Control efficacy and resistance of spinetoram applied at different periods against Chilo suppressalis in rice

doi:10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240043

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the control efficacy of insecticides sprayed at different infestation periods of Chilo suppressalis and to assess the resistance of Chilo suppressalis larvae to spinetoram in various towns and subdistricts, rice seedling dipping method and field trials were conducted. The results showed that 25% spinetoram water-dispersible granules (WG) demonstrated better seedling protection and insecticidal effects when applied at a deadheart rate ≤10%, especially when the deadheart rate was 0%-5%. At 20 days after application, the insecticidal and seedling protection effects reached 64.40% and 68.62%, respectively. However, when applied at a deadheart rate >15%, the insecticidal and seedling protection effects of 25% spinetoram WG at 20 days after application were relatively poor, at 17.78% and 21.74%, respectively. Significant differences in resistance levels to spinetoram were observed among Chilo suppressalis larvae from different towns and subdistricts. Larvae from Xiangxi Town, Shuiting Town, Yongchang Subdistrict, Shanghua Subdistrict, and Youbu Town had developed moderate resistance to spinetoram, with Youbu Town exhibiting the highest resistance (LC₉₀ = 633.34 mg·L^-1). Overall, spinetoram exhibited high biological activity against Chilo suppressalis larvae in most towns and subdistricts. Field application of 25% spinetoram WG is recommended when the deadheart rate is ≤10%, and it can be mixed or alternated with other insecticides for enhanced control.

Key words: Chilo suppressalis, spinetoram, different application periods, resistance, control efficacy

CLC Number:

S435.112.1

CAO Mi'na, WU Cong. Control efficacy and resistance of spinetoram applied at different periods against Chilo suppressalis in rice[J]. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural Sciences, 2025, 66(5): 1232-1236.

Figures/Tables 2

References 32

[1]	黄希晨. 浙江省兰溪市农户异质性对农民专业合作社参与意愿的影响研究[D]. 舟山: 浙江海洋大学, 2022.
[2]	陈朱侃, 胡海超, 蒋红旗, 等. “菜用春大豆—单季稻—兰溪小萝卜” 高效轮作模式[J]. 蔬菜, 2019(4): 35-37.
[3]	胡庆松, 章贤兴. 兰溪市早稻生产全程机械化技术要点[J]. 南方农机, 2019, 50(19): 66.
[4]	徐旱增. 婺城区早稻二化螟的发生及防治对策[J]. 农技服务, 2020, 37(6): 76, 78.
[5]	李树平. 兴国县二化螟发生加重的原因及防治对策[J]. 农业科技与信息, 2023(2): 81-84.
[6]	张颜山, 曾凡杜, 冯艺, 等. 永兴县水稻二化螟发生原因分析及其防控措施[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2022(5): 60-62.
[7]	阳初辉, 李安定. 双峰县水稻二化螟上升原因分析及综合防治技术探讨[J]. 作物研究, 2006, 20(1): 77-79.
[8]	刘志峰, 廖晓军, 龙洪圣, 等. 稻田耕沤对早稻一代二化螟防控效果[J]. 生物灾害科学, 2021, 44(1): 37-40.
[9]	李馨宇, 潘长虹, 惠淼, 等. 9种药剂防治水稻二化螟的研究[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2004, 32(3): 469, 473.
[10]	戴长庚, 李鸿波, 魏琪, 等. 5种杀虫剂对二化螟不同龄期幼虫的毒力和防效[J]. 杂交水稻, 2022, 37(3): 25-28.
[11]	何月平. 二化螟抗药性监测及治理与高毒农药替代药剂筛选研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2008.
[12]	徐鹿, 孙杨, 刘宝生, 等. 二化螟对双酰胺类杀虫剂抗性的分子机制研究进展[J]. 农药学学报, 2023, 25(2): 257-266.
[13]	胡仕孟, 谢士杰, 徐善刚, 等. 浙江慈溪水稻二化螟抗药性研究初报[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2001, 13(1): 38-41.
[14]	杨眉, 褚晋, 邵凌云, 等. 辽宁省不同地区水稻二化螟对阿维菌素的抗药性研究[J]. 中国稻米, 2022, 28(6): 94-97.
[15]	王瑛楠, 凌汉, 唐涛, 等. 2017—2020年江苏省二化螟抗药性水平的监测与分析[J]. 世界农药, 2022, 44(11): 31-35, 40.
[16]	LU Y H, WANG G R, ZHONG L Q, et al. Resistance monitoring of Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) to chlorantraniliprole in eight field populations from east and Central China[J]. Crop Protection, 2017, 100: 196-202.
[17]	周丽琪. 二化螟抗药性监测及对氯虫苯甲酰胺的抗性分子机制研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2017.
[18]	顾国伟, 凌小明, 应小军, 等. 余姚地区二化螟抗性水平及防治药剂筛选[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2016, 57(2): 229-230.
[19]	SPARKS T C, CROUSE G D, DRIPPS J E, et al. Neural network-based QSAR and insecticide discovery: spinetoram[J]. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2008, 22(6/7): 393-401.
[20]	YEE W L. Spinosad versus spinetoram effects on kill and oviposition of Rhagoletis indifferens (Diptera: Tephritidae) at differing fly ages and temperatures[J]. Journal of Insect Science, 2018, 18(4): 15.
[21]	董丽娜, 华登科, 郑晓斌, 等. 不同杀虫剂对烟蓟马的室内毒力与田间防效[J]. 植物保护, 2021, 47(2): 262-266.
[22]	顾辉, 谢原利, 张欧, 等. 25%乙基多杀菌素水分散粒剂防治水稻二化螟田间药效试验示范[J]. 湖北植保, 2022(1): 25-26.
[23]	应小军, 魏杰, 顾国伟, 等. 甲维·甲虫肼等11种杀虫剂防治水稻二化螟的效果[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2018, 59(3): 492-493.
[24]	莫昌乐, 赵明平, 刘雪源, 等. 乙基多杀菌素与阿维菌素混用对水稻稻纵卷叶螟及二化螟的田间防治效果[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2017(7): 65-67.
[25]	吴敏, 张真真, 高聪芬. 水稻二化螟抗药性监测方法[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2013, 50(2): 548-552.
[26]	陈长琨, 李秀峰, 韩召军, 等. 二化螟抗药性监测方法及相对敏感基线[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2000, 23(4): 25-28.
[27]	TANG Q Y, ZHANG C X. Data Processing System (DPS) software with experimental design, statistical analysis and data mining developed for use in entomological research[J]. Insect Science, 2013, 20(2): 254-260.
[28]	MAO K K, LI W H, LIAO X, et al. Dynamics of insecticide resistance in different geographical populations of Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in China 2016-2018[J]. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2019, 112(4): 1866-1874.
[29]	王星, 李宽, 蒋敏华. 不同药剂防治水稻二化螟的效果试验[J]. 上海农业科技, 2023(1): 120-121.
[30]	唐涛, 符伟, 王培, 等. 不同类型杀虫剂对水稻二化螟及稻纵卷叶螟的田间防治效果评价[J]. 植物保护, 2016, 42(3): 222-228.
[31]	丁和明. 2013年崇阳县水稻二化螟发生特点及防治措施[J]. 植物医生, 2014(1): 6-7.
[32]	伍建平. 兰溪市游埠镇农业种植现状与结构调整对策[J]. 现代农业科技, 2017(8): 270, 273.

处理	喷药后10 d				喷药后20 d
处理	50丛活虫数/头	杀虫效果/%	枯心率/%	保苗效果/%	50丛活虫数/头	杀虫效果/%	枯心率/%	保苗效果/%
1	13.44±1.67	74.69 a A	1.21±0.31	73.30 a A	19.78±0.58	64.40 a A	1.36±0.26	68.62 a A
2	20.22±2.17	68.84 a A	2.23±0.44	68.32 a A	33.33±2.08	52.23 a A	3.19±0.77	55.13 a A
3	44.11±3.48	43.69 b B	5.97±0.70	43.39 b B	59.78±7.37	26.40 b B	7.95±1.24	29.09 b B
4	62.67±9.10	20.00 c C	13.05±2.27	29.10 c C	66.78±3.21	17.78 c C	14.79±2.59	21.74 b B
CK1	52.11±13.17	0 d D	4.54±0.70	0 d D	55.56±12.58	0 d D	4.32±0.72	0 c C
CK2	64.88±9.01	0 d D	7.03±1.01	0 d D	69.78±2.31	0 d D	7.12±0.88	0 c C
CK3	74.67±1.32	0 d D	10.55±1.76	0 d D	74.67±1.53	0 d D	11.21±1.27	0 c C
CK4	78.33±9.33	0 d D	18.41±2.34	0 d D	81.22±6.56	0 d D	18.90±2.31	0 c C

处理	喷药后10 d				喷药后20 d
处理	50丛活虫数/头	杀虫效果/%	枯心率/%	保苗效果/%	50丛活虫数/头	杀虫效果/%	枯心率/%	保苗效果/%
1	13.44±1.67	74.69 a A	1.21±0.31	73.30 a A	19.78±0.58	64.40 a A	1.36±0.26	68.62 a A
2	20.22±2.17	68.84 a A	2.23±0.44	68.32 a A	33.33±2.08	52.23 a A	3.19±0.77	55.13 a A
3	44.11±3.48	43.69 b B	5.97±0.70	43.39 b B	59.78±7.37	26.40 b B	7.95±1.24	29.09 b B
4	62.67±9.10	20.00 c C	13.05±2.27	29.10 c C	66.78±3.21	17.78 c C	14.79±2.59	21.74 b B
CK1	52.11±13.17	0 d D	4.54±0.70	0 d D	55.56±12.58	0 d D	4.32±0.72	0 c C
CK2	64.88±9.01	0 d D	7.03±1.01	0 d D	69.78±2.31	0 d D	7.12±0.88	0 c C
CK3	74.67±1.32	0 d D	10.55±1.76	0 d D	74.67±1.53	0 d D	11.21±1.27	0 c C
CK4	78.33±9.33	0 d D	18.41±2.34	0 d D	81.22±6.56	0 d D	18.90±2.31	0 c C

采集点	回归方程	相关系数	LC₅₀/(mg·L^-1)		LC₉₀/(mg·L^-1)		抗性倍数	抗性水平
采集点	回归方程	相关系数	均值	95%置信水平	均值	95%置信水平	抗性倍数	抗性水平
云山街道	y=-0.88+2.85x	0.99	1.80	1.44~2.23	12.33	7.77~16.84	5.63	低
赤溪街道	y=-1.21+3.44x	0.98	2.00	1.40~3.02	10.13	7.53~24.68	6.25	低
兰江街道	y=-0.76+3.38x	0.99	1.53	1.17~1.88	9.74	6.42~12.48	4.78	低
永昌街道	y=-2.28+0.28x	0.98	15.54	10.39~20.82	171.88	138.54~226.08	48.56	中
上华街道	y=-3.77+1.22x	0.97	20.79	13.55~24.41	185.23	128.95~234.36	64.97	中
女埠街道	y=1.36+1.69x	0.98	0.13	0.03~0.28	15.68	3.25~66.58	0.39	低
诸葛镇	y=1.45+1.54x	0.99	0.15	0.08~0.31	17.75	12.12~23.34	0.47	低
黄店镇	y=1.36+1.69x	0.98	0.13	0.03~0.28	14.83	10.51~26.11	0.39	低
游埠镇	y=-3.95+1.54x	0.97	23.33	9.06~45.12	633.34	373.61~1 266.53	72.91	中
横溪镇	y=0.92+1.66x	0.97	0.29	0.07~0.65	15.71	1.54~138.75	0.90	低
梅江镇	y=-0.75+1.68x	0.95	0.22	0.11~0.67	20.65	15.22~22.11	0.69	低
香溪镇	y=-3.44+2.14x	0.99	12.82	5.56~20.87	167.19	13.88~310.15	40.06	中
马涧镇	y=-1.65+1.24x	0.93	2.35	1.44~4.91	22.96	13.87~54.54	7.34	低
柏社乡	y=-0.90+2.18x	0.99	1.15	0.27~3.65	25.41	11.42~50.05	3.59	低
灵洞乡	y=-0.71+2.99x	0.99	2.33	1.91~4.72	19.85	9.82~35.21	7.28	低
水亭乡	y=-4.11+1.08x	0.97	12.91	8.15~15.52	148.66	89.55~198.11	40.34	中

采集点	回归方程	相关系数	LC₅₀/(mg·L^-1)		LC₉₀/(mg·L^-1)		抗性倍数	抗性水平
采集点	回归方程	相关系数	均值	95%置信水平	均值	95%置信水平	抗性倍数	抗性水平
云山街道	y=-0.88+2.85x	0.99	1.80	1.44~2.23	12.33	7.77~16.84	5.63	低
赤溪街道	y=-1.21+3.44x	0.98	2.00	1.40~3.02	10.13	7.53~24.68	6.25	低
兰江街道	y=-0.76+3.38x	0.99	1.53	1.17~1.88	9.74	6.42~12.48	4.78	低
永昌街道	y=-2.28+0.28x	0.98	15.54	10.39~20.82	171.88	138.54~226.08	48.56	中
上华街道	y=-3.77+1.22x	0.97	20.79	13.55~24.41	185.23	128.95~234.36	64.97	中
女埠街道	y=1.36+1.69x	0.98	0.13	0.03~0.28	15.68	3.25~66.58	0.39	低
诸葛镇	y=1.45+1.54x	0.99	0.15	0.08~0.31	17.75	12.12~23.34	0.47	低
黄店镇	y=1.36+1.69x	0.98	0.13	0.03~0.28	14.83	10.51~26.11	0.39	低
游埠镇	y=-3.95+1.54x	0.97	23.33	9.06~45.12	633.34	373.61~1 266.53	72.91	中
横溪镇	y=0.92+1.66x	0.97	0.29	0.07~0.65	15.71	1.54~138.75	0.90	低
梅江镇	y=-0.75+1.68x	0.95	0.22	0.11~0.67	20.65	15.22~22.11	0.69	低
香溪镇	y=-3.44+2.14x	0.99	12.82	5.56~20.87	167.19	13.88~310.15	40.06	中
马涧镇	y=-1.65+1.24x	0.93	2.35	1.44~4.91	22.96	13.87~54.54	7.34	低
柏社乡	y=-0.90+2.18x	0.99	1.15	0.27~3.65	25.41	11.42~50.05	3.59	低
灵洞乡	y=-0.71+2.99x	0.99	2.33	1.91~4.72	19.85	9.82~35.21	7.28	低
水亭乡	y=-4.11+1.08x	0.97	12.91	8.15~15.52	148.66	89.55~198.11	40.34	中