Agronomic Practices to Reduce Alkaloid Levels in Dark Fire-Cured Tobacco
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-2018 Agronomic Practices to Reduce Alkaloid Levels in Dark Fire-Cured Tobacco Michael Ryan Brown University of Tennessee Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Recommended Citation Brown, Michael Ryan, "Agronomic Practices to Reduce Alkaloid Levels in Dark Fire-Cured Tobacco. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2018. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/5352 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Michael Ryan Brown entitled "Agronomic Practices to Reduce Alkaloid Levels in Dark Fire-Cured Tobacco." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Plant Sciences. Eric R. Walker, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: William A. Bailey, Robert D. Miller Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Agronomic Practices to Reduce Alkaloid Levels in Dark Fire-Cured Tobacco A Thesis Presented for the Master of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Michael Ryan Brown December 2018 Acknowledgments I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Eric Walker, for giving me a chance to pursue my M.S. in his program. Thank you for your guidance, patience, encouragement, and friendship. I want to thank Dr. Andy Bailey and Dr. Bob Miller for serving on my graduate committee, and for their guidance, assistance, and friendship. To Mr. Joe Beeler, for his constant encouragement, guidance, and friendship. To Dr. Thomas C. Mueller, for his assistance and friendship. To Mr. Rob Ellis and the personnel at Highland Rim Research and Education Center, for their assistance and great memories throughout my years at Tennessee. To the personnel at the University of Kentucky Research and Education Center at Princeton, for their assistance with field plots in 2017. To Dr. Virginia Sykes and Dr. Liesel Schneider, for their guidance and statistical counseling. To my fellow graduate students and undergraduate assistants, Madison Cartwright, Trey Clark, Kacey Cannon, Johnny Richwine, Luke Shoffner, Shawn Butler, Mitchell Richmond, Andrea Keeney, Ethan Parker, Alinna Umphres-Lopez, Ragan Sloan, and Peyton Hix, for their assistance, encouragement, and friendships during my time at Tennessee. To my parents, Mike and Christy Brown, for their constant love, patience, encouragement, and support. To my grandmother, Betty Carol West, for her love, support, and encouragement. To my uncle, Donnie Cherry, for his encouragement to pursue my career in agriculture. To my brother, Austin Brown, for his love and friendship. To Sarah Elise Ramsey, for her encouragement, support, friendship, and love. ii Abstract Field experiments were conducted at two locations over two years to evaluate the effects of agronomic practices on physical and chemical properties of dark fire-cured tobacco. Locations were at the Highland Rim Research and Education Center in Springfield, TN, and at the University of Kentucky Research and Education Center in Princeton, KY. One experiment was conducted in Springfield, TN, in 2016 and experiments were conducted at both locations in 2017. These experiments evaluated two dark tobacco varieties (KT D14 LC and KT D18 LI), two nitrogen rates (84 kg N/ha applied preplant and 196 kg N/ha - 84 kg applied preplant followed by 112 kg at layby), three topping stages (early button, late bloom, and immediately prior to harvest), and two sucker control methods (dropline application with fatty alcohol solution and hand-suckered). The 2017 experiments did not evaluate the sucker control treatments. Soil amendments, pest control, and all other production practices were carried out according to university recommendations. The effects of variety and nitrogen rate on yield were inconsistent. However, similar yield and quality was observed for both varieties when averaged across all years and locations. Leaf chemistry was inconsistent between both varieties. Reduction of nitrogen reduced alkaloids, nicotine, TSNA, and NNN, while earlier topping increased alkaloids, nicotine, TSNA, and NNN. However, results could have been influenced by the amount of days after topping until harvest. While topping immediately prior to harvest significantly reduced alkaloids, nicotine, TSNA, and NNN, this practice also severely decreased yield and quality. Leaf from higher stalk positions produced higher levels of all chemical constituents, except nicotine to nornicotine conversion and NNK. Conversely, lower stalk positions resulted in higher levels of nicotine to nornicotine conversion and NNK. Based on the iii results of this study, reduced nitrogen and later toppings decreased the amount of certain chemical constituents in the cured leaf. iv Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: Introduction... ................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................. 4 Health Concerns Associated with Tobacco .............................................................................. 5 Tobacco Alkaloids .................................................................................................................. 6 Factors Influencing Alkaloids and TSNAs............................................................................... 7 TSNA Reduction ..................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 3: Research Methods & Procedures....................................................................... 12 Justification ............................................................................................................................. 13 Objective................................................................................................................................. 13 Materials & Methods... ............................................................................................................ 13 Statistical Analysis & Procedures ............................................................................................ 15 Results & Discussion 2016 ...................................................................................................... 16 Results & Discussion 2017 ...................................................................................................... 23 Conclusions & Future Research............................................................................................... 27 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 37 VITA ...................................................................................................................................... 80 v List of Tables Table 1. Treatment list for the 2016 study in Springfield, TN. ................................................. 41 Table 2. Treatment list for the 2017 studies in Springfield, TN and Princeton, KY. ................. 42 Table 3. Total cured leaf yield by variety in 2016. ................................................................... 46 Table 4. Total cured leaf yield in response to nitrogen rate in 2016.......................................... 46 Table 5. Total cured leaf yield by topping stage and sucker control interaction in 2016. .......... 46 Table 6. Lug crop throw by variety in 2016. ............................................................................ 47 Table 7. Lug crop throw by sucker control method in 2016. .................................................... 47 Table 8. Seconds crop throw response by variety and topping stage interaction in 2016. ......... 48 Table 9. Leaf crop throw by variety in 2016 ............................................................................ 49 Table 10. Leaf crop throw by topping stage in 2016. ............................................................... 49 Table 11. Leaf crop throw by sucker control method in 2016................................................... 49 Table 12. Quality grade index response to topping time in 2016. ............................................. 50 Table 13. Total alkaloids in response to nitrogen rate in 2016. ................................................. 51 Table 14. Total alkaloids by stalk position and variety interaction in 2016. ............................. 51 Table 15. Total alkaloids by stalk position and topping stage interaction in 2016..................... 52 Table 16. Total alkaloids by variety and topping stage interaction in 2016............................... 52 Table 17. Total alkaloids response to sucker control method in 2016. ...................................... 53 Table 18. Nicotine response