Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:34:48.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DDT Resistance in an Italian Strain of Musca domestica L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

C. Mary Harrison
C. Mary Harrison
Affiliation:
Entomology Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Flies of 9–10 and 16–19 days old were more susceptible to DDT than 4–5-day-old flies. Female flies were less susceptible than males, and large flies less susceptible than small flies to residual deposits of DDT. It is clearly important that flies used in comparative toxicity tests should be standardised for age, sex and size.

2. The strain Torre in Pietra was 3·6 times more resistant to dry deposits of DDT on Essex board than the Roma strain, but this resistance declined after culturing the strain in the laboratory for 22 generations.

3. The DDT-resistant strain (Torre in Pietra) was as susceptible as the non-resistant (Roma) strain to deposits of γ BHC on Essex board but was slightly resistant to pyrethrins.

4. The DDT resistance of the Torre in Pietra strain was increased readily by selection, yet a similar selection with DDT on the Roma strain was unsuccessful. This failure in the Roma strain may be due to the purity of the stock.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , January 1952 , pp. 761 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

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

Barber, G. W. & Schmitt, J. B. (1949). Further studies on resistance to DDT in the housefly.—J. econ. Ent., 42. pp. 287–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bliss, C. I. (1935). The calculation of the dosage mortality curve.—Ann. appl. Biol., 22, pp. 134–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1949). A test for DDT-resistant flies.—Ceylon J. med. Sci., 6, pp. 181–183.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. & Barnes, S. (1947). Observations on mortality among insects exposed to dry insecticidal films.—Bull. ent. Res., 38, pp. 81–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keiding, J. & van Deurs, H. (1949). D.D.T.-resistance in houseflies in Denmark.—Nature, 163, pp. 964–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
March, R. B. & Metcalf, R. L. (1949). Laboratory and field studies of DDT resistant houseflies in southern California.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Calif., 38, pp. 93–101.Google Scholar
Mosna, E. (1949). Octa-Klor, Gammaesano e Toxaphene usati contro le mosche DDT resistenti.—Riv. Parassit., 10, pp. 31–51.Google Scholar
Parr, H. C. M. & Busvine, J. R. (1948). A spinning-disk sprayer for applying residual insecticides.—Ann. appl. Biol., 35, pp. 359–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saccá, G. (1947). Sull' esistenza di mosche domestiche resistenti al DDT.—Riv. Parassit., 8, pp. 127–128.Google Scholar
Wiesmann, R. (1947). Untersuchungen über das physiologische Verhalten von Musca domestica L. verschiedener Provenienzen.—Mitt. schweiz ent. Ges., 20, pp. 484–504.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. G. & Gahan, J. B. (1948). Susceptibility of DDT resistant houseflies to other insecticidal sprays.—Science, 107, p. 276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed