4.2 Article

Comparison of traps for the control of sheep blowfly in the UK

期刊

MEDICAL AND VETERINARY ENTOMOLOGY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 210-213

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2010.00860.x

关键词

Lucilia; blowfly; control; myiasis; sheep; trap; U; K

资金

  1. English Beef and Lamb Executive (Warwickshire, U.K.)
  2. Agrimin Ltd (Brigg, U.K.)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of three commercially available trap types to catch Lucilia (Diptera: Calliphoridae) blowflies was assessed on three sheep farms in southwest England in 2008. The aim was to evaluate their relative value for the control of ovine cutaneous myiasis (sheep blowfly strike) on farms. There was a highly significant difference between the total number of female Lucilia caught per day by the traps, with an Agrilure Trap (Agrimin Ltd, Brigg, U.K.) catching more than the other trap types (Rescue Disposable Fly Trap, Sterling International, Spokane, U.S.A.; Redtop Trap, Miller Methods, Johannesburg, South Africa). However, there was no significant difference between the traps in the numbers of female Lucilia sericata (Meigen) caught. Nevertheless, consideration of the rate at which female L. sericata were caught over time showed that the Agrilure trap did not begin catching until about 30 days after its initial deployment. It subsequently caught L. sericata at a faster rate than the other two traps. The data suggest that the freeze-dried liver bait used in the Agrilure trap required a period of about 30 days to become fully rehydrated and decompose to the degree required to attract and catch L. sericata. Once the bait was attractive, however, the trap outperformed the other two traps in terms of the rate of L. sericata capture. The Agrilure trap would appear to be the most effective of the designs tested for use against sheep blowfly and blowfly strike in the U.K., but care would be needed to ensure that the traps were deployed in advance of the blowfly season so that the bait was suitably aged when trapping was required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据