Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T21:08:11.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cross resistance between insecticides in coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) from New Caledonia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

L. O. Brun*
Affiliation:
Institut Français de Recherche Scienfifique pour le Dévéloppement en Coopération (ORSTOM), Nouméa, New Caledonia
C. Marcillaud
Affiliation:
Institut Français de Recherche Scienfifique pour le Dévéloppement en Coopération (ORSTOM), Nouméa, New Caledonia
V. Gaudichon
Affiliation:
Institut Français de Recherche Scienfifique pour le Dévéloppement en Coopération (ORSTOM), Nouméa, New Caledonia
D. M. Suckling
Affiliation:
Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd, Lincoln, Christchurch, New Zealand
*
ORSTOM, B.P. A 5, Nouméa, New Caledonia.

Abstract

The responses of adult females of Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) from New Caledonia, which were either resistant or susceptible to endosulfan, were compared to a range of insecticides. High levels of cross resistance were present to organochlorines (aldrin, dieldrin and lindane). No cross resistance was evident to carbaryl or organophosphates (descending order of toxicity: fenitrothion > pirimiphos-methyl > chlorpyrifos > diazinon=malathion). Carbaryl, a carbamate, was the least toxic, and avermectin, a macrocyclic lactone, was the most toxic insecticide tested on H. hampei. No evidence of synergy from esterase (DEF) or microsomal oxidase (piperonyl butoxide) inhibitors was present.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brun, L.O. & Suckling, D.M. (1992) Field selection for endosulfan resistance in coffee berry borer (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, 325334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, L.O, Marcillaud, C., Gaudichon, V. & Suckling, D.M. (1989a) Endosulfan resistance in Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. Journal of Economic Entomology 82, 13111316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, L.O., Marcillaud, C. & Gaudichon, V. (1989b) Provisional method for detecting endosulfan resistance in coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) FAQ Plant Protection Bulletin 37, 125129.Google Scholar
Brun, L.O., Marcillaud, C., Gaudichon, V. & Suckling, D.M. (1990). Monitoring endosulfan and lindane resistance in the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei. (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 80, 129135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, L.O., Marcillaud, C., Gaudichon, V. & Suckling, D.M. (1991) Evaluation of a rapid bioassay for diagnosing endosulfan resistance in the coffee berry borer. Hypothenetnus hampei (Ferrari) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. Tropical Pest Management 37, 221223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, L.O., Gaudichon, V. & Wigley, P.J. (1993) An artificial diet for continuous rearing of the coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Insect Science and its Application 14.Google Scholar
Campbell, W.C., Fisher, M.H., Stapley, O.E., Albers-Schönberg, G. & Jacob, T.A. (1983) Ivermectin: a potent new antiparasitic agent. Sciences 221, 823828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ffrench-Constant, R.H., Mortlock, D.P., Shaffer, C.D., MacIntyre, R.J., & Roush, R.T. (1991). Molecular cloning and transformation of cyclodiene resistance in Drosophila. An invertebrate gamma-aminobutyric acid subtype A receptor locus Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 88, 72097213.Google ScholarPubMed
ffrench-Constant, R.H., Steichen, J.C., Rocheleau, T.A., Aronstein, K. & Roush, R.T. (1993). A single-amino acid substitution in a γ aminobutyric acid subtype A receptor locus is associated with cyclodiene insecticide resistance in Drosophila populations Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences USA 90, 19571961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ffrench-Constant, R.H., Steichen, J.C. & Brun, L.O. (1994). A molecular diagnostic for endosulfan insecticide resistance in the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 84, 1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leora, (1987) POLO-PC. A users' guide to probit or logit analysis. Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Mansingh, A. & Rhodes, L.F. (1983) Bioassay of various formulations of insecticides on the egg and larval stages of coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari) (Scolytidae: Coleoptera). Insect Science and its Application 4, 223226.Google Scholar
Matsumura, F. (1983) Penetration, binding and target site insensitivity as causes of resistance to chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides. pp. 367386. in Georghiou, G.P. & Saito, T. (Eds) Pest resistance to pesticides. New York, Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, S., Brun, L.O. & Suckling, D.M. (1992) Spray deposition in relation to endosulfan resistance in coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New Caledonia. Crop Protection 11, 213220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. (1952) An improved laboratory apparatus for applying direct sprays and surface films with data on the electrostatic charge on atomized spray fluids. Annals of Applied Biology 38, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savin, N.E., Robertson, J.L. & Russell, R.M. (1977) A critical evaluation of bioassay in insecticide research likelihood ratio tests of dose-mortality regression. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 23, 257266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J.G. (1990) Investigating mechanisms of resistance methods, strategies, and pitfalls. pp 3957in Roush, R.T. & Tabashnik, B.E. (Eds) Pesticide resistance in arthropods New York, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterhouse, D.F. & Norris, K.R. (1989) Biological control Pacific prospects, supplement 1. 123 pp. Canberra, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.Google Scholar