Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T17:33:58.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The control of Hylemya arambourgi Séguy (Dipt., Anthomyiidae) on barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

J. A. Bullock
J. A. Bullock
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The larva of Hylemya arambourgi Séguy is an important pest of barley in Kenya; it attacks the shoots, causing death of the central leaf. Three to four shoots are destroyed by each larva, and an early, heavy infestation, under conditions of drought, may cause complete loss of the crop. Where a crop is obtained, the effect of an infestation on yield is difficult to assess, because climatic factors play a major part in determining ultimate figures.

The life-cycle is briefly described.

Trials with various methods of chemical control showed that only seed treatments were consistently effective. Other forms of pre-sowing treatment were ineffective at economic rates of application, while a spray applied after an attack had developed was of little value. Sprays applied prior to the development of an attack gave variable results but were usually ineffective.

The most satisfactory chemicals used as seed treatments were dieldrin and heptachlor. Aldrin and endrin were sometimes effective, while γ BHC, carbaryl, dimethoate and thiometon were ineffective. A formulation of chlordane was also ineffective, but this failure may have been due to poor dispersion on the seed. It is probable that the insecticide acted mainly as a systemic poison, since larvae rarely enter the soil before the time of pupation.

Both dieldrin and heptachlor were initially used at rates of 4·6–5·0 oz. of active ingredient per 100 lb. seed, but usually gave as good results at rates of 3·5 and 3·2 oz., respectively. Dieldrin gave a measure of control at even lower rates.

The prospects for cultural methods of control appeared slight. No evidence of varietal resistance was obtained, while the possibility of control by restrictions on the sowing season is ruled out by the lack of evidence of diapause and the probability that Pennisetum clandestinum and other Gramineae, such as Chloris gayanaand Setariasp., serve as alternative hosts. For the same reasons, it is considered unlikely that any change in the position of barley in the seven-year rotation would have any effect on the level of infestation.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , May 1965 , pp. 645 - 661
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Bardner, R. (1959). Insecticidal control of wheat bulb fly larvae.—Plant Path. 8 pp. 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, W. B., Roberts, J. E. & Morrison, H. E. (1958). Soil properties and factors influencing aldrin-dieldrin recovery and transformation.—J. econ. Ent. 51 pp. 214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boswinkle, E. (1955). Rep. Dep. Agric. Kenya 1954 2 pp. 225–226.Google Scholar
Bullock, J. A. (1964). A note on the soil fauna of a pyrethrum field.—E. Afr. agric. For. J. 30 pp. 8–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, J. A. (in press). The assessment of the effects of insecticides on populations of Hylemya arambourgi Séguy (Dipt.-Anthomyiidae).—Proc. XIIth int. Congr. Ent. 1964.Google Scholar
Van Emden, F. I. (1951). Muscidae: C.—Scatophaginae, Anthomyiinae, Lispinae, Fanniinae and Phaoniinae.—Ruwenzori Exped. 1934–5 2 no. 6 p. 357. London, Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.).Google Scholar
Gannon, N. & Bigger, J. H. (1958). The conversion of aldrin and heptachlor to their epoxides in soil.—J. econ. Ent. 51 pp. 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, H. C. & Woods, A. (1954). Seed dressings for the control of the wheat bulb fly.—Nature, Lond. 174 no. 4442 pp. 1151–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. F. (1957). Entomological investigations—Rift Valley Province.— Rep. Dep. Agric. Kenya 1955 2 pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
Graham, J. F., Bullock, J. A. & Peers, A. W. (1959). Seed dressing against the black wheat beetle (Heteronychus spp.) in Kenya.—E. Afr. agric. J. 25 pp. 23–24.Google Scholar
Le Pellry, R. H. (1954). Rep. Dep. Agric. Kenya 1953 2 p. 10.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, E. P. & Schulz, K. R. (1959 a). Breakdown of lindane and aldrin in soils.—J. econ. Ent. 52 pp. 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, E. P. & Schulz, K. R. (1959 b). Persistence of some chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides as influenced by soil types, rate of application and temperature.—J. econ. Ent. 52 pp. 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, W. I. St. G. & Strickland, A. H. (1959). Frit fly in spring oats. II. The relationship between visual and dissection estimates of first generation attack.—Plant Path. 8 pp. 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, I. W. B. (1958). The external morphology of some of the Dipterous larvae living in the Gramineae of Britain.—Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 110 pp. 411–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. (1952). The arthropod population of the soil in some East African pastures.— Bull. ent. Res. 43 pp. 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Séguy, E. (1938). Mission scientifique de l'Omo. IV. Zoologie. Fasc. 39. Diptera I. Nematocera et Brachycera pp. 365–366. Paris, Mus. nat. Hist. nat.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical methods applied to experiments in agriculture and biology.—5th edn., 534 pp. Ames, Iowa, Iowa St. Coll. Pr.Google Scholar
Way, M. J. (1959 a). Experiments on the mode of action of insecticidal seed-dressings, especially against Leptohylemyia coarctata Fall., Muscidae, the wheat bulb fly.—Ann. appl. Biol. 47 pp. 783–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, M. J. (1959 b). Experiments on the mode of action of dieldrin seed-dressings against seedling attack by the larval frit fly, Oscinella frit L.—Ann. appl. Biol. 47 pp. 802–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar