浙北桐乡梨锈病防治适期和防治药剂研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.09.11

浙江农业学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (9): 1668-1675.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.09.11

浙北桐乡梨锈病防治适期和防治药剂研究

吴嘉维¹(), 姚张良¹^,^*(), 胡琪琪², 张杰¹, 陈轶¹, 蒋建荣³, 周国鑫², 王霞²^,^*()

1.桐乡市农业农村局,浙江桐乡 314500
2.浙江农林大学植物保护系浙江省农产品品质改良技术研究重点实验室,浙江杭州 311300
3.桐乡市乌镇镇农业经济服务中心,浙江桐乡 314501

收稿日期:2020-08-11 出版日期:2021-09-25 发布日期:2021-10-09
通讯作者: 姚张良,王霞
作者简介:王霞,E-mail: 303008896@qq.com
* 姚张良,E-mail: zlyao513@126.com;
吴嘉维(1992—),女,浙江桐乡人,硕士,主要从事水果病虫害防治工作。E-mail: 894814709@qq.com
基金资助:
浙江省自然科学基金(LY19C140005);杭州市农业和社会发展科研主动设计项目(20180416A03);浙江省新苗人才计划(2019R412003)

Fungicides and optimum time for control of pear rust in Tongxiang City, north Zhejiang, China

WU Jiawei¹(), YAO Zhangliang¹^,^*(), HU Qiqi², ZHANG Jie¹, CHEN Yi¹, JIANG Jianrong³, ZHOU Guoxin², WANG Xia²^,^*()

1. Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of Tongxiang, Tongxiang 314500, China
2. Department of Plant Protection, Key Laboratory for Quality Improvement of Agriculture Products of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang A &F University, Hangzhou 311300, China
3. Agricultural Economic Service Center of Wuzhen, Tongxiang 314501, China

Received:2020-08-11 Online:2021-09-25 Published:2021-10-09
Contact: YAO Zhangliang,WANG Xia

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为研究浙北桐乡地区梨锈病的发生规律、防治适期,筛选有效药剂,特开展桧柏上冬孢子角形成和成熟监测、不同时间施药的药效、8种药剂田间防治效果比较等试验。结果表明,冬孢子角的成熟高峰期在3月中旬;梨锈病的防治适期为3月下旬开始的前2次降雨的雨前;80%代森锰锌WP 500倍、30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 800倍和10%苯醚甲环唑WG 800倍对品种玉冠和翠冠上的Ⅰ类芽叶上梨锈病的防治效果分别为89.62%、99.46%、99.38%和89.62%、96.90%、88.53%;Ⅱ类芽上叶与Ⅰ类芽上叶相似,但80%代森锰锌WP 500倍防治效果增加。3种药剂都可以很好地防治梨锈病,但结合不同药剂对果实品质的影响,10%苯醚甲环唑WG 800倍最佳。梨锈病的防治最关键的还是要掌握好防治适期,前两次雨为关键时期且雨前防治为最佳。

关键词: 梨锈病, 冬孢子角, 药剂筛选, 防治适期, 果实品质

Abstract:

In order to know the outbreak regularity of pear rust disease, optimum control time, and effective fungicide, in this study, monitoring of forming and mature of pear rust’s pathogen teliospore and optimum time, and effects of eight fungicides for disease control were investigated. The results indicated the mature peak of teliospore appeared in mid-March. It was better to control pear rust by fungicide before the first two rain from late March. The control efficiency of fungicides 500×80% mancozeb(WP), 800×30% azole ether pentazolium(SC), and 800×10% difenoconazole (WG) to type Ⅰ bud leaves of pear varieties Yuguan and Chuiguan was 89.62%, 99.46%, 99.38% and 89.62%, 96.90%, 88.53% respectively. The control efficiency of three fungicides to typeⅠand typeⅡ bud leaves was similar except efficiency of 500×80% mancozeb(WP) to type Ⅱ bud leaves was apparently higher than typeⅠ. All three fungicides of 80% mancozeb(WP), 30% azole ether pentazolium(SC), and 10% difenoconazole (WG) could control pear rust effectively, considering their effects on fruit quality, 10% difenoconazole (WG) was the most optimal fungicide for pear rust control. The time of fungicides using was the most crucial factor to pear rust control, the optimum time was the first two rain from late March and spaying before raining was the best.

Key words: pear rust, teliospore, fungicide screening, optimum control time, fruit quality

中图分类号:

S436.612.1

吴嘉维, 姚张良, 胡琪琪, 张杰, 陈轶, 蒋建荣, 周国鑫, 王霞. 浙北桐乡梨锈病防治适期和防治药剂研究[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(9): 1668-1675.

WU Jiawei, YAO Zhangliang, HU Qiqi, ZHANG Jie, CHEN Yi, JIANG Jianrong, ZHOU Guoxin, WANG Xia. Fungicides and optimum time for control of pear rust in Tongxiang City, north Zhejiang, China[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(9): 1668-1675.

图/表 5

参考文献 14

[1]	朱灿星, 徐鸿润, 吴伟芬. 梨锈病发生与防治的研究[J]. 浙江农业大学学报, 1984, 10(2):83-90.
	ZHU C X, XU H R, WU W F. Studies on the development of pear rust and its chemical control[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural University, 1984, 10(2):83-90.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	王杰花, 陈卫民, 韩丽丽, 等. 新疆梨树新病害梨锈病发生、流行规律及防治[J]. 北方园艺, 2019 (19):21-27.
	WANG J H, CHEN W M, HAN L L, et al. Occurrence and epidemic regularity and control of pear rust new disease in Xinjiang[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2019 (19):21-27.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	朱灿星, 徐鸿润, 吴伟芬. 梨锈病的流行规律研究及药剂防治试验简报(1962—1963年)[J]. 安徽农学院学报, 1964: 104-107.
	ZHU C X, XU H R, WU W F. The epidemic regularity research and chemicals control reports(1962-1963)[J]. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University, 1964: 104-107.(in Chinese)
[4]	李瑶, 承河元. 安徽梨主栽品种对锈病的抗性差异及其空间格局的数学分析[J]. 生物数学学报, 1996, 11(3):206-214.
	LI Y, CHENG H Y. Studies on resistant difference of main pear cultivars to pear rust caused by Gymnosporangium haraeanum and their mathematical analysis of spatial pattern in Anhui[J]. Journal of Biomathematics, 1996, 11(3):206-214.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[5]	李保华, 董向丽, 张振芳, 等. 莱阳地区梨锈病防治适期研究[J]. 植物保护, 2006, 32(1):69-73.
	LI B H, DONG X L, ZHANG Z F, et al. Optimum time for control of pear rust(Gymnosporangium haraeanum Syd.) with fungicides in Laiyang[J]. Plant Protection, 2006, 32(1):69-73.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[6]	赵德英, 程存刚, 张少瑜, 等. 梨锈病侵染特征及防治适期研究[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2011, 31(5):9-11.
	ZHAO D Y, CHENG C G, ZHANG S Y, et al. Study on infection characteristics of pear rust and its optimum control period[J]. China Plant Protection, 2011, 31(5):9-11.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	马淑娥. 梨锈病发病规律及防治技术研究[J]. 中国果树, 1998(1):16-18.
	MA S E. Study on occurrence regularity and control technology of pear rust[J]. China Fruits, 1998(1):16-18.(in Chinese)
[8]	邹继生, 唐斌, 李育民, 等. 上海地区梨锈病的发生规律、灾变预警及防控技术[J]. 中国农技推广, 2018, 34(8):64-66.
	ZOU J S, TANG B, LI Y M, et al. The generating regularity, disater warning and control technology of pear rust in Shanghai[J]. China Agricultural Technology Extension, 2018, 34(8):64-66.(in Chinese)
[9]	杨健. 梨锈病的发病规律及防治方法[J]. 果农之友, 2016(7):42.
	YANG J. Study on occurrence regularity and control of pear rust[J]. Fruit Growers’ Friend, 2016(7):42.(in Chinese)
[10]	姚张良, 冯明慧, 吴嘉维, 等. 不同药剂对棚室内甜瓜白粉病的防治效果[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2019, 39(5):70-71.
	YAO Z L, FENG M H, WU J W, et al. The effects of different chemicals on powdery mildew of melon in greenhouse[J]. China Plant Protection, 2019, 39(5):70-71.(in Chinese)
[11]	徐红卫, 朱艳平. 杭州地区梨锈病发生规律及防治研究[J]. 中国果树, 1997(1):10-12.
	XU H W, ZHU Y P. Study on occurence regularity and control technology of pear rust in Hangzhou[J]. China Fruits, 1997(1):10-12.(in Chinese)
[12]	KIM S, PARK H, GRUSZEWSKI H A, et al. Vortex-induced dispersal of a plant pathogen by raindrop impact[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019, 116(11):4917-4922.
[13]	徐锴, 赵德英, 袁继存, 等. 不同果袋对红色梨果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(12):2011-2018.
	XU K, ZHAO D Y, YUAN J C, et al. Effect of different types of fruit bag on fruit quality of red pear[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2019, 31(12):2011-2018.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	王涛, 王海琴, 林媚, 等. 大棚栽培对翠冠梨果实碳水化合物积累的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2008, 20(4):236-239.
	WANG T, WANG H Q, LIN M, et al. Effects of greenhouse cultivation on carbohydrate accumulation in fruits of ‘Cueiguan’ pears[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2008, 20(4):236-239.(in Chinese with English abstract)

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	Ⅰ类芽上叶Type Ⅰ bud leaves				Ⅱ类芽上叶Type Ⅱ bud leaves
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	27.70± 3.24 c 5.95± 1.45 de 37.53± 3.10 b 12.43± 3.19 d 1.21± 0.85 e 0.36± 0.36 e 11.53± 2.39 d 0.45± 0.45 e 64.36± 2.43 a	56.02± 5.35 c 89.62± 2.65 ab 40.41± 5.22 d 79.93± 4.80 b 98.16± 1.27 a 99.46± 0.54 a 82.04± 3.64 b 99.38± 0.63 a —	0.66± 0.09 bc 0.09± 0.03 c 1.20± 0.17 b 0.30± 0.09 c 0.01± 0.01 c 0.01± 0.01 c 0.26± 0.06 c 0±0 c 10.44± 0.67 a	93.16± 1.07 c 99.04± 0.26 ab 87.95± 1.85 d 96.54± 1.00 b 99.88± 0.09 a 99.91± 0.09 a 97.19± 0.76 b 99.95± 0.05 a —	35.92± 5.72 b 6.42± 2.67 e 24.56± 6.09 c 19.75± 4.09 cd 4.63± 2.24 e 1.00± 1.00 e 9.13± 3.10 de 3.50± 2.64 e 76.67± 4.90 a	44.56± 11.56 d 92.08± 3.32 a 59.92± 10.50 cd 69.60± 7.56 bc 94.86± 2.52 a 98.75± 1.25 a 81.51± 8.97 ab 95.50± 3.12 a —	0.94± 0.20 b 0.07± 0.03 b 0.73± 0.29 b 0.41± 0.11 b 0.05± 0.02 b 0.01± 0.01 b 0.21± 0.11 b 0.06± 0.05 b 7.55± 0.94 a	81.23± 5.53 ab 98.81± 0.48 a 60.43± 27.81 b 83.70± 10.41 ab 99.47± 0.30 a 99.62± 0.38 a 83.40± 14.94 ab 99.50± 0.35 a —

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	Ⅰ类芽上叶Type Ⅰ bud leaves				Ⅱ类芽上叶Type Ⅱ bud leaves
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	27.70± 3.24 c 5.95± 1.45 de 37.53± 3.10 b 12.43± 3.19 d 1.21± 0.85 e 0.36± 0.36 e 11.53± 2.39 d 0.45± 0.45 e 64.36± 2.43 a	56.02± 5.35 c 89.62± 2.65 ab 40.41± 5.22 d 79.93± 4.80 b 98.16± 1.27 a 99.46± 0.54 a 82.04± 3.64 b 99.38± 0.63 a —	0.66± 0.09 bc 0.09± 0.03 c 1.20± 0.17 b 0.30± 0.09 c 0.01± 0.01 c 0.01± 0.01 c 0.26± 0.06 c 0±0 c 10.44± 0.67 a	93.16± 1.07 c 99.04± 0.26 ab 87.95± 1.85 d 96.54± 1.00 b 99.88± 0.09 a 99.91± 0.09 a 97.19± 0.76 b 99.95± 0.05 a —	35.92± 5.72 b 6.42± 2.67 e 24.56± 6.09 c 19.75± 4.09 cd 4.63± 2.24 e 1.00± 1.00 e 9.13± 3.10 de 3.50± 2.64 e 76.67± 4.90 a	44.56± 11.56 d 92.08± 3.32 a 59.92± 10.50 cd 69.60± 7.56 bc 94.86± 2.52 a 98.75± 1.25 a 81.51± 8.97 ab 95.50± 3.12 a —	0.94± 0.20 b 0.07± 0.03 b 0.73± 0.29 b 0.41± 0.11 b 0.05± 0.02 b 0.01± 0.01 b 0.21± 0.11 b 0.06± 0.05 b 7.55± 0.94 a	81.23± 5.53 ab 98.81± 0.48 a 60.43± 27.81 b 83.70± 10.41 ab 99.47± 0.30 a 99.62± 0.38 a 83.40± 14.94 ab 99.50± 0.35 a —

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	Ⅰ类芽上叶Type Ⅰ bud leaves				Ⅱ类芽上叶Type Ⅱ bud leaves
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	50.85± 3.19 b 6.30± 1.86 e 37.59± 2.69 c 35.46± 4.11 c 15.61± 3.16 d 1.78± 0.71 e 6.19± 1.64 e 6.64± 1.32 e 62.53± 2.79 a	15.98± 5.82 d 89.62± 3.05 a 37.00± 5.62 c 46.55± 6.87 c 73.66± 5.65 b 96.90± 1.25 a 90.04± 2.60 a 88.53± 2.44 a —	4.69± 0.66 b 0.08± 0.02 e 1.09± 0.11 cd 1.04± 0.23 c 0.36± 0.10 de 0.02± 0.01 e 0.09± 0.03 e 0.11± 0.03 e 11.80± 0.62 a	58.68± 5.76 c 99.37± 0.19 a 90.27± 1.12 b 87.38± 2.45 b 96.73± 0.89 a 99.83± 0.07 a 99.23± 0.25 a 99.04± 0.25 a —	51.17± 4.99 a 1.55± 1.07 e 28.30± 4.23 b 15.07± 4.61 cd 17.96± 3.58 bc 0±0 e 4.89± 2.12 de 6.88± 2.59 cde 56.36± 6.70 a	# 95.61± 3.08 a 39.12± 14.21 b 74.80± 11.87 ab 65.14± 9.51 ab 100.00± 0 a 92.69± 3.58 a 78.63± 9.42 ab —	2.35± 0.41 b 0.02± 0.02 b 0.49± 0.07 b 0.46± 0.21 b 0.42± 0.12 b 0±0 b 0.15± 0.07 b 0.14± 0.06 b 7.28± 2.31 a	29.09± 15.44 b 98.10± 1.41 a 85.48± 3.39 a 83.73± 12.71 a 82.36± 8.24 a 100.00± 0 a 97.93± 1.38 a 94.38± 2.93 a —

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	Ⅰ类芽上叶Type Ⅰ bud leaves				Ⅱ类芽上叶Type Ⅱ bud leaves
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%	病叶率 The rate of diseased leaves/%	防治效果 Relative control effect/%	平均每叶病斑数 Mean scab number per leaf	平均每叶病斑数防治效果 Control effect by mean scab number per leaf/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	50.85± 3.19 b 6.30± 1.86 e 37.59± 2.69 c 35.46± 4.11 c 15.61± 3.16 d 1.78± 0.71 e 6.19± 1.64 e 6.64± 1.32 e 62.53± 2.79 a	15.98± 5.82 d 89.62± 3.05 a 37.00± 5.62 c 46.55± 6.87 c 73.66± 5.65 b 96.90± 1.25 a 90.04± 2.60 a 88.53± 2.44 a —	4.69± 0.66 b 0.08± 0.02 e 1.09± 0.11 cd 1.04± 0.23 c 0.36± 0.10 de 0.02± 0.01 e 0.09± 0.03 e 0.11± 0.03 e 11.80± 0.62 a	58.68± 5.76 c 99.37± 0.19 a 90.27± 1.12 b 87.38± 2.45 b 96.73± 0.89 a 99.83± 0.07 a 99.23± 0.25 a 99.04± 0.25 a —	51.17± 4.99 a 1.55± 1.07 e 28.30± 4.23 b 15.07± 4.61 cd 17.96± 3.58 bc 0±0 e 4.89± 2.12 de 6.88± 2.59 cde 56.36± 6.70 a	# 95.61± 3.08 a 39.12± 14.21 b 74.80± 11.87 ab 65.14± 9.51 ab 100.00± 0 a 92.69± 3.58 a 78.63± 9.42 ab —	2.35± 0.41 b 0.02± 0.02 b 0.49± 0.07 b 0.46± 0.21 b 0.42± 0.12 b 0±0 b 0.15± 0.07 b 0.14± 0.06 b 7.28± 2.31 a	29.09± 15.44 b 98.10± 1.41 a 85.48± 3.39 a 83.73± 12.71 a 82.36± 8.24 a 100.00± 0 a 97.93± 1.38 a 94.38± 2.93 a —

药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	玉冠 Yuguan				翠冠 Cuiguan
药剂处理 Different fungicides treatments	稀释倍数 Dilution times	平均单果质量 Mean fruit weight/g	横径 Width diameter/ cm	纵径 Vertical diameter/ cm	可溶性固形物含量 The content of soluble solids/%	平均单果质量 Mean fruit weight/g	横径 Width diameter/ cm	纵径 Vertical diameter/ cm	可溶性固形物含量 The content of soluble solids/%
50%多菌灵WP 50%carbendazim WP 80%代森锰锌WP 80%mancozeb WP 70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70%thiophanate-methyl WP 44%三唑酮SC 44%triadimefon SC 5%己唑醇SC 5%hexaconazole SC 30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30%tebuconazole·pyraclostrobin SC 250 g·L^-1嘧菌酯SC 250 g·L^-1 azoxystrobin SC 10%苯醚甲环唑WG 10%difenoconazole WG 对照CK	500 500 800 1 000 2 500 800 1 800 800 —	194.22± 9.91 de 248.17± 10.99 bc 186.13± 10.51 e 270.83± 9.10 b 214.25± 12.64 cde 232.50± 14.47 bcd 268.40± 13.08 b 333.50± 21.98 a 130.98± 8.87 f	6.30± 0.10 d 7.17± 0.12 b 6.57± 0.11 cd 7.25± 0.14 b 6.93± 0.15 bc 7.05± 0.14 b 7.12± 0.08 b 7.87± 0.16 a 5.87± 0.15 e	6.27± 0.22 b 7.10± 0.17 a 6.35± 0.14 b 7.12± 0.41 a 6.40± 0.14 b 6.43± 0.19 b 7.15± 0.12 a 7.37± 0.25 a 5.45± 0.09 c	9.77± 0.55 a 9.23± 047 ab 10.07± 0.56 a 9.13± 0.47 ab 9.10± 0.50 ab 8.93± 0.26 ab 9.40± 0.64 a 10.43± 0.32 a 7.83± 0.30 b	273.25± 11.14 bc 301.78± 12.59 ab 265.12± 16.10 bc 290.10± 12.12 b 282.38± 20.98 bc 269.28± 7.42 bc 253.12± 16.73 bc 347.73± 16.73 a 233.75± 27.37 c	7.32± 0.11 bc 7.60± 0.12 ab 7.13± 0.14 bc 7.58± 0.10 ab 7.37± 0.10 bc 7.42± 0.14 bc 7.40± 0.27 bc 8.00± 0.19 a 6.95± 0.28 c	6.90± 0.14 abc 7.43± 0.18 ab 6.57± 0.08 c 6.83± 0.16 bc 6.83± 0.13 bc 6.85± 0.08 c 7.05± 0.24 abc 7.47± 0.22 a 6.83± 0.31 c	11.07± 0.87 a 11.47± 0.22 a 12.27± 0.19 a 12.23± 0.75 a 11.67± 0.47 a 13.03± 0.23 a 11.83± 1.09 a 12.50± 0.49 a 11.47± 0.75 a

浙北桐乡梨锈病防治适期和防治药剂研究

Fungicides and optimum time for control of pear rust in Tongxiang City, north Zhejiang, China

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 5

参考文献 14

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	张志刚, 刘玉芳, 李长城, 李宏, 程平, 杨璐. 不同成熟度对杏果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(8): 1402-1408.
[2]	王英珍, 潘芝梅. 二十二份毛花猕猴桃种质资源果实品质的主成分分析与综合评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(5): 825-830.
[3]	李清斌, 秦奔奔, 李盈盈, 范凯锋, 杨栋, 陈磊, 刘鹍. 连阴雨寡日照对大棚草莓小气候、产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(5): 831-839.
[4]	邓倩, 王羊, 邓群仙, 辛亚宁, 李雷, 龙星雨, 祝进, 张慧芬, 夏惠, 梁东. 蜀脆枣果实发育规律及品质积累特性分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(4): 644-652.
[5]	马小华, 俞浙萍, 郑锡良, 胡晓金, 张淑文, 戚行江, 马靖艳. 靖州杨梅引种试验与表型聚类分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(11): 1987-1993.
[6]	汪炳良, 海睿, 金炳胜, 江建红, 施星仁, 林玉泉, 叶红霞. 嫁接方法对甜瓜嫁接工效及嫁接苗生长和果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2020, 32(10): 1809-1815.
[7]	陈心源, 殷益明, 朱利鑫, 陶宁颖, 满坤, 贾惠娟. 光质对火龙果糖分积累及其代谢酶活性的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(7): 1079-1085.
[8]	肖金平, 常路伟, 张慧琴, 谢鸣, 古咸彬, 熊彩珍, 吴大军. 避雨设施栽培对中晚熟水蜜桃果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2019, 31(10): 1632-1638.
[9]	薛莞莞, 龚荣高, 丁建林, 李克强, 邹金, 李如龙, 彭宏贵. 赤霉素喷施对红灯甜樱桃果实品质及解剖结构的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(6): 978-984.
[10]	李秋利, 高登涛, 魏志峰, 王志强, 刘军伟, 杨文佳. 不同浓度茉莉酸甲酯对春蜜桃果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(6): 985-991.
[11]	张青. 贮藏温度对越心和章姬草莓果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(4): 600-606.
[12]	叶霜, 熊博, 邱霞, 孙国超, 黄胜佳, 付佳玲, 汪志辉. 果实品质综合评价体系的建立及其在黄果柑果实上的应用[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(12): 2038-2050.
[13]	程平, 李长城, 李宏, 张志刚, 刘帮, 孙明森. 不同灌溉方式对干旱区枣树树干液流特征及果实品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(1): 64-72.
[14]	李清斌1，孙军波1，符国槐1，魏莎莎1，刘鹍2. 新旧膜棚内小气候差异及其对樱桃番茄果实产量和品质的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(3): 435-.
[15]	徐云焕, 梁森苗, 郑锡良, 任海英, 戚行江. 叶面营养对杨梅果实产量和品质的影响及各指标的相关性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2016, 28(10): 1711-1717.