ArticleParasites & vectors2019
Wing length and host location in tsetse (Glossina spp.): implications for control using stationary baits.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creating complete life histories of individual female tsetse (Glossina spp) to study the effects of meteorological conditions on fly size in Zimbabwe.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- How do host age and nutrition affect density regulation of obligate versus facultative bacterial symbionts? Insights from the tsetse fly.ISME communications · 2025Article
- Phenotypic divergence ofEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Caught in a trap: DNA contamination in tsetse xenomonitoring can lead to over-estimates of Trypanosoma brucei infection.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Heatwaves are detrimental to fertility in the viviparous tsetse fly.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Investigating the unaccounted ones: insights on age-dependent reproductive loss in a viviparous fly.Frontiers in ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Deep learning approaches to landmark detection in tsetse wing images.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Entomological assessment of tsetse-borne trypanosome risk in the Shimba Hills human-wildlife-livestock interface, Kenya.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Does Counting Different Life Stages Impact Estimates for Extinction Probabilities for Tsetse (Glossina spp)?Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2021Article
- A novel vehicle-mounted sticky trap; an effective sampling tool for savannah tsetse flies Glossina morsitans morsitans Westwood and Glossina morsitans centralis Machado.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
- Effects of Human Settlements and Spatial Distribution of Wing Vein Length, Wing Fray Categories and Hunger Stages in Glossina morsitans morsitans (Diptera: Glossinidae) and Glossina pallidipes (Diptera: Glossinidae) in Areas Devoid of Cattle in North-Eastern Zambia.Journal of medical entomology · 2021Article
- Extinction probabilities as a function of temperature for populations of tsetse (Glossina spp.).PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Article
- Improved estimates for extinction probabilities and times to extinction for populations of tsetse (Glossina spp).PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.