Comparative performance of traps in catching tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) in Tanzania.

Imna I Malele, Johnson O Ouma, Hamisi S Nyingilili, Winston A Kitwika, Deusdedit J Malulu, Henry B Magwisha, Eliningeya J Kweka
{"title":"Comparative performance of traps in catching tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) in Tanzania.","authors":"Imna I Malele,&nbsp;Johnson O Ouma,&nbsp;Hamisi S Nyingilili,&nbsp;Winston A Kitwika,&nbsp;Deusdedit J Malulu,&nbsp;Henry B Magwisha,&nbsp;Eliningeya J Kweka","doi":"10.4102/ojvr.v83i1.1057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was conducted to determine the efficiency of different tsetse traps in 28 sites across Tanzania. The traps used were biconical, H, NGU, NZI, pyramidal, S3, mobile, and sticky panels. Stationary traps were deployed at a distance of 200 m apart and examined 72 h after deployment. The results showed that 117 (52.2%) out of the 224 traps deployed captured at least one Glossina species. A total of five Glossina species were captured, namely Glossina brevipalpis, Glossina pallidipes, Glossina swynnertoni, Glossina morsitans, and Glossina fuscipes martinii. Biconical traps caught tsetse flies in 27 sites, pyramidal in 26, sticky panel in 20, mobile in 19, S3 in 15, NGU in 7, H in 2 and NZI in 1. A total of 21 107 tsetse flies were trapped, with the most abundant species being G. swynnertoni (55.9%), followed by G. pallidipes (31.1%), G. fuscipes martinii (6.9%) and G. morsitans (6.0%). The least caught was G. brevipalpis (0.2%). The highest number of flies were caught by NGU traps (32.5%), followed by sticky panel (16%), mobile (15.4%), pyramidal (13.0%), biconical (11.3%) and S3 (10.2%). NZI traps managed to catch 0.9% of the total flies and H traps 0.7%. From this study, it can be concluded that the most efficient trap was NGU, followed by sticky panel and mobile, in that order. Therefore, for tsetse fly control programmes, NGU traps could be the better choice. Conversely, of the stationary traps, pyramidal and biconical traps captured tsetse flies in the majority of sites, covering all three ecosystems better than any other traps; therefore, they would be suitable for scouting for tsetse infestation in any given area, thus sparing the costs of making traps for each specific Glossina species.</p>","PeriodicalId":107337,"journal":{"name":"The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research","volume":" ","pages":"a1057"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4102/ojvr.v83i1.1057","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v83i1.1057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the efficiency of different tsetse traps in 28 sites across Tanzania. The traps used were biconical, H, NGU, NZI, pyramidal, S3, mobile, and sticky panels. Stationary traps were deployed at a distance of 200 m apart and examined 72 h after deployment. The results showed that 117 (52.2%) out of the 224 traps deployed captured at least one Glossina species. A total of five Glossina species were captured, namely Glossina brevipalpis, Glossina pallidipes, Glossina swynnertoni, Glossina morsitans, and Glossina fuscipes martinii. Biconical traps caught tsetse flies in 27 sites, pyramidal in 26, sticky panel in 20, mobile in 19, S3 in 15, NGU in 7, H in 2 and NZI in 1. A total of 21 107 tsetse flies were trapped, with the most abundant species being G. swynnertoni (55.9%), followed by G. pallidipes (31.1%), G. fuscipes martinii (6.9%) and G. morsitans (6.0%). The least caught was G. brevipalpis (0.2%). The highest number of flies were caught by NGU traps (32.5%), followed by sticky panel (16%), mobile (15.4%), pyramidal (13.0%), biconical (11.3%) and S3 (10.2%). NZI traps managed to catch 0.9% of the total flies and H traps 0.7%. From this study, it can be concluded that the most efficient trap was NGU, followed by sticky panel and mobile, in that order. Therefore, for tsetse fly control programmes, NGU traps could be the better choice. Conversely, of the stationary traps, pyramidal and biconical traps captured tsetse flies in the majority of sites, covering all three ecosystems better than any other traps; therefore, they would be suitable for scouting for tsetse infestation in any given area, thus sparing the costs of making traps for each specific Glossina species.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

坦桑尼亚捕蝇器捕获采采蝇(双翅目:舌蝇科)效果比较。
本研究旨在确定坦桑尼亚28个地点不同采采陷阱的效率。捕集器有双锥型、H型、NGU型、NZI型、金字塔型、S3型、移动型和粘滞型。在间隔200米的距离上部署固定陷阱,并在部署后72小时进行检查。结果表明,224个诱捕器中有117个(52.2%)捕获了至少一种绿蝇。共捕获5种Glossina brevipalpis、Glossina pallidipes、Glossina swynnertoni、Glossina morsitans和Glossina fuscipes martinii。双锥形捕蝇器27个,锥体捕蝇器26个,粘板捕蝇器20个,移动捕蝇器19个,S3捕蝇器15个,NGU捕蝇器7个,H捕蝇器2个,NZI捕蝇器1个。共捕获采采蝇21 107只,种类最多的是swynnertoni采采蝇(55.9%),其次是pallidipes采采蝇(31.1%)、fuscipes martinii采采蝇(6.9%)和morsitans采采蝇(6.0%)。捕获量最少的是短叶锦鸡(0.2%)。NGU法捕蝇最多(32.5%),其次为粘板法(16%)、移动法(15.4%)、金字塔型(13.0%)、双锥型(11.3%)和S3型(10.2%)。NZI诱捕器捕获蝇类总数的0.9%,H诱捕器捕获蝇类总数的0.7%。从本研究中可以得出结论,最有效的捕集器是NGU,其次是粘板和移动。因此,在采采蝇控制方案中,NGU捕蝇器可能是较好的选择。相反,在固定陷阱中,金字塔型和双锥型陷阱在大多数地点捕获采采蝇,比任何其他陷阱更好地覆盖所有三个生态系统;因此,它们适合在任何特定地区侦察采采蝇的侵扰,从而节省了为每个特定种类的舌蝇制作陷阱的费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书