"518"油桃主要害虫与其捕食性天敌的关系

为了科学施药,合理保护和利用天敌进行油桃园害虫的综合防治,用t检验法比较 “518”油桃季节间和年度间害虫及其天敌的种群差异,结果表明两年春-夏季之间小绿叶蝉、桃蚜、山楂叶螨和李肖叶甲4种害虫的t值分别为0.8049、1.1449、0.0700和0.9895,t值均小于t0.05（2.26）,差异均不显著;异色瓢虫、龟纹瓢虫、粽管巢蛛、八斑球腹蛛、三突花蟹蛛、草间小黑蛛、中华草蛉和黑带食蚜蝇8种天敌的t值分别为1.7014、0.9098、1.4304、0.6239、0.1545、0.0544、1.5579和0.8249,t值均小于t0.05（2.26）,差异均不显著。2009年春-夏与2009年秋季之间,桃蚜的t值为38.8150,粽管巢蛛的t值为9.1706,t>t0.01（3.355）,差异均极显著,异色瓢虫、三突花蟹蛛、黑带食蚜蝇的t值分别为2.3332,3.1497和2.4712,t>t0.05（2.306）,差异显著;2010年春-夏与2009年秋季之间,粽管巢蛛t值为7.0763,t>t0.01（3.355）,差异极显著,其余差异均不显著。采用灰色系统分析方法、生态位分析方法,对2009年及2010年春-夏季油桃园桃蚜、小绿叶蝉、山楂叶螨和李肖叶甲与其捕食性天敌在数量、时间和空间格局等方面关系进行分析,对每一种天敌对应 的关联度、生态位重叠指数和相似性比例等参数标准化后相加,按照参数标准化值之和大小排序得出,2009年春-夏季小绿叶蝉前三位的主要天敌是异色瓢虫、八斑球腹蛛和龟纹瓢虫;桃蚜的主要天敌是中华草蛉、粽管巢蛛和异色瓢虫;山楂叶螨的主要天敌是草间小黑蛛、三突花蟹蛛和龟纹瓢虫;李肖叶甲的主要天敌是草间小黑蛛、八斑球腹蛛和龟纹瓢虫。2010年春-夏季小绿叶蝉的主要天敌是龟纹瓢虫、八斑球腹蛛和草间小黑蛛;桃蚜的主要天敌是中华草蛉、黑带食蚜蝇和粽管巢蛛;山楂叶螨的主要天敌是八斑球腹蛛、草间小黑蛛和龟纹瓢虫;李肖叶甲的主要天敌是草间小黑蛛、八斑球腹蛛和异色瓢虫。2009年秋季小绿叶蝉的主要天敌是龟纹瓢虫、草间小黑蛛和异色瓢虫;桃蚜的主要天敌是八斑球腹蛛、异色瓢虫和粽管巢蛛;山楂叶螨的主要天敌是三突花蟹蛛、龟纹瓢虫和八斑球腹蛛;李肖叶甲的主要天敌是草间小黑蛛、八斑球腹蛛和三突花蟹蛛。4种害虫种群聚集均数λ均大于2,其聚集是害虫本身原因造成的,2009年5月5日的天敌异色瓢虫、中华草蛉和6月18日的天敌草间小黑蛛 值均大于2,聚集是由于天敌本身原因所致。三个时间段其余天敌的 值均小于2,表明其聚集时由环境中某一因子影响所致。     

雨花露水蜜桃主要害虫与其捕食性天敌的关系

为了科学施药,合理保护和利用天敌进行水蜜桃园害虫的综合防治,用t检验法比较"雨花露"水蜜桃季节间和年度间害虫及其天敌的种群差异,结果表明两年春夏季之间小绿叶蝉、桃蚜、山楂叶螨、李肖叶甲和梨网蝽5种害虫的差异均不显著;异色瓢虫的t值为2.39,t>t_0.05(2.16),差异显著,其余天敌差异均不显著。2010年春夏与秋季之间,小绿叶蝉、梨网蝽、三突花蟹蛛和异色瓢虫的t值为5.63、76.38、3.28和4.82,t>t_0.01(3.01),差异极显著,其余差异不显著。采用灰色关联分析方法、生态位分析方法,对2010年及2011年春夏季水蜜桃园桃蚜、小绿叶蝉、山楂叶螨、梨网蝽和李肖叶甲与其捕食性天敌在数量、时间和空间格局等方面关系进行分析,对每一天敌对应的关联度、生态位重叠指数和相似性比例等参数标准化后相加,按照参数标准化值之和大小排序得出,2010年春夏季小绿叶蝉前三位的主要天敌是三突花蟹蛛、中华草蛉和八斑球腹蛛;山楂叶螨的主要天敌是粽管巢蛛、八斑球腹蛛和草间小黑蛛。2011年春夏季桃蚜的主要天敌是黑带食蚜蝇、异色瓢虫和三突花蟹蛛;小绿叶蝉的主要天敌是草间小黑蛛、龟纹瓢虫和三突花蟹蛛;梨网蝽的主要天敌是三突花蟹蛛、龟纹瓢虫和草间小黑蛛;山楂叶螨的主要天敌是粽管巢蛛、八斑球腹蛛和草间小黑蛛;李肖叶甲的主要天敌是草间小黑蛛、三突花蟹蛛和八斑球腹蛛。2010年秋冬季小绿叶蝉的主要天敌是中华草蛉、草间小黑蛛和三突花蟹蛛;梨网蝽的主要天敌是八斑球腹蛛、草间小黑蛛和三突花蟹蛛。林间,2010年小绿叶蝉、梨网蝽和山楂叶螨及2011年春夏季桃蚜、李肖叶甲、梨网蝽和山楂叶螨种群聚集均数λ均大于2,其聚集是害虫本身原因造成的。在桃树树冠四个方位间,2010年春夏季山楂叶螨,秋冬季小绿叶蝉和梨网蝽及2011年春夏季的李肖叶甲的λ值均大于2,其聚集是害虫本身原因造成的,其余害虫和天敌λ值均小于2,表明其聚集时由环境中某一因子影响所致。     

Temporal and spatial habitat preferences and biotic interactions between mosquito larvae and antagonistic crustaceans in the field

Investigations on natural antagonists of mosquito larvae found that micro‐crustaceans (e.g., Cladocera) control mosquito populations under experimental conditions. However, their relevance for mosquito control under field situations remains widely unclear because important information about habitat preferences and time of occurrence of crustaceans and mosquito larvae are still missing. In order to fill this knowledge gap, a field study was undertaken in different wetland areas of Saxony, Germany, in different habitats (i.e., grassland, forest, and reed‐covered wetlands). We found negative interactions between larvae of Ae. vexans and predatory Cyclopoida (Crustacean: Copepoda), which both were dominant during the first two weeks of hydroperiod, at ponds located at grassland habitats. Larvae of Cx. pipiens were spatially associated with competing Cladocera, but they colonized ponds more rapidly. Populations of Cladocera established from the third week of hydroperiod and prevented Cx. pipiens colonization thereafter. Ostracoda were highly abundant during the whole hydroperiod, but their presence was restricted to habitats of reed‐covered wetland at one geographical area. Mosquito larvae hardly occurred at those ponds. In general, we found that ponds at the reed‐covered wetlands provided better conditions for the initial development of crustaceans and hence, mosquito larval colonization was strongly inhibited. Grassland habitat, in contrast, favored early development of mosquito larvae. This study showed that micro‐crustaceans are relevant for mosquito management but their impact on mosquito larvae varies between species and depends on environmental conditions.