4.4 Article

Sublethal effects of imidacloprid on the fecundity, longevity, and enzyme activity of Sitobion avenae (Fabricius) and Rhopalosiphum padi (Linnaeus)

期刊

BULLETIN OF ENTOMOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 106, 期 4, 页码 551-559

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007485316000286

关键词

imidacloprid; aphid; survival; fecundity; sublethal effects; enzyme activity

资金

  1. Research and Demonstration of Resistance Monitoring and Control Technology of Crop Pests of China [201203038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aphid species Sitobion avenae and Rhopalosiphum padi are the most important pests in wheat growing regions of many countries. In this study, we investigated the sublethal effects of imidacloprid on fecundity, longevity, and enzyme activity in both aphid species by comparing 3-h exposure for one or three generations. Our results indicated that 3-h exposure to sublethal doses of imidacloprid for one generation had no discernible effect on the survival, fecundity, longevity, or enzyme activity levels of aphids. However, when pulse exposures to imidacloprid were sustained over three generations, both fecundity and longevity were significantly decreased in both S. avenae and R. padi. Interestingly, the fecundity of R. padi had almost recovered by the F5 generation, but its longevity was still deleteriously affected. These results indicated that R. padi laid eggs in shorter time lags and has a more fast resilience. The change in reproduction behavior may be a phenomenon of R. padi to compensate its early death. If this is stable for the next generation, it means that the next generation is more competitive than unexposed populations, which could be the reason underlying population outbreaks that occur after longer-term exposure to an insecticide. This laboratory-based study highlights the sublethal effects of imidacloprid on the longevity and fecundity of descendants and provides an empirical basis from which to consider management decisions for chemical control in the field.

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

4.4
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