Identification of causal agent and dynamics survey of celery stalk basal rot and screening of fungicides

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.04.11

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (4): 661-669.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2021.04.11

• Plant Protection • Previous Articles Next Articles

Identification of causal agent and dynamics survey of celery stalk basal rot and screening of fungicides

WANG Guorong¹(), FENG Xiaoxiao², WU Huiming³, CAO Tingting⁴, LI Qian⁵, ZHENG Yongli⁶^,^*()

1. Xiaoshan Agricultural Technology Extension Center, Hangzhou 311203, China
2. Agricultural Experiment Station, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
3. College of Agriculture and Food Science, Zhejiang A & F University, Hangzhou 311300, China
4. Zhejiang Plant Protection Quarantine and Pesticide Management Station, Hangzhou 310020, China
5. College of Life Sciences, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
6. Zhejiang Agricultural Products Quality and Safety Center, Hangzhou 310003, China

Received:2020-07-14 Online:2021-04-25 Published:2021-04-25
Contact: ZHENG Yongli

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to characterize the causal agent and occurrence of celery stalk basal rot in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province and effective fungicides, the dynamic survey of celery stalk rot in field was investigated in 2017-2018, the pathogen was isolated and identified by tissue separation, morphological and phylogenetic analysis and its pathogenicity was determined by mycelial suspension inoculation, the inhibition of 29 common fungicides were determined by mycelial growth rate method, and field control experiment were conducted as well. The results showed that frequent occurrence of celery stalk basal rot was during June to September. Fusarium oxysporum was the pathogenic fungus that caused celery stalk basal rot. In vitro screening test showed that thiophanate-methyl and tebuconazoles fungicides had the best inhibitory effect on mycelial growth of pathogenic F. oxysporum, and field application of 75% trifloxystrobin·tebuconazole WDG and 70% thiophanate-methyl WP had better control effect on celery stalk basal rot.

Key words: celery stalk basal rot, Fusarium oxysporum, fungicide

CLC Number:

S436.36

WANG Guorong, FENG Xiaoxiao, WU Huiming, CAO Tingting, LI Qian, ZHENG Yongli. Identification of causal agent and dynamics survey of celery stalk basal rot and screening of fungicides[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(4): 661-669.

Figures/Tables 9

References 10

[1]	李小龙. 温岭市芹菜主要病害发生特点及综合防治技术[J]. 现代农业科技, 2010(7):188-189.
	LI X L. Occurrence characteristics and comprehensive control techniques of celery diseases in Wenling city[J]. Modern Agricultural Sciences and Technology, 2010(7):188-189.(in Chinese)
[2]	陈传荣. 芹菜栽培及主要病害防治技术[J]. 园艺与种苗, 2017,37(11):6-8.
	CHEN C R. Cultivation techniques and integrated control of main diseases of celery[J]. Horticulture & Seed, 2017,37(11):6-8.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	WHITE T J, BRUNS S, LEE S, et al. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal genes for phylogenetics[M]//INNIS M A, GELFAND D H, SNINSKY J J, et al. PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. New York: Academic Press, 1990.
[4]	CARBONE I, KOHN L M. A method for designing primer sets for speciation studies in filamentous ascomycetes[J]. Mycologia, 1999,91(3):553-556.
[5]	O’DONNELL K, KISTLER H C, CIGELNIK E, et al. Multiple evolutionary origins of the fungus causing Panama disease of banana: concordant evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial gene genealogies[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1998,95(5):2044-2049.
[6]	潘龙其, 张丽, 袁庆华, 等. 不同杀菌剂对拟枝孢镰刀菌的毒力测定及田间防效[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2016,21(1):87-96.
	PAN L Q, ZHANG L, YUAN Q H, et al. Toxicity measurement and field control of alfalfa root rot Fusarium sporotrichioide[J]. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2016,21(1):87-96.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	刘铭, 金容, 尹福强. 6种杀菌剂对辣椒枯萎病病原菌的室内毒力测定[J]. 现代园艺, 2019(21):38-40.
	LIU M, JIN R, YIN F Q. Toxicity determination of six fungicides against Fusarium wilt of pepper in laboratory[J]. Xiandai Horticulture, 2019(21):38-40.(in Chinese)
[8]	肖荣凤, 陈燕萍, 陈梅春, 等. 太子参根腐病病原菌的鉴定及防治药剂筛选[J]. 植物保护学报, 2020,47(6):1333-1342.
	XIAO R F, CHEN Y P, CHEN M C, et al. Pathogen identification of root rot of Pseudostellaria heterophylla plant and fungicide screening for its efficient control[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2020,47(6):1333-1342.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	王芳, 王晓倩, 王莹, 等. 6种杀菌剂对黄瓜尖孢镰刀菌的毒力测定试验[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019,35(9):143-148.
	WANG F, WANG X Q, WANG Y, et al. Toxicity test of six fungicides on Fusarium oxysporum infecting cucumber[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2019,35(9):143-148.(in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	韩青梅, 康振生, 黄丽丽, 等. 戊唑醇对赤霉病菌生长发育影响的细胞学和免疫细胞化学研究[J]. 菌物学报, 2004,23(4):580-589.
	HAN Q M, KANG Z S, HUANG L L, et al. Cytology and immuno-cytochemistry studies of effects of tebuconazole on wheat head blight pathogen in vitro[J]. Mycosystema, 2004,23(4):580-589.(in Chinese with English abstract)

处理 Treatments	药剂 Fungicide	使用方法 Methods of use
T1	70%甲基硫菌灵可湿性粉剂800倍液 70% Thiophanate methyl WP 800×	移栽前浸根(1)+移栽缓苗后粗喷雾(2)+封行前粗喷雾 Dipping root before transplanting (1)+Spraying on stem base after reviving (2)+Spraying on stem base before sealing
T2	70%甲基硫菌灵可湿性粉剂800倍液 70% Thiophanate methyl WP 800×	移栽缓苗后粗喷雾+封行前粗喷雾 Spraying at stem base after reviving+Spraying at stem base before sealing
T3	75%肟菌·戊唑醇水分散粒剂2000倍液 75% Trifloxysporin·Tebuconazole WDG 2000×	移栽前浸根+移栽缓苗后粗喷雾+封行前粗喷雾 Dipping root before transplanting+Spraying on stem base after reviving+Spraying on stem base before sealing
T4	75%肟菌·戊唑醇水分散粒剂2000倍液 75% Trifloxysporin·Tebuconazole WDG 2000×	移栽缓苗后粗喷雾+封行前粗喷雾 Spraying at stem base after reviving+Spraying at stem base before sealing
T5	Water	喷雾 Spraying

处理 Treatments	药剂 Fungicide	使用方法 Methods of use
T1	70%甲基硫菌灵可湿性粉剂800倍液 70% Thiophanate methyl WP 800×	移栽前浸根(1)+移栽缓苗后粗喷雾(2)+封行前粗喷雾 Dipping root before transplanting (1)+Spraying on stem base after reviving (2)+Spraying on stem base before sealing
T2	70%甲基硫菌灵可湿性粉剂800倍液 70% Thiophanate methyl WP 800×	移栽缓苗后粗喷雾+封行前粗喷雾 Spraying at stem base after reviving+Spraying at stem base before sealing
T3	75%肟菌·戊唑醇水分散粒剂2000倍液 75% Trifloxysporin·Tebuconazole WDG 2000×	移栽前浸根+移栽缓苗后粗喷雾+封行前粗喷雾 Dipping root before transplanting+Spraying on stem base after reviving+Spraying on stem base before sealing
T4	75%肟菌·戊唑醇水分散粒剂2000倍液 75% Trifloxysporin·Tebuconazole WDG 2000×	移栽缓苗后粗喷雾+封行前粗喷雾 Spraying at stem base after reviving+Spraying at stem base before sealing
T5	Water	喷雾 Spraying

供试药剂 Fungicide	生产企业 Manufacture	试验浓度 Concentration/ (mg·L^-1)	抑制率 Inhibition/%	敏感性评价 Sensitivity evaluation
430 g·L^-1戊唑醇SC 430 g·L^-1 Tebuconazole SC	拜耳 Bayer	1.7	100 a	强 Hypersensitive
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC 40%Prothioconazole·Tebuconazole SC	海利尔 Waier	13.3	100 a	强Hypersensitive
70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70% Thiophanate methyl WP	日友 Japfou	17.5	100 a	强Hypersensitive
30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30% Pyraclostrobin·Tebuconazole SC	明德立达 Pilar	9.2	99.25±0.75 a	强Hypersensitive
20%氰烯·己唑醇SC 20%Phenamacril· Hexaconazole SC	上格 Sunger	18.7	95.80±0.37 ab	强Hypersensitive
75%肟菌·戊唑醇WDG 75%Trifloxazole·Tebuconazole WDG	拜耳 Bayer	10.0	95.33±0.94 a	强Hypersensitive
40%氟菌唑WP 40% Triflumizole WP	恒田生物 Hengtian Biological	4.3	90.40±0.75 bc	强Hypersensitive
125 g·L^-1氟环唑SC 125 g·L^-1Epoxiconazole SC	巴斯夫 BASF	2.5	87.80±0.49 bcd	强Hypersensitive
35%氟菌·戊唑醇SC 35% Fluopyram·Tebuconazole SC	拜耳 Bayer	3.5	86.40±1.43 cd	强Hypersensitive
43%氟菌·肟菌酯SC 43% Fluopyram·Trifloxazole SC	拜耳 Bayer	4.3	78.60±0.81 de	中Sensitive
12%苯甲·氟酰胺SC 12%Difenoconazole· Fluxapyroxad SC	巴斯夫 BASF	5.6	76.60±0.68 ef	中Sensitive
19%啶氧·丙环唑SC 19%Picoxystrobin· Propiconazol SC	杜邦 DuPont	11.1	71.60±0.68 efg	中Sensitive
10%苯醚甲环唑WDG 10% Difenoconazole WDG	先正达 Syngenta	6.7	70.84±6.08 b	中Sensitive
25%氰烯菌酯SC 25% Phenamacril SC	苏研 SUYAN	2.5	69.53±2.54 bc	中Sensitive
供试药剂 Fungicide	生产企业 Manufacture	试验浓度 Concentration/ (mg·L^-1)	抑制率 Inhibition/%	敏感性评价 Sensitivity evaluation
60%唑醚·代森联WDG 60%Pyraclostrobin·Metiram WDG	巴斯夫 BASF	48.0	68.00±0.32 fgh	中Sensitive
30%己唑醇SC 30% Hexaconazole SC	上格 Sunger	1.0	65.80±0.58 gh	中Sensitive
400 g·L^-1氟唑菌酰羟胺·咯菌腈SC 400 g·L^-1 Pydiflumetofen·Fludioxonil SC	先正达 Syngenta	5.0	63.36±1.55 bc	中Sensitive
16%二氰·吡唑酯WDG 16%Dithianon·Pyraclostrobin WDG	巴斯夫 BASF	17.8	59.80±4.84 h	中Sensitive
30%苯甲·嘧菌酯SC 30% Difenoconazole·Azoxystrobin SC	丰乐 Fengle	10.0	56.82±2.18 c	中Sensitive
250 g·L^-1吡唑醚菌酯EC 250 g·L^-1Pyraclostrobin EC	巴斯夫 BASF	8.3	46.00±0.84 i	弱Hyposensitive
42.4%唑醚·氟酰胺SC 42.4% Pyraclostrobin·Fluxapyroxad SC	巴斯夫 BASF	8.5	45.80±1.32 i	弱Hyposensitive
4%四氟醚唑EW 4% Tetraconazole EW	意赛格 Isagro	2.7	44.60±0.75 i	弱Hyposensitive
70%代森联WDG 70% Metiram WDG	巴斯夫 BASF	77.8	42.00±1.34 ij	弱Hyposensitive
50%嘧菌环胺WDG 50% Cyprodinil WDG	先正达 Syngenta	16.0	34.40±1.91 j	弱Hyposensitive
25 g·L^-1咯菌腈FS 25 g·L^-1 Fludioxonil FS	先正达 Syngenta	24.0	21.5±3.17 d	极弱Dull
41.7%氟吡菌酰胺SC 41.7% Fluopyram SC	拜耳 Bayer	2.8	18.60±1.21 k	极弱Dull
50%烯酰吗啉WP 50% Dimethomorph WP	巴斯夫 BASF	13.3	11.80±3.22 k	极弱Dull
50%啶酰菌胺WDG 50% Boscalid WDG	巴斯夫 BASF	16.7	9.60±4.40 k	极弱Dull
15%噁霉灵AS 15% Hymexazol AS	标正 BIOGEN	3.0	-6.32±3.77 l	极弱Dull

供试药剂 Fungicide	生产企业 Manufacture	试验浓度 Concentration/ (mg·L^-1)	抑制率 Inhibition/%	敏感性评价 Sensitivity evaluation
430 g·L^-1戊唑醇SC 430 g·L^-1 Tebuconazole SC	拜耳 Bayer	1.7	100 a	强 Hypersensitive
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC 40%Prothioconazole·Tebuconazole SC	海利尔 Waier	13.3	100 a	强Hypersensitive
70%甲基硫菌灵WP 70% Thiophanate methyl WP	日友 Japfou	17.5	100 a	强Hypersensitive
30%唑醚·戊唑醇SC 30% Pyraclostrobin·Tebuconazole SC	明德立达 Pilar	9.2	99.25±0.75 a	强Hypersensitive
20%氰烯·己唑醇SC 20%Phenamacril· Hexaconazole SC	上格 Sunger	18.7	95.80±0.37 ab	强Hypersensitive
75%肟菌·戊唑醇WDG 75%Trifloxazole·Tebuconazole WDG	拜耳 Bayer	10.0	95.33±0.94 a	强Hypersensitive
40%氟菌唑WP 40% Triflumizole WP	恒田生物 Hengtian Biological	4.3	90.40±0.75 bc	强Hypersensitive
125 g·L^-1氟环唑SC 125 g·L^-1Epoxiconazole SC	巴斯夫 BASF	2.5	87.80±0.49 bcd	强Hypersensitive
35%氟菌·戊唑醇SC 35% Fluopyram·Tebuconazole SC	拜耳 Bayer	3.5	86.40±1.43 cd	强Hypersensitive
43%氟菌·肟菌酯SC 43% Fluopyram·Trifloxazole SC	拜耳 Bayer	4.3	78.60±0.81 de	中Sensitive
12%苯甲·氟酰胺SC 12%Difenoconazole· Fluxapyroxad SC	巴斯夫 BASF	5.6	76.60±0.68 ef	中Sensitive
19%啶氧·丙环唑SC 19%Picoxystrobin· Propiconazol SC	杜邦 DuPont	11.1	71.60±0.68 efg	中Sensitive
10%苯醚甲环唑WDG 10% Difenoconazole WDG	先正达 Syngenta	6.7	70.84±6.08 b	中Sensitive
25%氰烯菌酯SC 25% Phenamacril SC	苏研 SUYAN	2.5	69.53±2.54 bc	中Sensitive
供试药剂 Fungicide	生产企业 Manufacture	试验浓度 Concentration/ (mg·L^-1)	抑制率 Inhibition/%	敏感性评价 Sensitivity evaluation
60%唑醚·代森联WDG 60%Pyraclostrobin·Metiram WDG	巴斯夫 BASF	48.0	68.00±0.32 fgh	中Sensitive
30%己唑醇SC 30% Hexaconazole SC	上格 Sunger	1.0	65.80±0.58 gh	中Sensitive
400 g·L^-1氟唑菌酰羟胺·咯菌腈SC 400 g·L^-1 Pydiflumetofen·Fludioxonil SC	先正达 Syngenta	5.0	63.36±1.55 bc	中Sensitive
16%二氰·吡唑酯WDG 16%Dithianon·Pyraclostrobin WDG	巴斯夫 BASF	17.8	59.80±4.84 h	中Sensitive
30%苯甲·嘧菌酯SC 30% Difenoconazole·Azoxystrobin SC	丰乐 Fengle	10.0	56.82±2.18 c	中Sensitive
250 g·L^-1吡唑醚菌酯EC 250 g·L^-1Pyraclostrobin EC	巴斯夫 BASF	8.3	46.00±0.84 i	弱Hyposensitive
42.4%唑醚·氟酰胺SC 42.4% Pyraclostrobin·Fluxapyroxad SC	巴斯夫 BASF	8.5	45.80±1.32 i	弱Hyposensitive
4%四氟醚唑EW 4% Tetraconazole EW	意赛格 Isagro	2.7	44.60±0.75 i	弱Hyposensitive
70%代森联WDG 70% Metiram WDG	巴斯夫 BASF	77.8	42.00±1.34 ij	弱Hyposensitive
50%嘧菌环胺WDG 50% Cyprodinil WDG	先正达 Syngenta	16.0	34.40±1.91 j	弱Hyposensitive
25 g·L^-1咯菌腈FS 25 g·L^-1 Fludioxonil FS	先正达 Syngenta	24.0	21.5±3.17 d	极弱Dull
41.7%氟吡菌酰胺SC 41.7% Fluopyram SC	拜耳 Bayer	2.8	18.60±1.21 k	极弱Dull
50%烯酰吗啉WP 50% Dimethomorph WP	巴斯夫 BASF	13.3	11.80±3.22 k	极弱Dull
50%啶酰菌胺WDG 50% Boscalid WDG	巴斯夫 BASF	16.7	9.60±4.40 k	极弱Dull
15%噁霉灵AS 15% Hymexazol AS	标正 BIOGEN	3.0	-6.32±3.77 l	极弱Dull

[1]	ZHOU Danning, XU Jiao, BAI Jing, LIU Xiangnan, ZHU Yunhao. Endophytic fungal GG22 protein improves growth of Carthamus tinctorius L. seedling under stress conditions [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2025, 37(6): 1193-1202.
[2]	SHI Guiyuan, HUANG Wenyuan, DUAN Tingting, LI Ming, GUO Yiqing, ZHANG Ying. Residue changes of 4 kinds of fungicides in the preliminary processing of Bletilla striata [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(7): 1677-1685.
[3]	JI Songyan, SHAO Changqi, QI Wenkang, HE Yuhui, ZHANG Xin, WANG Cuiping. Identification of Lycium barbarum root rot disease pathogens and biocontrol funguses against root rot disease [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(10): 2283-2297.
[4]	XIA Zhijie, ZHANG Lei, SONG Jianghua, FU Min, ZHANG Lixin. Identification of pathogen causing gummy stem blight of Cucumis melo and Trichosanthes kirilowii in Anhui Province and screening of effective fungicides [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(1): 168-176.
[5]	WANG Xiangyun, WANG Luyan, ZHANG Changpeng, LI Yanjie, ZHAO Xueping, JIANG Jinhua. Analysis of the registration of compound preparations of triazole fungicides and strobilurin fungicides [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2023, 35(9): 2121-2129.
[6]	LI Xiang, ZHU Haixia. Isolation, identification and herbicidal potential of weed pathogenic strain GD-0221 [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(9): 1967-1975.
[7]	LIU Na, FAN Qiaochu, ZHOU Jia, SONG Yajing, ZHANG Guwen, FENG Zhijuan, BO Yuanpeng, WANG Bin, GONG Yaming. Identification and control of anthracnose in vegetable soybean [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(12): 2682-2688.
[8]	LYU Lu, WU Shenggan, WANG Qiang, ZHAO Xueping, XU Mingfei. Primary risk assessment of several fungicides to typical vineyard terrestrial organisms [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(11): 2512-2521.
[9]	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.
[10]	SUN Caixia, OUYANG Zhizhou, LIU Yuhong, YU Guoguang. Residue dynamic and risk assessment of three fungicides in broccoli [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(7): 1292-1299.
[11]	XU Xuefen, NI Chunhui, LI Huixia, LI Huanyu, LI Wenhao, CHEN Yuan, HU Fangdi. Pathogen identification and indoor toxicity tests on root rot of Codonopsis pilosula [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(1): 96-103.
[12]	ZHANG Lijun, ZHANG Hu, XU Mingfei, LIN Chunmian, WU Huizhen, XU Jie, QIAN Mingrong. Dynamics of 5 fungicides residue in grape brewing fermentation process [J]. , 2019, 31(1): 149-154.
[13]	XIE Yunye, ZENG Sijin, YUAN Yue, WANG Lianping, FANG Li, WANG Hanrong. Pathogen identification and susceptibility to fungicides on tea anthracnose in Xinchang of Zhejiang Province [J]. , 2018, 30(7): 1188-1193.
[14]	GE Jing, JIANG Jinhua, CAI Leiming. Study on toxicity of three kinds of triazole fungicides on zebrafish (Danio rerio) [J]. , 2018, 30(5): 744-755.
[15]	XIE Daoyan， YANG Zhenguo， ZHOU Chuntao， CHAI Jianping， DA Aisi， NI Jing， JIANG Xiujun， LUO Yanjie*. Safety evaluation of new fungicide fluxapyroxadpyraclostrobin to mulberry and silkworm [J]. , 2016, 28(4): 654-.

Identification of causal agent and dynamics survey of celery stalk basal rot and screening of fungicides

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 10

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments