Crops ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (2): 161-165.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2018.02.028

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Control Effect of Six Soil-Applied Herbicides on Lamium amplexicaule L. in Winter Wheat Field

Song Min1,Zhang Haipeng2,Lu Xingtao1,Wu Cuixia1,Zhang Yong1   

  1. 1 Tai’an Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Development and Promotion Centre of New Herbicide Technology of Shandong Province, Tai’an 271000, Shandong, China;
    2 Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing 100125, China
  • Received:2017-12-13 Revised:2018-01-24 Online:2018-04-20 Published:2018-08-27

RichHTML

1

PDF (PC)

132

Abstract:

For screening efficient soil-applied herbicides on Lamium amplexicaule L. in winter wheat field, six soil-applied herbicides were used to control L. amplexicaule for two years in the experiment. Results showed that 600g/L flufenacet suspension concentrate and 40% pyroxasulfone suspension concentrate were the best for controlling L. amplexicaule in soil spray treatment, 2 kinds of herbicides in dose was 162.0g(a.i)/hm 2 and 210.0g(a.i)/hm 2, respectively. Plant fresh weight control effect of L. amplexicaule was 90% or more, and they were safe to winter wheat.

Key words: Lamium amplexicaule L., Winter wheat field, Herbicide, Weed control

Table 1

Test herbicides and their dosages"

编号Code 药剂Herbicide 剂量Dosage [g(a.i)/hm2]
T1 25%噻吩磺隆可湿性粉剂 37.5
T2 25%噻吩磺隆可湿性粉剂 45.0
T3 50%异丙隆可湿性粉剂 1 050.0
T4 50%异丙隆可湿性粉剂 1 800.0
T5 50%吡氟酰草胺悬浮剂 120.0
T6 50%吡氟酰草胺悬浮剂 202.5
T7 50%扑草净可湿性粉剂 750.0
T8 50%扑草净可湿性粉剂 900.0
T9 600g/L氟噻草胺悬浮剂 162.0
T10 600g/L氟噻草胺悬浮剂 324.0
T11 40%砜吡草唑悬浮剂 210.0
T12 40%砜吡草唑悬浮剂 420.0
CK1 人工除草 -
CK2 清水、不除草 -

Table 2

Safety of different treatments to wheat"

处理
Treatment		 2015/2016 2016/2017
株高(cm)
Plant height		 小区产量(kg/20m2)
Plot yield		 产量(kg/hm2)
Yield		 增产率(%)
Growth rate		 株高(cm)
Plant height		 小区产量(kg/20m2)
Plot yield		 产量(kg/hm2)
Yield		 增产率(%)
Growth rate
T1 75.55a 14.41a 7 204.05 -0.59 76.90a 13.91a 6 952.80 -0.43
T2 75.70a 14.51a 7 256.55 0.14 78.35a 13.96a 6 977.85 -0.07
T3 75.45a 14.52a 7 260.30 0.19 78.70a 13.89a 6 946.65 -0.52
T4 75.43a 14.58a 7 289.10 0.59 79.83a 13.99a 6 992.85 0.14
T5 76.65a 14.52a 7 257.90 0.16 76.70a 13.90a 6 947.85 -0.50
T6 76.55a 14.71a 7 356.60 1.52 77.45a 13.97a 6 982.80 0.00
T7 76.48a 14.47a 7 235.40 -0.16 77.75a 13.92a 6 957.90 -0.36
T8 76.53a 14.58a 7 287.90 0.57 78.88a 14.07a 7 035.30 0.75
T9 75.83a 14.55a 7 276.65 0.41 78.03a 14.05a 7 025.40 0.61
T10 75.80a 14.64a 7 320.30 1.02 78.90a 14.08a 7 039.05 0.81
T11 75.65a 14.71a 7 356.60 1.52 79.18a 14.07a 7 034.10 0.73
T12 76.18a 14.78a 7 390.35 1.98 80.05a 14.01a 7 004.10 0.30
CK1 75.90a 14.49a 7 276.65 - 76.75a 13.97a 6 982.80 -

Table 3

Control effects of different treatments on L. amplexicaule in 2015/2016"

处理
Treatment		 株数Plant number (plant/m2) 株数防效Plant control effect (%) 鲜重Fresh weight (g/m2) 鲜重防效Fresh weight control effect (%)
30d 150d 210d 30d 150d 210d 210d 210d
T1 23.00 5.00 3.00 81.65d 95.20def 96.18bcd 9.95 97.04cd
T2 21.75 2.50 0.75 82.56d 97.40de 98.61ab 0.86 99.66ab
T3 17.00 6.50 9.75 87.12cd 93.78f 91.17e 32.25 93.20e
T4 11.25 5.25 6.00 91.46cd 95.10def 94.67cde 8.57 98.33cd
T5 1.50 1.75 6.75 98.93a 98.39bc 93.56de 25.16 94.84e
T6 0.25 0.00 2.50 99.83a 100.00a 97.34bcd 3.50 99.13abcd
T7 2.75 2.75 4.75 98.00ab 97.42cde 96.06cd 12.95 97.52d
T8 0.50 0.00 2.50 99.66a 100.00a 97.06bcd 3.73 98.94bcd
T9 9.25 5.50 3.50 92.40bc 94.47ef 95.80cd 9.73 97.43d
T10 2.50 0.75 2.25 98.10ab 99.16ab 97.88bc 2.49 99.48abc
T11 2.50 3.50 2.50 98.18ab 96.75cdef 97.91bc 8.64 98.40cd
T12 0.75 2.00 0.75 99.49a 98.11cd 99.42a 0.47 99.92a
CK2 141.00 104.50 120.25 - - - 506.10 -

Table 4

Control effects of different treatments on L. amplexicaule in 2016/2017"

处理
Treatment		 株数Plant number (plant/m2) 株数防效Plant control effect (%) 鲜重Fresh weight (g/m2) 鲜重防效Fresh weight control effect (%)
30d 150d 210d 30d 150d 210d 210d 210d
T1 34.00 15.00 0.50 62.76c 86.34f 99.51a 7.29 98.46ab
T2 26.50 7.75 0.00 70.04c 92.39ef 100.00a 0.00 100.00a
T3 24.50 10.75 8.75 73.03c 89.42ef 92.59bc 32.05 93.46bcd
T4 11.75 8.75 6.00 87.21b 91.26ef 94.39bc 10.03 97.66abcd
T5 0.00 5.50 12.75 100.00a 95.09de 87.68c 37.62 90.90d
T6 0.00 1.75 3.75 100.00a 98.36ab 96.57ab 5.05 98.97ab
T7 1.50 0.50 3.50 98.30a 99.58ab 96.87ab 9.61 97.75abc
T8 0.00 0.00 3.00 100.00a 100.00a 97.10ab 3.88 99.01ab
T9 7.75 5.75 4.50 90.99b 94.67de 95.45ab 15.08 96.29abc
T10 0.75 1.50 0.50 99.20a 98.45abc 99.66a 0.80 99.87a
T11 1.25 4.75 9.50 98.48a 95.50cde 91.60bc 28.92 93.70cd
T12 0.50 1.75 5.75 99.29a 98.24bcd 94.80abc 6.35 98.62abc
CK2 89.25 106.75 111.00 - - - 459.45 -
[1] 王玉庭, 李哲敏 . 中国小麦区域比较优势分析. 中国农学通报, 2010,26(15):353-356.
[2] 崔翠, 唐银 . 小麦播种量对杂草群落及小麦产量的影响. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2011,33(12):12-17.
[3] 叶香平, 何华健, 胡琼英 . 不同除草剂对小麦阔叶杂草防除效果评价. 农业灾害研究, 2012,2(1):23-24.
[4] 高兴祥, 李美, 房锋 , 等. 山东省小麦田杂草组成及群落特征. 草业学报, 2014,23(5):92-98.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20140510
[5] 路兴涛, 吴翠霞, 张勇 , 等. 12种除草剂对冬小麦田阔叶杂草的防除效果. 麦类作物学报, 2014,34(3):425-431.
doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1009-1041.2014.03.021
[6] 吴翠霞, 张勇, 宋敏 , 等. 17种除草剂对小麦田猪殃殃的防除效果. 麦类作物学报, 2016,36(2):257-261.
doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1009-1041.2016.02.18
[7] 刘林业, 冯渊 . 43%2甲4氯异辛酯•双氟磺草胺悬浮剂防除麦田阔叶草药效试验. 现代农业科技, 2017( 12): 101, 104.
[8] 韩晓莉 . 75%苯磺隆干悬浮剂对冬小麦田一年生阔叶杂草防除药效试验. 现代农业科技, 2008(7):67-68,70.
[9] 宋斌 . 56%二甲四氯钠SP防除小麦田杂草的研究. 安徽农业科学, 2004,32(3):466.
[10] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. GB-T 17980. 41-2000《农药田间药效试验准则》(一). 北京: 中国标准出版社.
[11] 席建英 . 河北省冬小麦田恶性禾本科杂草发生及防治技术初探. 植物检疫, 2007,21(5):278-280.
[12] Michael P J, Owen M J, Powles S B . Herbicide-resistant weed seeds contaminate grain sown in the Western Australian grainbelt. Weed Science, 2010,58(4):466-472.
doi: 10.1614/WS-D-09-00082.1
[13] 董春华, 刘强, 高菊生 , 等. 不同施肥模式下水稻生育期间杂草群落特征. 草业学报, 2013,22(3):216-218.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20130329
[14] 房锋, 张朝贤, 黄红娟 , 等. 基于MaxEnt的麦田恶性杂草节节麦的潜在分布区预测. 草业学报, 2013,22(2):62-70.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20130208
[15] 高兴祥, 李美, 葛秋岭 , 等. 啶磺草胺等8种除草剂对小麦田8种禾本科杂草的生物活性. 植物保护学报, 2011,38(6):557-562.
[16] 高宗军, 李美, 高兴祥 , 等. 不同耕作方式对冬小麦田杂草群落的影响. 草业学报, 2011,20(1):15-21.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20110103
[17] 张志铭, 黄绍敏, 叶永忠 , 等. 长期不同施肥方式对麦田杂草群落结构及生物多样性的影响. 河南农业科学, 2010(6):67-70.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3268.2010.06.016
[18] 博文静, 郭立月, 李静 , 等. 不同耕作与施肥方式对有机玉米田杂草群落和作物产量的影响. 植物学报, 2012,47(6):637-644.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1259.2012.00637
[19] 魏有海, 郭青云, 冯俊涛 . 保护性耕作制度下青海麦油轮作田间杂草群落组成调查. 干旱地区农业研究, 2011,29(2):101-104.
[20] 俞华林, 张恩和, 王琦 , 等. 灌溉和施氮对免耕留茬春小麦农田土壤有机碳、全氮和籽粒产量的影响. 草业学报, 2013,22(3):227-233.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb20130330
[21] 郭怡卿, 张付斗 . 土壤湿度对土壤处理除草剂药效的影响研究. 西南农业学报, 2003,16(4):77-81.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4829.2003.04.018
[22] 周爱平, 唐定富, 周凤云 , 等. 不同土壤湿度对麦田除草剂药效及药害的影响. 南方农业, 2017,11(28):50-54.
doi: 10.19415/j.cnki.1673-890x.2017.28.013
[23] 张熙, 宋春梅, 问才干 . 麦田除草剂冻药害的产生与预防. 杂草科学, 2009(3):66-67.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-935X.2009.03.024
[1] Zhang Jianhua, Guo Ruifeng, Cao Changlin, Fan Na, . Study on Effect and Safety of Controlling Weed#br# in Sorghum Field by Several Stem and#br# Leaf Treatment Herbicide [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(5): 162-166.
[2] Zhao Cunhu, Kong Qingquan, Chen Wenjin, . Screening of Postemergence Herbicides#br# in the Broad Bean Field [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(5): 167-172.
[3] Jianguang Liu,Guiyuan Zhao,Junli Zhao,Zhao Geng,Yongqiang Wang,Hanshuang Zhang. Progress in the Structure, Expression and Function of Plant Carboxylesterases [J]. Crops, 2018, 34(3): 32-36.
[4] Chao Ding,Jianhua Zhang,Wenbin Bai,Ruifeng Guo,Changlin Cao. Effects of Commonly Used Herbicides on Physiological, Biochemical and Yield Quality of Sorghum [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(5): 149-155.
[5] Junhong Wang,Xuexia Pei,Jianyou Dang,Xueping Wu. Effects of Two Herbicides and Application Dosage on Growth and Antioxidase Activities of Flag Leaf in Wheat [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(3): 157-161.
[6] Yanmin Li,Xiantao Qi,Changlin Liu,Fang Liu,Chuanxiao Xie. Progress of Crop Breeding on Resistance to Herbicides [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(2): 1-6.
[7] Zhihua Li,Xiaolan Jing,Huixia Li,Gang Tian,Xin Liu,Tingting Mu. Safety and Weed Control Efficiency of Foxtail Millet Seedling Stage Herbicides [J]. Crops, 2017, 33(1): 150-154.
[8] Chao Jiang,Jianjun Yin,Xiujian Guo. Control Effect of Six Kinds of Herbicides on Field Weed in Panicum miliaceum L. [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(5): 167-169.
[9] Xiaolan Jing,Zhihua Li,Tingting Mu,Fuyao Zhang. Simplified Cultivation Techniques for Millet Hybrid Jingu 50 of Herbicide Resistance [J]. Crops, 2016, 32(2): 168-172.
[10] . [J]. Crops, 2013, 29(3): 116-120.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Guangcai Zhao,Xuhong Chang,Demei Wang,Zhiqiang Tao,Yanjie Wang,Yushuang Yang,Yingjie Zhu. General Situation and Development of Wheat Production[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 1 -7 .
[2] Baoquan Quan,Dongmei Bai,Yuexia Tian,Yunyun Xue. Effects of Different Leaf-Peg Ratio on Photosynthesis and Yield of Peanut[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 102 -105 .
[3] Xuefang Huang,Mingjing Huang,Huatao Liu,Cong Zhao,Juanling Wang. Effects of Annual Precipitation and Population Density on Tiller-Earing and Yield of Zhangzagu 5 under Film Mulching and Hole Sowing[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 106 -113 .
[4] Wenhui Huang, Hui Wang, Desheng Mei. Research Progress on Lodging Resistance of Crops[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 13 -19 .
[5] Yun Zhao,Cailong Xu,Xu Yang,Suzhen Li,Jing Zhou,Jicun Li,Tianfu Han,Cunxiang Wu. Effects of Sowing Methods on Seedling Stand and Production Profit of Summer Soybean under Wheat-Soybean System[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 114 -120 .
[6] Mei Lu,Min Sun,Aixia Ren,Miaomiao Lei,Lingzhu Xue,Zhiqiang Gao. Effects of Spraying Foliar Fertilizers on Dryland Wheat Growth and the Correlation with Yield Formation[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 121 -125 .
[7] Xiaofei Wang,Haijun Xu,Mengqiao Guo,Yu Xiao,Xinyu Cheng,Shuxia Liu,Xiangjun Guan,Yaokun Wu,Weihua Zhao,Guojiang Wei. Effects of Sowing Date, Density and Fertilizer Utilization Rate on the Yield of Oilseed Perilla frutescens in Cold Area[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 126 -130 .
[8] Pengjin Zhu,Xinhua Pang,Chun Liang,Qinliang Tan,Lin Yan,Quanguang Zhou,Kewei Ou. Effects of Cold Stress on Reactive Oxygen Metabolism and Antioxidant Enzyme Activities of Sugarcane Seedlings[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 131 -137 .
[9] Jie Gao,Qingfeng Li,Qiu Peng,Xiaoyan Jiao,Jinsong Wang. Effects of Different Nutrient Combinations on Plant Production and Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Utilization Characteristics in Waxy Sorghum[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 138 -142 .
[10] Na Shang,Zhongxu Yang,Qiuzhi Li,Huihui Yin,Shihong Wang,Haitao Li,Tong Li,Han Zhang. Response of Cotton with Vegetative Branches to Plant Density in the Western of Shandong Province[J]. Crops, 2018, 34(4): 143 -148 .