Premium
Resistance to binapacryl and tetradifon, and the genetic background, in fruit tree red spider mite, Panonychus ulmi , from English apple orchards
Author(s) -
CRANHAM J. E.
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
annals of applied biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.677
H-Index - 80
eISSN - 1744-7348
pISSN - 0003-4746
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1982.tb07188.x
Subject(s) - biology , backcrossing , panonychus ulmi , strain (injury) , spider mite , horticulture , gene , ploidy , botany , genetics , pest analysis , anatomy
SUMMARY Assays on eggs of Panonychus ulmi held on leaf discs of Myrobalan plum were used to characterise strains (1) multi‐resistant to organophosphates (OPs) and binapacryl (strain BR), (2) multi‐resistant to OPs and tetradifon (strain TR), and (3) susceptible to OPs, binapacryl and tetradifon (strain EM). By crosses of EM females and BR males, and of EM females and TR males, and by repeated backcrossing with EM males under selection pressure of the acaricides concerned, two strains were produced in which the specific genes for resistance to binapacryl and tetradifon were isolated in the genome of the EM strain. Reciprocal crosses of the resulting backcrossed strains with EM, assays on the F 1 eggs and the F 2 haploid eggs, confirmed the presence of single major genes for resistance to binapacryl and tetradifon, and the absence of maternal effects. The expression of gene BR was incompletely dominant in response to binapacryl, whilst gene TR was effectively dominant in response to tetradifon. Eggs of the field‐derived strain BR showed c. 50× resistance to binapacryl, 8–19 × to dinobuton, but only c. 2× to dinocap and dinoseb. The backcrossed strain was less resistant (26 ×) to binapacryl implying that resistance in strain BR was augmented by the effects of minor genes. Resistance to tetradifon (150–200 × on eggs) involved cross‐resistance to tetrasul (23 ×) and to chlorfensulphide (27×); resistance in the field‐derived strain appeared to depend on the major gene alone. Resistance mechanisms were highly specific in their effects, so that there was no cross‐resistance to unrelated acaricides, including amitraz, dicofol, cyhexatin, formetanate, chlordimeform, and quinomethionate. Fecundity of strain BR was 44% less than that of EM; laboratory and field evidence suggest that multi‐resistant mites tend to be less fit than susceptible mites. The practical implications are discussed.