Glyn A. Vale

Field trials of baits to control populations of Glossina morsitans morsitans Westwood and G. pallidipes Austen (Diptera: Glossinidae)

An island of 4·5 km 2 in Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe, was stocked with cattle and infested with Glossina morsitans morsitans Westwood and G. pallidipes Austen in 1979. From February 1980 to April 1981, the tsetse populations, estimated by mark, release and recapture, increased about ten times, to contain about 3000 males of G. m. morsitans and 2000 males of G. pallidipes . From May 1981 to May 1983, six traps, with carbon dioxide and acetone as odour attractants, were used to capture 0·1–0·3% per day of the G. m. morsitans population and 1–4% per day of the G. pallidipes population. Captured flies were retained and killed, or were automatically sterilized with metepa and released. In May 1983, when the populations of G. m. morsitans and G. pallidipes had declined by about 90 and 99%, respectively, the traps were replaced by 20 targets with acetone and 1-octen-3-ol as attractants. The targets were coated with dieldrin or, later, deltamethrin and killed about 2% per day of G. m. morsitans and 5% per day of G. pallidipes . Both populations then declined rapidly, G. pallidipes disappearing in 11 weeks and G. m. morsitans in nine months. Targets offer a cheap, simple and effective means of eliminating isolated populations of tsetse.

User-friendly models of the costs and efficacy of tsetse control: application to sterilizing and insecticidal techniques

Abstract.  An interactive programme, incorporating a deterministic model of tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae) populations, was developed to predict the cost and effect of different control techniques applied singly or together. Its value was exemplified by using it to compare: (i) the sterile insect technique (SIT), involving weekly releases optimized at three sterile males for each wild male, and (ii) insecticide‐treated cattle (ITC) at 3.5/km2. The isolated pre‐treatment population of adults was 2500 males and 5000 females/km2; if the population was reduced by 90%, its growth potential was 8.4 times per year. However, the population expired naturally when it was reduced to 0.1 wild males/km2, due to difficulties in finding mates, so that control measures then stopped. This took 187 days with ITC and 609 days with SIT. If ITC was used for 87 days to suppress the population by 99%, subsequent control by SIT alone took 406 days; the female population increased by 48% following the withdrawal of ITC and remained above the immediate post‐suppression level for 155 days; the vectorial capacity initially increased seven times and remained above the immediate post‐suppression level for 300 days. Combining SIT and ITC after suppression was a little faster than ITC alone, provided the population had not been suppressed by more than 99.7%. Even when SIT was applied under favourable conditions, the most optimistic cost estimate was 20–40 times greater than for ITC. Modelling non‐isolated unsuppressed populations showed that tsetse invaded ∼8 km into the ITC area compared to ∼18 km for SIT. There was no material improvement by using a 3‐km barrier of ITC to protect the SIT area. In general, tsetse control by increasing deaths is more appropriate than reducing births, and SIT is particularly inappropriate. User‐friendly models can assist the understanding and planning of tsetse control. The model, freely available via http://www.tsetse.org, allows further exploration of control strategies with user‐specified assumptions.

Improving the cost-effectiveness of artificial visual baits for controlling the tsetse fly Glossina fuscipes fuscipes

Tsetse flies, which transmit sleeping sickness to humans and nagana to cattle, are commonly controlled by stationary artificial baits consisting of traps or insecticide-treated screens known as targets. In Kenya the use of electrocuting sampling devices showed that the numbers of Glossina fuscipes fuscipes (Newstead) visiting a biconical trap were nearly double those visiting a black target of 100 cm×100 cm. However, only 40% of the males and 21% of the females entered the trap, whereas 71% and 34%, respectively, alighted on the target. The greater number visiting the trap appeared to be due to its being largely blue, rather than being three-dimensional or raised above the ground. Through a series of variations of target design we show that a blue-and-black panel of cloth (0.06 m2) flanked by a panel (0.06 m2) of fine black netting, placed at ground level, would be about ten times more cost-effective than traps or large targets in control campaigns. This finding has important implications for controlling all subspecies of G. fuscipes, which are currently responsible for more than 90% of sleeping sickness cases.

Prospects for developing odour baits to control Glossina fuscipes spp., the major vector of human African trypanosomiasis.

We are attempting to develop cost-effective control methods for the important vector of sleeping sickness, Glossina fuscipes spp. Responses of the tsetse flies Glossina fuscipes fuscipes (in Kenya) and G. f. quanzensis (in Democratic Republic of Congo) to natural host odours are reported. Arrangements of electric nets were used to assess the effect of cattle-, human- and pig-odour on (1) the numbers of tsetse attracted to the odour source and (2) the proportion of flies that landed on a black target (1×1 m). In addition responses to monitor lizard (Varanus niloticus) were assessed in Kenya. The effects of all four odours on the proportion of tsetse that entered a biconical trap were also determined. Sources of natural host odour were produced by placing live hosts in a tent or metal hut (volumes≈16 m3) from which the air was exhausted at ∼2000 L/min. Odours from cattle, pigs and humans had no significant effect on attraction of G. f. fuscipes but lizard odour doubled the catch (P<0.05). Similarly, mammalian odours had no significant effect on landing or trap entry whereas lizard odour increased these responses significantly: landing responses increased significantly by 22% for males and 10% for females; the increase in trap efficiency was relatively slight (5–10%) and not always significant. For G. f. quanzensis, only pig odour had a consistent effect, doubling the catch of females attracted to the source and increasing the landing response for females by ∼15%. Dispensing CO2 at doses equivalent to natural hosts suggested that the response of G. f. fuscipes to lizard odour was not due to CO2. For G. f. quanzensis, pig odour and CO2 attracted similar numbers of tsetse, but CO2 had no material effect on the landing response. The results suggest that identifying kairomones present in lizard odour for G. f. fuscipes and pig odour for G. f. quanzensis may improve the performance of targets for controlling these species.

Improving the cost-effectiveness of visual devices for the control of riverine tsetse flies, the major vectors of human African trypanosomiasis.

Control of the Riverine (Palpalis) group of tsetse flies is normally achieved with stationary artificial devices such as traps or insecticide-treated targets. The efficiency of biconical traps (the standard control device), 1×1 m black targets and small 25×25 cm targets with flanking nets was compared using electrocuting sampling methods. The work was done on Glossina tachinoides and G. palpalis gambiensis (Burkina Faso), G. fuscipes quanzensis (Democratic Republic of Congo), G. f. martinii (Tanzania) and G. f. fuscipes (Kenya). The killing effectiveness (measured as the catch per m2 of cloth) for small targets plus flanking nets is 5.5–15X greater than for 1 m2 targets and 8.6–37.5X greater than for biconical traps. This has important implications for the costs of control of the Riverine group of tsetse vectors of sleeping sickness.

Modeling the Control of Trypanosomiasis Using Trypanocides or Insecticide-Treated Livestock

Background In Uganda, Rhodesian sleeping sickness, caused by Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense, and animal trypanosomiasis caused by T. vivax and T. congolense, are being controlled by treating cattle with trypanocides and/or insecticides. We used a mathematical model to identify treatment coverages required to break transmission when host populations consisted of various proportions of wild and domestic mammals, and reptiles. Methodology/Principal Findings An Ro model for trypanosomiasis was generalized to allow tsetse to feed off multiple host species. Assuming populations of cattle and humans only, pre-intervention Ro values for T. vivax, T. congolense, and T. brucei were 388, 64 and 3, respectively. Treating cattle with trypanocides reduced R 0 for T. brucei to <1 if >65% of cattle were treated, vs 100% coverage necessary for T. vivax and T. congolense. The presence of wild mammalian hosts increased the coverage required and made control of T. vivax and T. congolense impossible. When tsetse fed only on cattle or humans, R 0 for T. brucei was <1 if 20% of cattle were treated with insecticide, compared to 55% for T. congolense. If wild mammalian hosts were also present, control of the two species was impossible if proportions of non-human bloodmeals from cattle were <40% or <70%, respectively. R 0 was <1 for T. vivax only when insecticide treatment led to reductions in the tsetse population. Under such circumstances R 0<1 for T. brucei and T. congolense if cattle make up 30% and 55%, respectively of the non-human tsetse bloodmeals, as long as all cattle are treated with insecticide. Conclusions/Significance In settled areas of Uganda with few wild hosts, control of Rhodesian sleeping sickness is likely to be much more effectively controlled by treating cattle with insecticide than with trypanocides.

Tsetse Control and Gambian Sleeping Sickness; Implications for Control Strategy.

Background Gambian sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis, HAT) outbreaks are brought under control by case detection and treatment although it is recognised that this typically only reaches about 75% of the population. Vector control is capable of completely interrupting HAT transmission but is not used because it is considered too expensive and difficult to organise in resource-poor settings. We conducted a full scale field trial of a refined vector control technology to determine its utility in control of Gambian HAT. Methods and Findings The major vector of Gambian HAT is the tsetse fly Glossina fuscipes which lives in the humid zone immediately adjacent to water bodies. From a series of preliminary trials we determined the number of tiny targets required to reduce G. fuscipes populations by more than 90%. Using these data for model calibration we predicted we needed a target density of 20 per linear km of river in riverine savannah to achieve >90% tsetse control. We then carried out a full scale, 500 km2 field trial covering two HAT foci in Northern Uganda to determine the efficacy of tiny targets (overall target density 5.7/km2). In 12 months, tsetse populations declined by more than 90%. As a guide we used a published HAT transmission model and calculated that a 72% reduction in tsetse population is required to stop transmission in those settings. Interpretation The Ugandan census suggests population density in the HAT foci is approximately 500 per km2. The estimated cost for a single round of active case detection (excluding treatment), covering 80% of the population, is US

Responses of tsetse flies, Glossina morsitans morsitans and Glossina pallidipes, to baits of various size

433,333 (WHO figures). One year of vector control organised within the country, which can completely stop HAT transmission, would cost US

Is the even distribution of insecticide-treated cattle essential for tsetse control? modelling the impact of baits in heterogeneous environments

42,700. The case for adding this method of vector control to case detection and treatment is strong. We outline how such a component could be organised.

The use of small plots to study populations of tsetse (Diptera: Glossinidae): Difficulties associated with population dispersal

Recent studies of Palpalis group tsetse [Glossina fuscipes fuscipes (Diptera: Glossinidae) in Kenya] suggest that small (0.25 × 0.25 m) insecticide‐treated targets will be more cost‐effective than the larger (≥1.0 × 1.0 m) designs currently used to control tsetse. Studies were undertaken in Zimbabwe to assess whether small targets are also more cost‐effective for the Morsitans group tsetse, Glossina morsitans morsitans and Glossina pallidipes. Numbers of tsetse contacting targets of 0.25 × 0.25 m or 1.0 × 1.0 m, respectively, were estimated using arrangements of electrocuting grids which killed or stunned tsetse as they contacted the target. Catches of G. pallidipes and G. m. morsitans at small (0.25 × 0.25 m) targets were, respectively, ∼1% and ∼6% of catches at large (1.0 × 1.0 m) targets. Hence, the tsetse killed per unit area of target was greater for the larger than the smaller target, suggesting that small targets are not cost‐effective for use against Morsitans group species. The results suggest that there is a fundamental difference in the host‐orientated behaviour of Morsitans and Palpalis group tsetse and that the former are more responsive to host odours, whereas the latter seem highly responsive to visual stimuli.