Postgraduate Program in Experimental Biology (PGBIOEXP), Federal University of Rondônia (UNIR), BR-364, Km 9.5, Porto Velho, RO, 78900-550, Brazil.
Laboratory of Entomology, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, FIOCRUZ Rondônia, Porto Velho, RO, 76812-245, Brazil.
Malar J. 2022 Sep 6;21(1):258. doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04274-8.
Continuous vector surveillance and sustainable interventions are mandatory in order to prevent anopheline proliferation (or spread to new areas) and interrupt malaria transmission. Anopheline abundance and richness were evaluated in urban and peri-urban malaria foci at a medium-sized city in the Brazilian Amazon, comparing the protected human landing catch technique (PHLC) and alternative sampling methods over different seasonal periods. Additional information was assessed for female feeding behaviour and faunal composition.
Anophelines were sampled bimonthly in four urban and peri-urban sites in the city of Porto Velho, state of Rondônia, Brazil. The average number of captured mosquitoes was compared between an PHLC (gold standard), a tent trap (Gazetrap), and a barrier screen by means of generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), which also included season and environment (peri-urban/urban) as predictors.
Overall, 2962 Anopheles individuals belonging to 12 species and one complex were caught; Anopheles darlingi represented 86% of the individuals. More mosquitoes were captured in the peri-urban setting, and the urban setting was more diverse. The model estimates that significantly more anophelines were collected by PHLC than by the Screen method, and Gazetrap captured fewer individuals. However, the Screen technique yielded more blood-engorged females. The peak hours of biting activity were from 6 to 7 p.m. in urban areas and from 7 to 8 p.m. in peri-urban areas.
Although peri-urban settings presented a greater abundance of anophelines, Shannon and Simpson diversities were higher in urban sites. Each technique proved to be useful, depending on the purpose: PHLC was more effective in capturing the highest anopheline densities, Gazetrap caught the greatest number of species, and the barrier screen technique captured more engorged individuals. There was no seasonal effect on Anopheles assemblage structure; however, a more diverse fauna was caught in the transitional season. Biting activity was more intense from 6 to 8 p.m., with a predominance of An. darlingi.
为了防止按蚊滋生(或传播到新的地区)和阻断疟疾传播,必须进行连续的矢量监测和可持续的干预。在巴西亚马逊地区的一个中等城市,比较了保护人类着陆捕获技术(PHLC)和替代采样方法在不同季节期间在城市和城郊疟疾焦点的按蚊丰度和丰富度。还评估了雌性摄食行为和动物区系组成的其他信息。
在巴西朗多尼亚州波多韦柳市的四个城市和城郊地区,每两个月用 PHLC(金标准)、帐篷陷阱(Gazetrap)和屏障筛子对按蚊进行采样。通过广义线性混合模型(GLMM)比较捕获的平均蚊子数量,该模型还包括季节和环境(城郊/城市)作为预测因子。
总共捕获了 2962 只属于 12 个物种和一个复合体的按蚊个体;按蚊 darlingi 占个体的 86%。在城郊地区捕获的蚊子更多,城市地区的多样性更高。模型估计 PHLC 比 Screen 法收集的按蚊多,而 Gazetrap 捕获的个体较少。然而,Screen 技术产生了更多的吸血雌性。吸血活动的高峰时间是城市地区下午 6 点到 7 点,城郊地区是下午 7 点到 8 点。
尽管城郊地区的按蚊丰度较高,但城市地区的 Shannon 和 Simpson 多样性更高。每种技术都有其用途:PHLC 更有效地捕获最高的按蚊密度,Gazetrap 捕获了最多的物种,而屏障筛技术捕获了更多的吸血个体。按蚊群落结构没有季节性影响;然而,过渡季节捕获的动物区系更多样化。从下午 6 点到 8 点,吸血活动更为强烈,以 darlingi 属按蚊为主。