Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:41:48.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Ultra-low-volume Spraying Technique for the Control of the Desert Locust, Schistocerca gregaria (Forsk.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

H. J. Sayer
Affiliation:
Desert Locust Survey, East Africa High Commission.

Extract

Studies of the physical and biological factors involved in the application of concentrated involatile oil solutions of a persistent insecticide (dieldrin) in the form of a fine spray to the low-density vegetation typical of the breeding areas of the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria (Forsk.), have led to a technique of control of the locust hoppers with a dosage as low as 0·30 litres per hectare (approximately ⅕ pint per acre). A simple device for producing such a spray has been designed to work off the exhaust system of a light four-wheel-drive motor vehicle. Successful control of hoppers has been obtained under a wide variety of weather conditions in both desert and bush typical of locust breeding areas, using ‘target’ and ‘barrier’ spraying techniques. Both techniques involve the spraying of vegetation which it is judged will be subsequently eaten by the hoppers, but target spraying is done on or near a known hopper band, whereas barrier spraying is done, not necessarily in sight of hoppers, across an area known to be highly infested. Examples of such successful attacks are described from the Eritrean coast, Tripolitania and Ethiopia. The methods can replace the well established technique of poison-baiting individual bands, and have the additional advantage of producing highly persistent toxic swathes which can be exploited by the barrier technique for treating locust egg-fields and for creating widely spaced barriers for the control of extensive infestations.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Courshee, R. J. (1955). Further trials of drift spraying for locust control.—Dep. Note nat. Inst. agric. Engng no. 54.Google Scholar
Courshee, R. J. (1959). Drift spraying for vegetation baiting.—Bull. ent. Res. 50 pp. 355370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, P. E. & Ashall, C. (1957). Field studies on diurnal behaviour, movement and aggregation in the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria Forskål).—Anti-Locust Bull. no. 25, 94 pp.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S., Ainsworth, M. & Toms, B. A. (1948). Laboratory studies on the spraying of locusts at rest and in flight.—Anti-Locust Bull. no. 2, 64 pp.Google Scholar
Lhéritier, G. (1955). Essais de moyens de lutte contre la sauterelle pèlerine (Schistocerca gregaria Forsk.).—Trav. Serv. Déf. Vég. Maroc no 8, 20 [+28] pp.Google Scholar
Osborne, F. W. (1956). An exhaust sprayer for locust control.—J. Dep. Agric. S. Aust. 59 pp. 268270.Google Scholar
Pearson, A. J. A. [1958]. The toxicity of dieldrin to the later instars of the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria Forsk.—Shell agric. Bull., no. ADB: 620/Fb.l8, 14 pp.Google Scholar
Sayer, H. J. & Rainey, R. C. (1958). An exhaust-nozzle sprayer for ultra-low-volume application of persistent insecticide in locust control.—[4] pp. London, Anti-Locust Res. Cent.; E. Afr. High Comm., Desert Locust Surv.Google Scholar
Toms, A. M. & Goodman, A. (1957). The importance of drift in insecticide spraying experiments: some observations from insect behaviour in cotton.—Emp. Cott. Gr. Rev. 34 pp. 177188.Google Scholar