Are they there, how many, and how big? Investigating potential trap biases in the surveillance of La Crosse virus vectors.

Corey A Day, Rebecca T Trout Fryxell
{"title":"Are they there, how many, and how big? Investigating potential trap biases in the surveillance of La Crosse virus vectors.","authors":"Corey A Day, Rebecca T Trout Fryxell","doi":"10.1093/jme/tjae126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several methods of mosquito collection are used for the surveillance of the primary La Crosse virus (LACV) vectors, Aedes triseriatus (Say, 1823), Ae. albopictus (Skuse, 1895), and Ae. japonicus (Theobald, 1901). However, little is known about how the choice of collection method may confound inferences made from LACV vector surveillance data. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate potential biases in the surveillance of LACV vectors using the Biogents BG-Sentinel 2 (BGS), CDC-Light Trap (CDC-LT), Biogents Gravid Aedes Trap (BG-GAT), and standard oviposition cup (ovicup). The traps were deployed simultaneously at 10 sites in Knovxille, Tennessee, USA for 20 consecutive weeks. Surveillance results differed widely among the traps, demonstrating a strong potential for trap biases in LACV vector surveillance. The BGS and CDC-LT were effective for collecting Ae. albopictus but were not sensitive to the presence of Ae. triseriatus or Ae. japonicus. The ovicup was the best trap for detecting Ae. triseriatus, while the BG-GAT was the only trap that regularly collected Ae. japonicus. Surveillance conducted with the CDC-LT or BGS indicated that Ae. albopictus was dominant at all sites, but the ovicup and BG-GAT suggested a much larger relative abundance of Ae. triseriatus and Ae. japonicus, respectively. Aedes albopictus and Ae. triseriatus collected in the BG-GAT were significantly larger than those collected from the BGS and CDC-LT, indicating that the traps sampled different sub-populations. A multi-method surveillance approach is recommended to reduce potential biases when conducting surveillance of LACV vectors.</p>","PeriodicalId":94091,"journal":{"name":"Journal of medical entomology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of medical entomology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjae126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several methods of mosquito collection are used for the surveillance of the primary La Crosse virus (LACV) vectors, Aedes triseriatus (Say, 1823), Ae. albopictus (Skuse, 1895), and Ae. japonicus (Theobald, 1901). However, little is known about how the choice of collection method may confound inferences made from LACV vector surveillance data. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate potential biases in the surveillance of LACV vectors using the Biogents BG-Sentinel 2 (BGS), CDC-Light Trap (CDC-LT), Biogents Gravid Aedes Trap (BG-GAT), and standard oviposition cup (ovicup). The traps were deployed simultaneously at 10 sites in Knovxille, Tennessee, USA for 20 consecutive weeks. Surveillance results differed widely among the traps, demonstrating a strong potential for trap biases in LACV vector surveillance. The BGS and CDC-LT were effective for collecting Ae. albopictus but were not sensitive to the presence of Ae. triseriatus or Ae. japonicus. The ovicup was the best trap for detecting Ae. triseriatus, while the BG-GAT was the only trap that regularly collected Ae. japonicus. Surveillance conducted with the CDC-LT or BGS indicated that Ae. albopictus was dominant at all sites, but the ovicup and BG-GAT suggested a much larger relative abundance of Ae. triseriatus and Ae. japonicus, respectively. Aedes albopictus and Ae. triseriatus collected in the BG-GAT were significantly larger than those collected from the BGS and CDC-LT, indicating that the traps sampled different sub-populations. A multi-method surveillance approach is recommended to reduce potential biases when conducting surveillance of LACV vectors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
它们是否存在,有多少,有多大?调查拉克罗斯病毒载体监测中潜在的陷阱偏差。
用于监测拉克罗斯病毒(LACV)主要病媒三带伊蚊(Say,1823 年)、白纹伊蚊(Skuse,1895 年)和日本伊蚊(Theobald,1901 年)的蚊子收集方法有多种。然而,人们对采集方法的选择如何影响 LACV 病媒监测数据的推断知之甚少。因此,本研究的目的是调查使用 Biogents BG-Sentinel 2(BGS)、CDC-Light Trap(CDC-LT)、Biogents Gravid Aedes Trap(BG-GAT)和标准产卵杯(ovicup)监测 LACV 病媒的潜在偏差。这些诱捕器在美国田纳西州克诺夫西尔的 10 个地点同时布设,连续布设 20 周。不同诱捕器的监测结果差异很大,这表明在 LACV 病媒监测中诱捕器很可能存在偏差。BGS和CDC-LT能有效地收集白纹伊蚊,但对三代伊蚊或日本伊蚊的存在不敏感。ovicup是检测三裂喙蚊的最佳诱捕器,而BG-GAT是唯一能定期收集到日本疟蚊的诱捕器。用CDC-LT或BGS进行的监测表明,白纹伊蚊在所有地点都占优势,但ovicup和BG-GAT分别表明三裂喙伊蚊和日本伊蚊的相对数量要大得多。在 BG-GAT 采集到的白纹伊蚊和三裂喙伊蚊明显大于在 BGS 和 CDC-LT 采集到的白纹伊蚊和三裂喙伊蚊,这表明诱捕器采样的是不同的亚群。建议采用多种方法进行监测,以减少监测 LACV 病媒时可能出现的偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Anopheles inthanonensis, formal name for An. baileyi species D of the Baileyi Complex (Diptera: Culicidae: Anophelinae) in Thailand. Developmental stage and level of submersion in water impact the viability of lone star and winter tick eggs. Development of a Baltimore (MD) population of Calliphora vicina (Diptera: Calliphoridae) reared at several temperatures and estimations of developmental limits and thresholds. A qualitative analysis of perceived risks and benefits of mosquito abatement and bite prevention strategies in Northeastern U.S. communities. Ecological interactions of Triatoma sanguisuga (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) and risk for human infection with Trypanosoma cruzi (Kinetoplastida: Trypanosomatidae) in Illinois and Louisiana.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1