蜜蜂巢房的结构与仿生

蜜蜂素以勤劳与团结著称 ,成千上万只蜜蜂聚集在一起 ,采集花粉、酿制蜂蜜、生长、繁殖 ,过着组织严密的社会性生活。蜂巢是蜜蜂居住与繁衍的场所。野生蜂群多在树洞、山崖、峭壁等处筑巢。如果需要 ,这些能工巧匠能够在短时间内完全利用自己分泌的蜡筑造成一个精巧的巢。人工放养蜂群的蜂巢则是养蜂人为它们准备的各式蜂箱 ,虽然现代养蜂人为蜜蜂提供了巢础 ,但每个巢脾上数千个被称为巢房的蜡室却是蜜蜂自己建造的。1　蜂巢房的结构及研究简史蜜蜂的巢房有两种功用 :或作为产卵与幼蜂的哺育室 ,或作为存放花粉和蜂蜜的储藏室。尽管巢房的…     

中蜂与意蜂无王群培育非自身蜂种蜂子及改造王台特性

以中华蜜蜂和意大利蜜蜂为试验材料,通过组织相应无王群,把一蜂种无王群中的子脾加入到另一蜂种无王群中,进行中蜂和意蜂无王群培育非自身蜂种蜂子和改造王台特性研究,当未培育出蜂王时,分别从原有王群中调入子脾进行第2、第3期试验。结果表明:中蜂无王群中的工蜂会清除引入意蜂子脾中的蜂卵,但随着引入意蜂子脾封盖子羽化出房的意蜂幼蜂数量增加而逐渐接受意蜂幼虫,蜂群未改造意蜂王台,只培育出中蜂蜂王;意蜂无王群中的工蜂会随着引入中蜂子脾中羽化出房的中蜂幼蜂数量增加而逐渐接受中蜂卵及幼虫,并从第2期试验开始会改造中蜂王台,但最终只培育出意蜂蜂王。     

中华蜜蜂自然分蜂中的亲属优惠行为

以3群中华蜜蜂Apiscerana cerana Fabricius为材料,研究自然分蜂中的亲属优惠行为。分蜂开始后,分别对参与分蜂的工蜂和留在原巢内的工蜂随机取样,用95%酒精保存待用。取下所有王台,放入培养箱中培养出房,每30min观察1次,记录处女王的出房顺序。运用3个MRJP(major royal jelly protein)标记分析蜂群的亲缘关系和亚家系组成。3群实验蜂群分别由13,12和9个亚家系组成。分蜂过程中,王台的全同胞姐妹工蜂绝大多数都选择留在原巢内,说明工蜂能够辨认出全同胞姐妹王台,并且给予优惠。参与分蜂的工蜂和留在原巢内的工蜂间亚家系分布差异极显著,说明一些亚家系分蜂性更强,而另一些亚家系分蜂性较弱。实验首次运用MRJP分子标记技术证明:在自然分蜂过程中,工蜂和王台之间存在亲属优惠行为,并且这种优惠行为可能会刺激其它工蜂产生分蜂趋向性。     

大蜡螟防控技术研究进展

大蜡螟Galleria mellonella L.是蜂群中普遍存在的害虫,其幼虫蛀毁巢脾,造成封盖蛹不能孵化出房,使蜂群群势下降甚至飞逃.当前,大蜡螟作为试验昆虫受到越来越多的关注,而其防控技术的研究相对薄弱,蜡螟危害仍是限制养蜂发展的因素之一.本文对国内外大蜡螟的防控技术进行了梳理总结,为我国制定蜡螟综合防控措施提供思路,并展望未来蜡螟防控发展方向.     

基于RFID技术的西方蜜蜂采集行为研究

蜜蜂能够灵活调整出巢觅食行为,从而有效保证蜂群的正常发育与繁衍.为了探索采集蜂的行为特性,本文利用由江西农业大学蜜蜂研究所与广州市远望谷信息技术股份有限公司合作研发的蜜蜂无线射频识别(RFID)系统,对西方蜜蜂进行为期38 d的全天候监控记录.结果表明: 两蜂群中分别有63.4%和64.5%的采集蜂存在轮休现象,轮休时间比例为22.5%~26.4%;轮休与非轮休蜜蜂的采集工作总量差异不显著,但轮休蜜蜂寿命显著高于非轮休蜜蜂;提前发育的采集蜂的寿命显著低于正常采集蜂.本研究丰富了蜜蜂社会行为学内容,为进一步探索蜜蜂采集行为的形成机制奠定了基础.     

幼虫饲粮中添加叶酸对雌性意大利蜜蜂DNA甲基化及发育的影响

【目的】本文旨在探究意大利蜜蜂Apis mellifera ligustica幼虫饲粮中添加叶酸对雌性蜜蜂DNA甲基化及发育的影响。【方法】从姊妹蜂群中选用2日龄意大利蜜蜂雌性幼虫,平均分为6组,任选一组以饲喂不添加叶酸的基础日粮为对照组（CK）,其余5组为试验组,分别饲喂添加0.02%、0.04%、0.06%、0.08%和0.10%叶酸的基础日粮。在室内温度（34.5±0.5）℃,相对湿度为90%±5%的条件下,按照饲养流程饲养意大利蜜蜂至出房。取3-5日龄的幼虫,测定叶酸代谢指标及DNA甲基化相关指标,计算新蜂发育历期,称量新蜂重。【结果】（1）添加叶酸（FA）水平为0.04%的试验组,3、4和5日龄幼虫蜂体内叶酸（FA）和5-甲基四氢叶酸（5-MTHF）含量显著高于对照组（P <0.05）,并且显著提高了幼虫时期蜂体的二氢叶酸还原酶（DHFR）基因、丝氨酸羟甲基转移酶（SHMT）基因和亚甲基四氢叶酸还原酶（MTHFR）基因的表达量（P <0.05）,显著提高了MTHFR酶活性（P <0.05）。（2）与对照组相比,添加叶酸为0.04%的试验组显著提高了3日龄幼虫DNA甲基转移酶1a(Dnmt1a)基因的表达量（P <0.05）,且显著提高了3日龄和4日龄幼虫的DNA甲基转移酶1(DNMT1)酶活性（P <0.05）。添加0.04%的叶酸试验组相较于对照组显著降低了3日龄幼虫DNA甲基转移酶3(DNMT3)的酶活性（P <0.05）,显著降低了4日龄幼虫Dnmt3基因的表达量和DNMT3酶活性（P <0.05）。叶酸添加剂量为0.04%时,4日龄蜂体DNA甲基化水平显著降低（P <0.05）。（3）与对照组相比,添加0.04%的叶酸试验组的意大利蜜蜂平均发育历期（19.95 d）显著小于对照组（P <0.05）,平均新蜂重（0.17 g）显著大于对照组（P <0.05）。【结论】在基础日粮中添加适量叶酸能够降低4日龄意大利蜜蜂幼虫的DNA甲基化水平,并能缩短发育历期和增加新蜂重。在饲粮中添加0.04%的叶酸有助于雌性意大利蜜蜂幼虫向蜂王方向发育。     

蜂群的分蜂行为及其影响因素

分蜂行为是蜂群重要的生物学特性,是一种特殊方式的繁殖。概述了3型蜂的发育、蜂群分蜂前的准备、分蜂的过程及影响蜂群分蜂的因素等蜜蜂生物学知识。还简要分析了环境污染对分蜂群的影响。     

大蜡螟、小蜡螟的生活习性及防治对策

<正> 一、为害及传播 蜡螟是蜜蜂的重要敌害,其幼虫在巢脾上吞食蜂巢,并钻隧道保护自己,所以又叫巢虫。受害巢脾中许多幼虫不能存活,蜂群不能正常繁殖,日渐衰退致使弱群难于繁延后代,最后被迫全群飞逃。     

2009-2013年中国西方蜜蜂蜂群损失情况调查分析

近年,欧洲和北美地区相继出现蜜蜂蜂群崩溃(Colony Collapse Disorder, CCD)现象,蜂业科学家在世界范围内开展蜜蜂蜂群损失情况调查与分析。基于此,探讨近4年我国主要西方蜜蜂饲养省份蜂群损失情况,并对损失量、损失原因进行分析。研究采用欧盟政府间合作框架(COST)下项目- CoLoss (Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes)项目组提供的国际统一的标准调查表格,利用R语言在RStudio环境下开展全部的统计分析工作,采用广义线性混合模型分析调查数据的相关性及因变量为非正态分布的非独立数据。调查我国12 个主要西方蜜蜂饲养省份的蜂群越冬死亡损失情况。2009-2013 年蜂群平均损失率为8.9%,损失比例同比低于欧洲和北美国家和地区的蜂群损失率,在可接受范围内。利用广义线性混合模型分析,显著影响蜜蜂蜂群损失的因素有:巢脾使用时间及蜂王因素。我国蜂群损失率较低,大部分损失症状不属于CCD。CCD现象在我国尚未确认发生。加强蜂螨及其他病害的防治工作,增加更新巢脾频率,监控蜂王在蜂群中的表现及增加换王次数等可以有效控制蜂群越冬损失率。结果对明确我国蜂群是否受蜜蜂蜂群崩溃症状现象影响提出了明确的解释,对蜂群损失的防控提供重要的指导建议。     

蜜蜂人工代用花粉中适宜钙磷水平的初步研究

钙磷是蜜蜂饲粮中必需的常量元素。为了探讨蜜蜂人工代用花粉中适宜的钙磷水平,本试验选取蜂王、群势基本一致的意大利蜜蜂Apis mellifera ligustica Spinola 70群,随机分为14个组,每组5群蜂,前12组饲喂采用均匀设计法配制的不同钙磷水平的人工代用花粉。第13组饲喂不加钙磷的人工代用花粉为负对照,第14组饲喂纯油菜花粉为正对照。试验从春繁开始,到刺槐流蜜期结束为止。试验期间测定蜂群的采食量、蜂群群势、幼蜂初生重,成蜂蜂体组织内钙磷含量。结果表明:当人工代用花粉中钙磷水平分别为0,0.65%时,蜂群的采食量、蜂群群势、幼蜂初生重均取得最大值;成蜂蜂体组织内钙含量与人工代用花粉中钙磷含量成正相关,成蜂蜂体组织内磷含量与人工代用花粉中钙磷含量之间没有相关性。     

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     

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.