豌豆抗豌豆象育种及其综合防治研究进展

doi:10.11686/cyxb2016360

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 豌豆是重要的豆科经济作物,世界范围内均有种植,因其营养价值高深受人们喜爱。豌豆象是严重危害豌豆的害虫,全球普遍发生。豌豆象幼虫可蛀食籽粒超过50%的子叶部分,导致籽粒空瘪,发芽率降低,品质变差,商品价值丧失。豌豆象已成为严重制约豌豆产业健康持续发展的因素之一。豌豆栽培种中尚未发现可遗传的豌豆象抗性资源,然而在豌豆近缘野生种中发现了抗性资源,遗传研究表明3对隐性基因控制豆象抗性。α-淀粉酶抑制剂(α-amylase inhibitor,α-AI)和豌豆neoplastic pod(Np)基因突变体植株可有效减轻豌豆象危害。豌豆转基因抗虫育种虽然已获成功,但由于安全性问题,目前唯一有效的防治方法仍然是化学药剂的使用。为了解和掌握豌豆象最新研究前沿动态,促进豌豆象有效防治,本研究从豌豆象、豌豆抗豆象及豌豆象综合防治等3方面研究进展进行了综述。基于此,指出我国目前研究中存在的问题,并提出豌豆象、豌豆抗豆象育种及其综合防治领域未来的研究重点和方向。

Abstract: Pea (Pisum sativum) is an important economic legume crop that is cultivated around the world for its high nutritional value. The pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) is the most destructive pest of pea crops worldwide. The boring of pea weevil larvae can destroy more than 50% of the cotyledon parts in pea grains, leading to empty grains, poor seed germination, and poor seed quality. The pea weevil has become one of the most serious factors restricting the sustainable development of the pea industry. Genetic resources for pea weevil resistance have not been found in cultivated pea varieties, but have been detected in wild pea. Genetic studies have revealed that the inheritance of resistance to pea weevil is controlled by at least three recessive genes. In other studies, α-amylase inhibitor (α-AI) and neoplastic pod (Np) mutants of pea showed a degree of resistance to pea weevil. Although transgenic pea lines have been developed, their potential threats to human and animal health mean that chemical pesticides are still the most efficient methods to control pea weevil. In this paper, we review recent advances in pea weevil research, including breeding for resistance and integrated management systems. We discuss the current state of research on pea weevil in China and the problems remaining to be solved.

王昶, 贺春贵, 张丽娟, 杨晓明. 豌豆抗豌豆象育种及其综合防治研究进展[J]. 草业学报, 2017, 26(7): 213-224.

WANG Chang, HE Chun-Gui, ZHANG Li-Juan, YANG Xiao-Ming. Advances in breeding of pea (Pisum sativum) with resistance to pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) and its integrated management[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(7): 213-224.

参考文献

[1] FAO. FAOSTAT Database[DB/OL]. 2010 [2016-08-08]. http: //www.fao.org/faostat.
[2] FAO. FAOSTAT Database[DB/OL]. 2014 [2016-08-08]. http: //www.fao.org/faostat.
[3] Teshome A, Mendesil E, Geleta M, et al . Screening the primary gene pool of field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) in Ethiopia for resistance against pea weevil ( Bruchus pisorum L.). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 2015, 62(4): 525-538.
[4] Messiaen C M, Seif A A, Jarso M, et al . Pisum sativum L.[DB/OL]//Brink M, Belay G. Record from PROTA4U. (2013-11-18) [2016-08-08]. http://www.prota4u.org/search.asp.
[5] Sharma H C, Srivastava C P, Durairaj C, et al . Pest management in grain legumes and climate change[M]//Yadav S S, McNeil D L, Redden R, et al . Climate Change and Management of Cool Season Grain Legume Crops[M]. Berlin: Springer, 2010: 115-139.
[6] Ali K, Chichaybelu M, Abate T, et al . Two decades of research on insect pests of grain legumes[C]//Tadesse A. Increasing Crop Production Through Improved Plant Protection. Addis Ababa: Plant Protection Society of Ethiopia (PPSE) and EIAR, 2008: 38-84.
[7] Plantwise. Bruchus pisorum Distribution Map[DB/OL]. (2014-01-22) 2016-08-08. http://www.plantwise.org/KnowledgeBank.
[8] Hardie D, Clement S. Development of bioassays to evaluate wild pea germplasm for resistance to pea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Crop Protection, 2001, 20(6): 517-522.
[9] Teka W. The importance and distribution of pea weevil ( Bruchus pisorum ) in the Amhara region[C]//Proceedings of a National Workshop on the Management of Pea Weevil ( Bruchus pisorum ). Ethiopia: Bahir Dar Press, 2002: 25-27.
[10] Xu Z D. Various measures of control the pea weevil and broad bean weevil by farmers in Northern Jiangsu Province. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 1952, 7: 28-29.
徐忠谠. 苏北农民防治蚕豆象和豌豆象的各种措施. 中国农业科学, 1952, 7: 28-29.
[11] Zhu X S. The studies on pea weevil investigation and its control in North Western China. Acta Entomologica Sinica, 1955, 5(1): 105-114.
朱象三. 北区豌豆象调查与防治的研究. 昆虫学报, 1955, 5(1): 105-114.
[12] Shou Z B. Occurrence and verification in Wuwei district. Plant Protection, 1965, 3(3): 112.
首章北. 武威地区豌豆象的发生与检验. 植物保护, 1965, 3(3): 112.
[13] Xie C J. Determination of the egg development temperature threshold and effective accumulated temperature of pea weevil. Plant Quarantine, 2003, 17(4): 220-223.
谢成君. 豌豆象卵发育起点温度和有效积温测定. 植物检疫, 2003, 17(4): 220-223.
[14] Lian R F, Wang M C, Mo J P. Occurrence and control of pea weevil in Dingxi city of Gansu. Gansu Agricultural Science and Technology, 2008, 10: 59-60.
连荣芳, 王梅春, 墨金萍. 豌豆象在定西市的发生与防治. 甘肃农业科技, 2008, 10: 59-60.
[15] Brindley T A. Some notes on the biology of the pea weevil Bruchus pisorum L.(Coleoptera, Bruchidae) at Moscow, Idaho. Journal of Economic Entomology, 1933, 26(6): 1058-1062.
[16] Pesho G R, Muehlbauer F J, Harberts W H. Resistance of pea introductions to pea weevil. Journal of Economic Entomology, 1977, 70(2): 30-33.
[17] The Luotian Field Crop Disease and Insect Pests Forecast Station. Biology and control of the pea weevil in Luotian, Hubei. Acta Entomologica Sinica, 1966, 15(4): 288-293.
罗田县农作物病虫预测预报站. 湖北罗田豌豆象的生物学和防治. 昆虫学报, 1966, 15(4): 288-293.
[18] Clement S L, Wightman J A, Hardie D C, et al . Opportunities for integrated management of insect pests of grain legumes[M]//Knight R. Linking Research and Marketing Opportunities for Pulses in the 21st Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000: 467-480.
[19] Girsch L, Cate P C, Weinhappel M. A new method for determining the infestation of field beans ( Vicia faba ) and peas ( Pisum sativum ) with bean beetle ( Bruchus rufimanus ) and pea beetle ( Bruchus pisorum ), respectively. Seed Science and Technology, 1999, 27: 377-383.
[20] Clement S L, McPhee K E, Elberson L R, et al . Pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), resistance in Pisum sativum × Pisum fulvum interspecific crosses. Plant Breeding, 2009, 128(5): 478-485.
[21] Brindley T A, Chamberlin J C, Schopp R. The pea weevil and methods for its control[M]//Farmers’ Bulletin. Washington: US Department of Agriculture, 1956: 1-24.
[22] Pesho G R, van Houten R J. Pollen and sexual maturation of the pea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 1982, 75(4): 439-443.
[23] Annis B A, O’Keeffe L E. Response of two Lathyrus species to infestation by the pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata, 1984, 35(1): 83-87.
[24] Amosa E M. Evaluation of Plant Resistance in Field Pea by Host Plant Choice Behaviour of Pea Weevil ( Bruchus pisorum L.): Implications for Pest Management[D]. Alnarp: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2015: 1-43.
[25] Smith J H, O’Keeffe L E, Muehlbauer F J. Methods of screening dry peas for resistance to the pea weevil (Coleoptera:Bruchidae): variability in seed infestation levels. Journal Economic Entomology, 1982, 75: 530-534.
[26] Brindley T A, Chamberlin J C. The pea weevil[C]//Yearbook of Agriculture 1952. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1952: 530-537.
[27] Al-Rawy M A, Kaddou I K. Pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum (L.) (Coleoptera, Bruchidae) infesting Vicia faba L. in Iraq. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 1971, 68(6): 365-371.
[28] Horne J, Bailey P. Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera, Bruchidae) control by a knockdown pyrethroid in field peas. Crop Protection, 1991, 10(1): 53-56.
[29] Makasheva R K. The Pea[M]. New Delhi, India: Oxonian Press, 1983.
[30] Clement S L, Hardie D C, Elberson L R. Variation among accessions of Pisum fulvum for resistance to pea weevil. Crop Science, 2002, 42(6): 2167-2173.
[31] Smith A M. Pea weevil ( Bruchus pisorum L.) and crop loss implications for management[M]//Fujii K, Gatehouse A M R, Johnson C D, et al . Bruchids and Legumes: Economics, Ecology and Coevolution. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990: 105-114.
[32] Visser J H. Host odor perception in phytophagous insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 2003, 31(1): 121-144.
[33] Bruce T J A, Wadhams L J, Woodcock C M. Insect host location: a volatile situation. Trends in Plant Science, 2005, 10(6): 269-274.
[34] Bernays E A, Chapman R E. Host-plant Selection by Phytophagous Insects[M]. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1994.
[35] Schoonhoven L M, van Loon J J A, Dicke M. Insect-plant Biology[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
[36] Ceballos R, Fernández N, Zúñiga S, et al . Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of pea weevil Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleóptera: Bruchidae) to volatiles collected from its host Pisum sativum L. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 2015, 75(2): 202-209.
[37] Dudareva N, Pichersky E, Gershenzon J. Biochemistry of plant volatiles. Plant Physiology, 2004, 135(4): 1893-1902.
[38] Paukku S, Kotiaho J S. Female oviposition decisions and their impact on progeny life-history traits. Journal of Insect Behavior, 2008, 21(6): 505-520.
[39] Simmonds M S J, Blaney W M, Birch A N E. Legume seeds: the defence of a wild and cultivated species of Phaseolus against attack by bruchid beetles. Annals of Botany, 1989, 63: 177-184.
[40] Redden R J, McGuire J. The genetic evaluation of bruchid resistance in seed of cowpea. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 1983, 34(6): 707-715.
[41] Fernandez G C J, Talekar N S. Genetics and breeding for bruchid resistance in Asiatic Vigna species[M]//Fujii K, Gatehouse A M R, Johnson C D, et al . Bruchids and Legumes: Economics, Ecology and Coevolution. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990: 209-217.
[42] Young N D, Kumar L, Menancio-Hautea D, et al . RFLP mapping of a major bruchid resistance gene in mungbean ( Vigna radiata , L. Wilczek). Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 1992, 84(7): 839-844.
[43] Souframanien J, Gupta S, Gopalakrishna T. Identification of quantitative trait loci for bruchid ( Callosobruchus maculatus ) resistance in black gram [ Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper]. Euphytica, 2010, 176(3): 349-356.
[44] Fatunla T, Badaru K. Inheritance of resistance to cow-pea weevil ( Callosobruchus maculatus , Fabr.). The Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 1983, 101(2): 423-426.
[45] Lawson D M, Lunde C F, Mutschler M A. Marker-assisted transfer of acylsugarmediated pest-resitance from the wild tomato, Lycopersicon pennellii , to the cultivated tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum . Molecular Breeding, 1997, 3(4): 307-317.
[46] Jung C, Cai D, Kleine M. Engineering nematode resistance in crop species. Trends in Plant Science, 1998, 3(7): 266-271.
[47] Gallun R L, Patterson F L. Monosomic analysis of wheat for resistance to Hessian-fly. Journal of Heredity, 1977, 68(4): 223-226.
[48] Hardie D C, Baker G J, Marshall D R. Field screening of Pisum accessions to evaluate their susceptibility to the pea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Euphytica, 1995, 84(2): 155-161.
[49] Aryamanesh N, Byrne O, Hardie D C, et al . Large-scale density-based screening for pea weevil resistance in advanced backcross lines derived from cultivated field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) and Pisum fulvum . Crop & Pasture Science, 2012, 63(7): 612-618.
[50] Ben-Ze’ev N, Zohary D. Species relationships in the genus Pisum L. Israel. Journal of Botany, 1973, 22: 73-91.
[51] Bryne O M T. Incorporation of Pea Weevil Resistance from Wild Pea ( Pisum fulvum ) into Field Pea ( Pisum sativum L.)[D]. Perth: The University of Western Australia, 2005.
[52] Byrne O M, Hardie D C, Khan T N, et al . Genetic analysis of pod and seed resistance to pea weevil in a Pisum sativum × P. fulvum interspecific cross. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 2008, 59(9): 854-862.
[53] Aryamanesh N, Zeng Y, Byrne O, et al . Identification of genome regions controlling cotyledon, pod wall/seed coat and pod wall resistance to pea weevil through QTL mapping. Theoretical & Applied Genetics, 2014, 127(2): 489-497.
[54] Morton R L, Schroeder H E, Bateman K S, et al . Bean α-amylase inhibitor 1 in transgenic peas ( Pisum sativum ) provides complete protection from pea weevil ( Bruchus pisorum ) under field conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2000, 97(8): 3820-3825.
[55] Ho M F, Whitaker J R. Purification and partial characterization of white kidney bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris ) β-amylase inhibitors from two experimental cultivars. Journal of Food Biochemistry, 1993, 17(17): 15-33.
[56] Ho M F, Whitaker J R. Subunit structures and essential amino acid residues of white kidney bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris ) α-amylase inhibitors. Journal of Food Biochemistry, 1993, 17(1): 35-52.
[57] Ishimoto M, Kitamura K. Growth inhibitory effects of an α-amylase inhibitor from the Kidney bean , Phaseolus vulgaris (L.) on three species of bruchids (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Applied Entomology & Zoology, 1989, 24(3): 281-286.
[58] Suzuki K, Ishimoto M, Kikuchi F, et al . Growth inhibitory effect of an alpha-amylase inhibitor from the wild common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris )resistant to the Mexican bean weevil ( Zabrotes subfasciatus ). Japanese Journal of Breeding, 1993, 43(2): 257-265.
[59] Mirkov T E, Wahlstrom J M, Hagiwara K, et al . Evolutionary relationships among proteins in the phytohemagglutin in-arcelin-alpha-amylase inhibitor family of the common bean and its relatives. Plant Molecular Biology, 1994, 26(4): 1103-1113.
[60] Grossi de Sa M F, Mirkov T E, Ishimoto M, et al . Molecular characterization of a bean α-amylase inhibitor that inhibits the α-amylase of the Mexican bean weevil Zabrotes subfasciatus . Planta, 1997, 203(3): 295-303.
[61] Shade R E, Schroeder H E, Pueyo J J, et al . Transgenic pea seeds expressing the alpha-amylase inhibitor of the common bean are resistant to bruchid beetles. Nature Biotechnology, 1994, 12(8): 793-796.
[62] Schroeder H E, Gollasch S, Moore A, et al . Bean alpha-amylase inhibitor confers resistance to the pea weevil ( Bruchus pisorum ) in transgenic peas ( Pisum sativum L.). Plant Physiology, 1995, 107(4): 1233-1239.
[63] Lagadic L. Some characteristics of digestive α-glycosidases from adults of Bruchus affinis Frölich, in relation with intestinal pH. Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology Part A Physiology, 1994, 108(2/3): 249-253.
[64] Cheng M S, Feng G, Zen K C, et al . α-amylases from three species of stored grain coleoptera and their inhibition by wheat and corn proteinaceous inhibitors. Insect Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, 1992, 22(3): 261-268.
[65] Silva C P, Terra W R, Xavier-Filho J, et al . Digestion in larvae of Callosobruchus maculatus and Zabrotes subfasciatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) with emphasis on α-amylases and oligosaccharidases. Insect Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, 1999, 29(4): 355-366.
[66] Carlson G L, Li B U K, Bass P, et al . A bean alpha-amylase inhibitor formulation (starch blocker) is ineffective in man. Science, 1983, 219: 393-395.
[67] Le Berre-Anton V, Bompard-Gilles C, Payan F, et al . Characterization and functional properties of the alpha-amylase inhibitor (alpha-AI) from kidney bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris ) seeds. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta, 1997, 1343(1): 31-40.
[68] Fogel M R, Gray G M. Starch hydrolysis in man: an intraluminal process not requiring membrane digestion. Journal of Applied Physiology, 1973, 35(2): 263-267.
[69] Berdnikov V A, Trusov Y A, Bogdanova V S, et al . The neoplastic pod gene ( Np ) may be a factor for resistance to the pest Bruchus pisorum L. Pisum Genetics, 1992, 24: 37-39.
[70] Doss R P, Oliver J E, Proebsting W M, et al . Bruchins: insect-derived plant regulators that stimulate neoplasm formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2000, 97: 6218-6223.
[71] Nuttall V W, Lyall L H. Inheritance of neoplastic pod in the pea. Journal of Heredity, 1964, 55(4): 184-186.
[72] Dodds K S, Matthews P. Neoplastic pod in the pea. Journal of Heredity, 1966, 57(3): 83-88.
[73] Snoad B, Matthews P. Neoplasms of the pea pod. Chromosomes Today, 1969, 2: 126-131.
[74] Burgess J, Fleming E N. The structure and development of a genetic tumour of the pea. Protoplasma, 1973, 76(3): 315-325.
[75] Doss R P. Treatment of pea pods with Bruchin B results in up-regulation of a gene similar to MtN19. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2005, 43(3): 225-231.
[76] Cooper L D, Doss R P, Price R, et al . Application of Bruchin B to pea pods results in the up-regulation of CYP93C18, a putative isoflavone synthase gene, and an increase in the level of pisatin, an isoflavone phytoalexin. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2005, 56: 1229-1237.
[77] Lee R Y, Reiner D, Higgins T J V. Effect on alpha-amylase Kinhibitor genetically modified (GM) pea consumption on lung inflammation in a mouse model of allergic asthma. Clinical & Translational Allergy, 2011, 1(Suppl 1): 1.
[78] OGTR. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator[DB/OL]. 2005 [2016-08-08]. http://www. ogtr. gov. au.
[79] Hoey B K, Crowe K R, Jones V M, et al . A phylogenetic analysis of Pisum based on morphological characters, and allozyme and RAPD markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 1996, 92(1): 92-100.
[80] Blixt S. The Pea[M]//King R C. Handbook of Genetics. New York: Plenum Press, 1974: 181-221.
[81] Sousa-Majer de M J, Turner N C, Hardie D C, et al . Response to water deficit and high temperature of transgenic peas ( Pisum sativum L.) containing a seed-specific α-amylase inhibitor and the subsequent effects on pea weevil ( Bruchus pisorum L.) survival. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2004, 55: 497-505.
[82] Mihiretu E, Wale M. Effect of harvesting and threshing time and grain fumigation of field peas ( Pisum sativum L.) on pea weevil ( Bruchus pisorum L.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) development and damage. Ethiopian Journal of Science & Technology, 2013, 6(1): 13-24.
[83] Ratnadass A, Fernandes P, Avelino J, et al . Plant species diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases in agroecosystems: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2012, 32(1): 273-303.
[84] Tooker J F, Frank S D. Genotypically diverse cultivar mixtures for insect pest management and increased crop yields. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 49: 974-985.
[85] Doring T F, Knapp S, Kovacs G, et al . Evolutionary plant breeding in cereals-into a new era. Sustainability, 2011, 3: 1944-1971.
[86] Zhang Z B, Cao J. Pest Control: Strategies and Methods[M]. Beijing: Science and Technology Press, 1990: 504-562.
张宗炳, 曹骥. 害虫防治: 策略与方法[M]. 北京: 科学技术出版社, 1990: 504-562.
[87] Wang Y W, Zhang G Z. Effective control way of the pests. Journal of Anhui Agricultural Sciences, 2003, 31(1): 120-122, 124.
王亚维. 张国洲. 农业害虫农业防治和物理防治方法的研究. 安徽农业科学, 2003, 31(1): 120-122, 124.
[88] Zhong W W, Yang X M. Current progress on research of pea weevil. Crops, 2014, 2: 21-25.
仲伟文, 杨晓明. 豌豆象的发生、危害、防治对策及豌豆抗豌豆象的遗传机理综述. 作物杂志, 2014, 2: 21-25.
[89] Khan T N, Croser J S. Pea: Overview[M]//Wrigley C, Corke H, Walker C E. Encyclopedia of Grain Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press, 2004: 287-295.
[90] Annis B, O’Keeffe L E. Influence of pea genotype on parasitization of the pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) by Eupteromalus leguminis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Environmental Entomology, 1987, 16: 653-655.
[91] Hormazabal R L, Gerding P M. Release density of Uscana senex Grese (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) for control of Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Agro-Ciencia, 1998, 14: 157-161.
[92] Pintureau B, Gerding M, Cisternas E. Description of three new species of Trichogrammatidae (Hymenoptera) from Chile. The Canadian Entomologist, 1999, 131(1): 53-63.
[93] Wilson F. A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian. Entomophaga, 1960, 6(1): 76.
[94] Bruce T J A, Martin J L, Smart L E, et al . Development of semiochemical attractants for monitoring bean seed beetle, Bruchus rufimanus . Pest Management Science, 2011, 67(10): 1303-1308.