Control Effect of Biogas Slurry on Rice Blast and Screening, Identification of Endophytic Antagonistic Bacteria

doi:10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2022.06.011

Abstract

Abstract: To determine the application value of biogas slurry in the control of rice blast, the antagonist activity of biogas slurry to five plant pathogens was measured by mycelial growth inhibition method. The results showed that biogas slurry had different degrees of inhibition ability on Magnaporthe oryzae, Ustilaginoidea oryzae, Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium oxysporum and Phytophthora capsica, and the inhibition rates were 90.34%, 83.55%, 73.88%, 10.23% and 16.40%, respectively. The inhibition effect of biogas slurry was significantly better than that of biogas slurry sterile solution. In the pot experiment, biogas slurry stock solution and 50% dilution solution had better control effects on rice blast, and the efficacies reached 72.67% and 64.60%, respectively. Field experiment showed that the control efficacies of biogas slurry against leaf blast and neck blast were 58.99% and 66.57%, respectively, with no significant difference with that of the control agent 100 billion cfu/g Bacillus subtilis WP. Through the isolation, screening and identification of endophytic bacteria in biogas slurry, it was determined that biogas slurry contained antagonistic bacteria such as B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, B. methylotrophicus and B. licheniformis. The results indicated that biogas slurry has a good application prospect as a biological control resource for the control of rice blast.

Key words: biogas slurry, rice blast, biological control, antagonistic bacteria, Bacillus

CLC Number:

S476.9

CHU Jin, YAN Han, HAN Tao, XU Han, YANG Hao, MIAO Jiankun, BAI Yuanjun, DONG Hai, LI Zhiqiang. Control Effect of Biogas Slurry on Rice Blast and Screening, Identification of Endophytic Antagonistic Bacteria[J]. Chinese Journal of Biological Control, 2022, 38(6): 1516-1525.

References

[1] Zhang H F, Zheng X B, Zhang Z G. The Magnaporthe grisea species complex and plant pathogenesis[J]. Molecular Plant Pathology, 2016, 17(6): 796-804.
[2] Fernandez J, Orth K. Rise of a cereal killer: The Biology of Magnaporthe oryzae biotrophic growth[J]. Trends in Microbiology, 2018, 26(7): 582-597.
[3] Parker D, Beckmann M, Enot D P, et al. Rice blast infection of Brachypodium distachyon as a model system to study dynamic host/pathogen interactions[J]. Nature Protocols, 2008, 3(3): 435-445.
[4] Men T N, Han J W, Yoon S, et al. Discovery of new triterpenoid saponins isolated from Maesa japonica with antifungal activity against rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2019, 67(27): 7706-7715.
[5] Kunova A, Pizzatti C, Cortesi P. Impact of tricyclazole and azoxystrobin on growth, sporulation and secondary infection of the rice blast fungus, Magnaporthe oryzae[J]. Pest Management Science, 2013, 69(2): 278-284.
[6] 朱书生, 黄惠川, 刘屹湘, 等. 农业生物多样性防控作物病害的研究进展[J]. 植物保护学报, 2022, 49(1): 42-57.
[7] 司兆胜, 宋显东, 宫香余, 等. 水稻主要病虫草害全程防控减量施药技术研究与探讨[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(1): 132-137.
[8] Miah G, Rafii M Y, Ismail M R, et al. Blast resistance in rice: a review of conventional breeding to molecular approaches[J]. Molecular Biology Reports, 2013, 40(3): 2369-2388.
[9] 曹伟平, 陆晴, 鹿秀云, 等. 花生果腐病拮抗菌贝莱斯芽胞杆菌Hsg1949鉴定与防效[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2021, 37(4): 761-770.
[10] 高杜娟, 唐善军, 陈友德, 等. 水稻主要病害生物防治的研究进展[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(26): 140-147.
[11] 王法国, 许萍萍, 张荣胜, 等. 解淀粉芽胞杆菌干悬浮剂对稻瘟病的防治效果及安全性评价[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2017, 33(2): 241-247.
[12] 陈婷婷, 向礼波, 龚双军, 等. 0.2%苯丙烯菌酮微乳剂防治水稻稻瘟病田间药效试验[J]. 湖北植保, 2019(5): 4-6.
[13] 陆国弟, 杨扶德, 陈红刚, 等. 沼液应用的研究进展[J]. 中国土壤与肥料, 2021(1): 339-345.
[14] Li C L, Wang Q, Shao S Z, et al. Stable isotope effects of biogas slurry applied as an organic fertilizer to rice, straw, and soil[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2021, 69: 8090-8097.
[15] 王洪涛, 衣先家, 董泰丽, 等. 鸡粪沼液“新壮态”对韭菜迟眼蕈蚊的防控效果[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2017, 33(5): 631-637.
[16] 李建波. 沼液在我国植物病虫害防治上的应用[J]. 中国沼气, 2018, 36(3): 92-97.
[17] 时振山, 张平, 李培乾, 等. 沼液防治小麦赤霉病的研究[J]. 中国沼气, 1991(1): 11-14.
[18] 李云卿, 冯自力, 魏锋, 等. 新壮态植物生长促进液对棉花枯萎病的防治作用[J]. 植物保护, 2017, 43(6): 187-191,195.
[19] 曹云, 常志州, 马艳, 等. 沼液施用对辣椒疫病的防治效果及对土壤生物学特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2013, 46(3): 507-516.
[20] 祁连弟. 沼液及不同药剂对大棚黄瓜灰霉病防治效果的研究[J]. 中国沼气, 2014, 32(04): 73-75.
[21] 李海, 马艳, 常志州, 等. 沼液对草莓土传病害的盆栽防效与沼液中拮抗细菌筛选[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2011, 39(2): 195-198.
[22] 曹云, 吴华山, 郭德杰, 等. 沼液处理对连作西瓜枯萎病发生、产量及品质的影响[J]. 土壤, 2015, 47(5): 904-910.
[23] 卢多威. 沼液农用对大白菜产量、品质及病虫害防治的影响[D]. 雅安: 四川农业大学, 2016.
[24] 苗锦山, 张笑笑, 棣圣哲, 等. 外源硅配施沼液对大葱紫斑病抗性和苗期生长的影响[J]. 园艺与种苗, 2019, 39(10): 1-2, 15.
[25] 褚晋, 闫晗, 徐晗, 等. 辽宁省稻瘟病菌对肟菌酯敏感性监测[J]. 植物病理学报, 2021, 51(1): 95-103.
[26] 潘争艳, 邱福林, 吕桂兰, 等. 辽宁省粳稻品种稻瘟病抗性基因分析[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2019, 33(3): 241-248.
[27] 褚晋, 何鹏飞, 赵正龙, 等. 云南省罗平县与腾冲县两地稻瘟病菌致病类型分析[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(14): 84-89.
[28] 褚晋, 徐晗, 闫晗, 等. 辽宁省稻瘟病菌对稻瘟灵的抗性监测及其对稻瘟病的田间防治效果[J]. 植物保护学报, 2020, 47(5): 997-1004.
[29] 阮宏椿, 石妞妞, 杜宜新, 等. 水稻稻瘟病拮抗稀有放线菌的筛选及防治效果[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2021, 37(3): 538-546.
[30] 臧超群, 赵颖, 谢瑾卉, 等. 贝莱斯芽胞杆菌BP-1筛选、鉴定及其对花生网斑病的田间防效评价[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2021, 37(2): 259-265.
[31] 东秀珠, 蔡妙英. 常见细菌系统鉴定手册[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2001, 370-398.
[32] 尹芳, 张无敌, 宋洪川, 等. 沼液对某些植物病原菌抑制作用的研究[J]. 可再生能源, 2005(2): 9-11, 36.
[33] 陶秀萍, 董红敏, 尚斌, 等. 新鲜猪沼液和牛沼液对农作物病原真菌抑制作用的比较研究[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(7): 1443-1449.
[34] 尚斌, 陈永杏, 陶秀萍, 等. 猪场沼液对蔬菜病原菌的抑制作用[J]. 生态学报, 2011, 31(9): 2509-2515.
[35] Liu Q Y, Zhao Z X, Xue Z P, et al. Comprehensive risk assessment of applying biogas slurry in peanut cultivation[J]. Frontiers in Nutrition, 2021, 8: 1-13.
[36] 石吕, 刘建, 魏亚凤, 等. 沼液在农业领域的资源化利用现状[J]. 中国农学通报, 2019, 35(35): 109-117.
[37] 冯自力, 董泰丽, 赵丽红, 等. 浓缩沼液对棉花黄萎病的防治作用及机理[J]. 棉花学报, 2018, 30(5): 375-385.
[38] 曹云, 常志州, 马艳, 等. 猪粪沼液防治辣椒疫病机理研究-沼液中铵与腐殖酸的作用[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2013, 21(9): 1119-1126.
[39] 马艳, 李海, 常志州, 等. 沼液对植物病害的防治效果及机理研究І: 对植物病原真菌的抑制效果及抑菌机理初探[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2011, 30(2): 366-374.
[40] 李海. 沼液对草莓土传病害的防治效果及机理研究[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2011.
[41] Lu Y, Li J M, Meng J, et al. Long-term biogas slurry application increased antibiotics accumulation and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) spread in agricultural soils with different properties[J]. Science of The Total Environment, 2021, 759(22): 143473.