SURVEILLANCE AND ECOLOGY OF MOSQUITO, BITING AND FILTH BREEDING INSECTS
Location: Mosquito and Fly Research Unit
Title: Comparative rates of capture of adult mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) using the light trap and human landing collection methods: An experimental study
Submitted to: Bulletin of Entomological Research
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: July 25, 2010
Publication Date: January 15, 2011
Citation: Barnard, D.R., Knue, G.J., Dickerson, C.Z., Bernier, U.R., Kline, D.L. 2011. Comparative rates of capture of adult mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) using the light trap and human landing collection methods: An experimental study. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 101:277-285.
Interpretive Summary: Prevention of mosquito-borne disease epidemics depends on the early detection of mosquito vectors in the environment. Mechanical traps that use light and chemical attractants to capture adult mosquitoes are used for this purpose. The traps are effective for capturing some mosquitoes species, but not others, and may fail to capture mosquitoes when present in low densities. To improve the usefulness of mechanical traps for mosquito detection and population monitoring purposes, ARS scientists compared the rates of mosquito capture in the traps with the rates of mosquito attraction to a human subject. Results showed that trap operation at specific times of the day/night enabled reliable detection of 4 of the 5 mosquito species that were studied. These results will enable reliable detection and monitoring of mosquito activity and will facilitate detection of exotic/invasive mosquito species in vector surveillance systems.
Capture rates of female Aedes albopictus Skuse, Aedes triseriatus (Say), Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, Culex nigripalpus Theobald, and Culex quinquefasciatus Say in CDC-type light traps supplemented with CO2 (LT) and using the human landing (HL) collection method were observed in matched-pair experiments and compared for agreement on a catch-per-unit-effort basis using HL as the response comparison baseline. Patterns of activity and mosquito densities indicated by each collection method generally lacked temporal congruency and the mean capture rate efficiency of LT compared with HL was '15% for all species except Cx. quinquefasciatus (43%). Statistical models of the relationship between responses to LT and HL indicate that except for Ae. albopictus LT capture rates can be accurately estimated from the mosquito landing rate on a human subject during specific times of the diel period. Estimates based on observations made between sunset and sunrise were most precise in this regard for An. quadrimaculatus and Cx. nigripalpus as were those between sunrise and sunset for Ae. triseriatus and Cx. quinquefasciatus.