Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The responses of tsetse flies (Diptera, Glossinidae) to mobile and stationary baits

Vale, G. A.·1974·Bulletin of Entomological Research

Abstract

In Rhodesia, field studies were made of the initial attraction of G. morsitans morsitans Westw. and G. pallidipes Aust. to mobile and stationary baits, using flight traps which surrounded baits or which were placed in the densest part of the attracted swarm. With stationary baits, many flies were attracted by host odour and visual stimuli assisted final orientation. With mobile baits, many flies were attracted by visual stimuli alone; odour did not increase attraction. With both mobile and stationary baits, there was no indication that major hosts are much more effective than minor ones as initial attractants, although stationary men were exceptionally poor baits, for G. pallidipes especially. The sex and species compositions of catches from stationary baits other than men were representative roughly of the inactive population—70% females of both species, and a roughly 1:4 ratio of G. morsitans to G. pallidipes. The sex and species compositions of catches from all mobile baits were biased—40% female G. morsitans, 60% female G. pallidipes, and a roughly 2:1 species ratio. Nearly all flies attracted to stationary baits were hungry whereas 10–25% of both sexes visiting mobile baits had fed recently. The use of a variety of electrocuting devices showed that compact persistent responses and alighting reactions of attracted flies were evident more for males than for females, more for G. morsitans than for G. pallidipes, more near model animals with host odour than near odourless models, more near models than near men, and more with tenerals and hungry non-tenerals than with recently fed flies. Men with mobile baits depressed greatly the alighting reactions and with stationary baits men inhibited greatly the initial attractions. Both effects of men were greater with females than with males and greater with G. pallidipes than with G. morsitans. Men were recognised by their upright appearance and odour. Only desperately hungry flies probed men whereas less-hungry flies probed an ox with men. Food-seeking flies of differing nutritional state were not shown to distinguish between mobile and stationary baits. Although the results support the conventional view that mating and feeding functions in the response to hosts occupy distinct phases of the hunger cycle, it seems necessary to modify the conventional view by placing more emphasis on the role of mobile baits as food sources and by envisaging a definite mate-seeking response by mature females.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007485300035860

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Vale, G. A.
Venue
Bulletin of Entomological Research
Published
1974-12
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
545-588
ISSN
  • 0007-4853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2670
OpenAlex
W2150601698
Cited by
316
References
6
FWCI
8.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The responses of tsetse flies (Diptera, Glossinidae) to mobile and stationary baits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0007485300035860
The paper
Vale, G. A. (1974). The responses of tsetse flies (Diptera, Glossinidae) to mobile and stationary baits. Bulletin of Entomological Research. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007485300035860

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.