不同药剂对甘薯地下害虫的防治效果

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0450

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了研究噻虫胺、金龟子绿僵菌、辛硫磷、球孢白僵菌等药剂不同施用量(60、75、90 kg/hm²)对甘薯地下害虫的防治效果，以甘薯‘烟薯25’为试材，在河南郑州和鹤壁地下害虫发生严重的地块，筛选适合的甘薯地下害虫药剂及施用量。结果表明：4种药剂对‘烟薯25’的防治效果在郑州和鹤壁效果相似，适合‘烟薯25’的化学药剂是0.5%噻虫胺90 kg/hm²，防治效果和商品率最高为86.67%和92.63%，鲜薯产量比对照最高增产14.95%；金龟子绿僵菌2亿/g施用量75 kg/hm²，防治效果较好，防治效果和商品率最高为77.85%和91.45%，鲜薯比对照增产最高为9.52%；球孢白僵菌150亿/g 75 kg/hm²防治效果较好，防治效果和商品率最高为78.03%和91.62%，鲜薯比对照增产最高为10.86%。化学药剂噻虫胺和生物药剂金龟子绿僵菌、球孢白僵菌对‘烟薯25’地下害虫防治效果较好，适合在甘薯种植上进行示范推广。

关键词: 甘薯, 地下害虫, 药剂, 防治效果

Abstract:

In order to study the effect of different application rates (60kg/hm², 75kg/hm², 90kg/hm²) of thiamethylamine, Metarhizium anisoplariae, phoxium phoxium, Beauveria bassiana and other agents on the control of underground pests of sweet potato, the sweet potato ‘Yanshu 25’ was used as the test material and suitable insecticides and application dosage of underground sweet potato pests were screened in Zhengzhou and Hebi of Henan Province. The results showed that the control effects of the four agents were similar in Zhengzhou and Hebi. The suitable chemical agent was 0.5% thianidin 90 kg/hm², the highest control effect and commercial rate were 86.67% and 92.63%, and the yield of fresh potato increased by 14.95% compared with the control. The application amount of Metarhizium anisopliae 200 million/g was 75 kg/hm², and the control effect was good, the highest control effect and commercial rate were 77.85% and 91.45%, and the yield of fresh potato increased by 9.52% compared with control. The control effect of Beauveria bassiana 15 billion/g and 75 kg/hm² was better, the highest control effect and commercial rate were 78.03% and 91.76%, and the highest yield increase of fresh potato was 10.86% compared with control. The chemical clothianidin and the biological agents Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana have good control effect on the underground pest of ‘Yanshu 25’, which are suitable for demonstration and popularization in sweet potato planting.

Key words: sweet potato, underground pests, medication, prevention and control effect

左红娟, 曹辉, 黄松波, 张利鹏, 王伟, 张晓申. 不同药剂对甘薯地下害虫的防治效果[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(32): 145-149.

ZUO Hongjuan, CAO Hui, HUANG Songbo, ZHANG Lipeng, WANG Wei, ZHANG Xiaoshen. Control Effects of Different Chemicals on Underground Pests of Sweet Potato[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(32): 145-149.

图/表 3

参考文献 26

[1]	贺娟, 刘万才, 赵中华, 等. 我国甘薯主要病虫害与防治措施概述[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2022, 42(1):104-106.
[2]	马代夫, 李强, 曹清河, 等. 中国甘薯产业及产业技术的发展与展望[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2012, 12(5):969-973.
[3]	吴卓生, 冯顺洪, 吴春莲, 等. 甘薯新品种普薯32的选育和丰产栽培要点[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2012(10):125-127.
[4]	陈建明, 俞晓平, 陈列忠, 等. 我国地下害虫的发生为害和治理策略[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2004, 16(6):389-394.
[5]	陈太春, 冯志珍, 张国龙, 等. 不同药剂处理对红薯地下害虫田间防治研究[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2015(9):73-74.
[6]	杨育峰, 贾连东, 李君霞, 等. 4种药剂对甘薯地下害虫的防治效果研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2015, 28(5):2075-2078.
[7]	孙厚俊, 孙厚浩, 赵永强, 等. 不同药剂对甘薯地下害虫的防治效果[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2017, 45(29):157-158,213.
[8]	胡亚亚, 刘兰服, 韩美坤, 等. 7种药剂对甘薯田蛴螬的防治效果[J]. 江苏师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 37(2):31-34.
[9]	兰孟焦, 吴问胜, 肖满秋, 等. 4种药剂及其混配对甘薯地下害虫的田间防效[J]. 植物保护, 2022, 48(2):283-288.
[10]	雷剑, 杨新笋, 苏文瑾, 等. 三种微胶囊剂防治甘薯地下害虫效果研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2013, 52(20):4942-4943.
[11]	汪治, 刘明锋, 邹荷香, 等. 3%氯虫苯甲酰胺·噻虫胺颗粒剂防治甘薯地下害虫田间试验初探[J]. 湖北植保, 2022(2):54-55,80.
[12]	储凤丽, 王文静, 胡启国, 等. 不同药剂处理对甘薯地下害虫的防治效果[J]. 山西农业科学, 2014, 42(11):1200-1201,1205.
[13]	范建芝, 周红梅, 段成鼎, 等. 甘薯地下害虫药剂防治效果研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 2013, 45(11):107-108,111.
[14]	李淑梅, 刘天学. 布氏白僵菌防治甘薯蛴螬的试验研究[J]. 农业与技术, 2000, 20(1):47-48.
[15]	刘丽霞, 单月明, 刘春琴, 等. 用于蛴螬防治的Bt土壤颗粒剂筛选[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2017, 33(1):70-78. doi: 10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2017.01.011
[16]	王容燕, 高波, 李秀花, 等. 河北省甘薯生产区蛴螬的发生危害调查[J]. 河北农业科学, 2016, 20(4):44-47.
[17]	主艳飞, 左文静, 庄占飞, 等. 噻虫胺研究开发进展综述[J]. 世界农药, 2017, 39(2):28-33.
[18]	张亚南, 刘雨欣, 李梦瑶, 等. 4种不同药剂对马铃薯蛴螬的防治效果评价[J]. 农药, 2021, 60(10):775-777.
[19]	谢吉先, 冯梦诗, 丁彬, 等. 0.1%噻虫胺药肥用量对花生生育和蛴螬防治效果的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(13):93-97.
[20]	王勇, 关学柱, 王元中, 等. 5种生物杀虫剂对云南玉龙县马铃薯蛴螬的防治效果[J]. 昆明学院学报, 2021, 43(6):93-97.
[21]	殷幼平, 申建飞, 时与娟, 等. 金龟子绿僵菌CQMa128新制剂在花生蛴螬的田间防控效果[J]. 植物保护, 2012, 38(3):162-167.
[22]	张亚倩, 谷静秀, 苑士涛, 等. 2亿活孢子/g金龟子绿僵菌CQMa421颗粒剂防治花生地老虎田间药效试验[J]. 农药, 2019, 58(9):684-686.
[23]	谢明惠, 陈浩梁, 林璐璐, 等. 生物农药与化学农药混用对花生蛴螬的减药防控效果[J]. 花生学报, 2020, 49(2):77-81.
[24]	宋龙腾, 于洪春, 王雨薇, 等. 卵孢白僵菌与农药混用对蛴螬防治效果研究[J]. 北方园艺, 2013(1):131-134.
[25]	谌金吾, 王正文, 黄胜先, 等. 白僵菌对蓝莓蛴螬不同毒杀方法效果分析[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2017(1):1-3.
[26]	俞德洪, 张会华, 杨晓丽, 等. 球孢白僵菌粉剂、绿僵菌粉剂对甘蔗蛴螬的防效研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2016(6):131-132.

处理	调查总薯块数/块	虫咬率/%	防治效果/%	商品率/%	鲜薯产量/(kg/hm²)	增产率/%
A	847	20.01b	33.85h	90.12e	24158j	3.70h
B	853	9.87g	67.37c	90.26e	24845f	6.64de
C	851	9.81g	67.57c	91.56b	24911e	6.93d
D	849	13.94e	53.92e	90.64d	24384i	4.67h
E	848	10.21f	66.25d	91.53b	25706b	10.34b
F	852	5.09i	83.17a	92.71a	26412a	13.37a
G	842	17.92d	40.76f	89.01g	23972k	2.90i
H	847	14.02e	53.65e	89.79f	24471h	5.04g
I	849	10.13f	66.51d	91.23c	24884e	6.81d
J	843	18.93c	37.42g	90.02e	24561g	5.43f
K	846	9.65h	68.10b	90.87d	25197d	8.16c
L	848	9.59h	68.29b	91.76b	25254c	8.40c
M(CK)	845	30.25a	-	83.67h	23297l	-

处理	调查总薯块数/块	虫咬率/%	防治效果/%	商品率/%	鲜薯产量/(kg/hm²)	增产率/%
A	847	20.01b	33.85h	90.12e	24158j	3.70h
B	853	9.87g	67.37c	90.26e	24845f	6.64de
C	851	9.81g	67.57c	91.56b	24911e	6.93d
D	849	13.94e	53.92e	90.64d	24384i	4.67h
E	848	10.21f	66.25d	91.53b	25706b	10.34b
F	852	5.09i	83.17a	92.71a	26412a	13.37a
G	842	17.92d	40.76f	89.01g	23972k	2.90i
H	847	14.02e	53.65e	89.79f	24471h	5.04g
I	849	10.13f	66.51d	91.23c	24884e	6.81d
J	843	18.93c	37.42g	90.02e	24561g	5.43f
K	846	9.65h	68.10b	90.87d	25197d	8.16c
L	848	9.59h	68.29b	91.76b	25254c	8.40c
M(CK)	845	30.25a	-	83.67h	23297l	-

处理	调查总薯块数/块	虫咬率/%	防治效果/%	商品率/%	鲜薯产量/(kg/hm²)	增产率/%
A	852	21.56b	53.75i	89.71e	24029k	5.02j
B	849	10.34g	77.77b	90.23d	24948f	9.04e
C	853	10.30g	77.85b	91.45b	25059e	9.53d
D	843	14.65e	68.50f	90.36d	24235j	5.93i
E	846	10.38g	77.68c	91.45b	25602b	11.90b
F	851	6.21h	86.67a	92.63a	26301a	14.95a
G	841	18.17d	60.93g	88.24f	23856l	4.27k
H	849	14.25e	69.36e	89.68e	24320i	6.29h
I	852	11.36f	75.58d	91.34bc	24803g	8.40f
J	840	20.13c	56.72h	89.83e	24413h	6.70g
K	845	10.26g	77.94b	90.41d	25197d	10.41c
L	846	10.21g	78.03b	91.62b	25364c	10.86c
M(CK)	843	46.51a	-	76.25g	22880m	-

处理	调查总薯块数/块	虫咬率/%	防治效果/%	商品率/%	鲜薯产量/(kg/hm²)	增产率/%
A	852	21.56b	53.75i	89.71e	24029k	5.02j
B	849	10.34g	77.77b	90.23d	24948f	9.04e
C	853	10.30g	77.85b	91.45b	25059e	9.53d
D	843	14.65e	68.50f	90.36d	24235j	5.93i
E	846	10.38g	77.68c	91.45b	25602b	11.90b
F	851	6.21h	86.67a	92.63a	26301a	14.95a
G	841	18.17d	60.93g	88.24f	23856l	4.27k
H	849	14.25e	69.36e	89.68e	24320i	6.29h
I	852	11.36f	75.58d	91.34bc	24803g	8.40f
J	840	20.13c	56.72h	89.83e	24413h	6.70g
K	845	10.26g	77.94b	90.41d	25197d	10.41c
L	846	10.21g	78.03b	91.62b	25364c	10.86c
M(CK)	843	46.51a	-	76.25g	22880m	-