Kline D L
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Gainesville, FL 32604, USA.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 1999 Sep;15(3):276-82.
Large cage and field studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of 2 American Biophysics Corporation mosquito traps, the standard professional (PRO) trap and a new counterflow geometry (CFG) trap. The PRO trap utilizes conventional downdraft technology and the CFG trap uses a patent-pending technology. In large cage studies, similarly baited CFG traps captured approximately 1.7 times as many laboratory-reared Aedes taeniorhynchus as the PRO trap. The CFG trap baited with CO2 + octenol resulted in significantly reduced landing counts compared to all other treatments; mean landing count was reduced from 233.8 (12.99/min), when no trap was present, to 24.7 (1.37/min). In field studies against natural populations of woodland species, the CFG trap captured 7.8 times more mosquitoes than the PRO trap overall, and approximately 11 times more Anopheles crucians, Anopheles quadrimaculatus, and Culex erraticus.
开展了大型网箱和实地研究,以比较美国生物物理公司的两款捕蚊器的效果,即标准专业(PRO)捕蚊器和新型逆流几何结构(CFG)捕蚊器。PRO捕蚊器采用传统的向下气流技术,而CFG捕蚊器使用一项正在申请专利的技术。在大型网箱研究中,诱饵相同的CFG捕蚊器捕获的实验室饲养的黄头伊蚊数量约为PRO捕蚊器的1.7倍。与所有其他处理相比,用二氧化碳+辛醇诱饵的CFG捕蚊器使着陆蚊虫数量显著减少;平均着陆蚊虫数量从无捕蚊器时的233.8只(12.99只/分钟)降至24.7只(1.37只/分钟)。在针对林地物种自然种群的实地研究中,CFG捕蚊器捕获的蚊子总数比PRO捕蚊器多7.8倍,捕获的十字疟蚊、四斑按蚊和迷走库蚊大约多11倍。