143454

143454
 A^/^ &1345I

The Coleopterists Bulletin, 42(3):211-216. 1988.

ROLE OF THE LESSER MEALWORM,

ALPHITOBIUS DIAPERINUS (PANZER)
(COLEOPTERA: TENEBRIONIDAE), AS A
PREDATOR OF THE HOUSE FLY,
MUSCA DOMESTICA L. (DIPTERA: MUSCIDAE),
IN POULTRY HOUSES’

JOSEPH L. DESPINS,2 JEFFERSON A. VAUGHAN,3 AND E. CRAIG TURNER, JR.

Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
The role of the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer), as a predator of
house fly Musca domeslica L., maggots and puparia in poultry houses is discussed. Late
instar larval and adult A. diaperinus fed on house fly maggots when isolated together in
glass vials. Lesser mealworm adults and middle instar larvae significantly reduced house
fly emergence from apparatus which simulated the manure pit environment of high
rise caged layer egg house.

The lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer), is the most common

coleopteran inhabiting high rise, caged layer houses during some times of the
year (Pfeiffer and Axtell 1980), where it may be found in the upper 15 cm of
the collected droppings in the manure pits of these houses (Green 1982). The
insect is an omnivorous scavenger, feeding on material which falls into the
manure pit, such as manure, spilled chicken feed, cracked eggs, and chicken
carcasses. The lesser mealworm is of economic importance by virtue of its
destructive behavior; late instar larvae and adults leave the manure habitat
and burrow into the house insulation (Dale et al. 1976; Ichinose et al. 1980;
Le Torc’h 1979; Chaix 1980; Wildey 1983; Vaughan et al. 1984). Extensive
tunneling results in gradual disintegration ofthe insulation, with a concomitant
reduction in its insulating capability (Dale et al. 1976; Vaughan et al. 1984;
Despins et al. 1987).
Alphitobius diaperinus is quite voracious, and has been reported feeding on
the flesh of pigeon squabs (Lewis 1958; Keifer 1935 as cited in Crook et al.
1980) and actually killed and completely consumed the soft tissues of a ten-
inch rat snake (Elaphe sp.), a DeKay’s snake {Storeria dekayi) and a salamander
(Harris 1966). The insect will also feed on the flesh and internal organs ofdead
and moribund chicks (Harding and Bissell 1958) and on the breasts of inca-
pacitated broiler chickens (W. D. Weaver, pers. comm., Poultry Science De-
partment, VPI & SU). Harris (1966) found as many as 5,762 beetles occurring
on and inside a broiler carcass.

This research supported by Grant Number 82-1332-05 from the Virginia Agricultural Council,
Present address: Tick and Scabies Research Unit, USDA, ARS, P.O. Box 3008-KjngshilI, Saint
Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 00850.
Present address; DepartmenI of Microbiology & Immunology, University of Maryland School of
Medicine, Baltimore, MD 22201.

211
212 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 42(3), 1988

Despite its voracity, little work has been published on the predatory potential
of the lesser mealworm. Koszlov (1970) found the lesser mealworm to be an
effective predator of the chicken mite, Dermanyssvs galUnae Redi. Toyama
and Ikeda (1976) reported predation of only first instar house fly, Musca do-
mestica L., larvae. Armitage (1986) showed an inverse relationship between
lesser mealworm and house fly populations in three high rise houses in Great
Britain, and alluded to the predatory potential of the lesser mealworm. Lesser
mealworms are also thought to have an indirect impact on house fly populations
by physically altering the habitat of the maggots by tunneling through the
manure. Habitat tunneling by the lesser mealworm is a behavior which occurs
in the second instar and continues through the remainder of the larval stage
(Wilson and Miner 1969). Tunneling promotes aeration and drying of the
manure pad, producing a suboptimum environment for noxious fly develop-
ment (Axtell 1986).
This study provides information on this heretofore neglected aspect oflesser
mealworm biology. The objective was to examine the potential of the lesser
mealworm as a predator of the house fly under the simulated conditions of a
high rise caged layer house.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Lesser mealworms typically inhabit manure with a 30 to 40% moisture
content (pers. obser.), whereas house fly maggots inhabit much wetter manure
(60 to 75% moisture) (Miller et al. 1974). As third instar maggots prepare for
metamorphosis, they disperse to drier areas in the manure to pupariate, thus
providing a greater probability for interspecific interaction. For this reason,
third instar house fly maggots and puparia were the only prey stages used in
these experiments. Initial observations of house fly predation were accom-
plished by isolating a single maggot with either a larval or adult lesser mealworm
in the bottom of a four dram (14 cc) patent lip glass vial. Vials were held at
room temperature (21Q. Counts of predation were made eight hours later.
Four additional experiments were conducted (designated hereafter as "Fly
Tests*’). Fly Tests One and Two involved an examination of predation of
puparial and eclosing house flies. Fly Tests Three and Four simulated natural
habitats in the manure pit of a high rise caged layer house.
FLY TEST ONE. Nine, open-lid, 236.6 ml Mason(R) jars each containing 50
house fly puparia were placed into cylindrical 1.9 liter ice cream cartons. Five
adult beetles were placed into each of three ofthe jars, five middle instar larvae
were set into each of three other jars, and the other three jars received no
beetles. The top of each ice cream carton was fitted with a chamber into which
successfully emerged house flies could crawl. Units were kept at 21C and the
number of flies which had emerged was counted at the end of 14 days.
FLY TEST Two. Observations were conducted using third instar house fly
maggots. A similar apparatus to Fly Test One was used, except glass Mason(R)
jars were not used, and the maggots were placed directly on the ice cream carton
floor. The same number of insects (i.e., identical ratio of prey to predator) was
used as in Fly Test One, and they were placed into each of four cartons; four
cartons received no beetles. Cartons were kept at 27C, and were examined for
emerged flies over a 14 day period. Emerged flies were removed by aspiration
and preserved in 70% ethanol.
FLY TEST THREE. Fifty g of air dried, semipulverized chicken manure were
placed into a plastic container measuring 11 cm top diameter x 9 cm bottom
 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 42(3), 1988 213

Table 1. Fly Test One. Effect of adult and middle instar lesser mealworms on house
fly emergence under laboratory conditions; house fly puparia used as prey.

No. house flies’

Treatment2 Emerged Not emerged
Adult lesser mealworms 94 56
Larval lesser mealworms 109 41
Fly puparia only 141 9
Observed frequencies of emergence significantly different from the expected (x3 42.6749, df
2, P 0.001).
Ratio of lesser mealworm stage to fly prey 1:10.

diameter x 7.5 cm height. Based on the manure dry weighi, enough distilled
water was added to create a 50% manure moisture habitat. Fifty house fly
puparia were placed on the manure surface, after which 20 adult lesser meal-
worms were added to each manure container- Each container was placed into
an ice cream carton apparatus as described earlier in Fly Test One, and kept
at 21C. Four treatment chambers and four control chambers (i.e., no beetles)
were prepared. Emerged flies were removed by aspiration daily over the 14
day test period and preserved in 70% ethanol.
FLY TEST FOUR. This investigation involved creating a separate beetle and
house fly habitat within the ice cream carton apparatus. Chicken manure was
collected from beneath caged layers housed at a research facility at VPI & SU,
and frozen for three days to kill any insect life. Manure was thawed, warmed
in a water bath, and placed up to the lip of seven plastic-lined 473.2 ml cups,
each of which was placed in a 1.9 liter ice cream container. The space between
the manure cup and the ice cream carton wall was filled with coarse sand to
within 2.5 cm of the manure cup lip; the remaining 2.5 cm above the sand was
filled with a mixture of sterilized 16% protein standard layer diet and split fresh
green corn kernels (for moisture). The environment surrounding the manure
cup represented a drier habitat and provided a site for fly pupariation. Each
manure cup was seeded with 100 first instar house fly maggots. Twenty-five
adult lesser mealworms were placed into four of the prepared chambers, on
the chicken diet/corn habitat, and three remaining chambers served as control
treatments. Chambers were placed into a constant temperature cabinet and
held at 27C and 24 hours darkness. Manure cups were lightly misted with
distilled water every other day to prevent desiccation and to ensure that mag-
gots, prior to pupariating, would disperse into the beetle habitat. The experi-
ment was ended after 10 days, and the emerged flies were collected and counted
from the emergence chamber and from the habitat chamber.

RESULTS
Both adults and late instar lesser mealworm larvae fed on the house fly
maggots when isolated together in the patent lip glass vials. Late instar larvae
consumed a significantly greater proportion of the prey (31 of 43 maggots) than
was observed in the adult stage (S of 42 maggots) (Fisher’s exact test, P <
0.0001). The larva was able to subdue the violently wrigglmg maggot by par-
tially wrapping its body around the maggot and chewing through the integument
of the prey. Adults apparently could not consume the maggot in this manner
because of their more rigid body structure.
214 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 42(3), 1988

Table 2. By Test Two. Effect ofadult and middle instar lesser mealworms on house
fly emergence under laboratory conditions; house fly maggots used as prey.

No. house Hies’

Treatment2 Emerged Not emerged
Adult lesser mealworms 28 52
Larval lesser mealworms 38 42
Fly puparia only 51 29
Observed frequencies of" emergence significantly different from the expected (x2 13.3083.df 2,
P 0.005).
Ratio of lesser mealworm stage to fly prey 1:10.

Both lesser mealworm adults or middle instar larvae, when isolated in a

chamber of exposed house fly puparia, significantly reduced house fly emergence
(Fly Test One, Table 1). Although fewer house flies emerged from the adult
treatment than from the larval treatment, emergence data from the adults and
larval treatments were not statistically different (x2 2.9861, df= 1, P > 0.05).
Likewise, presence ofA diaperinus in the interaction chamber containing house
fly maggots also significantly reduced fly emergence when compared to fly
emergence from chambers containing maggots only (Fly Test Two, Table 2).
Fly emergence from the adult and larval treatments did not differ statistically
from one another (x2 2.0889, df 1, P > 0.05). Both simulated poultry
house environment studies showed that adults caused significant reductions in
house fly emergence, producing as much as a 42% population reduction in
comparison with the control treatment (Fly Tests Three and Four, Tables 3
and 4, respectively).

DISCUSSION
Alphitobius diaperinus had a significant impact on house fly emergence in
our laboratory systems. Late instar larval lesser mealworms were effective
predators of house fly maggots. However, while these results corroborate the
report of research recently conducted in Great Britain (Armitage 1986), the
potential of the lesser mealworm as a biological control agent against house
flies will probably remain overshadowed by its destructive tendencies in poultry
houses, unless chemical or physical barriers can be developed that will effec-
tively prevent lesser mealworm tunneling into insulating materials.
The significance of lesser mealworm predatory behavior may not lie in

Table 3. Fly Test Three. Effect of adult lesser mealworms on house fly emergence
under 50% manure moisture environment.

No. house flies’

Treatment2 Emerged Not emerged
Adult lesser mealworms 113 87
Fly puparia only 194 6
Observed frequencies of emergence significantly different from the expected (x2 89.6641, df
1, P 0.001).
Ratio of adult lesser mealworms to fly puparia 2:5.
 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 42(3), 1988 215

Table 4. Fly Test Four. Effect of adult lesser mealworms on house fly emergence
under simulated poultry house conditions (greater than 60% manure moisture).

No. house flies’

Treatment2 Emerged Not emerged
Adult lesser mealworms 194 206
Fly maggots only 203 97
Observed frequencies of emergence significantly different from the expected (x2 24.8783, df
1,^< 0.001).
Ratio of adult lesser mealworms to fly prey 1:4.

control of house fly populations, but in the effects which might occur during
releases of other house fly biological control agents. Recent work conducted in
Florida (Hogsette 1979), South Carolina (Nolan and Kissam 1985), and Vir-
ginia (E. C. Turner, unpubl. data, Dept. of Entomology, VPI & SU) confirm
the value of black garbage fly maggots, Ophyra aenescens (Weidemann) (Dip-
tera: Muscidae), as predators of immature house flies in high rise caged layer
houses. Release of the black garbage flies in high rise houses consists ofdumping
a number of trays of laboratory-reared maggots onto the manure surface near
larval house fly habitats- We found that the highly proteinaceous 0. aenescens
rearing medium was very attractive to lesser mealworms, and observed a great
number of beetles surrounding the garbage fly release sites. The beetles which
were feeding on the rearing medium probably consumed black garbage fly
maggots and puparia as well. Future studies should be conducted to evaluate
the effect of lesser mealworm predation in the dynamics of the Ophyra aenes-
censiMusca domestica predator-prey system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Cecil Kessinger for his expertise in rearing house flies. We grate-
fully acknowledge the efforts of Felicia Johnson, who translated the French
journal articles, and Koichi Ono, who translated the Japanese journal article.

LITERATURE CITED
ARMITAGE, D. M. 1986. Population changes of four species of insects (Col. &. Dipt.)
in three deep pit poultry houses, Entomol. Mon. Mag. 122:75-77.
AXTELL, R. C. 1986. Fly management in poultry production: cultural, biological and
chemical. PSA symposium on arthropods of economic importance to the poultry
industry. Poult. Sci. 65:657-667.
CHAIX, M. 0. 1980. La desinsectisation des locaux d’elevage. Phytoma 314:18-20.
CROOK, P. G., J. A. NOVAK, AND T. J. SPILMAN. 1980. The lesser mealworm, Alphiiobius
diaperinus. in the scrotum of Ratlus norvegicus, with notes on other vertebrate
associations (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae; Rodentia: Muridae). Coleopts Bull. 34:
393-396.
DALE, P. S., J. C. HAYES, AND J. JOHANNESSON. 1976. New records of plant pests in
New Zealand. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 19:265-269.
DESPINS, J. L-, E. C. TURNER, JR-, AND P. L. RUSZLER. 1987. Construction profiles of
high rise caged layer houses in association with insulation damage caused by the
lesser mealworm, Alphiiobius diaperinus (Panzer), in Virginia. Poult. Sci. 66:243-
250.
GREEN, D. B. 1982. The fauna and environment of two Lancashire deep-pit poultry
216 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 42(3), 1988

houses. Minisl. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Poultry, Sect. A Quarterly

Journal, March (140):15-32.
HARMNG, W. C., AND T- L. BISSELL. 1958. Lesser mealworms in a brooder house. J.
Econ. Entomol. 51:112.
HARRIS, F. 1966. Observations on the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Panz.).
J. Ga. Entomol. Soe. 1:17-18.
HOGSETTE, J. A., JR. 1979. The evaluation of poultry pest management techniques in
Florida poultry houses. Ph.D dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
307 pp.
ICHINOSE, T., S. SHIBAZAKI, AND M. OHTA. 1980. Studies on the biology and mode of
infestation of the tenebrionid beetle, Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer, harmful to
broiler-chicken houses. Jap. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 24:167-174 (in Japanese with
English abstract).
KEEPER, H. H. 1935. The black fungus beetle and the lesser mealworm. Calif. Agric.
Mon.BuII. 24:316.
K.OSZLOV, V. I. 1970. The tenebrionid Alphitobius diaperinus Panz., a predator of
Dermanyssus gallinae Redi. Parazitologiya 4:363-364 (in Russian with English
abstract).
LE TORC’H, J. M. 1979. Un nouveau ravageur des batiments d’elevage. Phytoma 308:
31-33.
LEWIS, D. J. 1958. Coleoptera of medical interest in the Sudan Republic. Proc. Royal
Entomol. Soc. London, Ser. A 33:37-42.
MILLER, B. F., J. S. TEOTIA, AND T. 0. THATCHER. 1974. Digestion of poultry manure
by Musca domestica. Br. Poult. Sci. 15:231-234.
NOLAN, M. P., Ill, AND J. B. KISSAM. 1985. Ophyro. aenescens: a potential bio-control
alternative for bouse fly control in poultry houses. J. Agric. Entomol. 2:192-195.
PFEIFFER, D. G., AND R. C. AXTELL. 1980. Coleoptera of poultry manure in caged-
layer houses in North Carolina. Environ. Entomol. 9:21-28.
TOYAMA,G.M.,ANDJ.K.IKEDA. 1976. An evaluation of fly predators at animal farms
on leeward and central Oahu. Proc. Hawaii. Entomol. Soc. 22:369-379.
VAUGHAN, J. A., E. C. TURNER, JR., AND P. L. RUSZLER. 1984. Infestation and damage
of poultry house insulation by the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Pan-
zer). Poult. Sci. 63:1094-1100.
WILDEY, K. B. 1983. Insect pests in animal houses-current control developments [pp.
1-11]. In: Bateman, P. L. G. (editor). Proceedings, Sixth British Pest Control
Conference, paper no. 20, Robinson College, Cambridge, September 7th-10th
1983, British Pest Control Association. London.
WILSON, T. H., AND F. D. MINER. 1969. Influence of temperature on development of
the lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). 3. Kans.
Entomo], Soc. 42:294-303.

(Received 19 May 1986; revised 26 October 1986; accepted 8 January 1987)