Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:48:21.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing improvements in the mass rearing of the housefly: biological, morphometric and genetic characterization of laboratory strains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2014

B. Pastor ,
A.S. Martínez-Sánchez ,
G.A. Ståhls  and
S. Rojo
B. Pastor*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales y Recursos Naturales/Instituto Universitario CIBIO, Universidad de Alicante, Apdo. 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain
A.S. Martínez-Sánchez
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales y Recursos Naturales/Instituto Universitario CIBIO, Universidad de Alicante, Apdo. 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain
G.A. Ståhls
Affiliation:
Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
S. Rojo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales y Recursos Naturales/Instituto Universitario CIBIO, Universidad de Alicante, Apdo. 99, E-03080 Alicante, Spain
*
*Author for correspondence Phone: +34 667 877 658 Fax: 965 90 38 15 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the biology of the housefly (Musca domestica L.) is crucial for the development of mass-rearing protocols in order to use this insect as a degradation agent for livestock waste. In this study, the biological and genetic differences between different laboratory strains of M. domestica were analysed. Additionally, hybrids were obtained by mixing the strains and their biological parameters were also measured. The three strains of M. domestica presented differences in their biological and morphological parameters, the main differences were: size, egg production and developmental time. The strain A (specimens from Central Europe) had the best qualities to be used in mass-rearing conditions: it produced the largest quantities of eggs (5.77±0.38 eggs per female per day), the individuals were larger (12.62±0.22 mg) and its developmental time was shorter (15.22±0.21 days). However, the strain C (specimens from SW Europe) produced the fewest eggs (3.15±0.42 eggs per female per day) and needed 18.16±0.49 days to develop from larva to adult, whilst the females from strain B (from South America) produced 4.25±0.47 eggs per day and needed 17.11±0.36 days to complete its development. Genetic analysis of the original laboratory strains showed four different mtDNA cytochrome c oxidase subunit I haplotypes. Statistical parsimony network analysis showed that the SW Europe and South-American strains shared haplotypes, whereas the Central Europe strain did not. Upon hybridizing the strains, variations in egg production and in developmental time were observed in between hybrids and pure strains, and when mixing Central European and South-American strains only males were obtained.

Keywords

strain variabilitygeographic originegg productioncentroid sizehybridssex-determining systems
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 104 , Issue 4 , August 2014 , pp. 486 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Beard, R.L. & Sands, D.C. (1973) Factors affecting biodegradation of poultry manure by flies. Environmental Entomology 27, 600–605.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J.E. & Bloem, S. (2002) Interactionbetween insect strain and artificial diet in diamondback moth development and reproduction. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 102, 283–294.Google Scholar
Cicková, H., Pastor, B., Kozánek, M., Martínez-Sánchez, A., Rojo, S. & Takac, P. (2012) Biodegradation of pig manure by the housefly, Musca domestica: a viable ecological strategy for pig manure management. PLoS ONE 7 (3), e32798.Google Scholar
Cicková, H., Kozánek, M. & Takác, P. (2013) Improvements of survival of the house fly (Musca domestica L.) larvae under mass rearing conditions. Bulletin of Entomological Research 103, 119–125.Google Scholar
Clement, M., Posada, D. & Crandall, K. (2000) TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies. Molecullar Ecollogy 9, 1657–1660.Google Scholar
Cummings, M.A. & Krafsur, E.S. (2005) Spatial diversity in mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase in house flies. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 1, 53–59.Google Scholar
Dübendorfer, A., Hediger, M., Burghardt, G. & Bopp, D. (2002) Musca domestica, a window on the evolution of sex-determining mechanisms in insects. International Journal of Developmental Biology 46, 75–79.Google Scholar
Frankham, R. (2005) Stress and adaptation in conservation genetics. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18, 750–755.Google Scholar
Gilligan, D.M. & Frankham, R. (2003) Dynamics of genetic adaptation to captivity. Conservation Genetics 4, 189–197.Google Scholar
Gobbi, P., Martínez-Sánchez, A. & Rojo, S. (2013) The effects of larval diet on adult life-history traits of the black soldier fly, Hermetia illucens (Diptera: Stratiomyidae). European Journal of Entomology 110 (3), 461–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilfiker-Kleiner, D., Dübendorfer, A., Hilfiker, A. & Nöthiger, R. (1994) Genetic control of sex determination in the germ line and soma of the housefly, Musca domestica . Development 120, 2531–2538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klingenberg, C.P., Mc Intyre, G.S. & Zaklan, S.D. (1998) Left-right asymmetry of fly wings and the evolution of body axes. Proceedings of the Royals Society of London 265, 1255–1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludoski, J., Djurakic, M., Pastor, B., Martínez-Sánchez, A.I., Rojo, S. & Milankov, V. (2014) Phenotypic variation of the housefly, Musca domestica: amounts and patterns of wing shape asymmetry in wild populations and laboratory colonies. Bulletin of Entomological Research 104 (1), 35–47 available on CJO2013. doi: 10.1017/S0007485313000461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquez, J.G. & Krafsur, E.S. (2002) Gene flow among geographically diverse housefly populations (Musca domestica L.): a worldwide survey of mitochondrial diversity. The American Genetic Association 93, 254–259.Google Scholar
Martínez-Sánchez, A., Smith, K.E., Rojo, S., Marcos-García, M.A. & Wall, R. (2006) Geographic origin affects larval competitive ability in European populations of the blowfly, Lucilia sericata . Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 122, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastor, B., Cicková, H., Kozánek, M., Martínez-Sánchez, A., Takác, P. & Rojo, S. (2011) Effect of the size of the pupae, adult diet, oviposition substrate and adult population density on egg production in Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). European Journal of Entomology 108, 587–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, F.J. (2010) TpsDig, version 2.16. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Available at: http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/.Google Scholar
Skidmore, P. (1985) Survey of the biology of the world Muscidae: Muscinae. p. 235 in Dr. Junk Publishers, W. (Ed.) The Biology of the muscidae of the world. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Sullivan, R.L. (1963) Competition between mutant and wild-type house-fly strains at varying densities. Ecology 44 (2), 314–322.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Taylor, C.E. (1976) Selection at two levels in hybrid populations of Musca domestica . Evolution 30, 509–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Templeton, A.R., Crandall, K.A. & Sing, C.F. (1992) A cladistic analysis of phenotypic associations with haplotypes inferred from restriction endonuclease mapping and DNA sequence data. III. Cladogram estimation. Genetics 132, 619–633.Google Scholar
Van Lenteren, J.C. (2003) Need for quality control of mass produced biological control agents. pp. 1–18 in van Lenteren, J.C. (Ed.) Quality Control and Production of Biological Control Agents. Wallingford, CABI Publishing.Google Scholar