Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors
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 Buck...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2015-09-01
|
| Series: | Parasites & Vectors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1066-0 |
| _version_ | 1797811934040424448 |
|---|---|
| author | Katharina S. Kreppel P. C. D. Johnson N. J. Govella M. Pombi D. Maliti H. M. Ferguson |
| author_facet | Katharina S. Kreppel P. C. D. Johnson N. J. Govella M. Pombi D. Maliti H. M. Ferguson |
| author_sort | Katharina S. Kreppel |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T07:30:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-fa305bfa6ba444b7b2c8a979739e9c7a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1756-3305 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T07:30:02Z |
| publishDate | 2015-09-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Parasites & Vectors |
| spelling | doaj.art-fa305bfa6ba444b7b2c8a979739e9c7a2023-06-04T11:10:46ZengBMCParasites & Vectors1756-33052015-09-01811510.1186/s13071-015-1066-0Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectorsKatharina S. Kreppel0P. C. D. Johnson1N. J. Govella2M. Pombi3D. Maliti4H. M. Ferguson5Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of GlasgowInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of GlasgowEnvironmental Health and Ecological Sciences group, Ifakara Health InstituteDipartimento di Sanità Pubblica e Malattie Infettive, Università di Roma “Sapienza”Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of GlasgowInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of GlasgowAbstract 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.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1066-0Anopheles arabiensisMalaria vectorResting behaviourExophilySticky trapEcology |
| spellingShingle | Katharina S. Kreppel P. C. D. Johnson N. J. Govella M. Pombi D. Maliti H. M. Ferguson Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors Parasites & Vectors Anopheles arabiensis Malaria vector Resting behaviour Exophily Sticky trap Ecology |
| title | Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors |
| title_full | Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors |
| title_fullStr | Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors |
| title_short | Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors |
| title_sort | comparative evaluation of the sticky resting box trap the standardised resting bucket trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors |
| topic | Anopheles arabiensis Malaria vector Resting behaviour Exophily Sticky trap Ecology |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1066-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT katharinaskreppel comparativeevaluationofthestickyrestingboxtrapthestandardisedrestingbuckettrapandindooraspirationforsamplingmalariavectors AT pcdjohnson comparativeevaluationofthestickyrestingboxtrapthestandardisedrestingbuckettrapandindooraspirationforsamplingmalariavectors AT njgovella comparativeevaluationofthestickyrestingboxtrapthestandardisedrestingbuckettrapandindooraspirationforsamplingmalariavectors AT mpombi comparativeevaluationofthestickyrestingboxtrapthestandardisedrestingbuckettrapandindooraspirationforsamplingmalariavectors AT dmaliti comparativeevaluationofthestickyrestingboxtrapthestandardisedrestingbuckettrapandindooraspirationforsamplingmalariavectors AT hmferguson comparativeevaluationofthestickyrestingboxtrapthestandardisedrestingbuckettrapandindooraspirationforsamplingmalariavectors |