Next Article in Journal
Emetic Response to T-2 Toxin Correspond to Secretion of Glucagon-like Peptide-17–36 Amide and Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide
Previous Article in Journal
Matrix Effect of Diverse Biological Samples Extracted with Different Extraction Ratios on the Detection of β-N-Methylamino-L-Alanine by Two Common LC-MS/MS Analysis Methods
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxins
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/toxins14060388
toxins-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Inheritance and Fitness Costs of Vip3Aa19 Resistance in Mythimna separata

by
Yueqin Wang
1,*,
Jing Yang
2,
Tiantao Zhang
1,
Shuxiong Bai
1,
Zhenying Wang
1 and
Kanglai He
1
1
State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
2
Beijing Institutes of Life Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxins 2022, 14(6), 388; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14060388
Submission received: 14 April 2022 / Revised: 26 May 2022 / Accepted: 30 May 2022 / Published: 2 June 2022
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The “high-dose/refuge” strategy is expected to work most effectively when resistance is inherited as a functionally recessive trait and the fitness costs associated with resistance are present. In the present study, a laboratory selected Mythimna separata strain that have evolved >634.5-fold resistance to Vip3Aa19 was used to determine the mode of inheritance. To determine if fitness costs were associated with the resistance, life history parameters (larva stage, pupa stage, pupal weight, adult longevity and fecundity) of resistant (RR), -susceptible (SS) and heterozygous (R♂S♀ and R♀S♂) strains on nontoxic diet were assayed. The LC50 values of R♀S♂ were significantly higher than that of R♂S♀ (254.58 μg/g vs. 14.75 μg/g), suggesting that maternal effects or sex linkage were present. The effective dominance h of F1 offspring decreased as concentration increased, suggesting the resistance was functionally dominant at low concentration and recessive at high concentration. The analysis of observed and expected mortality of the progeny from a backcross suggested that more than one locus is involved in conferring Vip3Aa19 resistance. The results showed that significant differences in many life history traits were observed among the four insect genotypes. In short, resistance to Vip3Aa19 in M. separata was inherited as maternal and multigene and the resistance in the strain was associated with significant fitness costs. The results described here provide useful information for understanding resistance evolution and for developing resistance management strategies.
Keywords:
bacillus thuringiensis; mythimna separata; inheritance; fitness costs; resistance management
Key Contribution: The maternal and multigene trait of inheritance and the presence of some fitness costs provide useful information for understanding resistance evolution and for developing resistance management strategies.

1. Introduction

The oriental armyworm, Mythimna separata (Walker), (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a typical long-distance migratory and polyphagous insect pest that causes considerable economic damage to numerous important agricultural crops, including maize, wheat, rice, vegetables, and which consequently poses a major threat to food security in China and other parts of Asia [1,2,3]. Due to high frequency use of chemical insecticides, the susceptibility of oriental armyworm was less sensitive to traditional chemicals, thus leading to unsatisfactory control results against oriental armyworm.
Bacillus thuringiensis, i.e., Bt, as well as transgenic crops engineered to express insecticidal proteins derived from Bt (Bt crops) can provide excellent control for oriental armyworm [4,5]. Since first introduced in 1996, Bt crops have been extensively adopted worldwide for the control of insect pests of maize and cotton. In 2019, global adoption of Bt crops reached over 100 million hectares [6]. However, the sustainability of transgenic technology may be compromised due to the field-evolved practical resistance by target pest species. In order to achieve the sustainable utilization of this technology, it is necessary to implement effective resistance management strategies. Currently, the high-dose/refuge approach and multi-gene strategy have been most recommended [7,8].
The concept underlying the high-dose/refuge strategy is that the rare resistant pests originating from Bt plants will mate with susceptible individuals developed from refuges of host plants that do not make Bt toxins. If resistance is inherited as a functionally recessive trait, the resulting heterozygous progeny can be killed by the high dose Bt protein expressed in Bt crops, thus reducing the frequency of resistance alleles and delaying the evolution of resistance [9,10]. In contrast, non-recessive (e.g., additive or dominant) inheritance of resistance will cause resistance to evolve more quickly [11].
Evolution of pest resistance to Bt crops could be delayed or countered by using combinations of two or more distinct toxins or other traits, such as Cry and Vip toxins, that kill the same pest [12,13]. Bt crop ‘pyramids’ are also designed to improve efficacy and broaden the spectrum of pests killed [13]. Vip3Aa, produced during vegetative stages of growth, have no structural homology and share no binding sites compared with Cry proteins, making their combination a ‘natural pyramid strategy’ [14,15,16]. In fact, Vip3Aa that produced in combination with Cry1Ab, Cry1F, or both in Bt corn and with Cry1 and Cry2A toxins in Bt cotton have already been commercialized in the United States, Brazil and Australia [12,17]. Compared with the extensive study of Cry proteins resistance during the past two decades, very few studies have been carried out so far for resistance to Vip3Aa proteins.
Theoretical mathematical models also suggests that fitness costs could play a key role in delaying resistance by selecting against resistant genotypes in the refuges where the Bt protein is not present [11,18]. Fitness costs associated with Bt resistance occur when insect genotypes conferring at least one allele of resistance have lower fitness than susceptible ones in the absence of selection pressure [11,18]. Fitness costs are detected when one or more life-history parameters such as survival, growth rate, size, or fecundity in resistant insects are impaired relative to susceptible ones or when the resistance level decreases over time in the absence of selection [19,20,21]. Therefore, accurate estimates of the fitness cost are important to understand the evolution of resistance and define resistance management measures to mitigate resistance to transgenic plants.
Our primary objective here was to evaluate the inheritance and fitness costs of M. separata with Vip3Aa19 resistance. Results generated from this research should provide valuable information for the sustainable use of Vip3Aa19 technology for control of M. separata and develop effective strategies for managing resistance.

2. Results

2.1. Inheritance of Vip3Aa19 Resistance in M. separata

After being selected for 18 generations, the LC50 values for SS and RR were 1.97 (1.50–2.55) μg/g and >1250 μg/g, respectively (Table 1). The difference in the LC50 values of the two parental strains was significant based on the non-overlapped 95% FLs, resulting in a resistance ratio of more than 634.5-fold for RR strain (Table 1). The LC50 values differ significantly between the F1RS [254.58 (189.09–323.04) μg/g] and F1SR [14.75 (9.65–20.20) μg/g] progeny of the reciprocal crosses based on the non-overlapped 95% FLs, which suggested that maternal effects and sex linkage were present in the Vip3Aa19 resistance. The LC50 values for the four backcross strains between F1 and RR ranged from 4.57 (2.94–6.36) μg/g to 27.35 (18.69–37.07) μg/g, with the resistance ratio ranged from 2.3 (1.5–3.7) to 13.9 (9.0–21.4) (Table 1).
The degrees of dominance estimated by Stone’s method were 0.68 and −0.30 for reciprocal crosses of F1RS and F1SR, respectively.
Based on the mortality at each Vip3Aa19 concentration in diet-incorporated bioassay, the effective dominance level, h, varied depended upon the F1 reciprocal cross and the concentration of Vip3Aa19. For F1RS, h > 0.5 at the concentrations of 5.0 μg/g to 250 μg/g, suggesting the resistance was functionally incompletely dominant. However, at the highest concentration of 625 μg/g, h was 0.19, indicating that the resistance was incompletely recessive. For F1SR, the resistance was incompletely dominant at the concentration of 5 µg/g (h = 0.68) and declined to incompletely recessive at 50 µg/g (h = 0.18). At the highest concentration of 250 μg/g and 625 μg/g, h was 0, indicating that resistance was completely recessive (Table 2).
The backcross of F1RS with resistant parents had higher actual mortality than expected values resulting from all of the four Vip3Aa19 toxin doses in a series. Moreover, when ∑χ2 was used, the monogenic hypothesis was rejected (∑χ2 > ∑χ2 0.05 = 3.84, df = 1), indicating that more than one locus is involved in conferring resistance (Table 3).

2.2. Fitness Costs of Vip3Aa19 Resistance in M. separata

On non-Bt diet, the effect of insect colony on larva stage and pupation rate were significant, while it was not significant for all other life history parameters such as pupa stage, pupal weight and male adult longevity. The average larval developmental time was significantly longer for RR and F1RS compared to SS and F1SR, which were 29.2 d and 28.5 d, respectively. On average, the susceptible and F1SR individual both needed 27.7 d to develop to the pupal stage. The pupation rate was significantly lower for Vip3Aa19 resistant strains relative to the susceptible and two reciprocal crosses. However, progeny from reciprocal crosses were not significantly different from the susceptible strain (Table 4 and Table 5).
The number of eggs per female of the two F1 hybrid colonies strains were 1054.2 and 983.9, respectively. The number of eggs per female of SS (1193.8) was not significantly different from F1 hybrid colonies, while it was significantly greater than the number of RR (847.9). SS and F1 hybrid colonies strains had a similar emergence rate, ranged from 70.9% to 80.3%, but the rate of larvae developed to adult of RR strain was significantly declined to 63.7%. The preoviposition stage and female adult longevity were significantly reduced in F1RS strain compared with the RR and F1SR strains, but no significant differences were detected between F1RS and SS. Among the types tested, no significant differences were found in the male adult longevity (Table 5).
Fertility life table parameters including the mean generation time (T), the net reproductive rate (R0) and the intrinsic rate of increase (rm) presented different values between the homozygous parent strains and reciprocal crosses, except for the finite rate of increase (λ). T of the RR strain were significantly longer than this of SS and heterozygotes derived from the RR♀ × SS♂cross. However, T was numerically longer for RR than for F1SR but the difference was not statistically significant (Table 6).

3. Discussion

Knowledge of the genetic basis of resistance to Bt toxins or Bt crops is important for evaluating the risk of resistance and designing effective resistance management strategies. In this study, we estimate the pattern of inheritance of resistance to Vip3Aa19 in a lab-selected M. separata strain, which was originated from the SS population. These significant lower LC50 value of the F1 progeny from SS female × RR male cross compared with the RR female × SS male cross indicated that resistance to Vip3Aa19 was inherited with maternal effects rather than autosomal. The degree of dominance of F1 reciprocal cross at LC50 level (−0.30 vs. 0.68) gives further evidence of a possible maternal influence on Vip3Aa19 resistance. Maternal influences have been found in populations of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) to Cry1Ac and Cry1Ab [22,23,24]. However, there is a report where the gender of the resistant parents had a strong paternal influence on Vip3Aa resistance in Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [25]. With the possible parental influence on resistance, reduced mating success may help to limit an increase in the frequency of the resistant allele, thus contribute to delays the evolution of resistance. Many studies suggested that autosomal inheritance of resistance is common in numerous lepidopterous insects, including P. xylostella to Cry2Ad [26], Ostrinia furnacalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) to Cry1F and Cry1Ah [27,28], M. unipuncta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Cry1Ab [29], Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Cry2Ab2 [30], Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Cry2Ab2 and Vip3Aa20 [21,31]. These significant differences demonstrate that it is vital demand for understanding species-specific genetic model of resistance to program case specific resistance management strategy.
The degree of dominance of Vip3Aa19 resistance in M. separata depended on the tested concentration and the F1 reciprocal cross. The dominance was incompletely dominant in resistant females crossed with susceptible males at 50 μg/g and 250 μg/g, whereas it was incompletely recessive or complete recessive in susceptible females crossed with resistant males at two toxin concentrations. In general, the degree of dominance decreased with increasing toxin concentration, with resistance being nearly recessive at a high concentration [26,30]. Greenhouse tests indicated that dominance may vary depending on different levels of Bt toxin expression in tissues during different plant stages (e.g., vegetative-stage and reproductive-stage). For O. furnacalis, the resistance to cry1Ie-maize is nearly completely recessive on Cry1Ie maize leaf, but nearly completely dominant on Cry1Ie maize silk [32]. This suggests that a high dose in transgenic maize is necessary for a refuge strategy to be successful in delaying resistance [30]. If resistance is recessive, the offspring from mating between resistant and susceptible insects will die on high-dose Bt crops, substantially delaying the evolution of resistance [10]. When recessive resistance appears not to be achieved, increasing refuge abundance can still substantially delay resistance [10]. For example, modeling results suggest that resistance can be delayed for >20 years with ≥5% refuges if resistance is completely recessive (h = 0) and with >50% refuges if resistance is partially dominant (h ≥ 0.4) [33].
In the present study, the method used to determine the number of loci involved in resistance is based on the expected mortality data from the backcross at each toxin dose. The test of monogenic mode did not fit the data, revealing that more than one locus (polygenic) was involved in resistance. The resistance mechanisms of M. separata to Vip3Aa may be account for this result. Quan et al. [34] reported that the resistance to Vip3Aa is not related to altered binding to midgut receptors, while altered binding to membrane receptors was the main mechanism of resistance to Cry proteins. Polygenic resistance against Cry1, Cry2 and Vip3Aa protein has also been reported in a number of insect species [25,35,36]. For example, resistance to Cry1Ab is characterized as polygenic in Cry1Ab selected strains of O. furnacalis [37]. More than one locus was responsible for the resistance to Cry2Ab2 in H. zea [30]. Pickett et al. [25] reported that resistance to Vip3Aa in lab-selected populations of H. virescens was due to more than one locus. Nevertheless, some populations resistant to Cry toxins have been shown to exhibit monogenic resistance, including O. nubilalis to Cry1Ab [38], H. armigera to Cry2Ab [39], P. xylostella to Cry1Ac [40]. The number of genes contributing to resistance appears to be different in different insect species and may even differ for individual toxins and under different selection regimes [41,42]. Besides, the number of loci engaged in resistance may vary for the resistance level and genetic background [30].
Another additional factor predicted to delay resistance is fitness costs. Fitness costs occur when fitness on non-Bt host plants is lower for resistant insects than susceptible insects, so that refuges select against resistance [11,18]. At the individual level, RR strain had lower reproductive rate on non-Bt diet but had longer larval time and preoviposition time of female compared to SS strain. At the population level in terms of survival (pupation and emergence rates) rate, the net reproductive rate (R0) (F = 8.3; df = 3, 36; p < 0.01) and the intrinsic rate of increase (rm) (F = 15.9; df = 3, 36; p < 0.01), RR strain was low compared to SS strain. These results suggest that the fitness costs of resistance to Vip3Aa19 in M. separata are recessive traits. However, reciprocal F1 progenies had those biological parameters close to SS train, which indicated an absence of relevant fitness costs in heterozygous individuals, most likely due to heterosis effect. Other than M. separata, fitness costs of Vip3A resistance have only been reported in S. frugiperda and H. virescens [31,43]. Bernardi et al. [31] observed the presence of relevant fitness costs of Vip3A resistance in S. frugiperda, which had a lower survival and reproductive rate on non-Bt corn leaf compared with susceptible and heterozygous strains. However, Chen et al. [44] observed no fitness costs of Vip3A resistance in S. frugiperda on either the meridic diet or non-Bt corn leaves. The differences in the results may be due to the diverse genetic variations in the resistant populations or the different assay methods and test substances [18,45]. A substantial fitness costs were present in a Vip3A-resistant colony of H. virescens, which showed reduced survival to adult eclosion, lower egg viability and mating success [43].
Fitness costs can delay resistance evolution by selecting against Bt-resistant genotypes or in refuges where insects are not exposed to Bt toxins. A lack of fitness costs can favor the persistence of alleles that are responsible for resistance when Bt toxin is absent, potentially maintaining the frequency of resistant individuals in the field and contributing to the rapid development of resistance to Bt crops. Previous publications have shown that field-evolved resistance to Bt crops is associated with the lack of fitness costs in several cases, including Busseola fusca (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Cry1Ab corn in South Africa [46], S. frugiperda to Cry1F corn in Puerto Rico [47], Diabrotica virgifera virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to Cry3Bb1 corn in the United States [48]. The magnitude and dominance of fitness costs can be affected by ecological factors such as host-plant cultivar or species, entomopathogen, insect pathogens, and fitness costs seem to be greater under stressful conditions [49,50]. For example, Raymond et al. [51] reported that fitness costs were higher on the low-quality host, with the magnitude of fitness costs increasing with reduced suitability of host. However, laboratory bioassays data generated by Chen et al. [44] showed that lower suitability and plant phytochemicals do not increase the magnitude or dominance of fitness costs associated with Bt resistance. Therefore, the evaluation of the interactions between non-Bt hosts and fitness costs should be case-by-case.

4. Conclusions

In summary, the lab-selected M. separata have developed a high level of resistance to Vip3Aa19 and offered a valuable opportunity to characterize the genetic basis and fitness costs of resistance. The maternal and multigene trait of inheritance and the presence of fitness costs indicate favorable conditions for resistance management. In the future, laboratory bioassays evaluating the interactions between non-Bt refuge host plants and fitness costs of Vip3Aa resistance could be carried out.

5. Materials and Methods

5.1. Insect Strains

A field population of M. separata was collected from farmers’ fields in Gongzhuling, Jilin Province, where Bt corn is not grown. The field population was divided into two subpopulations at the egg stage of the third generation. One was left unselected and was reared on artificial diet based on powdered corn leaf and wheat germ in the laboratory for 20 generations without exposure to Bt toxins [52]. This strain was designed as SS. The other one was selected with Vip3Aa19 at the 1st instar larval stage from the 3rd generation (RR strain). The selection was at a concentration that would generate 95–99% mortality based on the results of previous bioassays [52]. After 7 days of exposure, survivors were transferred to a container containing Bt-free artificial diet for the next generation. Resulting pupae were transferred to mating cages and a cotton ball soaked with 10% honey (v/v) water solution was provided. Waxed paper as an egg depositing substrate was placed in the cage and collected daily. All egg masses were stored at 4 °C until used. All stains were incubated at 24 ± 1 °C with a 16L: 8D photoperiod and 60% relative humidity.
The resistance characteristics were tested at the 18th generation.

5.2. Bt Toxins

Vip3Aa19 was obtained by IPTG (Isopropyl-beta-D-thiogalactopyranoside) induction and affinity column chromatography (GE Healthcare) and stored at −80 °C.

5.3. Susceptibility Bioassays

The susceptibility of neonates to Bt toxins was determined in survival bioassays by exposing neonate larvae (<12 h after hatching) to a series of concentrations of purified toxin and a negative control (only water applied to the diet) incorporated into the agar-free semi-artificial diet [53]. Neonate larvae were transferred to individual wells in 24-well plastic trays. Bioassays were repeated two times to give 48 neonates per test concentration and included 9–13 concentrations. The trays were covered with membrane (Cat# 3M-9733, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Saint Paul, Minnesota (MN), USA) and maintained at 24 ± 1 °C with a photoperiod of 16: 8 h (L: D) and 60% RH. The number and weight of survivors per treatment were recorded 7 days following infestation. If a larva had not developed beyond the first instar and weighed ≤0.2 mg, it would be counted as dead [53]. The toxicity of Vip3Aa19 to different insect strains or genetic crosses was analyzed by probit regression using PoloPlus (LeOra Software).

5.4. Genetic Crosses

To determine the inheritance of Vip3Aa19 resistance in M. separata, two types of crosses were performed to generate six additional insect colonies. Reciprocal crosses were performed between the parental resistant strain (RR) and susceptible strain (SS) to establish two lines: F1RS (RR♀ × SS♂) and F1SR (SS♀ × RR♂) [54] (Liu and Tabashnik, 1997). The backcross lines (BC) were obtained from the reciprocal progenies of the F1 adults cross with adults from the parental strain (RR): BC1 (F1RS♀ × RR♂), BC2 (RR♀ × F1RS♂), BC3 (F1SR♀ × RR♂), BC4 (RR♀ × F1SR♂). Twenty unmated males and females were used for each cross and backcross. Those mass crosses provided enough offspring for following multiple concentration testing and calculation of LC50 values.

5.5. Maternal Effects or Sex-Linkage

Maternal effects or sex-linkage of resistance was evaluated by comparing the LC50 values of F1 hybrid progenies derived from the reciprocal crosses between parental strains. If LC50 values of the two F1 reciprocal crosses are significantly different, resistance is regarded as sex-linked, otherwise the resistance is regarded as autosomal [54].

5.6. Estimation of Degree of Dominance

The degree of dominance (D) was estimated on the basis of LC50 values of F1 progeny from reciprocal crosses according to Stone’s method [55]:
D = (2X2 − X1 − X3)/(X1 − X3)
where X1, X2 and X3 are the logLC50 values of RR, F1 and SS strains, respectively. D varies from −1 (completely recessive) to 1 (completely dominant), with 0 indicating either incomplete dominance or additivity.
The effective dominance (h) was calculated based on the survival at any single concentration of the RR, SS and their F1 crosses according to equation described in Bourguet et al [56].
h = (WRS − WSS)/(WRR − WSS)
where WRS, WSS and WRR are the fitness values at a given concentration for heterozygotes, susceptible and resistant homozygotes, respectively. WRR was assumed to be 1 at any treatment concentration. The fitness of the susceptible parent and the heterozygous F1 was estimated from the survival rate of the larvae at a specific treatment concentration divided by the survival rate of the resistant parent at the same concentration. The resulting h varies from 0 (completely recessive resistance) to 1 (completely dominant resistance), with 0.5 indicating semi-dominant or codominant.

5.7. Number of Loci Influencing the Inheritance

Monogenic resistance or multiple-gene resistance was estimated by the chi-square (χ2) test and concentration-response curve goodness-of-fit between observed and expected mortalities of the backcross population at different concentrations [57,58]. The null hypothesis is that resistance is controlled by one locus with two alleles, S (susceptible) and R (resistant). If so, the backcross between RS and RR will produce progeny that are 50% RR and 50% RS. pi, the expected mortality in the backcross progeny at concentration i, is calculated as
pi = 0.5 (MRS + MRR)
where MRS and MRR are the mortalities of the presumed RS and RR genotypes at concentration i, respectively.
The χ2 values were then calculated for as follows:
χ2 = (Fi − pin)2/piqn
Observed mortality OBC in the backcross progeny at concentration i, is calculated as
OBC = Fi/n
where Fi is the observed number of dead larvae in backcross survival bioassays at dose i, n is the number of backcross progeny exposed at dose i, pi is the expected mortality, and q = 1 − pi. Then the sum of χ2 (∑χ2) at each concentration was compared with a χ2 distribution with one degree of freedom. The null hypothesis of monogenic resistance could be accepted if ∑χ2 < χ2 0.05 (df = 1), otherwise the resistance is controlled by multiple genes [57,58].

5.8. Assessing Fitness Costs of Vip3Aa19 Resistance

Fitness costs associated with the Vip3Aa19 resistance in M. separata were evaluated on non-Bt meridic diet. Neonates (<12 h after hatching) from RR, SS, R♂S♀, and R♀S♂ were placed individually on non-Bt diet. Bioassays were conducted in 24-well bioassay trays. For each strain, 72 larvae in total were tested. The trays were held in an environmental at 24 ± 1 °C, 60% RH under a 16: 8 h light/dark photoperiod. Fresh artificial diet was replaced when necessary until insect pupation. The following biological parameters were recorded: duration of egg, larval and pupal periods, pupal weight, sex ratio, preoviposition stage, adult longevity, fecundity, the total cycle duration. Pupal weight and sex were assessed within 24 h of pupation.
To assess fecundity, ten pairs of newly emerged (<24 h old) virgin female and male adults from the same genotype were placed into the mating container (12 cm height × 5 cm diameter) and maintained as described above. A plug of cotton wool saturated with 10% honey solution was placed on each container to feed adults. The number of eggs produced per female was estimated daily until the end of the oviposition period. Biological parameters and life table parameters, including the mean generation time (T), the net reproductive rate (number of females produced per parental female, Ro), intrinsic rate of population increase (rm) and finite rate of increase (λ), were analyzed using TWOSEX-MSChart program. Fitness costs are present when one or more fitness components are significantly lower in the resistant strain than in the susceptible strain.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.W. and K.H.; Investigation, Y.W. and J.Y.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Y.W.; Writing—Review & Editing, Y.W; T.Z. and K.H.; Funding Acquisition, Z.W. and S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program (ASTIP) of CAAS.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sharma, H.C.; Sullivan, D.J.; Bhatnagar, V.S. Population dynamics and natural mortality factors of the oriental armyworm, Mythimna separata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in South Central India. Crop Prot. 2002, 21, 721–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Kouassi, L.N.; Tsuda, K.; Goto, C.; Mukawa, S.; Sakamaki, Y.; Nakamura, M. Biological activity and identification of nucleopolyhedroviruses isolated from Mythimna separata and Spodoptera litura in Japan. BioControl 2009, 54, 537–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jiang, Y.Y.; Li, C.G.; Zen, J.; Liu, J. Population dynamics of the armyworm in China: A review of the past 60 years’ research. Chin. J. Appl. Entomol. 2014, 51, 890–898. [Google Scholar]
  4. Li, M.T.; Li, S.Y.; Wang, H.; Zhang, J.; Cang, J.; Lang, Z.H. Identification of insect resistance in the transgenic maize harboring cry2Ah-vp gene. J. Plant Prot. 2020, 47, 74–83. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sun, H.W.; Xu, X.H.; Li, F.; Yang, S.K.; Lu, X.B. Insect resistance and tolerance to the target herbicide of the transgenic maize cultivar Shuangkang 12-5-21. J. Biosaf. 2021, 30, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  6. ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2019: Biotech Crops Drive Socio-Economic Development and Sustainable Environment in the New Frontier; ISAAA Brief No. 55; ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  7. Roush, R.T. Two-toxin strategies for management of insecticidal transgenic crops: Can pyramiding succeed where pesticide mixtures have not? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 1998, 353, 1777–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Bates, S.L.; Zhao, J.Z.; Roush, R.T.; Shelton, A.M. Insect resistance management in GM crops: Past, present and future. Nat. Biotech. 2005, 23, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Tabashnik, B.E.; Gould, F.; Carrière, Y. Delaying evolution of insect resistance to transgenic crops by decreasing dominance and heritability. J. Evol. Biol. 2004, 17, 904–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tabashnik, B.E.; Brévault, T.; Carrière, Y. Insect resistance to Bt crops: Lessons from the first billion acres. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 510–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carrière, Y.; Tabashnik, B.E. Reversing insect adaptation to transgenic insecticidal plants. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2001, 268, 1475–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Carrière, Y.; Crickmore, N.; Tabashnik, B.E. Optimizing pyramided transgenic Bt crops for sustainable pest management. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Carrière, Y.; Fabrick, J.A.; Tabashnik, B.E. Can pyramids and seed mixtures delay resistance to Bt crops? Trends Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Estruch, J.J.; Warren, G.W.; Mullins, M.A.; Nye, G.J.; Craig, J.A.; Koziel, M.G. Vip3A, a novel Bacillus thuringiensis vegetative insecticidal protein with a wide spectrum of activities against lepidopteran insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1996, 93, 5389–5394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Lee, M.K.; Walters, F.S.; Hart, H.; Palekar, N.; Chen, J.S. Mode of action of the Bacillus thuringiensis vegetative insecticidal protein Vip3A differs from that of Cry1Ab-endotoxin. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 69, 4648–4657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Chakroun, M.; Ferré, J. In vivo and in vitro binding of Vip3Aa to Spodoptera frugiperda midgut and characterization of binding sites by I125 radiolabeling. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 6258–6265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Horikoshi, R.J.; Bernardi, D.; Bernardi, O.; Malaquias, J.B.; Okuma, D.M.; Miraldo, L.L.; Amaral, F.S.A.E.; Omoto, C. Effective dominance of resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda to Bt maize and cotton varieties: Implications for resistance management. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 34864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Gassmann, A.J.; Carrière, Y.; Tabashnik, B.E. Fitness costs of insect resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2009, 54, 147–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vélez, A.M.; Spencer, T.A.; Alves, A.P.; Crespo, A.L.B.; Siegfried, B.D. Fitness costs of Cry1F resistance in fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Appl. Entomol. 2014, 138, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Santos-Amaya, O.F.; Tavares, C.S.; Rodrigues, J.V.C.; Campos, S.O.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Alves, A.P.; Pereira, E.J.G. Fitness costs and stability of Cry1Fa resistance in Brazilian populations of Spodoptera frugiperda. Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Acharya, B.; Head, G.P.; Price, P.A.; Huang, F.N. Fitness costs and inheritance of Cry2Ab2 resistance in Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2017, 149, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martínez-Ramírez, A.C.; Escriche, B.; Real, M.D.; Silva, F.J.; Ferré, J. Inheritance of resistance to a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin in a field population of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella). Pestic. Sci. 1995, 43, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sayyed, A.H.; Wright, D.J. Cross-resistance and inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac in diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella L.) from lowland Malaysia. Pest Manag. Sci. 2001, 57, 413–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sayyed, A.H.; Gatsi, R.; Ibiza-Palacios, M.S.; Escriche, B.; Wright, D.J.; Crickmore, N. Common, but complex, mode of resistance of Plutella xylostella to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 6863–6869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Pickett, B.R.; Gulzar, A.; Ferré, F.; Wright, D.J. Bacillus thuringiensis Vip3Aa toxin resistance in Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, e03506–e03516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Liao, J.Y.; Xue, Y.Q.; Xiao, G.J.; Xie, M.; Huang, S.T.; You, S.J.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; You, M.S. Inheritance and fitness costs of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry2Ad in laboratory strains of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.). Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 6113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, Y.Q.; Wang, Y.D.; Wang, Z.Y.; Bravo, A.; Soberón, M.; He, K.L. Genetic basis of Cry1F-resistance in a laboratory selected Asian corn borer strain and its cross-resistance to other Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0161189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shabbir, M.Z.; Quan, Y.D.; Wang, Z.Y.; Bravo, A.; Soberón, M.; He, K.L. Characterization of the Cry1Ah resistance in Asian corn borer and its cross-resistance to other Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. García, M.; Ortego, F.; Hernández-Crespo, P.; Farinós, G.P.; Castañera, P. Inheritance, fitness costs, incomplete resistance and feeding preferences in a laboratory-selected MON810-resistant strain of the true armyworm Mythimna unipuncta. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 1631–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yang, F.; Head, G.P.; Price, P.A.; González, J.C.S.; Kerns, D.L. Inheritance of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein resistance in Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 3676–3684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bernardi, O.; Bernardi, D.; Horikoshi, R.J.; Okuma, D.M.; Miraldo, L.L.; Fatoretto, J.; Medeiros, F.C.I.; Burd, T.; Omoto, C. Selection and characterization of resistance to the Vip3Aa20 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis in Spodoptera frugiperda. Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 1794–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, Y.Q.; Yang, J.; Quan, Y.D.; Wang, Z.Y.; Cai, W.Z.; He, K.L. Characterization of Asian corn borer resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ie. Toxins 2017, 9, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Tabashnik, B.E.; Gassmann, A.J.; Crowder, D.W.; Carrière, Y. Insect resistance to Bt crops: Evidence versus theory. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Quan, Y.D.; Yang, J.; Wang, Y.Q.; Hernández-Martínez, P.; Ferré, J.; He, K.L. The rapid evolution of resistance to Vip3Aa insecticidal protein in Mythimna separata (Walker) is not related to altered binding to midgut receptors. Toxins 2021, 13, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gahan, L.J.; Ma, Y.T.; Coble, M.L.M.; Gould, F.; Moar, W.J.; Heckel, D.G. Genetic basis of resistance to Cry1Ac and Cry2Aa in Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2005, 98, 1357–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Liu, L.P.; Gao, M.J.; Yang, S.; Liu, S.Y.; Wu, Y.D.; Carrière, Y.; Yang, Y.H. Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry2Ab and survival on single-toxin and pyramided cotton in cotton bollworm from China. Evol. Appl. 2017, 10, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Zhang, T.T.; He, M.X.; Gatehouse, A.M.R.; Wang, Z.Y.; Edwards, M.G.; Li, Q.; He, K.L. Inheritance patterns, dominance and cross-resistance of Cry1Ab- and Cry1Ac-selected Ostrinia furnacalis (Guenée). Toxins 2014, 6, 2694–2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Alves, A.P.; Spencer, T.A.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Siegfried, B.D. Inheritance of resistance to the Cry1Ab Bacillus thuringiensis toxin in Ostrinia nubilalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2006, 99, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Mahon, R.J.; Olsen, K.M.; Garsia, K.A.; Young, S.R. Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry2Ab in a strain of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia. J. Econ. Entomol. 2007, 100, 894–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhu, X.; Yang, Y.J.; Wu, Q.J.; Wang, S.L.; Xie, W.; Guo, Z.J.; Kang, S.; Xia, J.X.; Zhang, Y.J. Lack of fitness costs and inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin in a near-isogenic strain of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera:Plutellidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ferré, J.; Van, R.J. Biochemistry and genetics of insect resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002, 47, 501–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mahon, R.J.; Downes, S.J.; James, B. Vip3A resistance alleles exist at high levels in Australian targets before release of cotton expressing this toxin. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Gulzar, A.; Pickett, B.; Sayyed, A.H.; Wright, D.J. Effect of temperature on the fitness of a Vip3A resistant population of Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 964–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chen, X.; Head, G.P.; Price, P.; Kerns, D.L.; Rice, M.E.; Huang, F.N.; Gilreath, R.T.; Yang, F. Fitness costs of Vip3A resistance in Spodoptera frugiperda on different hosts. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 1074–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Janmaat, A.F.; Mayers, J.H. Genetic variation in fitness parameters associated with resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in male and female Trichopulsia ni. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2011, 107, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kruger, M.; Van-Rensburg, J.B.J.; Van, D.B.J. No fitness costs associated with resistance of Busseola fusca (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to genetically modified Bt maize. Crop Prot. 2014, 55, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Leite, N.A.; Mendes, S.M.; Santos-Amaya, O.F.; Santos, C.A.; Teixeira, T.P.; Guedes, R.N.; Pereira, E.J.G. Rapid selection and characterization of Cry1F resistance in a Brazilian strain of fall armyworm. Entom. Exp. Appl. 2016, 158, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Petzold-Maxwell, J.L.; Cibils-Stewart, X.; French, B.W.; Gassmann, A.J. Adaptation by western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to Bt maize: Inheritance, fitness costs, and feeding preference. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 1407–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Raymond, B.; Wright, D.J.; Bonsall, M.B. Effects of host plant and genetic background on the fitness costs of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Heredity 2011, 106, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Bird, L.J.; Akhurst, R.J. Effects of host plant species on fitness costs of Bt resistance in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Biol. Control 2007, 40, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Raymond, B.; Sayyed, A.H.; Wright, D.J. Host plant and population determine the fitness costs of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Yang, J. Evolution of resistance to Bt toxins in Mythimna separata (Walker). Ph.D. Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yang, J.; Quan, Y.D.; Sivaprasath, P.; Shabbir, M.Z.; Wang, Z.Y.; Ferré, J.; He, K.L. Insecticidal activity and synergistic combinations of ten different Bt toxins against Mythimna separata (Walker). Toxins 2018, 10, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Liu, Y.B.; Tabashnik, B.E. Inheritance of resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1C in the diamondback moth. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997, 63, 2218–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Stone, B.F. A formula for determining degree of dominance in cases of monofactorial inheritance of resistance to chemicals. Bull World Health Organ. 1968, 38, 325–326. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Bourguet, D.; Genissel, A.; Raymond, M. Insecticide resistance and dominance levels. J. Econ. Entomol. 2000, 93, 1588–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Tabashnik, B.E. Determining the mode of inheritance of pesticide resistance with backcross experiments. J. Econ. Entomol. 1991, 84, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wyss, C.F.; Young, H.P.; Shukla, J.; Roe, R.M. Biology and genetics of a laboratory strain of the tobacco budworm, Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), highly resistant to spinosad. Crop Prot. 2003, 22, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Toxicity of Vip3Aa19 to resistant strain, susceptible strain, their F1 progenies and back-cross progenies of M. separata.
Table 1. Toxicity of Vip3Aa19 to resistant strain, susceptible strain, their F1 progenies and back-cross progenies of M. separata.
Colonyn LC50 (95% FL)
μg/g		RR
(95% FL)		Slope ± SEχ2df
(χ2)		Dh
SS3841.97 (1.50–2.55)1.0 (0.7–1.5)1.33 ± 0.129.114
RR624>1250>634.5
Reciprocal crosses
F1RS576254.58 (189.09–323.04)129.4 (89.1–187.9)2.31 ± 0.347.9220.680.84
F1SR48014.75 (9.65–20.20)7.5 (4.8–11.7)1.71 ± 0.247.418−0.300.35
Backcrosses
BC14327.61 (5.75–10.01)3.9 (2.6–5.7)1.23 ± 0.1010.616
BC252827.35 (18.69–37.07)13.9 (9.0–21.4)1.58 ± 0.197.720
BC33844.57 (2.94–6.36)2.3 (1.5–3.7)1.57 ± 0.209.314
BC448020.18 (14.98–25.87)10.3 (7.0–15.0)2.06 ± 0.254.318
n, number of tested larvae. FL, fiducial limits. BC1 (F1RS♀ × RR♂). BC2 (RR♀ × F1RS♂). BC3 (F1SR♀ × RR♂). BC4 (RR♀ × F1SR♂).
Table
Table 2. Effective of dominance (h) of resistance to Vip3Aa19 in M. separata.
Table 2. Effective of dominance (h) of resistance to Vip3Aa19 in M. separata.
Concentration (μg/g)ColonySurvival Rate (%) aFitnessh
5.0SS31.250.35
RR89.581
F1RS85.420.950.93
F1SR70.830.790.68
50.0SS2.080.02
RR93.751
F1RS81.250.870.86
F1SR18.750.200.18
250.0SS00
RR87.501
F1RS45.830.520.52
F1SR000
625.0SS00
RR89.581
F1RS16.670.190.19
F1SR000
a: calculated based on the survival number after being exposed to Bt toxins for 7 days.
Table
Table 3. Test of monogenic mode of inheritance of resistance to Vip3Aa19 in M. separata.
Table 3. Test of monogenic mode of inheritance of resistance to Vip3Aa19 in M. separata.
ColonyConcentration (μg/g)Observed Mortality
(%)		Expected Mortality
(%)		χ2
BC15.037.5023.964.83
25.070.8338.5421.13
50.085.4245.8330.29
250.010056.2537.33
∑χ2 93.59
BC25.020.8315.630.99
25.045.8326.049.76
50.068.7537.5020.00
250.095.8354.1733.57
∑χ2 64.32
Table
Table 4. Larva stage, pupa stage, pupation rate, pupal weight of susceptible strain, resistant strain, and two reciprocal F1 colonies of M. separata on non-Bt diet.
Table 4. Larva stage, pupa stage, pupation rate, pupal weight of susceptible strain, resistant strain, and two reciprocal F1 colonies of M. separata on non-Bt diet.
ColonyLarva
Stage (d)		Pupa
Stage (d)		Pupation
Rate (%)		Female Pupal Weight (mg)Male Pupal
Weight (mg)
SS27.7 ± 0.3 b10.9 ± 0.2 84.7 ± 1.4 a386.6 ± 8.9 376.4 ± 8.4
RR29.2 ± 0.8 a11.5 ± 0.4 61.2 ± 3.6 b367.9 ± 9.3 374.9 ± 8.5
F1RS28.5 ± 0.2 a11.4 ± 0.3 75.0 ± 2.4 a396.4 ± 7.2 384.2 ± 7.3
F1SR27.7 ± 0.3 b11.6 ± 0.3 77.8 ± 3.7 a391.1 ± 5.8 381.9 ± 8.2
F16.23.133.91.20.23
df3, 2113, 1573, 83, 1073, 100
p0.0000.0270.0000.3130.837
Data are mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 level by Tukey’s HSD test. The same below.
Table
Table 5. Emergence rate, preoviposition stage, adult longevity, fecundity, one generation time of susceptible strain, resistant strain, and two reciprocal F1 colonies of M. separata on non-Bt diet.
Table 5. Emergence rate, preoviposition stage, adult longevity, fecundity, one generation time of susceptible strain, resistant strain, and two reciprocal F1 colonies of M. separata on non-Bt diet.
ColonyEmergence Rate (%)Preoviposition Stage (d)Female Adult Longevity (d)Male Adult Longevity (d)Egg Laid per FemaleOne Generation Time (d)
SS80.3 ± 0.3 a5.6 ± 0.3 ab12.3 ± 0.4 12.4 ± 0.4 1193.8 ± 149.9 a56.0 ± 0.5 c
RR63.7 ± 5.1 b6.2 ± 0.3 a12.6 ± 0.2 13.3 ± 0.4 847.9 ± 88.4 b59.5 ± 0.6 a
F1RS70.9 ± 5.0 a5.1 ± 0.2 b11.5 ± 0.3 13.3 ± 0.4 1054.2 ± 129.7 ab57.6 ± 0.5 b
F1SR77.1 ± 3.7 a6.1 ± 0.2 a12.5 ± 0.3 13.4 ± 0.4 983.9 ± 132.7ab57.6 ± 0.6 b
F25.83.11.21.41.14.7
df3, 83, 1003, 783, 753, 363, 36
p0.0000.0380.3270.2450.0370.007
Table
Table 6. Population growth rates of M. separata strains susceptible or resistant to Vip3Aa19 and their F1 progenies.
Table 6. Population growth rates of M. separata strains susceptible or resistant to Vip3Aa19 and their F1 progenies.
StrainMean Generation Time T (d)Net Reproductive Rate R0Intrinsic Rate of Population Increase rmFinite Rate of Pop Increase λ
SS51.39 ± 0.46 b221.07 ± 68.44 a0.105 ± 0.006 a1.11 ± 0.007
RR54.32 ± 0.64 a113.89 ± 37.05 b0.087 ± 0.006 c1.09 ± 0.007
F1RS51.76 ± 0.84 b178.68 ± 55.53 b0.100 ± 0.007 b1.10 ± 0.007
F1SR52.71 ± 0.85 ab161.29 ± 51.01 b0.096 ± 0.007 bc1.10 ± 0.008
F20.48.315.915.8
df3, 363, 363, 363, 36
p<0.01<0.01<0.010.218
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhang, T.; Bai, S.; Wang, Z.; He, K. Inheritance and Fitness Costs of Vip3Aa19 Resistance in Mythimna separata. Toxins 2022, 14, 388. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14060388

AMA Style

Wang Y, Yang J, Zhang T, Bai S, Wang Z, He K. Inheritance and Fitness Costs of Vip3Aa19 Resistance in Mythimna separata. Toxins. 2022; 14(6):388. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14060388

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Yueqin, Jing Yang, Tiantao Zhang, Shuxiong Bai, Zhenying Wang, and Kanglai He. 2022. "Inheritance and Fitness Costs of Vip3Aa19 Resistance in Mythimna separata" Toxins 14, no. 6: 388. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins14060388

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop