Field comparison of novel and gold,standard traps for collecting Aedes albopictus in Northern Virginia
Field comparison of novel and gold,standard traps for collecting Aedes albopictus in Northern Virginia
复制标题
DOI：
10.2987/5676.1
复制
发表时间：
2008-06-01
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Arias, Jorge R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Meeraus, Wilhelmine H.;Armistead, Jennifer S.;Arias, Jorge R.
白纹伊蚊是北方弗吉尼亚州潜在的西尼罗河病毒桥载体;然而，关于其病毒传播动力学的信息有限，因为该物种不易于在现有的诱捕器中收集。本研究使用5个重复的5 × 5拉丁方来评估两种新型的寻找宿主的捕蚊器（BG-Sentinel（TM）和可折叠的捕蚊器（CMT-20（TM））收集Ae的效率和效果。白纹伊蚊，相对于二氧化碳（CO2）诱饵疾病控制和预防中心（CDC）的微型光陷阱。当与CO2一起使用时，BG-Sentinel（带BG-Lure）收集的雌性Ae多33倍。白纹伊蚊每24 h诱捕期的诱集率高于CO2诱集的CDC灯诱集率。在没有CO2的情况下，BG-Sentinel（带BG-Lure）仍然收集了超过6倍的雌性Ae。白纹伊蚊作为二氧化碳诱饵的CDC诱捕器BG-Sentinel的两种配置都明显比其他陷阱更有效。BG-Sentinel在收集Ae方面也明显更有效。albopictus，并收集了高比例的这一物种，无论是与CO2和没有CO2。CMT-20（带有Skin Lure（TM））收集了显著更多的Ae。白纹伊蚊当使用CO2比没有CO2，但没有收集显着更多的Ae。比用二氧化碳做诱饵的CDC灯诱捕器更有效。的比例。在CMT-20中收集的白纹伊蚊与CO2和无CO2的比例没有显着差异。在疾控中心收集的白纹伊蚊
Aedes albopictus is a potential West Nile virus bridge vector in Northern Virginia; however, information regarding its virus transmission dynamics is limited, as this species is not readily collected in existing traps. This study used 5 replicates of a 5 x 5 Latin square to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of 2 novel host-seeking mosquito traps (the BG-Sentinel (TM) and the Collapsible Mosquito Trap (CMT-20 (TM)) in collecting Ae. albopictus, relative to a carbon dioxide (CO2)-baited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) miniature light trap. When used with CO2, the BG-Sentinel (with BG-Lure) collected 33 times more female Ae. albopictus per 24-h trapping period than did the CO2-baited CDC light trap. Without CO2, the BG-Sentinel (with BG-Lure) still collected over 6 times as many female Ae. albopictus as the CO2-baited CDC trap. Both configurations of the BG-Sentinel were significantly more effective than the other traps. The BG-Sentinel was also significantly more efficient in collecting Ae. albopictus and collected a high proportion of this species, both with CO2 and without CO2. The CMT-20 (with Skin Lure (TM)) collected significantly more Ae. albopictus when used with CO2 than without CO2, but did not collect significantly more Ae. albopictus than the CO2-baited CDC light trap. The proportion of Ae. albopictus collected in the CMT-20 with CO2 and without CO2 did not differ significantly from the proportion of Ae. albopictus collected in the CDC trap.