Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:21:32.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on the vertical migrations of the third-stage larva of Haemonchus contortus (Rud.) on experimental plots of Lolium perenne S24, in relation to meteorological and micrometeorological factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Gwendolen Rees
Gwendolen Rees
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The cycle of vertical migration of the infective larvae of Haemonchus contortus on experimental plots of Lolium perenne S 24, kept out of doors, has been related to meteorological and micrometeorological factors.

2. The three main factors concerned with vertical migration are temperature, humidity and light intensity.

3. In the majority of cases the greatest number of larvae are on the grass blades in the early morning and in the evening, less being recovered at night and during the middle of the day. The time of the morning maximum becomes progressively earlier passing from winter to summer, and the time of the evening maximum progressively later. The reverse is true in the second half of the year.

4. Low and high temperatures accompanied by low humidity inhibit vertical migration on the grass.

5. High humidity (continuous precipitation) does not prevent migration, the two daily maxima are apparent, but the numbers climbing are less than in the absence of rain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 40 , Issue 1-2 , January 1950 , pp. 127 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

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

Buckley, J. J. C. (1940). J. Helminthol. 18, 4, 173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinaburg, A. G. (1942). J. Parasit. 28, 433–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, P. A. (1945). J. Parasit. 31, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauzal, G. A. (1941). Aust. Vet. J. 17, 18–4.Google Scholar
Leiper, R. T. (1928). Rep. Agric. Met. Conference.Google Scholar
Lucker, J. T. (1936). J. Agric. Res. 52, 5, 353–61.Google Scholar
Monnig, H. O. (1930). Rep. S. Afr. Dept. Agric. Vet. Services, Onderstepoort, 16, 175–98.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. O. (1929). J. Helminthol. 7, 3, 153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, W. P. (1939). J. Helminthol. 17, 151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, W. P. (1940). Parasitology, 32, 2, 208–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., Imes, M. & Wright, W. H. (1930). Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 148, 55 pp.Google Scholar
Shorb, D. A. (1942). J. Agric. Res. 65, 7, 329–37.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. L. (1938 a). Vet. Rec. 50, 40, 1265–72.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. L. (1938 b). 13th Int. Vet. Congr., Zürich-Interlaken, pp. 48–58.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. L. (1939). Vet. Rec. 51, 16, 495–504.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. L. (1944). Endeavour, 3, 12.Google Scholar
Veglia, F. (1916). 3rd and 4th Rep. of Director of Vet. Res. pp. 349–500.Google Scholar