Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:45:22.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative efficiency of some mechanical traps used in the study of the tsetse species, Glossina pallidipes Austen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Mary L. A. Owaga
Mary L. A. Owaga
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

The biconical trap of Challier and Laveissièr was compared with Langridge's box screen (LBS) and Moloo's awning screen skirt (ASS) for relative efficiency in catching the tsetse species, Glossina pallidipes Austen, in two areas in Kenya. The dark blue biconical trap performed better than the ASS in one area, but both of them caught more males than females. In the other area, the sky blue version of the biconical gave higher yields than LBS and the white biconical. In both areas, the white biconical trap caught the highest proportion of old flies, while ASS caught the highest proportion of young flies. The biconical trap is preferable because it is collapsible, easy to handle and transport, and needs minimal manpower to operate, unlike the LBS and ASS.

Keywords

Trapping devicesrelative efficiencymechanical trapstrap yieldssex ratiosage structurelocalitysite effects and hunger stage
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 197 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bursell, E. (1961) The behaviour of tsetse flies, G. swynnertoni Austen in relation to problems of sampling. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 36, 9–20.Google Scholar
Bursell, E. (1977) Tryponosomiasis in Southern Africa. In: Medicine in a Tropical Environment (Ed. by Gear, J. S. H.), pp. 562–564. A. A. Belkema, Cape Town.Google Scholar
Challier, A. and Laveissière, C. (1973) Un nouveau piege pour la capture des glossines (Glossina: Diptera; Muscidae) description et assais sur le terrain. Cah O.R.S.T.O.M. Ser. Ent. med. Parasitol. 11, 251–262.Google Scholar
Challier, A., Eyraud, M., Lafaye, A. and Laveissière, C. (1977) Amelioration du rendement due piege biconique pour glossines (Diptera, Glossinidae) par l'emploi d'un cône inferieur bleu. Cah. O.R.S.T.O.M., Ser Ent. med et Parasitol. 15, 283–286.Google Scholar
Fiske, W. F. (1920) Investigations into the binomics of Glossina palpalis. Bull. ent. Res. 10, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasgow, J. P. and Duffy, B. J. (1961) Traps in field studies of Glossina pallidipes Austen. Bull. ent. Res. 52, 795–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, R. W. and Williams, W. L. (1938) Effect of temperature on the reaction of Glossina morsitans West, to light. Bull ent. Res. 28, 443–182.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. H. C. (1933) The causes and implications of hunger in tsetse flies. Bull. ent. Res. 24, 443–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. H. C. (1949) The biology of tsetse flies. Biol. Rev. 24, 174–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moloo, S. K. (1973) A new trap for Glossina pallidipes Aus. and G. fuscipes Newst. (Diptera, Glossinidae). Bull. ent. Res. 63, 131–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D. S. (1964) The effect of site and sampling method on the size and composition of catches of tsetse flies, Glossina and Tabanidae. Bull. ent. Res. 55, 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vale, G. A. (1974) The responses of tsetse flies to mobile and stationary baits. Bull. ent. Res. 64, 545–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar