ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2015
Pyrethroid treatment of cattle for tsetse control: reducing its impact on dung fauna.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scoping review on assessing climate-sensitive health risks.BMC public health · 2025Article
- An evaluation of African animal trypanosomiasis control strategies in remote communities of Eastern Zambia.Parasitology · 2024Article
- Comparative toxicity of two neonicotinoid insecticides at environmentally relevant concentrations to telecoprid dung beetles.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Assessing the effect of insecticide-treated cattle on tsetse abundance and trypanosome transmission at the wildlife-livestock interface in Serengeti, Tanzania.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Article
- Environmental impact of tsetse eradication in Senegal.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Adverse effects of routine bovine health treatments containing triclabendazole and synthetic pyrethroids on the abundance of dipteran larvae in bovine faeces.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Environmental consequences of deltamethrin residues in cattle feces in an African agricultural landscape.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Support for research towards understanding the population health vulnerabilities to vector-borne diseases: increasing resilience under climate change conditions in Africa.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2017Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practices about tsetse control among communities neighbouring Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.Heliyon · 2017Article
- Exploring the potential of using cattle for malaria vector surveillance and control: a pilot study in western Kenya.Parasites & vectors · 2017Article
- Correction: Pyrethroid Treatment of Cattle for Tsetse Control: Reducing Its Impact on Dung Fauna.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAfrican trypansomiases of humans and animals can be controlled by attacking the vectors, various species of tsetse fly. Treatment of cattle with pyrethroids to kill tsetse as they feed is the most cost-effective method. However, such treatments can contaminate cattle dung, thereby killing the fauna which disperse the dung and so play an important role in soil fertility. Hence there is a need to identify cost-effective methods of treating cattle with minimal impact on dung fauna. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe used dung beetles to field bioassay the levels of dung contamination following the use of spray and pour-on formulations of deltamethrin, applied to various parts of the body of cattle in Zimbabwe. Results suggested that dung was contaminated by contact with insecticide on the body surface as the cattle defecated, and by ingestion of insecticide as the cattle licked themselves. Death of dung beetles was reduced to negligible levels by using only the spray and applying it to the legs and belly or legs alone, i.e., places where most tsetse feed. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The restricted applications suitable for minimising the impact on dung fauna have the collateral benefits of improving the economy and convenience of cattle treatments for tsetse control. The demonstration of collateral benefits is one of the surest ways of promoting environmentally friendly procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.