3.9 Article

Sublethal Effects of Flonicamid and Thiamethoxam on Green Peach Aphid, Myzus persicae and Feeding Behavior Analysis

出版社

KOREAN SOC APPLIED BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.3839/jksabc.2011.135

关键词

electrical penetration graph; flonicamid; Myzus persicae; sublethal concentration; thiamethoxam

资金

  1. Korean Government
  2. Industry and Academy Collaboration Group for Chungbuk Grapes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The green peach aphid, Myzus persicae Siilzer, is an important sap-sucking pest of many plants, including Chinese cabbage. The objective of the present study was to determine the effects of sublethal concentrations of two insecticides (flonicamid and thiamethoxam) and the action mechanisms on the feeding behavior of M. persicae. The median lethal concentrations (LC50) of flonicamid and thiamethoxam for adult M. persicae were 2.56 and 4.02 mg/L, respectively. The sublethal concentrations of flonicamid were 0.44 mg/L (LC,) and 1.25 mg/L (LC31), and those of thiamethoxam were 1.19 mg/L (LC10) and 2.45 mg/L (LC30). The developmental period of M. persicae nymphs was 5.9 days at LC10 and 6.1 days at LC30 for both insecticides compared to 5.7 days for the control. Adult longevities at LC10 and LC30 of flonicamid were 13.2 and 13.7 days, respectively. Adult longevity at LC10 of thiamethoxam was 14.7 days. Control adult longevity was 11.6 days. Total fecundity was higher at LC10 (41.8 offspring/female) and LC30 (43.0 offspring/female) of flonicamid, and at LC, (42.1 offspring/female) of thiamethoxam than that of the control (29.5 offspring/female). Feeding behavior analysis using an electrical penetration graph showed that sublethal doses of flonicamid and thiamethoxam had significant effects on the duration of phloem ingestion. However, higher doses of flonicamid induced starvation by inhibition of phloem ingestion and higher doses of thiamethoxam induced contact toxicity rather than inhibition of feeding behavior. This study provides the basis for a more efficient use of these pesticides in Korea.

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

3.9
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