Co-toxicity of Rotenone and Three Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus Persicae Sulzer

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0824

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to screen out the synergistic tank mixtures that have a synergistic effect on the control of Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus persicae Sulzer, the leaf dip method was used to determine the co-toxicity of rotenone with clothianidin, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. The tank mixtures with better effect were screened through the co-toxicity coefficient, and then the field efficacy test on Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus persicae Sulzer was carried out. The results showed that 12 groups of tank mixtures had a synergistic effect on Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and 6 groups of tank mixtures had a synergistic effect on Myzus persicae Sulzer. Among them, 5 groups of tank mixtures have synergistic effects on both Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus persicae Sulzer. When rotenone and clothianidin were proportioned according to the active ingredients of 3:20, 14:25 and 13:25, and rotenone and thiamethoxam were proportioned according to the active ingredients of 63:10 and 133:1, all combinations had synergistic effects on Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus persicae Sulzer. Field efficacy test results showed that the control effects of the tank mixtures of 6% rotenone microemulsion with 20% clothianidin suspension on Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus persicae Sulzer were 70%, 90%, 92%, 88% at 1, 3, 7 and 10 days after treatment respectively. The control effects of the tank mixtures of 6% rotenone microemulsion with 25% thiamethoxam water dispersible granules on Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus persicae Sulzer reached 74%, 86%, 91%, and 90% at 1, 3, 7 and 10 days after treatment respectively. The quick-acting effect was better than the control effect of 6% rotenone microemulsion, and the lasting effect was better than the control effect of chemical pesticides. Rotenone and 3 kinds of neonicotinoid insecticides have a significant synergistic effect in tank mixtures, and the study could provide a theoretical basis for the field pesticide reduction control of Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus persicae Sulzer.

Key words: Bemisia tabaci gennadius, Myzus persicae sulzer, rotenone, neonicotinoids, co-toxicity coefficient

CLC Number:

S482.3

Mao Xiaohong, Chen Peng, Cao Changdai, Bai Tingting, Zhang Xiuxia, Zhang Ansheng. Co-toxicity of Rotenone and Three Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Bemisia tabaci Gennadius and Myzus Persicae Sulzer[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(30): 98-105.

Figures/Tables 5

References 28

[1]	王秀芳, 任广伟, 王新伟, 等. 烟粉虱在山东烟区的发生动态及为害调查[J]. 植物保护, 2010, 36(03):145-147,161.
[2]	张广学, 钟铁森. 中国经济昆虫志:第25册.[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1983.
[3]	Brown J K, Frohlich D R, Rosell R C. The Sweetpotato or Silverleaf Whiteflies: Biotypes of Bemisia tabaci or a species complex?[J]. Ann.Rev. Ent, 1995, 40:511-534.
[4]	Perring T M, Cooper A D, Rodriguez R J, et al. Identification of a Whitefly Species by Genomic and Behavioral studies[J]. Science, 1993, 259(5091):74-77. pmid: 8418497
[5]	徐兴阳. 烟蚜对烟草的危害与防治研究进展[A].重庆烟草学会.西南西北片区第十一次烟草学术研讨会[C]. 重庆:重庆烟草学会, 2005:161-171.
[6]	李毅, 林华峰, 金鹏, 等. Q型烟粉虱对不同烟草品种的选择性[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2014, 51(05):1320-1326.
[7]	李茂业, 陈德鑫, 李世广, 等. Q型烟粉虱对不同烟草品种及其挥发物的行为反应[J]. 植物保护, 2016, 42(01):56-60.
[8]	李伟, 任学祥, 宋旭明, 等. 阿维菌素与噻虫胺混配对烟蚜、B型烟粉虱的联合毒力测定[J]. 农药, 2015, 54(8):610-612.
[9]	Ahmad M, Arif M I, Ahmad Z, et al. Cotton whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) resistance to organophosphate and pyrethroid in secticides in Pakistan[J]. Pest Management Science, 2002, 58(2):203-208 doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1526-4998 URL
[10]	刘童童, 韦兴启, 周在军, 等. 贵州省烟蚜抗药性监测[J]. 环境昆虫学报, 2014, 36(02):205-212.
[11]	高希武, 郑炳宗, 曹本钧. 北京及河北廊坊地区桃蚜对拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂抗性研究[J]. 农药, 1993(02):8-9,14.
[12]	吴兴富, 邓建华, 王德俊, 等. 农药连用对烟蚜抗药性发展的影响[J]. 中国烟草学报, 2004(05):42-46.
[13]	刘筱兵, 刘长明. 福建主要烟区烟蚜抗药性[J]. 华东昆虫学报, 2008, 17(04):253-258.
[14]	顾春波, 王刚, 王开运, 等. 我国西南烟区桃蚜Myzus persicae(Sulzer)的抗药性水平[J]. 植物保护学报, 2006(01):77-80.
[15]	张兴, 马志卿, 李广泽, 等. 生物农药评述[J]. 西北农林科技大学学报:自然科学版, 2002(02):142-148.
[16]	徐汉虹, 黄继光. 鱼藤酮的研究进展[J]. 西南农业大学学报, 2001(2):140-143.
[17]	徐志英, 任莉, 陈小军, 等. 2.5%鱼藤酮微胶囊悬浮剂在普通白菜上的消解特性[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2018(11):64-67.
[18]	Sun Yunpei, Johnson E R. Analysis of Joint Action of Insecticides Against House Flies[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology, 1960, 53(5):887-892. doi: 10.1093/jee/53.5.887 URL
[19]	李伟, 任学祥, 宋旭明, 等. 阿维菌素与噻虫胺混配对烟蚜、B型烟粉虱的联合毒力测定[J]. 农药, 2015, 54(8):610-612.
[20]	兰亦全, 陈丁丁. 氟啶虫胺腈和噻虫啉对烟蚜的毒力及温度效应[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(17):115-116.
[21]	何玉仙, 梁智生, 林桂君, 等. 烟粉虱成虫对烟碱类杀虫剂抗性的生物测定方法[J]. 福建农业大学学报, 2006(2):143-146.
[22]	魏代福, 沈静, 刘忠智, 等. 防治烟蚜的新烟碱类药剂筛选[J]. 山东农业科学, 2009(6):68-71.
[23]	唐振华, 陶黎明, 李忠. 新烟碱类杀虫剂选择作用的分子机理[J]. 农药学学报, 2006(4):291-298.
[24]	李天福, 马二登, 黄学跃. 云南发展绿色生态烟叶的SWOT分析[J]. 云南农业大学学报:社会科学, 2015, 9(5):33-41.
[25]	史彩华, 胡静荣, 杨玉婷, 等. 不同药剂和施药方法对韭蛆的田间防治效果[J]. 植物保护学报, 2018, 45(2):282-289.
[26]	Hemingway J, Ranson H. Insecticide Resistance in Insect Vectors of Human Disease[J]. Annual Review of Entomology, 2000, 45:371-391. pmid: 10761582
[27]	Roush R T. Occurrence, Genetics and Management of Insecticide Resistance[J]. Parasitology Today, 1993(9):174-179.
[28]	谢婷, 姜灵, 洪波, 等. 球孢白僵菌与苦参碱混配对烟粉虱的毒力与田间防效[J]. 西北农业学报, 2019, 28(5):830-836.

防治对象	药剂	回归方程	斜率±SE	LC₅₀/(mg/L)	95%置信浓度/(mg/L)	R²
烟粉虱	鱼藤酮	Y=-0.886+0.813X	0.813±0.087	12.287	4.335~30.178	0.917
	噻虫嗪	Y=0.742+0.087X	0.087±0.081	0.764	0.405~1.217	0.988
	噻虫啉	Y=-0.064+0.727X	0.727±0.086	0.917	0.037~2.396	0.914
	噻虫胺	Y=-1.21+1.243X	1.243±0.122	9.417	1.858~29.845	0.928
烟蚜	鱼藤酮	Y=-0.625+1.764X	1.764±0.174	2.262	0.510~5.179	0.913
	噻虫嗪	Y=-0.337+0.708X	0.708±0.058	2.993	2.158~4.151	0.966
	噻虫啉	Y=0.132+1.113X	1.113±0.069	0.761	0.621~0.922	0.97
	噻虫胺	Y=-0.470+0.750X	0.750±0.058	4.228	3.043~5.860	0.991

防治对象	药剂	回归方程	斜率±SE	LC₅₀/(mg/L)	95%置信浓度/(mg/L)	R²
烟粉虱	鱼藤酮	Y=-0.886+0.813X	0.813±0.087	12.287	4.335~30.178	0.917
	噻虫嗪	Y=0.742+0.087X	0.087±0.081	0.764	0.405~1.217	0.988
	噻虫啉	Y=-0.064+0.727X	0.727±0.086	0.917	0.037~2.396	0.914
	噻虫胺	Y=-1.21+1.243X	1.243±0.122	9.417	1.858~29.845	0.928
烟蚜	鱼藤酮	Y=-0.625+1.764X	1.764±0.174	2.262	0.510~5.179	0.913
	噻虫嗪	Y=-0.337+0.708X	0.708±0.058	2.993	2.158~4.151	0.966
	噻虫啉	Y=0.132+1.113X	1.113±0.069	0.761	0.621~0.922	0.97
	噻虫胺	Y=-0.470+0.750X	0.750±0.058	4.228	3.043~5.860	0.991

供试药剂	有效成分质量比	LC₅₀/(mg/L)	回归方程	ATI	TTI	CTC
鱼藤酮+噻虫胺	3:20	5.806	Y=-0.74+0.625X	211.625	126.617	167.14
	14:25	8.532	Y=-0.762+0.876X	144.010	119.536	120.47
	13:25	6.624	Y=-0.758+0.923X	185.492	119.997	154.58
	76:23	7.406	Y=-0.203+0.587X	165.906	107.543	154.27
	12:1	15.241	Y=-0.621+0.813X	80.618	102.399	78.73
鱼藤酮+噻虫啉	3:2	2.218	Y=-0.203+0.587X	553.967	595.964	92.95
	57:10	2.98	Y=-0.288+0.608X	412.315	285.055	144.64
	67:5	4.369	Y=-0.47+0.734X	281.231	186.098	151.12
	31:1	5.334	Y=-0.437+0.6X	230.352	138.374	166.47
	120: 1	10.224	Y=-0.723+0.889X	120.178	110.191	109.06
鱼藤酮+噻虫嗪	63:10	0.91	Y=0.024+0.58X	1350.219	865.558	155.99
	74:3	6.233	Y=-0.16+0.469X	197.1287	118.754	166.00
	57:1	3.945	Y=-0.323+0.542X	311.457	196.512	158.49
	133:1	6.256	Y=-0.544+0.648X	196.403	142.024	138.29
	512:1	3.716	Y=-0.413+0.724X	330.651	149.904	220.57

供试药剂	有效成分质量比	LC₅₀/(mg/L)	回归方程	ATI	TTI	CTC
鱼藤酮+噻虫胺	3:20	5.806	Y=-0.74+0.625X	211.625	126.617	167.14
	14:25	8.532	Y=-0.762+0.876X	144.010	119.536	120.47
	13:25	6.624	Y=-0.758+0.923X	185.492	119.997	154.58
	76:23	7.406	Y=-0.203+0.587X	165.906	107.543	154.27
	12:1	15.241	Y=-0.621+0.813X	80.618	102.399	78.73
鱼藤酮+噻虫啉	3:2	2.218	Y=-0.203+0.587X	553.967	595.964	92.95
	57:10	2.98	Y=-0.288+0.608X	412.315	285.055	144.64
	67:5	4.369	Y=-0.47+0.734X	281.231	186.098	151.12
	31:1	5.334	Y=-0.437+0.6X	230.352	138.374	166.47
	120: 1	10.224	Y=-0.723+0.889X	120.178	110.191	109.06
鱼藤酮+噻虫嗪	63:10	0.91	Y=0.024+0.58X	1350.219	865.558	155.99
	74:3	6.233	Y=-0.16+0.469X	197.1287	118.754	166.00
	57:1	3.945	Y=-0.323+0.542X	311.457	196.512	158.49
	133:1	6.256	Y=-0.544+0.648X	196.403	142.024	138.29
	512:1	3.716	Y=-0.413+0.724X	330.651	149.904	220.57

供试药剂	有效成分质量比	LC₅₀/(mg/L)	回归方程	ATI	TTI	CTC
鱼藤酮+噻虫胺	3:20	0.895	Y=0.259+0.984X	81.45	27.72	293.81
	14:25	0.155	Y=0.049+1.015X	470.32	46.95	1001.76
	13:25	0.952	Y=0.656+0.809X	76.58	45.60	167.93
	76:25	0.993	Y=0.021+0.978X	73.41	79.52	92.33
	12:1	2.004	Y=-0.362+1.200X	36.38	93.48	38.91
鱼藤酮+噻虫啉	3:2	1.367	Y=0.480+1.228X	53.33	98.32	54.24
	57:10	1.459	Y=-0.033+1.083X	49.97	99.37	50.28
	67:5	2.119	Y=-0.625+1.916X	34.40	99.71	34.50
	31:1	1.073	Y=-0.206+1.256X	67.94	99.87	68.03
	120:1	0.407	Y=-0.141+1.035X	179.12	99.96	179.18
鱼藤酮+噻虫嗪	63:10	0.153	Y=-0.137+1.230X	476.47	89.64	531.55
	61:25	0.66	Y=0.180+0.798X	110.45	96.10	114.94
	57:1	0.978	Y=0.11+1.133X	74.54	98.69	75.53
	133:1	0.595	Y=0.803+0.679X	122.52	99.43	123.22
	512:1	1.293	Y=0.395+0.485X	56.38	99.32	56.76