Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:20:09.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on effects of sublethal doses of p,p'DDT on oogenesis in the house-fly (Musca domestica L.) and on possible causes of abnormal oogenesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

T. F. Walker
T. F. Walker
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St., London, W.C.I
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In experiments covering many successive generations of Musca domestica L. (strains NS and WHO/SRS/MHSCO domestica/1), sublethal doses of p,p'DDT applied topically to adults or fed to larvae or adults had no effect on the numbers of abnormal follicles, but the numbers of normal follicles increased in F1–3 when larvae were fed with diet containing 10 parts per million of DDT. These results conflict with those of previous workers. Other possible causes of abnormal oogenesis were examined. Sublethal doses of o,p'DDT and DDE (an impurity and metabolite, respectively of p,p'DDT) had no effect, whereas inbreeding and high-density rearing caused the numbers of normal follicles to fall; the latter caused the numbers of abnormal follicles to increase. There were also heritable differences in oogenesis among three strains of house-fly.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , December 1970 , pp. 291 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

Beard, R. L. (1965). Ovarian suppression by DDT and resistance in the housefly (Musca domestica L.).—Entomologia exp. appl. 8, 193–204.Google Scholar
Bitman, J., Cecil, H. C., Harris, S. J. & Fries, G. F. (1968). Estrogenic activities of o,p-DDT in the mammalian uterus and avian oviduct.—Science, 162 no. 3851, 371–372.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1965). Outstanding problems in the genetics of insecticide resistance.—Proc. XII int. Congr. Ent. 1964, p. 243.Google Scholar
Christophers, S. R. (1911). The development of the egg follicle in anophelines.—Paludism pt. 2, 73–88.Google Scholar
Derbeneva-Uhova, V. P., Lineva, V. A. & Drobozina, V. P. (1966). The development of DDT-resistance in Musca domestica and Protophormia terraenovae.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 34, 939–952.Google Scholar
French, A. & Hoopingarner, R. (1965). Gametogenesis in the house fly, Musca domestica.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 58, 650–657.Google Scholar
Haupt, A. & Busvine, J. R. (1968). The effect of overcrowding on the size of houseflies (Musca domestica L.).—Trans R. ent. Soc. Lond. 120, 297–311.Google Scholar
Havertz, D. S. & Curtin, T. J. (1967). Reproductive behavior of Aedes aegypti L. sublethally exposed to DDT.—J. med. Ent. 4, 143–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, C. G. (1914). The housefly.—382 pp. Cambridge University Pr.Google Scholar
Lineva, V. A. (1962). Alterations in the ovogenesis of the housefly (Musca domestica L.) under the influence of insecticides.—Proc. XI int. Congr. Ent. 1960 2, 448–450.Google Scholar
Ramade, F. (1968). Contribution á l'étude du mode d'action de certains insecticides de synthèse, plus particulièrement du lindane, et des phénomènes de reésistance à ces composés chez Musca domestica L.—Annls lnst. natn. agron. 5 (N.S.) (1967), 1–267.Google Scholar
Sherman, M. & Sanchez, F. F. (1964). Latent toxicity of insecticides to resistant and susceptible strains of the house fly.—J. econ. Ent. 57, 842–845.Google Scholar
Sutherland, D. J., Beam, F. D. & Gupta, A. P. (1967). The effects on mosquitoes of sublethal exposure to insecticides. I. DDT, dieldrin, malathion and the basal follicles of Aedes aegypti (L.).—Mosquito News 27, 316–323.Google Scholar
Zaghloul, T. M. A. & Brown, A. W. A. (1968). Effects of sublethal doses of DDT on the reproduction and susceptibility of Culex pipiens L.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 38, 459–467.Google Scholar