湖北农业科学
湖北農業科學
호북농업과학
Hubei Agricultural Sciences
2015年
21期
5302-5305
,共4页
黄伟%李刚%张俊花%张锡宝
黃偉%李剛%張俊花%張錫寶
황위%리강%장준화%장석보
高巧%氟虫腈%虫害防控%产量%萝卜
高巧%氟蟲腈%蟲害防控%產量%蘿蔔
고교%불충정%충해방공%산량%라복
gaucho%fipronil%pest control%growth%yield%radish
为实现萝卜生产的安全性和经济性,试验以8%氟虫腈种衣剂与60%高巧种衣剂为研究对象,探讨了2种药剂的混合剂种子包衣对萝卜虫害的综合防效,并评价其对萝卜生长和产量的影响. 结果表明, 8%氟虫腈种衣剂与60%高巧种衣剂的混合剂种子包衣处理(处理1)的出苗率较施用10%毒死蜱(处理2)、对照(处理3)分别高6.3和12.2个百分点,苗期叶片虫害发生率分别降低39.9%和46.9%,根部遭受虫害的危害率为零,根畸形率明显低于处理2和处理3. 萝卜收获时发现,处理1叶片虫害发生率、根部遭受虫害的危害率、 根畸形率较处理2、 处理3分别降低43.2%和46.1%、83.5%和87.2%、71.9%和83.3%,产量较处理2和处理3分别提高8.5%和11.5%.
為實現蘿蔔生產的安全性和經濟性,試驗以8%氟蟲腈種衣劑與60%高巧種衣劑為研究對象,探討瞭2種藥劑的混閤劑種子包衣對蘿蔔蟲害的綜閤防效,併評價其對蘿蔔生長和產量的影響. 結果錶明, 8%氟蟲腈種衣劑與60%高巧種衣劑的混閤劑種子包衣處理(處理1)的齣苗率較施用10%毒死蜱(處理2)、對照(處理3)分彆高6.3和12.2箇百分點,苗期葉片蟲害髮生率分彆降低39.9%和46.9%,根部遭受蟲害的危害率為零,根畸形率明顯低于處理2和處理3. 蘿蔔收穫時髮現,處理1葉片蟲害髮生率、根部遭受蟲害的危害率、 根畸形率較處理2、 處理3分彆降低43.2%和46.1%、83.5%和87.2%、71.9%和83.3%,產量較處理2和處理3分彆提高8.5%和11.5%.
위실현라복생산적안전성화경제성,시험이8%불충정충의제여60%고교충의제위연구대상,탐토료2충약제적혼합제충자포의대라복충해적종합방효,병평개기대라복생장화산량적영향. 결과표명, 8%불충정충의제여60%고교충의제적혼합제충자포의처리(처리1)적출묘솔교시용10%독사비(처리2)、대조(처리3)분별고6.3화12.2개백분점,묘기협편충해발생솔분별강저39.9%화46.9%,근부조수충해적위해솔위령,근기형솔명현저우처리2화처리3. 라복수획시발현,처리1협편충해발생솔、근부조수충해적위해솔、 근기형솔교처리2、 처리3분별강저43.2%화46.1%、83.5%화87.2%、71.9%화83.3%,산량교처리2화처리3분별제고8.5%화11.5%.
To achieve the safety and economy of the radish production,8% fipronil seed coating agent and 60% gaucho seed coating agent as the research objects,pests integrated control effect was discussed by coating seed with the mixture of two kinds of medicament,and the influence on the growth and yield of radish was evaluated. The results showed that the emer-gence rate,the morbidity rate of pests of leaf in seedling of coated treatment (treatment 1) was 6.3 and 12.2 percentage point,39.9% and 46.9% higher than 10% chlorpyrifos applied (treatment 2) and CK,respectively. The damage rate to root of treatment 1 was zero,and the malformation root rate of treatment 1 was obviously lower than treatment 2 and CK. In harvest, the morbidity rate of pests of leaf,the damage rate to root and the malformation root rate of treatment 1 were 43.2% and 46.1%、83.5% and 87.2%、71.9% and 83.3% lower than treatment 2 and CK, respectively. But the yield of treatment 1 was 8.5% and 11.5% higher than treatment 2 and CK, respectively.