Translator Disclaimer
1 June 2002 Susceptibility of Black Soldier Fly (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) Larvae and Adults to Four Insecticides
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Dosage-mortality regressions were determined for black soldier fly, Hermetia illucens (L.), larvae fed cyromazine or pyriproxifen treated media. Cyromazine LC50s for larvae dying before becoming prepupae ranged from 0.25 to 0.28 ppm with dosage-mortality regression slopes between 5.79 and 12.04. Cyromazine LC50s for larvae dying before emergence ranged from 0.13 to 0.19 ppm with dosage-mortality regression slopes between 3.94 and 7.69. Pyriproxifen dosage-mortality regressions were not generated for larvae failing to become prepupae since <32% mortality was recorded at the highest concentration of 1,857 ppm. LC50s for larvae failing to become adults ranged from 0.10 to 0.12 ppm with dosage mortality-regression slopes between 1.67 and 2.32. Lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin dosage-mortality regressions were determined for wild adult black soldier flies and house flies, Musca domestica L., and for susceptible house flies. Our results indicate that the wild house fly, unlike the black soldier fly, population was highly resistant to each of these pyrethroids. Regression slopes for black soldier flies exposed to λ-cyhalothrin were twice as steep as those determined for the wild house fly strain. Accordingly, LC50s for the black soldier fly and susceptible house fly were 10- to 30-fold lower than those determined for wild house flies. The differential sensitivity between wild black soldier flies and house flies might be due to behavioral differences. Adult house flies usually remain in animal facilities with the possibility of every adult receiving pesticide exposure, while black soldier fly adults are typically present only during emergence and oviposition thereby limiting their exposure.

Jeffery K. Tomberlin, D. Craig Sheppard, and John A. Joyce "Susceptibility of Black Soldier Fly (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) Larvae and Adults to Four Insecticides," Journal of Economic Entomology 95(3), 598-602, (1 June 2002). https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-95.3.598
Received: 17 July 2001; Accepted: 1 January 2002; Published: 1 June 2002
JOURNAL ARTICLE
5 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top