Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-17T00:01:36.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attraction of Culex portesi Senevet & Abonnenc and Culex taeniopus Dyar & Knab (Diptera: Culicidae) to 20 animal species exposed in a Trinidad forest. I. Baits ranked by numbers of mosquitoes caught and engorged

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

John B. Davies
John B. Davies
Affiliation:
Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory, P.O. Box 164, Port of Spain,Trinidad, West Indies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an attempt to define the favoured hosts of Culex portesi Senevet & Abonnenc and C. taeniopus D. & K., one bat, ten rodents, four marsupials, two birds and one crustacean, one amphibian and one reptile were exposed in groups of six in suction traps located in a forest in Trinidad. Each group of six baits included two white mice as a standard. The numbers of mosquitoes caught at each bait on three or six replicate exposures were analysed by an analysis of variance to separate population and site variations. Baits were then compared for ‘attractiveness’ by ranking according to an adjusted mean catch for each mosquito species. The proportion of each mosquito species that engorged on individual baits was also determined. In some cases, attraction and engorgement varied widely, and this was attributed to defensive action on the part of the bait animal. It was concluded that C. taeniopus was particularly attracted by the opossum Didelphis, which was superior to all indigenous mammals, while C. portesi was attracted to a wide range of rodents and marsupials. Neither was attracted by the cold-blooded animals. Both mosquitoes engorged well on the relatively insensitive marsupials with long bare tails, Dideiphis, Marmosa and Caluromys, and also on the well-furred but diurnal squirrel. Of the mainly nocturnal remainder, Culex portesi showed higher engorgement rates than C. taeniopus, suggesting a more aggressive or persistent feeding behaviour.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , December 1978 , pp. 707 - 719
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aitken, T. H. G., Spence, L., Jonkers, A. H. & Downs, W. G. (1969). A 10-year study of Trinidadian anthropods for natural virus infections (1953–1963).—J. med. Ent. 6, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aitken, T. H. G., Worth, C. B. & Tikasingh, E. S. (1968). Arbovirus studies in Bush Bush Forest, Trinidad, W.I., 09 1959–12 1964. III. Entomologic studies.—Am. J. trop. Med. Hyg. 17, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beard, J. S. (1946). The natural vegetation of Trinidad.—Oxf. For. Mem. (1945) no. 20, 1–152.Google Scholar
Bellamy, R. E. & Reeves, W. C. (1952). A portable mosquito bait-trap.—Mosquito News 12, 256–258.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental designs.—616 pp. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Dalmat, H. T. (1955). The black flies (Diptera, Simuliidae) of Guatemala and their role as vectors of onchocerciasis.—Smithson. misc. Collns 125 (4), 1–425.Google Scholar
Davies, J. B. (1971). A small mosquito trap for use with animal or carbon dioxide baits.—Mosquito News 31, 441–443.Google Scholar
Davies, J. B. (1973). A simple battery operated suction trap for insects attracted to animal, light or chemical bait.—Mosquito News 33, 102–104.Google Scholar
De Kruijf, H. A. M. (1970). Aspects of the ecology of mosquitoes in relation to the transmission of arboviruses in Surinam.—Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Leiden.Google Scholar
Dow, R. P., Reeves, W. C. & Bellamy, R. E. (1957). Field tests of avian host preference of Culex tarsalis Coq.—Am. J. trop. Med. Hyg. 6, 294–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edman, J. D. & Kale, H. W., II (1971). Host behavior: its influence on the feeding success of mosquitoes.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 64, 513–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillies, M. T. & Wilkes, T. J. (1970). The range of attraction of single baits for some West African mosquitoes.—Bull. ent. Res. 60, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, R. O. (1961). Host preferences of Culiseta melanura and allied mosquitoes.—Mosquito News 21, 179–187.Google Scholar
Henderson, B. E. & Senior, L. (1961). Attack rate of Culex tarsalis on reptiles, amphibians and small mammals.—Mosquito News 21, 29–32.Google Scholar
Reid, J. A. (1961). The attraction of mosquitos by human or animal baits in relation to the transmission of disease.—Bull. ent. Res. 52, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, C. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical methods.—6th edn, 593 pp. Ames, Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Srihongse, S. & Galindo, P. (1967). The isolation of eastern equine encephalitis virus from Culex (Melanoconion) taeniopus Dyar and Knab in Panama.—Mosquito News 27, 74–76.Google Scholar
Walker, E. P., Warnick, F., Hamlet, S. E., Lange, K. I., Davies, M. A., Uible, H. E. & Wright, P. F. (1964). Mammals of the world, Vol. 1&2.—1500 pp. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Worth, C. B. & Jonkers, A. H. (1962). Two traps for mosquitoes attracted to small vertebrate animals.—Mosquito News 22, 18–21.Google Scholar