六点始叶螨[Eotetranychus sexmaculatus (Riley)]对7种寄主植物的选择性研究
|
摘要
用室内离体叶片饲养方法,研究了分别取食橡胶(Hevea brasiliensis)和7种目前常见的与橡胶间套种的作物[木薯(Manihot esculenta)、甘蔗(Saccharum officinarum)、菠萝(Ananas como sus)、椰子(Cocos nucifera)、杧果(Mangifera indica)、木瓜(Chaenomeles speciosa)和变叶木(Codiaeum variegatum)]后,六点始叶螨(Eotetranychus sexmaculatus)的存活、发育与繁殖情况差异。结果表明,取食木薯、甘蔗、菠萝、椰子和杧果后,六点始叶螨各龄均不能存活;而取食橡胶、木瓜和变叶木叶片后,其幼螨、前若螨、后若螨及卵到成螨的存活率均表现为橡胶(均为100%)>变叶木(68%、69%、77%和71%)>木瓜(53%、65%、54%和57%),存在显著差异(p<0.05);从卵到成螨的发育历期表现为橡胶(12.05 d)<变叶木(14.67 d)<木瓜(15.61 d),但三者间没有显著差异(p>0.05);平均每雌产卵量为橡胶(32.20粒)>木瓜(8.00粒)>变叶木(7.00粒),橡胶与木瓜和变叶木间存在极显著差异(p<0.01);F1代卵孵化率为橡胶(100%)>变叶木(97.53%)>木瓜(94.42%),仅橡胶与木瓜间存在显著差异(p<0.05);后代雌性百分率为橡胶(88.20%)>变叶木(75.40%)>木瓜(66.30%),三者间存在显著差异(p<0.05);成螨寿命为橡胶(19.58 d)>木瓜(19.33 d)>变叶木(17.00 d),仅橡胶与变叶木间存在显著差异(p<0.05)。研究结果表明,木薯、椰子、杧果、菠萝和甘蔗不适于六点始叶螨生存、发育与繁殖,因此为预防六点始叶螨的发生与危害,这5类作物可作为橡胶的间作套种作物;而变叶木和木瓜虽然影响六点始叶螨的发育与繁殖,但六点始叶螨仍可完成世代发育和繁殖,因此其亦为六点始叶螨的嗜好寄主,不适宜与橡胶间作套种。
The effect of the host plants on the development and reproduction of Eotetranychus sexmaculatus were observed via rearing the mites on 7 host plants including Manihot esculenta, Saccharum officinarum, Ananas comosus, Cocos nucifera, Mangifera indica, Chaenomeles speciose and Codiaeum variegatum at a constant temperature of 28 ℃ in the laboratory. The results showed that, feeding on different host plants had significant effect on the growth and the reproduction of E. sexmaculatus(p<0.05). E. sexmaculatus fed on M. esculenta, S.officinarum, A. comosus, C. nucifera and M. indica, leaves could not survived and continued the normal development. However, the survival of larvae, protonymph, detonymph as well as egg to adult stages of E.sexmaculatus were all 100% on H. brasiliensis, 68%, 69%, 77% and 71% on C. variegatum and 53%, 65%, 54%and 57% on C. speciose, respectively. The developmental durations from egg to adult were 12.05 d on H.brasiliensis, 14.67 d on C. variegatum and 15.61 d on C. speciose, respectively. The fecundities per female were32.20 individuals on H. brasiliensis, 8.00 individuals on C. speciose and 7.00 individuals on C. variegatum,respectively. The hatchability of F1 was 100% on H. brasiliensis, 97.53% on C. variegatum and 94.42% on C.speciose, respectively. The offspring-female percentages were 88.20% on H. brasiliensis, 75.40% on C. variegatumand 66.30% on C. speciose, respectively. The average longevity of adults was 19.58 d on H. brasiliensis, 19.33 d on C. speciose and 17.00 d on C. variegatum, respectively. It suggested that M. esculenta, S. officinarum, A. comosus,C. nucifera and M. indica were not suitable for survival for E. sexmaculatus. Therefore, based on the prevention consideration for E. sexmaculatus, M. esculenta, S. officinarum, A. comosus, C. nucifera and M. indica can be taken as the alternative plant to intercrop with rubber tree. However, C. variegatum and C. speciose were the suitable host plant for the mite and should not be consider as the intercrop plant with rubber tree.
The effect of the host plants on the development and reproduction of Eotetranychus sexmaculatus were observed via rearing the mites on 7 host plants including Manihot esculenta, Saccharum officinarum, Ananas comosus, Cocos nucifera, Mangifera indica, Chaenomeles speciose and Codiaeum variegatum at a constant temperature of 28 ℃ in the laboratory. The results showed that, feeding on different host plants had significant effect on the growth and the reproduction of E. sexmaculatus(p<0.05). E. sexmaculatus fed on M. esculenta, S.officinarum, A. comosus, C. nucifera and M. indica, leaves could not survived and continued the normal development. However, the survival of larvae, protonymph, detonymph as well as egg to adult stages of E.sexmaculatus were all 100% on H. brasiliensis, 68%, 69%, 77% and 71% on C. variegatum and 53%, 65%, 54%and 57% on C. speciose, respectively. The developmental durations from egg to adult were 12.05 d on H.brasiliensis, 14.67 d on C. variegatum and 15.61 d on C. speciose, respectively. The fecundities per female were32.20 individuals on H. brasiliensis, 8.00 individuals on C. speciose and 7.00 individuals on C. variegatum,respectively. The hatchability of F1 was 100% on H. brasiliensis, 97.53% on C. variegatum and 94.42% on C.speciose, respectively. The offspring-female percentages were 88.20% on H. brasiliensis, 75.40% on C. variegatumand 66.30% on C. speciose, respectively. The average longevity of adults was 19.58 d on H. brasiliensis, 19.33 d on C. speciose and 17.00 d on C. variegatum, respectively. It suggested that M. esculenta, S. officinarum, A. comosus,C. nucifera and M. indica were not suitable for survival for E. sexmaculatus. Therefore, based on the prevention consideration for E. sexmaculatus, M. esculenta, S. officinarum, A. comosus, C. nucifera and M. indica can be taken as the alternative plant to intercrop with rubber tree. However, C. variegatum and C. speciose were the suitable host plant for the mite and should not be consider as the intercrop plant with rubber tree.
引文
[1]张会英.橡胶树种质抗螨性及其机理研究[D].海口:海南大学,2014.
[2]经福林,李迁,卢芙萍,等.木薯单爪螨的寄主选择性研究[J].热带作物学报,2013,34(2):344-347.
[3]洪晓月.农业螨类学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2012:211-214.
[4]田耀加,梁广文,曾玲,等.间作对甜玉米田主要害虫与天敌动态的影响[J].植物保护学报,2012,39(1):1-6.
[5]沈君辉,聂勤,黄得润,等.作物混植和间作控制病虫害研究的新进展[J].植物保护学报,2007,34(2):209-216.
[6]李素娟,刘爱芝,茹桃勤,等.小麦与不同作物间作模式对麦蚜及主要捕食性天敌群落的影响[J].华北农学报,2007,22(1):141-144.
[7]Pluess T,Opatovsky I,Gavish-Regev E,et al.Non-crop habitats in the landscape enhance spider diversity in wheat fields of a desert agroecosystem[J].Ecosystems and Environment,2010,137(1):68-74.
[8]尤明生,刘雨芳,侯有明.农田生物多样性与害虫综合治理[J].生态学报,2004,24(1):117-122.
[9]黄斌,侯有明.利用寄主干扰效应防控小菜蛾田间种群的有效性[J].昆虫学报,2014,57(4):460-465.
[10]彭露,严盈,刘万学,等.植食性昆虫对植物的反防御机制[J].昆虫学报,2010,3(5):572-580.
[11]钦俊德,王琛柱.论昆虫与植物的相互作用和进化的关系[J].昆虫学报,2001,44(3):360-365.
[12]郭朝阳.作物巧间作可驱虫防病[J].农村新技术,2004(12):14.
[13]龚光明,杨旺生.古代生物多样性防治病虫害的实践及当代的利用方式[J].山西农业大学学报(社会科学版),2013,12(9):871-875.
[14]蕾切尔·卡森著,吕瑞兰译.寂静的春天[M].北京:科学出版社,1979:11-12.
[15]高东,何霞红,朱书生.利用农业生物多样性持续控制有害生物[J].生态学报,2011,31(24):7 617-7 624.
[16]黄洁,周建国,林世欣,等.对胶园间作木薯的思考及展望[J].江西农业学报,2014,26(1):64-68.
[17]李娟,彭金灵,康娟,等.胶园间作研究的现状、存在的问题及未来研究方向[J].热带农业科学,2012,32(4):22-27.
[18]林位夫,曾宪海,谢贵水,等.关于橡胶园间作的思考与实践[J].中国热带农业,2011(4):11-15.
[19]韦家少,何鹏,吴敏,等.间作橡胶林地土壤肥力和土壤酶活性特征研究[J].热带作物学报,2014,35(5):823-831.
[20]蔡宁华.害虫生物防治的生态学基础[J].昆虫知识,1997,34(1):33-35.
[21]蒋佩兰,刘隆旺,章志英.不同种植方式玉米田玉米害虫及其天敌与产量关系的研究[J].江西农业大学学报,1995,17(1):25-27.
[22]张淑莲,陈志杰,张锋,等.麦椒套种对辣椒主要病虫的生态效应[J].西北农业学报,2002,11(1):44-49.
[23]赵敏,米青荣.棉田间作绿肥对棉花苗期主要害虫和天敌消长的影响[J].中国棉花,2002,29(7):10-11.
[24]潘桂林.橡胶小苗行间间作甘蔗“一举多得”[J].甘蔗糖业,1989(1):28-29.
[25]杨文秀,赵维峰,邓大华,等.4个无刺菠萝新品种在云南幼龄橡胶林下的间作比较[J].贵州农业科学,2014,42(4):175-177.
[26]杨发军.橡胶幼林地菠萝间作技术试验研究[J].中国热带农业,2010(增刊):51-53.
[27]李学俊.云南橡胶树新植园间作菠萝的技术要点[J].中国热带农业,2009(4):55-57.
[28]邹云,郭芳祥.更新橡胶林地套种菠萝提高土地利用率和经济效益[J].热带农业科技,2009,32(4):4-9.
[2]经福林,李迁,卢芙萍,等.木薯单爪螨的寄主选择性研究[J].热带作物学报,2013,34(2):344-347.
[3]洪晓月.农业螨类学[M].北京:中国农业出版社,2012:211-214.
[4]田耀加,梁广文,曾玲,等.间作对甜玉米田主要害虫与天敌动态的影响[J].植物保护学报,2012,39(1):1-6.
[5]沈君辉,聂勤,黄得润,等.作物混植和间作控制病虫害研究的新进展[J].植物保护学报,2007,34(2):209-216.
[6]李素娟,刘爱芝,茹桃勤,等.小麦与不同作物间作模式对麦蚜及主要捕食性天敌群落的影响[J].华北农学报,2007,22(1):141-144.
[7]Pluess T,Opatovsky I,Gavish-Regev E,et al.Non-crop habitats in the landscape enhance spider diversity in wheat fields of a desert agroecosystem[J].Ecosystems and Environment,2010,137(1):68-74.
[8]尤明生,刘雨芳,侯有明.农田生物多样性与害虫综合治理[J].生态学报,2004,24(1):117-122.
[9]黄斌,侯有明.利用寄主干扰效应防控小菜蛾田间种群的有效性[J].昆虫学报,2014,57(4):460-465.
[10]彭露,严盈,刘万学,等.植食性昆虫对植物的反防御机制[J].昆虫学报,2010,3(5):572-580.
[11]钦俊德,王琛柱.论昆虫与植物的相互作用和进化的关系[J].昆虫学报,2001,44(3):360-365.
[12]郭朝阳.作物巧间作可驱虫防病[J].农村新技术,2004(12):14.
[13]龚光明,杨旺生.古代生物多样性防治病虫害的实践及当代的利用方式[J].山西农业大学学报(社会科学版),2013,12(9):871-875.
[14]蕾切尔·卡森著,吕瑞兰译.寂静的春天[M].北京:科学出版社,1979:11-12.
[15]高东,何霞红,朱书生.利用农业生物多样性持续控制有害生物[J].生态学报,2011,31(24):7 617-7 624.
[16]黄洁,周建国,林世欣,等.对胶园间作木薯的思考及展望[J].江西农业学报,2014,26(1):64-68.
[17]李娟,彭金灵,康娟,等.胶园间作研究的现状、存在的问题及未来研究方向[J].热带农业科学,2012,32(4):22-27.
[18]林位夫,曾宪海,谢贵水,等.关于橡胶园间作的思考与实践[J].中国热带农业,2011(4):11-15.
[19]韦家少,何鹏,吴敏,等.间作橡胶林地土壤肥力和土壤酶活性特征研究[J].热带作物学报,2014,35(5):823-831.
[20]蔡宁华.害虫生物防治的生态学基础[J].昆虫知识,1997,34(1):33-35.
[21]蒋佩兰,刘隆旺,章志英.不同种植方式玉米田玉米害虫及其天敌与产量关系的研究[J].江西农业大学学报,1995,17(1):25-27.
[22]张淑莲,陈志杰,张锋,等.麦椒套种对辣椒主要病虫的生态效应[J].西北农业学报,2002,11(1):44-49.
[23]赵敏,米青荣.棉田间作绿肥对棉花苗期主要害虫和天敌消长的影响[J].中国棉花,2002,29(7):10-11.
[24]潘桂林.橡胶小苗行间间作甘蔗“一举多得”[J].甘蔗糖业,1989(1):28-29.
[25]杨文秀,赵维峰,邓大华,等.4个无刺菠萝新品种在云南幼龄橡胶林下的间作比较[J].贵州农业科学,2014,42(4):175-177.
[26]杨发军.橡胶幼林地菠萝间作技术试验研究[J].中国热带农业,2010(增刊):51-53.
[27]李学俊.云南橡胶树新植园间作菠萝的技术要点[J].中国热带农业,2009(4):55-57.
[28]邹云,郭芳祥.更新橡胶林地套种菠萝提高土地利用率和经济效益[J].热带农业科技,2009,32(4):4-9.