作物杂志,2022, 第4期: 262–266 doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2022.04.037

• 植物保护 • 上一篇    下一篇

谷子和杂草对氰氟草酯的敏感性

李秉华1(), 王贵启1, 师志刚2, 刘小民1, 许贤1, 赵铂锤1, 程汝宏2()   

  1. 1河北省作物栽培生理与绿色生产重点试验室/河北省农林科学院粮油作物研究所,050035,河北石家庄
    2河北省杂粮研究试验室/河北省农林科学院谷子研究所,050035,河北石家庄
  • 收稿日期:2021-04-13 修回日期:2021-09-24 出版日期:2022-08-15 发布日期:2022-08-22
  • 通讯作者: 程汝宏
  • 作者简介:李秉华,主要从事杂草防控研究,E-mail: libh197@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    河北省省级科技计划(20326504D);河北省省级科技计划(19226378D);国家重点研发计划(2019YFD1001700);河北省现代农业产业技术体系杂粮杂豆创新团队优质夏谷岗位(HBCT2018070201);河北省农林科学院现代农业科技创新工程课题(2019-4-2-1)

Sensitivity of Foxtail Millets (Setaria italica L.) and Weeds to Cyhalofop-Butyl

Li Binghua1(), Wang Guiqi1, Shi Zhigang2, Liu Xiaomin1, Xu Xian1, Zhao Bochui1, Cheng Ruhong2()   

  1. 1Key Laboratory of Crop Cultivation Physiology and Green Production of Hebei Province/Institute of Cereal and Oil Crops, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang 050035,Hebei, China
    2Cereal Crops Laboratory of Hebei Province/Institute of Millet Crops, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang 050035, Hebei, China
  • Received:2021-04-13 Revised:2021-09-24 Online:2022-08-15 Published:2022-08-22
  • Contact: Cheng Ruhong

摘要:

通过室内生物测定试验和田间小区试验,明确氰氟草酯对谷子的安全性和杂草的敏感性,为氰氟草酯在谷田的应用提供理论依据。室内生物测定试验结果表明,谷田恶性杂草牛筋草和谷莠子对氰氟草酯分别为高度敏感(GR90 45.02g a.i./hm2)和一般敏感(GR90 124.13g a.i./hm2)。氰氟草酯对冀谷39和杂草的选择性指数大于2,且为不敏感(GR10 284.05g a.i./hm2),对豫谷18和杂草的选择性指数小于1,且为高度敏感(GR10 13.70g a.i./hm2)。冀谷39的抗药性指数为9.65。田间试验结果进一步表明,氰氟草酯能有效防除抗除草剂谷子品种冀谷39田间的禾本科杂草,对牛筋草和马唐的防效高,氰氟草酯在110g a.i./hm2剂量下对牛筋草和马唐的鲜重防效和株数防效均高于96%;氰氟草酯对谷莠子生长有显著抑制作用,110g a.i./hm2剂量对谷莠子的鲜重防效大于80%,对冀谷39的株高和鲜重没有影响。结果揭示了抗除草剂谷子品种冀谷39对氰氟草酯有较强的耐药性,普通谷子品种豫谷18对氰氟草酯没有耐药性,合理使用氰氟草酯能够有效防除冀谷39田间的多种禾本科杂草。

关键词: 谷子, 杂草, 氰氟草酯, 敏感性, 耐药性

Abstract:

Bioassay experiment and field plot test were executed to examine the weed sensitivity of cyhalofop-butyl and its safety on foxtail millet for providing theoretical guidance for the application of cyhalofop-butyl in millet field. The results of the laboratory bioassay test showed that Eleusine indica L. was highly sensitive (GR90=45.02g a.i./ha) to cyhalofop-butyl and Setaria faberii Herrm. was commonly sensitive (GR90=124.13g a.i./ha) to it. The selection index of cyhalofop-butyl between Jigu 39 and weeds was higher than 2 and Jigu 39 showed low sensitivity (GR10=284.05g a.i./ha) to cyhalofop-butyl. The selection index of Yugu 18 was below 1 and Yugu 18 showed highly sensitive (GR10=13.70g a.i./ha) to it. The resistant index of Jigu 39 was 9.65. Field test results further showed that cyhalofop-butyl could effectively control grassy weeds in the herbicide-resistant millet field. It had high control effect to E. indica and Digitaria sanguinalis L., both of biomass and number control effect were higher than 96% at the dose of 110g a.i./ha. It also had a significant inhibitory effect on S. faberii and the biomass control effect was higher than 80%. Biomass and plant height of Jigu 39 were unaffected by cyclofop-butyl. According to the study, Yugu 18 shown great susceptibility to cyhalofop-butyl while Jigu 39, a herbicide-resistant millet type, was resistant to it. In a field of herbicide-resistant millet, using cyhalofop-butyl wisely could successfully suppress grass weeds.

Key words: Foxtail millet, Weed, Cyhalofop-butyl, Sensitivity, Herbicide-resistance

表1

室内生物测定供试植物与除草剂剂量

处理
Treatment
豫谷18
Yugu 18
冀谷39
Jigu 39
谷莠子
S. faberii
牛筋草
E. indica
氰氟草酯
Cyhalofop-butyl
15.625 200 15.625 15.625
31.250 250 31.250 31.250
62.500 300 62.500 62.500
125.000 350 125.000 125.000
250.000 400 250.000 250.000
空白对照Control

图1

氰氟草酯对杂草的鲜重防效

表2

杂草对氰氟草酯的敏感性

杂草
Weed
回归方程
Regression
equation
相关
系数
r
95%置信限
95% confidence limit (g a.i./hm2)
GR50 GR90
牛筋草
E. indica
y =3.00+1.99x 0.94 10.19
(4.29~24.23)
45.02
(29.16~69.51)
谷莠子
S. faberii
y =2.88+1.63x 0.98 20.22
(14.27~28.66)
124.13
(93.88~164.11)

表3

谷子对氰氟草酯敏感性测定结果

谷子
Millet
回归方程
Regression equation
相关系数
r
95% 置信限95% confidence limit (g a.i./hm2) RI
GR10 GR50
豫谷Yugu 18 y=1.33+2.10x 0.94 13.70(6.25~30.04) 55.86(35.57~87.73) 1.00
冀谷Jigu 39 y=4.61x-7.59 0.91 284.05(251.05~321.40) 538.94(386.65~751.20) 9.65

表4

氰氟草酯对不同谷子品种和杂草的选择性指数

材料
Material
剂量
Dosage
谷子
Millet
牛筋草
E. indica
谷莠子
S. faberii
豫谷Yugu 18 GR10 13.70
杂草Weed GR90 45.02 124.13
选择性指数SI 0.30 0.11
冀谷Jigu 39 GR10 284.05
杂草Weed GR90 45.02 124.13
选择性指数SI 6.31 2.29

表5

氰氟草酯药后18d杂草防效

氰氟草酯
Cyhalofop-butyl
(g a.i./hm2)
株数防效Control effect of plant number (%) 鲜重防效Fresh weight control effect (%)
马唐
D. sanguinalis
牛筋草
E. indica
谷莠子
S. faberii
杂草合计
Overall of weed
马唐
D. sanguinalis
牛筋草
E. indica
谷莠子
S. faberii
杂草合计
Overall of weed
40 54.5c 37.0b 0.0c 9.3c 30.7d 83.1b 45.3b 53.5b
55 69.7bc 87.4a 11.5bc 45.2b 54.3c 95.2ab 43.3b 55.7b
70 78.8b 92.9a 19.1b 52.2b 77.5b 97.5a 47.5b 60.2b
110 97.0a 100.0a 67.2a 82.2a 97.1a 100.0a 80.5a 85.6a

图2

氰氟草酯药后18d对冀谷39株高和鲜重的影响 不同字母表示处理间差异显著(P < 0.05)

[1] 周汉章, 刘红霞, 薄奎勇, 等. 夏谷田杂草为害损失预测模型的研究. 农学学报, 2012, 2(12):12-15.
[2] Reddy S S, Stahlman P W, Geier P W, et al. Tolerance of foxtail,proso and pearl millets to saflufenacil. Crop Protection, 2014, 57:57-62.
doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.12.002
[3] Mishra J S. Weed management in millets:Retrospect and prospects. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 2015, 47(3):246-253.
[4] 相金英, 程汝宏. 夏播黍子田除草剂筛选试验初报. 河北农业科学, 2012, 16(6):1-3.
[5] 李志华, 景小兰, 李会霞, 等. 谷子苗期除草剂的安全性及杂草防效研究. 作物杂志, 2017(1):150-154.
[6] Wang T Y, Darmency W H. Cross-resistance to aryloxyphenoxy-propionate and cyclohex anedione herbicides in foxtail millet (Setaria italica). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 1998, 59:81-88.
doi: 10.1006/pest.1997.2309
[7] Ruiz-Santaella J P, Heredia A, Prado R D. Basis of selectivity of cyhalofop-butyl in Oryza sativa L.. Planta, 2006, 223(2):191-199.
pmid: 16160841
[8] 闫潇敏, 宁斌科, 王列平. 新型选择性除草剂——氰氟草酯的开发与使用. 世界农药, 2007, 29(2):43-45.
[9] 张宏军, 崔海兰, 朱文达, 等. 五氟磺草胺和氰氟草酯复配剂对水稻直播田杂草的防除效果及安全性评价. 植物保护, 2011, 37(2):177-181.
[10] 邢春生, 孙俊铭, 韦刚, 等. 40%氰氟草酯·二氯喹啉酸WP对直播水稻田禾本科杂草的防除效果. 安徽农业科学, 2009, 35(19):9036-9037.
[11] Kim J S, Jung-Im O H, Kim T J, et al. Physiological basis of differential phytotoxic activity between fenoxaprop-P-ethyl and cyhalofop-butyl-treated barnyardgrass. Weed Biology and Management, 2010, 5(2):39-45.
doi: 10.1111/j.1445-6664.2005.00158.x
[12] 王俊丽, 徐小博, 孙玥, 等. 乙酰辅酶A羧化酶抑制剂类除草剂的研究进展. 植物学研究, 2019, 8(5):410-415.
[13] Ntanos D A, Koutroubas S D, Mavrotas C. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) with cyhalofop-butyl. Weed Technology, 2000, 14(2):383-388.
doi: 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0383:BECGCI]2.0.CO;2
[14] Yao X, Wang Y Q, Yue X P, et al. Generation of tribenuron-methyl herbicide-resistant OsCYP81A6-expressing rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) plants for hybrid seed production using chemical‐induced male sterility. Plant Breeding, 2016, 135(3):349-354.
doi: 10.1111/pbr.12361
[15] Aono M, Wakiyama S, Nagatsu M, et al. Seeds of a possible natural hybrid between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus and Brassica rapa detected on a riverbank in Japan. GM Crops, 2011, 2(3):201-210.
doi: 10.4161/gmcr.2.3.18931
[16] 苏少泉. 转基因抗除草剂作物与除草剂开发及使用. 农药, 2002(7):3-7.
[17] 曹坳程, 郭美霞, 蒋红云, 等. 抗除草剂作物对未来化学农药发展的影响. 生物技术通报, 1998(4):22-25.
[18] 周汉章, 任中秋, 刘环, 等. 谷田杂草化学防除面临的问题及发展趋势. 河北农业科学, 2010, 14(11):56-58.
[19] 武丽敏, 魏育明, 郑有良. 不同基因型小麦对除草剂Basta敏感性研究. 麦类作物学报, 2004, 24(2):118-120.
[20] Zhao N, Bi Y, Wu C, et al. Cross-resistance to acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors associated with different mutations in Japanese foxtail (Alopecurus japonicus ). Weed Science, 2019, 67(4):1-8.
doi: 10.1017/wsc.2018.79
[21] Deng W, Cai J X, Zhang J Y, et al. Molecular basis of resistance to ACCase-inhibiting herbicide cyhalofop-butyl in Chinese sprangletop [Leptochloa chinensis (L.) Nees] from China. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2019, 158:143-148.
doi: S0048-3575(19)30144-0 pmid: 31378350
[22] 郭文磊, 吴丹丹, 张纯, 等. 5种茎叶处理除草剂对直播稻田禾本科杂草的除草活性及田间防效. 南方农业学报, 2019, 50(6):1240-1246.
[23] 刘庆虎, 陈国奇, 张玉华, 等. 不同叶龄千金子、稗和马唐对氰氟草酯和五氟磺草胺的敏感性. 南京农业大学学报, 2016, 39(5):771-776.
[1] 马珂, 冯雷, 赵夏童, 张丽光, 原向阳, 董淑琦, 郭平毅, 宋喜娥. 播距和播量对张杂谷10号生长特性及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (4): 172–178
[2] 吕建珍, 任莹, 王宏勇, 张庭军, 马建萍, 赵凯. 264份谷子主要育成品种(系)表型多样性综合评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (4): 22–31
[3] 秦娜, 朱灿灿, 代书桃, 宋迎辉, 李君霞, 王春义. 谷子黄叶色突变体ylm-1的精细定位与功能分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (3): 55–62
[4] 刘攀锋, 秦杰, 郝爽楠, 王丹立, 杨武德, 冯美臣, 宋晓彦. 硒肥浓度、施用时期和施肥方式对不同谷子品种产量和籽粒硒含量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (2): 182–188
[5] 郭永新, 周浩, 孙鹏, 王雅情, 马珂, 李晓瑞, 董淑琦, 郭平毅, 原向阳. 种植方式对不同地区张杂谷10号抗倒伏特性及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (2): 195–202
[6] 赵利蓉, 马珂, 张丽光, 汤沙, 原向阳, 刁现民. 不同生态区谷子品种农艺性状和品质分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (2): 44–53
[7] 卢平, 康庆芳, 赵孟瑶, 张凤洁, 武强强, 马芳芳, 王宇珅, 韩渊怀, 王兴春, 李雪垠. 谷子miR169家族及其靶基因的鉴定与功能分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (2): 54–63
[8] 李会霞, 刘红, 王玉文, 田岗, 刘鑫, 郑植尹. 谷子抗除草剂杂交种去除假杂种技术研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2021, (6): 72–77
[9] 刘鑫, 李会霞, 田岗, 王玉文, 刘红, 曹晋军, 成锴, 王振华, 刘永忠, 李万星. 全生育期水分控制对谷子生长发育及品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2021, (5): 181–186
[10] 王雨婷, 苗兴芬, 王帝. 萌发期耐莠去津谷子种质资源筛选及评价[J]. 作物杂志, 2021, (5): 194–204
[11] 高鹏, 郭美俊, 杨雪芳, 董淑琦, 温银元, 郭平毅, 原向阳. 谷子和玉米叶片光合荧光参数对烟嘧磺隆胁迫的响应差异[J]. 作物杂志, 2021, (3): 70–77
[12] 申洁, 王玉国, 郭平毅, 原向阳. 腐植酸对干旱胁迫下谷子幼苗叶片抗坏血酸-谷胱甘肽循环的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2021, (2): 173–177
[13] 贾苏卿, 禾璐, 杜艳伟. 不同耕作方式对旱区春谷根系发育、产量及水分利用效率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2020, (5): 194–198
[14] 王芙蓉, 张建学, 郭岷江, 张亚宏, 范提平, 王亚宏, 张岩, 裴国平, 雷建明. 苗后除草剂喷施时期对杂草防治及冬油菜产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2020, (5): 204–208
[15] 杨永青, 高芳芳, 马亚君, 陈鑫, 张杰. 山西省旱作农业区不同施肥处理对谷子产量、品质及经济效益的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2020, (4): 195–201
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!