Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2004 Fipronil Resistance in the Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae): Inheritance and Number of Genes Involved
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Bioassays (at generation 1, G1) using fipronil, spinosad, indoxacarb, and Bacillus thuringiensis toxins Cry1Ac and Cry1Ca with a newly collected field population of Plutella xylostella (L.) from farmers fields in the Cameron Highlands, Malaysia, indicated a resistance ratio of ≈400-, 1,170-, 330-, 2,840-, and 1,410-fold, respectively, compared with a laboratory-susceptible population of P. xylostella (ROTH). At G3, the field-derived population was divided into two subpopulations, one was selected (G3 to G7) with fipronil (fip-SEL), whereas the second was left unselected (UNSEL). Bioassays at G8 found that selection with fipronil gave a resistance ratio of ≈490 compared with UNSEL and ≈770 compared with ROTH. The resistance ratio for fipronil, spinosad, indoxacarb, Cry1Ac, and Cry1Ca in the UNSEL population declined significantly by G8. Logit regression analysis of F1 reciprocal crosses between fip-SEL (at G8) and UNSEL indicated that resistance to fipronil in the fip-SEL population was inherited as an autosomal, incompletely recessive (DLC = 0.37) trait. At the highest dose of fipronil tested, resistance was completely recessive, whereas at the lowest dose it was incompletely recessive. A direct test of monogenic inheritance based on a backcross of F1 progeny with fip-SEL suggested that resistance to fipronil was controlled by a single locus. The fip-SEL population at G8 showed little change in its response to spinosad and indoxacarb compared with G1, whereas its susceptibility to Cry1Ac and Cry1Ca increased markedly over the selection period. This suggests that there may be some low level of cross-resistance between fipronil, spinosad, and indoxacarb.

Ali H. Sayyed and Denis J. Wright "Fipronil Resistance in the Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae): Inheritance and Number of Genes Involved," Journal of Economic Entomology 97(6), 2043-2050, (1 December 2004). https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-97.6.2043
Received: 1 June 2004; Accepted: 1 July 2004; Published: 1 December 2004
JOURNAL ARTICLE
8 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top