Next Article in Journal
Morphology of the Antennal Sensilla of Notonectoidea and Comparison of Evolutionary Changes in Sensilla Types and Distribution in Infraorder Nepomorpha (Insecta: Heteroptera)
Next Article in Special Issue
The Residual Efficacy of SumiShield™ 50WG and K-Othrine® WG250 IRS Formulations Applied to Different Building Materials against Anopheles and Aedes Mosquitoes
Previous Article in Journal
Fungal Communities Vectored by Ips sexdentatus in Declining Pinus sylvestris in Ukraine: Focus on Occurrence and Pathogenicity of Ophiostomatoid Species
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tarnished Plant Bug (Heteroptera: Miridae) Behavioral Responses to Chemical Insecticides
 
 
Article

First Evaluation of Field Evolved Resistance to Commonly Used Insecticides in House Fly Populations from Saudi Arabian Dairy Farms

Pesticides and Environmental Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Plant Protection, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
Academic Editor: Hanafy Ismail
Insects 2021, 12(12), 1120; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12121120
Received: 10 November 2021 / Revised: 9 December 2021 / Accepted: 12 December 2021 / Published: 14 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicology)
The house fly is one of the major carriers of several diseases that affect humans and animals. Insecticides are often used as a rapid method to control them. In this study, eight commonly used insecticides were tested against five populations of house flies collected from dairies around Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The aim was to evaluate how toxic the insecticides were, and to find out whether the flies showed any sign of resistance against insecticides. In the tested pyrethroid insecticides, there was no or only moderate resistance in adults of both sexes compared to a known susceptible strain. In the tested organophosphate insecticides, there was low to moderate resistance in adults of both sexes compared to the susceptible strain. This study also evaluated “median lethal times” for the tested insecticides (how long a certain dose takes to kill half the exposed population), with results available for all eight insecticides: alpha-cypermethrin, deltamethrin, bifenthrin, cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, and malathion. The results of this study will be helpful for people whose job it is to plan effective house fly control programs in Saudi Arabia.

Abstract

The house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae), is one of the major vectors of several pathogens that affect humans and animals. We evaluated the toxicity of eight insecticides commonly used for house fly control using five field populations collected from dairies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Among the five tested pyrethroids, non to moderate resistance was found in adults of both sexes compared to a susceptible strain. Resistance ratios ranged from 0.5- to 7-fold for alpha-cypermethrin, 2- to 21-fold for deltamethrin, 4- to 19-fold for bifenthrin, 1- to 9-fold for cyfluthrin, and 1- to 8-fold for cypermethrin. Among the three tested organophosphates, low to moderate resistance was found among adult flies compared to the susceptible strain, and the resistance ratios ranged from 4- to 27-fold for fenitrothion, 2- to 14-fold for chlorpyrifos, and 3- to 12-fold for malathion. The median lethal times for the tested insecticides were 3–33 h for alpha-cypermethrin, 3–24 h for deltamethrin, 5–59 h for bifenthrin, 1–7 h for cypermethrin, 0.3–7 h for cyfluthrin, 6–36 h for fenitrothion, 2–21 h for chlorpyrifos, and 3–34 h for malathion. This study presents baseline data pertaining to registered public health insecticides, and the results will assist future studies monitoring insecticide resistance, and the planning of effective integrated vector management programs.
Keywords: integrated vector management; toxicity; public health insecticides; Musca domestica; Muscidae; vector borne diseases integrated vector management; toxicity; public health insecticides; Musca domestica; Muscidae; vector borne diseases

1. Introduction

The domestic house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae), is a major insect pest in rural and urban areas worldwide [1,2,3,4]. It is a nuisance, causes food spoilage, serves as a carrier of numerous pathogens causing diseases in humans and livestock [5,6], and has been shown to transmit more than 200 human and animal pathogens associated with fatal diseases [7].
A variety of organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides have been recommended to manage various insect pests, including the house fly, worldwide. However, over the past few decades, over-reliance on synthetic insecticides has resulted in the house fly developing resistance to these two classes of insecticide, increasing the challenges for insect pest management [8,9,10,11]. Overuse of insecticides has also resulted in environmental pollution, increased the cost of preventive control, and caused destruction of non-target organisms [12,13]. These issues emphasize the necessity to employ an integrated pest management program against insect pests, including the house fly [14,15,16]. To overcome the development of resistance, excessive applications of insecticides at increasing dose rates and more frequent intervals have been used, but these practices have escalated the problem and rendered the control of house fly even more difficult all over the world, particularly in areas where most suitable insecticides have lost their efficacy [17].
Studies monitoring resistance of insecticides constitute one of the most important strategic components of insect pest management. They can identify resistance early and constitute a critical part of the decision-making process in pest control programs [18,19,20]. Monitoring of insecticide resistance in the house fly has been reported from various countries, including Pakistan [8,9], the USA [3,10], and China [11,21]. To our knowledge, there are no reports of resistance monitoring for the most commonly used insecticides in the control of house fly populations in dairies in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate the toxicity and resistance of eight commonly used insecticides (five pyrethroids and three organophosphates) in populations of house flies in dairies around Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Collection and Rearing of House Fly Populations

Populations were collected separately from five dairy farms located in Dirab (24.49° N, 46.60° E), Al-Masanie (24.57° N, 46.72° E), Al-Uraija (24.62° N, 46.66° E), Al-Washlah (24.39° N, 46.66° E), and Al-Muzahmiya (24.47° N, 46.23° E) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Approximately 150–200 house fly adults of mixed sex were captured using 12-liter plastic jars from each dairy farm separately. The trapped flies were provided with dry sugar–milk mixture, and then transported to the Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Laboratory at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on the same day of collection. Each population was transferred into separate transparent cages (40 × 40 × 40 cm) to obtain F1 progeny. An adult diet (sugar + powdered milk at a 1:1 ratio by weight) and distilled water-soaked cotton wicks placed in glass petri dishes (5 cm in diameter) were provided to the adults. Every 2 days, fresh food was provided. The cotton wicks were moistened daily and replaced every 2 days. After 2 days in the laboratory, an artificial oviposition medium and a diet for newly hatched larvae (consisting of a paste of wheat bran, yeast, sugar, and milk at a ratio of 20:5:1.5:1.5 g, mixed with 70 mL distilled water, in 400 mL plastic cups, 2 cups/cage) [16] were placed in the adult cages. The plastic cups containing eggs were removed from the adult cages daily and covered with a muslin cloth to prevent larvae escaping. When the larvae had consumed the diet in the plastic cups, they were transferred into glass beakers containing fresh larval medium until the pupal stage. The emerged adults were transferred into rearing cages (40 × 40 × 40 cm) for mating and continuity of the life cycle. All populations were well maintained under constant conditions of 27 °C ± 2 °C, 60–70% relative humidity, and 12:12 h (light:dark) photoperiod.
The susceptible strain, used as a reference for other populations, was originally obtained from the Laboratory of Public Health Pests, Jeddah Municipality, Saudi Arabia, in 2010, and had been maintained since then under the abovementioned protocol with no exposure to any kind of chemicals.

2.2. Insecticides

A total of eight commercial-grade formulated pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticides were used for bioassays. The five tested pyrethroids were cypermethrin (Montothrin 10EC, Montajat Veterinary Tool Products, Dammam, Saudi Arabia), bifenthrin (Biflex 8SC, FMC, Pelt, Belgium), deltamethrin (K-Othrine 25SC, Bayer Crop Sciences, Valbonne, France), cyfluthrin (Solfac 050EW, Bayer Crop Sciences, Leverkusen, Germany), and alpha-cypermethrin (Alphaquest 100EC, Astrachem, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia). The three tested organophosphates were fenitrothion (Fentox 500EC, Pioneers Chemicals Factory Co., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), chlorpyrifos (Chlorfet 48EC, Masani Chemicals, Amman, Jordan), and malathion (Delthion 570EC, Saudi Delta Company, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia).

2.3. Adult Diet Incorporation Bioassay

The toxicities to adult male and female flies of the eight insecticides were separately evaluated using feeding bioassays following the method of Abbas et al. [8]. Adult flies were anesthetized using diethyl ether (BDH Laboratory Supplies, Lutterworth, United Kingdom) for 30 s, and sexes were separated based on space between compound eyes (greater in the female than in the male) [16]. Five concentrations of each insecticide causing mortality between 0% and 100% were prepared in a 20% sugar solution through serial dilution, with three replicates for each concentration in each bioassay. In total, 10 sex-separated adults in each replicate, 30 sex-separated adults at each concentration, and 150 sex-separated adults were used in each bioassay, with 30 adult flies of each sex (10 adults/replicate) used in the control treatment. The adult flies were transferred into 1.8-liter aerated plastic jars and covered with a muslin cloth to prevent escape. A 3 cm cotton wick was soaked with a solution of each insecticide at each concentration and placed in a 9 cm diameter petri dish, and the dishes were then placed into each jar for adult feeding. In the control treatment, adult flies were exposed to a 20% sugar solution only. The cotton wicks were moistened daily with water to prevent drying. All bioassays were conducted under the abovementioned conditions. Mortality was recorded after 48 h of exposure to determine median lethal concentration (LC50) of the insecticides due to fast action [8]. The highest concentration (256 part per million “ppm” for Alpha-cypermethrin and 2048 ppm for the rest) used for bioassay was also used to determine the median lethal time (LT50), with mortality recorded after 1, 12, 24, and 48 h of exposure.

2.4. Data Analysis

The bioassay data were analyzed using POLO Plus software version 1 [22] to determine the values for LC50 and LT50. The formula of Abbott [23] was considered to correct the mortalities of each bioassay using the mortality of its control treatment. However, in current study, all control treatments showed zero mortalities. The LC50 and LT50 values were considered significantly different if their 95% fiducial limits (FL) did not overlap [24]. The resistance ratio (RR) was calculated as follows: RR = LC50 of the field population/LC50 of the susceptible strain. The resistance levels of the different insecticides were classified using the scale described by Torres-Vila et al. [25]: RR < 2 (no resistance), RR = 2–10 (low resistance), RR = 11–30 (moderate resistance), RR = 31–100 (high resistance), and RR > 100 (very high resistance).

3. Results

3.1. Resistance to Pyrethroids

Resistance to pyrethroids was absent or moderate in female house flies from all five dairy populations compared to susceptible females. Female flies from Al-Masanie were the most resistant to deltamethrin (13-fold) and bifenthrin (12-fold). Females from other locations showed low resistance to the tested pyrethroids (2- to 10-fold), except those from Al-Muzahmiya which showed no resistance to cypermethrin (1-fold). RR values ranged from 2 to 4 for alpha-cypermethrin, 3–13 for deltamethrin, 4–2 for bifenthrin, 3–9 for cyfluthrin, and 1–8 for cypermethrin (Table 1).
Non to moderate resistance against pyrethroids was also found in male house flies from the dairy populations compared to susceptible males. Male flies from Al-Masanie were the most resistant to deltamethrin (21-fold), whereas males from Dirab and Al-Washlah were the most resistant to bifenthrin (13- and 19-fold, respectively). RR values ranged from 0.5 to 7 for alpha-cypermethrin, 2–21 for deltamethrin, 6–19 for bifenthrin, 1–5 for cyfluthrin, and 1–4 for cypermethrin (Table 2).

3.2. Resistance to Organophosphates

Low to moderate resistance against organophosphates was observed in female house flies from the dairy populations compared to susceptible females. Female flies from Al-Muzahmiya were the most resistant to chlorpyrifos (14-fold) and fenitrothion (27-fold), whereas those from Dirab were the most resistant to fenitrothion (23-fold). RR values ranged from 7 to 27 for fenitrothion, 2–14 for chlorpyrifos, and 3–9 for malathion (Table 3).
Low to moderate resistance against organophosphates was also found in male house flies from the dairy populations compared to susceptible males. Male flies from Al-Washlah were the most resistant to fenitrothion (15-fold) and malathion (12-fold), whereas male flies from Al-Uraija were the most resistant to chlorpyrifos (14-fold). RR values ranged from 4 to 15 for fenitrothion, 5–14 for chlorpyrifos, and 3–12 for malathion (Table 4).

3.3. LT50 of Pyrethroids and Organophosphates

The LT50 values for male house flies were 3–33 h for alpha-cypermethrin, 3–22 h for deltamethrin, 8–59 h for bifenthrin, 1–7 h for cypermethrin, 0.3–1 h for cyfluthrin, 6–16 h for fenitrothion, 2–11 h for chlorpyrifos, and 3–18 h for malathion. For alpha-cypermethrin, the LT50 values against Al-Uraija and Al-Masanie populations were significantly higher than that observed in all other tested populations (no overlapping 95% FL). While, the LT50 value against Al-Muzahmiya population was significantly lower than that observed in all other tested populations, except for Al-Washlah population. For deltamethrin, the LT50 value against Al-Masanie population was significantly higher than that observed in all other tested populations. For bifenthrin, the LT50 value against Al-Washlah population was significantly higher than that observed in all other tested populations, except for Al-Muzahmiya population. However, this finding may be considered not fully reliable due to the high degree of variation in Al-Washlah population 95% fiducial limits. For cypermethrin, the only significant difference in the LT50 values was detected between Al-Uraija (higher) and Al-Muzahmiya (lower) populations. For cyfluthrin, no significant differences were detected in the LT50 values among all tested populations (overlapped 95% FL). For fenitrothion, the only significant difference in the LT50 values was detected between Al-Washlah (higher) and Al-Uraija (lower) populations. For chlorpyrifos, the LT50 values against Dirab and Al-Uraija populations were significantly higher than that observed in all other tested populations. For malathion, the significant highest LT50 value was detected against Al-Washlah population (except for Al-Uraija population) and the significant lowest LT50 value was detected against Al-Muzahmiya population (except for Al-Masanie population) (Table 5).
The LT50 values for female house flies were 3–30 h for alpha-cypermethrin, 4–24 h for deltamethrin, 5–49 h for bifenthrin, 1–4 h for cypermethrin, 2–7 h for cyfluthrin, 14–36 h for fenitrothion, 3–21 h for chlorpyrifos, and 8–34 h for malathion. No significant differences were found in the LT50 values of cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, and fenitrothion among all tested populations (overlapped 95% FL). For alpha-cypermethrin, the significant highest LT50 value was detected against Al-Uraija population (except for Al-Masanie and Al-Washlah populations) and the significant lowest LT50 value was detected against Al-Muzahmiya population (except for Dirab and Al-Masanie populations). For deltamethrin, the LT50 value against Al-Washlah population was significantly higher than that observed in all other tested populations, except for Al-Uraija population. For bifenthrin, the LT50 value against Dirab population was significantly lower than that observed in all other tested populations, except for Al-Washlah population. However, this finding may be considered not fully reliable due to the high degree of variation in Al-Masanie population 95% fiducial limits. For chlorpyrifos, the significant highest LT50 value was detected against Al-Uraija population (except for Al-Muzahmiya population) and the LT50 value against Al-Washlah population was significantly lower than that observed in all other tested populations. For malathion, the significant highest LT50 value was detected against Al-Muzahmiya population (except for Al-Washlah population) and the significant lowest LT50 value was detected against Dirab population (except for Al-Uraija population) (Table 6).

4. Discussion

Synthetic chemicals have been recommended for the management various pests, including house flies, in Saudi Arabia [26]. Genetically based decline in susceptibility to an insecticide in a field population is known as field evolved resistance [27]. Evaluating the toxicity of and resistance to different synthetic chemicals is a key aspect in selection of the most effective compound to manage disease vectors. Therefore, the present study was performed to assess the resistance of house flies from five dairy facilities to five pyrethroid (alpha-cypermethrin, deltamethrin, bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, and cypermethrin) and three organophosphate (fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, and malathion) insecticides. The results of the present study revealed <10-fold field evolved resistance in female house flies to alpha-cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, and malathion in all five populations, deltamethrin in three populations, bifenthrin in four populations, fenitrothion in one population, and chlorpyrifos in two populations. However, male house flies showed ≤10-fold field evolved resistance to alpha-cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, and cypermethrin in all five populations, deltamethrin in four populations, bifenthrin in three populations, fenitrothion and chlorpyrifos in two populations, and malathion in four populations. These populations showed low levels of field evolved resistance while the remaining populations showed moderate levels of field evolved resistance to the tested insecticides. Previously, high levels of pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticide resistance have been documented in house flies from various parts of the world, including Turkey [28], Pakistan [8,16,29,30], the USA [3,10], and China [11].
Pyrethroids, which are sodium channel modulators, have been used to manage various disease vectors worldwide [8,9,31]. In the present study, no to moderate resistance was observed in male and female house flies from different dairy facilities against the tested pyrethroids. Female flies in Al-Masanie showed moderate field evolved resistance to deltamethrin (13-fold) and bifenthrin (12-fold). Male flies in Al-Masanie showed moderate field evolved resistance to deltamethrin (21-fold), while male flies in Dirab (13-fold) and Al-Washlah (19-fold) showed moderate resistance to bifenthrin. Resistance of insect vectors to pyrethroids has been extensively investigated in different countries, including in house flies [3,8,9,29], Aedes aegypti (L.) and Aedes albopictus (Skuse) [31], Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) [20], Culex pipiens [32], Anopheles gambiae (Giles) [33], and Anopheles stephensi (Liston) [34].
Organophosphates, which are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, are the most commonly used insecticides across the world to manage several pests, including the house fly [8,35]. However, resistance to organophosphates has been documented in the house fly [8,28,30], Cx. quinquefasciatus [20], Ae. albopictus [36], Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) [18], and Phenacoccus solenopsis (Tinsley) [37], with varying ranges of resistance being reported. Among the tested organophosphates in the current study, low to moderate resistances to fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, and malathion were detected in the house fly populations from the tested regions. Resistance levels can depend upon the use of insecticides at dairy facilities [3,8]. In the present study, non to low levels of resistance to pyrethroids and organophosphates in most populations suggests that these insecticides are still effective in Saudi Arabian dairy facilities for the management of house flies. However, with some populations approaching moderate resistance, unwise use of these insecticides may lead to the development of resistance in the future. Therefore, a strategic program should be developed for the management of house flies in order to delay the development of resistance and to sustain the efficacy of these insecticides.
In conclusion, the house fly populations that were collected from different dairy farms in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, exhibited no to moderate resistance to pyrethroids and low to moderate resistance to organophosphates. Therefore, these insecticides should be used carefully with periodic monitoring to detect any further increases in resistance. The limited use of insecticides to which resistance has developed, the use of mixtures of insecticides with unrelated mechanisms of action, and appropriate cultural practices may help in managing house fly insecticide resistance. Insect growth regulators, biopesticides, as well as appropriate cultural practices, should be included in integrated vector management programs designed to control house fly populations, to reduce the selection pressure on the commonly used insecticides [26,38,39,40]. The findings of this study can serve as a reference in future monitoring efforts of house fly insecticide susceptibility.

Funding

This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, through the project number RG-1441-480.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The author extends his appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through project number RG-1441-480. The author would like also to thank Naeem Abbas from the Pesticides and Environmental Toxicology Laboratory for his great support at all stages of this work. The author thanks the researchers and technicians from Pesticides and Environmental Toxicology Laboratory Mohammed Ali Albaqiyah, Ahmed Mohamed Dabo, and Safwat Gamal Sabra for their help in collecting and maintaining the house fly field populations and for other laboratory work.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbas, N.; Ijaz, M.; Shad, S.A.; Binyameen, M. Assessment of Resistance Risk to Fipronil and Cross Resistance to Other Insecticides in the Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Vet. Parasitol. 2016, 223, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ma, Z.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Shan, C.; Gao, X. Inheritance Mode and Mechanisms of Resistance to Imidacloprid in the House Fly Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) from China. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  3. Kaufman, P.E.; Nunez, S.C.; Mann, R.S.; Geden, C.J.; Scharf, M.E. Nicotinoid and Pyrethroid Insecticide Resistance in Houseflies (Diptera: Muscidae) Collected from Florida Dairies. Pest Manag. Sci. 2010, 66, 290–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Alzahrani, S.; Ajlan, A.; Hajjar, M.J. Resistance of Field Strains of House Fly Musca domestica L. to Three Selected Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia. Arab J. Plant Prot. 2015, 33, 66–71. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sarwar, M. Insects Effecting by Annoyance to Peoples Relating to the Public Health Concerns. Am. J. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2015, 1, 175–181. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fasanella, A.; Scasciamacchia, S.; Garofolo, G.; Giangaspero, A.; Tarsitano, E.; Adone, R. Evaluation of the House Fly Musca domestica as a Mechanical Vector for an Anthrax. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  7. Nayduch, D.; Burrus, R.G. Flourishing in Filth: House Fly–Microbe Interactions across Life History. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2017, 110, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abbas, N.; Ali Shad, S.A.; Ismail, M. Resistance to Conventional and New Insecticides in House Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from Poultry Facilities in Punjab, Pakistan. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 826–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Khan, H.A.A.; Akram, W.; Fatima, A. Resistance to Pyrethroid Insecticides in House Flies, Musca domestica L., (Diptera: Muscidae) Collected from Urban Areas in Punjab, Pakistan. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 3381–3385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Freeman, J.C.; Ross, D.H.; Scott, J.G. Insecticide Resistance Monitoring of House Fly Populations from the United States. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2019, 158, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, J.N.; Hou, J.; Wu, Y.Y.; Guo, S.; Liu, Q.M.; Li, T.Q.; Gong, Z.Y. Resistance of House Fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae), to Five Insecticides in Zhejiang Province, China: The Situation in 2017. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 2019, 2019, 4851914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  12. Soares, M.A.; Passos, L.C.; Campos, M.R.; Collares, L.J.; Desneux, N.; Carvalho, G.A. Side Effects of Insecticides Commonly Used Against Tuta absoluta on the Predator Macrolophus basicornis. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 1447–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ippolito, A.; Kattwinkel, M.; Rasmussen, J.J.; Schäfer, R.B.; Fornaroli, R.; Liess, M. Modeling Global Distribution of Agricultural Insecticides in Surface Waters. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 198, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Saeed, R.; Abbas, N.; Mehmood, Z. Emamectin Benzoate Resistance Risk Assessment in Dysdercus Koenigii: Cross-Resistance and Inheritance Patterns. Crop Prot. 2020, 130, 105069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saeed, R.; Abbas, N. Realized Heritability, Inheritance and Cross-Resistance Patterns in Imidacloprid-Resistant Strain of Dysdercus Koenigii (Fabricius) (Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 2645–2652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Abbas, N.; Khan, H.A.A.; Shad, S.A. Resistance of the House Fly Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) to Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Mode of Inheritance, Realized Heritability, and Cross-Resistance to Other Insecticides. Ecotoxicology 2014, 23, 791–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khan, H.A.A. Characterization of Permethrin Resistance in a Musca domestica strain: Resistance Development, Cross-Resistance Potential and Realized Heritability. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2969–2974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Roditakis, E.; Skarmoutsou, C.; Staurakaki, M. Toxicity of Insecticides to Populations of Tomato Borer Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) from Greece. Pest Manag. Sci. 2013, 69, 834–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Abbas, N.; Shad, S.A.; Shah, R.M. Resistance Status of Musca domestica L. Populations to Neonicotinoids and Insect Growth Regulators in Pakistan Poultry Facilities. Pak. J. Zool. 2015, 47, 1663–1671. [Google Scholar]
  20. Shah, R.M.; Alam, M.; Ahmad, D.; Waqas, M.; Ali, Q.; Binyamin, M.; Shad, S.A. Toxicity of 25 Synthetic Insecticides to the Field Population of Culex quinquefasciatus Say. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 4345–4351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Li, Q.; Huang, J.; Yuan, J. Status and Preliminary Mechanism of Resistance to Insecticides in a Field Strain of House Fly (Musca domestica, L). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2018, 62, 311–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. LeOra, S. Poloplus, a User’s Guide to Probit or Logit Analysis; LeOra Software: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  23. Abbott, W.S. A Method of Computing the Effectiveness of an Insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Litchfield, J.T.; Wilcoxon, F. A Simplified Method of Evaluating Dose-Effect Experiments. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1949, 96, 99–113. [Google Scholar]
  25. Torres-Vila, L.M.; Rodrıguez-Molina, M.C.; Lacasa-Plasencia, A.; Bielza-Lino, P. Insecticide Resistance of Helicoverpa armigera to Endosulfan, Carbamates and Organophosphates: The Spanish Case. Crop Prot. 2002, 21, 1003–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abbas, N.; Hafez, A.M. Resistance to Insect Growth Regulators and Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table in Musca domestica from Different Dairy Facilities. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tabashnik, B.E.; Mota-Sanchez, D.; Whalon, M.E.; Hollingworth, R.M.; Carrière, Y. Defining Terms for Proactive Management of Resistance to Bt Crops and Pesticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 2014, 107, 496–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Akıner, M.M.; Çağlar, S.S. Monitoring of Five Different Insecticide Resistance Status in Turkish House Fly Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) Populations and the Relationship between Resistance and Insecticide Usage Profile. Turkiye Parazitol. Derg. 2012, 36, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abbas, N.; Shad, S.A. Assessment of Resistance Risk to Lambda-Cyhalothrin and Cross-Resistance to Four Other Insecticides in the House Fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 2629–2637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Khan, H.A.A.; Akram, W.; Shad, S.A. Resistance to Conventional Insecticides in Pakistani Populations of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae): A Potential Ectoparasite of Dairy Animals. Ecotoxicology 2013, 22, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Smith, L.B.; Kasai, S.; Scott, J.G. Pyrethroid Resistance in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus: Important Mosquito Vectors of Human Diseases. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2016, 133, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Scott, J.G.; Yoshimizu, M.H.; Kasai, S. Pyrethroid Resistance in Culex pipiens Mosquitoes. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2015, 120, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Protopopoff, N.; Matowo, J.; Malima, R.; Kavishe, R.; Kaaya, R.; Wright, A.; West, P.A.; Kleinschmidt, I.; Kisinza, W.; Mosha, F.W.; et al. High Level of Resistance in the Mosquito Anopheles gambiae to Pyrethroid Insecticides and Reduced Susceptibility to Bendiocarb in North-Western Tanzania. Malar. J. 2013, 12, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  34. Ali Khan, H.A.A.; Akram, W.; Lee, S. Resistance to Selected Pyrethroid Insecticides in the Malaria Mosquito, Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae), from Punjab, Pakistan. J. Med. Entomol. 2018, 55, 735–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Al-Sarar, A.S. Insecticide Resistance of Culex pipiens (L.) Populations (Diptera: Culicidae) from Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia: Status and Overcome. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2010, 17, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  36. Khan, H.A.A.; Akram, W.; Shehzad, K.; Shaalan, E.A. First Report of Field Evolved Resistance to Agrochemicals in Dengue Mosquito, Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), from Pakistan. Parasit. Vectors 2011, 4, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  37. Saddiq, B.; Shad, S.A.; Khan, H.A.A.; Aslam, M.; Ejaz, M.; Afzal, M.B.S. Resistance in the Mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) in Pakistan to Selected Organophosphate and Pyrethroid Insecticides. Crop Prot. 2014, 66, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Geden, C.J. Status of Biopesticides for Control of House Flies. J. Biopest. 2012, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kavran, M.; Zgomba, M.F.; Ignjatovic-Cupina, A.M.; Lazic, S.D.; Petric, D.V. Choice of Optimal Biocide Combination to Control Flies (Diptera: Muscidae). Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2015, 22, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  40. Mohammed, A.A.; Ahmed, F.A.; Kadhim, J.H.; Salman, A.M. Susceptibility of Adult and Larval Stages of Housefly, Musca domestica to Entomopathogenic Fungal biopesticides. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2021, 31, 1016–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Toxicity of pyrethroids in adult female house flies from different dairy farms.
Table 1. Toxicity of pyrethroids in adult female house flies from different dairy farms.
InsecticidePopulationYear1 NSlope ± SEχ2p2 LC503 FL (95%)4 RR
Alpha-cypermethrinSusceptible-1801.4 ± 0.30.80.84229–611
Dirab20191802.4 ± 0.46.80.19046–2302
Al-Masanie20191800.9 ± 0.30.60.916093–5574
Al-Uraija20191801.2 ± 0.31.40.713688–2893
Al-Washlah20191802.5 ± 0.52.30.58971–1142
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.8 ± 0.32.60.58664–1192
DeltamethrinSusceptible-1801.3 ± 0.30.60.47148–1161
Dirab20191800.9 ± 0.30.11.020559–3543
Al-Masanie20191801.8 ± 0.31.80.6889667–128313
Al-Uraija20191801.1 ± 0.30.70.9322170–4975
Al-Washlah20191802.4 ± 0.37.50.1698371–169810
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.4 ± 0.31.30.7398262–5666
BifenthrinSusceptible-1801.0 ± 0.30.20.713987–2651
Dirab20191801.5 ± 0.34.90.2975697–15707
Al-Masanie20191801.1 ± 0.30.40.91638984–494412
Al-Uraija20191801.0 ± 0.30.70.9651340–39495
Al-Washlah20191801.1 ± 0.30.70.9552342–9264
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.6 ± 0.32.70.41025737–16437
CyfluthrinSusceptible-1801.6 ± 0.31.00.512389–1771
Dirab20191801.7 ± 0.35.70.1580428–8005
Al-Masanie20191801.2 ± 0.32.90.4473304–7224
Al-Uraija20191801.5 ± 0.35.10.2490345–6904
Al-Washlah20191800.8 ± 0.32.20.51107605–49669
Al-Muzahmiya20191800.8 ± 0.30.80.830490–5583
CypermethrinSusceptible-1801.3 ± 0.30.70.57042–1041
Dirab20191801.1 ± 0.32.00.621182–3413
Al-Masanie20191802.0 ± 0.31.30.7406303–5306
Al-Uraija20191801.3 ± 0.30.50.9404257–5916
Al-Washlah20191801.3 ± 0.30.70.9571380–8858
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.1 ± 0.30.21.08010–1621
1 Number of tested adult females. 2 Median lethal concentration (ppm). 3 Fiducial limits. 4 Resistance ratio. Degrees of freedom = 3.
Table 2. Toxicity of pyrethroids in adult male house flies from different dairy farms.
Table 2. Toxicity of pyrethroids in adult male house flies from different dairy farms.
InsecticidePopulationYear1 NSlope ± SEχ2p2 LC503 FL (95%)4 RR
Alpha-cypermethrinSusceptible-1802.2 ± 0.33.60.93519–561
Dirab20191802.2 ± 0.36.60.18240–1202
Al-Masanie20191801.2 ± 0.34.50.2241146–7097
Al-Uraija20191800.8 ± 0.30.10.97439–1622
Al-Washlah20191803.3 ± 0.42.60.55949–712
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.0 ± 0.32.10.5195–330.5
DeltamethrinSusceptible-1801.3 ± 0.30.50.24731–691
Dirab20191800.8 ± 0.30.21.01149–2362
Al-Masanie20191801.6 ± 0.31.60.6983704–157921
Al-Uraija20191801.3 ± 0.30.30.913348–2153
Al-Washlah20191801.3 ± 0.30.80.8299168–4436
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.3 ± 0.31.30.79725–1732
BifenthrinSusceptible-1801.2 ± 0.30.20.68652–1331
Dirab20191800.9 ± 0.34.10.31083600–437613
Al-Masanie20191801.7 ± 0.32.30.5470339–6436
Al-Uraija20191801.7 ± 0.42.30.5510343–10856
Al-Washlah20191800.7 ± 0.30.31.01591786–208819
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.3 ± 0.30.80.8829568–140110
CyfluthrinSusceptible-1801.6 ± 0.33.10.68543–1541
Dirab20191801.1 ± 0.35.20.2432247–6955
Al-Masanie20191801.4 ± 0.31.20.8345215–4964
Al-Uraija20191801.6 ± 0.30.31.0358245–4894
Al-Washlah20191801.9 ± 0.34.90.2355244–6724
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.3 ± 0.30.31.012138–2041
CypermethrinSusceptible-1801.6 ± 0.31.90.15334–731
Dirab20191800.9 ± 0.30.21.0744–1661
Al-Masanie20191800.9 ± 0.30.21.0724–1611
Al-Uraija20191801.5 ± 0.31.30.7201108–2924
Al-Washlah20191800.8 ± 0.30.90.817528–3293
Al-Muzahmiya20191802.9 ± 0.61.30.712271–1622
1 Number of tested adult males. 2 Median lethal concentration (ppm). 3 Fiducial limits. 4 Resistance ratio. Degrees of freedom = 3.
Table 3. Toxicity of organophosphates in adult female house flies from different dairy farms.
Table 3. Toxicity of organophosphates in adult female house flies from different dairy farms.
InsecticidePopulationYear1 NSlope ± SEχ2p2 LC503 FL (95%)4 RR
FenitrothionSusceptible-1801.0 ± 0.31.80.63719–611
Dirab20191801.3 ± 0.32.00.6849587–141823
Al-Masanie20191802.0 ± 0.36.60.1548241–138615
Al-Uraija20191801.5 ± 0.30.70.9410279–57511
Al-Washlah20191801.1 ± 0.30.90.8241104–3817
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.9 ± 0.31.70.6990749–142527
ChlorpyrifosSusceptible-1801.8 ± 0.33.90.3269–461
Dirab20191801.1 ± 0.31.60.7302146–47512
Al-Masanie20191801.2 ± 0.30.70.9509–1062
Al-Uraija20191801.1 ± 0.30.40.9347189–53713
Al-Washlah20191801.7 ± 0.41.30.712052–1455
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.5 ± 0.30.40.7352231–49414
MalathionSusceptible-1802.4 ± 0.30.50.17952–1441
Dirab20191801.5 ± 0.30.90.8267160–3803
Al-Masanie20191801.2 ± 0.30.90.8266141–3993
Al-Uraija20191801.5 ± 0.32.70.4375249–5255
Al-Washlah20191801.9 ± 0.31.30.7736555–10239
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.3 ± 0.35.10.2680468–10719
1 Number of tested adult females. 2 Median lethal concentration (ppm). 3 Fiducial limits. 4 Resistance ratio. Degrees of freedom = 3.
Table 4. Toxicity of organophosphates in adult male house flies from different dairy farms.
Table 4. Toxicity of organophosphates in adult male house flies from different dairy farms.
InsecticidePopulationYear1 NSlope ± SEχ2p2 LC503 FL (95%)4 RR
FenitrothionSusceptible-1801.9 ± 0.34.60.23213–601
Dirab20191801.9 ± 0.34.40.2280104–4909
Al-Masanie20191802.3 ± 0.32.80.4421325–53613
Al-Uraija20191801.2 ± 0.31.60.713944–2344
Al-Washlah20191801.1 ± 0.21.80.6466322–65915
Al-Muzahmiya20191803.3 ± 0.46.60.1444255–79914
ChlorpyrifosSusceptible-1801.7 ± 0.35.60.11810–251
Dirab20191801.7 ± 0.31.30.7195115–27211
Al-Masanie20191801.6 ± 0.31.40.712756–1927
Al-Uraija20191801.9 ± 0.35.40.2259159–48614
Al-Washlah20191803.6 ± 0.40.20.99332–1255
Al-Muzahmiya20191801.6 ± 0.32.90.4236141–33213
MalathionSusceptible-1801.6 ± 0.30.40.94633–651
Dirab20191802.1 ± 0.31.20.8219149–2905
Al-Masanie20191802.1 ± 0.40.30.912161–1733
Al-Uraija20191801.3 ± 0.30.30.915765–2463
Al-Washlah20191801.5 ± 0.32.00.6542385–77212
Al-Muzahmiya20191802.1 ± 0.32.80.4385292–4958
1 Number of tested adult males. 2 Median lethal concentration (ppm). 3 Fiducial limits. 4 Resistance ratio. Degrees of freedom = 3.
Table 5. Median lethal time (LT50) of pyrethroids and organophosphates in male house flies.
Table 5. Median lethal time (LT50) of pyrethroids and organophosphates in male house flies.
PopulationConc. ppm1 LT50 (h)2 FL (95%)Slope (SE)Conc. ppm1 LT50 (h)2 FL (95%)Slope (SE)
Alpha-cypermethrin Deltamethrin
Dirab2561412–17 b5.8 (1.2)204831–4 c1.2 (0.2)
Al-Masanie2562919–52 a1.4 (0.3)20482215–33 a1.7 (0.4)
Al-Uraija2563321–68 a1.3 (0.3)204853–8 bc1.3 (0.2)
Al-Washlah25696–13 bc2.7 (0.5)204896–14 b1.1 (0.2)
Al-Muzahmiya25631–7 c2.0 (0.7)204831–6 bc1.1 (0.2)
Bifenthrin Cypermethrin
Dirab2048116–18 b1.2 (0.2)204831–6 ab1.0 (0.2)
Al-Masanie204885–13 b1.3 (0.2)204810–3 ab0.8 (0.2)
Al-Uraija----204873–13 a0.9 (0.2)
Al-Washlah20485928–461 a0.8 (0.2)204830–7 ab0.7 (0.2)
Al-Muzahmiya20481710–29 ab1.2 (0.2)204810–2 b1.1 (0.2)
Cyfluthrin Fenitrothion
Dirab204810–3 a0.8 (0.2)2048149–17 ab3.8 (0.8)
Al-Masanie20480.30–2 a0.4 (0.2)2048138–17 ab2.3 (0.5)
Al-Uraija20480.40–2 a0.6 (0.2)204863–10 b1.3 (0.2)
Al-Washlah20480.60–2 a0.8 (0.2)20481611–20 a2.5 (0.6)
Al-Muzahmiya204810–2 a1.0 (0.2)2048139–16 ab3.5 (0.8)
Chlorpyrifos Malathion
Dirab204896–12 a2.6 (0.5)----
Al-Masanie----204885–11 bc2.6 (0.5)
Al-Uraija2048117–15 a2.6 (0.5)2048127–15 ab3.0 (0.7)
Al-Washlah204821–2 b2.2 (0.4)20481812–23 a2.4 (0.5)
Al-Muzahmiya204830–5 b0.9 (0.2)204831–5 c1.1 (0.2)
1 Median lethal time. 2 Fiducial limits. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in the responses (p ≤ 0.05). “-” means bioassay for LT50 was not performed.
Table 6. Median lethal time (LT50) of pyrethroids and organophosphates in female house flies.
Table 6. Median lethal time (LT50) of pyrethroids and organophosphates in female house flies.
PopulationConc. ppm1 LT50 (h)2 FL (95%)Slope (SE)Conc. ppm1 LT50 (h)2 FL (95%)Slope (SE)
Alpha-cypermethrin Deltamethrin
Dirab256105–13 bc3.6 (1.0)204842–8 c1.1 (0.2)
Al-Masanie256135–42 abc0.6 (0.2)204841–7 c1.0 (0.2)
Al-Uraija2563018–71 a1.1 (0.3)20481711–26 ab1.4 (0.3)
Al-Washlah2561913–25 ab2.2 (0.5)20482418–35 a1.5 (0.2)
Al-Muzahmiya25630–7 c0.6 (0.2)204862–15 bc0.7 (0.2)
Bifenthrin Cypermethrin
Dirab204853–9 b1.3 (0.2)204810–4 a0.5 (0.2)
Al-Masanie20484924–262 a0.8 (0.2)204841–7 a0.9 (0.2)
Al-Uraija2048---204831–8 a0.8 (0.4)
Al-Washlah2048148–27 ab1.0 (0.2)204841–11 a0.26 (0.2)
Al-Muzahmiya20481710–31 a1.1 (0.2)204810.1–3 a0.7 (0.2)
Cyfluthrin Fenitrothion
Dirab204842–7 a1.4 (0.2)20483620–113 a0.9 (0.2)
Al-Masanie204820–5 a0.7 (0.2)20482218–27 a3.5 (0.7)
Al-Uraija204820–4 a0.9 (0.2)2048148–23 a1.2 (0.2)
Al-Washlah204870–31 a0.4 (0.2)20482015–25 a3.1 (0.6)
Al-Muzahmiya204861–13 a0.7 (0.2)20482417–35 a1.9 (0.4)
Chlorpyrifos Malathion
Dirab2048107–14 b2.0 (0.4)204885–11 c2.3 (0.4)
Al-Masanie204885–11 b2.8 (0.6)----
Al-Uraija20482116–27 a2.6 (0.6)20481510–21 bc1.8 (0.3)
Al-Washlah204832–4 c1.9 (0.3)20482216–31 ab2.2 (0.5)
Al-Muzahmiya2048149–21 ab1.6 (0.3)20483427–48 a2.8 (0.6)
1 Median lethal time. 2 Fiducial limits. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in the responses (p ≤ 0.05). “-” means bioassay for LT50 was not performed.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop