Lactulose: Control Effect on Cucumber Fusarium Wilt and Its Induced Resistance in Cucumber

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20190400052

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the control effect and elementary mechanism of lactulose on cucumber Fusarium wilt, samples treated with different concentrations of lactulose and activity of related resistance enzymes were tested on cucumber. Inhibition rate of lactulose on Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum was determined by the growth rate method, the control effect test was carried out with radicle inoculation method and root inoculation method in potted cultivation, and the activity of related resistance enzymes were assayed by spectrophotometry. 1 mg/L lactulose had the best control effect in the concentration gradient test, and the control effect was 43.87% and 41.97% through seed soaking at radicle stage and spray at cotyledon stage, respectively, followed by the control effect of 0.1 mg/L lactulose, which was 39.62% and 37.21%, respectively. However, in vitro activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum test showed that lactulose had no activity. The activity test of peroxidase(POD), polyphenol oxidase(PPO), catalase(CAT) and phenylalanine ammonia lyase(PAL) in cucumber showed that lactulose treated samples expressed higher level of activity than that of control, especially PAL activity of seed soaking at radicle stage and spray at cotyledon stage with 1 mg/L lactulose increased by 97.5% and 92.4%, respectively. In summary, the main mechanism of controlling cucumber Fusarium wilt is the induced resistance of cucumber by lactulose, which can be used as a new kind of biological pesticide in agricultural plant disease prevention and has great potential for development.

Key words: lactulose, cucumber wilt, antagonistic activity, induced resistance, defensive reaction

CLC Number:

S482

Wang Fang, Wei Tingting, Mao Zhiqiang, Jiao Jiao, Cui Shunyan, Zhou Fan. Lactulose: Control Effect on Cucumber Fusarium Wilt and Its Induced Resistance in Cucumber[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(13): 154-159.

Figures/Tables 6

References 25

[1]	Deng J J, Huang W Q, Li Z W , et al. Biocontrol Activity of Recombinant Aspartic Protease from Trichoderma harzianum against Pathogenic Fungi[J]. Enzyme Microb Technol, 2018,112:35-42.
[2]	庄敬华, 高增贵, 杨长成 , 等. 绿色木霉菌T23对黄瓜枯萎秉防治效果及其几种防御酶活性的影响[J]. 植物病理学报, 2005,35(2):179-183.
[3]	谷祖敏, 毕卉, 张兵 , 等. 不同木霉菌株对黄瓜枯萎病菌的拮抗作用[J]. 西北农业学报, 2018,27(3):426-431.
[4]	李书强, 李林会, 沈江洁 , 等. 生防菌对黄瓜枯萎病防效及其对黄瓜诱导抗性测定[J]. 河北科技师范学院学报, 2017,31(1):53-58.
[5]	刘东, 洪峰, 铺子婧 , 等. 不同浓度枯草芽孢杆菌水剂对黄瓜枯萎病的防治效果[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2012(12):63-66.
[6]	吕恒, 牛永春, 邓晖 , 等. 根际真菌对黄瓜土传病害的抑制作用[J]. 应用生态学报, 2015,26(12):3759-3765.
[7]	Wang S, Liang Y, Shen T , et al. Biological characteristics of Streptomyces albospinus CT205 and its biocontrol potential against cucumber Fusarium wilt[J]. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 2016,26(7):1-23.
[8]	Faheem M, Raza W, Zhong W , et al. Evaluation of the biocontrol potential of Streptomyces goshikiensis YCXU against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum[J]. Biological Control, 2014,81.
[9]	李晓春, 王泽昊, 于志国 , 等. 番茄灰霉病菌拮抗稀有放线菌的分离及其抑菌物质分析[J]. 河南农业科学, 2019,48(2):83-90.
[10]	翁祖信, 蒋兴祥, 肖小文 . 黄瓜枯萎病抗病性鉴定方法研究——胚根接种法[J]. 中国蔬菜, 1985(2):30-34.
[11]	周红梅, 毛爱军, 张丽蓉 , 等. 黄瓜枯萎病接种方法及抗性遗传的研究[J]. 华北农学院, 2010,25(4):186-190.
[12]	高长敏, 马光恕, 廉华 , 等. 木霉菌对黄瓜幼苗生长和膜脂过氧化指标的影响及对枯萎病的防治效果[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2018,34(5):762-770.
[13]	李靖, 利荣千, 袁文静 . 黄瓜感染霜霉病菌叶片中一些酶活性的变化[J]. 植物病理学报, 1991,21(4):277-282.
[14]	郭红边, 陈捷, 高增贵 , 等. 不同诱抗剂诱导玉米对灰斑病的抗性及其与PAL的关系[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2000,31(5):465-467.
[15]	刘萍, 李明军 . 植物生理学实验技术[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007: 122.
[16]	刘志斋, 蔡一林, 王久光 . 不同低温处理对离体玉米叶片POD活性的影响[J]. 西南农业大学学报, 2004,26(4):386-388.
[17]	逯明辉, 宋慧, 李晓明 , 等. 冷害过程中黄瓜叶片SOD、CAT和POD活性的变化[J]. 西北植物学报, 2005,25(8):1570-1573.
[18]	石延霞, 徐玉芳, 谢学文 , 等. 氟唑活化酯对黄瓜抗枯萎病的诱导作用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2015,48(19):3848-3856.
[19]	巨灵君, 刘永胜, 云兴福 . 黄瓜枯萎病菌弱毒菌株诱导后叶片内几种物质含量的变化[J]. 内蒙古农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2016,37(2):10-16.
[20]	高增贵, 陈捷, 刘军华 , 等. 拮抗内生细菌B20-006菌株对玉米主要防御酶系的影响[J]. 植物病理学报, 2007,37(1):102-104.
[21]	盘柳依, 赵显阳, 陈明 , 等. 茉莉酸甲酯调控防御酶活性诱导猕猴桃果实抗采后软腐病[J]. 植物保护, 2019,45(1):75-80.
[22]	申宏波, 胡志凤, 丁俊杰 , 等. Harpins诱导苯丙氨酸解氨酶(PAL)活性防治大豆疫霉根腐病研究[J]. 大豆科学, 2011,30(3):526-528.
[23]	陈亮, 陈年来 . 西瓜叶片防御酶活性与枯萎病抗性的关系[J]. 河南农业科学, 2019,48(1):77-83.
[24]	高原, 陈信波, 龙送华 , 等. 亚麻木质素合成途径中关键酶基因片段的克隆与序列分析[J]. 作物学报, 2008,34(2):337-340.
[25]	刘永胜, 王永, 秦立金 , 等. FOC-RA-5诱导后黄瓜叶片内几种酶活性的变化[J]. 北方园艺, 2016(6):1-5.

处理浓度/(mg/L)	胚根浸种		子叶期喷雾		子叶期灌根
处理浓度/(mg/L)	病情指数	防治效果/%	病情指数	防治效果/%	病情指数	防治效果/%
100	42.13	9.75cC	42.33	19.37bB	50.67	3.49aA
10	41.93	20.13bB	41.73	20.51bB	50.47	3.87aA
1	29.47	43.87aA	30.6	41.71aA	49.57	5.59aA
0.1	31.70	39.62aA	32.97	37.21aA	49.67	5.40aA
0.01	43.40	7.33cC	42.93	18.22bB	50.37	4.06aA
CK	52.5	-	52.5	-	52.5	-

处理浓度/(mg/L)	胚根浸种		子叶期喷雾		子叶期灌根
处理浓度/(mg/L)	病情指数	防治效果/%	病情指数	防治效果/%	病情指数	防治效果/%
100	42.13	9.75cC	42.33	19.37bB	50.67	3.49aA
10	41.93	20.13bB	41.73	20.51bB	50.47	3.87aA
1	29.47	43.87aA	30.6	41.71aA	49.57	5.59aA
0.1	31.70	39.62aA	32.97	37.21aA	49.67	5.40aA
0.01	43.40	7.33cC	42.93	18.22bB	50.37	4.06aA
CK	52.5	-	52.5	-	52.5	-