桃苗圃适用除草剂的筛选、混配与安全性评价

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.09.009

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】Weed control is an important step for fruit tree production. To investigate the safety of different herbicides, suitable herbicides for peach nurseries and orchards were screened in peach production, which can provide theoretical basis for the application of chemical herbicides in the peach industry.【Method】To preliminarily screen the safety of 13 herbicides, the peach seedlings combined with Lolium perenne, Cynodon dactylon, Alternanthera philoxeroides, Trifolium repens and Medicago falcata were evaluated in pot. Based on the results of the phytotoxicity index of each herbicide, 10% quizalofop-p-ethyl and 60% quinclorac were mixed. According to the effective doses of 25, 50, and 75 mL·hm^-2 of quizalofop-p-ethyl and 150, 300, 450 g·hm^-2 of quinclorac, a total of 9 herbicide mixtures were established. After 7, 14, and 21 d of stem and leaf spraying treatment, the weed inhibition rate was investigated. After 30 d of the treatment, the plant height, stem diameter, aboveground and underground biomass, electrolyte permeability of the leaf and root tip cells, total root length, total root surface area, root volume and root tip number of peach seedlings were also measured. Based on principal component analysis, the safety of different treatments was comprehensively evaluated.【Result】After spraying on the stems and leaves of peach seedlings, 11 herbicides caused phytotoxicity in peach seedlings, resulting in varying degrees of symptoms such as chlorosis, wilting, and withering. However, quizalofop-p-ethyl and quinclorac had no significant effect on the growth of peach seedlings. After spraying weeds with a single agent of quizalofop-p-ethyl for 21 d, the inhibition rate of quizalofop-p-ethyl on gramineous weeds was 100%. However, it had no effect on broad-leaved weeds. On the contrary, the inhibition rate of spraying quinclorac on gramineous weeds was 0, and the inhibition rate range of M. falcata, T. repens and A. philoxeroides was 80% to 100%. After being mixed with quizalofop-p-ethyl and quinclorac, the total weed inhibition rate under 9 compound preparations could reach over 90% after 21 d. Meanwhile, each formulation had no significant effect on the height of peach seedlings, aboveground and underground biomass, electrolyte permeability of the leaf and root tip cells. The comprehensive analysis showed that the effective dose of quizalofop-p-ethyl had a significant impact on the comprehensive evaluation D value of the mixed formulation. When the effective dose of quizalofop-p-ethyl increased to 75 mL·hm^-2, the comprehensive evaluation D value of the mixed formulation exceeded 0.563, but there was no trend between the increasing D value and the increase of the effective dose of quinclorac.【Conclusion】Peach seedlings are sensitive to most herbicides, and mixing is an effective measure to improve the comprehensive weed inhibition rate of quizalofop-p-ethyl and quinclorac. After mixing an effective dose of 75 mL·hm^-2 quizalofop-p-ethyl with 300 g·hm^-2 quinclorac, the comprehensive evaluation D value of the formulation is the highest, which can achieve the best weed inhibition rate while ensuring the safety of peach seedlings.

Key words: quizalofop-p-ethyl, quinclorac, peach seeding, herbicide, comprehensive evaluation

GUO Lei, HUANG ChenYan, SONG HongFeng, SHEN ZhiJun, ZHANG BinBin, MA RuiJuan, SUN Meng, HE Xin, YU MingLiang. Screening, Compounding and Safety Evaluation of Herbicides Suitable for Peach Nursery[J].Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(9): 1734-1747.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

URL: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/EN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.09.009

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/EN/Y2024/V57/I9/1734

Figures/Tables 9

Fig. 1

Table 1

Table 2

Fig. 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

References 40

[1]	黄晨艳, 郭磊, 宋宏峰, 沈志军, 张斌斌, 马瑞娟, 俞明亮. 不同除草剂对桃砧木幼苗的安全性评价. 应用生态学报, 2023, 34(6): 1583-1591. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202306.010
	HUANG C Y, GUO L, SONG H F, SHEN Z J, ZHANG B B, MA R J, YU M L. Safety profile evaluation of different herbicides used on peach rootstock seedlings. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2023, 34(6): 1583-1591. (in Chinese) doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202306.010
[2]	邹宝玲, 刘佛良, 张震邦, 洪添胜, 吴伟斌, 赖少雄. 山地果园机械化: 发展瓶颈与国外经验借鉴. 农机化研究, 2019, 41(9): 254-260.
	ZOU B L, LIU F L, ZHANG Z B, HONG T S, WU W B, LAI S X. Mechanization of mountain orchards: Development bottleneck and foreign experiences. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research, 2019, 41(9): 254-260. (in Chinese)
[3]	赵映, 肖宏儒, 梅松, 宋志禹, 丁文芹, 金月, 韩余, 夏先飞, 杨光. 我国果园机械化生产现状与发展策略. 中国农业大学学报, 2017, 22(6): 116-127.
	ZHAO Y, XIAO H R, MEI S, SONG Z Y, DING W Q, JIN Y, HAN Y, XIA X F, YANG G. Current status and development strategies of orchard mechanization production in China. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2017, 22(6): 116-127. (in Chinese)
[4]	盛玲玲, 宋淑然, 洪添胜, 李震, 代秋芳. 广东省山地果园机械化现状与发展思考. 农机化研究, 2017, 39(11): 257-262.
	SHENG L L, SONG S R, HONG T S, LI Z, DAI Q F. The present situation and development of mountainous orchard mechanization in Guangdong Province. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research, 2017, 39(11): 257-262. (in Chinese)
[5]	郑永军, 江世界, 陈炳太, 吕昊暾, 万畅, 康峰. 丘陵山区果园机械化技术与装备研究进展. 农业机械学报, 2020, 51(11): 1-20.
	ZHENG Y J, JIANG S J, CHEN B T, LÜ H T, WAN C, KANG F. Review on technology and equipment of mechanization in hilly orchard. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2020, 51(11): 1-20. (in Chinese)
[6]	郭美俊, 白亚青, 高鹏, 申洁, 董淑琦, 原向阳, 郭平毅. 二甲四氯胁迫对谷子幼苗叶片衰老特性和内源激素含量的影响. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(3): 513-526. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.03.005.
	GUO M J, BAI Y Q, GAO P, SHEN J, DONG S Q, YUAN X Y, GUO P Y. Effect of MCPA on leaf senescence and endogenous hormones content in leaves of foxtail millet seedlings. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(3): 513-526. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.03.005. (in Chinese)
[7]	张泰劼, 程保平, 田兴山. 基于叶绿素荧光比较草铵膦和草甘膦对柑橘的安全性. 杂草学报, 2019, 37(2): 51-56.
	ZHANG T J, CHENG B P, TIAN X S. Toxicity of glufosinate and glyphosate to citrus assessed by chlorophyll a fluorescence. Journal of Weed Science, 2019, 37(2): 51-56. (in Chinese)
[8]	谭伟, 王慧, 翟衡. 除草剂对葡萄叶片光合作用及贮藏营养的影响. 应用生态学报, 2011, 22(9): 2355-2362.
	TAN W, WANG H, ZHAI H. Effects of herbicide on grape leaf photosynthesis and nutrient storage. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011, 22(9): 2355-2362. (in Chinese)
[9]	马小焕, 彭良志, 曹立, 张雯雯. 不同除草剂对清家脐橙夏梢的毒害作用. 果树学报, 2011, 28(1): 92-96.
	MA X H, PENG L Z, CAO L, ZHANG W W. Toxic effects of herbicides on young summer shoots of Seike navel orange (Citrus sinensis). Journal of Fruit Science, 2011, 28(1): 92-96. (in Chinese)
[10]	MAGNÉ C, SALADIN G, CLÉMENT C. Transient effect of the herbicide flazasulfuron on carbohydrate physiology in Vitis vinifera L. Chemosphere, 2006, 62(4): 650-657. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.04.119
[11]	谭伟, 梁婷, 翟衡. 乙草胺对葡萄叶片光合和叶绿素荧光特性及叶绿体结构的影响. 应用生态学报, 2012, 23(8): 2185-2190.
	TAN W, LIANG T, ZHAI H. Effects of acetochlor on the photosynthetic and fluorescence characteristics and chloroplast structure of grape leaves. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 23(8): 2185-2190. (in Chinese)
[12]	郭磊, 张斌斌, 周懋, 宋宏峰. 除草剂对桃生理特性和流胶的影响. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(1): 81-87.
	GUO L, ZHANG B B, ZHOU M, SONG H F. Effects of herbicides on physiological characteristics and gummosis of Prunus persica. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica, 2017, 37(1): 81-87. (in Chinese)
[13]	郭磊, 张斌斌, 沈江海, 何鑫, 宋宏峰. 草甘膦和百草枯对毛桃幼苗根系形态及地上部生长的影响. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(2): 524-532. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202002.036
	GUO L, ZHANG B B, SHEN J H, HE X, SONG H F. Effects of glyphosate and paraquat on root morphology and aboveground growth of Prunus persica seedlings. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31(2): 524-532. (in Chinese)
[14]	宋雪, 王辉, 孙延军, 昝启杰. 5种化学除草剂对薇甘菊防治效果及对其他植物的影响. 植物保护, 2021, 47(4): 269-275.
	SONG X, WANG H, SUN Y J, ZAN Q J. Control effect of five chemical herbicides on Mikania micrantha and safety to other plants. Plant Protection, 2021, 47(4): 269-275. (in Chinese)
[15]	赵颖楠, 字雪靖, 王婉, 冯煜, 杨璞, 高金锋, 王鹏科, 高小丽. 不同除草剂的田间杂草防治效果及对糜子生长发育的影响. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(7): 2415-2421. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202007.027
	ZHAO Y N, ZI X J, WANG W, FENG Y, YANG P, GAO J F, WANG P K, GAO X L. Control effects of different herbicides on weeds as well as their effects on growth and development of broomcorn millet. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 31(7): 2415-2421. (in Chinese)
[16]	王义生, 贾娇, 张伟, 孟玲敏, 常雪, 苏前富. 14种除草剂对野稷的活性测定及田间防治效果. 植物保护, 2023, 49(3): 317-322.
	WANG Y S, JIA J, ZHANG W, MENG L M, CHANG X, SU Q F. Activity tests and field control effects of 14 herbicides to wild broomcorn millet. Plant Protection, 2023, 49(3): 317-322. (in Chinese)
[17]	何义川, 汤智辉, 李光新, 杨怀君, 孟祥金, 郑炫. 葡萄园除草技术研究现状与发展趋势. 中国农机化学报, 2018, 39(9): 34-37.
	HE Y C, TANG Z H, LI G X, YANG H J, MENG X J, ZHENG X. Research on current status and developing tendency of the vineyard weeding. Journal of Chinese Agricultural Mechanization, 2018, 39(9): 34-37. (in Chinese)
[18]	QUAN L Z, JIANG W, LI H L, LI H D, WANG Q, CHEN L Q. Intelligent intra-row robotic weeding system combining deep learning technology with a targeted weeding mode. Biosystems Engineering, 2022, 216: 13-31. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2022.01.019
[19]	赵智宇, 朱立成, 周利明, 吕程序, 李沐桐, 董鑫. 丘陵果园除草机器人底盘系统设计与试验. 农业机械学报, 2022, 53(增刊1): 48-57.
	ZHAO Z Y, ZHU L C, ZHOU L M, LÜ C X, LI M T, DONG X. Design and experiment of chassis control system for weeding robot in hilly orchard. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2022, 53(Suppl. 1): 48-57. (in Chinese)
[20]	吴元龙, 惠凤娇, 潘振远, 尤春源, 林海荣, 李志博, 金双侠, 聂新辉. 后基因组时代发展抗除草剂作物的机遇及挑战. 中国农业科学, 2023, 56(17): 3285-3301. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.17.005.
	WU Y L, HUI F J, PAN Z Y, YOU C Y, LIN H R, LI Z B, JIN S X, NIE X H. Opportunities and challenges for developing herbicide- resistance crops in the post-genomic era. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(17): 3285-3301. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2023.17.005. (in Chinese)
[21]	邱龙, 马崇烈, 刘博林, 章旺根. 耐除草剂转基因作物研究现状及发展前景. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(12): 2357-2363. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.12.003.
	QIU L, MA C L, LIU B L, ZHANG W G. Current situation of research on transgenic crops with herbicide tolerance and development prospect. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2012, 45(12): 2357-2363. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.12.003. (in Chinese)
[22]	张玉聚, 孙化田, 张德胜, 王文夕, 潘同霞, 李菊梅. 除草剂药害症状的诊断. 农药, 2001, 40(10): 44-45.
	ZHANG Y J, SUN H T, ZHANG D S, WANG W X, PAN T X, LI J M. Diagnosis of symptoms of herbicide damage. Pesticides, 2001, 40(10): 44-45. (in Chinese)
[23]	唐婷, 陈东雨, 张子叶, 杨文超. 除草剂分子靶标研究进展. 农药学学报, 2023, 25(4): 755-768.
	TANG T, CHEN D Y, ZHANG Z Y, YANG W C. Research progress on the molecular targets of herbicides. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science, 2023, 25(4): 755-768. (in Chinese)
[24]	王淑燕, 郭永春, 周鹏, 林宏政, 林伯纬, 赵峰, 叶乃兴. 草铵膦对茶树生长及品质成分的影响. 食品安全质量检测学报, 2021, 12(20): 8084-8092.
	WANG S Y, GUO Y C, ZHOU P, LIN H Z, LIN B W, ZHAO F, YE N X. Effects of glufosinate on growth and quality components of Camellia sinensis. Journal of Food Safety and Quality, 2021, 12(20): 8084-8092. (in Chinese)
[25]	侯颖, 李静泉, 尤晓颜, 王维宇, 裴韬, 孙军杰. 精喹禾灵降解菌株Bacillus subtilis H的分离鉴定及降解特性. 中国环境科学, 2018, 38(4): 1466-1472.
	HOU Y, LI J Q, YOU X Y, WANG W Y, PEI T, SUN J J. Isolation and identification of quizalofop-p-ethyl-degrading strain Bacillus subtilis H and its degradation characteristics. China Environmental Science, 2018, 38(4): 1466-1472. (in Chinese)
[26]	GROSSMANN K, SCHELTRUP F. Selective induction of 1- aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) synthase activity is involved in the selectivity of the auxin herbicide quinclorac between barnyard grass and rice. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 1997, 58(2): 145-153. doi: 10.1006/pest.1997.2290
[27]	SUNOHARA Y, MATSUMOTO H. Quinclorac-induced cell death is accompanied by generation of reactive oxygen species in maize root tissue. Phytochemistry, 2008, 69(12): 2312-2319. doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2008.06.012 pmid: 18674787
[28]	NAVROT N, ROUHIER N, GELHAYE E, JACQUOT J P. Reactive oxygen species generation and antioxidant systems in plant mitochondria. Physiologia Plantarum, 2007, 129(1): 185-195. doi: 10.1111/ppl.2007.129.issue-1
[29]	苑学霞, 郭栋梁, 赵善仓, 毛江胜, 郭长英, 邓立刚, 张勇. 二氯喹啉酸在水稻、土壤和田水中消解动态及残留. 生态环境学报, 2011, 20(6/7): 1138-1142.
	YUAN X X, GUO D L, ZHAO S C, MAO J S, GUO C Y, DENG L G, ZHANG Y. Residues and degradation dynamics of quinclorac in paddy plant, soil and paddy water. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2011, 20(6/7): 1138-1142. (in Chinese)
[30]	贺亚旭, 蒋思捷, 舒小情, 童功松, 钟美娥. 二氯喹啉酸的残留现状及治理对策研究进展. 农药学学报, 2021, 23(1): 31-41.
	HE Y X, JIANG S J, SHU X Q, TONG G S, ZHONG M E. Research progress on environmental residual status and remediation strategies of quinclorac herbicide. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science, 2021, 23(1): 31-41. (in Chinese)
[31]	林长福, 杨玉廷. 除草剂混用、混剂及其药效评价. 农药, 2002, 41(8): 5-7.
	LIN C F, YANG Y T. Methods for efficacy evaluation of herbicide mixtures or herbicide prepackage mixtures. Pesticides, 2002, 41(8): 5-7. (in Chinese)
[32]	孙亚林, 朱文达, 陈文勇, 袁友明, 王明锐. 精喹禾灵对夏大豆田间的控草效果和光照及养分的影响. 华中农业大学学报, 2009, 28(2): 161-163.
	SUN Y L, ZHU W D, CHEN W Y, YUAN Y M, WANG M R. The weed control effects of quizalofop-p-ethyl and its influence on light and nutrition in summer soybean field. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2009, 28(2): 161-163. (in Chinese)
[33]	李鑫, 安艳, 李慧, 晋小军. 10%精喹禾灵乳油对甘草田杂草防除效果及安全性. 植物保护, 2018, 44(6): 219-223.
	LI X, AN Y, LI H, JIN X J. Weed control and safety of quizalofop- p-ethyl 10% EC for licorice farmland. Plant Protection, 2018, 44(6): 219-223. (in Chinese)
[34]	王红春, 李小艳, 孙宇, 贺建荣, 张伟星, 娄远来, 詹福康. 新型除草剂二氯喹啉草酮的除草活性及对水稻的安全性评价. 江苏农业学报, 2016, 32(1): 67-72.
	WANG H C, LI X Y, SUN Y, HE J R, ZHANG W X, LOU Y L, ZHAN F K. Herbicidal activity of quintrione and its safety to rice. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 32(1): 67-72. (in Chinese)
[35]	MALIK M S, BURGOS N R, TALBERT R E. Confirmation and control of propanil-resistant and quinclorac-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in rice. Weed Technology, 2010, 24(3): 226-233. doi: 10.1614/WT-09-053.1
[36]	PENG Q, HAN H P, YANG X, BAI L Y, YU Q, POWLES S B. Quinclorac resistance in Echinochloa crus-galli from China. Rice Science, 2019, 26(5): 300-308. doi: 10.1016/j.rsci.2019.08.004
[37]	ABDALLAH I, FISCHER A J, ELMORE C L, SALTVEIT M E, ZAKI M. Mechanism of resistance to quinclorac in smooth crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 2006, 84(1): 38-48. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2005.05.003
[38]	王恒智, 谭金妮, 吕学深, 赵孔平, 刘伟堂, 王金信. 丙炔氟草胺与二甲戊灵复配的联合除草作用及对棉花的安全性. 农药学学报, 2018, 20(3): 309-315.
	WANG H Z, TAN J N, LÜ X S, ZHAO K P, LIU W T, WANG J X. Evaluation of herbicidal activity and safety to cotton of the combination of flumioxazin and pendimethalin. Chinese Journal of Pesticide Science, 2018, 20(3): 309-315. (in Chinese)
[39]	FIPKE M V, VIDAL R A. Integrative theory of the mode of action of quinclorac: Literature review. Planta Daninha, 2016, 34(2): 393-402. doi: 10.1590/S0100-83582016340200020
[40]	李宏辉, 曹丽玲, 韦邦清, 莫连庆, 廖秀娟. 二氯喹啉酸控制沙糖橘夏梢田间试验初报. 南方园艺, 2020, 31(3): 28-31.
	LI H H, CAO L L, WEI B Q, MO L Q, LIAO X J. Preliminary report on the field experiment of controlling summer shoots of sugar orange with quinclorac. Southern Horticulture, 2020, 31(3): 28-31. (in Chinese)

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Comments

Recommended 0

No Suggested Reading articles found!

除草剂种类 Herbicide type	试验浓度 Application rate	药害等级Phytotoxicity grade
除草剂种类 Herbicide type	试验浓度 Application rate	5 d	10 d	20 d	30 d
清水对照Water control
草甘膦异丙胺盐N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine	4.50 L·hm^-2	I	II	III	III
草铵膦Glufosinate-ammonium	6.00 L·hm^-2	I	II	III	IV
精喹禾灵Quizalofop-p-ethyl	0.50 L·hm^-2	0	0	0	0
二氯喹啉酸Quinclorac	0.50 kg·hm^-2	0	0	0	0
苄嘧磺隆Bensulfuron-methyl	0.34 kg·hm^-2	II	II	III	III
乙草胺Acetochlor	2.70 L·hm^-2	I	II	III	III
氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯Starane	0.90 L·hm^-2	III	IV
二甲四氯钠MCPA-Na	1.80 L·hm^-2	II	III	IV
硝磺·莠去津Mesotrione·atrazine	2.00 L·hm^-2	I	II	II	III
精喹·乙羧氟Quizalofop-p·fluoroglycofen	0.75 L·hm^-2	II	III	III	III
二甲·灭草松MCPA-Na·bentazone	2.55 L·hm^-2	II	IV
苄·二氯Bensulfuron-methyl·quinclorac	0.60 kg·hm^-2	I	III	IV
苄·乙Bensulfuron-methyl-acetochlor	0.45 kg·hm^-2	II	IV

调查时间 Research time	处理 Treatment	黑麦草 L. perenne	狗牙根 C. dactylon	黄花苜蓿 M. falcata	白三叶草 T. repens	空心莲子草 A. philoxeroides	总抑制率 Total weed inhibition rate
7 d	T1	18.33d	25.00d	0f	0f	0e	8.67e
	T2	0e	0g	25.00e	13.33de	10.00d	9.67e
	T3	18.33d	30.00d	8.33f	5.00ef	0e	12.33e
	T4	5.00e	13.33ef	55.00ab	51.67ab	0e	25.00c
	T5	5.00e	15.00ef	61.67a	56.67a	0e	27.67c
	T6	16.67d	21.67de	30.00de	20.00cd	0e	17.67d
	T7	33.33c	38.33c	31.67de	23.33cd	20.00bc	29.33c
	T8	48.33b	55.00b	56.67a	48.33ab	8.33d	46.67b
	T9	10.00de	8.33f	38.33cd	25.00c	18.33c	20.00d
	T10	55.00ab	66.67a	30.00de	43.33b	26.67b	44.33b
	T11	60.00a	70.00a	45.00bc	48.33ab	35.00a	51.67a
14 d	T1	100.00a	100.00a	0d	0d	0f	40.00g
	T2	0f	0d	93.33ab	85.00bc	66.67d	49.00f
	T3	100.00a	100.00a	86.66b	80.00c	91.67b	91.67b
	T4	48.33d	86.67b	73.33c	95.00a	36.67e	68.00e
	T5	28.33e	88.33b	100.00a	100.00a	80.00c	79.33d
	T6	81.67b	100.00a	76.66c	100.00a	73.33d	86.33c
	T7	71.67b	100.00a	93.33ab	100.00a	81.67c	89.33b
	T8	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	88.33b	97.67a
	T9	76.67b	83.33b	75.00c	88.33b	100.00a	84.67c
	T10	61.67c	71.67c	91.67ab	95.00a	68.33d	77.67d
	T11	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a
21 d	T1	100.00a	100.00a	0c	0c	0d	40.00e
	T2	0c	0b	100.00a	100.00a	80.00c	56.00d
	T3	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	91.67b	100.00a	98.33b
	T4	83.33b	100.00a	93.33b	95.00ab	88.33b	92.00c
	T5	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a
	T6	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a
	T7	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a
	T8	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a
	T9	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a
	T10	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a
	T11	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a	100.00a

处理 Treatment	株高 Plant height (cm)	茎粗 Stem diameter (mm)	地上部生物量 Aboveground biomass (g)	地下部生物量 Underground biomass (g)	叶片电解质渗透率 Electrolyte permeability in leaves cell (%)	根尖电解质渗透率 Electrolyte permeability in root tips cell (%)
CK	44.55±5.64a	3.57±0.44a	1.93±0.35abc	0.97±0.22a	6.24±0.41a	14.36±2.07ab
T1	42.95±3.28a	3.25±0.22ab	1.81±0.32abc	1.00±0.24a	6.23±0.10a	15.67±0.58ab
T2	41.40±4.17a	3.30±0.22ab	1.83±0.36abc	1.00±0.17a	6.32±0.28a	15.81±1.31ab
T3	44.20±3.63a	3.41±0.31ab	1.82±0.31abc	0.92±0.20a	6.20±0.27a	13.91±0.76b
T4	42.60±4.88a	3.33±0.17ab	1.76±0.30bc	1.00±0.14a	6.22±0.36a	15.94±1.70ab
T5	42.55±3.95a	3.45±0.30ab	1.82±0.19abc	0.97±0.16a	6.44±0.45a	15.90±0.92ab
T6	42.40±3.75a	3.28±0.31ab	2.07±0.31a	0.98±0.15a	6.26±0.63a	15.49±1.34ab
T7	44.05±3.04a	3.42±0.30ab	1.95±0.20abc	1.05±0.22a	6.39±0.14a	16.14±0.39ab
T8	42.80±3.43a	3.16±0.27b	2.05±0.23ab	0.88±0.12a	6.73±0.23a	16.48±1.11a
T9	42.60±1.96a	3.20±0.25b	1.91±0.25abc	1.04±0.19a	6.43±0.50a	15.96±0.30ab
T10	43.70±3.98a	3.12±0.30b	1.99±0.20abc	0.93±0.14a	6.40±0.40a	15.76±1.38ab
T11	40.75±2.84a	3.17±0.33b	1.69±0.16c	0.95±0.10a	6.79±0.09a	16.78±1.24a

处理 Treatment	总根长 Total root length (cm)	总根表面积 Total root surface area (cm²)	总根体积 Total root volume (cm³)	根尖数 Number of root tips
CK	937.40±140.48cde	201.82±43.59bc	10.28±3.21b	2119±619bcde
T1	1027.28±137.18bc	211.16±44.79bc	10.24±3.28b	2689±684abcd
T2	984.01±159.94bcd	231.29±45.47abc	11.70±3.60ab	2547±771abcde
T3	949.95±152.59bcde	204.06±71.50bc	10.30±4.68b	2290±1004bcde
T4	946.72±122.93bcde	196.40±64.19bc	10.05±5.17b	2000±692cde
T5	810.80±143.54e	181.07±26.77c	9.05±1.84b	1651±508e
T6	843.10±132.76de	191.04±42.12bc	9.72±2.96b	1779±527de
T7	846.24±65.67de	195.38±32.24bc	10.66±2.60b	2705±1562abcd
T8	1015.06±165.59bc	233.61±42.02ab	11.51±2.71ab	2573±837abcde
T9	1183.10±138.36a	229.77±41.37abc	10.53±3.21b	2901±1436abc
T10	1219.30±166.54a	227.00±39.67abc	9.38±1.92b	3097±1071ab
T11	1094.34±121.64ab	273.50±43.80a	14.31±3.82a	3538±1072a

统计参数Statistical parameter	Z1	Z2	Z3	Z4
特征值Eigen value	6.072	2.237	1.589	1.094
方差贡献率Contribution rate (%)	46.710	17.206	12.223	8.413
累计贡献率Cumulative contribution rate (%)	46.710	63.916	76.139	84.551
生长指标Growth index	特征向量Eigenvector
株高Seedling height	-0.260	0.123	0.442	0.007
茎粗Stem diameter	-0.334	-0.050	-0.213	-0.303
地上部生物量Aboveground biomass	-0.060	0.348	0.427	0.146
地下部生物量Underground biomass	-0.111	-0.153	-0.414	0.680
总根长Total root length	0.239	-0.240	0.443	0.338
总根表面积Total root surface area	0.347	-0.306	0.132	-0.091
根体积Total root volume	0.287	-0.310	-0.177	-0.316
根尖数Number of root tips	0.310	-0.273	0.209	0.193
叶片电解质渗透率Electrolyte permeability in leaves cell	0.350	0.062	-0.026	-0.288
根尖电解质渗透率Electrolyte permeability in root tips cell	0.308	0.081	-0.291	0.227
7 d总杂草抑制率Total weed inhibition rate after 7 d	0.342	0.261	0.043	-0.107
14 d总杂草抑制率Total weed inhibition rate after 14 d	0.258	0.440	-0.114	0.013
21 d总杂草抑制率Total weed inhibition rate after 21 d	0.218	0.493	-0.129	0.136

Screening, Compounding and Safety Evaluation of Herbicides Suitable for Peach Nursery

RichHTML

PDF

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 40

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	WU YuZhen, HUANG LongYu, ZHOU DaYun, HUANG YiWen, FU ShouYang, PENG Jun, KUANG Meng. Construction of SSR Fingerprint Library and Comprehensive Evaluation for Approved Cotton Varieties in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(8): 1430-1443.
[2]	WANG XiaoJun, WANG JinLan, JU ZeLiang, LIANG GuoLing, JIA ZhiFeng, LIU WenHui, MA Xiang, MA JinXiu, LI Wen. Comprehensive Evaluation on Production Performance and Nutritional Quality of Different Varieties of Forage Oat in the Qinghai Lake Area [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(19): 3730-3742.
[3]	LI YuShan, XIAO Jing, MA Yue, TIAN Chao, ZHAO LianJia, WANG Fan, SONG Yu, JIANG ChengYao. Identification and Evaluation of Phenotypic Characters and Genetic Diversity Analysis of 169 Tomato Germplasm Resources [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(18): 3671-3683.
[4]	ZHAI CaiJiao, GE LiJiao, CHENG YuJing, QIU Liang, WANG XiaoQiu, LIU ShuiDong. Genetic Diversity Analysis of Wax Gourd and Chieh-Qua Germplasm Resources Based on Phenotypic Traits and SSR Markers [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(17): 3440-3457.
[5]	SONG Xiang, WANG ZhongMan, ZHANG QiuLing, WEI YuanYuan, ZHAO XiaoGang, LIU Bo, DAI SiLan. Comprehensive Evaluation and Selection of Hybrid Offsprings of Early Flowering Spray Outdoor Chrysanthemum [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(1): 173-189.
[6]	HOU ZhaoYu, GONG YiZhao, QIAN Yi, CHENG ZhuoYa, TAO Jun, ZHAO DaQiu. Evaluation of Heat Tolerance of Herbaceous Peony and Screening of Its Identification Indices [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(23): 4742-4756.
[7]	KAYOUMU MiReZhaTiJiang, WUMAIERJIANG XiErAiLi, LI XiaoTong, WANG XiangRu, GUI HuiPing, ZHANG HengHeng, ZHANG XiLing, DONG Qiang, SONG MeiZhen. Screening of Low Phosphorus Tolerant Germplasm in Cotton at Seedling Stage and Comprehensive Evaluation of Low Phosphorus Tolerance [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(21): 4150-4162.
[8]	HAN XiaoWen, HAN Shuo, HU YiFeng, WANG MengRu, CHEN ZhongYi, ZHU YongXing, YIN JunLiang. Genome-Wide Identification of AP2/ERF Gene Family in Alternanthera philoxeroides and Its Expression Patterns Under Herbicide Stresses [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(20): 4021-4034.
[9]	WU YuanLong, HUI FengJiao, PAN ZhenYuan, YOU ChunYuan, LIN HaiRong, LI ZhiBo, JIN ShuangXia, NIE XinHui. Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Herbicide-Resistance Crops in the Post-Genomic Era [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(17): 3285-3301.
[10]	LIANG ChengZhen, ZANG YouYi, MENG ZhiGang, WANG Yuan, MUBASHIR Abbas, HE HaiYan, ZHOU Qi, WEI YunXiao, ZHANG Rui, GUO SanDui. Identification of Target Traits and Genetic Stability of Transgenic Cotton GGK2 [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(17): 3251-3260.
[11]	ZHANG YiZhong, ZHANG XiaoJuan, LIANG Du, GUO Qi, FAN XinQi, NIE MengEn, WANG HuiYan, ZHAO WenBo, DU WeiJun, LIU QingShan. Genetic Diversity Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Sorghum Breeding Materials Based on Phenotypic Traits [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(15): 2837-2853.
[12]	LI Huan, YAN XiaoQing, YANG ZhanLie, TAN JinYu, LI XiaoBing, CHEN NengGang, WU RongJu, CHEN HuiCha, RUAN RenChao. Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Phenotype Genetic Diversity in Kam Sweet Rice Germplasm Resources in Guizhou [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(11): 2035-2046.
[13]	CHEN ZhiMin, CHEN XiaoLin, TAN ZhenHua, CHEN ZhaoXing, SHEN DanDan, MA YanYan, ZHENG YongQiang, YI ShiLai, LÜ Qiang, XIE RangJin. Comprehensive Fruit Quality Evaluation and Suitable Areas Selection of Newhall Navel Orange in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2023, 56(10): 1949-1965.
[14]	WANG YangYang,LIU WanDai,HE Li,REN DeChao,DUAN JianZhao,HU Xin,GUO TianCai,WANG YongHua,FENG Wei. Evaluation of Low Temperature Freezing Injury in Winter Wheat and Difference Analysis of Water Effect Based on Multivariate Statistical Analysis [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(7): 1301-1318.
[15]	WANG XiuXiu,XING AiShuang,YANG Ru,HE ShouPu,JIA YinHua,PAN ZhaoE,WANG LiRu,DU XiongMing,SONG XianLiang. Comprehensive Evaluation of Phenotypic Characters of Nature Population in Upland Cotton [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(6): 1082-1094.