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.

Simple item page
dc.citation.issue9
dc.citation.volume12
dc.contributor.authorBrett P
dc.contributor.authorLawrence K
dc.contributor.authorKenyon P
dc.contributor.authorGedye K
dc.contributor.authorPomroy W
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-02T02:17:06Z
dc.date.available2021-09
dc.date.available2021-09-08
dc.date.available2023-03-02T02:17:06Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-15
dc.description.abstractFlytraps 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.
dc.description.publication-statusPublished
dc.identifierhttp://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000699521500001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=c5bb3b2499afac691c2e3c1a83ef6fef
dc.identifierARTN 829
dc.identifier.citationINSECTS, 2021, 12 (9)
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/insects12090829
dc.identifier.eissn2075-4450
dc.identifier.elements-id448814
dc.identifier.harvestedMassey_Dark
dc.relation.isPartOfINSECTS
dc.rightsCC BY
dc.rightsCopyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectLucilia cuprina
dc.subjectLucilia sericata
dc.subjectflytraps
dc.subject.anzsrc0608 Zoology
dc.titleA 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.
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.notesNot known
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University/College of Sciences
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University/College of Sciences/School of Agriculture & Environment
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University/College of Sciences/School of Veterinary Science
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
insects-12-00829.pdf
Size:
10.28 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles