Monitoring the form of resistance of populations of schools of culture and culture to the insecticide

  • M. Sekun Institute of Plant Protection of NAAS of Ukraine, Vasylkivska st., 33, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03022
  • O. Vlasova Institute of Plant Protection of NAAS of Ukraine, Vasylkivska st., 33, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03022
  • V. Berezovska-Brigas Institute of Plant Protection of NAAS of Ukraine, Vasylkivska st., 33, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03022
Keywords: insecticides, resistance, sensitivity, median lethal concentration, insects, mites

Abstract

Goal. To study the toxicity of the modern variety of insecticides from different classes of chemical substances at the level of the mean concentration (СК50, %) of the active substance for the common cereal aphids, cabbage flea, rape blossom weevil, common spider mite. Based on these data to determine the rate of resistance of natural populations of these species of phytophagous arthropods to insecticides.

Methodology. The sensitivity of phytophagous arthropods was studied on natural populations collected on crops of winter wheat, canola, soybeans in the Kiev region in 2015—2018. For the poisoning of cereal aphids and mites using the method of immersion of the populated lists wheat and soybeans, and flea beetles and pollen beetle — dip them in a gauze bag for 3 seconds in the appropriate solution of insecticides. Were taken 24 hours after poisoning. Toxicological parameters were calculated by using Proban.

Results. Identifies the different sensitivity of the natural arthropod populations to current insecticides. In terms of the mean concentration (СК50, %) of the active substance rapeseed pollen beetle were most sensitive to Configure, while the rest of the drugs is almost the same. Over the years research is more resistant to Decis Profi turned ordinary spider mites. This pest was a higher resistance.

Conclusions. The sensitivity of arthropods to insecticides of different chemical classes depends on the characteristics of the pest and the properties of the drug. Indicators of resistance are determined by the biology of the phytophage and terms of use of insecticide. The highest PR was observed for polyvoltine species (aphids, mites). Low levels of resistance to phytophagous pyrethroid insecticides can be explained by two factors: a smaller volume of use or reversion (return of chuvstvitelnosti to the initial level).

References

Kovalenkov V.G., Tyurina N.M. (2019). Biocenoticheskie podhody preodoleniya rezistentnosti k insektoakaricidam vrednykh chlenistonogikh. [Biocenotic approaches to overcome the resistance to insect acaricides of harmful arthropods]. Biologicheskaya zashchita rasteniy — osnova stabilizatsi agroekosistem. Krasnodar. S. 495—496. [in Russian].

Georghiou Р. (2009). Genetic and biological influences in the evolution of insecticide resistance. J.Econ. Entomol. №3. Р. 319—322. [in English].

Plapp F.W. Wang Т.С. (2016). Genetic origins of insecticide resistance. Pest resistance to pesticides: Proc. US — Japan Coop. Sci. Progr. Ѕеminar. California. Р. 31—35. [in English].

Berezovska-Bryhas V.V., Sekun M.P. (2017). Monitorynh rezystentnosti zvychainoi zlakovoi popelytsi do suchasnykh insektytsydiv. [Monitoring of resistance of common cereal aphids to modern insecticides]. Zakhyst i karantyn roslyn. V. 63. P. 27—35. [in Ukrainian].

Monitoring rezistentnosti k pestitsidam v populyatsiyakh vrednykh chlenistonogikh (Metod. ukazaniya). [Monitoring pesticide resistance in harmful arthropod populations (Methodological guidelines)]. Sankt-Peterburg. 2004. 128 p. [in Russian].

Tarushkin I. (2009). Rezystentnist shkidlyvykh orhanizmiv do pestytsydiv i shliakhy yii podolannia. [Resistance of pests to pesticides and ways to overcome it]. Khimiia. Ahronomiia. Servis. №21—22. P. 12—14. [in Ukrainian].

Published
2019-12-20
How to Cite
Sekun, M., Vlasova, O., & Berezovska-Brigas, V. (2019). Monitoring the form of resistance of populations of schools of culture and culture to the insecticide. Interdepartmental Thematic Scientific Collection of Phytosanitary Safety, (65), 149-160. https://doi.org/10.36495/1606-9773.2019.65.149-160