Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915

Browse

Filters

20251

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.Lucilia cuprina

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An assessment of the accuracy of morphological techniques for identifying Lucilia cuprina and Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae)
    (Taylor and Francis Group on behalf of the New Zealand Veterinary Association, 2025-10-13) Brett PTJ; Lawrence KE; Kenyon PR; Gedye K; Fermin LM; Pomroy W
    Aims: To assess the accuracy of the morphological identification of Lucilia cuprina and Lucilia sericata by using molecular analysis as a reference standard test, and to describe the seasonality of these species. Methods: A convenience sample of L. cuprina and L. sericata flies was caught on eight farms from across New Zealand and stored at room temperature in 70% alcohol. They were first morphologically identified using published keys and then molecularly identified using primers to amplify the 28S rRNA region of the nuclear genome. The accuracy of the morphological identification was then estimated for each species using the molecular identification as a reference standard test. The correctness of the published keys was also tested by re-examining a sample of misidentified flies using enhanced magnification and photography. Results: The accuracy of the morphological identification for L. cuprina was 0.66 (95% CI = 0.58–0.73) and for L. sericata was 0.7 (95% CI = 0.62–0.77). There was no evidence for a difference in accuracy between species (p = 0.56), and re-examination of the misidentified flies found no faults in the published keys. The study confirmed that L. cuprina has a longer season of activity than L. sericata. Conclusions: These results emphasise the need to use molecular methods to confirm the identification of these species, especially when dealing with large, stored collections, rather than to rely on morphological identification alone. Clinical relevance: Without accurate fly identification and knowledge of insecticide resistance status, effective control and prevention of flystrike in New Zealand could be handicapped.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Field Evaluation of the LuciTrap and the Western Australian Trap with Three Different Baits Types for Monitoring Lucilia cuprina and Lucilia sericata in New Zealand.
    (15/09/2021) Brett P; Lawrence K; Kenyon P; Gedye K; Pomroy W
    Flytraps can be used on farms to monitor the populations of primary strike flies (Lucilia cuprina and Lucilia sericata) and, hence, offer a view regarding the incidence of flystrike on sheep. This study aimed to contrast the specificity and effectiveness of the LuciTrap with its combination of three chemical lures (Lucilures) and the Western Australian Trap with three bait types (LuciLure, Sheep liver with 30% sodium sulphide and squid). A mean model and rate model were fitted to the data. The mean model showed no difference (p > 0.05) in the mean weekly catch for L. cuprina between the Western Australian Trap with LuciLures and the Western Australian Trap baited with sheep liver with 30% sodium sulphide (p < 0.05). Whereas, for L. sericata, no difference (p > 0.05) was found between the Western Australian Trap with LuciLures, the Western Australian Trap baited with sheep liver with 30% sodium sulphide and the LuciTrap. The rate model illustrated that the Western Australian Trap with sheep liver with 30% sodium sulphide and LuciTrap did not differ (p > 0.05) for L. cuprina and L. sericata. Combined, these results indicate that New Zealand farmers can use either the LuciTrap or the Western Australian Trap with sheep liver with 30% sodium sulphide to monitor these target species.