几种除草剂混配对麦田阔叶杂草的防除效果

通过田间试验,比较双氟磺草胺、唑草酮、氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯等9种除草剂及其混剂在小麦田防除播娘蒿、猪殃殃、荠菜3种阔叶杂草的效果,以期筛选出对河南省小麦田优势阔叶杂草防效较好的药剂组合。结果表明,供试药剂对小麦均比较安全,对小麦生长发育无不良影响。药后28 d,29%氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯WP 111.31 g/hm~2(有效成分用量,下同)+5%唑草酮WP 3.31 g/hm~2对播娘蒿和猪殃殃的防效最佳,其中对播娘蒿的株防效和鲜质量防效均达到100.00%,对猪殃殃的株防效和鲜质量防效分别为68.42%、71.44%;50 g/L双氟磺草胺SC 7.50 g/hm~2+40%唑草酮WG 15.00 g/hm~2+200 g/L氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯EC 120.00 g/hm~2对荠菜的防效最佳,株防效为80.69%,鲜质量防效为85.92%。29%氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯WP 111.31 g/hm~2+5%唑草酮WP3.31 g/hm~2对总草的防效最佳,株防效为82.80%,鲜质量防效为89.49%;50 g/L双氟磺草胺SC7.50 g/hm~2+90%甲基碘磺隆钠盐TG 9.99 g/hm~2复配和200 g/L氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯EC 150.00 g/hm~2对总草的株防效分别为60.24%、47.31%,鲜质量防效分别为66.86%、53.92%,效果较差。总体来说,推荐使用29%氯氟吡氧乙酸异辛酯WP 111.31 g/hm~2+5%唑草酮WP 3.31 g/hm~2、50 g/L双氟磺草胺SC 7.50 g/hm~2+40%唑草酮WG 15.00 g/hm~2,不仅对小麦田播娘蒿、荠菜、猪殃殃均有较好的防效,而且对小麦安全。     

Characterization of new photosynthesis-inhibiting imidazolidine derivatives. 1. Interpretation of post-emergence herbicidal performance from photosynthesis-inhibiting activity and systemicity

An attempt was made to account for quantitatively measured herbicidal performance of foliage-applied 5-hydroxy-3-methyl-2–oxo-imidazolidine-1-carboxamide derivatives by their photosynthesis-inhibiting activity and systemicity. Photosynthesis-inhibiting activity was estimated from the increase of chlorophyll fluorescence intensity in Chlorella vulgaris Beijer cells measured by a microplate scanner, and systemicity was also evaluated by computer-aided chlorophyll fluorescence imaging. The highest herbicidal performance was recorded for N-cyclohexyl-5-hydroxy-3-methyl-2-oxo-imidazo～idine-l-carboxamide, a compound with the second strongest photosynthesis-inhibiting activity and intermediate systemicity. Though neither photosynthesis-inhibiting activity nor systemicity showed significant correlation with the actual herbicidal performance in simple regression analyses, a high predictability was found for a multiple regression on both parameters as two independent variables, suggesting that these two factors work cooperatively in the field performance.     

除草剂对广聚萤叶甲(Ophraella communa)存活的影响

为筛选出对豚草天敌广聚萤叶甲低毒的除草剂,达到化学防治与生物防治的协同关系,研究了草甘膦异丙胺盐、百草枯、氟磺胺草醚、乳氟禾草灵和氯氟吡氧乙酸5种除草剂对广聚萤叶甲卵、幼虫、蛹和成虫存活的影响。结果表明,在常用剂量下,百草枯处理的广聚萤叶甲成虫存活率在16.9%以下,蛹存活率低于70.6%,但其对卵和幼虫的影响较小。中等剂量下,草甘膦异丙胺盐、氟磺胺草醚、乳氟禾草灵和氯氟吡氧乙酸处理的成虫存活率均在70%以上,幼虫存活率均高于90%,且对卵和蛹几乎无致死作用。说明百草枯对广聚萤叶甲的毒害作用较强,建议在豚草综合治理中慎用百草枯。     

春玉米化学除草剂药害的发生原因及其预防和缓解技术措施

在河北省隆化县,玉米田化学除草剂药害发生程度逐渐加重、面积逐年加大,严重影响了玉米生产。分析了造成玉米田化学除草剂药害的主要原因,并提出了合理适期选用化学除草剂、注意天气情况、提高喷药技术,运用农业技术并辅助喷洒植物生长调节剂等措施,可以预防和缓解药害的发生。     

几种除草剂对水稻纹枯病菌的影响

研究了丁草胺、环庚草醚、草甘膦、苄嘧磺隆、吡嘧磺隆和环丙嘧磺隆6种除草剂对水稻纹枯病菌菌丝生长和菌核形成的影响。结果表明,在一定浓度范围内,6种除草剂均能抑制菌丝生长,减少菌核形成数量,且浓度越高,抑制能力越强,但在较高浓度范围内,除草剂可增加菌核体积;吡嘧磺隆在5μg/ml、环丙嘧磺隆在10μg/ml时可增加菌核形成数量;在含除草剂培养基上产生的菌核都可萌发。     

化学除草剂在绿化苗木培育中的应用

应用10％草甘膦水剂、30％飞达可溶性粉剂、20％克无踪水剂3种化学除草剂在优质绿化苗木培育中进行对比试验，试验效果均较显著，其中30％飞达可溶性粉剂使用方便，成本较低，效果最好，可大面积推广。     

小麦田除草剂应用技术

通过对麦田杂草生长状况以及影响麦田除草剂使用因素的剖析,针对性地提出了解决对策和途径,包括除草剂类型的选择,最佳防治期的选择,根据常见麦田的杂草选择何种化学除草药剂,除草药剂量的使用,提高除草剂喷施质量的要求等,并结合近几年我国小麦田的优势杂草种类,主要应用的除草剂分析了目前国内麦田杂草的抗药性现状及防治对策。     

池杉苗圃地化学除草试验

池杉苗圃地的化学除草试验结果表明：克芜踪以剂量３０００ｍｌ／ｈｍ＾２的除草率最高，可达８０％，但除草不彻底。剂量为４５００－７５００ｍｌ／ｈｍ＾２的草甘膦，除草率可高达８５．５％。二甲四氯与克芜踪混施，最佳配方是３０００ｍｌ／ｈｍ＾２克芜踪＋１５００ｍｌ／ｈｍ＾２二甲四氯，除草率高的可达９０．８８％除草效果与成本考虎，３种除草剂中以草甘膦除草率高，杂草死亡彻底，成本较低。     

Predictive models of weed population dynamics

Many of the challenges faced by weed ecologists can be met only by the capability to predict the responses of weed populations to changes in their environment or management. In spite of this, a review of papers published in Weed Research suggests that weed ecologists are remarkably reluctant to produce detailed, quantitative predictions. This may result from uncertainty in the accuracy of predictions and indeed, a variety of reasons have been put forward to suggest that the potential utility of weed models may be limited in this regard. In this study, we review the applications to which weed models have been put. Focusing on predictive population modelling, we highlight several limitations that can lead to failures of this approach and we discuss the likely prospects for weed population modelling. We make three points regarding the future of weed modelling. First, owing to prohibitive data requirements, the development of highly mechanistic models that attempt to make detailed predictions of weed population numbers is unlikely to be very successful. Second, data collection for developing weed models needs to be rethought. Weed models are most commonly compromised by a lack of spatial and temporal replication, preventing modellers from measuring parameter variability and error effectively and limiting assessments of model uncertainty. Finally, the utility of models needs to be better appreciated; models are key tools in making long range predictions of how management will affect weed populations, but, we estimate, they are used in only a small fraction of studies. Without the further development of models for weed population dynamics, our ability to predict long-term dynamics will be restricted.