Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:30:40.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catches in the Gambia, West Africa, of Anopheles gambiae Giles and A. gambiae var. melas Theobald in Entrance Traps of a baited portable wooden Hut, with special Reference to the Effect of Wind Direction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

D. S. Bertram  and
I. A. McGregor
D. S. Bertram
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
I. A. McGregor
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Laboratories, Gambia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A portable wooden hut with two windows, on opposite sides, fitted with traps to catch mosquitos as they entered the hut was tried, with human bait, as a sampling device for mixed populations of Anopheles gambiae Giles and A. gambiae var. melas Theo. in and near Keneba village in the West Kiang district of the Gambia.

In eighteen night catches, between 24th August and 22nd September 1954, 5,901 females of this species and its variety were taken in the traps, five high catches (642 to 1,240 females) being made before 3rd September and thirteen low catches (27 to 306 females) between 6th and 22nd September. Possible causes for the different size of catches in the two periods are discussed with the conclusion that the differences in catch are not simply attributable to erratic functioning of the hut as a trap.

Four night catches of 186, 741, 797 and 1,240 females of A. gambiae and its variety are reported in detail. They reveal that mosquitos were taken virtually exclusively in the leeward trap if the wind persisted from one direction. But if the wind was variable, or conditions were calm, they were taken in both traps, entering the traps alternately as the wind shifted in the first instance and, perhaps simultaneously in calm. The results show that the use of only one trap could give misleading information about the numbers of mosquitos available outside the hut.

There is no doubt that, with wind, the mosquitos approached the host in the hut from down-wind. Since much of the catching occurred in darkness it would seem that the mosquitos were attracted by the emanations of the host and that their approach to the hut was not directed by a visual mechanism controlling up-wind flight.

Heavy rain for about seven hours did not prevent flight.

From hourly collections, made from dusk to dawn, a curve of activity for A. gambiae with its variety melas was obtained resembling the biting cycle reported elsewhere by other authors, the greatest activity occurring between midnight and 0600 hr. All the females (except two instances of incomplete fresh blood-meals) were unfed and, in a small sample, ovarian development was stage II or earlier. First entries occurred just before complete darkness in the evening and the last in good light about 30 minutes after sunrise.

No males of A. gambiae or var. melas were taken in the traps.

The numbers, all females, of other species taken were: 1 of A. funestus Giles, 1 of A. rufipes var. ingrami Edw., 59 of Taeniorhynchus (Mansonioides) spp., 30 of Culex nebulosus Theo., 19 of C. thalassius Theo., and 15 of unidentified species. Some Culicoides occurred in the traps and in the hut itself.

The hut, if modified to include a window trap in each of the four walls and a cowl over each window to keep out rain, appears to be a simple and convenient sampling device for certain types of investigations on the biology and behaviour of A. gambiae and its variety melas.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 1956 , pp. 669 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boyd, M. F. Ed. (1949). Malariology, 1, 787 pp. Philadelphia, Pa., Saunders.Google Scholar
Brown, A. W. A. (1951). Studies of the responses of the female Aëdes mosquito. Part IV. Field experiments on Canadian species.—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwatt, L. J. (1945). Studies on the melanic variety of Anopheles gambiae in southern Nigeria.—J. trop. Med. Hyg., 48, pp. 22–30, 51–55.Google Scholar
De Meillon, B. (1935). Studies on insects of medical importance in South Africa. (Part II.) Anopheles funestus Giles in relation to its host.— Publ. S. Afr. Inst. med. Res., no. 35, pp. 358–368.Google Scholar
De Meillon, B. (1947). The Anophelini of the Ethiopian geographical region.— Publ. S. Afr. Inst. med. Res., no. 49, 272 pp.Google Scholar
Gillies, M. T. (1953). The duration of the gonotrophic cycle in Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus, with a note on the efficiency of hand catching.—E. Afr. med. J., 30, pp. 129–135.Google ScholarPubMed
Haddow, A. J., Gillett, J. D. & Highton, R. B. (1947). The mosquitoes of Bwamba County, Uganda. V. The vertical distribution and biting-cycle of mosquitoes in rain-forest, with further observations on microclimate.— Bull. ent. Res., 37, pp. 301–330.Google Scholar
Holstein, M. H. (1954). Biology of Anopheles gambiae. Research in French West Africa.—Monogr. Ser. World Hlth Org., no. 9 (English edn.), 172 pp.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1940). The visual responses of flying mosquitoes.—Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., (A) 109, pp. 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Prince, J. A. & Orenstein, A. J. (1916). Mosquito control in Panama.— 335 pp. New York, Putnam.Google Scholar
Lumsden, W. H. R. (1952). The crepuscular biting activity of insects in the forest canopy in Bwamba, Uganda. A study in relation to the sylvan epidemiology of yellow fever.—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 721–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, G. & Davidson, G. (1953). Dose and cycle of insecticide applications in the control of malaria.—Bull. World Hlth Org., 9, pp. 785–812.Google ScholarPubMed
Mattingly, P. F. (1949). Studies on West African forest mosquitos. Part I. The seasonal distribution, biting cycle and vertical distribution of four of the principal species.—Bull. ent. Res., 40, pp. 149–168.Google Scholar
McGregor, I. A. & Smith, D. A. (1952). A health, nutrition and parasitological survey in a rural village (Keneba) in West Kiang, Gambia.—Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 46, pp. 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1945). Studies on the breeding places and control of Anopheles gambiae and A. gambiae var. melas in coastal districts of Sierra Leone.—Bull. ent. Res., 36, pp. 185–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1948). Studies on Anopheles gambiae and A. melas in and around Lagos.—Bull. ent. Res., 38, pp. 527–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1951). Mosquito behaviour in relation to malaria transmission and control in the tropics.—219 pp. London, Arnold.Google Scholar
Ribbands, C. R. (1944). The influence of rainfall, tides and periodic fluctuations on a population of Anopheles melas, Theo.—Bull. ent. Res., 35, pp. 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribbands, C. R. (1946). Moonlight and house-haunting habits of female Anophelines in West Africa.—Bull. ent. Res., 36, pp. 395–417.Google Scholar
Simmons, S. W. & others. (1945). Techniques and apparatus used in experimental studies on DDT as an insecticide for mosquitoes.—Publ. Hlth Rep., suppl. 186, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Van Thiel, P. (1937). Quelles sont les excitations incitant I'Anopheles maculipennis atroparvus à visiter et à piquer l'homme ou le bétail?—Bull. Soc. Path. exot., 30, pp. 193–203.Google Scholar
Wharton, R. H. (1951). The behaviour and mortality of Anopheles maculatus and Culex fatigans in experimental huts treated with DDT and BHC.— Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, P. R. (1951). Distribution and fate of Anopheles gambiae and A. funestus in two different types of huts treated with DDT and BHC in Uganda.—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar