4.5 Article

Incorporation of microorganisms to reduce chemical fungicide usage in black sigatoka control programs in Costa Rica by use of biological fungicides

期刊

CROP PROTECTION
卷 146, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105657

关键词

Banana; Black sigatoka; Bacillus subtilis; Trichoderma harzianum; Saccharomyces cerevisiae; Chemical fungicide

类别

资金

  1. Alltech Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that by rotating the use of biological pesticides and chemical fungicides, the severity of Black sigatoka can be significantly reduced, lowering pathogen resistance to fungicides and decreasing the use of chemical pesticides.
Control of Black sigatoka, one of the most destructive diseases affecting the banana industry worldwide, requires frequent chemical fungicide treatments, thus greatly increasing production costs. Due to increasing pathogen resistance to fungicides and negative environmental impacts, alternative control methods need to be incorporated into management programs. Spores of Bacillus subtilis, Trichoderma harzianum, and an extract of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Agro-Mos (R)), all biological pesticides were rotated with traditional chemical fungicides (chlorothalonil and mancozeb). It was possible thereby to reduce the total chemical pesticide use by 25%. To determine the effects under different climatic conditions, the first trial was conducted during the wet season and the second trial during the dry season. Disease severity was recorded, every week for 20 weeks, in all plants during each trial. In all treatment groups, disease severity was significantly lower (P < 0.05) for both wet and dry seasons. Programs including B. subtilis and Agro-Mos (R) resulted in lower growth of the pathogen for all measured disease symptoms. Results suggest that the incorporation of efficacious biological products could help lower the use of chemical fungicides while still maintaining the same level of control on the development of Black sigatoka.

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

4.5
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