Translator Disclaimer
1 March 2016 Evaluating Surveillance Methods for Arboviral Vectors of La Crosse Virus and West Nile Virus of Southern Appalachia
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

To monitor mosquito-borne diseases, public health departments conduct mosquito and pathogen surveillance. Our objective was to evaluate mosquito monitoring methods for collecting La Crosse virus (LACV) and West Nile virus (WNV) vectors (Aedes and Culex mosquitoes, respectively) in southern Appalachia. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) light traps baited with carbon dioxide (CO2), CDC light traps baited with CO2 and BG lure, BG-Sentinel traps baited with CO2, gravid traps baited with oak (Quercus)–water infusion, and resting traps were compared in eastern Tennessee in 2013. Traps operated at 8 different urban sites throughout Knox County were randomly assigned to and rotated among 6 plots within each site. Results were specific for each vector; the BG-Sentinel trap was the best method for Aedes triseriatus, the CDC trap baited with CO2 and BG lure was the best method for Ae. albopictus, and the gravid trap was the best method for Ae. japonicus. Culex erraticus collections varied by week and trapping method, indicating no single method was best, but the questing traps collected more mosquitoes. There was no significant trapping difference for Cx. pipiens complex in this region using the methods tested. The results suggest using a combination of trapping methods when sampling for LACV and/or WNV mosquito vectors in southern Appalachia. Effective trapping methods are necessary to enable accurate surveillance, improve control methods, enhance understanding of dispersal, and use for early detection of vectors and pathogens.

Copyright © 2016 by The American Mosquito Control Association, Inc.
C. Urquhart, D. Paulsen, A. Moncayo, and R. T. Trout Fryxell "Evaluating Surveillance Methods for Arboviral Vectors of La Crosse Virus and West Nile Virus of Southern Appalachia," Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 32(1), 24-33, (1 March 2016). https://doi.org/10.2987/8756-971X-32.1.24
Published: 1 March 2016
JOURNAL ARTICLE
10 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top