Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T19:02:59.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Activity and relative abundance of hymenopterous parasitoids that attack puparia of Musca domestica and Stomoxys calcitrans (Diptera: Muscidae) on confined pig and cattle farms in Denmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

H. Skovgård  and
J.B. Jespersen
H. Skovgård*
Affiliation:
Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory, Ministry of Food, Agricultural and Fisheries, Skovbrynet 14, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
J.B. Jespersen
Affiliation:
Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory, Ministry of Food, Agricultural and Fisheries, Skovbrynet 14, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
*
* Fax: 45 45931155 E-mail: h.skovgaard@ssl.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A survey was conducted on 84 pig and cattle farms in Denmark between August and October 1996 and 1997. The aim was to describe the activity and relative abundance of parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae and Ichneumonidae) that attack puparia of Musca domestica Linnaeus and Stomoxys calcitrans (Linnaeus). In total, seven pteromalid species were recovered: Spalangia cameroni Perkins, S. nigripes Curtis, S. subpunctata Förster, Muscidifurax raptorGirault & Sanders, Pachycrepoideus vindemiae (Rondani), Urolepis rufipes(Ashmead) and Nasonia vitripennis (Walker), an ichneumonid Phygadeuon fumatorGravenhorst, a diapriid Trichopria sp., and a staphylinid Aleocharasp. This is the first time that U. rufipes has been recorded in Europe. Spalangia cameroni and M. raptor were the most frequently recorded species in all regions of the country, and accounted for the main parasitism of Musca domesticaand Stomoxys calcitrans puparia. The overall rate of parasitism per farm was low: 12.9% of the total number of fly puparia collected. Direct ordination, used to assess the habitat distribution of the parasitoids, showed that Muscidifurax raptor mainly seeks fly puparia in outdoor manure heaps and especially in manure from pigs rather than from cattle, whereas Spalangia cameroni mainly seeks fly puparia indoors, irrespective of livestock.

Type
Review Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , March 1999 , pp. 263 - 269
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

Ables, J.R. & Shepard, M. (1974) Responses and competition of the parasitoids Spalangia endius and Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) at different densities of house fly pupae. Canadian Entomologist 106, 825–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellini, R. & Maini, S. (1988) Presenza stagionale e attività di parassitoidi (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) di Ditteri sinantropici in allevamenti zootecnici della Romagna. Bollettino dell'Istituto di Entomologia “Guido Grandi” dell'Università di Bologna 43, 207–222.Google Scholar
Betke Von, P., Hiepe, T., Müller, P., Ribbeck, R., Schultka, H. & Shumann, H. (1989) Biologische Bekämpfung von Musca domestica mittels Ophyra aenescens in Schweineproduktionsanlagen. Monatshefte für Veterinärmedizin 44, 842–844.Google Scholar
BouËek, Z. (1963) A taxonomic study in Spalangia Latr. (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 35, 429–512.Google Scholar
Bruce, W.N. & Decker, G.C. (1958) The relationship of stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans) abundance to milk production in dairy cattle. Journal of Economic Entomology 51, 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J.B., Berry, I.L., Boxler, D.J., Davis, R.L., Clanton, D.C. & Deutscher, G.H. (1987) Effects of stable flies (Diptera: Muscidae) on weight gain and feed efficiency of feedlot cattle. Journal of Economic Entomology 80, 117–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabritius, K. & Klunker, R. (1991) Merkblätter über angewandte Parasitenkunde und Schädlingsbekämpfung. Applied Parasitology 32, 1–24.Google Scholar
Farnham, A.W., O'Dell, K.E., Denholm, I. & Sawicki, R.M. (1984) Factors affecting resistance to insecticides in house-flies, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). III. Relationship between the level of resistance to pyrethroids, control failure in the field and the frequency of gene kdr. Bulletin of Entomological Research 74, 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, M.W.R. (1969) The Pteromalidae of North-Western Europe (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural. History) Entomology Supplement 16, 908 pp.Google Scholar
Henderson, C.E. & Rutz, D.A. (1991) Species composition of parasitoids attacking house flies (Musca domestica Linnaeus) in high-rise poultry farms in New York state. Journal of Agricultural Entomology 8, 51–57.Google Scholar
Hogsette, J.A., Farkas, R. & Coler, R. (1994) Hymenopteran pupal parasites recovered from house fly and stable fly (Diptera: Muscidae) pupae collected on livestock and poultry facilities in northern and central Hungary. Environmental Entomology 23, 778–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, 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
Jespersen, J.B. (1994) Ophyra aenescens for biological control of Musca domestica. Annual Report, the Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory 1993, pp. 35–36.Google Scholar
Jones, C.J. & Weinzierl, R.A. (1997) Geographical and temporal variation in pteromalid (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) parasitism of stable fly and house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) pupae collected from Illinois cattle feedlots. Environmental Entomology 26, 421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jongman, R.H.G., ter Braak, C.J.F. & Tongeren, O.F.R. (1987) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. pp. 299.Google Scholar
Keiding, J. (1999) Review of the global status and recent development of insecticide resistance in field populations of the house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research, Supplement (in press).Google Scholar
Klunker, R. (1994) Zum auftreten von Pupariumparasitoiden als natürliche Feinde von Stallfliegen. Applied Parasitology 35, 36–50.Google Scholar
Legner, E.F. (1966) Parasites of the house fly and other filth-breeding Diptera in Southern California. Journal of Economic Entomology 59, 999–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E.F. (1977) Temperature, humidity and depth of habitat influencing host destruction and fecundity of muscoid fly parasites. Entomophaga 22, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E.F. (1995) Biological control of Diptera of medical and veterinary importance. Journal of Vector Ecology 20, 59–120.Google Scholar
Meyer, J.A., Shultz, T.A., Collar, C. & Mullens, B.A. (1991) Relative abundance of stable fly and house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) pupal parasites (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae; Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) on confinement dairies in California. Environmental Entomology 20, 915–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P.B. (1986) Mass culturing microhymenopteran pupal parasites (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) of filth breeding flies. in Patterson, R.S. & Rutz, D.A. (Eds) Biological control of muscoid flies. Miscellaneous Publications of Entomological Society of America 61, 77–87.Google Scholar
Mourier, H. (1971) Seasonal occurrence of pupal parasitoids from the house fly Musca domestica (Diptera) in Denmark. Videnskabelige meddelelser fra dansk naturhistorisk forening 134, 109–118.Google Scholar
Mourier, H. (1972) Release of native pupal parasitoids of house flies on Danish farms. Videnskabelig meddelelser fra dansk naturhistorisk forening 135, 129–137.Google Scholar
Mourier, H. & Hannine, S.B. (1969) Activity of pupal parasites from Musca domestica (Diptera) in Denmark. Videnskabelige meddelelser fra dansk naturhistorisk forening 132, 211–216.Google Scholar
Petersen, J.J. (1986) Evaluating the impact of pteromalid parasites on filth fly populations associated with confined livestock installations. pp. 52–56in Patterson, R.S. & Rutz, D.A. (Eds) Biological control of muscoid flies. Miscellaneous Publications of the Entomological Society of America no. 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, J.J. & Meyer, J.A. (1983) Host preference and seasonal distribution of pteromalid parasites (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) of stable flies and house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) associated with confined livestock in eastern Nebraska. Environmental Entomology 12, 567–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, J.J., Guzman, D.R. & Pawson, B.M. (1985) Urolepis rufipes (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), a new parasite record for filth flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in Nebraska, USA. Journal of Medical Entomology 22, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pospischil, J. (1994) Musca domestica in livestock and poultry farming: problems and solutions. Public Health 9, 14–17.Google Scholar
Pospischil, R., Szomm, K., Londershausen, M., Schröder, I., Turberg, A. & Fuchs, R. (1996) Multiple resistance in the larger house fly Musca domestica in Germany. Pesticide Science 48, 333–341.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Propp, G.D. & Morgan, P.B. (1985) Effect of host distribution on parasitism of housefly (Diptera: Muscidae) pupae by Spalangia spp. and Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Canadian Entomologist 117, 515–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, L.M. & Axtell, R.C. (1985a) Comparison of hymenopterous parasites of house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), pupae in different livestock and poultry production systems. Environmental Entomology 14, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, L.M. & Axtell, R.C. (1985b) Guide to common species of pupal parasites (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) of the house fly and other muscoid flies associated with poultry and livestock manure. Technical Bulletin, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University 278, 88 pp.Google Scholar
Rutz, D.A. & Scoles, G.A. (1989) Occurrence and seasonal abundance of parasitoids attacking muscoid flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in caged-layer poultry facilities in New York. Environmental Entomology 18, 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (1985) SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Scott, J.G., Roush, R.T. & Rutz, D.A. (1989) Insecticide resistance of house flies from New York dairies (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Agricultural Entomology 6, 53–64.Google Scholar
Smith, J.P., Hall, R.D. & Thomas, G.D. (1987) Field parasitism of the stable fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 80, 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. & Rutz, D.A. (1986) Development rate and survivorship of immature Urolepis rufipes (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), a parasitoid of pupal house flies. Environmental Entomology 15, 1301–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. & Rutz, D.A. (1991) Microhabitat associations of hymenopterous parasitoids that attack house fly pupae at dairy farms in Central New York. Environmental Entomology 20, 675–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ter Braak, C.J.F. (1992) CANOCO - a FORTRAN programme for canonical community ordination. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Thomas, G.D. & Skoda, S.R. (1993) Rural flies in the urban environment? North Central Regional Publication, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, No. 335.Google Scholar
Wylie, H.G. (1972) Larval competition among three hymenopterous parasite species on multiparasitized housefly (Diptera) pupae. Canadian Entomologist 104, 1181–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar