Study on Pathogenic Fungi Causing Soybean Root Rot in Yinchuan and Field Disease Control Efficiency of Seed Coating

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0535

Abstract

Abstract:

The current study aims to clarify the pathogenic fungi causing soybean root rot and control efficiency of different kinds of seed coating in the field. Pathogen samples of soybean root rot disease were collected from the soybean production area in Helan, Xingqing and Yongning of Ningxia during 2018-2019. The pathogens were isolated by tissue separation, and identified according to morphology and a multilocus phylogenetic analysis (ITS and TEF). Then the control efficiency of six kinds of seed coating were assessed in field. The results showed that 126 strains were isolated and identified, belonging to four Fusarium species, i.e., F. solani, F. oxysporum, F. equiseti and F. brachygibbosum, which accounted for 51.59%, 24.60%, 13.49% and 10.32%, respectively. Pathogenicity assay showed that four Fusarium species were pathogenic against soybean, showing root rot. The field test demonstrated that the control efficiency of the six kinds of seed coating were more than 65% 20 days after sowing, and the control efficiency was lower than 60% 60 days after sowing. In summary, four Fusarium species on soybean are observed in Yinchuan and the tested kinds of seed coating have certain control efficiency, but the control efficiency decreases at the adult-plant stage of soybean.

Key words: soybean, soybean root rot, Fusarium spp., seed coating, control efficiency

CLC Number:

S435.111.4 ⁺1

Du Yixin, Shi Niuniu, Ruan Hongchun, Lian Jinfan, Gan Lin, Chen Furu. Study on Pathogenic Fungi Causing Soybean Root Rot in Yinchuan and Field Disease Control Efficiency of Seed Coating[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(8): 103-109.

Figures/Tables 5

References 30

[1]	齐照明, 侯萌, 韩雪, 等. 东北地区大豆主栽品种油份蛋白含量的关联分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2014,36(2):168-174. doi: 10.7505/j.issn.1007-9084.2014.02.005 URL
[2]	陈伟, 朱俊峰, 田国强. 中美贸易摩擦对中国大豆的影响及对策分析[J]. 大豆科学, 2019,38(1):118-123.
[3]	李长松, 罗瑞梧, 杨崇良, 等. 黄淮地区大豆根腐病病原菌分离及致病性研究[J]. 植物病理学报, 1996,23(2):187-188.
[4]	马淑梅. 黑龙江省大豆根腐病致病病原种类分布及抗病种质鉴定[J]. 中国农学通报, 2012,28(27):230-235.
[5]	邢安, 文景芝, 吕国忠, 等. 黑龙江省大豆根腐病病株上镰孢菌的分离与鉴定[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2009,40(8):5-9.
[6]	李宝英, 马淑梅. 大豆根腐病病原菌种类及抗原筛选[J]. 植物保护学报, 2000,27(1):91-92.
[7]	杨帅, 王建生, 马振川, 等. 引致大豆根腐病的层出镰孢菌分离鉴定及特性[J]. 植物保护学报, 2012,39(2):187-188.
[8]	张丽, 耿肖兵, 王春玲, 等. 黑龙江省大豆镰孢根腐病菌鉴定及致病力分析[J]. 植物保护, 2014,40(3):165-168.
[9]	李本金, 陈庆河, 兰成忠, 等. 福建省大豆根腐病病原菌的鉴定[J]. 福建农业学报, 2011,26(5):798-803.
[10]	Broders K D, Lipps P E, Paul P A, et al. Evaluation of Fusarium graminearum associated with corn and soybean seed and seedling disease in Ohio[J]. Plant Dis, 2007,91:1155-1160. URL pmid: 30780657
[11]	Carson M L, Arnold W E, Todt P E. Predisposition of soybean seedlings of Fusarium root rot with Trifluralin[J]. Plant Dis, 1991,75:342-347. doi: 10.1094/PD-75-0342 URL
[12]	许艳丽, 魏巍. 镰孢菌与大豆根腐病研究进展[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2020,51(3):87-96.
[13]	肖彩霞, 关雪松, 王晓艳, 等. 东北三省大豆品种(系)对大豆根腐镰孢菌的抗性分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2013,35(2):201-206. doi: 10.7505/j.issn.1007-9084.2013.02.015 URL
[14]	张旭丽, 邢宝龙, 王桂梅, 等. 不同药剂对大豆根腐病的防治效果[J]. 山西农业科学, 2015,43(8):1006-1009.
[15]	赵振邦, 王月英, 张培培. 不同种衣剂对大豆根腐病的防治效果研究[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2019,25(7):60-62.
[16]	Chomnunti P, Hongsanan S, Aguirre-Hudson B, et al., The sooty moulds[J]. Fungal Divers. 2014,66:1-36. doi: 10.1007/s13225-014-0278-5 URL
[17]	魏景超. 真菌鉴定手册[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 1979: 609-615.
[18]	White T J, Bruns T, Lee S, et al. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics[A].// In: Innis M A, Gelfand D H, Sninsky J J, et al. PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications[M]. New York: Aademic Press, 1990: 315-322.
[19]	O’Donnell, Kistler H C, Cigelnik E, et al. Multiple evolutionary origins of the fungus causing Panama disease of banana: concordant evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial gene genealogies[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1998,95(5):2044-2049. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.5.2044 URL pmid: 9482835
[20]	De Silva D D, Ades P K, Crous P W, et al. Colletotrichum species associated with chili anthracnose in Australias[J]. Plant Pathol, 2017,66:254-267. doi: 10.1111/ppa.2017.66.issue-2 URL
[21]	方中达. 植病研究法(第3版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998: 64.
[22]	曹瑱艳, 杨怡华, 申屠旭萍, 等. 浙江省铁皮石斛根腐病病原真菌的鉴定[J]. 植物保护学报, 2020,47(1):178-186.
[23]	成瑢, 董铮, 李魏, 等. 大豆根腐病研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016,32(8):58-62.
[24]	Kageyama K, Ui T, Narita Y, et al. Relation of Pythium spp. to monoculture injury of soybean[J]. Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan, 1982,48:333-335. doi: 10.3186/jjphytopath.48.333 URL
[25]	Susilowatt A, Wahyudi A T, Lestari Y, et al. Potential Pseudomonas isolated from soybean rhizosphere as biocontrol against soilborne phytopathogenic fungi[J]. Hayati Journal of Biosciences, 2011,18(2):51-56. doi: 10.4308/hjb.18.2.51 URL
[26]	李长松, 赵玖华, 尚佑芬. 山东省大豆根腐病病原菌及其生物学研究[J]. 植物病理学报, 1992,22(1):5-9.
[27]	白丽艳, 张全党, 李斌, 等. 新疆阿勒泰地区大豆镰刀菌根腐病病原鉴定及致病性测定[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2009,46(3):543-548.
[28]	刘铸德. 大豆根腐病的研究[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 1992(1):42-44,49.
[29]	何宛芹, 付瑶, 鲁雯璐, 等. 大豆根腐病致病镰孢菌的多重PCR检测技术[J]. 植物保护学报, 2017,44(4):609-616.
[30]	王晓艳, 文景芝. 东北三省大豆根腐镰孢菌种类及其致病力分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2011,33(4):391-395.

处理编号	药剂名称	制剂使用量/(g/100 kg种子)	生产厂家
1	35%多菌灵·福美双·克百威悬浮种衣剂	2000	黑龙江八一农垦大学种衣剂厂
2	38%多菌灵·福美双·毒死蜱悬浮种衣剂	1500	北农（海利）涿州种衣剂有限公司
3	25 g/L咯菌腈悬浮种衣剂	700	先正达南通作物保护有限公司
4	62.5 g/L精甲·咯菌腈浮种衣剂	500	先正达南通作物保护有限公司
5	20.5%多菌灵·福美双·甲氨基阿维菌素苯甲酸盐悬浮种衣剂	1500	黑龙江省佳木斯兴宇生物技术开发有限公司
6	400 g/L萎锈灵·福美双悬浮剂	500	淄博新农基作物科学有限公司
7	CK	—	—

处理编号	药剂名称	制剂使用量/(g/100 kg种子)	生产厂家
1	35%多菌灵·福美双·克百威悬浮种衣剂	2000	黑龙江八一农垦大学种衣剂厂
2	38%多菌灵·福美双·毒死蜱悬浮种衣剂	1500	北农（海利）涿州种衣剂有限公司
3	25 g/L咯菌腈悬浮种衣剂	700	先正达南通作物保护有限公司
4	62.5 g/L精甲·咯菌腈浮种衣剂	500	先正达南通作物保护有限公司
5	20.5%多菌灵·福美双·甲氨基阿维菌素苯甲酸盐悬浮种衣剂	1500	黑龙江省佳木斯兴宇生物技术开发有限公司
6	400 g/L萎锈灵·福美双悬浮剂	500	淄博新农基作物科学有限公司
7	CK	—	—

处理编号	药剂名称	制剂使用量/ (g/100 kg种子)	施药后20 d		施药后60 d
处理编号	药剂名称	制剂使用量/ (g/100 kg种子)	病情指数	防治效果/%	病情指数	防治效果/%
1	35%多菌灵·福美双·克百威悬浮种衣剂	2000	4.71	75.65a	20.56	59.61a
2	38%多菌灵·福美双·毒死蜱悬浮种衣剂	1500	5.05	73.93ab	23.30	54.24ab
3	25 g/L咯菌腈悬浮种衣剂	700	5.25	72.79ab	21.96	56.88a
4	62.5 g/L精甲·咯菌腈浮种衣剂	500	6.59	66.08c	22.83	55.13ab
5	20.5%多菌灵·福美双·甲氨基阿维菌素苯甲酸盐悬浮种衣剂	1500	4.98	74.27ab	21.74	57.25a
6	400 g/L萎锈灵·福美双悬浮剂	500	5.83	69.66bc	25.04	50.87b
7	CK		19.32		50.91

处理编号	药剂名称	制剂使用量/ (g/100 kg种子)	施药后20 d		施药后60 d
处理编号	药剂名称	制剂使用量/ (g/100 kg种子)	病情指数	防治效果/%	病情指数	防治效果/%
1	35%多菌灵·福美双·克百威悬浮种衣剂	2000	4.71	75.65a	20.56	59.61a
2	38%多菌灵·福美双·毒死蜱悬浮种衣剂	1500	5.05	73.93ab	23.30	54.24ab
3	25 g/L咯菌腈悬浮种衣剂	700	5.25	72.79ab	21.96	56.88a
4	62.5 g/L精甲·咯菌腈浮种衣剂	500	6.59	66.08c	22.83	55.13ab
5	20.5%多菌灵·福美双·甲氨基阿维菌素苯甲酸盐悬浮种衣剂	1500	4.98	74.27ab	21.74	57.25a
6	400 g/L萎锈灵·福美双悬浮剂	500	5.83	69.66bc	25.04	50.87b
7	CK		19.32		50.91