| Literature DB >> 33118036 |
Kalinga Chilongo1, Tawanda Manyangadze2,3, Samson Mukaratirwa1,4.
Abstract
The effect of human-associated habitat degradation on tsetse populations is well established. However, more insights are needed into how gradual human encroachment into tsetse fly belts affect tsetse populations. This study investigated how wing vein length, wing fray categories, and hunger stages, taken as indicators of body size, age, and levels of access to hosts, respectively, in Glossina morsitans morsitans Westwood (Diptera: Glossinidae) and Glossina pallidipes Austen (Diptera: Glossinidae), varied along a transect from the edge into inner parts of the tsetse belt, in sites that had human settlement either concentrated at the edge of belt or evenly distributed along transect line, in north-eastern Zambia. Black-screen fly round and Epsilon traps were used in a cross-sectional survey on tsetse flies at three sites, following a transect line marked by a road running from the edge into the inner parts of the tsetse belt, per site. Two sites had human settlement concentrated at or close to the edge of the tsetse belt, whereas the third had human settlement evenly distributed along the transect line. Where settlements were concentrated at the edge of tsetse belt, increase in distance from the settlements was associated with increase in wing vein length and a reduction in the proportion of older, and hungry, tsetse flies. Increase in distance from human settlements was associated with improved tsetse well-being, likely due to increase in habitat quality due to decrease in effects of human activities.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 Glossina morsitans morsitanszzm321990 ; human activities; settlements; tsetse flies; tsetse fly belt
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33118036 PMCID: PMC7954107 DOI: 10.1093/jme/tjaa228
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Entomol ISSN: 0022-2585 Impact factor: 2.278
Fig. 1.Location of the study sites and sample points in relation to the tsetse belt and wildlife conservation areas in north-eastern in Zambia.
Fig. 2.Location of transect lines (for sample collection) in relation to location of the tsetse belt, human settlements and wildlife conservation areas, in the Lundazi, Mpika, and Rufunsa sites in north-eastern Zambia.
Fig. 3.Relative location of Black-screen fly rounds (BFRs) and Epsilon traps in the transect line in the Lundazi, Mpika, and Rufunsa sites in north-eastern Zambia.
No. of samples of tsetse flies collected per section of transect distance in the Lundazi, Mpika, and Rufunsa sites in north-eastern Zambia
| Site/Section | Number of tsetse fly samples—Black-screen Fly rounds | Total | Number of tsetse fly samples—Epsilon Traps | Total | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gmm_M | Gmm_F | Gmm_F_Ova | Gp_M | Gp_F | Gp_F_Ova | Gmm_M | Gmm_F | Gmm_F_Ova | Gp_M | Gp_F | Gp_F_Ova | |||
| Lundazi | ||||||||||||||
| Section 1 | 19 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 |
| Section 2 | 45 | 16 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 64 | 15 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 37 |
| Section 3 | 26 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 43 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 32 |
| Section 4 | 21 | 14 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 49 | 5 | 18 | 8 | 9 | 16 | 10 | 48 |
| Section 5 | 46 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 81 | 21 | 10 | 4 | 7 | 18 | 13 | 56 |
| Total | 157 | 70 | 38 | 24 | 16 | 11 | 267 | 58 | 59 | 31 | 23 | 48 | 29 | 188 |
| Mpika | ||||||||||||||
| Section 1 | 28 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
| Section 2 | 65 | 22 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 87 | 14 | 17 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 |
| Section 3 | 49 | 18 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 82 | 17 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 18 | 10 | 61 |
| Section 4 | 104 | 42 | 28 | 35 | 23 | 14 | 204 | 39 | 31 | 8 | 30 | 41 | 24 | 141 |
| Total | 246 | 92 | 62 | 43 | 30 | 20 | 411 | 79 | 70 | 35 | 41 | 59 | 34 | 249 |
| Rufunsa* | ||||||||||||||
| Section 1 | 59 | 18 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 79 | 15 | 11 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 29 |
| Section 2 | 25 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 39 | 9 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 30 |
| Section 3 | 51 | 22 | 0 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 88 | 21 | 16 | 0 | 14 | 21 | 0 | 72 |
| Section 4 | 91 | 25 | 0 | 28 | 18 | 0 | 162 | 35 | 27 | 0 | 21 | 34 | 0 | 117 |
| Total | 226 | 75 | 0 | 36 | 31 | 0 | 368 | 80 | 67 | 0 | 39 | 62 | 0 | 248 |
Gmm—Glossina morsitans morsitans; Gp—Glossina pallidipes; M—male; F—female; Ova—Ovarian dissection.
*Ovarian dissections not done in the site.
Variation of wing vein length with increase in distance away from the edge of the tsetse belt in samples of Glossina morsitans morsitans and Glossina pallidipes in the Lundazi, Mpika, and Rufunsa sites in north-eastern Zambia
| Lundazi | Mpika | Rufunsa | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Males+ | Males | Females | Males+ | Males+ | Males | Females | Males+ | Males+ | Males | Females only | Males+ | |
| Coefficient | 0.0005 | 0.001 | 0.0003 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Confidence interval | – | – | – | – | 0.002–0.004 | 0.002–0.005 | 0.0005–0.004 | – | 0.002–0.007 | 0.003–0.007 | 0.002–0.01 | 0.001–0.014 |
|
| 0.283 | 0.086 | 0.669 | 0.133 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | 0.010 | 0.167 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
Results (PORL regression test): Distribution of wing fray categories, hunger stages and ovarian categories in tsetse flies in relation to increase in distance away from the edge of the tsetse belt in the Lundazi, Mpika, and Rufunsa sites in north-eastern Zambia
| Site | Wing fray categories | Hunger stages | Ovarian categories | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Males+ Females | Males | Females only | Males+ Females | Males+ | Males | Females only | Males+ Females | Females | Females | |
| Lundazi site | ||||||||||
| Coefficient | −0.005 | −0.005 | 0.003 | −0.031 | −0.015 | −0.008 | −0.009 | −0.033 | −0.004 | −0.014 |
|
| 0.648 | 0.738 | 0.876 | 0.249 | 0.166 | 0.526 | 0.526 | 0.231 | 0.880 | 0.767 |
| Mpika site | ||||||||||
| Coefficient | −0.042 | −0.048 | −0.054 | −0.038 | −0.056 | −0.056 | −0.042 | −0.034 | −0.039 | −0.074 |
| Odds Ratio | 0.959 | 0.954 | 0.947 | – | 0.946 | 0.952 | 0.959 | – | – | – |
| Confidence Interval | 0.939–0.980 | 0.928–0.979 | 0.913–0.982 | – | 0.925–0.966 | 0.928−0.978 | 0.924–0.996 | – | – | * |
|
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.260 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | 0.028 | 0.303 | 0.117 | 0.162 |
| Rufunsa site† | ||||||||||
| Coefficient | −0.088 | −0.084 | −0.073 | −0.094 | −0.097 | −0.082 | −0.112 | −0.096 | – | |
| Odds Ratio | 0.915 | 0.919 | 0.930 | – | 0.907 | 0.922 | 0.894 | – | – | |
| Confidence Interval | 0.873–0.959 | 0.870–0.972 | 0.815−0.980 | – | 0.866–0.951 | 0.872–0.973 | 0.815–0.980 | – | – | |
|
| < 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.011 | 0.118 | < 0.0001 | 0.004 | 0.016 | 0.114 | ||
*Significant result.
†No dissection for ovarian categories undertaken in the site.