Comparative evaluation of the sticky-resting-box-trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors

Kreppel, K.S., Johnson, P.C.D. , Govella, N.J., Pombi, M., Maliti, D. and Ferguson, H.M. (2015) Comparative evaluation of the sticky-resting-box-trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors. Parasites and Vectors, 8, 462. (doi:10.1186/s13071-015-1066-0) (PMID:26383620) (PMCID:PMC4573490)

[img]
Preview
Text
110742.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

918kB

Abstract

Background Understanding mosquito resting behaviour is important for the control of vector-borne diseases, but this remains a challenge because of the paucity of efficient sampling tools. We evaluated two novel sampling methods in the field: the Sticky Resting Box (SRB) and the Resting Bucket trap (RBu) to test their efficiency for sampling malaria vectors resting outdoors and inside houses in rural Tanzania. The performance of RBu and SRB was compared outdoors, while indoors SRB were compared with the Back Pack Aspiration method (BP). Trapping was conducted within 4 villages in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania over 14 nights. On each night, the performance for collecting Anopheles vectors and Culicinae was compared in 4 households by SRB and RBu outdoors and by SRB or fixed-time Back Pack aspirator in 2 of the 4 focal households indoors. Findings A total of 619 Anopheles gambiae s.l., 224 Anopheles funestus s.l. and 1737 Culicinae mosquitoes were captured. The mean abundance of An. arabiensis and An. funestus s.l. collected with SRB traps inside and outdoors was significantly lower than with BP or RBu. The SRB however, outperformed BP aspiration for collection of Culicinae indoors. Conclusions Of the methods trialled indoors (BP and SRB), BP was the most effective, whilst outdoors RBu performed much better than SRB. However, as SRB can passively sample mosquitoes over a week they could provide an alternative to the RBu where daily monitoring is not possible.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Johnson, Dr Paul and Ferguson, Professor Heather and Kreppel, Dr Katharina
Authors: Kreppel, K.S., Johnson, P.C.D., Govella, N.J., Pombi, M., Maliti, D., and Ferguson, H.M.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Biodiversity Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
Journal Name:Parasites and Vectors
ISSN:1756-3305
ISSN (Online):1756-3305
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2015 Kreppel et al.
First Published:First published in Parasites and Vectors 8:462
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record