Resistance Monitoring for Six Insecticides in Vegetable Field-Collected Populations of Spodoptera litura from China
by
Ziyi Zhang
1,2,†, 
Bingli Gao
2,†,
Cheng Qu
2,
Jingyu Gong
1,
Wenxiang Li
1,*,
Chen Luo
2 and
Ran Wang
2,* 
1
College of Agriculture and Forestry Technology, Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou 075000, China
2
Institute of Plant Protection, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100097, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Horticulturae 2022, 8(3), 255; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030255
Submission received: 18 February 2022
/
Revised: 10 March 2022
/
Accepted: 15 March 2022
/
Published: 17 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Integrated Disease and Pest Management of Vegetables)
Abstract
:The common cutworm, Spodoptera litura (Fabricius), is a notorious and damaging insect pest of horticultural crops in China, the management of which largely relies on chemical agents that are limited by the development of chemical resistance in target populations. As such, resistance monitoring of S. litura populations is a necessary part of management strategies of insecticide resistance. In the current work, we monitored resistance to six insecticides in field-collected populations of S. litura sampled from eleven provinces across China in 2021. The results show that S. litura populations developed significant resistance against chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, metaflumizone, and pyridalyl and low levels of resistance to chromafenozide. However, S. litura populations were susceptible or exhibited minimal resistance to tetraniliprole. Possible cross-resistances between chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, metaflumizone, pyridalyl, and chromafenozide were found by pairwise correlation, which also revealed that tetraniliprole lacked cross-resistance with all insecticides tested. Our results suggest suspending the use of chemical agents against which S. litura displayed significant field-evolved resistance, such as chlorantraniliprole, metaflumizone, and pyridalyl, in favor of pesticides against which S. litura was susceptible or exhibited minimal resistance, such as tetraniliprole and chromafenozide, which may help slow the development of insecticide resistance, and in which field management programs aimed at controlling S. litura in China would benefit from the integration of such survey-informed insecticide application strategies. Moreover, the baseline susceptibility confirmed for the six tested insecticides can contribute to design strategies of resistance management for S. litura.
1. Introduction
The tobacco cutworm, Spodoptera litura (Fabricius), is a notorious insect pest of horticultural crops around the world that causes significant damage to a wide range of crops, including tobacco, cotton, soybeans, and vegetables [1]. In part due to its high reproductive capacity, over-reliance on chemical agents to control S. litura has caused resistance to a variety of chemical agents used worldwide [2]. The first report of pesticide resistance in S. litura populations was against benzene hexachloride, described in 1965 [3]. In recent years, more and more field-collected populations of S. litura have evolved high-level resistance to different types of chemical agents, such as organophosphates, pyrethroids, carbamates, and even several newer chemistries including abamectin, indoxacarb, emamectin benzoate, chlorantraniliprole, metaflumizone and cyantraniliprole [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. In the above cases, mechanisms of resistance to chlorantraniliprole and metaflumizone could be associated with changed activities of detoxification enzymes and mutations of the target gene, respectively [7,12]. One approach to slowing evolution of resistance involves rotating newer pesticides that have distinct modes of action with existing insecticides.
In recent years, tetraniliprole, chromafenozide, and pyridalyl, three novel chemical agents, were reported to provide good control against lepidopteran pests even at low dosages [13,14,15]. Owing to their efficacy and convenience in the field, insecticides are heavily used in controlling insect pests; however, overuse of insecticides has given rise to the significant development of insecticide resistance in pest populations, thereby reducing the efficacy of currently and widely used pesticide chemistry. As described previously in many other species of lepidopteran pests, gradual selection pressure resulting from continual and long-term insecticide application in the field has greatly contributed to the development of resistance [16,17,18,19,20]. To date, few reports of resistance against the aforementioned three novel chemical agents in S. litura populations have been recorded in China.
In our current work, we monitored the status of resistance to six insecticides (chlorantraniliprole, metaflumizone, pyridalyl, cyantraniliprole, chromafenozide, and tetraniliprole) in field-collected populations of S. litura from eleven provinces of China in the year 2021. Moreover, pairwise correlation analysis revealed patterns of cross-resistance to all the tested pesticides in eleven field-collected populations of S. litura. Our results provide valuable data concerning the resistance level of chemical agents in S. litura populations in China and suggestions for sustainable strategies of resistance management.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Insects
The reference strain of S. litura, which was reared in a chamber with no exposure to any chemical agents over five years, provided by the Henan bio company, was used as the susceptible Lab-S strain. As shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, eleven populations of S. litura were individually sampled in 2021 from eleven provinces of China: Hubei (WH), Anhui (HF), Jiangxi (NC), Jiangsu (YC), Zhejiang (LS), Hunan (CS), Fujian (ND), Guangdong (GZ), Hainan (SY), Guangxi (GL), and Yunnan (YX). About 200 fourth-instar larvae of S. litura were sampled randomly in different host plants (Table 1) and were maintained in a rearing room to obtain F1 progeny for the bioassays. In the above work, an artificial diet and 10% sugar solution were used to maintain the tested populations of S. litura [7]. All tested S. litura were reared under well-controlled conditions of relative humidity as 60–70%, temperature as 26 ± 1 °C, and a light/dark photoperiod as 16:8 h.
2.2. Insecticides and Chemicals
The insecticides utilized were analytically standardized (Table 2). Chlorantraniliprole (Dr. Ehrenstorfer, CAS# 500008-45-7, catalog# DRE-C11145000), tetraniliprole (Dr. Ehrenstorfer, CAS# 1229654-66-3, catalog# DRE-C17414700) and chromafenozide (Dr. Ehrenstorfer, CAS# 143807-66-3, catalog# DRE-C11665500) were purchased from Dr. Ehrenstorfer, Germany. Metaflumizone (Sigma Aldrich, Shanghai, China, CAS# 139968-49-3, catalog# 32966-100MG), cyantraniliprole (Sigma Aldrich, CAS# 736994-63-1, catalog# 32372-25MG), pyridalyl (Sigma Aldrich, CAS# 179101-81-6, 32393-25MG), dimethyl sulfoxide (Sigma Aldrich, CAS# 67-68-5, catalog# D8418-500ML) and Triton X-100 (Sigma Aldrich, CAS# 9002-93-1, catalog# 93443-100ML) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich, Shanghai, China.
2.3. Bioassays
Leaf-dip bioassays were performed according to published methods with minor revision [7]. Third-instar larvae of S. litura were collected at random, five serial working concentrations of chemical agent were diluted by the use of sterilized water with 0.1% Triton X-100, and four replicates were set up for each of the working concentrations. The tested leaf disc (5 cm diameter) from the cabbage plant Brassica oleracea was immersed in each specific working concentration for 20 s, was dried in the rearing chamber, and then placed into each petri dish (5.5 cm diameter). Ten tested larvae were introduced onto the leaf disc used as each replicate for the treatment, and four replicates were performed for each treatment. All tested S. litura were reared under the same controlled conditions in a rearing room.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Responses of concentration mortality, slope values, median lethal concentrations (LC50) and their 95% fiducial limits (FLs) were calculated by the use of the software POLO Plus [21]. Between the lab-S strain and each field-collected population, the values of LC50 were identified as markedly different if overlap was not observed between the 95% FLs. The resistance ratio (RR) was evaluated as LC50 (field-collected population)/LC50 (Lab-S), and levels of pesticide resistance is reported by the published method [7]: susceptibility (RR < 5), low level of resistance (RR = 5–10), moderate level of resistance (RR = 10–40), high level of resistance (RR = 40–160), and extremely high level of resistance (RR > 160). Pairwise correlation coefficients were evaluated among the values of log LC50 in field-collected populations and the tested chemical agents by the use of analysis of Pearson’s correlation using the software of SPSS [22] to assess cross-resistance among diverse chemical agents.
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Susceptibility of S. litura-Susceptible Lab-S Strain to Six Insecticides
Currently in China, baseline susceptibilities of S. litura to tetraniliprole and chromafenozide have not been assessed, and the baseline values for resistance to chlorantraniliprole, metaflumizone, pyridalyl and cyantraniliprole were determined with regional research. In the current work, the above six chemical agents were selected for establishing baseline susceptibilities of S. litura populations from eleven provinces of China, and they determined the susceptibility baseline of the susceptible Lab-S strain as reference (Table 3).
3.2. Monitoring Sensitivity to Six Insecticides in Central China
As shown in Figure 2 and Table 4, the three field-collected populations from central China, Wuhan (WH), Changsha (CS) and Nanchang (NC) were sensitive or displayed low levels of resistance to five of the six chemical agents. The WH and CS populations displayed moderate resistance to metaflumizone, at 14.6- and 21.8-fold greater than the Lab-S strain, respectively. Although the NC population (9.6-fold) was classified as having low level resistance to metaflumizone, the resistance level closely approached the moderate range.
3.3. Monitoring Sensitivity to Six Insecticides in Eastern China
Relative resistance levels varied among the four field-collected populations from eastern China (Figure 2 and Table 5). The Hefei (HF) population was susceptible to all six insecticides. In the Yancheng (YC) and Lishui (LS) populations, similar to the three field-collected populations from central China, moderate resistance to metaflumizone (29.3- and 34.1-fold) and low resistance or susceptibility to the other five tested insecticides were observed. Unexpectedly, the Ningde (ND) S. litura population displayed high-level resistance to metaflumizone (50.8-fold) and chlorantraniliprole (64.3-fold), and moderate resistance to pyridalyl (24.2-fold). Moreover, the ND population displayed low-level resistance to cyantraniliprole, tetraniliprole, and chromafenozide.
As shown in Figure 2 and Table 6, the Yuxi (YX) population displayed middle- to high-level resistance to five of the six chemical agents, and only showed susceptibility to tetraniliprole. Likewise, Guangzhou (GZ) and Sanya (SY) populations displayed middle- to high-level resistance to four of the six chemical agents, only showing susceptibility or low-level resistance to chromafenozide and pyridalyl. Similar to the ND population, high-level resistance to metaflumizone and chlorantraniliprole were detected in the YX (64.7- and 58.9-fold), GZ (80.2- and 111.6-fold), and SY (41.4- and 76.3-fold) populations, respectively.
Pairwise correlation coefficients were assessed between the values of log LC50 of the tested chemical agent for S. litura field-collected populations. Analysis of Pearson’s correlation was performed to evaluate cross-resistance among different chemical agents. The data were displayed with normality assumption; otherwise, Spearman rank correlation was conducted. As shown in Table 7, resistance to pyridalyl was significantly correlated with metaflumizone resistance (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.883, p < 0.01), chlorantraniliprole, (r = 0.926, p < 0.01), cyantraniliprole, (r = 0.958, p < 0.01) and chromafenozide (r = 0.758, p < 0.01). Similarly, there were significant positive correlations between resistance to metaflumizone and chlorantraniliprole (r = 0.926, p < 0.01), and cyantraniliprole (r = 0.958, p < 0.01). Moreover, significant correlations were detected between chlorantraniliprole and cyantraniliprole (r = 0.969, p < 0.01). In contrast, no significant correlations between tetraniliprole and the other five tested chemical agents were detected in field-collected populations of S. litura in China (p > 0.05).
4. Discussion
Monitoring of pesticide resistance is one necessary part of management of resistance, and it has been considered as imperative for the strategies of pest management [23]. In China, previous research has determined the baseline toxicities of insecticides used to control S. litura as well as the corresponding susceptibility levels [4,7,8,9]. Our results indicate that most S. litura populations (eight of eleven) displayed significant resistance to metaflumizone, and some S. litura populations (four of eleven) also showed significant resistance to chlorantraniliprole. Similarly, four of the eleven field-collected populations presented significant resistance to pyridalyl. Additionally, some S. litura populations (three of eleven) showed moderate resistance to cyantraniliprole. In China, the levels of resistance to metaflumizone and chlorantraniliprole in S. litura were monitored, and high to very high levels of resistance to them were detected, respectively [7,12], and cases of low to moderate resistance to cyantraniliprole were reported previously [9].
In contrast to the resistance statuses of the above four tested insecticides, regarding chromafenozide resistance in the eleven field-collected S. litura populations, we found that one population showed moderate resistance, and two populations showed low resistance. Furthermore, we found that only one of the eleven tested populations showed low resistance to tetraniliprole, and all other populations were susceptible to this chemical agent. In China, although field-evolved resistance to tetraniliprole has been reported in Spodoptera exigua [24], few cases of resistance in S. litura were reported until now. Similarly, to date in China, there are no reports of resistance to chromafenozide in lepidopteran pests. Considering that application of pesticides is still one of main measures for pest management [25], our above results indicate that the novel anthranilic diamide insecticide tetraniliprole and the dibenzoylhydrazine insecticide chromafenozide are still effective chemistries that farmers can use to control S. litura in China.
To avoid or slow the development of pesticide resistance, the study on cross-resistance between pesticides could guide the rotation and mixed application of them [26]. Previous publications have indicated that cross-resistance was detected among anthranilic diamide pesticides, such as metaflumizone and pyridalyl, in lepidopteran pests [9,12,19,27]. In the current study, pairwise correlation of values of log LC50 also found the existence of cross-resistance among long-term use insecticides, including chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, metaflumizone, pyridalyl, and chromafenozide. In contrast, tetraniliprole presented little cross-resistance with tested insecticides in the 11 field-collected populations of S. litura in China. Similarly, Indian field populations of Spodoptera frugiperda displayed little cross-resistance to all the tested pesticides such as organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, fiproles, avermectins, spinosyns and anthranilic diamides [20]. The lack of cross-resistance to tetraniliprole makes it a promising method for the management of resistance in the field. Besides, a robust approach to resistance management is expected to take into account of rotation of tetraniliprole with other chemical classes of pesticides, such as pyridalyl and chromafenozide, so as to extend the life span of tetraniliprole in the field of China. Additionally, alternative strategies to control insect pests for example biological control of pests will be important while they develop insecticide resistance [28,29]. Recently, Autographa californica Multiple Nucleopolyhedrovirus (AcMNPV), which is a baculovirus that causes systemic infections in many arthropod pests, was indicated that it could be promising for the management of S. frugiperda and Trichoplusia ni [30].
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, W.L. and R.W.; methodology, Z.Z. and B.G.; software, Z.Z. and B.G.; validation, C.Q.; formal analysis, Z.Z. and B.G.; investigation, Z.Z. and B.G.; resources, J.G.; data curation, C.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L. and R.W.; writing—review and editing, W.L. and R.W.; visualization, R.W.; supervision, R.W.; project administration, C.L. and R.W; funding acquisition, C.L. and R.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported by the China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA, the Scientific and Technological Innovation Capacity Construction Special Funds of the Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing, China (KJCX20210437).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the excellent technical assistance and collection of field populations from Caihua Shi, Yong Fang, and Jinda Wang.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Chen, J.; Guo, Y.S.; Huang, S.M.; Zhan, H.R.; Zhang, M.F.; Wang, J.W.; Shu, Y.H. Integration of transcriptome and proteome reveals molecular mechanisms underlying stress responses of the cutworm, Spodoptera litura, exposed to different levels of lead (Pb). Chemosphere 2021, 283, 131205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, L.; Mei, Y.; Liu, R.Q.; Chen, X.L.; Li, D.Z.; Wang, C.J. Transcriptome analysis of Spodoptera litura reveals the molecular mechanism to pyrethroids resistance. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 169, 104649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Srivastava, B.K.; Joshi, H.C. Occurrence of resistance to BHC in Prodenia litura fab. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Indian J. Entomol. 1965, 27, 102–104. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, S.J.; Xu, J.F.; Han, Z.J. Baseline toxicity data of insecticides against the common cutworm Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) and a comparison of resistance monitoring methods. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2006, 52, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M.; Sayyed, A.H.; Saleem, M.A.; Ahmad, M. Evidence for field evolved resistance to newer insecticides in Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Pakistan. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 1367–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shad, S.A.; Sayyed, A.H.; Fazal, S.; Saleem, M.A.; Zaka, S.M.; Ali, M. Field evolved resistance to carbamates, organophosphates, pyrethroids, and new chemistry insecticides in Spodoptera litura fab. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Pest. Sci. 2012, 85, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, J.Y.; Lai, T.C.; Li, J. Susceptibility of field populations of Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in China to chlorantraniliprole and the activities of detoxification enzymes. Crop Prot. 2012, 42, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, H.; Su, Q.; Zhou, X.M.; Bai, L.Y. Field resistance of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to organophosphates, pyrethroids, carbamates and four newer chemistry insecticides in Hunan, China. J. Pest. Sci. 2013, 86, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sang, S.; Shu, B.S.; Yi, X.; Liu, J.; Hu, M.Y.; Zhong, G.H. Cross-resistance and baseline susceptibility of Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to cyantraniliprole in the south of China. Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 922–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saleem, M.A.; Hussain, D.; Ghouse, G.; Abbas, M.; Fisher, S.W. Monitoring of insecticide resistance in Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from four districts of Punjab, Pakistan to conventional and new chemistry insecticides. Crop Prot. 2016, 79, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, L.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liao, X.L. A systemic study of indoxacarb resistance in Spodoptera litura revealed complex expression profiles and regulatory mechanism. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wang, X.; Lou, L.L.; Su, J.Y. Prevalence and stability of insecticide resistances in field population of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Huizhou, Guangdong Province, China. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2019, 22, 728–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suganthi, A.; Krishnamoorthy, S.V.; Sathiah, N.; Rabindra, R.J.; Muthukrishnan, N.; Jeyarani, S.; Vasantha Kumar, S.; Karthik, P.; Selvi, C.; Arul Kumar, G.; et al. Bioefficacy, persistent toxicity, and persistence of translocated residues of seed treatment insecticides in maize against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797). Crop Prot. 2022, 154, 105892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosallanejad, H.; Soin, T.; Swevers, L.; Iatrou, K.; Nakagawa, Y.; Smagghe, G. Non-steroidal ecdysteroid agonist chromafenozide: Gene induction activity, cell proliferation inhibition and larvicidal activity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2008, 92, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakamoto, N.; Saito, S.; Hirose, T.; Suzuki, M.; Matsuo, S.; Izumi, K.; Nagatomi, T.; Ikegami, H.; Umeda, K.; Tsushima, K.; et al. The discovery of pyridalyl: A novel insecticidal agent for controlling lepidopterous pests. Pest Manag. Sci. 2004, 60, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Che, W.N.; Shi, T.; Wu, Y.D.; Yang, Y.H. Insecticide resistance status of field populations of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from China. J. Econ. Entomol. 2013, 106, 1855–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, X.L.; Wang, J.; Cao, X.W.; Wang, F.L.; Wu, S.W.; Wu, Y.D. Long-term monitoring and characterization of resistance to chlorfenapyr in Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) from China. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, X.L.; Wu, Y.D. High levels of resistance to chlorantraniliprole evolved in field populations of Plutella xylostella. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 1019–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yin, C.Y.; Wang, R.; Luo, C.; Zhao, K.; Wu, Q.Y.; Wang, Z.Y.; Yang, G.F. Monitoring, cross-resistance, inheritance, and synergism of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) resistance to pyridalyl in China. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kulye, M.; Mehlhorn, S.; Boaventura, D.; Godley, N.; Venkatesh, S.K.; Rudrappa, T.; Charan, T.; Rathi, D.; Nauen, R. Baseline susceptibility of Spodoptera frugiperda populations collected in India towards different chemical classes of insecticides. Insects 2021, 12, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberson, J.L.; Preisler, H.K.; Russell, R.M. POLO-Plus—A User’s Guide to Probit and Logit Analysis; LeOra Software: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- SPSS. Release 13.0 Version for Windows; SPSS: Chicago, IL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Sparks, T.C.; Crossthwaite, A.J.; Nauen, R.; Banba, S.; Cordova, D.; Earley, F.; Ebbinghaus-Kintscher, U.; Fujioka, S.; Hirao, A.; Karmon, D.; et al. Insecticides, biologics and nematicides: Updates to IRAC’s mode of action classification—A tool for resistance management. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 167, 104587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, J.M.; Zhao, Y.X.; Sun, H.; Ni, H.; Liu, C.; Wang, X.; Gao, C.F.; Wu, S.F. Monitoring and mechanisms of insecticide resistance in Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), with special reference to diamides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2021, 174, 104831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IRAC. Insecticide Resistance Action Committee. 2021. Available online: https://www.irac-online.org/modes-of-action/ (accessed on 25 October 2019).
- Roush, R.T. Designing resistance management programs: How can you choose? Pestic. Sci. 1989, 26, 423–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, J.Y.; Sun, X.X. High level of metaflumizone resistance and multiple insecticide resistance in field populations of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Guangdong Province, China. Crop Prot. 2014, 61, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cory, J.S.; Hirst, M.L.; Williams, T.; Hails, R.S.; Goulson, D.; Green, B.M.; Carty, T.M.; Possee, R.D.; Cayley, P.J.; Bishop, D.H.L. Field trial of a genetically improved baculovirus insecticide. Nature 1994, 370, 138–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shim, H.J.; Choi, J.Y.; Wang, Y.; Tao, X.Y.; Liu, Q.; Roh, J.Y.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, W.J.; Woo, S.D.; Jin, B.R.; et al. NeuroBactrus, a novel, highly effective, and environmentally friendly recombinant baculovirus insecticide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pantha, P.; Chalivendra, S.; Oh, D.H.; Elderd, B.D.; Dassanayake, M. A tale of two transcriptomic responses in agricultural pests via host defenses and viral replication. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Field sites in China from which S. litura samples were collected; each number in the map represents each site.
Figure 1.
Field sites in China from which S. litura samples were collected; each number in the map represents each site.
Figure 2.
Comparative heatmaps of resistance ratios (RR) against six insecticides in eleven field-collected populations of S. litura from different regions of China, including central China, east China and south China.
Figure 2.
Comparative heatmaps of resistance ratios (RR) against six insecticides in eleven field-collected populations of S. litura from different regions of China, including central China, east China and south China.
Table 1.
Detailed information on collected S. litura field populations.
| Population | Map Ref. No. | Location of Collection | Site | Date and Host Plant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WH | 1 | Wuhan, Hubei, central China | 41.19 N, 123.11 E | July 2021, lotus root |
| HF | 2 | Hefei, Anhui, eastern China | 41.59 N, 120.50 E | July 2021, lotus root |
| NC | 3 | Nanchang, Jiangxi, central China | 39.97 N, 116.31 E | August 2021, lotus root |
| YC | 4 | Yancheng, Jiangsu, eastern China | 39.73 N, 116.69 E | September 2021, lotus root |
| LS | 5 | Lishui, Zhejiang, eastern China | 39.35 N, 117.10 E | September 2021, lotus root |
| CS | 6 | Changsha, Hunan, central China | 38.90 N, 116.94 E | September 2021, lotus root |
| ND | 7 | Ningde, Fujian, eastern China | 40.58 N, 115.00 E | July 2021, taro |
| GZ | 8 | Guangzhou, Guangdong, southern China | 38.82 N, 115.39 E | July 2021, lotus root |
| SY | 9 | Sanya, Hainan, southern China | 34.91 N, 113.56 E | July 2021, pepper |
| GL | 10 | Guilin, Guangxi, southern China | 34.33 N, 113.75 E | July 2021, taro |
| YX | 11 | Yuxi, Yunnan, southern China | 36.78 N, 117.23 E | August 2021, lotus root |
Table 2.
Insecticides tested against field-collected S. litura populations.
| Insecticide | IRAC Mode of Action Class |
|---|---|
| Metaflumizone | 22B: Voltage-dependent sodium channel blockers |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 28: Ryanodine receptor modulators |
| Cyantraniliprole | 28: Ryanodine receptor modulators |
| Tetraniliprole | 28: Ryanodine receptor modulators |
| Chromafenozide | 18: Ecdysone receptor agonists |
| Pyridalyl | Unknown |
Table 3.
Baseline susceptibility of S. litura to six insecticides in the susceptible strain Lab-S.
| Insecticide | N a | LC50 (95% CI; mg/L) b | Slope ± SE | X2 (df) | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metaflumizone | 200 | 4.264 (3.379–5.259) | 2.250 ± 0.287 | 1.003 (3) | 0.79 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 2.906 (2.200–3.930) | 1.579 ± 0.240 | 1.408 (3) | 0.71 |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 1.704 (1.309–2.149) | 1.967 ± 0.265 | 1.181 (3) | 0.77 |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.124 (0.100–0.154) | 2.224 ± 0.276 | 1.557 (3) | 0.70 |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 1.080 (0.890–1.304) | 2.642 ± 0.310 | 0.550 (3) | 0.91 |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 1.394 (1.139–1.672) | 2.844 ± 0.360 | 0.752 (3) | 0.87 |
a Number of tested larvae. b Median lethal concentration and 95% confidence interval.
Table 4.
Insecticide susceptibility of S. litura collected from central China.
| Population | Insecticide | N a | LC50 (95% CI; mg/L) b | Slope ± SE | X2 (df) | RR c | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WH | Metaflumizone | 200 | 62.330 (49.193–80.598) | 1.911 ± 0.260 | 2.283 (3) | 14.6 | 0.51 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 3.431 (2.769–4.350) | 2.176 ± 0.276 | 2.203(3) | 1.2 | 0.52 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 0.991(0.730–1.307) | 1.585 ± 0.240 | 2.420 (3) | 0.6 | 0.49 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.191 (0.147–0.242) | 1.921 ± 0.260 | 1.175 (3) | 1.5 | 0.77 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 1.159 (0.937–1.428) | 2.284 ± 0.282 | 1.785 (3) | 1.1 | 0.68 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 1.103 (0.907–1.333) | 2.602 ± 0.309 | 2.237 (3) | 0.8 | 0.51 | |
| CS | Metaflumizone | 200 | 93.041 (69.574–137.290) | 1.545 ± 0.246 | 1.980 (3) | 21.8 | 0.65 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 5.827 (4.582–7.534) | 1.881 ± 0.255 | 2.650 (3) | 2.0 | 0.42 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 3.636 (2.766–5.184) | 1.652 ± 0.252 | 1.627 (3) | 2.1 | 0.69 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.552 (0.393–0.793) | 1.289 ± 0.229 | 1.462 (3) | 4.5 | 0.71 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 8.643 (6.676–11.041) | 1.847 ± 0.254 | 0.777 (3) | 8.0 | 0.87 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 8.637 (6.953–10.673) | 2.244 ± 0.279 | 2.851 (3) | 6.2 | 0.41 | |
| NC | Metaflumizone | 200 | 40.901 (32.577–53.488) | 2.042 ± 0.274 | 1.140 (3) | 9.6 | 0.77 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 1.482 (1.177–1.887) | 1.994 ± 0.262 | 2.437 (3) | 0.5 | 0.49 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 0.819 (0.625–1.034) | 1.960 ± 0.267 | 1.331 (3) | 0.5 | 0.73 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.893 (0.625–1.106) | 1.338 ± 0.263 | 2.238 (3) | 7.2 | 0.52 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 1.554 (1.157–2.155) | 1.477 ± 0.237 | 1.952 (3) | 1.4 | 0.65 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 2.098 (1.614–2.689) | 1.818 ± 0.253 | 1.789 (3) | 1.5 | 0.67 |
a Number of tested larvae. b Median lethal concentration and 95% confidence interval. c RR: Resistance Ratio = LC50 (field-collected population)/LC50 (Lab-S).
Table 5.
Insecticide susceptibility of S. litura collected from eastern China.
| Population | Insecticide | N a | LC50 (95%CI; mg/L) b | Slope ± SE | X2 (df) | RR c | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HF | Metaflumizone | 200 | 19.373 (14.992–24.558) | 1.912 ± 0.259 | 2.185 (3) | 4.5 | 0.54 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 1.215 (0.953–1.549) | 1.908 ± 0.257 | 1.628 (3) | 0.4 | 0.69 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 1.119 (0.917–1.358) | 2.529 ± 0.301 | 1.684 (3) | 0.7 | 0.68 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.582 (0.475–0.711) | 2.425 ± 0.293 | 2.052 (3) | 4.7 | 0.59 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 3.239 (2.618–4.063) | 2.203 ± 0.278 | 1.697 (3) | 3.0 | 0.68 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 2.919 (2.351–3.660) | 2.159 ± 0.273 | 1.549 (3) | 2.1 | 0.70 | |
| YC | Metaflumizone | 200 | 124.814 (90.922–179.187) | 1.357 ± 0.232 | 1.785 (3) | 29.3 | 0.67 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 7.697 (6.028–9.648) | 2.032 ± 0.266 | 0.578 (3) | 2.6 | 0.90 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 3.681 (2.714–5.367) | 1.409 ± 0.236 | 1.424 (3) | 2.2 | 0.71 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.244 (0.189–0.302) | 2.352 ± 0.320 | 1.241 (3) | 2.0 | 0.74 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 1.689 (1.296–2.133) | 1.950 ± 0.297 | 1.980 (3) | 1.6 | 0.65 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 5.262 (4.135–6.746) | 1.897 ± 0.255 | 1.938 (3) | 3.8 | 0.66 | |
| LS | Metaflumizone | 200 | 145.567 (108.926–194.263) | 1.566 ± 0.238 | 2.166 (3) | 34.1 | 0.54 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 9.474 (6.795–13.104) | 1.372 ± 0.254 | 2.728 (3) | 3.3 | 0.43 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 4.663 (3.602–6.007) | 1.799 ± 0.250 | 1.293 (3) | 2.7 | 0.76 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.329 (0.176–0.472) | 1.615 ± 0.294 | 1.972 (3) | 2.7 | 0.65 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 2.423 (1.813–3.329) | 1.506 ± 0.239 | 2.600 (3) | 2.2 | 0.43 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 10.112 (6.389–13.964) | 1.377 ± 0.241 | 1.610 (3) | 7.3 | 0.69 | |
| ND | Metaflumizone | 200 | 216.677 (171.899–274.787) | 1.997 ± 0.263 | 2.385 (3) | 50.8 | 0.50 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 186.983 (150.143–232.434) | 2.181 ± 0.273 | 1.832 (3) | 64.3 | 0.66 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 14.312 (11.354–18.617) | 1.966 ± 0.266 | 2.569 (3) | 8.4 | 0.45 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.604 (0.417–0.829) | 1.394 ± 0.204 | 1.004 (3) | 4.9 | 0.79 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 7.252 (1.813–3.329) | 2.023 ± 0.266 | 2.207 (3) | 6.7 | 0.52 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 33.708 (26.335–45.504) | 1.845 ± 0.261 | 2.880 (3) | 24.2 | 0.40 |
a Number of tested larvae. b Median lethal concentration and 95% confidence interval. c RR: Resistance Ratio = LC50 (field-collected population)/LC50 (Lab-S).3.4. Monitoring Sensitivity to Six Insecticides in Southern China.
Table 6.
Insecticide susceptibility of S. litura collected from southern China.
| Population | Insecticide | N a | LC50 (95% CI; mg/L) b | Slope ± SE | X2 (df) | RR c | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GZ | Metaflumizone | 200 | 341.918 (271.818–425.806) | 2.122 ± 0.271 | 1.317 (3) | 80.2 | 0.73 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 324.233 (248.476–449.835) | 1.671 ± 0.250 | 1.525 (3) | 111.6 | 0.70 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 25.887 (19.194–36.562) | 1.442 ± 0.235 | 0.905 (3) | 15.2 | 0.80 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.457 (0.326–0.737) | 1.287 ± 0.235 | 2.306 (3) | 3.7 | 0.51 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 9.940 (7.645–12.940) | 1.740 ± 0.248 | 2.064 (3) | 9.2 | 0.59 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 51.219 (40.040–65.596) | 1.874 ± 0.255 | 1.507 (3) | 36.7 | 0.70 | |
| SY | Metaflumizone | 200 | 176.440 (142.645–220.878) | 2.204 ± 0.288 | 2.291 (3) | 41.4 | 0.51 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 221.704 (167.731–288.184) | 1.699 ± 0.245 | 1.942 (3) | 76.3 | 0.65 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 18.026 (14.414–22.436) | 2.150 ± 0.272 | 1.561 (3) | 10.6 | 0.70 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.254 (0.187–0.324) | 1.960 ± 0.279 | 1.024 (3) | 2.0 | 0.79 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 3.015 (2.379–3.713) | 2.295 ± 0.298 | 2.439 (3) | 2.8 | 0.49 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 26.464 (19.966–36.465) | 1.546 ± 0.241 | 0.938 (3) | 19.0 | 0.80 | |
| GL | Metaflumizone | 200 | 27.666 (22.166–34.732) | 2.110 ± 0.270 | 1.713 (3) | 6.5 | 0.67 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 1.065 (0.707–1.420) | 1.678 ± 0.264 | 0.436 (3) | 0.4 | 0.93 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 1.275 (0.903–1.661) | 1.751 ± 0.261 | 0.488 (3) | 0.7 | 0.92 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.237 (0.192–0.291) | 2.321 ± 0.284 | 2.193 (3) | 1.9 | 0.54 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 3.263 (2.701–3.971) | 2.627 ± 0.314 | 2.387 (3) | 3.0 | 0.50 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 0.790 (0.582–0.978) | 2.766 ± 0.444 | 1.287 (3) | 0.6 | 0.73 | |
| YX | Metaflumizone | 200 | 275.731 (214.701–358.255) | 1.805 ± 0.251 | 2.407 (3) | 64.7 | 0.48 |
| Chlorantraniliprole | 200 | 171.250 (126.156–227.052) | 1.558 ± 0.240 | 2.260 (3) | 58.9 | 0.51 | |
| Cyantraniliprole | 200 | 24.834 (18.380–36.707) | 1.446 ± 0.240 | 1.817 (3) | 14.6 | 0.66 | |
| Tetraniliprole | 200 | 0.396 (0.317–0.489) | 2.249 ± 0.282 | 1.933 (3) | 3.2 | 0.65 | |
| Chromafenozide | 200 | 15.393 (11.683–21.537) | 1.589 ± 0.246 | 1.210 (3) | 14.3 | 0.76 | |
| Pyridalyl | 200 | 85.007 (68.595–104.692) | 2.289 ± 0.282 | 2.070 (3) | 61.0 | 0.59 |
a Number of tested larvae. b Median lethal concentration and 95% confidence interval. c RR: Resistance Ratio = LC50 (field-collected population)/LC50 (Lab-S).3.5. Pairwise Correlation between the Values of Log LC50 of Different Chemical Agents.
Table 7.
Pairwise correlation analysis of the LC50 values for six insecticides in the eleven field populations of S. litura.
Table 7.
Pairwise correlation analysis of the LC50 values for six insecticides in the eleven field populations of S. litura.
| Metaflumizone | Chlorantraniliprole | Cyantraniliprole | Tetraniliprole | Chromafenozide | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chlorantraniliprole | 0.918 ** | ||||
| Cyantraniliprole | 0.916 ** | 0.969 ** | |||
| Tetraniliprole | −0.067 | −0.002 | −0.005 | ||
| Chromafenozide | 0.545 | 0.624 * | 0.722 * | 0.344 | |
| Pyridalyl | 0.883 ** | 0.926 ** | 0.958 ** | 0.219 | 0.758 * |
** indicates significant difference (p < 0.01); * indicates significant difference (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Zhang, Z.; Gao, B.; Qu, C.; Gong, J.; Li, W.; Luo, C.; Wang, R. Resistance Monitoring for Six Insecticides in Vegetable Field-Collected Populations of Spodoptera litura from China. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030255
AMA Style
Zhang Z, Gao B, Qu C, Gong J, Li W, Luo C, Wang R. Resistance Monitoring for Six Insecticides in Vegetable Field-Collected Populations of Spodoptera litura from China. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(3):255. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030255
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Ziyi, Bingli Gao, Cheng Qu, Jingyu Gong, Wenxiang Li, Chen Luo, and Ran Wang. 2022. "Resistance Monitoring for Six Insecticides in Vegetable Field-Collected Populations of Spodoptera litura from China" Horticulturae 8, no. 3: 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030255
APA StyleZhang, Z., Gao, B., Qu, C., Gong, J., Li, W., Luo, C., & Wang, R. (2022). Resistance Monitoring for Six Insecticides in Vegetable Field-Collected Populations of Spodoptera litura from China. Horticulturae, 8(3), 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8030255
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
