不同杀虫剂对小贯小绿叶蝉刺探行为的影响

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20231290

浙江农业学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (10): 2273-2282.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20231290

不同杀虫剂对小贯小绿叶蝉刺探行为的影响

乔利(), 尤伟晨, 王国君, 智亚楠, 周洲, 耿书宝^*()

信阳农林学院农学院,河南信阳 464000

收稿日期:2023-11-14 出版日期:2024-10-25 发布日期:2024-10-30
作者简介:乔利(1980—),女,河南鲁山人,博士,副教授,研究方向为昆虫生态与害虫防治。E-mail:2017180004@xyafu.edu.cn
通讯作者: ^*耿书宝,E-mail:shubaogeng@163.com
基金资助:
河南省重点研发与推广专项(科技攻关)(222102110109);国家重点研发计划(2017YFD0200907);信阳农林学院科技创新团队“信阳农林学院作物绿色防控与品质调控科技创新团队”(XNKJTD-007)

Effect of different insecticides on sucking behavior of Empoasca onukii Matsuda

QIAO Li(), YOU Weichen, WANG Guojun, ZHI Yanan, ZHOU Zhou, GENG Shubao^*()

School of Agronomy, Xinyang Agriculture and Forestry University, Xinyang 464000, Henan, China

Received:2023-11-14 Online:2024-10-25 Published:2024-10-30

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

小贯小绿叶蝉(Empoasca onukii Matsuda)是茶园主要害虫之一,为筛选出用量少、效果好的杀虫剂来综合防控小贯小绿叶蝉,本研究选取6种单剂和6种混剂,每种单剂设置5个浓度梯度,每种混剂的每个配置比例设置3个处理浓度,采用刺吸电位图谱(electrical penetration graph, EPG)技术分析小贯小绿叶蝉的刺探行为。结果表明,单剂效果为22%氟啶虫胺腈悬浮剂>50 g·L^-1双丙环虫酯可分散液剂>70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂>10%氟啶虫酰胺水分散粒剂>25 g·L^-1高效氯氟氰菊酯乳油>30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂。不同比例混剂的效果不同,30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+50 g·L^-1双丙环虫酯可分散液剂混剂各比例对小贯小绿叶蝉取食波型影响较大,30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂混剂对小贯小绿叶蝉的取食波型影响较小。混剂处理后小贯小绿叶蝉的刺探次数、刺探总持续时间、E波持续时间都均低于各个单剂处理。以上结果说明,混配制剂对小贯小绿叶蝉刺探行为的影响优于单剂,可应用于茶园小贯小绿叶蝉的防控。

关键词: 小贯小绿叶蝉, 刺吸电位图谱(EPG), 杀虫剂, 刺探行为

Abstract:

Empoasca onukii Matsuda is one of the main pests in tea garden. In order to screen out the insecticides with less dosage and better effect for comprehensive control of E.onukii, in this study, 6 single and 6 mixed agents were selected, each single agent was set with 5 concentration gradients, and each mixed agent’s configuration ratio was set with 3 treatment concentrations, and electrical penetration graph (EPG) technique was used to analyze the sucking behavior of E. onukii. The results showed that the order of effect of single agent was as follows: sulfoxaflor 22% SC>afidopyropen 50 g·L^-1 DC>imidacloprid 70% WG>flonicamid 10% WG>lambda-cyhalothrin 25 g·L^-1 EC>thiamethoxam 30% SC. The effects of different proportions of the mixture were different, and the mixture of thiamethoxam 30% SC+afidopyropen 50 g·L^-1 DC had a greater effect on the feeding waveform of E. onukii, the mixture of thiamethoxam 30% SC+imidacloprid 70% WG had little effect on the feeding waveform of E. onukii. The sucking times, the total duration of sucking and E wave duration in mixture treatment were all lower than that of every single agent treatment. The results showed that the influence of mixed agents on sucking behaviors was better than single agent, and it could be used for controlling E. onukii in tea garden.

Key words: Empoasca onukii Matsuda, electrical penetration graph (EPG), insecticide, sucking behavior

中图分类号:

S433.3

乔利, 尤伟晨, 王国君, 智亚楠, 周洲, 耿书宝. 不同杀虫剂对小贯小绿叶蝉刺探行为的影响[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(10): 2273-2282.

QIAO Li, YOU Weichen, WANG Guojun, ZHI Yanan, ZHOU Zhou, GENG Shubao. Effect of different insecticides on sucking behavior of Empoasca onukii Matsuda[J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(10): 2273-2282.

图/表 8

参考文献 21

[1]	QIN D Z, ZHANG L, XIAO Q, et al. Clarification of the identity of the tea green leafhopper based on morphological comparison between Chinese and Japanese specimens[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(9): e0139202.
[2]	邬子惠, 王梦馨, 潘铖, 等. 茶小绿叶蝉发生规律与绿色防控研究进展[J]. 茶叶通讯, 2021, 48(2): 200-206.
	WU Z H, WANG M X, PAN C, et al. Research progress and prospect of occurrence regularity and green control of tea green leafhopper[J]. Journal of Tea Communication, 2021, 48(2): 200-206. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	孟召娜, 边磊, 罗宗秀, 等. 茶园小贯小绿叶蝉各虫龄形态特征[J]. 中国茶叶, 2018, 40(12): 29-31.
	MENG Z N, BIAN L, LUO Z X, et al. Morphological characteristics of different instars of Empoasca onnkii Matsuda in tea garden[J]. China Tea, 2018, 40(12): 29-31. (in Chinese)
[4]	王海存, 李卫芳, 李书民, 等. 商洛茶园小绿叶蝉的绿色防控技术[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2020, 66(4): 96-97.
	WANG H C, LI W F, LI S M, et al. Green control techniques for Empoasca flavescens in tea garden of Shangluo[J]. Shaanxi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2020, 66(4): 96-97. (in Chinese)
[5]	郭名春, 周凌云, 周琳, 等. 5种药剂对茶小贯小绿叶蝉的田间药效[J]. 中国茶叶, 2019, 41(1): 25-26.
	GUO M C, ZHOU L Y, ZHOU L, et al. Field efficacy of five pesticides against Empoasca onukii Matsuda[J]. China Tea, 2019, 41(1): 25-26. (in Chinese)
[6]	乔利, 金银利, 蒋月丽, 等. 光谱对小贯小绿叶蝉趋光行为的影响[J]. 环境昆虫学报, 2022, 44(5): 1197-1204.
	QIAO L, JIN Y L, JIANG Y L, et al. Effects of spectra on phptotactic behavior of the Empoasca onukii Matsuda[J]. Journal of Environmental Entomology, 2022, 44(5): 1197-1204. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7]	李静静, 潘建斌, 吴莉莉, 等. 我国刺吸电位技术三十年应用及创新[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2019, 56(6): 1224-1234.
	LI J J, PAN J B, WU L L, et al. Three-decades of electrical penetration graph technique innovation in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 2019, 56(6): 1224-1234. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	刘伟娇. 基于生命表和EPG技术的棉花品种抗蚜性评价[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2023.
	LIU W J. Evaluation of cotton cultivars for resistance to Aphis gossypii based on the life table and EPG technology[D]. Baoding: Hebei Agricultural University, 2023. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[9]	胡想顺, 刘小凤, 赵惠燕. 刺探电位图谱(EPG)技术的原理与发展[J]. 植物保护, 2006, 32(3): 1-4.
	HU X S, LIU X F, ZHAO H Y. Development and application of electrical penetration graph (EPG) technique[J]. Plant Protection, 2006, 32(3): 1-4. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[10]	薛承美. EPG结合实时荧光定量PCR对新蚜虫疠霉侵染桃蚜致病机理初探[D]. 杭州: 中国计量学院, 2014.
	XUE C M. Preliminary studies on the infection mechanism between obligate aphid pathogen Pandora neophidis and its host Myzus percicae using EPG and quantative real-time PCR[D]. Hangzhou: China University of Metrology, 2014. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[11]	郭锦全, 陈晓波, 梁光红. 荔枝蝽在荔枝上取食行为的刺探电位分析[J]. 武夷科学, 2019, 35(2): 122-126.
	GUO J Q, CHEN X B, LIANG G H. Analysis of the feeding behavior of Tessaratoma papillosa on Litchi chinensis[J]. Wuyi Science Journal, 2019, 35(2): 122-126. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[12]	张文平, 刘佰明, 张珊, 等. 基于EPG技术的烟粉虱两个品系取食行为的比较[J]. 中国农业科学, 2016, 49(13): 2544-2552.
	ZHANG W P, LIU B M, ZHANG S, et al. Comparison of feeding behavior between two Bemisia tabaci strains using EPG technique[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2016, 49(13): 2544-2552. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[13]	荆裴. 灰飞虱取食行为EPG波形认定及传毒行为机理的初步研究[D]. 郑州: 河南农业大学, 2013.
	JING P. Prelimitary research on electrical penetration graph (EPG) waveforms in relation to feeding behavior and virus transmission mechanism in Laodelphax striatellus[D]. Zhengzhou: Henan Agricultural University, 2013. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[14]	祝愿, 王梦馨, 崔林, 等. 基于EPG技术分析杭菊两主栽品种对三种菊蚜抗性及其相关抗性物质[J]. 植物保护学报, 2019, 46(2): 425-433.
	ZHU Y, WANG M X, CUI L, et al. Analysis of resistance of two elite Chrysanthemum morifolium cultivars to three species of aphids using EPG techniques and their potential resistant substances[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2019, 46(2): 425-433. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[15]	于良斌, 徐林波, 王予彤, 等. 基于EPG技术分析苜蓿品种对苜蓿蚜的抗性[J]. 植物保护学报, 2021, 48(4): 814-821.
	YU L B, XU L B, WANG Y T, et al. Analysis of the resistance of alfalfa varieties to groundnut aphid Aphis craccivora using electrical penetration graph technique[J]. Journal of Plant Protection, 2021, 48(4): 814-821. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[16]	于良斌, 岳方正, 程通通, 等. 应用EPG技术分析不同品种苜蓿对苜蓿斑蚜的抗性[J]. 昆虫学报, 2021, 64(11): 1293-1304.
	YU L B, YUE F Z, CHENG T T, et al. Resistance of different alfalfa cultivars to Therioaphis trifolii (Hemiptera: Drepanosiphidae) analyzed by EPG technology[J]. Acta Entomologica Sinica, 2021, 64(11): 1293-1304. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[17]	周昊, 李钰, 滕子文, 等. 基于EPG的三种刺吸式害虫在苹果苗上的取食行为比较[J]. 昆虫学报, 2020, 63(10): 1207-1214.
	ZHOU H, LI Y, TENG Z W, et al. EPG-based comparison of feeding behaviors of three piercing-sucking pests on apple seedlings[J]. Acta Entomologica Sinica, 2020, 63(10): 1207-1214. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[18]	苗进, 韩宝瑜. 假眼小绿叶蝉(Empoasca vitis Gothe)在不同品种茶树上的取食行为[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(10): 3973-3982.
	MIAO J, HAN B Y. The probing behavior of the tea green leafhopper on different tea plant cultivars[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2007, 27(10): 3973-3982. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[19]	郑雨婷, 王梦馨, 崔林, 等. 基于EPG技术分析茶树品种对茶小绿叶蝉的抗性及其相关的抗性物质[J]. 生态学报, 2017, 37(23): 8015-8028.
	ZHENG Y T, WANG M X, CUI L, et al. Resistance of tea cultivars to the tea green leafhopper analyzed by EPG technique and their resistance-related substances[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017, 37(23): 8015-8028. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[20]	乔利, 扶胜兰, 张权, 等. 信阳市茶园小贯小绿叶蝉的抗药性研究[J]. 种业导刊, 2018(7): 18-20.
	QIAO L, FU S L, ZHANG Q, et al. Resistance of Empoasca onukii Matsuda to insecticides in Xinyang tea garden[J]. Journal of Seed Industry Guide, 2018(7): 18-20. (in Chinese)
[21]	文兆明, 赖传碧. 四种药剂防治茶小绿叶蝉的药效[J]. 昆虫知识, 2002, 39(1): 37-39.
	WEN Z M, LAI C B. Control efficiency of four pesticides on Empoasca pirisuga and E. flavescens[J]. Entomological Knowledge, 2002, 39(1): 37-39. (in Chinese with English abstract)

编号 Number	杀虫剂 Insecticide	有效成分比例 Ratio of effective components	质量浓度 Mass concentration/ (mg·L^-1)
混剂1	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂	1∶1	50.33、12.58、1.57
Mixture 1	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+imidacloprid 70% WG	1∶5	40.65、10.16、1.27
		5∶1	60.00、15.00、1.88
		1∶10	38.45、9.61、1.20
		10∶1	38.45、9.61、1.20
混剂2	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+25 g·L^-1高效氯氟氰菊酯乳油	1∶1	52.11、13.03、1.63
Mixture 2	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+lambda-cyhalothrin 25 g·L^-1 EC	1∶5	43.62、19.91、1.36
		5∶1	60.60、15.15、1.89
		1∶10	42.05、10.51、1.31
		10∶1	62.53、15.63、1.95
混剂3	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+50 g·L^-1双丙环虫酯可分散液剂	1∶1	57.27、14.32、1.79
Mixture 3	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+afidopyropen 50 g·L^-1 DC	1∶5	52.23、13.06、1.63
		5∶1	62.32、15.58、1.95
		1∶10	51.08、12.77、1.60
		10∶1	68.01、17.00、2.13
混剂4	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+10%氟啶虫酰胺水分散粒剂	1∶1	50.26、12.57、1.57
Mixture 4	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+flonicamid 10% WG	1∶5	40.54、10.14、1.27
		5∶1	59.98、15.00、1.87
		1∶10	38.33、9.58、1.20
		10∶1	62.19、15.55、1.94
混剂5	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+22%氟啶虫胺腈悬浮剂	1∶1	47.54、11.88、1.49
Mixture 5	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+sulfoxaflor 22% SC	1∶5	36.00、9.00、1.12
		5∶1	59.07、14.77、1.85
		1∶10	33.38、8.34、1.04
		10∶1	61.69、15.42、1.93
混剂6	70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂+50 g·L^-1双丙环虫酯可分散液剂	1∶1	42.76、10.69、1.34
Mixture 6	Imidacloprid 70% WG+afidopyropen 50 g·L^-1 DC	1∶5	47.39、11.85、1.48
		5∶1	38.13、9.53、1.19
		1∶10	48.44、12.11、1.51
		10∶1	37.07、9.27、1.16

编号 Number	杀虫剂 Insecticide	有效成分比例 Ratio of effective components	质量浓度 Mass concentration/ (mg·L^-1)
混剂1	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂	1∶1	50.33、12.58、1.57
Mixture 1	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+imidacloprid 70% WG	1∶5	40.65、10.16、1.27
		5∶1	60.00、15.00、1.88
		1∶10	38.45、9.61、1.20
		10∶1	38.45、9.61、1.20
混剂2	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+25 g·L^-1高效氯氟氰菊酯乳油	1∶1	52.11、13.03、1.63
Mixture 2	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+lambda-cyhalothrin 25 g·L^-1 EC	1∶5	43.62、19.91、1.36
		5∶1	60.60、15.15、1.89
		1∶10	42.05、10.51、1.31
		10∶1	62.53、15.63、1.95
混剂3	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+50 g·L^-1双丙环虫酯可分散液剂	1∶1	57.27、14.32、1.79
Mixture 3	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+afidopyropen 50 g·L^-1 DC	1∶5	52.23、13.06、1.63
		5∶1	62.32、15.58、1.95
		1∶10	51.08、12.77、1.60
		10∶1	68.01、17.00、2.13
混剂4	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+10%氟啶虫酰胺水分散粒剂	1∶1	50.26、12.57、1.57
Mixture 4	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+flonicamid 10% WG	1∶5	40.54、10.14、1.27
		5∶1	59.98、15.00、1.87
		1∶10	38.33、9.58、1.20
		10∶1	62.19、15.55、1.94
混剂5	30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂+22%氟啶虫胺腈悬浮剂	1∶1	47.54、11.88、1.49
Mixture 5	Thiamethoxam 30% SC+sulfoxaflor 22% SC	1∶5	36.00、9.00、1.12
		5∶1	59.07、14.77、1.85
		1∶10	33.38、8.34、1.04
		10∶1	61.69、15.42、1.93
混剂6	70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂+50 g·L^-1双丙环虫酯可分散液剂	1∶1	42.76、10.69、1.34
Mixture 6	Imidacloprid 70% WG+afidopyropen 50 g·L^-1 DC	1∶5	47.39、11.85、1.48
		5∶1	38.13、9.53、1.19
		1∶10	48.44、12.11、1.51
		10∶1	37.07、9.27、1.16

杀虫剂 Insecticide	第一次刺探时间 Time for the first sucking	第一次刺探持续时间 Duration of the first probe	刺探总次数 Total number of sucking	刺探总持续时间 Total duration of the sucking	S波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for S wave	E波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for E wave	F波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for F wave	R波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for R wave
对照组 Control	87.63 ±8.84	279.90 ±74.27	24.33 ±6.81	2 495.25 ±151.31	57.68 ±1.86	354.81 ±68.78	72.51 ±2.15	26.24 ±4.39
30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂 Thiamethoxam 30% SC	258.90 ±26.70^*	233.70 ±21.30	29.50 ±6.50	2 568.70 ±113.70	1 372.50 ±20.70^*	276.10 ±42.10	441.60 ±80.40^*	146.50 ±16.70^*
70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂 Imidacloprid 70% WG	229.50 ±30.90^*	200.70 ±59.66	10.00 ±3.00^*	2 953.80 ±164.20^*	904.80 ±32.20^*	121.60 ±35.20^*	538.20 ±65.40^*	134.60 ±13.40^*
25 g·L^-1高效氯氟氰菊酯乳油 Lambda-cyhalothrin 25 g·L^-1 EC	189.00 ±15.70^*	197.10 ±22.10	11.50 ±1.50^*	3 638.10 ±185.30^*	1 664.40 ±79.00^*	140.90 ±41.70^*	486.30 ±56.30^*	880.70 ±37.40^*
50 g·L^-1双丙环虫酯可分散液剂 Afidopyropen 50 g·L^-1 DC	285.48 ±47.78^*	36.76 ±2.62^*	8.00 ±1.00^*	1 330.72 ±43.80^*	344.76 ±117.58^*	165.12 ±23.83^*	150.7 ±15.07	233.63 ±74.90^*
10%氟啶虫酰胺水分散粒剂 Flonicamid 10% WG	213.26 ±42.02^*	24.92 ±1.27^*	18.67 ±1.65^*	1 070.07 ±22.75^*	834.31 ±22.07^*	88.44 ±3.90^*	204.16 ±87.81^*	649.33 ±93.20^*
22%氟啶虫胺腈悬浮剂 Sulfoxaflor 22% SC	187.03 ±16.77^*	3.98 ±1.31^*	27.00 ±2.72	926.33 ±78.19^*	376.83 ±17.81^*	198.82 ±22.11^*	254.09 ±44.47^*	1 357.38 ±163.19^*

杀虫剂 Insecticide	第一次刺探时间 Time for the first sucking	第一次刺探持续时间 Duration of the first probe	刺探总次数 Total number of sucking	刺探总持续时间 Total duration of the sucking	S波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for S wave	E波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for E wave	F波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for F wave	R波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for R wave
对照组 Control	87.63 ±8.84	279.90 ±74.27	24.33 ±6.81	2 495.25 ±151.31	57.68 ±1.86	354.81 ±68.78	72.51 ±2.15	26.24 ±4.39
30%噻虫嗪悬浮剂 Thiamethoxam 30% SC	258.90 ±26.70^*	233.70 ±21.30	29.50 ±6.50	2 568.70 ±113.70	1 372.50 ±20.70^*	276.10 ±42.10	441.60 ±80.40^*	146.50 ±16.70^*
70%吡虫啉水分散粒剂 Imidacloprid 70% WG	229.50 ±30.90^*	200.70 ±59.66	10.00 ±3.00^*	2 953.80 ±164.20^*	904.80 ±32.20^*	121.60 ±35.20^*	538.20 ±65.40^*	134.60 ±13.40^*
25 g·L^-1高效氯氟氰菊酯乳油 Lambda-cyhalothrin 25 g·L^-1 EC	189.00 ±15.70^*	197.10 ±22.10	11.50 ±1.50^*	3 638.10 ±185.30^*	1 664.40 ±79.00^*	140.90 ±41.70^*	486.30 ±56.30^*	880.70 ±37.40^*
50 g·L^-1双丙环虫酯可分散液剂 Afidopyropen 50 g·L^-1 DC	285.48 ±47.78^*	36.76 ±2.62^*	8.00 ±1.00^*	1 330.72 ±43.80^*	344.76 ±117.58^*	165.12 ±23.83^*	150.7 ±15.07	233.63 ±74.90^*
10%氟啶虫酰胺水分散粒剂 Flonicamid 10% WG	213.26 ±42.02^*	24.92 ±1.27^*	18.67 ±1.65^*	1 070.07 ±22.75^*	834.31 ±22.07^*	88.44 ±3.90^*	204.16 ±87.81^*	649.33 ±93.20^*
22%氟啶虫胺腈悬浮剂 Sulfoxaflor 22% SC	187.03 ±16.77^*	3.98 ±1.31^*	27.00 ±2.72	926.33 ±78.19^*	376.83 ±17.81^*	198.82 ±22.11^*	254.09 ±44.47^*	1 357.38 ±163.19^*

杀虫剂 Insecticide	第一次刺探时间 Time for the first sucking	第一次刺探持续时间 Duration of the first probe	刺探总次数 Total number of sucking	刺探总持续时间 Total duration of the sucking	S波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for S wave	E波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for E wave	F波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for F wave	R波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for R wave
对照组 Control	87.63 ±8.84	279.90 ±74.27	24.33 ±6.81	2 495.25 ±151.31	57.68 ±1.86	354.81 ±68.78	72.51 ±2.15	26.24 ±4.39
混剂1 Mixture 1	171.00 ±24.80^*	220.20 ±10.80	17.50 ±4.50	2 246.81 ±105.65	154.40 ±11.48^*	186.87 ±15.92^*	98.49 ±8.18^*	118.28 ±23.52^*
混剂2 Mixture 2	155.70 ±18.70^*	90.07 ±3.07^*	7.00 ±2.00^*	2 218.11 ±158.38	167.40 ±33.62^*	257.21 ±16.40^*	196.42 ±19.15^*	234.06 ±19.46^*
混剂3 Mixture 3	706.94 ±113.13^*	13.91 ±12.14^*	4.00 ±0.60^*	1 202.58 ±146.17^*	125.63 ±28.12^*	70.77 ±3.56^*	61.09 ±1.38	175.36 ±6.86^*
混剂4 Mixture 4	454.65 ±118.92^*	21.88 ±5.31^*	7.33 ±1.80^*	2 231.58 ±146.50	103.56 ±17.55^*	57.88 ±4.87^*	105.97 ±3.23^*	969.71 ±86.63^*
混剂5 Mixture 5	60.71 ±7.81^*	14.16 ±2.59^*	11.00 ±2.09^*	2 316.68 ±146.57	49.02 ±3.45^*	133.25 ±15.17^*	332.56 ±74.75^*	123.62 ±6.02^*
混剂6 Mixture 6	150.00 ±7.00^*	106.80 ±15.00^*	5.00 ±0.20^*	1 379.86 ±102.21^*	159.26 ±12.68^*	129.16 ±15.28^*	131.88 ±17.29^*	189.16 ±23.91^*

不同杀虫剂对小贯小绿叶蝉刺探行为的影响

Effect of different insecticides on sucking behavior of Empoasca onukii Matsuda

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 21

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	乔利, 陈磊, 蒋月丽, 周洲, 耿书宝, 王丽娟. LED绿光对小贯小绿叶蝉取食行为的干扰[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2024, 36(9): 2051-2059.
[2]	柳新菊, 吴声敢, 安雪花, 蒋金花, 吕露, 李岗, 王菲迪, 赵学平. 新烟碱类杀虫剂对家蚕的急性毒性与风险评价[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2021, 33(10): 1931-1938.
[3]	谢道燕, 杨振国, 柴建萍, 周春涛, 罗雁婕. 8种杀虫剂对朱砂叶螨毒力及家蚕的急性毒性比较[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(3): 420-425.
[4]	王彩云, 杨亚军, 徐红星, 郑许松, 田俊策, 鲁艳辉, 吕仲贤. 不同地理种群稻纵卷叶螟的解毒酶活性及对药剂的敏感性[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2017, 29(1): 73-80.
[5]	章旭日，潘杰，Tukayo Meks，余良，方文珍，罗大民*. 福建茶区小贯小绿叶蝉rDNA序列分析及形态再描述[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2015, 27(10): 1773-.
[6]	章金明;张蓬军;黄芳;宋亮;刘敏;吕要斌;*;林小勇;叶鑫业. 浙江菜区斜纹夜蛾对几类杀虫剂的敏感性[J]. , 2014, 26(1): 0-116.
[7]	江伟;胡京奕;孙志伟;谷方红*;宋涛. 啤酒大麦中十五种农药残留检测方法的建立及应用[J]. , 2010, 22(6): 795-801.
[8]	童森淼;王品维;孙逸钊;张立钦;*;马建义;盛仙俏 . 喜树碱对稻飞虱、二化螟和蚜虫的杀虫作用评价[J]. , 2009, 21(3): 0-292.
[9]	王树芹;郭玉玲;庞淑婷;施祖华. 不同类型药剂对B型烟粉虱的毒力作用评价[J]. , 2008, 20(5): 0-372.
[10]	陈建明;左景行;俞晓平;郑许松;陈列忠;张珏锋 . 新型微生物杀虫剂-Spinosad(多杀菌素)的毒理学研究进展[J]. , 2006, 18(5): 0-406.
[11]	陈建明;陈忠其;俞晓平;郑许松;陈列忠;张珏锋. 九种无公害农药对铜绿金龟子和韭菜迟眼蕈蚊的毒力测定[J]. , 2006, 18(5): 0-324.
[12]	姚晓宝;刘银泉;吴晓琴;吕要斌;张英 . 毛竹、杭白菊粗提物对桃蚜和小菜蛾的生物活性测定[J]. , 2004, 16(3): 0-158.
[13]	郭世俭;林文彩;章金明;徐晓国;刘树生. 杀虫混剂对小菜蛾及菜蛾啮小蜂的选择毒性和持续毒性[J]. , 2003, 15(4): 0-236.
[14]	郑许松;叶恭银;俞晓平;吕仲贤;陈建明;徐红星. 银杏叶粗提物对茭白二化螟的生物活性[J]. , 2003, 15(3): 0-176.
[15]	郭世俭;林文彩;章金明. 浙江省主要菜区小菜蛾抗药性的研究[J]. , 2003, 15(1): 0-22.

杀虫剂 Insecticide	第一次刺探时间 Time for the first sucking	第一次刺探持续时间 Duration of the first probe	刺探总次数 Total number of sucking	刺探总持续时间 Total duration of the sucking	S波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for S wave	E波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for E wave	F波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for F wave	R波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for R wave
对照组 Control	87.63 ±8.84	279.90 ±74.27	24.33 ±6.81	2 495.25 ±151.31	57.68 ±1.86	354.81 ±68.78	72.51 ±2.15	26.24 ±4.39
混剂1 Mixture 1	248.10 ±23.10^*	210.00 ±21.00	16.00 ±3.00^*	1 528.10 ±168.90^*	149.20 ±17.17^*	182.87 ±18.59^*	119.82 ±12.93^*	155.14 ±16.59^*
混剂2 Mixture 2	197.70 ±13.30^*	168.90 ±86.10	15.50 ±0.50^*	1 187.00 ±11.20^*	140.03 ±21.57^*	152.80 ±18.23^*	181.20 ±19.00^*	89.31 ±13.54^*
混剂3 Mixture 3	235.04 ±85.47^*	29.82 ±5.65^*	7.33 ±1.45^*	1 282.62 ±85.47^*	40.92 ±6.27^*	32.96 ±6.61^*	368.66 ±20.79^*	109.39 ±7.57^*
混剂4 Mixture 4	213.70 ±19.33^*	12.12 ±2.68^*	10.00 ±1.00^*	1 049.60 ±76.74^*	165.22 ±39.58^*	100.52 ±26.07^*	208.90 ±18.95^*	257.54 ±29.98^*
混剂5 Mixture 5	1 061.34 ±142.21^*	5.91 ±2.53^*	17.67 ±3.51^*	2 788.98 ±41.18^*	81.17 ±3.36^*	257.55 ±12.78^*	554.51 ±105.08^*	182.44 ±22.31^*
混剂6 Mixture 6	184.20 ±30.00^*	108.90 ±10.30^*	14.00 ±1.00^*	1 788.20 ±90.00^*	199.68 ±3.73^*	127.17 ±11.98^*	117.09 ±12.83^*	224.68 ±18.17^*

杀虫剂 Insecticide	第一次刺探时间 Time for the first sucking	第一次刺探持续时间 Duration of the first probe	刺探总次数 Total number of sucking	刺探总持续时间 Total duration of the sucking	S波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for S wave	E波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for E wave	F波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for F wave	R波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for R wave
对照组 Control	87.63 ±8.84	279.90 ±74.27	24.33 ±6.81	2 495.25 ±151.31	57.68 ±1.86	354.81 ±68.78	72.51 ±2.15	26.24 ±4.39
混剂1 Mixture 1	248.10 ±23.10^*	210.00 ±21.00	16.00 ±3.00^*	1 528.10 ±168.90^*	149.20 ±17.17^*	182.87 ±18.59^*	119.82 ±12.93^*	155.14 ±16.59^*
混剂2 Mixture 2	197.70 ±13.30^*	168.90 ±86.10	15.50 ±0.50^*	1 187.00 ±11.20^*	140.03 ±21.57^*	152.80 ±18.23^*	181.20 ±19.00^*	89.31 ±13.54^*
混剂3 Mixture 3	235.04 ±85.47^*	29.82 ±5.65^*	7.33 ±1.45^*	1 282.62 ±85.47^*	40.92 ±6.27^*	32.96 ±6.61^*	368.66 ±20.79^*	109.39 ±7.57^*
混剂4 Mixture 4	213.70 ±19.33^*	12.12 ±2.68^*	10.00 ±1.00^*	1 049.60 ±76.74^*	165.22 ±39.58^*	100.52 ±26.07^*	208.90 ±18.95^*	257.54 ±29.98^*
混剂5 Mixture 5	1 061.34 ±142.21^*	5.91 ±2.53^*	17.67 ±3.51^*	2 788.98 ±41.18^*	81.17 ±3.36^*	257.55 ±12.78^*	554.51 ±105.08^*	182.44 ±22.31^*
混剂6 Mixture 6	184.20 ±30.00^*	108.90 ±10.30^*	14.00 ±1.00^*	1 788.20 ±90.00^*	199.68 ±3.73^*	127.17 ±11.98^*	117.09 ±12.83^*	224.68 ±18.17^*

杀虫剂 Insecticide	第一次刺探时间 Time for the first sucking	第一次刺探持续时间 Duration of the first probe	刺探总次数 Total number of sucking	刺探总持续时间 Total duration of the sucking	S波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for S wave	E波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for E wave	F波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for F wave	R波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for R wave
对照组 Control	87.63 ±8.84	279.90 ±74.27	24.33 ±6.81	2 495.25 ±151.31	57.68 ±1.86	354.81 ±68.78	72.51 ±2.15	26.24 ±4.39
混剂1 Mixture 1	64.70 ±12.30^*	322.80 ±2.40	13.50 ±1.50^*	963.15 ±20.05^*	191.53 ±24.25^*	221.78 ±12.61^*	171.60 ±31.90^*	232.71 ±20.60^*
混剂2 Mixture 2	336.00 ±75.60^*	219.30 ±41.00	3.00 ±0.10^*	1 270.50 ±27.10^*	256.42 ±32.39^*	289.25 ±61.26	220.80 ±27.97^*	224.60 ±13.62^*
混剂3 Mixture 3	725.25 ±128.59^*	280.19 ±9.11	9.00 ±2.51^*	444.69 ±62.18^*	406.44 ±25.82^*	93.73 ±4.92^*	116.80 ±8.48^*	62.69 ±2.56^*
混剂4 Mixture 4	678.77 ±41.13^*	33.18 ±1.46^*	15.00 ±1.16^*	849.05 ±17.50^*	107.81 ±26.01^*	73.27 ±5.00^*	371.18 ±94.54^*	98.39 ±2.59^*
混剂5 Mixture 5	344.05 ±91.84^*	65.93 ±7.81^*	13.67 ±1.49^*	353.20 ±33.28^*	62.16 ±6.99	70.13 ±1.51^*	356.84 ±19.05^*	27.14 ±1.67
混剂6 Mixture 6	84.20 ±3.00	94.20 ±1.60^*	4.00 ±0.30^*	738.00 ±64.00^*	227.66 ±21.93^*	125.14 ±9.37^*	84.24 ±17.19^*	146.60 ±12.69^*

杀虫剂 Insecticide	第一次刺探时间 Time for the first sucking	第一次刺探持续时间 Duration of the first probe	刺探总次数 Total number of sucking	刺探总持续时间 Total duration of the sucking	S波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for S wave	E波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for E wave	F波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for F wave	R波平均刺探时间 Average sucking time for R wave
对照组 Control	87.63 ±8.84	279.90 ±74.27	24.33 ±6.81	2 495.25 ±151.31	57.68 ±1.86	354.81 ±68.78	72.51 ±2.15	26.24 ±4.39
混剂1 Mixture 1	64.70 ±12.30^*	322.80 ±2.40	13.50 ±1.50^*	963.15 ±20.05^*	191.53 ±24.25^*	221.78 ±12.61^*	171.60 ±31.90^*	232.71 ±20.60^*
混剂2 Mixture 2	336.00 ±75.60^*	219.30 ±41.00	3.00 ±0.10^*	1 270.50 ±27.10^*	256.42 ±32.39^*	289.25 ±61.26	220.80 ±27.97^*	224.60 ±13.62^*
混剂3 Mixture 3	725.25 ±128.59^*	280.19 ±9.11	9.00 ±2.51^*	444.69 ±62.18^*	406.44 ±25.82^*	93.73 ±4.92^*	116.80 ±8.48^*	62.69 ±2.56^*
混剂4 Mixture 4	678.77 ±41.13^*	33.18 ±1.46^*	15.00 ±1.16^*	849.05 ±17.50^*	107.81 ±26.01^*	73.27 ±5.00^*	371.18 ±94.54^*	98.39 ±2.59^*
混剂5 Mixture 5	344.05 ±91.84^*	65.93 ±7.81^*	13.67 ±1.49^*	353.20 ±33.28^*	62.16 ±6.99	70.13 ±1.51^*	356.84 ±19.05^*	27.14 ±1.67
混剂6 Mixture 6	84.20 ±3.00	94.20 ±1.60^*	4.00 ±0.30^*	738.00 ±64.00^*	227.66 ±21.93^*	125.14 ±9.37^*	84.24 ±17.19^*	146.60 ±12.69^*