These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Determination of baseline susceptibility of European populations of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) to indoxacarb and chlorantraniliprole using a novel dip bioassay method.
    Author: Roditakis E, Skarmoutsou C, Staurakaki M, Martínez-Aguirre Mdel R, García-Vidal L, Bielza P, Haddi K, Rapisarda C, Rison JL, Bassi A, Teixeira LA.
    Journal: Pest Manag Sci; 2013 Feb; 69(2):217-27. PubMed ID: 23034903.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Tuta absoluta(Meyrick) is one of the most serious pests of tomato recently introduced in the Mediterranean region. A novel bioassay method designed for the accurate determination of insecticide toxicity on T. absoluta (IRAC method No. 022) was validated by three different laboratories [Greece (NAGREF), Italy (UC) and Spain (UPCT)] on European populations. RESULTS: The insecticides indoxacarb and chlorantraniliprole were used as reference products. The IRAC leaf dip method is easy to perform, producing repeatable, homogeneous responses. LC(50) values for indoxacarb ranged between 1.8 and 17.9 mg L(-1) (NAGREF), 0.93 and 10.8 mg L(-1) (UC) and 0.20 and 0.70 mg L(-1) (UPCT), resulting in a tenfold, 12-fold and fourfold difference between the least and most susceptible populations at each laboratory respectively. For chlorantraniliprole, LC(50) values ranged between 0.10 and 0.56 mg L(-1) (NAGREF), 0.23 and 1.34 mg L(-1) (UC) and 0.04 and 0.24 mg L(-1) (UPCT), resulting in a sixfold difference in all three cases. Overall, UPCT reported lower mean LC(50) to indoxacarb, while UC reported higher LC(50) to chlorantraniliprole. CONCLUSIONS: The new bioassay is reliable, providing a useful tool in the design of IRM strategies. Within each country/lab, the variability observed in the results for both indoxacarb and chlorantraniliprole can be attributed to natural variation. Future research is necessary to determine the extent to which it is possible to compare results among laboratories.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]