A comparison of sampling methods with respect to cattle‐visiting Muscidae and their nematode infections

Chirico, Jan

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2915.1994.tb00500.x

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar rates were found in central Missouri, where prevalence of P. autumnale was 7.2% in face ßies swept from the faces of cattle (Thomas et al 1972). Interestingly, P. autumnale prevalence in face ßies collected from cattle was very similar (Ϸ7%) in southern Sweden, the native range of face ßies (Chirico 1994).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Musca autumnalis(Diptera: Muscidae) and the Host-Specific NematodeParaiotonchium autumnale(Tylenchida: Iotonchiidae) in Southern California

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Musca autumnalis DeGeer were collected in the summer and fall of 2011 and 2012 from a beef cattle herd in southern California Visual counts of Musca spp. on cattle faces were documented, and sweep net samples of face flies and other Diptera were also collected from cattle faces. Face flies dominated in the net collections, and 5-30 flies per face were common between early July and October 2011. Adult female M. autumnalis were dissected and examined for the presence of the host-specific nematode Paraiotonchium autumnale (Nickle). Overall, 67 of 887 (7.6%) adult face fly females were parasitized. M. autumnalis' ability to survive in such a southerly latitude (34 degree N) could reflect the rather temperate weather (coastal effects) and frequently irrigated pastures at the experimental site in southern California Preliminary observations suggest that face flies disappear from cattle during winter, despite generally favorable temperatures for fly activity. This is a possible indication of diapause and should be examined further.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Musca autumnalis(Diptera: Muscidae) and the Host-Specific NematodeParaiotonchium autumnale(Tylenchida: Iotonchiidae) in Southern California

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The immigrants easily could have been diapausing flies that first clustered in vehicles or war materiel during autumn in the United Kingdom or Europe and were transported to North America before the next spring. Populations in North America are infected by the host-specific parasitic nematode Paraiotonchium (= Heterotylenchus) autumnalis (Tylenchida: Allantonematidae), which is endemic in Europe with a prevalence of 1.4-4% (22,122). If prevalence were 3% in a European source population, then a sample size (number of founders) of ∼100 reproducing females would be necessary to assure with 95% probability that at least one founder were infected; ∼150 females would be necessary for a 99% probability.…”

Section: Krafsur and Moonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where prevalence was 4-8% and infected hosts were assumed to complete their first gonotrophic cycle, P. autumnalis was estimated to impose a modest 3-6% reduction in net reproduction (63). However, prevalence among locations, years, and dates within years varies more widely (22,23; also 63 and references therein), so effects of P. autumnalis on face fly reproduction and abundance require more study.…”

Section: Life Table Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

BIONOMICS OF THE FACE FLY, MUSCA AUTUMNALIS

Krafsur

Moon

1997

Annu. Rev. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The face fly was introduced from the Palearctic region and spread across North America in 20 years after World War II. Adults feed on cattle and horses, and larvae develop in fresh cattle dung. Little genetic differentiation appears between European and North American populations and among regions within North America. After an autumnally initiated diapause, overwintered flies emerge in spring and reproduce through late spring and summer. Generations after the first overlap, and age structure develops toward a stable age distribution. After three to ten generations, depending on weather, facultative diapause interrupts host feeding and oogenesis, and flies with hypertrophied fat body enter overwintering hibernaculae. Life table statistics and factors affecting population growth and diapause are reviewed. Early views on the fly's effects on animal productivity may have been exaggerated. On-farm control by conventional means has not been effective because of the fly's population dynamics and mobility. We suggest that the alternatives of classical biological control and area-wide control with the sterile insect technique should be considered.

show abstract

“…), as well as eggs or larvae of some helminths (e.g. Ascaris lumbricoides , Trichiuris trichiura , Enterobios vermicularis , Toxocara canis , Thelazia gulosa and Thelazia rhodesi ) (Wallace, 1971; Markus, 1980; Umeche & Mandah, 1989; Chirico, 1994; Graczyk et al , 2001; Otranto et al , 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competence of the housefly, Musca domestica, as a vector of Microsporum canis under experimental conditions

Cafarchia

Lia

Romito

et al. 2009

Medical Vet Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of Musca domestica Linnaeus as a vector of the dermatophyte Microsporum canis was investigated under experimental laboratory conditions. About 400 4-day-old M. domestica flies were divided into two groups. Group A consisted of about 200 infected flies and group B comprised about 200 uninfected flies that were used as controls. Each trial was run three times. Flies from group A were fed for 24 h with a solution of ultra-high temperature-treated (UHT) milk containing about 10(6) colony-forming units (CFU) per mL of M. canis (infected milk inoculum [IMI]). The control group (group B) was fed with only UHT milk spiked with a teaspoon of honey. Microsporum canis was detected from faeces, vomitus, external surfaces and internal organs of 20 adult flies, eggs, first-, second- and third-stage (L1, L2, L3) larvae and pupae of each group, as well from 20 adult newly emerged flies (NEFs; from infected generations only). Samples were collected at 2, 4, 6 and 24 h post-infection (p.i.) (i.e. the times at which IMI was available) and on 2, 5, 7 and 8 days p.i. from adult flies, faeces and vomitus. Eggs, L1, L2, L3 and pupae were processed as soon as they appeared. Equivalent samples were taken from group B. All the samples were individually cultured. Microsporum canis was not isolated from the control group, from eggs, larvae, pupae or NEFs, or from faeces and vomitus, although it was detected on the body surface (26.2%) and internal organs (26.9%) of adult flies. The highest positivity for M. canis was detected on flies within the first 6 h p.i. (i.e. 57.2% on the body surface and 71.6% in the internal organs). No M. canis was isolated at 24 h p.i., but it was isolated from the body surface only at 2 and 5 days p.i. The results presented provide evidence that M. domestica transmits M. canis mechanically with its outer body surface for up to 5 days p.i., but does not do so through its vomitus and faeces or transovarially. The role played by M. domestica in the epidemiology of human and animal dermatophytoses is discussed.

show abstract

A comparison of sampling methods with respect to cattle‐visiting Muscidae and their nematode infections

Cited by 11 publications

References 13 publications

Musca autumnalis(Diptera: Muscidae) and the Host-Specific NematodeParaiotonchium autumnale(Tylenchida: Iotonchiidae) in Southern California

Musca autumnalis(Diptera: Muscidae) and the Host-Specific NematodeParaiotonchium autumnale(Tylenchida: Iotonchiidae) in Southern California

BIONOMICS OF THE FACE FLY, MUSCA AUTUMNALIS

Competence of the housefly, Musca domestica, as a vector of Microsporum canis under experimental conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About