Development and application of coating agent to solve the potato seed rot disease

Development and application of coating agent to solve the potato seed rot disease | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Development and application of coating agent to solve the potato seed rot disease Chao Chen, Mian Wang, Xuexiang Ren This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6920361/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Potato, ranked as the fifth most economically important crop and serving as a major food source, faces challenges when potato is sown due to the problem of seed potato rot. In this study, we prepared Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS as a potent inhibitor of potato seed rot disease using wet sand grinding method and analyzed the growth and yield of potato in the field. The results showed that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS had uniform color and superior performance after coating potato tubers, and showed a significant promotion in emergence rate, plant height and root length compared to Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS and CK. In addition, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS significantly increased starch content and decreased reducing sugar content. This study provided a low-dose seed treatment agent for controlling potato rot disease, aligning with the strategy of pesticide reduction. Biological sciences/Biochemistry Biological sciences/Biological techniques Biological sciences/Biotechnology Potato Seed coating agent Rot disease Fludioxonil Difenoconazole Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Introduction Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is globally recognized as the fourth most crucial food crop, following rice (Oryza sativa L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and maize (Zeamays L.) 1 , 2 . With a worldwide production of 359 million tons in 2020 ( https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#data/QCL , accessed on 1 January 2021), China leads as the largest potato-producing country, contributing 17.98 million tons, followed by Russia, India, and the United States 3 , 4 . Rich in macronutrients and micronutrients 5 , 6 , potato plays play a vital role in global food supply and are a key vegetable crop in human diets 2 , 7 , 8 .Despite its significance in food security and market value, the potato crop is susceptible to various ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, nematodes and fungi 9 – 11 . The soil and seed-borne diseases impact the crop stand by inhibiting the development of potato sprouts and causing severe rots in seed tubers, table and processing purpose potatoes 9 , 12 .Thus, it’s crucial to minimize losses due to pests, diseases, and adverse environmental conditions for increased productivity and nutritional quality 12 , 13 . To address these challenges, decision support systems designed to reduce yield losses and facilitate the selection of effective control methods, such as using healthy seeds and adapted pesticides for each potato disease. Pesticides, such as seed coating agents, are commonly used to control various pathogens affecting potato tubers. Seed coating is the application of exogenous materials onto the surface of seeds with the aim of delivering active compounds that protect the seed against phytopathogens and increase germination and plant growth 14 . However, the safety of seed coating agents is a concern. This study highlighted the efficacy of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS in inhibiting potato rot, improving germination rates, and increasing plant height and root length. Additionally, this study indicated that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS significantly enhanced the biomass of potato plants in different growth periods, ultimately benefiting potato yields. Furthermore, compared to CK, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS increased the starch content of potato and decreased the content of reducing sugar. In summary, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS proved to be efficient in inhibiting potato rot while promoting the safe growth of potato. Materials and Methods Plant materials Potato cultivar used in field trials was FAVORITA, obtained from School of Horticulture, Anhui Agricultural University. Potato cultivated in an artificial climate chamber at 22 °C, sixteen hours light (12,000 Lx), eight hours dark, and 60% relative humidity. Antifungal activity of fungicides To assess the antifungal activity of various fungicides against potato rot, potato seed tubers were cut into 25-30 g pieces and individually soaked in different fungicides for five minutes. Subsequently, the soaked potatoes were air-dried at room temperature and cultured in the artificial climate chamber. The rot index was calculated after one week, based on the percentage of rotting area relative to the total potato tuber area, using 0-5 disease rating scale. Disease severity was estimated according to the following scale: 0=No rot; 1=rot area covering 0~25% of potato tuber area; 2=rot area covering 25~50% of potato tuber area; 3=rot area covering 50~75% of potato tuber area; 4=rot area covering 75~100% of potato tuber area; 5=total potato tuber rotted. Rot index was cultured using the formula: Rot index (%) = (∑Ri × Rd)/(total number of potato × Md)× 100. Four potatoes were used for each concentration and the assay was replicated for three times. Preparation of fludioxonil · difenoconazole 4% FS Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was prepared as followed. Fungicides Fludioxonil and Difenoconazole, dispersant sodium lignosulphonate and emulsifier A-110 were mixed and then milled for four~ five hours. Xanthan gum, a thickening agent, was added to the mixture, followed by additional milling for two~ three hours. The final product was packaged after adding film W1, vigilance color orchil, and antifreeze agent ethylene glycol. Field trials of pesticides on potato plants Field trials were conducted in experimental plots at National High-tech Agricultural Park, Dayang Town, Luyang District, Hefei City, Anhui Province, with favorable mild climate and moderate rainfall for plant growth. Potato seed tubers, cut into 20~40g pieces, were individually soaked for five minutes in Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS, and then air-dried for one to two days at room temperature. The growing season was three months, during which the measurements of emergence rate, potato plant height, root length, aboveground biomass, belowground biomass at six, nine, and twelve weeks after planting, and potato yield at maturation stage. The experiment used a completely randomized block design, with three plot areas (48 square meters) per treatment. Water-treated were used as control. Chlorophyll content analysis Levels of leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) were measured in fully expanded compounds leaves using the hand-held SPAD-502 device (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd) 15 . Leaves from upper (fourth from apex) plant parts were measured. Each leaf was tested for three times. Starch content analysis Potato tuber samples were freeze-dried by the Labconco Freeze Dry System (Labconco, Kansas City, MO, USA). And approximately 0.3 g of dried samples were used for starch extraction, which dissolved in boiling water twice for 30 minutes. The sediment was used for testing starch content by anthrone colorimetry 16 . Each treatment was tested for three times. Reducing sugar content analysis Potato tuber samples were freeze-dried by the Labconco Freeze Dry System (Labconco, Kansas City, MO, USA), and around 3 g of dried samples were used for extracting reducing sugar. The samples dissolved in 50 mL water at 50 ℃ for 20 min, followed by determining the reducing sugar content using 3, 5-dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS) 17 . Each treatment was tested for three times. Statistical analyses All the data were analyzed using software DPS 7.05 with Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at significance level of P < 0.05. Results During agricultural procedures, potato tubers are commonly coated with seed coating agents for protection. The selection of both the active and inactive ingredients is crucial for suspension seed coating agents. Therefore, this study aimed to select seed coating agents for potato protection and assess the safety of these agents. The fungicides inhibit the rot when coated onto potato tuber In this study, potato tubers were individually coated with various fungicides and cultured in incubator. The area of potato rot was significantly reduced after treating with 100 mg L -1 fludioxonil and 100 mg L -1 difenoconazole. The rot index of both 100 mg L -1 fludioxonil and 100 mg L -1 difenoconazole was reduced by 81.24% compared to blank control (CK), and the rot index of 100 mg L -1 azoxystrobin was also reduced by 51.22% compared to CK (Figure 1). These results indicated that compared to blank control (CK), 100 mg L -1 fludioxonil and 100 mg L -1 difenoconazole significantly inhibited potato rot, although 100 mg L -1 azoxystrobin was not significant (Figure 1). Additionally, 100 mg L -1 fludioxonil and 100 mg L -1 difenoconazole promoted germination of potato tubers compared to the control treatment, while 100 mg L -1 azoxystrobin had no significant effect on potato rot or even had inhibit the germination (Fig. 1A). These results indicated that fludioxonil and difenoconazole were promising candidates for seed coating fungicides to inhibit potato rot (Fig. 1B). The selection of emulsifier The role of emulsifier in pesticide formulation processing is curial and directly influences the success of the pesticide formulation. Then we assessed the safety of several emulsifiers on potato. The data in Figure 2 revealed that seed coating with A-1215 or L-61 significantly decreased length of germination compared to CK, although the decrease in A-110, BY-112, O-25 and S-60 was not significant (Fig. 2A). Interestingly, Seed coating of A-110 or O-25 significantly promoted root length compared to CK, although the increase in BY-112, L-61 and S-60 was not significant (Fig. 2B); seed coating of AC-1215 significantly inhibited length of root (Fig. 2B). These results indicated that A-110 was a potential emulsifier. The processing of fludioxonil · difenoconazole 4% FS Both active and inactive ingredients are integral components of pesticide formulations. Fludioxonil and difenoconazole were promising candidates for seed coating fungicides to inhibit potato rot, and A-110 was a potential emulsifier. Thus, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4 % FS was prepared based on the components in Table 1. In addition, the preparation process was shown in Figure 3. Table 1 . Formulation of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS Seed Coating Agents Active Ingredients Emulsifier Dispersant Thickener agent Film former Vigilance color dye Antifreeze agent Fludioxonil·Difenoconazole 4% FS 2% fludioxonil 2% difenoconazole 2% A-110 2% Sodium lignosulphonate 0.15% Xanthan gum 3% W1 20% Orchil 2%Etylene glycol Safety of F ludioxonil · D ifenoconazole 4% FS on potato at seeding stage The safety of seed coating agents is crucial for application. We coated the potato tubers with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS (Figure 4). Then emergence rate, plant height and root length of potato at seeding stage were measured. The emergence rate of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS and CK was 97.22%, 80.56%, 83.33% and 58.33%, respectively (Fig. 5A). This result indicated that the emergence rate of potato treated with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was higher than blank control (CK), and was safety for potato. There was no significant difference between Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS. The plant high of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS and CK was 17.60, 14.80, 13.30 and 12.67 cm, respectively (Fig. 5B). Plant height in the treatments increased compared with that in CK, although the increase in plant ash and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS was not significant (Fig. 5B). Root length followed a similar trend to the plant height (Fig. 5C). These results indicated that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS promoted emergence, and increased plant height and root length, demonstrating its safety for potato. Effect of F ludioxonil · D ifenoconazole 4% FS on potato growth FD increased plant height and root length, whether these phenomena could happen during the whole growth period of potato. The aboveground biomass, belowground biomass and root-shoot ratio at different growth stage were measured. These results showed that compared to CK, the aboveground biomass of potato treated with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was increased by 90.57%, 29.34% and 32.37% at seeding stage, tuberization stage or mature stage (Fig. 6A-C). While there was no significant difference between Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS and plant ash or Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 27% FS during the whole growth period of potato (Fig. 6A-C). The belowground biomass of potato treated with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was 3.74, 1.65 and 0.60 times higher than CK at seeding stage, tuberization stage or mature stage (Fig. 6D-F). And the belowground biomass of potato treated with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was significantly higher than plant ash and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS during the whole growth period of potato (Fig. 6D-F). These results indicated that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS had the strongest effect on increasing the biomass of potato plants in various growth stage. And distribution of biomass matter showed that the proportion of belowground biomass matter gradually increased with the growth of potato (Fig. 6G-I). Chlorophyll is the most important element in plant photosynthesis, then we determined the chlorophyll content in potato leaves. SPAD value was positively correlated with chlorophyll 18 , and we measured SPAD value in potato leaves at different stage. The results showed that the SPAD value potato leaves treated with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was no difference with CK (Fig. 7A), SPAD value was significantly increased after treatment with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS compared with CK at tuberization stage or mature stage (Fig. 7B-C). And SPAD value of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was no different from that of plant ash or Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS at various stage (Figure 7). These results indicated that chlorophyll content was significantly increased after treatment with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS. Effect of F ludioxonil · D ifenoconazole 4% FS on potato yield The average tuber number of potato treated with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 27% FS and CK was 6.36, 5.44, 5.75 and 4.29 number/ plant, and the yield was 207.37, 175.96, 166.34 and 160.29 g/ plant (Table 2). The data presented in Table 2 revealed that seed coating of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS significantly increased the tuber number and yield of potato compared to CK, although the increase in plant ash and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS was not significant. These results highlighted that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was beneficial for the potato yield. Table 2 . Effects of different treatments on potato tuber number and yield Treatment Tuber Number (number/ plant) Yield (g/ plant) Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS plant ash Difenoconazole· Fludioxonil· Thiamethoxam 27% FS 6.36±0.58a 207.37±9.01a 5.44±0.44ab 175.96±8.97ab 5.75±0.31ab 166.34±8.04b CK 4.29±0.61b 160.29±15.49b Distinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences ( P ≤ 0.05). Effect of fludioxonil · difenoconazole 4% FS on potato starch content and reducing sugar content Given that potato is rich in nutrients and starch, we tested potato starch content and reducing sugar content. The starch content of potato treated with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 27% FS and CK was 18.59%, 12.82%, 14.91% and 12.52% (Table 3). The data presented in Table 3 revealed that seed coating with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS significantly increased the starch content of potato compared to CK, although the increase in plant ash and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS was not significant. Furthermore, reducing sugar content of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 27% FS was reduced by 33.15%, 34.67% and 31.06% compared to CK (Table 3). While starch content and reducing sugar content in plant ash and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS was no significant difference with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS. This result indicated that reducing sugar content significantly decreased when treated with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS (Table 3). Table 3. Effects of different treatments on potato starch content and reducing sugar content Treatment Starch Content (%) Reducing Sugar Content (%) Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS plant ash Difenoconazole· Fludioxonil· Thiamethoxam 27% FS 18.59±4.49a 1.23±0.04b 12.82±0.29ab 1.20±0.08b 14.91±0.87ab 1.27±0.18b CK 10.08±1.23b 1.84±0.01a Distinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences ( P ≤ 0.05). Discussion Potato ( Solanum tuberosum) holds a crucial position as a major food crop, ranking the fifth in economically important crop 18 , 19 . Unfortunately, the potato yield suffers losses of up to 30% in the field and during storage due to damage by harmful microorganisms 20 ,, 21 . This study focused on screening the fungicides with good inhibitory activity against potato rot from commonly used fungicides. The results showed that 100 mg L − 1 fludioxonil and 100 mg L − 1 difenoconazole significantly inhibited potato rot compared to CK. A-110, indicated as the candidate emulsifier, was beneficial for potato growth. Subsequently, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS was prepared, emphasizing the importance of the safety of the seed coating agent for its application. This study also found that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS not only improved emergence rate but also increased plant height and root length of potato at seeding stage. Additionally, it significantly enhanced the biomass of potato plants at different growth stage. Furthermore, compared to CK, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS increased the starch content of potato while decreased the content of reducing sugar. Overall, these finding suggested that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS efficiently inhibited potato rot and was safety for potato growth. Fludioxonil has been demonstrated broad-spectrum activity against a wide range of fungal pathogens 22 , 23 . Applied as a seed treatment, fludioxonil has been shown efficacy in reducing DNA of Microdochium and Fusarium in seedlings 24 , 25 . In this study, fludioxonil not only inhibited the potato rot significantly but also promoted germination of potato tubers. Difenoconazole is widely used for controlling crop pathogens. It is mainly used in fruit, vegetables, wheat, potatoes, beans, melons and other crops 26 – 29 . In addition, it is safe to environment and agricultural products 30 . In our study, it effectively inhibited potato rot. Thus, both fludioxonil and difenoconazole were selected as the active ingredients of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS. However, the safety of seed coating agents seriously is critical for their application. Hence, we tested the safety of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS to potato. The results indicated that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS not only promoted emergence rate, but also increased both aboveground and belowground biomass, raised yield, and increased starch content. These results were aligned with the previous reports of that fludioxonil promoting plant growth 24 , 31 . Both Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS and Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS were deemed safe for potato. Interestingly, in this study, we found that a novel low-dose seed treatment agent, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, exhibited greater potential for promoting potato growth compared to Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS. We speculated that the choice of pesticide adjuvant in this study could have increased the efficacy of fungicide by enhancing factors such as dispersity, adsorption efficiency or stability. This enhancement might have subsequently enhanced the resistant of potato to pathogens, thereby promoting potato growth. These hypotheses warrant further investigation to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the observed differences in potato growth response to the two treatments. Furthermore, we found that after treatment with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS not only the chlorophyll content in potato leaves significantly increased, but also the growth-promoting effects persisted throughout the whole growth stage. The chlorophyll content provides an indirect estimation of a plant’s nutrient status 32 , Chlorophyll content is correlated positively with growth, biomass and height 33 – 35 . This study introduced low-dose seed coating agent effective in inhibiting potato rot and promoting potato growth and development, contributing to the strategies of pesticide reduction. Conclusion In this study, we demonstrated that Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS effectively inhibited potato rot and enhanced potato germination rate. Subsequently, we developed Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS and observed that it significantly improved emergence rate, plant height, root length, and biomass compared to the control group (CK), indicating its safety for potato cultivation. Moreover, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS boosted potato yield by increasing chlorophyll content, enhancing starch content, and reducing sugar content. In addition, Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS exhibited superior safety compared to both plant ash and Difenoconazole· Fludioxonil· Thiamethoxam 27% FS. This study introduced a promising low-dose seed treatment agent for controlling potato rot, aligning with the strategy of pesticide reduction. Declarations Acknowledgments We would like to thank Institute of Plant Protection and Agro-Products Safety，Anhui Academy of Agricultural Science for providing the experimental facilities and support. Author s’ Contributions Conceptualization: Xue-Xiang Ren and Chao Chen. Data curation: Chao Chen. Formal analysis: Xue-Xiang Ren and Chao Chen. Investigation: Chao Chen. Methodology: Mian Wang. Writing—original draft preparation: Chao Chen. Writing-review & editing: Xue-Xiang Ren and Chao Chen. Funding This work was supported by Institute of Industrial Crops, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Science of Agricultural Science Research Project. Data Availability Statement The datasets used and analyzed in this study are available in this article. Ethics approval and consent to participate This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Consent for publication Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest The author declares no competing interests. References Douches, D.S., Maas, D.L., Jastrzebski, K., Chase, RWJCS. Assessment of potato breeding progress in the USA over the last century .Crop science. 36 , 1544-1552 (1996). Xue, H. et al. Pathogenicity, Mycotoxin Production, and Control of Potato Dry Rot Caused by Fusarium spp.: A Review . Journal of Fungi. 9 , 843 (2023). Li, Y. et al. he Biocontrol of Potato Dry Rot by Microorganisms and Bioactive Substances: A Review . Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology. 56 , 122-136 (2022). Ismail, S. et al. Investigation of Streptomyces scabies Causing Potato Scab by Various Detection Techniques, Its Pathogenicity and Determination of Host-Disease Resistance in Potato Germplasm . Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland). 9 , 760 (2020). Beals, K.A. Potatoes, Nutrition and Health . American Journal of Potato Research . 96 , 102-110 (2018). Zhang, H. et al. Progress of Potato Staple Food Research and Industry Development in China . Journal of Integrative Agriculture . 16 , 2924-2932 (2017). Liu, J. et al. Pre- and Postharvest Measures Used to Control Decay and Mycotoxigenic Fungi in Potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) During Storage . Critical reviews in food science and Nutrition. 62 , 415-428 (2022). Camire, M.E., Kubow, S., Donnelly, D.J. Potatoes and Human Health . Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 49 , 823-840 (2009). Fiers, M., Edel-Hermann, V., Chatot, C., Le, Hingrat, Y., Alabouvette, C., Steinberg, C. Potato Soil-Borne Diseases. A Review .Agronomy for Sustainable Development . 32 , 93-132 (2011). Gondal, A.S., Javed, N., Khan, S.A., Hyder, S. Genotypic Diversity of Potato Germplasm against Root Knot Nematode ( Meloidogyne Incognita ) Infection in Pakistan . eSci Journal of Plant Pathology . 01 , 27-38 (2012). Mehboo, S., Rehman, A., Khan, M. Role of Epidemiological and Biochemical Factors against Early Blight of Potato . Journal of Plant Pathology . 2 , 8-13 (2013). Tiwari, R.K. et al. Potato Dry Rot Disease: Current Status, Pathogenomics and Management . Biotech . 10 , 503 (2020). Doboch, M., Gedebo, A., Haile, A., Beshir, H.M. Improving Potato Productivity through Optimum Agronomic Management to Ensure Food Security of Smallholder Farmers . Cogent Food & Agriculture 8 , 50-61 (2022). Rocha, I. et al. Seed Coating: A Tool for Delivering Beneficial Microbes to Agricultural Crops . Frontiers in Plant Scienc . 10 , 1357 (2019). Klaassen, M.T. et al. Overexpression of a Putative Nitrate Transporter ( StNPF1.11 ) Increases Plant Height, Leaf Chlorophyll Content and Tuber Protein Content of Young Potato Plants . Functional Plant Biology. 47 , 464-472 (2020). Yang, X. et al. Variation of Root Soluble Sugar and Starch Response to Drought Stress in Foxtail Millet . Agronomy . 13, 35-46 (2023). Jain, A., Jain, R., Jain, S. Quantitative Analysis of Reducing Sugars by 3, 5-Dinitrosalicylic Acid (DNSA Method), in Basic Techniques in Biochemistry, Microbiology and Molecular Biology: Principles and Techniques , Jain, A., Jain, R., and Jain, S., Editors. Springer US: New York . NY pp, 181-183 (2020). Donnelly, A.et al. Does Elevated CO 2 Ameliorate the Impact of O 3 on Chlorophyll Content and Photosynthesis in Potato ( Solanum tuberosum ). Physiologia plantarum. 111 , 501-511 (2001). Statistics, F. et al. World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Pocketbook Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy (2018). Youdkes, D. et al. Potential Control of Potato Soft Rot Disease by the Obligate Predators Bdellovibrio and Like Organisms .Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 86 , e02543-02519 (2020). Gustafsson, J. et al. The Methodology of the FAO Study: Global Food Losses and Food Waste - Extent, Causes and Prevention. (2013). Zhou, F. et al. Baseline Sensitivity and Potential Resistance Mechanisms for Fusarium pseudograminearum to Fludioxonil . Plant disease . 106 , 2138-2144 (2022). Biango-Daniels, M.N., Ayer, K.M., Cox, K.D., Hodge, K.T. Paecilomyces niveus : Pathogenicity in the Orchard and Sensitivity to Three Fungicides . Plant Disease. 103 , 125-131 (2019). Brown, M., Jayaweera, D.P., Hunt, A., Woodhall, J.W., Ray, R.V. Yield Losses and Control by Sedaxane and Fludioxonil of Soilborne Rhizoctonia , Microdochium , and Fusarium Species in Winter Wheat . Plant Disease. 105 , 2521-2530 (2021). Glynn, N.C. et al. Quantitative Fusarium spp. and Microdochium spp. PCR Assays to Evaluate Seed Treatments for the Control of Fusarium Seedling Blight of Wheat . Journal of Applied Microbiology 102 , 1645-1653 (2007). Zhang, Y. et al. Induced Expression of CYP51 Associated with Difenoconazole Resistance in the Pathogenic Alternaria sect. on Potato in China . Pest Management Science . 76 , 1751-1760 (2019). Kiselev, E.G. et al. Effectiveness of Slow-Release Fungicide Formulations for Suppressing Potato Pathogens . Pest Management Science . 78 , 5444-5455 (2022). Shcherbakova, L.et al. Studying the Ability of Thymol to Improve Fungicidal Effects of Tebuconazole and Difenoconazole against Some Plant Pathogenic Fungi in Seed or Foliar Treatments . Frontiers in microbiology 12 , 629429 (2021). Poti, T. et al. Isolates of Colletotrichum truncatum with Resistance to Multiple Fungicides from Soybean in Northern Thailand . Plant Disease . 107 , 2736-2750 (2023). Song, J. et al. Deposition and Dissipation of Difenoconazole in Pepper and Soil and Its Reduced Application to Control Pepper Anthracnose . Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety . 252 (2023). Mao, Y. et al. Occurrence and Chemical Control Strategy of Wheat Brown Foot Rot Caused by Microdochium majus. Plant Disease . 107 , 3523-3530 (2023). Moran, J.A. et al. Differentiation among Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization Treatments on Conifer Seedlings by Foliar Reflectance: A Comparison of Methods . Tree physiology. 20 , 1113-1120 (2000). Garmendia, A. et al. Effects of Nettle Slurry ( Urtica dioica L.) Used as Foliar Fertilizer on Potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) Yield and Plant Growth . PeerJ 6 , e4729. (2018). Batool, T.et al. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Alleviates Drought Stress in Potato in Response to Suppressive Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Enzymes Activities . Scientifc Reports. 10 , 16975 (2020). Yang, Y.M. et al. Rhizosphere effect of nanoscale zero-valent iron on mycorrhiza-dependent maize assimilation . Plant, cell & environment . 46 , 251-267 (2023). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6920361","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":478957362,"identity":"7bff05b9-2b7e-4abe-97c7-96360307cba9","order_by":0,"name":"Chao Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chao","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":478957363,"identity":"22ba7fb4-d7f1-49b5-a7a6-87223e147c67","order_by":1,"name":"Mian Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Weifang New Green Chemical Co., Ltd","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mian","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":478957364,"identity":"ff9c5a69-6f2f-40d9-acaa-8b2260862ebd","order_by":2,"name":"Xuexiang Ren","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xuexiang","middleName":"","lastName":"Ren","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-18 07:38:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6920361/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6920361/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85946017,"identity":"efd77752-2963-4e9a-b9b4-741683206ce9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-03 12:45:57","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":218013,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe effect of different fungicides on potato rot. (\u003cstrong\u003eA)\u003c/strong\u003e The effect of different fungicides on potato rot. (\u003cstrong\u003eB)\u003c/strong\u003e The rot index of different fungicides on potato rot. Bars represent the standard biological error. Distinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e ≤ 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6920361/v1/d0b2e5499ab4b16a4b9eec8f.png"},{"id":85945205,"identity":"ab370efa-bee5-4634-82a9-cc94bd9b9bcb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-03 12:37:57","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":94433,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSafety of different emulsifiers on potato. (A) The germinal length of different emulsifiers on potato. (B) The root length of different emulsifiers on potato. Bars represent the standard biological error. Distinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e≤ 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6920361/v1/bdd4db0436b2e140189064f0.png"},{"id":85944899,"identity":"4cae887f-5c92-45a8-94b2-3e8dedc5190c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-03 12:29:57","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":106655,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe preparation process of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6920361/v1/6693306eefed5d9918ba9ed3.png"},{"id":85944900,"identity":"a948f20e-dfb7-48ef-b656-e976066912ea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-03 12:29:57","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79582,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEffect of seed-tuber coating agent\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6920361/v1/cd3f2d2b46263fddb071f565.png"},{"id":85944907,"identity":"23f944bf-5213-4264-9d04-1d96df5f6975","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-03 12:29:57","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":108217,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEffect of Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS on potato at seeding stage of \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;potato in the field. (\u003cstrong\u003eA)\u003c/strong\u003e The emergence rate of potato at seeding stage after different fungicide treatment. (\u003cstrong\u003eB)\u003c/strong\u003e The plant height of potato at seeding stage after different fungicide treatment. (\u003cstrong\u003eC)\u003c/strong\u003eThe root length of potato at seeding stage after different fungicide treatment. Bars represent the standard biological error. Distinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e ≤ 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6920361/v1/b7376e16a6740b5fc1e7652e.png"},{"id":85944911,"identity":"685c4b4c-680e-4c5e-a9fd-5b07f4f771d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-03 12:29:57","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":269432,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePotato growth promotion induced by Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS. (A-C) Aboveground biomass treated separately with different fungicides at seeding stage, tuberization stage or mature stage. (D-F) Belowground biomass treated separately with different fungicides at seeding stage, tuberization stage or mature stage. (G-I) Distribution of aboveground biomass and belowground biomass treated separately with different fungicides at seeding stage, tuberization stage or mature stage. Bars represent the standard biological error. Distinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e ≤ 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6920361/v1/2743a6d0521a48824fd060b4.png"},{"id":85946018,"identity":"d2ed2f52-7f49-4601-881b-65aa5831f825","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-03 12:45:57","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":114936,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe SPAD value in potato leaves after treatment with different pesticides. (A) The SPAD value of potato leaves after treating separately with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash or Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS at seeding stage. (B) The SPAD value of potato leaves after treating separately with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash or Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS at tuberization stage. (C) The SPAD value of potato leaves after treating separately with Fludioxonil · Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash or Difenoconazole · Fludioxonil · Thiamethoxam 27% FS at mature stage. Bars represent the standard biological error. Distinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e ≤ 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6920361/v1/1ab5465dd45284e466753513.png"},{"id":88766577,"identity":"5fb11a9d-77d1-4f7e-843a-59caf76d806f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-11 09:02:11","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1889948,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6920361/v1/03fc7022-b2b5-41c7-a34b-714de54e5471.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development and application of coating agent to solve the potato seed rot disease","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePotato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is globally recognized as the fourth most crucial food crop, following rice (Oryza sativa L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and maize (Zeamays L.)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. With a worldwide production of 359\u0026nbsp;million tons in 2020 (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#data/QCL\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#data/QCL\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, accessed on 1 January 2021), China leads as the largest potato-producing country, contributing 17.98\u0026nbsp;million tons, followed by Russia, India, and the United States\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Rich in macronutrients and micronutrients\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, potato plays play a vital role in global food supply and are a key vegetable crop in human diets\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.Despite its significance in food security and market value, the potato crop is susceptible to various ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, nematodes and fungi\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The soil and seed-borne diseases impact the crop stand by inhibiting the development of potato sprouts and causing severe rots in seed tubers, table and processing purpose potatoes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.Thus, it\u0026rsquo;s crucial to minimize losses due to pests, diseases, and adverse environmental conditions for increased productivity and nutritional quality\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these challenges, decision support systems designed to reduce yield losses and facilitate the selection of effective control methods, such as using healthy seeds and adapted pesticides for each potato disease. Pesticides, such as seed coating agents, are commonly used to control various pathogens affecting potato tubers. Seed coating is the application of exogenous materials onto the surface of seeds with the aim of delivering active compounds that protect the seed against phytopathogens and increase germination and plant growth\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, the safety of seed coating agents is a concern. This study highlighted the efficacy of Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS in inhibiting potato rot, improving germination rates, and increasing plant height and root length. Additionally, this study indicated that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS significantly enhanced the biomass of potato plants in different growth periods, ultimately benefiting potato yields. Furthermore, compared to CK, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS increased the starch content of potato and decreased the content of reducing sugar. In summary, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS proved to be efficient in inhibiting potato rot while promoting the safe growth of potato.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePlant materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePotato cultivar used in field trials was FAVORITA, obtained from School of Horticulture, Anhui Agricultural University. Potato cultivated in an artificial climate chamber at 22 \u0026deg;C, sixteen hours light (12,000 Lx), eight hours dark, and 60% relative humidity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAntifungal activity of fungicides\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess the antifungal activity of various fungicides against potato rot, potato seed tubers were cut into 25-30 g pieces and individually soaked in different fungicides for five minutes. Subsequently, the soaked potatoes were air-dried at room temperature and cultured in the artificial climate chamber. The rot index was calculated after one week, based on the percentage of rotting area relative to the total potato tuber area, using 0-5 disease rating scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDisease severity was estimated according to the following scale: 0=No rot; 1=rot area covering 0~25% of potato tuber area; 2=rot area covering 25~50% of potato tuber area; 3=rot area covering 50~75% of potato tuber area; 4=rot area covering 75~100% of potato tuber area; 5=total potato tuber rotted. Rot index was cultured using the formula: Rot index (%) = (\u0026sum;Ri \u0026times; Rd)/(total number of potato \u0026times; Md)\u0026times; 100. Four potatoes were used for each concentration and the assay was replicated for three times.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePreparation of fludioxonil \u0026middot; difenoconazole 4% FS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS was prepared as followed. Fungicides Fludioxonil and Difenoconazole, dispersant sodium lignosulphonate and emulsifier A-110 were mixed and then milled for four~ five hours. Xanthan gum, a thickening agent, was added to the mixture, followed by additional milling for two~ three hours. The final product was packaged after adding film W1, vigilance color orchil, and antifreeze agent ethylene glycol.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eField trials of pesticides on potato plants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eField trials were conducted in experimental plots at National High-tech Agricultural Park, Dayang Town, Luyang District, Hefei City, Anhui Province, with favorable mild climate and moderate rainfall for plant growth. Potato seed tubers, cut into 20~40g pieces, were individually soaked for five minutes in Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS, and then air-dried for one to two days at room temperature. The growing season was three months, during which the measurements of emergence rate, potato plant height, root length, aboveground biomass, belowground biomass at six, nine, and twelve weeks after planting, and potato yield at maturation stage. The experiment used a completely randomized block design, with three plot areas (48 square meters) per treatment. Water-treated were used as control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChlorophyll content analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLevels of leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) were measured in fully expanded compounds leaves using the hand-held SPAD-502 device (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd)\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e. Leaves from upper (fourth from apex) plant parts were measured. Each leaf was tested for three times.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStarch content analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePotato tuber samples were freeze-dried by the Labconco Freeze Dry System (Labconco, Kansas City, MO, USA). And approximately 0.3 g of dried samples were used for starch extraction, which dissolved in boiling water twice for 30 minutes. The sediment was used for testing starch content by anthrone colorimetry\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e. Each treatment was tested for three times.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReducing sugar content analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePotato tuber samples were freeze-dried by the Labconco Freeze Dry System (Labconco, Kansas City, MO, USA), and around 3 g of dried samples were used for extracting reducing sugar. The samples dissolved in 50 mL water at 50\u0026nbsp;℃\u0026nbsp;for 20 min, followed by determining the reducing sugar content using 3, 5-dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS)\u003csup\u003e17\u003c/sup\u003e. Each treatment was tested for three times.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistical analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll the data were analyzed using software DPS 7.05 with Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at significance level of \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eDuring agricultural procedures, potato tubers are commonly coated with seed coating agents for protection. The selection of both the active and inactive ingredients is crucial for suspension seed coating agents. Therefore, this study aimed to select seed coating agents for potato protection and assess the safety of these agents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe fungicides inhibit the rot when coated onto potato tuber\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, potato tubers were individually coated with various fungicides and cultured in incubator. The area of potato rot was significantly reduced after treating with\u0026nbsp;100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e fludioxonil and 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e difenoconazole. The rot index of both 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e fludioxonil and 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e difenoconazole was reduced by 81.24% compared to blank control (CK), and the rot index of 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e azoxystrobin was also reduced by 51.22% compared to CK (Figure 1). These results indicated that compared to blank control (CK), 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e fludioxonil and 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e difenoconazole significantly inhibited potato rot, although 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e azoxystrobin was not significant (Figure 1). Additionally, 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e fludioxonil and 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e difenoconazole promoted germination of potato tubers compared to the control treatment, while 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e azoxystrobin had no significant effect on potato rot or even had inhibit the germination (Fig. 1A). These results indicated that fludioxonil and difenoconazole were promising candidates for seed coating fungicides to inhibit potato rot (Fig. 1B).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe selection of emulsifier\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe role of emulsifier in pesticide formulation processing is curial and directly influences the success of the pesticide formulation. Then we assessed the safety of several emulsifiers on potato. The data in Figure 2 revealed that seed coating with A-1215 or L-61 significantly decreased length of germination compared to CK, although the decrease in A-110, BY-112, O-25 and S-60 was not significant (Fig. 2A). Interestingly, Seed coating of A-110 or O-25 significantly promoted root length compared to CK, although the increase in BY-112, L-61 and S-60 was not significant (Fig. 2B); seed coating of AC-1215 significantly inhibited length of root (Fig. 2B). These results indicated that A-110 was a potential emulsifier.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe processing of fludioxonil \u0026middot; difenoconazole 4% FS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth active and inactive ingredients are integral components of pesticide formulations. Fludioxonil and difenoconazole were promising candidates for seed coating fungicides to inhibit potato rot, and A-110 was a potential emulsifier. Thus, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4 % FS was prepared based on the components in Table 1. In addition, the preparation process was shown in Figure 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eFormulation of Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"648\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13.0971%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSeed Coating Agents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.0247%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eActive Ingredients\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11.7103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmulsifier\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11.7103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDispersant\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11.7103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThickener agent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11.8644%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFilm former\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.3297%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVigilance color\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003edye\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.55316%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAntifreeze agent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 13.0971%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFludioxonil\u0026middot;Difenoconazole 4% FS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 16.0247%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2% fludioxonil\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2% difenoconazole\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11.7103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2% A-110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11.7103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2% Sodium lignosulphonate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11.7103%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15% Xanthan gum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 11.8644%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3% W1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 14.3297%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20% Orchil\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 9.55316%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2%Etylene glycol\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSafety of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eludioxonil \u0026middot;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eifenoconazole 4% FS on potato at seeding stage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe safety of seed coating agents is crucial for application. We coated the potato tubers with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, and Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS (Figure 4). Then emergence rate, plant height and root length of potato at seeding stage were measured. The emergence rate of Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS and CK was 97.22%, 80.56%, 83.33% and 58.33%, respectively (Fig. 5A). This result indicated that the emergence rate of potato treated with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS was higher than blank control (CK), and was safety for potato. There was no significant difference between Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS and Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS. The plant high of Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash, Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS and CK was 17.60, 14.80, 13.30 and 12.67 cm, respectively (Fig. 5B). Plant height in the treatments increased compared with that in CK, although the increase in plant ash and Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS was not significant (Fig. 5B). Root length followed a similar trend to the plant height (Fig. 5C). These results indicated that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS promoted emergence, and increased plant height and root length, demonstrating its safety for potato.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eludioxonil \u0026middot;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eifenoconazole 4% FS on potato growth\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFD increased plant height and root length, whether these phenomena could happen during the whole growth period of potato. The\u0026nbsp;aboveground biomass, belowground biomass and root-shoot ratio at different growth stage were measured. These results showed that compared to CK, the aboveground biomass of potato treated with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS\u0026nbsp;was increased by 90.57%, 29.34% and 32.37% at seeding stage, tuberization stage or mature stage (Fig.\u0026nbsp;6A-C). While there was no significant difference between\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS\u0026nbsp;and plant ash or\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 27% FS\u0026nbsp;during the whole growth period of potato\u0026nbsp;(Fig.\u0026nbsp;6A-C). The belowground biomass of potato treated with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS\u0026nbsp;was 3.74, 1.65 and 0.60 times higher than CK at seeding stage, tuberization stage or mature stage (Fig.\u0026nbsp;6D-F). And the belowground biomass of potato treated with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS\u0026nbsp;was significantly higher than plant ash and\u0026nbsp;Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS\u0026nbsp;during the whole growth period of potato\u0026nbsp;(Fig.\u0026nbsp;6D-F). These results indicated that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS had the strongest effect on increasing the biomass of potato plants in various growth stage.\u0026nbsp;And distribution of biomass matter showed that the proportion of belowground biomass matter gradually increased with the growth of potato (Fig. 6G-I).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChlorophyll is the most important element in plant photosynthesis, then we determined the chlorophyll content in \u0026nbsp;potato leaves. SPAD value was positively correlated with chlorophyll\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e, and we measured SPAD value in potato leaves at different stage.\u0026nbsp;The results showed that\u0026nbsp;the SPAD value\u0026nbsp;potato leaves\u0026nbsp;treated with\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS\u0026nbsp;was no difference with CK (Fig.\u0026nbsp;7A),\u0026nbsp;SPAD value was significantly increased after treatment with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS compared with CK\u0026nbsp;at tuberization stage or mature stage (Fig.\u0026nbsp;7B-C). And SPAD value of Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS was no different from that of plant ash or Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS\u0026nbsp;at various stage (Figure 7). These results indicated that chlorophyll content was significantly increased after treatment with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eludioxonil \u0026middot;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eifenoconazole 4% FS on potato yield\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe average tuber number of potato treated with\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash,\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 27% FS\u0026nbsp;and CK was 6.36, 5.44, 5.75 and 4.29 number/ plant, and the yield was 207.37, 175.96, 166.34 and 160.29 g/ plant (Table\u0026nbsp;2).\u0026nbsp;The data presented in Table 2 revealed that seed coating of Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS significantly increased the tuber number and yield of potato compared to CK, although the increase in plant ash and Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS was not significant. These results highlighted that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS was beneficial for the potato yield.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e Effects of different treatments on potato tuber number and yield\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"612\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 284px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTreatment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTuber Number (number/ plant)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYield (g/ plant)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 284px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplant ash\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifenoconazole\u0026middot; Fludioxonil\u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.36\u0026plusmn;0.58a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e207.37\u0026plusmn;9.01a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.44\u0026plusmn;0.44ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e175.96\u0026plusmn;8.97ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.75\u0026plusmn;0.31ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e166.34\u0026plusmn;8.04b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 284px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.29\u0026plusmn;0.61b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 101px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e160.29\u0026plusmn;15.49b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDistinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026le; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect of fludioxonil \u0026middot; difenoconazole 4% FS on potato starch content and reducing sugar content\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven that potato is rich in nutrients and starch, we tested potato starch content and reducing sugar content. The starch content of potato treated with\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash,\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 27% FS\u0026nbsp;and CK was 18.59%, 12.82%, 14.91% and 12.52% (Table\u0026nbsp;3).\u0026nbsp;The data presented in Table\u0026nbsp;3\u0026nbsp;revealed that seed coating with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS significantly increased the starch content of potato compared to CK, although the increase in plant ash and Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS was not significant. Furthermore, reducing sugar content\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash,\u0026nbsp;Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 27% FS\u0026nbsp;was reduced by 33.15%, 34.67% and 31.06%\u0026nbsp;compared to CK\u0026nbsp;(Table\u0026nbsp;3). While starch content and reducing sugar content\u0026nbsp;in plant ash and Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS was no\u0026nbsp;significant\u0026nbsp;difference with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS.\u0026nbsp;This result indicated that\u0026nbsp;reducing sugar content significantly decreased when treated with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, plant ash and Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS (Table\u0026nbsp;3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.\u003c/strong\u003e Effects of different treatments on potato starch content and reducing sugar content\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"597\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 274px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTreatment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStarch Content (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReducing Sugar Content (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 274px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eplant ash\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifenoconazole\u0026middot; Fludioxonil\u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.59\u0026plusmn;4.49a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.23\u0026plusmn;0.04b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.82\u0026plusmn;0.29ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u0026plusmn;0.08b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.91\u0026plusmn;0.87ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27\u0026plusmn;0.18b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 274px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.08\u0026plusmn;1.23b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.84\u0026plusmn;0.01a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDistinct letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026le; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePotato (\u003cem\u003eSolanum tuberosum)\u003c/em\u003e holds a crucial position as a major food crop, ranking the fifth in economically important crop\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Unfortunately, the potato yield suffers losses of up to 30% in the field and during storage due to damage by harmful microorganisms\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e,,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This study focused on screening the fungicides with good inhibitory activity against potato rot from commonly used fungicides. The results showed that 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e fludioxonil and 100 mg L\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e difenoconazole significantly inhibited potato rot compared to CK. A-110, indicated as the candidate emulsifier, was beneficial for potato growth. Subsequently, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS was prepared, emphasizing the importance of the safety of the seed coating agent for its application. This study also found that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS not only improved emergence rate but also increased plant height and root length of potato at seeding stage. Additionally, it significantly enhanced the biomass of potato plants at different growth stage. Furthermore, compared to CK, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS increased the starch content of potato while decreased the content of reducing sugar. Overall, these finding suggested that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS efficiently inhibited potato rot and was safety for potato growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFludioxonil has been demonstrated broad-spectrum activity against a wide range of fungal pathogens\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Applied as a seed treatment, fludioxonil has been shown efficacy in reducing DNA of \u003cem\u003eMicrodochium\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eFusarium\u003c/em\u003e in seedlings\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In this study, fludioxonil not only inhibited the potato rot significantly but also promoted germination of potato tubers. Difenoconazole is widely used for controlling crop pathogens. It is mainly used in fruit, vegetables, wheat, potatoes, beans, melons and other crops\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR27 CR28\" citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In addition, it is safe to environment and agricultural products\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In our study, it effectively inhibited potato rot. Thus, both fludioxonil and difenoconazole were selected as the active ingredients of Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the safety of seed coating agents seriously is critical for their application. Hence, we tested the safety of Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS to potato. The results indicated that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS not only promoted emergence rate, but also increased both aboveground and belowground biomass, raised yield, and increased starch content. These results were aligned with the previous reports of that fludioxonil promoting plant growth\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Both Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS and Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS were deemed safe for potato. Interestingly, in this study, we found that a novel low-dose seed treatment agent, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS, exhibited greater potential for promoting potato growth compared to Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS. We speculated that the choice of pesticide adjuvant in this study could have increased the efficacy of fungicide by enhancing factors such as dispersity, adsorption efficiency or stability. This enhancement might have subsequently enhanced the resistant of potato to pathogens, thereby promoting potato growth. These hypotheses warrant further investigation to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the observed differences in potato growth response to the two treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, we found that after treatment with Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS not only the chlorophyll content in potato leaves significantly increased, but also the growth-promoting effects persisted throughout the whole growth stage. The chlorophyll content provides an indirect estimation of a plant\u0026rsquo;s nutrient status\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, Chlorophyll content is correlated positively with growth, biomass and height\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR34\" citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This study introduced low-dose seed coating agent effective in inhibiting potato rot and promoting potato growth and development, contributing to the strategies of pesticide reduction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, we demonstrated that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS effectively inhibited potato rot and enhanced potato germination rate. Subsequently, we developed Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS and observed that it significantly improved emergence rate, plant height, root length, and biomass compared to the control group (CK), indicating its safety for potato cultivation. Moreover, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS boosted potato yield by increasing chlorophyll content, enhancing starch content, and reducing sugar content. In addition, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS exhibited superior safety compared to both plant ash and Difenoconazole\u0026middot; Fludioxonil\u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS. This study introduced a promising low-dose seed treatment agent for controlling potato rot, aligning with the strategy of pesticide reduction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eWe would like to thank Institute of Plant Protection and Agro-Products Safety，Anhui Academy of Agricultural Science for providing the experimental facilities and support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003es\u0026rsquo; Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eConceptualization:\u0026nbsp;Xue-Xiang Ren and\u0026nbsp;Chao Chen.\u0026nbsp;Data curation: Chao Chen.\u0026nbsp;Formal analysis:\u0026nbsp;Xue-Xiang Ren and\u0026nbsp;Chao Chen. Investigation:\u0026nbsp;Chao Chen.\u0026nbsp;Methodology:\u0026nbsp;Mian Wang.\u0026nbsp;Writing\u0026mdash;original draft preparation:\u0026nbsp;Chao Chen.\u0026nbsp;Writing-review \u0026amp; editing:\u0026nbsp;Xue-Xiang Ren and\u0026nbsp;Chao Chen.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThis work was supported by Institute of Industrial Crops, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Science\u0026nbsp;of Agricultural Science Research Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThe datasets used and analyzed in this study are available in this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDouches, D.S., Maas, D.L., Jastrzebski, K., Chase, RWJCS. Assessment of potato breeding progress in the USA over the last century\u003cem\u003e.Crop science.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e36\u003c/strong\u003e, 1544-1552 (1996).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXue, H. et al. Pathogenicity, Mycotoxin Production, and Control of Potato Dry Rot Caused by \u003cem\u003eFusarium\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003espp.: A Review\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eJournal\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;of Fungi.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 843 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, Y. et al. he Biocontrol of Potato Dry Rot by Microorganisms and Bioactive Substances: A Review\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhysiological and Molecular\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlant Pathology.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e56\u003c/strong\u003e, 122-136\u0026nbsp;(2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIsmail, S. et al. Investigation of \u003cem\u003eStreptomyces scabies\u003c/em\u003e Causing Potato Scab by Various Detection Techniques, Its Pathogenicity and Determination of Host-Disease Resistance in Potato Germplasm\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePathogens (Basel, Switzerland).\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e760 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeals, K.A. Potatoes, Nutrition and Health\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Potato Research\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e96\u003c/strong\u003e, 102-110 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, H. et al. Progress of Potato Staple Food Research and Industry Development in China\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eJournal of Integrative Agriculture\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 2924-2932 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, J. et al. Pre- and Postharvest Measures Used to Control Decay and Mycotoxigenic Fungi in Potato (\u003cem\u003eSolanum tuberosum\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eL.) During Storage\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCritical reviews in food science and Nutrition.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e62\u003c/strong\u003e, 415-428 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCamire, M.E., Kubow, S., Donnelly, D.J. Potatoes and Human Health\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCritical reviews in food science and nutrition.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e, 823-840 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFiers, M., Edel-Hermann, V., Chatot, C., Le, Hingrat, Y., Alabouvette, C., Steinberg, C. Potato Soil-Borne Diseases. A Review\u003cem\u003e.Agronomy for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e32\u003c/strong\u003e, 93-132 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGondal, A.S., Javed, N., Khan, S.A., Hyder, S. Genotypic Diversity of Potato Germplasm against Root Knot Nematode (\u003cem\u003eMeloidogyne \u0026nbsp;Incognita\u003c/em\u003e) Infection in Pakistan\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eeSci Journal of Plant Pathology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e01\u003c/strong\u003e, 27-38 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMehboo, S., Rehman, A., Khan, M. Role of Epidemiological and Biochemical Factors against Early Blight of Potato\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of \u003cem\u003ePlant Pathology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e, 8-13 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTiwari, R.K. et al. Potato Dry Rot Disease: Current Status, Pathogenomics and Management\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eBiotech\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 503 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDoboch, M., Gedebo, A., Haile, A., Beshir, H.M. Improving Potato Productivity through Optimum Agronomic Management to Ensure Food Security of Smallholder Farmers\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCogent Food \u0026amp; Agriculture\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 50-61 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRocha, I. et al. Seed Coating: A Tool for Delivering Beneficial Microbes to Agricultural Crops\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Plant Scienc\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 1357 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKlaassen, M.T. et al. Overexpression of a Putative Nitrate Transporter (\u003cem\u003eStNPF1.11\u003c/em\u003e) Increases Plant Height, Leaf Chlorophyll Content and Tuber Protein Content of Young Potato Plants\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Functional Plant Biology. \u003cstrong\u003e47\u003c/strong\u003e, 464-472 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, X. et al. Variation of Root Soluble Sugar and Starch Response to Drought Stress in Foxtail Millet\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAgronomy\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e13,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e35-46 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJain, A., Jain, R., Jain, S. Quantitative Analysis of Reducing Sugars by 3, 5-Dinitrosalicylic Acid (DNSA Method), in \u003cem\u003eBasic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eTechniques in Biochemistry, Microbiology and Molecular Biology: Principles and Techniques\u003c/em\u003e, Jain, A., Jain, R., and Jain, S., Editors. \u003cem\u003eSpringer US: New York\u003c/em\u003e. NY pp, 181-183 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDonnelly, A.et al. Does Elevated CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e Ameliorate the Impact of O\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e on Chlorophyll Content and Photosynthesis in Potato (\u003cem\u003eSolanum tuberosum\u003c/em\u003e). \u003cem\u003ePhysiologia plantarum.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e111\u003c/strong\u003e, 501-511 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStatistics, F. et al. World Food and Agriculture \u0026ndash; Statistical Pocketbook Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYoudkes, D. et al. Potential Control of Potato Soft Rot Disease by the Obligate Predators \u003cem\u003eBdellovibrio\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand Like Organisms\u003cem\u003e.Applied \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eand Environmental Microbiology.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e86\u003c/strong\u003e, e02543-02519 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGustafsson, J. et al. The Methodology of the FAO Study: Global Food Losses and Food Waste - Extent, Causes and Prevention. (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhou, F. et al. Baseline Sensitivity and Potential Resistance Mechanisms for \u003cem\u003eFusarium pseudograminearum\u003c/em\u003e to Fludioxonil\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlant \u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003edisease\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e106\u003c/strong\u003e, 2138-2144 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBiango-Daniels, M.N., Ayer, K.M., Cox, K.D., Hodge, K.T. \u003cem\u003ePaecilomyces niveus\u003c/em\u003e: Pathogenicity in the Orchard and Sensitivity to Three Fungicides\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlant Disease.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e103\u003c/strong\u003e, 125-131 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrown, M., Jayaweera, D.P., Hunt, A., Woodhall, J.W., Ray, R.V. Yield Losses and Control by Sedaxane and Fludioxonil of Soilborne \u003cem\u003eRhizoctonia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eMicrodochium\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eFusarium\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eSpecies in Winter Wheat\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlant Disease.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e105\u003c/strong\u003e, 2521-2530 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGlynn, N.C. et al. Quantitative \u003cem\u003eFusarium\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003espp. and \u003cem\u003eMicrodochium\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003espp. PCR Assays to Evaluate Seed Treatments for the Control of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFusarium\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eSeedling Blight of Wheat\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Applied Microbiology \u003cstrong\u003e102\u003c/strong\u003e, 1645-1653 (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, Y. et al. Induced Expression of \u003cem\u003eCYP51\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eAssociated with Difenoconazole Resistance in the Pathogenic \u003cem\u003eAlternaria\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003esect. on Potato in China\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePest Management Science\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;76\u003c/strong\u003e, 1751-1760 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKiselev, E.G. et al. Effectiveness of Slow-Release Fungicide Formulations for Suppressing Potato Pathogens\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePest Management\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e78\u003c/strong\u003e, 5444-5455 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShcherbakova, L.et al. Studying the Ability of Thymol to Improve Fungicidal Effects of Tebuconazole and Difenoconazole against Some Plant Pathogenic Fungi in Seed or Foliar Treatments\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Frontiers in microbiology \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 629429 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePoti, T. et al. Isolates of \u003cem\u003eColletotrichum truncatum\u003c/em\u003e with Resistance to Multiple Fungicides from Soybean in Northern Thailand\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlant Disease\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e107\u003c/strong\u003e, 2736-2750 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSong, J. et al. Deposition and Dissipation of Difenoconazole in Pepper and Soil and Its Reduced Application to Control Pepper Anthracnose\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcotoxicology and Environmental Safety\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e252\u003c/strong\u003e (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMao, Y. et al. Occurrence and Chemical Control Strategy of Wheat Brown Foot Rot Caused by \u003cem\u003eMicrodochium majus.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlant Disease\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e107\u003c/strong\u003e, 3523-3530 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoran, J.A. et al. Differentiation among Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization Treatments on Conifer Seedlings by Foliar Reflectance: A \u0026nbsp;Comparison of Methods\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eTree physiology.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e, 1113-1120 (2000).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGarmendia, A. et al. Effects of Nettle Slurry (\u003cem\u003eUrtica dioica\u003c/em\u003e L.) Used as Foliar Fertilizer on Potato (\u003cem\u003eSolanum tuberosum\u003c/em\u003e L.) \u003cem\u003eYield and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlant Growth\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e PeerJ \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, e4729. (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBatool, T.et al. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Alleviates Drought Stress in Potato in Response to Suppressive Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Enzymes Activities\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eScientifc Reports.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 16975 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, Y.M. et al. Rhizosphere effect of nanoscale zero-valent iron on mycorrhiza-dependent maize assimilation\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlant, cell \u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eenvironment\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e46\u003c/strong\u003e, 251-267 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Potato, Seed coating agent, Rot disease, Fludioxonil, Difenoconazole","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6920361/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6920361/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePotato, ranked as the fifth most economically important crop and serving as a major food source, faces challenges when potato is sown due to the problem of seed potato rot. In this study, we prepared Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS as a potent inhibitor of potato seed rot disease using wet sand grinding method and analyzed the growth and yield of potato in the field. The results showed that Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS had uniform color and superior performance after coating potato tubers, and showed a significant promotion in emergence rate, plant height and root length compared to Difenoconazole \u0026middot; Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Thiamethoxam 27% FS and CK. In addition, Fludioxonil \u0026middot; Difenoconazole 4% FS significantly increased starch content and decreased reducing sugar content. This study provided a low-dose seed treatment agent for controlling potato rot disease, aligning with the strategy of pesticide reduction.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and application of coating agent to solve the potato seed rot disease","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-03 12:29:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6920361/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"53f23c88-d1bf-4c7b-965e-442f472bc9c7","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 3rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":50853294,"name":"Biological sciences/Biochemistry"},{"id":50853295,"name":"Biological sciences/Biological techniques"},{"id":50853296,"name":"Biological sciences/Biotechnology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-11T08:54:04+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-03 12:29:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6920361","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6920361","identity":"rs-6920361","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}