Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:39:34.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suitability of two carbon dioxide-baited traps for mosquito surveillance in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2007

R.A. Hutchinson ,
P.A. West  and
S.W. Lindsay
R.A. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
P.A. West
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
S.W. Lindsay*
Affiliation:
School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +44 (0)191 334 1289 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rapidly changing environments and an increase in human movement around the globe have contributed to a rise in new and emerging diseases, many of which are arthropod borne. The threat posed to the United Kingdom by such diseases is uncertain, and there is a real need to understand the distribution, seasonality and behaviour of potential vectors in the country. At present, there is no standard method for routine mosquito surveillance in the UK. Here we compared the catching efficiency of two carbon dioxide-baited traps, the CDC light trap and the MosquitoMagnet® Pro trap, for collecting British mosquitoes. Two of each type of trap were operated at four sites in central and southern England from June to September, 2003. To determine whether trap height affected collections, three light traps were operated at 1, 2.5 and 5 m above the ground in one site in 2004. Both types of trap were efficient at catching mosquitoes, collecting 5414 mosquitoes of 16 species. MosquitoMagnet® traps caught 2.7 times more mosquitoes than CDC light traps (P<0.001) and a wider range of species (16 species vs 11) than CDC light traps. Four to six times more female Culex pipiens s.l. were collected in light traps at 5 m (P<0.001) compared with traps at lower heights. MosquitoMagnet® traps ran continuously for up to 8 weeks, whilst the battery of a CDC light trap had to be replaced every 24 hrs. Although MosquitoMagnets® collected more specimens and a greater range of mosquito species, they were considerably more expensive, prone to breakdown and incurred higher running costs than the CDC light traps. MosquitoMagnets® are useful tools for collecting mosquitoes during longitudinal surveys during the summer months, whilst CDC light traps are to be preferred for rapid assessments of the presence or absence of mosquitoes, particularly the important species Culex pipiens.

Keywords

CDC light trapCO2-baited trapsCulex pipiensmosquito-borne diseasesMosquitoMagnet®UKvector surveillance
Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 97 , Issue 6 , December 2007 , pp. 591 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Buckley, A., Dawson, A., Moss, S.R., Hinsley, S.A., Bellamy, P.E. & Gould, E.A. (2003) Serological evidence of West Nile virus, Usutu virus and Sindbis virus infection of birds in the UK. The Journal of General Virology 84, 2807–2817.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clements, A.N. (1999) The Biology of Mosquitoes. Sensory Reception and Behaviour. 756 pp. Wallingford, UK, CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Dazak, P., Cunningham, A.A. & Hyatt, A.D. (2000) Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife – threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287, 443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEFRA (2001) High level target 9 biodiversity. Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs, 8 London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2004) West Nile virus: A contingency plan to protect the public's health. Report 40168.Google Scholar
Doody, P. (1990) Sea–level rise (coastal conservation). North Sea Report 1990. London, Marine Forum.Google Scholar
Eling, W., van Gemert, G.J., Akinpelu, O., Curtis, J. & Curtis, C.F. (2003) Production of Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites by Anopheles plumbeus. Journal of the European Mosquito Control Association 15, 12–13.Google Scholar
Emord, D.E. & Morris, C.D. (1982) A host-baited CDC trap. Mosquito News 42, 220–224.Google Scholar
Gould, E.A., Higgs, S., Buckley, A. & Sergeevna Gritsun, T. (2006) Potential arbovirus emergence and implications for the United Kingdom. Emerging Infectious Diseases 12, 549–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lang, W.D. (1918) A map showing the known distribution in England and Wales of the Anopheline mosquitoes, with explanatory text and notes. 63 pp. London, British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Lindsay, S.W. & Thomas, C.J. (2001) Global warming and risk of vivax malaria in Great Britain. Global Change and Human Health 2, 80–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lines, J.D., Curtis, C.F., Wilkes, T.J. & Njunwa, K.J. (1991) Monitoring human-biting mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Tanzania with light traps hung beside mosquito nets. Bulletin of Entomological Research 81, 77–84.Google Scholar
Linton, Y.-M., Lee, A.S. & Curtis, C.F. (2005) Discovery of a third member of the Maculipennis group in SW England. European Mosquito Bulletin 19, 5–9.Google Scholar
Magnarelli, L.A. (1975) Relative abundance and parity of mosquitoes collected in dry-ice baited and unbaited CDC miniature light traps. Mosquito News 35, 350–353.Google Scholar
Mans, N.Z., Yurgionas, S.E., Garvin, M.C., Gary, R.E., Bresky, J.D., Galaitsis, A.C. & Ohajuruka, O.A. (2004) West Nile Virus in Mosquitoes of Northern Ohio, 2001–2002. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 70, 562–565.Google Scholar
Marshall, J.F. (1938) The British Mosquitoes. 341 pp. London, British Museum (Natural History).Google Scholar
Medlock, J.M., Snow, K.R. & Leach, S. (2005) Potential transmission of West Nile virus in the British Isles: an ecological review of candidate mosquito bridge vectors. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 19, 2–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, T.A., Stryker, R.G., Wilkinson, R.N. & Esah, S. (1969) Notes on the use of CO2 baited CDC miniature light traps for mosquito surveillance in Thailand. Mosquito News 29, 688–689.Google Scholar
Reiter, P., Jakob, W.L., Francy, D.B. & Mullenix, J.B. (1986) Evaluation of the CDC gravid trap for the surveillance of St. Louis encephalitis vectors in Memphis, Tennessee. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 2, 209–211.Google ScholarPubMed
Rogers, D.J., Randolph, S., Lindsay, S. & Thomas, C. (2001) Vector-borne diseases and climate change. Health effects of climate change in the UK. pp. 85–119in Maynard, R.L. (Ed.) London, Department of Health.Google Scholar
Snow, K.R., Rees, A.T. & Bulbeck, S.J. (1998) A provisional atlas of the mosquitoes of Britain. London, University of East London Press.Google Scholar
Taverne, J. (2001) Magnetic Mosquitoes on the net. Trends in Parasitology 17, 601–602.Google Scholar
Takken, W., Dekker, T. & Wijnholds, Y.G. (1997) Odor-mediated flight behavior of Anopheles gambiae Giles sensu stricto and An. stephensi Liston in response to CO2, acetone, and 1-octen-2-ol (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 10, 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veterinary Laboratories Agency (2006) Surveillance report wildlife. Quarterly Report 8, 1–3.Google Scholar
Woolhouse, M.E.J. (2002) Population biology of emerging and re-emerging pathogens. Trends in Microbiology 10, S3–7.Google Scholar