中文摘要：

【目的】明确棉蚜AphisgossypiiGlover啶虫脒抗性品系与其它杀虫剂的交互抗性现状以及增效剂的增效作用，为延缓和治理棉蚜对啶虫脒的抗性提供依据。【方法】采用单头反选育和群体汰选的方式，获得了棉蚜啶虫脒敏感和抗性品系；采用叶片药膜法测定了13种杀虫剂对啶虫脒的交互抗性以及增效剂对啶虫脒的增效作用。【结果】经过室内棉蚜敏感和抗性品系的筛选，获得了相对抗性倍数为82．33倍的棉蚜啶虫脒抗性品系。棉蚜啶虫脒抗性品系的交互抗性谱的研究表明，交互抗性倍数小于5的药剂为：吡蚜酮，甲基阿维菌素；交互抗性倍数在5～10倍的药剂为：噻虫嗪，联苯菊酯，毒死蜱，马拉硫磷，丙溴磷，辛硫磷；交互抗性倍数在10～15倍的药剂为：硫丹，阿维菌素，高效氯氰菊酯，三唑磷，氧化乐果；交互抗性倍数大于15倍的药剂为：吡虫啉。增效剂实验表明，TPP和PBO在啶虫脒敏感品系中增效作用不明显，但在抗性品系中增效作用显著。在啶虫脒抗性品系中的增效比为1．77、1．61，在啶虫脒敏感品系中的增效比为1．02、1．03。DEM在啶虫脒抗性、敏感品系中的增效作用均不明显，增效比为1．04、1．02。TPP和PBO对啶虫脒有很好的增效作用。以室内棉蚜敏感品系（LC50为0．180mg／L）为基础，对新疆各主要棉区的棉蚜种群进行了啶虫脒药剂的抗性调查，结果表明新疆各主要棉区棉蚜对啶虫脒的相对抗性倍数为6．1～22．0倍。【结论】由此说明新疆主要棉区棉蚜对啶虫脒具有一定的抗性风险，生产中可以利用无交互抗性的吡蚜酮和甲基阿维菌素来治理抗性棉蚜种群。

英文摘要：

[Objectives] To provide the basis for delaying and preventing resistance to acetamiprid in the cotton aphid （Aphis gossypii Glover）, cross resistance to, and synergists of, this compound were studied in acetamiprid-resistant and susceptible strains ofA. gossypii in the lab. [Methods] Acetamiprid -susceptible and -resistant strains ofA. gossypii were developed by individual reverse and group selection. The cross resistance of acetamiprid-resistant strains to 13 kinds of insecticides and the synergistic effects of potential synergists were determined with the leaf membrane assay. [Results] Acetamiprid-resistant strains of cotton aphids exhibited about 82.33-fold resistance to acetamiprid compared with the susceptible strain. Resistant strains displayed less than 5 fold resistance to pymetrozine and methyl-abamectin, 5-10 fold resistance to thiamethoxam ,bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, malathion, profenofos and Phoxim, 10-15 fold resistance to endosulfan, abamectin, beta-cypermethrin, triazophos, Omethoate, and 15 fold resistance to imidacloprid. Synergism tests showed that TPP and PBO had little synergistic effect on acetamiprid in susceptible strains. However TPP and PBO had an obviously greater synergistic effect in resistant strains （SR1.77 and 1.61, respectively） than in susceptible strains （SR1.02 and 1.03, respectively）. DEM had little synergistic effect on acetamiprid in both resistant and susceptible strains （synergism ratio; 1.04 and 1.02 respectively） but TPP and PBO were strong synergists. The LC50 of susceptible strains was 0.180 mg/L. These results show that resistance to acetamiprid in cotton aphid populations in Xinjiang could potentially reach 6.1-22.0 times that of acetamiprid-susceptible strains （LC50 0.180mg/L）. [Conclusion] There is a risk of resistance to acetamiprid in cotton aphids in Xinjiang which may be able to be managed by using pymetrozine and methyl abamectin.