4.5 Article

Evidence for field evolved resistance to newer insecticides in Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Pakistan

期刊

CROP PROTECTION
卷 27, 期 10, 页码 1367-1372

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2008.05.003

关键词

Spodoptera litura; spinosad; indoxacarb; avermectins; chitin synthesis inhibitors; ecdysone agonist; resistance

类别

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan
  2. University College of Agriculture, B.Z. University, Multan, Pakistan
  3. Department of Biochemistry, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
  4. AHS
  5. BBSRC [BB/C504927/1]
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C504927/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The toxicity of representative newer insecticides, which are being used widely in Pakistan, were investigated against various populations of Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) collected from three different districts for 3 consecutive years. For spinosad, resistance ratio compared with Lab-PK were in the range of 7-122-fold, 3-95-fold for indoxacarb, 4-186-fold for abamectin, 2-77-fold for emamectin and 13-224-fold for fipronil. The resistance ratio for insect growth regulator (IGR) tested was in the range of 2-66-fold for leufenuron, 8-56-fold for diflubenuron and 2-153-fold for methoxyfenozide. Paired wise comparisons of the log LC(50)s of insecticides tested for all the populations showed correlations among several insecticides, suggesting a cross-resistance mechanism. The most probable reason for low toxicity of these insecticides could also be the development of multiple resistance mechanisms; however, further studies are required to establish these mechanisms. When these same products were tested against a susceptible laboratory population (Lab-PK), emamectin and indoxacarb were significantly more toxic than other compounds tested. The results are discussed in relation to integrated pest management (IPM) for the S. litura with respect to unstable resistance in the field. (C) 2008 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