Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences ›› 2022, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (5): 1144-1155.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.05.013
• Plant Protection·Microbes·Storage and Preservation Processing • Previous Articles Next Articles
TAN Yixi1(), FU Kaiyun2(
), JIA Zunzun2, LI Aimei1, DING Xinhua2, Tursun Ahemat2, FENG Hongzu1, GUO Wenchao2(
)
Received:
2021-12-01
Online:
2022-05-20
Published:
2022-06-09
Correspondence author:
FU Kaiyun, GUO Wenchao
Supported by:
谈钇汐1(), 付开赟2(
), 贾尊尊2, 李爱梅1, 丁新华2, 吐尔逊·阿合买提2, 冯宏祖1, 郭文超2(
)
通讯作者:
付开赟,郭文超
作者简介:
谈钇汐(1997-),男,江苏人,硕士研究生,研究方向为资源利用与植物保护,(E-mail) 657747590@qq.com
基金资助:
CLC Number:
TAN Yixi, FU Kaiyun, JIA Zunzun, LI Aimei, DING Xinhua, Tursun Ahemat, FENG Hongzu, GUO Wenchao. Evaluation of Trap Colour, Hanging Height and Position on the Effectiveness of Trapping Tuta absoluta(meyrick)[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(5): 1144-1155.
谈钇汐, 付开赟, 贾尊尊, 李爱梅, 丁新华, 吐尔逊·阿合买提, 冯宏祖, 郭文超. 诱捕器颜色、悬挂高度与位置对番茄潜叶蛾诱捕效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(5): 1144-1155.
Fig.1 Proportion of lured T.absoluta adults of four different colors of sex pheromone traps Note:Proportion of trapped adults per sex pheromone trap per day (mean±SE, n=4).Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among colors of sex pheromone traps at P<0.05 level (One-way ANOVA); Pink line indicates theoretical value (25%) of percent of trapped adults
Fig.2 Number of trapped T.absoluta adults of four different colors of sex pheromone traps Note:Number of trapped adults per sex pheromone trap per day (mean±SE, n=5×3); Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among colors of sex pheromone traps at P<0.05 level (One-way ANOVA)
颜色 Colour | 诱蛾量 Moth trapping quantity(头) | 诱蛾量占比 Proportion of moth trapping quantity(%) |
---|---|---|
蓝色 Blue | 65.4±10.5a | 33.09±1.03a |
绿色 Green | 59.7±10.4a | 28.88±1.24b |
黄色 Yellow | 30.9±5.6b | 16.52±0.86d |
白色 White | 47.4±8.8ab | 21.52±1.05c |
Table 1 Effects of traps with different colors on T.absoluta
颜色 Colour | 诱蛾量 Moth trapping quantity(头) | 诱蛾量占比 Proportion of moth trapping quantity(%) |
---|---|---|
蓝色 Blue | 65.4±10.5a | 33.09±1.03a |
绿色 Green | 59.7±10.4a | 28.88±1.24b |
黄色 Yellow | 30.9±5.6b | 16.52±0.86d |
白色 White | 47.4±8.8ab | 21.52±1.05c |
Fig.3 Proportion of lured T.absoluta adults of sex pheromone traps placed in three different heights Note:Proportion of trapped adults per sex pheromone trap per day (mean±SE, n=5).Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among heights of sex pheromone trap placement at P<0.05 level (One-way ANOVA); Pink line indicates theoretical value (33.3%) of percent of trapped adults
Fig.4 Number of trapped T.absoluta adults of three different heights of sex pheromone traps Note:Number of trapped adults per sex pheromone trap per day (mean±SE, n=4);Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among heights of sex pheromone trap placement at P<0.05 level (One-way ANOVA)
高度 (m) | 诱蛾量 Moth trapping quantity(头) | 诱蛾量占比 Proportion of moth trapping quantity(%) |
---|---|---|
0.5 | 125.1±22.4a | 46.96±1.59a |
1.0 | 96.1±18.5ab | 31.11±1.09b |
1.5 | 65.1±12.7b | 22.24±1.35c |
Table 2 Effects of traps with different heights on T.absoluta
高度 (m) | 诱蛾量 Moth trapping quantity(头) | 诱蛾量占比 Proportion of moth trapping quantity(%) |
---|---|---|
0.5 | 125.1±22.4a | 46.96±1.59a |
1.0 | 96.1±18.5ab | 31.11±1.09b |
1.5 | 65.1±12.7b | 22.24±1.35c |
Fig.5 Proportion of lured T.absoluta adults of sex pheromone traps placed in three different position Note:Proportion of trapped adults per sex pheromone trap per day (mean±SE, n=5).Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among positions of sex pheromone trap placement at P<0.05 level (One-way ANOVA); Pink line indicates theoretical value (33.3%) of percent of trapped adults
Fig.6 Number of trapped T.absoluta adults of three different positions of sex pheromone traps Note:Number of trapped adults per sex pheromone trap per day (mean±SE, n=4);Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among positions of sex pheromone trap placement at P<0.05 level (One-way ANOVA)
悬挂位置 Suspension | 诱蛾量 Moth trapping quantity(头) | 诱蛾量占比 Proportion of moth trapping quantity(%) |
---|---|---|
通风口 Vent | 103.0±15.8a | 41.90±1.01a |
出入口 Entrance and exit | 66.6±10.0b | 28.19±1.06b |
远离通风口 Farfrom vent | 71.4±10. | 29.91±1.09b |
Table 3 Effects of traps with different positions on T.absoluta
悬挂位置 Suspension | 诱蛾量 Moth trapping quantity(头) | 诱蛾量占比 Proportion of moth trapping quantity(%) |
---|---|---|
通风口 Vent | 103.0±15.8a | 41.90±1.01a |
出入口 Entrance and exit | 66.6±10.0b | 28.19±1.06b |
远离通风口 Farfrom vent | 71.4±10. | 29.91±1.09b |
Fig. 7 Three parts of the plant at the vent are endangered by the tomato leaf moth Note:Two objects were investigated for each position: the number of holes and the number of larvae (mean ± SE, n=9).The difference of upper lowercase letters indicated significant difference between the hanging height of the trap at P< 0.05 (One-way ANOVA)
悬挂位置 Suspension | 评价指标Eraluation index | 综合评价指标 Comprehensive evaluation index | |
---|---|---|---|
孔洞数量 Hole(个) | 幼虫数量 Larva(头) | ||
通风口 Vent | 11.51±1.19a | 2.86±0.40a | 32.92 |
出入口 Entrance and exit | 6.83±0.60b | 0.49±0.15b | 3.35 |
远离通风口 Farfrom vent | 11.90±8.96a | 1.19±0.29b | 14.16 |
Table 4 Evaluation of damage status of tomato plants by T.absoluta at different locations
悬挂位置 Suspension | 评价指标Eraluation index | 综合评价指标 Comprehensive evaluation index | |
---|---|---|---|
孔洞数量 Hole(个) | 幼虫数量 Larva(头) | ||
通风口 Vent | 11.51±1.19a | 2.86±0.40a | 32.92 |
出入口 Entrance and exit | 6.83±0.60b | 0.49±0.15b | 3.35 |
远离通风口 Farfrom vent | 11.90±8.96a | 1.19±0.29b | 14.16 |
不同部位 Position | 评价对象Evaluation | 综合评价指标 Comprehensive evaluation index | |
---|---|---|---|
孔洞数量 Hole(个) | 幼虫数量 Larva(头) | ||
上部 Upper part | 4.05±0.63c | 0.62±0.30b | 2.51 |
中部 Central section | 10.19±1.63b | 0.81±0.3 | 8.25 |
下部 Lower part | 20.76±1.74a | 2.67±1.06a | 55.43 |
Table 5 Evaluation of hazard status of tomato leaf moth at different positions at the vent site
不同部位 Position | 评价对象Evaluation | 综合评价指标 Comprehensive evaluation index | |
---|---|---|---|
孔洞数量 Hole(个) | 幼虫数量 Larva(头) | ||
上部 Upper part | 4.05±0.63c | 0.62±0.30b | 2.51 |
中部 Central section | 10.19±1.63b | 0.81±0.3 | 8.25 |
下部 Lower part | 20.76±1.74a | 2.67±1.06a | 55.43 |
Note:Three plants were selected at the vent, and two objects were investigated at the upper, middle and lower parts respectively: the number of holes and larvae (mean ± SE, n=3).The difference of upper lowercase letters indicated significant difference between the hanging height of the trap at P< 0.05 (one-way ANOVA)
[1] | Campos R G. Control químico del ''minador de hojas ytallos de la papa'' (Scrobipalpula absoluta Meyrick) en elvalle del Ca ete[J]. La Revista Peruana de Entomologia, 1976, 19: 102-106. |
[2] |
Diondi A, Narciso C G R, Wan F H, et al. Ecology, worldwide spread, and management of the invasive SouthAmerican tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta: past, present, and future[J]. Annual Review Entomology, 2017, 63 (1) :239-258.
DOI URL |
[3] | 张桂芬, 刘万学, 万方浩, 等. 世界毁灭性检疫害虫番茄潜叶蛾的生物生态学及危害与控制[J]. 生物安全学报, 2018, 27(3):155-163. |
ZHANG Guifen, LIU Wanxue, WAN Fanghao, et al. Bioecology, damage and control of tomato leaf miner, a devastating quarantine pest in the world[J]. Chinese Journal of Biosafety, 2018, 27 (3) : 155-163. | |
[4] |
Campos M R, Biondi A, Adiga A, et al. From the western palaearctic region to beyond: Tuta absoluta 10 years after invading Europe[J]. Journal of Pest Science, 2017, 90(3): 787-796.
DOI URL |
[5] | 马菲, 张俊华, 于艳雪, 等. 番茄麦蛾[J]. 植物检疫, 2011, 25(5): 55-58. |
MA Fei, ZHANG Junhua, YU Yanxue, et al. Tuta absoluta(Meyricr)[J]. Plant Quarantine, 2011, 25 (5) : 55-58. | |
[6] | 李晓维, 李栋, 郭文超, 等. 番茄潜叶蛾对4种茄科植物的适应性研究[J]. 植物检疫, 2019, 33(3):1-5. |
LI Xiaowei, LI Dong, GUO Wenchao, et al. Study on adaptability of tomato leaf miner moth to four species of solanaceae[J]. Plant quarantine, 2019, 33(3):1-5. | |
[7] | Araya J E, Salazar E R. Respuesta de la polilla del tomate, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick), a insecticidas en Arica, Chile.[J]. Chileanjar, 2001, 61(4):429-435. |
[8] | 张桂芬, 马德英, 刘万学, 等. 中国新发现外来入侵害虫-南美番茄潜叶蛾(鳞翅目:麦蛾科)[J]. 生物安全学报, 2019, 28(3):200-203. |
ZHANG Guifen, MA Deying, LIU Wanxue, et al. A new invasive pest, The Tomato Leaf Miner (Lepidoptera: Mycidae), was discovered in China[J]. Chinese journal of biosafety, 2019, 28(3):200-203. | |
[9] |
ZHANG G F, Ma D Y, WANG Y S, et al. First report of the South American tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick), in China[J]. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2020, 19(7): 1912-1917.
DOI URL |
[10] | 张桂芬, 冼晓青, 张毅波, 等. 警惕南美番茄潜叶蛾 Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) 在中国扩散[J]. 植物保护, 2020, 46(2):281-286. |
ZHANG Guifen, XIAN Xiaoqing, ZHANG Yibo, et al. Be alert for the spread of Tuta Absoluta (Meyrick), a South American tomato leaf miner, in China[J]. Plant Protection, 2020, 46(2):281-286. | |
[11] |
阿米热·牙生江, 阿地力·沙塔尔, 付开赟, 等. 9种杀虫剂对番茄潜叶蛾的防治效果评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2020, 57(12):2291-2298.
DOI |
Amirre Yasj, Adil Satar, FU Kaiun, et al. Evaluation on the control effect of nine insecticides on the leaf pothionidae of Tomato[J]. Xinjiang agricultural sciences, 2020, 57(12):2291-2298. | |
[12] | 张桂芬, 张毅波, 张杰, 等. 苏云金芽孢杆菌G033A对新发南美番茄潜叶蛾的室内毒力及田间防效[J]. 中国,生物防治学报, 2020, 36(2):175-183. |
ZHANG Guifen, ZHANG Yibo, ZHANG Jie, et al. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis G033A on the virulence of bacillus thuringiensis against the newly found Leaf miner Moth of South America[J]. Chinese journal of biological control, 2020, 36 (2) : 175-183. | |
[13] | 马琳, 李晓维, 王树明, 等. 6种杀虫剂对云南地区番茄潜叶蛾的室内毒力测定[C]// .中国植物保护学会2019 年学术年会论文集, 2019. MALin, LIXiaowei, WANGShumin, et al. Indoor toxicity test of six insecticides against Tomato Leaf potholeiths in Yunnan area [C]// . Proceedings of the 2019 Annual Conference of Chinese Society for Plant Protection,2019. |
[14] |
Desneux N, Luna M G, Guillemaud T, Urbaneja A. The invasive South American tomato pinworm,Tuta absoluta,continues to spread in Afro-Eurasia and beyond:the new threat to tomato world production[J]. Journal of Pest Science, 2011, 84(4):403-408.
DOI URL |
[15] |
Biondi A, Guedes R N C, Wan F H, Desneux N. Ecology, worldwide spread,and management of the invasive South American tomato pinworm,Tuta absoluta:past,present,and future[J]. Annual Review of Entomology, 2017, 63(1):239-258.
DOI URL |
[16] | 孙猛, 郅军锐, 姚加加, 等. 不同颜色粘虫板对切花月季上西花蓟马诱集效果[J]. 北方园艺, 2010,(10):186-188. |
SUN Meng, ZHI Junrui, YAO Jiajia, et al. Trapping effect of different colors of Armyworm boards on Thrips occidentalis on cut Rose[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2010,(10) :186-188. | |
[17] | 于法辉, 夏长秀, 李春玲, 等, 不同色板对柑橘园蓟马的诱集效果及蓝板的诱捕效果[J]. 昆虫知识, 2010, 47(5):945-949. |
YU Fahui, XIA Changxiu, LI Chunling, et al. Trapping effects of different color boards and blue boards on Thrips in citrus gardens[J]. Entomological knowledge, 2010, 47(5):945-949. | |
[18] | 欧善生, 简峰, 苏桂花, 等. 丽花蓟马对不同颜色的趋性及田间诱杀效果研究[J]. 植物保护, 2012, 38(6):174-177. |
OU Shansheng, JIAN Feng, SU Guihua, et al. Study on the effect of different color of thrips flower on the trapping and killing effect in field[J]. Plant protection, 2012, 38(6) :174-177. | |
[19] | 宫亚军, 石宝才, 魏书军, 等, 不同色板对Q型烟粉虱成虫的诱杀效果研究[J]. 北方园艺, 2011,(6):157-158. |
GONG Yajun, SHI Baocai, WEI Shujun, et al. Effects of different color boards on the trapping and killing of bemisia tabaci adults[J]. Northern Horticulture, 2011,(6) : 157-158. | |
[20] | 郝立武, 穆鸿雁, 刘保申, 等, 不同颜色色板对春玉米田灰飞虱的诱集效果[J]. 山东农业科学, 2012, 44(1):99-102. |
HAO Liwu, MU Hongyan, LIU Baoshen, et al. Effects of different color boards on trapping effect of grey planthopper in spring maize field[J]. Journal of shandong agricultural sciences, 2012, 44(1) : 99-102. | |
[21] | 江春, 程建伟, 许飞云. 不同黄板处理对美洲斑潜蝇诱杀效果比较[J]. 晋中学院学报, 2013,(3):6265. |
JIANG Chun, CHENG Jianwei, XU Feiyun. Comparison of trapping and killing effects of different yellow plate treatments on Libria sativa[J]. Journal of Jinzhong University, 2013,(3) : 6265. | |
[22] | 刘欢欢, 黄海棠, 朱金峰, 等. 不同黄板悬挂高度及密度对防治烟蚜及烟草病毒病的影响[J]. 江西农业学报, 2015, 27(7):76-79. |
LIU Huanhuan, HUANG Haitang, ZHU Jinfeng, et al. Effects of hanging height and density of yellow plate on the control of tobacco aphid and tobacco virus disease[J]. Acta agriculturae jiangxi, 2015, 27(7):76-79. | |
[23] | 武海斌, 孙杨, 宫庆涛, 等, 不同颜色色板对樱桃园果蝇成虫的田间诱集效果研究[J]. 山东农业科学, 2016, 48(1):99-102. |
WU Haibin, SUN Yang, GONG Qintao, et al. Effects of different color boards on field trapping of drosophila melanogaster adults in Cherry orchard[J]. Shandong agricultural sciences, 2016, 48(1):99-102. | |
[24] | 隋学良, 许志春, 田呈明, 不同颜色粘虫板对多毛小蠹和皱小意的诱集效果[J]. 生态科学, 2011, 30(2):107-110. |
SUI Xueliang, XU Zhichun, TIAN Chengming, Trapping effect of different colors of Armyworm board on Tomonicus hirsutum and Tomonicus hirsutum[J]. Acta ecologica sinica, 2011, 30(2):107-110. | |
[25] | 孙晓玲, 蔡晓明, 王国昌, 等. 茶园中广翅蜡蝉成虫对不同颜色的趋向选择[J]. 茶叶科学, 2011, 31(2):95-99. |
SUN Xiaoling, CAI Xiaoming, WANG Guochang, et al. Trend selection of different colors by adults of cerascicada in tea garden[J]. Tea science, 2011, 31(2) : 95-99. | |
[26] | 秦焕荣, 刘珠珠, 贺亚红, 等. 粘虫板不同颜色和悬挂高度对葡萄园绿盲蝽的诱集效果[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2020, 40(8):57-59. |
QIN Huanrong, LIU Zhuzhu, HE Yahong, et al. Trapping effect of different color and hanging height of Armyworm board on Lygus lucorum in vineyard[J]. Plant Protection Guide of China Publication, 2020, 40 (8) : 57-59. | |
[27] | 王玮, 王胜永, 李宝辉, 等. 粘虫板不同挂板方式对苹果绣线菊蚜诱杀效果的影响[J]. 中国果树, 2019,(5):77-81. |
WANG Wei, WANG Shengyong, LI Baohui, et al. Effects of Different hanging boards of Armyworm on the trapping effect of Helicoid aphid[J]. Chinese fruit Trees, 2019,(5) : 77-81. | |
[28] | 陈哲, 徐芳玲, 谢莉华, 等. 粘虫板颜色和悬挂方式对蓝莓果蝇引诱效果分析[J]. 中国森林病虫, 2017, 36(2):13-15. |
CHEN Zhe, XU Fangling, XIE Lihua, et al. Effects of color and hanging pattern of armyworm plate on the attraction effect of blueberry drosophila[J]. Chinese journal of forest diseases and insect pests, 2017, 36(2):13-15. | |
[29] | 黄鹏, 陈汉鑫, 姚锦爱, 等. 香蕉花蓟马对不同颜色的敏感性及色板田间悬挂组合选择[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(1):141-145. |
HUANG Peng, CHEN Hanxin, YAO Jinai, et al. Sensitivity of Banana flower thrips to different colors and selection of color plate combination in field suspension[J]. China Agricultural Science TongIn 2016, 32 (1) : 141-145. | |
[30] | 李智念, 陈力, 向苹苇, 等. 粘虫板不同颜色和悬挂高度对桑椹瘿蚊诱集效果的影响[J]. 现代农业科技, 2018,(22):86-87. |
LI Zhinian, CHEN Li, XIANG Pingwei, et al. Effects of different colors and hanging height of armyworm plate on trapping effect of Mulberry gall midge[J]. Modern Agricultural Science and Technology, 2018,(22):86-87. | |
[31] | 周淑香, 李丽娟, 鲁新, 等. 诱捕器类型和悬挂高度对二化螟诱集效果的影响[J]. 东北农业科学, 2020, 45(2):32-35. |
ZHOU Shuxiang, LI Lijuan, LU Xin, et al. Effects of trap type and suspension height on trapping effect of Chilo suppressalis[J]. Northeast Agricultural Division Science, 2020, (2) : 32-35 | |
[32] | 陈利民, 何天骏, 吴全聪, 等. 诱捕器设置高度对豆野螟诱捕效果的影响[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2018, 38(5):48-50. |
CHEN Limin, HE Tianjun, WU Quancong, et al. Effect of height of trap on trapping effect of medinia furnacalis[J]. Plant protection guide of China, 2018, 38(5):48-50. | |
[33] | 王玉兰, 唐丽, 岳朝阳, 等. 性诱剂不同悬挂高度及田间风向对梨小食心虫诱集效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2011, 48(7):1283-1286. |
WANG Yulan, TANG Li, YUE Chaoyang, et al. Effects of different suspension heights of sexual attractants and field wind direction on the attractant effect of Pyrus pyrrhiza[J]. Xinjiang agricultural sciences, 2011, 48(7):1283-1286. | |
[34] | 蒋耀智, 曾玲, 梁广文, 等. 悬挂高度和位置对性诱剂诱集柑桔潜叶蛾雄虫效果的影响[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2011, 48(1):207-211. |
JIANG Yaozhi, ZENG Ling, LIANG Guangwen, et al. Effects of suspension height and position on the effect of sexual attractant on male Citrus leaf miner moth[J]. Applied Entomology Report, 2011, 48(1) :207-211. | |
[35] | 汪燕琴, 戚利潮, 李晓刚, 等. 桔小实蝇诱捕器悬挂高度对诱捕效果的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2009,(3):548-550. |
WANG Yanqin, QI Lichao, LI Xiaogang, et al. Effects of suspension height on trapping effect of Bactrocera dorsalis[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2009,(3):548-550. | |
[36] | 李青梅, 任平太. 日光温室通风口覆盖防虫网对几种害虫的控制效果[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2007,(1):14-16. |
LI Qingmei, REN Pingtai. Effect of insect control net covering the vent of solar greenhouse on several pests[J]. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2007,(1):14-16. | |
[37] | 张桂芬, 张毅波, 刘万学, 等. 诱捕器颜色和悬挂高度对番茄潜叶蛾诱捕效果的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(11):2343-2354. |
ZHANG Guifen, ZHANG Yibo, LIU Wanxue, et al. Effects of trap color and suspension height on the trapping effect of Tomato leaf miner Moth (Lycidoptera: Lycidoptera)[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(11):2343-2354. |
[1] | LIU Shengxue, LI Siqi, WANG Xiaodong, YANG Desong. Diversity analysis of dsRNA in Alternaria solani [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(12): 3057-3064. |
[2] | LU Yanhong, HAO Jinhui, ZHAN Faqiang, WANG Ning, HOU Xinqiang, YANG Rong, BAO Huifang, LONG Xuanqi. Isolation of Pathogenic Bacteria and Screening and Identification of Antagonistic Bacteria of Black Spot of Fragrant pear [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(10): 2538-2545. |
[3] | FU Kaiyun, LI Aimei, DING Xinhua, JIA Zunzun, Ahmat Tuerxun, FENG Hongzu, GUO Wenchao. Evaluation of 10 Kinds of Insecticides on the Control Effect of Tomato Leaf Miner [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(5): 1165-1172. |
[4] | LI Guohua, WANG Xiaomin, ZHAO Yufei, HU Xinhua, FU Jinjun, GAO Yanming, LI Jianshe. Evaluation of Field Resistance of 180 Tomato Germplasm Resources to Three Major Leaf Diseases [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(4): 741-755. |
[5] | SUN Xiaojun, ZHOU Tingting, Yushanjing Maimaiti, HE Wei, LUO Wenfang, XU Jianjun, Abudusaimaiti Tuersong. Identification of the Viral Pathogens Infecting Tomato [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(1): 99-106. |
[6] | HE Wei, YANG Hua, XU Jian-jun, SUN Xiao-jun. Effect Evaluation of the Application of Pulse Type Smoke Machine in Greenhouse Control of Tomato Diseases and Pests [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2017, 54(12): 2255-2261. |
[7] | HE Wei, XU Jian-jun, YANG Hua, SUN Xiao-jun. Screening and Identification of Broomrape Pathogenic Bacteria in Processing Tomato Fields in Xinjiang [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2018, 55(6): 1124-1132. |
[8] | HUANG Wei, SONG Bo, ZHANG Lijuan, WANG Bo, WANG Wei. Identification of Bacterial Wilt Antagonistic Bacteria JK19 and Detection of Its Antibacterial Activity [J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 58(7): 1355-1364. |
Viewed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Full text 78
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract 847
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||