Resistance risk assessment in diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) to fluxametamide

Roy, Debashis; Sau, Sayan; Adhikary, Samrat; Biswas, Abhisek; Biswas, Soumali; Chakraborty, Gautam; Sarkar, P. K.

doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106101

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These observations of the low h 2 value of FAW after fluxametamide selection might be attributable to the stronger involvement of environmental variation than the alleles of additive genetic variation present in FAW responsible for fluxametamide resistance. These hypotheses are in agreement with the studies of Roy et al [32], Lai and Su [34], Ijaz et al [55], and Abbas and Shad [57]. The resistance development rate was elicited using the slope values of the Probit lines in different selected generations and the estimated realized heritability.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Additionally, the current analysis places the results of the selection experiment in the broader context of the theoretical and experimental evolutionary biology literature [58]. Our results indicated that the predicted realized heritability (h 2 ) for FAW (h 2 = 0.084) after 10 consecutive generations of selection with fluxametamide were lower than lambda cyhalothrin (h 2 = 0.420), and methomyl (h 2 = 0.140) [59], and also lower than Spodoptera exigua (h 2 = 0.108) and Plutella xylostella (h 2 = 0.180) selected with chlorantraniliprole [34] and fluxametamide [32], respectively. These observations of the low h 2 value of FAW after fluxametamide selection might be attributable to the stronger involvement of environmental variation than the alleles of additive genetic variation present in FAW responsible for fluxametamide resistance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…The terms "selection response" (R) and "selection differential" (S) refer, respectively, to the "difference in average phenotype between the progeny of the selected parents and the parental generation before selection" and "difference in average phenotype between the selected parents and the entire parental generation". The calculation of R and S has been given in our previous publication [32]. Assessment of fluxametamide resistance risk was done using the theory of Tabashnik [40].…”

Section: Estimation Of Realized Heritability (H 2 )mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fluxametamide, a new-generation reduced-risk insecticide of the 21st century, has been commercialized recently in the global market, and very little information is available on its toxicity and resistance-related parameters on various insect pests. Sublethal effects of fluxametamide on Plutella xylostella [31] and Chilo suppressalis [35] have been reported recently by previous workers, and the resistance risk assessment of this insecticide in P. xylostella was also studied [32]. Therefore, to restore the susceptibility for a longer period and to formulate proper management strategies of fluxametamide resistance against one of the most important invasive insect pests, FAW, information on the resistance risk of fluxametamide and fitness costs in FAW should be generated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fluxametamide is effective against fipronil-resistant pest populations due to its distinct binding location in GABA-gated chloride channels, which is different from those for other antagonists [30]. Fluxametamide, which was previously introduced in China, Australia, and Japan, was recently introduced in India and is anticipated to be used successfully to control a variety of lepidopteran insects [31,32]. However, the resistance of FAW, one of the most important invasive insect pests, to fluxametamide is still unexplored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Risk Assessment of Fluxametamide Resistance and Fitness Costs in Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)

Roy

Biswas

Sarkar

et al. 2023

Toxics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda, is one of the most devastating invasive polyphagous pests, which has attracted recent global attention by developing resistance to various insecticidal active ingredients with independent mode of action. Fluxametamide, a newly commercialized isoxazoline insecticide, is exceptionally selective towards several lepidopteran pests. The present study aimed to evaluate resistance risk in FAW to fluxametamide and the fitness costs associated with fluxametamide resistance. A field-collected and genetically mixed population of FAW was artificially selected through continuous exposure to fluxametamide. After successive selection of 10 generations, there was no obvious increase in the LC50 (RF: 2.63-fold). The realized heritability (h2) of fluxametamide resistance was estimated as h2 = 0.084 using a quantitative genetic approach. Compared with the susceptible F0 strain, the Flux-SEL (F10) strain of FAW displayed no significant cross-resistance to broflanilide, chlorantraniliprole, fipronil, indoxacarb, lambda cyhalothrin, spinetoram, and tetraniliprole, except emamectin benzoate (RF: 2.08-fold). Increased activity of glutathione S-transferase (ratio 1.94) was observed in the Flux-SEL (F10) strain of FAW, while the cytochrome P450 and carboxylesterase activities were not altered. The fluxametamide-selection significantly affected the development and reproductive traits of FAW with a lower R0, T and relative fitness (Rf = 0.353). The results alluded that the risk of fluxametamide resistance evolution in FAW is relatively lower; however, proactive implementation of resistance management approaches should be done to maintain the field efficacy of fluxametamide against FAW.

show abstract