不同树种（品种）对沙棘木蠹蛾的抗性研究
|
摘要
沙棘木蠹蛾Holcocerus hippophaecolus属鳞翅目Lepidoptera木蠹蛾科Cossidae线角木蠹蛾属Holcocerus,是我国“三北”地区近10年来新出现的暴发性钻蛀性害虫,造成约16万hm2的沙棘林枯死,成为制约沙棘发展的主要因子。近年来,对沙棘木蠹蛾的生物生态学特性、天敌种类与自然控制效能、性信息素的开发应用、营林控制和化学防治等方面的研究报道较多,但对沙棘抗虫机制尚未涉及。探讨沙棘抗虫机制,有助于揭示沙棘木蠹蛾种群暴发的原因,从而为沙棘木蠹蛾的区域性控制提供科学依据。
本研究主要采用野外生测和室内观察相结合的方法,探讨了沙棘木蠹蛾对不同树种的抗虫等级,并采用组织解剖学方法分析形态组织结构与抗性机制的关系。主要结果如下：
(1)结合笼内人工接虫试验和野外自然感虫试验,以沙棘木蠹蛾对不同树种的着卵率和产卵率为目标,根据它们间的相关系数赋予相应的权重,整合构建一个新的综合危害指数IDI (Integrated Damage Index)作为树种对沙棘木蠹蛾的抗性指标,并划分抗虫等级。其中,Ⅰ免疫树种(柳叶沙棘、云南沙棘、榆树、桃树、苹果和杏树)；Ⅱ高抗树种(沙枣、丘依斯克×中国沙棘、棱果、霞光、肋果和太阳沙棘)；m低抗树种(阿亚甘卡、乌兰格木、乌兰格木×中国沙棘、优胜、楚伊和梨树)；Ⅳ感虫树种(浑金、中国沙棘和橙色沙棘)。
(2)在野外人为控制条件下,布置不同抗性级别的沙棘品种(树干外罩绿色布料或不罩),通过接入不同处理的沙棘木蠹蛾,以其在不同寄主的着落率为指标,对其寄主选择行为进行研究。结果显示,着落率大小与抗虫等级的划分完全一致,同时也证明了沙棘木蠹蛾在寄主选择过程中,其嗅觉发挥了决定性的作用,反映了沙棘木蠹蛾寄主选择机制是与寄主本身有很大的相关性。寄主挥发物的差别可能是影响沙棘木蠹蛾选择行为的关键因素。
(3)触角剪除试验表明,触角是沙棘木蠹蛾感觉系统的重要组成部分,其末端存在着不同类型的感觉器,行使嗅觉、味觉等功能,在寄主搜寻和寄主识别等过程中起着极为重要的作用。完全剪除触角,由于失去了嗅觉功能,沙棘木蠹蛾不能接受寄主挥发物的刺激,导致对寄主的选择没有明确性,这进一步体现出嗅觉在寄主选择中的重要作用。
(4)研究沙棘树皮形态特征与抗虫性的关系,结果发现,沙棘木蠹蛾选择为害与树皮颜色、皮孔大小、粗糙程度无关,与树皮紧实程度,裂缝大小相关。
(5)探讨树种主干部位和一年生枝条的组织特征的差异与沙棘木蠹蛾危害程度的关系,多元回归分析表明,不同沙棘种(品种)主干部位和一年生枝条的导管密度、木射线宽度、木化细胞半径和皮层石细胞厚度与沙棘抗虫性并不密切相关。
Holcocerus hippophaecolus Hua, Chou, Fang et Chen (Cossidae, Lepidoptera) is the insect pest appeared in "Three Norths Areas" of China in recent ten years. It damaged the seabuckthorn forest to death about 160 thousand hm2. The disaster become the main restricting factor. In recent years, studies and reports of H. hippophaecolus focused on biology and zoology, species and suppression function of natural enemies, development and utilization of sexual pheromone, countermeasures both at forest management and chemical control etc. Howerver, the study on insect-resistant mechanism of seabuckthorn has not been mentioned before, which plays important role to explore the causes of population eruptive, therefore provides scientific evidence for regional control of H. hippophaecolus.
The study was carried out by adopting the methods both bioassay in wild and observation in laboratory. We probe resistance levels of different tree species to H. hippophaecolus and analyse relationships among morphological structure, organizational structure and resistance mechanism by using method of tissue anatomy. The major findings are as follows:
(1)Combine artificial infection in cage and natural infection in wild, aiming for the baring-egg frequency and ovipositing rate of H. hippophaecolus at different tree species, then giving corresponding weight based on the correlation coefficient among them, so as to construct a new Integrated Damage Index as indicators for setting resistance levels. There were four levels: i Immune tree species (Hippophae salicifolia, Hippophae rhamnoides subsp. yunnanensis Rousi, Ulmus pumila, Prunus persica, Malus pumila and Prunus armeniaca); ii High resistance tree species (Elaeagnus angustifolia, XiuyisikeXzhongguoshaji, Lengguo, Xiaguang, Leiguo and Taiyang); iiiLow resistance tree species(Ayaganka, Wulangemu, Wulangemu X Zhongguoshaji, Yousheng, Chuyi and Pyrus sorotina); ivSusceptible tree species (Hunjin, Hippophae rhamnoides L. subsp. sinensis Rousi and Chengse).
(2)Seabuckthorn varieties with different resistance levels, some of whose trunks were covered by green cloth while others were not, were planted under a controlled natural condition. Then the experiment taking the landing rate of H. hippophaecolus on different hosts as index, was carried out to observe the host selection behavior of H. hippophaecolus which was used by different treatments. The results showed that size of landing rate are completely consistent with the divided resistance levels. Besides, it can be proved that olfactory plays a decisive role in the host selection process of H. hippophaecolus, which reflects that host selection mechanism of H. hippophaecolus is greatly linked to its hosts. Additionally, it is showed that the difference of host volatiles affecting the selection behavior of H. hippophaecolus is the key factor.
(3) The experiment on removing antennae indicates that antennae is an important part of the sensory system of H. hippophaecolus, and there are various types of sensilla implicating olfaction and gestation that are very important in host location and identification distributed on the terminal of antenna. Remove the antennae completely, H. hippophaecolus can not accept the stimulation of host volatiles because of missing olfactory function, which lead to the indeterminacy of its host selection. Further more, it suggests that the olfaction plays an important role in host selection.
(4) The study on relationship between bark morphology and insect resistance of seabuckthorn indicates that the damaging behavior of H. hippophaecolus has nothing to do with hosts'bark color, stomata size, roughness, but is associated with their compaction degree and crack size.
(5)The relationship between the damage degree of H. hippophaecolus and the difference of tissue characteristics of tree trunk and one-year-old branches was investigated. The multiple regression analysis shows that vessel density, wood ray width, lignification cell radius and Cortex sclerotic cell thickness of the tree trunks and annual branches of different seabuckthorn species (varieties) are not closely correlated with the resistance of H. hippophaecolus
本研究主要采用野外生测和室内观察相结合的方法,探讨了沙棘木蠹蛾对不同树种的抗虫等级,并采用组织解剖学方法分析形态组织结构与抗性机制的关系。主要结果如下：
(1)结合笼内人工接虫试验和野外自然感虫试验,以沙棘木蠹蛾对不同树种的着卵率和产卵率为目标,根据它们间的相关系数赋予相应的权重,整合构建一个新的综合危害指数IDI (Integrated Damage Index)作为树种对沙棘木蠹蛾的抗性指标,并划分抗虫等级。其中,Ⅰ免疫树种(柳叶沙棘、云南沙棘、榆树、桃树、苹果和杏树)；Ⅱ高抗树种(沙枣、丘依斯克×中国沙棘、棱果、霞光、肋果和太阳沙棘)；m低抗树种(阿亚甘卡、乌兰格木、乌兰格木×中国沙棘、优胜、楚伊和梨树)；Ⅳ感虫树种(浑金、中国沙棘和橙色沙棘)。
(2)在野外人为控制条件下,布置不同抗性级别的沙棘品种(树干外罩绿色布料或不罩),通过接入不同处理的沙棘木蠹蛾,以其在不同寄主的着落率为指标,对其寄主选择行为进行研究。结果显示,着落率大小与抗虫等级的划分完全一致,同时也证明了沙棘木蠹蛾在寄主选择过程中,其嗅觉发挥了决定性的作用,反映了沙棘木蠹蛾寄主选择机制是与寄主本身有很大的相关性。寄主挥发物的差别可能是影响沙棘木蠹蛾选择行为的关键因素。
(3)触角剪除试验表明,触角是沙棘木蠹蛾感觉系统的重要组成部分,其末端存在着不同类型的感觉器,行使嗅觉、味觉等功能,在寄主搜寻和寄主识别等过程中起着极为重要的作用。完全剪除触角,由于失去了嗅觉功能,沙棘木蠹蛾不能接受寄主挥发物的刺激,导致对寄主的选择没有明确性,这进一步体现出嗅觉在寄主选择中的重要作用。
(4)研究沙棘树皮形态特征与抗虫性的关系,结果发现,沙棘木蠹蛾选择为害与树皮颜色、皮孔大小、粗糙程度无关,与树皮紧实程度,裂缝大小相关。
(5)探讨树种主干部位和一年生枝条的组织特征的差异与沙棘木蠹蛾危害程度的关系,多元回归分析表明,不同沙棘种(品种)主干部位和一年生枝条的导管密度、木射线宽度、木化细胞半径和皮层石细胞厚度与沙棘抗虫性并不密切相关。
Holcocerus hippophaecolus Hua, Chou, Fang et Chen (Cossidae, Lepidoptera) is the insect pest appeared in "Three Norths Areas" of China in recent ten years. It damaged the seabuckthorn forest to death about 160 thousand hm2. The disaster become the main restricting factor. In recent years, studies and reports of H. hippophaecolus focused on biology and zoology, species and suppression function of natural enemies, development and utilization of sexual pheromone, countermeasures both at forest management and chemical control etc. Howerver, the study on insect-resistant mechanism of seabuckthorn has not been mentioned before, which plays important role to explore the causes of population eruptive, therefore provides scientific evidence for regional control of H. hippophaecolus.
The study was carried out by adopting the methods both bioassay in wild and observation in laboratory. We probe resistance levels of different tree species to H. hippophaecolus and analyse relationships among morphological structure, organizational structure and resistance mechanism by using method of tissue anatomy. The major findings are as follows:
(1)Combine artificial infection in cage and natural infection in wild, aiming for the baring-egg frequency and ovipositing rate of H. hippophaecolus at different tree species, then giving corresponding weight based on the correlation coefficient among them, so as to construct a new Integrated Damage Index as indicators for setting resistance levels. There were four levels: i Immune tree species (Hippophae salicifolia, Hippophae rhamnoides subsp. yunnanensis Rousi, Ulmus pumila, Prunus persica, Malus pumila and Prunus armeniaca); ii High resistance tree species (Elaeagnus angustifolia, XiuyisikeXzhongguoshaji, Lengguo, Xiaguang, Leiguo and Taiyang); iiiLow resistance tree species(Ayaganka, Wulangemu, Wulangemu X Zhongguoshaji, Yousheng, Chuyi and Pyrus sorotina); ivSusceptible tree species (Hunjin, Hippophae rhamnoides L. subsp. sinensis Rousi and Chengse).
(2)Seabuckthorn varieties with different resistance levels, some of whose trunks were covered by green cloth while others were not, were planted under a controlled natural condition. Then the experiment taking the landing rate of H. hippophaecolus on different hosts as index, was carried out to observe the host selection behavior of H. hippophaecolus which was used by different treatments. The results showed that size of landing rate are completely consistent with the divided resistance levels. Besides, it can be proved that olfactory plays a decisive role in the host selection process of H. hippophaecolus, which reflects that host selection mechanism of H. hippophaecolus is greatly linked to its hosts. Additionally, it is showed that the difference of host volatiles affecting the selection behavior of H. hippophaecolus is the key factor.
(3) The experiment on removing antennae indicates that antennae is an important part of the sensory system of H. hippophaecolus, and there are various types of sensilla implicating olfaction and gestation that are very important in host location and identification distributed on the terminal of antenna. Remove the antennae completely, H. hippophaecolus can not accept the stimulation of host volatiles because of missing olfactory function, which lead to the indeterminacy of its host selection. Further more, it suggests that the olfaction plays an important role in host selection.
(4) The study on relationship between bark morphology and insect resistance of seabuckthorn indicates that the damaging behavior of H. hippophaecolus has nothing to do with hosts'bark color, stomata size, roughness, but is associated with their compaction degree and crack size.
(5)The relationship between the damage degree of H. hippophaecolus and the difference of tissue characteristics of tree trunk and one-year-old branches was investigated. The multiple regression analysis shows that vessel density, wood ray width, lignification cell radius and Cortex sclerotic cell thickness of the tree trunks and annual branches of different seabuckthorn species (varieties) are not closely correlated with the resistance of H. hippophaecolus
引文
[1]Alfaro RI.白云杉(Picea glauca)对白松木蠹象的抗性与树皮树脂道密度有关[J].Can J Bot, 1997,75 (4):568-573
[2]安新城,任顺祥.烟粉虱对寄主的选择行为[J].昆虫知识,2007,44(4)：566-570
[3]白在贤,刁景丽,石岩等.沙棘医疗保健作用[J].时珍国医国药,1999,10(2)：147-148
[4]蔡玉成,马晖,曹川健,等.树种对光肩星天牛早期抗性鉴定方法的初步研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1999,21(4)：37-42
[5]曹兵,徐锡增.林木抗虫性与抗虫化学机制[J].农业科学研究,2004,25(04)：53-57
[6]陈大为,姜越,周炜等.固渠护坡的优良树种-沙棘[J].防护林科技,2001,2：76-77
[7]陈辉,邵崇斌,周嘉喜等.杨树天牛发生量预测[J].西北林学院学报,1995,10(2)46-50
[8]陈辉,袁锋.树木抗性与小蠹虫生存策略的进化[J].林业科学,2002,38(5)：147-151
[9]陈建明,俞晓平,程家安,等.植物耐虫性研究进展[J].昆虫学报,2005a,48(2)：262-272
[10]陈建明,俞晓平,程家安.植物耐虫性的研究方法[J].植物学通报,2005b,22(4)：449-455
[11]程同浩.杨树白杨派品种对黄斑星天牛抗性的研究[J].甘肃林业科技,1999,24(1)：27-30
[12]邓小娟,司传领,刘忠等.沙棘的药理作用研究进展[J].中国药业,2009,18(1)：63-64
[13]段焰青,叶辉,李青青.小蠹虫对针叶类寄主树木的选择危害机制[J].昆虫知识,2006,43(1)：16-21
[14]鄂竞平.鄂竟平副部长在第四届国际沙棘协会大会上的致辞[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2009,7(3)：1-2
[15]方宇凌,孙江华,赵成华等.沙棘木蠹蛾(鳞翅目：木蠹蛾科)性信息素组分鉴定及其生物活性[J].昆虫学报,2003,46(5)：665-666
[16]赴德国与法国沙棘考察团.德国与法国的沙棘开发与利用[J].沙棘,2000,13(1)：44-46
[17]高汉忠,杨雪彦,魏佳宁.树木对两种天牛抗性的调查[J].西北林学院学报,1997,12(12)：42-46
[18]高瑞桐,杨自湘,汪太振,等.杨树对杨干象抗性选择的研究[J].林业科学研究,1991,(5)：154-166
[19]郭中华,于素英,张继平等.应用平茬复壮技术防治固沙灌木林钻蛀性害虫[J].陕西林业科技,2000(4)：29-30
[20]郝德君,张永慧,戴华国,等.松墨天牛对寄主树木的产卵选择[J].昆虫学报,2005,48(03)：460-464
[21]侯有明,沈宝成.小麦品种对麦长管蚜抗性的模糊综合决策[J].应用生态学报,1998,9(3)：273-276
[22]胡建忠.沙棘功能性食品开发探讨[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2007,5(4)：16-20
[23]胡建军,王克胜,韩一凡.林木抗虫育种研究进展[J].世界林业研究,1998,11(3)：15-21
[24]胡建忠,夏静芳,土小宁.我国沙棘资源建设与开发的成效和经验[J].中国水土保持科学,2008,6(6)：98-102
[25]胡建忠,闫晓玲.沙棘饲料价值评价及开发利用探讨[J].沙棘,2000,13(4)：21-25
[26]花保祯,周尧,方德齐等.中国木蠹蛾志(鳞翅目：木蠹蛾科)[M].陕西杨陵：天则出版社,1990,56-57
[27]黄金水.不同地理种源木麻黄对星天牛抗性的研究[J].林业科学研究,1993,6(专刊)
[28]黄铨,于倬德.沙棘研究[M].北京：科学出版社,2006
[29]黄亦琦,肖玉燕.高效液相色谱法分离和测定沙棘油中α-生育酚及其异构体[J].沙棘,1993,6(3)
[30]李代琼,吴钦孝,郭玉孝.中俄沙棘合作研究的新进展[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2005(1)：43-47
[31]李会平,黄大庄,王志刚,等.杨树形态特征、组织结构与光肩星天牛危害的关系[J].东北林业大学学报,2004,32(6)：111-112
[32]李建光.光肩星天牛对寄主植物挥发性物质的行为反应及作用机理的研究,北京林业大学博士论文,2001
[33]李军,赵惠燕,李志刚,等.不同小麦品种对麦长管蚜的抗性[J].昆虫知识,2007,44(4)：509-512
[34]李日胜,田秀梅,李静等.防治土地沙漠化的先锋树种一沙棘[J].内蒙古林业,2002,28-29
[35]李淑玲,刘美青,李继东,等.毛白杨无性系树皮有机物质含量与抗性关系的研究[J].河南农业大学学报,2001,35(3)：216-220
[36]李跃强,盛承发.植物的超越补偿反应[J].植物生理学通讯,1996,32(6)：457-464
[37]廉永善,陈学林.沙棘属植物的性状演化及其意义[J].沙棘,1991a,4(2)：16-20
[38]廉永善,陈学林.沙棘属植物的研究[J].甘肃科学学报,1991b,3(2)：13-23
[39]刘向东,张立建,张孝羲,等.棉蚜对寄主的选择及寄主专化型研究[J].生态学报,2002,22(8)： 1281-1285
[40]陈学林,廉永善.沙棘属植物的分布格局及其成因[J].西北植物学报,1994,14(6)：105-110
[41]廉永善,陈学林,郭建魁.甘肃省的沙棘资源及开发设想[J].林业科学,1989,25(1)：82-85
[42]梁玉清,刘平,陈鑫娇.沙棘水土保持功能及资源利用研究进展[J].亚热带水土保持,2009,21(2),35-38
[43]刘晶岚,温俊宝,马履一,等.9种树种木材解剖结构及对杨树天牛的抗性机制[J].北京林业大学学报,1999,21(4)：18-23
[44]娄永根,程家安.植物的诱导抗虫性[J].昆虫学报,1997,40(3)：320-331
[45]路常宽.沙棘木蠹蛾灾害监测和综合管理策略研究,北京林业大学博士论文,2005
[46]路常宽,宗世祥,骆有庆,等.沙棘木蠹蛾成虫行为学特征及性诱效果研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2004,26(02)：79-83
[47]陆宴辉,张永军,吴孔明.植食性昆虫的寄主选择机理及行为调控策略[J].生态学报,2008,28(10)： 5113-5122
[48]陆永跃,梁广文,曾玲.香蕉品种对假茎象甲田间抗性评价指标的研究[J].植物保护,2002,28(2)： 14-16
[49]骆有庆,路常宽,许志春.暴发性新害虫沙棘木蠹蛾的控制技术[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2003a,1(1)：31-33
[50]骆有庆,路常宽,许志春.林木新害虫沙棘木蠹蛾的控制策略[J].中国森林病虫,2003b,22(5)：25-28
[51]吕荣森,林小宁,彭莉.沙棘属植物叶的营养成份及其应用前景[J].沙棘,1991,(4)：43-45
[52]马常耕.国外林木抗虫性育种现状[J].世界林业研究,1996(1)：7-13.
[53]马超德,宋日升.当前沙棘林组成存在的问题和对策.沙棘,2000,13(3)：17-21
[54]马尾松抗松毛虫抗性研究组.马尾松抗松毛虫植株的抗性机制研究[J].林业科学,1990,26(2)： 133-141
[55]那杰,于维熙,李玉萍,等.昆虫触角感器的种类及其生理生态学意义[J].沈阳师范大学学报(自然科学版),2008,26(2)：213-216
[56]秦飞.林木抗虫性及表记方法的研究[J].防护林科技,1999,(增)
[57]秦飞,李国钊,郭同斌,等.我国林木抗虫性及其利用的研究[J].世界林业研究,2004,17(05)： 39-41
[58]秦飞,李云岘,杨学民,等.林木抗虫性及测定方法的研究[J].林业科技,2001,26(01)：19-22
[59]钦俊德.昆虫与植物的关系——论昆虫与植物的相互作用及其演化[M].北京：科学出版社,1987
[60]钦俊德,王琛柱.论昆虫与植物的相互作用和进化的关系[J].昆虫学报,2001,44(3)：360-365
[61]阮成江.沙棘叶的饲料价值及开发利用[J].陕西林业科技,2002,3：26-30
[62]盛茂领,寇明君,崔永三等.中国北方地区寄生林木蛀虫的姬蜂种类名录[J].甘肃林业科技,2002,27(3)：1-5
[63]寺田贵美雄.黑松抗松瘿蝇新品种选育[J].林木の育种,1994,17(2)：1-3
[64]水利部沙棘开发管理中心.关于控制沙棘林木蠹蛾虫害的通告(水利沙棘2002(022)号)文,2002
[65]孙江华.红松球蚜的发生与树龄和林分光量的关系[J].森林病虫通讯,1994,13(1)：5-7
[66]孙丽艳,韩一凡.对云斑天牛有不同抗性的杨树品种中化学物质的分析[J].林业科学,1995,31(4)：338-342
[67]孙素琴,王爱琴,战增尧等.沙棘的医药价值及栽培技术[J].山东中医杂志,2004,19(4)：238-239
[68]邰源临,杨万政.沙棘在我国北方地区生态建设中的作用[J].中央民族大学学报(自然科学版),2001,(02)：178-181
[69]田润民、唐蒙昌.沙棘木蠹蛾生物学特性的初步研究[J].内蒙古林业科技,1997(1)：36-38
[70]王洪江,惠兴学,洪新等.论沙棘生态效益与经济效益的关系[J].防护林科技,2009,(3)：64-100
[71]王克胜,卞学瑜,韩一凡,等.杨树抗云斑天牛纤维材无性系选育[J].林业科学研究,1995,8(4)： 429-436
[72]王琛柱,项秀芬,张书芳,等.大豆胰蛋白酶抑制剂对棉铃虫幼虫消化生理和生长发育的影响[J].昆虫学报,1995,38(3)：272-276.
[73]王琛柱,张青文,杨奇华,等.植物抗虫性的化学基础[J].植物保护,1993,19(6)：39-41
[74]王维升,王宇飞,彭其民等.建平县沙棘木蠹蛾生物学特性[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2005,3(1)：40-42
[75]魏振.杨树抗虫性研究进展[J].中国森林病虫,2007,26(1)：25-28
[76]温俊宝,叶刚,李镇宇,等.杨树受光肩星天牛危害程度与树皮厚度的关系[J].河北林果研究,1998(2)：136-140
[77]温俊宝.光肩星天牛种群动态及树种抗性机制研究,北京林业大学博士论文,2003
[78]吴伟坚,高泽正,余金咏,等.嗅觉和视觉在中华微刺盲蝽对马缨丹定向行为中的作用[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(7)：1322-1325
[79]吴征镒,王荷生.中国自然地理——植物地理(上册)[M].北京：科学出版社,1983
[80]#12
[81]萧刚柔.近年来我国森林昆虫研究进展[J].森林病虫通讯,1992,(3)：39-40
[82]徐冉,王彩洁,李伟,等.大豆抗虫性鉴定研究进展[J].大豆科学,2007,26(5)：771-774
[83]严善春,胡隐月,孙江华,等.落叶松挥发性物质与球果花蝇危害的关系[J].林业科学,1999,35(3)：58-62
[84]杨慧,严善春,彭璐.鳞翅目昆虫化学感受器及其感受机理新进展[J].昆虫学报,2008,51(2)：204-215
[85]杨雪彦.两种星天牛成虫对树种的选择试验[J].陕西林业科技,1996,(4)：6-11
[86]杨雪彦,燕新华,周晓彬.不同杨树营养物对黄斑星天牛抗性的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1992,7(3)：26-33
[87]杨雪彦,周嘉熹,黄红梅,等.树皮形态特征和解剖结构与两种星天牛危害的关系分析[J].陕西林业科技,1996,(04)：12-18
[88]杨雪彦,周嘉熹,燕新华.杨树形态特征、组织结构与天牛危害的关系[J].西北林学院学报,1992,7(3)：34-43
[89]杨雪彦.混交林中树木形态特征、食性特征与天牛选择行为研究[J].西北林学院学报,1997,12(12)：47-51
[90]尹淑艳,孙绪艮.化学信息素在植物—植食性昆虫(螨类)—天敌相互关系中的作用[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2000,31(4)：441-445
[91]于亚玲,田新华,卢慧颖等.沙棘产业开发的意义[J].林业科技,2008,33(3)：59-60
[92]张承彬.灌木林在生态建设中的重要地位和作用[J].内蒙古林业,2003,(5)：10-11
[93]张恩光,周嘉喜,刘荣光,等.宁夏防护林天牛危害调查及林分结构配置[J].西北林学院学报,1995,10(2)：16-21
[94]张风娟,陈凤新,徐东生,霍志梅.植物组织结构与抗虫性的关系(综述)[J].河北科技师范学院学报,2006,20(02)：71-76
[95]张风娟,金幼菊,陈华君,等.光肩星天牛对4种不同槭树科寄主植物的选择机制[J].生态学报,2006,26(3)：870-877
[96]张华,李利峰,吴兴壮等.沙棘综合利用研究概述及发展前景[J].辽宁农业科学,2003,(5)：17-21
[97]张克斌,周嘉熹.抗黄斑星天牛的树种及其机制的研究初报[J].西北农学院学报,1984,(3)：87-92
[98]张润志,刘晏良,耿守光,等.麦类品种对麦双尾蚜的耐害性及产量损失率[J].昆虫学报,1999,42：120-124
[99]赵国强,刘晓光,罗梅浩.昆虫对寄主植物选择的化学感受机理[J].河南科技大学学报(自然科学版),2006,27(04)：80-83
[100]赵玉珍,武福亨.沙棘中黄酮类化合物及其药用价值[J].沙棘,1997,10(1)：39-41
[101]郑北鹰.灌木林将正式计入森林资源[J].草业科学,2003,(1)：18
[102]郑均宝,梁海永,田颖川,等.转双抗虫基因741毛白杨的选择及抗虫性[J].林业科学,2000,36(2)13-19
[103]郑新民,王俊峰.加入WTO后我为沙棘产业面临的问题及对策[J].沙棘,2002,15(2)：1-3
[104]中国赴尼泊尔沙棘代表团.尼泊尔的沙棘资源及利用[J].沙棘,1992,5(1)：36-37
[105]钟正昌,方江平,普琼.西藏沙棘资源及其综合开发[J].西藏科技,2003,(8)：23-25
[106]周茂建.杨圆蚧、梨圆蚧为害杨树的调查[J].森林病虫通讯,1991,10(2)：29
[107]周章义.内蒙古鄂尔多斯市东部老龄沙棘死亡原因及其对策[J].沙棘,2002,15(2)：7-11
[108]朱麟,杨振德,赵博光,等.植食性昆虫诱导的植物抗性最新研究进展[J].林业科学,2005,41(01)： 165-173
[109]朱秋云,丛斌.玉米的抗虫性状与次生代谢物的关系[J].安徽农业科学,2006,34(10)：2191-2192
[110]宗世祥,贾峰勇,骆有庆,等.沙棘木蠹蛾危害特性与种群数量的时空动态研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2005,27(01)：70-74
[11 1]宗世祥,骆有庆,路常宽等.沙棘木蠹蛾生物学特性的初步研究[J].林业科学,2006,42(1)：102-107
[112]宗世祥,姚国龙,骆有庆等.沙棘主要蛀干害虫种群生态位[J].生态学报,2005,25(12)：3264-3270
[113]Agrawal AA. Overcompensation of plants in response to herbivory and the by-product benefits of mutualism[J]. Trends in Plant Sci,2000,5(7):309-313
[114]A.Rousi.The Genus Hippophae L., A Taxonomic Study.Annales Botanic Fen.,1971.8:177-277
[115]Arru G M. A method for the evaluation of the resistance of poplars to Phloeomyzus passerinii Sign. Proc.FAO/IPC/Working Party on Insects and other Animal Pests (Bucarest,Romania), 1971
[116]Ballabeni P, Conconi D, Gateff S, et al.Spatial proximity between two host plant species influences oviposition and larval distribution in a leaf beetle[J]. Oikos,2001,92(2):225-234
[117]Ballabeni P, Gottbard K, Kayumba A, et al.Local adaptation and ecological genetics of host-plant specialization in a leaf beetle[J].Oikos,2003,101(1):70-78
[118]Bell, W. J. Searching behavior patterns in insects. Annual Review of Entomology,1990,35: 447-467
[119]Canale, A., and A. Raspi. Host location and oviposition behaviour in Opius concolor (Hymenop tera:Braconidae). Entomological Problems,2000,31:25-32
[120]Campbell, S. A., and J. H. Borden.2006. Integration of visual and olfactory cues of hosts and non-hosts by three bark beetles (Coleoptera:Scolytidae). Ecological Entomology,31:437-449.
[121]Bernays E A, Chapman R F.Host-plant preference by phytophagous insects[M].Chapman and Hall,1994
[122]Bosu P P, Wagner M R.Anatomical and nutritional factors associated with susceptibility of elms (Ulmus spp.) to the elm leaf beetle (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae)[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology,2008,101(3):944-954
[123]Clarice Mensah. Christina Difonzo,et al. Resistance to the Soybean Aphid in early maturing Soybean Germplasm [J]. Crop Science,2005,45 (6):25228-2234
[124]Curtis B Hilla,Yan Lia. Resistance to the Soybean Aphid in Soybean Germplasm [J]. Crop Science,2004,44:98-106
[125]Digweed S C.Oviposition preference and larval performance in the exotic birch-leafmining sawfly Profenusa thomsoni[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,2006,120(1):41-49.
[126]Etges W, Ahrens M.Premating isolation is determined by larval-rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis.V.Deep geographic variation in epicuticular hydrocarbons among isolated populations[J]. American Naturalist,2001,158:585-598
[127]Floyd-R, Godly-J. Breeding Resistance in Eucalyptus to Insect Attack [J]. Trees and Natural Resource,1997,39(1):16-19
[128]Fornoni J, Nunez-Farfan J. Evolutionary ecology of tolerance to herbivory:advances and perspectives[J]. Comments on Theoretical Biology,2003,8:643-663
[129]Forbes, A. A., and J. L. Feder.Divergent preferences of Rhagoletis pomonella host races for olfactory and visual fruit cues. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,2006,119:121-127
[130]Frei A, Bueno J M, Diaz-Montano J, Gu H.N, Cardona C, Dorn S. Tolerance as a mechanism of resistance to Thrips palmi in common beans[J]. Annu. Rev. Entomol.,2004,112:73-80
[131]Goyret, J., P. M. Markwell, and R. A. Raguso. The effect of decoupling olfactory and visual stimuli on the foraging behavior of Manduca sexta. Journal of Experimental Biology,2007,210: 1398-1405.
[132]Hanski LA practical model of metapopulation dynamics[J].Journal of Animal Ecology,1994, 63:151-162
[133]Herbert J J, Mizell R F, Mcauslane H J. Host Preference of the Crapemyrtle Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Host Suitability of Crapemyrtle Cultivars[J]. Environmental Entomology,2009, 38(4):1155-1160
[134]Ichiki, R. T., Y. Kainoh, S. Kugimiya, J. Takabayashi, and S. Nakamura. Attraction to herbivore-induced plant volatiles by the host-foraging parasitoid fly Exorista japonica. Journal of Chemical Ecology,2008,34:614-621
[135]Kazutaka Kato, Kaichiro Kawamura. Clonal variation in sugi on the resistance to Cryptomeria bark borer (Senamotus japonicus Lacordaire) and the population dynamics by setting the bark borer tree in a cage. Bull. For. Tree. Bree.Inst.,1993,(11):1-15
[136]Le Roux V, Campan EDM, Dubois F, Vincent C, Giordanengo P. Screening for resistance against Myzus persicae and Macrosiphum euphorbiae among wild Solanum[J]. Annals of Applied Biology,2007,151(1):83-88
[137]Le Roux V, Saguez J, Vincent C, Giordanengo P. Rapid method to screen resistance of potato plants against Myzus persicae (Homoptera:Aphididae) in the laboratory[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology,2004,97(6):2079-2082
[138]Li, S., Y. Fang, and Z. Zhang. EVects of volatiles of non-host plants and other chemicals on oviposition of Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera:Cerambycidae). J Pest Sci,2007,80 119-123.
[139]Lv Rongsen. The chemical Compositions of Hippophae Fruits in China. International Symposium on Seabuckthorn,1993,398-412
[140]Malcolm S, Cockrell B, Brower L.Cardenolide fingerprint of monarch butterflies reared on common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca L.[J].Journal of Chemical Ecology,1989,15:819-853
[141]McPheron, L. J., and N. J. Mills.Influence of visual and olfactory cues on the foraging Behavior of the paper wasp Mischocyttarus flavitarsis (Hymenoptera:Vespidae). Entomologia Generalis,2007,30:105-118.
[142]N.π.叶利谢耶夫等(张哲民译).沙棘的生物化学和引种育种,科学技术文献出版社,1989
[143]N. I. Vasyukova,O. L. Ozeretskovskaya. Induced Plant Resistance and Salicylic Acid:A Review. Applied Biochemistry And Microbiology [J].2007,43 (4):367-373
[144]Prokopy, R. J., and E. D. Owens.Visual detection of p lants by herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology,1983,28:337-364.
[145]Raghu S, Drew R, Clarke A R.Influence of host plant structure and microclimate on the abundance and behavior of a tephritid fly[J]. Journal of Insect Behavior,2004,17(2):179-190
[146]Reeves, J., P. Lorch, and M. Kershner.Vision is Important for Plant Location by the Phytophagous Aquatic Specialist Euhrychiopsis lecontei Dietz (Coleoptera:Curculionidae). Journal of Insect Behavior,2009,22:54-64
[147]Renwick, J. A. A. Chemical ecology of oviposition in phytophagous insects. Experientia,1989, 45:223-228.
[148]Renwick, J. A. A., and F. S. Chew. Oviposition behavior in Lepidoptera. Annals of the Entomological Society of America,1994,39:377-400
[149]Simms EL. Defining tolerance as a norm of reaction[J]. Evolutionary Ecology,2000,14: 563-570
[150]Smallegange, R. C., T. C. Everaarts, and J. Van Loon. Associative learning of visual and gustatory cues in the large cabbage white butterfly, Pieris brassicae. Animal Biology,2006,56: 157-172
[151]Stenberg, J. A., and L. Ericson. Visual cues override olfactory cues in the host-finding process of the monophagous leaf beetle Altica engstroemi. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 2007,125:81-88
[152]Strauss SY, Agrawal AA. The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory[J]. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,1999,14:179-185
[153]Tang, Q. F., Y. J. Wu, B. M. Liu, and Z. L. Yu. Olfactory Responses of Lariophagus distinguendus (Hymenoptera:Pteromalidae) to Volatile Signals Derived from Host Habitats. Philippine Agricultural Scientist,2009,92:133-142.
[154]Thompson.Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1988,47:3-14
[155]Todd, J. L., P. L. Phelan, and L. R. Nault.Interaction between visual and olfactory stimuli during host finding by leafhopper, Dalbus maidis (Homoptera:Cicadellidae). J Chem Ecol, 1990,16:2121-2133.
[156]Tomlin Es, Borden JH. Multicomponent Index for Evaluating Resistance by Sitka Spruce to the White Pine Weevil [J]. Journal of Economic Entomology,1997,90 (2):704-714
[157]Virendra Singh, B. Singh, C.P. Awasthi. Study on Distribution, Taxonomy and nutritional Values of Seabuckthorn Growing in Dry Temperate Himalayas. In Worldwide Research & Development of Seabuckthorn, Beijing:China Science & Technology Press,1997,52-59
[158]Yoshiyaki Fujimoto,Takehiko Maeta,Masahiro Tajima,et al. Studies on resistant tree breeding to sugi bark midges.Bull. For. Tree. Bree. Inst.,1983,(1):109-123
[159]Zhao, Y. X., and L. Kang. Olfactory responses of the leafminer Liriomyza sativae (Dipt, Agromyzidae) to the odours of host and non-host plants. Journal of Applied Entomology-Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie,2003,127:80-84.
[2]安新城,任顺祥.烟粉虱对寄主的选择行为[J].昆虫知识,2007,44(4)：566-570
[3]白在贤,刁景丽,石岩等.沙棘医疗保健作用[J].时珍国医国药,1999,10(2)：147-148
[4]蔡玉成,马晖,曹川健,等.树种对光肩星天牛早期抗性鉴定方法的初步研究[J].北京林业大学学报,1999,21(4)：37-42
[5]曹兵,徐锡增.林木抗虫性与抗虫化学机制[J].农业科学研究,2004,25(04)：53-57
[6]陈大为,姜越,周炜等.固渠护坡的优良树种-沙棘[J].防护林科技,2001,2：76-77
[7]陈辉,邵崇斌,周嘉喜等.杨树天牛发生量预测[J].西北林学院学报,1995,10(2)46-50
[8]陈辉,袁锋.树木抗性与小蠹虫生存策略的进化[J].林业科学,2002,38(5)：147-151
[9]陈建明,俞晓平,程家安,等.植物耐虫性研究进展[J].昆虫学报,2005a,48(2)：262-272
[10]陈建明,俞晓平,程家安.植物耐虫性的研究方法[J].植物学通报,2005b,22(4)：449-455
[11]程同浩.杨树白杨派品种对黄斑星天牛抗性的研究[J].甘肃林业科技,1999,24(1)：27-30
[12]邓小娟,司传领,刘忠等.沙棘的药理作用研究进展[J].中国药业,2009,18(1)：63-64
[13]段焰青,叶辉,李青青.小蠹虫对针叶类寄主树木的选择危害机制[J].昆虫知识,2006,43(1)：16-21
[14]鄂竞平.鄂竟平副部长在第四届国际沙棘协会大会上的致辞[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2009,7(3)：1-2
[15]方宇凌,孙江华,赵成华等.沙棘木蠹蛾(鳞翅目：木蠹蛾科)性信息素组分鉴定及其生物活性[J].昆虫学报,2003,46(5)：665-666
[16]赴德国与法国沙棘考察团.德国与法国的沙棘开发与利用[J].沙棘,2000,13(1)：44-46
[17]高汉忠,杨雪彦,魏佳宁.树木对两种天牛抗性的调查[J].西北林学院学报,1997,12(12)：42-46
[18]高瑞桐,杨自湘,汪太振,等.杨树对杨干象抗性选择的研究[J].林业科学研究,1991,(5)：154-166
[19]郭中华,于素英,张继平等.应用平茬复壮技术防治固沙灌木林钻蛀性害虫[J].陕西林业科技,2000(4)：29-30
[20]郝德君,张永慧,戴华国,等.松墨天牛对寄主树木的产卵选择[J].昆虫学报,2005,48(03)：460-464
[21]侯有明,沈宝成.小麦品种对麦长管蚜抗性的模糊综合决策[J].应用生态学报,1998,9(3)：273-276
[22]胡建忠.沙棘功能性食品开发探讨[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2007,5(4)：16-20
[23]胡建军,王克胜,韩一凡.林木抗虫育种研究进展[J].世界林业研究,1998,11(3)：15-21
[24]胡建忠,夏静芳,土小宁.我国沙棘资源建设与开发的成效和经验[J].中国水土保持科学,2008,6(6)：98-102
[25]胡建忠,闫晓玲.沙棘饲料价值评价及开发利用探讨[J].沙棘,2000,13(4)：21-25
[26]花保祯,周尧,方德齐等.中国木蠹蛾志(鳞翅目：木蠹蛾科)[M].陕西杨陵：天则出版社,1990,56-57
[27]黄金水.不同地理种源木麻黄对星天牛抗性的研究[J].林业科学研究,1993,6(专刊)
[28]黄铨,于倬德.沙棘研究[M].北京：科学出版社,2006
[29]黄亦琦,肖玉燕.高效液相色谱法分离和测定沙棘油中α-生育酚及其异构体[J].沙棘,1993,6(3)
[30]李代琼,吴钦孝,郭玉孝.中俄沙棘合作研究的新进展[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2005(1)：43-47
[31]李会平,黄大庄,王志刚,等.杨树形态特征、组织结构与光肩星天牛危害的关系[J].东北林业大学学报,2004,32(6)：111-112
[32]李建光.光肩星天牛对寄主植物挥发性物质的行为反应及作用机理的研究,北京林业大学博士论文,2001
[33]李军,赵惠燕,李志刚,等.不同小麦品种对麦长管蚜的抗性[J].昆虫知识,2007,44(4)：509-512
[34]李日胜,田秀梅,李静等.防治土地沙漠化的先锋树种一沙棘[J].内蒙古林业,2002,28-29
[35]李淑玲,刘美青,李继东,等.毛白杨无性系树皮有机物质含量与抗性关系的研究[J].河南农业大学学报,2001,35(3)：216-220
[36]李跃强,盛承发.植物的超越补偿反应[J].植物生理学通讯,1996,32(6)：457-464
[37]廉永善,陈学林.沙棘属植物的性状演化及其意义[J].沙棘,1991a,4(2)：16-20
[38]廉永善,陈学林.沙棘属植物的研究[J].甘肃科学学报,1991b,3(2)：13-23
[39]刘向东,张立建,张孝羲,等.棉蚜对寄主的选择及寄主专化型研究[J].生态学报,2002,22(8)： 1281-1285
[40]陈学林,廉永善.沙棘属植物的分布格局及其成因[J].西北植物学报,1994,14(6)：105-110
[41]廉永善,陈学林,郭建魁.甘肃省的沙棘资源及开发设想[J].林业科学,1989,25(1)：82-85
[42]梁玉清,刘平,陈鑫娇.沙棘水土保持功能及资源利用研究进展[J].亚热带水土保持,2009,21(2),35-38
[43]刘晶岚,温俊宝,马履一,等.9种树种木材解剖结构及对杨树天牛的抗性机制[J].北京林业大学学报,1999,21(4)：18-23
[44]娄永根,程家安.植物的诱导抗虫性[J].昆虫学报,1997,40(3)：320-331
[45]路常宽.沙棘木蠹蛾灾害监测和综合管理策略研究,北京林业大学博士论文,2005
[46]路常宽,宗世祥,骆有庆,等.沙棘木蠹蛾成虫行为学特征及性诱效果研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2004,26(02)：79-83
[47]陆宴辉,张永军,吴孔明.植食性昆虫的寄主选择机理及行为调控策略[J].生态学报,2008,28(10)： 5113-5122
[48]陆永跃,梁广文,曾玲.香蕉品种对假茎象甲田间抗性评价指标的研究[J].植物保护,2002,28(2)： 14-16
[49]骆有庆,路常宽,许志春.暴发性新害虫沙棘木蠹蛾的控制技术[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2003a,1(1)：31-33
[50]骆有庆,路常宽,许志春.林木新害虫沙棘木蠹蛾的控制策略[J].中国森林病虫,2003b,22(5)：25-28
[51]吕荣森,林小宁,彭莉.沙棘属植物叶的营养成份及其应用前景[J].沙棘,1991,(4)：43-45
[52]马常耕.国外林木抗虫性育种现状[J].世界林业研究,1996(1)：7-13.
[53]马超德,宋日升.当前沙棘林组成存在的问题和对策.沙棘,2000,13(3)：17-21
[54]马尾松抗松毛虫抗性研究组.马尾松抗松毛虫植株的抗性机制研究[J].林业科学,1990,26(2)： 133-141
[55]那杰,于维熙,李玉萍,等.昆虫触角感器的种类及其生理生态学意义[J].沈阳师范大学学报(自然科学版),2008,26(2)：213-216
[56]秦飞.林木抗虫性及表记方法的研究[J].防护林科技,1999,(增)
[57]秦飞,李国钊,郭同斌,等.我国林木抗虫性及其利用的研究[J].世界林业研究,2004,17(05)： 39-41
[58]秦飞,李云岘,杨学民,等.林木抗虫性及测定方法的研究[J].林业科技,2001,26(01)：19-22
[59]钦俊德.昆虫与植物的关系——论昆虫与植物的相互作用及其演化[M].北京：科学出版社,1987
[60]钦俊德,王琛柱.论昆虫与植物的相互作用和进化的关系[J].昆虫学报,2001,44(3)：360-365
[61]阮成江.沙棘叶的饲料价值及开发利用[J].陕西林业科技,2002,3：26-30
[62]盛茂领,寇明君,崔永三等.中国北方地区寄生林木蛀虫的姬蜂种类名录[J].甘肃林业科技,2002,27(3)：1-5
[63]寺田贵美雄.黑松抗松瘿蝇新品种选育[J].林木の育种,1994,17(2)：1-3
[64]水利部沙棘开发管理中心.关于控制沙棘林木蠹蛾虫害的通告(水利沙棘2002(022)号)文,2002
[65]孙江华.红松球蚜的发生与树龄和林分光量的关系[J].森林病虫通讯,1994,13(1)：5-7
[66]孙丽艳,韩一凡.对云斑天牛有不同抗性的杨树品种中化学物质的分析[J].林业科学,1995,31(4)：338-342
[67]孙素琴,王爱琴,战增尧等.沙棘的医药价值及栽培技术[J].山东中医杂志,2004,19(4)：238-239
[68]邰源临,杨万政.沙棘在我国北方地区生态建设中的作用[J].中央民族大学学报(自然科学版),2001,(02)：178-181
[69]田润民、唐蒙昌.沙棘木蠹蛾生物学特性的初步研究[J].内蒙古林业科技,1997(1)：36-38
[70]王洪江,惠兴学,洪新等.论沙棘生态效益与经济效益的关系[J].防护林科技,2009,(3)：64-100
[71]王克胜,卞学瑜,韩一凡,等.杨树抗云斑天牛纤维材无性系选育[J].林业科学研究,1995,8(4)： 429-436
[72]王琛柱,项秀芬,张书芳,等.大豆胰蛋白酶抑制剂对棉铃虫幼虫消化生理和生长发育的影响[J].昆虫学报,1995,38(3)：272-276.
[73]王琛柱,张青文,杨奇华,等.植物抗虫性的化学基础[J].植物保护,1993,19(6)：39-41
[74]王维升,王宇飞,彭其民等.建平县沙棘木蠹蛾生物学特性[J].国际沙棘研究与开发,2005,3(1)：40-42
[75]魏振.杨树抗虫性研究进展[J].中国森林病虫,2007,26(1)：25-28
[76]温俊宝,叶刚,李镇宇,等.杨树受光肩星天牛危害程度与树皮厚度的关系[J].河北林果研究,1998(2)：136-140
[77]温俊宝.光肩星天牛种群动态及树种抗性机制研究,北京林业大学博士论文,2003
[78]吴伟坚,高泽正,余金咏,等.嗅觉和视觉在中华微刺盲蝽对马缨丹定向行为中的作用[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(7)：1322-1325
[79]吴征镒,王荷生.中国自然地理——植物地理(上册)[M].北京：科学出版社,1983
[80]#12
[81]萧刚柔.近年来我国森林昆虫研究进展[J].森林病虫通讯,1992,(3)：39-40
[82]徐冉,王彩洁,李伟,等.大豆抗虫性鉴定研究进展[J].大豆科学,2007,26(5)：771-774
[83]严善春,胡隐月,孙江华,等.落叶松挥发性物质与球果花蝇危害的关系[J].林业科学,1999,35(3)：58-62
[84]杨慧,严善春,彭璐.鳞翅目昆虫化学感受器及其感受机理新进展[J].昆虫学报,2008,51(2)：204-215
[85]杨雪彦.两种星天牛成虫对树种的选择试验[J].陕西林业科技,1996,(4)：6-11
[86]杨雪彦,燕新华,周晓彬.不同杨树营养物对黄斑星天牛抗性的研究[J].西北林学院学报,1992,7(3)：26-33
[87]杨雪彦,周嘉熹,黄红梅,等.树皮形态特征和解剖结构与两种星天牛危害的关系分析[J].陕西林业科技,1996,(04)：12-18
[88]杨雪彦,周嘉熹,燕新华.杨树形态特征、组织结构与天牛危害的关系[J].西北林学院学报,1992,7(3)：34-43
[89]杨雪彦.混交林中树木形态特征、食性特征与天牛选择行为研究[J].西北林学院学报,1997,12(12)：47-51
[90]尹淑艳,孙绪艮.化学信息素在植物—植食性昆虫(螨类)—天敌相互关系中的作用[J].山东农业大学学报(自然科学版),2000,31(4)：441-445
[91]于亚玲,田新华,卢慧颖等.沙棘产业开发的意义[J].林业科技,2008,33(3)：59-60
[92]张承彬.灌木林在生态建设中的重要地位和作用[J].内蒙古林业,2003,(5)：10-11
[93]张恩光,周嘉喜,刘荣光,等.宁夏防护林天牛危害调查及林分结构配置[J].西北林学院学报,1995,10(2)：16-21
[94]张风娟,陈凤新,徐东生,霍志梅.植物组织结构与抗虫性的关系(综述)[J].河北科技师范学院学报,2006,20(02)：71-76
[95]张风娟,金幼菊,陈华君,等.光肩星天牛对4种不同槭树科寄主植物的选择机制[J].生态学报,2006,26(3)：870-877
[96]张华,李利峰,吴兴壮等.沙棘综合利用研究概述及发展前景[J].辽宁农业科学,2003,(5)：17-21
[97]张克斌,周嘉熹.抗黄斑星天牛的树种及其机制的研究初报[J].西北农学院学报,1984,(3)：87-92
[98]张润志,刘晏良,耿守光,等.麦类品种对麦双尾蚜的耐害性及产量损失率[J].昆虫学报,1999,42：120-124
[99]赵国强,刘晓光,罗梅浩.昆虫对寄主植物选择的化学感受机理[J].河南科技大学学报(自然科学版),2006,27(04)：80-83
[100]赵玉珍,武福亨.沙棘中黄酮类化合物及其药用价值[J].沙棘,1997,10(1)：39-41
[101]郑北鹰.灌木林将正式计入森林资源[J].草业科学,2003,(1)：18
[102]郑均宝,梁海永,田颖川,等.转双抗虫基因741毛白杨的选择及抗虫性[J].林业科学,2000,36(2)13-19
[103]郑新民,王俊峰.加入WTO后我为沙棘产业面临的问题及对策[J].沙棘,2002,15(2)：1-3
[104]中国赴尼泊尔沙棘代表团.尼泊尔的沙棘资源及利用[J].沙棘,1992,5(1)：36-37
[105]钟正昌,方江平,普琼.西藏沙棘资源及其综合开发[J].西藏科技,2003,(8)：23-25
[106]周茂建.杨圆蚧、梨圆蚧为害杨树的调查[J].森林病虫通讯,1991,10(2)：29
[107]周章义.内蒙古鄂尔多斯市东部老龄沙棘死亡原因及其对策[J].沙棘,2002,15(2)：7-11
[108]朱麟,杨振德,赵博光,等.植食性昆虫诱导的植物抗性最新研究进展[J].林业科学,2005,41(01)： 165-173
[109]朱秋云,丛斌.玉米的抗虫性状与次生代谢物的关系[J].安徽农业科学,2006,34(10)：2191-2192
[110]宗世祥,贾峰勇,骆有庆,等.沙棘木蠹蛾危害特性与种群数量的时空动态研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2005,27(01)：70-74
[11 1]宗世祥,骆有庆,路常宽等.沙棘木蠹蛾生物学特性的初步研究[J].林业科学,2006,42(1)：102-107
[112]宗世祥,姚国龙,骆有庆等.沙棘主要蛀干害虫种群生态位[J].生态学报,2005,25(12)：3264-3270
[113]Agrawal AA. Overcompensation of plants in response to herbivory and the by-product benefits of mutualism[J]. Trends in Plant Sci,2000,5(7):309-313
[114]A.Rousi.The Genus Hippophae L., A Taxonomic Study.Annales Botanic Fen.,1971.8:177-277
[115]Arru G M. A method for the evaluation of the resistance of poplars to Phloeomyzus passerinii Sign. Proc.FAO/IPC/Working Party on Insects and other Animal Pests (Bucarest,Romania), 1971
[116]Ballabeni P, Conconi D, Gateff S, et al.Spatial proximity between two host plant species influences oviposition and larval distribution in a leaf beetle[J]. Oikos,2001,92(2):225-234
[117]Ballabeni P, Gottbard K, Kayumba A, et al.Local adaptation and ecological genetics of host-plant specialization in a leaf beetle[J].Oikos,2003,101(1):70-78
[118]Bell, W. J. Searching behavior patterns in insects. Annual Review of Entomology,1990,35: 447-467
[119]Canale, A., and A. Raspi. Host location and oviposition behaviour in Opius concolor (Hymenop tera:Braconidae). Entomological Problems,2000,31:25-32
[120]Campbell, S. A., and J. H. Borden.2006. Integration of visual and olfactory cues of hosts and non-hosts by three bark beetles (Coleoptera:Scolytidae). Ecological Entomology,31:437-449.
[121]Bernays E A, Chapman R F.Host-plant preference by phytophagous insects[M].Chapman and Hall,1994
[122]Bosu P P, Wagner M R.Anatomical and nutritional factors associated with susceptibility of elms (Ulmus spp.) to the elm leaf beetle (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae)[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology,2008,101(3):944-954
[123]Clarice Mensah. Christina Difonzo,et al. Resistance to the Soybean Aphid in early maturing Soybean Germplasm [J]. Crop Science,2005,45 (6):25228-2234
[124]Curtis B Hilla,Yan Lia. Resistance to the Soybean Aphid in Soybean Germplasm [J]. Crop Science,2004,44:98-106
[125]Digweed S C.Oviposition preference and larval performance in the exotic birch-leafmining sawfly Profenusa thomsoni[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,2006,120(1):41-49.
[126]Etges W, Ahrens M.Premating isolation is determined by larval-rearing substrates in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis.V.Deep geographic variation in epicuticular hydrocarbons among isolated populations[J]. American Naturalist,2001,158:585-598
[127]Floyd-R, Godly-J. Breeding Resistance in Eucalyptus to Insect Attack [J]. Trees and Natural Resource,1997,39(1):16-19
[128]Fornoni J, Nunez-Farfan J. Evolutionary ecology of tolerance to herbivory:advances and perspectives[J]. Comments on Theoretical Biology,2003,8:643-663
[129]Forbes, A. A., and J. L. Feder.Divergent preferences of Rhagoletis pomonella host races for olfactory and visual fruit cues. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,2006,119:121-127
[130]Frei A, Bueno J M, Diaz-Montano J, Gu H.N, Cardona C, Dorn S. Tolerance as a mechanism of resistance to Thrips palmi in common beans[J]. Annu. Rev. Entomol.,2004,112:73-80
[131]Goyret, J., P. M. Markwell, and R. A. Raguso. The effect of decoupling olfactory and visual stimuli on the foraging behavior of Manduca sexta. Journal of Experimental Biology,2007,210: 1398-1405.
[132]Hanski LA practical model of metapopulation dynamics[J].Journal of Animal Ecology,1994, 63:151-162
[133]Herbert J J, Mizell R F, Mcauslane H J. Host Preference of the Crapemyrtle Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Host Suitability of Crapemyrtle Cultivars[J]. Environmental Entomology,2009, 38(4):1155-1160
[134]Ichiki, R. T., Y. Kainoh, S. Kugimiya, J. Takabayashi, and S. Nakamura. Attraction to herbivore-induced plant volatiles by the host-foraging parasitoid fly Exorista japonica. Journal of Chemical Ecology,2008,34:614-621
[135]Kazutaka Kato, Kaichiro Kawamura. Clonal variation in sugi on the resistance to Cryptomeria bark borer (Senamotus japonicus Lacordaire) and the population dynamics by setting the bark borer tree in a cage. Bull. For. Tree. Bree.Inst.,1993,(11):1-15
[136]Le Roux V, Campan EDM, Dubois F, Vincent C, Giordanengo P. Screening for resistance against Myzus persicae and Macrosiphum euphorbiae among wild Solanum[J]. Annals of Applied Biology,2007,151(1):83-88
[137]Le Roux V, Saguez J, Vincent C, Giordanengo P. Rapid method to screen resistance of potato plants against Myzus persicae (Homoptera:Aphididae) in the laboratory[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology,2004,97(6):2079-2082
[138]Li, S., Y. Fang, and Z. Zhang. EVects of volatiles of non-host plants and other chemicals on oviposition of Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera:Cerambycidae). J Pest Sci,2007,80 119-123.
[139]Lv Rongsen. The chemical Compositions of Hippophae Fruits in China. International Symposium on Seabuckthorn,1993,398-412
[140]Malcolm S, Cockrell B, Brower L.Cardenolide fingerprint of monarch butterflies reared on common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca L.[J].Journal of Chemical Ecology,1989,15:819-853
[141]McPheron, L. J., and N. J. Mills.Influence of visual and olfactory cues on the foraging Behavior of the paper wasp Mischocyttarus flavitarsis (Hymenoptera:Vespidae). Entomologia Generalis,2007,30:105-118.
[142]N.π.叶利谢耶夫等(张哲民译).沙棘的生物化学和引种育种,科学技术文献出版社,1989
[143]N. I. Vasyukova,O. L. Ozeretskovskaya. Induced Plant Resistance and Salicylic Acid:A Review. Applied Biochemistry And Microbiology [J].2007,43 (4):367-373
[144]Prokopy, R. J., and E. D. Owens.Visual detection of p lants by herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology,1983,28:337-364.
[145]Raghu S, Drew R, Clarke A R.Influence of host plant structure and microclimate on the abundance and behavior of a tephritid fly[J]. Journal of Insect Behavior,2004,17(2):179-190
[146]Reeves, J., P. Lorch, and M. Kershner.Vision is Important for Plant Location by the Phytophagous Aquatic Specialist Euhrychiopsis lecontei Dietz (Coleoptera:Curculionidae). Journal of Insect Behavior,2009,22:54-64
[147]Renwick, J. A. A. Chemical ecology of oviposition in phytophagous insects. Experientia,1989, 45:223-228.
[148]Renwick, J. A. A., and F. S. Chew. Oviposition behavior in Lepidoptera. Annals of the Entomological Society of America,1994,39:377-400
[149]Simms EL. Defining tolerance as a norm of reaction[J]. Evolutionary Ecology,2000,14: 563-570
[150]Smallegange, R. C., T. C. Everaarts, and J. Van Loon. Associative learning of visual and gustatory cues in the large cabbage white butterfly, Pieris brassicae. Animal Biology,2006,56: 157-172
[151]Stenberg, J. A., and L. Ericson. Visual cues override olfactory cues in the host-finding process of the monophagous leaf beetle Altica engstroemi. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 2007,125:81-88
[152]Strauss SY, Agrawal AA. The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory[J]. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,1999,14:179-185
[153]Tang, Q. F., Y. J. Wu, B. M. Liu, and Z. L. Yu. Olfactory Responses of Lariophagus distinguendus (Hymenoptera:Pteromalidae) to Volatile Signals Derived from Host Habitats. Philippine Agricultural Scientist,2009,92:133-142.
[154]Thompson.Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects[J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1988,47:3-14
[155]Todd, J. L., P. L. Phelan, and L. R. Nault.Interaction between visual and olfactory stimuli during host finding by leafhopper, Dalbus maidis (Homoptera:Cicadellidae). J Chem Ecol, 1990,16:2121-2133.
[156]Tomlin Es, Borden JH. Multicomponent Index for Evaluating Resistance by Sitka Spruce to the White Pine Weevil [J]. Journal of Economic Entomology,1997,90 (2):704-714
[157]Virendra Singh, B. Singh, C.P. Awasthi. Study on Distribution, Taxonomy and nutritional Values of Seabuckthorn Growing in Dry Temperate Himalayas. In Worldwide Research & Development of Seabuckthorn, Beijing:China Science & Technology Press,1997,52-59
[158]Yoshiyaki Fujimoto,Takehiko Maeta,Masahiro Tajima,et al. Studies on resistant tree breeding to sugi bark midges.Bull. For. Tree. Bree. Inst.,1983,(1):109-123
[159]Zhao, Y. X., and L. Kang. Olfactory responses of the leafminer Liriomyza sativae (Dipt, Agromyzidae) to the odours of host and non-host plants. Journal of Applied Entomology-Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie,2003,127:80-84.