华山松木蠹象及其三种主要寄生蜂的趋光特性研究
|
摘要
在有害生物防治中,长期大量使用化学农药给生态环境、人类健康和生物多样性均造成一系列严重危害,因此环境友好的防治替代技术的研究与应用越来越受到重视。其中,基于昆虫趋光性的害虫物理防治技术,包括灯光诱杀和色板诱杀技术,对靶标害虫具有较好的防治效果,在有害生物防治中被大规模推广与应用。目前,有关昆虫趋光性的研究及应用主要集中于部分重要农业害虫,而灯光或色板诱集对森林害虫及其天敌昆虫的研究报道非常有限。华山松木蠹象(Pissodes punctatus Langor et Zhang)是危害华山松(Pinus armandi Franch)的一种毁灭性蛀干害虫,监测和防治都十分困难。本研究应用昆虫行为学研究方法,选取波长340nm-689nm光谱内的九个单色光,开展华山松木蠹象趋光特性的室内实验以及色板诱集与灯光诱集的林间试验,同时开展华山松木蠹象三种主要寄生蜂,包括管氏肿腿蜂(Scleroderma guani Xiao et Wu)、松蠹狄金小蜂(Dinotiscus armandi Yang)和三盾茧蜂(Triaspis sp.)的趋光特性室内实验。通过比较华山木蠹象及其三种主要寄生蜂的敏感光谱和敏感光强的异同。可为在不伤害寄生蜂天敌的前提下利用趋光性防治华山松木蠹象提供科学依据,同时为利用趋光性开展华山松木蠹象及其寄生蜂的种群监测提供科学依据。研究结果如下：
1华山松木蠹象的趋光特性
华山松木蠹象能够被波长340nm-689nm光谱内的所有九个单色光所吸引,表明其对单色光感应具有广谱性。华山松木蠹象尤其对415nm紫色光、340nm紫外光和504nm、549nm绿色光敏感,表明其复眼至少具有这三种类型的光感受器。在黑暗下和自然光两种环境下,华山松木蠹象对橙色光、蓝色光、绿色光等单色光的敏感程度稍有不同。华山松木蠹象的趋光反应与单色光光强相关,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时呈负相关。三种最敏感单色光下,华山松木蠹象趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强的大小顺序为：绿色光>紫色光>紫外光。
2华山松木蠹象的林间诱集
林间诱集华山松木蠹象,五种不同颜色LED灯诱虫数量大小顺序为：紫色灯>绿光灯>黄光灯>蓝光灯>红光灯,紫光灯诱虫数显著多于其它光源。六种不同颜色色板诱虫数量大小顺序为：紫色板>黄绿板>绿色板>黄色板>蓝色板>红色板,紫色板诱虫数显著多于其它色板。不同色板的林间诱集效果与自然光下趋光反应室内测试结果更为相符。紫色板的诱虫效果在1.5m、3.0m、4.5m三个高度下没有显著差异。在6：00-9：00、9：00-12：00、12：00-15：00、15：00-18：00四个时段下,紫色板在12：00～-15：00的诱虫效果最好。在东、南、西、北四个朝向下,紫色板的诱虫效果以南向最好。综合考虑经济、简便易操作的原则,林间诱集华山松木蠹象最优方案为：采用紫色板(415nm),距地面1.5m高度,南向全天候设置诱虫色板。
3管氏肿腿蜂的趋光特性
在波长340nm～689nm的光谱内,除波长689nm红色光外,管氏肿腿蜂对其余八个单色光都具有趋向性,最敏感光谱依次为549nm黄绿光、451nm蓝色光和649nm红色光。管氏肿腿蜂对689nm和649nm两个波长红色光趋向反应的显著差异,说明昆虫能辨别不同波长的单色光,即使是波长相隔很近的同色光。三种最敏感单色光下,管氏肿腿蜂的趋光反应与光强相关,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时呈负相关。三种敏感单色光中,管氏肿腿蜂的趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强的大小顺序为：红色光>黄绿光>蓝色光。
4松蠹狄金小蜂的趋光特性
在波长340nm～689nm的光谱内,除649nm、689nm两个波长的红色光外,松蠹狄金小蜂对其余七个单色光都具有趋向性,最敏感光谱依次为340nm紫外光、415nm紫色光和549nm黄绿光。三种最敏感单色光下,松蠹狄金小蜂的趋光反应与光强相关,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时呈负相关。三种最敏感单色光中,松蠹狄金小蜂的趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强的大小顺序为：黄绿光>紫色光>紫外光。
5三盾茧蜂的趋光特性
在波长340nm～689nm的光谱内,除340nm、381nm两个波长的紫外光外,三盾茧蜂对其余七个单色光都具有趋向性,其最敏感的光谱依次为549nm黄绿光、451nm蓝色光、415nm紫色光。三种最敏感单色光下,三盾茧蜂的趋光反应与光强相关,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时则呈负相关。三种最敏感单色光中,三盾茧蜂的趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强大致相同。
从光谱反应结果可知,由于华山松木蠹象与其主要寄生蜂在敏感光谱上存在一定差异,在利用趋光性来防治华山松木蠹象时,有针对地选用相应的光源和色板,可以最大限度地保护寄生蜂免受伤害。例如,在人工大量释放过管氏肿腿蜂的林间,可选用波长415nm紫光作为诱集光源和色板；三盾茧蜂为优势寄生蜂的林间,则选用波长340nm紫外光诱集较好。从光强度反应结果可知,在不同单色光下,不同昆虫趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强各不相同,因此利用不同单色光光源和色板开展诱集时,并不是光强度越大诱集效果就越好。光强反应结果可用于诱虫灯功率的大小、诱集的有效空间范围及光源和色板布点密度的确定。
需要特别强调的是,第一,由于华山松木蠹象与其三种寄生蜂对单色光都具有广谱性,而且其敏感光谱重叠较多,利用单色光来防治华山松木蠹象将不可避免对寄生蜂造成一定程度的伤害。与防治相比,利用趋光性开展华山松木蠹象及其寄生蜂种群监测具有更大的应用空间。例如,为了监测华山松木蠹象及其三种主要寄生蜂,可选用这些昆虫都有趋向的波长549nm黄绿色光源或色板；如果只是监测华山松木蠹象、松蠹狄金小蜂和三盾茧蜂,则选用波长415nm紫色光源或色板。第二,光强度是影响昆虫趋光行为的重要因素。以往有研究表明,在高强度全光谱白光刺激下,随着光强度增加昆虫的趋向反应保持恒定或持续增强。而我们发现,在单色光下,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时呈负相关,特别是对紫外光的表现尤为突出。此外,相对不同单色光和不同昆虫,其最佳诱集光强各不相同,对同一昆虫而言,往往单色光波长越短,其最佳诱集光强越低。第三,在黑暗和自然光两种环境中,华山松木蠹象对橙色光、蓝色光、绿色光等单色光的敏感程度稍有不同,表明华山松木蠹象在不同光暗环境中对色彩的感知具有差异。不同色板的林间诱集效果与自然光下趋光反应室内测试结果的符合度高于黑暗下趋光反应室内测试结果。因此,对于白天活跃、拟采用色板诱集的昆虫,采用自然光干扰下的趋光反应测试方法更能反应林间诱集的实际情况。
Long-term using of chemical pesticide in pest control has caused great damage to environment, human health and biodiversity. Developing of substitute technology eco-friendly is necessary for pest control. Light trapping and color trapping is an effective physical pest control which take use of phototaxis of pest, and has been popularized and applied in large-scale pest control. At present, most studies and applications on the phototaxis of pest were focused on main pests in agriculture. Pissodes punctatus Langor et Zhang is a destructive stem borer to Pinus armandi Franch and is difficult for control and monitor. Few papers reported whether color and light trapping do harm to natural enemy of pest or not. This study examined the phototactic behavior of P. punctatus through observation of its phototactic response to nine monochromatic lights ranging from340nm to689nm with about40-nm step and response to five light intensities in the door. The phototactic behavior of P. punctatus was also tested using color and light trapping at different intervals, directions and heights in the field. Furthermore, this paper studied the phototaxis characteristics of three main parasitic wasps for P. punctatus, including Scleroderma guani Xiao et Wu, Dinotiscus armandi Yang and Triaspis sp. At last, the paper compared the difference in the sensitive monochromatic light and light intensity between P. punctatus and its three parasitic wasps. These results could provide a reference for light traping of P. punctatus and could protect natural enemies of the weevil better. These results could also provide a reference for population monitor to P. punctatus and its three main parasitic wasps. The results are as follows.
1Phototactic characteristics of P. punctatus
P. punctatus was attracted to all nine monochromatic lights, which implied its broad sensitivity to the spectrum of light. P. punctatus was most sensitive to wavelength415nm violet,340nm ultraviolet, and504nm green lights, suggesting there might be at least three types of photoreceptors in the compound eyes of this weevil. Contrasted with darkness or natural light, the phototactic responses of P. punctatus to orange, blue, and green lights were ordered in different sensitive sequence. Furthermore, low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response, and high intensities a decreased phototactic response, under violet, UV light and green light which suggested the phototaxis behavior of P. punctatus is intensity preference. Under three most sensitive monochromatic lights, relative light intensity caused the maximum of phototactic response of P. punctatus in the following order: UV, violet and green light.
2Field trapping of of P. punctatus
In five colors of light trapping, the quantity of trapped P. punctatus reached the maximum in the following order: violet, green, yellow, blue and red light. The quantity of trapped weevils by violet light is significantly more than those trapped by trapping lights of other colors. In six colors of color trapping, the quantity of trapped P. punctatus reached the maximum in the following order: violet, yellow-green, green, yellow, blue and red light. The quantity of trapped weevils by violet color is significantly more than those trapped by other colors. The result of color trapping is more consistent with its phototactic response under natural light than that under darkness. There was no significant difference in quantity of trapped weevils among three heights of violet color trapping, including1.5m,3.0m and4.5m. Violet color trapped more P. punctatus during early-afternoon (12:00-15:00) than that during early-morning (0600-0900), late-morning (0900-1200) and late afternoon (15:00-18:00). P. punctatus was trapped more at southwards than that at eastwards, westards and northwards. Thus, P. punctatus can be trapped easily by violet color trapping at1.5m height at southwards all day.
3Phototactic characteristics of Scleroderma guani
S. guani was attracted to eight of nine monochromatic lights except wavelength689nm red light, which implied its broad sensitivity to the spectrum of light. S. guani was most sensitive to wavelength549nm yellow-green,451nm blue, and649nm red light, suggesting there might be at least three types of photoreceptors in the eyes of this wasp. There was significant difference in phototactic response of S. guani between wavelength689nm red light and649nm red light, which implied the wasp can identify different wavelength lights, even those lights with similar wavelength. Furthermore, low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response, and high intensities a decreased phototactic response, under red, yellow-green and blue light which suggested the phototaxis behavior of S. guani is intensity preference. Under three most sensitive monochromatic lights, relative light intense caused the maximum of phototactic response of S. guani in the following order: red, yellow-green and blue light.
4Phototactic characteristics of Dinotiscus armandi
D. armandi was attracted to seven of nine monochromatic lights except wavelength689nm and649nm red light, which implied its broad sensitivity to the spectrum of light. D. armandi was most sensitive to wavelength340nm UV,415nm violet, and549nm yellow-green light, suggesting there might be at least three types of photoreceptors in the eyes of this wasp. Furthermore, low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response, and high intensities a decreased phototactic response, under red, yellow-green and blue light which suggested the phototaxis behavior of D. armandi is intensity preference. Under three most sensitive monochromatic lights, the relative light intense caused the maximum of phototactic response of S. guani in the following order: yellow-green, violet, and UV light.
5Phototactic characteristics of Triaspis sp
Triaspis sp was attracted to seven of nine monochromatic lights except wavelength340nm and381nm red light, which implied its broad sensitivity to the spectrum of light. Triaspis sp was most sensitive to wavelength549nm yellow-green,451nm blue, and415nm violet light, suggesting there might be at least three types of photoreceptors in the eyes of this wasp. Furthermore, low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response, and high intensities a decreased phototactic response, under yellow-green, blue and violet light which suggested the phototaxis behavior of Triaspis sp is intensity preference. Under three most sensitive monochromatic lights, their relative light intense is similar in causing the maximum of phototactic response of Triaspis sp.
The results showed that P. punctatus and its three parasitic wasps are different in phototactic characteristics both in sensitive monochromatic light and in light intensity. We could select trapping light and color specifically for P. punctatus while protect its parasitic wasps better. For example, wavelength415nm violet could be used as trapping light in P. armandi forest where a large amount of S. guani is released to control P. punctatus. In P. armandi forest where Triaspis sp is dominant parasitic wasp of P. punctatus, wavelength340nm UV can be used as trapping light for the weevil. Furthermore, light intensities of sensitive monochromatic lights are different in causing the maximum of phototactic response of P. punctatus, which implied that the trapping effect is not always positively consistent with light intensity. Thus, phototactic response of P. punctatus and its wasps to light intensity will determine power capacity of trapping light, effective space zone, and stationing intensity of light or color trapping spots.
In conclusion, it's worth emphasizing the following key points. Firstly, light trapping for P. punctatus will do some harm to its rare parasitic wasp inevitablely, due to many overlap of sensitive monochromatic lights between the weevil and three wasps. Phototactic characteristics of P. punctatus and its wasps can be used for their population monitor. For example, wavelength549nm yellow-green trapping light or color can be used for the monitor of both P. punctatus and its three wasps, because four insects are attracted to yellow-green light. If there are only three of four insects except S. Guani, wavelength415nm violet light or color can be used as trapping light or color. Secondly,, light intensity affected the phototactic behavior of insect, while low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response and high intensities a decreased phototactic response especially under UV light. The relative light intensity are different in causing the maximum of phototactic response of four insects under different sensitive monochromatic light, and the light wavelength is shorter, the light intensity causing the maximum of phototactic response is lower. Thirdly, P. punctatus was sensitive to orange, blue, green light in different sensitive order while contrasted with darkness or natural light. It implied that the visual sense of P. punctatus to the color change with environmental light intensity. The trapping effect of P. punctatus with color trapping is more consistent with the phototactic response under natural light than that under darkness. Thus, the phototactic response test of insect under natural light is more practical for diurnal insect such as P. punctatus for color trapping.
1华山松木蠹象的趋光特性
华山松木蠹象能够被波长340nm-689nm光谱内的所有九个单色光所吸引,表明其对单色光感应具有广谱性。华山松木蠹象尤其对415nm紫色光、340nm紫外光和504nm、549nm绿色光敏感,表明其复眼至少具有这三种类型的光感受器。在黑暗下和自然光两种环境下,华山松木蠹象对橙色光、蓝色光、绿色光等单色光的敏感程度稍有不同。华山松木蠹象的趋光反应与单色光光强相关,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时呈负相关。三种最敏感单色光下,华山松木蠹象趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强的大小顺序为：绿色光>紫色光>紫外光。
2华山松木蠹象的林间诱集
林间诱集华山松木蠹象,五种不同颜色LED灯诱虫数量大小顺序为：紫色灯>绿光灯>黄光灯>蓝光灯>红光灯,紫光灯诱虫数显著多于其它光源。六种不同颜色色板诱虫数量大小顺序为：紫色板>黄绿板>绿色板>黄色板>蓝色板>红色板,紫色板诱虫数显著多于其它色板。不同色板的林间诱集效果与自然光下趋光反应室内测试结果更为相符。紫色板的诱虫效果在1.5m、3.0m、4.5m三个高度下没有显著差异。在6：00-9：00、9：00-12：00、12：00-15：00、15：00-18：00四个时段下,紫色板在12：00～-15：00的诱虫效果最好。在东、南、西、北四个朝向下,紫色板的诱虫效果以南向最好。综合考虑经济、简便易操作的原则,林间诱集华山松木蠹象最优方案为：采用紫色板(415nm),距地面1.5m高度,南向全天候设置诱虫色板。
3管氏肿腿蜂的趋光特性
在波长340nm～689nm的光谱内,除波长689nm红色光外,管氏肿腿蜂对其余八个单色光都具有趋向性,最敏感光谱依次为549nm黄绿光、451nm蓝色光和649nm红色光。管氏肿腿蜂对689nm和649nm两个波长红色光趋向反应的显著差异,说明昆虫能辨别不同波长的单色光,即使是波长相隔很近的同色光。三种最敏感单色光下,管氏肿腿蜂的趋光反应与光强相关,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时呈负相关。三种敏感单色光中,管氏肿腿蜂的趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强的大小顺序为：红色光>黄绿光>蓝色光。
4松蠹狄金小蜂的趋光特性
在波长340nm～689nm的光谱内,除649nm、689nm两个波长的红色光外,松蠹狄金小蜂对其余七个单色光都具有趋向性,最敏感光谱依次为340nm紫外光、415nm紫色光和549nm黄绿光。三种最敏感单色光下,松蠹狄金小蜂的趋光反应与光强相关,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时呈负相关。三种最敏感单色光中,松蠹狄金小蜂的趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强的大小顺序为：黄绿光>紫色光>紫外光。
5三盾茧蜂的趋光特性
在波长340nm～689nm的光谱内,除340nm、381nm两个波长的紫外光外,三盾茧蜂对其余七个单色光都具有趋向性,其最敏感的光谱依次为549nm黄绿光、451nm蓝色光、415nm紫色光。三种最敏感单色光下,三盾茧蜂的趋光反应与光强相关,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时则呈负相关。三种最敏感单色光中,三盾茧蜂的趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强大致相同。
从光谱反应结果可知,由于华山松木蠹象与其主要寄生蜂在敏感光谱上存在一定差异,在利用趋光性来防治华山松木蠹象时,有针对地选用相应的光源和色板,可以最大限度地保护寄生蜂免受伤害。例如,在人工大量释放过管氏肿腿蜂的林间,可选用波长415nm紫光作为诱集光源和色板；三盾茧蜂为优势寄生蜂的林间,则选用波长340nm紫外光诱集较好。从光强度反应结果可知,在不同单色光下,不同昆虫趋向反应达到峰值时的相对光强各不相同,因此利用不同单色光光源和色板开展诱集时,并不是光强度越大诱集效果就越好。光强反应结果可用于诱虫灯功率的大小、诱集的有效空间范围及光源和色板布点密度的确定。
需要特别强调的是,第一,由于华山松木蠹象与其三种寄生蜂对单色光都具有广谱性,而且其敏感光谱重叠较多,利用单色光来防治华山松木蠹象将不可避免对寄生蜂造成一定程度的伤害。与防治相比,利用趋光性开展华山松木蠹象及其寄生蜂种群监测具有更大的应用空间。例如,为了监测华山松木蠹象及其三种主要寄生蜂,可选用这些昆虫都有趋向的波长549nm黄绿色光源或色板；如果只是监测华山松木蠹象、松蠹狄金小蜂和三盾茧蜂,则选用波长415nm紫色光源或色板。第二,光强度是影响昆虫趋光行为的重要因素。以往有研究表明,在高强度全光谱白光刺激下,随着光强度增加昆虫的趋向反应保持恒定或持续增强。而我们发现,在单色光下,光强较低时呈正相关,光强较高时呈负相关,特别是对紫外光的表现尤为突出。此外,相对不同单色光和不同昆虫,其最佳诱集光强各不相同,对同一昆虫而言,往往单色光波长越短,其最佳诱集光强越低。第三,在黑暗和自然光两种环境中,华山松木蠹象对橙色光、蓝色光、绿色光等单色光的敏感程度稍有不同,表明华山松木蠹象在不同光暗环境中对色彩的感知具有差异。不同色板的林间诱集效果与自然光下趋光反应室内测试结果的符合度高于黑暗下趋光反应室内测试结果。因此,对于白天活跃、拟采用色板诱集的昆虫,采用自然光干扰下的趋光反应测试方法更能反应林间诱集的实际情况。
Long-term using of chemical pesticide in pest control has caused great damage to environment, human health and biodiversity. Developing of substitute technology eco-friendly is necessary for pest control. Light trapping and color trapping is an effective physical pest control which take use of phototaxis of pest, and has been popularized and applied in large-scale pest control. At present, most studies and applications on the phototaxis of pest were focused on main pests in agriculture. Pissodes punctatus Langor et Zhang is a destructive stem borer to Pinus armandi Franch and is difficult for control and monitor. Few papers reported whether color and light trapping do harm to natural enemy of pest or not. This study examined the phototactic behavior of P. punctatus through observation of its phototactic response to nine monochromatic lights ranging from340nm to689nm with about40-nm step and response to five light intensities in the door. The phototactic behavior of P. punctatus was also tested using color and light trapping at different intervals, directions and heights in the field. Furthermore, this paper studied the phototaxis characteristics of three main parasitic wasps for P. punctatus, including Scleroderma guani Xiao et Wu, Dinotiscus armandi Yang and Triaspis sp. At last, the paper compared the difference in the sensitive monochromatic light and light intensity between P. punctatus and its three parasitic wasps. These results could provide a reference for light traping of P. punctatus and could protect natural enemies of the weevil better. These results could also provide a reference for population monitor to P. punctatus and its three main parasitic wasps. The results are as follows.
1Phototactic characteristics of P. punctatus
P. punctatus was attracted to all nine monochromatic lights, which implied its broad sensitivity to the spectrum of light. P. punctatus was most sensitive to wavelength415nm violet,340nm ultraviolet, and504nm green lights, suggesting there might be at least three types of photoreceptors in the compound eyes of this weevil. Contrasted with darkness or natural light, the phototactic responses of P. punctatus to orange, blue, and green lights were ordered in different sensitive sequence. Furthermore, low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response, and high intensities a decreased phototactic response, under violet, UV light and green light which suggested the phototaxis behavior of P. punctatus is intensity preference. Under three most sensitive monochromatic lights, relative light intensity caused the maximum of phototactic response of P. punctatus in the following order: UV, violet and green light.
2Field trapping of of P. punctatus
In five colors of light trapping, the quantity of trapped P. punctatus reached the maximum in the following order: violet, green, yellow, blue and red light. The quantity of trapped weevils by violet light is significantly more than those trapped by trapping lights of other colors. In six colors of color trapping, the quantity of trapped P. punctatus reached the maximum in the following order: violet, yellow-green, green, yellow, blue and red light. The quantity of trapped weevils by violet color is significantly more than those trapped by other colors. The result of color trapping is more consistent with its phototactic response under natural light than that under darkness. There was no significant difference in quantity of trapped weevils among three heights of violet color trapping, including1.5m,3.0m and4.5m. Violet color trapped more P. punctatus during early-afternoon (12:00-15:00) than that during early-morning (0600-0900), late-morning (0900-1200) and late afternoon (15:00-18:00). P. punctatus was trapped more at southwards than that at eastwards, westards and northwards. Thus, P. punctatus can be trapped easily by violet color trapping at1.5m height at southwards all day.
3Phototactic characteristics of Scleroderma guani
S. guani was attracted to eight of nine monochromatic lights except wavelength689nm red light, which implied its broad sensitivity to the spectrum of light. S. guani was most sensitive to wavelength549nm yellow-green,451nm blue, and649nm red light, suggesting there might be at least three types of photoreceptors in the eyes of this wasp. There was significant difference in phototactic response of S. guani between wavelength689nm red light and649nm red light, which implied the wasp can identify different wavelength lights, even those lights with similar wavelength. Furthermore, low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response, and high intensities a decreased phototactic response, under red, yellow-green and blue light which suggested the phototaxis behavior of S. guani is intensity preference. Under three most sensitive monochromatic lights, relative light intense caused the maximum of phototactic response of S. guani in the following order: red, yellow-green and blue light.
4Phototactic characteristics of Dinotiscus armandi
D. armandi was attracted to seven of nine monochromatic lights except wavelength689nm and649nm red light, which implied its broad sensitivity to the spectrum of light. D. armandi was most sensitive to wavelength340nm UV,415nm violet, and549nm yellow-green light, suggesting there might be at least three types of photoreceptors in the eyes of this wasp. Furthermore, low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response, and high intensities a decreased phototactic response, under red, yellow-green and blue light which suggested the phototaxis behavior of D. armandi is intensity preference. Under three most sensitive monochromatic lights, the relative light intense caused the maximum of phototactic response of S. guani in the following order: yellow-green, violet, and UV light.
5Phototactic characteristics of Triaspis sp
Triaspis sp was attracted to seven of nine monochromatic lights except wavelength340nm and381nm red light, which implied its broad sensitivity to the spectrum of light. Triaspis sp was most sensitive to wavelength549nm yellow-green,451nm blue, and415nm violet light, suggesting there might be at least three types of photoreceptors in the eyes of this wasp. Furthermore, low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response, and high intensities a decreased phototactic response, under yellow-green, blue and violet light which suggested the phototaxis behavior of Triaspis sp is intensity preference. Under three most sensitive monochromatic lights, their relative light intense is similar in causing the maximum of phototactic response of Triaspis sp.
The results showed that P. punctatus and its three parasitic wasps are different in phototactic characteristics both in sensitive monochromatic light and in light intensity. We could select trapping light and color specifically for P. punctatus while protect its parasitic wasps better. For example, wavelength415nm violet could be used as trapping light in P. armandi forest where a large amount of S. guani is released to control P. punctatus. In P. armandi forest where Triaspis sp is dominant parasitic wasp of P. punctatus, wavelength340nm UV can be used as trapping light for the weevil. Furthermore, light intensities of sensitive monochromatic lights are different in causing the maximum of phototactic response of P. punctatus, which implied that the trapping effect is not always positively consistent with light intensity. Thus, phototactic response of P. punctatus and its wasps to light intensity will determine power capacity of trapping light, effective space zone, and stationing intensity of light or color trapping spots.
In conclusion, it's worth emphasizing the following key points. Firstly, light trapping for P. punctatus will do some harm to its rare parasitic wasp inevitablely, due to many overlap of sensitive monochromatic lights between the weevil and three wasps. Phototactic characteristics of P. punctatus and its wasps can be used for their population monitor. For example, wavelength549nm yellow-green trapping light or color can be used for the monitor of both P. punctatus and its three wasps, because four insects are attracted to yellow-green light. If there are only three of four insects except S. Guani, wavelength415nm violet light or color can be used as trapping light or color. Secondly,, light intensity affected the phototactic behavior of insect, while low intensities elicited an increased phototactic response and high intensities a decreased phototactic response especially under UV light. The relative light intensity are different in causing the maximum of phototactic response of four insects under different sensitive monochromatic light, and the light wavelength is shorter, the light intensity causing the maximum of phototactic response is lower. Thirdly, P. punctatus was sensitive to orange, blue, green light in different sensitive order while contrasted with darkness or natural light. It implied that the visual sense of P. punctatus to the color change with environmental light intensity. The trapping effect of P. punctatus with color trapping is more consistent with the phototactic response under natural light than that under darkness. Thus, the phototactic response test of insect under natural light is more practical for diurnal insect such as P. punctatus for color trapping.
引文
艾买尔江,吐热依沙木.不同颜色和规格棉铃虫诱捕器诱杀性能比较研究[J].塔里木农垦大学学报,1999,11(4)：22-23.
柴秀山,梁尚兴.华山松木蠢象生物生态学特性及防治[J].昆虫知识,1990,27(6)：46-49.
陈凤英,施伟韬,杨群林等.黄板诱杀蔬菜蚜虫初报[J].江西植保,2003,26(4)：189-191.
陈华平,贝亚维,顾秀慧,等.棕榈蓟马(Thrips palmi)对不同颜色粘卡的嗜好及其蓝色粘卡诱虫量的研究[J].应用生态学报,1997,8(3)：335-337.
陈惠祥,陈小波,刘立春.灯光诱杀在害虫无公害治理中的作用[J].昆虫知识,1999,36(1)：58-59.
陈惠祥,周建荣,陈小波,等.棉铃虫对不同波长光源趋光反应的研究[J].江西棉花,1999,21(5)：16-18.
陈君,程惠珍.肿腿蜂的应用研究进展[J].中国生物防治,2000,16(4)：166-170.
陈敏.华山松木蠹象生物防治研究[D].昆明：西南林学院,2007.
陈敏,李永和,王晓佳.华山松树皮挥发性诱虫活性物质成分分析[J].林业科学研究,2007,20(3)：428-432.
陈宁生.夜蛾趋光行为的本质、规律和导航原理[J].昆虫知识,1979,16(5)：193-200.
陈宁生.中国主要害虫的综合防治：灯光防治[M].北京：科学出版社,1979.
陈倩,梁洪柱,侯峥嵘.黄粉虫蛹不同处理对繁育管氏肿腿蜂的影响[J].中国森林病虫,2006,25(1)：39-41.
陈伟之,杨思威,李素梅,等.蝶类复眼小眼面表面超微结构的比较研究[J].昆虫学报,2002,45(1)：35-40.
陈小钧.云杉八齿小蠹防治技术[J].农村科技,2011,(5)：34.
陈晓霞,闫海燕,魏玮,等.光谱和光强度对龟纹瓢虫成虫趋光行为的影响[J].生态学报,2009,29(5)：2349-2355.
程雪,高志奎,王梅,等.LED杀虫灯对温室害虫的诱杀效应[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(20)：9526-9537.
崔成日,崔崇士.蝇类对诱杀剂衬纸颜色的视觉反应[J].北方园艺,2005(6)：78-80.
代平礼,徐志强.人工扩繁管氏肿腿蜂的蜂种复壮研究[J].昆虫知识,2007,44(3)：402-405.
丁岩钦,高慰曾,李典谟,等.夜蛾趋光性的研究：棉铃虫和烟青虫成虫对单色光的反应[J].昆虫学报,1974,17(3)：307-317.
董瑞,王静,翟玉柱.昆虫趋光性规律研究[J].安徽农业科学,2010,25：13563-13564.
段兆尧,雷桂林,王莉萍,等.华山松木蠹象危害特性的初步研究[J].云南林业科技,1998,84(3)：81-85.
范凡.红火蚁Solenopsis invicta Buren复眼外部形态及显微结构研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2008.
范凡.基于害虫-天敌关系的西花蓟马-东亚小花蝽趋光性的结构基础及其行为机理[D].保定：河北农业大学,2012.
范凡,刘杰,屈平,等.红火蚁复眼的扫描电镜观察[J].昆虫知识,2008,45(4)：642-646.
冯士明,司徒英贤.云南省粗刻点木蠹象发生状况及检疫技术[J].中国森林病虫,2004,23(1)：29-31.
冯宜林.潜叶蝇成虫对不同颜色粘虫板趋性的研究[J].甘肃农业,2003,208(11)：74.
付国需,李为争,吴少英,等.桃蚜对不同单色光趋性反应的测试[J].昆虫学报,2009,52(10)：1171-1176.
傅建炜,林泽燕,李志胜,等.黄板对蔬菜害虫的诱集作用及在黄曲条跳甲种群监测中的应用[J].福建农林大学学院(自然科学版),2004,33(4)：438-440.
傅建炜,徐敦明,吴玮,等.不同蔬菜害虫对色彩的趋性差异[J].昆虫知识,2005,42(5)：532-533.
付林巨,李刚,李丽云,等.释放肿腿蜂防治光肩星天牛幼虫试验[J].内蒙古林业科技,2010,36(1)：34-35.
高锋,仲伟元,于新社,等.不同颜色粘虫板诱捕松阿扁叶蜂技术研究[J].中国森林病虫,2011,30(3)：33-35.
郭炳群,李世文.亚洲玉米螟蛾趋光行为及复眼结构节律性研究[J].昆虫学报,1997,40(1)：58-62.
郭炳群,李世文,候无危.栖境不同的两种跳甲复眼结构比较[J].昆虫学 报,1996,39(3)：260-265.
郭小军,赵志新,李胜艳.不同颜色粘虫板防治梨茎蜂试验初报[J].河北林业科技,2011,(4)：12-23.
韩宝瑜,徐泽,陈银方.几种性诱剂和色板对茶毛虫雄蛾诱效的比较[J].中国茶业,2008,(2)：21-22.
贺凯,徐志强,代平礼.管氏肿腿蜂对黄粉甲的寄生行为[J].昆虫学报,2006,49(3)：454-460.
何忠,贺小威.棉铃虫夜眼反射光斑的研究[J].昆虫学报,1983,26(2)：130-138.
侯无危,贺小威.夜蛾趋光特性的研究：复眼转化过程中的行为变异[J].昆虫学报,1979,22(1)：34-39.
侯无危,马幼飞,高慰曾,等.桃小食心虫蛾的趋光性[J].昆虫学报,1994,37(2)：156-170.
胡小敏,王云虎,林星华,等.蚜虫对不同色卡敏感性及对不同波长黄色粘虫板趋性[J].西北农业学报,2011,20(9)：190-193.
胡义元,肖保国,段巧技,等.化学信息素与色板的复合技术诱杀茶园害虫试验[J].湖北植保,2011(1)：50-51.
蒋瑞鑫,张宇宏,吴红胜,等.孟氏隐唇瓢虫对产卵基质的颜色选择行为研究[J].环境昆虫学报,2011,33(2)：213-218.
蒋月丽.不同颜色诱捕器诱集昆虫多样性及诱集效果研究[D].杨凌：西北农林科技大学,2007.
蒋月丽,魏永平,汪晓光.系列粘虫板对美洲斑潜蝇和温室白粉虱诱捕效果研究[J].西北农业学报,2007,16(2)：237-240.
蒋月丽,武予清,段云,等.不同颜色诱捕器对直纹稻弄蝶的诱集效果[J].河南农业科学,2009,(12)：86-91.
江幸福,张总泽,罗礼智.草地螟成虫对不同光波和光强的趋光性[J].植物保护,2010,36(6)：69-73.
靖湘峰,雷朝亮.昆虫趋光性及其机理的研究进展[J].昆虫知识,2004,41(3)：198-203.
鞠倩,曲明静,陈金凤,等.光谱和性别对几种金龟子趋光行为的影响[J].昆虫知 识,2010,47(3)：512-516.
康文通,汤陈生,梁农,等.应用管氏肿腿蜂林间防治松墨天牛[J].福建农林大学学院(自然科学版),2008,37(6)：575-579.
康总江,官亚军,朱亮,等.不同颜色诱捕器对梨小食心虫诱杀效果研究初报[J].北方园艺,2011,(08)：171-172.
李典谟,马幼飞.夜蛾趋光特性的研究——复眼反射光的变化和上灯概率分析[J].昆虫学报,1977,20(2)：128-134.
李刚.苹果绵蚜蚜小蜂重要生物学及发育始点和有效积温研究[D].泰安：山东农业大学,2009.
李国寅,刘万学,王伟等.黄色粘虫板对番石榴园螺旋粉虱的诱捕试验[J].植物保护,2009,35(6)：167-168.
李建宇,傅建炜,黄裕林,等.色板对不同作物害虫的引诱作用[J].武夷科学,2009,25(12)：93-96.
李军,赵惠燕,赵学达.不同强度紫外线对蚜虫生态学特征及有关酶活性的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2005,33(4)：61-64.
李任波,刘菊华,罗正方,等.应用马尔可夫链预测华山松木蠹象发生趋势[J].西南林学院学报,2005,25(2)：50-52.
李双成,马进,桂俊文,等.华山松木蠹象卵蛹及羽化孔空间分布型研究[J].云南林业科技,2000,93(4)：62-65.
李学伟,董建臻,杨向东等.冀西北坝上农牧交错带趋光性昆虫种群动态初研[J].中国农学通报,2007,(7)：462-466.
李怡萍,程爱红,于海利,等.粘板对小麦吸浆虫成虫的诱捕效果[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2011,39(3)：92-96.
李永和,陈敏,叶辉.华山松挥发性物质与华山松木蠹象危害关系[J].东北林业大学学报,2007,35(7)：7-10.
李永和,陈敏,叶辉.华山松木蠢象性信息素初步研究[J].西北林学院学报,2007,22(4)：115-118.
李永和,陈敏,叶辉.利用管氏肿腿蜂防治华山松木蠹象技术研究[J].林业实用技术,2007,(7)：26-27.
李永和,陈敏,段兆尧.利用松褐天牛转管繁育管氏肿腿蜂研究初探[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2007,27(3)：41-44.
李月红,何陆芳,叶良松,等.柑橘小实蝇成虫对不同色板的趋性差异[J].浙江柑橘,2010,27(4)：24-25.
梁朝巍.诱虫灯在中国的研发状况及其特点[J].山东农机化,2011,(3)：51-52.
林明江,安玉兴,管楚雄等.害虫诱捕器的研究与应用进展[J].广东农业科学,2011,(9)：68-71.
刘洪剑,朴春根,汪来发,等.白僵菌和肿腿蜂对松墨天牛幼虫的作用[J].林业科学,2007,43(5)：64-68.
刘菊华,罗正方,王莹等.两种护林神粉剂防治华山松木蠹象的林间套笼药效试验[J].西部林业科学,2005,34(1)：51-53.
刘菊华,肖银松,罗正方,等.华山松木蠹象发生与其寄主树势的关系[J].西南林学院学报,2005,25(2)：53-55.
刘菊华,杨春花,罗正方,等.华山松木蠹象自然种群生命表初报[J].中南林学院学报,2005,25(5)：110-112.
刘立春.单管黑白双光灯的诱虫效应[J].昆虫学报,1985,28(2)：148-152.
刘立春,顾国华,杨顾新.双波诱虫灯在害虫测报中的应用观察[J].昆虫知识,1993,30(3)：161-166.
刘立春,陈小波,陈建军等.双波4号诱虫灯在棉铃虫测报和防治上的应用效果[J].昆虫知识,1999,36(1)：7-10.
刘培延,赵刚,沈素云,等.美洲斑潜蝇成虫对不同色板的趋性[J].植物检疫,2000,14(4)：203-204.
刘群华,李永和,谢开立.华山松木蠹象自然种群的生命表[J].昆虫知识,2008,45(5)：750-753.
刘守礼,杨水琼,杨跃奎,等.华山松木蠹象生物学特性及综合治理研究[J].林业实用技术,2005,(8)：29-30.
雷桂林,段兆尧,冯志伟,等.华山松木蠹象的危险性分析[J].东北林业大学学报,2003,31(3)：62-63.
罗正方.采用川保号有效控制华山松木蠢象[J].中国林业技术,2006,(7)：33.
卢辉,钟义海,刘奎,等.香蕉花蓟马对不同颜色的趋性及田间诱集效果研究[J].2011,37(2)：145-147.
陆梦桃,洪培智,姚圣忠,等.贵阳市大规模应用管氏肿腿蜂防治松墨天牛效果调查[J].中国森林病虫,2010,(增刊))15-17.
马立芹,朱银飞,曹川健,等.利用蒲螨和管氏肿腿蜂防治双条杉天牛幼虫[J].林业科学研究,2010,23(2)：313-31.
马玲,杨忠岐,姚艳霞.中国寄生于木蠹象和小蠹虫的三盾茧蜂一新种[J].昆虫分类学报,2002,24(4)：285-288.
马幼飞,李典谟,贺小威.应用化学发光液探索粘虫在灯区的飞行动向[J].昆虫知识,1981,18(3)：105-107.
蒙世贵,胡启贤,唐泽荣.南美斑潜蝇成虫对不同色板的趋性及飞翔特性研究[J].中国烟草科学,2003(3)：40-41.
孟娟,郑林霞,雷朝亮.大头金蝇的趋色性及颜色环境对其化蛹率和羽化率的影响.中国害虫物理检测与控制技术研究[M].武汉：湖北科学技术出版社,2011,58-63.
孟祥志,纪玉和,孙秀峰.樟子松木蠹象生物学特性的研究[J].吉林林业科技,2000,29(6)：6-9.
丘玲.应用管氏肿腿蜂防治粗鞘双条杉天牛[J].中国生物防治,1999,15(1)：8-11.
任向辉,王运兵.水溶黏着剂色板的田间诱虫试验[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(14)：6065-6067.
任向辉,王运兵,崔建新,等.色板对葱蓟马诱捕量的BP神经网络模型预测[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(31)：15294-15296.
任智斌,王森山.9种颜色诱虫板对牛角花齿蓟马的诱集作用[J].草原与草坪,2007,125(6)：49-54.
芮昌辉,郑炳宗.黄板诱杀与杀虫剂混剂相配合综合防治温室白粉虱的研究[J].北京农业大学学报,1990,16(4)：429-434.
宋国志,尹红,孟德友,等.用磷化铝熏蒸华山松木蠹象试验初报[J].西南林学院学报,2004,24(2)：78-80.
隋学良,许志春,田呈明.不同颜色粘虫板对多毛小蠹和皱小蠹的诱集效果[J].生态 科学,2011,30(2)：107-110.
孙晨熹,郝连义,明凤和,等.2种不同颜色的捕蝇笼对成蝇诱捕效果的初探[J].中华卫生杀虫药械,2008,14(5)：413.
孙猛,郅军锐,姚加加,等.不同颜色粘虫板对切花月季上西花蓟马诱集效果[J].北方园艺,2010,(10)：186-18.
田慎鹏,徐志强.不同温度条件对利用黄粉甲繁育管氏肿腿蜂的影响[J].昆虫知识,2003,40(4)：356-359.
万素香,高九思,仇宏昌,等.豫西地区苹果花果害虫发生种类与为害情况[J].河南农业科学,2003,(6)：31-34.
汪开鸿,童四,温小遂,等.诱捕器的不同颜色和滑层材料对萧氏松茎象成虫诱捕的影响[J].江西植保,2007,30(3)：109-111.
王斌.云南木蠹象和粗刻点木蠹象的信息化学物质研究[D].北京：中国林业科学研究院,2009.
王斌,张真,和云松,等.粗刻点木蠹象与云南木蠹象雌雄成虫区分方法[J].中国森林病虫,2009,28(5)：29-35.
王革.云南省天保工程区华山松木蠹象监测及综合治理[J].林业调查规划,2006,31(增刊)：167-168.
王健敏.三种蛀干昆虫取食量、消化酶及对林木分解作用的研究[D].北京：中国林业科学研究院,2007.
王平,佟德艳,王艳,等.颜色对枸杞木虱成虫引诱作用的研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报,2006,27(4)：102-104.
王清忠,王次燕.频振式杀虫灯诱杀苹果园害虫结果初报[J].甘肃农业科技,2004,10：47-48.
王涛.秦岭火地塘林区主要趋光性昆虫种类及种群动态的研究[J].安徽农学通报,2011,(3)：59-60.
王玉洁,赵冬香,彭正强,等.荔枝蝽对光与颜色的选择行为反应[J].中国南方果树,2011,40(3)：33-35,39.
王晓佳.华山松木蠹象生态控制研究[D].昆明：西南林学院,2009.
王晓佳,李永和,马明友.华山松木蠹象发生与环境的关系[J].西部林业科 学,2009,38(2)：75-78.
王小军,杨忠岐,王小艺.北京地区杨潜叶跳象生物学特性及药物防治效果[J].昆虫知识,2006,43(6)：858-863.
王兴奎,姜钊.色板诱捕器防治假眼小绿叶蝉研究初报[J].中国茶业,2010,(12)：23-24.
王滢,陈存玉,谢开立,等.苏氏克虫菌防治华山防治华山松木蠹象的林间药效试验[J].林业实用技术,2008,(2)：32-33.
王自力,陈勇,陈晓鸣,等.白蜡虫寄生蜂对颜色的选择性及活动规律[J].动物学研究,2008,29(6)：661-666.
魏国树,张青文,周明群,等.棉铃虫[Helicoverpa armigera (Hiibner)]蛾复眼视网膜电位研究[J].生物物理学报,1999,15(4)：682-687.
魏国树,张青文,周明群,等.不同光波及光强度下棉铃虫(Helicoverpa armigera)成虫的行为反应[J].生物物理学报,2000,16(1)：89-95.
魏国树,张青文,周明群.四种诱集源对棉铃虫成虫的诱杀效果及有效半径比较[J].植物保护学报,2001,28(2)：157-162.
魏国树,张青文,周明群,等.棉铃虫蛾复眼光反应特性[J].昆虫学报,2002,45(3)：323-328.
魏玮.两种草蛉成虫复眼显微结构及其趋光行为的研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2009.
温志强,边广,刘新锐,等.粘虫色板防治菇蚊菇蝇的研究[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(01)：239-243.
吴青君,徐宝云,张友军,等.西花蓟马对不同颜色的趋性及蓝色粘板的田间效果评价[J].植物保护,2007,33(4)：103-105.
吴卫国,Horridge G A.飞蝗复眼生理和结构上的节律变化[J].昆虫学报,1988,31(4)：342-344.
伍苏然,王凯,袁素,等.诱捕器形状及颜色对松墨天牛诱捕效果的影响[J].中国森林病虫,2010,29(1)：5-7.
夏波,孙义首,孙霄,刘秋杰等.广鹿蛾对6种颜色幕布趋性差异的研究[J].中国农学通报,2012,28(36)：254-258.
夏红军,丁春霞,傅建炜,等.不同色板对果树害虫及天敌的引诱作用差异[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(19)：287-290.
夏敬源,赵树英.重大农业害虫频振诱控技术研究与应用[J].中国植保导刊,2008,28(5)：5-8.
肖长坤,郑建秋,师迎春,等.西花蓟马对不同颜色粘卡的嗜好及其诱虫效果[J].植物检验,2007,21(3)：155-157.
萧刚柔,吴坚.防治天牛的有效天敌——管氏肿腿蜂(膜翅目：肿腿蜂科)[J].林业科学,1983,(8)：81-84.
谢开立,李永和,段兆尧,等.实施华山松木蠹象可持续控制策略与技术[J].林业实用技术,2002,(4)：6-8.
许再福,何俊华.关于我国林业中广泛应用的“管氏肿腿蜂”学名的订正[J].环境昆虫学报,2008,30(2)：192-194.
严善春,姜兴林,徐芳玲,等.两种不同颜色杯形诱捕器对落叶松球果花蝇诱捕效果的比较[J].东北林业大学学报,2002,30(1)：30-32.
闫海燕.龟纹瓢虫Propylea japonica (Thunberg)感光、趋光机制的研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2006.
闫海燕,魏国树,闫海霞,等.龟纹瓢虫成虫的复眼形态及其显微结构[J].昆虫知识,2006,43(3)：344-348.
闫海霞,魏国树,吴卫国,等.中华通草蛉复眼光感受性[J].昆虫学报,2007,50(11)：1099-1104.
闫争亮,泽桑梓,刘宏屏,等.利用引诱剂监测华山松木蠹象的研究[J].西南林业大学学报,2011,31(4)：61-64.
闫争亮,泽桑梓,刘宏屏,等.(+)-柠檬烯和3-(+)-蒈烯对不同发育期华山松木蠹象诱捕量的变化[J].西北林学院学报,2012,27(2)：114-117.
杨松,庄辉,洪英娣,等.粉拟青霉对华山松木蠹象的感染试验[J].中国森林病虫,2007,26(1)：39-40.
杨子祥,沙毓沧,袁理春,等.不同颜色和果实对桔小实蝇的诱集效果研究[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2011,33(4)：64-66.
杨忠岐.利用天敌昆虫控制我国重大林木害虫研究进展[J].中国生物防治, 2004,20(4)：221-227.
姚士桐,郑永利.烟粉虱成虫对不同色彩的趋性差异及其在色板上的分布研究[J].上海农业学报,2008,24(1)：85-86.
姚雍静,王家伦,何莲,等.黄色诱虫板对茶小绿叶蝉的诱捕效果研究[J].茶叶,2010,36(2)：90-92.
姚万军,杨忠岐.利用管氏肿腿蜂防治光肩星天牛技术研究[J].环境昆虫学报,2008,30(2)：127-134.
姚万军,杨忠岐.人工繁殖管氏肿腿蜂的替代寄主研究[J].中国生物防治,2008,24(3)：220-226.
叶辉.光照、温度对纵坑切梢小蠹起飞行为的影响[J].昆虫知识,2000,37(6)：342-344.
于法辉,夏长秀,李春玲,等.不同色板对柑橘园蓟马的诱集效果及蓝板的诱捕效果[J].昆虫知识,2010,47(5)：945-949.
于海利.梨小食心虫Grapholita molesta Busck的趋光性及绿光对其生物学特性的影响[D].杨凌：西北农林科技大学,2011.
云南省植保植检站.云南省植保工作进展报告[R].2007.
云南省植保植检站.云南省植保工作进展报告[R].2008.
云南省植保植检站.云南省植保工作进展报告[R].2009.
云南省植保植检站.云南省植保工作进展报告[R].2010.
张纯胄.害虫的趋色性及其“粘虫色板”应用技术的研究进展[J].温州科技职业学学报,2009,(2)：34-38.
张广学,郑国,李学军,等.从保护生物多样性角度谈频振式杀虫灯的应用[J].昆虫知识,2004,41(6)：532-535.
张海强.大草岭Chrysopa pallens Ramber成虫复眼显微结构及其趋光行为的研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2007.
张海强,闫海霞,刘顺,等.光强度对大草蛉成虫感光性和趋光性行为的影响[J].昆虫学报,2009,52(4)：461-464.
张海强,朱楠,范凡,等.大草蛉成虫复眼的外部形态及其显微结构[J].昆虫学报,2007,50(5)：454-460.
张国彦,张跃进,苏战平,等.佳多自动虫情测报灯和普通黑光灯灯下主要害虫消长规律的比较[J].植物保护,2005,31(3)：74-76.
张全光,杨群芳,植玉蓉,等.光照、温度对光滑足距小蠹雌成虫起飞行为的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(30)：9599-9600.
张英,高艳飞,吴伟.烟蚜茧蜂及重寄生蜂对不同光源选择性研究[J].科学时代,2012,(3)：96-99.
张跃进,张国彦,谈孝风,等.佳多虫情测报灯与黑光灯诱集昆虫种类和数量的比较研究[J].中国植保导刊,2005,25(3)：35-36.
张忠和,谢开立,曹葵光.华山松木蠢象发生与环境的关系研究[J].林业科学,1999,35(6)：71-75.
张卫光,孙绪艮,曲爱军,等.管氏肿腿蜂的寄生与产卵行为研究[J].昆虫天敌,2004,26(1)：28-33.
张理.云南木蠹象和华山松木蠹象大而积防治实用技术[J].中国森林病虫,2004,23(4)：34-36.
赵冬香,陈宗懋,程家安.假眼小绿叶蝉对不同颜色偏嗜性的研究[J].茶叶科学,2001,21(1)：78-80.
赵树英,秦利芳.佳多频振式杀虫灯应用效果综述[J].新疆农业大学学报,2002,25(3)：71-72.
泽桑梓,闫争亮,张真,等.华山松不同部位挥发性单萜烯的含量及其对华山松木蠹象行为的影响[J].环境昆虫学报,2010,32(1)：36-40.
郑许松,徐红星,俞晓平,等.缨小蜂对颜色的选择性和粘卡技术的应用研究[J].华东昆虫学报,2001,10(2)：96-100.
周福才,杜予州,孙伟,等.黄板对菜地烟粉虱的诱集作用研究[J].华东昆虫学报,2003,12(1)：96-100.
周京花,商晗武,李红亮.南亚果实蝇对颜色趋性及不同寄主对其生长发育的影响[J].浙江农业科学,2009,(3)：555-558.
周玖璇.烟蚜优势天敌昆虫趋光特性及其应用影响的研究[D].昆明：云南大学,2013.
周娜,胡德夫,姚圣忠,等.不同虫蜂量对管氏肿腿蜂繁育效果的影响[J].昆虫天 敌,2006,28(3)：97-102.
周娜,姚圣忠一,胡德夫,等.管氏肿腿蜂的人工繁育与应用研究进展[J].干旱区研究,2005,2(4)：569-575.
周鑫发,林期远,陈梦啸.太阳能光诱灭虫系统的研究[J].阳光能量,2003,(2)：14-15.
朱克为.黄板诱杀温室白粉虱技术研究[J].陕西农业科学,2005,(6)：29-30,107.
Agee H G, Mithell E R, Flanders R V. Spectral sensitivity of the compound eye of Coccinella septempunctata(Coleopter & Coccinellidae).[J] Annals of the Entomological Society of America,1990,83(4):817-819.
Arikawa K.K., Inokuma K., Eguchi E. Pentachromatic visual system in a butterfly [J]. Naturwissenschaften,1987,74(6):297-298.
Brown P E,Anderson M. Spectral sensitivity of the compound eye of the cabbage root fly,Deliaradicum (Diptera:Anthomyiidae) [J]. Bulletin of Entomological Research,1996,86:337-342.
Bowmaker JK. The visual pigments of fish[J]. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 1995,15:1-31.
Chen, Z., Kuang R. P., Zhou J. X. and Liu X. Phototactic behaviour in Aphidius gifuensis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)[J]. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 2012,22(3):271-279.
Depickere S., Dominique E., Jean-Louis D. The influence of red light on the aggregation of twocastes of the ant, Lasius niger [J]. Journal of Insect Physiology,2004,50(7): 629-635.
Edwards D.K.. Light-dark Adaptation and'Glow' in Abnormal Moth Eyes without Pigment[J]. Nature lond 1964,202:621-622.
Endler JA. The color of light in forests and its implications [J]. Ecological Monographs,1993,63:1-27
Fernando Otalora-Luna, Joseph C. Dickens. Spectral preference and temporal modulation of photic orientation by Colorado potato beetle on a servosphere[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,2011,138(2):93-109.
Giovanni G C, Jan K, Andreas G, et al. Relationship of visual and olfactory signal parameters in a food～deceptive flower mimicry system[J]. Behavioral Ecology,2005,16(1):159-168.
Gorans Truwe. Spectral Sensitivity of the Compound Eye in a Moth. Intra～ and Extracellular Recordings [J]. Acta physiol.Scand.1973,87:63-68.
Guz NV, Dokukin ME, Sokolov I. Atomic Force Microscopy Study of Nano-Physiological Response of Ladybird Beetles to Photostimuli[J]. PLoS ONE,2010,5(9):e 12834. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012834.
Hamid A, ODell TM, Katovich S. White pine weevil[J]. USDA Forest Service Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 1995.21.
Helen E Mellor,James G,Morayanderson. Spectral sensitivity in the eyes of male and female Lutzomyia longipalpis sandflies[J]. Medical and Veterinary Entomology,1996,10:371-374.
Hoglund G.. Receptor sensitivity and pigment position in the compound eye of nocturnal Lepidoptera[J]. Life Sience,1963,6:862-865.
Honek A. Annual variation in the complex of aphid predators investigation by light trap[J]. Acta Entomol.Bohemoslov,1977,(74):345-348.
Honek A,Kocourek F. The flight of aphid predators to a light trap:possible interpretations[J].In Hodek I.(ed.):Ecology of Aphidophaga. Academia,1986,333-338.
Jekely G. Evolution of photo taxis [J]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,2009,364:2795-2808.
Langor DW,Situ YX,Zhang RZ. Two new species of Pissodes(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)from China[J]. The Canadian Entomologist,1999,131:593-603.
Litinetsky L,Barkay Z,Kalicharan D,et al. AFM study of microstructure on the cornea of the compound eye and ocelli of the hornet Vespa orientalis (Insecta, Hymenoptera) [J]. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR.2002,34(1):61-69.
Lund,Nell M,Emily E,et al. Sexual dimorphism in eye morphology in Eucheira socialis (Pieridae)[J]. Journal of Lepidopterists society,2001,55(2):74-77.
Michael D.A. Introduction to insect behavior[M]. New York:Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.,1980,31-33.
Michio Imafuku,Kaoru Tsuji. Spectral sensitivity and wing colors of Narathura and Panchala species [J]. Insect Physiology,2008,54:1511-1515.
Mishra M, Meyer-Rochow VB. Fine structure of the compound eye of the fungus beetle Neotriplax lewisi (Coleoptera, Cucujiformia, Erotylidae)[J]. Invertebrate Biology,2006,125:265-278.
Paulov S. Die Bewegungsorentation der photopositiven Insecten auf Farben (in Slovak, German summary)[J]. Acta Fac.Rerum,Nat.Univ.Comen.Ser Zool,1957,2:155-160.
Peitsch D., Fietz A., Hertel H., et al. The spectral input system of Hymenopteran insects and their receptor-based colour vision [J]. Journal of Comparative Physiology Series A,1992,170(1):23-40.
Robinson H S, Robinson P J M. Some notes on the observed behaviour of Lepidoptera in flight in the vicinity of light-sources together with a description of a light-trap designed to take entomological samples[J]. Ent. Gaz,1950,1:3-20.
Roberts AE, Syms PR, Goodman LJ. Intensity and spectral emission as factors affecting the efficacy of an insect electrocutor trap towards the house-fly [J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,1992,64:259-268.
Song Yang,Hui Zhuang,Yonghe Li, et al. Insecticidal efficacy of Isaria farinosa in different life stages of Pissodes punctatus (Coleoptera:Curculionidae)[J], J Pest Sci (2009) 82:321-325.
Swihart S.L.,Gordon W.C.,Machwart R.J. Reflections on the eyes of butterflies [J]. J. Insect Phasiol.,1974,20:359-381.
Thomas Labhart,Franziska Baumann,Gary Bernard. Specialized ommatidia of the polarization-sensitive dorsal rim area in the eye of monarch butterflies have non-functional reflecting tapeta [J]. Cell Tissue Res,2009.338:391-400.
Thorne HC, Jones KH, Peters SP, Archer SN, Dijk DJ. Daily and seasonal variation in the spectral composition of light exposure in humans [J]. Chronobiology International,2009,26:854-866.
Yang,En-Cheng, Lee Der-Wei, Wu Wen-Yen. Action spectra of phototactic responses of the flea beetle, Phyllotreta striolata[J]. Physiological Entomology,2003,28(4):362-368.
Yang Z. Q., A preliminary survey of parasitic wasps of Dendroctonus armandi Tsai et Li (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) in Qinling Mountains with description of three new species and a new Chinese record (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae)[J]. Journal Entomotaxonomia 1987,9(3):175-184.
Zhou J. X., Kuang R. P., Chen Z., et al. Phototactic Behavior of Coccinella Septempunctata L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)[J]. The Coleopterists Bulletin,2013, 67(1):33-39.
柴秀山,梁尚兴.华山松木蠢象生物生态学特性及防治[J].昆虫知识,1990,27(6)：46-49.
陈凤英,施伟韬,杨群林等.黄板诱杀蔬菜蚜虫初报[J].江西植保,2003,26(4)：189-191.
陈华平,贝亚维,顾秀慧,等.棕榈蓟马(Thrips palmi)对不同颜色粘卡的嗜好及其蓝色粘卡诱虫量的研究[J].应用生态学报,1997,8(3)：335-337.
陈惠祥,陈小波,刘立春.灯光诱杀在害虫无公害治理中的作用[J].昆虫知识,1999,36(1)：58-59.
陈惠祥,周建荣,陈小波,等.棉铃虫对不同波长光源趋光反应的研究[J].江西棉花,1999,21(5)：16-18.
陈君,程惠珍.肿腿蜂的应用研究进展[J].中国生物防治,2000,16(4)：166-170.
陈敏.华山松木蠹象生物防治研究[D].昆明：西南林学院,2007.
陈敏,李永和,王晓佳.华山松树皮挥发性诱虫活性物质成分分析[J].林业科学研究,2007,20(3)：428-432.
陈宁生.夜蛾趋光行为的本质、规律和导航原理[J].昆虫知识,1979,16(5)：193-200.
陈宁生.中国主要害虫的综合防治：灯光防治[M].北京：科学出版社,1979.
陈倩,梁洪柱,侯峥嵘.黄粉虫蛹不同处理对繁育管氏肿腿蜂的影响[J].中国森林病虫,2006,25(1)：39-41.
陈伟之,杨思威,李素梅,等.蝶类复眼小眼面表面超微结构的比较研究[J].昆虫学报,2002,45(1)：35-40.
陈小钧.云杉八齿小蠹防治技术[J].农村科技,2011,(5)：34.
陈晓霞,闫海燕,魏玮,等.光谱和光强度对龟纹瓢虫成虫趋光行为的影响[J].生态学报,2009,29(5)：2349-2355.
程雪,高志奎,王梅,等.LED杀虫灯对温室害虫的诱杀效应[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(20)：9526-9537.
崔成日,崔崇士.蝇类对诱杀剂衬纸颜色的视觉反应[J].北方园艺,2005(6)：78-80.
代平礼,徐志强.人工扩繁管氏肿腿蜂的蜂种复壮研究[J].昆虫知识,2007,44(3)：402-405.
丁岩钦,高慰曾,李典谟,等.夜蛾趋光性的研究：棉铃虫和烟青虫成虫对单色光的反应[J].昆虫学报,1974,17(3)：307-317.
董瑞,王静,翟玉柱.昆虫趋光性规律研究[J].安徽农业科学,2010,25：13563-13564.
段兆尧,雷桂林,王莉萍,等.华山松木蠹象危害特性的初步研究[J].云南林业科技,1998,84(3)：81-85.
范凡.红火蚁Solenopsis invicta Buren复眼外部形态及显微结构研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2008.
范凡.基于害虫-天敌关系的西花蓟马-东亚小花蝽趋光性的结构基础及其行为机理[D].保定：河北农业大学,2012.
范凡,刘杰,屈平,等.红火蚁复眼的扫描电镜观察[J].昆虫知识,2008,45(4)：642-646.
冯士明,司徒英贤.云南省粗刻点木蠹象发生状况及检疫技术[J].中国森林病虫,2004,23(1)：29-31.
冯宜林.潜叶蝇成虫对不同颜色粘虫板趋性的研究[J].甘肃农业,2003,208(11)：74.
付国需,李为争,吴少英,等.桃蚜对不同单色光趋性反应的测试[J].昆虫学报,2009,52(10)：1171-1176.
傅建炜,林泽燕,李志胜,等.黄板对蔬菜害虫的诱集作用及在黄曲条跳甲种群监测中的应用[J].福建农林大学学院(自然科学版),2004,33(4)：438-440.
傅建炜,徐敦明,吴玮,等.不同蔬菜害虫对色彩的趋性差异[J].昆虫知识,2005,42(5)：532-533.
付林巨,李刚,李丽云,等.释放肿腿蜂防治光肩星天牛幼虫试验[J].内蒙古林业科技,2010,36(1)：34-35.
高锋,仲伟元,于新社,等.不同颜色粘虫板诱捕松阿扁叶蜂技术研究[J].中国森林病虫,2011,30(3)：33-35.
郭炳群,李世文.亚洲玉米螟蛾趋光行为及复眼结构节律性研究[J].昆虫学报,1997,40(1)：58-62.
郭炳群,李世文,候无危.栖境不同的两种跳甲复眼结构比较[J].昆虫学 报,1996,39(3)：260-265.
郭小军,赵志新,李胜艳.不同颜色粘虫板防治梨茎蜂试验初报[J].河北林业科技,2011,(4)：12-23.
韩宝瑜,徐泽,陈银方.几种性诱剂和色板对茶毛虫雄蛾诱效的比较[J].中国茶业,2008,(2)：21-22.
贺凯,徐志强,代平礼.管氏肿腿蜂对黄粉甲的寄生行为[J].昆虫学报,2006,49(3)：454-460.
何忠,贺小威.棉铃虫夜眼反射光斑的研究[J].昆虫学报,1983,26(2)：130-138.
侯无危,贺小威.夜蛾趋光特性的研究：复眼转化过程中的行为变异[J].昆虫学报,1979,22(1)：34-39.
侯无危,马幼飞,高慰曾,等.桃小食心虫蛾的趋光性[J].昆虫学报,1994,37(2)：156-170.
胡小敏,王云虎,林星华,等.蚜虫对不同色卡敏感性及对不同波长黄色粘虫板趋性[J].西北农业学报,2011,20(9)：190-193.
胡义元,肖保国,段巧技,等.化学信息素与色板的复合技术诱杀茶园害虫试验[J].湖北植保,2011(1)：50-51.
蒋瑞鑫,张宇宏,吴红胜,等.孟氏隐唇瓢虫对产卵基质的颜色选择行为研究[J].环境昆虫学报,2011,33(2)：213-218.
蒋月丽.不同颜色诱捕器诱集昆虫多样性及诱集效果研究[D].杨凌：西北农林科技大学,2007.
蒋月丽,魏永平,汪晓光.系列粘虫板对美洲斑潜蝇和温室白粉虱诱捕效果研究[J].西北农业学报,2007,16(2)：237-240.
蒋月丽,武予清,段云,等.不同颜色诱捕器对直纹稻弄蝶的诱集效果[J].河南农业科学,2009,(12)：86-91.
江幸福,张总泽,罗礼智.草地螟成虫对不同光波和光强的趋光性[J].植物保护,2010,36(6)：69-73.
靖湘峰,雷朝亮.昆虫趋光性及其机理的研究进展[J].昆虫知识,2004,41(3)：198-203.
鞠倩,曲明静,陈金凤,等.光谱和性别对几种金龟子趋光行为的影响[J].昆虫知 识,2010,47(3)：512-516.
康文通,汤陈生,梁农,等.应用管氏肿腿蜂林间防治松墨天牛[J].福建农林大学学院(自然科学版),2008,37(6)：575-579.
康总江,官亚军,朱亮,等.不同颜色诱捕器对梨小食心虫诱杀效果研究初报[J].北方园艺,2011,(08)：171-172.
李典谟,马幼飞.夜蛾趋光特性的研究——复眼反射光的变化和上灯概率分析[J].昆虫学报,1977,20(2)：128-134.
李刚.苹果绵蚜蚜小蜂重要生物学及发育始点和有效积温研究[D].泰安：山东农业大学,2009.
李国寅,刘万学,王伟等.黄色粘虫板对番石榴园螺旋粉虱的诱捕试验[J].植物保护,2009,35(6)：167-168.
李建宇,傅建炜,黄裕林,等.色板对不同作物害虫的引诱作用[J].武夷科学,2009,25(12)：93-96.
李军,赵惠燕,赵学达.不同强度紫外线对蚜虫生态学特征及有关酶活性的影响[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2005,33(4)：61-64.
李任波,刘菊华,罗正方,等.应用马尔可夫链预测华山松木蠹象发生趋势[J].西南林学院学报,2005,25(2)：50-52.
李双成,马进,桂俊文,等.华山松木蠹象卵蛹及羽化孔空间分布型研究[J].云南林业科技,2000,93(4)：62-65.
李学伟,董建臻,杨向东等.冀西北坝上农牧交错带趋光性昆虫种群动态初研[J].中国农学通报,2007,(7)：462-466.
李怡萍,程爱红,于海利,等.粘板对小麦吸浆虫成虫的诱捕效果[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2011,39(3)：92-96.
李永和,陈敏,叶辉.华山松挥发性物质与华山松木蠹象危害关系[J].东北林业大学学报,2007,35(7)：7-10.
李永和,陈敏,叶辉.华山松木蠢象性信息素初步研究[J].西北林学院学报,2007,22(4)：115-118.
李永和,陈敏,叶辉.利用管氏肿腿蜂防治华山松木蠹象技术研究[J].林业实用技术,2007,(7)：26-27.
李永和,陈敏,段兆尧.利用松褐天牛转管繁育管氏肿腿蜂研究初探[J].中南林业科技大学学报,2007,27(3)：41-44.
李月红,何陆芳,叶良松,等.柑橘小实蝇成虫对不同色板的趋性差异[J].浙江柑橘,2010,27(4)：24-25.
梁朝巍.诱虫灯在中国的研发状况及其特点[J].山东农机化,2011,(3)：51-52.
林明江,安玉兴,管楚雄等.害虫诱捕器的研究与应用进展[J].广东农业科学,2011,(9)：68-71.
刘洪剑,朴春根,汪来发,等.白僵菌和肿腿蜂对松墨天牛幼虫的作用[J].林业科学,2007,43(5)：64-68.
刘菊华,罗正方,王莹等.两种护林神粉剂防治华山松木蠹象的林间套笼药效试验[J].西部林业科学,2005,34(1)：51-53.
刘菊华,肖银松,罗正方,等.华山松木蠹象发生与其寄主树势的关系[J].西南林学院学报,2005,25(2)：53-55.
刘菊华,杨春花,罗正方,等.华山松木蠹象自然种群生命表初报[J].中南林学院学报,2005,25(5)：110-112.
刘立春.单管黑白双光灯的诱虫效应[J].昆虫学报,1985,28(2)：148-152.
刘立春,顾国华,杨顾新.双波诱虫灯在害虫测报中的应用观察[J].昆虫知识,1993,30(3)：161-166.
刘立春,陈小波,陈建军等.双波4号诱虫灯在棉铃虫测报和防治上的应用效果[J].昆虫知识,1999,36(1)：7-10.
刘培延,赵刚,沈素云,等.美洲斑潜蝇成虫对不同色板的趋性[J].植物检疫,2000,14(4)：203-204.
刘群华,李永和,谢开立.华山松木蠹象自然种群的生命表[J].昆虫知识,2008,45(5)：750-753.
刘守礼,杨水琼,杨跃奎,等.华山松木蠹象生物学特性及综合治理研究[J].林业实用技术,2005,(8)：29-30.
雷桂林,段兆尧,冯志伟,等.华山松木蠹象的危险性分析[J].东北林业大学学报,2003,31(3)：62-63.
罗正方.采用川保号有效控制华山松木蠢象[J].中国林业技术,2006,(7)：33.
卢辉,钟义海,刘奎,等.香蕉花蓟马对不同颜色的趋性及田间诱集效果研究[J].2011,37(2)：145-147.
陆梦桃,洪培智,姚圣忠,等.贵阳市大规模应用管氏肿腿蜂防治松墨天牛效果调查[J].中国森林病虫,2010,(增刊))15-17.
马立芹,朱银飞,曹川健,等.利用蒲螨和管氏肿腿蜂防治双条杉天牛幼虫[J].林业科学研究,2010,23(2)：313-31.
马玲,杨忠岐,姚艳霞.中国寄生于木蠹象和小蠹虫的三盾茧蜂一新种[J].昆虫分类学报,2002,24(4)：285-288.
马幼飞,李典谟,贺小威.应用化学发光液探索粘虫在灯区的飞行动向[J].昆虫知识,1981,18(3)：105-107.
蒙世贵,胡启贤,唐泽荣.南美斑潜蝇成虫对不同色板的趋性及飞翔特性研究[J].中国烟草科学,2003(3)：40-41.
孟娟,郑林霞,雷朝亮.大头金蝇的趋色性及颜色环境对其化蛹率和羽化率的影响.中国害虫物理检测与控制技术研究[M].武汉：湖北科学技术出版社,2011,58-63.
孟祥志,纪玉和,孙秀峰.樟子松木蠹象生物学特性的研究[J].吉林林业科技,2000,29(6)：6-9.
丘玲.应用管氏肿腿蜂防治粗鞘双条杉天牛[J].中国生物防治,1999,15(1)：8-11.
任向辉,王运兵.水溶黏着剂色板的田间诱虫试验[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(14)：6065-6067.
任向辉,王运兵,崔建新,等.色板对葱蓟马诱捕量的BP神经网络模型预测[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(31)：15294-15296.
任智斌,王森山.9种颜色诱虫板对牛角花齿蓟马的诱集作用[J].草原与草坪,2007,125(6)：49-54.
芮昌辉,郑炳宗.黄板诱杀与杀虫剂混剂相配合综合防治温室白粉虱的研究[J].北京农业大学学报,1990,16(4)：429-434.
宋国志,尹红,孟德友,等.用磷化铝熏蒸华山松木蠹象试验初报[J].西南林学院学报,2004,24(2)：78-80.
隋学良,许志春,田呈明.不同颜色粘虫板对多毛小蠹和皱小蠹的诱集效果[J].生态 科学,2011,30(2)：107-110.
孙晨熹,郝连义,明凤和,等.2种不同颜色的捕蝇笼对成蝇诱捕效果的初探[J].中华卫生杀虫药械,2008,14(5)：413.
孙猛,郅军锐,姚加加,等.不同颜色粘虫板对切花月季上西花蓟马诱集效果[J].北方园艺,2010,(10)：186-18.
田慎鹏,徐志强.不同温度条件对利用黄粉甲繁育管氏肿腿蜂的影响[J].昆虫知识,2003,40(4)：356-359.
万素香,高九思,仇宏昌,等.豫西地区苹果花果害虫发生种类与为害情况[J].河南农业科学,2003,(6)：31-34.
汪开鸿,童四,温小遂,等.诱捕器的不同颜色和滑层材料对萧氏松茎象成虫诱捕的影响[J].江西植保,2007,30(3)：109-111.
王斌.云南木蠹象和粗刻点木蠹象的信息化学物质研究[D].北京：中国林业科学研究院,2009.
王斌,张真,和云松,等.粗刻点木蠹象与云南木蠹象雌雄成虫区分方法[J].中国森林病虫,2009,28(5)：29-35.
王革.云南省天保工程区华山松木蠹象监测及综合治理[J].林业调查规划,2006,31(增刊)：167-168.
王健敏.三种蛀干昆虫取食量、消化酶及对林木分解作用的研究[D].北京：中国林业科学研究院,2007.
王平,佟德艳,王艳,等.颜色对枸杞木虱成虫引诱作用的研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报,2006,27(4)：102-104.
王清忠,王次燕.频振式杀虫灯诱杀苹果园害虫结果初报[J].甘肃农业科技,2004,10：47-48.
王涛.秦岭火地塘林区主要趋光性昆虫种类及种群动态的研究[J].安徽农学通报,2011,(3)：59-60.
王玉洁,赵冬香,彭正强,等.荔枝蝽对光与颜色的选择行为反应[J].中国南方果树,2011,40(3)：33-35,39.
王晓佳.华山松木蠹象生态控制研究[D].昆明：西南林学院,2009.
王晓佳,李永和,马明友.华山松木蠹象发生与环境的关系[J].西部林业科 学,2009,38(2)：75-78.
王小军,杨忠岐,王小艺.北京地区杨潜叶跳象生物学特性及药物防治效果[J].昆虫知识,2006,43(6)：858-863.
王兴奎,姜钊.色板诱捕器防治假眼小绿叶蝉研究初报[J].中国茶业,2010,(12)：23-24.
王滢,陈存玉,谢开立,等.苏氏克虫菌防治华山防治华山松木蠹象的林间药效试验[J].林业实用技术,2008,(2)：32-33.
王自力,陈勇,陈晓鸣,等.白蜡虫寄生蜂对颜色的选择性及活动规律[J].动物学研究,2008,29(6)：661-666.
魏国树,张青文,周明群,等.棉铃虫[Helicoverpa armigera (Hiibner)]蛾复眼视网膜电位研究[J].生物物理学报,1999,15(4)：682-687.
魏国树,张青文,周明群,等.不同光波及光强度下棉铃虫(Helicoverpa armigera)成虫的行为反应[J].生物物理学报,2000,16(1)：89-95.
魏国树,张青文,周明群.四种诱集源对棉铃虫成虫的诱杀效果及有效半径比较[J].植物保护学报,2001,28(2)：157-162.
魏国树,张青文,周明群,等.棉铃虫蛾复眼光反应特性[J].昆虫学报,2002,45(3)：323-328.
魏玮.两种草蛉成虫复眼显微结构及其趋光行为的研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2009.
温志强,边广,刘新锐,等.粘虫色板防治菇蚊菇蝇的研究[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(01)：239-243.
吴青君,徐宝云,张友军,等.西花蓟马对不同颜色的趋性及蓝色粘板的田间效果评价[J].植物保护,2007,33(4)：103-105.
吴卫国,Horridge G A.飞蝗复眼生理和结构上的节律变化[J].昆虫学报,1988,31(4)：342-344.
伍苏然,王凯,袁素,等.诱捕器形状及颜色对松墨天牛诱捕效果的影响[J].中国森林病虫,2010,29(1)：5-7.
夏波,孙义首,孙霄,刘秋杰等.广鹿蛾对6种颜色幕布趋性差异的研究[J].中国农学通报,2012,28(36)：254-258.
夏红军,丁春霞,傅建炜,等.不同色板对果树害虫及天敌的引诱作用差异[J].中国农学通报,2011,27(19)：287-290.
夏敬源,赵树英.重大农业害虫频振诱控技术研究与应用[J].中国植保导刊,2008,28(5)：5-8.
肖长坤,郑建秋,师迎春,等.西花蓟马对不同颜色粘卡的嗜好及其诱虫效果[J].植物检验,2007,21(3)：155-157.
萧刚柔,吴坚.防治天牛的有效天敌——管氏肿腿蜂(膜翅目：肿腿蜂科)[J].林业科学,1983,(8)：81-84.
谢开立,李永和,段兆尧,等.实施华山松木蠹象可持续控制策略与技术[J].林业实用技术,2002,(4)：6-8.
许再福,何俊华.关于我国林业中广泛应用的“管氏肿腿蜂”学名的订正[J].环境昆虫学报,2008,30(2)：192-194.
严善春,姜兴林,徐芳玲,等.两种不同颜色杯形诱捕器对落叶松球果花蝇诱捕效果的比较[J].东北林业大学学报,2002,30(1)：30-32.
闫海燕.龟纹瓢虫Propylea japonica (Thunberg)感光、趋光机制的研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2006.
闫海燕,魏国树,闫海霞,等.龟纹瓢虫成虫的复眼形态及其显微结构[J].昆虫知识,2006,43(3)：344-348.
闫海霞,魏国树,吴卫国,等.中华通草蛉复眼光感受性[J].昆虫学报,2007,50(11)：1099-1104.
闫争亮,泽桑梓,刘宏屏,等.利用引诱剂监测华山松木蠹象的研究[J].西南林业大学学报,2011,31(4)：61-64.
闫争亮,泽桑梓,刘宏屏,等.(+)-柠檬烯和3-(+)-蒈烯对不同发育期华山松木蠹象诱捕量的变化[J].西北林学院学报,2012,27(2)：114-117.
杨松,庄辉,洪英娣,等.粉拟青霉对华山松木蠹象的感染试验[J].中国森林病虫,2007,26(1)：39-40.
杨子祥,沙毓沧,袁理春,等.不同颜色和果实对桔小实蝇的诱集效果研究[J].西南大学学报(自然科学版),2011,33(4)：64-66.
杨忠岐.利用天敌昆虫控制我国重大林木害虫研究进展[J].中国生物防治, 2004,20(4)：221-227.
姚士桐,郑永利.烟粉虱成虫对不同色彩的趋性差异及其在色板上的分布研究[J].上海农业学报,2008,24(1)：85-86.
姚雍静,王家伦,何莲,等.黄色诱虫板对茶小绿叶蝉的诱捕效果研究[J].茶叶,2010,36(2)：90-92.
姚万军,杨忠岐.利用管氏肿腿蜂防治光肩星天牛技术研究[J].环境昆虫学报,2008,30(2)：127-134.
姚万军,杨忠岐.人工繁殖管氏肿腿蜂的替代寄主研究[J].中国生物防治,2008,24(3)：220-226.
叶辉.光照、温度对纵坑切梢小蠹起飞行为的影响[J].昆虫知识,2000,37(6)：342-344.
于法辉,夏长秀,李春玲,等.不同色板对柑橘园蓟马的诱集效果及蓝板的诱捕效果[J].昆虫知识,2010,47(5)：945-949.
于海利.梨小食心虫Grapholita molesta Busck的趋光性及绿光对其生物学特性的影响[D].杨凌：西北农林科技大学,2011.
云南省植保植检站.云南省植保工作进展报告[R].2007.
云南省植保植检站.云南省植保工作进展报告[R].2008.
云南省植保植检站.云南省植保工作进展报告[R].2009.
云南省植保植检站.云南省植保工作进展报告[R].2010.
张纯胄.害虫的趋色性及其“粘虫色板”应用技术的研究进展[J].温州科技职业学学报,2009,(2)：34-38.
张广学,郑国,李学军,等.从保护生物多样性角度谈频振式杀虫灯的应用[J].昆虫知识,2004,41(6)：532-535.
张海强.大草岭Chrysopa pallens Ramber成虫复眼显微结构及其趋光行为的研究[D].保定：河北农业大学,2007.
张海强,闫海霞,刘顺,等.光强度对大草蛉成虫感光性和趋光性行为的影响[J].昆虫学报,2009,52(4)：461-464.
张海强,朱楠,范凡,等.大草蛉成虫复眼的外部形态及其显微结构[J].昆虫学报,2007,50(5)：454-460.
张国彦,张跃进,苏战平,等.佳多自动虫情测报灯和普通黑光灯灯下主要害虫消长规律的比较[J].植物保护,2005,31(3)：74-76.
张全光,杨群芳,植玉蓉,等.光照、温度对光滑足距小蠹雌成虫起飞行为的影响[J].安徽农业科学,2007,35(30)：9599-9600.
张英,高艳飞,吴伟.烟蚜茧蜂及重寄生蜂对不同光源选择性研究[J].科学时代,2012,(3)：96-99.
张跃进,张国彦,谈孝风,等.佳多虫情测报灯与黑光灯诱集昆虫种类和数量的比较研究[J].中国植保导刊,2005,25(3)：35-36.
张忠和,谢开立,曹葵光.华山松木蠢象发生与环境的关系研究[J].林业科学,1999,35(6)：71-75.
张卫光,孙绪艮,曲爱军,等.管氏肿腿蜂的寄生与产卵行为研究[J].昆虫天敌,2004,26(1)：28-33.
张理.云南木蠹象和华山松木蠹象大而积防治实用技术[J].中国森林病虫,2004,23(4)：34-36.
赵冬香,陈宗懋,程家安.假眼小绿叶蝉对不同颜色偏嗜性的研究[J].茶叶科学,2001,21(1)：78-80.
赵树英,秦利芳.佳多频振式杀虫灯应用效果综述[J].新疆农业大学学报,2002,25(3)：71-72.
泽桑梓,闫争亮,张真,等.华山松不同部位挥发性单萜烯的含量及其对华山松木蠹象行为的影响[J].环境昆虫学报,2010,32(1)：36-40.
郑许松,徐红星,俞晓平,等.缨小蜂对颜色的选择性和粘卡技术的应用研究[J].华东昆虫学报,2001,10(2)：96-100.
周福才,杜予州,孙伟,等.黄板对菜地烟粉虱的诱集作用研究[J].华东昆虫学报,2003,12(1)：96-100.
周京花,商晗武,李红亮.南亚果实蝇对颜色趋性及不同寄主对其生长发育的影响[J].浙江农业科学,2009,(3)：555-558.
周玖璇.烟蚜优势天敌昆虫趋光特性及其应用影响的研究[D].昆明：云南大学,2013.
周娜,胡德夫,姚圣忠,等.不同虫蜂量对管氏肿腿蜂繁育效果的影响[J].昆虫天 敌,2006,28(3)：97-102.
周娜,姚圣忠一,胡德夫,等.管氏肿腿蜂的人工繁育与应用研究进展[J].干旱区研究,2005,2(4)：569-575.
周鑫发,林期远,陈梦啸.太阳能光诱灭虫系统的研究[J].阳光能量,2003,(2)：14-15.
朱克为.黄板诱杀温室白粉虱技术研究[J].陕西农业科学,2005,(6)：29-30,107.
Agee H G, Mithell E R, Flanders R V. Spectral sensitivity of the compound eye of Coccinella septempunctata(Coleopter & Coccinellidae).[J] Annals of the Entomological Society of America,1990,83(4):817-819.
Arikawa K.K., Inokuma K., Eguchi E. Pentachromatic visual system in a butterfly [J]. Naturwissenschaften,1987,74(6):297-298.
Brown P E,Anderson M. Spectral sensitivity of the compound eye of the cabbage root fly,Deliaradicum (Diptera:Anthomyiidae) [J]. Bulletin of Entomological Research,1996,86:337-342.
Bowmaker JK. The visual pigments of fish[J]. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research 1995,15:1-31.
Chen, Z., Kuang R. P., Zhou J. X. and Liu X. Phototactic behaviour in Aphidius gifuensis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)[J]. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 2012,22(3):271-279.
Depickere S., Dominique E., Jean-Louis D. The influence of red light on the aggregation of twocastes of the ant, Lasius niger [J]. Journal of Insect Physiology,2004,50(7): 629-635.
Edwards D.K.. Light-dark Adaptation and'Glow' in Abnormal Moth Eyes without Pigment[J]. Nature lond 1964,202:621-622.
Endler JA. The color of light in forests and its implications [J]. Ecological Monographs,1993,63:1-27
Fernando Otalora-Luna, Joseph C. Dickens. Spectral preference and temporal modulation of photic orientation by Colorado potato beetle on a servosphere[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,2011,138(2):93-109.
Giovanni G C, Jan K, Andreas G, et al. Relationship of visual and olfactory signal parameters in a food～deceptive flower mimicry system[J]. Behavioral Ecology,2005,16(1):159-168.
Gorans Truwe. Spectral Sensitivity of the Compound Eye in a Moth. Intra～ and Extracellular Recordings [J]. Acta physiol.Scand.1973,87:63-68.
Guz NV, Dokukin ME, Sokolov I. Atomic Force Microscopy Study of Nano-Physiological Response of Ladybird Beetles to Photostimuli[J]. PLoS ONE,2010,5(9):e 12834. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012834.
Hamid A, ODell TM, Katovich S. White pine weevil[J]. USDA Forest Service Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 1995.21.
Helen E Mellor,James G,Morayanderson. Spectral sensitivity in the eyes of male and female Lutzomyia longipalpis sandflies[J]. Medical and Veterinary Entomology,1996,10:371-374.
Hoglund G.. Receptor sensitivity and pigment position in the compound eye of nocturnal Lepidoptera[J]. Life Sience,1963,6:862-865.
Honek A. Annual variation in the complex of aphid predators investigation by light trap[J]. Acta Entomol.Bohemoslov,1977,(74):345-348.
Honek A,Kocourek F. The flight of aphid predators to a light trap:possible interpretations[J].In Hodek I.(ed.):Ecology of Aphidophaga. Academia,1986,333-338.
Jekely G. Evolution of photo taxis [J]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,2009,364:2795-2808.
Langor DW,Situ YX,Zhang RZ. Two new species of Pissodes(Coleoptera: Curculionidae)from China[J]. The Canadian Entomologist,1999,131:593-603.
Litinetsky L,Barkay Z,Kalicharan D,et al. AFM study of microstructure on the cornea of the compound eye and ocelli of the hornet Vespa orientalis (Insecta, Hymenoptera) [J]. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR.2002,34(1):61-69.
Lund,Nell M,Emily E,et al. Sexual dimorphism in eye morphology in Eucheira socialis (Pieridae)[J]. Journal of Lepidopterists society,2001,55(2):74-77.
Michael D.A. Introduction to insect behavior[M]. New York:Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.,1980,31-33.
Michio Imafuku,Kaoru Tsuji. Spectral sensitivity and wing colors of Narathura and Panchala species [J]. Insect Physiology,2008,54:1511-1515.
Mishra M, Meyer-Rochow VB. Fine structure of the compound eye of the fungus beetle Neotriplax lewisi (Coleoptera, Cucujiformia, Erotylidae)[J]. Invertebrate Biology,2006,125:265-278.
Paulov S. Die Bewegungsorentation der photopositiven Insecten auf Farben (in Slovak, German summary)[J]. Acta Fac.Rerum,Nat.Univ.Comen.Ser Zool,1957,2:155-160.
Peitsch D., Fietz A., Hertel H., et al. The spectral input system of Hymenopteran insects and their receptor-based colour vision [J]. Journal of Comparative Physiology Series A,1992,170(1):23-40.
Robinson H S, Robinson P J M. Some notes on the observed behaviour of Lepidoptera in flight in the vicinity of light-sources together with a description of a light-trap designed to take entomological samples[J]. Ent. Gaz,1950,1:3-20.
Roberts AE, Syms PR, Goodman LJ. Intensity and spectral emission as factors affecting the efficacy of an insect electrocutor trap towards the house-fly [J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,1992,64:259-268.
Song Yang,Hui Zhuang,Yonghe Li, et al. Insecticidal efficacy of Isaria farinosa in different life stages of Pissodes punctatus (Coleoptera:Curculionidae)[J], J Pest Sci (2009) 82:321-325.
Swihart S.L.,Gordon W.C.,Machwart R.J. Reflections on the eyes of butterflies [J]. J. Insect Phasiol.,1974,20:359-381.
Thomas Labhart,Franziska Baumann,Gary Bernard. Specialized ommatidia of the polarization-sensitive dorsal rim area in the eye of monarch butterflies have non-functional reflecting tapeta [J]. Cell Tissue Res,2009.338:391-400.
Thorne HC, Jones KH, Peters SP, Archer SN, Dijk DJ. Daily and seasonal variation in the spectral composition of light exposure in humans [J]. Chronobiology International,2009,26:854-866.
Yang,En-Cheng, Lee Der-Wei, Wu Wen-Yen. Action spectra of phototactic responses of the flea beetle, Phyllotreta striolata[J]. Physiological Entomology,2003,28(4):362-368.
Yang Z. Q., A preliminary survey of parasitic wasps of Dendroctonus armandi Tsai et Li (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) in Qinling Mountains with description of three new species and a new Chinese record (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae)[J]. Journal Entomotaxonomia 1987,9(3):175-184.
Zhou J. X., Kuang R. P., Chen Z., et al. Phototactic Behavior of Coccinella Septempunctata L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)[J]. The Coleopterists Bulletin,2013, 67(1):33-39.