小麦全蚀病生物防治研究及品种抗性鉴定
|
摘要
利用室内平板对峙法对分离和收集的101株放线菌、31株细菌和24株真菌测定了其对小麦全蚀病菌（Gaeumannnomyces. graminis var. tritici）抑菌活性。结果表明，大多数株菌株均对小麦全蚀病菌有一定的抑制作用。在分离的24株真菌中，具有抑制作用的有15株，占分离数的62.50%；在分离的31株细菌中，具有颉抗作用的有10株，占分离数的32.26%；在分离得到的101株放线菌中，有57株具有抑制作用，占分离数的56.44%。结果表明在作物根际中存在着大量的小麦全蚀病菌的颉抗菌。
我们从中筛选出对小麦全蚀病菌生长有较强的抑制作用8株生防菌,包括2株细菌EM3和B22，2株真菌T4和F5以及4株放线菌S037、S024、S89和S90。其中4株放线菌主要以抗生作用为主，如S037抑菌带宽达0.9cm；细菌则兼具竞争和抗生作用，如EM3虽然抑菌带宽仅为0.45cm，但其抑菌率却高达60.47%；真菌则主要是竞争作用，如F5和T4，尽管其抑菌带宽仅分别为0.2cm或无明显抑菌带，但它们的抑菌率却最高，分别为65.12%和63.95%。
对表现出较强颉抗活性的生防菌株，我们进行了室内盆栽试验,并设化学杀菌剂全蚀净为对照。结果表明,生防菌处理中，颉抗细菌EM3的防效最高，为53.49%；其次为颉抗放线菌S037，防效也达到51.94%，与室内平板对峙试验结果一致。而在平板对峙试验中抑菌率最高，抑制效果最好的两株真菌F5和T4，在此盆栽试验中表现较差。
通过室内盆栽人工接种试验对河南省生产上大面积推广和新培育的50个小麦品种（系）的抗全蚀病性能进行了鉴定和评价，结果发现品种间抗性存在明显的差异，但整体抗性较差，无免疫和高抗品种，达到中抗水平的有科优1号、豫展9705、豫58-998、矮早4110、
新麦11号、高优505、豫麦18号和豫麦49号八个品种（系），占所有供试品种的26.7%。
进一步对其中40个小麦品种进行了田间自然病圃试验,并调查了白穗率, 比较了在盆栽试验与大田试验条件下，不同小麦品种对小麦全蚀病的抗病性差异。结果表明，盆栽试验中达到中抗水平的矮早4110、强筋1号、豫展9705、科优1号和新麦11号其平均白穗率分别为0.96%、1.13%、1.20%、1.53和1.60%，抗性较强；达到高感水平的温优1号、豫优1号、小偃803和豫麦25号在大田试验中白穗率分别达到9.46%、8.90%、8.36%和7.84%，抗性较弱，此与盆栽试验结果基本一致，尤其是矮早4110其平均病指较低、平均白穗率为0.96%，可作为较好的抗性材料, 可以考虑在重病田示范推广，以减轻病害的危害。而在盆栽试验中达到中感水平的豫58-998和高感水平的科麦2号在大田试验调查结果中则显示较低的白穗率，仅为0.28%和0.93%，显示出大田试验与盆栽试验的不一致性。另外，在盆栽试验中均达到中感水平的郑98、国麦1号和高优503，其平均白穗率最高，与盆栽试验结果不甚一致，均表现出较弱的抗病性。
通过对不同抗感的小麦品种根际微生物的区系分析，结果表明，不同抗、感的小麦品种的根际和根表微生物的数量、种数及优势种均存在一定差异，一般表现为抗病品种根际中具有更大的微生物群体。说明根际微生物区系组成的差异对小麦品种的抗性具有明显的影响。可能是不同小麦品种对全蚀病具有抗性差异的因素之一。
For the 101 isolates of actinomycetes, 31 isolates of bacteria, 24 isolates of fungi, the dual cultures were tested in vitro. The results showed that most microbes have given inhibition effects in some degree, but a several of them had probiosis effects more or less instead of inhibition effects. Among them we sifted 2 isolates of bacteria, EM3 and B22, 2 isolates of fungi, T4 and F5, and 4 isolates of actinomycetes, S037, S024, S89 and S90, which have better inhibition effects to Gaeumannomyces graminis var. triciti, their inhibition rate were 50.70%, 42.25%, 61.97%, 64.79%, 54.93%, 50.70,5 0.70和52.11% . The results showed that the major effects in actinomycetes is antibiosis effects, the important effects in bacteria is both competition and antibiosis, and is competition effects in fungi.
We did pot experiments to the microbes which have better antagonistic effects. The results showed that EM3 have the best control effects, the number is 53.49%, the second one is S037, the control effects is 51.94%, the results is consistent to the results on dual cultures, but F5 and T4 which have the best inhibition rate on dual cultures in vitro put up the worst control effects on pot experiments, the control effects of isolate T4 is 6.99% only and even F5 show minus control effects.
Resistance identification and evaluation to resistant ability to wheat take-all disease of 50 different wheat cultivars by pot experiment were presented. It showed that the whole resistance is relatively worse in spite of there is obvious discrepancy among these different wheat cultivars .There are no IR and HR wheat cultivars ,but eight wheat cultivars had got to MR level and the ratio of MR wheat cultivars is 26.7%.
We did field plot experiments to 40 wheat cultivars and investigated the ratio of
non-seed, then compare the consistence of the resistance to wheat take-all of different wheat cultures in pot experiments and field experiments. The results showed that MR wheat cultures in pot experiments, Aizao 4110, Qiangjin 1, Yuzhan 9705, Keyou1 and Xinmai11, get to lower rate of non-seed and higher resistance in field experiments; HS wheat cultures in pot experiments, Wenyou1, Yuyou1, Xiaoyan803 and Yumai25, show lower resistance in field experiments, the results is consistent to the trend in pot experiment. And Aizao4110 is better one, its average disease index is lower and average non-seed rate is 0.96%, we can look it as better resistance material and use it in heavy disease fields to decrease the disease damage. MS wheat culture in pot experiments Yu58-998 and HS wheat culture Kemai2 show lower ratio of non-seed in field experiments, is 0.28% and 0.93%, the results aren’t consistent to pot experiments. And MS wheat cultures Zheng98, Guomai1 and Gaoyou503, their ratio of non-seed are all the most higher and show weaker resistance. It is also different to the results in pot experiments.
Through the analysis of the rhizosphere microbes to different resistant or sensitive wheat cultivars we know that different resistant or sensitive wheat cultivars all influence the quantity, varieties and superior variety or dominant community of rhizosphere microbes. The influence and changes of different wheat cultivars to the rhizosphere microbes is also one of the important mechanism of resistance or endurance to wheat take-all disease expect for growth circumstances and haleness among different wheat cultivars.
The article identifies quantity distribution, varieties and superior variety of rhizosphere microbes to different resistant or sensitive wheat cultivars, it provides theoretic foundation and practical skills to further define the happening and development of wheat take-all and effective control wheat take-all.
我们从中筛选出对小麦全蚀病菌生长有较强的抑制作用8株生防菌,包括2株细菌EM3和B22，2株真菌T4和F5以及4株放线菌S037、S024、S89和S90。其中4株放线菌主要以抗生作用为主，如S037抑菌带宽达0.9cm；细菌则兼具竞争和抗生作用，如EM3虽然抑菌带宽仅为0.45cm，但其抑菌率却高达60.47%；真菌则主要是竞争作用，如F5和T4，尽管其抑菌带宽仅分别为0.2cm或无明显抑菌带，但它们的抑菌率却最高，分别为65.12%和63.95%。
对表现出较强颉抗活性的生防菌株，我们进行了室内盆栽试验,并设化学杀菌剂全蚀净为对照。结果表明,生防菌处理中，颉抗细菌EM3的防效最高，为53.49%；其次为颉抗放线菌S037，防效也达到51.94%，与室内平板对峙试验结果一致。而在平板对峙试验中抑菌率最高，抑制效果最好的两株真菌F5和T4，在此盆栽试验中表现较差。
通过室内盆栽人工接种试验对河南省生产上大面积推广和新培育的50个小麦品种（系）的抗全蚀病性能进行了鉴定和评价，结果发现品种间抗性存在明显的差异，但整体抗性较差，无免疫和高抗品种，达到中抗水平的有科优1号、豫展9705、豫58-998、矮早4110、
新麦11号、高优505、豫麦18号和豫麦49号八个品种（系），占所有供试品种的26.7%。
进一步对其中40个小麦品种进行了田间自然病圃试验,并调查了白穗率, 比较了在盆栽试验与大田试验条件下，不同小麦品种对小麦全蚀病的抗病性差异。结果表明，盆栽试验中达到中抗水平的矮早4110、强筋1号、豫展9705、科优1号和新麦11号其平均白穗率分别为0.96%、1.13%、1.20%、1.53和1.60%，抗性较强；达到高感水平的温优1号、豫优1号、小偃803和豫麦25号在大田试验中白穗率分别达到9.46%、8.90%、8.36%和7.84%，抗性较弱，此与盆栽试验结果基本一致，尤其是矮早4110其平均病指较低、平均白穗率为0.96%，可作为较好的抗性材料, 可以考虑在重病田示范推广，以减轻病害的危害。而在盆栽试验中达到中感水平的豫58-998和高感水平的科麦2号在大田试验调查结果中则显示较低的白穗率，仅为0.28%和0.93%，显示出大田试验与盆栽试验的不一致性。另外，在盆栽试验中均达到中感水平的郑98、国麦1号和高优503，其平均白穗率最高，与盆栽试验结果不甚一致，均表现出较弱的抗病性。
通过对不同抗感的小麦品种根际微生物的区系分析，结果表明，不同抗、感的小麦品种的根际和根表微生物的数量、种数及优势种均存在一定差异，一般表现为抗病品种根际中具有更大的微生物群体。说明根际微生物区系组成的差异对小麦品种的抗性具有明显的影响。可能是不同小麦品种对全蚀病具有抗性差异的因素之一。
For the 101 isolates of actinomycetes, 31 isolates of bacteria, 24 isolates of fungi, the dual cultures were tested in vitro. The results showed that most microbes have given inhibition effects in some degree, but a several of them had probiosis effects more or less instead of inhibition effects. Among them we sifted 2 isolates of bacteria, EM3 and B22, 2 isolates of fungi, T4 and F5, and 4 isolates of actinomycetes, S037, S024, S89 and S90, which have better inhibition effects to Gaeumannomyces graminis var. triciti, their inhibition rate were 50.70%, 42.25%, 61.97%, 64.79%, 54.93%, 50.70,5 0.70和52.11% . The results showed that the major effects in actinomycetes is antibiosis effects, the important effects in bacteria is both competition and antibiosis, and is competition effects in fungi.
We did pot experiments to the microbes which have better antagonistic effects. The results showed that EM3 have the best control effects, the number is 53.49%, the second one is S037, the control effects is 51.94%, the results is consistent to the results on dual cultures, but F5 and T4 which have the best inhibition rate on dual cultures in vitro put up the worst control effects on pot experiments, the control effects of isolate T4 is 6.99% only and even F5 show minus control effects.
Resistance identification and evaluation to resistant ability to wheat take-all disease of 50 different wheat cultivars by pot experiment were presented. It showed that the whole resistance is relatively worse in spite of there is obvious discrepancy among these different wheat cultivars .There are no IR and HR wheat cultivars ,but eight wheat cultivars had got to MR level and the ratio of MR wheat cultivars is 26.7%.
We did field plot experiments to 40 wheat cultivars and investigated the ratio of
non-seed, then compare the consistence of the resistance to wheat take-all of different wheat cultures in pot experiments and field experiments. The results showed that MR wheat cultures in pot experiments, Aizao 4110, Qiangjin 1, Yuzhan 9705, Keyou1 and Xinmai11, get to lower rate of non-seed and higher resistance in field experiments; HS wheat cultures in pot experiments, Wenyou1, Yuyou1, Xiaoyan803 and Yumai25, show lower resistance in field experiments, the results is consistent to the trend in pot experiment. And Aizao4110 is better one, its average disease index is lower and average non-seed rate is 0.96%, we can look it as better resistance material and use it in heavy disease fields to decrease the disease damage. MS wheat culture in pot experiments Yu58-998 and HS wheat culture Kemai2 show lower ratio of non-seed in field experiments, is 0.28% and 0.93%, the results aren’t consistent to pot experiments. And MS wheat cultures Zheng98, Guomai1 and Gaoyou503, their ratio of non-seed are all the most higher and show weaker resistance. It is also different to the results in pot experiments.
Through the analysis of the rhizosphere microbes to different resistant or sensitive wheat cultivars we know that different resistant or sensitive wheat cultivars all influence the quantity, varieties and superior variety or dominant community of rhizosphere microbes. The influence and changes of different wheat cultivars to the rhizosphere microbes is also one of the important mechanism of resistance or endurance to wheat take-all disease expect for growth circumstances and haleness among different wheat cultivars.
The article identifies quantity distribution, varieties and superior variety of rhizosphere microbes to different resistant or sensitive wheat cultivars, it provides theoretic foundation and practical skills to further define the happening and development of wheat take-all and effective control wheat take-all.
引文
Erna M.C.Maas,等.同步评估田间小麦全蚀病和分离病原的一种定量方法.农业新技术方法译丛,1990,(5): 6-8
G.N.Agrios[美]著 陈永萱,陆家云,许志刚 译 植物病理学(第三版).北京:中国农业出版社,1980
H.L.巴尼特,B.B.亨特著, 沈崇尧译,半知菌图解.科学技术出版社,1977
K.F.贝g,R.J.库g著,兰斌,等译,植物病原物的生物防治.农业出版社,1984
K.H.唐姆茨,W.盖姆斯著,韩绍英,等译,农业土壤真菌.科学出版社,1979
陈厚德,王学明,子平,等.江苏小麦全蚀病菌生物学特性的初步研究.江苏农学院学报,1997,18(1):65-68
陈厚德,王彰明,等.小麦全蚀病菌在不同土壤条件下的存活力.江苏农业科学,1996,2：34-35
陈怀谷,王裕中,史建荣,等.小麦全蚀病菌的生物学特性及其分离技术.江苏农业科学,1998,1:41-42
陈怀谷,王裕中,史建荣,等.小麦全蚀病菌的致病力积寄主范围测定.江苏农业学报,200,16(1):22-24
陈怀谷,王裕中,史建荣,等.小麦全蚀病与小麦产量损失率。江苏农业学报，1997，13（4）：248-249
11. 陈生斗. 中国小麦育种与产业化进展. 中国农业出版社,2002
戴芳澜 著.中国真菌总汇.科学出版社,1979
董金皋.农业植物病理学(北方本),中国农业出版社,2001
方中达．植病研究方法．中国农业出版社，1998．
高士仁,吴洵耻,时呈奎,等.小麦全蚀病发病条件调查研究.山东农业大学学报,1995,26(1):83～88
高小宁，刘起丽，黄丽丽，等．超高产小麦品种(系)对全蚀病的抗性鉴定．云南农业大学学报.2002,17(4)：426-427
高照良,商鸿生.小麦全蚀病发病因素研究进展.麦类作物,1999,19(6):63-65
宫岛帮之.小麦全蚀病的发生生态与防治.植物检疫(日),1990,（3）
郭建蒲.小麦全蚀病及其防治技术.青海农技推广,2000,4:32
郭培宗,刘彩云,等.小麦全蚀病发生特点及防治技术.河南职技师院学报,2001,29(1):90-92
郝祥之,等.小麦全蚀病及其防治.上海:上海科学技术出版社,1982
贾廷祥,吴桂本,叶学昌,等.我国小麦全蚀病变种类型及其分布的初步研究.浙江农业大
学学报,1986,12(2):166-175
贾廷祥.中国小麦全蚀病的初步研究[J].中国农业科学,1982,4:22-24
蒋紫勤，石明，等．小麦品种抗病性鉴定及生理小种变化规律研究．耕作与栽培，1999(1)：54-56
李洪连,等.土壤微生物与植物病害.河南农业大学学报,1989,23(4):406-407
李建社,张慧杰,张卓敏,等．山西冬麦区小麦全蚀病发生规律及不同品种的耐病性鉴定.山西农业科学,1994,22(2):36-39
李建社，张慧杰,等.小麦全蚀病多元减灾技术研究.山西农业科学,1997,25(1):67-69
李强,王保通.我国小麦全蚀病综合治理研究现状与展望.陕西农业科学,2000,(11):21-23
李子钦,张庆平,张建平,周智.小麦全蚀病国内外研究动态及其防治对策.内蒙古农业科技,1996(3):27-29
辽宁省植物保护站.小麦全蚀病.辽宁人民出版社.1976
刘常宏,商鸿生.禾顶囊壳小麦变种对小麦种子根的侵染过程.植物病理学报,2000,30(1):19-24
刘常宏,商鸿生.小麦全蚀病鉴定概述.麦类作物,1998,18(3):61-64
刘常宏,王美楠,商鸿生.麦类作物抗全蚀病室内苗期接种方法与评价指标.植物保护学报,2001,28(3):223-228
刘仪,等.植物病害研究与防治.北京:中国农业科技出版社,1998,370-373
刘仪,等著.植物病害研究与防治.中国农业科技出版社,1998
刘珍.小麦全蚀病及其防治技术.农业科技通讯,2000,3:25
卢振祖著.细菌分类学.武汉大学出版社,1994
梅汝鸿,等.小麦全蚀病生物防治试验.北京农业大学学报,1982,8(3)
梅汝鸿,徐维敏.植物微生态学.北京:中国农业出版社,1998
邱艳,杨淑琴,谢益书.氮磷肥料对小麦全蚀病菌侵染作用的研究.宁夏农学院学报,1998,19(2):55-57
商鸿生，刘常宏，袁红旭．小麦全蚀病抗病性与相关问题研究[A]．植物保护与植物营养研究进展[C]，中国农业出版社，1999
盛秀兰,金秀琳,郑果,等.甘肃省小麦全蚀病菌变种类型的鉴定及其生物学特性.甘肃农业科学，1996,(1):37-39
石鸿文.小麦全蚀病及防治技术.河南农业科学,2001,9:36-37
王美男,商鸿生.华山新麦草对小麦全蚀病菌的抗病性研究.西北农业大学学报,2000,28(6):69-71
王美男,商鸿生.麦类作物对小麦全蚀病菌抗病性的研究.西北农林科技大学学报(自然
科学版),2001,29(3):98-100
王明祖,韩群营,等.湖北省潜江市发生的小麦全蚀病病原鉴定.华中农业大学学报,2000,19(2):112-114
王生荣.甘肃省小麦全蚀病菌变种类型的初步鉴定.甘肃农业大学学报,1996,31(2):171-174
王守正,等.河南经济植物病害志.郑州：河南科学技术出版社，1994
王裕中,沈素文,等.小麦全蚀病菌的生物学特性及其分离技术.江苏农业科学,1998(1):41-42
王裕中,沈素文,等.小麦全蚀病菌对小麦根的侵染观察.江苏农业学报,1997,13(1):18-21
魏嘉典,等.小麦对全蚀病的抗性研究.内蒙古农业科技,1981(1)
魏景超 著.真菌鉴定手册.上海科学技术出版社,1979
吴洵耻,杨华奎.小麦全蚀病地根腐性病害病原类型与致病性研究.山东农业科学,1995(1):30-32
周国义,汪以.小麦全蚀病发生规律及防治技术.植物检疫,1999,13(3):28-29
肖芬.沼肥防治小麦全蚀病效果显著.农村能源,2001,3:17-18
邢来君,李明春.普通真菌学.高等教育出版社,1999
许长蔼,岳东霞,陈融,等.荧光假单孢菌的生防遗传改良.天津农业科学,2001,7(3):4-7
许志刚.普通植物病理学(第二版),北京:中国农业出版社,2000
烟台地区农业科学研究所.小麦全蚀病.济南:山东人民出版社,1975
阎逊初 著.放线菌的分类和鉴定.科学出版社,1992
杨苏声 著.细菌分类学.北京:中国农业大学出版社,1997
姚健民,王永成,朱白缸.全蚀病菌在玉米上的新变种,真菌学报,1992,11(2):99～104
喻子牛,何绍江.《农业微生物学实验技术》.北京:中国农业出版社,1996
袁红旭,商鸿生,等.温度与小麦全蚀病发病关系的研究.西北农业学报,2000,9(1): 43-45
袁红旭,商鸿生.西北地区小麦全蚀病菌生物特性研究。西北农业学报,1999,8(3):33-36
袁红旭,商鸿生.紫外线照射禾顶囊壳生物学效应的研究.核农学报,1999,13(2):94-99
张满良,等.农业植物病理学(北方本).西安:世界图书出版社西安公司,1997
张中鸽,彭于发,陈善铭.小麦全蚀病的发生现状及其防治措施讨论.植物保护,1991,(1):10-20
张中鸽,彭于发,张杰,等.荧光93菌体和代谢物对全蚀病菌和小麦生长影响的初步研究.生物防治通报,1992,8（3）125-128
赵福,等.小麦全蚀病.伊犁农业科技,1979(2)
赵会杰,段藏禄,毛凤梧.小麦品质形成机理与调优技术.中国农业科学技术出版社, 2003
中国科学院林业土壤研究所.土壤微生物分析方法手册.科学出版社,1960
中国科学院南京土壤研究所.土壤微生物研究法.科学出版社,1985
中国科学院微生物研究所.一般细菌常用鉴定方法.科学出版社,1978
竺万里等译,小麦全蚀病.中国科技情报出版社重庆分社,1979
Blanch PA,Asher MJC,Burnett JH. Inheritance of pathogenicity and cultural characters in Gaeumannomyces graminis var.tritici.Trans.Br.Mycol Soc.1981,77(2):391-399
Bodson B., Daoust S.,Falisse A.,Pamart M.,Janssens M. A Survey of wheat take-all in Belgium. Mededelingen Faculteit Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen Universiteit Gent, 2000,65(2b):515-521
Chakraborty S. Survival of wheat take-all fungus in suppressive and non-suppressive soils. Pedobiologia, 1985,28(1):13-18
Christensen N.W., Powelson R.L., Brett M. Epidemiology of wheat take-all as influenced by soil pH and temporal changes in inorganic soil N. Plant and Soil, 1987,98(2):221-230.
Cook R.J. Problems and progress in the biological control of wheat take-all. Plant Pathology,1994,43(3):429-437.
Cook R.J. and Rovira A.D. The role of bacteria in the biological control of Gaeumannomyces graminis by suppressive soils. Soil Biol.Biochem.1976,8:269-273
Cook R.J., Wilkinson H.T., Alldredge J.R. Evidence that microorganisms in suppressive soil associated with wheat take-all decline do not limit the number of lesions produced by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Phytopathology, 1986, 76(3):342-345.
Deacon J.W.& Henry C.M.Death to biological control of take-all. Ann. Appl. Biol.1987,89:100
Eastwood R.F.et al.Triricum tauschii,Reaction to the take-all fungus(Gaeumannomyces graminis var.ttitici). Aust.J. Agric. Res. 1993, 44: 745-754
Eastwood R.F., Kollmorgen J.F., Hannah M., Williams W.M. Reaction of somaclonal variants of wheat to the take-all fungus (Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici).Plant Pathology, 1994,43(4):644-650.
Glemn-OF, Parker-CA. Growth and infectivity of Gaeumannomyces graminis
var.tritici in soil. Soil-Biology-and-Biochemistry, 1988,20(4):575-576
Gurusiddaiah S., Weller D.M., Sarkar A.and Cook R.J. Charac-terization of an antibiotic produced by a strain of Pserdomonas fluorescens inhibitory to Gaeumannomyces graminis var.tritici and Pythium spp. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.1986,29:488-495
Hornby D. Inoculum of the wheat take-all fungus: nature, measurement, distribution and survival. EPPO Bulletin, 1975,5(4):319-333.
Huber D.M.and Waston R N.Effect of organic amendment on soil-borne plant pathogens[J]. Phytopathology,1970,60:22-26
Huber D.M. Fertilizers and soil-borne disease[J].Soil Use Manage, 1990, 6:168-173
Joseph-Horne T.,Heppner C.,Headrick J.,Hollomon D.W. Identification and characterization of the mode of action of MON 65500: a novel inhibitor of ATP export from mitochondria of the wheat take-all fungus, Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Pesticide Biochemistry & Physiology, 2000, 67(3):168-186
Kollmorgen J.F., Griffiths J.B., Walsgott D.N. The effects of various crops on the survival and carry-over of the wheat take-all fungus Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Plant Pathology, 1983,32(1):73-77
Leffett-ME, Sivasitham, Param-K. Interaction of fluorescent Pseudomonas with huphae of the take-all fungus and growth of wheat roots in soil. British Crop Protection Conference Pests and Disease,1986,3:1177-1184
Linda S.thomashow et al.Role of antibiotics and siderephere in biocontrol of take-all of wheat.Plant and Soil,1990,129(1):93-99
Miyajima K. Biological cotrol of wheat take-all by fluorescent Pseudomonas. Plant Protection,1988,42(5):227-230.
Miyajima K. Biology and control of wheat take-all [by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici]. Plant Protection,1986,40(4):159-162.
Miyajima K.,Tsuboki K. Occurrence of wheat take-all caused by [the fungus] Gaeumannomyces graminis (Sacc.) Arx and Olivier var. tritici Waker in Hokkaido, Japan. Bulletin of Hokkaido Prefectural Agricultural Experiment Stations,1981,5:38-46.
Nilsson H.E,Drew S.J. Take-all of grasses[A].Biology and Control of Take-all[C].London:Academic Press,1981,433-438
Peng Y.F. and Chen S.M. Genetically improved pseudomonads used in biocontrol
of take-all. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica. 1990,20(3):229-233
Peng Y.F.Zhang Z.G.,Huang D.F. and Chen C.C. Suppression of Wheat take-all by Pseudomonas fluorescens and its colonization and migration in wheat plant.In Advances in Plant Protection,ed.K.X.Huang,pp.1-7.China Science and Technology Press,Beijing,1991
Penrose L. Influence of weight of seed on hyphal growth of the take-all pathogen,Gaeumannomyces graminis var.tritici,in wheat roots grown in sand culture[J].Australian Journal of Africulture,1987,27:559-561
Penrose L. Interpretive value of symptoms of infection by Gaeumannomyces graminis var.tritici[J].Annals of Applied Biology,1992,121:545-557
Penrose L.Evidence for resistance in wheat cultivars grown in sand culture to the take-all pathogen,Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Ann. Appl. Biol., 1985, 107:105-108
Poplawsky A.R.,Peng Y.F. and Ellingboe A.H. Genetics of antibiosis in bacterial strains suppressive to take-all.Phytopathology. 1988,78:426-432
Raaijimakers J M and Weller D M.Natural plant protection by Pseudomonas spp in take-all deline soils[J].Plant-Microbe Interections,1998,11:144-192
Rothrook C S. Relative susceptibility of small grains to take-all[C]. Plant Disease,1988,(72):883-886
Shipton P.J. Take-all decline during cereal monoculture. In Take-all Decline During Cereal Monoculture,ed. G.W. Bruehl, pp.137-144. St.Paul,MN,Am. Phytopathol. Soc. 1975
Slininger P.J., Burkhead K.D., Schisler D.A., Bothast R.J. Isolation, identification, and accumulation of 2-acetamidophenol in liquid cultures of the wheat take-all biocontrol agent Pseudomonas fluorescens 2-79. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 2000,54(3):376-381
Solel Z.et al.Features of resistance to take-all disease in cereal species evaluated by laboratoty assays,1990,130:219-244
Stelljes K.B. Premier bacteria suppress wheat take-all. Agricultural Research, 1999, 47(3):10-12
Stelljes K.B., Hardin B. Tackling wheat take-all. Agricultural research.1995, 43(8):4-7.
Walker J.Take-all diseases of Gramineae:Areview of recent work.Review of Plant Pathology,1975,54(3):113-143
Wang Meinan, Shang Hongshen. Evaluation of resistance in Psathyrostachys huashaica to wheat take-all fungus. Journal of Northwest Sci Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry,2000,28(6)
Weller D.M.,R.J. Cook. Suppression of take-all of wheat by seed treatment with fluorescent Pseudomonas. Phytopathology,1983,73:463-469
Wong P.T.W. Effect of temperature on growth of some avirulent fungi and cross-protection against the wheat take-all fungus. Annals of Applied Biology, 1980,95(3):291-299
Wong P.T.W.,Mead J.A.,Holley M.P. Enhanced field control of wheat take-all using cold tolerant isolates of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. graminis and Phialophora sp. (lobed hyphopodia). Plant Pathology, 1996,45(2):285-293
G.N.Agrios[美]著 陈永萱,陆家云,许志刚 译 植物病理学(第三版).北京:中国农业出版社,1980
H.L.巴尼特,B.B.亨特著, 沈崇尧译,半知菌图解.科学技术出版社,1977
K.F.贝g,R.J.库g著,兰斌,等译,植物病原物的生物防治.农业出版社,1984
K.H.唐姆茨,W.盖姆斯著,韩绍英,等译,农业土壤真菌.科学出版社,1979
陈厚德,王学明,子平,等.江苏小麦全蚀病菌生物学特性的初步研究.江苏农学院学报,1997,18(1):65-68
陈厚德,王彰明,等.小麦全蚀病菌在不同土壤条件下的存活力.江苏农业科学,1996,2：34-35
陈怀谷,王裕中,史建荣,等.小麦全蚀病菌的生物学特性及其分离技术.江苏农业科学,1998,1:41-42
陈怀谷,王裕中,史建荣,等.小麦全蚀病菌的致病力积寄主范围测定.江苏农业学报,200,16(1):22-24
陈怀谷,王裕中,史建荣,等.小麦全蚀病与小麦产量损失率。江苏农业学报，1997，13（4）：248-249
11. 陈生斗. 中国小麦育种与产业化进展. 中国农业出版社,2002
戴芳澜 著.中国真菌总汇.科学出版社,1979
董金皋.农业植物病理学(北方本),中国农业出版社,2001
方中达．植病研究方法．中国农业出版社，1998．
高士仁,吴洵耻,时呈奎,等.小麦全蚀病发病条件调查研究.山东农业大学学报,1995,26(1):83～88
高小宁，刘起丽，黄丽丽，等．超高产小麦品种(系)对全蚀病的抗性鉴定．云南农业大学学报.2002,17(4)：426-427
高照良,商鸿生.小麦全蚀病发病因素研究进展.麦类作物,1999,19(6):63-65
宫岛帮之.小麦全蚀病的发生生态与防治.植物检疫(日),1990,（3）
郭建蒲.小麦全蚀病及其防治技术.青海农技推广,2000,4:32
郭培宗,刘彩云,等.小麦全蚀病发生特点及防治技术.河南职技师院学报,2001,29(1):90-92
郝祥之,等.小麦全蚀病及其防治.上海:上海科学技术出版社,1982
贾廷祥,吴桂本,叶学昌,等.我国小麦全蚀病变种类型及其分布的初步研究.浙江农业大
学学报,1986,12(2):166-175
贾廷祥.中国小麦全蚀病的初步研究[J].中国农业科学,1982,4:22-24
蒋紫勤，石明，等．小麦品种抗病性鉴定及生理小种变化规律研究．耕作与栽培，1999(1)：54-56
李洪连,等.土壤微生物与植物病害.河南农业大学学报,1989,23(4):406-407
李建社,张慧杰,张卓敏,等．山西冬麦区小麦全蚀病发生规律及不同品种的耐病性鉴定.山西农业科学,1994,22(2):36-39
李建社，张慧杰,等.小麦全蚀病多元减灾技术研究.山西农业科学,1997,25(1):67-69
李强,王保通.我国小麦全蚀病综合治理研究现状与展望.陕西农业科学,2000,(11):21-23
李子钦,张庆平,张建平,周智.小麦全蚀病国内外研究动态及其防治对策.内蒙古农业科技,1996(3):27-29
辽宁省植物保护站.小麦全蚀病.辽宁人民出版社.1976
刘常宏,商鸿生.禾顶囊壳小麦变种对小麦种子根的侵染过程.植物病理学报,2000,30(1):19-24
刘常宏,商鸿生.小麦全蚀病鉴定概述.麦类作物,1998,18(3):61-64
刘常宏,王美楠,商鸿生.麦类作物抗全蚀病室内苗期接种方法与评价指标.植物保护学报,2001,28(3):223-228
刘仪,等.植物病害研究与防治.北京:中国农业科技出版社,1998,370-373
刘仪,等著.植物病害研究与防治.中国农业科技出版社,1998
刘珍.小麦全蚀病及其防治技术.农业科技通讯,2000,3:25
卢振祖著.细菌分类学.武汉大学出版社,1994
梅汝鸿,等.小麦全蚀病生物防治试验.北京农业大学学报,1982,8(3)
梅汝鸿,徐维敏.植物微生态学.北京:中国农业出版社,1998
邱艳,杨淑琴,谢益书.氮磷肥料对小麦全蚀病菌侵染作用的研究.宁夏农学院学报,1998,19(2):55-57
商鸿生，刘常宏，袁红旭．小麦全蚀病抗病性与相关问题研究[A]．植物保护与植物营养研究进展[C]，中国农业出版社，1999
盛秀兰,金秀琳,郑果,等.甘肃省小麦全蚀病菌变种类型的鉴定及其生物学特性.甘肃农业科学，1996,(1):37-39
石鸿文.小麦全蚀病及防治技术.河南农业科学,2001,9:36-37
王美男,商鸿生.华山新麦草对小麦全蚀病菌的抗病性研究.西北农业大学学报,2000,28(6):69-71
王美男,商鸿生.麦类作物对小麦全蚀病菌抗病性的研究.西北农林科技大学学报(自然
科学版),2001,29(3):98-100
王明祖,韩群营,等.湖北省潜江市发生的小麦全蚀病病原鉴定.华中农业大学学报,2000,19(2):112-114
王生荣.甘肃省小麦全蚀病菌变种类型的初步鉴定.甘肃农业大学学报,1996,31(2):171-174
王守正,等.河南经济植物病害志.郑州：河南科学技术出版社，1994
王裕中,沈素文,等.小麦全蚀病菌的生物学特性及其分离技术.江苏农业科学,1998(1):41-42
王裕中,沈素文,等.小麦全蚀病菌对小麦根的侵染观察.江苏农业学报,1997,13(1):18-21
魏嘉典,等.小麦对全蚀病的抗性研究.内蒙古农业科技,1981(1)
魏景超 著.真菌鉴定手册.上海科学技术出版社,1979
吴洵耻,杨华奎.小麦全蚀病地根腐性病害病原类型与致病性研究.山东农业科学,1995(1):30-32
周国义,汪以.小麦全蚀病发生规律及防治技术.植物检疫,1999,13(3):28-29
肖芬.沼肥防治小麦全蚀病效果显著.农村能源,2001,3:17-18
邢来君,李明春.普通真菌学.高等教育出版社,1999
许长蔼,岳东霞,陈融,等.荧光假单孢菌的生防遗传改良.天津农业科学,2001,7(3):4-7
许志刚.普通植物病理学(第二版),北京:中国农业出版社,2000
烟台地区农业科学研究所.小麦全蚀病.济南:山东人民出版社,1975
阎逊初 著.放线菌的分类和鉴定.科学出版社,1992
杨苏声 著.细菌分类学.北京:中国农业大学出版社,1997
姚健民,王永成,朱白缸.全蚀病菌在玉米上的新变种,真菌学报,1992,11(2):99～104
喻子牛,何绍江.《农业微生物学实验技术》.北京:中国农业出版社,1996
袁红旭,商鸿生,等.温度与小麦全蚀病发病关系的研究.西北农业学报,2000,9(1): 43-45
袁红旭,商鸿生.西北地区小麦全蚀病菌生物特性研究。西北农业学报,1999,8(3):33-36
袁红旭,商鸿生.紫外线照射禾顶囊壳生物学效应的研究.核农学报,1999,13(2):94-99
张满良,等.农业植物病理学(北方本).西安:世界图书出版社西安公司,1997
张中鸽,彭于发,陈善铭.小麦全蚀病的发生现状及其防治措施讨论.植物保护,1991,(1):10-20
张中鸽,彭于发,张杰,等.荧光93菌体和代谢物对全蚀病菌和小麦生长影响的初步研究.生物防治通报,1992,8（3）125-128
赵福,等.小麦全蚀病.伊犁农业科技,1979(2)
赵会杰,段藏禄,毛凤梧.小麦品质形成机理与调优技术.中国农业科学技术出版社, 2003
中国科学院林业土壤研究所.土壤微生物分析方法手册.科学出版社,1960
中国科学院南京土壤研究所.土壤微生物研究法.科学出版社,1985
中国科学院微生物研究所.一般细菌常用鉴定方法.科学出版社,1978
竺万里等译,小麦全蚀病.中国科技情报出版社重庆分社,1979
Blanch PA,Asher MJC,Burnett JH. Inheritance of pathogenicity and cultural characters in Gaeumannomyces graminis var.tritici.Trans.Br.Mycol Soc.1981,77(2):391-399
Bodson B., Daoust S.,Falisse A.,Pamart M.,Janssens M. A Survey of wheat take-all in Belgium. Mededelingen Faculteit Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen Universiteit Gent, 2000,65(2b):515-521
Chakraborty S. Survival of wheat take-all fungus in suppressive and non-suppressive soils. Pedobiologia, 1985,28(1):13-18
Christensen N.W., Powelson R.L., Brett M. Epidemiology of wheat take-all as influenced by soil pH and temporal changes in inorganic soil N. Plant and Soil, 1987,98(2):221-230.
Cook R.J. Problems and progress in the biological control of wheat take-all. Plant Pathology,1994,43(3):429-437.
Cook R.J. and Rovira A.D. The role of bacteria in the biological control of Gaeumannomyces graminis by suppressive soils. Soil Biol.Biochem.1976,8:269-273
Cook R.J., Wilkinson H.T., Alldredge J.R. Evidence that microorganisms in suppressive soil associated with wheat take-all decline do not limit the number of lesions produced by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Phytopathology, 1986, 76(3):342-345.
Deacon J.W.& Henry C.M.Death to biological control of take-all. Ann. Appl. Biol.1987,89:100
Eastwood R.F.et al.Triricum tauschii,Reaction to the take-all fungus(Gaeumannomyces graminis var.ttitici). Aust.J. Agric. Res. 1993, 44: 745-754
Eastwood R.F., Kollmorgen J.F., Hannah M., Williams W.M. Reaction of somaclonal variants of wheat to the take-all fungus (Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici).Plant Pathology, 1994,43(4):644-650.
Glemn-OF, Parker-CA. Growth and infectivity of Gaeumannomyces graminis
var.tritici in soil. Soil-Biology-and-Biochemistry, 1988,20(4):575-576
Gurusiddaiah S., Weller D.M., Sarkar A.and Cook R.J. Charac-terization of an antibiotic produced by a strain of Pserdomonas fluorescens inhibitory to Gaeumannomyces graminis var.tritici and Pythium spp. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.1986,29:488-495
Hornby D. Inoculum of the wheat take-all fungus: nature, measurement, distribution and survival. EPPO Bulletin, 1975,5(4):319-333.
Huber D.M.and Waston R N.Effect of organic amendment on soil-borne plant pathogens[J]. Phytopathology,1970,60:22-26
Huber D.M. Fertilizers and soil-borne disease[J].Soil Use Manage, 1990, 6:168-173
Joseph-Horne T.,Heppner C.,Headrick J.,Hollomon D.W. Identification and characterization of the mode of action of MON 65500: a novel inhibitor of ATP export from mitochondria of the wheat take-all fungus, Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Pesticide Biochemistry & Physiology, 2000, 67(3):168-186
Kollmorgen J.F., Griffiths J.B., Walsgott D.N. The effects of various crops on the survival and carry-over of the wheat take-all fungus Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Plant Pathology, 1983,32(1):73-77
Leffett-ME, Sivasitham, Param-K. Interaction of fluorescent Pseudomonas with huphae of the take-all fungus and growth of wheat roots in soil. British Crop Protection Conference Pests and Disease,1986,3:1177-1184
Linda S.thomashow et al.Role of antibiotics and siderephere in biocontrol of take-all of wheat.Plant and Soil,1990,129(1):93-99
Miyajima K. Biological cotrol of wheat take-all by fluorescent Pseudomonas. Plant Protection,1988,42(5):227-230.
Miyajima K. Biology and control of wheat take-all [by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici]. Plant Protection,1986,40(4):159-162.
Miyajima K.,Tsuboki K. Occurrence of wheat take-all caused by [the fungus] Gaeumannomyces graminis (Sacc.) Arx and Olivier var. tritici Waker in Hokkaido, Japan. Bulletin of Hokkaido Prefectural Agricultural Experiment Stations,1981,5:38-46.
Nilsson H.E,Drew S.J. Take-all of grasses[A].Biology and Control of Take-all[C].London:Academic Press,1981,433-438
Peng Y.F. and Chen S.M. Genetically improved pseudomonads used in biocontrol
of take-all. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica. 1990,20(3):229-233
Peng Y.F.Zhang Z.G.,Huang D.F. and Chen C.C. Suppression of Wheat take-all by Pseudomonas fluorescens and its colonization and migration in wheat plant.In Advances in Plant Protection,ed.K.X.Huang,pp.1-7.China Science and Technology Press,Beijing,1991
Penrose L. Influence of weight of seed on hyphal growth of the take-all pathogen,Gaeumannomyces graminis var.tritici,in wheat roots grown in sand culture[J].Australian Journal of Africulture,1987,27:559-561
Penrose L. Interpretive value of symptoms of infection by Gaeumannomyces graminis var.tritici[J].Annals of Applied Biology,1992,121:545-557
Penrose L.Evidence for resistance in wheat cultivars grown in sand culture to the take-all pathogen,Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici. Ann. Appl. Biol., 1985, 107:105-108
Poplawsky A.R.,Peng Y.F. and Ellingboe A.H. Genetics of antibiosis in bacterial strains suppressive to take-all.Phytopathology. 1988,78:426-432
Raaijimakers J M and Weller D M.Natural plant protection by Pseudomonas spp in take-all deline soils[J].Plant-Microbe Interections,1998,11:144-192
Rothrook C S. Relative susceptibility of small grains to take-all[C]. Plant Disease,1988,(72):883-886
Shipton P.J. Take-all decline during cereal monoculture. In Take-all Decline During Cereal Monoculture,ed. G.W. Bruehl, pp.137-144. St.Paul,MN,Am. Phytopathol. Soc. 1975
Slininger P.J., Burkhead K.D., Schisler D.A., Bothast R.J. Isolation, identification, and accumulation of 2-acetamidophenol in liquid cultures of the wheat take-all biocontrol agent Pseudomonas fluorescens 2-79. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 2000,54(3):376-381
Solel Z.et al.Features of resistance to take-all disease in cereal species evaluated by laboratoty assays,1990,130:219-244
Stelljes K.B. Premier bacteria suppress wheat take-all. Agricultural Research, 1999, 47(3):10-12
Stelljes K.B., Hardin B. Tackling wheat take-all. Agricultural research.1995, 43(8):4-7.
Walker J.Take-all diseases of Gramineae:Areview of recent work.Review of Plant Pathology,1975,54(3):113-143
Wang Meinan, Shang Hongshen. Evaluation of resistance in Psathyrostachys huashaica to wheat take-all fungus. Journal of Northwest Sci Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry,2000,28(6)
Weller D.M.,R.J. Cook. Suppression of take-all of wheat by seed treatment with fluorescent Pseudomonas. Phytopathology,1983,73:463-469
Wong P.T.W. Effect of temperature on growth of some avirulent fungi and cross-protection against the wheat take-all fungus. Annals of Applied Biology, 1980,95(3):291-299
Wong P.T.W.,Mead J.A.,Holley M.P. Enhanced field control of wheat take-all using cold tolerant isolates of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. graminis and Phialophora sp. (lobed hyphopodia). Plant Pathology, 1996,45(2):285-293