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

Table 8.

Visual estimates of injury to rice and rice yields following different herbicide treatments at Ji’ning (JN) and Shi’zui’shan (SZS) in 2017.

Treatments (g a.i. ha−1) Crop injurya,b Rice yield (SE)b Yield growth rate (SE)b
3DAT 5DAT 10DAT 20DAT JN SZS JN SZS
JN SZS JN SZS JN SZS JN SZS
% kg ha−1 %
QYR301 (90) 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 0 4290 (236) d 10830 (124) d 6.3 (5.9) c 5.9 (1.2) d
QYR301 (135) 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 0 4575 (111) bc 11160 (218) c 13.4 (2.8) b 9.1 (2.1) c
QYR301 (180) 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 0 4710 (76) ab 11820 (154) b 16.7 (1.9) ab 15.5 (1.5) b
QYR301 (270) 4.0 a 0 5.8 a 0 1.5 a 0 0 0 4770 (127) a 11925 (235) ab 18.2 (3.1) ab 16.6 (2.3) ab
Penoxsulam (30) 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 0 4525 (82) c 10260 (201) e 12.1 (2.0) b 0.3 (2.0) e
Hand weeding 4855 (143) e 12155 (164) e 20.3 (2.6) a 18.8 (1.2) a
Weedy control 4035 (104) a 10230 (119) a

aVisual crop injury was evaluated at 3, 5, 10, and 20 d after treatment (DAT) with the scale of 0 to 100%, where 0% represents no injury and 100% represents plant death. bDifferent letters are significantly different at the P < 0.05 level according to Fisher’s protected LSD test.