| 曾 娟 1, 2, 张 涛 1, 王立颖 2, 3, 吴秋琳 2, 陆明红 1, 吴孔明 2*.食诱剂监测稻纵卷叶螟种群动态初报[J].植物保护,2021,47(4):203-214. |
| 食诱剂监测稻纵卷叶螟种群动态初报 |
| Preliminary application of food attractant trapping in monitoring population dynamics of rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in China |
| 投稿时间：2021-05-21 修订日期：2021-06-04 |
| DOI：10.16688/j.zwbh.2021304 |
| 中文关键词: 稻纵卷叶螟 食诱 日均诱蛾量 峰期 峰日蛾量 专一性 性比 |
| 英文关键词:Cnaphalocrocis medinalis food attractant trapping average daily caught/counted adults peak period peak-date number of caught/counted adults specificity sex ratio |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金(31727901) |
| 作者 | 单位 | E-mail | | 曾 娟 1, 2, 张 涛 1, 王立颖 2, 3, 吴秋琳 2, 陆明红 1, 吴孔明 2* | 1. 全国农业技术推广服务中心, 北京 100125
2. 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
3. 福建农林科技大学植物保护学院, 福州 350002 | wukongming@caas.cn |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 818 |
| 全文下载次数: 641 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 2020年7月-10月在我国南方3大稻区的6省(区)12个点开展了稻纵卷叶螟成虫种群动态的食诱监测试验, 并与性诱?灯诱和田间赶蛾等传统监测技术进行了对比?结果表明, 食诱监测可准确反映田间稻纵卷叶螟种群数量动态, 其峰次?峰期与性诱?灯诱和田间赶蛾基本一致?4种监测方法在长江中下游单季晚稻区?单季中稻区和华南双季晚稻区同期监测到3个?2个和1~2个峰次, 峰期依次为7月中下旬?8月上中旬和9月中旬?从日均诱蛾量和峰日蛾量看, 食诱监测总体优于性诱, 但差于灯诱和田间赶蛾; 食诱监测的专一性较高, 靶标数量占总诱虫量的比率一般高于85%, 但不及性诱(95%以上); 从雌?雄蛾的总量对比及逐日对比看, 食诱监测性比均大于1?综合分析表明, 食诱监测具有使用方便?反应灵敏?专一性较强?雌雄同诱的优点, 为精准监测稻纵卷叶螟成虫种群动态提供了新手段? |
| 英文摘要: |
| A monitoring experiment of population dynamics of the rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) (hereinafter referred to as RLF) with food attractant trappings was carried out at 12 sites in six provinces across three eco-regions of rice production in China from July to October in 2020, in comparison with traditional methods such as sex pheromone trapping, light trapping and paddy sweeping. The frequency and period of adult peaks were approximately the same among four different monitoring methods, showing 3, 2 and 1-2 peaks in single-cropping late-rice regions, single-cropping middle-rice regions in the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River and double-cropping rice region in South China, respectively, with the peak periods in mid-late July, early-mid August and middle September successively. As for average daily or peak-date number of caught/counted adults, food attractant trapping was overall better than sex pheromone trapping, but inferior to light trapping and paddy sweeping. The specificity of food attractant trapping was revealed by the ratio of targeted species in total catches, higher than 85% at most sites, but lower than that of sex pheromone trapping (more than 95%). The total and daily ratios of female to male caught by food attractant trappings were mostly greater than 1. Thus, food attractant trappings are beneficial and promising in monitoring practice, having the advantages of simplicity and convenience, sensitive response, high specificity, trapping both male and female, which provides a new method for precise monitoring of RLF population dynamics. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
