Malus species under salt stress in the seedling stages will be useful in breeding salt-tolerant dwarfing apple rootstocks. Seedlings of Malus Zumi (Mats.) Rehd. (M. zumi), Malus sieversii (Led.) Roem. (M. sieversii), and Malus baccata (L.) Borkh. (M. baccata) were treated with solution of 0, 0.20%, 0.40%, and 0.60% salinity. Physiological parameters of their leaves and roots were measured at 0 d, 4 d, 8 d and 12 d after salinity treatments. Superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), catalase (CAT), malondialdehyde (MDA), solution protein (SP), and proline (PRO) initially increased and then decreased. The activities and contents of these parameters were higher in the 0.40% and 0.60% NaCl treatments than in the 0.20% treatment and in the 0% control. M. zumi was the most resistant to salt stress, showing the lowest content of MDA in the leaves and roots, which increased slightly under salt stress. M. baccata had the highest increase in both the content and proportion of MDA. High enzyme activity was shown to play an important role in the salt resistance of M. zumi. Moreover, it can be speculated that there are other substances that also play a major role. We found that osmotic regulation played a key role in response to salt stress for M. baccata even though it was sensitive to salt stress. For M. sieversii, both the osmotic regulation and enzymatic antioxidants were observed to play a major role in mitigating salt stress.Understanding the different physiological responses of  Moreool amine ,10. SP aol amine . MDA conol amine ,14,15,16ol amine . Increasol amine . MDA conol amine . The enhol amine ,21.Malus species.Apple, one of the most popular fruits globally, plays a major role in poverty alleviation and rural revitalization in north and northwest China. At present, the apple dwarfing rootstocks widely used in China and abroad—M26, MM106, M9, etc.—are not tolerant to salt . The soiMalus around the world [Malus xiaojinensis Cheng et Jiang., Malus toringoides (Rehd.) Hughes., and Malus kansuensis  Schneid. are tolerant to drought; Malus hupehensis (Pamp.) Rehd. and Malus toringoides (Rehd.) Hughes. are tolerant to waterlogging; M. baccata and M. sieversii are tolerant to cold; Malus robusta (Carr.) Rehd., M. sieversii, and Malus sikkimensis (Wenzig.) Koehne. are tolerant to salt; and even M. zumi is tolerant to a 0.60% salt content in soil [Malus plants, the main mechanisms of salt stress resistance are salt rejection and ion regionalization. However, they have a long history of heredity and evolution, with different species exhibiting different tolerances to salt stress, and thus the adaptation mechanisms to salt stress are not all the same. Whether different Malus species take advantage of the same substance to scavenge ROS or regulate osmotic stress remains unknown. Therefore, understanding the physiological basis of salt resistance in different Malus species is very important for breeding salt-tolerant rootstocks.There are approximately 55 species of he world . Differe in soil ,28. Ther in soil ,30. For M. zumi, M. sieversii, and M. baccata are high-resistance, medium-resistance, and salt-sensitive, respectively. The latter two are widely used as rootstocks in northwest and northeast China, but how they physiologically differ in terms of salt stress resistance remains unclear.Plants may be more tolerant to salt in the seedling stage than in the other growth stages . M. zumiMalus species to salinity stress. Our findings can be used as the basis for the breeding of salt-tolerant dwarfing rootstocks.In the present study, the activities of POD, SOD, and CAT and the contents of MDA, SP, PRO, CHLa, and CHLb were compared in the three species under different NaCl treatments during the seedling period. We aimed to evaluate the effects on the physiological parameters of salt stress to elucidate the adaptive mechanisms of different M. zumi, M. sieversii, and M. baccata trees were planted in the National Repository of Apple Germplasm Resources  in 2007. M. zumi, M. sieversii, and M. baccata are genotypes that are characterized as high-resistance, medium-resistance and salt-sensitive, respectively. The seeds of M. zumi, M. sieversii, and M. baccata were collected in the autumn of 2019 and were laminated for 60 days at 4 °C starting in late January of 2020. After germination, seeds were sown in a seedling tray in April and transplanted into plastic pots in June. One seedling was planted per pot.All experiments took place in a greenhouse. During the experiments, the average temperature was approximately 28 °C. The lowest temperature was approximately 16 °C and the highest temperature was 33 °C. The relative air humidity was 50–60%. A total of 200 seedlings that exhibited uniform growth, were 1 year old, and were approximately 30 cm tall were selected from each species, with 50 seedlings per group. Four groups were irrigated with either 0, 0.20%, 0.40%, or 0.60% NaCl solution, respectively, three times from 10 to 17 July 2020. Samples of roots and leaves were collected at 0, 4, 8, and 12 days after the last round of irrigation for each group. Leaves or roots of three plants were mixed for each group as one replicate with three replicates per group. The samples were rinsed with tap water to remove the soil and other surface debris and then washed with distilled water. All the samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C.2−) is produced by the xanthine and xanthine oxidase reaction system. O2− reduces nitroblue tetrazole to generate blue formazan, for which the maximum absorption peak is 560 nm. SOD scavenges O2−, which results in formazan being inhibited. The more blue the reaction liquid, the lower the SOD activity. The experimental steps used were those described in the kit instructions . A total of 1 mL of blank tube solution and measuring tube solution was absorbed into a glass colorimetric dish, and the absorbance value at 560 nm was recorded as Ab560 for the blank tube and Am560 for the measuring tube.The nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) method was used to determine the SOD activity . The sup2O2 and has a characteristic light absorption at 470 nm. The experimental steps used were those described in the kit instructions . A total of 1 mL of supernatant was added into a glass colorimetric dish; the absorbance value at 470 nm was recorded as Ab470, and the value 1 min later was recorded as Al470.The guaiacol method was used to determine the POD activity . POD cat2O2 has a characteristic absorption peak at 240 nm, and CAT can decompose H2O2, so the absorbance of the reaction solution at 240 nm decreased with the reaction time. CAT activity could then be calculated according to the change rate of the absorbance. The experimental steps used were those described in the kit instructions . The absorbance value at 240 nm was recorded as Ab240, and the value 1min later was recorded as Al240.The ultraviolet absorption method was utilized to determine the CAT activity . H2O2 hawww.cominbio.com, accessed on 15 May 2020). A total of 1 mL of upper solution was absorbed into a glass colorimetric dish; the absorbance values at 532 and 600 nm were recorded as A532 and A600, respectively.The thiobarbituric acid (TBA) method was applied to measure the MDA content. MDA combined with thiobarbituric acid (TBA) to produce a red product with a maximum absorption peak at 532 nm. The content of lipid peroxide in the sample could be estimated after colorimetry; the MDA content was calculated as the difference between the absorbance values at 532 and 600 nm. The experimental steps used were those described in the kit instructions . The absorbance values of a blank tube, standard tube, and measuring tube at 562 nm was recorded as Ab562 for the blank tube, As562 for the standard tube, and Am562 for measuring tube.The bicinchoninc acid (BCA) method was performed to determine the SP content. Under alkaline conditions, cysteine, tryptophan, tyrosine, and peptide bonds in proteins can reduce Cuwww.cominbio.com, accessed on 15 May 2020). The absorbance value was recorded as A520 at 520 nm.The sulfosalicylic acid (SSA) method was used to determine the PRO content. PRO was extracted with sulfosalicylic acid and reacted with an acidic ninhydrin solution to produce a red color after heating. The absorbance value was measured at 520 nm after extraction with methylbenzene. The experimental steps were those described in the kit instructions . The absorbance values at 663 and 645 nm were determined and were denoted as A663 and A645, respectively.Determination of the CHLa and CHLb content was performed according to the experimental steps described in the kit instructions  using SPSS 19. The significant difference level, which was calculated using Tukey’s test, was used to compare the differences among treatments and the control. The PCA was conducted using Origin 2019b software.Malus species increased at first and then decreased in the leaves in the 0.20%, 0.40% and 0.60% NaCl treatment groups (M. sieversii, M. baccata, and M. zumi, respectively, in the 0.60% NaCl treatment group compared with the control treatment; moreover, the POD activity increased by 66.63%, 208.01%, and 164.22%, respectively; and the CAT activity increased by 250.68%, 86.67%, and 128.73%, respectively. POD increased the most for M. baccata, while SOD and CAT increased the most for M. sieversii. The increase in the SOD, POD, and CAT activities fell in the midrange for M. zumi. After 12 days of treatment, there was little difference between treatments and the control in terms of SOD, POD, and CAT activities in M. zumi and POD activity in M. sieversii, but the SOD, POD, and CAT activities remained obviously higher in M. baccata than in the control.The SOD, POD, and CAT activities of the three t groups . The actMalus species (M. zumi. The times of peak occurrence were different, reaching a peak on the fourth day after NaCl treatment for M. zumi and M. sieversii and on the eighth day after NaCl treatment for M. baccata. At the time of peak MDA content for the 0.60% NaCl treatment group, the MDA content in M. sieversii, M. baccata, and M. zumi increased by 27.66%, 28.64%, and 18.17%, respectively, compared with the control treatment. After 12 days of treatment, there was little difference between treatments and the control for the three species, but M. zumi had an overall lower MDA content than the other two species both in the treatments and in the control.For all the NaCl treatments, the MDA content increased at first and then decreased in the three  species . The MDAMalus species (M. sieversii. The peak time was different for SP and PRO, with the former peaking on the fourth day after NaCl treatments and the latter on the eighth day after NaCl treatments. With the increasing NaCl concentration, the SP and PRO contents in the 0.20% NaCl treatment group and the control for the three Malus species was lower than in the 0.40% and 0.60% groups. Compared with the control treatment, in M. sieversii, M. baccata, and M. zumi subjected to 0.60% NaCl treatments, the content of SP increased by 76.58%, 38.26%, and 71.68%, respectively; and the content of PRO increased by 22.95%, 47.45%, and 61.07%, respectively, when considering their values at peak. After 12 days of treatment, there was little difference between treatments and the control for SP and PRO in the three species except for the SP content in M. baccata, which was slightly higher in the treatments than in the control.The contents of SP and PRO increased at first and then decreased in all NaCl treatments for the three  species . The SP Malus species decreased with prolongation of the NaCl treatment (M. baccata, and there was no significant difference between treatments and control for M. zumi except on the twelfth day after NaCl treatment. Moreover, the CHLa and CHLb contents were lower in the 0.60% NaCl treatment groups than in the control for M. sieversii. In addition, after 12 days of NaCl treatment, the CHLa and CHLb contents were obviously higher in the control than in the treatments used for the three species.Increasing the salinity concentration reduced the measured values of traits related to photosynthesis. The CHLa and CHLb content in the three reatment . The valMalus species (M. sieversii, M. baccata, and M. zumi, respectively, compared with the control treatment; the POD activity increased by 243.32%, 1206.89%, and 285.30%, respectively; and the CAT activity increased by 409.05%, 49.98%, and 13.17%, respectively. After 12 days of treatment, there was little difference between treatments and the control for SOD in M. zumi or CAT in M. baccata, but the activity of POD remained higher than the control in the three species.During the treatment periods, the SOD, POD, and CAT activities exhibited a similar trend in the roots as in leaves for the three  species . With thMalus species (M. sieversii and M. baccata, but there was no significant difference among treatments for M. zumi. At the time of peak in the 0.60% NaCl treatment group, the MDA content in M. sieversii, M. baccata, and M. zumi increased by 20.59%, 48.54%, and 34.77%, respectively, compared with the control. After 12 days of NaCl treatments, the MDA content tended to normal levels in M. zumi but were still higher in the treatments than in the control in M. sieversii and M. baccata.The MDA content exhibited a similar trend in the leaves as in the roots for the three  species . With thMalus species (M. zumi but on the eighth day after NaCl treatment for M. sieversii and M. baccata. With the increasing NaCl concentration, the SP and PRO contents were lower in the 0.20% NaCl treatment group and the control than in the 0.40% and 0.60% groups for the three Malus species. Considering the peak SP and PRO contents in the 0.60% NaCl treatment group, the SP content increased by 40.22%, 46.32%, and 40.17% for M. sieversii, M. baccata, and M. zumi, respectively; and the PRO content increased by 34.03%, 52.26%, and 29.75%, respectively, compared with the control treatment. After 12 days of treatment, there was little difference between the treatments and control for SP and PRO in M. zumi and M. sieversii, while they remained higher in treatments than in the control in M. baccata.The SP and PRO contents increased at first and then decreased in the three  species . The SP The mean values of the physiological parameters were compared between the treatments and control , and sigThe PCA, which included all physiological parameters from both the leaves and roots, showed that there was a significant difference between these tissues . PrincipM. baccata could be distinguished from other Malus species by PC2, which mainly presented CHLa and CHLb and had lower CHLa and CHLb contents. The other two species could not be distinguished by the PCA of the leaves. A PCA using the physiological parameters of the roots was applied (M. zumi and M. sieversii could be distinguished by PC2, which mainly presented POD, PRO, and CAT; M. sieversii had higher values for these parameters, while M. baccata could not be distinguished from the other two Malus species based on the comparison of roots.A PCA using the physiological parameters of the leaves was performed . PC1 and applied . PC1 andM. zumi and M. sieversii had a lower MDA content than M. baccata in the NaCl treatment groups. This was possibly due to the higher SOD and CAT activities of M. zumi and M. sieversii. Moreover, the SOD, POD, and CAT activities were the highest in both the leaves and roots of M. sieversii in the control. In addition, M. baccata had the lowest SOD and CAT activities in the roots and the lowest POD activity in the leaves. The formation and elimination of ROS were in dynamic equilibrium under normal conditions in the plants. The SOD, POD, and CAT activities exhibited the ability to resist adversity without stress [M. zumi is highly resistant to salt stress, but the enzyme activity in this species was not the highest. Aside from enzymatic antioxidants, non-enzymatic antioxidants also helped to scavenge these indigenously generated ROS [M. zumi and M. sieversii had a higher PRO content in leaves of the control and that there was no significant difference in the root PRO content of the three species. It was interesting that M. baccata had the higher SP content in roots. The high content of osmotic substances in roots helped the plants to cope with water absorption disorders caused by salt stress. We therefore concluded that both enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants played a major role in determining the medium resistance of M. sieversii due to its high activity of CAT in the leaves and roots and the content of SP in the leaves. We speculated that there were other endogenous substances that could bear primary responsibility for the high salt resistance of M. zumi due to its low contents of SP and PRO. Hannachi et al. [Salt ions cause little damage to the cell membranes of highly resistant varieties, and the MDA production is reduced. For the medium-resistance varieties, MDA causes damage to membranes via lipid peroxidation, which leads to the formation of ROS; however, they are able to protect cells from further oxidative damage via their own enzymatic defense systems . The rest stress ,37,38. Mated ROS . The prei et al.  confirmei et al. ,42.M. zumi, M. sieversii, and M. baccata increased after NaCl treatments, reaching a peak on the fourth day in most cases. The SOD, POD, and CAT activities increased in order to rapidly scavenge ROS under salt stress [M. baccata increased the most in the both leaves and roots after 4 days of NaCl treatments compared with the control; moreover, the SOD and CAT in M. sieversii increased the most in the leaves, and the SOD in M. zumi increased the most in the roots. Regarding osmotic regulation, M. baccata exhibited a significant increase in the proportions of SP and PRO in the roots. This indicated that M. baccata was sensitive to salt stress, and thus higher levels of SOD, POD, and CAT activities were needed to overcome the salt injury. The MDA content in M. baccata remained high after 12 days of treatment, by which point the enzyme activities and MDA content in M. zumi had returned to a normal level. ROS were continuously produced under salt stress, but the damage could be mitigated if they were eliminated in time [M. zumi had a stronger recovery capability than M. baccata.Salt damage was mitigated if a plant developed a series of responses to alleviate the associated stress ,44,45. It stress . The inc in time . It was M. baccata in the different NaCl treatment groups over the same period. When comparing the different NaCl treatments, there was an obvious increase in the leaves of SOD and CAT for M. sieversii and in POD and PRO for M. zumi and M. baccata. In addition, SOD for M. zumi, POD and CAT for M. sieversii and M. baccata, and SP and PRO for M. baccata exhibited a significant increase in the roots. In a previous study on Chinese cabbage, the MDA content was shown to continually increase with the increase in the NaCl concentration [Malus plants, whereas the content in salt-sensitive species continued to increase significantly under a high salt concentration [M. baccata suffered a more serious injury than the other species under the same NaCl treatments. This was mainly due to the lower CAT and SOD activities in both the roots and leaves under these treatments and to the lower SP content in the roots, although the activities of the aforementioned enzymes were high in the control. In addition, PRO accumulation occurred in both the leaves and roots of all three species when subjected to NaCl treatments, which supported the hypothesis that PRO accumulation was a symptom of salt damage and could be an indicator of resistance to salt in the Malus species.The SOD, POD, and CAT activities and the MDA, SP, and PRO contents increased with the increase in the NaCl concentration. Moreover, there was a greater accumulation of MDA for ntration . In addintration , and redntration . Variousntration ,50,51,52ntration ,54,55. IM. zumi and M. sieversii, while a significant difference between all NaCl treatments and the control was observed in M. baccata. Chlorophyll was suppressed with an increase in salinity [M. baccata.Chlorophyll content is one of the most important indexes of photosynthesis. In this study, the CHLa and CHLb contents were slightly lower in the NaCl treatments than in the control for salinity ,57. Othesalinity . The resMalus species. The SP and PRO contents were higher in the leaves than in the roots, but no significant differences in CAT were observed. Salt damage was directly harmful to plant roots, but the increasing proportion of MDA in the leaves was higher than in the roots in the three species for almost all periods of treatment. Both the leaves and roots responded to salt stress in plants. In a previous study, it was noted that root growth was positively correlated with aboveground growth and that the changes in physiological parameters of the leaves and roots varied for different Malus species [Malus plants, and the degree of damage under salt treatment was more serious to the leaves than the roots. Based on the PCA, we concluded that SOD and POD activities and CHLa and CHLb contents were the main factors that differentiated between the roots and leaves of Malus species under salt stress. Moreover, M. zumi and M. baccata were distinguished by POD, PRO, and CAT in the roots or MDA, SOD, and SP in the roots. M. baccata could be distinguished from M. zumi and M. sieversii by the CHLa, CHLb, and PRO contents in leaves.The main substances for scavenging ROS are different under salt stress in different plants. Responses to salt stress even differed in different tissues within the same plant. The SOD and POD activities were higher in the roots than in the leaves of the three  species . We obtaM. zumi was mainly due to the high SOD and POD activities under salt stress, while there were other substances that also may have played a major role in the salt stress response. Osmotic regulation was shown to play a greater role in the response to salt stress than enzymatic antioxidants in M. baccata, and both enzymatic antioxidants and osmotic regulation made a significant contribution to salt resistance in M. sieversii.The activity and content of the measured physiological parameters were higher in the 0.40% and 0.60% NaCl treatment groups than in the 0.20% group and the control. The SOD and POD activities were higher in the roots than in the leaves; while the MDA, SP, and PRO contents were higher in the leaves than in the roots. The resistance to salt stress of


This article is dedicated to the 120th anniversary of the birth of Piotr Yakovlevich Galperin (1902–1988), an outstanding Soviet psychologist, the author of an original psychological concept and scientific school, and an organizer of psychological science.To reconstruct the main stages of the scientific biography of Piotr Yakovlevich Galperin.The paper demonstrates the internal logic of P.Ya. Galperin’s developing scientific views in creating the theory of stage-by-stage formation of mental actions and concepts, which analyzes the process of formation of the main components of mental activity and develops a system of conditions for transforming an objective action into a psychological phenomenon.This biography is based on Galperin’s publications and speeches, memoirs of associates and family members, and numerous archival materials.All the periods of Galperin’s life are presented, reflecting his participation, starting from the mid-1920s, in scientific and scientific-practical events. Particular attention is paid to Galperin’s work at M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University (MGU): 55 years of Galperin’s professional and personal life (from 1943 until his death in 1988) were associated with the Philosophy Faculty, and then with the Psychology Faculty.The importance of preserving P.Ya. Galperin’s scientific legacy is shown and steps taken in this direction are indicated. The greatest use of a life is to spend it for something that outlasts it.W. JamesThis year, 2022, marks the 120-year jubilee of Piotr Yakovlevich Galperin  and the 70th anniversary of the first official mention of a new psychological approach, the orienting function of the psyche as a subject of psychological research. These anniversaries are a worthy occasion to look at Galperin’s scientific legacy, to recognize his philosophical and psychological ideas and their subsequent influence on science and practice, as well as the facts of his scientific biography, which reflects milestones in the development of Soviet psychological thought.Voprosy psikhologii [Questions of Psychology] titled “A word about a Teacher”: he acknowledged with regret that a scientific biography of P.Ya. Galperin had not yet been written. Zinchenko noted: “I cannot claim to describe it, since I was not his direct student, although I consider him my teacher” , which has gone through two editions. Information about the stages of Galperin’s creative work can be found in articles by L.I. A brief essay about Galperin, titled “A teacher from the galaxy of sages,” was written by L.F. Obukhova for the book Stages of the road traveled, wrote that “in this book there is no hero with exceptional abilities; there is neither specific talent nor tragedy. But there is an atmosphere of real life…”   , p. 8. TIt is this approach that seems the most productive, and it formed the basis of P.Ya. Galperin’s scientific biography.P.Ya. Galperin was born on October 2 (new style), 1902 in Tambov. His father, Iakov Abramovich Galperin, was a district doctor at that time, and later became a well-known neurosurgeon and otolaryngologist. In 1911, the family moved to Kharkov, where his father taught at the Medical Institute and in 1930 became a professor in the Ear, Nose, and Throat Department; he died in 1937 . P.Ya. Galperin’s daughter Sof ’ia Petrovna wrote in her memoirs that Piotr Yakovlevich tried all his life to imitate his father, and for years developed the habit of restraining himself and making compromises.His mother, Sof ’ia Moiseevna Galperina (née Margulis), was a housewife; she died in 1917. After their mother’s death, there were three children left in the family: two sons  and a daughter . Anna Ivanovna, an employee of Ia.A. Galperin, became their stepmother; she treated the children as if they were her own, but herself bore no children. Anna Ivanovna outlived her husband and died in 1961; she was buried in Kharkov next to Iakov Abramovich Galperin.Introduction to psychology: “To my dear friend, my wife, Tamara Izrailevna Meerzon.” In the gymnasium there were various groups for the study of socio-political and social sciences. Galperin attended a philosophical group led by Professor Stolpner, a translator of Hegel’s works into Russian. We can assume that this had an impact on the formation of the professional views and attitudes of the future psychologist.P.Ya. Galperin attended the classical gymnasium of the Society of Working Women in Kharkov, at which boys and girls were taught together. One of Galperin’s classmates was Tamara Izrailevna Meerzon, who later became his wife. He dedicated to her his only book published during his lifetime, Zeitschrift für Psychologie . These studies were not continued, but they contributed to the development of his interest in experimental research.On the emphatic recommendation of his father, who advised him not to choose philosophy or psychology for his profession, P.Ya. Galperin followed his father’s example and from 1921 to 1926 studied at the Kharkov Medical Institute, specializing in psychoneurology. In 1924, while a student, he began scientific work at the Department of Nervous Diseases. Under the influence of Professor K.I. Platonov, who used hypnosis to treat neuroses and instead of anesthesia during operations, Gal-perin began to study the effect of hypnosis on digestive leukocytes. The results of the study formed the basis of Galperin’s first scientific publication (with P.P. Istomin) in 1926 in the Ukrainian Treatment of drug addictions and wrote a preface to it, “Outpatient treatment of alcoholics,” which described the organic aspect of drug addiction , and then joined the Leontiev group. The Kharkov psychologists and graduate students of the Pedagogical Institute and the Research Institute of Pedagogy began to group around Leontiev, and thus the famous Kharkov School of Psychology emerged, with Leontiev as its leader. According to V.P. Zinchenko, there were no ordinary students in this school, and each of the psychologists had their own role to play: A.N. Leontiev — the leader, A.V. Zaporozhets — the conscience, A.R. Luria — the genius, D.B. El’konin — a scientific temperament, P.Ya. Galperin — the teacher. V.P. Zinchenko recalls that people went to Galperin to ask for advice in difficult situations: “Piotr Yakovlevich was … recognized as a teacher. L.I. Bozhovich, A.V. Zaporozhets, P.I. Zinchenko, D.B. El’konin, and many others … said that it was necessary to go consult with the teacher…. The next generations also went to him. … It is hardly necessary to say that Piotr Yakovlevich did not always approve of what he heard. But he was an excellent listener. When, after his sometimes harsh, but kindly and ironically expressed criticism, I went to my immediate teacher A.V. Zaporozhets, discouraged; he consoled me with a smile, saying that he also rarely got to hear compliments from Piotr Yakovlevich” , p. 90.In Galperin’s personal papers there is a document indicating that, at least until February 1936, he remained an associate professor of psychology at the Kharkov Pedagogical Institute. After 1936, Galperin recalls, the Psychology Department was significantly cut back, and he had to transfer to the psychiatric clinic at the Department of Chronic Diseases. From the middle of 1936 until the war began, Galperin was mainly engaged in psychiatry, that is, he worked in his acquired specialty.Galperin was also actively engaged in teaching in those years. In his autobiography, he writes that his teaching career is officially counted from January 1933, when he began teaching dialectical and historical materialism at the Personnel Institute of the Psychoneurological Academy. He recalls that throughout his life, he paid great attention to teaching, since communication with students contributed to the formation of his own scientific worldview.In the mid-’30s. Galperin began writing his candidate dissertation on the difference between tools used by humans and animals, and defended it on December 9, 1936 before the Medical Scientific Council of the Psychoneurological Institute. This research was performed under the instruction of the Psychology Department of the Ukrainian Psychoneurological Academy to study “the development of thinking, speech, and practical activity in their interconnection and relationship to other psychological functions at different developmental levels…” , p. 34.2 and Professor M.S. Lebedinskii.3Preserved in Galperin’s personal archive is a version of the dissertation entitled “The difference between human tools and auxiliary aids of animals ”; the work is 87 printed pages with illustrations. The title page says: Ukrainian Psychoneurological Academy — President Prof. L.L. Rokhlin, Institute of Experimental Psychoneurology — Directorate: Dr. Z.Yu. Svetnik and Dr. M.O. Kleiman, Section of the General Theory of Psychology — head associate professor P.Ya. Galperin. Later Galperin included the dissertation on the list of his scientific works under a different title, “On the psychological difference between human tools and auxiliary aids of animals.” The official opponents were Professor T.I. IudinThe degree of Candidate of Medical Sciences was awarded by the Higher Attestation Commission only in 1938, since the subject of research chosen by the author was far from medical science. Nevertheless, in 1940 Galperin was confirmed in the academic rank of associate professor in the Department of Pedagogy.Galperin performed an experimental study of the use of tools by humans and auxiliary aids by animals with the objective, first, to determine the difference between manual operations and tool use, and, second, to clarify the sequence and reasons for the development and change of operations. The use of certain objects by animals, Galperin notes, does credit to their mental abilities and shows that their behavior demonstrates reason. “But this is reason about manual operations; it does not encompass the social usage of objects; it subordinates things to the logic of manual action. It is an instinctive reason … which is limited to discerning the possibility of a mere extension of the arm” , p. 56. Unfortunately, it must be recognized that this work has not yet received its due appreciation, although an abridged form was included in collections of P.Ya. Galperin’s posthumously published works. According to V.P. Zinchenko, “this is the first, without exaggeration, cornerstone of activity theory” , p. 122,V.P. Zinchenko asserts that Galperin’s aforementioned studies of children’s tool-mediated activity played an important role in the practical activities of psychologists to restore the movement of those wounded during the Great Patriotic War.During the war, the Kharkov (Ukrainian) Psychoneurological Institute was turned into a psychoneurological hospital and was evacuated to Tiumen, where Galperin worked as an intern in the neurosurgical department of the hospital from September 1941 through February 1943. Then Galperin moved to the town of Kaurovka, in Sverdlovsk Oblast, where A.N. Leontiev had created a rehabilitation center for restoring movement after injuries. According to Leontiev’s biographers, those working with him also included A.V. Zaporozhets, S.Ia. Rubinstein, T.O. Ginevskaia, Ia.Z. Neverovich, A.G. Komm, V.S. Merlin, among others. Galperin became the head of the medical unit of the rehabilitation hospital. Leontiev’s biography says that he returned from evacuation in the summer of 1943, and Galperin a little later, in October of the same year.From then on, from the end of February 1943 until the end of his life, Galperin was on the staff of Moscow University. His first scientific research at the university was devoted to psychological problems of restoring motor functions after injury.On February 14–16, 1943, the joint 11th Session of the Ukrainian Psychoneurological Institute and the Second Conference of Neurosurgeons, Neuropathologists, and Psychiatrists of the Ural Military District was held in Tiumen, on the 25th anniversary of the Red Army and the Navy. Galperin gave a report on “The experience of constructing a system of meaningful movements in remedial physical therapy.” He noted that the movement of an affected limb toward an objective target is much more effective than movements performed without any purpose.the psychological structure of the task” . This volume included an article by A.N. Leontiev, “Psychological study of movement after hand injury,” which describes the results of work in evacuation hospitals. Leontiev stated that “the phenomenon of changing the amount of mobility of the affected parts of the hand, depending on the task being performed, was first published by us, by P.Ya. Galperin” (emphasis added — M.S.)  , p. 92. Restoration of movement. A psychophysiological study of the restoration of hand functions after injury , of human activity, as psychological content, that psychological research should begin (emphasis added –M.S.)   , p. 33.  — M.S.) , p. 33. Galperin presented his theory for the first time in July 1952 at the All-Union Conference on Psychology convened by the Presidium of the RSFSR Academy of Psychological Sciences . Galperin was not scheduled to give a report, but he spoke during the debate and set forth a fundamentally different understanding of certain issues of psychology. In his view, there are two lines in psychology: one was that proposed by the author of those remarks with a small number of supporters, and the other was that of the Institute of Psychology of the Academy of Psychological Sciences, with a huge number of supporters. “But … questions of truth are not decided by voting. Truth reflects objective reality, and reality will show itself and be able to stand up for itself ” , p. 99.A year later, in July 1953, Galperin delivered a report on “The experience of studying the formation of mental actions in schoolchildren” at a Conference on Questions of Psychology. This was the first detailed and comprehensive presentation by Galperin of his approach to psychology; the report was republished not long ago . In 1955Psikhologicheskaia nauka v SSSR, of his foundational article “Development of research on the formation of mental actions”  on programmed learning, and at MGU, by order of the Ministry of Higher Education of the RSFSR, an interdepartmental group was created to work on issues of programmed learning.During those years, Galperin took an active part in meetings of Soviet and foreign psychologists: in 1963 at the Second Congress of the USSR Society of Psychologists held in Leningrad , in 1964 at the 15th International Congress on Applied Psychology , etc.V.P. Zinchenko drew attention to the fact that Galperin, the last of the brilliant galaxy of L.S. Vygotsky’s school, became a doctor of science and a full professor.5 by Associate Professor Galperin Piotr Yakovlevich. Permission was granted.The Academic Council of the Philosophy Faculty of M.V. Lomonosov MGU appealed to the Higher Attestation Commission to allow a defense for the degree of Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences in Psychology based on the set of published works united by the theme “Formation of mental actions and concepts,”The defense took place on May 28, 1965 at the MGU Philosophy Faculty, and according to the recollections of psychologists and philosophers who were present, it became an “event” in the scientific life of the university.Galperin treated the defense with a certain irony, and called the “report … a bureaucratic work, unsuitable for reading, not covering the actual state of affairs and ideas” (from a letter to F.I. Fradkina), and asked “not to place greater demands on it than it deserves” (from a letter to R.G. Natadze) .The transcript of the meeting of the Academic Council on May 28, 1965 (Protokoly …) is preserved in the MGU archive, which makes it possible to reconstruct the procedure of his defense.In his brief speech, Galperin took up three questions: the psychological structure of human action, psychological mechanisms and laws themselves, and the main method of psychological research.External comments on Galperin’s published work were prepared by the Psychology Department of Zhdanov Leningrad State University (LGU) and signed by the head of the department, B.G. Anan’ev. Then came the remarks of the first official opponent, B.M. Teplov, and the second official opponent, A.A. Smirnov. The last comments were by G.S. Kostyuk, who, like the two previous speakers, had no fundamental criticisms. The main “criticism” was a complaint that the defense was so late. As V.P. Zinchenko wrote later: “He was coaxed, shamed, and scolded for a long time by friends and students” , p. 91. In conclusion, it should be said that the results of the secret voting were that out of 16 members of the Academic Council present at the meeting, 12 voted “for,” three “against,” and one ballot was invalid.Galperin’s defense occurred on a memorable day, as Chairman of the Academic Council V.S. Molodtsov said in his speech. It was the same day that the Board of the Ministry of Higher Education decided to create a special Psychology Faculty to replace the Moscow University Psychology Department. Galperin reacted to this event philosophically: on the one hand, he assessed it as very positive, but on the other, with some sadness, since he had assigned a special role to philosophy in the emergence of psychology. Galperin emphasized that he always guided himself by general philosophical methodological problems in psychology, which oriented his work. It should be noted that this idea runs through all of Galperin’s works.6 Sciences (MPD Diploma No. 000076) was awarded to P.Ya. Galperin by Decision of the Higher Attestation Commission of January 22, 1966.The academic degree of Doctor of Pedagogical7 In February 1967, he was transferred from the position of associate professor to that of professor in the same department. By the Decision of the Higher Attestation Commission of July 12, 1967, P.Ya. Galperin was approved as a professor in the Department of General and Applied Psychology.After the formation of the Psychology Faculty in 1966, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences Galperin was appointed associate professor in the Department of General and Applied Psychology.In 1966, the 18th International Psychological Congress was held in Moscow, at which Galperin not only delivered a report, “Method, facts and theories in the psychology of the formation of mental actions and concepts,” but was also a co-organizer from the Soviet side, together with J. Piaget and B. Inelder, of the 24th Symposium on “The psychology of concept formation and mental actions” (the symposium’s chairman was J. Bruner). The only discussion between J. Piaget and P.Ya. Galperin took place at this symposium. The difference between the scientific approaches of Piaget and Galperin was not only the basis for the discussion, but also a source that contributed to the development of psychological science. It was Piaget who said at the 18th International Psychological Congress, “We should not be afraid of differences, which encourage us to take the only way to broaden our positions” cit. by , p. 311.In 1968, Galperin participated in the Third Congress of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR, which was held in Kiev (“On the characteristics of Type III learning”).Galperin attended the 19th International Psychological Congress in London in 1969, giving a report on “Learning and mental development (from age 5 to 8).” He gave a report on the same topic to the Fourth All-Union Congress of Soviet Psychologists in Tbilisi.In November 1970 in Kharkov, on the initiative of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR, the first All-Union Symposium on the Psychology of Memory was held, on “Psychological mechanisms of memory and its patterns in the learning process.” Galperin’s report, “Brief remarks on voluntary and involuntary memory” — following P.I. Zinchenko (1903-1969), to whom he dedicated his speech — drew attention to the role of involuntary memorization in life and learning.Starting in September 1970, Galperin was the head of the Child Psychology Department; in March 1971 he was elected officially to the post of head of the department.Voprosy psikhologii. Galperin did not directly participate in the discussion, but archival records have been preserved that shed light on its content.In 1971–72, there was a discussion about the subject matter of psychology in the pages of the journal Introduction to psychology, was published in 1976 . A little over ten years before, Galperin’s hypothesis of stage-by-stage formation of mental actions had been criticized, and now his main work suffered the same fate; one has to wonder at and admire the author’s professional courage: neither then, nor years later, did he abandon his ideas.The Introduction was published, since that version had received a great deal of criticism from A.N. Leontiev. “Notes” were written especially for this conversation, page-by-page comments that were included in the volume of A.N. Leontiev’s scientific legacy, Filosofia psikhologii [The philosophy of psychology]. In comments to this volume, A.A. Leontiev and D.A. Leontiev sum it up: “P.Ya. Galperin’s theory of stage-by-stage formation, relying in a number of essential provisions on A.N. Leontiev’s activity approach, in fact was a reduced version of it, which has proven its practical effectiveness in a number of applied fields, but is hardly suitable for the role of a general psychological theory” (emphasis added — M.S.)  .the theory of stage-by-stage formation of mental actions and concepts may and should play in the development of the activity approach” .In June 1975, the All-Union Conference on “Theoretical problems of managing human cognitive activity” took place in Moscow. The discussion was based on reports in a collection published specially for the beginning of the conference. Galperin prepared an article titled “Management of cognitive activity in terms of perception.”Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Psikhologiia. Seriia 14 [Bulletin of Moscow University. Psychology. Series 14 (now Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 14. Psikhologia) began appearing. A.N. Leontiev was the editor-in-chief of the journal and P.Ya. Galperin was a member of the editorial board. During Galperin’s lifetime, only one of his articles, “The current state of the theory of the stage-by-stage formation of mental actions” , was published in the journal  until September 1983.V.P. Zinchenko wrote in his memoirs, “Piotr Yakovlevich ... by nature kept away from leadership, avoided leading positions, ... never tried to qualify for membership in the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences” , p. 91. Voprosy psikhologii in 1987 on the occasion of his 85th birthday.For many years, Galperin had been preparing for publication a work on the relationship between learning and mental development. It was published only in 1985 . A succiP.Ya. Galperin died on March 25, 1988, at the age of 86; his wife, Tamara Izrailevna Meerzon, died six months later. They were buried in Vostriakovskii Cemetery.Galperin lectured throughout all his years at Moscow University, He gave a course on general psychology to future philosophers from the beginning of the 1950s to the beginning of the ’80s — more than one generation of psychologists attended these lectures with pleasure and obvious benefit to themselves. True, once — in the 1970/71 academic year — he gave a course in general psychology to psychology students.Galperin also held seminars on general psychology for psychologists when the lectures were given by A.N. Leontiev, and as V.P. Zinchenko recalled, “we were ensured pluralism and dialogue” , p. 91.For many years, Galperin also taught a year-long course in the history of psychology, which was presented as “a drama of ideas and a drama of people.” In the 1968/69 academic year, Galperin handed over this course to A.N. Zhdan.Galperin prepared a special course on “The formation of cognitive processes” for students and graduate students of the Psychology Faculty, but did not give it every year.It is commonly known that a person is alive as long as memory of him is alive. The words of V.P. Zinchenko ring true: “It has even become a certainty that psychologists have a memory that is not the weakest of their mental powers. They understand that as long as we remember our teachers, not only they, but also we ourselves, are alive” , p. 61.Among the events of recent years associated with the name of P.Ya. Galperin, the following are particularly worthy of note.8 for the creation of the psychological and pedagogical complex known as “Theory and practice of the formation of mental activity,” given to P.Ya. Galperin (posthumously), N.F. Tal’zina, L.I. Aidarova, I.A. Volodarskaia, I.I. Iliasov, L.F. Obukhova, A.I. Podolskii, Z.A. Reshetova, N.G. Salmina, and N.N. Nechaev.First there was the award of the President of the Russian Federation in the field of education for 1997,Second, an International Scientific Conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of P.Ya. Galperin was held in 2002 at the Psychology Faculty of MGU. The conference, a notable event in scientific life, was attended not only by Galperin’s students and followers from different corners of Russia, but also by foreign colleagues. Similar conferences were timed to coincide with subsequent anniversaries: on the 110th and 115th anniversaries of Galperin’s birth, and a conference is scheduled this year to mark his 120-year jubilee.Third, the P.Ya. Galperin Lecture Hall was opened at Moscow State University of Psychology and Education (MGPPU) in 2008, on the initiative of L.F. Obukhova, a devoted student and successor in the work of her Teacher. On the 110th anniversary of Galperin’s birth, a lecture hall named after him was also opened at the Psychology Faculty. On the board was written: “Lecture hall named after Piotr Yakovlevich Galperin (1902-1988), an outstanding Soviet psychologist, professor at Moscow University.”And, finally, Galperin’s works are being republished, and research is continuing on the theory of stage-by-stage formation of mental actions and concepts.It is now an urgent task to comprehend P.Ya. Galperin’s legacy, which, without any doubt, is not an achievement of the bygone 20th century, but will be one of the present 21st century.


Lernanthropus kroyeri (L. kroyeri), to uptake and accumulate heavy metals. We primarily assess the prevalence of the parasite in various seasons and its clinical signs, as well as post-mortem changes in sea bass (Moron labrax). The morphological features of the parasite using a light microscope, the bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the tissues of both L. kroyeri and M. labrax  using Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry, and the histopathological alterations were monitored. Fish (n = 200) were obtained from Ezbet Elborg and examined for the parasite, L. kroyeri. The results revealed that the total infection was recorded at 86%. The infested fish exhibited excessive mucous and ulceration at the site of attachment. The post-mortem lesion in the gills revealed a marbling appearance with destructed filaments. Various heavy metals  were detected in the tissues of L. kroyeri and M. labrax and, surprisingly, L. kroyeri had the ability to uptake and accumulate a high amount of Zn in its tissues. Infested fish accumulated a lower concentration of Zn in their tissue compared with the non-infested ones. Within the host tissue, the accumulation of Zn was higher in the gills compared with the muscles. The histopathological findings demonstrated scattered parasitic elements with the destruction of the gill lamellae. Taken together, we highlight the potential role of L. kroyeri to eliminate Zn and it can be utilized as a bio-indicator for metal monitoring studies for sustaining aquaculture.The present context is a pioneer attempt to verify the ability of copepod,  Recently, parasitic infestations have induced serious hazards, including higher mortalities and diseases, to the freshwater fish in Egypt ,2. ParasPollution with heavy metals or toxic pollutants in the aquatic ecosystem is a global problem, with potential concern as it can negatively affect fish with health-inducing physiological, biochemical, molecular, and histopathological alterations ,9,10. FiHence, parasites, as well as heavy metals, induce serious damage to the biochemical and physiological processes that in turn induce severe impairments to the health and physiology status of fish . Recent L. kroyeri infestation. We addressed the prevalence of the parasite in the different seasons, the clinical signs, and the post-mortem changes. The body surface of L. kroyeri using a light microscope was illustrated, besides the bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the tissues of both L. kroyeri and M. labrax. Furthermore, histopathological alterations on the gills and muscles of infected M. labrax were detected.Therefore, the current investigation was carried out to assess the impacts of The protocol of the current study complies with the guidelines and was carried out according to the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986, and the associated guidelines of the EU Directive for Animal Experiments. The experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Aquatic Animal Care and Use Committee (IAACUC), Faculty of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt. Approval Code: IAACUC-KSU-038-2022Moron labrax) fish samples were collected alive or freshly dead from the market of the Ezbet-El Borg area, Damietta Province, Egypt, during the period between March 2019 until February 2020. The collected fish were transported on thick ice polyethylene bags to the laboratory of the Animal Health Research Institute, El-Mansoura Branch, where they were examined immediately.A total number of 200 sea bass . All of the equipment used was calibrated and uncertainties were calculated. Internal and external quality assurance systems were applied in the Central Laboratory of Environmental Studies at Kafr-Elsheikh University according to ISO/IEC 17025 (2005). All of the measurements, blanks, triplicate measurements of elements in the extracts, and analysis of certified reference materials for each metal (Merck) were routinely included for quality control.Tissue specimens were collected from the gills and immediately fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin solution for at least 24 h, then processed using the conventional paraffin embedding technique. Five-micron sections were prepared and then routinely stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) according to Suvarna et al. , and theL. kroyeri was seen macroscopically as black filaments . The highest infection was recorded during spring (94%), followed by summer (90%) and then autumn (78%), and the lowest infections were recorded in winter (31%), as depicted in One hundred sixty-two out of two hundred examined Mean ± SEM of heavy metal concentrations in the gills and muscle of both infected and non-infected fish, as well as in parasitic tissue, are illustrated in Various sections from crustacean parasitic elements randomly distributed in the gills were noticed A,B. The Other gill filaments showed compensatory hyperplasia and hypertrophy of the secondary lamellar epithelium, which resulted in their fusion A. The blLernanthropus is the most common genus of parasitic copepods. There are more than 100 species described from the gills of different marine fish [M. labrax with L. kroyeri. These lesions could be attributed to the attachment of the parasites by their rigid claws, feeding activity, severe irritation caused by parasitic movement, and mucous increase as a defense mechanism from the host to overcome the infection, as reported by Abdel-Mawla et al. [ine fish . The cura et al. .L. kroyeri from the gills of M. labrax. Likewise, Toksen et al. [L. kroyeri from the gills of other fish species such as Mugil cephalus and Moolgarda seheli.The present study recorded the isolation of n et al. , Henry en et al. , and Eisn et al.  isolatedn et al.  and Hassn et al.  isolatedL. kroyeri was 81%, concurrent with a previous study by Aneesh et al. [Strongylura strongylura by L. kroyeri. Additionally, Toksen [L. kroyeri in Dicentrarchus labrax. Nevertheless, Manera and Dezfuli [L. kroyeri in D. labrax. Our paper reports that L. kroyeri infection was the highest during spring (94%), followed by summer (90%), then autumn (78%), and finally winter (31%). This sequence is nearly in agreement with Eissa [L. kroyeri reached its maximum rate during spring and summer, while the lowest infection was recorded during autumn. These results were inconsistent with Samak and Said [In the current prospective study, the prevalence of h et al.  that rec, Toksen  reported Dezfuli  obtainedth Eissa , who alsand Said , who repL. kroyeri can absorb Zn from the fish tissue through its alimentary canal and that it accumulates in the parasite tissue, and this finding was verified by analysis of Zn in the parasite tissue. In the same manner, a recent study by Hassanine and Al-Hasawi [Zn is an essential heavy metal with a permissible limit in the fish muscle of 40 mg/kg  or 100 ml-Hasawi  reportedl-Hasawi  suggestel-Hasawi , Sures al-Hasawi , and Mall-Hasawi  considerL. kroyeri were distributed in the gills. Similarly, a recent study by Eissa et al. [L. kroyeri fragments in the gills of D. labrax. The destruction of the secondary lamellar epithelium, goblet cell metaplasia with hemorrhage, and excess mucous secretion could be induced as a tissue reaction to decrease the irritation against the infestation. Concurrent with previous studies, Abdel-Mawla et al. [Considering the histopathological findings, we illustrated sections of a et al.  reporteda et al. , Lester a et al. , Manera a et al. , and Raga et al.  reporteda et al. ,6,51,52.a et al.  reportedL. kroyeri has a negative effect on the infected M. labrax, it also plays an important role in the elimination of heavy metals from the tissue of the infected fish through its ability to accumulate heavy metals in its body, which can be advantageous for the infected hosts, allowing them to tolerate much higher concentrations of certain metals. The present results also confirm that L. kroyeri seems to be a good indicator of environmental pollution. Our investigation concluded that, although L. kroyeri to uptake and accumulate heavy metals (zinc). However, L. kroyeri infests M. labrax with a high prevalence in spring and summer and demonstrates excessive mucous secretion, ulceration, marbling appearance of gills, and various histopathological changes in the gills of the infested fish. By detecting various heavy metals  in the tissues of L. kroyeri and M. labrax, surprisingly, L. kroyeri was found to uptake the highest concentration of Zn in its tissues. Conclusively, the parasitic infestation is an eco-friendly method to uptake heavy metals, and L. kroyeri can be utilized as a natural antitoxic agent, as well as be considered a bio-indicator of toxicity with heavy metals and to lessen the hazardous impact on the aquatic environment for sustaining aquaculture. Future studies are needed to test the activity of other parasites to chelate heavy metals, as well as studies on various fish species.To date, our perspective study represents a premier work to report on the efficacy of


Pyrops watanabei is a lanternfly species native to Taiwan, and the adults are frequently on Triadica sebifera in summer. Compared to adult longevity, the developmental duration of immature stages from eggs to adult emergence is much longer. Although few records exist, the plants preferred by the immature stages had not been determined prior to this study. Thus, a one-year investigation was conducted to verify the oviposition site preference, determine the plants preferred by nymphs, and examine the change of host ranges with time and development. We establish that Heptapleurum heptaphyllum is not only the preferred egg-laying site, but the main host plant for nymphs from September to the next April, according to our investigations in northern Taiwan. Moreover, the preferred host plant for the nymphs shifts to Triadica sebifera from May onwards to adult emergence. Pyrops watanabei is a species native to Taiwan, many fundamental aspects of the species are still poorly documented. Populations of the lanternfly in locations of northern Taiwan were found in abundance and were suitable for the conduction of an investigation from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. We established the shift in the main host plants with different developmental stages. The occurrence of immature individuals on Heptapleurum heptaphyllum increased with age from eggs to nymphs in the third instar; however, it declined from the fourth instar onwards due to a shift in preference to Triadica sebifera. In 2021, the earliest detection of an egg mass was on 1 July. More eggs were recorded in August, and some could be found in September and October of the same year. In 2022, we found an egg mass on 28 June. In August 2021, nymphs in the first and second instars were detected. Then, nymphs in the third and fourth instars appeared after September and October 2021, respectively. Furthermore, nymphs in the fifth instar were sighted as late as March 2022. Finally, this study will provide a basis for further evaluation of the impact of invasion of Pyrops candelaria on the ecology of Pyrops watanabei. Although  Pyrops watanabei was listed as a protected species in 1989 and was removed from the list in 2009 [Triadica sebifera and sometimes on Triadica cochinchinensis in summer [P. watanabei have mainly been on the taxonomy [P. watanabei without a description of their host plants [T. sebifera and the other on an undetermined host. Only some records on the plants used for laying eggs have been reported [In Taiwan,  in 2009 . The adun summer ,4. Only n summer ,4, so thtaxonomy ,5 or ecotaxonomy ,4 of itst plants  reportedP. candelaria, whereas T. sebifera is most preferred by its nymphs [T. sebifera and T. cochinchinensis probably serve as the main developing hosts for the immature stages of P. watanabei. Furthermore, knowledge of host plants for immature stages may be conducive to explaining why some locations, e.g., green areas in cities or wetlands, are rich in T. sebifera, but with only scarce P. watanabei.Our recent results revealed that the longan is the key host for adults of another lanternfly, s nymphs . TherefoP. candelaria, since 2018 [T. sebifera may complicate the decision of a control strategy for the latter species. In this article, we attempt to verify the differences in occurrences and habitats between these two lanternfly species for the application of possible control measures on the same target tree species. The populations of this native species, mainly distributed in northern Taiwan ,4, have nce 2018 ,7. MoreoPyrops watanabei were observed on Triadica sebifera or Triadica cochinchinensis, and we could find eggs and nymphs in the nearby areas. Detailed profiles of these study sites are listed in Investigations were conducted in the cities Taoyuan, New Taipei, and Taipei in northern Taiwan from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022. Study sites were chosen because abundant adults of http://taibnet.sinica.edu.tw/ (accessed on 11 August 2022) maintained by the Center for Digital Cultures and Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taiwan [Pyrops candelaria, usually covered by a film of white wax, the unhatched egg mass of Pyrops watanabei is always completely covered by thick layers of white wax . A telescope  was used while the targets were high on the trees.Investigations were conducted at least twice every week, and the first egg mass was detected on 1 July 2021. The plant species and inanimate objects were recorded on which immature individuals were detected. For the scientific names of the species and family of plants used in this study, we referred to the Catalogue of Life in Taiwan, a website , Taiwan . Moreovehite wax . Furtherhite wax . In Junehite wax . TherefoHeptapleurum heptaphyllum, Acacia confusa, and Machilus thunbergii, respectively. Only 6.5% and 2.2% of the egg masses were recorded on Triadica sebifera and Triadica cochinchinensis. Two egg masses were detected on longan trees, Dimocarpus longan. An egg mass was found on Juniperus chinensis, belonging to Gymnosperm. Only 7.5% of the egg masses were recorded on shrubs, belonging to seven species: Psychotria rubra, Murraya exotica, Ilex asprella, Clerodendrum cyrtophyllum, Magnolia coco, Duranta erecta, and Lantana camara. No egg masses were recorded on any herbaceous plants  and the litchi stink bugs, Tessaratoma papillosa [P. watanabei and P. candelaria, the spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula, has growing preferences for one of its host plants, Ailanthus altissima, with developmental stages [L. delicatula survives the winter as eggs from September to the next May in countries with a colder climate [This is the first report indicating that t Taiwan ,10, is tsebifera , H. heptvergreen  and coul markets . Compareapillosa . It is sl stages . However climate .T. sebifera rather than H. heptaphyllum, especially from May onwards. Although we frequently detected adults—especially the newly emerged, pink ones yet incapable of flight—on T. sebifera and T. cochinchinensis, no adult was observed on any H. heptaphyllum . Therefore, we assume that in March, nymphs begin to gradually leave H. heptaphyllum for T. sebifera; in spring, the occurrence of nymphs is increasingly higher monthly, while more new branches and leaves grow on the latter, deciduous host plant. Finally, adult emergence is more likely to take place on T. sebifera in summer from late May to early July. Therefore, according to Constant and Pham (2017) [T. sebifera was in June, and observations of many adults were made in August on the same plant species. In this study, we found that the host plant preference of the final nymphal stage is different from those of younger ones. Most of the nymphs in the fifth instar were recorded on m (2017) , the recPyrops watanabei lays eggs approximately one month after feeding on T. sebifera [T. sebifera already in bloom, and the plant is probably rich in nutrients to later grow fruits with seeds enclosed in a wax-like substance, utilized in the past for the production of traditional vegetable tallow [Pyrops watanabei, the species-specific criteria of plants for oviposition may not be more important than the general site criteria. Therefore, it is similar to the result of the previous study [Pyrops candelaria, wherein egg masses were usually detected on smooth surfaces of tree trunks or non-living objects, such as dead trees, cement pots, cement pillars, and rocks . Another lanternfly, L. delicatula, also has potential to lay eggs on a wide range of non-plant materials with smooth surfaces [In summer, sebifera . During e tallow . In Pyrous study  on Pyropsurfaces .H. heptaphyllum, all plants with egg masses or nymphs of P. watanabei were close to T. sebifera or T. cochinchinensis. These two Triadica species are the key host plants for adults. According to the investigation by Lin et al. (1958) [T. sebifera originated from China [T. cochinchinensis is native to Taiwan and distributed in mountains at low to medium altitudes (up to 1000 m) [P. watanabei have expanded their host plant preference from T. cochinchinensis to the later introduced T. sebifera still needs more research to address. However, the younger instars may stick to the native plant, H. heptaphyllum, as a main developing host plant and a shelter for overwintering. Recent investigations [H. heptaphyllum and T. sebifera is as frequent there as it is in northern Taiwan. We found that although >65% of nymphs were recorded on . 1958) , T. sebiom China ,18 a hun 1000 m) ,18,19. W58 , T. sigations ,4 indicaP. watanabei were detected, and from 14 August to the end of September, less than 2.5% of nymphs were recorded on T. sebifera. This may be a window of opportunity in which to remove as many nymphs of P. candelaria as possible before they emerge as adults with a minimal risk of disturbance to the native P. watanabei. Although T. sebifera is the key host plant, the habitats of these two lanternfly species differ. The native lanternfly has a tendency of distribution on hills with relatively few human dwellings, while the invasive one prefers lowlands, the foot of hills, and parks or graveyards on hillsides with much openness and human disturbance . Therefore, to protect P. watanabei and for efficiency, we suggest avoiding control measures for P. candelaria on hills.Based on this study, from 4 July to 13 August 2021, no nymphs of Pyrops watanabei thrives in the hills with abundant populations of both Heptapleurum heptaphyllum and Tricadica sebifera or Tricadica cochinchinensis. Some areas, for example, lowlands and wetlands, that were rich in T. sebifera, but with no or scarce adults of P. watanabei, were probably because these habitats have scarce H. heptaphyllum and are not suitable for the nymphs. Thus, the results of this study shed light on the mystery of the insect’s life cycle. In July, the numbers of adult lanternflies began to decline on T. sebifera or T. cochinchinensis, because in August, we could find egg masses on many different plants near the above-mentioned two Tricadica species. After hatching, the host preferences towards H. heptaphyllum were increasingly stronger with time and also in later developmental stages. From September to November, most of the nymphs in the younger three instars could be found on H. heptaphyllum. Then, during the winter months from December to the next January, evergreen H. heptaphyllum around florescence may have served as a shelter for the nymphs in the second, third, and fourth instars. Later, in spring from March to May, increasingly more new branches and leaves of deciduous T. sebifera grew, and the older, fourth and fifth instars tended to leave H. heptaphyllum to congregate on T. sebifera. In June, several adults appeared on the same tree of T. sebifera with nymphs waiting for emergence. Finally, in terms of application, to avoid removing nymphs of P. watanabei by mistake, we suggest that possible measures to control nymphs of invasive P. candelaria can be taken from the middle of July to the end of September on trunks of T. sebifera in lowlands and parks or graveyards on hillsides. We established that


Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus sp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli were investigated. Bacteriostatic circle, antibacterial rate, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of LSL on different pathogenic bacteria were measured. Then, the antibacterial mechanisms of LSL on S. aureus and P. aeruginosa were explored using ultrastructural observation, cell membrane permeability analysis, intracellular ATP content determination, and extracellular UV absorption detection. With the minimum MIC and MBC values of 0.05 and 0.20 mg/ml, LSL exhibited the best inhibitory effect against S. aureus, followed by P. aeruginosa. LSL showed no significant inhibitory effect on E. coli and Lactobacillus sp. For both S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, LSL achieved bacteriostatic and bactericidal effects by destroying the cell wall, increasing the permeability of the cell membrane and leading to the flow out of intracellular contents. However, the action mode and action intensity of LSL on the cell wall and membrane of these two bacteria were significantly different. LSL had a greater influence on the cell membrane of S. aureus by “leaking,” while it exhibited a stronger effect on the cell wall of P. aeruginosa by “blasting.” These results contributed to a better understanding of the relationship between LSL and different bacterial cell structures, further suggesting the conclusion that LSL might be used for the targeted treatment of special pathogenic bacteria.Crude sophorolipids (SLs) have been proven to perform varying degrees of inhibitory effects on different pathogenic bacteria. However, systematic comparative studies of pure lactonic sophorolipid (LSL) among different types of bacteria are few. In this study, the antibacterial effects and mechanisms of LSL on pathogenic bacteria of  Candida, are considered the most promising type of biosurfactant. Nowadays, SLs have attracted global attention due to their good surface activity, excellent bactericidal and antifungal properties, biocompatibility, and low toxicity (Sophorolipids (SLs), mainly produced by different species of toxicity . Generaltoxicity . Structutoxicity . Functiotoxicity .Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, and Pseudomonas putida. With a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 1.56 mg/ml, SLs exhibited the most remarkable inhibitory effect on S. aureus. It was also reported that SLs obtained from soybean oil refinery residue and glutamic acid could inhibit the growth of pathogenic microorganisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans, and Escherichia coli. When the concentration of SLs was 0.012 mg/ml, the growth inhibition rates of SLs against S. aureus and E. coli were 15 and 5%, respectively  and preserved at -70°C in our laboratory. Before use, these strains were activated in LB liquid medium to exponential phase at 37°C and 220 rpm.Starmerella bombicola CGMCC 1576 with glucose and oleic acid as carbon sources. LSL, with a purity of 95%, was obtained by further separation and purification according to the method reported earlier , four pathogenic bacteria were inoculated into LB liquid media, respectively. Inhibition zone diameter was measured using the Oxford-cup method with minor modifications . Briefly7 CFU/ml was incubated in the above flask at an inoculum dose of 2% (v/v) and cultivated for 24 h at 37°C. The medium without LSL addition was used as a blank control. Samples were taken at different times, and the OD values were determined at 600 nm  for observation.The fluorescent probes of carboxyfluorescein diacetate [5(6)-Cfda] and propidium iodide (PI)  were used to distinguish live cells from dead cells . First, S. aureus and P. aeruginosa were prepared in the same method as described above for the SEM observation. During the cultivation period, two samples were taken at each time point. One was centrifuged to collect bacterial pellet for intracellular ATP content measurement according to the instructions of the ATP assay kit , and the other was centrifuged and the supernatant was retained for the following determination of extracellular ultraviolet absorption substances.Bacterial suspensions of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa prepared above were used for drawing the variation curve of extracellular ultraviolet absorbing substances  to determine differences among strains and LSL treatment or not. The statistical program GraphPad Prism 8.0 was employed for statistical analysis and graph drawing.S. aureus and Lactobacillus sp., and gram-negative bacteria of P. aeruginosa and E. coli. The size of the inhibition zone produced by LSL against different pathogenic bacteria was significantly different . The reason lies in the fact that the destructive and leaking effects of LSL were weaker than the growth ability of S. aureus. Hence, the total intracellular ATP content was still rising. With the prolongation of LSL treatment time (1–4 h), the destructive and leaking effect of LSL on S. aureus gradually exceeded the growth rate of the bacteria, so the intracellular ATP content exhibited a downward trend. The changing trend of the intracellular ATP content of LSL-treated P. aeruginosa was similar to that of S. aureus, except that P. aeruginosa took a much longer time of 12 h (The integrity of the bacterial membrane can be inferred by measuring the changes in ATP content in bacterial cells . As show of 12 h .S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, leading to leakage of intracellular ATP. However, the loss of ATP in S. aureus was faster, and the time required for all the ATP outflow was shorter when compared with P. aeruginosa. These results suggest that LSL had a stronger damaging effect on the cell membrane of S. aureus than P. aeruginosa. Again, these results helped us further explain why the morphological changes in S. aureus and P. aeruginosa cells were so distinct (These results indicated that LSL could disrupt the integrity of cell membranes of both distinct , 4.260 once the cell membrane was damaged (S. aureus and P. aeruginosa are shown in Extracellular ultraviolet-absorbing substances mainly include protein, nucleic acid, and other macromolecular substances. In general, these substances cannot escape unless the cell membrane is damaged. The macromolecules would flow out and increase OD damaged . Effects260 values of both S. aureus and P. aeruginosa treated with LSL were significantly higher than those of untreated groups. That was, LSL caused the outflow of intracellular nucleic acid, protein, and other substances by destroying the cell membranes of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. Furthermore, we also found that OD260 values of LSL-treated S. aureus were markedly higher than that of LSL-treated P. aeruginosa at any given time point, suggesting LSL performed more destructively on the cell membrane of S. aureus than P. aeruginos. Again, these results were mutually verified with the results mentioned in intracellular ATP content detection.It was found that the extracellular ODNowadays, biosurfactants of SLs have attracted increasing attention worldwide. More theoretical and applied research related to SLs had been carried out for their excellent surface activity as well as effective antibacterial and antitumor activities . Many reS. aureus and E. coli, as well as gram-negative bacteria of P. aeruginosa and Lactobacillus sp., we found that LSL showed the best inhibitory effect on S. aureus, then on P. aeruginosa, and basically no inhibitory effect on E. coli and Lactobacillus sp. These results were consistent with the results of E. coli at a low concentration of 0.03 mg/ml. Besides, When comparing the inhibitory effects of LSL on gram-positive bacteria of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa were quite different. By SEM observations, we found S. aureus mainly appeared in “leaking and shrinkage,” while P. aeruginosa mainly appeared in “blasting.” LSL played the antibacterial role by increasing the permeability of the cell wall of S. aureus, causing the flow out of cell contents, resulting in the “shrinkage” of cells and eventually the inhibition of growth. For P. aeruginosa, LSL acted by hindering the synthesis of the cell wall, causing the failure to synthesize new and complete cell walls, resulting in the “exploding” of cells and eventually death (P. aeruginosa than that of S. aureus.When further exploring the antibacterial mechanism of LSL on different bacteria, we found that the action mode and action intensity of LSL on the cell wall and membrane of ly death . In otheS. aureus and P. aeruginosa. The cell wall of S. aureus is thick and mainly composed of peptidoglycan and teichoic acid. As a biosurfactant with a macrolide structure, it was difficult for LSL to interact with the cell wall of S. aureus. In addition, LSL might mainly promote the formation of biosurfactant-enriched domains within the phospholipid bilayer and inhibit the protein synthesis function of the cell membrane (P. aeruginosa, the peptidoglycan layer of the cell wall is thin, the cross-linking is loose, and the lipid content is high (P. aeruginosa made LSL easier to fuse with, thus preventing the formation of a new cell wall and destroying the cell membrane structure (These different behaviors were the consequence of the different structures of the cell wall between membrane . But for is high . Higher tructure .S. aureus and P. aeruginosa increased, resulting in a decrease in the intracellular ATP content, an increase in extracellular macromolecular substances, and final death of the cells. After LSL treatment for 4 h, the intracellular ATP loss rate of S. aureus was 92.92%, which was 6.58 times higher than that of untreated cells. For P. aeruginosa, the intracellular ATP loss rate was 52.60%, only 2.52 times higher than that of untreated cells. These results further suggest that the damaging effect of LSL on the cell membrane of S. aureus was much higher than that of P. aeruginosa.Similar to the results reported by S. aureus, followed by P. aeruginosa, and had no inhibitory effect against E. coli and Lactobacillus sp. To better understand the inhibition effect among LSL and different bacterial cell structures, the mechanism of LSL against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa was investigated. The results suggest that LSL had a greater influence on the cell membrane of S. aureus, while exhibited a stronger impact on the cell wall of P. aeruginosa. The obtained results endorsed the conclusion that LSL might be used for targeted treatment of special pathogenic bacteria and opportunistic pathogens.The LSL showed different inhibitory effects on different pathogenic bacteria. The best inhibitory effect performed by LSL was on The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.XM and DZ conceptualized the study. XM, TW, JS, and HZhu designed the experiments. DZ, XM, and HW supervised the study. HZ, TW, JS, and MJ performed the experiments. TW and HZ collected the data. TW carried out data analysis and statistics. JS, TW, HZ, and MJ contributed to materials and analysis tools. XM, TW, and HZ wrote the original draft. XM and TW wrote, revised, and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.