棉铃虫不同地理种群性信息素通讯系统的比较分析

doi:10.16409/j.cnki.2095-039x.2020.05.014

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 棉铃虫性信息素已普遍用于种群测报和防治，但其效果在不同地区不尽一致。为探讨这种不稳定性产生的原因，我们对黄河流域、长江流域及新疆地区不同地理种群棉铃虫的性信息素通讯系统进行了比较分析。就雌蛾性信息素的产生而言，连续两年的测定结果表明，性信息素腺体中2个主要组分（Z11-16：Ald和Z9-16：Ald）的含量在不同种群间变化较大，而两者间的相对比例（Z11/Z9）虽然个别种群有显著差异但幅度很小，总体被控制在狭窄的范围（97：3~92：8）；对同一地区的不同年份间进行比较，也得到了类似结果。就雄蛾对性信息素的反应，我们根据雌蛾腺体及田间常用诱芯中的Z11/Z9比例，配制99：1~90：10共4个不同比例的诱芯，在河南安阳、山东惠民和新疆昌吉进行了田间雄蛾诱捕试验。结果发现，在安阳和惠民其诱蛾量在不同比例的诱芯间无显著差异，而在昌吉地区的诱蛾量随Z11/Z9比例的降低而增高，且99：10比例的诱芯显著高于99：1的诱芯，表明新疆地区雄蛾对Z11/Z9感受的最佳比例范围更窄，且偏向于低的Z11/Z9比例。分析认为，新疆和内地棉铃虫种群在性信息素通讯系统间存在一定的差异，而内地不同种群间基本一致。研究结果为开发和使用区域针对性的棉铃虫性信息素诱芯提供了重要参考。

关键词: 棉铃虫, 地理种群, 性信息素通讯, Z11/Z9比例, 田间诱捕

Abstract: The sex pheromone of Helicoverpa armigera has been widely used for pest forecast and control, but its efficacy is unstable in different geographical locations. To explore the causes of this instability, we compared the sexual communication systems among different geographic populations of H. armigera from the Yellow River valley, the Yangtze River valley and Xinjiang regions. For the female part, results in two consecutive years showed that the contents of the two major active components Z11-16:Ald and Z9-16:Ald in pheromone glands varied greatly among different insect populations, however, the ratios of the two component (Z11/Z9) were controlled in a very narrow range between 97:3-92:8. Similar results were also obtained between populations in two years in the same area. To test the male response, sex pheromone lures with four Z11/Z9 ratios (99:1 to 90:10) were prepared and tested by field trapping experiments in Anyang, Huimin and Changji. The results showed that there were no significant differences in trapping catches among lures of different Z11/Z9 ratios in both Anyang and Huimin, while the trapping catches in Changji increased with the decrease of the Z11/Z9 ratio, being significantly higher in the 99:10 ratio lure than in the 99:1 ratio lure. This indicates that male moths in Xinjiang region prefer lower Z11/Z9 ratios and have a narrower optimal ratio range. Taken together, there is a difference in the sexual communication system between H. armigera populations from Xinjiang and those from the Yellow River valley and the Yangtze River regions, providing important reference to develop and use regional specific sex pheromone lures in forecast and control of H. armigera.

Key words: Helicoverpa armigera, geographical population, sex pheromone communication system, Z11/Z9 ratio, field trapping

中图分类号:

S476

叶占峰, 廖辉, 刘晓龙, 董双林. 棉铃虫不同地理种群性信息素通讯系统的比较分析[J]. 中国生物防治学报, 2020, 36(5): 663-671.

YE Zhanfeng, LIAO Hui, LIU Xiaolong, DONG Shuanglin. Comparative Study of Sex Pheromone Communication System in Helicoverpa armigera Populations of Different Geographic Origins[J]. Chinese Journal Of Biological Control, 2020, 36(5): 663-671.

参考文献

[1] Linn J R C, Roelofs W L. Pheromone communication in moths and its role in the speciation process//Lambert D M, Spencer H G, eds. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press, Speciation and the Recognition Concept:Theory and Application, 1995, 263-300.
[2] Zhu J, Chastain B B, Spohn B G, et al. Assortative mating in two pheromone strains of the cabbage looper moth, Trichoplusia ni[J]. Journal of Insect Behavior, 1997, 10(6):805-817.
[3] Ring T. Cardé, Baker T C. Sexual Communication with Pheromones[M]//Bell W J, Cardé R T, eds. Chemical Ecology of Insects, London:Chapman and Hall, 1984, 355-383.
[4] Roelofs W L, Cardé R T. Sex pheromones in the reproductive isolation of lepidopterous species[M]//Birch M C, ed. Pheromones, Amsterdam:Elsevier North Holland Publishers, 1974, 96-114.
[5] Cardé R, Cardé A, Hill A, et al. Sex pheromone specificity as a reproductive isolating mechanism among the sibling species Archips argyrospilus and A. mortuanus and other sympatric tortricine moths (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae)[J]. Journal of chemical ecology, 1977, 3(1):71-84.
[6] Greenfield M D, Karandinos M G. Resource partitioning of the sex communication channel in clearwing moths (Lepidoptera:Sesiidae) of Wisconsin[J]. Ecological Monographs, 1979, 403-426.
[7] Halbritter D A, Willett D S, Gordon J M, et al. Behavioral evidence for host transitions in plant, plant parasite, and insect interactions[J]. Environmental Entomology, 2018, 47(3):646-653.
[8] Landolt P J, Phillips T W. Host plant influences on sex pheromone behavior of phytophagous insects[J]. Annual Review of Entomology, 1997, 42:371-391.
[9] Groot A T, Nojima S, Heath J J, et al. Alcohol contributes to attraction of heliothis (=Chloridea) virescens males to females[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2018, 44:621-630.
[10] Delisle J, Mcneil J N. Calling behavior and pheromone titer of the true armyworm Pseudaletia unipuncta (Haw) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) under different temperature and photoperiodic conditions[J]. Journal of Insect Physiology, 1987, 33(5):315-324.
[11] 鲁玉杰, 张孝羲, 翟保平. 温度和光周期对棉铃虫雌性信息素成分的含量与比例的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2002, 22(4):566-570.
[12] Royer L, Mcneil J N. Changes in calling behavior and mating success in the European corn-borer (Ostrinia-Nubilalis), caused by relative-humidity[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1991, 61(2):131-138.
[13] Delisle J, Mcneil J N. The effect of photoperiod on the calling behavior of virgin females of the true armyworm, Pseudaletia-Unipuncta (Haw) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)[J]. Journal of Insect Physiology, 1986, 32(3):199-206.
[14] Kamimura M, Tatsuki S. Effects of photoperiodic changes on calling behavior and pheromone production in the oriental tobacco budworm moth, Helicoverpa-Assulta (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)[J]. Journal of Insect Physiology, 1994, 40(8):731-734.
[15] Gao K, Torres-vila L M, Zalucki M P, et al. Geographic variation in sexual communication in the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera[J]. Pest Management Science, 2020, 76(1):1-10.
[16] Unbehend M, Hanniger S, Vasquez G M, et al. Geographic variation in sexual attraction of Spodoptera frugiperda corn and rice-strain males to pheromone lures[J]. PLoS ONE, 2014, 9(2):e89255.
[17] Groot A T, Inglis O, Bowdridge S, et al. Geographic and temporal variation in moth chemical communication[J]. Evolution, 2009, 63(8):1987-2003.
[18] Groot A T, Santangelo R G, Ricci E, et al. Differential attraction of Heliothis subflexa males to synthetic pheromone lures in eastern US and western Mexico[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2007, 33(2):353-368.
[19] Torres-Vila L M, Rodriguez-Molina M C, Lacasa-Plasencia A, et al. Insecticide resistance of Helicoverpa armigera to endosulfan, carbamates and organophosphates:the Spanish case[J]. Crop Protectin, 2002, 21(10):1003-1013.
[20] Mironidis G K, Kapantaidaki D, Bentila M, et al. Resurgence of the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera in northern Greece associated with insecticide resistance[J]. Insect Science, 2013, 20(4):505-512.
[21] Pereira R M, Abbade Neto D, Amado D, et al. Baseline susceptibility and frequency of resistance to diamide insecticides in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) populations in Brazil[J]. Crop Protection, 2020, 137:105266.
[22] Cunningham J P, Zalucki M P. Understanding heliothine (Lepidoptera:Heliothinae) pests:what is a host plant?[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2014, 107(3):881-896.
[23] Wu K M, Guo Y Y. The evolution of cotton pest management practices in China[J]. Annual Review of Entomology, 2005, 50(1):31-52.
[24] Witzgall P, Kirsch P, Cork A. Sex pheromones and their impact on pest management[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2010, 36(1):80-100.
[25] Miller J R, Gut L J. Mating disruption for the 21st century:matching technology with mechanism[J]. Environmental Entomology, 2015, 44(3):427-453.
[26] Piccardi P, Capizzi A, Cassani G, et al. A sex pheromone component of the old world bollworm Heliothis armigera[J]. Journal of Insect Physiology, 1977, 23(11):1443-1445.
[27] Gothilf S, Kehat M, Jacobson M, et al. Sex attractants for male Heliothis armigera (Hbn.)[J]. Experientia, 1978, 34(7):853-854.
[28] Wang H L, Zhao C H, Wang C Z. Comparative study of sex pheromone composition and biosynthesis in Helicoverpa armigera, H-assulta and their hybrid[J]. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 2005, 35(6):575-583.
[29] Kehat M, Dunkelblum E. Behavioral responses of male Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) moths in a flight tunnel to combinations of components identified from female sex pheromone glands[J]. Journal of Insect Behavor, 1990, 3(1):75-83.
[30] Nesbitt B F, Beevor P S, Hall D R, et al. Female sex pheromone components of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera[J]. Journal of Insect Physiology, 1979, 25(6):535-541.
[31] Kehat M, Gothilf S, Dunkelblum E, et al. Field evaluation of female sex pheromone components of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1980, 27(2):188-193.
[32] Nesbitt B F, Beevor P S, Hall D R, et al. (Z)-9-Hexadecenal:a minor component of the female sex pheromone of Heliothis armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae)[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1980, 27(3):306-308.
[33] 曾娟, 杜永均, 姜玉英, 等. 我国农业害虫性诱监测技术的开发和应用[J]. 植物保护, 2015, 41(4):9-15.
[34] 黄勇平, 沈君辉, 王淑芬, 等. 昆虫性信息素变异研究的进展[J]. 中南林学院学报, 1998, 18(4):88-95.
[35] 李江峰, 盛世蒙, 张维建, 等. 棉铃虫性诱剂水盆诱捕器与粘胶板诱捕器诱蛾效果的比较[J]. 蔬菜, 2014(4):4-5.
[36] 羌烨, 朱明华. 不同性诱剂对棉铃虫诱集效果评价[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2012(10):78-79.
[37] 杜家纬, 等. 三化螟性信息素通讯信道的个体变异[J]. 昆虫学研究集刊, 1990, 9:29-36.
[38] Aylmer F R. The Genetic Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd Edition[M]. New York:Dover, 1958.
[39] Tamhankar A J, Rajendran T P, Rao N H, et al. Variability in response of Helicoverpa armigera males from different locations in India to varying blends of female sex pheromone suggests male sex pheromone response polymorphism[J]. Current Science, 2003, 84(3):448-450.
[40] 邓菲菲. 新疆棉铃虫不同地理种群遗传多态性研究[D]. 乌鲁木齐:新疆农业大学, 2012.
[41] Chen X, Tan S, Liu R, et al. Study on the genetic variation of the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) population of China[J]. Entomologia Sinica, 2003, 7(3):243-249.
[42] 徐广, 王桂荣, 吴孔明, 等. 棉铃虫不同地理种群间基因流动的RFLP分析[J]. 棉花学报, 2002, 14(6):352-355.