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

24

PDF

907

PDF

20

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] 鲁雅妮, 丁超杰, 张煜, 杜习军, 齐学礼, 胡琳, 许为钢. 河南省200份小麦品种苗期茎基腐病抗性鉴定与全基因组关联分析[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 363-375.
[2] 李诗晴, 王茜, 王素华, 张耀文, 王丽侠. 绿豆种质资源苗期耐盐性鉴定及相关基因发掘[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(2): 376-388.
[3] 苏爱国, 肖森林, 易红梅, 段赛茹, 王帅帅, 张如养, 邢锦丰, 李春辉, 孙轩, 徐瑞斌, 徐田军, 李志勇, 张勇, 王荣焕, 宋伟, 赵久然. 玉米穗腐病的抗性遗传研究进展与育种应用[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 1-13.
[4] 董丽华, 董成艳, 李正楠, 余静, 叶靓, 刘芳, 谭静. 玉米禾谷镰孢穗腐病抗性候选基因的筛选与鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2026, 52(1): 131-147.
[5] 朱锦程, 杨秋华, 程李香, 李文丽, 石明明, 李惠霞, 张峰. 马铃薯抗南方根结线虫种质资源筛选及相关生理反应分析[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(9): 2307-2317.
[6] 高梦娟, 赵贺莹, 陈家辉, 陈晓倩, 牛萌康, 钱琪润, 崔陆飞, 邢江敏, 银庆淼, 郭雯, 张宁, 孙丛苇, 阳霞, 裴丹, 贾奥琳, 陈锋, 余晓东, 任妍. 小麦抗纹枯病新位点Qse.hnau-5AS的定位及其候选基因鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(8): 2240-2250.
[7] 杨双, 白磊, 郭华春, 缪亚生, 李俊. 马铃薯叶片表皮毛形态特征、类型与发育过程[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(6): 1582-1598.
[8] 晋高锐, 吴小丽, 邓丽, 陈玉宁, 喻博伦, 郭建斌, 丁膺宾, 刘念, 罗怀勇, 陈伟刚, 黄莉, 周小静, 淮东欣, 谭家壮, 姜慧芳, 任丽, 雷永, 廖伯寿. 兼抗黄曲霉侵染和产毒高油酸花生新种质的创制与评价[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(3): 687-895.
[9] 张正康, 苏延红, 阮孙美, 张敏, 张攀, 张慧, 曾千春, 罗琼. 疣粒野生稻中OgXa13的克隆和功能研究[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(2): 334-346.
[10] 苏晴芳, 孙小钊, 林杨, 付艳苹, 程家森, 谢甲涛, 姜道宏, 陈桃. 嗜线虫沙雷氏菌Serratia nematodiphila TG10增强油菜耐盐碱能力[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(2): 358-369.
[11] 谢留杰, 段敏, 杨勇, 潘晓飚, 马伯军, 黄善军, 陈析丰. 抗白叶枯病广亲和恢复系的创制及杂交育种应用研究[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(12): 3133-3143.
[12] 徐晓伟, 冯晶, 王凤涛, 童朝阳, 张建周, 李春盈, 蔺瑞明. 小麦地方品种蚕老麦成株抗条锈病QTL定位[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(11): 2933-2943.
[13] 肖森林, 阙凡, 周治寰, 张海霞, 邢锦丰, 朱祥彰, 张彦冰, 张楠, 孙轩, 王荣焕, 宋伟, 王维香, 赵久然. 一种玉米穗腐病新病原棘孢木霉的分离与鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(10): 2605-2618.
[14] 马骏, 陈锋, 殷贵鸿, 胡海燕, 魏学宁, 解超杰, 孔令让. 小麦抗茎基腐病遗传育种研究的现状与展望[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(10): 2559-2569.
[15] 郭飞翔, 李春霞, 周爽, 郭彬彬, 张均, 马超. 绿豆R2R3-MYB转录因子家族鉴定及其类黄酮合成调控基因的筛选[J]. 作物学报, 2025, 51(1): 117-133.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

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