4.7 Article

Genetic basis of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) resistance to the chitin synthesis inhibitor lufenuron

Journal

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Volume 72, Issue 4, Pages 810-815

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ps.4057

Keywords

fall armyworm; heritability; chitin synthesis inhibitor; insect resistance management

Funding

  1. National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES), Brazil
  2. Brazilian Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC-BR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUNDAn understanding of the genetic basis of insect resistance to insecticides is important for the establishment of insect resistance management (IRM) strategies. In this study we evaluated the inheritance pattern of resistance to the chitin synthesis inhibitor lufenuron in Spodoptera frugiperda. RESULTSThe LC50 values (95% CI) were 0.23 mu g lufenuron mL(-1) water (ppm) (0.18-0.28) for the susceptible strain (SUS) and 210.6 mu g mL(-1) (175.90-258.10) for the lufenuron-resistant strain (LUF-R), based on diet-overlay bioassay. The resistance ratio was approximate to 915-fold. The LC50 values for reciprocal crosses were 4.89 mu g mL(-1) (3.79-5.97) for female LUF-R and male SUS and 5.74 mu g mL(-1) (4.70-6.91) for female SUS and male LUF-R, indicating that the inheritance of S. frugiperda resistance to lufenuron is an autosomal, incompletely recessive trait. Backcrosses of the progeny of reciprocal crosses with the parental LUF-R showed a polygenic effect. The estimated minimum number of independent segregations was in the 11.02 range, indicating that resistance to lufenuron is associated with multiple genes in S. frugiperda. CONCLUSIONSBased on genetic crosses, the inheritance pattern of lufenuron resistance in S. frugiperda was autosomal, incompletely recessive and polygenic. Implications of this finding to IRM are discussed in this paper. (c) 2015 Society of Chemical Industry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available