4.5 Article

Occurrence of Corynespora cassiicola isolates resistant to boscalid on cucumber in Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan

期刊

PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 1144-1151

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2009.02151.x

关键词

carboxamides; Cucumis sativus; fungicide resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A total of 651 isolates of cucumber corynespora leaf spot fungus (Corynespora cassiicola) collected from cucumber in Japan, either with (438 isolates) or without (213 isolates) a prior history of boscalid use, were tested for their sensitivity to boscalid by using a mycelial growth inhibition method on YBA agar medium. Additionally, seven isolates of C. cassiicola obtained from tomato, soybean, eggplant (aubergine) and cowpea in different locations in Japan were tested before boscalid registration. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and 50% effective concentration (EC50) values for 220 isolates from crops without a prior history of boscalid use ranged from 0 center dot 5 to 7 center dot 5 mu g mL-1 and from 0 center dot 04 to 0 center dot 59 mu g mL-1, respectively. Two hundred and fourteen out of 438 isolates collected from ten cucumber greenhouses in Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan, which received boscalid spray applications showed boscalid resistance, with MIC values higher than 30 mu g mL-1. Moreover, resistant isolates were divided into two groups: a moderately resistant (MR) group consisting of 189 isolates with EC50 values ranging from 1 center dot 1 to 6 center dot 3 mu g mL-1, and a very highly resistant (VHR) group consisting of 25 isolates with EC50 values higher than 24 center dot 8 mu g mL-1. MR isolates were detected from all ten greenhouses, but VHR isolates were detected from only three. As a result of fungus inoculation tests which used potted cucumber plants, control failures of boscalid were observed against resistant isolates. Efficacy of boscalid was remarkably low against VHR isolates in particular. This is the first known report on boscalid resistance in Japan.

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

4.5
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