Comparative efficacy of three suction traps for collecting phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) in open habitats

Abstract

The efficacy of three suction traps for trapping phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) was compared. Traps were baited with Co 2 and used without any light source. Co 2 -baited CDC traps were evaluated either in their standard downdraft orientation or inverted (iCDC traps). Mosquito Magnet-X (MMX) counterflow geometry traps were tested in the updraft orientation only. Both updraft traps (iCDC and MMX) were deployed with their opening ~10 cm from the ground while the opening of the downdraft (CDC) trap was ~40 cm above ground. Comparisons were conducted in two arid locations where different sand fly species prevail. In the Jordan Valley, 3,367 sand flies were caught, 2,370 of which were females. The predominant species was Phlebotomus (Phlebotomus) papatasi, Scopoli 1786 (>99%). The updraft-type traps iCDC and MMX caught an average of 118 and 67.1 sand flies per trap night, respectively. The CDC trap caught 32.9 sand flies on average per night, significantly less than the iCDC traps. In the Judean desert, traps were arranged in a 3×3 Latin square design. A total of 565 sand flies were caught, 345 of which were females. The predominant species was P.

Attraction of Ethiopian phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) to light and sugar-yeast mixtures (CO2)

“…Such yields can be extremely laborious to process and in many cases the sand flies are damaged by the larger heavier insects. In our study, deployment of such traps in the up-draft position and use of lower voltage (3 V) reduced the number of heavier insects because the weaker pull of the motor combined with the upward direction, allowed the larger, stronger insects to escape [30]. …”

“…Suction traps deployed in the inverted (=updraft) orientation were previously shown to be more efficient at catching sand flies in open areas than traps deployed in the downdraft orientation [30]. In different experiments, traps were operated using either 6 V rechargeable batteries (standard CDC light traps) or two AA batteries (3 V) and augmented with one of five different means of attraction:…”

“…Moreover, CO 2 -baited traps have the added advantage that most moths and beetles are not attracted by CO 2 so the yield is usually considerably “cleaner” [29-32]. CO 2 for baiting traps is routinely supplied from either pressurized cylinders fitted with pressure valves or from dry ice [29,30]. Such traps typically emit CO 2 at concentrations that are roughly two orders of magnitude higher than background levels (20,000 vs. 400 ppm) [33].…”

“…Such traps typically emit CO 2 at concentrations that are roughly two orders of magnitude higher than background levels (20,000 vs. 400 ppm) [33]. Blood seeking female mosquitoes and sand flies are generally thought to respond to small changes in CO 2 concentration by flying upwind and maneuvering between concentration gradients and visual cues until reaching their target [30,34]. Unfortunately, neither dry ice nor pressurized gas cylinders are easily found in remote areas of developing countries where many leishmaniasis foci are found.…”

Comparative Field Evaluation of Different Traps for Collecting Adult Phlebotomine Sand Flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) in an Endemic Area of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Quintana Roo, Mexico

“…One of the most widely used was developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is known as the CDC light trap (Sudia and Chamberlain 1962). These CDC light traps have been used for the collection of phlebotomine sand flies with incandescent lamps (Hoel et al 2010); light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (Hoel et al 2007, Cohnstaedt et al 2008, Junnila et al 2011; and a combination of baits, e.g., CO 2 (Beavers et al 2004, Hoel et al 2011, octenol, and synthetic human odor BG-Mesh Lure (Andrade et al 2008); others have evaluated the CDC light trap with different forms of orientation, e.g., updraft and downdraft (Faiman et al 2009(Faiman et al , 2011. In other studies, CDC light traps were compared with human bait catches (Davies et al 1995), modified with visual features, e.g., black or white lids and catch bags , or modified with visual, physical, and chemical attraction features (Chaniotis 1983, Mü ller et al 2015.…”