首页> 外文期刊>Parasites Vectors >Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors
【24h】

Comparative evaluation of the Sticky-Resting-Box-Trap, the standardised resting-bucket-trap and indoor aspiration for sampling malaria vectors

机译:粘滞盒式诱捕器,标准化的静止桶式诱捕器和室内采样疟疾媒介取样的比较评估

获取原文
           

摘要

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.
机译:背景技术了解蚊子的静止行为对于控制媒介传播的疾病很重要,但是由于缺乏有效的采样工具,这仍然是一个挑战。我们评估了该领域中的两种新颖的采样方法:粘性静止箱(SRB)和静止桶式捕虫器(RBu),以测试它们在坦桑尼亚农村地区的室外和房屋内部的疟疾媒介取样的效率。在户外比较RBu和SRB的性能,而在室内将SRB与背包吸气法(BP)进行比较。诱捕活动在坦桑尼亚的Kilombero山谷的4个村庄进行了14个晚上。每天晚上,在室外的SRB和RBu以及在室内的4个重点家庭中的2个中,通过SRB或固定时间Back Pack抽吸器比较4个家庭中按蚊矢量和葫芦科细菌的收集性能。调查结果冈比亚按蚊共619例,funestus菌224例。并捕获了1737只Culicinae蚊子。 An的平均丰度。阿拉伯和安南Funestus s.l.在室内和室外使用SRB收集器收集的水量明显低于BP或RBu。然而,SRB的效果优于BP在室内收集葫芦科植物的愿望。结论在室内试验的方法(BP和SRB)中,BP是最有效的,而室外RBu的性能要好于SRB。但是,由于SRB可以在一周内对蚊子进行被动采样,因此可以提供RBu的替代方案,因为后者无法进行每日监测。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号