Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:56:32.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of adult size and protein diet on the human-oriented behaviour of the bush fly, Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Marina Tyndale-Biscoe
Marina Tyndale-Biscoe
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adults of Musca vetustissima Walker that were caught when attracted to humans in the field responded positively in a later test when a hand was inserted in a cage, both in terms of proportion responding and time spent on the hand. Flies with a similar adult diet, whether of culture origin or the first-generation offspring of field-caught flies, responded similarly to the hand in the cage provided they were of similar size. A larger proportion of small flies than of large ones came to the hand, and stayed for longer periods. Large protein-deprived and dung-fed (suboptimal protein) flies had a nuisance value between 28 and 35 times as great as large blood-fed flies, while small blood-fed flies had a nuisance value 18 times as great. The nuisance value of small protein-deprived and dung-fed flies was between 61 and 67 times as great. Residence period on the hand increased with time in large protein-deprived flies but not in flies in the other categories tested. Few flies responded to the hand during the first 15 day-degrees C post eclosion, or when gravid or nearly gravid; the most responsive flies were in ovarian stages 0B, 1, 2 and 3. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of the fly nuisance levels experienced in south-eastern Australia.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 19 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Greenham, P. M. (1972). The effects of the variability of cattle dung on the multiplication of the bushfly (Musca vetustissima Walk.).—J. Anim. Ecol. 41, 153–165.Google Scholar
Hayles, L. & Matthiessen, J. N. (1987). Protein requirements for oogenesis in the Australian bush fly, Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae).—Bull. ent. Res. 77, 391–395.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. D. (1970). The bushfly.—Aust. Natur. Hist. 16, 331–334.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. D. (1977). The population dynamics of the bushfly: the elucidation of population events in the field.—Aust. J. Ecol. 2, 43–54.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. D. (1981). The Australian bushfly: a climate-dominated nuisance pest of man.—pp. 177–191in Kitching, R. L. & Jones, R. E. (Eds.). The ecology of pests: some Australian case histories.—254 pp. Melbourne, CSIRO.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. D., Greenham, P. M., Tyndale-Biscoe, M. & Walker, J. M. (1972). A synopsis of observations on the biology of the Australian bushfly (Musca vetustissima Walker).—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 11, 311–331.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. D. & Nicholas, W. L. (1974). The spring migration of the bushfly (Musca vetustissima Walk.): evidence of displacement provided by natural population markers including parasitism.—J. Anim. Ecol. 43, 411–428.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. D. & Walker, J. M. (1970). The role of food in the population dynamics of the Australian bushfly.—pp. 255–267in Watson, A. (Ed.). Animal populations in relation to their food resources. A symposium of the British Ecological Society. Aberdeen 24–28 03 1969.—477 pp. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific (Br. Ecological Soc. Symp. no. 10).Google Scholar
Hughes, R. D., Woolcock, L. T., & Ferrar, P. (1974). The selection of natural enemies for the biological control of the Australian bushfly.—J. appl. Ecol. 11, 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. E. & Walker, J. M. (1974). Some factors affecting protein feeding and egg development in the Australian bushfly Musca vetustissima.—Entomologia exp. appl. 17, 117–125.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, J. N., Hall, G. P. & Chewings, V. H. (1986). Seasonal abundance of Musca vetustissima Walker and other cattle dung fauna in central Australia.—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 25, 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, P. & Hughes, R. D. (1976). A simulation model of seasonal changes in the value of cattle dung as a food resource for an insect.—Agric. Meteorol. 17, 161–183.Google Scholar
Tyndale-Biscoe, M. (1971). Protein-feeding by the males of the Australian bushfly Musca vetustissima Wlk. in relation to mating performance.—Bull. ent. Res. 60, 607–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyndale-Biscoe, M. & Hughes, R. D. (1969). Changes in the female reproductive system as age indicators in the bushfly Musca vetustissima Wlk.—Bull. ent. Res. 59, 129–141.Google Scholar
Van Geem, T. & Broce, A. B. (1985). Significance of cattle discharges and secretions as protein sources for ovarian development in the face fly (Diptera: Muscidae).—Environ. Entomol. 14, 60–64.Google Scholar
Vogt, W. G. (1986). Influences of weather and time of day on trap catches of bush fly, Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae).—Bull. ent. Res. 76, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, W. G. (1987). Survival of female bush flies, Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae), in relation to reproductive age.—Bull. ent. Res. 77, 503–513.Google Scholar
Vogt, W. G. & Walker, J. M. (1987 a). Influences of temperature, fly size and protein-feeding regime on ovarian development rates in the Australian bush fly, Musca vetustissima.—Entomologia exp. appl. 44, 101–113.Google Scholar
Vogt, W. G. & Walker, J. M. (1987 b). Potential and realised fecundity in the bush fly, Musca vetustissima under favourable and unfavourable protein-feeding regimes.—Entomologia exp. appl. 44, 115–122.Google Scholar