生物药剂与化学药剂防治水稻纹枯病的比较研究

Mohammad Abul Monsur, Sharmaine C. Biñas, Shashika Neranjan Herath, Israel Dave V. Ambita, Zarin Tasnim, I. Pangga, C. Cumagun
{"title":"生物药剂与化学药剂防治水稻纹枯病的比较研究","authors":"Mohammad Abul Monsur, Sharmaine C. Biñas, Shashika Neranjan Herath, Israel Dave V. Ambita, Zarin Tasnim, I. Pangga, C. Cumagun","doi":"10.25081/jpsp.2023.v9.8459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Biological control measures are indispensable to sustain global food security, due to it being economically profitable and environmentally sound. A comparative study was conducted to know the effectiveness of biological control measures compared with contact fungicide. Trichoderma spp. based bio fungicides Bioquick and Biospark were applied as preventive measures and contact fungicide as a curative measure for controlling sheath blight disease in rice varieties BR 71 and IR 24. Biospark and Bioquick were applied before disease development while, contact fungicide was used after the initiation of sheath blight disease. At the early stage of disease development, the effect of Bioquick, Biospark, and fungicide in terms of reducing percent relative lesion height and percent tiller infection are comparable. At 14 DAI and 18 DAI, contact fungicide performed best among the three control measures based on the two parameters. The genotypes of the rice accessions used in the study also appeared to be a factor in disease development, as evidenced by higher horizontal and vertical disease severity in BR71 than in IR24. Between comparison of Bioquick and Biospark in terms of reducing percent relative lesion height, percent tiller infection, and percent disease control, appeared to be higher in Biospark in both varieties. From this study, we can conclude that farmers can use Biospark as a biofungicide to get maximum benefit considering rice yield and ecology. However, its efficacy is slightly lower than chemical fungicides for controlling sheath blight disease of rice.","PeriodicalId":366282,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Plant Stress Physiology","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study between biological and chemical agents for control sheath blight disease of rice\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Abul Monsur, Sharmaine C. Biñas, Shashika Neranjan Herath, Israel Dave V. Ambita, Zarin Tasnim, I. Pangga, C. Cumagun\",\"doi\":\"10.25081/jpsp.2023.v9.8459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Biological control measures are indispensable to sustain global food security, due to it being economically profitable and environmentally sound. A comparative study was conducted to know the effectiveness of biological control measures compared with contact fungicide. Trichoderma spp. based bio fungicides Bioquick and Biospark were applied as preventive measures and contact fungicide as a curative measure for controlling sheath blight disease in rice varieties BR 71 and IR 24. Biospark and Bioquick were applied before disease development while, contact fungicide was used after the initiation of sheath blight disease. At the early stage of disease development, the effect of Bioquick, Biospark, and fungicide in terms of reducing percent relative lesion height and percent tiller infection are comparable. At 14 DAI and 18 DAI, contact fungicide performed best among the three control measures based on the two parameters. The genotypes of the rice accessions used in the study also appeared to be a factor in disease development, as evidenced by higher horizontal and vertical disease severity in BR71 than in IR24. Between comparison of Bioquick and Biospark in terms of reducing percent relative lesion height, percent tiller infection, and percent disease control, appeared to be higher in Biospark in both varieties. From this study, we can conclude that farmers can use Biospark as a biofungicide to get maximum benefit considering rice yield and ecology. However, its efficacy is slightly lower than chemical fungicides for controlling sheath blight disease of rice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":366282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Plant Stress Physiology\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Plant Stress Physiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25081/jpsp.2023.v9.8459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Plant Stress Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25081/jpsp.2023.v9.8459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物防治措施对维持全球粮食安全是不可或缺的,因为它在经济上有利可图,而且对环境无害。对生物防治与接触式杀菌剂的效果进行了对比研究。采用基于木霉的生物杀菌剂Bioquick和Biospark作为预防措施,接触杀菌剂作为治疗措施防治水稻品种br71和ir24的纹枯病。在纹枯病发病前施用Biospark和Bioquick,在纹枯病发病后施用接触杀菌剂。在疾病发展的早期,Bioquick、Biospark和杀菌剂在降低相对病变高度百分比和分蘖感染百分比方面的效果是相当的。在14 DAI和18 DAI时,基于这两个参数的三种防治措施中,接触杀菌剂的效果最好。研究中使用的水稻材料的基因型似乎也是疾病发展的一个因素,BR71的水平和垂直疾病严重程度高于IR24。在降低相对病变高度百分比、分蘖感染百分比和疾病控制百分比方面,Biospark在两个品种中表现得更高。从本研究中我们可以得出结论,考虑到水稻产量和生态,农民可以使用Biospark作为生物杀菌剂获得最大的效益。但其对水稻纹枯病的防治效果略低于化学杀菌剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparative study between biological and chemical agents for control sheath blight disease of rice
Biological control measures are indispensable to sustain global food security, due to it being economically profitable and environmentally sound. A comparative study was conducted to know the effectiveness of biological control measures compared with contact fungicide. Trichoderma spp. based bio fungicides Bioquick and Biospark were applied as preventive measures and contact fungicide as a curative measure for controlling sheath blight disease in rice varieties BR 71 and IR 24. Biospark and Bioquick were applied before disease development while, contact fungicide was used after the initiation of sheath blight disease. At the early stage of disease development, the effect of Bioquick, Biospark, and fungicide in terms of reducing percent relative lesion height and percent tiller infection are comparable. At 14 DAI and 18 DAI, contact fungicide performed best among the three control measures based on the two parameters. The genotypes of the rice accessions used in the study also appeared to be a factor in disease development, as evidenced by higher horizontal and vertical disease severity in BR71 than in IR24. Between comparison of Bioquick and Biospark in terms of reducing percent relative lesion height, percent tiller infection, and percent disease control, appeared to be higher in Biospark in both varieties. From this study, we can conclude that farmers can use Biospark as a biofungicide to get maximum benefit considering rice yield and ecology. However, its efficacy is slightly lower than chemical fungicides for controlling sheath blight disease of rice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Plant defense mechanism in combined stresses - cellular and molecular perspective Efficacy of chlorophyll a fluorescence kinetics and JIP test for early detection of leaf-gall disease in Cordia dichotoma An overview on Azelaic Acid: Biosynthesis, signalling and the action under stress conditions in plants An overview on Azelaic Acid: Biosynthesis, signalling and the action under stress conditions in plants Exploring the tolerance of Iraqi wheat varieties: Evaluating seed germination and early growth of six Iraqi wheat varieties under salinity stress
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1