玛草蛉幼虫对螺旋粉虱若虫的捕食功能反应与搜寻效应

玛草蛉Maflada sp.是新入侵危险性害虫螺旋粉虱Aleurodicus dispersus Russell的捕食性天敌.本文在室内开展了玛草蛉幼虫对螺旋粉虱若虫的捕食功能和搜寻效应研究.结果表明:玛草蛉2龄和3龄幼虫对螺旋粉虱若虫的捕食反应均属HollingⅡ型,拟合方程分别为(Na=0.8836N--+0.88...     

黄玛草蛉对木瓜粉蚧的捕食作用评价

为明确黄玛草蛉Mallada basalis(Walker)对木瓜粉蚧Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink的捕食作用,在实验室条件下观察了黄玛草蛉2龄、3龄幼虫对木瓜粉蚧2龄、3龄若虫及成虫的捕食选择偏好,同时采用捕食功能反应方法评价了黄玛草蛉2龄、3龄幼虫对木瓜粉蚧各虫态的捕食效能.结果表明,黄玛草蛉2龄、3龄幼虫偏好捕食木瓜粉蚧若虫,对木瓜粉蚧各虫态的捕食量均随着猎物密度的增加而增加符合HollingⅡ模型.其中,黄玛草蛉3龄幼虫具有较高的捕食能力,其对木瓜粉蚧2龄、3龄若虫及成虫的日最大捕食量分别为116头、81头和19头,a/Th值(a为瞬时攻击率,Th为处置单头猎物时间)分别为284.76、134.26和28.38.黄玛草蛉幼虫对猎物的寻找效应随猎物密度的增加而呈线性下降,且在相同猎物密度条件下,黄玛草蛉3龄幼虫对猎物的搜寻效应明显高于2龄幼虫.研究结果表明,黄玛草蛉对木瓜粉蚧具有较好的捕食能力.     

中华通草蛉和大草蛉幼虫对黑刺粉虱若虫的捕食功能反应

【目的】为了研究中华通草蛉Chrysoperla sinica(Tjeder)幼虫和大草蛉Chrysopa pallens(Rambur)幼虫对黑刺粉虱Aleurocan spinfetus(Quaintance)若虫的捕食作用。【方法】在室内(25±1)℃条件下对2种草蛉的捕食功能反应模型进行了评估,并对2种草蛉的3龄幼虫的种内干扰作用和自身密度作用的反应方程进行了拟合。【结果】2种草蛉的捕食功能均属于HollingⅡ反应模型,捕食量均随黑刺粉虱若虫密度的增加而增加。中华通草蛉和大草蛉的自身密度方程分别为E=0.753 0×P~(–0.134 8)和E=0.697 5×P~(–0.164 6),种内干扰作用方程分别为A=2.362 6×P~(–0.231 8)和A=2.429 6×P~(–0.225 6)。【结论】中华通草蛉和大草蛉对黑刺粉虱均具有较好的捕食作用。     

烟粉虱天敌日本刀角瓢虫的捕食行为

研究了日本刀角瓢虫雌成虫和幼虫捕食粉虱时的各种行为时间分配.结果表明,日本刀角瓢虫成虫的捕食行为可分为爬行、取食、清洁、静息、整翅和排泄6个部分.饥饿后的日本刀角瓢虫幼虫捕食烟粉虱卵时,幼虫各龄期间的取食和爬行时间无显著差异,对烟粉虱卵的处置时间随瓢虫幼虫虫龄的增大而缩短.日本刀角瓢虫雌成虫捕食烟粉虱卵时,饥饿后的雌成虫用于取食的时间显著长于非饥饿的雌成虫,而用于清洁、静息和爬行的时间显著短于非饥饿的雌成虫;饥饿后的瓢虫雌成虫对卵的处置时间显著长于非饥饿的雌成虫.饥饿后的日本刀角瓢虫雌成虫捕食烟粉虱若虫时,瓢虫雌成虫的取食时间随烟粉虱若虫虫龄的增大而增加,清洁和静息时间随烟粉虱若虫虫龄的增大而缩短,对若虫的处置时间随烟粉虱若虫虫龄的增大而增加.     

小黑瓢虫对高氏瘤粉虱捕食作用的研究

在高氏瘤粉虱不同虫态共存的条件下,小黑标虫对高氏瘤粉虱各虫态的选择次序为卵＞1龄若虫＞2龄若虫＞3龄若虫＞4龄若虫和拟蛹,对卵的捕食率均最高,有明显的嗜好选择;小黑瓢虫幼虫捕食粉虱卵的数量,随着龄期的增长而递增,其中4龄幼虫的捕食量最大,4龄期捕食量平均为1565．42粒,占全幼虫期总食卵量的45．42％,整个幼虫期可捕食高氏瘤粉虱的卵数平均为3446．5粒。小黑瓢虫3龄幼虫对粉虱卵的捕食作用率在所给的猎物密度（1500粒／皿）条件下,随着自身密度的增加而降低。     

中华草蛉、龟纹瓢虫和异色瓢虫对B型烟粉虱的捕食功能反应

室内研究了中华草蛉Chrysopa sinicaTjeder、龟纹瓢虫Propylaea japonica(Thunberg)和异色瓢虫Leis axyridis(Pallas)对B型烟粉虱Bemisiatabaci(Gennadius)若虫的捕食功能反应和寻找效应。结果表明,3种天敌成虫和幼虫的捕食量均随着猎物密度的增加而上升,当猎物增加到一定水平,捕食量趋向稳定,捕食功能反应曲线符合HollingⅡ型方程。异色瓢虫、中华草蛉和龟纹瓢虫成虫和幼虫对烟粉虱若虫的捕食量差异显著,理论最大日捕食量分别为417,263,156头和625,238,108头。3种天敌对烟粉虱若虫的寻找效应随着天敌密度的增加而下降,干扰作用逐渐增强,其寻找效应表现为龟纹瓢虫(0.5656)>异色瓢虫(0.4371)>中华草蛉(0.4029),对烟粉虱的控制能力表现为异色瓢虫>龟纹瓢虫>中华草蛉。     

普通草蛉幼虫对麦二叉蚜和麦长管蚜的捕食功能反应与搜寻效应

[目的]为评价普通草蛉Chrysoperla carnea幼虫对麦二叉蚜Schizaphis graminum和麦长管蚜Sitobion avenae的捕食反应和选择偏好,以明确普通草蛉幼虫对这2种蚜虫的控害能力.[方法]室内设置不同密度的麦二叉蚜和麦长管蚜,统计普通草蛉2龄和3龄幼虫对2种猎物的捕食量,研究普通草蛉幼虫对麦二叉蚜和麦长管蚜的捕食功能反应和搜寻效应.[结果]相同猎物密度下,普通草蛉2龄、3龄幼虫对麦二叉蚜的捕食量均低于麦长管蚜且存在显著性差异,对2种小麦蚜虫的捕食功能反应均拟合Holling Ⅱ功能反应模型和Holling Ⅲ功能反应新模型.3龄幼虫对麦二叉蚜和麦长管蚜的瞬时攻击率分别为1.089和1.106,大于2龄幼虫对猎物的瞬时攻击率,同一龄期草蛉幼虫对麦长管蚜的瞬时攻击率及日最大捕食量大于麦二叉蚜,2龄和3龄幼虫对麦长管蚜的处理时间为0.005 d和0.004 d,均小于对麦二叉蚜的处理时间.普通草蛉幼虫对麦长管蚜的最佳寻找密度高于麦二叉蚜,其中2龄普通草蛉幼虫捕食麦长管蚜的最佳寻找密度最高,为39.200.普通草蛉幼虫对小麦蚜虫的搜寻效应随猎物密度增加而降低,对麦长管蚜的搜寻效应高于麦二叉蚜,麦长管蚜搜寻效应的下降趋势大于麦二叉蚜.[结论]普通草蛉幼虫对麦二叉蚜和麦长管蚜有较大的控害潜能,对于麦长管蚜的取食及控制能力高于麦二叉蚜.     

黄玛草蛉对两种蚜虫的捕食效能

实验室条件下研究了黄玛草蛉2龄与3龄幼虫对甘蓝蚜以及玉米蚜成虫的捕食功能反应。结果表明:黄玛草蛉2龄与3龄幼虫对2种蚜虫的捕食量均随着猎物密度的增加而增加,寻找效应随着猎物密度的增加而减小。不同龄期幼虫对2种蚜虫的捕食功能反应均符合HollingⅡ模型,黄玛草蛉2龄与3龄幼虫对玉米蚜最大理论日捕食量分别为120.48头、185.18头;黄玛草蛉2龄与3龄幼虫对甘蓝蚜最大理论日捕食量分别为60.60头、86.95头。在相同猎物种类下,黄玛草蛉3龄幼虫对2种蚜虫的捕食量均高于黄玛草蛉2龄幼虫;在相同猎物密度下,黄玛草蛉2龄幼虫与3龄幼虫对玉米蚜的捕食量均高于甘蓝蚜。     

七星瓢虫、大草蛉对桃粉蚜捕食功能研究

经测定,七星瓢虫成虫、4龄幼虫和大草蛉3龄幼虫对桃粉蚜的捕食功能反应属于Holling—Ⅱ型圆盘方程式,两种天敌对桃粉蚜具有较强的捕食能力。     

广重粉蛉对烟粉虱的捕食作用研究

【目的】广重粉蛉Semidalis aleyrodiformis(Stephens)是烟粉虱Bemisia tabaci(Gennadius)的重要天敌昆虫之一,为了明确其控制潜能,本文研究了广重粉蛉对烟粉虱的捕食作用。【方法】在室内温度(26±1)℃,相对湿度75%±5%,光照周期L∶D=14∶10条件下,对广重粉蛉幼虫捕食烟粉虱各个虫态的捕食作用进行研究。并且评估了广重粉蛉幼虫对烟粉虱卵、广重粉蛉成虫对烟粉虱若虫和伪蛹的捕食功能反应模型,同时,对广重粉蛉成虫捕食烟粉虱卵的干扰反应方程进行了拟合。【结果】广重粉蛉幼虫对烟粉虱的捕食量随着广重粉蛉龄期的增大而增大。广重粉蛉幼虫对烟粉虱卵的功能反应和广重粉蛉成虫对烟粉虱各个虫态的捕食功能反应都呈HollingⅡ型。随着广重粉蛉龄期的增加,广重粉蛉对烟粉虱卵的寻找效率(a)逐渐增加,处置时间(Th)依次缩短;而广重粉蛉成虫对不同龄期烟粉虱的功能反应是随着猎物龄期的增加,寻找效率逐渐降低,处置时间(Th)依次延长。广重粉蛉自身密度方程为E=0.127 9×P-0.317 3,干扰系数为0.317 3。【结论】研究表明,广重粉蛉4龄幼虫和雌成虫对烟粉虱有较好的捕食作用,控害潜力最大。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor