槟榔芋软腐病生防真菌的筛选

董晓菲; 叶祖云; 刘雨虹; 黄林榕; 李珊

doi:10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2020.05.011

槟榔芋软腐病生防真菌的筛选

doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2020.05.011

董晓菲^{1, 2,},
叶祖云^{1, 2},
刘雨虹¹,
黄林榕¹,
李珊¹

1.
宁德师范学院生命科学学院，福建　宁德　352100
2.
闽东特色生物资源福建省高校工程研究中心，福建　宁德　352100

基金项目: 福建省自然科学基金项目（2018J01466）；宁德师范学院青年专项科技项目（2016Q48）

详细信息

作者简介:
董晓菲（1986−），女，硕士，实验师，研究方向：作物遗传育种（E-mail：dongxiaofei0817@126.com）

中图分类号: S 436.32
计量
- 文章访问数: 1208
- HTML全文浏览量: 592
- PDF下载量: 30
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2019-11-19
- 修回日期: 2020-02-22
- 刊出日期: 2020-05-01

Fungi for Controlling Soft-rot Disease on Taro

DONG Xiaofei^{1, 2
,},
YE Zuyun^{1, 2},
LIU Yuhong¹,
HUANG Linrong¹,
LI Shan¹

1.
Academy of Life Science, Ningde Normal University, Ningde, Fujian　352100, China
2.
Fujian Province’s University Project Research Center of Biological Resources with Mindong’s Unique Feature, Ningde, Fujian　352100, China

摘要

摘要: 目的以福鼎槟榔芋为研究对象筛选生防菌株，为槟榔芋软腐病生物防治提供可用菌株。方法从福鼎槟榔芋根际土壤和健康植株球茎内分离得到22株真菌，经离体球茎试验筛选，共筛选出9株对槟榔芋软腐病具有防治效果的真菌菌株。对这9株菌株进行分子鉴定、常规形态特征观察、生理生化测定和田间活体防效等，进一步筛选可用菌株。结果得到2株有较好防治效果的菌株CAF-H001和CAF-L002。扩增菌株的ITS1/ITS4 DNA，经测序后与NCBI数据库进行同源性比对，结果显示菌株CAF-H001与藤仓镰刀菌（Fusarium fujikuroi ）相似度100%，菌株CAF-L002与塔宾曲霉（Aspergillus tubingensis）相似度100%。其中，菌株CAF-H001为白色菌体，细长型分生孢子，最适pH为9，最适温度为28℃，以淀粉作为碳源、蛋白胨作为氮源时生长最佳；菌株CAF-L002为黑褐色菌体，球形分生孢子，最适pH为8，最适温度为32℃，以淀粉作为碳源、酵母浸粉作为氮源时生长最佳。结论本研究分离鉴定的菌株CAF-H001和CAF-L002分别为藤仓镰刀菌和塔宾曲霉，具有较好的生防应用价值，为槟榔芋软腐病的生物防治提供了基础。
- 槟榔芋 /
- 软腐病 /
- 生物防治
Abstract: Objective Various fungi with a potential to be used for controlling the soft-rot disease on Fuding taro, Colocasia esculenta L. var. comosus Chang, were investigated. Method Twenty-two fungal strains were isolated from rhizosphere soil and corms of healthy taro plants. Nine of them showing an in vitro antagonistic effect on the disease were selected. Molecular sequencing, morphological observation, physiological and biochemical characterization in the laboratory as well as a field test were conducted on them to screen for applicable candidates. Result Fungal strains under the coded names of CAF-H001 and CAF-L002 exhibited a desirable control effect on taro in the laboratory. The ITS1/ITS4 sequences of the two strains were amplified and compared with NCBI database to show a 100% homogeny of CAF-H001 with Fusarium fujikuroi and of CAF-L002 with Aspergillus tubingensis. CAF-H001 had white mycelia and sickle-shape conidia that grew optimally at pH 9 and 28℃ on starch for carbon and peptone for nitrogen sources. Whereas, CAF-L002 had black mycelia and spherical conidia that preferred pH 8, 32℃, starch, and yeast extract. Conclusion It appeared that CAF-H001, Fusarium fujikuroi and CAF-L002, Aspergillus tubingensis, could potentially be applied for controlling the soft-rot disease on taro.
- Colocasia esculenta L.var.cormosus Chang /
- soft rot disease /
- biological control

HTML全文

图 1 离体球茎生防效果

Figure 1. In vitro antagonisms of various fungi on taro corms

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 生防菌PCR体系的扩增结果

Figure 2. PCR amplification of biocontrol fungi

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 构建系统进化树

Figure 3. Construction of phylogenetic tree

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 菌落形态和棉兰染色结果

Figure 4. Morphological observation and staining of fungi

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 不同pH值对菌株生长的影响

注：不同小写字母表示同一时间不同处理间差异显著（P＜0.05）。图6同。

Figure 5. Growth curves of fungi under varied pH

Note：Lowercase letters mean significant difference（P＜0.05）. The same as Fig. 6.

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 不同温度对菌株生长的影响

Figure 6. Growth curves of fungi under varied temperature

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 不同碳氮源对菌株生长的影响

Figure 7. Effect of carbon and nitrogen sources on fungal growth

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 植株球茎生防效果

Figure 8. Field test results on controlling soft-rot disease of taros

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

参考文献(16)

[1]	王汉荣, 方丽, 茹水江, 等. 槟榔芋疫病的识别与防治 [J]. 中国蔬菜, 2009(21):21−22, 57. WANG H R, FANG L, RU S J, et al. Identification and control of areca taro blight [J]. China Vegetables, 2009(21): 21−22, 57.(in Chinese)
[2]	袁素华, 林挺兴. 宁德市福鼎槟榔芋生产现状及对策措施 [J]. 东南园艺, 2013, 1(2):58−59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-6089.2013.02.019 YUAN S H, LIN T X. Production status and Countermeasures of areca taro in Ningde [J]. Southeast Horticulture, 2013, 1(2): 58−59.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-6089.2013.02.019
[3]	戴立智, 俞如海. 槟榔芋软腐病的发生与综合防治技术 [J]. 现代园艺, 2011(16):45−46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4958.2011.16.029 DAI L Z, YU R H. Integrated control technology of soft rot of areca taro [J]. Xiandai Horticulture, 2011(16): 45−46.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-4958.2011.16.029
[4]	李凯, 袁鹤. 植物病害生物防治概述[J]. 山西农业科学, 2012, 40（7）: 807－810. LI K, YUAN H. Review on biological control of plant diseases[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 40（7）: 807－810.（in Chinese）
[5]	孙莉, 易图永, 粟智平, 等. 黄瓜疫霉菌生防菌的筛选及鉴定 [J]. 中国蔬菜, 2015(6):23−27. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6346.2015.06.008 SUN L, YI T Y, LI Z P, et al. Screening and identification of bio-control agents against Phytophthora melonis [J]. China Vegetables, 2015(6): 23−27.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6346.2015.06.008
[6]	陈娇梅, 蔡学清, 邱思鑫, 等. 柑橘溃疡病生防细菌的分离鉴定 [J]. 热带作物学报, 2014, 35(7):1398−1403. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2014.07.025 CHEN J M, CAI X Q, QIU S X, et al. Isolation and identification of biocontrol bacteria from Citrus to Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2014, 35(7): 1398−1403.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2014.07.025
[7]	王杏芹, 史应武, 刘文玉, 等. 甜瓜角斑病拮抗菌的鉴定及生长条件研究 [J]. 西北农业学报, 2008, 17(2):304−308. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1389.2008.02.068 WANG X Q, SHI Y W, LIU W Y, et al. Identification and culture conditions of antagonistic against muskmelon bacterial spot disease [J]. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica, 2008, 17(2): 304−308.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1389.2008.02.068
[8]	周丽洪, 李淼, 姬广海, 等. 防治软腐病的魔芋内生细菌的筛选与鉴定 [J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 30(4):547−553. ZHOU L H, LI M, JI G H, et al. The Screening and identification of endophytic bacteria of Amorphophallus konjac against Erwinia carotovora var. carotovora [J]. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University(Natural Science Edition), 2015, 30(4): 547−553.(in Chinese)
[9]	方中达.植病研究方法(第3版)[M].北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998: 132-179. FANG Z D. Research methods of plant diseases(Third Edition)[M]. China Agricultural Press, 1998: 132-179.
[10]	蔡信之. 插片法观察放线菌霉菌效果好 [J]. 实验教学与仪器, 1995(2):28. CAI X Z. Observation of actinomycetes and molds by inserting method [J]. Experiment Teaching and Apparatus, 1995(2): 28.(in Chinese)
[11]	任建军, 师光禄, 高美娟, 等. 植物病原真菌拮抗细菌的筛选鉴定及活性成分分析 [J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2014, 42(3):126−132. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2014.03.029 REN J J, SHI G L, GAO M J, et al. Isolation and identification of antagonistic bacteria(RN-61, RN-88) against ten different plant pathogens [J]. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2014, 42(3): 126−132.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2014.03.029
[12]	HEUNGENS K, PARKE J L. Postinfection biological control of oomycete pathogens of pea by Burkholderia cepacia AMMDR1 [J]. Phytopathology, 2001, 91(4): 383−391. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.2001.91.4.383
[13]	SALIGKARIAS I D, GRAVANIS F T, EPTON H A S. Biological control of Botrytis cinerea on tomato plants by the use of epiphytic yeasts Candida guilliermondii strains 101 and US 7 and Candida oleophila strain I-182: I. in vivo studies [J]. Biological Control, 2002, 25(2): 143−150. doi: 10.1016/S1049-9644(02)00051-8
[14]	王晓东. 防治哈密瓜细菌性果斑病拮抗酵母菌的筛选及其生防机理研究[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2009. WANG X D. Selection and mechanism of action of antagonist yeast against bacterial fruit blotchbiosynthetic genes[D]. Wuhan: Huazhong Agricultural University, 2009.(in Chinese)
[15]	徐刘平, 尹燕妮, 李师默, 等. 拮抗细菌对土传病原菌的作用机理 [J]. 中国生物防治, 2006, 22(1):10−14. XU L P, YIN Y N, LI S M, et al. Mechanisms of antagonistic bacteria against soil-borne pathogen [J]. Chinese Journal of Biological Control, 2006, 22(1): 10−14.(in Chinese)
[16]	张丽, 孙书娥. 利用微生物防治植物病害研究进展 [J]. 农药研究与应用, 2010, 14(6):10−13, 24. ZHANG L, SUN S E. Biological control of plant pathogens with microorganism [J]. Agrochemicals Research & Application, 2010, 14(6): 10−13, 24.(in Chinese)