4.6 Article

Evaluation of biocontrol efficiency of different Bacillus preparations and field application methods against Phytophthora blight of bell pepper

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 216-223

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.10.012

关键词

Bacillus; Phytophthora capsici; biocontrol; application method

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biocontrol efficiency of various Bacillus preparations (1313 11 and FH17 strains, and a mixture of both strains (BF) at a 1: 1 ratio by concentration) and different application methods against Phytophthora blight of bell pepper were studied. The application methods included (A) mixing (mixing BF with rapeseed residue and then immediately applying in the field), (B) composting (mixing BF with rapeseed residue and made compost before application), (C) spraying (spraying diluted BF into field or rhizosphere of plants), and (D) watering (watering diluted BF into field or rhizosphere of plants). In greenhouse experiments, the addition of BF increased biocontrol efficiency (60.3%), and yield increase (200%) was better than with 131311 (55.8 and 80.6%, respectively) or FH17 (37.1 and 50.0%, respectively). In field trials at Huai'an in 2001, the best dosages of BF mixture (1010 cfu/ml) with the four above-mentioned application methods were 15, 7.5, 15, and 22.5 L/ha, respectively. When preparations were applied at the best dosage in the same field, the BF mixture provided superior biocontrol efficiency and greater yield increase with treatment B than those with treatment A or C. Combining the field trial results from 2002 to 2003 at Huai'an and Wu'han, the total average control efficiencies and yield increases for treatments A, B, and C reached 81.0, 88.0, and 79.1% and 33.1, 44.3, and 29.1%, respectively, with their best dosages. However, method B, composting, provided better disease control and greater yield increases than all other methods, and did so at a lower application rate. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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