Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:56:16.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survival and reproduction of Euoniticellus intermedius(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in dung following application of cypermethrin and flumethrin pour-ons to cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

K. Krüger ,
O.M. Lukhele  and
C.H. Scholtz
K. Krüger*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
O.M. Lukhele
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
C.H. Scholtz
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
*
*ARC–Plant Protection Research Institute, Private Bag X134, Pretoria 0001, South Africa. Fax: + 27 12 329 3278 E-mail: rietkkr@plant2.agric.za
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cattle were treated with cypermethrin and flumethrin pour-ons to determine possible adverse effects of residues in dung on the survival, fecundity and fertility of Euoniticellus intermedius (Reiche). Dung from both cypermethrin- and flumethrin-treated cattle was collected 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days after treatment, with an untreated control for each. Mortality of adult E. intermedius exposed to dung collected from cypermethrin-treated cattle two to seven days after treatment ranged between 80% and 100%. Cypermethrin had no effect on adult and immature survival or on fecundity and fertility of E. intermediusexposed to dung collected 1, 14, 21 and 28 days after treatment. Dung collected from flumethrin-treated cattle had no apparent effect on adult survival, egg production, immature survival, adult emergence, fecundity and fertility of E. intermedius, except at seven days after treatment, when fewer brood balls were produced and consequently fewer adults emerged from dung from treated animals compared with the control.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 89 , Issue 6 , December 1999 , pp. 543 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

Abbott, W.S. (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18, 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchin, I., Honer, M.R., Gomes, A. & Koller, W.W. (1992) Efeito de alguns carrapaticidas/inseticidas sobre Onthophagus gazella. EMBRAPA Communicado Tecnico 45, 1–7.Google Scholar
Bianchin, I., Alves, R.G.O. & Koller, W.W. (1998) Efeito de carrapaticidas/inseticidas “pour-on” sobre adultos do besouro coprofago africano Onthophagus gazella Fabr. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brazil 27, 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, R.R. (1984) Euoniticellus intermedius (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) – description of adults and immatures and biology of adults. Environmental Entomology 13, 1064–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornemissza, G.E. (1976) The Australian dung beetle project 1965–1975. Australian Meat Research Committee Review 30, 1–30.Google Scholar
Bornemissza, G.F. (1979) The Australian dung beetle research unit in Pretoria. South African Journal of Science 75, 257–260.Google Scholar
Bornemissza, G.F. & Williams, C.H. (1970) An effect of dung beetle activity on plant yield. Pedobiologia 10, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doube, B.M. (1991) Dung beetles of Southern Africa. pp. 133–155in Hanski, I. & Cambefort, Y. (Eds) Dung beetle ecology. Princeton, Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, R.O., George, J.E. & Kunz, S.E. (1988) Control of arthropod pests of livestock: a review of technology. 245 pp. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press Inc.Google Scholar
Edwards, B.P. (1991) Seasonal variation in the dung of African grazing animals, and its consequences for coprophagous insects. Functional Ecology 5, 617–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliot, M., Janes, N.F. & Potter, C. (1978) The future of pyrethroids in insect control. Annual Review of Entomology 23, 443–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endrödy-Younga, S. (1982) An annotated checklist of dung- associated beetles of the Savanna Ecosystem Project study area, Nylsvley. South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 59, 1–34.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M.C. (1968) Os escarabídeos de África (suldo Sáara). Revista de Entomologia de Moçambique 11, 5–1088.Google Scholar
Herd, R. (1995) Endectocidal drugs: ecological risks and counter-measures. International Journal for Parasitology 25, 875–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krüger, K. & Scholtz, C.H. (1997) Lethal and sublethal effects of ivermectin on the dung-breeding beetles Euoniticellus intermedius (Reiche) and Onitis alexis Klug (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 61, 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krüger, K. & Scholtz, C.H. (1998a) Changes in the structure of dung insect communities after ivermectin usage in a grassland ecosystem. I. Impact of ivermectin under drought conditions. Acta Oecologica 19, 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krüger, K. & Scholtz, C.H. (1998b) Changes in the structure of dung insect communities after ivermectin usage in a grassland ecosystem. II. Impact of ivermectin under high-rainfall conditions. Acta Oecologica 19, 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krüger, K., Scholtz, C.H. & Reinhardt, K. (1998) Effects of the pyrethroid flumethrin on colonisation and degradation of cattle dung by adult insects. South African Journal of Science 94, 129–133.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, J.N., Hall, G.P. & Chewing, V.H. (1986) Seasonal abundance of Musca vetustissima Walker and other cattle dung fauna in Central Australia. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 25, 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKellar, Q.A. (1997) Ecotoxicology and residues of anthelminitic compounds. Veterinary Parasitology 72, 413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rougon, D. & Rougon, C. (1982) Nesting strategies of three species of coprophagous Scarabaeinae in the Sahel region of Niger. pp. 147–150in Halffter, G. & Edmonds, D.W. (Eds) The nesting behaviour of dung beetles (Scarabaeinae): an ecological – evolutive approach. Publication 10, Instituto de Ecologia, Mexico, D.F.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. (1981) Biometry. 2nd edn. San Francisco, Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. (1978) Ecological methods with particular reference to the study of insect populations. 2nd edn. London, Chapman – Hall.Google Scholar
Spickett, A.M. & Fivaz, B.H. (1992) A survey of cattle tick control practices in the eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 59, 203–210.Google Scholar
Strong, L. (1992) Avermectins: a review of their impact on insects of cattle dung. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, L. & Wall, R. (1990) The chemical control of livestock parasites: problems and alternatives. Parasitology Today 6, 291–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyndale-Biscoe, M., Wallace, M.M.H. & Walker, J.M. (1981) An ecological study of an Australian dung beetle, Onthophagus granulatus Boheman (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) using physiological age grading techniques. Bulletin of Entomological Research 71, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardhaugh, K.G., Longstaff, B.C. & Lacey, M.J. (1998) Effects of residues of deltamethrin in cattle faeces on the development and survival of three species of dung-breeding insect. Australian Veterinary Journal 76, 273–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waterhouse, D.F. (1974) The biological control of dung. Scientific American 230, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wratten, S.D. & Forbes, A.B. (1995) Environmental assessment of veterinary products with particular reference to the avermectins. Pesticide Outlook (April), 20–24.Google Scholar
Wratten, S.D. & Forbes, A.B. (1996) Environmental assessment of veterinary avermectins in temperate pastoral ecosystems. Annals of Applied Biology 128, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar