Mixtures of Tebuconazole and Azoxystrobin: Indoor Toxicity and Field Control Effects on Rice Blast and Rice Sheath Blight

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20200100020

Abstract

Abstract:

To select efficient fungicides to control rice blast and rice sheath blight, the mycelium growth inhibitory method was used to determine the virulence of tebuconazole and azoxystrobin and their 5 matching ratios to Pyricularia oryzae and Rhizoctonia solani, a field test was also used to determine the control efficacy of the synergist. The results of indoor toxicity determination showed that when the ratio of tebuconazole to azoxystrobin was 2:1, it had synergistic effect on Pyricularia oryzae and Rhizoctonia solani, and the synergistic ratio was 1.5777 and 1.5941, respectively. The results of field tests showed that the control efficacy against rice blast and rice sheath blight was 76.68%-91.12% and 81.28%-90.32% respectively when the ratio of tebuconazole and azoxystrobin was 2:1 at the dosage of 90-135 g a.i./hm². The synergist had equivalent or better control efficacy and the dosage was lower compared with single and control fungicides. The results indicate that the ratio of tebuconazole and azoxystrobin 2:1 as an effective agent for controlling rice blast and rice sheath blight could reduce the use of fungicides application and increase efficiency.

Key words: rice blast, rice sheath blight, tebuconazole, azoxystrobin, fungicide combination

CLC Number:

S482.2

Fu Yuhang, Ma Hui, Li Juan, Peng Furong, Bi Chaowei. Mixtures of Tebuconazole and Azoxystrobin: Indoor Toxicity and Field Control Effects on Rice Blast and Rice Sheath Blight[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(36): 113-117.

Figures/Tables 4

References 29

[1]	朱友理, 曹书培, 何东兵, 等. 连续阴雨天气对水稻灌浆中后期稻瘟病发生的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019,35(19):91-96.
[2]	沙月霞, 隋书婷, 曾庆超, 等. 贝莱斯芽孢杆菌e69预防稻瘟病等多种真菌病害的潜力[J]. 中国农业科学, 2019,52(11):1908-1917. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2019.11.006 URL
[3]	Raj R, Pannu P P S. Management of rice blast with different fungicides and potassium silicate under in vitro and in vivo conditions[J]. Journal of Plant Pathology, 2017,99(3):707-712.
[4]	Mu W, Wang Z, Bi Y, et al. Sensitivity determination and resistance risk assessment of Rhizoctonia solani to sdhi fungicide thifluzamide[J]. Annals of Applied Biology, 2017,170(2):240-250. doi: 10.1111/aab.12334 URL
[5]	张玲, 马文秀, 任佐华, 等. 7种杀菌剂对稻瘟病菌和水稻纹枯病菌的室内毒力测定[J]. 中国农学通报, 2018,34(20):126-129.
[6]	Deepan A B, Manasa R, Ramanathan A. Combination fungicides offers substantial potential for management of rice blast disease by Magnaporthe oryzae[J]. IJCS, 2018,6(2):391-396.
[7]	Pooja K, Katoch A. Past, present and future of rice blast management[J]. Plant Science Today, 2014,1(3):165-173. doi: 10.14719/pst URL
[8]	杨德卫, 王莫, 韩利波, 等. 水稻稻瘟病抗性基因的克隆、育种利用及稻瘟菌无毒基因研究进展[J]. 植物学报, 2019,54(02):265-276.
[9]	Kimura N, Fukuchi A. Management of melanin biosynjournal dehydratase inhibitor (mbi-d)-resistance in Pyricularia oryzae using a non-mbi-d fungicidal application program for nursery boxes and a diclocymet and ferimzone mixture for field foliar applications[J]. Journal of Pesticide Science, 2018,43(4):287-292. doi: 10.1584/jpestics.D18-023 URL pmid: 30479552
[10]	于艳敏, 来永才, 平闫, 等. 黑龙江省第一积温带水稻品种对纹枯病的抗性分析[J]. 农学学报, 2017,9(2):7-10.
[11]	朱名海. 我国南繁区水稻纹枯病菌和稻瘟病菌的遗传多样性研究[D]. 广州:华南农业大学, 2016.
[12]	段小莉, 马超, 张力卜, 等. 咪鲜胺、氟环唑及其混配对水稻纹枯病室内毒力及田间防效[J]. 植物保护, 2018(4):221-225.
[13]	石志琦. 油菜菌核病菌对苯并咪唑类杀菌剂抗药性治理研究[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 1999.
[14]	刘文栋, 蒋莹, 顾春思, 等. 戊唑醇·咪鲜胺水乳剂的气相色谱法分析[J]. 农药, 2019,58(08):589-590,607.
[15]	刘长令, 张明星. 广谱高效杀菌剂嘧菌酯[J]. 世界农药, 2002(1):46-49.
[16]	陈长卿, 金辉, 姜云, 等. 生防菌株nj13与化学农药复配对人参黑斑病的联合毒力及田间防效[J]. 农药, 2019(5):381-384.
[17]	Emery K M, Scherm H, Savelle A T. Assessment of interactions between components of fungicide mixtures against Monilinia fructicola[J]. Crop Protection, 2002,21(1):41-47. doi: 10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00062-X URL
[18]	孙雪, 侯志广, 赵晓峰, 等. 多种药剂对水稻纹枯病菌的毒力测定及田间药效[J]. 农药, 2015,54(02):139-142.
[19]	郭晓刚, 王晓梅, 侯志广, 等. 15种杀菌剂及其相关配比对水稻稻瘟病菌的室内毒力及田间防效[J]. 农药, 2015,54(03):223-226.
[20]	詹家绥, 吴娥娇, 刘西莉, 等. 植物病原真菌对几类重要单位点杀菌剂的抗药性分子机制[J]. 中国农业科学, 2014(17):3392-3404. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2014.17.007 URL
[21]	Castroagudín V L, Ceresini P C, De Oliveira S C, et al. Resistance to qoi fungicides is widespread in brazilian populations of the wheat blast pathogen Magnaporthe oryzae[J]. Phytopathology, 2015,105(3):284-294. URL pmid: 25226525
[22]	Liao W F, Liu T T, Wang L L, et al. Molecular mechanisms of drug sensitivity of rice blast fungi Magnaporthe grisea to triazoles in China[J]. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 2018,27(1):320-326.
[23]	Olaya G, Buitrago C, Pearsaul D, et al. Detection of resistance to Qoi fungicides in Rhizoctonia solani isolates from rice[J]. Phytopathology, 2012,102(7):88-88.
[24]	Zhou Y X, Li H H, Yu J J, et al. First report of propiconazole resistance in field isolates of Ustilaginoidea virens on rice in Jiangsu Province of east China[J]. Plant Disease, 2017,101(5):840-841.
[25]	张婧, 黄治强, 王丹婷, 等. 苯甲酰脲类杀虫剂在农药复配物中的应用进展[J]. 农药, 2015,54(10):5-10,25.
[26]	Chin K, Chavaillaz D, Kaesbohrer M, et al. Characterizing resistance risk of Erysiphe graminis f. Sp. Tritici to strobilurins. Crop Protection[J], 2001,20(2):87-96.
[27]	张蕊蕊, 胡伟群, 朱卫刚. 嘧菌酯与苯醚甲环唑混配防治水稻稻瘟病的毒力测定及田间药效[J]. 农药, 2018,57(04):294-296,301.
[28]	王勇. 油菜菌核病菌抗药性治理及氯啶菌酯与啶酰菌胺的增效减量使用技术研究[D]. 南京:南京农业大学, 2015.
[29]	宋益民, 丛国林. 稻曲病、水稻穗颈瘟防治药剂筛选及其协同防治技术[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2016,32(6):1268-1272.

药剂	质量比	毒力回归方程	相关系数	EC₅₀/(μg/mL)		增效系数
药剂	质量比	毒力回归方程	相关系数	实际	理论	增效系数
戊唑醇	—	y=0.7856+2.1004x	0.9644	0.4227	—	—
嘧菌酯	—	y=0.6184+0.4323x	0.9783	0.0373	—	—
戊唑醇+嘧菌酯	1:5	y=1.3347+1.0244x	0.9225	0.0498	0.0440	0.8836
	1:2	y=0.7676+0.6767x	0.8983	0.0734	0.0536	0.7301
	1:1	y=0.6799+0.7139x	0.9864	0.1116	0.0686	0.6142
	2:1	y=0.5013+1.5468x	0.9793	0.0603	0.0951	1.5777
	5:1	y=1.1933+1.7671x	0.9869	0.1473	0.1553	1.0544

药剂	质量比	毒力回归方程	相关系数	EC₅₀/(μg/mL)		增效系数
药剂	质量比	毒力回归方程	相关系数	实际	理论	增效系数
戊唑醇	—	y=0.7856+2.1004x	0.9644	0.4227	—	—
嘧菌酯	—	y=0.6184+0.4323x	0.9783	0.0373	—	—
戊唑醇+嘧菌酯	1:5	y=1.3347+1.0244x	0.9225	0.0498	0.0440	0.8836
	1:2	y=0.7676+0.6767x	0.8983	0.0734	0.0536	0.7301
	1:1	y=0.6799+0.7139x	0.9864	0.1116	0.0686	0.6142
	2:1	y=0.5013+1.5468x	0.9793	0.0603	0.0951	1.5777
	5:1	y=1.1933+1.7671x	0.9869	0.1473	0.1553	1.0544

药剂	质量比	有效成分用量/(g a.i./hm²)	病情指数	防效/%
430 g/L 戊唑醇 SC	—	96.75	1.78	73.35 c
250 g/L 嘧菌酯SC	—	225	2.44	63.35 d
430 g/L 戊唑醇 SC+250 g/L 嘧菌酯SC	2:1	90(60+30)	1.56	76.68 bc
		112.5(75+37.5)	1.19	82.23 b
		135(90+45)	0.59	91.12 a
75% 三环唑 WP	—	264.4	2.22	66.68 d
CK	—	—	6.67	—

药剂	质量比	有效成分用量/(g a.i./hm²)	病情指数	防效/%
430 g/L 戊唑醇 SC	—	96.75	1.78	73.35 c
250 g/L 嘧菌酯SC	—	225	2.44	63.35 d
430 g/L 戊唑醇 SC+250 g/L 嘧菌酯SC	2:1	90(60+30)	1.56	76.68 bc
		112.5(75+37.5)	1.19	82.23 b
		135(90+45)	0.59	91.12 a
75% 三环唑 WP	—	264.4	2.22	66.68 d
CK	—	—	6.67	—

药剂	质量比	毒力回归方程	相关系数	EC₅₀/(μg/mL)		增效系数
药剂	质量比	毒力回归方程	相关系数	实际	理论	增效系数
戊唑醇	—	y=0.1212+1.2777 x	0.9889	0.8038	—	—
嘧菌酯	—	y =0.9537+0.6633 x	0.9874	0.0365	—	—
戊唑醇+嘧菌酯	1:5	y =1.2170+0.9763 x	0.9950	0.0567	0.0431	0.7603
	1:2	y =1.1592+1.0060 x	0.9920	0.0704	0.0523	0.7474
	1:1	y =1.0719+1.0493 x	0.9884	0.0952	0.0676	0.7102
	2:1	y =0.9540+0.7771 x	0.9859	0.0592	0.0943	1.5941
	5:1	y =0.8058+0.8079x	0.9910	0.1206	0.1564	1.1294