云斑天牛对补充营养寄主的选择性研究
摘要
云斑天牛Batocera horsfieldi(Hope)是一种大型多食性蛀干害虫，由于生活隐蔽，抗逆性强而防治困难，成为许多天然林、经济林、城市园林树木的毁灭性害虫。目前，主要采用低效率的人工和化学方法防治云斑天牛，对寄主植物与云斑天牛成虫间的信息联系机制以及引诱机理的研究较少涉及。因此，加强成虫对寄主植物取食选择机理方面的研究，将为合理配置诱饵树，以及开发与化学指纹图谱相近的高活性引诱剂，诱集成虫，集中治理，初步建立云斑天牛的持续控制技术体系奠定基础。本文从化学生态学角度，对云斑天牛成虫与补充营养寄主间的信息联系机制进行了初步探索，主要结论如下：
(1)通过林间调查和室内选择性试验，研究云斑天牛成虫在补充营养阶段对不同寄主植物的选择性。首次发现云斑天牛成虫对法国冬青和光皮桦有较强的嗜食性，林间最高取食选择率分别达到100％和92.4％，室内观察记录结果与林间调查相一致。说明法国冬青和光皮桦是该虫补充营养阶段的主要寄主植物。
(2)利用“Y”型嗅觉仪测定云斑天牛对不同方法和不同有机溶剂提取的寄主植物挥发性物质的行为反应。结果表明：四种寄主挥发物对天牛成虫的引诱力由大到小依次为光皮桦＞法国冬青＞核桃＞杨树，光皮桦和法国冬青挥发物对云斑天牛的引诱力极显著高于核桃和杨树；另外，不同有机溶剂提取物也存在明显差异，乙醚和二氯甲烷提取物的引诱效果明显好于正己烷，而寄主植物枝条挥发物引诱力也高于叶片挥发物；但采用不同方法提取的挥发物之间差异不显著。
(3)气相色谱-质谱联用仪GC-MS(Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer)分析不同有机溶剂提取的法国冬青不同部位挥发性物质的化学组成及相对含量，对比之间的差异。分析结果表明，挥发物主要化学组分为：烷烃类、醇类、酸类、酮类、酚类、酯类等物质，不同有机溶剂提取的法国冬青枝、叶挥发物的化学组分和含量存在较大差异。二氯甲烷提取物的化学组分最多，主要以醇类、酸类、烷烃类、醛类为主，没有检测到酮类和酚类化合物；正己烷作提取物的化学组分最少，以烷烃类和酮类为主，其他化合物含量很少；乙醚提取物的化学组分最复杂，但以醇类、烷烃类为主。另外，相同提取溶剂得到的法国冬青枝和叶挥发物，化学组成和相对含量也不完全相同，叶片提取物中的化合物明显多于枝条提取物。
(4)通过GC-MS分析，比较二氯甲烷提取的4种不同寄主植物挥发物的化学组成及相对含量之间的差异。分析结果表明，4种寄主植物化学指纹图谱存在明显差异。法国冬青挥发物主要以酸类、醇类为主；光皮桦挥发物中由于酯类化合物2-甲氧基-苯甲酸乙酯，相对含量超高，其余成分相对含量都较低，但烷烃类、醇类化合物种类较多；核桃和杨树中化合物种类与法国冬青、光皮桦差异较大，核桃挥发物以萜烯类和烷烃类为主，萜烯类相对含量占总含量的48.8％，而杨树挥发物的化学组成以烷烃类和酮类为主，分别占总含量38.63％和42.98％，在其他2种寄主植物中几乎没有检测到萜烯类和酮类成分。说明法国冬青和光皮桦挥发物中的醇类物质可能与云斑天牛趋向行为有关，而核桃挥发物中具有引诱活性的则可能是萜烯类物质。另外，不同寄主植物中相同化合物的相对含量不同，也可能导致不同树种对云斑天牛具有不同的引诱效果。
Batocera horsfieldi (Hope) is a kind of polyphagous woodworm pest with large-scale. It is difficult to control for the characteristics of hidden life and strong resistence. Therefore, they become the main destructive pest to many kinds of natural forests, economy trees and urban garden trees, moreover, cost great losses of the economy and ecology in China.Nowadays, the main method of preventing B. horsfieldi is always by mankind with low- efficient or chemical means. By contrast, less researches, refered to the information communication mechanisms and trap effect between host plants and B. horsfieldi adults, has been studied.The study of preference for host plants in adult insect could help for laying foundation of rational distribution of bait-trees, development of high-activity attractants which is similar with Chemical fingerprint, mass-trapping, centralize-processing of adult insects, and establishment of the sustainable control system of B. horsfieldi initially.In order to improve trap effects, it is important,to study the chemical information communication mechanism between B. horsfieldi and host plants based on chemical ecology. The results are.summarized as follows:
The preference of B. horsfieldi adults for various host plants in the phase of supplermentary feeding was observed both in field and in laboratory. The highest rate of selectivity on Viburnum awabuki and Betula luminifera by B. horsfieldi in field was 100％and 92.4％respectively. Lab observation were consistent with results in field. The results showed that V. awabuk and B. luminifera are the main host plants in the phase of supplermentary feeding for B. horsfieldi adults.
Y-tube olfactometer was used to test the behavioral selectivity of B.horsfieldi adults to volatile, which extracted by different ways and organic solvent. The data showed that the attractability of four volatiles to the adults are different: B.luminifera>V. awabuki>Jugians regia. L.>Populus tomentosa. The volatile of B. luminifer and V. awabuki to adults is of much more attractability than volatile of J. regia L. and P. tomentosa. In addition, the effect of different organic solvent extraction are varied, aether and dichloromethne crud extract are better than hexane's, the volatile from the branch had stronger feedant than that from the leaf; But the volatiles extracted by different ways have insignificant difference.
GC-MS(Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer) is used to analyse the compounds and relative contents of volatiles extracted from different parts of V. awabuki and different organic solvent. Then the diversity was compared between each two of them. The results showed that the compounds of volatiles fowllow as: alkanes、Alcohols、acids、ketones、hydroxybenzenes、esters,ect. There is a big difference between the compounds and relative contents of volatiles extracted by different organic solvent from the branches and leaves of V. awabuki. The compounds of volatile is of most when extracted by methylene chloride, and it mainly consist of alcohols、acid、alkanes、aldehydes, instead of ketonic and phenolic compound. There is of least compounds in the volatile extracted by hexane, it mainly consist of alcohols and ketonic compounds instead of others. There is of most complex compounds in the volatile extracted by aether, however, with mainly, compounds of alcohols and alkanes. Moreover, the volatiles coming from the branch and leaf by same organic solvent are of different compounds and relative contents. It's obviously that, the volatile is of more compound when extracted from leaf than from branch.
The diversity of compounds and relative contents of volatiles extracted from 4 different host plant by methylene chloride was analysed by GC-MC. The results showed that there is significant difference among the 4 Chemical fingerprint of host plants. The volatile of V. awabuki mainly consist of acids and alcohols; The volatile of B. luminifera is mainly of esters compound Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, methyl ester, then the other compounds are less, while alkanes and esters compound is more than others. The compounds of J. regia L.and P. tomentosa is different of that of B. luminifera and V. awabuki. The volatile of J. regia L mainly consist of kautchin and alkanes, the proportion of kautchin is 48.8％; The volatile of P. tomentosa mainly consist of alkanes and ketones, the proportion of them is 38.63％and 42.98％respectively. There are no kautchin and ketones in the volatile of other two host plants. The result may explained that the alcohols compound coming from B. luminifera and V. awabuki would influence the trend behavior of B. horsfieldi adults, while the
(1)通过林间调查和室内选择性试验，研究云斑天牛成虫在补充营养阶段对不同寄主植物的选择性。首次发现云斑天牛成虫对法国冬青和光皮桦有较强的嗜食性，林间最高取食选择率分别达到100％和92.4％，室内观察记录结果与林间调查相一致。说明法国冬青和光皮桦是该虫补充营养阶段的主要寄主植物。
(2)利用“Y”型嗅觉仪测定云斑天牛对不同方法和不同有机溶剂提取的寄主植物挥发性物质的行为反应。结果表明：四种寄主挥发物对天牛成虫的引诱力由大到小依次为光皮桦＞法国冬青＞核桃＞杨树，光皮桦和法国冬青挥发物对云斑天牛的引诱力极显著高于核桃和杨树；另外，不同有机溶剂提取物也存在明显差异，乙醚和二氯甲烷提取物的引诱效果明显好于正己烷，而寄主植物枝条挥发物引诱力也高于叶片挥发物；但采用不同方法提取的挥发物之间差异不显著。
(3)气相色谱-质谱联用仪GC-MS(Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer)分析不同有机溶剂提取的法国冬青不同部位挥发性物质的化学组成及相对含量，对比之间的差异。分析结果表明，挥发物主要化学组分为：烷烃类、醇类、酸类、酮类、酚类、酯类等物质，不同有机溶剂提取的法国冬青枝、叶挥发物的化学组分和含量存在较大差异。二氯甲烷提取物的化学组分最多，主要以醇类、酸类、烷烃类、醛类为主，没有检测到酮类和酚类化合物；正己烷作提取物的化学组分最少，以烷烃类和酮类为主，其他化合物含量很少；乙醚提取物的化学组分最复杂，但以醇类、烷烃类为主。另外，相同提取溶剂得到的法国冬青枝和叶挥发物，化学组成和相对含量也不完全相同，叶片提取物中的化合物明显多于枝条提取物。
(4)通过GC-MS分析，比较二氯甲烷提取的4种不同寄主植物挥发物的化学组成及相对含量之间的差异。分析结果表明，4种寄主植物化学指纹图谱存在明显差异。法国冬青挥发物主要以酸类、醇类为主；光皮桦挥发物中由于酯类化合物2-甲氧基-苯甲酸乙酯，相对含量超高，其余成分相对含量都较低，但烷烃类、醇类化合物种类较多；核桃和杨树中化合物种类与法国冬青、光皮桦差异较大，核桃挥发物以萜烯类和烷烃类为主，萜烯类相对含量占总含量的48.8％，而杨树挥发物的化学组成以烷烃类和酮类为主，分别占总含量38.63％和42.98％，在其他2种寄主植物中几乎没有检测到萜烯类和酮类成分。说明法国冬青和光皮桦挥发物中的醇类物质可能与云斑天牛趋向行为有关，而核桃挥发物中具有引诱活性的则可能是萜烯类物质。另外，不同寄主植物中相同化合物的相对含量不同，也可能导致不同树种对云斑天牛具有不同的引诱效果。
Batocera horsfieldi (Hope) is a kind of polyphagous woodworm pest with large-scale. It is difficult to control for the characteristics of hidden life and strong resistence. Therefore, they become the main destructive pest to many kinds of natural forests, economy trees and urban garden trees, moreover, cost great losses of the economy and ecology in China.Nowadays, the main method of preventing B. horsfieldi is always by mankind with low- efficient or chemical means. By contrast, less researches, refered to the information communication mechanisms and trap effect between host plants and B. horsfieldi adults, has been studied.The study of preference for host plants in adult insect could help for laying foundation of rational distribution of bait-trees, development of high-activity attractants which is similar with Chemical fingerprint, mass-trapping, centralize-processing of adult insects, and establishment of the sustainable control system of B. horsfieldi initially.In order to improve trap effects, it is important,to study the chemical information communication mechanism between B. horsfieldi and host plants based on chemical ecology. The results are.summarized as follows:
The preference of B. horsfieldi adults for various host plants in the phase of supplermentary feeding was observed both in field and in laboratory. The highest rate of selectivity on Viburnum awabuki and Betula luminifera by B. horsfieldi in field was 100％and 92.4％respectively. Lab observation were consistent with results in field. The results showed that V. awabuk and B. luminifera are the main host plants in the phase of supplermentary feeding for B. horsfieldi adults.
Y-tube olfactometer was used to test the behavioral selectivity of B.horsfieldi adults to volatile, which extracted by different ways and organic solvent. The data showed that the attractability of four volatiles to the adults are different: B.luminifera>V. awabuki>Jugians regia. L.>Populus tomentosa. The volatile of B. luminifer and V. awabuki to adults is of much more attractability than volatile of J. regia L. and P. tomentosa. In addition, the effect of different organic solvent extraction are varied, aether and dichloromethne crud extract are better than hexane's, the volatile from the branch had stronger feedant than that from the leaf; But the volatiles extracted by different ways have insignificant difference.
GC-MS(Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer) is used to analyse the compounds and relative contents of volatiles extracted from different parts of V. awabuki and different organic solvent. Then the diversity was compared between each two of them. The results showed that the compounds of volatiles fowllow as: alkanes、Alcohols、acids、ketones、hydroxybenzenes、esters,ect. There is a big difference between the compounds and relative contents of volatiles extracted by different organic solvent from the branches and leaves of V. awabuki. The compounds of volatile is of most when extracted by methylene chloride, and it mainly consist of alcohols、acid、alkanes、aldehydes, instead of ketonic and phenolic compound. There is of least compounds in the volatile extracted by hexane, it mainly consist of alcohols and ketonic compounds instead of others. There is of most complex compounds in the volatile extracted by aether, however, with mainly, compounds of alcohols and alkanes. Moreover, the volatiles coming from the branch and leaf by same organic solvent are of different compounds and relative contents. It's obviously that, the volatile is of more compound when extracted from leaf than from branch.
The diversity of compounds and relative contents of volatiles extracted from 4 different host plant by methylene chloride was analysed by GC-MC. The results showed that there is significant difference among the 4 Chemical fingerprint of host plants. The volatile of V. awabuki mainly consist of acids and alcohols; The volatile of B. luminifera is mainly of esters compound Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy-, methyl ester, then the other compounds are less, while alkanes and esters compound is more than others. The compounds of J. regia L.and P. tomentosa is different of that of B. luminifera and V. awabuki. The volatile of J. regia L mainly consist of kautchin and alkanes, the proportion of kautchin is 48.8％; The volatile of P. tomentosa mainly consist of alkanes and ketones, the proportion of them is 38.63％and 42.98％respectively. There are no kautchin and ketones in the volatile of other two host plants. The result may explained that the alcohols compound coming from B. luminifera and V. awabuki would influence the trend behavior of B. horsfieldi adults, while the
引文
[1] 肖刚柔主编 中国森林昆虫．北京：中国林业出版社．1992，(2)：472～473
[2] 贵州省林科所森保研究室．杨树云斑天牛生活史及其防治研究初报．贵州林业科技．1977，(2)：11～223
[3] 戴罗．杨树云斑大牛的生活习性利有效防治．湖南林业科技．1986，(1)：32～344
[4] 嵇保中等．云斑天牛生殖系统的研究．南京林业大学学报．1995，19(4)：14～20
[5] 陈继成．云斑天牛生物学特性及防治实验，湖北林业科技．1987，(2)：19～20
[6] 石宗佑等．杨树蛀干害虫云斑天牛的初步研究．湖北林业科技．1989，(1)：22～26
[7] 孙巧云等．云斑天牛初步研究．1991，(2)：22～25
[8] 张风娟，金幼菊，陈华君，武晓颖．光肩星天牛对4种不同槭树科寄主植物的选择机制．生态学报．2006，(3)：870～877
[9] 严善春，张丹丹，迟德寓．植物挥发性物质对昆虫作用的研究进展．应用生态学报．2003，14(2)：310～313
[10] 刘旭，肖筠，姚革等．大渡河上游核桃害虫种类调查及主要害虫生物学特性研究．四川农业大学学报．2003，21(2)：119～121
[11] 金幼菊等．复叶械挥发性物质对光肩星天牛的触角电位反应．北京林业大学学报．1999，21(4)1～5
[12] 孙金钟，赵忠懿，茹桃芹等．栽植苦楝隔离带和糖槭诱饵树防治光肩星天牛试验．森林病虫通讯．1990，(2)：10～125
[13] 秦锡祥，高瑞桐，李吉震等．不同杨树品种对光肩星天牛抗虫性的调查研究．林业科学．1985，21(3)：310～3146
[14] 汪永俊，张纪林，秦旦仁等．桑天牛的发生与补充营养关系的初步研究．江苏林业科技．1986，(1)：32～34
[15] 张贤开等．利用诱饵防治桑天牛的研究，林业科学．1992，28(5)：466～477
[16] 房喜峰 王根宪．云斑天牛在核桃树上的发生与防治，林业科技．1996，(4)：15
[17] 郗荣庭等．中国核桃．中国林业出版社．1992．
[18] 中国林业科学研究院．中国森林病害．中国林业出版社．1984．
[19] 中国林业科学研究院．中国森林昆虫．中国林业出版社．1983．
[20] 杨雪彦，周嘉熹，王福贵．天牛选择寄主的行为与树种的选择反应．西北林学院学报． 11997，12(增)：52～57
[21] 程惠珍，陈君，张国珍等．应用天牛肿腿蜂防治菊天牛的初步研究．中国中药杂志．1993，18(2)：716～717
[22] 范爱保，宋春平，郭淑霞等．利用成虫取食习性防治3种杨树天牛技术的应用推广．河北林业科技．2003(5)：42～44
[23] 杨保祥，郜月琴．云斑天牛物候预测预报初步研究．经济林研究．1990，8(1)：58～59
[24] 侯照远，陈雄，张瑛，严福顺．植物挥发性次生物质在害虫防治中的作用与应用前景．植保技术与推广．1996，16(5)：37-39
[25] 钱范俊，杜夕生等．云斑天牛成虫在杨树林带中扩散特性的研究．南京林业大学学报．1994，18(1)：21～25
[26] 王卫东，刘益宁，宝山等．宁夏光肩星天牛、黄斑星天牛天敌昆虫的研究．1999，21(4)：90～93
[27] 萧刚柔．天牛的两种新寄生天敌——川硬皮肿腿蜂及海南硬皮肿腿蜂(膜翅目：肿腿蜂科)．林业科学研究．1995，8：1～5．
[28] 周祖基，曾垂惠，杨伟等．川硬皮肿腿蜂生物学特性研究．林业科学．1997，33(3)：475～480
[29] 张洪波，赵云翔，蒋青年，1999．咖啡灭字脊虎天牛捕捉器试验及其生物防治意义．云南热作科技．22(1)：12～13
[30] 张学祖．植物、植食性昆虫及捕食者种间化学信息物质．昆虫知识．1994，31(1)：52～55
[31] 范迪，王西南，李宪臣等．两种杨树天牛综合防治和监测技术研究及其应用．山东林业科技．1998，(1)：13～16
[32] 唐桦，刘益宁，马国骅．宁夏地区光肩星天牛天敌种类调查初报．森林病虫通讯．1996，(1)：30～31
[33] 骆有庆，李建光．杨树天牛灾害控制的应用技术和基础研究策略．北京林业大学学报．1999，21(4)：6～11
[34] 李国宏，高瑞桐，李广武．斑啄木鸟及诱树防治桑天牛效果的研究．林业科技通讯．1996，(12)：11～13
[35] 余道间，张润杰．昆虫的通讯行为．生物学通报．1996，31(8)：11～12
[36] 娄永根等．挥发物在调节稻虱缨小蜂、黑肩绿盲蝽种内种间关系中的作用．浙江大学学报．2002，28(4)：401～406
[37] 周弘春，杜家伟．风洞技术在昆虫化学通讯研究中的应用．昆虫知识．2001，38(4)：267～272
[38] 赵锦年等．松墨天牛引诱剂及引诱作用研究．林业科学研究．2000，13(13)：262～267
[39] 李昌丕．双条杉天牛综合防治技术研究．中国有害生物综合防治论文集．北京，中国林业出版社．1996．
[40] 高瑞桐，王宏乾，徐邦新等．云斑天牛补充营养习性及与寄主树关系的研究．林业科学研究．1995，8(6)：619～623
[41] 张世权，周锡华，苏满意．云斑天牛的生物学与综合防治研究．林业科技通讯．1992第9期：9～12
[42] 严敖金，嵇保中，钱范俊。云斑天牛Batocera horsfieldi(Hope)的研究．南京林业大学学报．1997，21(1)：1～6
[43] 孙新杰，王邦磊等．触破式微胶囊剂防治天牛成虫试验研究．2003，23(2)：9～10
[44] 张世权等．华北天牛及其防治．北京：中国林业出版社．1994．
[45] 肖刚柔．天牛的两种新奇生天敌——川硬皮肿腿蜂及海南硬皮肿腿蜂(膜翅目：肿腿蜂科)．林业科学研究．1995，(8)：1～5
[46] 周祖基，曾垂惠，杨伟等．川硬皮肿腿蜂环境适应性的初步研究．森林病虫通讯．1996，(3)：4～6
[47] 肖银波等．川硬皮肿腿蜂防治云斑天牛试验初报．四川林业科技．24(4)：37～41
[48] 杨德敏，曾垂惠，杨萍等．三峡库区利用川硬皮肿腿蜂防治天牛类害虫．中国生物防治．1999，15(3)：140～141
[49] 许宁等．茶树-害虫-天敌间的化学信息联系．茶叶科学．2003，23(增)：38～45
[50] 杨本文，生物活性天然物质．北京：人民卫生出版社，1984
[51] 李建光等．光肩星天牛对干旱胁迫下复叶槭挥发物的嗅觉反应．林业科学．2004，40(1)：100～105
[52] 孙丽艳等．对云斑白条天牛具有不同抗性的杨树品种中挥发物成分的研究．林业科学研究．2002，15(5)：570～574
[53] 池田俊弥等．引诱松褐天牛的物质及利用．国家林协东北亚森保会议译文集汇．林业部三北防护林建设局印．1990
[54] 徐视封等．中药理化鉴定．中国中医药出版社，1997
[55] 中国科学院上海研究所编著．中草药有效成分提取与分离(第二版)．上海：上海科学出 版社，1983：354～360
[56] 丁红建，郭予元．寄主植物它感化合物与害虫行为的关系及其利用．植物保护．1995，(5)：33～35
[57] 杜家纬．昆虫信息素及其应用．北京：中国林业出版社，1988
[58] 郑浩，杨长举，华红霞．与昆虫有关的植物挥发性次生物质的研究方法．2002，39(1)：9～13
[59] 郭雪飞，殷慧伟，严善春．植物挥发气味物质成分的收集与分析．东北林业大学学报．1997，25(5)：105～108
[60] 王云云，董戈，刘卫斌．水蒸汽蒸馏实验装置的改进．吉林林业科技．2002，31(3)：51～52
[61] 严善春，张丹丹，迟德富．植物挥发性物质对昆虫作用的研究进展．应用生态学报．2003，14(2)：310～313
[63] 郭线茹，原国辉，蒋金炜，马继盛．植物次生物质对昆虫触角电位反应的影响．河南农业大学学报．2003，37(1)：18～22
[64] Pichersky E., JonathanGThe formation and function of plant volatiles: perfumes for pollinator atraction and defense.. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2002. 5: 237～243
[65] Allison JD, Borden JH, Mcintosh RL, de-Groot P and Gries R, 2001. Kairomonal response by four monochamus species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to bark beetle pheromones, J. Chem. Ecol., 27(4): 633～646
[66] Higgs MD and Evans DA. 1978. Chemical mediators in the oviposition behaviour of the house longhorn beetle Hylotrupes bajulus, Experientia., 34: 46～07
[67] Dixon R.A products and plant disease resistance. Nature. 2001. 411: 843～847
[68] Phillips TV, Wilkening AJ, Atkinson TH, Nation JL, Wilkinson RC, Foltz JL, 1988. Synergism of turpentine and ethanol as attractants for certain pine-infesting beetles (Coleoptera). Environ. Entomol., 17(3): 456～462.
[69] Du J.W. Current and future prospects for insect behavior modifying chemicals in China, Agric. Chem. Biotechnol. 2000. 43 (4): 222～229.
[70] Sakai M, Yamasaki T, 1990.(+)-Juniperol and(+)-pimaral: attractantsfor the cerambycid beetle, Monochamus alternatus Hope. J. Chem. Ecol., 16: 3387～3392
[71] Turlings T.C.J, Tumlinson H. Systemic release of chemicals signals by herbivore-injured corn. Proc. Natl. A-cad. Sci. USA. 1992. 89: 8399～8402.
[72] Delton AN., Paul J, David J.B. Solid phase micro-extraction for the determination of volatile organics in the foliage of fraser fir (Abies fraseri). Microchemical Journal. 2000. 65: 269～276.
[73] Fagoonee I., Toory V.Preliminary investigations of host selection mechanisms by the leafminer Lriomyza trifolfi. Insect ScL Appl. 1983. 4(4): 337～341.
[74] Dicke M., Minkenberg O.P.M.J. Role of volatile infochemicais inforaging behavior of the leafniner parasitoid Dacnusa sibirica (Diptera: Agromyzidae). J. Insect Behav. 1991. 4(4): 489～500
[75] 邓建宇．昆虫信息索剂型的研究和植物气味物质对昆虫信息素诱蛾效果的影响．上海：中国科学院上海植物生理生态研究所博士论文．2002，32～37．
[76] Fettkother R, Reddy GVP, Noldt U, Dettner K, 2000. Elect of host and larval frass volatiles on behavioral response of the old house borer, Hylotrupes bojulus (L.) (Coleoptera: Ceram-bycidae), in a wind tunnel bioassay. Chemoecology, 10: 1～10
[77] Borden JH., Savoie A., Wilson 1, M, Responses to green leaf volatiles in two biogeoclimatic zones by striped ambrosia beetle, Trypodendton lineatum. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 1997. 23(11): 2479～2491
[78] Light D.M., Firth R.A, Buttery R,G., et at. Host plant green-leaf volatiles synergize the synthetic sex pheromones of the corn ear-worm and the codling moth(Lepidotera). Chemoecology. 1993. 4: 145～152.
[79] Agrawal A A. Induced responses to herbivory and increased plant performance. Science, 1998. 279: 1201～1202
[80] Alborn H T, Turling T C J, Jones T H et al. An elicitor of plant volatiles from beet armyworm oral secretion. Science, 1997. 276: 945～949
[81] Arimura G, Ozawa R, Nishioka T, Boland W, Koch T, Kilhnemann F, Takabayashi J. Herbivore-induced volatiles induce the emission of ethylene in neighboring lima bean plants. Plant J, 2002, 29: 87～98
[82] Hirotaka T, Shuiehiro M. On the polyphenolic of them to the resistance to chestnut gall wasp. Japan Soe Hort Sci, 1996, 35: 89～97.
[83] Auger M, Bastien C, Geri C. Edibility of different clones of Scots pine for Diprion pini L., (Hym., Diprionidae). Ⅲ. Prospects for the genetic improvement of Seats pine. Journal of Applied Entomology, 1991, 111(3): 270～277.
[84]Eom T, Son D, Lee S. Resistance to pine gall-midge and phenolic aeld content in pine needles. Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology, 1998, 26(3): 33-40.
[85]Hulme M A. Resistance by translocated Sitkaspruce to damage by Pissode strobe (Coleo -ptera: Cureulionidae)related to tree phenology. J Econ Entomol. 1995, 88: 1525-1530.
[86] Vinson S B. Habitat location. In: Nordlund D A, Jones R, Lewis W J (eds.) Semiochemicals: Their Role in Pest Control. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981, 51-68
[87] Visser J H. Host odor perception by phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 1986, 31:121-144
[88] Dethier V G. Mechanism of host-plant recognition. Entmol. Exp. & Appl., 1982, 31:49～56
[89] Vet LEM. Dicke M. Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic context. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 1992,37:141-172
[90] Saijo R, Takeo T. Increase of cis-3-hexen-1-ol content in tea leaves following mechanical injury. Phytochemistry, 1975, 14:181 — 182
[91]Dicke M. Local and systemic production of volatile herbivore-induced terpenoids: Their role in plant-carnivore mutualism. J. Plant. Physiol., 1994, 143:465-47.
[92]Nerg A M, Heijari J, Noldt U. ViitanenH, et . Significance of wood terpenoids in the resistance of Scots pine provenances against the old house borer. Hylotrupes bajulus, and brown-rot fungus, Coniophora puteana. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2004,30(1): 125-141.
[93] Van den Boom C E M. van Beck T A and Dicke M. Differences among plant species in acceptance by the spider mite Tetranychus urticae Koch. Journal of Applied Entomology, 2003, 127: 177-183.
[94]Li D G, Hou Y L, Shen Z R. Influence of host plant species on the development and reproduction of hawthorn spider mite Tetranychus viennensis Zacher. Acts Ecologies Siniea, 2005, 25(7): 1562-1568.
[95] T. Kydonieus, A. Graniti ed.; Specifcity in Plant Disease. Plenum Press, New York and London, 1977
[96] Hanula J L, Berisford C W, Debarr G L. 1985. Monoterpene oviposition stimulants of Diorytria amatella in volatiles from fusiform rust galls and second-year loblolly pine cones. J Chem Ecol, 11(7):943～952
[97] 李新岗, 刘惠霞等. 影响松果梢斑螟寄主选择的植物挥发物成分研究. 林业科学.2006, 42(6):71-78.
[2] 贵州省林科所森保研究室．杨树云斑天牛生活史及其防治研究初报．贵州林业科技．1977，(2)：11～223
[3] 戴罗．杨树云斑大牛的生活习性利有效防治．湖南林业科技．1986，(1)：32～344
[4] 嵇保中等．云斑天牛生殖系统的研究．南京林业大学学报．1995，19(4)：14～20
[5] 陈继成．云斑天牛生物学特性及防治实验，湖北林业科技．1987，(2)：19～20
[6] 石宗佑等．杨树蛀干害虫云斑天牛的初步研究．湖北林业科技．1989，(1)：22～26
[7] 孙巧云等．云斑天牛初步研究．1991，(2)：22～25
[8] 张风娟，金幼菊，陈华君，武晓颖．光肩星天牛对4种不同槭树科寄主植物的选择机制．生态学报．2006，(3)：870～877
[9] 严善春，张丹丹，迟德寓．植物挥发性物质对昆虫作用的研究进展．应用生态学报．2003，14(2)：310～313
[10] 刘旭，肖筠，姚革等．大渡河上游核桃害虫种类调查及主要害虫生物学特性研究．四川农业大学学报．2003，21(2)：119～121
[11] 金幼菊等．复叶械挥发性物质对光肩星天牛的触角电位反应．北京林业大学学报．1999，21(4)1～5
[12] 孙金钟，赵忠懿，茹桃芹等．栽植苦楝隔离带和糖槭诱饵树防治光肩星天牛试验．森林病虫通讯．1990，(2)：10～125
[13] 秦锡祥，高瑞桐，李吉震等．不同杨树品种对光肩星天牛抗虫性的调查研究．林业科学．1985，21(3)：310～3146
[14] 汪永俊，张纪林，秦旦仁等．桑天牛的发生与补充营养关系的初步研究．江苏林业科技．1986，(1)：32～34
[15] 张贤开等．利用诱饵防治桑天牛的研究，林业科学．1992，28(5)：466～477
[16] 房喜峰 王根宪．云斑天牛在核桃树上的发生与防治，林业科技．1996，(4)：15
[17] 郗荣庭等．中国核桃．中国林业出版社．1992．
[18] 中国林业科学研究院．中国森林病害．中国林业出版社．1984．
[19] 中国林业科学研究院．中国森林昆虫．中国林业出版社．1983．
[20] 杨雪彦，周嘉熹，王福贵．天牛选择寄主的行为与树种的选择反应．西北林学院学报． 11997，12(增)：52～57
[21] 程惠珍，陈君，张国珍等．应用天牛肿腿蜂防治菊天牛的初步研究．中国中药杂志．1993，18(2)：716～717
[22] 范爱保，宋春平，郭淑霞等．利用成虫取食习性防治3种杨树天牛技术的应用推广．河北林业科技．2003(5)：42～44
[23] 杨保祥，郜月琴．云斑天牛物候预测预报初步研究．经济林研究．1990，8(1)：58～59
[24] 侯照远，陈雄，张瑛，严福顺．植物挥发性次生物质在害虫防治中的作用与应用前景．植保技术与推广．1996，16(5)：37-39
[25] 钱范俊，杜夕生等．云斑天牛成虫在杨树林带中扩散特性的研究．南京林业大学学报．1994，18(1)：21～25
[26] 王卫东，刘益宁，宝山等．宁夏光肩星天牛、黄斑星天牛天敌昆虫的研究．1999，21(4)：90～93
[27] 萧刚柔．天牛的两种新寄生天敌——川硬皮肿腿蜂及海南硬皮肿腿蜂(膜翅目：肿腿蜂科)．林业科学研究．1995，8：1～5．
[28] 周祖基，曾垂惠，杨伟等．川硬皮肿腿蜂生物学特性研究．林业科学．1997，33(3)：475～480
[29] 张洪波，赵云翔，蒋青年，1999．咖啡灭字脊虎天牛捕捉器试验及其生物防治意义．云南热作科技．22(1)：12～13
[30] 张学祖．植物、植食性昆虫及捕食者种间化学信息物质．昆虫知识．1994，31(1)：52～55
[31] 范迪，王西南，李宪臣等．两种杨树天牛综合防治和监测技术研究及其应用．山东林业科技．1998，(1)：13～16
[32] 唐桦，刘益宁，马国骅．宁夏地区光肩星天牛天敌种类调查初报．森林病虫通讯．1996，(1)：30～31
[33] 骆有庆，李建光．杨树天牛灾害控制的应用技术和基础研究策略．北京林业大学学报．1999，21(4)：6～11
[34] 李国宏，高瑞桐，李广武．斑啄木鸟及诱树防治桑天牛效果的研究．林业科技通讯．1996，(12)：11～13
[35] 余道间，张润杰．昆虫的通讯行为．生物学通报．1996，31(8)：11～12
[36] 娄永根等．挥发物在调节稻虱缨小蜂、黑肩绿盲蝽种内种间关系中的作用．浙江大学学报．2002，28(4)：401～406
[37] 周弘春，杜家伟．风洞技术在昆虫化学通讯研究中的应用．昆虫知识．2001，38(4)：267～272
[38] 赵锦年等．松墨天牛引诱剂及引诱作用研究．林业科学研究．2000，13(13)：262～267
[39] 李昌丕．双条杉天牛综合防治技术研究．中国有害生物综合防治论文集．北京，中国林业出版社．1996．
[40] 高瑞桐，王宏乾，徐邦新等．云斑天牛补充营养习性及与寄主树关系的研究．林业科学研究．1995，8(6)：619～623
[41] 张世权，周锡华，苏满意．云斑天牛的生物学与综合防治研究．林业科技通讯．1992第9期：9～12
[42] 严敖金，嵇保中，钱范俊。云斑天牛Batocera horsfieldi(Hope)的研究．南京林业大学学报．1997，21(1)：1～6
[43] 孙新杰，王邦磊等．触破式微胶囊剂防治天牛成虫试验研究．2003，23(2)：9～10
[44] 张世权等．华北天牛及其防治．北京：中国林业出版社．1994．
[45] 肖刚柔．天牛的两种新奇生天敌——川硬皮肿腿蜂及海南硬皮肿腿蜂(膜翅目：肿腿蜂科)．林业科学研究．1995，(8)：1～5
[46] 周祖基，曾垂惠，杨伟等．川硬皮肿腿蜂环境适应性的初步研究．森林病虫通讯．1996，(3)：4～6
[47] 肖银波等．川硬皮肿腿蜂防治云斑天牛试验初报．四川林业科技．24(4)：37～41
[48] 杨德敏，曾垂惠，杨萍等．三峡库区利用川硬皮肿腿蜂防治天牛类害虫．中国生物防治．1999，15(3)：140～141
[49] 许宁等．茶树-害虫-天敌间的化学信息联系．茶叶科学．2003，23(增)：38～45
[50] 杨本文，生物活性天然物质．北京：人民卫生出版社，1984
[51] 李建光等．光肩星天牛对干旱胁迫下复叶槭挥发物的嗅觉反应．林业科学．2004，40(1)：100～105
[52] 孙丽艳等．对云斑白条天牛具有不同抗性的杨树品种中挥发物成分的研究．林业科学研究．2002，15(5)：570～574
[53] 池田俊弥等．引诱松褐天牛的物质及利用．国家林协东北亚森保会议译文集汇．林业部三北防护林建设局印．1990
[54] 徐视封等．中药理化鉴定．中国中医药出版社，1997
[55] 中国科学院上海研究所编著．中草药有效成分提取与分离(第二版)．上海：上海科学出 版社，1983：354～360
[56] 丁红建，郭予元．寄主植物它感化合物与害虫行为的关系及其利用．植物保护．1995，(5)：33～35
[57] 杜家纬．昆虫信息素及其应用．北京：中国林业出版社，1988
[58] 郑浩，杨长举，华红霞．与昆虫有关的植物挥发性次生物质的研究方法．2002，39(1)：9～13
[59] 郭雪飞，殷慧伟，严善春．植物挥发气味物质成分的收集与分析．东北林业大学学报．1997，25(5)：105～108
[60] 王云云，董戈，刘卫斌．水蒸汽蒸馏实验装置的改进．吉林林业科技．2002，31(3)：51～52
[61] 严善春，张丹丹，迟德富．植物挥发性物质对昆虫作用的研究进展．应用生态学报．2003，14(2)：310～313
[63] 郭线茹，原国辉，蒋金炜，马继盛．植物次生物质对昆虫触角电位反应的影响．河南农业大学学报．2003，37(1)：18～22
[64] Pichersky E., JonathanGThe formation and function of plant volatiles: perfumes for pollinator atraction and defense.. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2002. 5: 237～243
[65] Allison JD, Borden JH, Mcintosh RL, de-Groot P and Gries R, 2001. Kairomonal response by four monochamus species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to bark beetle pheromones, J. Chem. Ecol., 27(4): 633～646
[66] Higgs MD and Evans DA. 1978. Chemical mediators in the oviposition behaviour of the house longhorn beetle Hylotrupes bajulus, Experientia., 34: 46～07
[67] Dixon R.A products and plant disease resistance. Nature. 2001. 411: 843～847
[68] Phillips TV, Wilkening AJ, Atkinson TH, Nation JL, Wilkinson RC, Foltz JL, 1988. Synergism of turpentine and ethanol as attractants for certain pine-infesting beetles (Coleoptera). Environ. Entomol., 17(3): 456～462.
[69] Du J.W. Current and future prospects for insect behavior modifying chemicals in China, Agric. Chem. Biotechnol. 2000. 43 (4): 222～229.
[70] Sakai M, Yamasaki T, 1990.(+)-Juniperol and(+)-pimaral: attractantsfor the cerambycid beetle, Monochamus alternatus Hope. J. Chem. Ecol., 16: 3387～3392
[71] Turlings T.C.J, Tumlinson H. Systemic release of chemicals signals by herbivore-injured corn. Proc. Natl. A-cad. Sci. USA. 1992. 89: 8399～8402.
[72] Delton AN., Paul J, David J.B. Solid phase micro-extraction for the determination of volatile organics in the foliage of fraser fir (Abies fraseri). Microchemical Journal. 2000. 65: 269～276.
[73] Fagoonee I., Toory V.Preliminary investigations of host selection mechanisms by the leafminer Lriomyza trifolfi. Insect ScL Appl. 1983. 4(4): 337～341.
[74] Dicke M., Minkenberg O.P.M.J. Role of volatile infochemicais inforaging behavior of the leafniner parasitoid Dacnusa sibirica (Diptera: Agromyzidae). J. Insect Behav. 1991. 4(4): 489～500
[75] 邓建宇．昆虫信息索剂型的研究和植物气味物质对昆虫信息素诱蛾效果的影响．上海：中国科学院上海植物生理生态研究所博士论文．2002，32～37．
[76] Fettkother R, Reddy GVP, Noldt U, Dettner K, 2000. Elect of host and larval frass volatiles on behavioral response of the old house borer, Hylotrupes bojulus (L.) (Coleoptera: Ceram-bycidae), in a wind tunnel bioassay. Chemoecology, 10: 1～10
[77] Borden JH., Savoie A., Wilson 1, M, Responses to green leaf volatiles in two biogeoclimatic zones by striped ambrosia beetle, Trypodendton lineatum. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 1997. 23(11): 2479～2491
[78] Light D.M., Firth R.A, Buttery R,G., et at. Host plant green-leaf volatiles synergize the synthetic sex pheromones of the corn ear-worm and the codling moth(Lepidotera). Chemoecology. 1993. 4: 145～152.
[79] Agrawal A A. Induced responses to herbivory and increased plant performance. Science, 1998. 279: 1201～1202
[80] Alborn H T, Turling T C J, Jones T H et al. An elicitor of plant volatiles from beet armyworm oral secretion. Science, 1997. 276: 945～949
[81] Arimura G, Ozawa R, Nishioka T, Boland W, Koch T, Kilhnemann F, Takabayashi J. Herbivore-induced volatiles induce the emission of ethylene in neighboring lima bean plants. Plant J, 2002, 29: 87～98
[82] Hirotaka T, Shuiehiro M. On the polyphenolic of them to the resistance to chestnut gall wasp. Japan Soe Hort Sci, 1996, 35: 89～97.
[83] Auger M, Bastien C, Geri C. Edibility of different clones of Scots pine for Diprion pini L., (Hym., Diprionidae). Ⅲ. Prospects for the genetic improvement of Seats pine. Journal of Applied Entomology, 1991, 111(3): 270～277.
[84]Eom T, Son D, Lee S. Resistance to pine gall-midge and phenolic aeld content in pine needles. Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology, 1998, 26(3): 33-40.
[85]Hulme M A. Resistance by translocated Sitkaspruce to damage by Pissode strobe (Coleo -ptera: Cureulionidae)related to tree phenology. J Econ Entomol. 1995, 88: 1525-1530.
[86] Vinson S B. Habitat location. In: Nordlund D A, Jones R, Lewis W J (eds.) Semiochemicals: Their Role in Pest Control. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981, 51-68
[87] Visser J H. Host odor perception by phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 1986, 31:121-144
[88] Dethier V G. Mechanism of host-plant recognition. Entmol. Exp. & Appl., 1982, 31:49～56
[89] Vet LEM. Dicke M. Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic context. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 1992,37:141-172
[90] Saijo R, Takeo T. Increase of cis-3-hexen-1-ol content in tea leaves following mechanical injury. Phytochemistry, 1975, 14:181 — 182
[91]Dicke M. Local and systemic production of volatile herbivore-induced terpenoids: Their role in plant-carnivore mutualism. J. Plant. Physiol., 1994, 143:465-47.
[92]Nerg A M, Heijari J, Noldt U. ViitanenH, et . Significance of wood terpenoids in the resistance of Scots pine provenances against the old house borer. Hylotrupes bajulus, and brown-rot fungus, Coniophora puteana. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2004,30(1): 125-141.
[93] Van den Boom C E M. van Beck T A and Dicke M. Differences among plant species in acceptance by the spider mite Tetranychus urticae Koch. Journal of Applied Entomology, 2003, 127: 177-183.
[94]Li D G, Hou Y L, Shen Z R. Influence of host plant species on the development and reproduction of hawthorn spider mite Tetranychus viennensis Zacher. Acts Ecologies Siniea, 2005, 25(7): 1562-1568.
[95] T. Kydonieus, A. Graniti ed.; Specifcity in Plant Disease. Plenum Press, New York and London, 1977
[96] Hanula J L, Berisford C W, Debarr G L. 1985. Monoterpene oviposition stimulants of Diorytria amatella in volatiles from fusiform rust galls and second-year loblolly pine cones. J Chem Ecol, 11(7):943～952
[97] 李新岗, 刘惠霞等. 影响松果梢斑螟寄主选择的植物挥发物成分研究. 林业科学.2006, 42(6):71-78.