Tularaemia is a zoonotic disease caused by the gram-negative bacterium Francisella tularensis, which is endemic to Ukraine. The aim of this work was to provide screening of different field samples (rodent tails, ticks, pellets, water, and hay) to obtain an actual picture of the tularaemia epizootic situation in the Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv oblasts. Samples were collected using the flag method (for ticks) and break-back traps (for rodents). Also, hay, water and owl pellets were collected for study. The F. tularensis genetic material in samples was detected using a 16S qPCR. It was found that in Kharkiv oblast, 23% of collected samples were positive for F. tularensis, in Dnipropetrovsk oblast 1.9%, and in Mykolaiv oblast 0.4%. Among the sample types, 34.7% of ticks, 1.8% of rodents, and 36.4% of pellets were positive for F. tularensis. The most frequent carriers of F. tularensis were the D. reticulatus and I. ricinus ticks (74.2% and 29.3%, respectively, of positive results).

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. Keywords: tseste; traps; densties; Glossina; mobile; stationary; Tanzania