Herbicidal Activity Evaluation of Sulfentrazone and Its Safety to Sugarcane

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.04.018

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore its application prospect in sugarcane field in Guangxi, the weed controlling spectrum, herbicidal activity and safety of sulfentrazone to sugarcane were tested under greenhouse conditions. The results showed that sulfentrazone displayed good controlling effect on the common grasses, broadleaf weeds and sedge weeds in sugarcane. The fresh weight control effect was higher than 90% to Echinochloa colonum, Eleusine indica, Digitaria sanguinalis, Cyperus rotundus, Amaranthus viridis and Solanum nigrum as the treatment dose was 70 g/hm ² while the fresh weight control was higher than 80% to Rottboellia cochinchinensis, Oxalis corymbosa and Cynanchum chinense. Sulfentrazone howed higher herbicidal activity against E. colonum, E. indica, D. sanguinalis and C. rotundus than diuron. The selectivity index between ‘Xintaitang 22’ (a sugarcane variety) and E. colonum, E. indica, D. sanguinalis, C. rotundus was 2.04, 2.67, 2.95 and 2.25, respectively, which was much higher than that of diuron with corresponding selectivity index of 1.74, 1.68, 1.80 and 1.24, respectively. The selectivity index between ‘Guitang 46’ (another sugarcane variety) and the weed species mentioned above was similar to that of ‘Xintaitang 22’. This study indicated that sulfentrazone had a good control effect on a variety of major weeds in sugarcane fields and it was safe to the two sugarcane varieties that planted in large-scale in Guangxi. Therefore, it could be used as one of the alternative agents for pre-emergence herbicides in sugarcane fields.

Key words: sulfentrazone, herbicidal activity, weed control spectrum, sugarcane, safety

MA Yonglin,MA Yuefeng,GUO Chenglin,WANG Yanhui,HUANG Huiye,QIN Jianlin. Herbicidal Activity Evaluation of Sulfentrazone and Its Safety to Sugarcane[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(4): 741-745.

Figures/Tables 4

References 24

[1]	李杨瑞 . 现代甘蔗学[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2010: 27-32.
[2]	李奇伟, 安玉兴 . 现代甘蔗产业技术[M]. 北京: 中国农业大学出版社, 2012: 15-44.
[3]	廖东声, 覃思静 . 广西甘蔗产业生产成本核算及控制问题分析[J]. 学术论坛, 2013,36(8):83-87.
[4]	覃建林, 龙丽萍, 梁卫忠 , 等. 13种除草剂对甘蔗田恶性杂草香附子的防除效果试验及评价[J]. 广西农业科学, 2005,36(4):359-362.
[5]	马永林, 覃建林, 马跃峰 , 等. 14种磺酰脲类除草剂对蔗田香附子的防效及安全性评价[J]. 西南农业学报, 2014,27(6):2419-2422.
[6]	覃慧丽 . 三氟啶磺隆钠盐在甘蔗田土壤中的残留及其对甘庶套种作物的安全性评价[D]. 南宁: 广西大学, 2014.
[7]	梁元耀, 方峰, 韦茂春 , 等. 40%莠灭净油悬浮剂防除蔗田杂草药效试验[J]. 化工技术与开发, 2013,42(6):1-3.
[8]	段维兴, 刘许辉, 杨海霞 , 等. 4种除草剂对甘蔗新品种产量及构成因素的影响[J]. 作物研究, 2012,26(5):504-507.
[9]	陈立君, 赵欢欢, 付建涛 , 等. 硝磺草酮等复配剂对蔗田杂草的防治效果[J]. 甘蔗糖业, 2017(4):27-31.
[10]	吴晓莲 . 芽前除草剂在主壤中的动态分布及对甘礁萌芽生长的影响[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2016.
[11]	Kaur N, Bhullar M S, Gill G . Weed management in sugarcane-canola intercropping systems in northern India[J]. Field Crops Research, 2016,188:1-9. DOI URL
[12]	陈庆华, 周小刚, 郑仕军 , 等. 68%2甲4氯·敌草隆·莠灭净WP等防除甘蔗田杂草的效果[J]. 杂草科学, 2012,30(4):52-54.
[13]	谭金妮, 李琦, 郭文磊 , 等. 丙炔氟草胺除草活性及对棉花的安全性[J]. 农药学学报, 2017,19(2):189-194.
[14]	毕亚玲, 王曹阳, 谷刚 , 等. 双环磺草酮除草活性及对水稻的安全性研究[J]. 农药学学报, 2018,20(1):18-24.
[15]	Krachmer H, Van Almsick A, Beffa R , et al. Herbicides as weed control agents: state of the art: II. Recent achievements[J]. Plant Physiology, 2014,166(3):1132-1148. DOI URL
[16]	Duke S O . Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years?[J]. Pest Management Science, 2012,68(4):505-512. DOI URL
[17]	刘长令 . 世界农药大全[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2002: 133-142.
[18]	马跃峰, 杜晓莉, 覃建林 . 75%磺酰唑草酮干悬浮剂芽前防除蔗田杂草研究[J]. 植物保护, 2005,31(1):85-87.
[19]	郭成林, 马跃峰, 马永林 , 等. 甲磺草胺对后茬作物室内安全性评价[J]. 农药, 2014,53(6):426-431.
[20]	中华人民共和国农业部. 农药室内生物测定试验准则除草剂第3部分: 活性测定试验土壤喷雾法: NY/T 1155.3—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[21]	中华人民共和国农业部. 农药室内生物测定试验准则除草剂第6部分: 对作物的安全性试验土壤喷雾法: NY/T 1155.6—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[22]	赵善欢 . 植物化学保护[M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000: 7-18.
[23]	唐启义 . GPS数据处理系统: 第3卷专业统计及其他[M]. 3版. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013: 977-986.
[24]	马永林, 马跃峰, 郭成林 , 等. 3种蔗田除草剂混配室内活性及对甘蔗安全性测定[J]. 广东农业科学, 2006,41(3):90-93.

供试杂草 Trail weed	供试药剂及有效成分剂量 Herbicides and dose, a.i/(g?hm^-2)
	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone		敌草隆 Diuron
	35.0 70.0		550.0 1100.0
筒轴茅 R. cochinchinensis	++	+++	+	+
光头稗 E. colonum	+++	++++	++	++++
牛筋草 E. indica	+++	++++	++	++
马唐 D. sanguinalis	+++	++++	++	++++
香附子 C. rotundus	++	++++	-	-
鱼黄草 M. hederacea	++	++	++	+++
裂叶牵牛 P. nil	++	+++	+++	++++
饭包草C. bengalensis	+	+	++	++
铜锤草O. corymbosa	++	++	-	-
绿苋A. viridis	+++	++++	++	++
龙葵S. nigrum	+++	++++	++	++++
鹅绒藤C. chinense	+	++	+	++

供试杂草 Trail weed	供试药剂及有效成分剂量 Herbicides and dose, a.i/(g?hm^-2)
	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone		敌草隆 Diuron
	35.0 70.0		550.0 1100.0
筒轴茅 R. cochinchinensis	++	+++	+	+
光头稗 E. colonum	+++	++++	++	++++
牛筋草 E. indica	+++	++++	++	++
马唐 D. sanguinalis	+++	++++	++	++++
香附子 C. rotundus	++	++++	-	-
鱼黄草 M. hederacea	++	++	++	+++
裂叶牵牛 P. nil	++	+++	+++	++++
饭包草C. bengalensis	+	+	++	++
铜锤草O. corymbosa	++	++	-	-
绿苋A. viridis	+++	++++	++	++
龙葵S. nigrum	+++	++++	++	++++
鹅绒藤C. chinense	+	++	+	++

供试杂草 Trail weed	除草剂 Herbicide	回归方程 Regression equation	相关系数R Correlation coefficient	GR₅₀ (95%CL)/(g·hm^-2)	GR₉₀ (95%CL)/(g·hm^-2)
光头稗 E. colonum	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=3.48+1.22x	0.997	17.80 (15.73~20.14)	201.03 (149.14~270.98)
光头稗 E. colonum	敌草隆Diuron	y=0.50+2.96x	0.993	72.15 (65.62~79.33)	195.54 (156.79~243.88)
牛筋草 E. indica	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=3.27+1.38x	0.996	18.04 (15.38~21.17)	153.81 (107.60~219.88)
牛筋草 E. indica	敌草隆Diuron	y=0.69+3.02x	0.993	76.43 (69.25~84.36)	202.87 (162.90~252.64)
马唐 D. sanguinalis	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=3.80+1.29x	0.999	14.25 (13.40~15.16)	139.43 (119.92~162.13)
马唐 D. sanguinalis	敌草隆Diuron	y=0.54+3.00x	0.994	70.55 (64.14~76.40)	188.63 (156.50~227.34)
香附子 C. rotundus	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=3.14+1.41x	0.998	21.17 (18.93~23.68)	172.90 (136.18~219.52)
香附子 C. rotundus	敌草隆Diuron	y=1.51+1.96x	0.979	60.71 (53.17~69.30)	274.11 (172.65~435.21)

供试杂草 Trail weed	除草剂 Herbicide	回归方程 Regression equation	相关系数R Correlation coefficient	GR₅₀ (95%CL)/(g·hm^-2)	GR₉₀ (95%CL)/(g·hm^-2)
光头稗 E. colonum	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=3.48+1.22x	0.997	17.80 (15.73~20.14)	201.03 (149.14~270.98)
光头稗 E. colonum	敌草隆Diuron	y=0.50+2.96x	0.993	72.15 (65.62~79.33)	195.54 (156.79~243.88)
牛筋草 E. indica	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=3.27+1.38x	0.996	18.04 (15.38~21.17)	153.81 (107.60~219.88)
牛筋草 E. indica	敌草隆Diuron	y=0.69+3.02x	0.993	76.43 (69.25~84.36)	202.87 (162.90~252.64)
马唐 D. sanguinalis	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=3.80+1.29x	0.999	14.25 (13.40~15.16)	139.43 (119.92~162.13)
马唐 D. sanguinalis	敌草隆Diuron	y=0.54+3.00x	0.994	70.55 (64.14~76.40)	188.63 (156.50~227.34)
香附子 C. rotundus	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=3.14+1.41x	0.998	21.17 (18.93~23.68)	172.90 (136.18~219.52)
香附子 C. rotundus	敌草隆Diuron	y=1.51+1.96x	0.979	60.71 (53.17~69.30)	274.11 (172.65~435.21)

供试甘蔗 Tested sugarcane	除草剂 Herbicide	回归方程 Regression equation	相关系数R Correlation coefficient	GR₁₀(95%CL)/(g·hm^-2)
‘新台糖22号’ ‘Xintaitang 22’	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=2.11+0.61x	0.991	410.8 (213.1~971.8)
‘新台糖22号’ ‘Xintaitang 22’	敌草隆Diuron	y=1.27+0.97x	0.994	339.9 (256.9~449.8)
‘桂糖46号’ ‘Guitang 46’	甲磺草胺 Sulfentrazone	y=2.14+0.60x	0.990	388.4 (192.6~783.2)
‘桂糖46号’ ‘Guitang 46’	敌草隆Diuron	y=1.05+1.08x	0.993	294.3 (223.4~387.8)