Field Control Effects of Two Nano-Biopesticides on Major Rice Pests

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0203

Abstract

Abstract:

The aim of this study is to clarify the filed control effect of nano-formulations of biopesticides on major rice insect pests and their increasing efficiency compared to traditional formulations. The control effects of two nano-biopesticides and several conventional pesticides on three major rice insect pests (Chilo suppressalis, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and rice planthopper) were compared by field efficacy trials. The results showed that spinosad·dinotefuran 9.3% nano-emulsion had good control effects against three major rice pests. The control effects on the 9^th day after the second application were 87.7%, 87.5%, and 95.7%, respectively. Spinosad·matrine 4.5% nano-emulsion showed excellent efficacy in controlling C. medinalis, with efficacy rates of 85.7%, 91.2%, and 80.6% in three surveys after applications, respectively, significantly higher than other treatments. However, its efficacy against C. suppressalis and rice planthoppers was poor, with the highest efficacy rates of 70.6% and 70.2% on the 9^th day after second application, respectively, significantly lower than the conventional control agents of avermectin·methoxyfenozide 10% SC and pymetrozine 50% WDG in bucket mixing treatment. The results also showed that the control effect of spinosad·dinotefuran 9.3% nano-emulsion on C. suppressalis, C. medinalis and rice planthopper was 18.9%, 15.8%, and 8.1% higher than that of the traditional formulations of spinosad 10% OD and dinotefuran 20% SG treated with the same effective ingredient dosage in bucket mixing, respectively. The experimental results indicate that compared with traditional formulations, nano-formulations of biopesticides have better control effects, which are beneficial for reducing the use of pesticides and increasing efficiency. They have a bright application prospect in the prevention and control of rice pests and diseases.

Key words: rice, nano-pesticide, Chilo suppressalis, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, rice planthopper, field control effect

XIAO Shan, CHAI Weigang, LIU Jian, LIU Weiwei, CHEN Jianghua. Field Control Effects of Two Nano-Biopesticides on Major Rice Pests[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(31): 137-142.

Figures/Tables 5

References 26

[1]	卓富彦, 陈学新, 夏玉先, 等. 2013—2022年我国水稻病虫害发生特点与绿色防控技术集成[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2024, 40(5):1207-1213. doi: 10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2023.11.011
[2]	车琳, 蒋沁宏, 王也, 等. 我国水稻五大产区虫害发生及防控情况差异的比较分析[J]. 植物保护, 2022, 48(3):233-241
[3]	刘姣, 程季康, 何承帅, 等. 水稻重要害虫防治的杀虫剂应用及关键技术研究进展[J]. 现代农药, 2024, 23(4):7-12.
[4]	曹立冬, 赵鹏跃, 曹冲, 等. 纳米农药的研究进展及发展趋势[J]. 现代农药, 2023, 22(2):1-10.
[5]	师正浩. 纳米农药的分类及研究现状[J]. 现代农药, 2024, 23(3):33-40.
[6]	孙长娇, 王琰, 赵翔, 等. 纳米农药剂型与其减施增效机理研究进展[J]. 农药学学报, 2020, 22(2):205-213.
[7]	闫硕, 蒋沁宏, 沈杰. 纳米农药及载体材料的增效机理研究现状[J]. 植物保护学报, 2022, 49(1):366-373.
[8]	许唯, 董卉, 陆学峰, 等. 纳米农药防治水稻病虫害的田间药效试验[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(9):2220-2224. doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20230569
[9]	柴春莉. 纳米农药防治小麦病虫害田间示范试验[J]. 河南农业, 2021(19):37-38.
[10]	胡红岩, 马亚杰, 单永潘, 等. 助剂对植保无人机喷施纳米农药理化性质和防治棉田蚜虫效果的影响[J]. 棉花学报, 2023, 35(3):239-250. doi: 10.11963/cs20220033
[11]	王希, 胡珍娣, 石新月, 等. 纳米农药噻虫嗪在柑橘木虱飞防中的应用效果[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2021, 41(10):80-82.
[12]	周华光, 周颖杰, 赵丽稳, 等. 纳米农药对稻曲病和稻纵卷叶螟的防效初探[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2023, 43(11):80-82.
[13]	翟婧, 赵丽稳, 高丹娜, 等. 纳米农药防治水稻二化螟效果初探[J]. 中国稻米, 2024, 30(2):95-97. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8082.2024.02.019
[14]	刘晓漫, 曹坳程, 王秋霞, 等. 我国生物农药的登记及推广应用现状[J]. 植物保护, 2018, 44(5):101-107.
[15]	唐启义, 冯明光. 实用统计分析及其DPS数据处理系统[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2002.
[16]	陈春秋, 尤伟. 纳米农药水性制剂对水稻病虫害的防效试验[J]. 基层农技推广, 2018, 6(12):26-28.
[17]	叶树才, 董易之, 柳浩. 植保无人机喷施纳米农药制剂对水稻害虫的防效研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2024(1):67-68.
[18]	彭鑫林, 王辉宪, 姜晖霞, 等. 新烟碱类杀虫剂定量构效关系及杀虫作用机理的研究进展[J]. 现代农药, 2007(6):1-6.
[19]	SU Y M, ASHWORTH V, KIM C, et al. Delivery, uptake, fate, and transport of engineered nanoparticles in plants: A critical review and data analysis[J]. Environmental science: Nano, 2019, 6(8):2311-2331. doi: 10.1039/C9EN00461K URL
[20]	WANG Y J, NAN X R, SUN H Y, et al. From insects to mammals! Tissue accumulation and transgenerational transfer of micro/nano-plastics through the food chain[J]. Journal of hazardous materials, 2024,480:136424.
[21]	YIN J M, SU X F, YAN S, et al. Multifunctional nanoparticles and nanopesticides in agricultural application[J]. Nanomaterials (Basel), 2023, 13(7):1255. doi: 10.3390/nano13071255 URL
[22]	董小绮, 康兆勇, 刘胜男, 等. 新型植物源天然产物杀虫剂研究进展[J]. 农药学学报, 2023, 25(5):969-989.
[23]	陈丽君, 顾晟骅, 甘惠譁, 等. 50%吡蚜酮WG对水稻褐飞虱田间药效试验[J]. 上海农业科技, 2022(4):128-130.
[24]	胡武泽. 生物农药与生物技术在植保中的应用与展望[J]. 现代园艺, 2022, 45(14):45-47.
[25]	王淼, 周杰, 陈鸽, 等. 纳米生物农药的设计及控缓释研究进展[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(17):9-18.
[26]	孙贺亲, 赵鹏跃, 曹冲, 等. 纳米农药与昆虫抗药性[J]. 现代农药, 2023, 22(2):40-44.

处理编号	试验药剂	有效成分用量	制剂用量
T₁	9.3%多杀·呋虫胺纳米乳剂	30+180	2250
T₂	4.5%多杀·苦参碱纳米乳剂	60+7.5	1500
T₃	10%多杀霉素可分散油悬浮剂+20%呋虫胺可溶粒剂	30+180	300+900
T₄	20%呋虫胺可溶粒剂	180	900
T₅	10%多杀霉素悬浮剂+50%吡蚜酮水分散粒剂	60+150	600+300
T₆	10%阿维·甲虫肼悬浮剂+50%吡蚜酮水分散粒剂	150+150	1500+300
T₇	空白对照	—	—

处理编号	试验药剂	有效成分用量	制剂用量
T₁	9.3%多杀·呋虫胺纳米乳剂	30+180	2250
T₂	4.5%多杀·苦参碱纳米乳剂	60+7.5	1500
T₃	10%多杀霉素可分散油悬浮剂+20%呋虫胺可溶粒剂	30+180	300+900
T₄	20%呋虫胺可溶粒剂	180	900
T₅	10%多杀霉素悬浮剂+50%吡蚜酮水分散粒剂	60+150	600+300
T₆	10%阿维·甲虫肼悬浮剂+50%吡蚜酮水分散粒剂	150+150	1500+300
T₇	空白对照	—	—

处理	1次药后10 d		2次药后9 d
处理	枯心率	防效	枯心率	防效
T₁	0.65	81.7±2.0a	1.09	87.7±2.1a
T₂	1.20	66.1±1.7b	2.61	70.6±1.6d
T₃	1.16	67.3±2.7b	2.19	75.4±0.9c
T₄	1.23	65.5±3.7b	2.29	74.1±0.4c
T₅	1.59	55.1±2.6c	3.03	65.7±1.9e
T₆	1.05	70.4±1.6b	1.66	81.2±2.0b
T₇	3.55	—	8.85	—

处理	1次药后10 d		2次药后9 d
处理	枯心率	防效	枯心率	防效
T₁	0.65	81.7±2.0a	1.09	87.7±2.1a
T₂	1.20	66.1±1.7b	2.61	70.6±1.6d
T₃	1.16	67.3±2.7b	2.19	75.4±0.9c
T₄	1.23	65.5±3.7b	2.29	74.1±0.4c
T₅	1.59	55.1±2.6c	3.03	65.7±1.9e
T₆	1.05	70.4±1.6b	1.66	81.2±2.0b
T₇	3.55	—	8.85	—

处理	1次药后10 d		2次药后9 d		2次药后17 d
处理	卷叶率	防效	卷叶率	防效	卷叶率	防效
T₁	0.13	82.2±2.8ab	0.33	87.5±1.5ab	1.15	78.0±0.9a
T₂	0.11	85.7±1.7a	0.24	91.2±2.7a	1.01	80.6±2.3a
T₃	0.23	70.1±2.3c	0.64	75.8±1.5c	1.66	68.1±1.1b
T₄	0.25	67.0±2.2c	0.68	74.3±2.6c	1.81	65.2±12.3b
T₅	0.13	82.8±1.7a	0.39	85.2±2.0b	1.22	76.6±32.6a
T₆	0.17	77.8±3.0b	0.32	87.9±1.3ab	1.18	77.4±3.8a
T₇	0.75	—	2.66	—	5.21	—