High-efficiency Compound Formula Fungicides: Control Efficacy on Sugarcane Brown Stripe Disease

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0421

Abstract

Abstract:

To screen high-efficiency compound formula fungicides and study their precise application technology for controlling sugarcane brown stripe disease, carbendazim, benomyl, chlorothalonil, azoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin and difenoconazole·azoxystrobin were selected for the field efficacy test. The results show that three formula fungicides: (1500 g of 50% carbendazim WP + 1500 g of 75% chlorothalonil WP + 2400 g KH₂PO4 + 300 mL agricultural synergist)/hm², (1500 g of 50% benomyl WP + 1500 g of 75% chlorothalonil WP + 2400 g KH₂PO4 + 300 mL agricultural synergist)/hm², and (600 mL of 25% pyraclostrobin SC + 2400 g KH₂PO4 + 300 mL agricultural synergist)/hm² have good control efficacy against sugarcane brown stripe disease, the disease indexes are all below 14.02 and the control effects are all above 84.41%. This study indicates that these three formula fungicides are the ideal high-efficiency compound formula fungicides for controlling brown stripe disease, which can be sprayed onto the leaves by artificial and unmanned aerial vehicle in July and August, with twice in succession spaced 7 to 10 days apart.

Key words: sugarcane, high-efficiency compound formula fungicides, accurate fungicide application, brown stripe disease, control efficacy evaluation

CLC Number:

S482.2

Zhang Hanshu, Wang Xiaoyan, Cang Xiaoyan, Shan Hongli, Zhang Rongyue, Wang Changmi, Chen Jie, Duan Tingying, Huang Pizhong, Zhou You, Huang Yingkun. High-efficiency Compound Formula Fungicides: Control Efficacy on Sugarcane Brown Stripe Disease[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(12): 106-111.

Figures/Tables 3

References 28

[1]	Rott P, Bailey R A, Comstock J C, et al. A guide to sugarcane diseases[M]. Montpellier: CIRAD and ISSCT, 2000: 81-84.
[2]	Huang Y K, Li W F, Zhang R Y, et al. Color illustration of diagnosis and control for modern sugarcane diseases, pests, and weeds[M]. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd., 2018: 13-15.
[3]	Drechsleb C A. Species of Hebninthosporium distinct from Helminthosporium sacohari, causing brown stripe of Sugar Cane[J]. Phytopathology, 1928,18(1):135-136.
[4]	Faris J A. Three Helmenthhosporium diseases of sugar Cane[J]. Phytopathology, 1928,18(9):753-774.
[5]	马丁J P. 阿伯特 E V. 休慈 C G(陈庆龙译). 世界甘蔗病害(第1卷)[M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1982: 85-92.
[6]	Parris G K. The Helminthosporia that attack Sugar Cane[J]. Phytopathology, 1950,40(1):90-103.
[7]	Munir A, Ilyas M B, Bajwa M N. Brown stripe and sugarcane rust - new disease records from Pakistan[M]. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 1992,2(1-2):87-88.
[8]	黄应昆, 李文凤. 现代甘蔗病虫草害防治彩色图说[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2016: 110-111.
[9]	全国甘蔗重要病害研究协作组. 中国大陆植蔗省(区)(部分)甘蔗病害种类调查初报[J]. 甘蔗糖业, 1991(1):1-8.
[10]	陈庭俊. 长泰县甘蔗褐条病发生危害的初步调查[J]. 甘蔗糖业, 2000(2):9-11.
[11]	熊国如, 李增平, 赵婷婷, 等. 海南蔗区甘蔗病害种类及发生情况[J]. 热带作物学报, 2010,31(9):1588-1595.
[12]	韦金菊, 邓展云, 黄诚华, 等. 广西甘蔗主要真菌病害调查初报[J]. 南方农业学报, 2012,43(9):1316-1319.
[13]	广东省农业局, 广东省甘蔗糖业食品研究所, 广东农林学院, 等. 龙门坡甘蔗病害的调查[J]. 甘蔗糖业, 1975,11:22-25
[14]	薛晶. 甘蔗褐条病发生危害的调查初报[J]. 甘蔗, 1998,5(1):40-41.
[15]	柒广平, 刁爱红. 2001 年蒙山县甘蔗褐条病发生的原因分析[J]. 广西蔗糖, 2001(4):17-27.
[16]	单红丽, 李文凤, 黄应昆, 等. 甘蔗褐条病发生流行特点及防控对策[J]. 中国糖料, 2015,37(6):71-73.
[17]	李文凤, 单红丽, 黄应昆, 等. 多雨高湿季甘蔗重要病害发生流行动态与防控策略[J]. 中国糖料, 2017,39(2):75-77
[18]	Wang C K. Preliminary studies on the brown stripe disease of Sugar Cane caused by Cochliobolus stenospilus (Drechsl.) Mat. et Yam. in Taiwan[J]. Report of the Taiwan Sugar Experiment Station, 1950,5:110-130.
[19]	钱双宏, 沈林波, 熊国如, 等. 甘蔗褐条病病原菌分离鉴定及其室内毒力的测定[J]. 热带作物学报, 2015,36(2):353-357.
[20]	王次男. 台湾甘蔗褐条病之研究[J]. 台湾糖业研究所报, 1984,105:15-31.
[21]	李秋阳, 段家峥. 勐甘蔗区甘蔗褐条病重发原因分析与防治措施[J]. 植保技术与推广, 2002,22(2):9-17.
[22]	单红丽, 李文凤, 黄应昆, 等. 国家甘蔗体系繁殖和示范新品种(系)病虫害调查[J]. 中国糖料, 2014(2):50-53.
[23]	杨子林, 周军, 陈双云. 甘蔗褐条病田间调查存在问题与改进办法[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2010,30(11):118-121.
[24]	李宇峰, 王海玄, 李奕莎, 等. 6种杀菌剂对甘蔗梢腐病菌和卷叶病菌的室内毒力测定[J]. 亚热带农业研究, 2017,13(4):241-245.
[25]	吴伟怀, 李锐, 郑服丛. 甘蔗梢腐病原菌的鉴定及其室内毒力测定[J]. 甘蔗糖业, 2006(2):10-14.
[26]	吴伟怀, 王彩霞, 梁艳琼, 等. 11种杀菌剂对甘蔗赤腐病菌的毒力测定[J]. 热带农业科学, 2015,35(6):37-42.
[27]	Subhani M N, Chaudhry M A, Khaliq A, et al. Efficacy of various fungicides against sugarcane red root (Colletotrichum falcatum)[J]. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 2008(10):725-727.
[28]	Imtiaj A, Alam M S, Islam A K M R, et al. In vitro studies on Colletotrichum falcatum the causal of red rot disease of sugarcane[J]. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science, 2007,2(5):511-517.

处理	南华耿马		南华华侨		南华勐永		南华双江		孟连昌裕		5点平均
处理	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%
1	10.6	88.57 a	10.1	89.02 a	11.22	88.26 a	10.86	88.34 a	11.5	88.19 a	10.86	88.47 a
2	10.96	88.18 a	11.0	88.04 a	12.36	87.07 a	11.69	87.45 a	12.33	87.34 a	11.67	87.61 a
3	40.38	56.44 c	40.15	56.36 c	40.65	57.46 c	40.98	56.02 c	41.47	57.43 c	40.73	56.75 c
4	12.8	86.19 a	13.8	85.0 a	13.28	86.1 a	12.83	86.23 a	13.65	85.99 a	13.27	85.91 a
5	25.15	72.87 b	25.52	72.26 b	26.15	72.63 b	25.95	72.14 b	26.35	72.95 b	25.82	72.58 b
6	39.38	57.52 c	39.15	57.45 c	40.65	57.46 c	39.98	57.09 c	40.97	57.94 c	40.03	57.49 c
7	30.3	67.31 b	29.52	67.91 b	30.15	68.45 b	29.85	67.96 b	30.78	68.4 b	30.12	68.02 b
ck	92.7	–	92.0	–	95.56	–	93.17	–	97.41	–	94.17	–

处理	南华耿马		南华华侨		南华勐永		南华双江		孟连昌裕		5点平均
处理	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%
1	10.6	88.57 a	10.1	89.02 a	11.22	88.26 a	10.86	88.34 a	11.5	88.19 a	10.86	88.47 a
2	10.96	88.18 a	11.0	88.04 a	12.36	87.07 a	11.69	87.45 a	12.33	87.34 a	11.67	87.61 a
3	40.38	56.44 c	40.15	56.36 c	40.65	57.46 c	40.98	56.02 c	41.47	57.43 c	40.73	56.75 c
4	12.8	86.19 a	13.8	85.0 a	13.28	86.1 a	12.83	86.23 a	13.65	85.99 a	13.27	85.91 a
5	25.15	72.87 b	25.52	72.26 b	26.15	72.63 b	25.95	72.14 b	26.35	72.95 b	25.82	72.58 b
6	39.38	57.52 c	39.15	57.45 c	40.65	57.46 c	39.98	57.09 c	40.97	57.94 c	40.03	57.49 c
7	30.3	67.31 b	29.52	67.91 b	30.15	68.45 b	29.85	67.96 b	30.78	68.4 b	30.12	68.02 b
ck	92.7	–	92.0	–	95.56	–	93.17	–	97.41	–	94.17	–

处理	南华耿马		南华华侨		南华勐永		南华双江		孟连昌裕		5点平均
处理	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%
1	10.65	87.96	11.5	86.94	11.15	87.55	11.33	87.29	11.63	87.67	11.25	87.49
2	11.57	86.92	12.17	86.18	12.85	85.65	13.17	85.23	12.94	86.28	12.54	86.05
4	13.57	84.66	13.56	84.6	14.33	84.0	13.96	84.34	14.67	84.45	14.02	84.41
ck	88.44	–	88.07	–	89.56	–	89.17	–	94.33	–	89.91	–

处理	南华耿马		南华华侨		南华勐永		南华双江		孟连昌裕		5点平均
处理	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%	病情指数	防效/%
1	10.65	87.96	11.5	86.94	11.15	87.55	11.33	87.29	11.63	87.67	11.25	87.49
2	11.57	86.92	12.17	86.18	12.85	85.65	13.17	85.23	12.94	86.28	12.54	86.05
4	13.57	84.66	13.56	84.6	14.33	84.0	13.96	84.34	14.67	84.45	14.02	84.41
ck	88.44	–	88.07	–	89.56	–	89.17	–	94.33	–	89.91	–