Chemical control measures of Verticillium wilt in Badaling forest farm
-
摘要:
目的 通过研究不同药剂组合和施药技术对八达岭林场黄栌枯萎病林间控制效果，探讨黄栌枯萎病有效防控措施，保障北京地区黄栌健康和红叶景观安全。 方法 选择枯草芽孢杆菌、50%嘧菌酯、156 g/L丙环唑、50%多菌灵和45%咪鲜胺等5种药剂，采用灌根、树干注射和两者相结合的施药方式，共设置12个处理，对八达岭林场黄栌枯萎病开展林间防治试验。 结果 通过比较各处理在2021—2022年间黄栌枯萎病病情指数，得出当年防治效果最好的施药组合是灌根丙环唑结合树干注射多菌灵与嘧菌酯复配，矫正病情指数为5，防治效果达到88%。并且，该组合中有26.67%植株保持健康，健康植株数量最多。第2年5月病情指数最低的施药组合是灌根枯草芽孢杆菌结合树干注射多菌灵与嘧菌酯复配，表现出较好的治疗效果，健康植株数量最多，且往年重度发病样树均转为无病或轻度发病，病情指数仅有3.33。其他施药方式和药剂组合均在不同程度上缓解黄栌枯萎病的发生，但是不同处理的防治效果统计学上存在显著差异（p < 0.05）。 结论 本研究结果表明灌根丙环唑和树干注射多菌灵与嘧菌酯复配组合防治效果最佳，灌根枯草芽孢杆菌结合树干注射多菌灵与嘧菌酯复配组合在感病治疗及防治效果方面均表现良好，两者均可作为黄栌枯萎病的防治方案。 Abstract:Objectives : Control of Verticillium wilt of the smoke tree in the forestry farm of Badaling by studying the effect of different combination of chemicals and application techniques, we are exploring effective methods for the prevention and control of Verticillium wilt to ensure the health of smoke tree and the safety of the red leaf landscape in Beijing. Methods : We selected five fungicides including Bacillus subtilis, 50% Azoxystrobin, 156 g/L Propiconazole, 50% carbendazim and 45% Prochloraz and set up 12 treatments to control Verticillium wilt in Badaling Forest farm by using injecting root and trunk or a combination of both. Result : Analysis of the 2021 control data showed that the combination treatment 12 (root injection of propiconazole combined with trunk injection of carbendazim and azoxystrobin) was the most effective, with a corrective disease index of only 5, significantly different from the control (p < 0.05) and a corrective control effect of 88%. By comparing the disease indices of each treatment for the period 2021-2022, it was found that the most efficacy control combination for that year was root injection of propiconazole combined with trunk injection of carbendazim and azoxystrobin, with a corrected disease index of 5 and control effectiveness was 88%. Moreover, 26.67% of trees in this combination treatment remained healthy and had the highest number of healthy trees. The combination with the lowest disease index in May of the following year was a combination of Bacillus subtilis with root irrigation combined with trunk injections of carbendazim and azoxystrobin, which showed a good treatment efficacy with the highest number of healthy trees, and the severely diseased sample trees from previous years all turned to be healthy or lightly diseased. And, the combination has a disease index of only 3.33. Conclusions : This study suggested that the combination of propiconazole in root irrigation and trunk injections of carbendazim and azoxystrobin was most efficacy, and that the combination of Bacillus subtilis in root irrigation and trunk injection of carbendazim and azoxystrobin performed well in terms of disease treatment and control, both of which can be used as control options for Verticillium wilt. -
Key words:
- injecting root /
- injecting trunk /
- chemical control /
- Verticillium wilt
-
图 1 不同处理黄栌枯萎病病情指数变化
Figure 1. Changes of the disease index of Verticillium wilt under different treatments
图 2 2021年不同处理最终防治效果
采用单因素方差分析（one-way ANOVA），并用最小显著差异法（LSD）进行多重比较（P < 0.05）。One-way ANOVA with LSD for multiple comparisons (P < 0.05).
Figure 2. Final control efficacy of different treatments in 2021
图 3 2021年初始（5月）发病情况与2022年初始（5月）发病情况对比热图
数据基于病情分类的样树棵数。21-.2021年；22-.2022年；trt,处理。Data based on number of sample trees by disease severity. 22-, 2022; 21-, 2021; trt, treatment.
Figure 3. Heat map of initial incidence in 2021 (May) vs initial incidence in 2022 (May)
图 4 2021年初始病情指数与2022年初始病情指数对比
Figure 4. Comparison of initial disease index between 2021and 2022
图 5 2021年最终病情指数与2022年初始病情指数对比
星号表示2021年最终病情指数与2022年初始病情指数之间有显著差异（*p < 0.05；**p < 0.01）。Asterisks represent significant differences (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01).
Figure 5. Comparison between initial disease index in 2021 and final disease index in 2022
表 1 试验设计
Table 1. Experimental design of control measures
施药方式
Method of application灌根药剂
Injecting root chemicals注射药剂
Injecting trunk chemicals处理
TreatmentCK 处理1 Treatment 1 灌根 Injecting root 枯草芽孢杆菌 Bacillus subtilis 处理2 Treatment 2 50%嘧菌酯 50% azoxystrobin 处理3 Treatment 3 156 g/L丙环唑 156 g/L propiconazole 处理4 Treatment 4 树干注射 Injecting trunk 50%多菌灵，45%咪鲜胺
50% carbendazim, 45% prochloraz处理5 Treatment 5 50%多菌灵，50%嘧菌酯
50% carbendazim, 50% azoxystrobin处理6 Treatment 6 组合 Combined treatment 枯草芽孢杆菌 Bacillus subtilis 50%多菌灵，45%咪鲜胺
50% carbendazim, 45% prochloraz处理7 Treatment 7 枯草芽孢杆菌 Bacillus subtilis 50%多菌灵，50%嘧菌酯
50% carbendazim, 50% azoxystrobin处理8 Treatment 8 50%嘧菌酯 50% azoxystrobin 50%多菌灵，45%咪鲜胺
50% carbendazim, 45% prochloraz处理9 Treatment 9 50%嘧菌酯 50% azoxystrobin 50%多菌灵，50%嘧菌酯
50% carbendazim, 50% azoxystrobin处理10 Treatment 10 156 g/L丙环唑 156 g/L propiconazole 50%多菌灵，45%咪鲜胺
50% carbendazim, 45% prochloraz处理11 Treatment 11 156 g/L丙环唑 156 g/L propiconazole 50%多菌灵，50%嘧菌酯
50% carbendazim, 50% azoxystrobin处理12 Treatment 12 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 黄栌枯萎病分级标准
Table 2. Disease rating of the smoke tree wilt
等级
Grade分级标准
Grading criteria代表值
Representative valuesⅠ 全株叶片无萎蔫症状
No wilt0 Ⅱ 某一末端小枝出现萎蔫或变黄
Wilt or yellowing of one twig1 Ⅲ 多个末端小枝或次级枝条出现萎蔫或变黄
Multiple twigs wilt or yellow2 Ⅳ 植株三分之二的叶片萎蔫或变黄
Two-thirds of the plant’s leaves wilt or yellow3 Ⅴ 植株85%以上叶片萎蔫，变黄或全株死亡
More than 85% of the plant’s leaves wilted, turned yellow or the whole plant died4
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 2021年10月份黄栌枯萎病矫正病情指数
Table 3. The correction disease index of smoke tree wilt in October 2021
处理
Treatment施药方式
Method of application病害分级
Disease rating矫正病情指数
Correction disease index处理 1 Treatment 1 对照 CK 无病 Healthy 47.50 轻度 Mildly diseased 40.00 重度 Severely diseased − 处理 2 Treatment 2 灌根 Injecting root 无病 Healthy 75.00 轻度 Mildly diseased 5.69 重度 Severely diseased 0.00 处理 3 Treatment 3 无病 Healthy 26.79 轻度 Mildly diseased −1.57 重度 Severely diseased − 处理 4 Treatment 4 无病 Healthy 12.50 轻度 Mildly diseased 12.50 重度 Severely diseased 0.00 处理 5 Treatment 5 注射 Injecting trunk 无病 Healthy 65.63 轻度 Mildly diseased 48.22 重度 Severely diseased 6.25 处理 6 Treatment 6 无病 Healthy 43.75 轻度 Mildly diseased 0.00 重度 Severely diseased −25.00 处理 7 Treatment 7 组合 Combined treatment 无病 Healthy 50.00 轻度 Mildly diseased 30.56 重度 Severely diseased 0.00 处理 8 Treatment 8 无病 Healthy 35.71 轻度 Mildly diseased 2.08 重度 Severely diseased 12.50 处理 9 Treatment 9 无病 Healthy 27.50 轻度 Mildly diseased 20.31 重度 Severely diseased 6.25 处理 10 Treatment 10 无病 Healthy 33.33 轻度 Mildly diseased 28.75 重度 Severely diseased −18.75 处理 11 Treatment 11 无病 Healthy 36.36 轻度 Mildly diseased 25.00 重度 Severely diseased − 处理 12 Treatment 12 无病 Healthy 12.50 轻度 Mildly diseased 23.75 重度 Severely diseased −12.50 注：表中“−” 表示在初始病情时，该处理组没有重病植株。Note: “−” in the table indicates that there were no severely diseased plants in that treatment group at the time of initial disease.
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 2021年不同处理病害程度调查表
Table 4. Survey of wilt severity in 2021
处理 Treatment 5月 May 10月 October 病害严重程度 Disease severity 数量 Number 病害严重程度 Disease severity 数量 Number 处理1 Treatment 1 无病 healthy 5 轻度 Mildly diseased 4 重度 Severely diseased 1 轻度 mildly diseased 10 轻度 Mildly diseased 4 重度 Severely diseased 6 处理2 Treatment 2 无病 healthy 1 重度 Severely disease 1 轻度 mildly diseased 11 轻度 Mildly diseased 10 重度 Severely diseased 1 重度 3 重度 Severely diseased 3 处理3 Treatment 3 无病 healthy 7 无病 Healthy 2 轻度 Mildly diseased 5 轻度 Mildly diseased 8 无病 Healthy 2 轻度 Mildly diseased 5 重度 Severely diseased 1 处理4 Treatment 4 无病 Healthy 3 无病 Healthy 1 轻度 Mildly diseased 2 轻度 Mildly diseased 11 轻度 Mildly diseased 8 重度 Severely diseased 3 重度 Severely diseased 1 重度 Severely diseased 1 处理5 Treatment 5 无病 Healthy 4 轻度 Mildly diseased 2 重度 Severely diseased 2 轻度 Mildly diseased 7 轻度 Mildly diseased 1 重度 Severely diseased 6 重度 Severely diseased 4 重度 Severely diseased 4 处理6 Treatment 6 无病 Healthy 8 轻度 Mildly diseased 7 重度 Severely diseased 1 轻度 Mildly diseased 6 无病 Healthy 1 轻度 Mildly diseased 5 重度 Severely diseased 1 轻度 Mildly diseased 1 处理7 Treatment 7 无病 Healthy 5 轻度 Mildly diseased 4 重度 Severely diseased 1 轻度 Mildly diseased 9 轻度 Mildly diseased 5 重度 Severely diseased 4 重度 Severely diseased 1 重度 Severely diseased 1 处理8 Treatment 8 无病 Healthy 7 轻度 Mildly diseased 7 轻度 Mildly diseased 6 轻度 Mildly diseased 6 重度 Severely diseased 2 重度 Severely diseased 2 处理9 Treatment 9 无病 Healthy 5 轻度 Mildly diseased 5 轻度 Mildly diseased 8 轻度 Mildly diseased 5 重度 Severely diseased 3 重度 Severely diseased 2 重度 Severely diseased 2 处理10 Treatment 10 无病 Healthy 3 轻度 Mildly diseased 3 轻度 Mildly diseased 10 轻度 Mildly diseased 5 重度 Severely diseased 5 重度 Severely diseased 2 轻度 Mildly diseased 1 重度 Severely diseased 1 处理11 Treatment 11 无病 Healthy 11 无病 Healthy 2 轻度 Mildly diseased 8 重度 Severely diseased 1 轻度 Mildly diseased 4 轻度 Mildly diseased 3 重度 Severely diseased 1 处理12 Treatment 12 无病 Healthy 6 无病 Healthy 4 轻度 Mildly diseased 2 轻度 Mildly diseased 5 无病 Healthy 1 轻度 Mildly diseased 3 重度 Severely diseased 1 重度 Severely diseased 4 轻度 Mildly diseased 1 重度 Severely diseased 3
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 2021年不同处理矫正防治效果
Table 5. Effectiveness of different treatments in 2021
处理 Treatment 矫正防治效果 Corrective control effects/% 6月 June 7月 July 8月 August 9月 September 10月 October 处理2 Treatment 2 灌根
Injecting root72.73 ± 31.49abcd 71.43 ± 25.75ab 68.75 ± 12.5ab 69.57 ± 8.70ab 76 ± 13.73ab 处理3 Treatment 3 81.82 ± 9.09abc 107.14 ± 14.28a 75 ± 22.53ab 60.87 ± 19.92ab 72 ± 9.80abc 处理4 Treatment 4 109.09 ± 39.62a 107.14 ± 31.13a 81.25 ± 10.83ab 60.87 ± 13.04ab 68 ± 10.38abc 处理5 Treatment 5 注射
Injecting trunk−9.09 ± 41.65cde 14.29 ± 32.73bc 6.25 ± 18.75b 8.7 ± 22.59b 0 ± 24.09d 处理6 Treatment 6 9.09 ± 24.05abcde 35.71 ± 12.37abc 68.75 ± 34.80ab 39.13 ± 17.39ab 44 ± 17.64abcd 处理7 Treatment 7 组合
Combined treatment0 ± 48.0bcde 7.14 ± 31.13bc 6.25 ± 39.03b 8.7 ± 34.51b 16 ± 29.61cd 处理8 Treatment 8 36.36 ± 24.05abcde 7.14 ± 7.14bc 31.25 ± 16.54ab 56.52 ± 23.01ab 56 ± 17.43abcd 处理9 Treatment 9 −27.27 ± 18.18de 0 ± 25.75bc 43.75 ± 10.83ab 60.87 ± 15.06ab 50 ± 17.43abcd 处理10 Treatment 10 36.36 ± 55.29abcde 35.71 ± 42.86abc 50 ± 51.16ab 60.87 ± 32.83ab 44 ± 27.45abcd 处理11 Treatment 11 −45.45 ± 24.05e −7.14 ± 21.43c 25 ± 28.64ab 30.43 ± 28.51ab 28 ± 25.72bcd 处理12 Treatment 12 100 ± 31.49ab 64.29 ± 14.29abc 87.5 ± 12.5a 82.61 ± 11.50a 88 ± 6.79a 注：表中不同小写字母表示每个月份不同处理组之间防治效果的差异（P < 0.05）。Note: Significant differences in the table indicate differences in control effectiveness between treatment groups for each month.
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Xiong D G, Wang Y L, Ma J, et al. Deep mRNA sequencing reveals stage-specific transcriptome alterations during microsclerotia development in the smoke tree vascular wilt pathogen, Verticillium dahliae[J]. BMC Genomics, 2014, 15: 324. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-324 [2] 王妍. 大丽轮枝菌对黄栌植株的侵染特点及其定量检测研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2012.Wang Y. Infection characteristics of Verticillium dahliae on Smoke-tree and its quantitative detection research[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2012. [3] Lai M J, Cheng Z, Xiao L Y, et al. The bZip transcription factor VdMRTF1 is a negative regulator of melanin biosynthesis and virulence in Verticillium dahliae[J]. Microbiology Spectrum, 2022, 10(2): e0258121. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.02581-21 [4] Anguita-Maeso M, Olivares-Garcia C, Haro C, et al. Culture-dependent and culture-independent characterization of the Olive xylem microbiota: effect of sap extraction methods[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2019, 10: 1708. [5] Anguita-Maeso M, Trapero-Casas J L, Olivares-Garcia C, et al. Verticillium dahliae inoculation and in vitro propagation modify the xylem microbiome and disease reaction to Verticillium wilt in a wild Olive genotype[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2021, 12: 632689. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.632689 [6] Lu W J, Liu Y J, Zhu H Q, et al. Verticillium Wilt of redbud in China caused by Verticillium dahliae[J]. Plant Disease, 2013, 97(11): 1513. [7] Xi H, Shen J L, Qu Z, et al. Effects of long-term cotton continuous cropping on soil microbiome[J]. Scientific Reports, 2019, 9(1): 18297. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54771-1 [8] Johnson D A, Santo G S. Development of wilt in mint in response to infection by two pathotypes of Verticillium dahliae and co-infection by pratylenchus penetrans[J]. Plant Disease, 2001, 85(11): 1189−1192. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.11.1189 [9] Jiménez-Díaz R M, Mercado-Blanco J, Olivares-García C, et al. Genetic and virulence diversity in Verticillium dahliae populations infecting artichoke in eastern-central spain[J]. Phytopathology, 2006, 96(3): 288−298. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-96-0288 [10] Hayes R J, Mchale L K, Vallad G E, et al. The inheritance of resistance to Verticillium wilt caused by race 1 isolates of Verticillium dahliae in the lettuce cultivar La Brillante[J]. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2011, 123(4): 509−517. doi: 10.1007/s00122-011-1603-y [11] Zhang K G, Jiang Y F, Zhao H W, et al. Diverse terpenoids and their associated antifungal properties from roots of different cultivars of chrysanthemum morifolium ramat[J]. Molecules, 2020: 25 (9). [12] 韩婧. 香山黄栌枯萎病防治初步研究[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2009.Han J. Preliminary study on the control of Cotinus coggygria Verticillium wilt in Fragrant Hill[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2009. [13] Wang Y L, Deng C L, Tian L Y, et al. The transcription factor VdHapX controls iron homeostasis and is crucial for virulence in the vascular pathogen Verticillium dahliae[J/OL]. mSphere, 2018, 3(5): e00400−18 [2022−10−18]. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00400-18. [14] Wang Y L, Xiao S X, Xiong D G, et al. Genetic transformation, infection process and qPCR quantification of Verticillium dahliae on smoke-tree Cotinus coggygria[J]. Australasian Plant Pathology, 2013, 42(1): 33−41. doi: 10.1007/s13313-012-0172-0 [15] Zhang D D, Dai X F, Klosterman S J, et al. The secretome of Verticillium dahliae in collusion with plant defence responses modulates Verticillium wilt symptoms[J]. Biological Reviews, 2022, 97(5): 1810−1822. doi: 10.1111/brv.12863 [16] Klosterman S J, Atallah Z K, Vallad G E, et al. Diversity, pathogenicity, and management of verticillium species[J]. Annual review of phytopathology, 2009, 47: 39−62. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081748 [17] Baroudy F, Habib W, Tanos G, et al. Long-Distance spread of Verticillium dahliae through rivers and irrigation systems[J]. Plant Disease, 2018, 102(8): 1559−1565. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-08-17-1189-RE [18] Zhang Y L, Zhao L H, Feng Z L, et al. The role of a new compound micronutrient multifunctional fertilizer against Verticillium dahliae on cotton[J]. Pathogens, 2021, 10(1): 81. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10010081 [19] 郑怿. 北京地区黄栌枯萎病化学防治技术研究及应用[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2016.Zheng Y. Study and application on chemical controls of the Verticillium wilt of smoke trees in Beijing[D]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University, 2016. [20] 史丹阳, 魏步飞, 李会平等. 四种生物杀菌剂对黄栌枯萎病的防治效果评价[J]. 中国森林病虫, 2023, 42(2): 46−50. doi: 10.19688/j.cnki.issn1671-0886.20220059Shi D Y, Wei B F, Li H P, et al. Evaluation on the control effect of four biological fungicides against verticillium wilt of Cotinus coggygria[J]. Forest Pest and Disease, 2023, 42(2): 46−50. doi: 10.19688/j.cnki.issn1671-0886.20220059 [21] Zhou J L, Feng Z L, Liu S C, et al. CGTase, a novel antimicrobial protein from Bacillus cereus YUPP-10, suppresses Verticillium dahliae and mediates plant defence responses[J]. Molecular Plant Pathology, 2021, 22(1): 130−144. doi: 10.1111/mpp.13014 [22] Zhu D D, Zhang X Y, Zhou J L, et al. Genome-wide analysis of ribosomal protein GhRPS6 and its role in cotton Verticillium wilt resistance[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2021: 22 (4). [23] Navarro C, FernáNdez-Escobar R, Benlloch M. A low-pressure, trunk-injection method for introducing chemical formulations into Olive trees[J]. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 1992, 117(2): 357−360. doi: 10.21273/JASHS.117.2.357 [24] Mulè R, Fodale A S, Tucci A. Control of olive Verticillium wilt by trunk injection with different doses of fosetyl-al and benomyl[J]. Acta Horticulturae, 2002: 761−764. -
点击查看大图
图(5) / 表(5)
计量
- 文章访问数: 35
- HTML全文浏览量: 8
- PDF下载量: 9
- 被引次数: 0
