4.2 Article

Insecticide resistance monitoring and correlation analysis to select appropriate insecticides against Nilaparvata lugens (Stal), a migratory pest in Korea

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASIA-PACIFIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 711-716

出版社

KOREAN SOC APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.aspen.2014.07.005

关键词

Nilaparvata lugens; Insecticide resistance monitoring; Correlation analysis; Cross-resistance

资金

  1. Rural Development Administration in Korea [PJ006941, PJ009229, PJ009365]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nilaparvata lugens Stal is one of the important migratory pests of rice paddy fields in Korea. Resistance levels to nine insecticides were monitored in 12 local strains and correlation analysis was conducted to determine cross-resistance relationships among the tested insecticides. The local strains revealed 1.3- to 28.0-, 1.6- to 6.0-, 2.8- to 237.0-, 0.6- to 0.9-, and 0.7- to 1.3-fold resistance to carbamates, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, fipronil and etofenprox, respectively. Organophosphate insecticides revealed moderate correlations with benzofuranyl methylcarbamate (r = 0.566-0.614, p > 0.01). Three neonicotinoids were not correlated with each other, but imidacloprid and clothianidin were moderately correlated with several benzofuranyl methylcarbamate and organophosphate insecticides (r = 0.590-0.705, p > 0.05), indicating that unknown common factors (such as detoxification enzymes) might contribute to resistance to both insecticides. Fipronil and etofenprox exhibited low levels of resistance and cross-resistance with other insecticides, suggesting their potential as an effective insecticide for field application. Resistance level monitoring and correlation analysis would be valuable for the selection of appropriate insecticides to control insecticide-resistant N. lugens, a typical migratory pest in Korea. (C) 2014 Korean Society of Applied Entomology, Taiwan Entomological Society and Malaysian Plant Protection Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据