Effects of sex and mating status on olfactory responses of Cydia pomonella to host plant volatiles
-
摘要:目的
苹果蠹蛾Cydia pomonella是全球重要的入侵害虫,也是我国重点管控的检疫对象,主要危害苹果、梨等仁果类水果。近年来,随着苹果蠹蛾在我国入侵范围的扩大,非疫区防控压力日益严峻。本研究旨在筛选并验证寄主植物挥发物在苹果蠹蛾成虫嗅觉识别中的作用,为植物源引诱剂的开发提供理论依据。
方法采用触角电位(Electroantennogram,EAG)技术,测定未交配和已交配苹果蠹蛾雌、雄成虫对27种植物源挥发物的EAG反应。
结果在供试的27种化合物中,2,4-癸二烯酸乙酯(梨酯)、辛醛和壬醛3种化合物引起苹果蠹蛾成虫的EAG相对反应值显著高于对照(CK)。不同性别及交配状态的成虫对化合物的敏感性存在显著差异。浓度梯度实验表明,在一定范围内,EAG相对反应值随化合物浓度的增加呈剂量依赖性增强。梨酯在1 ng/μL浓度下即可引起雌虫显著的EAG反应,而雄虫在10 ng/μL时达到显著水平;辛醛和壬醛在1 μg/μL浓度下即可同时引起雌、雄成虫显著高于CK的EAG反应;此外,(E,E)-α-法尼烯在10 μg/μL浓度下表现出显著的EAG相对反应值。
结论筛选的27种植物源挥发物均可在不同程度上引起苹果蠹蛾成虫的EAG反应,且成虫的嗅觉敏感性受性别、交配状态及化合物浓度的共同影响。其中,梨酯、辛醛、壬醛和(E,E)-α-法尼烯能够引起显著的成虫触角电位反应,是开发苹果蠹蛾植物源引诱剂或趋避剂的潜在候选化合物。
Abstract:AimThe codling moth, Cydia pomonella, is a major global invasive pest and a priority quarantine pest in China, primarily damaging pome fruits such as apples and pears. In recent years, with the expanding invasion range of C. pomonella in China, the management pressure for prevention and control in non-infested areas has intensified. This study aims to screen and verify the role of host plant volatiles in the olfactory recognition of adult C. pomonella, providing a theoretical basis for the development of plant-derived attractants.
MethodsElectroantennography (EAG) was employed to measure the EAG responses of virgin and mated male and female adults to 27 host plant volatiles.
ResultsAmong the 27 tested compounds, ethyl 2,4-decadienoate (pear ester), octanal, and nonanal elicited relative EAG response values significantly higher than the control (CK). The sensitivity of adults to these compounds varied significantly according to sex and mating status. Concentration gradient experiments demonstrated that, within a certain range, relative EAG response values increased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing compound concentration. Specifically, pear ester elicited significant EAG responses in females at a concentration of 1 ng/μL, while males reached significant levels at 10 ng/μL. Octanal and nonanal elicited responses significantly higher than CK in both sexes at 1 μg/μL. Additionally, (E,E)-α-farnesene exhibited significant relative EAG response values at 10 μg/μL.
ConclusionAll 27 screened plant volatiles elicited EAG responses in C. pomonella adults to varying degrees. Olfactory sensitivity was jointly influenced by sex, mating status, and compound concentration. Notably, pear ester, octanal, nonanal, and (E,E)-α-farnesene elicited significant EAG responses in adult C. pomonella, indicating their potential as candidate compounds for the development of plant-derived attractants or repellents against this pest.
-
苹果蠹蛾Cydia pomonella是危害仁果类水果的重要检疫性害虫,主要以幼虫蛀果造成经济损失,严重威胁我国苹果、梨等水果的生产及出口安全(徐婧等,2015)。嗅觉系统在苹果蠹蛾的生命活动中扮演着关键角色,其通过识别环境中的化学信号完成寄主定位、配偶寻找及产卵地选择等行为(Wan et al.,2019;Giri et al.,2023;Li et al.,2025)。昆虫嗅觉行为的化学线索主要来源于两类:一是同种或异种昆虫产生的信息素,用于种内或种间信息交流;二是寄主植物挥发物,作为昆虫取食或产卵定位的信号(Pirih et al.,2018)。基于寄主植物挥发物开发的绿色防控技术,已在多种害虫的监测与治理中得到广泛应用(Gregg et al.,2010;Gharaei et al.,2020)。
明确化合物与昆虫行为反应的关系是实现行为调控的基础。鉴于寄主植物是苹果蠹蛾取食、交配及产卵的重要场所,寄主植物挥发物对其行为的调控作用备受关注(Witzgall et al.,2012;Erdei et al.,2025)。自1971年利用气相色谱—触角电位联用技术(Gas chromatography-electroantennographic detection,GC-EAD)技术首次鉴定出苹果蠹蛾性信息素以来(Roelofs et al.,1971),性信息素干扰交配技术已被广泛用于田间防控。随后,Light等利用触角电位技术(EAG)发现梨酯(Pear ester)不仅能引起苹果蠹蛾强烈的触角电位反应,且对雌雄成虫均具有引诱作用(Light et al.,1993;Gökçe et al.,2018)。尽管行为调控技术已在防治中取得一定成效,但田间危害依然严峻,主要原因在于:一方面,化学农药的长期大量使用导致害虫抗性增强,且环境压力巨大(Witzgall et al.,2008;Reyes et al.,2009);另一方面,现有引诱剂多偏向于雄虫,而针对具有高繁殖力雌虫的特异性高效引诱剂相对缺乏。目前仅发现(E,E)-α-法尼烯对雌虫有明显的引诱及刺激产卵活性(Light et al.,1993)。因此,筛选对雌成虫具有显著生物活性的化合物,对于开发高效的雌虫引诱剂具有重要意义。本研究选取了27种来源广泛且含量较高的寄主植物挥发物,利用触角电位技术(EAG)测定不同交配状态下苹果蠹蛾雌雄成虫的电生理响应,旨在筛选出更多具潜在行为调控作用的活性化合物。
1. 材料与方法
1.1 供试虫源
供试苹果蠹蛾均来源于实验室长期继代饲养的种群。原始种群于2013年11月采自甘肃省张掖市苹果园的野生个体,随后在室内利用人工饲料建立了稳定种群,目前已连续繁育超过70代。饲养环境条件为:温度(26 ± 0.5)℃、相对湿度(60 ± 10)%、光周期16 L∶8 D。为获得特定生理状态的试虫,将初孵幼虫置于试管中单头饲养。化蛹后,将蛹转移至打孔透气的离心管中单独隔离,直至羽化,以确保获得未交配成虫。交配成虫获取:成虫羽化后,选取雌雄成虫按1∶1配对,置于250 mL一次性塑料杯中,供给10%蜂蜜水补充营养。待其交配2~3 d后,作为已交配试虫样本。未交配成虫获取:选取羽化后单独隔离饲养、且健康活跃的2日龄成虫,作为未交配试虫样本。
1.2 供试挥发性化合物
依据文献报道的苹果蠹蛾主要寄主植物(如苹果、梨、杏等)的挥发性组分信息,本研究筛选了27种代表性化合物进行EAG反应测定(Bengtsson et al.,2008;Casado,2008;Witzgall et al.,2012;Knight et al.,2019)。供试化合物购自上海迈瑞尔化学技术有限公司,化学名称和纯度详见表 1。试验中,所有化合物均以矿物油为溶剂进行溶解和稀释。
表 1 供试化合物的化学名称、纯度Table 1 Chemical names and purities of the tested compounds供试化合物
Tested compoundsCAS号
CAS no.纯度(%)
Purity供试化合物
Tested compoundsCAS号
CAS no.纯度(%)
Purity2,4-癸二烯酸乙酯(梨酯)
Ethyl (2E,4Z)-deca-2,4-dienoate3025-30-7 95.0 异硫氰酸丁酯
Butylisothiocyanate592-82-5 98.0 十四烷
Tetradecane629-59-4 99.0 甲基庚烯酮
Sulcatone110-93-0 98.0 辛醛
Octanal124-13-0 99.0 2-壬酮
2-Nonanone821-55-6 99.0 壬醛
Nonanal124-19-6 96.0 乙酸苯乙酯
2-Phenylethyl acetate103-45-7 98.0 2-辛酮
2-Octanone111-13-7 98.0 香叶基丙酮
Geranylacetone3796-70-1 ≥98.0 丙酸丙酯
Propyl propanoate106-36-5 98.0 β-苯乙醇
2-Phenylethanol60-12-8 99.0 己酸丙酯
Propyl hexanoate626-77-7 98.0 丁酸己酯
Hexyl butanoate2639-63-6 ≥98.0 丙酸己酯
Hexyl propanoate2445-76-3 98.0 芳樟醇
Linalool78-70-6 98.0 辛酸丁酯
Butyl octanoate589-75-3 > 99.0 茴香脑
Anethole4180-23-8 99.0 2-环戊基环戊酮
2-Cyclopentylcyclopentanone4884-24-6 97.0 (E,E)-α-法尼烯
(E,E)-α-farnesene502-61-4 98.0 β-芳樟醇
β-Linalool126-91-0 ≥95.0 顺-3-己烯醇(叶醇)
Cis-3-hexen-1-ol928-96-1 98.0 β-石竹烯
β-Caryophyllene87-44-5 90.0 3-甲基-3-丁烯-1-醇
3-Methyl-3-butenol763-32-6 98.0 δ-杜松烯
δ-Cadinene7705-14-8 95.0 (-)-氧化石竹烯
Caryophyllene oxide1139-30-6 95.0 DMNT
4,8-Dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene19945-61-0 94.0 1.3 苹果蠹蛾对固定剂量化合物的触角电位反应
采用触角电位技术测定苹果蠹蛾成虫的嗅觉反应。具体步骤包括:1)触角制备,选取羽化后2~3 d的健康成虫(分未交配与已交配两组),在体视显微镜下用解剖镊小心剪取整根触角。利用导电胶将触角基部和端部分别连接至记录电极两端,待基线稳定后进行测试;2)刺激源制备,气味样品管由巴斯德吸管、滤纸片和1 000 μL移液枪头组装而成。取10 μL待测溶液滴加在滤纸片上,待溶剂挥发后置入管中;3)EAG记录,利用刺激气流控制器(Syntech CS-05)产生经活性炭过滤和湿润的持续气流,刺激气流流速设定为30 mL/s,气味样品管出口距触角约1 cm。每次刺激的信号记录时长为3 s,相邻两次刺激间隔30 s以确保触角活性恢复。筛选试验中化合物浓度统一为1 μg/μL(即刺激剂量为10 μg)。每根触角依次测试所有供试化合物及矿物油溶剂对照(CK),每种处理重复测试5根以上的触角(n ≥ 5)。
1.4 苹果蠹蛾对不同剂量化合物的触角电位反应
基于初筛结果及相关文献,选取4种关键活性化合物进行剂量反应测试。利用矿物油将化合物分别配制成0.001、0.01、0.1、1、10 μg/μL 5个浓度梯度,以纯矿物油作为溶剂对照(CK)。测试时遵循“由低浓度到高浓度”的原则。两种性别不同交配状态的触角均为依次测试4种化合物的5个浓度梯度,并在每种化合物测试前后分别给予溶剂对照刺激。每组处理重复测试14根触角(n = 14)。
1.5 数据处理
使用EagPro软件对EAG波形进行分析,并手动校正基线漂移。EAG反应相对值的校正公式如下:Index =(C_pre – C_post)/ 2;CK=[(C_pre + C_post)/ 2]-Index;Treat = Raw-Index。其中,C_pre为测试前对照值,C_post为测试后对照值,RAW为原始反应值,Treat是EAG反应标准化值。采用SPSS 23.0软件进行统计分析。利用单因素方差分析(One-way ANOVA)结合多重比较(Tukey法),分析成虫对不同化合物及同种化合物不同浓度间的EAG反应差异;利用独立样本t检验(Independent samples t-test)比较雌雄成虫在交配前后对同一挥发物的反应差异;利用Welch t检验(Welch t-test)比较27种挥发物相较于对照的反应差异。显著性水平设定为P < 0.05。绘图使用GraphPad Prism 9.0.0。
2. 结果与分析
2.1 苹果蠹蛾对固定剂量化合物的触角电位反应
苹果蠹蛾成虫对27种供试化合物表现出不同的触角电位(EAG)反应模式,其中梨酯、辛醛和壬醛引起的EAG反应最为突出(图 1和图 2)。对于雄虫,未交配个体对辛醛(t = -4.654,df = 4.834,P = 0.006)和壬醛(t = -5.215,df = 4.855,P = 0.004)均表现出显著的EAG反应(图 1);已交配个体除对上述两种醛类化合物保持显著反应外(辛醛:t = -2.557,df = 5.186,P = 0.049;壬醛:t = -2.595,df = 5.156,P = 0.047),还对梨酯表现出极显著的反应活性(t = -8.549,df = 10,P = 0.000007)(图 1)。对于雌虫,无论交配与否,梨酯均诱发了最强的EAG反应,未交配和已交配的反应值分别为(0.000564 ± 0.000386)mV和(0.000456 ± 0.000192)mV(图 2)。统计分析表明,未交配雌虫对辛醛(t = -3.481,df = 8.013,P = 0.008)和壬醛(t = -3.401,df = 6.135,P = 0.014)也具有显著的电生理响应(图 2);然而,已交配雌虫仅对梨酯表现出极显著的EAG反应差异(t = -2.861,df = 5.845,P = 0.008),对辛醛和壬醛的EAG反应值降低,与对照无显著差异(图 2)。
图 1 未交配与已交配苹果蠹蛾雄成虫对27种植物挥发物的触角电位(EAG)反应注:数据以平均值±标准误表示;柱上方星号表示未交配和已交配相比差异显著(独立样本t检验):*,P < 0.05;**,P < 0.01;***,P < 0.001;柱上方小写字母表示未交配成虫对化合物的EAG响应与CK相比差异显著:P < 0.05,柱上方大写字母表示已交配成虫对化合物的EAG响应与CK相比差异显著:P < 0.05(Welch t检验)。图 2同。Fig. 1 Electroantennographic (EAG) responses of mated and unmated male Cydia pomonella to 27 plant volatilesNote: Data were means ± SE. Asterisks indicated significant differences between unmated and mated males (*, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; t-test). Different lowercase/uppercase letters indicated significant differences between compounds and CK for unmated and mated adults, respectively (P < 0.05; Welch t-test). Same to Fig. 2.同性别成虫在不同交配状态下的嗅觉敏感性亦表现出显著差异。具体而言,已交配的雄虫对梨酯的敏感性较未交配雄虫呈现极显著增强(图 1);已交配雌虫对辛酸丁酯的敏感性显著增强(图 2)。
2.2 苹果蠹蛾对不同剂量化合物的触角电位反应
基于前述筛选结果,梨酯、辛醛和壬醛能引起苹果蠹蛾显著的EAG反应;同时,鉴于已有文献报道(E,E)-α-法尼烯对雌虫具有较强的行为吸引作用,本研究在不区分交配状态的情况下分别测定了苹果蠹蛾雌雄成虫对上述4种化合物5个不同浓度梯度的EAG反应。结果表明,在供试浓度范围内,苹果蠹蛾的EAG相对反应值随化合物浓度的升高呈剂量依赖性增强(图 3)。成虫对不同化合物的反应阈值存在差异:对梨酯的敏感性最高,在100 ng/μL浓度下,雌雄成虫的EAG反应值即显著高于CK(图 3-A);辛醛和壬醛次之,浓度需达到1 μg/μL时才能引起雌雄虫显著的EAG反应(图 3-B、C);而(E,E)-α-法尼烯的反应阈值最高,仅当浓度达到10 μg/μL时,雌雄成虫才表现出显著的EAG反应(图 3-D)。
图 3 苹果蠹蛾成虫对4种不同浓度植物挥发物的EAG反应注:A,梨酯;B,辛醛;C,壬醛;D,(E,E)-α-法尼烯。数据以平均值±标准误表示;柱上方小写字母表示同一性别在不同浓度化合物刺激下EAG反应值之间差异显著性,单因素方差分析(One-way ANOVA)结合多重比较(Tukey HSD多重比较)。Fig. 3 EAG responses of Cydia pomonella adults to four volatile compounds at different concentrationsNotes: A, Ethyl (E, Z)-2,4-decadienoate; B, Octanal; C, Nonanal; D, (E,E)-α-Farnesene. Data were presented as mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters above the bars indicated significant differences in EAG responses to various compound concentrations within the same sex (One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD test, P < 0.05).3. 结论与讨论
EAG技术能够直观反映昆虫外周嗅觉系统对化学信号的感受能力,是筛选昆虫行为活性物质的关键手段(Beck et al.,2012)。昆虫对特定植物挥发物的特异性反应,往往是植食性昆虫与寄主植物长期协同进化的结果(王鹏和张龙,2021)。本研究测定了苹果蠹蛾成虫对27种寄主植物挥发物的EAG反应,结果表明,梨酯、辛醛和壬醛是引发强烈触角电位反应的关键化合物。这一结果不仅验证了梨酯作为苹果蠹蛾高效引诱剂的地位(Gökçe et al.,2018),同时筛选出的辛醛和壬醛也显示出作为新型引诱剂或增效剂的潜力。
本研究结果表明,苹果蠹蛾的嗅觉敏感性表现出显著的性别二态性和生理状态可塑性。交配后的雌虫对辛酸丁酯的EAG反应值高于雄虫,这可能与雌虫承担的产卵择地等复杂生命活动有关。值得注意的是,交配状态显著改变了成虫的嗅觉偏好。交配后的雄虫对梨酯的敏感性极显著增强(P < 0.001),这种现象可能暗示了梨酯在雄虫寻找配偶(如作为性信息素的增效信号)或补充营养(尽管成虫取食较少)过程中扮演了某种尚未完全阐明的角色。这种基于生理状态的嗅觉重塑机制,是昆虫适应环境变化、最大化繁殖适合度的重要策略(An et al.,2025)。
前人研究指出,(E,E)-α-法尼烯是苹果蠹蛾雌虫的重要产卵引诱剂,且雌虫对其敏感性显著高于雄虫(Sutherland et al.,1977)。然而,本试验结果显示雌虫对该化合物的EAG反应并未显著高于雄虫,且已交配和未交配之间无显著差异。造成这一结果差异的原因可能涉及多方面:1)浓度阈值效应,本试验所设定的浓度梯度可能尚未覆盖诱发雌虫强烈电生理反应的最佳阈值区间;2)反应类型的局限性,EAG仅反映外周神经感受器的总电位变化,而复杂的产卵行为可能涉及中枢神经系统的进一步整合处理,因此单纯的EAG信号强度未必与行为反应呈线性正相关(Honda et al.,1998);3)剂量-反应关系的复杂性,研究表明,苹果蠹蛾对部分化合物存在“低浓度引诱、高浓度趋避”的现象(Hern and Dorn, 1999),本试验中反应值随浓度增加而上升,并未出现明显的抑制现象,这提示在更高浓度下,(E,E)-α-法尼烯的作用模式(引诱或趋避)仍需进一步通过行为学实验(如风洞实验或Y型嗅觉仪)来界定。
当前苹果蠹蛾的防控体系依赖于性信息素、化学防治及生物防治的综合应用(Kadoić et al.,2020;Whitfield and Fountain, 2024;Antara,2025;Kutalmış and Ögür,2025)。尽管梨酯作为唯一商品化的植物源引诱剂已在田间取得成功(Knight and Light, 2005;Pasqualini et al.,2005),但单一化合物往往难以模拟自然界复杂的嗅觉景观。本研究筛选出的辛醛和壬醛,在特定浓度下表现出与梨酯相当甚至更优的EAG活性。未来的研究应聚焦于:(1)将这些新筛选的化合物与性信息素或梨酯进行配比,探索其是否存在协同增效作用(Synergistic effect);(2)开展田间诱捕试验,验证其作为引诱剂或趋避剂的实际效能。这将为开发针对苹果蠹蛾(尤其是针对雌虫)的新型绿色防控技术提供重要的理论依据和物质储备。
-
图 1 未交配与已交配苹果蠹蛾雄成虫对27种植物挥发物的触角电位(EAG)反应
注:数据以平均值±标准误表示;柱上方星号表示未交配和已交配相比差异显著(独立样本t检验):*,P < 0.05;**,P < 0.01;***,P < 0.001;柱上方小写字母表示未交配成虫对化合物的EAG响应与CK相比差异显著:P < 0.05,柱上方大写字母表示已交配成虫对化合物的EAG响应与CK相比差异显著:P < 0.05(Welch t检验)。图 2同。
Fig. 1 Electroantennographic (EAG) responses of mated and unmated male Cydia pomonella to 27 plant volatiles
Note: Data were means ± SE. Asterisks indicated significant differences between unmated and mated males (*, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001; t-test). Different lowercase/uppercase letters indicated significant differences between compounds and CK for unmated and mated adults, respectively (P < 0.05; Welch t-test). Same to Fig. 2.
图 3 苹果蠹蛾成虫对4种不同浓度植物挥发物的EAG反应
注:A,梨酯;B,辛醛;C,壬醛;D,(E,E)-α-法尼烯。数据以平均值±标准误表示;柱上方小写字母表示同一性别在不同浓度化合物刺激下EAG反应值之间差异显著性,单因素方差分析(One-way ANOVA)结合多重比较(Tukey HSD多重比较)。
Fig. 3 EAG responses of Cydia pomonella adults to four volatile compounds at different concentrations
Notes: A, Ethyl (E, Z)-2,4-decadienoate; B, Octanal; C, Nonanal; D, (E,E)-α-Farnesene. Data were presented as mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters above the bars indicated significant differences in EAG responses to various compound concentrations within the same sex (One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD test, P < 0.05).
表 1 供试化合物的化学名称、纯度
Table 1 Chemical names and purities of the tested compounds
供试化合物
Tested compoundsCAS号
CAS no.纯度(%)
Purity供试化合物
Tested compoundsCAS号
CAS no.纯度(%)
Purity2,4-癸二烯酸乙酯(梨酯)
Ethyl (2E,4Z)-deca-2,4-dienoate3025-30-7 95.0 异硫氰酸丁酯
Butylisothiocyanate592-82-5 98.0 十四烷
Tetradecane629-59-4 99.0 甲基庚烯酮
Sulcatone110-93-0 98.0 辛醛
Octanal124-13-0 99.0 2-壬酮
2-Nonanone821-55-6 99.0 壬醛
Nonanal124-19-6 96.0 乙酸苯乙酯
2-Phenylethyl acetate103-45-7 98.0 2-辛酮
2-Octanone111-13-7 98.0 香叶基丙酮
Geranylacetone3796-70-1 ≥98.0 丙酸丙酯
Propyl propanoate106-36-5 98.0 β-苯乙醇
2-Phenylethanol60-12-8 99.0 己酸丙酯
Propyl hexanoate626-77-7 98.0 丁酸己酯
Hexyl butanoate2639-63-6 ≥98.0 丙酸己酯
Hexyl propanoate2445-76-3 98.0 芳樟醇
Linalool78-70-6 98.0 辛酸丁酯
Butyl octanoate589-75-3 > 99.0 茴香脑
Anethole4180-23-8 99.0 2-环戊基环戊酮
2-Cyclopentylcyclopentanone4884-24-6 97.0 (E,E)-α-法尼烯
(E,E)-α-farnesene502-61-4 98.0 β-芳樟醇
β-Linalool126-91-0 ≥95.0 顺-3-己烯醇(叶醇)
Cis-3-hexen-1-ol928-96-1 98.0 β-石竹烯
β-Caryophyllene87-44-5 90.0 3-甲基-3-丁烯-1-醇
3-Methyl-3-butenol763-32-6 98.0 δ-杜松烯
δ-Cadinene7705-14-8 95.0 (-)-氧化石竹烯
Caryophyllene oxide1139-30-6 95.0 DMNT
4,8-Dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene19945-61-0 94.0 -
An XK, Adel K, Shuang S, et al. Male-biased odorant receptors mediate dual perception of sex pheromones and floral volatiles in mirid bugs [J]. Entomologia Generalis, 2025, 45(4): 1057-1066. doi: 10.1127/entomologia/3355 Antara NH, Stephan D. Chitin-amended media: improving efficacy of cordyceps fumosorosea as a control agent of Cydia pomonella [J]. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 2025, 210: 108296. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2025.108296 Beck JJ, Light DM, Gee WS. Electroantennographic bioassay as a screening tool for host plant volatiles [J]. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 2012, 6(63): e3931. Bengtsson M, Bäckman AC, Liblikas I, et al. Plant odor analysis of apple: antennal response of codling moth females to apple volatiles during phenological development [J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2001, 49(8): 3736-3741. doi: 10.1021/jf0100548 Casado D. Cydia pomonella (L.) Behavior and Responses to Host Volatiles [D]. Química: Universitat de Lleida, 2008. Erdei AL, Sousa M, Gonzalez F, et al. Host plant odour and sex pheromone are integral to mate finding in codling moth [J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2025, 51(1): 13. doi: 10.1007/s10886-025-01568-4 Fleischer J, Pregitzer P, Breer H, et al. Access to the odor world: olfactory receptors and their role for signal transduction in insects [J]. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 2018, 75(3): 485-508. doi: 10.1007/s00018-017-2627-5 Giri AP, Short BD, Piñero JC. Male and female tortricid moth response to non-pheromonal semiochemicals [J]. Insects, 2023, 14(11): 884. doi: 10.3390/insects14110884 Gökçe A, Stelinski LL, Whalon ME. The effects of non-host plant extracts on electroantennogram responses, behavior and egg hatching of codling moth, Cydia pomonella [J]. Journal of Pest Science, 2018, 91: 681-690. doi: 10.1007/s10340-018-0953-5 Gregg P, Socorro AD, Henderson GS. Development of a synthetic plant volatile-based attracticide for female noctuid moths. Ⅱ. Bioassays of synthetic plant volatiles as attractants for the adults of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [J]. Australian Journal of Entomology, 2010, 49(1): 21-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-6055.2009.00734.x Hern A, Dorn S. Sexual dimorphism in the olfactory orientation of adult Cydia pomonella in response to alpha-farnesene [J]. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 1999, 92(1): 63-72. doi: 10.1046/j.1570-7458.1999.00525.x Honda K, Omura H, Hayashi N. Identification of floral volatiles from Ligustrum japonicum that stimulate flower-visiting by cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae [J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1998, 24(12): 2167-2180. doi: 10.1023/A:1020750029362 Il'ichev AL. First Australian trials of Ethyl (2E, 4Z)-2,4-decadienoate for monitoring of female and male codling moth 'Cydia pomonella' L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in pome fruit orchards [J]. General and Applied Entomology, 2004, 33: 15-20. Kadoić Balaško M, Bažok R, Mikac KM, et al. Pest management challenges and control practices in codling moth: a review [J]. Insects, 2020, 11(1): 38. doi: 10.3390/insects11010038 Knight AL, Light DM. Factors affecting the differential capture of male and female codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in traps baited with ethyl (E,Z)-2,4-decadienoate [J]. Environmental Entomology, 2005, 34(5): 1161-1169. Knight AL, Mujica V, Herrera SL. et al. Monitoring codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) with a four-component volatile blend compared to a sex pheromone-based blend [J]. Journal of Applied Entomology, 2019, 143: 942-947. doi: 10.1111/jen.12682 Kutalmış A, Ögür E. Control of Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple orchards using the mating disruption technique [J]. PeerJ, 2025, 23, 13: e20226. Li P, Yang M, Sattar A. Host-specific olfactory plasticity in Cydia pomonella: olfactory-mediated recognition of walnut volatiles drives oviposition preference [J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2025, 73(48): 30661-30674. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5c06268 Light DM, Flath RA, Buttery RG, et al. Host-plant green-leaf volatiles synergize the synthetic sex pheromones of the corn earworm and codling moth (Lepidoptera) [J]. Chemoecology, 1993, 4: 145-152. doi: 10.1007/BF01256549 Moghbeli Gharaei A, Ziaaddini M, Frérot B, et al. Identification and evaluation of four cucurbitaceous host plant volatiles attractive to Diaphania indica (Saunders) (Lep. : Pyralidae) [J]. Chemoecology, 2020, 30(4): 173-182. doi: 10.1007/s00049-020-00308-2 Pasqualini E, Schmidt S, Espiñha I, et al. Effects of the kairomone ethyl (2E, 4Z)-2, 4-decadienoate (DA 2313) on the oviposition behaviour of Cydia pomonella: preliminary investigations [J]. Bulletin of Insectology, 2005, 58(2): 119-124. Pirih P, Ilic M, Rudolf J, et al. The giant butterfly-moth Paysandisia archon has spectrally rich apposition eyes with unique light-dependent photoreceptor dynamics [J]. Journal of Comparative Physiology a-Neuroethology Sensory Neural and Behavioral Physiology, 2018, 204(7): 639-651. doi: 10.1007/s00359-018-1267-z Reyes M, Franck P, Olivares J, et al. Worldwide variability of insecticide resistance mechanisms in the codling moth, Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) [J]. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 2009, 99(4): 359-369. doi: 10.1017/S0007485308006366 Sutherland ORW, Wearing CH, Hutchins RFN. Production of α-farnesene, an attractant and oviposition stimulant for codling moth, by developing fruit of ten varieties of apple [J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 1977, 3: 625-631. doi: 10.1007/BF00988062 Wan FH, Yin CL, Tang R, et al. A chromosome level genome assembly of Cydia pomonella provides insights into chemical ecology and insecticide resistance [J]. Nature Communications, 2019, 10: 4237. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12175-9 王鹏, 张龙. 植食性昆虫的嗅觉选食过程及其机制研究进展[J]. 环境昆虫学报, 2021, 43(3): 633-641 Wang P, Zhang L. Olfaction in the process of herbivorous insect food selection[J]. Journal of Environmental Entomology, 2021, 43(3): 633-641. Whitfield EC, Fountain MT. Future semiochemical control of codling moth, Cydia pomonella [J]. Frontiers in Horticulture, 2024, 3: 1446806. doi: 10.3389/fhort.2024.1446806 Witzgall P, Proffit M, Rozpedowska E, et al. "This is not an apple"-yeast mutualism in codling moth [J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 2012, 38(8): 949-957. doi: 10.1007/s10886-012-0158-y Witzgall P, Stelinski L, Gut L, et al. Codling moth management and chemical ecology [J]. Annual Review of Entomology, 2008, 53: 503-522. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093323 徐婧, 刘伟, 刘慧, 等. 苹果蠹蛾在中国的扩散与危害[J]. 生物安全学报, 2015, 24(4): 327-336 Xu J, Liu W, Liu H, et al. Spread and impact of the codling moth Cydia pomonella (L.) in China[J]. Journal of Biosafety, 2015, 24(4): 327-336.
下载: