Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:14:34.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Target barriers for tsetse flies (Glossina spp.) (Diptera: Glossinidae): quick estimates of optimal target densities and barrier widths

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

J. W Hargrove*
Affiliation:
ODA Insect Pest Management InitiativeTsetse and Trypanosomiasis Control Branch, Zimbabwe
*
Dr J.W. Hargrove, c/o Tsetse Control, Box 8283, Causeway, Zimbabwe

Abstract

The probablity that tsetse flies (Glossina spp.) cross a barrier of odour-baited targets is calculated for barriers of different widths and target density, and for tsetse flies with varying natural rates of survival, daily step lengths (d) and probabilities of being killed by an odour-baited target. If the barrier is only as wide as d, and for a species which has a 2% natural daily mortality and a further 2% mortality due to each target per unit area, tsetse flies have probability (P) of ca. 0.1 of penetrating the barrier even if the target density is 64 per unit area. To ensure that P < 0.001 the barrier must be about 4d wide for target densities 32 per unit area; doubling the width to 8d means that target densities could be cut by about 75%, and total numbers of targets in the barrier by 50%. These biological considerations and the economic costs of different target barriers suggest that, for all tsetse fly species, a safe and relatively inexpensive barrier is achieved with barrier width 8d when the optimum target density is roughly the same as for normal operational areas. This has the important practical consequence that there is no need to treat barriers as a special case. Practical results from research and control operations in Zimbabwe are in accord with the theoretical findings, but further work is required to ascertain whether the safety margin, and hence costs, can be reduced.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Barrett, J.C. (1990) Cost analysis of odour-baited targets used for tsetse control in Zimbabwe. pp. 456465in 20th Meeting of the International Scientific Council for Trypanosomiasis Research and Control,Mombasa, Kenya, 1989. Nairobi, OAU/STRC.Google Scholar
Hargrove, J.W. (1988) Tsetse: the limits to population growth. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 2, 203217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hargrove, J.W. & Lange, K. (1989) Tsetse dispersal viewed as a diffusion process. Transactions of the Zimbabwe Scientific Association 64 (1), 18.Google Scholar
Rogers, D.J., Randolph, S.E. & Kuzoe, F.A.S. (1984) Local variations in the population dynamics of Glossina palpalis palpalis (Robineau-Desvoidy) (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 74, 403423.Google Scholar
Vale, G.A., Hargrove, J.W., Cockbill, G.F. & Phelps, R.J. (1986) Field trials of baits to control populations of Glossina morsitans morsitans Westwood and G. pallidipes Austen (Diptera: Glossinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 76, 179193.Google Scholar
Vale, G.A., Lovemore, D.F., Flint, S. & Cockbill, G.F. (1988) Odour-baited targets to control tsetse flies Glossina spp. (Diptera: Glossinidae), in Zimbabwe. Bulletin of Entomological Research 78, 3149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vale, G.A., Hursey, B.S., Hargrove, J.W., Torr, S.J. & Allsopp, R. (1984) The use of small plots to study populations of tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae). Difficulties associated with population dispersal. Insect Science and its Applications 5, 403410.Google Scholar
Willemse, L. (1991) A trial of odour baited targets to control the tsetse fly, Glossina morsitans centralis (Diptera: Glossinidae) in west Zambia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 81, 351357.Google Scholar
Williams, B., Dransfield, R. & Brightwell, R. (1992) The control of tsetse flies in relation to fly movement and trapping efficiency. Journal of Applied Ecology 29, 163179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar