Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2024, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (S1): 49-59.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.S1.006
• The special clumn for research of pest control in corn field • Previous Articles Next Articles
GONG Xuehua1,2(), WANG Xiaowu1, FU Kaiyun1, JIA Zunzun1, TURSUN Ahmat1, QIAO Xiaoyan1, YE Xiaoqin1, GUO Wenchao1(
), DING Xinhua1(
)
Received:
2024-07-05
Online:
2024-10-10
Published:
2024-11-15
Correspondence author:
GUO Wenchao, DING Xinhua
Supported by:
巩雪花1,2(), 王小武1, 付开赟1, 贾尊尊1, 吐尔逊·阿合买提1, 乔小燕1, 叶晓琴1, 郭文超1(
), 丁新华1(
)
通讯作者:
郭文超,丁新华
作者简介:
巩雪花(1999-),女,硕士研究生,研究方向为农业害虫综合防治,(E-mail)2140226336@qq.com
基金资助:
CLC Number:
GONG Xuehua, WANG Xiaowu, FU Kaiyun, JIA Zunzun, TURSUN Ahmat, QIAO Xiaoyan, YE Xiaoqin, GUO Wenchao, DING Xinhua. Effects of weed seeds bank and environmental factors on weed seeds germination in oasis irrigation areas of Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(S1): 49-59.
巩雪花, 王小武, 付开赟, 贾尊尊, 吐尔逊·阿合买提, 乔小燕, 叶晓琴, 郭文超, 丁新华. 新疆绿洲灌区玉米田杂草种子库及环境因子对杂草种子萌发的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 49-59.
科名 Family name | 杂草种类 Weed species | 覆膜滴灌 Mulched drip irrigation | 漫灌 Flood irrigation | 不覆膜滴灌 Non-mulched drip irrigation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
相对优势度 Relative abundance | 密度 Density (株/m2) | 相对优势度 Relative abundance | 密度 Density (株/m2) | 相对优势度 Relative abundance | 密度 Density (株/m2) | ||
禾本科Poaceae | 稗草 | 0.49 | 207.39 | 0.45 | 233.31 | 0.48 | 155.54 |
狗尾草 | 0.38 | 199.98 | 0.30 | 103.69 | 0.56 | 281.45 | |
- | 画眉草 | 0.25 | 92.58 | - | - | - | |
藜科Chenopodiaceae | 灰绿藜 | 0.46 | 277.75 | 0.60 | 351.82 | 0.46 | 311.08 |
苋科Amaranthaceae | 反枝苋 | 0.61 | 418.48 | 0.50 | 192.57 | 0.52 | 355.52 |
凹头苋 | - | - | 0.30 | 92.58 | 0.23 | 44.44 | |
白苋 | 0.24 | 70.36 | - | - | - | - | |
马齿苋科Portulacaceae | 马齿苋 | 0.30 | 99.99 | 0.41 | 81.47 | 0.37 | 162.95 |
菊科Asteraceae | 蒲公英 | - | - | - | - | 0.34 | 40.74 |
苦苣菜 | 0.17 | 18.52 | - | - | 0.29 | 48.14 | |
刺儿菜 | 0.37 | 133.32 | 0.23 | 51.85 | 0.12 | 22.22 | |
旋花科Convolvulaceae | 圆叶牵牛 | - | - | - | - | 0.29 | 70.36 |
田旋花 | 0.30 | 111.10 | 0.30 | 107.40 | 0.41 | 99.99 | |
茄科Solanaceae | 龙葵 | 0.37 | 151.84 | 0.37 | 137.02 | 0.37 | 207.39 |
十字花科Brassicaceae | 播娘蒿 | 0.24 | 59.25 | 0.37 | 122.21 | 0.25 | 144.43 |
锦葵科Malvaceae | 野西瓜苗 | 0.30 | 85.18 | 0.43 | 151.84 | 0.36 | 133.32 |
苘麻 | - | - | 0.47 | 103.69 | 0.49 | 225.90 | |
豆科Fabaceae | 南苜蓿 | - | - | 0.43 | 162.95 | 0.23 | 33.33 |
蓼科Polygonaceae | 萹蓄 | 0.29 | 51.85 | - | - | 0.24 | 70.36 |
Tab.1 Average important value of weeds composition in corn fields in oasis irrigation areas in Xinjiang
科名 Family name | 杂草种类 Weed species | 覆膜滴灌 Mulched drip irrigation | 漫灌 Flood irrigation | 不覆膜滴灌 Non-mulched drip irrigation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
相对优势度 Relative abundance | 密度 Density (株/m2) | 相对优势度 Relative abundance | 密度 Density (株/m2) | 相对优势度 Relative abundance | 密度 Density (株/m2) | ||
禾本科Poaceae | 稗草 | 0.49 | 207.39 | 0.45 | 233.31 | 0.48 | 155.54 |
狗尾草 | 0.38 | 199.98 | 0.30 | 103.69 | 0.56 | 281.45 | |
- | 画眉草 | 0.25 | 92.58 | - | - | - | |
藜科Chenopodiaceae | 灰绿藜 | 0.46 | 277.75 | 0.60 | 351.82 | 0.46 | 311.08 |
苋科Amaranthaceae | 反枝苋 | 0.61 | 418.48 | 0.50 | 192.57 | 0.52 | 355.52 |
凹头苋 | - | - | 0.30 | 92.58 | 0.23 | 44.44 | |
白苋 | 0.24 | 70.36 | - | - | - | - | |
马齿苋科Portulacaceae | 马齿苋 | 0.30 | 99.99 | 0.41 | 81.47 | 0.37 | 162.95 |
菊科Asteraceae | 蒲公英 | - | - | - | - | 0.34 | 40.74 |
苦苣菜 | 0.17 | 18.52 | - | - | 0.29 | 48.14 | |
刺儿菜 | 0.37 | 133.32 | 0.23 | 51.85 | 0.12 | 22.22 | |
旋花科Convolvulaceae | 圆叶牵牛 | - | - | - | - | 0.29 | 70.36 |
田旋花 | 0.30 | 111.10 | 0.30 | 107.40 | 0.41 | 99.99 | |
茄科Solanaceae | 龙葵 | 0.37 | 151.84 | 0.37 | 137.02 | 0.37 | 207.39 |
十字花科Brassicaceae | 播娘蒿 | 0.24 | 59.25 | 0.37 | 122.21 | 0.25 | 144.43 |
锦葵科Malvaceae | 野西瓜苗 | 0.30 | 85.18 | 0.43 | 151.84 | 0.36 | 133.32 |
苘麻 | - | - | 0.47 | 103.69 | 0.49 | 225.90 | |
豆科Fabaceae | 南苜蓿 | - | - | 0.43 | 162.95 | 0.23 | 33.33 |
蓼科Polygonaceae | 萹蓄 | 0.29 | 51.85 | - | - | 0.24 | 70.36 |
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | 0.139 | -0.375 | - | -0.077 | -0.004 | -0.136 | -0.037 | 0.068 | 0.015 |
pH值pH value | -0.548 | -0.687 | -0.141 | - | 0.396 | 0.188 | 0.171 | 0.240 | 0.152 |
EC值EC value | -0.656 | 1.278 | -0.014 | 0.736 | - | 0.923 | 0.796 | 0.814 | 0.709 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | -0.452 | -1.136 | -0.412 | -0.311 | 0.820 | - | 0.219 | 0.076 | 0.080 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | -0.599 | -0.923 | -0.090 | -0.230 | -0.575 | 0.178 | - | 0.821 | 0.844 |
钾Potassium(K) | -0.620 | -0.768 | 0.140 | -0.268 | -0.489 | 0.051 | 0.683 | - | 0.539 |
有机质Organic substance | -0.435 | 0.617 | -0.025 | 0.136 | 0.342 | 0.043 | 0.564 | 0.539 | - |
Tab.2 Path analysis of the density and soil physicochemical factors of Amaranthus retroflexus L.
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | 0.139 | -0.375 | - | -0.077 | -0.004 | -0.136 | -0.037 | 0.068 | 0.015 |
pH值pH value | -0.548 | -0.687 | -0.141 | - | 0.396 | 0.188 | 0.171 | 0.240 | 0.152 |
EC值EC value | -0.656 | 1.278 | -0.014 | 0.736 | - | 0.923 | 0.796 | 0.814 | 0.709 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | -0.452 | -1.136 | -0.412 | -0.311 | 0.820 | - | 0.219 | 0.076 | 0.080 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | -0.599 | -0.923 | -0.090 | -0.230 | -0.575 | 0.178 | - | 0.821 | 0.844 |
钾Potassium(K) | -0.620 | -0.768 | 0.140 | -0.268 | -0.489 | 0.051 | 0.683 | - | 0.539 |
有机质Organic substance | -0.435 | 0.617 | -0.025 | 0.136 | 0.342 | 0.043 | 0.564 | 0.539 | - |
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | 0.337 | 0.690 | - | -0.074 | -0.008 | -0.250 | -0.068 | 0.126 | 0.028 |
pH值pH value | 0.192 | 0.361 | -0.074 | - | 0.208 | 0.099 | 0.090 | 0.126 | 0.080 |
EC值EC value | 0.494 | 1.057 | -0.012 | 0.609 | - | 0.763 | 0.659 | 0.673 | 0.587 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | 0.212 | 1.021 | -0.371 | 0.280 | 0.737 | - | 0.197 | 0.068 | 0.071 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | 0.469 | 0.312 | -0.031 | 0.078 | 0.194 | 0.060 | - | 0.277 | 0.285 |
钾Potassium(K) | 0.583 | 0.588 | -0.107 | 0.205 | 0.375 | 0.039 | 0.523 | - | 0.514 |
有机质Organic substance | 0.472 | 0.081 | 0.003 | 0.018 | 0.045 | 0.006 | 0.074 | 0.071 | - |
Tab.3 Path analysis of the density and soil physicochemical factors of Chenopodium glaucum L
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | 0.337 | 0.690 | - | -0.074 | -0.008 | -0.250 | -0.068 | 0.126 | 0.028 |
pH值pH value | 0.192 | 0.361 | -0.074 | - | 0.208 | 0.099 | 0.090 | 0.126 | 0.080 |
EC值EC value | 0.494 | 1.057 | -0.012 | 0.609 | - | 0.763 | 0.659 | 0.673 | 0.587 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | 0.212 | 1.021 | -0.371 | 0.280 | 0.737 | - | 0.197 | 0.068 | 0.071 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | 0.469 | 0.312 | -0.031 | 0.078 | 0.194 | 0.060 | - | 0.277 | 0.285 |
钾Potassium(K) | 0.583 | 0.588 | -0.107 | 0.205 | 0.375 | 0.039 | 0.523 | - | 0.514 |
有机质Organic substance | 0.472 | 0.081 | 0.003 | 0.018 | 0.045 | 0.006 | 0.074 | 0.071 | - |
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | -0.023 | -0.529 | - | -0.108 | -0.006 | -0.192 | -0.052 | 0.096 | 0.022 |
pH值pH value | 0.255 | -0.124 | -0.025 | - | 0.071 | 0.034 | 0.031 | 0.043 | 0.027 |
EC值EC value | -0.070 | 1.150 | -0.013 | 0.662 | - | 0.830 | 0.716 | 0.733 | 0.638 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | -0.071 | -0.884 | -0.321 | 0.242 | -0.638 | - | 0.171 | 0.059 | 0.062 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | -0.356 | -0.891 | -0.087 | 0.222 | 0.555 | 0.172 | - | 0.792 | 0.814 |
钾Potassium(K) | -0.199 | 0.604 | 0.110 | 0.211 | 0.385 | 0.040 | 0.537 | - | 0.528 |
有机质Organic substance | -0.381 | -0.623 | 0.026 | 0.138 | 0.346 | 0.044 | 0.569 | 0.545 | - |
Tab.4 Path analysis of the density of Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv.and soil physicochemical factors
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | -0.023 | -0.529 | - | -0.108 | -0.006 | -0.192 | -0.052 | 0.096 | 0.022 |
pH值pH value | 0.255 | -0.124 | -0.025 | - | 0.071 | 0.034 | 0.031 | 0.043 | 0.027 |
EC值EC value | -0.070 | 1.150 | -0.013 | 0.662 | - | 0.830 | 0.716 | 0.733 | 0.638 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | -0.071 | -0.884 | -0.321 | 0.242 | -0.638 | - | 0.171 | 0.059 | 0.062 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | -0.356 | -0.891 | -0.087 | 0.222 | 0.555 | 0.172 | - | 0.792 | 0.814 |
钾Potassium(K) | -0.199 | 0.604 | 0.110 | 0.211 | 0.385 | 0.040 | 0.537 | - | 0.528 |
有机质Organic substance | -0.381 | -0.623 | 0.026 | 0.138 | 0.346 | 0.044 | 0.569 | 0.545 | - |
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | -0.143 | -0.308 | - | -0.063 | -0.003 | -0.112 | -0.030 | 0.056 | 0.013 |
pH值pH value | -0.019 | -0.036 | -0.007 | - | 0.021 | 0.010 | 0.009 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
EC值EC value | -0.135 | -0.157 | -0.002 | 0.090 | - | 0.113 | 0.098 | 0.100 | 0.087 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | -0.213 | -0.191 | -0.069 | 0.052 | 0.138 | - | 0.037 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | 0.142 | -0.254 | -0.025 | 0.063 | 0.158 | 0.049 | - | 0.226 | 0.232 |
钾Potassium(K) | 0.121 | 0.273 | 0.050 | 0.095 | 0.174 | 0.018 | 0.243 | - | -0.239 |
有机质Organic substance | 0.177 | 0.293 | 0.012 | 0.065 | 0.163 | 0.021 | 0.268 | 0.256 | - |
Tab.5 Path analysis of Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.density and soil physicochemical factors
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | -0.143 | -0.308 | - | -0.063 | -0.003 | -0.112 | -0.030 | 0.056 | 0.013 |
pH值pH value | -0.019 | -0.036 | -0.007 | - | 0.021 | 0.010 | 0.009 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
EC值EC value | -0.135 | -0.157 | -0.002 | 0.090 | - | 0.113 | 0.098 | 0.100 | 0.087 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | -0.213 | -0.191 | -0.069 | 0.052 | 0.138 | - | 0.037 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | 0.142 | -0.254 | -0.025 | 0.063 | 0.158 | 0.049 | - | 0.226 | 0.232 |
钾Potassium(K) | 0.121 | 0.273 | 0.050 | 0.095 | 0.174 | 0.018 | 0.243 | - | -0.239 |
有机质Organic substance | 0.177 | 0.293 | 0.012 | 0.065 | 0.163 | 0.021 | 0.268 | 0.256 | - |
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | 0.106 | -0.013 | - | -0.003 | 0.000 | -0.005 | -0.001 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
pH值pH value | 0.013 | -0.221 | -0.045 | - | 0.127 | 0.061 | 0.055 | 0.077 | 0.049 |
EC值EC value | 0.223 | 0.508 | -0.006 | 0.293 | - | 0.367 | 0.316 | 0.324 | 0.282 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | -0.234 | -0.770 | -0.280 | 0.211 | 0.367 | - | 0.149 | 0.052 | 0.054 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | 0.744 | 1.519 | -0.149 | 0.378 | 0.480 | 0.293 | - | 1.350 | 1.388 |
钾Potassium(K) | 0.680 | -0.088 | 0.016 | 0.031 | 0.968 | 0.006 | 0.078 | - | 0.077 |
有机质Organic substance | 0.602 | -0.887 | 0.036 | 0.196 | 0.049 | 0.062 | 0.811 | 0.775 | - |
Tab.6 Path analysis of Abutilon theophrasti Medikus density and soil physicochemical factors
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | 0.106 | -0.013 | - | -0.003 | 0.000 | -0.005 | -0.001 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
pH值pH value | 0.013 | -0.221 | -0.045 | - | 0.127 | 0.061 | 0.055 | 0.077 | 0.049 |
EC值EC value | 0.223 | 0.508 | -0.006 | 0.293 | - | 0.367 | 0.316 | 0.324 | 0.282 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | -0.234 | -0.770 | -0.280 | 0.211 | 0.367 | - | 0.149 | 0.052 | 0.054 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | 0.744 | 1.519 | -0.149 | 0.378 | 0.480 | 0.293 | - | 1.350 | 1.388 |
钾Potassium(K) | 0.680 | -0.088 | 0.016 | 0.031 | 0.968 | 0.006 | 0.078 | - | 0.077 |
有机质Organic substance | 0.602 | -0.887 | 0.036 | 0.196 | 0.049 | 0.062 | 0.811 | 0.775 | - |
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | -0.406 | -0.362 | - | -0.035 | -0.004 | -0.131 | -0.035 | 0.066 | 0.015 |
pH值pH value | 0.143 | -0.172 | -0.035 | - | 0.099 | 0.047 | 0.043 | 0.060 | 0.038 |
EC值EC value | 0.427 | -0.375 | -0.004 | 0.216 | - | 0.271 | 0.234 | 0.239 | 0.208 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | 0.362 | 0.369 | -0.134 | 0.101 | 0.266 | - | 0.071 | 0.025 | 0.026 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | 0.668 | 1.007 | -0.099 | 0.251 | 0.627 | 0.194 | - | 0.895 | 0.920 |
钾Potassium(K) | 0.557 | 1.093 | 0.199 | 0.381 | 0.696 | 0.073 | 0.972 | - | 0.955 |
有机质Organic substance | 0.391 | -1.249 | 0.051 | 0.276 | 0.693 | 0.087 | 1.142 | 1.092 | - |
Tab.7 Path analysis of Hibiscus trionum L.seedling density and soil physicochemical factors
因子 Factor | 相关 系数 Gorrelation | 通径 系数 Path coefficient | 间接通径系数Indirect path coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
水分 Water | pH值 pH value | EC值 EC value | 氮 Nitrogen (N) | 磷 Phosph- orus(P) | 钾 Potassi- um(K) | 有机质 Organic substance | |||
水分Water | -0.406 | -0.362 | - | -0.035 | -0.004 | -0.131 | -0.035 | 0.066 | 0.015 |
pH值pH value | 0.143 | -0.172 | -0.035 | - | 0.099 | 0.047 | 0.043 | 0.060 | 0.038 |
EC值EC value | 0.427 | -0.375 | -0.004 | 0.216 | - | 0.271 | 0.234 | 0.239 | 0.208 |
氮Nitrogen(N) | 0.362 | 0.369 | -0.134 | 0.101 | 0.266 | - | 0.071 | 0.025 | 0.026 |
磷Phosphorus(P) | 0.668 | 1.007 | -0.099 | 0.251 | 0.627 | 0.194 | - | 0.895 | 0.920 |
钾Potassium(K) | 0.557 | 1.093 | 0.199 | 0.381 | 0.696 | 0.073 | 0.972 | - | 0.955 |
有机质Organic substance | 0.391 | -1.249 | 0.051 | 0.276 | 0.693 | 0.087 | 1.142 | 1.092 | - |
Fig.2 Changes of different NaCl concentrations on seed germination rate of weeds in corn fields in oasis irrigation areas of Xinjiang Note:A:A.retroflexus, B:S.viridis, C: C.glaucum, D: H.trionum, E:A.theophrasti, F: E.crus-galli
渗透势 Osmotic potential (Mpa) | 反枝苋 Amaranthus retroflexus L. | 狗尾草 Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. | 灰绿藜 Chenopodium glaucum L. | 野西瓜苗 Hibiscus trionum L. | 苘麻 Abutilon theophrasti Medikus | 稗草 Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.0 | 84.00±5.42a | 80.00±8.49a | 100.00±0.00a | 65.00±3.42a | 78.00±3.83a | 84.00±5.16a |
-0.2 | 88.00±8.00a | 76.00±4.32ab | 91.00±1.00b | 60.00±2.83a | 84.00±3.65a | 81.00±1.91a |
-0.4 | 54.00±3.46b | 64.00±5.42bc | 62.00±3.46c | 44.00±1.63b | 51.00±1.91b | 59.00±1.91b |
-0.6 | 30.00±1.15c | 57.00±1.91c | 44.00±2.83d | 32.00±2.83c | 32.00±1.63c | 42.00±1.15c |
-0.8 | 14.00±2.00d | 27.00±1.91d | 28.00±1.63e | 11.00±1.00d | 16.00±1.63d | 29.00±1.91d |
-1.0 | 4.00±1.63d | 5.00±1.00e | 11.00±1.91f | 0.00 | 0.00 | 18.00±1.15e |
Tab.8 Changes of different water potential on germination rate of weed seeds in corn fields in oasis irrigation areas of Xinjiang
渗透势 Osmotic potential (Mpa) | 反枝苋 Amaranthus retroflexus L. | 狗尾草 Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. | 灰绿藜 Chenopodium glaucum L. | 野西瓜苗 Hibiscus trionum L. | 苘麻 Abutilon theophrasti Medikus | 稗草 Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.0 | 84.00±5.42a | 80.00±8.49a | 100.00±0.00a | 65.00±3.42a | 78.00±3.83a | 84.00±5.16a |
-0.2 | 88.00±8.00a | 76.00±4.32ab | 91.00±1.00b | 60.00±2.83a | 84.00±3.65a | 81.00±1.91a |
-0.4 | 54.00±3.46b | 64.00±5.42bc | 62.00±3.46c | 44.00±1.63b | 51.00±1.91b | 59.00±1.91b |
-0.6 | 30.00±1.15c | 57.00±1.91c | 44.00±2.83d | 32.00±2.83c | 32.00±1.63c | 42.00±1.15c |
-0.8 | 14.00±2.00d | 27.00±1.91d | 28.00±1.63e | 11.00±1.00d | 16.00±1.63d | 29.00±1.91d |
-1.0 | 4.00±1.63d | 5.00±1.00e | 11.00±1.91f | 0.00 | 0.00 | 18.00±1.15e |
[1] | 丁新华, 王小武, 蒋旭东, 等. 2种增效剂对春玉米田除草剂的减量增效[J]. 植物保护, 2022, 48(1):297-304. |
DING Xinhua, WANG Xiaowu, JIANG Xudong, et al. Decrement and synergistic effect of two synergist onherbicides in spring corn field[J]. Plant protection, 2022, 48 (1) : 297-304. | |
[2] | 白文斌, 张建华, 高振峰, 等. 不同施肥与耕作方式对高粱-玉米轮作田杂草多样性影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2024, 33(11):1-14. |
BAI Wenbin, ZHANG Jianhua, GAO Zhenfeng, et al. Effects of different fertilization and tillage methods on weed diversity in sorghum-maize rotation fileds[J]. Northwest Agricultural Journal, 2024, 33 (11) : 1-14. | |
[3] | 潘俊峰, 万开元, 章力干, 等. 长期有机-无机肥配施对农田杂草土壤种子库的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2013, 19(2):480-488. |
PAN Junfeng, WAN Kaiyuan, ZHANG Ligan, et al. Effects of long,-term combined application of organic manure and chemicalfertilizers on farmland weed soil seedbank[J]. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Journal, 2013, 19 (2) : 480-488. | |
[4] | Cavers P B. Seed banks: memory in soil[J]. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 1995,75: 11-13. |
[5] | Roberts H A. Seed banks in soils[J]. Advances in Applied Biology, 1981, 6: 1-55. |
[6] | QIANG S. Weed diversity of arable in China[J]. Journal of Korean Weed Science, 2002, 22(3): 187-198. |
[7] | 潘俊峰, 万开元, 程传鹏, 等. 农田杂草土壤种子库对施肥模式的响应[J]. 土壤, 2014, 46(1):76-82. |
PAN Junfeng, WAN Kaiyuan, CHENG Chuanpeng, et al. Responses of farmland weed soil seed bank to different fertilization patterns[J]. Soil, 2014, 46 (1) : 76-82. | |
[8] | 魏守辉, 强胜, 马波, 等. 土壤杂草种子库与杂草综合管理[J]. 土壤, 2005, 37(2):121-128. |
WEI Shouhui, QIANG Sheng, MA Bo, et al. Soil weed seed bank and integrated weed management[J]. Soil, 2005, 37 (2) : 121-128. | |
[9] | Burnside O C, Moomaw R S, Roeth F W, et al. Weed seed demise in soil in weed-free corn (Zea mays) production across Nebraska[J]. Weed Science, 1986, 34(2):248-251. |
[10] | 郭玉莲, 黄春艳, 王宇, 等. 不同耕作模式对大豆田土壤杂草种子库的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(31):89-93,104. |
GUO Yulian, HUANG Chunyan, WANG Yu, et al. Effects of different tillage patterns on soil weed seed bank in soybean field[J]. Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 44 (31) : 89-93,104. | |
[11] | 黄春艳, 郭玉莲, 王宇, 等. 不同耕作模式对玉米田土壤杂草种子库的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2016, 44(32):37-42. |
HUANG Chunyan, GUO Yulian, WANG Yu, et al. Effects of different tillage patterns on soil weed seed bank in maize field[J]. Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 44 (32) : 37-42. | |
[12] | CARDINA J, HERMS C P, DOOHAN D J. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks[J]. Weed Science, 2002, 50(4):448-460. |
[13] | 黄茂林, 梁银丽, 周茂娟, 等. 陕北黄土丘陵沟壑区水土保持耕作及施肥下农田土壤种子库特征[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(7):3987-3994. |
HUANG Maolin, LIANG Yinli, ZHOU Maojuan, et al. Characteristics of farmland soil seed bank under soil and water conservation tillage and fertilization in loess hilly and gully region of northern Shaanxi[J]. Ecology, 2009, 29 (7) : 3987-3994. | |
[14] | Barberi P, Cozzani A, Macchia M, et al. Size and composition of the weed seedbank under different management systems for continuous maize cropping[J]. Weed Research, 1998,38: 319-334. |
[15] | Feldman SR. The effect of different tillage systems on the composition of the seedbank[J]. Weed Research, 1997,37: 71-76. |
[16] | 甘国福, 王德卿, 徐生海. 武威地区玉米田杂草种子库调查简报[J]. 植保技术与推广, 2000, 20(6): 28-29. |
GAN Guofu, WANG Deqing, XU Shenghai. Investigation of weed seed bank in maize field in Wuwei[J]. Plant protection technology and promotion, 2000, 20 (6) : 28-29. | |
[17] | Boguzas V, Marcinkeviciene A, Kairyte A. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of weed seed bank in organic farming[J]. Agronomy Research, 2004,2: 13-22. |
[18] | 蒋成国, 刘彤, 张建萍, 等. 滴灌下新疆北部棉田杂草土壤种子库的时空变化[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 6(29): 3081-3089. |
JIANGChengguo, LIUTong, ZHANG Jianping, et al. Temporal and spatial variation of weed soil seed bank in cotton field under drip irrigation in northern Xinjiang[J]. Ecology, 2009, 6 (29) : 3081-3089. | |
[19] | 孙改格. 长期不同施肥对双季稻田杂草种群与杂草种子库的影响[D]. 湖南农业大学, 2014. |
SUN Gengge. Effects of long-term different fertilization on weed population and weed seed bank in double cropping rice field[D]. Hunan Agricultural University, 2014. | |
[20] | 严佳瑜, 张亚萍, 宋坤, 等. 不同耕作深度和轮作模式下上海稻田杂草土壤种子库特征[J]. 上海农业学报, 2021, 37(1):82-86. |
YAN Jiayu, ZHANG Yaping, SONG Kun, et al. Characteristics of weed soil seed bank in paddy fields under different tillage depths and rotation modes in Shanghai[J]. Shanghai Journal of Agriculture, 2021, 37 (1) : 82-86. | |
[21] |
MICHEL BE, KAUFMANN MR. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol 6000[J]. Plant Physiology, 1973, 51(5):914-916.
DOI PMID |
[22] | 李艳娥. 陕北玉米田土壤杂草种子库研究[D]. 延安大学, 2023. |
LI Yan 'e. Study on soil weed seed bank in maize field in northern Shaanxi[D]. Yan 'an University, 2023. | |
[23] | 章超斌, 马波, 强胜. 江苏省主要农田杂草种子库物种组成和多样性及其与环境因子的相关性分析[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2012, 21(1):1-13. |
ZHANG Chaobin, MA Bo, QIANG Sheng. Species composition and diversity of weed seed banks in main farmlands of Jiangsu Province and their correlation with environmental factors[J]. Journal of Plant Resources and Environment, 2012, 21 (1) : 1-13. | |
[24] | 孙金秋. 不同种植模式对棉田杂草群落演替影响及生态学机制研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2020. |
SUN Jinqiu. Effects of different planting patterns on weed community succession and ecological mechanism in cotton fields[D]. Beijing:Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2020. | |
[25] | 王开金, 强胜. 江苏麦田杂草群落的数量分析[J]. 草业学报, 2007, 16(1) :118-126. |
WANG Kaiqiang, QIANG Shen. Quantitative analysis of weed communities in wheat fields in Jiangsu[J]. Pratacultural Journal, 2007, 16 (1) : 118-126. | |
[26] | 强胜, 魏守辉, 胡金良. 江苏省主棉区棉田杂草草害发生规律的研究[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2000, 23(2) :18-22. |
QIANG Sheng, WEI Shouhui, HU Jinliang. Study on the occurrence regularity of weeds and weeds in cotton fields in the main cotton area of Jiangsu Province[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2000, 23 (2) : 18-22. | |
[27] | 冯远娇, 王建国. 农田杂草种子库研究综述[J]. 土壤与环境, 2001, 10(2):158-160. |
FENG Yuanjiao, WANG Jianguo. Review of studies on weed seed bank in farmland[J]. Soil and environment, 2001, 10 (2) : 158-160. | |
[28] | ZHAO Ning, LI Qi, GUO Wenlei, et al. Effect of environmental factors on germination and emergence of shortawn fox- tail(Alopecurus aequalis)[J]. Weed Science, 2018, 66(1):47-56. |
[29] | 张勇, 薛林贵, 高天鹏, 等. 荒漠植物种子萌发研究进展[J]. 中国沙漠, 2005, 25 (1):106-112. |
ZHANG Yong, XUE Lingui, GAO Tianpeng, etc. Research progress on seed germination of desert plants[J]. China Desert, 2005, 25 (1) : 106-112. | |
[30] | 陈莎莎, 姚世响, 袁军文, 等. 新疆荒漠地区盐生植物灰绿藜种子的萌发特性及其对生境的适应性[J]. 植物生理学通讯, 2010, 46 (1): 75-79. |
CHEN Shasha, YAO Shixiang, YUAN Junwen, et al. Seed Germination Characteristics and Habitat Adaptability of Halophyte Chenopodium glaucum in Desert Area of Xinjiang[J]. Plant Physiology Letters, 2010, 46 (1) : 75-79. | |
[31] | GHORBANI R, SEEL W, LEIFERT C. Effects of environmental factors on germination and emergence of Amaranthus retroflexus[J]. Weed Science. 1999, 47(5): 505-510. |
[32] | 王金淑. 光照和温度等因素对苘麻种子萌发特性的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2012,(1):50-51. |
WANG Jinshu. Effects of light and temperature on seed germination characteristics of Abutilon theophrasti[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2012,(1) : 50-51. | |
[33] | 沈禹颖, 王锁民, 陈亚明. 盐胁迫对牧草种子的萌发及其恢复的影响[J]. 草业学报, 1999, 8(3):54-60. |
SHEN Yuying, WANG Suomin, CHEN Yaming. The effect of saline condition on the germination and its recovery of pasture species[J]. Pratacultural Journal, 1999, 8 (3) : 54-60. | |
[34] | 张秀玲. 不同盐胁迫对苘麻种子萌发的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2008,(1):35-37. |
ZHANG Xiuling. Effects of different salt stress on seed germination of Abutilon theophrasti[J]. Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences, 2008,(1) : 35-37. | |
[35] | UNGAR I A. Influence of salinity on seed germination in succulent halophytes[J]. Ecology, 1973, 43(4):761-763. |
[36] | 张田田, 马冲, 吴翠霞, 等. 不同环境因素对猪殃殃种子萌发及出苗的影响[J]. 植物保护. 2017, 43(2): 102-106. |
ZHANG Tian, MA Chong, WU Cuixia, et al. Effects of different environmental factors on seed germination and seedling emergence of Galium aparine[J]. Plant protection. 2017, 43 (2) : 102-106. | |
[37] | CHACHAL D, REDDY K N. Factors affecting Campsis radicans seed germination and seedling emergence[J]. Weed Science. 2009, 48(2): 212-216. |
[1] | LI Junhua, MAO Jiancai, YANG Junyan, WANG Haojie. Analysis of the Current Situation of the Jiashi Melon Industry and discussion of Development Countermeasures [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(S1): 101-105. |
[2] | ZHANG Fan, CHEN Xiaolu, WANG Jie, HOU Xianfei, JIA Donghai, GU Yuanguo, MIAO Haocui, LI Qiang. Effects of mixed salt stress on seed germination and seedling growth of peanut seed [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(9): 2168-2182. |
[3] | DONG Zhiduo, XU Fei, FU Qiuping, HUANG Jian, QI Tong, MENG Ajing, FU Yanbo, Kaisaier Kuerban. Effects of different types of salt and alkali stress on cotton seed germination [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(8): 1831-1844. |
[4] | XI Rui, CHEN Yijia, LI Ning, YU Qinghui, WANG Qiang, QIN Yong. Effects of exogenous 2, 4-epibrassinolide on seed germination of different salt-sensitive tomatoes under salt stress [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(8): 1983-1992. |
[5] | ZHANG Caihong, WANG Guoqiang, JIANG Luyan, LIU Tao, DE Xianming. Variation of environmental factors and analysis of tomato traits in low-energy assembly-type deep-winter production solar greenhouse [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(8): 2043-2053. |
[6] | QIANG Lidong, FENG Kuan, ZHU Changan, ZHAO Yun, LI Zhaofeng, LI Weihua. Effect of high temperature stress at anthesis on seed vigor of wheat [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(6): 1345-1351. |
[7] | YANG Junyan, YAN Miao, WU Haibo, YANG Wenli, WANG Haojie, MAO Jiancai, ZHAI Wenqiang, LI Junhua. The impact of high temperature on different thick -skinned melon varieties and comprehensive evaluation of its heat resistance [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(6): 1386-1396. |
[8] | SUN Minghui, Yeerlan Muhetar, ZHAI Menghua, LI Xuerui, XU Xinlong, ZHANG Jusong. Effects of different planting patterns and varieties on the production of photosynthetic substances in cotton and the impact of output [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(3): 537-546. |
[9] | ZHOU Xiaoyun, ZHANG Jungao, LIANG Jing, GONG Jingyun, ZHOU Guangwei, ZHANG Shaomin, LEI Bin. Effects of the carboxin from seed coating formulation on the cotton seed germination and seedling agronomic characteristics under water and temperature stress [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(12): 3051-3060. |
[10] | LIAO Caiyun, MA Gui, ZHOU Yanyan, DING Jiafu, ZHOU Yue, BI Kexin, SUN Rong, LI Youhua. Effects of combined exposure of zinc and different microplastics on seed germination and growth of maize [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(11): 2713-2721. |
[11] | WANG Xin, LIN Tao, CUI Jianping, WU Fengquan, TANG Zhixuan, CUI Laiyuan, GUO Rensong, WANG Liang, ZHENG Zipiao. Effects of planting mode and irrigation quota on yield and fiber quality of machine-picked long-staple cotton [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1821-1829. |
[12] | JU Le, QI Juncang, CHEN Peiyu, NIU Yinting, YIN Zhigang. Effects of drought stress on seed germination, seedling growth and physiological characteristics of barley [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(8): 1879-1886. |
[13] | XIAO Jing, LIU Ning, XU Minghai, ZHANG Jinbo, MA Yanming, WANG Li, XU Lin. Effect of NaCl stress on seed germination of Panicum miliaceum L. [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(7): 1623-1629. |
[14] | LAI Hanlin, SHEN Yuyang, CHEN Li, YANG Hong, LI Yue, LEI Junjie, LI Guangkuo, GAO Haifeng. Effects of temperature and salt stress on seed germination characteristics of Descurainia sophia [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(6): 1326-1334. |
[15] | YANG Jinyu, QIAO Xiaoyan, WANG Xihe, SUN Jiusheng. Effects of NaCl Stress on Seed Germination of Three Varieties of Forage [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(2): 448-453. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||