Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T12:59:23.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mechanisms of resistance to three mite growth inhibitors of Tetranychus urticae in hops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2017

A.W. Adesanya
Affiliation:
Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Prosser, WA 99350, USA Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
M.A Morales
Affiliation:
Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Prosser, WA 99350, USA Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
D.B. Walsh
Affiliation:
Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Prosser, WA 99350, USA
L.C. Lavine
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
M.D. Lavine
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
F. Zhu*
Affiliation:
Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Prosser, WA 99350, USA Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
*
*Author for correspondence Phone: 509-335-0480 Fax: 509-335-1009 E-mail: fang.zhu@wsu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mite growth inhibitors (MGIs), such as etoxazole and hexythiazox, are valuable IPM tools for Tetranychus urticae control in hops due to their unique mode of action and selectivity. Hence, it is necessary to standardize bioassay methods to evaluate the efficacy of MGIs, monitor resistance, and identify mechanisms underlying MGI resistance in the field. Here, we developed a three-tiered approach for evaluating ovicidal toxicity of MGIs to T. urticae, which simulated different MGI exposure scenarios in the field. The most effective bioassay method was direct exposure of T. urticae eggs to MGIs. With this method, four field-collected T. urticae populations showed low-to-moderate resistance to MGIs. Cross-resistance among MGIs and from MGIs to bifenazate and bifenthrin was detected. Besides target site insensitivity, enhanced cytochrome P450 and esterase activities also contribute to the MGI resistance in hop yard-collected T. urticae populations. Low-to-moderate MGI resistance in T. urticae populations may be mediated by multiple mechanisms. Positive selection pressure on the I1017F mutation is moderate in field-collected T. urticae populations. Further studies are required to identify metabolic detoxification genes that confer resistance to MGIs for precise resistance monitoring.

Information

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a three-tiered bioassay approach for three MGIs. (a) Topical exposure of eggs; (b) topical exposure of gravid females; (c) residual exposure of gravid females.

Figure 1

Table 1. Response of susceptible T. urticae eggs to three MGIs at different stages of development.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Effect of topical exposure of MGIs on the fecundity of T. urticae gravid females on sprayed and unsprayed bioassay arenas. The concentrations of MGIs here were field doses used in hop fields. Clofentezine was used in 626 ppm a.i.; etoxazole was used in 300 ppm a.i.; hexythiazox was used in 460 ppm a.i. (table S2). Statistical significance of the egg numbers between the control and each MGI treatment was calculated using Student's t test. ** P < 0.01.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Effect of topical exposure of MGIs on the survival of eggs laid by sprayed T. urticae gravid females on sprayed and unsprayed bioassay arenas. The concentrations of MGIs here were field doses used in hop fields (table S2). Statistical significance of survival of eggs between the control and each MGI treatment was calculated using Student's t test. ** P < 0.01.

Figure 4

Table 2. Residual toxicity of MGIs to freshly laid eggs of susceptible T. urticae.

Figure 5

Table 3. Response of eggs (0 h old) laid by field-collected T. urticae gravid females to three MGIs.

Figure 6

Table 4. Toxicity of MGIs, abamectin, bifenazate and bifenthrin to eggs (0 h old) laid by T. urticae population (Prosser 1) and three ovicidal acaricide-selected populations.

Figure 7

Table 5. The amino acid substitution in CHS 1 from the susceptible and field-collected (non-selected and ovicidal acaricide-selected) T. urticae populations.

Figure 8

Table 6. Synergism of PBO, DEM, TPP, and VER on MGIs’ toxicity to eggs laid by T. urticae population (Prosser 1) and three ovicidal acaricide-selected populations.

Supplementary material: PDF

Adesanya supplementary material

Figure S1 and Tables S1-S4

Download Adesanya supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 186.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Adesanya supplementary material

Adesanya supplementary material 1

Download Adesanya supplementary material(File)
File 24 KB