Resistance and cross‐resistance to imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in the Colorado potato beetle <i>Leptinotarsa decemlineata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major challenges in managing the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) is its remarkable ability to develop resistance to virtually every insecticide that has ever been used against it. Resistance is particularly common throughout northeastern USA as far north as Maine. The first instances of resistance to imidacloprid have already been reported from several locations in New York, Delaware and southern Maine. Rotating insecticides with different modes of action may delay insecticide resistance, but successful implementation of this technique depends on a good understanding of resistance and cross-resistance patterns in populations of target pests. LC(50) values were measured for imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in Colorado potato beetle populations from a variety of locations in the USA and Canada using diet incorporation bioassays. The field performance of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin against imidacloprid-resistant beetles on a commercial potato farm in southern Maine was also evaluated. Correlation between LC(50) values for imidacloprid and thiamethoxam was highly significant, even when populations previously exposed to thiamethoxam were excluded from the analysis. There was no statistically detectable difference in the LC(50) values between populations exposed to both insecticides and to imidacloprid alone. Applications of neonicotinoid insecticides at planting delayed build-up of imidacloprid-resistant beetle populations on field plots by 1-2 weeks but failed to provide adequate crop protection. Consistently with bioassay results, there was also substantial cross-resistance among the three tested neonicotinoid insecticides. Results of the present study support the recommendation to avoid rotating imidacloprid with thiamethoxam as a part of a resistance management plan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".