Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T10:30:04.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of age of females in field populations of Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) using ambient temperature and solar radiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

T. L. Woodburn ,
W. G. Vogt  and
R. L. Kitching
T. L. Woodburn
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, CSIRO, Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia.
W. G. Vogt
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, CSIRO, Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia.
R. L. Kitching
Affiliation:
Division of Entomology, CSIRO, Box 1700, Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A previously published method for determining the physiological age of female Lucilia cuprina (Wied.), based on a linear relationship between their rates of ovarian development and temperature, was tested under field-cage conditions. It was found that ovarian development was more rapid than that predicted by thermal summation based on ambient temperature. A re-examination of the rate of development-ambient temperature relationship, over a wider temperature range that that used previously, showed that the development threshold temperature was 8·2°C rather than 11·3°C. Thermal summation using the revised threshold also fell short of the observed day-degree totals. An effective temperature for ovarian development (ambient temperature plus a temperature excess proportional to the incoming solar radiation intensity) was fitted to the data from the field cage. This relationship gave accurate predictions of ovarian development (±8%) for flies that were released into the field.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , July 1978 , pp. 251 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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.)

References

Allen, J. C. (1976). A modified sine wave method for calculating degree days.—Environ. Ent. 5, 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, C. I. (1967). Statistics in biology, Vol. 1.–537 pp. New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Digby, P. S. B. (1955). Factors affecting the temperature excess of insects in sunshine.– I. exp. Biol. 32, 279–298.Google Scholar
Edney, E. B. (1971). The body temperature of tenebrionid beetles in the Namib desert of South Africa.—J. exp. Biol. 55, 253–272.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. 19, 253–272.Google Scholar
Haufe, W. O. (1957). Physical environment and behaviour of immature stages of Aedes communis (Deg.) (Diptera: Culicidae) in subarctic Canada.—Can. Ent. 89, 120–139.Google Scholar
Haufe, W. O. & Burgess, L. (1956). Development of Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) at Fort Churchill, Manitoba, and prediction of dates of emergence.—Ecology 37, 500–519. Google Scholar
Heath, J. E. & Wilkin, P. J. (1970). Temperature responses of the desert cicada, Diceroprocta apache (Homoptera, Cicadidae).—Physiol. Zool. 43, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. E., Wilicin, P. J. & Heath, M. S. (1972). Temperature responses of the cactus dodger, Cacama valvata (Homoptera, Cicadidae).—Physiol. Zool. 45, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hounam, C. E. (1961). Revised regression equations for the estimation of solar radiation over Australia.—Aust. met. Mag. 17, 91–94.Google Scholar
Kitching, R. L. (1977). Time, resources and population dynamics in insects—Aust. J. Ecol. 2, 1–12.Google Scholar
Norris, K. R. (1957). A method of marking Calliphoridae (Diptera) during emergence from the puparium.—Nature, Lond. 180, 1002.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.—330 pp. New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. W. (1965). Solar position and radiation tables for Canberra (latitude 35°S).—79 pp. Melbourne, C.S.I.R.O. Div. Bldg Res. tech. Pap. Ser. 2, no. 16.Google Scholar
Stinner, R. E., Gutierrez, A. P. & Butler, G. D. (1974). An algorithm for temperature- dependent growth rate simulation.—Can. Ent. 106, 519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strelnikov, I. D. (1940). Solar radiation and the ecology of insects in high mountain regions. [In Russian.]—Zool. Zh. 19, 218–239.Google Scholar
Sychevskaya, V. I. & Shaidurov, V. S. (1965). On the body temperature in some synanthro. pous flies in the East Pamir. [In Russian.]—Zool. Zh. 44, 779–783.Google Scholar
Tyndale-biscoe, M. & Hughes, R. D. (1969). Changes in the female reproductive system as age indicators in the bushfly Musca vetustissima Wlk.—Bull. ent. Res. 59, 129–141.Google Scholar
Tyndale-biscoe, M. & Kitching, R. L. (1974). Cuticular bands as age criteria in the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) (Diptera, Calliphoridae).—Bull. ent. Res. 64, 161–174.Google Scholar
Vogt, W. G. & Havenstein, D. E. (1974). A standardised bait trap for blowfly studies.— J. Aust. ent. Soc. 13, 249–253.Google Scholar
Vogt, W. G., Woodburn, T. L. & Tyndale-biscoe, M. (1974). A method of age determination in Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) (Diptera, Calliphoridae) using cyclic changes in the female reproductive system.—Bull. ent. Res. 64, 365–370.Google Scholar
Watt, W. B. (1968). Adaptive significance of pigment polymorphisms in Colias butterflies. l. Variation of melanin pigment in relation to thermoregulation.—Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 22, 437–458.Google Scholar
Whitten, M.J., Foster, G. G., Vogt, W. G., Kitching, R. L., Woodburn, T. L. & Konovolov, C. (1977). Current status of genetic control of the Australian sheep blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Calliphoridae).—Proc. XV Int. Congr. Ent. (1976), 129–139.Google Scholar