草地贪夜蛾对水稻和玉米的取食和产卵选择性与适合度

【目的】明确草地贪夜蛾Spodoptera frugiperda对寄主植物水稻和玉米的取食和产卵选择性与适合度,进而分析草地贪夜蛾对水稻的为害风险。【方法】采用自由选择法,测定草地贪夜蛾对水稻和玉米的取食、产卵选择性。调查取食水稻和玉米苗的草地贪夜蛾的生长发育、存活率、繁殖力的差异,用种群增长趋势指数(I)评价水稻对草地贪夜蛾的适合度。【结果】草地贪夜蛾对水稻和玉米的取食和产卵选择性存在显著差异。接虫后2-48 h,幼虫对玉米的取食选择率随时间延长而逐渐增加,而幼虫对水稻的取食选择率随时间延长而逐渐降低;接虫后48 h,2龄幼虫和4龄幼虫对玉米的取食选择率分别为93.06%和59.72%,分别是对水稻的取食选择率的66.95倍和21.48倍。自由产卵6 d,在玉米上的产卵量是在水稻上的8.64倍。与取食玉米苗的相比,取食水稻苗的草地贪夜蛾幼虫发育历期延长,卵孵化率、幼虫存活率、化蛹率和成虫羽化率均显著降低,雌性比率下降,雌成虫寿命显著缩短,单雌产卵量显著减少。取食玉米苗的草地贪夜蛾的种群增长趋势指数(I)为165.93,其在水稻上的相对适合度为0.21。【结论】相较于水稻,草地贪夜蛾在玉米上表现出更高的适合度,其偏好在玉米上取食和产卵。水稻不是目前侵入我国的草地贪夜蛾的嗜食寄主,但其可以通过取食水稻幼苗正常生长发育并完成生活史,在其种群密度较大、嗜食寄主植物缺乏时存在转移为害水稻的潜在风险。     

草地贪夜蛾对5种寄主植物和6种杂草的取食选择性和适应性

为明确草地贪夜蛾Spodoptera frugiperda J. E. Smith对不同寄主植物和主要杂草的取食选择及适应性,以玉米Zea mays、甘蔗Saccharum officinarum、花生Arachis hypogaea、大豆Glycine max、香蕉Musa nana、稗草Echinochloa crusgalli、马唐Digitaria sanguinalis、牛筋草Eleusine indica、莎草Cyperus rotundus、马齿苋Portulaca oleracea、鹅肠草Malachium aquaticum作为寄主,采用叶碟法测定草地贪夜蛾各龄幼虫对5种寄主植物和6种杂草的取食偏好,并测定了不同虫态的发育历期、单头蛹重、化蛹率以及单雌产卵量等。结果表明,草地贪夜蛾在5种寄主植物和6种杂草上均可完成世代发育。寄主作物中,香蕉处理的草地贪夜蛾成虫前期最长,为29.66 d;甘蔗处理下草地贪夜蛾蛹重和化蛹率分别为250.44 mg和71.67%,显著低于玉米和花生处理的蛹重和化蛹率;草地贪夜蛾取食花生后单雌产卵量最高,为768.93粒,与玉米上产卵量差异不显著,香蕉上最低,为498.76粒;1~2龄幼虫对玉米和香蕉的取食选择率有显著差异,3~6龄幼虫对玉米取食选择率显著高于其他寄主植物。6种杂草中取食莎草的成虫前期最长30.21 d,且单雌产卵量最低526.33粒;取食鹅肠草蛹重最低188.00 mg;取食马齿苋化蛹率最低为72.37%;草地贪夜蛾取食马唐后其蛹重、化蛹率、单雌产卵量最高,与取食其它5种杂草有显著性差异;2~4龄幼虫更偏向取食马唐,与其它5种差异显著。研究结果表明：寄主植物种类对草地贪夜蛾的生长发育有显著影响,其中草地贪夜蛾对玉米和马唐具有较高的取食偏好。     

甜菜夜蛾对不同寄主植物的产卵和取食选择

为了探讨甜菜夜蛾Spodoptera exigua对不同寄主植物的产卵选择及成虫产卵选择与幼虫取食选择间的关联度, 本研究选取玉米、豇豆、甘蓝、黄瓜、棉花、辣椒和番茄7种植物进行了选择性和非选择性实验研究, 并采用Y型嗅觉仪测定了成虫对其中3种寄主植物及其挥发物抽提物的趋性。结果表明：在田间非选择性实验中, 甜菜夜蛾在不同寄主植物上的落卵量依次为：玉米>辣椒>棉花>黄瓜、豇豆、番茄>甘蓝。Y型嗅觉仪的行为测定表明, 雌成虫对玉米及其挥发物抽提物的趋性最强, 黄瓜次之, 对甘蓝的趋性最弱, 这与雌虫的产卵选择性一致。不同龄期甜菜夜蛾幼虫对寄主植物的取食选择性有所不同, 且随观测时间的延长有所改变;低龄幼虫对豇豆、玉米和黄瓜的选择性较强, 对甘蓝、番茄、辣椒和棉花的取食选择性则较弱, 高龄幼虫对辣椒也具有较强的选择性;5龄幼虫对寄主植物的选择性不如低龄幼虫明显。结果显示, 甜菜夜蛾对不同寄主植物的产卵选择性显著不同, 植物抽提物在雌成虫的产卵选择中具有重要作用, 甜菜夜蛾对寄主植物的产卵选择性和幼虫取食选择性并不一致。     

不同寄主植物对小地老虎生长发育和保护酶活性的影响

通过室内饲养和生物化学测定,研究了白菜(Brassica campestris ssp.Pekinensis)、大豆(Glycine max Merrill)和玉米(Zea mays L.)3种寄主植物的营养差异及对小地老虎Agrotis ypsilon(Rottemberg)幼虫发育、成虫产卵、成活率及6龄幼虫体内超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、过氧化物酶(POD)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)活力的影响。结果表明:供试3种寄主植物的可溶性蛋白、可溶性糖和含水量差异显著。与取食玉米和白菜的个体相比,取食大豆的小地老虎幼虫历期、蛹期较短,分别为43.02 d和11.87 d;雌虫成虫寿命最长,为15.92 d;单雌产卵量最高,为936.67粒。但后代卵的孵化率以取食玉米的最低。取食3种寄主植物的幼虫和蛹的成活率由高到低依次为取食大豆>取食白菜>取食玉米。幼虫体内CAT活力没有显著差异,但SOD、POD活力由高到低依次为取食大豆>取食白菜>取食玉米。     

取食转Bt+CpTI基因棉花的棉蚜对普通草蛉生长发育及繁殖力的影响

【目的】研究取食转Bt+CpTI基因棉花的棉蚜Aphis gossypii Glover对普通草蛉Chrysopa carnea Stephens生长发育及繁殖力的影响,为转Bt基因抗虫棉花的推广和应用提供理论支持。【方法】普通草蛉取食转Bt+CpTI棉花SKG321和对照品种石远321棉花上的棉蚜后,对普通草蛉生长发育情况进行研究,并对其幼虫、蛹的存活率和成虫的羽化率及产卵量进行分析。【结果】取食转Bt+CpTI棉花上的棉蚜对普通草蛉的各龄幼虫发育历期、蛹期和产卵前期无不利影响;处理与对照间各龄幼虫存活率、蛹的存活率和成虫羽化率之间没有显著差异;取食转Bt+CpTI棉花上棉蚜的普通草蛉单雌日产卵量与对照相比没有减少,而25 d内的单雌总产卵量与对照相比差异亦不显著。【结论】取食转Bt+CpTI棉花上的棉蚜对普通草蛉的生长发育及繁殖力无负面影响。     

甘蔗、玉米气味对亚洲玉米螟成虫产卵和幼虫取食的影响

【目的】农作物间套作对害虫的影响很大程度上取决于害虫的行为反应,通过研究玉米/甘蔗套作系统中植物气味对亚洲玉米螟Ostrinia furnacalis(Guenee)行为的影响,将为利用化学生态手段防治套作田中的害虫提供依据。【方法】通过昆虫触角电位实验、成虫产卵和幼虫取食实验,测定了甘蔗、玉米植株及二氯甲烷漂洗物对亚洲玉米螟成虫产卵、幼虫取食的影响。【结果】亚洲玉米螟成虫在甘蔗植株上的落卵量(卵粒数、卵块数)与玉米植株差异不显著,取食甘蔗植株的幼虫数量显著低于玉米植株。亚洲玉米螟对甘蔗、玉米叶片漂洗物均可产生EAG反应,且在同一浓度下的反应值之间无显著差异。成虫产卵量(卵粒数、卵块数)在0.1 gE/mL浓度的甘蔗和玉米漂洗物间差异不显著;幼虫对经甘蔗叶片漂洗物处理过的饲料的相对取食率均低于65.00%,显著低于玉米漂洗物处理的饲料。【结论】甘蔗和玉米气味对亚洲玉米螟产卵的影响没有差异,但甘蔗气味会导致初孵幼虫表现出很强的逃逸行为。     

草地贪夜蛾对玉米和高粱的产卵选择及寄主适合度

【目的】旨在明确草地贪夜蛾Spodopterafrugiperda在玉米和高粱上的产卵选择性和寄主适合度,为草地贪夜蛾的科学防控提供依据。【方法】在室内25℃条件下,采用叶片饲养观察的方法,比较草地贪夜蛾在玉米和高粱上的产卵量、取食量以及食物利用效率,并构建实验种群生命表。【结果】草地贪夜蛾偏好在玉米叶片背面产卵,其平均卵块数最多,达到（3.40±0.55）块,且平均产卵量达到（346.00±72.55）粒。取食玉米的草地贪夜蛾幼虫存活率显著高于取食高粱的（P<0.05）,两者的平均存活率分别为98.89%和86.78%;在取食后5、6和7 d时,取食玉米的草地贪夜蛾幼虫食物利用效率显著高于取食高粱的（P<0.05）;取食玉米的草地贪夜蛾幼虫发育总历期显著短于取食高粱的（P<0.05）;在生命表参数比较中,取食玉米的草地贪夜蛾种群的净增殖率（R0）显著高于取食高粱的（P<0.05）,两者的平均净增殖率分别为（415.93±69.69）和（372.45±34.70）。【结论】草地贪夜蛾在玉米和高粱上均能完成生活史,玉米表现出更高的寄主适合度。但由于草地贪夜蛾在高粱上亦有较高的寄主适合度,且玉米和高粱生育期几近相同,因此在我国西南高粱种植面积较大地区,尤需提前防范草地贪夜蛾从玉米转移至高粱为害的风险。     

寄主植物对桃蛀螟生长发育及产卵选择行为的影响

为明确寄主植物对桃蛀螟生长发育及产卵选择行为的影响,利用实验种群生命表和二项产卵选择试验,研究了玉米、大豆、棉花和桃等4种寄主植物对桃蛀螟种群生长发育及产卵选择性的影响。结果表明:取食棉花的桃蛀螟幼虫存活率最低、幼虫历期最长,取食玉米的幼虫存活率最高、幼虫历期最短,取食桃和大豆的幼虫存活率和历期居于棉花处理组和玉米处理组之间;玉米处理组的桃蛀螟化蛹率、蛹重和蛹历期均为最高,棉花处理组为最低,大豆和桃处理组的这些参数均显著小于玉米处理组而大于棉花处理组;发育至成虫后,取食玉米的桃蛀螟羽化率显著高于其他3个处理组;取食桃的桃蛀螟成虫寿命(雌虫和雄虫)及个体发育历期均显著高于其他3种处理组;同时取食桃的桃蛀螟单雌产卵量最高,其次是玉米处理组,两者均显著高于大豆和棉花处理组。二项产卵选择试验结果显示,桃蛀螟雌蛾在棉花和玉米处理组、玉米和大豆处理组或棉花和大豆处理组间的落卵量差异不显著;但在包含桃的处理组中,桃蛀螟在棉花、玉米或大豆处理区的落卵量均显著高于桃处理区。上述结果表明,供试4种寄主植物中,桃蛀螟偏好在棉花、玉米和大豆上产卵,其中玉米对桃蛀螟的适合度相对较高,棉花对桃蛀螟的适合度相对较低。     

寄主植物对乌桕黄毒蛾取食量及生长发育的影响

【目的】研究乌桕黄毒蛾Euproctis bipunctapex(Hampson)对5种不同科寄主植物(天仙果Ficus erecta var.beecheyana、拐枣Hovenia acerba、苦槠Castanopsis sclerophylla、杨梅Myrica rubra和杜英Elaeocarpus decipiens)叶片的取食量以及不同寄主植物对乌桕黄毒蛾生长发育和繁殖的影响。【方法】在恒定条件[温度(26±1)℃,相对湿度80%,光周期12L︰12D]下,设置5个处理组,每处理分别投喂不同寄主植物叶片,测定取食量、幼虫历期、存活率、繁殖力等指标。【结果】乌桕黄毒蛾对不同寄主植物的取食量差异显著,苦槠饲喂组最高(2 588.15 mg),杜英饲喂组最低(1 971.33 mg);但对不同植物的日取食量总体趋势相同,随时间呈指数增长,4龄起进入暴食期,4龄、5龄和6龄幼虫取食量占总取食量的80.68%~85.91%。取食不同寄主植物的乌桕黄毒蛾生长发育差异显著,天仙果饲喂组的个体幼虫历期(34.35 d)最短,存活率(60.20%)最高,产卵量(281.33粒/雌)最多,而杜英饲喂组的个体幼虫历期(41.36d)最长,存活率(38.78%)最低,产卵量(215.83粒/雌)较少。【结论】乌桕黄毒蛾虫害防治适期是4龄之前,苦槠和杨梅受乌桕黄毒蛾取食最多,天仙果是乌桕黄毒蛾生长发育的最适寄主植物。     

草地贪夜蛾对2种豆科蔬菜的取食和产卵选择性及其适应性研究

草地贪夜蛾Spodoptera frugiperda是一种多食性昆虫,为明确该害虫对不同寄主的选择性和适生性,本文比较了草地贪夜蛾对玉米Zea mays、豇豆Vigna unguiculata和四季豆Phaseolus vulgaris等3种寄主的取食及产卵偏好性,并分析了取食不同寄主对其生长发育及繁殖的影响。结果表明：草地贪夜蛾低龄幼虫（初孵幼虫和2龄）对玉米叶和豇豆叶表现出取食偏好性,而高龄幼虫（3龄和5龄）对3种寄主不同组织的取食选择性无明显差异;草地贪夜蛾取食3种寄主植物均可以完成世代发育,但取食豇豆叶和四季豆叶的幼虫历期、蛹历期显著变短,化蛹率、羽化率显著降低;取食豇豆叶对其蛹重、成虫寿命无显著影响,但取食四季豆叶的蛹重显著变轻、雄成虫寿命显著变短;种群生命表参数显示,草地贪夜蛾在3种寄主上的繁殖力表现为玉米叶（1 138.29）>豇豆叶（1 179.00）>四季豆叶（585.50）,处理间差异显著;取食2种非嗜好寄主的种群内禀增长率（rm）和周限增长率（λ）均显著降低,平均世代历期（T）显著延长,取食豇豆叶的雌雄性比显著降低;草地贪夜蛾对寄主玉米具有明显的产卵偏好性,选择豇豆和四季豆的产卵量仅占植物着卵量的4.19%和18.23%,显著低于玉米着卵量。结果表明草地贪夜蛾偏好选择玉米进行取食和产卵,但在豇豆和四季豆寄主植物上可以实现种群繁衍,当其种群密度大时存在转移为害豇豆和四季豆的潜在风险。     

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