4.3 Article

Verifying an F1 screen for identification and quantification of rare Bacillus thuringiensis resistance alleles in field populations of the sugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis

Journal

ENTOMOLOGIA EXPERIMENTALIS ET APPLICATA
Volume 129, Issue 2, Pages 172-180

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00761.x

Keywords

Bt maize; resistance monitoring; insecticide resistance management; Lepidoptera; Crambidae

Categories

Funding

  1. Louisiana Soybean and Feed Grain Promotion Board
  2. National Science Foundation Center for IPM
  3. the Board of Regents of the State of Louisiana [LEQSF 2006-09-RD-A-0, NC-205]
  4. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (LSUAC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using an F(1) screen, 352 feral individuals of the sugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis (F.) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), were examined for the presence of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-resistance alleles. These insects represented four geographical populations collected in central and northeastern Louisiana, USA, and one field population from the Gulf Coast area of Texas, USA, during 2006. The F(1) screen used various crosses between field-collected insects and a laboratory strain of Cry1Ab-resistant D. saccharalis, including both reciprocal crosses and group mating. F(1) neonates of the crosses were screened for Bt resistance on Bt maize leaf tissue. One field-collected individual of D. saccharalis was shown to have a Bt-resistance allele. Based on Bayesian analysis procedures, the Bt-resistance allele frequency in the five populations of D. saccharalis was 0.0028 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.0003-0.0079. The successful identification of a resistance allele in a field collection of insects suggests that the F(1) screening technique could be an effective tool for detecting and monitoring rare Bt-resistance alleles in field populations of D. saccharalis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available