Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T10:14:32.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the field performance of compound chromosome strains compared to laboratory-reared wild-type strains in Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

P. H. Smith  and
R. Morton
P. H. Smith
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT26O1, Australia
R. Morton
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Mathematics and Statistics, GPO Box 1965, ACT 2601, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An assay based on recovery rates of released laboratory-reared flies was used to compare the field performance in Australia of a series of strains bearing compound chromosomes with that of wild-type strains of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann). The compound chromosome strains tested all performed less well than the wild-type strains. Four of the former were recovered on average 0·37 times as readily as the average wild-type strain, and one was recovered 0·65 times as readily. The compound chromosome strains differed in the selection pressure they had been exposed to in the field, which had selected among the various compound chromosomes in an original strain and in the extent to which their non-compound chromosomes had been replaced by recently collected field material. The strain that performed best had been exposed to the most severe selection pressure, overwintering in the field, and had had much of its non-compound genome replaced. Among the group of strains with similar performance, some had had their non-compound genome replaced with field genetic material.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 233 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Adams, T. S. & Mulla, M. S. (1967). The reproductive biology of Hippelates collusor (Diptera: Chloropidae). II. Gametogenesis.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60, 1177–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clift, A. D. (1972). The nutritional and endocrine control of reproduction of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wied.).—286 pp. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Sydney.Google Scholar
Clift, A. D. & McDonald, F. J. D. (1976). Some relationships between diet and ovarian development in Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) (Diptera: Calliphoridae).—Aust. J. Zool. 24, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, G. G. (1982). The use of bridging systems to increase genetic variability in compound chromosome strains for genetic control of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann).—Theor. & Appl. Genet. 63, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, G. G. & Maddern, R. H. (in press). Segregation and pairing of compound fifth-chromosomes in Lucilia cuprina males.—Genet. Res.Google Scholar
Foster, G. G., Whitten, M. J., Prout, T. & Gill, R. (1972). Chromosome rearrangements for the control of insect pests.—Science, N.Y. 176, 875–880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, G. G., Whitten, M. J. & Konowalow, C. (1976). The synthesis of compound autosomes in the Australian sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina .—Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 18, 169–177.Google ScholarPubMed
Foster, G. G., Maddern, R. H., Helman, R. A. & Reed, E. M. (in press). Field trial of a compound chromosome strain for genetic control of the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina.— Theor. & Appl. Genet.Google Scholar
Maddern, R. H. (1981). Radiation induced sex chromosome loss as an indicator of the optimal stage during spermatogenesis for the induction of compound chromosomes in Lucilia cuprina .—Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 23, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelder, J. A. & Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1972). Generalised linear models.—Jl R. statist. Soc. (A) 135, 370–384.Google Scholar
Norris, K. R. (1957). A method of marking Calliphoridae (Diptera) during emergence from the puparium.—Nature, Lond. 180, 1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, W. G. & Havenstein, D. E. (1974). A standardized bait trap for blowfly studies.—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 13, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardhaugh, K. G., Smith, P. H. & Crompton, G. W. (1983). A comparison of ground and aerial release methods for the genetic control of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae).—Gen. appl. ent. 15, 37–46.Google Scholar
Whitten, M. J., Foster, G. G., Vogt, W. G., Kitching, R. L., Woodburn, T. L. & Konovalov, C. (1977). Current status of genetic control of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae).—Proc. XV Int. Congr. Ent., 129–139.Google Scholar