33个苜蓿品种对蓟马的田间抗性比较

doi:10.11686/cyxb20150319

草业学报 ›› 2015, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (3): 187-194.DOI: 10.11686/cyxb20150319

33个苜蓿品种对蓟马的田间抗性比较

白宇¹，高兴珂¹，王业臣¹，陈中超¹，孙娟²，万方浩¹，袁忠林^1*

1.青岛农业大学农学与植物保护学院，山东省植物病虫害综合防控重点实验室，山东青岛 266109;
2.青岛农业大学动物科技学院，山东青岛 266109

收稿日期:2014-10-09 修回日期:2014-12-10 出版日期:2015-03-20 发布日期:2015-03-20
通讯作者: E-mail:zhongliny@163.com
作者简介:白宇(1993-)，男，山西大同人，本科生。E-mail: 563203868@qq.com
基金资助:
现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(CARS-35-33)，青岛农业大学大学生创新项目(2013085)和山东省“泰山学者”建设工程专项资助。

Field comparison of the resistance of 33 alfalfa varieties to thrips

BAI Yu¹, GAO Xingke¹, WANG Yechen¹, CHEN Zhongchao¹, SUN Juan², WAN Fanghao¹, YUAN Zhonglin^1*

1.College of Agriculture, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471003, China;
2.College of Forestry, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471003, China

Received:2014-10-09 Revised:2014-12-10 Online:2015-03-20 Published:2015-03-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为了比较33个苜蓿品种对蓟马的抗性，明确苜蓿品种与受害指数、虫口密度，以及苜蓿株高与虫口密度的关系，作者在第2、3茬苜蓿的营养生长期和初花期对单株蓟马虫口密度进行了调查，并对第3茬苜蓿初花期的受害级别、株高进行了调查，用平均受害指数和模糊聚类法比较了苜蓿品种对蓟马的抗性，分析了平均虫口密度与苜蓿株高及受害指数的关系。结果表明:所有苜蓿品种有虫株率均达100%，不同品种单株平均虫口密度范围为3.15～8.55头/株。以受害指数法评价苜蓿品种的抗性，抗性最高的品种为Brarlfa 53HQ，最感虫的品种为5S43;用模糊聚类法得出抗性最强的品种为Baralfa 421Q，感虫的品种包括5S43;虽然两种比较结果有一定的差别，但总体的趋势趋于一致，模糊聚类法考虑的因素较多，能比较全面地评价苜蓿对蓟马的抗性，其评价结果更为可靠。单株虫口密度与受害指数和株高关系表明，它们均存在明显的曲线关系，虫口密度与受害指数的曲线方程分别为y=(-113.2563+53.6489x)/x，与株高的曲线方程为y=x/(-0.0104+0.0230x)，经χ²检验，这两个方程的拟合程度均很好。

Abstract: The aim of this study was to compare the resistance of 33 alfalfa varieties to thrips, and to clarify the relationship between population density of thrips and alfalfa plant height and plant damage index. The thrip population of a single branch of each of the 33 varieties was counted during flower development and the main flowering period of the 2^nd and 3^rd alfalfa cuts of a growing season. Plant height and severity of damage to leaves of the sampled branch were also investigated in the primary flowering period prior to the 3^rd cut. Thrip resistance of the alfalfa varieties was compared using a damage index and fuzzy clustering techniques. The relationships between population density of thrips and damage index and plant height were analyzed by regression. All alfalfa varieties carried thrips with thrip density ranging from 3.15-8.55 thrips/head. As assessed by damage index, the most resistant variety was Bararlfa 53HQ, and the least resistant was 5S43. Using Fuzzy cluster analysis, the most resistant variety was Baralfa 421Q, while the least resistant variety was again 5S43. Despite some ranking differences between the two methods, the general conclusions were the same. Since cluster analysis uses population density and damage grade of leaves, it is more suitable for evaluation of resistance. The equation slinking population density and damage index and branch height were, respectively, y=(-113.2563+53.6489x)/x, and y=x/(-0.0104+0.0230x). A chi-square test (χ²) showed the two equations to be related.

白宇，高兴珂，王业臣，陈中超，孙娟，万方浩，袁忠林. 33个苜蓿品种对蓟马的田间抗性比较[J]. 草业学报, 2015, 24(3): 187-194.

BAI Yu, GAO Xingke, WANG Yechen, CHEN Zhongchao, SUN Juan, WAN Fanghao, YUAN Zhonglin. Field comparison of the resistance of 33 alfalfa varieties to thrips[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(3): 187-194.

参考文献

Wu Y F, Zhao X H, Temuerbuhe. The thrips are main injurious insects of alfalfa production in China. Grassland of China, 1990, (3): 65-66.
He C G. Insect Pests and Disease Control of Alfalfa. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2004.
He C G, Wang S S, Cao Z H, et al. Field evaluation on resistance of 40 Medicago cultivars (lines) to thrips. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2007, 16(5): 79-83.
Wang C X. Field evaluation on the resistance of 5 alfalfa cultivars in seedling stage to thrips. Gansu Agriculture, 2009, (12): 100-101.
Ma L, He C G, Hu G X, et al. Field evaluation of 4 alfalfa cultivars (Clones) for resistance to thrips. Plant Protection, 2009, 35(6): 146-149.
Zhou M Z. The Principle and Application of Crop Resistance to Insect Pests. Beijing: Beijing Agricultural University Press, 1992.
Wu Y F, Wei L, Zhao X H, et al. The resistance source screening of alfalfa against thrips. Grassland of China, 1990, (5): 61-63, 65.
Yuan Q H, Zhang W S. Study on the resistant germplasm materials of alfalfa to thrips. Plant Protection, 2006, 32(1): 85-87.
Temuerbuhe, Shuang Q, Bao L E. Study on the anatomy of ground part vegetative organ of new strains alfalfa. Inner Mongolia Prataculture, 2002, 14(4): 38-39.
Temuerbuhe, Shuang Q, Tegus, et al. The observation of botanical characteristics of new alfalfa varieties with resistance to thrips. Inner Mongolia Prataculture, 2003, 15(4): 9-12.
Hu G X, He C G, Wang S S, et al. Study on resistance mechanism of Medicago sativa to Odontothrps loti. Pratacultural Science, 2007, 24(9): 86-89.
Li Y Z, Nan Z B, Wang Y R, et al. Evaluation on the resistance of alfalfa to thrips. Pratacultural Science, 2006, 23(17): 9-14.
Lu W D. Statistical Analysis of SPSS for Windows. Beijing: Electronic Industry Press, 2000.
Zhang X Z. The chemical information materials between plants, phytophagous insects and predators. Entomological Knowledge, 1994, 31(1): 52-55.
Wu J X. Agricultural Entomology (the north). Beijing: Chinese Agricultural Press, 2009.
Wu M X, Jiang Z H, Li W L. Resistance of 3 cultivars of vegetable soybean to Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius). Subtropical Agriculture Research, 2013, 9(1): 19-23.
Fathi S A A. Screening of the susceptibility of newly released genotypes of potato to thrips infestation under field conditions in northwest Iran. Crop Protection, 2014, 62: 79-85.
Joshi S V, Zhou M M, Leslie G W, et al. Comparison of methods for determining thrips (Fulmekiola serrata) damage and implications for resistance screening. International Sugar Journal, 2014, 116: 214-216.
Jin J, Liang J, He C G. Antibiosis of five alfalfa cultivars to two colour morphs of Acyrthosiphon pisum. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2013, 22(6): 335-340.
Li X, Wu Y J, Sun L X. Growth and physiological responses of three warm-season turfgrasses to lead stress. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(4): 171-180.
Sun L X, Sun P, Cai S Z, et al. Physiological responses of four cold-season turfgrasses to oxidative stress of SO₂. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(4): 237-244.
Ma H L, Fang Y Y. Induction of plant disease resistance and its application for disease control in creeping bentgrass. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(5): 312-320.

参考文献:
吴永敷, 赵秀华, 特木尔布和. 蓟马是我国苜蓿生产的主要害虫. 中国草地, 1990, (3): 65-66.
贺春贵. 苜蓿病虫草鼠害防治. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2004 .
贺春贵, 王森山, 曹致中, 等. 40个苜蓿品种( 系) 对蓟马田间抗性评价. 草业学报, 2007, 16(5): 79-83.
王彩香. 5个苜蓿品种苗期田间抗蓟马性评价. 甘肃农业, 2009, (12): 100-101.
马琳, 贺春贵, 胡桂馨, 等. 四个苜蓿品种无性系大田抗蓟马性能评价. 植物保护, 2009, 35(6): 146-149.
周明牂. 作物抗虫性原理及应用. 北京: 北京农业大学出版社, 1992.
吴永敷, 薇玲, 赵秀华, 等. 苜蓿对蓟马的抗源筛选试验. 中国草地, 1990, (5): 61-63, 65.
袁庆华, 张文淑. 苜蓿种质材料对蓟马抗性的研究. 植物保护, 2006, 32(1): 85-87.
特木尔布和, 双全, 宝乐儿. 苜蓿抗蓟马新品系地上营养的解剖构造研究. 内蒙古草业, 2002, 14(4): 38-39.
特木尔布和, 双全, 特古斯, 等. 抗蓟马苜蓿新品种的植物学特征的观察研究. 内蒙古草业, 2003, 15(4): 9-12.
胡桂馨, 贺春贵, 王森山, 等. 不同苜蓿品种对牛角花齿蓟马的抗性机制初步研究. 草业科学, 2007, 24(9): 86-89.
李彦忠, 南志标, 王彦荣, 等. 苜蓿品种对蓟马的抗性评价. 草业科学, 2006, 23(17): 9-14.
卢纹岱. SPSS for Windows 统计分析. 北京: 电子工业出版社, 2000.
张学祖. 植物、植食性昆虫及捕食者种间化学信息物质.昆虫知识, 1994, 31(1): 52-55.
仵均祥. 农业昆虫学(北方本). 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2009.
吴梅香, 蒋振环, 李雯琳. 3个菜用大豆品种对烟粉虱的抗虫性. 亚热带农业研究, 2013, 9(1): 19-23.
金娟, 梁金, 贺春贵. 苜蓿品种对2种色型豌豆蚜的抗生性. 草业学报, 2013, 22(6): 335-340.
李西, 吴亚娇, 孙凌霞. 铅胁迫对三种暖季型草坪草生长和生理特性的影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 171-180.
孙凌霞, 孙萍, 蔡仕珍, 等. 四种冷季型草坪草对二氧化硫胁迫的生理响应研究. 草业学报, 2014, 23(4): 237-244.
马晖玲, 房媛媛. 植物抗病性及诱导抗性在匍匐翦股颖病害防治中的应用. 草业学报, 2014, 23(5): 312-320

33个苜蓿品种对蓟马的田间抗性比较

Field comparison of the resistance of 33 alfalfa varieties to thrips

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics