苜蓿根腐病生防真菌筛选鉴定及其防治效果研究

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.04.005

草地学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (4): 825-831.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.04.005

苜蓿根腐病生防真菌筛选鉴定及其防治效果研究

曾亮¹, 柴继宽¹, 赵桂琴¹, 李春杰², 刘文辉³, 姚拓¹

1. 甘肃农业大学草业学院, 草业生态系统教育部重点实验室, 甘肃省草业工程实验室, 中-美草地畜牧业可持续研究中心, 甘肃兰州 730070;
2. 兰州大学草地农业科技学院, 甘肃兰州 730020;
3. 青海省畜牧兽医科学院, 青海西宁 810016

收稿日期:2019-05-21 修回日期:2019-07-23 出版日期:2019-08-15 发布日期:2019-09-26
通讯作者: 姚拓
作者简介:曾亮(1983-),男,甘肃兰州人,助理研究员,博士,主要从事牧草病理及草地微生物资源研究,E-mail:steve-1314@163.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目（31402134）；甘肃农业大学盛彤笙科技创新基金项目（GSAU-STS-1330）；青海省青藏高原优良牧草种质资源利用重点实验室开放课题项目（2017-ZJ-Y12）资助

Screening,Identification and Control Effect of Biocontrol Fungi Against Alfalfa Root Rot

ZENG Liang¹, CHAI Ji-kuan¹, ZHAO Gui-qin¹, LI Chun-jie², LIU Wen-hui³, YAO Tuo¹

1. College of Grassland Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecosystem, Ministry of Education, Sino-US Center for Grazingland Ecosystem Sustainability, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730070, China;
2. College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province 730020, China;
3. Qinghai Academy of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Xining, Qinghai Province 810016, China

Received:2019-05-21 Revised:2019-07-23 Online:2019-08-15 Published:2019-09-26

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 根腐病是苜蓿（Medicago sativa）生产中的重要限制性病害，应用生物技术对其进行防治对环境友好型可持续农业具有重要意义。本研究从不同地区苜蓿根际土壤中分离得到的95株真菌中筛选出了2株对根腐病病原菌抑菌率较高的菌株，经鉴定，2株拮抗真菌ZY56和GY37分别为哈茨木霉（Trichoderma harzianum）和康宁木霉（Trichoderma koningii）。对2株菌株的拮抗能力及盆栽防效的测定结果表明：2株菌株对4种镰刀菌（Fusarium spp.）均有较好的抑制效果，其7 d抑菌率在54.9%~75.3%之间，其中ZY56对尖孢镰刀菌（F.oxysporum）和半裸镰刀菌（F.semitectum）的抑菌率较高，而GY37对燕麦镰刀菌（F.avenaceum）和腐皮镰刀菌（F.solani）的抑菌效果更好；ZY56对盆栽苜蓿根腐病的防效显著高于多菌灵，达到66.4%，且促进生根效果明显，GY37也具有良好的防治效果，防效为55.1%。

关键词: 苜蓿, 根腐病, 生防真菌, 筛选鉴定, 防效

Abstract: Root rot is one of the main diseases in alfalfa production. The application of biocontrol technology is of great significance to environmentally friendly sustainable agriculture. Two strains with better antagonistic effect were screened from 95 strains through the confrontation culture experiment which was isolated from alfalfa rhizosphere soil in different planting areas. Two antagonistic fungi ZY56 and GY37 were identified as Trichoderma harzianum and Trichoderma koningii. The results of 2 strains's antagonistic activity and potted plant control effect showed that:the two strains had good antagonistic effect on four kinds of Fusarium,the inhibitory rate ranged from 54.9%to 75.3%,among them,ZY56 has a higher inhibitory rate against F. oxysporum and F. semidaricum,while GY37 has a better bacteriostasis effect against F. avenaceum and F. solani. The control effect of ZY56 on alfalfa root rot was significantly higher than that of carbendazim (66.4%),and the promoting rooting effect is obvious. GY37 also has good control effect,and the control effect is 55.1%.

Key words: Alfalfa, Root rot, Biocontrol fungi, Screening and identification, Control effect

中图分类号:

S432

曾亮, 柴继宽, 赵桂琴, 李春杰, 刘文辉, 姚拓. 苜蓿根腐病生防真菌筛选鉴定及其防治效果研究[J]. 草地学报, 2019, 27(4): 825-831.

ZENG Liang, CHAI Ji-kuan, ZHAO Gui-qin, LI Chun-jie, LIU Wen-hui, YAO Tuo. Screening,Identification and Control Effect of Biocontrol Fungi Against Alfalfa Root Rot[J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(4): 825-831.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2019.04.005

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/CN/Y2019/V27/I4/825

参考文献

[1] 黄宁,卢欣石. 苜蓿叶部与根部病害研究的评价进展[J]. 中国农学通报,2012,28(5):1-7
[2] 丛丽丽,康俊梅,张铁军,等. 苜蓿镰刀菌根腐病病原菌的分离鉴定与致病性分析[J]. 草地学报,2017,25(4):857-865
[3] Xiao K,Kinkel L L,Samac D A. Biological control of Phytophthora root rots on alfalfa and soybean with Streptomyces[J]. Biological Control,2002,23:285-295
[4] Thomas F P. Chemical and biological control of Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) in wheat and alfalfa in North Americ[J]. Weed Science,1984,32:18-25
[5] Wiggins B E,Kinkel L L. Green manures and crop sequences influence alfalfa root rot and pathogen inhibitory activity among soil-borne streptomycetes[J]. Plant Soil,2005,268:271-283
[6] Couture L,Dhont C,Chalifour F P,et al. Fusarium root and crown rot in alfalfa subjected to autumn harvests[J]. Plant Science,2002,82:621-624
[7] 郭玉霞,管永卓,张金锋,等. 根腐病原镰刀菌-苜蓿品种-土壤水分互作对种苗生长的影响[J]. 草地学报,2015,23(3):623-631
[8] Giulia A,Marina C,Davide P. Resistance to dicarboximide fungicides in Stemphylium vesicarium of Italian Pear Orchards[J]. European Journal of Plant Pathology,2005,113(2):211-219
[9] Michaela L,Matthias K,Matthias H. Fungicide resistance phenotypes of botrytis cinerea isolates from commercial vineyards in south west Germany[J]. Journal of Phytopathology,2010,159(1):63-65
[10] 郭一丹,李强,王保通,等. 陕西省小麦白粉菌对三唑酮的抗药性监测[J]. 麦类作物学报,2012,32(2):370-373
[11] Dilfuza E,Zulfiya K,Kakhramon D. Bacteria able to control foot and root rot and to promote growth of cucumber in salinated soils[J]. Biology and Fertility of Soils,2011,47(2):197-205
[12] Sundaramoorthy S,Raguchander T,Ragupathi N,et al. Combinatorial effect of endophytic and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria against wilt disease of Capsicum annum L. caused by Fusarium solani[J]. Biological Control,2012,60(1):59-67
[13] Mnif I,Hammami I,Ali T M,et al. Antifungal efficiency of a lipopeptide biosurfactant derived from Bacillus subtilis SPB1 versus the phytopathogenic fungus, Fusarium solani[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,2015,(7):1-11
[14] 李兴龙,李彦忠. 土传病害生物防治研究进展[J]. 草业学报,2015,24(3):204-212
[15] 胡进玲,汪治刚,徐娜,等. 防治紫花苜蓿真菌病害的生防菌筛选[J]. 草业学报,2017,26(6):145-152
[16] 刘莎莎,程园园,张丹,等. 两株紫花苜蓿根际芽孢杆菌的筛选及生防效果研究[J]. 草业学报,2015,24(9):96-103
[17] 王兰英,徐林波,何勇,等. 紫花苜蓿根腐性病害生防放线菌的分离与筛选[J]. 安徽农业科学,2010,38(15):7944-7946
[18] 程丽娟,薛泉宏. 微生物学实验技术[M]. 西安:世界图书出版社,2000,285
[19] 孙敬祖,薛泉宏,唐明,等. 放线菌制剂对连作草莓根区微生物区系的影响及其防病促生作用[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版,2009,37(12):153-158
[20] 方中达. 植病研究方法[M]. 北京:中国农业出版社,1998,132-140
[21] 陈书华,李梅,蒋细良,等. 防治人参锈腐病木霉菌的筛选及防治效果[J]. 中国生物防治学报,2016,32(2):265-269
[22] 魏景超. 真菌鉴定手册[M]. 上海:上海科学技术出版社,1979,492-493
[23] 孔华忠. 中国真菌志第三十五卷[M]. 北京:科学出版社,2007,160-162
[24] White T J,Bruns T,Lee S,et al. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics/PCR Protocols:a Guide to Methods and Applications[M]. San Diego:Academic Press,1990,315-322
[25] 张丽荣,陈杭,康萍芝,等. 木霉制剂在西瓜土壤中定殖能力及其对根际土壤微生物区系的影响[J]. 北方园艺,2018,(21):49-53
[26] 黄宁. 苜蓿匍柄霉叶斑病和镰刀菌根腐病抗性评价及标准对照品种的筛选[D]. 北京:北京林业大学,2012,34
[27] 郭玉霞,张红瑞,管永卓,等. 根腐病原镰刀菌-品种-土壤水分互作对苜蓿保护酶活性的影响[J]. 草地学报,2015,23(6):1336-1342
[28] Uddin W,Knous T R. Fusarium species associated with crown rot of alfalfa in Nevada[J]. Plant Disease,1991,75(1):51-55
[29] 李敏权,柴兆祥,李金花,等. 定西地区苜蓿根和根颈腐烂病病原研究[J]. 草地学报,2003,11(1):83-86
[30] 王多成,孟有儒,李文明,等. 苜蓿根腐病病原菌的分离及鉴定[J]. 草业科学,2005,22(10):78-81
[31] 吴利民,陆宁海,郎剑锋,等. 哈茨木霉TR-12对番茄褐斑病菌的拮抗作用[J]. 西北农业学报,2006,15(6):186-188
[32] 陈方新,齐永霞,戴庆怀,等. 哈茨木霉对几种植物病原真菌的拮抗作用及其抗药性测定[J]. 中国农学通报,2005,21(11):314-317
[33] Sivan A. The possible role of competition between Trichoderma harzianum and Fusarium oxysporum on rhizosphere colonization[J]. Phytopathology,1989,79(2):198-203
[34] Dennis C,Webster. Antagonistic properties of species-groups of TrichodermaⅡ[J]. Hyphal interaction,1971,(57):363-369
[35] Horace G C,Richard H C,Fanist G,et al. 6-pentyl-α-pyrone from:Trichoderma harzianum:Its planter growth inhibitory and antimicrobial properties[J]. Agricultural Biological Chemistry,1986,50(11):943-945
[36] Bissett J. A revision of the genus Trichoderma I:section Longibrachiatum soct. nov[J]. Can J Bot,1984,(62):924-931
[37] Bertagnolli B L,Daly S,Sinclair J B. Antimycotic compounds from the plant pathogen rhizoctonia solani and its antagonist Trichoderma harzianum[J]. Phytopathol,1998,146:131-135
[38] 徐同,柳良好. 木霉几丁质酶及其对植物病原真菌的拮抗作用[J]. 植物病理学报,2002,32(5):97-102
[39] Lad Y. Biological control of grape grey mold by Trichoderma harzianum[J]. Crop Protect,1994,13:35-38
[40] 柳良好,徐同. 哈茨木霉几丁质酶诱导及其对水稻纹枯病的拮抗作用[J]. 植物病理学报,2003,33(4):359-363
[41] 刘连妹,钱雯霞,屈海泳. 哈茨木霉孢子悬浮液对番茄幼苗生长及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学,2007,(4):96-98
[42] 张鹤,杜国栋,宋亚楠,等. 防治草莓根腐病的木霉菌筛选、鉴定及其防病效果[J]. 沈阳农业大学学报,2015,46(6):654-660
[43] 梁志怀,魏林,郑明福,等. 哈茨木霉发酵产物对豇豆产量和品质的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学,2005,(5):38-40,43

苜蓿根腐病生防真菌筛选鉴定及其防治效果研究

Screening,Identification and Control Effect of Biocontrol Fungi Against Alfalfa Root Rot

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王静, 刘晓静, 程甜甜, 童长春, 汪雪. 不同氮效率紫花苜蓿叶特征及其产量效应研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 1941-1949.
[2]	孟宣辰, 马鹏程, 马杰, 段珍, 韩阳阳, 张吉宇. 黄土高原半干旱区紫花苜蓿覆膜垄沟和施肥效应研究[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(9): 2098-2106.
[3]	孙伟, 刘玉玲, 王德平, 赵敏, 杨合龙, 宋倩, 肖红, 王开丽, 曹婧, 戎郁萍. 补播羊草和黄花苜蓿对退化草甸植物群落特征的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1809-1817.
[4]	陈雷, 暴雪艳, 郭刚, 霍文婕, 李清宏, 许庆方, 王聪, 刘强. 单宁酸和乳酸菌对紫花苜蓿青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(8): 1853-1858.
[5]	李春萍, 邱轶辉, 夏厚胤, 谭璐娜, 许环宇, 张瀚文, 高景慧. 紫花苜蓿多父本F₁代低蒸腾及产量性状的隶属函数分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1416-1422.
[6]	李天琦, 林志玲, 卢轩, 黄佳媛, 杨宁, 沃野, 高凯, 柳小妮, 王显国. 灌溉量对科尔沁沙地紫花苜蓿土壤速效养分分布及淋失的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1454-1461.
[7]	李红, 李波, 方志坚, 杨曌, 张超, 冯成龙, 金姗姗, 王思琦, 石婉莹. 冻融和冻融+苏打盐碱复合胁迫下苜蓿幼苗的生理响应[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(7): 1469-1476.
[8]	李鹏珍, 赵得琴, 邓波, 杨军, 赵国华, 赵亮. 生物炭与干旱胁迫对接种紫花苜蓿光合效率及生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1257-1264.
[9]	邢会琴, 王春明, 金社林, 周天旺, 郭成. 山黧豆根腐病病原菌亚洲镰孢菌的分离鉴定[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1350-1356.
[10]	王文静, 麻冬梅, 赵丽娟, 马巧利. 2,4-表油菜素内酯对盐胁迫下紫花苜蓿生理指标及根系离子积累的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(6): 1363-1368.
[11]	潘新怡, 史昆, 龚攀, 韦宝, 吴欣明, 王赞. 紫花苜蓿花青苷合成的转录组分析[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 866-875.
[12]	孙雷雷, 赵桂琴, 柴继宽, 刘富渊, 聂秀美, 王军. 贮藏方式和贮藏时间对苜蓿干草霉菌数量和种类的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 884-893.
[13]	陈彩锦, 张尚沛, 师尚礼, 曾燕霞, 吴娟, 尚继红, 高婷, 张蓉. 基于GGE双标图对苜蓿品种丰产性和稳定性综合评价[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 912-918.
[14]	黄荣, 姚博, 张玉娟, 贾倩英, 李向阳, 张宏, 张振粉. 成团泛菌CQ10脂多糖对紫花苜蓿种子萌发及苗期生长的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(5): 965-971.
[15]	陈卫东, 张玉霞, 丛百明, 阿玛尔, 田永雷, 张庆昕, 杜晓艳. 钾肥对紫花苜蓿根颈丙二醛、可溶性蛋白含量与抗氧化系统的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2021, 29(4): 717-723.