Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:42:19.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of triflumuron, a chitin synthesis inhibitor, on the housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Julia Howard  and
Richard Wall
Julia Howard*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, UK
Richard Wall
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, UK
*
Miss J. Howard, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of the chitin synthesis inhibitor triflumuron, 2-chloro-N-[[[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]carbonyl]benzamide, on the housefly, Musca domestica Linnaeus were examined in the laboratory. A dose of 1 μg of triflumuron applied topically to adult females of M. domestica resulted in egg hatch inhibition greater than 95%. At doses below 1 μg applied topically to adult females, subsequent hatched larvae were also highly sensitive to triflumuron; 0.5 μg applied topically produced 25% inhibition of egg hatch, but of the larvae that eclosed, only 20% survived to pupation. Hence, a dose of 0.5 μg applied to adults gave a total mortality of 85%. The effects of a single topical application of triflumuron declined over time in a dose dependent manner. After a dose of 1 μg, <5% of the first egg batch hatched, however, after 14 days egg hatch had risen to >90%. Topically applied triflumuron was most effective in inhibiting egg hatch when applied to females less than 3 days old. After 60 min tarsal contact with 20% triflumuron suspension concentrate on poly cotton cloth, 100% egg hatch inhibition was maintained for up to 1 week. Lower contact times, or triflumuron concentrations, gave lower percentage mortalities. The results suggest that triflumuron has considerable potential as a control agent for incorporation into autosterilizing devices for housefly control. However, further work is required to develop delivery systems capable of transferring an effective dose to females under field conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 71 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Axtell, R.C. (1970) Integrated fly control program for cagedpoultry houses. Journal of Economic Entomology 63, 400–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Axtell, R.C. & Arends, J.J. (1990) Ecology and management of arthropod pests of poultry. Annual Review of Entomology 35, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broce, A.B. & Gonzaga, V.G. (1987) Effects of substituted benzylphenols and triflumuron on the reproduction of the face fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 8, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, S.C. (1979) Laboratory evaluation of diflubenzuron, penfluron and Bay Sir 8514 as female sterilants against the house fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 72, 479–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, R.O., George, J.E. & Kunz, S.E. (1988) Control of arthropod pests of livestock: a review of technology. Florida, CRC Press Inc.Google Scholar
Fye, R.L. & LaBrecque, G.C. (1976) Bibliography of arthropod chemosterilants. 54 pp. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS S-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammann, I. & Sirrenberg, W. (1980) Laboratory evaluation of SIR 8514, a new chitin synthesis inhibitor of the benzoylated urea class. Planzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 33, 1–34.Google Scholar
Harris, C.R., Turnbull, S.A., Whistlecraft, J.W. & Surgeoner, G.A. (1982) Multiple resistance shown by field strains of house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), to organochlorine, organophosphorus, carbamate, and pyrethroid insecticides. Canadian Entomologist 114, 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, F.W. & Cilek, J.E. (1988) Mortality of eggs and larvae obtained from house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) exposed to Triflumuron residues. Journal of Economic Entomology 81, 1662–1664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, F.W. & Herald, F. (1983) Mortality of eggs and larvae of the face fly (Diptera: Muscidae) after exposure of adults to surface treated with BAY SIR 8514 and Penfluron. Journal of Economic Entomology 76, 1350–1352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knipling, E.F. (1955) Possibilities of insect control or eradication through the use of sexually sterile males. Journal of Economic Entomology 48, 459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBrecque, G.C. (1961) Studies with three alkylating agents as house fly sterilants. Journal of Economic Entomology 54, 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBrecque, G.C., Adcock, P.H. & Smith, C.N. (1960) Tests with compounds affecting house fly metabolism. Journal of Economic Entomology 53, 802–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBrecque, G.C. & Meifert, D.W. (1966) Control of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in poultry houses with chemosterilants. Journal of Medical Entomology 3, 323–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaBrecque, G.C., Smith, C.N. & Meifert, D.W. (1962) A field experiment in the control of houseflies with chemosterilant baits. Journal of Economic Entomology 55, 449—451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, J.L. & Simco, J.S. (1969) House fly control by chemical sterilization with Apholate. Arkansas Experimental Station Bulletin 737.Google Scholar
Langley, P.A. & Weidhaas, D. (1986) Trapping as a means of controlling tsetse: the relative merits of killing and sterilization. Bulletin of Entomological Research 76, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E.F. & Dietrick, E.I. (1974) Effectiveness of supervised control practises in lowering population densities of synanthropic flies on poultry ranches. Entomophaga 19, 467–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P.B., Patterson, R.S., LaBrecque, G.C., Weidhaas, D.E., Benton, A. & Whitfield, T. (1975a) Rearing and release of the house fly pupal parasite. Environmental Entomology 4, 609–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P.B., Patterson, R.S., LaBrecque, G.C., Weidhaas, D.E. & Benton, A. (1975b) Suppression of a field population of houseflies with Spalangia endius. Science 189, 388–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, P.B., Weidhaas, D.E. & Patterson, R.S. (1981) Programmed releases of Spalangia endius and Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) against estimated populations of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 18, 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, R.S. & Rutz, D.A. (1986) Biological control of muscoid flies. Miscellaneous Publication of the Entomological Society of America no. 61, 174 pp.Google Scholar
Peck, J.H. & Anderson, J.R. (1970) Influences of poultry manure removal schedules on various Diptera larvae and selected arthropod predators. Journal of Economic Entomology 63, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seymour, R.C. & Campbell, J.B. (1993) Predators and parasitoids of house flies and stable flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in cattle confinements in west central Nebraska. Environmental Entomology 22, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, R. & Howard, J.J. (1994) Autosterilization for control of the housefly Musca domestica. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 171, 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, J.E. & Begley, J.W. (1982) Laboratory evaluation of BAY SIR 8514 against the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae): effects on immature stages and adult sterility. Journal of Economic Entomology 75, 657–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, C.M. (1967) Third-generation pesticide. Scientific American 217, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoebelein, G., Hammann, I. & Sirrenberg, W. (1980) BAY SIR 8514, a new chitin synthesis inhibitor. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 86, 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar