CHEMOTACTOMETER AND GLUE TRAP BIOASSAYS TO EVALUATE PELLET BAITS TO LURE HOUSE FLIES

S.T. Bino Sundar; T.J. Harikrishnan; Bhaskaran Ravi Latha; T.M.A. Senthil Kumar; G. Sarath Chandra; A. Serma Saravana Pandian; C. Pandian; K. Ambasankar

doi:10.56093/ijvasr.v53i6.164841

Authors

S.T. Bino Sundar Associate Professor and Head, Dept. of Veterinary Parasitology, Veterinary College and Research Institute, Theni
T.J. Harikrishnan Professor and Head (Retd), Central University Laboratory, TANUVAS, Chennai
Bhaskaran Ravi Latha Professor and Head (Retd.), Department of Veterinary Parasitology, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai
T.M.A. Senthil Kumar Professor and Head, Zoonoses Research Laboratory, Centre for Animal Health Studies, TANUVAS, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai
G. Sarath Chandra Professor and Head(Retd), Pharmacovigilance Laboratory for Animal Feed and Food Safety (PLAFFS), TANUVAS, Chennai
A. Serma Saravana Pandian Professor, Department of Animal Husbandry Economics, Madras Veterinary College, Chennai
C. Pandian Associate Professor and Head, veterinary University Training and Research Centre, Sathuvachari, Vellore
K. Ambasankar Principal Scientist. Central Institute of Brackish Water Aquaculture, Chennai

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijvasr.v53i6.164841

Keywords:

housefly, olfactometry, fish meal bait, chemotactometer bioassay, glue tap bioassay

Abstract

Different pellet baits were prepared and evaluated for their efficacy to lure house flies in chemotactometer and glue trap bioassays. Pellets with fish meal alone (FM), fish meal + (Z)-9-tricosene (FMP) and fish meal + (Z)-9-tricosene + butylated hydroxyl toluene (FMPB) were prepared. In the chemotactometer bioassay, house flies comprising of a mixed population of males and females were released into the four arm acrylic chemotactometer, acclimatized for 10 min and observed for 30 min. Out of the 201 house flies tested in six replicates, 65.17% (131 flies) responded to the baits. The attraction was maximum towards FMP pellets (49.61%) followed by FMPB (25.19%) and FM pellets (8.39%) with least preference towards the unbaited control (11 flies, 8.39%). The per cent fly activity was 64.82%. Flies attracted towards FMP and FMPB pellets preferred to stay and spend more time inside the baited arms of the chemotactometer exhibiting wing fanning and mating behaviour. In the glue trap bioassay, a glue trap was fabricated in thermacol sheet of 20 cm L x 10 cm B x 3 cm H with a red glue sheet pasted on it and baited with pellet baits. The traps were then placed on the floor of the insectary containing house flies for 24 h. Out of 310 house flies trapped, maximum attraction was elicited towards FM pellets (29.35%, 91 flies) followed by FMPB (27.09%, 84 flies) and FMP pellets (25.48%, 79 flies) with least attraction towards unbaited control traps (18.06%, 56 flies).

Results revealed that in the chemotactometer bioassay, more flies were attracted towards the pellet baits with (Z)-9-tricosene (FMP) followed by FMPB and FM pellets. In the glue trap bioassay, attraction was more towards FM pellets followed by FMPB and FMP pellets. Overall, male flies were found more attracted towards FMP and FMPB pellets. Both the bioassays were found efficient to evaluate the attractiveness of pellet baits for house flies and (Z)-9-tricosene incorporated in fish meal and molasses as pellet baits can be effectively used in house fly traps to improve trap efficiency.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Acree, F., Davis, P. L., Spear, S. F., La Brecque, G. C. and Wilson, H. G. (1959). Nature of the attractant in sucrose fed on by house flies. Journal of Economic Entomology, 52(5): 981.

Adams, T. S. and Holt, G. G. (1987). Effect of pheromone components when applied to different models on male sexual behavior in the house fly, Musca domestica. Journal of InsectPhysiology, 30: 9-18.

Adjavon, F. J. M. A., Li, X., Hu, B., Dong, L., Zeng, H., Li, C. and Hu, W. (2021). Adult house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) response to black soldier fly (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) associated substrates and potential volatile organic compounds identification. Environmental Entomology, 50(5): 1037-1044.

Barnhart, C. S. and Chadwick, L. E. (1953). A “fly factor” in attractant studies. Science, 117: 104 -5.

Butler, S.M. (2007). A comparative study of the reproductive biology and age distribution of house flies (Musca domestica) on dairies in southern California, Minnesota, and Georgia, Ph.D thesis, University of California, Riverside.

Butler, S. M., Gerry, A. C. and Mullens, B. A. (2007). House Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) activity near baits containing (Z)-9-Tricosene and efficacy of commercial toxic fly baits on a Southern California dairy. Journal of Economic Entomology, 100: 1489-1495.

Carlson, D. A., Mayer, M. S., Silhacek, D. L., James, J. D., Beroza, M. and Bierl, B. A. (1971). Sex attractant pheromone of the house fly: isolation, identification and synthesis. Science, 174: 76-78.

Carlson, D. A. and Beroza, M. (1973). Field evaluations of (Z)-9-tricosene, a sex attractant pheromone of the house fly. Environmental Entomology, 2:555-559.

Chapman, J. W., Howse, P. E., Knapp, J. J. and Goulson, D. (1998a). Evaluation of the potential of three (Z)-9-tricosene formulations for control of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in caged-layer poultry units. Journal of Economic Entomology, 91(4): 915- 922.

Hinkle, N. C. and Hogsette, J. A. (2021). A review of alternate controls of house flies. Insects, 12(11): 1042, https:// doi.org/10.3390/insects12111042.

Hummel, H. E., Langner, S. S. and Eisinger, M. T. (2013). Pheromone dispensers, including organic polymer fibers, described in the crop protection literature: comparison of their innovation potential. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences, 78(2): 233-252.

Kelling, F. J., Biancaniello, G. and Den Otter, C. J. (2003). Effect of age and sex on the sensitivity of antennal and palpal olfactory cells of houseflies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 106: 45-51.

Khater, H.F and Geden, C.J. (2019). Efficacy and repellency of some essential oils and their blends against larval and adult house flies, Muca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae), Journal of Vector Ecology, 44(2) :256-263

Murvosh, C. M., Labrecque, G. C. and Smith, C. N. (1965). Sex attraction in the House fly, Musca domestica L. The Ohio Journal of Science, 65: 68-71.

Nicholas, J. T. (1988). Behaviour of the housefly, Musca domestica (L.), in relation to insecticide baits. Ph.D. Dissertation, Southampton University, UK.

Noorman, N. and Den Otter C. J. (2001). The effects of laboratory culturing on (Z)-9-tricosene (muscalure) quantities on female houseflies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 101(1): 69-80.

Ranjith, A. M. (2007). An inexpensive olfactometer and wind tunnel for Trichogramma chilonis Ishii (Trichogrammatidae: Hymenoptera). Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 45: 63-65.

Rogoff, W. M., Beltz, A. D., Johnsen, J. O. and Plapp, F. W. (1964). A sex pheromone in the housefly Musca domestica L. Journal of Insect Physiology, 10: 239-246.

Silhacek, D. L., Carlson, D. A., Mayer, M. S. and James, J. D. (1972). Composition and sex attractancy of cuticular hydrocarbons from house flies: effects of age, sex and mating. Journal of Insect Physiology, 18 :347–354.

Tang, R., Zhang, F., Kone, N. G., Chen, J. H., Zhu, F., Han, R. C., Lei, C. L., Kenis, M,, Huang, L. Q. and Wang, C. Z. (2016). Identification and testing of oviposition attractant chemical compounds for Musca domestica. Nature Scientific Reports, 6:33017