House Fly (Musca Domestica L.) Management in Poultry Production Using Fungal Biopesticides

The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
Department of Entomology
HOUSE FLY (MUSCA DOMESTICA L.) MANAGEMENT IN POULTRY
PRODUCTION USING FUNGAL BIOPESTICIDES
A Dissertation in
Entomology
by
Naworaj Acharya
 2015 Naworaj Acharya
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
May 2015
The dissertation of Naworaj Acharya was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Matthew B. Thomas
Professor and Huck Scholar in Ecological Entomology
Dissertation Co-Adviser
Co-Chair of Committee
Edwin G. Rajotte
Professor of Entomology
Dissertation Co-Adviser
Co-Chair of Committee
Mary Barbercheck
Nina E. Jenkins
Senior Research Associate
Paul Patterson
Professor of Poultry Science
Gary Felton
Head of the Department of Entomology
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii
ABSTRACT
House flies, Musca domestica L., are economically and medically important insect pests in
poultry production facilities. Standard, chemical pesticide-based control options for flies
are becoming increasingly difficult due to insecticide resistance and regulatory constraints.
Biopesticides based on naturally occurring fungal pathogens could provide an alternative
tool for integrated pest management (IPM) in poultry production. Here we addressed
several issues related to field application, persistence and performance of fungal
biopesticides against flies. We demonstrated that residual spray treatments of fungal
biopesticides, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae could sustainably suppress
fly populations through lethal and sub-lethal impacts on reproductive output. The study
developed a cost-effective field delivery system whereby teneral adult flies are targeted
via the application of oil-formulated spores to the lower portions of basement walls where
flies momentarily rest to harden themselves following emergence. We also evaluated
inexpensive, non-toxic contractor-grade plastic sheets as potential wall covering materials
to support long-term spore viability. The infectivity of oil-formulated B. bassiana against
flies on typical structural substrates of the poultry houses including plastic sheets declined
rapidly within one or two weeks following repeated fly exposures. In further laboratory
bioassays, conidia viability and enumeration tests demonstrated that flies reduced fungal
persistence and infectivity through deactivation and physical removal of conidia, with
higher fly densities and greater cumulative exposure hastening the decline. Nonetheless,
flies’ detrimental effects were substantially reduced at realistic (lower) densities and
overall fungal efficacy was only marginally affected since very low densities of viable
iv
conidia were still able to cause rapid mortality, suggesting the potential for relatively long
re-treatment intervals to achieve fly control. Fungal spray treatments remained viable for
up to 13 weeks under laboratory conditions and periodic exposure of flies to the spray
residue showed high levels mortality, with very little decline in mortality rate over time.
Equivalent treatments placed in a commercial poultry house showed much more rapid
decline. One trial at the end of summer showed conidia to remain viable up to seven
weeks. However, repeats during the winter months revealed spore decay in one to two
weeks, with fly mortality rates influenced accordingly. The exact reasons for the more
rapid decay remain unclear but could be linked to high concentrations of ammonia in the
basement areas, especially during winter when ventilation is minimal. While the rapid
spore decay poses a challenge for operational use, our laboratory and field experimental
results suggest the potential for adaptive treatment regimes with weekly spray intervals in
conditions with very high fly populations and/or high ammonia levels, and potentially
monthly spray intervals when fly populations and ammonia levels are reduced.
Nevertheless, careful monitoring and adjustments of current housing and manure
management to improve indoor air quality and create thermally stable environments would
be necessary to increase the persistence and long term efficacy of biopesticide treatments.
Overall, the study contributes to wider adoption of mycopesticide products as well as
promotes commercial development of other potential fungal species/isolates and
contributes to the reduction of pesticide consumption in the poultry industry.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction/Literature review ................................................................... 1
1.1. Biology, ecology and behavior of house flies .................................................. 1

1.2. House flies as pests and disease-vectors .......................................................... 4
1.3. Poultry production system ................................................................................ 7
1.3.1. Cage system of layer production............................................................... 8
1.3.1.1. Manure-belt cage system ................................................................... 8
1.3.1.2. High-rise cage system ....................................................................... 9
1.3.2. Littered-floor non-cage system for meat production and breeding .......... 9
1.4. House fly management in poultry production facilities ................................... 10
1.4.1. Cultural management ................................................................................ 10
1.4.2. Fly monitoring .......................................................................................... 11
1.4.3. Chemical control ....................................................................................... 13
1.4.4. Biological control...................................................................................... 15
1.4.4.1. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents .................................. 19
1.4.4.1.1. Mode of action ........................................................................... 21
1.4.4.1.2. Use of fungi in fly management................................................. 22
1.4.4.1.3. Post-application persistence in field settings ............................. 27
1.5. Current scenarios of fly management in poultry production units .................. 31
1.6. Dissertation outline .......................................................................................... 33
1.7. References ........................................................................................................ 36
Chapter 2: Potential for biocontrol of house flies, Musca domestica, using fungal
biopesticides ............................................................................................... 65
Abstract……. .......................................................................................................... 65
2.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 66
2.2. Materials and methods...................................................................................... 67
2.2.1. Fly rearing ................................................................................................. 67
2.2.2. Fungal production, formulation and application ....................................... 68
2.2.3. Establishment of fly colonies in boxes ..................................................... 69
2.2.4. Fly survival ............................................................................................... 69
vi
2.2.5. Egg collection, enumeration and viability test .......................................... 70

2.2.6. Statistical analysis ..................................................................................... 71
2.3. Results .............................................................................................................. 72
2.3.1. Fly survival ............................................................................................... 72
2.3.2. Fecundity and egg viability....................................................................... 72
2.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 73
2.5. Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... 76
2.6. References ........................................................................................................ 77
Chapter 3: Persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against

the house fly, Musca domestica, on typical structural substrates of
poultry houses ............................................................................................ 85
Abstract ................................................................................................................... 85
3.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 86
3.2.1. Fly rearing ................................................................................................. 88
3.2.2. Efficacy of spray residue on different structural surfaces over 30 days
with repeated fly exposures (I) ................................................................. 88
3.2.2.1. Conidia spray application .................................................................. 88
3.2.2.2. Exposing flies to spray residue .......................................................... 89
3.2.3. Conidia viability test on ‘inert’ glass slides and plastic sheet comparing
two production batches and two application techniques .......................... 90
with repeated fly exposures (II) ................................................................ 91
3.2.5. Effect of fly density on efficacy and viability of spray residue on
plastic sheet .............................................................................................. 91
3.2.6. Effect of fly density on viability and concentration of conidia in
spray residue on plastic sheet ................................................................... 92
3.3. Results .............................................................................................................. 93
with repeated fly exposures (I) ................................................................. 93
3.3.2. Effect of application method on conidia viability on ‘inert’ substrates .... 94
with repeated fly exposures (II) ................................................................ 94
3.3.4. Effect of fly density and repeat exposure on efficacy and viability of
fungal spray residue on plastic sheeting ................................................... 95
vii
3.3.5. Effect of fly density on viability and concentration of conidia in spray

residue on plastic sheet ............................................................................. 96
3.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 97
3.5. Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... 101
3.6. References ........................................................................................................ 102
Chapter 4: Impact of fly population on persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria

bassiana biopesticide under laboratory conditions .................................... 117
Abstract ................................................................................................................... 117

4.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 118
4.2.1. Fly rearing ................................................................................................. 119
4.2.3. Impact of fly density on conidia density and viability .............................. 120
4.2.4. Impact of fly density on infectivity of conidial spray residue .................. 121
4.3. Results .............................................................................................................. 123
4.3.1. Impact of fly density on conidia density and viability.............................. 123
4.3.2. Impact of fly density on infectivity of conidial spray residue .................. 124
4.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 124
4.5. References ........................................................................................................ 128
Chapter 5: Persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against

the house fly, Musca domestica, in a commercial high-rise layer house ... 134
Abstract ................................................................................................................... 134

5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 135
5.2.1. Fly rearing ................................................................................................. 136
5.2.3. Persistence and efficacy of conidial spray residue in a working
high-rise layer house ................................................................................ 137
5.3. Results .............................................................................................................. 140
5.3.1. Persistence of conidial spray residue in a working high-rise
layer house ................................................................................................ 140
5.3.2. Infectivity of conidial spray residue against house flies under
the high-rise layer house in winter ........................................................... 141
viii
5.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 141

5.5. References ........................................................................................................ 145
Chapter 6: Conclusions and future implications .......................................................... 158

6.1. References ........................................................................................................ 166
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Cumulative proportional survival (mean ±SE) of adult house fly
populations exposed to residual spray treatments of A) B. bassiana I93-825
(batch 1), B) B. bassiana I93-825 (batch 2), and C) M. anisopliae ESF1 in
plastic boxes under laboratory conditions ......................................................... 81
Figure 2-2. Average daily egg laying pattern of female flies (A, B and C) in
fungal-treated and untreated-control plastic boxes. Data show mean (± SE)
number of eggs per live female per day ............................................................ 83
Figure 2-3. Impact of fungal infections on A) total number of eggs per female from
the original cohort, B) viable eggs per female from the original cohort, C)
basic reproductive rate relative to uninfected control house fly populations
in plastic boxes under laboratory conditions ..................................................... 84
Figure 3-1. Cumulative proportional survival of fly populations exposed to B.

bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 31) conidial spray residue on different
structural substrates 1 day (A); 15 days (B); and 30 days (C) after spray
application ......................................................................................................... 110
Figure 3-2. Long term viability of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 31) on glass
slides and contractor plastic sheeting following application with an airbrush
sprayer or paintbrush (A); viability of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 37)
applied with an airbrush sprayer to either glass slides or plastic (B) ................ 112
Figure 3-3. Cumulative proportional mortality of fly populations exposed to B.

bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 37) spray residue on different structural
substrates 1 day (A); 7 days (B); 15 days (C); and 30 days (D) after spray
application ......................................................................................................... 113
x
Figure 3-4. Cumulative proportional survival of fly populations exposed to B.

bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 37) conidial spray residue on contractor
plastic sheeting (9 cm disk) at 1 day (A), 2 days (B) and 3 days (C) after
spray application; and without prior exposure of fly populations at 2 days
(D), and 3 days (E) after spray application; and (F) viability of oil-
formulated conidia of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 37) on plastic
sheeting following repeat exposures to high (50) fly densities at 26-27oC,
50-60% RH ........................................................................................................ 115
Figure 3-5. A) Viability, and B) density of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana

I93-825 (batch PSU 37) on plastic sheeting following sequential exposure of
different densities of house flies ........................................................................ 116
Figure 4-1. A) Viability, and B) density of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana

I93-825 (batch PSU 42) on plastic sheets exposed to fly populations of
different densities, and C) relationship between effective persistence (=
density of viable conidia) and fly-days per unit area (= density of flies x
cumulative days of exposure). Plastic sheeting was maintained in the
laboratory at 26-27oC, 50-60% RH ................................................................... 131
Figure 4-2. A) Cumulative proportional survival of house flies following exposure

to Beauveria-treated plastic sheets (isolate I93-825, batch PSU 42)
maintained for the previous 11 days in contact with fly populations of
different densities at 26-27oC, 50-60% RH, and B) the relationship between
the density of conidia remaining after the 11-day fly exposure treatments
and median survival time (MST) of naïve flies exposed to the treated plastic
at day 11 ............................................................................................................ 133
Figure 5-1. Long-term viability of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana isolate

I93-825 (batch PSU 46) on plastic sheeting placed in a high-rise layer house
in September 2013, with different cover treatments (fine mesh muslin or
xi
more open mosquito netting) placed over the plastic to manipulate exposure
to airborne particulates ...................................................................................... 152
Figure 5-2. Long-term viability of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana isolate

I93-825 (batch PSU 46) on plastic sheeting without cover treatments placed
in the poultry house in January and March 2014, or maintained in the
laboratory at 26-27oC, 50-60% RH from January through March .................... 153
Figure 5-3. Cumulative proportional survival of house flies exposed periodically to

oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 46) applied on
plastic sheets that were maintained in a high-rise layer house for four weeks
in January 2014 ................................................................................................. 154
Figure 5-4. Cumulative proportional survival of house flies exposed periodically to

oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 46) applied on
plastic sheets that were maintained in the laboratory for 13 weeks at 26-
27oC, 50-60% RH .............................................................................................. 155
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Analysis of house fly survival following exposure to a range of B.

bassiana-treated structural substrates relative to controls .................................. 107
Table 3-2. Analysis of house fly survival following exposure to a range of B.

bassiana-treated substrates relative to controls .................................................. 108
Table 3-3. Comparative survival of house flies after exposure to B. bassiana-

treated plastic sheeting with different exposure histories ................................... 109
Table 5-1. Median survival times of house flies following exposure to fungal-
treated and control plastic sheets maintained in a high-rise layer house for up
to four weeks ....................................................................................................... 149
Table 5-2. Median survival times of house flies following exposure to fungal-
treated and control plastic sheets maintained under laboratory conditions (26-
27oC, 50-60% RH) for up to 13 weeks ............................................................... 150
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee co-chairs, Dr
Matthew B. Thomas and Dr Edwin G. Rajotte for their meticulous guidance, constructive
criticisms and constant encouragement and support throughout my graduate studies at
Penn State. I want to thank to committee member Dr Nina E. Jenkins for her guidance,
positive criticisms and for being an invaluable resource and source of support and
encouragement throughout the studies. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to
other committee members, Dr Mary Barbercheck and Dr Paul Patterson for their guidance,
support and expert advice. I wish to sincerely acknowledge the Integrated Pest
Management Collaborative Research Support Program of US Agency for International
Development for supporting my graduate studies and research, and Animal Health and
Diagnostic Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture for supporting part
of the research during my graduate studies at Penn State.
I am also thankful to the Schwardt Lab, Department of Entomology, Cornell
University for providing house fly pupae and Dr Robert D. Anderson for suggestions on
rearing flies. I am grateful for the diligent assistance of Rebecca A. Seliga for her
assistance in conducting various experiments and fly colony maintenance. I would also
like to thank Dr Simon Blanford for advice on statistical analysis and for being an
occasional manuscript checker and Dr Giovani Bellicanta for providing fungal spore
powder and for helping me out with laboratory accessories. I would also like to extend my
sincere gratitude to Ms. Wanet Lacsamana for incessant support and inspiration and for
being an occasional manuscript checker. I am also thankful to Steve Nolt for providing his
xiv
poultry house for field experiments and to Penn State Poultry Education and Research
Center and the Patterson Lab for providing necessary tools and inputs for pilot
experiments. My sincere thanks also go to Read-Thomas Laboratory members for their
help and support during the studies.
I want to thank for my family and friends for constant encouragement, support and
for helping me out throughout this journey. Sincere thanks also go to all PSU fellow
graduate students, teachers and friends for their support over the course of this research
and my graduate career.

Special dedication to my parents for their encouragement and support to continue hard
work and graduate studies

Chapter 1: Introduction/Literature review
1.1. Biology, ecology and behavior of house flies
House flies, Musca domestica L., are economically and medically important, non-biting, filth-
loving synanthropic Dipterans (Family: Muscidae) with peridomestic habits that have a long
history of co-existence with humans and their domestic animals. More than 700 species of
Muscids exist in North America, and over 4,000 species in 100 genera occur worldwide. House
flies are medium-sized, about 5-8 mm long, mostly dull gray in color and have four black stripes
on the thorax (Skidmore 1985, Chapman 1998, Moon 2002). Their legs are covered with sensory
hairs (setae), and the distal tarsomere of each leg bears a pair of claws and a sticky, sack-like,
cushiony pad in between them called the pulvillus, which produces a sticky substance that enable
flies to walk on smooth vertical surfaces (Hedges 1990, Sukontason 2006). Adults taste their
foods through the gustatory hairs on legs; therefore, they have a tendency to crawl over foods
while resting. They need to liquefy and/or pre-digest foods with regurgitated-salivary gland
secretions (Graczyk 2001) and have developed modified sponging-type mouth parts designed to
suck up liquid foods. Larvae (maggots) have mouth-hooks used to filter-feed on masses of
bacteria (Broce and Elzinga 1984) and can utilize all kinds of human and animal foods and
waste. Usually, females are larger than males and can easily be identified having a much wider
space in-between compound eyes and absence of a black spot at the abdominal end (West 1951).
The sex ratio in flies is roughly equal (West 1951). The female abdomen consists of nine
segments, of which only the first five segments are visible and the last four are normally
retracted inside and protruded during oviposition (Chapman 1998). The male abdomen, on the
2
other hand, consists of eight segments only. Adults can live up to two months under laboratory
conditions (Rockstein 1957), but last only a few weeks under natural conditions (West 1951).
Holometabolous house flies undergo four distinct life stages, i.e. egg, larva or maggot,
pupa and adult. They are prolific breeders and can utilize almost all kinds of food and waste of
animal and plant origin. Mating usually begins one to three days post-emergence from puparium;
males are attracted by a female sex-pheromone called Z-9-tricosene (Rogoff et al. 1973). Volatile
compounds emitted from decaying organic matter (Cosse and Baker 1996) and semio-chemicals
emitted from egg-associated symbiotic bacteria (Lam et al. 2007) stimulate oviposition in
females. The multiplying symbiotic bacteria on the surface of eggs provide ovipositional cues for
other gravid flies as well as providing an enriched larval-growing substrate (Lam et al. 2007).
Gravid females lay small, creamy white, elongated eggs on moist rotting organic matter and
substrates with 60-75% moisture content are optimum for oviposition and maggot development
(Miller et al. 1974). Each female can produce up to six to eight batches of 75-200 eggs during
her lifetime (Fletcher et al. 1990). Eggs usually hatch within 24 hours, and maggots undergo
three instars before turning into puparia. Third instars, mature maggots crawl out to drier areas
particularly on the edge or top of breeding substrates and contract into puparia after voiding gut
contents (Frankel and Bhaskaran 1973). After emergence from puparia, adults remain teneral for
a few hours. In high-rise, layer barns, ready-to-pupate maggots move out of the manure pile and
pupate at the edge near basement walls and after emergence; they walk to rest on walls or nearby
vertical surfaces where they spend a considerable time to harden themselves before moving
elsewhere.
The house fly development cycle, population density and daily activities including flight
in a particular locality depend on resource, temperature and other biotic and abiotic factors. If
3
food is not limiting, flies will complete their life cycle in about ten days at 29.5oC, 21 days at
21oC and 45 days at 15.5oC (Stafford 2008). The optimum temperature for fly development is
around 26oC with the lower and upper thermal limits of 12 and 45oC, respectively (Davidson
1944, Keiding 1976). Eggs can hatch within nine hours after oviposition and take about seven to
ten days to complete egg to adult stage under ideal conditions (Schoof 1964, Keiding 1976).
However, cooler weather, dry media and scarce food may increase development time until two
weeks or more. Flies produce multiple generations per year and the generations overlap; all
stages are present at the same time (Keiding 1976, Stafford 2008). Even if the development
depends on temperature, multiple generations per year are possible in tropical and temperate
regions due to their peridomestic habits (Merchant et al. 1987). Flies are diurnal and mostly
active during the day at temperatures of 26-32oC and become inactive during the night and at
temperatures below 12.5oC (Stafford 2008). Fly numbers in a particular locality vary with
availability of foods and breeding resources, sunshine hours, temperature and humidity regime.
For instance, high fly activities are seen at around 20-25oC, and they are undetectable below
10oC or above 45oC (Stafford 2008). They can fly a considerable distance in a random pattern
and flight capability is usually temperature-dependent (Sacca 1963). Different studies have
reported different distances that flies can travel, ranging from 3.22 km up to 32.19 km (Schoof
and Silverly 1954, Sacca 1963). The flights are mostly aimed at searching for food and
oviposition sites. Flies travel relatively longer in rural areas than urban areas due to widely
scattered human settlements (Hindle and Merriman 1914, Murvosh and Thaggard 1966). Thus, it
is common in the countryside that flies escape from animal rearing facilities and invade nearby
residential areas (Winpsinger et al. 2005).

4
1.2. House flies as pests and disease-vectors
In semi-protected indoor settings of animal production units, the generation of manure and waste
nourishes and multiplies filth flies by providing favorable dwelling and breeding sites, and the
fly population frequently reaches pest and vector status imposing a significant economic cost in
affected rearing facilities (Axtell 1986b, 1999, Axtell and Arends 1990). In dairy facilities, for
instance, excessive numbers of flies cause annoyance and reduce feed consumption and milk
production (Morgan and Bailie 1980, Ahmad et al. 2007, Scott et al. 2009). In high-rise layer
production barns, constant irritation by flies stress birds and can reduce feed consumption, egg
production and compromise weight gain (Axtell 1986b, 1999, Miller et al. 1993a). At high
populations, flies in hen house could migrate from the manure-containing basement to the second
story, where birds are housed and contaminate eggs with body excretions, which reduces the
eggs’ attractiveness to customers and compromises market value (Axtell 1999, Malik et al.
2007). Flies can cause financial loss through vectoring different diseases and increasing the costs
of disease management. They annoy farm workers, which leads to poor animal husbandry and
increases costs of production (Dhillon et al. 2004). Similarly, excessive regurgitation spots can
cause corrosion and degradation of metal equipment, structural materials and reduced
illumination from light sources (Axtell and Arends 1990, Axtell 1999).
Flies are capable of travelling several kilometers from development sites (Winpisinger et
al. 2005). During heavy outbreaks, they can escape from animal rearing facilities and invade
nearby residential areas leading to poor community relations and damage the community
standing of even well established farms, sometimes leading to the boycott of farm products and
lawsuits and farm closure in extreme cases (Axtell 1999, Renn et al. 1999, Chakrabarti et al.
2010). The invading flies may become a threat to public health and increase the risk of disease
5
epidemics in the communities (Hanec 1956, Pickens et al. 1967, Lysyk and Axtell 1985). Flies
are also responsible for spreading Salmonellosis in and around layer farms (Olsen and Hammack
2000), and the Salmonella-contaminated eggs increase the risks of food-borne illnesses to
consumers (FDA 2009). Although it is very difficult to estimate direct production losses caused
by flies, except for their role as disease-vectors, they are responsible for damage and control
costs to the US poultry industry in excess of a billion dollars annually (Geden et al. 2001).
House flies are important mechanical and propagative vectors for more than 65 human
and animal diseases (Malik et al. 2007). They can transmit disease-causing organisms through
mouthparts, body and leg hairs, pulvilli, and bodily excretions. Flies can pick up pathogenic
microbes during walking or feeding on waste, garbage and rotting materials and spread them by
harboring on their external body surfaces including minute hairs and tarsal pulvilli (Barro et al.
2006, Sukontason et al. 2006, Getachew et al. 2007), and salivary glands or the digestive tract
(Sasaki et al. 2000). High electrostatic charges of body hairs and high viscosity of feces enhance
adhering capacity of pathogens to body surfaces (Graczyk et al. 2001). Further, flies liquefy solid
foods before ingestion and may leave regurgitation spots on the surfaces which they feed
contaminating the substrates (Graczyk et al. 2001). Ingested viruses or bacteria can retain their
virulence in the gut and contaminate the substrates when excreted in feces (Greenberg 1973,
Getachew et al. 2007). Bacteria such as E. coli O157: H7 can persist at least for four days in fly
crop after ingestion and propagate inside the pseudotrachae (Sasaki et al. 2000). In addition,
prestomal teeth inside mouthparts enhance their capacity to transmit bacteria (Broce and Elzinga
1984). Flies defecate excessively, usually two to ten times per day during their active period
(Sasaki et al. 2000), and their feces contain a myriad of pathogenic microbes such as
6
Helicobacter pylori, Aeromonas cavie and Eischerichia coli (Grubel et al. 1997, Kobayashi et al.
1999, Sasaki et al. 2000, Nayduch et al. 2002).
Flies pose a serious health hazard to people and animals by spreading various diseases in
and around animal rearing facilities and nearby residential areas. In dairy barns, flies feed on
milk leaking from the udders of diseased animals and spread diseases such as Bovine mastitis to
healthy ones (Sanders 1940, Hillerton and Bramley 1985). They could transmit pig parasites
(Forster et al. 2009); human intestinal parasites (Oyerinde 1976, Graczyk et al. 1999, Forster et
al. 2007), Helicobacter pylori (Gruebel et al. 1997); mycobacteria (Fischer et al. 2001);
Escherichia coli (Iwasa et al. 1999, Moriya et al. 1999, Sasaki et al. 2000) and Corynebacterium
pseutotuberculosis (Braverman et al. 1999, Zurek et al. 2001). Flies are also an important
mechanical or biological vector for Shigellosis (Cohen et al. 1991, Levine and Levine 1991);
Salmonellosis (Olsen and Hammack 2000, Forster et al. 2007, Fetene and Worku 2009);
Rotaviruses (Tan et al. 1997); rikettsia, fungi and worms (Oyerinde 1976, Dipeolu 1982, Umeche
and Mandah 1989) in and around animal confinements. In poultry, flies are reported to transmit
Necrotic enteritis (Dhillon et al. 2004), New castle disease virus and Turkey corona virus
(Calibeo-Hayes et al. 2003), Campylobacteriosis (Hald et al. 2004), Reticuloendotheoliosis
(Davidson and Braverman 2005), H5N1 Avian influenza virus (Sawabe et al. 2006, Wanarata et
al. 2011), chicken tapeworms (Abrams 1976, Mullen and Durden 2002), Coccidiosis (Greenberg
1973, Milushev 1978), and several other contagious diseases (Malik et al. 2007).
Flies harbor and spread antibiotic-resistant bacteria both on livestock farms and in
hospital environments (Macovei and Zurek 2006, Graham et al. 2007). More than 80% of poultry
production units in the United States use antibiotics in feed to protect birds against bacterial
diseases (Silbergeld et al. 2008), and the indiscriminate use of antibiotics can create selection
7
pressure on bacteria resulting in emergence of resistant strains. Flies invading nearby residential
areas from poultry farms are responsible for spreading diseases in the community as flies acquire
the resistant bacteria such as Staphylococci, Enterococci from antibiotic-fed poultry feces
(Graham et al. 2007). They are also involved in transmission of multiple antibiotic-resistant
bacteria in hospital environments (Fotedar et al. 1982, 1992, Rady et al. 1992). Flies near
residential and urban fast-food restaurants commonly carried genetically diverse populations of
Enterococci with antibiotic resistance and raised a serious concern about public health (Graczyk
et al. 2001).
1.3. Poultry production system
Modern commercial poultry production systems are highly integrated with intensive production
techniques that change the environments in which birds are reared, and the ecology of flies is
closely tied with this artificial environment (Axtell 1999). Different production systems have
differential requirements for temperature, housing type, flock management and production
practices. Hence, the complexity of fly problem differs between systems (Parkhurst and
Mountney 1988, Axtell and Arends 1990). For example, fly problems are severe in high-rise
caged-layer production systems but not in manure belt caged-layer and littered-floor, non-caged
systems (Axtell 1986b). In littered-floor, non-caged systems, manure is less concentrated due to
use of absorbent materials and is frequently disturbed by birds, which reduces manure suitability
for oviposition and larval development. Several species of filth flies are common in poultry
production facilities; however, the most problems caused are associated with common house fly,
Musca domestica L. and partly with little house fly, Fannia cannicularis. Although there are
many variations in structure, design and type of housing, below are the most common poultry
production systems in US.

8
1.3.1. Cage system of layer production
This is a popular egg production system where egg-laying hens are housed in wire mesh cages in
one or two-storied houses and fresh manure either accumulates at ground floor or falls onto a
conveyer belt beneath the cages. About 70% of current caged-layer houses are high-rise and only
30% are manure-belt, although most new houses are manure-belt system (Xin et al. 2011). Water
and feed are supplied through automatic equipment. Egg collection is mostly through automatic
conveyer belts; however, manual egg collection is also practiced (Axtell and Arends 1990). The
ventilation system inside the house is designed in such a way that fresh air enters into the house
from the roof, passes down through the bird cages and hot air passing over the manure surface
vents through exhaust fans (Koenig et al. 2005, Xin et al. 2011). Although some variations exist
in housing structure, design, and management, high-rise and manure-belt are two common
caged-layer systems for table egg production (Axtell 1999).
1.3.1.1. Manure-belt cage system
In this system, rows of birds’ cages are stacked on either sides of multiple aisles and manure
accumulates on a conveyer belt beneath each cage row, which is emptied at the end of the house
daily (Axtell 1999). The manure on the belt is dried either naturally by ventilation air or
artificially by a forced-air stream. Depending on the method of manure drying and season,
moisture content of manure on belts varies from 30-60% (Xin et al. 2011). Even though the
manure-belt system is generally 50% higher in capital costs than a high-rise cage system, it
provides considerable long-term benefits over the latter (Xin et al. 2011). Manure removal is less
labor-intensive, and because of the semi-automatic and frequent manure removal, fly problems
are low (Liang et al. 2005), and indoor air quality is much better than the high-rise cage system
(Green et al. 2009).

9
1.3.1.2. High-rise cage system
This system is similar to the manure-belt cage system except manure storage is in the basement
and the birds are upstairs in a two story barn. Manure falls from cages and accumulates either
directly to the basement or onto dropping boards, which are later scraped down to the basement
multiple times a day (North and Bell 1990, Axtell 1999). Manure drying in either case takes
place when mechanical ventilation for the birds passes air over the manure, which is exhausted
from the barn. However, drying fans can also be used in the basement to supplement the drying
process (Xin et al. 2011). Manure removal is labor-intensive and less frequent generally
coordinated with its land application as a fertilizer for crop production. In-house manure storage
and handling operations create chemically and biologically complex indoor environments
through manure decomposition and emission of air-borne pollutants (Axtell and Arends 1990).
Sometimes instead of being confined to cages, birds are allowed to move freely over wooden or
plastic slats on the second floor, and manure accumulated on the first floor is treated like the
standard cage systems.
1.3.2. Littered-floor non-cage system for meat production and breeding
In this system, broiler breeders or grow-out birds (broilers and turkeys for meat production) are
commonly reared on a littered-floor or partially littered-floor house, and water and feed are
provided through automatic equipment (Axtell and Arends 1990). For breeders, one-third of the
floor is covered with absorbent litter materials and two-thirds of the house is usually slatted
(Axtell 1999). The slats are generally elevated 0.5-1.75 m above the floor, and egg collection is
either manual or mechanical with an automatic belt system. Usually manure collects on the
littered-floor or below the slatted areas and is typically removed at the end of the flock cycle
(Parkhurst and Mountney 1988). Litter is mostly dry and friable because movement of the birds
10
and constant scratching in the litter makes it unattractive for fly oviposition and unsuitable for
maggot development (Axtell 1986b). In breeder houses, any fly breeding generally occurs in the
manure slats because manure is less disturbed and moisture is greater. Because of low stocking
density, ventilation is usually lower and consequently ammonia accumulation increases. In
addition, indoor air quality can have suspended particulate matter mainly due to constantly
scratching in the litter.
1.4. House fly management in poultry production facilities
1.4.1. Cultural management
The primary cultural tools that help prevent the introduction and build-up of fly populations in
barns are biosecurity, the housing system, waste management and monitoring procedures (Axtell
1999). Biosecurity practices, for instance, monitoring feed and other inputs for contamination;
cleaning and disinfecting construction materials and equipment can prevent the introduction of
flies and other pests into the barns (Axtell 1986b, Axtell 1999). Application of pesticides and
disinfection of the barns and equipment in-between flock cycles will reduce hibernating stages of
flies and other organisms. Regular monitoring and proper maintenance of the egg collection and
feeding equipment helps to minimize fly population build-up as spilled feed and cracked eggs
provide proteinaceous foods for flies. Leaky water systems and wet manure enhance these
substrates as suitable breeding materials. Improved air ventilation through adjustment of fans and
vents, and improvement of outdoor drainage systems are necessary to prevent manure moisture
contamination and maintain a thermoneutral indoor environment (Axtell and Arends 1990).
Manure moisture management is the key cultural practice that helps to prevent population build
up because dry manure is unattractive for fly oviposition and unsuitable for larval development
(Geden et al. 2001, Mullens et al. 2001). In high-rise systems, cleaning of basement manure
11
aisles and turning pupae back onto manure piles can reduce adult emergence. Cultural
management is mostly preventive with the aim to reduce manure suitability as well as break
development cycles in already established populations to form a good basis for other
management strategies.
1.4.2. Fly monitoring
Monitoring of the fly population is an indispensable part of poultry integrated pest management
(IPM). Several monitoring tools have been developed for adult and larval populations to enable
farm managers to monitor for impending emergence of adult flies and provide a basis for timing
and frequency of spray applications. Spot cards, sticky ribbons and baited jug traps are most
widely used tools for monitoring of adult populations (Beck and Turner 1985, Turner and
Ruszler 1989, Turner et al. 1992, Jacobs et al. 1993, Hogsette et al. 1993, Pickens et al 1994,
Kaufman et al. 2001b). Adults can be monitored by spot cards; small 7.5 x 12.5 cm index cards
fastened in multiple locations within barns where a large number of flies are present (Rutz and
Axtell 1979, Lysyk and Axtell 1986, Kaufman et al. 2001b). The number of flyspecks (vomit and
excreta) on each card gives an indirect estimate of fly populations, and cards should be replaced
weekly. Average flyspecks of 50-100 per card indicate a high fly activity and a need for control
interventions (Stafford et al. 1988, Williams 2010). One advantage of using spot cards is they
provide a long-term historical record of fly activity (Lysyk and Axtell 1985). This is an easy,
economic and reliable method of adult monitoring; however, it provides no information on fly
species or sex, and indoor temperature and strategic placement of cards are critical (Lysyk and
Axtell 1986).
Sticky ribbons are tapes with sticky surfaces placed at different locations in barns and
should be replaced weekly (Anderson and Poorbaugh 1964). The tapes can either be stationary or
12
an individual can walk them through the barn for monitoring purposes. The stationary tapes are
3-4 cm wide ribbons hung from beams, pillars and other structures, whereas moving sticky paper
ribbons are 45 cm tapes fully unrolled, suspended about 5-7 cm off the floor and carried
throughout the barn (Burg and Axtell 1984, Stafford et al. 1988, Kaufman et al. 2000b, Stafford
2008, Williams 2010). An average weekly count above 100 flies per stationary tape, or after
walking 300 m in the barn in case of moving tapes is considered a high fly activity. One
disadvantage of stationary sticky tapes is dust or heavy fly activity quickly overcome them
(Stafford 2008). Additionally, the observer should use the same walking pattern at the same time
of the day for more accuracy. Nonetheless, the tapes provide information on both fly species and
sex as individual flies can be counted every week (Hogsette et al. 1993).
The use of baited jug traps is another popular passive method of adult monitoring,
wherein a small one-gallon, plastic milk-jug with four holes on each upper side and insecticide-
infused pheromone bait inside is hung in several locations inside barns and periodically assessed
for the numbers of captured flies (Burg and Axtell 1984, Axtell 1999). An average count of 250
flies per jug trap per week indicates that control measures should be initiated (Watson et al.
1994). Baited jug traps give information on fly species and sex; however, fly counting is
laborious and replacing the muscalure pheromone is expensive compared to other tools.
Scudder grid is another method of adult monitoring. It is a standard 60-cm square grid
consists of 16-24 wooden slats, which is fastened at equal intervals to cover an area of
approximately 0.8 square meters (FDA 2009). After a period of 30-60 seconds, the flies resting
on the grid are quickly counted and recorded. The count is repeated 10 to 15 times in areas with
higher fly numbers. Sampling should typically be carried out two to three times per week and
counts should be carried out at times when flies are active, typically between 10.00 and 16.00 hrs
13
(Scudder 1998). A count of less than 20 flies on a Scudder grill is likely to indicate satisfactory
fly control (FDA 2009).
For livestock facilities, the Danish Pest Infestation Laboratory developed a visual fly
index system to monitor adults on livestock. This fly infestation index has a 0-7 scale (0= 0-3
flies/animal and 7= 200-400 flies/animal) and the scale 7 indicates an economic threshold to
initiate control measures (Kristiansen and Skovmand 1985).
In addition to adults, regular monitoring of larval populations is also very important to
predict impending fly burst. Routine visual inspection of manure piles for potential hot spots of
larval development by walking the length of manure aisles is required. Manure surfaces with a
‘coffee ground’ appearance indicate a high larval activity (Axtell and Arends 1990, Axtell 1999).
Maggots can also be monitored by pupal traps or extracting immature from manure using Berlese
funnels or floating them in 0.6 M sucrose solution (Stafford and Bay 1994, Tobin and Pitts
1999).
In addition to their monitoring function, traps such as mobile and stationary sticky tapes,
light traps with electrocuting grids are frequently used to lure and kill adult flies as a mechanical
control method (Rutz and Scoles 1988, Pickens et al. 1994). However, these practices are not
very effective in reducing populations (Kaufman et al. 2000b), but are useful in trapping small
populations in the egg processing areas or break rooms.
1.4.3. Chemical control
In line with crop production systems, the poultry industry relies heavily on broad-spectrum
chemical pesticides for fly management, and chemical control is the only reliable tool to manage
overwhelming populations (Tomberlin and Drees 2004). Pyrethroids, organophosphates and

14
carbamates as space or residual sprays and bait formulations are the most commonly used
adulticides as well as for manure treatment and feed-through larvicides (Axtell 1986b, Axtell
1999, Malik et al. 2007). Space sprays of organophosphates, pyrethrins and pyrethroids are used
to quickly knockdown adults. Misting fly resting surfaces with these chemicals is the most
common way to suppress overwhelming populations with short residual actions (Axtell 1999,
Kaufman et al. 2000b, Williams 2010). Pesticides in these categories can also be used as residual
sprays for long-term population suppressions; however, risk of resistance development is high
with such practices (Scott et al. 2000) and treated areas quickly get covered with dust particles
making them less effective (Stafford 2008).
Organophosphates and carbamates are also used in bait formulations to supplement
residual or space sprays (Axtell 1999). The bait formulations are very useful in trapping and
killing adult flies at bird level in high-rise layer barns, but the bait stations should be far enough
from birds’ cages to avoid food and water contamination. Methomyl, dichlorovos, imidacloprid
and spinosad pesticides are commonly used in baiting materials (Geden et al. 2001).
Organophosphates are also used as larvicides for hot-spot treatment in manure. Insect growth
regulators such as cyromazine (larvadex) are used as feed-through larvicides, which after
excretion makes the manure toxic and kills maggots or disrupts their development (Kaufman et
al. 2000b, Williams 2010). The feed-additive larvicides are safe for birds and are effective in
suppressing larval populations with no or minimal non-target impact on manure-inhabiting
natural enemies.
House flies have developed behavioral as well as physiological resistance to almost all
chemical insecticides commonly used against them (Kaufman et al. 2001c, Geden 2012), and
15
insecticide resistance is now a global problem (Scott et al. 2000). Resistance to spinosad (Shono
and Scott 2003, Deacutis et al. 2006), imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid pesticides (Wen and
Scott 1997, Kaufman et al. 2006, Kaufman et al. 2010a, b) has occurred within a few years of
their release. A similar pattern of rapid resistance is evidenced in pyrethroid, organophosphate
and carbamate insecticides (Boxler and Campbell 1983, Plapp 1984, Scott and Georghiou 1985,
1986, Price and Chapman 1987, Scott 1989, Butler et al. 2007, Kozaki et al. 2009, Memmi
2010). Flies have also developed resistance to larvicides such as diflubenzuron and cyromazine
(Bloomcamp et al. 1987, Shen and Plapp 1990), which was most likely due to continued delivery
system like feed-through larvicides (Geden 2012). Cross-resistance in flies is also common, for
instance, flies resistance to phyrethrin also have a high level of resistance to abamectin (Scott
1989, Liu and Yue 2000). These increasing trends of fly resistance suggest rethinking the ways
pesticides are being used in the industry as more frequent and haphazard applications of even
less-toxic chemicals can quickly result in resistance. Appropriate fly monitoring tools should be
used to evaluate fly pressure and make a decision on when, which type and how much
insecticide is required. Chemical pesticides should be considered supplements to other
management tools and used as a last resort. Indiscriminate use of broad-spectrum pesticides
along with poor sanitation and manure management could promote fly resistance, which
necessitates frequent applications of toxic and wide spectrum pesticides that could make the
situations worse.
1.4.4. Biological control
Augmentation and conservation are two major biocontrol approaches used in poultry houses to
manage fly populations. The conservation biocontrol includes practices such as provisioning for
temporary manure-refuge of natural fly enemies, selective use of less toxic pesticides and
16
manure moisture management at low levels, all aim to increase the efficiency of natural enemies
(Kaufman et al. 2000a). Manure refuges are necessary during manure removal between flock
cycles to preserve habitats and breeding sites for natural enemies (Mullens et al. 1996). Routine
monitoring of manure for larval population and hot spot treatment with larvicides help minimize
non-target impacts on natural enemies. The effectiveness of conservation biocontrol techniques
depends predominantly on manure, flock and housing management practices; however, these
alone are not enough to suppress fly populations. Therefore, the existing populations are
periodically supported by augmentative release of mass-reared biocontrol agents to suppress
impending emergence of adult flies. Predatory beetles and parasitoid wasps are commonly used
with this approach (Crespo et al. 1998, Malik et al. 2007).
The parasitoid wasps, predatory beetles and mites are used for control of juvenile stages
of flies. Release of the correct species and strains at the right time and number are necessary for
successful control (Legner and Brydon 1966, Legner and Dietrik 1972, 1974, Morgan et al. 1975,
1977, Olton and Legner 1975, Pickens et al. 1975, Axtell and Rutz 1986, Rutz and Patterson
1990, Geden et al. 1992a, Peterson and Cawthra 1995, Petersen and Currey 1996).
Hymenopteran Pteromalid wasps such as Muscidifurax raptor, M. zaraptor, M. raptorellus,
Splangia cameroni, and S. nigroaenea can parasitize pupae and reduce adult emergence (Morgan
et al. 1975, Rutz and Axtell 1979, Miller et al 1993b, Geden 2012) and Muscidifurax raptorellus,
M. zaraptor and Splangia cameroni are available commercially
(http://www.rinconvitova.com/fly_control.htm) for fly management. Gravid female wasps
oviposit on fly pupae and once hatched, wasp larvae kill the developing adults. After three to five
weeks post-parasitism, adult wasps emerge. Muscidifurax spp. are surface foragers, whereas
Splangia spp. are effective against deeply buried pupae (Axtell 1999). Performance of wasps
17
depends on manure management with better performance in dry manure (Rutz and Axtell 1981,
Greene et al. 1989, Geden et al. 1992a). Depending on the production system, housing type and
management practices, weekly release of 50-80 pupae per m2 may satisfactorily suppress fly
emergence (Skovgard and Nachman 2004).
Similarly, predatory beetles, Carcinops spp. and mites, Macrocheles spp. voraciously
prey on eggs and early instars maggots and can reduce adult fly emergence (Geden 1990,
Kaufman et al. 2000a, 2001a, Hinton and Moon 2003). These beetles are available commercially
(http://www.rinconvitova.com/fly_control.htm) and are suggested to use in combination with
parasitoid wasps to maximize the biocontrol outcome. Predators are manure-inhabitants and like
parasitoids, can perform well at low moisture levels. Further, Dipteran larvae in the Genus
Hydrotaea are facultative predators of house fly maggots available commercially in US
(http://www.rinconvitova.com/fly_control.htm) and have been used for fly management in other
parts of the world (Nolan and Kissam 1987, Turner and Carter 1990, Turner et al. 1992, Hogsette
et al. 2002).
In addition to predators and parasitoids, several species of entomopathogenic nematodes
from the families Heterorhabditidae and Steinernematidae have been extensively studied for their
potential as biocontrol agents against flies, and one species, Steinernema feltiae from the family
Steinernematidae is available commercially in US
(http://www.rinconvitova.com/fly_control.htm). However, the majority of laboratory and semi-
field evaluations have ended-up with inconsistent results (Renn et al. 1985, Geden et al. 1986,
Belton et al. 1987, Mullens et al. 1987a, Renn 1995, Tylor et al. 1998). Chemically and
biologically harsh environments presented by manure and poor persistence of infective juveniles
in indoor environments make their use impractical (Renn 1995, 1998, Tylor et al. 1998, Renn and
18
Wright 2000). Further, a parasitic nematode, Paraiotonchium muscadomesticae can make female
flies sterile by invading the ovaries and spreading into the populations through mock oviposition
events (Coler and Nguyen 1994, Geden 1997), which with additional research on production,
formulation, storage and field delivery systems, has potential in fly management (Geden 2012).
Insect disease-causing bacteria are promising biocontrol agents in controlling fly larvae
and several studies have attempted to screen virulent isolates and to develop appropriate
formulations and field application strategies (Burns et al. 1961, Miller et al. 1971, Rupes et al.
1987, Johnson et al. 1998, Zhong et al. 2000). The majority of these works use exotoxin-
producing Bacillus thuriengiensis (Bt); however, rapidly developed resistance and safety
concerns of exotoxins to vertebrates have constrained their use (Harvey and Howell 1965,
Wilson and Burns 1968, McClintock et al. 1995, Tsai et al. 2003). The emphasis has shifted to
the use of endotoxin-producing Bt species, which have shown promising results both in
laboratory and field evaluations (Indrasith et al. 1992, Johnson et al. 1998, Choi et al. 2000,
Zhong et al. 2000, Labib and Rady 2001, Oh et al. 2004, Mwamburi et al. 2009, 2011).
Recently, Salivary Gland Hypertrophy Virus (MdSGHV), a double-stranded DNA virus
that causes enlargement and blue-whitish discoloration of salivary glands in adults as early
symptoms, has gained attention in fly management (Lietze et al. 2009, 2011, Geden 2012). The
viral replication and morphogenesis occur in salivary glands, and after invading ovaries at early
stages of fly development, the virus shuts down the female reproductive system and makes them
sterile (Lietze et al. 2007, 2010). Infected flies are usually short-lived and show low mating
success (Lietze et al. 2007). Very little is known about viral ecology and disease epidemiology
and further studies to develop formulation and application strategies are needed to exploit its
potential in fly management (Geden 2012).

19
Similarly, plant materials and plant-derived essential oils have been used since ancient
times to repel or kill flies and have recently drawn a renewed interest for commercialization and
use in poultry IPM (Malik et al. 2007, Geden 2012). A few plant-derived essential oil-products
are also available commercially; however, effective formulations and field application techniques
are still lacking (Geden 2012).
1.4.4.1. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents
Insect disease-causing fungi are obligate or saprophytic parasites that cause fatal diseases in
insects. More than 750 species are described from 100 genera and are associated with different
insects living in diverse habitats (Shah and Pell 2003). The entomopathogenic fungi fall into four
groups: the Oomycetes, the Zygomycetes, the Chytridiomycetes and the Deuteromycetes (Shah
and Goettel 1999). The fungi in the first three groups are more specialized with narrow host
ranges and have complex nutritional requirements for culture and mass production. The
Deuteromycetes; however, are generalists with a wider host range and can be cultured and mass-
produced in starch-rich media. The majority of the fungi currently used in biological control
belong to either Entomophthorales in the Zygomycetes or the class Hyphomycetes in the
Deuteromycetes (Shah and Pell 2003).
The group Entomophthorales contains more than 220 species, of which about 70 infect
and kill arthropods such as human disease vectors, spider mites, thrips, aphids, plant and
leafhoppers, locusts, grasshoppers, several lepidopterans and dipterans. Entomophthora muscae,
E. schizophora, E. maimaiga, E. aciculae, and E. grylli are the most important ones that attack
muscoid flies, gypsy moth, crickets and other important insect pests (Watson et al. 1993, Hajek
and St. Leger 1994, Roy et al. 2006). They are very efficient natural regulators and can reduce
host populations dramatically within a short period causing epizootics under ideal cool, humid
20
environments (Kramer and Steinkraus 1987, Mullens et al. 1987b, Geden et al. 1993, Steinkraus
et al. 1993, Watson and Petersen 1993a). In and around animal rearing facilities, more than 60-
77% epizootics have been recorded in natural fly populations (Mullens et al. 1987b, Steinkraus et
al. 1993, Watson and Petersen 1993a, Six and Mullens 1996). E. muscae and E. schizophora
have been extensively studied for their potential as biocontrol agents against flies (Mullens 1985,
Mullens and Rodriguez 1985, Mullens et al. 1987b, Geden et al. 1993, Watson and Petersen
1993a, b, Krasnoff et al. 1995); however, their commercial development has been constrained by
lack of effective culture media and mass-production techniques (Kramer and Steinkraus 1981).
Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae from the class Hyphomycetes are the
two most widely used entomopathogenic fungi to manage agricultural and forest insect pests
(Roberts 1989, Shah and Goettel 1999, Butt et al. 2001) and offer good potential as pesticide
alternatives to control house flies in the indoor environments of animal production facilities.
Although field populations of house flies usually have low rates of natural infections with these
fungi (Steinkraus et al. 1990, Skovgaard and Steenberg 2002), they show promising results in
laboratory and semi-field or field evaluations using various formulations (Steinkraus et al. 1990,
Kuramoto and Shimazu 1992, Barson et al. 1994, Geden et al. 1995, Watson et al. 1995, Renn et
al. 1999, Darwish and Zayed 2002, Kaufman et al. 2005, Lecuona et al. 2005, Malik et al. 2007,
Geden 2012). Vegetable and mineral oils can be combined with spores to protect spores from
rapid drying and aids in germination at low humidity (Bateman et al. 1993). These fungi are
highly compatible with chemical pesticides such as spinosad, larvadex and biocontrol agents
such as predators, parasitoids and other entomopathogens (Geden et al. 1995, Quintela and
McCoy 1998, Kaufman et al. 2005, Nielsen et al. 2005, Mwamburi et al. 2009, Farenhorst et al.
2010, Sharififard et al. 2011a, b).

21
1.4.4.1.1. Mode of action
Entomopathogenic fungi have a contact mode of action (Charnley 1989) and are suitable to apply
as residual sprays on fly resting surfaces. Fungi usually take five to seven days to kill host
insects; however, infected insects can live for much longer, depending on host type, dose and
environmental conditions (Thomas and Read 2007). The fungi reproduce by spores, also called
conidia that infect hosts by penetrating the cuticle. The outer layers of fungal conidia are
composed of interwoven fascicles of hydrophobic rodlets. It is the non-specific hydrophobic
forces imposed by the rodlets that facilitate adhesion to insect cuticle (Boucias et al. 1988,
Boucias and Pendland 1991). Additional proteins such as lectins and adhesins aid the binding of
spores to insect cuticle. Once conidia have attached to the cuticle, molecular and nutritional cues
as well as compatible microenvironments containing high humidity and/or moisture in the
immediate airspace above the cuticle cause them to germinate.
Conidia germination is greatly influenced by availability of water, nutrients, oxygen, the
correct pH and temperature and the presence of microbes and anti-fungal substances at the
cuticular surface (Sandhu 1995, Bouamama et al. 2010). Germinating conidia form appresoria,
which exert physical pressure on the cuticle, and penetration is usually through thinner areas of
cuticle such as intersegmental folds and body openings (Hajek and St. Leger 1994). Cuticle
invasion involves both enzymatic degradation and mechanical pressure (Clarkson and Charnley
1996). A range of extracellular enzymes that can degrade major components of cuticle including
chitinases, lipases, esterases and proteases are thought to be associated with the penetration
process with the outcome of such enzymatic degradation providing nutrients for fungal growth
(Hajek and St. Leger 1994, Shah and Pell 2003). Once inside the hemocoel, fungal cells multiply
and produce blastospores by budding and spread through hemolymph. The developing fungus
22
sequesters nutrients from the hemolymph and internal tissues and blocks the free flow of
hemolymph within the hemocoel. Host death is due to combined actions of nutrient
sequestration, tissue degradation and production of toxic metabolites (Samuels et al. 1988, Vey
and Quiot 1989, Clarkson and Charnley 1996). Under favorable environmental conditions, the
fungus will grow out of the cadaver and produce aerial conidia over the host surface (Feng et al.
1994), which eventually disseminate into the surrounding environments under influence of wind,
water and other factors.
Starting from conidial attachment to the cuticle, the fungus is subjected to insect immune
responses. The cuticle itself is a heavily sclerotized structure consisting of three different layers
and presents the primary physical barrier for penetration. Cuticle surfaces have several microbes
and chemicals and other antifungal substances, which interfere with conidia attachment and the
germination processes (Hajek and St. Leger 1994, Shah and Pell 2003). Even if the conidia are
able to germinate and penetrate the host cuticle under favorable environments, fungal cells have
to face several cellular and humoral immune responses. Once in the hemolymph, fungal cells
secret toxic metabolites that inhibit both cellular as well as humoral immune responses. Some of
immunosuppressive responses include inhibition of hemocyte pseudopod formation, retention of
phenoxidase expression (Huxham et al. 1989, Hung and Boucias 1992, Hung et al. 1993,
Pendland et al. 1993, Vilcinskas et al. 1997) and disruption of eicosanoid biosynthesis, a primary
defense compound in insects (Miller et al. 1994, Howard et al. 1998).
1.4.4.1.2. Use of fungi in fly management
Entomophthora muscae, E. schizophorae, Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana are
the most widely studied entomopathogenic fungi as fly biocontrol agents. Early studies of fungi
against flies before and during 1990s mostly focused on E. muscae and E. schizophorae to
23
understand their ecology and epidemiology, evaluate their biocontrol potential and to develop
appropriate culture media and mass production techniques. Entomophthora muscae and E.
schizophorae usually take four to six days to cause mortality, while speed of kill depends on host
age, dose and environmental conditions (Mullens 1985). Flies infected with these fungi usually
die in exposed places such as top of plants, fixed on walls or plant parts, which facilitates spore
dispersal. Typical infection symptoms in flies include a distended abdomen, legs spread and
wings out-stretched with the body attached to substrates by mouthparts (Maitland 1994). After
host death, fungi produce sexual spores called zygospores on cadaver surfaces, which are
forcibly discharged under ideal environmental conditions (Kalsbeek et al 2001a). Conidia
discharged from cadavers infect other flies in natural populations, and the duration and intensity
of conidia discharge and conidia survival and germination are temperature and humidity-
dependent (Mullens and Rodriguez 1985, Krasnoff et al. 1995, Six and Mullens 1996, Madeira
1998, Kalsbeek et al. 2001a).
In natural populations, E. muscae and E. schizophorae epizootics usually occur during
fall in temperate regions where infection rates commonly exceed 50% (Mullens et al. 1987b,
Steinkraus et al. 1993, Watson and Petersen 1993a, Six and Mullens 1996). As these fungi have
complex nutritional requirements for culture and mass production, previous studies have used
conidia shower, cadaver bait or mass-release of infected flies or sporulated cadavers to
contaminate populations for evaluating their control potential (Kramer and Steinkraus 1987,
Geden et al. 1993, Steinkraus et al. 1993, Watson and Peterson 1993b, Six and Mullens 1996).
Although the fungi have very good insecticidal properties, their commercial development is
constrained by short-lived conidia, intolerance to high temperature, complex nutritional
requirements, difficulty in mass production and poor conidia storage and stability (Kramer and
24
Steinkraus 1981, Geden 2012). Moreover, high fly populations are needed to sustain epizootics
in natural conditions (Geden et al. 1993) and flies have developed the ability to reduce virulence
and efficacy through behavioral fevering (thermoregulatory behavior) (Watson et al. 1993,
Kalsbeek et al. 2001b). Therefore, interests have shifted to B. bassiana and M. anisopliae, which
are easier to mass-produce with good conidia stability and shelf life, and have good commercial
potential (Blanford et al. 2012).
Relatively more focus has been given to B. bassiana as a fly biocontrol agent, while
studies evaluating control potential of M. anisopliae against flies are limited. Exposure to linseed
oil-formulated M. anisopliae has successfully prevented adult emergence and produced almost
100% mortality in adults within three to six days depending on formulation and dose (Barson et
al. 1994). Spores formulated in sugar-based baits caused 100% mortality within 10 days, and
housing of uninfected flies with fungal-infected cadavers produced more than 90% mortality
under semi-field setting in a plastic enclosure suggesting that horizontal spore transmission can
contribute to control (Renn et al. 1999). Temperature and humidity are crucial for optimal
infections, and temperature-dependent dose response was observed in M. anisopliae infection
(Carswell et al. 1998). At 25 and 30oC, fewer than 25 conidia were sufficient to kill a fly within
nine days, whereas more than 5000 conidia needed for the same impact at 20oC. Likewise, Rizzo
(1977) demonstrated that M. anisopliae isolates are slower to kill flies than B. bassiana and fly
age has no significant effect on virulence of fungal species; however, speed of kill varies with
isolates and species. Fernandes et al. (2013) tested an aviary-derived isolate of M. anisopliae
against larvae. Depending on the isolate, fungal infections caused up to 60% larval mortality 10
days post-application. Subsequent field testing of the most virulent isolate together with a
Metarhizium-based commercial product indicated that spores sprayed on manure reduced adult
25
populations by two-fold compared to controls; however, non-target impacts on manure-
inhabiting natural enemies, long-term spore persistence and sustainability of the manure
application technique still remain questionable.
Although B. bassiana has been successfully used against several insect pests in outdoor
agricultural settings (Kooyman et al. 1997, Burges 1998, Wraight et al. 2000, Wraight and
Ramos 2002), it gained attention in fly management only after Steinkraus et al. (1990) first
reported its natural occurrence in fly populations. Since then, several studies have evaluated its
virulence and efficacy against larvae and adults using different formulations as well as
application methods under laboratory conditions (Rizzo 1977, Geden et al. 1995, Watson et al.
1995, Carswell et al. 1998, Lecuona et al. 2005, Kaufman et al. 2008, Cova et al. 2009,
Mwamburi et al. 2010, Anderson et al. 2011, Mishra et al. 2011, Sharififard et al. 2011a, b,
Lopez-Sanchez et al. 2012, Mishra and Malik 2012) and semi-field or field settings (Watson et
al. 1996, Renn et al. 1999, Kaufman et al. 2005, Cova et al. 2009, Mwamburi et al. 2009, Mishra
et al. 2011, Fernandes et al. 2013). Dust formulations of fly-derived B. bassiana isolates applied
on plywood were more effective than aqueous, sugar-baits or fungus-contaminated water or food
formulations and caused 100% adult mortality within six days (Geden et al. 1995). Similarly, B.
bassiana spores mixed with wheat-flour produced significantly higher mortality than a Tween-80
plus aqueous formulation in a dose-dependent manner (Waston et al. 1995). A similar dose-
dependent pattern of mortality was observed with another B. bassiana isolate tested against
different ages of adults, yet mortality was not different among age groups (<1, 3, 7 and 14 days
post-eclosion) (Kaufman et al. 2008). Fly exposure to paper substrates treated with different
concentrations of B. bassiana and M. anisopliae (106, 108, 109 spores/ml) produced a dose-
dependent mortality (Anderson et al. 2011). Within two weeks post-exposure, 100% fly mortality
26
was achieved after exposure to a high dose (109 spores/ml) compared to 60-70% mortality in
three weeks with a low dose exposure (106 spores/ml). Based on isolates, B. bassiana caused
more than 90% mortality in adults within two days; however, it was only marginally effective
against larvae (Mwamburi et al. 2010). B. bassiana and M. anisopliae caused 28-100% mortality
in larval and adult populations depending on isolates, where adults were more susceptible to
fungal infections depending on formulation and method of application (Sharififard et al. 2011a).
Mishra and Malik (2012) demonstrated a similar pattern of higher fungal susceptibility in adults
under laboratory conditions where the infections caused 72-100 and 36-72% mortality in adults
and larvae, respectively, depending on isolates. In a similar study, B. bassiana isolates caused
significantly higher mortality in adults than larvae and pupae (Lecuona et al. 2005). Both B.
bassiana and M. anisopliae tested against house flies and stable flies in laboratory settings
demonstrated a great variation in efficacy among isolates, and the fungal infections caused 20-
91% mortality within one week post-exposure (Lopez-Sanchez et al. 2012). The study also
demonstrated temperature is a key factor that shapes vegetative and reproductive growth
characteristics in fungal pathogens with an optimal temperature for fungal biomass production
and sporulation at 27oC.
Semi-field or field evaluation reports of B. bassiana using different formulations and
application methods are limited. Sawdust bedding in calf hutches supported lower numbers of fly
larvae than straw bedding, and conidia sprayed on walls of calf hatches caused about 50%
mortality in adult populations (Watson et al. 1996). Water-based B. bassiana formulations used
as residual sprays in high-rise, caged-layer production barns substantially reduced adult
populations comparable to pyrethrin treatments (Kaufman et al. 2005). Fly exposure to mass
production residues of B. bassiana formulated as sugar-based baits has shown up to 90% adult
27
mortality within 15 days in semi-field settings (Lecuona et al. 2005). Weekly misting or fogging
of B. bassiana formulations for three weeks produced desired fly control in poultry barns;
however, it requires frequent re-treatments afterward for sustained population suppression (Cova
et al. 2009). Spores of B. brongniartii and B. bassiana applied inside poultry barns @ 9 x 107
conidia/ml caused a 14-100 and 36-100% reduction in adult populations, respectively (Cova et
al. 2009). M. anisopliae has shown 100% fly mortality within four to five days under laboratory
and simulated field settings and was found to be more effective than B. bassiana (Mishra et al.
2011). Likewise, B. bassiana in combination with Bt and a commercial larvicide (larvadex) has
substantially reduced fly populations compared to B. bassiana, Bt or larvadex alone suggesting
that the fungus is compatible with and can work synergistically with other biopesticide products
and insect growth regulators (Mwamburi et al. 2009). M. anisopliae applied with sub-lethal
doses of a chemical insecticide, spinosad caused more than 95% adult mortality compared to
only 72% alone indicating that the fungus can be used synergistically with biorational pesticides
(Sharififard et al. 2011b).
1.4.4.1.3. Post-application persistence in field settings
The effectiveness of fungal biopesticides depends on persistence of the product in treated
environments (Inyang et al. 2000, Jackson et al. 2010), and post-application longevity is
influenced by several biotic and abiotic factors and their interactions (Jackson et al. 2010,
Jaronski 2010). Persistence of spray residues is an important field performance attribute that
optimizes application parameters as well as economizes reapplications. There are two ways that
hosts acquire infective propagules- direct contact, conidia directly sprayed over the hosts and
indirect contact, secondary attachment of conidia indirectly through contact of treated surfaces
after spray applications (Jaronski 2010). The latter is the most common route of conidia
28
acquisition following field applications, hence good coverage and persistence of infective
propagules on treated surfaces and/or in treated environments is necessary for effective and
sustained control (Meekes et al. 2000).
Spores are usually short-lived under natural outdoor environments. The decline of conidia
persistence and infectivity on plant surfaces largely depends on solar radiation, temperature,
humidity, rainfall, leaf surface chemistry, phylloplane microbiota and interactions among them
(Inglis et al. 1993, 1995, Fargues et al. 1996, Jaronski and Goettel 1997, Moore et al. 1997,
Costa et al. 2001). Solar radiation, particularly the ultraviolet component, and temperature are
two key drivers that determine the fate of spray residues in epigeal habitats (Jaronski 2010). In
open outdoor settings, the half-life of conidia following application ranges from few hours to few
days, and UV-A (320-400 nm) and UV-B (280-320 nm) components are considered damaging
and mainly responsible for conidia death and delayed germination (Moore et al. 1993, Braga et
al. 2001). Persistence reduction by solar radiation is also affected by location of spray
application, formulations and fungal species or isolates. For example, conidia applied on the
lower plant canopy and/or lower leaf surface are relatively long-lived than those on the upper
canopy and/or upper leave surfaces due to shading effects (Jaronski 2010). Spores formulated in
oils tend to have longer persistence, as oils can protect spores from rapid drying and aid in
germination at low humidity (Bateman et al. 1993). Metarhizium acridum conidia were more
resistant to UV radiation than B. bassiana and M. anisopliae, and a significant difference exists
among isolates of the same species. Further, rainfall washes off sprayed inoculum from the
treated surfaces especially in aboveground applications depending on formulation type and
reduces the numbers of effective propagules needed to infect hosts. Oil-formulated conidia, for
29
instance, were more stable and less likely to be washed away by rainwater compared to aqueous
and other wettable and emulsifiable formulations (Inglis et al. 1999, Inyang et al. 2000).
Temperature is another important abiotic factor that determines conidia germination,
penetration and overall disease progress (Fargues et al. 1997). In outdoor settings, fungal
efficacy depends on ambient temperature and season. For instance, B. bassiana, isolate GHA
efficacy in the field against Lygus Hesperus was much lower in July compared to June of the
same year (Noma and Strickler 1999). The temperature regimes within a plant canopy keep on
fluctuating, mostly exceed 30oC during day and are much cooler at night. Temperatures below
16oC increasingly slow germination and growth rate of most fungi and influence efficacy of
spray residues (Inglis et al. 1999, Ihara et al. 2008). The daily ambient temperature regime is
mostly beyond 30oC and insects such as house flies can raise their body temperature through
behavioral fevering and sun basking activities (Watson et al. 1993, Kalsbeek et al. 2001b,
Anderson et al. 2013a, b), whereas night temperature is cold enough to slow germination within
insects. Moreover, some isolates within the same species have better tolerance to the upper or
lower thermal limits depending on origin; therefore, selection of right isolates according to
climatic condition is critical (Fargues et al. 1996, Bugeme et al. 2009). Thermoregulatory
behaviors in insects may slow down germination and penetration and sometimes hosts can clear
infection (Quedraogo et al. 2004, Anderson et al. 2013a, b). Temperature also has indirect effects
on host immune response as high temperature has shown to enhance humoral immune response
in Galleria mellonella (Wojda et al. 2009). Galleria larvae exposed to 38oC before injecting
blastopores increase their survival time compared with non-heat shocked control larvae. Most
fungal entompathogens have thermal optima within 23-30oC, and germination and growth is
severely affected above 30oC. In addition, humidity and moisture also play an important role
30
during conidia germination and sporulation after host death. Moisture and humidity particularly
at the microspace above insect cuticle affects conidia germination and host penetration. Oil-
based formulations can cover conidia and prevent excessive moisture loss thereby helps provide
moist conditions for germination (Bateman et al. 1993).
Studies examining post-application persistence of conidia in indoor settings are limited.
One study on house flies examined the persistence of B. bassiana spores formulated in Tween 80
and water and demonstrated that spores remained infective for about four weeks on plywood
exposed inside animal barns and caused up to 97% adult mortality (Watson et al. 1995). Another
unpublished report showed that spores could survive for more than seven weeks in poultry litter
and more than three weeks on sprayed surfaces (Arends and Black 2000,
http://www.rinconvitova.com/balence%20fly%20control.htm). Other studies examining conidia
persistence following application in protected environments (i.e. not open field) in both
agriculture and human health contexts have shown highly variable results. Persistence studies in
protected crop settings, such as soil inoculation and green houses, have shown that spores can
persist for months or even years (O’Callaghan 1998, Vanninen et al. 2000, Costa et al. 2001,
Milner et al. 2003, Pliz et al. 2011). More recently, oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana were
shown to remain infective to Anopheles mosquitoes for five to seven months on clay tiles.
Nonetheless, persistence lasted for only about two to three months on concrete and wood tiles
(Blanford et al. 2012). In other mosquito studies, pathogenic effects of B. bassiana applied on
mud panel, black cloth and polyester netting caused 73-80% mortality in 14 days with overall
mortality being substrate-dependent (Mnyone et al. 2009, 2010). In addition, fungal isolates can
also show considerable variations in their ability to remain viable after application, particularly
Metarhizium spp. showing little germination after three weeks, whereas other B. bassiana
31
isolates maintained ≥ 50% viability in 14 weeks after spray application (Darbro and Thomas
2009).
1.5. Current scenarios of fly management in poultry production units
Current fly management strategies in the poultry production facilities involve a combination of
cultural, biological and chemical tactics (Axtell 1986, Malik et al. 2007). Manure management
and other cultural practices aimed at keeping manure dry to disrupt fly developmental cycles can
prevent population build up, but are not always effective (Axtell and Arends 1990, Hinton and
Moon 2003). Biocontrol agents such as predators and parasitoids can also play an important role
in fly management (Axtell 1986a, Crespo et al. 1998, Geden and Hogsette 2006, Geden 2012),
but most agents target juvenile stages necessitating multispecies releases, and their efficacy is
influenced by concurrent use of broad-spectrum chemical pesticides and insufficient manure
moisture management (Geden et al. 1992b, Axtell 1999, Rutz and Scott 1999). Organophosphate,
carbamate and pyrethroid-based sprays and baits can contribute to control (Axtell 1986,
Kaufman et al. 2005), but flies have developed resistance to almost all commonly used chemical
insecticides and resistance is now a global problem (Scott et al. 2000, Kaufman et al. 2001c,
Geden 2012). In addition, the poultry industry continues to lose many currently registered
organophosphate and carbamate pesticides for fly management due to regulatory constraints
(Food Quality Protection Act, Egg Safety Rule; Kaufman et al. 2005, FDA 2009). Further,
development of new chemistries is costly and time-consuming and effective chemicals are
increasingly becoming dearth on the market. Thus, biologically based, integrated fly
management as part of an overall IPM is needed, and the poultry industry is readily adopting
such an approach for sustainable management of arthropod pests including filth flies (Sheppard
32
et al. 1992, Axtell 1999, Kaufman et al. 2005). As a part of this strategy, biopesticides containing
naturally occurring entomopathogenic fungi such as Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium
anisopliae offer potential alternatives to chemical pesticides for fly management in poultry
production facilities.
Several studies evaluated the potential for strains of B. bassiana to infect and kill house
flies through a range of simple laboratory, semi-field and field evaluations (see Section
1.4.4.1.2). Much of this fly research focuses on direct mortality effects of fungi on flies, with
relatively little emphasis on other operationally relevant properties such as infectivity and
persistence. Currently, just one B. bassiana-based biopesticide product, balEnceTM (Terregena
Inc., USA) is commercially available to treat manure and fly-resting surfaces as a larvicide and
adulticide in animal production units; however, there is limited information available on its
persistence on treated surfaces and/or in the interior environments of the poultry houses. Conidia
sprayed on the manure surface are also likely to succumb to complex biological and chemical
conditions (saprophytic microbes, heat, humidity, nitrogenous waste product, toxic gases etc.),
and can threaten non-target species, especially other natural enemies associated with the manure
(Geden et al. 1995, Geden 2012). Fungal application without knowing the fate of the inoculum in
treated environments unnecessarily increases treatment costs making the technology less
appealing to poultry growers. Further, an important element in the successful development of a
biopesticide product is an efficient delivery system. The commercial product has been
recommended to apply three to four times per week depending on fly population pressure
(http://terregena.com/balEnce/product-info); however, its current formulation and delivery
methods add unnecessary water onto the manure and structural substrates (Kaufman et al. 2005).
These practices with additional water promote fly population build-up through increasing
33
manure moisture for oviposition and larval development. The balEnceTM strategy is costly, labor-
intensive and creates additional challenges for manure moisture management. In this context, the
poultry industry desperately needs an ecofriendly and user-friendly field delivery strategy that
could improve the efficiency of available products as well as economize application parameters
and give long-term fly suppression in a cost-effective manner.
Considering these shortcomings, this dissertation reports on a series of laboratory and
field studies designed to address several questions related to field application, performance and
persistence of fungal biopesticides, particularly Beauveria bassiana, one of the leading
candidates for development as a fly biopesticide in the poultry houses. The specific objectives of
the study were:
 To evaluate the potential for biocontrol of house flies using fungal biopesticides,
Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae,
 To evaluate persistence and efficacy of a B. bassiana biopesticide against the house fly on
typical structural substrates of poultry houses,
 To assess the impact of fly population on persistence and efficacy of a B. bassiana
biopesticide under laboratory conditions, and
 To evaluate persistence and efficacy of a B. bassiana biopesticide against house flies in a
commercial high-rise layer house.
1.6. Dissertation outline
The dissertation is divided into the following sections:

34
Chapter 2. Potential for biocontrol of house flies using fungal biopesticides, B. bassiana and
M. anisopliae
This chapter evaluates the potential of barrier application technique for fungal biopesticides in
plastic containers whereby newly emerged adult flies are targeted via the application of oil-
formulated spores to inexpensive contractor-grade plastic sheeting, fixed to the lower section of
basement walls. Specifically, the section tests population control potential of the fungal
biopesticides through lethal and sub-lethal impacts on flies under laboratory conditions.
Chapter 3. Persistence and efficacy of a B. bassiana biopesticide against the house fly, Musca
domestica, on typical structural substrates of poultry houses
This chapter investigates the persistence and infectivity of an oil-based formulation of B.
bassiana applied to cinder block (painted or left bare), cement board and wood that constitute the
primary wall materials found in poultry production facilities. Fungal persistence and efficacy are
assessed on contractor-grade plastic sheeting as potential wall covering materials prior fungal
application.
Chapter 4. Impact of fly population on persistence and efficacy of a B. bassiana biopesticide
under laboratory conditions
The chapter investigates impacts of long-term exposure of different fly densities on conidia
persistence and efficacy under laboratory conditions.
Chapter 5. Persistence and efficacy of a B. bassiana biopesticide against the house fly, Musca
domestica in a commercial high-rise layer house
In this chapter, conidia persistence and efficacy against house flies are evaluated in a
commercial high-rise barn at two different seasons using contractor-grade plastic sheets as a
35
fungal carrier substrate. Conidia longevity and efficacy are also evaluated under laboratory
conditions against flies.
Chapter 6. Conclusions and broader implications
In this chapter, salient findings from all aforementioned projects and their implications using
entomopathogenic fungal biopesticides in managing house fly populations in poultry houses are
presented with current pitfalls and future directions.

36
1.7. References
Abrams, L. (1976). Cestodosis in battery-housed laying hens. Journal of South African

Veterinary Associations, 47, 171-173.
Ahmad, A., Nagaraja, T. G., and Zurek, L. (2007). Transmission of Escherichia coli O157: H7 to
cattle by house flies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 80, 74-81.
Anderson, J. R., and Poorbaugh, J. H. (1964). Observations on the ethology and ecology of
various Diptera associated with Northern California poultry ranches. Journal of Medical
Entomology, 1, 131-147.
Anderson, R. D., Bell, A. S., Blanford, S., Paaijmans, K. P., and Thomas, M. B. (2011).
Comparative growth kinetics and virulence of four different isolates of
entomopathogenic fungi in house fly (Musca domestica L.) Journal of Invertebrate
Pathology, 107, 179-184.
Anderson, R. D., Blanford, S., Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (2013a). Discriminating fever
behavior in house flies. Plos One, 8(4), e62269.
Anderson, R. D., Blanford, S., and Thomas, M. B. (2013b). House flies delay fungal infection by
fevering–at a cost. Ecological Entomology, 38, 1-10.
Arends, J., and Black, W. (2000) Evaluation of viability degradation over time of Beauveria
bassiana conidia applied to poultry manure and litter: final report. Project number:
JABB/02100, 70787/TGAI/12. Unpublished study prepared by Jabb of the
Carolinas.16p.
Axtell, R. C. (1986a). Biological control of muscoid flies. In: Patterson, R. S., and Rutz, D. A.
(eds.). Entomological Society of America (miscellaneous publications), 61, 1-9.
Axtell, R. C. (1986b). Fly management in poultry production: cultural, biological, and chemical.
Poultry Science, 65, 657-667.
Axtell, R. C. (1999). Poultry integrated pest management: status and future. Integrated Pest
Management Review, 4(1), 53-73.
Axtell, R. C., and Arends, J. J. (1990). Ecology and management of arthropod pests of poultry.
Annual Review of Entomology, 35, 101-126.
37
Axtell, R. C., and Rutz, D. A. (1986). Role of parasites and predators as biological control agents
in poultry production facilities. In: Patterson, R. S., and Rutz, D. A. (eds.).
Entomological Society of America (miscellaneous publications), 61, 88-100.
Barro, N., Aly, S., Tidiane, O. C. A., and Sababenedjo, T. A. (2006). Carriage of bacteria by
proboscises, legs, and feces of two species of flies in street food vending sites in
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Journal of Food Protection, 69(8), 2007-10.
Barson, G., Renn, N., and Bywater, A. F. (1994). Laboratory evaluation of six species of
entomopathogenic fungi for the control of the house fly (Musca domestica L.), a pest of
intensive animal units. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 64, 107-113.
Bateman, R. P., Carey, M., Moore, D., and Prior, C. (1993). The enhanced infectivity of
Metarhizium flavoviride in oil formulations to desert locusts at low humidities. Annals of
Applied Biology, 122(1), 145-152.
Beck, A. F., and Turner, E. C. (1985). A comparison of five house fly (Diptera: Muscidae)
population monitoring techniques. Journal of Medical Entomology, 22(3), 346-348.
Belton, P., Rutherford, T. A., Trotter, D. B., and Webster, J. M. (1987). Heterorhabditis
heliothidis: A potential biological control agent of house flies in caged-layer poultry
barns. Journal of Nematology, 19, 263-266.
Blanford, S., Jenkins, N. E., Christian, R., Chan B. H. K., Nardini, L., Osae, M., Koekemoer, L.,
Coetzee, M., Read, A. F., and Thomas, M. B. (2012). Storage and persistence of a
candidate fungal biopesticide for use against adult malaria vectors. Malaria Journal, 11,
354.
Bloomcamp, C. L., Patterson, R. S., and Koehler, P. G. (1987). Cyromazine resistance in the
housefly (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 80, 352-357.
Bouamama, N., Vidal, C., and Fargues, J. (2010). Effects of fluctuating moisture and temperature
regimes on the persistence of quiescent conidia of Isaria fumosorosea. Journal of
Invertebrate Pathology, 105(2), 139-144.
Boucias, D. G., and Pendland, J. C. (1991). Attachment of mycopathogens to cuticle, the initial
event of mycoses in arthropod hosts. In: Cole, G.T., and Hoch, H.C. (eds.). The fungal
spore and disease initiation in plants and animals, Plenum, New York, 101-127.
38
Boucias, D. G., Pendland, J. C., and Latge, J. P. (1988). Nonspecific factors involved in
attachment of entomopathogenic Deuteromycetes to host insect cuticle. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 54 (7), 1795-1805.
Boxler, D. J., and Campbell, J. B. (1983). Survey of resistance by housefly, Musca domestica L.
(Diptera: Muscidae), to dichlorvos in Nebraska feedlots. Journal of the Kansas
Entomological Society, 56, 159-163.
Braga, G. U. L., Flint, S. D., Miller, C. D., Anderson, A. J., and Roberts, D. W. (2001). Both
solar UVA and UVB radiation impair conidial culturability and delay germination in the
entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Photochemistry and Photobiology,
74(5), 734-739.
Braverman, Y., Chizov-Ginzburg, A., Saran, A., and Winkler, M. (1999). The role of houseflies
(Musca domestica L.) in harboring Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis in dairy herds
in Israel. Scientific and Technical Review, 18(3), 681-90.
Broce, A. B., and Elzinga, R. J. (1984). Comparison of prestomal teeth in the face fly (Musca
autumnalis) and house fly (Musca domestica) (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Medical
Bugeme, D. M., Knapp, M., Boga, H. I., Wanjoya, A. K., and Maniania, N. K. (2009). Influence
of temperature on virulence of fungal isolates of Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria
bassiana to the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae. Mycopathologia, 167(4),
221-227.
Burg, J. G., and Axtell, R. C. (1984). Monitoring housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera, Muscidae)
populations in caged-layer poultry houses using a baited jug-trap. Environmental
Entomology, 13, 1083-1090.
Burges, H. D. (ed.) (1998). Formulation of microbial biopesticides: beneficial microorganisms,

nematodes and seed treatments. Kluwer, Dordrecht.412p.
Burns, E. C., Tower, B. A., and Wilson, B. H. (1961). Effect of feeding Bacillus thuringiensis to
caged layers for fly control. Journal of Economic Entomology, 54, 913-921.
Butler, S. M., Gerry, A. C., and Mullens, B. A. (2007). House fly (Diptera: Muscidae) activity
near baits containing (Z)-9-tricosene and efficacy of commercial toxic fly baits on a
Southern California dairy. Journal of Economic Entomology, 100, 1489-1495.
39
Butt, T. M., Jackson, C. W., and Magan, N. (eds.). (2001). Fungi as biocontrol agents: progress,
problems and potential. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 390p.
Calibeo-Hayes, D., Denning, S. S., Stringham, S. M., Guy, J. S., Smith, L. G., and Watson, D. W.
(2003). Mechanical transmission of turkey corona virus by domestic houseflies (Musca
domestica L.). Avian Diseases, 47, 149-153.
Carswell, I., Spooner‐Hart, R., and Milner, R. J. (1998). Laboratory susceptibility of Musca
domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) and Bactrocera tryoni (Frogatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae)
to an isolate of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorokin. Australian Journal of
Entomology, 37(3), 281-284.
Chakrabarti, S., Kambhampati, S., and Zurek, L. (2010). Assessment of house fly dispersal
between rural and urban habitats in Kansas, USA. Journal of the Kansas Entomological
Society, 83, 172-188.
Chapman, R. F. (1998). The insects: structure and function. 4th edition. Cambridge University
Press, UK. 770p.
Charnley, A. K. (1989). Mechanisms of fungal pathogenesis in insects. In: Whipps, J. M., and
Lumsden, R. D. (eds.). The Biotechnology of Fungi for Improving Plant Growth.
Cambridge University, London, UK, 85-125.
Choi, C. S., Chung, Y. S., Kim, W. Y., and Chung, S. I. (2000). Isolation of Bacillus sphaericus
and Bacillus thuringiensis displaying insecticidal activity against mosquito (Culex
pipiens) and house fly (Musca domestica). Korean Journal of Veterinary and Public
Health, 24, 169-180.
Clarkson, J. M., and Charnley, A. K. (1996). New insights into the mechanisms of fungal
pathogenesis in insects. Trends in Microbiology, 4, 197-203.
Cohen, D., Green, M., Block, C., Slepon, R., Ambar, R., Wasserman, S., and Levine, M. M.
(1991). Reduction of transmission of shigellosis by control of houseflies (Musca
domestica). Lancet, 337(8748), 993-997.
Coler, R. R., and Nguyen, K. B. (1994). Paraiotonchium muscadomesticae n. sp. (Tylenchida:
Iotonchidae) a parasite of house fly (Musca domestica) in Brazil and key to species of
the genus Paraiotonchium. Journal of Nematology, 26, 392-401.
40
Cosse, A. A., and Baker, T. C. (1996). House flies and pig manure volatiles: Wind tunnel
behavioral studies and electrophysiological evaluations. Journal of Agricultural
Costa, H. S., Robb, K. L., and Wilen, C. A. (2001). Increased persistence of Beauveria bassiana
spore viability under high ultraviolet-blocking greenhouse plastic. Horticultural Science,
36 (6), 1082-1084.
Cova, L. J., Scorza-Dagert, J. V., Garcia, D. E., Canizales, L. M., Guedez, C. D., Avendano, M.
L., and Medina, M. G. (2009). Effect of Beauveria bassiana and Beauveria brongniartii
for the house fly (Musca domestica) control on laboratory and poultry sheds conditions.
Boletin De Malariologia Y Salud Ambiental, 49(1), 151-160.
Crespo, D. C., Lecuona, R. E., and Hogsette, J. A. (1998). Biological control: An important
component in integrated management of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in
caged-layer poultry houses in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Biological Control, 13, 16-24.
Darbro, J., and Thomas, M. B. (2009). Spore persistence and likely aeroallergenicity of
entomopathogenic fungi used for mosquito control. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 80(6), 992-997.
Darwish, E., and Zayed, A. (2002). Pathogenicity of two entomopathogenic Hyphomycetes,

Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, to the housefly Musca domestica L.
Journal of the Egyptian Society for Parasitology, 32, 785-796.
Davidson, J. (1944). The relationship between temperature and rate of development of insects at
constant temperatures. Journal of Animal Ecology, 13, 26-38.
Davidson, T., and Braverman, Y. (2005). Insect contribution to horizontal transmission of
Reticuloendotheliosis virus. Journal of Medical Entomology, 42, 128-133.
Deacutis, J. M., Leichter, C. A., Gerry, A. C., Rutz, D. A., Watson, W. D., Geden, C. J., and Scott,
J. G. (2006). Susceptibility of field collected house flies to Spinosad before and after a
season of use. Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology, 23, 105-110.
Dhillon, A. S., Roy, P., Lauerman, L., Schaberg, D., Weber, S., Bandli, D., and Wier, F. (2004).
High mortality in egg layers as a result of necrotic enteritis. Avian Diseases, 48, 675-
680.
41
Dipeolu, O. O. (1982). Laboratory investigations into the role of Musca vicina and Musca
domestica in the transmission of parasitic helminth eggs and larvae. International
Journal of Zoonoses, 9(1), 57-61.
Farenhorst, M., Knols, B. G. J., Thomas, M. B., Howard, A. F. V., Takken, W., Rowland, M., and
N'Guessan, R. (2010). Synergy in efficacy of fungal entomopathogens and permethrin
against West African insecticide-resistant Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. Plos One,
5(8), e12081.
Fargues, J., Goettel, M. S., Smits, N., Ouedraogo, A., and Rougier, M. (1997). Effect of
temperature on vegetative growth of Beauveria bassiana isolates from different origins.
Mycologia, 89(3), 383-392
Fargues, J., Goettel, M. S., Smits, N., Ouedraogo, A., Vidal, C., Lacey, L. A., Lomer, C. J., and
Rougier, M. (1996). Variability in susceptibility to simulated sunlight of spores among
isolates of entomopathogenic Hyphomycetes. Mycopathologia, 135,171-181.
Feng, M. G., Proprawski, T. J., and Khachatourians, G. C. (1994). Production, formulation and
application of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana for insect control:
current status. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 4, 3-34.
Fernandes, E. G., Valério, H. M., Borges, M. A. Z., Mascarin, G. M., Silva, C. E., and Van Der
Sand, S. T. (2013). Selection of fungi for the control of Musca domestica in aviaries.
Biocontrol Science and Technology, 23 (11), 1256-1266.
Fetene, T., and Worku, N. (2009). Public health importance of non-biting cyclorrhaphan flies.
Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 103, 187-191.
Fischer, O., Matlova, L., Dvorska, L., Svastova, P., Bartl, J., Melicharek, I., Weston, R. T., and
Pavlic, I. (2001). Diptera as vectors of mycobacterial infections in cattle and pigs.
Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 15, 208-211.
Fletcher, M. G., Axtell, R. C., and Stinner, R. E. (1990). Longevity and fecundity of Musca
domestica (Diptera, Muscidae) as a function of temperature. Journal of Medical
Foetedar, R., Banarjee, U., Samantray, J. C., and Shriniwa, S. (1982). Vector potential of hospital
house flies with special reference to Klebsiella species. Epidemiology and Infection, 109
(1), 143-147.
42
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). Egg safety final rule. http://www.fda.gov.
Forster, M., Klimpel, S., and Sievert, K. (2009). The house fly (Musca domestica) as a potential
vector of metazoan parasites caught in a pig-pen in Germany. Veterinary Parasitology,
160, 163-167.
Forster, M., Klimpel, S., Mehlhorn, H., Sievert, K., Messler, S., and Pfeffer, K. (2007). Pilot
study on synanthropic flies (e.g. Musca, Sarcophaga, Calliphora, Fannia, Lucilia,
Stomoxys) as vectors of pathogenic microorganisms. Parasitology Research, 101(2),
243-246.
Fotedar, R., Banerjee, U., Singeh, S., Shriniwas, S. L., and Verma, A. K. (1992). The housefly
(Musca domestica) as a carrier of pathogenic microorganisms in a hospital environment.
Journal of Hospital Infection, 20(3), 209-215.
Frankel, G., and Bhaskaran, G. (1973). Pupariation and pupation in cyclorrhaphous flies
(Diptera): terminology and interpretation. Annals of Entomological Society of America,
66, 418-422.
Geden, C. J. (1990). The role of coleopteran and acarine predators in house fly population
regulation in poultry production facilities. In: Rutz, D. A., and Patterson, R. A. (eds).
Biocontrol of Arthropods Affecting Livestock and Poultry, West view Press, Boulder,
177-200.
Geden, C. J. (1997). Evaluation of Paraiotonchium muscadomesticae, a potential biological
control agent of the house fly. Biological Control, 10, 42-47.
Geden, C. J. (2012). Status of biopesticides for control of house flies. Journal of Biopesticides, 5,
1-11.
Geden, C. J., and Hogsette, J. A. (2006). Suppression of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) in
Florida poultry houses by sustained releases of Muscidifurax raptorellus and Spalangia
cameroni (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Environmental Entomology, 35, 75-82.
Geden, C. J., Arends, J. J., Axtell, R. C., Barnard, D. R, Gaydon, D. M., Hickle, L. A., Hogsette,
J. A., Mullens, B. A., Jr Nolan, M. P., PI Nolan, M. I. I., Petersen, J. J., and Sheppard, D.
C. (2001). Research and extension needs for integrated management programs for
livestock and poultry. In: Geden, C. J., and Hogsette, J. A. (eds.). Proceedings of a
workshop in Lincoln, Nebraska, April 12-14. 328p.
43
Geden, C. J., Axtell, R. C., and Brooks, W. M. (1986). Susceptibility of the house fly, Musca
domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) to the entomogenous nematodes Steinernema feltiae, S.
glaseri (Steinernematidae) and Heterorhabditis heliothidis (Heterorhabditidae). Journal
of Medical Entomology, 23, 326-332.
Geden, C. J., Rutz, D. A., and Steinkraus, D. C. (1995). Virulence of different isolates and
formulations of Beauveria bassiana for house flies and the parasitoid Muscidifurax
raptor. Biological Control, 5, 615-621.
Geden, C. J., Rutz, D. A., Scott, J. G., and Long, S. J. (1992b). Susceptibility of house-flies
(Diptera, Muscidae) and 5 pupal parasitoids (Hymenoptera, Pteromalidae) to abamectin
and 7 commercial insecticides. Journal of Economic Entomology, 85, 435-440.
Geden, C. J., Steinkraus, D. C., and Rutz, D. A. (1993). Evaluation of 2 methods for release of
Entomophthora muscae (Entomophthorales, Entomophthoraceae) to infect house-flies
(Diptera, Muscidae) on dairy farms. Environmental Entomology, 22, 1201-1208.
Geden, C. J., Steinkraus, D. C., Miller, R. W., and Rutz, D. A. (1992a). Suppression of house
flies on New York and Maryland dairies using Muscidifurax raptor in an integrated
management program. Environmental Entomology, 21, 1419-1426.
Getachew, S., Gebre-Michael, T., Erko, B., Balkew, M., and Medhin, G. (2007). Non-biting
cyclorrhaphan flies (Diptera) as carriers of intestinal human parasites in slum areas of
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Acta Tropica, 103(3), 186-194.
Graczyk, T. K., Cranfield, M. R., Fayer, R., and Bixler, H. (1999). House flies (Musca
domestica) as transport hosts of Cryptosporidium parvum. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 613, 500-504.
Graczyk, T. K., Knight, R., Gilman, R. H., and Cranfield, M. R. (2001). The role of non-biting
flies in the epidemiology of human infectious diseases. Microbes and Infection, 3, 231-
235.
Graham, J. P., Boland, J. J., and Silbergeld, E. K. (2007). Growth promoting antibiotics in food
animal production: an economic analysis. Public Health Report, 122, 79-87.
Green, A. R., Wesley, I., Trampel, D. W., and Xin, H. (2009). Air quality and hen health status in
three types of commercial laying hen houses. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 18,
605-621.
44
Greenberg, B. (ed.). (1973). Flies and diseases Vol II, Biology and disease transmission.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Greene, G. L., Hogsette, J. A., and Patterson, R. S. (1989). Parasites that attack stable fly and
house fly (Diptera, Muscidae) puparia during the winter on dairies in Northwestern
Florida. Journal of Economic Entomology, 82, 412-415.
Grubel, P., Hoffman, J. S., Chong, F. K., Burstein, N. A., Mepani, C., and Cave, D. R. (1997).
Vector potential of houseflies (Musca domestica) for Helicobacter pylori. Journal of
Clinical Microbiology, 35, 1300-1303.
Hajek, A. E., and St. Leger, R. J. (1994). Interactions between fungal pathogens and insect hosts.
Annual Review of Entomology, 39, 293-322.
Hald, B., Skovgard, H., Bang, D. D., Pedersen, K., Dybdahl, J., Jespersen, J. B., and Madsen, M.
(2004). Flies and Campylobacter infection of broiler flocks. Emerging Infectious
Diseases, 10, 1490-1492.
Hanec, W. (1956). A study of the environmental factors affecting the dispersion of house flies
(Musca domestica L.) in a dairy community near Fort Whyte, Manitoba. Canadian
Entomologist, 88, 270-272.
Harvey, T. L., and Howell, D. E. (1965). Resistance of the house flies to Bacillus thuringiensis
Berliner. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 7, 92-100.
Hedges, S. A. (1990). Handbook of Pest Control. Franzak and Foster Co., Cleveland, OH.
Hillerton, J. E., and Bramley, A. J. (1985). Carriage of Corynebacterium pyogenes by the cattle
nuisance flies Hydrotaea irritans (Fallen) and Musca autumnalis (De Geer). Veterinary
Parasitology, 18, 223-228.
Hindle, E., and Merriman, G. (1914). The range of flight of Musca domestica. Journal of
Hygiene, 14, 23-45.
Hinton, J. L., and Moon, R. D. (2003). Arthropod populations in high-rise, caged-layer houses
after three manure cleanout treatments. Journal of Economic Entomology, 96, 1352-
1361.
Hogsette, J. A., Farkas, R., and Coler, R. R. (2002). Development of Hydrotaea aenescens
(Diptera: Muscidae) in manure of unweaned dairy calves and lactating cows. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 95, 527-530.
45
Hogsette, J. A., Jacobs, R. D., and Miller, R. W. (1993). The sticky card - Device for studying the
distribution of adult house-fly (Diptera, Muscidae) populations in closed poultry Houses.
Journal of Economic Entomology, 86, 450-454.
Howard, R. W., Miller, J. S., and Stanley, D. W. (1998). The influence of bacterial species and
intensity of infections on nodule formation in insects. Journal of Insect Physiology, 44,
157-164.
Hung, S. Y., and Boucias, D. G. (1992). Influence of Beauveria bassiana on the cellular defense
response of the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology,
60, 152-158.
Hung, S. Y., Boucias, D. G., and Vey, A. J. (1993). Effect of Beauveria bassiana and Candida
albicans on the cellular defense response of Spodoptera exigua. Journal of Invertebrate
Pathology, 61, 179-187.
Huxham, I. M., Lackie, A. M., and Mccorkindale, N. J. (1989). Inhibitory effects of
cyclodepsipeptides, destruxins, from the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae, on cellular
immunity in insects. Journal of Insect Physiology, 35, 97-105.
Ihara, F., Toyama, M., Mishiro, K., and Yaginuma, K. (2008). Laboratory studies on the infection
of stink bugs with Metarhizium anisopliae strain FRM515. Applied Entomology and
Zoology, 43(4), 503-509.
Indrasith, L. S., Suzuki, N., Ogiwara, K., Asano, S. and Hori, H. (1992). Activated insecticidal
crystal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis serovars killed adult house flies. Letters in
Applied Microbiology, 14, 174-177.
Inglis, G. D., Goettel, M. S., and Johnson, D. L. (1993). Persistence of the Entomopathogenic
fungus, Beauveria bassiana, on phylloplanes of crested wheatgrass and alfalfa.
Biological Control, 3, 258-270.
Inglis, G. D., Goettel, M. S., and Johnson, D. L. (1995). Influence of ultraviolet light protectants
on persistence of the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana. Biological Control,
5, 581-590.
Inglis, G. D., Ivie, T. J., Duke, G. M., and Goettel, M. S. (1999). Influence of rain and conidial
formulation on persistence of Beauveria bassiana on potato leaves and Colorado potato
beetle larvae. Biological control, 18, 55-64.
46
Inyang, E. N., McCartney, H. A., Oyejola, B., Ibrahim, L., Pye, B. J., Archer, S. A., and Butt, T.
M. (2000). Effect of formulation, application and rain on the persistence of the
entomogenous fungus Metarhizium anisopliae on oilseed rape. Mycological Research,
104 (6), 653-661.
Iwasa, M., Makino, S. I., Asakura, H., Kobori, H., and Morimoto, Y. (1999). Detection of
Escherichia coli O157:H7 from Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) at a cattle farm in
Japan. Journal of Medical Entomology, 36 (1), 108-112.
Jackson, M. A., Dunlap, C. A., and Jaronski, S. T. (2010). Ecological considerations in producing
and formulating fungal entomopathogens for use in insect biocontrol. Biocontrol, 55,
129-145.
Jacobs, R. D., Hogsette, J. A., and Miller, R. W. (1993). Using sticky cards to monitor fly
populations in poultry houses. Fact sheet. University of Florida, Animal Sciences
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. 2p.
Jaronski, S. T. (2010). Ecological factors in the inundative use of fungal entompathogens.

Biocontrol, 55, 159-185.
Jaronski, S. T., and Goettel, M. S. (1997). Development of Beauveria bassiana for control of
grasshoppers and locusts. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 129, 225-
237.
Johnson, C., Bishop, A. H., and Turner, C. L. (1998). Isolation and activity of strains of Bacillus
thuringiensis toxic to larvae of the housefly (Diptera: Muscidae) and tropical blowflies
(Diptera: Calliphoridae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 71, 138-144.
Kalsbeek, V., Pell, J. K., and Steenberg, T. (2001a). Sporulation by Entomophthora schizophorae
(Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales) from housefly cadavers and the persistence of
primary conidia at constant temperatures and relative humidities. Journal of Invertebrate
Pathology, 77, 149-157.
Kalsbeek, V., Mullens, B. A., and Jespersen, J. B. (2001b). Field studies of Entomophthora
(Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales)- induced behavioral fever in Musca domestica
(Diptera: Muscidae) in Denmark. Biological Control, 21, 264-273.
47
Kaufman, P. E., Long, S. J., Rutz, D. A., and Glenister, C. S. (2000a). Prey-and density-mediated
dispersal in Carcinops pumilio (Coleoptera: Histeridae), a predator of house fly (Diptera:
Muscidae) eggs and larvae. Journal of Medical Entomology, 37, 929-932.
Kaufman, P. E., Rutz, D. A., and Pitts, C. W. (2000b). Pest management recommendations for
poultry. Cornell University, Penn State University Cooperative Extension Publication
UF007. Fact sheets.15p.
Kaufman, P. E., Long, S. J., Rutz, D. A., and Glenister, C. S. (2001a). Larval production from
field-collected Carcinops pumilio (Coleoptera: Histeridae) following three starvation
periods. Journal of Medical Entomology, 38, 278-281.
Kaufman, P. E., Rutz, D. A., and Frisch, S. (2001b). Sticky traps for large scale house fly
(Diptera: Muscidae) trapping in New York poultry facilities. Journal of Agricultural and
Urban Entomology, 18, 43-49.
Kaufman, P. E., Scott, J. G., and Rutz, D. A. (2001c). Monitoring insecticide resistance in house
flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from New York dairies. Pest Management Science, 57, 514-
521.
Kaufman, P. E., Reasor, C., Rutz, D. A., Ketzis, J. K., and Arends, J. J. (2005). Evaluation of
Beauveria bassiana applications against adult house fly, Musca domestica, in
commercial caged-layer poultry facilities in New York state. Biological Control, 33,
360-367.
Kaufman, P. E., Gerry, A. C., Rutz, D. A., and Scott, J. G. (2006). Monitoring susceptibility of
house flies (Musca domestica L.) in the United States to Imidacloprid. Journal of
Agricultural and Urban Entomology, 23, 195-200.
Kaufman, P. E., Wood, L. A., Goldberg, J. I., Long, S. J., and Rutz, D. A. (2008). Host age and
pathogen exposure level as factors in the susceptibility of the house fly, Musca
domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) to Beauveria bassiana. Biocontrol Science and
Technology, 18(8), 841-847.
Kaufman, P. E., Nunez, S., Mann, R. S., Geden, C. J., and Scharf, M. E. (2010a). Nicotinoid and
pyrethroid insecticide resistance in house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) collected from
Florida dairies. Pest Management Science, 66, 290-294.
48
Kaufman, P. E., Nunez, S. C., Geden, C. J., and Scharf, M. E. (2010b). Selection for resistance to
Imidacloprid in the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Economic Entomology,
103, 1937-1942.
Keiding, J. (1976). The house fly-biology and control. World Health Organization, Lyngby,
Denmark.82p.
Kobayashi, M., Sasaki, T., Saito, N., Tamura, K., Suzuki, K., Watanabe, H., and Agui, N. (1999).
Houseflies: Not simple mechanical vectors of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:
H7. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 61, 625-629.
Koenig, R. T., Miner, F. D., Miller, B. E., and Palmer, M. D. (2005). In-house composting in
high-rise, caged layer facilities. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, fact
sheets. 7p.
Kooyman, C., Bateman, R. P., Langewald, J., Lomer, C. J., and Ouambama, Z. (1997).
Operational-scale application of entomopathogenic fungi for control of Sahelian
grasshoppers. Proceeding of Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 264,
541-546.
Kozaki, T., Brady, S. G., and Scott, J. G. (2009). Frequencies and evolution of organophosphate
insensitive acetyl cholinesterase alleles in laboratory and field populations of the house
fly, Musca domestica L. Pesticide biochemistry and physiology, 95, 6-11.
Kramer, J. P., and Steinkraus, D. C. (1981). Culture of Entomophthora muscae in vivo and its
infectivity for six species of muscoid flies. Mycopathologia, 76, 139-143.
Kramer, J. P., and Steinkraus, D. C. (1987). Experimental induction of the mycosis caused by
Entomophthora muscae in a population of house flies (Musca domestica L.) in a poultry
building. Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 95, 114-117.
Krasnoff, S., Watson, D. W., Gibson, D. M., and Kwan, E. C. (1995). Behavioral effects of the
entomopathogenic fungus, Entomophthora muscae on its host Musca domestica:
Postural changes in dying hosts and gated pattern of mortality. Journal of Insect
Physiology, 41, 895-903.
Kristiansen, K., and Skovmand, O. (1985). A method for the study of population-size and
survival rate of houseflies. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata, 38, 145-150.
49
Kuramoto, H., and Shimazu, M. (1992). Pathogenicity of some entomogenous fungi of the adult
housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Japanese Journal of Entomology and
Zoology, 36, 202-203.
Labib, I. M., and Rady, M. (2001). Application of Bacillus thuringiensis in poultry houses as a
biological control agent against the housefly, Musca domestica sorbens. Journal of the
Egyptian Society of Parasitology, 31, 531-544.
Lam, K., Babor, D., Duthie, B., Babor, E. M., Moore, M., and Gries, G. (2007). Proliferating
bacterial symbionts on house fly eggs affect oviposition behavior of adult flies. Animal
Behavior, 74, 81-92.
Lecuona, R. E., Turica, M., Tarocco, F., and Crespo, D. C. (2005). Microbial control of Musca
domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) with selected strains of Beauveria bassiana. Journal of
Medical Entomology, 42, 332-336.
Legner, E. F., and Brydon, H. W. (1966). Suppression of dung inhabiting fly populations by
pupal parasites. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 59, 638-642.
Legner, E. F., and Dietrick, E. J. (1972). Inundation with parasitic insects to control filth
breeding flies in California. Proceeding of California Mosquitoes Control Association,
40, 129-130.
Legner, E. F., and Dietrick, E. J. (1974). Effectiveness of supervised control practices in lowering
population densities of synanthropic flies on poultry ranches. Entomophaga, 19, 467-
478.
Levine, O. S., and Levine, M. M. (1991). Houseflies (Musca domestica) as mechanical vectors of
Shigellosis. Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 13, 688-696.
Liang, Y., Xin, H., Wheeler, E. F., Gates, R. S., Li, H., Zajaczkowski, J. S., Topper, P. A., Casey,
K. D., Behrends, B. R., Burnham, D. J., and Zajaczkowski, F. J. (2005). Ammonia
emissions from US laying hen houses in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Transactions of
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASAE), 48, 1927-1941.
Lietze, V. U., Abd-Alla, A. M. M., Vreysen, M. J. B., Geden, C. G., and Boucias, D. G. (2011).
Salivary gland hypertrophy viruses: a novel group of insect pathogenic viruses. Annual
Review of Entomology, 56, 63-80.
50
Lietze, V. U., Geden, C. J., Blackburn, P., and Boucias, D. G. (2007). Effects of salivary gland
hypertrophy virus on the reproductive behavior of the housefly, Musca domestica.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 73, 6811-6818.
Lietze, V. U., Salem, T. Z., Prompiboon, P., and Boucias, D. G. (2010). Tissue tropism of the
Musca domestica salivary gland hypertrophy virus. Virus Research, 155, 20-27.
Lietze, V. U., Sims, K. R., Salem, T. Z., Geden, C. J., and Boucias, D. G. (2009). Transmission of
MdSGHV among adult house flies, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), occurs via
salivary secretions and excreta. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 101, 49-55.
Liu, N. N., and Yue, X. (2000). Insecticide resistance and cross-resistance in the house fly
(Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 93, 1269-1275.
Lopez-Sanchez, J., Cruz-Vazquez, C., Lezama-Gutierrez, R., and Ramos-Parra, M. (2012). Effect
of entomopathogenic fungi upon adults of Stomoxys calcitrans and Musca domestica
(Diptera: Muscidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology, 22 (8), 969-973.
Lysyk, T. J., and Axtell, R. C. (1985). Comparison of baited jug-trap and spot cards for sampling
housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera, Muscidae), populations in poultry houses.
Environmental Entomology, 14, 815-819.
Lysyk, T. J., and Axtell, R. C. (1986). Field evaluation of three methods for monitoring
populations of house flies Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) and other filth flies in
three types of poultry housing systems. Journal of Economic Entomology, 79(1), 144-
151.
Macovei, L., and Zurek, L. (2006). Ecology of antibiotic resistance genes: Characterization of
Enterococci from houseflies collected in food settings. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 72, 4028-4035.
Madeira, N. G. (1998). Persistence of conidia of Entomophthora muscae in relation to age,
temperature, and humidity. Biocontrol, 43, 87-95.
Maitland, D. P. (1994). A parasitic fungus infecting yellow dung flies manipulates host perching
behavior. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 258,
187-193.
Malik, A., Singh, N., and Satya, S. (2007). House fly (Musca domestica): a review of control
strategies for a challenging pest. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B-
Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes, 42(4), 453-469.
51
McClintock, J. T., Schaffer, C. R., and Sjoblad, R. D. (1995). A comparative review of the
mammalian toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis-based pesticides. Pesticide Science, 45,
95-105.
Meekes, E. T. M., Voorst, S. V., Joosten, N. N., Fransen, J. J., and Lenteren, J. C. V. (2000).
Persistence of fungal whitefly pathogen, Aschersonia aleyrodis, on three different plant
species. Mycological Research, 104(10), 1234-1140.
Memmi, B. K. (2010). Mortality and knockdown effects of Imidacloprid and Methomyl in house
fly (Musca domestica L., Diptera: Muscidae) populations. Journal of Vector Ecology, 35,
144-148.
Merchant, M. E., Flanders, R. V., and Williams, R. E. (1987). Seasonal abundance and parasitism
of housefly (Diptera, Muscidae) pupae in enclosed, shallow-pit poultry houses in
Indiana. Environmental Entomology, 16, 716-721.
Miller, B. F., Teotia, J. S., and Thatcher, T. O. (1974). Digestion of poultry manure by Musca
domestica. British Poultry Science, 15(2), 231-234.
Miller, J. S., Nguyen, T., and Stanleysamuelson, D. W. (1994). Eicosanoids mediate insect
nodulation responses to bacterial infections. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 91, 12418-12422.
Miller, R. W., Pickens, L. G., and Gordon, C. H. (1971). Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis in cattle
manure on house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology, 64,
902-903.
Miller, R. W., Pickens, L. G., and Potts, W. E. (1993a). Comparison of traps and an integrated
program to manage house flies (Diptera, Muscidae) and stable flies (Diptera, Muscidae)
on dairy farms. Journal of Agricultural Entomology, 10, 189-196.
Miller, R. W., Rutz, D. A., Pickens, L. G., and Geden, C. J. (1993b). Evaluation of traps and the
parasitoid Muscidifurax raptor Girault and Sanders to manage house-flies (Diptera,
Muscidae) and stable flies (Diptera, Muscidae) on dairy farms. Journal of Agricultural
Milner, R. J., Samson, P., and Morton, R. (2003). Persistence of conidia of Metarhizium
anisopliae in sugarcane fields: effects of isolate and formulation on persistence over 3.5
years. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 13, 507-516.
52
Milushev, I. (1978). Role of flies in the epizootiology of coccidiosis in poultry. Veterinarno-

Meditsinski Nauki, 15, 26-29.
Mishra, S., and Malik, A. (2012). Comparative evaluation of five Beauveria isolates for house fly
(Musca domestica L.) control and growth optimization of selected strain. Parasitology
Research, 111, 1937-1945.
Mishra, S., Kumar, P., and Malik, A. (2011). Adulticidal and larvicidal activity of Beauveria
bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae against house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera:
Muscidae), in laboratory and simulated field bioassays. Parasitology Research, 108,
1483-1492.
Mnyone, L. L, Kirby, M. J., Lwetoijera, D. W., Mpingwa, M. W., Knols, B. G. J., Takken, W.,
and Russell, T. L. (2009). Infection of the malaria mosquito, Anopheles gambiae, with
two species of entomopathogenic fungi: effects of concentration, co-formulation,
exposure time and persistence. Malaria Journal, 8, 30.
Mnyone, L. L., Kirby, M. J., Lwetoijera, D. W., Mpingwa, M. W., Simfukwe, E. T., Knols, B. G.
J., and Takken, W. (2010). Tools for delivering entomopathogenic fungi to malaria
mosquitoes: effects of delivery surfaces on fungal efficacy and persistence. Malaria
Journal, 9, 246.
Moon, R. D. (2002). Muscid flies (Muscidae). In: Mullen, G., and Durden, L. (eds.). Medical
and Veterinary Entomology, Elsevier Science, USA. 279-301.
Moore, D., and Caudwell, R. W. (1997). Formulation of entomopathogens for the control of
grasshoppers and locusts. Memoirs of Entomological Society of Canada, 171, 49-67.
Moore, D., Bridge, P. D., Higgins, P. M., Bateman, R. P., and Prior, C. (1993). Ultra-violet
radiation damage to Metarhizium flavoviride conidia and the protection given by
vegetable and mineral oils and chemical sunscreens. Annals of Applied Biology, 122(3),
605-616.
Morgan, D. W., and Bailie, H. D. (1980). A field trial to determine the effect of fly control using
permethrin on milk yields in dairy cattle in the UK. Veterinary Research, 106, 121-123.
Morgan, P. B., Patterson, R. S., and LaBrecque, G. C. (1977). Controlling house flies at a dairy
installation by releasing a protelean parasitoid, Spalangia endius (Hymenoptera:
Pteromalidae). Journal of Georgia Entomological Society, 11, 39-43.
53
Morgan, P. B., Patterson, R. S., LaBrecque, G. C., Weidhaas, D. E., and Benton, A. (1975).
Suppression of a field population of house flies with Spalangia endius. Science, 189,
388-389.
Moriya, K., Fujibayashi, T., Yoshihara, T., Matsuda, A., Sumi, N., Umezaki, N., Kurahashi, H.,
Agui, N., Wada, A., and Watanabe, H. (1999). Verotoxin-producing Escherichia coli
O157:H7 carried by the housefly in Japan. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 13, 214-
216.
Mullen, G., and Durden, L. (2002). Medical and veterinary entomology. Academic Press,
Boston, MA.
Mullens, B. A. (1985). Host age, sex, and pathogen exposure level as factors in the susceptibility
of Musca domestica to Entomophthora muscae. Entomologia Experimentalis et
Applicata, 37(1), 33-39.
Mullens, B. A., and Rodriguez, J. L. (1985). Dynamics of Entomophthora muscae
(Entomophthorales: Entomophthoraceae) conidial discharge from Musca domestica
(Diptera: Muscidae) cadavers. Environmental Entomology, 14, 317-322.
Mullens, B. A., Hinkle, N. C., and Szijj, C. E. (1996). Impact of alternating manure removal
schedules on pest flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and associated predators (Coleoptera:
Husteridae, Staphylinidae; Acarina: Macrochelidae) in caged-layer poultry manure in
Southern California. Journal of Economic Entomology, 89, 1406-1417.
Mullens, B. A., Hinkle, N. C., Szijj, C. E., and Kuney, D. R. (2001). Managing manure and
conserving predators helps control flies in caged-layer poultry systems. California
Agriculture, 55(5). 5p.
Mullens, B. A., Meyer, J. A., and Cyr, T. L. (1987a). Infectivity of insect-parasitic nematodes
(Rhabditida: Steinernematidae, Heterorhabditidae) for larvae of some manure-breeding
flies (Diptera: Muscidae). Environmental Entomology, 16, 769-773.
Mullens, B. A., Rodriguez, J. L., and Meyer, J. A. (1987b). An epizootiological study of
Entomophthora muscae in muscoid fly populations on Southern California poultry
facilities, with emphasis on Musca domestica. Hilgardia, 55, 1-41.
Murvosh, C. M., and Thaggard, C. W. (1966). Ecological studies of house flies. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America, 59, 533-547.
54
Mwamburi, L. A., Laing, M. D., and Miller, R. (2009). Interaction between Beauveria bassiana
and Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis for the control of house fly larvae and adults
in poultry houses. Poultry Science, 88, 2307-2314.
Mwamburi, L. A., Laing, M. D., and Miller, R. M. (2010). Laboratory screening of insecticidal
activities of Beauveria bassiana and Paecilomyces lilacinus against larval and adult
house fly (Musca domestica L.). African Entomology, 18(1), 38-46.
Mwamburi, L. A., Laing, M. D., and Miller, R. (2011). Laboratory and field evaluation of
formulated Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis as a feed additive and using topical
applications for control of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) larvae in caged-poultry
manure. Environmental Entomology, 40, 52-58.
Nayduch, D., Noblet, G. P., and Stutzenberger, F. J. (2002). Vector potential of houseflies for the
bacterium Aeromonas caviae. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 16, 193-198.
Nielsen, C. K., Skovgaard, H., and Steenberg, T. (2005). Effect of Metarhizium anisopliae
(Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes) on survival and reproduction of the filth fly
parasitoid, Spalangia cameroni (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Environmental
Nolan, M. P., and Kissam, J. B. (1987). Nuisance potential of a dump fly, Ophyra aenescens
(Diptera: Muscidae) breeding at poultry farms. Environmental Entomology, 16, 828-831.
Noma, T., and Strickler, K. (1999). Factors affecting Beauveria bassiana for control of Lygus
bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) in alfalfa seed fields. Journal of Agricultural and Urban
Entomology, 16(4), 215-233.
North, M. O., and Bell, D. D. (1990). Commercial chicken production manual. 4th edition,
Chapman and Hall, New York, USA.
O‘Callaghan, M. (1998). Establishment of microbial agents in soil. In: O‘Callaghan, M., and
Jackson, T. A. (eds.). Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on microbial control
of soil dwelling pests, Agriculture Research, New Zealand, 83-89.
Oh, S. T., Kim, J. K., Yang, S. Y., and Song, M. D. (2004). Characterization of Bacillus
thuringiensis having insecticidal effects against larvae of Musca domestica. Journal of
Microbiology and Biotechnology, 14, 1057-1062
55
Olsen, A. R., and Hammack, T. S. (2000). Isolation of Salmonella spp. from the house fly, Musca
domestica L., and the dump fly, Hydrotaea aenescens (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Muscidae)
at caged-layer houses. Journal of Food Protection, 63(7), 958-960.
Olton, G. S., and Legner, E. F. (1975). Winter inoculative releases of parasitoids to reduce house
flies in poultry manure. Journal of Economic Entomology, 68, 35-38.
Ouedraogo, R. M., Goettel, M. S., and Brodeur, J. (2004). Behavioral thermoregulation in the
migratory locust: a therapy to overcome fungal infection. Oecologia,138(2), 312-319.
Oyerinde, J. P. (1976). The role of the house fly (Musca domestica) in the dissemination of
hookworm. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, 70, 455-462.
Parkhurst, C. R., and Mountney, G. J. (1988). Poultry meat and egg production. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, USA.
Pendland, J. C., Hung, S. Y., and Boucias, D. G. (1993). Evasion of host defense by in-vivo
produced protoplast-like cells of the insect mycopathogen Beauveria bassiana. Journal
of Bacteriology, 175, 5962-5969.
Petersen, J. J., and Cawthra, J. K. (1995). Release of a gregarious Muscidifurax species
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) for the control of filth flies associated with confined beef
cattle. Biological Control, 5, 279-284.
Petersen, J. J., and Currey D. M. (1996). Timing of releases of gregarious Muscidifurax
raptorellus (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to control flies associated with confined beef
cattle. Journal of Agricultural Entomology, 13, 55-63.
Pickens, L. B., Miller, R. W., and Centala, M. M. (1975). Biology, population dynamics, and host
finding efficiency of Pachycrepoideus vindemiae in a box stall and a poultry house.
Pickens, L. G., Mills, G. D., and Miller, R. W. (1994). Inexpensive trap for capturing house flies
(Diptera: Muscidae) in manure pits of caged-layer houses. Journal of Economic
Pickens, L. G., Morgan, N. O., Hartsock, J. G., and Smith, J. W. (1967). Dispersal patterns and
populations of house fly affected by sanitation and weather in rural Maryland. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 60 (5), 1250-1255.
56
Pilz, C., Enkerli, J., Wegensteiner, R., and Keller, S. (2011). Establishment and persistence of the
entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae in maize fields. Journal of Applied
Plapp, F. W. (1984). The genetic basis of insecticide resistance in the house fly: evidence that a
single locus plays a major role in metabolic resistance to insecticides. Pesticide
Biochemistry and Physiology, 22, 194-201.
Price, N. R., and Chapman, P. A. (1987). Resistance to Methomyl in a laboratory selected and a
field strain of the house fly, Musca domestica (L). Pesticide Science, 20, 167-177.
Quintela, E. D., and McCoy, C. W. (1998). Synergistic effect of Imidacloprid and two
entomopathogenic fungi on the behavior and survival of larvae of Diaprepes abbreviates
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in soil. Journal of Economic Entomology, 91, 110-122.
Rady, M. H., Abdel-Raouf, N., Labib, I., and Merdan, A. I. (1992). Bacterial contamination of
the house fly Musca domestica, collected from 4 hospitals at Cairo. Journal of Egyptian
Society of Parasitology, 22(1), 279-288.
Renn, N., and Wright, E. (2000). The effect of artificial substrates on the pathogenicity of
Steinernema feltiae (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae) to adult Musca domestica (Diptera:
Muscidae). Journal of Nematology, 2, 217-222.
Renn, N. (1995). Mortality of immature houseflies (Musca domestica L.) in artificial diet and
chicken manure after exposure to encapsulated entomopathogenic nematodes
(Rhabditida: Steinernematidae, Heterorhabditidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology,
5, 349-359.
Renn, N. (1998). The efficacy of entomopathogenic nematodes for controlling housefly
infestations of intensive pig units. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 12, 46-51.
Renn, N., Barson, G., and Richardson, P. N. (1985). Preliminary laboratory tests with two species
of entomophilic nematodes for control of Musca domestica in intensive animal units.
Annals of Applied Biology, 106 (2), 229-233.
Renn, N., Bywater, A. F., and Barson, G. (1999). A bait formulated with Metarhizium anisopliae
for the control of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) assessed in large‐scale
laboratory enclosures. Journal of Applied Entomology, 123, 309-314.
57
Rizzo, D. C. (1977). Age of three Dipteran hosts as a factor governing the pathogenicity of
Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 30,
127-130.
Roberts, D. W. (1989). World picture of biological control of insects by fungi. Memorias do

Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Numero Expecial. Sul., 84,168p.
Rockstein, M. (1957). Longevity of male and female house flies. Journal of Gerontology, 12,
253-256.
Rogoff, W. M., Gretz, G. H., Jacobson, M., and Beroza, M. (1973). Confirmation of (Z)-9-
tricosene as a sex pheromone of the house fly. Annals of Entomological Society of
America, 66, 739-741.
Roy, H. E., Steinkraus, D. C., Eilenberg, J., Hajek, A. E., and Pell, J. K. (2006). Bizarre
interactions and endgames: Entomopathogenic fungi and their arthropod hosts. Annual
Rupes, V., Ryba, J., Hanzlova, H., and Weiser, J. (1987). The efficiency of beta-exotoxin of
Bacillus thuringiensis on susceptible and resistant house fly. In: Olejnicek, J. (ed.)
Proceedings of the International Conference of Medical and Veterinary Dipterology,
Ceske, Budejovice, 262-265.
Rutz, D. A., and Axtell, R. C. (1979). Sustained releases of Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera,
Pteromalidae) for housefly (Musca domestica) control in 2 types of caged-layer poultry
houses. Environmental Entomology, 8, 1105-1110.
Rutz, D. A., and Axtell, R. C. (1981). Housefly (Musca domestica) control in broiler-breeder
poultry houses by pupal parasites (Hymenoptera, Pteromalidae)- Indigenous parasite
species and releases of Muscidifurax raptor. Environmental Entomology, 10, 343-345.
Rutz, D. A., and Patterson, R. S (eds.). (1990). Biocontrol of arthropods affecting livestock and
poultry. West view Press, Boulder.
Rutz, D. A., and Scoles, G. A. (1988). Evaluation of fly-electrocuting black light devices in
caged-layer poultry facilities. Poultry Science, 67, 871-877.
Rutz, D. A., and Scott, J. G. (1999). Susceptibility of muscoid fly parasitoids to insecticides used
in dairy facilities. In: Rutz, D. A., and Scott, J. G. (eds.). Biocontrol of arthropods
affecting livestock and poultry, 247-263.
58
Sacca, G. (1963). Comparative bionomics in the genus Musca. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America, 341-358.
Samuels, R. I., Reynolds, S. E., and Charnley, A. K. (1988). Calcium-channel activation of insect
muscle by destruxins, insecticidal compounds produced by the entomopathogenic
fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C-
Pharmacology Toxicology and Endocrinology, 90, 403-412.
Sanders, D. A. (1940). Musca domestica and Hippelates flies-vectors of bovine mastitis. Science,
92(2387), 286.
Sandhu, S. S. (1995). Effect of physical factors on germination of entomopathogenic fungus
Beauveria bassiana conidia. National Academy of Science Letters, 18(1-2), 1-5.
Sasaki, T., Kobayashi, M., and Agui, N. (2000). Epidemiological potential of excretion and
regurgitation by Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in the dissemination of
Escherichia coli O157: H7 to food. Journal of Medical Entomology, 37, 945-949.
Sawabe, K., Hoshino, K., Isawa, H., Sasaki, T., Hayashi, T., Tsuda, Y., Kurahashi, H.,
Tanabayashi, K., Hotta, A., Saito, T., Yamada, A., and Kobayashi, M. (2006). Detection
and isolation of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza A viruses from blow flies
collected in the vicinity of an infected poultry farm in Kyoto, Japan, 2004. American
Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 75, 327-332.
Schoof, H. F. (1964). Laboratory culture of Musca, Fannia and Stomoxys. Bulletin of the World
Health Organization, 31. 539p.
Schoof, H. F., and Silverly, R. E. (1954). Urban fly dispersion studies with special reference to
movement pattern of Musca domestica L. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene, 3, 539-47.
Scott, J. G. (1989). Cross-resistance to the biological insecticide abamectin in pyrethroid-
resistant house flies. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 34, 27-31.
Scott, J. G., Alefantis, T. G., Kaufman, P. E., and Rutz, D. A. (2000). Insecticide resistance in
house flies from caged-layer poultry facilities. Pest Management Science, 56(2), 147-
153.
59
Scott, J. G., and Georghiou, G. P. (1985). Rapid development of high-level permethrin resistance
in a field-collected strain of the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) under laboratory
selection. Journal of Economic Entomology, 78, 316-319.
Scott, J. G., and Georghiou, G. P. (1986). Mechanisms responsible for high levels of permethrin
resistance in the housefly. Pesticide Science, 17, 195-206.
Scott, J. G., Liu, N., Kristensen, M., and Clark A. G. (2009). A case for sequencing the genome
of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Medical Entomology, 46, 175-182.
Scudder, H. I. (1998). Use of the fly grill for assessment of house fly populations: An example
of sampling techniques that create rough fuzzy sets. Journal of Vector Ecology, 21, 167-
172.
Shah, P. A., and Goettel, M. S. (1999). Directory of microbial control products and services, 2nd
edition, division on microbial control. Society for Invertebrate Pathology. 31p.
Shah, P. A., and Pell, J. K. (2003). Entomopathogenic fungi as biological control agents. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology, 61, 413-423.
Sharififard, M., Mossadegh, M. S., Vazirianzadeh, B., and Mahmoudabadi, A. Z. (2011a).

Laboratory evaluation of pathogenicity of entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana
(Bals.) Vuill. and Metarhizium anisopliae (Metch.) Sorok. to larvae and adults of the
house fly, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Asian Journal of Biological
Science, 4, 128-137.
Sharififard, M., Mossadegh, M. S., Vazirianzadeh, B., Zarei-Mahmoudabadi, A. (2011b)
Interactions between entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae and sublethal
doses of spinosad for control of house fly, Musca domestica. Journal of Arthropod-
Borne Diseases, 5(1), 28-36.
Shen, J., and Plapp, F. W. (1990). Cyromazine resistance in the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae):
genetics and cross-resistance to diflubenzuron. Journal of Economic Entomology, 83,
1689-1697.
Sheppard, D. C., Gaydon, D. M., and Miller, R. W. (1992). Resistance in house flies (Diptera:
Muscidae) selected with 5.0 ppm feed-through cyromazine. Journal of Agricultural
Shono, T., and Scott, J. G. (2003). Spinosad resistance in the housefly, Musca domestica, is due
to a recessive factor on autosome 1. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 75, 1-7.
60
Silbergeld, E. K., Graham, J. P., and Price, L. B. (2008). Industrial food animal production,
antimicrobial resistance, and human health. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 151-69.
Six, D. L., and Mullens, B. A. (1996). Seasonal prevalence of Entomophthora muscae and
introduction of Entomophthora schizophorae (Zygomycotina: Entomophthorales) in
Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) populations on California dairies. Biological
Control, 6, 315-323.
Skidmore, P. (1985). The Biology of the Muscidae of the World, Vol. 29. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Hingham, MA.
Skovgaard, H., and Steenberg, T. (2002). Activity of pupal parasitoids of the stable fly Stomoxys
calcitrans and prevalence of entomopathogenic fungi in the stable fly and the house fly,
Musca domestica. Biocontrol, 47, 45-60.
Skovgard, H., and Nachman, G. (2004). Biological control of house flies Musca domestica and
stable flies Stomoxys calcitrans (Diptera: Muscidae) by means of inundative releases of
Spalangia cameroni (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research,
94, 555-567.
Stafford, K. C. III, and Bay, D. E. (1994). Dispersion statistics and sample size estimates for
house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) larvae and Macrocheles muscaedomesticae (Acari:
Macrochelidae) in poultry manure. Journal of Medical Entomology, 31, 732-737.
Stafford, K. C. III, Collison, C. H., and Burg, J. G. (1988). House Fly (Diptera: Muscidae),
monitoring method comparisons and seasonal trends in environmentally controlled high-
rise, caged-layer poultry houses. Journal of Economic Entomology, 81(5), 1426-1430.
Stafford, K. C. III. (2008). Fly management handbook: A guide to biology, dispersal, and
management of the house fly and related flies for farmers, municipalities, and public
health officials. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 1013, 32p.
Steinkraus, D. C., Geden, C. J., and Rutz, D. A. (1993). Prevalence of Entomophthora muscae
(Cohn) Fresenius (Zygomycetes, Entomophthoraceae) in house flies (Diptera, Muscidae)
on dairy farms in New York and induction of epizootics. Biological Control, 3, 93-100.
Steinkraus, D. C., Geden, C. J., Rutz, D. A., and Kramer, J. P. (1990). First report of the natural
occurrence of Beauveria bassiana (Moniliales, Moniliaceae) in Musca domestica
(Diptera, Muscidae). Journal of Medical Entomology, 27, 309-312.
61
Sukontason, K. L., Bunchu, N., Methanitikorn, R., Chaiwong, T., Kuntalue, B., and Sukontason,
K. (2006). Ultra structure of adhesive device in fly in families, Calliphoridae, Muscidae
and Sarcophagidae, and their implication as mechanical carriers of pathogens.
Parasitology Research, 98, 477-481.
Tan, S. W., Yap, K. L., and Lee, H. L. (1997). Mechanical transport of rotavirus by the legs and
wings of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Medical Entomology, 34,
527-531.
Taylor, D. B., Szalanski, A. L., Adams, B. J., and Peterson, R. D. II. (1998). Susceptibility of
house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) larvae to entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida:
Heterorhabditidae, Steinernematidae). Environmental Entomology, 27, 1514-1519.
Thomas, M. B., and Read, A. F. (2007). Fungal bioinsecticide with a sting. Nature
Biotechnology, 25, 1367-1368.
Tobin, P. C., and Pitts, C. W. (1999). Flotation method for extracting insects from poultry manure
samples. Journal of Medical Entomology, 36(1), 121-123.
Tomberlin, J. K., and Drees, B. (2004). Poultry pest management. Texas Agrilife Extension. 19p.
Tsai, S. F., Liu, B. L., Liao, J. W., Wang, J. S., Hwang, J. S., Wang, S. C., Tzeng, Y. M., and Ho,
S. P. (2003). Pulmonary toxicity of thuringiensin administered intratracheally in
Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicology, 186, 205-216.
Turner, E. C. Jr., and Ruszler, P. L. (1989). Research note: A quick and simple quantitative
method to monitor house fly populations in caged layer houses. Poultry Science, 68,
833-835.
Turner, E. C., and Carter, L. (1990). Mass rearing and introduction of Ophyra aenescens
Wiedemann) (Diptera: Muscidae) in high-rise caged layer houses to reduce house fly
populations. Journal of Agricultural Entomology, 7, 247-257.
Turner, E., C. Jr., Ruszler, P. L., Dillon, P., Carter, L., and Youngman, R. (1992). An integrated
pest management program to control house flies in commercial high-rise
houses. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 1, 242-250.
Umeche, N., and Mandah, L. E. (1989). Musca domestica as a carrier of intestinal helminths in
Calabar, Nigeria. East African Medical Journal, 66(5), 349-352.
62
Vanninen, I., Tyni-juslin, J., and Hokkanen, H. (2000). Persistence of augmented Metarhizium
anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana in Finnish agricultural soils. Biocontrol, 45, 201-222
Vey, A., and Quiot, J. M. (1989). In vitro and insect-host cytotoxicity of destruxins,
cyclodepsipeptide mycotoxins produced by the entomopathogen, Metarhizium
anisopliae. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 35, 1000-1008.
Vilcinskas, A., Matha, V., and Gotz, P. (1997). Effects of the entomopathogenic fungus
Metarhizium anisopliae and its secondary metabolites on morphology and cytoskeleton
of plasmatocytes isolated from the greater wax moth, Galleria mellonella. Journal of
Insect Physiology, 43, 1149-1159.
Wanarata, S., Panyim, S., and Pakpinyo, S. (2011). The potential of house flies to act as a vector
of avian influenza subtype H5N1 under experimental conditions. Medical and
Veterinary Entomology, 5, 58-63.
Watson, D. W., and Petersen, J. J. (1993a). Seasonal activity of Entomophthora muscae

(Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales) in Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) with
reference to temperature and relative humidity. Biological Control, 3, 182-190.
Watson, D. W., and Peterson, J. J. (1993b). Sexual activity of male Musca domestica (Diptera:
Muscidae) infected with Entomopthora muscae (Entomophthoraceae:
Entomophthorales). Biological Control, 3, 22-26.
Watson, D. W., Geden, C. J., Long, S. J., and Rutz, D. A. (1995). Efficacy of Beauveria Bassiana
for controlling the house fly and stable fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Biological Control, 5(3),
405-411.
Watson, D. W., Mullens, B. A., and Petersen, J. J. (1993). Behavioral fever response of Musca
domestica (Diptera, Muscidae) to infection by Entomophthora muscae (Zygomycetes,
Entomophthorales). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 61, 10-16.
Watson, D. W., Rutz, D. A., and Long, S. J. (1996). Beauveria bassiana and sawdust bedding for
the management of the house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in calf hutches.
Biological Control, 7(2), 221-227.
Watson, D. W., Waldron, J. K., and Rutz, D. A. (1994). Integrated management of flies in and
around dairy and livestock barns. Cornell University, fact sheet. 4p.
63
Wen, Z. M., and Scott, J. G. (1997). Cross-resistance to imidacloprid in strains of German

cockroach (Blattella germanica) and house fly (Musca domestica). Pesticide Science,
49, 367-371.
West, L. (1951). The house fly: Its natural history, medical importance, and control. Ithaca, NY,
Comstock.
Williams, R. E. (2010). Livestock and poultry: Control of poultry pests. Purdue Extension,
Purdue University.7p.
Wills, L. E., Mullens, B. A., and Mandeville, D. A. (1990). Effects of pesticides on filth fly
predators (Coleoptera: Misteridae, Staphylinidae; Acarina: Macrochelidae, Uropodidae)
in caged layer poultry manure. Journal of Economic Entomology, 83, 451-457.
Wilson, B. H., and Burns, E. C. (1968). Induction of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in a
laboratory strain of house flies. Journal of Economic Entomology, 6, 1747-1748.
Winpisinger, K. A., Ferketich, A. K., Berry, R. L., and Moeschberger, M. L. (2005). Spread of
Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), from two caged layer facilities to neighboring
residences in rural Ohio. Journal of Medical Entomology, 42, 732-738.
Wojda, I., Kowalski, P., and Jakubowicz, T. (2009). Humoral immune response of Galleria
mellonella larvae after infection by Beauveria bassiana under optimal and heat-shock
conditions. Journal of Insect Physiology, 55(6), 525-531.
Wraight, S. P., and Ramos, M. E. (2002). Application parameters affecting field efficacy of
Beauveria bassiana foliar treatments against Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa
decemlineata. Biological Control, 23(2), 164-178.
Wraight, S. P., Carruthers, R. I., Jaronski, S. T., Bradley, C. A., and Galaini-Wraight, S. (2000).
Evaluation of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Paecilomyces
fumosoroseus for microbial control of the silver leaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii.
Biological Control, 17(3), 203-217.
Xin, H., Gates, R. S., Green, A. R., Mitloehner, F. M., Moore, P. A. Jr., and Wathes, C. M. (2011).
Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science,
90, 263-277.
64
Zhong, C. H., Ellar, D. J., Bishop, A., Johnson, C., Lin, S. S., and Hart, E. R. (2000).
Characterization of a Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxin which is toxic to insects in
three orders. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 76, 131-139.
Zurek, L., Denning, S. S., Schal, C., and Watson, D. W. (2001). Vector competence of Musca
domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) for Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. Journal of Medical
65
Chapter 2: Potential for biocontrol of house flies, Musca domestica, using fungal
biopesticides
(Published in Biocontrol Science and Technology. Doi: 10.1080/09583157.2014.992862)
Abstract
Chemical control of house flies in poultry production facilities is becoming increasingly difficult
due to insecticide resistance and regulatory constraints. Biopesticides based on entomopathogenic
fungi could provide an alternative approach. Here we evaluated population control potential of two
fungal pathogens, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae. Cohorts of adult flies were
established in large plastic boxes in the laboratory and were exposed to residues of oil-formulated
fungal conidia sprayed on strips of plastic sheeting attached to the box walls. Exposure to the
biopesticide barrier treatments caused 100% mortality in adult populations within 8-16 days,
depending on the fungal species. In contrast, control flies survived until 96-110 days. Additionally,
fungal infections caused 13-20% reduction in egg viability and >70% reduction in fecundity of
flies prior to death. The combined lethal and pre-lethal impacts resulted in 21- to 26-fold reduction
in basic reproductive rate in the fungus-exposed populations relative to controls. Based on these
promising proof-of-principle results, further research is currently underway to determine the
feasibility of developing a biopesticide product for operational use.
Key words: Poultry production facilities, insecticide resistance, entomopathogenic fungi,
Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae, Musca domestica

66
2.1. Introduction
House flies, Musca domestica L., are important pests in poultry production facilities. High fly
populations have been shown to reduce both egg production and quality, and can potentially
transmit a number of human and poultry diseases (Axtell, 1986, 1999; Forster et al., 2007; Malik,
Singh, & Satya, 2007; Olsen & Hammack, 2000; Wanarata, Panyim, & Pakpinyo, 2011).
Although cultural, mechanical and biological tactics have potential in preventing and suppressing
fly populations (Crespo, Lecuona, & Hogsette, 1998; Malik et al., 2007), use of broad-spectrum
chemical pesticides is currently the only option for managing overwhelming populations in
poultry barns (Axtell, 1986; Axtell & Arends, 1990). However, house flies have developed
resistance to almost all commonly used chemical insecticides and resistance is now a global
problem (Geden, 2012; Kaufman, Scott, & Rutz, 2001; Scott, Alefantis, Kaufman, & Rutz,
2000). In addition, the poultry industry continues to lose many currently registered
organophosphate and carbamate pesticides for fly management due to the implementation of the
Food Quality Protection Act (Kaufman, Reasor, Rutz, Ketzis, & Arends, 2005). These challenges
create a demand for alternatives to conventional chemical pesticides.
Several previous studies have evaluated the potential for strains of entomopathogenic
fungi, such as Beauveria bassiana, to infect and kill house flies (e.g. Anderson, Bell, Blanford,
Paaijmans, & Thomas, 2011; Cova et al., 2009; Geden, Rutz, & Steinkraus, 1995; Lecuona,
Turica, Tarocco, & Crespo, 2005; Mishra, Kumar, Malik, & Satya, 2011; Watson, Geden, Long,
& Rutz, 1995). However, beyond infection and virulence, an important element in successful
development of a biopesticide product is an efficient delivery system. In poultry barns, newly
hatched adult flies crawl from the litter to the nearest vertical surface to rest while their cuticle
67
and wings harden. Further, high densities of adult flies tend to be found in darker areas of the
poultry house, often within 0.5-1 meter of the manure floor (Jacobs, Hogsette, & Miller, 1993).
We propose a delivery system whereby these adult flies are targeted via the application of oil-
formulated conidia to inexpensive contractor-grade plastic sheeting, fixed to the lower section of
the basement walls. Plastic sheeting is an inert substrate with good conidia-transfer
characteristics, so we anticipate that flies resting or walking over the treated plastic will pick up
conidia and become infected. Direct residual spraying of existing structural substrates such as
concrete and wood is an option, but it has been shown previously that these substrates can
influence infection rates and conidia persistence (Blanford et al., 2012). Additionally, the
targeted barrier application strategy should minimize the surface area for treatment compared
with conventional premise sprays and provides the option of either washing or replacing the
sheeting prior to re-application.
This publication describes the use of large plastic boxes with fungal treated walls to
evaluate the potential of two candidate fungal pathogens to reduce fly populations through
impacts on survival and lifetime reproductive output. Our approach simulates the targeted
residual spray delivery system with flies exposed to barrier treatments of treated plastic
following adult emergence.
2.2. Materials and methods
2.2.1. Fly rearing
Insecticide susceptible house flies were obtained from Cornell University (Schwardt Lab) and
maintained in an environmental chamber at 26-27oC, 50-60% RH with a 12:12 light: dark
photoperiod. Fly eggs were collected by placing a clear plastic cup (266 ml) containing
68
KleenexTM tissue paper saturated with skim milk powder, sugar and water into a fly stock cage
for 2-3 h. To initiate a fly cohort, eggs were washed from the tissue into another plastic cup with
room temperature tap water, and the cup was then sealed with a lid and gently shaken to break up
egg clumps. The eggs were allowed to settle for few minutes, and roughly 1.5 ml of settled eggs
were added to 3 L of larval medium comprising wheat bran (2 L), Manno-ProTM calf protein
supplement (1 L), baker’s yeast (150 ml) and warm water (1.5 L), in a 35 x 30 x 15 cm plastic
box. Larval development was monitored daily, and on formation, pupae were collected by gently
shaking them from the surface of the larval medium into plastic cups. Harvested pupae were
either used for the experiments, or to continue the colony. In the latter case, cups containing
pupae were placed in clean stock cages until eclosion ceased. Adult flies were provided access to
food, consisting of a 1:1 ratio of powdered milk and granulated sugar, and water ad libitum.
2.2.2. Fungal production, formulation and application
Dry conidia powder of Beauveria bassiana sensu lato (Bb), isolate I93-825 and Metarhizium
anisopliae sensu lato (Ma), isolate ESF1 (Envera, PA) were produced using our standard two
stage process (Jenkins, Heviefo, Langewald, Cherry, & Lomer, 1998), and stored in a refrigerator
at 7oC until use. Prior to spray application, conidia powder was suspended in oil formulation
containing 4:1 Isopar M and Ondina oil (Blanford et al., 2011). The concentration was
enumerated with an Improved Neubauer Hemocytometer and adjusted to 1 x 109 conidia/ml.
Prior to application, conidia were checked for viability by plating on Sabouraud Dextrose Agar,
and assessed for germination at 400x under a microscope after 20 h incubation at 25 oC (conidia
were confirmed to be greater than 90% viable at the beginning of all experiments). Pieces of
contractor-grade plastic sheet were fixed inside a 0.25 m2 spray area on the rear wall of a reverse
flow laminar cabinet, and sprayed with an artist’s airbrush at a volume application rate of 20
69
ml/m2. A blank formulation was used for the control, using the same volume application rate as
for the fungal formulation. The sprayed substrates were removed from the wall of the cabinet,
and used to line the lower two-thirds of the inner walls of each plastic box and allowed to dry at
room temperature overnight. Translucent plastic storage boxes (41 cm long, 28 cm wide and 23
cm high) with fitted lids were used to establish artificial fly colonies. The lids were cut to
accommodate a ventilation screen made of fly proof mesh (18 x 16 cm), together with an open-
ended mesh sleeve to enable access into the boxes during the experiments.
2.2.3. Establishment of fly colonies in boxes
A cohort of 300, ready to emerge, mature pupae was placed at the bottom centre of each box, and
allowed to emerge. Eight boxes, four fungus-treated replicates and four controls, were
maintained for each experiment under the same conditions as the main fly colony. Flies were
provided access to a 1:1 mixture of skim milk power and sugar, and water ad libitum for the
duration of the experiments. For B. bassiana, we conducted two experimental runs using
different batches of the fungus produced approximately two months apart (batches identified as
batch 1 and batch 2). For M. anisopliae we conducted one experimental run only (although with
appropriate internal replication) as parallel studies on persistence (to be reported elsewhere)
showed spray residues of this isolate to have a half-life just a few days, making it a poor
candidate for ultimate operational use.
2.2.4. Fly survival
Starting from the first day of emergence and daily thereafter, dead flies were removed from the
boxes, counted, sexed and allowed to dry at room temperature (26-27oC, 50-60% RH with a
70
12:12 light: dark photoperiod) for five to seven days. To confirm mycosis, cadavers were
subsequently transferred into 9 cm petri dishes containing water-saturated filter papers, and
sealed with parafilm. After five to seven days, the cadavers were examined for external
sporulation using a dissection microscope at 15x magnification.
2.2.5. Egg collection, enumeration and viability test
Beginning two to three days after the first adults emerged, fecundity was measured daily by
collecting the eggs from each replicate box. To collect eggs, a small clear plastic cup (266 ml)
containing a Kleenex™ tissue paper saturated with milk powder and sugar mixture was placed
into each box for 8 h (8 am to 3 pm) every day. Eggs from each oviposition cup were rinsed from
the Kleenex™ paper into another plastic cup (266 ml) with room temperature tap water. The cup
was sealed with a lid and gently shaken to break up egg clumps. Egg counting and viability tests
were carried out following the protocol as outlined by Anderson, Branford, & Thomas (2013)
with slight modifications. The water containing the eggs was poured into a petri dish, which was
placed under a dissection microscope. One hundred individual eggs were removed using a plastic
pipette, and placed into a petri dish containing a 9 cm circle of black filter paper (Whatman,
Inc.). These dishes were sealed with parafilm and kept at 26-27oC and 50-60% RH. After 48 h,
empty chorions were counted using a dissecting microscope, and any eggs that had not hatched
by this time were considered non-viable. The remaining eggs from the collection were quantified
volumetrically using a graduated 0.5 ml plastic insulin syringe. The tip of the syringe was
removed using a razor blade, and covered by several layers of stretched nylon mesh. The eggs in
water were drawn up into a plastic pipette and transferred into the syringe barrel. Water drained
out through the mesh and the settled egg volume was measured using the graduations on the side
71
of the syringe. To calibrate the egg number-to-volume relationship, five replicates of 200, 400,
600 and 800 eggs were counted directly under the microscope, and measured using the
volumetric method. The egg number-to-volume relationship was described by the following
regression equation: Total eggs = (11.984*volume (µl)) + 88.063; R2 = 0.975. Daily egg
production per female was calculated by dividing the total number of eggs produced by the
number of living females remaining in each box.
2.2.6. Statistical analysis
House fly survival data from each experiment were analyzed separately using Kaplan-Meier
survival analysis (SPSS, software version 22) with differences in median survival time between
treatments (fungus vs. control) compared using the log-rank test. Life-time fecundity per female
and viable eggs produced per female were log-transformed and analyzed separately for each
experiment using a general linear model incorporating infection status (fungus vs. control) as a
main factor. The life-time fecundity per female in the cohort was measured as the total number of
eggs divided by the initial number of females present in each replicate at the start of the
experiments, and the viable eggs produced per female was estimated in the similar way. Cohort
life tables were constructed for each experiment and basic reproductive rates were calculated for
treated and control populations (Begon, Harper, & Townsend, 1996). All statistical analyses were
performed in SPSS (version 22) and significance for all statistical tests was set at P < 0.05.
72
2.3. Results
2.3.1. Fly survival
Both B. bassiana and M. anisopliae infections caused significant reductions in fly survival
compared to control groups (Figure 2-1A-C). House fly survival was significantly different
between fungal-treated and control populations in all experiments (χ2=2483.04, P<0.001 for Bb
batch 1; χ2=2582.85, P<0.001 for Bb batch 2 and χ2=2557.95, P<0.001 for Ma). The B. bassiana
treatments had median survival times of 6 days (6 ± 0.02 for batch 1; 6 ± 0.03 for batch 2), with
100% mortality in both runs by day 8. M. anisopliae was less virulent, with median survival time
of 9 (± 0.01) days and 100% mortality by day 16. Flies in the control treatments, on the other
hand, survived for up to 96-110 days, with median survival times of 26-34 days. There were
significant differences in survival between male and female flies in all experiments (for Bb batch
1 experiment, χ2=552.69, P<0.001 for control and χ2=123.06, P<0.001 for fungus; for Bb batch
2 experiment, χ2=714.89, P<0.001 for control and χ2=3.89, P=0.049 for fungus; and for Ma
experiment, χ2=231.42, P<0.001 for control and χ2=360.80, P<0.001 for fungus), with females
surviving longer than males in the control treatments but males surviving longer than females in
the fungus treatments. Wherever significant mortality occurred in the fungal treatments, > 90%
of cadavers showed external signs of mycosis.
2.3.2. Fecundity and egg viability
Egg laying patterns in both control and treatment groups were similar across all experiments. In
control groups, a higher number of eggs were produced during the first weeks after emergence,
and this decreased slowly with age. The egg production in all control groups lasted for about two
73
months. Conversely, treated populations only produced eggs for the first two to five days after
emergence and stopped after day six (Figure 2-2A-C).
Both fungal species caused more than 90% reduction in lifetime fecundity as well as
about 13-20% reduction in egg viability (Figure 2-3A and B). There was a significant difference
in life-time fecundity per female and number of viable eggs produced per female between
fungal-treated and control populations in all experiments (for life time fecundity: F1,6 = 316.38,
P<0.001 for Bb batch 1; F1,6 = 500.76, P<0.001 for Bb batch 2; F1,6 = 898.29, P<0.001 for Ma.
For viable egg production: F1,6 = 715.89, P<0.001 for Bb batch 1; F1,6 = 488.95, P<0.001 for Bb
batch 2; F1,6 = 825.18, P<0.001 for Ma). Overall, the basic reproductive rates (essentially the
average number of viable offspring produced across the lifetime of an individual fly) for flies
were 8.4 in the population treated with B. bassiana batch 1 and 17.3 for those treated with B.
bassiana batch 2, compared with 225 and 367 for the respective controls. Similarly, for the M.
anisopliae experiments, the basic reproductive rates were 11.4 for fungus-exposed flies
compared with 265 in the controls (Figure 2-3C).
2.4. Discussion
This study demonstrated the potential for residual spray treatments of fungal pathogens to
suppress housefly populations by increasing adult fly mortality and reducing lifetime
reproductive output (partly due to shorter lifespan, but also reductions in per capita fecundity and
egg viability).
B. bassiana treatments resulted in 100% mortality in fly populations within 8 days
irrespective of production batch, compared to 16 days in the experiment with M. anisopliae. This
74
difference in speed of kill could be due to simple variation in virulence between isolates.
However, the female flies exposed in the M. anisopliae experiment died at more or less the same
rate as the flies exposed to B. bassiana, so the longer survival at the population level was driven
by reduced virulence against the males only. Interestingly, the male flies in the B. bassiana
experiments also died more slowly than the females. This sex-difference in susceptibility
contrasts with the baseline patterns of survival in the control flies where, consistent with
previous studies (Anderson et al., 2013; Rockstein & Lieberman, 1958), females lived longer
than males. The reasons for this greater susceptibility of female flies are unknown. Female flies
tend do have a larger body size, which could result in more conidia being picked up from the
sprayed surface, increasing effective dose. Additionally physical (e.g. persistent courtship or
coercion) and physiological stresses (e.g. seminal fluid proteins) exerted by copulatory males
could impact susceptibility (Fowler & Partridge, 1989; Lew, Morrow, & Rice, 2006; Partridge,
Fowler, Trewitt, & Sharp, 1986; Wigby & Chapman, 2005). Post-mating reduction in immune
defence is common in female insects (Rolff & Siva-Jothy, 2002; Short & Lazzaro, 2010; Siva-
Jothy, Tsubaki, & Hooper, 1998) possibly due to reallocation of resources from immunological
requirements to reproduction (Sheldon & Verhulst, 1996).
In addition to mortality, both fungal pathogens significantly reduced the reproductive
fitness of fly populations. In all experiments, the infections caused more than 90% reduction in
per capita lifetime female fecundity. Similar impacts on female reproductive output have been
documented in several other insect-fungus systems (Afity & Mattler, 1969; Fargues, Delmas,
Auge, & Lebrun, 1991; Mathews, Smith, & Edwards, 2002; Santiago-Alvarez & Vargas-Osuna,
1988). While the impact on lifetime reproduction clearly derived in part from reduced female
lifespan, per capita fecundity of infected females over the first few days of the experiment also
75
showed a 70-80% reduction in egg production compared to control populations over the same
period. The fungal pathogens also reduced egg viability by 13-20%. These combined lethal and
pre-lethal impacts resulted in 21- to 26-fold reduction in basic reproductive rate in the fungus-
exposed populations relative to controls. Other anticipated side effects of fungal infection, such
as reduced flight capacity (Blanford et al., 2011), should further add to control by limiting fly
dispersal capacity.
Overall, the current study provides encouraging proof of principle that residual treatments
of oil-formulated fungi can infect adult house flies shortly following emergence and could have
substantial impacts on fly densities and population growth rates in intensive animal units such as
poultry houses. The notion of using a barrier treatment above the litter layer is attractive as it
would likely minimize non-target impact on manure-inhabiting natural enemies and enable a
substantial reduction in total treatment area compared to current methods wherein the entire
basement and manure surface tend to be treated with insecticide formulations (Kaufman et al.,
2005). Moreover, the use of cheap, non-toxic contractor-grade plastic sheeting to cover part of
the wall surfaces prior fungal application would reduce the potential impact of different
structural surfaces on conidial viability and availability (Branford et al., 2012). That said, the M.
anisopliae isolate used in the current study decayed to zero viability within one to two days after
application so represents a poor candidate for field use. Further research is currently underway to
investigate the impact of a suite of abiotic and biotic factors on persistence and likely efficacy of
the candidate B. bassiana isolate in high-rise layer production facilities.

76
2.5. Acknowledgements
We thank the Schwardt Lab, Department of Entomology, Cornell University for providing fly
pupae, and Dr Robert D. Anderson for suggestions on rearing flies. We are grateful for the
diligent assistance of Rebecca A. Seliga, who conducted the egg viability evaluations and
assisted with colony maintenance. The authors also thank Dr Simon Blanford for advice on
statistical analysis and editorial suggestions to an initial draft of the manuscript. The study is
supported by US Agency for International Development (USAID cooperative agent No: EPP-A-
00-0400016-00) and in part by Animal Health and Diagnostic Commission (AHDC),
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

77
2.6. References
Afity, A. M., & Mattler, M. M. (1969). Retarded effect of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner on the
fecundity of Anagasta kuehniella (Zell). Entomophaga, 14, 447-456.
doi:10.1007/BF02390550
Anderson, R. D., Bell, A. S., Blanford, S., Paaijmans, K. P., & Thomas, M. B. (2011).
Comparative growth kinetics and virulence of four different isolates of entomopathogenic
fungi in house fly (Musca domestica L.) Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 107, 179-
184. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2011.04.004
Anderson, R. D., Blanford, S., & Thomas, M. B. (2013). House flies delay fungal infection by
fevering–at a cost. Ecological Entomology, 38, 1-10. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2311.2012.01394.x
Axtell, R. C. (1986). Fly management in poultry production: cultural, biological, and chemical.
Poultry Science, 65, 657-667. doi:10.3382/ps.0650657
Management Reviews, 4(1), 53-73. doi:10.1023/A:1009637116897
Axtell, R. C., & Arends, J. J. (1990). Ecology and Management of arthropod pests of poultry.
Annual Review of Entomology, 35, 101-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.000533
Begon, M., Harper, J. L., & Townsend, C. R. (1996). Ecology: Individuals, Populations, and
Communities, 3rd edition. Blackwell Science Ltd. Cambridge, MA.
Coetzee, M., Read, A. F., & Thomas, M. B. (2012). Storage and persistence of a
354. doi:10.1186/1475-2875-11-354
Blanford, S., Shi, W., Riann, C., Marden, J. H., Koekemoer, L. L., Brooke, B. D., Coetzee, M.,
Read, A. F., & Thomas, M. B. (2011). Lethal and pre-lethal effects of a fungal
biopesticide contribute to substantial and rapid vector control of malaria vectors. PLoS
One 6(8), 1-11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023591
L., & Medina, M. G. (2009). Effect of Beauveria bassiana and Beauveria brongniartii for
the house fly (Musca domestica) control on laboratory and poultry sheds conditions.
78
Crespo, D. C., Lecuona, R. E., & Hogsette, J. A. (1998). Biological control: An important
component in integrated management of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in caged
layer poultry houses in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Biological Control, 13, 16-24.
doi:10.1006/bcon.1998.0632
Fargues, J., Delmas, J. C., Auge, J., & Lebrun, R. A. (1991). Fecundity and egg fertility in the
adult Colorado beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata surviving larval infection by the fungus
Beauveria bassiana. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 61, 45-51.
doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.1991.tb02394.x
Forster, M., Klimpel, S., Mehlhorn, H., Sievert, K., Messler, S., & Pfeffer, K. (2007). Pilot study
on synanthropic flies (e.g. Musca, Sarcophaga, Calliphora, Fannia, Lucilia,Stomoxys) as
vectors of pathogenic microorganisms. Parasitology Research, 101(1), 243-246.
doi:10.1007/s00436-007-0522-y
Fowler, K., & Partridge, L. (1989). A cost of mating in female fruit flies. Nature, 338, 760-761.
doi:10.1038/338760a0
1-11.
Geden, C. J., Rutz, D. A., & Steinkraus, D. C. (1995). Virulence of different isolates and
formulations of Beauveria bassiana for house flies and the parasitoids Muscidifurax
raptor. Biological Control, 5, 615-621. doi:10.1006/bcon.1995.1073
Jacobs, R. D., Hogsette, J. A., & Miller, R. W. (1993). Using sticky cards to monitor fly
populations in poultry houses. Fact sheet, University of Florida, Animal Sciences
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, 2p.
Jenkins, N. E., Heviefo, G., Langewald, J., Cherry, A. J., & Lomer, C. J. (1998). Development of
mass production technology for aerial conidia of mitosporic fungi for use as
mycopesticides. Biocontrol News and Information, 19, 21N-31N.
Kaufman, P. E, Reasor, C., Rutz, D. A., Ketzis, J. K., & Arends, J. J. (2005). Evaluation of
Beauveria bassiana applications against adult house fly, Musca domestica, in commercial
caged-layer poultry facilities in New York state. Biological Control, 33(3), 360-367.
doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.03.011
79
Kaufman, P. E., Scott, J. G., & Rutz, D. A. (2001). Monitoring insecticide resistance in house
flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from New York dairies. Pest Management Science, 57, 514-
521. doi:10.1002/ps.319
Lecuona, R. E., Turica, M., Tarocco, F., & Crespo, D. C. (2005). Microbial control of Musca
Medical Entomology, 42(3), 332-336. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0022-
2585(2005)042[0332:MCOMDD]2.0.CO;2
Lew, T. A., Morrow, E. H., & Rice, W. R. (2006). Standing genetic variance for female resistance
to harm from males and its relationship to intra-locus sexual conflict. Evolution, 60, 97-
105. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1554/05-531.1
Malik, A., Singh, N., & Satya, S. (2007). House fly (Musca domestica): a review of control
strategies for a challenging pest. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B,
Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes, 42(4), 453-469. doi:
10.1080/03601230701316481
Matthews, J. H., Smith, I., & Edwards, P. (2002). Lethal and sub-lethal effects of a granulovirus
on the tomato moth, Lacanobia oleracea. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 80, 73-80.
doi:10.1016/S0022-2011(02)00100-3
Mishra, S., Kumar, P., Malik, A., & Satya, S. (2011). Adulticidal and larvicidal activity of
Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae against house fly, Musca domestica
(Diptera:Muscidae), in laboratory and simulated field assays. Parasitology Research,
108, 1483-1492. doi:10.1007/s00436-010-2203-5
Olsen, A. R., & Hammack, T. S. (2000). Isolation of Salmonella spp. from the house fly, Musca
domestica L., and the dump fly, Hydrotaea aenescens (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Muscidae)
at caged-layer houses. Journal of Food Protection, 63(7), 958-960.
Partridge, L., Fowler, K., Trewitt, S., & Sharp, W. (1986). An examination of the effects of males
on the survival and egg production rates of female Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of
Insect Physiology, 32, 925-929. doi:10.1016/0022-1910(86)90140-X
Rockstein, M., & Lieberman, H. M. (1958). Survival curves for male and female houseflies
(Musca domestica L.). Nature, 181, 787-788. doi:10.1038/181787a0
80
Rolff, J., & Siva-Jothy, M. T. (2002). Copulation corrupts immunity: a mechanism for a cost of
mating in insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 99, 9916-9918. doi:10.1073/pnas.152271999
Santiago-Alvarez, C., & Vargas-Osuna, E. (1988). Reduction of reproductive capacity of
Spodoptera littoralis males by a nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV). Journal of
Invertebrate Pathology, 52, 142-146. doi:10.1016/0022-2011(88)90113-9
Scott, J. G., Alefantis, T. G., Kaufman, P. E., & Rutz, D. A. (2000). Insecticide resistance in
house flies from caged layer poultry facilities. Pest Management Science, 56(2), 147-153.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1526-4998(200002)56:2<147::AID-PS106>3.0.CO;2-7
Sheldon, B. C., & Verhulst, S. (1996). Ecological immunology: costly parasite defenses and
trade-offs in evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 317-321.
doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10039-2
Short, S. M., & Lazzaro, B. P. (2010). Female and male genetic contributions to post-mating
immune defense in female Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the Royal Society B,
Biological Sciences, 277, 3649-3657. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0937
Siva-Jothy, M. T., Tsubaki, Y., & Hooper, R. E. (1998). Decreased immune response as a
proximate cost of copulation and oviposition in a damselfly. Physiological Entomology,
23, 274-277.
Wanarata, S., Panyim, S., & Pakpinyo, S. (2011). The potential of house flies to act as a vector of
avian influenza subtype H5N1 under experimental conditions. Medical and Veterinary
Entomology, 5, 58-63. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2915.2010.00928.x
Watson, D. W., Geden, C. J., Long, S. J., & Rutz, D. A. (1995). Efficacy of Beauveria Bassiana
for controlling the house fly and stable fly (Diptera:Muscidae). Biological Control, 5(3),
405-411. doi:10.1006/bcon.1995.1048
Wigby S., & Chapman T. (2005). Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila
melanogaster. Current Biology, 15, 316-321. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.051
81
Figure 2-1. Cumulative proportional survival (mean ±SE) of adult house fly populations exposed
to residual spray treatments of A) B. bassiana I93-825 (batch 1), B) B. bassiana I93-825 (batch
2), and C) M. anisopliae ESF1 in plastic boxes under laboratory conditions
82
Figure 2-1. Continued

83
Figure 2-2. Average daily egg laying pattern of female flies (A, B and C) in fungal-treated and
untreated-control plastic boxes. Data show mean (± SE) number of eggs per live female per day
84
Figure 2-3. Impact of fungal infections on A) total number of eggs per female from the original
cohort, B) viable eggs per female from the original cohort, C) basic reproductive rate relative to
uninfected control house fly populations in plastic boxes under laboratory conditions
85
Chapter 3: Persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against the house
fly, Musca domestica, on typical structural substrates of poultry houses
(Published in Biocontrol Science and Technology. Doi: 10.1080/09583157.2015.1009872)
Abstract
Entomopathogenic fungi, such as Beauveria bassiana, offer potential for use as biopesticides for
control of house flies in poultry production facilities. This study evaluates persistence and
efficacy of oil-formulated B. bassiana conidia against adult house flies on a range of structural
substrates commonly found in poultry houses. Exposure of flies to fungal-treated surfaces
produced high levels of infection leading up to 100% mortality in 6-10 days. However, the
infectivity of the spray residues declined rapidly within one or two weeks following repeated fly
exposures. Investigations showed that, in the absence of flies, conidia remained viable on test
surfaces for up to three months regardless of substrate type, application method or fungal
production batch. Rather, it was the presence of flies themselves that was responsible for
reducing persistence. The exact mechanisms remain unclear but involve a combination of
physical removal and chemical deactivation, with decay rates increasing at higher fly densities.
While the rapid decay could pose a challenge for operational use, the results suggest it might be
possible to tailor treatment frequencies to fly densities with, for example, weekly applications at
high fly densities and longer intervals when populations decline. Further research is needed to
determine persistence in semi-field and field settings and to quantify the influence of fly
densities under natural exposure conditions.
Key words: Beauveria bassiana, persistence, residual sprays, pesticide resistance, biocontrol,
Musca domestica
86
3.1. Introduction
Entomopathogenic fungi have been successfully used against agricultural pests in a variety of
crop settings (Anderson & Lewis, 1991; Faria & Wraight, 2001; Milner, Soper, & Lutton, 1982;
Rombach, Aguda, Shepard, & Rober, 1986; Wraight & Ramos, 2002), and recent research has
identified the potential to extend use for control of various pests in indoor environments
(Barbarin, Jenkins, Rajotte, & Thomas, 2012; Blanford et al., 2011; Cherry, Abalo, & Hell, 2005;
Hidalgo, Moore, & Patourel, 1998). Several studies have investigated the potential use of fungal
pathogens, especially isolates of Beauveria bassiana, for control of house flies, which are
important pests and disease-vectors in poultry production facilities (Geden, 2012; Malik, Singh,
& Satya, 2007). Studies range from simple laboratory assays (e.g. Anderson, Bell, Blanford,
Paaijmans, & Thomas, 2011; Cova et al., 2009; Geden, Rutz, & Steinkraus, 1995; Lecuona,
Turica, Tarocco, & Crespo, 2005; Mishra, Kumar, Malik, & Satya, 2011; Watson, Geden, Long,
& Rutz, 1995) through to semi-field and field evaluations (Cova et al., 2009; Kaufman, Reasor,
Rutz, Ketzis, & Arends, 2005; Mishra et al., 2011; Mwamburi, Laing, & Miller, 2010; Watson,
Rutz, & Long, 1996). The focus of much of this house fly research has been on direct mortality
effects of fungi on larvae and adults, with relatively little emphasis on other operationally
relevant properties such as infectivity and persistence.
Currently just one B. bassiana-based biopesticide product is commercially available for
control of flies in animal production facilities. However, its current formulation and delivery
methods in poultry production barns require intensive re-applications, with additional water
sprayed onto the manure (Kaufman et al., 2005). Such a strategy is costly, labor-intensive and
may create additional challenges for manure moisture management. Conidia sprayed on the
87
manure surface are also likely to succumb to complex biological and chemical conditions
(saprophytic microbes, heat, humidity, nitrogenous waste product, toxic gases etc.; Xin et al.,
2011) and can threaten non-target species, especially other natural enemies associated with the
manure (Geden et al., 1995).
High densities of adult flies tend to be found in darker areas of the poultry house, within
0.5-1 meter of the floor (Jacobs, Hogsette, & Miller, 1993). Further, newly emerged adult flies
congregate on the walls and pillars adjacent to the manure layer to harden their cuticle and
expand their wings (Axtell & Arends, 1990; Watson et al., 1995). Treating these surfaces with a
biopesticide residual spray could provide an opportunity to target teneral as well as older adult
flies. The cost effectiveness of such an approach is likely to depend, in part, on the infectivity
and persistence of conidia after treatment.
To date there has been limited research on post-application persistence of conidia in
interior environments and/or on realistic substrates. One study on house flies examined
persistence of conidia of B. bassiana formulated in Tween 80 and water and showed conidia to
remain infective for 28 days following application to plywood (Watson et al., 1995). Other
studies examining persistence of oil-based fungal sprays being developed for control of
mosquitoes showed conidia of B. bassiana to remain infective for two to seven months after
treatment, depending on the test substrate (Blanford et al., 2012 and see also Darbro & Thomas,
2009). These results are encouraging. However, fungal persistence will depend on the specifics
of the isolate, formulation, substrate and the environment. Here we investigated the persistence
and infectivity of oil-based formulations of an isolate of B. bassiana applied to cinder block,
cement board and wood (painted or left bare) that constitute the primary wall materials found in
high-rise layer production facilities. We also evaluated persistence on contractor-grade plastic

88
sheeting as a possible substrate to line sections of the basement walls of poultry houses prior to
application.
3.2.1. Fly rearing
Insecticide-susceptible house flies (Musca domestica L.) were obtained from the Department of
Entomology (Schwardt Lab), Cornell University and maintained in an environmental chamber at
26-27oC, 50-60% RH with a 12:12h (L: D) photoperiod. Fly eggs were collected by placing a
small clear plastic cup (18 cm bottom and 28 cm top diameter, 266 ml) into a fly stock cage for
2-3 h. The cups contained Kleenex TM paper saturated with skim milk powder, sugar and water.
To initiate a fly cohort, roughly 1.5 ml of eggs were placed into 3 L of larval medium comprising
wheat bran (2 L), Manno-ProTM calf protein supplement (1 L), baker’s yeast (150 ml) and warm
water (1.5 L), in a 35 x 30 x 15 cm plastic box, and larval development was monitored daily.
Pupae were collected by gently shaking them from the surface of the diet into plastic cups (266
ml). Cups containing pupae were placed in clean stock cages until eclosion ceased. Adult flies
had access to food, consisting of a 1:1 ratio of powdered milk and granulated sugar, and water ad
libitum.
3.2.2. Efficacy of spray residue on different structural surfaces over 30 days with repeated
fly exposures (I)
3.2.2.1. Conidia spray application
A dry conidia powder of Beauveria bassiana sensu lato (isolate I93-825 production batch PSU
31) was produced using a standard two stage process (Jenkins, Heviefo, Langewald, Cherry, &
89
Lomer, 1998) and stored in a refrigerator at 7oC until use. Prior to spray application, conidia
powder was suspended in an oil formulation containing 80% Isopar M and 20% Ondina
(Blanford et al., 2011). Concentration was enumerated with an Improved Neubauer
Hemocytometer and adjusted to 1.8 x 109 conidia/ml. Conidia were checked for viability by
plating on Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA), and germination rates were assessed at a
magnification of 400x under a microscope after 20 h incubation at 25oC (conidia were greater
than 93% viable at the beginning of all assays). Test substrates included untreated cinder block,
cinder block coated with oil-based or water-based latex paint, raw wood, pressure-treated wood
and cement board. Blocks of each substrate (15 x 15 cm) were fixed inside a 0.25 m2 spray area
on the rear wall of a reverse flow laminar cabinet and sprayed using an artist’s airbrush at a
volume application rate of 20 ml formulation per m2, giving a coverage on each surface of 1.5 x
106 conidia/cm2 (verified by extracting sprayed conidia from a representative substrate and
counting using a hemacytometer). Spray application of conidia was carried out in batches of six
(containing one replicate of each substrate type) with each substrate type replicated four times. A
blank formulation was used for the control and sprayed onto each substrate at the same volume
and application rate as for the fungal formulations. The exposed substrates were removed from
the wall of the laminar flow cabinet and allowed to dry at room temperature overnight.
3.2.2.2. Exposing flies to spray residue
Three- to five-day-old adult house flies were removed from stock colonies using a battery-
powered insect aspirator (BioQuip Inc.) and anesthetized by placing them at -20oC for three to
four minutes. Forty adult flies of mixed sex were randomly selected by placing them on a 9 cm
petri dish lid with a block of dry ice suspended above to maintain the cold temperature. Selected
90
flies were placed on each substrate, covered with a 9 cm diameter petri dish bottom and allowed
to revive and move freely within the enclosure (Anderson et al., 2011). After 4 h, the flies were
released into translucent plastic rearing boxes (35.6 cm long, 20.3 cm wide and 11.7 cm deep)
fitted with nylon mesh on top and open-ended nylon mesh sleeve on one side and monitored for
mortality daily for three weeks. Flies had access to water and a 1:1 mixture of skim milk power
and granulated sugar ad libitum. Dead flies were removed and a fungal mycosis confirmed by
drying cadavers for five to seven days before transferring them to a humid environment and
monitoring external sporulation under a dissecting microscope at 15x magnification over the
subsequent seven days. The treated substrates were stored under the same conditions as the caged
flies (26-27oC and 50-60% RH) and repeat exposures using naïve flies were performed 15 and 30
days after the initial exposures to monitor changes in infectivity of the spray residues.
3.2.3. Conidia viability test on ‘inert’ glass slides and plastic sheet comparing two
production batches and two application techniques
Viability of conidia can vary depending on the substrate (Blanford et al., 2012) and also
production batch. Two batches of B. bassiana (I93-825), PSU 31, and a batch of the same fungal
isolate produced two months later (PSU 37) were applied to either glass slides or non-porous,
chemical-free plastic sheeting materials to test persistence independent of any potential physical
or chemical effects of structural substrates using the methodology of Darbro & Thomas (2009).
Oil-formulated conidia with a concentration of 1 x 109 conidia/ml were either sprayed using the
technique described in Section 3.2.2.1, or painted onto the surface of glass slides and plastic
sheet using a soft nylon paintbrush at 20 ml/m2. Treated substrates were allowed to air-dry
overnight and then maintained at 26-27oC and 50-60% RH for the duration of the experiment.
91
Conidial viability was determined every week by washing the conidial residue from the glass
slides or cutting a 3-cm2 swatch from the plastic sheeting and suspending conidia in 3 ml of
Isopar M. A single drop of the resulting conidial suspension was spread over the surface of SDA
in a 5 cm diameter petri dish and incubated for 20 h at 25 oC. Conidia were examined under a
microscope at 400x magnification to determine the proportion of germinating and non-
germinating conidia. A total of 300 conidia were examined from each of three replicate samples,
and the data were used to calculate percent viability of the conidia.
fly exposures (II)
This persistence experiment was designed as a repeat of Section 3.2.2 considering a sub-set of
the original substrates (bare cinder block and cinder block painted with water-based latex paint)
and plastic sheeting (as used in viability test in Section 3.2.3); the latter having potential as a
temporary surface that could be attached to the poultry manure room walls prior to spray
application. All conidia used in this experiment were from batch PSU 37. Conidia were
formulated and applied as in Section 3.2.2, at 1 x 109 conidia/ml (1.5 x 106 conidia/cm2).
Germination rate at application was greater than 90%. All other procedures were identical to
Section 3.2.2. Fly exposures were conducted on day 1, 7, 15 and 30 post-spray to better monitor
the short-term infectivity of the spray residue.
3.2.5. Effect of fly density on efficacy and viability of spray residue on plastic sheet
Conidia from production batch PSU 37 were formulated and sprayed onto plastic sheeting disks
following the same procedure and concentrations as mentioned in Section 3.2.4 above. Sprayed
92
disks were dried overnight and placed in the lids of 9 cm diameter plastic petri dishes. Either 25
or 50 temporarily anesthetized adult flies were added per disk and removed after 4-h exposure. A
new batch of flies at the same density was exposed to the same substrates on day 2, and this
procedure repeated again on day 3. In addition, some substrates were exposed only on day 2 or
day 3 to separate time effects from prior exposure. Six replicate disks were used for the low-
density (25 flies) treatment and four replicates were used for the high-density treatment. Flies
were maintained and monitored as described in Section 3.2.2.2. Viability of the conidia in the
spray residue was evaluated prior to the first exposure (93.9%) and immediately after each
exposure event using the methods described in Section 3.2.3.
3.2.6. Effect of fly density on viability and concentration of conidia in spray residue on
plastic sheet
Once again, conidia from batch PSU 37 were formulated and sprayed on to plastic sheeting and
allowed to dry as described in Section 3.2.5 above. In this experiment, we exposed flies to the
spray residue at lower densities (5, 10 and 20 flies per 9 cm exposure arena, four replicate plastic
disks for each density). Fly populations were allowed to remain on the treated surface for 4 h and
then removed. Flies were not monitored for mortality, but destructive samples were taken from
each exposed surface to evaluate viability and total number of conidia remaining following each
exposure. Repeated exposures using the same density of flies were made on day 2 and 3 after
spraying (total of three repeated exposures). Due to the destructive nature of the sampling, 12
exposure disks were used for each population density on day 1, with four being destructively
sampled at each subsequent time point.

93
Survival data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (SPSS v. 20) with differences
in median survival time (MST) among treatments compared using the log-rank test. The
proportions of conidia germinating from Section 3.2.3 were analyzed using a general linear
model (SPSS v. 20) with substrate type and application method as treatment factors. The
proportion of germinating conidia from Section 3.2.5 was square-transformed and analyzed
using a general linear model (SPSS v. 20) with sampling time as a treatment factor. The conidia
count and proportional germination data from Section 3.2.6 were square root and square-
transformed, respectively and analyzed using a general linear model (SPSS v. 20) with fly
density and sampling time as treatment factors.
3.3. Results
fly exposures (I)
Beauveria bassiana spray residues on all structural surfaces were highly effective 1 day after
spray application and resulted in 100% fly mortality within 7-10 days following a 4-h exposure
(Figure 3-1A). Fly survival was significantly lower than control survival at this time point (Table
3-1), with no clear effects of substrate type. By day 15, the infectivity of the spray residue had
reduced substantially (Figure 3-1B). Most treatments still showed reduced survival relative to
controls (Table 3-1), but none resulted in 50% mortality by the end of the monitoring period. By
day 30, the fungal spray residues had no obvious effects on fly survival with only one treatment
showing reduced survival relative to controls (Figure 3-1C; Table 3-1). Wherever significant
94
mortality occurred, 80-100% of cadavers in the fungal-exposed treatments showed external signs
of mycosis.
3.3.2. Effect of application method on conidia viability on ‘inert’ substrates
Because infectivity declined so rapidly in our initial assays (Section 3.3.1), we sought to
determine whether this was because the test substrates were universally bad, or possibly due to
another common factor such as damage to conidia during the spray procedure, or the fungus
production batch. Thus, we tested conidia viability using inert substrates (glass slides and plastic
sheet), comparing spray application versus a paintbrush, and then examined a separate
production batch of fungus. The half-life of conidia from batch PSU 31 varied between 24 and
45 days regardless of application methods (spray or paintbrush), with measurable viability up to
90 days in certain treatments (Figure 3-2A). There was no significant effect of substrate type and
application method on conidia viability (F1, 176 = 3.358, P=0.69 for substrate; F1, 176 = 0.127,
P=0.722 for method) or their interaction (F1, 176 = 0.790, P=0.375). Similarly, conidia of B.
bassiana PSU 37 showed a half-life of 35-49 days, with measurable viability up to 112 days
(Figure 3-2B). There was no significant effect of substrate type on viability (F1, 106 = 1.585,
P=0.211).
fly exposures (II)
Having determined that fungal viability was not overtly affected by application method or
production batch, we returned to examine persistence on different substrates comparing painted
and unpainted cinder block (both showing poor persistence as measured by fly mortality in
95
Section 3.3.1) with plastic sheeting (good long-term viability as in Section 3.3.2). The patterns of
fly mortality 1 day after spray application were similar to those observed in Section 3.3.1, with
90% mortality occurring in the treated groups within five to eight days irrespective of substrate
type (Figure 3-3A). Mortality was slightly slower on the latex painted cinder block relative to
other substrates, but all treatments were significantly different to controls (Table 3-2). By day 7,
infectivity of all treatments had once again fallen substantially (Figure 3-3B). There were still
significant effects on survival relative to controls (Table 3-2), but no treatment (including plastic
sheeting) could achieve 50% mortality. On days 15 and 30, the fungal treatments became
increasingly indistinguishable from controls (Figure 3-3C and D; Table 3-2). Wherever significant
mortality appeared, 80-100% of cadavers in the fungal-exposed treatments showed external signs
of mycosis.
3.3.4. Effect of fly density and repeat exposure on efficacy and viability of fungal spray
residue on plastic sheeting
The results thus far indicated that fungal conidia can remain viable for several weeks after
treatment, with no obvious effect of substrate, application method or fungus batch. However,
when flies are exposed to the treated surfaces, infectivity of the fungal residues appears to
decline rapidly. To investigate the influence of flies, we compared different fly densities and
single vs. multiple exposures of fly populations over consecutive days. A first exposure to treated
plastic one day after application caused 100% mortality of flies within 7-10 days (Figure 3-4A),
with no significant difference between high (50 flies per exposure disk) and low (25 flies per
exposure disk) density treatments (Table 3-3). Exposure of fresh batches of flies to the same
substrates just one day later revealed a significant decline in infectivity, with MSTs increasing by
96
2 days relative to day 1 (Table 3-3; Figure 3-4B). Mortality rate was further reduced following
another exposure to the same substrates on day 3 (Figure 3-4C). There was also an emergent
density effect with high-density treatments showing significantly greater increases in MSTs
compared with the low-density treatments (Table 3-3). When flies were exposed to treated
sheeting on day 2 and 3 that had not experienced prior exposure to flies, patterns of mortality
were more or less identical to the day 1 exposures (Figure 3-4 D and E) indicating that the
decline in infectivity was due to the presence of flies on the substrate. This effect was further
confirmed by measures of conidial viability on sheeting from the high-density repeat exposure
regime, and conidia germination was significantly different among the sampling times (F3,
11=77.69; P<0.001). Just one exposure reduced viability to about 50%, with two further
exposures reducing this by another 20% (Figure 3-4F). Following repeated fly exposures, it also
became increasingly difficult to obtain sufficient conidia from the substrate samples to quantify
germination suggesting apparent removal of conidia by the flies during the exposure period.
3.3.5. Effect of fly density on viability and concentration of conidia in spray residue on
plastic sheet
To partition deactivation of conidia from physical removal of conidia, we repeated the short-term
exposure study using a more discriminating range of fly densities (5, 10 and 20 flies per 9 cm
exposure plastic disk). Exposure to 10 or 20 flies reduced viability more rapidly than 5 flies
(Figure 3-5A). There were significant effects of fly density (F2, 23=9.12, P=0.001) and exposure
number (F3, 23=118.57, P<0.0001) on germination of conidia as well as a significant interaction
between the two (F6, 23 = 4.08, P=0.006). Germination remained at approximately 70% following
three, four-hour exposures to 5 flies, whereas it declined to 40-50% with the higher fly densities.
97
Flies also clearly removed conidia from the substrate. High-density exposures of 10 and
20 flies removed about half of the conidia after a single exposure, while the 5 fly treatment
required three repeated exposures to reduce conidia density to 50% (Figure 3-5B). With three
exposures of the highest fly density, available conidia were reduced from 1.5 x 106 to 5 x 104
conidia/cm2. There was a significant difference in number of conidia/cm2 between fly density
treatments (F2, 24=53.36, P<0.001) and number of exposure (F3, 24=166.33, P<0.001) with a
significant treatment-exposure interaction (F6, 24=12.18, P<0.001).
3.4. Discussion
Exposure of adult house flies to a range of substrates freshly treated with an oil-based
formulation of B. bassiana (isolate I93-825) produced high levels of infection leading to 100%
mortality in 6-10 days. This pattern of mortality is similar to that reported previously with this
isolate (Anderson et al., 2011; Anderson, Branford, & Thomas, 2013a; Anderson, Branford,
Jenkins, & Thomas, 2013b). Given that adult flies can live for several weeks and produce many
thousands of eggs over their lifetime (Fletcher, Axtell, & Stinner, 1990), this relatively rapid
mortality suggests considerable potential for use of a fungal biopesticide in integrated fly
management (Acharya, Rajotte, Jenkins, & Thomas, 2015).
Recent work investigating the use of B. bassiana as an indoor residual spray for control
of mosquitoes showed that conidia could remain infective for several months after treatment
(Blanford et al., 2012). Effective persistence varied between substrate types, with clay/mud
showing persistence up to seven months. Persistence on wood and concrete (also used in the
current study) was less, but it was still possible to infect mosquitoes on these substrates up to two
to three months after spraying. In light of these findings, the results of our persistence assays
98
showing limited infection of house flies beyond 15 days after spraying were surprising.
Systematic investigations of possible factors contributing to the more rapid decline showed no
effects of application method, production batch or substrate. We cannot completely discount
possible direct negative effects of certain test substrates, but we showed plastic sheeting to be a
relatively benign substrate for conidial viability, yet the effective persistence on plastic still
declined within days once flies were included in the assays. Rather, it appears flies themselves
play a substantial role in reducing effective persistence.
Fly populations removed substantial numbers of conidia from exposed substrates, with
higher densities of flies removing conidia more rapidly. House flies are covered with fine hairs,
have large feet (tarsi) comprising gripping hairs, and groom extensively (Graczyk, Knight,
Gilman, & Cranfield, 2001; Hedges, 1990; Sukontason et al., 2006). Further, the flies in our
assays were maintained in constrained environments, which tended to promote constant
movement as individuals disturbed one another. These factors appear to lead to rapid removal or
displacement of the fine layer of conidia retained on the sprayed substrate. Studies using
quantitative PCR to enumerate transfer of conidia to house flies from treated substrates indicate
that individual flies might pick up 104 to 105 conidia in 4 h (Anderson et al., 2011).
In addition to physical removal, flies also deactivated conidia on the substrate, again in a
density dependent manner. The exact mechanism of conidia deactivation is unknown, but high
numbers of fecal spots were seen on the substrates at the end of exposure period. House flies can
defecate up to ten times per hour (Sasaki, Kobayashi, & Agui, 2000), and their feces contain
several types of pathogenic microbes (Forster et al., 2007; Sasaki et al., 2000) that could have
fungistatic effects. Uric acid and other organic waste in feces could also have inhibitory effects
on conidia viability as previous studies suggested that nitrogenous compounds such as ammonia
99
have fungistatic properties on plant pathogenic and saprophytic fungi (Bacon, 1986; Schippers,
Meijer, & Liem, 1982). House flies also secrete saliva as part of a pre-digestive feeding process
(Graczyk et al., 2001), and this too could impact on the fungus. In the desert locust, conidia
passed through the gut or re-treated with gut-content have substantially reduced viability (Dillon
& Charnley, 1986). Further, the distal tarsomeres of house flies comprise a small sack-like
structure called the ‘pulvillus’, which is coated with hundreds of tiny oily hairs (Barro, Aly,
Tidiane, & Sababenedjo, 2006; Sukontason et al., 2006), and it is possible that secretions from
these glandular hairs have fungistatic effects. Whatever the mechanism, just 4-h exposure to the
highest fly density was sufficient to reduce viability to 50%.
The significance of our findings for development of a biopesticide product depends on a
number of factors. Persistence will influence the economics and logistics of operational use. In
principle, a requirement to retreat at approximately weekly intervals would seem prohibitive, but
certain residual (premise) insecticide sprays are already applied every one to two weeks (Axtell,
1986; Stafford, 2008). Moreover, persistence is affected by fly density, or perhaps more
correctly, fly contact rate. Our lab assays followed a previous study (Anderson et al., 2011) in
using high fly densities up to 0.63 flies/cm2 (equivalent to more than 6000 flies/m2) with flies
constrained in direct contact with the substrate for 4 h. How this equates to exposure in poultry
houses is unclear. Fly density inside poultry facilities varies with season, production system, and
housing and farm management practices (Axtell, 1986-1999). Field population assessments are
made by placing ‘spot cards’ (7.5 x 12.5 cm file cards) in barns, and pesticide application
generally commences when fecal spots on these cards exceeds 50-100 per week (which is
equivalent to approximately 300-350 flies/m3 at 25oC; Lysyk & Axtell, 1985) depending on the
animal production systems (see Stafford, 2008). Fecal spots on our test substrates often exceeded
100
100 after 4 h, especially in the high-density treatments (40 flies/9 cm exposure arena). It seems
likely, therefore, that fly densities in the field will generally be much lower than in our test set-up
and so we would expect deactivation rate of conidia to be reduced accordingly. Furthermore,
given decline in persistence is influenced by density, it is possible that a spray regime could be
developed in which application frequency scales with density (i.e. high spray frequency when
populations exceed a certain threshold and then reduced frequency as and when populations
decline). There is the possibility that the negative effects of the fly exudates could have residual
action rendering (re)treatments less effective. Moreover, several indoor biotic and abiotic factors
such as temperature and humidity fluctuations, toxic gas emission and dust particles with free-
living microbes may have negative effects on post-application longevity and efficacy in fields.
Studies investigating these factors to determine persistence in real poultry houses and quantify
the influence of fly densities under natural exposure conditions are currently underway.
101
3.5. Acknowledgements
We thank the Schwardt Lab, Department of Entomology, Cornell University for providing fly
pupae, and Dr Robert D. Anderson for suggestions on rearing flies. The authors also thank Dr
Simon Blanford for advice on statistical analysis and editorial suggestions to an initial draft of
the manuscript. The study is supported by US Agency for International Development (USAID
cooperative agent No: EPP-A-00-0400016-00) and in part by Animal Health and Diagnostic
Commission (AHDC), Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

102
3.6. References
Acharya, N., Rajotte, E. G., Jenkins, N. E., & Thomas, M. B. (2015). Potential for biocontrol of
house flies, Musca domestica, using fungal biopesticides. Biocontrol Science and
Technology, 25 (5), 513-524. doi: 10.1080/09583157.2015.1009872
Anderson, L., & Lewis, L. C. (1991). Suppression of Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner) (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) by endophytic Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin. Environmental
Entomology, 20, 1207-1211.
Anderson, R. D., Bell, A. S., Blanford, S., Paaijmans, K. P., & Thomas, M. B. (2011).
Comparative growth kinetics and virulence of four different isolates of
entomopathogenic fungi in house fly (Musca domestica L.) Journal of Invertebrate
Pathology, 107, 179-184. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2011.04.004
Anderson, R. D., Blanford, S., & Thomas, M. B. (2013a). House flies delay fungal infection by
fevering–at a cost. Ecological Entomology, 38, 1-10. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2311.2012.01394.x
Anderson, R. D., Blanford, S., Jenkins, N. E., & Thomas, M. B. (2013b). Discriminating fever
behavior in houseflies. PLoS One, 8(4), e62269. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062269
Axtell, R. C. (1986). Fly management in poultry production: cultural, biological, and chemical.
Poultry Science, 65, 657-667. doi:10.3382/ps.0650657
Management Reviews, 4(1), 53-73. doi:10.1023/A:1009637116897
Axtell, R. C., & Arends, J. J. (1990). Ecology and Management of arthropod pests of poultry.
Annual Review of Entomology, 35, 101-126. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.000533
Bacon, C. W. (1986). Effects of broiler manure volatiles and ammonia on fungal spore
germination. Poultry Science, 65, 710-716. doi:10.3382/ps.0650710
Barbarin, A. M, Jenkins, N. E., Rajotte, E. G., & Thomas, M. B. (2012). A preliminary
evaluation of the potential of Beauveria bassiana for bed bug control. Journal of
Invertebrate Pathology, 111, 82-85. doi:10.1016/j.jip.2012.04.009
Barro, N., Aly, S., Tidiane, O. C. A., & Sababenedjo, T. A. (2006). Carriage of bacteria by
proboscises, legs, and feces of two species of flies in street food vending sites in
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Journal of Food Protection, 69(8), 2007-10.
103
Blanford, S., Jenkins, N. E., Christian, R., Chan, B. H. K., Nardini, L., Osae, M., Koekemoer, L.,
Coetzee, M., Read, A. F., & Thomas, M. B. (2012). Storage and persistence of a
354. doi:10.1186/1475-2875-11-354
Blanford, S., Shi, W., Riann, C., Marden, J. H., Koekemoer, L. L., Brooke, B. D., Coetzee, M.,
Read, A. F., & Thomas, M. B. (2011). Lethal and pre-lethal effects of a fungal
biopesticide contribute to substantial and rapid vector control of malaria vectors. PLoS
One, 6(8), 1-11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023591
Cherry, A. J., Abalo, P., & Hell, K. (2005). A laboratory assessment of the potential of different
strains of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin and
Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) to control Callosobruchus maculates (F.)
(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored cowpea. Journal of Stored Products Research, 4(3),
295-309. doi:10.1016/j.jspr.2004.04.002
L., & Medina, M. G. (2009). Effect of Beauveria bassiana and Beauveria brongniartii
for the house fly (Musca domestica) control on laboratory and poultry sheds conditions.
Darbro, J. M., & Thomas, M. B. (2009). Conidia persistence and likely aeroallergenicity of
entomopathogenic fungi used for mosquito control. American Journal of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 80(6), 992-997.
Dillon, R. J., & Charnley, A. K. (1986). Inhibition of Metarhizium anisopliae by the gut bacterial
flora of the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria: evidence for an antifungal toxin.
Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 47, 350-360. doi:10.1016/0022-2011(86)90106-0
Faria, M., & Wraight, S. P. (2001). Biological control of Bemisia tabaci with fungi. Crop
Protection, 20, 767-778. doi:10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00110-7
Fletcher, M. G., Axtell, R. C., & Stinner, R. E. (1990). Longevity and fecundity of Musca
domestica (Diptera, Muscidae) as a function of temperature. Journal of Medical
Entomology, 27(5), 922-926.
Forster, M., Klimpel, S., Mehlhorn, H., Sievert, K., Messler, S., & Pfeffer, K. (2007). Pilot study
on synanthropic flies (e.g. Musca, Sarcophaga, Calliphora, Fannia, Lucilia,Stomoxys)
104
as vectors of pathogenic microorganisms. Parasitology Research, 101(1), 243-246.

doi:10.1007/s00436-007-0522-y
1-11.
Geden, C. J., Rutz, D. A., & Steinkraus, D. C. (1995). Virulence of different isolates and
formulations of Beauveria bassiana for house flies and the parasitoids Muscidifurax
raptor. Biological Control, 5, 615-621. doi:10.1006/bcon.1995.1073
Graczyk, T. K., Knight, R., Gilman, R. H., & Cranfield, M. R. (2001). The role of non-biting
flies in the epidemiology of human infectious diseases. Microbes and Infection, 3, 231-
235. doi:10.1016/S1286-4579(01)01371-5
Hidalgo, E., Moore, D., & Le Patourel, G. L. (1998). The effect of different formulations of
Beauveria bassiana on Sitophilus zeamais in stored maize. Journal of Stored Products
Research, 34, 171-179. doi:10.1016/S0022-474X(97)00041-6
Jacobs, R. D., Hogsette, J. A., & Miller, R. W. (1993). Using sticky cards to monitor fly
populations in poultry houses. Fact sheet, University of Florida, Animal Sciences
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, 2p.
Jenkins, N. E., Heviefo, G., Langewald, J., Cherry, A. J., & Lomer, C. J. (1998). Development of
mass production technology for aerial conidia of mitosporic fungi for use as
mycopesticides. Biocontrol News and Information, 19, 21N-31N.
Kaufman, P. E, Reasor, C., Rutz, D. A., Ketzis, J. K., & Arends, J. J. (2005). Evaluation of
Beauveria bassiana applications against adult house fly, Musca domestica, in
commercial caged-layer poultry facilities in New York state. Biological Control, 33(3),
360-367. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.03.011
Lecuona, R. E., Turica, M., Tarocco, F., & Crespo, D. C. (2005). Microbial control of Musca
Medical Entomology, 42(3), 332-336. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0022-
2585(2005)042[0332:MCOMDD]2.0.CO;2
Lysyk, T. J., & Axtell, R. C. (1985). Comparison of baited jug-trap and spot cards for sampling
housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera, Muscidae), populations in poultry houses.
105
Malik, A., Singh, N., & Satya, S. (2007). House fly (Musca domestica): a review of control
strategies for a challenging pest. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B,
Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes, 42(4), 453-469.
doi:10.1080/03601230701316481
Milner, R. J., Soper, R. S., & Lutton, G. G. (1982). Field release of an Israeli strain of the fungus
Zoophthora radicans for the biological control of Therioaphis trifolii f. maculata.
Australian Journal of Entomology, 21(2), 113-118. doi:10.1111/j.1440-
6055.1982.tb01776.x
Mishra, S., Kumar, P., Malik, A., & Satya, S. (2011). Adulticidal and larvicidal activity of
Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae against house fly, Musca domestica
(Diptera:Muscidae), in laboratory and simulated field assays. Parasitology Research,
108, 1483-1492. doi:10.1007/s00436-010-2203-5
Mwamburi, L. A., Laing, M. D., & Miller, R. M. (2010). Laboratory screening of insecticidal
activities of Beauveria bassiana and Paecilomyces lilacinus against larval and adult
house fly (Musca domestica L.). African Entomology, 18(1), 38-46.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4001/003.018.0106
Rombach, M. C., Aguda, R. M., Shepard, B. M., & Robert, D. W. (1986). Infection of rice brown
plant hopper, Nilaparvata lagens (Homoptera: Delphacidae), by field application of
entomopathogenic Hyphomycetes (Deuteromycotina). Environmental Entomology, 15,
1070-1073.
Sasaki, T., Kobayashi, M., & Agui, N. (2000). Epidemiological potential of excretion and
regurgitation by Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in the dissemination of
Escherichia coli O157: H7 to food. Journal of Medical Entomology, 37, 945-949. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585-37.6.945
Schippers, B., Meijer, J. W., & Liem, J. I. (1982). Effect of ammonia and other soil volatiles on
germination and growth of soil fungi. Transactions of the British Mycological Society,
79(2), 253-259. doi:10.1016/S0007-1536(82)80111-3
Stafford, K. C. (2008). Fly management handbook: A guide to biology, dispersal, and
management of the house fly and related flies for farmers, municipalities, and public
health officials. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 1013, 32p.
106
Sukontason, K. L., Bunchu, N., Methanitikorn, R., Chaiwong, T., Kuntalue, B., & Sukontason,
K. (2006). Ultra structure of adhesive device in fly in families, Calliphoridae, Muscidae
and Sarcophagidae, and their implication as mechanical carriers of pathogens.
Parasitology Research, 98, 477-481. doi:10.1007/s00436-005-0100-0
Watson, D. W., Geden, C. J., Long, S. J., & Rutz, D. A. (1995). Efficacy of Beauveria Bassiana
for controlling the house fly and stable fly (Diptera:Muscidae). Biological Control, 5(3),
405-411. doi:10.1006/bcon.1995.1048
Watson, D. W., Rutz, D. A., & Long, S. J. (1996). Beauveria bassiana and sawdust bedding for
the management of the house fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in calf hutches.
Biological Control, 7(2), 221-227. doi:10.1006/bcon.1996.0087
Wraight, S. P., & Ramos, M. E. (2002). Application parameters affecting field efficacy of
Beauveria bassiana foliar treatments against Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa
decemlineata. Biological Control, 23(2), 164-178. Ddi:10.1006/bcon.2001.1004
Xin, H., Gates, R. S., Green, A. R., Mitloehner, F. M., Moore Jr., P. A., & Wathes, C. M. (2011).
Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science,
90, 263-277. doi:10.3382/ps.2010-00877.
107
Table 3-1. Analysis of house fly survival following exposure to a range of B. bassiana-treated
structural substrates relative to controls
Log rank statistic (significance compared to control)
Substrate/Day post exposure Day 1 Day 15 Day 30
Cinder block χ2=247.63; P<0.001 χ2=29.244; P<0.001 χ2=1.722; P=0.189
Cinder block with water-based latex paint χ2=179.07; P<0.001 χ2=13.960; P<0.001 χ2=4.450; P=0.035
Cinder block with oil-based latex paint χ2=255.99; P<0.001 χ2=2.2130; P=0.137 χ2=2.692; P=0.101
Wood raw χ2=237.89; P<0.001 χ2=10.120; P=0.010 χ2=1.397; P=0.237
Wood treated χ2=303.87; P<0.001 χ2=11.243; P=0.010 χ2=2.119; P=0.146
Cement board χ2=184.89; P<0.001 χ2=0.988; P=0.320 χ2=0.551; P=0.458

108
Table 3-2. Analysis of house fly survival following exposure to a range of B. bassiana-treated
substrates relative to controls
Log rank statistic (significance compared to control)
Substrate/time after exposure Day 1 Day 7 Day 15 Day 30
Cinder block χ2=215.51; P<0.001 χ2=9.49; P=0.002 χ2=22.96; P<0.001 χ2=1.69; P=0.193
Cinder block with water-based

χ2=241.31; P<0.001 χ2=5.05; P=0.025 χ2=0.66; P=0.420 χ2=3.26; P=0.071
latex paint
Plastic sheet χ2=160.31; P<0.001 χ2=19.76; P<0.001 χ2=1.89; P=0.169 χ2=0.48; P=0.492
109
Table 3-3. Comparative survival of house flies after exposure to B. bassiana-treated plastic
sheeting with different exposure histories
MST in days Log rank statistic Log rank statistic
Exposure treatment Fly density (95% CI) (significance compared to (25 vs. 50 density
control) treated)
25 flies/disk 4 (3.77-4.25) χ2=110.073; P<0.001

Day 1 χ2=0.094; P=0.760
50 flies/disk 4 (3.71-4.30) χ2=245.745; P<0.001
25 flies/disk 6 (5.59-6.42) χ2=168.513; P<0.001

Day 2 (with 1 prior exposure) χ2=19.180; P<0.001
50 flies/disk 6 (5.19-6.82) χ2=169.725; P<0.001
25 flies/disk 9 (7.80-10.21) χ2=158.299; P<0.001

Day 3 (with 2 prior exposures) χ2=25.907; P<0.001
50 flies/disk 17 (13.81-20.20) χ2=28.6180; P<0.001
25 flies/disk 4 (3.82-4.19) χ2=246.953; P<0.001

Day 2 (without prior exposure) χ2=0.103; P=0.749
50 flies/disk 4 (3.81-4.20) χ2=449.223; P<0.001
25 flies/disk 5 (4.86-5.16) χ2=252.389; P<0.001

Day 3 (without prior exposure) χ2=15.292; P<0.001
50 flies/disk 4 (3.81-4.21) χ2=378.064; P<0.001
110
Figure 3-1. Cumulative proportional survival of fly populations exposed to B. bassiana I93-825
(batch PSU 31) conidial spray residue on different structural substrates 1 day (A); 15 days (B);
and 30 days (C) after spray application
111

112
Figure 3-2. Long term viability of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 31) on glass slides and
contractor plastic sheeting following application with an airbrush sprayer or paintbrush (A);
viability of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 37) applied with an airbrush sprayer to either glass
slides or plastic (B)
113
Figure 3-3. Cumulative proportional mortality of fly populations exposed to B. bassiana I93-825
(batch PSU 37) spray residue on different structural substrates 1 day (A); 7 days (B); 15 days
(C); and 30 days (D) after spray application
114

115
Figure 3-4. Cumulative proportional survival of fly populations exposed to B. bassiana I93-825
(batch PSU 37) conidial spray residue on contractor plastic sheeting (9 cm disk) at 1 day (A), 2
days (B) and 3 days (C) after spray application; and without prior exposure of fly populations at
2 days (D), and 3 days (E) after spray application; and (F) viability of oil-formulated conidia of
B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 37) on plastic sheeting following repeat exposures to high (50)
fly densities at 26-27oC, 50-60% RH
116
Figure 3-5. A) Viability, and B) density of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch
PSU 37) on plastic sheeting following sequential exposure of different densities of house flies
117
Chapter 4: Impact of fly population on persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana
biopesticide under laboratory conditions
Abstract
Previous chapter demonstrates exposure of fungal-treated surfaces to high fly densities (800-
7000/m2) rapidly reduced persistence and infectivity through deactivation and physical removal
of conidia in a density-dependent manner. This chapter evaluates the impacts of realistic fly
population densities on Beauveria bassiana persistence under laboratory conditions. Long-term
exposure of flies on fungal-treated plastic surfaces for 11 days demonstrates 17-60% reduction
in viability and 50 to > 90% reduction in conidia concentration, with higher fly densities and
greater cumulative exposure hastening the decline. Nonetheless, effective persistence reduced
slowly and overall efficacy was minimally affected since very low densities of viable conidia
were still able to cause rapid mortality, suggesting the potential for relatively long re-treatment
intervals as fly populations are controlled. The results provide some basic information
necessary to optimize application parameters; however, further studies to assess impacts of
indoor biotic and abiotic factors including fly population are still needed in the poultry barns to
develop operational spray guidelines and better predict the outcome of biocontrol.
118
4.1. Introduction
Fungal biopesticides, such as Beauveria bassiana, offer alternatives to chemical pesticides for
sustainable house fly management in poultry production facilities and can be applied as residual
spray treatments acting as contact pesticides to suppress populations by increasing adult
mortality and reducing lifetime reproductive output (Acharya et al. 2015a). The effectiveness of
fungal biopesticides varies with the longevity of spray residue in treated environments, which is
influenced by several biotic and abiotic factors including surface type (Jenkins and Thomas
1996, Thomas et al. 1997, Inyang et al. 2000, Darbro and Thomas 2009, Jackson et al. 2010,
Jaronski 2010, Blanford et al. 2012, Acharya et al. 2015b). Previous chapter shows that host
population density also affects post-application persistence and infectivity. Exposure of fungus-
treated substrates to high fly densities (1500-7000 flies/m2) rapidly reduced persistence and
efficacy through deactivation and physical removal of conidia. However, the reductions were far
less significant at lower, more realistic fly densities (800 flies/m2 treated surface) (Acharya et al.
2015b). In poultry barns, fly populations rarely reach these critical densities since control tactics
are usually initiated once flyspecks on population-monitoring spot cards exceed 50-100, which is
equivalent to more than 300 flies/m3 depending on the temperature (Lysyk and Axtell 1985,
Axtell 1999, Stafford 2008). Further, spore transfer in natural conditions is inefficient relative to
forced exposure procedure used in laboratory conditions. In poultry barns, flies have
unrestrictive movement and contact the treated surfaces randomly in a momentary fashion; each
landing on a surface could last only for a few seconds or minutes. Such unconstrained movement
may allow them to remove only a few conidia and leave minimal conidia-deactivating exudates
on the resting surfaces. No-choice exposure in typical laboratory bioassays does not represent
natural exposure and surface contact rate, and accordingly deactivation and removal of conidia
119
from sprayed surfaces is likely to be lower under field conditions. This chapter therefore
examines the impacts of different fly densities on viability and concentration as well as the
infectivity of conidial spray residues of an isolate of Beauveria bassiana following simulated
field exposure procedure.
4.2.1. Fly rearing
Insecticide-susceptible house flies (source: Cornell University) maintained on artificial diets
under laboratory conditions (26-27oC, 50-60% RH with a 12:12 light: dark photoperiod) as of
Chapter 3 were used for all experiments. Larvae were reared on a mixture of wheat bran, Manno-
ProTM calf protein supplement, baker’s yeast and warm water, and adults were maintained on a
mixture of powdered milk and granulated sugar (1:1), and water ad libitum.
Dry conidia powder of B. bassiana (isolate I93-825, production batch PSU 42) was produced
using our standard two-stage process (Jenkins et al. 1998), and stored in a refrigerator at 7oC
until use. Prior to spray application, conidia powder was suspended in an oil formulation (4:1
Isopar M and Ondina oil; Blanford et al. 2011) and the concentration was adjusted to 1 x 109
conidia/ml with an Improved Neubauer Hemocytometer. Before application, conidia were
checked for viability by plating on Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA), and assessed for germination
at 400x under a microscope after 20 h incubation at 25oC (conidia viability was greater than
90%).
Conidia were delivered by applying oil formulations to plastic sheeting and exposing flies
to the spray residues. This exposure method simulates the planned delivery system of applying
120
conidia to plastic sheeting attached to the poultry house basement walls adjacent to the litter
layer (Acharya et al. 2015a). For each experiment, thirty pieces of trapezoid-shaped contractor-
grade plastic sheets, each 327.6 cm2, were fixed inside a 0.25 m2 spray area on the rear wall of a
reverse flow laminar cabinet and sprayed with a fungal formulation in batches of five with an
artist’s airbrush at a volume application rate of 20 ml/m2 (Acharya et al. 2015b). The sprayed
substrates were removed from the wall of the cabinet, and taped on the lower 3/5th of the inner
walls of 1 L foam cups with the bottom removed @ one sheet per cup and allowed to dry at room
temperature overnight. The cups were covered with nylon mesh on the top and bottom.
4.2.3. Impact of fly density on conidia density and viability
Spore persistence and infectivity after long-term exposure of various fly densities was evaluated
in the laboratory using a cup bioassay. Six replicate experimental cups were set up for each of
four fly densities, equivalent to 31, 92, 153, and 214 flies/m2 treated surface by adding one,
three, five or seven, adult flies of mixed sex, respectively, into individual experimental cups. The
flies had access to a 10% sugar solution during the experiment and were maintained under the
same conditions as the main fly colony (26-27oC, 50-60% RH). Cups with no flies served as
controls. Starting one-day post fly release into the cups and every other day thereafter (days 3, 5,
7, 9 and 11), one experimental cup was randomly selected from each treatment density for
destructive sampling. The flies in the remaining cups were removed and replaced with the same
number of fresh flies at each sampling point to ensure that fly activity was not reduced due to
infection or mortality.
The number and viability of the conidia was evaluated by removing the plastic liner from
the cup and two 9 cm plastic disks were cut from the sheet. Each disk was cut into small pieces
(approximately 0.5-1 cm2) and suspended in 2-4 ml Isopar M in a 20 ml glass bottle. The bottles
121
were then vortexed and sonicated for one minute to wash conidia from the surface of the plastic
and break up any conidial clumps. A single drop of the resulting conidia suspension was spread
over the surface of SDA in a 5 cm diameter petri dish (three dishes per suspension) and
incubated for 20 h at 25oC. A total of 300 conidia were examined from each of three replicate
petri dishes per plastic disk under a microscope at 400x magnification to determine the
proportions of germinating and non-germinating conidia, and the data were used to calculate
percent viability of the conidia. The remainder of the conidia suspension was stored in a
refrigerator at 7oC, and conidial concentration was determined later using an Improved Neubauer
Hemocytometer. The number of conidia per cm2 was calculated taking into account the volume
of Isopar M used to suspend the plastic pieces; three replicate suspensions were counted per
sample. The entire experiment was repeated four times.
4.2.4. Impact of fly density on infectivity of conidial spray residue
The impact of long-term exposure of different fly densities on infectivity of conidial spray
residues was evaluated by preparing twenty cups as described in Section 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 above.
The same four fly densities were created by adding one, three, five or seven flies of mixed sex to
each of four replicate cups. Four experimental cups with blank oil sprayed plastic sheets as inner
walls served as no-fungus control. Flies were maintained in the cups under the same conditions
as above for a total of 11 days, again replacing the flies every two days with fresh flies. At the
end of the exposure period, the flies were removed and discarded and the plastic sheet removed
from the cups. Two, 9 cm disks were cut from each plastic liner and used for either infectivity
bioassay or determination of conidial concentration following the same procedure as above. For
the bioassay, a cohort of fresh flies was exposed to treated plastic disks following a forced
exposure protocol (Anderson et al. 2011). Briefly, a 9 cm plastic petri dish was inverted and the
122
lid lined with the experimental plastic sheet. Fresh, three to five day-old adult flies of mixed sex
were aspirated from the stock colonies and placed in a freezer at -20oC for three to four minutes
to anesthetize them. Forty flies were placed on each plastic disk and covered with the petri dish
bottom before the flies revived and began to move freely within the enclosure. After 4h
exposure, flies were transferred into foam rearing cups (1 L) with nylon mesh on top and
monitored daily for mortality for three weeks. Flies had access to 10% sugar solution, and dead
flies were removed, counted and a fungal mycosis was confirmed by drying cadavers for five to
seven days before transferring them to a humid environment for seven days and monitoring for
external sporulation under a dissecting microscope at 15x magnification.
Conidia germination and enumeration data were analyzed using a general linear model (SPSS v.
22, IBM Inc. 2014) with fly density and sampling time as the main treatment factors. The
proportional germination data were cubed-transformed before analysis to meet normality and
homoscedasticity assumptions. Fly-days per unit area was estimated by multiplying fly densities
(in m2) by each sampling day (1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11). Effective conidia persistence for each fly
density was estimated by multiplying numbers of conidia at each sampling date by germination
percent for that day (expressed as 105/cm2), square-root transformed and regressed against fly-
days per m2 (SPSS v. 22, IBM Inc. 2014). Survival data were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier
survival analysis (SPSS v. 22, IBM Inc. 2014) with differences in median survival time (MST)
among treatment densities compared using the log-rank test.

123
4.3. Results
4.3.1. Impact of fly density on conidia density and viability
Conidia viability and removal were correlated with fly density. Exposure of fly populations to
treated-plastic sheets affected conidia viability in a density-dependent manner (Figure 4-1A).
Viability was significantly different among treatment densities and sampling times with no
significant interactions between densities and sampling times (F4,105=13.19, P<0.001 for fly
density; F6,105=56.23, P<0.001 for sampling time; F24,105=1.27, P=0.21 for interaction). Low fly
density (equivalent to 31 flies/m2) had no significant effect on the viability of conidia on sprayed
surfaces relative to the control (0 flies). However, the presence of medium fly densities
(equivalent to 92 and 153 flies/m2) resulted in 30% decline in conidial viability over the 11-day
exposure period, while the highest density (equivalent to 214 flies/m2) led to >60% reduction.
A similar density-dependent pattern was observed with conidia removal from the surfaces
(Figure 4-1B). The numbers of conidia removed by flies were significantly different among
treatment densities and sampling times with some significant interactions between densities and
sampling times (F4, 105=27.86, P<0.001 for fly density; F6, 105=26.41, P<0.001 for sampling time;
F24, 105=1.75, P=0.031 for interaction). Sprayed substrates exposed to fly densities of 214 flies/m2
over an 11-day period lost approximately 1 x 106 conidia/cm2, equivalent to greater than 90% of
the conidia applied. Even at lower fly densities, between 75 and 80% of the conidia were
removed by the end of the exposure period. Figure 4-1C uses the combined data from figure 4-
1A and 4-1B to illustrate the ‘effective persistence’ of conidia by fly-days per unit area. This
non-linear negative relationship is described by the regression function y = 2.9743e-0.001x (F1, 94=
265.42; P<0.001; R2= 0.739)

124
4.3.2. Impact of fly density on infectivity of conidial spray residue
The impact of exposure of different fly densities over 11 days on subsequent infectivity of the
spray residue was evaluated by exposing naïve flies to the 11-day-old surfaces. Fly survival in
treatment groups was significantly different than controls (χ2=336.59; P<0.001) and residue on
the surfaces caused about 90% mortality between 5 and 11 days post-exposure, depending on
treatment densities (Figure 4-2A). Survival in the fungal-treated surfaces that received treatment
densities of 31 flies/m2 (MST 4± 0.14), 92 flies/m2 (MST 5± 0.16) and no-fly control (MST 5±
0.13) was similar, but significantly different to survival of flies exposed to the surfaces from the
higher fly densities of 153 flies/m2 (MST 6± 0.15) and 214 flies/m2 densities (MST 7± 0.39).
Fungal infectivity (measured by fly mortality) was inversely related to concentration of conidia
on the surfaces (Figure 4-2B). Of note, a density of < 1 x 105 conidia/cm2 was still sufficient to
produce extensive and relatively rapid mortality in flies.
4.4. Discussion
Long-term exposure of different fly population densities to fungal-treated plastic surfaces for 11
days reduced effective persistence in a density-dependent manner, with reduction slightly more
attributable to physical removal of conidia than deactivation as seen previously (Acharya et al.
2015b). With the highest density exposure (equivalent to 214 flies/m2), conidia numbers on the
treated surfaces declined from 11 x 105 to 1 x 105 conidia/cm2. Lower fly densities resulted in
increasingly smaller reductions in conidial numbers. An earlier study using a bait formulation of
fungus demonstrated that one or two flies could pick up an average of 4 x 104 - 1 x 105 conidia in
thirty minutes (Renn et al. 1999). Another study using quantitative PCR to enumerate transfer of
conidia to house flies from treated substrates indicated that individual flies might pick up 104 -
105 conidia during 4 h constant exposure (Anderson et al. 2011). In spite of these removal rates,
125
the fungal spray residues still caused extensive and relatively rapid mortality of flies 11 days post
treatment at the highest fly density.
As shown previously in Chapter 3, artificially high fly population densities rapidly
removed and deactivated conidia from spray residue after only 4 h, resulting in severe reductions
in efficacy of the spray residue. However, these fly densities were equivalent to 6000 flies/m2 (40
flies per 9 cm diameter petri dish), clearly far higher than anything that could reasonably be
expected in a field situation. In the current study, even when flies were constantly present in
experimental cups for 11 days, the rate of reduction in effective persistence was much slower
compared to Acharya et al. (2015b). These results indicate that the impacts of realistic field
population densities are far less detrimental than previously reported. Fly control interventions
are usually initiated once fecal spots on spot cards exceed 50-100 per card, which is equivalent to
more than 300 flies/m3 depending on temperature (Lysyk and Axtell 1985, Axtell 1999, Stafford
2008). It is difficult to determine how this action threshold based on flies per cubic meter
translates to flies per square meter on a treated surface, but it is likely that in many settings, the
density of flies will be much lower than our highest density treatment, lessening the impact of
flies on effective persistence (see also Acharya et al. 2015b). Since poultry barns are much larger
than our experimental settings and daily flight activity and movement behaviors vary with
resource availability, temperature and other biotic, abiotic and management factors (Hindle and
Merriman 1914, Sacca 1963, Murvosh and Thaggar 1966), surface contact rate and hence
conidia removal and deactivation due to flies are likely to be much lower in the field conditions.
Nevertheless, fungal conidia adhere readily to fly cuticle, and even a single contact with a
sprayed surface could be sufficient to acquire the lethal dose.

126
The deactivation of conidia by the presence of flies might be attributed to pathogenic
bacteria (Sasaki et al. 2000, Forster et al. 2007) as well as organic waste in feces such as uric
acid. Digestive juices and saliva secreted by flies as a part of pre-digestive feeding process
(Graczyk et al. 2001) and secretions from oily, glandular hairs of tarsomeral pulvilli (Barro et al.
2006, Sukontason et al. 2006) could also impact on the fungus. In desert locusts, conidia that
passed through gut or were re-treated with gut-contents had substantially reduced viability
(Dillon and Charnley 1986). With respect to removal of conidia from the sprayed surfaces, house
flies are covered in fine hairs, have large feet (tarsi) comprised of gripping hairs (Hedges 1990,
Sukontason et al. 2006), and these structures together with their excessive mobility and self-
grooming behavior allow them to pick up substantial numbers of conidia and distribute them
throughout the body surfaces.
Overall, the study provides some basic insights into the impact of fly populations on
fungal biopesticides following simulated field exposure procedure, which with additional field
studies, can be used to optimally adjust application parameters. The study constructs an effective
persistence index combining conidia removal and conidia deactivation (reduction in viability)
and associates this combination with an index, fly-days, which integrates fly densities with the
length of time that flies are present. The effective persistence calculation can be used to track
spore decay rate and determine optimal spray frequency on the basis of population density,
duration of exposure and viable spores on the treated surfaces (Figure 4-1C). For example, even
if 214 flies challenged one meter square treated surfaces for 11 days (2354 fly-days), there were
still 0.2 x 105 to 0.5 x 105 viable spores per cm2 surfaces, which would be sufficient to produce
the desired fly mortality depending on fungal species/isolate, formulation and temperature as
evidenced previously (Barson et al. 1994, Carswell et al. 1998) and also shown in bioassays
127
(Figure 4-2A and 4-2B). The index indicates the possibility of tailoring spray frequency with one
to two weeks based on spore persistence; however, further studies to determine how to calibrate
standard fly spot card counts with our metric of ‘fly-days per m2’ will be needed in order to
develop appropriate density-dependent spray thresholds and retreatment schedules. Additionally,
potential impacts of individual indoor factors (air borne pollutants, free-living microbes; Hong et
al. 2012) should be considered in the index.

128
4.5. References
Acharya, N., Rajotte, E. G., Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (2015a). Potential for biocontrol of house
flies, Musca domestica, using fungal biopesticides. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 25 (5),
513-524.
Acharya, N., Seliga, R. A., Rajotte, E. G., Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (2015b). Persistence and
efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against the house fly, Musca domestica, on typical
structural substrates of poultry houses. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 25 (6), 697-715.
Anderson, R. D., Bell, A. S., Branford, S., Paaijmans, K. P., and Thomas, M. B. (2011). Comparative
growth kinetics and virulence of four different isolates of entomopathogenic fungi in house fly
(Musca domestica L.) Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 107, 179-184.
Axtell, R. C. (1999). Poultry integrated pest management: status and future. Integrated Pest Management
Reviews, 4(1), 53-73.
Barro, N., Aly, S., Tidiane, O. C. A., and Sababenedjo, T. A. (2006). Carriage of bacteria by proboscises,
legs, and feces of two species of flies in street food vending sites in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Journal of Food Protection, 69(8), 2007-10.
Barson, G., Renn, N., and Bywater, A. F. (1994). Laboratory evaluation of 6 species of entomopathogenic
fungi for the control of the house fly (Musca domestica L.), a pest of intensive animal units.
Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 64(2), 107-113.
Blanford, S., Jenkins, N. E., Christian, R., Chan, B. H. K., Nardini, L., Osae, M., Koekemoer, L., Coetzee,
M., Read, A. F., and Thomas, M. B. (2012). Storage and persistence of a candidate fungal
biopesticide for use against adult malaria vectors. Malaria Journal, 11, 354.
Blanford, S., Shi, W., Riann, C., Marden, J. H., Koekemoer, L. L., Brooke, B. D., Coetzee, M., Read, A.
F., and Thomas, M. B. (2011). Lethal and pre-lethal effects of a fungal biopesticide contribute to
substantial and rapid vector control of malaria vectors. Plos One, 6(8), 1-11.
Carswell, I., Spooner‐Hart, R., and Milner, R. J. (1998). Laboratory susceptibility of Musca domestica L.
(Diptera: Muscidae) and Bactrocera tryoni (Frogatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) to an isolate of
Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorokin. Australian Journal of Entomology, 37(3), 281-284.
Darbro, J., and Thomas, M. B. (2009). Spore persistence and likely aeroallergenicity of entomopathogenic
fungi used for mosquito control. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 80, 992-
997.
Dillon, R. J., and Charley, A. K. (1986). Inhibition of Metarhizium anisopliae by the gut bacterial flora of
the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria: evidence for an antifungal toxin. Journal of Invertebrate
Pathology, 47, 350-360.
129
Forster, M., Klimpel, S., Mehlhorn, H., Sievert, K., Messler, S., and Pfeffer, K. (2007). Pilot study on
synanthropic flies (e.g. Musca, Sarcophaga, Calliphora, Fannia, Lucilia, Stomoxys) as vectors of
pathogenic microorganisms. Parasitology Research, 101(1), 243-246.
Graczyk, T. K., Knight, R., Gilman, R. H., and Cranfield, M. R. (2001). The role of non-biting flies in the
epidemiology of human infectious diseases. Microbes and Infection, 3(3), 231-235.
Hindle, E., and Merriman, G. (1914). The range of flight of Musca domestica. Journal of Hygiene, 14, 23-
45.
Hong, P. Y., Li, X., Yang, X., Shinkai, T., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., and Mackie, R. I. (2012). Monitoring
airborne biotic contaminants in the indoor environment of pig and poultry confinement buildings.
Environmental Microbiology, 14(6), 1420-1431.
IBM Corp. Released 2014. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY, USA.
Inyang, E. N., McCartney, H. A., Oyejola, B., Ibrahim, L., Pye, B. J., Archer, S. A., and Butt, T. M.
(2000). Effect of formulation, application and rain on the persistence of the entomogenous fungus
Metarhizium anisopliae on oilseed rape. Mycological Research, 104(6), 653-661.
Jackson, M. A., Dunlap, C. A., and Jaronski, S. T. (2010). Ecological considerations in producing and
formulating fungal entomopathogens for use in insect biocontrol. Biocontrol, 55, 129-145.
Jaronski, S. T. (2010). Ecological factors in the inundative use of fungal entompathogens. Biocontrol, 55,
159-185.
Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (1996). Effect of formulation and application method on the efficacy
of aerial and submerged conidia of Metarhizium flavoviride for locust and grasshopper control.
Pesticide Science, 46(4), 299-306.
Jenkins, N. E., Heviefo, G., Langewald, J., Cherry, A. J., and Lomer, C. J. (1998). Development of mass
production technology for aerial conidia of mitosporic fungi for use as mycopesticides.
Biocontrol News and Information, 19, 21N-31N.
Lysyk, T. J., and Axtell, R. C. (1985). Comparison of baited jug-trap and spot cards for sampling housefly,
Musca domestica (Diptera, Muscidae), populations in poultry houses. Environmental Entomology,
14, 815-819.
Murvosh, C. M., and Thaggard, C. W. (1966). Ecological studies of house flies. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America, 59, 533-547.
Renn, N., Bywater, A. F., and Barson, G. (1999). A bait formulated with Metarhizium anisopliae for the
control of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) assessed in large‐scale laboratory enclosures.
Journal of Applied Entomology, 123, 309-314.
130
Sacca, G. (1963). Comparative bionomics in the genus Musca. Annals of the Entomological Society of
America, 341-358.
Sasaki, T., Kobayashi, M., and Agui, N. (2000). Epidemiological potential of excretion and regurgitation
by Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) in the dissemination of Escherichia coli O157: H7 to
food. Journal of Medical Entomology, 37, 945-949.
Stafford, K. C. (2008). Fly management handbook: A guide to biology, dispersal, and management of the
house fly and related flies for farmers, municipalities, and public health officials. The Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 1013. 32p.
Sukontason, K. L., Bunchu, N., Methanitikorn, R., Chaiwong, T., Kuntalue, B., and Sukontason, K.
(2006). Ultra structure of adhesive device in fly in families, Calliphoridae, Muscidae and
Sarcophagidae, and their implication as mechanical carriers of pathogens. Parasitology Research,
98, 477-481.
Thomas, M. B., Wood, S. N., Langewald, J., and Lomer, C. J. (1997). Persistence of biopesticides and
consequences for biological control of grasshoppers and locusts. Pesticide Science, 49, 47-55.
131
Figure 4-1. A) Viability, and B) density of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch
PSU 42) on plastic sheets exposed to fly populations of different densities, and C) relationship
between effective persistence (= density of viable conidia) and fly-days per unit area (= density
of flies x cumulative days of exposure). Plastic sheeting was maintained in the laboratory at 26-
27oC, 50-60% RH
132

133
Figure 4-2. A) Cumulative proportional survival of house flies following exposure to Beauveria-
treated plastic sheets (isolate I93-825, batch PSU 42) maintained for the previous 11 days in
contact with fly populations of different densities at 26-27oC, 50-60% RH, and B) the
relationship between the density of conidia remaining after the 11-day fly exposure treatments
and median survival time (MST) of naïve flies exposed to the treated plastic at day 11
134
Chapter 5: Persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against the house
fly, Musca domestica, in a commercial high-rise layer house
Abstract
Studies suggest the potential for use of oil formulations of the entomopathogenic fungus,
Beauveria bassiana as residual sprays for control of house flies in poultry production
facilities. The effectiveness of the biopesticide treatment varies with longevity of spray
residues in treated environments, which is influenced by several biotic and abiotic factors.
This chapter investigates the impacts of indoor factors of the poultry houses on biopesticide
persistence and efficacy. We found that fungal spray treatments remained viable for up to 13
weeks under laboratory conditions. Periodic exposure of flies to the spray residue showed high
levels mortality, with very little decline in mortality rate over time. Equivalent treatments
placed in a commercial poultry house showed much more rapid decline. One trial at the end of
summer showed conidia to remain viable up to seven weeks. However, repeats during the
winter months revealed decay in one to two weeks, with fly mortality rates influenced
accordingly. The exact reasons for the more rapid decay remain unclear but could be linked to
high concentrations of ammonia in the basement areas, especially during winter when
ventilation is minimal. The results suggest the potential for adaptive treatment regimes with
weekly spray intervals in conditions with very high ammonia levels and/or high fly
populations, and potentially monthly spray intervals when ammonia levels and fly populations
are reduced. However, further field studies to quantify impacts of individual indoor factors are
still needed prior full field considerations.

135
5.1. Introduction
Post-application longevity and efficacy of fungal biopesticides can be influenced by a range of
factors including formulation, substrate, fungal isolate, UV radiation and the prevailing abiotic
conditions (Jenkins and Thomas 1996, Thomas et al. 1997, Inyang et al. 2000, Darbro and
Thomas 2009, Jackson et al. 2010, Jaronski 2010, Blanford et al. 2012, Acharya et al. 2015). In
enclosed poultry houses, temperature is relatively well controlled and UV radiation is minimal,
so these factors might have small effects on fungal persistence relative to typical outdoor
settings. On the other hand, chemically and biologically harsh indoor environments (air borne
pollutants, free living microbes etc.) presented by on-site manure storage and handling
operations (Green et al. 2009, Hong et al. 2012) as well as seasonal variations in thermal
environments and air quality regimes (Axtell 1999, Liang et al. 2005, Xin et al. 2011) could play
a significant role. For example, manure decomposition generates different toxic gases such as
ammonia (Hong et al. 2012) and high ammonia concentrations reduce spore viability in several
plant pathogenic and saprophytic fungi (e.g. Bacon 1986). Dust particles generated within
poultry facilities are known to be carriers of several pathogenic microbes (Hong et al., 2012;
Nonnenmann et al. 2010), and could have negative effects on the fungus. Similarly, indoor
temperature and humidity levels will vary with season (Axtell and Arends 1990, North and Bell
1990, Green 2009) and such fluctuations even for brief time can affect fungal performance
attributes (Anderson et al. 2013, Keyser et al. 2014). Further, fly populations in the field vary
with season and management factors (Axtell 1986, Axtell and Arends, 1990), which impact
fungal efficacy as it was shown recently that flies themselves can affect fungal persistence by
both deactivating and physically removing conidia, with effects greater at higher fly densities
(Acharya et al. 2015).

136
Currently, one Beauveria-based product is commercially available to use in animal
rearing facilities against flies (Kaufman et al. 2005); however, there is limited information
available on its longevity and efficacy in interior environments. One study on house flies
examined the persistence of B. bassiana spores formulated in Tween 80 and water and
demonstrated that spores remain infective for about four weeks on plywood exposed inside
animal barns (Watson et al. 1995). Another unpublished report showed that spores could survive
for more than seven weeks in poultry litter and more than three weeks on sprayed surfaces
(Arends and Black 2000, http://www.rinconvitova.com/balence%20fly%20control.htm).
This chapter examines the impact of actual conditions in a commercial high-rise layer
barn on persistence and efficacy of Beauveria bassiana spray residue against house flies. The
results will contribute to the development of informed use strategies and spray intervals to enable
the implementation of Beauveria-based biopesticides as part of an integrated pest management
system for house fly control in poultry houses.
5.2.1. Fly rearing
Insecticide-susceptible house flies, Musca domestica L. (source: Cornell University) maintained
on artificial diets under laboratory conditions (26-27oC, 50-60% RH with a 12:12 light: dark
photoperiod) as of Chapter 4 were used for all experiments.
Dry conidia powder of B. bassiana, isolate I93-825 (production batch PSU 46) was produced
using our standard two-stage process (Jenkins et al. 1998), and formulated in 4:1 Isopar M and
Ondina oil (Blanford et al. 2011).The concentration was enumerated with an Improved Neubauer
137
Hemocytometer and adjusted to 1.38 x 109 conidia/ml. Before application, conidia were checked
for viability by plating on Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA), and assessed for germination at 400x
under a microscope after 20 h incubation at 25oC. Conidia germination rates were greater than
90%. Eighteen 0.25 m2 pieces of contractor-grade plastic sheet were fixed inside a 0.25 m2 spray
area on the rear wall of a reverse flow laminar cabinet and sprayed with a fungal formulation,
one sheet at a time, with an artist’s airbrush at a volume application rate of 20 ml/m2. The
sprayed sheets were removed from the wall of the cabinet and allowed to dry at room
temperature overnight before used for the experiment.
5.2.3. Persistence and efficacy of conidial spray residue in a working high-rise layer house
In order to evaluate the impact of indoor biotic and abiotic factors on persistence, fungal-treated
plastic sheets were affixed to the basement walls a half meter above the manure level at six
equidistant locations with three sheets per location in a high-rise layer barn (183 m long x 19 m
wide, Bedford County, PA) in September 2013. The house was a two-story building with egg
laying hens housed on the second story over metal slats floor that allowed droppings to fall
through and accumulate in the basement. Six of the sheets, one from each location, were covered
with fine muslin cloths to prevent both large dust particles and flies from contacting the treated
plastic. Another six sheets were similarly covered with large-sized mosquito netting to prevent
flies from contacting the plastic, but allowing large dust particles. The remaining six sheets were
left uncovered. Starting from the first week and weekly thereafter, one destructive sample of 9
cm diameter disk was taken from each treated sheet and checked for conidial viability. To check
conidia viability, each disk was cut into small pieces (approximately 0.5-1 cm2) and placed in 2-4
ml Isopar M in a 20 ml glass bottle. The bottles were then vortexed and sonicated for one minute
138
to wash conidia from the surface of the plastic and break up any conidial clumps. A single drop
of the resulting conidia suspension was spread over the surface of SDA in a 5 cm diameter petri
dish (three dishes per suspension) and incubated for 20 h at 25oC. A total of 300 conidia were
examined from each of three replicate petri dishes per plastic disk under a microscope at 400x
magnification to determine the proportions of germinating and non-germinating conidia, and the
data were used to calculate percent viability of the conidia. The fly density was monitored
indirectly by placing 7.5 x 12.5 cm spot cards on the basement wall next to each plastic sheet,
one card per location, which was replaced weekly (Kaufman et al. 2001). Humidity and
temperature in the basement was monitored by Omega TM data logger 62 set to record at hourly
intervals (Omega Engineering, Inc.).
In January 2014, a second replication of the field exposure was conducted to evaluate
winter conditions in the same poultry barn, except that only one plastic sheet was fixed per
location and none was covered with muslin or netting. Four, equivalent conidia-treated sheets
were also stored under laboratory conditions (26-27oC, 50-60% RH). In this experiment, separate
samples were taken for evaluation of viability and efficacy of the conidial spray residue using the
destructive sampling methods and viability described above. For the infectivity bioassay, a
cohort of fresh flies was exposed to treated plastic disks under laboratory conditions following a
forced exposure protocol (Anderson et al. 2011). Briefly, a 9 cm plastic petri dish was inverted
and the lid lined with the experimental plastic sheet. Fresh, three to five day-old adult flies of
mixed sex were aspirated from the stock colonies and placed in a freezer at -20oC for three to
four minutes to anesthetize them. Forty flies were placed on each plastic disk and covered with
the petri dish bottom before the flies revived and began to move freely within the enclosure.
After 4h exposure, flies were transferred into foam rearing cups (1 L) with nylon mesh on top
139
and monitored daily for mortality for three weeks. Flies had access to 10% sugar solution, and
dead flies were removed, counted and a fungal mycosis was confirmed by drying cadavers for
five to seven days before transferring them to a humid environment for seven days and
monitoring for external sporulation under a dissecting microscope at 15x magnification. A set of
plastic sheets sprayed with blank oil formulation served as controls for each of the two
environments. The fly populations, as well as temperature and humidity regimes were monitored
as above.
Finally, in March (2014), a third persistence experiment (evaluating conidial viability
only) was repeated exactly as the January experiment, except ammonia gas concentration in the
ambient air was also measured at daily intervals for the first week of the experiment by attaching
passive Gastec ammonia dossimeter tubes (Zefon International, Inc.) to the basement walls next
to the plastic sheets.
The proportions of conidia germinating from the persistence experiment in September (2013)
were Log (x+1) transformed and analyzed using a general linear model (SPSS v. 22, IBM Inc.
2014) with cover treatment as a main factor. Conidia viability data from the field and laboratory
persistence experiments (January and March 2014) were described and compared qualitatively.
Fly survival data from the field and laboratory bioassays were analyzed separately at each
sampling date using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (SPSS v. 22, IBM Inc. 2014) with
differences in median survival time among treatments (fungus vs. control) compared using Log-
rank test.
140
5.3. Results
5.3.1. Persistence of conidial spray residue in a working high-rise layer house
In the September 2013 trial, the fungal treated-plastic sheets which were covered with different
sized mesh to differentiate impact of natural fly populations from other factors (dust, dander etc.)
indicated that, regardless of cover treatments, conidia germination on the surfaces fell to 80%
within one week of placement and approached zero percent by week six or seven (Figure 5-1),
giving a half-life of 1.8-2.3 weeks. There was no significant effect of cover treatments on conidia
viability (F2, 101=0.34, P=0.72). Daily mean, maximum and minimum temperatures during this
period were 24.15, 25.98 and 22.34oC, respectively, with the relative humidity varying between
50-73%.
In the January and March 2014 trials, the decline in viability of conidia in the spray
residues in the layer house was more precipitous, falling to < 5% within one week (Figure 5-2).
These field data contrast with those from parallel laboratory studies, which showed conidia to
remain viable for >13 weeks, with a half-life of about six weeks post-application (Figure 5-2).
The daily mean, maximum and minimum temperatures during January were 17.67, 19.11 and
16.26oC, respectively, with the relative humidity varying between 75-100%. For March, the daily
mean, maximum and minimum temperatures were 17.68, 18.98 and 16.43oC, respectively, with
the relative humidity varying between 73-100%. Additionally, the ammonia gas concentration in
the basement of the layer house during the March trial was extremely high (>100 ppm), which
exceeds the Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible human ‘time weighted
average’ exposure of 25 ppm for an 8 hr day (CDC 2007). The natural fly populations in the
poultry house were negligible during all monitoring periods so the data are not presented.
141
5.3.2. Infectivity of conidial spray residue against house flies under the high-rise layer
house in winter
The infectivity of spray residues on the treated plastic surfaces left in the layer house for one,
two, three and four weeks in the January trial was evaluated by bioassay in the laboratory. The
spray residue on plastic sheets after one week of exposure to layer house conditions resulted in
about 70% fly mortality by the end of the 21-day monitoring period (Figure 5-3) and was
significantly different from the control (Table 5-1). Infectivity of the spray residue further
declined with each week of exposure to layer house conditions, but mortality remained
significantly different to the control population even after four weeks exposure to layer house
conditions (Table 5-1). However, corresponding plastic sheets that had been kept under
laboratory conditions resulted in 96-100% fly mortality for thirteen weeks (Figure 5-4). Fly
survival in treated groups was significantly different from control survival for all weeks in the
January test (Table 5-2). Speed of kill decreased as the spray residues aged (Table 5-2) but the
change was modest and even flies exposed at week 13 when conidial viability was approaching
zero percent, had median survival times of six days only. Whenever significant mortality
occurred, 80-90% cadavers in the fungal-exposed treatments showed external signs of mycosis
(in all assays).
5.4. Discussion
The current study examined the persistence of fungal spray residues in laboratory and field
(poultry house) settings considering the influence of a range of indoor factors. Compared to more
than 13 weeks of persistence and efficacy under laboratory conditions, oil-formulated conidia of
B. bassiana survived from one to seven weeks under the commercial high-rise layer barn
142
depending on season. Spore survival was significantly longer in fall than winter. Analysis of
conidial spray residues from the poultry houses showed a rapid decline in infectivity against flies
and hardly produced 20-70% mortality over a four-week evaluation period in winter.
Fly populations were negligible in the poultry facility during our study and so our field-
based assessments focused on abiotic factors alone. In September, conidia remained viable for up
to seven weeks in the poultry house, with no significant effect of air-borne particulates on
persistence. Temperature and humidity during this period ranged from 23-30oC and 50-73%,
respectively. Both temperature and humidity are known to affect spore viability (Fargues et al.
1997, Hong et al. 1999, Fargues and Luz 2000, Bouamama et al. 2010, Keyser et al. 2014) and
these more variable conditions might explain the more rapid decay in the poultry house than in
our equivalent laboratory studies, which demonstrated effective persistence for 13 weeks.
The field studies in January and March revealed much more rapid decay, with persistence
of one to two weeks only. This decline was surprising given that temperatures during these
periods were cooler (14-22oC), which should favor persistence. While the higher relative
humidity (73-100%) could have countered this positive effect, other studies have shown that
fungal spray residues can remain viable for many weeks under equivalent conditions (e.g. Darbro
and Thomas 2009, Blanford et al. 2012). These results suggest an additional factor could be
playing a role.
Ammonia has been shown to reduce spore viability in several plant pathogenic and
saprophytic fungi (e.g. Schippers et al. 1982, Bacon 1986). We found that in the layer house, the
majority of the automatic exhaust fans were not running in winter due to cold weather. This left
the house poorly ventilated and the ammonia concentration at the basement was >100 ppm (note
that although this exceeds the toxic threshold for egg production (CDC 2007, UEP 2010), our
143
measurements represent only a snap shot and were recorded in the basement and not where the
birds are housed). Ammonia is a principal gas of manure decomposition (Reece et al. 1979, Xin
et al. 2011) and even though emission rate is higher in summer, the concentration tends to be
lower as a result of increased ventilation during warmer periods (Reece et al. 1979, Liang et al.
2005). We did some pilot experiments under laboratory conditions, where different amounts (0.5-
1.5 kg) of two to three weeks old litter were stored into individual plastic containers (35.6 cm
long, 20.3 cm wide and 11.7 cm deep) with B. bassiana-treated plastic sheets attached to their
inner walls. The treated plastic sheets were destructively sampled on a daily basis and the spray
residues were evaluated for conidia germination. Spore viability declined to almost zero percent
within a few days in closed containers, where the ammonia concentration was recorded up to 600
ppm. However, in open containers with lids off, the conidia viability was greater than 60% one
week post-application and the ammonia concentration varied between 20-60 ppm.
Overall, our study suggests the potential for development of adaptive spray regimes
wherein treatment schedules are adjusted to local biotic and abiotic conditions. With very high
fly populations, a spray treatment could be required every one to three weeks. At low population
densities, retreatment frequency could extend to once every one to two months. The results
suggest that retreatment frequencies would need to be highest during the winter months, possibly
due to effects of ammonia. Treatments every week would be in line with spray frequencies of
certain chemical insecticides already in use (Axtell 1986, Stafford 2008). However, fly
populations themselves tend to be lower in the winter so this might not be an operational issue if
densities remain below the action threshold. Regular population monitoring would be an
essential element in determining spray frequency, both to prevent population outbreak and
account for density dependent conidia removal and deactivation (Acharya et al. 2015). Further,
144
housing and manure management operations to improve indoor air quality and create thermally
stable environments could increase the persistence of biopesticide treatments. It is also highly
likely that with further research, novel formulations of fungal pathogens such as
microencapsulation as well as additives or adjuvants could also be used to protect conidia against
adverse factors and enhance biological activity (Stock 1997, Perrin 2000, Ravensberg 2011).
Further research is needed to better characterize the influence of ammonia concentrations on
persistence in order to develop operational spray guidelines.

145
5.5. References
Acharya, N., Seliga, R. A., Rajotte, E. G., Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (2015). Persistence and
efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against the house fly, Musca domestica L., on
typical structural substrates of poultry houses. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 25 (6), 697-
715.
Anderson, R. D., Andrew, S. B., Blanford, S., Paaijmans, K. P., and Thomas, M. B. (2011). Comparative
(Musca domestica L.). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 107, 179-184.
Anderson, R. D., Blanford, S., and Thomas, M. B. (2013). House flies delay fungal infection by fevering–
at a cost. Ecological Entomology, 38, 1-10.
Arends, J., and Black, W. (2000). Evaluation of viability degradation over time of Beauveria bassiana
conidia applied to poultry manure and litter: final report. Project number: JABB/02100,
70787/TGAI/12. Unpublished study prepared by Jabb of the Carolinas.16p.
Axtell, R. C. (1986). Fly management in poultry production: cultural, biological, and chemical. Poultry
Science, 65, 657-667.
Axtell, R. C. (1999). Poultry integrated pest management: status and future. Integrated Pest Management
Review, 4(1), 53-73.
Axtell, R. C., and Arends, J. J. (1990). Ecology and Management of arthropod pests of poultry. Annual
Bacon, C. W. (1986). Effects of broiler litter volatiles and ammonia on fungal spore germination. Poultry
Science, 65, 710-716.
Blanford, S., Jenkins, N. E., Christian, R., Chan, B. H. K., Nardini, L., Osae, M., Koekemoer, L.,
Coetzee, M., Read, A. F., and Thomas, M. B. (2012). Storage and persistence of a candidate
fungal biopesticide for use against adult malaria vectors. Malaria Journal, 11, 354.
F., and Thomas, M. B. (2011). Lethal and pre-lethal effects of a fungal biopesticide contribute to
substantial and rapid vector control of Malaria vectors. PLoS One, 6, e23591.
Bouamama, N., Vidal, C., and Fargues, J. (2010). Effects of fluctuating moisture and temperature regimes
on the persistence of quiescent conidia of Isaria fumosorosea. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology,
105, 139-144.
146
Center for disease control and prevention (CDC). (2007). National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) pocket guide to chemical hazards: Ammonia. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh.
Accessed June 3, 2014, 151-152.
Darbro, J., and Thomas, M. B. (2009). Spore persistence and likely aeroallergenicity of entomopathogenic
fungi used for mosquito control. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 80, 992-
997.
Fargues, J., and Luz, C. (2000). Effects of fluctuating moisture and temperature regimes on the infection
potential of Beauveria bassiana for Rhodnius prolixus. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 75(3),
202-211.
Fargues, J., Ouedraogo, A., Goettel, M. S., and Lomer, C. J. (1997). Effects of temperature, humidity and
inoculation method on susceptibility of Schistocera gregaria to Metarhizium flavoviridae.
Biocontrol Science and Technology, 7(3), 345-356.
Green, A. R., Wesley, I., Trampel, D. W., and Xin, H. (2009). Air quality and hen health status in three
types of commercial laying hen houses. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 18, 605-621.
Hong, P. Y., Li, X., Yang, X., Shinkai, T., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., and Mackie, R. I. (2012). Monitoring
airborne biotic contaminants in the indoor environment of pig and poultry confinement buildings.
Environmental Microbiology, 14(6), 1420-1431.
Hong, T. D., Jenkins, N. E., and Ellis, R. H. (1999). Fluctuating temperature and the longevity of conidia
of Metarhizium flavoviride in storage. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 9(2), 165-176.
IBM Corp. Released 2014. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY.
Inyang, E. N., McCartney, H. A., Oyejola, B., Ibrahim, L., Pye, B. J., Archer, S. A., and Butt, T. M.
(2000). Effect of formulation, application and rain on the persistence of the entomogenous fungus
Metarhizium anisopliae on oilseed rape. Mycological Research, 104 (6), 653-661.
Jackson, M. A., Dunlap, C. A., and Jaronski, S. T. (2010). Ecological considerations in producing and
formulating fungal entomopathogens for use in insect biocontrol. Biocontrol, 55, 129-145.
Jaronski, S. T. (2010). Ecological factors in the inundative use of fungal entompathogens. Biocontrol, 55,
159-185.
Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (1996). Effect of formulation and application method on the efficacy
of aerial and submerged conidia of Metarhizium flavoviride for locust and grasshopper control.
Pesticide Science, 46(4), 299-306.
Jenkins, N. E., Heviefo, G., Langewald, J., Cherry, A. J., and Lomer, C. J. (1998). Development of mass
production technology for aerial conidia of mitosporic fungi for use as mycopesticides.
Biocontrol News and Information, 19, 21N-31N.
147
Kaufman, P. E., Reasor, C., Rutz, D. A., Ketzis, J. K., and Arends, J. J. (2005). Evaluation of Beauveria
bassiana applications against adult house fly, Musca domestica, in commercial caged-layer
poultry facilities in New York state. Biological Control, 33, 360-367.
Kaufman, P. E., Rutz, D. A., and Frisch, S. (2001). Sticky traps for large scale house fly (Diptera:
Muscidae) trapping in New York poultry facilities. Journal of Agricultural and Urban
Keyser, C. A., Fernandes, E. K. K., Rangel, D. E. N., and Roberts, D. W. (2014). Heat-induced post-stress
growth delay: A biological trait of many Metarhizium isolates reducing biocontrol efficacy.
Journal of invertebrate Pathology, 120, 67-73.
Liang, Y., Xin, H., Wheeler, E. F., Gates, R. S., Li, H., Zajaczkowski, J. S., Topper, P. A., Casey, K. D.,
Behrends, B. R., Burnham, D. J., and Zajaczkowski, F. J. (2005). Ammonia emissions from US
laying hen houses in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural
and Biological Engineers (ASAE), 48, 1927-1941.
Nonnenmann, M. W., Bextine, B., Dowd, S. E., Gilmore, K., and Levin, J. L. (2010). Culture-independent
characterization of bacteria and fungi in a poultry bioaerosol using pyrosequencing: a new
approach. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7(12), 693-699.
North, M. O., and Bell, D. D. (1990). Commercial Chicken Production Manual, 4th edition, Chapman and
Hall, New York, NY.
Perrin, B. (2000). Improving insecticides through encapsulation. Pesticide Outlook, 68-71.
Ravensberg, W. J. (2011). A roadmap to the successful development and commercialization of microbial
pest control products for control of arthropods. Progress in Biological Control, 10. 386p.
Reece, F. N., Bates, B. J., and Lott, B. D. (1979). Ammonia control in broiler houses. Poultry Science,
58(3), 754-755.
Schippers, B., Meijer, J. W., and Liem, J. I. (1982). Effect of ammonia and other soil volatiles on
germination and growth of soil fungi. Transactions of the British Mycological Society, 79(2), 253-
259.
Stock, D. (1997). Do we need adjuvants? Mechanistic studies and implications for future developments.
Proceedings of the 50th N.Z. Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection Society
Incorporated, Hastings, New Zealand, 185-190.
Stafford, K. C. (2008). Fly management handbook: A guide to biology, dispersal, and management of the
house fly and related flies for farmers, municipalities, and public health officials. The Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 1013. 32p.
148
Thomas, M. B., Wood, S. N., Langewald, J., and Lomer, C. J. (1997). Persistence of biopesticides and
consequences for biological control of grasshoppers and locusts. Pesticide Science, 49, 47-55.
United Egg Producers (UEP). (2008). United egg producers animal husbandry guidelines for US egg
laying flocks. Accessed June 3, 2014. http://www.uepcertified.com.
Watson, D. W., Geden, C. J., Long, S. J., and Rutz, D. A. (1995). Efficacy of Beauveria Bassiana for
controlling the house fly and stable fly (Diptera:Muscidae). Biological Control, 5(3), 405-411.
Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science, 90, 263-
277.
149
Table 5-1. Median survival times of house flies following exposure to fungal-treated and control
plastic sheets maintained in a high-rise layer house for up to four weeks
Time after treated-

Median survival time days Log rank statistic (significance compared
plastic sheets placed in Treatment
(95% C.I.) to control)
poultry barn
Week 1 Control >21*

χ2=128.1; P < 0.001
B. bassiana 13.0 (11.41-14.60)
Week 2 Control >21*

χ2=21.74; P < 0.001
B. bassiana >21*
Week 3 Control >21*

χ2=11.052; P = 0.001
B. bassiana >21*
Week 4 Control >21*

χ2=6.392; P = 0.011
B. bassiana >21*
* >21 days indicates that 50% mortality was not reached before the end of the 21-day monitoring period.
150
Table 5-2. Median survival times of house flies following exposure to fungal-treated and control
plastic sheets maintained under laboratory conditions (26-27oC, 50-60% RH) for up to 13 weeks
Time after fungal Median survival time days (95% Log rank statistic (significance
Treatment
application C.I.) compared to control)
Day 1 Control >21*
B. bassiana 4.0 (3.81-4.19) χ2=241.61; P < 0.001
Week 1 Control >21*
B. bassiana 4.0 (3.84-4.17) χ2=132.97; P < 0.001
Week 2 Control 13.0 (11.39-14.61)
B. bassiana 5.0 (4.91-5.10) χ2=201.69; P < 0.001
Week 3 Control >21*
B. bassiana 5.0 (4.89-5.12) χ2=246.99; P < 0.001
Week 4 Control >21*
B. bassiana 5.0 (4.84-5.17) χ2=253.78; P < 0.001
Week 5 Control >21*
B. bassiana 5.0 (4.83-5.18) χ2=237.53; P < 0.001
Week 6 Control >21*
B. bassiana 5.0 (4.77-5.24) χ2=281.15; P < 0.001
Week 7 Control >21*
B. bassiana 4.0 (3.83-4.18) χ2=232.12; P < 0.001
Week 8 Control >21*
B. bassiana 5.0 (4.79-5.22) χ2=310.72; P < 0.001
Week 9 Control >21*
B. bassiana 6.0 (5.84-6.18) χ2=344.76; P < 0.001
Week 10 Control >21*
B. bassiana 5.0 (4.84-5.17) χ2=338.43; P < 0.001
151
Table 5-2. Continued
B. bassiana 6.0 (5.85-6.16) χ2=270.46; P < 0.001
B. bassiana 6.0 (5.64-6.37) χ2=237.41; P < 0.001
B. bassiana 6.0 (5.6.0-6.41) χ2=298.76; P < 0.001
152
Figure 5-1. Long-term viability of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana isolate I93-825 (batch
PSU 46) on plastic sheeting placed in a high-rise layer house in September 2013, with different
cover treatments (fine mesh muslin or more open mosquito netting) placed over the plastic to
manipulate exposure to airborne particulates
153
Figure 5-2. Long-term viability of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana isolate I93-825 (batch
PSU 46) on plastic sheeting without cover treatments placed in the poultry house in January and
March 2014, or maintained in the laboratory at 26-27oC, 50-60% RH from January through
March
154
Figure 5-3. Cumulative proportional survival of house flies exposed periodically to oil-
formulated conidia of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 46) applied on plastic sheets that were
maintained in a high-rise layer house for four weeks in January 2014
155
Figure 5-4. Cumulative proportional survival of house flies exposed periodically to oil-
formulated conidia of B. bassiana I93-825 (batch PSU 46) applied on plastic sheets that were
maintained in the laboratory for 13 weeks at 26-27oC, 50-60% RH
156

157

158
Chapter 6: Conclusions and future implications
House flies are economically and medically important insect pests in poultry production
facilities. Standard, chemical pesticide-based control options for flies are with issues due to
insecticide resistance and regulatory constraints. Biopesticides based on naturally occurring
fungal pathogens offer alternatives to chemical pesticides for sustainable fly management.
Through a series of laboratory and field experiments, this study addressed several issues related
to field application, persistence and performance of fungal biopesticides against flies. The major
objectives of the study were (1) to evaluate the potential for biocontrol of house flies using
fungal biopesticides, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae; (2) to evaluate persistence
and efficacy of B. bassiana against house flies on typical structural substrates of poultry houses;
(3) to assess the impact of fly population on persistence and efficacy of B. bassiana under
laboratory conditions; and (4) to evaluate persistence and efficacy of B. bassiana against house
flies in a commercial high-rise layer barn.
An important element in the successful development and implementation of a
biopesticide product is an efficient delivery system. One Beauveria-based commercial product,
balEnceTM is available for fly management in poultry production facilities, but its current
formulation and application methods have several limitations. By exploiting post-eclosion
behaviors, we developed a cost-effective field delivery system whereby teneral adult flies are
targeted via the application of oil-formulated spores to plastic sheeting fixed to the lower
portions of basement walls where flies momentarily rest to harden themselves and expand their
wings following emergence from puparia. Indoor residual sprays of fungal formulations with the
barrier application technique could sustainably suppress populations by influencing fly densities
159
and population growth rates through sub-lethal impacts on reproductive output (Chapter 2). We
also examined the potential of inexpensive, non-toxic, contractor-grade plastic sheets as a wall-
covering material prior fungal application to support long-term spore viability. Pre-sheeting of
the basement sections appears costly initially; however, reductions in spray area, formulation
volume and other indirect cost savings could offset initial inputs in long run and make the
technology cost-effective and competitive. A simple cost/benefit analysis of the plastic sheeting
application technique showed approximately 40-50% reduction in total treatment costs compared
to the current application methods for balEnceTM. However, the plastic sheeting effectiveness as
well as economic and operational feasibility need to be validated through field testings, where
several biotic, abiotic and management factors may affect fungal outcome. Further studies to
characterize post-eclosion resting behaviors and their spatial distributions across the basement
walls would be needed to optimally adjust dimension of spray patch for enhanced spore-transfer
efficiency. Additionally, the poultry industry has been readily adopting IPM strategies to manage
arthropod pests including filth flies; therefore, this technique could be part of their holistic
approach for fly control. Poultry growers might need field demonstration events for wider
acceptance of the technique.
Although fungal biopesticides offer good potential for fly management, economics and
logistics of their operational use depend on a number of factors including persistence of spray
residues on treated surfaces and/or indoor environments. Hence, we evaluated the persistence
and efficacy of B. bassiana against flies on typical structural substrates of poultry houses where
the spores are being applied as residual sprays. Spore infectivity was poor on these surfaces
because flies chemically deactivated and physically removed substantial numbers of spores from
the surfaces, with higher fly densities and greater cumulative exposure hastening the decline
160
(Chapter 3). Nonetheless, effective persistence reduced slowly and overall efficacy was
minimally affected under simulated field exposure procedure since very low densities of viable
conidia were still able to cause rapid mortality (Chapter 4). Fly density inside poultry facilities is
expected to be far below than used in laboratory studies and flight and other movement
behaviors could vary thus lowering surface contact rates. Hence, detrimental effects are likely to
be minimal at realistic population densities under field conditions. Given the decline in
persistence is influenced by fly density, it is possible to replenish spores by tailoring spray
regimes to accommodate different densities, for example, high spray frequency with a high rate
and dose during peak fly seasons and then reduced frequency when populations decline.
Development of a biopesticide tool necessitates complete assessment of field
performance attributes, which aids in understanding and optimizing the outcome of biocontrol.
The study therefore assessed persistence and efficacy of B. bassiana spray residue against flies in
actual conditions in a commercial high-rise layer barn. We found that fungal spray treatments
remained viable for up to 13 weeks under laboratory conditions. Periodic exposure of flies to the
spray residue showed high levels mortality, with very little decline in mortality rate over time.
Equivalent treatments placed in a commercial poultry house showed much more rapid decline.
One trial at the end of summer showed conidia to remain viable up to seven weeks. However,
repeats during the winter months revealed decay in one to two weeks, with fly mortality rates
influenced accordingly (Chapter 5). While chemical (e.g. ammonia) and thermal (e.g. high
humidity) environments pose a challenge for operational use, the fungal biopesticides can still be
used in fly management making necessary adjustments in current housing and manure
management to improve indoor air quality and create stable thermal environments. This
technology could contribute to the overall IPM program. Additional studies to identify the impact
161
of individual indoor factors including ammonia, humidity and temperature levels and natural fly
populations are required to increase the long-term efficacy of the biopesticide treatments.
The effective persistence index developed under laboratory conditions can be used to
track spore decay rate following field applications and, with further field studies, to determine
optimal spray frequency based on population density, duration of exposure and viable spores on
the treated surfaces (Chapter 4). The laboratory and field experimental results suggested the
potential for adaptive treatment regimes with weekly spray intervals in conditions with very high
fly populations and/or high ammonia levels, and potentially monthly spray intervals when fly
populations and ammonia levels are reduced. Regular population monitoring would be an
essential element in determining spray frequency, both to prevent population outbreaks and
account for density dependent conidia removal and deactivation.
Several possibilities exist to reduce ammonia emission and accumulation in the poultry
houses through dietary manipulation, in-house composting, use of manure and litter amendments
and biofilters (Reece et al. 1979, Moore et al. 1996, Bottcher et al. 1999, Koenig et al. 2005,
Liang et al. 2005, Li et al. 2008, Patterson and Adrizal 2005, Xin et al. 2011). Preventing manure
moisture contamination through regular maintenance of problematic drainage and leaky watering
systems can reduce ammonia emission rate (Groot Koerkamp 1994). Lime treatments of swampy
manure areas not only control manure moisture, but also interrupt larval development. Providing
additional drying fans in basements can help reduce ammonia build-up to high concentrations.
High ammonia concentrations negatively affect bird health and performance (Cotterill and
Nordsog 1954, Charles and Payne 1966, Nagaraja et al. 1983, Charlile 1984, Deaton et al. 1984);
therefore, manure management is essential for bird health and efficiency and should be an
162
integral part of the overall production system. It is likely that with further research, novel
formulations of fungal pathogens such as microencapsulation as well as additives or adjuvants
could be used to protect conidia against adverse environmental factors and enhance biological
activity (Stock 1997, Perrin 2000, Ravensberg 2011). Temperature and humidity optima for spore
persistence may vary among different fungal isolates and selection of appropriate isolates that are
more resistant to adverse indoor factors would be needed.
There still remains some questions related to long-term field application and performance
of the fungal biopesticides that must be addressed in future research. House flies have minute
sensory hairs on their tarsi, which could detect fungal spores and behaviorally avoid them under
heavy biopesticide pressure since past studies have shown that Anthocorid bugs have
behaviorally avoided B. bassiana-treated surfaces (e.g. Meyling and Pell 2006). Insecticide-
resistant flies have a thicker cuticle than susceptible ones as shown previously (Keiding 1976),
which could affect cuticle penetration by the conidia. Under heavy and continuous biopesticide
pressure for long periods, physical, behavioral and tansgenerational resistance may develop and
reduce the fungal efficiency. Thus, further research may need to evaluate the impact of long-term
heavy biopesticide use on fly behaviors and immunoecology. For example, the progeny from
immune elicitor-challenged Tenebrionid larvae and bumblebees have shown some resistance to
elicitors (Rolff and Siva-Jothy 2003, Moret 2006). As the speed of kill is highly variable among
fungal isolates and host species as shown in the Chapter 2 and in several previous studies (Rizzo
1977, Davidson and Chandler 2005, Lecuona et al. 2005, Anderson et al. 2011, Blanford et al.
2012), selection of the most virulent isolates as future biopesticide products is necessary to
maximize the outcome of the biocontrol program.

163
The US poultry industry spends about $20 million dollars on chemical pesticides for fly
management per year (Geden et al. 2001). The new delivery system as described in Chapter 2
would contribute to wider adoption of balEnceTM as well as promote commercial development of
other fungal species/isolates, thereby reducing pesticide consumption in the industry and
generate pesticide-free poultry products. It provides an ecofriendly, sustainable fly management
tool for both organic and inorganic growers which, with further research, can also be deployed in
management of structural pests such as hide beetle and lesser mealworm that cause physical
damage to insulation and structural members in the barns (Geden and Steinkraus 2003).
Similarly, annual production loss due to insects, mites and ticks in the US cattle industry is
estimated to be more than two billion dollars and, with further research, the biopesticides might
be used to manage these susceptible ecotoparasites in cattle as well as swine production facilities
(Watson et al. 1995, Geden et al. 2001, Perinotto et al. 2012).
Every year approximately 79,000 cases of food borne illnesses and 30 deaths are caused
by consumption of Salmonella-contaminated eggs, and flies are considered as one of the vectors
for the spread of Salmonellosis across layer farms (FDA 2009). Fungal infections have shown to
decrease excretion frequency in flies (Anderson 2011) and feeding and flight capability in
mosquitoes (Blanford et al. 2011). The biopesticides can be used to reduce vectoral capacity and
disease transmission potential and, with further research on formulation and application strategy,
can be integrated into vector management programs. As shown previously by Barson et al.
(1994), spores could disseminate horizontally within populations through mating and courtship
behaviors, which offer potential to use infected flies as well as mycosed cadavers as a low-cost
field delivery technique similar to horizontal transmission of Beauveria among bedbugs
(Barbarin et al. 2012); however, detailed investigations will be needed to document this
164
potential. Insecticide-resistant mosquitoes have higher susceptibility to fungal infections
(Howard et al. 2010), and with further research, the biopesticides can be extensively used against
insecticide-resistant house flies as the pesticide resistance is a rampant problem in the poultry
industry. Additionally, B. bassiana works synergistically when combined with Bt, imidacloprid,
larvadex and other soft chemical insecticides as shown in house flies (Mwumbari et al. 2009) and
mosquitoes (Farenhorst et al. 2010), and can be concurrently used in IPM with other control
tactics. Use of multiple tactics in a rotation with rational doses and rates may reduce potential
selection pressure on populations and risks of resistance development.
The modern poultry production system in the US is highly sophisticated and organized
and is largely managed by integrators who contract with individual farms to provide chickens
and eggs. Thus, integrators can provide wider dissemination of the technology to client farms.
However, good coordination and cooperation between the production companies, government
and land-grant university extension, and individual contract farmers or their associations would
be necessary. Many global companies now have joint ventures with local production industries in
developing countries. Such worldwide expansion will increase the adoption of the technology,
and the involvement of large international companies in poultry production might facilitate
technology transfer around the world.
Commercial poultry production is expanding rapidly to meet the dietary demand of
growing populations, and per capita egg and meat consumption is increasing accordingly. Such
temporal and spatial expansion in demand of poultry products requires more integrated and
intensive production system that generates large amount of waste materials, and consequently
filth flies such as house flies will continue to be a biological threat as pests and disease-vectors
165
continue to demand more attention in pest management. In large-scale production operations,
even very small losses due to flies (in terms of feed conversion, weight gain, egg production etc.)
could have large economic impacts on the companies and individual growers. The situation
would be worse if the companies had to face lawsuits and actions under public health laws due to
fly nuisance caused by invading populations into nearby residential areas, which can result in
significant economic loss and even farm closure. Thus, fly threats will be a constant challenge
for the poultry industry and need to be taken seriously. Reliable, non-toxic, ecofriendly IPM-
compatible tools that can sustainably keep the populations low are necessary. Because the
development of new pesticides is costly, time-consuming and most of existing products have
reduced functionality due to resistance and regulatory constraints, effective chemical pesticides
are becoming increasingly rare in the market. In this context, demands for the fungal-based
biopesticides will continue to grow in the poultry industry as pesticide alternatives.

166
6.1. References
Anderson, R. D. (2011). Behavioral fever in the house fly (Musca domestica L.): effects on host fitness
and the efficacy of fungal biopesticides. Ph.D. dissertation submitted to The Pennsylvania State
University, University park, PA. 185p.
Anderson, R. D., Bell, A. S., Blanford, S., Paaijmans, K. P., and Thomas, M. B. (2011). Comparative
(Musca domestica L.). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 107, 179-184.
Barbarin, A. M., Jenkins, N. E., Rajotte, E. G., and Thomas, M. B. (2012). A preliminary evaluation of
the potential of Beauveria bassiana for bed bug control. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 111,
82-85.
Barson, G., Renn, N., and Bywater, A. F. (1994). Laboratory evaluation of 6 species of
entomopathogenic fungi for the control of the house fly (Musca domestica L.), a pest of
intensive animal units. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 64(2), 107-113.
Coetzee, M., Read, A. F., and Thomas, M. B. (2012). Storage and persistence of a candidate
fungal biopesticide for use against adult malaria vectors. Malaria Journal, 11, 354.
F., and Thomas, M. B. (2011). Lethal and pre-lethal effects of a fungal biopesticide contribute
to substantial and rapid vector control of malaria vectors. PLoS One, 6(8), 1-11.
Bottcher, R. W., Keener, K. M., Munilla, R. D., Parbst, K. E., and VanWicklen, G. L. (1999). Field
evaluation of a wet pad scrubber for odor and dust control. Proceeding of Animal Waste
Management Symposium, Raleigh, NC, 243-246.
Carlile, F. S. (1984). Ammonia in poultry houses: A literature review. World’s Poultry Science Journal,
40(2), 99-113.
Charles, D. R., and Payne, C. G. (1966). The influence of graded levels of atmospheric ammonia on
chickens. I. Effects on respiration and on the performance of broilers and replacement growing
stock. British Poultry Science, 7, 177-87.
Cotterill, O., and Nordsog, A. W. (1954). Influence of ammonia on egg white quality. Poultry Science,
33, 432-434.
Davidson, G., and Chandler, D. (2005). Laboratory evaluation of entomopathogenic fungi against larvae
and adults of onion maggot (Diptera: Anthomyiidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 98,
1848-1855.
Deaton, J. W., Reece, F. N., and Lott, B. D. (1984). Effect of atmospheric ammonia on pullets at point of
lay. Poultry Science, 63, 384-385.
167
Farenhorst, M., Knols, B. G. J., Thomas, M. B., Howard, A. F. V., Takken, W., Rowland, M., and
N'Guessan, R. (2010). Synergy in efficacy of fungal entomopathogens and permethrin against
West African insecticide-resistant Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. Plos One, 5(8), e12081.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). Egg safety final rule. http://www.fda.gov.
Geden, C. J., and Steinkraus, D. C. (2003). Evaluation of three formulations of Beauveria bassiana for
control of lesser mealworm and hide beetle in Georgia poultry houses. Veterinary Entomology,
96, 1602-1607.
Geden, C. J., Arends, J. J., Axtell, R. C., Barnard, D. R, Gaydon, D. M., Hickle, L. A., Hogsette, J. A.,
Jones, W. F., Mullens, B. A., Nolan Jr., M. P., Nolan III, M. P., Petersen, J. J., and Sheppard, D.
C. (2001). Research and extension needs for integrated pest management for arthropods of
veterinary important. In: Geden, C. J., and Hogsette, J. A. (eds.). Proceedings of a workshop in
Lincoln, Nebraska, April 12-14, 1994. 328p.
Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G. (1994). Review of emissions of ammonia from housing systems for layer hens
in relation to sources, processes, building design and manure handling. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research, 59, 73-87.
Howard, A. F. V., Koenraadt, C. J. M., Farenhorst, M., Knols, B. G. J., and Takken, W. (2010).
Pyrethroid resistance in Anopheles gambiae leads to increased susceptibility to the
entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana. Malaria Journal, 9,
168.
Keiding, J. (1976). The house fly-biology and control. World Health Organization, Lyngby,
Denmark.82p.
Koenig, R. T., Miner, F. D., Miller, B. E., and Palmer, M. D. (2005). In-house composting in high-rise,
caged layer facilities. Sustainable Agriculture Research and education, fact sheets.7p.
Lecuona, R. E., Turica, M., Tarocco, F., and Crespo, D. C. (2005). Microbial control of Musca domestica
(Diptera: Muscidae) with selected strains of Beauveria bassiana. Journal of Medical
Entomology, 42(3), 332-336.
Li, H., Xin, H., Burns, R.T., and Liang, Y. (2008). Reduction of ammonia emission from stored poultry
manure using additives: Zeolite, Al+Clear, Ferix-3 and PLT. Journal of Applied Poultry
Research, 17, 421-431.
Liang, Y., Xin, H., Wheeler, E. F., Gates, R. S., Li, H., Zajaczkowski, J. S., Topper, P. A., Casey, K. D.,
Behrends, B. R., Burnham, D. J., and Zajaczkowski, F. J. (2005). Ammonia emissions from US
laying hen houses in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural
and Biological Engineers (ASAE), 48, 1927-1941.
168
Meyling, N. V., and Pell, J. K. (2006). Detection and avoidance of an entomopathogenic fungus by a
generalist insect predator. Ecological Entomology, 31, 162-171.
Moore, P. A., Jr. Daniel, T. C., Edwards, D. R., and Miller, D. M. (1996). Evaluation of chemical
amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization from poultry litter. Poultry Science, 75, 315-329.
Moret, Y. (2006). Trans-generational immune priming: specific enhancement of the antimicrobial
immune response in the mealworm beetle, Tenebrio molitor. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B-Biological Sciences, 273, 1399-1405.
Mwamburi, L. A., Laing, M. D., and Miller, R. (2009). Interaction between Beauveria bassiana and
Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis for the control of house fly larvae and adults in poultry
houses. Poultry Science, 88, 2307-2314.
Nagaraja, K. V., Emery, D. A., Jordan, K. A., Newman, J. A., and Pomeroy, B. S. (1983). Scanning
electron microscopic studies of adverse effects of ammonia on tracheal tissues of turkeys.
American Journal of Veterinary Research, 44, 1530-1536.
Patterson, P. H., and Adrizal. (2005). Management strategies to reduce air emissions: Emphasis-dust and
ammonia. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 3, 638-651.
Perinotto, W. M., Angelo, I. C., Golo, P. S., Quinelato, S., Camargo, M. G., SA, F. A, and Bittencourt, V.
R. (2012). Susceptibility of different populations of ticks to entomopathogenic fungi.
Experimental Parasitology, 130(3), 257-260
Perrin, B. (2000). Improving insecticides through encapsulation. Pesticide Outlook, 68-71
Ravensberg, W. J. (2011). A roadmap to the successful development and commercialization of microbial
pest control products for control of arthropods. Progress in biological control, 10. 386p.
Reece, F. N., Bates, B. J., and Lott, B. D. (1979). Ammonia control in broiler houses. Poultry Science,
58(3), 754-755.
Rizzo, D. C. (1977). Age of three Dipteran hosts as a factor governing the pathogenicity of Beauveria
bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 30(2), 127-130.
Rolff, J., and Siva-Jothy, M. T. (2003). Invertebrate ecological immunology. Science, 301, 472-475.
Stock, D. (1997). Do we need adjuvants? Mechanistic studies and implications for future developments.
Proceedings of the 50th N.Z. Plant Protection Conference. New Zealand Plant Protection
Society Incorporated, Hastings, New Zealand, 185-190.
Watson, D. W., Geden, C. J., Long, S. J., and Rutz, D. A. (1995). Efficacy of Beauveria Bassiana for
controlling the house fly and stable fly (Diptera: Muscidae). Biological Control, 5(3), 405-411.
Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science, 90, 263-
277.
VITA
Naworaj Acharya
EDUCATION
Ph.D. in Entomology (2010-2015)
Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA
Master of Science in Entomology (2004-2006)
Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Entomology major) (1999-2003)
Tribhuvan University, Nepal
PUBLICATIONS RELEVANT TO DISSERTATION RESEARCH

Acharya, N., Rajotte, E. G., Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (2015). Influence of biotic and
abiotic factors on the persistence of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide in laboratory and
high-rise poultry house settings. Submitted to Biocontrol Science and Technology.
Acharya, N., Seliga, R. A., Rajotte, E. G., Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (2015). Persistence
and efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against the house fly, Musca
domestica, on typical structural substrates of poultry houses. Biocontrol Science and
Technology, 25(6), 697-715.
Acharya, N., Rajotte, E. G., Jenkins, N. E., and Thomas, M. B. (2015). Potential for biocontrol
of house flies, Musca domestica, using fungal biopesticides. Biocontrol Science and
Technology, 25(5), 513-524.
RELEVANT RESEARCH EXPERIENCE AND SELECTED AWARDS

USAID fellowship (2010-2015), Penn State University
Vartkes Miroyan Memorial award in Entomology (2014), Penn State University
Travel award (2014), The Society for Invertebrate Pathology
Research assistant, Entomology (2004-2005), Tribhuvan University, Nepal
TEACHING AND MENTORING

Teaching assistant, Penn State University, ENT 313: Introduction to Entomology (2011/2012)
Teaching assistant, Penn State University, Statistical Techniques in Entomology (2012)
SELECTED MEMBERSHIPS IN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Entomological Society of America (ESA)
The Society for Invertebrate Pathology (SIP)
Society of Overseas Nepalese Entomologists (SONE)
Student representative, Microbial Division, SIP

House Fly (Musca Domestica L.) Management in Poultry Production Using Fungal Biopesticides

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Fly (Musca Domestica L.) Management in Poultry Production Using Fungal Biopesticides

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

HOUSE FLY (MUSCA DOMESTICA L.) MANAGEMENT IN POULTRY

PRODUCTION USING FUNGAL BIOPESTICIDES

 2015 Naworaj Acharya

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

Biopesticides based on naturally occurring fungal pathogens could provide an alternative

several issues related to field application, persistence and performance of fungal

biopesticides against flies. We demonstrated that residual spray treatments of fungal

biopesticides, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae could sustainably suppress

flies momentarily rest to harden themselves following emergence. We also evaluated

inexpensive, non-toxic contractor-grade plastic sheets as potential wall covering materials

to support long-term spore viability. The infectivity of oil-formulated B. bassiana against

Nevertheless, careful monitoring and adjustments of current housing and manure

Overall, the study contributes to wider adoption of mycopesticide products as well as

promotes commercial development of other potential fungal species/isolates and

contributes to the reduction of pesticide consumption in the poultry industry.

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction/Literature review ................................................................... 1

1.1. Biology, ecology and behavior of house flies .................................................. 1

2.2.5. Egg collection, enumeration and viability test .......................................... 70

Chapter 3: Persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against

3.3.5. Effect of fly density on viability and concentration of conidia in spray

Chapter 4: Impact of fly population on persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria

Abstract ................................................................................................................... 117

Chapter 5: Persistence and efficacy of a Beauveria bassiana biopesticide against

Abstract ................................................................................................................... 134

5.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 141

Chapter 6: Conclusions and future implications .......................................................... 158

Figure 3-1. Cumulative proportional survival of fly populations exposed to B.

Figure 3-3. Cumulative proportional mortality of fly populations exposed to B.

Figure 3-4. Cumulative proportional survival of fly populations exposed to B.

Figure 3-5. A) Viability, and B) density of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana

Figure 4-1. A) Viability, and B) density of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana

Figure 4-2. A) Cumulative proportional survival of house flies following exposure

Figure 5-1. Long-term viability of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana isolate

Figure 5-2. Long-term viability of oil-formulated conidia of B. bassiana isolate

Figure 5-3. Cumulative proportional survival of house flies exposed periodically to

Figure 5-4. Cumulative proportional survival of house flies exposed periodically to

Table 3-1. Analysis of house fly survival following exposure to a range of B.

Table 3-2. Analysis of house fly survival following exposure to a range of B.

Table 3-3. Comparative survival of house flies after exposure to B. bassiana-

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee co-chairs, Dr

criticisms and constant encouragement and support throughout my graduate studies at

Management Collaborative Research Support Program of US Agency for International

Diagnostic Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture for supporting part

of the research during my graduate studies at Penn State.

I am also thankful to the Schwardt Lab, Department of Entomology, Cornell

experiments. My sincere thanks also go to Read-Thomas Laboratory members for their

help and support during the studies.

and my graduate career.

work and graduate studies

1.1. Biology, ecology and behavior of house flies

residential areas (Winpsinger et al. 2005).

1.2. House flies as pests and disease-vectors

1999, Sasaki et al. 2000, Nayduch et al. 2002).

(Calibeo-Hayes et al. 2003), Campylobacteriosis (Hald et al. 2004), Reticuloendotheoliosis

1.3. Poultry production system

production systems in US.

1.3.1. Cage system of layer production