Toxicity, horizontal transfer, and physiological and behavioral effects of cycloxaprid against Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Abstract

BACKGROUND The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren, is a significant urban, agricultural, and medical pest with a wide distribution in the world. Surface or mound treatment using contact insecticide is one of the main methods to control S. invicta. In the present study, cycloxaprid, a newly discovered neonicotinoid insecticide, was evaluated for S. invicta control and compared with two referent insecticides, imidacloprid and bifenthrin. RESULTS Surfaces or sand treated with cycloxaprid, imidacloprid, or bifenthrin caused high mortality of S. invicta workers, and the action of cycloxaprid or imidacloprid was slower than bifenthrin. Like imidacloprid and bifenthrin, cycloxaprid can be horizontally transferred from corpses or live donor ants to recipient ants. In addition, cycloxaprid‐ or imidacloprid‐treated surfaces significantly induced the activities of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and detoxification enzymes; nevertheless, they had no significant effect on the foraging behaviors of S. invicta workers. Also, sand treated with cycloxaprid or imidacloprid did not negatively affect the digging activities of ants. Interestingly, S. invicta workers excavated significantly more sand containing 0.01 mg/kg cycloxaprid than untreated sand in the no‐choice digging bioassays. In addition, extensive nesting activities (sand excavation and stacking) were observed in the flowerpots containing untreated sand or sand treated with cycloxaprid or imidacloprid. On the contrary, bifenthrin significantly reduced the foraging, digging, and nesting activities of S. invicta workers. CONCLUSION Cycloxaprid is a slow‐acting and nonrepellent insecticide against S. invicta workers, and its contact and horizontal toxicities are slightly higher than imidacloprid. © 2022 Society of Chemical Industry.

Establishment of RNAi-Mediated Pest Control Method for Red Imported Fire Ant, Solenopsis invicta

“…Presently, S. invicta control relies predominantly on chemical insecticides, but prolonged use raises environmental and health concerns. 24 While resistance to different insecticides has not been reported, it remains a potential risk. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an effective, eco-friendly alternative to manage S. invicta infestations.…”

“…Presently, S. invicta control relies predominantly on chemical insecticides, but prolonged use raises environmental and health concerns . While resistance to different insecticides has not been reported, it remains a potential risk.…”

“…21−23 Currently, insect control relies on chemical pesticides. 24 Because S. invicta prefers nesting in disturbed residential areas, such as grasslands, farmlands, and gardens, the pesticide used for ants should be carefully selected and restricted. As mentioned earlier, RNAi application is a promising method for insect control.…”

“…The red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) is one of the most invasive and dangerous insects globally, impacting native arthropod populations, causing significant losses in agricultural production, and posing significant threats to human health. − Currently, insect control relies on chemical pesticides . Because S.…”

The Effect of Botanical Pesticides Azadirachtin, Celangulin, and Veratramine Exposure on an Invertebrate Species Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

“…However, untreated ants carrying and moving corpses killed by certain insecticides may acquire a lethal dose of the toxicants [ 67 , 70 ]. In the case of synthetic pesticides, Zhang et al [ 71 ] reported that a significant horizontal transfer effect was achieved in the first-round transmission (mortality > 65% for 108 h) when recipient ants were mixed with donor ants previously exposed to 10 μg/cm 2 of cycloxaprid or imidacloprid. Similarly, bifenthrin demonstrated significant horizontal activity, with 95% of the recipient ants killed at 20 °C when 20% of the ants were treated (donors–recipients ratio = 1:4), and 60% mortality at 20 °C when 10% were treated (donors–recipients ratio = 1:9), and 30 °C when 20% were treated [ 70 ].…”