河西冷凉地区芍药根腐病病原鉴定及室内药剂筛选

doi:10.13304/j.nykjdb.2023.0174

中国农业科技导报 ›› 2023, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (10): 144-151.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2023.0174

• 动植物健康 • 上一篇

河西冷凉地区芍药根腐病病原鉴定及室内药剂筛选

杨克泽¹(), 吴芳¹^,²(), 魏玉杰¹^,²(), 汪亮芳¹, 常浩¹, 吴之涛¹^,², 杨宪忠¹^,²

^1.甘肃省农业工程技术研究院, 甘肃省特种药源植物种质创新与安全利用重点实验室, 甘肃武威 733006
^2.武威市祁连山区道地中药材生态栽培技术创新中心, 甘肃武威 733006

收稿日期:2023-03-10 接受日期:2023-08-15 出版日期:2023-10-15 发布日期:2023-10-27
通讯作者: 魏玉杰
作者简介:杨克泽 E-mail：307231530@qq.com
吴芳 E-mail：532089770@qq.com第一联系人：杨克泽和吴芳为共同第一作者。
基金资助:
财政部和农业农村部国家现代农业产业技术体系建设项目(CARS-21);甘肃省青年科技基金计划项目(21JR7RA752)

Pathogen Identification and Laboratory Drug Screening of Peony Root Rot in Cold and Cool Region of Hexi

Keze YANG¹(), Fang WU¹^,²(), Yujie WEI¹^,²(), Liangfang WANG¹, Hao CHANG¹, Zhitao WU¹^,², Xianzhong YANG¹^,²

^1.Key Laboratory of the Special Medicine Source Plant for Germplasm Innovation and Safety Utilization in Gansu Province，Gansu Academy of Agri-Engineering Technology，Gansu Wuwei 733006，China
^2.Wuwei Technology Innovation Center of Genuine Medicinal Materials Ecological Cultivation In Qilian Mountain Area，Gansu Wuwei 733006，China

Received:2023-03-10 Accepted:2023-08-15 Online:2023-10-15 Published:2023-10-27
Contact: Yujie WEI

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

近年来，芍药根腐病在甘肃河西冷凉地区发生严重，造成部分植株枯死，极大地影响了芍药产业的发展。为明确河西冷凉地区芍药根腐病的主要致病菌，采用形态学特征和分子生物学方法对该病的病原菌进行鉴定和致病性测定。结果表明，分离的优势菌SY2020-2对芍药具有致病性，根据形态学特征和分子生物学方法综合将其鉴定为尖孢镰孢菌（Fusarium oxysporum）。为筛选防治芍药根腐病的高效低毒药剂，选用10种药剂对SY2020-2进行室内毒力测定，结果表明，30%丙硫菌唑的毒力最强，EC₅₀为0.1 mg·L^-1；43%氟菌·肟菌脂、50%多菌灵、10%叶菌唑、20%氟唑菌酰胺和30%肟菌·戊唑醇的EC₅₀分别为1.2、2.7、3.5、4.8和6.4 mg·L^-1；25 g·L^-1咯菌腈和3%苯醚甲环唑的毒力相对较差。

关键词: 芍药根腐病, 病原鉴定, 毒力测定

Abstract:

In recent years， the root rot of Paeonia lactiflora occurred seriously in the cold and cool areas of Hexi， Gansu Province， causing some plants to die， which greatly affected the development of P. lactiflora industry. In order to identify the main pathogenic bacteria of peony root rot in cold and cool areas of Hexi， morphological characteristics and molecular biology methods were used to identify the pathogen and determine the pathogenicity of this strain. The results showed that the dominant strain SY2020-2 was pathogenic to P. lactiflora and was identified as Fusarium oxysporum based on morphological characteristics and hierarchical clustering. In order to screen the effective and low toxicity agents for the prevention and control of peony root rot， 10 kinds of agents were selected for virulence analysis. The results showed that 30% propionate had best effect for SY2020-2 with EC₅₀ 0.1 mg·L^-1， and the EC₅₀ of 43% fluorobacterium oxime lipids， 50% carbendazim， 10% phyllobacterazole， 20% fluxazole amide， 30% oxime bacteria amylazol were 1.2， 2.7， 3.5， 4.8 and 6.4 mg·L^-1， 25 g·L^-1 fluoxonitrile and 3% phenyloconazole showed poor toxicity.

Key words: peony root rot, pathogen identification, virulence assay

中图分类号:

S682.1

杨克泽, 吴芳, 魏玉杰, 汪亮芳, 常浩, 吴之涛, 杨宪忠. 河西冷凉地区芍药根腐病病原鉴定及室内药剂筛选[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(10): 144-151.

Keze YANG, Fang WU, Yujie WEI, Liangfang WANG, Hao CHANG, Zhitao WU, Xianzhong YANG. Pathogen Identification and Laboratory Drug Screening of Peony Root Rot in Cold and Cool Region of Hexi[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(10): 144-151.

图/表 8

参考文献 14

1	石颜通, 张秀新, 薛璟祺, 等. 芍药病害调查及抗性品种筛选[J]. 西南农业学报, 2014, 27(5): 1979-1983.
	SHI Y T, ZHANG X X, XUE J Q, et al.. Diseases investigation of Herbaceous peony and selection of resistant varieties [J]. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci., 2014, 27(5): 1979-1983.
2	李小燕. 芍药常见病害及防治[J]. 绿化与生活, 2009(6): 33.
3	丁丁. 抗镰刀菌百合无性系离体筛选及抗病生理的初步研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2009.
	DING D. A Preliminary study on in vitro selection of anti-Fusarium clones and resistance physiology of lily [D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University, 2009.
4	刘玉梅. 观赏芍药常见病害综合防治技术[J]. 现代农业科技. 2009(14): 153-154, 1 57.
5	李桂凡, 王启燕, 胡国岩. 高寒地区芍药露地栽培常见病害及其防冶[J]. 北方园艺. 2001(5): 56.
6	吴廷娟, 杜权, 王玉星, 谢小龙. 地黄根腐病病原菌的分离鉴定及其防治[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2021, 49(22): 132-136.
7	段亚冰. 牡丹叶斑病病原真菌鉴定及生物学特性研究[D].洛阳: 河南科技大学, 2009.
	DUAN Y B. Study on the identification and biological characteristics of pathogenic fungi of peony leaf spot [D]. Luoyang: Henan University of Science and Technology, 2009.
8	杨瑞先, 刘萍, 汪玉婷, 等. 洛阳地区牡丹根腐病病原菌的分离与鉴定[J]. 北方园艺. 2021(1): 59-66.
	YANG R X, LIU P, WANG Y T, et al.. Isolation and identification of root rot pathogens on Paeonia suffruticosa Andr. in Luoyang [J]. Northern Hortic., 2021(1): 59-66.
9	王艳, 陈秀蓉, 杜弢, 等. 甘肃省羌活病害种类调查及病原鉴定[J]. 中国中药杂志. 2009, 34(15): 1898-1901.
	WANG Y, CHEN X R, DU T, et al.. Disease survey and pathogen identification on Notopterygium incisum in Gansu Province [J]. China J. Chin. Materia Medica, 2009, 34(15):1898-1901.
10	王艳, 陈秀蓉, 王引权, 等. 甘肃省党参病害种类调查及病原鉴定[J]. 山西农业科学, 2011, 39(8): 866-868, 871.
	WANG Y, CHEN X R, WANG Y Q, et al.. Disease survey and pathogen identification on Codonopsis pilosula in Gansu Province [J]. J. Shanxi Agric. Sci, 2011, 39(8): 866-868, 871.
11	吕娟. 丹尼斯凤梨细菌性软腐病病原鉴定及室内药剂筛选[D]. 海口: 海南大学, 2011.
	LYU J. Identification of the causal organism of bacterial soft rot on Guzmania denise and bactericide screening indoor [D]. Haikou: Hainan University, 2011.
12	邓东, 孙菲菲, 孙素丽, 等. 蚕豆和豌豆锈病病原菌的分子鉴定[J]. 植物保护学报, 2022, 49(4): 1071-1076.
	DENG D, SUN F F, SUN S L, et al.. Molecular identification of pathogens causing rust disease on faba bean and pea [J]. J. Plant Prot., 2022, 49(4): 1071-1076.
13	李丽. 山东地区芍药病害调查及主要真菌性病害的病原鉴定[D]. 泰安: 山东农业大学, 2014.
	LI L. Disease investigation and the pathogen identification of the main fungal diseases in Paeonia lactiflora in Shandong Province [D]. Tai'an: Shandong Agricultural University, 2014.
14	李艳梅, 李小六, 陈超, 等. 大花蕙兰根腐病病原菌的分离与鉴定[J]. 河南农业大学学报. 2007(1): 85-89.
	LI Y M, LI X L, CHEN C, et al.. Isolation and identification of the pathogens causing root rot disease of Cymbidium hybrida [J]. J. Henan Agric.Univ., 2007(1): 85-89.

药剂 Insecticide	剂量 Dosage/（mg·L^-1）	药剂 Insecticide	剂量 Dosage/（mg·L^-1）
30%丙硫菌唑 30% prothioconazole	0.50	25 g·L^-1咯菌腈 25 g·L^-1 fluoxonitrile	500.00
	0.25		250.00
	0.05		50.00
	0.03		10.00
	0.01		5.00
20%氟唑菌酰胺 20% fluxazole amide	50.00	30%肟菌·戊唑醇 30% oxime bacteria·amylazol	250.00
	25.00		50.00
	5.00		25.00
	2.50		5.00
	0.50		2.50
43%戊唑醇 43% pentazolol	50.00	3%苯醚甲环唑 3% phenyloconazole	5000.00
	25.00		2500.00
	5.00		500.00
	2.50		250.00
	0.50		50.00
43%氟菌·肟菌脂 43% fluorobacterium·oxime lipids	50.00	10%叶菌唑 10% phyllobacterazole	25.00
	25.00		5.00
	5.00		2.50
	2.50		0.50
	1.25		0.25
50%多菌灵 50% carbendazim	20.00	24%噻呋酰胺 24% tiafuramide	250.00
	4.00		50.00
	2.00		10.00
	0.40		5.00
	0.20		2.50

药剂 Insecticide	剂量 Dosage/（mg·L^-1）	药剂 Insecticide	剂量 Dosage/（mg·L^-1）
30%丙硫菌唑 30% prothioconazole	0.50	25 g·L^-1咯菌腈 25 g·L^-1 fluoxonitrile	500.00
	0.25		250.00
	0.05		50.00
	0.03		10.00
	0.01		5.00
20%氟唑菌酰胺 20% fluxazole amide	50.00	30%肟菌·戊唑醇 30% oxime bacteria·amylazol	250.00
	25.00		50.00
	5.00		25.00
	2.50		5.00
	0.50		2.50
43%戊唑醇 43% pentazolol	50.00	3%苯醚甲环唑 3% phenyloconazole	5000.00
	25.00		2500.00
	5.00		500.00
	2.50		250.00
	0.50		50.00
43%氟菌·肟菌脂 43% fluorobacterium·oxime lipids	50.00	10%叶菌唑 10% phyllobacterazole	25.00
	25.00		5.00
	5.00		2.50
	2.50		0.50
	1.25		0.25
50%多菌灵 50% carbendazim	20.00	24%噻呋酰胺 24% tiafuramide	250.00
	4.00		50.00
	2.00		10.00
	0.40		5.00
	0.20		2.50

药剂 Insecticide	剂量 Dosage/（mg·L^-1）	抑制率 Inhibition rate/%	毒力回归方程 Virulence regression equation	EC₅₀/（mg·L^-1）	相关系数Correlation coefficient
30%丙硫菌唑 30% prothioconazole	0.50	0.69	y = 0.469 2x + 6.943 7	0.1	0.979 7
	0.25	0.56
	0.05	0.48
	0.03	0.41
	0.01	0.30
20%氟唑菌酰胺 20% fluxazole amide	50.00	0.73	y = 0.629 9x + 6.459 5	4.8	0.961 5
	25.00	0.69
	5.00	0.56
	2.50	0.34
	0.50	0.29
43%戊唑醇 43% pentazolol	50.00	0.75	y = 0.644 7x+ 6.204 0	13.6	0.905 0
	25.00	0.47
	5.00	0.35
	2.50	0.27
	0.50	0.23
43%氟菌·肟菌脂 43% fluorobacterium· oxime lipids	50.00	0.89	y =0.770 9x+ 7.251 0	1.2	0.983 6
	25.00	0.84
	5.00	0.74
	2.50	0.59
	1.25	0.47
50%多菌灵 50 % carbendazim	20.00	0.80	y = 0.855 3x+ 7.150 4	2.7	0.953 4
	4.00	0.59
	2.00	0.32
	0.40	0.27
	0.20	0.20
25 g·L^-1咯菌腈 25 g·L^-1 fluoxonitrile	500.00	0.65	y = 0.551 0x+ 5.502 5	124.4	0.975 8
	250.00	0.53
	50.00	0.41
	10.00	0.32
	5.00	0.19
30%肟菌·戊唑醇 30% oxime bacteria·amylazol	250.00	0.95	y = 0.9611x+ 7.1078	6.4	0.989 9
	50.00	0.81
	25.00	0.65
	5.00	0.46
	2.50	0.38
3%苯醚甲环唑 3% phenyloconazole	5000.00	0.81	y = 0.901 7x+ 5.199 9	600.2	0.968 4
	2500.00	0.76
	500.00	0.38
	250.00	0.32
	50.00	0.22

药剂 Insecticide	剂量 Dosage/（mg·L^-1）	抑制率 Inhibition rate/%	毒力回归方程 Virulence regression equation	EC₅₀/（mg·L^-1）	相关系数Correlation coefficient
30%丙硫菌唑 30% prothioconazole	0.50	0.69	y = 0.469 2x + 6.943 7	0.1	0.979 7
	0.25	0.56
	0.05	0.48
	0.03	0.41
	0.01	0.30
20%氟唑菌酰胺 20% fluxazole amide	50.00	0.73	y = 0.629 9x + 6.459 5	4.8	0.961 5
	25.00	0.69
	5.00	0.56
	2.50	0.34
	0.50	0.29
43%戊唑醇 43% pentazolol	50.00	0.75	y = 0.644 7x+ 6.204 0	13.6	0.905 0
	25.00	0.47
	5.00	0.35
	2.50	0.27
	0.50	0.23
43%氟菌·肟菌脂 43% fluorobacterium· oxime lipids	50.00	0.89	y =0.770 9x+ 7.251 0	1.2	0.983 6
	25.00	0.84
	5.00	0.74
	2.50	0.59
	1.25	0.47
50%多菌灵 50 % carbendazim	20.00	0.80	y = 0.855 3x+ 7.150 4	2.7	0.953 4
	4.00	0.59
	2.00	0.32
	0.40	0.27
	0.20	0.20
25 g·L^-1咯菌腈 25 g·L^-1 fluoxonitrile	500.00	0.65	y = 0.551 0x+ 5.502 5	124.4	0.975 8
	250.00	0.53
	50.00	0.41
	10.00	0.32
	5.00	0.19
30%肟菌·戊唑醇 30% oxime bacteria·amylazol	250.00	0.95	y = 0.9611x+ 7.1078	6.4	0.989 9
	50.00	0.81
	25.00	0.65
	5.00	0.46
	2.50	0.38
3%苯醚甲环唑 3% phenyloconazole	5000.00	0.81	y = 0.901 7x+ 5.199 9	600.2	0.968 4
	2500.00	0.76
	500.00	0.38
	250.00	0.32
	50.00	0.22

药剂 Insecticide	剂量 Dosage/（mg·L^-1）	抑制率 Inhibition rate/%	毒力回归方程 Virulence regression equation	EC₅₀/（mg·L^-1）	相关系数Correlation coefficient
10%叶菌唑 10% phyllobacterazole	25.00	0.68	y = 0.533 5x+6.311 9	3.5	0.971 0
	5.00	0.47
	2.50	0.41
	0.50	0.35
	0.25	0.21
24%噻呋酰胺 24% tiafuramide	250.00	0.76	y = 0.618 8x+6.098 9	16.8	0.993 5
	50.00	0.62
	10.00	0.46
	5.00	0.40
	2.50	0.28

河西冷凉地区芍药根腐病病原鉴定及室内药剂筛选

Pathogen Identification and Laboratory Drug Screening of Peony Root Rot in Cold and Cool Region of Hexi

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 14

相关文章 2

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	郑童童, 杨雯迪, 王宁, 马俊杰, 刘龙, 郭庆元. 小麦叶枯病病原菌的形态学与多基因系统学鉴定[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(2): 111-118.
[2]	霍佳欢, 温晓蕾, 李双民, 冯丽娜, 兰淑慧, 董立新, 郭思柔, 栗佳宁, 王建华, 齐慧霞. 北苍术根腐病病原鉴定及生物学特性研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(5): 137-144.