Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:13:01.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the quality of mass-reared Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) males treated with dieldrin as larvae in a female-killing procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

P. H. Smith ,
C. A. Konovalov ,
G. G. Foster  and
R. W. Kerr
P. H. Smith
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601., Australia
C. A. Konovalov
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601., Australia
G. G. Foster
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601., Australia
R. W. Kerr
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601., Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The administration of dieldrin in the larval diet of Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) killed susceptible females with no pre-emergence mortality of males in a strain which contained a Y–autosome translocation linking dieldrin-resistance to the male sex. Laboratory assays of flight activity, sexual competitiveness and visual sensitivity revealed no significant differences between treated and untreated males. The life-span of treated males was slightly reduced at the highest dieldrin concentration used. In field releases, however, the recapture rate of treated males was much lower than for untreated males, indicating a major deficiency in the performance of dieldrin-treated males in the field that was not suspected from the laboratory tests.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , March 1981 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Agee, H. R. (1973). Spectral sensitivity of the compound eyes of field-collected adult boll-worms and tobacco budworms.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 66, 613–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agee, H. R. (1977). Instrumentation and techniques for measuring the quality of insect vision with the electroretinogram.—13 pp. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Southern Region, ARS, USDA. (ARS–S–162).Google Scholar
Baker, R. H., Sakai, R. K. & Saifuddin, U. T. (1978). Genetic sexing technique for a mosquito sterile male release.—Nature, Lond. 274, 253–255.Google Scholar
Barton, Browne L., Bartell, R. J., Van Gerwen, A. C. M. & Lawrence, L. A. (1976). Relationship between protein ingestion and sexual receptivity in females of the Australian sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina.—Physiol. Entomol. 1. 235–240.Google Scholar
Curtis, C. F. (1977). Testing systems for the genetic control of mosquitoes.—pp. 106–116in Packer, J. S. & White, D. (Eds.). Proceedings of the XV International Congress of Entomology. Washington, D.C., August 19–27, 1976.—824 pp. College Park, Maryland, USA, Entomological Society of America.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. K. (1960). A method for continuous determination of displacement activity in a group of flying insects.—Can. J. Zool. 38, 1021–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, G. G., Maddern, R. H. & Mills, A. T. (1980). Genetic instability in mass-rearing colonies of a sex-linked translocation strain of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) during a field trial of genetic control.—Theor. & Appl. Genet. 58, 169–175.Google Scholar
Foster, G. G., Whitten, M. J., Prout, T. & Gill, R. (1972). Chromosome rearrangements for the control of insect pests.—Science, N.Y. 176, 875–880.Google Scholar
Foster, G. G., Whitten, M. J., Vogt, W. G., Woodburn, T. L. & Arnold, J. T. (1978). Larval release method for genetic control of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae).—Bull. ent. Res. 68, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, J. L., Wilson, D. D. & Whitten, C. J. (1978). Visual sensitivity of four strains of screwworm flies.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 71, 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, P. E., Seawright, J. A., Dame, D. A. & Joslyn, D. J. (1978). Development of a genetic sexing system for Anopheles albimanus.—J. econ. Ent. 71, 766–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, P. Y., Yang, S. Y. & Metcalf, R. L. (1978). Influence of aldrin, methoxychlor, and parathion on longevity of Musca domestica and Phormia regina.—J. econ. Ent. 71 407–415.Google Scholar
McDonald, I. C. (1971). A male-producing strain of the housefly.—Science, N.Y. 172, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J. & Wasserman, W. (1974). Applied linear statistical models.—842 pp. Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin Inc.Google Scholar
Norris, K. R. (1957). A method of marking Calliphoridae (Diptera) during emergence from the puparium.—Nature, Lond. 180, 1002.Google Scholar
Overmeer, W. P. J. (1974). Genetic control of spider mites.—pp. 45–56in Pal, R. & Whitten, M. J. (Eds.). The use of genetics in insect control.—241 pp. Amsterdam, Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Pal, R. (1974). WHO/ICMR programme of genetic control of mosquitos in India.—pp. 73–95in Pal, R. & Whitten, M. J. (Eds.). The use of genetics in insect control.—241 pp. Amsterdam, Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Non parametric statistics. For the behavioural sciences.—312 pp. New York, McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Tazima, Y. (1964). The genetics of the silkworm.—253 pp. London, Logos Press.Google Scholar
Vogt, W. G. & Havenstein, D. E. (1974). A standardized bait trap for blowfly studies.—J. Aust. ent. Soc. 13, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, W. G. & Woodburn, T. L. (1980). The influence of temperature and moisture on survival and duration of the egg stage of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae).—Bull. ent. Res. 70, 665–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagoner, D. E., Mcdonald, I. C. & Childress, D. (1974). The present status of genetic control mechanisms in the house fly, Musca domeslica L.—pp. 183–197in Pal, R. & Whitten, M. J. (Eds.). The use of genetics in insect control.—241 pp. Amsterdam, Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Whitten, M. J. (1969). Automated sexing of pupae and its usefulness in control by sterile insects.—J. econ. Ent. 62, 272–273.Google Scholar
Whitten, M. J., Dearn, J. M. & Mckenzie, J. A. (1980). Field studies on insecticide resistance in the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina.—Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 33, 725–735.Google Scholar
Whitten, M. J. & Foster, G. G. (1975). Genetical methods of pest control.—A. Rev. Ent. 20, 461–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitten, M. J., Foster, G. G., Vogt, W. G., Kitching, R. L., Woodburn, T. L. & Konovalov, C. (1977). Current status of genetic control of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae).—pp. 129–139in Packer, J. S. & White, D. (Eds.). Proceedings of the XV International Congress of Entomology. Washington, D.C., August 19–27, 1976.—824 pp. College Park, Maryland, USA, Entomological Society of America.Google Scholar