不同种衣剂对红芸豆根腐病防治效果研究

doi:10.16035/j.issn.1001-7283.2019.05.033

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了筛选出对红芸豆生长安全且防治根腐病效果理想的种衣剂,首先采用室内盆栽试验,研究种衣剂处理对红芸豆生长的安全性,再通过田间药效试验筛选防效较高的种衣剂。盆栽试验结果表明：9个处理对红芸豆出苗率无显著性影响,但各处理对其初期生长有不同影响,60g/L戊唑醇悬浮种衣剂（flowable concentrate for seed coating,FSC）+600g/L吡虫啉FSC处理对红芸豆平均株高、根长、苗鲜重、苗干重均具有显著抑制作用;35%多·福·克FSC处理对苗干重有一定增加作用,但对平均株高、根长、苗鲜重均无显著性影响。大田试验结果表明,11%精甲·咯·嘧菌+27%苯醚·咯·噻虫FSC、18%噻灵·咯·精甲FSC、12%甲·嘧·甲霜灵+600g/L吡虫啉FSC和62.5g/L精甲·咯菌腈+600g/L吡虫啉FSC 4个处理播种后30d的防治效果显著高于35%多·福·克FSC处理,防效分别是80.04%、73.77%、63.46%、57.25%;其余3个处理防治效果较低,与35%多·福·克FSC处理差异不显著。与空白对照相比,35%多·福·克FSC处理增产率最高,为30.18%,12%甲·嘧·甲霜灵+600g/L吡虫啉FSC处理增产率最低,为12.57%,二者差异显著;其他6个处理增产幅度虽低于35%多·福·克FSC处理,高于12%甲·嘧·甲霜灵FSC+600g/L吡虫啉FSC处理,但与二者差异均不显著。综合室内安全性评价、防治效果、增产效果,11%精甲·咯·嘧菌+27%苯醚·咯·噻虫FSC、18%噻灵·咯·精甲FSC具有较好的应用前景,适合在生产中与其他防治措施综合应用。

关键词: 红芸豆, 根腐病, 防治效果, 种衣剂

Abstract:

In order to screen a safe for red kidney beans and efficient to control root rot disease seed-coating, the safeties of seed-coating on red kidney beans were determined by pot tests first, and then their control efficiency were evaluated by field tests. The results showed that seed-coating were all safe for seedling emergence, but the effects on growth were different. 60g/L tebuconazole+600g/L imidacloprid FSC could retard the growth significantly on plant height, root length, seedling fresh weight, seedling dry weight; 35% carbendazim·thiram·carbofuran FSC could increase seedling dry weight, but no significant effects on plant height, root length, seedling fresh weight. In the field experiment, the control effects of 11% metalaxyl-M·fludioxonil·azoxystrobin+27% difenoconazole·fludioxonil· thiamethoxam FSC, 18% thiabendazole·fludioxonil·metalaxyl-M FSC, 12% thiophanate-methyl·metalaxyl·azoxy-strobin+600g/L imidacloprid FSC, 62.5g/L metalaxyl-M·fludioxonil+600g/L imidacloprid FSC was significantly higher than 35% carbendazim·thiram·carbofuran FSC at 30 days after sowing, their control effects was 80.04%, 73.77%, 63.46% and 57.25%, respectively; the control effects of other three treatments were lower but had no significant difference from 35% carbendazim·thiram·carbofuran FSC treatment. Compared with the blank control treatment, 35% carbendazim·thiram·carbofuran FSC treatment had the highest yield increase rate of 30.18%, and 12% thiophanate-methyl·metalaxyl·azoxystrobin+600g/L imidacloprid FSC treatment had the lowest yield increase rate of 12.57%. The yield increase rate of the other 6 treatments was lower than 35% carbendazim·thiram·carbofuran FSC treatment, higher than12% thiophanate-methyl·metalaxyl·azoxystrobi·azoxystrobin+600g/L imidacloprid FSC treatment, but the difference between these treatments was not significant. In combination with the indoor safety evaluation, control and yield increase effect, 11% metalaxyl-M·fludioxonil·azoxystrobin+27% difenocon-azole·fludioxonil·thiamethoxam FSC, 18% thiabendazole·fludioxonil·metalaxyl-M FSC have good application prospects and are suitable in production comprehensive application with other prevention control measures.

Key words: Red kidney beans, Root rot disease, Control effects, Seed-coating

任美凤,董晋明,李大琪,张萌,杨静,陆俊姣. 不同种衣剂对红芸豆根腐病防治效果研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2019 (5): 200–204

Ren Meifeng,Dong Jinming,Li Daqi,Zhang Meng,Yang Jing,Lu Junjiao. Control Effects of Different Types of Seed-Coating on the Root Rot Disease of Red Kidney Beans[J]. Crops, 2019(5): 200–204

图/表 4

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 17

[1]	龚谨 . 芸豆主产区农户种植行为及效益研究. 北京:中国农业科学院, 2013.
[2]	Koide T, Hashimoto Y, Kamei H , et al. Antitumor effect of anthocyanin fractions extracted from red soybeans and red beans in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Biother Radiopharm, 1997,12(4):227-280.
[3]	张河庆, 席亚东, 陈玲 , 等. 一种新的豇豆根腐病病原菌鉴定及室内药剂筛选. 植物保护, 2018,44(2):177-183.
[4]	刘刚 . 咪鲜胺可防治豇豆根腐病. 农药市场信息, 2018(22):47-48.
[5]	曹亮, 徐瑞, 谢进 , 等. 玉竹根腐病防治杀菌剂筛选. 中药材, 2018(5):1031-1034.
[6]	席金凤 . 定西市安定区马铃薯根腐病防治药剂筛选试验. 现代农业科技, 2018(7): 130, 133.
[7]	郑庆伟 . 68%精甲霜·锰锌防治西葫芦根腐病效果最好. 农药市场信息, 2018(7):49.
[8]	莫娟, 刘小娟, 王文慧 , 等. 3种土壤消毒剂对芹菜根腐病的田间防效. 中国蔬菜, 2018(9):51-53.
[9]	张梦影 . 昌黎县草莓根腐病病原鉴定、生物学特性及室内毒力测定. 秦皇岛:河北科技师范学院, 2018.
[10]	刘铜, 申永强, 刘震 , 等. 3种种衣剂对芸豆根腐病的防治效果. 植物保护, 2017,43(2):216-219,240.
[11]	赵晋, 曾志海, 盛琳 , 等. 咯菌腈、嘧菌酯等4种药剂防治黄芩根腐病试验效果分析. 陕西农业科学, 2018,64(7):29-32.
[12]	迟元凯, 赵伟, 汪涛 , 等. 不同药剂拌种对小麦根腐病和孢囊线虫病的防效. 植物病理学报, 2018,48(5):693-699.
[13]	郭宝德, 白琪林, 冀丽霞 , 等. 芸豆种质资源抗根腐病鉴定. 山西农业科学, 2016,44(10):1522-1525.
[14]	连荣芳, 王梅春, 墨金萍 , 等. 豌豆种质资源抗根腐病鉴定及利用价值分析. 作物杂志, 2012(6):111-114.
[15]	田体伟, 张梦晗, 赵丽鑫 , 等. 戊唑醇种衣剂对小麦种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 种子, 2014,33(12):66-69.
[16]	杜玉宁, 邢敏, 陈杭 , 等. 不同种衣剂对黄瓜种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响. 种子, 2018,37(10):75-78.
[17]	刘刚 . 首个噻菌灵种子处理剂产品获批登记. 农药市场信息, 2017(18):33.

相关文章 15

[1]	董立峰,林小虎,刘春荣,侯桂双,张春璐,付金锋,王凤宝. 复配种衣剂对豌豆生长及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (2): 185–191
[2]	李伟堂,李洋,牛海龙,刘红欣,牟书靓,何中国,李玉发. 单粒播种模式下不同种衣剂对玉米种子出苗率的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2019, (1): 191–196
[3]	刘振兴,周桂梅,陈健,赵晖. 几种生物农药对绿豆叶斑病的防治效果[J]. 作物杂志, 2018, (6): 154–157
[4]	赵海红, 王士强, 于铭, 等. 高垄栽培对大豆根腐病防控效果的研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2015, (5): 150–153
[5]	罗宝君. 螟黄赤眼蜂对向日葵螟的防治效果研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2015, (4): 157–160
[6]	冯成玉, 吉用栓. 几种杀虫剂对稻纵卷叶螟的防治效果[J]. 作物杂志, 2014, (6): 135–139
[7]	何付丽, 陈丽丽, 郭晓慧, 等. 稀禾啶、烯草酮等6种除草剂对不同叶龄期野黍的防治效果比较[J]. 作物杂志, 2013, (1): 112–116
[8]	连荣芳, 王梅春, 墨金萍, 肖贵. 豌豆种质资源抗根腐病鉴定及利用价值分析[J]. 作物杂志, 2012, (6): 111–114
[9]	王欣, 靳丽梅, 徐鹏飞, 吴俊江, 李文滨, 范素杰, 姜良宇, 张小明, 张淑珍. 野生大豆接种大豆疫霉根腐病菌后总多酚含量的变化[J]. 作物杂志, 2012, (4): 78–82
[10]	刘小娟, 侯思雯, 杨晓明, 等. 甘肃高寒阴湿区豌豆根腐镰刀菌种群及致病性研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2012, (2): 39–42
[11]	闫加启, 谢逸平, 孙厚俊, 等. 不同品种甘薯茎线虫和根腐病药剂防效筛选[J]. 作物杂志, 2012, (2): 103–105
[12]	张自启, 王利霞, 刘长营, 段爱菊, 刘顺通. 不同小麦种衣剂对冬小麦生长及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2011, (6): 119–121
[13]	徐鹏飞, 鹿文成, 靳立梅, 吴俊江, 李文滨, 邱丽娟, 常汝镇, 王金生, 范素杰, 李宁辉, 王欣, 姜良宇, 张小明, 张淑珍. 野生大豆接种大豆疫霉根腐病菌后超氧化物歧化酶活性变化[J]. 作物杂志, 2011, (5): 31–35
[14]	徐鹏飞, 王萍, 吴俊江, 等. 疫霉根腐病菌毒素对大豆不同组织中多酚氧化酶的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2010, (2): 28–31
[15]	冯成玉, 张维根, 陆晓峰. 不同药剂对稻田稻螟蛉的防治效果[J]. 作物杂志, 2010, (2): 91–92

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

处理 Treatment	种衣剂Seed coating	剂量 Dosage
T1	62.5g/L精甲·咯菌腈+600g/L吡虫啉FSC	4mL/kg+3mL/kg
T2	11%精甲·咯·嘧菌+27%苯醚·咯·噻虫FSC	6mL/kg+4mL/kg
T3	18%噻灵·咯·精甲FSC	8mL/kg
T4	400g/L萎锈·福美双+600g/L吡虫啉FSC	2mL/kg+3mL/kg
T5	60g/L戊唑醇+600g/L吡虫啉FSC	2mL/kg+3mL/kg
T6	12%甲·嘧·甲霜灵+600g/L吡虫啉FSC	15mL/kg+3mL/kg
T7	22.4%氟唑菌苯胺FSC	12ml/kg
CK1	35%多·福·克FSC	14mL/kg
CK2	空白对照	-

处理 Treatment	出苗率(%) Emergence rate	株高(cm) Plant height	根长(cm) Root length	苗鲜重(g) Fresh weight of seedling	苗干重(g) Dry weight of seedling
T1	93.75±3.61a	21.68±0.51abc	19.83±1.06ab	3.45±0.19a	0.40±0.01cd
T2	93.75±3.61a	21.93±0.30abc	20.65±0.90a	3.88±0.18a	0.44±0.01c
T3	91.67±2.08a	21.44±0.82bc	16.53±0.55c	3.14±0.18ab	0.33±0.01e
T4	93.75±3.61a	20.16±0.62c	18.06±1.25abc	3.68±0.12a	0.39±0.01cde
T5	87.50±3.61a	10.02±0.32d	9.57±0.90d	2.38±0.09b	0.21±0.01f
T6	89.58±2.08a	22.37±0.72ab	17.39±0.72bc	3.33±0.20a	0.41±0.02cd
T7	87.50±3.61a	23.45±0.62a	17.17±0.73bc	3.35±0.21a	0.36±0.01de
CK1	95.83±2.08a	21.23±0.61bc	19.63±0.99ab	3.69±0.35a	0.59±0.04a
CK2	93.75±3.61a	22.34±0.42ab	18.93±0.92abc	3.71±0.61a	0.50±0.03b

处理 Treatment	病情指数 Disease incidence	防治效果(%) Control efficiency
T1	5.05±0.37c	54.88±3.28b
T2	3.40±0.33de	69.67±2.96a
T3	3.27±0.22de	70.75±2.02a
T4	5.38±0.20c	51.87±1.86b
T5	4.48±0.29cd	59.98±2.58b
T6	4.67±0.33c	58.33±2.98b
T7	10.03±0.03a	10.71±0.23d
CK1	6.87±1.87b	38.69±6.67c
CK2	11.20±0.72a	-

处理Treatment	病情指数Disease incidence	防治效果Control efficiency (%)	产量Yield (kg/hm²)	增产率Percentage of increased yield (%)
T1	12.44±0.89d	57.25±3.05d	2 730.51±13.72ab	15.65±0.58ab
T2	5.80±0.10f	80.04±0.32a	2 764.12±75.79ab	17.07±3.21ab
T3	7.63±0.77ef	73.77±2.65ab	2 721.14±110.29ab	15.25±4.67ab
T4	18.59±0.70bc	36.12±2.42ef	2 690.47±98.24bc	13.95±4.16ab
T5	20.83±0.83b	28.43±2.86f	2 800.05±208.83ab	18.59±8.84ab
T6	10.63±0.42de	63.46±1.44cd	2 657.90±127.05bc	12.57±5.38b
T7	15.95±2.05c	45.17±7.04e	2 752.48±116.31ab	16.58±4.93ab
CK1	18.27±0.25bc	37.23±0.85ef	3 073.65±64.16a	30.18±2.72a
CK2	29.11±2.19a	-	2 361.08±28.30c	-