Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30635017›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2019

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

John Hargrove, Sinead English, Stephen J Torr, Jennifer Lord, Lee Rafuse Haines, Cari van Schalkwyk, James Patterson, Glyn Vale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Phenotypic divergence ofEcology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

John HargroveSACEMA, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa. jhargrove@sun.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0346-5260
Sinead EnglishSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Stephen J TorrLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Jennifer LordLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Lee Rafuse HainesLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Cari van SchalkwykSACEMA, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
James PattersonLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Glyn ValeSACEMA, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Funding

BBSRC ZELS, grant no. BB/L019035/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L019035/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/P005888/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/P006159/1DFID Animal Health Programme R7539, R7987Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

AnimalsBody SizeFeeding BehaviorFemaleFlight, AnimalInsect ControlMaleSpecies SpecificityTsetse FliesWings, AnimalAge season annual effectsEradication using targetsStationary and mobile baitsTsetse GlossinaWing length

Identifiers

PMID30635017
PMCPMC6329045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.