Skip to main content


APRD Survey

Dear Users:

We value your contribution to and use of the Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database (APRD).

The APRD Team is conducting a Survey to gauge users experiences, our objective is to determine how the database enhances research, and to allow for users to provide feedback, suggestions and requests for potential improvements. Please take the anonymous survey using this link: Link to Survey

Thank you for your Participation,
David Mota-Sanchez
Arthropod Resistance Database Director


Reported Resistance Case(s)

Species: cydia pomonella

Order Family Common Name(s) Group Host
lepidoptera tortricidae codling moth AG fruit trees, walnut

Active Ingredient: DDT

MOA: Sodium channel modulators, Pyrethroids, Pyrethrins, DDT
Group: OCL CAS #: 50293 Shaugnessy Code: 29201

Resistance Case(s)

Case Id Year of Report Type of Resistance Location Reference
G1580 1969 Field Evolved Resistance
Australia--
Queensland
Rose, H. A. and Hooper, G. H. S. (1969). The susceptibility to insecticides of Cydia pomonella (Linnaues) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to selected insecticides in Louisana.. J. Econ. Entomol., 83 27-34.
G1482 1968 Field Evolved Resistance
South Africa Myburgh, G. (1968). In: FAO 1969.
G991 1965 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
Utah
Davis, D.W. (1965). In: FAO 1967.
G990 1965 Field Evolved Resistance
Turkey Sevintuna, C. (1965). In: FAO 1967.
G989 1965 Field Evolved Resistance
Poland Wegorek 1965. (1965).
G988 1965 Field Evolved Resistance
Canada--
Ontario
Fisher, R.W. (1965). In: FAO 1967.
G987 1965 Field Evolved Resistance
Greece Orphanidis, P.S. (1965). In: FAO 1967.
G524 1964 Field Evolved Resistance
Australia--
Tasmania
Kerr, R. W. (1964). Note on arthropod resistance to chemicals used in their control in Australia.. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci., 30 33-38.
G523 1964 Field Evolved Resistance
Australia--
New South Wales
Kerr, R. W. (1964). Note on arthropod resistance to chemicals used in their control in Australia.. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci., 30 33-38.
G251 1960 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
West Virginia
Glass, E. H. (1960). Current status of pesticide resistance in insects and mites attaching deciduous orchard crops.. Misc. Pub. Entomol. Soc. Am., 2 17-25.
G250 1960 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
Virginia
Glass, E. H. (1960). Current status of pesticide resistance in insects and mites attaching deciduous orchard crops.. Misc. Pub. Entomol. Soc. Am., 2 17-25.
G249 1960 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
Illinois
Glass, E. H. (1960). Current status of pesticide resistance in insects and mites attaching deciduous orchard crops.. Misc. Pub. Entomol. Soc. Am., 2 17-25.
G248 1960 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
Delaware
Glass, E. H. (1960). Current status of pesticide resistance in insects and mites attaching deciduous orchard crops.. Misc. Pub. Entomol. Soc. Am., 2 17-25.
G247 1960 Field Evolved Resistance
Canada--
British Columbia
Fisher, R. W. (1960). Note on resistance to DDT in the codling moth, Carpocapsa pomonella (L.) Ontario.. Can. J. Pl. Sci., 40 580-82.
G193 1959 Field Evolved Resistance
Australia--
Victoria
Morris, D. S. and Van Baer, R. (1959). DDT-resistant codling moth in Victoria.. J. Dep. Agric. Vict., 57 619-23.
G192 1959 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
Ohio
Cutright, C. R. (1959). Rotational use of spray chemicals in insect and mite control.. J. Econ. Entomol., 52 432-34.
G191 1959 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
Kentucky
Hamilton, D. W. (1959). Codling moth resistance to DDT.. Am. Fruit Grower., 79 48.
G164 1958 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
California
Barnes, M. M. (1958). Techniques for testing insecticide deposits with newly hatched codling moth larvae.. J. Econ. Entomol., 51 547.
G94 1956 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
Washington
Hamilton, D. W. (1956). Resistance of the codling moth to DDT sprays.. J. Econ. Entomol., 49 866.
G86 1955 Field Evolved Resistance
USA--
New York
Glass, E. H. and Fiori, B. (1955). Codling moth resistance to DDT in New York.. J. Econ. Entomol., 48 598.
*The population was created solely by selection and/or genetic manipulation.
**The population was selected further in the laboratory after collection.