Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 28;16(2):129.
doi: 10.3390/insects16020129.

Volatile Cues from Fresh Cattle Dung Can Drive Horn Fly Egg-Laying and Fecal Attraction to Horn Flies, Haematobia irritans (Diptera: Muscidae)

Affiliations

Volatile Cues from Fresh Cattle Dung Can Drive Horn Fly Egg-Laying and Fecal Attraction to Horn Flies, Haematobia irritans (Diptera: Muscidae)

Javier Espinoza et al. Insects. .

Abstract

The horn fly is an economically important hematophagous ectoparasite of cattle. Its management relies heavily on broad-spectrum pesticides, which are harmful to the environment and have led to the development of resistance. Therefore, alternative control methods are needed. Semiochemicals involved in communication between horn flies and their host are a promising alternative. Considering that the egg-laying of this fly occurs almost exclusively in fresh cattle dung, and most parts of its life cycle occur totally in dung, dung volatiles might play an important role in horn fly behavior. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of volatile blends and compounds emitted from fresh/aged cattle dung on the olfactory response and oviposition of horn flies. Dung blends were captured and analyzed by SPME-GC/MS. p-Cresol was the most abundant compound in dung blends, followed by α- and β-pinene, limonene, and β-caryophyllene, among other common dung volatiles. Fresh-dung volatiles attracted males and females in a Y-tube olfactometer, and they elicited the egg-laying of flies in two-choice tests. p-Cresol and α-pinene were attractive to females and they elicited higher oviposition, demonstrating that dung volatile semiochemicals, in part, lend to dung attractiveness and stimulate the horn fly oviposition.

Keywords: cattle flies; fecal volatile compounds; olfactory response; oviposition; semiochemicals.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Olfactory responses of horn flies to volatiles from fresh and aged cattle dung. Left: Response of mixed-sex flies randomly selected; Center: response of female flies; and Right: response of male flies. Values are mean ± SD. Asterisks on the points indicate significant differences between treatments and blanks based on the Tukey HSD test (p ≤ 0.05); N = 6.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Oviposition of female horn flies exposed to volatiles from fresh and aged cattle dung. Columns are mean number of eggs laid per female horn fly ± SE. Different letters on the columns indicate significant differences among treatments, including blanks, based on the Likelihood Ratio (LR) test (p ≤ 0.05); N = 6.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Olfactory responses of horn flies to single compounds present in volatile blend emanated from cattle dung. Left: Response of mixed-sex flies randomly selected; Center: response of female flies; and Right: response of male flies. Bars are mean ± SD. Asterisks next to the bars indicate significant differences between treatments and blanks based on the Tukey HSD test (* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001); N = 6.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Oviposition of female horn flies exposed to single compounds present in volatile blend emanated from cattle dung. Columns are mean number of eggs laid per female horn fly ± SE. Different letters on the columns indicate significant differences among treatments, including blanks, based on the Likelihood Ratio (LR) test (p ≤ 0.05); N = 6.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brewer G.J., Boxler D.J., Domingues L.N., Trout Fryxell R.T., Holderman C., Loftin K.M., Machtinger E., Smythe B., Talley J.L., Watson W. Horn Fly (Diptera: Muscidae)—Biology, Management, and Future Research Directions. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2021;12:42. doi: 10.1093/jipm/pmab019. - DOI
    1. Pérez de León A.A., Mitchell R.D., Watson D.W. Ectoparasites of Cattle. Vet. Clin. Food Anim. 2020;36:173–185. doi: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2019.12.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kuramochi K. Survival, ovarian development and bloodmeal size for the horn fly Haematobia irritans irritans reared in vitro. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2000;14:201–206. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2915.2000.00224.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mancebo A., Monzón C.M., Bulman G.M. Haematobia irritans: Una actualización a diez años de su introducción en Argentina (Parte I) Vic. Argent. 2001;18:34–46.
    1. Mancebo A., Monzón C.M., Bulman G.M. Haematobia irritans: Una actualización a diez años de su introducción en Argentina (Parte II) Vet. Argent. 2001;18:119–135.

LinkOut - more resources