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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |