Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (6): 1450-1457.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.06.016
• Plant Protection·Microbes • Previous Articles Next Articles
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:
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(
)
通讯作者:
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:
CLC Number:
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.
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.
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 | - | - | - |
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 | - | - | - |
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 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
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 | - | - | - |
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 | - | - |
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] | ZHANG Yongqiang, CHEN Chuanxin, XU Qijiang, NIE Shihui, LEI Junjie, LIU Changwen. Effects of combined application of nitrogen enhancer and nitrogen reduction on leaf physiology and yield of winter wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(6): 1319-1325. |
[2] | LI Jingxia, ZHANG Xuexiang, LI Feng, MA Sijie, ZHANG Ping, ZHU Tiansheng. Prediction of suitable areas and quantitative risk analysis of willow phytoplasma diseases in China based on MaxEnt model [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(5): 1235-1243. |
[3] | LIU Guohong, LENG Bingbing, BIAN Qingyong, WEI Yayuan, WANG Zhiguo. Characteristics and Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals As and Cd in Typical Soils in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(8): 2033-2040. |
[4] | ZHAO Fangfang, SUN Guili, JI Xiaomin, GE Wenting, LI Xue, LU Hang. Land Landscape Pattern and Ecological Risk Analysis of Tianshan Grand Canyon National Forest Park [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(3): 735-743. |
[5] | FU Kaiyun, WANG Zhihui, DING Xinhua, Tursun Ahmat, WANG Xiaowu, JIA Zunzun, Arziguli Rouzi, GUO Wenchao. Influence of Pesticide Reduction and Synergist on Utilization Rates and Droplets Distribution in Corn Field [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(11): 2675-2681. |
[6] | ZHANG Qian, WANG Yan, HUANG Shansong, DONG Ming, FENG Guoyi, WANG Yongqiang, LIU Xu, LIANG Qinglong, LIN Yongzeng, QI Hong, WANG Shulin. Effects of Synergist on Reduction and Synergism of Two Common Nicotine Insecticides to Control Cotton Aphids [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(8): 1435-1440. |
[7] | DING Shiqiang, FU Kaiyun, DING Xinhua, HE Jiang, Tursun Ahmat, GUO Wenchao. Prevention and Control Techniques of Ragweed and Giant Ragweed Based on Synergistic Effect of Synergistic Agent and Herbicide [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(8): 1493-1500. |
[8] | LAI Chengxia, Mayila Yusuyin, SHI Bixian, LI Chunping, JIANG Mengzhu, ZHENG Zipiao, YANG Dong. Application Study on the Adjuvant Jijian as Synergist for Cotton Verticillium Disease Control [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(12): 2220-2227. |
[9] | WANG Yan, SHEN Yuyang, CHEN Li, MA Xiaoyan, CHEN Ruigang, HUANGFU Beijiong, GAO Haifeng, LI Guangkuo. Evaluation of Chemical Control Efficacy of Grass Weeds in Spring Wheat Field [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(1): 92-98. |
[10] | YAN Nana , WANG Zhi , LIU Zhihu , QIAO Kunyun , ZHANG Rui , GUO Hang , ZHAO Duoyong. Risk Assessment and Residual Analysis of Heavy Metals in Soil of Korla Fragrant Pear Producing Areas in Xinjiang and Gansu [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 57(8): 1551-1559. |
[11] | ZHANG Qian, WANG Shulin, QI Hong, LI Yan, WANG Yan, FENG Guoyi, LIANG Qinglong, LEI Xiaopeng, LIN Yongzeng. Effects of Spraying Adjuvants on Reduction and Synergism of Herbicides in Cotton Field [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 57(6): 1159-1165. |
[12] | CAO Wei, Sawula Te wuhetamaiti, Rehanguli Shataer, XIONG Renci, YAO Yongsheng. Synergistic effects of Different Auxiliaries on the Control of Cotton Aphid by Matrine [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 57(4): 623-629. |
[13] | LU Haiyan, SUN Guili, LI Lu, LU Hang, BAI Yichun. Ecological Vulnerability Assessment in Xinjiang Based on VSD Model [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 57(2): 292-302. |
[14] | WANG Zhihui, DING Xinhua, JIA Zunzun, FU Kaiyun, Tursun Ahmat, HE Jiang, GUO Wenchao. An Ultra Low Spray Control Technique for Corn Borer Based on Synergist and Insecticide [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 57(2): 311-318. |
[15] | WEN Xin-xin, HAN Zhong-ling, CHENG Yong-xiang, WANG Xiu-zhen. Risk Assessment of Cotton Sterile-Type Chilling Injury [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 56(8): 1438-1448. |
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 54
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 354
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||