Correlation Among Criteria for Evaluating Damages on Varieties of Sweet Potatoes by Cylas formicarius (F.)
-
摘要: 选取福薯8号、金山57、泉薯12号等8个不同的甘薯种质，按随机区组排列连续3年种植在同一甘薯小象甲危害较重的地块，在收获前通过对象甲危害指数、产量损失率、拐头（薯蒂）危害率等3项指标调查和鉴定，结合品质检测和田间降水量统计开展各指标间的比较和相关性分析。结果表明：以危害指数为主要指标，从高到低依次是金山57、福薯8号、广薯87、泉薯12、福薯88、福薯90、福薯9号、福薯2号，其中金山57的危害指数最高，受危害最重，产量损失率也较高，后面的品种依次降低，综合危害指数、拐头危害率和产量损失率发现，金山57、福薯8号2个品种遭受小象甲的危害最重，而福薯2号遭受小象甲危害的程度最低；不同年份间小象甲对甘薯的危害指数、拐头侵染率和产量损失率之间均达到极显著差异，其中产量损失率与危害指数相关性最高，拐头侵染率与危害指数相关性中等，拐头侵染率与产量损失率相关性最低。3年的试验结果结合降水量、品质检测结果分析表明，象甲发生较重的丘陵地区，天气持续干旱少雨是造成甘薯象甲大面积爆发的重要因素，甘薯的某些品质相关性状如维生素和氨基酸含量与小象甲危害的3个指标中的2个指标达到显著性相关。Abstract: Eight sweet potato varieties (including Fushu 8, Jinshan 57, Quanshu 12, etc.) of varied qualities were used for comparison in this study. For 3 consecutive years, they were planted with a randomized block design and grown at a same location, where a severe Cylas formicarius (F.) infestation existed. The damage index, tuber yield reduction and infection rate on the sweet potato stalks were monitored and confirmed prior to harvesting. Variance and correlation analyses were conducted along with tests on plant qualities. The results showed that the damage index rated the cultivars in the order of Jinshan 57 > Fushu 8 > Guangzhou 87 > Quanshu 12 > Fushu 88 > Fushu 90 > Fushu 9 > Fushu 2. Jinshan 57 suffered the most serious harm among all, and its tuber yield reduction was also among the greatest. Overall, Jinshan 57 and Fushu 8 encountered the heaviest damages by the infestation, while Fushu 2 the least. All 3 selected evaluation criteria showed extremely significant differences in the years of the survey. The damage index had the highest correlation coefficient with the tuber yield reduction, followed by the stalk infection rate, while that between the stalk infection and the tuber yield reduction rates the lowest. The statistical analysis suggested that those observations correlated significantly with the annual precipitation in the area, and that continued drought was the most important factor causing the outbreak of C. formicarius (F.) in a large area. In addition, a significant correlation was found between the nutritional quality and the damage index of the sweet potatoes due to C. formicarius (F.) infestation.
-
Key words:
- sweet potato variety /
- quality /
- Cylas formicarius (F.) /
- damage /
- correlation analysis
-
图 1 2011-2013年甘薯生育期不同月份降水量统计
Figure 1. Monthly precipitation during sweet potato growing season in 2011-2013
表 1 不同甘薯品种遭小象甲危害的拐头侵染率、危害指数与产量损失率比较
Table 1. Stalk infection rates, damage indices, and tuber yield reduction of sweet potato varieties
品种名称 拐头危害率
/%危害指数 产量损失率
/%金山57 75.00 aA 32.37 aA 36.20 abAB 福薯8号 62.22 bAB 29.12 abAB 39.23 aA 福薯90 53.33 bcB 22.48 cB 20.80 cB 福薯9号 51.11 bcB 22.32 cB 24.03 bcAB 泉薯12 50.00 cB 24.73 bcAB 25.00 bcAB 福薯88 49.44 cB 23.26 bcB 25.77 bcAB 广薯87 47.22 cB 26.22 abcAB 34.11 abAB 福薯2号 46.67 cB 20.29 cB 21.27 cB 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 2011-2013小象甲危害3项指标比较
Table 2. Variance analysis of 3 evaluation criteria on sweet potato varieties from 2011 to 2013
年份 拐头侵染率
/%危害指数 产量损失率
/%2012 88.96 aA 46.10 aA 56.93 aA 2011 52.92 bB 24.53 bB 21.14 bB 2013 21.25 cC 4.66 cC 6.84 cC
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 小象甲危害3项指标的相关性分析
Table 3. Correlation analysis of 3 evaluation criteria on sweet potato varieties
项目 危害指数 产量损失率 拐头侵染率 危害指数 1 产量损失率 0.90 1 拐头侵染率 0.86 0.64 1
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 降水量与小象甲危害相关性
Table 4. Correlation of precipitation and damages by C.formicarius (F.) on sweet potato plants
危害指标 降水量 7月 8月 9月 10月 11月 拐头危害率均值 0.27 -0.90 -0.05 -0.92 -0.99 危害指数 0.28 -0.90 -0.04 -0.92 -0.99 产量损失率 0.07 -0.97 -0.26 -0.98 -0.98
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 供试甘薯种质信息及其品质检测结果
Table 5. Quality evaluation on experimental sweet potato varieties
品种名称 花青素
/(μg·kg-1)β-胡萝卜素
/(mg·hg-1)蔗糖
/(g·hg-1)还原糖
/(g·hg-1)维生素
/(mg·hg-1)蛋白质
/(g·hg-1)金山57 0.00 1.26 2.20 2.18 17.60 1.18 福薯8号 0.00 1.13 2.00 2.90 10.70 1.70 广薯87 0.00 8.67 1.50 2.67 13.60 1.12 泉薯12 0.00 1.49 1.40 1.69 9.60 1.62 福薯88 0.00 25.43 2.80 2.42 12.50 1.83 福薯90 0.00 7.11 2.40 3.38 13.60 1.48 福薯9号 5.22 0.87 2.00 0.88 8.60 0.75 福薯2号 0.00 0.60 2.00 2.54 9.70 2.03
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 供试甘薯品种氨基酸含量
Table 6. Amino acid content of experimental sweet potato varieties
品种名称 天门
冬氨酸苏氨
酸丝氨
酸谷氨
酸甘氨
酸丙氨
酸胱氨
酸缬草
氨酸甲硫
氨酸异亮
氨酸亮氨
酸酪氨
酸苯丙
氨酸赖氨
酸组氨
酸精氨
酸脯氨
酸金山57 183.70 53.73 55.35 86.18 43.93 53.91 2.75 68.05 3.23 46.86 70.59 35.30 64.42 42.30 17.80 52.59 45.76 福薯8号 281.27 81.27 80.37 132.74 66.24 84.52 7.70 100.59 8.80 67.98 102.82 48.02 93.16 73.00 28.22 65.04 64.51 广薯87 174.24 53.89 53.33 101.07 43.91 56.11 3.27 68.23 9.11 48.57 71.98 38.32 63.61 54.61 20.09 55.66 45.48 泉薯12 251.36 79.22 78.93 123.92 65.45 82.29 8.47 100.20 13.85 69.62 103.97 52.29 98.07 75.46 26.07 69.00 66.34 福薯88 276.62 96.68 91.12 134.75 74.61 91.58 10.72 119.39 11.06 81.45 122.05 67.41 114.47 83.22 33.43 80.09 72.51 福薯90 247.73 78.32 77.49 108.80 61.72 77.82 9.01 94.23 13.29 63.70 98.43 51.16 89.16 57.12 25.89 61.78 60.01 福薯9号 99.20 30.14 30.85 86.32 29.22 38.97 2.37 42.49 3.90 32.63 48.49 23.10 36.06 34.66 11.11 29.35 27.57 福薯2号 312.40 102.79 98.20 152.73 80.10 101.18 9.09 125.07 17.59 84.84 127.57 60.96 115.80 92.74 33.18 80.80 78.85
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 甘薯品质性状与小象甲危害相关性
Table 7. Correlation between quality traits and damages by C. formicarius (F.) on sweet potato plants
花青素 B-胡萝
卜素蔗糖 还原糖 维生素 蛋白质 天门
冬氨酸苏氨酸 丝氨酸 谷氨酸 甘氨酸 丙氨酸 胱氨酸 缬草
氨酸甲硫(蛋)
氨酸异亮
氨酸亮氨酸 酪氨酸 苯丙
氨酸赖氨酸 组氨酸 精氨酸 脯氨酸 拐头侵染率 -0.14 -0.30 0.19 0.06 0.65 -0.21 -0.15 -0.26 -0.23 -0.42 -0.27 -0.30 -0.37 -0.28 -0.62 -0.31 -0.30 -0.34 -0.26 -0.42 -0.29 -0.25 -0.25 虫情指数 -0.28 -0.20 -0.11 0.09 0.65 -0.26 -0.19 -0.31 -0.28 -0.41 -0.32 -0.34 -0.45 -0.31 -0.63 -0.34 -0.34 -0.35 -0.29 -0.37 -0.30 -0.21 -0.27 薯块损失率 -0.24 -0.14 -0.19 0.15 0.44 -0.20 -0.13 -0.26 -0.24 -0.24 -0.26 -0.27 -0.43 -0.26 -0.57 -0.28 -0.29 -0.32 -0.26 -0.24 -0.21 -0.17 -0.23
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 曹清河, 张安, 李鹏, 等.甘薯近缘野生种的抗病性鉴定与新型种问杂种的获得[J].植物遗传资源学报, 2009, 10(2):224-229. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZWYC200902010.htm [2] 谭西贵.我国甘薯生产前景展望[J].安徽农业科学, 2004, 32(1):185-190. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-AHNY200401100.htm [3] 于海滨, 郑琴, 陈书龙.甘薯小象甲的生物学特征与综合防治措施[J].河北农业科学, 2010, 14(8):32-35. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HBKO201008009.htm [4] CHALFANT R B, JANSSON R K, SEAL D R K, et al. Ecology and management of sweet potato insects[J].Annual Review of Entomology, 1990, 35:157-80. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.001105 [5] PADMAJA G, RAJAMMA P. Biochemical changes due to the weevil (Cylas formicarius Fab.) feeding on sweet potato[J]. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 1982, 19:162-163. http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/17408 [6] 张永和.甘薯小象虫的发生与综合防治技术[J].现代园艺, 2012, (15):75. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JXYA201215052.htm [7] 张世棉, TALEKAR N S, 李正跃, 等.甘薯小象甲成虫对甘薯植株不同部位的选择行为[J].云南大学学报:自然科学版, 2008, 30(S1):127-129. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YNDZ2008S1028.htm [8] LOEBENSTEIN G, THOTTAPPILLY G. The Sweetpotato[M]. Germany:Springer Science+Business Media BV, 2009:161-188. [9] WOLFE G W. The origin and dispersal of the pest species of Cy1as with a key to the pest species groups of the world. Richard K J and Kandukuri V R[M]. Oxford & IBH Pub Co, 1991:13-43. [10] MORIYA S, HIROYOSHI S. Flight and locomotion activity of the sweet potato weevil (Coleoptera:Brentidae) in relation to adult age, mating status, and starvation[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology, 1998, 91:439-443. doi: 10.1093/jee/91.2.439 [11] 于海滨, 沈江卫, 马娟, 等.中国甘薯小象甲的rDNA ITS-1遗传变异及入侵来源研究[J].中国农学通报, 2011, 27(18):282-287. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZNTB201118058.htm [12] 潘初沂.闽东南地区甘薯小象甲发生危害特点初探[J].福建农业科技, 2006, (5):59-61. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FJNK200605032.htm [13] 陈福如, 杨秀娟, 张联顺, 等.甘薯小象虫综合防治技术体系研究与应用[J].江西农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2002, (4):445-447. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JXND200204005.htm [14] 王际方.甘薯小象甲的综合防治[J].河北农业科学, 2010, 14(5):36-37. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HBKO201005017.htm [15] 张泽彬, 马青, 黄金才, 等.昆虫与植物协同进化的研究进展[J].湖南林业科技, 2010, 37(5):60-66. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HLKJ201005019.htm [16] YANWANG, STANLEYJ. KAYS, 谢国禄.与甘薯象甲习性有关的甘薯挥发性化学物质[J].国外作物育种, 2003, 28. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/97995X/200304/8279431.html [17] 马纲, 张敏.植物抗虫性物质及作用的多样性[J].生物学通报, 2002, 37(12):8-9. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SWXT200212005.htm -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 1724
- HTML全文浏览量: 172
- PDF下载量: 228
- 被引次数: 0
