High-efficiency Compound Formula Fungicide: Control Effects on Sugarcane Brown Rust

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0176

Abstract

Abstract:

To screen the high-efficiency compound formula fungicides and the precise application technology for controlling sugarcane brown rust, a field efficiency trial was performed with eight fungicides, including zineb, diniconazole, mancozeb, azoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin, difenoconazole·azoxystrobin, chlorothalonil and carbendazim. The results showed that four formula fungicides, (1500 g of 65% zineb WP + 1500 g of 75% chlorothalonil WP + 2400 g KH₂PO₄ + 300 mL agricultural synergist)/hm², (1500 g of 12.5% diniconazole WP + 1500 g of 75 % chlorothalonil WP + 2400 g KH₂PO₄ + 300 mL agricultural synergist)/hm², (1500 g of 80% mancozeb WP +1500 g of 75% chlorothalonil WP + 2400 g KH₂PO₄ + 300 mL agricultural synergist)/hm² and (900 mL 30% difenoconazole·azoxystrobin SC + 2400 g KH₂PO₄ + 300 mL agricultural synergist)/hm², had good control efficacy against sugarcane brown rust. The disease indexes of the four formula fungicides were below 18.79, and their control efficiency was above 80.53%. This study indicates that the four formula fungicides are the ideal high-efficiency compound formula for controlling sugarcane brown rust, which could be sprayed directly onto the leaves via artificial and unmanned aerial vehicles in July and August, with two single applications spaced 7 to 10 days apart.

Key words: sugarcane, high-efficiency compound formula fungicides, precise application of pesticide, brown rust, control efficacy evaluation

CLC Number:

S482.2

Zhang Hanshu, Li Wenfeng, Shan Hongli, Wang Xiaoyan, Zhang Rongyue, Fang Chao, Duan Tingying, Li Zejuan, Huang Pizhong, Huang Yingkun. High-efficiency Compound Formula Fungicide: Control Effects on Sugarcane Brown Rust[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(6): 147-152.

Figures/Tables 3

References 26

[1]	Rott P, Bailey R A, Comstock J C, et al. A guide to sugarcane diseases[M]. Montpellier: CIRAD and ISSCT, 2000: 85-89.
[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: 18-20.
[3]	J. P.马丁, E. V.阿伯特, C. G.休慈(陈庆龙译). 世界甘蔗病害(第1卷) [M]. 北京: 农业出版社, 1982: 34-40.
[4]	Purdy L H, Liu L J, Dean J L. Sugarcane rust: a newly important disease[J]. Plant Disease, 1983,67(11):1292-1296.
[5]	Garcés F F, Fiallos F F, Silva E, et al. First report of orange rust of sugarcane caused by Puccinia kuehnii in Ecuador[J]. Plant Disease, 2014,98:842. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-07-13-0684-PDN URL pmid: 30708643
[6]	Hoy J W, Hollier C A. Effect of brown rust on yield of sugarcane in Louisiana[J]. Plant Disease, 2009,93:1171-1174. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-93-11-1171 URL pmid: 30754585
[7]	Comstook J C, Shine J M, Raid R N. Effect of early rust infection on subsequent sugarcane growth[J]. Sugar Cane, 1992,4:7-9.
[8]	马利. 泰国甘蔗生产及科研现状[J]. 世界农业, 1995,9:23.
[9]	阮兴业, 杨雾, 孙楚坚. 云南省发现甘蔗茅柄锈菌[J]. 真菌学报, 1983,2(04):260-261.
[10]	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.
[11]	刘晓妹, 刘文波, 施焕焕. 海南儋州甘蔗锈病病原菌的鉴定及其生物学特性的测定[J]. 中国糖料, 2008(2):30-32.
[12]	韦金菊, 邓展云, 黄伟华, 等. 广西北海甘蔗锈病生物学特性研究及防治对策[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2010,38:14997-14999.
[13]	黄应昆, 李文凤. 云南蔗区甘蔗锈病流行原因及防治对策[J]. 植保技术与推广, 1998,18:22-23.
[14]	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: 113-114.
[15]	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.
[16]	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.
[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]	王晓燕, 李文凤, 黄应昆, 等. 云南蔗区首次发现由屈恩柄锈菌引起的甘蔗黄锈病[J]. 中国农学通报, 2015,31(18):273-277.
[19]	李文凤, 王晓燕, 黄应昆, 等. 31份甘蔗野生核心种质资源褐锈病抗性鉴定及Bru1基因的分子检测[J]. 作物学报, 2015,41(5):806-812. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2015.00806 URL
[20]	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.
[21]	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.
[22]	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.
[23]	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.
[24]	Subhani M N, Chaudhry M A, Khaliq A, et al. Efficacy of various fungicides against sugarcane red root (Colletotrichum falcatum)[J]. Int. J. Agri. Biol, 2008(10):725-727.
[25]	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.
[26]	朱桂宁, 林珊宇, 贤小勇, 等. 5种杀菌剂对甘蔗黑穗病的防控试验[J]. 南方农业学报, 2014,45(8):1393-1397.

处理	南华耿马		南华华侨		南华勐永		南华勐省		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	12.96	86.8 a	13.0	86.6 a	12.36	87.17 a	12.69	87.02 a	12.33	87.07 a	12.67	86.93 a
2	13.8	85.94 a	13.8	85.78 a	12.8	86.71 a	12.63	87.08 a	12.65	86.73 a	13.12	86.46 a
3	12.6	87.16 a	12.1	87.53 a	12.22	87.31 a	12.6	87.11 a	12.5	86.89 a	12.41	87.2 a
4	28.15	71.32 b	28.52	70.61 b	28.15	70.77 b	27.15	72.15 b	27.35	71.31 b	27.87	71.24 b
5	27.04	72.45 b	28.15	70.99 b	27.52	72.42 b	27.24	72.14 b	27.56	71.09 b	27.5	71.63 b
6	18.52	81.13 a	18.33	81.11 a	18.04	81.27 a	18.29	81.29 a	18.05	81.07 a	18.25	81.17 a
7	33.33	66.04 b	32.52	66.49 b	33.15	65.58 b	32.85	66.4 b	32.27	66.15 b	32.82	66.14 b
8	49.38	49.69 c	50.15	48.32 c	48.65	49.48 c	48.98	49.91 c	48.47	49.16 c	49.13	49.31 c
ck	98.15	–	97.04	–	96.3	–	97.78	–	95.33	–	96.92	–

处理	南华耿马		南华华侨		南华勐永		南华勐省		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	12.96	86.8 a	13.0	86.6 a	12.36	87.17 a	12.69	87.02 a	12.33	87.07 a	12.67	86.93 a
2	13.8	85.94 a	13.8	85.78 a	12.8	86.71 a	12.63	87.08 a	12.65	86.73 a	13.12	86.46 a
3	12.6	87.16 a	12.1	87.53 a	12.22	87.31 a	12.6	87.11 a	12.5	86.89 a	12.41	87.2 a
4	28.15	71.32 b	28.52	70.61 b	28.15	70.77 b	27.15	72.15 b	27.35	71.31 b	27.87	71.24 b
5	27.04	72.45 b	28.15	70.99 b	27.52	72.42 b	27.24	72.14 b	27.56	71.09 b	27.5	71.63 b
6	18.52	81.13 a	18.33	81.11 a	18.04	81.27 a	18.29	81.29 a	18.05	81.07 a	18.25	81.17 a
7	33.33	66.04 b	32.52	66.49 b	33.15	65.58 b	32.85	66.4 b	32.27	66.15 b	32.82	66.14 b
8	49.38	49.69 c	50.15	48.32 c	48.65	49.48 c	48.98	49.91 c	48.47	49.16 c	49.13	49.31 c
ck	98.15	–	97.04	–	96.3	–	97.78	–	95.33	–	96.92	–

处理	南华耿马		南华华侨		南华勐永		南华勐省		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	13.95	85.79	13.63	85.95	13.65	85.53	13.33	86.08	13.63	85.99	13.64	85.87
2	15.08	84.64	14.8	84.75	14.85	84.26	14.17	85.2	15.04	84.54	14.79	84.68
3	13.0	86.75	12.92	86.69	12.33	86.93	12.96	86.47	12.97	86.67	12.84	86.7
6	18.96	80.68	19.04	80.38	18.71	80.17	18.55	80.63	18.67	80.81	18.79	80.53
ck	98.15	–	97.04	–	94.33	–	95.77	–	97.3	–	96.52	–

处理	南华耿马		南华华侨		南华勐永		南华勐省		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	13.95	85.79	13.63	85.95	13.65	85.53	13.33	86.08	13.63	85.99	13.64	85.87
2	15.08	84.64	14.8	84.75	14.85	84.26	14.17	85.2	15.04	84.54	14.79	84.68
3	13.0	86.75	12.92	86.69	12.33	86.93	12.96	86.47	12.97	86.67	12.84	86.7
6	18.96	80.68	19.04	80.38	18.71	80.17	18.55	80.63	18.67	80.81	18.79	80.53
ck	98.15	–	97.04	–	94.33	–	95.77	–	97.3	–	96.52	–