Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:33:33.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of strains of housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) to commercial bait formulations in the laboratory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Jane Learmount ,
Paul A. Chapman ,
Alan W. Morris  and
David B. Pinniger
Jane Learmount*
Affiliation:
Central Science Laboratory, Slough, UK
Paul A. Chapman
Affiliation:
Central Science Laboratory, Slough, UK
Alan W. Morris
Affiliation:
Central Science Laboratory, Slough, UK
David B. Pinniger
Affiliation:
Central Science Laboratory, Slough, UK
*
J. Learmount, Central Science Laboratory, MAFF, London Road, Slough, SL3 7HJ, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field strains of housefly collected from animal units were exposed to the insecticide baits, Golden Malrin and Alfacron in laboratory cage tests. Flies were exposed to each bait alone in no-choice tests and to the bait plus sugar in choice tests. Golden Malrin was generally effective against the strains tested in no-choice tests; the lowest recorded knockdown after exposure for 48 h was 82%. Eight strains, however, gave a reduced knockdown when exposed in choice tests (between 60 and 87%). Golden Malrin was ineffective against one strain in choice tests with 7% knockdown at 48 h. With Alfacron 12 strains exhibited knockdown responses between 57 and 87% at 48 h in no-choice tests. In choice tests, 17 strains gave knockdown responses of less than 50% at 48 h. Correlation coefficients were calculated for results from cage tests and levels of resistance to the active ingredients assessed using topical application and feeding test methods. There was a positive correlation between cage and feeding test results. Correlation was, however, less significant with choice test results than with no-choice results. There was no correlation between cage test and topical results. It is suggested that behavioural resistance was responsible for the reduced responses shown by some strains in choice tests compared to no-choice tests. The results demonstrate the importance of using a laboratory method which allows for behavioural differences when monitoring for resistance to insecticides formulated as baits. Behavioural differences in housefly strains should be considered when testing the efficacy of new bait formulations. It is also suggested that insecticide baits should not be used continuously and exclusively to control houseflies in intensive animal units.

Type
Review Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , October 1996 , pp. 541 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Bailey, D.L., LaBrecque, G.C., Meifert, D.W. & Bishop, P.M. (1968) Insecticides in dry sugar baits against 2 strains of house flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 61, 743–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomquist, J.R. & Miller, T.A. (1986) Neural correlates of flight activation and escape behaviour in houseflies recovering from pyrethroid poisoning. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 3, 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A.W.A. (1971) Pest resistance to pesticides, pp. 457–552. in White-Stevens, R. (Ed.) Pesticides in the environment. 1st edn, part II. New York, Mascel Dekker.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.A. & Lloyd, C.J. (1981) Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference — Pests and Diseases 2, 625–631.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.A. (1984) A further investigation of insecticide resistance in houseflies (Musca domestica) in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference - Pests and Diseases 2, 535–540.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.A. & Morgan, C.P. (1992) Insecticide resistance in Musca domestica L. from Eastern England. Pesticide Science 36,35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, P.A., Learmount, J., Morris, A.W. & McGreevy, P.B. (1993) The current status of insecticide resistance in Musca domestica in England and Wales and the implications for housefly control in intensive animal units. Pesticide Science 39, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, D.A. & Leibold, C.M. (1981) Field trials of pheromonetoxicant devices containing Muscalore for house flies. Journal of Medical Entomology 18, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, C., Kennedy, J.M. & Miller, T. (1979) Sub-lethal poisoning: a comparison of behaviour and histological changes in house fly CNS. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 11, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Z.A. & Pinniger, D.B. (1992) The behavioural responses of three different strains of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) to Alfacron bait in the laboratory. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 437–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiding, J. (1975) Insecticide resistance in houseflies. Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory Annual Report 1974, 33–37.Google Scholar
Learmount, J. (1994) Selection of houseflies (Diptera: Muscidae) with a pyrethroid space spray using a large scale laboratory method. journal of Economic Entomology 87, 894–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, J.T. (1988) Behaviour of the housefly Musca domestica in relation to insecticide baits. PhD thesis, Southampton University.Google Scholar
Soholt-Larsen, K. & Jespersen, J.B. (1990) Paint on and spray-on baits with the fly pheromone Muscalore. Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory Annual Report 1989, 40–41.Google Scholar