ± 0.29ab | 18.60 ± 1.72b | 0.87 ± 0.04b |
| SP | 2.09 ± 0.10b | 2.67 ± 0.10b | 31.04 ± 1.03a | 27.38 ± 0.82a | 1.94 ± 0.10c | 0.29 ± 0.08a | 5.54 ± 0.15b | 3.89 ± 0.60ab | 11.99 ± 0.76a | 0.78 ± 0.03ab |
| JS | 2.04 ± 0.07a | 2.58 ± 0.16ab | 33.83 ± 0.67a | 27.40 ± 0.61ab | 1.61 ± 0.07a | 0.33 ± 0.05ab | 5.35 ± 0.20ab | 5.38 ± 0.57b | 13.86 ± 0.88ba | 0.82 ± 0.04a |
| LX | 1.86 ± 0.08a | 2.36 ± 0.12a | 33.85 ± 0.83a | 27.05 ± 0.61a | 1.44 ± 0.05a | 0.33 ± 0.04b | 5.00 ± 0.08a | 4.67 ± 0.33ab | 15.76 ± 0.96a | 0.81 ± 0.02a |
| ML | 1.86 ± 0.06a | 2.45 ± 0.11a | 34.48 ± 0.83a | 29.41 ± 0.60b | 1.64 ± 0.09a | 0.24 ± 0.04ab | 5.39 ± 0.12ab | 4.77 ± 0.34ab | 15.48 ± 1.17a | 0.79 ± 0.02a |
| SP | 2.06 ± 0.09a | 2.90 ± 0.16b | 33.12 ± 1.14a | 29.11 ± 0.66ab | 1.93 ± 0.09b | 0.18 ± 0.02a | 5.65 ± 0.18b | 3.61 ± 0.43a | 12.36 ± 1.21a | 0.73 ± 0.04a |
| JS | 2.17 ± 0.08b | 3.01 ± 0.19a | 32.66 ± 1.13a | 25.75 ± 1.23ab | 1.58 ± 0.16a | 0.18 ± 0.02a | 6.60 ± 0.28b | 3.41 ± 0.21a | 11.38 ± 1.25a | 0.74 ± 0.04a |
| LX | 1.97 ± 0.14b | 2.82 ± 0.23a | 31.99 ± 0.97a | 24.87 ± 0.90a | 1.37 ± 0.09a | 0.29 ± 0.05a | 5.46 ± 0.22a | 4.11 ± 0.34ab | 12.13 ± 1.08a | 0.71 ± 0.03a |
| ML | 1.71 ± 0.06a | 2.21 ± 0.12a | 34.53 ± 0.81a | 27.81 ± 0.61bc | 1.93 ± 0.09a | 0.25 ± 0.02a | 5.70 ± 0.14a | 4.48 ± 0.33ab | 16.77 ± 1.01b | 0.81 ± 0.04a |
| SP | 2.11 ± 0.11ab | 2.93 ± 0.21a | 34.75 ± 1.06a | 29.79 ± 0.88c | 1.78 ± 0.15a | 0.24 ± 0.05a | 5.47 ± 0.19a | 4.82 ± 0.55b | 12.61 ± 1.22a | 0.73 ± 0.02a |
| Site | 10.67 (< 0.001) | 11.63 (< 0.001) | 2.59 (0.54) | 7.34 (< 0.001) | 13.34 (< 0.001) | 2.95 (0.034) | 7.04 (< 0.001) | 0.92 (0.431) | 10.53 (< 0.001) | 3.07 (0.0281) |
| Cultivar | 0.14 (0.872) | 1.41 (0.247) | 0.12 (0.891) | 2.59 (0.78) | 3.04 (0.050) | 3.70 (0.026) | 9.16 (< 0.001) | 2.00 (0.137) | 0.88 (0.417) | 2.02 (0.134) |
| Site × cultivar | 0.87 (0.518) | 2.25 (0.039) | 2.05 (0.059) | 2.28 (0.037) | 1.03 (0.409) | 1.28 (0.268) | 2.39 (0.019) | 2.59 (0.019) | 2.08 (0.057) | 2.33 (0.033) |
PTN, PN, PTS, PRS, PTK, PCL, PPE, PS, is the content of nitrogen, nicotine, total sugar, reducing sugar, potassium, chlorine, petroleum ether and starch content of leaves. We also showed the ratio of sugar/alkaloid (PSA) and the ratio of total N to total alkaloids (PNA) in this table. Values are means ± standard error. Means followed by the same letter for a given factor are not significantly different at P < 0.05 (Duncan’s test).
Relativity between yield and chemical compositions of tobacco leaves and major ecological factors.
| Clay (%) | pH | SOM (g/kg) | AN (mg/kg) | AP (mg/kg) | AK (mg/kg) | SCL (mg/kg) | FR (mm) | FT (℃) | FS (h) | FH (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yield (kg/ha) | − 0.548** | 0.185** | 0.535** | − 0.394** | |||||||
| Proportion (%) | − 0.169** | 0.128* | |||||||||
| Left leaves | − 0.139* | ||||||||||
| PTN (%) | − 0.130* | − 0.149* | |||||||||
| PN (%) | 0.203** | 0.128* | − 0.201** | ||||||||
| PTS (%) | − 0.133* | ||||||||||
| PRS (%) | − 0.126* | 0.145* | − 0.135* | 0.201** | |||||||
| PTK (%) | − 0.411** | 0.150* | 0.152* | − 0.333** | 0.274** | 0.346** | − 0.321** | ||||
| PCL (%) | − 0.127* | 0.216** | 0.133* | − 0.195** | − 0.213** | 0.202** | |||||
| PPE (%) | − 0.243** | − 0.174** | − 0.200** | 0.167** | − 0.288** | 0.385** | 0.294** | − 0.329** | |||
| PS (%) | 0.134* | − 0.210** | |||||||||
| PSA | − 0.150* | 0.171** | |||||||||
| PNA | − 0.237** | 0.185** |
Soil clay content (clay), soil pH (pH), soil organic matter (SOM), soil alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen (AN), soil available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK), soil chlorine content (SCL), and the rainfall (FR), temperature (FT), sunshine hours (FS) and relative humidity (FH) in the field time (from May to August). The yield is the weight of leaves samples; Prop is the proportion of superior middle tobacco (both middle and superior grades); Left leaves is the number of remaining effective leaves after removing the lowest leaves (lugs) and the apical meristem of flue-cured tobacco. PTN the total nitrogen content, PN the nicotine content, PTS the total sugar content, PRS the reducing sugar content, PTK the content of potassium, PCL the chlorine contents, PPE the petroleum mether content, PS the content of starch, PSA the ratio of total sugar to total alkaloids and PNA, the ratio of total N to total alkaloids. Asterisks denote statistically significant Pearson correlation analysis.
*,**P value ≤ 0.05, 0.01 level (bilateral), respectively.
Figure 2Redundancy analysis (RDA) of quantity and quality of different flue-cured tobacco cultivars and environmental factors. (a) K326 cultivar; (b): Hongda cultivar; (c): Yun87 cultivar. Empty circle, Jianshui site; square, Luxi site; solid circle, Mile site; solid square, Shiping site. RDA (Redundancy Analysis), a kind of PCA analysis constrained by environmental factors, could reflect samples and environmental factors in the same two-dimensional ranking diagram, from which the relationship between sample distribution and environmental factors could be intuitively showed. The environmental variables: clay soil physical clay, pH soil pH, SOM soil organic matter, AN the content of soil alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen, AP available phosphorus content, AK available potassium content, SCL soil chlorine content, FR field rainfall, FT field temperature, FS field sunshine, FH field relative humidity.