不同化学药剂处理对长绒棉封顶效果的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.11.001

新疆农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (11): 2601-2608.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.11.001

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学·土壤肥料 • 上一篇下一篇

不同化学药剂处理对长绒棉封顶效果的影响

马辉¹(), 戴路¹, 李星星¹, 阿布都艾尼·阿布都维力¹, 艾麦尔江·阿布力提甫¹, 田立文²(), 欧欢¹

1.新疆维吾尔自治区阿克苏地区农业技术推广中心,新疆阿克苏 843000
2.新疆农业科学院经济作物研究所,乌鲁木齐 830091

收稿日期:2023-03-26 出版日期:2023-11-20 发布日期:2023-12-07
通信作者: 田立文(1965-),男,安徽肥东人,研究员,研究方向为棉花轻简高效生产,(E-mail)1365400936@qq.com
作者简介:马辉(1979-),女,新疆昌吉人,正高级农艺师,研究方向为棉花育种与栽培,(E-mail) 1543043221@qq.com
基金资助:
农业农村部荒漠绿洲作物生理生态与耕作重点实验室开放课题-机采棉高效群体构建技术体系研究与应用(25107020-202101);新疆维吾尔自治区重大科技专项-干旱绿洲现代农业高效用水关键技术研究(2022A02003)

Analysis of the influence of different chemical treatments on the sealing effect of long staple cotton

MA Hui¹(), DAI Lu¹, LI Xingxing¹, Abuduaini Abuduweili¹, Aimaierjiang Abulitifu¹, TIAN Liwen²(), OU Huan¹

1. Aksu Agriculture Technology and Popularization Center of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Aksu Xinjiang 843000, China
2. Research Institute of Economic Crops,Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences,Urumqi 830091, China

Received:2023-03-26 Online:2023-11-20 Published:2023-12-07
Correspondence author: TIAN Liwen (1965-), male.Feidong county, Anhui province, professor, Research Direction: research and development of light, simple and efficient cotton production technology, (E-mail) 1365400936@qq.com
Supported by:
The Opening Foundation of Key Laboratory of Crop Ecophysiology and Farming System in Desert Oasis Region, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Areas—Research and application of the technical system for the construction of efficient cotton populationin machine-picking cotton fields(25107020-202101);Major science and technology projects of Xinjiang—Key Technology Research on Efficient Water Use for Modern Agriculture in Arid Oasis(2022A02003)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 分析不同化学药剂处理对长绒棉封顶效果的影响,为集成长绒棉化学封顶配套技术提供支撑。【方法】 采用完全随机试验设计,供试长绒棉品种为新78,分析“易顶”、“抑顶”、“向铃转”、“施益富”、“棉顶封”、“国光冠顶套餐”、人工打顶7个不同处理对棉花株高、产量及产量构成因子、主要纤维品质及成本的影响。基于熵权的模糊综合评价法,评价各处理的11个长绒棉性状。【结果】 化学封顶剂处理封顶前后长绒棉株高增长量变幅为16.1~40.9 cm,而人工打顶3.1 cm;“易顶”处理的单株果枝数较“棉顶封”和人工打顶分别高1.5台、1.8台;“易顶”、“抑顶”处理的单株铃数显著高于“施益富”、“棉顶封”和人工打顶处理,“施益富”处理铃重较“国光冠顶套餐”处理显著高0.23 g,“易顶”处理衣分比人工打顶、“抑顶”、“施益富”处理显著高1.1、1.2、1.3个百分点,“易顶”处理籽棉产量较“施益富”、人工打顶和“棉顶封”处理显著高16.4%、17.4%、20.8%,“易顶”处理皮棉产量比“国光冠顶套餐”、“向铃转”、“施益富”、人工打顶和“棉顶封”处理显著高15.4%、16.0%、20.8%、21.2%、22.9%;不同处理间断裂比强度、长度整齐度指数差距不大,但对上半部平均长度、马克隆值影响显著。“易顶”、“抑顶”、“国光冠顶套餐”和“向铃转”综合表现优于人工打顶。【结论】 化学封顶处理株高增长量较大;化学封顶对单株果枝数、产量及产量构成因子、马克隆值和上半部平均长度影响显著;“易顶”处理效果最优,“抑顶”、“国光冠顶套餐”和“向铃转”处理效果次之。

关键词: 长绒棉; 熵权; 模糊综合评价法; 化学封顶; 效果

Abstract:

【Objective】 To study the effect of chemical detopping on long-fiber cotton in the hope of providing theoretical support for integration matching techniques of chemical detopping. 【Methods】 The tested long staple cotton variety is Xin 78,A complete randomized experiment design was used to analyze the effects of seven detopping treatments: “Yiding”, “Yiding”, “Xianglingzhuan”, “Shiyifu”, “Miandingfeng”, “Guoguangguandingtaocan” and Manual topping on influences of cotton plant height, yield and yield components, main fiber quality. At the same time, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method base on entropy weight was applied to evaluate the 11 characters of each treatment.【Results】 The results showed that the plant height increment of pre and post the chemical detopping and artificial detopping treatments were 16.1-40.9 cm and 3.1 cm, respectively; “Yiding”treatent number of fruit branches pe cotton plant was compare with “Mianfengding”and Manual topping separately high 1.5units,1.8untits.boll number per plant of “Yiding” and “Yiding” treatments was significantly higher than those of “Shiyifu”, “Miandingfeng” and artificial detopping treatments, the boll weight of the “Shiyifu” treatment was significantly higher than that of the “Guoguangguandingtaocan” treatment by 0.23 g, lint percent of “Yiding” treatment was significantly higher than that of artificial detopping, “Yiding” and “Shiyifu” by 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3percentage points,the seed cotton yield of “Yiding” treatment was significantly higher than that of “Shiyifu”, artificial detopping and “Miandingfeng” treatment by 16.4%, 17.4% and 20.8%. The lint cotton yield of “Yiding” treatment was significantly higher than those of “Guoguangguandingtaocan”, “Xianglingzhuan”, “Shiyifu”, artificial detopping and “Miandingfeng” treatment by 15.4%, 16.0%, 20.8%, 21.2% and 22.9%, the strength and the length uniformity index had little difference, but it was significant for the micronaire value and length. The comprehensive evaluation of fuzzy method showed that the comprehensive performance of “Yiding”, “Yiding”, “Guoguangguandingtaocan” and “Xianglingzhuan” was better than artificial detopping.【Conclusion】 The plant height increment of chemical capping treatment is larger; chemical detpping has a significant effect on yield and yield components, micronaire value and length; “Yiding” treatment effect is the best, “Yiding”, “Guoguangguandingtaocan” and “Xianglingzhuan” treatment effect are second.

Key words: long-fiber cotton; entropy weight; fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method; chemical detopping; effect

中图分类号:

S562

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.

MA Hui, DAI Lu, LI Xingxing, Abuduaini Abuduweili, Aimaierjiang Abulitifu, TIAN Liwen, OU Huan. Analysis of the influence of different chemical treatments on the sealing effect of long staple cotton[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(11): 2601-2608.

图/表 8

参考文献 11

[1]	叶春秀, 王刚, 李有忠, 等. 不同化学打顶剂对北疆早熟陆地棉农艺及经济性状的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2017, 30(4):762-766.
	YE Chunxiu, WANG Gang, LI Youzhong, et al. Effects of Different Chemical Topping Agents on Agronomic Characters and Yield of Early Maturing Upland Cotton(Gossypium hirsutum) in Northern Xinjiang Province[J]. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 30(4):762-766.
[2]	王香茹, 张恒恒, 庞念厂, 等. 新疆棉区棉花化学打顶剂的筛选研究[J]. 中国棉花, 2018, 45(3):7-12,31.
	WANG Xiangru, ZHANG Hengheng, PANG Nianchang, et al. Screening for Suitable Cotton Topping Chemicals in the Xinjiang Region[J]. China Cotton, 2018, 45(3):7-12,31.
[3]	赵强, 周春江, 张巨松, 等. 化学打顶对南疆棉花农艺和经济性状的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2011, 23(4):329-333.
	ZHAO Qiang, ZHOU Chunjiang, ZHANG Jusong, et al. Effect of Chemical Detopping on the Canopy and Yield of Cotton(Gossypium hirsutum) in Southern Xinjiang[J]. Cotton Science, 2011, 23(4):329-333.
[4]	祝令晓, 刘连涛, 张永江, 等. 化学封顶对棉花株型的调控及评价指标筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(20):4152-4163. DOI
	ZHU Lingxiao, LIU Liantao、 ZHANG Yongjiang, et al. The Regulation and Evaluation Indexes Screening of Chemical Topping on Cotton’s Plant Architecture[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(20):4152-4163. DOI
[5]	娄善伟, 康正华, 赵强, 等. 化学封顶高产棉花株型研究[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2015, 52(7):1328-1333.
	LOU Shanwei, KANG Zhenghua, ZHAO Qiang, et al. Study on Plant Type of High Yield Cotton after Chemical Detopping[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 52(7):1,328-1,333.
[6]	李新裕, 陈玉娟. 新疆垦区长绒棉化学封顶取代人工打顶试验研究[J]. 中国棉花, 2001, 28(1):11-12.
	LI Xinyu, CHEN Yujuan. Experimental Study of Long-Fiber Cotton on Chemical Detopping Replacing Artificial Detoping in Xinjiang[J]. China Cotton, 2001, 28(1):11-12.
[7]	戴翠荣, 赵晓雁, 余力, 等. 氟节胺化学打顶对南疆棉花农艺性状及产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2015, 52(8):1394-1398.
	DAI Cuirong, ZHAO Xiaoyan, YU Li, et al. Effect of Chemical Topping with Flumetralin on the Canopy and Yield of Cotton in Southern Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 52(8):1394-1398.
[8]	孙国军, 李克富, 彭延. 南疆棉区棉花利用氟节胺打顶技术试验[J]. 棉花科学, 2014, 36(2):23-25.
	SUN Guojun, LI Kefu, PENG Yan. Test of Topping Technology by Using Flumetralin in Southern Xinjiang Cotton Region[J]. Cotton Sciences, 2014, 36(2):23-25.
[9]	马辉, 张明, 戴路, 等. 基于投影寻踪法综合评价棉花不同化学打顶剂效果[J]. 中国棉花, 2021, 48(6):5-10.
	MA Hui, ZHANG Ming, DAI Lu, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of the effects of different chemical topping agents on cotton basedon the projection pursuit method[J]. China Cotton, 2021, 48(6):5-10.
[10]	康正华, 赵强, 娄善伟, 等. 不同化学打顶剂对棉花农艺及产量性状的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2015, 52(7):1200-1208.
	KANG Zhenghua, ZHAO Qiang, LOU Shanwei, et al. Effects on the Agronomic and Economic Characters of Cotton by Applying Different Topping Chemicals[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 52(7):1200-1208.
[11]	曹飞, 练文明, 吴博, 等. 南疆棉区4 种化学打顶剂应用效果的研究[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2022, 50(6):72-77.
	CAO Fei, LIAN Wenming, WU Bo, et al. Research on the Application Effect of 4 Chemical Detopping in the Cotton Region of the Southern Xinjiang[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 50(6):72-77.

处理 Treatments	化学封顶剂 Detopping reagent	剂量 Dose	成分 Components	剂型 Formulation
1	“易顶”	2 250 mL/hm²	25%氟节胺	悬浮剂
2	“抑顶”	1 800 mL/hm²	40%氟节胺	悬浮剂
3	“向铃转”	975 mL/hm²	250 g/L甲哌鎓	水剂
4	“施益富”	975 mL/hm²+ 975 mL/hm²(助剂)	3%甲哌鎓+15%矮壮素+无	水剂+水剂
5	“棉顶封”	750 mL/hm²+ 750 mL/hm²(助剂)	250 g/L甲哌鎓+ 乙氧基改性聚三硅氧烷	水剂+ 离子型高渗透剂
6	“国光冠顶套餐”	150 g/hm²+600 g/hm² +15 g/hm²(助剂)	5%烯效唑+250 g/L甲哌鎓 +92%油酸甲酯	可湿性粉剂+水剂+无
7	人工打顶	0	无	无

处理 Treatments	化学封顶剂 Detopping reagent	剂量 Dose	成分 Components	剂型 Formulation
1	“易顶”	2 250 mL/hm²	25%氟节胺	悬浮剂
2	“抑顶”	1 800 mL/hm²	40%氟节胺	悬浮剂
3	“向铃转”	975 mL/hm²	250 g/L甲哌鎓	水剂
4	“施益富”	975 mL/hm²+ 975 mL/hm²(助剂)	3%甲哌鎓+15%矮壮素+无	水剂+水剂
5	“棉顶封”	750 mL/hm²+ 750 mL/hm²(助剂)	250 g/L甲哌鎓+ 乙氧基改性聚三硅氧烷	水剂+ 离子型高渗透剂
6	“国光冠顶套餐”	150 g/hm²+600 g/hm² +15 g/hm²(助剂)	5%烯效唑+250 g/L甲哌鎓 +92%油酸甲酯	可湿性粉剂+水剂+无
7	人工打顶	0	无	无

处理 Treatments	封顶前 1d株高 Plant height 1d pre- detopping (cm)	封顶后株高 Plant height post- detopping (cm)	株高增长量 Plant height increment (cm)
“易顶” “ Yiding”	132.7	148.8	16.1^b
“抑顶” “Yiding”	127.7	153.6	25.9^b
“向铃转” “Xianglingzhuan”	133.4	153.2	19.8^b
“施益富” “Shiyifu”	138.0	158.2	20.2^b
“棉顶封” “Miandingfeng”	121.6	162.5	40.9^a
“国光冠顶套餐” “Guoguang guandingtaocan”	125.9	142.9	17.1^b
人工打顶 Manual topping	137.2	140.3	3.1^c

处理 Treatments	封顶前 1d株高 Plant height 1d pre- detopping (cm)	封顶后株高 Plant height post- detopping (cm)	株高增长量 Plant height increment (cm)
“易顶” “ Yiding”	132.7	148.8	16.1^b
“抑顶” “Yiding”	127.7	153.6	25.9^b
“向铃转” “Xianglingzhuan”	133.4	153.2	19.8^b
“施益富” “Shiyifu”	138.0	158.2	20.2^b
“棉顶封” “Miandingfeng”	121.6	162.5	40.9^a
“国光冠顶套餐” “Guoguang guandingtaocan”	125.9	142.9	17.1^b
人工打顶 Manual topping	137.2	140.3	3.1^c

处理 Treatments	单株铃数 Bolls per plant (个)	铃重 Boll weight (g)	衣分 Lint percentage (%)	籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield (kg/hm²)	皮棉产量 Lint yield (kg/hm²)
“易顶”“Yiding”	9.5^a	3.09^ab	34.4^a	5 445.0^a	1 870.5^a
“抑顶” “Yiding”	9.3^a	2.98^ab	33.2^b	5 031.0^ab	1 672.5^ab
“向铃转”“Xianglingzhuan”	8.3^abc	3.04^ab	33.5^ab	4 806.0^ab	1 612.5^b
“施益富”“Shiyifu”	7.7^bc	3.15^a	33.1^b	4 678.5^b	1 548.0^b
“棉顶封”“Miandingfeng”	7.6^bc	3.10^ab	33.8^ab	4 509.0^b	1 522.5^b
“国光冠顶套餐”“Guoguang guandingtaocan”	8.7^ab	2.92^b	33.7^ab	4 816.5^ab	1 621.5^b
人工打顶 Manual topping	7.2^c	3.05^ab	33.3^b	4 636.5^b	1 543.5^b

不同化学药剂处理对长绒棉封顶效果的影响

Analysis of the influence of different chemical treatments on the sealing effect of long staple cotton

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 11

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

处理 Treatments	上半部平均长度 Length (mm)	断裂比强度 Strength (cN/tex)	马克隆值 Micronaire value	长度整齐度指数 Length uniformity index
“易顶” “Yiding”	38.05^abc	43.87^a	4.39^a	86.60^a
“抑顶” “Yiding”	38.60^ab	43.97^a	4.19^a	87.83^a
“向铃转” “Xianglingzhuan”	37.97^abc	43.97^a	4.32^a	87.27^a
“施益富” “Shiyifu”	37.68^abc	44.10^a	4.08^ab	86.20^a
“棉顶封” “Miandingfeng”	36.81^c	43.63^a	4.13^ab	86.60^a
“国光冠顶套餐” “Guoguang guandingtaocan”	37.57^bc	45.43^a	4.17^ab	85.97^a
人工打顶 Manual topping	39.14^a	43.45^a	3.76^b	87.25^a

性状 Characters	权重Weight
株高增长量 Plant height increment	0.054 5
单株果枝数Number of fruit branches per plant	0.091 6
单株铃数 Bolls per plant	0.089 4
铃重 Boll weight	0.062 8
衣分Lint percentage	0.114 5
籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield	0.104 4
皮棉产量 Lint yield	0.146 2
上半部平均长度 Length	0.064 8
断裂比强度Strength	0.120 2
马克隆值 Micronaire value	0.063 0
长度整齐度指数 Length uniformity index	0.088 7

处理 Treatments	“易顶” “Yiding”	“抑顶” “Yiding”	“向铃转” “Xiangling zhuan”	“施益富” “Shiyifu”	“棉顶封” “Mian ding feng”	“国光冠顶套餐” “Guoguang guanding taocan”	人工打顶 Manual topping
株高增长量Plant height increment	0.035 6	0.021 6	0.030 4	0.029 8	0.000 0	0.034 3	0.054 5
单株果枝数Number of fruit branches per plant	0.091 6	0.040 7	0.030 5	0.020 3	0.015 3	0.056 0	0.000 0
单株铃数Bolls per plant	0.089 4	0.081 6	0.042 8	0.019 4	0.015 5	0.058 3	0.000 0
铃重 Boll weight	0.046 4	0.016 4	0.032 7	0.062 8	0.049 1	0.000 0	0.035 5
衣分Lint percentage	0.114 5	0.008 8	0.035 2	0.000 0	0.061 7	0.052 9	0.017 6
籽棉产量Seed cotton yield	0.104 4	0.058 2	0.033 1	0.018 9	0.000 0	0.034 3	0.014 2
皮棉产量Lint yield	0.146 2	0.063 0	0.037 8	0.010 7	0.000 0	0.041 6	0.008 8
上半部平均长度Length	0.034 5	0.049 8	0.032 3	0.024 2	0.000 0	0.021 1	0.064 8
断裂比强度Strength	0.025 5	0.031 6	0.031 6	0.039 5	0.010 9	0.120 2	0.000 0
马克隆值Micronaire value	0.000 0	0.040 7	0.014 2	0.063 0	0.052 9	0.044 7	0.050 8
长度整齐度指数Length uniformity index	0.030 0	0.088 7	0.062 0	0.011 0	0.030 0	0.000 0	0.061 0
综合指数Complex index	0.718 1	0.501 0	0.382 6	0.299 6	0.235 4	0.463 4	0.307 3
排序Order	1	2	4	6	7	3	5

处理 Treatments	“易顶” “Yiding”	“抑顶” “Yiding”	“向铃转” “Xiangling zhuan”	“施益富” “Shiyifu”	“棉顶封” “Mian ding feng”	“国光冠顶套餐” “Guoguang guanding taocan”	人工打顶 Manual topping
化学封顶剂成本 Detopping cost	360	450	525	300	240	240	600
无人机作业成本 UAV operation cost	75	75	75	75	75	75	-
节省成本 Cost saving	165	75	0	225	285	285	-

[1]	王心, 林涛, 崔建平, 吴凤全, 唐志轩, 崔来园, 郭仁松, 王亮, 郑子漂. 种植模式与灌溉定额对机采长绒棉产量及纤维品质形成的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1821-1829.
[2]	王苹, 孔娜, 潘俨, 孙席平, 徐斌, 张婷. ClO₂熏蒸处理对湿鲜核桃贮藏效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(8): 1940-1949.
[3]	宋单波, 张国新, 王权, 刘保军, 黄涛, 韩宏伟, 白剑宇, 郭庆元. 巴旦木细菌性穿孔病菌的生物学特性及抑菌药剂筛选[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(6): 1515-1522.
[4]	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.
[5]	蒋从军, 阿里甫·艾尔西, 林涛, 沙红, 郑子漂, 努尔曼古丽·吾甫尔, 蒋争军, 崔建平, 郭仁松, 王亮, 张娜. 脱叶剂对机采棉不同种植模式脱叶效果、产量及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2661-2666.
[6]	吴莉莉, 钱涛, 陈艳, 吾买尔江·拜克力, 李广阔, 丁瑞丰. 二甲戊灵和丙炔氟草胺对棉田一年生杂草的防治效果[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(11): 2790-2797.
[7]	谈钇汐, 付开赟, 贾尊尊, 李爱梅, 丁新华, 吐尔逊·阿合买提, 冯宏祖, 郭文超. 诱捕器颜色、悬挂高度与位置对番茄潜叶蛾诱捕效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(5): 1144-1155.
[8]	李艳兵, 郭小虎, 努尔什瓦克·阿达力别克, 帕提玛·乌木尔汗, 马德英. 人工助迁多异瓢虫和化防2种模式对棉蚜的防效及天敌种群动态影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(5): 1173-1179.
[9]	马永杰, 王星怡, 韩聪颖, 蔺玉红, 马慧, 张雪艳. 日光温室后墙自走式雾化降温机夏季降温效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(4): 1016-1024.
[10]	石磊, 吕宁, 何帅, 尹飞虎, 高志建, 谭荣欣. 次生盐渍土暗管+竖井排水控盐技术模式筛选及效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(3): 716-724.
[11]	张栋海, 魏俊梅, 陈兵, 吉光鹏, 王凡, 牛蛉磊. 无人机播前喷施除草剂防除棉田杂草效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(12): 3022-3029.
[12]	鲁晏宏, 郝金辉, 詹发强, 王宁, 侯新强, 杨蓉, 包慧芳, 龙宣杞. 香梨黑斑病病原菌分离及拮抗菌筛选鉴定[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(10): 2538-2545.
[13]	何庆雨, 张巨松, 代建敏, 窦巧巧, 谢玲. 延迟化控对干旱复水后棉花株型塑造及产量构成的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(1): 11-19.
[14]	魏鑫, 马清倩, 李春艳, 徐海江, 郑子漂, 李春平, 刘忠山, 张大伟. 脱叶剂喷施时间对棉花产量品质及种子化学成分的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(9): 1648-1655.
[15]	陈文静, 赵静, 张金磊, 鲁立良, 冯丽凯. 噻虫嗪在棉叶中残留消解动态及对棉蚜的防治效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(9): 1678-1684.