Eck Institute for Global Health, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 90245, Indonesia.
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Aug 13;12(1):399. doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3649-7.
Sampling methodologies for mosquitoes that are capable of transmitting vector-borne infectious diseases provide critical information on entomological endpoints. Reliable and meaningful field data is vital to the understanding of basic vector biology as well as disease transmission. Various traps take advantage of different vector behaviors and are inevitably subject to sampling biases. This study represents the first comparison of kelambu traps (KT) to barrier screens (BS), barrier screens with eaves (BSE) and indoor and outdoor human landing catches (HLCs).
Two trap comparison studies were undertaken. In the first study, mosquitoes were collected in Karama over 26 trapping nights to evaluate the kelambu trap relative to indoor and outdoor HLCs. In the second study, mosquitoes were collected in Karama over 12 trapping nights to compare the kelambu trap, barrier screen, barrier screen with eaves and outdoor HLCs. The kelambu trap, barrier screen and barrier screen with eaves obstruct the flight of mosquitos. HLCs target host-seeking behaviors.
There was no significant difference between indoor and outdoor HLCs for overall Anopheles mosquito abundance. All five of the molecularly identified Anopheles species collected by HLCs, An. aconitus, An. barbirostris, An. peditaeniatus, An. vagus and An. tessellatus, are reported as vectors of malaria in Indonesia. The kelambu trap (n = 2736) collected significantly more Anopheles mosquitoes than indoor HLCs (n = 1286; Z = 3.193, P = 0.004), but not the outdoor HLCs (n = 1580; Z = 2.325, P = 0.053). All traps collected statistically similar abundances for the primary species, An. barbirostris. However, both comparison studies found significantly higher abundances for the kelambu trap for several secondary species compared to all other traps: An. nigerriumus, An. parangensis, An. tessellatus and An. vagus. The kelambu trap retained the highest species richness and Gini-Simpson's diversity index for both comparison studies.
This study demonstrates that the kelambu trap collects overall Anopheles abundance and species-specific abundances at statistically similar or higher rates than HLCs in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Therefore, the kelambu trap should be considered as an exposure-free alternative to HLCs for research questions regarding Anopheles species in this malaria endemic region.
能够传播媒介传播传染病的蚊子采样方法提供了有关昆虫学终点的关键信息。可靠且有意义的现场数据对于理解基本媒介生物学和疾病传播至关重要。各种诱捕器利用不同的媒介行为，并且不可避免地受到采样偏差的影响。本研究首次比较了蚊帐诱捕器（KT）与屏障筛（BS）、带檐屏障筛（BSE）和室内外人体降落捕捉器（HLC）。
进行了两项诱捕器比较研究。在第一项研究中，在 Karama 进行了 26 个夜间诱捕，以评估相对于室内和室外 HLC 的蚊帐诱捕器。在第二项研究中，在 Karama 进行了 12 个夜间诱捕，以比较蚊帐诱捕器、屏障筛、带檐屏障筛和室外 HLC。蚊帐诱捕器、屏障筛和带檐屏障筛阻碍蚊子的飞行。HLC 针对宿主寻找行为。
室内和室外 HLC 的总体按蚊丰度无显着差异。通过 HLC 收集的所有五种经分子鉴定的按蚊物种，即按蚊 aconitus、按蚊 barbirostris、按蚊 peditaeniatus、按蚊 vagus 和按蚊 tessellatus，均被报道为印度尼西亚疟疾的传播媒介。蚊帐诱捕器（n=2736）收集的按蚊数量明显多于室内 HLC（n=1286；Z=3.193，P=0.004），但不比室外 HLC（n=1580；Z=2.325，P=0.053）多。所有诱捕器对主要物种按蚊 barbirostris 的丰度均收集到统计学相似的丰度。然而，这两项比较研究都发现，与所有其他诱捕器相比，蚊帐诱捕器对几种次要物种的丰度显着更高：按蚊 nigerrimus、按蚊 parangensis、按蚊 tessellatus 和按蚊 vagus。蚊帐诱捕器在这两项比较研究中均保留了最高的物种丰富度和基尼-辛普森多样性指数。
本研究表明，在印度尼西亚苏拉威西岛，蚊帐诱捕器收集的按蚊丰度和特定物种丰度与 HLC 相似或更高，因此，在这个疟疾流行地区，对于有关按蚊物种的研究问题，蚊帐诱捕器应被视为一种无接触的 HLC 替代方法。
