Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-f97m6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T21:34:26.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of ivermectin treatment on the attraction of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae and Hydrophilidae) to cow pats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

P. Holter ,
C. Sommer ,
J. Grønvold  and
M. Madsen
P. Holter*
Affiliation:
Institute of Population Biology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
C. Sommer
Affiliation:
Institute of Population Biology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
J. Grønvold
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Section of Parasitology, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark
M. Madsen
Affiliation:
Veterinary Research Laboratory, Harare, Zimbabwe
*
Dr. P. Holter, Institute of Population Biology, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of ivermectin treatment of cattle on the rate of dung beetle colonization of cow pats was assessed by pitfall trapping in Denmark, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Ivermectin was injected subcutaneously into heifers at the recommended dose of 0.2 mg/kg body weight, and dung to be used as bait in pitfalls was collected at intervals after treatment. In one experiment in Denmark, species of the scarab beetle Aphodius and the hydrophilids Sphaeridium and Cercyon, preferred control dung from untreated cattle; no preference was found in two other experiments, involving some of the same species. In the Tanzanian trials, the overall tendency for scarabaeid beetles was to prefer control dung. In Zimbabwe, two scarabaeid species (Euoniticellus intermedius (Reiche) and Liatongus militaris (Castelnau), both belonging to Oniticellini) were particularly attracted to dung from treated cattle; two other scarabaeids showed no preference. It is concluded: 1. That ivermectin therapy can affect the rate of dung colonization by attracting or repelling beetles. 2. That the responses are probably not caused by ivermectin per se, but by some side effect, the nature of which is obscure and unpredictable with our present knowledge.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 53 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Campbell, W. C. (Ed.) (1989) Ivermectin and abamectin. 363 pp. New York, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, W. C., Fisher, M. H., Stapley, E. O., AlbersSchönberg, G. & Jacob, T. A. (1983) Ivermectin: a potent new antiparasitic agent. Science, 221, 823–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaines, S. D. & Rice, W. R. (1990) Analysis of biological data when there are ordered expectations. American Naturalist 135, 310–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlding, B., Ridsdill-Smith, T. J. & Bailey, W. J. (1991) Injectable abamectin causes a delay in scarabaeine dung beetle egglaying in cattledung. Australian Veterinary Journal 68, 185–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeand, J., Bairden, K. & Ibarra-Silva, A.-M. (1988) The degradation of bovine faecal pats containing ivermectin. Veterinary Record 122, 587–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, M., Nielsen, B. Overgaard, Holter, P., Pedersen, O. C., Jespersen, J. BrøchnerJensen, K.-M Vagn, Nanse, P., & Grønvold, J. (1990) Treating cattle with invermectin: effects on the fauna and decomposition of dung pats. Journal of Applied Ecology 27, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridsdill-Smith, T. J. (1988) Survival and reproduction of Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae) and a scarabaeine dung beetle in dung of cattle treated with avermectin B1. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 27, 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, C., Steffansen, B., Nielsen, B. Overgaard, Grønvold, J., Jensen, K.-M VagnJespersen, J. BrøchnerSpringborg, J. & Nansen, P. (1992) Ivermectin excreted in cattle dung after subcutaneous injection or pour-on treatment: concentrations and impact on dung fauna. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, C. & Nielsen, B. Overgaard (1992) Larvae of the dung beetle Onthophagus gazella Fabricius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) exposed to lethal and sublethal ivermectin concentrations. Journal of Applied Entomology 114, 502–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, L. (1992). Avermectins: a review of their impact on insects of cow pats. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, L. & Wall, R. (1988) Ivermectin in cattle treatment: non-specific effects on pastureland ecology. Aspects of Applied Biology 17, 231–238.Google Scholar
Wall, R. & Strong, L. (1987) Environmental consequences of treading cattle with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin. Nature, London 327, 418–421.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, K. G. & Mahon, R. J. (1991) Avermectin residues in sheep and cattle dung and their effects on dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabeidae) colonization and dung burial. Bulletin of Entomological Research 81, 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardhaugh, K. G. & Rodriguez-Menendez, H. (1988) The effects of the antiparasitic drug, ivermectin, on the development and survival of the dung-breeding fly, Orthelia cornicina (F.) and the scarabaeine dung beetles, Copris hispanus L., Bubas bubalus (Oliver) and Onitis belial F. Journal of Applied Entomology 106, 381–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1937) The use of logarithms in the interpretation of certain entomological problems. Annals of Applied Biology 24, 404–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar