Skip to content

Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.): implications for control using stationary baits

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.) : implications for control using stationary baits. / Hargrove, John; English, Sinead; Torr, Stephen J.; Lord, Jennifer; Haines, Lee Rafuse; Van Schalkwyk, Cari; Patterson, James; Vale, Glyn.

In: Parasites and Vectors, Vol. 12, No. 24, 24, 11.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Hargrove, J, English, S, Torr, SJ, Lord, J, Haines, LR, Van Schalkwyk, C, Patterson, J & Vale, G 2019, 'Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.): implications for control using stationary baits', Parasites and Vectors, vol. 12, no. 24, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3274-x

APA

Hargrove, J., English, S., Torr, S. J., Lord, J., Haines, L. R., Van Schalkwyk, C., ... Vale, G. (2019). Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.): implications for control using stationary baits. Parasites and Vectors, 12(24), [24]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3274-x

Vancouver

Hargrove J, English S, Torr SJ, Lord J, Haines LR, Van Schalkwyk C et al. Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.): implications for control using stationary baits. Parasites and Vectors. 2019 Jan 11;12(24). 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3274-x

Author

Hargrove, John ; English, Sinead ; Torr, Stephen J. ; Lord, Jennifer ; Haines, Lee Rafuse ; Van Schalkwyk, Cari ; Patterson, James ; Vale, Glyn. / Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.) : implications for control using stationary baits. In: Parasites and Vectors. 2019 ; Vol. 12, No. 24.

Bibtex

@article{2b35d6938cd04ae9891f853578add7ed,
title = "Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.): implications for control using stationary baits",
abstract = "BackgroundIt has been suggested that attempts to eradicate populations of tsetse (Glossina spp.) using stationary targets might fail because smaller, less mobile individuals are unlikely to be killed by the targets. If true, tsetse caught in stationary traps should be larger than those from mobile baits, which require less mobility on the part of the flies.ResultsSampling tsetse in the Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe, we found that the number of tsetse caught from stationary traps, as a percent of total numbers from traps plus a mobile vehicle, was ~5{\%} for male G. morsitans morsitans (mean wing length 5.830 mm; 95{\%} CI: 5.800–5.859 mm) and ~10{\%} for females (6.334 mm; 95{\%} CI: 6.329–6.338 mm); for G. pallidipes the figures were ~50{\%} for males (6.830 mm; 95{\%} CI: 6.821–6.838 mm) and ~75{\%} for females (7.303 mm, 95{\%} CI: 7.302–7.305 mm). As expected, flies of the smaller species (and the smaller sex) were less likely to be captured using stationary, rather than mobile sampling devices. For flies of a given sex and species the situation was more complex. Multivariable analysis showed that, for females of both species, wing lengths changed with ovarian age and the month, year and method of capture. For G. pallidipes, there were statistically significant interactions between ovarian age and capture month, year and method. For G. m. morsitans, there was only a significant interaction between ovarian age and capture month. The effect of capture method was, however, small in absolute terms: for G. pallidipes and G. m. morsitans flies caught on the mobile vehicle had wings only 0.24 and 0.48{\%} shorter, respectively, than flies caught in stationary traps. In summary, wing length in field samples of tsetse varies with ovarian age, capture month and year and, weakly, with capture method. Suggestions that a target-based operation against G. f. fuscipes in Kenya caused a shift towards a smaller, less mobile population of tsetse, unavailable to the targets, failed to account for factors other than capture method.ConclusionsThe results are consistent with the successful use of targets to eradicate populations of tsetse in Zimbabwe. Until further, more nuanced, studies are conducted, it is premature to conclude that targets alone could not, similarly, be used to eradicate G. f. fuscipes populations in Kenya.",
keywords = "Animals, Body Size, Feeding Behavior, Female, Flight, Animal/physiology, Insect Control/methods, Male, Species Specificity, Tsetse Flies/anatomy & histology, Wings, Animal/anatomy & histology",
author = "John Hargrove and Sinead English and Torr, {Stephen J.} and Jennifer Lord and Haines, {Lee Rafuse} and {Van Schalkwyk}, Cari and James Patterson and Glyn Vale",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1186/s13071-018-3274-x",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "Parasites and Vectors",
issn = "1756-3305",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "24",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.)

T2 - implications for control using stationary baits

AU - Hargrove, John

AU - English, Sinead

AU - Torr, Stephen J.

AU - Lord, Jennifer

AU - Haines, Lee Rafuse

AU - Van Schalkwyk, Cari

AU - Patterson, James

AU - Vale, Glyn

PY - 2019/1/11

Y1 - 2019/1/11

N2 - BackgroundIt has been suggested that attempts to eradicate populations of tsetse (Glossina spp.) using stationary targets might fail because smaller, less mobile individuals are unlikely to be killed by the targets. If true, tsetse caught in stationary traps should be larger than those from mobile baits, which require less mobility on the part of the flies.ResultsSampling tsetse in the Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe, we found that the number of tsetse caught from stationary traps, as a percent of total numbers from traps plus a mobile vehicle, was ~5% for male G. morsitans morsitans (mean wing length 5.830 mm; 95% CI: 5.800–5.859 mm) and ~10% for females (6.334 mm; 95% CI: 6.329–6.338 mm); for G. pallidipes the figures were ~50% for males (6.830 mm; 95% CI: 6.821–6.838 mm) and ~75% for females (7.303 mm, 95% CI: 7.302–7.305 mm). As expected, flies of the smaller species (and the smaller sex) were less likely to be captured using stationary, rather than mobile sampling devices. For flies of a given sex and species the situation was more complex. Multivariable analysis showed that, for females of both species, wing lengths changed with ovarian age and the month, year and method of capture. For G. pallidipes, there were statistically significant interactions between ovarian age and capture month, year and method. For G. m. morsitans, there was only a significant interaction between ovarian age and capture month. The effect of capture method was, however, small in absolute terms: for G. pallidipes and G. m. morsitans flies caught on the mobile vehicle had wings only 0.24 and 0.48% shorter, respectively, than flies caught in stationary traps. In summary, wing length in field samples of tsetse varies with ovarian age, capture month and year and, weakly, with capture method. Suggestions that a target-based operation against G. f. fuscipes in Kenya caused a shift towards a smaller, less mobile population of tsetse, unavailable to the targets, failed to account for factors other than capture method.ConclusionsThe results are consistent with the successful use of targets to eradicate populations of tsetse in Zimbabwe. Until further, more nuanced, studies are conducted, it is premature to conclude that targets alone could not, similarly, be used to eradicate G. f. fuscipes populations in Kenya.

AB - BackgroundIt has been suggested that attempts to eradicate populations of tsetse (Glossina spp.) using stationary targets might fail because smaller, less mobile individuals are unlikely to be killed by the targets. If true, tsetse caught in stationary traps should be larger than those from mobile baits, which require less mobility on the part of the flies.ResultsSampling tsetse in the Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe, we found that the number of tsetse caught from stationary traps, as a percent of total numbers from traps plus a mobile vehicle, was ~5% for male G. morsitans morsitans (mean wing length 5.830 mm; 95% CI: 5.800–5.859 mm) and ~10% for females (6.334 mm; 95% CI: 6.329–6.338 mm); for G. pallidipes the figures were ~50% for males (6.830 mm; 95% CI: 6.821–6.838 mm) and ~75% for females (7.303 mm, 95% CI: 7.302–7.305 mm). As expected, flies of the smaller species (and the smaller sex) were less likely to be captured using stationary, rather than mobile sampling devices. For flies of a given sex and species the situation was more complex. Multivariable analysis showed that, for females of both species, wing lengths changed with ovarian age and the month, year and method of capture. For G. pallidipes, there were statistically significant interactions between ovarian age and capture month, year and method. For G. m. morsitans, there was only a significant interaction between ovarian age and capture month. The effect of capture method was, however, small in absolute terms: for G. pallidipes and G. m. morsitans flies caught on the mobile vehicle had wings only 0.24 and 0.48% shorter, respectively, than flies caught in stationary traps. In summary, wing length in field samples of tsetse varies with ovarian age, capture month and year and, weakly, with capture method. Suggestions that a target-based operation against G. f. fuscipes in Kenya caused a shift towards a smaller, less mobile population of tsetse, unavailable to the targets, failed to account for factors other than capture method.ConclusionsThe results are consistent with the successful use of targets to eradicate populations of tsetse in Zimbabwe. Until further, more nuanced, studies are conducted, it is premature to conclude that targets alone could not, similarly, be used to eradicate G. f. fuscipes populations in Kenya.

KW - Animals

KW - Body Size

KW - Feeding Behavior

KW - Female

KW - Flight, Animal/physiology

KW - Insect Control/methods

KW - Male

KW - Species Specificity

KW - Tsetse Flies/anatomy & histology

KW - Wings, Animal/anatomy & histology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059839007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13071-018-3274-x

DO - 10.1186/s13071-018-3274-x

M3 - Article

VL - 12

JO - Parasites and Vectors

JF - Parasites and Vectors

SN - 1756-3305

IS - 24

M1 - 24

ER -