School of Medicine, Mae Fah Luang University, Chiang Rai, Thailand.
Vector Biology and Control Section, Department of Entomology, Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences (AFRIMS), Bangkok, Thailand.
Acta Trop. 2021 Aug;220:105953. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2021.105953. Epub 2021 May 9.
Several light trap devices have been invented and developed to assess the abundance of sand flies. Traps available in the market have different designs and attractant combinations to catch sand fly vectors. We evaluated the efficacy of four commercial light traps and determined the effect of trap placement and carbon dioxide (CO) on sand fly collection in northern Thailand. Trap evaluations were conducted at two natural caves located in Chiang Rai province, Thailand. In the first part of the study, the efficacies of four trap types including the Centers for Disease Control miniature light trap (CDC LT), Encephalitis Vector Survey trap (EVS), CDC Updraft Blacklight trap (CDC UB), and Laika trap (LK) were evaluated and compared using a Latin square experimental design. The second half of the study evaluated the influence of trap placement and CO on sand fly collection. Additionally, CDC LT were placed inside, outside, and at the entrance of caves to compare the number of sand flies collected. For the trap efficacy experiment, a total of 11,876 phlebotomine sand flies were collected over 32 trap-nights. Results demonstrated that CDC LT, CDC UB, and LK collected significantly more sand flies than EVS (P > 0.05). However, there were no significant differences between the numbers of sand flies collected by CDC LT, CDC UB, and LK. A total of 6,698 sand flies were collected from the trap placement and CO experiment over 72 trap-nights. Results showed that CO did not influence the numbers of sand flies captured (P < 0.05), whereas trap placement at the entrance of the caves resulted in collection of significantly more sand flies than traps placed inside and outside of the caves. We found the CDC LT, CDC UB, and LK without CO captured the greatest amount of sand flies. This was particularly observed when traps were placed at the entrance of a cave, perhaps because of the greater passage of stimuli caused by wind flow at the entrance of the cave. The light traps in this study can be used effectively to collect sand fly vectors in northern Thailand.
已经发明和开发了几种诱捕器来评估沙蝇的丰度。市场上现有的诱捕器具有不同的设计和引诱剂组合，以捕获沙蝇媒介。我们评估了四种商业诱捕器的功效，并确定了在泰国北部，诱捕器位置和二氧化碳（CO）对沙蝇收集的影响。诱捕器评估在泰国清莱府的两个天然洞穴进行。在研究的第一部分，使用拉丁方实验设计评估了四种诱捕器类型的功效，包括疾病控制中心微型诱捕器（CDC LT）、脑炎媒介调查诱捕器（EVS）、CDC 上升气流黑光灯诱捕器（CDC UB）和 Laika 诱捕器（LK）。研究的第二部分评估了诱捕器位置和 CO 对沙蝇收集的影响。此外，将 CDC LT 放置在洞穴内、外和入口处，以比较收集到的沙蝇数量。在诱捕器功效实验中，在 32 个诱捕夜中共收集了 11876 只白蛉沙蝇。结果表明，CDC LT、CDC UB 和 LK 收集的沙蝇明显多于 EVS（P>0.05）。然而，CDC LT、CDC UB 和 LK 收集的沙蝇数量之间没有显著差异。在诱捕器位置和 CO 实验中，在 72 个诱捕夜中共收集了 6698 只沙蝇。结果表明，CO 对捕获的沙蝇数量没有影响（P<0.05），而洞穴入口处的诱捕器放置比洞穴内和外的诱捕器放置收集到的沙蝇明显更多。我们发现，在没有 CO 的情况下，CDC LT、CDC UB 和 LK 捕获了最多的沙蝇。当诱捕器放置在洞穴入口处时，尤其如此，这可能是由于洞穴入口处风流引起的刺激物通过量更大。本研究中的诱捕器可有效用于在泰国北部收集沙蝇媒介。
