新疆农业科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (6): 1450-1457.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.06.016
王燕1(), 沈煜洋2, 陈利2, 马晓燕1, 陈瑞刚1, 皇甫蓓炯1, 孔德鹏3(), 高海峰2()
收稿日期:
2021-10-05
出版日期:
2022-06-20
发布日期:
2022-07-07
通信作者:
孔德鹏,高海峰
作者简介:
王燕(1975-),女,江苏人,高级农艺师,研究方向为植物保护,(E-mail) 1405870563@qq.com
基金资助:
WANG Yan1(), SHEN Yuyang2, CHEN Li2, MA Xiaoyan1, CHEN Ruigang1, HUANGFU Beijiong1, KONG Depeng3(), GAO Haifeng2()
Received:
2021-10-05
Online:
2022-06-20
Published:
2022-07-07
Correspondence author:
KONG Depeng, GAO Haifeng
Supported by:
摘要:
【目的】 评价增效剂对春麦田除草剂增效作用,为安全高效应用除草剂及其减量增效提供依据。【方法】 采用随机区组方法,定点取样调查各小区的杂草株数、鲜质量,评价增效剂对双氟·氟氯酯防除春麦田阔叶杂草的增效作用及安全性。【结果】 20%双氟·氟氯酯WG添加增效剂甲基化植物油、乙烯基三乙氧基硅烷或有机硅对春麦田阔叶杂草的株防效和鲜质量防效分别为95.63%~100.00%和96.91%~100.00%,显著高于20%双氟·氟氯酯WG的株防效和鲜质量防效,但添加增效剂各处理株防效和鲜质量防效之间均无显著性差异。添加增效剂各处理增产率为5.33%~6.29%,增加效益为819.44~964.54 元/hm2,但各处理之间无显著性差异。【结论】 生产上可用20%双氟·氟氯酯WG 15.00 g/hm2 +甲基化植物油225.00 g/hm2,或乙烯基三乙氧基硅烷67.50 g/hm2,或有机硅225.00 g/hm2,防除春麦田阔叶杂草。
中图分类号:
王燕, 沈煜洋, 陈利, 马晓燕, 陈瑞刚, 皇甫蓓炯, 孔德鹏, 高海峰. 3种增效剂对双氟·氟氯酯防除春麦田阔叶杂草增效作用评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(6): 1450-1457.
WANG Yan, SHEN Yuyang, CHEN Li, MA Xiaoyan, CHEN Ruigang, HUANGFU Beijiong, KONG Depeng, GAO Haifeng. Assessment of Synergism of Florasulam Halauxifen-methyl Added with Three Synergists on Controlling Broad Leaf Weeds in Spring Wheat Field[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(6): 1450-1457.
处理 Treat ment | 药剂 Herbicides | 增效剂 Synergist | 有效成分用 Dosage(g/hm2) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
药剂 Herbi cides | 增效剂 Syne rgist | |||
1 | 20%双氟· 氟氯酯水分 散粒剂 | 甲基化植物油 | 15 | 225 |
2 | 15 | 450 | ||
3 | 15 | 675 | ||
4 | 乙烯基三 乙氧基硅烷 | 15 | 67.5 | |
5 | 15 | 112.5 | ||
6 | 15 | 225 | ||
7 | 有机硅 | 15 | 450 | |
8 | 15 | 225 | ||
9 | 15 | 450 | ||
10 | - | 15 | 675 | |
11 | 15 | - | ||
12 | - | - | - |
表1 试验设计
Table 1 Experiment design
处理 Treat ment | 药剂 Herbicides | 增效剂 Synergist | 有效成分用 Dosage(g/hm2) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
药剂 Herbi cides | 增效剂 Syne rgist | |||
1 | 20%双氟· 氟氯酯水分 散粒剂 | 甲基化植物油 | 15 | 225 |
2 | 15 | 450 | ||
3 | 15 | 675 | ||
4 | 乙烯基三 乙氧基硅烷 | 15 | 67.5 | |
5 | 15 | 112.5 | ||
6 | 15 | 225 | ||
7 | 有机硅 | 15 | 450 | |
8 | 15 | 225 | ||
9 | 15 | 450 | ||
10 | - | 15 | 675 | |
11 | 15 | - | ||
12 | - | - | - |
处理 Treat ment | 防治效果 Control effect(%) | ||
---|---|---|---|
灰绿藜 Chenopodium glaucum | 卷茎蓼 Polygonum convolvulus | 田旋花 Convolvulus arvensis | |
1 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
2 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
3 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
4 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
5 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
6 | 100.00±0.00a | 99.34±0.66a | 100.00±0.00a |
7 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
8 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
9 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
10 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
11 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
12 | - | - | - |
表2 不同处理药后20 d的防治效果
Table 2 After 20 days the control effect of different treatments on broadleaf weeds
处理 Treat ment | 防治效果 Control effect(%) | ||
---|---|---|---|
灰绿藜 Chenopodium glaucum | 卷茎蓼 Polygonum convolvulus | 田旋花 Convolvulus arvensis | |
1 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
2 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
3 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
4 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
5 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
6 | 100.00±0.00a | 99.34±0.66a | 100.00±0.00a |
7 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
8 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
9 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
10 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
11 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
12 | - | - | - |
处理 Treat ment | 灰绿藜 Chenopodium glaucum | 卷茎蓼 Polygonum convolvulus | 田旋花 Convolvulus arvensis | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株防效 Control effect (%) | 鲜质量防效 Fresh Weight control effect(%) | 株防效 Control effect(%) | 鲜质量防效 Fresh Weight control effect(%) | 株防效 Control effect(%) | 鲜质量防效 Fresh Weight control effect(%) | |
1 | 95.77±2.53a | 96.53±2.66a | 96.25±3.74a | 95.62±4.38a | 97.50±2.50a | 99.10±0.90a |
2 | 95.54±1.60a | 97.66±0.78a | 97.25±1.38a | 96.55±2.68a | 98.75±0.63a | 99.37±0.37a |
3 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 98.42±1.07a | 99.00±0.58a |
4 | 95.10±3.28a | 97.49±3.56a | 97.02±2.98a | 94.97±5.03a | 95.69±4.31a | 99.63±0.37a |
5 | 96.53±0.45a | 97.69±2.15a | 98.81±1.19a | 99.46±0.54a | 99.09±0.90a | 99.62±0.37a |
6 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
7 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 98.93±1.07a | 99.35±0.65a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
8 | 98.85±1.15a | 96.50±6.07a | 96.92±3.08a | 97.26±2.74a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
9 | 97.96±2.04a | 98.53±2.54a | 99.60±0.40a | 99.44±0.56a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
10 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
11 | 88.15±4.54b | 91.04±2.61b | 89.22±1.09b | 87.85±0.76b | 94.45±5.55a | 97.24±2.76a |
12 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
表3 不同处理药后40 d的防治效果
Table 3 After 40 days the control effect of different treatments on broadleaf weeds
处理 Treat ment | 灰绿藜 Chenopodium glaucum | 卷茎蓼 Polygonum convolvulus | 田旋花 Convolvulus arvensis | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
株防效 Control effect (%) | 鲜质量防效 Fresh Weight control effect(%) | 株防效 Control effect(%) | 鲜质量防效 Fresh Weight control effect(%) | 株防效 Control effect(%) | 鲜质量防效 Fresh Weight control effect(%) | |
1 | 95.77±2.53a | 96.53±2.66a | 96.25±3.74a | 95.62±4.38a | 97.50±2.50a | 99.10±0.90a |
2 | 95.54±1.60a | 97.66±0.78a | 97.25±1.38a | 96.55±2.68a | 98.75±0.63a | 99.37±0.37a |
3 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 98.42±1.07a | 99.00±0.58a |
4 | 95.10±3.28a | 97.49±3.56a | 97.02±2.98a | 94.97±5.03a | 95.69±4.31a | 99.63±0.37a |
5 | 96.53±0.45a | 97.69±2.15a | 98.81±1.19a | 99.46±0.54a | 99.09±0.90a | 99.62±0.37a |
6 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
7 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 98.93±1.07a | 99.35±0.65a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
8 | 98.85±1.15a | 96.50±6.07a | 96.92±3.08a | 97.26±2.74a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
9 | 97.96±2.04a | 98.53±2.54a | 99.60±0.40a | 99.44±0.56a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
10 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
11 | 88.15±4.54b | 91.04±2.61b | 89.22±1.09b | 87.85±0.76b | 94.45±5.55a | 97.24±2.76a |
12 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
处理 Treat ment | 药后20 d 20 daysafter treatment | 药后40 d 40 days after treatment | |
---|---|---|---|
株防效 Control effect(%) | 株防效 Control effect(%) | 鲜质量防效 Fresh Weight control effect(%) | |
1 | 100.00±0.00a | 97.09±1.37a | 98.23±1.11a |
2 | 100.00±0.00a | 97.16±0.15a | 98.22±0.34a |
3 | 100.00±0.00a | 99.44±0.27a | 99.57±0.29a |
4 | 100.00±0.00a | 95.63±1.92a | 97.30±1.39a |
5 | 100.00±0.00a | 97.32±0.45a | 97.05±0.67a |
6 | 99.60±0.40a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
7 | 100.00±0.00a | 99.49±0.45a | 99.95±0.06a |
8 | 100.00±0.00a | 98.06±0.91a | 98.00±1.20a |
9 | 100.00±0.00a | 98.21±1.46a | 96.91±1.11a |
10 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
11 | 100.00±0.00a | 89.22±2.87b | 91.99±1.56b |
12 | - | - | - |
表4 不同处理下阔叶杂草的防治效果变化
Table 4 The control effect of different treatments on broadleaf weeds
处理 Treat ment | 药后20 d 20 daysafter treatment | 药后40 d 40 days after treatment | |
---|---|---|---|
株防效 Control effect(%) | 株防效 Control effect(%) | 鲜质量防效 Fresh Weight control effect(%) | |
1 | 100.00±0.00a | 97.09±1.37a | 98.23±1.11a |
2 | 100.00±0.00a | 97.16±0.15a | 98.22±0.34a |
3 | 100.00±0.00a | 99.44±0.27a | 99.57±0.29a |
4 | 100.00±0.00a | 95.63±1.92a | 97.30±1.39a |
5 | 100.00±0.00a | 97.32±0.45a | 97.05±0.67a |
6 | 99.60±0.40a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
7 | 100.00±0.00a | 99.49±0.45a | 99.95±0.06a |
8 | 100.00±0.00a | 98.06±0.91a | 98.00±1.20a |
9 | 100.00±0.00a | 98.21±1.46a | 96.91±1.11a |
10 | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a | 100.00±0.00a |
11 | 100.00±0.00a | 89.22±2.87b | 91.99±1.56b |
12 | - | - | - |
处理 Treat ment | 产量 Yield (kg/hm2) | 增产率 Yield increase rate(%) | 增加效益 Increased benefits (yuan/ hm2) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 6 385.70±74.30a | 5.67±1.17a | 870.70±173.77a |
2 | 6 383.57±35.77a | 5.66±1.56a | 865.27±225.93a |
3 | 6 422.50±37.68a | 6.29±1.26a | 964.54±179.79a |
4 | 6 391.50±48.46a | 5.77±0.97a | 885.49±136.60a |
5 | 6 365.60±111.33a | 5.33±1.63a | 819.44±250.77a |
6 | 6 373.90±56.45a | 5.47±0.63a | 840.61±84.83a |
7 | 6 408.20±49.56a | 6.07±1.92a | 928.07±281.08a |
8 | 6 377.25±70.05a | 5.52±0.76a | 849.15±108.69a |
9 | 6 381.60±65.11a | 5.60±0.86a | 860.24±123.81a |
10 | 6 417.35±36.83a | 6.21±1.49a | 951.40±215.83a |
11 | 6 367.65±66.75a | 5.36±0.45a | 824.67±57.83a |
12 | 6 044.25±87.38b | - | - |
表5 不同处理防治麦田杂草经济效益对比
Table 5 Comparison of economic benefits of controlling weeds in wheat field with different treatments
处理 Treat ment | 产量 Yield (kg/hm2) | 增产率 Yield increase rate(%) | 增加效益 Increased benefits (yuan/ hm2) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 6 385.70±74.30a | 5.67±1.17a | 870.70±173.77a |
2 | 6 383.57±35.77a | 5.66±1.56a | 865.27±225.93a |
3 | 6 422.50±37.68a | 6.29±1.26a | 964.54±179.79a |
4 | 6 391.50±48.46a | 5.77±0.97a | 885.49±136.60a |
5 | 6 365.60±111.33a | 5.33±1.63a | 819.44±250.77a |
6 | 6 373.90±56.45a | 5.47±0.63a | 840.61±84.83a |
7 | 6 408.20±49.56a | 6.07±1.92a | 928.07±281.08a |
8 | 6 377.25±70.05a | 5.52±0.76a | 849.15±108.69a |
9 | 6 381.60±65.11a | 5.60±0.86a | 860.24±123.81a |
10 | 6 417.35±36.83a | 6.21±1.49a | 951.40±215.83a |
11 | 6 367.65±66.75a | 5.36±0.45a | 824.67±57.83a |
12 | 6 044.25±87.38b | - | - |
[1] | 高兴祥, 李美, 刘士国, 等. 小麦田不同杂草群落及防除时间对小麦产量的影响[J]. 植物保护学报, 2018, 45(4): 908-914. |
GAO Xingxiang, LI Mei, LIU Shiguo, et al. The influence of different weed populations and control time on wheat yield in Shandong[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2018, 45(4): 908-914. | |
[2] | 李广阔, 高海峰, 白微微, 等. 新疆核桃-小麦间作麦田杂草组成及群落特征[J]. 植物保护学报, 2018, 45(5): 1137-1144. |
LI Guangkuo, GAO Haifeng, BAI Weiwei, et al. Species composition and community characteristics of weeds in wheat fields under walnut-wheat intercropping system in Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2018, 45(5): 1137-1144. | |
[3] | 李广阔, 高海峰, 白微微, 等. 果麦间作麦田主要杂草种类及群落特征[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2015, 52(6): 1112-1118. |
LI Guangkuo, GAO Haifeng, BAI Weiwei, et al. Species composition and characterization of wheat weed community in fruit tree - wheat intercropping[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 52(6): 1112-1118. | |
[4] | 高兴祥, 张悦丽, 李美, 等. 山东省小麦田播娘蒿对双氟磺草胺抗性水平及靶标抗性机理[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(12): 2399-2409. |
GAO Xingxiang, ZHANG Yueli, LI Mei, et al. Resistance level and mechanism of Descurainia sophia to florasulam in wheat field of Shandong Province[J]. Scientia Agricultural Sinica, 2020, 53(12): 2399-2409. | |
[5] | 毕亚玲, 戴玲玲, 王曹阳, 等. 双环磺草酮与氟氯吡啶酯复配的联合除草剂活性及对水稻的安全性评价[J]. 农药学学报, 2020, 22(1): 68-75. |
BI Yaling, DAI Lingling, WANG Caoyang, et al. Evaluation of herbicidal activity and safety to rice of the combination of benzobicyclon and florpyrauxifen-benzyl[J]. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science, 2020, 22(1): 68-75. | |
[6] | 杨云海, 赵芸, 王凯博, 等. 农药助剂对70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂在小麦叶片上附着性能的影响[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2019, 34(6): 954-964. |
YANG Yunhai, ZHAO Yun, WANG Kaibo, et al. The influence of different adjuvants on the adhesion property of 70% imidacloprid WG on wheat leaves[J]. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University (Naturw Science), 2019, 34(6): 954-964. | |
[7] | 张健, 高原, 姜英, 等. 助剂激健对甲基二磺隆防除抗精噁噁唑禾草灵菵草的增效作用[J]. 杂草学报, 2019, 37(1): 56-63. |
ZHANG Jian, GAO Yuan, JIANG Ying, et al. Synergistic effect of adjuvant Jijian on mesosulfuron - methyl for the control of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl - resistant Beckmannia syzigachne[J]. Journal of Weeds, 2019, 37(1): 56-63. | |
[8] | 于倩倩, 吴超, 史团省, 等. 不同助剂对除草剂苯磺隆渗透作用的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2018, 46(7): 155-158. |
YU Qianqian, WU Chao, SHI Tuansheng, et al. Effects of different adjuvants on permeation of herbicide tribenuron - methyl[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(7): 155-158. | |
[9] | 程文超, 李光宁, 相世刚, 等. 安融乐对2种除草剂防除冬小麦田禾本科杂草的增效作用[J]. 杂草学报, 2019, 37(1): 64-70. |
CHENG Wenchao, LI Guangning, XIANG Shigang, et al. Synergistic effect of adjuvant Anngro on grassy weed herbicide efficacy in a winter wheat field[J]. Journal of Weeds, 2019, 37(1): 64-70. | |
[10] | 程文超, 李光宁, 相世刚, 等. 安融乐对除草剂防除冬小麦田阔叶杂草的增效作用[J]. 杂草学报, 2019, 37(2): 57-63. |
CHENG Wenchao, LI Guangning, XIANG Shigang, et al. Adjuvants Anngro synergize broadleaf weed herbicides in winter wheat[J]. Journal of Weeds, 2019, 37(2): 57-63. | |
[11] | 翁华, 魏有海, 郭良芝, 等. 生物助剂与骠马混用防除春小麦田野燕麦的增效作用[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2014, 53(6): 1308-1310. |
WENG Hua, WEI Youhai, GUO Liangzhi, et al. The synergism of complex microorganism and puma mix of wild oat in spring wheat field[J]. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 53(6): 1308-1310. | |
[12] | 吴仁海, 孙慧慧, 王彦兵, 等. 9种助剂对精噁唑禾草灵、炔草酯除草活性的影响[J]. 河南农业科学, 2015, 44(12): 84-87. |
WU Renhai, SUN Huihui, WANG Yanbing, et al. Influence of nine adjuvants on weed control effects of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl and clodinafop-propargyl[J]. Journal of Henan Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 44(12): 84-87. | |
[13] | 叶红玉, 徐源盛, 南天竹. 10%苯磺隆加增效剂防除麦田阔叶杂草药效试验[J]. 农药, 2006, 45(2): 127-128. |
YE Hongyu, XU Yuansheng, NAN Tianzhu. Broadleaf weed control field efficacy in wheat with 10% tribenuron plus synergist[J]. Agrochemicals, 2006, 45(2): 127-128. | |
[14] | 王成菊, 张文吉. 助剂在除草剂应用中的作用及发展前景[J]. 农药学学报, 2003, 5(1): 12-20. |
WANG Chengju, ZHANG Wenji. A review and prospect on herbicide adjutants[J]. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science, 2003, 5(1): 12-20. | |
[15] | 郭文超, 张淳, 李新唐, 等. 新疆麦田杂草种类、分布危害及其综合防治技术[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2008, 45(4): 676-681. |
GUO Wenchao, ZHANG Chun, LI Xintang, et al. Types,distribution,damage and integrative control techniques of weeds in wheat field of Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2008, 45(4): 676-681. | |
[16] | 赵冰梅, 张芳, 余璐, 等. 70%氟唑磺隆WDG防除春小麦田杂草效果及应用技术研究[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2013, 50(6): 1089-1094. |
ZHAO Bingmei, ZHANG Fang, YU Lu, et al. Study of the control effect on weed and applied technique of using 70% flucarbazone WDG in spring wheat field[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 50(6): 1089-1094. | |
[17] | 吴明荣, 唐伟, 陈杰. 我国小麦田除草剂应用及杂草抗药性现状[J]. 农药, 2013, 52(6): 457-460. |
WU Mingrong, TANG Wei, CHEN Jie. Herbicide application and resistance in wheat field of China[J]. Agrochemicals, 2013, 52(6): 457-460. | |
[18] | 张海飞, 付清河, 邵冲, 等. 新型生物基农药增效剂的研发与应用[J]. 合成材料老化与应用, 2016, 45(2): 106-108, 115. |
ZHANG Haifei, FU Qinghe, SHAO Chong, et al. Research and application on the new biological pesticide synergist[J]. Synthetic Materials Aging and Application, 2016, 45(2): 106-108, 115. | |
[19] | 李晓琴, 姚永定, 闫雪, 等. 不同除草剂对冬小麦田阔叶及禾本科杂草的防除效果[J]. 山西农业科学, 2018, 46(11): 1899-1902. |
LI Xiaoqin, YAO Yongding, YAN Xue, et al. Study on the control effect of different herbicides on broadleaf and gramineous weeds in winter wheat field[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 46(11): 1899-1902. | |
[20] | 邓庭和, 张士勤, 王文和, 等. 增效剂激健对小麦除草剂的减量增效作用[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2017, 37(11): 58-60. |
DENG Tinghe, ZHANG Shiqing, WANG Wenhe, et al. The effect of synergist ‘Jijian’ on the reduction and synergism of wheat herbicide[J]. China Plant Protection, 2017, 37(11): 58-60. | |
[21] | 沈常超, 唐文伟, 曾东强, 等. 河南省不同区域麦田主要杂草群落防治药剂筛选[J]. 河南农业科学, 2017, 46(10): 86-91. |
SHENG Changchao, TANG Wenwei, ZENG Dongqiang, et al. Screening of herbicides to control main weed communities in different regions of Hennan province[J]. Journal of Hennan Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 46(10): 86-91. |
[1] | 王朋, 郑凯, 赵杰银, 高文举, 龙遗磊, 陈全家, 曲延英. 陆地棉种质资源材料的耐热性评价及指标筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2081-2090. |
[2] | 刘玉芳, 张志刚, 李长城, 李宏, 程平, 杨璐. 不同温度和成熟度对杏贮藏期腐烂率和品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2189-2197. |
[3] | 宋冰梅, 姜岩, 陈鑫, 张宇, 程宛楠, 潘洪生. 新型转基因高产棉花萌发期和苗期耐盐性与耐碱性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(9): 2239-2247. |
[4] | 张永强, 陈传信, 徐其江, 聂石辉, 雷钧杰, 刘昌文. 氮肥增效剂与氮肥减量配施对冬小麦叶片生理及产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1319-1325. |
[5] | 曲可佳, 时晓磊, 张恒, 王兴州, 耿洪伟, 丁孙磊, 张金波, 严勇亮. PEG处理下引进春小麦品种苗期抗旱性评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1363-1371. |
[6] | 张燕红, 侯天钰, 巴音花, 赵彩月, 吕玉平, 布哈丽且木·阿不力孜, 赵志强, 李冬, 杜孝敬, 袁杰, 王奉斌. 水稻重组自交系群体芽期和苗期耐盐性鉴定与评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1041-1049. |
[7] | 哈力旦·依克热木, 刘娜, 刘联正, 周安定, 姜奇彦, 达买力江·合孜尔, 曹俊梅, 张新忠. 小麦近缘种芽期和苗期的耐盐性鉴定与评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1118-1126. |
[8] | 姚庆, 阿里别里根·哈孜太, 杨明花, 李强, 苗昊翠, 崔宏亮. 藜麦种子对萌发温度的响应及低温胁迫萌发能力鉴定[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(5): 1141-1149. |
[9] | 杨明花, 刘强, 廖必勇, 彭云承, 布阿依夏木·那曼提, 达吾来·杰克山. 不完全双列杂交玉米组合抗倒伏综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 832-840. |
[10] | 赵斌荣, 田晓曦, 柴军发, 景亮亮, 张红艳, 洪波, 贾彦霞. 西蓝花田桃蚜的室内药剂筛选及田间药效评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 547-554. |
[11] | 侯良忠, 郭同军, 张俊瑜, 苏玲玲, 古再丽努尔·艾麦提, 温小燕, 朱晓芳, 杨建中, 王文奇. 不同比例籽用西葫芦皮瓤与玉米秸秆混贮效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(3): 567-573. |
[12] | 马旭, 赵英, 韩炜, 武胜利, 韩晓燕. 14种沙棘果实中氨基酸组成的主成分分析与综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 378-388. |
[13] | 龙天宇, 邓亚辉, 祖倩丽, 杨龙, 曲延英, 陈全家. 棉花枯萎病室内苗期抗病性鉴定方法及评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(2): 416-423. |
[14] | 刘旭坤, 阿尔孜姑丽·肉孜, 朱晓峰, 吐尔逊·阿合买提, 赵雯慧, 付开赟, 丁新华, 贾尊尊, 阿地力·沙塔尔, 郭文超. 三种迷向装置对桃小食心虫的防治效果[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(12): 3041-3048. |
[15] | 马辉, 戴路, 李星星, 阿布都艾尼·阿布都维力, 艾麦尔江·阿布力提甫, 田立文, 欧欢. 不同化学药剂处理对长绒棉封顶效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2601-2608. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||