Skip to main content
. 2018 May 21;8:7910. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26223-9

Table 6.

Visual estimates of percent weed control following different herbicide treatments in 2017 at Ji’ning (JN) and Shi’zui’shan (SZS).

Treatments (g a.i. ha−1) Percent weed controla,b
E. crus-galli L. chinensis
20DAT 40DAT 20DAT 40DAT
JN SZS JN SZS JN SZS JN SZS
% %
QYR301 (90) 90.0 b 88.0 d 84.3 c 83.8 c 54.8 d 50.8 d 47.3 d 47.0 d
QYR301 (135) 94.5 b 93.8 c 92.8 b 92.8 b 88.5 c 86.0 c 85.8 c 84.0 c
QYR301 (180) 97.8 a 96.3 b 96.0 a 96.8 a 95.0 b 93.5 b 93.8 b 92.5 b
QYR301 (270) 98.0 a 98.8 a 97.5 a 97.8 a 98.3 a 98.0 a 97.0 a 96.8 a
Penoxsulam (30) 97.5 a 33.8 e 96.3 a 32.8 d 34.5 e 25.3 e 30.5 e 24.8 e
Hand weeding
Weedy control

Visual estimates of percent weed control following different herbicide treatments in 2017 at Ji’ning (JN) and Shi’zui’shan (SZS). aVisual estimates of percent weed control were recorded 20 and 40 d after treatment (DAT) using a scale of 0 to 100% where 0 = no weed control and 100 = complete weed control. bDifferent letters are significantly different at the P < 0.05 level according to Fisher’s protected LSD test.