桃蚜对报警信息素和烟草挥发物的电生理和行为反应 *

doi:10.7679/j.issn.2095-1353.2020.01.019

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】 探究烟草挥发物和蚜虫报警信息素对桃蚜Myzus persicae行为的影响,以期为桃蚜的化学生态防治提供理论依据。【方法】 采用触角电位技术（EAG）测定了有翅蚜与无翅蚜对蚜虫报警信息素(E)-β-法尼烯与4种烟草挥发物(6-甲基-5-庚烯-2-酮、壬醛、反-β-罗勒烯、乙酸正丁酯)的电生理反应,并利用Y型嗅觉仪测定了桃蚜对这些化合物的行为反应。【结果】 蚜虫报警信息素和4种烟草挥发物均能引起有翅蚜和无翅蚜的触角电位反应,有翅蚜的嗅觉感器对报警信息素更为敏感,而无翅蚜对烟草挥发物乙酸正丁酯和反-β-罗勒烯更为敏感。在1、10和100 ng 3个测试剂量范围内,报警信息素在剂量为10 ng和100 ng时对有翅蚜和无翅蚜的驱避作用显著,而1 ng时仅对无翅蚜有驱避作用。烟草挥发物乙酸正丁酯、6-甲基-5-庚烯-2-酮和反-β-罗勒烯在剂量为100 ng时,对无翅蚜和有翅蚜具有引诱作用;当剂量10 ng时,乙酸正丁酯对有翅蚜和无翅蚜均有引诱作用,6-甲基-5-庚烯-2-酮仅对无翅蚜有引诱作用。【结论】 报警信息素对无翅蚜的驱避作用强于有翅蚜,烟草挥发物组分6-甲基-5-庚烯-2-酮、乙酸正丁酯、反-β-罗勒烯对桃蚜的无翅蚜和有翅蚜均具有引诱作用。

关键词: 桃蚜, 烟草挥发物, 报警信息素, 触角电位反应, 行为反应

Abstract:

[Objectives] To provide information to inform the choice of pheromones and volatile compounds for the environmentally-friendly control of crop damage by this species, the effects of tobacco volatiles and an alarm pheromone on the behavior of Myzus persicae were measured. [Methods] Electrophysiological responses of winged and wingless M. persicae to 1, 10 and 100 ng concentrations of the aphid alarm pheromone ((E)-β-farnesene) and four volatile tobacco plant compounds (6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, butyl acetate, (E)-β-ocimene and nonanal) were recorded by EAG and the behavioral responses of individual aphids to these compounds were recorded in a Y-tube olfactometer. [Results] Aphid alarm pheromone and the four tobacco volatile compounds tested all elicited EAG responses in both winged and wingless aphids. Winged aphids were more sensitive to the alarm pheromone than wingless ones, whereas wingless aphids were more sensitive to butyl acetate and (E)-β-ocimene. Both 10 ng and 100 ng concentrations of the alarm pheromone repelled both winged and wingless aphids, but the 1ng concentration only repelled wingless aphids. One hundred nanogram concentrations of 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, butyl acetate and (E)-β-ocimene were significantly attractive to both winged and wingless aphids. A concentration of 10 ng butyl acetate attracted both winged and wingless aphids, but the same concentration of 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one only attracted wingless ones. [Conclusion] The alarm pheromone has a stronger repellent effect on wingless aphids than winged aphids, and 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, butyl acetate and (E)-β-ocimene are attractive to both winged and wingless aphids.

Key words: Myzus persicae, tobacco plant volatiles, alarm pheromones, EAG, behavioral response

魏波, 陈宝源, 张小娇, 魏成梅, 荆英, 李成云, 董文霞. 桃蚜对报警信息素和烟草挥发物的电生理和行为反应 ^*[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2020, 57(1): 173-180.

Bo WEI, Bao-Yuan CHEN, Xiao-Jiao ZHANG, Cheng-Mei WEI, Ying JING, Cheng-Yun LI, Wen-Xia DONG. Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of Myzus persicae to alarm pheromone and tobacco plant volatiles[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 2020, 57(1): 173-180.

图/表 9

表1 有翅蚜和无翅蚜对蚜虫报警信息素及烟草挥发物的EAG反应

Table 1 EAG response of winged and wingless Myzus persicae to aphid alarm pheromone and tobacco volatile compounds

化合物 Compounds	处理/对照 Treatment/Control	EAG反应相对值 The EAG relative potential
化合物 Compounds	T/CK	有翅蚜 Winged M. persicae	无翅蚜 Wingless M. persicae
反-β-法尼烯 (E)-β-Farnesene	T	1.047±0.094^**	0.511±0.016^**
反-β-法尼烯 (E)-β-Farnesene	CK	0.029±0.009	0.030±0.004
6-甲基-5-庚烯-2-酮 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one	T	1.334±0.042^*	1.451±0.048^*
6-甲基-5-庚烯-2-酮 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one	CK	0.013±0.002	0.068±0.009
壬醛 Nonanal	T	0.727±0.012^*	0.864±0.060^**
壬醛 Nonanal	CK	0.028±0.004	0.034±0.006
乙酸正丁酯 Butyl acetate	T	0.971±0.034^*	1.363±0.062^*
乙酸正丁酯 Butyl acetate	CK	0.017±0.002	0.031±0.002
反-β-罗勒烯 (E)-β-Ocimene	T	0.484±0.094^*	0.873±0.029^*
反-β-罗勒烯 (E)-β-Ocimene	CK	0.055±0.001	0.019±0.006

图1 有翅蚜和无翅蚜对烟草挥发物及蚜虫报警信息素EAG反应相对值的比较各参数为平均值±标准误。柱上标有*表示有翅蚜和无翅蚜对同种化合物的EAG反应相对值经t-检验差异显著(P<0.05)。

Fig. 1 The comparison of EAG relative responses of wingless and winged Myzus persicae to tobacco volatiles and aphid alarm pheromone Data are mean± SE. Histograms with * indicate significant difference among the EAG relative potentials of winged and wingless M. persicae to the same compound by t-test (P<0.05).

图2 无翅蚜对烟草挥发物及蚜虫报警信息素EAG反应相对值的比较各参数为平均值±标准误。柱上标有不同小写字母表示有翅蚜和无翅蚜对不同化合物的EAG反应相对值经Tukey检验差异显著(P<0.05)。图3同。

Fig. 2 The comparison of EAG relative responses of wingless Myzus persicae to tobacco volatiles and aphid alarm pheromone Data are mean± SE. Histograms with the differerent lowercase letters indicate significant difference among the EAG relative potentials of winged and wingless M. persicae to different compounds by Tukey’s test (P<0.05). The same as Fig.3.

图3 有翅蚜对烟草挥发物及蚜虫报警信息素EAG反应相对值的比较

Fig. 3 The comparison of EAG relative responses of winged Myzus persicae to tobacco volatiles and aphid alarm pheromone

图4 桃蚜对报警信息素反-β-法尼烯的嗅觉反应 *表示为差异显著（P<0.05）,**表示差异极显著（P<0.01）,ns表示差异不显著（c2检验）。下图同。

Fig. 4 Olfactory responses of Myzus persicae to (E)-β-Farnesene in a Y-tube olfactometer * indicates significant difference at P<0.05, ** indicates extremely significant difference at P<0.01, ns indicates no significant difference by c2-test. The same below.

图5 桃蚜对烟草挥发物6-甲基-5-庚烯-2-酮的嗅觉反应

Fig. 5 Olfactory responses of Myzus persicae to 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one in a Y-tube olfactometer

图6 桃蚜对烟草挥发物乙酸正丁酯的嗅觉反应

Fig. 6 Olfactory responses of Myzus persicae to butyl acetate in a Y-tube olfactometer

图7 桃蚜对烟草挥发物反-β-罗勒烯的嗅觉反应

Fig. 7 Olfactory responses of Myzus persicae to (E)-β-Ocimene in a Y-tube olfactometer

图8 桃蚜对烟草挥发物壬醛的嗅觉反应

Fig. 8 Olfactory responses of Myzus persicae to nonanal in a Y-tube olfactometer

参考文献 20

[1]	Campbell CAM, Pettersson J, Pickett JA, Wadhams LJ, Woodcock CM , 1993. Spring migration of damson-hop aphid, Phorodon humuli (Homoptera, Aphididae), and summer host plant-derived semiochemicals released on feeding. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 19(7):1569-1576. URL pmid: 24249183
[2]	Dall SRX, Houston AI, McNamara JM , 2004. The behavioural ecology of personality: Consistent individual differences from an adaptive perspective. Ecology Letters, 7(8):734-739.
[3]	Dawson GW, Griffiths DC, Merritt LA, Mudd A, Pickett JA, Wadhams LJ, Woodcock CM , 1990. Aphid semiochemicals-a review, and recent advances on the sex pheromone. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 16(11):3019-3030. URL pmid: 24263293
[4]	Dingemanse NJ, Reale D , 2005. Natural selection and animal personality. Behaviour, 142(9/10):1159-1184.
[5]	Harrington R, Devonshire AL , 1988. Effect of repeated applications of insecticides to potatoes on numbers of Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and on the frequencies of insecticide- resistant variants. Crop Protection 7(1):55-61.
[6]	Ishikawa A, Miura T , 2013. Transduction of high-density signals across generations in aphid wing polyphenism. Physiological Entomology, 38(2):150-156.
[7]	Joachim C, Hatano E, David A, Kunert M, Linse C, Weisser WW , 2013. Modulation of aphid alarm pheromone emission of pea aphid prey by predators. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 39(6):773-782.
[8]	Li SR, Shang ZM, Liu DG, Cui XN , 2017. Behavioral responses of Sitobion avenaeto aphid alarm pheromone and wheat volatiles induced by aphid feeding. Journal of Nothwest Agriculture and Forestry University (Natural Science), 45(10):94-100.
	[ 李时荣, 尚哲明, 刘德广, 崔晓宁 , 2017. 麦长管蚜对蚜害诱导小麦挥发物及蚜虫报警信息素的行为反应. 西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学), 45(10):94-100.]
[9]	Li X, Yang Z, Hu BW, Dan X, Dong WX , 2015. The release of leaf exudates and plant volatiles of tobacco. Plant Protection, 41(1):13-22.
	[ 李祥, 杨真, 胡保文, 戴勋, 董文霞 , 2015. 烟草叶片分泌物及植株挥发物释放规律研究, 植物保护, 41(1):13-22.]
[10]	Mondor EB, Rosenheim JA, Addicott JF , 2005. Predator-induced transgenerational phenotypic plasticity in the cotton aphid. Oecologia, 142(1):104-108. URL pmid: 15372226
[11]	Pickett JA, Wadhams LJ, Woodcock CM, Hardie J , 1992. The chemical ecology of aphids. Annual Review of Entomology, 37(1):67-90.
[12]	Podjasek JO, Bosnjak LM, Brooker DJ, Mondor EB , 2005. Alarm pheromone induces a transgenerational wing polyphenism in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83(8):1138-1141.
[13]	Powell G, Tosh CR, Hardie J , 2006. Host plant selection by aphids: Behavioral, evolutionary, and applied perspectives. Annual Review Entomology, 51:309-330.
[14]	Quiroz A, Niemeyer HM , 1998. Olfactometer-assessed responses of aphid Rhopalosiphum padi to wheat and oat volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 24(1):113-124.
[15]	Webster B, Bruce T, Pickett J, Hardie J , 2010. Volatiles functioning as host cues in a blend become nonhost cues when presented alone to the black bean aphid. Animal Behaviour, 79(2):451-457.
[16]	Webster BEN , 2012. The role of olfaction in aphid host location. Physiological Entomology, 37(1):10-18.
[17]	Weber G , 1985. Genetic variability in host plant adaptation of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 38(1):49-56.
[18]	Yan FS, Visser JH , 1982. Electrophysiological responses of the cereal aphid Sitobion avenae to plant volatile compounds. Proceedings 5th International Symposium Insect-Plant Relationships, Wageningen. 387-388.
[19]	Zhang LJ, Li YY, Ma RY, Zhao ZG, Liu TX , 2015. Performance and morphological differentiation of Myzus persicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on three types of host plants. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35(5):1547-1553.
	[ 张利军, 李丫丫, 马瑞燕, 赵志国, 刘同先 , 2015. 3种寄主上桃蚜的选择性及形态分化研究. 生态学报, 35(5):1547-1553.]
[20]	Zhang XJ, Zhang XG, Yan NS, Dong WX , 2018. Electrophysiological responses of Bactrocera dorsalis and Bactrocera correcta to volatiles from mango fruits. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University (Natural Science), 33(6):1030-1036.
	[ 张小娇, 张秀歌, 严乃胜, 董文霞 , 2018. 橘小实蝇和番石榴实蝇对杧果挥发物的电生理反应. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学版), 33(6):1030-1036.]