Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The potential of using traditional Chinese medicine residues as organic fertilizers to improve crop quality has attracted increasing attention, yet the underlying soil microecological mechanisms remain poorly understood. This study investigated the effects of Panax notoginseng residue composite organic fertilizer on tobacco quality formation. A field experiment was conducted with three treatments: no organic fertilizer (CK), traditional farmyard manure (CL_1), and P. notoginseng residue fertilizer (CL_2). Agronomic traits, leaf chemical compositions, and sensory qualities were evaluated, integrated with soil multi-omics analysis to characterize the rhizospheric microbial community. The results demonstrated that P. notoginseng residue fertilizer significantly optimized the quality and output value structure of tobacco. Compared with the CK soil, P. notoginseng residue fertilizer increased the yield of premium-grade leaves by 38%. Chemically, P. notoginseng residue fertilizer modulated the foliar carbon-nitrogen balance, elevating total sugars and free amino acids, while accelerating the enrichment of key secondary metabolites such as chlorogenic acid, rutin, and scopolin. These adjustments enhanced sensory scores by reducing irritation and masking off-flavors. Soil multi-omics revealed that P. notoginseng residue fertilizer elevated hydrolyzable nitrogen and available potassium, directionally enriching core functional bacteria such as Pseudoxanthomonas , Pseudomonas , and Lysobacter . In conclusion, the P. notoginseng residue fertilizer orchestrates tobacco quality enhancement by improving soil nutrient availability and recruiting specialized microorganisms, which collectively drive foliar aroma precursor biosynthesis. These findings demonstrate that recycling P. notoginseng residue into composite fertilizer is a promising strategy for achieving high-quality tobacco production and sustainable management of agricultural waste.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: