Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2020, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (34): 129-133.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20191201011
Special Issue: 玉米
Previous Articles Next Articles
Li Qi(), Yu Jinping, Liu Yixue, Zhang Wei
Received:
2019-12-30
Revised:
2020-02-07
Online:
2020-12-05
Published:
2020-12-15
CLC Number:
Li Qi, Yu Jinping, Liu Yixue, Zhang Wei. Isoxaflutole·S-metolachlor 48% OD Against Annual Weeds in Maize Field: Control Effect and Safety Evaluation[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(34): 129-133.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20191201011
处理 | 马唐 | 牛筋草 | 马齿苋 | 反枝苋 | 合计 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | |||||
A | 1.50 | 87.1 d | 1.00 | 88.0 d | 0.92 | 89.5 d | 0.92 | 88.7 d | 4.34 | 88.2 d | ||||
B | 1.00 | 91.4 c | 0.67 | 92.0 c | 0.67 | 92.3 c | 0.50 | 93.9 c | 2.84 | 92.3 c | ||||
C | 0.42 | 96.4 b | 0.17 | 98.0 b | 0.33 | 96.2 b | 0.17 | 97.9 b | 1.09 | 97.0 b | ||||
D | 0.00 | 100.0 a | 0.00 | 100.0 a | 0.00 | 100.0 a | 0.00 | 100.0 a | 0.00 | 100.0 a | ||||
E | 1.33 | 88.6 d | 0.83 | 90.0 c | 0.83 | 90.5 cd | 0.75 | 90.8 cd | 3.74 | 89.9 d | ||||
F | 1.25 | 89.3 cd | 0.75 | 91.0 c | 0.75 | 91.4 cd | 0.67 | 91.8 c | 3.42 | 90.7 d | ||||
H | 11.67 | - | 8.33 | - | 8.75 | - | 8.17 | - | 36.92 | - |
处理 | 马唐 | 牛筋草 | 马齿苋 | 反枝苋 | 合计 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | |||||
A | 1.50 | 87.1 d | 1.00 | 88.0 d | 0.92 | 89.5 d | 0.92 | 88.7 d | 4.34 | 88.2 d | ||||
B | 1.00 | 91.4 c | 0.67 | 92.0 c | 0.67 | 92.3 c | 0.50 | 93.9 c | 2.84 | 92.3 c | ||||
C | 0.42 | 96.4 b | 0.17 | 98.0 b | 0.33 | 96.2 b | 0.17 | 97.9 b | 1.09 | 97.0 b | ||||
D | 0.00 | 100.0 a | 0.00 | 100.0 a | 0.00 | 100.0 a | 0.00 | 100.0 a | 0.00 | 100.0 a | ||||
E | 1.33 | 88.6 d | 0.83 | 90.0 c | 0.83 | 90.5 cd | 0.75 | 90.8 cd | 3.74 | 89.9 d | ||||
F | 1.25 | 89.3 cd | 0.75 | 91.0 c | 0.75 | 91.4 cd | 0.67 | 91.8 c | 3.42 | 90.7 d | ||||
H | 11.67 | - | 8.33 | - | 8.75 | - | 8.17 | - | 36.92 | - |
处理 | 马唐 | 牛筋草 | 马齿苋 | 反枝苋 | 合计 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | |||||
A | 2.17 | 84.8 d | 1.83 | 83.7 d | 1.83 | 85.1 d | 1.42 | 85.8 d | 7.25 | 84.8 d | ||||
B | 1.58 | 88.9 c | 1.42 | 87.4 c | 1.42 | 88.4 c | 1.17 | 88.3 c | 5.59 | 88.3 c | ||||
C | 0.92 | 93.5 b | 0.75 | 93.3 b | 0.58 | 95.3 b | 0.50 | 95.0 b | 2.75 | 94.2 b | ||||
D | 0.17 | 98.8 a | 0.17 | 98.5 a | 0.17 | 98.6 a | 0.08 | 99.2 a | 0.59 | 98.8 a | ||||
E | 1.83 | 87.2 c | 1.42 | 87.4 c | 1.42 | 88.4 c | 1.08 | 89.2 c | 5.75 | 88.0 c | ||||
F | 1.67 | 88.3 c | 1.25 | 88.9 c | 1.25 | 89.8 c | 0.92 | 90.8 c | 5.09 | 89.3 c | ||||
H | 14.25 | - | 11.25 | - | 12.25 | - | 10.00 | - | 47.75 | - |
处理 | 马唐 | 牛筋草 | 马齿苋 | 反枝苋 | 合计 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | 株数/(株/m2) | 防效/% | |||||
A | 2.17 | 84.8 d | 1.83 | 83.7 d | 1.83 | 85.1 d | 1.42 | 85.8 d | 7.25 | 84.8 d | ||||
B | 1.58 | 88.9 c | 1.42 | 87.4 c | 1.42 | 88.4 c | 1.17 | 88.3 c | 5.59 | 88.3 c | ||||
C | 0.92 | 93.5 b | 0.75 | 93.3 b | 0.58 | 95.3 b | 0.50 | 95.0 b | 2.75 | 94.2 b | ||||
D | 0.17 | 98.8 a | 0.17 | 98.5 a | 0.17 | 98.6 a | 0.08 | 99.2 a | 0.59 | 98.8 a | ||||
E | 1.83 | 87.2 c | 1.42 | 87.4 c | 1.42 | 88.4 c | 1.08 | 89.2 c | 5.75 | 88.0 c | ||||
F | 1.67 | 88.3 c | 1.25 | 88.9 c | 1.25 | 89.8 c | 0.92 | 90.8 c | 5.09 | 89.3 c | ||||
H | 14.25 | - | 11.25 | - | 12.25 | - | 10.00 | - | 47.75 | - |
处理 | 马唐 | 牛筋草 | 马齿苋 | 反枝苋 | 合计 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | 鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | 鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | 鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | 鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | |||||
A | 20.57 | 87.8 c | 17.45 | 86.9 d | 16.74 | 88.2 d | 12.10 | 89.4 d | 66.86 | 88.0 d | ||||
B | 16.41 | 90.3 b | 12.09 | 90.9 c | 12.67 | 91.1 c | 6.08 | 94.7 c | 47.25 | 91.5 c | ||||
C | 11.92 | 92.9 b | 8.55 | 93.6 b | 4.96 | 96.5 b | 3.06 | 97.3 b | 28.49 | 94.9 b | ||||
D | 1.73 | 99.0 a | 1.21 | 99.1 a | 0.75 | 99.5 a | 1.14 | 99.0 a | 4.83 | 99.1 a | ||||
E | 19.50 | 88.5 c | 14.82 | 88.9 c | 17.07 | 88.0 d | 12.21 | 89.3 d | 63.60 | 88.6 d | ||||
F | 18.47 | 89.1 bc | 14.48 | 89.1 c | 14.08 | 90.1 c | 9.55 | 91.6 d | 56.58 | 89.9 d | ||||
H | 168.93 | - | 133.37 | - | 142.05 | - | 114.17 | - | 558.52 | - |
处理 | 马唐 | 牛筋草 | 马齿苋 | 反枝苋 | 合计 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | 鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | 鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | 鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | 鲜重/(g/m2) | 防效/% | |||||
A | 20.57 | 87.8 c | 17.45 | 86.9 d | 16.74 | 88.2 d | 12.10 | 89.4 d | 66.86 | 88.0 d | ||||
B | 16.41 | 90.3 b | 12.09 | 90.9 c | 12.67 | 91.1 c | 6.08 | 94.7 c | 47.25 | 91.5 c | ||||
C | 11.92 | 92.9 b | 8.55 | 93.6 b | 4.96 | 96.5 b | 3.06 | 97.3 b | 28.49 | 94.9 b | ||||
D | 1.73 | 99.0 a | 1.21 | 99.1 a | 0.75 | 99.5 a | 1.14 | 99.0 a | 4.83 | 99.1 a | ||||
E | 19.50 | 88.5 c | 14.82 | 88.9 c | 17.07 | 88.0 d | 12.21 | 89.3 d | 63.60 | 88.6 d | ||||
F | 18.47 | 89.1 bc | 14.48 | 89.1 c | 14.08 | 90.1 c | 9.55 | 91.6 d | 56.58 | 89.9 d | ||||
H | 168.93 | - | 133.37 | - | 142.05 | - | 114.17 | - | 558.52 | - |
处理 | 药害情况 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 增产率/% |
---|---|---|---|
A | 正常 | 7875.00 | 13.1 |
B | 正常 | 8087.50 | 16.2 |
C | 正常 | 8287.50 | 19.0 |
D | 正常 | 8437.50 | 21.2 |
E | 正常 | 7952.50 | 14.2 |
F | 正常 | 8035.00 | 15.4 |
G | 正常 | 8600.00 | 23.5 |
H | 正常 | 7875.00 | - |
处理 | 药害情况 | 产量/(kg/hm2) | 增产率/% |
---|---|---|---|
A | 正常 | 7875.00 | 13.1 |
B | 正常 | 8087.50 | 16.2 |
C | 正常 | 8287.50 | 19.0 |
D | 正常 | 8437.50 | 21.2 |
E | 正常 | 7952.50 | 14.2 |
F | 正常 | 8035.00 | 15.4 |
G | 正常 | 8600.00 | 23.5 |
H | 正常 | 7875.00 | - |
[1] | 杨继芝, 王宜, 龚国淑, 等. 不同除草剂对夏玉米田杂草防效和产量的影响[J]. 杂草科学, 2010,1:51-53. |
[2] | 郑丽, 吕远, 倪汉文. 玉米田4种茎叶除草剂防除效果比较[J]. 农药, 2011,50(8):597-598. |
[3] | 霍静倩, 许文超, 康占海, 等. 50%烟嘧磺隆·甲基磺草酮·氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯水分散粒剂防除夏玉米田杂草防效与安全性[J]. 农药, 2013,52(5):374-376. |
[4] | 太一梅, 李志敏, 刘萍, 等. 25%硝磺草酮·莠去津悬浮剂及混剂对玉米田杂草的防除效果[J]. 杂草科学, 2014,32(4):62-65. |
[5] | 王仕稳, 殷俐娜, 段留生, 等. 东北部分春玉米地乙莠合剂防效下降的原因和对策[J]. 玉米科学, 2007,15(1):135-138. |
[6] | 吴翠霞, 张宏军, 张佳, 等. 玉米田主要杂草对烟嘧磺隆的抗性[J]. 植物保护, 2016,3:198-203. |
[7] | 左兰. 异噁唑草酮在玉米田的应用研究[D]. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2016. |
[8] | 刘洋. 未来玉米田除草剂的开发思路[J]. 农药市场信息, 2015,28:32-33. |
[9] |
Bhowmik P C, Kushwaha S, Mitra S. Response of various weed species and corn (Zea mays) to RPA 20172[J]. Weed Technology, 1999,13:504-509.
doi: 10.1017/S0890037X00046108 URL |
[10] | Luscornbe B, Pallett K E, Loubiere P, et al. RPA 201772: A novel herbicide for broad leaf and grass weed control in maize and sugarcane [C]. Brighton Crop Protection Conference,Weeds, 1995: 35-42. |
[11] |
Geier P W, Stahlman P W. EXP 31130 A effecacy and corn (Zea mays) response in Western Kansas[J]. Weed Technology, 1999,13:404-410.
doi: 10.1017/S0890037X00041944 URL |
[12] | 曹鹏英, 薄瑞, 韩丽君, 等. 精异丙甲草胺在土壤中的吸附行为及环境影响因素研究[J]. 农药学学报, 2007,9(2):159-164. |
[13] | 贺敏, 贾春虹, 余苹中, 等. 向日葵和土壤中精异丙甲草胺的残留动态研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011,27(14):250-252. |
[14] | 周超, 马冲, 张勇, 等. 9种茎叶处理除草剂对花生田杂草的防除效果及安全性评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019,35(10):128-132. |
[15] |
Pallett K E, Little J P, Sheekey M, et al. The mode of action of isoxaflutole, isoxaflutole, I physiological effects, metabolism, and selectivity[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 1998,62:113-124.
doi: 10.1006/pest.1998.2378 URL |
[16] |
Viviani F, Little J P, Pallett K E. The mode of action of isoxaflutole, II Characterization of the inhibiton of carrot 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase by the diketonitrile derivayive of isoxaflutole[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 1998,62:125-134.
doi: 10.1006/pest.1998.2375 URL |
[17] | 高兴祥, 孙作文, 李美, 等. 异噁唑草酮防除玉米田杂草及玉米安全性效果测定[J]. 玉米科学, 2016,24(5):157-160. |
[18] |
Askew S D, Wilcut J W. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)[J]. Weed Technology, 1999,13(2):308-313.
doi: 10.1017/S0890037X00041786 URL |
[19] |
Koger C H, Price A J, Reddy K N. Weed Control and Cotton Response to Combinations of Glyphosate and Trifloxysulfuron[J]. Weed Technology, 2005,19(1):113-121.
doi: 10.1614/WT-03-273R URL |
[20] | 李琦, 刘亦学, 于金萍, 等. 1%甲基二磺隆·双氟磺草胺可分散油悬浮剂防治小麦田一年生杂草效果与安全性[J]. 杂草学报, 2018,36(3):58-61. |
[21] | 李琦, 刘亦学, 于金萍, 等. 29%环磺酮·烟嘧磺隆·莠去津可分散油悬浮剂防治玉米田一年生杂草效果与安全性[J]. 农药, 2018,57(11):851-854. |
[1] | LV Xingchen, MENG Jun. Blockchain-Based Agricultural Traceability: Advantages and Challenges [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(9): 157-164. |
[2] | JI Kun, WANG Bin, ZHAO Bowen, XUE Hao, WU Jianmin, ZHU Xiaojian, WANG Yixin, ZHAO Haijun, HAN Zanping. Different Maize Germplasm Materials: Grey Correlation Analysis of Plant and Ear-kernel Traits [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(9): 27-32. |
[3] | FU Yanyan, LI Yunfeng, HAN Dong, MA Shuqing. Water Surplus and Deficit of Maize Growing Season and Its Effect on Yield in Major Grain Producing Areas of Jilin Province [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(7): 99-105. |
[4] | ZHANG Hongfen, YANG Lijie, ZHAO Yujuan, ZHANG Feng. Strong Cool Summer in East Gansu in 2020: Climate Characteristics and the Impact on Agriculture [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(5): 117-123. |
[5] | LI Rui, SHANG Xiao, SHANG Chunshu, CHANG Lifang, YAN Lei, BAI Jianrong. 224 Maize Inbred Lines from Shanxi: Genetic Structure and Genetic Relationships Based on SSR Markers by Fluorescence Detection [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(5): 9-16. |
[6] | ZHOU Zhongwen, ZHANG Moucao, LIU Ying, LIU Donghui, ZHANG Hongni, ZHANG Junlin, HAN Bo. The Influence of Meteorological Factors on Grain Filling Speed of Spring Maize in the Plateau Area of Eastern Gansu [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(5): 94-98. |
[7] | WANG Hui, LU Xinhai, DU Meifang, ZHANG Qi. Spatio-temporal Characteristics of Extreme Heat During Summer Maize Growing Season in Haihe Plain from 1960 to 2019 [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(4): 62-68. |
[8] | SUN Yanming, HUANG Shaohui, LIU Ketong, YANG Yunma, YANG Junfang, XING Suli, JIA Liangliang. Effects of Soil Fertility Difference on Summer Maize Yield in Piedmont Plain and Low Plain in Central and Southern Hebei [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(35): 35-42. |
[9] | HU Xuechun, XIE Wenyan, MA Xiaonan, ZHOU Huaiping, YANG Zhenxing, LIU Zhiping. Effects of Long-term Straw Returning on Organic Carbon and Carbon Pool Management Index in Dryland Maize Soil [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(34): 8-13. |
[10] | ZHU Haixia, LI Xiang, WEI Youhai. 800 g/L Prosulfocarb EC: Annual Weeds’ Control Effect and Safety Analysis in Broad Bean Field [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(33): 97-102. |
[11] | SONG Yingbo, WANG Nannan, ZHANG Hongquan, FAN Weimin, LI Yu, MENG Fanxiang, LI Candong, CHEN Qingshan. The Application of Excel VBA Array in the Design of Matching Test List for Maize Inbred Lines [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(32): 106-110. |
[12] | JIANG Jufang, YANG Hua, HU Wenqing, WEI Yuguo. Effects of Continuous High Temperature and Drought Stress on the Growth of Spring Maize [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(32): 63-68. |
[13] | ZHANG Huimin, BAO Guangling, ZHOU Xiaotian, GAO Linlin, HU Hongxiang, MA Youhua. Safety Assessment of Heavy Metals in Specific Crops of Strictly Controlled Farmland [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(3): 52-58. |
[14] | ZHU Xixia, ZHENG Yuzhen, WANG Haihong, HUANG Bao, PING Xishuan, LIU Tianxue, ZHAO Xia, LI Yuzhen. Different Row Spacing and Reducing Nitrogen Application in Soybean-Maize Intercropping Under Mechanization: Effects on Crop Yield and Photosynthetic Characteristics of Soybean [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(29): 16-21. |
[15] | XIE Wen, HUO Chuan, PENG Chaoying, HUO Shiping. QTL of Kernel Yield of Maize and Its Components’ Traits: Research Progress [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(29): 8-15. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||