Artificial resting sites: An alternative sampling method for adult mosquitoes.

Mosquito collections are commonly conducted with baited traps predominantly attracting host-seeking females. In contrast, resting sites are generally colonized by a broader range of the mosquito population, including a higher proportion of males and blood-engorged females. This study evaluates the sampling success of different artificial resting sites, attached to a deciduous or coniferous tree at different heights. As standard sampling method, carbon dioxide-baited Biogents Sentinel traps (BG traps) were operated in parallel. BG traps caught a higher number of specimens compared to the resting sites. However, the proportion of blood-engorged females and males was higher in resting sites. More Culiseta spp. specimens were collected in resting sites compared to BG traps, but less Aedes spp. specimens. In general, fewer specimens and species were recorded in small resting sites and at top height level compared to medium or large resting sites at medium or ground level. The proportion of males was highest at the ground, while the proportion of engorged females was highest at medium and top level. Due to the higher proportion of blood-engorged females, artificial resting sites are especially useful for studies of host-feeding patterns or xenosurveillance. Low costs and efforts allow a cost-effective increase of the number of resting sites per sampling site to collect more mosquitoes.

Comparative analysis of subsampling methods for large mosquito samples.

BACKGROUND: The analysis of large mosquito samples is expensive and time-consuming, delaying the efficient timing of vector control measurements. Processing a fraction of a sample using a subsampling method can significantly reduce the processing effort. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the reliability of different subsampling methods is missing. METHODS: A total of 23 large mosquito samples (397-4713 specimens per sample) were compared in order to evaluate five subsampling methods for the estimation of the number of specimens and species: area, volume, weight, selection of 200 random specimens and analyses with an image processing software. Each sample was distributed over a grid paper (21.0 × 29.7 cm; 25 grid cells of 4.2 × 5.9 cm) with 200 randomly distributed points. After taking pictures, mosquito specimens closest to each of the 200 points on the paper were selected. All mosquitoes per grid cell were identified by morphology and transferred to scaled tubes to estimate the volume. Finally, the fresh and dry weights were determined. RESULTS: The estimated number of specimens and species did not differ between the area-, volume- and weight-based method. Subsampling 20% of the sample gave an error rate of approximately 12% for the number of specimens, 6% for the proportion of the most abundant species and between 6-40% for the number of species per sample. The error for the estimated number of specimens using the picture processing software ImageJ gave a similar error rate when analyzing 15-20% of the total sample. By using 200 randomly selected specimens it was possible to give a precise estimation of the proportion of the most abundant species (r = 0.97, P < 0.001), but the number of species per sample was underestimated by 28% on average. Selecting adjacent grid cells instead of sampling randomly chosen grid cells and using dry weight instead of wet weight did not increase the accuracy of estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Different subsampling methods have various advantages and disadvantages. However, the area-based analysis of 20% of the sample is probably the most suitable approach for most kinds of mosquito studies, giving sufficiently precise estimations of the number of specimens and species, which is slightly less laborious compared to the other methods tested.