Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35447807›Full record

ArticleInsects2022

Marcelo M Rabelo, Izailda B Santos, Silvana V Paula-Moraes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insects, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marcelo M RabeloWest Florida Research and Education Center, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Jay, FL 32565, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7145-3945
Izailda B SantosWest Florida Research and Education Center, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Jay, FL 32565, USA.
Silvana V Paula-MoraesWest Florida Research and Education Center, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Jay, FL 32565, USA.

Funding

Florida Peanut Checkoff funds n/aNational Institute of Food and Agriculture 005643National Institute of Food and Agriculture 005649
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the United States, beet armyworm resistance to both chlorantraniliprole and bifenthrin insecticides was first reported in 2020. Here we examined beet armyworm fitness and stability of resistance to chlorantraniliprole and pyrethroid insecticides since knowledge of the stability of resistance is a crucial aspect when recommending rotation of insecticides with different mode of action. Concentration-mortality bioassays were performed with field and laboratory susceptible populations. The F2, F13, and F27 generations of the field-derived population, maintained in the laboratory without insecticide, were exposed to commercial formulations of bifenthrin and chlorantraniliprole using the leaf-dip bioassay method (IRAC n. 007). Insects from F27 had the fitness components (survival, body weight, development time) documented and compared by LSM in each insecticide concentration tested. The resistance ratio to chlorantraniliprole reached 629, 80, 15-fold at F2, F13, and F27, respectively. These results contrast with an over 1000-fold resistance ratio to bifenthrin in all generations. The field-derived population had fitness reduced by chlorantraniliprole, but not by bifenthrin. In summary, the resistance of beet armyworm to bifenthrin was stable with no shift in fitness. In contrast, resistance to chlorantraniliprole was not stable through the generations kept in the laboratory without selection pressure, likely due to fitness cost.

Indexed as

beet armywormbifenthrinchlorantraniliprole

Identifiers

PMID35447807
PMCPMC9030708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.