Background Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are highly effective tools for controlling malaria transmission in Africa because the most important vectors, from the Anopheles gambiae complex and the A. funestus group, usually prefer biting humans indoors at night.Methods Matched surveys of mosquito and human behaviour from six rural sites in Burkina Faso, Tanzania, Zambia, and Kenya, with ITN use ranging from 0.2% to 82.5%, were used to calculate the proportion of human exposure to An. gambiae sensu lato and An. funestus s.l. that occurs indoors (πi), as an indicator of the upper limit of personal protection that indoor vector control measures can provide. This quantity was also estimated through use of a simplified binary analysis (πiB) so that the proportions of mosquitoes caught indoors (Pi), and between the first and last hours at which most people are indoors (Pfl) could also be calculated as underlying indicators of feeding by mosquitoes indoors or at night, respectively.Results The vast majority of human exposure to Anopheles bites occurred indoors (πiB = 0.79–1.00). Neither An. gambiae s.l. nor An. funestus s.l. strongly preferred feeding indoors (Pi = 0.40–0.63 and 0.22–0.69, respectively), but they overwhelmingly preferred feeding at times when most humans were indoors (Pfl = 0.78–1.00 and 0.86–1.00, respectively).Conclusions These quantitative summaries of behavioural interactions between humans and mosquitoes constitute a remarkably consistent benchmark with which future observations of vector behaviour can be compared. Longitudinal monitoring of these quantities is vital to evaluate the effectiveness of ITNs and IRS and the need for complementary measures that target vectors outdoors.
BackgroundMeasurement of densities of host-seeking malaria vectors is important for estimating levels of disease transmission, for appropriately allocating interventions, and for quantifying their impact. The gold standard for estimating mosquito—human contact rates is the human landing catch (HLC), where human volunteers catch mosquitoes that land on their exposed body parts. This approach necessitates exposure to potentially infectious mosquitoes, and is very labour intensive. There are several safer and less labour-intensive methods, with Centers for Disease Control light traps (LT) placed indoors near occupied bed nets being the most widely used.MethodsThis paper presents analyses of 13 studies with paired mosquito collections of LT and HLC to evaluate these methods for their consistency in sampling indoor-feeding mosquitoes belonging to the two major taxa of malaria vectors across Africa, the Anopheles gambiae sensu lato complex and the Anopheles funestus s.l. group. Both overall and study-specific sampling efficiencies of LT compared with HLC were computed, and regression methods that allow for the substantial variations in mosquito counts made by either method were used to test whether the sampling efficacy varies with mosquito density.ResultsGenerally, LT were able to collect similar numbers of mosquitoes to the HLC indoors, although the relative sampling efficacy, measured by the ratio of LT:HLC varied considerably between studies. The overall best estimate for An. gambiae s.l. was 1.06 (95% credible interval: 0.68–1.64) and for An. funestus s.l. was 1.37 (0.70–2.68). Local calibration exercises are not reproducible, since only in a few studies did LT sample proportionally to HLC, and there was no geographical pattern or consistent trend with average density in the tendency for LT to either under- or over-sample.ConclusionsLT are a crude tool at best, but are relatively easy to deploy on a large scale. Spatial and temporal variation in mosquito densities and human malaria transmission exposure span several orders of magnitude, compared to which the inconsistencies of LT are relatively small. LT, therefore, remain an invaluable and safe alternative to HLC for measuring indoor malaria transmission exposure in Africa.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12936-015-0761-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
SUMMARY Laboratory experimentation forms the basis for most of our knowledge of the biology of many organisms, in particular insects. However, the accuracy with which laboratory-derived estimates of insect life history and behaviour can predict their fitness and population dynamics in the wild is rarely validated. Such comparison is especially important in cases where laboratory-derived information is used to formulate and implement strategies for the genetic control of insects in nature. We have conducted a comparative study of the reproductive potential and life history of male Anopheles gambiaeGilies sensu lato mosquitoes from both standardized laboratory conditions and from natural field settings. We measured three indirect indicators of male mosquito fitness: energetic reserves, body size and survival, in a bid to determine whether the demographics and energetic limitations of wild males can be correctly predicted from their laboratory counterparts. Crucially, the body size and lipid reserves of wild males were substantially greater than those reared under standard laboratory conditions. We caution that the energetic limitations of insects as identified in the laboratory may underestimate their resilience in the wild, and discuss the implications of this phenomenon with respect to vector-borne disease control programmes based on genetic control of mosquitoes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.