Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/907
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHanley, Michael Een_UK
dc.contributor.authorCruickshanks, Katie Len_UK
dc.contributor.authorDunn, Derek Wen_UK
dc.contributor.authorStewart-Jones, Alexen_UK
dc.contributor.authorGoulson, Daveen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2013-06-08T23:30:11Z-
dc.date.available2013-06-08T23:30:11Z-
dc.date.issued2009-03en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/907-
dc.description.abstractHouseflies (Musca domestica L.) are a major pest species of livestock units and landfill sites used for the disposal of domestic waste. Of the many methods used to limit housefly populations, the most common are chemical control and lure-and-kill trap systems. Insecticide resistance has seen increased emphasis on lure-and-kill, but the success of this method relies on effective attraction of houseflies using olfactory or visual stimuli. Here we examine the efficacy of olfactory (cuticular hydrocarbons) or visual (colours and groups of flies) attractants in a poultry unit. Despite simulating the cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of male and female houseflies, we found no significant increase in the number of individuals lured to traps, or any sex-specific responses. Similarly the use of target colours selected to match the three peaks in housefly visual spectral sensitivity yielded no improvement in catch rate. We also demonstrate that male and female flies have significantly different spectral reflectance (males are brighter between 320-470nm; females are brighter between 470-670nm). An experiment incorporating groups of recently killed flies from which cuticular hydrocarbons were either removed by solvent or left in-tact also failed to show any evidence of olfactory or visual attraction for houseflies of either sex. Thus variations on the most commonly applied methods of luring houseflies to traps in commercial livestock units failed to significantly increase capture rates. Our results support commonly observed inconsistencies associated with using olfactory or visual stimuli in lure-and-kill systems, possibly because field conditions lessen the attractant properties observed in laboratory experiments.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing / The Royal Entomological Societyen_UK
dc.relationHanley ME, Cruickshanks KL, Dunn DW, Stewart-Jones A & Goulson D (2009) Luring houseflies (Musca domestica Diptera: Muscidae) to traps: Do cuticular hydrocarbons and visual cues increase catch?. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 23 (1), pp. 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2915.2008.00750.xen_UK
dc.rightsPublished in Medical and Veterinary Entomology. Copyright: Blackwell Publishing. The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com.en_UK
dc.subjectpest control, pheromones, poultry units, sexual dichromatism, spectral reflectanceen_UK
dc.subjectHouseflyen_UK
dc.subjectInsect baits and repellantsen_UK
dc.subjectPheromonesen_UK
dc.subjectPest control baitsen_UK
dc.subjectPests Controlen_UK
dc.titleLuring houseflies (Musca domestica Diptera: Muscidae) to traps: Do cuticular hydrocarbons and visual cues increase catch?en_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2010-05-01en_UK
dc.rights.embargoreason[Fly MS (Sept 2007).pdf] Publisher conditions require a 12 month embargo.en_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2915.2008.00750.xen_UK
dc.citation.jtitleMedical and Veterinary Entomologyen_UK
dc.citation.issn1365-2915en_UK
dc.citation.issn0269-283Xen_UK
dc.citation.volume23en_UK
dc.citation.issue1en_UK
dc.citation.spage26en_UK
dc.citation.epage33en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusAM - Accepted Manuscripten_UK
dc.author.emaildave.goulson@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Plymouthen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationButterfly Conservation Ltden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Southamptonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Southamptonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBiological and Environmental Sciencesen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000263331100005en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-60349088868en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid833502en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2009-03-31en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2009-03-10en_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionAMen_UK
local.rioxx.authorHanley, Michael E|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCruickshanks, Katie L|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorDunn, Derek W|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorStewart-Jones, Alex|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGoulson, Dave|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2010-05-01en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved||2010-04-30en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved|2010-05-01|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameFly MS (Sept 2007).pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source0269-283Xen_UK
Appears in Collections:Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fly MS (Sept 2007).pdfFulltext - Accepted Version215.45 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.