荧光增白剂Tinopal LPW对蜀柏毒蛾核型多角体病毒增效作用研究

用1%TinopalLPW荧光增白剂作为蜀柏毒蛾核型多角体病毒增效剂对蜀柏毒蛾2龄幼虫进行室内毒力测定,结果表明1%TinonalLPW对ParocneriaorientaNPV有较强的增效作用。使用3.6×1011PIB/hm2 1%TinopalLPW、1.8×1011PIB/hm2 1%TinopalLPW、9.0×1010PIB/hm2 1%TinopalLPW和3.6×1011PIB/hm2、1.8×1011PIB/hm2、9.0×1010PIB/hm26种处理对林间越冬代2-3龄幼虫进行超低容量喷雾防治,结果表明除9.0×1010PIB/hm2 1%TinopalLPW表现出显著的增效作用外,其余剂量有增效作用但不显著。     

阿维灭幼脲对马尾松毛虫幼虫的毒力测定

运用阿维灭幼脲生物复合剂对3-4龄的马尾松毛虫幼虫进行毒力测定,用机率分析法求得马尾松毛虫的死亡率与阿维灭幼脲剂量对数—机率直线,建立毒力回归线。研究表明,25%阿维灭幼脲悬浮剂对3-4龄幼虫的致死中稀释浓度为49.6倍液,即LC50=5.04 mg.L-1;阿维灭幼脲悬浮剂与尿素混合剂对3-4龄的致死中稀释浓度为52.5倍液,即LC50=4.76 mg.L-1;25%阿维灭幼脲悬浮剂10倍稀释液对3-4龄马尾松毛虫幼虫的LT50为0.57 d,到50倍稀释液时LT50为7.35 d;25%阿维灭幼脲悬浮剂与尿素混合剂10倍稀释液对3-4龄马尾松毛虫幼虫的LT50为0.71 d,到50倍稀释液时LT为6.13 d,随着浓度稀释倍数的增加,致死中时间延长。研究结果可为今后马尾松毛虫的林间防治提供科学依据。     

应用轻型飞机防治马尾松毛虫的试验Ⅱ.喷施阿维菌素防治的效果

林间应用轻型飞机大面积超低容量喷洒阿维菌素防治马尾松毛虫Dendrolimus punctatus (Walker)幼虫,其防治效果为95%以上.结果表明:阿维菌素能有效地控制马尾松毛虫的大发生,可作为单独的措施或综合防治中的配套措施使用,同时应用飞机防治解决了树高林密、水源缺乏、劳力昂贵等条件给防治工作带来的困难,是一条适应林业生产高效、经济的防治手段.     

荧光增白剂Tinopal LPW对蜀柏毒蛾核型多角体病毒增效作用研究

用1%TinopalLPW荧光增白剂作为蜀柏毒蛾核型多角体病毒增效剂对蜀柏毒蛾2龄幼虫进行室内毒力测定,结果表明1%Tinonal LPW对Parocneria orienta NPV有较强的增效作用.使用3.6×1011PIB/hm2+1%TinopalLPW、1.8×1011PIB/hm2+ 1%TinopalLPW、9.0×1010PIB/hm2+1%TinopalLPW和3.6×1011PIB/hm2、1.8×1011PIB/hm2、9.0×1010PIB/hm26种处理对林间越冬代2-3龄幼虫进行超低容量喷雾防治,结果表明除9.0×1010PIB /hm2+1%TinopalLPW 表现出显著的增效作用外,其余剂量有增效作用但不显著.     

马尾松毛虫幼虫发生量的方差分析周期外推预报——一代幼虫发生量和高峰期发生量预报

【目的】为了提高马尾松毛虫Dendrolimus punctatus Walker发生量预报结果的准确性,以期为提高防治效果提供科学依据。【方法】采用方差分析周期外推预报法研究安徽省潜山县1991-2016年25年的马尾松毛虫一代幼虫发生量和一代幼虫高峰期发生量,并对预报结果进行验证。【结果】一代幼虫发生量的预报值与实况值相比,历史符合率达96%,只有2008年预报值与实况值差1级。一代幼虫高峰期发生量的预报值与实况值相比,25年中完全相同的有22年,历史符合率达88%。预报结果不同的是1996年、2005年和2016年,预测值与实况值均相差1级。【结论】方差分析周期外推预报法对马尾松毛虫发生量的预报是一种较理想的预报方法。     

灰茶尺蛾核型多角体病毒大田防治条件的探索

为了经济有效地在大田应用EgNPV防治灰茶尺蛾 ,在室内进行EgNPV的毒力测定 ,试验表明致死中量LC50 为 1.13× 10 6PIB/mL ,90 %的致死量为 1.83× 10 7PIB/mL ,在 95%置信范围内 ,上限为 1.96× 10 7PIB/mL ,下限为 1.7× 10 7PIB/mL。用 2× 10 7PIB/mL浓度对不同龄期幼虫的感染试验表明 ,1 2龄效果最好 ,达 90 %以上。不同世代感染试验表明 :第 2、3、4、7代防治效果较好 ,高达 90 %以上 ,而第 5、6代效果不好 ,因此病毒增殖与大田防治工作应尽量避免在高温 ,干旱季节进行。另外探讨了适用大田防治的病毒增殖方法。     

应用马尾松毛虫质型多角体病毒防治松毛虫的研究

马尾松毛虫(Dendrolimus punctatus walker)是我国南方松林的主要害虫。1974年,在广州市郊龙洞地区采集到马尾松毛虫质型多角体病毒(DPCPV),多角体呈六边形的廿面体,大小为0.5至6微米。病毒粒子廿面体,直径为42—56毫微米。经过十年的研究证实,DPCPV致病力高,对3—4龄幼虫的LC_(50)为2.5×10~5PIB/ml;林间防治试验四万余亩,平均杀虫率达70％以上;持效控制作用达5—6年;应用技术简便,可用松毛虫幼虫生产病毒,成本低;对脊椎动物无病原性及致畸作用。为防治马尾松毛虫提供了一种有效的生物防治手段。     

绿僵菌MaFZ-13对橙带蓝尺蛾幼虫致病力及林间防治效果

【目的】橙带蓝尺蛾Milionia basalis近年来在我国南方地区严重危害罗汉松Podocarpusmacrophyllus和竹柏Podocarpus nagi,扩散蔓延速度快,造成了很大的损失。本研究旨在评估金龟子绿僵菌Metarhizium anisopliae MaFZ-13菌株对橙带蓝尺蛾幼虫的致病力,探寻橙带蓝尺蛾生物防治新资源。【方法】通过绿僵菌MaFZ-13不同浓度(1.0×10⁵~1.0×10⁹孢子/mL)孢子悬浮液接种橙带蓝尺蛾幼虫,运用时间-剂量-死亡率(TDM)模型对生物测定结果进行分析,同时通过林间喷施1.0×10⁸孢子/mL绿僵菌孢子悬浮液进行林间防治效果试验。【结果】橙带蓝尺蛾幼虫累计死亡率随着绿僵菌MaFZ-13孢子悬浮液孢子浓度的增加和接种时间的延长而增大。接种1.0×10⁹孢子/mL孢子悬浮液8 d后以及接种1.0×10⁸孢子/mL孢子悬浮液10 d后,幼虫死亡率均达到100%;接种1.0×10⁷孢子/mL孢子悬浮液15 d后幼虫死亡率为95.6%。应用TDM模型对生测数据进行分析,结果表明所建模型通过Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合异质性检验,并由模型估算出了该菌株对橙带蓝尺蛾幼虫的致死剂量和致死时间。绿僵菌MaFZ-13菌株接种4, 5, 6和7 d后的半致死剂量(LC₅₀)对数估计值分别为7.99, 7.12, 6.46和5.83。以1.0×10⁷, 1.0×10⁸和1.0×10⁹孢子/mL的孢子浓度接种时,绿僵菌MaFZ-13菌株对橙带蓝尺蛾幼虫的LT₅₀值分别为5.19,3.99和2.81 d。林间用1.0×10⁸孢子/mL绿僵菌孢子悬浮液喷洒9 d后橙带蓝尺蛾幼虫死亡率可达到85.8%,防治效果为85.05%。【结论】绿僵菌MaFZ-13对橙带蓝尺蛾幼虫具有较强的致病力,林间防治效果良好,具有较好的应用潜力。     

几种昆虫病毒交叉感染玉米螟的研究

银纹夜蛾NPV(P_aNPV)、柞蚕NPV(ApNPV)和赤松毛虫CPV(D_aCPV)可感染玉米螟。D_aCPV对玉米螟1龄幼虫的ID_(50)为5.9×10~5PIB/ml饲料,对幼虫的生长发育、蛹重、羽化率和成虫寿命有显著影响。D_aCPV主要侵染幼虫中肠柱状细胞,在细胞质中增殖;P_aNPV和A_pNPV主要侵染幼虫的体壁细胞和气管壁细胞。D_aCPV在玉米螟幼虫体内增殖后,多角体形态由正六角形变为锥形或四方形;成虫羽化时排出的蛹便可观察到多角体,病毒可传递给子代。利用其他昆虫病毒有防治玉米螟的可能性。     

文山松毛虫质型多角体病毒杀虫剂的研制

报道了文山松毛虫质型多角体病毒杀虫剂的研制,包括多角体的纯化、辅助剂的筛选、剂型研制、产品包装以及病毒杀虫剂的产品质量检测及生产等.该杀虫剂为乳剂,多角体浓度达2.5×109PIB/mL;所选辅助剂取材方便、容易配制,对环境没有污染.经安全检测证明,无致病菌,符合国家卫生标准,对试验动物小白鼠无毒性和致病性.生物测定用1×106PIB/mL感染2龄文山松毛虫幼虫,其死亡率平均为85.5%.     

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