2005
DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-98.6.2203
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bollgard Cotton and Resistance of Tobacco Budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Conventional Insecticides in Southern Tamaulipas, Mexico

Abstract: Insecticide susceptibility in tobacco budworm, Heliothis virescens (F.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), was determined for 8 yr (1991-2001) with larvae sampled from cotton in southern Tamaulipas, Mexico. Before 1996, when Bollgard cotton expressing the Cry1A(c) delta-endotoxin was introduced into the region, two important patterns were documented. The first was economically significant increases in resistance to certain insecticide groups. The second was occurrence of virtually complete control failures in the field… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The expected mortality, Y(x), for the backcross progeny at concentration x is calculated as Y(x) ϭ 0.50 (WRS ϩ WRR), where WRS and WRR are the mortality values of the presumed RS (F 1 ) and RR (resistant parental line, Vip-Sel) genotypes at concentration x, respectively (59,60). The 2 test for goodness of fit between the backcross and expected mortality was calculated as described by Sokal and Rohlf (61) as 2 ϭ (F 1 -pn) 2 /pqn, where F 1 is the observed number of dead larvae in the backcross generation at concentration x, p is the expected proportion of dead larvae calculated as Y(x), n is the number of backcross progeny exposed to concentration x, and q ϭ 1 -p. The 2 value is compared with the 2 distribution with 1 degree of freedom, and if P is Ͻ0.05, the null hypothesis of monogenic resistance is rejected (59,60). The genetic variation within Vip-Unsel, Vip-Sel, F 1 reciprocal crosses, backcrosses, and F 2 crosses was determined using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for significant variation in mortality among families produced by the single-pair crosses.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The expected mortality, Y(x), for the backcross progeny at concentration x is calculated as Y(x) ϭ 0.50 (WRS ϩ WRR), where WRS and WRR are the mortality values of the presumed RS (F 1 ) and RR (resistant parental line, Vip-Sel) genotypes at concentration x, respectively (59,60). The 2 test for goodness of fit between the backcross and expected mortality was calculated as described by Sokal and Rohlf (61) as 2 ϭ (F 1 -pn) 2 /pqn, where F 1 is the observed number of dead larvae in the backcross generation at concentration x, p is the expected proportion of dead larvae calculated as Y(x), n is the number of backcross progeny exposed to concentration x, and q ϭ 1 -p. The 2 value is compared with the 2 distribution with 1 degree of freedom, and if P is Ͻ0.05, the null hypothesis of monogenic resistance is rejected (59,60). The genetic variation within Vip-Unsel, Vip-Sel, F 1 reciprocal crosses, backcrosses, and F 2 crosses was determined using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for significant variation in mortality among families produced by the single-pair crosses.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This insecticidal protein has also been shown to be efficacious in controlling H. virescens larvae in soybean and cotton (Terán-Vargas, 2005;Bortolotto et al, 2014). In soybean, even in more developed plants (withseed pods), the concentration of the insecticidal protein is sufficient to control H. virescens larvae (Bernardi et al, 2013;Bortolotto et al, 2014) (Table 5).…”
Section: Seed Treatment In Cry1ac Soybeanmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has primarily been cotton, on which intensive selection pressure with synthetic insecticides 20,21 forced TBW to develop high levels of resistance to all kinds of pesticides in different places of the Western Hemisphere. [22][23][24] In the US, this pest at one time or another had developed different degrees of tolerance to all the chemicals that have been used against it in significant quantities. 20,22,23,[25][26][27] One group of synthetic insecticides after another has shown to be no match for the capacity of this pest to rapidly acquire resistance.…”
Section: A Hard-to-kill Pestmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Before this point, employing the best control measures, the bollworm complex together with the boll weevil [Anthonomus grandis (Boheman)] were causing at least 15-20% yield losses on cotton. A report of the use of Bt-cotton 24 illustrates how this technology can have an impact on IRM and the control of this pest. Before Bt-cotton was available in northeastern Mexico, TBW in several places with the aid of pheromone-baited traps and by field evaluations.…”
Section: A Hard-to-kill Pestmentioning
confidence: 99%