欢迎访问中国生物防治学报,今天是

• 研究报告 • 上一篇    下一篇

蛴螬对绿僵菌及花生植株的行为趋性研究

农向群1, 刘迅1, 刘春琴2, 张英财1, 张星1, 张泽华1   

  1. 1. 中国农业科学院植物保护研究所/植物病虫害生物学国家重点实验室, 北京 100193;2. 河北省沧州市农林科学研究院植物保护研究所, 沧州 061001
  • 收稿日期:2013-07-25 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2014-06-08 发布日期:2014-06-08
  • 通讯作者: 张泽华,研究员,E-mail:lgbcc@263.net。

Behavior Tropism of White Grubs to Metarhizium anisopliae and Peanut Plants

NONG Xiangqun1, LIU Xun1, LIU Chunqin2, ZHANG Yingcai1, ZHANG Xing1, ZHANG Zehua1   

  1. 1. State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests/Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China;2. Institute of Plant Protection, Cangzhou Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Cangzhou 061001, China
  • Received:2013-07-25 Revised:1900-01-01 Online:2014-06-08 Published:2014-06-08

摘要: 为了改进绿僵菌防治花生田蛴螬的施菌技术和策略,研究了蛴螬对绿僵菌及花生根系的行为趋向及变化。在框盘和池内进行了施菌、种植、接虫与对照的多项组合处理试验。结果表明,在无绿僵菌和无寄主植物的对照土壤中,蛴螬移动缓慢,方向随机,可到达试验范围的最大距离。在施用绿僵菌的土壤中,蛴螬仍表现随机移动分散;施菌土与非施菌土两侧对比时,框盘与池内试验结果相近,蛴螬在施菌土中分布分别占53.3%和54.4%,比在对照土中略高,但无显著差异;中心施菌周围不施菌时,66.7%的蛴螬停留在中心区域,而当中心不施菌仅周围施菌时,38.3%蛴螬停留在中心区域,大部分扩散移动到周围施菌区,二者差异显著,说明对绿僵菌没有明显正或负向趋性,或仅有微弱趋向性。框盘一侧中有寄主植物时,相对于对照65.0%的蛴螬趋向植株,83.3%趋向植株加绿僵菌,显著高于无植株的一侧;当周围无寄主植物时,池中聚集的蛴螬会扩散寻找植物;周围有寄主植物时,蛴螬明显趋向寄主并停留在寄主附近,数量显著高于在植株外围,形成聚集分布;绿僵菌对蛴螬接近花生根有一定的阻止作用。

Abstract: To improve techniques and strategies of Metarhizium anisopliae application as a biological pesticide against grubs in peanut field, we studied the behavior trends and changes of white grubs related to peanut plants and application M. anisopliae in soil. A series of treatment trials contrasting with the fungus, plants, grubs and control each other, were conducted in the plates and in two pools. The results showed that grubs moved slowly in random directions and could reach the maximum distance in the test range in control treatment without applying M. anisopliae and no host plants in soil. Grubs still moved slowly and dispersed randomly in the soil incorporated M. anisopliae conidia. The distribution ratios of grubs at the sides with vs without the fungus were 53.3% vs 46.7% and 54.4% vs 45.6% in the plates and the pool respectively. They were no significant differences. When incorporating M. anisopliae in center soil but not in periphery, 66.7% of the grubs stayed in the central region. Comparatively, when incorporating the fungus in periphery soil but not in center, 38.3% grubs stayed in the central region, and the majority moved into the surrounding area. The difference was significant. It showed the grubs behaved no significantly positive or negative tropism to the applied fungus, or might be weak positive tendency. However, at presence of host peanuts, 65.0% of the grubs moved and tendd to the side of peanut plants and 83.3% of the grubs moved and tended to the side of peanut plants with M. anisopliae soil, significantly higher than the control side in testing plates. The results from pool trials showed that grubs would move and spread to search when there were no host plants around. And they would move significantly towards peanut plants and remain in the plant vicinity when there were host plants around. They were significantly higher than ones in the far periphery from plant, forming aggregate distribution. M. anisopliae seemingly presented a certain prevention from grubs approaching peanut roots.

中图分类号: