ESA Annual Meetings Online Program

0403 Validation of laboratory reared Chrysomya rufifacies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) (Macquart) development data under field conditions

Monday, November 14, 2011: 9:51 AM
Room D5, First Floor (Reno-Sparks Convention Center)
Micah Flores , Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Aaron M. Tarone , Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Michael Diaz , Department of Sicence and Environmental Policy, California State University, Monterey Bay, Marin, CA
Jeffery Tomberlin , Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Chrysomya rufifacies is an invasive blow fly (Diptera: Calliphoridae) first introduced to Central America in 1978 and is believed to be from tropical Australia and the Orient. Since its introduction it has spread quickly across North America and extended its range beyond what would be expected based on its native temporal distribution. Ecologically it out competes native fauna that occupy the same feeding niche and has been indicated in the lowering of local blow fly species abundances. This fly has both medical and veterinary importance because like most flies in Calliphoridae it carries disease and is known to engage in myiasis. They also have great forensic importance as it is common to have Ch. rufifacies collected from human remains during in the warmer months in Texas. An estimate of period of insect activity (PIA), or minimum time of insect colonization, is useful for law enforcement in narrowing down the time period surrounding the death of an individual. Therefore it is imperative that local development data for this population of hairy maggot blow flies be available for PIA estimates; however, little work has been done to determine how accurate constant temperature laboratory development data are at predicting outdoor field conditions. This presentation will cover the laboratory rearing of Ch. rufifacies at three temperatures and on muscle tissue from three vertebrate species as well as the validation of these development data under field conditions comparing development rate differences between indoor constant temperature laboratory reared flies and outdoor cyclic temperature reared flies.

doi: 10.1603/ICE.2016.58621