Crops ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (4): 238-244.doi: 10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2025.04.030

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of Different Herbicide Application Schemes on Foxtail Millet Growth and Soil Microorganisms

Dong Yang(), Yan Feng, Zhao Fuyang, Hou Xiaomin, Li Qingquan, Li Qingchao, Liu Yue, Lan Ying, Yang Huiying, Wang Bingxue, Xu Yan   

  1. Qiqihar Branch, Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Qiqihar 161006, Heilongjiang, China
  • Received:2024-03-28 Revised:2024-08-06 Online:2025-08-15 Published:2025-08-12

RichHTML

3

PDF (PC)

157

Abstract:

Using foxtail millet variety “Nenxuan 22” as experimental material, different pre-seedling and post- seedling herbicide combination schemes were set up, and the changes of phytotoxicity, weed control efficacy, foxtail millet growth and soil microorganisms were investigated for different herbicide treatments. The results showed that all herbicide treatments were safety. The bacterial quantity in soil of the spraying herbicides experimental plots showed a trend of inhibition-promotion-gradual recovery, the fungal quantity showed a trend of inhibition-recovery, and the actinomycetes quantity showed a trend of inhibition-slow recovery. After foxtail millet harvest, the three microbial quantities were not significantly different from those of the plots without herbicide sprayed. The weed control effect of spraying only post-seedling stem herbicides was significantly better than that of spraying only pre-emergence herbicides, and the weed control effect of spraying both pre-emergence and post-seedling herbicides was significantly better than that of spraying only one herbicide. The fresh weight control effect and plant control effect of monosulfuron herbicide were significantly better than that of pochozin herbicide. The results of comprehensive comparison showed that T5 (monosulfuron as a closed soil herbicide, entridine+isooctyl chlorofluoropyloxyacetate as a stem and leaf herbicide) treatment had the best performance, with the plant control efficiency reached 92.5%, the fresh weight control efficiency reached 92.8% at 15 d, the plant control efficiency was 84.0% and fresh weight control efficiency was 83.3% at 30 d. Which was higher or significantly higher than other treatments. T5 treatment also had obvious advantages in chlorophyll content, photosynthesis, growth and yield of foxtail millet, and its yield ranked first (4217.0 kg/ha), which was higher or significantly higher than other treatments and controls.

Key words: Foxtail millet, Herbicide, Agronomic traits, Yield, Soil microorganism

Table 1

The herbicide application rates under different treatments"

处理Treatment 除草剂Herbicide 施用量Application rate
T1 A 300 g/hm2
T2 B 750 g/hm2
T3 C 1500 mL/hm2+900 mL/hm2
T4 D 1500 mL/hm2+1500 mL/hm2
T5 A+C 300 g/hm2+（1500 mL/hm2+900 mL/hm2）
T6 A+D 300 g/hm2+（1500 mL/hm2+1500 mL/hm2）
T7 B+C 750 g/hm2+（1500 mL/hm2+900 mL/hm2）
T8 B+D 750 g/hm2+（1500 mL/hm2+1500 mL/hm2）
CK 等量清水 －

Table 2

The effect of pre-emergence herbicides on weed control"

处理
Treatment		 喷施药剂
Spray herbicide		 喷施日期
Spray date		 株防效Plant control efficiency (%) 鲜重防效Fresh control efficiency (%)
15 d 30 d 15 d 30 d
T1 A 05-11 65.6a 52.3a 70.5a 58.7a
T2 B 05-11 61.8b 49.6b 66.6b 52.4b
CK 清水 05-11 － － － －

Table 3

The effect of post-emergence herbicides on weed control %"

处理
Treatment		 喷施药剂
Spraying herbicide		 喷施日期
Spray date		 株防效Plant control efficiency 鲜重防效Fresh control efficiency
15 d 30 d 15 d 30 d
T3 C 06-20 72.4c 55.4d 74.1d 57.8c
T4 D 06-20 70.0c 56.7d 72.0d 57.5c
T5 （A前期处理）+C 06-20 92.5a 84.0a 92.8ab 83.3a
T6 （A前期处理）+D 06-20 90.2a 81.1ab 94.1a 82.0a
T7 （B前期处理）+C 06-20 87.8ab 78.1bc 88.9c 77.7b
T8 （B前期处理）+D 06-20 84.5b 75.8c 89.6bc 76.9b
CK 清水 06-20 － － － －

Table 4

Effects of different herbicides on photosynthetic characteristics of foxtail millet"

处理
Treatment		 SPAD Pn
[μmol/(m2·s)]		 Tr
[mmol/(m2·s)]		 Ci
[μmol/(m2·s)]
T1 16.5d 13.2e 2.6d 143.9b
T2 16.2d 13.2e 2.5d 145.7b
T3 19.7c 16.5d 2.8c 136.4d
T4 19.3c 17.1d 2.9c 138.9c
T5 23.2a 22.0a 3.4a 128.0g
T6 22.6a 21.6a 3.3ab 126.5g
T7 22.0ab 20.5b 3.3ab 134.3f
T8 21.7b 19.4c 3.2b 132.2e
CK 14.7e 11.9f 2.3e 156.8a

Table 5

Effects of different herbicides on foxtail millet growth and yield"

处理
Treatment		 主茎高
Height of
main stem
(cm)		 茎粗
Stem
diameter
(mm)		 主穗重
Panicle
weight
(g)		 千粒重
1000-grain
weight (g)		 产量
Yield
(kg/hm2)
T1 112.4c 7.5b 16.0d 3.2a 3355.0d
T2 110.8c 7.5b 15.8d 3.2a 3281.4d
T3 116.2b 7.8a 18.2bc 3.2a 3902.5c
T4 117.9b 7.7ab 17.6c 3.2a 3881.1c
T5 122.6a 7.9a 21.9a 3.2a 4217.0a
T6 124.3a 7.8a 21.3a 3.2a 4175.8a
T7 120.0ab 7.8a 20.5ab 3.2a 4053.6b
T8 121.5a 7.8a 19.2b 3.2a 4025.7b
CK 104.3d 7.0c 11.6e 3.1a 2114.8e

Fig.1

Effects of different herbicide treatments on soil bacterial count"

Fig.2

Effects of different herbicide treatments on the quantity of soil fungi"

Fig.3

Effects of different herbicide treatments on soil actinomyces quantity"

[1] 朱文娟, 任月梅, 杨忠, 等. 谷子土壤微生物群落结构及功能预测分析. 作物杂志, 2023(5):170-178.
[2] 李金玲. 谷子耐盐品种的筛选、鉴定及关键耐盐基因的挖掘. 上海: 上海师范大学, 2022.
[3] 董扬. 不同品种谷子饲草产量、营养品质及饲用品质的综合评价. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2023(9):87-93,99.
[4] 李顺国, 刘裴, 刘猛, 等. 我国谷子产业现状、发展趋势及对策建议. 农业现代化研究, 2014, 35(5):531-535.
[5] 王钰祺, 任玉蓉, 廖安邦, 等. 盐城滨海滩涂湿地典型植物群落土壤微生物组成与结构特征. 生态学报, 2023, 43(6):2336-2347.
[6] 孙建波, 畅文军, 李文彬, 等. 香蕉不同生育期根际微生物生物量及土壤酶活的变化研究. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(6):1169-1174.
doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2022.06.012
[7] 肖烨, 黄志刚, 李友凤, 等. 赤水河流域典型植被类型的土壤微生物群落结构与多样性. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(6):275-283.
[8] 赵凯, 马建萍, 独俊娥, 等. 4种谷田除草剂的安全性评价. 山西农业科学, 2018, 46(6):1009-1012,1052.
[9] 杨军学, 罗世武, 张尚沛, 等. 谷子播后苗前除草剂筛选与研究. 陕西农业科学, 2022, 68(1):7-11.
[10] 闫锋. 不同除草剂用于谷田除草的安全性及防除效果. 中国植保导刊, 2022, 42(5):57-60.
[11] 曹友文, 吕林辉, 李国, 等. 谷子田茎叶除草剂选择与试验研究. 江西农业, 2020(12):83.
[12] 李永红, 高玉葆. 土壤中单嘧磺隆对谷子生长及土壤微生物若干生化功能的影响. 农业环境科学学报, 2004, 23(4):633-637.
[13] 农业部农药检定所. GB/T 17980.35—2000农药田间药效试验准则(一). 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2005.
[14] 张清明. 除草剂氟横胺草醚对土壤酶、微生物与蚯蚓的生态毒理研究. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2012.
[15] 周桔, 雷霆. 土壤微生物多样性影响因素及研究方法的现状与展望. 生物多样性, 2007, 15(3):306-311.
doi: 10.1360/biodiv.070069
[16] Okubo A, Sugiyama S. Comparison of molecular fingerprinting methods for analysis of soil microbialcommunity structure. Ecological Research, 2009, 24(6):1399-1405.
[17] 王满意, 寇俊杰, 鞠国栋, 等. 创制除草剂单嘧磺隆应用研究. 农药, 2008, 47(6):412-414,422.
[18] 吕建珍, 马建萍, 独俊娥, 等. 抗拿扑净除草剂谷子快速鉴定方法分析. 种子, 2019, 38(2):105-107.
[19] 朱达文, 颜冬冬, 李林, 等. 氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯防除小麦田阔叶杂草的效果及对养分和产量的影响. 湖北农业科学, 2021, 60(10):80-83.
[20] 李健荣, 刘媛, 杨明进, 等. 宁夏小麦苗后除草剂减量防控效果分析. 农业科学研究, 2021, 42(6):8-11.
[21] 李振娇, 井苗, 王孟, 等. 不同浓度2,4-滴异辛酯对谷子田间阔叶杂草防治效果的研究. 陕西农业科学, 2023, 69(6):80-82,108.
[22] 文峰, 金晓光, 白乙拉图, 等. 谷子抗除草剂品种施用除草剂应用研究. 农业与技术, 2022, 42(17):23-26.
[23] 张路生, 侯恒军, 常慧红, 等. 单嘧磺隆和扑草净对谷子田杂草的防除效果. 农药, 2023, 62(5):383-386.
[24] Shaner D L. Lessons learned from the history of herbicide resistance. Weed Science, 2014, 62(2):427-431.
[25] 郭美俊. 谷子对除草剂抗性的生理特性及产量性状的影响. 晋中: 山西农业大学, 2017.
[26] 郝红梅. 除草剂对谷子的安全性及药效研究. 晋中: 山西农业大学, 2005.
[27] 李鹤鹏, 于洪涛, 符强, 等. 黑龙江省谷子田苗前封闭除草剂筛选及安全性评价. 黑龙江农业科学, 2022(8):114-118.
[28] 冯煜. 除草剂复配安全剂对糜子根系活性氧代谢及土壤环境的影响研究. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2021.
[1] Sun Xianyin, Zhang Jibo, Lü Guangde, Qi Xiaolei, Sun Yingying, Mi Yong, Mu Qiuhuan, Yin Xundong, Wang Ruixia, Qian Zhaoguo, Gao Minggang. Comparison of High and Stable Yield Characteristics of Different Genotypes of Wheat under Dryland and Supplemental Irrigation Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 104-110.
[2] Wang Shengtai, Zhao Baoxie, Du Shikun, Li Yuyang, Yu Hualin, Li Rongxin. Identification of Salt Tolerance and Variety Screening of Flax in Moderately Saline-Alkali Soil [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 111-117.
[3] Li Xiushi, Li Yingtao, Fu Yuhua, Luo Renshan, Li Shouling, Shang Kun, Zhu Jiabao, Yu Chun. The Impact of Different Ecological Conditions on Yield of Coix Varieties [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 157-163.
[4] Wang Xingya, Chen Yuhan, Zhang Mengwen, Sun Linlin, Chen Lirong, Guo Yuqiu, Gong Kuijie. The Effects of ABA Application at Different Stages on Maize Grain Filling and Dehydration [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 173-180.
[5] Zhou Qi, Zhang Jing, Wang Zhenlong, Shi Zhiguo, Deng Chaochao, Chang Hao, Liu Yang, Zhou Yanfang. Effects of Green Manure Incorporation and Nitrogen Fertilizer Reduction on Soil Quality, Oat Yield and Quality in Hexi Irrigation District of Gansu Province [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 188-196.
[6] Yan Dingwei, Yang Jianxin, Guo Jie, Liang Yifan, Luo Fei, Fu Guangming, Li Junzheng, Chang Jianbo, Zhang Yulin, Ji Xiaoming. Effects of Different Water-Retaining Agents on the Bacterial Community Structure of Tobacco-Planting Soil and the Yield and Quality of Flue-Cured Tobacco [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 197-205.
[7] Li Yun, Wang Jing, Liu Yankun, Zhao Guanghui, Zheng Minna. Regulation of Yield and Lodging Resistance of Stem in Tartary Buckwheat by Paclobutrazol Leaf Spraying [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 231-237.
[8] Luo Xinggang, Wan Haiyuan, An Lirong, Li Yonghai, Luo Xingyu, Zhang Xuekai, Liang Weiyun, Zhu Jianqiang. Effects of Different Varieties and Nitrogen Application Rate on Border Effect, Yield, and Water Use Efficiency of Spring Wheat under Ridge Tillage with Drill Sowing [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 251-258.
[9] Wu Fengjie, Hou Nan, Qi Xiangkun, Yang Kejun, Fu Jian, Wang Yufeng. Effects of Different Nitrogen Application Rates on Main Nutritional Quality and Yield of Waxy Corn in Semi-Arid Area [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 267-275.
[10] Wang Zhigang, Liu Qiang, Wang Jin, Gong Jingjin, Yao Qunying. Simulation of Response of Spring Wheat Yield and Biomass to Nitrogen Application Rate and Sowing Date in Dryland under Future Meteorological Conditions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 276-282.
[11] Du Bing, Yang Furong, Wang Cheng, Guo Haojie, Zhang Fuhou, Meng Chaomin. Analysis of Grain Calcium Content, Quality and Agronomic Characteristics of 66 Foxtail Millet Varieties [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(4): 87-94.
[12] He Yunxia, Ma Jianhui, Zhang Daijing, Liu Donghua, Chao Xiaoyan, Chen Huiping, Li Chunxi. Study on the Effect of Different Nitrogen Fertilizer Synergists on Reducing Gaseous Nitrogen Loss and Increasing Yield in Wheat Field of Northern Henan [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 108-115.
[13] Wang Yi, Ren Yongfu, Zhang Zhengpeng, Ding Defang, Zhang Jing, Liu Yihong, Sun Duoxin, Chen Guangrong. The Effects of Different Covering Materials on Soil Environment and Maize Yield in Hexi Irrigation Area [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 149-155.
[14] He Bing, Wang Xiaohang, Li Chao, Luo Liqiang, Zhang Qiang, Han Kangshun, Chen Dianyuan, Yan Guangbin, Liu Zhenjiao. Data Analysis of Approved Rice Varieties in Jilin Province from 1987 to 2022 [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 16-22.
[15] Cao Zhengnan, Zhao Zhendong, Hu Bo, Yu Han, Ning Xiaohai, Zhao Zeqiang, Cao Liyong. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Promoting Rot Bacteria Fertilizer on Decomposition Effect of Returning Rice Straw to Field and Yield in Cold Regions [J]. Crops, 2025, 41(3): 172-177.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!