水稻恶苗病防治药剂效果评价

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18010047

中国农学通报 ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (33): 140-146.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb18010047

所属专题：水稻

水稻恶苗病防治药剂效果评价

陈宏州,杨红福,饶鸣帅,姚克兵,庄义庆,缪康,束兆林

江苏丘陵地区镇江农业科学研究所,江苏丘陵地区镇江农业科学研究所,江苏省绿盾植保农药实验有限公司,江苏丘陵地区镇江农业科学研究所,江苏丘陵地区镇江农业科学研究所,江苏丘陵地区镇江农业科学研究所,江苏丘陵地区镇江农业科学研究所

收稿日期:2018-01-08 修回日期:2018-10-31 接受日期:2018-03-23 出版日期:2018-11-22 发布日期:2018-11-22
通讯作者: 束兆林
基金资助:
江苏省农业科技自主创新资金项目“基于种子处理的水稻主要病害简约化防治技术研究”[CX(17)3023]；江苏省第四期333 工程科研资助项目“水稻种传病害抗药性监测及安全防控技术研究”(BRA2015206)；镇江市农业科技支撑项目“水稻种传病害抗药性监测及安全防控技术研究” (NY2015021)。

Efficacy Evaluation of Fungicides for Rice Bakanae Disease

Received:2018-01-08 Revised:2018-10-31 Accepted:2018-03-23 Online:2018-11-22 Published:2018-11-22

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探明水稻恶苗病药剂防治现状,采用菌丝生长速率法分别检测了12种原药及12种制剂对多菌灵和咪鲜胺双重抗性藤仓镰孢菌(Fusarium fujikuroi)的室内毒力,并分别于2016和2017年进行了12种制剂的田间药效试验。室内毒力检测结果表明,12种原药抑菌活性强弱依次为戊唑醇>氰烯菌酯>咪鲜胺>咯菌腈>多菌灵>甲基硫菌灵>乙蒜素>嘧菌酯>噁霉灵>福美双>精甲霜灵>甲霜灵；12种制剂抑菌活性强弱依次为0.25%戊唑醇FS>25%氰烯菌酯SC>25%咪鲜胺EC>20%氰烯菌酯?杀螟丹WP>25g/L咯菌腈FS>16%咪鲜胺?杀螟丹WP>62.5g/L精甲霜灵?咯菌腈FS>22%氟唑菌苯胺FS>12%甲?嘧?甲霜灵FS>17%多菌灵?福美双FS>17%杀螟丹?乙蒜素WP>15%噁霉灵WP。2年田间试验结果表明,12种制剂推荐剂量下对水稻恶苗病防效高低依次为22%氟唑菌苯胺FS>25%氰烯菌酯SC>20%氰烯菌酯?杀螟丹WP>17%杀螟丹?乙蒜素WP>62.5g/L精甲霜灵?咯菌腈FS>12%甲?嘧?甲霜灵FS>0.25%戊唑醇FS>25%咪鲜胺EC>16%咪鲜胺?杀螟丹WP>25 g/L咯菌腈FS>17%多菌灵?福美双FS>15%恶霉灵WP。22%氟唑菌苯胺FS、25%氰烯菌酯SC、20%氰烯菌酯?杀螟丹WP等3种制剂在水稻恶苗病防治及抗性治理中具备更为优良的应用前景。本研究为水稻恶苗病防治提供了科学依据。

关键词: 安徽黄山, 安徽黄山, 台风, 暴雨, 环流型, 天气分析

Abstract: To investigate fungicide control of rice bakanae disease (RBD), the indoor toxicity of 12 fungicides TC and 12 fungicide formulations toFusarium fujikuroi with double-resistance to carbendazim and prochloraz were detected by mycelium growth rate method, respectively, and the field control tests were conducted in 2016 and 2017. The indoor toxicity tests showed that the inhibiting activity of 12 fungicides TC to mycelium growth was tebuconazole > phenamacril > prochloraz > fludioxonil > carbendazim > thiophanate-methyl > ethylicin > azoxystrobin > hymexazol > thiram > metalaxyl-M > metalaxyl, and the inhibiting activity of 12 fungicide formulations was 0.25% tebuconazole > 25% phenamacril > 25% prochloraz > 20% phenamacril?cartap WP > 25 g/L fludioxonil FS > 16% prochloraz?cartap WP > 62.5 g/L metalaxyl-M?fludioxonil FS > 22% penflufen FS > 12% thiophanate-methyl?azoxystrobin?metalaxyl FS > 17% carbendazim?thiram FS > 17% cartap?ethylicin WP > 15% hymexazol WP. Field trials in 2016 and 2017 showed that the field control effect of recommended doses of the 12 fungicide formulations against RBD was in the order of 22% penflufen FS > 25% phenamacril SC > 20% phenamacril ? cartap WP > 17% cartap ? ethylicin WP > 62.5 g/L metalaxyl-M?fludioxonil FS > 12% thiophanate-methyl?azoxystrobin?metalaxyl FS > 0.25% tebuconazole FS > 25% prochloraz EC > 16% prochloraz?cartap WP > 25 g/L fludioxonil FS > 17% carbendazim?thiram FS > 15% hymexazol WP. In conclusion, 22% penflufen FS, 25% phenamacril SC and 20% phenamacril? cartap WP have excellent application prospect in RBD control and resistance management.

中图分类号:

S432.4

陈宏州,杨红福,饶鸣帅,姚克兵,庄义庆,缪康,束兆林. 水稻恶苗病防治药剂效果评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(33): 140-146.

参考文献

[1] Ito S, Kimura J. Studies on the ‘bakanae’ disease of the rice plant[J]. Reports on Hokkaido National Agriculture Experiment Station,1931,27:1-99.
[2] Leslie J F. Genetic status of the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex[J]. Plant Pathology Journal,1999,15:259-269.
[3] Rood M A. Bakanae in field yield loss[J].Rice Journal,2004,15:8-10.
[4] Rheeder J P, Marasas W F, Vismer H F. Production of fumonisin analogs by Fusarium species[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2002,68:2101
-2105.
[5] Chen Z H, Gao T, Liang S P, et al. Molecular mechanism of resistance of Fusarium fujikuroi to benzimidazole fungicides[J]. FEMS Microbiology Letters,
2014,357:77-84.
[6] 杨红福,吉沐祥,姚克兵,等.水稻恶苗病菌对咪鲜胺的抗性研究及治理[J].江西农业学报,2013,25(6):94-96,105.
[7] 陈宏州,杨红福,姚克兵,等.藤仓赤霉菌的抗药性及对不同杀菌剂敏感性的相关分析[J].中国农学通报,2017,33(33):135-141.
[9] Broders K D, Lipps P E, Paul P A, et a1. Evaluation of Fusarium graminearum associated with corn and soybean seed and seedling disease in Ohio[J]. Plant Disease,2007,91(9):1155-1160.
[8] Kuang J, Hou Y P,Wang J X, et a1. Sensitivity of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum to fludioxonil：In vitro determination of baseline sensitivity and resistance risk[J]. Crop Protection,2011,30(7):876-882.
[10] 纪军建,张小风,王文桥. 番茄灰霉病菌对咯菌腈的抗性诱变及抗药突变体的生物学特性[J].农药学学报,2012,14(5):497-502.
[11] 陈夕军,卢国新,童蕴慧,等.水稻恶苗病菌对三种浸种剂的抗性及抗药菌株的竞争力[J].植物保护学报,2007,34(4):425-430.
[12] 黄国洋. 农药试验技术与评价方法[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,2000:30-31.
[13] 赵海红. 六种化学农药防治水稻恶苗病效果[M].作物杂志,2014,(3):136-138.
[14] Wulff EG, S?rensen J L, Lübeck M, et al. Fusarium spp. associated with rice Bakanae: ecology, genetic diversity, pathogenicity and toxigenicity[J].
Environmental Microbiology, 2010, 12(3): 649-657.
[15] Chen Y C, Lai M H, Wu C Y, et al. The Genetic Structure, Virulence, and Fungicide Sensitivity of Fusarium fujikuroi in Taiwan[J]. Phytopathology,2016,
106(6): 624-635.
[16] 杨红福,姚克兵,束兆林,等.甲氧基丙烯酸酯类杀菌剂对水稻恶苗病的田间药效[J].江苏农业科学,2014,42(12):166-167.
[17] 方兴洲,陈莉,产祝龙,等.水稻恶苗病与浸种、催芽和播种等因子的关系研究[J].热带作物学报,2012,33(6):1107-1110.
[18] 丁绪宽,陆珍珍,渠明.不同药剂对水稻恶苗病的防治效果研究[J].现在农业科技,2017,(19):94-95.
[19] Tonin R F B, Avozani A, Danelli A L D, et al. In vitro mycelial sensitivity of Macrophomina phaseolina to fungicides[J]. Pesquisa agropecuária tropical,
2013,43(4):460-466.
[20] Hou Y P, Qu X P, Mao X W, et al. Resistance mechanism of Fusarium fujikuroi to phenamacril in the field [J].Pest management science,2017,
doi:10.1002/ps.4742.
[21] Chen Y, Huang T T, Chen C J, et al. Sensitivity of Fusarium verticillioides isolates from rice to a novel cyanoacrylate fungicide[J].Crop protection,2012,
39:106-109.

水稻恶苗病防治药剂效果评价

Efficacy Evaluation of Fungicides for Rice Bakanae Disease

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

关于本刊

作者中心

审者中心

在线期刊

联系我们

[1]	张树民, 吴海英, 陈聪, 王坤, 吴彩霞, 顾沛澍. 不同高度冷空气侵入登陆台风暴雨过程对比分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(17): 108-117.
[2]	欧徽宁, 黎馨, 周渭. 2018年6月12日广西暴雨预报失误分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(10): 122-126.
[3]	杨栋, 丁烨毅, 黄鹤楼, 朱佳敏, 申子彬. 台风影响下海水养殖塘水环境响应特征分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(1): 82-88.
[4]	王萍,李秀芬,杨晓强,纪仰慧,王晾晾,季生太,姜丽霞. 生长季降水对黑龙江省水稻生产的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(6): 62-69.
[5]	杨昭明,李万志,冯晓莉,余迪. 气候变暖背景下青海汛期暴雨洪涝及次生灾害风险评估[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(3): 131-138.
[6]	张峰,路亚奇,刘翔,赵玉娟. 黄土高原地带连续性暴雨特征分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(29): 123-128.
[7]	韩晓. 台风“海棠”减弱后影响潍坊的暴雨特征分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(19): 107-111.
[8]	陈伟斌,翟舒楠,韩慎友. 基于集合敏感性方法的台风“山竹”暴雨预报分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(18): 85-94.
[9]	刘春生,徐永清,刘赫男,王波,魏磊. 黑龙江省夏季降雨量及暴雨时空分布特征研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(13): 107-111.
[10]	纪凡华,韩雪蕾,杨志勇,徐娟,李慧. 鲁西北一次农业致灾暴雨天气成因分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(1): 103-108.
[11]	李祥科,焦美龄,路亚奇,张洪芬. 陇东暖区切变暴雨特征及成因分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(7): 148-152.
[12]	秦一芳,林双毅,高雅玲,周锦业. 台风对城市道路行道树的影响和对策研究——以福建省厦门市莫兰蒂台风为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(34): 135-140.
[13]	潘玲,陈小苏. “麦德姆”造成山东暴雨的卫星水汽图像分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(31): 98-104.
[14]	刘力源. 台风“苏迪罗”（1513）强降水特征及成因分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(30): 111-121.
[15]	黎娜,涂军华,唐凤,杜俊霖. 酉阳县2次大暴雨天气过程对比分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2017, 33(29): 103-111.