Next Article in Journal
Stimulatory Functions of Male Genitalia in Tipula (Triplicitipula) colei Alexander and Tipula (Lunatipula) translucida Doane (Diptera: Tipulidae) and Implications for Theories of Genital Evolution
Previous Article in Journal
Heat Shock Protein 70 Genes Are Involved in the Thermal Tolerance of Hippodamia variegata
Previous Article in Special Issue
Functional Characterization of an Odorant Receptor Expressed in Newly Hatched Larvae of Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/insects15090679
insects-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

Dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis Resistance to Seven Insecticides in South China

by
Xinlian Li
,
Peizheng Li
,
Doudou Li
,
Xinyan Cai
,
Shiwei Gu
,
Ling Zeng
,
Daifeng Cheng
and
Yongyue Lu
*
Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2024, 15(9), 679; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15090679
Submission received: 5 July 2024 / Revised: 4 September 2024 / Accepted: 7 September 2024 / Published: 8 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Monitoring and Management of Invasive Insect Pests)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Bactrocera dorsalis is an invasive fruit fly pest that causes significant damage to vegetables and fruits in Southern China. Insecticides have been used for many years to effectively control B. dorsalis, leading to the development of varying degrees of resistance to a wide range of insecticides. In this study, we monitored the resistance of 11 different populations of B. dorsalis to seven commonly used insecticides in Southern China from 2010 to 2013 and followed up in 2023. We found that the resistance dynamics to each of the seven insecticides were unique. Antibiotic insecticides showed the most rapid increase in resistance, while organophosphates exhibited a decreasing trend. These findings will aid in the development of more effective resistance management strategies to improve the efficiency and sustainability of agricultural pest management.

Abstract

Bactrocera dorsalis is a highly invasive and destructive pest distributed worldwide. Chemical insecticides remain the primary measure for their control; however, this species has already developed resistance to several insecticides. In recent years, there have been several reports of monitoring B. dorsalis resistance in China, but continuous monitoring results are lacking and do not even span a decade. In this study, we monitored the dynamics of resistance to seven insecticides among 11 geographically distinct Chinese populations of B. dorsalis (2010–2013; follow-up in 2023). The 11 populations were found to adapt rapidly to antibiotic insecticides (spinosad, emamectin benzoate, and avermectin), reaching high levels of insecticide resistance in several areas. Overall, a decreasing trend in resistance to organophosphorus insecticides (chlorpyrifos and trichlorfon) was observed, whereas pyrethroid (beta-cypermethrin and cyhalothrin) resistance trends were observed to both increase and decrease. The monitoring of field resistance among different B. dorsalis populations over the duration of this study is important for improving the efficiency and sustainability of agricultural pest management, and the results provide a scientific basis for the development of more effective resistance management strategies.

1. Introduction

Invasive pests present a formidable challenge to agriculture worldwide [1]. Bactrocera dorsalis is one of the major invasive quarantine pests affecting fruits and vegetables on a global scale [2,3]. This pest is capable of infecting more than 250 host species, including commercial fruits (such as mangoes and citrus), agricultural products, and wild hosts [4,5,6]. It has spread to 75 countries across Asia, Africa, and Oceania [7], adversely impacting the fruit industry in these regions [8,9]. In China, B. dorsalis is widely distributed in the southern regions and is gradually invading and damaging the fruit of various fruit trees in the northern region [10]. Its distribution range is continuously expanding, posing a serious threat to the industry. Moreover, the seasonal distribution of B. dorsalis varies according to region. For example, in Fujian Province, the peak occurrence period is July to September [11], while in Yunnan Province, the period of high population growth is March to July [12]. Therefore, in the absence of effective control measures, this pest could potentially cause substantial economic losses in orchard productions [13,14].
Although ongoing research and scientific advancements have led to the development of various fruit fly control methods, chemical agents are still most commonly used to control pests [15,16]. Insecticides have been widely applied in agricultural fields to control B. dorsalis outbreaks [17]. In addition to the seven insecticides monitored in this study, many others, such as thiamethoxam [18], bromopropylate [19], and imidacloprid [19], are also commonly used to control B. dorsalis. Additionally, based on the damage characteristics and life habits of B. dorsalis, the control of adult pests in the field primarily relies on contact insecticides. However, this exposure has led to increased insecticide resistance among B. dorsalis populations [20,21]. Comparisons of B. dorsalis susceptibility in various regions reveal that the pest has rapidly developed resistance to organophosphates (e.g., trichlorfon) [22,23], pyrethroids (beta-cypermethrin and cyhalothrin) [24], and antibiotics (spinosad and emamectin benzoate) [25,26,27]. In Southern China, at least 10 populations of B. dorsalis have developed moderate resistance to organophosphorus insecticides (e.g., trichlorfon) over the past two decades [4,20,28,29]. The increased resistance of B. dorsalis to insecticides adversely affects their population control [30,31].
To effectively control B. dorsalis using insecticides, the dynamic changes in the resistance of this pest among field populations need to be elucidated. Therefore, in this study, we monitored continuous changes in the resistance of B. dorsalis to seven commonly used insecticides (authorized for use in China, http://www.chinapesticide.org.cn/, accessed on 1 June 2024) across 11 different populations (initially during 2010–2013 and again a decade later in 2023). Our goal is to provide detailed information on the insecticide resistance status of B. dorsalis and provide a theoretical basis for evaluating the feasibility of these insecticides to manage B. dorsalis populations. This information will also provide a reference for designing sustainable resistance management strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect Maintenance

A susceptible strain (SS) of B. dorsalis was artificially cultured indoors for 74 generations without exposure to any insecticides, and to determine its sensitivity, the toxicity of the insecticides against the strain was measured several times.
Field populations (Table 1 and Figure 1) were collected from mango, guava, carambola, and citrus fruits in 11 different regions during July–October 2010, May–October 2011, May–September 2012, and June–November 2013, and a follow-up assessment was conducted a decade later, during July–October 2023. The 3rd instar larvae were removed from collected fruits and placed in soil to pupate. After emergence, the insects were placed inside a rearing cage, where they were provided with an adult diet and water. At this point, all non-B. dorsalis individuals were removed to exclude other fruit fly species. B. dorsalis eggs were collected using oviposition cups containing orange juice and then placed on the surface of the artificial rearing medium so that the larvae could start feeding directly after hatching. Healthy adults of the F1 generation 3–5 days after emergence were used to determine insecticide toxicity. The populations (SS and field) were reared under the following laboratory conditions: temperature 25–28 °C, light–dark photoperiod 14:10 h, and relative humidity 60–70%. The larval-rearing medium was a mixture of 50 g corn flour, 50 g banana, 0.2 g sodium benzoate, 10 g yeast, 10 g sucrose, 10 g toilet paper, 0.4 mL hydrochloric acid, and 100 mL water. Adults were fed yeast powder and sugar at a ratio of 1:1.

2.2. Insecticides

Seven insecticides widely used in Southern China to control B. dorsalis populations were selected for bioassay: spinosad, emamectin benzoate, avermectin, and cyhalothrin were purchased from Zhongxun Chemical Co., Huizhou, China. Spinosad (CAS: 168316-95-8, purity ≥ 99.6%); an antibiotic mixture of gastric and thixotropic spinosyns A and D, targets a unique site in the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors of insects; emamectin benzoate (CAS: 155569-91-8, purity ≥ 97.6%); and avermectin (CAS: 71751-41-2, purity ≥ 98.4%), which are also antibiotic insecticides with gastric and thixotropic properties, act on γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Cyhalothrin (CAS: 68359-37-5, purity ≥ 97.7%) and beta-cypermethrin (CAS: 86753-92-6, purity ≥ 99.5%, Liwei Chemical Co., Guangdong, China) are pyrethroid insecticides, both of which are contact and stomach toxicants and mainly act on sodium ion channels to kill insects; trichlorfon (CAS: 52-68-6, purity ≥ 99.6%, Nantong Jiangshan Pesticide Co., Jiangsu, China) and chlorpyrifos (CAS: 2921-88-2, purity ≥ 99.9%). Shenzhen RuiDeFeng Pesticide Co., Ltd., Guangdong, China) are organophosphate insecticides with contact and stomach poisoning effects and a main target of action for acetylcholinesterase. The original insecticides were diluted with acetone (CAS: 67-64-1) to obtain master solutions of 100 mg/mL. Each of the freshly configured master solutions was then further diluted with acetone to obtain a series of test solutions at 5–6 different concentration gradients.

2.3. Determination of Toxicity

For each concentration of tested insecticides, the following was conducted: after aspirating 5 mL of diluted insecticide solution into a 250 mL conical flask, a uniform film of the insecticide was formed on the wall by rotating the flask; the excess solution was discarded, and then the flask was inverted to allow for the complete evaporation of the acetone. Thereafter, 20 test flies (1:1 sex ratio) were introduced to the flask; an acetone-coated flask was used as the control. Each test used three replicates per treatment. The mortality of flies was checked after 24 h. Flies were considered dead when no activity was observed within 30 s of touching their body. The trial was considered valid when the control group had a mortality rate of less than 10%, and the adjusted mortality was corrected using Abbott’s formula [32]. If the mortality rate of the control group exceeded 10%, the experiment was considered invalid and was repeated.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The experimental data were analyzed using SAS (version 9.4) to calculate the LC50 (the concentration at which 50% of B. dorsalis were killed), 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and correlation index (R). Resistance ratios (RRs) were calculated as the LC50 of the field population divided by that of the SS. Resistance levels were categorized according to the method outlined by Pan et al. (2005) as susceptible (RR < 5.0), low (5.1 < RR < 10.0), moderate (10.1 < RR < 40.0), high (40.1 < RR < 160.0), and extremely high resistance (RR > 160.1).

3. Results

3.1. Toxicity of Insecticides against the SS

The LC50s of the seven insecticides tested against the SS were as follows: 2.52, 1.60, 1.35, 1.35, 0.60, 0.91, and 0.61 mg/L for beta-cypermethrin, trichlorfon, cyhalothrin, emamectin benzoate, spinosad, chlorpyrifos, and avermectin, respectively (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8).

3.2. Dynamics of Resistance to Beta-Cypermethrin among Different Populations

Table 2 depicts the resistance levels of different populations to beta-cypermethrin. During 2011–2013, all 11 B. dorsalis populations showed moderate resistance to beta-cypermethrin. Resistance of the population from area MM rose from medium to high in 10 years (LC50: 57.44 mg·L−1, RR: 42.55). Populations from GZ, HZ, QY, NN, HK, FZ, ZZ, CS, and WX had reduced resistance ratios (RRs) in 2023, and some were found to be at the lowest levels during several monitoring exercises (GZ, QY, HK, FZ, and ZZ). Resistance ratios were in the teens in several areas (GZ, QY, HK, FZ, ZZ, and CS), with FZ being the lowest (RR: 10.22), approaching the low resistance level.

3.3. Dynamics of Resistance to Cyhalothrin among Different Populations

Resistance to cyhalothrin varied widely among the 11 populations (Table 3). QY and FZ populations were susceptible to cyhalothrin in 2023. Of these, QY previously showed medium resistance from 2010 to 2013, and resistance in FZ previously increased from low in 2010 to medium during 2011–2013. HZ initially showed a large change, from moderate (2010–2012) to high resistance (2013, RR: 42.29), but in 2023 resistance was low (RR: 5.49), almost at the susceptible level. Both NN and WX displayed high resistance in 2023, with RRs of 43.01 and 55.62, respectively. The populations in these two areas showed moderate resistance during 2010–2013. Populations in the remaining six areas (GZ, CZ, MM, HK, ZZ, and CS) maintained moderate resistance throughout the study period. However, the relatively detailed trends show that resistance levels are decreasing in GZ, CZ, and CS while increasing in MM, HK, and ZZ.

3.4. Dynamics of Resistance to Trichlorfon among Different Populations

The QY, FZ, and CS populations were all susceptible to trichlorfon in 2023 but had previously been moderately resistant during 2010–2013 (Table 4). The GZ and HZ populations showed low resistance in 2023, declining from medium resistance during 2010–2013. Moderate levels of resistance were recorded in the remaining six districts (CZ, MM, NN, HK, ZZ, and WX) during all five monitoring periods. During 2023, the highest RRs were found in CZ (29.12), NN (25.95), and HK (27.38), and the lowest in MM (10.41), ZZ (12.26), and WX (12.22).

3.5. Dynamics of Resistance to Spinosad among Different Populations

The findings for spinosad resistance are presented in Table 5. The FZ population showed an increasing trend in resistance from low in 2010 to medium in 2013, while ZZ and WX maintained low resistance during 2010–2013. By 2023, FZ, ZZ, and WX populations all showed high resistance to spinosad, with RRs of 86.47, 68.23, and 93.32, respectively. The remaining eight areas all showed increased resistance (from low to moderate) across the five monitoring sessions. The slowest increase in resistance was in CS; however, this was the exception. In contrast, other populations showed increased resistance to spinosad, and in seven areas (GZ, HZ, QY, CZ, MM, NN, and HK), the RRs peaked in 2023.

3.6. Dynamics of Resistance to Emamectin Benzoate among Different Populations

Table 6 shows that resistance to emamectin benzoate decreased in GZ and QY populations between 2013 and 2023 but was elevated in the rest of the regions, and the highest overall measurements occurred in 2023. The QY population initially showed a decline in resistance from low (2010–2013) to susceptible (2023), and GZ showed little change (2010–2013 and 2023). However, areas ZZ and WX rapidly developed high resistance to emamectin benzoate by 2023 (RRs of 75.20 and 103.79, respectively). In all seven remaining districts (HZ, CZ, MM, NN, HK, FZ, and CS), resistance increased considerably and peaked in 2023 compared to during 2010–2013.

3.7. Dynamics of Resistance to Chlorpyrifos among Different Populations

Table 7 shows that 10 of the 11 populations remained susceptible to chlorpyrifos in 2023, except for CZ, which showed low resistance (RR: 5.15) just slightly above the susceptible level (RR of 5). The GZ, FZ, and CS populations were susceptible in all monitoring sessions, and seven populations (HZ, QY, NN, MM, HK, ZZ, and WX) only reached low levels of resistance in one measurement. Overall, resistance to chlorpyrifos remained relatively stable across the 11 populations.

3.8. Dynamics of Resistance to Avermectin among Different Populations

Avermectin resistance grew very rapidly in all 11 populations over the decade (Table 8). Even GZ, which exhibited the least growth, doubled in RR during 2013–2023. In the HZ and NN populations, resistance to avermectin increased directly from low to high over the 10 years, increasing 11.12-fold in HZ and by 23.23-fold (the greatest increase) in NN. Except for GZ, all populations showed high resistance to avermectin, with RRs in the CZ and NN groups even exceeding 120.

4. Discussion

Bactrocera dorsalis can spread over long distances within fruits and vegetables [33], and recent elevations in global temperature have created favorable conditions for its spread, establishment, and outbreaks [34]. Intensive insecticide use in vegetable gardens and orchards is required to effectively control B. dorsalis and reduce the economic losses incurred by its infestation during commercial fruit and vegetable production [35]. This has inevitably driven the emergence of resistance in B. dorsalis, which explains the ineffectiveness of control using multiple insecticides [36,37,38,39,40,41]. In this study, we monitored changes in resistance to seven pesticides among 11 different Chinese B. dorsalis populations between 2010 and 2013 and again a decade later in 2023. Our monitoring results indicate that the resistance types of B. dorsalis differed among the 11 field populations.
Monitoring of field populations of B. dorsalis in China began in 2003, when the species was sensitive to various agents in most areas [4]. Subsequently, multiple reports indicated that it developed varying levels of resistance to several insecticides. For instance, populations in Shenzhen and Guangxi developed moderate resistance to avermectin (2015) [42,43], while different populations of B. dorsalis in Shandong province (Northern China) showed varying levels of resistance to these three types of antibiotic insecticides [44]. In other countries, such as Hawaii, B. dorsalis populations showed a widespread, moderate level of resistance to spinosad [45]. In this study, antibiotic insecticides (spinosad, emamectin benzoate, and avermectin) were observed to be highly effective in controlling B. dorsalis populations during 2010–2013, with low resistance observed. However, after 10 years, the resistance of B. dorsalis to these insecticides has generally increased, showing relatively high levels of resistance in certain areas. This may be due to differences in climate among regions, as well as variations in the number of generations of B. dorsalis per year and the types and frequency of insecticide use [46]. Intensive and excessive use of insecticides, inconsistencies in the methods used, and the reference strains employed can all contribute to differences in results [47]. Additionally, the migration of B. dorsalis adults with exceptionally high levels of resistance to the sample area in recent years could also have contributed to the increased development of resistance [48]. Therefore, rotating insecticides with different modes of action in the field can reduce the likelihood of resistance development.
For the pyrethroid insecticides beta-cypermethrin and cyhalothrin, moderate resistance was detected in Shenzhen in 2015 [42]; populations in Guangzhou (2005) and Nanning (2018) developed moderate resistance to beta-cypermethrin [28,43].Additionally, B. dorsalis, many insects also exhibit resistance to these pesticides, such as Helicoverpa armigera [49], Haematobia irritans [50], and Musca domestica [51]. In this study, resistance levels to beta-cypermethrin and cyhalothrin were both elevated and reduced in different populations. From 2010 to 2023, the resistance of B. dorsalis to the two insecticides changed slightly and remained generally stable; however, high levels of resistance were observed in the MM and NN regions. This finding suggests that in South China, beta-cypermethrin and cyhalothrin are still relatively effective chemical insecticides for controlling B. dorsalis in Southern China. In regions where high levels of resistance have already or almost been reached, reducing the use of beta-cypermethrin and cyhalothrin or alternating with other insecticides for which B. dorsalis have relatively low resistance appears to be acceptable. Therefore, an insecticide resistance management (IRM) strategy needs to be developed to prevent further increase in B. dorsalis resistance to these insecticides.
No studies have reported that B. dorsalis in China has developed high levels of resistance to organophosphorus insecticides (chlorpyrifos and trichlorfon) locally. Resistance to trichlorfon was mostly moderate, with only a few areas showing low levels of resistance [42,43,52]. For chlorpyrifos, resistance was observed to be mostly low or sensitive [42,43,44]. These results are similar to B. dorsalis resistance results for chlorpyrifos and trichlorfon reported in the present study. We found that resistance to the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos tended to stabilize, but an overall declining trend in insecticide resistance was observed. For trichlorfon (another organophosphate insecticide), the CZ, NN, and HK populations showed increased resistance, whereas the remaining eight populations showed increasing sensitivity, similar to the results for chlorpyrifos. These results indicate that chlorpyrifos and trichlorfon are widely suitable for the integrated control of B. dorsalis pests in our country.
The evolution of resistance patterns in field pest populations is a complex phenomenon driven by multiple factors [22,53,54,55]. The rapid development of B. dorsalis resistance to antibiotic insecticides may be attributed to the low toxicity and rapid action of antibiotic insecticides in mammals, leading to their frequent use as the first choice for pest control [56,57,58,59]. Decreased resistance to organophosphorus insecticides in most populations may be related to integrated management strategies such as bait spraying and killing. Furthermore, rotation with non-cross-resistant insecticides may have helped restore the susceptibility of the populations to insecticides [60,61]. The variability in the resistance of B. dorsalis to pyrethroid insecticides may stem from diverse environmental conditions across regions, pest behavior patterns, and varying control strategies employed. However, as seen in this study, the evolutionary patterns of B. dorsalis resistance in populations have not been comprehensively elucidated. While our study offers valuable insights into these broader trends, it is important to acknowledge that the absence of specific data on insecticide usage is a limitation of our work. This limitation highlights the necessity for more systematic data collection in future research, which could notably enhance the understanding of resistance dynamics. Moreover, a very wide range of insecticides is used to control the fruit fly, and we only monitored resistance to seven insecticides. Therefore, future studies should focus on expanding monitoring coverage, including investigating additional pest species (such as natural enemies) and insecticide types. There is a need to enhance data integration between field bioassays and laboratory molecular biology tests and to develop and optimize new detection technologies. More scientific and effective pest management strategies should be formulated to ensure pesticide efficacy and environmental safety.

5. Conclusions

In this study, B. dorsalis field populations were collected from various geographical locations in Southern China, and differences in their levels of resistance to seven insecticides were observed among 11 populations. The study results suggest that in most Southern China regions, the frequent use of antibiotic insecticides, particularly avermectin, should be avoided. Reducing the use of cyhalothrin and beta-cypermethrin or employing alternative insecticides with relatively low resistance is recommended. In Southern China, trichlorfon and chlorpyrifos are effective chemical insecticides for fruitflies. Given the current resistance status observed in fruit flies, appropriate IRM strategies need to be developed for each region. In summary, continuous resistance monitoring, rational rotation of insecticides with other modes of action, and maintaining low resistance levels are crucial strategies for delaying the development of insecticide resistance and controlling B. dorsalis populations in a sustainable manner. Additionally, field resistance monitoring of B. dorsalis not only contributes to the scientific use of chemicals and pesticide reduction but also promotes integrated pest management while protecting the environment and human health and ensuring the safety of agricultural produce.

Author Contributions

Y.L., D.C. and L.Z. designed the research. P.L., D.L., X.C. and S.G. performed the research. X.L., D.L. and X.C. contributed reagents/materials/analyses. X.L. organized data and wrote the paper. Y.L. and D.C. provided funding support. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key R&D Project of China (2023YFD1401400), the Guangdong Modern Agriculture Innovation Team Project (2023KJ134), and the Guangzhou Key R&D Project (2023B04J0154).

Data Availability Statement

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

Acknowledgments

Thanks to all who contributed to this experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Paini, D.R.; Sheppard, A.W.; Cook, D.C.; De Barro, P.J.; Worner, S.P.; Thomas, M.B. Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 7575–7579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Liu, H.; Zhang, D.; Xu, Y.; Wang, L.; Cheng, D.; Qi, Y.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y. Invasion, expansion, and control of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 771–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hassan, B.; Siddiqui, J.A.; Xu, Y.J. Vertically Transmitted Gut Bacteria and Nutrition Influence the Immunity and Fitness of Bactrocera dorsalis Larvae. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 596352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Pan, Z.P.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y.Y. Monitoring of resistance of oriental fruit fly adults to insecticides in South China. J. South China Agric. Univ. 2005, 4, 23–26. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ye, H.; Liu, J.H. Population dynamics of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Kunming area, southwestern China. Insect Sci. 2005, 12, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dang, X.L.; Tian, J.H.; Yi, H.Y.; Wang, W.X.; Zheng, M.; Li, Y.F.; Cao, Y. Inducing and isolation of antibacterial peptides from oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel. Insect Sci. 2006, 13, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zeng, Y.; Reddy, G.V.; Li, Z.; Qin, Y.; Wang, Y.; Pan, X.; Jiang, F.; Gao, F. Global distribution and invasion pattern of oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 2019, 143, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dohino, T.; Hallman, G.J.; Grout, T.G.; Clarke, A.R.; Follett, P.A.; Cugala, D.R.; Minh Tu, D.; Murdita, W.; Hernandez, E.; Pereira, R.; et al. Phytosanitary Treatments Against Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae): Current Situation and Future Prospects. J. Econ Entomol. 2017, 110, 67–79. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wei, D.D.; He, W.; Lang, N.; Miao, Z.Q.; Xiao, L.F.; Dou, W.; Wang, J.J. Recent research status of Bactrocera dorsalis: Insights from resistance mechanisms and population structure. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 2019, 102, e21601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guo, T.D.; Gong, Q.T.; YE, B.H.; Wu, H.B.; Sun, R.H. Advances in the research of Bactrocera dorsalis in China. Deciduous Fruits 2019, 51, 43–46. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhou, W.C.; Li, W.F.; Zhan, K.R.; Zhao, S.X.; Chen, S.L.; Ning, Z.Z.; Zhang, H. Field Population dynamics of oriental fruit fly in Fujian province. Entomol. J. East China 2008, 1, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ye, H.; Liu, J.H. Population dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera:Tephritidae) in Xishuangbanna of Southern Yunnan. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 7, 1330–1334. [Google Scholar]
  13. Clarke, A.R.; Armstrong, K.F.; Carmichael, A.E.; Milne, J.R.; Raghu, S.; Roderick, G.K.; Yeates, D.K. Invasive phytophagous pests arising through a recent tropical evolutionary radiation: The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2005, 50, 293–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hsu, J.C.; Feng, H.T.; Wu, W.J.; Geib, S.M.; Mao, C.H.; Vontas, J. Truncated transcripts of nicotinic acetylcholine subunit gene Bdα6 are associated with spinosad resistance in Bactrocera dorsalis. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2012, 42, 806–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Li, X.L.; Wu, J.; Cai, X.Y.; Li, D.D.; Cheng, D.F.; Lu, Y.Y. Lethal and sublethal effects of broflanilide on four tephritid pests (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2023, 79, 2862–2868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Li, D.; Cai, X.; Qi, Y.; Lu, Y.; Li, X. Lethal, Sublethal, and Offspring Effects of Fluralaner and Dinotefuran on Three Species of Bactrocera Fruit Flies. Insects 2024, 15, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, X.; Qi, Y.; Lu, Y. Advances for the metabolic detoxification genes in major Tephritidae species. J. Plant Prot. 2004, 49, 351–365. [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, J.Y.; Liu, J.; Chi, B.J.; Kong, F.L.; Liu, Y.J. Population dynamics in different fruit orchards and toxicity of sic insecticides to Bactrocera dorsalis in laboratory. Shandong Agric. Sci. 2020, 52, 120–123. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hu, W.Y.; Li, Z.; Li, K.; Li, Z.Y.; Xi, Y.Q.; Yin, X.M. Screening of insecticides and resistance monitoring of Bactrocera dorsalis adults. J Henan Agric. Univ. 2023, 57, 269–276+287. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hsu, J.C.; Feng, H.T.; Wu, W.J. Resistance and synergistic effects of insecticides in Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Taiwan. J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 1682–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hsu, J.C.; Feng, H.T. Development of resistance to spinosad in oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in laboratory selection and cross-resistance. J. Econ. Entomol. 2006, 99, 931–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jin, T.; Lin, Y.Y.; Jin, Q.A.; Wen, H.B.; Peng, Z.Q. Population Susceptibility to Insecticides and the Development of Resistance in Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 837–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Guo, Z.J.; Lu, Y.Y.; Yang, F.; Zeng, L.; Liang, G.W.; Xu, Y.J. Transmission modes of a pesticide-degrading symbiont of the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 101, 8543–8556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Huang, Y.; Lu, X.P.; Wang, L.L.; Wei, D.; Feng, Z.J.; Zhang, Q.; Xiao, L.F.; Dou, W.; Wang, J.J. Functional characterization of NADPH-cytochrome P450 reductase from Bactrocera dorsalis: Possible involvement in susceptibility to malathion. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 18394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Baxter, S.W.; Chen, M.; Dawson, A.; Zhao, J.Z.; Vogel, H.; Shelton, A.M.; Heckel, D.G.; Jiggins, C.D. Mis-spliced transcripts of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor alpha6 are associated with field evolved spinosad resistance in Plutella xylostella (L.). PLoS Genet 2010, 6, e1000802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ureña, E.; Guillem-Amat, A.; Couso-Ferrer, F.; Beroiz, B.; Perera, N.; López-Errasquín, E.; Castañera, P.; Ortego, F.; Hernández-Crespo, P. Multiple mutations in the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor Ccalpha6 gene associated with resistance to spinosad in medfly. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 2961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, J.; Ma, H.H.; Zuo, Y.Y.; Yang, Y.H.; Wu, Y.D. CRISPR-mediated gene knockout reveals nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) subunit α6 as a target of spinosyns in Helicoverpa armigera. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 2925–2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, Y.P.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y.Y.; Liang, G.W. Monitoring of Insecticide Resistance of Bactrocera dorsalis Adults in South China. J. South China Agric. Univ. 2007, 28, 20–23. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhang, Y.P.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y.Y.; Liang, G.W. Monitoring of Insecticides Resistance of Oriental Fruit Fly Field Populations in South China. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 2008, 27, 456–459. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zhang, Y.P.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y.Y.; Liang, G.W. Genetic Analysis of Bactrocera dorsalis Resistance to Trichlorphon. J. South China Agric. Univ. 2008, 16, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang, Y.P.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y.Y.; Liang, G.W. Resistance stability and re-growth in adults of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis(Diptera:Tephritidae) to trichlorphon. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2008, 51, 1044–1049. [Google Scholar]
  32. Abbott, W.S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mutamiswa, R.; Nyamukondiwa, C.; Chikowore, G.; Chidawanyika, F. Overview of oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa: From invasion, bio-ecology to sustainable management. Crop. Prot. 2021, 141, 105492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Ruedy, R.; Lo, K.; Lea, D.W.; Medina-Elizade, M. Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 14288–14293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Li, H.; Ren, L.; Xie, M.; Gao, Y.; He, M.; Hassan, B.; Lu, Y.; Cheng, D. Egg-Surface Bacteria Are Indirectly Associated with Oviposition Aversion in Bactrocera dorsalis. Curr. Biol. 2020, 30, 4432–4440.e4434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pineda, S.; Smagghe, G.; Schneider, M.I.; Del Estal, P.; Vinuela, E.; Martinez, A.M.; Budia, F. Toxicity and pharmacokinetics of spinosad and methoxyfenozide to Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera : Noctuidae). Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 856–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shen, G.M.; Dou, W.; Niu, J.Z.; Jiang, H.B.; Yang, W.J.; Jia, F.X.; Hu, F.; Cong, L.; Wang, J.J. Transcriptome analysis of the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis). PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e29127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vontas, J.; Hernández-Crespo, P.; Margaritopoulos, J.T.; Ortego, F.; Feng, H.T.; Mathiopoulos, K.D.; Hsu, J.C. Insecticide resistance in Tephritid flies. Pest Biochem. Physiol. 2011, 100, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shen, G.M.; Wang, X.N.; Dou, W.; Wang, J.J. Biochemical and molecular characterisation of acetylcholinesterase in four field populations of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2012, 68, 1553–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, L.L.; Lu, X.P.; Meng, L.W.; Huang, Y.; Wei, D.; Jiang, H.B.; Smagghe, G.; Wang, J.J. Functional characterization of an alpha-esterase gene involving malathion detoxification in Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2016, 130, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Meng, L.W.; Yuan, G.R.; Lu, X.P.; Jing, T.X.; Zheng, L.S.; Yong, H.X.; Wang, J.J. Two delta class glutathione S-transferases involved in the detoxification of malathion in Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 1527–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chen, L.J.; Meng, Q.Q.; Li, Z.Q.; Zhang, S.Q.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y.Y. Monitoring of resistance in field populations of Bactrocera dorsalis in Shenzhen. China Plant Prot. 2015, 35, 63–66. [Google Scholar]
  43. He, F.M.; An, C.C.; Zhang, Y.K.; Li, Y.F.; Tan, H.H. Toxicity of insecticides to adults of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) and insecticides resistance in field populations in Guangxi. Plant Prot. 2020, 5, 270–275. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sun, Z.Y. Study on Pesticide Sensitivity Monitoring and Occurrence Regularity of Bactrocera dorsalis in Shandong Province. Master Thesis, Yantai University, Yantai, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  45. Stockton, D.G.; Kraft, L.; Dombrowski, P.; Doucette, L.; Bosch, M.; Gutierrez-Coarite, R.; Manandhar, R.; Uyeda, J.; Silva, J.; Hawkins, J.; et al. Persistence of widespread moderate spinosad resistance among wild melon fly (Zeugodacus cucurbitae) and oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) populations on the major Hawaiian islands. Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Maino, J.L.; Umina, P.A.; Hoffmann, A.A. Climate contributes to the evolution of pesticide resistance. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2018, 27, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, P.; Yang, F.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, L.L.; Luo, H.B.; Zhang, S.; Si, S.Y. Monitoring the resistance of the beet armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to four insecticides in Southern China from 2014 to 2018. J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 114, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, X.; Xiang, X.; Yu, H.; Liu, S.; Yin, Y.; Cui, P.; Wu, Y.; Yang, J.; Jiang, C.; Yang, Q. Monitoring and biochemical characterization of beta-cypermethrin resistance in Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Sichuan Province, China. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2018, 146, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hu, H.Y.; Ren, X.M.; Ma, X.Y.; Ma, Y.J.; Song, J.P.; Wang, D.; Li, H.H.; Ma, Y. Resistance monitoring of cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera to three insecticides in northern China. J. Plant Prot. 2021, 4, 900–906. [Google Scholar]
  50. Cilek, J.E.; Steelman, C.D.; Knapp, F.W. Horn fly (Diptera: Muscidae) insecticide resistance in Kentucky and Arkansas. J. Econ. Entomol. 1991, 84, 756–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wu, P.Y.; Zhang, Y.M.; Zhang, J.; Qin, N.; Wang, W.; Li, P.Y.; Li, J.Y.; Hao, L.Y. Surveillance of the resistance of Culex pipiens pallens and Musca domestica to insecticides in Tianjin in 2010. Chin. J. Vector Biol. Cont. 2012, 23, 122–124. [Google Scholar]
  52. Jin, T.; Zeng, L.; Lin, Y.; Lu, Y.; Liang, G. Insecticide resistance of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae), in mainland China. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Comins, H.N. The management of pesticide resistance. J. Theor. Biol. 1977, 65, 399–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Souza, K.; Holt, J.; Colvin, J. Diapause, migration and pyrethroid-resistance dynamics in the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ecol. Entomol. 1995, 20, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, Y.P.; Lu, Y.Y.; Zeng, L.; Liang, G.W. Population life parameters and relative fitness of alphamethrin-resistant Bactrocera dorsalis strain. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao 2009, 20, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Nisha, A. Antibiotic residues-a global health hazard. Vet. World 2008, 1, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, Y.H.; Cang, T.; Zhao, X.P.; Yu, R.X.; Chen, L.P.; Wu, C.X.; Wang, Q. Comparative acute toxicity of twenty-four insecticides to earthworm, Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012, 79, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Johnson, R.M.; Dahlgren, L.; Siegfried, B.D.; Ellis, M.D. Acaricide, fungicide and drug interactions in honey bees (Apis mellifera). PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Gomiero, T. Food quality assessment in organic vs. conventional agricultural produce: Findings and issues. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 2018, 123, 714–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Meng, X.; Rui, C.; Zhao, J.; Fan, X.; Cen, W. Changes of pyrethroids resistance frequencies in cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) with gene flow. J. Plant Prot. 2000, 27, 273–276. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sun, X.; Barrett, B.; Biddinger, D. Fecundity and fertility reductions in adult leafrollers exposed to surfaces treated with the ecdysteroid agonists tebufenozide and methoxyfenozide. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2000, 94, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 15 00679 g001
Figure 1. Bactrocera dorsalis collection sites.
Figure 1. Bactrocera dorsalis collection sites.
Insects 15 00679 g001
Table 1. Bactrocera dorsalis population collection sites.
Table 1. Bactrocera dorsalis population collection sites.
PopulationsProvinceLongitude (E)/Latitude (N)
Guangzhou (GZ)Guangdong113°17′/23°8′
Qingyuan (QY)Guangdong113°16′/23°49′
Huizhou (HZ)Guangdong114°27′/23°10′
Maoming (MM)Guangdong110°50′/21°54′
Chaozhou (CZ)Guangdong116°38′/23°40′
Nanning (NN)Guangxi108°19′/22°49′
Zhangzhou (ZZ)Fujian117°59′/23°8′
Fuzhou (FZ)Fujian119°28′/26°08′
Wuxi (WX)Jiangsu120°29′/31°34′
Changsha (CS)Hunan112°58′/28°11′
Haikou (HK)Hainan110°19′/20°1′
Table 2. Toxicity of beta-cypermethrin against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Table 2. Toxicity of beta-cypermethrin against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Area20102011201220132023
LC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RR
GZ38.27 (34.88–41.98)15.21 40.03 (36.61–43.77)15.91 35.63 (33.96–37.39)14.14 48.50 (40.15–62.19)19.2532.02 (22.21–43.01)12.71
HZ70.15 (65.15–75.545)27.88 83.32 (77.83–89.21)33.11 65.79 (62.33–69.45)26.11 75.37 (57.79–120.59)29.9157.69 (45.10–79.81)22.89
QY53.45 (49.96–57.18)21.24 48.21 (45.34–51.28)19.16 58.47 (53.98–33.33)23.20 47.97 (39.46–62.03)19.0433.45 (24.73–44.86)13.27
CZ45.85 (42.95–48.94)18.22 58.03 (54.84–61.41)23.06 68.53 (64.19–73.16)27.19 47.69 (38.38–64.38)18.9250.63 (43.72–59.47)20.09
MM69.05 (61.456–77.58)27.44 70.78 (64.348–77.86)28.13 55.61 (51.02–60.61)22.07 66.81 (57.07–82.54)26.5157.44 (49.64–66.95)42.55
NN55.86 (53.29–58.55)22.20 71.26 (66.20–76.70)28.32 60.79 (55.63–66.43)24.12 88.94 (79.09–100.01)35.2959.37 (50.06–73.14)23.56
HK68.31 (63.25–73.77)27.15 70.19 (65.24–75.52)27.90 78.04 (73.67–82.68)30.97 53.59 (42.00–77.31)21.2747.56 (37.80–61.39)18.87
FZ41.11 (37.84–44.67)16.34 37.11 (34.31–40.13)14.75 43.16 (40.22–46.31)17.13 59.08 (49.12–73.54)23.4425.76 (13.31–44.17)10.22
ZZ49.49 (45.23–54.15)19.67 57.65 (52.61–63.18)22.91 49.44 (46.03–53.10)19.62 56.55 (43.45–85.83)22.4432.73 (21.16–45.91)12.99
CS39.02 (36.12–42.16)15.51 41.62 (38.17–45.39)16.54 46.15 (42.66–49.91)18.31 49.09 (39.64–66.00)19.4841.45 (35.27–49.32)16.45
WX35.44 (32.63–38.49)14.09 38.34 (35.34–41.59)15.24 39.78 (37.58–42.12)15.7963.35 (52.79–80.26)25.1456.68 (47.62–69.84)22.49
SS2.52 (2.21–2.88)
SS: susceptible strain; LC50: concentration at which 50% of B. dorsalis were killed; 95% CI: 95% conf; RR: resistance ratios.
Table 3. Toxicity of cyhalothrin against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Table 3. Toxicity of cyhalothrin against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Area20102011201220132023
LC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RR
GZ35.84 (33.01–38.91)26.55 38.57 (35.57–41.83)28.57 34.39 (32.67–36.19)25.47 41.74 (34.20–53.22)30.9226.60 (21.78–33.78)19.71
HZ44.75 (42.19–47.47)33.15 52.75 (48.42–57.46)39.07 38.83 (35.95–41.93)28.76 57.09 (46.36–78.02)42.297.41 (6.32–8.89)5.49
QY45.50 (42.87–48.29)33.70 32.01 (29.45–34.79)23.71 31.55 (29.64–33.59)23.37 45.55 (36.79–60.32)33.743.34 (1.92–5.09)2.47
CZ46.14 (43.24–49.23)34.18 38.96 (35.38–42.89)28.8643.98 (40.64–47.60)32.58 43.05 (33.92–58.52)31.8938.99 (32.31–46.85)28.88
MM36.39 (31.72–41.76)26.96 37.81 (32.7–43.71)28.0039.03 (36.63–41.59)28.91 35.39 (29.03–43.69)26.2152.26 (38.88–70.53)38.71
NN21.95 (18.50–26.04)16.26 29.18 (26.20–32.50)21.61 31.69 (28.69–35.00)23.47 30.10 (23.74–37.50)22.3058.07 (44.47–78.12)43.01
HK24.73 (22.30–27.43)18.32 24.48 (21.84–37.44)18.13 25.69 (23.36–28.26)19.03 34.26 (29.27–40.09)25.3838.14 (29.29–49.04)28.25
FZ12.81 (10.88–15.10)9.49 14.44 (12.63–16.51)10.70 27.77 (25.71–30.01)20.57 20.01 (15.95–28.74)14.825.70 (4.17–7.72)4.22
ZZ22.36 (19.90–25.14)16.56 27.54 (23.89–31.74)20.40 30.63 (27.95–3.76)22.69 34.66 (28.27–42.88)25.6739.34 (24.67–60.38)29.14
CS39.02 (36.12–42.16)28.90 26.61 (23.65–29.95)19.71 26.51 (24.61–28.55)19.64 23.09 (19.55–26.60)17.1019.98 (16.92–23.59)14.80
WX15.14 (12.91–17.76)11.21 24.6 (21.99–27.63)18.22 32.42 (28.99–36.27)24.0230.69 (26.60–38.26)22.7375.09 (63.14–94.97)55.62
SS1.35 (0.97–1.89)
SS: susceptible strain; LC50: concentration at which 50% of B. dorsalis were killed; 95% CI: 95% conf; RR: resistance ratios.
Table 4. Toxicity of trichlorfon against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Table 4. Toxicity of trichlorfon against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Area20102011201220132023
LC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RR
GZ35.81 (29.68–34.50)22.3834.61 (31.91–37.53)21.6326.08 (24.21–28.09)16.3024.68 (22.14–28.89)15.4215.414 (13.00–17.97)9.63
HZ34.02 (31.80–36.40)21.2430.82 (28.64–33.17)19.2426.51 (24.43–28.78)16.5727.91 (25.23–32.56)17.448.81 (7.14–11.92)5.51
QY33.44 (31.14–35.90)20.8838.84 (35.25–42.79)24.2533.43 (30.25–36.94)20.8924.34 (21.75–28.67)15.214.82 (4.12–5.74)3.01
CZ38.00 (34.30–42.10)23.7237.06 (34.07–0.31)23.1441.05 (38.24–44.07)25.6621.33 (18.94–24.81)13.3346.59 (40.78–53.34)29.12
MM44.02 (41.07–47.18)27.4847.09 (43.63–50.81)29.4042.12 (39.28–45.17)26.3335.45 (28.90–48.02)22.1616.65 (15.91–17.43)10.41
NN35.97 (29.56–36.22)22.4834.71 (32.01–37.63)21.6737.04 (35.08–39.10)23.1525.38 (21.96–32.19)15.8641.52 (36.95–46.90)25.95
HK20.57 (18.22–23.22)12.8420.98 (18.68–23.56)13.1025.03 (23.25–26.94)15.6420.28 (18.69–22.22)12.6843.80 (37.27–51.76)27.38
FZ23.05 (20.44–25.99)14.3932.58 (29.86–35.56)20.3430.20 (27.58–33.07)18.8828.02 (24.73–33.39)17.513.33 (3.01–3.70)2.08
ZZ33.91 (31.35–36.67)21.1732.38 (29.86–35.12)20.2433.35 (30.19–36.84)20.8427.25 (23.92–32.55)17.0319.62 (17.18–22.44)12.26
CS31.81 (29.55–34.25)19.8635.30 (32.97–37.80)22.0425.43 (23.67–27.32)15.8926.90 (24.64–30.61)16.813.42 (2.90–4.01)2.14
WX27.73 (24.63–31.22)17.3332.09 (27.79–37.06)20.0628.74 (26.37–31.31)17.9623.80 (20.97–27.00)14.8819.55 (17.12–22.30)12.22
SS1.60 (1.37–1.87)
SS: susceptible strain; LC50: concentration at which 50% of B. dorsalis were killed; 95% CI: 95% conf; RR: resistance ratios.
Table 5. Toxicity of spinosad against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Table 5. Toxicity of spinosad against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Area20102011201220132023
LC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RR
GZ4.18 (3.44–5.07)6.97 4.87 (3.92–6.06)8.12 5.55 (4.73–6.52)9.25 5.21 (3.93–8.14)8.6823.00 (18.18–29.00)38.33
HZ5.16 (4.12–6.46)8.60 4.82 (4.00–5.80)8.03 5.78 (5.29–6.33)9.63 5.86 (4.88–7.79)9.7723.99 (16.84–33.08)39.98
QY4.69 (3.80–5.78)7.82 5.85 (5.05–6.77)9.75 6.62 (5.99–7.32)11.03 7.12 (5.59–10.80)11.8712.63 (5.44–18.74)21.05
CZ4.49 (3.98–5.05)7.48 4.53 (4.03–5.08)7.555.49 (5.07–5.95)9.15 7.37 (6.24–9.45)12.2811.07 (6.03–16.34)18.45
MM4.41 (3.71–5.24)7.354.96 (4.10–6.00)8.277.10 (6.30–8.01)11.83 6.73 (5.68–8.48)11.2214.85 (8.67–21.35)23.92
NN3.95 (3.35–4.66)6.58 5.25 (4.52–6.10)8.75 6.83 (6.08–7.67)11.38 4.70 (3.80–6.26)7.8317.73 (15.83–20.01)29.55
HK5.36 (4.33–6.64)8.93 4.98 (4.12–6.03)8.30 6.47 (5.82–7.18)10.78 6.20 (5.42–7.09)10.3316.36 (11.53–22.05)27.27
FZ4.12 (3.40–5.00)6.87 4.96 (4.22–6.87)8.97 4.86 (4.51–5.25)8.10 6.18 (4.70–9.74)10.3051.88 (44.54–61.74)86.47
ZZ5.53 (4.74–6.47)9.22 4.25 (3.77–4.79)7.08 5.35 (4.92–5.82)8.92 4.65 (3.63–6.55)7.7540.94 (27.78–60.43)68.23
CS3.67 (3.02–4.45)6.12 4.75 (3.90–5.78)7.92 4.34 (3.84–4.91)7.23 6.91 (5.19–11.37)11.526.44 (5.14–8.41)10.73
WX4.68 (3.77–5.80)7.80 5.23 (4.31–6.36)8.72 5.13 (4.73–5.56)8.55 5.63 (4.46–8.00)9.3855.99 (48.91–65.24)93.32
SS0.60 (0.51–0.71)
SS: >susceptible strain; LC50: concentration at which 50% of B. dorsalis were killed; 95% CI: 95% conf; RR: resistance ratios.
Table 6. Toxicity of emamectin benzoate against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Table 6. Toxicity of emamectin benzoate against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Area20102011201220132023
LC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RR
GZ7.47 (6.47–8.62)8.309.94 (8.80–11.24)10.9911.33 (10.51–12.22)12.59 12.41 (9.89–17.73)13.7911.78 (5.23–17.051)13.09
HZ6.04 (5.25–6.95)6.717.18 (6.25–8.24)7.9810.06 (9.04–11.20)11.18 6.22 (5.04–8.69)6.9113.06 (7.65–18.13)14.51
QY4.95 (4.41–5.55)5.507.70 (7.09–8.35)8.567.78 (7.34–8.26)8.64 6.21 (4.71–9.85)6.903.78 (1.66–5.62)4.20
CZ5.86 (5.04–6.81)6.516.26 (5.39–7.27)6.967.59 (6.72–8.57)8.43 8.50 (6.90–12.20)9.4422.00 (15.11–33.15)24.44
MM5.95 (5.31–6.66)6.616.29 (5.57–7.11)6.9910.85 (10.23–11.50)12.06 5.74 (4.90–6.87)6.3824.20 (16.59–39.39)26.89
NN5.04 (4.43–5.72)5.605.63 (4.97–6.38)6.266.98 (6.48–7.52)7.76 6.09 (4.55–9.97)6.7728.16 (18.31–38.00)31.29
HK5.53 (4.85–6.31)6.145.35 (4.57–6.27)5.947.67 (6.85–8.59)8.52 6.38 (5.00–8.13)7.0914.67 (11.25–20.67)16.30
FZ2.23 (1.96–2.54)2.482.33 (1.98–2.75)2.596.31 (5.74–6.92)7.01 6.35 (4.47–12.54)7.0617.82 (9.33–28.17)19.80
ZZ2.06 (1.67–2.55)2.292.59 (2.17–3.08)2.887.58 (6.65–8.65)8.43 2.93 (2.40–3.52)3.2667.68 (57.47–83.42)75.20
CS3.95 (3.59–4.35)4.393.55 (3.24–3.90)3.946.07 (5.50–6.69)6.74 4.95 (3.93–6.86)5.5012.56 (10.71–14.99)13.96
WX4.00 (3.44–4.66)4.447.31 (6.38–8.38)10.998.73 (8.05–9.47)9.70 11.30 (9.45–13.17)12.5693.41 (74.26–131.76)103.79
SS0.90 (0.69–1.17)
SS: susceptible strain; LC50: concentration at which 50% of B. dorsalis were killed; 95% CI: 95% conf; RR: resistance ratios.
Table 7. Toxicity of chlorpyrifos against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Table 7. Toxicity of chlorpyrifos against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Area2010201120122023
LC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RR
GZ2.60 (2.32~2.90)2.863.20 (2.76~3.72)3.523.21 (2.90~3.55)3.532.41 (1.86–3.03)2.65
HZ3.00 (2.61~3.44)3.304.06 (3.68~4.49)4.466.40 (5.79~7.07)7.031.98 (1.15–2.84)2.18
QY4.38 (3.93~4.89)4.816.01 (5.43~6.65)6.604.41 (4.15~4.69)4.852.45 (2.10–2.84)2.69
CZ3.71 (3.31~4.16)4.084.86 (4.32~5.48)5.346.35 (5.76~6.99)6.984.69 (3.40–6.50)5.15
MM2.94 (2.56~3.36)3.494.07 (3.69~4.48)4.476.65 (5.94~7.45)7.312.52 (2.09–3.05)2.77
NN3.18 (2.73~3.71)3.494.28 (3.84~4.76)4.705.43 (5.03~5.86)5.971.71 (1.14–2.40)1.88
HK3.10 (2.640~3.54)3.414.74 (4.31~5.22)5.214.19 (3.92~4.48)4.602.62 (1.80–3.57)2.88
FZ2.52 (2.24~2.84)2.772.92 (2.56~3.34)3.213.99 (3.75~4.25)4.382.76 (1.79–3.91)3.03
ZZ2.58 (2.27~2.92)2.844.52 (4.12~4.97)4.975.13 (4.77~5.53)5.641.77 (1.02–2.46)1.95
CS2.17 (1.92~2.45)2.383.04 (2.6~3.523.342.71 (2.49~2.96)2.981.97 (1.47–2.61)2.16
WX2.16 (1.91~2.44)2.374.81 (4.33~5.35)5.293.93 (3.60~4.29)4.321.34 (1.12–1.59)1.47
SS0.91 (0.75~1.10)
SS: susceptible strain; LC50: concentration at which 50% of B. dorsalis were killed; 95% CI: 95% conf; RR: resistance ratios.
Table 8. Toxicity of avermectin against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Table 8. Toxicity of avermectin against Bactrocera dorsalis in Southern China.
Area20132023
LC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RRLC50/mg·L−1
(95% CI)		RR
GZ6.10 (4.49~10.35)10.0413.66 (2.20–24.54)22.39
HZ5.31 (4.05~8.00)8.7459.31 (47.95–78.15)97.23
QY6.28 (4.83~9.55)10.3447.21 (34.66–67.70)77.39
CZ8.87 (7.30~11.80)14.6074.71 (65.63–86.95)122.48
MM11.81 (9.13~18.91)19.4447.48 (39.33–57.18)77.84
NN3.28 (2.61~4.12)5.4076.51 (63.97–91.11)125.43
HK8.50 (6.85~11.65)13.9950.05 (43.51–56.79)82.05
FZ9.16 (7.35~13.67)15.0832.56 (21.96–44.70)53.38
ZZ15.07 (9.85~41.71)24.8156.32 (45.26–74.29)92.33
CS13.62 (10.16~22.78)22.4252.19 (40.82–67.45)85.56
WX10.25 (7.82~16.60)16.8855.45 (43.93–75.62)90.90
SS0.61 (0.47–0.92)
SS: susceptible strain; LC50: concentration at which 50% of B. dorsalis were killed; 95% CI: 95% conf; RR: resistance ratios.
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

Li, X.; Li, P.; Li, D.; Cai, X.; Gu, S.; Zeng, L.; Cheng, D.; Lu, Y. Dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis Resistance to Seven Insecticides in South China. Insects 2024, 15, 679. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15090679

AMA Style

Li X, Li P, Li D, Cai X, Gu S, Zeng L, Cheng D, Lu Y. Dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis Resistance to Seven Insecticides in South China. Insects. 2024; 15(9):679. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15090679

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Xinlian, Peizheng Li, Doudou Li, Xinyan Cai, Shiwei Gu, Ling Zeng, Daifeng Cheng, and Yongyue Lu. 2024. "Dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis Resistance to Seven Insecticides in South China" Insects 15, no. 9: 679. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15090679

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