Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T22:15:11.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESISTANCE OF HOUSE FLIES (DIPTERA: MUSCIDAE) IN FLORIDA TO TRICHLORFON AND DICHLORVOS FORMULATED IN SUGAR BAITS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Donald L. Bailey ,
G. C. LaBrecque  and
T. L. Whitfield
Donald L. Bailey
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, Florida
G. C. LaBrecque
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, Florida
T. L. Whitfield
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gainesville, Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A statewide survey was made in Florida to determine the resistance of house flies, Musca domestica L., from 25 different locations throughout the state to trichlorfon and dichlorvos in dry sugar baits. When compared with susceptible flies (Orlando regular strain), the resistance to trichlorfon ranged from 2.5- to 135.0-fold in flies from dairies and from 5.0- to 310.0-fold in flies from poultries. The resistance level to dichlorvos was 1.0- to 22.5-fold in those fly strains collected in dairies and 2.3- to 16.6-fold in those collected in poultry houses.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 103 , Issue 6 , June 1971 , pp. 853 - 856
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1971

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ashmead, W. H. 1880. Orange insects; a treatise on the injurious and beneficial insects found on the orange trees in Florida. Ashmead Bros., Florida. 78 pp.Google Scholar
Clancy, D. W., Selhime, A. G., and Muma, M. H.. 1963. Establishment of Aphytis holoxanthus as a parasite of Florida red scale in Florida. J. econ. Ent. 56: 603–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compere, H. 1955. A systematic study of the genus Aphytis Howard (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) with descriptions of new species. Univ. Calif. Publs Ent. 10: 271–320.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1961. The red scale and its natural enemies. Hilgardia 31: 173–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. A. 1955. Factors affecting biological control of scale insects on Texas citrus. J. econ. Ent. 48: 444–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P. 1964. Some species of Aphytis Howard (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) in Greece. Annls Inst. phytopath. Benaki 7: n.s. 5–18.Google Scholar
DeBach, P.Biological control of diaspine scale insects on citrus in California. Proc. 1st int. Citrus Symp., Vol. 2, pp. 801–815.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. and Landi, J.. 1961. The introduced purple scale parasite Aphytis lepidosaphes Compere, and a method of integrating chemical with biological control. Hilgardia 31: 459–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1954. An evaluation of some natural enemies of the olive scale. J. econ. Ent. 47: 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1945. Coincident infestations of Aonidiella citrina and Coccus hesperidum, a result of ant activity. J. econ. Ent. 38: 711–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1948. Biological control of the yellow scale. Calif. Citrogr. 34: 56, 76–77.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1952. Another parasite of purple scale established in California. Calif. Citrogr. 37: 234, 256–257.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1953. Hymenopterous parasites of three species of oriental scale insects. Boll. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. “Fillipo Silvestri” Portici 33: 10–28.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1957. Fig scale parasites introduced into California. J. econ. Ent. 50: 171–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1965. Competition and cooperation among parasitic Hymenoptera related to biological control. Can. Ent. 97: 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1966. The circumstances of species replacement among parasitic Hymenoptera. Can. Ent. 98: 1009–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. and Badgley, M. E.. 1963. Prey-predator interactions in self-balanced laboratory populations. Hilgardia 35: 145–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. and Gressitt, J. L.. 1958. The natural control of red scale in China. Q. Bull. Calif. St. Dep. Agric. 49: 23–33.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E., Gressitt, J. L., and DeBach, P.. 1950. Parasite of Glover's scale established in California. Calif. Citrogr. 35: 254–255.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E., Gressitt, J. L., and Fisher, T. W.. 1958. Casca chinensis, an internal parasite of California red scale. Hilgardia 28: 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerson, U. 1967. The natural enemies of the chaff scale, Parlatoria pergandii Comstock in Israel. Entomophaga 12: 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerson, U. 1968. The comparative biologies of two hymenopterous parasites of the chaff scale, Parlatoria pergandii. Entomophaga 13: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, T. 1855. Insects. U.S. Patent Office Agric. Rep. 1856, pp. 64–121.Google Scholar
Glover, T. 1858. Insects frequenting the orange trees of Florida. U.S. Patent Office Agric. Rep. 1859, pp. 256–271.Google Scholar
Hubbard, H. G. 1885. Insects affecting the orange. Special Rep. U.S. Dep. Agric. Div. Ent. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, D.C.227 pp.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. and Kennett, C. E.. 1966. Biological control of Parlatoria oleae (Colvée) through the compensating actions of two introduced parasites. Hilgardia 37: 283–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., Kennett, C. E., and Finney, G. L.. 1962. Biological control of olive scale, Parlatoria oleae (Colvée), in California by imported Aphytis maculicornis (Masi) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Hilgardia 32: 541–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennett, C. E., Huffaker, C. B., and Finney, G. L.. 1966. The role of an autoparasitic aphelinid, Coccophagoides utilis Doutt in the control of Parlatoria oleae (Colvée). Hilgardia 37: 225–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muma, M. H. 1961. The influence of cover crop cultivation on populations of injurious insects and mites in Florida citrus groves. Fla Ent. 44: 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pemberton, C. E. and Willard, H. F.. 1918. A contribution to the biology of fruit-fly parasites in Hawaii. J. agric. Res. 15: 419–465.Google Scholar
Porath, A. 1969. On the establishment and distribution of Casca smithi Comp., a parasite of Chrysomphalus aonidum L. in Israel. Israel J. Ent. 4: 41–44.Google Scholar
Rivnay, E. 1968. A review of biological control (and related subjects) in Israel. Israel J. Ent. 3: 1–156.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. 1965. The hymenopterous parasites of citrus armored scales in Israel (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 58: 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1929. Multiple parasitism, its relation to the biological control of insect pests. Bull. ent. Res. 20: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. S. and Flanders, S. E.. 1948. Search for parasites of red scale is reoriented. Calif. Citrogr. 34: 4, 17–18, 20.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1949. Recent introductions of entomophagous insects into California. J. econ. Ent. 42: 995–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1950. The search for natural enemies of citrus pests. Calif. Citrogr. 35: 362, 376.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. H. C. 1935. The campaign against Aspidiotus destructor Sign. in Fiji. Bull. ent. Res. 26: 1–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar