Influence of adjuvants added to teflubenzuron spray on resistant and susceptible strains of the soybean looper Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Influência da adição de adjuvantes à calda de pulverização de teflubenzuron em linhagens resistentes e suscetíveis da lagarta falsa-medideira Chrysodeixis includens em soja (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

ABSTRACT:

The soybean looper (SBL), Chrysodeixis includens (Walker, [1858]) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a soybean and cotton pest in South America countries. Field-evolved resistance of SBL to inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis has been reported in Brazil; however, this mode of action is still widely used against SBL. On this basis, we conducted laboratory bioassays to investigate if adjuvants (Nimbus^®, TA 35^®, Break-Thru^® S 240, and Rizospray Extremo^®) added to the teflubenzuron spray increase the mortality of SBL strains (resistant, heterozygous, and susceptible to chitin biosynthesis inhibitors). Using chromatography analysis, we also evaluated the amount of teflubenzuron on soybean leaves when applied alone or in combination with adjuvants. In laboratory bioassays, the biological activity of teflubenzuron increased against the susceptible SBL strain when adjuvants were added. In contrast, no relevant effects of adjuvants added to the teflubenzuron spray against heterozygous and resistant SBL larvae were detected. In leaf bioassays, even leaves from the upper third part of the plants containing a significantly higher amount of teflubenzuron (3.4 mg/kg vs 1.7 and 0.6 mg/kg); the mortality of SBL strains was similar when teflubenzuron was applied alone or in mixture with adjuvants. Our findings indicated that adjuvants added to teflubenzuron spray do not provide a substantial increase in the mortality of SBL strains resistant to chitin biosynthesis inhibitors. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the use of this mode-of-action insecticide against SBL and to give preference to other insecticides or control tactic.

Key words:
benzoylphenylureas; soybean pest; insect resistance management; tank mixture

RESUMO:

A lagarta falsa-medideira, Chrysodeixis includens (Walker, [1858]) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), é uma praga da soja e do algodão nos países da América do Sul. A resistência de C. includens a inibidores da biossíntese de quitina tem sido relatada no Brasil. Entretanto, esse modo de ação ainda é amplamente utilizado para controle de C. includens. Com base nisso, conduzimos bioensaios em laboratório para investigar se adjuvantes (Nimbus^®, TA 35^®, Break-Thru^® S 240 e Rizospray Extremo^®) adicionados à calda inseticida de teflubenzuron aumentam a mortalidade de linhagens de C. includens (resistentes, heterozigotos e suscetíveis a inibidores da biossíntese de quitina). Usando análise cromatográfica, também avaliamos a quantidade de teflubenzuron em folhas de soja quando aplicado isolado ou em combinação com adjuvantes. Em bioensaios de laboratório, a atividade biológica do teflubenzuron aumentou para a linhagem suscetível quando os adjuvantes foram adicionados à calda inseticida. Em contraste, nenhum efeito relevante de adjuvantes adicionados ao teflubenzuron foi detectado para os heterozigotos e resistentes. Em bioensaios de folhas, mesmo naquelas do terço superior das plantas, as quais apresentaram uma maior deposição de teflubenzuron (3,4 mg/kg vs 1,7 e 0,6 mg/kg); a mortalidade das linhagens de C. includens foi semelhante quando o teflubenzuron foi aplicado isolado ou com adjuvantes. Nossos resultados indicam que os adjuvantes adicionados ao teflubenzuron não fornecem um aumento substancial na mortalidade de linhagens de C. includens resistentes aos inibidores da biossíntese de quitina. Portanto, é necessário reduzir o uso desse modo de ação para o manejo de C. includens e dar preferência a outros inseticidas ou tática de controle.

Palavras-chave:
benzoilfeniluréias; pragas da soja; manejo da resistência de insetos; mistura de tanque

INTRODUCTION:

The soybean looper (SBL), Chrysodeixis includens (Walker [1858]) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is an important defoliator pest of soybean [Glycine max L. (Merr.)] and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) crops in South America (SANTOS et al., 2017; SILVA et al., 2020). For decades, SBL management on soybean and cotton has been performed with chemical insecticides (PANIZZI, 2013). However, the development and deployment of transgenic soybean and cotton plants, expressing insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Bt), has enabled other control tactics against SBL (BERNARDI et al., 2012; SORGATTO et al., 2015; MARQUES et al., 2016). These Bt crops are planted on areas of nearly 1.1 (cotton) and 36 (soybean) million hectares, representing 82 and 85% of the total area cultivated with these crops in Brazil during the 2020/21 crop seasons (BROOKES & BARFOOT, 2018; COUNCIL BIOTECHNOLOGY INFORMATION, 2018; CONAB, 2021).

Currently, the management of SBL in soybean and cotton crops is mainly performed by chemical and biological insecticides (on non-Bt areas) or by Bt plants. Among the chemical insecticides, inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis (benzoylphenylureas) have been used since the 1970s against lepidopteran pests, including SBL (BEEMAN, 1982). Chemical control of SBL is difficult because larvae are less exposed to insecticide sprays due to their habit of remaining sheltered under the plant canopy (PAPA & CELOTO, 2007; FUNICHELLO et al., 2019). Long-time use of benzoylphenylureas against SBL has contributed to field resistance to the chitin synthesis inhibitors teflubenzuron, novaluron, and lufenuron in Brazil (STACKE et al. 2019, 2020). Such resistance has also been reported in Plutella xylostella (L., 1758) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) (SANTOS et al., 2011) and Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith, 1797) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (NASCIMENTO et al., 2016).

In the insecticide application technology context, some adjuvants are used in tank mixtures of insecticides to increase its effectiveness (MELO et al., 2019). Adjuvants have the function of modifying the physicochemical characteristics, increasing the efficacy, and protecting phytosanitary products in the mixture (ABDELGALEIL et al., 2018; MELO et al., 2015; SANTOS et al., 2019). Previous studies indicated that adjuvants added to diamides increased the mortality of adults of Amyelois transitella (Walker, 1863) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) (DEMKOVICH et al., 2018). This was also verified when adjuvants were added to indoxacarb and cartap to control Neoleucinodes elegantalis (Guenée, 1854) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) (DE BORTOLI et al., 2013), to thiamethoxam + lambda-cyhalothrin against Enneothrips flavens Moulton, 1941 (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) (CALORE et al. 2015), and dimethoate and spinetoram to control Thrips tabaci Lind., 1888 (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) (NEGASH et al., 2020).

According to these studies, adjuvants allowing a better deposition of the active ingredient on the foliage and the rate of penetration or ingestion by the insects, improving control effectiveness. However, the effects of adjuvants added to insecticide sprays against insects resistant to insecticides remain unknown. Understanding if adjuvants increase the mortality of resistant and mainly heterozygous insects due to a better deposition on foliage or rate of ingestion of the active ingredient by the insects is important to support resistance management plans; heterozygous are mainly responsible for the dispersion of resistance alleles in field populations (CAPRIO & SUMERFORD, 2018).

To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted laboratory studies to investigate whether adjuvants added to teflubenzuron spray increased the mortality of SBL strains (resistant, heterozygous, and susceptible to chitin biosynthesis inhibitors). We hypothesized that the response of SBL strains exposed to teflubenzuron + adjuvants or teflubenzuron alone varies based on the SBL genotype. We conducted these evaluations using diet-overlay and soybean-leaf bioassays. The amount of teflubenzuron on soybean leaves was also quantified using chromatographic analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Insects

A teflubenzuron-resistant SBL colony (Teflu-R) was isolated from field populations as described in detail by STACKE et al. 2020. The Teflu-R strain presented a high resistance ratio to teflubenzuron >36,300-fold. We also used a strain of SBL that has been maintained in the laboratory since 2015 without exposure to insecticides and Bt toxins, referring to this colony as a susceptible strain (Sus). To evaluate heterozygotes, reciprocal crosses between resistant ♀ × susceptible ♂ were performed. We only used this heterozygote strain because inheritance of resistance is autosomally inherited (STACKE et al., 2020).

Adjuvants

The following adjuvants were added to the teflubenzuron spray: Nimbus^® (Syngenta Proteção de Cultivos Ltda, São Paulo SP, Brazil), TA 35^® (Inquima Ltda, Cambé PR, Brazil), Break-Thru^® S 240 (Evonik Degussa Brazil Ltda, São Paulo SP, Brazil) and Rizospray Extremo^® (Rizobacter do Brasil, Londrina PR, Brazil). The dose of adjuvants Nimbus^® and Rizospray Extremo^® was 0.5% v/v, whereas for TA 35^® and Break-Thru^® S 240 the dose was 0.05% v/v.

Diet-overlay bioassays

The bioassays were conducted in 24-well acrylic plates (Costar^®, São Paulo SP, Brazil) to evaluate the susceptibility of SBL strains to teflubenzuron (Nomolt^®, 150 g teflubenzuron/L, BASF SA, São Paulo SP, Brazil) alone or applied with adjuvants. Each well received 1 mL of artificial diet based on white bean, wheat germ, and yeast, commonly used for rearing SBL (adapted from GREENE et al., 1976). After a drying period, five to seven concentrations of teflubenzuron alone or teflubenzuron + adjuvants were prepared with distilled water. The control treatment was only distillated water. In preliminary bioassays, all adjuvants alone were tested against SBL larvae, but they did not cause any mortality. A volume of 30 μL of each concentration was applied to the diet surface in each well (surface area of 1.88 cm²) and allowed to dry. Subsequently, a single early L3 larva was added to each well. Plates were sealed with their covers and placed in a room at 27 ± 2 °C, 60 ± 10% RH and a photoperiod of 14:10 h. The bioassays were repeated twice for each SBL strain on distinct days, with each concentration being repeated twice per bioassay (two replications of 48 larvae per concentration). Mortality was assessed after 5 days. Larvae without movement were considered dead. Concentration-mortality data were subjected to Probit analysis to estimate the LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ lethal concentrations and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), using the Polo-PC program (LeOra Software, 2002). A likelihood ratio test was performed to test the hypothesis that the LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ values are equal. If rejected, pairwise comparisons were performed, and significance was declared if 95% of CIs did not overlap (SAVIN et al., 1977).

Leaf-bioassays

Leaf-bioassays were performed to evaluate the survival of SBL strains on soybean leaves sprayed with teflubenzuron alone (Nomolt^®: 150 g teflubenzuron/L, BASF SA, São Paulo SP, Brazil) or mixed with adjuvants. Soybean seeds (ICS 1032 RR, Sementes Ponteio, Cruz Alta RS, Brazil) were sown in field conditions during the crop season of 2019-2020. Planting was performed on 27 November 2019 in Santa Maria, RS, Brazil (29º71’54” S e 53º73’56” W), at a density of 280,000 plants/ha. At sowing, 200 kg/ha of Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Potassium (NPK; 5-20-20) were applied. Soybean were sown in four identical blocks arranged in a randomized design with treatments were distributed in 12-m² plots (each plot was comprised of 6 soybean rows of 4 m in length and with a spacing of 0.50 m between rows). At the R₁ growth stage (FEHR & CAVINESS 1981), soybean plots were sprayed with teflubenzuron (22.5 g a.i./ha), and respective adjuvants diluted in 150 L of water using a pressurized-CO₂ backpack sprayer with a 3-m bar and 0.5-m nozzle spacing (MGA 90º hollow cone nozzle, MagnoJet, Ibaiti PR, Brazil). The dose of teflubenzuron sprayed correspond to the field recommendation against SBL on soybean. Unsprayed leaves were used as a control treatment. After 30 min of application, leaflets of the lower (0 to 0.6 m height), middle (0.6 to 0.8 m height) and upper (0.8 to 1 m height) parts of the soybean plants were removed and transported to the laboratory. Subsequently, leaves were placed over a gelled mixture of 2.5% agar-water in 100-mL plastic pots (one leaves/pot). Each pot was infested with a single L3 larva of the resistant, heterozygous, or susceptible strains (4 repetitions of 10 larvae, totalizing 40 larvae/strain/treatment). Pots were sealed and placed in a room at 25 ± 2°C, 60 ± 5% relative humidity, and a photoperiod of 12:12 h. Survival was evaluated after 5 days. The numbers of larvae tested and dead in each treatment were used to estimate the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the probability of mortality, according to a binomial distribution (DORAI-RAJ, 2009). For this analysis, the function binom.probit from the package binom in R 3.6.1 (R DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM, 2019) was used. Percent mortality was corrected using the Abbott’s formula (ABBOTT, 1925) and considered significantly different when the 95% CIs did not overlap.

Chromatography to quantify teflubenzuron on soybean leaves

To perform the chromatographic analysis, soybean leaflets were collected in the same plots and at the same time as the leaves used in leaf bioassays. In total, 12 leaflets of each plant part were sampled from the lower (0 to 0.6 m height), middle (0.6 to 0.8 m height), and upper (0.8 to 1 m height) parts of the plants. Leaflets were stored in plastic bags and transported to the laboratory. The sample preparation method was based on a previous method described by VIERA et al. (2017). Leaflets were homogenized using a food processor, and the original QuEChERS procedure was performed as follow: 3 g of the sample were weighed in a 50/mL polypropylene (PP) tube, 10 mL of acetonitrile were added, and the tube was vortexed for 1 min. A mixture of 1.5 g of NaCl and 4.0 g of MgSO4 was used to promote the partitioning step. The tube was vigorously shaken for 1 min and centrifuged for 8 min at 2,600 g. The clean-up step was performed in a 15/mL polypropylene tube with 2 mL of the supernatant and 300 mg of MgSO4, 50 mg C18, and 10 mg GCB. The tube was vortexed for 1 min, followed by centrifugation at 2,600 g for 8 min. Finally, the extract was filtered (0.2/μm nylon syringe filter) and diluted five times with ultrapure water prior to analysis by UHPLC-MS/MS. The amount of teflubenzuron on leaves from each soybean part (lower, middle, and upper) were compared by PROC ANOVA, using the Tukey test (P < 0.05), in the SAS^® software (SAS INSTITUTE, 2002).

RESULTS:

Diet-overlay bioassays

The low mortality response of the Teflu-R strain to concentration increases of teflubenzuron did not allow the estimation of LC values. The Teflu-R strains exposed to the maximum concentration (15,000 µg a.i./cm²) of teflubenzuron alone or in mixture with adjuvants presented a similar mortality (39.0 to 48.3%) (F = 1.65; df = 4, 25; P = 0.1931) (Figure 1). When the F₁ progeny from Teflu-res♀ × Sus♂ (heterozygote) was exposed to teflubenzuron + Nimbus^® (0.5%), the LC₅₀ value was significantly lower (0.69 a.i./cm²) than that of teflubenzuron in mixture with other adjuvants or teflubenzuron alone (LC₅₀ from 1.18 to 1.35 a.i./cm²) (Table 1). However, estimated LC₉₀ values of teflubenzuron alone or associated with adjuvants were similar for the heterozygote strain. The Sus strain exposed to teflubenzuron applied with adjuvants presented LC₅₀ (0.36 to 0.53 a.i./cm²) and LC₉₀ (1.55 to 1.76 a.i./cm²) values significantly lower than when teflubenzuron was used alone (0.73 and 2.52 a.i./cm², respectively), indicating an increase in the biological activity of teflubenzuron against susceptible larvae when applied with adjuvants (Table 1).

Figure 1
Mortality (± SE) of Teflu-R strain at the concentration of 15,000 µg teflubenzuron/cm² of diet applied alone or in combination with adjuvants. Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey test at P ≤ 0.05).

Table 1
Concentration-mortality (LC; µg a.i./cm²) response of SBL strains exposed to teflubenzuron alone or in combination with adjuvants.

Treatment	n	Slope ± SE	LC50 (95% CI)a,b	LC90 (95% CI)a,b	χ² (df)c
--------------------------------------------------------------------Teflu-res♀ × Sus♂-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teflubenzuron	419	2.27 ± 0.36	1.35 (1.11-1.59) b	4.95 (3.73-7.80) a	3.10 (4)
Teflubenzuron + Nimbus®	418	1.57 ± 0.18	0.69 (0.49-0.94) a	4.53 (2.74-11.16) a	6.28 (4)
Teflubenzuron + TA 35	477	1.68 ± 0.20	1.18 (0.97-1.44) b	6.79 (4.77-11.26) a	2.23 (5)
Teflubenzuron + Break-Thru® S 240	420	1.96 ± 0.21	1.41 (1.20-1.69) b	6.37 (4.67-9.81) a	2.78 (4)
Teflubenzuron + Rizospray Extremo®	380	1.67 ± 0.20	1.20 (0.99-1.47) b	7.06 (4.93-11.81) a	2.42 (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sus----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teflubenzuron	420	2.38 ± 0.24	0.73 (0.63-0.84) c	2.52 (2.06-3.27) b	2.06 (4)
Teflubenzuron + Nimbus®	478	2.20 ± 0.19	0.46 (0.40-0.53) ab	1.76 (1.45-2.25) ab	1.75 (5)
Teflubenzuron + TA 35	420	2.58 ± 0.29	0.42 (0.36-0.48) ab	1.33 (1.08-1.74) a	3.84 (4)
Teflubenzuron + Break-Thru® S 240	420	2.22 ± 0.22	0.36 (0.31-0.41) a	1.36 (1.10-1.78) a	2.13 (4)
Teflubenzuron + Rizospray Extremo®	473	2.75 ± 0.25	0.53 (0.45-0.62) b	1.55 (1.27-2.02) a	5.08 (5)

• a L C50: concentration of teflubenzuron (μg a.i./cm²) required to kill 50% of insects in the observation period of 5 days. LC₉₀ is the concentration of teflubenzuron required to kill 90% of larvae tested. b LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ values designated by different letters in each SBL strain are significantly different due to non-overlap of 95% Cis c P > 0.05 in the goodness-of-fit test.

Leaf-bioassays

There were no significant differences in the mortality of the Teflu-R strain fed on leaves from upper (from 12.5 to 20%), middle (from 7.7 to 12.8%), and lower (from 2.5 to 7.0%) thirds of the soybean plants sprayed with teflubenzuron alone or in mixture with adjuvants (Table 2). No significant differences were also detected when the F₁ progeny from Teflu-res♀ × Sus♂ and Sus strains were fed on leaves from the three parts of the plant treated with teflubenzuron alone or in combination with adjuvants (Table 2). The mortality of heterozygous and Sus strains on leaves of each part of the soybean plants sprayed with teflubenzuron alone or in combination with adjuvants was higher when exposed to leaves from upper (77 to 100%), middle (64.1 to 92.3%), and lower (55.2 to 84.6%) parts than the mortality of the Teflu-R strain exposed to leaves of any part (mortality < 20%) (Table 2). In contrast, the mortality of all SBL strains on untreated leaves was < 2.5%.

Table 2
Percentage of mortality of SBL strains fed on soybean leaves treated with teflubenzuron alone or in combination with adjuvants obtained from different parts of the plant canopy.

Treatment	-----------------------------------% mortality (95% CI)a ---------------------------------
	Teflu-R	Teflu-R♀ × Sus♂	Sus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Upper---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teflubenzuron	12.5 (4.9-25.7) aA	77.5 (62.7-88.2) aB	97.5 (87.1-99.7) aB
Teflubenzuron + Nimbus® (0.5%)	12.5 (4.9-25.7) aA	80.0 (65.4-90.0) aB	100.0 (91.1-100.0) aC
Teflubenzuron + TA 35 (0.05%)	12.5 (4.9-25.7) aA	80.0 (65.4-90.0) aB	100.0 (91.1-100.0) aC
Teflubenzuron + Break-Thru® S 240 (0.05%)	17.5 (8.2-31.63) aA	82.5 (68.4-91.7) aB	100.0 (91.1-100.0) aB
Teflubenzuron + Rizospray Extremo® (0.5%)	20.0 (9.9-34.5) aA	77.5 (62.7-88.2) aB	97.5 (87.1-99.7) aB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Middle-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teflubenzuron	7.7 (3.3-11.2) aA	66.7 (51.9-77.5) aB	87.2 (74.2-94.3) aB
Teflubenzuron + Nimbus® (0.5%)	7.7 (3.3-11.2) aA	74.4 (59.8-84.4) aB	92.3 (80.5-97.5) aB
Teflubenzuron + TA 35 (0.05%)	7.7 (3.3-11.2) aA	74.4 (59.8-84.4) aB	89.7 (77.3-95.9) aB
Teflubenzuron + Break-Thru® S 240 (0.05%)	12.8 (6.3-18.2) aA	66.7 (51.9-77.5) aB	92.3 (80.5-97.5) aC
Teflubenzuron + Rizospray Extremo® (0.5%)	9.7 (4.7-14.8) aA	64.1 (49.3-75.1) aB	84.6 (71.1-92.4) aB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lower--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teflubenzuron	5.0 (0.1-16.1) aA	52.5 (37.2-67.4) aB	79.5 (65.3-88.5) aB
Teflubenzuron + Nimbus® (0.5%)	2.5 (0.2-12.8) aA	65.0 (49.4-78.3) aB	84.6 (71.1-92.4) aB
Teflubenzuron + TA 35 (0.05%)	5.0 (0.1-16.1) aA	70.0 (54.6-82.4) aB	84.6 (71.1-92.4) aB
Teflubenzuron + Break-Thru® S 240 (0.05%)	5.0 (0.1-16.1) aA	65.0 (49.4-78.3) aB	76.9 (62.6-86.5) aB
Teflubenzuron + Rizospray Extremo® (0.5%)	7.5 (2.1-19.4) aA	55.0 (39.5-69.6) aB	79.5 (65.3-88.5) aB

• ^aPercentage values (95% CI) in each soybean leaf location followed by the same lowercase letter within a column or capital letter in a line are not significantly different due to nonoverlap their 95% CIs.

Quantification of the amount of teflubenzuron on soybean leaves

Adjuvants added to the teflubenzuron spray did not increase the amount of active ingredient on leaves of soybean located in the upper (F = 0.85, df = 4, 10, P = 0.5228), middle (F = 0.48; df = 4, 10; P = 0.7518), and lower (F = 0.30; df = 4, 10; P = 0.8698) parts of the plants when compared to teflubenzuron alone (Table 3). However, on leaves from the upper third part of soybean plants the amount of teflubenzuron (3.4 ± 0.4 mg/kg) was significantly higher than on leaves from other parts (middle = 1.7 ± 0.2 mg/kg and lower = 0.6 ± 0.2 mg/kg) (F = 28.66; df = 2, 42; P < 0.0001). Therefore, deposition of teflubenzuron alone or in combination with adjuvants was greater in the upper third leaves followed by middle and lower leaves of the soybean plants.

Table 3
Deposition and penetration of teflubenzuron on soybean leaves applied alone or in combination with adjuvants in different parts of the plant canopy.

Treatmenta	------------------Amount of teflubenzuron (mg/kg) ± SE--------------
	Upper	Middle	Lower
Teflubenzuron	2.5 ± 1.0 a	1.2 ± 0.5 a	0.5 ± 0.2 a
Teflubenzuron + Nimbus® (0.5%)	4.6 ± 1.4 a	2.0 ± 0.5 a	0.7 ± 0.3 a
Teflubenzuron + TA 35 (0.05%)	2.8 ± 0.4 a	1.6 ± 0.7 a	0.8 ± 0.3 a
Teflubenzuron + Break-Thru® S 240 (0.05%)	3.7 ± 0.9 a	1.9 ± 0.1 a	0.5 ± 0.2 a
Teflubenzuron + Rizospray Extremo® (0.5%)	3.2 ± 0.3 a	1.8 ± 0.3 a	0.7 ± 0.4 a
Mean	3.4 ± 0.4 A	1.7 ± 0.2 B	0.6 ± 0.2 C

• ^aMeans ± SE followed by lowercase letters in a column are not significantly different, while uppercase letters indicate that the amount of teflubenzuron varied according with the part of the plant (Tukey test at P ≤ 0.05).

DISCUSSION:

The addition of adjuvants to teflubenzuron spray increased the mortality of the teflubenzuron-susceptible SBL strain in diet-overlay bioassays but did not affect the mortality of resistant and heterozygous strains. This can be explained by a better spread of the insecticide on diet surface when adjuvants were used, allowing that susceptible larvae ingest a greater amount of teflubenzuron, increasing its mortality. In contrast, adjuvants added to teflubenzuron did not cause high mortality of resistant and heterozygotes larvae, because the amount of teflubenzuron is still not enough to change the mortality rates.

In leaf bioassays, no differences in mortality for teflubenzuron alone or in mixture with adjuvants on SBL strains were detected. Contrary to this, adjuvants added to the insecticide spray of other biosynthesis chitin inhibitors (flufenoxuron, triflumuron, novaluron, and lufenuron) increased the mortality of N. elegantalis (DE BORTOLI et al., 2013). In laboratory and field applications of chlorantraniliprole and flubendiamide, the addition of adjuvants increased the mortality of A. transitella (DEMKOVICH et al., 2018). Adjuvants added to fipronil, lambda-cyhalothnin, and dimethoate sprays also increased the control efficacy of T. tabaci (GANGWAR et al., 2016; NEGASH et al., 2020) and the biological activity of chlorantranilprole against Anticarsia gemmatalis (HÜBNER, 1818) (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) (ARRUÉ et al., 2014).

In our study, adjuvants added to teflubenzuron spray did not increase the amount of active ingredient on soybean leaves. We detected a high amount of teflubenzuron on leaves of the upper part of soybean plants, albeit without an increased mortality of SBL strains. The low effects of adjuvants added to the teflubenzuron spray against SBL strains can be explained by the capacity of this species to detoxify and eliminate insecticides prior to ingestion (MARTIN & BROWN 1984). This can also be influenced by the mechanisms of resistance to chitin biosynthesis inhibitors, which are associated with target site mutations (VAN LEEUWEN et al., 2012; DOURIS et al., 2016), detoxification mediated by monooxygenase P450 enzymes (SONODA & TSUMUKI 2005; NASCIMENTO et al., 2016), and reduced cuticular penetration (PIMPRIKAR & GEORGHIOU, 1979). Therefore, these mechanisms may prevent binding of the active ingredient or, alternatively, the insecticide was degraded, reducing the amount that reaches the target sites. Understanding the resistance mechanisms to chitin biosynthesis inhibitors in SBL should be a research topic for future studies.

The low mortality of resistant and some survival of heterozygous insects when exposed to teflubenzuron alone or in mixture with adjuvants is due to their high resistance to inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis, which leads us to infer that under field conditions, the use of adjuvants did not contribute to reduce the resistance frequency to teflubenzuron in populations of SBL. In an insect resistance management (IRM) context, the survival of heterozygotes when exposed to teflubenzuron explain, in part, the generalized resistance of SBL populations to this insecticide in Brazil (STACKE et al., 2020). The survival of heterozygotes favors a rapid increase in resistance frequency under field conditions, as it is the main responsible for the dispersion of resistance alleles in natural populations (CAPRIO & SUMERFORD, 2018). Thus, the integration of chemical control with Bt soybean and Bt cotton technologies (GREENBERG et al., 2010; BERNARDI et al., 2012; SORGATTO et al., 2015), and biological control agents (MURARO et al., 2019), may delay the development of further resistance and can contribute to the reversion of the resistance of SBL to inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis. In addition, for successful IPM and IRM plans, the reduction in the use of inhibitor of chitin biosynthesis against SBL, as well as to give preference to insecticides with distinct modes of action, is essential to manage SBL in soybean and cotton crops in Brazil.

CONCLUSION:

In the present study, the adjuvants added to teflubenzuron spray did not cause a substantial increase in the mortality of SBL strains. The adjuvants tested also did not increase the deposition of teflubenzuron on soybean leaves, resulting in similar mortality for SBL strains with similar resistance level to chitin biosynthesis inhibitors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank for Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (CNPq) for financial support (Grant number: 430483/2018-0) and research fellowship to Oderlei Bernardi (Process # 305464/2020-5) and Renato Zanella and was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brasil - Finance code 001.

REFERENCES

• ABBOTT, W. S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology, v.18, p.265-267. 1925. Available from: <Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/18/2/265/785683?login=true >. Accessed: Jan. 30, 2020. doi: 10.1093/jee/18.2.265.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/18.2.265.» https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/18/2/265/785683?login=true
• ABDELGALEIL, S. A. M., et al., Use of tank-mix adjuvants to improve effectiveness and persistence of chlorpyrifos and cyhalothrin formulations. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, v.17, p.1539-1549. 2018. Available from: <Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283182988_Use_of_Tankmix_Adjuvants_to_Improve_Effectiveness_and_Persistence_of_Chlorpyrifos_and_Cyhalothrin_Formulations >. Accessed: Mar. 23, 2020.
  » https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283182988_Use_of_Tankmix_Adjuvants_to_Improve_Effectiveness_and_Persistence_of_Chlorpyrifos_and_Cyhalothrin_Formulations
• ARRUÉ, A., et al., Artificial precipitation after spray of clorantraniliprole insecticide associated with adjuvant application in soybean plants. Ciência Rural, v.44, n.12, p.2118-2123. 2014. Available from: <Available from: https://www.scielo.br/j/cr/a/wRyYGcW7SX4Dtc837jG6kTv/?lang=pt&format=html >. Accessed: Jan. 30, 2020. doi: 10.1590/0103-8478cr2012021
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr2012021» https://www.scielo.br/j/cr/a/wRyYGcW7SX4Dtc837jG6kTv/?lang=pt&format=html
• BEEMAN, R. W., Recent advances in mode of action of insecticides. Annul Review of Entomology, v.27, p.253-281. 1982. Available from: <Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.en.27.010182.001345?casa_token=RBHiv-QVoIAAAAA%3AEjwOWQRLSeXm7MgvfSUfrYQvbE0p00hEoAIjJFdUKwGLgy2W4o-dbyUoBgbIYlxztyTvUDETLX8iGg&journalCode=ento >. Accessed: Feb. 10, 2020. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.27.010182.001345.
  » https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.27.010182.001345.» https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.en.27.010182.001345?casa_token=RBHiv-QVoIAAAAA%3AEjwOWQRLSeXm7MgvfSUfrYQvbE0p00hEoAIjJFdUKwGLgy2W4o-dbyUoBgbIYlxztyTvUDETLX8iGg&journalCode=ento
• BERNARDI, O., et al., Assessment of the high-dose concept and level of control provided by MON 87701 × MON 89788 soybean against Anticarsia gemmatalis and Pseudoplusia includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Pest Management Science, v.68, p.1083-1091. 2012. Available from: <Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ps.3271 >. Accessed: Jan. 30, 2020. doi: 10.1002/ps.3271.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3271.» https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ps.3271
• BROOKES, G.; P, BARFOOT. Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996-2016. GM Crops & Food, v.9, p.59-89. 2018. Available from: <Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866 >. Accessed: Jan. 12, 2020. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866.» https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866
• CALORE, R. A., et al., Efeitos de adjuvantes no controle de Enneothrips flavens Moulton, 1941 (Thysanoptera: trypidae) na cultura do amendoim. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrarias, p.74-81. 2015. Available from: Available from: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1190/119038296011.pdf Accessed: Jan. 30, 2021 doi: 10.5039/agraria.v10i1a5043.
  » https://doi.org/10.5039/agraria.v10i1a5043.» https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1190/119038296011.pdf
• CAPRIO, M. A.; D. V. SUMERFORD. Evaluating transgenic plants for suitability in pest and resistance management programs. In: L. A, LACEY.; H. K, KAYA Ed., Field Manual of Techniques in Invertebrate Pathology. NL: Kluwer Academic, 2018. p. 805-828.
• COMPANHIA NACIONAL DE ABASTECIMENTO (CONAB). 2021. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira de grãos. Brasília, DF, Brazil. Available from: Available from: https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos Accessed: Jan. 12, 2021.
  » https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos
• COUNCIL BIOTECHNOLOGY INFORMATION (CIB-Brazil). 2018. 20 years of GMOs: environmental, economic and social benefits in Brazil. Available from: <Available from: https://croplifebrasil.org/publicacoes/20-years-of-gmos-environmental-economic-and-social-benefits-in-brazil/ >. Accessed: Apr. 25, 2020.
  » https://croplifebrasil.org/publicacoes/20-years-of-gmos-environmental-economic-and-social-benefits-in-brazil/
• DE BORTOLI, S. A., et al., Ação de inseticidas sobre os ovos e lagartas da broca-pequena-do-fruto do tomate, em bioensaio de laboratório. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico, v.80, p.73-82. 2013. Available from: <Available from: https://www.scielo.br/j/aib/a/CM8mchkgx9nXYqLTNJzL58k/?lang=pt >. Accessed: May, 12, 2020. doi: 10.1590/S1808-16572013000100011.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-16572013000100011.» https://www.scielo.br/j/aib/a/CM8mchkgx9nXYqLTNJzL58k/?lang=pt
• DEMKOVICH, M. R., et al., Impact of agricultural adjuvants on the toxicity of the diamide insecticides chlorantraniliprole and flubendiamide on different life stages of the navel orange worm (Amyelois transitella). Journal Pest Science, v.91, p.1127-1136. 2018. Available from: <Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340-018-0959-z >. Accessed: May, 12, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s10340-018-0959-z.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0959-z.» https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340-018-0959-z
• DORAI-RAJ, S. (2009). binom: Binomial confidence intervals for several parameterizations. R package version 1.0-5. Available from: <Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/binom/binom.pdf >. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2020.
  » https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/binom/binom.pdf
• DOURIS, V., et al., Resistance mutation conserved between insects and mites unravels the benzoylurea insecticide mode of action on chitin biosynthesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, v.113, p.14692-14697. 2016. Available from: <Available from: https://www.pnas.org/content/113/51/14692.short >. Accessed: May, 22, 2020. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618258113.
  » https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618258113.» https://www.pnas.org/content/113/51/14692.short
• FEHR, W. R.; C. E, CAVINESS. Stages of soybean development. Special Report 87. 1981. Available from: <Available from: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/specialreports/87 >. Accessed: Mar. 20, 2020.
  » http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/specialreports/87
• FUNICHELLO, M., et al., Vertical distribution of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in transgenic and conventional cotton cultivars. Revista de Ciências Agroveterinárias, v.18, p.150-153. 2019. Available from: <Available from: https://www.revistas.udesc.br/index.php/agroveterinaria/article/view/10275 >. Accessed: Mar. 03, 2020. doi: 10.5965/223811711812019150.
  » https://doi.org/10.5965/223811711812019150.» https://www.revistas.udesc.br/index.php/agroveterinaria/article/view/10275
• GANGWAR, R. K., et al., Effect of surfactant on the efficacy of insecticides against onion thrips, Thrips tabaci Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, v.86, p.757-761. 2016. Available from: <Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gograj-Jat/publication/304958401_Effect_of_surfactant_on_the_efficacy_of_insecticides_against_onion_thrips_Thrips_tabaci/links/58a53cf1aca27206d985d37d/Effect-of-surfactant-on-the-efficacy-of-insecticides-against-onion-thrips-Thrips-tabaci.pdf >. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2020.
  » https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gograj-Jat/publication/304958401_Effect_of_surfactant_on_the_efficacy_of_insecticides_against_onion_thrips_Thrips_tabaci/links/58a53cf1aca27206d985d37d/Effect-of-surfactant-on-the-efficacy-of-insecticides-against-onion-thrips-Thrips-tabaci.pdf
• GREENBERG, S. M., et al., Effect of age of transgenic cotton on mortality of lepidopteran larvae. Southwest Entomologist, v.35, p.261-268. 2010. Available from: < <Available from: https://bioone.org/journals/Southwestern-Entomologist/volume-35/issue-3/059.035.0305/Effect-of-Age-of-Transgenic-Cotton-on-Mortality-of-Lepidopteran/10.3958/059.035.0305.short >. Accessed: Feb. 12, 2020. doi: 10.3958/059.035.0305.
  » https://doi.org/10.3958/059.035.0305.» https://bioone.org/journals/Southwestern-Entomologist/volume-35/issue-3/059.035.0305/Effect-of-Age-of-Transgenic-Cotton-on-Mortality-of-Lepidopteran/10.3958/059.035.0305.short
• GREENE, G. L., et al., Velvetbean caterpillar: a rearing procedure and artificial medium. Journal of Economic Entomology, v.69, p.488-497. 1976. Available from: <Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/69/4/487/2212175?login=true >. Accessed: Mar. 05, 2020. doi: 10.1093/jee/69.4.487.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/69.4.487.» https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/69/4/487/2212175?login=true
• LeOra Software. 2002. POLO-Plus Probit and logit analysis computer version 1.0. LeOra Software, Berkeley, CA. Available from: <Available from: https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr038/psw_gtr038.pdf >. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2020.
  » https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr038/psw_gtr038.pdf
• MARQUES, L. H., et al., Efficacy of soybean’s event DAS-81419-2 expressing Cry1F and Cry1Ac to manage key tropical lepidopteran pests under field conditions in Brazil. Journal of Economic Entomology, v.109, p.1922-1928. 2016. Available from: <Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/109/4/1922/2202885?login=true >. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2020. doi: 10.1093/jee/tow153.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow153.» https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/109/4/1922/2202885?login=true
• MARTIN JR, W. R.; T. M; BROWN. The action of acephate in Pseudoplusia includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Pristhesancus papuensis (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, v.5, p.3-9. 1985. Available from: <Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03350.x > Accessed: Jan. 06, 2020. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03350.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03350.x.» https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03350.x
• MELO, A. A., et al., Impact of tank-mix adjuvants on deposit formation, cuticular penetration and rain-induced removal of chlorantraniliprole. Crop Protection, v.78, p.253-262. 2015. Available from: < Available from: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0261219415301216 ?casa_token=HDu9QYC2gfgAAAAA :ejlkDdM1tZwTeLZkgoSpVZdegWgQhCWLemjeGSIHszWw _dHrMKPESOjI2LWAQy37aS0Q2 _zS >. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2015.09.021.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.09.021.» https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0261219415301216 ?casa_token=HDu9QYC2gfgAAAAA :ejlkDdM1tZwTeLZkgoSpVZdegWgQhCWLemjeGSIHszWw _dHrMKPESOjI2LWAQy37aS0Q2 _zS
• MELO, A. A., et al., Study of the effects of adjuvants associated with insecticides on the physicochemical properties of the spray solution and characterization of deposits on wheat and maize leaves under simulated rain. Engenharia Agrícola, v.39, p.315-322. 2019. Available from: <Available from: https://www.scielo.br/j/eagri/a/VZnddJkznN6Ps5kPBsbPXrD/?lang=en&format=html >. Accessed: Mar. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v39n3p315-322/2019.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v39n3p315-322/2019.» https://www.scielo.br/j/eagri/a/VZnddJkznN6Ps5kPBsbPXrD/?lang=en&format=html
• MURARO, D. S., et al., Baseline susceptibility of Brazilian populations of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to C. includens nucleopolyhedrovirus and diagnostic concentration for resistance monitoring. Journal of Economic Entomologic, v.112, p.349-354. 2019. Available from: <Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/112/1/349/5203831?login=true >. Accessed: Apr. 18, 2020. doi: doi.org/10.1093/jee/toy361.
  » https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1093/jee/toy361.» https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/112/1/349/5203831?login=true
• NASCIMENTO, R. B., et al., Genetic basis of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) resistance to the chitin synthesis inhibitor lufenuron. Pest Management Science, v.72, p.810-815. 2016. Available from: <Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ps.4057 >. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2020. doi:10.1002/ps.4057.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4057» https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ps.4057
• NEGASH, B., et al., Insecticide resistance management against thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on onion in the central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, v.40, p.1-9. 2020. Available from: <Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42690-020-00127-6 >. Accessed: Feb. 13, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s42690-020-00127-6.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s42690-020-00127-6.» https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42690-020-00127-6
• PAPA, G.; F. J. CELOTO. Lagartas na soja. 2007. Available from: <Available from: http://www.ilhasolteira.com.br/colunas/index.php?acao=verartigo&idarti go=1189090532 >. Accessed: Apr. 20, 2020.
  » http://www.ilhasolteira.com.br/colunas/index.php?acao=verartigo&idarti go=1189090532
• PANIZZI, A. R. History and contemporary perspectives of the Integrated Pest Management of soybean in Brazil. Neotropical Entomology, v.42, p.119-127. 2013. Available from: <Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13744-013-0111-y >. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s13744-013-0111-y.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-013-0111-y.» https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13744-013-0111-y
• PIMPRIKAR, G. D.; G. P. GEORGHIOU. Mechanisms of resistance to diflubenzuron in the house-fly, Musca domestica (L). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, v.12, p.10-22. 1979. Available from: <Available from: https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048357579900890 >. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1016/0048-3575(79)90089-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-3575(79)90089-0.» https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0048357579900890
• R CORE TEAM. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available from: <Available from: https://www.r-project.org/ >. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2020.
  » https://www.r-project.org/
• SANTOS, V. C, Insecticide resistance in populations of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), from the State of Pernambuco, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology, v.40, p.264-270. 2011. Available from: <Available from: https://www.scielo.br/j/ne/a/3TFstYkpWntyZ7WbfY8BT7w/abstract/?lang=en&format=html >. Accessed: Mar. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1590/S1519-566X2011000200017.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2011000200017.» https://www.scielo.br/j/ne/a/3TFstYkpWntyZ7WbfY8BT7w/abstract/?lang=en&format=html
• SANTOS, S. R., Interseasonal variation of Chrysodeixis includens (Walker, [1858]) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) populations in the Brazilian Savanna. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, v.61, p.294-299. 2017. Available from: <Available from: https://www.scielo.br/j/rbent/a/hqqBgYyfvxZBQtRKYtFMcHQ/abstract/?lang=en >. Accessed: Jan. 26, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.rbe.2017.06.006.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbe.2017.06.006.» https://www.scielo.br/j/rbent/a/hqqBgYyfvxZBQtRKYtFMcHQ/abstract/?lang=en
• SANTOS, C. A. M., Effect of addition of adjuvants on physical and chemical characteristics of Bt bioinsecticide mixture. Scientific Reports, v.9, p.1-8. 2019. Available from: <Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48939-y >. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-48939-y.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48939-y.» https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48939-y
• SAS INSTITUTE., 2002. Statistical analysis system: Getting started with the SAS learning. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Available from: <Available from: https://www.sas.com/pt_br/trials.html >. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2020.
  » https://www.sas.com/pt_br/trials.html
• SAVIN, N. E., et al., A critical evaluation of bioassay in insecticide research: likelihood ratio tests of dose-mortality regression. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, v.23, p.257-266. 1977. Available from: <Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ae/article-abstract/23/4/257/204203 >. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1093/besa/23.4.257.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/besa/23.4.257.» https://academic.oup.com/ae/article-abstract/23/4/257/204203
• SILVA, C. S., et al., Population expansion and genomic adaptation to agricultural environments of the soybean looper, Chrysodeixis includens Evolutionary Applications, v.13, p.2071-2085. 2020. Available from: <Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eva.12966 >. Accessed: Apr. 02, 2020. doi: 10.1111/eva.12966.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12966.» https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eva.12966
• SONODA, S.; TSUMUKI, H. (2005). Studies on glutathione S-transferase gene involved in chlorfluazuron resistance of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella L. (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, v.82, p.94-101. 2005. Available from: <Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357505000076 >. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2005.01.003.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2005.01.003.» https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357505000076
• SORGATTO, R. J., et al., Survival and development of Spodoptera frugiperda and Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Bt cotton and implications for resistance management strategies in Brazil. Environmental Entomology, v.44, p.186-192. 2015. Available from: <Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ee/article-abstract/44/1/186/2464807 >. Accessed: Jan. 21, 2020 doi: 10.1093/ee/nvu018.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvu018.» https://academic.oup.com/ee/article-abstract/44/1/186/2464807
• STACKE, R. F., et al., Susceptibility of Brazilian populations of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to selected insecticides. Journal of Economic Entomology, v.112, p.1378-1387. 2019. Available from: <Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/112/3/1378/5366978 >. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1093/jee/toz031.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toz031.» https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/112/3/1378/5366978
• STACKE, R. F., et al., Field-evolved resistance to chitin synthesis inhibitor insecticides by soybean looper, Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in Brazil. Chemosphere, v.259, p.127499. 2020. Available from: <Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653520316933 >. Accessed: Feb. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127499.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127499.» https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653520316933
• VAN LEEUWEN, T., Population bulk segregant mapping uncovers resistance mutations and the mode of action of a chitin synthesis inhibitor in arthropods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, v.109, p.4407-4412. 2012. Available from: <Available from: https://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4407.short >. Accessed: Jan. 15, 2020. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200068109.
  » https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200068109.» https://www.pnas.org/content/109/12/4407.short
• VIERA, M. S., et al., Multiresidue determination of pesticides in crop plants by the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe method and ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry using a calibration based on a single level standard addition in the sample. Journal of Chromatography A, v.1526, p.119-127. 2017. Available from: <Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29111101/ >. Accessed: Feb. 21, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2017.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2017.» https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29111101/

• CR-2021-0710.R1

Edited by

Editors: Leandro Souza da Silva (0000-0002-1636-6643) Uemerson Cunha (0000-0001-8005-4647)

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  06 June 2022
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  28 Sept 2021
• Accepted
  22 Feb 2022
• Reviewed
  27 Apr 2022