The effectiveness of five mosquito traps at sampling anopheline mosquitoes was compared with landing/biting (L/B) collections in western Thailand. Traps evaluated included a CDC style light trap (CDC LT) with dry ice, the American Biophysics Corporation (ABC) standard light trap (ABC LT) with dry ice and octenol, the ABC counterflow geometry (CFG) trap with dry ice and octenol, the ABC mosquito magnet (MM) trap with octenol, and the Nicosia and Reinhardt Company Mosquito Attractor Device (N&R trap). Mosquito numbers captured in landing-biting collections were 5.2, 7.0, 7.3, 31.1, and 168.8 times greater than those collected in the ABC LT, MM, CDC LT, CFG, and N&R traps, respectively, for Anopheles minimus Theobald, the predominant malaria vector in the region. Similar results were obtained for the secondary malaria vectors Anopheles maculatus Theobald and Anopheles sawadwongporni Rattanarithikul & Green. Only Anopheles kochi Doenitz was collected in significantly greater numbers in the CDC LT, ABC LT, and MM traps compared with L/B collections. Although none of the traps were as effective as L/B collections, the ABC LT, MM, and CDC LT were the best alternatives to human bait for the collection of anopheline malaria vectors in Thailand.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 41 • No. 2