Effect of Microbial Agent Trichoderma harzianum on Control of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Yield of Sunflowers

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2025-0004

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to study the effect of microbial inoculant Trichoderma harzianum on the control of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and yield of sunflowers, and to find the best control measures, a wettable powder of Trichoderma harzianum (Daimiao) was used as the test material. 6 treatments of seed treatments and drip irrigation were applied to sunflowers in the field for prevention, including T₁: 100 g/500 g seed dressing + 1 time 15000 g/hm² drip irrigation, T₂: 100 g/500 g seed dressing + 2 times 15000 g/hm² drip irrigation, T₃: 100 g/500 g seed dressing + 2 times 7500 g/hm² drip irrigation, T₄: 100 g/500 g seed dressing + 1 time 7500 g/hm² drip irrigation, T₅: 1 time 7500 g/hm² drip irrigation, and a blank control. The control effect of Sclerotinia on sunflowers and related traits were investigated at the mature stage of sunflowers. The results showed that the experimental areas using Trichoderma harzianum were improved to varying degrees in soil physical and chemical properties, main economic traits of sunflowers, yield and yield-related traits, and had obvious control effects on Sclerotinia of sunflowers. The best effect was achieved by seed dressing with Trichoderma harzianum and 2 times high-concentration drip irrigations, with a control effect of up to 74.37% and a yield of 1661.3 kg/hm². The second-best effect was achieved by seed dressing with Trichoderma harzianum and 1 time drip irrigation, with a control effect of over 68%. Only 1 time drip irrigation achieved a control effect of 44.86%.

Key words: sunflower, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, microbial inoculant, Trichoderma harzianum

HU Yang, PEI Xue, QU Zhihua, BAI Wei, JIN Tao, BAI Haihua. Effect of Microbial Agent Trichoderma harzianum on Control of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Yield of Sunflowers[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2026, 16(4): 20-24.

Figures/Tables 6

References 21

[1]	朱林, 张莹, 郑晓薇, 等. 向日葵菌核病拮抗菌的筛选、鉴定及防效测定[J]. 微生物学通报, 2021, 48(12):4688-4695.
[2]	汪雷, 刘瑶, 丁一娟, 等. 油菜菌核病研究进展[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 43(10):85-93.
[3]	BARDIN S D, HUANG H C. Research on biology and control of Sclerotinia diseases in Canada[J]. Canadian journal of plant pathology, 2001, 23(1):88-98. doi: 10.1080/07060660109506914 URL
[4]	张一名, 李小娟, 王颖, 等. 抑制向日葵核盘菌菌核形成的生防菌S-16的鉴定及其生防作用研究[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2014, 30(1):121-127.
[5]	黄绪堂. 向日葵菌核病菌的生长发育和侵染循环[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2001(4):21-22.
[6]	孟庆林. 向日葵菌核病发病规律及防治技术研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2013.
[7]	赵伟权. 向日葵菌核病制病机理和综合防治技术[J]. 农业与技术, 2017, 37(16):58-59.
[8]	卯旭辉, 刘康德, 贾秀苹, 等. 调节播期对向日葵菌核病的防控效果[J]. 甘肃农业科技, 2019(3):1-4.
[9]	纪武鹏, 王平, 于琳. 环境因子对向日葵菌核病发病的影响[J]. 现代化农业, 2019(1):2-4.
[10]	张海洋, 李海燕, 孟庆林, 等. 不同杀菌剂对向日葵菌核病的田间防治效果[J]. 作物杂志, 2020(4):202-205.
[11]	方中达. 植病研究方法[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998.
[12]	BERG G, FRITZE A, ROSKOT N, et al. Evaluation of potential biocontrol Rhizobacteria from different host plants of Vertidhium dahliae Kleb[J]. Journal of applied microbilolgy, 2010, 91(6):963-971.
[13]	李伟欣, 孟令新, 柴同海, 等. 土肥管理和微生物菌剂对向日葵菌核病的防治效果及产量的影响[J]. 农业科技通讯, 2022(2):119-123.
[14]	严兴初, 张义. 向日葵种质资源描述规范和数据标准[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[15]	宋伟, 唐卫东, 李华雄, 等. 75%肟菌·戊唑醇(拿敌稳)水分散剂防治月季白粉病试验[J]. 现代园艺, 2017(3):20-21.
[16]	李虎, 常海城, 陈柳, 等. 75%肟菌·戊唑醇对向日葵菌核病防治效果的研究[J]. 作物杂志, 2024(3):252-256.
[17]	周园园, 孟庆林, 郭韶椿, 等. 不同农业措施对向日葵菌核病发生的影响[J]. 黑龙江农业科学, 2021(2):56-60.
[18]	梁根生, 卯旭辉, 贾秀苹, 等. 不同播期、密度和肥效对陇葵杂4号菌核病发病规律的影响[J]. 甘肃农业, 2018(14):43-44.
[19]	常峻嘉. 抗逆微生物筛选及其在向日葵菌核病生防实践中的应用评价[D]. 贵阳: 贵州民族大学, 2024.
[20]	刘继霞, 山军建, 王平. 两种生防菌剂防治向日葵黄萎病的效果[J]. 中国植保导刊, 2020, 40(12):80-81+75.
[21]	曹翠玲, 刘素琪, 康瑞姣, 等. 康氏木霉对向日葵菌核病菌拮抗作用研究[J]. 山西农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2005(2):150-152.

级别	标准描述
0	无症状
1	茎基出现褐色、半椭圆形病斑
2	病斑环绕茎基部，植株轻度萎蔫
3	病斑干枯，露出纤维，有菌核
4	茎基部病斑缢缩，植株死亡

级别	标准描述
0	无症状
1	茎基出现褐色、半椭圆形病斑
2	病斑环绕茎基部，植株轻度萎蔫
3	病斑干枯，露出纤维，有菌核
4	茎基部病斑缢缩，植株死亡

处理	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg)	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	速效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	有效硫/ (mg/kg)	有效硼/ (mg/kg)	交换镁/ (mg/kg)	交换钙/ (g/kg)	盐/ (g/kg)	pH
T₁	73.05	1.08	92.52	90.50	287.26	44.04	0.20	374.43	1.91	0.29	8.15
T₂	76.54	1.09	91.29	97.61	308.40	54.43	0.21	379.93	1.89	0.22	8.14
T₃	73.27	1.10	94.06	116.43	360.71	52.35	0.33	313.78	1.93	0.23	8.12
T₄	71.59	1.06	92.07	73.15	258.00	42.53	0.18	394.13	1.84	0.22	8.31
T₅	72.96	1.09	92.16	73.08	246.43	42.79	0.21	396.53	1.83	0.22	8.29
CK	67.63	1.11	90.77	68.10	236.59	41.28	0.21	376.43	1.82	0.22	8.22
播前	68.69	1.05	91.06	65.38	228.73	40.77	0.20	376.10	1.88	0.22	8.34

处理	有机质/ (g/kg)	全氮/ (g/kg)	碱解氮/ (mg/kg)	速效磷/ (mg/kg)	速效钾/ (mg/kg)	有效硫/ (mg/kg)	有效硼/ (mg/kg)	交换镁/ (mg/kg)	交换钙/ (g/kg)	盐/ (g/kg)	pH
T₁	73.05	1.08	92.52	90.50	287.26	44.04	0.20	374.43	1.91	0.29	8.15
T₂	76.54	1.09	91.29	97.61	308.40	54.43	0.21	379.93	1.89	0.22	8.14
T₃	73.27	1.10	94.06	116.43	360.71	52.35	0.33	313.78	1.93	0.23	8.12
T₄	71.59	1.06	92.07	73.15	258.00	42.53	0.18	394.13	1.84	0.22	8.31
T₅	72.96	1.09	92.16	73.08	246.43	42.79	0.21	396.53	1.83	0.22	8.29
CK	67.63	1.11	90.77	68.10	236.59	41.28	0.21	376.43	1.82	0.22	8.22
播前	68.69	1.05	91.06	65.38	228.73	40.77	0.20	376.10	1.88	0.22	8.34

处理	株高/cm	叶片数/片	盘径/cm	茎粗/cm	粒长/mm	粒宽/mm	结实率/%	籽仁率/%
T₁	196.0	31.2	18.6	1.8	11.9	5.7	91.3	64.2
T₂	197.4	33.4	21.4	2.1	11.0	5.3	97.7	72.0
T₃	197.8	32.0	22.0	2.0	10.8	5.2	94.4	64.4
T₄	194.6	32.2	20.4	1.7	10.8	5.5	90.6	66.6
T₅	192.6	32.0	18.6	1.8	10.6	5.2	94.2	64.1
CK	192.4	30.4	16.6	1.6	10.6	5.2	87.8	58.8