Next Article in Journal
Effect of Dietary Starch-to-Fat Ratio on Lipid Metabolism, Inflammation, and Microbiota of Multiparous Sow and Newborn Piglets
Next Article in Special Issue
Efficacy of Contact Insecticides for the Control of the Larger Grain Borer, Prostephanus truncatus (Horn), on Stored Maize
Previous Article in Journal
A Survey on Digital Agriculture in Five West African Countries
Previous Article in Special Issue
Efficacy of Nitrogen against Stored Product Insects with Different Susceptibility Levels to Phosphine in Industrial Applications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/agriculture13051068
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Phosphine Resistance in Three Sitophilus Species of Different Geographical Origins Using Two Diagnostic Protocols

by
Maria K. Sakka
* and
Christos G. Athanassiou
Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Department of Agriculture, Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Phytokou Str., 38446 Volos, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(5), 1068; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051068
Submission received: 25 April 2023 / Revised: 10 May 2023 / Accepted: 15 May 2023 / Published: 16 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Integrated Pest Management in Stored-Product Protection)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Phosphine resistance occurs in many areas worldwide. The present study evaluated Sitophilus species from different geographical origins using two different protocols: (i) the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) protocol (30 ppm for 20 h) and (ii) the dose–response protocol (50–1000 ppm for 3 d). According to our results, most of the populations tested were susceptible to phosphine. In the FAO protocol, 13 field populations out of the 35 tested were categorized as resistant to phosphine. From the populations tested, only Sitophilus oryzae (L.) G1 showed 100% active individuals after 20 h or even 7 d post-exposure. In contrast, low survival was noted for all populations of Sitophilus granarius (L.) and no survival for Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Based on the dose–response protocol, no active individuals were recorded after exposure to 700 ppm for any of the populations tested. For instance, the population G1 showed 89% survival after 3 d at 50 ppm, while the respective figure at 700 ppm was 1.1.%. No survival was recorded for all concentrations and populations of S. granarius and S. zeamais. Our data show that there are considerable similarities between the two diagnostic protocols used for the evaluation of phosphine resistance of these three species.

1. Introduction

Phosphine is practically the most widely used fumigant worldwide against insects in the context of stored products [1]. This insecticide is very important for food security since it is the only available fumigant for general use and can be applied on different durable commodities, ranging from grains to dried fruits, and facilities, ranging from silos to ships. The ease of use of this gas, along with its low cost and residue-free characteristics have made phosphine extremely popular in different application scenarios [1].
As in the case of other insecticides, the continuous use of phosphine has led to the development of resistance by many stored-product insect species, a phenomenon that has been thoroughly evaluated by several research groups worldwide [2,3,4,5,6]. Previous studies have shown that phosphine resistance occurs in many countries in Africa, Asia, America, Oceania, and, most recently, Europe [2,7,8,9,10]. A large number of published data for the development of resistance to phosphine has been focused on the case of the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) [7,11]. For example, Opit et al. [12] found an 89% resistance frequency for T. castaneum in Oklahoma. Moreover, Chen et al. [13] designed molecular markers to identify strongly and weakly resistant populations of T. castaneum in the USA and found that the resistant allele was confirmed only in the strongly resistant populations from Kansas. In addition, phosphine-resistant populations of the lesser grain borer Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrihidae) have been reported in many places worldwide [1,2,14,15]. For instance, Lorini et al. [14] found all Brazilian R. dominica populations to be resistant to phosphine, with some being strongly resistant. High phosphine resistance has been also identified for the species of the genus Sitophilus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Holloway et al. [16] reported 24 Sitophilus oryzae (L.) populations resistant to phosphine in Australia. Moreover, in Brazil, resistant populations were detected among the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Similarly, Wakil et al. [17] tested different populations of the granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), from Pakistan and found different levels of phosphine resistance in large geographical areas. However, the occurrence of resistance to phosphine of Sitophilus species from European countries has not been investigated in detail, in contrast with other areas, such as Australia and the USA, where there are a considerable number of data available in this direction.
Knowledge of phosphine resistance has led to the development of different protocols for the determination of this phenomenon worldwide. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Method [18] is the most commonly used protocol and can discriminate between susceptible and resistant insects. In this protocol, insects are exposed to 30–50 ppm of phosphine for 20 h (depending on the species), and insect mortality or recovery is recorded 14 d later. Another approach is the dose–response protocol, in which insects are exposed at different concentrations usually ranging from 5 to 2000 ppm [4,12]. The dose–response protocol can be used with success to separate weak from strong resistance in several insect species in the context of stored products [13,19].
In the current study, we evaluated more than 30 populations of S. oryzae, S. granarius, and S. zeamais from different parts of the world to quantify phosphine resistance. This was carried out with the use of both FAO and dose–response protocols, which were examined in parallel for all populations tested.

2. Materials and Methods

One laboratory population of each of the three species tested was used, which has been maintained in laboratory conditions for more than 20 years with no exposure to any insecticide and served as the “control” population. Thirty-five field populations of S. oryzae, S. granarius, and S. zeamais were used in the bioassays. Each population, which was collected from different countries, received a different code (Table 1). The identification of each population was conducted using morphological and genitalia characteristics to distinguish Sitophilus species. All populations were cultured in soft wheat at 25 °C, 55% relative humidity (RH), and continuous darkness in the Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology (LEAZ). For the bioassays, only adults were used.

2.1. Assessment of Resistance to Phosphine

All populations were tested according to the FAO protocol, which is based on the exposure of the tested adults to 30 ppm for 20 h, and the dose–response protocol, which is based on the exposure of the tested adults to phosphine at 50, 100, 200, 500, 700, and 1000 ppm for 3 d. After the termination of these bioassays, the surviving individuals were maintained at the laboratory in incubators set at 25 °C, 55% RH in untreated Petri dishes (1.5 cm high and 9 cm in diameter) for an additional period of 7 d (post-exposure assessment).
For the FAO protocol, twenty adults (with mixed sex and age) of each species and population were introduced into a 1.5 L glass jar and exposed to phosphine at 30 ppm for 20 h as suggested by Agrafioti et al. [2]. To produce phosphine, a plastic canister was used by adding two tablets of magnesium phosphide (Detia Degesch GmbH, Laudenbach, Germany) and 50 mL of water. Phosphine concentration was measured with quantitative gas chromatography (GC) using a Shimadzu GC-2010Plus (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) instrument equipped with a GS-Q column (30 m long × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm film thickness, MEGA S.r.l., Milan, Italy) and a flame photometric detector set in the phosphorous mode. At the end of each exposure, adults were characterized as active, knocked down, or immobilized as suggested by Sakka and Athanassiou et al. [4]. The adults were transferred to a clean Petri dish for an additional 7 d to record the delayed mortality or recovery. Each population was classified as resistant when survival was recorded at the 7 d post-exposure interval. The entire procedure was repeated three times with three replicates and three sub-replicates with new phosphine production on each replicate.
A similar approach was followed in the case of the dose–response protocol, where 20 adults of each population were exposed at different concentrations, i.e., 50, 100, 200, 500, 700, and 1000 ppm for 3 d. At the end of the exposure, the adults were characterized as active, knocked down, or immobilized and were transferred to new Petri dishes for an additional 7 d of estimated delayed effects, as was carried out for the FAO protocol.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

For all assays, we calculated the mean number of active adults and the standard error (SE) values for each population. For the FAO protocol, means were separated by Tukey’s HSD test at 0.05. For the FAO bioassay means were separated using Tukey’s HSD test at 0.05, and for the dose–response bioassay, the data were submitted to Probit analysis to estimate LC90 and LC99 based on the sum of immobilized adults by using SPSS (IBM SPSS v.26).

3. Results

3.1. Sitophilus oryzae

Based on the FAO protocol, the laboratory population of S. oryzae was classified as susceptible to phosphine (Table 2). Most of the populations tested showed no survival after 20 h, as well as at the 7 d post-exposure interval (Table 2). Most of them after 20 h of exposure showed a high level of being knocked down (Table 2). In contrast, there were eight populations that showed survival, at different levels. For instance, 100% survival was recorded for G1 and 3Tusc, while for IT2 and IT1, the respective figures were 98.9 and 82.2%, respectively. A high number of immobilized adults were recorded only for the populations of 4W, 4WBI, FOD, and 2Lec. Regarding post-exposure time, only G1 showed complete (100%) survival (Table 2).
Based on the dose–response protocol, most of the populations tested were immobilized (Table 3). The population IT2 showed 37, 16, and 3.3% survival after 3 d at 50, 100, and 200 ppm, while 7 d later, active individuals were recorded only at 50 ppm. The population IT1 showed high survival at 50 ppm (93.3%), but at 100 ppm, survival was extremely low (0.6%). Similarly, for 3Tusc, survival was 91.7 and 16.1% at 50 and 100 ppm, respectively, while 7 d later, mortality was extremely low (Table 3). LC values could not be estimated for most of the populations of this species; see Table 4.

3.2. Sitophilus granarius

Based on the FAO protocol, the laboratory population of S. granarius was classified as susceptible to phosphine (Table 2). W3 and HVC were found to have 3 and 14% active adults and 97 and 86% knocked down adults after 20 h of exposure, and survival was recorded after the termination of the post-exposure interval. No survival was recorded for all populations of this species tested after exposure to the dose–response test, even at the lowest phosphine concentration. The population W3 was recorded with 100% knocked down individuals, but at 7 d post-exposure, complete immobilization was recorded. LC values were estimated only in the case of W3 and HVC (Table 4).

3.3. Sitophilus zeamais

Based on the FAO protocol, the laboratory population and the field population of Mach were susceptible to phosphine (Table 2). No survival was recorded for any of the populations of S. zeamais after exposure to the dose–response protocol (Table 3), while LC values could not be estimated (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Considering the results of our study, it becomes evident that populations that were diagnosed as susceptible to FAO protocol had no survival in the dose–response protocol even at the lowest concentration. At the same time, some resistant populations showed a considerable survival rate until 500 ppm. Regarding other protocols, studies show that the use of different diagnostics can provide comparable results to some extent. For instance, Agrafioti et al. [2] examined 53 different populations belonging to seven species of stored product insects (including Sitophilus species) and found that for six of them, immobilization patterns after short exposure (in minutes) to 3000 ppm of phosphine were positively correlated with the results that were obtained from the utilization of FAO, in a similar protocol with the one tested here. In that study, the authors indicated that the results of S. granarius populations were not correlated with the two diagnostics [2]. Moreover, Sakka and Athanassiou [4] evaluated three populations of the cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (F.) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae), using different diagnostic methods for phosphine resistance and found similar trends that were comparable in terms of the characterization of the susceptibility to phosphine. Our results stand in accordance with the previous data.
Based on the above, short exposures to elevated concentrations may be a realistic way to illustrate the susceptibility of a large number of species and strains to phosphine [2,4,5,20,21]. Nevertheless, short exposures and the concomitant insect immobilization after exposure to phosphine may not be accurate in separating weak from strong resistance, but only strains that are moderately resistant [4,5]. In previous work, Athanassiou et al. [20] underlined the importance of keeping records of delayed effects, i.e., recovery or delayed mortality at some interval (usually days) after the termination of the exposure, given that some populations may initially respond through immobilization during the exposure interval, but they can easily recover at the post-exposure interval [2,4,20,21]. In this context, several studies document that recovery after exposure is an indicator of resistance to phosphine, in the same way that delayed mortality is an indicator of susceptibility to phosphine [20,21]. Furthermore, short exposures to high concentrations may trigger the so-called “sweet spot”, causing non-linearity in dose–response patterns [21]. The tests carried out here are, to some extent, indicative of the above phenomenon, considering the high recovery rates in some of the cases tested, and despite initial immobilization.
The results of the present study demonstrated different levels of phosphine resistance in different European regions. Most of the populations tested were characterized as susceptible, and 13 were resistant to phosphine. Pimentel et al. [22] assessed 22 populations of S. zeamais from Brazil and found 15 populations with low and 5 with moderate resistance. Moreover, Daglish et al. [9] found that weak resistance was common in the populations of S. oryzae from eastern Australia. Opit et al. [12] tested different populations of T. castaneum and R. dominica collected in Oklahoma and found resistance in eight out of the nine T. castaneum populations and all five populations of R. dominica. Sağlam et al. [23] tested six populations of L. serricorne and found them resistant to phosphine. There are disproportionally few data available so far from Europe compared with other areas, but recent works indicate that, in Europe, the likelihood of finding populations of Sitophilus spp. that can be resistant to phosphine may be higher than that for other species. For instance, Aulicky et al. [24] sampled different beetle populations from Czech Republic in the context of stored products and found that the frequency of resistance was higher in S. oryzae than in the saw-toothed grain beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae). In that study, the authors underlined that these variations in the frequency of resistance may be related to the frequency of the number of fumigations that each population receives, and S. oryzae are fumigated more often than O. surinamensis [24]. Moreover, given that the utilization of alternatives to active phosphine ingredients, such as certain grain protectants, are not used much in Europe, phosphine is dominant at the post-harvest stages of durable agricultural commodities compared with other areas. Although the current work provides some evidence of reduced susceptibility of some populations from Europe to phosphine, more intensive sampling in the future will determine the strength of resistance.
The post-exposure evaluation interval that is used in the FAO protocols is usually 7 to 14 d, with small variations [2,4,25]. For example, Cato et al. [25] assessed delayed mortality or recovery after 14 d of exposure for T. castaneum, while Gautam et al. [26] also evaluated 7 d in the case of eggs, without many differentiations in the recovery patterns as compared with the 14 d interval. In most of the populations tested here, the delayed exposures showed that mortality was much more common than recovery, suggesting that if the evaluation is based solely on the immediate effects, the results may overestimate the occurrence of resistance. Athanassiou et al. [20] tested different exposure times for T. castaneum adults and found that ≤7 d was sufficient to quantify recovery, separating resistant from susceptible individuals. More recently, Lampiri et al. [21] demonstrated that delayed effects with immobilization or recovery can be used to distinguish susceptible and resistant populations, for a wider range of stored product insect species, with similar results. Gourgouta et al. [27] exposed individuals of the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae), to phosphine for short intervals and found that the 7 and 14 d post-exposure periods provided similar results, with only a slight increase recorded with the increase in the post-exposure interval. The above reports, in conjunction with the data presented here, indicate that FAO can be modified, by utilizing 7 d, instead of 14 d, as the interval to quantify delayed effects of phosphine.
To the best of our knowledge, it is the first extended report investigating the level of phosphine resistance simultaneously for the three Sitophilus species from different geographical origins. We found that most of the populations collected here can be considered as susceptible to phosphine, while some can be characterized as resistant. Still, the FAO diagnostic is, to a certain extent, a first screening when a large number of populations is examined but cannot separate weak from strong resistance. For this purpose, follow-up tests, such as the dose–response bioassays, should be carried out in parallel, in order to indicate strongly resistant populations. Nevertheless, even in this case, resistance in selected “suspicious” populations can be further examined with molecular markers, towards a standardized “global” multi-species diagnostic protocol that can be adopted in different application scenarios.

Author Contributions

M.K.S.: conceptualization, acquisition, and analysis, as well as drafting and editing the original manuscript; C.G.A.: conceptualization, design, and acquisition, as well as drafting and editing the original manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been co-financed by the European Union and Greek national funds through the Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call RESEARCH–CREATE–INNOVATE (project code: T2E∆K-05327). Moreover, this research was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) and the General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), under the HFRI PhD Fellowship grant (GA. No. 891).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Benhalima, H.; Chaudhry, M.Q.; Mills, K.A.; Price, N.R. Phosphine resistance in stored-product insects collected from various grain storage facilities in Morocco. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2004, 40, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Agrafioti, P.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Nayak, M.K. Detection of phosphine resistance in major stored-product insects in Greece and evaluation of a field resistance test kit. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 82, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Perez Mendoza, J. Survey of insecticide resistance in Mexican populations of maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculiaonidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 1999, 35, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sakka, M.K.; Athanassiou, C.G. Population-mediated responses of Lasioderma serricorne (Coleoptera: Anobiidae) to different diagnostic protocols for phosphine efficacy. J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 114, 885–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nayak, M.K.; Holloway, J.C.; Emery, R.N.; Pavic, H.; Bartlet, J.; Collins, P.J. Strong resistance to phosphine in the rusty grain beetle, Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae): Its characterization, a rapid assay for diagnosis and its distribution in Australia. Pest Manag. Sci. 2013, 69, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ribeiro, B.M.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Oliveira, E.E.; Santos, J.P. Insecticide resistance and synergism in Brazilian populations of Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2003, 39, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Huang, Y.; Li, F.; Liu, M.; Wang, Y.; Shen, F.; Tang, P. Susceptibility of Tribolium castaneum to phosphine in China and functions of cytochrome P450s in phosphine resistance. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 1239–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gautam, S.G.; Opit, G.P.; Konemann, C.; Shakya, K.; Hosoda, E. Phosphine resistance in saw-toothed grain beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis in the United States. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 89, 101690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Daglish, G.J.; Nayak, M.K.; Pavic, H. Phosphine resistance in Sitophilus oryzae (L.) from eastern Australia: Inheritance, fitness and prevalence. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 59, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Afful, E.; Elliott, B.; Nayak, M.K.; Phillips, T.W. Phosphine resistance in North American field populations of the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aulicky, R.; Stejskal, V.; Frydova, B. Field validation of phosphine efficacy on the first recorded resistant strains of Sitophilus granarius and Tribolium castaneum from the Czech Republic. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 81, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Opit, G.P.; Phillips, T.W.; Aikins, M.J.; Hasan, M.M. Phosphine resistance in Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica from stored wheat in Oklahoma. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 1107–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Chen, Z.; Schlipalius, D.; Opit, G.; Subramanyam, B.; Phillips, T.W. Diagnostic molecular markers for phosphine resistance in US populations of Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0121343. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lorini, I.; Collins, P.J.; Daglish, G.J.; Nayak, M.K.; Pavic, H. Detection and characterisation of strong resistance to phosphine in Brazilian Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 63, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Collins, P.J.; Daglish, G.J.; Bengston, M.; Lambkin, T.M.; Pavic, H. Genetics of resistance to phosphine in Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 862–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Holloway, J.C.; Falk, M.G.; Emery, R.N.; Collins, P.J.; Nayak, M.K. Resistance to phosphine in Sitophilus oryzae in Australia: A national analysis of trends and frequencies over time and geographical spread. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 69, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wakil, W.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Usman, M.; Gulzar, S.; El-Shafie, H.A. Detection of phosphine resistance in field populations of four key stored-grain insect pests in Pakistan. Insects 2021, 12, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Recommended methods for the detection and measurement of resistance of agricultural pests to pesticides. Tentative method for adults of some major pest species of stored cereals, with methyl bromide and phosphine. FAO method no. 16. Plant Protect. Bull. 1975, 23, 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zettler, J.L.; Cuperus, G.W. Pesticide resistance in Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 1990, 83, 1677–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Brabec, D.L.; Oppert, B.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Campbell, J.F. From immobilization to recovery: Towards the development of a rapid diagnostic indicator for phosphine resistance. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 80, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lampiri, E.; Agrafioti, P.; Athanassiou, C.G. Delayed mortality, resistance and the sweet spot, as the good, the bad and the ugly in phosphine use. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 3933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pimentel, M.A.G.; LRD’A, F.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Sousa, A.H.; Tótola, M.R. Phosphine resistance in Brazilian populations of Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2009, 45, 71–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sağlam, Ö.; Edde, P.A.; Phillips, T.W. Resistance of Lasioderma serricorne (Coleoptera: Anobiidae) to fumigation with phosphine. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 2489–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Aulicky, R.; Stejskal, V.; Frydova, B.; Athanassiou, C.G. Evaluation of phosphine resistance in populations of Sitoplilus oryzae, Oryzaephilus surinamensis and Rhyzopertha dominica in Czech Republic. Insects 2022, 13, 1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Cato, A.J.; Elliott, B.; Nayak, M.K.; Phillips, T.W. Geographic variation in phosphine resistance among North American populations of the red flour beetle (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 1359–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gautam, S.G.; Opit, G.P.; Hosoda, E. Phosphine resistance in adult and immature life stages of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) populations in California. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 2525–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gourgouta, M.; Agrafioti, P.; Athanassiou, C.G. Immediate and delayed effects of short exposures to phosphine on adults and larvae of the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2021, 90, 101737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Populations of different stored product beetles that were evaluated for phosphine resistance, with their code, origin, and collection date.
Table 1. Populations of different stored product beetles that were evaluated for phosphine resistance, with their code, origin, and collection date.
SpeciesCodeCountryCommodityMonth/Year of Collection
S. oryzae4FraFrancewheat9/2016
2SBFFrancewheat10/2016
8FRFrancewheat8/2016
Gerhin1Germanybarley4/2017
BPSILSerbiawheat2/2016
IT2Italywheat2/2017
IT1Italywheat2/2017
4IgHungarywheat10/2016
4WGermanywheat12/2016
3TuscItalywheat2/2017
2HornHunHungarybarley11/2016
8aConRomaniawheat2/2017
MRM7Francewheat10/2016
El6Francewheat10/2016
Sim1Francewheat10/2016
4WBICzech Republic wheat9/2017
G1Italywheat2/2017
FODGermanywheat3/2017
El3Francewheat10/2016
2GYEHungarybarley8/2016
1WolGermanybarley12/2016
Bul30.1CUBulgariabarley1/2017
1aGerGermanybarley12/2016
6BeuzFrancewheat10/2016
5BeuzFrancewheat10/2016
LecurFrancewheat10/2016
MRM1Francewheat10/2016
1TaubGermanybarley6/2016
2LecFrancewheat10/2016
N15GSerbiawheat12/2016
3ΤSerbiawheat7/2016
LBGreecewheat*
S. granariusW3Germanywheat12/2016
HVCHungarybarley7/2016
N22GSerbiacorn3/2017
LBGreecewheat*
S. zeamaisMachBrazilcorn4/2016
LBGreececorn*
* The standard susceptible populations were reared in the Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology (LEAZ) for decades.
Table
Table 2. Mean active, knocked down, and immobilized adults according to the FAO protocol for three laboratory populations (LB) and 35 field populations of Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus granarius and Sitophilus zeamais after exposure to 20 h exposure to 30 ppm of phosphine and after a 7 d post-exposure period.
Table 2. Mean active, knocked down, and immobilized adults according to the FAO protocol for three laboratory populations (LB) and 35 field populations of Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus granarius and Sitophilus zeamais after exposure to 20 h exposure to 30 ppm of phosphine and after a 7 d post-exposure period.
Immediate Effect7 d Post-ExposureDiagnosis *
BehaviorActiveKnocked DownImmobilizedActiveKnocked DownImmobilized
SpeciesCode
S. oryzae4Fra0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
2SBF0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
8FR0.0 ± 0.0 E96.1 ± 2.8 ABCD3.9 ± 2.8 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
Gerhin125.0 ± 4.4 C75.0 ± 4.4 DE0.0 ± 0.0 D14.4 ± 2.8 C0.0 ± 0.0 B85.6 ± 2.8 AResistant
BPSIL0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.5 ± 0.5 B99.4 ± 0.5 ASusceptible
IT282.2 ± 4.4 Β17.2 ± 4.6 F0.6 ± 0.6 D36.1 ± 5.8 C0.0 ± 0.0 B63.9 ± 5.8 AResistant
IT198.9 ± 0.7 A0.0 ± 0.0 F1.1 ± 0.7 D14.4 ± 5.0 D0.6 ± 0.6 B85.0 ± 4.8 AResistant
4Ig0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 D1.1 ± 1.1 D0.6 ± 0.6 B98.3 ± 1.2 AResistant
4W0.0 ± 0.0 E2.8 ± 1.5 F97.2 ± 1.5 A10.5 ± 3.0 CD56.7 ± 11.5 A32.8 ± 12.6 BResistant
3Tusc100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 F0.0 ± 0.0 D82.2 ± 6.8 D0.0 ± 0.0 B17.8 ± 6.8 CResistant
2HornHun5.6 ± 2.6 DE94.4 ± 2.6 ABC0.0 ± 0.0 D7.2 ± 1.7 D0.6 ± 0.6 B92.2 ± 1.7 AResistant
8aCon1.7 ± 0.8 E98.3 ± 0.8 AB0.0 ± 0.0 D2.2 ± 2.2 D8.9 ± 8.9 B88.9 ± 11.1 AResistant
MRM70.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 D1.1 ± 0.7 D0.0 ± 0.0 B98.9 ± 0.7 AResistant
El60.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
Sim10.0 ± 0.0 E99.4 ± 0.50.6 ± 0.6 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
4WBI0.0 ± 0.0 E0.6 ± 0.6 F99.4 ± 0.5 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
G1100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 F0.0 ± 0.0 D100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 B0.0 ± 0.0 CResistant
FOD0.0 ± 0.0 E0.0 ± 0.0 F100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
El30.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
2GYE0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
1Wol0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
Bul30.1CU0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
1aGer0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
6Beuz0.6 ± 0.6 E68.9 ± 15.6 E30.5 ± 15.3 B0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
5Beuz0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
Lecur0.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
MRM10.0 ± 0.0 E100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
1Taub0.0 ± 0.0 E76.0 ± 5.2 CDE24.0 ± 5.2 BC0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
2Lec0.0 ± 0.0 DE25.0 ± 4.6 F75.0 ± 4.6 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
N15GS10.0 ± 4.0 D81.7 ± 3.6 BCDE8.3 ± 4.2 CD12.8 ± 3.3 D0.0 ± 0.0 B87.2 ± 3.3 AResistant
LB0.0 ± 0.0 E 100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 D0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
S. granariusW32.8 ± 1.7 B97.2 ± 1.7 A0.0 ± 0.0 A2.8 ± 1.5 B28.9 ± 11.1 A68.3 ± 12.0 BResistant
HVC13.9 ± 4.8 A86.1 ± 4.8 B0.0 ± 0.0 A15.0 ± 7.1 A29.4 ± 10.5 AB55.6 ± 9.8 BResistant
N22G0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 B0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
LB0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 B0.0 ± 0.0 B100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
S. zeamaisMach0.0 ± 0.0 A90.0 ± 3.3 A10.0 ± 3.3 A0.0 ± 0.0 A0.6 ± 0.6 A99.4 ± 0.5 ASusceptible
LB0.0 ± 0.0 A100.0 ± 0.0 B0.0 ± 0.0 B0.0 ± 0.0 A0.0 ± 0.0 A100.0 ± 0.0 ASusceptible
Within each column and insect species, means followed by the same uppercase letter are not significantly different; HSD test at 0.05. * A population was classified as resistant when survival was recorded at the 7 d post-exposure interval.
Table
Table 3. Mean active, knocked down, and immobilized adults of three laboratory populations (LB) and 35 field populations of Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus granarius, and Sitophilus zeamais after exposure to 50, 100, 200, 500, 700, and 1000 ppm for the 3 d and 7 d post-exposure period.
Table 3. Mean active, knocked down, and immobilized adults of three laboratory populations (LB) and 35 field populations of Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus granarius, and Sitophilus zeamais after exposure to 50, 100, 200, 500, 700, and 1000 ppm for the 3 d and 7 d post-exposure period.
Concentration (ppm)
SpeciesCode 501002005007001000
S. oryzae4FraImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down3.9 ± 1.40.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized96.1 ± 1.4100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
2SBFImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down5.6 ± 2.60.6 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized94.4 ± 2.699.4 ± 0.5100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
8FRImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Gerhin1Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down100.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized0.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
BPSILImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down7.8 ± 3.31.1 ± 1.10.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized92.2 ± 3.3 98.9 ± 1.1100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
IT2Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active37.2 ± 7.916.1 ± 5.33.3 ± 2.20.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down41.1 ± 7.361.7 ± 9.242.8 ± 8.34.4 ± 2.30.6 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized21.7 ± 9.622.2 ± 11.553.9 ± 10.595.6 ± 2.399.4 ± 0.6100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active16.7 ± 1.71.1 ± 0.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.6 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.04.4 ± 2.30.6 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized82.8 ± 1.798.9 ± 0.7100.0 ± 0.095.6 ± 2.399.4 ± 0.6100.0 ± 0.0
IT1Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active93.3 ± 1.70.6 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down6.7 ± 1.722.2 ± 4.02.2 ± 1.70.0 ± 0.01.2 ± 0.80.6 ± 0.6
Immobilized0.0 ± 0.077.2 ± 3.997.8 ± 1.7100.0 ± 0.098.8 ± 0.899.4 ± 0.5
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active7.8 ± 2.20.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized92.2 ± 2.2100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
4IgImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down27.2 ± 10.21.7 ± 1.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized72.8 ± 10.2 98.3 ± 1.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
4WImmediate effect (3 d)Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.01.1 ± 0.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.098.9 ±0.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down3.3 ± 1.90.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized96.7 ± 1.9100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
3TuscImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active91.7 ± 4.716.1 ± 6.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down6.7 ± 4.8 59.4 ± 11.350.0 ± 14.47.8 ± 3.110 ± 3.411.7 ± 5.2
Immobilized1.7 ± 0.824.4 ± 13.050.0 ± 14.492.2 ± 3.190.0 ± 3.488.3 ± 5.2
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active18.5 ± 4.62.2 ± 1.20.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.01.7 ± 5.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized81.5 ± 4.696.1 ± 2.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
2HornHunImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.5 ± 0.50.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down18.3 ± 3.46.7 ± 1.41.1 ± 0.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized81.1 ± 3.293.3 ± 1.498.9 ± 0.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
8aConImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down17.2 ± 10.61.7 ± 1.70.0 ± 0.00.6 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized82.8 ± 10.698.3 ± 1.7100.0 ± 0.099.4 ± 0.5100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
ΜΡΜ7Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down38.3 ± 15.41.7 ± 1.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized61.7 ± 15.498.3 ± 1.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
El6Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down15.0 ± 32.65.6 ± 1.30.6 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized85.0 ± 10.994.4 ± 1.399.4 ± 0.5100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Sim1Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down1.1 ± 0.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized98.9 ± 0.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
4ZWBIImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down1.1 ± 0.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized98.9 ± 0.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
G1Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active89.0 ± 1.829.9 ± 5.218.3 ± 6.31.1 ± 1.10.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down11.0 ± 1.870.1 ± 5.281.7 ± 6.353.9 ± 3.917.8 ± 8.96.1 ± 5.0
Immobilized0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.045.0 ± 14.282.2 ± 8.993.9 ± 5.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active84.4 ± 4.323.9± 8.610.6 ± 3.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down3.3 ± 1.40.6 ± 0.60.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized12.2 ± 3.275.5 ± 8.789.4 ± 3.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
FODImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
El3Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
2GYEImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down8.3 ± 1.21.1 ± 1.12.8 ± 2.80.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized91.7 ± 1.298.9 ± 1.197.2 ± 2.8100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
1WolImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Bul30.1CUImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
1aGerImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down1.1 ± 1.10.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized98.9 ± 1.1100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
6BeuzImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
5BeuzImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
LecurImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down2.8 ± 1.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized97.2 ± 1.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
MRM1Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
1TaubImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down6.1 ± 2.01.1 ± 0.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.01.7 ± 1.2
Immobilized93.9 ± 2.098.9 ± 0.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.098.3 ± 1.2
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
2LecImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
N15GImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active2.2 ÷ 1.20.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down42.8 ÷ 8.211.7 ÷ 3.62.2 ÷ 1.70.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized55.0 ÷ 8.488.3 ÷ 3.697.8 ÷ 1.7100.0 ÷ 0.0100.0 ÷ 0.0100.0 ÷ 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.6 ÷ 0.60.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized99.4 ÷ 0.6100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
LBImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
S. granariusW3Immediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down100.0 ± 0.036.7 ± 15.845.6 ± 12.75.6 ± 2.65.6 ± 2.70.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized0.0 ± 0.063.3 ± 15.854.4 ± 12.794.4 ± 2.694.4 ± 2.7100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
HVCImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down98.9 ± 0.787.2 ± 8.791.1 ± 8.91.1 ± 1.13.1 ± 2.10.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized1.1 ± 0.712.8 ± 8.78.9 ± 8.998.9 ± 1.196.9 ± 2.1100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
N22GImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down60.5 ± 12.215.6 ± 11.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized39.5 ± 12.284.4 ± 11.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
LBImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
S. zeamaisMachImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down1.7 ± 0.81.7 ± 1.20.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized98.3 ± 0.898.3 ± 1.2100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
LBImmediate effect
(3 d)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Delayed effect
(7 d post-exposure)		Active0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Knocked down0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
Immobilized100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Table
Table 4. Probit analysis for LC50 and LC99 for mortality response of immobilized adults of three laboratory populations (LB) and 35 field populations of Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus granarius, and Sitophilus zeamais after exposure to 50, 100, 200, 500, 700, and 1.000 ppm for 3 d (df = 52).
Table 4. Probit analysis for LC50 and LC99 for mortality response of immobilized adults of three laboratory populations (LB) and 35 field populations of Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus granarius, and Sitophilus zeamais after exposure to 50, 100, 200, 500, 700, and 1.000 ppm for 3 d (df = 52).
SpeciesPopulationLC50LC99X2P
S. oryzae4Fra****
2SBF*90.3 (71.9–214.9)25.50.999
8FR****
Gerhin178.6 (18.5–88.9)95.8 (80.9–105.9)0.352<0.001
BPSIL****
IT2201.8 (157.0–252.8)612.4 (502.1–813.8)284.1<0.001
IT1****
4Ig****
4W****
3Tusc313.2 (192.1–425.4)1001.1 (875.7–1568.1)638.8<0.001
2HornHun*192.2 (113.2–174.2)24.5<0.001
8aCon****
MRM7*158.4 (122.0–296.2)175.6*
El6*174.0 (126.3–481.7)149.2*
Sim1****
4WBI38.4 (13.5–42.7)152.7 (131.5–191.4)50.60.529
G193.1 (78.2–106.8)246.7 (214.4–299.7)139.3*
FOD****
El3****
2GYE*249.8 (164.7–1527.4)82.40.050
1Wol****
Bul30.1CU****
1aGer****
6Beuz****
5Beuz****
Lecur****
MRM1****
1Taub****
2Lec****
N15GS****
3T****
LB****
S. granariusW3187.4 (104.9–263.1)735.1 (57.4–1085.0)474.0<0.001
HVC316.6 (255.4–416.9)637.5 (526.5–846.1)550.3<0.001
N22G****
LB****
S. zeamaisMach****
LB****
* Could not be estimated.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sakka, M.K.; Athanassiou, C.G. Evaluation of Phosphine Resistance in Three Sitophilus Species of Different Geographical Origins Using Two Diagnostic Protocols. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051068

AMA Style

Sakka MK, Athanassiou CG. Evaluation of Phosphine Resistance in Three Sitophilus Species of Different Geographical Origins Using Two Diagnostic Protocols. Agriculture. 2023; 13(5):1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051068

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sakka, Maria K., and Christos G. Athanassiou. 2023. "Evaluation of Phosphine Resistance in Three Sitophilus Species of Different Geographical Origins Using Two Diagnostic Protocols" Agriculture 13, no. 5: 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051068

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop