During a small-scale surveillance project to identify possible routes of entry for invasive mosquitoes into Germany, 14 adult Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse) were discovered between July and October 2012. They were trapped at three different service stations in Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg located along two motorways that connect Germany with southern Europe. This indicates regular introduction of A. albopictus into Germany and highlights the need for a continuous surveillance and control programme.

To identify the vectors of bluetongue virus (BTV) in Germany, we monitored Culicoides spp. biting midges during April 2007–May 2008. Molecular characterization of batches of midges that tested positive for BTV suggests C. obsoletus sensu stricto as a relevant vector of bluetongue disease in central Europe.

BackgroundTo monitor adult mosquitoes several trapping devices are available. These are differently constructed and use various mechanisms for mosquito attraction, thus resulting in different trapping sensitivities and efficacies for the various species. Mosquito monitoring and surveillance programs in Europe use various types of mosquito traps, but only a few comparisons have been conducted so far. This study compared the performance of four commercial trapping devices, which are commonly used in Europe.MethodsFour different traps, Biogents Sentinel trap (BG trap), Heavy Duty Encephalitis Vector Survey trap (EVS trap), Centres for Disease Control miniature light trap (CDC trap) and Mosquito Magnet Patriot Mosquito trap (MM trap) were compared in a 4 × 4 latin square study. In the years 2012 and 2013, more than seventy 24-hour trap comparisons were conducted at ten different locations in northern and southern Germany, representing urban, forest and floodplain biotopes.ResultsPer 24-hour trapping period, the BG trap caught the widest range of mosquito species, the highest number of individuals of the genus Culex as well as the highest number of individuals of the species Ochlerotatus cantans, Aedes cinereus/geminus, Oc. communis and Culex pipiens/torrentium. The CDC trap revealed best performance for Aedes vexans, whereas the MM trap was most efficient for mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles and the species Oc. geniculatus. The EVS trap did not catch more individuals of any genus or species compared to the other three trapping devices. The BG trap caught the highest number of individuals per trapping period in urban environments as well as in wet forest, while the CDC trap caught the highest number of individuals in the floodplain biotopes. Additionally, the BG trap was most efficient for the number of mosquito species in urban locations.ConclusionThe BG trap showed a significantly better or similar performance compared to the CDC, EVS or MM trap with regard to trapping efficacy for most common mosquito species in Germany, including diversity of mosquito species and number of mosquitoes per trapping period. Thus, the BG trap is probably the best solution for general monitoring or surveillance programs of adult mosquitoes in Central Europe.

BackgroundBiting midges of the genus Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) are vectors of bluetongue virus (BTV), African horse sickness virus and Schmallenberg virus (SBV). Outbreaks of both BTV and SBV have affected large parts of Europe. The spread of these diseases depends largely on vector distribution and abundance. The aim of this analysis was to identify and quantify major spatial patterns and temporal trends in the distribution and seasonal variation of observed Culicoides abundance in nine countries in Europe.MethodsWe gathered existing Culicoides data from Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Poland. In total, 31,429 Culicoides trap collections were available from 904 ruminant farms across these countries between 2007 and 2013.ResultsThe Obsoletus ensemble was distributed widely in Europe and accounted for 83% of all 8,842,998 Culicoides specimens in the dataset, with the highest mean monthly abundance recorded in France, Germany and southern Norway. The Pulicaris ensemble accounted for only 12% of the specimens and had a relatively southerly and easterly spatial distribution compared to the Obsoletus ensemble. Culicoides imicola Kieffer was only found in Spain and the southernmost part of France. There was a clear spatial trend in the accumulated annual abundance from southern to northern Europe, with the Obsoletus ensemble steadily increasing from 4000 per year in southern Europe to 500,000 in Scandinavia. The Pulicaris ensemble showed a very different pattern, with an increase in the accumulated annual abundance from 1600 in Spain, peaking at 41,000 in northern Germany and then decreasing again toward northern latitudes. For the two species ensembles and C. imicola, the season began between January and April, with later start dates and increasingly shorter vector seasons at more northerly latitudes.ConclusionWe present the first maps of seasonal Culicoides abundance in large parts of Europe covering a gradient from southern Spain to northern Scandinavia. The identified temporal trends and spatial patterns are useful for planning the allocation of resources for international prevention and surveillance programmes in the European Union.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13071-018-2706-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Species reintroductions - the translocation of individuals to areas in which a species has been extirpated with the aim of re-establishing a self-sustaining population - have become a widespread practice in conservation biology. Reintroduction projects have tended to focus on terrestrial vertebrates and, to a lesser extent, fishes. Much less effort has been devoted to the reintroduction of invertebrates into restored freshwater habitats. Yet, reintroductions may improve restoration outcomes in regions where impoverished regional species pools limit the self-recolonisation of restored freshwaters. We review the available literature on macroinvertebrate reintroductions, focusing on identifying the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that determine their success or failure. Our study reveals that freshwater macroinvertebrate reintroductions remain rare, are often published in the grey literature and, of the attempts made, approximately one-third fail. We identify life-cycle complexity and remaining stressors as the two factors most likely to affect reintroduction success, illustrating the unique challenges of freshwater macroinvertebrate reintroductions. Consideration of these factors by managers during the planning process and proper documentation - even if a project fails - may increase the likelihood of successful outcomes in future reintroduction attempts of freshwater macroinvertebrates.