Managing resistance to chemical treatments in stored products pests

This review focuses on key trends in resistance to chemical treatments in stored product pests, and advances in resistance management, with an emphasis on resistance to the fumigant phosphine. Findings: Phosphine resistance continues to be a major concern. In particular, phosphine resistance in Cryptolestes ferrugineus has emerged as a serious issue, with some populations exhibiting the strongest level detected so far for this fumigant. In response, a 'quick knock down test' has been established to deliver industry and scientists 'same day' advice on the resistance status of field samples; sulfuryl fluoride is being developed as a 'resistance breaker' and phosphine dosages are being revised to manage this problem. There has been major progress in identifying the genes responsible for phosphine resistance and the development of molecular resistance diagnostics for key pests. Several studies on Rhyzopertha dominica have demonstrated that molecular screening can be used to determine the frequency of resistance alleles in samples collected from farm storages. Despite on-going research in several pests, there is no definitive answer to the question of whether there is a fitness cost associated phosphine resistance, with some studies showing a clear cost and others none. Evidence continues to emerge of resistance to grain protectants, including the juvenile hormone analogue methoprene. The development and adoption of spinosad, as a next generation 'green' treatment, and the use of protectant combinations provides opportunities to counter the problem of protectant resistance.Directions for future research: A uniform set of protocols should be developed for phosphine resistance detection for all major species. It should combine 'quick tests' and molecular diagnostics to be adopted internationally. Research is required on the establishment of a decision making system that integrates newly developed grain protectants and fumigants, other alternative control methods, as well as an accurate and rapid resistance detection system for early warning of the emergence of new resistances.

Chemical containment and eradication of screw− worm incursions in Australia

Screwworms are obligate, invasive parasites of warm-blooded animals. The female flies lay batches of eggs at the edge of wounds or other lesions. These eggs hatch to larvae or screw-worms which feed on affected animals for 6-7 days, burrowing deeply into subcutaneous tissues and causing severe trauma to animals, production loss and potentially death. Susceptible sites include wounds resulting from management practices such as castration, de-horning and ear tagging and lesions caused by the activities of other parasites such as buffalo flies and ticks. The navels of the new born and the vulval region of their mothers following parturition are highly susceptible and body orifices such as nose and ears are also frequent targets for ovipositing screwworm flies. The Old World screw-worm, Chrysomya bezziana (OWS) is considered one of the most serious exotic insect pest threatening Australia's livestock industries and is endemic in a number of our closest neighbouring countries. New World screwworm (NWS), Cochliomyia hominivorax, endemic to South America, has also entered Australia on at least 2 occasions. Many tropical and subtropical areas of Australia are suitable for the establishment of OWS and the potential range is expected to increase with climate change. The Australian screwworm preparedness strategy indicates a program of containment with chemical treatments followed by eradication of OWS using sterile male release and parasiticides. However, there is no longer an operational OWS sterile insect screw-worm facility anywhere in the world and establishing a large scale production facility would most optimistically take at least 2 years. In the interim, containment would be almost totally dependent on the availability of effective chemical controls. A review of chemical formulations available for potential use against OWS in Australia found that currently only one chemical, ivermectin administered by subcutaneous injection (s.c.) is registered for use against OWS and that many of the chemicals previously shown to be effective against OWS were no longer registered for animal use in Australia.18 From this review a number of Australian-registered chemicals were recommended as a priority for testing against OWS. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) can issue an emergency use permit for use of pesticides if they are registered in Australia for other animal uses and shown to be effective against OWS. This project tested the therapeutic and prophylactic efficacy of chemicals with potential for use in the treatment and control of OWS.