欢迎访问《中国农学通报》，
中国农学通报

中国农学通报 ›› 2011, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (25): 20-24.

所属专题： 畜牧兽医

• 林学 园艺 园林 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同径级松枝松墨天牛取食面积的研究

姚松 汪来发 束庆龙 林乐明 王华同 孙小波 朱从波   

  • 收稿日期:2011-05-12 修回日期:2011-06-16 出版日期:2011-10-05 发布日期:2011-10-05
  • 基金资助:

    国家科技部社会公益研究专项 国家“十一五”科技支撑项目

Study on Feeding Area of Monochamus alternatus Between Tree Species with Different Diameter Class

  • Received:2011-05-12 Revised:2011-06-16 Online:2011-10-05 Published:2011-10-05

PDF (PC)

805

摘要：

为了研究相同树种不同径级松枝松墨天牛取食面积的差异以及相同径级不同树种松墨天牛取食面积的差异，笔者采集马鞍山市林场内的黑松（Pinus thunbergii Parl.）、马尾松（P. massoniana Lamb.）、火炬松（P. teada L.）枝条为研究对象，将利用引诱剂在林场内捕获的松墨天牛置于分别放有3种松树松枝的养虫笼中饲养。结果表明：黑松、马尾松和火炬松松墨天牛在径级大的松枝上取食面积均大于径级小的松枝，从取食面积比例上看，黑松各径级取食面积比例间有显著性差异（F=3.69，P=0.0480），马尾松（F=0.41，P=0.6705）和火炬松（F=2.48，P=0.1251）差异不显著性；径级0.7 cm≤D≤1.0 cm 3种树种松墨天牛取食面积差异显著（F=5.01，P=0.0284）（取食面积：马尾松＞黑松＞火炬松），径级0.4 cm≤D≤0.6 cm（F=1.44，P=0.2621）（取食面积：火炬松＞马尾松＞黑松）和径级0.1 cm≤D≤0.3 cm（F=0.99，P=0.4064）（取食面积：马尾松＞火炬松＞黑松）差异不显著；径级0.7 cm≤D≤1.0 cm（F=0.41，P=0.6742）和径级0.4 cm≤D≤0.6 cm（F=0.43，P=0.6588）3种树种松墨天牛取食面积比例差异不显著，径级0.1 cm≤D≤0.3 cm（F=4.29，P=0.0419）有显著性差异。结合本试验结果及前人研究结果，笔者认为导致不同径级松墨天牛取食面积的不同可能与其产卵习性有关。

关键词: 辽宁省, 辽宁省, 玉米, 氮（N）, 磷（P2O5）, 钾(K2O)

Abstract:

To reveal internal relations of the difference of feeding area among pine trees with different diameter, Monochamus alternatus Hope that were caught in the Ma’anshan forest farm by the use of attractant was fed with branch of P. massoniana, P. thunbergii, P. taeda and the branch was collected in the Ma’anshan forest farm. The results indicated that: the feeding area of large-diameter was all above of that of small-diameter of tested three kinds of pine trees. The difference of feeding area of P. thunbergii Parl. (F=3.69, P=0.0480) was significant, the difference of feeding area of P. massoniana Lamb. (F=0.41, P=0.6705) and P. taeda (F=2.48, P=0.1251) wasn’t significant; the difference of feeding area of diameter class 0.7 cm≤D≤1.0 cm was significant (F=5.01, P=0.0284) (feeding preference: P. massoniana＞P. thunbergii＞P. taeda), however the difference of percentage of feeding area of diameter class 0.4 cm≤D≤0.6 cm (F=1.44, P=0.2621) (feeding preference: P. taeda＞P. massoniana＞P. thunbergii) and 0.1 cm≤D≤0.3 cm (F=0.99, P=0.4064) (feeding preference: P. massoniana＞P. taeda＞P. thunbergii) was not significant; the difference of percentage of feeding area of diameter class 0.7 cm≤D≤1.0 cm (F=0.41, P=0.6742) and 0.4 cm≤D≤0.6 cm (F=0.43, P=0.6588) wasn’t significant, but the difference of percentage of feeding area of diameter class 0.1 cm≤D≤0.3 cm (F=4.29, P=0.0419) was significant.