全 文 ：麦类作物学报　 2002, 22( 3): 51～ 54
Journa l of T riticeae Crops
The Effect of Sequential and Mixed Appl ication
of Herbicides on Control of Littleseed Canary
Grass in Wheat Field

Sardana Virender
1 , Brar Lall Singh
1 , Mahjan Gulshan
1 , ZHANG Guo-ping
2
( 1. Punjab Agricultural Univ ersi ty Regional Research Station, Gurdaspur, India;　 2. Agronomy Departmen t,
Zhejiang Univ ersi ty, Hang zh ou 310029, China)
Abstract: Littleseed canary g rass ( Phalaris minor Retz) is a majo r weed in w hea t field par ticular ly in the
rice-wheat cropping system. Isopr oturon ha s been used for contro l of littleseed canary g rass for about two decades with
rema rkable success. However , recent repo rts have indicated tha t this weed has developed resistance to isoproturon. An
attempt was, therefo re, made to study th e efficacy of differ ent herbicides applied a lone, in sequence o r a s tank mix ture
to contro l this t roublesome w eed in w hea t field. At 60 DAS ( day a fter sowing ) , application of trifluralin as pre-em
follow ed by application of isoproturon AFI ( af ter first ir riga tion) caused the maximum reduction in w eed popula tion,
but at harv est, applica tion of sulfasulfuron applied AFI had the same effec t in w eed control. Although isoproturon
produced the maximum g rain yield closely fo llow ed by clodinafop, sequential applica tion o f some herbicides also provided
effec tiv e w eed contro l and produced significantly higher seed yield than w eedy ch eck. So wh ere there is a problem of
isoproturon resistance to lit tleseed cana ry g rass, these alternate h erbicides may be used.
Key Words: Herbicides; Phalaris minor; Wheat; Yield
中图分类号: S 512. 1; S 435. 1　　　　文献标识码: A　　　　文章编号: 1009-1041( 2002) 02-0051-04
不同除草剂单独相继使用和混合使用防除小麦田 草的效果比较
Sardana Virender
1
, Brar Lall Singh
1
, Mahajan Gulshan
1
, 张国平 2
( 1. 印度旁遮普农业大学地区研究站 ;　 2. 浙江大学农学系 , 杭州 310029)
摘　要: 　草是小麦田的主要杂草 ,尤其是水稻—小麦复种田块发生较为严重。 用异丙隆防除　草已有 20
多年的历史 ,防治效果十分显著。但近来有研究表明　草已具有对异丙隆的抗性。本试验研究了不同除草剂
单独相继使用与混合使用对该杂草的防治效果。结果表明 ,播后 60 d,出苗前喷施氟乐灵和第一次灌水后喷
施异丙隆的处理 ,除草效果最佳 ,而在成熟期 ,第一次灌水后喷施噻黄隆的处理具有与以上处理同样的防治
效果。 虽然使用异丙隆的处理产量最高 ,但一些除草剂单独相继使用也具有很好的杂草防治效果 ,小麦产量
显著高于未用除草剂的对照。作者认为 ,在　草防治上存在有异丙隆抗性的地区 ,可以使用本研究中的一些
除草剂。
关键词:除草剂 ; 草 ; 小麦 ; 产量
1　 Introduction
India ranks second in whea t ( Triticum aestivum L. ) production in the wo rld after China. Availabili ty of
Reciv ed date: 2002-01-30　　　　 Returned date: 2002-04-07
Fund project: Supported by the Education Minist ry of China.
　 Author introduction: Sardana Virender, Associate Professor in Punjab Agricultural University, India. He is presently w orking as a Senior
Scholar in Ag ronomy Department, Zh ejiang University, Hang zh ou, China.
high yielding varieties of w heat coupled with appropriate management technologies and expansion of irrigation
facili ties have resulted in continuous increase in the production and productivi ty of wheat. How ever, weeds
continue to be a serious problem in harnessing the potential yield of w heat. Li tt leseed canary grass ( Phalaris
minor Retz) is a serious w eed throughout wheat g rowing areas of north-w estern plains zone in India particularly
in the rice-wheat cropping system. Due to i ts morphological similari ty , simultaneous emergence, rapid g row th
and similar growing conditions as that required for wheat, high cost and non availabili ty of labor, manual
control of this w eed is not feasible. Moreover i ts germination is wide spread over a long period further adding to
the problem in its manual w eed control.
Herbicides are a potent means of cont rolling w eeds from early stage. Isopro turon has been successfully used
for the control of lit tleseed canary g rass during last about two decades but now i ts ef ficacy has reduced in several
pa rts of w heat g rowing zones due to development of resistance in li ttle seed canary g rass to isoproturon ( Malik
and Singh, 1993; Waliaet al . , 1997) . Therefo re this scenario , it is imperativ e to investigate the effect of other
herbicides applied alone or along wi th isoproturon and thei r application in sequence or as tank mix ture in
controlling lit tleseed canary g rass so as to increase the productivi ty of wheat.
2　Materials and Methods
The experiment w as conducted at the Punjab Ag ricultural Univ ersi ty Regional Research Station,
Gurdaspur ( 32°02′N, 75°22′E, 250 M SL) during winter season of 2000～ 2001 on the sandy loam soil ( Typic
ustochrept ) . The soil w as neutral in reaction ( pH, 7. 0) , low in org anic carbon ( 0. 37% ) and available
potassium ( Ammonium acetate ex t ractable K, 75 kg /hm
2 ) and medium in available phospho rus ( Olsens P,
18. 5 kg /hm
2 ) . Fif teen treatments comprising different herbicides applied alone as pre emergence ( pre-em ) ,
before or af ter first irrigation ( BFI /AFI) , in sequence as pre-em. and AFI or as their tank mix ture AFI w ere
tested in randomized block design. The exact dose( s) and sequence of application of herbicides are mentioned in
Tables 1 and 2.
Tabl e 1　 Effect of dif f erent herbicides on the population and dry matter accumul ation of l ittleseed canary grass
Herbicides
Time of
application
Dose
( kg /hm2)
Population of li tt leseed
canary grass
60 DAS At harv est
Dry mat ter
at harves t
(g /0. 25 m2 )
Pendimethalin Pre-em. 2 0. 75 1. 92( 2. 83) 1 1. 76( 2. 17) 3. 55( 11. 67)
Pendimethalin BFI 0. 75 2. 31( 4. 33) 2. 66( 6. 67) 3. 78( 13. 37)
Isoprotu ron BFI 0. 94 3. 12( 9. 17) 2. 64( 6. 33) 4. 25( 17. 23)
Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 94 1. 90( 2. 67) 1. 91( 2. 67) 2. 42( 4. 93)
Trif luralin BFI 0. 75 2. 15( 3. 67) 1. 90( 2. 67) 3. 01( 7. 50)
Trif luralin AFI 0. 75 4. 16( 16. 3) 3. 34( 10. 67) 5. 11( 26. 0)
Pendimethalin + 3 Pre-em. 0. 75 1. 40( 1. 0) 1. 51( 1. 33) 1. 52( 1. 87)
　　 Isoproturon AFI 0. 94
Pendimethalin + Pre-em. 0. 75 1. 91( 3. 0) 1. 62( 1. 67) 2. 31( 5. 77)
　　 Trif luralin AFI 0. 75
Trif luralin + Pre-em. 0. 75 1. 07( 0. 17) 1. 27( 0. 67) 1. 0( 0. 0)
　　 Isoproturon AFI 0. 94
Pendimethalin + BFI 0. 75 1. 47( 1. 17) 1. 47( 1. 33) 2. 32( 5. 27)
　　 Isoproturon AFI 0. 75
Trif luralin + AFI 0. 75 2. 25( 5. 17) 1. 97( 3. 0) 4. 01( 16. 7)
　　 Isoproturon AFI 0. 75
Fenoxaprop AFI 0. 10 2. 0( 3. 0) 1. 99( 3. 0) 3. 26( 9. 90)
Clodinafop AFI 0. 06 1. 56( 1. 5) 1. 19( 0. 5) 1. 10( 0. 23)
Sulfasulfu ron AFI 0. 03 1. 88( 2. 67) 1. 0( 0. 0) 1. 0( 0. 0)
Weedy ch eck - - 4. 77( 21. 8) 3. 89( 14. 2) 6. 3( 39. 2)
C. D. ( P= 0. 05) 0. 78 0. 69 1. 37
Note: 　 1 V alues in parenthesis are the original values;
　 2 Pre-em. , Pre emergence; BFI, Before first i rrigation; AFI, Af ter fi rs t i rrigation;
　 3+ , pres enting mixed application of tw o h erbicides.
·52· 麦　类　作　物　学　报 22卷
Wheat v ariety PBW 343 w as sow n on 23, November 2000 with seed rate of 100 kg /hm
2
and row to row
spacing of 23 cm. The crop was raised in acco rdance wi th locally recommended ag ronomic practices except for
w eed control. The g ross plo t size was 6. 9 m2 ( 5. 0 m× 1. 38 m) and the net plot size was 3. 68 m2 ( 4. 0 m×
0. 92 m) . The crop received three irrigations in the whole g row th period and was harvested on 23, May 2001.
Table 2　 Ef fect of diff erent herbicides on the germination, plant height and tillers per pl ant of wheat
Herbicides
Tim e of
application
Dose
(k g /hm2 )
Germination
per meter row
Plant h eigh t
( cm )
Tillers
per plant
Pendimethalin Pre-em. 0. 75 32. 8 81. 1 3. 8
Pendimethalin BFI 0. 75 32. 1 78. 7 3. 7
Isoproturon BFI 0. 94 32. 8 80. 5 4. 0
Isoproturon AFI 0. 94 30. 5 79. 1 4. 4
Trif luralin BFI 0. 75 29. 1 76. 7 4. 4
Trif luralin AFI 0. 75 27. 7 82. 1 4. 2
Pendimethalin + Pre-em. 0. 75 29. 8 75. 5 4. 0
　　 Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 94
Pendimethalin + Pre-em. 0. 75 30. 8 80. 5 3. 8
　　 Trif luralin AFI 0. 75
Trif luralin + Pre-em. 0. 75 32. 0 77. 9 3. 9
　　 Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 94
Pendimethalin + BFI 0. 75 30. 9 79. 5 3. 9
　　 Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 75
Trif luralin + AFI 0. 75 32. 4 79. 2 3. 3
　　 Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 75
Fenox aprop AFI 0. 10 33. 4 83. 2 4. 2
Clodinafop AFI 0. 06 29. 6 77. 2 4. 0
Sulfasulfuron AFI 0. 03 30. 6 75. 6 4. 2
Weedy ch eck - - 34. 8 81. 2 3. 4
C. D. ( P= 0. 05) NS* NS 0. 7
Note: NS is not signifi can t for th e dif ferences.
The pre-em herbicides w ere sprayed one day af ter sow ing through knap sack sprayer fi tted wi th flat fan
nozzle at the rate of 500 lit res /hm
2
of spray solution. For t reatments comprising BFI, herbicides w ere sprayed 3
day s before first irrig ation which w as applied 21 days af ter sow ing ( DAS) . The herbicides applied AFI w ere
sprayed 30 DAS. The li tt leseed canary grass popula tion was reco rded at 60 DAS and at harv est by placing a 0. 5
m× 0. 5 m quadrate at 2 randomly selected spots in each plo t. The dry matter accumulation of this weed at
harv est w as also reco rded through measuring quadrate of the same size. The data of w eed population and dry
ma tter accumulation were subjected to square root t ransformation ( X+ 1) to normalize thei r distribution before
statistical analysis using standard procedure fo r RBD.
3　 Results and discussion
Application of herbicides significantly influenced the population and dry matter accumulation of li ttleseed
canary g rass as compa red to control ( table 1) . At 60 DAS, application of t rifluralin as pre-em follow ed by
( FB) application of isopro turon AFI caused the maximum reduction in w eed population. However, a t harvest,
the low est number and minimum dry matter accumulation of li tt leseed canary g rass w ere recorded wi th
application of sulfasulfuron applied AFI w hich was at par with application of t rifluralin as pre-em FB isopro turon
AFI t reatment and clodinafop applied AFI. Similar ef fect of post-emergence application of herbicides on
li tt leseed canary g rass control has been reported by Sharma et al . ( 1999) . Application of trif luralin AFI,
pendimethalin and isoproturon both applied BFI w ere least effective in arresting w eed population and reducing
its dry mat ter accumulation as compared to o ther herbicides.
The effect of di fferent t reatments on wheat yield and related parameters w as show n in tables 2 and 3. It
may be seen that the maximum g rain yield w as obtained w ith isoproturon applied AFI ( 5. 13 t / hm
2 ) whereas
the control reco rded the low est yield ( 3. 32 t /hm
2
) . All the t reatments except pendimethalin BFI ( 3. 91 t /
·53·3期 Sardana V irender等:不同除草剂单独相继使用和混合使用防除小麦田 草的效果比较
hm
2
) and tri fluralin AFI ( 3. 41 t /hm
2
) produced significantly higher g rain yield than that of control ( Table 3) .
Barrentine and Warren ( 1971) and Olsen and McKercher ( 1985) had also reported the adverse effect of
tri fluralin on root g row th of wheat and other monocot seedling s. The maximum g rain yield registered wi th
isoproturon applied AFI w as at par with that of clodinafop AFI ( 4. 85 t /hm2 ) w hich in turn was statistically
similar to pendimethalin pre-em FB trif luralin AFI ( 4. 61 t /hm
2
) , trif luralin pre-em FB isoproturon AFI ( 4. 61
t /hm
2 ) , fenoxaprop-p-ethyl AFI ( 4. 46 t /hm
2 ) and sulfasulfuron AFI ( 4. 40 t /hm
2 ) . The increase in g rain
yield w ith herbicide application was due to bet ter w eed control, leading to the improvement in number of tillers /
plant ( Table 2) and number of spikes /m2 ( Table 3) as compared to control. Isopro turon as w ell as clodinafop
both applied AFI also produced significant ly higher number of spikes /m
2
and tillers /plant than that of other
treatments. Different herbicides applied BFI were no t as ef fective as that of isoproturon, clodinafop,
sulfasulfuron and fenoxaprop-p-ethy l which were applied AFI in arresting w eed population and increasing g rain
yield of w heat. This study indicated that isoproturon applied AFI w as the most ef fectiv e herbicide in controlling
li tt leseed canary g rass and in increasing g rain yield of wheat. How ever, in si tuations where i ts application led to
poo r control of lit tleseed canary g rass, clodinafop o r even sulfasulfuron and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl may be used as
post emergence ( AFI) for desireable weed control and higher grain yield.
Table 3　 Ef fect of diff erent herbicides on the grain yield components and yield of wheat
Herbicides
Time of
application
Dose
(kg /hm2 )
Spik es
per m2
Spike leng th
(cm)
Grains
per spike
1000-grain w eight
( g)
Grain yield
( t /hm2 )
St raw yield
( t /hm2)
Pendimethalin Pre-em. 0. 75 309. 7 8. 0 36. 9 47. 5 4. 06 7. 81
Pendimethalin B FI 0. 75 292. 7 8. 4 36. 1 46. 7 3. 91 6. 93
Isoprotu ron B FI 0. 94 288. 7 8. 7 32. 8 47. 4 4. 29 7. 32
Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 94 326. 7 8. 5 33. 2 46. 2 5. 13 8. 36
Trif luralin B FI 0. 75 280. 7 8. 2 33. 6 46. 3 4. 58 7. 55
Trif luralin AFI 0. 75 295. 7 8. 5 41. 7 46. 4 3. 41 8. 36
Pendimethalin + Pre-em. 0. 75 279. 7 8. 4 36. 2 46. 3 4. 06 7. 65
　　 Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 94
Pendimethalin + Pre-em. 0. 75 303. 7 8. 3 37. 8 48. 4 4. 61 8. 67
　　 Trif luralin AFI 0. 75
Trif luralin + Pre-em. 0. 75 300. 7 8. 6 30. 7 45. 8 4. 61 7. 63
　　 Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 94
Pendimethalin + B FI 0. 75 308. 0 8. 7 36. 0 46. 9 4. 17 7. 81
　　 Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 75
Trif luralin + AFI 0. 75 289. 7 8. 6 37. 4 47. 0 4. 12 7. 97
　　 Isoprotu ron AFI 0. 75
Fenoxaprop AFI 0. 10 312. 7 8. 1 34. 7 46. 1 4. 46 7. 32
Clodinafop AFI 0. 06 326. 0 8. 5 34. 2 48. 0 4. 85 7. 71
Sulfasulfuron AFI 0. 03 300. 7 8. 0 35. 7 46. 3 4. 40 7. 73
Weedy ch eck - - 291. 0 8. 3 32. 9 46. 2 3. 32 7. 86
C. D. ( P= 0. 05) 20. 8 N S N S NS 0. 63 N S
References:
[1 ]　 Barrent ine B L, Warren G F. Di fferential phytotoxicity of trif luralin and ni t ralin [ J]. Weed Science, 1971, 19: 31— 37.
[2 ]　 Malik R K, Singh , Samunder. Evolving st rategy for h erbicide use in w heat. Resistance and in teg rated w heat management [ A] . Proceedings
ISW S, International Symposium on Weed managem ent for Sus tainable Agricultu re [C ]. 1993, 1: 215— 218.
[3 ]　 Olson B M, McKerch er R B. Wheat and t ri ticale root developmen t as affected by trif luralin [ J] . Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 1985, 65
: 723— 729.
[4 ]　 Sharma B D, Nanw al R K, Panw ar R S. Evaluation of h erbicidesfor w eed cont rol in wh eat ( Triticum aestivum ) [ J] . Indian Journal of Weed
Science, 1999, 31: 99— 100.
[5 ]　 Walia U S, Brar L S, Dhaliw al B K. Resis tance to isoprotu ron in Phalari s minor Retz [ J] . Plant Protection Quarterly, 1997, 12: 138— 140.
[本文责任编辑:许育彬 ]
·54· 麦　类　作　物　学　报 22卷