Baseline Toxicity for the invasive populations of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in different districts of Jammu region

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4905755/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Baseline Toxicity for the invasive populations of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in different districts of Jammu region

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4905755/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Spodoptera frugiperda has invaded Jammu and colonized its populations mainly in sub-tropical regions of Jammu since 2020. This initial discovery served as a stark warning sign, signalling the potential threat posed by this invasive pest to the agricultural landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. The emergence of fall armyworm in Parwah village quickly escalated into a widespread phenomenon, akin to a spark igniting a firestorm, spreading rapidly across the maize-growing districts of Jammu and Kashmir. The insidious nature of fall armyworm allowed it to permeate through various regions of different districts, causing widespread devastation among farmers and their maize crops. Its rapid spread cause havoc among farmers and they start using Chemical spray to control the pest, which shall lead to resistance evolution. In this research, we collected four populations of the pest from Kathua, Samba, Jammu and Rajouri districts of Jammu and Kashmir and tested their susceptibilities to Chloropyrifos, cypermethrin, profenopos and lambdacyhalothrin (total 4 insecticides) in the laboratory. Based on the susceptible baseline calculated from the Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) population, NBAIR, Bangalore. The results of 24, 48 and 72 hours after treatment in present study indicated that chloropyrifos and cypermethrin insecticides showed higher resistance compared to λ-cyhalothrin and profenofos insecticides. Based on the studies of insecticide usage pattern major maize growing districts of Jammu region found as high insecticide resistance area comprising of Kathua, Samba districts, moderate insecticide resistance comprising of Jammu, while low insecticide resistance found in fall armyworm population of Rajouri.

Toxicology

Entomology

Resistance monitoring

Insecticides

Susceptible

Deavasting

Baseline

The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797), is an invasive pest native to tropical and subtropical regions of the American continent. It has rapidly spread across the globe due to its high migratory capacity. The pest was first reported in West Africa and Central Africa in January 2016, causing significant agricultural damage (Goergen et al., 2016). By May 2018, FAW was detected in Karnataka, southwestern India, and subsequently in other Asian countries including Thailand, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and China by late 2018 (Sharanabasappa et al., 2018; FAO, 2018, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Sun et al., 2021). In Jammu, India, FAW was first reported in 2020 through the monitoring efforts of the Plant Health Clinic in Talab Tillo and the entomology department at SKUAST-J. The infestation was identified in the village of Parwah, Marh Block, and the invading population was identified as the "corn-strain" from Florida (Zhang et al., 2019). This strain primarily targets crops such as corn, sugarcane, and sorghum, with corn being particularly vulnerable. FAW larvae feed on corn leaves, tassels, and ears, leading to extensive defoliation, damage to the husk, and reduced growth potential of the plants. Given that Jammu is a significant corn-producing region, the invasion poses a considerable threat to local food security and agricultural productivity. Chemical control is a primary method for managing FAW outbreaks due to its efficiency and ease of application (Gao, 2010; Wu, 2018). In regions like Jammu, where genetically modified crops such as Bt maize are not available, chemical control becomes even more crucial. However, the intensive use of insecticides in an agroecosystem with high FAW population density and overlapping generations has led to the evolution of resistance in FAW populations. In the Americas, FAW has developed resistance to at least 29 insecticidal active ingredients across six modes of action groups, largely due to the strong selection pressure from frequent and intensive insecticide application (Gutierrez-Moreno et al., 2019). This study aims to measure the resistance levels of four FAW populations from different districts of the Jammu region to various insecticides. A susceptible population procured from the National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources (NBAIR) in Bangalore was used as a baseline for comparison. The findings from this research are expected to inform integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for FAW, provide a baseline for insecticide susceptibility in the Jammu region, and contribute to the broader understanding of insecticide resistance management (IRM).

2.1. Fall armyworm populations

We collected FAW populations from Kathua, Samba, Jammu and Rajouri, India. The collected information of Fall armyworm populations was listed in Table 1. The populations were reared on artificial diet without use of any insecticides. The diet mainly contained fresh maize leaves and honey solution (10%). The larvae of FAW were put into the 24-well plates that contained pieces of diet and were reared to the pupal stage, then pupae were kept separately in a glass tube for adult emergence. The adults were placed in cages (40 cm×25cm×25 cm) and fed with 10% sugar solution. The top of each cage was covered with white medical gauze for oviposition, which was changed every 24hours. Then the gauze was put into a zip lock bag with eggs. The bioassays were conducted on the resulting 3rd larvae. All of them were placed in an insect chamber with a controlled environment of (26 ± 1) °C, (60 ± 10) % RH and a photoperiod of 16 h:8 h (L:D).

2.2. Insecticide

We measured the median lethal concentrations (LC₅₀) values to Chlorpyrifos, Profenofos, Cypermethrin and Lambda-cyhalothrin the insecticide information is presented in Table 2.

2.3. Bioassay procedures

Bioassay was conducted by a topical application procedure (Armes et al. 1992). Drops of 1 µL serial dilution of technical insecticide in acetone solution were applied with a micropipette to the thoracic dorsum of the 3rd instars. The control larvae were treated with 1.0 µL acetone. After treatment, the larvae were individually put into 24- well plates containing adequate fresh leaves of maize. All of them were placed in an insect chamber with a controlled environment of (26 ± 1) °C, (60 ± 10) % RH and a photoperiod of 16 h:8 h (L:D). Mortalities were assessed after 24, 48 and 72 h treatment. Larvae were considered dead if they were unable to move in a coordinated manner when prodded with a small soft brush.

2.4. Data analysis

We used LC₅₀ to evaluate the insecticide resistance level of different FAW populations. The LC₅₀ values were estimated by probit analysis using the software package SPSS version 16. The significant difference was considered by whether the 95% fiducial limits (95% FL) have overlap.

3.1. Resistance of selected insecticides against S. frugiperda (J.E. Smith) at 24 hours after treatment

In a comprehensive study, various insecticides were assessed against diverse populations of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda). The investigation aimed to evaluate their efficacy and the development of resistance across different geographic locations. Among the insecticides tested, chlorpyrifos demonstrated the highest level of resistance, followed by cypermethrin, profenofos, and lambda-cyhalothrin. The study involved conducting log probit analysis following a 24-hour exposure period to chlorpyrifos. Results showed slight variations in LC50 values across different field populations. The susceptible population exhibited the lowest LC50 value of 0.429 ppm, indicating higher susceptibility compared to other populations. In contrast, the Samba population displayed the highest LC50 value at 1.545 ppm, followed closely by Rajouri (1.437 ppm), Kathua (1.429 ppm), and Jammu (1.398 ppm). These findings indicate varying degrees of tolerance to chlorpyrifos among different fall armyworm populations. Resistance ratios (RR) were calculated based on the LC50 values, highlighting the degree of resistance relative to the susceptible strain. Notably, the Samba population exhibited the highest resistance ratio at 3.601, followed by Rajouri (3.47), Kathua (3.34), and Jammu (3.25). This suggests that the Samba population is most resilient to chlorpyrifos among the locations studied. Cypermethrin, another insecticide tested, showed the second highest resistance after chlorpyrifos. Kathua presented the highest LC50 value for cypermethrin at 0.199 ppm, followed by Jammu (0.093 ppm), Samba (0.092 ppm), and Rajouri (0.091 ppm). In comparison, the susceptible population had the lowest LC50 value at 0.088 ppm, indicating greater susceptibility to cypermethrin. Resistance ratios for cypermethrin were 2.261 (Kathua), 1.056 (Jammu), 1.045 (Samba), and 1.044 (Rajouri) relative to the susceptible population. These ratios reflect varying levels of resistance across different geographic regions, with Kathua demonstrating the highest resistance and Rajouri the lowest.

Profenofos, evaluated alongside chlorpyrifos and cypermethrin, demonstrated moderate toxicity against fall armyworm populations. Kathua exhibited the highest LC50 value for profenofos at 0.520 ppm, followed by Samba (0.492 ppm), Jammu (0.454 ppm), and Rajouri (0.449 ppm). In contrast, the susceptible population showed the lowest LC50 value of 0.427 ppm, indicating higher susceptibility to profenofos compared to other populations. Resistance ratios based on profenofos LC50 values were observed as 1.217 (Kathua), 1.152 (Samba), 1.063 (Jammu), and 1.051 (Rajouri). These ratios suggest varying degrees of resistance development across different locations, with Kathua again demonstrating the highest resistance ratio among the studied populations. Lambda-cyhalothrin exhibited the lowest LC50 values and resistance ratios among all locations tested. Kathua had the highest LC50 value for lambda-cyhalothrin at 1.350 ppm, followed by Samba (1.264 ppm), Jammu (1.232 ppm), and Rajouri (1.190 ppm). In contrast, the susceptible population showed the lowest LC50 value of 1.131 ppm, indicating higher susceptibility to lambda-cyhalothrin compared to other insecticides tested. Resistance ratios for lambda-cyhalothrin were 1.157 (Kathua), 1.084 (Samba), 1.056 (Jammu), and 1.020 (Rajouri). These ratios reflect varying levels of resistance among fall armyworm populations to lambda-cyhalothrin, with Kathua exhibiting the highest resistance ratio and Rajouri the lowest.

Overall, the findings from this study underscore significant variability in insecticide susceptibility among fall armyworm populations across different geographic locations. Chlorpyrifos consistently exhibited the highest resistance levels, followed by cypermethrin, profenofos, and lambda-cyhalothrin. The study emphasizes the importance of region-specific management strategies to effectively combat resistance and ensure sustainable pest control in agriculture.

3.2. Resistance of selected insecticides against S. frugiperda (J.E. Smith) at 48 hours after treatment

By analyzing the results of probit analysis over a 48-hour treatment period, it was observed that chlorpyrifos exhibited varied LC50 values across different fall armyworm populations. The susceptible population displayed the lowest LC50 value at 0.092 ppm, indicating higher susceptibility compared to other populations. In contrast, Kathua exhibited the highest LC50 value of 0.599 ppm, followed by Samba (0.593 ppm), Jammu (0.498 ppm), and Rajouri (0.492 ppm). These variations highlight the differing levels of tolerance to chlorpyrifos among fall armyworm populations in various geographical regions. Resistance ratios were calculated based on the LC50 values, providing insights into the relative resistance of each population compared to the susceptible strain. Kathua had the highest resistance ratio at 6.51, followed by Samba (6.44), and Jammu and Rajouri (5.41 and 5.34, respectively). These ratios indicate that Kathua and Samba populations exhibit greater resistance to chlorpyrifos compared to Jammu and Rajouri populations. Among these populations, Kathua showed the highest LC50 value of 0.361 ppm (RR 2.44), indicating a higher tolerance to chlorpyrifos compared to other populations. Samba and Jammu populations displayed LC50 values of 0.313 ppm (RR 2.10) and 0.283 ppm (RR 1.89), respectively, suggesting varying degrees of resistance development. Rajouri exhibited an LC50 of 0.251 ppm (RR 1.68), while the susceptible population had the lowest LC50 at 0.149 ppm when treated with cypermethrin. For Profenofos, the ascending order of LC50 values across locations was 0.537 ppm in Kathua, 0.499 ppm in Samba, 0.492 ppm in Jammu, and 0.461 ppm in Rajouri, with the susceptible population having the lowest value at 0.427 ppm. Resistance ratios were highest in Kathua (1.257), followed by Samba (1.168) and Jammu (1.152), with Rajouri showing the lowest resistance at 1.079. Lambda-cyhalothrin exhibited the lowest LC50 values and resistance ratios among all populations, with the susceptible population having the lowest LC50 of 0.449 ppm. The highest LC50 was observed in Kathua at 1.550 ppm with a resistance ratio of 1.06, followed by Samba (1.502 ppm, RR 1.03), Jammu (1.429 ppm, RR 0.98), and Rajouri with the lowest resistance ratio at 0.93 and an LC50 of 1.350 ppm. This indicates varying levels of insecticide tolerance among populations, with Kathua generally exhibiting the highest resistance across multiple insecticides tested.

3.3. Resistance of selected insecticides against S. frugiperda (J.E. Smith) at 72 hours after treatment

The study also analysed LC50 values and resistance ratios after a 72-hour treatment period with various insecticides. Chlorpyrifos showed LC50 values of 0.190 ppm in the susceptible population (the lowest), 1.301 ppm in Kathua, followed by Samba (1.190 ppm), Jammu (1.164 ppm), and Rajouri (1.156 ppm). Similarly, resistance ratios varied, with Kathua having the highest at 6.84, followed by Samba (6.26), Jammu (6.12), and Rajouri (6.08). These results indicate that resistance to chlorpyrifos remains significant across different fall armyworm populations. Cypermethrin exhibited higher LC50 values after 72 hours of treatment: 0.369 ppm in the susceptible population, 0.501 ppm in Kathua, 0.427 ppm in Samba, 0.410 ppm in Jammu, and 0.454 ppm in Rajouri. Resistance ratios were highest in Kathua (1.357), followed by Samba (1.157), Jammu (1.111), and Rajouri (1.230), suggesting varying degrees of resistance development. Profenofos demonstrated moderate toxicity compared to chlorpyrifos and cypermethrin, with Kathua showing the highest LC50 value at 0.520 ppm, followed by Samba (0.492 ppm), Jammu (0.454 ppm), and Rajouri (0.449 ppm). The susceptible population exhibited the lowest LC50 value at 0.427 ppm, indicating higher susceptibility to profenofos. Resistance ratios for profenofos were observed as 1.217 (Kathua), 1.152 (Samba), 1.063 (Jammu), and 1.051 (Rajouri), suggesting varying levels of resistance among fall armyworm populations. Lambda-cyhalothrin continued to demonstrate the lowest LC50 values and resistance ratios among all locations: Kathua (1.350 ppm, RR 1.157), Samba (1.264 ppm, RR 1.084), Jammu (1.232 ppm, RR 1.056), and Rajouri (1.190 ppm, RR 1.020). The susceptible population showed the lowest LC50 value at 1.131 ppm, indicating higher susceptibility to lambda-cyhalothrin compared to other insecticides.

Insecticide resistance in fall armyworm (FAW) has been widely reported across several American countries. In Mexico, approximately 3,000 tons of synthetic insecticides are utilized annually for FAW management (Blanco et al., 2014). This extensive and long-term chemical use has led to resistance development in FAW populations, particularly against chlorpyrifos and permethrin (Gutierrez-Moreno et al., 2019). Similarly, in Puerto Rico, FAW has shown significant resistance to a broad range of insecticides used in field applications (Gutierrez-Moreno et al., 2019). In Brazil, FAW is a major pest in maize and cotton, with chemical insecticides applied up to three times per season. This intensive use has resulted in resistance to insecticides like lambda-cyhalothrin, chlorpyrifos, lufenuron, and spinosad (Carvalho et al., 2013; Nascimento et al., 2016; Okuma et al., 2018).

In this study, we assessed the resistance ratios of four FAW populations from different districts in Jammu and Kashmir to four insecticides: chlorpyrifos, profenofos, cypermethrin, and lambda-cyhalothrin. These were compared against a susceptible baseline derived from a population obtained from the National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources (NBAIR), Bangalore, following protocols established by Yu (1991). The study employed a topical application method on 3rd instar larvae, with assessment times at 24, 48, and 72 hours. This method differed from previous studies, where Yu (1991) used 4th instar larvae and Gutierrez-Moreno et al. (2019) used 2nd instar larvae, with varying treatment durations. For consistency, insecticide dose responses were recalculated and standardized to ppm (parts per million). The results indicated that resistance ratios ranged from 3.06 to 6.84 folds for chlorpyrifos, from 1.35 to 2.26 folds for cypermethrin, from 1.13 to 1.21 folds for profenofos, and from 1.07 to 1.15 folds for lambda-cyhalothrin (Tables 3–5). These findings suggest moderate to low resistance levels in FAW populations in Jammu and Kashmir. Historical data support these findings; Yu (1992) reported similar resistance levels in FAW populations from Florida to various insecticide classes, including pyrethroids, organophosphates, and oxadiazines. Further, significant resistance to carbaryl and parathion-methyl was observed in FAW populations from Florida between 2002 and 2007 (Yu et al., 2003). The development of insecticide resistance in FAW is influenced by multiple factors, including selective pressure, inheritance and stability of resistance traits, fitness costs, and the pest's migration behavior and population dynamics. Additional factors include the temporal and spatial distribution of FAW on different host plants (Liang et al., 1996). In the Americas, resistance management strategies include monitoring FAW presence and damage on Bt and non-Bt maize, implementing proactive management to keep resistance at low levels, reducing selection pressure, and employing insecticides with different modes of action (Muraro et al., 2019). In Africa, integrated management approaches involve host plant resistance, biological control, the use of biopesticides, and appropriate chemical pesticides at reasonable doses, alongside early resistance monitoring (Togola et al., 2018). In Asia, a lack of knowledge among growers about FAW, coupled with the absence of integrated pest management (IPM) and insecticide resistance management (IRM) programs, underscores the need for educational programs to prevent future control failures.

In this study, we tested the insecticide susceptibility of the four FAW populations collected from Kathua, Samba, Jammu and Rajouri of Jammu and Kashmir. It showed that there is no significant difference in the resistance level of different FAW populations in Jammu to the same insecticides. The resistances to pyrethroid, organophosphorus insecticides of invaded FAW populations in Jammu and Kashmir were all at moderate to high level. Our results provide a foundation for designing management strategies to control and monitor this serious pest in Jammu.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

No funding was received for the present research from any source.

Author Contribution

RB: Conducted experiment, data collection; draft writing (original); AKS: Validation, Investigation, Methodology; BAK: data analysis; TH data tabulation and analysis; MS: draft writing (review)

Conflict of Interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Blanco C A, Pellegaud J G, Nava-Camberos U, Lugo-Barrera D, Vega-Aquino P, Coello J, Terán-Vargas A P, Vargas- Camplis J. 2014. Maize pests in Mexico and challenges for the adoption of integrated pest management program Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 5, 1–9.
Carvalho R A, Omoto C, Field L M, Williamson M S, Bass C. 2013. Investigating the molecular mechanisms of organophosphate and pyrethroid resistance in the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. PLoS ONE, 8, e62268.
Day R, Abrahams P, Bateman M, Beale T, Clottey V, Cock M, Colmenarez Y, Corniani N, Early R, Godwin J, Gomez J, Moreno P G, Murphy S T, Oppong-Mensah B, Phiri N, Pratt C, Silvestri S, Witt A. 2017. Fall armyworm: Impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks on Pest Management, 28, 196–201.
FAO. 2019a. Briefing note on FAO actions on fall armyworm. Rome, Italy. [2019-03-05]. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bs183e. pdf
FAO. 2019b. FAO Statement on fall armyworm in Sri Lanka. [2019-01-24]. http://www.fao.org/srilanka/news/ detail- events/en/c/1177796
FAO. 2019c. First detection report of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptra: Noctuidae) on maize in Myanmar. [2019-01-14]. https://www.ippc.int/en/countries/ Myanmar/pestreports/2019/01/first-detection-report-of-the- fall-armyworm-spodoptera-frugiperda-lepidoptra-noctuidae- on-maize-in-myanma/
Fatoretto J C, Michel A P, Silva Filho M C, Silva N. 2017. Adaptive potential of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) limits Bt trait durability in Brazil. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 8, 1–10, 17.
Gao X W. 2010. Current status and development strategy for chemical control in China. Plant Protection, 36, 19–22. (in Chinese)
Goergen G, Kumar P L, Sankung S B, Togola A, Tamo M. 2016. First report of outbreaks of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), a new Alien invasive pest in West and Central Africa. PLoS ONE, 11, e0165632.
Gutierrez-Moreno R, Mota-Sanchez D, Blanco C A, Whalon M E, Teran-Santofimio H, Rodriguez-Maciel J C, DiFonzo C. 2019. Field-evolved resistance of the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to synthetic insecticides in Puerto Rico and Mexico. Journal of Economic Entomology, 112, 792–802.
Liang G M, Guo Y Y, Hong X W, Wang W G. 1996. Studies on the laboratory development of resistance and cross- resistance of cotton bollworm to deltamethrin cyhalothrin and a mixture contained cyhalothrin. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica, 23, 66–72. (in Chinese)
Muraro D S, Garlet C G, Godoy D N, Cossa G E, Rodrigues J G, Stacke R F, Medeiros S L, Guedes J V, Bernardi O. 2019. Laboratory and field survival of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Bt and non-Bt maize and its susceptibility to insecticides. Pest Management Science, 75, 2202–2210.
Nascimento A R, Farias J R, Bernardi D, Horikoshi R J, Omoto C. 2016. Genetic basis of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) resistance to the chitin synthesis inhibitor lufenuron. Pest Management Science, 72, 810–815.
Okuma D M, Bernardi D, Horikoshi R J, Bernardi O, Silva A P, Omoto C. 2018. Inheritance and fitness costs of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) resistance to spinosad in Brazil. Pest Management Science, 74, 1441–1448.
Sharanabasappa D, Kalleshwaraswamy C M, Asokan R, Swamy H M, Maruthi M S, Pavithra H B, Hegde K, Navi S, Prabhu S T, Goergen G. 2018. First report of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an alien invasive pest on maize in India. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 24, 23–29.
Sun X X, Hu C X, Jia H R, Wu Q L, Shen X J, Zhao S Y, Jiang Y Y, Wu K M. 2021. Case study on the first immigration of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda invading into China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 20, 664–672.
Togola A, Meseka S, Menkir A, 2018. Measurement of pesticide residues from chemical control of the invasive Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in a maize experimental field in Mokwa, Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 15, 849.
Wu, K. M. 2018. Management of fall armyworm in China: A new threat to food security. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 17(3), 60345-6045.
Zhang L, Liu B, Jiang Y Y, Liu J, Wu K M, Xiao Y T. 2019. Molecular characterization analysis of fall armyworm populations in China. Plant Protection, 45, 20–27. (in Chinese)
Yu S J. 1991. Insecticide resistance in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 39, 84–91.
Yu S J. 1992. Detection and biochemical characterization of insecticide resistance in fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 85, 675–682.
Yu S J, McCord E. 2007. Lack of cross-resistance to indoxacarb in insecticide-resistant Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). Pest Management Science, 63, 63–67.
Yu S J, Nguyen S N, Abo-Elghar G E. 2003. Biochemical characteristics of insecticide resistance in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 77, 1–11.

Table 1 The population information of fall armyworm in Jammu

Population	Time of insect collection	Host plant	Development stage
Kathua	May. 2022	Maize	3rd to 6th instars
Samba	May. 2022	Maize	3rd to 6th instars
Jammu	June. 2022	Maize	3rd to 6th instars
Rajouri	June. 2022	Maize	3rd to 6th instars

Table 2 General information on insecticides used against fall armyworm populations in topical bioassays

Insecticides	Type	Purity %
Chlorpyrifos	Organophosphate	95.3
Profenofos	Organophosphate	94.5
Cypermethrin	Pyrethroid	92.8
Lambda-cyhalothrin	Pyrethroid	86.2
Control (Water)	-	-

Table 3: Dosage mortality response of the field populations of S. frugiperda at 24 hours after treatment

Insecticides	*Spodoptera frugiperda* Population	95% Confidence Limits for Concentration			Slope ± SE^b
Insecticides	*Spodoptera frugiperda* Population	LC 50	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Slope ± SE^b	Heterogeneity Χ²	Resistance ratio
Chloropyrifos	Susceptible	0.429	0.187	1.007	0.481±0.121	0.15	3.47
	Kathua	1.429	1.187	2.008	0.493±0.130	0.253	3.47
	Samba	1.545	1.228	2.603	0.495±0.126	0.355	3.601
	Jammu	1.398	1.166	1.926	0.468±0.129	0.654	3.25
	Rajouri	1.437	1.157	2.237	0.418±0.125	0.491	3.34
Cypermethrin	Susceptible	0.369	0.209	0.963	0.420±0.209	0.173	1.35
	Kathua	0.501	0.286	1.455	0.310±0.209	0.285	1.35
	Samba	0.427	0.246	1.139	0.375±0.209	0.726	1.15
	Jammu	0.410	0.234	1.102	0.385±0.209	0.491	1.11
	Rajouri	0.454	0.259	1.278	0.346±0.209	0.299	1.23
Profenophos	Susceptible	0.083	0.062	0.135	2.013±0.606	0.482	1.13
	Kathua	0.094	0.072	0.156	2.105±0.634	0.360	1.13
	Samba	0.091	0.070	0.145	2.169±0.633	0.171	1.09
	Jammu	0.086	0.066	0.170	1.798±0.602	0.261	1.03
	Rajouri	0.084	0.064	0.125	2.293±0.629	0.348	1.01
Lambdacyhalothrin	Susceptible	1.313	1.037	2.188	0.392±0.124	0.134	1.07
	Kathua	1.413	1.137	2.188	0.392±0.124	0.134	1.07
	Samba	1.398	1.166	1.926	0.468±0.129	0.035	1.06
	Jammu	1.369	1.112	2.017	0.370±0.124	0.308	1.04
	Rajouri	1.347	1.108	1.897	0.375±0.125	0.771	1.02

Table 4: Dosage mortality response of the field populations of S. frugiperda at 48 hours after treatment

Insecticides	*Spodoptera frugiperda* Population	95% Confidence Limits for Concentration			Slope ± SE^b
Insecticides	*Spodoptera frugiperda* Population	LC 50	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Slope ± SE^b	Heterogeneity Χ²	Resistance ratio
	Susceptible	0.092	0.073	0.135	2.539±0.679	0.112	6.51
Chloropyrifos	Kathua	0.599	0.378	1.150	2.505±0.695	0.096	6.51
	Samba	0.593	0.375	1.133	2.685±0.697	0.171	6.44
	Jammu	0.498	0.259	1.170	2.015±0.632	0.428	5.41
	Rajouri	0.492	0.252	1.150	2.172±0.637	0.383	5.34
Cypermethrin	Susceptible	0.088	0.066	0.144	2.030±0.612	0.975	2.26
	Kathua	0.199	0.078	0.150	2.505±0.695	0.096	2.26
	Samba	0.092	0.071	0.143	2.275±0.643	0.735	1.04
	Jammu	0.093	0.072	0.150	2.172±0.637	0.383	1.05
	Rajouri	0.091	0.070	0.153	2.071±0.628	0.348	1.04
Profenophos	Susceptible	0.427	0.246	1.139	0.375±0.209	0.491	1.21
	Kathua	0.520	0.309	1.338	0.324±0.211	0.730	1.21
	Samba	0.492	0.295	1.216	0.353±0.211	0.813	1.15
	Jammu	0.454	0.259	1.278	0.346±0.209	0.299	1.06
	Rajouri	0.449	0.270	1.082	0.389±0.211	1.844	1.05
Lambdacyhalothrin	Susceptible	0.449	1.205	2.037	0.522±0.131	0.220	1.06
	Kathua	1.550	1.259	2.420	0.565±0.131	0.029	1.06
	Samba	1.502	1.233	2.234	0.542±0.131	0.253	1.03
	Jammu	1.429	1.187	2.008	0.493±0.130	0.029	0.98
	Rajouri	1.350	1.059	2.020	0.565±0.131	0.187	0.93

Table 5: Dosage mortality response of the field populations of S. frugiperda at 72 hours after treatment

Insecticides	*Spodoptera frugiperda* Population	95% Confidence Limits for Concentration			Slope ± SE^b
Insecticides	*Spodoptera frugiperda* Population	LC 50	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Slope ± SE^b	Heterogeneity Χ²	Resistance ratio
Chloropyrifos	Susceptible	0.190	0.938	1.635	0.164±0.110	0.071	6.84
	Kathua	1.301	1.053	1.880	0.298±0.122	0.302	6.84
	Samba	1.190	0.938	1.735	0.174±0.120	0.037	6.26
	Jammu	1.164	0.915	1.681	0.151±0.119	0.081	6.12
	Rajouri	1.156	0.918	1.614	0.151±0.120	0.227	6.08
Cypermethrin	Susceptible	0.149	1.205	2.037	0.522±0.131	0.120	2.44
	Kathua	0.361	1.098	2.037	0.348±0.123	0.118	2.44
	Samba	0.313	1.032	2.111	0.267±0.120	0.213	2.10
	Jammu	0.283	1.033	1.868	0.278±0.122	0.095	1.89
	Rajouri	0.251	0.985	1.910	0.221±0.120	0.139	1.68
Profenophos	Susceptible	0.427	0.246	1.139	0.375±0.209	0.491	1.25
	Kathua	0.537	0.322	1.357	0.317±0.212	0.310	1.25
	Samba	0.499	0.344	1.790	0.245±0.210	0.594	1.16
	Jammu	0.492	0.295	1.216	0.353±0.211	0.813	1.15
	Rajouri	0.461	0.296	2.364	0.227±0.208	0.401	1.07
Lambda-cyhalothrin	Susceptible	1.166	.949	1.553	0.179±0.121	0.246	1.15
	Kathua	1.350	1.078	2.084	0.320±0.122	0.120	1.15
	Samba	1.264	1.031	1.755	0.276±0.122	0.102	1.08
	Jammu	1.232	.986	1.777	0.221±0.121	0.248	1.05
	Rajouri	1.190	.938	1.735	0.174±.0120	0.081	1.02

The authors declare no competing interests.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Baseline Toxicity for the invasive populations of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in different districts of Jammu region

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Fall armyworm populations

2.2. Insecticide

2.3. Bioassay procedures

2.4. Data analysis

3. Results

3.1. Resistance of selected insecticides against S. frugiperda (J.E. Smith) at 24 hours after treatment

3.2. Resistance of selected insecticides against S. frugiperda (J.E. Smith) at 48 hours after treatment

3.3. Resistance of selected insecticides against S. frugiperda (J.E. Smith) at 72 hours after treatment

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Declarations

Declaration of competing interest

Funding

Author Contribution

Conflict of Interest

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1