What is the resistance to pesticides as an adaptation of some species?
479160
Your question confuses me.\n\nAfter awhile, some species can become immune to pesticides, and therefore cause them to be uneffective, just like if you take too much medicine too often, bacteria can become immune to it and it will not help you get better.
694287
fundamentally they will be the same plant but genetic they will be different they will have the same features but those features will appear in a varied state...the environment has a lot to do with how they appear
292131
Different plants and animals have different abilities to adapt.  Plants like Kudzu and Russian Thistle adapt quickly to new environments, while certain orchids and flowering plants are very sensitive to changes.  The same holds true to animals-gorillas seem very sensitive to environmental changes, while closely related chimpanzees are much hardier.  If there is an extreme enough change, most plants and animals will die, as has happened a number of time in history-but, the dominant life on Earth, bacteria, will adapt just fine.
633498
I don't know an example related to pesticides, but I do know one related to herbicides.\n\nAgent orange is a defoliant (kills plants) and it was used in the Vietnam War.  The manufacture of it also produced an unwanted byproduct called Dioxin.  This chemical is bad for humans, and this is why agent orange is linked with some sickness that people had after being exposed to agent orange, even though the herbicide wasn't the problem...the toxic byproduct was.\n\nIn the manufacture of organic molecules, you often get byproducts.  When developing chemical pesticides, you could inadertently produce chemicals that are toxic to more than you want them to be, and they need to be separated properly from your pesticide.
761292
without pesticides  . . .
268244
This a classical  example of ecological genetics. As a result of coal burning in industrial revolution the habitat of the moths were blackened with soot. As a result more black pepper moths were surviving because they blended in better.( pre industrial there were 99% white, post there were 98 % black) Now days with better technology and less coal it is being reversed because lichen is now able to grow on trees and the white can blend in better.
73069
We spray crops with insecticide.  Insects become immuned to the insecticide-evolution.  We've turned wolves into dogs and wildabeasts into cattle.  Spanish mated with Indians and created hispanics.
589024
to have a good idea have a look at the article below. hoppe it helps...\n\n\n\nPollination Adaptations\nFlowers need to be pollinated. Pollination is the process of moving the pollen grain from the anther of a stamen to the stigma of a carpel. There are a few flowers that can self-pollinate all on their own, but this limits them to inbreeding. Most species rely upon some kind of pollination vector to accomplish pollination. The vector can be any agent that can move pollen from anther to stigma. \n\nThere is evidence of water and wind as the pollination vector in certain species, but many species do not depend upon the random or downstream-only pollination pathways offered by these vectors. Indeed such vectors are only useful in situations where large populations of a very limited number of species are present. \n\nMost flowers have evolved to use a "smart bomb" or "magic bullet" vector...animals! These vectors have sensory organs to locate flowers, they have locomotion to get them to the flowers in spite of large spaces between individuals, and they have enough intelligence to remember that they can depend upon a reward if they visit one particular species repeatedly. \n\nAttracting the Pollinator\nIn order to effectively use an animal pollination vector, a flower needs to attract the animal for the first visit. This can be done in one of two ways: visual cues and olfactory cues. \n\nVisual Cues\nSome species use a color pattern known as a "bull's eye" to mark their position in the environment...to stand out against a background of green foliage. Obviously not too many animal-pollinated flowers are leaf-green! \n\na black-eyed susan...recall that there are over 100 species of unrelated black-eyed susans...one of the problems of common names. This one is in the genus, Rudbeckia. Notice its obvious bull's eye target appearance. The bull's eye is black and the yellow ring surrounds it to make it quite noticeable. \n\n\nThe daylily (Hemerocallis) also shows a prominent bull's eye, but notice how the color pattern is reversed. The bull's eye is light in color and the ring around it is very dark. The effect is the same however, the flower is going to be obvious to a potential pollinator flying overhead. \n\n\nIt is important that whatever color pattern is used is within the visible range of colors observable by the pollinator. Colors obvious to one animal may be invisible to another. Gaillardia (painted daisy). This species obviously uses a yellow bull's eye with surrounding red and yellow rings. One gets the appearance of a dartboard just looking at it. The pollinator visiting is butterflies. Butterflies definitely are attracted to red/yellow patterns, and they need the large landing platform provided by this wide flower. \n\n\nOn the other hand, Gaillardia does not limit its pollination to just butterflies. An afternoon of observation will tell you that even more visits are made by honeybees! Bees have no ability to perceive red colors, so how does that red/yellow pattern look to a bee? This requires some mental translation and some special photography for a human to appreciate what a bee might observe. \n\nFirst we need to eliminate red from the image. This can only be accomplished with fancy video work or black-and-white photography.\n\n\nBee vision does not include red, but it does extend into the ultraviolet. In other words, bees see colors that are invisible to us! Our film is not very sensitive to ultraviolet because it has been developed for showing images visible to humans. To correct that and see the ultraviolet patterns in these flowers, we need to use yet another filter. This filter blocks visible light and allows ultraviolet light to expose the film. Below is the ultraviolet image of the same two daisies taken seconds later with both filters in place: \n\n\ncenter of each daisy is totally absorbing the UV light. The petals around the perimeter are reflecting the UV
618467
Hypersensitive response-assisting protein (HRAP) has been\npreviously reported as an amphipathic plant protein isolated\nfrom sweet pepper that intensifies the harpinPss-mediated\nhypersensitive response (HR). The hrap gene has no\nappreciable similarity to any other known sequences, and\nits activity can be rapidly induced by incompatible pathogen\ninfection. To assess the function of the hrap gene in\nplant disease resistance, the CaMV 35S promoter was used\nto express sweet pepper hrap in transgenic tobacco. Compared\nwith wild-type tobacco, transgenic tobacco plants exhibit\nmore sensitivity to harpinPss and show resistance to\nvirulent pathogens (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci and\nErwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora). This disease resistance\nof transgenic tobacco does not originate from a constitutive\nHR, because endogenous level of salicylic acid and\nhsr203J mRNA showed similarities in transgenic and wildtype\ntobacco under noninfected conditions. However, following\na virulent pathogen infection in hrap transgenic\ntobacco, hsr203J was rapidly induced and a micro-HR\nnecrosis was visualized by trypan blue staining in the infiltration\narea. Consequently, we suggest that the disease resistance\nof transgenic plants may result from the induction\nof a HR by a virulent pathogen infection.\nVarious defense responses are induced when
556331
*Nicotine sulfate was extracted from tobacco leaves for use as an insecticide.\n*Pyrethrum which is derived from crysanthemums.\n*Rotenone which is derived from the roots of tropical legumes.\n*Azardirectin is extracted from tropical plant Azardirecta indica.\n*Microbial pesticides consist of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus or protozoan) as the active ingredient. Microbial pesticides can control many different kinds of pests, although each separate active ingredient is relatively specific for its target pest[s]. For example, there are fungi that control certain weeds, and other fungi that kill specific insects.The most widely used microbial pesticides are subspecies and strains of Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Each strain of this bacterium produces a different mix of proteins, and specifically kills one or a few related species of insect larvae. While some Bt's control moth larvae found on plants, other Bt's are specific for larvae of flies and mosquitoes. The target insect species are determined by whether the particular Bt produces a protein that can bind to a larval gut receptor, thereby causing the insect larvae to starve.\n*Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, are generally synthetic materials that directly kill or inactivate the pest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such as insect sex pheromones, that interfere with mating, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps. Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a substance meets the criteria for classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA has established a special committee to make such decisions.\n*Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs) are pesticidal substances that plants produce from genetic material that has been added to the plant. For example, scientists can take the gene for the Bt pesticidal protein, and introduce the gene into the plant's own genetic material. Then the plant, instead of the Bt bacterium, manufactures the substance that destroys the pest. The protein and its genetic material, but not the plant itself, are regulated by EPA.
18918
Typically, resistance is estimated by challanging test plants with the pathogen under controlled conditions. The particulars will vary according to the host and the pathogen, but the extent of the infection among test plants is key. \n\nAssessments may be done by visual inspection or a more quantifiable measure, like the size of necrotic lesions (e.g. on leaves) or reduction of yield (for agrocultural crops). Ideally pathovars of high and low virulence will be included in the tests to put the wild-type pathogens' virulence into prespective.
571296
>>>>Specifically, how do rodenticides and insecticides kill pests?\n\nIf you want specificity I suggest you find a website that describes the mode of action. You are looking at a minimum of 10, 00 words if you want specifics, and no one is going to post 10, 00 words here.\n\nIn vaguely general terms however common rodenticides work by preventing the blood from clotting. This leads to bleeding into the joints and into the organs, and ultimately causes death from dehydration.\n\nInsecticides work by causing the nerves to fire continuously. That in turn causes the muscles to contract uncontrollably. The constant muscle contraction causes the insect  to die of exhauation.\n\n>>>>Am I limited to which ones I as a layman can buy for private use?\n\nYes, every state has its own restrictions on what licences are required for which pesticides. For example you can not but arsenic or fluoroacetate in any state as a layman although they are common commercial insecticides and rodenticides respectively.\n\n>>>Are their any controls in place?\n\nYes. In most states there are lists of restricted pesticides available only to licenced professionals. The restrictions and lists vary. You need to produce a licence to obtain the restricted substances.
291260
Adaptation? Evolution?
1071615
Submergence tolerance is an important characterisitc to breed into improved rice cultivars for rainfed lowland and deepwater areas. It may also be useful as a strategy for weed management in areas where rice is seeded directly into standing water, and deeper water levels (20cm) can be used for weed suppression. Genetic studies have been conducted (Mohanty et al. 1982; Haque et al. 1989), but the specific genes controlling tolerance have not been identified. \n    We studied the inheritance of submergence tolerance in a cross between the highly tolerant indica line IR40931-26-3-3-5 and the susceptible japonica line P1543851. IR40931-26 has a similar level of tolerance to FR13A, from which it derived the trait (Mackill et al. 1993). At 8 DAS, F3 families were subjected to 14-16 d submergence in greenhouse tanks. Individual plants were scored on a scale of 1 (tolerance) to 9 (susceptible) 1 wk after the water was removed. \n    Differences among F3 families were highly significant, and means ranged from 1.6 to 8.9, compared to 1.5 and 8.4 for the tolerant and susceptible families. DNA from the F2 plants giving rise to the nine most tolerant and most susceptible F2 families were bulked and assayed with 624 RAPD markers. Five RAPD bands associated with either the tolerant or susceptible families were asseyed on the entire F2 population. These five bands were linked to each other. RFLP markers from Cornell University, USA (McCouch et al. 1988), and from the Rice Genome Program, STAFF Institute, Tsukuba, Japan (Kurata et al. 1994) were used to map these RAPD markers to the end of chromosome 9 (Fig. 1). Analysis by Mapmaker/QTL (Lincoln et al. 1992) identified a locus near the RFLP
342488
I think what you are referring to is "natural selection" aka "survival of the fittest"\n\nBasically the animal most suited to its environment due to mutation (the ones with genetic proclivity to have longer necks, stronger arms etc) will get more food/mates and will tend to, over a long period, tend to make the species move in that direction.\n\nBasic answer - if you need more drop me a line.
724953
When an animal's environment changes, the animal needs to change in order to adapt to their environment. For example, if area gets colder then the animal adapts to their new environment by growing thicker fur. Natural selection kills off the ones with short fur allowing the ones with longer furs to reproduce.
615648
both are different species belonging to same genus