欢迎访问《中国农学通报》，
中国农学通报

中国农学通报 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (7): 176-183.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0402

• 植物保护·农药 • 上一篇    下一篇

韭菜绿色植保方案筛选

谭德龙1(), 程堂根2, 齐海军1, 曹海顺1, 谢卓林2, 黄叙豪2, 林泽钦1, 吴廷全1()   

  1. 1 广东省农业科学院设施农业研究所， 广州 510640
    2 广州市钱大妈农产品有限公司， 广州 510220
  • 收稿日期:2025-05-21 修回日期:2025-10-03 出版日期:2026-04-15 发布日期:2026-04-15
  • 通讯作者:
    吴廷全，男，1976年出生，安徽定远人，研究员，博士，研究方向：设施蔬菜抗性与品质性状研究。通信地址：510640 广东省广州市天河区白石岗街2号 广东省农业科学院设施农业研究所，Tel：020-38812692，E-mail：。
  • 作者简介:

    谭德龙，男，1989年出生，副研究员，硕士，研究方向：作物病虫害绿色防治。通信地址：510640 广东省广州市天河区白石岗街2号 广东省农业科学院设施农业研究所，Tel：020-38812692，E-mail：。

  • 基金资助:
    钱大妈蔬菜农残治理专项“韭菜设施化绿色生产模式与智能监管”(QDMFW20230612020)

Selection of Green Plant Protection Schemes for Leeks

TAN Delong1(), CHENG Tanggen2, QI Haijun1, CAO Haishun1, XIE Zhuolin2, HUANG Xuhao2, LIN Zeqin1, WU Tingquan1()   

  1. 1 Institute of Facility Agriculture, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guangzhou 510640
    2 Guangzhou Money Aunt Agricultural Ltd., Guangzhou 510220
  • Received:2025-05-21 Revised:2025-10-03 Published:2026-04-15 Online:2026-04-15

RichHTML

2

PDF (PC)

5

摘要：

本研究旨在筛选控制韭菜病虫害和降低农药残留的绿色植保方案。对比化学防治、农业防治、生物防治及其组合等5种方案（处理1~5，对照为清水），评估其对韭菜灰霉病、疫病、干尖、蓟马的防治效果和农药残留情况。结果显示，处理1、处理3、处理4、处理5对灰霉病、疫病的防效均达到65%以上，均显著高于处理2(<40%)；处理2、处理4和处理5对干尖的防效均大于15%，显著高于处理1和处理3(<3%)；处理1、处理3、处理4和处理5对蓟马的防效均大于66%，显著高于处理2(1.20%)。农药残留检测结果显示，各处理及对照中均未检出噻虫嗪等6种农药。仅处理1检出丙环唑(0.46 mg/kg)和联苯菊酯(0.24 mg/kg)，但参考GB 2763—2021后，其残留量均低于限量标准。综合考虑病虫害防效及农药残留水平，农业防治+生物防治+化学防治（处理5）是韭菜绿色生产的最佳方案，具有推广应用价值。

关键词: 韭菜, 植保方案, 农药残留, 农业防治, 生物防治, 化学防治

Abstract:

To effectively control the pests and diseases of leek and pesticide residues, this study conducted experiments on different plant protection schemes, including treatment 1 (chemical control), treatment 2 (agricultural control), treatment 3 (biological control), treatment 4 (agricultural control + biological control), and treatment 5 (agricultural control + biological control + chemical control), and the control (CK) was treated with clean water. The control effectiveness of diseases and pests such as gray mold disease, phytophthora blight, disease, dry tip, and thrips were evaluated, and the pesticide residues of each treatment and control were also tested. The results of the control effect test showed that treatment 1, treatment 3, treatment 4, and treatment 5 had a control effect of over 65% on gray mold disease and phytophthora blight, which was significantly higher than treatment 2 (with a control effect of less than 40%). For the prevention effect of dry tips, treatment 2, treatment 4, and treatment 5 were all greater than 15%, significantly higher than treatment 1 and treatment 3 (prevention effect less than 3%). The control effects of treatments 1, 3, 4, and 5 on thrips were all greater than 66%, significantly higher than treatment 2 (1.20%). The pesticide residue detection results showed that six chemical pesticides, including thiamethoxam, highly efficient cyhalothrin, benzofenapyr, pyraclostrobin, pyrimethanil, and fludioxonil, were not detected in each treatment and CK (content less than 0.01 mg/kg). In treatment 1, propiconazole and bifenthrin were detected with concentrations of 0.46 and 0.24 mg/kg, respectively. There are currently no maximum residue limits for propiconazole and bifenthrin on leeks. Referring to the GB 2763—2021, both propiconazole and bifenthrin have lower pesticide residues on leeks than the reference limits. Based on the comprehensive results of disease and pest control and pesticide residue, the scheme of treatment 5 is most suitable for green production of leeks and can be widely applied.

Key words: leeks, plant protection plan, pesticide residues, agricultural control, biological control, chemical control