4.2 Article

Endophagy of biting midges attacking cavity-nesting birds

Journal

MEDICAL AND VETERINARY ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 277-280

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2009.00800.x

Keywords

Culicoides pictipennis; Culicoides truncorum; endophagy; nest box; population dynamics; transmission; vectors; Moravia

Funding

  1. Grant Agency of the Czech Republic [206/05/P045]
  2. Czech Republic Ministry of Education [MSMT0021620828, LC06009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Feeding behaviour, host preferences and the spectrum of available hosts determine the role of vectors in pathogen transmission. Feeding preferences of blood-feeding Diptera depend on, among others factors, the willingness of flies to attack their hosts either in the open (exophagy) or in enclosed places (endophagy). As far as ornithophilic blood-feeding Diptera are concerned, the biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) and blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae) are generally considered to be strictly exophagous. We determined which blood-sucking Diptera enter nest cavities and feed on birds by placing sticky foil traps inside artificial nest boxes. A total of 667 females of eight species of biting midges of the genus Culicoides (Latreille, 1809) were captured on traps during 2006-2007, with Culicoides truncorum (Edwards, 1939) being the dominant species. DNA blood analyses of blood-engorged females proved that midges actually fed on birds nesting in the boxes. Three species were identified as endophagous: Culicoides truncorum, Culicoides pictipennis (Staeger, 1839), and Culicoides minutissimus (Zetterstedt, 1855). Our study represents the first evidence that ornithophilic biting midges are endophagous. The fact that we caught no blackflies in the bird boxes supports the exophagy of blackflies. We believe that our findings are important for surveillance programmes focusing on Diptera that transmit various bird pathogens.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available