Effect of different insecticides on sucking behavior of Empoasca onukii Matsuda

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20231290

Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis ›› 2024, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (10): 2273-2282.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.20231290

• Plant Protection • Previous Articles Next Articles

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

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

S433.3

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.

Figures/Tables 8

References 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^*

Effect of different insecticides on sucking behavior of Empoasca onukii Matsuda

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 21

Related Articles 9

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	QIAO Li, CHEN Lei, JIANG Yueli, ZHOU Zhou, GENG Shubao, WANG Lijuan. Interference of LED green light on the feeding behavior of Empoasca onukii Matsuda [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2024, 36(9): 2051-2059.
[2]	YANG Chun, MENG Zehong, LI Shuai, LIANG Sihui, QIAO Dahe, CHEN Zhengwu. Resistance of 12 tea cultivars to Dendrothrips minowai Priesner and Empoasca Onukii Matsuda and a preliminary identification of resistant components [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2022, 34(8): 1713-1724.
[3]	LIU Xinju, WU Shenggan, AN Xuehua, JIANG Jinhua, LYU Lu, LI Gang, WANG Feidi, ZHAO Xueping. Acute toxicity and risk assessment of neonicotinoid insecticides to the silkworm, Bombyx mori [J]. Acta Agriculturae Zhejiangensis, 2021, 33(10): 1931-1938.
[4]	LU Yanhui, TIAN Junce, ZHENG Xusong, XU Hongxing, YANG Yajun, YANG Taiyuan, SHI Zhaoyun, LÜ Zhongxian1,. Laboratory toxicity of 26 insecticides against different instar larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda* [J]. , 2019, 31(12): 2049-2056.
[5]	XIE Daoyan, YANG Zhenguo, CHAI Jianping, ZHOU Chuntao, LUO Yanjie. Toxicities of eight insecticides against Tetranychus cinnabarinus and their acute toxicities to Bombyx mori [J]. , 2018, 30(3): 420-425.
[6]	WANG Caiyun, YANG Yajun, XU Hongxing, ZHENG Xusong, TIAN Junce, LU Yanhui, LYU Zhongxian. Detoxified enzymatic activities and insecticidal susceptibility of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis from different geographic populations [J]. , 2017, 29(1): 73-80.
[7]	HANG Jin\\|ming;ZHANG Peng\\|jun;HUANG Fang;SONG Liang;LIU Min;LYU Yao\\|bin;*;LIN Xiao\\|yong;YE Xin\\|ye. Sensitivity to several types of insecticides in field populations of Spodoptera litura in Zhejiang Province [J]. , 2014, 26(1): 0-116.
[8]	JIANG Wei;HU Jing-yi;SUN Zhi-wei;GU Fang-hong*;SONG Tao. Establishment and application of detection methods for 15 pesticide residues in beer barley [J]. , 2010, 22(6): 795-801.
[9]	TONG Sen-miao;WANG Pin-wei;SUN Yi-zhao;ZHANG Li-qin;*;MA Jian—yi;SHENG Xian-qiao . lnsectiddal effect of camptothecin against Nitaparvata Lugens，Brevicoryne Brassicae and Chilosuppressalis Walker [J]. , 2009, 21(3): 0-292.

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^*