Suppr超能文献

坦桑尼亚诱捕器在捕捉采采蝇(双翅目:舌蝇科)方面的比较性能。

Comparative performance of traps in catching tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) in Tanzania.

作者信息

Malele Imna I, Ouma Johnson O, Nyingilili Hamisi S, Kitwika Winston A, Malulu Deusdedit J, Magwisha Henry B, Kweka Eliningeya J

机构信息

Vector & Vector Borne Disease Institute, Tanga.

出版信息

Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2016 Jun 23;83(1):a1057. doi: 10.4102/ojvr.v83i1.1057.

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the efficiency of different tsetse traps in 28 sites across Tanzania. The traps used were biconical, H, NGU, NZI, pyramidal, S3, mobile, and sticky panels. Stationary traps were deployed at a distance of 200 m apart and examined 72 h after deployment. The results showed that 117 (52.2%) out of the 224 traps deployed captured at least one Glossina species. A total of five Glossina species were captured, namely Glossina brevipalpis, Glossina pallidipes, Glossina swynnertoni, Glossina morsitans, and Glossina fuscipes martinii. Biconical traps caught tsetse flies in 27 sites, pyramidal in 26, sticky panel in 20, mobile in 19, S3 in 15, NGU in 7, H in 2 and NZI in 1. A total of 21 107 tsetse flies were trapped, with the most abundant species being G. swynnertoni (55.9%), followed by G. pallidipes (31.1%), G. fuscipes martinii (6.9%) and G. morsitans (6.0%). The least caught was G. brevipalpis (0.2%). The highest number of flies were caught by NGU traps (32.5%), followed by sticky panel (16%), mobile (15.4%), pyramidal (13.0%), biconical (11.3%) and S3 (10.2%). NZI traps managed to catch 0.9% of the total flies and H traps 0.7%. From this study, it can be concluded that the most efficient trap was NGU, followed by sticky panel and mobile, in that order. Therefore, for tsetse fly control programmes, NGU traps could be the better choice. Conversely, of the stationary traps, pyramidal and biconical traps captured tsetse flies in the majority of sites, covering all three ecosystems better than any other traps; therefore, they would be suitable for scouting for tsetse infestation in any given area, thus sparing the costs of making traps for each specific Glossina species.

摘要

本研究旨在确定不同采采蝇诱捕器在坦桑尼亚28个地点的效率。所使用的诱捕器有双锥形、H型、NGU型、NZI型、金字塔形、S3型、移动式和粘性面板诱捕器。固定式诱捕器相隔200米部署,并在部署72小时后进行检查。结果显示,在部署的224个诱捕器中,有117个(52.2%)捕获了至少一种采采蝇。共捕获了五种采采蝇,即短须采采蝇、淡足采采蝇、斯氏采采蝇、 morsitans采采蝇和fuscipes martinii采采蝇。双锥形诱捕器在27个地点捕获了采采蝇,金字塔形诱捕器在26个地点,粘性面板诱捕器在20个地点,移动式诱捕器在19个地点,S3型诱捕器在15个地点,NGU型诱捕器在7个地点,H型诱捕器在2个地点,NZI型诱捕器在1个地点。总共捕获了21107只采采蝇,其中数量最多的是斯氏采采蝇(55.9%),其次是淡足采采蝇(31.1%)、fuscipes martinii采采蝇(6.9%)和 morsitans采采蝇(6.0%)。捕获最少的是短须采采蝇(0.2%)。捕获苍蝇数量最多的是NGU型诱捕器(32.5%),其次是粘性面板诱捕器(16%)、移动式诱捕器(15.4%)、金字塔形诱捕器(13.0%)、双锥形诱捕器(11.3%)和S3型诱捕器(10.2%)。NZI型诱捕器捕获了总苍蝇数的0.9%,H型诱捕器捕获了0.7%。从这项研究可以得出结论,最有效的诱捕器是NGU型,其次是粘性面板诱捕器和移动式诱捕器,顺序依次如此。因此,对于采采蝇控制计划,NGU型诱捕器可能是更好的选择。相反,在固定式诱捕器中,金字塔形和双锥形诱捕器在大多数地点捕获了采采蝇,比任何其他诱捕器更好地覆盖了所有三个生态系统;因此,它们适用于在任何给定区域侦察采采蝇侵扰情况,从而节省为每种特定采采蝇制作诱捕器的成本。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/82c9/6238671/eb534cca9ebd/OJVR-83-1057-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验