Weed Strategy Considering the Weed Control Effect and Weed Control Uniformity with Microsprinkler Irrigation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
agronomy
Article
Weed Strategy Considering the Weed Control Effect and Weed
Control Uniformity with Microsprinkler Irrigation
Hui Wang, Wenpeng Shi, Qing Zha, Gang Ling, Wene Wang * and Xiaotao Hu
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering in Arid Areas, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry
University, Yangling 712100, China; huiwang_@nwafu.edu.cn (H.W.)
* Correspondence: wangwene@nwsuaf.edu.cn
Abstract: Improper herbicide application without proper personnel protection (PPE) can be harmful.
Herbicide application with microsprinkler irrigation reduces direct contact with herbicides with the
benefits of being highly efficient, decreasing water and herbicide use, and using precise irrigation and
concentration control during agricultural production. Therefore, to propose a reasonable strategy for
applying microsprinkler irrigation, a laboratory test was conducted to study the water distribution
characteristics, and different herbicide concentrations (1.5 g/L, 2.0 g/L, and 3.0 g/L) were used in a
field irrigation experiment with polyethylene microsprinkler hoses. Wheat was selected as the test
crop, and the effects of the different herbicide concentrations were compared and analyzed based on
the weed control effect and weed control uniformity. The results showed that in comparison to other
herbicide concentrations, a higher herbicide application concentration (3.0 g/L) did not have a better
application effect. Application concentration and duration influenced each other and synergistically
affected the application effect. The weed control effects of the herbicide concentrations at 1.5 g/L
and 2.0 g/L were similar and had better application effects than those of the other concentrations.
When using this approach, the specific herbicide concentration should be determined according to
the crop and soil environmental conditions, and the application concentration and duration should
be adjusted reasonably.
Keywords: herbicide application; microsprinkler hose; wheat
Citation: Wang, H.; Shi, W.; Zha, Q.;
Ling, G.; Wang, W.; Hu, X. Weed
Strategy Considering the Weed
Control Effect and Weed Control
1. Introduction
Uniformity with Microsprinkler Without control, plant diseases, insect pests, and weeds could reduce the annual grain
Irrigation. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034. production by 15% in China [1], and they often result in the loss of agricultural product
https://doi.org/10.3390/ quality and production. Herbicide application is important for controlling weeds. However,
agronomy13041034 herbicides also produce pollution and harm field workers [2]; in addition, they are toxic to
Academic Editor: Ilias Travlos
humans and even damage crops [3].
Microsprinkler hoses have been widely accepted by users in China since the 1990s
Received: 15 March 2023 due to their excellent performance and low cost. As a new water-saving irrigation material,
Revised: 29 March 2023 a microsprinkler hose is mainly used to spray water by directly machining circular holes
Accepted: 29 March 2023 arranged on a plastic hose. It may be a more convenient application method than other
Published: 31 March 2023
methods for leaf and stem herbicides.
Due to the high toxicity of pesticides, their short application duration, and their diffi-
cult and costly detection [4], current research mainly focuses on the operation parameters
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
and performance of micro-irrigation equipment under the integrated conditions of water
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and herbicides. Gao et al. [5] used the Simulink module in MATLAB to simulate the control
This article is an open access article system of a microsprinkler device, compared and analyzed it with the existing device,
distributed under the terms and and designed a variable microsprinkler device that could control the herbicide amount
conditions of the Creative Commons accurately. Liu [6] carried out an operating environmental analysis of a microsprinkler
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// irrigation machine that was solar powered. The results showed that it is feasible to select
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ an off-grid solar photovoltaic power system as the driving and energy source of a transla-
4.0/). tional microsprinkler irrigation machine. Hui et al. [7] designed a microsprinkler irrigation
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041034 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 14
amount accurately. Liu [6] carried out an operating environmental analysis of a mi-
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 2 of 13
crosprinkler irrigation machine that was solar powered. The results showed that it is fea-
sible to select an off-grid solar photovoltaic power system as the driving and energy
source of a translational microsprinkler irrigation machine. Hui et al. [7] designed a mi-
machine with
crosprinkler a liftingmachine
irrigation mechanism,
with awhich
liftingcould enable which
mechanism, the operating
could enableangletheto operat-
be adjusted,
facilitating
ing angle to the actual adjustment
be adjusted, facilitatingof
themicrosprinkler
actual adjustment irrigation.
of microsprinkler irrigation.
However,
However,the themicrosprinkler
microsprinkler hose
hose is aisdischarge
a discharge pipe, and and
pipe, the pressure
the pressureand flow
and flow
along
along the
themicrosprinkler
microsprinklerhose hosedecrease
decrease with
withthethe
increase in pipeline
increase in pipelinelength. Therefore,
length. the the
Therefore,
uniformity
uniformityof ofwater
waterdistribution
distribution along
along thethe
micro-jet beltbelt
micro-jet willwill
alsoalso
change withwith
change the change
the change
in
in the
the laying
laying length.
length.This
Thisscenario
scenarioisisobviously
obviouslynot notconducive
conducive to to
thethe
uniform
uniformapplication
application of
of herbicides. Application uniformity is an important index for measuring
herbicides. Application uniformity is an important index for measuring the application the application
quality of
quality ofmicro
microirrigation
irrigationsystems. LowLow
systems. application uniformity
application results results
uniformity in too high or too
in too high or
low a herbicide dose locally, resulting in decreased yield and quality, a
too low a herbicide dose locally, resulting in decreased yield and quality, a low herbicidelow herbicide uti-
lization rate,
utilization unsatisfactory
rate, unsatisfactoryweed control,
weed and and
control, a high herbicide
a high residue
herbicide level level
residue [8–10]. An An
[8–10].
application uniformity evaluation of micro-irrigation systems is an important
application uniformity evaluation of micro-irrigation systems is an important component component
of system management. However, there is a lack of research on the control effect of micro-
of system management. However, there is a lack of research on the control effect of micro-
irrigation systems such as weed control and application uniformity.
irrigation systems such as weed control and application uniformity.
To use the existing microsprinkler irrigation technology for herbicide application, it
To use the existing microsprinkler irrigation technology for herbicide application, it is
is critical to minimize the impact of uneven water distribution by determining the appro-
critical to minimize the impact of uneven water distribution by determining the appropriate
priate herbicide concentrations and application durations. Therefore, the herbicide appli-
herbicide concentrations and application durations. Therefore, the herbicide application
cation effects on crops and weeds were studied through experiments with different herb-
effects on crops and weeds were studied through experiments with different herbicide
icide concentrations in this paper. Herbicide efficacy was evaluated based on the weed
concentrations
control effect and in weed
this paper.
controlHerbicide
uniformity. efficacy was evaluated
We provide a referencebasedfor on
thethe weed control
continuous
effect and weed control uniformity. We
improvement in herbicide application technology. provide a reference for the continuous improvement
in herbicide application technology.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1. Materials
The herbicide used in the experiment was quinclorac (C10H5C12N02) (produced by
The herbicide used in the experiment was quinclorac (C10H5C12N02) (produced by
Jiangsu Futian Agrochemical Co. Ltd., Jiangsu Futian, China). Quinclorac is a selective
herbicideFutian
Jiangsu Agrochemical
for controlling Co. grass
barnyard Ltd., Jiangsu Futian,
in rice fields, and China). Quinclorac
although it is mainly is aused
selective
for her-
bicide for controlling barnyard grass in rice fields, and although it is mainly
controlling barnyard grass, it also has certain control effects on weeds such as Echinochloa used for control-
ling barnyard
oryzoides grass, phyllopogon
(Echinochloa it also has certain
(stapf) control effects on weeds
Koss.), Monochoria such as
(Monochoria Echinochloa
korsakowii Regeloryzoides
et
(Echinochloa
Maack), and waterphyllopogon
fennel (stapf) Koss.),
(Oenanthe Monochoria
javanica (Monochoria korsakowii Regel et Maack),
(Blume) DC).
and water
We used fennel
microsprinker javanica
(Oenanthe hoses made(Blume) DC).
of polyethylene (PE). According to the Chinese
We used microsprinker hoses made of polyethylene
standards of Agricultural Irrigation Equipment-Microsprinkler (PE). According
Hose to the Chinese
(NY/T 1361-2007),
the diameter of the microsprinkler hose used was 32 mm with a single row of 51361-2007),
standards of Agricultural Irrigation Equipment-Microsprinkler Hose (NY/T diagonal the
holes. Figure 1 shows the physical model of the microsprinkler hose and the main param-holes.
diameter of the microsprinkler hose used was 32 mm with a single row of 5 diagonal
Figure
eter 1 shows
indices used inthethis
physical model
study. The of the spacing
horizontal microsprinkler hose
of the holes wasand2.5 the
cm, main parameter
the spacing
indices
of used
the hole in this
groups wasstudy.
19.4 The horizontal
cm, the spacing
inclination of theof thegroups
hole holes was
was 2.511°,cm,thethe spacing of
aperture
was 0.7 mm,
the hole the hose
groups wasthickness
19.4 cm, was 0.02 mm, and
the inclination ofthe
thework
holepressure
groups was 55 ◦ , the
11kPa (produced
aperture was
by Shaanxi
0.7 mm, the Yangling Fengyuan
hose thickness Agricultural
was 0.02 mm, andEquipment Co. Ltd.,was
the work pressure Shaanxi
55 kPaYangling,
(produced by
China).
Shaanxi Yangling Fengyuan Agricultural Equipment Co. Ltd., Shaanxi Yangling, China).
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the microsprinkler hose. The physical model was established, and the
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the microsprinkler hose. The physical model was established, and
main
the various
main parameter
various indices
parameter were
indices obtained
were according
obtained to the
according microsprinkler
to the hose
microsprinkler used
hose in in
used the paper.
the paper.
In addition, according to the Chinese Standards of Agricultural irrigation equipment
for water-driven chemical injector pumps (GB/T 19792-2005), an intelligent water, fertilizer,
and herbicide integrated application device was produced by our team including a pre-
stirring bucket, a stirring bucket, a spraying pump, and a dosing funnel. The pre-stirring
bucket was connected to a water source and the stirring bucket through a solenoid valve.
In addition, according to the Chinese Standards of Agricultural irrigation equipment
for water-driven chemical injector pumps (GB/T 19792-2005), an intelligent water, ferti-
lizer, and herbicide integrated application device was produced by our team including a
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 3 of 13
pre-stirring bucket, a stirring bucket, a spraying pump, and a dosing funnel. The pre-stir-
ring bucket was connected to a water source and the stirring bucket through a solenoid
valve.
2.2. System Design and Experimental Arrangement
2.2. System
The Design
overalland Experimental
experiment wasArrangement
divided into a water distribution test and an herbicide
The overall
efficacy experiment
experiment. The was divided into water
microsprinkler a water distribution
flow test andfor
is the medium an the
herbicide
herbicide to
efficacy
enter theexperiment. Theherbicide
field, so the microsprinkler water isflow
distribution is theby
affected medium
the waterfor distribution.
the herbicideTherefore,
to
enter the field,
the indoor so the herbicide
microsprinkler distribution
water is affected
distribution test was by carried
the wateroutdistribution. There-
first. After obtaining the
fore, the distribution
water indoor microsprinkler water of
characteristics distribution test was carried
the microsprinkler hose, out first.necessary
it was After obtain-
to explore
ing
andtheverify
waterthedistribution
herbicide characteristics of the microsprinkler
effect of the microsprinkler hose,soitan
application, was necessary
herbicide to
application
explore and verify the
field experiment washerbicide effect of the microsprinkler application, so an herbicide
carried out.
application field experiment
The layout was carried out.
of the experimental system is shown in Figure 2. The laboratory test
The layout of the experimental
(Layout 2) and the field experiment system
(Layoutis shown
3) used inthe
Figure
same 2. primary
The laboratory test (Lay-
pipe system (Layout 1).
out
Both systems were designed according to the Chinese irrigation experimental 1).
2) and the field experiment (Layout 3) used the same primary pipe system (Layout standard
Both systems were designed according to the Chinese irrigation experimental standard
(SL13-2004) and technical code for the micro-irrigation engineering standard (GB/T 50485-
(SL13-2004) and technical code for the micro-irrigation engineering standard (GB/T 50485-
2009). The specific test layout and details are described in the next sections.
2009). The specific test layout and details are described in the next sections.
Figure
Figure 2. 2.
Test system
Test layout.
system layout.For
Forthe
thepurpose
purposeofofdescription,
description,the
the test
test apparatus
apparatus and system were
and system were divided
divided into three parts. The laboratory test consisted of Layout 1 and Layout 2. The system of field
into three parts. The laboratory test consisted of Layout 1 and Layout 2. The system of field experiment
experiment consisted of Layout 1 and Layout 3. 1. water supply tank; 2. pressure sensor; 3. filter; 4.
consisted
water pump;of5.Layout 1 and
self-made Layoutapplication
herbicide 3. 1. waterdevice;
supply6.tank; 2. pressure
untested sensor; 3.
microsprinkler filter;
hose; 4. water pump;
7. measur-
5. cups.
ing self-made herbicide application device; 6. untested microsprinkler hose; 7. measuring cups.
2.2.1.
2.2.1. Water
Water Distribution
Distribution TestTest
TheThe water
water distribution
distribution testtest
waswas carried
carried out inout
theinhydraulic
the hydraulic laboratory
laboratory of Northwest
of Northwest
Agricultural and Forestry University. The laboratory test consisted of two parts: LayoutLayout
Agricultural and Forestry University. The laboratory test consisted of two parts: 1 1
and Layout 2. The test device consisted of a water storage tank with a
and Layout 2. The test device consisted of a water storage tank with a mixing function, a mixing function, a
water
water pump,
pump, a filter,
a filter, pressure
pressure sensors,
sensors, pipes,
pipes, a homemade
a homemade application
application devicedevice to irrigation,
to irrigation,
and microsprinkler hoses. The tank was a cylindrical box with a
and microsprinkler hoses. The tank was a cylindrical box with a height of 1.55 m and height of 1.55a m and
bottom diameter of 0.745 m. The homemade application device was composed of an ap- of an
a bottom diameter of 0.745 m. The homemade application device was composed
application
plication bucket,
bucket, mixer, mixer, and metering
and metering pump. pump. The application
The application bucketbucket
was a was a cylindrical
cylindrical
plastic
plastic bucket
bucket withwith a capacity
a capacity of 100
of 100 L. The
L. The flowflow regulation
regulation rangerange
of the of the metering
metering pump pump
was 0–20 L/h, the adjustment gradient was 0.5 L/h, the pressure sensor accuracy was
0.01 kPa, and the measurement range was 0–0.6.
The length of the laid microsprinkler hose was 40 m. The direction along the mi-
crosprinkler hose was set as longitudinal, and the direction perpendicular to the mi-
crosprinkler hose was set as transverse. The sampling area and measuring cup layout are
shown in Figure 3. Sampling points were set at the head (3 m), middle (20 m), and end
(37 m) of the transverse direction. The sampling area was started from the microsprinkler
hose with a longitudinal distance of 0.5 m. The sampling area of each sampling point was
was 0–20 L/h, the adjustment gradient was 0.5 L/h, the pressure sensor accuracy was 0.01
kPa, and the measurement range was 0–0.6.
The length of the laid microsprinkler hose was 40 m. The direction along the mi-
crosprinkler hose was set as longitudinal, and the direction perpendicular to the mi-
crosprinkler hose was set as transverse. The sampling area and measuring cup layout are
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 shown in Figure 3. Sampling points were set at the head (3 m), middle (20 m), and end (37 4 of 13
m) of the transverse direction. The sampling area was started from the microsprinkler
hose with a longitudinal distance of 0.5 m. The sampling area of each sampling point was
0.5 m × 2.1 m, and 24 measuring cups were placed in three rows and eight columns to
0.5 m × 2.1 m, and 24 measuring cups were placed in three rows and eight columns to
weigh the water volume in the sampling area. The system pressure was set to 55 KPa, and
weigh the water volume in the sampling area. The system pressure was set to 55 KPa, and
when it was stable, the water amount within 30 min was obtained with measuring cups
when it was stable, the water amount within 30 min was obtained with measuring cups and
and repeated three times. The average of the three repeated trials was taken as the final
repeated three times. The average of the three repeated trials was taken as the final result.
result.
Figure 3. Sampling
Figure area area
3. Sampling and measuring cup layout.
and measuring Sampling
cup layout. areas were
Sampling areasset at the
were sethead
at the(3head
m), mid-
(3 m), middle
dle (20 m), and end (37 m) of the transverse direction. Measuring cups in the three sampling areas
(20 m), and end (37 m) of the transverse direction. Measuring cups in the three sampling areas were
were arranged in the same way. The figure shows the arrangement of measuring cups in a sampling
area.arranged in the same way. The figure shows the arrangement of measuring cups in a sampling area.
2.2.2. Field Application Experiment
2.2.2. Field Application Experiment
The field experiment was conducted from April 2017 to August 2019 at the Shiyanghe
The field experiment was conducted from April 2017 to August 2019 at the Shiyanghe ◦ 0
Water-Saving
Water-Saving
Experimental Station located in Liangzhou, Wuwei, Gansu Province (37 52 N,
Experimental Station located in Liangzhou, Wuwei, Gansu Province (37°52′
102 ◦ 500 E). The field experiment included Layout 1 and Layout 3. In Layout 3, a total of
N, 102°50′ E). The field experiment included Layout 1 and Layout 3. In Layout 3, a total of
fourfour
test test
plotsplots
werewere set including
set including three three test(A,
test plots plots (A, B,
B, and C) and
and C)oneand one plot
control control
(D). plot (D).
Three
Three fieldfield
trialstrials
werewere conducted
conducted in eachin plot
eachincluding
plot including two replicates.
two replicates. The testTheplotstest
wereplots were
allm
all 40 40inmlength,
in length,
5 m in5m in width,
width, and 200andm200 m2 control
2 in the in the control
area with area withzones
buffer buffer zones between
between
the the
plots.plots.
SinceSince the single
the single sprinkle
sprinkle widthwidthof the of
testthe test microsprinkler
microsprinkler hose was hose
2.5 was 2.5 m, each
m, each
test plot was controlled by two microsprinkler hoses. One hose was used for the herbicideherbicide
test plot was controlled by two microsprinkler hoses. One hose was used for the
application
application or water
or water irrigation,
irrigation, and theand the other
other hose washose wasfor
used used for fertilizer
fertilizer application.
application.
in Wuwei include rice barnyard grass (Echinochloa
Local weeds in Wuwei include rice barnyard grass (Echinochloa phyllopogon (stapf) (stapf)
Local weeds phyllopogon
Koss. andand
Koss. Echinochloa
Echinochloa oryzicola
oryzicola (Vasing.),
(Vasing.), wildwildoats oats
(Avena fatuafatua
(Avena L.), reed
L.), reed aus‐ australis
(Phragmites
(Phragmites
(Cav.)
tralis (Cav.)Trin.
Trin.ex Steud),
ex Steud), goosefoot
goosefoot (Chenopodium
(Chenopodium album L.), L.),
album andandSonchus (Sonchus
Sonchus oleraceus L.).
(Sonchus
oleraceus
Table L.). Table 1 provides
1 provides an overview an overview of the experimental
of the experimental site and site and the
the water water of
quality quality
the irrigation
of the irrigation
water. In thiswater.
study,Inthe
thismain
study, the main
water source water source for agricultural
for agricultural irrigation wasirrigation was
groundwater, but
groundwater,
water resources but waterwere resources
relativelywere relatively
scarce scarce
and were and were
mainly mainly replenished
replenished by
by precipitation. The
precipitation.
test crop was The wheat
test crop was wheatusing
established established
machine using machine
seeding. Theseeding. The field ex-occurred
field experiment
periment
for three occurred for three
years from 2017years fromincluding
to 2019 2017 to 2019twoincluding
repeated two repeated
trials, trials, with
with sowing in April and
sowing in Aprilinand
harvesting harvesting
August. Corninwas August.
used Corn
as thewas
wheelusedtillage
as thecrop
wheel tillagethe
during crop during
field experiments.
the field experiments.
Table 1. Test site and water source.
Parameters Values
Annual average sunshine hours 3200–3300
Annual average temperature (◦ C) 8
Frost-free period (day) 150
Annual average rainfall (mm) 164.4
Ions HCO3 − , HSO4 − , Cl− , Ca2+ , K+ , Mg2+
pH 7.3–9.5
Total hardness (mg/L) 200–350
Mineralization (mg/L) 400–600
During the actual application, quinclorac was weighed and dissolved with water,
added to the homemade application device, and then mixed with water in the microsprin-
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 5 of 13
kler hose and sprayed onto the field. In the field experiment, herbicide was applied once,
and supplemental irrigation (except for natural precipitation) was applied to wheat three
times, mainly in three growth stages: the seedling stage, jointing stage, and heading stage.
The first irrigation event was carried out after wheat seedling emergence. Before the first
irrigation event finished, the herbicide was added to the irrigation water. The herbicide
amount was 101.5 g/ha, which is the amount usually used by local farmers. The total
herbicide amount applied to each of the four test plots was the same, but different treatment
concentrations were applied. The herbicide concentrations in plots A, B, and C were 1.5, 2.0,
and 3.0 g/L, respectively, as shown in Table 2. It is notable that in test plot D, the irrigation
events were the same as in plots A, B, and C, but without herbicide application.
Table 2. Treatments and levels.
Herbicide Content (g) Water Volume (L) Concentration (g/L) Application Duration (s)
Test plot A 30 20 1.5 443
Test plot B 30 15 2.0 332
Test plot C 30 10 3.0 221
Control plot D 0 - 0 -
2.3. Evaluation Index and Determination Method
After the experiment, the absolute value survey method (GB/T 17980.47-2000) was
used to calculate the weed control effect number in each test plot. Three sampling areas
were used at the head, middle, and end of each experimental plot (the distance from the
herbicide inlet was 3 m, 20 m, and 37 m, respectively), and five sampling frames were
used continuously from each sampling area along the transverse direction. Each sampling
frame was 0.5 m long and 0.5 m wide, for a total of 0.25 m2 . Notably, the defined sampling
areas remained fixed during the trial duration. After 8 and 16 days of application, the
weeds in the test plots and the control plots were observed to determine whether there
were symptoms such as weed drying, yellowing, and wilting or dead spots. After 30 days
of application, the wheat was observed for malformations and diseases, and the numbers
of dead and living weeds in each sampling frame were counted to calculate the weed
control effect.
(1) Weed control effect calculation formula [11]:
Ei − Ec
K= × 100%
Ei
where K is the weed control effect index; Ei is the number of living weeds in the control
plot; Ec is the number of dead weeds in the test plot.
(2) Distribution uniformity coefficient DU: In actual field applications, due to the differ-
ences in application devices or artificial uncontrollable factors (the water distribution
of microsprinkler hoses is not uniform), the actual amount of herbicide applied in
some areas did not reach the amount calculated to achieve optimal application. This
index focuses on areas with a low control effect, which is conducive to ensuring the
necessary minimum application amount.
xi
DU = 100 ×
x
where DU is the distribution uniformity coefficient; %; xi is the mean K of the observed
values in the 1/4 interval with smaller values; and x is the mean value of the sample
observed values.
The average of the three repetition results was used as the final result. SPSS (version
22.0, IBM Analytics) software was used for statistical analysis. (p = 0.05) was used to
determine the significance of the independent variables.
where DU is the distribution uniformity coefficient; %; xi is the mean K of the observed
values in the 1/4 interval with smaller values; and x is the mean value of the sample
observed values.
The average of the three repetition results was used as the final result. SPSS (version
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 22.0, IBM Analytics) software was used for statistical analysis. (p = 0.05) was used 6to
of de-
13
termine the significance of the independent variables.
3. Results
3. Results
3.1.
3.1.Water
WaterDistribution
DistributionCharacteristics
Characteristics
WeWe tested the cumulativewater
tested the cumulative watervolume
volume sprayed
sprayed atat different points of
different points of the
themicrosprin-
microsprin-
kler
klerhose
hosetotounderstand
understandthe thewater
waterdistribution
distribution characteristics andconstruct
characteristics and construct(Figure
(Figure4).4).The
The
distribution
distributionofofthe thesprayed
sprayedwater
waterin inthe
thelongitudinal
longitudinal direction wasrelatively
direction was relativelyuniform,
uniform,and and
the
theoverall
overall water amount
amountwas wassymmetrical
symmetrical along
along the longitudinal
the longitudinal water distribution.
water distribution. There
There
was awas a point
point where where the sprayed
the sprayed water water amount
amount was was the maximum,
the maximum, and and the diffusion
the diffusion on
onboth
bothsides
sides of of
thethe
point decreased
point decreased gradually. The The
gradually. spraying intensity
spraying increased
intensity first and
increased then
first and
decreased
then gradually
decreased in the in
gradually transverse direction.
the transverse In the longitudinal
direction. direction, the
In the longitudinal maximum
direction, the
amount of sprayed water volume was 789 mL at 1.7 m away
maximum amount of sprayed water volume was 789 mL at 1.7 m away from the mi- from the microsprinkler hose
in the head. hose
crosprinkler At the inend
theof the microsprinkler
head. At the end of the hose, the maximum hose,
microsprinkler water the
volume
maximumwas 650water
mL
at 1.4 m away from the hose. In the middle of the microsprinkler hose,
volume was 650 mL at 1.4 m away from the hose. In the middle of the microsprinkler hose,the maximum value
was
the 633 mL atvalue
maximum 1.7 mwas
away633from
mL the hose.
at 1.7 m away from the hose.
Figure 4. Water distribution of the microsprinkler hose. The figure shows the water distribution.
Figure 4. Water distribution of the microsprinkler hose. The figure shows the water distribution. The
The straight line in the figure is the location of the microsprinkler hose. The abscissa is the longitu-
straight line in the figure is the location of the microsprinkler hose. The abscissa is the longitudinal
dinal water distribution (parallel to the direction of the microsprinkler hose), and the ordinate is the
water distribution
transverse (parallel (perpendicular
water distribution to the direction to
ofthe
thedirection
microsprinkler hose), and the hose).
of the microsprinkler ordinate is the
transverse water distribution (perpendicular to the direction of the microsprinkler hose).
Figure 5 show the accumulative water amount at each sampling point along the
Figure 5 show the accumulative water amount at each sampling point along the
transverse
transversewater
waterdistribution
distributionandand the
the longitudinal water distribution.
longitudinal water distribution.The Theaccumulative
accumulative
water
wateramount
amountshowed
showedaanormal
normaldistribution.
distribution. The
The number
number of of sampling
samplingpoints
pointsatatthe thefront
front
and back was lower, and the number of sampling points in the middle
and back was lower, and the number of sampling points in the middle was higher. The was higher. The
highest water volume was 2018 mL at the sampling point of 1.7 m, and
highest water volume was 2018 mL at the sampling point of 1.7 m, and the lowest water the lowest water
volume
volumewas was907
907mL
mLatatthe
the sampling
sampling point
point of 0.5 m.
of 0.5 m. Based
Based on on the
thedata
datacomparison,
comparison,the the
accumulative
accumulativewaterwateramount
amountatatthe thelocations
locationsthat
thatwere
were0.50.5
m,m,0.80.8
m,m,
1.11.1
m,m, 1.41.4
m,m,
1.71.7
m,m,2.0
m,2.02.3
m,m,2.3and 2.6 m
m, and 2.6away
m away from
fromthethe
microsprinkler
microsprinklerhose
hoseaccounted
accounted for 7.7%, 7.8%,
for 7.7%, 7.8%,9.1%,
9.1%,
19.1%,
19.1%,17.5%,
17.5%,16.5%,
16.5%,12.7%,
12.7%,and
and9.6%
9.6% of
of the
the total amount, respectively.
respectively.ThisThisresult
resultmeans
means
that the distribution was not uniform. However, the cumulative water volume of the
longitudinal distribution was relatively uniform. The accumulative water amount of the
sampling points at 3 m, 20 m, and 37 m was 4270 mL, 3838 mL, and 3409 mL, respectively,
which decreased along the hose length gradually, and the amount was the lowest at the
last sampling point due to the head loss and pressure drop; this is also an important factor
when applying pesticides with microsprinkler irrigation. Due to the long hose and low
uniformity, the application effect should be based on the position with the lowest spraying
amount, and the spraying duration should be extended to increase the uniformity and meet
the requirements of the general pesticide application amount. It is notable that due to the
low application amount and short application duration compared with the irrigation water
amount, the uneven water distribution had little influence on weed control.
last sampling point due to the head loss and pressure drop; this is also an important factor
when applying pesticides with microsprinkler irrigation. Due to the long hose and low
uniformity, the application effect should be based on the position with the lowest spraying
amount, and the spraying duration should be extended to increase the uniformity and
meet the requirements of the general pesticide application amount. It is notable that due
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 to the low application amount and short application duration compared with the irriga- 7 of 13
tion water amount, the uneven water distribution had little influence on weed control.
Figure
Figure Wateraccumulation
5. 5.Water accumulationatatthe
thetransverse
transversesampling
samplingpoints
pointsand
andthe
the longitudinal
longitudinal sampling
sampling points.
points.
Three repeated trials were conducted during the laboratory experiment to ensure
Three repeated
accuracy. The datatrials were conducted
in Figure during the
5 are the average laboratory
values experiment
of the three trials. to
Theensure
errorac-
bar is the
curacy. The error
standard data in
ofFigure 5 are
the three the average values of the three trials. The error bar is the
trials.
standard error of the three trials.
3.2. DU in the Longitudinal and Transverse Directions
3.2. DUOn
in the
theLongitudinal
eighth andand Transverse
sixteenth daysDirections
following microsprinkler irrigation, the growth of
theOn the eighth
wheat and sixteenth
and weeds days was
in the field following microsprinkler
observed, and on the irrigation,
thirtieththe growth
day, of and
the dead
the wheat and weeds in the field was observed, and on the thirtieth day, the
live weeds were counted. To facilitate the comparison, we photographed and recorded dead and live
weeds
weedwere counted.
growth To facilitate
at different areas inthethe
comparison, we photographed
three test plots (Figure 6). Noand recorded weed
malformation, chlorosis,
growth at different areas in the three test plots (Figure 6). No malformation,
disease spots, or growth retardation were found in the wheat, indicating that chlorosis,
the herbicide
disease spots,
only had anor growth retardation
inhibitory effect on the were found
target in theand
weeds wheat,
wasindicating
safe on thethat the herbicide
wheat crop. Thus, the
only
herbicide application had a significant inhibiting effect on weed growth,crop.
had an inhibitory effect on the target weeds and was safe on the wheat Thus, a good
ensuring
the herbicide application had a significant inhibiting effect on weed growth,
growing environment and an adequate nutrient supply for crops. The tested herbicide
Agronomy 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW ensuring 8 aof 14was
good growing environment and an adequate nutrient supply for crops. The
not only a feasible option but was also an important factor in ensuring crop growth. tested herbi-
cide was not only a feasible option but was also an important factor in ensuring crop
growth.
(a) Test plot A (1.5 g/L)
(b) Test plot B (2.0 g/L)
(c) Test plot C (3.0 g/L)
(d) Test plot D (0 g/L)
Figure 6. Weeds at the head, middle, and end of the microsprinkler hose in the test plots after 30
Figure 6. Weeds at the head, middle, and end of the microsprinkler hose in the test plots after 30 days
days of application. In each test plot, the figures from left to right represent the head, middle, and
of application. In each test plot, the figures from left to right represent the head, middle, and end of
end of the microsprinkler hose. The picture shows the results of one of the three trials.
the microsprinkler hose. The picture shows the results of one of the three trials.
Figure 7 shows the calculated weed control effect after the field experiment and sta-
tistical analysis. The value increased first and then decreased in the transverse direction,
showing a normal distribution. The highest weed control effect occurred in the middle of
the transverse distance, which was related to the water distribution characteristics. In com-
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 8 of 13
Figure 7 shows the calculated weed control effect after the field experiment and
statistical analysis. The value increased first and then decreased in the transverse direction,
showing a normal distribution. The highest weed control effect occurred in the middle
of the transverse distance, which was related to the water distribution characteristics.
In comparison to the other test plots, test plots A and C had the lowest weed control
effects. Test plot A had the lowest and highest weed control effects of 87.93% and 95.36%,
respectively, with an average of 91.80%. However, the effect in test plot C was lower than
that in plot A, at 68.42% and 98.73%, respectively. In fact, due to the higher herbicide
concentration, the highest weed control effect in plot C was still higher than that in plot A.
However, the overall weed control effect was not high because the effect at the end of the
hose was too low. In addition, due to the high concentration, the spraying duration was
reduced to maintain the total application amount. A short application duration resulted in
the increased influence of the head loss and pressure drop at the end of the hose. According
to the water distribution obtained, the cumulative application amount at the end was the
lowest, and shortening the application time would have worsened this effect. The overall
weed control effect in plot B was higher than that in the other plots. The lowest value was
89.05%, the highest was 98.04%, and the mean was 93.56%. These values were determined
by the appropriate herbicide concentration and application duration. Notably, the weed
Agronomy 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
control effect of the sampling point at 37 m was generally lower than that of the other two
sampling points, which was obviously related to the water distribution.
(a) Test plot A (b) Test plot B
(c) Test plot C
Figure 7. Weed control effect at the sampling points in the test plots. The data are the average of
Figure 7. Weed control effect at the sampling points in the test plots. The data are the average of
the three observations. The error bar is the standard error of the observations. After the signifi-
thecance
threeanalysis,
observations. The errordata
the intergroup barhad
is the standarddifferences
significant error of the observations.
(p ˂ After
0.05), while the the significance
intragroup data
analysis, the intergroup data had significant
had no significant differences (p ˃ 0.05). differences (p < 0.05), while the intragroup data had no
significant differences (p > 0.05).
Both the 1.5 g/L and 2.0 g/L treatments had better weed control efficiency and gener-
Both
ally metthe
the 1.5 g/L and of
requirements 2.0weed
g/L control.
treatments
Due had better
to the high weed control the
concentration, efficiency
spraying and
generally met the requirements of weed control. Due to the high concentration, the
duration was reduced to maintain the total application amount. The short application du-spraying
duration was reduced
ration resulted to maintain
in an increased the total
influence of theapplication amount.
head loss and pressureThe short at
decrease application
the end
duration resulted
of the hose. At theinconcentration
an increasedofinfluence of the
3.0 g/L, the head loss
cumulative and pressure
application decrease
amount at the
at the end
was too low and did not meet the requirement of stopping weed growth, resulting in poor
weed control.
The DUs in the longitudinal (Figure 8) and transverse (Figure 9) directions were cal-
culated according to the weed control effect at different locations.
the three observations. The error bar is the standard error of the observations. After the signifi-
cance analysis, the intergroup data had significant differences (p ˂ 0.05), while the intragroup data
had no significant differences (p ˃ 0.05).
Both the 1.5 g/L and 2.0 g/L treatments had better weed control efficiency and gener-
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 ally met the requirements of weed control. Due to the high concentration, the spraying 9 of 13
duration was reduced to maintain the total application amount. The short application du-
ration resulted in an increased influence of the head loss and pressure decrease at the end
of theof
end hose.
the At the At
hose. concentration of 3.0 g/L,
the concentration theg/L,
of 3.0 cumulative application
the cumulative amount atamount
application the end at the
was
end was too low and did not meet the requirement of stopping weed growth,inresulting
too low and did not meet the requirement of stopping weed growth, resulting poor in
weed control.
poor weed control.
The
TheDUs
DUs in in
thethe
longitudinal (Figure
longitudinal 8) and8)transverse
(Figure (Figure (Figure
and transverse 9) directions were cal- were
9) directions
culated according to the weed control effect at different locations.
calculated according to the weed control effect at different locations.
Agronomy2023,
Agronomy 2023,13,
13,x xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 1010ofof1414
Figure
Figure8.8.Longitudinal
Longitudinaldistribution uniformity
distribution in the
uniformity in test
the plots.
test plots.
Figure9.9.
Figure
Figure Transverse
9.Transverse
Transverse distribution
distribution uniformity
uniformity
distribution ininthe
uniformity the testtest
in test
the plots.
plots.
plots.
The
The data
Thedata
datainininFigure
Figure
Figures 99and
and Figure
Figure
9 and 10 1010are
are are the
thethe calculated
calculated
calculated values
values
values ofofof thethree
the
the threetrials
three trials(2017–
(2017–
(2017–2019).
2019).
2019).
The Theerror
The
error error
bar bar
theisisstandard
isbar thestandard
the standard error
error
error ofofthe
of the thethree
threethree trials.
trials.
trials.
Figure10.
Figure 10.Schematic
Schematicofofthe
thecomprehensive
comprehensiveDU DUcalculation.
calculation.According
Accordingtotothe
thesampling
samplingarea,
area,there
there
Figure 10. Schematic of the comprehensive DU calculation. According to the sampling area, there
werethree
were threesampling
samplingzones
zonesinineach
eachlongitudinal
longitudinalcolumn,
column,five
fivesampling
samplingareas
areasinineach
eachtransverse
transverserow,
row,
were
and three
and1515 sampling
calculated
calculated zones
values
values were
were inobtained
each longitudinal
obtainedbybycombining
combiningcolumn,
them;five
them; sampling
these
these areas in the
valuesrepresent
values represent each transverse row,
thetransverse
transverse
and
and 15 calculated
andlongitudinal
longitudinal values were
uniformity
uniformity ofoftheobtained
the by combining
sampleareas,
sample areas, them; these values represent the transverse
respectively.
respectively.
and longitudinal uniformity of the sample areas, respectively.
Whenthe
When theconcentration
concentrationwas
waslower
lowerthan
than2.0
2.0g/L,
g/L,there
therewas
waslittle
littledifference
differenceininthe
theDUs
DUs
ofofthe
thelongitudinal
longitudinaldistribution
distributionatateach
eachsampling
samplingpoint
pointmaintained
maintainedaboveabove95%.
95%.TheThelongi-
longi-
tudinalDU
tudinal DUwas
wasnot
notsignificantly
significantlydifferent
different(p(p>>0.05)
0.05)along
alongthe
thetransverse
transversedistance
distancebetween
between
thesampling
the samplingpoints,
points,showing
showinghigh stabilityand
highstability androbustness.
robustness.However,
However,atataahigher
higherconcen-
concen-
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 10 of 13
When the concentration was lower than 2.0 g/L, there was little difference in the
DUs of the longitudinal distribution at each sampling point maintained above 95%. The
longitudinal DU was not significantly different (p > 0.05) along the transverse distance
between the sampling points, showing high stability and robustness. However, at a higher
concentration (3.0 g/L), the longitudinal DU of each sampling point was significantly
different in which the lowest DU (78.9%) and the highest DU (96.9%) even differed by 18%.
The shorter the transverse distance, the lower the longitudinal DU. The longer the
transverse distance of the sampling points, the higher the longitudinal DU, and the more
uniform the herbicide distribution. Thus, the closer to the microsprinkler hose, the more un-
even the herbicide distribution along the hose, which was also reflected in the distribution
of the weed control effect and was well explained by the water distribution characteristics.
The sampling points with shorter transverse distances received higher amounts of irrigation
water, and the difference between the accumulated water and herbicide amount at the
front and the end was larger, which aggravated their unevenness. With the increase in the
transverse distance, the irrigation water amount decreased, and the difference caused by
the irrigation water amount between the head and the end gradually decreased, reducing
the influence on the longitudinal DU. In addition, this difference was also due to the shorter
application duration. Due to the high herbicide concentration, the application duration
needed to be shortened to ensure that the total amount was constant, and the resulting
difference also promoted the low longitudinal DU.
Compared with the longitudinal DU, the transverse DU showed minimal differences.
The overall trend was slightly different. The longitudinal DU of test plot A was 98.0–98.5%,
and the difference was small. The minimum value of test plot B was 96.9–97.1%, which
was less than the longitudinal DU of plot A, but the robustness was better. The difference
in the DUs of plot C was the largest, the lowest value was 90.2%, and the maximum
value was 98.6%. When the treatment concentration was low (1.5 g/L and 2.0 g/L), the
transverse DU was consistent with the longitudinal DU, which remained above 95%. The
fluctuation was smaller with the increase in longitudinal distance. However, when the
treatment concentration was higher (3.0 g/L), the transverse DU gradually decreased with
increasing longitudinal distance. Similar to the longitudinal DU, the phenomenon can
also be explained by the water consumption distribution. A short application duration,
substantial head loss, and decreased irrigation water caused a sudden drop in the transverse
DU at the end of the microsprinkler hose.
3.3. Newly Developed Comprehensive DU
The application effect of the microsprinkler hose was tested and compared based
on two indices: the weed control effect and weed control uniformity (DU). However, in
practical applications, it is tedious and complicated to compare the water distribution and
the uniformity of the application effect horizontally and longitudinally. To simplify the
description and evaluation of the application uniformity and analyze the influence between
the transverse DU and the longitudinal DU, the concept of comprehensive uniformity
was introduced according to the comprehensive water distribution uniformity [12]. The
relative error of the transverse DU and the longitudinal DU was taken as the evaluation
index of the comprehensive uniformity. The smaller the relative deviation, the higher the
comprehensive uniformity.
/DUl −DUt /
DU = 1 − ×100%
DUl
where DU is the comprehensive uniformity; DUl is the longitudinal uniformity; DUt is the
transverse uniformity.
By combining different measuring points, three transverse DUs and five longitudinal
DUs were obtained for each test plot, and 15 comprehensive DUs were obtained by complete
combination (Figure 10). The above results were averaged and used to measure the weeding
uniformity, as shown in Table 3.Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 11 of 13
Table 3. Comprehensive distribution uniformity.
Longitudinal Transverse Sampling Points (m)
Treatments Comprehensive DU
Sampling Points (m) 3 20 37
0.5 0.992609 0.992288 0.996254
1 0.995442 0.995759 0.99184
A 1.5 0.999826 0.999507 0.996555 0.994397
2 0.997147 0.996827 0.999225
2.5 0.986443 0.98612 0.990111
0.5 0.985245 0.986992 0.985432
1 0.996892 0.99866 0.997081
B 1.5 0.990278 0.992035 0.990467 0.991168
2 0.992019 0.993779 0.992208
2.5 0.988164 0.989917 0.988352
0.5 0.750906 0.758269 0.857296
1 0.908547 0.914981 0.998489
C 1.5 0.931751 0.938048 0.977263 0.921321
2 0.964605 0.970709 0.947207
2.5 0.982422 0.988421 0.930907
The comprehensive DU was consistent with the longitudinal DU and transverse DU.
The distribution uniformity of the plots with high concentrations and short application du-
rations was usually lower. The distribution uniformity of the plots with low concentration
and long application duration was usually higher. There was no significant difference in the
comprehensive distribution uniformity between test plots A and B; that is, the application
concentrations of 1.5 g/L and 2.0 g/L both had high weed control uniformity, thus, these
concentrations were within the appropriate application concentration range.
4. Discussion
4.1. Application Concentration
The greatest advantage of microsprinkler hoses in the field is that their manufacturing
and implementation costs are much lower than those of furrow irrigation; in addition,
microsprinkler hoses can be rapidly arranged and recovered, and they not only replenish
soil water, but also promote high levels of efficiency and energy savings through the
application of fertilizer and water through the application of integrated technology.
According to this paper, microsprinkler use can improve the environment for nutrient
competition and enhance growth, which are of great significance to crop growth. In this
study, we concluded that the application concentrations of 1.5 g/L and 2.0 g/L both had
high weed control uniformity.
However, quinclorac is suitable for paddy transplant fields or seeding fields. Solanaceae
(tobacco, potatoes, peppers, etc.), Umbelliferae (carrots and celery), Amarantaceae (spinach
and beets), Malvaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Fabaceae crops, and other crops were sensitive to this
herbicide [13,14]. Specifically, when spraying in the field, attention should be given to the
negative effects on nearby crops [14].
Paddy leaf darkening and curling were mainly caused by excessive quinclorac [15].
Once paddy roots are hypoxic for a long time, a large number of yellow and black roots
will appear, leading to a decline in root vitality. After its application, the quinclorac in
the paddy did degrade over time, so poisoning symptoms appeared. When applied, it
is recommended to use lower herbicide concentrations for a long time or use herbicides
several times to prevent damage from the herbicide. Therefore, we believe that 1.5 g/L
may be a reasonable concentration for herbicide application with microsprinkler hoses.
4.2. The Cumulative Herbicide Residual
Quinclorac has great mobility in soil and a long residual effect period [2], so it is easy to
produce residual pesticide damage to a variety of sensitive crops. If the application of thisAgronomy 2023, 13, 1034 12 of 13
herbicide exceeds the limit, many aftercrops will incur damage [16]. Watermelon planted
after the stubble will appear to be inhibited in growth, dark green leaves, fewer roots, and
leaf shrinkage symptoms. Therefore, when paddy fields are changed to plant watermelon
and other melon crops [13], attention should be paid to the dose of quinclorac applied in
paddy fields and the fine water spray should be increased to reduce the residual amount in
the soil to prevent the pesticide damage to the following crops [17]. The content of organic
matter in sandy soil is small, and the ability to adsorb herbicides is poor [18]. Therefore,
the amount of herbicide should also be appropriately reduced to avoid damaging the root
system. Soil with high viscosity and high organic matter content has a strong ability to
adsorb herbicides, and the chemical solution cannot easily spread and move in the soil,
which can easily cause a massive herbicide layer. When applying the herbicide, the amount
can be increased appropriately.
5. Conclusions
Herbicide application with a microsprinkler hose can not only replenish soil moisture,
but also achieve high efficiency and energy saving. Through laboratory tests and field
irrigation experiments, the water distribution characteristics and the herbicide application
effect were explored. The results show that the application effect was correlated with the
water distribution characteristics. In general, the lower application concentration (1.5 g/L
and 2.0 g/L) had a significantly higher weed control effect and application uniformity than
the high concentration treatment (3.0 g/L), which could achieve a better application effect.
In practical application, the specific dosage should be determined according to the crop
and soil environmental conditions, and the application concentration and duration should
be adjusted accordingly.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.W.; methodology, H.W. and W.S.; software, H.W. and
W.S.; validation, H.W.,W.S., G.L., Q.Z., W.W. and X.H.; formal analysis, H.W. and G.L.; investigation,
H.W.; resources, H.W. and Q.Z.; data curation, G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.W. and
W.W.; writing—review and editing, H.W.,W.S., G.L., Q.Z., W.W. and X.H.; visualization, W.W. and
Q.Z.; supervision, W.W; project administration, W.W. and X.H.; funding acquisition, W.W. and X.H.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant
number (52079113 and U2243235).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful for the financial support from the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (52079113; U2243235).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Declaration of Competing Interest: The authors declare no financial or commercial conflicts of interest.
References
1. Ceng, X.; Li, Y.; Niu, X.; Wang, S. Existing problems and countermeasures in the production, operation, use and management of
pesticide in China. Xi’an, Shaanxi, China 2002, 3. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=
IGNE200210001065&DbName=CPFD2002 (accessed on 28 March 2023).
2. Bu, Y.; Kong, Y.; Zhi, Y.; Wang, J.; Dan, Z. Pollution of Chemical Pesticides on Environment and Suggestion for Prevention and
Control Countermeasures. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2014, 16, 19–25.
3. Kavlock, R.J.; Ankley, G.T. A perspective on the risk assessment process for endocrine-disruptive effects on wildlife and human
health. Risk Anal. 1996, 16, 731–739. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Zhao, H.; Wu, P.; Zhu, D.; Zhang, K.; Feng, Y.; Tan, Z. Spraying Hydraulic Performance of Double Travelling Rain Guns for Hose
Reel Irrigator under Low Pressure. Water Sav. Irrig. 2019, 6, 6–9.
5. Gao, S.; Li, Q.; Cai, Y.; Bao, L.; Ren, P. Design of Flow Variable Spraying Device. M. Agric. Equip. 2019, 40, 8–42.
6. Liu, Y. Solar Power Large Span Translational Administer Sprinkler Design and Test; Anhui Agricultural University: Anhui, China, 2017.
7. Hui, X.; Mei, P.; Wang, X. Research of the Detection Method of Indirect ELISA for Acetochlor Residue in Soil. Chem. Bioeng. 2008,
25, 72–74.Agronomy 2023, 13, 1034 13 of 13
8. Talaviya, T.; Shah, D.; Patel, N.; Yagnik, H.; Shah, M. Implementation of artificial intelligence in agriculture for optimisation of
irrigation and application of pesticides and herbicides. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2020, 4, 58–73. [CrossRef]
9. Hura, C.; Leanca, M.; Rusu, L.; Hura, B.A. Risk assessment of pollution with pesticides in food in the Eastern Romania area
(1996–1997). Toxicol. Lett. 1999, 107, 103–107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Guo, X.; Feng, Y.; Li, G.; Li, Y.; Zhang, R. Control Efficiency and Safety Evaluation of 3% Foramsulfuron OD on Weeds in Summer
Corn Field. J. Shanxi Agric. Sci. 2019, 47, 259–261.
11. Gou, W. Experimental Study on Hydraulic Performance of Thin Wall Micro Spray Belt; Tianjin Agricultural University: Tianjing, China,
2019.
12. Zhang, G. Dichloroquinolinic acid should not be used in the middle and late period of rice growth. Plant Prot. Technol. Ext. 2002,
1, 29.
13. Zhong, Q.; Shen, C.; Chen, R.; Lian, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J. Effects of three herbicides in rice field on the safety of peanut after
stubble. Agric. Technol. 2018, 38, 5–7.
14. Liu, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, W.; Yang, X. Herbicide hazards and their prevention and remediation. Sci. Technol. Tianjin
Agric. Forest. 2005, 6, 18–20.
15. Ma, H.; Li, G.; Wu, W.; Liu, L. Effects of meteorological factors on herbicide application and application techniques. M. Agric. Sci.
Technol. 2006, 5, 77–78.
16. Chen, L.; Huang, Y. Cause analysis and prevention and control of herbicide application in maize field. J. Agric. Res. Env. 2012, 29,
23–25.
17. He, Y.; Jiang, S.; Shu, X.; Tong, G.; Zhong, M. Research progress on environmental residual status and remediation strategies of
quinclorac herbicide. Chin. J. Pestic. Sci. 2021, 23, 31–41.
18. Chang, F. Some suggestions for the safe use of herbicides. M. Agric. 2018, 5, 29.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.You can also read
