DiMenna Mark A, Bueno Rudy, Parmenter Robert R, Norris Douglas E, Sheyka Jeff M, Molina Josephine L, LaBeau Elisa M, Hatton Elizabeth S, Glass Gregory E
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Biodisease Management, Albuquerque, NM 87103, USA.
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2006 Jun;22(2):246-53. doi: 10.2987/8756-971X(2006)22[246:COMTME]2.0.CO;2.
As part of the West Nile virus surveillance program for the state of New Mexico, 13 sites along the Rio Grande River were sampled for mosquitoes during spring and summer 2003. We evaluated 3 different trapping procedures for their effectiveness at capturing selected species of mosquitoes. The 3 methods used were a dry ice-baited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light trap set 1.5 m above the ground (standard method), a CDC light trap suspended within the forest canopy, and a gravid trap set on the ground. Thirteen sites were sampled for 10 1-night periods biweekly from May through September. The relative numbers of captured Culex tarsalis, Cx. salinarius, Cx. quinquefasciatus, and Aedes vexans as well as the numbers of total recorded captures of all species were compared for each trapping method. Significant differences were observed for each species by location and by trapping method. Culex tarsalis was most commonly caught in canopy or standard CDC traps, especially in cottonwood bosque. Culex salinarius was found most frequently in association with marshy water, and was most often caught in gravid or standard light traps. Culex quinquefasciatus was captured almost exclusively in gravid traps within urban areas. Aedes vexans was primarily sampled in standard CDC light traps and found most frequently in wooded areas near floodplains. With the exception of Cx. Quinquefasciatus, no species was collected significantly more frequently in gravid or canopy traps than in the standard CDC light trap. Our findings do not support altering the methods currently used in New Mexico, namely, the use of 1.5-m CDC light traps and gravid traps. An increased use of gravid traps seems to be warranted in monitoring urban vector populations (specifically Cx. quinquefasciatus and Cx. salinarius) that may be involved in human transmission.
作为新墨西哥州西尼罗河病毒监测项目的一部分，2003年春夏期间，在格兰德河沿岸的13个地点采集了蚊子样本。我们评估了3种不同诱捕方法捕捉特定种类蚊子的有效性。所使用的3种方法分别是：离地1.5米设置的以干冰为诱饵的疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）诱蚊灯（标准方法）、悬挂在森林树冠层内的CDC诱蚊灯以及放置在地面的孕蚊诱捕器。从5月到9月，每两周对13个地点进行10个为期1晚的采样。比较了每种诱捕方法捕获的致倦库蚊、盐泽库蚊、五带淡色库蚊和刺扰伊蚊的相对数量以及所有种类蚊子的总捕获记录数量。在不同地点和诱捕方法下，每种蚊子都观察到了显著差异。致倦库蚊最常出现在树冠层或标准CDC诱蚊灯中，尤其是在三角叶杨树林。盐泽库蚊最常出现在沼泽水域附近，并且最常被孕蚊诱捕器或标准诱蚊灯捕获。五带淡色库蚊几乎只在城市地区的孕蚊诱捕器中捕获到。刺扰伊蚊主要在标准CDC诱蚊灯中采样，并且最常出现在洪泛平原附近的树木繁茂地区。除了五带淡色库蚊外，没有哪种蚊子在孕蚊诱捕器或树冠层诱捕器中的捕获频率显著高于标准CDC诱蚊灯。我们的研究结果不支持改变新墨西哥州目前使用的方法，即使用1.5米高的CDC诱蚊灯和孕蚊诱捕器。在监测可能参与人类传播的城市病媒种群（特别是致倦库蚊和盐泽库蚊）方面，似乎有必要增加孕蚊诱捕器的使用。
