Cargando…

Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses

BACKGROUND: Bluetongue virus (BTV) and epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV) are orbiviruses that can cause fatal vector-borne diseases in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Trapping methods for collecting potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses were compared to optimize surveillan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Becker, Michael, Park, Jeong-Seok, Gentry, Glen, Husseneder, Claudia, Foil, Lane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8564964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34732239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-05059-9
_version_ 1784593720911331328
author Becker, Michael
Park, Jeong-Seok
Gentry, Glen
Husseneder, Claudia
Foil, Lane
author_facet Becker, Michael
Park, Jeong-Seok
Gentry, Glen
Husseneder, Claudia
Foil, Lane
author_sort Becker, Michael
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Bluetongue virus (BTV) and epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV) are orbiviruses that can cause fatal vector-borne diseases in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Trapping methods for collecting potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses were compared to optimize surveillance studies. METHODS: The number of captured midges and the virus infection rates of midge pools were compared for dry ice-baited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) traps with or without black light. The number of individual midges of different Culicoides species captured at different crepuscular and nocturnal periods using rotator traps also was determined. The number of species/specimens of Culicoides was measured using five different trap methods including three animal-baited methods, a CDC trap with black light, and a CDC trap with no light. RESULTS: In trial one, there was no significant difference (P = 0.37) in the proportion of BTV-infected flies caught in traps with light compared to traps without light. However, there was a significant difference (P = 0.026) for EHDV-infected flies, and 89% were captured in traps with light. In trial two, more specimens of C. debilipalpis were captured in the morning hours (06:00–08:00) than in the evening hours (18:00–20:00). For trial three, the animal-baited traps did not capture any species of Culicoides that were not captured in the CDC light traps. There was no significant difference (P = 0.22) in total specimens captured among all five trap types. CONCLUSIONS: Specimens of Culicoides infected with BTV were not repelled by light traps in the first trial, while the majority of the specimens positive for EHDV were caught in traps with light. For the second trial, specimens of C. debilipalpis were most abundant during early morning hours, and thus spray applications of insecticides for control of that species may be more effective at sunrise rather than sunset. For objective three, no animal-baited trapping method collected different species of midges when compared to the CDC traps with light, which is unlike certain studies conducted in other geographical regions. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text]
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8564964
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85649642021-11-04 Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses Becker, Michael Park, Jeong-Seok Gentry, Glen Husseneder, Claudia Foil, Lane Parasit Vectors Research BACKGROUND: Bluetongue virus (BTV) and epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV) are orbiviruses that can cause fatal vector-borne diseases in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Trapping methods for collecting potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses were compared to optimize surveillance studies. METHODS: The number of captured midges and the virus infection rates of midge pools were compared for dry ice-baited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) traps with or without black light. The number of individual midges of different Culicoides species captured at different crepuscular and nocturnal periods using rotator traps also was determined. The number of species/specimens of Culicoides was measured using five different trap methods including three animal-baited methods, a CDC trap with black light, and a CDC trap with no light. RESULTS: In trial one, there was no significant difference (P = 0.37) in the proportion of BTV-infected flies caught in traps with light compared to traps without light. However, there was a significant difference (P = 0.026) for EHDV-infected flies, and 89% were captured in traps with light. In trial two, more specimens of C. debilipalpis were captured in the morning hours (06:00–08:00) than in the evening hours (18:00–20:00). For trial three, the animal-baited traps did not capture any species of Culicoides that were not captured in the CDC light traps. There was no significant difference (P = 0.22) in total specimens captured among all five trap types. CONCLUSIONS: Specimens of Culicoides infected with BTV were not repelled by light traps in the first trial, while the majority of the specimens positive for EHDV were caught in traps with light. For the second trial, specimens of C. debilipalpis were most abundant during early morning hours, and thus spray applications of insecticides for control of that species may be more effective at sunrise rather than sunset. For objective three, no animal-baited trapping method collected different species of midges when compared to the CDC traps with light, which is unlike certain studies conducted in other geographical regions. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] BioMed Central 2021-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8564964/ /pubmed/34732239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-05059-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Becker, Michael
Park, Jeong-Seok
Gentry, Glen
Husseneder, Claudia
Foil, Lane
Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses
title Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses
title_full Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses
title_fullStr Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses
title_short Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses
title_sort comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential culicoides vectors of orbiviruses
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8564964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34732239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-05059-9
work_keys_str_mv AT beckermichael comparisonoftrappingmethodsforuseinsurveysforpotentialculicoidesvectorsoforbiviruses
AT parkjeongseok comparisonoftrappingmethodsforuseinsurveysforpotentialculicoidesvectorsoforbiviruses
AT gentryglen comparisonoftrappingmethodsforuseinsurveysforpotentialculicoidesvectorsoforbiviruses
AT hussenederclaudia comparisonoftrappingmethodsforuseinsurveysforpotentialculicoidesvectorsoforbiviruses
AT foillane comparisonoftrappingmethodsforuseinsurveysforpotentialculicoidesvectorsoforbiviruses