单季稻地区一代二化螟防控技术研究
|
摘要
二化螟Chilo suppressalis (Walker)是水稻的重要害虫之一,随着耕作制度的变更、品种更新以及害虫抗药性增强,二化螟在许多地区危害加重,甚至出现局部爆发危害现象,给水稻高产、稳产带来极大威胁。为了搞好二化螟防治,江苏等地区运用推迟播栽期和隔离育秧等措施进行栽培避螟,取得了一定的效果。但由于水稻生育期所限,推迟播栽和隔离育秧并不能完全避开发蛾高峰,因此还需筛选持效期较长的药剂进行移栽前施药(送嫁药)。此外,春季螟蛾在不接触水稻的情况下,是否仍能利用其他寄主正常繁衍种群,目前也不清楚。为了明确并进一步提高“利用栽培避螟,选用高效药剂,狠治一代”等综合治理技术措施的效果,本文进行了相关研究,获得的主要研究结果如下：
1、不同杀虫剂对二化螟的毒力测定
采用四龄幼虫Potter喷雾塔法和初孵幼虫饲料涂药法分别测定了1.8%阿维菌素乳油、20%氯虫苯甲酰胺悬浮剂、5%氟铃脲乳油、10%醚菊酯乳油、40%毒死蜱乳油、50%稻丰散乳油、90%杀虫单可湿性粉剂、15%三唑磷微乳剂、40%丙溴磷乳油9种杀虫剂对二化螟四龄幼虫和初孵幼虫的室内毒力,结果表明,虽然方法和试虫龄期不同,但两种生测方法测定的9种药剂对二化螟的室内毒力顺序基本一致,阿维菌素和氯虫苯甲酰胺毒力最高,氟铃脲、醚菊酯、毒死蜱和稻丰散次之,杀虫单、三唑磷和丙溴磷相对较差。为生产上防治二化螟提供了药剂选择的直接参考依据。
2、防治水稻二化螟复配药剂的筛选
利用四龄幼虫Potter喷雾塔法和初孵幼虫饲料涂药法,分别检测了以氯虫苯甲酰胺、阿维菌素、醚菊酯、毒死蜱等为主的13种不同的复配药剂组合。结果发现两种测定方法获得的结果基本一致,即13种组合中有2种组合为增效作用(氯虫苯甲酰胺+阿维菌素；毒死蜱+三唑磷),6种组合为相加作用(毒死蜱+稻丰散；毒死蜱+丙溴磷；阿维菌素+三唑磷；氯虫苯甲酰胺+醚菊酯；氯虫苯甲酰胺+三唑磷；氯虫苯甲酰胺+丙溴磷),3种组合为拮抗作用(醚菊酯+丙溴磷；氯虫苯甲酰胺+氟铃脲；氯虫苯甲酰胺+稻丰散)。两种测定方法结果不一致的仅有醚菊酯+稻丰散和醚菊酯+毒死蜱2种组合,以四龄幼虫Potter喷雾塔法测定时分别表现为相加和增效作用,而以初孵幼虫涂药法进行测定时则分别表现为拮抗和相加作用,表现出一定的差异。讨论发现2种方法共同检测出的增效配伍中,毒死蜱+三唑磷已经被推广应用,而氯虫苯甲酰胺+阿维菌素是本研究新发现的增效复配组合,同时对阿维菌素和氯虫苯甲酰胺的不同配比组合用potter喷雾塔法进行生测筛选,结果发现其不同配比的共毒系数顺序为CTC2:1>CTC1:1>CTC4:1>CTC1:4>CTC1:2,即以LC50按2：1复配时CTC值最大(347.18),增效明显；配比1:1、4：1的CTC值分别为166.08和147.83,有增效作用；配比为1：4和1：2的CTC值均小于100。进一步研究开发,可以为二化螟防治提供新型有效药剂品种,在生产上推广应用,一方面通过混用延缓氯虫苯甲酰胺和阿维菌素抗药性的产生,另一方面可以降低害虫防治的用药成本。同时本研究还建议在生产上应避免混合使用表现为拮抗作用的复配组合药剂。
3、不同药剂防治二化螟的持效期分析
本研究利用不同剂量毒死蜱喷雾处理稻苗进行接虫试验,验证了用药浓度与持效期的正相关关系。而后在不产生药害的前提下采用不同剂量喷雾处理,比较了氯虫苯甲酰胺、阿维菌素和毒死蜱防治二化螟的持效期。喷雾处理稻苗后定期接种蚁螟观察发现,喷施20%氯虫苯甲酰胺悬浮剂1：5000倍液,可以维持在14 d内接种蚁螟无侵入为害,而用高剂量1：1000倍液处理稻苗后,28 d内接虫二化螟的死亡率仍达到100%,不能侵入危害；喷施1.8%阿维菌素乳油1：1000倍液仅在7d内接种蚁螟无侵入为害,使用高剂量1：500倍液处理后,延长至14d内无侵入危害；40%毒死蜱乳油1：1000倍液处理后7d的防效仅为84.3%,使用高剂量1：300倍液处理,7d内无侵入危害,14d的防效仍为89.5%。不同药剂的持效性差异明显,并且与药剂的毒力不完全一致。讨论分析认为,氯虫苯甲酰胺和阿维菌素的持效期较长,使用高剂量处理可以进一步延长其持效期。因此,生产上在不产生药害和经济许可的情况下,使用高剂量进行移栽前处理(送嫁药),可以更有效的防治水稻本田早期的螟虫危害,减轻螟虫后续世代的发生量,并避免本田过早用药干扰天敌种群的建立。
4、二化螟寄主选择及寄主对种群的影响
本研究在实验室条件下就二化螟对不同寄主的产卵选择,以及在不同寄主上初孵幼虫的成活率进行了研究。试验结果表明,水稻二化螟种群在茭白、水稻、小麦、甘蔗、玉米上的落卵量分别为48.03%、44.16%、3.38%、2.39%、2.04%,二化螟在水稻、茭白上所产卵粒的分布无显著差异,但显著大于在小麦、玉米和甘蔗上的产卵量。水稻二化螟初孵幼虫在茭白、水稻、小麦、甘蔗、玉米上的成活率分别为10.75%、51.22%、44.11%、1.45%、7.15%,在水稻和小麦上的成活率无显著差异,但显著大于在茭白、玉米和甘蔗上的成活率。研究结果表明二化螟的多种传统寄主实际上有显著差异,本研究综合分析认为仅有水稻最适宜水稻二化螟的繁殖。
本文首先测试确定了这9种常用药剂对二化螟的毒力顺序,为生产上防治二化螟提供了药剂选择的直接参考依据。筛选确定了氯虫苯甲酰胺+阿维菌素是防治二化螟新的增效复配组合,可以用混用的方式在生产上推广应用,一方面通过混用延缓氯虫苯甲酰胺和阿维菌素抗药性的产生,另一方面降低害虫防治的用药成本。通过研究不同剂量和不同药剂的持效期,确定了生产上可以通过选用持效期长的药剂,在不产生药害的前提下,使用高剂量进行移栽前处理,以便更有效的防治水稻本田早期的螟虫危害,减轻螟虫后续世代的发生量,并避免本田过早用药干扰天敌种群的建立。通过研究二化螟对不同寄主的产卵选择,以及在不同寄主上初孵幼虫的成活率,发现二化螟在不同寄主上的产卵量和成活率有显著差异,其中仅有水稻最适宜水稻二化螟的繁殖,由此证实阻止一代二化螟在水稻上产卵繁殖,可以降低当地二化螟种群的密度。
The rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker), is one of major insect pests of rice in China. With cropping system reform, rice varieties substitution and insecticide resistance development, population of this pest and its damage to rice increased dramatically, severely threatening the production of rice. In Jiangsu and some other areas, postponing sowing and isolation culture of seedlings with covering membrane were employed to improve the management of this pest. However, due to the limited growing season for rice in the single cropping rice areas, these countermeasures could be not maintained longer enough to keep the moths of all the first generation from contacting the seedlings. So long persistence insecticides are required to handle rice seedlings before transplant. Otherwise, it is not clear if the moths in early spring could breed populations normally by using host plants other than rice. In order to evaluate and strengthen the strategy of "Taking it as the key for the management of borers to control their 1st generation by postponing rice sowing and transplanting date appropriately, and using effective insecticides", some related work has been done and the main results are summarized as follows:
1. Toxicity of various insecticides on Chilo suppressalis
The toxicities of abamectin 1.8% EC, chlorantraniliprole 20% SC, hexaflumuron 5% EC, ethofenprox 10% EC, chlorpyrifos 40% EC, phenthoate 50% EC, triazophos 15% ME, monosultap 90% WP and profenofos 40% EC against the neonates and the forth-instar larvae of C. suppressalis were tested by Residues on Artificial Diet and Potter Tower Spraying, respectively. Similar results were obtained, which both showed that abamectinn and chlorantraniliprole were higher toxic, and followed by hexaflumuron, ethofenprox, chlorpyrifos and phenthoate, but monosultap, triazophos and profenofos were lower toxic to this pest. These results provide a direct and comprehensive reference basis for chemical control of C. suppressalis.
2. Selection of efficient mixtures of insecticides against Chilo suppressal
The toxicities of 13 different combinations of chlorantraniliprole, abamectin, ethofenprox and chlorpyrifos against the neonates and the forth-instar larvae of C. suppressalis were tested by Residues on Artificial Diet and Potter Tower Spraying, respectively. Similar results were obtained, which proved that the mixtures chlorantraniliprole with abamectin and chlorpyrifos with triazophos showed obvious synergism; chlorpyrifos with phenthoate, chlorpyrifos with profenofos, abamectin with triazophos, chlorantraniliprole with ethofenprox, chlorantraniliprole with triazophos and chlorantraniliprole with profenofos were additive, and three mixtures, ethofenprox with profenofos, chlorantraniliprole with hexaflumuron and chlorantraniliprole with phenthoate were antagonistic. Ethofenprox mixed with phenthoate and ethofenprox mixed with chlorpyrifos showed, respectively, additive and synergism when tested with Potter Tower Spraying. However, they were antagonistic and additive when tested by Residues on Artificial Diet. chlorpyrifos mixed with triazophos has been extensively used in practice. However, chlorantraniliprole mixed with abamectin was the synergistic combination newly discovered in this study. Further tests with mixtures of abamectin and chlorantraniliprole of different ratios found that their co-toxicity coefficient (CTC) values were as fellows:CTC2:1>CTC1:1>CTC4:1> CTC1:4>CTC1:2. The mixture with the ratio of 2 to 1 showed highest synergism(CTC 347.18). The mixture with the ratio of 1 to 1 and 4 to 1 were also synergistic (CTC 166.08 and 147.83). But all the other mixtures of different ratio were not synergistic with their CTC less than 100. Obviously, a new efficient insecticide formulation could be developed against C. suppressal in practice, which might delay the development of resistance to chlorantraniliprole and abamectin and reduce the control cost. The study also suggested those mixtures showed antagonistic should not be used in practice。
3. Comparison of the persistence of insecticide representatives with indoor trials
Positive correlation between pesticide concentration and persistence of control effect was first proved by the trials controlling the inoculated neonates of C. suppressalis with rice seedlings treated with different doses of profenofos. Then, chlorantraniliprole, abamectin and profenofos were compared for their persistence of control effect under the prerequisite for no phytotoxicity. The results showed that treatment with 5000 time dilution of 20% chlorantraniliprole SC could keep the rice seedlings from infestation for 14 days, and high doses (1000 time dilution) could keep for 28 days. One thousand time dilution of 1.8% abamectin EC can keep no infestation for only 7 days, which could be extended to 14 days when 500 time dilution was used. The persistent control effect of 40% chlorprifos EC was poorest of the 3 insecticides. The control effect of only 84.3% in 7 days and 57.2% in 14 days was observed when 1000 time dilution was applied. However, the corresponding control effect could be enhanced to 100%,89.5% by using 300 time dilution. Obviously, insecticides varied in their persistent effect, which was not always consistent with their toxicity. It was concluded that chlorantraniliprole and abamectin have good persistent control effect, which could be further enhanced by use of high doses. Discussion came to the conclusion that with higher dose of long persistence insecticides, the first generation of C. suppressalis in a year could be effectively controlled by handling rice seedlings before transplant under the prerequisite for no phytotoxicity. Thus, the population density of the following generations in the whole year could be depressed, and also the early insecticide spray after transplant could be saved which is helpful for nature enemies to set up their population in rice field.
4. The oviposition preference and population developing of Chilo suppressalis on different host plants
The oviposition preference and survival rate of the neonates of C. suppressalis on different host plants was studied at laboratory condition. The result showed that the accumulated borer's eggs distributed on wildrice, rice, wheat, sugarcane and maize with the corresponding portion as 48.03%、44.16%、3.38%、2.39% and 2.04%. There was no significant difference between wildrice and rice, but the egg number was significantly higher on these two hosts than on other plants tested. The survival rate of neonates of C. suppressalis on wildrice, rice, wheat, sugarcane and maize was 10.75%,51.22%,44.11%, 1.45%,7.15%, respectively. No difference on rice and wheat was found, but the survival rate on these two was significantly higher than that on wildrice, maize and sugarcane. These results demonstrated that traditionally named host plants might be definitely different in maintaining borer's population. Only rice is thought to be suitable for breeding of this borer, when oviposition preference and survival rate were both taken into consideration.
In this paper, the toxicities of 9 commonly used insecticides against C. suppressalis were tested, an efficient mixture was selected, and it was also proved that efficient and persistent control could be achieved by handling rice seedlings with high doses of insecticides under the prerequisite for no phytotoxicity. The results could be used to improve the management of rice stem borers. Otherwise, different host plants were evaluated for their role in maintaining borer's population, and evidences were provided for population depressing effect of the strategy to keep the borer moths of first generation from contacting with rice seedlings in single cropping rice areas.
1、不同杀虫剂对二化螟的毒力测定
采用四龄幼虫Potter喷雾塔法和初孵幼虫饲料涂药法分别测定了1.8%阿维菌素乳油、20%氯虫苯甲酰胺悬浮剂、5%氟铃脲乳油、10%醚菊酯乳油、40%毒死蜱乳油、50%稻丰散乳油、90%杀虫单可湿性粉剂、15%三唑磷微乳剂、40%丙溴磷乳油9种杀虫剂对二化螟四龄幼虫和初孵幼虫的室内毒力,结果表明,虽然方法和试虫龄期不同,但两种生测方法测定的9种药剂对二化螟的室内毒力顺序基本一致,阿维菌素和氯虫苯甲酰胺毒力最高,氟铃脲、醚菊酯、毒死蜱和稻丰散次之,杀虫单、三唑磷和丙溴磷相对较差。为生产上防治二化螟提供了药剂选择的直接参考依据。
2、防治水稻二化螟复配药剂的筛选
利用四龄幼虫Potter喷雾塔法和初孵幼虫饲料涂药法,分别检测了以氯虫苯甲酰胺、阿维菌素、醚菊酯、毒死蜱等为主的13种不同的复配药剂组合。结果发现两种测定方法获得的结果基本一致,即13种组合中有2种组合为增效作用(氯虫苯甲酰胺+阿维菌素；毒死蜱+三唑磷),6种组合为相加作用(毒死蜱+稻丰散；毒死蜱+丙溴磷；阿维菌素+三唑磷；氯虫苯甲酰胺+醚菊酯；氯虫苯甲酰胺+三唑磷；氯虫苯甲酰胺+丙溴磷),3种组合为拮抗作用(醚菊酯+丙溴磷；氯虫苯甲酰胺+氟铃脲；氯虫苯甲酰胺+稻丰散)。两种测定方法结果不一致的仅有醚菊酯+稻丰散和醚菊酯+毒死蜱2种组合,以四龄幼虫Potter喷雾塔法测定时分别表现为相加和增效作用,而以初孵幼虫涂药法进行测定时则分别表现为拮抗和相加作用,表现出一定的差异。讨论发现2种方法共同检测出的增效配伍中,毒死蜱+三唑磷已经被推广应用,而氯虫苯甲酰胺+阿维菌素是本研究新发现的增效复配组合,同时对阿维菌素和氯虫苯甲酰胺的不同配比组合用potter喷雾塔法进行生测筛选,结果发现其不同配比的共毒系数顺序为CTC2:1>CTC1:1>CTC4:1>CTC1:4>CTC1:2,即以LC50按2：1复配时CTC值最大(347.18),增效明显；配比1:1、4：1的CTC值分别为166.08和147.83,有增效作用；配比为1：4和1：2的CTC值均小于100。进一步研究开发,可以为二化螟防治提供新型有效药剂品种,在生产上推广应用,一方面通过混用延缓氯虫苯甲酰胺和阿维菌素抗药性的产生,另一方面可以降低害虫防治的用药成本。同时本研究还建议在生产上应避免混合使用表现为拮抗作用的复配组合药剂。
3、不同药剂防治二化螟的持效期分析
本研究利用不同剂量毒死蜱喷雾处理稻苗进行接虫试验,验证了用药浓度与持效期的正相关关系。而后在不产生药害的前提下采用不同剂量喷雾处理,比较了氯虫苯甲酰胺、阿维菌素和毒死蜱防治二化螟的持效期。喷雾处理稻苗后定期接种蚁螟观察发现,喷施20%氯虫苯甲酰胺悬浮剂1：5000倍液,可以维持在14 d内接种蚁螟无侵入为害,而用高剂量1：1000倍液处理稻苗后,28 d内接虫二化螟的死亡率仍达到100%,不能侵入危害；喷施1.8%阿维菌素乳油1：1000倍液仅在7d内接种蚁螟无侵入为害,使用高剂量1：500倍液处理后,延长至14d内无侵入危害；40%毒死蜱乳油1：1000倍液处理后7d的防效仅为84.3%,使用高剂量1：300倍液处理,7d内无侵入危害,14d的防效仍为89.5%。不同药剂的持效性差异明显,并且与药剂的毒力不完全一致。讨论分析认为,氯虫苯甲酰胺和阿维菌素的持效期较长,使用高剂量处理可以进一步延长其持效期。因此,生产上在不产生药害和经济许可的情况下,使用高剂量进行移栽前处理(送嫁药),可以更有效的防治水稻本田早期的螟虫危害,减轻螟虫后续世代的发生量,并避免本田过早用药干扰天敌种群的建立。
4、二化螟寄主选择及寄主对种群的影响
本研究在实验室条件下就二化螟对不同寄主的产卵选择,以及在不同寄主上初孵幼虫的成活率进行了研究。试验结果表明,水稻二化螟种群在茭白、水稻、小麦、甘蔗、玉米上的落卵量分别为48.03%、44.16%、3.38%、2.39%、2.04%,二化螟在水稻、茭白上所产卵粒的分布无显著差异,但显著大于在小麦、玉米和甘蔗上的产卵量。水稻二化螟初孵幼虫在茭白、水稻、小麦、甘蔗、玉米上的成活率分别为10.75%、51.22%、44.11%、1.45%、7.15%,在水稻和小麦上的成活率无显著差异,但显著大于在茭白、玉米和甘蔗上的成活率。研究结果表明二化螟的多种传统寄主实际上有显著差异,本研究综合分析认为仅有水稻最适宜水稻二化螟的繁殖。
本文首先测试确定了这9种常用药剂对二化螟的毒力顺序,为生产上防治二化螟提供了药剂选择的直接参考依据。筛选确定了氯虫苯甲酰胺+阿维菌素是防治二化螟新的增效复配组合,可以用混用的方式在生产上推广应用,一方面通过混用延缓氯虫苯甲酰胺和阿维菌素抗药性的产生,另一方面降低害虫防治的用药成本。通过研究不同剂量和不同药剂的持效期,确定了生产上可以通过选用持效期长的药剂,在不产生药害的前提下,使用高剂量进行移栽前处理,以便更有效的防治水稻本田早期的螟虫危害,减轻螟虫后续世代的发生量,并避免本田过早用药干扰天敌种群的建立。通过研究二化螟对不同寄主的产卵选择,以及在不同寄主上初孵幼虫的成活率,发现二化螟在不同寄主上的产卵量和成活率有显著差异,其中仅有水稻最适宜水稻二化螟的繁殖,由此证实阻止一代二化螟在水稻上产卵繁殖,可以降低当地二化螟种群的密度。
The rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker), is one of major insect pests of rice in China. With cropping system reform, rice varieties substitution and insecticide resistance development, population of this pest and its damage to rice increased dramatically, severely threatening the production of rice. In Jiangsu and some other areas, postponing sowing and isolation culture of seedlings with covering membrane were employed to improve the management of this pest. However, due to the limited growing season for rice in the single cropping rice areas, these countermeasures could be not maintained longer enough to keep the moths of all the first generation from contacting the seedlings. So long persistence insecticides are required to handle rice seedlings before transplant. Otherwise, it is not clear if the moths in early spring could breed populations normally by using host plants other than rice. In order to evaluate and strengthen the strategy of "Taking it as the key for the management of borers to control their 1st generation by postponing rice sowing and transplanting date appropriately, and using effective insecticides", some related work has been done and the main results are summarized as follows:
1. Toxicity of various insecticides on Chilo suppressalis
The toxicities of abamectin 1.8% EC, chlorantraniliprole 20% SC, hexaflumuron 5% EC, ethofenprox 10% EC, chlorpyrifos 40% EC, phenthoate 50% EC, triazophos 15% ME, monosultap 90% WP and profenofos 40% EC against the neonates and the forth-instar larvae of C. suppressalis were tested by Residues on Artificial Diet and Potter Tower Spraying, respectively. Similar results were obtained, which both showed that abamectinn and chlorantraniliprole were higher toxic, and followed by hexaflumuron, ethofenprox, chlorpyrifos and phenthoate, but monosultap, triazophos and profenofos were lower toxic to this pest. These results provide a direct and comprehensive reference basis for chemical control of C. suppressalis.
2. Selection of efficient mixtures of insecticides against Chilo suppressal
The toxicities of 13 different combinations of chlorantraniliprole, abamectin, ethofenprox and chlorpyrifos against the neonates and the forth-instar larvae of C. suppressalis were tested by Residues on Artificial Diet and Potter Tower Spraying, respectively. Similar results were obtained, which proved that the mixtures chlorantraniliprole with abamectin and chlorpyrifos with triazophos showed obvious synergism; chlorpyrifos with phenthoate, chlorpyrifos with profenofos, abamectin with triazophos, chlorantraniliprole with ethofenprox, chlorantraniliprole with triazophos and chlorantraniliprole with profenofos were additive, and three mixtures, ethofenprox with profenofos, chlorantraniliprole with hexaflumuron and chlorantraniliprole with phenthoate were antagonistic. Ethofenprox mixed with phenthoate and ethofenprox mixed with chlorpyrifos showed, respectively, additive and synergism when tested with Potter Tower Spraying. However, they were antagonistic and additive when tested by Residues on Artificial Diet. chlorpyrifos mixed with triazophos has been extensively used in practice. However, chlorantraniliprole mixed with abamectin was the synergistic combination newly discovered in this study. Further tests with mixtures of abamectin and chlorantraniliprole of different ratios found that their co-toxicity coefficient (CTC) values were as fellows:CTC2:1>CTC1:1>CTC4:1> CTC1:4>CTC1:2. The mixture with the ratio of 2 to 1 showed highest synergism(CTC 347.18). The mixture with the ratio of 1 to 1 and 4 to 1 were also synergistic (CTC 166.08 and 147.83). But all the other mixtures of different ratio were not synergistic with their CTC less than 100. Obviously, a new efficient insecticide formulation could be developed against C. suppressal in practice, which might delay the development of resistance to chlorantraniliprole and abamectin and reduce the control cost. The study also suggested those mixtures showed antagonistic should not be used in practice。
3. Comparison of the persistence of insecticide representatives with indoor trials
Positive correlation between pesticide concentration and persistence of control effect was first proved by the trials controlling the inoculated neonates of C. suppressalis with rice seedlings treated with different doses of profenofos. Then, chlorantraniliprole, abamectin and profenofos were compared for their persistence of control effect under the prerequisite for no phytotoxicity. The results showed that treatment with 5000 time dilution of 20% chlorantraniliprole SC could keep the rice seedlings from infestation for 14 days, and high doses (1000 time dilution) could keep for 28 days. One thousand time dilution of 1.8% abamectin EC can keep no infestation for only 7 days, which could be extended to 14 days when 500 time dilution was used. The persistent control effect of 40% chlorprifos EC was poorest of the 3 insecticides. The control effect of only 84.3% in 7 days and 57.2% in 14 days was observed when 1000 time dilution was applied. However, the corresponding control effect could be enhanced to 100%,89.5% by using 300 time dilution. Obviously, insecticides varied in their persistent effect, which was not always consistent with their toxicity. It was concluded that chlorantraniliprole and abamectin have good persistent control effect, which could be further enhanced by use of high doses. Discussion came to the conclusion that with higher dose of long persistence insecticides, the first generation of C. suppressalis in a year could be effectively controlled by handling rice seedlings before transplant under the prerequisite for no phytotoxicity. Thus, the population density of the following generations in the whole year could be depressed, and also the early insecticide spray after transplant could be saved which is helpful for nature enemies to set up their population in rice field.
4. The oviposition preference and population developing of Chilo suppressalis on different host plants
The oviposition preference and survival rate of the neonates of C. suppressalis on different host plants was studied at laboratory condition. The result showed that the accumulated borer's eggs distributed on wildrice, rice, wheat, sugarcane and maize with the corresponding portion as 48.03%、44.16%、3.38%、2.39% and 2.04%. There was no significant difference between wildrice and rice, but the egg number was significantly higher on these two hosts than on other plants tested. The survival rate of neonates of C. suppressalis on wildrice, rice, wheat, sugarcane and maize was 10.75%,51.22%,44.11%, 1.45%,7.15%, respectively. No difference on rice and wheat was found, but the survival rate on these two was significantly higher than that on wildrice, maize and sugarcane. These results demonstrated that traditionally named host plants might be definitely different in maintaining borer's population. Only rice is thought to be suitable for breeding of this borer, when oviposition preference and survival rate were both taken into consideration.
In this paper, the toxicities of 9 commonly used insecticides against C. suppressalis were tested, an efficient mixture was selected, and it was also proved that efficient and persistent control could be achieved by handling rice seedlings with high doses of insecticides under the prerequisite for no phytotoxicity. The results could be used to improve the management of rice stem borers. Otherwise, different host plants were evaluated for their role in maintaining borer's population, and evidences were provided for population depressing effect of the strategy to keep the borer moths of first generation from contacting with rice seedlings in single cropping rice areas.
引文
1. 敖秋春,秦厚国,1993.二化螟在杂交水稻上发生为害特点新观察[J].江西农业科技,(4)：37-38
2. 蔡之华,洪要文,2002.沿淮稻区二化螟重发生原因与综防对策[J].安徽农学通报,8(4)：52-52
3. 曹喜玲,李松杰等,2003.二化螟的发生规律及防治对策[J].垦殖与稻作,(1)：24-25
4. 陈长琨,李秀峰.韩召军等,2000.二化螟抗药性监测方法及相对敏感基线[J].南京农业大学学报,23(4)：25-28
5. 陈华才,沈群超,娄永根等,2004.水稻挥发物对二化螟幼虫趋性行为的影响[J].中国水稻科学,18(5)：473-475.
6. 陈辉珍,董香芝,黄样玉等,2002.2001年苍南县水稻二化螟大发生原因分析及治理对策[J].温州农业科枝,1：12-14
7. 陈建明,俞晓平,郑许松等,2003.二化螟取食茭白和水稻后生物学特征表现的比较[J].浙江农业学报,15(3)：139-143.
8. 刁春友,王茂涛,朱叶芹等,2001.苏南稻二化螟上升原因及对策探讨[J].植保技术与推广21(1)：7-9
9. 丁锦华,苏建亚,2002.农业昆虫学(南方本)[M].北京：中国农业出版社出版,150-154
10. 方继朝,杜正文等,1998.水稻螟害上升态势与控害减灾对策分析[J].昆虫知识,35(4)：193-197
11. 范仰东,莫小平,1999.锐劲特防治水稻二化螟的效果及技术[J].昆虫知识,36(3)：161-164
12. 符明龙,王云仙,1998.浙江省苍南县二化螟重发原因及防治对策[J].浙江农业学报,(5)：234-236
13. 高君川,李为民,蒋国荣,1987.二化螟防治指标的研究[J].植物保护学报,14(2)：108-114
14. 高玉林,傅强,王锋等,2006.转cry1Ac和CpTl双基因抗虫水稻对二化螟和大螟的致死效应及田间螟虫构成的影响[J].中国水稻科学,20(5)：534-548.
15. 龚林根,张念根等,2001.抗性二化螟综合治理研究初报[J].南京农业大学学报,24(3)：35-37
16. 顾正远,肖英方,王益民,1989.江苏主要水稻品种对三种害虫的抗性[J].江苏农业学报,5(2)：38-41
17. 关瑞峰,姚文辉,王茂明等,2008.福建省水稻螟虫种群发生变化及原因初探[J].华东昆虫学报,17(1)：63-70.
18.韩永强,郝丽霞,侯茂林,2009.北方稻田和茭白田二化螟越冬幼虫生物学特性的比较[J].中国生态农业学报.17(3)：541-544
19.郝丽霞,韩永强等,2009.二化螟与寄主植物间的互作关系[J].湖南农业学报,(4)：84-87
20.胡国文,刘光杰,1992.我国水稻抗虫性研究进展.青年生态学者论丛(二)[M].昆虫生态学研究,北京：中国科学技术出版社,22-31
21. 黄建亚,苏建权,刘德根,2009.大中农场机插水稻无纺布隔离与基质育秧技术[J].现代农业科技,(15)：30
22. 黄荣汉,叶云福,余厚贵等,1991.二化螟在水稻上产卵的生物学特性[J].昆虫知识,28(6)：326-328.
23. 黄绍华,刘琴乐,1997.湘北三代二化螟对杂交晚稻危害特点的研究[J].昆虫知识,34(6)：321-323.
24. 蒋明星,祝增荣等,1999.不同生境中水稻二化螟的自然寄生情况[J].中国生物防治,15(4)：145-149
25. 江水明,潘战胜,刘火祥,2004.2003年余干县晚稻二化螟大发生原因及防治建议[J].江西植保,27(2)：82-83
26. 江苏省农业科学研究所,江苏农学院,江苏省农药研究所,1983.水稻病虫害[M].农业出版社,
27. 江西植保志编纂委员会,2001.江西植保志(第一版)[M].南吕：江西科学技术出版社
28. 蒋学辉,章强华,1997.浙江省二化螟种群回升原因浅析及治理对策[J].植保技术与推广,17(6)：15-17.
29. 金翠霞,吴亚,王东兰,1989.耕作制度变革与害虫的发生和演替[J].植物保护,15(4)：36-38
30. 雷国明等,1995.一代二化螟发生和危害时差显著性的原因分析及防治对策[J].植保技术与推广,(3)：4-6
31. 黎贤伟,2005.水稻二化螟持续大发生的原因及综合治理对策[J].湖北植保,(1)：12-14
32. 李安祥,李慈厚,1996.二化螟及其防治[M].北京：中国农业科技出版社
33. 李国敬,胡鹏等,2002.2001年水稻二化螟、三化螟大发生原因分析及综防对策[J].湖北植保,1：15-16
34. 林克剑,侯茂林,韩兰芝等,2008.二化螟寄主选择行为与种群消长机制的砌剃进展[J].植物保护,34(1)：22-28
35. 李秀峰,韩召军,陈长琨等,2001.二化螟对杀虫单4种杀虫剂的抗药性[J].南京农业大学学报,24(1)：43-46
36. 李秀军,陈斌,2007.0.5%甲氨基阿维菌素苯甲酸盐微乳剂对烟青虫的防治效果研究[J].云南农业大学学报,(3)：358-360
37. 卢代华,2004.狠抓水稻苗稻瘟和第一代二化螟的药剂防治[J].四川农业科技,(4)：37
38. 卢代华,杨天智,2004.狠抓水稻中后期主要病虫害防[J].四川农业科技,(6)：32-33
39. 刘光杰,黄和平,谢秀芳等,1998.早稻品种对二化螟的抗性及其生化基础研究[J].西南农业大学学报,20(5)：512-515
40.刘光杰,秦厚国,1997.我国稻螟研究新进展(二)[J].昆虫知识,34(4)：239-242
41.刘卓荣,梅胜芳等,2001.赣西北稻区二化螟发生特点及抗药性治理对策[J],江西植保,24(3)：80-81
42.刘怀阿,朱锦磊,张春梅等,2004.15%阿维素乳油对水稻害虫的毒力与药效[J].西南农业大学学报,26(6)：781-784
43.刘素梅,张素珍,姜志强等,2007.水稻无纺布钵盘育苗技术研究[J].辽宁农业职业技术学院学报,9(2)：15-17
44. 罗盛富,肖永和,黄志农等,1992.苏云金杆菌-T乳剂防治二化螟试验[J].湖南农业科学,(4)：38-40
45.毛伟强,黄海明等,2001.锐劲特与三唑磷混用防治稻纵卷叶螟和稻匕虱试验[J1.浙江农业科学(5)：268-270
46. 廖顺源,1985.人工模拟水稻枯心测定分蘖和损失补偿能力的研究[J].西南农业学报,(1)：55～56
47.裴海英,丁红春,周奎军等,2002.黑龙江二化螟发生规律调查[J].植物保护,28(5)：27-28
48.彭国强,王金辉,2006.湘东地区现阶段二化螟发生为害的新特点及原因剖析[J].中国植保导刊,10：17-20
49. 秦厚国,罗任华等,2005.二化螟大发生原因及控制对策[J].华东昆虫学报,14(1)：91-93
50.钱冬兰,1999.稻螟发生演化及防治对策探讨[J].植保技术与推广,19(5)：12-14
51.钱十明,高财根,付关英,2000.水稻二化螟和稻纵卷叶螟复合危害损失及防治指标的研究[J].植保技术与推广,20(4)：111-121
52. 曲明静,许新军,韩召军等,2006.二化螟抗药性研究现状[J].江西农业学报,18(6)：109-111
53.钦俊德,1987.昆虫与植物的关系-论昆虫与植物的相互作用及其演化[M].科学出版社,北京,第1版
54.任启坤,1999.水稻害虫的综合防治.生物学教学,24(11)：40-41
55.沈彩云,卢兆成,1989.国外水稻害虫的防治指标综述[J].昆虫知识,26(3)：185-187
56.沈群颜,1965.二化螟为害蕉藕的观察[J].昆虫知识,12(2)
57. 盛承发,王红托,盛世余等,2003.我国稻螟灾害的现状及损失估计[J].昆虫知识,40(4)：289-294.
58. 施祖华,刘树生,1999.菜蛾绒茧蜂的寄主选择性及寄生对寄主发育和取食的影响[J].植物保护学报,26(1)：25-2-9.
59.石谋军,2005.湖南省水稻二化螟抗药性监测及对三唑磷抗性机理初探：湖南农业大学博十 论文
60. 舒相石,肖欣,2005.水稻螟虫防治技术探讨[J].作物研究,19(1)：30-32.
61.宋浩然,1993.带药漂浮载体防治水稻二化螟的研究[J].江西农业科学,(5)：32-33
62.苏彪,陈友良,张益夫等,2007.水稻二化螟综合治理技术探索与推广[J].农药研究与应用,11(2)：5-9
63. 孙富余,田春晖,乔世文等,2000.辽宁省水稻主要害虫化学防治指标的确定[J].辽宁农业科学,(3)：4-6
64. 孙俊铭,1994.杀虫单防治二化螟田间药效试验[J].农药,33(3)：34
65.孙丽娟,戴华国,衣维贤等,2002.二化螟水稻类群与茭白类群成虫羽化节律和交配节律研究[J].昆虫知识,39(6)：421-423
66.唐振华,1993.昆虫抗药性及其治理[M].北京：中国农业出版社,422-440
67. 谭荫初,邹剑明等,1983.杂交水稻二化螟的发生情况[J].昆虫学报,26(1)：14-16
68.谭荫初,1987.杂交水稻中的螟虫初步研究[J].昆虫知识,24(5)：311-313
69. 田学志,高保宗,石家胜等,1991.安庆地区水稻二化螟抗药性研究[J].安徽农业科学,(1)：61-66
70. 王传全,王翔,1997.贵池市水稻二化螟发生动态分析[J].安徽农业大学学报,24：336-339
71.王金辉,陈运康等.第一代二化螟枯鞘对水稻生长发育影响及药剂防治指标研究[J].植物保护,32(6)：88-91
72. 汪恩国,1999.二化螟种群数量变动规律研究[J].植物保护,25(1)：14-17
73. 王世贵,2001.小同食料对人工饲养的二化螟生长发育和产卵量的影响[J].植物保护,38(3)：1-4.
74. 王晓丽,张晓波,孔祥梅,朱瑜等,1996.水稻二化螟发生规律及防治的初步研究[J].吉林农业科学,(4)：43-45
75.王永实,赵继香,2008.无纺布育苗与聚乙烯薄膜育苗对比试验[J].农业与技术,28(1)：50-51
76.谢应强,周梅香等,2001.锐劲特及其组配防治两系法杂交稻稻纵卷叶螟的效果[J].湖南农业科学,(3)：55-56
77. 薜进,戈峰,黎家文等,2005.二化螟与作物的相互关系及其影响因素[J].昆虫知识,42(3)：259-263
78. 韦永保,赵厚印,2002.水稻病虫总体调查和预报技术探讨[J].植保技术与推广,22(2)：3-5
79. 韦永保,2000.皖南单季稻区二化螟发生特点及其回升原因[J].安徽农业科学,28(6)：762-763
80. 文永刚,1998.二化螟危害生姜严重[J].植物保护,(3)：49
81.翁丽青,2005.茭白田二化螟的发生规律及防治研究[J].中国植保导刊,(1)：15-16
82.吴跃民.水稻无纺布覆盖育苗技术及其特点[J].中国农技推广,2005年第9期：28-29
83. 夏声广,李平良,胡志平,2002.种植结构调整与水稻二化螟为害变化[J].浙江农业科学,5：246-248
84. 谢宝玉,汪恩国,2000.水稻二化螟再猖撅发生原因及综合治理[J].植物保护,26(6)：45-47
85.辛文,2001.二化螟水稻、茭白种群的比较研究[J].北京：中国农业科学院
86. 熊件妹,朱杏芬,肖海军,2006.南吕地区二化螟抗药性监测与治理[J].江西农业大学学报,26(6)：877-880
87. 徐汉红,2007.植物化学保护学(第四版)[M].北京：中国农业出版社,104-108
88. 徐红星,俞晓平,吕仲贤等,2001.二化螟在水稻培矮和秀水11上的为害和生长发育比较[J].浙江农业科学,(6)：318～320
89. 许国柱,许金香,2001.水稻无纺布育苗效果浅析[J].江西农业职业技术学院学报,3(4)：7-8
90. 薛进,戈峰,黎家文等,2005.二化螟与作物的相互关系及其影响因素[J].昆虫知识,42(3)：259-263
91.杨荣明,方继朝,朱叶芹等,2004.江苏省水稻螟虫发生的新特点及治理措施[J].江苏农业科学,1：52-54.
92. 杨玉文,2004.江淮单季稻区二化螟防治对策[J].安徽农业,(4)：18
93. 姚月明,王海侯,陆长婴等,2009.不同规格无纺布覆盖育秧对机插秧苗素质的影响[J].江西农业学报,21(8)：32-34
94. 尹立安,徐春红,2001.水稻二化螟的发生与综合防治[J].辽宁农业科学,(5)：52
95.游树立,朱如杰,2006.苗床覆盖防虫网和无纺布防治水稻条纹叶枯病的效果[J].江苏农业科学,(3)：82-83
96. 俞晓平,徐红星,吕仲贤等,2002.水稻田和茭白田二化螟的比较研究[J].生态学报,22(3)341-345
97. 张绍明,2005.江苏水稻二化螟抗药性监测及综合治理技术研究与示范.硕士学位论文,南京农业大学
98. 张志样,吴福泉,2000.水稻二化螟及其防治[J].安徽农业,(6)：21-22
99. 张子君,冯永祥,2008.不同覆盖物保湿性及对机插秧苗素质的影响.稻作技术,(2)：62-66
100. 章十美,赵泳祥,1 996.中国农林昆虫地理分布,208
101. 周社文,肖一龙,2000.二化螟种群突增机制及控制对策研究[J].植保技术与推广,20(3)：5-7.
102.周忻,1990.防治稻螟四十年[J].昆虫知识,27(3)：178-181
103. 周祖铭,1985.水稻品种抗二化螟鉴定初步研究[J].植物保护学报,12(3)：159-164
104. 朱祚亮,曹诗红,蔡世凤,2008.宜都市水稻二化螟大发生的原因分析及防治对策[J].湖北植保,5：18-19
105. Burg R W, Miller B M, Baker E E et al,1979. Avermectins, new family of potent anathematic agents; producing organism and fermentation [J]. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy,15(3): 361-367.
106. FAO,1980. Method for larvae of the rice stem bore(Chilo suppressalis Walker)-FAO method No. 3[C]//Pest Resistance to Pesticides and Crop Loss Assessment-2. Rome:FAO,25-28
107. George P. Lahm, Daniel Cordova, James D. Barry,2009. New and selective ryanodine receptor activators for insect control [J]. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry,17:4127-4133
108. Hirooka T. Nishimatsu T. Kodama H, et al,2007. The biological profile of flubendiamide, a new benzenedicarboxamide insecticide [J]. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer, (60):183-202
109. Ishiguro N, Yoshida K,Tsuchida K,Genetic differences between rice and water-oats feeders in the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker)(Lepidoptera:Crambidae)[J]. Applied Entomology and Zoo;ogy,2006,41:585-593.
110. J-C.Breitler,2000. Expression of a Bacillus thuringiensis crylB synthetic gene proyects Mediterranean rice against the striped stem borer. Plant Cell Reports, (19):1195-1202.
111. Koike K(小池贤治)Tamura K(田村和夫)Saito Y1981. Potential of the water-oat, Zi zania latifolia Turcz, as alternative host plant of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressulis (Walker) The Annual Reprot of the Society of Plant Protection of Hoku Riku(北陆病害虫研究会报),29：28-31 (in Japanese).
112. KOJIMA A, YAMA SHIROC, A RISA KA M,1996. Regional control threshold of rice stem borer moth, Chilo supperssalis Walker (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) indicated by adult catch with sex pheromone[J]. Jpn J Appl Entomol Zool,40(4):279-286.
113. KONDO A, TANAKA F,1995. An estimation of the control threshold of the rice stem borer moth Chilo suppressalis(Walker)(Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) based on the pheromone trap catches[J]. Appl Entomol Zool,30(1):103-110.
114. Konno Y(昆野安彦),1998. Mating-choice and host preference tests in the rice-feeding and water oat feeding types of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressulis (Walker)[J]. The Annual Report of the Society of Plant Protection of North Japan(北日本病害虫研究会报),49:102-104(in Japanese)
115. Konno Y, Tanaka F.,1996. Aliesterase isozymes and insecticide susceptibility in rice-feeding and water-oat-feeding strains of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker, (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) [J]. Appl Entomol Zool,31 (2):326-329
116. Konno Y and Tanaka F,1996. Mating time of the rice-feeding and water-oat-feeding strains of the rice stem borer, Chilo ssuppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae). Jpn J. APPl. Entomol. Zool, 40:245-247 (in Japanese)
117. Li Y-S, Luo W-C, Mu L-Y, et al,1996. Effect of food plants on the aldrin epoxidationase and acetyl cholinesterase Diamondback moth Acta Phytophylac Sin,44(3):360-365
118. Matsukura K, Hoshizaki S, Ishikawa Y, et al. Morphometric differences between rice and water-oats populations of the striped stemborer, Chilo suppressalis(Lepidptera:Crambidae)[J]. A pplied Entomology and Zoology,2006,41:529-535.
119. Patanakamjorn S, Pathak M D,1967. Varietal resistance of rice to Asiatic rice borer. Chlio suppressalis (Lepidoptera:Crambidae), and it s association with various plant characters [J]. Ann Entomol Soc Am,60:287-292.
120. Qin J-D(?)(饮俊德).Wang C-Z(王堔柱),2001. The relation of interaction between insects and plants to evolution.Acta Ent Sin(昆虫学报),44(3):360-365(in Chinese).
121. Rubia E G.,1996. Mechanis ms of compensation of rice plants to yellow stem borer Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) injury [J]. Crop protect,15(4):335-340
122. Samudra I M, Emura K, Hoshizaki S. et al,2002, Temporal difference in mating behavior between rice and water-oats populations of the striped stemborer,Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) [J]. Applied Entomology and Zoology,37:257-262
123. Shu Q Y Ye G Y, Cui H R, et al,2000. Transgenic rice plants with asynthetic crylAb gene from Bacillus thuringiensis were highly resistant to eight lepidopteran rice pest species [J]. Mol Breeding,6:433-439
124. Yasuhiko Konno and Fukusaburo Tanaka,1996. Alienate isozymes and insecticide susceptibility in rice feeding and water-oat feeding strains of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressulis(Walker)[J]. Appl Entomol Zool,31(2):326-329
125. Ye G Y, Shu Q Y, Yao H W, et al. Field evaluation of resistance of transgenic rice containing a synthetic cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner to two stem borers. J Econ Entomol, 2001,94:271-276.
126. Yoshitake K,1994. The distribution and damage of the rice stem borer. Chilo suppressulis (Walker) in Kyushu District. Plant Protec,48(2):71-74 (in Japanese).
2. 蔡之华,洪要文,2002.沿淮稻区二化螟重发生原因与综防对策[J].安徽农学通报,8(4)：52-52
3. 曹喜玲,李松杰等,2003.二化螟的发生规律及防治对策[J].垦殖与稻作,(1)：24-25
4. 陈长琨,李秀峰.韩召军等,2000.二化螟抗药性监测方法及相对敏感基线[J].南京农业大学学报,23(4)：25-28
5. 陈华才,沈群超,娄永根等,2004.水稻挥发物对二化螟幼虫趋性行为的影响[J].中国水稻科学,18(5)：473-475.
6. 陈辉珍,董香芝,黄样玉等,2002.2001年苍南县水稻二化螟大发生原因分析及治理对策[J].温州农业科枝,1：12-14
7. 陈建明,俞晓平,郑许松等,2003.二化螟取食茭白和水稻后生物学特征表现的比较[J].浙江农业学报,15(3)：139-143.
8. 刁春友,王茂涛,朱叶芹等,2001.苏南稻二化螟上升原因及对策探讨[J].植保技术与推广21(1)：7-9
9. 丁锦华,苏建亚,2002.农业昆虫学(南方本)[M].北京：中国农业出版社出版,150-154
10. 方继朝,杜正文等,1998.水稻螟害上升态势与控害减灾对策分析[J].昆虫知识,35(4)：193-197
11. 范仰东,莫小平,1999.锐劲特防治水稻二化螟的效果及技术[J].昆虫知识,36(3)：161-164
12. 符明龙,王云仙,1998.浙江省苍南县二化螟重发原因及防治对策[J].浙江农业学报,(5)：234-236
13. 高君川,李为民,蒋国荣,1987.二化螟防治指标的研究[J].植物保护学报,14(2)：108-114
14. 高玉林,傅强,王锋等,2006.转cry1Ac和CpTl双基因抗虫水稻对二化螟和大螟的致死效应及田间螟虫构成的影响[J].中国水稻科学,20(5)：534-548.
15. 龚林根,张念根等,2001.抗性二化螟综合治理研究初报[J].南京农业大学学报,24(3)：35-37
16. 顾正远,肖英方,王益民,1989.江苏主要水稻品种对三种害虫的抗性[J].江苏农业学报,5(2)：38-41
17. 关瑞峰,姚文辉,王茂明等,2008.福建省水稻螟虫种群发生变化及原因初探[J].华东昆虫学报,17(1)：63-70.
18.韩永强,郝丽霞,侯茂林,2009.北方稻田和茭白田二化螟越冬幼虫生物学特性的比较[J].中国生态农业学报.17(3)：541-544
19.郝丽霞,韩永强等,2009.二化螟与寄主植物间的互作关系[J].湖南农业学报,(4)：84-87
20.胡国文,刘光杰,1992.我国水稻抗虫性研究进展.青年生态学者论丛(二)[M].昆虫生态学研究,北京：中国科学技术出版社,22-31
21. 黄建亚,苏建权,刘德根,2009.大中农场机插水稻无纺布隔离与基质育秧技术[J].现代农业科技,(15)：30
22. 黄荣汉,叶云福,余厚贵等,1991.二化螟在水稻上产卵的生物学特性[J].昆虫知识,28(6)：326-328.
23. 黄绍华,刘琴乐,1997.湘北三代二化螟对杂交晚稻危害特点的研究[J].昆虫知识,34(6)：321-323.
24. 蒋明星,祝增荣等,1999.不同生境中水稻二化螟的自然寄生情况[J].中国生物防治,15(4)：145-149
25. 江水明,潘战胜,刘火祥,2004.2003年余干县晚稻二化螟大发生原因及防治建议[J].江西植保,27(2)：82-83
26. 江苏省农业科学研究所,江苏农学院,江苏省农药研究所,1983.水稻病虫害[M].农业出版社,
27. 江西植保志编纂委员会,2001.江西植保志(第一版)[M].南吕：江西科学技术出版社
28. 蒋学辉,章强华,1997.浙江省二化螟种群回升原因浅析及治理对策[J].植保技术与推广,17(6)：15-17.
29. 金翠霞,吴亚,王东兰,1989.耕作制度变革与害虫的发生和演替[J].植物保护,15(4)：36-38
30. 雷国明等,1995.一代二化螟发生和危害时差显著性的原因分析及防治对策[J].植保技术与推广,(3)：4-6
31. 黎贤伟,2005.水稻二化螟持续大发生的原因及综合治理对策[J].湖北植保,(1)：12-14
32. 李安祥,李慈厚,1996.二化螟及其防治[M].北京：中国农业科技出版社
33. 李国敬,胡鹏等,2002.2001年水稻二化螟、三化螟大发生原因分析及综防对策[J].湖北植保,1：15-16
34. 林克剑,侯茂林,韩兰芝等,2008.二化螟寄主选择行为与种群消长机制的砌剃进展[J].植物保护,34(1)：22-28
35. 李秀峰,韩召军,陈长琨等,2001.二化螟对杀虫单4种杀虫剂的抗药性[J].南京农业大学学报,24(1)：43-46
36. 李秀军,陈斌,2007.0.5%甲氨基阿维菌素苯甲酸盐微乳剂对烟青虫的防治效果研究[J].云南农业大学学报,(3)：358-360
37. 卢代华,2004.狠抓水稻苗稻瘟和第一代二化螟的药剂防治[J].四川农业科技,(4)：37
38. 卢代华,杨天智,2004.狠抓水稻中后期主要病虫害防[J].四川农业科技,(6)：32-33
39. 刘光杰,黄和平,谢秀芳等,1998.早稻品种对二化螟的抗性及其生化基础研究[J].西南农业大学学报,20(5)：512-515
40.刘光杰,秦厚国,1997.我国稻螟研究新进展(二)[J].昆虫知识,34(4)：239-242
41.刘卓荣,梅胜芳等,2001.赣西北稻区二化螟发生特点及抗药性治理对策[J],江西植保,24(3)：80-81
42.刘怀阿,朱锦磊,张春梅等,2004.15%阿维素乳油对水稻害虫的毒力与药效[J].西南农业大学学报,26(6)：781-784
43.刘素梅,张素珍,姜志强等,2007.水稻无纺布钵盘育苗技术研究[J].辽宁农业职业技术学院学报,9(2)：15-17
44. 罗盛富,肖永和,黄志农等,1992.苏云金杆菌-T乳剂防治二化螟试验[J].湖南农业科学,(4)：38-40
45.毛伟强,黄海明等,2001.锐劲特与三唑磷混用防治稻纵卷叶螟和稻匕虱试验[J1.浙江农业科学(5)：268-270
46. 廖顺源,1985.人工模拟水稻枯心测定分蘖和损失补偿能力的研究[J].西南农业学报,(1)：55～56
47.裴海英,丁红春,周奎军等,2002.黑龙江二化螟发生规律调查[J].植物保护,28(5)：27-28
48.彭国强,王金辉,2006.湘东地区现阶段二化螟发生为害的新特点及原因剖析[J].中国植保导刊,10：17-20
49. 秦厚国,罗任华等,2005.二化螟大发生原因及控制对策[J].华东昆虫学报,14(1)：91-93
50.钱冬兰,1999.稻螟发生演化及防治对策探讨[J].植保技术与推广,19(5)：12-14
51.钱十明,高财根,付关英,2000.水稻二化螟和稻纵卷叶螟复合危害损失及防治指标的研究[J].植保技术与推广,20(4)：111-121
52. 曲明静,许新军,韩召军等,2006.二化螟抗药性研究现状[J].江西农业学报,18(6)：109-111
53.钦俊德,1987.昆虫与植物的关系-论昆虫与植物的相互作用及其演化[M].科学出版社,北京,第1版
54.任启坤,1999.水稻害虫的综合防治.生物学教学,24(11)：40-41
55.沈彩云,卢兆成,1989.国外水稻害虫的防治指标综述[J].昆虫知识,26(3)：185-187
56.沈群颜,1965.二化螟为害蕉藕的观察[J].昆虫知识,12(2)
57. 盛承发,王红托,盛世余等,2003.我国稻螟灾害的现状及损失估计[J].昆虫知识,40(4)：289-294.
58. 施祖华,刘树生,1999.菜蛾绒茧蜂的寄主选择性及寄生对寄主发育和取食的影响[J].植物保护学报,26(1)：25-2-9.
59.石谋军,2005.湖南省水稻二化螟抗药性监测及对三唑磷抗性机理初探：湖南农业大学博十 论文
60. 舒相石,肖欣,2005.水稻螟虫防治技术探讨[J].作物研究,19(1)：30-32.
61.宋浩然,1993.带药漂浮载体防治水稻二化螟的研究[J].江西农业科学,(5)：32-33
62.苏彪,陈友良,张益夫等,2007.水稻二化螟综合治理技术探索与推广[J].农药研究与应用,11(2)：5-9
63. 孙富余,田春晖,乔世文等,2000.辽宁省水稻主要害虫化学防治指标的确定[J].辽宁农业科学,(3)：4-6
64. 孙俊铭,1994.杀虫单防治二化螟田间药效试验[J].农药,33(3)：34
65.孙丽娟,戴华国,衣维贤等,2002.二化螟水稻类群与茭白类群成虫羽化节律和交配节律研究[J].昆虫知识,39(6)：421-423
66.唐振华,1993.昆虫抗药性及其治理[M].北京：中国农业出版社,422-440
67. 谭荫初,邹剑明等,1983.杂交水稻二化螟的发生情况[J].昆虫学报,26(1)：14-16
68.谭荫初,1987.杂交水稻中的螟虫初步研究[J].昆虫知识,24(5)：311-313
69. 田学志,高保宗,石家胜等,1991.安庆地区水稻二化螟抗药性研究[J].安徽农业科学,(1)：61-66
70. 王传全,王翔,1997.贵池市水稻二化螟发生动态分析[J].安徽农业大学学报,24：336-339
71.王金辉,陈运康等.第一代二化螟枯鞘对水稻生长发育影响及药剂防治指标研究[J].植物保护,32(6)：88-91
72. 汪恩国,1999.二化螟种群数量变动规律研究[J].植物保护,25(1)：14-17
73. 王世贵,2001.小同食料对人工饲养的二化螟生长发育和产卵量的影响[J].植物保护,38(3)：1-4.
74. 王晓丽,张晓波,孔祥梅,朱瑜等,1996.水稻二化螟发生规律及防治的初步研究[J].吉林农业科学,(4)：43-45
75.王永实,赵继香,2008.无纺布育苗与聚乙烯薄膜育苗对比试验[J].农业与技术,28(1)：50-51
76.谢应强,周梅香等,2001.锐劲特及其组配防治两系法杂交稻稻纵卷叶螟的效果[J].湖南农业科学,(3)：55-56
77. 薜进,戈峰,黎家文等,2005.二化螟与作物的相互关系及其影响因素[J].昆虫知识,42(3)：259-263
78. 韦永保,赵厚印,2002.水稻病虫总体调查和预报技术探讨[J].植保技术与推广,22(2)：3-5
79. 韦永保,2000.皖南单季稻区二化螟发生特点及其回升原因[J].安徽农业科学,28(6)：762-763
80. 文永刚,1998.二化螟危害生姜严重[J].植物保护,(3)：49
81.翁丽青,2005.茭白田二化螟的发生规律及防治研究[J].中国植保导刊,(1)：15-16
82.吴跃民.水稻无纺布覆盖育苗技术及其特点[J].中国农技推广,2005年第9期：28-29
83. 夏声广,李平良,胡志平,2002.种植结构调整与水稻二化螟为害变化[J].浙江农业科学,5：246-248
84. 谢宝玉,汪恩国,2000.水稻二化螟再猖撅发生原因及综合治理[J].植物保护,26(6)：45-47
85.辛文,2001.二化螟水稻、茭白种群的比较研究[J].北京：中国农业科学院
86. 熊件妹,朱杏芬,肖海军,2006.南吕地区二化螟抗药性监测与治理[J].江西农业大学学报,26(6)：877-880
87. 徐汉红,2007.植物化学保护学(第四版)[M].北京：中国农业出版社,104-108
88. 徐红星,俞晓平,吕仲贤等,2001.二化螟在水稻培矮和秀水11上的为害和生长发育比较[J].浙江农业科学,(6)：318～320
89. 许国柱,许金香,2001.水稻无纺布育苗效果浅析[J].江西农业职业技术学院学报,3(4)：7-8
90. 薛进,戈峰,黎家文等,2005.二化螟与作物的相互关系及其影响因素[J].昆虫知识,42(3)：259-263
91.杨荣明,方继朝,朱叶芹等,2004.江苏省水稻螟虫发生的新特点及治理措施[J].江苏农业科学,1：52-54.
92. 杨玉文,2004.江淮单季稻区二化螟防治对策[J].安徽农业,(4)：18
93. 姚月明,王海侯,陆长婴等,2009.不同规格无纺布覆盖育秧对机插秧苗素质的影响[J].江西农业学报,21(8)：32-34
94. 尹立安,徐春红,2001.水稻二化螟的发生与综合防治[J].辽宁农业科学,(5)：52
95.游树立,朱如杰,2006.苗床覆盖防虫网和无纺布防治水稻条纹叶枯病的效果[J].江苏农业科学,(3)：82-83
96. 俞晓平,徐红星,吕仲贤等,2002.水稻田和茭白田二化螟的比较研究[J].生态学报,22(3)341-345
97. 张绍明,2005.江苏水稻二化螟抗药性监测及综合治理技术研究与示范.硕士学位论文,南京农业大学
98. 张志样,吴福泉,2000.水稻二化螟及其防治[J].安徽农业,(6)：21-22
99. 张子君,冯永祥,2008.不同覆盖物保湿性及对机插秧苗素质的影响.稻作技术,(2)：62-66
100. 章十美,赵泳祥,1 996.中国农林昆虫地理分布,208
101. 周社文,肖一龙,2000.二化螟种群突增机制及控制对策研究[J].植保技术与推广,20(3)：5-7.
102.周忻,1990.防治稻螟四十年[J].昆虫知识,27(3)：178-181
103. 周祖铭,1985.水稻品种抗二化螟鉴定初步研究[J].植物保护学报,12(3)：159-164
104. 朱祚亮,曹诗红,蔡世凤,2008.宜都市水稻二化螟大发生的原因分析及防治对策[J].湖北植保,5：18-19
105. Burg R W, Miller B M, Baker E E et al,1979. Avermectins, new family of potent anathematic agents; producing organism and fermentation [J]. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy,15(3): 361-367.
106. FAO,1980. Method for larvae of the rice stem bore(Chilo suppressalis Walker)-FAO method No. 3[C]//Pest Resistance to Pesticides and Crop Loss Assessment-2. Rome:FAO,25-28
107. George P. Lahm, Daniel Cordova, James D. Barry,2009. New and selective ryanodine receptor activators for insect control [J]. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry,17:4127-4133
108. Hirooka T. Nishimatsu T. Kodama H, et al,2007. The biological profile of flubendiamide, a new benzenedicarboxamide insecticide [J]. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer, (60):183-202
109. Ishiguro N, Yoshida K,Tsuchida K,Genetic differences between rice and water-oats feeders in the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker)(Lepidoptera:Crambidae)[J]. Applied Entomology and Zoo;ogy,2006,41:585-593.
110. J-C.Breitler,2000. Expression of a Bacillus thuringiensis crylB synthetic gene proyects Mediterranean rice against the striped stem borer. Plant Cell Reports, (19):1195-1202.
111. Koike K(小池贤治)Tamura K(田村和夫)Saito Y1981. Potential of the water-oat, Zi zania latifolia Turcz, as alternative host plant of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressulis (Walker) The Annual Reprot of the Society of Plant Protection of Hoku Riku(北陆病害虫研究会报),29：28-31 (in Japanese).
112. KOJIMA A, YAMA SHIROC, A RISA KA M,1996. Regional control threshold of rice stem borer moth, Chilo supperssalis Walker (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) indicated by adult catch with sex pheromone[J]. Jpn J Appl Entomol Zool,40(4):279-286.
113. KONDO A, TANAKA F,1995. An estimation of the control threshold of the rice stem borer moth Chilo suppressalis(Walker)(Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) based on the pheromone trap catches[J]. Appl Entomol Zool,30(1):103-110.
114. Konno Y(昆野安彦),1998. Mating-choice and host preference tests in the rice-feeding and water oat feeding types of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressulis (Walker)[J]. The Annual Report of the Society of Plant Protection of North Japan(北日本病害虫研究会报),49:102-104(in Japanese)
115. Konno Y, Tanaka F.,1996. Aliesterase isozymes and insecticide susceptibility in rice-feeding and water-oat-feeding strains of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker, (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) [J]. Appl Entomol Zool,31 (2):326-329
116. Konno Y and Tanaka F,1996. Mating time of the rice-feeding and water-oat-feeding strains of the rice stem borer, Chilo ssuppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae). Jpn J. APPl. Entomol. Zool, 40:245-247 (in Japanese)
117. Li Y-S, Luo W-C, Mu L-Y, et al,1996. Effect of food plants on the aldrin epoxidationase and acetyl cholinesterase Diamondback moth Acta Phytophylac Sin,44(3):360-365
118. Matsukura K, Hoshizaki S, Ishikawa Y, et al. Morphometric differences between rice and water-oats populations of the striped stemborer, Chilo suppressalis(Lepidptera:Crambidae)[J]. A pplied Entomology and Zoology,2006,41:529-535.
119. Patanakamjorn S, Pathak M D,1967. Varietal resistance of rice to Asiatic rice borer. Chlio suppressalis (Lepidoptera:Crambidae), and it s association with various plant characters [J]. Ann Entomol Soc Am,60:287-292.
120. Qin J-D(?)(饮俊德).Wang C-Z(王堔柱),2001. The relation of interaction between insects and plants to evolution.Acta Ent Sin(昆虫学报),44(3):360-365(in Chinese).
121. Rubia E G.,1996. Mechanis ms of compensation of rice plants to yellow stem borer Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) injury [J]. Crop protect,15(4):335-340
122. Samudra I M, Emura K, Hoshizaki S. et al,2002, Temporal difference in mating behavior between rice and water-oats populations of the striped stemborer,Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) [J]. Applied Entomology and Zoology,37:257-262
123. Shu Q Y Ye G Y, Cui H R, et al,2000. Transgenic rice plants with asynthetic crylAb gene from Bacillus thuringiensis were highly resistant to eight lepidopteran rice pest species [J]. Mol Breeding,6:433-439
124. Yasuhiko Konno and Fukusaburo Tanaka,1996. Alienate isozymes and insecticide susceptibility in rice feeding and water-oat feeding strains of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressulis(Walker)[J]. Appl Entomol Zool,31(2):326-329
125. Ye G Y, Shu Q Y, Yao H W, et al. Field evaluation of resistance of transgenic rice containing a synthetic cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner to two stem borers. J Econ Entomol, 2001,94:271-276.
126. Yoshitake K,1994. The distribution and damage of the rice stem borer. Chilo suppressulis (Walker) in Kyushu District. Plant Protec,48(2):71-74 (in Japanese).