| |
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Gado de Leite. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com rosangela.lacerda@embrapa.br. |
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Gado de Leite. |
|
Data corrente: |
19/09/2025 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
19/09/2025 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
SALVADOR, V. F.; MORAIS, I. M. L. de; LEAL, L. L. L. L.; TAMIOZO, G. L.; CHAGAS, H. D. F.; SILVA, I. S.; FERREIRA, L. L; BORGES, F. de A.; PRATA, M. C. de A.; COSTA-JUNIOR, L. M.; COSTA, A. J. da; MONTEIRO, C. M. de O.; LOPES, W. D. Z. |
|
Afiliação: |
VANESSA FERREIRA SALVADOR, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIAS; IGOR MACIEL LOPES DE MORAIS, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIAS; LUCCAS LOURENZZO LIMA LINS LEAL, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIAS; GABRIEL LOPES TAMIOZO, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIAS; HAILE DEAN FIGUEIREDO CHAGAS, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIAS; ISABELA SANTOS SILVA, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIAS; LORENA LOPES FERREIRA, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS; FERNANDO DE ALMEIDA BORGES, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO MATO GROSSO DO SUL; MARCIA CRISTINA DE AZEVEDO PRATA, CNPGL; LIVIO MARTINS COSTA-JUNIOR, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO MARANHAO; ALVIMAR JOSE DA COSTA, UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA; CAIO MARCIO DE OLIVEIRA MONTEIRO, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIAS; WELBER DANIEL ZANETTI LOPES, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIAS. |
|
Título: |
Resistance of Rhipicephalus microplus to different acaricides in tropical climates: are the laboratory and field results related? |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2025 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Veterinary Parasitology, v. 336, 110441, 2025. |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between laboratory (Larval Packet Test -LPT; Larval Immersion Test – LIT; Adult Immersion Test – AIT) and field studies using active ingredients or commercial formulations to control R. microplus in a tropical region. This comparative study was carried out with four populations of R. microplus from four Brazilian farms. For laboratory assays, technical grade compounds of cypermethrin and chlorpyrifos were used in the LPT, while fipronil and ivermectin were used in the LIT. The AIT was conducted using commercial spray formulations containing pyrethroid and organophosphate: cypermethrin 187.5 ppm + chlorpyrifos 375 ppm + fenthion 187.5 ppm and chlorpyrifos 825 ppm + High-Cis cypermethrin 99 ppm. For the field assays, the same commercial products of the AIT used, a pour-on formulation of fipronil 1 mg/kg, injectable 200 µg/kg ivermectin, injectable 630 µg/kg ivermectin, injectable 200 µg/kg doramectin and injectable 200 µg/kg moxidectin. For field studies, populations of R. microplus with the mean therapeutic efficacy ≤89 %, on days 7 up to 21 post-treatment, were classified as resistant to such compounds. To standardize the comparative analysis between laboratory and field results, this same value of larval efficacy or mortality (≤89 %) was used to classify the population as resistant by laboratory tests (LPT, LIT, and AIT). Of the 16 laboratory tests conducted using R. microplus larvae (LPT and LIT), 66.6 % showed no relation with field study results. Inconsistencies were observed in 100 % of cases for spray formulations, 25 % for fipronil, and 75 % for macrocyclic lactones. Although the efficacy results of the AIT with commercial formulations were slightly higher than the therapeutic efficacy observed in the field, it is important to note that there was a 100 % positive relation in the classification of the status of the four populations, which were all considered susceptible in both laboratory and field analyses. These findings demonstrate that, in situations like this study, it is essential to calibrate laboratory tests using larvae, particularly against field results, for each formulation. This approach will allow for more accurate recommendations regarding the use of a chemical formulation for a specific tick population. Furthermore, it reduces the risk of incorrectly identifying R. microplus population as resistant or susceptible and helps clarify the practical implications of resistance. MenosThe aim of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between laboratory (Larval Packet Test -LPT; Larval Immersion Test – LIT; Adult Immersion Test – AIT) and field studies using active ingredients or commercial formulations to control R. microplus in a tropical region. This comparative study was carried out with four populations of R. microplus from four Brazilian farms. For laboratory assays, technical grade compounds of cypermethrin and chlorpyrifos were used in the LPT, while fipronil and ivermectin were used in the LIT. The AIT was conducted using commercial spray formulations containing pyrethroid and organophosphate: cypermethrin 187.5 ppm + chlorpyrifos 375 ppm + fenthion 187.5 ppm and chlorpyrifos 825 ppm + High-Cis cypermethrin 99 ppm. For the field assays, the same commercial products of the AIT used, a pour-on formulation of fipronil 1 mg/kg, injectable 200 µg/kg ivermectin, injectable 630 µg/kg ivermectin, injectable 200 µg/kg doramectin and injectable 200 µg/kg moxidectin. For field studies, populations of R. microplus with the mean therapeutic efficacy ≤89 %, on days 7 up to 21 post-treatment, were classified as resistant to such compounds. To standardize the comparative analysis between laboratory and field results, this same value of larval efficacy or mortality (≤89 %) was used to classify the population as resistant by laboratory tests (LPT, LIT, and AIT). Of the 16 laboratory tests conducted using R. microplus larvae (LPT and LIT), 66.6 % s... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Thesagro: |
Acaricida; Bovino; Carrapaticida; Carrapato. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
L Ciência Animal e Produtos de Origem Animal |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 03445naa a2200313 a 4500
001 2178948
005 2025-09-19
008 2025 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aSALVADOR, V. F.
245 $aResistance of Rhipicephalus microplus to different acaricides in tropical climates$bare the laboratory and field results related?$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2025
520 $aThe aim of this study was therefore to investigate the relationship between laboratory (Larval Packet Test -LPT; Larval Immersion Test – LIT; Adult Immersion Test – AIT) and field studies using active ingredients or commercial formulations to control R. microplus in a tropical region. This comparative study was carried out with four populations of R. microplus from four Brazilian farms. For laboratory assays, technical grade compounds of cypermethrin and chlorpyrifos were used in the LPT, while fipronil and ivermectin were used in the LIT. The AIT was conducted using commercial spray formulations containing pyrethroid and organophosphate: cypermethrin 187.5 ppm + chlorpyrifos 375 ppm + fenthion 187.5 ppm and chlorpyrifos 825 ppm + High-Cis cypermethrin 99 ppm. For the field assays, the same commercial products of the AIT used, a pour-on formulation of fipronil 1 mg/kg, injectable 200 µg/kg ivermectin, injectable 630 µg/kg ivermectin, injectable 200 µg/kg doramectin and injectable 200 µg/kg moxidectin. For field studies, populations of R. microplus with the mean therapeutic efficacy ≤89 %, on days 7 up to 21 post-treatment, were classified as resistant to such compounds. To standardize the comparative analysis between laboratory and field results, this same value of larval efficacy or mortality (≤89 %) was used to classify the population as resistant by laboratory tests (LPT, LIT, and AIT). Of the 16 laboratory tests conducted using R. microplus larvae (LPT and LIT), 66.6 % showed no relation with field study results. Inconsistencies were observed in 100 % of cases for spray formulations, 25 % for fipronil, and 75 % for macrocyclic lactones. Although the efficacy results of the AIT with commercial formulations were slightly higher than the therapeutic efficacy observed in the field, it is important to note that there was a 100 % positive relation in the classification of the status of the four populations, which were all considered susceptible in both laboratory and field analyses. These findings demonstrate that, in situations like this study, it is essential to calibrate laboratory tests using larvae, particularly against field results, for each formulation. This approach will allow for more accurate recommendations regarding the use of a chemical formulation for a specific tick population. Furthermore, it reduces the risk of incorrectly identifying R. microplus population as resistant or susceptible and helps clarify the practical implications of resistance.
650 $aAcaricida
650 $aBovino
650 $aCarrapaticida
650 $aCarrapato
700 1 $aMORAIS, I. M. L. de
700 1 $aLEAL, L. L. L. L.
700 1 $aTAMIOZO, G. L.
700 1 $aCHAGAS, H. D. F.
700 1 $aSILVA, I. S.
700 1 $aFERREIRA, L. L
700 1 $aBORGES, F. de A.
700 1 $aPRATA, M. C. de A.
700 1 $aCOSTA-JUNIOR, L. M.
700 1 $aCOSTA, A. J. da
700 1 $aMONTEIRO, C. M. de O.
700 1 $aLOPES, W. D. Z.
773 $tVeterinary Parasitology$gv. 336, 110441, 2025.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Gado de Leite (CNPGL) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 1 | |
| 1. |  | GUIMARÃES, D. V.; TAVARES, O. C. H.; OLIVEIRA, A. P. de; BORGES, A. A. A.; MUSACCHIO, I.; NOVOTNY, E. H. Curvas de retenção de água de horizontes e solos selecionados da XV Reunião Brasileira de Classificação e Correlação de Solos obtidas por ressonância magnética nuclear em baixo campo. In: LUMBRERAS, J. F.; COELHO, M. R.; OLIVEIRA, V. A. de; LIMA, H. N.; TEIXEIRA, W. G.; SANTOS, L. A. C. dos; RODRIGUES, M. do R. L.; MENDONÇA-SANTOS, M. de L. (ed.). Guia de campo da XV Reunião Brasileira de Classificação e Correlação de Solos: RCC das várzeas do médio Rio Amazonas e entorno. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2025. cap. 20, p. 607-640.| Tipo: Capítulo em Livro Técnico-Científico |
| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Solos. |
|    |
| Registros recuperados : 1 | |
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
