Vol.12_No.2 - Pesticide Alternatives Lab - Michigan State University
Vol.12_No.2 - Pesticide Alternatives Lab - Michigan State University
Vol.12_No.2 - Pesticide Alternatives Lab - Michigan State University
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Management Newsletter Vol. 12, <strong>No.2</strong>REFERENCESAbbott, W. S. 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of aninsecticide. J. Econ. Entomol., 18: 265-267.Busvine, J.R. 1980. Recommended methods for detection andmeasurement of resistance of agricultural pests to pesticides. FAO,Rome. pp. 44-46.Finney, D.J. 1971. Probit analysis. Third Edition. S.Chand & Co.Ltd.,New Delhi.333 p. Georghiou, G.P. 1981. The occurrence ofresistance to <strong>Pesticide</strong>s in arthropods. An index of cases reportedthrough 1980. FAO, Rome. 373 p.Mascarenhas, R.N. and Boethal, D.J. 1997. Responses of field collectedstrains of soybean looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to selectedinsecticides using an artificial diet overlay bioassay. J.Econ.Entomol., 90: 1117-1124.Salgado, V.L., Watson, G.B. and Sheets, J.B. 1997.Studies on the modeof action of spinosad, the active ingredient in Tracer Insect Control.Proc. Beltwide Cotton Production Conferences. Memphis, TN,USA. pp. 1082-1086.Sparks,T.C., Thompson, G.D., Herbert, A.K., Hertlein, M.B., Larson,L.L., Worden, T.V. and Thibault, S.T.1998. Biological activity ofthe spinosyns, new fermentation derived insect control agents ontobacco bud worm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. J.Econ.Entomol., 91: 1277-1283.Sparks, T.C., Crouse, G. D. and Durst, G. 2001. Natural products asinsecticides: the biology, biochemistry and quantitative structureactivityrelationships of spinosyns and spinosoids. PestManagement Sc. 57: 896-905.R.K.AroraDivision of EntomologyFaculty of Agriculture, SKUAST-JammuUdheywalla Jammu -180 002IndiaBaseline Susceptibility of Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella (Linn.), to New InsecticidesABSTRACT Toxicity of three new insecticides (fipronil,indoxacarb, and diafenthiuron) was assessed against3rd instar larvae of diamondback moth (DBM) using aleaf residue technique. LC50 values of theseinsecticides were observed to be very low indicatingthe high toxicity and potential of these compoundsagainst multi-resistant populations of DBM. Baselinesusceptibility data will be useful to monitor theresponse of DBM to these compounds in future forearly detection of resistance.KEY WORDS Diamondback moth, cabbage, newinsecticides, bioassay, insecticide resistance, baselinesusceptibilityand Joia, 1992). The problem is acute in areas wherevegetables are grown extensively in a staggeredmanner almost throughout the year, particularly aroundand near big cities (Joia et al. 1996). In view of thereports of field control failure and the development ofresistance in the pest, it was considered appropriate toundertake studies to assess toxicity of new moleculestowards multi-resistant populations of DBM. Theobjective was to identify potential compounds forinsecticide resistance management of the pest and toestablish baseline susceptibility of DBM to theseinsecticides.MATERIALS and METHODSINTRODUCTION Large scale and indiscriminate use ofinsecticides for the control of insect pests, necessitatedby ever increasing demand for quality food and betterpublic health has resulted in a number of problems.One of the major problems that has arisen out of theabuse of insecticides is the development of resistancein insect pests to pest control chemicals. Diamondbackmoth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (Linn.), is aubiquitous pest wherever crucifers are grown. It is themost destructive and is a regular pest of cabbage andcauliflower. The pest is known for its propensitytowards quick development of resistance (Georghiou,1990) and there have been instances when this pest hasdeveloped resistance to a new molecule within a fewyears of its introduction (Hama, 1989). The pest hasdeveloped resistance to almost all the recommendedinsecticides belonging to major groups in many parts ofthe world (Talekar and Shelton, 1993) and is becomingincreasingly difficult to control. In India, resistance inP. xylostella to different insecticides has been reportedfrom several states like Punjab, Haryana, UttarPradesh, Karnatka, Tamil Naidu, and Andhra Pradesh(Mehrotra and Phokela 2000). In Punjab, DBM hasdeveloped resistance to quinalphos, fenvalerate,cypermethrin, and several other insecticides (ChawlaTest Insects: Pupae and larvae of diamondbackmoth were collected from infested plants in variouscabbage / cauliflower growing areas of Punjab duringthe period from September to October. The insectswere reared in the laboratory on cabbage leavesobtained from unsprayed crops. Third instar larvae ofuniform size and weight from F1or subsequentgenerations were used for bioassay.Insecticides: Commercial formulations of testinsecticides were procured from the manufacturersdirectly. The products were diluted with water to obtaina range of test concentrations, usually 6 to 7 for each ofthe test insecticides.Bioassay Method: The leaf residue technique(Tabashnik et al., 1987) with slight modifications wasused for exposing larvae to test insecticides. Discs (5cm diameter) of cabbage leaves were dipped in testconcentrations for 5 seconds and dried for 1 hour atroom temperature. Distilled water was used as control.After drying, the discs were placed in glass containers.Around thirty 3rd instar larvae were released per twodiscs for each concentration and the mouth of thecontainer was secured with muslin cloth tied with30