Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T09:16:52.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Upwind flight by gravid australian sheep blowflies, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae), in response to stimuli from sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

C. H. Eisemann
C. H. Eisemann
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Groups of gravid females of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) in a 1-m3 cage flew upwind in response to sheep placed upwind of the cage. No downwind flight or other response was observed to sheep placed downwind of the fly cage. Flystruck sheep stimulated the greatest accumulation of flies on the upwind cage wall (46% of the caged flies), followed by sound wet sheep (29%) and sound dry sheep (19%). All sheep tested caused significantly more flies to accumulate on the upwind wall than did controls consisting of either no bait or a man placed upwind (14%). Struck sheep elicited significant upwind movement of flies at distances of up to 20 m; sound, dry sheep did so only up to 10 m. It was concluded that L. cuprina is able to orient from a distance in response to volatile sheep kairomones; kairomones from dry sheep are augmented by wetting or the presence of cutaneous myiasis, as indicated by an enhanced fly response. The experiments performed did not exclude a role for visual or thermal cues in blowfly orientation to sheep.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 273 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Browne, L. B. & Rogoff, W. M. (1959). The “sheep factor” and oviposition in Lucilia cuprina.—Aust. J. Sci. 21, 189–190.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J. (1980). Practical nonparametric statistics.—2nd edn, 493 pp. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Cragg, J. B. (1950). The reactions of Lucilia sericata (Mg.) to various substances placed on sheep.—Parasitology 40, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cragg, J. B. (1956). The olfactory behaviour of Lucilia species (Diptera) under natural conditions.—Ann. appl. Biol. 44, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragg, J. B. & Ramage, G. R. (1945). Chemotropic studies on the blow-flies Lucilia sericata (Mg.) and Lucilia caesar (L.).—Parasitology 36, 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallwitz, R., Roberts, J. A. & Kitching, R. L. (1984). Factors determining the predominance of Lucilia cuprina larvae in blowfly strikes of sheep in southern New South Wales.—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 23, 175–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, C. T., Kennedy, J. S., Ludlow, A. R., Perry, J. N. & Wall, C. (1982). A reappraisal of insect flight towards a distant point source of wind-borne odor.—J. Chem. Ecol. 8, 1207–1215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daykin, P. N., Kellogg, F. E. & Wright, R. H. (1965). Host-finding and repulsion of Aedes aegypti.—Can. Ent. 97, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisemann, C. H. (1985). A study of aspects of the host-finding behaviour of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) and of the structure, distribution and behavioural significance of its antennal and palpal sensilla.—246 pp. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Queensland.Google Scholar
Eisemann, C. H. & Rice, M. J. (1987). The origin of sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae), attractants in media infested with larvae.—Bull. ent. Res. 77, 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freney, M. R. (1937). Studies on the chemotropic behaviour of sheep blowflies.—Pamph. Coun. scient. ind. Res., Aust. no. 74, 24 pp.Google Scholar
Hawkes, C. (1974). Dispersal of adult cabbage root fly (Erioischia brassicae (Bouché)) in relation to a brassica crop.—J. appl. Ecol. 11, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, R. P. (1935). Sheep blowfly investigations. II. Substances which induce Lucilia sericata Mg. to oviposit on sheep.—Ann. appl. Biol. 22, 294–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson, R. P. (1936). Sheep blow-fly investigations. III. Observations on the chemotropism of Lucilia sericata Mg.—Ann. appl. Biol. 23, 845–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1940). The visual responses of flying mosquitoes.—Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (A) 109, 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1977). Olfactory responses to distant plants and other odor sources.—pp. 67–91 in Shorey, H. H. & McKelvey, J. J. Jr. (Eds). Chemical control of insect behavior.—414 pp. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1978). The concepts of olfactory ‘arrestment' and ‘attraction'.—Physiol. Entomol. 3, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1983). Zigzagging and casting as a programmed response to wind-borne odour: a review.—Physiol. Entomol. 8, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackerras, I. M. & Mackerras, M. J. (1944). Sheep blowfly investigations: the attractiveness of sheep for Lucilia cuprina.—Bull. Coun. scient. ind Res., Melb. no. 181, 44 pp.Google Scholar
Rice, M. J. (1986). Semiochemicals and sensory manipulation strategies for behavioural management of Heliothis spp. Ochsenheimer (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).—pp. 27–45 in Zalucki, M. P. & Twine, P. H. (Eds). Proceedings of the Heliothis Ecology Workshop, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 18–19 July, 1985.—159 pp. Brisbane, Qd, Dep. Primary Ind.Google Scholar
Riches, J. H. & O'Sullivan, P. J. (1955). The value of DDT, BHC, aldrin and dieldrin for the protection of sheep against body strike.—Aust. vet. J. 31, 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillyard, R. J. & Seddon, H. R. (Eds). (1933). The sheep blowfly problem in Australia. Report no. 1 by the Joint Blowfly Committee.—Pamph. Coun. scient. ind. Res., Aust. no. 37, 136 pp. (Also as Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. N.S.W. no. 40).Google Scholar
Vale, G. A. (1974). The responses of tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) to mobile and stationary baits.—Bull. ent. Res. 64, 545–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnes, M. L. & Finlayson, L. H. (1985). Responses of the stable fly, Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) (Diptera: Muscidae), to carbon dioxide and host odours. II. Orientation.—Bull. ent. Res. 75, 717–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodburn, T. L. & Vogt, W. G. (1982). Attractiveness of Merino sheep before and after death to adults of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae).—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 21, 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. H. (1958). The olfactory guidance of flying insects.—Can. Ent. 90, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar