共查询到18条相似文献，搜索用时 187 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
在杉木一代种子园以蕨类为主的植被中，用草甘膦进行试验，采用完全随机区组设计，4个处理4次重复。试验结果表明：施药量以15kg／hm^2为宜；草甘膦对蕨类、五节芒类及一年生杂草灭除效果好，对杂竹无效果，对芒萁和灌木效果较差；采用草甘膦经济效益显，每次可节省营林投资120元／hm^2，2000-2002年在杉木种子园用革甘膦化除210hm^2，节省营林投资8．82万元。 相似文献
4.
在巨尾桉幼林抚育中,进行森泰颗粒剂除草试验结果表明,1m2用5%森泰颗粒剂2g(商品量),除草率仅达39%,并对巨尾桉幼树产生严重药害。因此,巨尾桉幼林的除草不宜推广使用森泰颗粒型除草剂。 相似文献
5.
6.
使用25%森泰水剂和5%森泰颗粒剂防除香椿幼林地的杂草研究试验结果表明:25%森泰水剂和5%森泰颗粒剂均能够有效防除香椿幼林地的五节芒、苦竹、刚竹、芒萁骨等多年生恶性杂草,防除效果均可达93%以上。使用25%森泰水剂除草比人工除草可减少用工56 1%～92 2%,降低除草成本36 1%～61%。同时,可根据幼林地杂草的种类、高度、盖度和水源等因素选择合适的森泰除草剂的剂型和剂量组合,以达到理想的防除杂草效果。 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
两年田间小区试验表明：在粘壤土条件下，森草净有效成份１ｇ／６６７ｍ＾２土壤处理可在一个月内有效地控制果园草害，防效达９０％￣１００％，森草净有效成份１．５、３．０、６．０ｇ／６６７ｍ＾２土壤处理可在７０ｄ内控制杂草，防效在７５％￣１００％。上述处理对鸭趾草和多年生双子叶杂草防效较差，只有２０％￣７０％。当果园杂草２０￣２５ｃｍ，森草净有效成份４．０和６．０ｇ／６６７ｍ＾２茎叶处理可有效地控制杂草生 相似文献
10.
威尔柏 (Ｖｅｌｐａｒ) (中文通用名 :环嗪酮、森泰、林草净 )是美国杜邦公司生产的林业专用除草剂 ,90年代初曾引进广东省试用 ,其效果得到好评 ,由于供货中断未得到继续推广。现介绍我国江苏省新沂农药有限公司开发生产的森泰 (中文通用名 :环嗪酮 )进行残次竹林改造试验。本场汤泉工区曾引种广宁竹13.33余ｈｍ2 ,因管理不善 ,竹林逐步老化 ,形成残次竹林 ,面积尚有 4余ｈｍ2 。对这部分竹林我们曾用草甘膦、克芜踪等除草剂进行试验 ,效果均不理想。在华南农业大学徐声杰教授指导下 ,应用新沂公司生产森泰除草剂 (2 5 %水剂 )进行了下述试… 相似文献
11.
12.
以林木种子园林地为除草试验地,以草甘膦为除草药剂,采用不同剂量进行除草试验,结果表明:在4种剂量梯度水平作用下,杂草死亡率分别依次为66%、85%、88%与93%,平均为83%;其中,剂量为11 250 g·hm-2时,杂草死亡率仅为66%,当剂量达到30 000 g·hm-2时,虽然除草效果好,但已有药害产生;最佳剂量为15 000 g·hm-2和22 500 g·hm-2。化学除草(第2、3年人工除草)3 a累计成本为440元·g-1·hm-2,而人工除草为720元·hm-2,可节省资金300元·hm-2。 相似文献
13.
杉木、马尾松幼林中以五节芒为主的杂草防除试验 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
通过采用不同药剂对杉木、马尾松幼林中以五节芒为主的杂草防除试验,结果表明:森泰能有效地灭除杉木、马尾松林的多年生恶性杂草五节芒、苦竹、刚竹、芒萁骨等;以草甘膦为主剂,Goal、Oust为辅剂的草甘膦混剂也能灭除五节芒等杂草,防除效果分别达到95%和92%以上。化学除草比人工除草减少用工56.1%~61%,同时为幼树生长创造良好的环境。 相似文献
14.
15.
16.
通过采用10%草甘膦水剂在针叶树苗圃地进行化学除草试验,结果表明,使用10%草甘膦水剂对针叶树苗圃地进行化学除草,最佳施药剂量为22.5 kg.hm-2,比人工除草用工量减少66.7%,成本降低64.4%;在同一剂量下施药,针叶树林地比阔叶林地除草效果高5.4%;6月15日—7月15日是杂草茎叶处理的最佳时期;全年施药2次即可达到斩草除根的理想效果。 相似文献
17.
Herbicides are more cost-effective than alternative weed control methods for increasing early growth of Eucalyptus dunnii and Eucalyptus saligna 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Effective weed control is an essential management task in establishing commercial tree plantations. Much of the current weed control strategies employed in Australian forestry relies on the use of available herbicides. However, given community concern regarding the use of herbicides, investigation of alternative weed control methods is warranted. We tested the ability and cost-effectiveness of mechanical (hand weeding and inter-row slashing), mulching (sawdust over newsprint, woodchips and jute), cover crops and herbicide applications for weed control in establishing eucalypt plantations. Jute matting and herbicide treatments reduced weed competition and increased seedling growth to age 2 years in plantations of Eucalyptus dunnii and Eucalyptus saligna in northern NSW, Australia. Growth increased by 269 % (Experiment 1) and 196 % (Experiment 2) in the Jute and by 216 % (Experiment 2) in the Herbicide treatments when compared to the control (no weed control) at 2 years age. As the Jute material deteriorated, after nearly 2 years, weed cover increased and there were significantly more weeds present in the Jute treatment compared to the Herbicide treatment. Jute matting costs approximately 15 times more than the herbicide regime used and, therefore, could not presently be considered a viable option for weed control in commercial eucalypt plantations. Other weed control treatments, including hand weeding, sawdust and woodchip mulches, slashing and sowing cover crops did not effectively control weeds and did not improve survival or increase seedling growth to age 2 relative to the control. We conclude that herbicides remain the most cost-effective weed control option available to commercial growers of eucalypt plantations. 相似文献
18.
Control of competing vegetation during eucalypt regeneration is important but the cost-benefit of varying levels of control is not well understood. A trial was initiated to quantify the impact of five vegetation control treatments on Eucalyptus smithii R.T.Baker. to determine the potential loss in growth and differential costs against which this growth loss could be linked. Five treatments were developed to suit the predicted vegetation load at the site and varied according to weeding intensity (high, moderate and low weeding) or area around the tree that was weeded (no vegetation control, a 2 m row weeding and complete vegetation control). The vegetation control treatments were imposed at planting and maintained until canopy closure (16.4 months). Tree growth was monitored throughout the rotation and this, together with the cost of the various establishment and weeding operations, were used to make treatment comparisons. Weed growth was rapid following planting, with competition-induced divergence in tree growth occurring from 52 d. Rotation-end volume for the Weedfree check (414 m3 ha?1) and Row weeding treatment (394 m3 ha?1) were significantly different from the Weedy check (319 m3 ha?1), with the Moderate (374 m3 ha?1) and Low (371 m3 ha?1) weeding intensity treatments intermediate but not significantly different from each other, nor from the other treatments. The financial performance (expressed as bare land value [BLV] with 6% discounting) of the Weedfree check outperformed the other treatments and was 37% higher than the Weedy check. The BLVs of the Moderate and Low weeding intensity treatments were similar to each other, indicating that these treatments were both feasible in terms of financial performance. However, the 2 m Row weeding had c. 10% higher BLV than the Moderate and Low weeding intensity treatments, and could be considered as a viable alternative to the Weedfree check. Sensitivity analysis conducted on the data in terms of local or exogenous risks indicated that between the treatments, differences in response to either local or global market risks were minor. Thus, small changes in cost and price levels, or larger changes in applicable discount rate, would not alter the ranking of the vegetation control treatments, with the Weedfree check (High weeding intensity) being the best in terms of financial performance, and the Weedy check the worst. 相似文献