文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：不同径级松枝松墨天牛取食面积的研究

英文题名：Study on Feeding Area of Monochamus alternatus Between Tree Species with Different Diameter Class

作者：姚松[1,2] 汪来发[2] 束庆龙[3] 林乐明[4] 王华同[1] 孙小波[1] 朱从波[1]

第一作者：姚松

机构：[1]河南内乡宝天曼管理局;[2]中国林业科学研究院森林生态环境与保护研究所;[3]安徽农业大学林学与园林学院;[4]中国林业科学研究院林业研究所

年份：2011

卷号：27

期号：25

起止页码：20-24

中文期刊名：中国农学通报

外文期刊名：Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin

收录：CSTPCD;;北大核心:【北大核心2008】；CSCD:【CSCD_E2011_2012】；

基金：国家科技部社会公益研究专项(2005DIB3J139);国家"十一五"科技支撑项目(2006BAD08A19104)

语种：中文

中文关键词：松墨天牛;补充营养;取食面积;松树;径级

外文关键词：Monochamus alternatus Hope; nutrition supply; feeding area; pine; diameter class

分类号：S763.38

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0.7cm≤D≤1.0cm3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0.4cm≤D≤0.6cm(F=1.44,P=0.2621)(取食面积:火炬松>马尾松>黑松)和径级0.1cm≤D≤0.3cm(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0.7cm≤D≤1.0cm(F=0.41,P=0.6742)和径级0.4cm≤D≤0.6cm(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0.1cm≤D≤0.3cm(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。
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.