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.