除草剂与安全剂混用对杂草防效及糜子安全性的影响

林瑞嫦; 王婉; 高小丽

doi:10.16801/j.issn.1008-7303.2021.0159

除草剂与安全剂混用对杂草防效及糜子安全性的影响

doi: 10.16801/j.issn.1008-7303.2021.0159

林瑞嫦^1,,
王婉²,
高小丽^1, ,

1.
西北农林科技大学农学院/旱区作物逆境生物学国家重点实验室，陕西杨凌 712100
2.
昆明市种子管理站，昆明 650100

基金项目: 国家谷子高粱产业技术体系项目 (CARS-06-13.5-A26)和陕西省重点研发计划项目 (2018TSCXL-NY-03-01)

详细信息

作者简介:
林瑞嫦，1512723575@qq.com

通讯作者:
高小丽，gao2123@nwsuaf.edu.cn.

中图分类号: S481.9；S482.4
计量
- 文章访问数: 93
- HTML全文浏览量: 53
- PDF下载量: 28
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-03-29
- 录用日期: 2021-10-13
- 网络出版日期: 2021-10-25
- 刊出日期: 2022-04-10

Effects of the application of herbicides mixed with safeners on weeds control efficacy and the safety to proso millet

LIN Ruichang^1
,,
WANG Wan²,
GAO Xiaoli^{1
, ,}

1.
College of Agronomy, Northwest A&F University/State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology for Arid Areas, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China
2.
Kunming Seed Management Station, Kunming 650100, China

Funds: the National Millet and Sorghum Research and Development System(CARS-06-13.5-A26), the Key R&D Program of Shanxi Province(2018TSCXL-NY-03-01)

摘要

摘要: 为探讨除草剂与安全剂混用对杂草的防治效果及对糜子安全性的影响，以‘榆糜2号’为试验材料，在糜子三叶期选取两种茎叶型除草剂——阔世玛 (3.6% 二磺 • 甲碘隆水分散粒剂)和锐超麦 (20% 双氟 • 氟氯酯可湿性粉剂)与两种安全剂——芸苔素内酯(brassinolide, BR )和赤霉素(gibbrellic acid, GA)进行混合喷施，同时设置人工除草对照 (CK1)和清水对照 (CK2)，测定药害指数、杂草防效、糜子叶片叶绿素相对含量、叶片活性氧代谢、地上生物量与产量的变化。结果表明：BR可完全消除低剂量阔世玛的药害，使高剂量阔世玛的平均药害指数显著下降58.2%；GA可完全消除低剂量锐超麦的药害，使高剂量锐超麦的平均药害指数显著下降81.7%；添加安全剂后药剂的杂草防效降低1.7%~18.0%，但总体防效较好。除草剂与安全剂混用，在一定程度上提高了糜子叶片超氧化物歧化酶 (SOD)活性和叶绿素含量，显著降低了丙二醛 (MDA)含量；与单施除草剂相比，低剂量阔世玛、高剂量阔世玛与BR混合喷施后，糜子叶片SOD活性分别在抽穗后7 d及28 d内明显上升；锐超麦与BR或GA混合喷施后，糜子叶片SOD活性在抽穗后7 d内显著升高。与单施除草剂相比，阔世玛与BR或GA混合喷施，在糜子抽穗后21~28 d时地上生物量显著增加；低剂量锐超麦与BR混用在抽穗后14 d内以及高剂量锐超麦与GA混用在抽穗后28 d内，地上生物量显著增加。除草剂与安全剂混合喷施后显著增加了糜子产量，其中，600 g/hm² 的阔世玛与0.015 g/hm² 的BR混用、100 g/hm² 的锐超麦与14.7 g/hm² 的GA混用的产量最高，分别较CK2增加了26.1%和27.9%，比单施除草剂的分别增产了4.6%和11.6%。研究结果可为糜子田除草剂的安全应用及利用植物生长调节剂缓解除草剂药害提供科学依据。
- 糜子 /
- 阔世玛(3.6% 二磺 • 甲碘隆水分散粒剂) /
- 锐超麦(20% 双氟 • 氟氯酯可湿性粉剂) /
- 芸苔素内酯 /
- 赤霉素 /
- 杂草防效 /
- 药害缓解
Abstract: To evaluate the effect of herbicides mixed with safeners on weeds control efficacy and the safety to proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) at high- and low- dosages of herbicides, Sigma broad (mesosulfuron-methyl + iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium 3.6% WG) and Quelex (halauxifen-methyl + florasulam 20% WP), were mixed with safeners, brassinolide (BR) or gibberellic acid (GA), and sprayed on the leaves and stems of ‘Yumi-2’ cultivar at three-leaf stage. Meanwhile, artificial weeding (control check 1, CK1) and tap water (control check 2, CK2) were included. The phytotoxicity index, control efficacy of weed, relative chlorophyll content, and active oxygen metabolism in leaves, shoot biomass, and seed yields were measured. The results showed that: BR eliminated the phytotoxicity of Sigma broad herbicide at low dosage, and 11.5% reduction of phytotoxicity index at high dosage; GA eliminated the phytotoxicity of low-dose Quelex herbicide and 40.9% reduction of phytotoxicity index of high-dose Quelex herbicide. However, the control effect of weed decreased 1.7%-18.0% in the treatments of herbicides and safener combinations. Application of herbicide plus safener increased the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and chlorophyll content to some extent and decreased the content of malondialdehyde (MDA) significantly in proso millet leaves. Compared with the single application of herbicide, the SOD activity in the leaves of proso millet increased in the treatments of low- and high-dose Sigma broad herbicide mixed with BR at 7 d and 28 d after heading stage, and in the treatments of Quelex herbicide mixed with BR or GA at 7d after heading stage. Compared with the single application of herbicide, the shoot biomass of proso millet increased significantly in the treatments of Sigma broad herbicide mixed with BR or GA at 21-28 d after heading stage, and low-dose Quelex mixed with BR at 14 d after heading stage, and high-dose Quelex mixed with GA at 28 d after heading stage. The treatments with the mixture of herbicides and safener increased the seed yield of proso millet. The maximum yield was gained in the treatments of 600 g/hm² Sigma broad herbicide mixed with 0.015 g/hm²BR and 100 g/hm² Quelex herbicide mixed with 14.7 g/hm²GA, with 26.1% and 27.9% higher than the control of CK2, and 4.6% and 11.6% higher than the herbicide application only, respectively. The results could provide a scientific basis for the safety application of herbicides in broomcorn millet field and the use of plant growth regulators to alleviate herbicide phytotoxicity.

HTML全文

图 1 除草剂与安全剂混用对糜子叶片SOD活性的影响

注：柱上不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著 (P < 0.05)。

Figure 1. Effect of herbicides mixed with safeners on the SOD activity of proso millet leaves

Note: Different letters on the column mean significant difference at P < 0.05 level.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 除草剂与安全剂混用对糜子叶片MDA含量的影响

注：柱上不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著 (P < 0.05)。

Figure 2. Effect of herbicides mixed with safeners on the MDA content of proso millet leaves

Note: Different letters on the column mean significant difference at P < 0.05 level.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 除草剂与安全剂混用对糜子地上部生物量的影响

注：柱上不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著 (P < 0.05)。

Figure 3. Effect of herbicides mixed with safeners on the shoot biomass of proso millet

Note: Different letters on the column mean significant difference at P < 0.05 level.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 试验处理

Table 1. Experimental treatments

处理编号 Traetment code	药剂 Agent	有效成分用量 Dosage of effective component, a.i/(g/hm² )
T1	阔世玛 Sigma broad	450
T2	阔世玛 + 芸苔素内酯 Sigma broad +BR	450 + 0.015
T3	阔世玛 + 赤霉素 Sigma broad + GA	450 + 14.7
T4	阔世玛 Sigma broad	600
T5	阔世玛 + 芸苔素内酯 Sigma broad + BR	600 + 0.015
T6	阔世玛 + 赤霉素 Sigma broad + GA	600 + 14.7
T7	锐超麦 Quelex	86
T8	锐超麦 + 芸苔素内酯 Quelex + BR	86 + 0.015
T9	锐超麦 + 赤霉素 Quelex + GA	86 + 14.7
T10	锐超麦 Quelex	100
T11	锐超麦 + 芸苔素内酯 Quelex + BR	100 + 0.015
T12	锐超麦 + 赤霉素 Quelex + GA	100 + 14.7
CK1	—	—
CK2	—	—
注 (Note): BR = brassinolide; GA = gibbrellic acid.

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 除草剂与安全剂混用对杂草鲜重防效及药害指数的影响

Table 2. Effect of herbicides mixed with safeners on weeds’ fresh weight control efficacy and phytotoxicity index of herbicides

处理 Treatment	杂草鲜重防效 Weeds’ fresh weight control efficacy/%					平均药害指数 Average phytotoxicity index
处理 Treatment	14 d	21 d	28 d	35 d	42 d	平均药害指数 Average phytotoxicity index
T1	73.1 ± 10.1 b	66.5 ± 9.3 c	72.4 ± 21.6 ab	65.7 ± 7.2 b	60.4 ± 4.3 b	14.63 ± 2.30 f
T2	66.4 ± 25.1 c	69.1 ± 11.2 c	61.5 ± 2.7 b	54.4 ± 9.4 c	42.9 ± 17.5 d	—
T3	75.9 ± 17.3 b	69.5 ± 8.9 c	71.3 ± 16.2 b	68.7 ± 8.1 b	60.2 ± 15.6 b	11.18 ± 2.85 g
T4	87.1 ± 5.0 a	82.3 ± 14.5 a	79.5 ± 5.6 a	86.6 ± 2.4 a	86.0 ± 8.6 a	19.79 ± 4.23 e
T5	79.2 ± 2.7 b	80.1 ± 3.2 a	75.5 ± 9.4 ab	69.1 ± 7.1 b	54.8 ± 9.8 c	8.27 ± 1.26 h
T6	74.7 ± 9.3 b	70.3 ± 7.3 b	69.7 ± 10.2 b	64.5 ± 4.6 b	52.1 ± 21.7 c	31.37 ± 4.69 c
T7	82.7 ± 3.5 a	82.2 ± 6.9 b	84.6 ± 2.3 a	84.8 ± 0.8 a	80.5 ± 4.6 a	33.85 ± 4.51 b
T8	80.2 ± 7.9 a	81.6 ± 9.4 b	79.4 ± 9.6 b	78.5 ± 2.9 b	74.2 ± 0.5 b	17.81 ± 3.04 e
T9	84.3 ± 10.5 a	85.5 ± 12.5 a	79.8 ± 7.0 b	76.7 ± 13.4 b	80.0 ± 2.7 a	—
T10	88.3 ± 5.4 a	87.6 ± 11.0 a	84.3 ± 6.1 a	84.5 ± 3.5 a	83.1 ± 10.0 a	50.01 ± 6.20 a
T11	80.4 ± 17.8 a	80.2 ± 8.7 b	72.1 ± 2.3 b	78.3 ± 12.6 b	74.6 ± 2.9 b	26.43 ± 5.24 d
T12	79.6 ± 3.2 b	80.1 ± 10.9 b	77.8 ± 9.3 b	81.2 ± 25.1 a	76.5 ± 1.3 b	9.13 ± 0.91 gh
注：同列不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著 (P < 0.05)。Note: Different letters in the same column values indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 level by Duncan’s multiple range test.

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 除草剂与安全剂混用对糜子叶片叶绿素含量的影响

Table 3. Effect of herbicides mixed with safeners on the chlorophyll content of proso millet leaves

处理 Treatment	叶绿素含量 Chlorophyll content/%
处理 Treatment	0 d	7 d	14 d	21 d	28 d
CK1	37.2 ± 2.9 a	39.5 ± 4.7 a	41.3 ± 2.3 a	42.4 ± 3.6 a	39.6 ± 0.7 a
CK2	34.3 ± 0.4 b	37.2 ± 1.2 b	39.1 ± 1.7 b	38.7 ± 2.2 c	35.2 ± 4.0 b
T1	34.1 ± 3.4 b	35.7 ± 3.7 c	39.1 ± 5.8 b	37.6 ± 1.1 c	37.0 ± 0.9 ab
T2	36.8 ± 1.4a	38.7 ± 0.8 ab	40.5 ± 0.3 ab	41.5 ± 1.6 ab	39.2 ± 4.9 a
T3	37.0 ± 3.6 a	40.1 ± 4.5 a	42.5 ± 2.7 a	41.6 ± 2.8 ab	37.3 ± 5.5 ab
T4	36.8 ± 6.0 a	39.7 ± 3.8 a	40.6 ± 0.2 ab	39.0 ± 2.1 c	37.2 ± 1.5 ab
T5	34.9 ± 3.1 b	37.1 ± 1.6 b	39.4 ± 3.6 b	38.5 ± 0.7 c	37.9 ± 1.0 ab
T6	35.1 ± 6.3 b	38.0 ± 0.6 b	41.2 ± 3.9 a	40.1 ± 1.9 b	38.6 ± 4.3 ab
T7	31.1 ± 2.7 c	34.2 ± 0.3 c	37.9 ± 5.4 bc	38.0 ± 4.1 c	36.3 ± 3.5 b
T8	34.8 ± 4.3 b	39.1 ± 4.1 a	42.6 ± 5.1 a	43.7 ± 5.6 a	40.2 ± 3.3 a
T9	34.6 ± 1.9 b	38.7 ± 2.2 a	41.5 ± 1.3 a	44.0 ± 3.2 a	39.6 ± 2.4 a
T10	29.2 ± 1.1 d	31.5 ± 2.5 d	36.0 ± 2.8 c	36.9 ± 4.9 d	28.8 ± 2.0 d
T11	32.7 ± 1.8 c	35.7 ± 3.2 c	39.8 ± 4.7 a	40.1 ± 6.0 b	37.6 ± 1.2 b
T12	33.5 ± 2.6 c	34.4 ± 0.5 c	38.2 ± 4.2 b	39.9 ± 3.9 b	34.3 ± 5.3 c
注：同列不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著 (P < 0.05)。Note: Different letters in the same column mean significant difference at P < 0.05 level.

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 除草剂与安全剂混用对糜子产量的影响

Table 4. Effect of herbicides mixed with safeners on the yield of proso millet

处理 Treatment	千粒重 1000−seed mass/ g	产量 Grain yield/ (kg/hm²)	与对照相比 Compared with control
处理 Treatment	千粒重 1000−seed mass/ g	产量 Grain yield/ (kg/hm²)	With CK1	With CK2
CK1	9.23 ± 0.0 a	2937.0 ± 80.1 a	—	—
CK2	9.72 ± 0.4 a	2164.0 ± 14.6 d	—	—
T1	9.35 ± 0.3 a	2556.0 ± 21.3 c	−13.0	18.1
T2	9.11 ± 0.2 a	2584.0 ± 55.9 c	−12.0	19.4
T3	9.81 ± 0.2 a	2683.0 ± 39.1 bc	−8.6	24.0
T4	9.39 ± 0.1 a	2586.0 ± 40.8 c	−11.9	19.5
T5	9.61 ± 0.5 a	2706.0 ±22.7 b	−7.9	26.1
T6	9.37 ± 0.1 a	2666.0 ± 99.1b c	−9.2	23.2
T7	9.64 ± 0.2 a	2494.0 ± 33.3 c	−15.1	16.2
T8	9.47 ± 0.1a	2701.0 ± 76.7 b	−8.0	24.8
T9	9.43 ± 0.4 a	2714.0 ± 20.2 b	−7.6	25.4
T10	9.60 ± 0.5 a	2480.0 ± 54.1 c	−15.6	14.6
T11	9.29 ± 0.1 a	2583.0 ± 12.6 c	−12.1	19.4
T12	9.35 ± 0.2 a	2768.0 ± 27.3 b	−5.8	27.9
注：同列不同字母表示不同处理间差异显著 (P < 0.05) 。Note: Different letters in the same column meant significant difference at P < 0.05 level.

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(38)

[1]	柴岩. 糜子[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1999. CHAI Y. Broomcorn millet[M]. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1999.
[2]	查顺清, 戴蓬博, 冯佰利, 等. 陕北地区糜子田杂草组成及群落特征[J]. 西北农业学报, 2014, 23(5): 164-170. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2014.05.026 ZHA S Q, DAI P B, FENG B L, et al. Species composition and characterization of weed community in broomcorn millet fields in Northern Shaanxi[J]. Acta Agric Boreali-Occident Sin, 2014, 23(5): 164-170. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1004-1389.2014.05.026
[3]	周燕芝, 王文霞, 陈丽明, 等. 直播稻田杂草发生与防除研究进展[J]. 作物杂志, 2019(4): 1-9. ZHOU Y Z, WANG W X, CHEN L M, et al. Progress on weed occurrence and control in direct seeded rice fields[J]. Crops, 2019(4): 1-9.
[4]	赵颖楠, 字雪靖, 王婉, 等. 不同除草剂的田间杂草防效及对糜子生长发育的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2020, 31(7): 2415-2421. ZHAO Y N, ZI X J, WANG W, et al. Control effects of different herbicides on weeds as well as their effects on growth and development of broomcorn millet[J]. Chin J Appl Ecol, 2020, 31(7): 2415-2421.
[5]	徐田军, 吕天放, 赵久然, 等. 除草剂对不同玉米品种生长发育和产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2018, 26(8): 1159-1169. XU T J, LYU T F, ZHAO J R, et al. Effects of herbicides on growth, development and yield of different maize varieties[J]. Chin J Eco-Agric, 2018, 26(8): 1159-1169.
[6]	原向阳, 郭平毅, 张丽光, 等. 干旱胁迫下草甘膦对抗草甘膦大豆幼苗保护酶活性及脂质过氧化作用的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2010, 43(4): 698-705. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2010.04.005 YUAN X Y, GUO P Y, ZHANG L G, et al. Glyphosate and post-drought rewatering on protective enzyme activities and membrane lipid peroxidation in leaves of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max (L. ) Merr.) seedlings[J]. Sci Agric Sin, 2010, 43(4): 698-705. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2010.04.005
[7]	XU Q Z, HUANG B R. Antioxidant metabolism associated with summer leaf senescence and turf quality decline for creeping bentgrass[J]. Crop Sci, 2004, 44(2): 553-560. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2004.5530
[8]	WEISMANN D, HARTVIGSEN K, LAUER N, et al. Complement factor H binds malondialdehyde epitopes and protects from oxidative stress[J]. Nature, 2011, 478(7367): 76-81. doi: 10.1038/nature10449
[9]	XIE X J, LI B B, SHEN S H. Impact of high temperature stress on photosynthetic characteristic and yield of rice (Oryza sativa) at heading[J]. Indian J Agric Sci, 2012, 82(6): 516-522.
[10]	黄蕾, 钟妍婷, 余凯凯, 等. 阔世玛对谷子幼苗农艺性状和生理指标的影响[J]. 山西农业大学学报 (自然科学版), 2015, 35(6): 603-607. HUANG L, ZHONG Y T, YU K K, et al. Effects of Sigma Broad on the agronomic characteristics and physiological indices of foxtail millet seedlings[J]. J Shanxi Agric Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2015, 35(6): 603-607.
[11]	RIECHERS D E, KREUZ K, ZHANG Q. Detoxification without intoxication: herbicide safeners activate plant defense gene expression[J]. Plant Physiol, 2010, 153(1): 3-13. doi: 10.1104/pp.110.153601
[12]	胡利锋, 刘小安, 孙兰, 等. 除草剂安全剂作用机理研究进展[J]. 农药学学报, 2017, 19(2): 152-161. HU L F, LIU X A, SUN L, et al. Progresses in the action mechanism of herbicide safeners[J]. Chin J Pestic Sci, 2017, 19(2): 152-161.
[13]	Liu S H, Deng X L, Bai L Y, et al. Developmental toxicity and transcriptome analysis of zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos following exposure to chiral herbicide safener benoxacor[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2021, 761: 143273.
[14]	柏连阳. 除草剂安全剂及其应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2019. BAI L Y. Herbicide-Safener and its application[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2019.
[15]	SASSE J M. Recent progress in brassinosteroid research[J]. Physiologia Plantarum, 2010, 100(3): 696-701.
[16]	SIDDIQUI H, HAYAT S, BAJGUZ A. Regulation of photosynthesis by brassinosteroids in plants[J]. Acta Physiol Plant, 2018, 40(3): 59. doi: 10.1007/s11738-018-2639-2
[17]	罗杰, 陈季楚. 油菜素内酯的生理和分子生物学研究进展[J]. 植物生理学报, 1998, 34(2): 81-87. LUO J, CHEN J C. The physiological and molecular biologicaladvances of brassinosteroids[J]. Acta Phytophysiol Sin, 1998, 34(2): 81-87.
[18]	邓天福, 吴艳兵, 李广领, 等. 油菜素内酯提高植物抗逆性研究进展[J]. 广东农业科学, 2009(11): 21-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-874X.2009.11.005 DENG T F, WU Y B, LI G L, et al. Reviews for plant stress-resistance promoting related to brassinolides[J]. Guangdong Agric Sci, 2009(11): 21-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-874X.2009.11.005
[19]	周小毛, 黄雄英, 柏连阳, 等. 芸苔素内酯保护玉米免受胺苯磺隆伤害的作用及其机理[J]. 植物保护学报, 2005(2): 189-194. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0577-7518.2005.02.016 ZHOU X M, HUANG X Y, BAI L Y, et al. Action and its mechanism of brassinnolide for reducing the phytotoxicity of ethametsulfuron on maize[J]. J Plant Prot, 2005(2): 189-194. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0577-7518.2005.02.016
[20]	OGAWA M, HANADA A, YAMAUCHI Y, et al. Gibberellin biosyn thesis and response during Arabidopsis seed germination[J]. Plant Cell, 2003, 15(7): 1591-1604. doi: 10.1105/tpc.011650
[21]	刘鹏, 郭智慧, 陈旭, 等. 赤霉素在小麦发育及胁迫响应中的作用研究进展[J]. 生物技术进展, 2015, 5(4): 253-258. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-2341.2015.04.01 LIU P, GUO Z H, CHEN X, et al. Progress on function of GA in wheat growth and stress responses[J]. Curr Biotech, 2015, 5(4): 253-258. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-2341.2015.04.01
[22]	曾勍, 邓希乐, 周尚峰, 等. 赤霉素对精异丙甲草胺解毒效果及作用机制[J]. 农药, 2019, 58(7): 519-522. ZENG Q, DENG X L, ZHOU S F, et al. The effect and mechanism of gibberellin alleviate the phytotoxicity of S-metolachlor on rice seedlings[J]. Agrochemicals, 2019, 58(7): 519-522.
[23]	烟草除草剂药害分级及调查方法: YC/T 526—2015[S]. 2015. Grade and investigation method of herbicide phytotoxicity in tobacco: YC/T 526—2015[S]. 2015
[24]	魏福香. 除草剂药害试验方法[J]. 杂草科学, 1992(3): 18-21. WEI F X. Test methods of hebicide injury[J]. Weed Sci, 1992(3): 18-21.
[25]	许雅娟, 赵艳景, 胡虹. 邻苯三酚自氧化法测定超氧化物歧化酶活性的研究[J]. 西南民族大学学报(自然科学版), 2006(6): 1207-1209. XU Y J, ZHAO Y J, HU H. Research on the measurement of the SOD activity via pyrogallol auto-oxidation[J]. J Southwest Minzu Univ (Nat Sci Ed), 2006(6): 1207-1209.
[26]	王学奎. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M]. 2版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2006. WANG X K. Principles and techniques of plant physiology and biochemistry experiment[M]. Second Edition. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2006.
[27]	王恒亮, 葛玉红, 苏旺苍, 等. 不同缓解处理对玉米烟嘧磺隆药害的缓解效果研究[J]. 河南农业科学, 201, 42(11): 81-85. WANG H L, GE Y H, SU W C, et al. Effects of different safener treatments on nicosulfuron's phytotoxicity of maize[J]. J Henan Agric Sci, 2013, 42(11): 81-85.
[28]	冯煜, 赵颖楠, 林瑞嫦, 等. 除草剂配施安全剂对土壤酶活性与糜子根系生理代谢的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(23): 117-123. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2020.23.014 FENG Y, ZHAO Y N, LIN R C, et al. Effects of combined application of safeners and herbicides on soil enzyme and active oxygen metabolism in proso millet[J]. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng, 2020, 36(23): 117-123. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2020.23.014
[29]	武婷婷. 大豆除草剂药害及其有效缓解剂的筛选[D]. 长春: 吉林农业大学, 2014. WU T T. Study on herbicide phytotoxicity in soybean and the selection of effective preventive agents[D]. Changchun: Jilin Agricultural University, 2014.
[30]	王爽. 三种安全剂对单嘧磺隆解毒效应的生测研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北农业大学, 2005: 1-75. WANG S. The research effect of three herbicide safeners on monosulfuron with bioassay method[D]. Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University, 2005: 1-75.
[31]	毕洪梅, 张金艳. 新型除草剂解毒剂减轻氯嘧磺隆残留对玉米的药害作用及机理[J]. 玉米科学, 2012, 20(4): 139-142. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0906.2012.04.031 BI H M, ZHANG J Y. Effect and mechanism of new antidote in protecting maize from the residual injury of chlorimuron[J]. J Maize Sci, 2012, 20(4): 139-142. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-0906.2012.04.031
[32]	JI B H, ZHU S Q, JIAO D M. Photochemical efficiency of PS Ⅱ and membrane lipid peroxidation in leaves of indica and japonica rice (Oryza sativa) under chilling temperature and strong light stress conditions[J]. Acta Bot Sin, 2002, 44: 139-146.
[33]	黄玉山, 罗广华, 关文, 等. 镉诱导植物的自由基过氧化物损伤[J]. 植物学报, 1997, 39(6): 522-526. HUANG Y S, LUO G H, GUAN W, et al. Cadmium induces free radical peroxide damage in plants[J]. Chin Bull Bot, 1997, 39(6): 522-526.
[34]	陶波, 王禹堃, 李德萍, 等. 安全剂AD-67 对精异丙甲草胺解毒效应研究[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2019, 50(1): 29-35. TAO B, WANG Y K, LI D P, et al. Study on detoxification effect of safeners AD-67 on S-metolachlor[J]. J Northeast Agric Univ, 2019, 50(1): 29-35.
[35]	KANE M E. Gibberellins promote flowering in two crytocoryne species[J]. Hortscience, 1995, 30(2): 380. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.30.2.380
[36]	郝红丹, 务玲玲, 李青阳, 等. 不同缓解药剂对萝卜仲丁灵药害的缓解作用[J]. 农药, 2015, 54(8): 591-596. HAO H D, WU L L, LI Q Q, et al. Mitigation effects of some antidotes on phytotoxicity of butralin to radish[J]. Agrochemicals, 2015, 54(8): 591-596.
[37]	SHIOI Y, TATSUMI Y, SHIMOKAWA K. Enzymatic degradation of chlorophyll in Chenopodium album[J]. Plant Cell Physiol, 1991, 32(1): 87-93.
[38]	杨艳君, 赵红梅, 王慧阳, 等. 外源油菜素内酯对谷子2,4-D胁迫的缓解效应[J]. 山西农业科学, 2015, 43(9): 1165-1168. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2015.09.24 YANG Y J, ZHAO H M, WANG H Y, CAO Y F. Exogenous EBR on alleviating 2,4-D stress in foxtail millet seedlings[J]. J Shanxi Agric Sci, 2015, 43(9): 1165-1168. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2015.09.24