山大齿猛蚁和日本弓背蚁对小地老虎的捕食行为

doi:10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.05.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】小地老虎（Agrotis ipsilon）是粮食和经济作物的重要地下害虫之一。论文旨在明确山大齿猛蚁（Odontomachus monticola）和日本弓背蚁（Camponotus japonicus）对小地老虎的捕食特性，丰富小地老虎生物防治技术手段，降低小地老虎防治成本与化学农药用量。【方法】在猎物被土壤覆盖和裸露两种自然条件下，观察并统计山大齿猛蚁和日本弓背蚁在1、6、12、24和48 h内对不同虫态小地老虎的捕食选择性、捕食方式以及捕食致死率；在室内，利用两种蚂蚁的试验种群开展捕食行为序列特征研究。通过统计分析，明确两种蚂蚁捕食行为差异及控害特点。【结果】日本弓背蚁对小地老虎卵的致死率较低，48 h累计致死率仅为12.67%；山大齿猛蚁不取食小地老虎卵。两种蚂蚁对小地老虎幼虫和蛹的控制效果超过49%，最高达98.67%，且控制效果随小地老虎龄期增长而降低。山大齿猛蚁和日本弓背蚁捕食行为序列存在一定差异：两种蚂蚁对小地老虎低龄幼虫均以直接搬运为主；对体型较大的小地老虎高龄幼虫，日本弓背蚁具有试探、攻击、召唤同伴、猎物切割、群体搬运等行为，呈现出明显的群体性行为；而山大齿猛蚁对大型猎物的捕食行为较为单一，未观察到召唤同伴、群体搬运等行为，群体捕食行为不明显。两种蚂蚁对小地老虎捕食行为的差异也体现在捕食方式和对小地老虎的致死率方面：日本弓背蚁对小地老虎低龄幼虫多直接搬运回巢，捕食效率极高，对小地老虎高龄幼虫多以集体捕猎；山大齿猛蚁捕猎小地老虎高龄幼虫时丢弃比例较高，但因叮咬蜇刺，逃脱捕猎的小地老虎幼虫死亡率较高。此外，土壤覆盖极大地影响蚂蚁对小地老虎幼虫的发现，山大齿猛蚁和日本弓背蚁仅能发现地表猎物，不具备探测地下猎物的能力。【结论】日本弓背蚁和山大齿猛蚁对小地老虎幼虫和蛹均有较好的控制作用，小地老虎虫龄越低控制效果越好，两种蚂蚁对小地老虎高龄幼虫捕食行为存在一定差异，但不影响对小地老虎的控制效果。

关键词: 蚂蚁, 地下害虫, 小地老虎, 致死率, 捕食行为序列, 天敌昆虫

Abstract:

【Objective】Black cutworm (Agrotis ipsilon) is one of the important underground pests of food and cash crops. The objective of this study is to clarify the predation characteristics of Odontomachus monticola and Camponotus japonicus on A. ipsilon, enrich the biological control techniques of A. ipsilon, and to reduce the cost of A. ipsilon control and the amount of chemical pesticides.【Method】Predation selectivity, predation mode, predation lethality on different A. ipsilon stages by O. monticola and C. japonicus were observed and counted under two natural conditions, soil cover and bare prey, for 1, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h. Sequence characteristics of predation behavior were carried out indoors using experimental populations of the two ant species. Statistical analyses were performed to clarify the differences in predation behavior and pest control characteristics of the two ant species.【Result】C. japonicus was less lethal to A. ipsilon eggs, and the cumulative 48 h lethality was only 12.67%. O. monticola did not feed on A. ipsilon eggs. The control effect of the two ant species on A. ipsilon larvae and pupae was over 49% and up to 98.67%, and the control effect decreased with the age of A. ipsilon. There were some differences in the sequence characteristics of predation behavior of O. monticola and C. japonicus: for A. ipsilon low instar larvae, both ants mainly carried directly; for the larger A. ipsilon elder instar larvae, C. japonicus had behaviors of probing, attacking, calling companions, cutting prey and carrying in groups, which showed obvious group behavior. On the other hand, the predation behavior of O. monticola on large prey was simple, and behaviors such as calling companions and group handling were not observed, the group predation behavior was not obvious. The differences in the predation behavior of the two ant species on A. ipsilon were also reflected in the mode of predation and lethality on A. ipsilon: Most of the low instar A. ipsilon larvae were carried directly by C. japonicus, the predation efficiency was very high, and C. japonicas usually preyed A. ipsilon elder instar larvae in groups. O. monticola had a higher proportion of discarded elder A. ipsilon larvae, but A. ipsilon larvae that escaped predation by biting and stinging had a higher mortality. In addition, soil cover strongly influenced the detection of A. ipsilon larvae by ants, the two ant species could only detect surface prey and not subterranean prey.【Conclusion】C. japonicus and O. monticola have better control effect on both A. ipsilon larvae and pupae, and the lower the age of A. ipsilon, the better the control effect. There are some differences in the predation behavior of the two ant species on the elder A. ipsilon larvae, but it does not affect the control effect on A. ipsilon.

Key words: ant, underground pest, black cutworm (Agrotis ipsilon), lethality, sequence of predation behavior, predator insect

高冬梅, 皇甫佳一, 郭萧. 山大齿猛蚁和日本弓背蚁对小地老虎的捕食行为[J]. 中国农业科学, 2024, 57(5): 909-918.

GAO DongMei, HUANGFU JiaYi, GUO Xiao. The Predation Behavior of Odontomachus monticola and Camponotus japonicus on Black Cutworm (Agrotis ipsilon)[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2024, 57(5): 909-918.

0
/ / 推荐

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Reference Manager|ProCite|BibTeX|RefWorks

链接本文: https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2024.05.007

https://www.chinaagrisci.com/CN/Y2024/V57/I5/909

图/表 6

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

图4

参考文献 38

[1]	CLEMENT S, SHOW E, WAY M. Black cutworm pheromone trapping in strawberries. California Agriculture, 1982, 36(7): 20-21.
[2]	张继祖, 徐金汉. 中国南方地下害虫及其天敌. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1996: 109-144.
	ZHANG J Z, XU J H. Underground Pests and Their Natural Enemies in Southern China. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1996: 109-144. (in Chinese)
[3]	BEHLE R W. In vivo production of Agrotis ipsilon nucleopolyhedrovirus for quantity and quality. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2018, 111(1): 101-107. doi: 10.1093/jee/tox315
[4]	雷雪萍. 我国地下害虫绿色防控技术研究进展. 现代农业科技, 2022(24): 91-94.
	LEI X P. Research progress on green prevention and control technology for underground pests in China. Modern Agricultural Sciences and Technology, 2022(24): 91-94. (in Chinese)
[5]	王凤, 鞠瑞亭, 李跃忠, 杜予州. 生态位概念及其在昆虫生态学中的应用. 生态学杂志, 2006, 25(10): 1280-1284.
	WANG F, JU R T, LI Y Z, DU Y Z. Niche concept and its application in insect ecology. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2006, 25(10): 1280-1284. (in Chinese)
[6]	周善义, 冉浩. 中国蚂蚁名录——猛蚁型亚科群(膜翅目: 蚁科). 广西师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 28(4): 101-113.
	ZHOU S Y, RAN H. Checklist of poneromorph subfamilies (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in China. Journal of Guangxi Normal University (Natural Science Edition), 2010, 28(4): 101-113. (in Chinese)
[7]	MASCHWITZ U, SCHONEGGE P. Forage communication, nest moving recruitment, and prey specialization in the oriental ponerine Leptogenys chinensis. Oecologia, 1983, 57: 175-182. doi: 10.1007/BF00379578
[8]	PEETERS C, CREWE R. Foraging and recruitment in ponerine ants: Solitary hunting in the queenless Ophthalmopone berthoudi (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 1987, 94(1/2): 201-214. doi: 10.1155/1987/74592
[9]	DEJEAN A, FENERON R. Predatory behavior in the ponerine ant, Centromyrmex bequaerti: A case of termitolesty. Behavioural Processes, 1999, 47(2): 125-133. doi: 10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00060-1
[10]	王常禄, 吴坚, 萧刚柔. 日本弓背蚁生物学特性及捕食马尾松毛虫作用的研究. 林业科学研究, 1991, 4(4): 405-408.
	WANG C L, WU J, XIAO G R. A study on the bionomics and predatory effect of Camponotus japonicus to Dendrolimus punctatus. Forest Research, 1991, 4(4): 405-408. (in Chinese)
[11]	PERFECTO I. Indirect and direct effects in a tropical agroecosystem: The maize-pest-ant system in Nicaragua. Ecology, 1990, 71: 2125-2134. doi: 10.2307/1938626
[12]	AGARWAL V M, RASTOGI N, RAJU S V S. Impact of predatory ants on two Lepidopteran insect pests in Indian cauliflower agroecosystems. Journal of Applied Entomology, 2007, 131: 493-500. doi: 10.1111/jen.2007.131.issue-7
[13]	VAN MELE P. A historical review of research on the weaver ant Oecophylla in biological control. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 2008, 10: 13-22. doi: 10.1111/afe.2008.10.issue-1
[14]	ANJOS D V, TENA A, VIANA-JUNIOR A B, CARVALHO R L, TOREZAN-SILINGARDI H, DEL-CLARO K, PERFECTO I. The effects of ants on pest control:A meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2022, 289: 20221316.
[15]	CHOATE B, DRUMMOND F. Ants as biological control agents in agricultural cropping systems. Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews, 2011, 4: 157-180. doi: 10.1163/187498311X571979
[16]	顾晓军, 田素芬, 刘文静. 应用叶片保护率与校正死亡率评价阿维菌素与氟虫腈对小菜蛾3龄幼虫的毒力. 中国农业科技导报, 2009, 11(2): 98-105.
	GU X J, TIAN S F, LIU W J. Indoor toxicity assessment of avermectin and fipronil on 3rd instar larvae of diamondback moth by means of leaf protection rates and corrected mortality rate. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2009, 11(2): 98-105. (in Chinese)
[17]	BOND A B. The foraging behaviour of lacewing larvae on vertical rods. Animal Behaviour, 1983, 31(4): 990-1004. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80004-9
[18]	GELPERIN A. Feeding behaviour of the praying mantis: A learned modification. Nature, 1968, 219(5152): 399-400. doi: 10.1038/219399a0
[19]	FERRAN A, DIXON A. Foraging behaviour of ladybird larvae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). European Journal of Entomology, 1993, 90(4): 383-402.
[20]	BELLIURE B, MICHAUD J P. Biology and behavior of Pseudodorus clavatus (Diptera: Syrphidae), an important predator of citrus aphids. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 2001, 94(1): 91-96. doi: 10.1603/0013-8746(2001)094[0091:BABOPC]2.0.CO;2
[21]	TRANIELLO J. Foraging strategies of ants. Annual Review of Entomology, 1989, 34: 191-210. doi: 10.1146/ento.1989.34.issue-1
[22]	RICHARD F J, FABRE A, DEJEAN A. Predatory behavior in dominant arboreal ant species: The case of Crematogaster sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Insect Behavior, 2001, 14(2): 271-282. doi: 10.1023/A:1007845929801
[23]	DIYES G C P, KARUNARATHNA N B, SILVA T H S E, KARUNARATNE W A I P, RAJAKARUNA R S. Ants as predators of the spinose ear tick, Otobius megnini (Dugés) in Sri Lanka. Acarologia, 2017, 57(4): 747-753. doi: 10.24349/acarologia/20174200
[24]	DEJEAN A, CORBARA B. Study of different foraging paths of the predatory neotropical ponerine ant Pachycondyla (=Neoponera) villosa (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Sociobiology, 1998, 32: 409-426.
[25]	CZACZKES T, RATNIEKS F. Cooperative transport in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and elsewhere. Myrmecological News, 2013, 18: 1-11.
[26]	KAZUMA K, MASUKO K, KONNO K, INAGAKI H. Combined venom gland transcriptomic and venom peptidomic analysis of the predatory ant Odontomachus monticola. Toxins, 2017, 9(10): 323. doi: 10.3390/toxins9100323
[27]	李姣, 金晨钟, 龙大彬, 欧阳芳, 戈峰. 天敌昆虫对害虫的非直接致死效应. 应用昆虫学报, 2014, 51(4): 863-870.
	LI J, JIN C Z, LONG D B, OUYANG F, GE F. Non-lethal effects of a natural enemy on herbivore insect population. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology, 2014, 51(4): 863-870. (in Chinese)
[28]	PREISSER E L, BOLNICK D I, BENARD M F. Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology, 2005, 86(2): 501-509. doi: 10.1890/04-0719
[29]	CAMPBELL N J, BRISTOW C M, AYERS G S, SIMMONS G A. Design and field test of portable colonies of the predaceous ant, Formica exsectoides (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 1991, 64(1): 116-120.
[30]	OFFENBERG J. The use of artificial nests by weaver ants: A preliminary field observation. Asian Myrmecology, 2014, 6: 119-128.
[31]	HOLLDOBLER B, WILSON E O. The multiple recruitment systems of the African weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille) (Hymenoptera Formicidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 1978, 3(1): 19-60. doi: 10.1007/BF00300045
[32]	DIAME L, REY J Y, VAYSSIERES J F, GRECHI I, CHAILLEUX A, DIARRA K. Ants: Major functional elements in fruit agro-ecosystems and biological control agents. Sustainability, 2017, 10: 23. doi: 10.3390/su10010023
[33]	QUEIROZ J M, OLIVEIRA P S. Tending ants protect honeydew- producing whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Environmental Entomology, 2001, 30(2): 295-297. doi: 10.1603/0046-225X-30.2.295
[34]	EVANS T A, DAWES T Z, WARD P R, LO N. Ants and termites increase crop yield in a dry climate. Nature Communications, 2011, 2(1): 262. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1257
[35]	OFFENBERG J. Review: Ants as tools in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2015, 52(5): 1197-1205. doi: 10.1111/jpe.2015.52.issue-5
[36]	BLUM M S, WALKER J R, CALLAHAN P S, NOVAK A F. Chemical, insecticidal, and antibiotic properties of fire ant venom. Science, 1958, 128(3319): 306-307. doi: 10.1126/science.128.3319.306-a pmid: 13568785
[37]	LAI L C, CHANG Y Y, HUA K H, WU W J, HUANG R N. Comparative toxicity of three fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) venoms to Spodoptera litura larvae. Sociobiology, 2010, 56(3): 653-663.
[38]	白茹, 陈立, 王文凯. 切叶蚁亚科蚂蚁的防御性生物碱. 昆虫学报, 2021, 64(7): 875-886.
	BAI R, CHEN L, WANG W K. Defensive alkaloids of myrmicine ants. Acta Entomologica Sinica, 2021, 64(7): 875-886. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16380/j.kcxb.2021.07.011

虫态Stage	处理Treatment	1 h	6 h	12 h	24 h	48 h	累计Accumulation
卵 Egg	日本弓背蚁C. japonicus	0a	0.67±0.67a	1.33±0.82a	3.33±1.50a	4.67±2.45a	12.67±4.52a
	山大齿猛蚁O. monticola	0a	0a	0a	0a	0a	0b
	对照CK	0a	0a	0a	0a	0a	0b
1—2龄幼虫 1st-2nd instar larva	日本弓背蚁C. japonicus	1.33±0.82a	11.33±1.70a	15.28±2.08a	44.22±5.65a	13.22±4.07b	94.33±3.60a
	山大齿猛蚁O. monticola	0a	8.67±2.71a	25.17±3.57a	33.11±2.48a	28.86±2.89a	98.67±1.33a
	对照CK	0a	0b	2.00±0.82b	1.33±0.82b	0.66±0.66b	4.00±1.63b
3—4龄幼虫 3rd-4th instar larva	日本弓背蚁C. japonicus	0.67±0.67a	9.33±2.21a	11.49±1.97a	20.80±2.01b	22.24±4.17a	73.50±3.52a
	山大齿猛蚁O. monticola	0a	5.33±2.26a	16.78±2.69a	30.00±2.11a	27.71±0.83a	81.14±5.40a
	对照CK	0a	0b	0.66±0.66b	0c	1.33±0.82b	2.00±1.33b
5—6龄幼虫 5th-6th instar larva	日本弓背蚁C. japonicus	0a	4.67±2.00b	10.00±0b	14.76±1.34b	27.28±4.13a	69.84±2.70b
	山大齿猛蚁O. monticola	0a	13.33±2.36a	20.00±1.83a	26.84±1.26a	26.67±3.33a	87.20±4.20a
	对照CK	0a	0b	0c	0.67±0.67c	0b	0.67±0.67c
蛹 Pupa	日本弓背蚁C. japonicus	0a	4.00±1.25b	13.33±0b	15.33±1.33a	18.67±4.00a	51.33±4.67a
	山大齿猛蚁O. monticola	0a	12.67±2.45a	16.67±1.05a	11.33±2.91a	8.67±3.60a	49.33±1.25a
	对照CK	0a	0b	0c	0b	0b	0b

虫态 Stage	处理 Treatment	1 h		6 h		12 h		24 h		48 h
虫态 Stage	处理 Treatment	叮咬丢弃 <BOLD>D</BOLD>iscard after biting	搬运 Transport	叮咬丢弃 <BOLD>D</BOLD>iscard after biting	搬运 Transport	叮咬丢弃<BOLD>D</BOLD>iscard after biting	搬运 Transport	叮咬丢弃 <BOLD>D</BOLD>iscard after biting	搬运 Transport	叮咬丢弃 <BOLD>D</BOLD>iscard after biting	搬运 Transport
1—2 龄幼虫 1-2 instar larva	日本弓背蚁 C. japonicus	0.67±0.67	0.67±0.67	1.33±0.82	10.00±1.83	2.00±1.33	16.67±1.05*	5.33±5.33	40.00±3.33*	0.67±0.67	17.33±2.67*
1—2 龄幼虫 1-2 instar larva	山大齿猛蚁 O. monticola	0	0	1.33±0.82	7.33±2.21	0.67±0.67	26.00±3.23*	0	34.00±2.45*	0	29.33±2.87*
3—4 龄幼虫 3-4 instar larva	日本弓背蚁 C. japonicus	0	0.67±0.67	1.33±0.82	8.00±2.26	3.33±1.05	9.33±1.25*	4.00±1.25	17.33±1.25*	4.00±1.25	26.00±2.45*
3—4 龄幼虫 3-4 instar larva	山大齿猛蚁 O. monticola	0	0	0	5.33±2.26	0.67±0.67	16.67±2.36*	2.00±0.82	28.00±2.26*a	2.00±1.33	26.67±1.05*
5—6 龄幼虫 5-6 instar larva	日本弓背蚁 C. japonicus	0	0	2.67±1.63	2.00±1.33	6.00±1.25	5.33±1.70	13.33±2.79	7.33±1.25a	18.00±3.27	15.33±4.03a
5—6 龄幼虫 5-6 instar larva	山大齿猛蚁 O. monticola	0	0	11.33±2.49*	2.00±0.82	20.00±1.83*a	0	27.33±1.25*a	0	26.67±3.33*a	0
蛹 Pupa	日本弓背蚁 C. japonicus	0	0	4.00±1.25	0	8.00±1.70*	0	10.00±1.05*	5.33±0.82a	14.00±2.87	10.00±2.79a
蛹 Pupa	山大齿猛蚁 O. monticola	0	0	12.67±2.45*	0	16.67±1.05*a	0	11.33±2.91*	0	8.67±3.59	0