Abstract

BackgroundSampling methodologies for mosquitoes that are capable of transmitting vector-borne infectious diseases provide critical information on entomological endpoints. Reliable and meaningful field data is vital to the understanding of basic vector biology as well as disease transmission. Various traps take advantage of different vector behaviors and are inevitably subject to sampling biases. This study represents the first comparison of kelambu traps (KT) to barrier screens (BS), barrier screens with eaves (BSE) and indoor and outdoor human landing catches (HLCs).MethodsTwo trap comparison studies were undertaken. In the first study, mosquitoes were collected in Karama over 26 trapping nights to evaluate the kelambu trap relative to indoor and outdoor HLCs. In the second study, mosquitoes were collected in Karama over 12 trapping nights to compare the kelambu trap, barrier screen, barrier screen with eaves and outdoor HLCs. The kelambu trap, barrier screen and barrier screen with eaves obstruct the flight of mosquitos. HLCs target host-seeking behaviors.ResultsThere was no significant difference between indoor and outdoor HLCs for overall Anopheles mosquito abundance. All five of the molecularly identified Anopheles species collected by HLCs, An. aconitus, An. barbirostris, An. peditaeniatus, An. vagus and An. tessellatus, are reported as vectors of malaria in Indonesia. The kelambu trap (n = 2736) collected significantly more Anopheles mosquitoes than indoor HLCs (n = 1286; Z = 3.193, P = 0.004), but not the outdoor HLCs (n = 1580; Z = 2.325, P = 0.053). All traps collected statistically similar abundances for the primary species, An. barbirostris. However, both comparison studies found significantly higher abundances for the kelambu trap for several secondary species compared to all other traps: An. nigerriumus, An. parangensis, An. tessellatus and An. vagus. The kelambu trap retained the highest species richness and Gini-Simpson’s diversity index for both comparison studies.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the kelambu trap collects overall Anopheles abundance and species-specific abundances at statistically similar or higher rates than HLCs in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Therefore, the kelambu trap should be considered as an exposure-free alternative to HLCs for research questions regarding Anopheles species in this malaria endemic region.

Highlights

  • Sampling methodologies for mosquitoes that are capable of transmitting vector-borne infectious diseases provide critical information on entomological endpoints

  • Trap comparison Study 1: evaluation of kelambu traps (KT) compared to indoor human landing catches (HLC) and outdoor HLCs Mosquitoes were collected in Karama over 26 trapping nights from April 2013 to March 2015 (Table 1) to evaluate the KT relative to indoor and outdoor HLCs

  • Trap comparison Study 1: evaluation of KT compared to indoor HLCs and outdoor HLCs To evaluate the efficacy of the KT to indoor HLCs and outdoor HLCs, mosquitoes were collected for 26 nights

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Sampling methodologies for mosquitoes that are capable of transmitting vector-borne infectious diseases provide critical information on entomological endpoints. Various traps take advantage of different vector behaviors and are inevitably subject to sampling biases. Sampling methodologies for mosquitoes that are capable of transmitting vector-borne infectious diseases provide critical information on several entomological endpoints including species present, temporal population densities and distributions and bionomic characteristics, as well as the effects of control measures on populations. Various traps take advantage of different vector behaviors and are subject to sampling biases. Research shows that vector behaviors can vary within small geographical scales [7] as well as in response to interventions [8]. The efficacy of sampling methodologies will vary depending on geographical location, and evaluation of these methods is important to determine their functionality in different localities

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call