
Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin ›› 2025, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (35): 103-109.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0243
Previous Articles Next Articles
RAN Yongzheng1(
), RAN Dongsheng2(
)
Received:2025-03-31
Revised:2025-11-15
Online:2025-12-11
Published:2025-12-11
RAN Yongzheng, RAN Dongsheng. Synergistic Control of Fludioxonil Combined with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens on Tomato Gray Mold[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(35): 103-109.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.casb.org.cn/EN/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0243
| 名称 | 来源 |
|---|---|
| 10000亿活芽孢/克荧光假单胞杆菌母药 | 山东惠民中联生物科技有限公司 |
| 50亿CFU/克哈茨木霉菌TH7母药 | 湖南慕恩生物科技有限公司 |
| 10000亿活芽孢/克枯草芽孢杆菌母药 | 汉科诺生物科技股份有限公司 |
| 5000亿CFU/克解淀粉芽孢杆菌KN-527母药 | 武汉科诺生物科技股份有限公司 |
| 95%啶菌噁唑原药 | 江苏宝灵化工股份有限公司 |
| 98%抑霉唑原药 | 辽宁众辉生物科技有限公司 |
| 98%啶酰菌胺原药 | 潍坊中农联合化工有限公司 |
| 99%吡噻菌胺原药 | 日本三井化学植保株式会社 |
| 95%咯菌腈原药 | 山东潍坊润丰化工股份有限公司 |
| 98%氟啶胺原药 | 山东潍坊润丰化工股份有限公司 |
| 名称 | 来源 |
|---|---|
| 10000亿活芽孢/克荧光假单胞杆菌母药 | 山东惠民中联生物科技有限公司 |
| 50亿CFU/克哈茨木霉菌TH7母药 | 湖南慕恩生物科技有限公司 |
| 10000亿活芽孢/克枯草芽孢杆菌母药 | 汉科诺生物科技股份有限公司 |
| 5000亿CFU/克解淀粉芽孢杆菌KN-527母药 | 武汉科诺生物科技股份有限公司 |
| 95%啶菌噁唑原药 | 江苏宝灵化工股份有限公司 |
| 98%抑霉唑原药 | 辽宁众辉生物科技有限公司 |
| 98%啶酰菌胺原药 | 潍坊中农联合化工有限公司 |
| 99%吡噻菌胺原药 | 日本三井化学植保株式会社 |
| 95%咯菌腈原药 | 山东潍坊润丰化工股份有限公司 |
| 98%氟啶胺原药 | 山东潍坊润丰化工股份有限公司 |
| 杀菌剂 | 毒力回归方程 | r | EC50/(μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 咯菌腈 | y=1.6214x+6.6972 | 0.9268 | 0.0889 |
| 吡噻菌胺 | y=0.7046x+5.4238 | 0.9617 | 0.2503 |
| 啶菌噁唑 | y=1.2987x+5.2207 | 0.9736 | 0.6762 |
| 啶酰菌胺 | y=2.5436x+5.2134 | 0.9696 | 0.8241 |
| 氟啶胺 | y=3.9789x+4.2487 | 0.9894 | 1.5431 |
| 抑霉唑 | y=1.2837x+3.9845 | 0.9652 | 6.1801 |
| 枯草芽孢杆菌 | y=0.5056x+5.0164 | 0.9197 | 0.9300 |
| 哈茨木霉菌 | y=0.4981x+4.9771 | 0.9014 | 1.3256 |
| 荧光假单胞杆菌 | y=0.5629x+4.7103 | 0.9621 | 3.2726 |
| 解淀粉芽孢杆菌 | y=1.1247x+5.9657 | 0.9624 | 0.5940 |
| 杀菌剂 | 毒力回归方程 | r | EC50/(μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 咯菌腈 | y=1.6214x+6.6972 | 0.9268 | 0.0889 |
| 吡噻菌胺 | y=0.7046x+5.4238 | 0.9617 | 0.2503 |
| 啶菌噁唑 | y=1.2987x+5.2207 | 0.9736 | 0.6762 |
| 啶酰菌胺 | y=2.5436x+5.2134 | 0.9696 | 0.8241 |
| 氟啶胺 | y=3.9789x+4.2487 | 0.9894 | 1.5431 |
| 抑霉唑 | y=1.2837x+3.9845 | 0.9652 | 6.1801 |
| 枯草芽孢杆菌 | y=0.5056x+5.0164 | 0.9197 | 0.9300 |
| 哈茨木霉菌 | y=0.4981x+4.9771 | 0.9014 | 1.3256 |
| 荧光假单胞杆菌 | y=0.5629x+4.7103 | 0.9621 | 3.2726 |
| 解淀粉芽孢杆菌 | y=1.1247x+5.9657 | 0.9624 | 0.5940 |
| 杀菌剂 | 浓度/(μg/mL) | 活菌量/(1×108 CFU/mL) | 活菌量/(1×106 CFU/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 解淀粉芽孢杆菌 | 枯草芽孢杆菌 | 哈茨木霉菌 | |||
| 咯菌腈 | 100 | 15.7a | 4.21d | 3.71d | |
| 200 | 12.3d | 3.76de | 3.03de | ||
| 500 | 11.5c | 2.01ef | 1.72ef | ||
| 1000 | 10.6d | 1.02ff | 0.82ef | ||
| 1500 | 10.8e | 0.43g | 0.56g | ||
| 吡噻菌胺 | 100 | 11.8cd | 7.56b | 6.78bb | |
| 200 | 10.50f | 7.01b | 5.48cd | ||
| 500 | 6.50h | 4.35c | 4.12de | ||
| 1000 | 3.28g | 2.31d | 2.13ef | ||
| 1500 | 1.02k | 0.75e | 1.23fg | ||
| CK | 16.0 | 13.00 | 15.00 | ||
| 杀菌剂 | 浓度/(μg/mL) | 活菌量/(1×108 CFU/mL) | 活菌量/(1×106 CFU/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 解淀粉芽孢杆菌 | 枯草芽孢杆菌 | 哈茨木霉菌 | |||
| 咯菌腈 | 100 | 15.7a | 4.21d | 3.71d | |
| 200 | 12.3d | 3.76de | 3.03de | ||
| 500 | 11.5c | 2.01ef | 1.72ef | ||
| 1000 | 10.6d | 1.02ff | 0.82ef | ||
| 1500 | 10.8e | 0.43g | 0.56g | ||
| 吡噻菌胺 | 100 | 11.8cd | 7.56b | 6.78bb | |
| 200 | 10.50f | 7.01b | 5.48cd | ||
| 500 | 6.50h | 4.35c | 4.12de | ||
| 1000 | 3.28g | 2.31d | 2.13ef | ||
| 1500 | 1.02k | 0.75e | 1.23fg | ||
| CK | 16.0 | 13.00 | 15.00 | ||
| Vf:Vx(V:V) | 实际抑制率/% | 预期抑制率/% | 毒性比率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0:10 | 57.87±0.06f | 57.87 | 1.00 |
| 1:9 | 74.41±0.06d | 56.43 | 1.31 |
| 2:8 | 74.81±0.05d | 55.64 | 1.34 |
| 3:7 | 68.64±0.05e | 54.32 | 1.26 |
| 4:6 | 74.81±0.02d | 54.01 | 1.39 |
| 5:5 | 79.69±0.05cd | 52.23 | 1.53 |
| 6:4 | 86.14±0.05b | 49.78 | 1.73 |
| 7:3 | 90.81±0.04a | 50.31 | 1.81 |
| 8:2 | 83.41±0.07bc | 51.18 | 1.63 |
| 9:1 | 80.41±0.04bc | 53.12 | 1.51 |
| 10:0 | 48.89±0.05g | 48.89 | 1.00 |
| Vf:Vx(V:V) | 实际抑制率/% | 预期抑制率/% | 毒性比率 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0:10 | 57.87±0.06f | 57.87 | 1.00 |
| 1:9 | 74.41±0.06d | 56.43 | 1.31 |
| 2:8 | 74.81±0.05d | 55.64 | 1.34 |
| 3:7 | 68.64±0.05e | 54.32 | 1.26 |
| 4:6 | 74.81±0.02d | 54.01 | 1.39 |
| 5:5 | 79.69±0.05cd | 52.23 | 1.53 |
| 6:4 | 86.14±0.05b | 49.78 | 1.73 |
| 7:3 | 90.81±0.04a | 50.31 | 1.81 |
| 8:2 | 83.41±0.07bc | 51.18 | 1.63 |
| 9:1 | 80.41±0.04bc | 53.12 | 1.51 |
| 10:0 | 48.89±0.05g | 48.89 | 1.00 |
| 处理 | 病情指数 | 防效/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 预防试验 | 治疗试验 | 预防试验 | 治疗试验 | ||
| 对照CK | 3.41±0.61a | 3.16±0.47a | - - | - - | |
| 咯菌腈 | 1.61±0.38c | 1.85±0.46c | 62.56±8.17b | 53.13±15.53b | |
| 解淀粉芽孢杆菌 | 1.85±0.32b | 2.55±0.48b | 54.67±6.35c | 36.49±12.69c | |
| 咯菌腈+解淀粉芽孢杆菌7:3体积比 | 1.02±0.24d | 1.52±0.41c | 82.62±4.61a | 64.56±15.61a | |
| 处理 | 病情指数 | 防效/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 预防试验 | 治疗试验 | 预防试验 | 治疗试验 | ||
| 对照CK | 3.41±0.61a | 3.16±0.47a | - - | - - | |
| 咯菌腈 | 1.61±0.38c | 1.85±0.46c | 62.56±8.17b | 53.13±15.53b | |
| 解淀粉芽孢杆菌 | 1.85±0.32b | 2.55±0.48b | 54.67±6.35c | 36.49±12.69c | |
| 咯菌腈+解淀粉芽孢杆菌7:3体积比 | 1.02±0.24d | 1.52±0.41c | 82.62±4.61a | 64.56±15.61a | |
| 处理 | 病情指数 | 防效/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗试验 | 预防试验 | 治疗试验 | 预防试验 | ||
| 对照CK | 16.42±3.45a | 19.82±14.63a | — | — | |
| 咯菌腈 | 8.82±6.78b | 6.78±3.67b | 42.64±39.15b | 64.61±15.84b | |
| 解淀粉芽孢杆菌 | 9.30±4.62b | 7.35±3.449b | 39.76±19.34b | 58.34±17.76b | |
| 咯菌腈+解淀粉芽孢杆菌7:3体积比 | 3.84±3.45c | 4.82±5.93b | 75.23±18.23a | 74.24±20.41a | |
| 处理 | 病情指数 | 防效/% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 治疗试验 | 预防试验 | 治疗试验 | 预防试验 | ||
| 对照CK | 16.42±3.45a | 19.82±14.63a | — | — | |
| 咯菌腈 | 8.82±6.78b | 6.78±3.67b | 42.64±39.15b | 64.61±15.84b | |
| 解淀粉芽孢杆菌 | 9.30±4.62b | 7.35±3.449b | 39.76±19.34b | 58.34±17.76b | |
| 咯菌腈+解淀粉芽孢杆菌7:3体积比 | 3.84±3.45c | 4.82±5.93b | 75.23±18.23a | 74.24±20.41a | |
| [1] |
纪明山, 刘妍, 朱赫, 等. 辽宁省番茄灰霉病菌对常用杀菌剂的抗药性监测与交互抗药性[J]. 农药, 2017, 56(9):676-678.
|
| [2] |
李昕灿, 张保华, 梁佳馨, 等. 山东部分地区番茄灰霉病菌对吡噻菌胺的抗性检测[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2022, 42(10):70-72.
|
| [3] |
唐涛, 王帆帆, 段媛媛, 等. 13种生物源杀菌剂对华重楼灰霉病的防治[J]. 农药, 2021, 60(4):297-300.
|
| [4] |
孙军德, 赵春燕, 王辉, 等. 不同生物防治菌株对番茄灰霉病防治效果的影响[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报, 2005, 36(4):445-447.
|
| [5] |
陈静, 江雅琴, 陈滢冲, 等. 贝莱斯芽孢杆菌TCS001与化学杀菌剂对草莓灰霉病的协同防效评价[J]. 农药, 2024, 63(8):604-608.
|
| [6] |
朱振家, 杨瑞, 秦宝, 等. 3种诱导剂单独和联合使用对草莓灰霉病防治效果比较[J]. 生物化工, 2020, 6(6):72-74.
|
| [7] |
牛芳胜, 马志强, 毕秋艳, 等. 哈茨木霉菌与5种杀菌剂对番茄灰霉病菌的协同作用[J]. 农药学学报, 2013, 15(2):165-170.
|
| [8] |
吴仁锋. 杀菌剂及混配对番茄灰霉病室内毒力和田间防效[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2008.
|
| [9] |
李佳俊, 陶丽红, 叶敏, 等. 天然酚类化合物与两种化学杀菌剂的联合抑菌活性研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(14):150-157.
doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0656 |
| [10] |
陈治芳. 杀菌剂混合物对番茄灰霉病菌毒力增效研究[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2011.
|
| [11] |
袁树忠. 辣椒疫霉颉颃菌的筛选鉴定、生防机制及与杀菌剂的协同作用[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2008.
|
| [12] |
吴玉星, 王亚娇, 韩森, 等. 氨基寡糖素与吡唑醚菌酯混用防治小麦白粉病的减施增效作用[J]. 农药, 2022, 61(6):449-452,464.
|
| [13] |
李歆建, 杨成, 刘晓昂, 等. 木霉菌与多种杀菌剂生物相容性研究[J]. 生物灾害科学, 2024, 47(1):67-72.
|
| [14] |
柯杨, 马瑜, 李勃, 等. 生防枯草芽孢杆菌A97与化学杀菌剂的相容性研究[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2013, 59(6):44-47.
|
| [15] |
张萌, 翟乾行, 朱承余, 等. 荧光假单胞菌YG-1与杀菌剂复配对番茄灰霉病的联合毒力[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2021(5):70-74.
|
| [16] |
荆卓琼, 郭致杰, 徐生军, 等. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌HZ-6-3的筛选鉴定及其防治番茄灰霉病效果的评价[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(2):31-41.
doi: 10.11686/cyxb2019213 |
| [17] |
赵建江, 路粉, 吴杰, 等. 河北省设施番茄灰霉病菌对啶酰菌胺和咯菌腈的敏感性[J]. 植物病理学报, 2018, 48(6):817-821.
doi: 10.13926/j.cnki.apps.000135 |
| [18] |
黄鑫, 郑丽宁, 顾学虎, 等. 生防菌D25与嘧环·咯菌腈复配对番茄灰霉病防治的增效作用[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2022, 38(4):860-867.
doi: 10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2022.04.018 |
| [19] |
焦甜甜, 沈凤英, 王娇, 等. 咯菌腈与解淀粉芽孢杆菌X-119复配对葡萄灰霉病的防效[J]. 植物保护学报, 2024, 51(3):698-708.
|
| [20] |
谷春艳, 王学峰, 苏贤岩, 等. 解淀粉芽孢杆菌WH1G与氟啶胺协同防治草莓灰霉病[J]. 农药, 2017, 56(12):932-936.
|
| [21] |
张江兆, 徐重新, 沈燕, 等. 腐霉利和咯菌腈混用对黄瓜灰霉病菌的联合毒力及药剂残留动态[J]. 农药学学报, 2022, 24(4):851-858.
|
| [22] |
李雪晴, 时昕彤, 韩林成, 等. 生物菌剂与化学药剂对人参锈腐病菌的联合生物活性增效筛选及防病效果[J]. 农药, 2022, 61(12):910-915.
|
| [1] | LIU Yan, HAN Wei. Field Control Effect of Different Chemical Treatments on Potato Late Blight [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(2): 117-122. |
| [2] | WANG Haoling, ZHU Jiaonan, CHEN Qi, DING Jiasheng, WANG Xibo, LI Haitian, ZHANG Kai, XIE Lixia, GUO Wenxiu, WANG Guiping, YU Yi. Synergistic Effect of Three Microbial Pesticides Mixed with Chemical Pesticides on Tuta absoluta Eggs and Larvae [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(10): 133-140. |
| [3] | 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. |
| [4] | LV Yiying, CAI Yongzhan, BAI Tao, HAN Xiaonv, LIU Dongmei, LI Zhu’an, WANG Ruibao, CHEN Xiaolong, WANG Qiyu, LIN Dengzhi, YU Lei, HUANG Feiyan. Biological Characteristics and Laboratory Virulence Determination of Tobacco Black Shank Bacteria in Qujing City [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(7): 102-110. |
| [5] | LI Yongli, YUAN Chunyan, ZHOU Zhou, WANG Chunsheng, LEI Zhenshan. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens P-r21: Broad-spectrum Antibacterial Effect and Control of Tomato Gray Mold [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(6): 105-110. |
| [6] | LI Yanlan, YANG Jincheng, JIN Hongyun, LUO Zhimin, LI Xiang, LI Zaofu, ZHANG Chunfan, HU Xinzhou, YU Zonghong, LIU Jianjian, GAO Shilan, AN Zhengyun, WANG Aiming, CAI Shujiang. Application Rates and Proportions of Organic Fertilizers: Control Effects on Three Diseases of Grain Pea [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(4): 106-111. |
| [7] | CHEN Hongzhou, WANG Bingbing, ZHANG Xinjian, YANG Hongfu, XU Chao, MIAO Kang, ZHANG Jianhua, ZHU Feng. Co-toxicity and Field Control Efficacy of Mixtures of Bemystrobin and Tebuconazole to Fusarium head blight Caused by Gibberella zeae (Schw.) Petch [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(30): 132-137. |
| [8] | PU Yongyu, BAO Lingfeng, HE Xiang, LIU Rui, ZHANG Qing, SHI Zhufeng, HE Yonghong, YANG Peiwen. Screening, Identification and Control Efficacy of Antagonistic Bacteria Against Ralstonia solanacearum and Phytophthora parasitica [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(7): 116-123. |
| [9] | YU Hang, CHENG Qi, TANG Haiyun, CHEN Guoqi. Efficacy of Prometryn Against 10 Serious Wheat Weed Species [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(7): 110-115. |
| [10] | JIANG Jia, CHEN Jinpeng, WEI Jiangqiao, GUO Xuhao, CHE Zhiping, TIAN Yue’e, CHEN Genqiang, LIU Shengming. Synergistic Effect of Fludioxonil and Tebuconazole Against Fusarium graminearum [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(6): 116-120. |
| [11] | WU Cuixia, XU Jiali, SONG Min, YANG Lina, ZHANG Tiantian, MA Chong. Control Efficacy of 7 Pre-emergence Herbicides Against Weeds in Winter Wheat Field [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(21): 105-111. |
| [12] | LI Binghua, LIU Xiaomin, XU Xian, ZHAO Bochui, LI Zhuolin. Safety of 6 Herbicides on Setaria italica and Their Weed Control Efficacy [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(19): 133-138. |
| [13] | ZHANG Wei, LV Zhaoyang, LI Boya, WANG Cong, GE Beibei, ZHANG Kecheng, PARK Kyung Seok, SHI Liming. Bacillus methylotrophicus NKG-1 Wettable Powder: Preparation and Efficacy Study [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(15): 130-138. |
| [14] | WANG Jiazhe, YUAN Dongzhen, YANG Yiwei, WEN Yaodong, WEI Peiyao, CHEN Zhijie, LI Yingmei, ZHANG Feng, ZHANG Qi, HONG Bo. Indoor Toxicity Determination and Field Control Efficacy Test of Five Insecticides Against Spodoptera frugiperda [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(12): 119-123. |
| [15] | Li Wei. A New Herbicide Flurochloridone in Potato Field on Qinghai Plateau: Application and Safety [J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(9): 149-154. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||