徐田军^?,,
吕天放^?,,
赵久然^,,
王荣焕^,,
陈传永,
刘月娥,
刘秀芝,
邢锦丰,
王元东,
刘春阁
北京市农林科学院玉米研究中心/玉米 DNA 指纹及分子育种北京市重点实验室 北京 100097
基金项目: 国家重点研发计划项目2016YFD0300106
北京市农林科学院青年科研基金QNJJ201728
北京市农林科学院院级科技创新团队建设项目JNKYT201603
现代农业产业技术体系专项资金CARS-02-11

详细信息

作者简介:徐田军, 主要从事玉米栽培研究, E-mail:xtjxtjbb@163.com
吕天放, 主要从事玉米栽培研究, E-mail:314565358@qq.com

通讯作者:赵久然, 主要从事玉米育种与栽培研究, E-mail:maizezhao@126.com
王荣焕, 主要从事玉米栽培生理研究, E-mail:ronghuanwang@126.com

^?同等贡献者
中图分类号:S365

计量

文章访问数:905
HTML全文浏览量:11
PDF下载量:654
被引次数:0

出版历程

收稿日期:2018-01-09
录用日期:2018-05-05
刊出日期:2018-08-01

Effects of herbicides on growth, development and yield of different maize varieties

XU Tianjun^?,,
LYU Tianfang^?,,
ZHAO Jiuran^,,
WANG Ronghuan^,,
CHEN Chuanyong,
LIU Yue'e,
LIU Xiuzhi,
XING Jinfeng,
WANG Yuandong,
LIU Chunge
Maize Research Center, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences/Beijing Key Laboratory of Maize DNA Fingerprinting and Molecular Breeding, Beijing 100097, China
Funds: the National Key Research and Developing Program of China2016YFD0300106
the Youth Research Fund of Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry SciencesQNJJ201728
the Innovative Team Construction Project of Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry ScienceJNKYT201603
the Special Fund for the Industrial System Construction of Modern Agriculture of ChinaCARS-02-11

^?Equal contributors


摘要
HTML全文
图(4)表(5)
参考文献(24)
相关文章
施引文献
资源附件(0)
访问统计

摘要
摘要:化学除草为作物田间管理带来方便的同时，药害问题也越来越突出，特别是苗后除草剂对作物造成的药害频繁发生。为此，本文以我国玉米主栽品种‘郑单958’、‘先玉335’、‘京科968’和‘京农科728’为试验材料，采用2，4-D丁酯和烟嘧磺隆2种苗后除草剂，每种除草剂设置0倍（人工除草，CK）、1倍（最适浓度，T1）和2倍最适浓度（T2）共3个喷施浓度处理，于玉米幼苗4展叶期喷施。研究苗后除草剂对不同基因型玉米品种生育进程、形态特征、保护酶活性和产量等性状指标的影响，旨在为玉米安全生产提供参考和指导。研究结果表明：1）喷施除草剂后，参试玉米品种的生育期呈延长趋势，‘郑单958’和‘先玉335’的生育期延长程度大于‘京科968’和‘京农科728’；2，4-D丁酯对参试品种的生育期延长幅度大于烟嘧磺隆。喷施除草剂后，参试玉米品种的叶面积、根系长度、表面积和体积呈降低趋势，且随除草剂浓度增加，降低幅度加大；品种间的反应也存在较大差异，‘郑单958’和‘先玉335’降低程度大于‘京科968’和‘京农科728’。2）喷施苗后除草剂后，参试玉米品种的叶片SOD活性、CAT活性和MDA含量在品种、除草剂和剂量间均存在极显著差异；参试玉米品种的SOD和CAT活性呈降低趋势、MDA含量呈升高趋势，且随喷施浓度增加影响加剧；不同品种间，随喷施浓度增加，‘郑单958’和‘先玉335’的SOD和CAT活性降幅高于‘京科968’和‘京农科728’；不同除草剂间，2，4-D丁酯处理的影响程度大于烟嘧磺隆。3）苗后除草剂对参试品种的穗粒数、百粒重和产量影响显著，均呈降低趋势；随除草剂浓度增加降幅增大；不同品种间，‘郑单958’和‘先玉335’的降幅大于‘京科968’和‘京农科728’。由此可见，2种苗后除草剂对参试玉米品种的生长发育和产量存在显著影响，表现在延长了生育期，抑制了根系和叶片的生长，降低了保护酶活性，并且加重了叶片的膜质过氧化程度，从而导致玉米减产显著，且随除草剂浓度增加，影响进一步加大。不同品种间，‘京科968’和‘京农科728’对苗后除草剂的耐受性好于‘郑单958’和‘先玉335’。
关键词:除草剂/
玉米品种/
生长发育/
根系/
抗氧化酶/
产量
Abstract:Chemical weed control is convenient for crop field management, but the damage has become increasingly pronounced, especially for herbicides. Field experiments were conducted to study the effects of herbicides on growth process, morphological characteristics, protective enzymes activities and yield traits of different maize varieties in this study. Four widely cultivated maize varieties in the region ('Zhengdan958', 'Xianyu335', 'Jingke968' and 'Jingnongke728') and two herbicides (2, 4-D butyl ester and nicosulfuron) were used in the experiment. No herbicide (manual weeding) was set as CK treatment, the recommended application concentration (optimum concentration) of herbicides was set as T1 treatment and two-times optimum concentration was set as T2 treatment. The herbicides were applied at V4 stage of maize. The results showed that after herbicide application, the growth period of maize varieties prolonged and those of 'Zhengdan958' and 'Xianyu335' were longer than those of 'Jingke968' and 'Jingnongke728'. The growth period of tested maize varieties after applying 2, 4-D butyl ester was longer than that after applying nicosulfuron. After spraying herbicides, leaf area, root length, root surface area and root volume of the tested maize varieties decreased, while the extent of reduction increased with increasing herbicide concentration. Leaf area, root length, root surface area and root volume of 'Zhengdan958' and 'Xianyu335' were lower than those of 'Jingke968' and 'Jingnongke728'. After spraying herbicides, SOD activity, CAT activity and MDA content were significantly different among the tested maize varieties, herbicide type and herbicide dose. SOD and CAT activities of the tested maize varieties decreased, while MDA content increased. With increasing concentration of sprayed herbicides, the effect on protective enzymes activities increased. The decrease in SOD and CAT activities of 'Zhengdan958' and 'Xianyu335' was higher than those of 'Jingke968' and 'Jingnongke728'. Also with increasing concentration, the effect of 2, 4-D butyl ester treatment was higher than that of nicosulfuron. Application of herbicides after seedling resulted in a significant reduction in grain number per ear, 100-grain weight and yield. With increasing herbicide concentration, yield reduction intensified for 'Jingke968', 'Jingnongke728', 'Zhengdan958' and 'Xianyu335', decreased respectively by 8.9%, 9.3%, 14.0% and 16.5% after using 2 times concentration of 2, 4-D butyl ester. However, it decreased by 3.6%, 5.0%, 7.9% and 8.7% after using two times concentration of nicosulfuron, respectively. The reductions in yields of 'Zhengdan958' and 'Xianyu335' were higher than of 'Jingke968' and 'Jingnongke728'. Thus the application of two herbicides after seedling had significant effects on growth period, leaf area, leaf protection enzyme activity, root characteristics, yield and yield composition of maize varieties. The inhibition effect of 2, 4-D butyl on growth and development of maize was higher than that of nicosulfuron. The extent of reduction in leaf area, protective enzyme activity, root traits and yield of the tested varieties increased with increasing application concentration. The reasons for this trend were as follows:the application of herbicides controlled weeds, but also resulted in the accumulation of peroxidation products, destruction of membrane systems, decrease in leaf area, root length, surface area and volume, and acceleration of leaf senescence in the middle and late grain-filling periods of maize. Herbicide tolerance of 'Jingke968' and 'Jingnongke728' were better than that of 'Zhengdan958' and 'Xianyu335'.
Key words:Herbicide/
Maize variety/
Growth and development/
Root/
Antioxidant enzyme/
Grain yield
^?Equal contributors

注释:
1) ^?同等贡献者

HTML全文


图1不同苗后除草剂处理对不同玉米品种叶面积的影响
Figure1.Effects of herbicide treatments after seedling stage of maize on leaf area of different maize varieties


下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片


图2不同苗后除草剂处理不同玉米品种的根系长度
Figure2.Root lengths of different maize varieties under different herbicide treatments after seedling stage of maize


下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片


图3不同苗后除草剂处理下不同玉米品种的根系表面积变化
Figure3.Root surface areas of different maize varieties under different herbicide treatments after seedling stage of maize


下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片


图4不同苗后除草剂处理下不同玉米品种的根系体积变化
Figure4.Root volumes of different maize varieties under different herbicide treatments after seedling stage of maize


下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表1试验用玉米苗后除草剂的种类及用量
Table1.Types and dosage of herbicides applied after seedling stage of maize used in the experiment

代号 Code	剂量?Dosage
	倍数 Dosage times	烟嘧磺隆 Nicosulfuron (mL·hm-2)	2, 4-D丁酯 2, 4-D butyl ester (mL·hm-2)
CK	0	0	0
T1	1	1 500	750
T2	2	3 000	1 500

下载: 导出CSV
表2不同苗后除草剂处理对不同玉米品种生育进程的影响
Table2.Effects of herbicide treatments after seedling stage of maize on durations of growth periods of different maize varieties

除草剂 Herbicide	品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	出苗-4展叶期 Emergencing-V4 (d)	4展叶期-12展叶期 V4-V12 (d)	12展叶期-吐丝期 V12-silking (d)	吐丝期-完熟期 Silking-maturity (d)	生育期 Growth period (d)
2, 4-D丁酯 2, 4-D butyl ester	京科968 Jingke968	CK	13	37	15	53	118
		T1	13	38	15	53	119
		T2	13	39	16	54	122
	京农科728 Jingnongke728	CK	12	37	12	45	106
		T1	12	38	13	46	109
		T2	12	39	13	47	111
	郑单958 Zhengdan958	CK	13	37	15	53	118
		T1	13	38	16	55	122
		T2	13	39	17	56	125
	先玉335 Xianyu335	CK	13	37	14	48	112
		T1	13	38	15	49	115
		T2	13	39	17	52	121
烟嘧磺隆 Nicosulfuron	京科968 Jingke968	CK	13	37	15	53	118
		T1	13	37	15	54	119
		T2	13	37	16	54	120
	京农科728 Jingnongke728	CK	12	37	12	45	106
		T1	12	37	13	45	107
		T2	12	37	13	46	108
	郑单958 Zhengdan958	CK	13	37	15	53	118
		T1	13	38	15	54	120
		T2	13	39	16	54	122
	先玉335 Xianyu335	CK	13	37	14	48	112
		T1	13	37	15	49	114
		T2	13	38	16	50	117

下载: 导出CSV
表3不同苗后除草剂处理下不同玉米品种的叶片保护酶活性和过氧化物产物变化
Table3.Leaf protective enzymes activities and peroxide products of different maize varieties under different herbicide treatments after seedling stage of maize

除草剂 Herbicide	品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	SOD活性 SOD activity [U×g-1(FW)]	CAT活性 CAT activity [Δ240·g-1(FW)·min-1]	MDA含量 MDA content [μmol×g-1(FW)]
2, 4-D丁酯 2, 4-D butyl ester	京科968 Jingke968	CK	681.6±9.0a	15.2±2.0a	9.5±0.3h
		T1	668.9±11.8b	13.3±1.2c	10.2±0.9fg
		T2	652.1±9.8c	10.7±1.0e	10.9±0.8e
	京农科728 Jingnongke728	CK	643.7±7.9d	14.2±1.2b	9.8±0.9gh
		T1	630.8±15.6f	12.3±0.9d	10.7±1.2ef
		T2	612.2±9.9g	9.5±0.8f	11.7±1.1d
	郑单958 Zhengdan958	CK	635.5±6.3e	12.6±1.2d	10.8±0.8ef
		T1	612.8±11.1g	10.6±0.7e	13.9±0.7c
		T2	578.2±15.9i	7.6±1.1g	18.1±1.3a
	先玉335 Xianyu335	CK	654.1±6.3c	12.6±1.0d	10.3±1.1fg
		T1	633.4±9.3ef	10.7±1.4e	12.2±1.0d
		T2	604.7±18.1h	7.2±1.2g	16.0±1.2b
烟嘧磺隆Nicosulfuron	京科968 Jingke968	CK	684.7±33.5a	17.0±2.1a	8.2±1.2g
		T1	676.6±36.3b	15.9±1.3b	8.4±0.8fg
		T2	663.3±34.3c	13.8±1.1de	8.7±1.4ef
	京农科728 Jingnongke728	CK	654.4±42.4d	15.3±1.3bc	8.4±0.4fg
		T1	643.4±32.1e	14.3±1.0d	8.7±0.8ef
		T2	628.9±54.4g	12.3±0.9f	9.1±0.5e
	郑单958 Zhengdan958	CK	633.7±32.8f	14.4±1.3d	10.4±0.9d
		T1	621.8±52.6h	12.8±0.8f	12.6±1.2b
		T2	605.6±42.8j	9.7±1.2h	15.2±0.9a
	先玉335 Xianyu335	CK	649.8±30.8d	15.0±1.1c	9.1±0.8e
		T1	636.7±40.6f	13.5±1.5e	10.9±1.0c
		T2	613.9±30.4i	10.6±1.3g	12.7±1.2b
变异来源 Source of variation		品种?Variety	**	**	**
		除草剂?Herbicide	**	**	**
		剂量?Dosage	**	**	**
		品种×除草剂×剂量?Variety × herbicide × dosage	*	*	*
同列数字后不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异达0.05显著水平。**表示在P < 0.01水平差异显著, *表示在P < 0.05水平差异显著。Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. **: significantly different at P < 0.01, *: significantly different at P < 0.05.

下载: 导出CSV
表4不同苗后除草剂处理下不同参试玉米品种的干物质重变化
Table4.Dry matter weights of different maize varieties under different herbicide treatments after seedling stage of maize

除草剂 Herbicide	品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	地上部干物重 Shoot dry matter weight (g)	根系干物重 Root dry matter weight (g)
2, 4-D丁酯 2, 4-D butyl ester	京科968 Jingke968	CK	224.3±16.6a	55.9±5.8a
		T1	210.5±21.4b	52.6±6.7b
		T2	196.5±19.9c	48.1±4.3c
	京农科728 Jingnongke728	CK	175.5±22.1d	40.8±6.2e
		T1	159.5±13.9e	37.6±5.5f
		T2	141.4±23.5f	33.7±1.7g
	郑单958 Zhengdan958	CK	198.6±18.3c	54.8±2.9a
		T1	168.4±27.4de	46.5±3.2d
		T2	134.6±15.9f	32.9±3.2g
	先玉335 Xianyu335	CK	191.6±16.3c	36.6±1.8f
		T1	167.8±19.2de	28.6±2.8h
		T2	140.4±14.2f	14.5±2.1i
烟嘧磺隆 Nicosulfuron	京科968 Jingke968	CK	242.2±22.7a	61.7±1.6a
		T1	231.4±14.3b	59.3±2.4b
		T2	216.4±22.6c	56.1±3.3c
	京农科728 Jingnongke728	CK	179.6±20.2g	47.9±2.5e
		T1	165.6±17.9i	45.7±2.2f
		T2	149.7±21.3k	42.5±3.9g
	郑单958 Zhengdan958	CK	210.5±25.3d	50.9±4.6d
		T1	188.8±19.3f	48.4±3.9e
		T2	156.7±11.6j	43.9±5.2fg
	先玉335 Xianyu335	CK	193.5±14.3e	33.8±1.1h
		T1	170.5±12.9h	31.4±2.6i
		T2	145.7±15.3l	26.9±1.7j
变异来源?Sources of variation		品种?Variety	**	**
		除草剂?Herbicide	**	**
		剂量?Dosage	**	**
		品种×除草剂×剂量?Variety × herbicide × dosage	NS	**
同列数字后不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异达0.05显著水平。**表示在P < 0.01水平差异显著, *表示在P < 0.05水平差异显著, NS表示不显著。Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. **: significantly different at P < 0.01; *: significantly different at P < 0.05, NS means no significant difference.

下载: 导出CSV
表5不同苗后除草剂处理下不同玉米品种产量及产量构成因素变化
Table5.Yields and yield components of different maize varieties under different herbicide treatments after seedling stage of maize

除草剂 Herbicide	品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	产量 Yield (kg·hm-2)	穗粒数 Grain number per ear	百粒重 100-grain weight (g)
2, 4-D丁酯 2, 4-D butyl ester	京科968 Jingke968	CK	12 451.5±179.9a	549.3±4.4a	37.1±1.4a
		T1	11 815.5±152.9b	515.7±9.2b	35.7±1.3a
		T2	11 346.0±144.5b	498.0±8.6b	34.0±1.4ab
	京农科728 Jingnongke728	CK	10 359.0±111.7e	502.1±12.7d	36.4±2.2a
		T1	9 892.5±151.1e	497.4±6.0d	35.2±1.0a
		T2	9 400.5±157.0f	489.2±10.4c	33.0±0.9b
	郑单958 Zhengdan958	CK	11 473.5±133.0c	525.4±11.6b	36.4±0.9a
		T1	10 867.5±162.0c	499.5±12.5de	34.3±1.3b
		T2	9 867.0±115.4d	475.6±9.8e	30.6±1.4c
	先玉335 Xianyu335	CK	10 392.0±87.5e	500.6±10.8d	34.6±0.8b
		T1	9 654.0±149.6f	469.3±10.3e	31.3±1.1d
		T2	8 679.0±149.6g	424.4±9.2g	27.1±1.5d
烟嘧磺隆 Nicosulfuron	京科968 Jingke968	CK	12 301.5±114.2b	553.3±10.4a	37.1±1.2a
		T1	11 992.5±138.2a	533.5±8.5a	36.1±1.6a
		T2	11 563.5±138.2a	518.6±5.6a	35.0±0.7a
	京农科728 Jingnongke728	CK	10 498.5±84.5d	513.7±6.4c	36.4±1.3a
		T1	10 311.0±116.2d	501.2±10.5cd	35.8±1.3a
		T2	9 676.5±116.2e	484.4±9.2d	34.6±1.2a
	郑单958 Zhengdan958	CK	11 380.5±177.5c	532.5±12.4b	36.4±1.1a
		T1	10 869.0±120.8c	505.1±8.9c	35.3±1.2a
		T2	10 177.5±120.8c	475.1±7.7e	32.6±1.3b
	先玉335 Xianyu335	CK	10 516.5±113.4d	509.3±3.4cd	34.6±1.2b
		T1	9 955.5±86.5e	474.3±12.1e	32.9±0.8c
		T2	10 177.5±86.5c	434.4±7.9f	30.1±1.2c
变异来源?Sources of variation		品种?Variety	**	**	**
		除草剂?Herbicide	**	**	**
		剂量?Dosage	**	**	**
		品种×除草剂×剂量?Variety × herbicide × dosage	**	**	**
同列数字后不同小写字母表示不同处理间差异达0.05显著水平。**表示在P < 0.01水平差异显著, *表示在P < 0.05水平差异显著。Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level. **: significantly different at P < 0.01, *: significantly different at P < 0.05.

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(24)

[1]	陈海伟, 张鲁华, 陈德富, 等.除草剂及抗除草剂作物的应用现状与展望[J].生物技术通报, 2012, (10):35-40 http://med.wanfangdata.com.cn/Paper/Detail?id=PeriodicalPaper_swjstb201210006 CHEN H W, ZHANG L H, CHEN D F, et al. Current utilization status and future prospect of herbicide and herbicide-resistant crops[J]. Biotechnology Bulletin, 2012, (10):35-40 http://med.wanfangdata.com.cn/Paper/Detail?id=PeriodicalPaper_swjstb201210006
[2]	张国, 逯非, 黄志刚, 等.我国主粮作物的化学农药用量及其温室气体排放估算[J].应用生态学报, 2016, 27(9):2875-2883 http://www.cjae.net/CN/abstract/abstract20702.shtml ZHANG G, LU F, HUANG Z G, et al. Estimations of application dosage and greenhouse gas emission of chemical pesticides in staple crops in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016, 27(9):2875-2883 http://www.cjae.net/CN/abstract/abstract20702.shtml
[3]	赵德友. 乙草胺对玉米药害的研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2005 ZHAO D Y. The study on phytotoxicity of acetochlor against maize[D]. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2005
[4]	宋波, 吕香玲, 王健, 等.玉米种质对烟嘧磺隆除草剂的抗性鉴定与评价[J].种子, 2016, 35(4):89-93 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zhongz201604022 SONG B, LYU X L, WANG J, et al. Evaluation and identification of maize germplasms for tolerance to nicosulfuron herbicide[J]. Seed, 2016, 35(4):89-93 http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zhongz201604022
[5]	董晓雯, 王金信, 毕建杰, 等.不同玉米品种对烟嘧磺隆的敏感性差异[J].植物保护学报, 2007, 34(2):182-186 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4452356 DONG X W, WANG J X, BI J J, et al. The sensitivity of different maize varieties to the nicosulfuron[J]. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica, 2007, 34(2):182-186 http://www.oalib.com/paper/4452356
[6]	葛选良, 钱春荣, 宫秀杰, 等.玉米对烟嘧磺隆敏感性差异的相关研究进展[J].玉米科学, 2016, 24(2):103-107 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/97657X/201602/668541908.html GE X L, QIAN C R, GONG X J, et al. Related research progress in sensitivity differences of maize to nicosulfuron[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2016, 24(2):103-107 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/97657X/201602/668541908.html
[7]	车志平, 田月娥, 周骥, 等.二甲戊灵和2, 4-滴丁酯对5种作物种子萌发的影响[J].贵州农业科学, 2017, 45(2):31-35 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-SHZK199906021.htm CHE Z P, TIAN Y E, ZHOU J, et al. Effects of pendimethalin and 2, 4-D butylate on seeds germination of five kinds of crops[J]. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 45(2):31-35 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-SHZK199906021.htm
[8]	刘方明, 梁文举, 闻大中.耕作方法和除草剂对玉米田杂草群落的影响[J].应用生态学报, 2005, 16(10):1879-1882 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2005.10.016 LIU F M, LIANG W J, WEN D Z. Effects of tillage method and herbicide on cornfield weed community[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2005, 16(10):1879-1882 doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2005.10.016
[9]	石小堰, 李凤海.玉米苗前除草剂种质抗性评价及鉴定指标筛选[J].玉米科学, 2017, 25(4):48-54 http://www.cqvip.com/Main/Detail.aspx?id=8874953 SHI X Y, LI F H. Herbicide resistant germplasm evaluation of maize seedling stage and screening of herbicide resistance appraisal index[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2017, 25(4):48-54 http://www.cqvip.com/Main/Detail.aspx?id=8874953
[10]	李致闻, 史振声, 林继山, 等.不同抗性基因型玉米对烟嘧磺隆除草剂的反应差异[J].玉米科学, 2012, 20(4):32-36 http://mall.cnki.net/magazine/Article/YMKX201204009.htm LI Z W, SHI Z S, LIN J S, et al. Response difference of different resisted-genotypes of maize to nicosulfuron[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2012, 20(4):32-36 http://mall.cnki.net/magazine/Article/YMKX201204009.htm
[11]	GREEN J M, ULRICH JF. Response of corn (Zea mays L.) inbred lines and hybrids to sulfonylurea herbicides[J]. Weed Science, 1993, 41(3):508-516 doi: 10.1007%2FBF00191992
[12]	RALPH P J. Herbicide toxicity of Halophilaovalis assessed by chlorophyll a fluorescence[J]. Aquatic Botany, 2000, 66(2):141-152 doi: 10.1016/S0304-3770(99)00024-8
[13]	石小堰. 玉米自交系抗苗前除草剂种质鉴定及抗性生理研究[D]. 沈阳农业大学, 2017 SHI X Y. Study on the germplasm identification and physiological mechanism of herbicide resistance of maize inbred lines[D]. Shenyang Agricultural Uinversity, 2017
[14]	王敏强, 李远想.玉米对磺酰脲类除草剂敏感性及土壤残留的研究[J].玉米科学, 2006, 14(2):78-80 http://edu.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/Detail/mlzg201004006 WANG M Q, LI Y X. The study on sensitivity and remain of sulfonylurea herbicides to maize varieties[J]. Journal of Maize Sciences, 2006, 14(2):78-80 http://edu.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/Detail/mlzg201004006
[15]	党建友, 裴雪霞, 王姣爱, 等.除草剂使用时期对小麦籽粒产量、品质及光合特性的调控效应[J].中国生态农业学报, 2009, 17(2):291-296 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2009217&flag=1 DANG J Y, PEI X X, WANG J A, et al. Effect of herbicide spray-time on yield, quality and net photosynthesis of wheat[J]. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2009, 17(2):291-296 http://www.ecoagri.ac.cn/zgstny/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=2009217&flag=1
[16]	王爱国, 罗广华.植物的超氧物自由基与羟胺反应的定量关系[J].植物生理学通讯, 1990, (6):55-57 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZWSL199006032.htm WANG A G, LUO G H. Quantitative relation between the reaction of hydroxylamine and superoxide anion radicals in plants[J]. Plant Physiology Communications, 1990, (6):55-57 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZWSL199006032.htm
[17]	CHANCE B, MAEHLY A C. Assay of catalases and peroxidases[J]. Methods in Enzymology, 1955, 2:764-775 doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(55)02300-8
[18]	赵世杰, 刘华山, 董新纯.植物生理学实验指导[M].北京:中国农业科技出版社, 1998 ZHAO S J, LIU H S, DONG X C. Plant Physiology Experiment Instruction[M]. Beijing:China Agriculture Science and Technology Press, 1998
[19]	祁丽婷, 李中青, 李齐霞, 等. 4种除草剂对玉米田杂草防除和玉米生长、产量的影响[J].山西农业科学, 2016, 44(10):1519-1521 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-CYCP201301010.htm QI L T, LI Z Q, LI Q X, et al. Effect of 4 herbicides on weed control and the growth, yield of maize[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 44(10):1519-1521 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-CYCP201301010.htm
[20]	胡景平, 李敏权, 杨发荣, 等. 11种除草剂对全膜双垄沟播玉米田杂草的防治效果[J].杂草科学, 2013, 31(3):26-31 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZCKX201303006.htm HU J P, LI M Q, YANG F R, et al. Weed control effect of 11 herbicides in the whole film and double furrow sowing corn field[J]. Weed Science, 2013, 31(3):26-31 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZCKX201303006.htm
[21]	张玉聚, 孙化田, 王春生.除草剂及其混用与农田杂草化学防治[M].北京:中国农业科技出版社, 2000:37-44 ZHANG Y J, SUN H T, WANG C S. Herbicide and Its Mixture with Chemical Control of Field Weeds[M]. Beijing:China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000:37-44
[22]	李萍, 杨小环, 王宏富, 等.不同谷子[Setaria italica (L.) Beauv]品种对除草剂的耐药性[J].生态学报, 2009, 29(2):860-868 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNXB504.003.htm LI P, YANG X H, WANG H F, et al. The tolerance of different millet[Setariaitalica (L.) Beauv] cultivars to herbicides[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009, 29(2):860-868 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNXB504.003.htm
[23]	黄顶成, 尤民生, 侯有明, 等.化学除草剂对农田生物群落的影响[J].生态学报, 2005, 25(6):1451-1458 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/1a0698c776a20029bd642d99-3.html HUANG D C, YOU M S, HOU Y M, et al. Effects of chemical herbicides on bio-communities in agroecosystems[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2005, 25(6):1451-1458 https://www.wenkuxiazai.com/doc/1a0698c776a20029bd642d99-3.html
[24]	张定一, 杨武德, 党建友, 等.除草剂对强筋小麦产量及生理特性的影响[J].应用与环境生物学报, 2007, 13(3):294-300 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/98345X/200703/24860205.html ZHANG D Y, YANG W D, DANG J Y, et al. Effects of herbicides on grain yield and physiological characteristics of strong gluten wheat[J]. Chinese Journal of Application and Environmental Biology, 2007, 13(3):294-300 http://www.cqvip.com/QK/98345X/200703/24860205.html