4.7 Article

Pesticide-mediated interspecific competition between local and invasive thrips pests

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep40512

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program Key Special Projects [2016YFC1200603]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31371942]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Competitive interactions between species can be mitigated or even reversed in the presence of anthropogenic influences. The thrips species Frankliniella occidentalis and Thrips tabaci are highly invasive and damaging agricultural pests throughout the world. Where the species co-occur, one species tends to eventually predominate over the other. Avermectin and beta-cypermethrin are commonly used insecticides to manage thrips in China, and laboratory bioassays demonstrated that F. occidentalis is significantly less susceptible than T. tabaci to these insecticides. In laboratory cage trials in which both species were exposed to insecticide treated cabbage plants, F. occidentalis became the predominant species. In contrast, T. tabaci completely displaced F. occidentalis on plants that were not treated with insecticides. In field trials, the species co-existed on cabbage before insecticide treatments began, but with T. tabaci being the predominant species. Following application of avermectin or beta-cypermethrin, F. occidentalis became the predominant species, while in plots not treated with insecticides, T. tabaci remained the predominant species. These results indicate that T. tabaci is an intrinsically superior competitor to F. occidentalis, but its competitive advantage can be counteracted through differential susceptibilities of the species to insecticides. These results further demonstrate the importance of external factors, such as insecticide applications, in mediating the outcome of interspecific interactions and produce rapid unanticipated shifts in the demographics of pest complexes.

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