Cargando…
Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China
BACKGROUND: Human landing catch (HLC) is the most efficient method for Aedes monitoring, but it is not ethical due to its high risk of human exposure to pathogens. We designed trials to assess the performance of an alternative human-baited double net trap (HDN) for field Aedes albopictus monitoring...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30153868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3053-8 |
_version_ | 1783351273634922496 |
---|---|
author | Gao, Qiang Wang, Fei Lv, Xihong Cao, Hui Zhou, Jianjun Su, Fei Xiong, Chenglong Leng, Peien |
author_facet | Gao, Qiang Wang, Fei Lv, Xihong Cao, Hui Zhou, Jianjun Su, Fei Xiong, Chenglong Leng, Peien |
author_sort | Gao, Qiang |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Human landing catch (HLC) is the most efficient method for Aedes monitoring, but it is not ethical due to its high risk of human exposure to pathogens. We designed trials to assess the performance of an alternative human-baited double net trap (HDN) for field Aedes albopictus monitoring compared with the standard HLC. METHODS: Outdoor HDN and HLC catches were conducted simultaneously at 15 field sites on two sunny days in mid-July and August. The tests were performed 3 h apart: an early morning period (7:30–8:30 h), a pre-sunset period (16:30–17:30 h) and a post-sunset period (18:30–19:30 h). A total of 90 comparisons were made between the two methods. Field comparisons were designed to minimize half-hour bias and human-bait attraction bias. RESULTS: Two mosquito species were collected by HDN and HLC, with the predominated species being Ae. albopictus (HDN: n = 1325, 97.35% of total; HLC: n = 531, 92.51% of total). A small proportion were adults of the Culex pipiens complex (HDN: n = 36, 2.65% of total; HLC: n = 43, 7.49% of total). Although the mean Ae. albopictus catch per hour of HLC was significantly higher than HDN (14.72 vs 5.90 per h, t((178)) = 3.151, P = 0.003), there were significant positive spatial and temporal correlations between HLC and HDN for Ae. albopictus sampling among different sites and hours (r((90)) = 0.785, P < 0.001; r((90)) = 0.785, P < 0.001). Both methods proved that Ae. albopictus was most active during the hours before sunset and least active after sunset. No significant variation was observed in Ae. albopictus catch size of HDN between groups of more attractive and less attractive humans (3.38 vs 2.51 per 30 min, t((88)) = 1.283, P = 0.201). CONCLUSIONS: With moderate sampling efficiency, significantly positive spatial correlation with HLC, and less human-bait attraction bias, HDN appears to be a safer alternative to HLC for Ae. albopictus monitoring in Shanghai. With mosquito activity peaking in the pre-sunset hours, Ae. albopictus catches of HDN should be performed in the hours before dark. The trap design could be improved to make it more portable and easier for field operation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6114860 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61148602018-09-04 Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China Gao, Qiang Wang, Fei Lv, Xihong Cao, Hui Zhou, Jianjun Su, Fei Xiong, Chenglong Leng, Peien Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: Human landing catch (HLC) is the most efficient method for Aedes monitoring, but it is not ethical due to its high risk of human exposure to pathogens. We designed trials to assess the performance of an alternative human-baited double net trap (HDN) for field Aedes albopictus monitoring compared with the standard HLC. METHODS: Outdoor HDN and HLC catches were conducted simultaneously at 15 field sites on two sunny days in mid-July and August. The tests were performed 3 h apart: an early morning period (7:30–8:30 h), a pre-sunset period (16:30–17:30 h) and a post-sunset period (18:30–19:30 h). A total of 90 comparisons were made between the two methods. Field comparisons were designed to minimize half-hour bias and human-bait attraction bias. RESULTS: Two mosquito species were collected by HDN and HLC, with the predominated species being Ae. albopictus (HDN: n = 1325, 97.35% of total; HLC: n = 531, 92.51% of total). A small proportion were adults of the Culex pipiens complex (HDN: n = 36, 2.65% of total; HLC: n = 43, 7.49% of total). Although the mean Ae. albopictus catch per hour of HLC was significantly higher than HDN (14.72 vs 5.90 per h, t((178)) = 3.151, P = 0.003), there were significant positive spatial and temporal correlations between HLC and HDN for Ae. albopictus sampling among different sites and hours (r((90)) = 0.785, P < 0.001; r((90)) = 0.785, P < 0.001). Both methods proved that Ae. albopictus was most active during the hours before sunset and least active after sunset. No significant variation was observed in Ae. albopictus catch size of HDN between groups of more attractive and less attractive humans (3.38 vs 2.51 per 30 min, t((88)) = 1.283, P = 0.201). CONCLUSIONS: With moderate sampling efficiency, significantly positive spatial correlation with HLC, and less human-bait attraction bias, HDN appears to be a safer alternative to HLC for Ae. albopictus monitoring in Shanghai. With mosquito activity peaking in the pre-sunset hours, Ae. albopictus catches of HDN should be performed in the hours before dark. The trap design could be improved to make it more portable and easier for field operation. BioMed Central 2018-08-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6114860/ /pubmed/30153868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3053-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Gao, Qiang Wang, Fei Lv, Xihong Cao, Hui Zhou, Jianjun Su, Fei Xiong, Chenglong Leng, Peien Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China |
title | Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China |
title_full | Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China |
title_short | Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China |
title_sort | comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for aedes albopictus monitoring in shanghai, china |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6114860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30153868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3053-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gaoqiang comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina AT wangfei comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina AT lvxihong comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina AT caohui comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina AT zhoujianjun comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina AT sufei comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina AT xiongchenglong comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina AT lengpeien comparisonofthehumanbaiteddoublenettrapwiththehumanlandingcatchforaedesalbopictusmonitoringinshanghaichina |