Laboratory Colonization of the Blow Flies, Chrysomya Megacephala (Diptera: Calliphoridae) and Chrysomya rufifacies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) Author(s): Sonja Lise Swiger, Jerome A. Hogsette, and Jerry F. Butler Source: Journal of Economic Entomology, 107(5):1780-1784. 2014. Published By: Entomological Society of America URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/EC14146 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. ECOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR Laboratory Colonization of the Blow Flies, Chrysomya megacephala (Diptera: Calliphoridae) and Chrysomya rufifacies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) 1,2,3 4 1 SONJA LISE SWIGER, JEROME A. HOGSETTE, AND JERRY F. BUTLER J. Econ. Entomol. 107(5): 1780Ð1784 (2014); DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EC14146 ABSTRACT Chrysomya megacephala (F.) and Chrysomya rufifacies (Macquart) were colonized so that larval growth rates could be compared. Colonies were also established to provide insight into the protein needs of adult C. rufifacies and developmental rates of the ensuing larvae. The C. megacephala and C. rufifacies laboratory colonies were reared for Þve and six generations, respectively, at 28ЊC. C. megacephala developmental mean rate from egg to adult was 20.4 Ϯ 0.38 d. First-instar larvae emerge in 1.4 Ϯ 0.24 d, second-instar larvae develop in 2.6 Ϯ 0.38 d and third instars occur at 6.3 Ϯ 0.72 d. Development from egg to pupation occurred in 12 Ϯ 1.10 d. C. rufifacies developed at a mean rate of 16.2 Ϯ 0.78 d from egg to adult emergence. Each stage occurred in succession from Þrst-instar larvae 1.1 Ϯ 0.25 d, second-instar larvae developed 2.3 Ϯ 0.25 d later, and the third-instar larvae developed 5.7 Ϯ 0.41 d later. The larvae pupated 10.0 Ϯ 0.57 d after oviposition. Both of these ßies can be collected in the wild and easily colonized using conditioned chicken as an oviposition and larval medium. C. megacephala apparently prefers a lower development and maintenance temperature than C. rufifacies, as evidenced by the high pupal mortality. Laboratory-reared C. rufifacies beneÞted from bloodmeal as a protein supplement to enhance egg production. C. rufifacies larvae were not observed preying on each other and additional larval species were not provided to serve as prey. KEY WORDS temperature, bloodmeal, protein source, forensic entomology, chicken thigh Forensic entomologists often use laboratory colonies instars and use the larvae of the other calliphorids for of insects when conducting research experiments. De- food (Goff et al. 1988, Goodbrod and Goff 1990, Swiger veloping and maintaining a colony of ßies has many et al. 2014). Because of its presence on carcasses found advantages, including control over the life stage, sex, throughout the state of Florida and the value of this age, number, and quality of insects used, and manip- species to forensic crime scene investigators, the objec- ulation of some environmental conditions while hold- tive of our study was to rear C. rufifacies and C. mega- ing other conditions constant. cephala in the laboratory to obtain more information on Two blow ßy species were chosen for laboratory developmental rates and behavior. colonization: Chrysomya rufifacies (Macquart) and Chrysomya megacephala (F.). C. rufifacies and C. Materials and Methods megacephala are invasive species Þrst reported in the United States in 1982 (Richard and Ahrens 1983) and Colonies of both ßy species were started by collecting 1987 (Greenberg 1988), respectively, that have dis- larvae from a 10.4 kg pig carcass exposed in the Natural persed throughout the continental United States. Both Area forest adjacent to the University of Florida, De- species are important where they occur for decomposi- partment of Entomology and Nematology, Gainesville, tion because of their ability to detect and use a carcass FL. A piece of 19-gauge multipurpose mesh wire (91 by (Gruner et al. 2007, Swiger et al. 2014). C. rufifacies, a 154 cm) was Þtted over the pig to protect against scav- primary carcass colonizer, oviposits only after other cal- engers. The pig carcass was exposed on 10 May 2007. The liphorids at the carcass have oviposited. Larvae of C. next day (11 May), Ͼ100 second-instar C. megacephala rufifacies become facultative predators as late second larvae were collected from the carcass and Ͼ200 second- and third-instar C. rufifacies larvae were subsequently collected on 14 May 2007. 1 Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Flor- ida, P.O. Box 110620, Gainesville FL 32611. The laboratory colonies were started with the col- 2 Present address: Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, 1229 N. U.S. Hwy lection of second-instar larvae from the decomposing 281, Stephenville, TX 76401. pig. C. megacephala larvae were collected from the 3 Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]. mouth and snout of the pig, and C. rufifacies were col- 4 United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, 1600 SW 23rd Dr., Gaines- lected from the pigÕs abdomen 48 and 72 h, respectively, ville, FL 32608. after the pig was placed in the Þeld. Several earlier at- 0022-0493/14/1780Ð1784$04.00/0 ᭧ 2014 Entomological Society of America October 2014 SWIGER ET AL.: REARING CHRYSOMYA IN THE LABORATORY 1781 Fig. 1. A Ziploc container and conditioned chicken thighs used to rear developing C. megacephala and C. rufifacies larvae from egg to wandering larvae stage. (Online Þgure in color.) tempts were made to collect larvae with calf liver and cm in height by 46 cm in length) constructed of alumi- chicken thighs with no success. C. rufifacies are observed num window framing with sheet metal ßoors. The two to be frequent visitors of fresh mammalian carcasses but sides, back and top, were covered with standard window could not be collected with fresh meats purchased from screen (18 by 16 mesh), and the open end of the cages a local market (Swiger et al. 2014). was secured with 6-inch (15-cm)-wide tubular cotton All larvae collected from the pig were reared at the stockinet (Independent Medical Co-Op. Inc., Ormond U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Beach, FL). Water, sugar, and powdered milk were pro- Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology in a vided ad libitum to each cage of insects. Moistened walk-in growth chamber (2.4 by 2.4 by 2.4 m) initially bloodmeal was also provided ad libitum for C. rufifacies at 25ЊC but later increased and maintained at 28ЊC and adults upon emergence to promote oviposition. 56% relative humidity with constant illumination from Approximately 3Ð6 d after emergence, C. mega- an overhead ßuorescent light and a ßoor-mounted UV cephala and C. rufifacies adults were given a condi- insect light trap. tioned chicken thigh in a squat cup to encourage Eggs deposited by reared adults were allowed to mating and promote oviposition. The chicken and the hatch on, and larvae develop in, conditioned chicken cup were removed from the cage after 24 h and the thighs (168.3 Ϯ 5 g each). Conditioned chicken was chicken, with eggs, was placed in a Ziploc container produced by placing fresh chicken thighs from a local for eggs to hatch and larvae to develop. Two additional super market in Ziploc plastic containers (28 by 17.7 conditioned chicken thighs were added to each Ziploc by 8.5 cm) and leaving them in the growth chamber container for use by the larvae. Each Ziploc container for Ն2 d with the plastic lids in place (Fig. 1). Ziploc was placed in a Hefty EZ Foil Cake Pan as stated above containers of this size were used for all subsequent to contain wandering larvae. oviposition, larval development, and pupal eclosion The number of eggs oviposited by 50Ð100 C. mega- unless otherwise stated. cephala and C. rufifacies females, in 24 h was between Ziploc containers in which larvae were develop- 200 and 300 per chicken thigh. Larval development 1 ϫ ing were placed in Hefty EZ Foil Cake Pans (12 /4 was measured for all the generations by selecting 10 1 ϫ 1 8 /4 1 /4 inch in depth [31 by 21 by 31 cm]) to contain larvae daily from each colony and determining the any wandering late third-instar larvae that escaped from number of larvae present in each instar. Instar was the Ziploc containers. Wandering third-instar larvae determined by viewing the characteristic posterior were collected with forceps or gloved hands, placed in spiracles of each larva under a dissecting scope (James Ziploc containers containing a 5-cm layer of dry, white, 1947). The larvae were then returned to their respec- leveling sand (Gravelscape, Sanford, FL) and allowed to tive colonies to continue development. pupate. Larvae that did not wander from the chicken In addition, studies were conducted to determine were collected with gloved hands before or shortly after the eclosion rates of eggs and pupae. Ten freshly laid pupation and placed in the same containers.