不同配套栽培措施对商薯9号产量及杂草防控的影响

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.02.028

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究除草剂和地膜覆盖配套栽培对甘薯生长发育和杂草防控的影响,采用田间试验的方法,研究不同除草剂和地膜覆盖对甘薯田间杂草防控和产量的影响。结果表明,与不施除草剂、无地膜覆盖处理相比,除草剂和地膜覆盖配套栽培对甘薯田间杂草防控、农艺性状和经济性状均有一定的积极效应,而在不同除草剂和地膜覆盖处理中,50%乙草胺乳油×黑色地膜处理对杂草株防效和鲜重防效最好,33%二甲戊乐灵乳油配套透明地膜或黑色地膜对杂草株防效和鲜重防效均最低,33%二甲戊乐灵乳油除草效果不佳;50%乙草胺乳油×透明地膜处理薯块干物率最高,蔓茎干物率、T/R值最低;96%精异丙甲草胺乳油×透明地膜处理鲜薯产量、薯干产量及商品薯率最高;除草剂与地膜覆盖对甘薯杂草防控、农艺性状和经济性状有极显著的互作效应;综合杂草防控、薯块品质等因素,生产上应选用96%精异丙甲草胺乳油和透明地膜配套栽培较为适宜。研究结果为商薯9号杂草防控提供了科学依据。

关键词: 甘薯, 除草剂, 地膜, 产量, 杂草防控

Abstract:

Field experiments were conducted to study the effects of different herbicides and plastic film mulching on the weeds control and yield of sweet potato. The results showed that the herbicides and plastic film mulching had positive effects on the weeds control, agronomic and economic characters of sweet potato. In the different treatments of the herbicides and plastic film mulching, the 50% acetochlor EC×black membrane treatment had the best effectiveness on the weeds control of sweet potato plant; and fresh weight of the 33% pendimethalin EC×black membrane or transparent membrane treatment had the worst effectiveness on the weeds control; and fresh weight of the 33% pendimethalin EC was not effective on the weeds control. The dry matter rate of sweet potato of the 50% acetochlor EC×transparent membrane treatment was the highest, the dry matter rate of the stem and the T/R value were the lowest. The yield of fresh and dry sweet potato and the rate of commercial potato of the 96% methoprolopamide EC×black membrane treatment were the highest. In addition, the herbicide and film mulching had an extremely significant interaction on the weeds control, economy and agronomic characters of sweet potato. Considering the weed control and commodity value factors, the treatment of 96% methoprolopamide EC×black film is more suitable measure for production. The research results can provide the scientific basis for the weeds control of Shangshu 9.

Key words: Sweet potato, Herbicide, Film mulching, Yield, Weed control

刘亚军,储凤丽,王文静,胡启国,杨爱梅. 不同配套栽培措施对商薯9号产量及杂草防控的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019 (2): 179–184

Yajun Liu,Fengli Chu,Wenjing Wang,Qiguo Hu,Aimei Yang. Effects of Different Supporting Cultivation Measures on the Yield and Weeds Control of Sweet Potato cv. Shangshu 9[J]. Crops, 2019(2): 179–184

图/表 4

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 20

[1]	肖利贞, 杨国红, 康志河 , 等. 甘薯无公害高产高效生产技术. 作物杂志, 2017(6):43-46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2006.06.017
[2]	秦素研, 黄立飞, 葛昌斌 , 等. 河南省甘薯茎腐病的分离与鉴定. 作物杂志, 2017(6):52-55,157. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-7283.2013.06.014
[3]	蒋汇川, 韦鹏练, 李宁 , 等. 木薯茎秆纤维形态和化学成分的初步研究. 热带作物学报, 2015,36(6):1186-1190. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2015.06.028
[4]	杨爱梅 . 甘薯高淀粉育种途径的探讨. 杂粮作物, 2009,29(1):18-20. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0896.2009.01.008
[5]	范建芝, 段成鼎, 井水华 , 等. 除草剂配合地膜覆盖对甘薯田杂草防除及增产的效果. 杂草学报, 2016,34(1):61-64.
[6]	井水华 . 鲁南丘陵旱薄地甘薯高产高效栽培技术研究. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2016.
[7]	辛国胜, 林祖军, 韩俊杰 , 等. 黑色地膜对甘薯生理特性及产量的影响. 中国农学通报, 2010,26(15):233-237.
[8]	李倩, 张聪, 吴洁 , 等. 甘薯对潮霉素及除草剂的敏感性研究. 西南农业学报, 2013,26(5):1870-1872.
[9]	段成鼎, 范建芝, 杨淑娟 , 等. 3种除草剂对甘薯田杂草的田间防效试验. 杂草科学, 2014,32(2):52-55. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-935X.2014.02.016
[10]	邱思鑫, 刘中华, 余华 , 等. 甘薯田间杂草安全高效除草剂的筛选. 福建农业学报, 2018,33(2):171-176.
[11]	胡启国, 王文静, 储凤丽 , 等. 旱薄地甘薯除草剂与地膜覆盖配套栽培效应探讨. 中国农学通报, 2018,34(16):126-130.
[12]	江燕, 史春余, 王振振 , 等. 地膜覆盖对耕层土壤温度水分和甘薯产量的影响. 中国生态农业学报, 2014,22(6):627-634. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2014.31229
[13]	张勇 . 泰安市甘薯田化学除草技术研究. 泰安:山东农业大学, 2011. doi: 10.7666/d.y2116430
[14]	杨育峰, 李君霞, 代小冬 , 等. 5种除草剂对甘薯田间杂草的防除效果. 河南农业科学, 2013,42(7):88-90. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2013.07.021
[15]	张勇, 路兴涛, 刘震 , 等. 精喹禾灵等药剂除草活性及对甘薯的安全性. 农药, 2012,51(6):457-460. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0413.2012.06.022
[16]	雷剑, 杨新笋, 苏文瑾 , 等. 不同除草剂防治甘薯田杂草药效试验. 湖北农业科学, 2012,51(24):5856-5857. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0439-8114.2012.24.084
[17]	李艳霞, 范建芝, 王春兰 , 等. 两种除草剂防除甘薯田杂草药效试验. 山东农业科学, 2017(4):65-66. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4942.2010.04.022
[18]	王子文, 王建平, 王贵启 , 等. 不同除草剂对甘薯田杂草的效果及安全性比较. 杂草科学, 2015,33(3):42-45.
[19]	李云, 宋吉轩, 李丽 , 等. 不同除草剂对甘薯田间杂草的防效研究. 园艺与种苗, 2017(9):41-43,49. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-0896.2012.09.018
[20]	李贵, 王一专, 吴竞仑 . 甘薯田杂草的防除策略. 杂草科学, 2017(4):15-18. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-935X.2010.04.004

相关文章 15

[1]	王永刚,姬铭泽,赵旭涵,于立河,薛盈文. 播期对白燕7号在黑龙江省中西部地区产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (3): 106–111
[2]	张冬梅,黄学芳,姜春霞,张伟,王晓娟,刘化涛,闫六英,刘恩科,翟广谦. 冷凉区旱地玉米微垄覆膜土壤水热及产量效应研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 115–121
[3]	张宇飞,刘立志,马昱萱,王晓纯,戴建军. 耕作和秸秆还田方式对玉米产量及钾素积累转运的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 122–127
[4]	刘韶光,赵夏童,宋喜娥,原向阳,董淑琦,郭美俊,郭平毅. 膜间喷施芽前除草剂对谷子安全性及对杂草防效的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 173–178
[5]	白雨,韩雪莹,董海洋,乌云苏都,李冰圳,陈贵林. 轮作及农艺措施对减轻向日葵列当危害的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 192–196
[6]	董立峰,林小虎,刘春荣,侯桂双,张春璐,付金锋,王凤宝. 复配种衣剂对豌豆生长及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 185–191
[7]	高运青,李姝彤,尚启兵,石俊春,徐东旭. 施肥对蚕豆根瘤及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 164–167
[8]	唐会会,许艳丽,王庆燕,马正波,李光彦,董会,董志强. 叶面喷施5-氨基乙酰丙酸对不同密度春玉米生长特性和产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 136–141
[9]	向德明,张明发,彭曙光,田峰,罗建新,陈武,蔡云帆,田明慧,吕启松. 连年施用新型肥料对土壤真菌群落及烤烟产质量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 156–163
[10]	肖小军,吕伟生,余跑兰,郑伟,李亚贞,胡磊,肖富良,张绍文,黄天宝,肖国滨. 三熟制油菜秸秆还田条件下施氮量对早稻产量形成和氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 103–109
[11]	欧行奇,任秀娟,李新华,欧阳娟. 小麦品种边行优势和内行表现对小区产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 97–102
[12]	赵凯男,常旭虹,王德梅,陶志强,杨玉双,马瑞琦,朱英杰,徐哲莉,张保军,赵广才. 立体匀播和施氮量对冬小麦产量构成及旗叶光合性能的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 103–110
[13]	梁茜,刘文亚,葛均筑,赵明,侯海鹏,杨永安,辛德财. 条带深旋小双行精播技术对夏玉米产量调控效应研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 111–115
[14]	张洋,于惠琳,王延波. 东华北不同生态区玉米品种产量及相关性状差异研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 38–43
[15]	吴海兵,刘道红,钟鸣,汪友元. 水分管理和钾肥施用对水稻产量和抗倒伏性的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 127–133

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

处理Treatment	杂草株数Number of weeds	杂草鲜重Fresh weight of weeds (g)	株防效Plant control (%)	鲜重防效Fresh weight control (%)
CK	380.33±26.22a	496.38±19.86a	-	-
T1	73.25±9.77bc	131.85±11.59bc	80.74±12.21ab	73.47±8.18ab
T2	47.62±4.01c	117.41±8.81bc	87.48±9.56a	76.38±6.79ab
T3	102.03±11.23b	210.14±19.29b	73.17±8.56b	57.69±37.05b
T4	52.98±7.10c	102.53±12.36c	86.07±8.01a	79.39±4.51ab
T5	26.29±5.12c	61.22±4.00c	93.09±10.23a	87.71±6.86a
F
A	0.85	1.13	2.17	0.63
B	3.22	8.65^*	4.36	8.89^*
A×B	15.32^**	22.94^**	16.59^**	26.94^**

处理Treatment	T/R值T/R value	蔓长Stem length (m)	薯块干物率Dry matter rate of tuber (%)	蔓茎干物率Dry matter rate of stem (%)
CK	0.89±0.06a	1.72±0.04c	27.01±0.10c	12.56±0.19a
T1	0.77±0.06a	1.76±0.04bc	27.95±0.14b	11.26±0.30bc
T2	0.87±0.07a	1.75±0.04bc	27.58±0.23b	11.66±0.29b
T3	0.86±0.08a	1.75±0.04bc	27.88±0.33b	11.56±0.23b
T4	0.82±0.03a	1.82±0.02b	27.56±0.41b	11.35±0.18bc
T5	0.80±0.02a	1.99±0.08a	28.52±0.75a	10.95±0.40c
F
A	0.02	0.61	0.42	0.14
B	0.90	16.93^**	8.98^*	0.55
A×B	2.47^*	0.41	1.92	12.43^**

处理 Treatment	鲜薯产量(kg/hm²) Yield of fresh sweet potato	薯干产量(kg/hm²) Yield of dry sweet potato	生物产量(kg/hm²) Biological yield	商品薯率(%) Commercial rate
CK	24 341.0±860.0c	6 571.8±256.3d	46 000.7±292.4c	61.25±4.61c
T1	29 283.1±1 759.0ab	8 130.6±432.7abc	54 481.4±752.0ab	67.74±2.28ab
T2	27 892.1±1 559.3bc	7 759.3±467.4bc	52 041.5±1 129.7b	66.73±0.52b
T3	27 089.8±526.6bc	7 473.2±186.4cd	50 165.1±1 731.3bc	65.72±2.11b
T4	32 795.9±626.8a	9 151.2±754.6a	59 133.7±723.6a	71.25±1.03a
T5	30 173.5±1 491.2ab	8 662.9±215.9ab	58 408.0±2 339.8a	68.50±1.81ab
F
A	1.42	1.22	2.17	3.10
B	2.71	4.34	7.53^*	6.91^*
A×B	13.86^**	17.63^**	13.67^**	12.22^**

指标Index	鲜薯产量 Fresh yield	商品薯率 Commercial rate	T/R值 T/R value	蔓长 Stem length	薯块干物率 Dry matter rate of tuber	蔓茎干物率 Dry matter rate of stem
鲜薯产量Fresh yield	-1
商品薯率Commercial rate	-0.62^**	-1
T/R值T/R value	-0.60^**	-0.54^*	-1
蔓长Stem length	-0.26	-0.44	-0.22	-1
薯块干物率Dry matter rate of tuber	-0.25	-0.50^*	-0.26	-0.58^**	-1
蔓茎干物率Dry matter rate of stem	-0.04	-0.28	-0.14	-0.64^**	-0.58^**	1