Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:20:25.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oviposition in DDT-resistant and susceptible strains of Aëdes aegypti (L.) in relation to light preference.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R. J. Wood
R. J. Wood
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Seven strains of Aëdes aegypti (L.), three DDT-resistant (from Trinidad (2) and Haiti) and four susceptible (from West Africa (2), Arabia and U.S.A.) have been investigated with respect to their attraction to oviposition sites illuminated at different levels. The resistant strains have tended to choose the darker sites (at 0·02 lumen per sq. ft. and below) and susceptible strains those illuminated at between 3·5 and 6·5 lumens per sq. ft.

Genetical crosses between a ‘dark-laying’ (resistant) strain and a ‘light-laying’ (susceptible) strain indicated that ‘light laying’ was fully dominant over ‘dark laying’ and it is suggested that the mechanism involved is probably simple. No linkage with the gene for physiological resistance to DDT could be demonstrated.

The expressivity of this character varied in certain circumstances with a tendency among most strains to lay at darker sites after the second and subsequent blood-meals. In spite of these variations, behaviour at any one time remained reasonably predictable.

The reflectance of the oviposition site did not appear to be important in determining the difference in behaviour between ‘dark-laying’ and ‘light-laying’ strains. On the contrary, it seemed probable that ‘dark-laying’ strains were attracted more to the dark situation in which the dimly-lit site was found rather than to the site itself. There was some evidence of exploratory activity in the initial stages of oviposition by a ‘dark-laying’ strain.

Resting habits proved very similar in two strains differing markedly in oviposition habit. For both strains, 0·1 lumen per sq. ft. was apparently too low to be attractive and 12 lumens per sq. ft. too high. Besting behaviour did not appear to be under such critical control by light as was oviposition.

Possible explanations for the differences in ‘oviposition light preference’ are discussed.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , October 1961 , pp. 541 - 560
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Barigozzi, C. & Tonissi, G. (1946). Ricerche preliminari sul fototropismo dei mutanti di Drosophila melanogaster Meig.—Comment. pontif. Acad. Sci. 10 pp. 431–459.Google Scholar
Beckel, W. E. (1955). Oviposition site preference of Aedes mosquitoes (Culicidae) in the laboratory.—Mosq. News 15 pp. 224–228.Google Scholar
SirBoyce, R. (1911). The prevalence, distribution and significance of Stegomyia fasciata, F. (=calopus, Mg.), in West Africa.—Bull. ent. Res. 1 pp. 233–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. W. A. & Perry, A. S. (1956). Dehydrochlorination of DDT by resistant houseflies and mosquitoes.—Nature, Lond. 178 pp. 368–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buxton, P. A. & Hopkins, G. H. E. (1927). Researches in Polynesia and Melanesia.…Parts I-IV.—Mem. Lond. Sch. Hyg. trop. Med. no. 1, 260 pp.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. C. (1956). History of Aedes aegypti control work in Texas.—Mosq. News 16 pp. 58–63.Google Scholar
Coker, W. Z. (1958). The inheritance of DDT resistance in Aëdes aegypti.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 52 pp. 443–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, L. H. (1928). Further observations on mosquito breeding in tree-holes and crab-holes.—Bull. ent. Res. 18 pp. 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, R. W. (1956). Insecticide resistance in Aedes aegypti.—Amer. J. trop. Med. Hyg. 5 p. 378.Google Scholar
Galliard, H. (1958). Recherches sur la biologie des culicidés à Hanoi (Tonkin-Nord Vietnam). I.—Ann. Parasit. hum. comp. 33 pp. 131–144.Google Scholar
Gilkes, C. D., Kellett, F. R. S. & Gillette, H. P. S. (1956). Yellow fever in Trinidad and the development of resistance in Aedes aegypti Linn., to DDT formulations.—W. Ind. med. J. 5 pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
Gillett, J. D., Corbet, P. S. & Haddow, A. J. (1959). Observations on the oviposition-cycle of Aëdes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus), III.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 83 pp. 132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, J. D., Haddow, A. J. & Corbet, P. S. (1959). Observations on the oviposition-cycle of Aëdes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus), II.—Ann. trap. Med. Parasit. 53 pp. 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddow, A. J. & Gillett, J. D. (1957). Observations on the oviposition-cycle of Aëdes (Stegomyia) aegypti (Linnaeus).—Ann. trap. Med. Parasit. 51 pp. 159–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, W. B. (1956). Selection of larvae of Anopheles quadrimaculatus for tolerance to DDT.—J. eoon. Ent. 49 pp. 567–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, G. H. E. (1952). Mosquitoes of the Ethiopian region. I.—2nd edn., 355 pp. London, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.).Google Scholar
Jobling, B. (1937). The development of mosquitoes in complete darkness.—Trans. R. Soc. trap. Med. Hyg. 30 pp. 467–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellett, F. R. S. & Omardeen, T. A. [1957]. Tree hole breeding of Aedes aegypti (Linn.) in Arima, Trinidad, B.W.I.—Rep. Malar. Div. Hlth Dep. Trin. 1956 [appdx.] 10 pp., multigraph.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1940). The visual responses of flying mosquitoes.—Proc. zool. Soc. Land. (A) 109 pp. 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1942). On water-finding and oviposition by captive mosquitoes.—Bull. ent. Res. 32 pp. 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludvik, G. F. (1952). Conference on insecticide resistance and insect physiology, December 8–9, 1951. [Eemarks in discussion.]—Publ. U.S. nat. Res. Coun. no. 219 p. 25.Google Scholar
McEwen, R. S. (1918). The reactions to light and to gravity in Drosophila and its mutants.—J. exp. Zool. 25 pp. 49–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, P. F. (1957). Genetical aspects of the Aëdes aegypti problem. I. Taxonomy and bionomics.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 51 pp. 392–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosna, E. (1957). Laboratory studies on the development of resistance to insecticides in Anopheline mosquitoes.—Progr. Rep. Malar. Sect. World Hlth Org. no. 4. (Unpublished.)Google Scholar
Muirhead, Thomson R. C. (1940). Studies on the behaviour of Anopheles minimus. Part I. The selection of the breeding place and the influence of light and shade.—J. Malar. Inst. India 3 pp. 265–294.Google Scholar
Newman, J. F., Aziz, M. A. & Koshi, T. (1949). Studies in contact toxicity. Part I. Resistance of successive generations of Culex fatigans Wied. to contact insecticides.—Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (B) 30 pp. 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Gower, A. K. (1957). The influence of the surface on oviposition by Aëdes aegypti (Linn.) (Diptera, Culicidae).—Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 82 pp. 240–244.Google Scholar
Pinto, Severo O. (1959). La erradicación del Aedes aegypti en el Brasil. Evolución y éxito de una gran campaña.—Bol. Ofic. sanit. panamer. 47 pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Qutubuddin, M. (1958). The inheritance of DDT-resistance in a highly resistant strain of Aëdes aegypti (L.).—Bull. World Hlth Org. 19 pp. 1109–1112.Google Scholar
Shidrawi, G. R. (1957). Laboratory tests on mosquito tolerance to insecticides and the development of resistance by Aëdes aegypti.—Bull. World Hlth Org. 17 pp. 377–411.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. (1956). Notes on microclimate at the sites of breeding and biting of Aëdes species (Diptera: Culicidae) on Ukara Island, Tanganyika.—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Land. (A) 31 pp. 81–85.Google Scholar
Surtees, G. (1960). The breeding behaviour of the type form of Aëdes (Stegomyia) aegypti (L.) in south-western Nigeria in relation to insecticidal control.—Bull. ent. Res. 50 pp. 681–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, R. J. (1959). Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes.—Ann. appl. Biol. 47 pp. 620–625.Google Scholar