Lühken Renke, Pfitzner Wolf Peter, Börstler Jessica, Garms Rolf, Huber Katrin, Schork Nino, Steinke Sonja, Kiel Ellen, Becker Norbert, Tannich Egbert, Krüger Andreas
Department of Molecular Parasitology, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany.
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Jun 12;7:268. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-268.
To monitor adult mosquitoes several trapping devices are available. These are differently constructed and use various mechanisms for mosquito attraction, thus resulting in different trapping sensitivities and efficacies for the various species. Mosquito monitoring and surveillance programs in Europe use various types of mosquito traps, but only a few comparisons have been conducted so far. This study compared the performance of four commercial trapping devices, which are commonly used in Europe.
Four different traps, Biogents Sentinel trap (BG trap), Heavy Duty Encephalitis Vector Survey trap (EVS trap), Centres for Disease Control miniature light trap (CDC trap) and Mosquito Magnet Patriot Mosquito trap (MM trap) were compared in a 4 × 4 latin square study. In the years 2012 and 2013, more than seventy 24-hour trap comparisons were conducted at ten different locations in northern and southern Germany, representing urban, forest and floodplain biotopes.
Per 24-hour trapping period, the BG trap caught the widest range of mosquito species, the highest number of individuals of the genus Culex as well as the highest number of individuals of the species Ochlerotatus cantans, Aedes cinereus/geminus, Oc. communis and Culex pipiens/torrentium. The CDC trap revealed best performance for Aedes vexans, whereas the MM trap was most efficient for mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles and the species Oc. geniculatus. The EVS trap did not catch more individuals of any genus or species compared to the other three trapping devices. The BG trap caught the highest number of individuals per trapping period in urban environments as well as in wet forest, while the CDC trap caught the highest number of individuals in the floodplain biotopes. Additionally, the BG trap was most efficient for the number of mosquito species in urban locations.
The BG trap showed a significantly better or similar performance compared to the CDC, EVS or MM trap with regard to trapping efficacy for most common mosquito species in Germany, including diversity of mosquito species and number of mosquitoes per trapping period. Thus, the BG trap is probably the best solution for general monitoring or surveillance programs of adult mosquitoes in Central Europe.
为监测成年蚊子,有多种诱捕装置可供使用。这些装置构造不同,采用各种吸引蚊子的机制,因此对不同蚊种的诱捕灵敏度和效率也不同。欧洲的蚊子监测和 surveillance 计划使用各种类型的蚊子诱捕器,但到目前为止仅进行了少数比较。本研究比较了欧洲常用的四种商业诱捕装置的性能。
在一项 4×4 拉丁方研究中比较了四种不同的诱捕器,即 Biogents Sentinel 诱捕器(BG 诱捕器)、重型脑炎媒介调查诱捕器(EVS 诱捕器)、疾病控制中心微型光诱捕器(CDC 诱捕器)和 Mosquito Magnet Patriot 蚊子诱捕器(MM 诱捕器)。在 2012 年和 2013 年,在德国北部和南部的十个不同地点进行了七十多次 24 小时诱捕器比较,这些地点代表城市、森林和洪泛区生物群落。
在每 24 小时的诱捕期内,BG 诱捕器捕获的蚊种范围最广,库蚊属个体数量最多,以及尖音库蚊、灰黑伊蚊/孪生伊蚊、普通伊蚊和致倦库蚊/溪流库蚊的个体数量最多。CDC 诱捕器对骚扰阿蚊的表现最佳,而 MM 诱捕器对按蚊属蚊子和膝状伊蚊最为有效。与其他三种诱捕装置相比,EVS 诱捕器捕获的任何属或种的个体数量都没有更多。BG 诱捕器在城市环境以及潮湿森林中每个诱捕期捕获的个体数量最多,而 CDC 诱捕器在洪泛区生物群落中捕获的个体数量最多。此外,BG 诱捕器在城市地点捕获的蚊种数量方面效率最高。
就德国大多数常见蚊种的诱捕效果而言,包括蚊种多样性和每个诱捕期的蚊子数量,BG 诱捕器的表现明显优于或与 CDC、EVS 或 MM 诱捕器相似。因此,BG 诱捕器可能是中欧成年蚊子一般监测或 surveillance 计划的最佳解决方案。