Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:49:58.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Laboratory Experiments on the Effect Of DDT and BHC on certain aphidophagous Insects and their Hosts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. J. Way
Affiliation:
Department of Insecticides and Fungicides, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts

Extract

Experiments were carried out during 1945 and 1946 to determine the effect of insecticides, particularly DDT and BHC, on certain species of Syrphids and Coccinellids. In addition, some preliminary data was obtained on toxicity to parasitic Hymenoptera and a predatory Cecidomyiid species.

In some experiments other insecticides were used for comparative purposes and where possible data were obtained on the effect of the insecticide not only on the predator but also on the host and the host-predator relationship.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

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

Anon (1947). DDT for citrus pests.–Agric. Chem., 2, no. 5, p. 56.Google Scholar
Arthur, D. R. (1944). Aphidius granarius, Marsh., in relation to its control of Myzus kaltenbachi, Schout.—Bull. ent. Res., 35, p. 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, H. F. (1929). Gall Midges (Dipt., Cecidomyidae) as enemies of Aphids.—Bull. ent. Res., 20, p. 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, H. F. (1931). Notes on the parasites of the Cabbage Aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae Linn.).—Ent. mon. Mag., 67, p. 55.Google Scholar
Brooks, F. A. (1947). The drifting of poisonous dusts applied by airplanes and land rigs.—Agric. Engng, 28, no. 6, p. 233.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. E. & Davidson, W. M. (1924). Notes on aphidophagous Syrphidae of southern California.—Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci., 23, pp. 39, 59–71.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. (1916). Life history and feeding records of a series of California Coccinellidae.—Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent., 1, p. 251.Google Scholar
Cox, J. A. (1942). Effect of dormant sprays on parasites of the San José and Terrapin Scales.—J. econ. Ent., 35, p. 698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driggers, B. F. & O'Neill, W. J. (1938). Codling Moth parasitism under different spray treatments.—J. econ. Ent., 31, p. 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driggers, B. F. & Pepper, B. B. (1936). Effect of orchard practices on Codling Moth and Leafhopper parasitism.—J. econ. Ent., 29, p. 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, O. A. M. (1920). Observations on the life-history, biology and genetics of the Ladybird Beetle Adalia bipunctata (Mulsant).—Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1920, p. 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinze, K. (1939). Zur Biologie und Systematik der virusübertragenden Blattläuse.—Mitt. biol. Reichsanst., pt. 59, p. 35. (R.A.E., (A) 27, p. 686).Google Scholar
Hough, W. S. (1943). Development and characteristics of vigorous or resistant strains of codling moth.—Tech. Bull. Va agric. Exp. Sta., no. 91, 32 pp.Google Scholar
Hough, W. S.Clancy, D. W. & Pollard, H. N. (1945). DDT and its effect on the Comstock Mealybug and its parasites.—J econ. Ent., 38, p. 422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. H. (1947). Relation between particle size and shape of insecticidal suspensions and their contact toxicity. Part I.—Ann. appl. Biol., 34, p. 586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massee, A. M. (1947). The spraying programme with special references to D.D.T. Report of address to N.F.U., Maidstone Branch on 6th Feb., 1947, 4 pp.Google Scholar
Metcalf, C. L. (1916). Syrphidae of Maine.—Bull. Me agric. Exp. Sta., no. 253, p. 193.Google Scholar
Parkin, E. A. & Hewlett, P. S. (1946). The formation of insecticidal films on building materials.—Ann. appl. Biol., 33, p. 381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, A. (1947). Laboratory tests showing the effect of DDT on several important parasitic insects.—Ohio J. Sci., 46, p. 323.Google Scholar
Petherbridge, F. R. & Mellor, J. E. M. (1936). Observations on the life history of the Cabbage Aphis, Brevicoryne brassicae L.—Ann. appl. Biol., 23, p. 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherbridge, & Wright, D. W. (1938). The Cabbage Aphis (Brevicoryne brassicae L.).—J. Minist. Agric., 45, p. 140.Google Scholar
Potter, C. (1941). A laboratory spraying apparatus and technique for investigating the action of contact insecticides, with some notes on suitable test insects.—Ann. appl. Biol., 21, p. 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherbridge, , & Perkins, J. F. (1946). Control of Brassica pests by DDT.—Agriculture, 53, p. 109.Google Scholar
Quayle, H. J. (1943). The increase in resistance in insects to insecticides.—J. econ. Ent., 36, p. 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripper, W. E. (1944). Biological control as a supplement to chemical control of insect pests.—Nature, 153, no. 3885, p. 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. L. (1945). Control of certain cotton insects with DDT. InInvest. DDT Calif. 1944, p. 7. Berkeley, Calif. Exp. Sta. (R.A.E., (A) 35, p. 111.)Google Scholar
Steiner, H. M. (1938). Effects of orchard practices on natural enemies of the White Apple Leafhopper.—J. econ. Ent., 31, p. 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, L. F., Arnold, C. H. & Summerland, S. A. (1944). Laboratory and field tests of DDT for control of the Codling Moth.—J. econ. Ent., 37, p. 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, C. H.. & Michelbacher, A. E. (1945). The use of DDT on almond trees. InInvest. DDT Calif. 1944, p. 6. Berkeley, Calif. Exp. Sta. (R.A.E., (A) 35, p. 111.)Google Scholar
Taylor, G. G. (1945). Preliminary field trials with D.D.T. and 666 against insect pests.—N. Z. J. Sci. Tech., (A) 27, p. 129.Google Scholar
Weigel, C. A. (1944). DDT against some pests of vegetable crops.—J. econ. Ent., 37, p. 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. Fox. (1946). D.D.T.: investigations on its effect upon some horticultural pests.—J. R. hort. Soc., 71, p. 6.Google Scholar
Woodside, A. M. (1946). The use of DDT makes mite control necessary.—Virginia Fruit, 34, no. 3, p. 14.Google Scholar