AIMSurv: First pan-European harmonized surveillance of Aedes invasive mosquito species of relevance for human vector-borne diseases

Human and animal vector-borne diseases, particularly mosquito-borne diseases, are emerging or re-emerging worldwide. Six Aedes invasive mosquito (AIM) species were introduced to Europe since the 1970s: Aedes aegypti, Ae. albopictus, Ae. japonicus, Ae. koreicus, Ae. atropalpus and Ae. triseriatus. Here, we report the results of AIMSurv2020, the first pan-European surveillance effort for AIMs. Implemented by 42 volunteer teams from 24 countries. And presented in the form of a dataset named “AIMSurv Aedes Invasive Mosquito species harmonized surveillance in Europe. AIM-COST Action. Project ID: CA17108”. AIMSurv2020 harmonizes field surveillance methodologies for sampling different AIMs life stages, frequency and minimum length of sampling period, and data reporting. Data include minimum requirements for sample types and recommended requirements for those teams with more resources. Data are published as a Darwin Core archive in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility- Spain, comprising a core file with 19,130 records (EventID) and an occurrences file with 19,743 records (OccurrenceID). AIM species recorded in AIMSurv2020 were Ae. albopictus, Ae. japonicus and Ae. koreicus, as well as native mosquito species

Assessment of expertise in morphological identification of mosquito species (Diptera, Culicidae) using photomicrographs

International audienceAccurate identification of insect species is an indispensable and challenging requirement for every entomologist, particularly if the species is involved in disease outbreaks. The European MediLabSecure project designed an identification (ID) exercise available to any willing participant with the aim of assessing and improving knowledge in mosquito taxonomy. The exercise was based on high-definition photomicrographs of mosquitoes (26 adult females and 12 larvae) collected from the western Palaearctic. Sixty-five responses from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East were usable. The study demonstrated that the responders were better at identifying females (82% correct responses) than larvae (63%). When the responders reported that they were sure of the accuracy of their ID, the success rate of ID increased (92% for females and 88% for larvae). The top three tools used for ID were MosKeyTool (72% of responders), the ID key following Becker et al. [2010. Mosquitoes and their control, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer] (38%), and the CD-ROM of Schaffner et al. [2001. Les moustiques d’Europe: logiciel d’identification et d’enseignement – The mosquitoes of Europe: an identification and training programme. Montpellier: IRD; EID] (32%), while other tools were used by less than 10% of responders. Responders reporting the identification of mosquitoes using the MosKeyTool were significantly better (80% correct responses) than non-MosKeyTool users (69%). Most responders (63%) used more than one ID tool. The feedback from responders in this study was positive, with the exercise being perceived as halfway between educational training and a fun quiz. It raised the importance of further expanding training in mosquito ID for better preparedness of mosquito surveillance and control programmes