Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:48:09.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The responses of tsetse flies (Diptera, Glossinidae) to mobile and stationary baits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G. A. Vale
G. A. Vale
Affiliation:
Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Control Branch, Department of Veterinary Services, P.O. Box 8283, Causeway, Rhodesia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Rhodesia, field studies were made of the initial attraction of G. morsitans morsitans Westw. and G. pallidipes Aust. to mobile and stationary baits, using flight traps which surrounded baits or which were placed in the densest part of the attracted swarm. With stationary baits, many flies were attracted by host odour and visual stimuli assisted final orientation. With mobile baits, many flies were attracted by visual stimuli alone; odour did not increase attraction. With both mobile and stationary baits, there was no indication that major hosts are much more effective than minor ones as initial attractants, although stationary men were exceptionally poor baits, for G. pallidipes especially. The sex and species compositions of catches from stationary baits other than men were representative roughly of the inactive population—70% females of both species, and a roughly 1:4 ratio of G. morsitans to G. pallidipes. The sex and species compositions of catches from all mobile baits were biased—40% female G. morsitans, 60% female G. pallidipes, and a roughly 2:1 species ratio. Nearly all flies attracted to stationary baits were hungry whereas 10–25% of both sexes visiting mobile baits had fed recently. The use of a variety of electrocuting devices showed that compact persistent responses and alighting reactions of attracted flies were evident more for males than for females, more for G. morsitans than for G. pallidipes, more near model animals with host odour than near odourless models, more near models than near men, and more with tenerals and hungry non-tenerals than with recently fed flies. Men with mobile baits depressed greatly the alighting reactions and with stationary baits men inhibited greatly the initial attractions. Both effects of men were greater with females than with males and greater with G. pallidipes than with G. morsitans. Men were recognised by their upright appearance and odour. Only desperately hungry flies probed men whereas less-hungry flies probed an ox with men. Food-seeking flies of differing nutritional state were not shown to distinguish between mobile and stationary baits. Although the results support the conventional view that mating and feeding functions in the response to hosts occupy distinct phases of the hunger cycle, it seems necessary to modify the conventional view by placing more emphasis on the role of mobile baits as food sources and by envisaging a definite mate-seeking response by mature females.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , December 1974 , pp. 545 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Brady, J. (1972 a). The visual responsiveness of the tsetse fly Glossina morsitans Westw. (Glossinidae) to moving objects: the effects of hunger, sex, host odour and stimulus characteristics.—Bull. ent. Res. 62, 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, J. (1972 b). Spontaneous, circadian components of tsetse fly activity.—J. Insect Physiol. 18, 471–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, J. (1973). Changes in the probing responsiveness of starving tsetse flies (Glossina morsitans Westw.) (Diptera, Glossinidae).—Bull. ent. Res. 63, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bursell, E. (1959 a). The water balance of tsetse flies.—Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 111, 205–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bursell, E. (1959 b). Physiological studies on Glossina.—Rep. E. Afr. Trypan. Res. Org. 1958, 32–35.Google Scholar
Bursell, E. (1961 a). The behaviour of tsetse flies (Glossina swynnertoni Austen) in relation to problems of sampling.—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 36, 9–20.Google Scholar
Bursell, E. (1966 b). Post-teneral development of the thoracic musculature in tsetse flies.—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 36, 69–74.Google Scholar
Bursell, E. (1966) The nutritional state of tsetse flies from different vegetation types in Rhodesia.—Bull. ent. Res. 57. 171–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bursell, E. & Slack, E. (1969). Indications concerning the flight activity of tsetse flies (Glossina morsitans Westw.) in the field.—Bull. ent. Res. 58, 575–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1955). The natural history of tsetse flies. An account of the biology of the genus Glossina (Diptera).—Mem. Lond. Sch. Hyg. trop. Med. no. 10, 816 pp.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. F. (1961). Some experiments to determine the methods used in host-finding by the tsetse fly, Glossina medicorum Austen.—Bull. ent. Res. 52, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chorley, T. W. (1948). Glossina pallidipes Austen attracted by the scent of cattle-dung and urine (Diptera).—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 23, 9–11.Google Scholar
Cumming, D. H. M. (1970). A contribution to the biology of warthog (Phacocherus africanus Gmelin) in the Sengwa Region of Rhodesia, Vol. I.—245 pp. Ph.D. dissertation, Rhodes University.Google Scholar
Cunningham, M. P., Kimber, C. D. & Bailey, N. M. (1967). Identification of the blood meals of blood-sucking insects. In International Scientific Council for Trypanosomiasis Research. Eleventh Meeting, Nairobi, 31.x–4.xi.1966.—Publ. scient, tech. Res. Commn, Org. Afr. Unity no. 100, 121–122.Google Scholar
Downes, J. A. (1969). The swarming and mating flight of Diptera.—A. Rev. Ent., 14, 271–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dukes, H. H. (1943). The physiology of domestic animals.—5th edn., revised, 721 pp. New York, Comstock.Google Scholar
Ford, J. (1969). Feeding and other responses of tsetse flies to man and ox and their epidemiological significance.—Acta trop. 26, 249–264.Google Scholar
Fuller, C. & Mossop, M. C. (1929). Entomological notes on Glossina pallidipes.—Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. S. Afr. no. 67, 27 pp.Google Scholar
Gatehouse, A. G. (1972). Some responses of tsetse flies to visual and olfactory stimuli.—Nature New Biol. 236, 63–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harley, J. M. B. (1963). The attack of G. pallidipes and Stomoxys on cattle of different colours.—Rep. E. Afr. Trypan. Res. Org. 1961, 34–35.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. H. N. (1933). The causes and implications of hunger in tsetse-flies.—Bull. ent. Res. 24, 443–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. H. N. (1946). An artificially islolated generation of tsetse flies (Diptera).—Bull. ent. Res. 37, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A. M. (1974). Recent developments in the ecology and methods of control of tsetse flies (Glossina spp.) (Dipt. Glossinidae)—a review.—Bull. ent. Res. 63, 361–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moggridge, J. Y. (1936). Experiments on the crossing of open spaces by Glossina swynnertoni.—Bull. ent. Res. 27, 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, K. R. S. & Morris, M. G. (1949). The use of traps against tsetse in West Africa.—Bull. ent. Res. 39, 491–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulligan, H. W. (Ed.) (1970). The African trypanosomiases.—950 pp. London, Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Napier Bax, S. (1937). The senses of Smell and sight in Glossina swynnertoni.—Bull. ent. Res. 28, 539–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, T. A. M. (1955). The fertilisation of Glossina palpalis in captivity.—Bull. ent. Res. 46, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persoons, C. J. (1967). Trapping G. pallidipes and G. palpalis fuscipes in scented traps. In International Scientific Council for Trypanosomiasis Research. Eleventh Meeting, Nairobi, 31.x–4.xi.1966.—Publ. scient. tech. Res. Commn, Org. Afr. Unity no. 100. 127–132.Google Scholar
Phelps, R. J. (1968). A falling cage for sampling tsetse flies (Glossina Diptera).—Rhod. J. agric. Res. 6, 47–53.Google Scholar
Pilson, R. D. & Leggate, B. M. (1962). A diurnal and seasonal study of the feeding activity of Glossina pallidipes Aust.—Bull. ent. Res. 53, 541–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilson, R. D. & Pilson, B. M. (1967). Behaviour studies of Glossina morsitans Westw. in the field.—Bull. ent. Res. 57, 227–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saunders, D. S. (1962). Age determination for female tsetse flies and the age compositions of samples of Glossina pallidipes Aust., G. palpalis fuscipes Newst. and G. brevipalpis Newst.—Bull. ent. Res. 53, 579–595.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 (Diptera).—Bull. ent. Res. 55, 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J. J. (1918). Bionomics of tsetse and other parasitological notes in the Gold Coast.—Bull. ent. Res. 8, 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, I. M. & Rennison, B. D. (1961). Studies of the sampling of Glossina pallidipes Aust. I. —The numbers caught daily on cattle, in Morris traps and on a fly-round—Bull. ent. Res. 52, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swynnerton, C. F. M. (1936). The tsetse flies of East Africa. A first study of their ecology, with a view to their control.—Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 84, 579 pp.Google Scholar
Turner, D. A. (1971). Olfactory perception of live hosts and carbon dioxide by the tsetse fly Glossina morsitans orientalis Vanderplank.—Bull. ent. Res. 61, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vale, G. A. (1969). Mobile attractants for tsetse flies.—Arnoldia, Rhodesia 4 (33), 7 pp.Google Scholar
Vale, G. A. (1971). Artificial refuges for tsetse flies (Glossina spp.).—Bull. ent. Res. 61, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vale, G. A. (1974). New field methods for studying the responses of tsetse flies (Diptera, Glossinidae) to hosts—Bull. ent. Res. 64, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderplank, F. L. (1944). Studies on the behaviour of the tsetse-fly (Glossina pallidipes) in the field: the attractiveness of various baits.—J. Anim. Ecol. 13, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar