Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:41:59.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The behavioural responses of three different strains of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) to Alfacron bait in the laboratory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Z.A. Freeman  and
D.B Pinniger
Z.A. Freeman*
Affiliation:
Central Science Laboratory MAFF, Slough, UK
D.B Pinniger
Affiliation:
Central Science Laboratory MAFF, Slough, UK
*
Z. A. Freeman, Central Science Laboratory, MAFF, London Road, Slough, Berks, SL3 7HJ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was carried out to investigate the behavioural components of resistance in the Standlake strain of Musca domestica Linnaeus. The flies were collected from a poultry unit where azamethiphos spray-on-bait (Alfacron), had been regularly used to control the fly population. A no-choice laboratory cage test was used to observe the responses of the Standlake resistant strain to baits and compare it with two other strains namely, Sparsholt resistant and Cooper susceptible. The baits used were, Alfacron, sugar and analytical grade azamethiphos, sugar alone, and a blank target as control. Only female flies were used, each strain was exposed separately to each bait over a 50 minute period and the responses were recorded with a datalogger. The responses (per fly) recorded during each test period were: the number of visits to a bait; the time spent on a bait; the number of feeds and time spent feeding on the bait defined as the number of proboscis contacts and the length of time of proboscis contact with the bait. Knockdown of flies was recorded at the end of each test. All strains showed differences in their responses to baits. The Standlake strain showed the greatest difference to responses to Alfacron, with inhibition of proboscis extension when flies landed on the bait and a lower proboscis contact when extended, resulting in fewer flies being knocked down by Alfacron than by the sugar and azamethiphos bait. This suggested that inhibition of feeding on the Alfacron bait by the Standlake strain was caused by formulation components or contaminants and not the active insecticide ingredient, azamethiphos.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 471 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Barson, G. (1987) Laboratory assessment of different methods of applying a commercial granular bait formulation methomyl to control adult houseflies (Musca domestica L). Pesticide Science 19, 167–177.Google Scholar
Barson, G. (1989a) Response of insecticide-resistant and susceptible houseflies (Musca domestica L.) to a granular bait formulation containing methomyl. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 3, 29–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barson, G. (1989b) Laboratory evaluation of the toxicity of bomyl and methomyl to susceptible and multi-resistant strains of houseflies (Musca domestica L.). Pesticide Science 27, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, W.N. & Decker, G.C. (1950) Housefly tolerance for insecticides. Soap & Sanitary chemicals 26, 122–125, 145–147.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.A. (1984) A further examination of insecticide resistance in houseflies (Musca domestica) in the United Kingdom. Proceedings 1984 British Crop Protection Conference-Pest and Diseases 6A–16, 535–540.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.A. & Lloyd, C.J. (1981) The spread of resistance among houseflies from farms in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference- Pests and Diseases 2, 625–631.Google Scholar
Denholm, I., Sawicki, R.M. & Farnham, A.W. (1985) Factors affecting resistance to insecticides in houseflies (Musca domestica). IV The population biology of flies on animal farms in South-eastern England and its implications for the management of resistance. Bulletin of Entomological Research 7, 143–158.Google Scholar
Dethier, D. (1976) The hungry fly- a physiological study of the behaviour associated with feeding. 490 pp. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Georghiou, G. P. (1972) The evaluation of resistance to pesticides. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic 3, 133–168.Google Scholar
Keiding, J. (1975) Problems of housefly (Musca domestica) control due to multiresistance to insecticides. Journal of Hygiene Epidemiology Microbiology and Immunology, 19, 340–355.Google Scholar
Keiding, J. & Jespersen, J.B. (1976) Control strategies on the development of insecticide resistance by houseflies: experience from Denmark. Proceedings of British Crop Protection Conference- Pests and Diseases 2, 623–630.Google Scholar
Keiding, J. & Skovmand, O (1984) Insecticide resistance in Musca domestica. Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory Annual Department Report for 1983, 38–43.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J.S. (1947). The extractant and repellant effects of mosquitoes of sub lethal contact with DDT. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 37, 593–607.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, J.W.. & Schoof, H.F. (1958) A field of malathion-resistant houseflies. Journal of Economic Entomology, 51, 18–19.Google Scholar
Kunast, C.. (1979) The development of permethrin resistance in the housefly (Musca domestica) in south Germany. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Zoologie 66, 385–390.Google Scholar
Nicholas, J.T. (1988) Behaviour of the housefly Musca domestica in relation to insecticide bait. PhD Thesis, Southampton University.Google Scholar
Pluthero, T.G. & Threlkeld, S.F.H. (1981) Genetic differences in malthion avoidance and resistance in Drosphila melanogaster. Journal of Economic Entomology 74, 736–740.Google Scholar
Price, N.R. & Chapman, P.A. (1987) Resistance to methomyl in housefly Musca domestica (L.) Pesticide Science 20, 167–177.Google Scholar
Smith, W.W. & Yearian, W.C. (1964) Studies of behaviour resistance in houseflies. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 37, 63–77.Google Scholar
Sparks, T.C.Lockwood, J.A., Byford, R.W.Graves, J.B. & Leonard, B.R. (1989) The role of behaviour in insecticide resistance. Pesticide Science 26, 383–399.Google Scholar
Webb, D.P. (1986) Evaluation of azamethiphos for the control of multi-insecticide resistant strains of housefly (Musca domestica) in deep-pit poultry houses in the UK pig farm. International Pest Control 28, 64–68.Google Scholar