Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T01:03:43.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of a changed response in Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) to organophosphorus insecticides in New South Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G. J. Shanahan
G. J. Shanahan
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Rydalmere, N.S.W., Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since 1956, samples of Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) from many parts of New South Wales have been tested annually for signs of resistance to organophosphours insecticides, which are used there to prevent fly-strike in sheep. For tests, 0.1 μg. diazinon per fly was applied topically; this discriminating dose was twice that required to kill 100 per cent. of susceptible flies. In 1965, some of the flies in a sample from Dubbo, in central-western N.S.W., survived the discriminating dose. Sensitivity tests of the progeny of the survivors (DB strain) and of a normal susceptible strain revealed that the LC50 of the DB strain was about three times that of the normal one. Further tests established that a roughly similar change in sensitivity had ocurred to other diethoxy (dichlofenthion, fenthion-ethyl, bromophos-ethyl, parathion) and to dimethoxy (fenchlorphos, parathion-menthyl, bromophos) organophosphors compounds. The change was therefore non-specific and, since it was also small, is regarded as an example of tolerance rather than of resistance.

Subsequent field surveys in 1965–66 showed that tolerance of L. cuprina to diazinon was widespread in N.S.W. The possibility that resistant strains will be selected out by continued use of organophosphorus insecticides is discussed.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , November 1966 , pp. 93 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Brown, A. W. A. (1958). Insecticide resistance in arthropods.—Monograph Ser. W. H. O. no. 38, p. 31.Google ScholarPubMed
Busvine, J. R. (1959). Patterns of insecticide resistance to organophosphorus compounds in strains of houseflies from various sources.—Entomologia exp. appl. 2 pp. 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busvine, J. R., Bell, J. D. & Guneidy, A. M. (1963). Toxicology and genetics of two types of insecticide resistance in Chrysomyia putoria (Wied.).—Bull. ent. Res. 54 pp. 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forgash, A. J. & Hansens, E. J. (1959). Cross resistance in a diazinon-resistant strain of Musca domestica (L.).—J. econ. Ent. 52 pp. 733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, J. M. (1961). Resistance to diazinon in the German cockroach.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 24 pp. 563–565.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, R. L., Graham, O. H. & Mcduffie, W. C. (1965). Resistance of livestock insects to insecticides in the United States.—Agric. vet. Chem. 6 pp. 79–81.Google Scholar
Harrison, I. R. (1965). Bromophos (S.1942) for the control of sheep blowfly (Lucilia sericata) in England.—Vet. Rec. 77 no. 39 pp. 1145–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, L. F. & Roulston, W. J. (1955). Arsenic resistance in a strain of cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) (Canestrini) from northern New South Wales.—Aust. J. agric. Res. 6 pp. 666–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, R. W. (1964). Notes on arthropod resistance to chemicals used in their control in Australia.—J. Aust. Inst. agric. Sci. 30 pp. 33–36.Google Scholar
Legg, J. & Shanahan, G. J. (1954). The appearance of an arsenic resistant cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) in a small area of New South Wales; its reaction to some of the newer insecticides.—Aust. vet. J. 30 pp. 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, R. B. (1960). Biochemical aspects of organophosphorus resistance.—Misc. Publs ent. Soc. Am. 2 pp. 139–144.Google Scholar
Matsumura, F. & Brown, A. W. A. (1961). Biochemistry of malathion resistance in Culex tarsalis.—J. econ. Ent. 54 pp. 1176–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, F. & Brown, A. W. A. (1963). Studies on organophosphorus-tolerance in Aedes aegypti.—Mosquito News. 23 pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
Oppenoorth, F. J. (1959). Resistance patterns to various organophosphorus insecticides in some strains of houseflies.—Entomologia exp. appl. 2 pp. 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riches, J. H. & O’Sullivan, P. J. (1957). The value of the organic phosphorus insecticides malathion and diazinon for the protection of sheep against body strike.—Aust. vet. J. 33 pp. 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanahan, G. J. (1958). Resistance to dieldrin in Lucilia cuprina Wied., the Australian sheep blowfly.—Nature, Lond. 181 no. 4612 pp. 860–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shanahan, G. J. (1958). Resistance to dieldrin and aldrin in Lucilia cuprina Wied.—J. Aust. Inst. agric. Sci. 24 pp. 157–158.Google Scholar
Shanahan, G. J. (1961). Genetics of dieldrin resistance in Lucilia cuprina Wied.—Genet. agr. 14 pp. 307–321.Google Scholar
Shanahan, G. J. (1965a). Susceptibility tests with organophosphates against Lucilia cuprina Wied., the primary blowfly of sheep in Australia.—Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 76 pp. 180–182.Google Scholar
Shanahan, G. J. (1965b). A review of the flystrike problem of sheep in Australia.—J. Aust. Inst. agric. Sci. 31 pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
Shanahan, G. J. (in press). Organophosphorus tolerance in sheep blowflies.—Agric. Gaz. N.S.W.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. D. (1966). Culture of an organophosphorus-resistant strain of Boophilus microplus (Can.) and an assessment of its resistance spectrum.—Bull. ent. Res. 56 pp. 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterhouse, D. F. (1947). The relative importance of live sheep and of carrion as breeding grounds for the Australian sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina.—Bull. Commonw. scient. ind. Res. Org. no. 217, 31 pp.Google Scholar
Wright, P., Payne, K. & Shanahan, G. J. (1957). A preliminary evaluation of insecticides and methods of application for prevention of body strike in sheep.—Aust. vet. J. 33 pp. 227–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar