Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T23:37:23.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical control of an organophosphorus-and carbamate-resistant strain of Boophilus microplus (Can.) from Queensland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

W. J. Roulston ,
B. F. Stone ,
J. T. Wilson  and
L. I. White
W. J. Roulston
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Entomology, Veterinary Parasitology Laboratory, Yeerongpilly, Queensland
B. F. Stone
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Entomology, Veterinary Parasitology Laboratory, Yeerongpilly, Queensland
J. T. Wilson
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Entomology, Veterinary Parasitology Laboratory, Yeerongpilly, Queensland
L. I. White
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Entomology, Veterinary Parasitology Laboratory, Yeerongpilly, Queensland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recognition in 1963 in central Queensland of the Ridgelands strain of Boophilus microplus (Can.), resistant in varying degrees in laboratory tests to all acaricides commercially available in Queensland, Australia, led to spraying trials on cattle with these acaricides to assess their effect on the resistant strain. Dosage mortality tests on larvae exposed in acaricide-impregnated filter papers, indicated the following levels of resistance, carbary 13×, carbophenothion 17×, coumaphos 1.6×, diazinon 19×, dioxathion 7.2× and ethion 2.7×.

Stalled cattle infested with either susceptible Yeerongpilly or resistant Ridgelands ticks were sprayed with the recommended concentration of commercially formulated acaricide. Efficiency of treatment was determined by comparing the number of ticks falling from sprayed and unsprayed cattle. Coumaphos (0.025%) and ethion (0.075%) produced efficient control of the resistant strain, but carbophenothion (0.086%), diazinon (0.05%) and dioxathion (0.075%) allowed considerable numbers of the resistant strain of ticks to survive. Carbaryl (0.3%) as a melt-type formulation gave inconsistent results and possible reasons are discussed. Poor control of the resistant strain was largely due to failure to kill the nymph stage.

There was general correspondence between the resisdence level determined in laboratory tests and the degree of control achieved in spraying trials. However, the reletively small difference between resistence levels of 2–3× (coumaphos and ethion) and 7× (dioxathion) was critical in the practical control of resistant ticks on cattle.

The following chemicals gave excellent control of the Ridgelands strain in spraying trials on stalled cattle: bromophos (0.15%), bromophos ethyl (0.1%), chlorfenvinphos (0.06%), chlorxylam (0.5%), Ciodrin (0.1%) Dursban (0.025%), fenchlorphos (0.2%), GS13002 (0.05%), Imidan (0.075%), methidathion (0.05%) and SD8448 (0.025%). Malathion (0.5%), prothidathion (0.075%), macarbam (0.075%) and RD12308 (0.2%) controlled the Yeerongpilly but not the Ridgelands strain. Arsenic (0.2%) produced about equal mortality in both strains, but was clearly a less efficient acaricide than organophosphorus chemicals.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , November 1968 , pp. 379 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Anon. (1965). The nomenclature of chemicals used in pest control.—Rev. appl. Ent. (A) 53 pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Anon. (1966). The nomenclature of chemicals used in pest control.—Rev. appl. Ent. (A) 54 pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1952). Probit analysis—2nd edn, 318 pp. Cambridge Univ. Pr.Google Scholar
O’brien, R. D. (1960). Toxic phosphorus esters.—434 pp. New York, Academic Pr.Google Scholar
Roulston, W. J. (1964). A study of the development of dieldrin-resistance in relation to acaricide pressure in a population of Boophilus microplus.—Aust. J. agric. Res. 15 pp. 490–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulston, W. J., Norris, K. R., Schnitzerling, H. J. & Meyers, R. A. J. (1958). Comparison of two formulations of DDT as dipping fluids for the control of the cattle tick.—Aust. J. agric. Res. 9 pp. 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulston, W. J. & Wharton, R. H. (1967). Acaricide tests on the Biarra strain of organophosphorus resistant cattle tick Boophilus microplus from southern Queensland.—Aust. vet. J. 43 pp. 129–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roulston, W. J. & Wilson, J. T. (1965). Chemical control of the cattle tick Boophilus microplus.—Bull. ent. Res. 55 pp. 617–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. D. (1966). Culture of an organophosphorus resistant strain of Boophilus microplus (Can.) and an assessment of its resistance spectrum.—Bull. ent. Res. 56 pp. 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. D. & Malcolm, H. A. (1964). Resistance of Boophilus microplus to organophosphorus insecticides.—Vet. Rec. 76 pp. 210–211.Google Scholar
Snowball, G. J. (1956). The effect of self-licking by cattle on infestations of cattle tick, Boophilus microplus (Canestrini).—Aust. J. agric. Res. 7 pp. 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, B. F. & Haydock, K. P. (1962). A method of measuring the acaricide-susceptibility of the cattle tick Boophilus microplus (Can.).—Bull. ent. Res. 53 pp. 563–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar