稻纵卷叶螟的人工饲养技术

稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphalocrocis medinalis的人工饲养技术是科研人员顺利开展相关研究工作的前题.稻纵卷叶螟人工饲养所要解决和重视的关键问题是食料和饲养条件.目前主要以天然食料、人工饲料以及2种食料相结合的方法饲养稻纵卷叶螟.而饲养条件,如温湿度、饲养密度、化蛹介质、产卵介质等会对对稻纵卷叶螟的生长发育产生影响.本文对目前我国稻纵卷叶螟人工饲料及人工饲养技术进行综述,有助于厘清该虫人工饲养技术的发展脉络,促进人工饲养技术的改善和提高,推动我国稻纵卷叶螟的研究.     

稻纵卷叶螟的人工饲养技术

稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphalocrocis medinalis的人工饲养技术是科研人员顺利开展相关研究工作的前题.稻纵卷叶螟人工饲养所要解决和重视的关键问题是食料和饲养条件.目前主要以天然食料、人工饲料以及2种食料相结合的方法饲养稻纵卷叶螟.而饲养条件,如温湿度、饲养密度、化蛹介质、产卵介质等会对对稻纵卷叶螟的生长发育产生影响.本文对目前我国稻纵卷叶螟人工饲料及人工饲养技术进行综述,有助于厘清该虫人工饲养技术的发展脉络,促进人工饲养技术的改善和提高,推动我国稻纵卷叶螟的研究.     

The method for mass rearing of rice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis using maize seedlings

稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphalocrocis medinalis(Guenée)的饲养一直是个难题,目前还没有很好的人工饲料可供利用.本文研究了一种利用玉米苗进行室内大量饲养稻纵卷叶螟的方法.试验证实,该方法可达到连续多代次饲养稻纵卷叶螟的目的.与水稻苗饲养法相比,玉米苗法不仅具有食料种植简单、周期短的优点,而且稻纵卷叶螟的化蛹率、羽化率、卵孵化率和每雌产卵量均高于或相当于水稻苗法,可以利用玉米苗进行室内大批量饲养稻纵卷叶螟.本文还研究出了一套有效的稻纵卷叶螟成虫交配与产卵的装置.     

利用玉米苗饲养稻纵卷叶螟的方法

稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphalocrocis medinalis(Guenée)的饲养一直是个难题,目前还没有很好的人工饲料可供利用。本文研究了一种利用玉米苗进行室内大量饲养稻纵卷叶螟的方法。试验证实,该方法可达到连续多代次饲养稻纵卷叶螟的目的。与水稻苗饲养法相比,玉米苗法不仅具有食料种植简单、周期短的优点,而且稻纵卷叶螟的化蛹率、羽化率、卵孵化率和每雌产卵量均高于或相当于水稻苗法,可以利用玉米苗进行室内大批量饲养稻纵卷叶螟。本文还研究出了一套有效的稻纵卷叶螟成虫交配与产卵的装置。     

不同饲料对稻纵卷叶螟取食代谢及消化酶活性影响

【目的】研究稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphalocrocismedialis对水稻、玉米和人工饲料的取食代谢效应以及取食后幼虫生长发育、物质积累和中肠消化酶活性变化。【方法】在实验室条件下以水稻叶片、玉米叶片及人工饲料饲养稻纵卷叶螟,观察生长发育状况,取特定龄期幼虫测定消化代谢、营养物质积累及中肠消化酶活性。【结果】取食水稻的稻纵卷叶螟蛹重最高、历期最短,与玉米和人工饲料差异显著,取食人工饲料幼虫历期最长。取食不同饲料后单雌产卵量、产卵历期以及成虫寿命之间无显著差异;取食水稻的食物转化率显著高于玉米和人工饲料,取食人工饲料近似消化率最高;取食水稻和玉米的幼虫体内脂肪积累量显著高于人工饲料,取食人工饲料幼虫体内蛋白质和可溶性糖含量明显增加,显著高于水稻和玉米。人工饲料的幼虫体内总蛋白酶、淀粉酶、脂肪酶三种消化酶活性显著高于水稻和玉米。【结论】不同饲料饲养对稻纵卷叶螟生长发育及营养物质累积均有影响,而稻纵卷叶螟幼虫可能通过调节取食量及消化酶活性的方式保证对食料中营养物质摄取。     

水稻叶片全营养成分分析及在稻纵卷叶螟人工饲料研制中的应用

稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphaolcrosis medinalis Guenée是我国水稻上的一种重要迁飞性害虫,该虫在室内难以进行人工饲养,这是制约其生物学、生态学及防控技术研究的关键因素。为此,本文开展了稻纵卷叶螟抗、感水稻品种叶片的全营养成分分析及其比较研究,找出了影响稻纵卷生长、发育和繁殖的关键营养因子,并给出了关键营养成分在人工饲料中的合理配比。该研究可望为稻纵卷叶螟人工饲料的研制提供借鉴和参考。     

利用小麦苗饲养稻纵卷叶螟的方法

【目的】目前,虽然已有利用玉米苗饲养稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphalocrocis medinalis的成功方法,但仍然存在着玉米苗冬天不易种植、饲养成本较高的问题,因此,本文研究了一种在室内以小麦苗替代玉米苗连续继代饲养稻纵卷叶螟的方法,从而使室内饲养该虫变得更简便和经济。【方法】将稻纵卷叶螟初孵幼虫接至小麦苗上饲养,采用生命表方法测定稻纵卷叶螟第1代及第4~6代的生物学特征,同时将小麦苗和玉米苗饲养的稻纵卷叶螟分别回接至水稻苗上,分别建立其在水稻苗上的生命表。【结果】稻纵卷叶螟可以在室内用小麦苗进行连续继代饲养。稻纵卷叶螟在小麦苗上连续饲养6代后,除蛹重轻于玉米苗上饲养的外,其它生物学特征,如存活率、历期、性比、产卵量、卵孵化率等都与玉米苗上饲养的无显著差异。与玉米苗上饲养的稻纵卷叶螟相同,小麦苗上饲养了6代的稻纵卷叶螟仍能很好地在水稻上生长发育、存活和繁殖。【结论】利用小麦苗饲养的稻纵卷叶螟的生物学特征与玉米苗饲养的相似,可以利用小麦苗进行稻纵卷叶螟的室内保种与大量饲养。     

水稻和玉米苗上饲养的稻纵卷叶螟对温度的反应

比较了水稻和玉米苗上饲养的稻纵卷叶螟在不同温度下的存活、生长发育与繁殖情况。结果表明,在24℃和27℃下,稻纵卷叶螟在玉米苗上的发育速率要比在水稻上的慢1—3 d;33℃不会抑制水稻上饲养幼虫的生长发育,但玉米苗上饲养的幼虫在30℃时就受到了抑制,且在33℃下不能发育到成虫。水稻上饲养时,稻纵卷叶螟各阶段的存活率在27—33℃间无显著差异,且36℃时死亡率很高,只有部分幼虫可发育到预蛹阶段;但是玉米苗上饲养时,稻纵卷叶螟在33℃下的存活率显著低于21—30℃,36℃下幼虫不能发育到2龄。水稻和玉米苗上饲养的稻纵卷叶螟的产卵量均表现为在24℃和27℃条件下最高;在30℃和33℃条件下,水稻上饲养出的成虫能产少量卵,而玉米苗上饲养出的成虫却不能产卵。水稻和玉米苗上饲养的稻纵卷叶螟卵的孵化率均在27℃下最高,且两寄主间无显著差异;玉米苗上饲养所得的卵在33℃和36℃下均不能孵化,而水稻上的则少量能孵化。水稻上饲养的稻纵卷叶螟相对要比玉米苗上饲养的耐高温。在24—27℃下用玉米苗饲养的稻纵卷叶螟除历期有所延长外,其它生物学特性与用水稻饲养的无显著差异。     

稻纵卷叶螟人工饲料配方的优化研究

应用二次正交旋转组合设计对稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenée人工饲料的配方进行了优化,以化蛹率为目标函数建立了二次回归模型,结果表明稻叶粉、麦胚粉、玉米粉、干酪素、酵母对稻纵卷叶螟幼虫发育与化蛹率影响较大,大豆粉的影响不明显。通过统计寻优获得的优化配方为:每135 g人工饲料中,稻叶粉3 g、麦胚粉8 g、玉米粉4 g、干酪素4 g、酵母粉4 g。在温度27℃,相对湿度80%左右,光照L∶D=16∶8的条件下,使用该优化配方饲养稻纵卷叶螟,25.6%的供试初孵幼虫能完成幼虫发育并化蛹,幼虫期平均26.9 d,蛹重16²2mg。与以前的研究结果比较,化蛹率与蛹重均有显著提高,而幼虫历期略短。     

寄主转换对稻纵卷叶螟寄主种群适合度及生命表参数的影响

[目的]稻纵卷叶螟Cnaphalocrocis medinalis是水稻的迁飞性害虫之一,同时也能在玉米上完成世代.本研究旨在探究寄主转换对稻纵卷叶螟寄主种群适合度的影响.[方法]稻纵卷叶螟玉米种群和水稻种群分别取食原寄主和转换寄主,形成取食玉米的稻纵卷叶螟玉米种群、取食水稻的稻纵卷叶螟玉米种群、取食玉米的稻纵卷叶螟水...     

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