Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Open Life Sciences logoLink to Open Life Sciences
. 2022 Nov 28;17(1):1568–1578. doi: 10.1515/biol-2022-0509

Evolution trend of soil fertility in tobacco-planting area of Chenzhou, Hunan Province, China

Yansong Xiao 1, Yahua Liao 2, Jianlin Hou 1, Lijuan Li 1, Taosha Xu 1, Fengying Ma 1, Fahui Yu 1, Zhipeng Tan 1, Zhihong He 1, Hong Jian 1, Hongguang Li 1, Bin He 1,✉
PMCID: PMC9730541  PMID: 36561499

Abstract

In this study, the data of fertility indicators of soil samples (0–20 cm) in 1980s, 2000 and 2015 in Chenzhou city were used, and the soil integrated fertility index (IFI) was calculated. The results showed that the soil pH was decreased, total nitrogen (TN), organic matter (OM), available phosphorus (AP) and potassium (AK), exchangeable calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+) and available copper (Cu) contents were increased, total phosphorus (TP), available sulfur (S) and water-soluble chlorine (Cl−) contents were decreased, total potassium (TK), available boron (B), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and zinc (Zn) were decreased first and then increased. In 2015, most of the fields were higher in pH, OM, TN, AN, AK, Ca2+, Mg2+, S, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn, suitable in B, but lower in TP, AP, TK, available molybdenum (Mo) and Cl−. Most of the fields were in the middle grade of IFI in 2000 and 2015, and the mean IFI increased from 0.492 to 0.556 from 2000 to 2015. Thus, for soil improvement, more attention should be paid to adjust soil pH, reduce the application of organic, nitrogen and calcium fertilizers, while increase the fertilizer application of other nutrients.

Keywords: tobacco planting, topsoil samples, fertility index, Chenzhou city

1. Introduction

Soil fertility influences the growth, yield and quality of tobacco [1,2,3,4,5], which is continuously concerned in China. So far, lots of studies have been conducted with many literature studies published on fertility evaluation of tobacco-planting soil; for example, more than 300 literature studies in Chinese could be retrieved by the title or keywords of “tobacco,” “fertility” and “evaluation” in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (www.dlib.cnki.net/), which almost covered all the tobacco-planting regions in China and at various scales of province, city and county.

Tobacco usually is planted in the drylands with sandy soil texture, but in many areas of southern China, such as Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangxi, Guangxi and south Hunan and Anhui, it is very common that tobacco is planted in rice fields in the high ridge form (no matter what kind of soil texture) and rotated with late rice. Chenzhou city, with a long history of tobacco-planting as early as in 1,593 and where most paddy fields are under tobacco–rice rotation [6], is the most important and typical planting region of flue-cured tobacco with burnt-pure sweet aroma in China [7]. The area of tobacco-planting in Chenzhou is about 2.67 × 104 hm2 in recent years, which plays an important role in ensuring the high-quality raw materials supply of the tobacco industry and the local social and economic sustainable development.

Some literature studies were published about tobacco-planting soil nutrient status in Guizhou [8,9,10,11], which played an important guiding role in improving the soil fertility and quality of tobacco-planting fields. However, there are limited fertility indicators (e.g., pH, organic matter (OM), total nitrogen (TN) and available boron) were involved in the above-mentioned studies, and so far, there are few reports reflecting the changes in soil fertility [9]. Two questions are still unclear and should be answered which are concerned with the influences of tobacco-planting on soil fertility: (1) does tobacco-planting really can improve soil fertility? if so, by how much? Also, a new round of tobacco-planting soil improvement is underway in China; it is urgent and helpful to know the status and evolution of soil fertility; therefore, this study was conducted in order to quantitatively analyze the soil fertility of tobacco-planting fields in Chenzhou in order to provide further scientific guidance for fertilization and soil improvement for tobacco-planting in Chenzhou.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Data sources of soil fertility indicators

The data of soil fertility indicators used in this study came from three periods, the 2nd national soil survey conducted in the 1980s [12], and tobacco-planting soil surveys conducted in 2000 and 2015, which included 350, 746 and 1,055 soil samples, respectively. The obtained data of the 1980s were the statistic information of all soil samples, and no data of each sample is available.

According to the historical records, the soil sample of the plough layer in each field was collected randomly at 5–8 points with stainless steel soil drill and then mixed completely. The measured soil properties (soil fertility indicators) included OM, TN, total phosphorous (TP), total potassium (TK), available nitrogen (AN), available phosphorous (AP), available potassium (AK), available boron (B), available iron (Fe), available manganese (Mn), available copper (Cu), available zinc (Zn) and available molybdenum (Mo) for all soil samples in the three periods, and pH (H2O), exchangeable calcium (Ca2+), exchangeable magnesium (Mg2+), available sulfur (S), and water-soluble chlorine (Cl−) for the soil samples in 2000 and 2015. The detailed determination methods for soil fertility indicators could be found in related literature studies [13,14].

2.2. Quantitative assessment of soil fertility

There are various methods for the assessment of soil fertility; in this study, soil integrated fertility index (IFI) was used to evaluate soil fertility, and IFI was calculated with the fuzzy mathematics method [15]; first, the membership function types and inflection points of indicators were determined; second, the membership values of the indicators were calculated; third, the weights of the indicators were determined, and finally, IFI was calculated for soil samples according to the following formula:

IFI=∑(Wi×Ni), (1)

where W i stands for the weight of indicator i and N i for the membership value of indicator i. IFI is ranged from 0 to 1. The higher the IFI value, the higher the soil fertility. Generally, IFI is divided into five grades according to the equidistant method [16,17]: ≥0.80 (higher), 0.6–0.8 (high), 0.4–0.6 (Middle), 0.2–0.4 (low) and <0.2 (lower).

2.2.1. Grading standards of fertility indicators

There are many reports available in China on the grading standards of soil fertility indicators for tobacco-planting fields. In this study, the indicators were divided into 4 or 5 grades as in Table 1 based on the actual situation of tobacco-planting soils in Hunan Province [18,19] and the corresponding grading of tobacco-planting soils in neighboring areas of Hunan Province [20,21,22,23,24,25,26].

Table 1.

Grading standards of soil fertility indicators for tobacco-planting fields

Fertility indicator Grade
Very low Low Suitable High Very high
pH <5.0 5.0–5.5 5.5–7.0 7.0–7.5 ≥7.5
SOM <10 10–15 15–30 30–40 ≥40
TN <0.5 0.5–1 1–2 2–2.5 ≥2.5
AN <65 65–100 100–180 180–240 ≥240
TP <0.5 0.5–1 1–1.5 ≥1.5
AP <10 10–15 15–30 30–40 ≥40
TK <10 10–15 15–20 20–25 ≥25
AK <80 80–150 150–220 220–350 ≥350
Ca2+ <3 3–6 6–10 10–18 ≥18
Mg2+ <0.5 0.5–1.0 1.0–1.6 1.6–3.2 ≥3.2
S <10 10–16 16–30 30–50 ≥50
B <0.15 0.15–0.3 0.3–0.6 0.6–1.0 ≥1.0
Fe <2.5 2.5–4.5 4.5–10 10–60 ≥60
Mn <5 5–10 10–20 20–40 ≥40
Cu <0.2 0.2–0.5 0.5–1.0 1.0–3.0 ≥3.0
Zn <0.5 0.5–1.0 1.0–2.0 2.0–4.0 ≥4.0
Mo <0.1 0.1–0.15 0.15–0.2 0.2–0.3 ≥0.3
Cl− <5 5–10 10–30 30–40 ≥40
Open in a new tab

Notes: in the first column, SOM, TN, TP, TK, g/kg; AN, AP, AK, S, B, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Mo, Cl−, mg/kg; Ca2+, cmol(1/2Ca2+)/kg; Mg2+, cmol(1/2Mg2+)/kg. The same is below.

2.2.2. Calculation of membership value of fertility indicator

The membership function types of the fertility indicators were determined according to their effects on the growth, yield and quality of tobacco, among which, pH, OM, TN, AN and Cl− were belonged to the parabolas type, while TP, AP, TK, AK, Ca, Mg, S, B, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn and Mo belonged to the S type [15,27]. Combining with the actual situation of tobacco growing soils in Chenzhou [8,9,10,11,17], the turning points of membership function of each fertility indicator were determined according to expert experience and related literature studies published [5,16,17,18,19,22,26,28] (Table 2; x 1, lower limiting value; x 2, upper limiting value; x 3, lower optimal value; and x 4 , upper optimal value).

Table 2.

Membership function types and turning points of soil fertility indicators

Fertility indicator Membership function type Lower limit, x 1 Lower optimal, x 3 Upper optimal, x 4 Upper limit, x 2
pH Parabolas 5 5.5 7 8
SOM Parabolas 15 20 35 45
TN Parabolas 0.5 1 2 2.5
AN Parabolas 65 100 180 240
Cl− Parabolas 5 10 30 40
TP S 0.5 1.5
AP S 10 40
TK S 10 25
AK S 80 350
Ca S 3 20
Mg S 0.5 4
S S 16 30
B S 0.2 1.5
Fe S 4.5 70
Mn S 10 50
Cu S 0.5 4
Zn S 1 5
Mo S 0.15 　 　 0.4
Open in a new tab

The membership functions of S-type and parabolic indicators were calculated as follows:

Stypef(xi)=0.1,xi<x1,0.1+0.9×(xi−x1)/(x2−x1),x1≤xi<x2,1,xi≥x2,
Parabolastypef(xi)=0.1,xi<x1,xi≥x2,0.1+0.9×(xi−x1)/(x3−x1),x1≤xi<x3,1,x3≤xi<x4,1.0−0.9×(xi−x4)/(x2−x4)x4≤xi<x2.

2.2.3. Determination of weights of indicators

The weights of indicators were determined by principal component analysis (PCA), which is commonly used in soil fertility and quality evaluation [21,29,30]. In order to avoid the appearance of a negative value in weight, the measured values of pH, OM, TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, AK, AS, Ca, Mg, S, B, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mo and Cl−1 were standardized using Z-score standardization method, while those of Mn were standardized using the negative range normalization method in SPSS software [31,32]. The KMO test coefficient obtained was 0.727, indicating that the data structure was good and the linear correlation between the data was satisfied, which could be used for principal component analysis, while the p value of Bartlett’s test was less than 0.001, rejecting the null hypothesis, indicating that the data could be extracted by principal components. The obtained weights of indicators are shown in Table 3, and the detailed routine for the acquisition of indicator weights was not listed here.

Table 3.

Weight values of soil fertility indicators for tobacco-planting fields in Chenzhou

Indicator pH OM TN TP TK AN AP AK Ca
Weight 0.031 0.075 0.065 0.061 0.026 0.058 0.066 0.065 0.032
Indicator Mg S B Fe Mn Cu Zn Mo Cl
Weight 0.039 0.072 0.067 0.014 0.017 0.115 0.114 0.044 0.039
Open in a new tab

2.3. Data processing and statistics

Microsoft Excel 2016 and IBM Statistics SPSS 22.0 software were used for the statistical analysis of the data, and Duncan test method (p < 0.05) was used for the analysis of variance and multiple comparisons [31,32].

3. Results

3.1. Statistics and comparison of soil fertility indicators

Table 4 shows the statistical results of the indicators in the three periods. From the average values of the indicators, it is shown in Table 3 that pH was reduced insignificantly from 7.18 in 2000 to 6.99 in 2015 (Sig. = 0.198, two-tailed, the same below). OM showed an increasing tendency between 1980s and 2015, which increased by 18.22% from 1980 to 2000 and significantly by 4.64% from 2000 to 2015 (Sig. = 0.008). TN also showed an increasing tendency between 1980 and 2015, which increased by 44.51% from 1980 to 2000 and insignificantly by 1.14% from 2000 to 2015 (Sig. = 0.680). TP showed a decreasing tendency from 1980 to 2015, decreased by 31.39% from the 1980s to 2000 and significantly by 2.13% from 2000 to 2015 (Sig. = 0.001). TK decreased first then increased within the 1980s–2015, decreased by 53.05% from the 1980s to 2000 and then increased significantly by 16.45% from 2000 to 2015 (Sig. = 0.000). AN increased first then decreased within the 1980s–2015, increased by 51.90% from 1980s to 2000 and then decreased significantly by 9.69% from 2000 to 2015 (Sig. = 0.000). AP and AK both showed an increasing tendency within 1980–and 2015, which increased by 216.85 and 57.64% from the 1980s to 2000 and significantly by 29.36 and 70.36% from 2000 to 2015 (Sig. = 0.000). Ca, Mg and Cu all showed an increasing tendency from 2000 to 2015, which increased significantly by 157.31%, 20.44 and 16.58% (Sigs. of Ca and Mg = 0.000, Sig. Cu = 0.003). S and Cl− both showed a decreasing tendency from 2000 to 2015, which decreased significantly by 24.08 and 65.00% (both Sigs. = 0.000). B, Fe, Mn and Zn all decreased first then increased within the 1980s–2015, decreased by 57.50, 17.87, 33.88 and 0.28% from 1980s to 2000 and then increased significantly by 223.53, 85.82, 34.52 and 23.68%, respectively, from 2000 to 2015 (Sigs. of B, Fe and Mn = 0.000, Sig. of Zn = 0.008). Mo showed a decreasing tendency within 1980–2015 and decreased by 16.00% and significantly by 23.81% (Sig. = 0.015).

Table 4.

Statistic information of soil fertility indicators in 2000 and 2015 in Chenzhou

Indicators 1980s (n = 350) 2000 (n = 746) 2015 (n = 1,055)
Mean ± S.D. C.V. (%) Grade Mean ± S.D. Grade C.V. (%) Skewness Kurtosis Mean ± S.D. Grade C.V. (%) Skewness Kurtosis
pH / / / 7.18 ± 0.94a High 13.09 −0.98 −0.26 6.99 ± 0.93a Suitable 13.30 −0.97 −0.34
OM 38.8 ± 2.70 6.96 High 45.87 ± 13.98A Very high 30.48 0.03 0.03 48.00 ± 14.37B Very high 29.94 0.46 0.51
TN 1.82 ± 0.15 8.24 Suitable 2.63 ± 0.74a Very high 28.14 0.09 −0.03 2.66 ± 0.71a Very high 26.69 0.89 1.40
TP 1.37 ± 0.17 12.41 Suitable 0.94 ± 0.29A Low 30.85 0.33 1.05 0.92 ± 0.28B Low 30.43 0.68 1.25
TK 23.30 ± 1.61 6.91 High 10.94 ± 2.99A Low 27.33 0.47 0.28 12.74 ± 3.83B Low 30.06 0.41 0.10
AN 147.97 ± 7.87 5.32 Suitable 224.76 ± 68.10A High 30.30 0.37 0.74 202.98 ± 54.04B High 26.62 0.32 1.78
AP 8.90 ± 1.00 11.24 Very low 28.20 ± 12.81A Suitable 45.43 1.73 11.17 36.48 ± 17.74B High 48.63 2.33 10.16
AK 76.60 ± 5.63 7.35 Very low 120.75 ± 60.02A Low 49.71 4.79 46.4 205.71 ± 87.47B Suitable 42.52 0.56 1.14
Ca / / / 12.93 ± 5.77A high 44.62 0.86 1.27 33.27 ± 23.27B very high 69.94 8.26 107.76
Mg / / / 1.37 ± 0.78A Suitable 56.93 0.88 0.89 1.65 ± 1.04B High 63.03 0.62 −1.00
S / / / 51.92 ± 24.48a Very high 47.15 1.57 6.91 39.42 ± 35.81b High 90.84 1.25 2.02
B 0.40 ± / Suitable 0.17 ± 0.10A Low 58.82 1.58 6.75 0.55 ± 0.18B Suitable 32.73 1.23 1.23
Fe 93.61 ± / Very high 76.88 ± 49.20A Very high 64.00 1.30 1.38 142.86 ± 89.55B Very high 62.68 2.94 12.37
Mn 37.37 ± / High 24.71 ± 29.99A high 121.37 5.51 46.82 33.24 ± 31.52B High 94.83 12.66 190.18
Cu 3.74 ± / Very high 4.36 ± 4.28A very high 119.22 13.81 240.83 4.70 ± 5.31B Very high 119.59 15.65 318.23
Zn 3.60 ± / High 3.59 ± 5.37A high 123.17 8.12 85.72 4.44 ± 9.77B Very high 207.87 1.05 1.88
Mo 0.25± / High 0.21 ± 0.28a High 133.33 9.95 156.99 0.16 ± 0.23b Low 143.75 8.18 124.05
Cl− / / / 18.49 ± 10.34A Suitable 57.44 1.12 3.89 6.30 ± 9.84B Low 156.19 2.72 11.96
Open in a new tab

Note: (1) Data defaulted; (2) total sample numbers of Ca2+ and Mg2+ in 2000 is 314; (3) values in the same line followed by different uppercase or lowercase letters are significantly different at the 0.01 or 0.05 level: the same as below.

In the 1980s, OM, TN, TK, AN and AK belonged to the low variation (C.V. < 10%,), while TP and AP belonged to the moderate variation (C.V. = 10–100%). In 2000, pH, OM, TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, AK, Ca, Mg, S, B, Fe and Cl− belonged to moderate middle variation, while Mn, Cu, Zn and Mo belonged to the strong variation (C.V. > 100%). In 2015, pH, OM, TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, AK, Ca, Mg, S, B, Fe and Mn remained in the moderate middle variation, Cu, Zn and Mo remained in the strong variation (C.V. > 100%), while Cl− changed from the moderate variation to the strong one. It also can be seen from Table 4 that, in the values of C.V.s (%), pH, OM, TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, AK, Mg, Fe, Cu and Mo changed smaller (all lower than 15%), while Ca, S, Zn and Cl increased greatly (56.74, 92.67, 68.78 and 171.90%, respectively), and B and Mn decreased greatly (44.36 and 21.87%, respectively).

Table 5 shows the statistical information on fertility indicators in each grade in 2000 and 2015. It can be seen from tobacco-planting suitability, in 2000 and 2015, 26.81 and 26.73% of the samples were suitable in pH, 65.42 and 62.37% of the samples were higher in pH (including high and very higher grades, the same as below), and 7.77 and 10.90% of the samples were lower in pH (including low and very low grades, the same below). Most soil samples are high in OM, TN, AN, AK, Ca2+, S, B, Fe, Cu and Zn, among which, 86.06 and 90.33% of the samples were higher in OM, 79.36 and 83.13% of the samples were higher in TN, 75.60 and 64.55% of the samples were higher in AN, 82.44 and 27.30% of the samples were lower in AK, 67.52 and 85.12% of the samples were higher in Ca2+, 84.05 and 55.55% of the samples were higher in S, 84.05 and 55.55% of the samples were higher in B, 99.20 and 100% of the samples were higher in Fe, 99.06 and 99.72% of the samples were higher in Cu, and 70.64 and 77.73% of the samples were higher in Zn. Table 5 also shows that obvious proportions of soil samples were lower in TP, AP, Mg2+, Mo and Cl− in 2000 and 2015, among which, 90.75 and 79.81% of the samples were lower in TK, 60.05 and 59.24% of the samples were lower in TP, 38.61 and 60.00% of the samples were higher in AP, 40.13 and 32.04% of the samples were lower in Mg2+, 49.20 and 66.54% of the samples were lower in Mo, and 21.18 and 76.30% of the samples were lower in Cl−.

Table 5.

Grade statistic information of soil fertility indicators in 2000 and 2015 in Chenzhou

Indicators Year Very low Low Suitable High Very high Total
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
pH 2000 18 2.41 40 5.36 200 26.81 61 8.18 427 57.24 746 100
2015 45 4.27 70 6.64 282 26.73 134 12.70 524 49.67 1,055 100
SOM 2000 1 0.13 5 0.67 98 13.14 135 18.10 507 67.96 746 100
2015 1 0.09 0 0.00 101 9.57 224 21.23 729 69.10 1,055 100
TN 2000 0 0.00 7 0.94 147 19.71 144 19.30 448 60.05 746 100
2015 0 0.00 0 0.00 178 16.87 278 26.35 599 56.78 1,055 100
AN 2000 3 0.40 16 2.14 163 21.85 278 37.27 286 38.34 746 100
2015 1 0.09 17 1.61 356 33.74 438 41.52 243 23.03 1,055 100
TP 2000 59 7.91 389 52.14 271 36.33 27 3.62 / 0.00 746 100
2015 73 6.92 552 52.32 415 39.34 15 1.42 / 0.00 1,055 100
AP 2000 35 4.69 57 7.64 366 49.06 169 22.65 119 15.95 746 100
2015 30 2.84 73 6.92 319 30.24 231 21.90 402 38.10 1,055 100
TK 2000 290 38.87 387 51.88 63 8.45 6 0.80 0 0.00 746 100
2015 206 19.53 636 60.28 167 15.83 34 3.22 12 1.14 1,055 100
AK 2000 131 17.56 484 64.88 100 13.40 22 2.95 9 1.21 746 100
2015 54 5.12 234 22.18 337 31.94 372 35.26 58 5.50 1,055 100
Ca2+ 2000 2 0.64 29 9.24 71 22.61 160 50.96 52 16.56 314 100
2015 2 0.19 47 4.45 108 10.24 234 22.18 664 62.94 1,055 100
Mg2+ 2000 30 9.55 96 30.57 72 22.93 110 35.03 6 1.91 314 100
2015 72 6.82 266 25.21 248 23.51 375 35.55 94 8.91 1,055 100
S 2000 5 0.67 23 3.08 91 12.20 257 34.45 370 49.60 746 100
2015 10 0.95 81 7.68 378 35.83 365 34.60 221 20.95 1,055 100
B 2000 325 43.57 350 46.92 68 9.12 3 0.40 0 0.00 746 100
2015 0 0.00 39 3.70 656 62.18 329 31.18 31 2.94 1,055 100
Fe 2000 0 0.00 1 0.13 5 0.67 368 49.33 372 49.87 746 100
2015 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 145 13.74 910 86.26 1,055 100
Mn 2000 36 4.83 148 19.84 282 37.80 170 22.79 110 14.75 746 100
2015 49 4.64 88 8.34 278 26.35 362 34.31 278 26.35 1,055 100
Cu 2000 0 0.00 1 0.13 6 0.80 156 20.91 583 78.15 746 100
2015 0 0.00 1 0.09 2 0.19 223 21.14 829 78.58 1,055 100
Zn 2000 0 0.00 24 3.22 195 26.14 389 52.14 138 18.50 746 100
2015 2 0.19 28 2.65 205 19.43 511 48.44 309 29.29 1,055 100
Mo 2000 223 29.89 144 19.30 114 15.28 126 16.89 139 18.63 746 100
2015 507 48.06 195 18.48 118 11.18 102 9.67 133 12.61 1,055 100
Cl− 2000 64 8.58 94 12.60 512 68.63 50 6.70 26 3.49 746 100
2015 683 64.74 122 11.56 218 20.66 13 1.23 19 1.80 1,055 100
Open in a new tab

3.2. Statistics and comparison of soil IFIs

Tables 6 and 7 present the general and grade statistical results of soil IFIs of tobacco-planting fields, respectively. Tables 6 and 7 show that there was no sample with IFI < 0.2 or ≥0.8 both in 2000 and in 2015, IFI were within 0.230–0.740 with a mean of 0.492 in 2000 and 0.320–0.760 with a mean of 0.556 in 2015, and both covered the lower (<0.2), middle (0.2–0.4) and higher grades (0.4–0.6). However, it also can be seen that the average IFI significantly increased by 13.01% (Sig. = 0.000) from 2000 to 2015. IFI in both 2000 and 2015 belonged to the moderate variation, negative skew distribution in 2000 but near normal distribution in 2015, and flat peak distribution in 2000 and 2015 [31,32]. It is shown in Table 7 that the samples with IFI within 0.4–0.6 were most both in 2000 (77.35%) and 2015 (70.52%), and the sample proportions with IFI within 0.2–0.4 and 0.4–0.6 were decreased from 12.87% in 2000 to 1.61% in 2015 and from 77.35% in 2000 to 70.52% in 2015, respectively, while the sample proportion with IFI within 0.6–0.8 increased from 9.79% in 2000 to 27.87% in 2015.

Table 6.

Statistic information of soil IFIs in 2000 and 2015 in Chenzhou

Region Year Sample No. Min Max Mean ± S.D. C.V. (%) Skewness Kurtosis
Guiyang 2000 447 0.254 0.715 0.486 ± 0.077A 15.821 0.230 −0.227
2015 560 0.319 0.756 0.559 ± 0.076B 13.65 −0.014 −0.087
Jiahe 2000 100 0.237 0.736 0.492 ± 0.086A 17.512 0.123 0.353
2015 110 0.408 0.737 0.554 ± 0.073B 13.10 0.174 −0.504
Yongxing 2000 73 0.229 0.735 0.498 ± 0.094A 18.901 −0.121 0.368
2015 115 0.375 0.691 0.547 ± 0.063B 11.57 −0.031 −0.345
Anren 2000 35 0.369 0.702 0.520 ± 0.084A 16.149 0.320 −0.338
2015 100 0.438 0.711 0.563 ± 0.061B 10.76 0.164 −0.334
Yizhang 2000 29 0.371 0.613 0.486 ± 0.069A 14.082 0.236 −0.974
2015 96 0.351 0.725 0.548 ± 0.081B 14.70 −0.007 −0.379
Suxian 2000 20 0.396 0.623 0.508 ± 0.071a 13.959 −0.018 −0.979
2015 45 0.347 0.666 0.546 ± 0.077b 14.10 −0.668 0.141
Beihu 2000 12 0.419 0.608 0.526 ± 0.064a 12.220 −0.533 −1.010
2015 17 0.419 0.674 0.587 ± 0.066a 11.30 −0.740 1.100
Linwu 2000 30 0.350 0.637 0.511 ± 0.087a 17.076 −0.186 −0.957
2015 12 0.349 0.654 0.548 ± 0.085a 15.55 −0.942 1.680
Total 2000 746 0.230 0.740 0.492 ± 0.080A 16.26 0.150 −0.087
2015 1,055 0.320 0.760 0.556 ± 0.074B 13.25 −0.040 −0.101
Open in a new tab

Lowercase and majuscule indicate significant differences at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table 7.

Grade statistic information of soil IFIs in 2000 and 2015 in Chenzhou

Region Year IFI
Highest (≥0.8) Higher (0.6–0.8) Middle (0.4–0.6) Lower (0.2–0.4) Lowest ( < 0.2)
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Guiyang 2000 0 0 36 8.05 348 77.85 63 12.00 0 0
2015 0 0 158 28.21 393 70.18 9 1.61 0 0
Jiahe 2000 0 0 9 6.00 79 79.00 12 12.00 0 0
2015 0 0 25 22.73 84 76.36 1 0.91 0 0
Yongxing 2000 0 0 10 13.70 54 73.97 9 12.33 0 0
2015 0 0 33 28.00 82 71.30 0 0 0 0
Anren 2000 0 0 5 14.29 27 77.14 3 8.57 0 0
2015 0 0 28 28.00 72 72.00 0 0 0 0
Yizhang 2000 0 0 2 6.90 24 82.76 3 10.34 0 0
2015 0 0 29 30.21 64 66.67 3 3.13 0 0
Suxian 2000 0 0 2 10.00 17 85.00 1 5.00 0 0
2015 0 0 11 24.44 31 68.89 3 6.67 0 0
Beihu 2000 0 0 2 16.67 10 83.33 0 0 0 0
2015 0 0 7 41.18 10 58.82 0 0 0 0
Linwu 2000 0 0 7 23.33 18 60.00 5 16.67 0 0
2015 0 0 3 25.00 8 66.67 1 8.33 0 0
Total 2000 0 0 73 9.79 577 77.35 96 12.87 0 0
2015 0 0 294 27.87 744 70.52 17 1.61 0 0
Open in a new tab

From 2000 to 2015, IFI was significantly increased by 13.00% in total (Sig. 000), 14.94% in Guiyang (Sig. = 0.000), 12.70% in Jiahe (Sig. = 0.000), 9.74% in Yongxing (Sigs. = 0.000), 8.24% in Anren (Sig. = 0.001), 12.72% in Yizhang (Sig. = 0.001) and 7.47% in Suxian (Sig. = 0.024), while IFI was increased insignificantly by 11.56 and 7.13% in Beihu (Sig. = 0.147) and in Linwu (Sig. = 0.248). Difference significance test results also showed that in 2000 significant difference in IFI was only founded between Guiyang with Linwu (Sig. = 0.009) and Anren (Sig. = 0.014), and no significant difference among the other regions (Sig. = 0.052–0.977 with a mean of 0.330), while in 2015 significant difference in IFI was only founded between Anren and Suxian (Sig. = 0.047), and no significant difference among the other regions (Sig. = 0.060–0.978 with a mean of 0.442).

Table 7 shows that in 2000 and 2015, the numbers of samples were the most in the middle grade of IFI among the total samples, which were 77.35 and 70.52% in total, 77.85 and 70.18% in Guiyang, 79.00 and 76.36% in Jiahe, 73.97 and 71.30% in Yongxing, 77.14 and 72.00% in Anren, 82.76 and 66.67% in Yizhang, 85.00 and 68.89% in Suxian, 83.33 and 58.82% in Beihu, and 60.00 and 66.67% in Linwu. Table 7 also shows that the proportion of samples in the higher grade of IFI was increased from 9.79% in 2000 to 27.87% in 2015 in total, while that of samples in the lower grade of IFI were decreased from 12.87% in 2000 to 1.61% in 2015 in total.

4. Discussion

Soil fertility assessment is one of the most basic works in soil science research, but it is very important for crop planting; therefore, the latest literature studies could be found even now [33,34,35,36,37]. Meanwhile, soil fertility evaluation of tobacco planting also has been reported more so far; however, the fertility indicators mainly involve pH, OM, TN, AN, TP, AP, TK, AK, Ca2+, Mg2+, trace elements of B, Fe, Mg, Cu and Zn, and Cl−; in our study, besides the above indicators, S and Mo were also added; thus, it should be said that the fertility indicators are more complete in our study, which would enable the obtained results are closer to the reality and more feasible in guiding the scientific fertilization and soil improvement. It should be pointed out that CEC is also one of the most important indicators of soil fertility; however, as in many studies of soil fertility assessment conducted in China, the determined indicators of soil fertility usually include soil pH and the contents of OM and main nutrients [1,2,3,4,5], which can not only understand the real state of in each index (whether suitable or not for high-quality tobacco planting) in order to guide the reasonable fertilization and soil improvement, but also can evaluate soil comprehensive fertility based on these indicators. The reason why CEC is rarely used is that CEC is a comprehensive indicator of soil fertility, it can only indicate the general level of soil fertility, but cannot provide the real information on soil pH and the contents of OM and nutrient contents, thus cannot guide the reasonable fertilizer application and soil improvement; therefore, CEC was also not used in our study. Meanwhile, soil pH and OM content are the factors that can influence CEC, so CEC can be omitted when pH and OM are used for soil fertility assessment. We add some content in the second revised manuscript. Meanwhile, the Ca/K and Ca/Mg ratios should be considered in the assessment of soil fertility for tobacco-planting, which is important to instruct the scientific application of potassium by reflecting the nutrient antagonism in soils, but currently, there are no threshold values or grade classifications of Ca/K and Ca/Mg for tobacco, so these two ratios were also not used in this study.

As shown in Table 5, 65.42 and 62.37% of the samples were higher in pH (≥7.0) in 2000 and 2015, respectively. The high value of soil pH of tobacco-planting fields in Chenzhou could be attributed to the application of superphosphate fertilizer and the habit of local farmers using fired soil to improve soil quality [38,39], and it may also be related to that tobacco-planting fields in Chenzhou are mostly located in the limestone hill and mountainous area [10], which also resulted in the increases of Ca2+ and Mg2+ from 2000 to 2015, increased significantly by 157.31 and 20.44%, respectively (Table 4).

OM was increased from 38.8 g/kg in the 1980s to 45.87 g/kg in 2000 and to 48.00 g/kg in 2015, the increase was decided by tobacco-rice rotation, straw returning to the field and organic fertilizer application [11,40,41]. AN increased from 147.97 mg/kg in the 1980s to 224.76 mg/kg in 2000 and then decreased to 202.98 mg/kg in 2015, the decrease in AN from 2000 to 2015 is because the higher content of AN in 2000 is unsuitable (suitable grade is 100–180 mg/kg) for the high-quality tobacco [25], and thus, the applied amount of nitrogen fertilizer was reduced gradually [42]. AP increased from 8.90 mg/kg in the 1980s to 28.20 mg/kg in 2000 and to 36.48 mg/kg in 2015; the remarkable continuous increase could be attributed to the long-term excessive application of phosphatic fertilizer by farmers in China due to the cheap price and yield-increase effect [43,44]. AK increased from 76.6 mg/kg in the 1980s to 120.75 mg/kg in 2000 and to 205.71 mg/kg in 2015, the continuous significant increase was contributed by the large amount application of potassium to guarantee the high-quality tobacco leaves usually with high K content [1,2,3,4,5]. S deceased from 51.92 mg/kg in 2000 to 39.42 mg/kg in 2015, which could be attributed to the reduced use of potassium sulfate for tobacco-planting because it caused soil acidification, and usually high content of S would worsen the quality of tobacco leaves [45,46]. Cl− decreased from 18.49 mg/kg in 2000 to 6.30 mg/kg in 2015, which could be attributed to the worry that high Cl− content could severely deteriorate the quality of tobacco leaves, so chlorine fertilizer is seldom used for tobacco-planting in many regions [47]. Mo decreased from 0.25 mg/kg in the 1980s to 0.21 mg/kg in 2000 and to 0.16 mg/kg in 2015, which may be related to little concern about Mo and little literature on Mo fertilizer application for tobacco-planting in Hunan [48]. Cu increased from 3.74 mg/kg in the 1980s to 4.36 mg/kg in 2000 and to 4.70 mg/kg in 2015, the increase, on the one hand, may be related to the application of livestock and poultry manure which usually containing Cu [49,50], and on the other hand, may be related to the higher Cu content in paddy soil itself [51,52], as for the changes of B, Zn, Mn and Fe, which decreased from the 1980s to 2010 and then increased from 2000 to 2015, which could be attributed to the gradual application of related trace fertilizers in the farmlands [53].

Li et al. [23] compared soil fertility indicators tobacco-growing areas in Kunming in southwest China in 2010 and 2020 and found that from 2010 to 2020, soil pH decreased by 0.15 units. Soil SOM, N, P and K increased by 1.87 g/kg, 7.21 mg/kg, 5.17 mg/kg and 53.05 mg/kg, respectively; the overall soil fertility increased, and these findings are generally similar to the results in our study.

The change of climate may influence the changes in soil chemical properties, so we analyzed the correlation between the mean annual temperature (T) and precipitation (P) with years from 2000 and 2015, and the results showed that the ranges of the two parameters were 17.9–19.1°C and 1069–1854 mm with the means of 18.6°C and 1450 mm, respectively; but there was no significant correlation between T and P with year. The Pearson coefficients were 0.499 (p = 0.082) and 0.224 (p = 0.462), respectively, which means it is hard to clarify the influence of climate change on the change of soil fertility instructors.

Soil fertility affects or determines the growth, yield and quality of tobacco; it also determines the economic benefits of local tobacco-planting farmers, so more and great concerns have been paid continuously to soil improvement in the tobacco-planting regions with higher input and sufficient guarantee, almost all the tobacco-planting regions in China have formulated and implemented the technical regulation of flue-cured tobacco planting, which enable the same measures adopted for tobacco-planting in ploughing, ridging, fertilization, irrigation, film mulching, etc. It may homogenize the soil fertility of tobacco-planting fields in a large region, so no significant difference in IFI was found in this study between most tobacco-planting regions in Chenzhou, in which significant difference in IFI was only founded between Guiyang with Linwu (Sig. = 0.009) and Anren (Sig. = 0.014) in 2000 and between Anren and Suxian (Sig. = 0.047) in 2015. Our study also showed the increasing tendency of soil IFI of tobacco-planting fields in Chenzhou, it was not only proved by the increases in the contents of OM, AN, AP and AK from 1980 to 2000 (Table 1), meanwhile, but also proved by the proportion of fields with the lower grade of IFI was decreased from 12.87% in 2000 to 1.61% in 2015, the proportion of fields with the higher grade of IFI was increased from 9.79% in 2000 to 27.87% in 2015, and IFI meanly increased from 0.492 in 2000 to 0.556 in 2015, increased by 13.00%. However, it should be pointed out that the soil fertility of tobacco-planting fields in Chenzhou is still in the middle level of IFI (0.4–0.6), the proportion of tobacco-planting fields with the middle grade of IFI was the highest (77.35% in 2000 and 70.52% in 2015), and there was no tobacco-plating field with the highest grade of IFI (≥0.8); therefore, the soil fertility of tobacco-planting fields in Chenzhou still needs to be promoted.

The annual fertilization for tobacco fields in Chenzhou is generally as follows from 2000 to 2015: during tobacco growing season, about 178.5 (N), 139.65 (P2O5) and 420 (K2O) kg/ha are applied in the forms of compound fertilizers, and during rice growing season, about 0–375 kg/ha of the compound fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O = 15:15:15) and 0–75 kg/ha of urea (N = 46.2%) are applied according to the growing status of rice. Meanwhile, this fertilization pattern is almost the same and seldom changed from 2000 to 2015. From the improvement of tobacco planting soil, it can be seen that in 2015 there were 62.37 and 10.90% of the samples were higher and lower in pH. These tobacco-planting fields should be paid attention to the modification of soil alkalinity or acidity; 90.33, 83.13 and 64.55% of the samples were higher in OM, TN and AN, respectively, and these fields need to reduce the use of organic and nitrogen fertilizers. In Ca2+ and Mg2+, 85.12 and 44.45% of the samples were higher, respectively; these fields should be controlled by the application of alkaline substances or calcium and magnesium fertilizers. 27.61, 32.04, 12.99, 66.54 and 76.30% of the samples were lower in AK, Mg2+, Mn, Mo and Cl−, respectively; these fields should be applied with the corresponding fertilizers. Usually, tobacco is a chlorine-free crop, but chlorine is also one of the essential nutrients for tobacco growth [5], and some studies conducted in south China have shown that proper application of chlorine fertilizer to Cl-deficient soils could increase the elasticity, oiliness and yield of tobacco leaves while not reducing the quality of tobacco leaves [47,54]. Nevertheless, for the fields with higher contents of other various nutrients, such as S, Fe, Cu and Mn, there is no need to apply the corresponding fertilizers.

It should be pointed out that there is a certain relationship between soil fertility or IFI with the growth, yield and quality of tobacco [7,55,56,57,58]; it is not evaluated in this study but would be conducted in our further research.

5. Conclusion

This study compared the values of topsoil (0–20 cm) fertility indicators of tobacco planting area in Chenzhou in 1980s, 2000 and 2015 and found that soil pH value was decreased, TN, OM, AP, AK, Ca, Mg and Cu contents were increased, TP, S and Cl contents were decreased, and TK, B, Fe, Mn and Zn were decreased first and then an increased. In 2015, most of the samples (44.45–100%) were higher in pH, OM, TN, AN, AK, Ca2+, Mg2+, S, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn, most of the samples (62.18%) were suitable in B, while most of the samples (59.24–79.81%) were lower in TK, Mo and Cl−. Most of the samples were in the middle grade of IFI (77.35% in 2000 and 70.52% in 2015), and the mean IFI was increased by 13.00% from 0.492 in 2000 to 0.556 in 2015, but both still belonged to the middle grade of IFI. Thus, soil fertility still needs to be promoted, and more attentions should be paid to modify of soil acidity and alkalinity, reduce the application of organic, nitrogen, calcium fertilizers, and increase the application of fertilizers of potassium, magnesium, molybdate and chloride according to the real situation of tobacco-planting fields.

Footnotes

Funding information: Authors state no funding involved.

Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement: Due to confidentiality agreements, supporting data can only be made available to bona fide researchers subject to a non-disclosure agreement. Details of the data and how to request access are available from Mrs. Yansong Xiao (Email: 35149517@qq.com, Mobile No: +86-18975717573) at Chenzhou Tobacco Company of Hunan Province.

References

  • [1].Cao ZH. Soil and fertilization for production of high-quality flue-cured tobacco. Nanjing, China: Jiangsu Science and Technology Press; 2003.
  • [2].Liu GS. Tobacco culture. Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press; 2003.
  • [3].Wang YT, Xie JP, Li ZH. Tobacco planting zoning in China. Beijing, China: Science Press; 2000.
  • [4].Han FG. Tobacco chemistry. Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press; 2010.
  • [5].Hu GS, Zheng W, Wang ZD, Li ZY, Zhao QB. Nutritional principle of flue-cured tobacco. Beijing, China: Science Press; 2000.
  • [6].Editorial committee of tobacco annals of Chenzhou City. Tobacco annals of Chenzhou city. Changsha, China: Hunan People’s Publishing House; 2005.
  • [7].Luo DS, Wang B, Qiao XY. Explanation of national regionalization of leaves style of flue-cured tobacco. Acta Tab Sin. 2019;25(4):1–9.
  • [8].Kuang CF, Zhou GS, Deng ZP, Li XY, Cheng JP, Shi XB, et al. Soil nutrient status in Chenzhou tobacco planting areas. Acta Tab Sin. 2000;31(3):33–7.
  • [9].Guo T, Li HG, Li W, Peng SG, Xiao CS, Li J, et al. Spatial-temporal variability and factors to influence boron availability in tobacco-planting soils of rotating paddy-upland fields in southern Hunan. Tob Sci Technol. 2019;52(7):27–34.
  • [10].Li Q, Yan CB, Liu YJ, Li J, Rang ZW, Xiao YS, et al. Preliminary study on spatial distribution and influencing factors of tobacco-growing soil pH in Chenzhou. Acta Tab Sin. 2019;25(3):50–8.
  • [11].Gao X, Zhou LK, Guo T, Li HG, Deng XH, Xiao YS, et al. Spatial and temporal variability of soil organic matter and total nitrogen and influencing factors in Chenzhou tobacco-growing area, Hunan Province. Chin J Soil Sci. 2000;51(3):686–93.
  • [12].Soil and fertilizer workstation of Chenzhou. Soils in Chenzhou (unpublished data). China: 1985.
  • [13].Agricultural Chemistry Specialized Committee of Chinese Society of Soil Science. Methods for conventional analysis of soil agrochemistry. Beijing, China: Science Press; 1983.
  • [14].Bao SD. Soil agrochemical analysis. 3rd edn. Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press; 2000.
  • [15].Lin K, Li DC, Zhang GL. Literature analysis on soil quality assessment in China based on CNKI database. Chin J Soil Sci. 2017;48(3):736–44.
  • [16].Liang H. Evaluation of soil fertility status for tobacco growing area in Chongqing. Master’s Thesis. Chongqing, China: Southwest University; 2014.
  • [17].Liu JX, Liu XH, Chen CQ. Analysis and comprehensive evaluation of soil fertility status for tobacco-growing areas in the north-west of Hunan Province. Chin Agri Sci Bull. 2009;25(2):46–50.
  • [18].Wang L. The evaluation of soil fertility and the relationship between soil nutrients contents and chemical components in flue-cured tobacco-growing areas. Master’s Thesis. Zhengzhou, China: Henan Agricultural University; 2007.
  • [19].Duan SH, Liu TB, Li JY, Zhou ZC. Evaluation of soil fertility and variability of nutrient contents of tobacco growing areas of Liuyang County of Hunan, China. Chin Tob Sci. 2017;38(2):33–8.
  • [20].Chen J, Tang YJ. Analysis on soil fertility of main district planting flue-cured tobacco in Guizhou. Chin Agri Sci Bul. 2006;22(12):356–9.
  • [21].Chen JB, Zeng CS. Application of principal component analysis and cluster analysis in land evaluation-a case study of main paddy soils in Xiamao Town of Shaxian County, Fujian Province. Soils. 2001;5(243–246):256.
  • [22].Huang JJ, Li SC, Yang DH, Zhao WJ, Yang ZJ, Yang YB, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of soil fertility in Hongta tobacco planting base of Dali. J Yunnan Agri Uni (Nat Sci). 2017;32(1):125–33.
  • [23].Li J, Xu XY, Yang SM, Yu XF, Sun S, Liu H, et al. Temporal and spatial variability characteristics and assessment of feasibility of tobacco-growing soil nutrients in Kunming. J Yunnan Univ Nat Sci Ed. 2022;44(2):424–34.
  • [24].Sun YH, Zhang K, Lu QF, Li SW, Zhang B, Li J, et al. Suitability evaluation on nutrients of tobacco-planted soils in three typical ecological regions. Crops. 2022. https://www.kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.1808.S.20220601.1874.002.html.
  • [25].Xiao Y, Gao J, Li B, Chen YL, Ling AF, Song WJ, et al. Characteristics and correlation analysis of soil nutrients in plow layer of different tobacco planting areas in Sichuan. Chin Tob Sci. 2020;41(6):37–43.
  • [26].Zhao AJ, Liu QF, Xie PF, Zhai ZG, Li MD, Zhou JY, et al. Abundance evaluation of nutrient content in tobacco soil of Changsha. Chin Agri Sci Bull. 2022;38(13):109–19.
  • [27].Lu RK. Methods for agricultural chemical analysis of soils. Beijing, China: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press; 2000.
  • [28].Chen JH, Liu JL, Li ZH. Comprehensive management of tobacco planting soil and tobacco nutrients in China. Beijing, China: Science Press; 2008.
  • [29].Sun B, Zhang TL, Zhao QG. Comprehensive evaluation of soil fertility in the hilly and mountainous region of southeastern China. Acta Pedo Sin. 1995;32(4):362–9.
  • [30].Guo DF, Wang QB. Principal component analysis of relationship between various nutrients in albiudic cambosols profile and wheat yield. Acta Pedo Sin. 2005;42(3):523–7.
  • [31].Yu JH, He XH. Data statistical analysis and SPSS applications. Beijing, China: Posts & Telecommunications Press; 2003.
  • [32].Nielsen DR, Bouma J. Soil spatial variability. Proceedings of a Workshop of the ISSS and SSSA, Las Vegas, USA/Pdc296. Pudoc Netherlands: Wageningen; 1985.
  • [33].Sharma RP, Chattaraj S, Vasu D, Karthikeyan K, Tiwary P, Naitam RK, et al. Spatial variability assessment of soil fertility in black soils of central India using geostatistical modeling. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2000;67:876–88.
  • [34].Mugo JN, Karanja NN, Gachene CK, Dittert K, Nyawade SO, Schulte-Geldermann E. Assessment of soil fertility and potato crop nutrient status in central and eastern highlands of Kenya. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):7779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • [35].Garnaik S, Sekhon BS, Sahoo S, Dhaliwal SS. Comparative assessment of soil fertility status of various agroecological regions under intensive cultivation in Northwest India. Envir Moni Assess. 2020;192(5):320. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • [36].Kongor JE, Boeckx P, Vermeir P, Van de Walle D, Baert G, Afoakwa EO, et al. Assessment of soil fertility and quality for improved cocoa production in six cocoa growing regions in Ghana. Agrofor Syst. 2019;93(4):1455–67.
  • [37].Ray JG, Nidheesh KS. Assessment of soil fertility characteristics of chemical-fertilized banana fields of South India. Commun Soil Sci Pla Anal. 2019;50(3):275–86.
  • [38].Li XC, Li HG, Xiao YS, Song WJ, Zheng XB, Dong JX. Effects of fired soil on root growth and rhizosphere nutrients of tobacco at seedling stage. Chin Tobac Sci. 2020;41(5):43–8.
  • [39].Kuang CF, Li HG, Xu QX, Li XY, Huang CY, Fang M, et al. Study on improving rhizosphere environment of flue-cured tobacco by applying ash soil. Agri Devel Equip. 2013;9:52–3.
  • [40].Wang XD, Zhuang JJ, Liu BY, Li SS, Zhao X, Liu Y, et al. Residue returning induced changes in soil organic carbon and the influential factors in China’s croplands: A meta-analysis. J Chin Agri Uni. 2020;25(8):12–24.
  • [41].Jin ZL, Jia SC, Peng SG, Liu YJ. Effects of the application level of cake fertilizer on the growth and quality of flue cured tobacco in high organic matter-field of south Hunan. Crop Res. 2018;32(6):516–20.
  • [42].Deng XH, Yang LL, Zou K, Qi UJ, Xu WB, Zhang GL, et al. Effect of density-increasing and nitrogen-saving on chemical components of flue-cured tobacco under tobacco-rice rotation system. J Plant Nutr Fer. 2017;23(4):991–7.
  • [43].Liu JX, Luo JX, Yang L, Yu Y, Meng F, Xiao HQ, et al. Analysis of phosphorus status in tobacco planting soils in Hunan. J Henan Agri Uni. 2020;54(1):125–32.
  • [44].Du JX, Liu KL, Huang J, Han TF, Wang YP, Li DC, et al. Spatio-temporal evolution characteristics of soil available phosphorus and its response to phosphorus balance in paddy soil in China. J Soil. 2021;58(2):476–86.
  • [45].Kissel DE, Bock BR, Ogles CZ. Thoughts on acidification of soil by nitrogen and sulfur fertilizers. Agrosyst Geosci Env. 2020;3(1):e20060.
  • [46].Wang XD, Xu ZC, Xie Y, Liu L, Fan XL, Zhang XH. Suitable soil available sulfur and tobacco leaf sulfur contents for high quality tobacco production in Qujing area, Yunnan Province. J Plant Nutr Fert. 2018;24(2):528–34.
  • [47].Tian F, Luo JX, Liu JG, Yu Y, Yang L, Xiang TJ. Effect of chlorine fertilizer on chlorine contents in tobacco leaves and tobacco field soil and tobacco yield. J Hunan Agri Uni (Nat Sci). 2019;45(3):264–8.
  • [48].Hu RW, Liu YJ, Tang CG, Xiao YS, Xiang PH, Rang ZW, et al. Vertical distribution of boron and molybdenum in soil and their relationship with organic matter in paddy-tobacco growing areas. Chin Tobac Sci. 2020;41(3):9–15.
  • [49].Yuan K, Xiong SY, Liang J, Li YM, Qiao YH, Li HF, et al. Status and risk analysis of copper and zinc pollution in livestock manure. J Agro-Envir Sci. 2020;39(8):1837–42.
  • [50].Shi TR, Ma J, Wu FY, Ju TN, Gong YW, Zhang YY, et al. Mass balance-based inventory of heavy metals inputs to and outputs from agricultural soils in Zhejiang Province, China. Sci Total Envir. 2018;649:1269–80. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • [51].Liu Z. Agricultural chemistry of trace elements. Beijing, China: Agriculture Press; 1991.
  • [52].Liu Z. Trace elements in soils of China. Nanjing: Jiangsu Science and Technology Press; 1998.
  • [53].Li MD, Xiao HQ, Yu CX, He YH, Tang HT, Zhang YY. Status of medium and minor elements in Hunan Province and effectiveness of fertilizer application in tobacco plant. Chin Tobac Sin. 2005;1:25–7.
  • [54].Cai Y, Xiang JY, Cheng ZM, Li LQ, Chen XS, Yang YD, et al. Chlorine contents of soil and tobacco leaves, and the suitable application amount of potassium chloride in Yibin tobacco area. Crop Res. 2020;34(1):67–71.
  • [55].An SL, Ma YM, Wei CC. The soil characteristic and its relationship with tobacco leaf quality in Shaanxi tobacco growing area. Acta Agri-Bore Sin. 1998;7(2):75–7.
  • [56].Wu ZJ, Liu SX, Xiong DZ, Liu H. The soil characteristic and its relationship with tobacco leaf quality in Fujian tobacco growing area. Acta Tab Sin. 1996;1:49–53.
  • [57].Chen G. Study on the correlation between soil nutrient status and tobacco leaf quality and aroma-producing substances in Chuxiong Prefecture. Excellent Proceedings of 2003 Annual Conference of Yunnan Tobacco Association. Vol. 12; 2004. p. 93–107.
  • [58].Wang FF. The study on regionalization of the adaptivity of soil fertility and flue-cured tobacco chemical quality of flue-cured tobacco-growing areas in Pinglu. Master’ Thesis. Zhengzhou, China: Henan Agricultural University; 2000.

Articles from Open Life Sciences are provided here courtesy of De Gruyter

RESOURCES