Evaluation of Control Effects of Prochloraz on Black Rot of Pineapple

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0795

Abstract

Abstract:

The paper aims to evaluate the inhibitive effects of prochloraz on Thielaviopsis paradoxa, optimize the control method of prochloraz on black rot of pineapple and provide a practical technique for disease control. Biological activity of seven fungicides to pathogens was determined by mycelia growth inhibition methods. The effect of prochloraz on the growth of pathogens was observed by light microscope. Pineapple fruit was used as the material to evaluate the control effects of prochloraz at different concentrations and soaking time. According to the test results, the control technology of prochloraz was optimized. At the same time, the influence of prochloraz on the quality of pineapple was determined by detecting the flavor indexes and the residue in treated fruits. The results showed that prochloraz had the strongest inhibitory effect on pathogen, and the EC₅₀ was 0.01 μg/mL. 0.05 μg/mL prochloraz could inhibit the mycelial formation from germ tubes, so the growth and development of the pathogen were seriously inhibited. After soaking in 500 μg/mL prochloraz solution for 1 min, the pineapples fruits were stored at 28℃. The control effect of prochloraz on black rot of pineapple could reach 70% to 75% at 8, 12, and 16 d. After treating with prochloraz for 2 h, 1 d, 2 d, 3 d, 4 d, 5 d, the residue of prochloraz was lower than the national residue limit. The contents of soluble solids, total sugar, total acid in pineapple fruits were not significantly different from those in the control fruits after treating with prochloraz for 8, 12, 16 and 20 d, but the contents of vitamin C was higher than that of the control fruits. In conclusion, prochloraz has strong inhibitory effects on Thielaviopsis paradoxa, 500 μg/mL prochloraz soaking fruit for 1 min could effectively control the black rot of pineapple, keep fruit quality and did not affect the safety of agricultural products.

Key words: black rot of pineapple, Thielaviopsis paradoxa, prochloraz, residue, fruit quality, control technique

CLC Number:

S482.2

Shen Huifang, Yang Qiyun, Pu Xiaoming, Zhang Jingxin, Sun Dayuan, Lin Wei, Chen Yusheng, Lin Birun, Li Xiaogang. Evaluation of Control Effects of Prochloraz on Black Rot of Pineapple[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(34): 133-140.

Figures/Tables 7

References 25

[1]	龚标勋. 菠萝黑腐病与防治技术[J]. 植物医生, 2001(3):39.
[2]	唐友林, 周玉婵, 周永成, 等. 采后菠萝黑腐病的发生及防治[J]. 植物保护, 1997(3):13-15.
[3]	向梅梅, 戚佩坤. 广东省菠萝真菌病害鉴定[J]. 贵州农学院学报, 1988(2):53-62.
[4]	向梅梅. 菠萝真菌病害研究现状[J]. 仲恺农业技术学院学报, 1994(2):69-75.
[5]	黄思良, 黄福新, 林明生, 等. 菠萝黑腐病菌生物学特性研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 1990, 3(3):59-64.
[6]	谷会, 朱世江, 詹儒林, 等. 菠萝黑腐病菌(Thielaviopsis paradoxa)生物学特性及其对杀菌剂敏感性测定[J]. 果树学报, 2014, 31(3):448-453.
[7]	Rohrbach K G, Phillips D J. Postharvest disease of pineapple[J]. Acta Horticulturae, 1990, 269:503-507.
[8]	胡会刚, 孙光明, 董晨, 等. 菠萝采后主要病害发生及防治研究进展[J]. 广东农业科学, 2012, 39(24):93-96.
[9]	Wijeratnam R S, Hewajulige I G, Abeyratne N. Postharvest hot water treatment for the control of Thielaviopsis black rot of pineapple[J]. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2005, 36(3):323-327. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2005.01.003 URL
[10]	Reyes M E, Rohrbach K G, Paull R E. Microbial antagonists control postharvest black rot of pineapple fruit[J]. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2004, 33(2):193-203. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.02.003 URL
[11]	Wijesinghe C J, Wijeratnam R S, Samarasekara J K, et al. Biological control of Thielaviopsis paradoxa on pineapple by an isolate of Trichoderma asperellum[J]. Biological Control, 2010, 53(3):285-290. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.02.009 URL
[12]	Wijesinghe C J, Wijeratnam R S, Samarasekara J K, et al. Development of a formulation of Trichoderma asperellum to control black rot disease on pineapple caused by Thielaviopsis paradoxa[J]. Crop Protection, 2011, 30(3):300-306. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2010.11.020 URL
[13]	Souza W C, Nascimento L C, Vieira D L, et al. Alternative control of Chalara paradoxa, causal agent of black rot of pineapple by plant extract of Mormodica charantia[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2015, 142(3):481-488. doi: 10.1007/s10658-015-0627-6 URL
[14]	谷会, 贾志伟, 侯晓婉, 等. 氯化钙处理对菠萝黑腐病的防控效果及机制分析[J]. 热带作物学报, 2019, 40(12):2481-2488.
[15]	方仲达. 植病研究方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998:46-47.
[16]	张治安, 张美善, 蔚荣海, 等. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业科学技术出版社, 2004:65-82.
[17]	Vinggaard A M, Hass U, Dslgaard M, et al. Prochloraz: an imidazole fungicide with multiple mechanisms of action[J]. International Journal of Andrology, 2006, 29(1):186-192. pmid: 16466539
[18]	陈平, 柳训才. 咪鲜胺的应用概况及其残留检测研究[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2007, 46(3):478-480.
[19]	李奕星, 陈美娟, 陈娇, 等. 咪鲜胺、芥末精油微胶囊对红毛丹果实保鲜效果的研究[J]. 海南师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2019, 32(4):390-396.
[20]	杜冬冬, 钟荣彬, 黄耀豪, 等. 三种杀菌剂对火龙果采后生理和品质的影响[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2018, 18(1):14-20.
[21]	张世瑞, 袁宏球. 咪鲜胺对采后番石榴防腐保鲜的药效试验[J]. 广东农业科学, 2010, 37(9):147-148.
[22]	李奕星, 李芬芳, 陈娇, 等. 芥末精油微胶囊结合咪鲜胺处理对荔枝贮藏品质的影响[J]. 海南师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 33(1):58-63.
[23]	吴忠红, 张平, 阿塔乌拉 .铁木尔, 等. 咪鲜胺对新疆喀什石榴贮藏品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2015, 52(1):20-25.
[24]	郑雪虹, 谢德芳, 吕岱竹, 等. 咪鲜胺在香蕉防腐保鲜储藏中的残留消解动态分析[J]. 热带作物学报, 2012, 33(12):2273-2278.
[25]	巴良杰, 罗冬兰, 曹森, 等. 不同保鲜剂处理对火龙果贮藏品质和相关生理指标的影响[J]. 中国南方果树, 2020, 49(1):75-80.

杀菌剂	毒力方程	相关系数	EC₅₀/(μg/mL)	EC₉₅/(μg/mL)	95%置信区间(EC₅₀)
咪鲜胺	y=7.4885+1.2192x	0.9844	0.01	0.20	0.01~0.02
代森锰锌	y=3.8941+0.7185x	0.9871	34.61	6738.09	7.63~156.88
戊唑醇	y=6.2604+0.9568x	0.9141	0.05	2.52	0.01~0.19
嘧菌酯	y=4.8910+1.1421x	0.9707	1.25	34.34	0.54~2.89
百菌清	y=4.2421+0.4932x	0.9837	34.41	74443.03	4.13~286.60
苯醚甲环唑	y=7.0184+1.2977x	0.9777	0.03	0.52	0.01~0.09
甲基硫菌灵	y=2.8909+1.7751x	0.9906	15.42	130.27	7.2~33.04

杀菌剂	毒力方程	相关系数	EC₅₀/(μg/mL)	EC₉₅/(μg/mL)	95%置信区间(EC₅₀)
咪鲜胺	y=7.4885+1.2192x	0.9844	0.01	0.20	0.01~0.02
代森锰锌	y=3.8941+0.7185x	0.9871	34.61	6738.09	7.63~156.88
戊唑醇	y=6.2604+0.9568x	0.9141	0.05	2.52	0.01~0.19
嘧菌酯	y=4.8910+1.1421x	0.9707	1.25	34.34	0.54~2.89
百菌清	y=4.2421+0.4932x	0.9837	34.41	74443.03	4.13~286.60
苯醚甲环唑	y=7.0184+1.2977x	0.9777	0.03	0.52	0.01~0.09
甲基硫菌灵	y=2.8909+1.7751x	0.9906	15.42	130.27	7.2~33.04

处理后天数	对照组		处理组
处理后天数	发病率	病情指数	发病率	病情指数	防治效果
4 d	9.16±1.08	3.24±0.34	3.22±0.02	0.62±0.01	80.86±5.60
8 d	28.88±1.54	12.24±0.88	8.74±0.74	3.10±0.44	74.67±5.54
12 d	41.06±3.02	21.09±1.85	14.24±0.82	5.62±0.53	73.35±4.47
16 d	54.80±3.32	30.42±2.21	22.85±1.12	8.60±0.85	71.73±4.89
20 d	71.25±4.26	46.25±2.11	30.04±2.14	15.06±1.17	67.44±4.38
24 d	部分果实完全腐烂,停止调查		42.08±3.66	23.74±1.74

处理后天数	对照组		处理组
处理后天数	发病率	病情指数	发病率	病情指数	防治效果
4 d	9.16±1.08	3.24±0.34	3.22±0.02	0.62±0.01	80.86±5.60
8 d	28.88±1.54	12.24±0.88	8.74±0.74	3.10±0.44	74.67±5.54
12 d	41.06±3.02	21.09±1.85	14.24±0.82	5.62±0.53	73.35±4.47
16 d	54.80±3.32	30.42±2.21	22.85±1.12	8.60±0.85	71.73±4.89
20 d	71.25±4.26	46.25±2.11	30.04±2.14	15.06±1.17	67.44±4.38
24 d	部分果实完全腐烂,停止调查		42.08±3.66	23.74±1.74

贮藏时间	全果残留量	果肉残留量
2 h	2.142±0.112	<0.01
1 d	2.015±0.124	<0.01
2 d	1.821±0.856	<0.01
3 d	1.593±0.697	<0.01
4 d	1.320±0.684	<0.01
5 d	1.125±0.549	<0.01