烟草青枯病是由青枯菌（Ralstonia solanacearum）引起的一种细菌性病害，是烟草的一大毁灭性病害。此病主要分布于世界热带、亚热带及温带等湿热地区。我国烟草青枯病菌在长江以南发生居多，据报道，该病在多发病区旱地烟田的发病率为30%～50%。对烟草青枯病的防治，迄今仍无十分有效的措施，通常采用化学农药方法防治，但由于青枯病是维管束类病害，因而限制了化学农药的使用；而且化学防治易产生抗药性，造成环境污染。近年来，由于生物防治具有无污染、无公害、长效性等特点，所以青枯病的生物防治逐渐引起国内外的高度重视[1～4]。目前已取得了良好的进展，如魏春妹等[5]研制出番茄青枯病和烟草青枯病的生防制剂“青枯散”，田间试验证明该制剂对番茄青枯病、烟草青枯病有70%和80%的防治效果。为了筛选拮抗能力、定殖竞争能力强和效果稳定的优势菌株，本实验室从烟草的根标、根围土壤分离筛选出了拮抗细菌，并进行了室内拮抗能力的测定和盆栽烟苗防病的系列研究，得到了一株拮抗能力较好的菌株SH7，具有较好的商业化前景。本研究进行了SH7摇瓶发酵试验，筛选适合该菌株的发酵培养基配方和发酵条件。枯草芽孢杆菌SH7菌株由本室筛选、保存。种子培养基：牛肉汁液体培养基（酵母粉0.5g、葡萄糖10g、蛋白胨5g、牛肉膏3g、pH值7.0，定容至1L）。待测培养基的配制[6]：①号培养基：淀粉0.15%、葡萄糖0.5%、尿素0.1%、磷酸氢二钾0.3%、磷酸二氢钾0.15%、硫酸镁0.05%、酵母膏0.02%、氯化铁0.01%、碳酸钙0.01%、豆粕1%；②号培养基：淀粉0.15%、葡萄糖0.5%、尿素0.1%、磷酸氢二钾0.3%、磷酸二氢钾0.15%、硫酸镁0.05%、酵母膏0.02%、氯化铁0.01%、碳酸钙0.01%、豆粕1%、30.8mg/L的硫酸锰溶液0.1%；③号培养基：牛肉膏0.3%、蛋白胨1%、葡萄糖1%、氯化钠0.5%；④号培养基：牛肉膏0.3%、蛋白胨1%、葡萄糖1%、氯化钠0.5%、淀粉0.3%、30.8mg/L的硫酸锰溶液0.1%。将4种不同培养基pH值均调为7.2～7.3，装液量为60ml/300ml。121℃灭菌20min，备用。1.2.1 种子准备 牛肉汁液体培养基，pH值为7.0，装瓶量为100ml/300ml三角瓶，121℃灭菌20min。将牛肉汁液体培养基接菌后37℃过夜摇菌。1.2.2 培养基配方筛选 上述4种培养基中接种种子菌液1.5ml，在31℃条件下，摇菌36h后取5ml发酵完毕的菌液，在12000r/min下离心5min，倒掉上清，冷冻干燥沉淀18h后，称重量。1.2.3 发酵培养条件优化 每次只改变测定的一个发酵条件，其他方法同1.2.2。2 结果从表1可以看出，3次重复中5ml培养液中菌体干重的平均值大小依次为④号（0.0094g）＞③号（0.0089g）＞①号（0.0059g）＞②号（0.0054g），因此④号培养基较适合该菌的发酵。2.2.1 pH值 将发酵培养基的pH值分别调为7.0、7.3、7.6、7.9、8.2，3次重复。在装瓶量为60ml/300ml，接种量为1.5ml，31℃，180/min条件下摇菌36h，取5ml发酵液，冷冻干燥后称重。结果为，pH值7.0为0.0081g、pH值7.3为0.0061g、pH值7.6为0.0079g、pH值7.9为0.0082g、pH值8.2为0.0092g。pH值8.2比较适合该菌的发酵（图1）。重量（g）①号②号③号④号10.00590.00510.00970.013120.00660.00530.00970.006230.00510.00380.00720.0090平均0.00590.00540.00890.0094表1 培养基配方筛选结果2.2.2 装瓶量 将发酵培养基的pH值分别调为8.2，接种量为1.5ml，在300ml的三角瓶中分别装入40ml、60ml、80ml、100ml、120ml，3次重复。在31℃、180r/min条件下摇菌36h，取5ml发酵液，冷冻干燥后称重。结果为，40ml的为0.0065g、60ml的为0.0071g、80ml的为0.0065g、100ml的为0.0053g、120ml的为0.0062g。300ml的三角瓶中装60ml培养基较适合该菌生长（图2）。图1 pH值筛选结果图2 装瓶量筛选结果2.2.3 接种量 将培养基的pH值调为8.2，装瓶量为60ml/300ml三角瓶，接种量分别设为2%、4%、6%、8%、10%，3次重复。在31℃、180r/min条件下摇菌36h，取5ml发酵液，冷冻干燥后称重。结果是，接种量2%的为0.0098g、4%的为0.0108g、6%的为0.0103g、8%的为0.0112g、10%的为0.0096g。较合适的接种量为8%（图3）。2.2.4 培养温度 将培养基的pH值调为8.2，装瓶量为60ml/300ml三角瓶，接种量为8%，将温度分别设为25℃、28℃、31℃、34℃、37℃。在180r/min条件下摇菌36h，取5ml发酵液，冷冻干燥后称重。其结果是，25℃为0.0087g、28℃为0.0107g、31℃为0.0112g、34℃为0.0099g、37℃为0.0106g。较合适的温度为31℃（图4）。图3 接种量筛选结果图4 温度筛选结果2.2.5 培养转速 将培养基的pH值调为8.2，装瓶量为60ml/300ml三角瓶，接种量为8%，温度为31℃。将转速分别设为120r/min、150r/min、180r/min、210r/min、240r/min，摇菌36h，取5ml发酵液，冷冻干燥后称重。其结果是，120r/min为0.0091g、150r/min为0.0109g、180r/min为0.0092g、210r/min为0.0107g、240r/min为0.0101g。150r/min比较适合该菌发酵，所以选定150r/min作为较适转速（图5）。2.2.6 发酵时间 将培养基的pH值调为8.2，装瓶量为60ml/300ml三角瓶、接种量为8%、温度为31℃、转速为150r/min，将摇菌时间分别设为12h、24h、36h、48h、60h，取5ml发酵液，冷冻干燥后称重。其结果是，12h为0.0038g、24h为0.0062g、36h为0.0063g、48h为0.0067g、60h为0.0063g。发酵时间36h和60h菌体重量相同，但48h菌体重量最大，发酵时间越长对于生产越不经济，所以选取48h为较适发酵时间（图6）。图5 转速结果筛选图6 发酵时间筛选结果为了确定最优的培养基配方，我们将摇瓶试验结果相对较好的④号培养基作为基础培养基（培养基中其他营养成分不变），从中选出4种主要成分，采用优化好的发酵条件，按正交设计表L9（34）设计了4个因素、3个水平的正交试验，以进一步优化培养基配比[7，8]。正交试验设计和结果见表2。由表中R值可看出，影响SH7菌量依次为：牛肉膏＞蛋白胨＞NaCl＞葡萄糖。正交试验结果表明最佳培养基组合为：0.9%牛肉膏+2%蛋白胨+2%葡萄糖+1.1%NaCl。试验号牛肉膏（%）蛋白胨（%）葡萄糖（%）NaCl（%）菌体含量（g/5ml）1号1（0.3%）1（1%）1（1%）1（0.5%）0.009112号12（1.5%）2（1.5%）2（0.8%）0.010563号13（2%）3（2%）3（1.1%）0.011784号2（0.6%）1230.011445号22310.012566号23120.011897号3（0.9%）1320.011228号32130.012679号33210.01233Ⅰj0.03145g0.03177g0.03367g0.03400gⅡj0.03589g0.03579g0.03433g0.03367gⅢj0.03622g0.03600g0.03556g0.03589gR0.00477g0.00423g0.00189g0.00222g表2 正交试验设计及结果本文通过对该菌培养基配方和培养条件的优化选择以及正交试验，初步确定最适宜SH7菌株生长的培养基配方及培养条件如下：0.9%牛肉膏+2%蛋白胨+2%葡萄糖+1.1%NaCl；发酵起始pH值为8.2、300ml的三角瓶装瓶量为60ml、接种量为8%、温度为31℃、转速为150r/min，发酵时间为48h。这为SH7菌株的发酵罐放大试验提供了理论依据。本试验采用渐进法优化发酵条件，每确定一项，就在下一目标筛选中应用，这样使得得到的试验结果更准确。同时也要考虑到实际生产中的成本问题，例如某些营养物质含量不能太高或发酵周期不能过长，否则成本就会升高。众所周知，烟草业在国民经济中占有重要地位，目前青枯病的化学防治和生防都不甚理想，一定程度上制约了我国的烟草生产和出口。本实验室所筛选出的芽孢杆菌SH7对烟草青枯病菌表现出了良好的拮抗性，温室药效试验达到了较高的水平，前景广阔。本试验筛选出了适合该菌的发酵配方并优化了发酵条件，为该菌的生产应用打下了良好的基础。

小麦是渑池县的一种主要粮食作物。在小麦腥黑穗病的发生上，渑池县20世纪50～60年代比较普遍，80年代以后大部分地区已基本绝迹。近年来，小麦腥黑穗病在部分地区开始暴发，而且发生面积逐年加大，有大面积漫延之势。在小麦腥黑穗病的发生上，开始大都为零星发生，病株率较低，加上大部分群众对该病害不具备识别能力，早期不易引起群众的足够重视。一般经过2～3年病菌的传播、扩散和病菌的积累后，随着发病面积不断扩大和田间病穗率的提高。小麦腥黑穗病病穗比正常小麦麦穗落黄时间晚3～5天。当正常小麦麦穗已变黄时，小麦腥黑穗病病穗略显暗绿色，颖壳和麦芒稍向外张开，露出部分病粒。病粒比好麦粒粗短，初为暗绿色，以后变为灰黑色或淡灰色，外面包着一层灰白色膜，里面充满鱼腥味的黑粉（病菌的厚垣抱子），所以俗称腥乌麦或臭黑疸。病株一般比健株矮小，分蘖增多。小麦腥黑穗病病原菌有两种，一种是Tilletia caries（DC.）Tul.（小麦网腥黑粉菌），另一种是Tilletia foetida（Wallr.）Liro（称小麦光腥黑粉菌）。有报道Tilletia ntraversa Kühn称小麦矮腥黑粉菌也能引起腥黑穗病发生。两种病原菌均属担子菌亚门真菌。小麦网腥黑粉菌孢子堆生在子房内，外包果皮，与种子同大，内部充满黑紫色粉状孢子，具腥味。孢子球形至近球形，浅灰褐色至深红褐色，大小14～20μm，具网状花纹，网眼宽2～4μm。小麦光腥黑粉菌孢子堆同上。孢子球形或椭圆形，有的长圆形至多角形，浅灰色至暗榄褐色，大小15～25μm，表面平滑，也具腥味。小麦矮腥黑粉菌成群的孢子为暗黄褐色，分散的孢子近球形，浅黄色至浅棕色，大小14～18μm，具网纹，网脊高2～3μm，网目直径3～4.5μm，有的可达9.5～10μm，外面包被厚1.5～5.5μm的透明胶质鞘。主要引致小麦矮腥黑穗病。小麦脱粒时，病粒破裂，病菌孢子飞散，粘附在种子表面，调运带有小麦腥黑穗病病菌的种子是造成小麦腥黑穗病远距离传播的主要途径。群众相互间的种子串换是造成小麦腥黑穗病在一定区域内大面积扩散的主要原因。混有病菌的麦糠、麦秸、淘麦水等沤粪或喂牲口，使粪肥中带有病菌，施入麦地，也可以传病；若多户群众共用一个麦场，在小麦脱粒或晾晒时也可以传病；在个别寒冷干燥的地区，落在土中的病菌孢子存活时间较长，也可传病。病菌以厚垣孢子附在种子外表或混入粪肥、土壤中越冬或越夏。小麦播种后，当种子发芽时，粘附在种子表面或粪肥、土壤中的病菌孢子发芽并侵入小麦幼芽，厚垣孢子也随即萌发，厚垣孢子先产生先菌丝，其顶端生6～8个线状担孢子，不同性别担孢子在先菌丝上呈“H”状结合，然后萌发为较细的双核侵染线。从芽鞘侵入麦苗并到达生长点，后病菌在麦株内以菌丝体形态随小麦而发育，到孕穗期，侵入子房，最后到达花部，破坏花器正常发育，抽穗时在麦粒内形成菌瘿即病原菌的厚垣孢子，即为病粒。小麦腥黑穗病菌的厚垣孢子能在水中萌发，有机肥浸出液对其萌发有刺激作用。萌发适温16～20℃。病菌侵入麦苗温度5～20℃，最适9～12℃。湿润土壤（土壤持水量40%以下）有利于孢子萌发和侵染。一般播种较深，不利于麦苗出土，但增加了病菌侵染机会，病害加重发生。病菌只能侵害未出土的幼芽，而不能侵害小麦的幼苗或植株，小麦一旦出苗后，病菌就不再侵染。所以小麦腥黑穗病防治必须抓好播种期这一关键时期。在小麦腥黑穗病的发生上，一般播种愈深愈晚，出土愈慢，发病愈重。土壤温度在5～12℃、土壤湿度中等时，最容易侵染。因此，冬麦迟播，春麦早播，发病较重。4.1 小麦腥黑穗病传播途径主要是种子传播。4.2 受小麦腥黑穗病侵染的小麦，从播种到抽穗前，田间基本没有明显的症状表现，只是到小麦落黄以后症状才表现出来。4.3 当种子发芽时，病菌孢子一旦侵入小麦幼芽使小麦感病，难以用药剂进行防治。4.4 带有小麦腥黑穗病病菌的小麦有毒，人一旦食用，轻者头晕恶心，重者引起中毒。5.1 违章调运是造成小麦腥黑穗病发生的重要原因。新的种子法实施后，随着种子市场的放开，私拉乱调现象十分严重，加上调种单位检疫意识淡薄，逃漏检现象突出，检疫不严是造成小麦腥黑穗病传播的一个主要途径。5.2 近年来群众对麦播药剂拌种重视不够，白种下地是造成小麦腥黑穗病连年发生的一个主要原因。5.3 群众更换新品种不及时，自留种现象普遍。一般是购买一次种子，连种3～5年，造成病菌积累，小麦腥黑穗病逐年加重。5.4 农户之间相互串换种子是造成小麦腥黑穗病在不同乡、村之间快速扩散和严重发生的一个重要原因。在小麦品种更换上，大部分群众为了节省成本，往往不到正规的种子门店购种，而是相互之间串换，造成小麦腥黑穗病在村、户之间或村、村之大面积传播发病，基本上发病一家，传遍全村。5.5 播种晚出苗时间长是部分年份发病严重的一个重要因素。由于气候原因，部分年份小麦播种期较晚，地温低，小麦在土壤中发芽出苗时间延长，使小麦腥黑穗病病菌侵染机会增加，来年发病就重。6.1.1 加强检疫执法力度，开展产地检疫和种子抽样室内检验，严把引种、调种和种子外调关。6.1.2 小麦腥黑穗病发病重的地区（病穗率超过0.6%，含0.6%）的小麦必须销毁处理，秸秆必须进行焚烧，严禁沤肥或喂牲口。发病轻的地区（病穗率小于0.6%），要及时拔除，毁灭病株，单打单收，禁止留作种用。6.1.3 广泛宣传，积极引导群众及时更换新品种，严禁群众间相互串种。小麦腥黑穗病主要是通过种子传播，实践证明及时更换品种，是防治小麦腥黑穗病的最有效措施。一般做到年年更换新品种，经过3～5年的品种连续更换，即可将小麦腥黑穗病完全根除；购种时必须到正规的种子部门，选购经过检疫部门检疫合格的种子。6.1.4 轮作倒茬、适时早播。发生小麦腥黑穗病的田块可改种其他作物，或与油料、蔬菜等非禾本科作物进行轮作；在小麦播种时，播种不易过迟、过深，覆土不易过厚，缩短小麦出苗时间。6.2.1 药剂种子处理。用种子重量0.15%的20%的粉锈宁乳油拌种，可防治此病，还可兼防治小麦秋苗期白粉病和锈病。也可用2.5%适乐时悬浮剂按种子量的0.15%拌种，防效均较好。6.2.2 也可用1%石灰水浸种。石灰1kg加水100kg浸小麦，种子60kg，以水淹过种子10～13cm为宜。气温20℃浸3～4天，25℃时浸2天，30℃时浸1天。种子入水后禁止搅动以防破坏水面石灰膜，浸后晒干待播。6.2.3 在粪肥或土壤传染地区，除用药剂拌种外，还需采用以下方法才能收到最好的效果：每亩用纯六氯代苯0.5kg（50%的用1kg）加干细土2.5～7.5kg，拌匀制成毒土，与种子混合均匀，用耧播下；用豆饼、花生饼、芝麻饼、菜籽饼等油饼磨成粉末，每亩园22.5kg，加入10～15倍细土或土粪拌匀，和麦种同时播下；在病粪中加入人粪尿、油饼、青草等有机质，经堆积腐熟，然后施用。适时早播。注意事项：一切参与小麦收割的农事工具及车辆在离开疫情发生地块前，使用50%粉锈宁可湿性粉剂200倍液消毒处理。

水稻条纹叶枯病由灰飞虱传播的发生严重的水稻病毒病。该病2004年在浙江长兴突然发生，全县发病面积为663.3hm2，发病较重的田块丛病率达50%以上，株病率达17.6%，一般丛病率在10%左右，株病率在1%～5%，其中产量损失10%～30%为21.7hm2，损失30%以上为2.79hm2，涉及15个乡镇，个别严重田块颗粒无收。2005年水稻条纹叶枯病以较快的速度蔓延，6月中旬在长兴夹浦、洪桥、虹星桥、雉城等乡镇的单晚秧田和早播直播稻相继发病，部分严重田块株病率超过25%，7月10日左右，出现第二个症状表现高峰，移（抛）栽稻、直播稻不同程度发病，发病面积达1万hm2，其中66.67hm2损失产量20%以上。针对水稻条纹叶枯病流行的严峻形势，为了有效地控制病害暴发流行，确保水稻生产安全，从2005年起，我们对水稻条纹叶枯病及传毒媒介灰飞虱发生动态进行较为系统的监测，开展了防治技术的研究。现将调查试验结果综述如下：在前一年发病较重的田畈，选取有代表性的田块对水稻条纹叶枯的发生情况进行定期跟踪调查，以观察水稻条纹叶枯病的田间消长规律。从田间调查来看，秧田从6月上旬后期开始发病，6月15日出现第一个症状表现高峰；移栽到大田后，6月23日调查，丛病率为6%，株病率为0.89%，病情指数为0.08，至7月10日左右出现第二个症状表现高峰；以后随着发病株的枯死和分蘖的增加，丛病率和株病率都呈下降趋势，株病率下降相对较快，8月20日左右出现第3个症状表现小高峰（见图1、图2）。从田间发病调查情况看，发病程度最重在7月底，见图3。图1 水稻条纹叶枯病丛发病率增长动态（浙江长兴）图2 水稻条纹叶枯病株病发病率增长动态（浙江长兴）图3 水稻条纹叶枯病病情指数增长动态（浙江长兴）2005年灯下监测，5月中旬成虫开始上升，6月中旬出现了第2代成虫高峰，诱虫量大，诱虫量为2936头，7、8月出现了3、4代成虫的小高峰，9月出现了5代成虫高峰，9月中旬和下旬分别诱到成虫1522头和1722头，10月还有大量的成虫出现，见图4。图4 灯下灰飞虱成虫消长情况（浙江长兴，2005）2006年灯下监测，5月上旬灯下始见，下旬成虫开始上升，迁入水稻秧田为害，6月上旬后期至中旬出现了第2代成虫高峰，为全年虫量最高，诱虫达6337头，7月上旬、8月上旬又出现了3、4代成虫的小高峰，8月底至9月初后灯下虫量上升，出现了5代成虫高峰，诱到成虫1520头；10月灯下诱虫量减少，见图5。图5 灯下灰飞虱成虫消长情况（浙江长兴，2006）2005年4月22日麦田调查，越冬代虫量为5.4万头/hm2，6月16日秧田虫量为13.05万头/hm2，6月21日平均卵量480万粒/hm2，6月28日秧田虫量为4.05万头/hm2，7月下旬虫量为1.05万头/hm2，8月上中旬虫量为0.45万头/hm2，9月上旬虫量为1.5万头/hm2，9月15日虫量为4.05万头/hm2，9月20日虫量为7.5万头/hm2，9月26日虫量为16.5万头/hm2，9月30日虫量为25.5万头/hm2，10月5日虫量为33万头/hm2，10月10日虫量为27万头/hm2，10月15日虫量为10.95万头/hm2。2006年4月上旬麦田调查，越冬代虫量为15.9万头/hm2，6月30日秧田虫量为16.95万头/hm2，7月3日秧田虫量为8.55万头/hm2，7月中下旬田间虫量下降，8月1日虫量为8.55万头/hm2，8月14日虫量为19.95万头/hm2，8月25日虫量为17.25万头/hm2，8月28日虫量为20.1万头/hm2，9月8日虫量为24万头/hm2，9月下旬虫量上升，9月25日为153.45万头/hm2，9月29日虫量为28.55万头/hm2，10月虫量还比较高，10月8日虫量为48万头/hm2，10月12日虫量为31.5万头/hm2，10月17日虫量为30万头/hm2。田间灰飞虱消长曲线见图6。图6 田间灰飞虱发生消长情况（浙江长兴，2006）灰飞虱的发生量和带毒率对水稻条纹叶枯病的发生有着密切的关系，近年来，随着灰飞虱发生量增加和带毒率的提高，水稻条纹叶枯病发生面积扩大，发生程度加重。据测定，2005年长兴县灰飞虱带毒率斑点免疫快速测定为11.27%，2007年达18%。水稻灰飞虱生物法测定传毒率，2006年为6.7%，2007年为7.4%。田间观察，5月中下旬的1代灰飞虱成虫传毒造成秧田和部分早播直播田（5月下旬播种）发病，至6月中旬左右出现了水稻条纹叶枯病的第一个显症高峰；6月上旬后期至中旬的2代灰飞虱成虫高峰造成了7月中旬左右的水稻条纹叶枯病的第2个显症高峰，由于6月上旬后期至中旬的灰飞虱成虫高峰量较大，因此，7月10日左右水稻条纹叶枯病表现高峰来势凶猛，发病面积大，发病程度重；8月中旬在病情发展上有一个小高峰，如2006年8月7日左右个别失治田块出现了第3个症状表现高峰，株病率达20%以上。以后随着水稻的生长，抗逆能力增强，田间虽有大量的灰飞虱成若虫，但基本不发病。水稻条纹叶枯病的防治应立足于预防，采取“抗、避、断、治”的综合防治措施。在目前水稻对条纹叶枯病防治还没有高抗品种的情况下，重点要切断灰飞虱的传毒途径。为此，我们围绕灰飞虱的防治开展一系列的农业防治措施和药剂防治试验，根据水稻条纹叶枯病的感病期，强化药剂浸种、拌种处理和秧苗期、大田前期灰飞虱的防治，配合使用病毒钝化剂，水稻条纹叶枯病得到了有效地控制。在条纹叶枯病重发区，推广秀水63、秀水09等抗病性好的品种，压缩武运粳7号、加育991等感病品种种植。浙江长兴1代灰飞虱成虫迁移高峰期在5月中下旬，推迟至6月上旬播种的直播稻可避开大部分1代灰飞虱的迁入传毒，减少发病机率。水稻条纹叶枯病的感病期主要在秧苗期，水稻秧田期的灰飞虱防治尤其重要。因此，要及时清除农田周边杂草，5月上旬前冬闲田提前翻耕，减少灰飞虱中间寄主，恶化灰飞虱生存环境，抓好麦田灰飞虱的防治，麦田收割后及时灌水翻耕，并抓好“四边”杂草中灰飞虱的防治。同时抓好药剂浸种、拌种处理的秧田期和大田前期的灰飞虱防治。坚持“治杂草和麦田保秧田、治秧田保大田、治大田前期保大田后期”的策略。经过几年来的试验示范，防治灰飞虱以5%锐劲特45～50ml/667m2、40%毒死蜱100～120ml/667m2、50%稻丰散100ml/667m2，加水50kg喷雾防治为佳。在浸种灵浸种的基础上，催芽露白后每千克种子用35%丁硫克百威（稻拌成、稻伴）种子处理干粉剂5g拌种，混拌均匀后播种，随拌随用。在水稻发病前和发病初期，配合使用病毒钝化剂2%菌克毒克100～150ml/667m2防治1～2次，减轻水稻发病程度，减少水稻产量损失。

核盘菌是普遍存在的坏死性真菌病原，能够侵染75科408种植物。在寄主植物中尚未发现免疫种或单基因抗性，包括十字花科。然而在禾本科等非寄主植物中该病菌是不致病的或弱致病的。为研究非寄主抗性机制，我们用该病菌接种了竹子、小麦、玉米和油菜。接种后24 h，这些植物对病菌的反应是不同的，竹子和玉米上无病斑，小麦上有小的病斑，但不同品种有变化，而油菜上产生了大的病斑。扫描电子显微镜研究表明，接种的竹子叶表面形成了一层膜，但在光学镜下菌丝穿透进入了上表皮细胞。菌丝进入竹子和油菜叶表皮细胞的方式是不同的。在油菜上菌丝很快进入上表皮细胞和细胞间隙，但竹子中菌丝仅限于上表皮和叶肉细胞。我们推定禾本科植物叶表面物质和细胞壁成分可能是阻止菌丝进入细胞的重要障碍。需要进一步分析这些成分。Sclerotinia sclerotiorium(Lib.)de Bary is a ubiquitous necrotrophic fungal pathogen capable of infecting at least 408 plant species of 75 families.No highly resistant varieties or germplasm is found in hosts including Cruciferae plants.On non-host plants such as some Gramineae species,however,the pathogen is avirulent or weak virulent.To understand how these non-hosts resist the pathogen,we inoculated S.sclerotinia mycelium to the leaves of bamboo,wheat,maize and oilseed rape as well.There were different responses in these plants after 24 hpi(hours post inoculation).No lesion was found on bamboo and maize leaves.Small lesions were observed on wheat,but the lesion size varied among different cultivars.Larger lesions were observed on oilseed rape leaves than any other Gramineaes at earlier time after inoculation.The scanning electron microscope(SEM)study showed clearly that inoculated bamboo leaf formed a layer of membrane on the leaf surface,but the slides under a light microscope unveiled hyphae penetration into the epidermal cells.The modes that hyphae grew into the leaves were also different between bamboo and oilseed rape.The hyphal growthfast under the oilseed rape epidermal and in the intercellular space,but in bamboo the growth was limited in the epidermis and mesophyll cells.We assumed that surface substance and cell wall composition are important obstacles of the hyphal penetration in non-host Gramineae plants.Further work needs to be done to analyze these compounds in comparison with oilseed rape.

Plant and fungal cells are surrounded by a cell wall rich in diverse polysaccharides and proteins.It has become apparent in recent years that the carbohydrates in the cell wall function not only to maintain cell shape and integrity,but also may serve as signals in plants(Mohnen et al.,1993).Oligogalacturonic acid(OGA),a well studied elicitor,is derived from plant cell walls(Nothnagel et al.,1983).When added to cultured plant cells,it induces an oxidative burst within minutes,releasing ROS via a pathway that involves receptor binding,activation of a G-protein,influx of Ca2+,stimulation of phospholipase C,and induction of a number of kinases(Apostol et al.,1989;Horn et al.,1989;Legendre et al.,1992;Chandra et al.,1995;Legendre et al.,1993).Purified OGAs 13 to at least 26 residues long stimulate pp34 thiophosphorylation in vitro(Philippe et al.,1995).OGAs are also involved in the induction of the jasmonate pathway during plant defense response to E.carotovora subsp.Carotovora attack(Cecilia et al.,1999).The first response observed after the addition of OGAs that is clearly involved in plant defense is the production of active oxygen species,including H2O2,and O2-.This response,termed the oxidative burst,occurs within a few minutes after the addition of OGAs to suspension-cultured soybean,tobacco,and tomato cells.Reactive oxygen species are thought to have direct(through cytotoxicity)and indirect(through signaling)roles in the plant cell death required for the HR.Reactive oxygen species induce the expression of defense related genes,and are implicated as second messengers that elicit other defense responses,including systemic acquired resistance(SAR)and the HR(Brent etal.,2001).Different elicitors are thought to activate different sets of second messengers.The two signaling events that appear to participate in the OGAs inducing plant defense include the oxidative burst and NO accumulation.Inhibitors of mammalian nitric oxide synthase reduced both OGA-induced NO ac-cumulation and NOS activity,suggesting that OGA-induced NO production occurs via a NOS-like enzyme(Hu et al.,2003). Nitric oxide(NO)is a highly reactive molecule that rapidly diffuses and permeates cell membranes.During the last few years NO has a significant role in plant resist-ance to pathogens by triggering resistance-associated cell death and by contributing to the local and systemic induction of defense genes.NO stimulates signal transduction pathways through protein ki-nases,cytosolic Ca2+mobilization and protein modification(María et al.,2004). Most of the ex-perimental data available on NO detection during plant-pathogen interactions come from studies of infections by biotrophic pathogens(María et al.,2004). Additionally,an increase in NOS activity correlated with the pathogen resistance response has been observed in resistant tobacco during TMV infection( Durner et al.,1998;Chandok et al.,2003).Here we report that OGAs induced a range of defense responses in tobacco,including oxidative burst,NO accumulation and stimulation of superoxide dismutase(SOD)activity and catalase(CAT)activity.Furthermore,we show that tobacco plant sprayed with OGAs developed a resistance against infection by tobacco mosaic virus.We also provide evidence that the defense response induced by OGAs was connected with H2O2 and NO pathway.Plants of tobacco(Nicotiana tabacum var.sam sun NN)were grown from seeds in a greenhouse and were used at the 4~6-leaf stage after 2 months in culture.The plants were kept in a growth chamber at(23±1)℃ with a photoperiod of 16 h and 70%~80%relative humidity for several days before treatments.Diphenylene iodonium(DPI),2-(N-morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid(MES),Sodium nitroprusside(SNP),catalase(CAT,from bovine liver),NG-nitro-L-arginine-methyl eater(L-NAME)and 4,5-diaminofluorescein diacetate(DAF-2 DA)were obtained from Sigma.2′,7′-dichlorofluorescin diacetate(H2DCF-DA)from Biotium.All other reagents were from Shanghai Chemical Reagent CO.,LTD,Tianjin Kermel Chemical Development Centre,or Beijing Chemical Plant.OGAs was prepared from enzymatic hydrolysis of pectin and separated with membrane according to the report(H Zhang et al.,1999).An aliquot of OGAs was dissolved in water and analyzed with a matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometer(MALID-TOF-MS,Bruker,Germany).Tobacco mosaic virus(TMV)that came from our collection was multiplied in N.tabacum.TMV was extracted from systemic infected plants by homogenization of infected leaves in 0.05mol/LH3PO4 buffer(0.05mol/L KH2PO4,0.05 M Na2HPO4 pH 6.8)with subsequent clarification of the extract by centrifugation at 2000g for 6 min.The supernatant extract was used for mechanical inoculation.All leaves of plant were sprayed with 50μg/ml of OGAs,the control plants were sprayed with water.24h~25d after OGAs application,plants were inoculated mechanically with TMV.The lesion caused by TMV was investigated at 7d after inoculation.Results were analyzed using Duncan's multiple range test at P= 0.05.For measurements of SOD and CAT activities,tobacco leaves treated with OGAs were kept in liquid nitrogen.The enzymes in the frozen powders were extracted by adding 0.05g polyvinylpyrrolidone and 5ml 0.05mol/L sodium borate buffer at pH 8.8 and homogenized at 4℃.SOD activities were measured as described by Zhu Guanglian(Zhu Guanglian et al.,1990).CAT activity was determined using the method of Beers&Sizers(Beer et al.,1952).NO and H2O2 measurement was performed using their fluorescent indicator dye DAF-2 DA and H2DCF-DA as described previously by H.Kojima(H.Kojima et al.,1998)with slight modifications.The epidermis was peeled carefully from abaxial surface of the leaves and cut into 5-mm length.Epidermal strips were placed into Tris/KCl buffer(Tris 10 mmol/L and KCl 50mmol/L,pH 7.2)containing DAF-2 DA at a final concentration of 10μmol/L for 30min,or H2DCF-DA at 50μmol/L for 10min,at 26℃ in the dark.The epidermal sections were removed and transferred to a dish of fresh Tris/KCl buffer(without probe)to wash off excess fluorophore apart from light.Then the epidermal strips were placed in Tris/KCl buffer containing OGAs and inhibitors.Examination of peels was performed using laser scanning confocal microscopy(Leica,TCS SP2)with exciting wavelength 488 nm,emitting wavelength 505~530nm.Plants were sprayed with 0.01 and 0.1 mmol/L of sodium nitroprusside(SNP),50μg/ml of OGAs,1 mmol/L,10mmol/L and 100 mmol/L H2O2,H2O2 scavenger catalase(CAT,100unit/ml)and OGAs cotreatment,H2O2 scavenger ascorbic acid(0.1mmol/L)and OGAs cotreatment and NOS inhibitor L-NAME(1mmol/L)for 30min before OGAs respectively.The control plants were sprayed with water.In all cases,24h after OGAs and other materials applications,plants were inoculated with TMV.The lesion caused by TMV was investigated at 7d after inoculation.The effect of OGAs,SNP and H2O2 on local infection was calculated from the ratio of the number of local lesion produced on the treated leaves to that on the control leaves treated with water.The TOF-MS profiles of OGAs sample were showed in Figure 1.The mass spectrum indicated that peaks corresponding to the mass numbers of( M+ Na)+of trimer to enneamer were detected.So the sample was composed mainly of OGAs having degree of polymerization( DP)2-8.Figure 1 TOF-MS of oligochitosan sampleThe results of control effects on TMV with OGAs at different concentration(50～100μg/ml)showed that the best concentration was 50 μg/ml(data not shown).The effects of application of OGAs at different time were summarized in Table 1.It was found that tobacco leaves treated with OGAs were protected against TMV infection.When the inoculation occurred at 19d after spraying 50μg/ml OGAs on tobacco plants,the relative control effect was 53.42%.We concluded that the resistance induced by OGAs became better with the inducing time until 19d.The resistance was reduced after 19d.Dayof50μg/mlgalacturonideappliedNumberoflesioncausedbyTMVRelativecontroleffect(%)vcdsaw1d125±5814.40a?4d116±3920.55a?7d120±4217.81a10d84±3742.47ab13d97±4433.56ab16d90±3238.36ab19d68±3453.42b22d71±3451.37b25d89±3739.04bck146±51—Table 1We examined the effects of OGAs on the activity of plant resistance correlated enzymes.The results(Figure 2 and Figure 3.)indicated that OGAs increased activity of SOD and CAT compared with the H2O-treated ones.There are no distinct differences on the activity of POD and PPO of tobacco leaves treated with OGAs or water(data not shown).SOD and CAT are concerned with eliminating oxygen free radical.Within one hour,activities of CAT and SOD were induced to maximum.Figure 2 Time course of SOD activity in tobacco leaves treated by 50μg/ml OGAs or H2O as CKFigure 3 Time course of CAT activity in tobacco leaves treated by 50μg/ml OGAs or H2O as CKBecause of activity of SOD and CAT induced by OGAs and the two enzymes correlative with oxygen free radical,we examined the production of H2O2 induced by OGAs.To study the effects of OGAs on the production of H2O2 in tobacco cells,the H2O2-sensitive fluorophore H2DCF-DA were used.The results of production of H2O2 in epidermal cells of tobacco leaves induced by OGAs were shown in Figure 4.It was found that OGAs caused an increase of intracellular H2DCF-DA fluorescence in epidermal cells and guard cells of tobacco leaves,indicating the production of H2O2.Fluorescence became visible along the plasma membrane and in organelles in the epidermal cells of tobacco leaves treated with OGAs(Figure 4C),but the fluorescence was very faint in the epidermal cells only loaded with H2DCF-DA(Figure 4A).The Figure 4E and G showed that CAT and DPI could inhibit the level of H2DCF-DA fluorescence in the cells of tobacco leaves treated with OGAs.The results revealed that CAT and DPI could suppress the production of H2O2.Figure 4 Laser scanning confocal microscopy of OGA-induced production of H2O2 in epidermal cells of tobacco leaves. (A) The cells loaded with H2DCF-DA. (B) Bright field image of the cells loaded with H2DCF-DA. (C) The cells loaded with H2DCF-DA before treatment with OGA. (D)Bright field image of the cells loaded with H2DCF-DA before treatment with OGA. (E) The cells loaded with H2DCF-DA and elicited by OGA in the presence of the CAT. (F) Bright field image of the cells loaded with H2DCF-DA and elicited by OGA in the presence of the CAT. (G) The cells loaded with H2DCF-DA and elicited by OGA in the presence of the DPI. (H) Bright field image of the cells loaded with H2DCF-DA and elicited by OGA in the presence of the DPI.The NO-sensitive fluorophore DAF-2DA was used to observe NO accumulation.The observed LSCM results of OGAs-induced production of NO in epidermal cells of tobacco leaves were shown in Figure 5.It was found that OGAs could enhance the level of intracellular DAF-2DA fluorescence in epidermal cells of tobacco leaves,indicating massive production of NO.Production of NO and/or accumulation was observed in organelles and along the plasma membrane in the epidermal cells of tobacco leaves treated with OGAs(Figure 5C).However,the DAF-2DA fluorescence indicating production of NO was not observed in the epidermal cells only loaded with DAF-2DA(Figure 5A).The results also indicated that CPTIO and L-NAME could inhibit the level of H2DCF-DA fluorescence in the cells of tobacco leaves treated with OGAs(Figure 5E and G).The results representedthat CPTIO and L-NAME could suppress the production of NO.Figure 5 Laser scanning confocal microscopy of OGA-induced production of NO in epidermal cells of tobacco leaves. (A) The cells loaded with DAF-2 DA. (B) Bright field image of the cells loaded with DAF-2 DA. (C) The cells loaded with DAF-2 DA before treatment with OGA. (D) Bright field image of the cells loaded with DAF-2 DA before treatment with OGA. (E) The cells loaded with DAF-2DA and elicited by OGA in the presence of the CPTIO. (F) Bright field image of the cells loaded with DAF-2DA and elicited by OGA in the presence of the CPTIO. (G) The cells loaded with DAF-2DA and elicited by OGA in the presence of the L-NAME. (H) Bright field image of the cells loaded with DAF-2DA and elicited by OGA in the presence of the L-NAME.As H2O2 and NO appear to be a key factor associated with plant induced defense disease,it was interesting to test the effect of exogenous NO and H2O2.The effect of OGAs,NO donor SNP and H2O2 at different concentrations and some scavengers are summarized in Figure 6.It was found that treatment with OGAs,SNP and H2O2 protected tobacco leaves against TMV local infection.The least lesion was observed at the treatment of 50μg/ml OGAs among the all treatments.The inhibition effect of H2O2 showed dependence on the amount of H2O2.The lesion of co-treatment of OGAs and the H2O2 scavenger CAT or ascorbic acid on TMV infection was as high as CK.We also observed SNP inducing resistance was dose-dependent.When the tobacco plants were treated with L-NAME before OGAs,the induced resistance was depressed.Therefore,we can presume NO and H2O2 are important factors participating in OGAs inducing resistance to TMV.Figure 6 Effect of OGAs and exogenous NO and H2O2 on disease symptomPectic oligosaccharides,produced by microbial enzymes,are well-known oligosaccharins,eliciting defence responses in diseased plants(Dumville et al.,2000).A broad spectrum of OG-induced pathogenesis-related defense responses has been reported(M.T.Esquerré-Tugayé et al.,2000).Most defense and developmental responses are induced by OGAs with a degree of polymerization(DP)between 10 and 15 galacturonic acid residues.OGAs with a DP less than 8 can also trigger defense responses in plants:they induce accumulation of protease inhibitors(T.Moloshok et al.,1992),ethylene production(S.D.Simpson et al.,1998)and elicitation of genes involved in jasmonic acid metabolism in tomato(C.Norman et al.,1999).In this report,we observed the OGAs with a DP between 2~8 could induce tobacco resistance to TMV.The concentration of OGAs used was also discussed.OGAs-induced plant growth has been reported(LoSchiavo et al.,1991;Filippini et al.,1992),and the maximal effect to growth was about 10-4 M(Stephen et al.,1993).To elicit plant defense responses,OGAs concentration higher than those usually required for control developmental process.In our experiments,50μg/ml was the best concentration to induce resistance within 100μg/ml(data not shown).It showed the efficiency of the OGAs in inhibition of virus infection was not depended on the dose of OGAs.But the inhibition effect was dependent on the treatment time.We observed the inducing effect of resistance to TMV was gradually elevated before 19d,but the mechanism of this needed further study.Research showed that lag period of the induced resistance of glucohexaose was about 7days and the protection period was about 28 days(Li Hongxia et al.,2005).Furthermore,tobacco plants treated by sulfated fucan or linear β-1,3 glucan showed resistance to TMV or bacterium E.carotovora after 5 days(Olivier Klarzynski et al.,2003;2000).So far no oligosaccharides were reported to have so long time inducing effect.Therefore,OGAs have more predominance to be applied in agriculture.Experimental results also showed that NO and H2O2 played important roles in OGAs inducing tobacco resistance to TMV.NO and H2O2 as important signaling active molecules in pathogen defense reaction has been extensively studied(Levine et al.,1994;Mehdy et al.,1996;Baker et al.,1995;Jabs et al.,1996;Delledonne et al.,1998;Rout-Mayer et al.,1997?;Binet et al.,1998).First,we examine the activity of plant resistance correlated enzymes.Because the activity of PAL has been confirmed elevated by many reports(Messiaen et al.,1994;Lapous et al.,1998;Dixon et al.,1989;Tepper et al.,1990),we just mensurated the PPO,POD,SOD and CAT.This includes the activity of SOD and CAT elevated,so we estimated the extra H2O2 production.To evaluate the stimulatory effect of OGAs on tobacco cells,we measured the production of H2O2 and NO in tobacco cells.The data indicated that OGAs induced the production of H2O2 and NO in epidermal cells of tobacco within a short time.These results were in agreement with the reports by Xiangyang Hu,who claimed OGAs stimulated NO accumulation in the growth medium of ginseng suspension cultures(Hu et al.,2003).Rout-Mayer and Binet discovered respectively H2O2 production within a few minutes after the addition of OGAs to suspension-cultured tobacco cells(Rout-Mayer et al.,1997;Binet et al.,1998).Many reports show H2O2 and NO exist are correlated to plant defense.H2O2 is involved in the induction and/or execution of hypersensitive reaction(C.S.Bestwick et al.,1997).H2O2 is required for the cross-linking of plant cell wall components as a part of the structural defense response(C.Lamb et al.,1997).The production of H2O2 may also lead to the development of an antimicrobial environment within the apoplast(M.Peng et al.,1992).In many cases,H2O2 collaborate with NO to execute invading pathogens.H2O2 and NO production were induced almost at the same time by cryptogein,a fungal elicitor(Foissner et al.,2000).NOS inhibitors compromise the hypersensitive resistance response in Arabidposis and tobacco(Delledonne et al.,1998?;Huang et al.,1998).TMV infection could elevate NOS(nitric oxide synthase)activity,and NO could induce PR-1 expression(Durner et al.,1998).NO,as well as other ROS,have been shown to stimulate the accumulation of SA(Durner et al.,1999),which play a critical signaling role in the activation of plant defense responses after pathogen attack.Furthermore,to test whether OGAs functions on inducing resistance in tobacco via NO and H2O2 pathway,we examined the effects of OGAs,exogenous NO donor SNP and H2O2 on inducing resistance to TMV.It was found that all of these treatments reduced lesion caused by TMV.But co-treatment with OGAs and H2O2 scavenger CAT or ascorbic acid blocked the inducing resistance.The tobacco plants inhibited NOS activity by L-NAME were not induced resistance by OGAs.So the defense response induced by OGAs was connected with NO and H2O2 pathway.The study reported herein reveals that OGAs can induce the production of H2O2 and NO,and induce the defense response against TMV.Our understanding of OGAs induced resistance is sketchy.The mechanisms of OGAs eliciting defense responses of tobacco need further investigation.

Rice stripe(RSV)has been known to distribute in rice areas all over the world,and it is very hard virus,transmitted by insect vectors,small brown planthopper(SBPH),Laodelphax striatellus,Fallen.Once the rice is infested,there is still no very effective measures to control,even the chemicals.The chemicals'effect is not ideal and more or less they could cause some environmental risks,so there is the common opinion in the IPM system that the rice varieties having resistance to rice stripe is one of the basic and effective measures to control this disease.In 2006 and 2007 for finding the resistant rice varieties that could be used for large scale in the field,the evaluation and screening of rice varieties were conducted in Jiaxing,Zhejiang Province.In 2006,there were 40 varieties provided for the experiement,just like Chunjiang 050,Xiushui 63,Y1,Zheda 510,Tai 03126,HZ586 and so on,and Jia 991 was set to be the control.Similar to 2006 studies,in 2007,there were 20 varieties used in 2006,and newly introduced into 17 varieties,just like Leyou 2,Jiaheyou 261,Bing 04～123,Jiashao 3.The control was still Jia 991.In 2006,the experiment was conducted in the yard of Shuangqiao Academic of Agricultural Science,Xiuzhou,Jiaxing.Last year in this plot rice was planted,and in winter no crop was planted.The water and fertilizer condition was good.The rice was seeded in 2th June,and transplanted to the field in 1st July.Randomed blocking design,and the size of every plot is 30m2,with three replications.The field management was as usual,except for no chemicals use for controlling the SBPH and RSV.In 2007,the experimental field was chose to north suburb of Jiaxing,where last year the RSV occurred hard.The experimental field condition and design were familiar with 2006,and total 111plots.Investigated Methods In 2006,after 5d from 1st July when the rice were transplanted,the investigation was conducted every 5d in field,till the diseases was stable,at that time the total rice tiller and the diseased tiller amount were recorded.Num.VarietiesDiseasepercentageinthefield(%)SSRP=0.05P=0.011Jiahe2156.03aA2Y25.33bB3Jiajing36485.24bB4Y33.9cC5Shaojing04-463.49dD6Jia991(CK)3.07eE7Yongjing04683.02efEF8Y62.88fgEFG9Tai04-42.83gFG10Xiushui032.73ghGH11Qianghu9142.73ghGH12Y102.59hiHI1336You7482.52ijHI14Xiushui092.51ijHI15ZH2512.42jkIJ16Xiushui1102.27klJK17Jingzhi202.27klJK18Y42.23lmJKL19Jia04-332.14lmnKLM20Jiahua12.11mnKLM21Xiushui632.04nLM22Jiahe2182nM23Zheda5101.99nM24Bing01-1131.74oN25R41011.69oN26Y51.59oN27Jingzhi270.94pO28Chunjiang0500.91pO29Chunjiang0510.91pO30Bing03-1230.88pO31Jiaheyou28880.87pO32Zheda5320.86pO33Y80.86pO34Y10.81pO35Ning04-450.45qP36Tai031260.44qP37HZ5860rR38Y70rR39Y90rR40JiaheyouTR0rRTable 1In 2007,after 15th May,when the seeds were seminated,the investigation was conducted periodically in seedling stage till 20th June,when the rice was transplanted,the total rice tiller and the diseased tiller amount were recorded.And in field,30th July,when the disease was stable,the same indexes were recorded.By the total rice tiller and the diseased tiller amount,the disease percentage could be got,and by DPS software the resistance of different rice varieties could be made with ANOVA method.From table 1,we could get that in 2006 the RSV occurred softly in the experimental field,the CK,Jia 991'disease percentage was just 3.07%.Shaonuo 04~46,Y3,Jiajing 3648,Y2,Jiahe 215's were higher than CK;but there were four varieties,Jiaheyou TR,Y9,Y7,HZ586,which no typical RSV was found.By ANOVA analysis,the resisstance of rice varieties were obviously different.Jiaheyou TR,Y9,Y7,HZ586,which no typical RSV was found,the resistance were the highest;the Yongjing 0468,Y6 and CK were in the same level and at P=0.01 there were no obvious difference;and Shaonuo 04～46,Y3,Jiajing 3648,Y2,Jiahe 215 resistance were weak.In 2007,in the field the RSV occurred seriously in the experimental field,the CK,Jia 991'disease percentage was 19.12%(Table 2).Disease percentage of Shi 1 and Yongjing 0468 were 27.8%and 25.65%,respectively;there were 16 varieties,for example Jia 991,the disease percentage were above 10%;and the disease percentage of HZ586,Chunjiang 051,Jiahe 218,Jiaheyou 555 and Y9 were below 2%.By ANOVA analysis,the resistance of these rice varieties were seriously different.Disease percentage of Shi 1 and Yongjing 0468 were obviously higher than CK,their resistance were weak;the disease percentage of HZ586,Chunjiang 051,Jiahe 218,Jiaheyou 555 and Y9 were far below from other variety,their resistance were high;and others resistance were in the middle level.In 2007,in the seedling field the disease percentage of Bing 04～132,Zheda532,Xiushui 09,Xiuishui 110 and Bing 05～15 were all above 5%;the disease percentage of was just 0.07%,and in the Chunjiang 051 there was no RSV found;Other varieties percentage of disease were in the middle of 5%and 0.07%(Table 2).Num.VarietiesDiseasepercentageinthefield(%)SSRP=0.05P=0.01VarietiesDiseasepercentageintheseedlingfield(%)SSRP=0.05P=0.011Shi127.8aABing04-1325.68aA2Yongjing046825.65aAZheda5325.6aA3Bing04-0819.62bBXiushui095.39aAB4Jia991(CK)19.12bBXiushui335.24abAB5Xiushui11018.5bBXiushui1104.85abcABCTable 2 Evaluation of rice varieties resistance to RSV (Jiaxing, 2007)Num.VarietiesDiseasepercentageinthefield（%）SSRP=0.05P=0.01VarietiesDiseasepercentageintheseedlingfield（%）SSRP=0.05P=0.016Bing05-1517.83bBCShi14.34abcdABCD7Bing01-11317.76bcBCJiahua14.34abcdABCD8Y517.33bcBCYongjing04684.24abcdABCDE9Jiahua116.5bcdBCBing05-154.15abcdeABCDEF10Xiushui3316.4bcdBCY53.78abcdefABCDEFG11Ning04-4516.26bcdBCBing04-083.66abcdefgABCDEFGH12Bing04-13215.75bcdBCJia991（CK）2.9bcdefghABCDEFGHI13Zheda53215.69bcdBCY22.88bcdefghABCDEFGHI14Y215.18bcdBCDBing01-1132.81bcdefghiABCDEFGHI15Shi215.06bcdBCDNing04-452.77cdefghijABCDEFGHI16Xiushui0914.99bcdBCDY12.66cdefghijABCDEFGHI17Y112.96cdeBCDEQianghu1712.52cdefghijkABCDEFGHI18Qianghu17112defCDEBing05-1142.48cdefghijkABCDEFGHI19Bing03-019.22efgDEFShi22.26defghijkBCDEFGHI20Bing04-1138.25fghEFGBing03-012.14defghijkBCDEFGHI21Jiaheyou6127.18ghiEFGHBing04-1131.69efghijkCDEFGHI22Bing03-1235.76ghijFGHJiaheyou2611.39fghijkDEFGHI23Leyou25.42ghijFGHJiaheyou6121.23ghijkDEFGHI24Jiaheyou2615.23ghijFGHBing03-1231.11hijkDEFGHI25Jiaheyou16204.76ghijFGHY71hijkEFGHI26Shaonuo04-464.36hijFGHChunjiang0500.99hijkEFGHI27Jiashao34.3hijFGHJiahe2180.94hijkFGHI28Chunjiang0503.22ijFGHLeyou20.9hijkFGHI29Y73.18ijFGHJiaheyou62230.72hijkGHI30Jiaheyou62233.1ijFGHJiaheyou5550.7hijkGHI31台031262.97ijFGHJiaheyou16200.5hijkGHI32Bing05-1142.9ijFGHY90.38hijkHI33HZ5861.83jGHHZ5860.32ijkI34Chunjiang0511.81jGHShaonuo04-460.24jkI35Jiahe2181.78jGHJiashao30.24jkI36Jiaheyou5551.53jHTai031260.07kI37Y90.94jHChunjiang0510kI续表2By ANOVA analysis,the different resistance of these rice varieties also existed.the disease percentage of Bing 04～132,Zheda532 and Xiushui 09 were higher,and their resistance were weak;the disease percentage of six varieties,Chunjiang 051,Tai 03126,HZ586,Shaonuo 04～46,Jiashao 3 and Y9,were lower,and they had comparatively high resistance.Through the rice varieties screening for resistance to rice stripe virus(RSV)in the seedlingstage and in the field in Jiaxing,in 2006 and 2007,the difference of rice varieties resistance to RSV could be found,and the resistance trends between different developmental stage and different year kept in the same trends.Chunjiang 051,Y9,Jiahe218,Jiaheyou 555,Tai 03126 and Bing 03~123,and so on,had the high resistance to RSV.Though most of the results showed that the varieties resistance behave the same in different developmental stage and different year,we also should notice that few varieties did not obey this trends,for example,Shaonuo04～46,in 2006 in the field it showed very weak resistance,but in 2007 in the seedling field it showed high resistance.This perhaps tell us that just use the index of disease percentage is not enough,and at the same time we could ignore that there is still no very clear criterion to evaluate the varieties resistance to RSV.These factors could influence our evaluation.In 2006 the RSV occurred softly in the experimental field,the CK,Jia 991 disease percentage was just 3.07%,but in 2007 the CK,Jia 991's disease percentage was 19.12%,far higher than that in 2006.That is because in 2007 we chose the field where in year before the RSV occurred seriously,and advanced the seeding date and transplanted date accordingly,which the two steps could make the optimal RSV occurring conditions.On other hands,in the same cultivated condition,the disease percentage different varieties could behave 10-folder difference,it could show us clearly that the varieties resistance could exert important role in the RSV IPM system.Research was funded by a grant from Zhejiang province Science and Technology Bureau.

洋葱伯克霍尔德菌（Burkholderia cepacia）是一种广泛存在于水、土壤、植物和人体中的革兰氏阴性细菌。1949年美国植物病理学家Burkholder首次发现B.cepacia可以引起洋葱酸皮病[1]。随后在20世纪50年代人们从第一例由B.cepacia引起的心内膜炎开始，发现该菌广泛存在于医院，并且可以使人类患上多种疾病，尤其是囊性肺纤维化（Cystic fibrosis，简称CF）病人的易感细菌之一，严重的会因此患“洋葱伯克霍尔德菌综合症”致死。最近研究表明，该菌致人死亡的一个原因要归咎于它含有脂多糖（Lipopolysaccharide）分子[2]。在进行医学研究的同时，发现该菌在工业和农业上有生物降解、生物防治等功效，对农业生产和环境保护起着重要的作用，具有广泛的应用前景。近年来，随着细菌分类技术的发展，洋葱伯克霍尔德菌已不仅只是作为一个种，而是一组基因型不同、表型相近的复合物，称为洋葱伯克霍尔德菌复合型（Burkholderia cepacia complex，简称Bcc）[3]。本文将在农业、分类地位等方面对Bcc的研究进展做一综述，以达到全面了解该菌的目的。人类第一次发现伯克霍尔德菌是由于它导致了洋葱酸皮病，该病菌主要分布在土壤和灌溉水中，在洋葱鳞茎形成后，从其因收割等原因造成的伤口侵入，或者是黏在叶部的菌被水冲刷进入组织内引起鳞茎腐烂。Ulrich在1975年研究表明[1]，该病原菌在低pH值环境下可以产生一种内多聚半乳糖醛酸酶，使洋葱组织软化，利于病原菌的入侵和扩展。后来郭道森等人研究表明，该菌与松材线虫共同侵染黑松和马尾松，导致松林大面积死亡[4]，在后续的研究中发现，松材线虫的分泌物及死虫体均可促进该菌株的生长繁殖和致病作用，且活线虫的促进作用比死虫体更加显著，这可能是由于松材线虫提供给该菌株某些重要的营养物质[5]。2005年，意大利西西里东部地区种植的天堂鸟（Strelitzia reginae Aiton）幼苗（苗龄2～3个月）发生新病害，鉴定发现致病菌为唐菖蒲伯克霍尔德菌（Burkholderia gladioli），这是关于该菌导致天堂鸟叶斑病及枯萎病的首次报道。在植物体上广泛存在着一些细菌，它们都具有诱发植物体内水分结冰的作用，称为冰核细菌。在没有冰核细菌存在的植物能耐-7～-8℃的低温而不发生霜冻，但是在一些B.cepacia 细菌存在的情况下，同样条件的植物在-2～-3℃可诱发多种植物细胞水结冰而发生霜冻。张耀东等从菠菜上分离到一株具有冰核活性的Bcc菌株[6]。1.3.1 对有毒物质的降解 一些工业排放物中含有大量的有害芳香烃类物质，随着工业化进程的加快，残留于自然环境中的芳香烃类物质含量急剧增加，如何解决这类物质造成的危害，成为研究者要解决的问题，而利用微生物降解是消除其危害的重要途径之一。洋葱伯克霍尔德菌可以利用多种物质为唯一碳源，这意味着其能够以土壤和地下水污染的有毒且难降解的物质（邻苯二甲酸盐、除草剂和氯代烃类化合物等）为碳源并将其降解[7]。例如，Bcc的一个菌株G4可通过由苯酚诱导的芳香族途径将三氯乙烯降解，由于苯酚是环境优先污染物之一，因而不宜被推广使用；但该菌株的突变体G45223 PR1可以不利用任何诱导物而直接降解三氯乙烯[8]。另外，许多芳香烃化合物在降解过程中都会形成中间产物邻苯二酚，细菌可以通过邻位裂解和间位裂解两种途径继续降解邻苯二酚[9]。刘涛等[10]从炼油厂废水中分离筛选到一株苯酚高效降解的洋葱伯克霍尔德菌L68，该菌株可产生邻苯二酚2，3-双加氧酶[11]，而邻苯二酚2，3-双加氧酶是降解芳香族化合物的关键酶，在间位降解途径中，该酶可以催化邻苯二酚的苯环裂解，转化为2-羟黏糠酸半醛。因此，洋葱伯克霍尔德菌对消除芳香烃类化合物的污染具有重要作用。另外，洋葱伯克霍尔德菌对化学农药也有很强的降解作用。如，Sarfraz Hussain 等人研究发现，在pH值为8.0，温度为30℃时，该菌对α-硫丹和β-硫丹的降解率达90%以上，从而减少了杀虫剂硫丹（Endosulfan）对土壤和地下水的污染[12]。1.3.2 对油脂的降解 洋葱伯克霍尔德菌降解油脂的特性在国外已有研究，Pooja Rathi，Hustavova等人报道了该菌产脂肪酶应用于催化酯化水解反应等研究[13]，洋葱伯克霍尔德菌能在降解利用油脂的同时还分泌出一定量的胞外脂肪酶，同时通过所产生的脂肪酶等降解酶系作用于油脂，将其分解氧化为低级脂肪酸、甘油、醇类等低分子有机物，最后降解为H2O、CO2等代谢产物[14]。徐保成[15]等人对该菌所需的降解工艺条件进行优化研究，结果表明在优化的油脂降解条件下（pH值7.0，30℃，溶解氧3.0mg/L），处理初始油脂浓度1000mg/L废水，24h后其油脂降解率达到90%以上，COD（Chemical Oxygen Demand）去除达到92%。B.cepacia产生的脂酶可以催化拆分外消旋化学农药，使其变为光学活性农药，从而成倍地提高了药效，而且减轻了生物体内的积累与毒副作用，避免了不必要的环境污染[16]。洋葱伯克霍尔德菌可以防治多种植物病害，如从樱桃果实表面和伤口上分离获得的洋葱伯克霍尔德菌对甜樱桃褐腐病表现出显著的抑制效果[17]；郑维等从堆肥样本中分离的洋葱伯克霍尔德菌株CF-66具有广谱抗菌活性，并初步鉴定该菌属于洋葱伯克霍尔德菌基因型Ⅴ[18]；李纪顺等对伯克霍尔德菌B418进行了研究，表明该菌对小麦纹枯病、小麦全蚀病和番茄南方根结线虫病有很好的防治效果[19]。陈京元等从湿地松苗根际分离得到1株B.cepacia C23菌株，对引起湿地松猝倒病的立枯丝核菌（Rhizoctonia solani）、链格孢菌（Alternaria alternata）有明显的抑制效果。洋葱伯克霍尔德菌的防病机制主要为其能产生多种具有抗菌活性的代谢产物，如铁载体（Pyochenlin、Pyoverdine）、吩嗪、硝吡咯菌素、苯基吡咯、单萜生物碱、Cepaciamide A（B）、Cepacidine A（B）、Cepacin A（B）；菌株H111 能够有效杀死线虫Caenorhabditis elegans，其作用机理主要是由该细菌产生的细胞外毒素所致死[20]。B.cepacia AMMDR1可以抑制由瓜果腐霉病菌（Pythium aphanidermatum）和根腐丝囊菌（Aphanomyces euteiches）引起的豌豆和甜玉米苗猝倒病，作用机理主要是该菌抑制游动芽孢的裂解，阻止孢囊的萌发而影响病原菌的生长[21]。在不断的研究中发现，该菌可以与杀菌剂共同使用，如I.Omar等人发现，在对大豆根腐霉病菌（Fusarium oxysporum）引起的番茄冠根腐病的研究中，B.cepacia菌株C91与低浓度杀菌剂混合使用，相比单独使用高浓度杀菌剂，杀菌效果提高了20%[22]。这不但减少了杀菌剂的使用，同时减少了杀菌剂对环境的污染。美国环保署（EPA）已经批准了两种以洋葱伯克霍尔德菌为主要成分的生防菌剂的生产，其商品名为Deny和Intercept，Deny用于防止Rhizoctonia spp.、Pythium spp.、Fusarium spp.和线虫引起的病害，而Intercept则用于防治Rhizoctonia solani、Fusarium spp.、Pythium spp.引起的病害[23]。具有拮抗作用的细菌往往与植物的生长有很大的关系，这些细菌都可产生一些抑制真菌生长的物质，如：铁载体（Siderophores），细胞溶酶的分泌物，抗生素等。对真菌生长的抑制就可以直接促使植物生长[24]。B.cepacia可以产生铁载体，一方面根际促生菌铁载体的产生很快耗尽了病原菌生存所需要的铁，从而使病原菌的繁衍和侵染能力大大下降；另一方面根际促生菌通过铁载体向植物提供铁营养，从而使植物获益[25]；另外，B.cepacia还可以产生抗生素有效地抑制周围其他微生物的繁衍。同时，B.cepacia的一些菌株具有固氮和产生吲哚乙酸（IAA）的作用，有助于植物对营养物质的吸收[26]。Bcc菌株具有较强的溶解磷酸盐的能力，推动植物对释放的磷的吸收，促进植物生长，Babu-Khan等克隆到其溶解磷酸盐的基因[27]。另一方面其通过对病原微生物的生物防治，减轻或抑制有害的根围微生物，从而间接的促进植物生长。例如，玉米种子被Bcc菌株MCI7包衣后，其植株感染病原镰刀菌的几率大大降低，且植株鲜重和株高均显著增加[28]。B.cepacia 原名Pseudomonas cepacia，1950 年首次被Burkholder报道可引起洋葱酸皮病[29]。该菌的其他名字还包括eugonic oxidizers group 1，Pseudomonas kingii和Pseudomonasmultivorans[30]，但是相关研究明确指出这些命名是P.cepacia的同义词，而且P.cepacia具有命名的优先权[31]。因此，这些命名没有被写入细菌手册，直到1981年，Palleroni 和Holmes才重新找到依据区分这些命名的不同[32]。1992年Yabuuchi 等正式将该菌及其他6个属于rRNAⅡ群的假单胞菌（P.solanacearum，P.pickettii，P.gladioli，P.mallei，P.pseudomallei 和P.caryophylli）归为一个新属，即伯克霍尔德菌属（Burkholderia）。与Pseudomonas属不同的是，该属被归为变形菌门（Proteobacteria）[33]。当Burkholderia属的分类地位被确定以后，该属已包括超过30个不同的种：B.cepacia（典型种），B.caryophylli，B.mallei，B.pseudomallei，B.gladioli，B.plantarii，B.glumae，B.vietnamiensis，B.andropogonis，B.multivorans，B.glathei，B.pyrrocinia，B.thailandensis，B.graminis，B.phenazinium，B.caribensis，B.kururiensis，B.ubonensis，B.caledonica，B.fungorum，B.stabilis，B.ambifaria，B.hospital，B.terricola，B.sacchari，B.tropicalis，B.brasilensis，B.anthina，B.dolosa，B.cenocepacia，B.xenovorans，B.tuberum，B.phymatum。通过研究得知B.caryophylli，B plantarii，B.glumae，B.andropogonis是植物的致病病原菌，能够使不同种属的植物患上根腐、叶斑、条斑等病害。在不同植物中分离得到的B.vietnamiensis，B.kururiensis，B.tropicalis，B.brasilensis，B.tuberum，B.phymatum，B.caribensis有促进根瘤形成，增强固氮的能力，同时促进植物根的生长。B.mallei和 B.pseudomallei则能够引起人和动物的鼻疽病。对于B.glathei，B.graminis，B.phenazinium，B.caribensis，B.caledonica，B.hospital，B.terricola，B.sacchari在环境、生态中所起的作用还不是很清楚。同时，还有一些具有多重作用，可以是植物致病菌，植物有益菌或是人类的机会致病菌，例如：Burkholderia cepacia complex，Burkholderia gladioli 和 Burkholderia fungorum[34]。从20世纪90年代中期开始，一些研究者发现来源于各种环境的Bcc分离物具有明显的遗传异质性，1996年，有报道说利用分子鉴定和临床观察，发现伯克霍尔德菌至少有3个不同的基因型是CF病症的致病菌[35]。直到1997年，Vandamme等运用多相分类研究方法对从CF病人中分离到的致病菌进行研究，才发现所设定的B.cepacia种中，至少存在5种不同的基因型[36]。包括B.vietnamiensis（基因型V）、B.multivorans（基因型II）、基因型I，III和 IV。这5种基因型被统称为伯克霍尔德菌复合型（B.cepacia complex）。利用不同的方法从医学和环境微生物的角度对伯克霍尔德菌复合型进行了探索研究，其中包括使用不同的选择性培养基。结果发现，农业研究中利用的培养基，能从土壤和植物根际附近发现大量的伯克霍尔德菌复合型的族群[37]；在医学研究中，几乎无法从自然界中发现伯克霍尔德菌复合型的存在[38]。直到伯克霍尔德菌分类的又一次改变，才使这些固有的不同有机的联系起来，一些研究者发现基因型IV与Bcc中的其他基因型有明显的差异，于是被归类B.stabilis[39]。接着从美国和英国的CF致病菌中分离出基因型VI，它除了与B.multivorans没有差异外，与其他基因型均有差异[40]。从人类致病菌与环境中都能分离B.ambifaria（基因型VII），因此它也具有生防菌的特征。最近，发现B.pyrrocinia（基因型Ⅸ）也属于B.cepacia complex[41]。因此，已报道的洋葱伯克霍尔德菌复合型由9个不同基因型组成，分别是B.cepacia（基因型Ⅰ）、B.multivorans（基因型Ⅱ）、B.cenocepacia（基因型Ⅲ）、B.stabilis（基因型Ⅳ）、B.vietnamiensis（基因型Ⅴ）、B.dolosa（基因型Ⅵ）、B.ambifaria（基因型Ⅶ）、B.anthina（基因型Ⅷ）、B.pyrrocinia（基因型Ⅸ）。后来，Yabuuchi E等人在泰国某地的表层土中分离得到的B.thailandensis的一株，被重新归类为Burkholderia ubonensis，经过鉴定初步断定也归类为B.cepacia complex[42]。各基因型间DNA-DNA同源性为30%～50%，其16S rRNA 和recA 基因序列相似性很高，分别为98%～99%和94%～95%[43]。直到目前，对Bcc的基因型组成仍在研究中，Zhang L等人在玉蜀黍和水稻的根际发现了大量的Bcc菌株，并且通过Bcc recA基因的同源性的分析，发现分离所得的Bcc R456菌株可能属于一种新的基因型[44]。虽然能从不同的环境条件下分离获得大量的Bcc，但却不清楚Bcc株系主要的存活环境。事实上，只有很少的研究涉及环境中Bcc的生态特征，一些研究者也仅仅是对Bcc的一个或几个基因型进行研究[45]。现有的伯克霍尔德菌复合型中有许多有生防效果或是作为植物促生剂，现今生产B.cepacia生物农药的菌株都来源于环境，但问题是，对这些菌株是否是非致病菌也无法区分，因为除了Bcc基因型Ⅵ只能从CF病人中分离到，基因型Ⅸ只从土壤中分离到以外，其他所有基因型的B.cepacia均可从环境和医院中分离[46]。同样，无法很清楚的在菌株基因型或是表现型方面来区分环境菌和人类致病菌。同时，每年都可以从CF的致病菌中获得新的Bcc株系，并且也能够从自然环境中获得这些菌株[47]。因此，如何区分环境菌和人体致病菌以及其是否具有致病性，对应用于农业上的Bcc菌株进行风险评估是必要的，也将是今后的研究难点和热点之一。目前，对细菌的鉴定一般都先选择合适的选择性培养基培养分离出的样本，然后利用生理生化手段检测分离到的菌株，接着利用SDS-PAGE技术，全细胞蛋白电泳，16S rDNA序列分析手段鉴定出分离所得样本的属，最后配合RFLP探针技术或AFLP探针技术以确定菌株的基因型。现有的伯克霍尔德菌复合型由9个不同的基因型构成，各个基因型在形态上非常相近，这就需要非常便利的生物化学的鉴定手段和具有针对性的分子鉴定方法对各个基因型进行精确的区分[48]。利用16S rDNA测序、recA-RFLP分析、recA 基因特异引物PCR检测、DNA-DNA 同源性分析以及全细胞蛋白电泳（PAGE）方法可区分Bcc中的一些种，但还没有一种技术可以针对性的区分出每个基因型。因此，寻找一种简单可行可靠的鉴定技术是今后研究的热点之一[49]。Bcc致病毒力因子包括脂肪酶、蛋白酶、溶血素、脂多糖、过氧化氢酶、内毒素等，以紫花苜蓿作为植物模型研究Bcc的毒力，发现9个基因型中除了B.multivorans 和B.stabilis外，其余都可以从发病的紫花苜蓿上分离获得[50]。但植物与人类病原菌存在着差异，如革兰氏阴性人体条件致病菌绿脓杆菌（Pseudomonas aeruginosa）和植物病原菌丁香假单胞菌（P.syringae）均存在Ⅲ型蛋白分泌系统，但后者对人和动物不致病，表明致病因子存在并不能充分说明其能致病。为了确定细菌致病性毒力的决定因子，Chung J W等人利用蛋白质组学描述来比较两种B.cenocepacia在老鼠肺上的存在状态，发现临床分离所得的C1394 很快被致死，C1394mp2依然存活。利用Two-dimensional（2D）凝胶电泳发现从易感病寄主上得到的C1394mp2，缺少烷基氢过氧化物还原酶亚基C（AhpC）蛋白位点，反之增加了鞭毛蛋白，这使C1394mp2增强了在高温和低pH值条件下的氧化应激能力。这揭示了B.cenocepacia致病毒力在易感模型上出现不同的表现与应激能力的内在原因[51]。对于使用易感动物作为模型进行研究是一个进步，但是对于动物模型的选择、如何利用等都受到时间、道德等原因的制约，寻找合适的动物模型仍是今后需要解决的问题之一。洋葱伯克霍尔德菌对于人本身来讲，是一种可怕的致病菌，不但污染医院的药品和器具，而且引起可怕的“洋葱伯克霍尔德菌综合征”。对于整个人类来讲，有好也有坏。它是自然界中一些植物的病原菌又是一种重要的生防、环保以及工业用菌，减少了对环境的危害，不少国家把它作为生物农药和环保制剂使用。如何区分哪些是人体致病菌、哪些是植物致病菌、哪些是生防或环保菌，成了一个令人困扰的问题。这有赖于对其生态多样性、致病机制以及分类学的全面了解。只有确定Bcc生防或降解菌株对人体不致病，或者该菌株为单独一个种而不是人体致病菌一员时，才能将其安全的应用于农业生产上，使其为人类造福。现在已经有许多研究者从不同的方面入手来进行研究，但仍有未涉及或很少涉及的领域，如该菌在自然界的分布及多样性研究，其基因型的详细鉴定及针对性的鉴定方法，这些都是需要注意的问题。因此，在今后的研究中，要广泛地参考结合各学科领域的研究进展，充分地认识了解该菌的生物学特性及在不同方面的风险性测试评价，以期更好地使其为人类服务。

褐斑病又称夏枯病，是草坪上最为流行的病害之一，在世界范围内的冷、暖季草坪草中都有发生。高羊茅褐斑病的发病部位主要是叶片和茎部，病斑椭圆形或不规则形，初为水渍状，后变褐至灰白枯死，边缘红褐色。湿度大时，清晨可在病部外缘观察到大量白色菌丝形成的“烟圈”及深褐色颗粒状菌核。感病草坪草的褪色及萎陷可造成大块黄褐色或枯黄色的病斑，多个病斑合并可致使草坪草大面积枯死。从华中农业大学草坪基地高羊茅田块采集发病植株，按照常规组织分离法分离、纯化得到病原菌。致病性测定采用4mm菌丝块接种离体高羊茅叶片，28℃保湿培养2天后，叶片上可形成不规则形水渍状病斑，边缘褐色。再次分离发病叶片的病组织，可得到与接种病原菌菌丝体形态与培养性状一致的病原菌，证实该病原菌为高羊茅褐斑病的致病菌。将得到的病原菌置于PDA培养基28℃培养，生长速度较快，2天可长满直径为9cm的培养皿。菌丝初无色，2天后菌落颜色从白色到浅黄色、浅黄褐色，培养5～6天后，菌落呈褐色。菌丝体长绒毛状，较稀疏，放射分布。菌丝直径3.4～10.5μm，直角或锐角分支，分枝处明显缢缩，距分枝不远处有一分隔。通常5天后菌丝纠结形成白色菌核，颜色从浅白色到灰色、褐色或黑色，近圆形至不规则形，单生或聚生。菌核内外颜色一致。将培养1～2天的菌丝经DAPI（5μg/ml）染色后于荧光显微镜下观察为多核，平均每细胞3～15个细胞核。根据对分离物的培养特征和形态学鉴定，将引起高羊茅褐斑病的病原菌鉴定为立枯丝核菌（Rhizoctonia solani）。对该菌核糖体DNA的ITS区域进行PCR扩增，测序结果与GenBank中核酸数据库进行同源性比较。该病原菌与Rhizoctonia solani AG 1-IB的序列同源性为99%。其结果与形态学鉴定结果一致。对病原菌寄主范围测定结果表明，该病原菌除侵染高羊茅外，还可为害黑麦草、早熟禾、狗牙根。