Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:02:37.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Individual and Group Marking Methods for Fly-population Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

John MacLeod
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture (Animal Health Division), Field Research Laboratory, Blackford, Carlisle.
Joseph Donnelly
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture (Animal Health Division), Field Research Laboratory, Blackford, Carlisle.

Extract

Four different methods of marking insects are described in detail. Although they have been applied by the present authors only to the British Calliphorinae, they should be of value in ecological studies of mobile arthropods in general. These methods are: individual marking with paints, mass powdering with dyes, radioactive labelling with 32P, and a combination of the last two. A fifth method, in which the emerging fly labels itself with fluorescent dust, is briefly described. The circumstances affecting the choice of method are outlined.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Australia. (1952). Fourth annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization for the year ending 30th June, 1952, p. 56.Google Scholar
Cragg, J. B. & Hobart, J. (1955). A study of a field population of the blowflies Lucilia caesar (L.) and L. sericata (Mg.).—Ann. appl. Biol., 43, pp. 645663.Google Scholar
Lindquist, A. W., Yates, W. W., Hoffman, R. A. & Butts, J. S. (1951). Studies of the flight habits of three species of flies tagged with radioactive phosphorus.—J. econ. Ent., 44, pp. 397400.Google Scholar
Quarterman, K. D., Mathis, W. & Kilpatrick, J. W. (1954). Urban fly dispersal in the area of Savannah, Georgia.—J. econ. Ent., 47, pp. 405412.Google Scholar