芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性及3种杀菌剂的田间防效

石妞妞; 杜宜新; 阮宏椿; 甘林; 代玉立; 杨秀娟; 陈福如

doi:10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2019.06.009

芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性及3种杀菌剂的田间防效

doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2019.06.009

福建省农业科学院植物保护研究所, 福州福建 350013

基金项目:

福建省科技计划项目——省属公益类科研院所基本科研专项 2017R1025-5

详细信息

作者简介:
石妞妞(1983-), 女, 硕士, 助理研究员, 研究方向:植物真菌病害及其化学防治(E-mail:niuniushi@126.com)

通讯作者:
陈福如(1961-), 男, 研究员, 研究方向:植物真菌病害及其化学防治(E-mail:chenfuruzb@163.com)

中图分类号: S435
计量
- 文章访问数: 1380
- HTML全文浏览量: 211
- PDF下载量: 22
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2019-04-15
- 修回日期: 2019-05-25
- 刊出日期: 2019-06-28

Sensitivity of Phomopsis asparagi to Difenoconazole and Field Disease Control Efficacies of Three Fungicide Products

Institute of Plant Protection, Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Fuzhou, Fujian 350013, China

摘要

摘要: 目的明确芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性及3种杀菌剂对芦笋茎枯病的田间防效。方法采用菌丝生长速率法测定采集分离自福建、河南、湖南、山西、山东的132株芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性，并分析10%苯醚甲环唑WG、35%氟吡菌酰胺·戊唑醇SC和325 g·L^-1嘧菌酯·苯醚甲环唑SC 3种杀菌剂对芦笋茎枯病的田间防效。结果供试的132株芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的有效抑制中浓度EC₅₀在0.010 8~2.654 8 μg·mL^-1，其平均值为（0.6934±0.0441）μg·mL^-1。供试菌株对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性频率分布不符合正态性分布。福建省的供试菌株与山东省、湖南省的供试菌株对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性差异达显著水平（P < 0.05），同一省份内的供试菌株个体间对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性差异也较大。田间药效试验结果表明，10%苯醚甲环唑WG 135.00 g·hm^-2两年试验对芦笋茎枯病的防效分别为75.60%和75.91%，而35%氟吡菌酰胺·戊唑醇SC 118.13+118.13 g·hm^-2的两年防效分别为82.08%和82.32%，325 g·L^-1嘧菌酯·苯醚甲环唑SC 84.38+135.00 g·hm^-2的两年防效分别为82.74%和83.23%，两者的防治效果均显著优于10%苯醚甲环唑WG 135.00 g·hm^-2的防治效果（P < 0.05）。结论田间存在芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性下降的亚群体；氟吡菌酰胺·戊唑醇SC和嘧菌酯·苯醚甲环唑SC供试剂量对芦笋茎枯病的防治效果较好，对芦笋安全，可作为防治芦笋茎枯病的杀菌剂进行轮换使用。
- 芦笋茎枯病菌 /
- 苯醚甲环唑 /
- 敏感性 /
- 田间防效
Abstract: Objective The sensitivity of Phomopsis asparagi to difenoconazole, and the disease control efficacies of 3 fungicide products in the field were studied. Method Pathogen samples of the stem blight disease on asparagus were collected from Fujian, Henan, Hunan, Shanxi, and Shandong provinces and isolated to determine their mycelial growth on a medium laden with difenoconazole. The disease control efficacies of 3 fungicide products, i.e., (a) 10% difenoconazole WG, (b) 35% fluopyram+tebuconazole SC, and (c) 325 g·L^-1 difenoconazole+azoxystrobin SC, were assessed in the field. Result The EC₅₀ of the 132 isolates to difenoconazole ranged between 0.010 8 μg·L^-1 and 2.654 8 μg·mL^-1 averaging (0.693 4±0.044 1)μg·mL^-1. The data did not exhibit a normal distribution pattern. A significant difference in difenoconazole sensitivity was found between the isolates from Fujian and Shandong or Hunan (P < 0.05). Even the pathogen samples from a same province varied in their sensitivity toward the fungicide. The field test demonstrated that when (a) was applied at 135.00 g·hm^-2 the disease severity was reduced by 75.60% in 2017 and 75.91% in 2018; when (b) was employed at 118.13+118.13 g·hm^-2 the severity was lessened by 82.08% in 2017 and 82.32% in 2018; and, when (c) was used at 84.38+135.00 g·hm^-2 the severity was decreased by 82.74% in 2017 and 83.23% in 2018. It indicated that the latter two applications were significantly more effective than the first one for the disease control (P < 0.05). Conclusion The non-normal distribution of the sensitivities to difenoconazole of the pathogen isolates from various localities suggested the existence of resistant subpopulations of P. asparagi in the field. Being safe to Asparagus officinalis, the application of either 35% fluopyram+tebuconazole SC or 325 g·L^-1difenoconazole+azoxystrobin SC was recommended for the control of stem blight disease on asparagus.
- Phomopsis asparagi /
- difenoconazole /
- sensitivity /
- control efficacy

HTML全文

图 1 芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性频率分布

Figure 1. Frequency distribution of P. asparagi sensitivity to difenoconazole at various localities in China

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 全国5省的芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性

Table 1. Sensitivity of P. asparagi isolates to difenoconazole at various localities in China

采集地 Sampling location	菌株数 No. of isolate	苯醚甲环唑EC₅₀值EC₅₀ for difenoconazole/(μg·mL^-1)		菌株间变异系数Variation factor
采集地 Sampling location	菌株数 No. of isolate	范围Range	平均值Mean	菌株间变异系数Variation factor
福建Fujian	33	0.1098~2.6548	0.9184±0.1489a	24.2
河南Henan	24	0.1457~2.3317	0.7353±0.1170ab	16.0
湖南Hunan	20	0.0108~1.4228	0.5167±0.0864b	131.7
山西Shanxi	30	0.0275~1.9352	0.6727±0.1177ab	70.4
山东Shandong	25	0.0209~1.3868	0.5222±0.0833b	66.4
总计Total	132	0.0108~2.6548	0.6934±0.0441	245.8
注：表中数据为平均数±标准差。同列数据后无相同小写字母者表示经Duncan氏新复极差法检验在P = 0.05水平上差异显著。表 2~3同。 Note：Data are mean±SD. Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant difference at P = 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test. The same as Table 2-3.

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 福建省芦笋茎枯病菌对苯醚甲环唑的敏感性

Table 2. Sensitivity of P. asparagi isolates to difenoconazole in Fujian

采集地 Sampling location	菌株数 No. of isolate	苯醚甲环唑EC₅₀值EC₅₀ for difenoconazole/(μg·mL^-1)		菌株间变异系数 Variation factor
采集地 Sampling location	菌株数 No. of isolate	范围Range	平均值Mean	菌株间变异系数 Variation factor
东山县Dongshan	8	0.3351~2.6548	1.3737±0.3015a	7.92
云霄县Yunxiao	6	0.2977~2.2715	0.9965±0.2790a	7.63
新罗区Xiangcheng	4	0.1098~0.9685	0.5985±0.1921a	8.82
仙游县Xianyou	5	0.2462~1.4261	0.7596±0.1951a	5.79
涵江区Hanjiang	6	0.1635~1.2450	0.7024±0.1132a	7.61
晋安区Jin′an	4	0.3106~1.1908	0.7332±0.1866a	3.83
总计Total	33	0.1098~2.6548	0.9184±0.1489	24.2

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 3种杀菌剂对芦笋茎枯病的防治效果

Table 3. Efficacies of 3 fungicide products for controlling stem blight disease on asparagus in the field

活性成分 Active ingredients	用量 /(g·hm^-2)	防治效果Curative efficacy/%
活性成分 Active ingredients	用量 /(g·hm^-2)	2017年	2018年
苯醚甲环唑Difenoconazole	45.00	68.83±0.94f	69.39±0.49e
	67.50	72.75±0.61e	73.30±0.23d
	135.00	75.60±0.14cd	75.91±1.11c
氟吡菌酰胺·戊唑醇Fluopyram+Tebuconazole	59.06+59.06	76.67±0.39c	76.61±0.40c
	78.75+78.75	80.09±0.24b	79.46±0.36b
	118.13+118.13	82.08±0.65a	82.32±0.41a
嘧菌酯·苯醚甲环唑Difenoconazole+Azoxystrobin	42.19+67.50	74.45±1.09de	77.55±0.43c
	56.25+90.00	78.99±0.64b	79.34±0.75b
	84.38+135.00	82.74±0.79a	83.23±0.63a

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(14)

[1]	刘志恒, 孙俊, 杨红, 等.芦笋茎枯病菌生物学特性的研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报, 2008, 39(3):301-304. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2008.03.010 LIU Z H, SUN J, YANG H, et al. Biological characteristics of Phomopsis asparagi the pathogen of asparagus stem blight[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2008, 39(3):301-304.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2008.03.010
[2]	阮宏椿, 石妞妞, 杜宜新, 等.不同芦笋品种苗期对茎枯病的抗性鉴定及其农艺性状观察[J].福建农业学报, 2013, 28(3):241-244. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0384.2013.03.010 RUAN H C, SHI N N, DU Y X, et al. Resistance identification of different asparagus varieties to stem blight disease and comparison of their agronomic traits[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 28(3):241-244.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0384.2013.03.010
[3]	杜宜新, 石妞妞, 阮宏椿, 等. 20种杀菌剂对芦笋茎枯病菌的抑制作用及联合毒力[J].福建农业学报, 2013, 28(2):143-147. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0384.2013.02.010 DU Y X, SHI N N, RUAN H C, et al. Toxicities of 20 fungicides and co-toxicities between propiconazole or azoxystrobin and difenoconazole on Phomopsis asparagi[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 28(2):143-147.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0384.2013.02.010
[4]	陈新建, 叶钟音.芦笋茎枯病菌对甲基托布津的抗药性初步研究[J].南京农业大学学报, 1999, 22(1):29-32. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/njnydxxb199901007 CHEN J X, YE Z Y. Preliminary study on resistance of Phomapsis asparagi Sacc.to thiophanate methyl[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 1999, 22(1):29-32.(in Chinese) http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/njnydxxb199901007
[5]	任文来, 贾莉, 张静, 等.几种杀菌剂对芦笋茎枯病敏感性测定[J].长江蔬菜, 2009(7):41-42. doi: 10.3865/j.issn.1001-3547.2009.07.028 REN W L, JIA L, ZHANG J, et al. Sensitivity test of several fungicides against Phomopsis asparagi[J]. Journal of Changjiang Vegetables, 2009(7):41-42.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3865/j.issn.1001-3547.2009.07.028
[6]	孟凡, 杨迎青, 兰波, 等.不同地理来源芦笋茎枯病菌对杀菌剂抗药性的差异[J].华中农业大学学报, 2013, 32(5):61-65. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2421.2013.05.011 MENG F, YANG Y Q, LAN B, et al. Difference of fungicide resistance of asparagus stem blight fungus from different geographic origins[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2013, 32(5):61-65.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2421.2013.05.011
[7]	慕立义.植物化学保护研究方法[M].北京:中国农业出版社, 1994:76-81. MU L Y. Research Methods of Phytochemical Protection[M]. Beijing:Chinese Agricultural Press, 1994:76-81. (in Chinese)
[8]	杨迎青, 李湘民, 兰波, 等.芦笋茎枯病抗性鉴定方法的建立及芦笋抗病种质资源的筛选[J].植物病理学报, 2012, 42(6):649-654. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0412-0914.2012.06.014 YANG Y Q, LI X M, LAN B, et al. Establishment of a resistance-identification method on asparagus stem blight and evaluation of Asparagus officinalis germplasms[J]. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica, 2012, 42(6):649-654. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0412-0914.2012.06.014
[9]	DAI Y L, GAN L, RUAN H C, et al. Sensitivity of Cochliobolus heterostrophus to three demethylation inhibitor fungicides, propiconazole, diniconazole and prochloraz, and their efficacy against southern corn leaf blight in Fujian Province, China[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2018, 152(2):447-459. doi: 10.1007/s10658-018-1490-z
[10]	CHEN Y, ZHANG Y, YAO J, et al. Frequency distribution of sensitivity of Ustilaginoidea virens to four EBI fungicides, prochloraz, difenoconazole, propiconazole and tebuconazloe, and their efficacy in controlling rice false smut in Anhui Province, China[J]. Phytoparasitica, 2013, 41:277-284. doi: 10.1007/s12600-013-0288-y
[11]	HE L F, LI X X, GAO Y Y, et al. Characterization and fungicide sensitivity of Colletotrichum spp. from different hosts in Shandong, China[J]. Plant disease, 2018, doi: 10.1094/pdis-04-18-0597-re.
[12]	管磊, 郭贝贝, 王晓坤, 等.苯醚甲环唑等杀菌剂包衣种子防治花生冠腐病和根腐病[J].植物保护学报, 2016, 43(5):842-849. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwbhxb201605019 GUAN L, GUO B B, WANG X K, et al. Seed-coating treatment of four fungicides against peanut crown rot and root rot diseases[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2016, 43(5):842-849. (in Chinese) http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwbhxb201605019
[13]	MUNKVOLD G P. Seed pathology progress in academia and industry[J]. Annu Rev Phytopathol, 2009, 47:285-311. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081916
[14]	FRAC (Fungicide Resistance Action Committee). FRAC Code List©.[OL] [2018-06-15]. http://www.frac.frac.info/docs/defaultsource/publications/frac-code-list/frac_code_list_2018-final.pdfsfvrsn=6144b9a_2.