title: Evaluation of an I-box wind tunnel model for assessment of behavioral responses of blow flies.
abstract: The behavioral response of flies to olfactory cues remains the focus of many investigations, and wind tunnels have sometimes been employed for assessment of this variable in the laboratory. In this study, our aim was to design, construct, and operate a new model of I-box wind tunnel with improved efficacy, highlighting the use of a new wind tunnel model to investigate the behavioral response of the medically important blow fly, Chrysomya megacephala (Fabricius). The I-box dual-choice wind tunnel designed for this study consists of seven conjoined compartments that resulted in a linear apparatus with clear glass tunnel of 30 × 30 × 190 cm ended both sides with wooden "fan compartments" which are equipped with adjustable fans as wind source. The clear glass tunnel consisted of two "stimulus compartments" with either presence or absence (control) of bait; two "trap compartments" where flies were attracted and allowed to reside; and one central "release compartment" where flies were introduced. Wind tunnel experiments were carried out in a temperature-controlled room, with a room light as a light source and a room-ventilated fan as odor-remover from tunnel out. Evaluation of testing parameters revealed that the highest attractive index was achieved with the use of 300 g of 1-day tainted pork scrap (pork meat mixed with offal) as bait in wind tunnel settings wind speed of 0.58 m/s, during 1.00-5.00 PM with light intensity of 341.33 lux from vertical light and 135.93 lux from horizontal light for testing a group of 60 flies. In addition, no significant response of well-fed and 24 h staved flies to this bait under these conditions was found. Results of this study supported this new wind tunnel model as a suitable apparatus for investigation of behavioral response of blow flies to bait chemical cues in the laboratory.
authors: Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
authors: Kittikhun
authors: K
authors: Moophayak
authors: Kabkaew L
authors: KL
authors: Sukontason
authors: Hiromu
authors: H
authors: Kurahashi
authors: Roy C
authors: RC
authors: Vogtsberger
authors: Kom
authors: K
authors: Sukontason
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D004175:Diptera / Q000502:physiology*; D004772:Entomology / Q000379:methods; D005247:Feeding Behavior; D008124:Locomotion; D014919:Wind
references: Parasitol Res. 2013 Jul;112(7):2763-71
references: 23604565
references: Med Vet Entomol. 1995 Oct;9(4):388-92
references: 8541589
references: Parasitol Res. 2011 Nov;109(5):1279-92
references: 21479574
references: Neotrop Entomol. 2007 Sep-Oct;36(5):633-9
references: 18060286
references: J Exp Biol. 2003 Feb;206(Pt 4):715-24
references: 12517989
references: Chem Senses. 2009 Jun;34(5):425-33
references: 19363088
references: Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1998 Jun;29(2):333-6
references: 9886123
references: Med Vet Entomol. 2001 Sep;15(3):259-66
references: 11583442
references: Med Vet Entomol. 1999 Feb;13(1):2-23
references: 10194745
references: J Exp Biol. 1999 Jun;202 (Pt 12):1639-48
references: 10333509
references: Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1976 Mar;(1):85-90
references: 1027114
references: J Chem Ecol. 2006 Aug;32(8):1719-29
references: 16900427
references: J Med Entomol. 2002 Jan;39(1):130-4
references: 11931246
references: Med Vet Entomol. 1989 Jul;3(3):293-5
references: 2519675
references: Med Vet Entomol. 2002 Dec;16(4):335-46
references: 12510885
references: J Insect Physiol. 2008 Jul;54(7):1184-92
references: 18634791
references: Nature. 2001 Mar 22;410(6827):466-70
references: 11260713
references: Parasitol Res. 2008 Jun;103(1):123-31
references: 18343951
references: J Insect Physiol. 2006 Jul;52(7):729-36
references: 16707136
references: J Chem Ecol. 2010 Jun;36(6):599-607
references: 20437263
references: Parasitol Res. 2008 Feb;102(3):419-29
references: 18026752
references: Med Vet Entomol. 2010 Sep;24(3):250-7
references: 20497319