Reduced fitness among resistant versus susceptible individuals slows resistance evolution and makes it easier to manage. A loss of resistance costs could indicate novel adaptations or mutations contributing to resistance. We measured costs of resistance to imidacloprid in a Massachusetts resistant population compared with a Massachusetts susceptible population in 1999 in terms of fecundity, hatching success, egg development time, and sprint speed. Resistance was additive and seemed to be polygenic with high heritability. The fecundity cost appeared overdominant in 1999, and the hatch rate cost was partly recessive in 1999, but neither was significantly different from dominant or recessive. In 2004, we repeated our measures of resistance costs in Massachusetts in terms of fecundity and hatching success, and we added a new resistant population from Maine. In 2005, we compared development time of Maine resistant and the laboratory susceptible colony eggs. Significant fecundity costs of resistance were found in both population in both 1999 and 2004, and significant egg developmental time costs were found in 1999 and 2005. However, the hatching success costs of resistance were significant in 1999 and not apparent in 2004, suggesting some modification or replacement of the resistance genes in the intervening time.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 100 • No. 6