Table 4.
Susceptibility of Tetranychus cinnabarinus and Tetranychus urticae adults to selected acaricides
| Acaricides | Mite | Slope | χ2 a | LC50 (95% CL) (mg/L) | TRb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abamectin | Tc‐YN | 1.22 ± 0.160 | 0.15c | 2.49 (1.91‐3.22) | 1.00 |
| Tu‐YN | 1.59 ± 0.211 | 1.03c | 21.19 (17.34‐25.86) | 8.50 | |
| Fenpropathrin | Tc‐YN | 1.91 ± 0.316 | 1.99c | 1072.97 (904.59‐1334.46) | 1.00 |
| Tu‐YN | 1.16 ± 0.23 | 0.45c | 1993.69 (1516.40‐3053.13) | 1.86 | |
| Tebufenpyrad | Tc‐YN | 1.28 ± 0.257 | 0.58c | 45.86 (34.03‐58.21) | 1.00 |
| Tu‐YN | 1.34 ± 0.257 | 0.76c | 42.84 (31.68‐53.75) | 0.93 | |
| Cyflumetofen | Tc‐YN | 2.79 ± 0.308 | 2.17c | 23.16 (20.40‐25.97) | 1.00 |
| Tu‐YN | 2.44 ± 0.289 | 1.97c | 31.50 (25.02‐39.59) | 1.36 | |
| Propargite | Tc‐YN | 3.93 ± 0.400 | 4.96c | 42.13 (34.41‐51.30) | 1.00 |
| Tu‐YN | 1.58 ± 0.239 | 2.46c | 199.92 (162.04‐254.79) | 4.75 | |
| Bifenazate | Tc‐YN | 2.04 ± 0.289 | 1.83c | 62.08 (52.99‐73.55) | 1.00 |
| Tu‐YN | 1.78 ± 0.261 | 3.63c | 45.43 (29.48‐62.41) | 0.73 | |
| Pyridaben | Tc‐YN | 2.39 ± 0.340 | 2.72c | 62.07 (54.01‐72.12) | 1.00 |
| Tu‐YN | 1.31 ± 0.290 | 0.35c | 176.85 (137.42‐249.79) | 2.85 | |
| Chlorfenapyr | Tc‐YN | 1.79 ± 0.239 | 1.62c | 19.66 (16.24‐24.37) | 1.00 |
| Tu‐YN | 1.74 ± 0.254 | 1.51c | 44.64 (36.80‐55.57) | 2.27 |
a
Pearson chi‐square, goodness‐of‐fit test.
b
TR: tolerance ratio = LC50 of Tu‐YN female adults/LC50 of Tc‐YN female adults.
c
The logarithm concentration‐probit regression line passed the chi‐square test. Chi‐squared distribution was used to test whether the regression between logarithm concentration and probit passes the goodness of fit, if passed (the calculated chi‐square values < expected χ2 (df)0.05, goodness‐of‐fit chi‐square is significant), meaning the current data represent the fact.