Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:52:53.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of gamma-radiation on Glossina pallidipes Aust.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G. J. W. Dean  and
S. A. Clements
G. J. W. Dean
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council of Central Africa, Salisbury, Rhodesia*
S. A. Clements
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council of Central Africa, Salisbury, Rhodesia*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sufficient pupae of G. pallidipes Aust. for testing were available from the Zambezi valley only between September and early November and were of all ages. These pupae or the adult fly were exposed to gamma-radiation from a 60Co source at rates between 54 and 122 rads per min., and reproduction and mortality were studied by described procedures.

Effective pupal mortality due to radiation increased, and the proportion of males among the viable emerging flies decreased, with dosage between 4,000 and 16,000 rads. Eeproduction and survival of adult males emerging from treated pupae decreased with an increase in dosage and a decrease in pupal age at the time of treatment. Irradiation of adult males within three days of emergence produced slightly lower levels of sterility and similar survivals. Complete male sterility was rarely obtained with any of the treatments, though all the females, with one exception, were sterilised from 4,000 rads upwards, but the flies were fully competitive with untreated males and reduced reproduction below expected values. Treated males were fully capable of inseminating female flies and the sperm was motile and apparently behaved normally. Dominant lethality in the males appeared to be expressed by the failure to produce pupae and in the females by the complete failure of oogenesis.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , May 1969 , pp. 755 - 762
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

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

Buxton, P. A. (1955). The natural history of tsetse flies.—Mem. Lond. Sch. Hyg. trop. Med. no. 10, 816 pp.Google Scholar
Chadwick, P. R. (1964). Effect of two chemosterilants on Glossina morsitans.—Nature, Lond. 204 no. 4955, pp. 299–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dame, D. A. & Ford, H. R. (1966). Effect of the chemosterilant tepa on Glossina morsitans.—Bull. ent. Res. 56 pp. 649–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dame, D. A. & Ford, H. R. (1968). Multiple mating behaviour of Glossina morsitans Westw. and its potential effect on the sterile male technique.—Bull. ent. Res. 58 pp. 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, G.J.W., Wilson, F. & Wortham, S. (1968). Some factors affecting eclosion of Glossina morsitans Westw. from pupae.—Bull. ent. Res. 58 pp. 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, G.J.W. & Wortham, S. (1969). Effect of gamma-radiation on the tsetse fly, Glossina morsitans Westw.—Bull. ent. Res. 58 pp. 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasgow, J. P. (1963). The distribution and abundance of tsetse.—Int. Ser. Monogr. pure appl. Biol. (Div. Zool.). 20, 241 pp. Oxford, Pergamon Pr.Google Scholar
Knipling, E. F. (1963). Potential role of the sterility principle for tsetse fly eradication. WHO/Vector Control 27, WHO/EBL/9, 17 pp.Google Scholar
Phelps, R. J. (1964). Parasites of tsetse puparia.—Rep. Agric. Res. Coun. cent. Afr. 1964. pp. 41–42.Google Scholar
Potts, W. H. (1933). Observations on Glossina morsitans Westw., in East Africa.—Bull. ent. Res. 24 pp. 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, W. H. (1958). Sterilization of tsetse-flies (Glossina) by gamma irradiation.—Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 52 pp. 484–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, H. R. (1958). The effect of sterilised males on a natural tsetse fly population.—Biometrics 14 pp. 159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar