Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:56:27.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The analysis and standardisation of trap catches of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

W. G. Vogt ,
T. L. Woodburn ,
R Morton  and
B. A. Ellem
W. G. Vogt
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Entomology, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
T. L. Woodburn
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Entomology, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
R Morton
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 1965, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
B. A. Ellem
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 1965, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field populations of Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) in New South Wales were sampled for periods of 3 h on numerous occasions between 1975 and 1982 using West Australian blowfly traps. Ambient temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and solar radiation explained 77·4% of the within-day deviance of the catches. Temperature alone accounted for 74·9% of this deviance, indicating that the other variables, although significant, did not greatly affect trap catches. As air temperatures increased, log catch rates increased linearly up to 26°C and then remained constant up to 35°C. Wind speeds above 25 m/s caused a linear decline in log catch rates. Log catch rates increased linearly as solar radiation increased and decreased linearly as relative humidity increased. Changes in catch rates with time of day were explained almost entirely by the four weather variables, i.e. there was no evidence that intrinsic behavioural changes with time of day affected catch rates. The combined effects of the four weather variables accounted for 47·1 % of the between-day variation in trap catches. Trap catches that have been standardised, i.e. adjusted to a ‘ standard’ set of weather conditions, provide relative measures of population size which differ from absolute measures by a constant (unknown) scaling factor.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 609 - 617
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Foster, G. G. & Whitten, M. J. (1974). The development of genetic methods of controlling the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina. — pp. 19–43in Pal, R & Whitten, M. J. (Eds.). The use of genetics in insect control. — 241 pp.Amsterdam, Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Foster, G. G., Kitching, R. L., Vogt, W. G. & Whitten, M. J. (1975). Sheep blowfly and its control in the pastoral ecosystem of Australia. – Proc. ecol. Soc. Aust. 9, 213–229.Google Scholar
Gilmour, D., Waterhouse, D. F. & Mcintyre, G. A. (1946). An account of experiments undertaken to determine the natural population density of the sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina Wied. — Bull. Coun. scient. ind. Res., Melb. no. 195, 39 pp.Google Scholar
Kitchjng, R. L. (1977). Time, resources and population dynamics in insects. — Aust. J. Ecol. 2, 31–42.Google Scholar
Kitching, R. L. (1981). The sheep blowfly a resource–limited specialist species. — pp. 193–214in Kitching, R. L. & Jones, R. E.(Eds.). The ecology of pests: some Australian case histories. — 254 pp. Melbourne, C.S.I.R.O.Google Scholar
Mackerras, I. M. & Fuller, M. E.(1937).A survey of the Australian sheep blowflies. — J. Coun. scient. ind. Res. Aust. 10, 261–270.Google Scholar
Monzu, N(1980). The importance of alternative primary blowfly species to the Australian sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann). — pp. 33–43 in National symposium on the sheep blowfly and flystrike in sheep. Sydney: 25th to 27th June, 1979. — 198 pp. Sydney, NSW Dep. Agric.Google Scholar
Morton, R, Tuart, L. D. & Wardhaugh, K. G. (1981). The analysis and standardisation of light-trap catches of Heliothis armiger (Hiibner) and H. punctiger Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). – Bull. ent. Res. 71, 207–225.Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A. & Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1972). Generalised linear models. — Jl R. statist. Soc. (A) 135, 370–384.Google Scholar
Norris, K. R.(1966). Daily patterns of flight activity of blowflies (Calliphoridae: Diptera) in the Canberra district as indicated by trap catches. — Aust. J. Zool. 14, 835–853.Google Scholar
Readshaw, J. L. (1982). A method ofestimating population size of the sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) using mark-recapture data corrected for variation in catch and loss of marked individuals. — J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 21, 297–299.Google Scholar
Smith, P. H. (1983).Circadian control of spontaneous flight activity in the blowfly, Lucilia cuprina. — Physiol. Entomol. 8, 73–82.Google Scholar
Tillyard, R. J. & Seddon, H. R. (Eds.) (1933). The shep blowfly problem in Australia. Report no. 1 by the Joint Blowfly Committee. — Pamph. Coun. scient. ind. Res. Aust. no. 37 and Scient. Bull. Dep. Agric. N.S.W. no. 40, 136 pp.Google Scholar
Vogt, W. G. & Havenstein, D. E.(1974).A standardized bait trap for blowfly studies. — J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 13, 249–253.Google Scholar
Vogt, W. G., Woodburn, T. L. & Crompton, G. W. (1981). Estimating absolute densities of the bushfly. Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae), using West Australian blowfly traps. — Bull. ent. Res. 71, 329–337.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, D. F.(1947). The relative importance of live sheep and of carrion as breeding grounds for the Australian sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina. — Bull. Coun. scient. ind. Res. Melb. no. 217, 31pp.Google Scholar
Watts, J. E., Muller, M. J., Dyce, A. L. & Norris, K. R.(1976). The species of flies reared from struck sheep in south-eastern Australia. — Aust. vet. J. 52, 488–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1974). Quasi-likelihood functions, generalised linear models and the Gauss-Newton method. — Biometrika 61, 439–447.Google Scholar
Whitten, M. J. (1970). Genetics of pests in their management. — pp. 119–137in Rabb, R. L. & Guthrie, F. E.(Eds.). Concepts of pest management. Proceedings of a conference held at North Carolina State University at Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina, March 25–27, 1970. — 242 pp. Raleigh, North Carolina State University Press.Google Scholar
Whitten, M. J. & Foster, G. G. (1975). Genetic methods of pest control. — A. Rev. Ent. 20, 461–476.Google Scholar
Whitten, M. J., Foster, G. G., Vogt, W. G., Kitching, R. L., Woodburn, T. L. & Konovalov, C.(1977). Current status of genetic control of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae). — Proc. XV Int. Congr. Ent. 129–139.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1940). An analysis of four years captures of insects in a light trap. Part II. The effect of weather conditions on insect activity; and the estimation of forecasting of changes in the insect population. — Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 90, 227–306.Google Scholar
Woodburn, T. L. & Vogt, W. G. (1982). Attractiveness of Merino sheep before and after death to adults of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae). — J.Aust. entomol. Soc. 21, 131–134.Google Scholar