Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:32:18.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fly populations associated with landfill and composting sites used for household refuse disposal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. Goulson ,
W.O.H. Hughes  and
J.W. Chapman
D. Goulson*
Affiliation:
Division of Biodiversity and Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton, SO16 7PX, UK
W.O.H. Hughes
Affiliation:
Division of Biodiversity and Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton, SO16 7PX, UK
J.W. Chapman
Affiliation:
Division of Biodiversity and Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton, SO16 7PX, UK
*
* Fax: 01703 594269 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Calyptrate fly populations were monitored with sticky traps at the following sites in Hampshire, UK during August to November 1998: a landfill and composting site (Paulsgrove), a site adjacent to this landfill (Port Solent), a site with no landfill nearby (Gosport), and a composting site with no landfill nearby. Overall, house flies Musca domestica(Linnaeus) and lesser house flies Fannia spp. were not important constituents of the dipteran catch, while bluebottles (Calliphora spp.) and greenbottles (Lucilia spp.) comprised approximately 12% of the total. Very large fly populations were found at the two composting sites, and it seems likely that these provide ideal breeding grounds for a range of fly species since they offer an abundance of warm decaying organic matter. Large fly populations were also evident at the landfill site. The suitability of household waste for the development of calyptrate Diptera was confirmed in a controlled trial: a mean of 0.43 adults emerged per kilo of one-week-old waste. Since many hundreds of tonnes of waste are delivered to the landfill daily, it is clear that the landfill is likely to substantially increase the local population of calyptrate flies. However, the data suggest that there was little movement of Diptera from the landfill to Port Solent situated approximately 500 m away. The most important calyptrate flies at this site were the cluster flies Pollenia rudis (Fabricius) and P. amentaria (Scopoli); the landfill site is unlikely to provide a suitable breeding site for these flies, as the larvae develop as parasites of earthworms. Significantly more flies emerged from one-week-old than from two-week-old household waste. A comparison of different barriers to the emergence of adult house flies from waste demonstrated that sacking provided an effective barrier to fly emergence, but that soil did not differ significantly from control treatments. If managed appropriately, it seems that the use of sacking over landfill waste could substantially reduce associated fly populations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 89 , Issue 6 , December 1999 , pp. 493 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

Axtell, R.C. (1970) Integrated fly-control program for caged-poultry houses. Journal of Economic Entomology 63, 400–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, W.C. & Krafsur, E.S. (1985) Use of sticky traps to investigate seasonal trends in the spatial distribution of house flies and stable flies (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 22, 550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., Wong, W. & Jelenfy, I. (1970) A survey of the fly production from household refuse containers in the city of Salinas, California. California Vector Views 17, 19–28.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.A. & Morgan, C.P. (1992) Insecticide resistance in Musca domestica L. from eastern England. Pesticide Science 36, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, P.A., Learmount, J., Morris, A.W. & McGreevy, P.B. (1993) The current status of insecticide resistance in Musca domestica in England and Wales and the implications for housefly control in intensive animal units. Pesticide Science 39, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyer, C.N. & Hammond, C.O. (1968) Flies of the British Isles. 384 pp. London, Frederick Warne – Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Crosskey, R.W. & Lane, R.P. (1993) House-flies, blowflies and their allies (calyptrate Diptera). pp. 403–428in Lane, R.P. & Crosskey, R.W. (Eds) Medical insects and arachnids. London, Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirlbek, K. (1986) Fauna of Diptera on refuse depositions on communal waste in Prague. Casopis Narodniho Muzea v Praze Rada Prirodovedna 155, 160–172.Google Scholar
Eastwood, R.E., Kada, J.M., Schoenburg, R.B. & Brydon, H.W. (1967) Investigation on fly control by composting poultry manures. Journal of Economic Entomology 60, 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essa, N.M. & El Sibae, M.M. (1993) Population dynamics of some synanthropic fly species in different habitats in Buraydah Saudi Arabia. Journal of the Egyptian Society for Parasitology 23, 133–140.Google Scholar
Ferriera, M.J.D.M. & Lacerda, P.V.D. (1993) Synanthropic muscoids associated with the urban garbage in Goiania, Goias. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 10, 185–195.Google Scholar
Hall, M.J.R. & Smith, K.G.V. (1993) Diptera causing myiasis in man. pp. 403–428in Lane, R.P. & Crosskey, R.W. (Eds) Medical insects and arachnids. London, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Hayashi, A., Funaki, E., Fuzimagari, M., Kano, R. & Nomura, K. (1977) The resistant level of the housefly to several synthetic insecticides in west of Kanto and Kyushu, Japan. Botyu-Kagaku 42, 198–203.Google Scholar
Hogsette, J.A., Jacobs, R.D. & Miller, R.W. (1993) The sticky card: device for studying the distribution of adult house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) populations in closed poultry houses. Journal of Economic Entomology 86, 450–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J.J. & Wall, R. (1996) Control of the house fly, Musca domestica, in poultry units: current techniques and future prospects. Agricultural Zoology Reviews 7, 247–265.Google Scholar
Ikeda, J.K., Watanabe, W.H., Totama, G. & Shimoda, L. (1972) Effects of plastic bags as refuse containers on fly populations. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 21, 225–234.Google Scholar
Imai, C. (1984) Population dynamics of houseflies Musca domestica on experimentally accumulated refuse. Researches on Popululation Ecology (Kyoto) 26, 353–362.Google Scholar
Imai, C. (1985) A new method to control houseflies Musca domestica at waste disposal sites. Researches on Popululation Ecology (Kyoto) 27, 111–124.Google Scholar
Keiding, J. (1974) Houseflies, Musca domestica. pp. 5–30in Pal, R. & Wharton, R.H. (Eds) Control of arthropods of medical and veterinary importance. New York, Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiding, J. (1977) Resistance in the housefly in Denmark and elsewhere. pp. 261–302in Watson, D.L. & Brown, A.W.A. (Eds) Pesticide management and insecticide resistance. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lysyk, T.J. & Axtell, R.C. (1986) Movement and distribution of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) between habitats in two livestock farms. Journal of Economic Entomology 79, 993–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagano, S. (1964) Sanitary landfill operations in New York State. Public Health Reports 79, 543–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rognes, K. (1991) Blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 24, 272 pp.Google Scholar
Schoof, H.F., Mail, G.A. & Savage, E.P. (1954) Fly production sources in urban communities. Journal of Economic Entomology 47, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siverly, R.E. & Schoof, H.F. (1955) Utilization of various production media by muscoid flies in a metropolitan area. I. Adaptability of different flies for infestation of prevalent media. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 48, 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siverly, R.E. & Schoof, H.F. (1955) Utilization of various production media by muscoid flies in a metropolitan area. II. Seasonal influence on degree and extent of fly production. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 48, 320–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skidmore, P. (1985) The biology of the Muscidae of the world. Dordrecht, Dr, W. Junk Publishers.Google Scholar
Snow, K.R. (1974) Insects and disease. London, Routledge – Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
Toyama, G.M. (1988) A preliminary survey of fly breeding at sanitary landfills in Hawaii USA with an evaluation of landfill practices and their effect on fly breeding. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 28, 49–56.Google Scholar
Werner, D. (1997) Die Depterofauna verschiedener Mülldeponien und Kompostierungsanlagen in der Umgebung von Berlin unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihner Ökologie und Bionomie. Studia Dipterologica Supplement 1, 176 pp.Google Scholar
Will, K.W. (1995) Overwintering of Pollenia rudis (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Entomological News 106, 177.Google Scholar
Wilton, D.P. (1961) Refuse containers as a source of flies in Honolulu and nearby communitites. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 17, 477–481.Google Scholar
Yasutomi, K. (1966) Insecticide resistance of houseflies outbroken at the dumping site, Yumenoshima island, Tokyo. Japanese Journal of Sanitary Zoology 17, 71–73.Google Scholar