The Effects of Boric Acid Sugar Bait on \u3ci\u3eWolbachia\u3c/i\u3e Trans-Infected Male \u3ci\u3eAedes albopictus\u3c/i\u3e (ZAP Males\u3csup\u3e®\u3c/sup\u3e) in Laboratory Conditions

The field release of Wolbachia trans-infected male mosquitoes, as well as the use of toxic sugar baits, is a novel and promising candidate technique for integrated mosquito management programs. However, the methods of action of the two techniques may not be complementary, because the Wolbachia method releases mosquitoes into the environment expecting a wild population reduction in subsequent generations while the toxic baits are intended to reduce the wild population by killing mosquitoes. This laboratory study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of boric acid toxic sugar baits on Wolbachia trans-infected male Aedes albopictus, relative to wild-type Ae. albopictus males. Wolbachia trans-infected (ZAP male®) and the wild-type Ae. albopictus males were exposed separately to 1% boric acid in a 10% sucrose solution in BugDorms. In the control test, the two groups were exposed to 10% sucrose solution without boric acid. Percent mortalities were counted for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h post exposure periods. The results show that 1% boric acid toxic sugar bait can effectively kill ZAP males under laboratory conditions, and the effectiveness was significantly higher after 24 h and 48 h, compared to wild-type male Ae. albopictus. This finding will help in planning and coordinating integrated mosquito management programs, including both Wolbachia trans-infected mosquito releases and the use of toxic sugar baits against Ae. albopictus

Control of sand flies with attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) and potential impact on non-target organisms in Morocco

International audienceBackground: The persistence and geographical expansion of leishmaniasis is a major public health problem that requires the development of effective integrated vector management strategies for sand fly control. Moreover, these strategies must be economically and environmentally sustainable approaches that can be modified based on the current knowledge of sand fly vector behavior. The efficacy of using attractive toxic sugar baits (ATSB) for sand fly control and the potential impacts of ATSB on non-target organisms in Morocco was investigated. Methods: Sand fly field experiments were conducted in an agricultural area along the flood plain of the Ourika River. Six study sites (600 m x 600 m); three with ``sugar rich'' (with cactus hedges bearing countless ripe fruits) environments and three with ``sugar poor'' (green vegetation only suitable for plant tissue feeding) environments were selected to evaluate ATSB, containing the toxin, dinotefuran. ATSB applications were made either with bait stations or sprayed on non-flowering vegetation. Control sites were established in both sugar rich and sugar poor environments. Field studies evaluating feeding on vegetation treated with attractive (non-toxic) sugar baits (ASB) by non-target arthropods were conducted at both sites with red stained ASB applied to non-flowering vegetation, flowering vegetation, or on bait stations. Results: At both the sites, a single application of ATSB either applied to vegetation or bait stations significantly reduced densities of both female and male sand flies (Phlebotomus papatasi and P. sergenti) for the five-week trial period. Sand fly populations were reduced by 82.8% and 76.9% at sugar poor sites having ATSB applied to vegetation or presented as a bait station, respectively and by 78.7% and 83.2%, respectively at sugar rich sites. The potential impact of ATSB on non-targets, if applied on green non-flowering vegetation and bait stations, was low for all non-target groups as only 1% and 0.7% were stained with non-toxic bait respectively when monitored after 24 hours. Conclusions: The results of this field study demonstrate ATSB effectively controls both female and male sand flies regardless of competing sugar sources. Furthermore, ATSB applied to foliar vegetation and on bait stations has low non-target impact

Altered behavioral responses of Sindbis virus-infected Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to DEET and non-DEET based insect repellents

Changes in the time to first bite (TFB) and the bloodfeeding behavior of adult female . Aedes aegypti (L.) mosquitoes following dissemination of Sindbis virus (SINV) were observed after exposure to repellents with the active ingredients (AI) DEET, picaridin, 2-undecanone (2-U), and oil of lemon eucalyptus. Dissemination of SINV significantly decreased (. P\u3c. 0.0001) the TFB of DEET (15%) and picaridin (15%) by 46% and 37%, respectively. Significant (. P\u3c. 0.0001) changes in activation, probing, and engorgement times were observed in SINV infected mosquitoes after exposure to the four repellents compared to uninfected mosquitoes. Taken together, a decrease in TFB and time to complete the four bloodfeeding stages will lessen the prey-status, and enhance both the chances of mosquito survival and arbovirus transmission. © 2012

Sindbis virus infection alters blood feeding responses and DEET repellency in aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)

Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) female mosquitoes infected systemically with Sindbis virus (SINV) took longer than uninfected mosquitoes to locate and fully engorge on blood. On days 7 and 14 postexposure, blood feeding took 1.3 and 1.5 times longer in mosquitoes with a disseminated SINV infection, respectively. SINV dissemination did not affect the average weight of unfed Ae. aegypti, but did result in a 10 and 12% increase in blood imbibed compared with mosquitoes without a positive SINV dissemination and non-SINV-exposed mosquitoes, respectively. Ae. aegypti mosquitoes with a disseminated SINV infection fed an average of 4 h sooner than uninfected mosquitoes when offered a bloodmeal contained inside a DEET (N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide) saturated (30%) bovine sausage casing. Together, these results indicate that behavioral changes in mosquito host-seeking, blood feeding and sensitivity to DEET occurred in mosquitoes after SINV infection and dissemination. © 2012 Entomological Society of America

Expanding Integrated Vector Management to promote healthy environments

Integrated Vector Management (IVM) strategies are intended to protect communities from pathogen transmission by arthropods. These strategies target multiple vectors and different ecological and socioeconomic settings, but the aggregate benefits of IVM are limited by the narrow focus of its approach; IVM strategies aim only to control arthropod vectors. We argue that IVM should encompass environmental modifications at early stages - for instance, infrastructural development and sanitation services - to regulate not only vectors but also nuisance biting arthropods. An additional focus on nuisance biting arthropods will improve public health and quality of life and minimize social-disparity issues fostered by pests. Optimally, IVM could incorporate environmental awareness and promotion of control methods proactively to reduce threats of serious pest situations

The Effects of Boric Acid Sugar Bait on Wolbachia Trans-Infected Male Aedes albopictus (ZAP Males®) in Laboratory Conditions

The field release of Wolbachia trans-infected male mosquitoes, as well as the use of toxic sugar baits, is a novel and promising candidate technique for integrated mosquito management programs. However, the methods of action of the two techniques may not be complementary, because the Wolbachia method releases mosquitoes into the environment expecting a wild population reduction in subsequent generations while the toxic baits are intended to reduce the wild population by killing mosquitoes. This laboratory study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of boric acid toxic sugar baits on Wolbachia trans-infected male Aedes albopictus, relative to wild-type Ae. albopictus males. Wolbachia trans-infected (ZAP male®) and the wild-type Ae. albopictus males were exposed separately to 1% boric acid in a 10% sucrose solution in BugDorms. In the control test, the two groups were exposed to 10% sucrose solution without boric acid. Percent mortalities were counted for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h post exposure periods. The results show that 1% boric acid toxic sugar bait can effectively kill ZAP males under laboratory conditions, and the effectiveness was significantly higher after 24 h and 48 h, compared to wild-type male Ae. albopictus. This finding will help in planning and coordinating integrated mosquito management programs, including both Wolbachia trans-infected mosquito releases and the use of toxic sugar baits against Ae. albopictus

A Review of Studies Evaluating Insecticide Barrier Treatments for Mosquito Control From 1944 to 2018

Background and Purpose: Barrier insecticide treatments have a long history in mosquito control programs but have been used more frequently in the United States in recent years for control of invasive "backyard" species (eg, Aedes albopictus) and increases in incidence of vector-borne diseases (eg, Zika).Methods: We reviewed the published literature for studies investigating barrier treatments for mosquito control during the last 74 years (1944-2018). We searched databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to retrieve worldwide literature on barrier treatments.Results: Forty-four studies that evaluated 20 active ingredients (AIs) and 21 formulated products against multiple mosquito species are included. Insecticides investigated for efficacy included organochlorines (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], β-hexachlorocyclohexane [BHC]), organophosphates (malathion), and pyrethroids (bifenthrin, deltamethrin, permethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin) as AIs. Study design varied with multiple methods used to evaluate effectiveness of barrier treatments. Barrier treatments were effective at lowering mosquito populations although there was variation between studies and for different mosquito species. Factors other than AI, such as exposure to rainfall and application equipment used, also influenced control efficacy.Conclusions: Many of the basic questions on the effectiveness of barrier insecticide applications have been answered, but several important details still must be investigated to improve precision and impact on vector-borne pathogen transmission. Recommendations are made to assist future evaluations of barrier treatments for mosquito control and to limit the potential development of insecticide resistance