杧果蒂腐病菌潜伏侵染及其生物学特性研究
|
摘要
在广西大学东校园园艺站的四号杧和紫花杧上调查开花期之前一个月的春梢枝条、盛花期的花梗、结果期的幼果和青熟果的带菌情况，以确定杧果蒂腐病菌的潜伏侵染习性。调查结果表明，开花期之前一个月就有蒂腐病菌潜伏在春梢的枝条上。从开花期之前一个月到成果贮存期共分离到42个能引起杧果腐烂的真菌菌株，除D-1、D-2、D-3、D-4、D-5、D-6、D-7、D-8、D-9外其余菌株经诱导都不产孢，经鉴定，D-1菌株为Dothiorella dominicana Pet.et Cif., D-2菌株为Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat.,D-3菌株为Pestalotiopsis sp.,D-4菌株为Colletotrichum gloeosporioides(Penz.)Sacc.,D-5菌株为Diplodina sp.,D-6菌株为Phomopsis mangiferae Ahmad,D-7菌株为Cladosporium sp.,D-8菌株为Penicillium sp.,D-9菌株为Aspergillussp.。D-1、D-2、D-3菌株于开花期之前一个月潜伏侵染枝条；D-4菌株于花期开始侵染花梗；D-5菌株于幼果期侵入，并潜伏于果蒂和果皮，至成果贮存期发病；D-6、D-7、D-8菌株于成果期开始潜伏侵染；D-9菌株仅于成果落果及贮存期腐烂果中发现。其中D-1、D-2、D-5菌株为采集地杧果蒂腐病的主要病原菌，D-3、D-6为次要病原菌。D-4、D-7、D-8、D-9菌株只在一定条件下引起杧果蒂腐病症状。在国内外均没有关于D-5菌株(Diplodina sp.)在杧果上为害的报道，因此D-5菌株(Diplodina sp.)是新发现的杧果蒂腐病菌。
对D-5菌株(Diplodina sp.)进行的若干生物学特性测定表明：D-5菌株生长的温度范围为10～37℃，25～28℃为生长最适温区；菌丝在
广两大学硕1毕业论文
pH4刀～9．0范围内都可以生长，最适pH为5．5；光照以荧光最利于菌丝
生长，而黑光诱导于座形成的能力最强；利用率最高的碳、氮源分别为
乳糖和卜谷氨酸。参试的＊种药剂中，有7种对D6菌株有抑制作用，
它们的抑制作用由强到弱依次为敌力脱、施保克、特克多、多菌灵、世
高、应得、特普哩。
离体接种病原菌 Dotl；iorella do，l吻。。a，。a、BotrJ，o帅IOala tlteob。，。。ae
和Diplodil。ti Sp的杜果果实中：过氧化物酶0OD）活性均比对照高，
且果实发病越重POD活性越高，即致病力强的菌株诱导果内POD产生
的能力比致病力弱的菌株强、发病时问越长果内POD活性越高。多酚氧
化酶pPOD）活性变化与POD基本一致。苯丙氨酸解氨酶（PAL）活
性在不同果实与病原菌的组合中变化规律稍有不同：Dothlbrella
do。。。l。onna、Boil’yodtolodia ti’eob。，nae与四号杠的组合中，在距病斑 Icm
处果皮内的PAL活性均比对照高，距病斑2、3Clll处果皮内的PAL活性
则比对照低；而 Diplodtoa sp．与紫花杠的组合中，PAL活性比对照低。
The latent infection of the mango stem end rot pathogens was
investigated by isolating the pothgens from the shoots prior to flowering, infloresence, ftuitlet, ripeless fruits and ripening fruit of two varieties, Shihaomang and Zihuamang , in mango orchard of Guangxi University. The result of investigation indicated that some stem end rot pathogengs were found to occur endophytically in the shoot prior to flowering. There were 42 isolates causing mango fruit rot that obtained from the period prior to flowering to store. Except nine isolates (D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8, D-9) produced conidia, all of the others didn't produce conidia after induction. After identifying, D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8, D-9 respectively were Dothiorella dominicana Pet.et Cif. , Botryodiplodia (heobromae Pat., Pestalotiopsis sp., Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc., Diplodina sp., Phomopsis mangiferae Ahmad, Cladosporium sp., Penicillium sp. and Aspergillus sp. .D-1, D-2, D-3 latently infected the shoots perior to flowering ; D-4 stared to infecting the tissue of infloresence during flowering ; D-5 invaded fruitlets and made ripe fruits rotten after latent period; D-6, D-7, D-8 latently infected ripeless fruits before harvest; while D-9 only could be isolated from fallen and rotten fruits during storing. Among these pathogens, D-l, D-2, D-5 were the main pathogens that caused mango stem end rot in the orchard; while D-3, D-6 were the minor one; the others could cause the symptom of stem end rot only in certain conditions. There were no correspondent reports on mango stem end rot caused by Diplodina sp. in the world. So D-5 was identified to be a new pathogen of mango stem end rot.
The study on biological characteristics of D-5 isolate (Diplodina sp.) indicated: The range of growth tempreture was 10-37 C, while the optimum growth tempreture was 25-28 C. It could growth between pH 4.0-9.0, while pH 5.5 wae it's optimum pH. Fluoresent light was the best light to it's growth, while black light was the best light to it's production of stroma. The best carbon and nitrogen source to it's growth was lactose and L-glutamic acid respectively. There were 7 fungicides showing control effects on it among the tested 11, and the control effects of the 7 fungicides from strong to weak successively were Tilt, Spoetak, Tecto, Carbendazim, Score, Indar, Diniconazole.
The study on the activities of peroxidase (POD), polyphenoloxidase (PPOD) and phenylalanine ammonialyase (PAL) in mango peel after inoculation by Dothiorella dominicana, Botryodiplodia theobromae and
Diplodina sp. indicated: The activities of POD after inoculation by pathogens were all higher than CK, furthermore, the activities of POD increased while the disease of mango became more serious, it meant that the pathogen with more strong pothogenicity could induce mango fruit producted more POD than that less pathogenicity or that the activities of POD higher and higher with the time of stem rot prolong. The change of the activities of PPOD was somewhate similar to POD. The activities of PAL had some differences between different combination of mango varietise and pathogen strains. The activities of PAL of combination of Dolhiorella dominicana, Botiyodiplodia theobromae and Sihaomang in mango peel were all higher than CK ,which aparted from disease spot 1 cm; while the activities of PAL in mango peel were all lower than CK, which aparted from disease spot 2 and 3 cm. The activities of PAL of combination of Diplodina sp. and Zihuamang in mango peel were all lower than CK too.
对D-5菌株(Diplodina sp.)进行的若干生物学特性测定表明：D-5菌株生长的温度范围为10～37℃，25～28℃为生长最适温区；菌丝在
广两大学硕1毕业论文
pH4刀～9．0范围内都可以生长，最适pH为5．5；光照以荧光最利于菌丝
生长，而黑光诱导于座形成的能力最强；利用率最高的碳、氮源分别为
乳糖和卜谷氨酸。参试的＊种药剂中，有7种对D6菌株有抑制作用，
它们的抑制作用由强到弱依次为敌力脱、施保克、特克多、多菌灵、世
高、应得、特普哩。
离体接种病原菌 Dotl；iorella do，l吻。。a，。a、BotrJ，o帅IOala tlteob。，。。ae
和Diplodil。ti Sp的杜果果实中：过氧化物酶0OD）活性均比对照高，
且果实发病越重POD活性越高，即致病力强的菌株诱导果内POD产生
的能力比致病力弱的菌株强、发病时问越长果内POD活性越高。多酚氧
化酶pPOD）活性变化与POD基本一致。苯丙氨酸解氨酶（PAL）活
性在不同果实与病原菌的组合中变化规律稍有不同：Dothlbrella
do。。。l。onna、Boil’yodtolodia ti’eob。，nae与四号杠的组合中，在距病斑 Icm
处果皮内的PAL活性均比对照高，距病斑2、3Clll处果皮内的PAL活性
则比对照低；而 Diplodtoa sp．与紫花杠的组合中，PAL活性比对照低。
The latent infection of the mango stem end rot pathogens was
investigated by isolating the pothgens from the shoots prior to flowering, infloresence, ftuitlet, ripeless fruits and ripening fruit of two varieties, Shihaomang and Zihuamang , in mango orchard of Guangxi University. The result of investigation indicated that some stem end rot pathogengs were found to occur endophytically in the shoot prior to flowering. There were 42 isolates causing mango fruit rot that obtained from the period prior to flowering to store. Except nine isolates (D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8, D-9) produced conidia, all of the others didn't produce conidia after induction. After identifying, D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8, D-9 respectively were Dothiorella dominicana Pet.et Cif. , Botryodiplodia (heobromae Pat., Pestalotiopsis sp., Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc., Diplodina sp., Phomopsis mangiferae Ahmad, Cladosporium sp., Penicillium sp. and Aspergillus sp. .D-1, D-2, D-3 latently infected the shoots perior to flowering ; D-4 stared to infecting the tissue of infloresence during flowering ; D-5 invaded fruitlets and made ripe fruits rotten after latent period; D-6, D-7, D-8 latently infected ripeless fruits before harvest; while D-9 only could be isolated from fallen and rotten fruits during storing. Among these pathogens, D-l, D-2, D-5 were the main pathogens that caused mango stem end rot in the orchard; while D-3, D-6 were the minor one; the others could cause the symptom of stem end rot only in certain conditions. There were no correspondent reports on mango stem end rot caused by Diplodina sp. in the world. So D-5 was identified to be a new pathogen of mango stem end rot.
The study on biological characteristics of D-5 isolate (Diplodina sp.) indicated: The range of growth tempreture was 10-37 C, while the optimum growth tempreture was 25-28 C. It could growth between pH 4.0-9.0, while pH 5.5 wae it's optimum pH. Fluoresent light was the best light to it's growth, while black light was the best light to it's production of stroma. The best carbon and nitrogen source to it's growth was lactose and L-glutamic acid respectively. There were 7 fungicides showing control effects on it among the tested 11, and the control effects of the 7 fungicides from strong to weak successively were Tilt, Spoetak, Tecto, Carbendazim, Score, Indar, Diniconazole.
The study on the activities of peroxidase (POD), polyphenoloxidase (PPOD) and phenylalanine ammonialyase (PAL) in mango peel after inoculation by Dothiorella dominicana, Botryodiplodia theobromae and
Diplodina sp. indicated: The activities of POD after inoculation by pathogens were all higher than CK, furthermore, the activities of POD increased while the disease of mango became more serious, it meant that the pathogen with more strong pothogenicity could induce mango fruit producted more POD than that less pathogenicity or that the activities of POD higher and higher with the time of stem rot prolong. The change of the activities of PPOD was somewhate similar to POD. The activities of PAL had some differences between different combination of mango varietise and pathogen strains. The activities of PAL of combination of Dolhiorella dominicana, Botiyodiplodia theobromae and Sihaomang in mango peel were all higher than CK ,which aparted from disease spot 1 cm; while the activities of PAL in mango peel were all lower than CK, which aparted from disease spot 2 and 3 cm. The activities of PAL of combination of Diplodina sp. and Zihuamang in mango peel were all lower than CK too.
引文
[1]黄循精，张慧坚．世界芒果的生产、科研及贸易[J]．热带作物研究 1995，1：81～86
[2]蔡於麒，何和明．芒果生产过程中若干生理参数的变化闭．中国野生植物资源，2000，19(5)：56～58
[3]周至宏，王助引，黄思良等．香蕉、菠萝、杧果病虫害防治彩色图说[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，2000
[4]肖倩纯、余卓桐、郑建华等．芒果病害种类及其病原菌鉴定[J]．热带作物学报，1995，16(1)：77～83
[5]王璧生，刘景梅等．芒果病虫害看图防治[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，2000
[6]邓泽明，胡美姣，白菊仙等．海南省忙果蒂腐病病原菌的初步研究[J]．中国南方果树，2002，31(4)：39～41
[7]王璧生，刘朝祯，戚佩坤．芒果蒂腐病病原菌的鉴定及采后药剂试验[J]．华南农业大学学报，1994,15(3)：55～60
[8]Johnson G I, Mead A J, Cooke A W et al.Mango stem end rot pathogen-fruit infection by endophytic colonization[J].Annals of Applied Biology, 1992,120 (2):225～234
[9]苏小军，蒋跃明，于新．芒果采后生物学及贮运保鲜技术研究进展[J]．仲恺农业技术学院学报，2001，14(1)：60～66
[10]Saaiman W C.Biologyand control of Nattassia mangiferae[J].Acta Horticulture, 1997,455:558～565
[11]Peterson R A, Johnson G Ⅰ, Schipke L G et al. Chemical control of stem rot in mango [J].ISHS Acta Horticulture, 291: □ International Mango Symposium.http://www.actahort.org/books/291/291-34.htm
[12]Alabi R O.Disease of mango(Mangiferae indica) fruits caused by Dothiorella dominicana[J].INT.BIODETERIOR.BULL, 1986,22 (1):21～26
[13]Darvas J M. Dothiorella dorninicana,a new mango pathogen in South Africa[J].PHYTOPHYLACTICA, 1991,23 (4):295～298
[14]Meah M B, Plumbley R A, Jeger M J.Growth and infectivity of Botryodiplodia theobromae causing stem end rot ofmango[J].MYCOL.RES, 1991,95(4):405～408
[15]Patil R K, Pathak V N.Influence oftemperatmre and relative humidity on incidence of Botryodiplodia and Rhizopus rot of mango fruit [J].INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1993,23 (3):296～301
[16]Masarenhas P, Behere A, Sharma A et al.Post-harvest spoilage of mango(Mangiferae indica)by Botryodiplodia theobromae[J]. MYCOL.RES, 1996,100 (1):27～30
[17]Patil R K, Pathak V N.Effect on fruit ripeness in relation to synthesis andactivity of cell wall degrading enzymes of mango rot pathogens[J]. INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1994,24 (2):156～157
[18]Chandra J, Pathak V N.Study on the stem end rot (Diplodina natalensis Pole Evans)disease of post harvest mango(Mangiferae indica)fruit[J]. INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1989,19 (1):37～43
[19]Prasad S S, Sinha A K, Hasija S K et al.In vivo and in vitro production of pectolyticenzymes by Botryodiplodia theobromae and Macrophoma mangiferae,causing soft rot of mango[J]. PERSPECTIVES IN MYCOLOGICAL RESERCH, 1987,1:101～109
[20]Chile S K. Oxidative metabolism under Botryodiplodia fruit rot pathogenesis[J]. INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1984,14 (2):138～142
[21]EI-Samadisi A M, Lateef M F A A, Mahmoud M B et al.Control of stem end rot mamgo fruit[J]. ANN.AGRIC.SCI.MOSHTOHOR, 1990,28 (4):2655～2666
[22]Sharma I M, Badiyala S D.Effect of pre- harvest fungicidal aprays against stem end rot of mango fruit in storage caused by Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat.in Himachal Pradsh[J]. INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1994,24 (2):141～142
[23]Johnson G I, Sangchote S, Cooke A W.Control of stem end rot (Dothiorella dorninicana) and other postharvest disease of mango(cv. Kensing pride) during short-and-long-term storage[J].TROP. AFRIC, 1990,67 (2): 183～187
[24]Hasabnis S N, D'Souza T F. Use of natrural plant products in the control of the storage rot in Alphonso mango fruit[J]. J.MAHARASHTRA AFRIC.UNIV, 1987,12 (1):105～106
[25]Johnson G I.Control of stem end rot of mangoes.(会议资料)
[26]Johnson G I, Mead A J, Cooke A W et al. Mango stem end rot pathogen-infection level between flowering and harvest[J].Annals of Applied Biology,1991,119 (3):465～473
[27]归树章，黄壮立，钟艺平等．深圳地区芒果病虫害综合防治研究[J]．广东农业科学，2001，5：37～38
[28]梁志慧，唐伟文，唐晶等．芒果蒂腐病防治研究[J]．广东农业科学，1996,4：35～36
[29]旃庆全，黄业全．云南芒果蒂腐病发生及防治技术[J]．植保技术与推广，1999，19(2)：26
[30]黄思良，邓卫利，杨胜远等．芒果蒂腐病菌(Botryodiplodia theobromae)生物学特性研究[J]．西南农业学报，1999，12(1)：82～86
[31]肖功年，庞宗文，杨胜远等．芒果小穴壳蒂腐病菌(Dothiorella dominicana)生物学特性研究闭．西南农业学报，2000,13(1)：71～74
[32]谢玲，黄思良，岑贞陆等．芒果褐色蒂腐病菌(Phomopsis mangiferae)生物学特性研究[J]．微生物学杂志，2002，22(1)：15～17
[33]谢宇雄，冯双庆，颜耀祖等．广西中部地区芒果采后致病真菌的鉴定及果实常温贮藏试验[J]．中国农业大学学报，1999，4(1)：82，96
[34]林居庆．芒果病虫发生概况及防治[J]．福建果树，1995，3：43～44
[35]邓光辉，李济权，张卫民．芒果贮藏期病害发生规律研究[J]．广西民族学院学报，1995，1(2)：12～15
[36]杨胜远，邓卫利，熊德元等，中草药成份对芒果病原菌的抑菌作用[J]．药物生物技术，2001，8(6)：335～338
[37]刘秀娟，张开云，杨业铜．咪鲜安杀菌剂对香蕉、芒果采后病害的控制效果[J]．热带农业科学，1994，2：64～68
[38]唐友林，周玉婵，杨谦．杀菌剂与果蜡处理对“紫花”芒果后熟软化及采后病害的影响[J]．亚热带植物通讯，1996，25(1)：17～21
[39]黄思良，晏卫红，岑贞陆等．拮抗微生物真空浸果对桂热芒82号炭疽病与蒂腐病的防治效果[J]．广西热作科技，2002，3：11～13
[40]胡美姣，刘秀娟，张令宏．热带亚热带水果采后病害的生物防治[J]．热带农业科学，2001，2：51～59
[41]唐友林，周玉婵，屈红霞等．可食植物涂料对芒果后熟软化及采后病害的影响(简报)[J]．亚热带植物通讯，1997，26(1)：35～37
[42]王璧生，刘景梅，彭埃天等．芒果采后处理技术规程研究[J]．广东农业科学，1997，3：43～45
[43]刘秀娟，杨业铜，谢道林等．钴-60辐照芒果果实的防腐保鲜效应[J]．热带作物学报，1996，17(2)：63～70
[44]黄世希．右江河谷芒果主要病虫害的发生及其防治[J]．广西热作科技，1999，2：35～36
[45]晏卫红，黄思良，谢玲等．芒果蒂腐病和炭疽病的抗性诱导[J]．西南农业学报，2001，14(3)：56～58
[46]董金皋，樊慕贞，韩建民等．芸苔链格孢菌毒素对白菜细胞膜透性、SOD酶和POD酶活性的影响[J]．植物病理学报，1999，29(2)：138～141
[47]曾广文，蒋德安，植物生理学[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，2000
[48]曾永兰，王振中．PAL在植物抗病反应中的作用[J]．仲恺农业技术学院学报，1999，12(3)：56～65
[49]方中达．植病研究方法(第三版)[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，1998
[50]王琪．广西龙眼真菌性病害德的调查与研究[D]．广西大学：农学院，2001
[51]朱广廉，钟海文，张爱琴．植物生理学实验[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，1991
[52]张志良，吴光耀．植物生物化学技术和方法[M]．农业出版社，1986
[53]章骏德．植物生理学实验法[M]．江西人民出版社，1982
[54]魏景超．真菌鉴定手册[M]．上海：上海科技出版社，1979
[55]戚佩坤．广东果树真菌病害志[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，1999
[56]喻璋，任国兰．菌物学基础[M]．北京：气象出版社，1999
[57]张中义．植物病原真菌学[M]．四川科学技术出版社，1988
[58]吕成群．芒果幼苗染炭疽病后过氧化物酶同工酶的变化[J]．热带作物学报，1991，12(2)：41～46
[59]章元寿．植物病理生理学[M]．姜堰：江苏科学技术出版社，1996
[60]李安妮，朱慧英，邓义才．杧果采后生理研究[J]．热带亚热带植物学报，2(1)：64～69
[61]冯双庆，于梁，周山涛等．芒果贮藏保鲜初试[J]．园艺学报，1992，19(1)：76～78
[62]李红叶，曹若彬，徐德胜等．杨梅根腐病菌营养和分泌果胶酶及纤维素酶的特性[J]．浙江农业大学学报，1996,22(2)：196～200
[2]蔡於麒，何和明．芒果生产过程中若干生理参数的变化闭．中国野生植物资源，2000，19(5)：56～58
[3]周至宏，王助引，黄思良等．香蕉、菠萝、杧果病虫害防治彩色图说[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，2000
[4]肖倩纯、余卓桐、郑建华等．芒果病害种类及其病原菌鉴定[J]．热带作物学报，1995，16(1)：77～83
[5]王璧生，刘景梅等．芒果病虫害看图防治[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，2000
[6]邓泽明，胡美姣，白菊仙等．海南省忙果蒂腐病病原菌的初步研究[J]．中国南方果树，2002，31(4)：39～41
[7]王璧生，刘朝祯，戚佩坤．芒果蒂腐病病原菌的鉴定及采后药剂试验[J]．华南农业大学学报，1994,15(3)：55～60
[8]Johnson G I, Mead A J, Cooke A W et al.Mango stem end rot pathogen-fruit infection by endophytic colonization[J].Annals of Applied Biology, 1992,120 (2):225～234
[9]苏小军，蒋跃明，于新．芒果采后生物学及贮运保鲜技术研究进展[J]．仲恺农业技术学院学报，2001，14(1)：60～66
[10]Saaiman W C.Biologyand control of Nattassia mangiferae[J].Acta Horticulture, 1997,455:558～565
[11]Peterson R A, Johnson G Ⅰ, Schipke L G et al. Chemical control of stem rot in mango [J].ISHS Acta Horticulture, 291: □ International Mango Symposium.http://www.actahort.org/books/291/291-34.htm
[12]Alabi R O.Disease of mango(Mangiferae indica) fruits caused by Dothiorella dominicana[J].INT.BIODETERIOR.BULL, 1986,22 (1):21～26
[13]Darvas J M. Dothiorella dorninicana,a new mango pathogen in South Africa[J].PHYTOPHYLACTICA, 1991,23 (4):295～298
[14]Meah M B, Plumbley R A, Jeger M J.Growth and infectivity of Botryodiplodia theobromae causing stem end rot ofmango[J].MYCOL.RES, 1991,95(4):405～408
[15]Patil R K, Pathak V N.Influence oftemperatmre and relative humidity on incidence of Botryodiplodia and Rhizopus rot of mango fruit [J].INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1993,23 (3):296～301
[16]Masarenhas P, Behere A, Sharma A et al.Post-harvest spoilage of mango(Mangiferae indica)by Botryodiplodia theobromae[J]. MYCOL.RES, 1996,100 (1):27～30
[17]Patil R K, Pathak V N.Effect on fruit ripeness in relation to synthesis andactivity of cell wall degrading enzymes of mango rot pathogens[J]. INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1994,24 (2):156～157
[18]Chandra J, Pathak V N.Study on the stem end rot (Diplodina natalensis Pole Evans)disease of post harvest mango(Mangiferae indica)fruit[J]. INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1989,19 (1):37～43
[19]Prasad S S, Sinha A K, Hasija S K et al.In vivo and in vitro production of pectolyticenzymes by Botryodiplodia theobromae and Macrophoma mangiferae,causing soft rot of mango[J]. PERSPECTIVES IN MYCOLOGICAL RESERCH, 1987,1:101～109
[20]Chile S K. Oxidative metabolism under Botryodiplodia fruit rot pathogenesis[J]. INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1984,14 (2):138～142
[21]EI-Samadisi A M, Lateef M F A A, Mahmoud M B et al.Control of stem end rot mamgo fruit[J]. ANN.AGRIC.SCI.MOSHTOHOR, 1990,28 (4):2655～2666
[22]Sharma I M, Badiyala S D.Effect of pre- harvest fungicidal aprays against stem end rot of mango fruit in storage caused by Botryodiplodia theobromae Pat.in Himachal Pradsh[J]. INDIAN J.MYCOL.PLANT PATHOL, 1994,24 (2):141～142
[23]Johnson G I, Sangchote S, Cooke A W.Control of stem end rot (Dothiorella dorninicana) and other postharvest disease of mango(cv. Kensing pride) during short-and-long-term storage[J].TROP. AFRIC, 1990,67 (2): 183～187
[24]Hasabnis S N, D'Souza T F. Use of natrural plant products in the control of the storage rot in Alphonso mango fruit[J]. J.MAHARASHTRA AFRIC.UNIV, 1987,12 (1):105～106
[25]Johnson G I.Control of stem end rot of mangoes.(会议资料)
[26]Johnson G I, Mead A J, Cooke A W et al. Mango stem end rot pathogen-infection level between flowering and harvest[J].Annals of Applied Biology,1991,119 (3):465～473
[27]归树章，黄壮立，钟艺平等．深圳地区芒果病虫害综合防治研究[J]．广东农业科学，2001，5：37～38
[28]梁志慧，唐伟文，唐晶等．芒果蒂腐病防治研究[J]．广东农业科学，1996,4：35～36
[29]旃庆全，黄业全．云南芒果蒂腐病发生及防治技术[J]．植保技术与推广，1999，19(2)：26
[30]黄思良，邓卫利，杨胜远等．芒果蒂腐病菌(Botryodiplodia theobromae)生物学特性研究[J]．西南农业学报，1999，12(1)：82～86
[31]肖功年，庞宗文，杨胜远等．芒果小穴壳蒂腐病菌(Dothiorella dominicana)生物学特性研究闭．西南农业学报，2000,13(1)：71～74
[32]谢玲，黄思良，岑贞陆等．芒果褐色蒂腐病菌(Phomopsis mangiferae)生物学特性研究[J]．微生物学杂志，2002，22(1)：15～17
[33]谢宇雄，冯双庆，颜耀祖等．广西中部地区芒果采后致病真菌的鉴定及果实常温贮藏试验[J]．中国农业大学学报，1999，4(1)：82，96
[34]林居庆．芒果病虫发生概况及防治[J]．福建果树，1995，3：43～44
[35]邓光辉，李济权，张卫民．芒果贮藏期病害发生规律研究[J]．广西民族学院学报，1995，1(2)：12～15
[36]杨胜远，邓卫利，熊德元等，中草药成份对芒果病原菌的抑菌作用[J]．药物生物技术，2001，8(6)：335～338
[37]刘秀娟，张开云，杨业铜．咪鲜安杀菌剂对香蕉、芒果采后病害的控制效果[J]．热带农业科学，1994，2：64～68
[38]唐友林，周玉婵，杨谦．杀菌剂与果蜡处理对“紫花”芒果后熟软化及采后病害的影响[J]．亚热带植物通讯，1996，25(1)：17～21
[39]黄思良，晏卫红，岑贞陆等．拮抗微生物真空浸果对桂热芒82号炭疽病与蒂腐病的防治效果[J]．广西热作科技，2002，3：11～13
[40]胡美姣，刘秀娟，张令宏．热带亚热带水果采后病害的生物防治[J]．热带农业科学，2001，2：51～59
[41]唐友林，周玉婵，屈红霞等．可食植物涂料对芒果后熟软化及采后病害的影响(简报)[J]．亚热带植物通讯，1997，26(1)：35～37
[42]王璧生，刘景梅，彭埃天等．芒果采后处理技术规程研究[J]．广东农业科学，1997，3：43～45
[43]刘秀娟，杨业铜，谢道林等．钴-60辐照芒果果实的防腐保鲜效应[J]．热带作物学报，1996，17(2)：63～70
[44]黄世希．右江河谷芒果主要病虫害的发生及其防治[J]．广西热作科技，1999，2：35～36
[45]晏卫红，黄思良，谢玲等．芒果蒂腐病和炭疽病的抗性诱导[J]．西南农业学报，2001，14(3)：56～58
[46]董金皋，樊慕贞，韩建民等．芸苔链格孢菌毒素对白菜细胞膜透性、SOD酶和POD酶活性的影响[J]．植物病理学报，1999，29(2)：138～141
[47]曾广文，蒋德安，植物生理学[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，2000
[48]曾永兰，王振中．PAL在植物抗病反应中的作用[J]．仲恺农业技术学院学报，1999，12(3)：56～65
[49]方中达．植病研究方法(第三版)[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，1998
[50]王琪．广西龙眼真菌性病害德的调查与研究[D]．广西大学：农学院，2001
[51]朱广廉，钟海文，张爱琴．植物生理学实验[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，1991
[52]张志良，吴光耀．植物生物化学技术和方法[M]．农业出版社，1986
[53]章骏德．植物生理学实验法[M]．江西人民出版社，1982
[54]魏景超．真菌鉴定手册[M]．上海：上海科技出版社，1979
[55]戚佩坤．广东果树真菌病害志[M]．北京：中国农业出版社，1999
[56]喻璋，任国兰．菌物学基础[M]．北京：气象出版社，1999
[57]张中义．植物病原真菌学[M]．四川科学技术出版社，1988
[58]吕成群．芒果幼苗染炭疽病后过氧化物酶同工酶的变化[J]．热带作物学报，1991，12(2)：41～46
[59]章元寿．植物病理生理学[M]．姜堰：江苏科学技术出版社，1996
[60]李安妮，朱慧英，邓义才．杧果采后生理研究[J]．热带亚热带植物学报，2(1)：64～69
[61]冯双庆，于梁，周山涛等．芒果贮藏保鲜初试[J]．园艺学报，1992，19(1)：76～78
[62]李红叶，曹若彬，徐德胜等．杨梅根腐病菌营养和分泌果胶酶及纤维素酶的特性[J]．浙江农业大学学报，1996,22(2)：196～200