IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jasjnl/v8y2016i7p61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Laboratory Populations: Is It Representative for Bioassays in Relation to Field Populations of Oriental Fruit Moth?

Author

Listed:
  • Rosangela Teixeira
  • Lino Monteiro
  • Izonete Guiloski
  • Helena Assis
  • Anderson Zanatta

Abstract

The use of laboratory insects for physiological studies, both genetic and toxicological, has become very common, but the continuous strains available in the laboratory for several generations without the insertion of genetic material can change the wild phenotypic and behavioral characteristics of the population compared with the field population. The aim of this research was to evaluate susceptility of field and laboratory Oriental Fruit Moth populations with the insecticide, based in toxicological, biochemical, and physicochemical characteristics. Experiments were conducted with four groups of chemical insecticides serving as chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, deltamethrin, and tebufenozide, with seven concentrations defined after pilot testing. Thereafter, the activity of acetylcholinesterase (AchE), glutathione S-transferase (GST), and Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) was evaluated. It was possible to detect differences between populations with regard to carbaryl and chlorpyrifos insecticides. The infrared analysis showed that the populations were distinct from each other, and they exhibit high activity of GST and AchE. The populations from both the field and the laboratory are different in their susceptibility to insecticides.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosangela Teixeira & Lino Monteiro & Izonete Guiloski & Helena Assis & Anderson Zanatta, 2016. "Laboratory Populations: Is It Representative for Bioassays in Relation to Field Populations of Oriental Fruit Moth?," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(7), pages 1-61, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:8:y:2016:i:7:p:61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/download/56883/32423
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/view/56883
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:8:y:2016:i:7:p:61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.