Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology ›› 2022, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (9): 139-148.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.1079
• ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH • Previous Articles
Hui JIN(), Wei WANG, Chendong YAN, Wei WANG, Xiying LI(
)
Received:
2021-12-20
Accepted:
2022-04-17
Online:
2022-09-15
Published:
2022-10-11
Contact:
Xiying LI
通讯作者:
李熙英
作者简介:
金辉 E-mail:547248981@qq.com;
基金资助:
CLC Number:
Hui JIN, Wei WANG, Chendong YAN, Wei WANG, Xiying LI. Isolation, Identification and Adaptability of Trichoderma spp. for Biocontrol of Rice Sheath Blight[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(9): 139-148.
金辉, 王伟, 颜尘栋, 王薇, 李熙英. 水稻纹枯病生防木霉菌分离鉴定及适应性研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(9): 139-148.
杀菌剂 Pesticides | 用量 Dosage/ (mg·L-1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.5%多抗霉素 1.5% polyantimycin | 1 | 5 | 10 | 50 | 100 | 500 |
75%百菌清 75% chlorothalonil | 1 | 5 | 10 | 50 | 100 | 500 |
50%多菌灵 50% carbendazim | — | 0.005 | 0.010 | 0.050 | 0.100 | 0.500 |
50 %腐霉利 50% pythium | — | 0.005 | 0.010 | 0.050 | 0.100 | 0.500 |
80%代森锰锌 80% mancozeb | — | 50 | 100 | 500 | 1 000 | 2 000 |
Table 1 Fungicides dosage in this study
杀菌剂 Pesticides | 用量 Dosage/ (mg·L-1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.5%多抗霉素 1.5% polyantimycin | 1 | 5 | 10 | 50 | 100 | 500 |
75%百菌清 75% chlorothalonil | 1 | 5 | 10 | 50 | 100 | 500 |
50%多菌灵 50% carbendazim | — | 0.005 | 0.010 | 0.050 | 0.100 | 0.500 |
50 %腐霉利 50% pythium | — | 0.005 | 0.010 | 0.050 | 0.100 | 0.500 |
80%代森锰锌 80% mancozeb | — | 50 | 100 | 500 | 1 000 | 2 000 |
根际土样 Soil sample of rhizosphere | 真菌菌株数 Number of fungus | 木霉菌菌株数 Number of Trichoderma strains | 编号Code |
---|---|---|---|
玉米Maize | 45 | 8 | Y1~Y8 |
西红柿Tomato | 9 | 1 | X1 |
芹菜Celery | 40 | 6 | Q1~Q6 |
辣椒Pepper | 40 | 4 | L1~L4 |
丁香Clove | 9 | 1 | D1 |
杨树Poplar | 13 | 0 | — |
榆树Elm | 10 | 0 | — |
油松Pinus | 15 | 0 | — |
苹果、梨Apple and peer | 8 | 0 | — |
Table 2 Fungi and Trichoderma strains isolated from different soils
根际土样 Soil sample of rhizosphere | 真菌菌株数 Number of fungus | 木霉菌菌株数 Number of Trichoderma strains | 编号Code |
---|---|---|---|
玉米Maize | 45 | 8 | Y1~Y8 |
西红柿Tomato | 9 | 1 | X1 |
芹菜Celery | 40 | 6 | Q1~Q6 |
辣椒Pepper | 40 | 4 | L1~L4 |
丁香Clove | 9 | 1 | D1 |
杨树Poplar | 13 | 0 | — |
榆树Elm | 10 | 0 | — |
油松Pinus | 15 | 0 | — |
苹果、梨Apple and peer | 8 | 0 | — |
菌株编号 Strain codes | 菌落直径Colony diameter/cm | 抑菌率Inhibitory rate/% | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
菌株 Strain | 发酵浓缩液 Fermentation concentrated | 菌株 Strain | 发酵浓缩液 Fermentation concentrated | |
D1 | 2.10 | 3.17 | 80.82±2.30 a | 69.55±2.57 a |
Y7 | 2.40 | 8.33 | 76.71±0.00 b | 5.76±4.99 f |
Y5 | 2.50 | 8.27 | 75.34±1.37 bc | 6.58±3.11 f |
L2 | 2.60 | 8.43 | 73.97±1.37 c | 4.53±1.89 f |
L1 | 2.70 | 8.13 | 72.60±2.37 cd | 8.23±4.34 f |
L3 | 2.70 | 4.87 | 72.60±0.00 cd | 48.56±5.15 c |
Q4 | 2.70 | 7.33 | 72.60±1.37 cd | 18.11±2.57 de |
Q3 | 2.87 | 7.77 | 70.32±1.58 de | 12.76±3.11 f |
Q2 | 2.90 | 7.40 | 69.86±0.00 def | 17.28±2.47 de |
Q6 | 2.93 | 7.83 | 69.41±0.79 efg | 11.93±5.70 f |
Y8 | 3.03 | 8.43 | 68.04±0.79 efgh | 4.53±1.89 f |
Q5 | 3.03 | 4.27 | 68.04±2.09 efgh | 55.97±1.89 bc |
Y4 | 3.07 | 4.03 | 67.58±2.09 efghi | 58.85±3.56 b |
Y2 | 3.10 | 3.77 | 67.12±1.37 fghi | 62.14±6.09 b |
Y3 | 3.10 | 7.47 | 67.12±0.00 fghi | 16.46±3.97 de |
Y1 | 3.13 | 4.87 | 66.67±2.09 ghi | 48.56±8.03 c |
Q1 | 3.17 | 7.83 | 66.21±0.79 hi | 11.93±2.57 ef |
L4 | 3.17 | 4.23 | 66.21±1.58 hi | 56.38±4.67 b |
Y6 | 3.20 | 7.10 | 65.75±1.37 hi | 20.99±7.98 d |
X1 | 3.27 | 7.87 | 64.84±2.09 i | 11.52±1.89 ef |
CK | 8.00 | 8.80 | — | — |
Table 3 Inhibitory effects of trichoderma strain and fermentation concentrated on rice sheath blight
菌株编号 Strain codes | 菌落直径Colony diameter/cm | 抑菌率Inhibitory rate/% | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
菌株 Strain | 发酵浓缩液 Fermentation concentrated | 菌株 Strain | 发酵浓缩液 Fermentation concentrated | |
D1 | 2.10 | 3.17 | 80.82±2.30 a | 69.55±2.57 a |
Y7 | 2.40 | 8.33 | 76.71±0.00 b | 5.76±4.99 f |
Y5 | 2.50 | 8.27 | 75.34±1.37 bc | 6.58±3.11 f |
L2 | 2.60 | 8.43 | 73.97±1.37 c | 4.53±1.89 f |
L1 | 2.70 | 8.13 | 72.60±2.37 cd | 8.23±4.34 f |
L3 | 2.70 | 4.87 | 72.60±0.00 cd | 48.56±5.15 c |
Q4 | 2.70 | 7.33 | 72.60±1.37 cd | 18.11±2.57 de |
Q3 | 2.87 | 7.77 | 70.32±1.58 de | 12.76±3.11 f |
Q2 | 2.90 | 7.40 | 69.86±0.00 def | 17.28±2.47 de |
Q6 | 2.93 | 7.83 | 69.41±0.79 efg | 11.93±5.70 f |
Y8 | 3.03 | 8.43 | 68.04±0.79 efgh | 4.53±1.89 f |
Q5 | 3.03 | 4.27 | 68.04±2.09 efgh | 55.97±1.89 bc |
Y4 | 3.07 | 4.03 | 67.58±2.09 efghi | 58.85±3.56 b |
Y2 | 3.10 | 3.77 | 67.12±1.37 fghi | 62.14±6.09 b |
Y3 | 3.10 | 7.47 | 67.12±0.00 fghi | 16.46±3.97 de |
Y1 | 3.13 | 4.87 | 66.67±2.09 ghi | 48.56±8.03 c |
Q1 | 3.17 | 7.83 | 66.21±0.79 hi | 11.93±2.57 ef |
L4 | 3.17 | 4.23 | 66.21±1.58 hi | 56.38±4.67 b |
Y6 | 3.20 | 7.10 | 65.75±1.37 hi | 20.99±7.98 d |
X1 | 3.27 | 7.87 | 64.84±2.09 i | 11.52±1.89 ef |
CK | 8.00 | 8.80 | — | — |
处理 Treatment | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Control effect /% |
---|---|---|
T1 | 17.83±1.48 b | 51.12±4.07 c |
T2 | 14.19±0.84 c | 61.09±2.31 b |
T3 | 11.72±1.29 d | 67.86±3.55 a |
CKP | 36.47±1.41 a | — |
Table 4 Control effect of strain D1 on rice sheath blight
处理 Treatment | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Control effect /% |
---|---|---|
T1 | 17.83±1.48 b | 51.12±4.07 c |
T2 | 14.19±0.84 c | 61.09±2.31 b |
T3 | 11.72±1.29 d | 67.86±3.55 a |
CKP | 36.47±1.41 a | — |
处理 Treatment | 穗数 Panicle number hill-1 | 穗粒数 Grain number per panicle | 结实率 Seed-setting rate/% | 千粒重 1 000 grain weight/g | 产量/(g·桶-1) Yield/(g·barrel-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 14.73±2.05 bc | 52.74±4.54 bc | 87.71±3.67 c | 20.71±1.28 b | 42.55±8.65 c |
T2 | 14.93±2.43 bc | 54.42±7.66 b | 90.24±3.72 b | 20.75±1.44 b | 45.81±11.47 c |
T3 | 15.20±2.18 b | 61.59±4.26 a | 92.82±2.56 ab | 20.87±1.05 b | 54.29±8.30 b |
T4 | 18.60±3.11 a | 63.31±7.23 a | 93.37±3.18 a | 21.31±1.86 a | 61.28±18.77 a |
CKP | 12.93±1.87 c | 47.82±7.43 c | 76.48±5.99 d | 19.69±2.13 c | 27.68±11.32 d |
CKW | 15.27±3.65 b | 61.40±9.38 a | 92.49±2.53 ab | 21.28±1.25 a | 54.94±14.41 b |
Table 5 Effects of D1 strain treatment on rice yield components and yield
处理 Treatment | 穗数 Panicle number hill-1 | 穗粒数 Grain number per panicle | 结实率 Seed-setting rate/% | 千粒重 1 000 grain weight/g | 产量/(g·桶-1) Yield/(g·barrel-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 14.73±2.05 bc | 52.74±4.54 bc | 87.71±3.67 c | 20.71±1.28 b | 42.55±8.65 c |
T2 | 14.93±2.43 bc | 54.42±7.66 b | 90.24±3.72 b | 20.75±1.44 b | 45.81±11.47 c |
T3 | 15.20±2.18 b | 61.59±4.26 a | 92.82±2.56 ab | 20.87±1.05 b | 54.29±8.30 b |
T4 | 18.60±3.11 a | 63.31±7.23 a | 93.37±3.18 a | 21.31±1.86 a | 61.28±18.77 a |
CKP | 12.93±1.87 c | 47.82±7.43 c | 76.48±5.99 d | 19.69±2.13 c | 27.68±11.32 d |
CKW | 15.27±3.65 b | 61.40±9.38 a | 92.49±2.53 ab | 21.28±1.25 a | 54.94±14.41 b |
病原菌 Pathogen | 抑菌率 Inhibitory rate/% |
---|---|
辣椒炭疽病菌Pepper anthracnose | 95.18±1.20 a |
人参灰霉病菌Ginseng Botrytis cinerea | 89.56±0.70 a |
人参立枯病菌Rhizoctonia ginseng | 86.75±1.20 a |
人参锈腐病菌Ginseng rust fungus | 83.40±0.00 b |
水稻纹枯病菌Rice sheath blight | 79.92±1.84 b |
玉米弯孢霉叶斑病菌Curvus zeae leaf spot | 76.71±1.39 c |
人参黑斑病菌Ginseng black spot | 75.98±1.90 c |
水稻恶苗病菌Bacillus rice | 63.03±4.93 c |
Table 6 Inhibition of D1 strain on 8 kinds of plant pathogenic bacteria
病原菌 Pathogen | 抑菌率 Inhibitory rate/% |
---|---|
辣椒炭疽病菌Pepper anthracnose | 95.18±1.20 a |
人参灰霉病菌Ginseng Botrytis cinerea | 89.56±0.70 a |
人参立枯病菌Rhizoctonia ginseng | 86.75±1.20 a |
人参锈腐病菌Ginseng rust fungus | 83.40±0.00 b |
水稻纹枯病菌Rice sheath blight | 79.92±1.84 b |
玉米弯孢霉叶斑病菌Curvus zeae leaf spot | 76.71±1.39 c |
人参黑斑病菌Ginseng black spot | 75.98±1.90 c |
水稻恶苗病菌Bacillus rice | 63.03±4.93 c |
培养温度 Culture temperature/℃ | 抑菌率 Inhibitory rate/% | pH | 抑菌率 Inhibitory rate/% |
---|---|---|---|
10 | 41.38±3.98 c | 4 | 78.77±1.81 a |
15 | 50.68±4.47 b | 5 | 78.57±1.44 a |
20 | 76.15±4.74 a | 6 | 74.91±1.39 b |
25 | 80.70±1.34 a | 7 | 72.76±3.10 bc |
30 | 76.64±1.19 a | 8 | 71.86±0.88 cd |
35 | 20.00±5.44 d | 9 | 69.68±1.30 d |
— | — | 10 | 69.60±2.22 d |
Table 7 Inhibitory effect of strain D1 on the hyphae of Rhizoctonia solani under different temperature and pH
培养温度 Culture temperature/℃ | 抑菌率 Inhibitory rate/% | pH | 抑菌率 Inhibitory rate/% |
---|---|---|---|
10 | 41.38±3.98 c | 4 | 78.77±1.81 a |
15 | 50.68±4.47 b | 5 | 78.57±1.44 a |
20 | 76.15±4.74 a | 6 | 74.91±1.39 b |
25 | 80.70±1.34 a | 7 | 72.76±3.10 bc |
30 | 76.64±1.19 a | 8 | 71.86±0.88 cd |
35 | 20.00±5.44 d | 9 | 69.68±1.30 d |
— | — | 10 | 69.60±2.22 d |
杀菌剂 Pesticide | 毒力方程 Virulence equation | 相关系数 correlation coefficient | EC50/ (mg·L-1) | EC90/ (mg·L-1) | 田间常用质量浓度 Common field concentration/(mg·L-1) | 常用质量浓度下的抑制率 Inhibitory rate at common concentration /% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.5%多抗霉素 1.5% polyantimycin | Y=1.121 3X+1.344 8 | 0.985 4 | 26.040 | 81.670 | 150 | 97.3 |
75%百菌清 75% chlorothalonil | Y=0.327 0X+3.915 3 | 0.932 1 | 27.580 | 1 389.070 | 6 000 | 96.1 |
50%多菌灵 50% carbendazim | Y=1.475 7X+9.682 7 | 0.994 0 | 0.042 | 0.100 | 3 333 | 100 |
50%腐霉利 50% procymid | Y=0.795 2X+5.953 9 | 0.979 9 | 0.301 | 1.510 | 1 667 | 100 |
80%代森锰锌 80% mancozeb | Y=0.488 9X+2.091 7 | 0.976 8 | 383.240 | 5 271.420 | 1 600 | 75.8 |
Table 8 Inhibition effect of different pesticides on the mycelial growth of D1 strain
杀菌剂 Pesticide | 毒力方程 Virulence equation | 相关系数 correlation coefficient | EC50/ (mg·L-1) | EC90/ (mg·L-1) | 田间常用质量浓度 Common field concentration/(mg·L-1) | 常用质量浓度下的抑制率 Inhibitory rate at common concentration /% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.5%多抗霉素 1.5% polyantimycin | Y=1.121 3X+1.344 8 | 0.985 4 | 26.040 | 81.670 | 150 | 97.3 |
75%百菌清 75% chlorothalonil | Y=0.327 0X+3.915 3 | 0.932 1 | 27.580 | 1 389.070 | 6 000 | 96.1 |
50%多菌灵 50% carbendazim | Y=1.475 7X+9.682 7 | 0.994 0 | 0.042 | 0.100 | 3 333 | 100 |
50%腐霉利 50% procymid | Y=0.795 2X+5.953 9 | 0.979 9 | 0.301 | 1.510 | 1 667 | 100 |
80%代森锰锌 80% mancozeb | Y=0.488 9X+2.091 7 | 0.976 8 | 383.240 | 5 271.420 | 1 600 | 75.8 |
1 | 陈利峰,徐敬友.农业植物病理学(南方版)[M].北京:中国农业出版社, 2001: 105-107. |
2 | SING A, ROHILLA R, SINGH U, et al.. An improved inoeulation technique for sheath blight of rice caused by Rhizotonia solani [J]. Can. J. Plant Pathol., 2002, 24(1): 65-68. |
3 | 檀根甲,王子迎.水稻纹枯病时间与空间生态位的研究[J].中国水稻科学,2002(02):85-87. |
TAN G J, WANG Z Y. Study on temporal and spatial niches of rice blight [J]. Chin. J. Rice Sci., 2002(02): 65-68. | |
4 | 夏汉炎.水稻纹枯病防治进展[J].南方农业,2021,15(27):12-14. |
XIA H Y. Progress in the prevention and control of rice blight [J]. South China Agric.,2021,15(27):12-14. | |
5 | 束震.哈茨木霉菌与复合芽孢杆菌对西瓜枯萎病的防治效果及其促进西瓜生长的作用[J].安徽农学报,2021,27(23):116-118. |
SHU Z. The effect of Trichoderma Harz and Bacillus complex on the prevention and control of watermelon wilt and its role in promoting the growth of watermelon [J]. Anhui Agric. Sci. Bull., 2021,27(23):116-118. | |
6 | 杨兴堂. 3株木霉菌的鉴定、生物学特性和抑菌能力及其对凤仙花的促生作用[D].哈尔滨:东北林业大学, 2016. |
YANG X T. Identification,biological characteristics and bacteriostatic ability of three Trichoderma strains and their pro-growth effect on hydrangea [D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2016. | |
7 | 宋晓妍,孙彩云,陈秀兰,等.木霉生防作用机制的研究进展[J].中国农业科技导报,2006, 8 (6): 20-25. |
SONG X Y, SUN C Y, CHEN X L, et al.. Research advanceson mechanism of Trichoderma in biological control [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2006, 8(6): 20-25. | |
8 | 田娜,姚瑞丽,姚艳平,等.生防木霉菌的分离和筛选[J].山西农业大学学报(自然科学版),2013,22(4):313-318. |
TIAN N, YAO R L, YAO Y P, et al..Isolation and screening of biocontrol Trichoderma [J]. J. Shanxi Agric. Univ. (Nat. Sci.),2013,22(4):313-318. | |
9 | 王艳丽,沈瑛,徐同.哈茨木霉防治水稻纹枯病研究[J].植物保护学报,2000(2):97-101. |
WANG Y L, SHEN Y, XU T. Study on Trichoderma harzianum strains to control of rice sheat blight [J]. J. Plant Protec.,2000(2):97-101. | |
10 | 董晓军,贾瑞芬.木霉菌防治番茄灰霉病的初步研究[J].基层农技推广,2018,6(01):33-35. |
11 | 杨合同.木霉分类与鉴定[M].北京:中国大地出版社,2009:158-165. |
12 | 董红刚,袁林泽,康晓霞,等.7种杀菌剂防治水稻纹枯病田间药效比较试验[J]. 上海农业科技,2015(6):124-125, 105. |
DONG H G, YUAN L Z, KANG X X, et al.. Comparative experiment on the efficacy of 7 fungicides in the field for the prevention and control of rice blight [J]. J. Shanghai Agric. Sci. Technol.,2015(6):124-125, 105. | |
13 | 孙广宁,宗兆峰.植物病理学实验技术[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2002:256-265. |
14 | BISSETT J. A revision of the genus Trichoderma Ⅰ. section longibrachiatum sect.nov. [J]. Can. J. Bot.,1984,62:924-931. |
15 | BISSETT J. Ar revision of the genus Trichoderma Ⅱ. infrageneric classification [J]. Can. J. Bot., 1991,69:2357-2372. |
16 | BISSETT J. A revision of the genus Trichoderma Ⅲ. section pachybasium [J]. Can. J. Bot.,1991,69:2373-2417. |
17 | BISSETT J. A revision of the genus Trichoderma Ⅳ.additional notes on section longibrachiatum [J]. Can. J. Bot.,1991,69:2418-2420. |
18 | 郭润芳,刘晓光,高克祥,等.拮抗木霉菌在生物防治中的应用与研究进展[J].中国生物防治,2002,18(4):180-184. |
GUO R F, LIU X G, GAO K X, et al.. Application and research progress of antagonistic Trichoderma in biological control [J]. Chin. J. Biol. Control,2002,18(4):180-184. | |
19 | 陈泉,赵晓燕,李纪顺,等.木霉与土壤生态环境关系研究综述[J].台湾农业探索,2013(6):66-68. |
CHEN Q, ZHAO X Y, LI J S,et al..A review on the relationship between Trichoderma and soil ecological environment [J]. Taiwan Agric. Res., 2013(6):66-68. | |
20 | 申君,杨绍丽,谷清义,等.一株辣椒根腐病拮抗木霉菌Tb1的筛选与鉴定[J/OL].东北农业科学,2022:1-9 [2022-08-09]. . |
SHEN J, YANG S L, GU Q Y.et al.. Screening and identification of a pepper root rot antagonizing Trichoderma Tb1 [J/OL]. J. Northeast Agric. Sci., 2002:1-9[2022-08-09]. . | |
21 | 郭成,张小杰,张有富,等.短密木霉菌株GAS1-1的分离鉴定、拮抗作用及其生物学特性[J].植物保护学报,2019,46(2):305-312. |
GUO C, ZHANG X J, ZHANG Y Fet al.. Isolation, identification, antagonism and biological characteristics of Trichoderma brevis strain GAS1-1 [J]. J. Plant Protec.,2019,46(2):305-312. | |
22 | 吴紫燕,沈少力,糜芳,等.作物根围土壤木霉菌物种多样性及其体外拮抗病原菌效应[J].菌物研究,2017,15(3):177-182, 187. |
WU Z Y, SHEN S L, MI Fet al.. Species diversity of Trichoderma in the soil around crops and their antagonistic pathogenic effects in vitro [J]. J. Fungal Res.,2017,15(3):177-182, 187. | |
23 | 李松鹏.两株水稻根际木霉菌株生物学特性及生防潜能研究[D].武汉:华中农业大学, 2017. |
LI S P.Study on the biological characteristics and biocontrol potential of two rice rhizosphere Trichoderma strains [D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural Universit, 2017. | |
24 | 潘玮.绿色木霉厚垣孢子与分生孢子生物学特性及生防效果的比较研究[D].北京:中国农业科学院, 2006. |
PAN W. A comparative study on the biological characteristics and biocontrol effects of Trichoderma green trichoderma and conidia [D]. Beijing:Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2006. | |
25 | 李雪婷,郑树仁,聂倩文,等.菌株S17-377的鉴定及其对水稻纹枯病防治作用机制[C]//中国植物病理学会2019年学术年会论文集.北京:中国农业科学技术出版社,2019:534. |
LI X T,ZHENG S R,NIE Q W, et al.. Identification of strain S17-377 and its mechanism of controlling rice sheath blight [C]// Proceedings of 2019 Academic Annual Meeting of Chinese Society of Plant Pathology. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2019:534. | |
26 | 张林.防治土传病害的几种主要化学农药对木霉菌厚垣孢子的影响[D].北京:中国农业科学院, 2014. |
ZHANG L.Effects of several major chemical pesticides for the control of soil-borne diseases on the pachycete spores of Trichoderma [D]. Beijing:Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,2014. |
[1] | Xiaxia LI, Siyu ZHANG, Zhihui CHENG. Regional Trial Evaluation of High Quality Garlic Cultivars of China [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(7): 58-68. |
[2] | HUANG Yulan§, LONG Shengfeng§, YE Xingzhi, LI Yanying, SHEN Zhangyou, ZHOU Jia, ZHOU Lingzhi, LAO Chengying, WEI Benhui. Study on the Agronomic Characters, Yield and Quality of Cassava in Enshi of Hubei Province [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 46-55. |
[3] | ZHANG Yongfang, GAO Zhihui, SHI Pengqing, HAN Zhiping*. Adaptability Analysis of Different Soybean Varieties Based on Agronomic and Quality Traits [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(8): 25-32. |
[4] |
ZHAO Xingli1, TAO Gang2,3*, LOU Xuan4, GU Jingang5*.
Colonization Dynamics of Trichoderma hamatum in Pepper Rhizosphere and Its Biological Control Against Pepper Phytophthora Blight
[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(5): 106-114.
|
[5] | LIU Yang, RAN Cong, YOU Guixiang, HE Jingzhi, WU Wei, HOU Kai*. Determination of Berberine Hydrochloride in Crystal of Phellodendron chinensis by HPLC and Evaluation of Bacteriostatic Activity [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(2): 179-186. |
[6] | ZHOU Hongzi1, ZHOU Fangyuan1, ZHAO Xiaoyan1, WU Cuixia2, ZHANG Guangzhi1, YUAN Weiwei3, WU Xiaoqing1, XIE Xueying1, FAN Susu1, ZHANG Xinjian1*. Screening of Biocontrol Agents Against Wheat Fusarium Head Blight and Its Field Control Experiment [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, 22(1): 67-77. |
[7] | LU Lu1,2, ZHANG Mengli2, DI Yilin2, ZHU Kai1*, SHI Baojun2*. Insecticidal Effects of Thymol Against Caenorhabditis elegans at Different Stages [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019, 21(9): 97-103. |
[8] | WU Xiaoqing1, ZHAO Xiaoyan1, XU Yuanzhang2, WANG Jianing1, ZHOU Fangyuan1, ZHOU Hongzi1, ZHANG Guangzhi1, XIE Xueying1, YAN Kun3, ZHANG Xinjian1*. Research Progress on Precision Application Technology of Biological Control [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2019, 21(3): 13-21. |
[9] | DONG Xue1,2, ZHAO Yingming1,2,3*, HUANG Yaru1,2, LIU Yuting1,2, Ma Yingbin1,2,4, WANG Zhigang1,2, HAO Yuguang1,2, LIU Fang1,2. Growth Adaptability Evaluation of Insect Resistant Poplar Varieties of Middle Age in Ulan Buh Desert [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2018, 20(7): 123-129. |
[10] | LIU Huiying1,2, QIAO Yu1, SHI Bo1, PENG Qing1*. Study on the Bacteriostasis of ZnO Micro/Nano-particles with Different Morphologies on Foodborne Pathogens [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2018, 20(5): 140-147. |
[11] | CHENG Liang1,2, GUO Qing\|yun1,2*. Potential Research of Fusarium avenaceum Isolate GD\|2 as a Bioherbicide Agent for Wild Oats(Avena fatua L.) [J]. , 2014, 16(3): 70-80. |
[12] | SUN Su\|yang, WANG Yong\|jun, LI Hai\|jun, LI Li\|li. Yield Formation of Huaimai 25 with High Yield and Wide Adaptability [J]. , 2014, 16(1): 98-103. |
[13] | QIU De-wen. Development Strategy for Bio-pesticide and Biological Control [J]. , 2011, 13(5): 88-92. |
[14] | ZHOU Shao-chuan1,2, LI Hong1, HUANG Dao-qiang1, LU De-cheng1, LI Kang-huo1, ZHOU. Breeding and Application of Huanghuazhan, a New Early, Middle or Late Rice Variety with Good Quality and Wide Adaptability [J]. , 2010, 12(4): 12-17. |
[15] | YANG Cun-yi, HUANG Lan-lan, ZHAO Mo-ran, NIAN Hai. Roles of Plant miRNAs in Adaptive Responses to Soil Stresses [J]. , 2010, 12(1): 16-22. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||