目的 比较不同剂量多杀菌素Natular G30在生活污水与小型净水中对致倦库蚊海口种群的控制效果, 为其在蚊虫控制中的应用提供依据。方法 用海南省海口市生活污水与小型净水中的致倦库蚊幼虫和水, 在外环境以减退率为指标, 分别测定Natular G30 10、20、40和80 mg/m2对蚊虫的控制效果。试验中, 两次测量试验水体的水质pH值、温度、总固体含量、盐度、溶解氧含量。结果 生活污水的pH值、溶解氧含量分别为(9.62±0.43)、(12.79±3.01)mg/L, 小型净水分别为(8.91±0.39)、(7.77±3.46)mg/L, 二者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在生活污水中, 多杀菌素有效浓度为10和20 mg/m2时, 蚊虫控制持效时间为12 d, 40和80 mg/m2处理的则>30 d;而在小型净水中, 所有4个浓度均有超过30 d的持效期。两种水体所有剂量在第1天对1、2龄期幼虫的减退率即接近100%, 3、4龄期幼虫在第3~7天出现100%减退, 而蛹在第1天的减退率基本为负值。结论 多杀菌素Natular G30对致倦库蚊幼虫的控制效果具有高效、持久的特点;且对1、2龄幼虫的毒性高于对3、4龄幼虫的毒性, 对蛹无明显的毒杀作用。因其在小型净水中的效果优于生活污水, 使用时应根据水质调整剂量。
张晓越, 孟凤霞, 刘起勇, 任东升, 刘小波, 李贵昌, 李袁飒, 王君, 赵伟, 王晓花, 何昌华, 王艳波, 钟汶兵, 蔡芳, 欧婷婷, 孙定炜, 曾林海, 李善干, 李长庆
. 多杀菌素Natular G30对海南省不同生境致倦库蚊的控制效果比较研究[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2014
, 25(2)
: 105
-108
.
DOI: 10.11853/j.issn.1003.4692.2014.02.004
Objective The efficacy of spinosad Natular G30 against Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus was evaluated at different doses with comparing sewage habitat and small body of water with waste plants habitat, so as to provide evidence for mosquito control. Methods Using wild Cx. pipiens quinquefasciatus larvae and water in sewage and small body of water in Haikou, Hainan province, the efficacy of Natular G30 at 10, 20, 40, 80 mg/L was tested, percentage reduction was taken as efficacy index. The pH, temperature, total solids, salinity, dissolved oxygen of habitat water were determined at any two points of time during the trial period. Results There were significant differences (P<0.05) between pH and dissolved oxygen in the two habitats, while no differences between temperature, total solids, salinity. The pH and dissolved oxygen of sewage water were (9.62±0.43) and (12.79±3.01) mg/L, and those in small body of water with wasted plants were (8.91±0.39) and (7.77±3.46) mg/L. The residual efficacy of Natular G30 at 10 mg/m2 and 20 mg/m2 against Cx. pipiens quinquefasciatus in sewage breeding site lasted for 12 days, while 40 mg/m2 and 80 mg/m2 in both habitats was more than 30 days. In two tested habitats, after one day of Natular G30 using, the first and second instar mosquito reduction was nearly 100%, but for the third and forth instar larvae, 100% reduction date was at three to seven days. To our surprise, the reduction of pupae was negative after one day insecticide applied. Conclusion Spinosad has high and long-lasting efficiency against Cx. pipiens quinquefasciatus larvae. Its effectiveness is better when applied in the habitats of small body of water with wasted plants than that of sewage. Spinosad has a very higher efficacy to control the first and second instar young larvae than the third and forth instars larvae, but no noticeable effect on pupae. To control Cx. pipiens quinquefasciatus, the spinosad rate should be adjusted based on the characteristics of habitat water.
[1] 刘慧, 孟凤霞, 鲁玉杰. 蚊虫对拟除虫菊酯的抗药性检测技术研究进展[J]. 寄生虫与医学昆虫学报, 2010, 17(1):55-60.
[2] 吴志凤, 王以燕, 顾宝根. 我国卫生杀虫剂的现状与发展前景[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2011, 32(5):16-19.
[3] 孟凤霞, 靳建超, 陈云, 等. 我国淡色库蚊/致倦库蚊对常用化学杀虫剂的抗药性[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2011, 22(6):517-520, 528.
[4] Vincent L, Salgado, Joel J, et al. Studies on the mode of action of spinosad: the internal effective concentration and the concentration dependence of neural excitation[J]. Pesticide Biochemistry Physiol, 1998, 60(2):103-110.
[5] 吴霞. 多杀菌素:以天然产物开发新农药的范例[J]. 世界农药, 2001, 23(1):24-28.
[6] 王彦华, 王鸣华. 多杀菌素的作用机理及其抗药性的研究进展[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2006, 27(11):12-15.
[7] Gary DT, Robert D, Thomas CS. Spinosad-a case study: an example from a natural products discovery programme[J]. Pest Management Sci, 2000, 56(8):696-702.
[8] Saunders DG, Bret BL. Fate of spinosad in the environment[J]. Down Earth, 1997, 52(1):14-20.
[9] Bahgat IM, El Kady GA, Temerak SA, et al. The natural bio?insecticide spinosad and its toxicity to combat some mosquito species in Ismailia Govcrnorate[J]. Egypt World J Agric Sci, 2007, 3(4):396-400.
[10] Hertlein MB, Mavrotas C, Jousseaume C, et al. A review of spinosad as a natural product for larval mosquito control[J]. J Am Mosq Control Assoc, 2010, 26(1):67-87.
[11] Cisneros J, Goulson D, Derwent LC, et al. Toxic effects of spinosad on predatory insects[J]. Biol Control, 2002, 23(2):156-163.
[12] Vinuela E, Medina MP, Schneider M, et al. Comparison of side?effects of spinosad. tebufenozide and azadirachtin on the predators Chrysoperla carnea and Podisus maculiventris and the parasitoids Opius concolor and Hyposoter didymator under laboratory conditions[J]. Bull Iobciwprs, 2001, 24(4):25-34.
[13] Duchet C, Larroque M, Caquet T, et al. Effects of spinosad and Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis on a natural population of Daplmia pulex in field microcosms[J]. Chemosphere, 2008, 74(1):70-77.