白蜡窄吉丁成虫植物源引诱剂与粘虫板的筛选及发生动态分析

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2022.10.022

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】筛选出白蜡窄吉丁Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire成虫的敏感粘虫板、植物挥发物引诱剂及粘虫板引诱剂组合诱捕器,为有效监测白蜡窄吉丁种群动态及成虫诱杀提供科学依据。【方法】在白蜡树上悬挂4种颜色粘虫板和3种植物源挥发物引诱剂及其组合诱捕器,并每日记录其成虫诱捕数量。【结果】浅绿色粘虫板总诱捕数量为最多,3块样地总诱捕量为55头,2 d平均诱捕量为2.03头/张,其次是黄色粘虫板,其总诱捕数量为30头,2 d平均诱捕量为1.11头/张;不同引诱剂对白蜡窄吉丁的总诱捕数量最多的为EtOH,总诱捕数量为62头,2 d平均诱捕量为1.72头/张,其次是FZC,总诱捕量为51头,2 d平均诱捕量为1.42头/张;4种粘虫板和3种引诱器组合中浅绿色粘虫板和EtOH引诱剂组合诱捕器相比其它组合引诱效果最好,总诱捕量为28头,30日内金黄色粘虫板和EA组合引诱效果最差,3块样地中诱捕数量均为0头。【结论】白蜡窄吉丁对浅绿色粘虫板具有较好的趋向性。浅绿色粘虫板与EtOH组合,可用于白蜡窄吉丁成虫数量动态监测。

关键词: 白蜡窄吉丁; 诱捕器; 成虫数量动态; 引诱剂

Abstract:

【Objective】 To screen out the unique sticky trap and botanical attractant of EAB in the hope of providing of a scientific basis for monitoring the population emerald ash borer (EAB) and environment friendly management method of the pest.Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire【Methods】 The effects of 4 different colors of sticky traps and 3 species of botanical attractant were determined by orthogonal component.【Results】 The number of EAB adults attracted by light green traps was the most, the total trapping pest number of 3 plots was 55, the average trapping number of 2 d was 2.03 head / sheet, followed by the egg yellow sticky trap, whose average trapping was 1.11 and 30 in total.The effect of different botanical attractant showed that the most attractive attractant was EtOH(a) with an average of 1.72 in 2-days and 55 in total, and the secondary effective attractant was Iinalool(b) with an average of 1.42 in 2-days and 51 in total.Of the four viscworm plates and three attractants, the light green sticky traps and EtOH attractant combination traps outperformed the others with 28 adults attracted in 30 days.Within 30 days, the combination of golden sticky worm plate and EA had the worst lure effect, and the number of trapping was 0 in all three plots.【Conclusion】 Light- green sticky traps was the most attractive color of EAB adult and EtOH(a) has a attracting effect of the pest.The combination of light-green sticky trap and EtOH(a) can be used as a monitoring method of EAB.

Key words: Agrilus planipennis; trap; population dynamics of adults; botanical attractant

中图分类号:

S433

阿米热·牙生江, 阿地力·沙塔尔. 白蜡窄吉丁成虫植物源引诱剂与粘虫板的筛选及发生动态分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(10): 2532-2537.

Amire Yashengjiang, Adili Shataer. Screening of Plant-Derived Attractants and Clayworm Plates for Ash Borer Adults and Their Development Dynamics[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 59(10): 2532-2537.

图/表 5

参考文献 21

[1]	刘振凯, 赵瑞兴, 栾庆书, 等. 白蜡吉丁啮小蜂生物学特性及其对寄主自然控制作用的影响[J]. 中国森林病虫, 2011, 30(3): 20-24.
	LIU Kaijun, ZHAO Ruixing, LUAN Qingshu, et al. Bionomics of Tetrastichusplanpennisi and its natural control effect on host[J]. Forest diseases and pests in China, 2011, 30(3): 20-24.
[2]	田军. 白蜡吉丁柄腹茧蜂的人工繁育技术及寄主选择行为研究[D]. 哈尔滨: 东北林业大学, 2009.
	TIAN Jun. Studies on the Rearing Technique and Host Selection Behaviors of spathius Agrili Yang[D]. Harbin: Northeast Forestry University, 2009.
[3]	王小艺, 杨忠岐, 刘桂军, 等. 白蜡吉丁柄腹茧蜂的羽化和产卵与寄主之间的关系[J]. 生态学报, 2006(4): 1103-1109.
	WANG Xiaoyi, YANG Zhongqi, LIU Guijun, et al. Relationships between the emergence and oviposition of ectoparasitoid Spathiusagrili Yang and its host emerald ash borer, Agrilusplanipennis Fairmaire[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2006(4): 1103-1109.
[4]	王小艺. 白蜡窄吉丁的生物学及其生物防治研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2005.
	WANG Xiaoyi. Biology of the Emerald Ash Borer and Its Biological Control[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2005.
[5]	张静文, 岳朝阳, 焦淑萍, 等. 花曲柳窄吉丁入侵新疆的风险分析[J] .防护林科技, 2012,(2): 65-67.
	ZHANG Wenjing, YUE Chaoyang, JIAO Shuping, et al. Risk analysis of AgrilusplanipennisFairmaire invasion in Xinjiang[J]. Shelterbelt Science and Technology, 2012,(2): 65-67.
[6]	刘忠军. 新疆外来林业有害生物入侵现状及趋势分析[J]. 新疆林业, 2019, (2): 37-41,48.
	LIU Zhongjun. Current situation and trend analysis of alien forest pest invasion in Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Forestry, 2019,(2): 37-41,48.
[7]	刘振凯. 白蜡吉丁啮小蜂生物学及耐寒性研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2011.
	LIU Zhenkai. Studies on biological characteristics and cold tolerance of the Tetrastichus planipennisi[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang Agricultural University, 2011.
[8]	Fürstenau B, Rosell G, Guerrero A, et al. Electrophysiological and Behavioral Responses of the Black-Banded Oak Borer, Coroebusflorentinus, to Conspecific and Host-Plant Volatiles[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2012, 38(4): 378-388. DOI PMID
[9]	Marshall J M, Storer A J, Fraser I, et al. Efficacy of trap and lure types for detection of Agrilusplanipennis (Col.Buprestidae) at low density[J]. Journal of Applied Entomology, 2010, 134(4):296-302. DOI URL
[10]	Grant G G, Ryall K L, Lyons D B, et al. Differential response of male and female emerald ash borers (Col., Buprestidae) to (Z)-3-hexenol and manuka oil[J]. Journal of Applied Entomology, 2010, 134(1): 26-33. DOI URL
[11]	吴有刚, 王永明, 陆克安, 等. 白蜡窄吉丁绿色防控综合技术研究[J]. 北京园林, 2019, 35(2): 57-59.
	WU Yougang, WANG Yongming, LU Ke’an, et al. Research on Integrated Green Control Technology of Agrilus Planipennis Fairmaire[J]. Beijing Botanical Garden, 2019, 35(2): 57-59.
[12]	刘平, 刘新云, 冯兴龙, 等. 粘虫板在枣树虫害防治中的应用研究[J]. 河北林果研究, 2007,(3):294-298.
	LIU Ping, LIU Xinyun, FENG Xinglong, et al. Study on application of sticky cards on insect control in Ziziphusjujuba Mill[J]. Forest and Fruit Research in Hebei Province, 2007,(3):294-298.
[13]	李传仁, 齐力. 三种颜色诱盆在棉田的诱虫效果初步观察[J]. 昆虫知识, 2005,(2):190-192.
	XIAO Chuanren, QI Li. Effect of three kinds of color basin on trapping insects in cotton fields[J]. Knowledge of Insects, 2005,(2):190-192.
[14]	Francese J A, Oliver J B, et al. Influence of trap placement and design on capture of the emerald ash borer[J]. Economic Entomology, 2008, 101(6): 1831-1837.
[15]	Crook D J, Khrimian A, Cossé A, Fraser I, et al. Influence of Trap Color and Host Volatiles on Capture of the Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae)[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2012, 105(2):429-437. DOI URL
[16]	崔晓宁. 苹果小吉丁虫对寄主植物挥发物的行为反应及嗅觉相关基因功能研究[D]. 杨凌: 西北农林科技大学, 2018:138.
	CUI Xiaoning. Behavioral responses of Agrilusmali to host plant volatiles and function of related olfactory genes[D]. Yangling: Northwest A&F University, 2018: 138.
[17]	Groot P, Grant G G, Poland M T, Scharbach R, et al. Electrophysiological Response and Attraction of Emerald Ash Borer to Green Leaf Volatiles (GLVs) Emitted by Host Foliage[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2008, 34(9):1170-1179. DOI URL
[18]	Rodriguez S C, Poland M T, Miller R J, et al. Behavioral and electrophysiological responses of the emerald ash borer, Agrilusplanipennis, to induced volatiles of Manchurian ash, Fraxinusmandshurica[J]. Chemoecology, 2006, 16(2): 75-86. DOI URL
[19]	路纪芳. 白蜡窄吉丁自然种群变化的关键因子研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2012: 93.
	LU Jifang. Studies on the key factors of population fluctuation for emerald ash borer AgrilusplanipennisFairmaire (Coleoptera:Buprestidae)[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2012: 93.
[20]	金若忠, 栾庆书, 云丽丽, 等. 花曲柳窄吉丁生物学调查[J]. 辽宁林业科技, 2005,(5): 22-24.
	JIN Ruozhong, LUAN Qingshu, YUN Lili, et al. Biological investigation of Agrilusplanipennis[J]. Liaoning Forestry Science and Technology, 2005,(5): 22-24.
[21]	王小艺, 杨忠岐, 武辉, 等. 白蜡吉丁柄腹茧蜂的寄生和繁殖生物学[J]. 昆虫学报, 2007,(9): 920-926.
	WANG Xiaoyi, YANG Zhongqi, WU Hui, et al. Parasitism and reproductive biology of Spathiusagrili Yang (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)[J]. Journal of Insect, 2007,(9): 920-926.

挥发物名称 Voatiles name	纯度 Finences(%)	形态 Morphology	来源 Source	作用 Function
EtOH	98	液态	上海原液生物科技有限公司	扩散力强,稀释后具有强烈的叶草味
Iinalool	98	液态	上海原液生物科技有限公司	具有杀虫的作用
EA	98	液态	上海原液生物科技有限公司	具有刺激性气味,易挥发,溶解性

挥发物名称 Voatiles name	纯度 Finences(%)	形态 Morphology	来源 Source	作用 Function
EtOH	98	液态	上海原液生物科技有限公司	扩散力强,稀释后具有强烈的叶草味
Iinalool	98	液态	上海原液生物科技有限公司	具有杀虫的作用
EA	98	液态	上海原液生物科技有限公司	具有刺激性气味,易挥发,溶解性

颜色 Color	样本数量 Number	2 d平均诱捕量±标准差 Average 2 day trapping ±standard deviation	总诱捕数量(头) Total entrapment per head
浅绿色 Light green	27	2.03±0.62^a	55
橘黄色 Orange	27	1.11±0.46^a	30
深绿色 Park green	27	1.04±0.37^a	28
金黄色 Golden	27	0.93±0.30^a	25

颜色 Color	样本数量 Number	2 d平均诱捕量±标准差 Average 2 day trapping ±standard deviation	总诱捕数量(头) Total entrapment per head
浅绿色 Light green	27	2.03±0.62^a	55
橘黄色 Orange	27	1.11±0.46^a	30
深绿色 Park green	27	1.04±0.37^a	28
金黄色 Golden	27	0.93±0.30^a	25

引诱剂 attractants	样本数量 Num ber	2 d平均诱捕量±标准差 Average 2 day trapping ±standard deviation	总诱捕数量(头) Total entrapment per head
EtOH	36	1.72±0.43^a	62
Iinalool	36	1.42±0.47^a	51
EA	36	0.69±0.23^a	25