The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Resistance of Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis Subspecies in the Field
Abstract
Eleven populations of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.), were collected in 1990 from Brassica plants in six states of the United States and in Indonesia and tested for their responses to two formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Javelin WG and Dipel 2X), permethrin, and methomyI. Populations from Florida that had been treated extensively over several years with these insecticides displayed significantly higher LC50s. In 1992, field tests in geographically separate areas in Florida and laboratory assays of populations from those fields indicated control failures and resistance to products containing B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki and low levels of resistance to a product containing B. thuringiensis subsp. aizawai (XenTari). These B. thuringiensis subspp. differ in the number of toxins produced, but whether resistance to them is a result of cross-resistance or independent selection was not determined. We documented significant differences between the response of resistant and susceptible populations to two products containing B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki, thus suggesting that the products actually differed in the number or amounts of toxins. In laboratory bioassays of three products containing B. thuringiensis suhsp. aizawai and two products containing B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki, the variation in response (as determined by resistance ratios) varied by 321- to 461-fold for B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki and by 3- to 4.1-fold for B. thuringiensis subsp. aizawai. These studies indicate increasing resistance problems caused by intensive use of any B. tlmringiensis product. We conclude that if B. thuringiensis is to remain a durable insecticide in parts of the world where resistance does not already occur, other tactics such as biological control, host-free periods, plant resistance, and cultural controls must he incorporated into the management programs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Transgenic plants: An emerging approach to pest control
Estruch, J. J., Carozzi, N. B., Desai, N., Duck, N. B., Warren, G. W., & Koziel, M. G. (1997) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0297-137 · Cited by 324
Field tests on managing resistance to Bt-engineered plants
Shelton, A. M., Tang, J. D., Roush, R. T., Metz, T. D., & Earle, E. D. (2000) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/73804 · Cited by 252
Self-citationOnstad, D. W., Liu, X., Chen, M., Roush, R., & Shelton, A. M. (2013) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1603/ec12287 · Cited by 27
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Shelton, A. M., Robertson, J. L., Tang, J. D., Perez, C., Eigenbrode, S. D., Preisler, H. K., Wilsey, W. T., & Cooley, R. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Entomology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1993-06-01
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 697-705
- ISSN
- 0022-0493 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-291X
- OpenAlex
- W2316572616
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Resistance of Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis Subspecies in the Field. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jee/86.3.697
- The paper
- Shelton, A. M., Robertson, J. L., Tang, J. D., Perez, C., Eigenbrode, S. D., Preisler, H. K., Wilsey, W. T., & Cooley, R. J. (1993). Resistance of Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis Subspecies in the Field. Journal of Economic Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/86.3.697
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.