Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T21:10:25.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The control of trichostrongyle larvae (Nematoda) by fumigation in relation to their bionomics

II. Laboratory toxicity tests with methyl bromide*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

R. F. Sturrock
R. F. Sturrock
Affiliation:
Research Scholar of the Animal Health Trust, Imperial College Field Station, Sunninghill, Berks†.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A standard culture technique is described for obtaining the various developmental stages of Trichostrongylus colubriformis, and a suitable technique for assessing the effect of methyl bromide fumigations is outlined.

Doses of 10, 25 and 150 mg. hr./l. were required to give an LD50 for eggs, pre-infective and infective larvae respectively. The age of infective larvae, the relative humidity and the temperature all influenced the toxicity of the fumigant. Soil, and more especially faeces, sorb the fumigant and probably protect larvae from its full effect. Infective larvae of T. axei, T. retortaeformis and H. contortus were also found to be susceptible to methyl bromide.

The activity of larvae surviving fumigation was considerably reduced, but these larvae were still capable of infecting guinea pigs.

Methyl bromide killed common pasture grasses at doses of 150–250 or more mg. hr./l., depending on the temperature. Chloropicrin was found to be highly toxic to grass and unsuitable where the pasture is required undamaged.

The results are discussed in the light of current theories of the mode of action of methyl bromide on insects and what is known at present of the physiology of nematodes.

It is concluded that under certain conditions, methyl bromide might be used to eliminate infestations of trichostrongyle larvae on pasture, without killing the pasture.

I am indebted to Professor B. G. Peters and other members of the staff of the Imperial College Field Station and Dr C. W. R. Spedding of the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, for their help in this work and their advice and criticism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 1965 , pp. 45 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Andrews, J. S., Taylor, A. L. & Swanson, L. E. (1943). Fumigation of soil with methyl bromide as a means of destroying infective stages and intermediate hosts of some internal parasites of mammals. Proc. helm. Soc. Wash. 10, 1–6.Google Scholar
Bair, T. D. (1955). The oxygen consumption of Rhabditis strongyloides and other nematodes related to the oxygen tension. J. Parasit. 41, 613–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. F. (1954). The cuticle of nematode larvae. Nature, Lond., 174, 362.Google Scholar
Bird, A. F. & Rogers, W. P. (1956). The chemical composition of the cuticle of third stage nematode larvae. Expl Parasit. 5, 449–57.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S., Consden, R. & Phillips, H. (1944). The action of sulphites on the cystine disulphide linkages of wool. 4. Methylation of the thiol groups of bisulphited wools. Biochem. J. 38, 25–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, E. (1956). The effect of methyl bromide on the respiration of the cadelle Tenebriodes mauritanicus (L) (Coleoptera ostomidae). Canad. J. Zool. 34, 405–15.Google Scholar
Call, F. (1955). The distribution of ethylene dibromide in soils. (Ph.D. thesis, Lond.)Google Scholar
Cameron, T. W. M. (1939). Destruction of eggs and non-infective larvae. Can. J. comp. Med. 3, 248–54.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. P. & Koblitzky, L. (1943). Sorption of methyl bromide on soil. J. econ. Ent. 36, 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chitwood, B. G. (1936). Observations on the chemical nature of the cuticle of Ascaris lumbricoides. Proc. helm. Soc. Wash. 3, 39–49.Google Scholar
Clapham, P. A. (1950). On sterilising land against poultry parasites. J. Helminth. 24, 137–44.Google Scholar
Cotton, R. T. (1932). The relation of respiratory metabolism of insects to their susceptibility to fumigants. J. econ. Ent. 25, 1088–102.Google Scholar
Endrigkeit, A. (1944). Versuche zur Wirkungssteigerung von Wurmmitteln. II. Kombinationversuche beim Allegan und Chloroform. Dt. tierärztl. Wschr. 5250 (3940), 370–72.Google Scholar
Enigk, K. (1953). Die Bodendesinfektion mit Methylbromide. Dt. tierärztl. Wschr. 60 (1112), 131–2.Google Scholar
Fisk, F. W. & Shephard, H. H. (1938). Laboratory studies of methyl bromide as an insect fumigant. J. econ. Ent. 31, 79–84.Google Scholar
Gough, H. C. (1939). Factors affecting the resistance of the flour beetle, Tribolium confusum, D.V.V. to hydrogen cyanide. Ann. appl. Biol. 26, 533–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, A. D. (1948). The physiology and cultivation on artificial media of nematodes parasitic in the alimentary tract of animals. Parasitology, 38, 183–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, C. A. (1955). The correlation between rate of oxygen uptake and the stage of development of Parascaris equorum eggs. Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 49, 12.Google Scholar
Lazarus, M. & Rogers, W. P. (1951). The mode of action of phenothiazine as an anthelmintic. The uptake of S-labelled phenothiazine by nematode parasites and their hosts. Aust. J. scient. Res. (Series B), 4, 163–79.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. E. (1948). The inhibition of SH enzymes by methyl bromide. Nature, Lond., 161, 692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindgren, D. L. (1935). Tech. Bull. Min. Agric. Sta. no. 109.Google Scholar
Lubatti, O. F. & Blackith, R. E. (1955). Fumigation of agricultural products. XII. Trials with onions treated with methyl bromide, and an improved method for its analysis. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 6, 799.Google Scholar
Lucker, J. S. (1936). Preparasitic moults of Nippostrongylus muris with remarks on the structure of the cuticula of Trichostrongyles. Parasitology, 28, 161–71.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, A. P. (1961). Some effects of methyl bromide on aphids and white fly and their host plants. Ph.D. thesis. London.Google Scholar
Monné, L. & Hönig, G. (1954). On the properties of the egg envelopes of various parasitic nematodes. Ark. Zool. (Ser. 2), 7, 261–72.Google Scholar
Payne, F. K. (1923 a). Investigations on the control of hookworm disease. XXX. Studies on factors involved in migration of hookworm larvae in soil. Am. J. Hyg. 3, 547–83.Google Scholar
Payne, F. K. (1923 b). Investigations on the control of hookworm disease. XXXI. The relation of the physiological age of hookworm larvae to their ability to infect the human host. Am. J. Hyg. 3, 584–98.Google Scholar
Rogers, W. P. (1940). The physiological aging of the infective larvae of Haemonchus contortus. J. Helminth. 18, 183–92.Google Scholar
Rogers, W. P. (1948). The respiratory metabolism of parasitic nematodes. Parasitology, 39, 105–9.Google Scholar
Rogers, W. P. & Lazarus, M. (1949). Glycolysis and related phosphorus metabolism in parasitic nematodes. Parasitology, 39, 302–14.Google Scholar
Santmeyer, P. H. (1956). Studies on the metabolism of Panagrellus redivivus (Nematoda: Cephalobidae). Proc. helm. Soc. Wash. 23, 30–6.Google Scholar
Silverman, P. H. & Campbell, J. A. (1959). Studies on parasitic worms of sheep in Scotland. I. Embryonic and larval development of Haemonchus contortus at constant conditions. Parasitology, 49, 23–37.Google Scholar
Sturrock, R. F. (1961). The quantitative use of the Seinhorst ‘Mistifier’ to recover nematodes from soil, faeces and herbage. J. Helminth. 35, 309–14.Google Scholar
Sturrock, R. F. (1963). Observations on the use of Trichostrongylus colubriformis (Nematoda) infections of guinea pigs for laboratory experiments. Parasitology, 53, 189–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturrock, R. F. (1965). The control of trichostrongyle larvae (Nematoda) by fumigation in relation to their bionomics. I. Bionomics results. Parasitology, 55, 29–44.Google Scholar
Swanson, L. E. & Taylor, A. L. (1943). Control of cattle-parasitic and free living nematodes by soil fumigation with methyl bromide. Proc. helm. Soc. Wash. 10, 1–3.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. L. & Mcbeth, C. W. (1941). A practical method for using methyl bromide as a nematicide in the field. Proc. helm. Soc. Wash. 8, 26–8.Google Scholar
Wade, P. (1952). Determination of fumigants. XXII. Photometric determination of brominated-hydrocarbons as inorganic bromide. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 3, 390–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, P. (1954). The sorption of ethylene dibromide by soils. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 5, 184–92.Google Scholar
Wallace, H. R. (1959). The movement of eelworms. III. The influence of water percolation. Ann. appl. Biol. 4, 131–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winteringham, F. P. W. & Hellyer, G. C. (1954). Effects of methyl bromide, ethylene dibromide and ethylene dichloride on the phosphorus metabolism of Musca domestica L. Biochem. J. 58, 178–83.Google Scholar
Winteringham, F. P. W., Hellyer, G. C. & McKay, M. A. (1958). Effects of methyl bromide on the phosphorus metabolism in the adult housefly, Musca domestica L. Biochem. J. 69, 640–8.Google Scholar