Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:34:24.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aggregation and habitat use by Lucilia blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in pasture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

I. Cruickshank  and
R. Wall
I. Cruickshank
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG, UK
R. Wall*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG, UK
*
*Fax: 0117 9289182 E-mail: richard.wall @bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The spatial distribution of blowflies of the genus Lucilia within fields in south west England was examined in 1999 and 2000. Blowflies are economically important agents of sheep myiasis in the UK and understanding local aggregation is an essential step in the development of appropriate sampling and fly control regimes. Fifty, 20 × 20 cm, non-odour-baited, sticky traps were used to catch flies, at randomized, 10 × 10 m grid co-ordinates in fields of permanent pasture. Clear aggregations were evident in all Lucilia distributions. All values of the σ2:mean ratio were greater than 1. The catches were shown to be highly aggregated using Morisita’s index of aggregation. Generalized linear modelling of binary presence/absence catch data was used to relate aggregation to microclimate and habitat. Deletion testing was used to identify significant terms in the models. In general, Lucilia blowflies were predominantly caught around the edges, in warmer and more humid areas of the field. The relationship between microhabitat and the distribution of Lucilia collected in 1999 was used as predictive model to explain the catches made in two fields in 2000. This gave a highly significant fit in one field (P = 0.001) and a relationship which approached significance in the second (P = 0.08). However, these regressions suggest that the relationships between abundance and microhabitat are complex and that ‘hot spots’ of blowfly catches were not necessarily found in the most extreme microclimate conditions. Nevertheless, microhabitat features do give a relatively good guide to presence or absence of Lucilia in the trap catches, thereby providing important information about the most appropriate location of traps to maximize and standardize sampling and control regimes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 153 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brinkmann, A. (1976) Blowfly myiasis of sheep in Norway. Norwegian Journal of Zoology 24, 325–330.Google Scholar
DeJong, G. (1979) The influence of the distribution of juveniles over patches of food on the dynamics of a population. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 29, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M.J.R. & Wall, R. (1995) Myiasis in humans and domestic animals. Advances in Parasitology 35, 258–334.Google ScholarPubMed
Hanski, I., Kuussaari, M. & Nieminen, M. (1994) Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Ecology 75, 747–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, E., Wall, R. & Smith, K.E. (1999) Mortality rate, reproductive output and trap response bias in populations of the blowfly Lucilia sericata. Ecological Entomology 24, 300–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurlbert, S.H. (1990) Spatial distribution of the mountain unicorn. Oikos 58, 257–271.Google Scholar
MacLeod, J. (1943) A survey of British sheep blowflies. Bulletin of Entomological Research 34, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, J. & Donnelly, J. (1957) Some ecological relationships of natural populations of calliphorine blowflies. Journal of Animal Ecology 26, 1315–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, J. & Donnelly, J. (1962) Microgeographic aggregations in blowfly populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 31, 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morisita, M. (1959) Measuring of the dispersion of individuals and analysis of the distributional patterns. Memoirs of the Faculty of Science, Kyushu University Series F (Biology) 2, 215–235.Google Scholar
Morris, O.S. & Titchener, R.N. (1997) Blowfly species composition in sheep myiasis in Scotland. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 11, 253–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, L.D. & Darling, D.C. (1991) Spatial density dependence – effects of scale, host spatial pattern and parasitoid reproductive strategy. Oikos 62, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K.E. & Wall, R. (1997) The use of carrion as breeding sites by the blowfly Lucilia sericata and other Calliphoridae. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 11, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K.E. & Wall, R. (1997) Asymmetric competition between larvae of the blowflies Calliphora vicina and Lucilia sericata in carrion. Ecological Entomology 22, 468–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K.E. & Wall, R. (1998) Suppression of a population of the blowfly Lucilia sericata in sheep pastures using baited targets. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 12, 101–108.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. (1976) Ecological methods, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wall, R., French, N.P. & Morgan, K. (1992) Blowfly species composition in sheep myiasis in Britain. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 6, 177–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, R., Green, C.H., French, N.P. & Morgan, K.L. (1992) Development of an attractive target for the sheep blowfly Lucilia sericata. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 6, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, R. & Smith, K.E. (1997) The potential for control of the blowfly Lucilia sericata using odour-baited targets. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 11, 335–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venables, W.N. (1994) Modern applied statistics with S-Plus. New York, Springer.Google Scholar