桃樹(Prunus persica (L.) Batsch)原產於中國，現已於世界各地種植，在台灣主要種植於台中、桃園、新竹及南投。栽培生產主要分成低海拔硬肉桃、低海拔水蜜桃及高海拔水蜜桃三種生產類型。近年，為減緩高山墾殖對環境造成之壓力，桃樹低海拔化之種植技術已獲得支持。其中，「台農甜蜜」為平地水蜜桃主要栽培品種之一，因此本研究即以「台農甜蜜」為盆苗測試品種。桃樹常見病蟲害有桃蚜蟲、穿孔病、縮葉病、流膠病等。桃流膠病為桃樹嚴重病害之ㄧ，感染流膠病據統計可導致40%之桃產量減產。本研究觀察台中及台北二果園，發現流膠病在生長環境不良、傷口多及生長勢弱之果園發生較為嚴重。從此二果園桃樹之凹陷病斑、疣狀凸起及流膠中，以組織塊分離或稀釋分離，皆可分離到流膠病菌。經由菌絲塊傷口接種及孢子懸浮液傷口接種，皆能造成健康株之發病，並可再分離到流膠病菌，完成病原性測定及柯霍氏法則之驗證。桃樹於苗期感染桃流膠病將影響生長高度。自台中、台北二地分離篩選出之二株桃流膠病分離株，菌絲最適合生長溫度為25oC，經形態鑑定及分子檢測後發現台中分離株為葡萄座腔菌Botryosphaeria dothidea而台北分離株可能為Diplodia seriata、Sphaeropsis sapinea或Botryosphaeria obtusa，兩者在分生孢子形態及DNA序列上皆顯著不同，證實台北及台中兩地之桃流膠病菌為兩種不同之真菌。本研究並從國內外報告，篩選對上述二病原菌有防治效力之藥劑進行化學防治測試。其中免賴得(Benomyl)、貝芬替(Carbendazim)、待克利(Difenoconazole)、撲克拉(Prochloraz)、撲滅寧(Procymidone)、普克利(Propiconazole)、得克利(Tebuconazole)、甲基多保淨(Thiophanate-methyl)經測試對抑制流膠病菌菌絲生長有較佳的效果；而免賴得、貝芬替、待克利、撲克拉、撲滅寧、普克利、得克利對分生孢子發芽有較佳效果。於盆苗試驗中，發現噴施亞托敏(Azoxystrobin)、貝芬替及撲克拉之防治效果良好。在田間試驗中，則以噴施亞托敏、撲克拉防治效果良好；而在注射藥劑方面則以待克利及得克利效果較佳。在台灣目前桃流膠病發病已十分嚴重，但迄今尚無公告的推薦防治用藥，本研究因此希望透過病原菌之發生生態、生理特性以及病害好發環境等，同時篩選測試有效之防治藥劑，改進施藥方式及技術，期望可以提高流膠病的防治成效。

Peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) is native in China, planted worldwide now. In Taiwan, peaches are mainly planted in Taichung, Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Nantou. Production is divided into three types: Low altitude crisp peaches, low altitude and high altitude juicy peaches. In recent years, for mitigating the pressure from alpine reclamation, agricultural scientists developed the technology for planting peaches in low altitude or plain area. “Premier” is one of the most important cultivar of the low altitude juicy peaches. Thus we choose this cultivar for this study. Aphids, bacterial leaf spot, leaf curl and gummosis are major diseases of peach. Peach gummosis is one of the most destructive diseases. According to the statistics, peaches will lose more than 40% yield if infected with this disease. After investigation in oneTaichung and one Taipei orchard, we found that gummosis occurs seriously in poor-managed orchards, with a lot of wounds and weak growth. This study isolated the pathogens of peach gummosis from stem lesions, blisters and gums in these two orchards by tissue block isolation method and dilution isolation method. The healthy peach stems showed gummosis after inoculating by mycelium discs and spore suspensions at wounds.The infected seedlings showed reduced tree height and wrose health. And we could reisolate the pathogens from diseased peach stem for fulfilling the Koch’s postulates. This study identified 2 different peach gummosis isolates from Taichung and Taipei, respectively. The best mycelial growth temperature of these two isolates is about 25o. The isolate from Taichung is identified as Botryosphaeria dothidea, while the isolate from Taipei preliminarily identified as Diplodia seriata, Sphaeropsis sapinea or Botryosphaeria obtusa. The different conidia morphology and DNA sequence show that the two isolates are different pathogens. By testing some fungicides reported in recent paper for chemical control, we showed that benomyl, carbendazim, difenoconazole, prochloraz, procymidone, propiconazole, tebuconazole, and thiophanate-methyl were able to inhibit the mycelial growth of peach gummosis isolates; while benomyl, carbendazim, difenoconazole, prochloraz, procymidone, propic-onazole and tebuconazole were able to inhibit the conidia germination of the pathogen. In pot test, azoxystrobin, carbendazim and prochloraz had shown good control effect. In field test, spraying azoxystrobin and prochloraz on stem exhibited good control effect. With big peach trees in orchard, we inject the fungiciedes in the basal stem. Results showed that difenoconazole and tebuconazole can reduced the gummosis. There is no formal chemical control fungiciedes recommended for controlling the peach gummosis in Taiwan. Therefore, this research is aimed to screen some adequate fungiciedes and develop better applying techniques for controling this serious disease.

誌謝 ii
中文摘要 iv
summary vi
目錄 viii
表目錄 xi
圖目錄 xiii
第一章 前言 1
一、桃樹簡介 1
二、桃樹之栽培管理 3
三、桃樹之病蟲害 4
四、研究目的 5
第二章 前人研究 6
一、桃流膠病(Peach gummosis) 6
二、化學藥劑防治 9
第三章 材料與方法 11
一、台灣北部及中部桃流膠病之田間調查 11
二、台灣北部及中部桃流膠病之病原分離及保存 11
(一)桃流膠病之病原分離 11
(二)桃流膠病病菌之保存 12
三、桃流膠病病菌分離株之病原性檢測 12
(一)供試健康桃樹苗之栽種與繁殖 12
(二)桃流膠病以菌絲塊接種傷口之試驗 12
(三)桃流膠病以孢子懸浮液接種傷口之試驗 13
(四)人工接種桃流膠病之病原再分離 13
四、桃流膠病菌分離株之鑑定 14
(一)形態學鑑定 14
(二)分子生物學鑑定 14
五、溫度對於桃流膠病菌絲生長之影響 15
六、桃流膠病菌對於桃樹苗生長之影響 16
七、藥劑對於桃流膠病菌生長之影響 16
(一)藥劑對於病原菌菌絲生長抑制之試驗 16
(二)藥劑對於孢子發芽抑制之試驗 17
八、桃流膠病菌之盆栽防治試驗 17
九、桃流膠病菌之田間防治試驗 22
(一)使用藥劑噴施方式進行田間病害防治試驗 22
(二)使用藥劑注射方式進行田間病害防治試驗 22
第四章結果 25
一、台灣北部及中部桃流膠病之田間調查結果 25
二、台灣北部及中部桃流膠病之病原分離及保存 34
(一)桃流膠病之病原分離之結果 34
(二)桃流膠病病菌之保存 35
三、桃流膠病病菌分離株之病原性檢測 39
(一)供試健康桃樹苗之栽種與繁殖 39
(二)桃流膠病以菌絲塊接種傷口之試驗結果 39
(三)桃流膠病以孢子懸浮液接種傷口試驗之結果 40
(四)人工接種桃流膠病之病原再分離之結果 40
四、桃流膠病菌分離株之鑑定 46
(一)形態學鑑定結果 46
(二)分子生物學鑑定結果 46
五、溫度對於桃流膠病菌絲生長之影響結果 53
六、桃流膠病菌對於桃樹苗生長之影響結果 56
七、藥劑對於桃流膠病菌生長之影響 60
(一)藥劑對於病原菌菌絲生長抑制之試驗結果 60
(二)藥劑對於孢子發芽抑制之試驗結果 60
八、桃流膠病菌之盆栽防治試驗結果 67
九、桃流膠病菌之田間防治試驗 72
(一)使用藥劑噴施方式進行田間病害防治試驗之結果 72
(二)使用藥劑注射方式進行田間病害防治試驗之結果 72
第五章 討論 82
一、台灣北部及中部桃流膠病之田間調查 82
二、台灣北部及中部桃流膠病之病原分離及保存 82
三、桃流膠病病菌分離株之病原性檢測 84
四、桃流膠病菌分離株之鑑定 84
五、溫度對於桃流膠病菌絲生長之影響 85
六、桃流膠病菌對於桃樹苗生長之影響 85
七、藥劑對於桃流膠病菌生長之影響 85
八、桃流膠病菌之盆栽防治試驗 86
九、桃流膠病菌之田間防治試驗 86
參考文獻 88
附錄一 台灣桃樹防治藥劑名稱、毒性、防治對象、稀釋倍數、作用機制 96

1.王玉瑤。2014。台灣北部甘藷基腐病及乾腐病之研究。台灣大學植物醫學碩士學位學程碩士學位論文。61頁。
2.王喻其、王泰權、陳富翔、蔡永勝、李宏萍、費雯綺。2012。植物保護手冊。行政院農業委員會農業藥物毒物試驗所。1079頁。
3.行政院農業委員會。2004。91-92年度農業藥劑委託試驗報告。行政院農業委員會農業藥物毒物試驗所。223頁。
4.行政院農業委員會。2014。103年農業統計年報。行政院農業委員會。
5.行政院農業委員會農業藥物毒物試驗所。2014。農藥作用機制分類檢索。行政院農業委員會農業藥物毒物試驗所。39頁。
6.余思葳、李昱輝、楊秀珠、蘇文瀛、高清文。2010。害物管理手冊(桃樹篇)。行政院農業委員會農業藥物毒物試驗所。36頁。
7.呂理燊。1995。桃病害。台灣農家要覽農作篇(三)。73-75頁。豐年社。台北。
8.宋家瑋、蔡志濃、陸明德。2014。平地水蜜桃健康管理技術開發與推動。103年度重點作物健康管理生產體系及關鍵技術之研發成果研討會論文集。184-190頁。行政院農業委員會農業試驗所。
9.依凡．拉夫爾。2005。CITES辨識圖鑑─熱帶木材。行政院農業委員會林務局。77頁。
10.林彥安。2016。菱角炭疽病之流行病學及非農藥防治。台灣大學植物病理與微生物學研究所碩士論文。65頁。
11.柯 勇、孫守恭。1991。桃樹流膠病初步研究。植物保護學會會刊33：434。
12.柯 勇、孫守恭。1992。Botryosphaeria dothidea引起之流膠病。植物病理學會會刊1(2):70-78。
13.柯 勇、黃振文、葉金彰、童伯開、劉添丁、鄭明發。1993。桃流膠病。落葉果樹病蟲害圖鑑。48頁。臺灣省農林廳。
14.柯 勇。2003。桃流膠病。作物病害與防治。437-438頁。藝軒圖書出版社。台北。
15.柯 勇。2008。桃、李、梅病害。台灣經濟果樹病害彩色圖鑑。369-384頁。藝軒圖書出版社。台北。
16.倪蕙芳、莊明富、許淑麗、賴素玉、楊宏仁。2011。葡萄座腔菌屬(Botryosphaeria spp.)在台灣引起之酪梨採收後病害研究。台灣農業研究60(3)：157-166。
17.孫守恭。1992。台灣果樹病害。世維出版社。台中。550頁。
18.孫岩章。2005。植物醫師手冊。國立台灣大學植物病理與微生物學系。200頁。
19.孫岩章。2014。植醫及樹醫友善用藥及優良用藥之定義及歸類。植醫及樹醫友善用藥與優良處方研討會論文集。47-68頁。台灣植物及樹木醫學學會。
20.孫岩章。2015。談樹木褐根病之預防性及治療性藥劑注射防治策略。樹木疫病蟲害之醫療及健檢研討會論文集。43-50頁。台灣植物及樹木醫學學會。
21.徐世典、張東柱、張清安、蔡進來、蔡東纂。2002。台灣植物病害名彙第四版。中華民國植物病理學會。386頁。
22.張東柱、謝煥儒、張瑞璋、傅春旭。1999。桃流膠病。台灣常見樹木病害。92-93頁。台灣省林業試驗所。
23.黃增泉。1993。台灣植物誌。行政院國家科園委員會。969頁。
24.溫英杰。1995。桃。台灣農家要覽農作篇(二)。163-168頁。豐年社。台北。
25.溫英杰、張靜誼。2014。「台農4號(紅玉)」桃之育成。台灣農業研究63(4):320-323。
26.歐錫坤、宋家瑋、劉明橞。2010。平地水蜜桃新品種台農3號－‘春豐’之育成。農業試驗所技術服務81：1-3。
27.歐錫坤、宋家瑋。1998。台灣平地水蜜桃的品種改良概況。台灣省農業試驗所技術服務35:8-15。
28.歐錫坤。2002。平地水蜜桃新品種臺農1號商品名:春蜜。豐年半月刊52(3)：17-20。
29.歐錫坤、宋家瑋。2005。平地水蜜桃新品種--臺農2號(夏蜜)之育成。農業試驗所技術服務16(3)：14-17。
30.歐錫坤、陸明德、宋家瑋。2006。台灣桃產業問題及發展方向之探討。台灣果樹產業調整及發展策略研討會專刊。149-158頁。嘉義大學。
31.聯合國糧食及農業組織。2013。聯合國糧食及農業組織統計資料庫。http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E
32.Acimovic, S. G., VanWoerkom, A. H., Reeb, P. D., Vandervoort, C., Garavaglia, T., Cregg, B. M., and Wise, J. C. 2014. Spatial and temporal distribution of trunk-injected imidacloprid in apple tree canopies. Pest Management Science 70: 1751–1760.
33.Agrios, G. N. 2004. Plant Pathology. Elsevier Academic Press. San Diego, California, USA. 922 pp.
34.Beckman, T. G., and Reilly, C. C. 2005. Relative susceptibility of peach cultivars to fungal gummosis. Journal of the American Pomological Society 59(2):111-116.
35.Beckman, T. G., and Reilly, C. C. 2006. Relative susceptibility of ornamental peach cultivars to fungal gummosis. Journal of the American Pomological Society 60(3):149-154.
36.Beckman, T. G., Pusey, P. L., and Bertrand, P. F. 2003. Impact of fungal gummosis on peach trees. HortScience 38(6):1141-1143.
37.Beckman, T. G., Reilly, C. C., Pusey, P. L., and Hotchkiss, M. 2011. Progress in the management of peach fungal gummosis (Botryosphaeria dothidea) in the southeastern US peach industry. Journal of the American Pomological Society 65 (4):192-200.
38.Britton, K. O., and Hendrix, F. F. 1982. Three Species of Botryosphaeria cause peach tree gummosis in Georgia. Plant Disease 66:1120-1121.
39.Britton, K. O., and Hendrix, F. F. 1986. Population dynamics of Botryosphaeria spp. in peach gummosis cankers. Plant Disease 70:134-136.
40.Britton, K. O., and Hendrix, F. F. 1989. Infection of peach buds by Botryosphaeria obtusa. Plant Disease 73:65-68.
41.Brown, E. A., and Britton, K. O. 1986. Botryosphaeria diseases of apple and peach trees. Horticultural Reviews 9:351-374.
42.Byrne, F. J., Krieger, R. I., Doccola, J., and Morse, J. G. 2014. Seasonal timing of neonicotinoid and organophosphate trunk injections to optimize the management of avocado thrips in California avocado groves. Crop Protection 57: 20-26.
43.Chen, X. Z. 1985. Studies on the gummosis of peach (Prunus persica) caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea. Acta Phytopathology Sin 15:53-57.
44.Choi, Y. W., Hyde, K. D., and Ho, W. H. 1999. Single spore isolation of fungi. Fungal Divers 3:29-38.
45.Copes, W. E., and Hendrix, F. F., Jr. 2004. Effect of temperature on sporulation of Botryosphaeria dothidea, B. obtusa, and B. rhodina. Plant Disease 88:292-296.
46.Dal, M. E., Cocking, J., and Montecchio, L. 2014. Efficacy tests on commercial fungicides against ash dieback in vitro and by trunk injection. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13: 697-703.
47.Damm, U., Crous, P. W., and Fourie P. H. 2007. Botryosphaeriaceae as potential pathogens of Prunus species in South Africa, with descriptions of Diplodia africana and Lasiodiplodia plurivora sp. nov. Mycologia 99(5):664-680.
48.Elisa, D. M., Jonathan, C., and Lucio, M. 2014. Efficacy tests on commercial fungicides against ash dieback in vitro and by trunk injection. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13:697-703.
49.Espinoza, J. G., Briceño, E. X., Chávez, E. R., Úrbez-Torres, J. R., and Latorre, B. A. 2009. Neofusicoccum spp. associated with stem canker and dieback of blueberry in Chile. Plant Disease 93:1187-1194.
50.Guillot, O., and Bory, G. 1997. Trunk insertion: a solution to urban trees chemical protection? Pages 137-146 in: International Symposium on Urban Tree Health. M. Lemattre, P. Lemattre, and F. Lemaire, eds. ISHS Press, Paris, France.
51.Hua, G. R., Wu, J., and Cheng, J. H. 2006. Investigation of the resistance of nectarine and peach cultivars to gummosis. South China Fruits 6:68.
52.Layne, D. R. and Bassi, D. 2008. The Peach: Botany, Production and Uses. CABI Press. London. 615 pp.
53.Lazzizera, C., Frisullo, S., Alves, A., and Phillips, A. J. L. 2008. Morphology, phylogeny and pathogenicity of Botryosphaeria and Neofusicoccum species associated with drupe rot of olives in southern Italy. Plant Pathology 57:948-956.
54.Li, Z., Wang, Y. T., Gao, L., Wang, F., Ye, J. L., and Li, G. H. 2014. Biochemical changes and defence responses during the development of peach gummosis caused by Lasiodiplodia theobromae. European Journal of Plant Pathology 138:195-207.
55.Ma, R. J., Yu, M. L., Du, P., and Song, H. F. 2002. Advances in research of peach gummosis. Journal of Fruit Science 19(4):262-264.
56.Michailides, T. J. 1991. Pathogenicity, distribution, sources of inoculum,and infection courts of Botryosphaeria dothidea on pistachio. Phytopathology 81:566-573.
57.Pan, Y. Z., Zou, S., Zhang, H. M., and Lu, J. 2003. Effect of several chemicals on the control of peach tree gummosis disease. Journal of Hubei Agricultural College 23(3):167-168.
58.Phillips, A. J. L., Alves, A., Correia, A., and Luque, J. 2005. Two new species of Botryosphaeria with brown, 1-septate ascospores and Dothiorella anamorphs. Mycologia 97:513-529.
59.Phillips, A. J. L., Crous, P. W., and Alves, A. 2007. Diplodia seriata, the anamorph of “Botryosphaeria” obtusa. Fungal Divers. 25:141-155.
60.Pusey, P. L. 1989. Availability and dispersal of ascospores and conidia of Botryosphaeria in peach orchards. Phytopathology 79:635-639.
61.Pusey, P. L. 1989. Influence of water stress on susceptibility of nonwounded peach bark to Botryosphaeria dothidea. Plant Disease 73: 1000–1003.
62.Pusey, P. L. 1993. Role of Botryosphaeria species in peach tree gummosis on the basis of differential isolation from outer and inner bark. Plant Disease 77(2):170-174.
63.Pusey, P. L., Reilly, C. C., and Okie, W. R. 1986. Symptomatic responses of peach trees to various isolates of Botryosphaeria dothidea. Plant Disease 70:568-572.
64.Rehamn, A., Umar, U. D., Naqvi, S. A. H., Latif M. R., Khan, S. A., Malik, M. T., and Freed, S. 2015. Emerging resistance against different fungicides in Lasiodiplodia theobromae as the cause of mango dieback in Pakistan. Arch. Biology Science 67(1):241-249.
65.Rehman, A., Saleem, M., Mehboob, S., and Bokhari, A. A. 2011. Fungi associated with rhizosphere soil in mango decline orchards and their in vitro control. Pakistan Journal Phytopathology 23:112-117.
66.Rittenburg, L. H., and Hendrix, F. F. 1983. Peach fruit rots caused by Botryosphaeria spp. and Glomerella cingulata. Plant Disease 67:449-450.
67.Singh, N. I., Tombisana Devi, R. K., and Imotomba, P. K. 2000. Peach gummosis: a new disease of peach fruit caused by Pestalotiopsis disseminata. Indian Phytopathology 53(3): 335.
68.Sousa, E., Naves, P., and Vieira, M. 2012. Prevention of pine wilt disease induced by Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and Monochamus galloprovincialis by trunk injection of emamectin benzoate. Phytoparasitica 41: 143-148.
69.Sutton, T. B. 1981. Production and dispersal of ascospores and conidia by Botryosphaeria obtuse and Botryosphaeria dothidea in apple orchards. Phytopathology 71:584-589.
70.Úrbez-Torres, J. R., Leavitt, G. M., Guerrero, J. C., Guevara, J., and Gubler, W. D. 2008. Identification and pathogenicity of Lasiodiplodia therobromae and Diplodia seriata, the causal agents of bot canker disease of grapevines in Mexico. Plant Disease 92:519-529.
71.Úrbez-Torres, J. R., Leavitt, G. M., Voegel, T. M., and Gubler, W. D. 2006. Identification and distribution of Botryosphaeria spp. associated with grapevine cankers in California. Plant Disease 90:1490-1503.
72.VanWoerkom, A. H., Aćimović, S. G., Sundin, G. W., Cregg, B. M., Mota-Sanchez, D., Vandervoort, C., and Wise, J. C. 2014. Trunk injection: An alternative technique for pesticide delivery in apples. Crop Protection 65: 173-185.
73.Wang, F., Zhao, L., Li, G., Huang, J., and Hsiang, T. 2011. Identification and characterization of Botryosphaeria spp. causing gummosis of peach trees in Hubei Province, central China. Plant Disease 95:1378-1384.
74.Weaver, D. J. 1974. A Gummosis disease of peach trees caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea. Phytopathology 64:1429-1432.
75.Weaver, D. J. 1979. Role of conidia of Botryosphaeria dothidea in the natural spread of peach tree gummosis. Phytopathology 69:330-334.
76.White, T. J., Bruns, T., Lee, S., and Taylor, J. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics Pages 315-322 in: PCR Protocols: A Sequencing Guide to Methods and Applications. M. A. Innis, D. H. Gelfand, J. J. Sninsky, and T. J. White, eds. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.
77.Wu, Y. K., Ou, G. T., Yu, J. Y., and Sun, J. C. 2012. First report of Botryosphaeria dothidea on Jatropha curcas L. in China. Journal of Tropical Agriculture 50(1-2):53-58.
78.Wu, Y. Q., Wu, Y. R., and Cheng, L. Y. 1985. Studies on pathogen of peach blister canker (Physalospora persicae Abiko et Kitajima). Acta Agriculturae Shanghai 2:63-68.
79.Xia, J. P., and Xia, J. M. 2006. The methods for control of peach gummosis. China Fruits 6:64.
80.Xie, L., Huang, S. L., Cen, Z. L., Lu, W. H., Qin, B. X., Tang, C. G., Hu, C. J., and Qin, L. P. 2010. First report of Botryosphaeria dothidea causing sweet osmanthus leaf dieback in China. Agricultural Sciences in China 9:847-853.
81.Zhao, M. Z., Guo, H., Zhan, and J. T. 1996. Study of the resistance of peach varieties to gummosis. China Fruits 3:45-46.