4.6 Article

Comparison of Insecticide Susceptibilities of Empoasca vitis (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) from Three Main Tea-Growing Regions in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 1251-1259

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jee/tov063

关键词

Empoasca vitis; tea pest; leaf-dip method; insecticide susceptibility

资金

  1. Major Science and Technology Projects in Guizhou Province [2012-6012]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171884]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Empoasca vitis (Gothe) is an important insect pest in tea-growing areas of China, and chemical control is the main tactic for the management of this pest. Due to the pressure of increasing insecticide resistance and more stringent food safety regulations, development of sound IPM strategies for E. vitis is an urgent matter. This study comparatively evaluated four field populations of E. vitis from three different tea-growing regions in China for their susceptibilities to eight insecticides using a simple leaf-dip methodology. E. vitis was found to be most sensitive to indoxacarb (LC50 < 0.5 mg/liter) and least sensitive to isoprocarb (LC50 > 5 mg/liter) and sophocarpidine (LC50 > 95 mg/liter, a botanical pesticide) regardless of populations. Population (geographical) variations were higher for indoxacarb and imidacloprid than other compounds. Judging by the 95% fiducial limits of LC50 values, all populations had similar susceptibilities to chlorfenapyr, bifenthrin, and acetamiprid or imidacloprid. Correlation analysis suggested that chlorfenapyr and indoxacarb or isoprocarb may have a high risk of cross resistance. Considering potency (LC50) and maximum residual levels, chlorfenapyr and bifenthrin are good insecticide options followed by acetamiprid and indoxacarb. These results provide valuable information to intelligently select insecticides for IPM programs that are efficacious against E. vitis while also managing insecticide resistance and maximum residual levels for tea production in China.

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

4.6
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