Eur. J. Entomol. 108 (4): 587-596, 2011 | 10.14411/eje.2011.076

Effect of the size of the pupae, adult diet, oviposition substrate and adult population density on egg production in Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae)

Berta PASTOR1, Helena ČIČKOVÁ2, Milan KOZÁNEK*,2, Anabel MARTÍNEZ-SÁNCHEZ1, Peter TAKÁČ2, Santos ROJO1
1 Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales y Recursos Naturales / Instituto Universitario CIBIO, Universidad de Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain; e-mails: berta.pastor@ua.es; anabel.martinez@ua.es; santos.rojo@ua.es
2 Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, 84506 Bratislava, Slovakia; e-mails: helena.cickova@savba.sk; milan.kozanek@savba.sk; peter.takac@savba.sk

In order to enhance the mass production of the house fly, Musca domestica, five aspects of its oviposition biology were analyzed. Oviposition substrate and the manner of its presentation, the composition of the diet of the adults, size of the pupae and numbers of flies in a cage were identified as critical. Females preferred to lay eggs on a substrate which was presented within a shelter and with increased linear edges against which the flies could oviposit. Different types of oviposition substrate resulted in comparable yields of eggs. The presence of an oviposition attractant (ammonia) in the manure was found to have a potentially positive effect on female fecundity. Egg yield increased when two protein sources (yeast and milk) were included in the adult diet. However, flies fed a mixture of sugar and yeast laid over 50% fewer eggs than those fed the same proportion of sugar and milk. The fecundity of flies decreased with increase in the number of flies per cage, but the highest total number of eggs per cage was obtained when the flies were most crowded (14.2 cm3 per fly). The size of the pupae did not significantly affect egg production.

Keywords: Diptera, Muscidae, Musca domestica, housefly, fecundity, size of the pupae, protein supplements, substrate presentation, substrate quality, spatial requirements, size of flies, mass rearing

Received: November 25, 2010; Accepted: May 26, 2011; Published: October 3, 2011

Download citation

References

  1. ADAMS T.S. & NELSON D.R. 1990: The influence of diet on ovarian maturation, mating, and pheromone production in the housefly, Musca domestica. Invertebr. Reprod. Dev. 17: 193-201 Go to original source...
  2. BARNARD D.R., HARMS R.H. & SLOAN D.R. 1995: Influence of nitrogen, phosphorus, and calcium in poultry manure on survival, growth, and reproduction in house fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Environ. Entomol. 24: 1297-1301 Go to original source...
  3. BARNARD D.R., HARMS R.H. & SLOAN D.R. 1998: Biodegradation of poultry manure by house fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Environ. Entomol. 27: 600-605 Go to original source...
  4. BEARD R.L. & SANDS D.C. 1973: Factors affecting degradation of poultry manure by flies. Environ. Entomol. 2: 801-806 Go to original source...
  5. BERBERIAN P.A., ROCKSTEIN M. & GRAY F.H. 1971: The effect of egg laying on the longevity of the adult female house fly, Musca domestica L. J. Gerontol. 26: 485-489 Go to original source...
  6. BLACK W.C. & KRAFSUR E.S. 1987: Fecundity and size in the housefly: investigations of some environmental sources and genetic correlates of variation. Med. Vet. Entomol. 1: 369-382 Go to original source...
  7. BLANCKENHORN W.U. 2000: The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q. Rev. Biol. 75: 385-407 Go to original source...
  8. CALVERT C.C., MORGAN N.O. & MARTIN R.D. 1970: House fly larvae: Biodegradation of hen excreta to useful products. Poult. Sci. 49: 588-590 Go to original source...
  9. EL BOUSHY A.R. 1991: House-fly pupae as poultry manure converters for animal feed: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 38: 45-49 Go to original source...
  10. ESTELLES F., GALLEGO A., MOSET V., CAMBRA M., BERNE J.L. & TORRES A.G. 2008: Determinacion de zonas susceptibles para el aprovechamiento energetico de las deyecciones ganaderas en la Comunidad Valenciana. I Congreso Espanol de Gestion Integral de Deyecciones Ganaderas. Barcelona, Spain
  11. FLETCHER M.C., AXTELL R.C. & STINNER R.E. 1990: Longevity and fecundity of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) as a function of temperature. J. Med. Entomol. 27: 922-926 Go to original source...
  12. GLASER R.W. 1923: The effect of food on longevity and reproduction in flies. J. Exp. Zool. 38: 383-412 Go to original source...
  13. GOLUBEVA E.G. 1984: Fecundity of the house fly Musca domestica L. developing on some organic wastes (under conditions of individual rearing). Medskaya Parazit. 54: 40-43 [in Russian]
  14. GOLUBEVA E.G. & EROFEEVA T.V. 1982: Growth dynamics of housefly larvae on organic wastes in a biological human life support system. Kosm. Biol. Aviakosm. Medit. 16: 74-76 [in Russian]
  15. GOMEZ-NUNEZ J.C. 1964: Mass rearing of Rhodnius prolixus. Bull. World Health Org. 31: 565-567
  16. GOTTHARD K., BERGER D. & WALTERS R. 2007: What keeps insects small? Time limitation during oviposition reduces the fecundity benefit of female size in a butterfly. Am. Nat. 169: 768-779 Go to original source...
  17. HARI N.S., JINDAL J., MALHI N.S. & KHOSA J.K. 2008: Effect of adult nutrition and insect density on performance of spotted stem borer, Chillo partellus in laboratory cultures. J. Pest Sci. 81: 23-27 Go to original source...
  18. HARLOW P.M. 1956: A study of ovarian development and its relation to adult nutrition in the blowfly Protophormia terraenovae (R.D.). J. Exp. Biol. 33: 777-797
  19. HOGSETTE J.A. 1992: New diets for production of house flies and stable flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in the laboratory. J. Econ. Entomol. 85: 2291-2294 Go to original source...
  20. HOGSETTE J.A. & WASHINGTON F. 1995: Quantitative mass production of Hydrotaea aenescens (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 88: 1238-1242 Go to original source...
  21. HONEK A. 1993: Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66: 483-492 Go to original source...
  22. JANN P. & WARD P.I. 1999: Maternal effects and their consequences for offspring fitness in the yellow dung fly. Funct. Ecol. 13: 51-58 Go to original source...
  23. LEATHER S.R. 1988: Size, reproductive potential and fecundity in insects: things aren't as simple as they seem. Oikos 51: 386-389 Go to original source...
  24. LOUW B.K. 1964: Physical aspects of laboratory maintenance of muscoid fly colonies. Bull. World Health Org. 31: 529-533
  25. LYSYK T.J. 1991: Modelling oviposition of the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Can. Entomol. 123: 345-352 Go to original source...
  26. MCINTYRE G.S. & GOODING R.H. 2000: Egg size, contents and quality: maternal-age and size effects on house fly eggs. Can. J. Zool. 78: 1544-1551 Go to original source...
  27. OHNISNI S. 1976: Effect of population density and temperature condition on fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Fecundity and mortality. Jap. J. Genet. 51: 305-314 Go to original source...
  28. OSBORN A.W., SHIPP E. & RODGER J.C. 1970: House fly fecundity in relation to density. J. Econ. Entomol. 63: 1020-1021 Go to original source...
  29. ROCKSTEIN M. 1957: Longevity of male and female house flies. J. Gerontol. 12: 253-256 Go to original source...
  30. ROCKSTEIN M., CHESKY J.A., LEVY M.H. & YORE L. 1981: Effect of population density upon life expectancy and wing retention in the common house fly, Musca domestica L. Gerontology 27: 13-19 Go to original source...
  31. SHEPPARD D.C., NEWTON G.L., THOMSON S.A. & SAVAGE S.E. 1994: A value added manure management system using black soldier fly. Bioresour. Technol. 50: 275-279 Go to original source...
  32. SHIPP E. & OSBORN A.W. 1967: The effect of protein sources and of the frequency of egg collection on egg production by the housefly (Musca domestica L.). Bull. World Health Org. 37: 331-335
  33. SINGH P. & MOORE R.F. (eds) 1985: Handbook of Insect Rearing. Vol. II. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 514 pp
  34. STRANGWAYS-DIXON J. 1961: The relationship between nutrition, hormones and reproduction in the blowfly Calliphora erythrocephala (Meig.). I. Selective feeding in relation to the reproductive cycle, the corpus allatum volume and fertilization. J. Exp. Biol. 38: 225-235
  35. SUN G., FANG Y., WANG Z.T. & SONG Y.J. 2002: The effect of diet and density on the fecundity of housefly in the pilot scale production of its larvae. Acta Entomol. Sin. 45: 847-850 [in Chinese, English abstr.]
  36. TURNER E.C. & HAIR J.A. 1967: Effect of diet on longevity and fecundity of laboratory-reared face flies. J. Econ. Entomol. 60: 857-860 Go to original source...
  37. WARD P.I., FOGLIA M. & BLANCKENHORN W.U. 1999: Oviposition site choice in the yellow dung fly Scatophaga stercoraria. Ethology 105: 423-430 Go to original source...
  38. WARDHAUGH C.W. & DIDHAM K.I. 2005: Density-dependent effects on the reproductive fitness of the New Zealand beech scale insect (Ultracoelostoma assimile) across multiple spatial scales. Ecol. Entomol. 30: 733-738. Go to original source...
  39. ZHEMCHUZHINA A.A. & ZVEREVA E.L. 1985: Effect of some factors on the choice of a site for oviposition in housefly Musca domestica females. Medskaya Parazitol. 55: 55-57 [in Russian]
  40. ZVEREVA E.L. & ZHEMCHUZHINA A.A. 1988: On some factors influencing the Musca domestica L. fecundity. Medskaya Parazitol. 58: 27-30 [in Russian]