Difference of Pathogenicity of Plasmopara viticola in Jiangsu and Zhejiang

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0080

Abstract

Abstract:

To clarify the pathogenic differentiation of Plasmopara viticola in different regions of Jiangsu and Zhejiang, this study used single-spot separation method and leaf disc inoculation method to obtain different single-spot strains of P. viticola and determine their pathogenicity. The results showed that 80 strains of P. viticola were pathogenic, and the disease index of more than half of the strains in both provinces was between 40 and 60. The pathogenicity cluster analysis showed that the strains of the two provinces could be clustered into three types of strong, medium and weak pathogenicity. Jiangsu had the strong pathogenic strain as the dominant strain, and Zhejiang had the medium pathogenic strain as the dominant strain. The pathogenicity analysis of the strains in the same province found that the strains of Shushan Jiangsu and Yongfu Zhejiang were significantly stronger pathogenic than those of other regions in the same province, while the strains of Xinfang Jiangsu and Shangqian Zhejiang were the weakest pathogenic compared with those of other regions in the same province. At the same time, the phylogenetic tree of the strains was constructed, and the results showed that the pathogenicity of the strains with the same homology was different, and the rDNA-ITS sequences were also different among the strains with the same pathogenicity. In summary, the grape downy mildews causal agent P. viticola in Jiangsu and Zhejiang have pathogenic differentiation, and the pathogenicity differentiation has no correlation with the genetic relationship of the strains, but the pathogenicity differences of the strains in different regions of the same province have a certain correlation with geographical sources.

Key words: Plasmopara viticola, pathogenicity, single-spot separation, Jiangsu, Zhejiang

CLC Number:

S436.631.1+9

Zhang Mei, Guo Xia, Wu Bin, Jiang Shanshan, Wang Shengji, Yang Wanhai, Xin Xiangqi. Difference of Pathogenicity of Plasmopara viticola in Jiangsu and Zhejiang[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(31): 103-109.

Figures/Tables 7

References 26

[1]	赵奎华. 葡萄病虫害原色图鉴[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006: 6-11.
[2]	李宝燕, 于晓丽, 石洁, 等. 葡萄霜霉病田间初始发生相关因素分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019,35(9):28-33.
[3]	沙月霞, 王国珍, 樊仲庆, 等. 宁夏贺兰山东麓不同葡萄品种对霜霉病的抗性鉴定[J]. 果树学报, 2007,24(6):803-809.
[4]	于舒怡, 梁春浩, 刘丽, 等. 沈阳地区葡萄霜霉病流行速率、空中孢子囊密度与环境因素的相关性[J]. 植物保护学报, 2016,43(3):434-441.
[5]	杜蕙, 王春明, 吕和平, 等. 不同来源葡萄霜霉菌致病力差异研究[J]. 中国果树, 2019(1):42-46.
[6]	刘丽, 刘长远, 王辉, 等. 不同葡萄品种对霜霉病的抗性[J]. 植物保护, 2017,43(2):177-182.
[7]	吉丽丽, 李海强, 任毓忠, 等. 葡萄霜霉菌孢子囊扩散动态及与田间病情的相关性[J]. 果树学报, 2012,29(1):94-98.
[8]	李瑞盈, 孙丽华, 张晨宇, 等. 昌黎地区酿酒葡萄霜霉病发生前期气象条件分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(26):120-124.
[9]	王国珍, 樊仲庆, 麻冬梅, 等. 贺兰山酿酒葡萄霜霉病流行规律及测报技术[J]. 植物保护学报, 2004,30(4):54-55.
[10]	Rossi V, Caffi T. The role of rain in dispersal of the primary inoculum of Plasmopara viticola[J]. Phytopathology, 2012,102(2):158-165. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-08-11-0223 URL pmid: 21942732
[11]	王壮伟, 吴伟民, 王西成, 等. 江苏地区葡萄种质资源霜霉病抗性鉴定[J]. 江西农业学报, 2015,27(9):41-44.
[12]	潘明正, 周海清. 浙江大棚葡萄主要病虫害及绿色防控措施[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2018,59(9):1563-1566.
[13]	王国英. 对两个不同来源葡萄霜霉病菌致病性的比较研究[J]. 葡萄栽培与酿酒, 1988(4):4-6.
[14]	刘旭, 梁曼, 王阳, 等. 不同地区葡萄霜霉病菌生物学特性及致病力研究[J]. 北方园艺, 2013(6):119-122.
[15]	宋双, 姜彩鸽, 王国珍, 等. 贺兰山东麓葡萄霜霉病菌致病力分析[J]. 北方园艺, 2018(16):41-46.
[16]	李卓, 周婷婷, 任毓忠, 等. 新疆不同地区葡萄霜霉病菌致病性分化及遗传多样性的分析[J]. 植物保护学报, 2018,45(6):1251-1259.
[17]	Boubals D. Contribution à l'étude des causes de la résistance des vitacées au mildiou de la vigne (Plasmopara viticola (B. et C.) Berl. et T.) et de leur mode de transmission héréditaire[J]. Ann Amélior Plantes, 1959,9:225-233.
[18]	Kast W K, Stark-Urnau M, Seidel M, et al. Inter-isolate variation of virulence of Plasmopara viticola on resistant vine varieties[J]. Bulletin OILB/SROP, 2001,24(7):45-49.
[19]	张眉, 辛相启, 吴斌, 等. 山东葡萄霜霉病菌致病力分化及亲缘关系研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 2015,47(4):95-99.
[20]	穆春华, 张发军, 李文才, 等. 玉米叶片基因组快速提取方法研究[J]. 玉米科学, 2010,18(3):170-172.
[21]	赵雪艳. 中国境内部分区域葡萄霜霉病菌(Plasmopara viticola)的遗传分化[D]. 保定:河北农业大学, 2014.
[22]	毕秋艳, 马志强, 张小风, 等. 三省份葡萄霜霉菌致病型的划分[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2014,16(2):50-58.
[23]	李华. 葡萄霜霉菌异核现象对致病力表现的作用[J]. 西北农业大学学报, 1987,2(15):26-33.
[24]	周婷婷. 新疆地区葡萄霜霉病菌致病性分化研究[D]. 石河子:石河子大学, 2015.
[25]	Kumeda Y, Asao T. Heteroduplexpanel analysis, a novel method for genetic identification of aspergillus section Flavi strains[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2001,67:4084-4090. doi: 10.1128/aem.67.9.4084-4090.2001 URL pmid: 11526009
[26]	贾姝, 赵奎华, 刘长远, 等. 辽宁地区葡萄霜霉病菌ITS序列测定与遗传多样性分析[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2014,45(1):19-23.

序号	采集地点	菌株编号
1	江苏镇江新坊	JZX-1~JZX-10
2	江苏连云港胜泉	JLS-1~JLS-10
3	江苏苏州同心	JST-1~JST-10
4	江苏苏州树山	JSS-1~JSS-10
5	浙江海宁永福	ZHY-1~ZHY-10
6	浙江海宁双联	ZHS-1~ZHS-10
7	浙江金华七一农场	ZJN-1~ZJN-10
8	浙江金华上钱	ZJS-1~ZJS-10

序号	采集地点	菌株编号
1	江苏镇江新坊	JZX-1~JZX-10
2	江苏连云港胜泉	JLS-1~JLS-10
3	江苏苏州同心	JST-1~JST-10
4	江苏苏州树山	JSS-1~JSS-10
5	浙江海宁永福	ZHY-1~ZHY-10
6	浙江海宁双联	ZHS-1~ZHS-10
7	浙江金华七一农场	ZJN-1~ZJN-10
8	浙江金华上钱	ZJS-1~ZJS-10

序号	菌株	发病率/%	病情指数	序号	菌株	发病率/%	病情指数	序号	菌株	发病率/%	病情指数	序号	菌株	发病率/%	病情指数
1	JZX-1	100	44.76	21	JST-1	93.33	50.48	41	ZHY-1	100	79.05	61	ZJN-1	100	68.57
2	JZX-2	100	46.67	22	JST-2	100	47.62	42	ZHY-2	100	54.29	62	ZJN-2	100	49.52
3	JZX-3	100	30.48	23	JST-3	100	57.14	43	ZHY-3	100	46.67	63	ZJN-3	100	46.67
4	JZX-4	100	39.05	24	JST-4	100	58.10	44	ZHY-4	100	62.86	64	ZJN-4	100	52.38
5	JZX-5	93.33	35.24	25	JST-5	40	10.48	45	ZHY-5	100	58.10	65	ZJN-5	100	61.90
6	JZX-6	96.67	38.57	26	JST-6	100	49.52	46	ZHY-6	100	56.19	66	ZJN-6	100	54.29
7	JZX-7	96.67	42.38	27	JST-7	100	41.90	47	ZHY-7	100	69.52	67	ZJN-7	100	42.86
8	JZX-8	100	47.62	28	JST-8	100	43.81	48	ZHY-8	93.33	50.48	68	ZJN-8	100	57.14
9	JZX-9	100	48.57	29	JST-9	100	46.67	49	ZHY-9	96.67	54.76	69	ZJN-9	100	44.76
10	JZX-10	100	38.10	30	JST-10	100	59.05	50	ZHY-10	100	50.48	70	ZJN-10	100	52.38
11	JLS-1	100	46.67	31	JSS-1	100	71.43	51	ZHS-1	100	42.86	71	ZJS-1	100	48.57
12	JLS-2	100	57.14	32	JSS-2	100	49.52	52	ZHS-2	100	44.76	72	ZJS-2	96.67	47.14
13	JLS-3	100	60.95	33	JSS-3	100	69.52	53	ZHS-3	100	42.86	73	ZJS-3	100	54.29
14	JLS-4	100	51.43	34	JSS-4	90	24.29	54	ZHS-4	100	69.52	74	ZJS-4	100	51.43
15	JLS-5	100	71.43	35	JSS-5	100	73.33	55	ZHS-5	100	54.29	75	ZJS-5	100	43.33
16	JLS-6	100	54.29	36	JSS-6	100	83.81	56	ZHS-6	100	61.90	76	ZJS-6	100	49.52
17	JLS-7	100	51.43	37	JSS-7	100	64.76	57	ZHS-7	100	56.19	77	ZJS-7	100	57.14
18	JLS-8	100	60.95	38	JSS-8	100	73.33	58	ZHS-8	100	64.76	78	ZJS-8	100	45.24
19	JLS-9	100	42.86	39	JSS-9	100	70.48	59	ZHS-9	100	46.67	79	ZJS-9	100	30.48
20	JLS-10	100	48.57	40	JSS-10	100	62.86	60	ZHS-10	100	58.10	80	ZJS-10	93.33	47.62

序号	菌株	发病率/%	病情指数	序号	菌株	发病率/%	病情指数	序号	菌株	发病率/%	病情指数	序号	菌株	发病率/%	病情指数
1	JZX-1	100	44.76	21	JST-1	93.33	50.48	41	ZHY-1	100	79.05	61	ZJN-1	100	68.57
2	JZX-2	100	46.67	22	JST-2	100	47.62	42	ZHY-2	100	54.29	62	ZJN-2	100	49.52
3	JZX-3	100	30.48	23	JST-3	100	57.14	43	ZHY-3	100	46.67	63	ZJN-3	100	46.67
4	JZX-4	100	39.05	24	JST-4	100	58.10	44	ZHY-4	100	62.86	64	ZJN-4	100	52.38
5	JZX-5	93.33	35.24	25	JST-5	40	10.48	45	ZHY-5	100	58.10	65	ZJN-5	100	61.90
6	JZX-6	96.67	38.57	26	JST-6	100	49.52	46	ZHY-6	100	56.19	66	ZJN-6	100	54.29
7	JZX-7	96.67	42.38	27	JST-7	100	41.90	47	ZHY-7	100	69.52	67	ZJN-7	100	42.86
8	JZX-8	100	47.62	28	JST-8	100	43.81	48	ZHY-8	93.33	50.48	68	ZJN-8	100	57.14
9	JZX-9	100	48.57	29	JST-9	100	46.67	49	ZHY-9	96.67	54.76	69	ZJN-9	100	44.76
10	JZX-10	100	38.10	30	JST-10	100	59.05	50	ZHY-10	100	50.48	70	ZJN-10	100	52.38
11	JLS-1	100	46.67	31	JSS-1	100	71.43	51	ZHS-1	100	42.86	71	ZJS-1	100	48.57
12	JLS-2	100	57.14	32	JSS-2	100	49.52	52	ZHS-2	100	44.76	72	ZJS-2	96.67	47.14
13	JLS-3	100	60.95	33	JSS-3	100	69.52	53	ZHS-3	100	42.86	73	ZJS-3	100	54.29
14	JLS-4	100	51.43	34	JSS-4	90	24.29	54	ZHS-4	100	69.52	74	ZJS-4	100	51.43
15	JLS-5	100	71.43	35	JSS-5	100	73.33	55	ZHS-5	100	54.29	75	ZJS-5	100	43.33
16	JLS-6	100	54.29	36	JSS-6	100	83.81	56	ZHS-6	100	61.90	76	ZJS-6	100	49.52
17	JLS-7	100	51.43	37	JSS-7	100	64.76	57	ZHS-7	100	56.19	77	ZJS-7	100	57.14
18	JLS-8	100	60.95	38	JSS-8	100	73.33	58	ZHS-8	100	64.76	78	ZJS-8	100	45.24
19	JLS-9	100	42.86	39	JSS-9	100	70.48	59	ZHS-9	100	46.67	79	ZJS-9	100	30.48
20	JLS-10	100	48.57	40	JSS-10	100	62.86	60	ZHS-10	100	58.10	80	ZJS-10	93.33	47.62