4.7 Article

Rapid Quantification of Fungicide Effectiveness on Inhibiting Wheat Stripe Rust Pathogen (Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici)

期刊

PLANT DISEASE
卷 104, 期 9, 页码 2434-2439

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-09-19-1836-RE

关键词

Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici; triadimefon; detached leaves; fungicide effectiveness quantification

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFD0200500]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31871990, 31801719]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [XDJK2017B026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wheat stripe rust, caused by Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici (Pst), is one of the most important and devastating diseases of wheat; therefore, it is necessary to rapidly and accurately quantify fungicide effectiveness to monitor Pst sensitivity and manage the disease. In this study, a rapid method of quantifying the fungicide effectiveness with detached leaves was developed. The results showed that 0.5% water agar containing 75 mu g/ml of 6-benzylaminopurine and filter paper worked the best for maintaining wheat leaves. The disease incidences of different concentrations of spore suspension were compared. When the spore concentrations were 5 and 10 mu g/ml, the disease incidences had no significant differences at 12 and 15 days after inoculation (P < 0.05). Fungicide treatment tests revealed that there were no significant differences in the efficacies of triadimefon on rust suppression between detached leaves in the culture dishes and direct spray on seedlings. We also developed a Photoshop software method that can replace the current classification method and accurately measure the proportion of sporulation area on infected leaves. The sensitivity baseline of Pst to triadimefon was estimated as 0.1453 +/- 0.0081 mu g/ml, and all the values of EC50 were tested for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test (W = 0.204). The baseline can be used to test the sensitivity of different Pst isolates to triadimefon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据