4.7 Article

Control of the Invasive Agricultural Pest Pomacea canaliculata with a Novel Molluscicide: Efficacy and Safety to Nontarget Species

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 70, 期 4, 页码 1079-1089

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.1c07847

关键词

Pomacea canaliculata; invasive pest; molluscicide; paddy field; toxicity; transcriptomics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82072309]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2021YFC2300800, 2021YFC2300803, 2021YFC2300804, 2017YFC1200604]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluates the molluscicidal activity and safety profile of a novel molluscicide PBQ against the golden apple snail Pomacea canaliculata. The results show that PBQ effectively kills the snails and is generally safe for non-target organisms. Transcriptomics analysis provides insights into the molluscicidal mechanism of PBQ.
The golden apple snail Pomacea canaliculata is an invasive pest that causes extensive damage to agricultural production. P. canaliculata is also an intermediate host of Angiostrongylus cantonensis, which causes human eosinophilic meningitis. In this study, the molluscicidal activity and safety profile of a novel molluscicide PBQ [1-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(pyridin-3-yl)urea] were evaluated. PBQ exhibited strong molluscicidal potency against adult and juvenile snails (LC50 values of 0.39 and 0.07 mg/L, respectively). In field trials, PBQ killed 99.42% of the snails at 0.25 g a.i./m(2). An acute toxicity test in rats demonstrated that PBQ is a generally nonhazardous chemical. PBQ is also generally safe for nontarget organisms including Brachydanio rerio, Daphnia magna, and Apis mellifera L. Transcriptomics analysis revealed that PBQ had a significant impact on the carbohydrate and lipid metabolism pathways, which provided insights into its molluscicidal mechanism. These results suggest that PBQ could be developed as an effective and safe molluscicide for P. canaliculata control.

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

4.7
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