Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:40:29.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The range of attraction of single baits for some West African mosquitoes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. T. Gillies
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, England
T. J. Wilkes
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, England

Extract

Field experiments were conducted in the Gambia to measure the convergence of mosquitoes towards single bait-animals (calf or man) or to an equivalent source of carbon dioxide, the mosquitoes being caught in ramp-traps. Catches of unfed females of Anopheles melas Theo. fell off steeply with increasing distance up to 15 yd from animal bait; with carbon dioxide as bait, raised catches were only recorded out to 10 yd. Catches of other Anopheles spp. with calf-bait gave similar results to those for A. melas. A positive effect of the calf on densities at 15 yd was obtained for Culex tritaeniorhynchus Giles but this was less clear-cut in the case of C. thalassius Theo.; with carbon dioxide as bait, raised catches of both species were recorded at 10 yd but not at 15 yd. Both types of bait gave raised catches of the C. decens group only at 5 yd. It is concluded that A. melas and other Anopheles spp. were detecting and responding to the single animal bait from 15–20 yd, C. tritaeniorhynchus and C. thalassius from 10–20 yd, and the C. decens group from 5 yd. In all except the last named group, as also for the other Anopheles spp., on which data are lacking, the range of attraction of carbon dioxide was less than 15 yd. Olfactory cues were therefore held to be responsible for long-range orientation in these three species of mosquitoes, the effect being most marked with A. melas.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

Coluzzi, M. (1964). Morphological divergences in the Anopheles gambiae complex.—Riv. Malar. 43, 197232.Google ScholarPubMed
Freyvogel, T. A. (1961). Ein Beitrag zu den Problemen urn die Blutmahlzeit von Stechmücken.—Acta trop. 18, 201251.Google Scholar
Gillies, M. T. (1969). The ramp-trap, an unbaited device for flight studies of mosquitoes.—Mosquito News 29, 189193.Google Scholar
Gillies, M. T. & Snow, W. F. (1968). Trials of unbaited flight-traps for mosquitoes in the Gambia.—Trans. R. Soc. Med. Hyg. 62, 469470.Google Scholar
Gillies, M. T. & Wilkes, T. J. (1969). A comparison of the range of attraction of animal baits and of carbon dioxide for some West African mosquitoes.—Bull. ent. Res. 59, 441456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, M. N., Varma, M. G. R., Mahadevan, S. & Meers, P. D. (1969). Arbovirus infections in Sarawak: observations on mosquitoes in the premonsoon period, September to December 1966.—J. med. Ent. 6, 398406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hocking, B. (1963). The use of attractants and repellents in vector control.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 29 suppl., 121126.Google ScholarPubMed
Khan, A. A., Maibach, H. I., Strauss, W. G. & Fenley, W. R. (1966). Quantitation of effect of several stimuli on the approach of Aedes aegypti.—J. econ. Ent. 59, 690694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennington, N. E. & Phelps, C. A. (1968). Identification of the host range of Culex tritaeniorhynchus mosquitoes on Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands.—J. med. Ent. 5, 483487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wada, Y., Kawai, S., Ito, S., Oda, T., Nishigaki, J., Omori, N., Hayashi, K., Mifune, K. & Shichijo, A. (1967). Ecology of vector mosquitoes of Japanese encephalitis, especially of Culex tritaeniorhynchus. 1. Results obtained in 1965.—Trop. Med. 9, 4557.Google Scholar