[1]徐广春,顾中言,徐德进,等.2012-2016年稻田农药科学减量试验分析[J].江苏农业学报,2018,(05):1005-1012.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2018.05.006]
　XU Guang-chun,GU Zhong-yan,XU De-jin,et al.Analysis on the scientific pesticide reduction trial in paddy field during 2012-2016[J].,2018,(05):1005-1012.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2018.05.006]
点击复制

2012-2016年稻田农药科学减量试验分析()
分享到：

江苏农业学报[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

卷:
期数:
2018年05期
页码:
1005-1012
栏目:
植物保护
出版日期:
2018-10-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Analysis on the scientific pesticide reduction trial in paddy field during 2012-2016
作者:
徐广春; 顾中言; 徐德进; 许小龙; 徐鹿
（江苏省农业科学院植物保护研究所，江苏南京210014）
Author(s):
XU Guang-chun; GU Zhong-yan; XU De-jin; XU Xiao-long; XU Lu
(Institute of Plant Protection, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing 210014， China)
关键词:
稻田; 农药减量; 防治效果; 农药投入量毒性系数; 产量
Keywords:
paddy field; pesticide reduction; control effect; total actute toxicity coefficient of pesticide input; yield
分类号:
S481
DOI:
doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2018.05.006
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
为了科学使用农药，采用Zisman图法测定不同生育期稻叶的临界表面张力,同时从喷洒次数、农药投入量、喷洒药液的表面张力、农药投入量毒性系数、病虫害的防治效果及水稻产量等角度比较了2012-2016年稻田喷施植物保护部门推荐的农药组（A）和实验室推荐的农药组（B）的差异性。结果表明，分蘖期至乳熟期稻叶正面和反面临界表面张力的平均估值分别为29.94 mN/m和31.01 mN/m，A组药液的表面张力均大于稻叶的临界表面张力；B组药液的表面张力均小于稻叶的临界表面张力。与A组相比，B组每年用药次数减少2～3次；总投入量每年减少 38.96%～81.30%；有效成分用量减少 58.75%～87.10%；投入量毒性系数总和减少 46.97%～93.77%。田间防治效果表明，B组对稻纵卷叶螟、稻曲病和稻瘟病的防治效果相对较好，2种农药施用组对稻飞虱和纹枯病的防治效果相当；除稻瘟病发生年份外，2种农药施用组间水稻产量无显著差异。
Abstract:
In order to use pesticides scientificatly, the critical surface tension (CST) of rice leaf in different growth stage was determined by Zisman method. On the basis of spray times, total input of pesticides, surface tension of pesticides liquild sprayed in paddy field, actute toxicity coefficient of pesticide input, pest and disease control effect and rice yield, the differences between pesticide recommended by plant protection department (group A) and pesticide recommended by laboratory (group B) during 2012-2016 were compared. Results showed that the mean CST values of the abaxial and adaxial rice leaf surface from tillering stage to milk stage were 29.94mN/m and 31.01mN/m,respectively. The surface tension values of rice leaf in group A were more than the mean CST values of rice leaves. On the contrary, the surface tension values of rice leaf in group B were less than the mean CST values of rice leaves. Compared with those in group A, the spraying times in group B were reduced by two to three times per season in paddy field. At the same time, total input of pesticide formulations and pesticide active ingredient dosage in group B were decreased by 38.96%-81.30% and 58.75%-87.10%, respectively. The total actute toxicity coefficient of group B was 46.97%-93.77% less than that of group A. The control effect in group B against rice leaf folder, rice false smut and rice blast was relatively better than that in group A, and the two pesticide application groups had same effect on the control of rice planthoppers and rice sheath blight. Except for the year happened rice blast, there was no significant difference in rice yield between the two pesticide application groups.

参考文献/References:

[1]袁会珠，杨代斌，闫晓静，等. 农药有效利用率与喷雾技术优化[J]. 植物保护，2011，37(5)：14-20.
[2]徐广春，顾中言，徐德进，等. 常用农药在水稻叶片上的润湿能力分析[J]. 中国农业科学，2012，45(9)：1731-1740.
[3]孙长花，于智勇，王君，等．基于QuEChERS-气相色谱-串联质谱法检测大米中多农药残留［J］．江苏农业科学，2017,45(23):191-193.
[4]ABDULLAH A R，BAJET C M，MATIN M A，et al. Ecotoxicology of pesticides in the tropical paddy field ecosystem[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry，1997，16(1)：59-70.
[5]HUANG S W，WANG L，LIU L M，et al. Nonchemical pest control in china rice：a review[J]. Agronomy for Sustainable Development，2014, 34：275-291.
[6]PEDIBHOTLA V K，HALL F R，HOLMSEN J. Deposit characteristics and toxicity of fipronil formulations for tobacco budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) control on cotton[J]. Crop Protection，1999，18： 493-499.
[7]ZHANG Y，ZHANG G Y， HAN F. The spreading and superspeading behavior of new glucosamide-based trisiloxane surfactants on hydrophobic foliage[J]. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects，2006，276：100-106.
[8]XU L Y， ZHU H P， OZKAN H E，et al. Evaporation rate and development of wetted area of water droplets with and without surfactant at different locations on waxy leaf surfaces[J]. Biosystems Engineering，2010，104：1-10.
[9]徐德进，顾中言，徐广春，等. 药液表面张力与喷雾方法对雾滴在水稻植株上沉积的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学，2011，25(2)：213-218.
[10]徐广春，顾中言，徐德进，等. 促进稻田农药利用效率的表面活性剂筛选[J]. 中国农业科学，2013，46(7)：1370-1379.
[11]QU C S，CHEN W，HUANG L，et al. Ecological risk assessment of pesticide residues in Taihu Lake wetland，China[J]. Ecological Modeling，2011，222(2)：287-292.
[12]SALA S，MIGLIORATI S，MONTI G S，et al. SSD-based rating system for the classification of pesticide risk on biodiversity[J]. Ecotoxicology，2012，21：1050-1062.
[13]EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY. Pesticide risk assessment for the active substance pymetrozine in light of negligible exposure data submitted[J]. EFSA Journal，2017，15(1)：1-12.
[14]孙海滨，郑永权，蒋红云，等. 农药投入量毒性系数及其在水稻安全生产中的应用[J]. 植物保护，2012，38(4)：108-111.
[15]顾中言，许小龙，韩丽娟. 几种植物临界表面张力值的估测[J]. 现代农药，2002(2)：18-20.
[16]屠豫钦，李秉礼. 农药应用工艺学导论[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社，2006：33-36.
[17]刘红江，郑建初，郭智，等. 太湖地区氮肥减量对水稻氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 生态学杂志，2016，35(1)：2960-2965.
[18]REMOR A P，TOTTI C C，MOREIRA D A，et al. Occupational exposure of farm worker to pesticides: biochemical parameters and evaluation of genotoxicity[J]. Environment International，2009，35：273-278.
[19]QIN W C，QIU B J，XUE X Y，et al. Droplet deposition and control effect of insecticides sprayed with an unmanned aerial vehicle against plant hoppers[J]. Crop Protection，2015，85：79-88.
[20]ZHU L，GE J R，QI Y Y，et al. Droplet impingement behavior analysis on the leaf surface of Shu-ChaZao under different pesticide formulations[J]. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture，2018，144：16-25.
[21]KROGH K A，HALL-SORENSEN B，MOGENSEN B B，et al. Environmental properties and effects of nonionic surfactant adjuvants in pesticides: a review[J]. Chemosphere，2003，50：871-901.
[22]LOU Y G，ZHANG G R，ZHANG W Q，et al. Reprint of: biological control of rice insect pests in China[J]. Biological Control，2014，68：103-116.
[23]杨林章，冯彦房，施卫明，等. 我国农业面源污染治理技术研究进展[J]. 中国生态农业学报，2013，21(1)：96-101.
[24]何健，吴文铸，孔德洋，等. 农药风险评价技术在农药减量化中的应用[J]. 生态与农村环境学报，2016，32(6)：1008-1011.
[25]TAYLOR P. The wetting of leaf surface[J]. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science，2011，16(4)：326-334.
[26]XU L Y，ZHU H P，OZKAN H E，et al. Droplet evaporation and spread on waxy and hairy leaves associated with type and concentration of adjuvants[J]. Pest Management Science，2011，67：842-851.
[27]YU Y，ZHU H，FRANTZ J M，et al. Evaporation and coverage area of pesticide droplets on hairy and waxy leaves[J]. Biosystems Engineering，2009，104：324-334.
[28]周召路，曹冲，曹立冬，等. 不同类型界面液滴蒸发特性与农药利用效果研究进展[J]. 农药学学报，2017，19(1)： 9-17.
[29]SYMONDS B L，LINDSAY C I，THOMSON N R，et al. Chitosan as a rainfastness adjuvant for agrochemicals[J]. RSC Advances，2016 (6)：102206-102213.

相似文献/References:

[1]周炜,张岳芳,朱普平,等.种植制度对长江下游稻田温室气体排放的影响[J].江苏农业学报,2017,(02):340.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2017.02.016]
　ZHOU Wei,ZHANG Yue-fang,ZHU Pu-ping,et al.Effects of different cropping patterns on greenhouse gases emissions from rice fields in the lower reaches of Yangtze River[J].,2017,(05):340.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2017.02.016]
[2]张慧,马连杰,杭晓宁,等.不同轮作模式下稻田土壤细菌和真菌多样性变化[J].江苏农业学报,2018,(04):804.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2018.04.013]
　ZHANG Hui,MA Lian-jie,HANG Xiao-ning,et al.Changes of soil bacterial and fungal diversity in paddy soils under different rotation patterns[J].,2018,(05):804.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2018.04.013]
[3]涂保华,胡茜,张艺,等.基于不同类型秸秆制备的生物炭对稻田土壤温室气体排放的影响[J].江苏农业学报,2019,(06):1374.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2019.06.015]
　TU Bao-hua,HU Qian,ZHANG Yi,et al.Effects of biochar based on different types of straw on greenhouse gas emission from paddy soil[J].,2019,(05):1374.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2019.06.015]
[4]张洁,宋怡轩,张鑫磊,等.不同类型稻田中全程氨氧化微生物的分异特征[J].江苏农业学报,2020,(03):584.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2020.03.008]
　ZHANG Jie,SONG Yi-xuan,ZHANG Xin-lei,et al.Differentiation characteristics of complete ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms in different types of paddy soils[J].,2020,(05):584.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2020.03.008]
[5]胡中泽,衣政伟,王安,等.紫云英不同时期还田部分替代化肥对氨挥发及水稻产量的影响[J].江苏农业学报,2021,(05):1160.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2021.05.010]
　HU Zhong-ze,YI Zheng-wei,WANG An,et al.Effects of different incorporation stages of Chinese milk vetch residue on ammonia volatilization loss and yield of rice[J].,2021,(05):1160.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2021.05.010]
[6]纪洪亭,周炜,郭智,等.猪粪有机肥替代化学氮肥对水稻农学效应、安全效应及经济效益影响的综合评价[J].江苏农业学报,2021,(06):1451.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2021.05.012]
　JI Hong-ting,ZHOU Wei,GUO Zhi,et al.Comprehensive evaluation for the influence of substituting fertilizer by pig manure on agronomic effect, safety effect and economic benefit of rice[J].,2021,(05):1451.[doi:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-4440.2021.05.012]

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期：2018-01-22 基金项目：国家重点研发计划项目（2017YFD0200305）；江苏省农业科技自主创新基金项目[CX(16)1001] 作者简介：徐广春(1982-)，男， 江苏海安人，硕士， 副研究员，主要从事农药应用与毒理学研究。（Tel）025-84390403；（E-mail）xgc551@163.com 通讯作者：顾中言，（Tel）025-84390403；（E-mail）guzy@jaas.ac.cn
更新日期/Last Update: 2018-11-05