4.6 Article

Susceptibility of Brazilian Populations of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Selected Insecticides

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 112, 期 3, 页码 1378-1387

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jee/toz031

关键词

soybean looper; chemical control; toxicity; resistance management

资金

  1. National Council for the Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soybean looper (SBL), Chrysodeixis includens (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is an important pest of soybean and cotton in Brazil. The use of insecticides is one of the main control tactics against this pest.To support Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Insect Resistance Management (IRM) programs, we characterized the susceptibility of Brazilian populations of SBL to insecticides. Field populations were collected from soybean fields during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 crop seasons. In the laboratory, late L2/early L3 larvae were exposed to insecticides in diet-overlay or topical bioassays. Field populations of SBL showed high susceptibility to spinetoram (LC50 = 0.074-0.25 mu g a.i. per cm(2)), indoxacarb (LC50 = 0.46-0.94 mu g a.i. per cm(2)), thiodicarb (LC50 = 9.14-36.61 mu g a.i. per cm(2)), chlorantraniliprole (LC50 = 0.15-0.57 mu g a. i. per cm(2)), flubendiamide (LC50 = 0.45-2.01 mu g a.i. per cm(2)), and chlorfenapyr (LC50 = 0.15-0.25 mu g a.i. per cm(2)); the resistance ratios were less than 16-fold. In contrast, SBL populations have reduced susceptibility to lambda-cyhalothrin (LC50 = 3.71-9.54 mu g a.i./cm(2)), methoxyfenozide (LC50 = 0.67-4.23 mu g a.i. per cm(2)), novaluron (LC50 = 27.52-77.63 mu g a.i. per cm(2)), and teflubenzuron (LC50 = 13.41-73.02 mu g a.i. per cm(2)). The resistance ratios relative to a Lab population (susceptible of reference) was up to 38-, 63-, 1,553-, and 5,215-fold, respectively. These high resistance ratios can be associated with resistance evolution. Implications of these findings to IPM and IRM programs are discussed.

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

4.6
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