Realized Heritabilit y and Inheritance Mode of Mo no sultap Resistance in Chi lo s u p p ress al is (L epidoptera : Pyralidae)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Realized Heritabilit y and Inheritance Mode of Mo no sultap Resistance in Chi lo s u p p ress al is (L epidoptera : Pyralidae)"

Elfreda Baker
7 years ago
Views:

1 ( Chinese J Rice Sci), 2005, 19 (5) : http :/ / www. ricescience. org 447 1, 2 1, 3 ( 1,, ; 2, ; 3, E2mail : ptt. js. cn) Realized Heritabilit y and Inheritance Mode of Mo no sultap Resistance in Chi lo s u p p ress al is (L epidoptera : Pyralidae) CAO Ming2zhang 1, 2, SH EN Jin2liang 1, 3 ( 1 Key L aboratory of Monitoring and M anagement of Plant Disease and I nsects, Minist ry of A griculture ; Department of Pestici de Science, College of Plant Protection, N anjing A gricultural University, N anjing , China; 2 J iangsu Pestici de Research I nstitute, N anj ing , China; 3 Corres ponding author, E2mail : j ptt. js. cn) Abstract : A colony of the striped stem borer, Chilo su p p ressalis, collected from Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, was further selected in laboratory with monosultap using topical application method. After selection with monosultap for 19 generations in 24 generations of laboratory culture, resistance to monosultap in the selected strain ( WZ2R) increased by 25102fold, and fold compared with that of the pre2selected and the susceptible baseline of HLJ strain, respectively. The realized heritability ( h 2 ) estimated from early selection stage ( for F3 - F8, consecutive selection for 6 genera2 tions) was significantly smaller than that from later stage ( for F19 - F23, consecutive selection for 5 generations), while the h 2 estimated from middle inconsecutive selection stage ( F9 - F18, during which there were a total of 4 generations without selection) was the smallest ( ). Inheritance of monosultap resistance in WZ2R strain, studied by log dose2 probit (LD2p) analysis for progenies of reciprocal crosses, two backcrosses and a F1 self2cross indicated that resistance to monosultap was inherited autosomaly in an incompletely dominant manner, with a degree of dominance for reciprocal cross F1 s being and 0. 63, respectively, and monosultap resistance in WZ2R appeared to be controlled by two or more genes. Key words : Chilo su p p ressalis ; resistance ; realized heritability ; inheritance ; monosultap : 2001, 24,4 19,WZ2R ;, WZ2R ,25. 0 ; 6 ( F3 F8 ) ( h 2,0. 230) 5 ( F19 F23 ) h 2 (11205), ( F9 F18,10 4 ) h 2 (0. 024) WZ2R,( ), : ; ; ; ; : Q963 ; S ; S : A : (2005) ,,, 1983, (), 20, [1 ], 1995 () [2 ],1998 () [35 ],, [6,7 ],,,,,,, : ; : : (BE ) : ( ),,

2 448 ( Chinese J Rice Sci) 19 5 ( ),( RR = ) [5 ],19 ( WZ2R), ( HLJ ) 2002,, [8] ;: (28 1),16 h 8 h %, [5 ],,,30 %60 %, g/, [5 ] 1. 4 ( h 2 ) Tabashnik Mc2 Gaughey [9 ] 1. 5,50,, ;( F1 : WZ2R HLJ ; F1 : HLJ WZ2R ) (BC : F1 HLJ ;BC : F1 HLJ ) F1 ( F2 : F1 F1 ) ( WZ2R HLJ ) F1 Stone [10 ] Falconer,95 %, ( D), Kotze Sales [11 ] (3), Georghiou [12 ] 2 2 F10 F12 F13 F14, F15 ( g/, %), (39 ) ; F15F184, 100 ( ) ;F19 F20, ( ), 2 > 1000,F ,25. 0 (1) 2. 2 Tabashnik, 24 ( F0 F23 ) 19 ( h 2 ), h ( F3 F8 ) 6 h 2 (0. 230) ; ( F19 F23 ) 5 h 2, ;F9 F , h 2, (2),, (WZ2R) ( HLJ ), F1 F1 4,WZ2R F1 F ( 3),( F1 F1 ) LD2p (1) ;Falconer ( D) (3), D 0 1,WZ2R ( F1 F1 ) 4 L D ( F0 ) ( F23 ), 24,F2 F10 F12 F13 F14,19 3,,( WZ2R) 70,( RR = ) 1. 3,F2, F3 ;5, 100 ( ), 8 100,2. 4 ; 1 ( WZ2R) ( HLJ ) ( F1 F ) Fig. 1. LD2p lines for monosultap to the 4th instar larvae of parents ( WZ2R, HLJ) and reciprocal cross F1 s.

3 : Table 1. Susceptibility variation in monosultap2selected C. sup pressalis strain to monosultap. No. of selections Generation Larvae treated Survival rate / % ( ) Slope ( S E) L D50 / (g larva - 1 ) 1) 1 F (0. 450) RR 1) 2) Increased 2 F (0. 425) F (0. 322) F (0. 372) F F (0. 208) F F > > > F (0. 513) F F F ND 3) 13 F F F (0. 525) F F (0. 614) F F23 ND > 0. 9 > > > fold 2) F (0. 325) ) = L D50/ HLJ L D50 ( g/ ) [5 ] ; 2) = (/ ) - 1 ; 3) ND - 1) RR (resistance ratio) = L D50for selected colony/ L D50for HLJ susceptible st rain ( g/ larva) [5 ] ; 2) Increased fold of resistance = ( RR post2selection/ RR pre2selection) - 1 ; 3) ND, No data. 2 Table 2. Estimation of realized heritability of resistance to monosultap in C. sup pressalis from Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province. No. of generations selected Mean selection response per generation L D50 Initial L D50 L D50 Final L D50 Selection response Mean selection differential per generation Survival Selection Intensity Mean slope rate/ % differential Realized heritability 6 ( F3 - F8) 1) ( F9 - F18) 2) ( F19 - F23) 1) ( F0 - F23) 2) ) ; 2) 1) Continuously selected wit h monosultap ; 2) Discontinuously selected wit h monosultap. ( h 2 ), F1 ( HLJ ),,(BC BC ) 5, (2) ( 2 ), (BC BC ) 11 10,7 ( = , df = 1),(BC BC ) ( 2 ) ( = , df = 10 = , df = 9) (4) F1 F2 4, (3),, 11, 8

4 450 ( Chinese J Rice Sci) 19 5 ( ) 3 ( WZ2R) ( HLJ) F1 F1 4 Table 3. Toxicity of monosultap to parents and F1 progenies of reciprocal crosses between WZ2R and HLJ. L D50 (95 % ) ( ) 1) Strain L D50 (95 %FL) / (g larva - 1 ) Slope ( S E) RR 1) HLJ ( ) (0. 256) 1. 0 WZ2R ( ) (0. 325) F ( ) (0. 330) F ( ) (0. 327) ) = L D50/ HLJ L D50 1) RR (resistance ratio) = L D50for any strain/ L D50for HLJ susceptible strain ; 2) D, Degree of dominance. D 2) 4 WZ2R( 2 ) Table 4. Chi2square ( 2 ) test of response of backcrossed and F1 self2crossed progenies to monosultap on the basis of single major gene model. Dose / (g larva - 1 ) n BC BC 2 n F2 2 n = # = # # = # : n - 4 ; 3 ( = , df = 1) ; # ( 2 # = , df = 10) ; # ( Note : n, Number of t he 4t h instar larvae tested ; = , df = 9) Denotes significant difference between observed and expected mortalities ( = , df = 1) ; # Denotes significant difference between observed and expected mortalities ( = , df = 10) ; # # Denotes signif2 icant difference between observed and expected mortalities ( = , df = 9). 2 (BC BC ) Fig. 2. Dose2response curves of BC( F1 HLJ ) and BC ( F1 HLJ ) progenies to monosultap in resistance genetic analysis of WZ2R strain. BC BC :( F1 HLJ ) ( F1 HLJ ) ;BC2E BC 2E :BC BC BC, BC : Tested curves for progenies of backcross to HLJ ( F1 HLJ and F1 HLJ ) ; BC2E, BC 2E : Expected curves of BC and BC for monofactorial basis. ( = , df = 1), ( 2 ) ( = , df = 10) (4) (BC BC ) ( F2 ),WZ2R 3

5 : Fig. 3. Dose2response curves of F2 progenies for monosultap in resistance genetic analysis of WZ2R strain. F2 - ( F1 F1 ) ; F2 2E - F2 F2, Tested curve of F2 ( F1 F1 ) progenies ; F2 2E, Ex2 pected curve of F2 for monofactorial basis. (29. 7,1),,, [13 ],Tabashnik Mc Gaughey [9 ] ( h 2 ) ;( F3 F8 ) 6 h 2 (0. 230), ( F19F23 ) 5 h 2,1. 205,,,,,,,,, [14 ], (), () 1995,,1998,, ( F9 F18 ),10 4,h 2,,,, [15 ] ( ) (119, h 2 = 0. 03), (19, h 2 = ),,; ( ) [16 ],, Hata2f [17 ] [8 ],, [6 ] GSTs nachr [7 ],,, WZ2R, () Georghiou [18 ], (),, (MSA MSB [19 ] ) / : 1,,.., 1998, 35 (4) : ,,,.., 1996, 19 () : ,,,.., 2001, 21 (3) : ,,,.., 2002, 29 (1) : ,,,.., 2004, 18 (1) : ,,,. 4., 2001, 24 (1) :

6 452 ( Chinese J Rice Sci) 19 5 ( ) []. :, ,,.., 1979, 22 (2) : Tabashnik B E, Mc Gaughey W H. Resistance risk assessment for single and multiple insecticides : responses of indianmeal moth (Lepidoptera : Pyralidae) to B acillus thuringiensis. J Econ En2 tomol, 1994, 87 (4) : Stone B F. A formula for determining degree of dominance in ca2 ses of monofactorial inheritance of resistance to chemicals. B ull W HO, 1968, 38 (2) : Kotze A C, Sales N. Inheritance of diflubenzuron resistance and monooxygenase activities in a laboratory2selected strain of L ucil2 ia cup rina (Diptera : Calliphoridae). J Econ Entomol, 1994, 94 (5) : Georghiou G P. Genetics of resistance to insecticides in house flies and mosquitoes. Ex p Parasitol, 1969, 26 (2) : :, Roush R T, Mc Kenzie J A. Ecological genetics of insecticide and acaricide resistance. A nn Rev Entomol, 1987, 32 : ,,,.., 1998, 25 (4) : ,,,.., 2001, 44 (3) : Konno Y, Shishido T. Inheritance of resistance to fenitrothion and pirimiphos2methyl in rice stem borer, Chilo sup pressalis (Lepidoptera : Pyralidae). A p pl Ent Zool, 1991, 26 (4) : Georghiou G P. Management of resistance in art hropods. I n: Georghiou G P, Saito T. Pest Resistance to Pesticides. New York : Plenum Press, ,,,. sck/ cry1a c., 2004, 18 (1) : ,,,, ;,128,15100,90100 :36-93,:BM/ 1107 :;: ; : , ; : ; E2mail com 2006 (CN / S, ISSN ),,,; :,15 16,5. 00, (),:66-6 ;( ), :; : ; : (0851) ; () ; E2mail net

What do we (need to) know about low-susceptibility of codling moth against Cydia pomonella granulovirus (CpGV)!

What do we (need to) know about low-susceptibility of codling moth against Cydia pomonella granulovirus (CpGV)! Was wir über die Minderempfindlichkeit des Apfelwicklers gegenüber dem Cydia pomonella Granulovirus