Effectiveness of Mosquito Traps in Measuring Species Abundance and Composition

Abstract

Mosquito species abundance and composition estimates provided by trapping devices are commonly used to guide control efforts, but knowledge of trap biases is necessary for accurately interpreting results. We tested the hypothesis that commercially available traps (Mosquito Magnet-Pro, the Mosquito Magnet-X) would be significant improvements over the CDC Miniature Light Trap with respect to abundance, species diversity, and measures of recruitment in a wooded area of the Bronx Zoo in New York City, NY. The Mosquito Magnet-Pro collected significantly more mosquitoes (n = 1,117; mean per night, 124 +/- 28.3) than the CDC Miniature Light Trap (n = 167; mean per night, 19 +/- 5.5). The Simpson's diversity index was greatest for the Mosquito Magnet-Pro. A CDC light trap from a simultaneous surveillance project was located 15 m away and used as a control trap to test for significant differences in mosquito counts on nights with or without the experimental traps. There were no significant differences between nights, indicating the test traps did not recruit beyond 15 m. The traps differed significantly in abundance, but they had similarly limited sampling areas. Measured differences in abundance were independent of differences in diversity. This study highlights how differences between traps might affect species abundance and composition estimates.

Mosquito Biodiversity Patterns Around Urban Environments in South-Central Okinawa Island, Japan

“…Therefore, monitoring mosquito biodiversity is an important task in this area. Finally, our results suggest that although LTs sample most of the species in a mosquito community (Brown et al 2008), only the combination of several sampling methods provides a comprehensive description of a local mosquito faunal composition.…”

Can Mosquito Magnet® substitute for human-landing catches to sample anopheline populations?

“…Several studies have shown that Mosquito Magnet ® (MM) traps (American Biophysics Corporation, North Kingstown, RI) are more efficient than CDC light traps baited with CO 2 and/or octenol to collect mosquitoes (Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Hoel et al 2009, Dusfour et al 2010, Hiwat et al 2011a). Although it has been shown that the traps can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance, the MM traps are marketed for the control of blood-seeking insects in residential areas (mosquitomagnet.com), although the traps have shown that can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance (Pucci et al 2003, Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Kitau et al 2009.…”

“…Although it has been shown that the traps can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance, the MM traps are marketed for the control of blood-seeking insects in residential areas (mosquitomagnet.com), although the traps have shown that can be used for mosquito control and routine surveillance (Pucci et al 2003, Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Kitau et al 2009. The MM trap is battery operated and utilises CO 2 , one of the products of the catalysis of propane gas, as an attractant (Kline 1999).…”

“…In contrast, Henderson et al (2006) could not demonstrate that the continuous operation of the Mosquito Magnet Pro Model in urban and rural areas of Manitoba, Canada, significantly reduced the activity of Aedes vexans (Meigen), Ochlerotatus sticticus (Meigen) and Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker). In general, MM traps are more efficient for mosquito surveillance than CDC light traps (Brown et al 2008, Xu et al 2008, Hoel et al 2009, Hiwat et al 2011a). Nevertheless, in Latin America the use of MM trap has been limited to surveillance of West Nile virus in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Farfan-Ale et al 2009) and was evaluated to collect anophelines in Suriname (Hiwat et al 2011a, b) and French Guiana (Dusfour et al 2010).…”

Biodiversidade de Culicidae e sua interação com arboviroses e malária na Mata Atlântica

“…Previous studies have determined that Aedes sp. were attracted at distances of 3 and 7 m from the CO 2 source (McIver & McElligott 1989) and that CDC-LTs placed 15 m apart act as independent traps (Brown et al 2008). Therefore, to avoid interference among traps, they were placed approximately 16 m apart.…”