引用本文:[点击复制]
[点击复制]
【打印本页】【下载PDF全文】 查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器关闭

←前一篇|后一篇→

过刊浏览    高级检索

本文已被:浏览次   下载 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
不同树种松墨天牛取食面积差异的研究
姚松,汪来发,束庆龙,林乐民,王华同,孙小波,朱从波
0
(河南内乡宝天曼管理局,内乡474350; 中国林业科学研究院森林生态环境与保护研究所,北京100091;安徽农业大学林学与园林学院,合肥230036;中国林业科学研究院林业研究所,北京 100091)
摘要:
松墨天牛是松材线虫的主要传播媒介,为了揭示松墨天牛(Monochamus alternatus Hope)对不同松枝的取食喜好程度,从而更好地防治由松墨天牛作为载体所引发的松材线虫病,本研究分别取黑松(Pinus thunbergii Parl.)、马尾松(P. massoniana Lamb.)、火炬松(P. teada L.)的一年生和二年生枝条作为供试(松墨天牛取食)对象进行研究。结果表明:(1)按松墨天牛对供试树种的选择顺序是:在一年生枝中,黑松>马尾松>火炬松,但差异不显著(F=1.11, P= 0.3439);在二年生枝中,黑松>火炬松>马尾松,在5%的水平上有显著性差异 (F=3.86, P=0.0341);(2)黑松、马尾松、火炬松取食面积一年生枝均大于两年生枝,其中黑松(F=0.04, P=0.8467)、火炬松(F=4.02, P=0.0601)差异不显著,马尾松差异达到显著水平(F=6.21, P=0.0216)。结合本试验及前人研究结果,笔者认为导致不同树种不同枝龄松墨天牛取食面积的不同可能与各树种所含化学成分不同有关。
关键词:  松墨天牛  补充营养  取食面积  松树
DOI:CNKI:34-1162/S.20111025.1030.027
基金项目:科技部社会公益研究专项(2005DIB3J139)和国家“十一五”科技支撑项目(2006BAD08A19104)共同资助。
Effect of tree species and branch age on the feeding area of Monochamus alternatus
YAO Song,WANG Lai-fa,SHU Qing-long,LIN Le-min,WANG Hua-tong,SUN Xiao-bo,ZHU Cong-bo
(Baotianman Nature Reserve Administrative Bureau, Neixiang 474350; The Key Laboratory of Forest Protection ,State Forestry Administration, Research Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, CAF, Beijing 100091;School of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036;Research Institute of Forestry, CAF, Beijing 100091)
Abstract:
Monochamus alternatus Hope is the main vectors of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. To reveal the internal relations between Monochamus alternatus Hope and Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, Monochamus alternatus Hope was fed with the annual and biennial branches of Pinus thunbergii Parl., P. massoniana Lamb.and P. teada L. and their feeding areas were calculated. The results showed that: (1) Monochamus alternatus’s feeding preference to the annual pine branches was Pinus thunbergii > P. massoniana > P. teada. However, there was no significant difference between them (F=1.11, P=0.3439); Monochamus alternatus’s feeding preference to the biennial branches was Pinus thunbergii >P. teada.>P. massoniana, and the difference was significant at 5% level (F=3.86, P=0.0341). (2) Of the three pines, Monochamus alternatus’s feeding areas of the annual branches were more than that of the biennial branches, while there was no significant difference in Pinus thunbergii (F=0.04, P=0.8467) and P. teada (F=4.02, P=0.0601), but the difference was significant in P. massoniana (F=6.21, P=0.0216).
Key words:  Monochamus alternatus  supplement nutrient  feeding area  pine

用微信扫一扫

用微信扫一扫