生物修复剂和杀菌剂对Priobye森林草原春小麦的保护作用[j]。水分缺乏条件下的活动

N. G. Vlasenko*, V. Pavlyushin, O. I. Teplyakova, O. Kulagin, D. Morozov
{"title":"生物修复剂和杀菌剂对Priobye森林草原春小麦的保护作用[j]。水分缺乏条件下的活动","authors":"N. G. Vlasenko*, V. Pavlyushin, O. I. Teplyakova, O. Kulagin, D. Morozov","doi":"10.31993/2308-6459-2022-105-4-15357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The effectiveness of chemical, fungal and bacterial fungicide treatments of spring soft wheat seeds and stands against major diseases was compared on leached chernozem of Novosibirsk region in 2021. Biological preparations including Sternifag, WP (Trichoderma harzianum) showed effect as early as in the tillering phase. The biologicals’ effectiveness in root rot suppression was comparable to Scarlet, ME (imazalil+tebuconazole) and amounted to 62–64 %, while Sternifag, WP halved the disease development. By the end of the growing season, all treatments, including the chemical one, equally suppressed root rot development; the best option was Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (Bacillus subtilis) with biological efficiency of 38 %. In the case of severe pressure by Septoria blotch (33 % in control), the most effective treatment was spraying the crop on the earing stage with Titul 390, KKR (propiconazole), which reduced the incidence of Septoria blotch by 84.3 %, while biologicals had no effect. The powdery mildew was best suppressed by seed treatment with Scarlet, ME (73.9 %), and the brown rust was best suppressed by Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (78.8 %). The vegetation treatments inhibited the powdery mildew by 41–54 % but didn’t show a reliable effect against the brown rust. Seed treatment with microbial fungicides increased soil cellulolytic activity by 1.5–1.8 times while chemical disinfectant reduced it. The amount of plant residues decreased by 2.5–2.8 times due to the application of Sternifag, WP. The greatest increase in grain yield was obtained due to chemical fungicides - 0.64 t/ha, while biological preparations resulted in additional 0.25–0.33 t/ha.","PeriodicalId":20414,"journal":{"name":"PLANT PROTECTION NEWS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protection of spring wheat with biopreparations and fungicides in the forest steppe of Priobye: II. Activity under conditions of moisture deficiency\",\"authors\":\"N. G. Vlasenko*, V. Pavlyushin, O. I. Teplyakova, O. Kulagin, D. Morozov\",\"doi\":\"10.31993/2308-6459-2022-105-4-15357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The effectiveness of chemical, fungal and bacterial fungicide treatments of spring soft wheat seeds and stands against major diseases was compared on leached chernozem of Novosibirsk region in 2021. Biological preparations including Sternifag, WP (Trichoderma harzianum) showed effect as early as in the tillering phase. The biologicals’ effectiveness in root rot suppression was comparable to Scarlet, ME (imazalil+tebuconazole) and amounted to 62–64 %, while Sternifag, WP halved the disease development. By the end of the growing season, all treatments, including the chemical one, equally suppressed root rot development; the best option was Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (Bacillus subtilis) with biological efficiency of 38 %. In the case of severe pressure by Septoria blotch (33 % in control), the most effective treatment was spraying the crop on the earing stage with Titul 390, KKR (propiconazole), which reduced the incidence of Septoria blotch by 84.3 %, while biologicals had no effect. The powdery mildew was best suppressed by seed treatment with Scarlet, ME (73.9 %), and the brown rust was best suppressed by Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (78.8 %). The vegetation treatments inhibited the powdery mildew by 41–54 % but didn’t show a reliable effect against the brown rust. Seed treatment with microbial fungicides increased soil cellulolytic activity by 1.5–1.8 times while chemical disinfectant reduced it. The amount of plant residues decreased by 2.5–2.8 times due to the application of Sternifag, WP. The greatest increase in grain yield was obtained due to chemical fungicides - 0.64 t/ha, while biological preparations resulted in additional 0.25–0.33 t/ha.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLANT PROTECTION NEWS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLANT PROTECTION NEWS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31993/2308-6459-2022-105-4-15357\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLANT PROTECTION NEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31993/2308-6459-2022-105-4-15357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在2021年新西伯利亚地区浸出黑钙土上,比较了化学、真菌和细菌杀菌剂对春软小麦种子和小麦主要病害的防治效果。包括Sternifag、WP (Trichoderma harzianum)在内的生物制剂早在分蘖期就显示出效果。这些生物制剂对根腐病的抑制效果与Scarlet, ME (imazalil+tebuconazole)相当,达到62 - 64%,而Sternifag, WP将根腐病的发展减半。在生长季节结束时,所有处理,包括化学处理,都同样抑制了根腐病的发展;最佳方案为Scarlet、ME + Vitaplan、WP (Bacillus subtilis),生物效率为38%。在稻瘟病严重的情况下(对照33%),最有效的处理方法是在穗期喷施泰图尔390、KKR(丙环唑),可使稻瘟病发病率降低84.3%,而生物制剂则没有效果。对白粉病的抑制效果以猩红、ME为佳(73.9%),对褐锈病的抑制效果以猩红、ME + Vitaplan、WP为佳(78.8%)。植被处理对白粉病的抑制作用为41% ~ 54%,但对褐锈病的抑制作用不明显。用微生物杀菌剂处理种子可使土壤的纤维素分解活性提高1.5 ~ 1.8倍,而化学消毒剂可使土壤的纤维素分解活性降低。施施Sternifag, WP后植物残量减少2.5 ~ 2.8倍。化学杀菌剂增产效果最好,为0.64 t/ha,生物制剂增产效果最好,为0.25 ~ 0.33 t/ha。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Protection of spring wheat with biopreparations and fungicides in the forest steppe of Priobye: II. Activity under conditions of moisture deficiency
The effectiveness of chemical, fungal and bacterial fungicide treatments of spring soft wheat seeds and stands against major diseases was compared on leached chernozem of Novosibirsk region in 2021. Biological preparations including Sternifag, WP (Trichoderma harzianum) showed effect as early as in the tillering phase. The biologicals’ effectiveness in root rot suppression was comparable to Scarlet, ME (imazalil+tebuconazole) and amounted to 62–64 %, while Sternifag, WP halved the disease development. By the end of the growing season, all treatments, including the chemical one, equally suppressed root rot development; the best option was Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (Bacillus subtilis) with biological efficiency of 38 %. In the case of severe pressure by Septoria blotch (33 % in control), the most effective treatment was spraying the crop on the earing stage with Titul 390, KKR (propiconazole), which reduced the incidence of Septoria blotch by 84.3 %, while biologicals had no effect. The powdery mildew was best suppressed by seed treatment with Scarlet, ME (73.9 %), and the brown rust was best suppressed by Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (78.8 %). The vegetation treatments inhibited the powdery mildew by 41–54 % but didn’t show a reliable effect against the brown rust. Seed treatment with microbial fungicides increased soil cellulolytic activity by 1.5–1.8 times while chemical disinfectant reduced it. The amount of plant residues decreased by 2.5–2.8 times due to the application of Sternifag, WP. The greatest increase in grain yield was obtained due to chemical fungicides - 0.64 t/ha, while biological preparations resulted in additional 0.25–0.33 t/ha.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信