|
| Author/Date of Publication/Reference | Name of Black fly trap tested | Ability to attract anthropophilic females (YES/NO) | Prospect as Replacement of HLCs |
|
| Walsh (1978) [10] | Light traps | NO | Need for more research in the area |
|
| Service (1979) [11] | Light traps | YES | Need for research in this area |
|
| Thompson (1976) [12] | Sticky traps, Fan traps, enclosure trap, slat trap | YES | Vital findings on the importance of smell as attractants |
|
| Walsh (1980) [13] | Sticky traps | YES | Offered little promise in terms of replacing HLCs |
|
| Lamberton et al (2014) [14] | Cow-baited tents, human odour baited tents, biconical traps, and electric traps | YES (human odour baited tents showed most promise) | Setup too cumbersome. However, it demonstrated importance of smell as attractants in traps |
|
| Rodriguez-Perez et al (2013) [19] | Verticle Bellac plaque, Esperanza Window Trap (original), BG Sentinel, Clear Window Trap, Esperanza Window Trap (modified), Horizontal Bellac Plaque and Human Silhouette Trap | YES ( the Esperanza Window Trap was the most promising) | EWTs though promising, still need some optimization |
|
| Toé et al (2014) [20] | Esperanza Window Traps (original and modified designs) | YES | EWTs though promising needs some optimization |
|
| Hendy et al (2017) [21] | Esperanza Window Trap (original and modified) | YES | EWTs though promising needs more optimization and testing in other countries |
|
