4.5 Article

Mobility parameters of Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica populations with different susceptibility to phosphine

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101593

关键词

Fumigant; Walking behavior; Phosphine resistance; Stored product beetles

资金

  1. Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI)
  2. General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) [891]
  3. STSM Grant from COST Action [CA15118]
  4. Project Development of carbon nanotube-based wireless gas sensors and applications in stored product protection and food safety (NANOFUM), Action: Bilateral R&T cooperation between Greece and Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phosphine (PH3) is the most commonly used fumigant to protect stored products from arthropod infestations worldwide. Our knowledge about the behavioral differences between phosphine-resistant and -susceptible stored product pest populations is limited. This study evaluated differences in mobility and behavior of populations of two major stored product insects, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and Rhyzopertha dominica (F.), which have different susceptibility to phosphine. In this regard, laboratory bioassays in Petri dish arenas were designed to determine if phosphine resistance has an impact on the walking and mobility behavior of adult beetles of both species. Results indicated that there were significant differences between resistant and susceptible populations for both species. Regarding velocity, R. dominica susceptible individuals moved faster than resistant ones. However, the resistant population showed reduced activity for several parameters tested compared to the susceptible population. Similar trends were also noted for T. castaneum. Knowledge of these parameters should be further utilized in management tactics, as resistant populations may behave in a different way in key management indicators such as trapping and sampling, as compared with susceptible ones. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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