Detection of deltamethrin resistance in eggs and larva of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus

NEELU SHARMA; VEER SINGH; K P SHYMA; VIKRAM SOLANKI; JAY PRAKASH GUPTA

doi:10.56093/ijans.v87i2.67688

Authors

NEELU SHARMA Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
VEER SINGH Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
K P SHYMA Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
VIKRAM SOLANKI Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India
JAY PRAKASH GUPTA Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat 385 506 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v87i2.67688

Keywords:

Acaricides, Cattle tick, Egg hatch assay, Larval packet test, Resistance

Abstract

Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus is the most common tick species in India infesting cattle and buffaloes and cause significant economic losses to dairy and leather industries by adversely affecting the milk production and quality of hides. Egg hatch assay and larval packet test were used to evaluate the comparative acaricidal efficacy of the market formulations of deltamethrin, cypermethrin and amitraz on eggs and larval stages of R. (B.) microplus. The regression graphs of probit hatchability, % inhibition of hatching (IH) of eggs and probit mortality were plotted against log concentrations of various acaricides. The results revealed that cypermethrin and amitraz were effective and produced complete inhibition of hatching. LC95 values of cypermethrin and amitraz calculated by larval packet test were estimated to be 244.91 ppm and 369.83 ppm, respectively. On the other hand, deltamethrin failed to completely inhibit the hatching. LC95 values by egg hatch assay and larval packet test were estimated to be 42.27 ppm and 39.36 ppm, respectively. The data on field status of acaricide resistance from the area with diversified animal genetic resources will be helpful to adopt suitable strategy to overcome the process of development of resistance in ticks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Crow J F. 1957. Genetics of insect resistance to chemicals. Annual Review of Entomology 2: 227–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.02.010157.001303

FAO. 1971. Recommended methods for the detection and measurement of resistance of agricultural pests to pesticides –tentative method for larvae of cattle ticks, Boophilus spp. FAO method No. 7. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 19: 15.

Finney D J. 1952. Probit Analysis – A Statistical Treatment of the Sigmoid Response Curve. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–318.

Finney D J. 1971. Probit analysis. 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Ghosh S, Azhahianambi P and de la Fuente J. 2006. Control of ticks of ruminants, with special emphasis on livestock farming systems in India: present and future possibilities for integrated control – a review. Experimental and Applied Acarology 40: 49–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-006-9022-5

Haque M, Singh N K and Rath S S. 2014. Effect of various acaricides on hatchability of eggs of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. BioMed Research International doi:10.1155/2014/425423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/425423

Jonsson N N, Miller R J and Robertson J L. 2007. Critical evaluation of the modified-adult immersion test with discriminating dose bioassay for Boophilus microplus using American and Australian isolates. Veterinary Parasitology 146: 307–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.02.031

Kumar S, Paul S, Sharma A K, Kumar R, Tewari S S, Chaudhuri P, Ray D D, Rawat A K and Ghosh S. 2011. Diazinon resistant status in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus collected from different agro-climatic zones of India. Veterinary Parasitology 181: 274–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.04.030

Kumar S, Sharma A K, Ray D D and Ghosh S. 2014. Determination of discriminating dose and evaluation of amitraz resistance status in different field isolates of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus in India. Experimental and Applied Acarology 63: 413–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-014-9789-8

Mathivathani C, Basith S A, Latha B R and Raj G D. 2011. In vitro evaluation of synthetic pyrethroid resistance in Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks of Chennai. Journal of Veterinary Parasitology 25: 56–58.

Ribeiro V L S, Avancini C, Goncalves K, Toigo E and VonPoser G. 2008. Acaricidal activity of Caleaserrata (Asteraceae) on Boophilus microplus and Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Veterinary Parasitology 15: 351–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.11.007

Sharma A K, Kumar R, Kumar S, Nagar G, Singh N K, Rawat S S and Dhakad M L. 2012. Deltamethrin and cypermethrin resistance status of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus collected from six agro-climatic regions of India. Veterinary Parasitology 188: 337–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.03.050

Shyma K P, Gupta J P, Ghosh S, Patel K K and Singh V. 2014. Acaricidal effect of herbal extracts against cattle tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus using in vitro studies. Parasitology Research 113: 1919–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-014-3839-3

Shyma K P, Kumar S, Sharma A K, Ray D D and Ghosh S. 2012. Acaricide resistance status in Indian isolates of Hyalomma anatolicum. Experimental and Applied Acarology 58: 471– 81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-012-9592-3

Shyma K P, Kumar S, Sangwan A K, Ray D D and Ghosh S. 2013. Acaricide resistance status of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus and Hyalomma anatolicum collected from Haryana. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 83: 591–94.

Singh A P, Singla L D and Singh A. 2000. A study on the effects of macroclimatic factors on the seasonal population dynamics of Boophilus micropus (Canes, 1888) infesting the cross-bred cattle of Ludhiana district. International Journal of Animal Science 15(1): 29–31.

Singh N K, Gelot I S, Singh V and Rath S S. 2015. Detection of amitraz resistance in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus from North Gujarat, India. Journal of Parasitic Diseases 39: 563–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12639-013-0280-y