欢迎访问《植物保护学报》网站！

首页 | 期刊简介 |
编委会
编委会
青年编委会
| 道德声明 | 投稿指南 | 联系我们 | 期刊订阅 | English

环磺酮的除草活性及对玉米的安全性评价

引用本文：汪雅妃,柴茵,胡伟,殷凡,张晶旭,王时兵,赵宁,操海群,廖敏.环磺酮的除草活性及对玉米的安全性评价.植物保护学报,2024,51(2):369-376

DOI：10.13802/j.cnki.zwbhxb.2024.2023032

摘要点击次数:

全文下载次数:

作者	单位	E-mail
汪雅妃	安徽农业大学植物保护学院, 合肥 230036 安徽农业大学农产品质量与生物安全教育部重点实验室, 安徽省绿色农药研发与应用工程实验室, 合肥 230036
柴茵	安徽农业大学植物保护学院, 合肥 230036
胡伟	安徽农业大学植物保护学院, 合肥 230036 安徽农业大学农产品质量与生物安全教育部重点实验室, 安徽省绿色农药研发与应用工程实验室, 合肥 230036
殷凡	安徽农业大学植物保护学院, 合肥 230036 安徽农业大学农产品质量与生物安全教育部重点实验室, 安徽省绿色农药研发与应用工程实验室, 合肥 230036
张晶旭	安徽农业大学植物保护学院, 合肥 230036 安徽农业大学农产品质量与生物安全教育部重点实验室, 安徽省绿色农药研发与应用工程实验室, 合肥 230036
王时兵	安徽久易农业股份有限公司, 合肥 230000
赵宁	安徽农业大学植物保护学院, 合肥 230036 安徽农业大学农产品质量与生物安全教育部重点实验室, 安徽省绿色农药研发与应用工程实验室, 合肥 230036
操海群	安徽农业大学植物保护学院, 合肥 230036 安徽农业大学农产品质量与生物安全教育部重点实验室, 安徽省绿色农药研发与应用工程实验室, 合肥 230036
廖敏	安徽农业大学植物保护学院, 合肥 230036 安徽农业大学农产品质量与生物安全教育部重点实验室, 安徽省绿色农药研发与应用工程实验室, 合肥 230036	liaomin3119@126.com

中文摘要:为明确环磺酮在我国玉米田的应用技术和前景，采用温室盆栽法测定环磺酮的杀草谱和对常见杂草的除草活性以及对不同玉米品种的安全性，并通过田间药效试验验证其应用效果。结果表明，在100 g (a.i.)/hm²田间推荐剂量下进行茎叶处理时，环磺酮可以有效防除玉米田常见禾本科、莎草科和阔叶杂草，其中对反枝苋Amaranthus retroflexus、鳢肠Eclipta prostrata的活性较高，鲜重抑制率可达90%以上；对6种常见玉米田杂草稗Echinochloa crus-galli、马唐Digitaria sanguinalis、圆叶牵牛Ipomoea purpurea、反枝苋、碎米莎草Cyperus iria和青葙Celosia argentea的生长抑制中量GR₅₀分别为8.44、17.16、9.37、8.68、9.40和32.51 g (a.i.)/hm²，在供试剂量下环磺酮的除草活性均高于对照药剂硝磺草酮；田间推荐剂量下环磺酮对除黑糯301品种以外的11个玉米品种均较为安全，提高到2倍推荐剂量时，对不同玉米品种的生长抑制均增强；环磺酮对郑单958、珍珠糯8号、苏科甜1506和中糯2号4个玉米品种以及稗、马唐、圆叶牵牛、反枝苋、碎米莎草和青葙6种杂草之间均具有较好的选择性，选择性指数为10.40~29.14。田间药效试验表明，126 g (a.i.)/hm²环磺酮处理茎叶后第28天，对玉米田杂草稗、马唐、狗尾草Setaria viridis、香附子Cyperus rotundus、圆叶牵牛、空心莲子草Alternanthera philoxeroides的总株防效为86.51%，鲜重防效为87.81%，且对供试玉米品种彩甜糯102安全。

中文关键词:环磺酮除草活性安全性田间药效

Evaluation of the herbicidal activity and safety of tembotrione to maize

Author Name	Affiliation	E-mail
Wang Yafei	School of Plant Protection, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China Engineering Laboratory for Green Pesticide Development and Application Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Quality and Biosafety(Ministry of Education), Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China
Chai Yin	School of Plant Protection, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China
Hu Wei	School of Plant Protection, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China Engineering Laboratory for Green Pesticide Development and Application Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Quality and Biosafety(Ministry of Education), Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China
Yin Fan	School of Plant Protection, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China Engineering Laboratory for Green Pesticide Development and Application Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Quality and Biosafety(Ministry of Education), Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China
Zhang Jingxu	School of Plant Protection, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China Engineering Laboratory for Green Pesticide Development and Application Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Quality and Biosafety(Ministry of Education), Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China
Wang Shibing	Anhui Jiuyi Agriculture Co., Ltd., Hefei 230000, Anhui Province, China
Zhao Ning	School of Plant Protection, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China Engineering Laboratory for Green Pesticide Development and Application Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Quality and Biosafety(Ministry of Education), Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China
Cao Haiqun	School of Plant Protection, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China Engineering Laboratory for Green Pesticide Development and Application Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Quality and Biosafety(Ministry of Education), Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China
Liao Min	School of Plant Protection, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China Engineering Laboratory for Green Pesticide Development and Application Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Quality and Biosafety(Ministry of Education), Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, Anhui Province, China	liaomin3119@126.com

Abstract:To explore the application procedures and potential of tembotrione in maize fields in China, the herbicidal spectrum of tembotrione and its weed control activity against common weeds, as well as its safety on different maize varieties, were determined using the greenhouse pot experiment method. Field efficacy trials were conducted to verify its effects. The results showed that when post-emergence herbicides (POST) was applied at the recommended field rate (RFR) of 100 g (a.i.)/hm², tembotrione could effectively control common grasses, sedges, and broad-leaved weeds in maize fields. It exhibited high activity against Amaranthus retroflexus and Eclipta prostrata, with a fresh weight inhibition rate reaching over 90%. The tembotrione rates resulting in a 50% growth reduction for six common weeds from maize fields, including Echinochloa crus-galli, Digitaria sanguinalis, Ipomoea purpurea, A. retroflexus, Cyperus iria, and Celosia argentea, were 8.44, 17.16, 9.37, 8.68, 9.40, and 32.51 g (a.i.)/hm², respectively, with the herbicidal activity of tembotrione higher than the control herbicide mesotrione when applied at the tested rates. Under the RFR, tembotrione was relatively safe for all 11 maize varieties except for Heinuo 301. When the RFR was increased two-fold, growth inhibition in different maize varieties was enhanced. Tembotrione showed good selectivity between four maize varieties, Zhengdan 958, Zhenzhunuo 8, Suketian 1506, and Zhongnuo 2, as well as six weeds, including E. crus-galli, D. sanguinalis, I. purpurea, A. retroflexus, C. iria, and C. argentea, with a selectivity index ranging from 10.40 to 29.14. Field efficacy trials indicated that at 28 d after POST treatment with 126 g (a.i.)/hm² of tembotrione, the total plant control efficacy against weeds such as E. crus-galli, D. sanguinalis, Setaria viridis, Cyperus rotundus, I. purpurea, and Alternanthera philoxeroides in maize fields was 86.51%, and the fresh weight control efficacy was 87.81%, while it was safe for the tested maize variety Caitiannuo 102.

keywords:tembotrione herbicidal activity safety field efficacy

查看全文查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器