鞭角华扁叶峰幼虫期的呼吸代谢

报道了鞭角华扁叶蜂Chinolyda flagellicornis幼虫不同发育时期的耗氧量,试验表明,鞭角华扁叶蜂的耗氧量随着幼虫的生长发育而增加,在同一龄期内,耗氧量与虫体鲜重呈2次曲线相关;在不同的龄期之间,耗氧量则与虫体鲜重的0.8299次方成正比,在同一龄期内,幼虫的代谢速率呈抛物线状;在整个幼虫期随着龄期的增加而呈下降趋势。     

棉铃虫的呼吸代谢

棉铃虫的耗氧量随着幼虫的生长发育而增加。当发育状态基本相同时,在同一龄期内,幼虫耗氧量与虫体鲜重呈直线相关;在不同龄期之间,耗氧量则与虫体鲜重的0.97次方成正比。幼虫的代谢速率随着龄期的增加而稳定地降低。在20—35℃范围内,温度每升高10℃,幼虫的代谢速率约增加一倍。蛹期的代谢速率呈典型的“U”形曲线变化。从卵期及幼虫期到蛹期的呼吸商变动在0.75—0.96之间。     

鞭角华扁叶蜂蜕皮甾类激素滴度的变化

用放射免疫分析法测定了鞭角华扁叶蜂Chinolyda flagellicornis末龄幼虫及滞育预蛹血淋巴中蜕皮甾类激素滴度。结果表明,末龄幼虫血淋巴中蜕皮甾类激素滴度在第2和4天各有一高峰;滞育预蛹血淋巴中保持一定滴度的蜕皮甾类激素,并随发育时期的不同有所波动;预蛹化蛹前一周血淋巴中蜕皮甾类激素滴度存在两个与变态相对应的峰值。表明鞭角华扁叶蜂的滞育与蜕皮甾类激素相关。     

鞭角华扁叶蜂自然种群生命表

鞭角华扁叶蜂Chinolydaflagellicornis（F．Smith）是危害柏木的主要害虫,近年来在长江沿岸柏木防护林区发生严重,造成灾害。为了解该虫的种群动态规律及影响虫口数量变动的致死原因,并为该虫的预测预报提供资料,笔者于1995～1996年在忠县、云阳两县对鞭角华扁叶蜂自然种群进行了观察,现将结果整理于后。1生命表的研制过程1．1生命表观察虫期的划分[1]：根据鞭角华扁鞭角华扁叶蜂平均生命表叶蜂的发育进度和生活习性,将整个世代划分为卵期,1、2、3、4～6龄幼虫期,预蛹期,蛹期和成虫期共8个发育阶段。l．2观察方法。于1995—1996…     

云杉阿扁叶蜂幼虫龄期与取食量观测

云杉阿扁叶蜂AcantholydapiceacolaXiaoetZhou的幼虫隐藏于虫粪结成的虫巢内，在取食针叶时将头、胸伸出虫巢，停息或受惊扰时即缩回。由于虫巢质地紧密、不易拉开，因此确定该虫龄期及发育进度很困难。曾有报道云杉阿扁叶蜂幼虫龄期为5龄[1]，而各龄期幼虫取食量及虫体大小未见详细报道。为了确定此虫的最佳防治时期和防治阈值，获得可靠预测预报资料，我们于1995年在甘肃省山丹县大黄山林场对云杉阿扁叶蜂幼虫头宽、体长、龄期及取食量作了详细观测，现将结果整理如下。更方法（1）林间选择大小均匀的二年生青海云杉枝条，将刚孵化的幼…     

鞭角华扁叶蜂幼虫的营养成分分析

采用现代分析技术手段对鞭角华扁叶蜂Chinolydaflagellicornis(F.Smith)幼虫的主要营养成分进行分析,结果表明其鲜虫浆的蛋白质、氨基酸、粗脂肪、糖类及灰分含量分别为17.1%,13.5%,6.7%,1.0%和1.5%,胆固醇含量为0.3mg/g;含有7种人体必需氨基酸,其必需氨基酸占总氨基酸含量的43.0%,必需氨基酸与非必需氨基酸含量的比值为75.3%,第一限制性氨基酸为含硫氨基酸,即蛋氨酸和胱氨酸;同时,其不饱和脂肪酸与必需脂肪酸分别占总脂肪的61.3%和24.3%,特别是油酸和亚麻酸含量较高,分别达37.0%和18.4%;此外,还含有K,Ca,Mg,Fe,Zn,Cu,Mn等多种矿物质和微量元素。最后在分析其营养价值的基础上,对鞭角华扁叶蜂幼虫的开发利用价值进行了评价。     

鞭角华扁叶蜂虫卵数模型研究

该研究在野外获得了鞭角华扁叶蜂虫卵数与生境因子海拔、胸径、树高、海拔、冠幅坡向的数据;内业利用Matlab7软件分别建立了鞭角华扁叶蜂虫卵数的全变量模型、逐步回归模型和主成分模型,三模型的复相关系数R~2分别为0.9204,0.91841和0.9289,均方误差RMSE分别为322.4069,331.7300和310.9550,从两个系数看,得出一致结论以主成分法拟合最佳.逐步回归模型只采用了两个因子即树高和冠幅,主成分法采用了前三个主成分量,其信息量达93.6359%,可代表原特征变量的大部分信息.     

鞭角华扁叶蜂对自然生境柏木挥发物释放的影响

植物挥发物（Volatile organic compounds;VOCs）在植物抵御害虫侵袭的过程中具有重要作用。本研究以重庆市云阳县长江林场人工林中健康和受害柏木为研究对象,通过VOCs测定分析发现鞭角华扁叶蜂虫害发生之前,两种柏木共计有37种VOCs成分,主要为萜类化合物,其次为醇、酯、醛、烷烃等类化合物;其中健康柏木特有驱赶作用的2-莰醇（龙脑）,受害柏木特有吸引作用的顺式-2-癸烯醛,其余35种为共有成分;各成分浓度在两种柏木中存在较大差异。虫害发生之后,两种柏木共计有32种VOCs成分,而2-莰醇、顺式-2-癸烯醛、薄荷醇、臭樟脑和α-石竹烯等5种成分消失;许多成分的浓度变化趋势与虫害发生前的相反。结果表明健康与受害柏木VOCs释放的差异可能是柏木能否抵御鞭角华扁叶蜂侵害的主要防御机制之一,这将为优良抗虫柏木选育提供理论依据和参考指标。     

温度、盐度和食物条件对西藏拟溞摄食强度的影响

报道了不同温度、盐度和饵料条件下西藏拟溞的摄食强度、西藏拟溞对不同饵料生物蛋白核小球藻(Chlorellapyrenoidesa)、牟氏角毛藻(Chaetoceros muelleri)、湛江等鞭金藻(Isochrysis zhanjiangensis)、亚心形扁藻(Platymonas subcordiformis)、盐藻(Dunaliella salina)、新月拟菱形藻(Nitzschiella closterium)的选择性以及摄食节律。结果表明,在适温范围(2 20℃)内,西藏拟溞的滤水率、摄食率随着温度的升高而增加,14 16℃为西藏拟溞的适宜温度。在盐度20时,西藏拟溞的摄食率最高,幼、成溞对等鞭金藻的摄食率分别为1.88 ng C/(ind.h)和3.46 ng C/(ind.h)。西藏拟溞对角毛藻的滤水率和摄食率均随着龄期增加而增加,而对等鞭金藻呈相反趋势,但二者的日粮均随体长增大而减小。幼、成溞的滤水率和摄食率随食物密度变化的趋势基本一致,均是在盐藻密度为1×106 ind./L时均最高,分别为0.194、0.221 mL/(ind.h)和0.030μgC/(ind.h)和0.034μgC/(ind.h)。幼溞对6种藻的食物选择性为角毛藻小球藻盐藻扁藻金藻拟菱形藻;成溞为扁藻角毛藻盐藻金藻小球藻拟菱形藻。幼溞、成溞均对角毛藻和盐藻的选择性较好。西藏拟溞的幼溞和成溞对牟氏角毛藻的摄食有相同的节律,在15:00 17:00和01:00 03:00时有两个摄食高峰,在09:00 11:00和23:00 01:00有两个低谷。     

扁角豆芫菁幼虫取食与生长发育关系研究

为探明扁角豆芫菁Epicauta impressicornis Pic幼虫取食与生长发育关系,在室内人工气候箱内,恒温条件下,采用杯养法,对扁角豆芫菁幼虫的取食习性进行试验观察。结果表明:1龄幼虫寻食期长短与蝗虫卵块埋藏深度有关,与蝗卵量多少无关。幼虫取食多少与羽化后成虫个体大小、体重有明显的关系,取食1/2块蝗卵的幼虫提前入土化蛹,继续发育为成虫,但成虫体形瘦小;而取食1块蝗卵的幼虫正常发育,成虫体形肥大。幼虫无再取食习性。建议在扁角豆芫菁饲养中,供给卵量为1块完整的蝗卵,鲜重约为0.6 g最合适。     

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