4.5 Article

Determination of resistance and resistance mechanisms to thiacloprid in Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) populations collected from apple orchards in Isparta Province, Turkey

期刊

CROP PROTECTION
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 82-88

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2016.09.015

关键词

Cydia pomonella; Resistance; Thiacloprid; Chlorpyrifos; Detoxifying enzymes; Negative cross-resistance

类别

资金

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [TOVAG-1100631]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The codling moth, Cydia pomenella is considered as the most important pest of apple worldwide and it causes significant economic losses yearly in orchards where it is not controlled effectively. The purpose of this study was to determine the resistance ratios to thiacloprid and the detoxification enzymes of Cydia pomonella from apple orchards in Isparta, Turkey. Populations of codling moth were collected from six orchards in the region and the diapausing larvae were treated with thiacloprid and chlorpyrifos by topical application. The LD50 values of field and a susceptible population were used to determine the resistance ratios to thiacloprid and chlorpyrifos. The corresponding LD50 values of C pomonella populations showed a low (5.5-6.7 fold) or medium resistance (11.2-16.5 fold) against thiacloprid but were susceptible to chlorpyrifos. In studies conducted with synergists, piperonyl butoxide (PBO) and S,S,S, tributyl phosphorotrithioate (DEF) had a significant synergistic effect on two populations (from Gelendost and Senirkent) that medium resistance to thiacloprid. The levels of detoxifying enzymes [esterase, glutathion -S- transferase (GST) and cytochrome P450 monooxygenase (P450)] were investigated using biochemical methods and differed depending on the population. Based on the results of the enzyme analyses, the P450 and esterase enzymes may play a role in the resistance in codling moths to thiacloprid. (C) 2016 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