Susceptibility of Choristoneura Rosaceana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to Two New Reduced-Risk Insecticides
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE AND RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT Susceptibility of Choristoneura rosaceana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to Two New Reduced-Risk Insecticides 1 ASHFAQ A. SIAL, JAY F. BRUNNER, AND MICHAEL D. DOERR Department of Entomology, Washington State University, Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, 1100 N. Western Avenue, Wenatchee, WA 98801 J. Econ. Entomol. 103(1): 140Ð146 (2010); DOI: 10.1603/EC09238 ABSTRACT The response of Þeld-collected populations of the obliquebanded leafroller, Choristo- neura rosaceana (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), to chlorantraniliprole, spinetoram, spinosad, and azinphosmethyl was assessed using a diet incorporation bioassay. Populations of obliquebanded leafroller were collected from nine orchards in Chelan, Douglas, Grant, and Okanogan counties of Washington. The neonates of the F1 or F2 generation were used in all assays. The parameters of probit regression lines were estimated and lethal concentration ratios were calculated for all populations compared with a susceptible laboratory population. SigniÞcant variation was detected in response to all four insecticides including chlorantraniliprole and spinetoram, which had never been used in the Þeld. lethal concentration ratios were 3.9Ð39.7 for azinphosmethyl, 0.5Ð3.6 for spinosad, 1.2Ð5.3 for chlorantraniliprole, and 0.5Ð4.1 for spinetoram. Correlation analysis indicated possibility of cross- resistance between spinosad and spinetoram, which are both members of spinosyn class. The occur- rence of low but signiÞcant levels of resistance against chlorantraniliprole and spinetoram in Þeld- collected populations of C. rosaceana before their Þrst Þeld application indicates that the risk of resistance evolution against these two new reduced-risk insecticides exists. However, it is likely that these low levels of resistance can be managed if the insecticides are used judiciously in conjunction with sound resistance management programs. Implications of these results for developing and im- plementing resistance management strategies are discussed. KEY WORDS obliquebanded leafroller, Þeld-collected populations, chlorantraniliprole, spineto- ram, insecticide resistance The obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosa- Þeld (Sauphanor et al. 1998, Dunley and Welter 2000). ceana (Harris), is a tortricid moth native to North In addition, the implementation of Food Quality Pro- America (Weires and Riedl 1991). It is a major pest of tection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (U.S. Environmental Pro- pome fruits, second only to codling moth, Cydia tection Agency [USEPA] 1996) has increased restric- pomonella (L.), in Washington (Brunner 1999). In tions on the use of broad-spectrum insecticides, apple, obliquebanded leafroller larvae feed on ßower especially the OPs. buds, leaves, and developing fruits (Howitt 1993, The development of insecticide resistance as well as Ohlendorf 1999). Fruit damage from larval feeding regulatory actions such as FQPA have led to a greater can occur in the spring, during midsummer (the most priority in the development of reduced-risk insecti- signiÞcant), or just before harvest (Beers et al. 1993). cides as OP alternatives (USEPA 1997). Chlorantra- Leafrollers, and the key apple pest, C. pomonella (L.), niliprole and spinetoram are the reduced-risk in- have been controlled using the organophosphate secticides recently registered as OP alternatives. (OP) insecticides for over four decades. However, Chlorantraniliprole is an anthranilic diamide, which reports of decreasing efÞcacy of OP insecticides belongs to insecticide resistance action committee against leafrollers have been attributed to the devel- (IRAC) mode of action class 28 (Insecticide Resis- opment of insecticide resistance (Brunner 1996). In- tance Action Committee [IRAC] 2009). Anthranilic secticide resistance to OPs and cross-resistance to diamides selectively bind to the ryanodine receptors other groups of chemicals have been documented in (RyR) in insect muscles resulting in an uncontrolled obliquebanded leafroller (Reissig et al. 1986, Lawson release of calcium from internal stores in the sarco- et al. 1997, Waldstein et al. 1999, Ahmad et al. 2002, plasmic reticulum (Lahm et al. 2005, Cordova et al. Smirle et al. 2002, Dunley et al. 2006), in some cases 2006), causing impaired regulation of muscle contrac- even before the new insecticides had been used in the tion leading to feeding cessation, lethargy, paralysis, and death of target organisms. Anthranilic diamides 1 E-mail: [email protected]. have very low vertebrate toxicity because of a Ͼ500- 0022-0493/10/0140Ð0146$04.00/0 ᭧ 2010 Entomological Society of America February 2010 SIAL ET AL.: SUSCEPTIBILITY OF C. rosaceana TO NOVEL INSECTICIDES 141 fold differential selectivity toward insect over mam- Wenatchee, Chelan County, WA), KMP and CLK malian RyR (Cordova et al. 2006). Spinetoram is a (Chelan, Chelan County, WA), and WEB (Quincy, recently developed spinosyn, which belongs to IRAC Grant County, WA); and from summer brood larvae at mode of action class 5 (IRAC 2009). Spinosyns pri- two locations, GRF (Crane, Douglas County, WA) marily activate the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and ROB (Brewster, Okanogan County, WA). The by acting on a unique site (Salgado 1998, Salgado et al. Þeld populations were collected as third to Þfth in- 1998). Both chlorantraniliprole and spinetoram have a stars, returned to the laboratory, transferred to 96 ml high degree of efÞcacy against obliquebanded leaf- plastic portion cups (#S-300, Prairie Packaging Inc., roller in laboratory and Þeld trials (Hull et al. 2009; Bedford Park, IL) containing artiÞcial pinto bean diet Brunner, unpublished data). (Shorey and Hale 1965), and reared to the adult stage. With the availability of effective OP alternatives, it The neonate larvae of the Þrst laboratory generation, is critical for growers to incorporate the reduced-risk and in some cases the second laboratory generation, insecticides into C. rosaceana management programs were used in bioassays. for successful production of tree fruits on a sustainable Insecticides. Materials used in these experiments basis. However, the development of resistance is a were chlorantraniliprole (DPX E2Y45Ð410) 35 WG continual threat, especially to the novel chemistries (Altacor/Rynaxypyr), EPA Est. No. 352-DE-002, E.I. such as chlorantraniliprole and spinetoram. The total du Pont de Nemours & Co., Agricultural Products cost associated with resistance is difÞcult to assess, but Department, Wilmington, DE; spinetoram (XDE-175) the loss of insecticide effectiveness almost invariably 25 WG (Delegate), EPA Est. No. 62719-IN-1, Dow entails the use of increased concentrations and appli- AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN; spinosad 2 SC cation frequency. Eventually replacement com- (Success), EPA Reg. No. 62719Ð292, Dow Agro- pounds (National Research Council [NRC] 1986) are Sciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN; and azinphosmethyl needed that are more expensive because of increased 50W (Guthion), EPA Reg. No. 3125Ð301, Bayer Crop costs in discovery, development, registration, and Sciences, KS City, MO. manufacturing (Metcalf 1980). Characterizing sus- Bioassays. Toxicity of each insecticide to neonate ceptibility to new insecticides in Þeld populations larvae of C. rosaceana was determined using a diet would be valuable for C. rosaceana management pro- incorporation bioassay. A dry premix of a Heliothis grams by providing an early detection of potential diet (Stoneßy Heliothis Diet (#38 V 0600), WardÕs problems of resistance and cross-resistance. This Natural Science, Rochester, NY) was used in the bio- would allow growers to change their C. rosaceana assay. A stock solution was prepared by diluting the control strategies and potentially slow the spread of test insecticide at 10ϫ the highest concentration to be resistance. It could also provide evidence that resis- used in the bioassay. Then serial dilutions were pre- tance is not a problem associated with control failures, pared from the stock solution, each at 10ϫ the target and encourage growers to address operational factors, concentration to be used in the bioassay. For each for example, sprayer calibration or target coverage, concentration, a treatment solution was prepared by contributing to the lack of control. The objective of weighing 61 g of water adding4gofvinegar and then this study was to the survey current levels of suscep- 10 g of the 10ϫ insecticide dilution. This treatment tibility of Þeld-collected populations of C. rosaceana to solution was then added to 25 g of dry diet premix to the two new reduced-risk insecticides chlorantranil- complete the insecticide incorporated diet. An un- iprole and spinetoram before their introduction into treated control was prepared by using water and vin- C. rosaceana management programs, and to assess the egar plus the dry diet premix. For chlorantraniliprole, potential for the occurrence of cross-resistance to the Þve concentrations (0.1Ð10 ppm) were used in 2007 currently used insecticides such as azinphosmethyl whereas six concentrations (0.01Ð3 ppm) were used in and spinosad. 2008. For bioassays performed in 2008, six concentra- tions were used for spinetoram (0.003Ð1 ppm) and spinosad (0.3Ð10 ppm), and seven concentrations (1Ð Materials and Method 1000 ppm) were used for azinphosmethyl. Enough Insects. Laboratory Population. A C. rosaceana lab- insecticide incorporated diet was prepared before the oratory colony (LAB) was established by collecting start of the bioassays, so that all tests were run on the