Spatial variation characteristics and influencing factors of tobacco leaf sensory quality in Qujing tobacco-growing regions

doi:10.14088/j.cnki.issn0439-8114.2025.01.016

Abstract

Abstract: Based on tobacco leaves in nine major tobacco-planting regions in Qujing City, the spatial distribution characteristics of sensory quality of tobacco leaves in Qujing City were explored. In October 2022, 227 primary roasted middle tobacco leaves were collected from nine tobacco-planting regions in Qujing to determine sensory quality, appearance quality, physical characteristics and chemical composition of tobacco leaves. ArcGIS was used to analyze the spatial distribution of sensory quality of Qujing tobacco leaves, and the effects of appearance quality, physical characteristics and chemical composition on sensory quality were explored by random forest and other methods. The results showed that the overall sensory quality of tobacco leaves in Qujing tobacco-growing regions was good, but there were spatial differences. The variation was parabolic from north to south, the east-west trend was an inverted “U” shape, both sides were low and the middle was high. Correlation analysis showed that color, chroma, total sugar, reducing sugar and potassium oxide had significant positive correlations with sensory quality. Leaf weight, filling value and total nitrogen were negatively correlated with sensory quality. The random forest model was used to analyze the contribution degree of each index to sensory quality of tobacco leaves. The degree of influence on sensory quality from strong to weak was total sugar, reducing sugar, total nitrogen, potassium, and chroma. In summary, there were spatial differences in sensory quality of tobacco leaves in nine tobacco-planting counties in Qujing City, which could provide reference for the selection of characteristic raw materials for industrial enterprises. The reason for the difference may be related to the changes in the contents of total sugar, reducing sugar, total nitrogen and potassium in tobacco leaves. Therefore, it was suggested that the contents of total sugar, reducing sugar, total nitrogen and potassium in tobacco leaves should be controlled by directional technology to optimize or stabilize the sensory quality of tobacco leaves in Qujing City.

Key words: Qujing tobacco-growing regions, tobacco leaf, spatial change, sensory quality, influencing factor

CLC Number:

S572

CHEN Han, LI Zhuo-rong, YANG Li-ping, LI Kai, LIU Dong-mei, MA Li, DENG Guo-bin, LI Zu-hong. Spatial variation characteristics and influencing factors of tobacco leaf sensory quality in Qujing tobacco-growing regions[J]. HUBEI AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, 2025, 64(1): 88-94.

References

[1] 周敏, 张忠武, 杨景华, 等. 云南曲靖不同生态区域云烟97烟叶品质差异评价[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2022, 50(22): 198-202.
[2] 张芸萍, 郭山虎, 张锦涛, 等. 曲靖烟区烟叶微量元素与土壤pH值关系研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2021(2): 178-182.
[3] 文伟康. 湖南浓香型上部烟叶质量产区比较[D].长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2020.
[4] 刘辉, 祖庆学, 王松峰, 等. 不同成熟度对鲜烟素质和烤后烟叶质量的影响[J].中国烟草科学, 2020, 41(2):66-71.
[5] 张勇刚, 宋朝鹏, 李常军, 等. 烟叶感官质量评价研究进展[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2010, 49(9):2271-2274.
[6] 王鹏泽, 来苗, 陶陶, 等. 河南烟叶香韵区域分布特征[J].河南农业大学学报, 2015, 49(5):577-583.
[7] 郝贤伟, 李奇, 毕一鸣, 等. 不同颜色上部烤烟主要品质指标的差异分析[J]. 河南农业科学, 2023, 52(3): 173-180.
[8] 张艳艳, 代琛, 赵百英, 等. 山东烤烟外观质量特征研究[J].安徽农业科学,2022,50(17):167-171.
[9] 杨明峰, 刘江, 张金林, 等. 山东省烟叶感官质量与物理化学指标的相关性研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2022(14): 157-166.
[10] 刘春菊, 杨少杰, 高政绪, 等. 潍坊中部烟叶理化指标与感官质量的相关性研究[J]. 广东农业科学, 2023, 50(8): 94-104.
[11] 徐泽桐, 刘亚相, 袁帅, 等. 化学成分指标对感官质量的影响及陕西省烟叶质量综合评价[J]. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(9): 1953-1960.
[12] YC/T 138—1998,烟草及烟草制品感官评价[S].
[13] GB2635—1992,烤烟[S].
[14] 郭建华,宋纪真,王广山,等.基于主成分分析和聚类分析的烟叶物理特性区域归类[J].烟草科技,2014(8):14-17.
[15] 张炳辉, 王新旺, 陈顺辉. 烟叶伸长率与主要化学成分的相关性[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(7): 30-32.
[16] YC/T 147—2001,打叶烟叶质量检验[S].
[17] YC/T 152—2001,卷烟烟丝填充值的测定[S].
[18] YC/T 159—2002,水溶性糖的测定连续流动法[S].
[19] YC/T 160—2002,烟草及烟草制品总植物碱的测定连续流动法[S].
[20] YC/T 217—2007,烟草及烟草制品钾的测定连续流动法[S].
[21] YC/T 161—2002,烟草及烟草制品总氮的测定连续流动法[S].
[22] YC/T 162—2011,烟草及烟草制品氯的测定连续流动法[S].
[23] YC/T 216—2013,烟草及烟草制品淀粉的测定连续流动法[S].
[24] 王育军, 邵建平, 赵杰, 等. 曲靖烟叶质量评价指标间的相关性分析[J]. 作物研究, 2014, 28(5): 496-500, 505.
[25] 李强. 曲靖烤烟品质特征及主要生态因素对其影响的研究[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2011.
[26] 赵曼,王戈.工艺分级中身份及颜色对烟叶质量的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2013, 41(15): 6878-6880.
[27] 高远. 四川省烤烟质量研究及综合评价[D]. 郑州:河南农业大学, 2010.
[28] 焦绍赫, 何宽信, 王念磊, 等. 江西烤烟主要理化指标对感官评吸质量的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2018, 46(1): 21-24.
[29] 闫铁军, 马俊桃, 刘文锋, 等. 烟叶外观质量与感官舒适性的相关性分析[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2021, 60(23): 109-113.
[30] 丁根胜, 张庆明, 巴金莎, 等. 烟叶颜色色度学指标与烤烟品质的关系分析[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2011, 32(4): 14-18.
[31] 路晓崇, 李昊, 苏家恩, 等. 基于烤烟颜色特征构建烤烟感官质量预测模型[J]. 河南农业大学学报, 2016, 50(4): 500-505
[32] 刘阳, 张大纯, 刘海轮, 等. 环秦岭区域烤烟物理特性及其与评吸质量的关系[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 47(1): 15-20.
[33] 王鹏, 李玉宝, 龙飞, 等. 凉山烟区烤烟品种间理化特征的差异及其与感官质量的关系[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 44(11): 62-69.
[34] 张婷, 李金海, 廖晓玲, 等. 湖北烤烟主栽品种上部叶评吸质量与化学成分的关系[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(19): 142-147.
[35] 沈晗, 江佳楠, 汤朝起, 等. 烟叶主要含氮化合物含量与感官质量的关系[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2017, 32(3): 558-563.
[36] 李超, 刘永来, 关罗浩. 云南罗平烟区烟叶主要化学成分含量及其与感官质量的相关性[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2021, 49(1): 22-29.
[37] 张千子, 谢新乔, 李湘伟, 等. 玉溪烟区高可用性烤烟主要化学成分与感官质量的关系[J]. 中南农业科技, 2022, 43(6): 15-21.
[38] 武广鹏, 李许涛, 李钦奎, 等. 河南烟叶化学成分与感官质量的相关性分析[J]. 江西农业学报, 2022, 34(10): 25-29.
[39] 邓国宾, 曾晓鹰, 薛红芬, 等. 烤烟游离氨基酸与感官质量的相关性研究[J]. 中国烟草科学,2011,32(5):14-19,23.
[40] 董洪旭, 李小兰, 奚家勤, 等. 不同香型产区烤烟游离氨基酸含量及组成差异分析[J]. 烟草科技,2017,50(3):15-22.
[41] 王稼良, 邵建平, 潘林, 等. 曲靖烟叶化学成分含量与外观质量的相关性分析[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2014, 42(19): 6376-6378.