Odour-baited targets to control tsetse flies, <i>Glossina</i> spp. (Diptera: Glossinidae), in Zimbabwe

Vale, G. A.; Lovemore, D. F.; Flint, S. G.; Cockbill, G. F.

doi:10.1017/s0007485300016059

Cited by 195 publications

(150 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For savannah (morsitans) flies present in the study area (i.e. Glossina pallidipes, G. morsitans, G. swinnertoni, and G. austeni) 4 traps or targets per km 2 , baited with attractants, are considered sufficient to reduce tsetse populations by ≈ 95% in non-isolated populations or to eliminate an isolated population as demonstrated by field trials (Vale et al, 1986;Vale et al, 1988;Dransfield et al, 1990). Riverine (palpalis) flies (G. fuscipes and G. tachinoides in the study region) are relatively unresponsive to odours and higher densities of baits are therefore required (Green, 1994.…”

Section: Stationary Baits -Targets and Trapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the benefit-cost ratios of interventions against bovine trypanosomosis in Eastern Africa

Shaw

Wint

Cecchi³

et al. 2015

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study builds upon earlier work mapping the potential benefits from bovine trypanosomosis control and analysing the costs of different approaches. Updated costs were derived for five intervention techniques: trypanocides, targets, insecticide-treated cattle, aerial spraying and the release of sterile males. Two strategies were considered: continuous control and elimination. For mapping the costs, cattle densities, environmental constraints, and the presence of savannah or riverine tsetse species were taken into account. These were combined with maps of potential benefits to produce maps of benefit-cost ratios. The results illustrate a diverse picture, and they clearly indicate that no single technique or strategy is universally profitable. For control using trypanocide prophylaxis, returns are modest, even without accounting for the risk of drug resistance but, in areas of low cattle densities, this is the only approach that yields a positive return. Where cattle densities are sufficient to support it, the use of insecticidetreated cattle stands out as the most consistently profitable technique, widely achieving benefit-cost ratios above 5. In parts of the high-potential areas such as the mixed farming, high-oxen-use zones of western Ethiopia, the fertile crescent north of Lake Victoria and the dairy production areas in western and central Kenya, all tsetse control strategies achieve benefit-cost ratios from 2 to over 15, and for elimination strategies, ratios from 5 to over 20. By contrast, in some areas, notably where cattle densities are below 20 per km 2 , the costs of interventions against tsetse match or even outweigh the benefits, especially for control scenarios using aerial spraying or the deployment of targets where both savannah and riverine flies are present. If the burden of human African trypanosomosis were factored in, the benefit-cost ratios of some of the low-return areas would be considerably increased. Comparatively, elimination strategies give rise to higher benefit-cost ratios than do those for continuous control. However, the costs calculated for elimination assume problem-free, large scale operations, and they rest on the outputs of entomological models that are difficult to validate in the field. Experience indicates that the conditions underlying successful and sustained elimination campaigns are seldom met. By choosing the most appropriate thresholds for benefit-cost ratios, decision-makers and planners can use the maps to define strategies, assist in prioritising areas for intervention, and help choose among intervention techniques and approaches. The methodology would have wider applicability in analysing other disease constraints with a strong spatial component.

show abstract

Section: Stationary Baits -Targets and Trapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the benefit-cost ratios of interventions against bovine trypanosomosis in Eastern Africa

Shaw

Wint

Cecchi³

et al. 2015

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Following on from this success, large-scale use of the technology began in 1984, with the deployment of insecticide-treated targets over an area of ~1000 km 2 in the Zambezi valley of Zimbabwe. At the commencement of the operation in 1984, these targets were baited with acetone and octenol and these devices, deployed at a density of 4/km 2 eliminated G. m. morsitans and reduced the population of G. pallidipes by >99.9% (Vale et al 1988b). These early successes led to a rapid adoption of bait methods for tsetse control in Zimbabwe (Figure 1) and elsewhere (e.g.…”

Section: Use Of Odour Baits To Control Morsitans Group Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Olfaction in vector-host interactions

Takken¹,

Knols²

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Identification of a series of kairomones for savannah tsetse from preferred hosts (Hall et al 1984;Owaga et al 1988) facilitated the development of baited traps and targets (the latter impregnated with insecticides) effective in large-scale suppression of these species (Vale et al 1988;Brightwell et al 1991). Several synthetic and natural repellents, including a constituent of bovid odours, 2-methoxyphenol, have been evaluated but were found not to be sufficiently effective in protecting cattle in the field (Torr et al 1996).…”

Section: Prospects For Push-pull In Controlling Livestock Pests and Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated pest management: the push–pull approach for controlling insect pests and weeds of cereals, and its potential for other agricultural systems including animal husbandry

Hassanali

Herren

Khan

et al. 2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

241

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the 'push-pull' or 'stimulo-deterrent diversionary' strategy in relation to current and potential examples from our own experiences. The push-pull effect is established by exploiting semiochemicals to repel insect pests from the crop ('push') and to attract them into trap crops ('pull'). The systems exemplified here have been developed for subsistence farming in Africa and delivery of the semiochemicals is entirely by companion cropping, i.e. intercropping for the push and trap cropping for the pull. The main target was a series of lepidopterous pests attacking maize and other cereals. Although the area given to the cereal crop itself is reduced under the push-pull system, higher yields are produced per unit area. An important spin-off from the project is that the companion crops are valuable forage for farm animals. Leguminous intercrops also provide advantages with regard to plant nutrition and some of the trap crops help with water retention and in reducing land erosion. A major benefit is that certain intercrop plants provide dramatic control of the African witchweed (striga). Animal husbandry forms an essential part of intensive subsistence agriculture in Africa and developments using analogous push-pull control strategies for insect pests of cattle are exemplified.

show abstract

Odour-baited targets to control tsetse flies, Glossina spp. (Diptera: Glossinidae), in Zimbabwe

Cited by 195 publications

References 13 publications

Mapping the benefit-cost ratios of interventions against bovine trypanosomosis in Eastern Africa

Mapping the benefit-cost ratios of interventions against bovine trypanosomosis in Eastern Africa

Olfaction in vector-host interactions

Integrated pest management: the push–pull approach for controlling insect pests and weeds of cereals, and its potential for other agricultural systems including animal husbandry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About