1. Evaluation of Fly Traps Under Desert Conditions USDA-ARS, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology (CMAVE) 1600 S. W. 23 rd Drive, Gainesville, Florida 32608, USA Jerome A. Hogsette

2. House Fly Trap Evaluation in Cairo Attraction of Moisture-Deprived House Flies to Dry Baits House Fly Ultraviolet Light Trap Studies 2009 Projects Stable Fly Repellent Studies

3. Cairo, 2009: No project proposals from foreign scientists were approved by the Egyptian Ministry of Health.

4. Off the job…

5. Evaluation of BugJammer traps for trapping house flies at the Vaccine Institute, Cairo, Egypt Jerome A. Hogsette 1, Hanafi A. Hanafi 2, Ulrich R. Bernier 1, Daniel L. Kline 1, Emad Y. Fawaz 2, Barry D. Furman 2, and David F. Hoel 3 1 USDA-AS, CMAVE, Gainesville, FL, 2 NAMRU-3, Cairo, Egypt, 3 Program Manager, Medical Entomology Collaborations, Navy Marine Corps Public Health Center Detachment, CMAVE, Gainesville, FL

6. BugJammer traps - evaluated in Aswan in 2008 against sand flies.

7. What is the BugJammer Trap? Housing covered by a sticky sleeve. Speaker PVC tube with electronics inside Base Power

8. Underneath the speaker are 4 ‘D’ cell batteries to power a microchip… …on which is recorded the heartbeat of a dog in a continuous loop.

9. To compare the efficacy of the BugJammer fly traps, with and without sound, with the standard Captivator fly traps baited with the Farnam fly bait. Performance of fly traps is dependent on geographic location and environmental conditions. Although they have been designed as a trap for stable flies, BugJammer traps will attract and capture house flies outdoors as well as indoors. Objective: Hypothesis: Military Relevance:

10. Vaccine Institute

11. Trap placement

12. 1.The traps were rotated through the 3 trap sites. 2. The traps were left at each site for 24 hours, then flies were counted. 4. Tests were replicated 3 times. 3. Captivator trap was emptied and recharged with water and bait. Clean sticky paper was put on the Bug Jammer traps. Experimental design: 2009 Three traps – BugJammer on, BugJammer off, Captivator with bait.

13. The wet jar trap (Farnam Captivator) captured significantly more house flies. Mean = 5958.9 (± 905.8)a BugJammer Mean =1322.8 (± 377.2)b 2009 Results Captivator Bugjammer Sound On: Mean =1383.7 (± 341.0)b Bugjammer Sound Off:

14. However, it appears that the BugJammer trap may have captured the maximum number of flies it could hold within the 24-hr test period.

15. USDA-ARS, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology (CMAVE) 1600 S. W. 23 rd Drive, Gainesville, Florida 32608, USA Jerome A. Hogsette House Fly Ultraviolet Light Trap Studies

16. UV Light traps

17. To compare the effects of housing design on fly attraction and capture. Trap housings that allow for maximum exposure of fluorescent tubes will attract and catch the most flies. UV light traps used by the military should provide the highest level of control possible. Objective: Hypothesis: Military Relevance:

18. How does design affect efficacy?

19. First Component 1. Housing: Open front or closed front.

20. First Component 1. Housing: Open front vs restricted open front.

21. Second Component 2. Main attractant: UV light. Currently, all tubes used in light traps are standard models. Standard UV tubes – 350 – 370 nm. Black light blue tubes – 350 nm and higher.

22. Third Component 3. Glue Boards: With or without pheromone.

23. Traps about 90 cm above the floor. Room size: 3.3 by 6.0 m. Tube type/trap housing type/glue board type combinations rotated after every test. Experimental Design

24. Fifty house flies counted and released. Counts made 1, 4, and 24 hours after flies were released. Experimental Design

25. Open grid housing – 15.3 ± 1.8a Closed grid housing – 13.5 ± 1.5a Results

26. BL tube in open grid housing – 20.2 ± 2.6a BLB tube in open grid housing – 10.3 ± 1.7b Results

27. BL tube in closed grid housing – 13.6 ± 2.3a BLB tube in closed grid housing – 13.5 ± 1.9a Results

28. Glue board with pheromone – 17.7 ± 3.1a Glue board without pheromone – 22.7 ± 4.2a Glue board with pheromone – 7.7 ± 1.8b Glue board without pheromone – 13.0 ± 2.6b Results Open grid housing and BL tube with: Open grid housing and BLB tube with:

29. Glue board with pheromone – 15.8 ± 2.5c Glue board without pheromone – 11.3 ± 3.6c Glue board with pheromone – 12.2 ± 1.2d Glue boards without pheromone – 14.8 ± 3.7d Results Closed grid housing and BL tube with: Closed grid housing and BLB tube with:

30. Grid type Tube typeGlue board type Open – 15.3 ± 1.8a Closed – 13.5 ± 1.5a BL – 20.2 ± 2.6a BLB – 10.3 ± 1.7b BL – 13.6 ± 2.3c BLB – 13.5 ± 1.9c P – 17.7 ± 3.1a P – 7.7 ± 1.8b N – 22.7 ± 4.2a N – 13.0 ± 2.6b P – 15.8 ± 2.5c P – 12.2 ± 1.2d N – 11.3 ± 3.6c N – 14.8 ± 3.7d Results

31. NSN for the Terminator trap. Similar trap/bait evaluations are planned in other geographical locations in different climatic zones, eg. Northern Australia and Peru. Future Direction: Technology Transfer: Manuscripts in preparation.

32. The End