Cargando…

Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe

BACKGROUND: To monitor adult mosquitoes several trapping devices are available. These are differently constructed and use various mechanisms for mosquito attraction, thus resulting in different trapping sensitivities and efficacies for the various species. Mosquito monitoring and surveillance progra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lühken, Renke, Pfitzner, Wolf Peter, Börstler, Jessica, Garms, Rolf, Huber, Katrin, Schork, Nino, Steinke, Sonja, Kiel, Ellen, Becker, Norbert, Tannich, Egbert, Krüger, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4064298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24924481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-268
_version_ 1782321936233136128
author Lühken, Renke
Pfitzner, Wolf Peter
Börstler, Jessica
Garms, Rolf
Huber, Katrin
Schork, Nino
Steinke, Sonja
Kiel, Ellen
Becker, Norbert
Tannich, Egbert
Krüger, Andreas
author_facet Lühken, Renke
Pfitzner, Wolf Peter
Börstler, Jessica
Garms, Rolf
Huber, Katrin
Schork, Nino
Steinke, Sonja
Kiel, Ellen
Becker, Norbert
Tannich, Egbert
Krüger, Andreas
author_sort Lühken, Renke
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To monitor adult mosquitoes several trapping devices are available. These are differently constructed and use various mechanisms for mosquito attraction, thus resulting in different trapping sensitivities and efficacies for the various species. Mosquito monitoring and surveillance programs in Europe use various types of mosquito traps, but only a few comparisons have been conducted so far. This study compared the performance of four commercial trapping devices, which are commonly used in Europe. METHODS: Four different traps, Biogents Sentinel trap (BG trap), Heavy Duty Encephalitis Vector Survey trap (EVS trap), Centres for Disease Control miniature light trap (CDC trap) and Mosquito Magnet Patriot Mosquito trap (MM trap) were compared in a 4 × 4 latin square study. In the years 2012 and 2013, more than seventy 24-hour trap comparisons were conducted at ten different locations in northern and southern Germany, representing urban, forest and floodplain biotopes. RESULTS: Per 24-hour trapping period, the BG trap caught the widest range of mosquito species, the highest number of individuals of the genus Culex as well as the highest number of individuals of the species Ochlerotatus cantans, Aedes cinereus/geminus, Oc. communis and Culex pipiens/torrentium. The CDC trap revealed best performance for Aedes vexans, whereas the MM trap was most efficient for mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles and the species Oc. geniculatus. The EVS trap did not catch more individuals of any genus or species compared to the other three trapping devices. The BG trap caught the highest number of individuals per trapping period in urban environments as well as in wet forest, while the CDC trap caught the highest number of individuals in the floodplain biotopes. Additionally, the BG trap was most efficient for the number of mosquito species in urban locations. CONCLUSION: The BG trap showed a significantly better or similar performance compared to the CDC, EVS or MM trap with regard to trapping efficacy for most common mosquito species in Germany, including diversity of mosquito species and number of mosquitoes per trapping period. Thus, the BG trap is probably the best solution for general monitoring or surveillance programs of adult mosquitoes in Central Europe.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4064298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40642982014-06-21 Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe Lühken, Renke Pfitzner, Wolf Peter Börstler, Jessica Garms, Rolf Huber, Katrin Schork, Nino Steinke, Sonja Kiel, Ellen Becker, Norbert Tannich, Egbert Krüger, Andreas Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: To monitor adult mosquitoes several trapping devices are available. These are differently constructed and use various mechanisms for mosquito attraction, thus resulting in different trapping sensitivities and efficacies for the various species. Mosquito monitoring and surveillance programs in Europe use various types of mosquito traps, but only a few comparisons have been conducted so far. This study compared the performance of four commercial trapping devices, which are commonly used in Europe. METHODS: Four different traps, Biogents Sentinel trap (BG trap), Heavy Duty Encephalitis Vector Survey trap (EVS trap), Centres for Disease Control miniature light trap (CDC trap) and Mosquito Magnet Patriot Mosquito trap (MM trap) were compared in a 4 × 4 latin square study. In the years 2012 and 2013, more than seventy 24-hour trap comparisons were conducted at ten different locations in northern and southern Germany, representing urban, forest and floodplain biotopes. RESULTS: Per 24-hour trapping period, the BG trap caught the widest range of mosquito species, the highest number of individuals of the genus Culex as well as the highest number of individuals of the species Ochlerotatus cantans, Aedes cinereus/geminus, Oc. communis and Culex pipiens/torrentium. The CDC trap revealed best performance for Aedes vexans, whereas the MM trap was most efficient for mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles and the species Oc. geniculatus. The EVS trap did not catch more individuals of any genus or species compared to the other three trapping devices. The BG trap caught the highest number of individuals per trapping period in urban environments as well as in wet forest, while the CDC trap caught the highest number of individuals in the floodplain biotopes. Additionally, the BG trap was most efficient for the number of mosquito species in urban locations. CONCLUSION: The BG trap showed a significantly better or similar performance compared to the CDC, EVS or MM trap with regard to trapping efficacy for most common mosquito species in Germany, including diversity of mosquito species and number of mosquitoes per trapping period. Thus, the BG trap is probably the best solution for general monitoring or surveillance programs of adult mosquitoes in Central Europe. BioMed Central 2014-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4064298/ /pubmed/24924481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-268 Text en Copyright © 2014 Lühken et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Lühken, Renke
Pfitzner, Wolf Peter
Börstler, Jessica
Garms, Rolf
Huber, Katrin
Schork, Nino
Steinke, Sonja
Kiel, Ellen
Becker, Norbert
Tannich, Egbert
Krüger, Andreas
Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe
title Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe
title_full Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe
title_fullStr Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe
title_full_unstemmed Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe
title_short Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe
title_sort field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in central europe
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4064298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24924481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-268
work_keys_str_mv AT luhkenrenke fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT pfitznerwolfpeter fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT borstlerjessica fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT garmsrolf fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT huberkatrin fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT schorknino fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT steinkesonja fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT kielellen fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT beckernorbert fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT tannichegbert fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope
AT krugerandreas fieldevaluationoffourwidelyusedmosquitotrapsincentraleurope