Toxicity Measurement of 12 Fungicides on Phyllosticta commonsiy from Peony

Chin Agric Sci Bull ›› 2015, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (19) : 122-125.

PDF(445 KB)
Home Journals Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin
Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin

Abbreviation (ISO4): Chin Agric Sci Bull      Editor in chief: Yulong YIN

About  /  Aim & scope  /  Editorial board  /  Indexed  /  Contact  / 
PDF(445 KB)
Chin Agric Sci Bull ›› 2015, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (19) : 122-125. DOI: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-2458

Toxicity Measurement of 12 Fungicides on Phyllosticta commonsiy from Peony

Author information +
History +

Abstract

In order to select effective chemicals to control Phyllosticta commonsii, indoor toxicity of twelve fungicides on Phyllosticta commonsii, and their relative inhibition rates at 10 mg/L against Phyllosticta commonsii were tested by the hypha growth rate in lab and toxicity measurement with five different concentrations. The results showed that, at 10 mg/L, 70% chlorothalonil WP had the strongest relative inhibition rate against Phyllosticta commonsii, with the relative inhibition rate of (65.19±2.80)%; then was the relative inhibition rate of the 80% mancozeb, which was (64.81±4.49)%, the relative inhibitory rate of 32% YBJ was the lowest, which was (25.56+4.01)%. The results indicated that in laboratory, eight kinds of fungicide of the test concentration had a certain inhibition effect on the growth of Phyllosticta commonsii. Muldewcarbendazim (50%) showed the best effect on the Phyllosticta commonsii, its EC50 value was only 2.6268 mg/L, the following one was chlorothalonil WP (70%), its EC50 value was 2.9781 mg/L. In addition carbendazim and hymexazol also had effective inhibition. The study provided the basis for controlling Phyllosticta commonsii in field.

Key words

Phyllosticta commonsii; the relative inhibition rate; toxicity measurement; fungicide

Cite this article

Download Citations
Toxicity Measurement of 12 Fungicides on Phyllosticta commonsiy from Peony[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin. 2015, 31(19): 122-125 https://doi.org/10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.2014-2458

References

[1] 姜潇.牡丹皮药理作用的研究进展[J].中国新医药,2004,3(8):110.
[2] 罗宁.充分认识牡丹价值,发展牡丹事业[J].中国园林,2012,28(3):99-101.
[3] 李建华,陈丽丽,赵阳,等.牡丹的综合利用与发展方向[J].内蒙古林业,2013(1):26-27.
[4] 关云霄,胡珂,贺春玲,等.牡丹叶部病害的识别特征[J].安徽农业科学,2014,42(11):3265-3267/3270.
[5] 郭敏,徐中青,高智谋.防治牡丹根腐病的有效药剂筛选[J].植物保护,2009,35(5):135-138.
[6] 吴玉柱,季延平,刘慇,等.6种生防真菌、 细菌防治牡丹根腐病的研究[J].山东林业科技,2004(6):39-40.
[7] 吴玉柱,季延平,李宪臣,等.牡丹根腐病药剂防治试验[J].林业实用技术,2004(11):28-29.
[8] 吴玉柱,季延平,刘慇,等.牡丹红斑病的研究[J].林业科学研究,2005,18(6):711-716.
[9] 易图永,吕长平,李璐.长沙地区荷泽牡丹病害发生规律及防治药剂筛选[J].中国农业通报,2006,22(9):356-359.
[10] 代玉民,甘欣勇,王海燕.菏泽牡丹主要病害控制技术研究[J].山东林业科技,2012(2):37,78-80.
[11] 房丽君,徐卫平,贾明贵.牡丹褐斑病的研究及防治[J].北方园艺,1997(116):3.
[12] 权淑静,武海燕,张改霞,等.不同杀菌剂对牡丹绒边胶盘孢的室内毒力测定[J].农药,2011,50(7):520-521,528.
[13] 段亚冰.牡丹叶斑病病原真菌鉴定及生物学特性研究[D].河南:河南科技大学,2009:1-67.
[14] 杨瑞先,王祖华,叶文雨.洛阳牡丹、 芍药 4种真菌性病害鉴定[J].亚热带农业研究,2010,6(2):102-105.
[15] 杨瑞先,刘萍,方站民,等.牡丹病害研究现状及展望[J].河南农业科学,2010(11):139-143.
[16] 代玉民,甘欣勇,王海燕.菏泽牡丹主要病害控制技术研究[J].山东林业科技,2012,42(2):78-80,37.
[17] 房丽君,徐卫平,贾明贵.牡丹褐斑病研究及防治[J].北方园艺,1997(5):3.
[18] 廖伟超,刘全信,苏百童,等.牡丹红斑病、 炭疽病及病毒病的发生与防治[J].农技服务,2012,29(6):708-709.
[19] 吴玉柱,季延平,刘慇,等.牡丹红斑病的研究[J].林业科学研究,2005,18(6):711-716.
[20] 范鸿雁,谢艺贤,张辉强.几种杀菌剂对香蕉枯萎病菌的室内毒力测定[J].农药,2004,43(3):142-143.
[21] 胡秀荣,鹿连明,蒲占湑,等.7种杀菌剂对柑橘炭疽病菌的室内毒力测定[J].中国农学通报,2010,26(11):272-275.
PDF(445 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/