Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T18:30:17.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Comparative Study of Anti-locust Baits, with special Reference to Base Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

H. B. N. Hynes
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Liverpool.

Extract

A simple, but reliable, technique is described for the study of the acceptability to locust hoppers of poison baits under field conditions.

This was applied to the study of a number of vegetable materials which might be used for the manufacture of wet baits to destroy hoppers of the Desert Locust.

The materials tested could be divided into five classes of acceptability, and consideration of these indicated that heavy lignification detracted from acceptability while the presence of starch added to it.

It was shown that molasses adds to the acceptability of only the least acceptable materials unless very large amounts are used.

Simple tests showed that acceptability was not correlated with water-absorbing properties, that the rate of drying of bait was dependent on the amount of water initially absorbed, and that molasses influences the rate of drying only when large amounts are added.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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

Coaton, W. G. H. (1939). Field tests of poison bait against hoppers of the red locust, 1935–6.—J. ent. Soc. S. Afr., 2, pp. 115133.Google Scholar
Cowan, F. T. (1934). Application of the variance method to the comparison of grasshopper baits.—J. eeon. Ent., 27, pp. 705713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Plessis, C. & Botha, D. H. (1939). Preliminary field experiments on the attractiveness of certain chemicals and bait carriers to the hoppers of the brown locust.—J. ent Soc. S. Afr., 2, pp. 7492.Google Scholar
Du Plessis, C. & Nolte, M. C. A. (1941). Laboratory experiments on the improvement of poison baits for hoppers of the red locust: 1936–37.—Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. S. Air., no. 227, 44 pp.Google Scholar
Faure, J. C. (1935). Is arsenite of soda an attractant for locusts?Rep. Interstate Locust Conf. Pretoria, 1934, pp. 6466.Google Scholar
Faure, J. C. & Jacot-Guillarmod, C. F. (1940). Field experiments on poison bait against hoppers of the red locust: 1936–37.—Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. S. Afr. no. 211, 52 pp.Google Scholar
Gunn, D. L. (1952). Field tests of dry baiting against the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria (Fopsk.).—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp, 675690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husain, M. A. & Mathur, C. B. (1936). Studies on Schistocerca gregaria (Forsk.). III. Why locusts eat wool.—Indian J. agric. Sci., 6, pp. 263267.Google Scholar
Joyce, E. J. V. (1952). Field trials with various dry baits against the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria (Forsk.).—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 691696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, A. (1935). Investigations on the red locust in Natal in 1934.—Rep. Interstate Locust Conf. Pretoria., 1934, pp. 5062.Google Scholar
Mally, C. W. (1923). Arsenite of soda as a locust poison.—Agric. J. Un. S. Afr., 6, pp. 220232.Google Scholar
Mossop, M. C. (1933). Biological notes on the red locust, Nomadacris septemfasciata, Serv.Bull. Dep. Agric. S. Rhod., no. 904, pp. 2547.Google Scholar
Notley, F. B. (1946). Tests on locust baits in Somalia.—Bull. ent. Res., 37, pp. 8994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, J. R. (1939). Grasshoppers and their control.—Fmrs.' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 1828, 37 pp.Google Scholar
Shotwell, R. L. (1942). Evaluation of baits and bait ingredients used in grasshopper control.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 793, 51 pp.Google Scholar
Uvarov, B. P. (1951). Locust Research and Control 1929–1950.—Colon. Res. Publ., no. 10, 67 pp.Google Scholar