Abstract
BACKGROUND
Pesticides can be noxious to non‐target beneficial arthropods and their negative effects have been recently recognized even at low doses. The predator Nesidiocoris tenuis (Reuter) (Hemiptera: Miridae) plays an important role in controlling insect pests in solanaceous crops, but its concurrent herbivory often poses relevant concerns for tomato production. Although insecticide side effects on N. tenuis have been previously studied, little is known on the potential implications of neurotoxic chemicals at low concentrations. We assessed the baseline toxicity of three neurotoxic insecticides (lambda‐cyhalothrin, spinosad and chlorpyrifos) on N. tenuis by topical contact exposure. The behavioral and reproduction capacity of the predator was then investigated upon exposure to three estimated low‐lethal concentrations (LC1, LC10 and LC30).
RESULTS
Predator survival varied among insecticides and concentrations, with LC30/label rate ratios ranging from 8.45% to 65.40% for spinosad and lambda‐cyhalothrin, respectively. All insecticides reduced the fertility of N. tenuis females at all estimated low‐lethal concentrations. Chlorpyrifos seriously compromised predator orientation towards a host plant even at LC1, while the same effect was observed for lambda‐cyhalothrin and spinosad solely at LC30. Lambda‐cyhalothrin (at all concentrations) and chlorpyrifos (at LC10 and LC30) also affected the time taken by N. tenuis females to make a choice.
CONCLUSION
The results indicate that all three insecticides can be detrimental to N. tenuis and should be avoided when presence of the predator is desirable. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Keywords: ecotoxicology, sublethal effects, predatory mirid, pesticides, integrated pest management
Neurotoxic insecticides negatively affected the behavior and reproduction of the predator Nesidiocoris tenuis, even at low concentrations. Our study suggest that these compounds should be avoided when the presence of the predator is desirable.

1. INTRODUCTION
Pesticides have been incriminated for their negative consequences on biodiversity and its functioning, although their relevance in controlling plant pests effectively remains undeniable. 1 , 2 Pesticides can potentially affect non‐target organisms present in the agroecosystem, leading to disruption of the ecological services they provide, such as pollination, nutrient cycling and biological control. 3 , 4 For this reason, studies on the side effects of pesticides are encouraged to provide new insights to mitigate their negative impacts on non‐target beneficial arthropods. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 This is especially relevant in integrated pest management (IPM) programs in which natural enemies are often deliberately released and/or conserved to reduce pest populations. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14
Ecotoxicological screenings are usually based on guidelines developed by non‐governmental institutions, and in the European Union (EU) the ecotoxicological risk assessment of pesticides towards non‐target arthropods was developed in the Guidance Document on Terrestrial Ecotoxicology, 15 following the recommendation of the European standard characteristics of beneficials regulatory testing (ESCORT) of the Society of environmental toxicology and chemistry (SETAC) for non‐bee arthropods. 16 , 17 Most ecotoxicology studies consist of laboratory trials aimed at testing the highest pesticide dose recommended by manufacturers. However, pesticides are naturally degraded by biotic and abiotic factors, 18 , 19 and their drift may also occur in the field resulting in lower doses compared with their initial application. 20 , 21 Therefore, non‐target organisms present in the agroecosystem can be exposed to chemical residues at low concentrations and, surviving individuals may experience related sublethal effects. 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 These effects may include lower fertility and a reduction in predation/parasitism ability, which can negatively affect the establishment of natural enemies in the field and bias their efficiency in reducing pest populations. 3 , 25 , 26
Hemipteran predators are of paramount importance for the biological control of insect pests in greenhouse crops because they are able to control populations of several arthropod pests. 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 Among mirid predators (Hemiptera: Miridae), the zoophytophagous Nesidiocoris tenuis (Reuter) (Hemiptera: Miridae) is one of the most used species for biological control in the Palaearctic. Nesidiocoris tenuis has a multifaceted role for greenhouse pest control due to its high efficacy against a number of pests including aphids, whiteflies and lepidopterans, such as the South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). 32 Moreover, the use of N. tenuis has been fostered because of its ability in priming induced plant defense mechanisms. 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 However, owing to its plant‐feeding activity when prey is scarce, N. tenuis can become a pest because this predator can cause plant damage at high population levels. 39 , 40 , 41 Despite this drawback, IPM programs still rely on the biological control provided by N. tenuis. Therefore, the predator can be often exposed to organic and/or synthetic insecticides routinely adopted in these programs. 42 , 43 , 44 , 45
Earlier studies investigated the impact of insecticides on N. tenuis in terms of lethal and sublethal effects, by exposing N. tenuis adults to synthetic and organic neurotoxic compounds via different exposure routes (i.e., contaminated prey, direct spray and residual contact). 27 , 28 , 46 , 47 Nevertheless, most studies investigated only the maximum label rate of these compounds. To the best of our knowledge, there is no information regarding the effects of low insecticide concentrations on N. tenuis orientation capacity, which may ultimately affect the success of this predator as a biological control agent.
In this study, we hypothesized that low concentrations of neurotoxic insecticides might have detrimental effects on the physiology and behavior of N. tenuis. We tested this hypothesis through laboratory trials aiming to assess the fertility and olfactory response of N. tenuis adults topically exposed to three low‐lethal concentrations (LC30, LC10, LC1) of insecticides, previously estimated for this mirid predator. Our findings may help in understanding the convolutions of pesticide side effects at low concentrations on natural enemies and provide new useful insights into the association between the predator N. tenuis and chemical insecticides in pest control.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Biological materials
Nesidiocoris tenuis for laboratory rearing were obtained from periodic collections in organic open tomato greenhouses located in Fiumefreddo (Catania, Italy). Collected specimens were morphologically identified and reared in the laboratory as follows. Briefly, adults of N. tenuis (~150 individuals) were kept in entomological cages (32 × 40 × 70 cm) covered by fine net mesh and containing pesticide‐free sesame (Sesamum indicum L., variety T‐85 Humera) potted seedlings (~30 cm in height), as water and oviposition sources, according to the methodology described by Biondi et al. 48 The commercial mixture of the alternative prey Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) eggs and Artemia spp. cysts (i.e., Entofood® Koppert) was offered ad libitum to the predators as an additional food source. Nesidiocoris tenuis adults were kept on sesame plants for 3 days to allow mating and oviposition events; subsequently, N. tenuis adults were collected with a mechanical aspirator and transferred to new cages as described above. Sesame plants bearing N. tenuis eggs were isolated inside the cages for egg hatching and the development of newly hatched nymphs to adulthood. Half of the newly molted N. tenuis adults were collected with a mechanical aspirator and used for the bioassays, whereas the remainder were added to the rearing. New sesame plants and Entofood® were added to each cage twice a week. The rearing was maintained under laboratory conditions (25 ± 1°C, 55% ± 5% relative humidity, and a 14:10 h light/dark photoperiod) at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment of the University of Catania (Italy).
2.2. Insecticides
To assess the potential physiological and behavioral effects on N. tenuis, three neurotoxic insecticides were evaluated in this study. The insecticides, followed by their tradename, manufacturer, chemical group and mode of action, were: lambda‐cyhalothrin (Karate Zeon®, Syngenta Italia S.p.a.), a pyrethroid, Na+ channel modulator; spinosad (Laser®, Dow AgroSciences S.r.l.), a spinosyn, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor allosteric modulator; and chlorpyrifos (Dursban®, Dow AgroSciences S.r.l.), an organophosphate, acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitor. Lambda‐cyhalothrin and chlorpyrifos are both synthetic insecticides used in conventional tomato crops in many countries, whereas spinosad is a naturally derived insecticide, therefore its use is allowed in both conventional and organic crops. These insecticides were selected due to their potential use in tomato crops to control hemipteran and lepidopteran pests (such as aphids, whiteflies and T. absoluta), which are also N. tenuis prey.
2.3. Insecticides baseline toxicity toward Nesidiocoris tenuis
In this bioassay, we assessed the concentration–mortality response relationship of N. tenuis adult stage to lambda‐cyhalothrin, spinosad and chlorpyrifos by topical contact exposure. Newly emerged females (~2 days old) were exposed by topical spray to different concentrations of the insecticides. For each insecticide, six or seven concentrations, including of the highest label rate, were tested (see Table 1). Stock solutions were prepared with dilution of insecticidal formulations in distilled water, according to the manufacturer's recommendations. In addition, an untreated control with distilled water was included for all the insecticides (referred to as “zero concentration”). The insecticide dilutions were based on preliminary observations aimed at identifying the minimum dose needed to cause 100% mortality of N. tenuis females and the maximum dose that does not significantly affect the mortality of the treated insects in comparison with the untreated control.
TABLE 1.
Baseline toxicity of three insecticides toward Nesidiocoris tenuis females 48 h after topical contact exposure by spraying
| Insecticide | Tradename | % a.i. | Label rate (ppm) | Slope ± SE | χ2 (df) | p‐value | Lethal concentration (ppm) | 95% Confidence limits (ppm) | % LC/LR a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spinosad | Laser® | 44.20 | 0.3315 | 1.974 ± 0.260 | 33.355 (31) | 0.353 | LC1 = 3.37 × 10−3 | 1.35 × 10−3 to 5.88 × 10−3 | 1.08 |
| LC10 = 1.14 × 10−2 | 6.71 × 10−3 to 1.62 × 10−2 | 3.32 | |||||||
| LC30 = 2.75 × 10−2 | 2.00 × 10−2 to 3.60 × 10−2 | 8.44 | |||||||
| Lambda‐cyhalothrin | Karate Zeon® | 9.48 | 0.0236 | 1.301 ± 0.201 | 42.901 (36) | 0.201 | LC1 = 6.39 × 10−4 | 1.10 × 10−4 to 1.68 × 10−3 | 2.70 |
| LC10 = 4.06 × 10−3 | 1.49 × 10−3 to 7.33 × 10−3 | 17.13 | |||||||
| LC30 = 1.55 × 10−2 | 9.24 × 10−3 to 2.22 ∙ 10−2 | 65.40 | |||||||
| Chlorpyrifos | Dursban® | 44.53 | 0.3340 | 0.948 ± 0.202 | 35.563 (33) | 0.349 | LC1 = 8.87 × 10−4 | 2.30 × 10−4 to 4.09 × 10−4 | 0.27 |
| LC10 = 1.12 × 10−2 | 1.72 × 10−3 to 2.58 × 10−2 | 3.35 | |||||||
| LC30 = 7.05 × 10−2 | 3.34 × 10−2 to 1.14 × 10−1 | 21.11 |
% LC/LR is percentage of the estimated low‐lethal concentration in comparison with the highest label rate recommended in tomato crop.
An adapted methodology for insecticide topical contact application on N. tenuis adult stage was developed. Briefly, five N. tenuis females were isolated together in conical ventilated plastic tubes (Falcon®, 50 ml) and maintained at low temperature inside an insulated thermic box with ice packs for 3 h to reduce insect mobility. Thereafter, each group of N. tenuis females was placed in a plastic cup (100 ml) and topically sprayed with insecticide solutions using a hand‐sprayer (50 ml). The inside of the plastic cups was covered by absorbent paper to prevent the formation of insecticide droplets in the arena, preventing insect mortality via drowning. Clean and new absorbent paper was changed in each replicate for every insecticide–concentration combination. After spraying, each group of five N. tenuis females was transferred to an acrylic ventilated pot (5.5 cm in diameter × 3 cm height), along with a zucchini (Cucurbita pepo L.) leaf disc and Entofood®. Each pot containing five females was considered one replicate. Mortality caused by the insecticides on N. tenuis females was evaluated after 48 h. Eight replicates were performed for each insecticide–concentration combination.
2.4. Sublethal effects of insecticides on Nesidiocoris tenuis fertility
The aim of this bioassay was to evaluate whether low concentrations of lambda‐cyhalothrin, spinosad and chlorpyrifos could affect the fertility of the predator N. tenuis. Based on the results of the previous bioassay, newly molted N. tenuis males and females (2 days old) from the rearing were exposed to three low‐lethal concentrations (LC1, LC10 and LC30) of the aforementioned insecticides. These concentrations were chosen to expose the predators to low concentrations that can occur under field conditions after environmental degradation of a full label spray, including a lethal range from very low mortality (LC1) to moderate mortality (LC30).
Adult females (2 days old) were sprayed with the low‐lethal concentrations mentioned above and distilled water, as described in Section 2.3. Sprayed couples were kept in a ventilated plastic cup (400 ml) containing a green bean pod (Phaseolus vulgaris L., cv. ‘Garrafal enana’) as a water source and oviposition substrate, 28 , 49 and E. kuehniella eggs (1 g) as food supply in the arena. Each N. tenuis couple was kept in the aforementioned arena for 3 days to increase mating success and let the females oviposit into the bean. The experimental arenas containing green bean pods with N. tenuis eggs were maintained under laboratory conditions as described above, and the number of newly emerged nymphs was recorded daily under a stereomicroscope and removed with a soft paintbrush. The evaluation was conducted for 20 days until no new nymph emerged. For each pesticide–concentration combination and the control, the fertility of 25 N. tenuis couples (i.e., 25 replicates) was evaluated.
2.5. Sublethal effects of insecticides on Nesidiocoris tenuis orientation
The aim of this bioassay was to evaluate whether the orientation of the predator N. tenuis could be affected by the three low‐lethal concentrations (LC1, LC10 and LC30) of lambda‐cyhalothrin, spinosad and chlorpyrifos. Adult females (2 days old) were sprayed with the low‐lethal concentrations mentioned above and distilled water, as described in Section 2.3. After being sprayed topically, N. tenuis females were starved for 24 h in transparent vials (1.5 cm in diameter × 6 cm height) with a wet cotton wad as the only water source. Thereafter, each N. tenuis female was transferred in a two‐way olfactometer (main arm and lateral arms 15 cm long and 4 cm internal diameter). The odor sources used were clean air and a sesame plant (~20 cm height). Sesame plant was chosen because previous studies demonstrated that this plant is highly attractive to N. tenuis. 48 , 50 A sesame plant was placed inside one of the cylindrical glass jars (5 L volume) connected to the lateral arms of the olfactometer. An air pump (Airfizz®, Ferplast) produced a unidirectional flow (150 ml min−1) that passed through a water filter before entering the olfactometer system, conducting the air through the olfactometer lateral arms and reaching thus the main arm. The olfactometer was placed vertically on the bench surface and N. tenuis females were placed individually on the central arm. The bioassays were performed in a dark room, with controlled environmental conditions (25 ± 1°C, 60 ± 10% R. H.) and were conducted between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The olfactometer was illuminated by 22 W cool‐white fluorescent lamps, positioned 80 cm above the olfactometer arms, according to Naselli et al. 50
The choice of each female was considered when it crossed half of the lateral arm. Each predator was observed for 5 min and, if no choice was made after that time, non‐responder N. tenuis females were discarded from the data set. After every two tested females, the olfactometer was inverted to reduce environmental interference in the insect response. For each insecticide–concentration combination, at least 30 replicates, each composed of an insect that have did a choice, were carried out. The time taken for N. tenuis females to make a choice (for insects that made a choice) was also recorded.
2.6. Statistical analyses
The baseline toxicity of lambda‐cyhalothrin, spinosad and chlorpyrifos on N. tenuis by topical contact exposure was carried out through a log‐probit regression model. 51 The preference data of N. tenuis towards sesame plants were analyzed using a chi‐squared goodness‐of‐fit to determine whether the female attraction to sesame plants was different from a 50:50 distribution.
Data regarding time taken by N. tenuis females to make a choice and fertility were tested for normality and homoscedasticity; 52 , 53 however, these assumptions were not met. Therefore, these data were fitted to generalized linear models (GLMs), 54 and potential interaction between factors (four treatments × three concentrations) was tested. The models were fitted using the Poisson family for fertility and negative binomial family for time taken by N. tenuis females to make a choice (Poisson and quasi‐Poisson families were first tested, but the negative binomial model presented a better fit). Means were separated by a post‐hoc Tukey's HSD test (p < 0.05). Probit analyses were performed in the statistical program SPSS v. 21.0 (IBM Corp.), whereas the analyses for the fertility and olfactory response bioassays were performed in R v. 3.6.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), using the packages car and MASS for model fitting and the package multcomp to separate means. 55 , 56 , 57
3. RESULTS
3.1. Insecticides baseline toxicity toward Nesidiocoris tenuis
The probit models were fitted to observed data for all the treatments (i.e., there were no significant differences between the observed and the expected data), validating the low‐lethal concentrations for all the tested neurotoxic insecticides (Table 1). All insects treated with distilled water only (“zero concentration”) survived throughout the evaluation period. Lambda‐cyhalothrin was the insecticide with the lowest values of LC1, LC10 and LC30, being the most lethal active ingredient for N. tenuis females. Spinosad and chlorpyrifos also presented high toxicity to the predator as highlighted by the low LC30 values estimated for these compounds. Nevertheless, despite lambda‐cyhalothrin being the most toxic active ingredient, it was observed that the proportion values between the estimated LC10 and LC30 and the maximum label rate were higher for this insecticide (17.13% and 65.40%) in comparison with those observed for spinosad (3.32% and 8.45%) and chlorpyrifos (3.35% and 21.11%) (Table 1).
3.2. Sublethal effects of insecticides on Nesidiocoris tenuis fertility
Although the GLM revealed no significant insecticide × concentration interaction (χ2 = 12.023, df = 6, p = 0.061), all the tested insecticides significantly reduced the fertility of N. tenuis females at all the evaluated concentrations (LC1: χ2 = 64.642, df = 3, p < 0.001; LC10: χ2 = 73.707, df = 3, p < 0.001; LC30: χ2 = 118.560, df = 3, p < 0.001). The reduction in fertility was higher for chlorpyrifos at LC30 (χ2 = 9.939, df = 2, p = 0.007), whereas no differences were observed among the concentrations for lambda‐cyhalothrin (χ2 = 2.659, df = 2, p = 0.265), spinosad (χ2 = 1.008, df = 2, p = 0.604) and the control (χ2 = 0.427, df = 2, p = 0.808) (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1.

Mean (±) fertility values for Nesidiocoris tenuis females after topical contact exposure to three insecticides at three low‐lethal concentrations and distilled water (untreated control). Different upper case letters indicate significant differences among treatments in a concentration, whereas different lower case letters indicate significant differences in the concentrations for a treatment (GLM – Poisson distribution, Tukey's HSD test, p < 0.05).
3.3. Sublethal effects of insecticides on Nesidiocoris tenuis orientation
A significant attraction towards sesame plants was expected for insects that did not experience any insecticide exposure, 50 and it was confirmed for all control treatments. Therefore, this was taken as a reference for the percentage of insects orienting toward sesame compared with clean air for the treatments with insecticides. The preference of N. tenuis females for sesame plants instead of clean air was not affected by lambda‐cyhalothrin or spinosad at LC1 and LC10. However, the choices of insects treated with chlorpyrifos did not differ between sesame and air for these two low‐lethal concentrations. At LC30, all insecticides affected N. tenuis orientation, resulting in no difference between the proportion of choices for sesame and clean air (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2.

Response of Nesidiocoris tenuis females topically exposed to three insecticides at three low‐lethal concentrations (LC1, LC10 and LC30) and distilled water (untreated control) towards the volatiles produced by a Sesamum indicum plant. The percentages indicate the proportion of choices for sesame and clean air. Asterisks indicate differences in the attraction to S. indicum and clean air according to the likelihood chi‐squared (p < 0.05).
Differences in the time taken by N. tenuis females to make a choice were observed in all low‐lethal concentrations (LC1: χ2 = 9.358, df = 3, p = 0.024; LC10: χ2 = 22.566, df = 3, p < 0.001; LC30: χ2 = 33.291, df = 3, p < 0.001) (Figure 3). Insects treated with all the tested concentrations of lambda‐cyhalothrin took longer to make a choice in comparison with the control treatment. The same was observed for insects treated with chlorpyrifos at LC10 and LC30. For females treated with all concentrations of spinosad time taken to make a choice was not affected in comparison with the control treatment. No differences were observed among concentrations for any of the treatments (control: χ2 = 0.508, df = 2, p = 0.777; lambda‐cyhalothrin: χ2 = 0.634, df = 2, p = 0.729; chlorpyrifos: χ2 = 4.981, df = 2, p = 0.083; spinosad: χ2 = 3.589, p = 0.166) (Figure 3). There was no interaction between treatments and concentrations for the time taken by N. tenuis females to make a choice (χ2 = 9.066, df = 6, p = 0.170), therefore the data were evaluated separately.
FIGURE 3.

Mean (±SE) time taken (s) by Nesidiocoris tenuis females to make a choice between the volatiles emitted by a Sesamum indicum plant or clean air after topical contact exposure to three insecticides at three low‐lethal concentrations and distilled water (untreated control). Different upper case letters indicate differences among treatments in a concentration, whereas different lower case letters indicate differences in the concentrations for a treatment (GLM – Negative Binomial distribution, Tukey's HSD test, p < 0.05).
4. DISCUSSION
In many systems, broad‐spectrum insecticides, such as neurotoxic insecticides, are the most used compounds for pest control because of their effectiveness in controlling pests. However, a vast literature has documented concerning detrimental effects on beneficial organisms caused by these effective tools. 3 , 58 , 59 To preserve the ecological functions of beneficial organisms in the agroecosystem (including biological control) selective insecticides should be preferred in pest management. 5 , 22 , 26 , 60 , 61 , 62 Additionally, insecticides can cause sublethal effects that can bias the biological control provided by predators and parasitoids. 3 , 24 These alterations can be observed in individuals that survived both full label rates of selective compounds and lower concentrations of broad‐spectrum insecticides, which can occur after natural degradation under field conditions. 22 , 63 , 64 , 65
Probit models are often used to estimate concentration–mortality of pesticides to pests and natural enemies, in order to select efficient and safe compounds, respectively. 49 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 In our observations, lambda‐cyhalothrin was the most toxic compound for the predator, because lower values were estimated for all lethal concentrations. Spinosad was the least toxic insecticide at LC1 towards N. tenuis; however, at LC30 this insecticide was more toxic than chlorpyrifos. The highest slope estimated for spinosad treatment indicates that a slight increase in insecticide concentration may lead to high predator mortality. 69 Moreover, due to the lower active ingredient concentration in the lambda‐cyhalothrin based insecticide, the difference between the maximum label rate and the estimated LC10 and LC30 are lower for lambda‐cyhalothrin than for the spinosad and chlorpyrifos commercial products. Therefore, despite the higher LC10 and LC30 values observed for spinosad and chlorpyrifos, these insecticides might be even more toxic than lambda‐cyhalothrin under field conditions.
Besides mortality, all insecticides at the three evaluated concentrations reduced the fertility of the predator N. tenuis. Reproductive parameters are among the most sensitive biological characteristics to insecticides and the most important in terms of population dynamics. 70 Similar to our results, a reduction in N. tenuis progeny was also observed for the pyrethroids cypermethrin and deltamethrin. 28 , 46 Additionally, pyrethroids can be used at sublethal concentrations to contaminate insect‐proof nets, and Biondi et al. found that the continuous exposure of T. absoluta adults to such nets can cause a variety of chronic sublethal effects rather than acute toxicity. 71
Lower concentrations of the organophosphate chlorpyrifos were also frequently reported as causing negative effects on the reproduction of natural enemies. At LC30 several sublethal effects were observed on the hemipteran Andrallus spinidens Fabricius (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), such as reduction in fertility and enzyme activity, and alterations in life table parameters. 72 Fernandes et al. observed negative effects on reproduction after chlorpyrifos exposition at LC20 for the predator Orius insidiosus (Say) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae). 67 Moreover, spinosad reduced the offspring of the predatory bugs, such as Orius laevigatus (Fieber) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), 22 Macrolophus pygmaeus (Rambur) (Hemiptera: Miridae) 27 , 73 and Deraeocoris brevis (Uhler) (Hemiptera: Miridae). 74
Negative effects were also observed in the behavioral traits of N. tenuis. In the insecticide treatments, spinosad and lambda‐cyhalothrin at LC30 and chlorpyrifos at all concentrations affected the orientation ability of the predator. Moreover, the two synthetic insecticides also increased the time taken by N. tenuis females to make a choice. Because of their neurotoxic action, all three insecticides can affect the capacity of the nervous system to react to external stimuli. 59 , 63 , 72 , 75
The behavioral results in this study are consistent with neurotoxicity associated with lambda‐cyhalothrin. The deleterious effects caused by pyrethroids result from a blockage in electrical stimulus conduction as a consequence of the permanent opening of sodium channels while the insecticide is acting, leading to behavioral and physiological impacts. 59 , 76 Desneux et al. also observed that sublethal doses of lambda‐cyhalothrin (LD0.1) affected the orientation behavior of the parasitoid Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). 63 The parasitoid Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) exhibited a reduction in parasitism and longevity after treatment with sublethal concentrations of lambda‐cyhalothrin. 77 Soares et al. also observed alterations in N. tenuis behavior caused by lambda‐cyhalothrin. 26
Similarly, a lack of coordination is associated with chlorpyrifos intoxication. 72 The biased orientation of N. tenuis females treated with chlorpyrifos at LC1, LC10 and LC30 indicates that this insecticide can affect the predator behavior even at very low concentrations. The time taken by N. tenuis females to make a choice also increased after treatment with LC10 and LC30. Fernandes et al. observed negative effects on predation rate after chlorpyrifos exposure at LC20 for the predator O. insidiosus. 67 The predator M. pygmaeus also showed behavioral alterations (reduced attack rate and increased handling time) after treatment with chlorpyrifos at LC30. 78
By contrast, studies regarding the side effects of spinosad on the behavior of beneficial insects are scarce. For example, Barbosa et al. observed alterations in walking activity in the stingless bee Melpona quadrifasciata Depeleiter (Hymenoptera: Apidae) after exposure to spinosad. 79 Nevertheless, owing to the toxic effect on the nervous system, insects intoxicated by spinosad may present symptoms like a lack of coordination, trembling of appendages and a compromised perception of external stimuli, which can ultimately result in reduced predatory capacity for a natural enemy. 75 , 80 , 81 , 82
Plants from different botanical families, such as Asteraceae, Solanaceae and Pedaliaceae, are suitable for N. tenuis biological development. These plants could serve as water and oviposition sources, and are also plants where N. tenuis prey can be found in the field. 39 , 48 For this reason, disrupting the predators’ capacity to locate host plants directly influences their survival and success as biological control agents. The misorientation caused by lower concentrations of insecticides could also compromise N. tenuis capacity to locate plants infested with herbivorous prey, as observed for the predator Cyrtorhinus lividipennis Reuter (Hemiptera: Miridae) after exposure to the pyrethroid deltamethrin. 83 Further study is needed on this point of the system.
In summary, we observed that spinosad, chlorpyrifos and lambda‐cyhalothrin can be toxic to the predator N. tenuis, even at low concentrations, with effects on fertility and orientation. In addition to the laboratory results, field trials should be performed to confirm the toxicity of the compounds exploring different exposure routes (i.e., residual contact and ingestion of contaminated prey) and/or by testing the potential side effects toward insect parasitoids exploited in tomato crops. 13 , 84 , 85
5. CONCLUSIONS
The baseline toxicity showed that the insecticides were toxic to N. tenuis females. The sublethal effects caused by the tested concentrations of the three insecticides were also relevant. Even at LC1 and LC10 the fertility of N. tenuis females was compromised by all the insecticides. In addition, sublethal effects on predator orientation were observed. We concluded that the three insecticides were noxious to N. tenuis and should be avoided when the presence of the predator is desirable. Nevertheless, field trials must be carried out to confirm their sublethal toxicity and overall risk (interaction of exposure, hazard and other factors).
Additionally, the negative effects on N. tenuis orientation observed in the current study provide a basis for further research aiming to elucidate how neurotoxic insecticides impair N. tenuis capacity to locate host plants or herbivorous prey, by investigating alterations in the gene expression of odorant‐binding and chemosensory proteins that might be involved in plant volatile reception by employing electro‐antennography and quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction bioassays. 86 , 87 , 88 Moreover, the results highlight the importance of investigating other insecticides that might have a narrow spectrum and that would be more compatible with sustainable IPM.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for the author personal funding (PDSE ‐ Process n° 88881.187337/2018‐2101), the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for supporting LCP; the University of Catania (Project Emergent Pests and Pathogens and Relative Sustainable Strategies – 5A722192113; PhD fellowship to AG), the EU, Programme IEV de Coopération Transfrontalière Italie‐Tunisie 2014–2020 (Project INTEMAR‐IS_2.1_073 Innovations dans la lutte intégrée contre les ravageurs et maladies récemment introduits sur cultures maraîchères, Grant number E64I18002460007). The authors would also like to thank the owners of the Azienda Agricola La Zagara (Fiumefreddo, Italy) for sharing their tomato crop for insect collection, students and technicians of the entomology section of the Department Agriculture, Food and Environment in the University of Catania that somehow contributed to the execution of this experiment.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1. Horowitz AR, Ghanim M, Roditakis E, Nauen R and Ishaaya I, Insecticide resistance and its management in Bemisia tabaci species. J Pest Sci 93:893–910 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 2. Sánchez‐Bayo F, Indirect effect of pesticides on insects and other arthropods. Toxics 9:177 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Desneux N, Decourtye A and Delpuech J‐M, The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 52:81–106 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Köhler HR and Triebskorn R, Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: can we track effects to the population level and beyond? Science 341:759–765 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Biondi A, Zappalà L, Stark JD and Desneux N, Do biopesticides affect the demographic traits of a parasitoid wasp and its biocontrol services through sublethal effects? PLoS One 8:e76548 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Bueno ADF, Carvalho GA, Santos ACD, Sosa‐Gómez DR and Silva DMD, Pesticide selectivity to natural enemies: challenges and constraints for research and field recommendation. Cienc Rural 47:1–10 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 7. Mansour R, Belzunces LP, Suma P, Zappalà L, Mazzeo G, Grissa‐Lebdi K et al., Vine and citrus mealybug pest control based on synthetic chemicals. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38:1–20 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 8. Campolo O, Puglisi I, Barbagallo RN, Cherif A, Ricupero M, Biondi A et al., Side effects of two citrus essential oil formulations on a generalist insect predator, plant and soil enzymatic activities. Chemosphere 257:127252 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Menail AH, Boutefnouchet‐Bouchema WF, Haddad N, Taning NTC, Smagghe G and Loucif‐Ayad W, Effects of thiamethoxam and spinosad on the survival and hypopharyngeal glands of the African honey bee (Apis mellifera intermissa). Entomol Gen 40:207–215 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 10. Stern VMRF, Smith R, Van den Bosch R and Hagen K, The integration of chemical and biological control of the spotted alfalfa aphid: the integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81–101 (1959). [Google Scholar]
- 11. Heimpel GE and Mills NJ, Biological Control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 380 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 12. Rossi Stacconi MV, Amiresmaeili N, Biondi A, Carli C, Caruso S, Dindo ML et al., Biological control of the invasive spotted wing drosophila trough augmentative releases of the cosmopolitan parasitoid Trichopria drosophilae . Biol Control 117:188–196 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 13. Campos MR, Monticelli LS, Béarez P, Amiens‐Desneux E, Wang Y, Lavoir A‐V et al., Impact of a shared sugar food source on biological control of Tuta absoluta by the parasitoid Necremnus tutae . J Pest Sci 93:207–218 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 14. Santoiemma G, Tonina L, Marini L, Duso C and Mori N, Integrated management of Drosophila suzukii in sweet cherry orchards. Entomol Gen 40:297–305 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 15. SANCO/10329/2002 . Guidance Document on Terrestrial Ecotoxicology under Council Directive 91/414/EEC, Rev.2 Final, pp. 1–39 (2002).
- 16. Barrett KL, Grandy N, Harrison EG, Hassan S and Oomen P, Guidance document on regulatory testing procedures for pesticides and non‐target arthropods. ESCORT workshop (European standard characteristics of non‐target arthropod regulatory testing). In Wageningen, the Netherlands: a Joint BART, EPPO/CoE and IOBC Workshop Organised in Conjunction with SETAC‐Europe and Funded by the EC, 51 p. (1994).
- 17. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) , Scientific opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non‐target arthropods. EFSA J 13:3996 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 18. Desneux N, Fauvergue X, Dechaume‐Moncharmont FX, Kerhoas L, Ballanger Y and Kaiser L, Diaeretiella rapae limits Myzus persicae populations after applications of deltamethrin in oilseed rape. J Econ Entomol 98:9–17 (2005). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Guedes RNC, Smagghe G, Stark JD and Desneux N, Pesticide‐induced stress in arthropod pests for optimized integrated pest management programs. Annu Rev Entomol 61:43–62 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Langhof M, Gathmann A, Poehling HM and Meyhöfer R, Impact of insecticide drift on aphids and their parasitoids: residual toxicity, persistence and recolonisation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 94:265–274 (2003). [Google Scholar]
- 21. Marubayashi RY, Oliveira RBD, Ferreira MDC, Roggia S, EDD M and Saab OJ, Insecticide spray drift reduction with different adjuvants and spray nozzles. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental 25:282–287 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 22. Biondi A, Desneux N, Siscaro G and Zappalà L, Using organic‐certified rather than synthetic pesticides may not be safer for biological control agents: selectivity and side effects of 14 pesticides on the predator Orius laevigatus . Chemosphere 87:803–812 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. He Y, Zhao J, Zheng Y, Weng Q, Biondi A, Desneux N et al., Assessment of potential sublethal effects of various insecticides on key biological traits of the tobacco whitefly, Bemisia tabaci . Int J Biol Sci 9:246–255 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Dai C, Ricupero M, Puglisi R, Lu Y, Desneux N, Biondi A et al., Can contamination by major systemic insecticides affect the voracity of the harlequin ladybird? Chemosphere 256:126986 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Passos LC, Soares MA, Collares LJ, Malagoli I, Desneux N and Carvalho GA, Lethal, sublethal and transgenerational effects of insecticides on Macrolophus basicornis, predator of Tuta absoluta . Entomol Gen 38:127–143 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 26. Soares MA, Campos MR, Passos LC, Carvalho GA, Haro MM, Lavoir AV et al., Botanical insecticide and natural enemies: a potential combination for pest management against Tuta absoluta . J Pest Sci 92:1433–1443 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 27. Arnó J and Gabarra R, Side effects of selected insecticides on the Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) predators Macrolophus pygmaeus and Nesidiocoris tenuis (Hemiptera: Miridae). J Pest Sci 84:513–520 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 28. Wanumen AC, Sánchez‐Ramos I, Viñuela E, Medina P and Adán Á, Impact of feeding on contaminated prey on the life parameters of Nesidiocoris tenuis (Hemiptera: Miridae) adults. J Insect Sci 16:1–7 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Jaworski CC, Bompard A, Genies L, Amiens‐Desneux E and Desneux N, Preference and prey switching in a generalist predator attacking local and invasive alien pests. PLoS One 8:1–10 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Biondi A, Guedes RNC, Wan F‐H and Desneux N, Ecology, worldwide spread, and management of the invasive south American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta: past, present, and future. Annu Rev Entomol 63:239–258 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Van Lenteren JC, Lanzoni A, Hemerik L, Bueno VHP, Bajonero Cuervo JG, Biondi A et al., The pest kill rate of thirteen natural enemies as aggregate evaluation criterion of their biological control potential of Tuta absoluta . Sci Rep 11:10756 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Desneux N, Han P, Mansour R, Arnó J, Brévault T, Campos MR et al., Integrated pest management of Tuta absoluta: practical implementations across different world regions. J Pest Sci 95:17–39 (2022). [Google Scholar]
- 33. Zappalà L, Biondi A, Alma A, Al‐Jboory IJ, Arnò J, Bayram A et al., Natural enemies of the south American moth, Tuta absoluta, in Europe, North Africa and Middle East, and their potential use in pest control strategies. J Pest Sci 86:635–647 (2013). [Google Scholar]
- 34. Jaworski CC, Chailleux A, Bearez P and Desneux N, Apparent competition between major pests reduces pest population densities on tomato crop, but not yield loss. J Pest Sci 88:793–803 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 35. Naselli M, Urbaneja A, Siscaro G, Jaques JA, Zappalà L, Flors V et al., Stage‐related defense response induction in tomato plants by Nesidiocoris tenuis . Int J Mol Sci 17:1210 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Mansour R, Brévault T, Chailleux A, Cherif A, Grissa‐Lebdi K, Haddi K et al., Occurrence, biology, natural enemies and management of Tuta absoluta in Africa. Entomol Gen 38:83–112 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 37. Thomine E, Jeavons E, Rusch A, Bearez P and Desneux N, Effect of crop diversity on predation activity and population dynamics of the mirid predator Nesidiocoris tenuis . J Pest Sci 93:1255–1265 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 38. Thomine E, Rusch A, Supplisson C, Monticelli LS, Amiens‐Desneux E, Lavoir AV et al., Highly diversified crop systems can promote the dispersal and foraging activity of the generalist predator Harmonia axyridis . Entomol Gen 40:133–145 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 39. Castañé C, Arnó J, Gabarra R and Alomar O, Plant damage to vegetable crops by zoophytophagous mirid predators. Biol Control 59:22–29 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 40. Mollá O, Biondi A, Alonso‐Valiente M and Urbaneja A, A comparative life history study of two mirid bugs preying on Tuta absoluta and Ephestia kuehniella eggs on tomato crops: implications for biological control. BioControl 59:175–183 (2014). [Google Scholar]
- 41. Siscaro G, Pumo CL, Garzia GT, Tortorici S, Gugliuzzo A, Ricupero M et al., Temperature and tomato variety influence the development and the plant damage induced by the zoophytophagous mirid bug Nesidiocoris tenuis . J Pest Sci 92:1049–1056 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 42. Campos MR, Biondi A, Adiga A, Guedes RNC and Desneux N, From the Western Palaearctic region to beyond: Tuta absoluta ten years after invading Europe. J Pest Sci 90:787–796 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 43. Ferracini C, Bueno VH, Dindo ML, Ingegno BL, Luna MG, Salas Gervassio NG et al., Natural enemies of Tuta absoluta in the Mediterranean basin, Europe and South America. Biocontrol Sci Tech 29:578–609 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 44. Mansour R and Biondi A, Releasing natural enemies and applying microbial and botanical pesticides for managing Tuta absoluta in the MENA region. Phytoparasitica 49:179–194 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 45. Pérez‐Hedo M, Alonso‐Valiente M, Vacas S, Gallego C, Rambla JL, Navarro‐Llopis V et al., Eliciting tomato plant defenses by exposure to herbivore induced plant volatiles. Entomol Gen 41:209–218 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 46. Madbouni MAZ, Samih MA, Qureshi JA, Biondi A and Namvar P, Compatibility of insecticides and fungicides with the zoophytophagous mirid predator Nesidiocoris tenuis . PLoS One 12:e0187439 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Soares MA, Carvalho GA, Campos MR, Passos LC, Haro MM, Lavoir AV et al., Detrimental sublethal effects hamper the effective use of natural and chemical pesticides in combination with a key natural enemy of Bemisia tabaci on tomato. Pest Manag Sci 76:3551–3559 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Biondi A, Zappalà L, Di Mauro A, Tropea Garzia G, Russo A, Desneux N et al., Can alternative host plant and prey affect phytophagy and biological control by the zoophytophagous mirid Nesidiocoris tenuis? BioControl 61:79–90 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 49. Tan Y, Biondi A, Desneux N and Gao XW, Assessment of physiological sublethal effects of imidacloprid on the mirid bug Apolygus lucorum (Meyer‐Dür). Ecotoxicology 21:1989–1997 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Naselli M, Zappala L, Gugliuzzo A, Garzia GT, Biondi A, Rapisarda C et al., Olfactory response of the zoophytophagous mirid Nesidiocoris tenuis to tomato and alternative host plants. Arthropod‐Plant Interactions 11:121–131 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 51. Finney DJ, Probit Analysis; A Statistical Treatment of the Sigmoid Response Curve. Macmillan, Oxford, England, 256 p. (1947). [Google Scholar]
- 52. Shapiro SS and Wilk MB, An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611 (1965). [Google Scholar]
- 53. Bartlett MS, Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proc R Soc Lond A 160:268–282 (1937). [Google Scholar]
- 54. Nelder JA and Wedderburn RWM, Generalized Linear Models. J Roy Statistic Soc 135:370–384 (1972). [Google Scholar]
- 55. Fox J and Weisberg S, An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA: (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 56. Venables WN and Ripley BD, MASS: Modern Applied Statistics with S, Fourth edn. Springer, New York: (2002). [Google Scholar]
- 57. Hothorn T, Bretz F and Westfall P, Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363 (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Yu SJ, The Toxicology and Biochemistry of Insecticides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p. 276 (2008). [Google Scholar]
- 59. Casida JE and Durkin KA, Neuroactive insecticides: targets, selectivity, resistance, and secondary effects. Annu Rev Entomol 58:99–117 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Carvalho GA, Grützmacher AD, Passos LC and Oliveira RL, Physiological and ecological selectivity of pesticides for natural enemies of insects, in Natural Enemies of Insect Pests in Neotropical Agroecosystems, ed. by Souza B, Vásquez L and Marucci R. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 469–478 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 61. Torres JB and Bueno ADF, Conservation biological control using selective insecticides – a valuable tool for IPM. Biol Control 126:53–64 (2018). [Google Scholar]
- 62. Mollá O, González‐Cabrera J and Urbaneja A, The combined use of bacillus thuringiensis and Nesidiocoris tenuis against the tomato borer Tuta absoluta . BioControl 56:883–891 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 63. Desneux N, Pham‐Delègue M and Kaiser L, Effects of sub‐lethal and lethal doses of lambda‐cyhalothrin on oviposition experience and host‐searching behaviour of a parasitic wasp, Aphidius ervi . Pest Manag Sci 60:381–389 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Eijaza S, Khan MF, Mahmood K, Anwar M, Alamgir A and Khatri I, Studies on degradation and efficacy of synthetic pesticides on okra crop. Acad J Entomol 8:12–18 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 65. Ricupero M, Desneux N, Zappalà L and Biondi A, Target and non‐target impact of systemic insecticides on a polyphagous aphid pest and its parasitoid. Chemosphere 247:125728 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Wang R, Zheng H, Qu C, Wang Z, Kong Z and Luo C, Lethal and sublethal effects of a novel cis‐nitromethylene neonicotinoid insecticide, cycloxaprid, on Bemisia tabaci . Crop Prot 83:15–19 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 67. Fernandes ME, Alves FM, Pereira RC, Aquino LA, Fernandes FL and Zanuncio JC, Lethal and sublethal effects of seven insecticides on three beneficial insects in laboratory assays and field trials. Chemosphere 156:45–55 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Wang S, Qi Y, Desneux N, Shi X, Biondi A and Gao X, Sublethal and transgenerational effects of short‐term and chronic exposures to the neonicotinoid nitenpyram on the cotton aphid Aphis gossypii . J Pest Sci 90:389–396 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 69. Vojoudi S, Saber M, Hejazi MJ and Talaei‐Hassanloui R, Toxicity of chlorpyrifos, spinosad and abamectin on cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera and their sublethal effects on fecundity and longevity. Bull Insectol 64:189–193 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 70. Messing R and Croft BA, Sublethal influences, in Arthropod Biological Control Agents and Pesticides, ed. by Croft BA. Jon Willey and Sons, New York, pp. 157–183 (1990). [Google Scholar]
- 71. Biondi A, Zappala L, Desneux N, Aparo A, Siscaro G, Rapisarda C et al., Potential toxicity of α‐cypermethrin‐treated nets on Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J Econ Entomol 108:1191–1197 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Gholamzadeh‐Chitgar M, Hajizadeh J, Ghadamyari M, Karimi‐Malati A and Hoda H, Effects of sublethal concentration of diazinon, fenitrothion and chlorpyrifos on demographic and some biochemical parameters of predatory bug, Andrallus spinidens Fabricius (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in laboratory conditions. Int J Pest Manag 61:204–211 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 73. Ricupero M, Abbes K, Haddi K, Kurtulus A, Desneux N, Russo A et al., Combined thermal and insecticidal stresses on the generalist predator Macrolophus pygmaeus . Sci Total Environ 729:138922 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Kim DS, Brooks DJ and Riedl H, Lethal and sublethal effects of abamectin, spinosad, methoxyfenozide and acetamiprid on the predaceous plant bug Deraeocoris brevis in the laboratory. Biocontrol 51:465–484 (2006). [Google Scholar]
- 75. Biondi A, Mommaerts V, Smagghe G, Viñuela E, Zappalà L and Desneux N, The non‐target impact of spinosyns on beneficial arthropods. Pest Manag Sci 68:1523–1536 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Khambay BPS and Jewess PJ, Pyrethroids, in Insect Control – Biological and Synthetic Agents, ed. by Gilbert LI and Gill SS. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 1–29 (2010). [Google Scholar]
- 77. D’Ávila VA, Barbosa WF, Guedes RN and Cutler GC, Effects of spinosad, imidacloprid, and lambda‐cyhalothrin on survival, parasitism, and reproduction of the aphid parasitoid Aphidius colemani . J Econ Entomol 111:1096–1103 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Sharifian I, Sabahi Q and Bandani AR, Effect of some conventional insecticides on functional response parameters of Macrolophus pygmaeus (hem.: Miridae) on Tuta absoluta (Lep.: Gelechiidae). Bihar Biol 11:10–14 (2017). [Google Scholar]
- 79. Barbosa WF, Tomé HV, Bernardes RC, Siqueira MA, Smagghe G and Guedes RN, Biopesticide‐induced behavioral and morphological alterations in the stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata . Environ Toxicol Chem 34:2149–2158 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Crouse GD, Sparks TC, Schoonover J, Gifford J, Dripps J, Bruce T et al., Recent advances in the chemistry of spinosyns. Pest Manag Sci 57:177–185 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Sparks TC, Crouse GD and Durst G, Natural products as insecticides: the biology, biochemistry and quantitative structure‐activity relationships of spinosyns and spinosoids. Pest Manag Sci 57:896–905 (2001). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Salgado VL and Sparks TC, The Spinosins: chemistry, biochemistry, mode of action, and resistance, in Insect Control – Biological and Synthetic Agents, ed. by Gilbert LI and Gill SS. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 207–243 (2010). [Google Scholar]
- 83. Zhang X, Xu Q, Lu W and Liu F, Sublethal effects of four synthetic insecticides on the generalist predator Cyrtorhinus lividipennis . J Pest Sci 88:383–392 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 84. El‐Arnaouty SA, Galal HH, Afifi V, Beyssat J, Pizzol J, Desneux N et al., Assessment of two Trichogramma species for the control of Tuta absoluta in north African tomato greenhouses. Afric Entomol 22:801–809 (2014). [Google Scholar]
- 85. Salas Gervassio NG, Aquino D, Vallina C, Biondi A and Luna MG, A re‐examination of Tuta absoluta parasitoids in South America for optimized biological control. J Pest Sci 92:1343–1357 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 86. Ingegno BL, La‐Spina M, Jordan MJ, Tavella L and Sanchez JA, Host plant perception and selection in the sibling species Macrolophus melanotoma and Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Miridae). J Insect Behav 29:117–142 (2016). [Google Scholar]
- 87. Zhang R, Gao G and Chen H, Silencing of the olfactory co‐receptor gene in Dendroctonus armandi leads to EAG response declining to major host volatiles. Sci Rep 6:23136 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Wang GY, Zhu MF, Jiang YD, Zhou WW, Liu S, Heong KL et al., Identification of candidate odorant‐binding protein and chemosensory protein genes in Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (Hemiptera: Miridae), a key predator of the rice planthoppers in Asia. Environ Entomol 46:654–662 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
