Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T15:08:59.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A technique for the topical application of poisons to non-anaesthetised house-flies for knockdown assessments.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R. M. Sawicki
R. M. Sawicki
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An apparatus and technique are described for handling, immobilising by suction, and individually dosing house-flies, Musca domestica L. The apparatus consists of a suction platform connected to a vacuum cleaner, a specially designed cage and a measured-drop apparatus. The suction platform consists essentially of a circle of terylene gauze, on to which the flies are drawn from the cage and held by suction during treatment. The cage can be made to contract, so that the flies may be crowded together near the special emergence hole through which they are to be withdrawn. The technique avoids the use of cooling and anaesthetics, which affect the metabolism of the flies, and is therefore especially suitable for measuring knockdown, although it can equally be used to estimate toxicity. Some factors likely to influence the results are examined and discussed, and an example is given of two experiments with house-flies, to show that the method gives reproducible results.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , January 1961 , pp. 715 - 722
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

Beard, R. L. (1949). Time of evaluation and the dosage-response curve.—J. econ. Ent. 42 pp. 579–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finney, D. J. (1947). Probit analysis. A statistical treatment of the sigmoid response curve.—256 pp. Cambridge, Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. W. (1952). The importance of the locus of application on the effectiveness of DDT for the house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae).—Canad. J. Zool. 30 pp. 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heal, R. E. & Menusan, H. jr. (1948). A technique for the bloodstream injection of insects and its application in tests of certain insecticides.—J. econ. Ent. 41 pp. 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewlett, P. S. (1954). A micro-drop applicator and its use for the treatment of certain small insects with liquid insecticide.—Ann. appl. Biol. 41 pp. 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, R. W. (1948). The effect of starvation on the susceptibility of houseflies to pyrethrum sprays.—Aust. J. sci. Res. (B) 1 pp. 76–92.Google Scholar
Kerr, R. W. (1954). A method for the topical application of small measured doses of insecticide solutions to individual insects.—Bull. ent. Res. 45 pp. 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, A. S. & Hoskins, W. M. (1951). Synergistic action with DDT toward resistant house flies.—J. econ. Ent. 44 pp. 839–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tattersfield, F. & Potter, C. (1943). Biological methods of determining the insecticidal values of pyrethrum preparations (particularly extracts in heavy oil).—Ann. appl. Biol. 30 pp. 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. M. (1946). Continuous anesthesia for insects.—Science 103 p. 57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, C. S. (1949). Piperonyl butoxide, piperonyl cyclonene, and pyrethrum applied to selected parts of individual flies.—J. econ. Ent. 42 pp. 423–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed