草地螟2007年越冬代成虫迁飞行为研究与虫源分析

草地螟 Loxostege sticticalis L.是危害我国北方农牧业的一种重要迁飞性害虫,明确草地螟的虫源地及迁飞路线对其早期预警具有重要意义。本文利用垂直监测昆虫雷达的长期观测,迁飞高峰期雌虫卵巢解剖、大区环流分析、各地虫情信息收集和利用Hysplit_4模型进行轨迹分析,研究了2007年越冬代草地螟的空中迁飞行为和东北地区严重暴发的草地螟虫源。结果表明：6月7–9日,雷达观测点诱虫灯内草地螟具有典型迁飞昆虫生理特征;草地螟主要在夜间迁飞,飞行高度集中在300～500 m,400 m是主要飞行高度,迁飞高峰期夜间迁移可持续9 h。东北地区严重发生的草地螟虫源,一部分来自内蒙古乌盟地区,一部分来自蒙古共和国中东部及中俄边境地区。据此推测我国与国外草地螟存在虫源交流。     

迁飞性害虫监测预警技术发展概况与应用展望

迁飞性害虫具有突发性、暴发性和毁灭性的发生特点,做好迁飞性害虫的监测预警在粮食安全生产方面具有重要意义.为加强迁飞性害虫监测预警技术手段的应用与推广,提高迁飞性害虫的监测预警水平,本文从常规和现代监测技术入手,综述了我国迁飞性害虫监测预警技术的发展、研究现状和取得的进展,分析了迁飞性害虫监测预警面临的瓶颈问题,展望了做好迁飞性害虫监测预警的努力方向,以期为提高我国迁飞性害虫的监测预警水平提供参考.     

东北地区草地螟1999年大发生的虫源分析

草地螟是我国北方重要的迁飞性害虫,对其虫源地及迁飞路线尚缺乏全面的认识。本文分析了1999年各地草地螟主要迁入峰期的天气学背景,并对风场的时空分布及草地螟迁飞轨迹进行了模拟。结果表明：1999年东北地区大发生的草地螟只有少部分来自以往认为的“主要发生基地”,其主要虫源来自蒙古共和国东部及中蒙边境地区;草地螟盛发期东北地区气旋性天气系统对草地螟的迁入和扩散有密切的关系,据此提出可将“东北低压”、“东北低涡”的发生、发展趋势与虫源地的情况结合起来作为监测草地螟迁入的预警指标。     

2010年牧区2代草地螟成虫迁飞的虫源分析

草地螟(Loxostege sticticalis L.)是危害我国北方农牧区的重要迁飞性害虫,明确其迁飞、扩散规律以及与境外虫源交流情况,对早期预警和有效防治具有重要意义。2010年6月1日至9月17日,利用垂直监测昆虫雷达的观测资料,结合探照灯和地面灯灯诱虫情、迁飞高峰期雌虫卵巢解剖、区域大气环流形势和迁飞轨迹分析,在内蒙古锡林浩特西郊研究了牧区2代草地螟的迁飞过程,结果表明:2010年牧区2代草地螟迁飞高峰期出现在2010年8月8日至8月21日,高峰日为8月11日,高峰日探照灯诱虫量达9167头,卵巢发育级别以1—2级为主,高峰日雷达回波主要集中在300—400 m。轨迹分析显示:迁飞高峰期8月8日、8月10—12日牧区草地螟迁飞虫源主要来自蒙古共和国东南部及中蒙边境地区,由蒙古气旋西南侧的西北气流输送进入我国内蒙古锡林郭勒盟,再随西南气流迁入呼伦贝尔草原。     

黑龙江省草地螟第三个暴发周期特点及成因分析

草地螟Loxostege sticticalisL.是我国北方农牧区重要突发性害虫,黑龙江省是主要迁入危害区,自1996年进入第3个暴发周期后,每年均有不同程度发生危害,该周期比上一周期发生时间提前5~7d,周期持续时间也延长了5年。此周期内该省草地螟累计发生面积近1 333万hm2次,比上个周期增加了近800万hm2,草地螟1代幼虫密度最高达每m210 000头以上,尤其2004年在该省大范围内达到特大发生,有13个县(市)田间百步惊蛾达到万头以上,个别高达50 000头以上。作者根据这一周期草地螟发生实况,分析了草地螟种群暴发与气候条件变暖的关系,包括天气、湿度、种植结构、天敌等因素的影响,为草地螟综合治理提供依据。     

应用马尔科夫链模型对草地螟发生程度的预测

草地螟Loxostege stictialis L.是我国北方农牧业生产上一种重要迁飞性、暴发性害虫,一旦暴发会给当地农牧生产造成严重危害.根据康保县1977-2008年1代草地螟幼虫发生程度的时间序列资料,应用马尔科夫链的转移概率预测法,构建了1～3阶转移概率矩阵,组建模型对该县2009-2011年1代草地螟发生程度进行了预测,结果与大田实际发生情况完全一致,准确率100％.对1980-2011年的历史资料进行回检,历史符合率89.9％,该方法可对草地螟进行长期预报,为草地螟长期预报提供了一种准确有效的方法,对草地螟发生程度的长期预报具有重要指导意义.     

草地螟(Loxostege sticticalis)周期性大发生与太阳黑子活动的相关性

草地螟Loxostege sticticalis L．是一种周期性大发生的农作物主要害虫,自新中国成立后已经3次大规模暴发成灾,但关于草地螟周期性大发生的原因还未见报道。利用国际通用的太阳黑子活动数据和我国草地螟大发生的历史记载进行相关性和相位分析的结果表明,我国草地螟大发生的周期性与对应的太阳黑子活动的奇数周期相关联。建国以来的3个大发生周期分别与对应的太阳黑子活动的第19、21周和第23周期在时间序列上表现出极高的同步性,尽管草地螟的发生为害程度与太阳黑子的活动强度之间相关性并不显著。根据这些结果,并结合太阳黑子活动周期的预测,草地螟在我国的第4个大发生周期很有可能开始于2017～2020年之间,并在2024—2025年间达到高峰。     

东北地区草地螟（Loxostege sticticalis）越冬代成虫虫源地轨迹分析

草地螟是我国东北地区重要的暴发性害虫,某些年份春季越冬代成虫的来源无法应用传统理论来解释.分析了1997～2007年草地螟历次迁入峰的虫源地,结果表明:华北地区草地螟"发生基地"的种群虽可迁入东北构成当地大发生虫源之一,但并非主要虫源.多数年份天气系统不利于华北地区的草地螟向东北进行远距离迁飞.最近一次暴发周期中(1996～2007年),东北地区草地螟种群主要来自当地及境外越冬区.全球变暖使二代幼虫发生频率明显增加是越冬虫茧在这一地区大量出现的原因.     

草地螟第三个暴发周期的发生特点、成因及防治对策

分析了1949年以来草地螟3次周期性大暴发的原因。通过对1979-2001年康保县23年草地螟系统监测资料的分析,重点剖析了草地螟第3个暴发周期发生特点、成因,认为种群数量、气候和耕作制度是导致草地螟暴发的重要原因,并提出防治对策。     

近百年来欧亚大陆草地螟发生的时空动态

【目的】草地螟LoxostegesticticalisL.是一种世界性害虫,主要分布在北温带36°N-55°N范围内。明确草地螟在整个欧亚大陆的发生动态,对于阐明其灾变机理具有重要意义。【方法】通过查阅有关中、俄草地螟的文献资料,分析1900年以来欧亚大陆草地螟的发生情况。【结果】从20世纪20年代中期至今,草地螟在欧亚大陆先后于1925-1936年、1948-1960年、1969-1989年和1995-2014年出现了4个大的群发期。在1925-1936年、1969-1989年和1995-2014年3个群发期内,存在着草地螟重发生区沿着欧亚大草原东西向蔓延的现象。在1948-1960年这个群发期,草地螟主要发生范围局限在东北亚地区。此外,草地螟种群在不同区域内呈现出不同的暴发周期。在俄罗斯欧洲部分,草地螟的暴发周期为10年左右,但在1937-1968年间出现了长达30余年的间歇期。在我国东北及华北地区,草地螟的暴发周期为20年左右。在俄罗斯西伯利亚,由于其位于欧亚大陆两个主要的发生基地之间,无论草地螟重发生区自西向东还是自东向西传播,都会在当地造成危害,因此发生也更频繁。【结论】草地螟在欧亚大陆的猖獗为害具有群发性,重发生区会沿着欧亚大草原东、西向蔓延。草地螟在一个地区内的间歇性猖獗不仅与当地的环境因素有关,还可能受到草地螟重发生区在大陆尺度上转移的影响。     

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