Sensitivity of <i>Phomopsis asparagi</i> to Difenoconazole and Field Disease Control Efficacies of Three Fungicide Products

SHI Niu-niu; DU Yi-Xin; RUAN Hong-chun; GAN Lin; DAI Yu-li; YANG Xiu-juan; CHEN Fu-ru

doi:10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2019.06.009

Volume 34 Issue 6

Sep. 2019

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences > 2019 > 34(6): 684-689

SHI Niu-niu, DU Yi-Xin, RUAN Hong-chun, GAN Lin, DAI Yu-li, YANG Xiu-juan, CHEN Fu-ru. Sensitivity of Phomopsis asparagi to Difenoconazole and Field Disease Control Efficacies of Three Fungicide Products[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 34(6): 684-689. doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2019.06.009

Citation:

SHI Niu-niu, DU Yi-Xin, RUAN Hong-chun, GAN Lin, DAI Yu-li, YANG Xiu-juan, CHEN Fu-ru. Sensitivity of Phomopsis asparagi to Difenoconazole and Field Disease Control Efficacies of Three Fungicide Products[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2019, 34(6): 684-689. doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2019.06.009

Citation:

PDF( 1038 KB)

Sensitivity of Phomopsis asparagi to Difenoconazole and Field Disease Control Efficacies of Three Fungicide Products

doi: 10.19303/j.issn.1008-0384.2019.06.009

Institute of Plant Protection, Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Fuzhou, Fujian 350013, China

Received Date: 2019-04-15
Rev Recd Date: 2019-05-25
Publish Date: 2019-06-28

Abstract

Abstract

Objective The sensitivity of Phomopsis asparagi to difenoconazole, and the disease control efficacies of 3 fungicide products in the field were studied. Method Pathogen samples of the stem blight disease on asparagus were collected from Fujian, Henan, Hunan, Shanxi, and Shandong provinces and isolated to determine their mycelial growth on a medium laden with difenoconazole. The disease control efficacies of 3 fungicide products, i.e., (a) 10% difenoconazole WG, (b) 35% fluopyram+tebuconazole SC, and (c) 325 g·L^-1 difenoconazole+azoxystrobin SC, were assessed in the field. Result The EC₅₀ of the 132 isolates to difenoconazole ranged between 0.010 8 μg·L^-1 and 2.654 8 μg·mL^-1 averaging (0.693 4±0.044 1)μg·mL^-1. The data did not exhibit a normal distribution pattern. A significant difference in difenoconazole sensitivity was found between the isolates from Fujian and Shandong or Hunan (P < 0.05). Even the pathogen samples from a same province varied in their sensitivity toward the fungicide. The field test demonstrated that when (a) was applied at 135.00 g·hm^-2 the disease severity was reduced by 75.60% in 2017 and 75.91% in 2018; when (b) was employed at 118.13+118.13 g·hm^-2 the severity was lessened by 82.08% in 2017 and 82.32% in 2018; and, when (c) was used at 84.38+135.00 g·hm^-2 the severity was decreased by 82.74% in 2017 and 83.23% in 2018. It indicated that the latter two applications were significantly more effective than the first one for the disease control (P < 0.05). Conclusion The non-normal distribution of the sensitivities to difenoconazole of the pathogen isolates from various localities suggested the existence of resistant subpopulations of P. asparagi in the field. Being safe to Asparagus officinalis, the application of either 35% fluopyram+tebuconazole SC or 325 g·L^-1difenoconazole+azoxystrobin SC was recommended for the control of stem blight disease on asparagus.
- Phomopsis asparagi,
- difenoconazole,
- sensitivity,
- control efficacy

FullText(HTML)

References(14)

References

[1]	刘志恒, 孙俊, 杨红, 等.芦笋茎枯病菌生物学特性的研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报, 2008, 39(3):301-304. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2008.03.010 LIU Z H, SUN J, YANG H, et al. Biological characteristics of Phomopsis asparagi the pathogen of asparagus stem blight[J]. Journal of Shenyang Agricultural University, 2008, 39(3):301-304.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1700.2008.03.010
[2]	阮宏椿, 石妞妞, 杜宜新, 等.不同芦笋品种苗期对茎枯病的抗性鉴定及其农艺性状观察[J].福建农业学报, 2013, 28(3):241-244. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0384.2013.03.010 RUAN H C, SHI N N, DU Y X, et al. Resistance identification of different asparagus varieties to stem blight disease and comparison of their agronomic traits[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 28(3):241-244.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0384.2013.03.010
[3]	杜宜新, 石妞妞, 阮宏椿, 等. 20种杀菌剂对芦笋茎枯病菌的抑制作用及联合毒力[J].福建农业学报, 2013, 28(2):143-147. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0384.2013.02.010 DU Y X, SHI N N, RUAN H C, et al. Toxicities of 20 fungicides and co-toxicities between propiconazole or azoxystrobin and difenoconazole on Phomopsis asparagi[J]. Fujian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2013, 28(2):143-147.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-0384.2013.02.010
[4]	陈新建, 叶钟音.芦笋茎枯病菌对甲基托布津的抗药性初步研究[J].南京农业大学学报, 1999, 22(1):29-32. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/njnydxxb199901007 CHEN J X, YE Z Y. Preliminary study on resistance of Phomapsis asparagi Sacc.to thiophanate methyl[J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 1999, 22(1):29-32.(in Chinese) http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/njnydxxb199901007
[5]	任文来, 贾莉, 张静, 等.几种杀菌剂对芦笋茎枯病敏感性测定[J].长江蔬菜, 2009(7):41-42. doi: 10.3865/j.issn.1001-3547.2009.07.028 REN W L, JIA L, ZHANG J, et al. Sensitivity test of several fungicides against Phomopsis asparagi[J]. Journal of Changjiang Vegetables, 2009(7):41-42.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3865/j.issn.1001-3547.2009.07.028
[6]	孟凡, 杨迎青, 兰波, 等.不同地理来源芦笋茎枯病菌对杀菌剂抗药性的差异[J].华中农业大学学报, 2013, 32(5):61-65. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2421.2013.05.011 MENG F, YANG Y Q, LAN B, et al. Difference of fungicide resistance of asparagus stem blight fungus from different geographic origins[J]. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University, 2013, 32(5):61-65.(in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2421.2013.05.011
[7]	慕立义.植物化学保护研究方法[M].北京:中国农业出版社, 1994:76-81. MU L Y. Research Methods of Phytochemical Protection[M]. Beijing:Chinese Agricultural Press, 1994:76-81. (in Chinese)
[8]	杨迎青, 李湘民, 兰波, 等.芦笋茎枯病抗性鉴定方法的建立及芦笋抗病种质资源的筛选[J].植物病理学报, 2012, 42(6):649-654. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0412-0914.2012.06.014 YANG Y Q, LI X M, LAN B, et al. Establishment of a resistance-identification method on asparagus stem blight and evaluation of Asparagus officinalis germplasms[J]. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica, 2012, 42(6):649-654. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0412-0914.2012.06.014
[9]	DAI Y L, GAN L, RUAN H C, et al. Sensitivity of Cochliobolus heterostrophus to three demethylation inhibitor fungicides, propiconazole, diniconazole and prochloraz, and their efficacy against southern corn leaf blight in Fujian Province, China[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 2018, 152(2):447-459. doi: 10.1007/s10658-018-1490-z
[10]	CHEN Y, ZHANG Y, YAO J, et al. Frequency distribution of sensitivity of Ustilaginoidea virens to four EBI fungicides, prochloraz, difenoconazole, propiconazole and tebuconazloe, and their efficacy in controlling rice false smut in Anhui Province, China[J]. Phytoparasitica, 2013, 41:277-284. doi: 10.1007/s12600-013-0288-y
[11]	HE L F, LI X X, GAO Y Y, et al. Characterization and fungicide sensitivity of Colletotrichum spp. from different hosts in Shandong, China[J]. Plant disease, 2018, doi: 10.1094/pdis-04-18-0597-re.
[12]	管磊, 郭贝贝, 王晓坤, 等.苯醚甲环唑等杀菌剂包衣种子防治花生冠腐病和根腐病[J].植物保护学报, 2016, 43(5):842-849. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwbhxb201605019 GUAN L, GUO B B, WANG X K, et al. Seed-coating treatment of four fungicides against peanut crown rot and root rot diseases[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2016, 43(5):842-849. (in Chinese) http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/zwbhxb201605019
[13]	MUNKVOLD G P. Seed pathology progress in academia and industry[J]. Annu Rev Phytopathol, 2009, 47:285-311. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081916
[14]	FRAC (Fungicide Resistance Action Committee). FRAC Code List©.[OL] [2018-06-15]. http://www.frac.frac.info/docs/defaultsource/publications/frac-code-list/frac_code_list_2018-final.pdfsfvrsn=6144b9a_2.