河南濮阳市小麦吸浆虫发生规律的调查与防治

调查了河南省小麦吸浆虫病的发生和分布情况,分析了小麦吸浆虫的发生与小麦品种、土质的关系,并成功地防治了小麦吸浆虫的大面积发生。     

小麦吸浆虫发生动态和防治建议

<正> 小麦吸浆虫是小麦的毁灭性害虫,五十年代在我国曾严重为害,造成大量减产,经大力防治后,于六十年代基本控制了危害。近年,特别是1985年一些地区小麦吸浆虫又有所回升,再度造成严重为害。应引起各地重视。 小麦吸浆虫回升概况和原因分析 我国小麦吸浆虫的分布地区,据1954年调查有18个省、市、自治区、260余县(市),主要猖獗区:麦红吸浆虫Sitodiplosis moscuana在平原地区的河流沿岸,如苏、皖两省的淮河两岸;河南的伊、洛河,黄河和淮河的两岸;陕西的渭河流域等。麦黄吸浆虫Conta-     

小麦吸浆虫滞育研究进展

小麦吸浆虫Sitodiplosismosellana(Gehin)和Contariniatritici(Kirby)是小麦生产中间歇性猖獗发生的害虫 ,也是一种具有典型的滞育多态性的昆虫。该文从滞育特点、影响滞育的因素、滞育幼虫的形态变化、滞育生理特征、滞育幼虫的化学物质变化和我国小麦吸浆虫滞育区划等 6个方面 ,较全面地回顾总结了国内外小麦吸浆虫滞育研究的进展情况 ,并对今后的研究工作进行了展望。     

小麦吸浆虫空间格局参数及其应用

本文应用聚集度指数、分析表明了小麦吸浆虫在麦田中的空间格局呈负二项分布,并探讨了吸浆虫在田间的聚集原因以及小麦吸浆虫穗虫平均密度（ｘ）与负二项分布公共ｋｃ值的关系。     

福建发现小麦吸浆虫

小麦吸浆虫是世界性的小麦重要害虫。根据国内研究报导,小麦吸浆虫在我国的分布地区为:浙江、江西、江苏、安徽、河南、湖北、湖南、河北、四川、贵州、山西、陕西、甘肃、青海、宁夏、内蒙等16个省、自治区。按照现有材料,南到北纬27°左右是小麦吸浆虫所处的最南地区。 一、发现经过 福建省过去没有小麦吸浆虫分布的记载。1974年4月中旬,我校植保专业教师和工农兵学员于福建沙县(北纬26°24’)调查观察稻管蓟马(禾谷蓟马)在小麦穗部的产卵习性时,发现小麦吸浆虫为害小麦。     

我国小麦吸浆虫的地理分布

我国小麦吸浆虫主要有两种:一是麦黄吸浆虫[Contarinia tritici(Kirby)];二是麦红吸浆虫[Sitodi-plosis mosellana(Gehin)]。这两种小麦吸浆虫在我国的主要发生地经解放以来各地的调查,大体上已经了解是在北纬40度以南,27度以北,西到东经100度,东至于海。麦黄吸浆虫则局限于这个范围内的东经114度以西地区。杨平澜先生将我国小麦吸浆虫主要发生地分为三个区,曾省先生亦发表专文论述,这三个分布区是: 1.麦红吸浆虫主发区:在我国平原地区的河流两岸,如陕西渭河流域的关中平原、河南的伊、洛河及沿黄河两岸,江淮地区,汉水上游的南阳盆地和长江两岸,麦红吸浆虫占绝对多数。 2.红、黄吸浆虫并发区:在四川、贵州、甘肃、青海四省和宁夏自治区等山区的河谷地带,除麦黄吸浆虫外,还有不少数量麦红吸浆虫相并发生。     

山东省麦红吸浆虫发生环境的初步分析

本初步分析丁山东省麦红吸浆虫发生的环境条件．结果表明．毗邻四省是麦红吸浆虫的高发区．为扩散到我省提供了虫源条件．鲁南各有虫县常年的4月上旬～5月上旬的温度和麦田湿度有利于麦红吸浆虫的化蛹和羽化．麦红吸浆虫成虫峰期和小麦抽穗期相吻合．为麦红吸浆虫产卵提供了条件．小麦品种混杂,增加了田间感虫机会．地膜蒜地形成了麦红吸浆虫的早期虫源．田间种群数量的积累．666停用后没有很好的替代土壤处理药剂．也是有利于麦红吸浆虫发生的条件．     

小麦品种抗麦红吸浆虫鉴定与抗性分析

利用一套较完整的田间自然感虫鉴定法,对183份小麦品种进行了抗麦红吸浆虫鉴定.鉴定结果表明,小麦不同品种对麦红吸浆虫的抗性存在着显著差异:高抗、中抗、低抗、感虫、高感的小麦品种,分别占参试品种的24.59%、16.94%、18.58%、14.21%、25.68%.不同抗性类型的小麦品种其穗被害率、粒被害率、估计损失率、抗性指数均有较大的差异,其中表现高抗类型45份,中抗类型31份.这些品种既可作为麦红吸浆虫发生区控制麦红吸浆虫危害的主推品种和后备品种,也可作为亲本材料提供给育种单位利用.     

麦红吸浆虫在我国的发生、危害及防治

麦红吸浆虫Sitodiplosis mosellana是我国的一种重要农业害虫, 以幼虫危害小麦正在发育的籽粒, 可造成小麦严重减产, 甚至绝收。该害虫具有虫体小, 滞育时间长, 为害隐蔽等特点。近些年来, 受全球气候变化、 耕作制度改变、 小麦品种更换、 人类活动等多种因素的影响, 麦红吸浆虫在我国的发生危害情况发生了很大变化, 出现了北扩东移的现象。麦红吸浆虫主要分布在我国的北方麦区, 发生为害具有隐蔽性、 间歇性、 局部性和暴发性的特点。这种害虫的发生危害受虫源基数、 生态因子、 农业生产措施及人类活动等多种因素的影响。进入21世纪后, 麦红吸浆虫在我国的发生范围发生了很大的变化, 且主要分布在43°N以南到27°N以北的冬小麦主产区。有关麦红吸浆虫滞育的多态性、 小麦对麦红吸浆虫的抗性机理、 抗性品种的选育和天敌资源的开发等方面的研究将是今后的主要研究方向; 未来仍需加强对麦红吸浆虫滞育的分子机制、 发生危害规律、 预测预报、 综合防治和寄主植物 麦红吸浆虫 天敌三级营养关系等方面研究。本综述可为今后了解麦红吸浆虫在我国的发生危害规律、 预测预报及综合防治等提供参考。     

七种杀虫剂对小麦吸浆虫和麦蚜防治效果研究

【目的】明确25%吡蚜酮SC、3%甲氨基阿维菌素苯甲酸盐ME、25%噻虫嗪WG、14%氯虫·高氯氟ZC、15%高氯·毒死蜱EC、2.5%高效氯氟氰菊酯EW和40%毒死蜱EC 7种杀虫剂对小麦吸浆虫和蚜虫的防治效果,为科学、合理用药防治小麦害虫提供参考。【方法】采用喷雾法和剥穗调查法,研究它们对小麦吸浆虫成虫和麦蚜的防效,及防后对小麦吸浆虫幼虫危害损失的影响。【结果】参试药剂药后1 d对小麦吸浆虫成虫防效均高于90%,药后3~5 d防效为84.81%~93.93%,防后挽回损失76%以上;对麦蚜药后1、3、5 d防效分别高于75%、80%和85%。在供试的7种药剂中,15%高氯·毒死蜱EC药后3~5 d对两种害虫防效、挽回吸浆虫危害均超过90%,应用效果最好;其次为25%噻虫嗪WG和40%毒死蜱EC,药后3~5 d对吸浆虫防效高于90%、对麦蚜防效分别高于86%和90%,挽回吸浆虫危害损失88%以上。【结论】供试药剂对小麦吸浆虫和麦蚜防效存在显著差异,15%高氯·毒死蜱EC对两种害虫防治效果最好。     

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