Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:56:21.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Post-treatment Temperature on Insect Resistance to Insecticidal Sprays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

S. Pradhan  and
P. V. Rangarao
S. Pradhan
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
P. V. Rangarao
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Results are given of investigations on the effects of five post-treatment temperatures on the mortality of adults of Tribolium castaneum (Hbst.) sprayed with five or six concentrations of each of six insecticidal formulations, emulsified solutions of DDT, γ BHC, toxaphene, chlordane and parathion and a suspension of DDT.

With both emulsified solutions and suspensions of DDT and emulsified solutions of γ BHC the mortality of the insects decreased with the rise of temperature from about 14° to 30°C. and increased when the temperature increased from 30° and 40°C. On the other hand, with emulsified solutions of toxaphene, chlordane and parathion, the mortality of the test insects increased continuously with increase of temperature from 14° to 40°C. As a possible explanation for such divergent results with different insecticides it is tentatively suggested that whilst the inherent physiological resistance of Tribolium to DDT and γ BHC formulations which appear to increase with increase of temperature up to a certain point has been demonstrated, the technique has not been sufficiently critical in the case of the other formulations, and it is thought that physiological resistance has possibly remained masked by other factors and that the values of LC50 are not a true index of physiological resistance in the ease of these insecticides.

An essential similarity between the curve obtained by plotting values of LC50 against temperature in the case of DDT and γ BHC and those relating temperature to other physiological activities (published by various workers) has been stressed, implying a similarity between the resistance of the insect to insecticides on the one hand and its other physiological activities on the other.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1957 , pp. 261 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Böttcher, F. K. (1938). Z. angew. Ent, 25, pp. 419–441.Google Scholar
Böttcher, F. K. 1939. Z. angew. Ent, 25, pp. 681–702.Google Scholar
Brown, A. W. A. 1951. Insect control by chemicals.—817 pp. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Dustan, G. G. (1947). Canad. Ent, 79, pp. 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagleson, C. (1942). Soap & sanit. Chem, 18, no. 6, pp. 115–117, 141.Google Scholar
Fan, H. Y., Cheng, T. H. & Richards, A. G. (1948). Physiol. Zoöl, 21, pp. 48–59.Google Scholar
Guthrie, F. E. (1950). J. econ. Ent, 43, pp. 559–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häfliger, E. (1948). Experientia, 4, pp. 223–225.Google Scholar
Häfliger, E. (1949). J. econ. Ent, 42, pp. 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harries, F. H., DeCoursey, J. D. & Hofmaster, R. N. (1945). J. agric. Res, 71, pp. 553–565.Google Scholar
Hoffman, R. A. & Lindquist, A. W. (1949). J. econ. Ent, 42, pp. 891–893.Google Scholar
Hoffman, R. A., Roth, A. R. & Lindquist, A. W. 1949. J. econ. Ent, 42, pp. 893–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinger, H. 1936. Arb. physiol. angew. Ent, 3, pp. 49–69, 115–151.Google Scholar
LaPlante, A. A. Jr (1949). J. econ. Ent, 42, pp. 786–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, A. W., Wilson, H. G., Schroeder, H. O. & Madden, A. H. 1945. J. econ. Ent, 38, pp.261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. H. (1951). Ann. appl. Biol, 38, pp. 567–576.Google Scholar
Potter, C. 1941. Ann. appl. Biol, 28, pp.142–169.Google Scholar
Potter, C. & Gillham, E. M. 1946. Ann. appl. Biol, 33, pp. 142–159.Google Scholar
Pradhan, S. (1949 a). Bull. ent. Res, 40, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Pradhan, S. 1949 b. Bull. ent. Res, 40, pp. 239–265.Google Scholar
Pradhan, S. (1950). Curr. Sci, 19, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
Pradhan, S. & Govindan, M. (1954). Indian J. Ent, 15, pp. 362–375 16, pp. 115–136.Google Scholar
Rhoades, W. C. & Brett, C. H. (1948). J. Kans. ent. Soc, 21, pp. 66–70.Google Scholar
Roth, A. R., Lindquist, A. W. & Terriere, L. C. (1953). J. econ. Ent, 46, pp. 127–130.Google Scholar
Shepard, H. H., Lindgren, D. L. & Thomas, E. L. (1937). Tech. Bull. Minn. agric. Exp. Sta, no. 120, 23 pp.Google Scholar
Tattersfield, F. & Potter, C. (1943). Ann. appl. Biol, 30, pp. 259–279.Google Scholar
Vinson, E. B. & Kearns, C. W. (1952). J. econ. Ent, 45, pp. 484–496.Google Scholar
Woodruff, N. (1950). J. econ. Ent, 43, pp. 663–669.Google Scholar