新疆农业科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 61 ›› Issue (7): 1748-1756.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2024.07.022
马百幻(), 赵强(
), 谢佳, 徐开玥, 任若飞, 宋兴虎
收稿日期:
2023-12-05
出版日期:
2024-07-20
发布日期:
2024-09-04
通信作者:
赵强(1981-),男,安徽灵璧人,教授,博士,硕士生/博士生导师,研究方向为作物化学控制,(E-mail)qiangzhao99@163.com作者简介:
马百幻(1999-),女,山东菏泽人,硕士研究生,研究方向为作物化学控制,(E-mail)2411061848@qq.com
基金资助:
MA Baihuan(), ZHAO Qiang(
), XIE Jia, XU Kaiyue, REN Ruofei, SONG Xinghu
Received:
2023-12-05
Published:
2024-07-20
Online:
2024-09-04
Supported by:
摘要:
【目的】研究生物药剂复配对棉花黄萎病防治效果及生长发育的影响,为棉花植株健康生长提供理论依据。【方法】于2022年进行大田试验,选用棉花品种为新陆中42号。药剂以80%乙蒜素乳油药液、亚磷酸钾、谷胱甘肽为基础,分别为复配抗病毒专用型助剂(T1)、复合微生物菌肥(T2)、15%噁霉灵(T3)、5%辛菌胺醋酸盐(T4)、25%吡唑醚菌酯(T5),分析不同药剂对棉花黄萎病防治效果,农艺性状及产量的影响。【结果】各处理对棉花病害防治效果显著,对棉花生长表现出一定的促进作用,增加棉花株高、果枝数和蕾铃数。其中T2处理较T1和T3处理对棉花黄萎病防治效果提高19.99%、23.34%,T1、T2处理较CK处理铃数增加1.8个、2.67个。T2处理的籽棉产量为6 104.86 kg/hm2,较其他处理产量最高并差异显著。【结论】滴施复合微生物菌肥+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽(T2)可提高黄萎病防治效果,增加蕾数铃数和单株结铃数,从而显著增加棉花产量。
中图分类号:
马百幻, 赵强, 谢佳, 徐开玥, 任若飞, 宋兴虎. 生物药剂复配对棉花黄萎病防治及生长发育的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(7): 1748-1756.
MA Baihuan, ZHAO Qiang, XIE Jia, XU Kaiyue, REN Ruofei, SONG Xinghu. Effects of biopharmaceutical mixture on the control and growth of cotton Verticillium wilt[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 61(7): 1748-1756.
试验编号 Test number | 试验处理 Test treatments | 剂量Dosage (kg/hm2或L/hm2) |
---|---|---|
T1 | 抗病毒专用型助剂+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 0.15 L/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+15 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
T2 | 复合微生物菌肥+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 30 L/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
T3 | 15%噁霉灵+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 2.25 kg/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
T4 | 5%辛菌胺醋酸盐+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
T5 | 25%吡唑醚菌酯+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 2.25 L/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
CK | 清水 | / |
表1 试验处理编号及剂量
Tab.1 Test treatment number and dosage
试验编号 Test number | 试验处理 Test treatments | 剂量Dosage (kg/hm2或L/hm2) |
---|---|---|
T1 | 抗病毒专用型助剂+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 0.15 L/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+15 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
T2 | 复合微生物菌肥+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 30 L/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
T3 | 15%噁霉灵+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 2.25 kg/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
T4 | 5%辛菌胺醋酸盐+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
T5 | 25%吡唑醚菌酯+80%乙蒜素乳油+亚磷酸钾+谷胱甘肽 | 2.25 L/hm2+1.5 kg/hm2+1.5 L/hm2+0.3 kg/hm2 |
CK | 清水 | / |
级别 Grade | 分级标准 Test processing | 级值 Value |
---|---|---|
0级 Level 0 | 健株,整个植株叶片无病症 | 0 |
1级 Level 1 | 病株叶片有25%以下显病状,叶片主脉间产生淡黄色不规则病斑 | 1 |
2级 Level 2 | 病株叶片有25%-50%显病状,病斑颜色大部分变为黄色和黄褐色,叶片边缘有卷枯 | 2 |
3级 Level 3 | 病株叶片有50%以上显病状,病斑颜色为黄褐色,叶片边缘卷枯,有少数叶片掉落 | 3 |
4级 Level 4 | 病株叶脱落成光杆及植株死亡,或是出现急性死亡症状 | 4 |
表2 棉花病害分级标准
Tab.2 Classification standards of cotton diseases
级别 Grade | 分级标准 Test processing | 级值 Value |
---|---|---|
0级 Level 0 | 健株,整个植株叶片无病症 | 0 |
1级 Level 1 | 病株叶片有25%以下显病状,叶片主脉间产生淡黄色不规则病斑 | 1 |
2级 Level 2 | 病株叶片有25%-50%显病状,病斑颜色大部分变为黄色和黄褐色,叶片边缘有卷枯 | 2 |
3级 Level 3 | 病株叶片有50%以上显病状,病斑颜色为黄褐色,叶片边缘卷枯,有少数叶片掉落 | 3 |
4级 Level 4 | 病株叶脱落成光杆及植株死亡,或是出现急性死亡症状 | 4 |
处理 Treatments | 调查株数 Investigated plants | 药后11 d 11 days after spraying fungicides | 药后21 d 21 days after spraying fungicides | 药后30 d 30 days after spraying fungicides | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
发病率 Incidence (%) | 病情指数 Disease index | 发病率 Incidence (%) | 病情指数 Disease index | 发病率 Incidence (%) | 病情指数 Disease index | ||
T1 | 300 | 11.33b | 3.75±0.90cd | 20.33c | 8.50±1.75c | 31.67cd | 15.00±1.80c |
T2 | 300 | 8.33c | 2.75±0.25d | 19.33c | 8.25±1.80c | 28.67d | 14.75±0.66c |
T3 | 300 | 12.33b | 3.92±0.14cd | 22.67bc | 9.25±1.09bc | 32.00cd | 15.50±0.25bc |
T4 | 300 | 14.00b | 5.50±0.43b | 26.33b | 12.00±0.43b | 34.33bc | 16.83±0.52b |
T5 | 300 | 12.00b | 4.50±0.90bc | 24.00bc | 11.08±0.63bc | 38.33b | 16.33±0.38bc |
CK | 300 | 21.67a | 7.75±1.09a | 38.00a | 17.58±3.21a | 45.33a | 23.08±0.52a |
表3 不同处理下棉花黄萎病发病率及病情指数的变化
Tab.3 Changes of different treatments on incidence rate and disease index of cotton Verticillium wilt
处理 Treatments | 调查株数 Investigated plants | 药后11 d 11 days after spraying fungicides | 药后21 d 21 days after spraying fungicides | 药后30 d 30 days after spraying fungicides | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
发病率 Incidence (%) | 病情指数 Disease index | 发病率 Incidence (%) | 病情指数 Disease index | 发病率 Incidence (%) | 病情指数 Disease index | ||
T1 | 300 | 11.33b | 3.75±0.90cd | 20.33c | 8.50±1.75c | 31.67cd | 15.00±1.80c |
T2 | 300 | 8.33c | 2.75±0.25d | 19.33c | 8.25±1.80c | 28.67d | 14.75±0.66c |
T3 | 300 | 12.33b | 3.92±0.14cd | 22.67bc | 9.25±1.09bc | 32.00cd | 15.50±0.25bc |
T4 | 300 | 14.00b | 5.50±0.43b | 26.33b | 12.00±0.43b | 34.33bc | 16.83±0.52b |
T5 | 300 | 12.00b | 4.50±0.90bc | 24.00bc | 11.08±0.63bc | 38.33b | 16.33±0.38bc |
CK | 300 | 21.67a | 7.75±1.09a | 38.00a | 17.58±3.21a | 45.33a | 23.08±0.52a |
处理 Treat- ments | 药后11 d 11 days after spraying fungicides | 药后21 d 21 days after spraying fungicides | 药后30 d 30 days after spraying fungicides |
---|---|---|---|
防效 Control effect(%) | 防效 Control effect(%) | 防效 Control effect(%) | |
T1 | 51.62±11.63ab | 51.65±9.95a | 35.01±2.17a |
T2 | 64.52±3.23a | 53.07±10.25a | 36.09±2.87a |
T3 | 49.46±1.86ab | 47.38±6.20ab | 32.84±1.09a |
T4 | 29.03±5.59c | 31.74±2.46c | 27.06±2.25b |
T5 | 41.94±11.63b | 36.95±3.58bc | 29.23±1.65b |
CK | - | - | - |
表4 不同处理下棉花黄萎病防治效果变化
Tab.4 Changes of different treatments on control of cotton verticillium wilt
处理 Treat- ments | 药后11 d 11 days after spraying fungicides | 药后21 d 21 days after spraying fungicides | 药后30 d 30 days after spraying fungicides |
---|---|---|---|
防效 Control effect(%) | 防效 Control effect(%) | 防效 Control effect(%) | |
T1 | 51.62±11.63ab | 51.65±9.95a | 35.01±2.17a |
T2 | 64.52±3.23a | 53.07±10.25a | 36.09±2.87a |
T3 | 49.46±1.86ab | 47.38±6.20ab | 32.84±1.09a |
T4 | 29.03±5.59c | 31.74±2.46c | 27.06±2.25b |
T5 | 41.94±11.63b | 36.95±3.58bc | 29.23±1.65b |
CK | - | - | - |
施药 后天数 Days after medicated (d) | 处理 Treat- ments | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 果枝台数 No.of fruit branches (台) | 蕾数 The No.of the bell (个) | 铃数 Bell number (个) | 主茎叶数 No.of main stem leaves (片) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | T1 | 88.15±4.56a | 9.27±1.29a | 15.27±2.42a | 1.00±0.20a | 14.53±1.29a |
T2 | 89.24±2.94a | 10.13±2.66a | 16.07±5.03a | 1.07±0.23a | 15.05±1.18a | |
T3 | 88.13±7.46a | 8.73±0.76a | 15.13±3.11a | 0.93±0.12a | 14.13±2.32a | |
T4 | 83.69±9.41a | 8.27±1.51a | 13.53±3.54a | 0.87±0.23a | 12.87±0.83a | |
T5 | 87.49±3.95a | 8.20±2.09a | 14.53±4.41a | 0.87±0.12a | 13.67±0.58a | |
CK | 81.56±10.76a | 8.00±0.87a | 12.60±2.16a | 0.73±0.12a | 12.73±0.61a | |
7 | T1 | 94.90±5.62ab | 10.93±0.76ab | 15.47±3.23a | 2.47±0.42ab | 13.20±1.22a |
T2 | 95.44±2.39a | 11.27±0.31a | 16.73±2.32a | 2.60±0.72a | 13.93±1.30a | |
T3 | 89.77±6.58ab | 10.47±1.60ab | 15.00±2.43a | 2.27±0.12abc | 13.07±1.63ab | |
T4 | 87.57±10.28ab | 9.87±1.94ab | 13.60±1.91ab | 1.73±0.12bc | 12.40±2.50ab | |
T5 | 89.53±0.46ab | 10.27±1.29ab | 14.27±3.01a | 1.80±0.35bc | 12.53±1.70ab | |
CK | 82.72±7.96b | 8.67±1.22b | 9.60±1.51b | 1.53±0.23c | 10.07±0.31b | |
14 | T1 | 96.35±5.46ab | 11.93±2.84ab | 13.67±2.84ab | 5.20±0.35ab | 14.20±1.22ab |
T2 | 97.60±1.94a | 13.13±2.40a | 15.60±1.25a | 5.93±0.23a | 14.93±1.30a | |
T3 | 92.10±6.12ab | 11.27±0.99ab | 12.47±4.84ab | 4.80±1.71ab | 14.07±1.63ab | |
T4 | 89.79±9.61ab | 10.87±1.29ab | 9.47±1.80b | 4.07±1.10ab | 13.40±2.50ab | |
T5 | 91.18±0.46ab | 11.33±0.61ab | 10.73±1.63ab | 4.20±0.53ab | 13.53±1.70ab | |
CK | 84.79±7.85b | 9.13±0.31b | 9.20±2.80b | 3.73±1.62b | 11.40±0.60b | |
21 | T1 | 97.42±5.06ab | 12.67±0.83ab | 5.07±0.50ab | 7.00±1.25ab | 15.20±1.22a |
T2 | 99.10±1.94a | 13.53±2.00a | 6.13±0.81a | 7.87±0.99a | 15.93±1.30a | |
T3 | 93.60±6.12ab | 11.67±0.31ab | 4.67±1.68ab | 6.80±1.25ab | 15.07±1.63a | |
T4 | 91.29±9.61ab | 11.28±0.90b | 3.73±1.10b | 6.07±1.75ab | 14.40±2.50ab | |
T5 | 92.55±0.63ab | 11.20±0.53b | 3.80±1.78b | 6.60±1.11ab | 14.53±1.70ab | |
CK | 86.09±7.75b | 10.80±0.80b | 3.20±0.35b | 5.20±0.87b | 11.73±0.70b |
表5 不同处理下棉花农艺性状的变化
Tab.5 Changes of different treatments on agronomic characters of cotton
施药 后天数 Days after medicated (d) | 处理 Treat- ments | 株高 Plant height (cm) | 果枝台数 No.of fruit branches (台) | 蕾数 The No.of the bell (个) | 铃数 Bell number (个) | 主茎叶数 No.of main stem leaves (片) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | T1 | 88.15±4.56a | 9.27±1.29a | 15.27±2.42a | 1.00±0.20a | 14.53±1.29a |
T2 | 89.24±2.94a | 10.13±2.66a | 16.07±5.03a | 1.07±0.23a | 15.05±1.18a | |
T3 | 88.13±7.46a | 8.73±0.76a | 15.13±3.11a | 0.93±0.12a | 14.13±2.32a | |
T4 | 83.69±9.41a | 8.27±1.51a | 13.53±3.54a | 0.87±0.23a | 12.87±0.83a | |
T5 | 87.49±3.95a | 8.20±2.09a | 14.53±4.41a | 0.87±0.12a | 13.67±0.58a | |
CK | 81.56±10.76a | 8.00±0.87a | 12.60±2.16a | 0.73±0.12a | 12.73±0.61a | |
7 | T1 | 94.90±5.62ab | 10.93±0.76ab | 15.47±3.23a | 2.47±0.42ab | 13.20±1.22a |
T2 | 95.44±2.39a | 11.27±0.31a | 16.73±2.32a | 2.60±0.72a | 13.93±1.30a | |
T3 | 89.77±6.58ab | 10.47±1.60ab | 15.00±2.43a | 2.27±0.12abc | 13.07±1.63ab | |
T4 | 87.57±10.28ab | 9.87±1.94ab | 13.60±1.91ab | 1.73±0.12bc | 12.40±2.50ab | |
T5 | 89.53±0.46ab | 10.27±1.29ab | 14.27±3.01a | 1.80±0.35bc | 12.53±1.70ab | |
CK | 82.72±7.96b | 8.67±1.22b | 9.60±1.51b | 1.53±0.23c | 10.07±0.31b | |
14 | T1 | 96.35±5.46ab | 11.93±2.84ab | 13.67±2.84ab | 5.20±0.35ab | 14.20±1.22ab |
T2 | 97.60±1.94a | 13.13±2.40a | 15.60±1.25a | 5.93±0.23a | 14.93±1.30a | |
T3 | 92.10±6.12ab | 11.27±0.99ab | 12.47±4.84ab | 4.80±1.71ab | 14.07±1.63ab | |
T4 | 89.79±9.61ab | 10.87±1.29ab | 9.47±1.80b | 4.07±1.10ab | 13.40±2.50ab | |
T5 | 91.18±0.46ab | 11.33±0.61ab | 10.73±1.63ab | 4.20±0.53ab | 13.53±1.70ab | |
CK | 84.79±7.85b | 9.13±0.31b | 9.20±2.80b | 3.73±1.62b | 11.40±0.60b | |
21 | T1 | 97.42±5.06ab | 12.67±0.83ab | 5.07±0.50ab | 7.00±1.25ab | 15.20±1.22a |
T2 | 99.10±1.94a | 13.53±2.00a | 6.13±0.81a | 7.87±0.99a | 15.93±1.30a | |
T3 | 93.60±6.12ab | 11.67±0.31ab | 4.67±1.68ab | 6.80±1.25ab | 15.07±1.63a | |
T4 | 91.29±9.61ab | 11.28±0.90b | 3.73±1.10b | 6.07±1.75ab | 14.40±2.50ab | |
T5 | 92.55±0.63ab | 11.20±0.53b | 3.80±1.78b | 6.60±1.11ab | 14.53±1.70ab | |
CK | 86.09±7.75b | 10.80±0.80b | 3.20±0.35b | 5.20±0.87b | 11.73±0.70b |
处理 Treatments | 株数 Number of cotton (株/hm2) | 单株结铃数 Bolls per plant (个) | 单铃重 Boll weight (g) | 衣分 Lint percentage (%) | 籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield (kg/hm2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 180 500±2 291.29a | 5.79±0.32a | 5.59±0.07a | 49.80±4.06ab | 5 854.22±413.32ab |
T2 | 183 000±7 937.25a | 5.86±0.42a | 5.71±0.29a | 50.10±2.20a | 6 104.86±176.34a |
T3 | 178 000±1 732.05a | 5.84±0.48a | 5.60±0.09a | 49.65±1.27ab | 5 830.56±610.50ab |
T4 | 179 500±7 549.83a | 5.42±0.16a | 5.48±0.23a | 46.36±2.94ab | 5 331.14±186.05bc |
T5 | 177 500±2 291.29a | 5.70±0.11a | 5.50±0.19a | 46.76±1.12ab | 5 561.63±16.76abc |
CK | 177 500±4 582.58a | 5.44±0.05a | 5.37±0.21a | 45.06±1.78b | 5 183.75±145.02c |
表6 不同处理下棉花产量及构成因素变化
Tab.6 Changes of different treatments on cotton yield and its components
处理 Treatments | 株数 Number of cotton (株/hm2) | 单株结铃数 Bolls per plant (个) | 单铃重 Boll weight (g) | 衣分 Lint percentage (%) | 籽棉产量 Seed cotton yield (kg/hm2) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 180 500±2 291.29a | 5.79±0.32a | 5.59±0.07a | 49.80±4.06ab | 5 854.22±413.32ab |
T2 | 183 000±7 937.25a | 5.86±0.42a | 5.71±0.29a | 50.10±2.20a | 6 104.86±176.34a |
T3 | 178 000±1 732.05a | 5.84±0.48a | 5.60±0.09a | 49.65±1.27ab | 5 830.56±610.50ab |
T4 | 179 500±7 549.83a | 5.42±0.16a | 5.48±0.23a | 46.36±2.94ab | 5 331.14±186.05bc |
T5 | 177 500±2 291.29a | 5.70±0.11a | 5.50±0.19a | 46.76±1.12ab | 5 561.63±16.76abc |
CK | 177 500±4 582.58a | 5.44±0.05a | 5.37±0.21a | 45.06±1.78b | 5 183.75±145.02c |
[1] | 毛树春, 李亚兵, 冯璐, 等. 新疆棉花生产发展问题研究[J]. 农业展望, 2014, 10(11): 43-51. |
MAO Shuchun, LI Yabing, FENG Lu, et al. Study on the development of Xinjiang cotton production[J]. Agricultural Outlook, 2014, 10(11): 43-51. | |
[2] | 杨志恩, 唐建杰, 于学良. 新疆棉花产业现状及对策研究. R农业现代化研究, 2013, 34(3):289-303. |
YANG Zhining, TANG Jianjie, YU Xueliang. Xinjiang cotton industry present situation and countermeasure research[J]. Research of Agricultural Modernization, 2013, 34(3):289-303. | |
[3] |
张一豪, 冯鸿杰, 袁媛, 等. 大丽轮枝菌弱致病力菌株Vd171对棉花黄萎病的诱导免疫作用及机制[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(6): 1067-1078.
DOI |
ZHANG Yihao, FENG Hongjie, YUAN Yuan, et al. Induced immunity effect and mechanism of the weak pathogenicity isolate of Verticillium dahliae Vd171 against Verticillium wilt in cotton[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(6): 1067-1078.
DOI |
|
[4] | 刘海洋, 王琦, 王伟, 等. 新疆棉花黄萎病的发生现状及其病原菌的分子鉴定与ISSR分析[J]. 植物保护学报, 2018, 45(6): 1194-1203. |
LIU Haiyang, WANG Qi, WANG Wei, et al. Molecular identification and ISSR analysis ofVerticillium dahliaeand the current status of cottonVerticilliumwilt in Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2018, 45(6): 1194-1203. | |
[5] | 刘海洋, 王伟, 张仁福, 等. 新疆主要棉区棉花黄萎病发生概况[J]. 植物保护, 2015, 41(3): 138-142. |
LIU Haiyang, WANG Wei, ZHANG Renfu, et al. Occurrence overviews of cotton Verticillium wilt in Xinjiang[J]. Plant Protection, 2015, 41(3): 138-142. | |
[6] | 章茂林, 夏日照, 廖晓兰. 棉花黄萎病防治方法研究进展[J]. 现代农业科技, 2014,(7): 129-131. |
ZHANG Maolin, XIA Rizhao, LIAO Xiaolan. Research progress of prevention methods on cotton Verticillium wilt[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2014,(7): 129-131. | |
[7] | 朱荷琴, 李志芳, 冯自力, 等. 我国棉花黄萎病研究十年回顾及展望[J]. 棉花学报, 2017, 29(S1): 37-50. |
ZHU Heqin, LI Zhifang, FENG Zili, et al. Review and prospect of cotton verticillium wilt research in China for ten years[J]. Cotton Science, 2017, 29(S1): 37-50. | |
[8] | 万刚. 黄萎病对棉花产量和品质的影响及棉花品种抗病性研究[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2017. |
WAN Gang. The Effectof Verticillium Wilt on Yield and Quality of Cotton and Resistance of Cotton Varieties[D]. Shihezi: Shihezi University, 2017. | |
[9] | 刘政, 孙艳, 张学坤, 等. 木霉菌厚垣孢子制剂对土壤微生物数量和棉花黄萎病的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2015, 52(1): 97-101. |
LIU Zheng, SUN Yan, ZHANG Xuekun, et al. Effect of Trichoderma chlamydospores preparation on amount of soil microorganism and cotton Verticillium wilt[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2015, 52(1): 97-101. | |
[10] | 孙立娟, 吴国贺, 安承荣, 等. 几种抗病毒病药剂在烤烟生产上的应用研究[J]. 农业与技术, 2019, 39(16): 5-6. |
SUN Lijuan, WU Guohe, AN Chengrong, et al. Study on the application of several antiviral drugs in flue-cured tobacco production[J]. Agriculture and Technology, 2019, 39(16): 5-6. | |
[11] | 彭亚丽, 叶亦心, 胡新喜. 种薯级别和抗病毒药剂处理对秋马铃薯生长与产量的影响[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2021, 27(21): 49-52. |
PENG Yali, YE Yixin, HU Xinxi. The effect of seed potato grades and antiviral treatment on growth and yield of autumn potato[J]. Anhui Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 27(21): 49-52. | |
[12] |
吕博, 孟庆忠, 张成, 等. 复合微生物肥对棉花生长与产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(6): 1006-1011.
DOI |
LYU Bo, MENG Qingzhong, ZHANG Cheng, et al. Effects of compound microbial fertilizer on growth and yield of cotton[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(6): 1006-1011.
DOI |
|
[13] | 吕博, 孟庆忠, 张成, 等. 微生物菌肥对棉花黄萎病的防治效果研究[J]. 农村经济与科技, 2020, 31(23): 64-65. |
LYU Bo, MENG Qingzhong, ZHANG Cheng, et al. Study on the control effect of microbial bacterial fertilizer on cotton verticillium wilt[J]. Rural Economy and Science-Technology, 2020, 31(23): 64-65. | |
[14] | 马永强. 16%噁霉灵·咯菌腈悬浮剂防治黄瓜枯萎病田间防效试验[J]. 青海农林科技, 2019, (2): 79-81. |
MA Yongqiang. Control effect of 16% Oxemilin·Roxonitrile suspension against cucumber Fusarium wilt in field[J]. Science and Technology of Qinghai Agriculture and Forestry, 2019, (2): 79-81. | |
[15] | 谭放军, 许晓玲, 周程爱, 等. 0.1%噁霉灵颗粒剂防治番茄枯萎病效果初探[J]. 辣椒杂志, 2021, 19(4): 44-47. |
TAN Fangjun, XU Xiaoling, ZHOU Cheng’ai, et al. Effect of 0.1% hymexazol granules on controlling the Fusarium wilt of tomato[J]. Journal of China Capsicum, 2021, 19(4): 44-47. | |
[16] |
曾华兰, 蒋秋平, 叶鹏盛, 等. 种苗处理对麦冬生长的影响及其控病效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(6): 137-141.
DOI |
ZENG Hualan, JIANG Qiuping, YE Pengsheng, et al. Seedling treatment of Ophiopogon japonicus: effects on growth and disease control efficacy[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(6): 137-141.
DOI |
|
[17] | 周艳丽, 雷文军, 李薇, 等. 辛菌胺醋酸盐1.8%水剂防治柑桔溃疡病药效试验[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2014, 35(7): 63-65. |
ZHOU Yanli, LEI Wenjun, LI Wei, et al. Study on the field efficacy of xinjunan acetate 1.8% AS against Citrus canker disease[J]. Pesticide Science and Administration, 2014, 35(7): 63-65. | |
[18] | 章豪, 陈若霞, 吴银良. 辛菌胺对桃的保鲜效果及其风险评估[J]. 食品科技, 2018, 43(6): 265-268. |
ZHANG Hao, CHEN Ruoxia, WU Yinliang. Effects and risk assessment of Xinjunan treatment in the storage of peaches[J]. Food Science and Technology, 2018, 43(6): 265-268. | |
[19] | 杨丽娜, 张亮, 韦永淑, 等. 吡唑醚菌酯及与生物农药复配防治桃枝枯病[J]. 农药, 2022, 61(1): 65-69. |
YANG Lina, ZHANG Liang, WEI Yongshu, et al. Control effects of pyraclostrobin and its mixtures with biopesticides on peach shoot blight[J]. Agrochemicals, 2022, 61(1): 65-69. | |
[20] | 张楠, 徐书举, 曹凤格. 25%吡唑醚菌酯乳油对玉米小斑病病害的防效和增产效果[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2020, (2): 55-58. |
ZHANG Nan, XU Shuju, CAO Fengge. Control effect and yield-increasing effect of 25% pyraclostrobin EC on maize leaf spot disease[J]. Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2020, (2): 55-58. | |
[21] |
李慧, 刘保军, 吴琼, 等. 3种生防制剂对棉花红腐病和立枯病的防效评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(4): 694-704.
DOI |
LI Hui, LIU Baojun, WU Qiong, et al. Effect evaluation of control red rot and damping off with three bio-control agents on cotton[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 57(4): 694-704.
DOI |
|
[22] | 张京, 孟维实, 孙瑛健, 等. 大豆细菌性斑点病防治药剂筛选[J]. 农药, 2021, 60(9): 687-690. |
ZHANG Jing, MENG Weishi, SUN Yingjian, et al. Screening of fungicides for the control of bacterial blight in soybean[J]. Agrochemicals, 2021, 60(9): 687-690. | |
[23] | 张琪, 赵慧, 刘艾英, 等. 亚磷酸钾防治猕猴桃溃疡病试验研究[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2022, 68(4): 76-78. |
ZHANG Qi, ZHAO Hui, LIU Aiying, et al. Study on control of kiwifruit canker with potassium phosphate[J]. Shaanxi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 68(4): 76-78. | |
[24] | 徐继根, 张顺昌, 占红木, 等. 含氨基酸的亚磷酸钾与代森锰锌复配防治葡萄霜霉病的研究[J]. 浙江柑橘, 2020, 37(1): 29-32. |
XU Jigen, ZHANG Shunchang, ZHAN Hongmu, et al. Study on compound control of grape downy mildew with potassium phosphite containing amino acids and mancozeb[J]. Zhejiang Ganju, 2020, 37(1): 29-32. | |
[25] |
李林, 杜卓, 侯雯, 等. 外源谷胱甘肽对低温胁迫下玉米幼苗的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(27): 16-20.
DOI |
LI Lin, DU Zhuo, HOU Wen, et al. Exogenous glutathione: effects on maize seedlings under low temperature stress[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(27): 16-20.
DOI |
|
[26] | 李晓云, 王秀峰, 吕乐福, 等. 外源NO对铜胁迫下番茄幼苗根系抗坏血酸-谷胱甘肽循环的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2013, 24(4): 1023-1030. |
LI Xiaoyun, WANG Xiufeng, LYU Lefu, et al. Effects of exogenous nitric oxide on ascorbate-glutathione cycle in tomato seedlings roots under copper stress[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013, 24(4): 1023-1030.
PMID |
|
[27] | 马春梅, 田阳青, 赵强, 等. 植物生长调节剂复配对棉花产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (6): 181-185. |
MA Chunmei, TIAN Yangqing, ZHAO Qiang, et al. Effects of plant growth regulator compound on cotton yield[J]. Crops, 2022, (6): 181-185. | |
[28] | 马春梅, 吴雪琴, 李江余, 等. 外源调节剂组合喷施对化学打顶棉花的调控效应[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(5): 193-198. |
MA Chunmei, WU Xueqin, LI Jiangyu, et al. Regulation effects of different combinations of exogenous substances on chemical topping cotton[J]. Agricultural Research in the Arid Areas, 2021, 39(5): 193-198. | |
[29] | 张特, 李广维, 李可心, 等. 滴施缩节胺对棉花生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2022, (4): 124-131. |
ZHANG Te, LI Guangwei, LI Kexin, et al. Effects of DPC through drip irrigation on growth and yield of cotton[J]. Crops, 2022, (4): 124-131. | |
[30] |
王爱玉, 薛超, 杨媛雪, 等. 枯草芽孢杆菌对棉花立枯病和黄萎病的防效评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(12): 2244-2249.
DOI |
WANG Aiyu, XUE Chao, YANG Yuanxue, et al. Evaluation of Control Effect byBacillus subtilison the Damping-off andVerticilliumwilt of Cotton[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(12): 2244-2249.
DOI |
|
[31] | 潘云平, 李作京, 黄艳萍. 生物农药防治棉花黄萎病试验研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2008, (11): 122-123. |
PAN Yunping, LI Zuojing, HUANG Yanping. Experimental study on biological pesticides to control cotton verticillium wilt[J]. Anhui Agriculture, 2008, (11): 122-123. | |
[32] | 石磊, 侯振安, 尹飞虎, 等. 随水滴施3种生物菌肥对棉花黄萎病的防治效果[J]. 新疆农垦科技, 2017, 40(2): 37-40. |
SHI Lei, HOU Zhen’an, YIN Feihu, et al. Control effect of three kinds of biological bacterial fertilizers applied with water drops on cotton verticillium wilt[J]. Xinjiang Farm Research of Science and Technology, 2017, 40(2): 37-40. | |
[33] | 刘苹, 张博, 齐军山, 等. 生物有机肥对小麦根腐病的防效及其机理初探[J]. 麦类作物学报, 2019, 39(9): 1132-1137. |
LIU Ping, ZHANG Bo, QI Junshan, et al. Preliminary study on control effect and mechanism of bioorganic fertilizers on wheat root rot[J]. Journal of Triticeae Crops, 2019, 39(9): 1132-1137. | |
[34] | 刘放. 烟草普通花叶病毒生防菌的筛选及抗病毒机理研究[D]. 长沙: 湖南农业大学, 2020. |
LIU Fang. Screening and antiviral mechanism of biocontrol bacteria against tobacco common mosaic virus[D]. Changsha: Hunan Agricultural University, 2020. | |
[35] | 何雪玲. 芹菜定植前药剂蘸根防治根腐病效果试验[J]. 西北园艺(综合), 2022, (3): 60-61. |
HE Xueling. Experiment on the effect of chemical dipping in roots to control root rot of celery before planting[J]. Northwest Horticulture, 2022, (3): 60-61. | |
[36] | 柳自清, 张博然, 顾爱星. 几种杀菌剂对棉花枯萎病的田间防效评价[J]. 农业与技术, 2021, 41(9): 21-26. |
LIU Ziqing, ZHANG Boran, GU Aixing. Evaluation of field control effect of several fungicides on cotton Fusarium wilt[J]. Agriculture and Technology, 2021, 41(9): 21-26. | |
[37] | 吕宁, 石磊, 刘海燕, 等. 生物药剂滴施对棉花黄萎病及根际土壤微生物数量和多样性的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2019, 30(2): 602-614. |
LYU Ning, SHI Lei, LIU Haiyan, et al. Effects of biological agent dripping on cotton Verticillium wilt and rhizosphere soil microorganism[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019, 30(2): 602-614. |
[1] | 苗红萍, 王晓伟, 田聪华, 李志, 张玉新, 戴俊生. 塔里木河流域棉花生产与布局演变特征及驱动因素分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 217-226. |
[2] | 王俊铎, 崔豫疆, 梁亚军, 龚照龙, 郑巨云, 李雪源. 新疆棉花生产优势区域分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 60-69. |
[3] | 郑巨云, 龚照龙, 梁亚军, 耿世伟, 孙丰磊, 阳妮, 李雪源, 王俊铎. 新疆机采棉花生产关键技术模式[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 70-74. |
[4] | 李杰, 刘佳, 王亮, 张娜, 杨延龙, 郑子漂, 魏鑫, 王萌, 周子馨, 阳妮, 龚照龙, 侯献飞, 黄启秀, 阿不都卡地尔·库尔班, 张济鹏, 张鹏忠. “棉、油、糖”科技成果转化现状及应用分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 89-94. |
[5] | 扁青永, 付彦博, 祁通, 黄建, 蒲胜海, 孟阿静, 哈丽哈什·依巴提. 新疆南疆盐碱地棉花出苗影响因素及保苗措施分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(S1): 95-100. |
[6] | 李永泰, 高阿香, 李艳军, 张新宇. 脱叶剂对不同敏感性棉花品种生理特性的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2094-2102. |
[7] | 张泽华, 叶含春, 王振华, 李文昊, 李海强, 刘健. 等氮配施脲酶抑制剂对滴灌棉花生长发育和产量及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2103-2111. |
[8] | 陈瑞杰, 罗林毅, 阮向阳, 冶军. 腐植酸对滴灌棉田土壤养分和棉花产量及品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2112-2121. |
[9] | 黄铂轩, 李鹏程, 郑苍松, 孙淼, 邵晶晶, 冯卫娜, 庞朝友, 徐文修, 董合林. 不同氮素抑制剂对棉花生长发育、氮素利用与产量的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2122-2131. |
[10] | 王超, 徐文修, 李鹏程, 郑苍松, 孙淼, 冯卫娜, 邵晶晶, 董合林. 棉花苗期生长发育对土壤速效钾水平的响应[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2132-2139. |
[11] | 沈煜洋, 洪高洁, 范贵强, 陈利, 雷钧杰, 李广阔, 高海峰. 杀虫剂减施和添加助剂对红枣-小麦间作麦田蚜虫防效的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2257-2268. |
[12] | 张庭军, 李字辉, 崔豫疆, 孙孝贵, 陈芳. 微生物菌剂对棉花生长及土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(9): 2269-2276. |
[13] | 张承洁, 胡浩然, 段松江, 吴一帆, 张巨松. 氮肥与密度互作对海岛棉生长发育及产量和品质的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(8): 1821-1830. |
[14] | 董志多, 徐菲, 付秋萍, 黄建, 祁通, 孟阿静, 付彦博, 开赛尔·库尔班. 不同类型盐碱胁迫对棉花种子萌发的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(8): 1831-1844. |
[15] | 赖成霞, 杨延龙, 李春平, 玛依拉·玉素音, 王燕, 杨栋, 阳妮, 葛风伟, 汪鹏龙, 马君. 落叶型棉花黄萎病的生物学特征及药剂防治分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2024, 61(8): 2034-2042. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||