Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:48:57.350Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation with Age in the Susceptibility to DDT and the Respiration Rate of male and female Drosophila melanogaster Mg.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

R. W. Kerr
R. W. Kerr
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra, A.C.T.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

DDT in odourless distillate was topically applied to individual males and females of the Rothamated wild type of Drosophila melanogaster Mg. The lines for the regression of mortality in probits on log. dosage of DDT for males and females, five days old, were parallel, and males were 1·86 times as susceptible as females. Susceptibility was high in young flies, but rapidly decreased with age, to a minimum at about five days, thereafter increasing rapidly in males and not significantly in females. The need for sexing and standardising age in flies used for toxicological investigations was thus demonstrated.

Respiration rate in untreated flies was measured by a modified Barcroft method. In males it increased with age up to five days, and then decreased; in females it increased with age up to nine days. Variations with age in respiration rate and susceptibility to DDT were negatively correlated.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1954 , pp. 323 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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

Babers, F. H. & Pratt, J. J. jr (1951). Development of insect resistance to insecticides. II.—U.S. Dep. Agric. Bur. Ent., E-818, 45 pp., multigraph.Google Scholar
Dixon, M. (1934, 1951). Manometric methods.—London, Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1947). Probit analysis.—256 pp. London, Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, R. W. (1951). Bull. sci. industr. Res. Org. Aust., no. 261, 63 pp.Google Scholar
Kerr, R. W. (1954 a). Bull. ent. Res., 45, pp. 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, R. W. (1954 b). Bull. ent. Res., 45, pp. 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L'Héritier, P. (1948). Heredity, 2, pp. 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, K. A. (1949). Ann. appl. Biol., 36, pp. 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, W. S. (1944). Canad. J. Res., (D) 22, pp. 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, F. O. (1943). Canad. J. Res., (D) 21, pp. 35–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, A. S. & Hoskins, W. M. (1950). Science, 111, pp. 600–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. (1941). Ann. appl. Biol., 28, pp. 142–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. (1952). Ann. appl. Biol., 39, pp. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar