Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:44:23.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the Toxicity of insecticide Films*. II.—Effect of Temperature on the Toxicity of DDT Films

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

S. Pradhan
S. Pradhan
Affiliation:
Department of Insecticides and Fungicides, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A series of exploratory experiments on the relationship between temperature and toxicity of DDT films to adults of Tribolium castaneum, and larvae of Plutella maculipennis, are described. The main conclusions with T. castaneum are:—

(a) When the insects are continuously kept on the film at different temperatures there is a higher kill at higher temperatures.

(b) When the insects are exposed to the film for about 24 hours at the same temperature and then kept away from it at different temperatures there is a higher kill at the lower temperature.

(c) When the insects are kept on the film at different temperatures for about 24 hours and then kept away from the film for reaction at the same temperature, there is a higher kill in those kept on the film at the higher temperature.

(a) and (b) above apply equally to larvae of P. maculipennis but (c) is reversed. The probable cause of this reversal appears to be the observed fact that at higher temperatures these larvae cover the film with much more silk thread and thus avoid contact to a greater extent than at lower temperatures.

2. A review of literature, in the light of the conclusions arrived at, indicate that many of the observations made upon the temperature-toxicity relationship can be accounted for by the following generalisations:—

(a) Insect resistance to poisons changes with temperature as do its other vital activities, increasing up to a critical degree and afterwards declining.

(b) The amount of poison reaching the site of action in unit time also varies with the temperature, generally but not always, increasing with its rise. Insect activity, especially locomotor and respiratory, may play an important part in these effects.

(c) The apparent effects of temperature on insecticidal action is the combination of these two factors, namely, resistance and pick-up.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , August 1949 , pp. 239 - 265
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

Barnes, S. (1946). Bull. ent. Res., 36, pp.419–422.Google Scholar
Bertrand, G. & others. (1919). C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 169, pp. 1051–1061.Google Scholar
Böttcher, F. K. (1938). Z. angew. Ent., 25, pp. 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böttcher, F. K. (1939). Z. angew. Ent., 25, p. 681.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. & Barnes, S. (1947). Bull. ent. Res., 38, pp. 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, P. J. & others. (1943). Bull. N. Y. St. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 703, pp. 57–59.Google Scholar
Cotton, R. T. (1932). J. econ. Ent., 25, p. 1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craufurd-Benson, H. J. (1938). Bull. ent. Res., 29, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
David, W. A. L. (1946). Bull. ent. Res., 36, pp. 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagleson, C. (1942). Soap & sanit. Chem., 18, no. 6, pp. 115–117, 141.Google Scholar
Ellisor, L. O. & Blair, C. R. (1940). J. econ. Ent., 33, pp. 760–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, W. E. (1933). Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 280, 4 pp.Google Scholar
Gersdorff, W. A. (1943). J. agric. Res., 67, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Gilyarov, M. S. (1942). C.R. Acad. Sci. URSS, (N.S.) 37, pp. 109–112. (R.A.E., (A) 31, p. 452.)Google Scholar
Glass, E. H. (1944). J. econ. Ent., 37, pp. 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gösswald, K. (1933). Z. angew. Ent., 20, p. 489.Google Scholar
Harries, F. H., De Coursey, J. D. & Hofmaster, R. N. (1945). J. agric. Res., 71, pp. 555–565.Google Scholar
Hartzell, A. & Wilcoxon, F. (1932). Contr. Boyce Thompson Inst., 4, pp. 107–117.Google Scholar
Hill, A. V. (1909). J. Physiol., 39, pp. 361–373.Google Scholar
Jones, E. W. (1933). J. econ. Ent., 26, p. 887.Google Scholar
Klinger, H. (1936). Arb. phys. angew. Ent., 3, pp. 49–69, 115–151.Google Scholar
Laug, E. P. (1946). J. Pharmacol., 86–87, pp. 324–331.Google Scholar
Lindgren, D. L. (1935). Tech. Bull. Minn. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 109, 32 pp.Google Scholar
Lindquist, & others. (1945). J. econ. Ent., 38, pp. 261–264.Google Scholar
Lindquist, & others. (1946). J. econ. Ent., 39, pp. 55–59.Google Scholar
Moore, W. (1936). J. econ. Ent., 29, pp. 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, E. A. (1944). Ann. appl. Biol., 31, pp. 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, G. & Ganter, W. (1935). Z. angew. Ent., 21, pp. 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. & Gillham, E. M. (1946). Ann. appl. Biol., 33, pp. 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, E. B. (1920). Ecology, 1, pp. 95–112.Google Scholar
Pradhan, S. (1949). Bull. ent. Res., 40, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Shepard, H. H. (1939). The Chemistry and Toxicology of Insecticides, pp. 29, 43, 312–313, 327. Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Shepard, H. H., Lindgren, D. L. & Thomas, E. I. (1937). Tech. Bull. Minn. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 120, 23 pp.Google Scholar
Strand, A. L. (1927). Tech. Bull. Minn. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 49, p. 59.Google Scholar
Sweetman, H. L. (1945). Soap & sanit. Chem., 21, no. 12, p. 141.Google Scholar
Thalenhorst, W. (1937). Z. angew. Ent., 23, pp. 615–652. (R. A. E., (A) 25, p. 501.)Google Scholar
Whitcomb, W. D. (1935). Bull. Mass. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 315, p. 51.Google Scholar
Whitcomb, W. D. (1936). Bull. Mass. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 327, p. 39.Google Scholar
Yarwood, C. E. (1943). J. econ. Ent., 36, p. 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar