不同桉树种质对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的抗性研究
|
摘要
桉树枝瘿姬小蜂Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle,英文俗名为blue gum chalcid,属膜翅目Hymenoptera、姬小蜂科Eulophidae,是近年来发现的一个危害桉树的新种(Mendel et al.,2004),目前已有数个机构对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂进行了研究,包括生物学、生态学、发生危害、药物防治等方面。其中在桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的防治上,在化学防治方面,尚未见高效的化学防治的相关报道；在生物防治上,有过天敌的报道,是一种优势种寄生蜂属膜翅目(Hymenop tera)小蜂总科(Chalcidoidea)姬小蜂科(Eul ophidae)长尾啮小蜂属(Aprostocetus),其来源和种名有待鉴定(吴耀军,蒋学建,李德伟,等.2009；李德伟,2010),可尚未成熟,有待研究,并且天敌的引进需谨慎,对于桉树枝瘿姬小蜂这种类寄生蜂的害虫引进天敌,需要对其进行风险性分析,还有就是天敌大量繁育的问题。所以,目前评价和选育优良的桉树抗性品种,是一种较为科学,合理,快速的防治方法；在生产上也比较容易让广大桉树种植户接受。本文从野外种群动态调查、室内成虫羽化量、野外接蜂调查、桉树组织切片观察以及桉树营养物质测定分析几个方面较为系统地研究了尾赤桉DH201、小叶桉、GL9、雷17、JG1和JG21六个不同桉树品种对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的抗性强弱,以及影响其抗性强弱的主要因素,现将主要结果总结如下：
1.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂野外种群动态调查的出得桉树抗虫性强弱
在野外的观测中,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉受桉树枝瘿姬小蜂危害极为严重,GL9和雷17危害较轻,而JGl和JG21更是无感虫情况,而野外的黄板调查也显示,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉严重感虫,GL9则感虫较轻,两者之间达到了显著差异。而JG1和JG21则无感虫情况。从而初步判定这几种桉树品种对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的抗虫性强弱依次为：JG1=JG21>GL9=雷17>小叶桉=尾赤桉DH201。
2.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂室内成虫羽化量调查判定桉树抗虫性强弱
从野外采集回来的不同桉树品种的受感染枝条,在室内相同条件下,其羽化量存在着显著地差异。
尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉受感染枝条上的成虫羽化量要远远多于GL9,特别是在一年中的第二季度和第三季度时,差异极大。进一步判定几种桉树品种对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的抗虫性强弱。
3.野外接蜂调查判定各品种桉树的抗虫性强弱
统计不同桉树品种各植株上桉树枝瘿姬小蜂虫瘿数量,计算有虫株率、株平均虫瘿数和单个样本最大虫瘿数。可以看出供试的6个品种中,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉的有虫株率均达到了100%,表现出高度感虫,其次为GL9和雷17,其有虫株率也达到了60%；从株平均虫瘿数来看,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉分别达到了8.20±1.16个/株和8.33±0.33个/株,GL9和雷17相对较少,只有1.13±1.00个/株和1.0±0.83个/株,而JG1和JG21则基本不感虫。单株最大虫瘿数也表明供试的6个桉树品种中,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉最感虫,GL9和雷17轻度感虫,JG1和JG21属抗性较强的品种。再次验证了六种桉树对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂抗性强弱关系为：JG1=JG21>GL9=雷17>小叶桉=尾赤桉DH201。
4.桉树组织结构对其抗虫性的影响
抗虫性较弱的尾赤桉DH201与小叶桉,外表皮较厚,细胞间排列疏松,抗性较强的GL9和雷17,外表皮一般,细胞间排列也较紧密,而不感虫的JG1和JG21外表皮较薄,细胞间排列也更加紧密。
表皮的粗糙程度与薄厚程度影响桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的寄生表皮越粗糙,越厚实,则越容易受到桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的寄生。
5.桉树枝条内营养物质含量对其抗虫性的影响
各桉树品种的粗纤维含量均在20%-40%之间,尾赤桉DH-201和小叶桉的粗纤维含量显著低于其他四个品种,纤维素含量与抗虫性成负相关。
JG1和JG21的粗蛋白含量和含氮量要显著高于其他桉树品种,而二者抗性最强,所以粗蛋白含量与抗虫性成正相关。
尾赤桉DH-201和小叶桉的可溶性糖含量要显著高于其他四个桉树品种,二者的抗虫性最弱,所以可溶性糖含量与抗虫性成负相关。
Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle, the English common name is blue gum chalcid, the case of the Hymenoptera Hymenoptera, Eulophidae Eulophidae, a new species that discovered hazard eucalyptus in recent years (Mendel, et al.,2004). At present, there are several organizations have researched Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle, including biology, ecology, occurrence and damage, drug prevention and treatment. Prevention of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle, chemical control has not been highly effective chemical control reports; in biological control, there are reports of natural enemies, is a dominant species of parasitic Hymenoptera Hymenoptera (Hymenop tera) Chalcidoidea (Chalcidoidea) Eulophidae Section (Eul ophidae) long-tailed rodents wasp genus (Aprostocetus), its origin and name to be identified (Wu Yaojun, Jiang XueJian Li Dewei, such as.2009; Li Dewei,2010) not yet mature enough to be studied, and the introduction of natural enemies need to be cautious, the introduction of predators, need to consider whether the environment have adverse effects for this class of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle parasitoid pests, natural enemies in a large number of breeding. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of fine eucalyptus resistant varieties, is a more scientific, reasonable, fast control methods. In production is also relatively easy for the majority of eucalyptus growers accept. Measured from the survey of field population dynamics, indoor amount of adult emergence, the field and pick bee survey, eucalyptus histological observation and eucalyptus nutrient analysis of several aspects of a more systematic study of the end of Eucalyptus camaldulensis DH201lobular eucalyptus, GL9, Ray,17, JG1and resistance strength of the JG21six different eucalyptus species of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle, as well as impact resistance strength of the main factors, now the main results are summarized as follows:
1.Eucalyptus insect resistance strength of a field population dynamics investigation of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle out
In the field observations, DH201tail red eucalyptus and lobular eucalyptus, Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle harm is very serious, GL9and Ray17less harmful, but JG1and JG21is no sense of insects, and wild yellow board survey show serious susceptible Last camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus, GL9less susceptible, reached a significant difference between the two. The JG1and JG21no sense of insects. In order to determine the initial strength of these types of eucalyptus varieties of eucalyptus branches gall wasp insect as follows:JG1=JG21> GL9=Ray17> lobule eucalyptus=tail camaldulensis DH201.
2. Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle indoor amount of adult emergence survey to determine the strength of the eucalyptus insect
Different Eucalyptus species collected from the wild back infected branches, indoor under the same conditions, the eclosion the amount of the existence of significant differences.
Last camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus infected branches on the amount of adult emergence is much more than the GL9, especially in the year of the second and third quarters, very different. Further determine the strength of several eucalyptus varieties of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle insect. Three field then bee survey to determine the varieties of eucalyptus insect resistance strength
3.Eucalyptus branches on each plant of the statistics of different eucalyptus species wasp gall number of gall Ji, calculation of the worm strain rate, strain the average number of galls and single sample maximum gall number. It can be seen that the six species tested, the end of Eucalyptus camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus insect strain rate reached100%, showing highly susceptible, followed by GL9and Ray,17, worm strain rate also reached60%; From the strains of the average number of galls, DH201tail red eucalyptus, and lobular eucalyptus, respectively,8.20±116/plant and8.33±0.33/plant, GL9and Ray17is relatively small, only1.13±1.00/plant and1.0±0.83/plant, while JG1and JG21, while almost no sense of insects. The plant's maximum number of galls also showed that for the trial of six Eucalyptus species, the most susceptible of the end of Eucalyptus camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus, GL9and Ray,17with mild flu insects, JG1, and JG21is a strong resistance varieties. Has once again proven the six kinds of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle resistance strength of the relationship between:JG1=JG21> GL9=Ray,17lobule eucalyptus=tail camaldulensis DH201.
4.Eucalyptus organizational structure on the impact of insect resistance
Insect resistance is weak tail camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus, the outer skin is thicker, loosely arranged cells, the strong resistance GL9and Ray17and the outer surface is generally arranged between cells more closely, and not susceptible JG1and JG21outer epidermis thin cells arranged more closely.
The roughness of the epidermis Bohou extent of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle parasitic skin more rough, more solid, the more susceptible to parasitic eucalyptus branches gall wasp.
5.Eucalyptus branches nutrient content on the impact of insect resistance
Various eucalyptus varieties of crude fiber content of between20%-40%, crude fiber content of the tail the camaldulensis DH-201and lobular eucalyptus significantly lower than the other four varieties, cellulose content and insect resistance into negative.
The JG1and JG21crude protein content and nitrogen content was significantly higher than other eucalyptus varieties, both the most resistant, the crude protein content of insect resistance into a positive correlation.
Tail the camaldulensis DH-201and lobular eucalyptus soluble sugar content was significantly higher than the four other Eucalyptus species, the weakest of the two insect resistance, so the content of soluble sugar and insect resistance were negatively correlated.
1.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂野外种群动态调查的出得桉树抗虫性强弱
在野外的观测中,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉受桉树枝瘿姬小蜂危害极为严重,GL9和雷17危害较轻,而JGl和JG21更是无感虫情况,而野外的黄板调查也显示,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉严重感虫,GL9则感虫较轻,两者之间达到了显著差异。而JG1和JG21则无感虫情况。从而初步判定这几种桉树品种对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的抗虫性强弱依次为：JG1=JG21>GL9=雷17>小叶桉=尾赤桉DH201。
2.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂室内成虫羽化量调查判定桉树抗虫性强弱
从野外采集回来的不同桉树品种的受感染枝条,在室内相同条件下,其羽化量存在着显著地差异。
尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉受感染枝条上的成虫羽化量要远远多于GL9,特别是在一年中的第二季度和第三季度时,差异极大。进一步判定几种桉树品种对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的抗虫性强弱。
3.野外接蜂调查判定各品种桉树的抗虫性强弱
统计不同桉树品种各植株上桉树枝瘿姬小蜂虫瘿数量,计算有虫株率、株平均虫瘿数和单个样本最大虫瘿数。可以看出供试的6个品种中,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉的有虫株率均达到了100%,表现出高度感虫,其次为GL9和雷17,其有虫株率也达到了60%；从株平均虫瘿数来看,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉分别达到了8.20±1.16个/株和8.33±0.33个/株,GL9和雷17相对较少,只有1.13±1.00个/株和1.0±0.83个/株,而JG1和JG21则基本不感虫。单株最大虫瘿数也表明供试的6个桉树品种中,尾赤桉DH201和小叶桉最感虫,GL9和雷17轻度感虫,JG1和JG21属抗性较强的品种。再次验证了六种桉树对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂抗性强弱关系为：JG1=JG21>GL9=雷17>小叶桉=尾赤桉DH201。
4.桉树组织结构对其抗虫性的影响
抗虫性较弱的尾赤桉DH201与小叶桉,外表皮较厚,细胞间排列疏松,抗性较强的GL9和雷17,外表皮一般,细胞间排列也较紧密,而不感虫的JG1和JG21外表皮较薄,细胞间排列也更加紧密。
表皮的粗糙程度与薄厚程度影响桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的寄生表皮越粗糙,越厚实,则越容易受到桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的寄生。
5.桉树枝条内营养物质含量对其抗虫性的影响
各桉树品种的粗纤维含量均在20%-40%之间,尾赤桉DH-201和小叶桉的粗纤维含量显著低于其他四个品种,纤维素含量与抗虫性成负相关。
JG1和JG21的粗蛋白含量和含氮量要显著高于其他桉树品种,而二者抗性最强,所以粗蛋白含量与抗虫性成正相关。
尾赤桉DH-201和小叶桉的可溶性糖含量要显著高于其他四个桉树品种,二者的抗虫性最弱,所以可溶性糖含量与抗虫性成负相关。
Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle, the English common name is blue gum chalcid, the case of the Hymenoptera Hymenoptera, Eulophidae Eulophidae, a new species that discovered hazard eucalyptus in recent years (Mendel, et al.,2004). At present, there are several organizations have researched Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle, including biology, ecology, occurrence and damage, drug prevention and treatment. Prevention of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle, chemical control has not been highly effective chemical control reports; in biological control, there are reports of natural enemies, is a dominant species of parasitic Hymenoptera Hymenoptera (Hymenop tera) Chalcidoidea (Chalcidoidea) Eulophidae Section (Eul ophidae) long-tailed rodents wasp genus (Aprostocetus), its origin and name to be identified (Wu Yaojun, Jiang XueJian Li Dewei, such as.2009; Li Dewei,2010) not yet mature enough to be studied, and the introduction of natural enemies need to be cautious, the introduction of predators, need to consider whether the environment have adverse effects for this class of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle parasitoid pests, natural enemies in a large number of breeding. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of fine eucalyptus resistant varieties, is a more scientific, reasonable, fast control methods. In production is also relatively easy for the majority of eucalyptus growers accept. Measured from the survey of field population dynamics, indoor amount of adult emergence, the field and pick bee survey, eucalyptus histological observation and eucalyptus nutrient analysis of several aspects of a more systematic study of the end of Eucalyptus camaldulensis DH201lobular eucalyptus, GL9, Ray,17, JG1and resistance strength of the JG21six different eucalyptus species of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle, as well as impact resistance strength of the main factors, now the main results are summarized as follows:
1.Eucalyptus insect resistance strength of a field population dynamics investigation of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle out
In the field observations, DH201tail red eucalyptus and lobular eucalyptus, Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle harm is very serious, GL9and Ray17less harmful, but JG1and JG21is no sense of insects, and wild yellow board survey show serious susceptible Last camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus, GL9less susceptible, reached a significant difference between the two. The JG1and JG21no sense of insects. In order to determine the initial strength of these types of eucalyptus varieties of eucalyptus branches gall wasp insect as follows:JG1=JG21> GL9=Ray17> lobule eucalyptus=tail camaldulensis DH201.
2. Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle indoor amount of adult emergence survey to determine the strength of the eucalyptus insect
Different Eucalyptus species collected from the wild back infected branches, indoor under the same conditions, the eclosion the amount of the existence of significant differences.
Last camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus infected branches on the amount of adult emergence is much more than the GL9, especially in the year of the second and third quarters, very different. Further determine the strength of several eucalyptus varieties of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle insect. Three field then bee survey to determine the varieties of eucalyptus insect resistance strength
3.Eucalyptus branches on each plant of the statistics of different eucalyptus species wasp gall number of gall Ji, calculation of the worm strain rate, strain the average number of galls and single sample maximum gall number. It can be seen that the six species tested, the end of Eucalyptus camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus insect strain rate reached100%, showing highly susceptible, followed by GL9and Ray,17, worm strain rate also reached60%; From the strains of the average number of galls, DH201tail red eucalyptus, and lobular eucalyptus, respectively,8.20±116/plant and8.33±0.33/plant, GL9and Ray17is relatively small, only1.13±1.00/plant and1.0±0.83/plant, while JG1and JG21, while almost no sense of insects. The plant's maximum number of galls also showed that for the trial of six Eucalyptus species, the most susceptible of the end of Eucalyptus camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus, GL9and Ray,17with mild flu insects, JG1, and JG21is a strong resistance varieties. Has once again proven the six kinds of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle resistance strength of the relationship between:JG1=JG21> GL9=Ray,17lobule eucalyptus=tail camaldulensis DH201.
4.Eucalyptus organizational structure on the impact of insect resistance
Insect resistance is weak tail camaldulensis DH201and lobular eucalyptus, the outer skin is thicker, loosely arranged cells, the strong resistance GL9and Ray17and the outer surface is generally arranged between cells more closely, and not susceptible JG1and JG21outer epidermis thin cells arranged more closely.
The roughness of the epidermis Bohou extent of Leptocybe invasa Fisher&La Salle parasitic skin more rough, more solid, the more susceptible to parasitic eucalyptus branches gall wasp.
5.Eucalyptus branches nutrient content on the impact of insect resistance
Various eucalyptus varieties of crude fiber content of between20%-40%, crude fiber content of the tail the camaldulensis DH-201and lobular eucalyptus significantly lower than the other four varieties, cellulose content and insect resistance into negative.
The JG1and JG21crude protein content and nitrogen content was significantly higher than other eucalyptus varieties, both the most resistant, the crude protein content of insect resistance into a positive correlation.
Tail the camaldulensis DH-201and lobular eucalyptus soluble sugar content was significantly higher than the four other Eucalyptus species, the weakest of the two insect resistance, so the content of soluble sugar and insect resistance were negatively correlated.
引文
[1]白嘉雨,徐建民,周文龙等.桉树[M].北京：经济管理出版社,1999.
[2]白树雄,何康来等.植物挥发性物质提取的一种简易方法——液氮冷凝法[J].昆虫知识,2003,40(4)：377-379.
[3]曹骥.评价作物抗虫性的技术(上、下).作物品种资源,1991.(4)：23-24.1992.(1)23-24.
[4]曹骥编著.作物抗虫育种原理.北京：科学出版社,1984.34-35.
[5]曹加光,卢万鸿,罗建中.桉树苗期抗瘿姬小蜂能力研究[J].桉树科技,2010.27(2)：35-38.
[6]陈尚文,罗基同,杨秀好,等.黄色粘板对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂成虫的引诱及在监测中的应用[J].广西林业科学,2009,38(4)：199—203.
[7]陈旭,陈树仁.茉莉酸诱导植物抗虫性及其在烟草上的应用[J].安徽农学通报,2009.15(12)：38-40.
[8]邓曙东.亚麻荠对小菜蛾和甘蓝蚜的抗性及机制研究[J].中国农业大学,2004.
[9]贺春荣,陈宾.菜园蚜虫的防治方法[J].江西农业学报,2005.17(3)：66-67.
[10]胡金勇.被子植物基部类群细辛和三白草MADS-box基因研究[J].中国科学院昆明植物研究所,2003.
[11]胡远,韩颖等.小麦不同抗蚜品种中3种酚酸类化合物的含量变化及其作用评价[J].应用与环境生物学报,2008,14(6)：753-756.
[12]黄金水,丁泌,黄衍庆,等.木麻黄化学和形态因素与星天牛危害的关系[J].林业科学,1999,35(2)：57-64.
[13]黄金水等.木麻黄树干细胞组织结构与对星天牛抗虫性的关系[J].林业科学,1997(6)：45-55.
[14]霍伯,E.见：马克斯维尔,F.G.等著.植物抗虫育种.翟凤林,袁士畴,张发成,等译.北京：农业出版社,1982.14-20.
[15]霍凤林,袁士畴,张发成等译.作物抗虫育种,北京：农业出版社,1982.
[16]蒋金培,罗基同,王缉健,等.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂成虫羽化量的研究[J].广西林业科学,2011,40(1)：31—33.
[17]蒋书楠,殷幼平.几种天牛纤维素酶的来源[J].林业科学,1996,32(5)：441-445.
[18]李德伟,吴耀军,蒋学建,常明山,黄华艳,秦元丽.寄生于桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的一种长尾啮小蜂[J].林业科技开发,2010,24(4)：18-21.
[19]李会平,黄大庄,杨敏生,等.林木抗虫机制研究进展[J].2001,16(1)：91-96.
[20]梁一萍,方小玉,左跃珍,等.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂危害严重速生丰产桉树林分更新改造技术[J].中国农学通报,2010,26(18)：138-141.
[21]梁一萍,李吉跃,温秀军,李奕震.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂成虫雄性比例观察.中国森林病虫,2010.29(5)：21-22.
[22]梁一萍等.桂南桉树主栽品种对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂抗性林间试验研究[J].中国植保导刊,2011.31(7)：14-17.
[23]刘丽芳.茶树不同品种和次生代谢物质对叶蝉取食行为影响的DC-EPG研究.中国农业科学院,2011.
[24]卢龙斗,常生辉,高武军,等.木犀属植物叶片微形态结构[J].南京林业大学学报：自然科学版,2008,32(6)：52—56.
[25]彭忠魁.水稻品种对稻纵卷叶螟抗性的田间鉴定.昆虫知识,1982.(2)：1-3.
[26]钱军,梁居智,蔡兴新,等.海南省桉树枝瘿姬小蜂危害现状及桉树抗品系调查[J].热带林业,2010,38(1)：49—51.
[27]钦俊德.昆虫与植物关系的研究进展和前景[J].动物学报,1995,41(1)：12-20.
[28]宋宜娟.印楝素对黄粉虫生长发育与免疫功能的影响[J].苏州大学,2011.
[29]孙多鑫.几种与抗性有关的生化物质和酶在春小麦对麦长管蚜抗性作用的研究.甘肃农业大学,2006.
[30]孙云霄.桉树病虫害的发生现状及防治策略[J].中国森林病虫,2004(5)：36-38.
[31]覃伟权,彭正强等.植物次生物质研究进展[J].热带农业科学,2002,22(6)：60-68.
[32]唐超,王小君,万方浩,等.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂入侵海南省[J].昆虫知识,2008.45(6)：967-971.
[33]王美芳,陈巨莲,原国辉,雷振生,吴政卿,赵献林.植物表面蜡质对植食性昆虫的影响研究进展[J].生态环境学报,2009.
[34]王庆生,黄建等.茶树种质叶片组织结构与其对黑刺粉虱抗虫性的关系[J].茶叶科学,2009,29(1)：60-66.
[35]王蕤,巨关升,秦锡祥.毛白杨树皮内含物对光肩星天牛抗性探讨[J].林业科 学,1995,31(4)：185-187.
[36]王瑞勤,李凤兰,黄一平,等.1269杨和大观杨对光肩星天牛抗性的研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1993,15(1)：85.
[37]王涛.温室白粉虱危害对无毛黄瓜次生代谢的影响[J].山东农业大学,2011.
[38]王希蒙,吕文,张真.杨树生理生化特性对天牛行为的影响[J].宁夏农林科技,1987,(4)：21-23.
[39]吴文君,刘慧霞,胡兆农,姬志勤等.从天然产物到新农药创制——杀虫植物苦皮藤研究进展[J].昆虫知识,2008,45(6)：845-851.
[40]吴耀军,常明山,盛双,叶建仁.叶建仁.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂虫瘿结构解剖研究[J].林业科技开发,2012.26(1)：63-65.
[41]吴耀军,蒋学建,李德伟,等.我国发现1种重要的林业外来入侵害虫—桉树枝瘿姬小蜂(膜翅目：姬小蜂科)[J].林业科学,2009,45(7)：161-163.
[42]武海卫,贾薪玉,黄焕华,黄咏槐,范军祥.五种桉树对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的抗性研究.环境昆虫学报,2009.31(2)：132-136.
[43]徐家雄,林明生,邱焕秀.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂对苗圃不同桉树品系袋苗的感虫性测定[J].广东林业科技,2011.27(3)：40-43.
[44]轩静渊.植物抗虫性概述(M].成都：四川科学技术出版社.1991.1—245
[45]阎晔辉,黄大庄,张彦广.树木氨基酸组成与光肩星天牛危害程度关系的初步研究[J].河北林学院学报,1996,11(324)：259-262.
[46]杨雪彦,燕新华,周晓彬.不同杨树营养物对黄斑星天牛抗性的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1992,7(3)：26-33.
[47]张春妮.甘蓝苗期对桃蚜Myzus persicae (Sulzer)抗性的生化机制研究[J].西北农林科技大学硕士论文,2005.
[48]张风娟,李继泉.三种槭树叶的组织结构与抗虫性的关系[J].经济林研究,2008,78(03)：93-97.
[49]张风娟,陈凤新,徐东生,霍志梅.植物组织结构与抗虫性的关系(综述)[J].河北科技师范学院学报,2006.20(2)：71-76
[50]张建萍.朱砂叶螨(Tetranychus cinnabarinus)适应酸雨胁迫的机理及生态适合度评估[J].西南农业大学,2004.
[51]张行峰.实用农化分析[M].化学工业出版社,2005.
[52]赵博光.光肩星天牛在杨树上产卵部位的选择[J].北京林业大学学报,1997,19(3)：28-32.
[53]赵丹阳,徐家雄,林明生,等.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂危害后桉树损失量测定[J].广东林业科技,2008,24(6)：58-60.
[54]郑镜明,薛春泉,王洪峰.桉树人工林在广东省森林分类经营中的地位及发展趋势[J].广东林业科技,2003,19(3)：45-48.
[55]周明牂,谢以栓.春小麦品种对麦秆蝇抗性筛选调查[J].植物保护学报,1979.6(2)：1-10
[56]周明牂.作物抗虫育种,北京：农业出版社,1992.
[57]周明牂.植物抗虫性研究利用的进展.世界农业,1985.6：31-34.
[58]朱建国等.茶小绿叶蝉在不同茶树品种上的生长发育,生殖及空间分布[J].动物学研究,1993(3)
[59]朱麟,古德祥.植物抗虫性概念的当代内涵.昆虫知识,1999,36(6)：355-360.
[60]Almatni W, Mayhoob M. Eucalyptus gall-wasp Leptocybe invasa Fisher & La Salle (Eulophidae, Hymenoptera), a new insect in the Mediterranean region and Syria[J]. Arab and Near East Plant Protection Newsletter, FAO,2005(40):38.
[61]Andre Kessler, Rayko Halitschke et al. Priming of plant defense responses in nature by airborne signaling between Artemisia tridentata and Nicotiana attenuata[J]. Oecologia,2006,148:280-292.
[62]Aytar F. Description, distribution and hosts of Blastopsylla occidentalis (Homoptera: Psyllidae), a new pest of Eucalyptus spp. in Turkey[Z] Poster presented at the 2nd Plant Protection Congress of Turkey, Isparta,2007.
[63]Aytar F. Natural history, distribution and hosts of Eucalyptus gall wasps in Turkey[Z]/ /The VIIIth European Congress of Entomology, Izmir, Turkey,2006.
[64]Bergman D K, Dillwith J W, Zarrabi A A, et al. Epicuticular lipids of alfalfa leaves relative to its susceptibility to spotted alfalfa aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae)[J]. Entomological Society of America,1991,20(3):781-785.
[65]Bloch R. Abnormal development in plants:a survey [J]. Handbuch der Pflanzenphysiologie,1965,15(2):145 - 183.
[66]Branco M., Franco J. C., Valente C., et al. Boletin SanidadVegetal,2006 32(2):199-202.
[67]Dreger—Jauffret F, Shorthouse J D. Diversity of gall—inducing insects and their galls [M]. Oxford:Oxford Univ Press,1992.
[68]Edwards P J, Wratten S D. Palatabitity of British trees to insects:constitutive and induced defenceslJ]. Oecologia,1986,69:316-319.
[69]Eigenbrode S D, Eigenbrode K E. Effects of plant epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores[J]. Annual Review Entomology,1995,40:171-194.
[70]Eigenbrode S D, Espelie K E, Shelton A M. Behavior of neonate Diamondback moth larvae (Plutella xylostella (L.)) on leaves and on extracted leaf waxes of resistant and susceptible cabbage[J].Journal of Chemical Ecology,1991a,17:1691-1704.
[71]Eigenbrode S D, White C, Rohde M, et al. Behavior and effectiveness of adult Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) as a predator of Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera:Aphididae) on a wax mutant of Pisum sativum[J]. Environmental Entomology,1998,27(4):902-909.
[72]Eigenbrode Sanford D, Susan Moodie, Thomas Castagnola. Predators mediate host plant resistance to a phytophagous pest in cabbage with glossy leaf wax[J]. Entomologia Experimentaliset Applicata,1995,77:335-342.
[73]EPPO. First report of two new eucalyptus pests in the South of France:Ophelimus maskelli and Leptocybe invasa. EPPOReporting Service, NO.9 PARIS,2006:198.
[74]Fatih A.. Natural history, distribution and hosts of eucalyptusgall wasps in turkey poster prester presentation, V III thEuropean congress of Entomology, on September 17-22,2006,I zmir, turkey.
[75]Feeny P. Theories of plant chemical defense:A brief historical survey. In:Szentesi A, Jer m y T eds. Insects-Plants.Budapest:Akademiai Kiado,1990,163-175
[76]Francois J. V., Ludovic A., Stefan B. et al.Aphid and Plant Volatiles Induce Oviposition in anAphidophagous Hoverfly [J]. J Chem Ecol,2008,34:301-307.
[77]HaukioJa E. Induction of defenses in trees. Annu. Rev. Entomol.1990,36:25-42
[78]Htsumuki, Katsuo Kanehisa, Kazuo Kawada. Leaf surface wax as a possible resistance factor barely to Cereal aphids[J].Applied Entomology Zoology,1989,24(3):295-301.
[79]Javaregowda J, Prabhu S T. Susceptibility of eucalyptus species and clones to gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle(Eulophidae:Hymenoptera)in Kamataka[J]. Kamataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2010,23(1):220-221.
[80]Javaregowda, Prabhu S T. Susceptibility of eucalyptus species and clones to gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle (Eulophidae: Hymenoptera) in Karnataka [J]. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2010,23 (1):220-221.
[81]Jeroen J. Jasen, J. William Allwood, Emma Marsden-Edwards, et al. Metabolomic analysis of the interaction between plants and herbivores.Metabolomics,2009,5:150-161.
[82]Jules Janick P. Horticultural Reviews[M]. Westport Conn,1999.
[83]Kerstiens G. Plant Cuticles[M]. BIOS Scientific Publishers Limited,1996:201-221.
[84]Kogan, M.Ortman, E.E.Bull.Entomol.Soc.Am.1978.24:175-176.
[85]Kulkami H D. Screening eucalyptus clones against Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle(Hymenoptera:Eulophidae)[J]. Ka—mataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2010,23(1):87-90.
[86]Kulkarni H D. Screening eucalyptus clones against Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle (Hymenoptera:Eulophidae) [J]. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2010,23 (1):87-90.
[87]Kumar S., Sharma S. K., K ant T., et al. Indian For.,2007,133(11):1566-1568.
[88]Kiister E. Die gallen der pflanzen [M]. Leipzig, S. Hirzel,1911.
[89]Lalonde R G, Shorthouse J D. Developmental morphology of the gall of Urophora cardui(Diptera, Tephritidae) in the stems of Canada thistle (Cirsiumarvense) [J]. Can J Bot,1984,62:1372-1384.
[90]Loweh J B, Murphyg J P, Mary L P. Non-glaucousness, aprobable aphid-resistance character of wheat[J]. Annals of Applied Biology,1985,106:555-560.
[91]Mendel Z, ProtasovA, FisherN, La Salle J, Taxonomy and biology of Leptocybe invasa gen. & sp. n. (Hymenop tera:Eulophidae), an invasive gall inducer on Eucalyptus. Australian Journal of Entom ology,2004.43:101-113.
[92]Pham Quang Thu, Dell Bernard, Treena Isobel(Reprint). Susceptibility of 18 eucalypt species to the gall wasp Leptocybe invasain the nursery and young; plantations in Vietnam[J]. Science Asia,2009,35(2):113-117.
[93]Phamqt, Bernard D, Treenai B. Susceptibility of 18 eucalypt species to the gall wasp Leptocybe invasain the nursery and young plantations in Vietnam [J]. Science Asia 2009,35:113-117.
[94]Philip N., Eston K. M., Roger K. D. Intern. J. PestManag.,2007:53(2):111-119.
[95]Rohfritsch O. Patterns in gall development [M]. Oxford:Oxford UnivPress,1992.
[96]Run PengWei, Dapi ng Xu.Eucalyptus plant at ions research, management and development[M].World Scient ific Publishing,2002.
[97]Smith.C.M植物抗虫性的研究与应用.冯明光译.北京：中国农业科技出版社,1993.3(10)：152-178.
[98]Starksk J, Weibeld E. Resistance in bloomless and sparse-bloom sorghum to greenbugs[J]. Environmental Entomology,1981,10:963-965.
[99]TPCP. Pest Alert. Blue gum chalcid. Tree Protection News, vol10, November 2005. http://fabinet.up.ac.za/tpcp/newsletters/TPCP-Newsletter-Nov-2005. pdf
[100]Weibeld E, Starks K J. Greenbug nonpreference for bloomless sorghum[J]. Crop Science,1986,26:1151-1153.
[101]Zvi M., Alexey P., Nicole F., John L. S. Austral. J.Entomol.,2004,43 (2):101-113.
[2]白树雄,何康来等.植物挥发性物质提取的一种简易方法——液氮冷凝法[J].昆虫知识,2003,40(4)：377-379.
[3]曹骥.评价作物抗虫性的技术(上、下).作物品种资源,1991.(4)：23-24.1992.(1)23-24.
[4]曹骥编著.作物抗虫育种原理.北京：科学出版社,1984.34-35.
[5]曹加光,卢万鸿,罗建中.桉树苗期抗瘿姬小蜂能力研究[J].桉树科技,2010.27(2)：35-38.
[6]陈尚文,罗基同,杨秀好,等.黄色粘板对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂成虫的引诱及在监测中的应用[J].广西林业科学,2009,38(4)：199—203.
[7]陈旭,陈树仁.茉莉酸诱导植物抗虫性及其在烟草上的应用[J].安徽农学通报,2009.15(12)：38-40.
[8]邓曙东.亚麻荠对小菜蛾和甘蓝蚜的抗性及机制研究[J].中国农业大学,2004.
[9]贺春荣,陈宾.菜园蚜虫的防治方法[J].江西农业学报,2005.17(3)：66-67.
[10]胡金勇.被子植物基部类群细辛和三白草MADS-box基因研究[J].中国科学院昆明植物研究所,2003.
[11]胡远,韩颖等.小麦不同抗蚜品种中3种酚酸类化合物的含量变化及其作用评价[J].应用与环境生物学报,2008,14(6)：753-756.
[12]黄金水,丁泌,黄衍庆,等.木麻黄化学和形态因素与星天牛危害的关系[J].林业科学,1999,35(2)：57-64.
[13]黄金水等.木麻黄树干细胞组织结构与对星天牛抗虫性的关系[J].林业科学,1997(6)：45-55.
[14]霍伯,E.见：马克斯维尔,F.G.等著.植物抗虫育种.翟凤林,袁士畴,张发成,等译.北京：农业出版社,1982.14-20.
[15]霍凤林,袁士畴,张发成等译.作物抗虫育种,北京：农业出版社,1982.
[16]蒋金培,罗基同,王缉健,等.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂成虫羽化量的研究[J].广西林业科学,2011,40(1)：31—33.
[17]蒋书楠,殷幼平.几种天牛纤维素酶的来源[J].林业科学,1996,32(5)：441-445.
[18]李德伟,吴耀军,蒋学建,常明山,黄华艳,秦元丽.寄生于桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的一种长尾啮小蜂[J].林业科技开发,2010,24(4)：18-21.
[19]李会平,黄大庄,杨敏生,等.林木抗虫机制研究进展[J].2001,16(1)：91-96.
[20]梁一萍,方小玉,左跃珍,等.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂危害严重速生丰产桉树林分更新改造技术[J].中国农学通报,2010,26(18)：138-141.
[21]梁一萍,李吉跃,温秀军,李奕震.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂成虫雄性比例观察.中国森林病虫,2010.29(5)：21-22.
[22]梁一萍等.桂南桉树主栽品种对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂抗性林间试验研究[J].中国植保导刊,2011.31(7)：14-17.
[23]刘丽芳.茶树不同品种和次生代谢物质对叶蝉取食行为影响的DC-EPG研究.中国农业科学院,2011.
[24]卢龙斗,常生辉,高武军,等.木犀属植物叶片微形态结构[J].南京林业大学学报：自然科学版,2008,32(6)：52—56.
[25]彭忠魁.水稻品种对稻纵卷叶螟抗性的田间鉴定.昆虫知识,1982.(2)：1-3.
[26]钱军,梁居智,蔡兴新,等.海南省桉树枝瘿姬小蜂危害现状及桉树抗品系调查[J].热带林业,2010,38(1)：49—51.
[27]钦俊德.昆虫与植物关系的研究进展和前景[J].动物学报,1995,41(1)：12-20.
[28]宋宜娟.印楝素对黄粉虫生长发育与免疫功能的影响[J].苏州大学,2011.
[29]孙多鑫.几种与抗性有关的生化物质和酶在春小麦对麦长管蚜抗性作用的研究.甘肃农业大学,2006.
[30]孙云霄.桉树病虫害的发生现状及防治策略[J].中国森林病虫,2004(5)：36-38.
[31]覃伟权,彭正强等.植物次生物质研究进展[J].热带农业科学,2002,22(6)：60-68.
[32]唐超,王小君,万方浩,等.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂入侵海南省[J].昆虫知识,2008.45(6)：967-971.
[33]王美芳,陈巨莲,原国辉,雷振生,吴政卿,赵献林.植物表面蜡质对植食性昆虫的影响研究进展[J].生态环境学报,2009.
[34]王庆生,黄建等.茶树种质叶片组织结构与其对黑刺粉虱抗虫性的关系[J].茶叶科学,2009,29(1)：60-66.
[35]王蕤,巨关升,秦锡祥.毛白杨树皮内含物对光肩星天牛抗性探讨[J].林业科 学,1995,31(4)：185-187.
[36]王瑞勤,李凤兰,黄一平,等.1269杨和大观杨对光肩星天牛抗性的研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1993,15(1)：85.
[37]王涛.温室白粉虱危害对无毛黄瓜次生代谢的影响[J].山东农业大学,2011.
[38]王希蒙,吕文,张真.杨树生理生化特性对天牛行为的影响[J].宁夏农林科技,1987,(4)：21-23.
[39]吴文君,刘慧霞,胡兆农,姬志勤等.从天然产物到新农药创制——杀虫植物苦皮藤研究进展[J].昆虫知识,2008,45(6)：845-851.
[40]吴耀军,常明山,盛双,叶建仁.叶建仁.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂虫瘿结构解剖研究[J].林业科技开发,2012.26(1)：63-65.
[41]吴耀军,蒋学建,李德伟,等.我国发现1种重要的林业外来入侵害虫—桉树枝瘿姬小蜂(膜翅目：姬小蜂科)[J].林业科学,2009,45(7)：161-163.
[42]武海卫,贾薪玉,黄焕华,黄咏槐,范军祥.五种桉树对桉树枝瘿姬小蜂的抗性研究.环境昆虫学报,2009.31(2)：132-136.
[43]徐家雄,林明生,邱焕秀.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂对苗圃不同桉树品系袋苗的感虫性测定[J].广东林业科技,2011.27(3)：40-43.
[44]轩静渊.植物抗虫性概述(M].成都：四川科学技术出版社.1991.1—245
[45]阎晔辉,黄大庄,张彦广.树木氨基酸组成与光肩星天牛危害程度关系的初步研究[J].河北林学院学报,1996,11(324)：259-262.
[46]杨雪彦,燕新华,周晓彬.不同杨树营养物对黄斑星天牛抗性的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1992,7(3)：26-33.
[47]张春妮.甘蓝苗期对桃蚜Myzus persicae (Sulzer)抗性的生化机制研究[J].西北农林科技大学硕士论文,2005.
[48]张风娟,李继泉.三种槭树叶的组织结构与抗虫性的关系[J].经济林研究,2008,78(03)：93-97.
[49]张风娟,陈凤新,徐东生,霍志梅.植物组织结构与抗虫性的关系(综述)[J].河北科技师范学院学报,2006.20(2)：71-76
[50]张建萍.朱砂叶螨(Tetranychus cinnabarinus)适应酸雨胁迫的机理及生态适合度评估[J].西南农业大学,2004.
[51]张行峰.实用农化分析[M].化学工业出版社,2005.
[52]赵博光.光肩星天牛在杨树上产卵部位的选择[J].北京林业大学学报,1997,19(3)：28-32.
[53]赵丹阳,徐家雄,林明生,等.桉树枝瘿姬小蜂危害后桉树损失量测定[J].广东林业科技,2008,24(6)：58-60.
[54]郑镜明,薛春泉,王洪峰.桉树人工林在广东省森林分类经营中的地位及发展趋势[J].广东林业科技,2003,19(3)：45-48.
[55]周明牂,谢以栓.春小麦品种对麦秆蝇抗性筛选调查[J].植物保护学报,1979.6(2)：1-10
[56]周明牂.作物抗虫育种,北京：农业出版社,1992.
[57]周明牂.植物抗虫性研究利用的进展.世界农业,1985.6：31-34.
[58]朱建国等.茶小绿叶蝉在不同茶树品种上的生长发育,生殖及空间分布[J].动物学研究,1993(3)
[59]朱麟,古德祥.植物抗虫性概念的当代内涵.昆虫知识,1999,36(6)：355-360.
[60]Almatni W, Mayhoob M. Eucalyptus gall-wasp Leptocybe invasa Fisher & La Salle (Eulophidae, Hymenoptera), a new insect in the Mediterranean region and Syria[J]. Arab and Near East Plant Protection Newsletter, FAO,2005(40):38.
[61]Andre Kessler, Rayko Halitschke et al. Priming of plant defense responses in nature by airborne signaling between Artemisia tridentata and Nicotiana attenuata[J]. Oecologia,2006,148:280-292.
[62]Aytar F. Description, distribution and hosts of Blastopsylla occidentalis (Homoptera: Psyllidae), a new pest of Eucalyptus spp. in Turkey[Z] Poster presented at the 2nd Plant Protection Congress of Turkey, Isparta,2007.
[63]Aytar F. Natural history, distribution and hosts of Eucalyptus gall wasps in Turkey[Z]/ /The VIIIth European Congress of Entomology, Izmir, Turkey,2006.
[64]Bergman D K, Dillwith J W, Zarrabi A A, et al. Epicuticular lipids of alfalfa leaves relative to its susceptibility to spotted alfalfa aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae)[J]. Entomological Society of America,1991,20(3):781-785.
[65]Bloch R. Abnormal development in plants:a survey [J]. Handbuch der Pflanzenphysiologie,1965,15(2):145 - 183.
[66]Branco M., Franco J. C., Valente C., et al. Boletin SanidadVegetal,2006 32(2):199-202.
[67]Dreger—Jauffret F, Shorthouse J D. Diversity of gall—inducing insects and their galls [M]. Oxford:Oxford Univ Press,1992.
[68]Edwards P J, Wratten S D. Palatabitity of British trees to insects:constitutive and induced defenceslJ]. Oecologia,1986,69:316-319.
[69]Eigenbrode S D, Eigenbrode K E. Effects of plant epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores[J]. Annual Review Entomology,1995,40:171-194.
[70]Eigenbrode S D, Espelie K E, Shelton A M. Behavior of neonate Diamondback moth larvae (Plutella xylostella (L.)) on leaves and on extracted leaf waxes of resistant and susceptible cabbage[J].Journal of Chemical Ecology,1991a,17:1691-1704.
[71]Eigenbrode S D, White C, Rohde M, et al. Behavior and effectiveness of adult Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) as a predator of Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera:Aphididae) on a wax mutant of Pisum sativum[J]. Environmental Entomology,1998,27(4):902-909.
[72]Eigenbrode Sanford D, Susan Moodie, Thomas Castagnola. Predators mediate host plant resistance to a phytophagous pest in cabbage with glossy leaf wax[J]. Entomologia Experimentaliset Applicata,1995,77:335-342.
[73]EPPO. First report of two new eucalyptus pests in the South of France:Ophelimus maskelli and Leptocybe invasa. EPPOReporting Service, NO.9 PARIS,2006:198.
[74]Fatih A.. Natural history, distribution and hosts of eucalyptusgall wasps in turkey poster prester presentation, V III thEuropean congress of Entomology, on September 17-22,2006,I zmir, turkey.
[75]Feeny P. Theories of plant chemical defense:A brief historical survey. In:Szentesi A, Jer m y T eds. Insects-Plants.Budapest:Akademiai Kiado,1990,163-175
[76]Francois J. V., Ludovic A., Stefan B. et al.Aphid and Plant Volatiles Induce Oviposition in anAphidophagous Hoverfly [J]. J Chem Ecol,2008,34:301-307.
[77]HaukioJa E. Induction of defenses in trees. Annu. Rev. Entomol.1990,36:25-42
[78]Htsumuki, Katsuo Kanehisa, Kazuo Kawada. Leaf surface wax as a possible resistance factor barely to Cereal aphids[J].Applied Entomology Zoology,1989,24(3):295-301.
[79]Javaregowda J, Prabhu S T. Susceptibility of eucalyptus species and clones to gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle(Eulophidae:Hymenoptera)in Kamataka[J]. Kamataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2010,23(1):220-221.
[80]Javaregowda, Prabhu S T. Susceptibility of eucalyptus species and clones to gall wasp, Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle (Eulophidae: Hymenoptera) in Karnataka [J]. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences,2010,23 (1):220-221.
[81]Jeroen J. Jasen, J. William Allwood, Emma Marsden-Edwards, et al. Metabolomic analysis of the interaction between plants and herbivores.Metabolomics,2009,5:150-161.
[82]Jules Janick P. Horticultural Reviews[M]. Westport Conn,1999.
[83]Kerstiens G. Plant Cuticles[M]. BIOS Scientific Publishers Limited,1996:201-221.
[84]Kogan, M.Ortman, E.E.Bull.Entomol.Soc.Am.1978.24:175-176.
[85]Kulkami H D. Screening eucalyptus clones against Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle(Hymenoptera:Eulophidae)[J]. Ka—mataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2010,23(1):87-90.
[86]Kulkarni H D. Screening eucalyptus clones against Leptocybe invasa Fisher and La Salle (Hymenoptera:Eulophidae) [J]. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2010,23 (1):87-90.
[87]Kumar S., Sharma S. K., K ant T., et al. Indian For.,2007,133(11):1566-1568.
[88]Kiister E. Die gallen der pflanzen [M]. Leipzig, S. Hirzel,1911.
[89]Lalonde R G, Shorthouse J D. Developmental morphology of the gall of Urophora cardui(Diptera, Tephritidae) in the stems of Canada thistle (Cirsiumarvense) [J]. Can J Bot,1984,62:1372-1384.
[90]Loweh J B, Murphyg J P, Mary L P. Non-glaucousness, aprobable aphid-resistance character of wheat[J]. Annals of Applied Biology,1985,106:555-560.
[91]Mendel Z, ProtasovA, FisherN, La Salle J, Taxonomy and biology of Leptocybe invasa gen. & sp. n. (Hymenop tera:Eulophidae), an invasive gall inducer on Eucalyptus. Australian Journal of Entom ology,2004.43:101-113.
[92]Pham Quang Thu, Dell Bernard, Treena Isobel(Reprint). Susceptibility of 18 eucalypt species to the gall wasp Leptocybe invasain the nursery and young; plantations in Vietnam[J]. Science Asia,2009,35(2):113-117.
[93]Phamqt, Bernard D, Treenai B. Susceptibility of 18 eucalypt species to the gall wasp Leptocybe invasain the nursery and young plantations in Vietnam [J]. Science Asia 2009,35:113-117.
[94]Philip N., Eston K. M., Roger K. D. Intern. J. PestManag.,2007:53(2):111-119.
[95]Rohfritsch O. Patterns in gall development [M]. Oxford:Oxford UnivPress,1992.
[96]Run PengWei, Dapi ng Xu.Eucalyptus plant at ions research, management and development[M].World Scient ific Publishing,2002.
[97]Smith.C.M植物抗虫性的研究与应用.冯明光译.北京：中国农业科技出版社,1993.3(10)：152-178.
[98]Starksk J, Weibeld E. Resistance in bloomless and sparse-bloom sorghum to greenbugs[J]. Environmental Entomology,1981,10:963-965.
[99]TPCP. Pest Alert. Blue gum chalcid. Tree Protection News, vol10, November 2005. http://fabinet.up.ac.za/tpcp/newsletters/TPCP-Newsletter-Nov-2005. pdf
[100]Weibeld E, Starks K J. Greenbug nonpreference for bloomless sorghum[J]. Crop Science,1986,26:1151-1153.
[101]Zvi M., Alexey P., Nicole F., John L. S. Austral. J.Entomol.,2004,43 (2):101-113.