|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 279
Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management.
1986. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Prediction or Resistance
Risk Assessment
JOHANNES KEIDING
Resistance risk, or the potentialfor development of Weld resistance
to pesticides, depends on genetic and biologicalfactors characteristic
of the pest species and the local population and of operational fac-
tors, that is, the way pest control is carried out and the history of
pesticide use. Thus, for resistance risk assessment (RRAJ these fac-
tors must be considered and investigated. As an example the RRA
in house py populations on Danish farms from 1948 to 1983 is
discussed. Farmers, pesticide producers, and scientists closely co-
operated in this work. As a result many new insecticides and types
of applications have been rejected owing to high resistance risk,
while others have been recommended. Reference is made to RRA for
insecticides and acaricides in selected national and international
programs to control important veterinary and agricultural pests. For
RRA in insecticides the following general points are discussed: (1) the
use of laboratory versus field selection, (2 J geographical differences,
and (3) the fitness of resistant genotypes and phenotypes. RRA for
fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides, and veterinary nematicides is
discussed briefly. The paper concludes with lists of elements of RRA
and research needs and discussions of the organization, interpre-
tation, and use of RRA.
INTRODUCTION
Before a new pesticide is introduced for wide-scale field use, it is important
to estimate the potential for significant "field resistance" (Davies, 1984) in
the pests for which it is intended. Resistance risk assessment (RRA) concerns
279
OCR for page 280
280
DETECTION, MONITORING, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
TABLE 1 Genetic, Biological, and Operational Factors Influencing
Resistance Risk
General Factor
Specific Factors
Existence of genetic resistance characters (A-genes, it-alleles)
Frequency of occurrence of resistance characters
Number of genes needed to cause resistance
Interaction of genes
Dominance of genes
Penetrance of genes
Past selection by other chemicals
Fitness of the R-geno- and phenotypes in the presence or absence of
the insecticide
Genetic
Biological
Operational
Reproduction (generations, offspring, etc.)
Climatic and other ecological conditions
Behavior
Isolation, migration, and refugia
History of insecticide applications
Persistence of insecticide
Method of insecticide application (frequency, coverage, life stage(s)
exposed, residual effect, etc.)
SOURCE: Modified from Georghiou and Taylor (1977).
the present occurrence of resistance and its potential development, including
the rate and extent of development. An RRA should refer to a specific pest
species, geographical area, ecological situation, history of pesticide use, and
type of formulation/application. Estimating the potential for developing re-
sistance to a pesticide can be very difficult, yet an assessment can make the
introduction and use of new pesticides more intelligent and thus avoid big
problems. In this paper I will discuss (1) how to estimate resistance risk:
methods, factors, conditions, difficulties, and research needs; (2) how to
organize and coordinate the investigations; and (3) how to interpret and use
the results. As I am most familiar with resistance to insecticides, I shall start
by discussing RRA for chemical control of insects, ticks, and mites and then
deal with special problems concerning other pesticides, fungicides, herbi-
cides, rodenticides, and compounds to control parasitic nematodes.
INSECTICIDE AND ACARICIDE RESISTANCE
Resistance risk depends on genetic, biological, and operational factors,
and these must be included in any resistance risk assessment. As shown in
Table 1 a resistance risk cannot be assigned to a given insecticide or a given
pest species it must relate to the local pest population, with its character-
istics and conditions, and the way the insecticide is applied. (For a more
OCR for page 281
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT
281
detailed discussion of factors influencing the development of resistance, see
Georghiou and Taylor, 1977 and Georghiou, this volume.)
HOUSE FLY RESISTANCE
The Danish Experience
As an example of how to estimate resistance risk in practice, I shall briefly
describe the work of the Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory (DAPIL) on
house fly resistance to insecticides in Denmark and elsewhere (Keiding,
1977~. In Denmark the house fly, Musca clomestica, is primarily a pest on
farms with pigs and calves, and in recent years poultry. Chemical fly control
is carried out in animal houses using residual sprays, space sprays, and spot
treatments with impregnated strips or bait paints or with larvicides. Devel-
opment of resistance has been favored by (1) the organized and extensive
use of insecticides and (2) the relatively low migration of flies between the
farms.
Since 1945 DAPIL~ has received good cooperation from the farmers
associations and many farms, the pesticide industry, and the research labo-
rator~es overseas doing basic research on insecticide resistance in our and
other house fly strains. The cooperation with the farmers gave DAPIL the
essential current information on the effect of various insecticides, formula-
tions, and applications that enabled us to follow the development of resistance
and to detect and study early cases. Such cooperation is also necessary for
the organization of field trials. The use of insecticides for fly control and
the development of resistance from 1945 to 1983 are shown in Figure 1.
The main elements we found to be important in conducting our BRA were
as follows:
;'
Surveillance of Resistance Occurrence
.
· Obtain information, complaints, inquiries, and so forth, from farmers
pest control operators, and others
· Determine resistance by standard methods in the laboratory and the field
· Conduct systematic surveys to determine the distribution and level of
various types of resistance in the state
Research on and Surveillance of Cross-resistance and Type of Resistance
· Conduct cross-resistance tests
· Determine resistance mechanisms and their diagnoses (e.g., by use of
a synergist)
'DAPIL combines an advisory service, evaluation of new insectides, formulations and applications
and research and development on pest control, biology, and resistance.
OCR for page 282
282
[I ~ ~ k ~ ·o
21~- ~ C E C
[___ ~ C ~ ~
L 1[ ~: ~E ~ ~
~ 1~- r -T ~ ~ E ~
t i T L a ~ E
4 ~ ~ if i
Ed ~ a.,
~ 0
<, a ~
0 0 C
~ c a
~ :rn ~
1:
t T:
D:
Fir ~
~:E
Cat
4_
O
~S
O O O
Cat Cat Cat
a, ~a'
.
~C) ~
. ~a ·4_
at ~ ~
ca cat ~ca
04 ~
o
a,
Cat
Cat
At
cn
SO
0,
Cat
C)
C)
in
· -
o Hi
Hi
3 a
3
~ V]
o
._'
. ~
OCR for page 283
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT
283
· Determine the genetics of the resistance (genes involved, dominance,
fitness of genotypes)
· Survey resistance types and frequency of phenotypes
· Establish a collection of strains representing the important resistant types
and their combinations
Studies on the Dynamics of Resistance Development: Operational and Eco-
logical Factors
· Conduct studies under field conditions, rather than laboratory experi
ments
· Follow development of resistance through small-scale field trials
· Monitor, over several years, the development of resistance and cross-
resistance to widespread use of insecticides, formulations, application, effect
of alternating treatments, and the like
· Collect information on the time of development and the stability of
resistance
· Study the basic population dynamics and behavior of the pest under
field conditions and under different ecological conditions
The cooperation between the pesticide industry and DAPIL on the house
fly problem has played an important role in the possibility of assessing the
resistance risk of new compounds and of using this assessment to: (1) conduct
cross-resistance tests using a suitable range of our collection of resistant
strains; (2) monitor field populations for resistance to the new compound;
(3) conduct small-scale field trials with the new compound, possibly in two
or more formulations/applications, to see if resistance may develop rapidly;
(4) use the information from (1), (2), and (3) to decide whether and how to
introduce the new compound for fly control and how to use it; (5) follow
the development of resistance to the new compound when it is widely used
and adjust the yearly recommendations for fly control accordingly; and (6)
make available to industry our general and specific knowledge of the resis-
tance situation and the factors involved, for example, by annual reports. The
cooperation with scientists in other countries resulted in much useful, timely
information on mechanisms and genetics of resistance (Keiding, 1977; Saw-
icki and Keiding, 1981), which could be used for our RRA.
First, DAPIL used the RRA to explain to, convince, or persuade companies
that certain insecticides or applications with high resistance and cross-resis-
tance risks should not be introduced, or that it might be advantageous to
make available an insecticide application with a low resistance risk. For
example, in 1948 DAPIL found that high DDT resistance extended to avail-
able DDT analogues these were not introduced. In the mid-19SOs DAPIL
persuaded industry not to sell any organochlorine insecticides for fly control.
Owing to rapid development of resistance in small-scale field trials, the
following insecticides were not introduced for fly control on Danish farms:
OCR for page 284
284
DETECTION, MONITORING, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
the organophosphorus compounds coumaphos (1955), coumithoate (1957),
formothion (1965), phosmet (1968), tetrachlorvinphos (1969), and azame-
thiphos residual spray (1981); the carbamate mobam (1967).
In other cases DAPIL found that high resistance to new compounds was
already present, due to cross-resistance. This happened for most OF com-
pounds and carbamates in the 1970s, when dimethoate had been commonly
used for five to seven years and high resistance had become widespread.
Researchers in England (Sawicki, 1974, 1975; Sawicki and Keiding, 1981)
studied the resistance (R) mechanisms, their genetics, and interaction of this
resistance and showed that insensitive target (cholinesterase) and several
detoxification processes were involved. This research explained the cross-
resistance and demonstrated the importance of the sequence of use of insec-
ticides (Sawicki, 1975; Keiding, 1977; Sawicki and Keiding, 1981~.
The most striking example of RRA was that of pyrethroid resistance.
Investigations from 1970 to 1973 showed that house flies on Danish farms
had a common potential for developing high resistance to pyrethroids when
the selection pressure with pyrethroids was strong, for example, by frequent
use of pyrethroid aerosols (Keiding, 1976~. If aerosols were used less fre-
quently, however, once a week or less, allowing some unexposed flies to
reproduce, the resistance might remain low and the aerosols would remain
effective. Knowing that treatments with residual sprays give a strong selection
pressure, DAPIL advised the companies and the authorities not to introduce
residual sprays with pyrethroids for fly control on farms. The advice was
followed, even though there was no proper legal basis for banning residual
pyrethroids for fly control until 1980.2 In the meantime DAPIL received
further support for this decision.
In 1977 and 1978 DAPIL found that heterogeneous resistance to candidate
residual pyrethroids was widespread on Danish farms, and the resistance
factor kdr, which causes resistance to DDT and pyrethroids (in connection
with other factors), occurred in practically all fly populations investigated
(Keiding, 1978, 1979, 1980; Keiding and Skovmand, 19X41. The predicted
rapid development of general pyrethroid resistance when residual pyrethroids
were used was confirmed in Switzerland (Keiding, 1980), in Germany
(Skovmand and Keiding, 1980; Kunast, 1979), and England (Chapman and
Lloyd, 1981~. In Denmark we continue to avoid the residual pyrethroids for
fly control. The aerosols with pyrethrum, and the like, are still effective,
and pyrethroid resistance is low or moderate.
2The Danish "Act on Chemical Compounds and Products," passed in 1980, empowers the Danish
Ministry of Environment to require, before registration, experimental data on cross-resistance and
the potential for developing resistance. If the data indicate that resistance will quickly make the
product ineffective and/or its use will result in resistance to useful products, the registration may be
refused (Sawicki, 1981). Registrations also may be withdrawn if general development of resistance
is found after a period of use.
OCR for page 285
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT
285
The experience with fly control illustrates another principle, already men-
tioned in this volume (see section on Genetics, Biochemical, and Physio-
logical Mechanisms of Resistance to Pesticides), that development of resistance
depends on the type of formulation and application used, owing to difference
in selection pressure. Thus, for the flies, bait applications promote less
resistance than residual sprays, and knock-down sprays less than residual
pyrethroids.
Several results from DAPIL's lengthy studies have been positive, resulting
in recommendations of formulations. Three OF compounds are registered as
bait formulations, but not as residual sprays, because of the resistance risk.
OF compounds were effective on flies resistant to organochIorines in the
early 1950s, and various compounds and applications were recommended
(Figure 1~. Fenthion, and especially dimethoate, were effective and were
recommended when other OPs failed. Tests with a variety of resistant fly
strains, including high multiresistance, showed susceptibility to the devel-
opment inhibitors diflubenzuron and cyromazine, used as larvicides, without
significant resistance development after selection pressure (Keiding and E1-
Khodary, 19831. In addition the extensive data collected on the development
of resistance in house fly populations on farms since 194X are being put into
a data base, which should provide greater possibilities for analyzing resistance
risks under various conditions (Keiding et al., 19831.
Resistance in Other Regions
Sequential development of resistance in field populations of house flies
also has been studied in Czechoslovakia (Rupee et al., 1983), California
(Georghiou and Hawley, 1971), and Japan (Yasutomi and Shudo, 1978) and
has been used as a guide for choosing new insecticides. In addition house
fly samples from many parts of the world have been tested for resistance by
Keiding, Hayashi, Kano, and others (Keiding, 1977; Taylor 1982~. These
surveys have provided information on the global occurrence of various types
of resistance and the resistance risks. An important finding was that DOT
resistance occurs everywhere, but only in some areas in northern Europe is
the kdr factor for DOT resistance common (Keiding, 1977; Keiding and
Skovmand, 1984~. Since kdr is also an important factor for pyrethroid re-
sistance, the risk for development of high pyrethroid resistance is still lower
in all the areas where kdr is rare or absent.
China recently surveyed for resistance in more than 400 field samples of
house flies. As no sign of pyrethroid-R or the kdr factor was found, China
recommended the use of residual pyrethroids for fly control (Gao lin-ya,
Institute of Zoology, Acad. Sinika, Beijing, personal communication, 1983~.
In Japan where kdr is rare, high pyrethroid resistance was not found until
after six years of fly control with a residual pyrethroid (Motoyama, 1984~;
OCR for page 286
4 286
DETECTION, MONITORING, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
in areas of Europe where kdr is common, high pyrethroid resistance developed
in a few months.
Examples from Other Insect and Mite Species
National Programs The following are examples of some of the many
systematic, long-term programs on development, types, and risk of resis-
tance. The development of multiple resistance in the cattle tick Boophilus
microplus in Australia has been investigated for about 30 years by the Com-
monwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) tick
laboratory in Queensland (Nolan and Roulston, 1979; Roulston et al., 1981~.
This work includes all the factors of importance to RRA: (1) close cooperation
with farmers to obtain early detection of resistance, (2) investigation of
resistance mechanisms and their genetics to define resistant types and cross-
resistance spectra, (3) surveys of the distribution of resistant types, (4) studies
and modeling of the dynamics of resistance development, (5) cooperation
with industry to test new acaricides against tick strains representing the
resistant strains, (6) field trials with promising acaricides and types of ap-
plication, and (7) advice to farmers on control methods. Investigations of
resistance in the sheep blow fly, Lucilia cuprina, in Australia, begun about
25 years ago, contain the same elements as mentioned for the cattle tick,
including surveys of resistance gene frequency and fitness in field populations
(Hughes, 1981, 1982, 1983; Hughes and Devonshire, 1982; McKenzie et
al., 1980; Whitten and McKenzie, 19821.
Among agricultural pests are the following examples. Comprehensive
investigations were begun more than 20 years ago on leaf- and planthoppers
attacking rice in Japan. These include extensive resistance surveys, studies
of resistance mechanisms and genetics, and trials of many new insecti-
cides, especially the effect of using mixtures or alternating treatments
(Saito and Miyata, 1982; Hama, 1975, 19801. Surveys, resistance mech-
anisms, and genetic research have been conducted on the aphids Myzus
persicae in Britain (Sawicki et al., 1978) and Phorodon humuli in Czecho-
slovakia (Hrdy, 1975, 1979; Sula et al., 1981~. National RRA programs
have been conducted in Egypt on cotton pests, especially the leafworm,
Spodoptera; in Australia on spider mites (Dittrich, 1979) and Heliothis
ssp. (Davies, 19841; and in the United States on spider mites and Heliothis
(Sparks, 1981; Bull, 1981~. Spider mites in several countries also have
been investigated (Dittrich, 19754.
International Programs The World Health Organization (WHO) has or-
ganized global programs for detecting and monitoring resistance in vectors
and pests of medical importance, especially vector mosquitoes; WHO also
OCR for page 287
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT
287
has supported many studies on resistance genetics and resistance types oc-
curring in vectors (WHO, 1980), as well as trials on the dynamics of resis-
tance development (Curtis, 19811. Moreover, WHO has organized a Pesticide
Evaluation Scheme including tests of new insecticides from industry with
some resistant strains of mosquitoes, flies, and the like. The United Nations'
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAG) has organized a global survey of
pesticide susceptibility of stored-grain pests (Champ and Dyte, 1976), in-
cluding some typing of OP resistance.
Laboratory Versus Field Selection
Experience and theoretical considerations have shown that the predictive
value of investigating resistance risk through laboratory selection is limited.
If resistance develops when an insect population is exposed to selection
pressure with an insecticide through a number of generations, the ability of
resistance exists, but the level, type, and rate at which it develops may be
quite different from what happens under field conditions. If a laboratory
selection is negative and no resistance develops, one may conclude very
little. There is no guarantee that resistance will not develop in the field (Pal
and Brown, 19711. For example, in the 1950s, laboratory strains of house
flies were selected at the Riverside Laboratory in California for 19 to 149
generations with various OF compounds; only a slow and moderate increase
of tolerance was obtained, compared to what later developed in the field (Pal
and Brown, 19711.
There may be several reasons for the differences between laboratory and
field selection: for example, ( 1) because of the smaller gene pool in laboratory
selection, rare resistance genes and ancillary genes may be missing; (2) a
difference in insecticide pressure often results in lower mortality in the lab-
oratory than in the field; laboratory selection may exploit polygenic variation
while field selection tends to act on alleles of single resistance genes (Whitten
and McKenzie, 1982~; (3) a difference in the fitness of resistance genotypes;
and (4) a difference in natural selection. Therefore, if laboratory selection
is used for RRA: (1) the gene pool should be as big as possible and should
be taken from natural populations initially; and (2) insecticide pressure,
ecological conditions, and natural selection should simulate that occurring
in the field. Small-scale control trials on isolated or semi-isolated field pop-
ulations with monitoring of resistance often may be better than laboratory
trials, provided such field selection is feasible, for example, on farms with
house flies in Denmark, pests in greenhouses (Helle and van de Vrie, 1974),
isolated fields, and so forth. If small-scale field trials on resistance are not
feasible, the first practical applications must be monitored for resistance
development. This activity should be organized in collaboration with farmers,
state institutions, research laboratories, and industry, and the results should
OCR for page 288
288
DETECTION, MONITORING, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
be made available to all interested parties so that the first experiences can
be used for RRA in other areas.
Geographical Differences
The biological and operational factors influencing the development of
resistance in a pest species may vary greatly depending on climate, farming
practice, use of insecticides, and the like, and the resistance risk will vary
accordingly. The genetic factors also may differ, not only in frequency of
resistance genes but also which genes and mechanisms cause resistance lo-
cally, as has been found for DOT and pyrethroid resistance in house flies.
These possible regional and local differences must be considered for any
RRA in a given area and for the use of resistant strains to test for cross-
resistance of new compounds.
Fitness of Resistant Geno- and Phenotypes
The relative fitness of the resistant gene- and phenotypes under field
conditions may be difficult to estimate, but the stability or reversion of
resistance in the field when the insecticide pressure is relaxed is important.
Estimating fitness under laboratory conditions has a limited value (Keiding,
1967), not only because conditions differ from the field but because strains
with different periods of adaptation to laboratory conditions may be com-
pared. Relatively little is known about the importance of the fitness factor
for insecticide resistance. Fitness of resistant types, however, is not constant.
With time the resistance genome may be integrated with fitness factors by
natural selection, a process called coadaptation (Keiding, 1967~.
Mathematical Models
A number of simulation models (Taylor, 1983; Section III in this pro-
ceedings) have contributed significantly to our general understanding of re-
sistance dynamics and are being used for developing strategies to reduce the
development of resistance. Their usefulness, however, depends on whether
the assumptions and the parameters are realistic. For example, in RRA we
need information about factors such as local frequency and number of re-
sistance genes, fitness factors, selection pressure, population dynamics, and
migration. Such information must be gathered in the field, and assumptions
must be tested in the field where possible (Davies, 1984; Denholm, 19811.
RESISTANCE OF PLANT PATHOGENS
Resistance risk assessment in fungicides has been well discussed in several
recent reviews(Dekker, 1981, 1982a,b;Wade, 1982;Staub and Sossi, 19831.
OCR for page 289
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT
TABLE 2 Specific and Systemic Action of Some Fungicides to Emergence
of Fungicide Resistance
289
Occurrence of
Fungicide or Mode of Action Resistant Strains
Fungicide Group Specific Systemic
In Vitro On Plants
Risksa for
Failure of
Disease Control
Copper compounds - - - - very low
Dithiocarbamates - - - - very low
Chlorothalonil - - - - very low
Phthalimides - - - - very low
Organic Hg compounds - - + + low
Aromatic hydrocarbons + _b + + high
see Butylamine + - + + high
Dicarboximides + _ b + + moderate to high
Dodine + - + + moderate
Organic tin compounds + - + + moderate
Acylalanines + + + + high
Benzimidazoles + + + + high
Dimethir~mol + + 0C + high
Ethir~mol + + 0c ~moderate
Organic P compounds + + + + moderate
Carboxanilides + + + + moderate to low
Fenar~mol, nuar~mol + + + - low
Imidazoles + + + - low
Morpholines + + + - ~low
Tr~azoles + + + - ~low
Tr~for~ne + + + - very low
+ with the property; - without the property.
aThe risk for failure of disease control is a rough estimation, since it also depends on other factors
(type of disease, strategy of fungicide application, etc.).
bChloroneb and procymidone have systemic properties.
CConcerns obligate parasites.
Occurrence of strains with decreased sensitivity to some of these compounds has been reported.
SOURCE: Dekker (1981).
As with insecticide resistance the RRA is influenced by inherent genetic and
biological factors in the pest fungus, including reproduction rate, spore mo-
bility, and host range. Moreover, climate and weather play a role, and the
operational factors determining the selection pressure (i.e., area treated,
coverage and frequency of treatments, duration of exposure, and persistence
of the fungicide) are highly important for the development of field resistance.
More specifically than in insecticides, resistance risk in fungicides is con-
nected with the biochemical mode of action of the fungicide. The resistance
risk, therefore, can be classified according to type of fungicide (Table 2~.
Within a certain mode of action, for example, the benzimidazoles, a high
OCR for page 290
290
DETECTION, MONITORING, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
degree of cross-resistance is found. Fungi, unlike insects, produce so many
spores that resistant mutants can be detected even at a very low frequency.
Therefore, the genetic ability for resistance can be demonstrated easily in
the laboratory for most pathogens that can be grown on artificial media.
Thus, a standard method for RRA in fungicides is to grow spores of pathogens
on a medium containing an amount of fungicide just above the minimum
inhibitory concentration in which only resistant cells survive.
Using laboratory tests resistant mutants have been found for all the specific-
site fungicides (Table 2), but resistance may not be a problem in the field.
Fitness of the resistant mutants in fungal pathogens is generally a decisive
factor for development of field resistance. Therefore, assessments of fitness
are important for RRA. These assessments may be done (1) by determining
the relative growth of resistant and wild-type strains in vitro, (2) by testing
the pathogenicity of strains on plants in the greenhouse, and (3) by infecting
plants with a sensitive and a resistant strain and observing the result of
competition in the absence of the fungicide over a number of pathogen
generations. As with insects, however, laboratory and greenhouse tests may
not realistically estimate fitness under field conditions. Therefore, field trials
may be necessary for the full answer (Dekker, 1982a).
Although laboratory and greenhouse tests can provide much information
on resistance risk, negative results cannot exclude the possibility of resistance
developing in the field if the selection pressure in area and time is large
enough. Moreover, the rate and extent of development of resistance depends
mainly on biological, environmental, and operational field factors, as pre-
viously mentioned. Field experiments and monitoring of resistance in path-
ogens in areas subjected to various schemes of fungicide treatments are
therefore essential for RRA of fungicides as well as of insecticides. Coop-
eration and rapid exchange of information between producers and users of
fungicides, advisers, and research and regulatory institutes are necessary to
cope with the rapidly developing problems of fungicide resistance. The in-
ternational association of agrochemical industry associations (GIFAP-
Groupement International des Associations Nationals de Fabricants de Pro-
duits Agronomiques) recognized this need in 1981 when it formed the Fun-
gicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC). The equivalent for insecticide
resistance, the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC), was formed
in 1984.
HERBICIDE RESISTANCE
Assessing resistance risk to herbicides is simplified because resistance is
confined mainly to the s-triazine herbicides, usually with general cross-
resistance to all s-triazines and related degrees of resistance or tolerance to
the asymmetrical triazinones, ureas, and many other nitrogen-containing pho
OCR for page 291
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT
291
tosynthetic inhibitors, but as a rule no cross-resistance or negative cross-
resistance to herbicides with other modes of action (LeBaron and Gressel,
19821. A careful monitoring and verification of resistance to s-triazines in
the field is important for RRA. As for most other pests the rate of resistance
development is influenced by the selection pressure, which is a product of
the persistence of the herbicide effect after treatment, the dose, the number
of years the herbicide has been used alone in an area, and the proportion of
the weed population that is exposed. S-triazines have a very specific action
and a high persistence. Resistance problems may be expected in new her-
bicides having these characteristics. Using selection experiments for.RRA,
however, is difficult because of the time required for sufficient generations
to be exposed and because the experiments have to be done in field areas of
a sufficient size. (The relation between weed ecology and resistance risk is
discussed by Slife in this volume.) The fitness of resistant strains does not
seem to be of great importance for the development of herbicide resistance.
RODENTICIDE RESISTANCE
Rodenticide resistance is mainly a problem with one group of rodenticides,
the anticoagulants. For practical reasons it is difficult to investigate resistance
risk by meaningful selection experiments in the laboratory or in other confined
colonies of rats, mice, and other rodents. The best method for RRA is a
systematic monitoring of control failures and rodenticide resistance in con-
nection with rodent-control campaigns using a given rodenticide. Good col-
laboration is therefore essential between the people organizing, conducting,
and supervising the control campaigns and a laboratory that can carry out
the standard resistance tests on trapped rodents and that can interpret the
results. Thus, it is very important to have as complete information as possible
on the history of rodenticide use in the area. When resistance has been found
a central laboratory should, if possible, keep a colony of each type of resistant
strain for use in toxicity tests with new rodenticides to gather information
on cross-resistance. Studies on resistance mechanisms and genetics are also
important for RRA, as discussed under insecticide resistance. (For more
detailed discussions on rodenticide resistance see papers by MacNicoll, Greaves,
and Jackson in this volume.)
NEMATODE RESISTANCE
Nematicide resistance of parasitic nematodes in domestic animals has been
found and investigated mainly in sheep, but it may also occur in goats and
horses (Prichard et al., 1980; Bj0rn' 19831. Resistance has developed mostly
to the benzimidazole compounds having a general cross-resistance within
this group, but no cross-resistance to other types of nematicides. Surveys of
OCR for page 292
292
DETECTION, MONITORING, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
nematode resistance are hampered because critical tests to determine the
effect of the compound require that a large number of treated host animals
be killed. Indications of resistance, however, may be obtained by fecal egg
counts after treatments or may be confirmed by in vitro tests on egg hatch
for the benzimidazoles.
Laboratory selection is fairly simple; colonies of nematodes are exposed
to treated hosts for a number of generations. The conditions for resistance
development, however, are different in the field, for example, as to natural
selection and selection pressure by the nematicide. In the field a high pro-
portion of the nematode population may be unexposed, since it is outside
the host (Le Jambre, 1978~.
CONCLUSION
Elements of RRA
The important elements of RRA as discussed above are listed in Table 3
(the succession of the elements are not necessarily chronological nor in order
of importance).
Any RRA program must establish good coordination, collaboration, and
exchange of information between (1) the producers (the agrochemical in-
dustry), (2) the advisers and organizers of pesticide use, (3) the users of
pesticides, and (4) the research institutes. An RRA program may be organized
by an international body, for example, FAO or WHO, or it may be a national
or state institution. International collaboration and rapid exchange of infor-
mation are essential, however, by informal reports, correspondence, con-
ferences, and visits. The traveling pesticide experts from industry may play
a special role for rapid inflation dissemination to national institutions that
may serve as a link between users, scientists, and industry. In this way
resistance problems may be realized early, such that suitable monitoring and
research can be organized, for example, supported by industry. Examples
of such collaboration are the work on the cattle tick in Australia, the house
fly in Denmark, and rice pests in Japan. Other examples and a discussion
of the interagency cooperation are given by Davies (1984~.
The WHO and the FAO have organized data bases on the occurrence of
pesticide resistance (Georghiou and Mellon, 1983~. The results of unpub-
lished investigations, including those in industry, would be useful. One means
of providing such information about new findings would be a newsletter on
pesticide resistance; WHO had one for several years, but it was discontinued
in 1976.
luterpretation and Use of the Assessments
Two types of interpretation can come from these assessments: scientific-
technical interpretation and economic interpretation. For example, a scien
OCR for page 293
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT
TABLE 3 Elements of Resistance Risk Assessment
293
A. Consider the pesticide: mode of action, chemistry, and stability.
B. Evaluate the pest species: genetic diversity, resistance potential.
1. Conduct laboratory selection experiments.a
2. Conduct field selection experiments.b
3. Survey for the occurrence and development of resistance in field populations of the pest
to pesticide use.C
. Determine the cross-resistance spectrum.&
5. Determine the resistant type (mechanism, genetics).e
6. Determine the fitness of resistant biotypes f
7. Monitor for local and regional distribution of resistant types."
8. Investigate factors influencing the development of resistance: genetic, biological, and
operational.h
9. Develop mathematical models on the dynamics of resistance development.h
10. Conduct computer simulations of resistance development.'
11. Check and improve simulation models by field experiments.
12. Investigate the effect of sequential use of pesticides for resistance development.
aThese experiments have a limited predictive value owing to restricted gene pool, difference of
conditions, exposure to pesticides, natural selection, and so forth, and in some pests (e.g., weeds
and rodents) they are difficult to perform.
bThese experiments, especially in isolated or semi-isolated localities, may be more informative,
but also more difficult to arrange. The risk of spreading resistant strains is a limitation.
CSurveying is very important and should be a regular activity for applications of new pesticides.
Information on the history of pesticide use influencing the previous selection of resistance factors
is essential (see item 12). If resistance has reverted in a field population, it usually develops quickly
when the pesticide is reintroduced.
Determine cross-resistance when resistance to a pesticide is detected. Patterns of cross-resistance
are often known or should be investigated.
eThis activity is important for predicting and understanding cross-resistance, including the com-
ponents of resistance and their genetics. It is also important to know whether resistance depends on
one or more resistance factors.
fFitness of resistant biotypes under field conditions is of general importance for resistance de-
velopment, particularly to fungicides.
"Such occurrence may vary locally and regionally.
hKnowledge of the dynamics of resistance development and of the parameters in the field is
essential for constructing realistic models and for predicting the rate and extent of resistance de
velopment.
'Computer simulations are important to evaluate the effects of various genetic, biological, and
operational factors and to develop strategies for delaying or avoiding resistance.
SOURCE: Keiding (unpublished).
tific-technical interpretation may estimate the probability of resistance de-
veloping in a pest in an area, the rate and extent of resistance, and the factors
influencing it, while an economic interpretation would estimate its economic
consequences. Use of the assessments are valuable for regulatory authorities
and industry in reaching agreement on formulations and recommended ap-
plications for the pesticide. If industry is more interested in getting a quick
OCR for page 294
294
DETECTION, MONITORING, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
profit or recouping investments, however, which could lead to applications
and recommendations that conflict with the long-term interest of the users
and perhaps of the company, the regulatory authorities and their advisers
may want to regulate the use of the pesticide to comply with the strategy of
pest control recommended and the hazards of rapid development of resistance.
Additionally, the assessments may find that resistance found in the lab-
oratory may not apply to the field; resistance found in one area may not
occur or develop in the same way in another; and certain pesticides may be
useful even if some resistance has developed because they are so much
cheaper than the substitutes, as is true with DDT for controlling some malaria
vectors.
Research Needs
The research needed to improve the ability to assess resistance risk may
be related to the elements of RRA. The following is a brief list of some
general research fields for RRA, with reference to the "element numbers"
in Table 3. The need and importance of the research may vary between the
groups of pests and pesticides.
· Develop and improve methods for detecting and monitoring types of
resistance, especially at low frequencies (see Brent in this volume) (3,7)
· Research resistance mechanisms, cross-resistance (4,5)
· Study the genetics of resistance (5, 6, 8)
· Determine the fitness of resistant biotypes (6, 8)
· Conduct field investigations of the biology, ecology, and population
dynamics of the pest (8, 9, 10, 11)
· Conduct field investigations on selection pressure by various applica-
tions of pesticides and control schemes (8, 9, 10, 11)
· Develop and use more realistic models on the dynamics of resistance
development (9, 10, 11)
· Investigate the effect of sequential use of pesticides for resistance de-
velopment (8, 12)
REFERENCES
Bj0rn, H. 1983. On aspects of anthelmintic resistance of parasitic nematodes in domestic animals.
A review. Pp. 1-116 in Report from Institute of Hygiene and Microbiology. Copenhagen: Royal
Veterinary and Agriculture University.
Bull, D. L. 1981. Factors that influence tobacco budworm resistance to organo-phosphorous insec-
ticides. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 27:193-197.
Champ, B. R., and C. E. Dyte. 1976. Pp. 1-297 in Pesticide Susceptibility of Stored Grain Pests.
Rome: FAO.
Chapman, P. A., and C. J. Lloyd. 1981. The spread of resistance among houseflies from farms in
the United Kingdom. Pp. 625-631 in Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Lavenham, Suffolk: Lavenham,
1981.
OCR for page 295
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT
295
Curtis, C. F. 1981. Possible methods of inhibiting or reversing the evolution of insecticide resistance
in mosquitoes. Pestic. Sci. 12:557-564.
Davies, R. A. H. 1984. Insecticide resistance: an industry viewpoint. Pp. 593-600 in Proc. Br.
Crop Prot. Conf. Lavenham, Suffolk: Lavenham, 1984.
Dekker, J. 1981. Impact of fungicide resistance on disease control. Pp. 857-863 in Proc. Br. Crop
Prot. Conf. Lavenham, Suffolk: Lavenham, 1981.
Dekker, J. 1982a. Can we estimate the fungicide resistance hazard in the field from laboratory and
greenhouse tests? Pp. 128-138 in Fungicide Resistance in Crop Protection, J. Dekker and S. G.
Georgopoulos, eds. Wageningen, Netherlands: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documen-
tation.
Dekker, J. 1982b. Countermeasures for avoiding fungicide resistance. Pp. 177-186 in Fungicide
Resistance in Crop Protection, J. Dekker and S. G. Georgopoulos, eds. Wageningen, Netherlands:
Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.
Denholm, I. 1981. Present trends and future needs in modeling for the management of insecticide
resistance. Pp. 847-855 in Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf., Vol. 3. Lavenham, Suffolk: Lavenham,
1981.
Dittrich, V. 1975. Acaracide resistance in mites. Z. Angew. Entomol. 78:28-45.
Dittrich, V. 1979. The role of industry in coping with insecticide resistance. Pp. 249-253 in Proc.
Symp. 9th Int. Congr. Plant Prot., Vol. 1, T. Kommedahl, ed. Minneapolis, Minn.:-Burgess.
Georghiou, G. P., and M. K. Hawley. 1971. Insecticide resistance resulting from sequential selection
of house flies in the field by organophosphorus compounds. Bull. W.H.O. 45:43-51.
Georghiou, G. P., and R. B. Mellon. 1983. Pesticide resistance in time and space. Pp. 1-46 in
Pest Resistance to Pesticides, G. P. Georghiou and T. Saito, eds. New York: Plenum.
Georghiou, G. P., and C. E. Taylor. 1976. Pesticide resistance as an evolutionary phenomenon.
Pp. 759-785 in Proc. 15th Int. Congr. Entomol., Washington, D.C. College Park, Md.: Ento-
mological Society of America.
Hama, H. 1975. Resistance to insecticides in the green rice leafhopper. Jpn. Pestic. Inf. 23:9-12.
Hama, H. 1980. Mechanism of insecticide resistance in green rice leafhopper and small brown
planthopper. Rev. Plant. Prot. Res. (Japan) 13:54-73.
Helle, W., and M. van de Vrie. 1974. Problems with spider mites. Outlook Agric. 8:119-125.
Hrdy, I. 1975. Insecticide resistance in aphids. Pp. 739-749 in Proc. Br. Insectic. Fungic. Conf.
Lavenham, Suffolk: Lavenham, 1975.
Hrdy, I. 1979. Insecticide resistance in aphids. Pp. 228-231 in Proc. Symp. 9th Int. Congr. Plant
Prot., Vol. 1, Washington, D.C., Minneapolis: Burgess.
Hughes, P. B. 1981. Spectrum of cross-resistance to insecticides in field samples of the primary
sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina. Int. J. Parasitol. II:475-479.
Hughes, P. B. 1982. Organophosphorus resistance in the sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiede-
mann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae): A genetic study incorporating synergists. Bull. Entomol. Res.
72:573-582.
Hughes, P. B. 1983. Biochemical and genetic studies on resistance to organophosphorus insecticides
in Lucilia cuprina. Ph.D. dissertation. Macquarie University, Australia.
Hughes, P. B., and A. L. Devonshire. 1982. The biochemical basis of resistance to organophosphorus
insecticides in the sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 18:289-297.
Keiding, J. 1967. Persistence of resistant populations after the relaxation of the selection pressure.
World Rev. Pest Control 6:115-130.
Keiding, J. 1976. Development of resistance to pyrethroids in field populations of Danish houseflies.
Pestic. Sci. 7:283-291.
Keiding, J. 1977. Resistance in the housefly in Denmark and elsewhere. Pp. 261-302 in Pesticide
Management and Insecticide Resistance, D. A. Watson and A. W. A. Brown, eds. New York:
Academic Press.
Keiding, J. 1978. Insecticide resistance in houseflies. Danish Pest Infest. Lab. Annul Rep. 1977:37-
54.
OCR for page 296
296
DETECTION, MONITORING, AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Keiding, J. 1979. Insecticide resistance in houseflies. Danish Pest Infest. Lab. Annul Rep. 1978:43-
55.
Keiding, J. 1980. Insecticide resistance in houseflies. Danish Pest Infest. Lab. Annul Rep. 1979:40-
53.
Keiding, J., and A. El-Khodary. 1983. Investigations of cross-resistance involving laboratory strains
(of houseflies). Danish Pest Infest. Lab. Annul Rep. 1982:58-59.
Keiding, J., and O. Skovmand. 1984. The occurrence of the kdr-factor in houseflies and the potential
resistance to pyrethroids in Denmark and elsewhere. P. 737 in 17th Int. Congr. Entomol., Ham-
burg, 1984. (Abstr.)
Keiding, J., O. Skovmand, and H. O. H. Nielsen. 1983. Establishing a data base for data on
insecticide resistance in houseflies at DPIL 1948-82. Danish Pest Infest. Lab. Annul Rep. 1982.
Kunast, C. 1979. Die Entwicklung der Permethrinresistenz bei der Stubenfliege (Musca domestica)
im suddeutschen. Z. angew. Zool. 66:385-390.
LeBaron, H. M., and J. Gressel, eds. 1982. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
LeJambre, L. F. 1978. Anthelmintic resistance in gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep. Pp. 109-
120 in The Epidemiology and Control of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Sheep in Australia, A. D.
Donald, W. H. Southcott, and J. K. Dineen, eds. Australia: CSIRO.
McKenzie, J. A., J. T. Dearn, and M. J. Whitten. 1980. Genetic basis of resistance to diazinon in
Victorian populations of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 33:85-
95.
Motoyama, N. 1984. Pyrethroid resistance in a Japanese colony of the housefly. J. Pestic. Sci.
(Japan) 9:523-526.
Nolan, J., and W. J. Roulston. 1979. Acaricide resistance as a factor in the management of Acari
of medical and veterinary importance. Pp. 3-13 in Recent Advances in Acarology, Vol. II, J.
D. Rodriquez, ed. New York: Academic Press.
Pal, R., and A. W. A. Brown. 1971. Insecticide Resistance in Arthropods. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
Prichard, R. K., C. A. Hall, J. D. Kelly, I. C. A. Martin, and A. D. Donald. 1980. The problem
of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes. Aust. Vet. J. 56:239-251.
Roulston, W. J., R. H. Wharton, J. Nolan, J. D. Kerr, J. T. Wilson, P. G. Thompson, and M.
Sehotz. 1981. A survey for resistance in cattle ticks to acaricides. Aust. Vet. J. 57:362-371.
Rupes, V., J. Pinterova, J. Ledvinka, J. Chmeia, J. Placky, M. Homolac, and V. Pospisil. 1983.
Insecticide resistance in houseflies, Musca domestica in Czechoslovakia 1976-80. Int. Pest Control
25:10~108.
Saito, T., and T. Miyata. 1982. Studies on insecticide resistance in Nephotettix cincticeps. Pp. 377-
382 in Proc. Int. Conf. Plant Prot. in Tropics, K. L. Heong, B. S. Lee, T. M. Lim, C. H. Teoh,
and Yusof Ibrahim, eds. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Plant Protection Society.
Sawicki, R. M. 1974. Genetics of resistance of a dimethoate-selected strain of houseflies to several
insecticides and methylenedioxyphenyl synergists. J. Agric. Food Chem. 22:344-349.
Sawicki, R. M. 1975. Effect of sequential resistance on pesticide management. Pp. 799-811 in
Proc. 8th Br. Insectic. Fungic. Conf., Lavenham, Suffolk: Lavenham, 1975.
Sawicki, R. M. 1981. Problems in countering resistance. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B
295: 143-151.
Sawicki, R. M., and J. Keiding. 1981. Factors affecting the sequential acquisition by Danish
houseflies (Musca domestica) of resistance to organophosphorus insecticides. Pestic. Sci. 12:587-
591.
Sawicki, R. M., A. L. Devonshire, A. D. Rice, G. D. Moores, S. M. Petzing, and A. Cameron.
1978. The detection and distribution of organophosphorus and carbamate insecticide-resistant
Myzus persicae (Sulz.) in Britain in 1976. Pest. Sci. 9:189-201.
Skovmand, O., and J. Keiding. 1980. Chemical fly control and resistance on farms in North Germany.
Danish Pest Infest. Lab. Annul Rep. 1979:39-40.
OCR for page 297
PREDICTION OR RESISTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT 297
Sparks, T. C. 1981. Development of insecticide resistance in Heliothis zea and Heliothis virescens
in North America. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 27:186-192.
Staub, T., and D. Sossi. 1983. Recent practical experiences with fungicide resistance. Pp. 591-598
in 10th Int. Congr. Plant. Prot., Vol. 2. Lavenham, Suffolk: Lavenham, 1983.
Sula, J., J. Kuldova, and I. Hrdy. 1981. Insecticide-resistance spectrum in the hop aphid (Phorodon
humuli) populations from different regions: Notes on resistance mechanisms. IOBC/WPRS Bull.
IV. 3:46-54.
Taylor, C. E. 1983. Evolution of resistance to insecticides: The role of mathematical models and
computer simulations. Pp. 163-173 in Pest Resistance to Pesticides, G. P. Georghiou and T.
Saito, eds. New York: Plenum.
Taylor, R. N. 1982. Insecticide resistance in houseflies from the Middle East and North Africa with
notes on the use of various bioassay techniques. Pestic. Sci. 13:415-425.
Wade, M. 1982. Resistance to fungicides. Span. 25:8-10.
Whitten, M. J., and J. A. McKenzie. 1982. The genetic basis for pesticide resistance. Pp. 1-16 in
Proc. 3rd Australas. Conf. Grassl. Invert. Ecol., K. E. Lee, ed. Adelaide: S. A. Government
Printer.
World Health Organization. 1980. Resistance of vectors of disease to pesticides. 5th Rep. WHO
Exp. Comm. Vector Biol. Contr. Tech. Rep. Ser. 655.
Yasutomi, K., and C. Shudo. 1978. Insecticide resistance in the houseflies of the third Yumenoshima,
a new dumping-island of Tokyo (II). Jpn. J. San. Zool. 29:205-208.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
insecticide resistance
