Effects of Several Herbicides on the Growth and Development of Maize

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19010138

Abstract

Abstract:

While herbicides can ensure crop yield, their phytotoxicity to crops also occurs frequently. The main maize varieties in east dry land of Gansu Province and several herbicides with good efficacy on malignant weeds were used as experimental materials. Field experiments were conducted to study the effects of clopyralid 75% SG, atrazine 90% WG, MCPA-Na 56% SP and their 2 mixtures on main agronomic traits and yield of maize, aims to provide a basis for safe production of maize. The results showed that no herbicides were found to cause visible phytotoxicity to maize 0-7 days after application and at different growth stages. Clopyralid 75% SG, atrazine 90% WG, clopyralid 75% SG + atrazine 90% WG had slight effects on the plant height of maize at seedling stage, but with the enhance of self-defense ability of maize, herbicides had no significant inhibitory effect on the plant height of maize at subsequent growth stages. Different herbicides had no inhibitory effect on the stem diameter of maize at every growth stage, and there was no significant difference in ear diameter, effective ear length, grain numbers of per spike and 100-seeds weight. The yields of maize treated with herbicides increased by 21.93%-30.22% and -2.91%-3.69% compared with the blank control and artificial weed control, respectively. The tested herbicides are highly safe for maize and can be applied to weeds control in maize field.

Key words: herbicides, maize, growth and development, agronomic characters, yield

CLC Number:

S482.4

Liu Jianwei, Wang Zongsheng, Shi Guangliang, Jiang Yanjun, Han Juhong, Li Qingmei, Yue Decheng. Effects of Several Herbicides on the Growth and Development of Maize[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(15): 142-146.

Figures/Tables 5

References 24

[1]	徐田军, 吕天放, 赵久然 , 等. 除草剂对不同玉米品种生长发育和产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018,26(8):1159-1169.
[2]	贾富勤, 张佳 . 三大作物田杂草防除现状与对策[J]. 安徽农业, 2004(9):65.
[3]	孔晓民, 曾苏明, 韩成卫 , 等. 不同除草剂对夏玉米田杂草的防治效果研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 2013,45(10):111-113.
[4]	杜金河, 李友政, 吕述斗 , 等. 淮北地区夏玉米田杂草的发生规律及化除技术[J]. 江苏农业科学, 1999(3):42-44.
[5]	丁祖军, 张洪进, 张夕林 , 等. 玉米田杂草发生规律经济防除阈值及竞争临界期研究[J]. 杂草科学, 2003(2):15-17.
[6]	张国, 逯非, 黄志刚 , 等. 我国主粮作物的化学农药用量及其温室气体排放估算[J]. 应用生态学报, 2016,27(9):2875-2883.
[7]	陈海伟, 张鲁华, 陈德富 , 等. 除草剂及抗除草剂作物的应用现状与展望[J]. 生物技术通报, 2012(10):35-40.
[8]	王晓菁, 牛艳, 赵子丹 , 等. 二氯吡啶酸在油菜和土壤中的消解动态研究[J]. 河南农业科学, 2013,42(12):94-97.
[9]	Soloman K R, Baker D B, Richards R P . Ecological risk assessment of atrazine in North American surface waters[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1996,15(1):31-34.
[10]	袁传卫, 姜兴印 . 光合作用抑制性除草剂的研究[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2014,35(4):23-27.
[11]	王凤芝, 孙福华, 张晓东 . 2甲4氯钠粉剂防除稻田扁秆藨草药效试验[J]. 河北农业科学, 2005,9(4):40-42.
[12]	石小堰, 李凤海 . 玉米苗前除草剂种质抗性评价及鉴定指标筛选[J]. 玉米科学, 2017,25(4):48-54.
[13]	刘方明, 梁文举, 闻大中 . 耕作方法和除草剂对玉米田杂草群落的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005,16(10):1879-1882.
[14]	Ralph P J . Herbicide toxicity of Halophilaovalis assessed by chlorophyll a fluorescence[J]. Aquatic Botany, 2000,66(2):141-152.
[15]	Green J M, Ulrich J F . Response of corn (Zea mays L.)inbred lines and hybrids to sulfonylurea herbicides[J]. Weed Science, 1993,41(3):508-516.
[16]	李致闻, 史振声, 林继山 , 等. 不同抗性基因型玉米对烟嘧磺隆除草剂的反应差异[J]. 玉米科学, 2012,20(4):32-36.
[17]	柳建伟 . 5种除草剂对野艾蒿的防除效果及对胡麻安全性的测定[J]. 农药, 2018,57(6):465-468.
[18]	柳建伟, 王宗胜, 姜延军 , 等. 不同剂量除草剂混配对野艾蒿的防除效果及对胡麻的安全性[J]. 杂草学报, 2018,36(2):48-52.
[19]	吕建伟, 马天进, 黄万兵 , 等. 花生田除草剂筛选及其对花生农艺性状的影响[J]. 花生学报, 2016,45(1):53-56.
[20]	张国宾, 冯秀杰, 周星洋 , 等. 稻田除草剂残留对后茬作物烟草农艺性状和生理代谢的影响[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2016,37(1):41-45.
[21]	李巍, 杜晓华, 尚辉 , 等. 除草剂对苎麻生长及经济性状的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012,28(9):138-144.
[22]	靳彩霞 . 不同除草剂防除玉米田杂草的效果试验[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2010(1):25-27.
[23]	黄顶成, 尤民生, 侯有明 , 等. 化学除草剂对农田生物群落的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2005,25(6):1451-1458.
[24]	孙海清 . 植物发生药害的补救措施[J]. 吉林农业, 2008(2):26.

除草剂	施用剂量/(g/hm²)
75%二氯吡啶酸SG	150
90%莠去津WG	1650
56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP	450
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+90%莠去津WG	150+450
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP	120+750

除草剂	施用剂量/(g/hm²)
75%二氯吡啶酸SG	150
90%莠去津WG	1650
56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP	450
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+90%莠去津WG	150+450
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP	120+750

处理	株高/cm
处理	苗期	拔节期	大喇叭口期	成熟期
75%二氯吡啶酸SG 150 g/hm²	10.85 ±0.37 bAB	34.85±1.46 aA	170.33±8.02 aA	253.13±3.33 abA
90%莠去津WG 1650 g/hm²	11.04 ±0.46 bAB	32.57 ±5.54 aA	163.80±14.02 aAB	257.20±7.81 abA
56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP 450 g/hm²	11.65±1.30 abAB	33.73 ±4.22 aA	162.37±1.75 aAB	267.43±9.19 aA
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+90%莠去津WG 150 g/hm²+450 g/hm²	10.68 ±0.75 bB	35.28 ±3.84 aA	167.90±6.41 aA	261.20±8.75 abA
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP 120 g/hm²+750 g/hm²	12.98 ±0.92 aA	34.39 ±2.97 aA	162.43±10.71 aAB	257.60±5.25 abA
CK₁	11.86±1.18 abAB	33.44 ±2.12 aA	144.57±11.34 bB	249.17±12.02 bA
CK₂	10.69 ±0.22 bB	32.67 ±3.03 aA	170.67±5.25 aA	253.87±8.35 abA

处理	株高/cm
处理	苗期	拔节期	大喇叭口期	成熟期
75%二氯吡啶酸SG 150 g/hm²	10.85 ±0.37 bAB	34.85±1.46 aA	170.33±8.02 aA	253.13±3.33 abA
90%莠去津WG 1650 g/hm²	11.04 ±0.46 bAB	32.57 ±5.54 aA	163.80±14.02 aAB	257.20±7.81 abA
56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP 450 g/hm²	11.65±1.30 abAB	33.73 ±4.22 aA	162.37±1.75 aAB	267.43±9.19 aA
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+90%莠去津WG 150 g/hm²+450 g/hm²	10.68 ±0.75 bB	35.28 ±3.84 aA	167.90±6.41 aA	261.20±8.75 abA
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP 120 g/hm²+750 g/hm²	12.98 ±0.92 aA	34.39 ±2.97 aA	162.43±10.71 aAB	257.60±5.25 abA
CK₁	11.86±1.18 abAB	33.44 ±2.12 aA	144.57±11.34 bB	249.17±12.02 bA
CK₂	10.69 ±0.22 bB	32.67 ±3.03 aA	170.67±5.25 aA	253.87±8.35 abA

处理	茎粗/mm
处理	苗期	拔节期	大喇叭口期	成熟期
75%二氯吡啶酸SG 150 g/hm²	4.04±0.42 aA	16.28±1.63 aA	21.88±0.49 aA	20.53±0.19 aA
90%莠去津WG 1650 g/hm²	3.96±0.28 aA	16.09±2.70 aA	21.79±1.53 aA	19.68±1.09 aA
56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP 450 g/hm²	3.94±0.08 aA	16.61±2.62 aA	21.55±0.57 aA	19.91±0.59 aA
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+90%莠去津WG 150 g/hm²+450 g/hm²	3.83±0.20 aA	16.99±1.43 aA	21.86±0.30 aA	19.71±0.76 aA
75%二氯吡啶酸SG+56% 2甲4氯钠盐SP 120 g/hm²+750 g/hm²	3.94±0.16 aA	16.34±1.61 aA	21.18±0.71 aA	19.56±0.23 aA
CK₁	3.85±0.21 aA	16.47±1.82 aA	18.79±1.69 bB	16.63±1.86 bB
CK₂	3.85±0.34 aA	16.58±1.26 aA	21.54±0.47 aA	19.49±0.78 aA