Advertisement

Parasitology Research

, Volume 111, Issue 3, pp 1165–1171 | Cite as

Effect of livestock manures on the fitness of house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae)

  • Hafiz Azhar Ali KhanEmail author
  • Sarfraz Ali ShadEmail author
  • Waseem AkramEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) is one of the major pests of confined and pastured livestock worldwide. Livestock manures play an important role in the development and spread of M. domestica. In the present study, we investigated the impact of different livestock manures on the fitness and relative growth rate of M. domestica and intrinsic rate of natural increase. We tested the hypotheses by studying life history parameters including developmental time from egg to adult's eclosion, fecundity, longevity, and survival on manures of buffalo, cow, nursing calf, dog, horse, poultry, sheep, and goat, which revealed significant differences that might be associated with fitness costs. The maggots reared on poultry manure developed faster compared to any other host manure. The total developmental time was the shortest on poultry manure and the longest on horse manure. The fecundity by females reared on poultry, nursing calf, and dog manures was greater than on any other host manures. Similarly, percent survival of immature stages, pupal weight, eggs viability, adults' eclosion, survival and longevity, intrinsic rate of natural increase, and biotic potential were significantly higher on poultry, nursing calf, and dog manures compared to any other livestock manures tested. However, the sex ratio of adult flies remained the same on all types of manures. The low survival on horse, buffalo, cow, sheep, and goat manures suggest unsuitability of these manures, while the higher pupal weight on poultry, nursing calf, and dog manures suggest that these may provide better food quality to M. domestica compared with any other host manures. Our results point to the role of livestock manures in increasing local M. domestica populations. Such results could help to design cultural management strategies which may include sanitation, moisture management, and manure removal.

Keywords

Relative Growth Rate Intrinsic Rate Natural Increase Poultry Manure Livestock Manure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The work presented in the manuscript is part of a PhD research project of the first author (HAAK). Funds provided by the Higher Education Commission Pakistan to perform the study are highly acknowledged.

References

  1. Ahmed S, Wilkins RM (2001) Effect of insecticide resistance on the biology of Musca domestica. L. strains. Pak J Agric Sci 38:1–2Google Scholar
  2. Aluja M, Boller EF (1992) Host marking pheromone of Rhagoletis cerasi: field deployment of synthetic pheromone as a novel cherry fruit fly management strategy. Entomol Exp Appl 65:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Analytical Software, Statistix version 8.1: User's manual. Analytical Software, Tallahassee, Florida; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Armbruster P, Hutchinson RA (2002) Pupal mass and wing length as indicators of fecundity in Aedes albopictus and Aedes geniculatus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 39:699–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Awmack CS, Leather SR (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 47:817–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bary A, Cogger C, Sullivan DM (2004) Fertilizing with manure. A pacific northwest extension publication, Washington State University pp 1-13Google Scholar
  7. Bell HA, Robinson KA, Weaver RJ (2010) First report of cyromazine resistance in a population of UK house fly (Musca domestica) associated with intensive livestock production. Pest Manag Sci 66:693–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birch LC (1948) The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. J Anim Ecol 17:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook D, Dadour I, Keals N (1999) Stable fly, house fly (Diptera: Muscidae), and other nuisance fly development in poultry litter associated with horticultural crop production. J Econ Entomol 92:1352–1357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cosse AA, Baker TC (1996) House flies and pig manure volatiles: wind tunnel behavioural studies and electrophysiological evaluations. J Agric Entomol 13:301–307Google Scholar
  11. Farkas R, Hogsette J, Börzönyi L (1998) Development of Hydrotaea aenescens and Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in poultry and pig manure of different moisture content. Environ Entomol 27:695–699Google Scholar
  12. Fatchurochim S, Geden CJ, Axtell RC (1989) Filth fly (Diptera) oviposition and larval development in poultry manure of various moisture levels. J Entomol Sci 24:224–231Google Scholar
  13. Ferrar P (1987) A guide to the breeding habits and immature stages of Diptera Cyclorrhapha. Entomonograph 8:907Google Scholar
  14. Förster M, Klimpel S, Mehlhorn H, Sievert K, Messler S, Pfeffer K (2007) Pilot studies on synantropic flies (e.g. Musca, Sarcophaga, Calliphora, Fania, Lucilia, Stomoxys) as vectors of pathogenic microorganisms. Parasitol Res 101:243–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foster SP (1997) Harris MO (1997) Behavioural manipulation methods for insect pest management. Annu Rev Entomol 42:123–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graczyk TK, Knight R, Gilman RH, Cranfield MR (2002) The role of non-biting flies in the epidemiology of human infectious diseases. Microbiol Infect 3:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg SM, Sappington TW, Legaspi BC, Liu TX, Setamou M (2001) Feeding and life history of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different host plants. Ann Entomol Soc Am 94:566–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hogsette J (1996) Development of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in sand containing varying amounts of manure solids and moisture. J Econ Entomol 89:940–945PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jermy T (1990) Prospects of antifeedant approach to pest control—a critical review. J Chem Ecol 16:3151–3166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaufman PE, Nunez S, Mann RS, Geden CJ, Scharf ME (2010) Nicotinoid and pyrethroid insecticide resistance in houseflies (Diptera: Muscidae) collected from Florida dairies. Pest Manag Sci 66:290–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lacey EP (1998) What is an adaptive environmentally induced parental effect? In: Mousseau TA, Fox CW (eds) Maternal effects as adaptations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 54–66Google Scholar
  22. Lam K, Geisreiter C, Gries G (2009) Ovipositing female house flies provision offspring larvae with bacterial food. Entomol Exp Appl 133:292–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Learmount J, Chapman P, Macnicoll A (2002) Impact of an insecticide resistance strategy for house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) control in intensive animal units in the United Kingdom. J Econ Entomol 95:1245–1250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malik A, Singh N, Satya S (2007) House Fly (Musca domestica): a review of control strategies for a challenging pest. J Environ Sci Health 42:453–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moon R, Hinton J, O'Rourke S, Schmidt D (2001) Nutritional value of fresh and composted poultry manure for house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) larvae. J Econ Entomol 94:1308–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mullens B, Szij C, Hinkle N (2002) Oviposition and development of Fannia spp. (Diptera: Muscidae) on poultry manure low moisture levels. Environ Entomol 31:588–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers HM, Tomberlin JK, Lambert BD, Kattes D (2008) Development of black soldier fly (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) larvae fed dairy manure. Environ Entomol 37:11–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palacios SM, Bertoni A, Rossi Y, Santander R, Urzua A (2009) Insecticidal properties of essential oils from native medicinal plants of Central Argentina against the house fly, Musca domestica (L.). Parasitol Res 106:207–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pastor B, Cickova H, Kozanek M, Matinez-Sanchez A, Takac P, Rojo S (2011) Effect of the size of the pupae, adult diet, oviposition substrate and adult population density on egg production in Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Eur J Entomol 108:587–596Google Scholar
  30. Patricia LS, Claudio SF (2008) House fly (Musca domestica L.) (Diptera: Muscidae) development in different types of manure. Chilean J Agric Res 68:192–197Google Scholar
  31. Rabinovich JE (1972) Vital statistics of Triatominae (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) under laboratory conditions. J Med Ent 4:351–370Google Scholar
  32. Radford PJ (1967) Growth analysis formulae—their use and abuse. Crop Sci 7:171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saeed R, Sayyed AH, Shad SA, Zaka SM (2010) Effect of different host plants on the fitness of diamond-back moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Crop Prot 29:178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scott JG, Alefantis TG, Kaufman PE, Rutz DA (2000) Insecticide resistance in house flies from caged layer poultry facilities. Pest Manage Sci 56:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sehgal R, Bhatti HP, Bhasin DK, Sood AK, Nada R, Malla N, Singh K (2002) Intestinal myiasis due to Musca domestica: a report of two cases. Jpn J Infect Dis 55:191–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh OP, Parihar SBB (1988) Effect of different hosts on the development of Heliothis armigera. Hub Bull Entomol Res 29:2168–2172Google Scholar
  37. Siriwattanarungsee S, Sukontason KL, Olson JK, Chailapakul O, Sukontason K (2008) Efficacy of neem extract against the blowfly and housefly. Parasitol Res 103:535–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology, University College of AgricultureBahauddin Zakariya UniversityMultanPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Agri. EntomologyUniversity of AgricultureFaisalabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations