4.5 Article

Feeding patterns of three sympatric tsetse species (Glossina spp,) (Diptera: Glossinidae) in the preforest zone of Cote d'Ivoire

期刊

ACTA TROPICA
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 109-118

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0001-706X(99)00096-0

关键词

Glossina longipalpis; Glossina medicorum; Glossina palpalis ssp.; tsetse flies; Cote d'Ivoire; feeding pattern; hosts; habitat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The feeding patterns of Glossina longipalpis Wiedemann 1830, G. medicorum Austen 1911, G. palpalis gambiensis Vanderplank 1949 and G. p. palpalis Robineau-Desvoidy 1830 are described from natural habitats in central Cote d'Ivoire where these tsetse species occurred sympatrically. Blood-meal identification of tsetse flies revealed that in natural habitats wild ruminants were by far the most frequent source of food for each Glossina species, but there were significant differences between the nutritional spectra of single fly species. G. p. gambiensis fed significantly less often on bushbuck and significantly more often on monitor lizard (Varanus niloticus) than both, G. longipalpis and G. medicorum. In G. p. gambiensis the blood of wild ruminant species was significantly more often found than in G. p. palpalis, whereas the latter fed significantly more often on domestic animals. Peridomestic populations of G. longipalpis and G. p. palpalis fed mostly on domestic pig and therefore had significantly reduced host spectra in comparison to natural populations. The significant differences in feeding patterns among the investigated species, subspecies and populations seem not to depend on species specific feeding preferences. Rather, they can be attributed to microhabitat specialization of the various tsetse groups and hence mainly to the different availability of hosts. This implies that environmental factors should be taken more into account when analysing and comparing the feeding patterns of tsetse. (C) 2000 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据