Analyze Diet
Parasitology research2016; 115(9); 3585-3598; doi: 10.1007/s00436-016-5124-0

Effects of different animal manures on attraction and reproductive behaviors of common house fly, Musca domestica L.

Abstract: Insects rely mainly on their well-developed and highly sophisticated olfactory system to discriminate volatile cues released from host and nonhost substances, mates, oviposition substrates, and food sources. Onset of first mating, mating duration, and onset of first oviposition, oviposition period, fecundity (number of eggs laid by a female), and longevity of freshly emerged Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) adults were observed in the presence of different animal manures: cow, horse, donkey, poultry, and an artificial diet. The M. domestica adults exposed to horse manure showed a delay in onset of first mating and first oviposition, prolonged mating duration, and reduced fecundity compared to the artificial diet (control). Likewise, the fecundity was reduced in the presence of donkey manure as compared to artificial diet. The onset of first mating was delayed and duration of first mating was shortened in the presence of cow manure as compared to artificial diet and no oviposition was observed throughout the duration of the experiment. However, the reproductive behaviors and all fitness measures in adults exposed to poultry manure were similar or even better, compared to the artificial diet. Surprisingly, in a free-choice attraction assay, the highest numbers of adult flies were attracted toward the cow manure as compared to all other manures as well as the artificial diet. However, the numbers of flies captured in all other types of manures were not different than the artificial diet (control). Furthermore, chemical analysis of headspace samples of manures revealed qualitative differences in odor (volatile) profiles of all manures and artificial diet, indicating that behavioral differences could be due to the differences in the volatile chemistry of the adult ovipositional substrates and larval growth mediums. This study may contribute toward both understanding the linkage between ecological adaptations and host selection mechanisms and the development of pest management strategies against this serious pest of medical and veterinary importance.
Publication Date: 2016-05-20 PubMed ID: 27206657DOI: 10.1007/s00436-016-5124-0Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research study investigates the effect of different animal manures on the behaviors and reproduction of common house flies. The study finds that different animal manures have different impacts on the fly’s mating and oviposition (egg-laying) timing, duration, and frequency, potentially due to differences in their odors. The findings may aid in developing pest control strategies.

Research Methodology

  • The research team monitored the behaviors of freshly emerged Musca domestica L. (common housefly) adults in the presence of different animal manures such as cow, horse, donkey, poultry, as well as an artificial diet which served as control.
  • The team observed onset of first mating, mating duration, onset of first oviposition, oviposition period, fecundity (number of eggs laid), and lifecycle duration (longevity).
  • A free-choice attraction assay was also performed, where the number of adult flies attracted to each type of manure and the artificial diet was recorded.
  • A chemical analysis of the volatile compounds present in the manures and the artificial diet was also performed to understand its linkage with the flies’ behavioral differences.

Key Findings

  • Horse manure was found to delay the onset of first mating and first oviposition, prolonged mating duration, and reduced fecundity compared to the artificial diet.
  • Donkey manure resulted in reduced fecundity compared to the artificial diet.
  • Flies exposed to cow manure showed a delayed onset of first mating and shortened first mating duration compared to the artificial diet, and no oviposition was observed.
  • Reproductive behaviors in adult flies exposed to poultry manure were similar or even superior compared to the artificial diet.
  • Despite poor reproductive outcomes, the largest number of flies was attracted to cow manure.
  • Chemical analysis revealed variation in the odor profiles of all manures and the artificial diet, indicating that the differences in behaviors could be due to the different volatiles present in ovipositional substrates and larval growth mediums.

Implications of the Research

  • Understanding these behavioral responses of flies could assist in the development of pest management strategies. For example, cow manure could be used as an attractant in traps.
  • These findings shed light on the relationship between ecological adaptations of flies like Musca domestica and their host selection mechanisms.
  • The results provide vital information for further research in biological, agricultural, and environmental sciences, particularly for those interested in insect biology, pest control, and manure management.

Cite This Article

APA
Shah RM, Azhar F, Shad SA, Walker WB, Azeem M, Binyameen M. (2016). Effects of different animal manures on attraction and reproductive behaviors of common house fly, Musca domestica L. Parasitol Res, 115(9), 3585-3598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-016-5124-0

Publication

ISSN: 1432-1955
NlmUniqueID: 8703571
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 115
Issue: 9
Pages: 3585-3598

Researcher Affiliations

Shah, Rizwan Mustafa
  • Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, 60800, Pakistan. rizwanmustafa20@gmail.com.
Azhar, Faheem
  • Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, 60800, Pakistan.
Shad, Sarfraz Ali
  • Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, 60800, Pakistan.
Walker, William B
  • Unit of Chemical Ecology, Department of Plant Protection Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O.Box 102, SE-23053, Alnarp, Sweden.
Azeem, Muhammad
  • Department of Chemistry, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, 22060, Pakistan.
Binyameen, Muhammad
  • Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, 60800, Pakistan. mbinyameen@bzu.edu.pk.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Cattle
  • Feeding Behavior
  • Female
  • Fertility
  • Horses
  • Houseflies / growth & development
  • Larva
  • Longevity
  • Male
  • Manure / parasitology
  • Oviposition
  • Reproduction
  • Species Specificity

References

This article includes 41 references
  1. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Dec;110 Suppl 6:901-9
    pubmed: 12634117
  2. Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):857-72
    pubmed: 9595616
  3. J Environ Sci Health B. 2007 May;42(4):453-69
    pubmed: 17474025
  4. J Econ Entomol. 1996 Aug;89(4):940-5
    pubmed: 8768892
  5. J Chem Ecol. 2007 Aug;33(8):1528-41
    pubmed: 17593465
  6. Acta Trop. 1958;15(1):1-14
    pubmed: 13533003
  7. J Chem Ecol. 2013 Jan;39(1):120-8
    pubmed: 23297108
  8. Parasitol Res. 2014 Apr;113(4):1343-52
    pubmed: 24481906
  9. PLoS One. 2010 Aug 17;5(8):e12219
    pubmed: 20808920
  10. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 Nov;82(4):591-605
    pubmed: 17944619
  11. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 24;8(9):e77225
    pubmed: 24086770
  12. J Chem Ecol. 2010 Jan;36(1):80-100
    pubmed: 20108027
  13. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006 Jul;63(14 ):1579-85
    pubmed: 16786219
  14. Ecotoxicology. 2013 Apr;22(3):522-7
    pubmed: 23371032
  15. J Chem Ecol. 2013 Oct;39(10):1273-83
    pubmed: 24105603
  16. J Econ Entomol. 2001 Oct;94(5):1308-17
    pubmed: 11681699
  17. Parasitol Res. 2015 Feb;114(2):487-94
    pubmed: 25363707
  18. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Feb 12;363(1491):495-515
    pubmed: 17656343
  19. Parasitol Res. 2007 Jun;101(1):243-6
    pubmed: 17370089
  20. Pak J Biol Sci. 2007 Apr 15;10(8):1301-4
    pubmed: 19069932
  21. J Econ Entomol. 2015 Apr;108(2):826-33
    pubmed: 26470195
  22. Pest Manag Sci. 2010 Jul;66(7):693-5
    pubmed: 20533379
  23. Oecologia. 2011 Jul;166(3):703-11
    pubmed: 21311911
  24. J Econ Entomol. 2002 Dec;95(6):1251-60
    pubmed: 12539839
  25. Annu Rev Entomol. 1997;42:123-46
    pubmed: 15012310
  26. Med Vet Entomol. 2007 Sep;21(3):209-16
    pubmed: 17897360
  27. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2006 Sep;37(5):915-31
    pubmed: 17333734
  28. Parasitol Res. 2008 Aug;103(3):535-44
    pubmed: 18481088
  29. Se Pu. 2007 May;25(3):425-9
    pubmed: 17679445
  30. Pest Manag Sci. 2010 Aug;66(8):816-24
    pubmed: 20603878
  31. J Econ Entomol. 2003 Aug;96(4):1300-6
    pubmed: 14503604
  32. J Chromatogr A. 2007 Jan 19;1139(2):279-84
    pubmed: 17141254
  33. Environ Entomol. 2008 Feb;37(1):11-5
    pubmed: 18348791
  34. Parasitol Res. 2012 Sep;111(3):1165-71
    pubmed: 22576856
  35. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Dec 7;272(1580):2499-503
    pubmed: 16271975
  36. J Med Entomol. 2012 Jan;49(1):198-209
    pubmed: 22308789
  37. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32798
    pubmed: 22431982
  38. J Chem Ecol. 2008 Jul;34(7):882-97
    pubmed: 18535862
  39. Annu Rev Entomol. 2007;52:375-400
    pubmed: 16968206
  40. Pak J Biol Sci. 2007 Oct 15;10 (20):3549-56
    pubmed: 19093461
  41. Folia Parasitol (Praha). 2002;49(2):163-4
    pubmed: 12194490