Resistance of green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea Stephens to nitenpyram: Cross-resistance patterns, mechanism, stability, and realized heritability

Mansoor, Muhammad Mudassir; Raza, Abu Bakar Muhammad; Abbas, Naeem; Aqueel, Muhammad Anjum; Afzal, Muhammad

doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2016.06.004

Cited by 35 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The role of a generalist predator, C. carnea is obvious and well known, however, their presence in the field is dependent upon the lack of disruption due to different insecticides [21]. Therefore, there is a need to study the evolution of insecticides resistance in C. carnae, which are regularly used for the management of various insect pests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collected adults (field strain) and laboratory reared (G-273) strains were kept in rearing cage (24.5 x 24.5 x 24.5 cm) provisioned with an artificial diet consisting sugar, honey, yeast and distilled water (2:1:1:2) in the laboratory [21]. Black linen cloth was provided at the top of cages for egg laying and removed on each alternate day to harvest the eggs.…”

Section: Insect Rearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concentration response bioassays of insecticides were conducted for 48 -60 hours old C. carnea adults as described previously [21]. All above mentioned concentrations were made as serial dilutions, each concentration was replicated three times for each bioassay.…”

Section: Concentration Response Bioassaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1µl of each serial concentration was applied on the thorax of each individual adult with Arnold Micro-applicator (type LV.65. Burkard, UK) as described by Mansoor et al, [21]. Each replication contained thirty adults, and a total of ninety adults was exposed to each concentration of insecticide.…”

Section: Concentration Response Bioassaymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Resistance Potential of <i>Chrysoperla carnea</i> (Stephens) to Insecticides Used Against Sucking Complex of Cotton

Sohail¹,

Nasar²,

Raza³

et al. 2019

IJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reported high loss mortality rate of green lacewing, (Chrysoperla carnea) have been attributed to diverse factors including unattended use of insecticides. Since chemical control is one of a significant practice to manage insect pest in cotton. However, this kind of practice may impair the natural control provided by generalist predator C. carnea. Although, natural control adoption is limited in crops, area and season due to wide-spread use of insecticides but presence of resistance potential in C. carnea may improve the design of solid IPM strategies. Herein, we aimed to assess the toxicity of four insecticides to two strains of C. carnea (viz. laboratory reared and field collected adults) and to evaluate their resistance potential by calculating their resistance ratio. LC 50 was calculated at 24 h following topical application administered when the adults were 3 days old. Control adult mortalities were less than 10% at 24 h. The LC 50 values (µl mL -1 ) for laboratory reared strains of each tested insecticide were: acetamiprid, 0.0064; bifenthrin, 3.75; chlorpyrifos, 0.067; and profenofos, 0.052. The LC 50 values for field collected strains were 0.096 (acetamiprid), 34.8 (bifenthrin), 0.21 (chlorpyrifos) and 0.44 (profenofos). The toxicity of the test insecticide to C. carnea from more to least toxic was acetamiprid > profenofos > chlorpyrifos > bifenthrin. Field collected strain possessed 15 (acetamiprid)-, 9.28 (bifenthrin)-, 3.13 (chlorpyrifos)-, and 8.5 (profenofos)-fold more resistance than the susceptible population. These results are pretty worthwhile for integration of C. carnea in IPM programs, impairing with insecticides.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Insect Rearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Concentration Response Bioassaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Concentration Response Bioassaymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Resistance Potential of <i>Chrysoperla carnea</i> (Stephens) to Insecticides Used Against Sucking Complex of Cotton

Sohail¹,

Nasar²,

Raza³

et al. 2019

IJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, whereas in some cases resistance persisted in the absence of the insecticide (Croft & Meyer, 1973;Hoy, 1990;Kostiainen & Hoy, 1994;Glazer et al, 1997;Sayyed et al, 2010;Mansoor et al, 2017), in others it declined (Robertson, 1957;Meyer, 1975;Croft & Hoying, 1975;Spollen & Hoy, 1992;Zhu et al, 1996;Jalali et al, 2006b), possibly because the acquired resistance was a plastic response or due to costs of resistance in an insecticide-free environment. Indeed, whereas in some cases resistance persisted in the absence of the insecticide (Croft & Meyer, 1973;Hoy, 1990;Kostiainen & Hoy, 1994;Glazer et al, 1997;Sayyed et al, 2010;Mansoor et al, 2017), in others it declined (Robertson, 1957;Meyer, 1975;Croft & Hoying, 1975;Spollen & Hoy, 1992;Zhu et al, 1996;Jalali et al, 2006b), possibly because the acquired resistance was a plastic response or due to costs of resistance in an insecticide-free environment.…”

Section: Performance Of Biocontrol Agents In Specific Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does experimental evolution produce better biological control agents? A critical review of the evidence

Lirakis

Magalhães

2019

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological control of crop pests is considered a good alternative or complement to the use of pesticides. However, legislation restricts the importation of natural enemies of pests. A potential way to circumvent this limitation is by using experimental evolution and/or artificial selection to improve native biological control agents. Here, we review studies that have used these methodologies and evaluate their success. Experimental evolution or artificial selection has been used on a wide range of traits, with most focusing on improving the performance of natural enemies in ecologically relevant environments, such as in the presence of pesticides or at different temperatures. Although most studies were poorly replicated, the selected traits generally improved following the selection process. However, correlated responses (often in the form of trade-offs) with other traits of interest were common. We suggest that the selection procedure can be improved by increasing replication and performing experimental evolution under more semi-natural environments, to ensure that the most useful traits are being selected.

show abstract

Inheritance of polygenic but stable pyriproxyfen resistance in a bio‐control agent Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): cross‐resistance and realized heritability

Mansoor

Shad

2020

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) is a voracious predator frequently used in biological control programs to suppress pest populations of economic importance. However, it performs its duty in a challenging environment where various stress factors such as non-target effects of insecticides limit expected outcomes. A study providing details of genetics, cross-resistance, realized heritability, and stability of insect growth regulators (IGRs) resistance such as pyriproxyfen in this biocontrol agent is essential. RESULTS: Selection with pyriproxyfen, an IGR, resulted in 3092.10-fold and 39.60-fold resistance when judged against Susceptible and Field Pop, respectively. Very low cross-resistance to buprofezin while no cross-resistance to acetamiprid and spinosad was observed. Incompletely dominant, autosomal and polygenic resistance was also associated with high realized heritability (h 2 = 0.35). Furthermore, resistance to pyriproxyfen was stable in this bio-control agent. CONCLUSION: These findings make Chrysoperla carnea an ideal fit in integrated pest management (IPM) programs where biological control approaches are employed in combination with IGRs sprays to control various insect pests especially Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Releasing pyriproxyfen-resistant Chrysoperla carnea in a multi-sprayed cropping environment would help to keep pest population below economic threshold level. It would also minimize risk of insecticide resistance development in pests surviving even after several insecticide applications.

show abstract

Resistance of green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea Stephens to nitenpyram: Cross-resistance patterns, mechanism, stability, and realized heritability

Cited by 35 publications

References 39 publications

Resistance Potential of <i>Chrysoperla carnea</i> (Stephens) to Insecticides Used Against Sucking Complex of Cotton

Resistance Potential of <i>Chrysoperla carnea</i> (Stephens) to Insecticides Used Against Sucking Complex of Cotton

Does experimental evolution produce better biological control agents? A critical review of the evidence

Inheritance of polygenic but stable pyriproxyfen resistance in a bio‐control agent Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): cross‐resistance and realized heritability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Resistance of green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea Stephens to nitenpyram: Cross-resistance patterns, mechanism, stability, and realized heritability

Cited by 35 publications

References 39 publications

Resistance Potential of &lt;i&gt;Chrysoperla carnea&lt;/i&gt; (Stephens) to Insecticides Used Against Sucking Complex of Cotton

Resistance Potential of &lt;i&gt;Chrysoperla carnea&lt;/i&gt; (Stephens) to Insecticides Used Against Sucking Complex of Cotton

Does experimental evolution produce better biological control agents? A critical review of the evidence

Inheritance of polygenic but stable pyriproxyfen resistance in a bio‐control agent Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): cross‐resistance and realized heritability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Resistance Potential of <i>Chrysoperla carnea</i> (Stephens) to Insecticides Used Against Sucking Complex of Cotton

Resistance Potential of <i>Chrysoperla carnea</i> (Stephens) to Insecticides Used Against Sucking Complex of Cotton