Field control effect of 40% prothioconazole·tebuconazole mixture on rice sheath blight

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20231091

Abstract

Abstract:

Sheath blight is the main disease of rice. In order to clarify the control effect of the new agent 40% prothioconazole·tebuconazole suspension on rice sheath blight, Jia 67 and Xiushui 121 were used as test rice varieties, 10% Jinggangmycin A was used as the control agent, field tests were conducted. The results showed that the new agent 40% prothioconazole·tebuconazole suspension mixed with 9% pyraclostrobin microcapsule suspension had a good control effect on rice sheath blight on two rice varieties, and the control effect was consistent in the two rice varieties. There was no pesticide harm in the test of different concentrations. From the perspective of control effect, 50 mL of the new agent 40% prothioconazole·tebuconazole suspension mixed with 50 mL 9% pyraclostrobin microcapsule suspension agent for the prevention and control of rice sheath blight can be popularized and applied locally.

Key words: prothioconazole, rice sheath blight, control effect

CLC Number:

S435.115

BAI Jianping, XU Weidong, LU Qiang, YAO Zhangliang. Field control effect of 40% prothioconazole·tebuconazole mixture on rice sheath blight[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(2): 437-439.

Figures/Tables 2

References 17

[1]	金新梅, 缪家顺, 张真, 等. 浙北桐乡稻区水稻纹枯病发生流行规律研究[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2021, 41(9): 37-40, 48.
[2]	朱凤, 张燕, 易红娟, 等. 不同始病期水稻纹枯病消长动态及防治适期[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2020, 36(1): 63-69.
[3]	LEE F N. Rice sheath blight: a major rice disease[J]. Plant Disease, 1983, 67(7): 829.
[4]	CHEN J S, XUAN Y H, YI J H, et al. Progress in rice sheath blight resistance research[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2023, 14: 1141697.
[5]	陈小忠, 刘春辉, 张倩倩, 等. 水稻绿色防控下的化学防控示范比较[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(9): 1811-1812.
[6]	葛猛, 李艳朋. 不同药剂对水稻纹枯病的田间防效初探[J]. 上海农业科技, 2022(4): 116-117, 130.
[7]	姚张良, 张真, 沈小龙, 等. 多种农药对水稻主要病虫及天敌蜘蛛的影响[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2022, 42(9): 66-69.
[8]	金新梅, 张倩倩, 姚张良, 等. 桐乡市农药使用量情况调查与分析[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2020, 40(10): 114-116, 105.
[9]	曹小俊, 丁海斌, 王勇, 等. 丙硫菌唑防治小麦赤霉病效果试验[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2021, 62(2): 368-369.
[10]	程静雯, 李阿根, 陈瑞, 等. 4种杀菌剂防治油菜菌核病的效果[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2022, 63(4): 777-778, 791.
[11]	国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 稻纹枯病测报技术规范: GB/T 15791—2011[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011.
[12]	谷春艳, 潘锐, 徐会永, 等. 小麦不同生育期施用丙硫菌唑及施用次数对小麦赤霉病及籽粒DON毒素的控制效果[J]. 植物保护, 2023, 49(4): 328-333.
[13]	李巳夫, 欧阳茹, 刘洋, 等. 诱抗剂PQQ对纹枯病的田间防效与水稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 杂交水稻, 2023, 38(3): 121-128.
[14]	金辉, 王伟, 颜尘栋, 等. 水稻纹枯病生防木霉菌分离鉴定及适应性研究[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(9): 139-148.
[15]	魏松红, 张亚婷, 孔令春, 等. 水稻纹枯病生防菌的筛选及田间防治效果[J]. 农药, 2022, 61(7): 532-536.
[16]	张华梦, 郑礼煜, 王继春, 等. 水稻纹枯病生防细菌筛选及其与病原菌侵染垫形成的关系[J]. 植物保护学报, 2021, 48(2): 289-297.
[17]	郑许松, 田俊策, 钟列权, 等. 持续控肥对水稻产量、病虫害发生和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2020, 61(9): 1839-1842.

药剂处理	每667 m²用量/mL	病情指数	防治效果/%
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	30+50	0.83±0.42 b	78.03±12.37 a
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	40+50	0.46±0.27 b	88.95±5.68 a
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	50+50	0.29±0.27 b	90.71±8.74 a
10%井冈霉素A SP	150	3.04±0.95 a	30.04±17.10 b
清水对照	0	4.37±0.64 a	0

药剂处理	每667 m²用量/mL	病情指数	防治效果/%
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	30+50	0.83±0.42 b	78.03±12.37 a
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	40+50	0.46±0.27 b	88.95±5.68 a
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	50+50	0.29±0.27 b	90.71±8.74 a
10%井冈霉素A SP	150	3.04±0.95 a	30.04±17.10 b
清水对照	0	4.37±0.64 a	0

药剂处理	每667 m²用量/mL	病情指数	防治效果/%
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	30+50	0.48±0.23 b	95.79±2.08 ab
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	40+50	0.83±0.37 b	94.16±1.85 ab
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	50+50	0±0 b	100.00±0 a
10%井冈霉素A SP	150	4.55±1.28 b	55.75±23.78 b
清水对照	0	13.62±3.12 a	0

药剂处理	每667 m²用量/mL	病情指数	防治效果/%
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	30+50	0.48±0.23 b	95.79±2.08 ab
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	40+50	0.83±0.37 b	94.16±1.85 ab
40%丙硫菌唑·戊唑醇SC+9%吡唑醚菌酯CS	50+50	0±0 b	100.00±0 a
10%井冈霉素A SP	150	4.55±1.28 b	55.75±23.78 b
清水对照	0	13.62±3.12 a	0