Co-toxicity and Field Control Efficacy of Mixtures of Prothioconazole and Propiconazole to Fusarium Head Blight Caused by Gibberella zeae (Schw.) Petch

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0559

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore a new reagent for controlling fusarium head blight (FHB), the indoor toxicity of prothioconazole, propiconazole and their seven mixtures on Gibberella zeae (Schw.) Petch had been detected by using mycelium growth rate method. Meanwhile, the field control tests of the optimum formulation on FHB, DON in wheat grain, wheat powdery mildew (WPM) and wheat leaf rust (WLR) had been conducted, respectively. The results of indoor toxicity tests showed that the synergistic coefficient was 2.4375 when the mixture of prothioconazole and propiconazole at the ratio of 1:1, and the synergistic effect was the most significant. The results of the field control efficacy showed that the FHB disease index (DI) and DON control efficacy of 40% prothioconazole·propiconazole oil dispersion (OD) 600 g/hm² were 93.46% and 91.26%, respectively, while the control efficacy against WPM DI and WLR DI on the 21^th day after 2 times of spraying were 93.50% and 93.19%, respectively, both of which were higher than the control efficacy of the common fungicide tebuconazole or carbendazim, and it was safe for wheat growth. 40% prothioconazole·propiconazole OD provided excellent control efficacy on FHB and DON in wheat grain, as well as excellent simultaneous control efficacy on WPM and WLR, which had good development potential.

Key words: fusarium head blight, deoxynivalenol, prothioconazole, propiconazole, co-toxicity, control efficacy

CHEN Hongzhou, WANG Bingbing, WANG Chenbin, ZHANG Xinjian, YANG Hongfu, XU Chao, ZHANG Jianhua, ZHU Feng. Co-toxicity and Field Control Efficacy of Mixtures of Prothioconazole and Propiconazole to Fusarium Head Blight Caused by Gibberella zeae (Schw.) Petch[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(2): 114-120.

Figures/Tables 4

References 27

[1]	OSBORNE L E, STEIN J M. Epidemiology of Fusarium head blight on small-grain cereals[J]. International journal of food microbiology, 2007, 119(1-2):103-108. pmid: 17716761
[2]	VAN DER BURGT G J H M, TIMMERMANS B G H, SCHOLBERG J M S, et al. Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol contamination in wheat as affected by nitrogen fertilization[J]. NJAS-wageningen journal of life sciences, 2011, 58(3-4):123-129. doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2011.09.005 URL
[3]	BUERSTMAYR H, BAN T, ANDERSON J A. QTL mapping and marker-assisted selection for Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat: a review[J]. Plant breeding, 2009, 128(1):1-26. doi: 10.1111/pbr.2009.128.issue-1 URL
[4]	BAI G H, SHANER G, OHM H. Inheritance of resistance to Fusarium graminearum in wheat[J]. Theoretical and applied genetics, 2000, 100(1):1-8. doi: 10.1007/PL00002902 URL
[5]	PARRY D W, JENKINSON P, MCLEOD L. Fusarium ear blight (scab) in small grain cereals: a review[J]. Plant pathology, 1995, 44(2):207-238. doi: 10.1111/ppa.1995.44.issue-2 URL
[6]	D’MELLO J P F, PLACINTA C M, MACDONALD A M C, et al. Fusarium mycotoxins: A review of global implications for animal health, welfare and productivity[J]. Animal feed science and technology, 1999, 80(3-4):183-205. doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00059-0 URL
[7]	PERAICA M, RADIĆ B, LUCIĆ A, et al. Toxic effects if mycotoxins in humans[J]. Bulletin of the world health organization, 1999, 77(9):754-766.
[8]	陈云, 王建强, 杨荣明, 等. 小麦赤霉病发生危害形势及防控对策[J]. 植物保护, 2017, 43(5):11-17.
[9]	LIU Y, CHEN X, JIANG J H, et al. Detection and dynamics of different carbendazim-resistance conferring β-tubulin variants of Gibberella zeae collected from infected wheat heads and rice stubble in China[J]. Pest management science, 2014, 70(4):1228-1236. doi: 10.1002/ps.2014.70.issue-8 URL
[10]	黄冲, 姜玉英, 李春广. 1987—2018年我国小麦主要病虫害发生危害及演变分析[J]. 植物保护, 2020, 46(6):186-193.
[11]	孙海燕, 原征, 疏燕, 等. 不同杀菌剂对小麦赤霉病和叶锈病的防治效果[J]. 植物保护, 2021, 47(1):273-276.
[12]	刘蕾, 崔晓东, 倪闪闪, 小麦赤霉病、白粉病药剂综合防治试验[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2022(12):47-50.
[13]	陈宏州, 韩凯, 杨红福, 等. 不同杀菌剂在麦穗中的消解动态及对小麦赤霉病防效评估[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2022, 42(4):504-511.
[14]	赵斌, 何绍江. 微生物学实验[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2002:251.
[15]	中华人民共和国农业行业标准.NY-T 1156.2—2006,农药室内生物测定试验准则杀菌剂第2部分:抑制病原真菌菌丝生长试验平皿法. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[16]	陈宏州, 张建华, 杨红福, 等. 氯啶菌酯与氟啶胺混剂对稻瘟病菌的联合毒力及田间防效[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(28):124-130. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20191100798
[17]	GISI U, BINDER H, RIMBACH E. Synergistic interactions of fungicides with different modes of action[J]. Transactions of British mycological society, 1985, 85(2):299-306. doi: 10.1016/S0007-1536(85)80192-3 URL
[18]	陈宏州, 吴佳文, 庄义庆, 等. 不同杀菌剂对小麦赤霉病及籽粒DON毒素的控制效果[J]. 植物保护, 2021, 47(6):307-317.
[19]	王奥霖, 赵亚男, 孙超飞, 等. 小麦不同抗性品种对6种杀菌剂防治小麦白粉病效果的影响[J]. 植物保护, 2021, 47(6):285-290.
[20]	WEGULO S N, BAENZIGER P S, NOPSA J H, et al. Management of fusarium head blight of wheat and barley[J]. Crop protection, 2015, 73:100-107. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2015.02.025 URL
[21]	尹升, 陈宏州, 杨红福, 等. 咪鲜胺与丙硫菌唑混剂对玉蜀黍赤霉病的联合毒力及田间防效[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2018, 46(12):82-85.
[22]	王同岁. 30%丙硫菌唑可分散油悬浮剂防治小麦赤霉病田间药效试验[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2018, 24(20):82,85.
[23]	顾月萍, 张海燕, 李莲, 等. 不同小麦品种、不同药剂处理对小麦赤霉病及呕吐毒素控制效果的试验研究[J]. 上海农业科技, 2023(1):112-114.
[24]	彭昌家, 白体坤, 冯礼斌, 等. 250g/L丙环唑EC防治小麦条锈病和白粉病的效果探讨[J]. 农学学报, 2016, 6(2):39-43. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas15070013
[25]	吴丽, 孙娟, 张慧杰, 等. 不同杀菌剂对小麦真菌毒素污染防控及农药残留风险评估分析[J]. 植物保护, 2021, 47(3):355-361.
[26]	孙星, 闫小龙, 杨邦保, 等. QuEChERS-HPLC-MS/MS法分析丙硫菌唑及其代谢物在小麦和土壤中的残留[J]. 食品科学, 2018, 39(22):269-275. doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-201822041
[27]	聂登, 费杏兴, 赵欣欣, 等. 3种杀菌剂对小麦产量、品质与食用安全的影响分析[J]. 粮食储藏, 2018, 50(5):28-32.

药剂	回归方程	相关系数r	EC₅₀(Eob)(95%置信限)/(μg/mL)	EC₅₀(Eth)/(μg/mL)	增效系数SR
丙硫菌唑	y=7.1409+1.4345x	0.9782	0.0322(0.0242~0.0428)	-	-
丙环唑	y=6.5280+1.4337x	0.9941	0.0859(0.0719~0.1028)	-	-
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(4:1)	y=7.9311+1.7760x	0.9869	0.0224(0.0172~0.0291)	0.0368	1.6429
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(3:1)	y=7.9383+1.8150x	0.9853	0.0240(0.0184~0.0314)	0.0382	1.5917
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(2:1)	y=7.9367+1.8314x	0.9839	0.0249(0.0189~0.0328)	0.0407	1.6345
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(1:1)	y=7.9009+1.6907x	0.9875	0.0192(0.0146~0.0254)	0.0468	2.4375
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(1:2)	y=7.9446+1.8745x	0.9824	0.0269(0.0203~0.0355)	0.0552	2.0520
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(1:3)	y=7.9115+1.9009x	0.9758	0.0294(0.0215~0.0402)	0.0606	2.0612
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(1:4)	y=7.8678+1.9462x	0.9815	0.0336(0.0260~0.0434)	0.0644	1.9167

药剂	回归方程	相关系数r	EC₅₀(Eob)(95%置信限)/(μg/mL)	EC₅₀(Eth)/(μg/mL)	增效系数SR
丙硫菌唑	y=7.1409+1.4345x	0.9782	0.0322(0.0242~0.0428)	-	-
丙环唑	y=6.5280+1.4337x	0.9941	0.0859(0.0719~0.1028)	-	-
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(4:1)	y=7.9311+1.7760x	0.9869	0.0224(0.0172~0.0291)	0.0368	1.6429
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(3:1)	y=7.9383+1.8150x	0.9853	0.0240(0.0184~0.0314)	0.0382	1.5917
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(2:1)	y=7.9367+1.8314x	0.9839	0.0249(0.0189~0.0328)	0.0407	1.6345
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(1:1)	y=7.9009+1.6907x	0.9875	0.0192(0.0146~0.0254)	0.0468	2.4375
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(1:2)	y=7.9446+1.8745x	0.9824	0.0269(0.0203~0.0355)	0.0552	2.0520
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(1:3)	y=7.9115+1.9009x	0.9758	0.0294(0.0215~0.0402)	0.0606	2.0612
丙硫菌唑:丙环唑(1:4)	y=7.8678+1.9462x	0.9815	0.0336(0.0260~0.0434)	0.0644	1.9167

药剂	施药剂量/(g/hm²)	赤霉病		DON
药剂	施药剂量/(g/hm²)	病情指数	病指防效/%	DON含量/(ng/g)	DON防效/%
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	300	0.95 e	88.29 c	551.12 e	85.78 c
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	450	0.71 g	91.25 b	389.50 g	89.95 ab
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	600	0.53 h	93.46 a	338.73 h	91.26 a
30%丙硫菌唑OD	600	0.79 f	90.26 b	447.64 f	88.45 b
250 g/L丙环唑EC	600	2.16 c	73.37 e	1140.22 c	70.58 e
430 g/L戊唑醇SC	375	1.21 d	85.08 d	773.19 d	80.05 d
50%多菌灵WP	1500	2.94 b	63.75 f	1558.40 b	59.79 f
CK	-	8.11 a	-	3875.65 a	-

药剂	施药剂量/(g/hm²)	赤霉病		DON
药剂	施药剂量/(g/hm²)	病情指数	病指防效/%	DON含量/(ng/g)	DON防效/%
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	300	0.95 e	88.29 c	551.12 e	85.78 c
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	450	0.71 g	91.25 b	389.50 g	89.95 ab
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	600	0.53 h	93.46 a	338.73 h	91.26 a
30%丙硫菌唑OD	600	0.79 f	90.26 b	447.64 f	88.45 b
250 g/L丙环唑EC	600	2.16 c	73.37 e	1140.22 c	70.58 e
430 g/L戊唑醇SC	375	1.21 d	85.08 d	773.19 d	80.05 d
50%多菌灵WP	1500	2.94 b	63.75 f	1558.40 b	59.79 f
CK	-	8.11 a	-	3875.65 a	-

药剂	施药剂量/(g/hm²)	药前病情指数	2次药后14 d		2次药后21 d
药剂	施药剂量/(g/hm²)	药前病情指数	病情指数	病指防效/%	病情指数	病指防效/%
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	300	0.25 a	0.32 d	89.37 c	0.73 d	86.29 c
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	450	0.26 a	0.24 e	92.33 b	0.54 f	90.25 b
40%丙硫菌唑·丙环唑OD	600	0.26 a	0.17 f	94.57 a	0.36 g	93.50 a
30%丙硫菌唑OD	600	0.30 a	0.32 d	91.14 bc	0.65 e	89.83 b
250 g/L丙环唑EC	600	0.28 a	0.56 c	83.38 d	1.18 c	80.21 d
430 g/L戊唑醇SC	375	0.29 a	0.55 c	84.24 d	1.16 c	81.22 d
50%多菌灵WP	1500	0.26 a	0.95 b	69.64 e	1.82 b	67.13 e
CK	-	0.27 a	3.25 a	-	5.75 a	-