Impact of Dazomet Fumigation and Fosthiazate Hole Application on Potato Cyst Nematode Infestation and Potato Yield

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2024-0084

Abstract

Abstract:

To prevent and control the spread of potato cyst nematode, a research on field control methods for this pest was carried out. In the experiment, dazomet fumigation and fosthiazate hole application were adopted. The effects of these measures on potato production were analyzed through various indicators, such as the SPAD value and nitrogen content of the leaves, plant height, plant weight, yield at maturity, and the number of potato cyst nematodes at the pre-sowing, flowering, and maturity stages of the potatoes, and the control effect of potato cyst nematode. The results revealed that both of the treatments significantly improved the plant height and enhanced photosynthesis of leaves. At the same time, the control measures reduced the infection of potato roots by cyst nematode. The average control efficacy of dazomet fumigation for potato new cysts nematode was 91.07%, which was significantly higher than that of fosthiazate hole application and control treatment. Compared with the control, dazomet fumigation and fosthiazate hole application increased the average yield by 20.13% and 9.69%, respectively. Dazomet fumigation was notably more effective in suppressing the potato’s infection of potato cyst nematode than fosthiazate hole application, and it also substantially increased the rate of big tuber and potato yield.

Key words: potato cyst nematode, dazomet, dazomet fumigation, fosthiazate, fosthiazate hole application, control efficacy, control measures, yield

FU Huijuan, YI Jun, SHAO Baolin, ZENG Shuocheng, ZHANG Haiting, LI Qiyong, ZHANG Hong, LI Xingyue. Impact of Dazomet Fumigation and Fosthiazate Hole Application on Potato Cyst Nematode Infestation and Potato Yield[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2025, 15(7): 8-14.

Figures/Tables 8

References 25

[1]	顾建锋, 邵宝林, 方亦午, 等. 四川省马铃薯孢囊线虫的形态和分子鉴定[J]. 福建农业学报, 2022, 37(4):520-528.
[2]	PM 7/40 (4) Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera pallida[J]. EPPO Bulletin, 2017, 47(2):174-197.
[3]	彭焕, 刘慧, 江如, 等. 警惕检疫性有害生物马铃薯孢囊线虫(Globodera rostochiensis和G.pallida)入侵我国[J]. 植物保护, 2020, 46(6):1-9.
[4]	张治宇, 刘爱华, 厉艳, 等. 青岛口岸截获的马铃薯白线虫[J]. 植物检疫, 2007(2):127-128.
[5]	王达龙, 沈培垠, 汪家庆. 江苏局在运输工具检疫中首次截获马铃薯金线虫[J]. 中国检验检疫, 2000(5):37.
[6]	JIANG R, LI Y Q, HUANG L Q, et al. Association of Globodera rostochiensis (nematoda) with stunted and chlorotic potato plants in Yunnan and Sichuan Provinces in China[J]. Plant disease, 2023,107:1027-1034.
[7]	JIANG R, PENG H, LI Y Q, et al. First record of the golden potato nematode Globodera rostochiensis in Yunnan and Sichuan provinces of China[J]. Journal of integrative agriculture, 2022, 21(3): 898-899. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63845-5
[8]	邓春菊, 李艳, 杨毅娟, 等. 云南省马铃薯孢囊线虫种类鉴定[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2023, 38(3):400-408.
[9]	宋家雄, 许翀, 陈敏, 等. 马铃薯金线虫发生特点及综合防控方法[J]. 植物检疫, 2023, 37(1):68-72.
[10]	JATALA P, BRIDGE J. Nematode parasites of root and tuber crops[J]. Nematode parasites of root & tuber crops, 1990:237-283.
[11]	GUY B, NATHALIE D, BENJAMIN M. Evaluation of cultural methods for the management of the golden nematode (Globodera rostochiensis) in Quebec, Canada[J]. Canadian journal of plant pathology, 2016, 38(2):209-217.
[12]	GILREATH J P, SANTOS B M, MOTIS T N, et al. Methyl bromide alternatives for nematode and cyperus control in bell pepper(Capsicum annuum)[J]. Crop protection, 2005, 24(10): 903-908.
[13]	王晴, 李林, 朱文达, 等. 土壤熏蒸剂棉隆联合太阳能消毒防治草莓土传病害效果及经济效益分析[J]. 植物保护, 2024, 50(1):339-346.
[14]	刘珍, 范巧兰, 姚众, 等. 生物熏蒸配施微生物菌剂对西瓜生长发育及枯萎病的影响[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2023, 43(4):50-55.
[15]	方文生, 王秋霞, 颜冬冬, 等. 土壤熏蒸剂棉隆防治土传病害研究进展及未来发展趋势[J]. 植物保护学报, 2023, 50(1):40-49.
[16]	王芳, 姚彬, 黄成东, 等. 马铃薯养分需求及营养调控研究进展[J]. 中国马铃薯, 2023, 37(4):353-359.
[17]	杨绅, 方文生, 白庆荣, 等. 棉隆熏蒸对烟草氮素吸收利用的影响[J]. 植物保护, 2024, 50(2):100-110.
[18]	索海翠, 王丽, 李成晨, 等. 叶面施锌对马铃薯叶片光合特性、超微结构及产量的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2021, 42(7):1963-1970. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.07.020
[19]	曹坳程, 张大琪, 方文生, 等. 土传病害防治技术进展及面临的挑战[J]. 植物保护, 2023, 49(5):260-269.
[20]	王豪吉, 陈鹏崟, 王勇, 等. 土壤熏蒸对三七连作土壤微生物群落的影响[J]. 云南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2024, 44(1):51-58.
[21]	刘博文, 李蓉, 杨萍, 等. 生物菌剂与土壤熏蒸互作对三七土壤微生物群落结构的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2023, 36(11):2437-2450.
[22]	曾荣, 方文生, 孙杨, 等. 二甲基二硫与氯化苦联合熏蒸防治山药土传病害效果及生物安全性评价[J]. 植物保护, 2023, 49(2):184-191.
[23]	杨馥霞, 汤玲, 贺欢, 等. 不同熏蒸剂处理对土壤理化特性及草莓生长发育的影响[J]. 中国果树, 2023(11):50-55+60.
[24]	杨馥霞, 汤玲, 贺欢, 等. 不同熏蒸剂对草莓连作土壤养分和微生物群落的影响[J]. 微生物学通报, 2023, 50(6):2452-2467.
[25]	张伯虎, 朱雪荣, 孟延, 等. 不同药剂对拱棚西瓜根结线虫的防效及对土壤环境的影响[J]. 西北农业学报, 2022, 31(12):1646-1653.

试验地块	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/%	全磷/(g/kg)	全钾/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)
越城镇	4.97	67.18	0.36	0.71	11.99	328.17	32.17	124.17
竹阿觉镇	4.94	95.72	0.52	1.42	8.3	180.33	38.08	164.73

试验地块	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	全氮/%	全磷/(g/kg)	全钾/(g/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)	有效磷/(mg/kg)	速效氮/(mg/kg)
越城镇	4.97	67.18	0.36	0.71	11.99	328.17	32.17	124.17
竹阿觉镇	4.94	95.72	0.52	1.42	8.3	180.33	38.08	164.73

处理	不同地块	防治方式
T₁(P₁C₁)	越城镇地块P₁	98%棉隆微粒剂熏蒸C₁
T₂(P₁C₂)	越城镇地块P₁	10%噻唑膦颗粒剂穴施C₂
T₃(P₁C₃)	越城镇地块P₁	未施药对照C₃
T₄(P₂C₁)	竹阿觉镇地块P₂	98%棉隆微粒剂熏蒸C₁
T₅(P₂C₂)	竹阿觉镇地块P₂	10%噻唑膦颗粒剂穴施C₂
T₆(P₂C₃)	竹阿觉镇地块P₂	未施药对照C₃

处理	不同地块	防治方式
T₁(P₁C₁)	越城镇地块P₁	98%棉隆微粒剂熏蒸C₁
T₂(P₁C₂)	越城镇地块P₁	10%噻唑膦颗粒剂穴施C₂
T₃(P₁C₃)	越城镇地块P₁	未施药对照C₃
T₄(P₂C₁)	竹阿觉镇地块P₂	98%棉隆微粒剂熏蒸C₁
T₅(P₂C₂)	竹阿觉镇地块P₂	10%噻唑膦颗粒剂穴施C₂
T₆(P₂C₃)	竹阿觉镇地块P₂	未施药对照C₃

处理		株高/cm	根长/cm	地上部鲜重/(g/株)	根系鲜重/g	地上部干重/g	根系干重/g
T₁		95.3±2.5 ab	35.3±1.3 ab	663.1±47.4 a	55.8±3.2 abc	57.2±3.9 a	8.0±0.5 abc
T₂		101.4±1.9 a	38.9±1.2 a	595.8±40.5 a	60.2±4.1 ab	55.8±4.6 a	9.3±0.7 ab
T₃		90.4±2.6 b	37.4±1.4 a	573.6±45.7 ab	66.0±6.1 a	50.9±3.6 a	9.9±0.8 a
T₄		76.3±2.0 c	33.5±0.9 b	379.0±24.5 cd	44.4±2.8 c	37.3±2.8 b	6.4±0.5 c
T₅		81.7±2.8 c	36.2±1.5 ab	480.2±45 bc	56.3±4.9 abc	49.4±4.8 a	8.7±1.0 ab
T₆		69.3±2.5 d	35.9±1.1 ab	337.6±18.7 d	49.8±4.6 bc	34.9±1.7 b	7.5±0.7 bc
F值	不同地块(P)	104.9**	4.0*	45.1**	8.4**	21.3**	7.4**
	防治方式(C)	5.6**	2.0*	1.1	1.2	0.7	2.0*
	P×C	3.1*	0.1	2.5	1.0	4.3*	0.8