Title: | "Methods for monitoring outdoor populations of house flies, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae)" |
Address: | "USDA, ARS, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, P.O. Box 14565, Gainesville, FL 32607, USA" |
ISSN/ISBN: | 1081-1710 (Print) 1081-1710 (Linking) |
Abstract: | "Relative collections of house flies were compared on two Florida dairy farms using several monitoring methods: sticky cylinders, baited jug traps (Farnam Terminator and Victor Fly Magnet), and bait strips (Wellmark QuikStrike). Bait strips were placed over collecting pans and under 61 cm square plywood roofs to protect the toxicant from sunlight ('sheltered QuikStrike traps'). Sticky cylinders collected the fewest flies (515-679 flies/trap/day) and sheltered QuikStrike traps the most (5,659-8,814 flies/trap/day). The sheltered QuikStrike traps are promising tools for disease surveillance programs. The two baited jugs collected a similar and intermediate number of flies, with collections highest during the first 2 days after placement (2,920-5,462 flies/trap/day). Jug trap collections were low after 4 days of use in the field, apparently due to deterioration in the attractiveness of the bait over time. Jug traps collected mostly females, whereas sticky cylinders and sheltered QuikStrike traps collected mostly males. Exposure of jug trap bait (Farnam) to fly cadavers for 3 days did not increase attractiveness of the bait. Combinations of the Farnam and Victor attractants were more attractive than either attractant alone and 25-43% more attractive than expected based on the sum of collections in the single-attractant jug traps. A 25% solution of farm-grade blackstrap molasses was as effective as either of the two proprietary baits tested, offering a low-cost alternative for fly population monitoring" |
Keywords: | Animals Female Houseflies/*growth & development Insect Control/*methods Male Pheromones/*pharmacology Population Density Sentinel Surveillance/veterinary Sex Factors; |
Notes: | "MedlineGeden, Christopher J eng 2006/04/08 J Vector Ecol. 2005 Dec; 30(2):244-50" |