欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (8): 1136-1141.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2018.01136

• 作物遗传育种·种质资源·分子遗传学 • 上一篇    下一篇

绿豆不同品种对绿豆象的抗性初探

王宏民1,**(),成小芳2,**,樊艳平2,郑海霞2,张耀文3,张仙红2,*()   

  1. 1 山西农业大学经济管理学院, 山西太谷 030801
    2 山西农业大学农学院, 山西太谷 030801
    3 山西省农业科学院作物研究所, 山西太原 030031
  • 收稿日期:2017-12-10 接受日期:2018-03-26 出版日期:2018-08-10 网络出版日期:2018-04-24
  • 通讯作者: 王宏民,成小芳,张仙红
  • 基金资助:
    本研究由国家现代农业产业技术体系建设专项(GARS-08-G11)

Preliminary Study on Resistance of Different Mungbean Varieties to Callosobruchus chinensis (L.)

Hong-Min WANG1,**(),Xiao-Fang CHENG2,**,Yan-Ping FAN2,Hai-Xia ZHENG2,Yao-Wen ZHANG3,Xian-Hong ZHANG2,*()   

  1. 1 College of Economics and Management, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, Shanxi, China
    2 College of Agriculture, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, Shanxi, China
    3 Crop Sciences Institute, Shanxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Taiyuan 030031, Shanxi, China
  • Received:2017-12-10 Accepted:2018-03-26 Published:2018-08-10 Published online:2018-04-24
  • Contact: Hong-Min WANG,Xiao-Fang CHENG,Xian-Hong ZHANG
  • Supported by:
    This study was supported by the China Agriculture Research Systems(GARS-08-G11)

RichHTML

23

PDF

256

PDF

16

摘要：

为明确抗虫绿豆抗绿豆象的有效成分, 采用室内人工接虫方法, 进行了13个不同绿豆品种(品系)对绿豆象的抗虫性鉴定, 并对筛选获得的抗豆象品种的抗虫成分进行了研究。结果表明, 绿豆象对B18、B20、B23、B27、A22和晋绿7号绿豆的为害率均低于10%, 为高抗型绿豆; 其余7个绿豆品种受害率均在90%以上, 属高感型绿豆。绿豆象卵的孵化率在抗、感绿豆品种间无显著性差异, 而绿豆象发育历期、雌、雄成虫体重及成虫羽化率在抗、感绿豆品种间差异显著, 同一品种去皮绿豆与带皮绿豆相比, 绿豆象卵孵化率、成虫羽化率及种子受害率等指标均无显著性差异。抗虫成分试验表明, 当绿豆象取食添加抗虫绿豆蛋白25%和50%的人工(合成)绿豆后, 其成虫羽化率由30.48%降低到0, 但不随淀粉比例的增加而变化。可见, 抗虫绿豆抗绿豆象的主要成分为其种子中的蛋白质。

关键词: 绿豆, 不同品种, 绿豆象, 抗性

Abstract:

To clarify the effective component in mungbean seeds against bruchid (Callosobruchus chinensis L.), we identified the bruchid resistance of 13 mungbean varieties via in-house artificial feeding method, and the insect-resistant components in mungbean were investigated. Six mungbean varieties including B18, B20, B23, B27, A22, and Jinlyu 7, were found to be highly resistant to bruchid, showing seed-damage rates lower than 10%, whereas, the remaining seven varieties were highly susceptible with seed-damage rates higher than 90%. There was no significant difference in egg-hatch rate among all varieties. However, the developmental duration, the adult-emergence rate ,and the bodyweights of both male and female adults varied significantly between the resistant and susceptible varieties. Moreover, seed coat had no effect on the resistance to bruchid because samples with or without seed coat showed no significant difference in the rates of egg-hatch, adult emergence, and seed damage. The resistance test with synthetic mungbean indicated that the adult-emergence rate declined from 30.48% to 0 when the protein component of resistant mungbean varieties increased from 25% to 50%. In contrast, the increase of starch proportion had no effect on theadult emergence rate. Therefore, we conclude that seed proteins play an important role in bruchid resistance in mungbean.

Key words: mungbean, different varieties, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.), resistance

表1

不同绿豆品种的抗虫性比较"

表2

去皮抗、感绿豆抗虫性比较"

试验材料
Material		 着卵量
Number of eggs		 孵化率NS
Egg hatch rate NS (%)		 成虫羽化率
Adult emergence rate (%)		 发育历期
Developmental
time (d)		 种子受害率
Seeds damage rate
(%)
晋绿1号(带皮) Jinlyu 1 (seed coat) 244.1±7.08 b 84.43±5.43 66.33±3.08 c 23.22±1.63 a 100.00±0.00 c
晋绿1号(去皮) Jinlyu 1 (no seed coat) 247.1±12.78 b 81.98±3.67 64.82±4.92 c 23.66±1.52 a 100.00±0.00 c
潍绿2117(带皮) Weilyu 2117 (seed coat) 218.6±10.27 a 80.55±4.17 63.21±2.83 c 23.48±1.22 a 100.00±0.00 c
潍绿2117(去皮) Weilyu 2117 (no seed coat) 216.2±13.06 a 83.56±6.22 64.18±3.21 c 23.55±1.52 a 100.00±0.00 c
晋绿7号(带皮) Jinlyu 7 (seed coat) 238.1±11.23 ab 80.69±4.57 8.79±1.69 b 25.46±1.63 b 9.12±2.33 b
晋绿7号(去皮) Jinlyu 7 (no seed coat) 240.2±10.36 ab 82.33±3.78 8.18±2.12 b 24.99±2.18 ab 8.98±1.85 b
B20 (带皮) B20 (seed coat) 250.2±14.58 b 82.23±5.51 0.00±0.00 a - 0.00±0.00 a
B20 (去皮) B20 (no seed coat) 227.6±9.81 ab 81.45±3.88 0.00±0.00 a - 0.00±0.00 a

表3

不同比例抗虫绿豆蛋白和淀粉对绿豆象的影响"

种子成分
Seed compoment		 着卵量NS
Number of eggsNS		 种子受害率
Seeds damage rate (%)		 成虫羽化率
Adult emergence rate (%)
潍绿2117 100% Weilyu 2117 100% 195.0±17.59 100.00±0.00 b 58.32±6.09 c
潍绿2117 75% + 蛋白 25% Weilyu 2117 75% + Protein 25% 224.2±23.93 100.00±0.00 b 30.48±3.95 b
潍绿2117 50% + 蛋白 50% Weilyu 2117 100% + Protein 50% 204.4±26.01 0.00±0.00 a 0.00±0.00 a
潍绿2117 25% + 淀粉 25% Weilyu 2117 100% + Starch 25% 186.0±32.48 100.00±0.00 b 54.36±4.56 c
潍绿2117 25% + 淀粉 50% Weilyu 2117 100% + Starch 50% 231.0±23.25 100.00±0.00 b 51.73±5.83 c
[1] Gujar G T, Yadav T D . Feeding of Callobruchus maculatus (Fab.) and Callosobruchs chinensis (Linn.) in green gram. Indian J Entomol, 1978,40:108-112
[2] Tomooka N, Kashiwaba K, Vaughan D A, Ishimoto M, Egawa Y . The effectiveness of evaluating wild species: searching for sources of resistance to bruchid beetles in the genus Vigna subgenus Ceratotropis. Euphytica, 2000,115:27-41
[3] Kitamura K, Ishmoto M, Sawa M . Inheritance of resistance to infestation with azukibean weevil in Vigna sublobata and successful in corporation to V. radiata. Jpn J Breed, 1988,38:459-464
[4] 程须珍, 王素华, 金达生, 杨又迪, 吴绍宇, 周吉红 . 绿豆抗豆象遗传的初步研究. 植物遗传资源科学, 2001,2(4):12-15
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1810.2001.04.003
Cheng X Z, Wang S H, Jin D S, Yang Y D, Wu S Y, Zhou J H . Preliminary study on heredity of mungbean resistance to bruchid. J Plant Genet Resour, 2001,2(4):12-15 (in Chinese with English abstract)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1810.2001.04.003
[5] 程须珍, 王素华, 金达生, 王泮龙, 杨又迪 . 绿豆抗豆象育种品系综合评价. 植物遗传资源学报, 2003,4:110-113
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1810.2003.02.005
Cheng X Z, Wang S H, Jin D S, Wang P L, Yang Y D . Evaluation on mungbean breeding lines for resistance to bruchid. J Plant Genet Resour, 2003,4:110-113 (in Chinese with English abstract)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1810.2003.02.005
[6] 成珊, 沈群 . 不同品种和不同产地绿豆分离蛋白功能特性的研究. 食品科技, 2009,34(9):148-153
Cheng S, Shen Q . Study on functional characteristics of mungbean protein isolates in different cultivars and from different areas. Food Sci Tech, 2009,34(9):148-153 (in Chinese with English abstract)
[7] 李文浩, 谭斌, 刘宏, 张国权, 沈群 . 我国9个品种绿豆淀粉的理化特性研究. 中国食品学报, 2013,13(4):58-64
Li W H, Tan B, Liu H, Zhang G Q, Shen Q . Physicochemical properties of starches separated from nine mung bean varieties grown in China. J Chin Inst Food Sci Tech, 2013,13(4):58-64 (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8] Somta P, Talekar N S, Srinives P . Characterization of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) resistance in Vigna umbellate (Thunb.) Ohwi and Ohashi. J Stored Prod Res 2006,42:313-327
[9] Johnson C D . Coevolution of some seed beetles (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and their hosts. Ecology, 1974,55:1096-1103
doi: 10.2307/1940359
[10] Lambrides C J, Imrie B C . Susceptibility of mungbean varieties to the bruchid species Callsobruchus maculatus (F.), C. phaseoli (Gyll.), C. chinensis (L.), and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Aust J Agric Res, 2000,51:85-89
[11] Janzen D H . How southern cowpea weevil larvae (Bruchidae: Callosobruchus maculatus) die on non-host seeds. Ecology, 1977,58:921-927
[12] Desroches P, Shazly E E, Mandon N, Duc G, Huignard J . Development of Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) and C. maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in seeds of Vicia faba L. differing in their tannin, vicine and convicine contents. Stored Prod Res, 1995,31:83-89
[13] Thiery D, Jarry M, Pouzat J . To penetrate or not to penetrate? A behavioral choice by bean beetle first-instar larvae in response to Phaseolus vulgaris seed surface quality. J Chem Ecol, 1994,20:1867-1875
[14] Oliveira A E A, Fernandes K V S, Souza A J, Santos P O . Influence of the soybean seed coat upon seed infestation and development of Callosobruchus maculatus larvae. In: Davies S, Evans G, Columbus F, eds. Soybean and Wheat Crops: Growth, Fertilization, and Yield. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2009. pp 1-21
[15] Souza A J, Santos P O, Pinto M S T, Wermelinger T T, Ribeiro E S, Souza S C, Deus M F, Souza M C, Xavier-Filho J, Fernandes K V S, Oliveira A E A . Natural seed coats provide protection against penetration by Callosobruchus maculatus(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) larvae. Crop Prot, 2011,30:651-657
[16] Souza A J, Ferreira A T S, Perales J, Beghini D G, Fernandes K V S, Xavier-Filho J, Venancio T M, Oliveira A E A . Identification of Albizia lebbeck seed coat chitin-binding vicilins (7S globulins) with high toxicity to the larvae of the bruchid Callosobruchus maculatus. Braz J Med Biol Res, 2012,45:118-124
[17] Kashiwaba K, Tomooka N, Kaga A, Han O K, Vaughan D A . Characterization of resistance to three bruchid species (Callosobruchus spp., Coleoptera, Bruchidae) in cultivated rice bean(Vigna umbellata). J Econ Entomol, 2003,96:207-213
[18] Talekar N S, Lin C P . Characterization of Callosobruchus chinensis(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) resistance in mungbean. J Econ Entomol, 1992,85:1150-1153
[19] Chen K C, Lin C Y, Kuan C C, Sung H Y, Chen C S . A novel defensin encoded by a mungbean cDNA exhibits insecticidal activity against bruchid. J Agric Food Chem, 2002,50:7258-7263
doi: 10.1021/jf0211635 pmid: 12452641
[1] 邓钊, 江南, 符辰建, 严天泽, 符星学, 胡小淳, 秦鹏, 刘珊珊, 王凯, 杨远柱. 隆两优与晶两优系列杂交稻的稻瘟病抗性基因分析[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(5): 1071-1080.
[2] 刘丹, 周彩娥, 王晓婷, 吴启蒙, 张旭, 王琪琳, 曾庆东, 康振生, 韩德俊, 吴建辉. 利用集群分离分析结合高密度芯片快速定位小麦成株期抗条锈病基因YrC271[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(3): 553-564.
[3] 杨昕, 林文忠, 陈思远, 杜振国, 林杰, 祁建民, 方平平, 陶爱芬, 张立武. 黄麻双生病毒CoYVV的分子鉴定和抗性种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(3): 624-634.
[4] 胡亮亮, 王素华, 王丽侠, 程须珍, 陈红霖. 绿豆种质资源苗期耐盐性鉴定及耐盐种质筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(2): 367-379.
[5] 张思梦, 倪文荣, 吕尊富, 林燕, 林力卓, 钟子毓, 崔鹏, 陆国权. 影响甘薯收获期软腐病发生的指标筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(8): 1450-1459.
[6] 习玲, 王昱琦, 朱微, 王益, 陈国跃, 蒲宗君, 周永红, 康厚扬. 78份四川小麦育成品种(系)条锈病抗性鉴定与抗条锈病基因分子检测[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(7): 1309-1323.
[7] 左香君, 房朋朋, 李加纳, 钱伟, 梅家琴. 有毛野生甘蓝(Brassica incana)抗蚜虫特性研究[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(6): 1109-1113.
[8] 党科, 宫香伟, 吕思明, 赵冠, 田礼欣, 靳飞, 杨璞, 冯佰利, 高小丽. 糜子/绿豆间作模式下施氮量对绿豆叶片光合特性及产量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(6): 1175-1187.
[9] 马燕斌, 王霞, 李换丽, 王平, 张建诚, 文晋, 王新胜, 宋梅芳, 吴霞, 杨建平. 玉米光敏色素A1基因(ZmPHYA1)在棉花中的转化及分子鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(6): 1197-1202.
[10] 吴然然, 林云, 陈景斌, 薛晨晨, 袁星星, 闫强, 高营, 李灵慧, 张勤雪, 陈新. 绿豆雄性不育突变体msm2015-1的遗传学与细胞学分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(5): 860-868.
[11] 蒋伟, 潘哲超, 包丽仙, 周福仙, 李燕山, 隋启君, 李先平. 马铃薯资源晚疫病抗性的全基因组关联分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(2): 245-261.
[12] 张荣跃, 王晓燕, 杨昆, 单红丽, 仓晓燕, 李婕, 王长秘, 尹炯, 罗志明, 李文凤, 黄应昆. 甘蔗新品种及主栽品种对褐锈病抗性与Bru1基因分子检测[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(2): 376-382.
[13] 仓晓燕, 夏红明, 李文凤, 王晓燕, 单红丽, 王长秘, 李婕, 张荣跃, 黄应昆. 甘蔗优良品种(系)对黑穗病的抗性评价[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(11): 2290-2296.
[14] 陈同睿, 罗艳君, 赵潘婷, 贾海燕, 马正强. 过表达TaJRL53基因提高了小麦赤霉病抗性[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(1): 19-29.
[15] 崔静, 王志城, 张新雨, 柯会锋, 吴立强, 王省芬, 张桂寅, 马峙英, 张艳. 棉花GbSTK基因调控开花和黄萎病抗性的功能研究[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(1): 30-41.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2