Abstract
The use of insecticides has been a primary tool to manage Bactrocera dorsalis in Pakistan; however, recent reports of field control failures necessitate mapping out the insecticide resistance problem. Therefore, eight field strains from Pakistan, were evaluated for their resistance against trichlorfon and spinosad. Compared with a reference strain, six field strains showed high levels of resistance to trichlorfon, while two field strains expressed intermediate resistance. In case of spinosad, five field strains fell in the susceptible range, whereas, the rest of the strains represented minor resistance. Correlation analysis between LD50 values of trichlorfon and spinosad of all the field strains revealed non-significant association, suggesting the possibility of lack of cross-resistance between both insecticides. Synergism bioassays implementing S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate (DEF) and piperonyl butoxide (PBO) revealed that the LD50 values of trichlorfon in the presence of either DEF or PBO in seven field strains were significantly reduced. However, DEF and PBO had a non-significant effect on synergizing spinosad toxicity. The results revealed resistance to trichlorfon in field strains of B. dorsalis, which might be metabolic-based. Absence or minor resistance to spinosad and lack of cross-resistance to trichlorfon, suggest that spinosad could be a potential candidate for managing B. dorsalis.
Introduction
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912) is one of the most damaging pests of fruits throughout the Pacific and South-East Asia1, including Pakistan2. This pest has also been considered an important quarantine pest in different parts of the world. About 250 host plants, including citrus, peach, carambola, mandarin, mango, guava, chili pepper and coffee, have been reported to be attacked by B. dorsalis3,4. Internal feeding habits by the larvae of B. dorsalis and decaying of fruits at points where adult females insert their ovipositor make the fruits unacceptable by the consumers which ultimately cause heavy financial losses.
The use of insecticides has been considered as a primary tool for the successful control of B. dorsalis1; however, the benefits of this tool are usually compromised due to the development of insecticide resistance. A number of cases concerning the development of insecticide resistance in B. dorsalis have been reported from different parts of the world1,4–7; however, to the best of authors’ knowledge, there is no reported case of resistance in B. dorsalis from Punjab, Pakistan. Since, insecticide resistance is a spatio-temporal phenomenon8, it is necessary to know the resistance situation in Pakistan for the better management of B. dorsalis. Previously, insecticide resistance in B. zonata has been reported to different organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides from some parts of the Punjab province, Pakistan2,9,10. In Pakistan, organophosphates, particularly trichlorfon, are more frequently used for the management of tephritid fruit flies2; however, recently farming communities have reported field control failures by the use of trichlorfon (personal communication with farmers and agricultural extension workers). In response to this, spinosad, a bacterial insecticide derived from Saccharopolyspora spinosa Mertz & Yao, has recently been included as an alternate to trichlorfon for the management of tephritid fruit flies in Punjab, Pakistan.
Assessment of insecticide resistance is very important to devise an effective management strategy against insect pests11. Detection of insecticide resistance in B. dorsalis can help to adopt alternate measures to slow the spread of resistance. Therefore, keeping in view the economic importance of B. dorsalis and field control failures, a study was planned to assess the level of resistance to one of the most commonly used insecticide (trichlorfon) and the newly introduced insecticide (spinosad) for the management of B. dorsalis in Punjab, Pakistan. The data could be helpful to devise an effective management strategy for B. dorsalis.
Materials and Methods
Insects
Eight field strains of B. dorsalis collected from different localities and hosts (Table 1) were maintained under the laboratory conditions 25 ± 2 °C and 12 L: 12D photoperiod, to get the homogenous and sufficient number of insects in bioassays. The adults were maintained in mesh cages (40 × 30 × 30 cm) provided with maize-based artificial diet4 and fresh fruits for egg laying. A laboratory reference strain (Ref.) was maintained in 2013 from a strain of insects inhabiting untreated guava trees at the University of the Punjab, Lahore. The Ref. strain was maintained in the laboratory as described above.
Table 1.
Selected localities, collection period and host plants for the collection of Bactrocera dorsalis.
| Location | Coordinates | Collection period | Host |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rahim Yar Khan (RN) | 28.4212° N, 70.2989° E | July 2015 | Mango |
| Bahawalpur (BR) | 29.3957° N, 71.6833° E | July 2015 | Mango |
| Kasur (KR) | 31.1165° N, 74.4494° E | October 2015 | Guava |
| Lahore (LR) | 31.5546° N, 74.3572° E | October 2015 | Guava |
| Multan (MN) | 30.1984° N, 71.4687° E | July 2016 | Mango |
| Jhang (JG) | 31.2601° N, 72.3193° E | August 2016 | Mango |
| Sargodha (SA) | 32.0837° N, 72.6719° E | October 2016 | Sweet lime/sweet orange |
| Faisalabad (FD) | 31.4187° N, 73.0791° E | October 2016 | Guava |
Insecticides
Technical-grade spinosad, trichlorfon, S,S,S-tributylphosphorotrithioate (DEF) and piperonyl butoxide (PBO) (purity >98%; Chem Service Inc, West Chester PA) were used in bioassays.
Bioassays
Assays were done following the methodology described by Hsu, et al.1. Working insecticide solutions, with a range of doses having >0% and <100% mortality, were prepared in acetone. One-microliter of the appropriate solution was applied onto the thoracic tergum of adult flies (3–5-day-old) using a micropipette (0.1–2 µL, Acura ® manual 825, Socorex, Switzerland). Flies in the control group received acetone only. The range of doses tested varied for different strains being tested. For spinosad, the range of doses was 0 to 32 ng/fly for the Ref. strain, and 0 to 96 ng/fly for field strains. For trichlorfon, doses used to test ranged from 0 to 48 ng/fly (Ref. strain) and 0 to 2460 ng/fly (field strains). Treated flies were shifted to perforated plastic jars (250 ml) containing a cotton swab (2 cm) moistened with a liquid food [sugar(4 parts):yeast(1 part):water(5 parts)] and kept under said laboratory conditions. For the synergism bioassays, PBO and DEF were applied onto the dorsal thorax of all the strains at the rate of 1 µg per fly for two hours before the insecticidal bioassays. Mortality data were recorded 48 h after the insecticide treatment.
Data analyses
Mortality scores were analyzed by Probit analysis using SPSS 16, to calculate median lethal dose (LD50) values. Resistance ratios (RRs) were calculated by dividing LD50 value of a field strain by the corresponding LD50 value of the Ref. strain. Jin, et al.12 criterion was used to classify resistance levels: susceptible (<3-fold RR), minor resistance (3–5-fold RR), low resistance (5–10-fold RR), intermediate resistance (10–40-fold RR), high resistance (40–160-fold RR), and extremely high resistance (RR >160-fold). Significant differences between any two (laboratory Ref. vs field strains) LD50 values were determined by calculating the 95% fiducial limit (FL) of the RR values (SR) at the LD50 level. If the 95% FL includes 1, the RR values are not significantly different. Synergism ratios were calculated by dividing the LD50 value without synergist by the LD50 value with synergist (PBO or DEF), and the significance of synergistic effects were assessed by calculating the 95% FL of the synergism ratio (SR) at the LD50 level13, as stated above.
Ethical statement
The article deals with B. dorsalis which is an invertebrate. The study was conducted according to the standard guidelines and regulations. The study/bioassay protocol was approved by the research projects evaluation committee of the Institute of Agricultural Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore.
Results
Baselines susceptibility to spinosad and trichlorfon
The laboratory reared reference strain (Ref.) of B. dorsalis showed relatively much higher susceptibilities to trichlorfon and spinosad as compared to field strains (based on 95% FLs of RRs didn’t include 1). The LD50 values of trichlorfon and spinosad were 8.42 [FL = 7.19–9.85] and 5.39 [FL = 4.5–6.4] ng/fly, respectively (Table 2). These values were used as baselines for evaluating resistance in different field strains.
Table 2.
Toxicity of trichlorfon and spinosad in different strains of Bactrocera dorsalis.
| Insecticide | Strain | n* | LD50** (95% FL***) | Slope (SE) | χ2 | df | p | RR**** (95% FL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trichlorfon | Ref. | 420 | 8.42 (7.19–9.85) | 2.45 (0.21) | 5.83 | 4 | 0.21 | 1.0 |
| RN | 360 | 471.48 (392.37–561.04) | 2.19 (0.22) | 5.26 | 3 | 0.15 | 55.99 (44.11–71.11)+ | |
| BR | 360 | 509.56 (430.30–599.19) | 2.41 (0.24) | 0.98 | 3 | 0.81 | 60.52 (48.13–76.12)+ | |
| MN | 360 | 738.01 (619.79–885.69) | 2.18 (0.22) | 3.23 | 3 | 0.36 | 87.65 (69.06–111.29)+ | |
| JG | 360 | 568.93 (483.50–672.67) | 2.41 (0.23) | 1.44 | 3 | 0.70 | 67.57 (53.75–84.97)+ | |
| LR | 420 | 188.23 (158.92–221.17) | 2.35 (0.21) | 3.19 | 4 | 0.53 | 22.36 (17.77–28.13)+ | |
| SA | 360 | 447.30 (380.12–522.56) | 2.58 (0.25) | 1.71 | 3 | 0.64 | 53.12 (42.44–66.52)+ | |
| KR | 360 | 503.84 (456.26–596.07) | 2.34 (0.23) | 3.15 | 3 | 0.37 | 59.84 (47.52–75.39)+ | |
| FD | 420 | 172.50 (141.77–206.82) | 1.98 (0.18) | 2.03 | 4 | 0.73 | 20.49 (16.01–26.23)+ | |
| Spinosad | Ref. | 420 | 5.39 (4.5–6.4) | 2.02 (0.17) | 5.20 | 4 | 0.27 | 1.0 |
| RN | 420 | 14.32 (12.20–16.86) | 2.37 (0.20) | 6.28 | 4 | 0.18 | 2.66 (2.09–3.39)+ | |
| BR | 420 | 14.10 (12.02–16.59) | 2.38 (0.20) | 4.91 | 4 | 0.30 | 2.62 (2.05–3.33)+ | |
| MN | 420 | 16.95 (14.48–19.97) | 2.43 (0.21) | 0.60 | 4 | 0.96 | 3.14 (2.47–4.01)+ | |
| JG | 420 | 11.64 (9.63–14.08) | 1.86 (0.16) | 4.46 | 4 | 0.35 | 2.16 (1.66–2.81)+ | |
| LR | 420 | 14.17 (12.14–16.56) | 2.52 (0.21) | 5.57 | 4 | 0.23 | 2.63 (2.07–3.34)+ | |
| SA | 420 | 14.49 (12.19–17.17) | 2.15 (0.19) | 3.65 | 4 | 0.46 | 2.69 (2.10–3.45)+ | |
| KR | 420 | 17.88 (15.02–20.52) | 2.67 (0.22) | 8.27 | 4 | 0.08 | 3.32 (2.62–4.20)+ | |
| FD | 420 | 25.47 (21.49–30.47) | 2.17 (0.19) | 4.14 | 4 | 0.39 | 4.73 (3.68–6.07)+ |
*n = number of insects used in bioassays, **LD50 = median lethal dose (ng/fly), ***FL = fiducial limits, ****RR = resistance ratio, calculated by dividing LD50 value of a field strain by the corresponding LD50 value of the Ref. strain, and + = significantly different from the Ref. strain based on 95% FLs of RRs didn’t include 1. The same applies to the Table 3.
Response of field strains
In total, eight field strains collected form eight localities were evaluated for resistance to trichlorfon and spinosad. Of these, six strains (RN, BR, MN, JG, SA, and KR) showed high levels of resistance to trichlorfon (LD50s = 471.48–738.01 ng/fly; RR = 53.12–87.65-fold), while two strains (LR and FD) showed intermediate resistance levels to trichlorfon (LD50s = 172.50–188.23 ng/fly; RR = 20.49–22.36-fold). Among field strains, the FD and LR strains were the most susceptible to trichlorfon while the MN strain was the most resistant strain. In case of spinosad, five of field strains (RN, BR, JG, LR, and SA) fell in the susceptible range (LD50s = 11.64–14.49 ng/fly; RR = 2.16–2.69-fold), whereas, the rest of the strains (MN, KR, and FD) represented minor resistance (LD50s = 16.95–25.47 ng/fly; RR = 3.14–4.73-fold) (Table 2). Spinosad showed the highest toxicity to the JG, BR, LR, RN and SA strains (all were at par based on overlapping 95% FLs) followed by the MN and KR strains, while the FD strain showed the least susceptibility to spinosad.
Correlation analysis between LD50 values of trichlorfon and spinosad of all the field strains revealed non-significant association (r = −0.43; p = 0.28), suggesting the possibility of lack of cross-resistance between both insecticides.
Synergism experiment
The results of synergism bioassays implementing DEF and PBO are shown in the Table 3. The results revealed that the LD50 values of trichlorfon in the presence of either DEF or PBO in all the field strains, except the SA strain, were significantly reduced (based on 95% FLs of SRs didn’t include 1) when compared with the LD50 values of their respective field strains without any synergist (Table 3). However, DEF and PBO had a non-significant effect on synergizing spinosad toxicity in all the strains of B. dorsalis (data not shown here).
Table 3.
Effect of enzyme inhibitors on toxicity of trichlorfon in laboratory and field strains of Bactrocera dorsalis.
| Strain | Synergist | n | LD50 (95% FL) | Slope (SE) | χ2 | df | p | SR* (95% FL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. | PBO | 420 | 8.44 (7.07–10.13) | 2.05 (0.17) | 2.00 | 4 | 0.73 | 1.00 (0.79–1.28)ns |
| DEF | 420 | 10.44 (8.90–12.32) | 2.38 (0.21) | 4.48 | 4 | 0.34 | 0.81 (0.64–1.01)ns | |
| RN | PBO | 360 | 320.41 (267.57–378.21) | 2.37 (0.24) | 3.98 | 3 | 0.26 | 1.47 (1.15–1.89)+ |
| DEF | 360 | 300.94 (253.88–351.96) | 2.60 (0.26) | 2.76 | 3 | 0.43 | 1.56 (1.23–1.99)+ | |
| BR | PBO | 420 | 290.97 (248.06–341.68) | 2.38 (0.20) | 0.92 | 4 | 0.92 | 1.75 (1.39–2.21)+ |
| DEF | 420 | 240.41 (203.47–283.47) | 2.27 (0.19) | 4.21 | 4 | 0.38 | 2.12 (1.68–2.68)+ | |
| MN | PBO | 420 | 384.01 (325.63–455.67) | 2.25 (0.20) | 3.65 | 4 | 0.46 | 1.92 (1.50–2.46)+ |
| DEF | 420 | 301.20 (260.08–348.83) | 2.75 (0.23) | 2.54 | 4 | 0.64 | 2.45 (1.94–3.09)+ | |
| JG | PBO | 360 | 304.82 (259.94–354.93) | 2.66 (0.26) | 0.88 | 3 | 0.83 | 1.87 (1.49–2.34)+ |
| DEF | 360 | 366.44 (319.82–419.23) | 3.27 (0.30) | 1.51 | 3 | 0.68 | 1.55 (1.25–1.92)+ | |
| LR | PBO | 360 | 111.98 (93.30–131.75) | 2.50 (0.26) | 0.76 | 3 | 0.86 | 1.68 (1.32–2.14)+ |
| DEF | 360 | 96.67 (77.78–116.03) | 2.28 (0.25) | 1.13 | 3 | 0.77 | 1.94 (1.50–2.52)+ | |
| SA | PBO | 360 | 502.90 (423.38–596.99) | 2.26 (0.23) | 1.58 | 3 | 0.66 | 0.88 (0.70–1.12)ns |
| DEF | 360 | 477.17 (405.73–561.18) | 2.45 (0.24) | 2.60 | 3 | 0.46 | 0.93 (0.75–1.18)ns | |
| KR | PBO | 360 | 371.48 (310.44–440.14) | 2.27 (0.23) | 2.46 | 3 | 0.48 | 1.35 (1.07–1.73)+ |
| DEF | 360 | 292.88 (243.04–346.37) | 2.36 (0.25) | 3.23 | 3 | 0.36 | 1.72 (1.35–2.20)+ | |
| FD | PBO | 360 | 99.79 (80.18–120.03) | 2.17 (0.24) | 1.83 | 3 | 0.61 | 1.72 (1.31–2.28)+ |
| DEF | 360 | 90.92 (73.55–108.57) | 2.34 (0.26) | 2.26 | 3 | 0.52 | 1.89 (1.45–2.49)+ |
ns = non-significant.
*Synergism ratio calculated by dividing the LD50 of trichlorfon of a locality by the LD50 of trichlorfon with synergist of the respective locality.
Discussion
Synthetic insecticides have been excessively used for the management of B. dorsalis in Punjab, Pakistan; however, there is no report on the development of insecticide resistance from studied localities. In the present study, eight field strains of B. dorsalis were evaluated for their resistance against tichlorofon and spinosad. The results have confirmed the development of intermediate to high levels of resistance to trichlorfon, but fortunately the field strains were susceptible to spinosad since all of them exhibited less that 10-fold RRs which cannot warrant their status of being resistant11,14.
This study provides first information regarding resistance to trichlorfon and susceptibility status of spinosad in B. dorsalis from Pakistan. The most probable reason for the high level of resistance to trichlorfon could be due to the fact that the strains were collected from areas with intensive use of trichlorfon for the last many years, since this chemical has been recommended as an important tool for the management of tephritid flies in Punjab, Pakistan2. Trichlorfon has also been recommended for the management of tephritid flies in other countries with the reports of resistance development as a consequence of intensive exposures. For instance, a low level of trichlorfon resistance (RR = 10) has been observed in a field strain15 and a laboratory strain1 of B. dorsalis from Taiwan. Jin, et al.4 reported varying levels of trichlorfon resistance in different field strains of B. dorsalis in mainland China. Of these, one of the field strains showed a high level of resistance with 70.4-fold RR value, while 16 of the field strains exhibited moderate levels of resistance with RR values ranged from 11.5 to 25.8-folds. At least 10 field strains of B. dorsalis from south China have been reported with moderate levels of resistance to trichlorfon6,7. Some field strains of B. cucurbitae from Hainan Island, China, has also been reported to have minor resistance against trichlorfon12. Similarly, moderate to high levels of resistance to tricholrfon in B. zonata has been reported from some parts of the Punjab province, Pakistan2,9.
In the present study, five of the field strains of B. dorsalis were found susceptible to spinosad while three strains had minor resistance to spinosad. This might be due to the fact that spinosad has recently been included in management programs for tephritid flies. Previously, field strains of B. zonata from some parts of Punjab have also been reported susceptible to spinosad2. However, spinosad resistance in Bactrocera spp. has been reported from other countries, and it was linked with a wide spread application of spinosad in baits or cover sprays. For example, B. dorsalis from Taiwan5, B. cucurbitae from Hawaii & Taiwan16 and China12, and B. oleae from the United States17, have been reported with varying levels of resistance to spinosad.
The field strains of B. dorsalis did not show cross-resistance between trichlorfon and spinosad. However, Hsu and Feng5 have reported cross-resistance between spinosad and organophosphates (naled and malathion) in B. dorsalis. There is generally no cross-resistance between spinosad and other insecticides18–24 in different insect pests.
Synergism bioassays in the presence of enzyme inhibitors (PBO, DEF) were conducted in all the strains of B. dorsalis since such bioassays could help to assess the preliminary mechanisms of insecticide resistance25. DEF helps to identify if the mechanism of resistance is oxidase- and/or esterase-based, because it inhibits the activities of oxidases and esterases. Similarly, PBO also helps to identify the oxidase-based mechanism of resistance, since it is an inhibitor of mixed function oxidases26. The results of the present study revealed that resistance to trichlorfon in all the field strains, except the SA strain, could be due to the activities of oxidases and/or esterase since both enzyme inhibitors synergized the toxicity of trichlorfon. However, there was no effect of either PBO or DEF in synergizing the toxicity of trichlorfon in the susceptible reference strain. Similarly, there was no synergistic effect of both enzyme inhibitors on the toxicity of spinosad in all the strains of B. dorsalis, suggesting the possibility of resistance mechanisms other than metabolic-based. Previously, Hsu, et al.1 has also reported the synergistic effect of DEF on the toxicity of trichlorfon in B. dorsalis. There was generally no synergistic effect of enzyme inhibitors on the toxicity of spinosad20,27–29 in other insect pests. However, there is a further need to assess the exact mechanism of resistance in the present strains of B. dorsalis by doing biochemical analyses and molecular techniques.
Ironically, intermediate to high levels of resistance to trichlorfon were observed in Pakistani strains of B. dorsalis. This resistance might be the result of over-reliance on trichlorfon in the chemical management plans for B. dorsalis in Punjab, Pakistan, and is most probably mediated by enhanced activities of detoxifying enzymes. Simultaneously, no or minor resistance to spinosad was observed in the present study with no cross-resistance to trichlorfon. This is encouraging and provides a window to use both insecticides in rotation along with other integrated management practices for B. dorsalis.
Author Contributions
H.A.A.K. and W.A. designed the study and performed the experiments. H.A.A.K. analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Hsu J-C, Feng H-T, Wu W-J. Resistance and synergistic effects of insecticides in Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Taiwan. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2004;97:1682–1688. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-97.5.1682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Nadeem M, Ahmed S, Nadeem S, Ishfaq M, Fiaz M. Assessment of insecticides resistance in field population of Bactrocera zonata (saunders)(diptera: tephritidae) J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2014;24:172–178. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ye H, Liu JH. Population dynamics of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Kunming area, southwestern China. Insect Science. 2005;12:387–392. doi: 10.1111/j.1005-295X.2005.00048.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jin T, Zeng L, Lin Y, Lu Y, Liang G. Insecticide resistance of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae), in mainland China. Pest Management Science. 2011;67:370–376. doi: 10.1002/ps.2076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hsu J-c, Feng H-t. Development of resistance to spinosad in oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in laboratory selection and cross-resistance. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2006;99:931–936. doi: 10.1093/jee/99.3.931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pan Z-p, Zeng L, Lu Y-y. Monitoring of resistance of oriental fruit fly adults to insecticides in South China [J] Journal of South China Agricultural University. 2005;4:23–26. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zhang Y, Zeng L, Lu Y, Liang G. Monitoring of insecticide resistance of Bactrocera dorsalis adults in South China. Journal of South China Agricultural University. 2007;28:20–23. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Khan HAA, Akram W, Arshad M, Hafeez F. Toxicity and resistance of field collected Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) against insect growth regulator insecticides. Parasitol. Res. 2016;115:1385–1390. doi: 10.1007/s00436-015-4872-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Nadeem MK, Ahmed S, Ashfaq M, Sahi ST. Evaluation of resistance to different insecticides against field population of Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Multan, Pakistan. Pakistan J. Zool. 2012;44:495–501. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Haider, H., Ahmed, S. & Khan, R. R. Determination of Level of Insecticide Resistance in Fruit Fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)(Diptera: Tephritidae) by Bait Bioassay. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 13 (2011).
- 11.Khan, H. A. A., Akram, W. & Fatima, A. Resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in house flies, Musca domestica L., (Diptera: Muscidae) collected from urban areas in Punjab, Pakistan. Parasitology Research, 1–5 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed]
- 12.Jin T, Lin Y-Y, Jin Q-A, Wen H-B, Peng Z-Q. Population susceptibility to insecticides and the development of resistance in Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) Journal of Economic Entomology. 2015;109:837–846. doi: 10.1093/jee/tov349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Robertson, J. L., Jones, M. M., Olguin, E. & Alberts, B. Bioassays with arthropods. (CRC press, 2017).
- 14.Valles SM, Koehler PG, Brenner RJ. Antagonism of fipronil toxicity by piperonyl butoxide and S, S, S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate in the German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) Journal of Economic Entomology. 1997;90:1254–1258. doi: 10.1093/jee/90.5.1254. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hsu J. Susceptibility of melon fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) and oriental fruit fly (B. dorsalis) to insecticides in Taiwan. Plant Prot. Bull. 2002;44:303–314. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hsu, J.-C. et al. Monitoring resistance to spinosad in the melon fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) in Hawaii and Taiwan. The Scientific World Journal2012 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 17.Kakani EG, et al. Spinosad resistance development in wild olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations in California. Pest Management Science. 2010;66:447–453. doi: 10.1002/ps.1921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Khan HAA, Akram W, Haider MS. Genetics and mechanism of resistance to deltamethrin in the house fly, Musca domestica L., from Pakistan. Ecotoxicology. 2015;24:1213–1220. doi: 10.1007/s10646-015-1482-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Khan HAA, Akram W, Iqbal N. Selection and preliminary mechanism of resistance to profenofos in a field strain of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) from Pakistan. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2015;52:1013–1017. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjv095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Khan HA, Akram W, Shad SA. Genetics, cross-resistance and mechanism of resistance to spinosad in a field strain of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) Acta Tropica. 2014;130:148–154. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2013.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Zhao J, et al. Monitoring and characterization of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) resistance to spinosad. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2002;95:430–436. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-95.2.430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Levot GW, Rothwell JT, Sales N. Baseline laboratory bioassay data for spinosad against populations of Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann)(Diptera: Calliphoridae) Austral Entomology. 2002;41:79–81. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-6055.2002.00254.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Mota‐Sanchez D, Hollingworth RM, Grafius EJ, Moyer DD. Resistance and cross‐resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides and spinosad in the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Pest Management Science. 2006;62:30–37. doi: 10.1002/ps.1120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wei Y, Appel AG, Moar WJ, Liu N. Pyrethroid resistance and cross‐resistance in the German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L) Pest Management Science. 2001;57:1055–1059. doi: 10.1002/ps.383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Khan HAA, Akram W. Cyromazine resistance in a field strain of house flies, Musca domestica L.: Resistance risk assessment and bio-chemical mechanism. Chemosphere. 2017;167:308–313. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wilkinson, C. F. Insecticide biochemistry and physiology. (Plenum Press, 1976).
- 27.Bielza P, et al. Resistance to spinosad in the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), in greenhouses of south‐eastern Spain. Pest Management Science. 2007;63:682–687. doi: 10.1002/ps.1388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Sayyed AH, Saeed S, Noor-Ul-Ane M, Crickmore N. Genetic, biochemical, and physiological characterization of spinosad resistance in Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) Journal of Economic Entomology. 2008;101:1658–1666. doi: 10.1093/jee/101.5.1658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Shono T, Scott JG. Spinosad resistance in the housefly, Musca domestica, is due to a recessive factor on autosome 1. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. 2003;75:1–7. doi: 10.1016/S0048-3575(03)00011-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]