4.1 Article

The development and survival of three species of coprophagous insect after feeding on the faeces of sheep treated with controlled-release formulations of ivermectin or albendazole

期刊

AUSTRALIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL
卷 79, 期 2, 页码 125-132

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2001.tb10721.x

关键词

sheep; ivermectin; albendazole; controlled-release capsules; dung beetles; flies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the toxicity from residues of controlled-release formulations of ivermectin and albendazole to insects that feed on sheep faeces. Animals In two consecutive years, groups of sheep were treated with controlled-release capsules of ivermectin or albendazole. Untreated sheep were used as controls. Procedures Larvae of the bush fly, Musca vetustissima, and adults and larvae of the dung beetles, Onthophagus taurus and Euoniticellus fulvus were fed on faeces collected at intervals after drug treatment. In assays using beetles, treatment effects were assessed by comparing numbers of eggs laid, survival of juveniles and survival of mature and immature adults. Survival at time of pupariation was used in assays on flies. Results and conclusions Faeces from sheep treated with albendazole had no detectable effects on breeding by either flies or beetles. In contrast, faeces voided by sheep treated with controlled-release capsules of ivermectin (CRI) precluded successful breeding by each of the species tested. No fly larvae and almost no beetle larvae survived in faeces collected up to 39 days after capsule administration. Newly-emerged O taurus also suffered significant mortality whereas those that survived underwent delayed sexual maturation. Ivermectin residues had no effect on the survival of sexually mature beetles, but reduced the fecundity of O taurus. A model simulating the effects of drug residues on dung beetle populations indicates that CRls have the potential to cause substantial declines in beetle numbers, particularly if treatment coincides with spring emergence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据