Skip to main content
PMC home page
Dose-Response logoLink to Dose-Response
. 2010 Jan 28;8(3):331–346. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.09-032.Gu

Interaction between Short-Term Heat Pretreatment and Fipronil on 2nd Instar Larvae of Diamondback Moth, Plutella Xylostella (Linn)

Xiaojun Gu 1,✉, Sufen Tian 1, Dehui Wang 1, Fei Gao 1, Hui Wei 2,✉
PMCID: PMC2939689  PMID: 20877489

Abstract

Based on the cooperative virulence index (c.f.) and LC50 of fipronil, the interaction effect between short-term heat pretreatment and fipronil on 2nd instar larvae of diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus), was assessed. The results suggested that pretreatment of the tested insects at 30 °C for 2, 4 and 8h could somewhat decrease the toxicity of fipronil at all set concentrations. The LC50 values of fipronil increased after heat pretreatment and c.f. values in all these treatments were below zero. These results indicated that real mortalities were less than theoretical ones and antagonism was found in the treatments of fipronil at 0.39 and 0.78 mg/L after heat pretreatment at 30 °C at 2, 4 and 8 h. However, pretreatment at 30 °C for 12h could increase the toxicity of fipronil at all set concentrations, the LC50 of fipronil decreased after heat pretreatment and c.f. values in all these treatments were above zero, which indicated real mortalities were higher than theoretical ones. Pretreatment of the tested insects at 35 °C for 2, 4, 8 and 12h was found to increase the toxicity of fipronil at all set concentrations which resulted in the decrease of LC50 values of fipronil and c.f. above zero in all treatments with only one exception. Most interactions were assessed as synergism. The results indicated that cooperative virulence index (c.f.) may be adopted in hormetic effect assessment.

Keywords: short-term heat pretreatment, fipronil, diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (Linn), hormetic, cooperative virulence index (c.f.), LC50

1. INTRODUCTION

In the environment, organisms are often exposed to various stresses such as heat, cold, desiccation, CO2, heavy metals, and different chemical poisons (Lindquist 1986; Hoffmann and Parsons 1991; Krishna et al. 1992; Ferrando et al. 1995). Among all these stresses, temperature is the most important factor that affects the abundance and distribution of organisms as well as their populations (Cossins and Bowler 1987; Clarke 2003; Hoffmann et al. 2003). Mild temperature hardening is one of the most frequent stresses that an organism might meet (Huang et al. 2007). Because of this, effects of short-term high temperature on different types of organisms have been extensively studied during the past decades. On the whole, the effect of short-term high temperature may be either beneficial or harmful depending on the level and duration of high temperature. Many studies have proven that brief exposure to a high temperature may increase the heat tolerance of an organism (heat hardening; see Hoffmann et al. 2003 and references therein). For example, exposed populations of Drosophila melanogaster to 29°C for up to several days helps them gain a higher thermotolerance. Twelve hours of exposure is most effective (Levins 1969). Treating 1-day-old adults of pea leafminer, Liriomyza huidobrensis (which are reared at 25–26 °C for population maintaiment) to 32 or 35°C for 4h significantly increases their later heat resistance (Huang et al. 2007). In response to some different low or modest level stresses, organisms have similar response mechanisms. The short-term high temperature treatment often helps organisms increase other stress tolerances known as cross protection, cross tolerance or cross resistance (Stebbing 1981; Calabrese and Baldwin 2003). For instance, after being treated with high but sublethal temperatures, 4th instar larvae of mosquitoes, Anopheles stephensi and Aedes aegypti, become more tolerant to propoxur (a carbamate insecticide) (Patil et al. 1996). Similarly, short-term high temperature treatment can increase cold tolerance of D. melanogaster (Bubliy and Loeschcke 2005) and flesh fly, Sarcophaga crassipalpis (Chen et al. 1987), and desiccation resistance of D. melanogaster (Hoffmann and Parsons 1989; Hoffmann, 1990). A short-term heat stress can even improve the tolerance of virus loads in mosquitoes (Watts et al. 1987). However, if the high temperature surpasses a threshold or duration, an extinction of a local population may occur. For instance, Leibee (1984) found that high temperature (35 °C) decreased pupal viability of Liriomza trifolii. At extreme temperatures, individual development of Drosophila will not proceed through the whole life cycle (Chakir et al. 2002). In Drosophila males, sterility is induced at temperatures above 30°C (David and Clavel 1969). Both the beneficial and harmful effects of different stresses of low or modest levels make up two continuous parts of a hormesis curve. Hormesis, synonymous with terms such as adaptative response, preconditioning, hardening, etc, in different research fields (Calabrese 2008), is an evolutionary natural selection process involving toxicological mechanisms as part of a strategy to enhance survival to low levels of stressor agents (Calabrese and Baldwin 2001; Calabrese 2008). It is defined as a dose-response phenomenon characterized by a low dose stimulation and a high dose inhibition, or vice versa depending on the endpoint measured (Chapman 2001). The hormesis phenomenon was first reported more than a century ago by Schulz, who used yeast as an experimental model (Calabrese 1999). Up to now, it has been proven that hormetic dose-response relationships occur in males and females of numerous animal models in all principal age groups as well as across species displaying a broad range of differential susceptibilities to toxicants.

The diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), is the major cosmopolitan pest of brassica and other crucifer crops all over the world. It distributes in areas of different climatic types including tropical, subtropical and temperate zones and has the ability to migrate among different climatic zones (Chu 1986; Honda 1990; Honda et al. 1992; Chapman et al. 2002; Coulson et al. 2002). In tropical climates, DMB reproduces 20 generations or more a year. As a result, crop loss incurred by DBM may reach 90% (Verkerk and Wright 1996) and only few 4th instar larvae on a cabbage may make it unsalable (Shelton et al. 1983; Maltais et al. 1998). The total annual cost for DBM control throughout the world surpasses one billion US dollars (Talekar and Shelton 1993; Roux et al. 2007). For decades, insecticide use has been the most important control method targeting the 2nd and 3rd instar larvae and presently, fipronil and avermectin are two key insecticides used both in- and outside China (Scharf and Siegfried 1999; Ngim and Crosby 2001; Wilde et al. 2001; Sayyed et al. 2004; Zhou et al. 2004; Luo et al. 2008).

The most favorable temperature for growth and development of DBM is 25°C and temperatures higher than 30°C or lower than 20°C are harmful (Ma and Chen 1993; Dan et al. 1995; Shirai 2000; Liu et al. 2002). Our prior studies have discovered the hormetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment on the toxicity of avermectin to 2nd instar DBM larvae and fipronil to 3rd instar DBM larvae (Gu et al. 2009a; b). In the present paper, the hormetic effect of short-term high temperature on fipronil tolerance of 3rd instar larvae of DBM is reported.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Chemicals

Fipronil crude chemical (95.1% purity) was provided by Zhejiang Hisun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Triton X-100 (a nonionic detergent) was bought at a local Fuzhou chemical market. Fipronil was serially diluted into 6.25, 3.13, 1.56, 0.78 and 0.39 mg/L with distilled water containing 0.1% (vol:vol) Triton X-100 for bioassay.

2.2. Insect stock culture

Pupae of DBM were originally collected from the vegetable fields in a suburb of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China. Twenty pairs of pupae were put into a plastic 1.5L softdrink bottle with lots of small round holes (1mm dia) in the lowerside and 4 bigger round holes (10mm dia) in the upperside of the wall. After pupation, the female and male adults mated and the eggs were laid on the inside wall. The hatched 1st instar larvae dropped through the holes onto the leaves of cabbage plants, Brassica oleracea L. var.capitata L, grown in the pots 20 cm under the bottle. The insectary temperature was set at 25±1°C, 60%–70% RH with a photoperiod of 12:12 (L:D). Adults were fed with a 10% sugar solution saturated in cotton placed in the larger holes in the upper side of the bottle and the cotton was changed twice daily. The insects were reared for more than 30 generations without exposure to any insecticides. Same day aged 2nd instar larvae (body length about 2mm) were used for all experiments.

2.3. Short-term heat pretreatment

For heat pretreatment, the temperature was set at 30°C and 35°C. Ten insects were released into an individual Petriplate (100mm dia) the bottom of which was covered with wet filter paper of the same size. The heat pretreatment was conducted in a digitized biochemistry incubator, produced by Hankang electronic Co, Ltd, Jintan City, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China for 0h, 2h, 4h, 8h and 12 h. Soon after heat pretreatment, the Petriplates were removed to 25±1°C, 60%–70% RH with a photoperiod of 12:12 (L:D) for fipronil bioassay.

2.4. Bioassay

The cabbage leaf disc dip method of bioassay as described by Tabashnik et al.(1987) was adopted in the present studies. Cabbage leaves were first washed with distilled water and dried for about 1h at room temperature. Cabbage leaf discs (10 mm dia) were then cut with a metal punch and dipped into a test solution prepared with distilled water containing 0.1% Triton X-100 for about 5s to facilitate uniform treatment with the active ingredient. For control, the leaf discs were dipped in distilled water containing 0.1% Triton X-100 without active ingredients for the same period. The leaf discs were placed slanting for about 2 minutes over a blotting paper in a tray to drain excess solution and then flattened to dry the test solution for about 2h at room temperature. Finally, 2 leaf discs were put into one petriplate to feed the insects. Each concentration had 3 replications and each replication contained 10 insects (1 petriplate). Larvae were allowed to feed on the treated leaf discs for 48h at 25 °C before being checked for mortality (Mohan and Gujar, 2003). An insect was regarded as dead if it had no response to a gentle touch of a tweezer.

2.5. Data analysis

Data obtained from the experiments were analyzed using analysis of variance (P<0.05) (Proc ANOVA; Tang and Feng 1997). Treatment means were compared by Tukey’s F test, accepting significant differences at P=0.05 (Tang and Feng 1997). The mortality data were transformed by the arcsine square root prior to significance analysis (Southwood and Henderson 2000) and were averaged within replications for each treatment (Sokal and Rohlf 1995; Yin et al. 2008).

Concentration-mortality data were analyzed by probit analysis using DPS (Tang and Feng 1997). Mortality rates were corrected using Abbott’s formula (Abbott 1925) for each probit analysis.

The median lethal concentration (LC50) in terms of mg active ingredient/L was estimated by subjecting mortality data to the maximum likelihood program of probit analysis (Tang and Feng, 1997). This program has a provision for control mortality. Tukey’s F test was also used to compare the differences among the LC50s.

Cooperative virulence index (c.f.) was calculated with the formulum proposed by Mansour et al. (1966), which was, c.f. = (real mortality- theoretical mortality)/theoretical mortalityX100, where theoretical mortality = the corrected mortality caused by heat treatment alone + the corrected mortality caused by fipronil alone - the product between them. The interaction result was assessed as, ‘synergism’ when c.f. was greater than or equal to 20; ‘addition’ when c.f. was greater than −20 and less than 20; and ‘antagonism’ when c.f. was less than or equal to −20.

3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

3.1. Interaction between short-term heat pretreatment at 30°C and fipronil on 2nd instar larvae of DBM, Plutella xylostella (Linn)

Heat treatment alone did not increase the mortality of the tested insects for no significant differences in mortality were found among the treatments (Tr1, Tr2, Tr3 and Tr4 in Table 1) and control (P>0.05). Mortality in the control was 6.67% but that in Tr4, where the tested insects were treated at 30 °C for 12 h, was just 10.00% and the difference was not significant (P>0.05).

TABLE 1.

Combined toxicity between short-term heat pretrement at 30°C and fipronil on 2nd instar larvae of DBM, Plutella xylostella (Linn.)

Treatment Duration of heat-pretreatment (h) fipronil concentration (mg/L) Mortality (Average±SE)
CK 0 0 6.67± 6.67c
Tr1 2 0 7.04±3.53c
Tr2 4 0 6.67±6.67c
Tr3 8 0 10.00±5.77bc
Tr4 12 0 10.00±5.77bc
Tr5 0 0.39 49.63±8.25a
Tr6 2 0.39 40.00±5.77ab
Tr7 4 0.39 40.74±9.26ab
Tr8 8 0.39 39.26±3.23ab
Tr9 12 0.39 53.33±4.63a
Tr10 0 0.78 57.04±1.48a
Tr11 2 0.78 43.33±8.82a
Tr12 4 0.78 41.48±1.48ab
Tr13 8 0.78 43.60±3.96a
Tr14 12 0.78 60.00±5.77a
Tr15 0 1.56 60.00±5.77a
Tr16 2 1.56 56.70±1.68a
Tr17 4 1.56 51.11±8.89a
Tr18 8 1.56 57.41±4.90a
Tr19 12 1.56 73.33±3.33a
Tr20 0 3.13 60.74±3.23a
Tr21 2 3.13 57.41±4.90a
Tr22 4 3.13 55.56±8.01a
Tr23 8 3.13 58.52±1.48a
Tr24 12 3.13 72.59±2.59a
Tr25 0 6.25 70.00±0.00a
Tr26 2 6.25 66.67±6.67a
Tr27 4 6.25 74.44±10.08a
Tr28 8 6.25 69.26±5.15a
Tr29 12 6.25 75.56±7.29a
Open in a new tab

Note: Data followed with the same lower case letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Tukey’s F test). Same as below.

Pretreatment of the insects at 30 °C for 12h seemed to modestly increase the toxicity of fipronil at all concentrations (Table 1). At fipronil levels of 1.56 mg/L, the mortality of the insects which were pretreated at 30 °C for 12h (Tr19) was 73.33%, but for those insects that experienced no prior heat treatment mortality was 60.00% (Tr15). However, heat pre-treatment for a duration less than 12h seemed to decrease the toxicity of fipronil at all concentrations. In treatments of fipronil at 1.56 mg/L (Tr16, Tr17 and Tr18, where the durations of heat pretreatment were 2h, 4h and 8h, respectively), the mortalities were 56.70%, 51.11% and 57.41%, respectively and all were slightly lower than that in Tr15, which was 60.00%. But the differences were not significant (P>0.05).

The effect of heat pretreatment on fipronil tolerance of the tested insects could also be seen in the changes of LC50 values of fipronil (Table 2). Since heat pretreatment at 30°C for 12h could increase the toxicity of fipronil at all concentrations, the LC50 of fipronil to those insects pretreated at 30°C was 0.31mg/L, lower than those that experienced no prior treatment which was 0.60 mg/L, This difference was not significant (P>0.05). Because heat pretreatment at 30 °C for less than 12h could decrease the toxicity of fipronil at all concentrations, the LC50 values of fipronil in those treatments all increased and were significantly higher in the treatments which experienced 2h or 4h heat treatment (P<0.05).

TABLE 2.

Effect of short-term heat pretreatment at 30°C on the LC50 of fipronil to 2nd instar larvae of DBM, Plutella xylostella (Linn.) (48h)

Duration of heat-pretreatment (h) Toxicity equation Coefficient (r) LC50 (mg/L) 95%confidence interval (mg/L)
0 y=5.09+0.41x 0.96 0.60bc 0.37–0.97
2 y=4.87+0.61x 0.97 1.65a 1.25–2.17
4 y=4.84+0.76x 0.94 1.63a 1.07–2.48
8 y=4.88+0.68x 0.98 1.52ab 1.19–1.95
12 y=5.28+0.54x 0.93 0.31c 0.13–0.73
Open in a new tab

The interaction results between short-term heat pretreatment at 30°C and fipronil varied with the duration of the heat pretreatment (Table 3). When heat pretreatment lasted for 12h, all the cooperative virulence index (c.f.) values were above zero indicating that the real mortalities were higher than theoretical. In Tr19 (fipronil concentration of 1.56mg/L), c.f. was 21.74 which suggested that synergism occurred. However, when the duration of heat pretreatment was less than 12h, all c.f. values were below zero, which implied that the real mortalities were less than theoretical ones. Antagonsim was found in fipronil treatments of 0.39 mg/L or 0.78mg/L (Tr6, Tr7, Tr8, Tr11, Tr12 and Tr13), for all c.f. values in these treatments were below −20.

TABLE 3.

Assessment of interaction between short-term heat pretreatment at 30°C and fipronil on 2nd instar larvae of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linn)

Treatment Duration of heat-pretreatment (h) Fipronil concentration (mg/L) Mortality (%)
 Interaction
Real value Corrected value Theoretical value Cooperative virulence index (c.f.) Interaction assessment
CK 0 0 6.67
Tr5 0 0.39 49.63 46.03
Tr10 0 0.78 57.04 53.97
Tr15 0 1.56 60.00 57.14
Tr20 0 3.13 60.74 57.94
Tr25 0 6.25 70.00 67.86
Tr1 2 0 7.04 0.39
Tr6 2 0.39 40.00 35.71 46.24 −22.77 antagonism
Tr11 2 0.78 43.33 39.28 54.15 −27.45 antagonism
Tr16 2 1.56 56.70 53.61 57.31 −6.46 addition
Tr21 2 3.13 57.41 54.36 58.10 −6.43 addition
Tr26 2 6.25 66.67 64.28 67.98 −5.44 addition
Tr2 4 0 6.67 0.00
Tr7 4 0.39 40.74 36.51 46.03 −20.69 antagonism
Tr12 4 0.78 41.48 37.30 53.97 −30.88 antagonism
Tr17 4 1.56 51.11 47.62 57.14 −16.67 addition
Tr22 4 3.13 55.56 52.38 57.94 −9.59 addition
Tr27 4 6.25 74.44 72.62 67.86 7.02 addition
Tr3 8 0 10.00 3.57
Tr8 8 0.39 39.26 34.92 47.96 −27.19 antagonism
Tr13 8 0.78 43.60 39.57 55.61 −28.84 antagonism
Tr18 8 1.56 57.41 54.36 58.67 −7.34 addition
Tr21 8 3.13 58.52 55.55 59.44 −6.53 addition
Tr26 8 6.25 69.26 67.06 69.00 −2.81 addition
Tr4 12 0 10.00 3.57
Tr9 12 0.39 53.33 50.00 47.96 4.26 addition
Tr14 12 0.78 60.00 57.14 55.61 2.75 addition
Tr19 12 1.56 73.33 71.43 58.67 21.74 synergism
Tr24 12 3.13 72.59 70.63 59.44 18.84 addition
Tr29 12 6.25 75.56 73.81 69.00 6.96 addition
Open in a new tab

3.2. Interaction between short-term heat pretreatment at 35°C and fipronil on the 2nd instar larvae of DBM, Plutella xylostella (Linn)

Similar to that at 30°C, heat treatment at 35°C alone did not significantly increase the mortality of the tested insects (P>0.05, Table 4). The mortality was 13.33% in the control and 16.67% both in Tr3 and Tr4 in which the insects were treated at 35°C for 8 and 12h. No significant differences were found (P>0.05).

TABLE 4.

Combined toxicity between short-term heat pretrement at 35°C and fipronil on 2nd instar larvae of DBM, Plutella xylostella (Linn.)

Treatment Duration of heat-pretreatment (h) fipronil concentration (mg/L) Mortality (Average±SE)
CK 0 0 13.33±3.33jk
Tr1 2 0 3.33±3.33k
Tr2 4 0 13.33±3.33jk
Tr3 8 0 16.67±3.33j
Tr4 12 0 16.67±3.33j
Tr5 0 0.39 26.67±3.33hij
Tr6 2 0.39 20.00±5.77ij
Tr7 4 0.39 43.33±3.33fghi
Tr8 8 0.39 43.33±3.33fghi
Tr9 12 0.39 53.33±3.33defgh
Tr10 0 0.78 36.67±3.33ghij
Tr11 2 0.78 46.67± 3.33efgh
Tr12 4 0.78 46.67± 3.33efgh
Tr13 8 0.78 66.67±3.33abcdef
Tr14 12 0.78 60.00±5.77bcdefg
Tr15 0 1.56 56.67±3.33cdefg
Tr16 2 1.56 50.00±5.77defgh
Tr17 4 1.56 56.67±6.67cdefg
Tr18 8 1.56 73.33±6.67abcde
Tr19 12 1.56 63.33±3.33abcdefg
Tr20 0 3.13 60.00±5.77bcdefg
Tr21 2 3.13 76.67±3.33abcd
Tr22 4 3.13 60.00±5.77bcdefg
Tr23 8 3.13 80.00±5.77abc
Tr24 12 3.13 73.33±3.33abcde
Tr25 0 6.25 76.67±3.33abcd
Tr26 2 6.25 83.33±3.33ab
Tr27 4 6.25 80.00±5.77abc
Tr28 8 6.25 86.67±3.33a
Tr29 12 6.25 83.33±3.33ab
Open in a new tab

Compared with the treatments that experienced no prior heat stress, short-term heat pretreatment at 35°C increased the toxicity of fipronil at all set concentrations. The only two exceptions were found in Tr6 and Tr16 where the duration of heat pretreatment was 2h, and the fipronil concentations were 0.39 mg/L and 1.56mg/L (Table 4). When fipronil concentration was 0.78mg/L, in Tr10 (where the insects were only treated with fipronil), the mortality was 36.67%. Mortality increased with duration of heat pretreatment and in Tr14 (where the insects were treated at 35°C for 12h prior to fipronil), it reached 60.00%.

Since short-term heat pretreatment at 35°C increased the toxicity of fipronil in nearly all treatments, the LC50 values of fipronil decreased after heat pretreatment (Table 5). The LC50 of fipronil to insects with no prior heat treatment was 2.15mg/L and decreased to 0.62mg/L when the duration of heat pretreatment was 12h. This difference was significant (P<0.05).

TABLE 5.

Effect of short-term heat pretreatment at 35°C on the LC50 of fipronil on the 2nd instar larvae of DBM, Plutella xylostella (Linn.) (48h)

Duration of heat-pretreatment (h) Toxicity equation Coefficient (r) LC50 (mg/L) 95%confidence interval (mg/L)
0 y=4.56+1.32x 0.98 2.15a 1.75–2.65
2 y=4.56+183x 0.96 1.74a 1.28–2.37
4 y=4.86+0.88x 0.94 1.45ab 0.98–2.13
8 y=5.22+1.09x 0.97 0.63b 0.42–0.94
12 y=5.16+0.78x 0.98 0.62b 0.44–0.87
Open in a new tab

In accordance with the effect of heat pretreatment on the toxicity of fipronil shown in Table 4, c.f. values between short-term heat pretreatment at 35°C and fipronil were above zero in almost all treatments with the exceptions of that in Tr6 and Tr16 (Table 6). In many treatments, c.f. was even higher than 20, which suggested synergism occurred.

TABLE 6.

Assessment of interaction between short-term heat pretreatment at 35°C and fipronil on 2nd instar larvae of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linn)

Treatment Duration of heat-pretreatment (h) Fipronil concentration (mg/L) Mortality (%)
 Interaction
Real value Corrected value Theoretical value Cooperative virulence index (c.f.) Interaction assessment
CK 0 0 13.33
Tr5 0 0.39 26.67 15.39
Tr10 0 0.78 36.67 26.93
Tr15 0 1.56 56.67 50.00
Tr20 0 3.13 60.00 53.85
Tr25 0 6.25 76.67 73.08
Tr1 2 0 3.33 0.00
Tr6 2 0.39 20.00 7.70 15.39 −49.99 antagonism
Tr11 2 0.78 46.67 38.46 26.93 42.85 synergism
Tr16 2 1.56 50.00 42.31 50.00 −15.38 addition
Tr21 2 3.13 76.67 73.08 53.85 35.71 synergism
Tr26 2 6.25 83.33 80.77 73.08 10.53 addition
Tr2 4 0 13.33 0.00
Tr7 4 0.39 43.33 34.62 15.39 124.97 synergism
Tr12 4 0.78 46.67 38.46 26.93 42.85 synergism
Tr17 4 1.56 56.67 50.00 50.00 0.00 addition
Tr22 4 3.13 60.00 53.85 53.85 0.00 addition
Tr27 4 6.25 80.00 76.92 73.08 5.26 addition
Tr3 8 0 16.67 3.85
Tr8 8 0.39 43.33 34.62 18.65 85.66 synergism
Tr13 8 0.78 66.67 61.54 29.74 106.93 synergism
Tr18 8 1.56 73.33 69.23 51.93 33.33 synergism
Tr21 8 3.13 80.00 76.92 55.62 38.29 synergism
Tr26 8 6.25 86.67 84.62 74.11 14.17 addition
Tr4 12 0 16.67 3.85
Tr9 12 0.39 53.33 46.16 18.65 147.55 synergism
Tr14 12 0.78 60.00 53.85 29.74 81.07 synergism
Tr19 12 1.56 63.33 57.69 51.93 11.11 addition
Tr24 12 3.13 73.33 69.23 55.62 24.46 synergism
Tr29 12 6.25 83.33 80.77 74.11 8.98 addition
Open in a new tab

4. DISCUSSION

Organisms typically overcome an unpredictable environment via fast-inducible and reversible responses. These mechanisms are more effective and less costly compared with fixed changes in basal resistance (Jørgensen et al. 2006) and cross protection is adopted while faced with different stresses (Stebbing 1981; Calabrese and Baldwin 2003). This has been proven in many studies (Chen et al. 1987; Watts et al., 1987; Hoffmann and Parsons 1989; Hoffmann, 1990; Patil et al. 1996; Bubliy and Loeschcke 2005). Our previous work has shown the hormetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment on avermectin and fipronil tolerance of DBM larvae (Gu et al. 2009a, b). Pretreating 2nd instar larvae of DBM at 35°C for 2 or 4h may antagonize the toxicity of avermectin at lower concentrations but not at 30°C (Gu et al. 2009a). Similarly, pretreating 3rd instar larvae of DBM at 30°C and 35°C for 2h or 4h can increase their fipronil tolerance (Gu et al. 2009b). Here, the hormetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment at 30°Con fipronil tolerance of 2nd instar larvae of DBM was seen (Table 1 to Table 3).

The interaction results between short-term heat pretreatment at 30°C and fipronil is shown in Table 3. When the duration of heat pretreatment was less than 12h, the hormetic effect was comparatively high, and even could antagonize the toxicity of fipronil at 0.39mg/L and 0.78 mg/L (Tr6, Tr7, Tr8, Tr11, Tr12 and Tr13). In other treatments, although interaction did not result in antagonism, heat pretreatment still decreased the toxicity of fipronil for c.f values were below zero. Furthermore, it demonstrated again that c.f could be used for the hormetic effect assessment (Gu et al. 2009a; 2009b)

A comparison of the interaction between short-term heat pretreatment and avermectin (Gu et al. 2009a) and fipronil, revealed several different responses. The hormetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment on avermectin tolerance of tested insects was found both at 30°C and 35°C when the heat duration was no longer than 8h. However, the hormetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment on fipronil tolerance was only found at 30°C and at a duration of less than 12 h. Usually, the underlying mechansims of cross-tolerance between heat shock and other stresses are thought to be the upregulation of heat shock proteins (Hsps) (Feder and Hofmann 1999; Sørensen et al. 2003) and that has also been considered as the underlying mechanism of cross protection between short-term high but sublethal temperatures and propoxur in 4th instar larvae of mosquitoes, Anopheles stephensi and Aedes aegypti (Patil et al. 1996). Moreover, several studies have confirmed that upregulation of Hsps brought by short-term thermal stress may affect ion channels, receptors, and the sodium pump in the central nervous system (CNS) (Wu and Fisher 2000; Robertson 2004; Trotta et al. 2004). The target of both avermectin and fipronil are chloride ions in the CNS. So whether short-term heat pre-treatment can also affect chloride ion and whether that plays a role in the mechanism of the horemetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment on avermectin and fipronil tolerance of DBM larvae should be investigated. The difference in toxicity mechanism between avermectin and fipronil lies in that fipronil blocks the chloride ion channel (Ikeda et al. 2003), but the effect of avermectin is the opposite (Pong et al. 1982). Whether this can partly account for the differences found in the hormetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment on the tolerance of DBM larvae needs to be studied.

The hormetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment on the tolerance of fipronil also exists in 3rd instar larvae of DBM (Gu et al. 2009b). But in the 3rd instar larvae, the hormetic effect has been found at both 30°C and 35°C, which differs from that in 2nd instar larvae where it was only found at 30°C. Pretreatment at 35 °C mainly resulted in a harmful effect (Table 3, Table 6). For up-regulation of heat shock proteins, three indices are very important and species-specific: the minimum heat-shock temperature required to induce the heat shock response (HSR) (Ton), the temperature of maximal response (Tmax), and the shut-off temperature (Toff) (Dietz and Somero 1993; Tomanek and Somero 1999; Barua and Heckathornl 2004). Further studies show that induction temperatures of the HSR vary with developmental stage, growth temperature, and season (Dietz and Somero 1992; Hofmann and Somero 1995; Roberts et al. 1997; Chapple et al. 1998; Tomanek and Somero 1999; Currie et al. 2000; Buckley and Hofmann 2002; Barua and Heckathornl 2004). Whether these three indices are different between the 2nd and 3rd instar larvae of DBM and whether this has caused the different hormetic effect of short-term heat pretreatment on fipronil tolerance in the two DBM instars are still unknown.

Survival and fertility are two important indices of a population. For survival, the hormetic effect of short-term heat shock has been repeatedly reported. For fertility, Jørgensen et al. (2006) have found that mild heat stress may increase the male fertility of Drosophila buzzatii and that also occurs in D. melanogaster (Krebs and Loeschcke 1994). Research results in these two areas are often contradictory because of “trade-offs”. “Tradeoffs” give advantage in survival at the cost of a disadvantage in fertility or vice versa. “Trade-offs” always coexists with hormesis and that is why disputes on whether the hormetic dose-response can be used as a default model are not resolved. For example, temperature hardening does improve thermotolerance of L. huidobrensis, but their egg production is remarkably decreased after 4 h exposure to 10, 32, or 35°C, and the 35°C exposure almost completely halted egg deposition (Huang et al. 2007). The reason is because heat shock protein synthesis is a process of energy consumption (Koehn and Bayne 1989; Hoffmann 1995), usually results in a concomitant reduction in the synthesis of other proteins (Parsell and Lindquist 1994), and finally brings about harmful effects on some other biological characteristics. So the interaction results often vary with the indices that are chosen and what to select for study becomes very important. In our opinion, at least in pest control, that is not an irresolvable issue. The DBM always needs to be controlled within a comparatively short time mainy through the use of insecticides to decrease its survival. But for the health of humans and the environment, overuse of insecticides is to be avoided. Then the interaction between environmental conditions and low dose insecticides on survival should be of concern. However, for some forest pests such as Dendrolimus punctatus Walker, which usually reproduces 2–5 generations a year in China, it is acceptable to inhibit its population by decreasing their fertility. Then the interaction between environmental conditions and low dose insecticide on their fertility should be closely watched. But in both of these two situations the possible hormetic effect should always be taken into consideration.

Acknowledgments

This research work was supported by the Natural Science Foundations of Fujian Province (Project No. B0410015, 2004J010 and 2007F5021). Cordial thanks are given to Dr. Edward J. Calabrese (University of Massachusetts, USA) and Dr. Shusheng Liu (Zhejiang University, People’s Republic of China) for their kindness in sending their related publications. Also, the authors deeply appreciate the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions on this manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. Abbott WS. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1925;18:265–267. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barua D, Heckathornl SA. Acclimation of the temperature set-points of the heat-shock response. Journal of Thermal Biology. 2004;29:185–193. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bubliy OA, Loeschcke V. Correlated responses to selection for stress resistance and longevity in a laboratory population of Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2005;18:789–803. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00928.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buckley BA, Hofmann GE. Thermal acclimation changes dnaDNA-binding activity of heat shock factor 1 (HSF1) in the goby Gillichthys mirabilis: implications for plasticity in the heat-shock response in natural populations. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2002;205:3231–3240. doi: 10.1242/jeb.205.20.3231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. The hormetic dose response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicological Sciences. 2003;71(2):246–250. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/71.2.246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. U-shaped responses in biology, toxicology, and public health. Annual Review of Public Health. 2001;22:15–33. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.22.1.15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Calabrese EJ. Evidence that hormesis represents an “overcompensation” response to a disruption in homeostasis. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 1999;42:135–137. doi: 10.1006/eesa.1998.1729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Calabrese EJ. Converging concepts: Adaptive response, preconditioning, and the Yerkes-Dodson Law are manifestations of hormesis. Ageing Research Reviews. 2008;7:8–20. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2007.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chakir M, Chafik A, Moreteau B, Gibert P, David JR. Male sterility thermal thresholds in Drosophila: D. simulans appears more cold-adapted than its sibling D. melanogaster. Genetica. 2002;114:195–205. doi: 10.1023/a:1015154329762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chapman JW, Reynolds DR, Smith AD, Riley JR, Pedgley DE, Woiwod IP. High altitude migration of the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella to the UK: a study using radar, aerial netting, and ground trapping. Ecological Entomology. 2002;27:641–650. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chapman PM. The implications of hormesis to ecotoxicology and ecological risk assessment. Human & Experimental Toxicology. 2001;20:499–505. doi: 10.1191/096032701718120337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chapple JP, Smerdon GR, Berry RJ, Hawkins AJS. Seasonal changes in stress-70 protein levels reflect thermal tolerance in the marine bivalve Mytilus edulis L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 1998;229:53–68. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen CP, Denlinger DL, Lee RE. Cold-shock injury and rapid cold hardening in the flesh fly Sarcophaga crassipalpis. Physiological Zoology. 1987;60:297–304. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chu Y. The migration of the diamondback moth. In: Talekar NS, Greggs TD, editors. Diamondback moth management:Proceedings of the First International Workshop Tainan, Taiwan. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center; Shanhua, Taiwan: 1986. 1986. pp. 77–81. [Google Scholar]
  15. Clarke A. Costs and consequences of evolutionary temperature adaptation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2003;18:573–581. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cossins AR, Bowler K, editors. Temperature Biology of Animals. Chapman and Hall; New York: 1987. pp. 125–157. [Google Scholar]
  17. Coulson SJ, Hodkinson ID, Webb NR, Mikkola K, Harrison JA, Pedgley DE. Aerial colonization of high Arctic islands by invertebrates: the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae) as a potential indicator species. Diversity and Distributions. 2002;8:327–334. [Google Scholar]
  18. Currie S, Moyes CD, Tufts BL. The effects of heat shock and acclimation temperature on hsp70 and hsp30 mRNA expression in rainbow trout: in vivo and in vitro comparisons. Journal of Fish Biology. 2000;56:398–408. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dan JG, Pang XF, Liang GW. Studies on the laboratory population of diamondback moth under different temperatures. Journal of South China Agricultural University. 1995;16(3):11–16. [Google Scholar]
  20. David JR, Clavel MF. Influence de la temperature surle nombre, le pourcentage d’ eclosion et la taille des oeufs pondus par Drosophila melanogaster. Annales de la Socie te Entomologique de France. 1969;5:161–171. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dietz TJ, Somero GN. The threshold induction temperature of 90-kDa heat-shock protein is subject to acclimatization in eurythermal goby fishes (Genus Gillichthys) PNAS. 1992;89:3389–3393. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.8.3389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dietz TJ, Somero GN. Species- and tissue-specific synthesis patterns for heat-shock proteins HSP70 and HSP90 in several marine teleost fishes. Physiol Zool. 1993;66:863–880. [Google Scholar]
  23. Feder ME, Hofmann GE. Heat-shock proteins, molecular chaperones, and the stress response: evolutionary and ecological physiology. Annual Review of Physiology. 1999;61:243–282. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physiol.61.1.243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferrando RE, Schuschereba ST, Quong JA, Bowman PD. Carbon dioxide laser induction of heat shock protein 70 synthesis: comparison with high temperature treatment. Lasers in Medical Science. 1995;10:207–212. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gu X, Gao F, Tian S. Interaction between short-term heat pretreatment and fipronil on diamondback moth [Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus)] Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture. 2009b;17(4):709–714. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gu X, Tian S, Wang D, Gao F. Interaction between short-term heat pretreatment and avermectin on 2nd instar larvae of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linn) Dose-Response. 2009a;7:270–283. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.08-029.Gu. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoffmann AA, Parsons PA. Selection for increased desiccation resistance in Drosophila melanogaster: additive genetic control and correlated responses for other stresses. Genetics. 1989;122:837–845. doi: 10.1093/genetics/122.4.837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoffmann AA, Parsons PA. Evolutionary Genetics and Environmental Stress. Oxford University Press; New York: 1991. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoffmann AA, Sørensen JG, Loeschcke V. Adaptation of Drosophila to temperature extremes: bringing together quantitative and molecular approaches. Journal of Thermal Biology. 2003;28:175–216. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoffmann AA. Acclimation for desiccation resistance in Drosophila melanogaster and the association between acclimation response and genetic variation. Journal of Insect Physiology. 1990;36:885–889. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoffmann AA. Acclimation: increasing survival at a cost. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 1995;10:1–2. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hofmann GE, Somero GN. Evidence for protein damage at environmental temperatures: seasonal changes in levels of ubiquitin and Hsp70 in the intertidal mussel Mytilus trossulus. Journal of Experimental Biology. 1995;198:1509–1518. doi: 10.1242/jeb.198.7.1509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Honda K, Miyahara Y, Kegasawa K. Seasonal abundance and the possibility of spring immigration of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae), in Morioka City, northern Japan. Applied Entomology And Zoology. 1992;27:517–525. [Google Scholar]
  34. Honda K. Hibernation and migration of diamondback moth in northern Japan. In: Talekar NS, Greggs TD, editors. Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests : Proceedings of the Second International Workshop. Tainan, Taiwan: 1990. pp. 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  35. Huang L, Chen B, Kang L. Impact of mild temperature hardening on thermotolerance, fecundity, and Hsp gene expression in Liriomyza huidobrensis. Journal of Insect Physiology. 2007;53:1199–1205. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2007.06.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Ikeda T, Zhao X, Kono Y, Yeh JZ, Narahashi T. Fipronil modulation of glutamate induced chloride currents in cockroach thoracic ganglion neurons. Neurotoxicology. 2003;24:807–815. doi: 10.1016/S0161-813X(03)00041-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jørgensen KT, Sørensen JG, Bundgaard J. Heat Tolerance and the effect of mild heat stress on reproductive characters in Drosophila buzzatii males. Journal of Thermal Biology. 2006;31:280–286. [Google Scholar]
  38. Koehn RK, Bayne BL. Towards a physiological and genetical understanding of the energetics of the stress response. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (London) 1989;37:157–171. [Google Scholar]
  39. Krebs RA, Loeschcke V. Effects of exposure to short-term heat stress on fitness components in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 1994:39–49. [Google Scholar]
  40. Krishna P, Felsherim RF, Larkin JC, Das A. Structure and light-induced expression of a small heat-shock protein gene of Pharbitis nil. Plant Physiology. 1992;100:1772–1779. doi: 10.1104/pp.100.4.1772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Leibee GL. Influence of temperature on development and fecundity of Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on celery. Environmental Entomology. 1984;13:497–501. [Google Scholar]
  42. Levins R. Thermal acclimation and heat resistance in Drosophila species. Am Nat. 1969;103:483–499. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lindquist L. The heat-shock response. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 1986;55:1151–1191. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.55.070186.005443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Liu SS, Chen FZ, Zalucki MP. Development and survival of the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) at constant and alternating temperatures. Environmental Entomology. 2002;31(2):221–231. [Google Scholar]
  45. Luo YJ, Wu WW, Yang ZB, Pu ET, Guo ZX, Yin KS, He CX. Advances in insecticide resistance of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella (Linn)) in Yunnan. Journal of Yunnan University. 2008;30(S1):178–182. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ma CS, Chen RL. Effect of temperature on the development and fecundity of Plutella xylostella. Jilin Agricultural Science. 1993;(3):44–49. [Google Scholar]
  47. Maltais PM, Nuckle JR, Leblanc PV. Economic threshold for three lepidopterous larval pests of fresh market cabbage in southeastern New Brunswick. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1998;91:699–707. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mansour NA, Eldefrawi ME, Toppozada A, Zeid M. Toxicological studies on the Egyptian cotton leafworm, Prodenia litura. VI. Potentiation and antagonism of organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1966;59:307–311. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mohan M, Gujar GT. Local variation in susceptibility of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) to insecticides and role of detoxification enzymes. Crop Protection. 2003;22:495–504. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ngim KK, Crosby DG. Abiotic processes influencing fipronil and desthiofipronil dissipation in California, USA, rice fields. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2001;20:972–977. doi: 10.1897/1551-5028(2001)020<0972:apifad>2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Parsell DA, Lindquist S. Heat shock proteins and stress tolerance. In: Morimoto RI, Tissieres A, Georgopoulos C, editors. The Biology of Heat Shock Proteins and Molecular Chaperones. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; Plainview, NY: 1994. pp. 457–494. [Google Scholar]
  52. Patil NS, Lole KS, Deobagkar DN. Adaptive larval thermotolerance and induced cross-tolerance to propoxur insecticide in mosquitoes Anopheles stephensi and Aedes aegypti. Med Vet Entomol. 1996;10(3):277–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.1996.tb00743.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Pong SS, DeHaven R, Wang CC. A comparative study of avermectin B1a and other modulators of the gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor chloride ion channel complex. Journal of Neuroscience. 1982;2:966–971. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.02-07-00966.1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Roberts DA, Hofmann GE, Somero GN. Heatshock protein expression in Milus californianus: acclimatization (seasonal and tidal-height comparisons) and acclimation effects. Biol Bull. 1997;192:309–320. doi: 10.2307/1542724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Robertson RM. Thermal stress and neural function:adaptive mechanisms in insect model systems. Journal of Thermal Biology. 2004;29:351–358. [Google Scholar]
  56. Roux O, Gevrey M, Arvanitakis L, Gers C, Bordat D, Legal L. ISSR-PCR: Tool for discrimination and genetic structure analysis of Plutella xylostella populations native to different geographical areas. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2007;43:240–250. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.09.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Sayyed AH, Omar D, Wright DJ. Genetics of spinosad resistance in a multi-resistant field selected population of Plutella xylostella. Pest Management Science. 2004;60:827–832. doi: 10.1002/ps.869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Scharf ME, Siegfried BD. Toxicity and neurophysiological effects of fipronil and fipronil sulfone on the western corn rootworm (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae) Arch Insect Biochem. 1999;40:150–156. [Google Scholar]
  59. Shelton AM, Sears MK, Wyman JA, Quick TC. Comparison of action thresholds for lepidopterous larvae on fresh market cabbage. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1983;76:196–199. [Google Scholar]
  60. Shirai Y. Temperature tolerance of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae) in tropical and temperate regions of Asia. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 2000;90:357–364. doi: 10.1017/s0007485300000481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry. 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman; San Francisco, CA: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sørensen JG, Kristensen TN, Loeschcke V. The evolutionary and ecological role of heat shock proteins. Ecol Lett. 2003;6:1025–1037. [Google Scholar]
  63. Southwood TRE, Henderson PA. Ecological Methods. 3rd ed. Blackwell; Oxford, UK: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  64. Stebbing ARD. The kinetics of growth control in a colonial hydroid. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 1981;61:35–63. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tabashnik BE, Cushing NL, Finson N. Leaf residue vs topical bioassay for assessing resistance in the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) FAO Plant Prot Bull. 1987;35:11–14. [Google Scholar]
  66. Talekar NS, Shelton AM. Biology, ecology, and management of the diamondback moth. Annual Review of Entomology. 1993;38:275–301. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Tang QY, Feng MG. Practical statistics and computer data-processing platform. China Agricultural Press; 1997. pp. 1–407. [Google Scholar]
  68. Tomanek L, Somero GN. Evolutionary and acclimation-induced variation in the heat-shock responses of congeneric marine snails (genus tegula) from different thermal habitats: implications for limits of thermotolerance and biogeography. Journal of Experimental Biology. 1999;202:2925–2936. doi: 10.1242/jeb.202.21.2925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Trotta N, Orso G, Rosetto MG, Daga A, Broadie K. The hereditary spastic paraplegia gene, spastin, regulates microtubule stability to modulate synaptic structure and function. Current Biology. 2004;14:1135–1147. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.06.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Verkerk RHJ, Wright DJ. Multitrophic interactions and management of the diamondback moth: a review. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 1996;86:205–216. [Google Scholar]
  71. Watts DM, Burke DS, Harrison BA, Whitmire RE, Nisalak A. Effect of temperature on the vector efficiency of Aedes aegypti for dengue 2 virus. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 1987;36:143–152. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1987.36.143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Wilde GE, Whitworth RJ, Claassen M, Shufran RA. Seed treatment for control of wheat insects and its effect on yield. J Agr Urban Entomol. 2001;18:1–11. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wu J, Fisher RS. Hyperthermic spreading depression in the immature rat hippocampal slice. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2000;84:1355–1360. doi: 10.1152/jn.2000.84.3.1355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Yin XH, Wu QJ, Li XF, Zhang YJ, Xu BY. Sublethal effects of spinosad on Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae) Crop Protection. 2008;27:1385–1391. [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhou P, Lu Yi, Liu B, Jay JG. Dynamics of fipronil residue in vegetable-field ecosystem. Chemosphere. 2004;57:1691–1696. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.06.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Dose-Response are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES