Next Article in Journal
Virulence of Beauveria bassiana Strains Isolated from Cadavers of Colorado Potato Beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata
Previous Article in Journal
Ecological Entomology: How Is Gibson’s Framework Useful?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/insects12121076
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparing Light—Emitting—Diodes Light Traps for Catching Anopheles Mosquitoes in a Forest Setting, Western Thailand

by
Pairpailin Jhaiaun
1,
Amonrat Panthawong
1,
Manop Saeung
1,
Anchana Sumarnrote
2,
Monthathip Kongmee
2,
Ratchadawan Ngoen-Klan
1 and
Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap
1,*
1
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
2
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom 73140, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2021, 12(12), 1076; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12121076
Submission received: 22 September 2021 / Revised: 24 November 2021 / Accepted: 25 November 2021 / Published: 30 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Pest and Vector Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

A field study was conducted in a forest to compare the effectiveness of light traps fitted with different bulbs across the wavelength spectrum. Ultraviolet (UV) fluorescent light was found to be most effective to collect adult Anopheles mosquitoes from 21:00 h to the pre-dawn hours in the dry season. These findings have important implications for monitoring vector density in the endemic malaria areas where other methods cannot be executed. A more comprehensive and systematic study of how mosquitoes respond to light would benefit Thailand’s national control program. Their potential for more precisely sampling vectors holds promise as a tool for mosquito monitoring endemic malaria areas and outbreak hotspots.

Abstract

Light traps are a common method for attracting and collecting arthropods, including disease vectors such as mosquitoes. Various types of traps have been used to monitor mosquitoes in a forest in Western Thailand. In this study, four Light Emitting Diodes (LED) light sources (UV, blue, green, and red) and two fluorescent lights (white and UV) were used to trap nocturnal adult mosquitoes. These traps were used with light alone and not any additional attractant. The experiment was conducted from 18:00 to 06:00 h. on six consecutive nights, every two months, across dry, wet, and cold seasons. All specimens were first identified by morphological features and subsequently confirmed by using PCR. We collected a total of 873 specimens of 31 species in four genera, Anopheles, Aedes, Culex, and Armigeres. Anopheles harrisoni was the predominant species, followed by Aedes albopictus, Culex brevipalpis, Culex nitropunctatus, and Armigeres (Leicesteria) longipalpis. UV fluorescent light was the most effective light source for capturing forest mosquitoes, followed by UV LED, blue LED, green LED, white fluorescent, and red LED. The optimal times for collection were from 21:00 to 03:00 h in the dry season. Our results demonstrate that appropriate sampling times and light sources should be selected for optimal efficiency in vector surveillance programs.

1. Introduction

Mosquitoes are well-recognized as important arthropod vectors that are responsible for transmitting many medically important pathogens and parasites, including viruses, bacteria, protozoans, and nematodes, which cause serious diseases, such as malaria, dengue, chikungunya, encephalitis, and filariasis [1]. Of these, malaria is a serious and sometimes fatal disease caused by a parasite transmitted to humans via Anopheles mosquitoes. Interventions can be implemented to mitigate and reduce the risk of infection and prevent disease. Long-lasting insecticidal nets and indoor residual spraying have long been used as the main interventions to combat malaria indoors [2]. Despite the efficacy of these methods, malaria cases still occur when vector mosquitoes evade control measures by feeding outdoors. Thus, controlling outdoor transmission represents a significant challenge, especially in Southeast Asia [3]. Mosquito sampling and monitoring are essential for developing disease control programs, and improving surveillance techniques will contribute to accelerating research efforts for preventing outdoor transmission.
Several approaches can be used to understand vector density and dynamics, including larval collection, light traps, and indoor resting collection [4,5]. Some techniques use humans or live animals as bait to attract adult female mosquitoes [6,7]. The cow-baited net trap, which involves placing a single adult cow inside an enclosure made of bed net, has been used to collect host-seeking mosquitoes that rest on the net after engorging a cow’s blood [8]. However, this may raise an ethical issue in some places, such as India, where cows are idolized. Hence, because these approaches pose a risk of infection during mosquito collection, alternative methods are needed for mosquito surveillance and monitoring. There are some traps that have been utilized together with synthetic compounds and other chemical cues to lure female adult mosquitoes [9,10]. Light traps are frequently used to catch large numbers of mosquitoes for laboratory studies, such as for virus isolation [11,12]. The type of light trap selected in mosquito studies is typically based on the need to catch as many mosquitoes of the desired species as possible [13]. Light trapping methods have been used for a many decades to monitor populations of mosquito vectors without live bait cues [14]. They are a relatively safe approach that circumvents the need for human contact with mosquitoes [15]. They also eliminate the often lengthy and burdensome requirement for ethical approval. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are often used in light traps because they are small and convenient to use, energy-efficient, and have superior battery longevity compared with incandescent bulbs [16]. Several studies have shown that LED lights can be used to attract various insects, including mosquitoes [15,17,18,19]. Many studies have used and assessed LEDs for mosquito trapping [10,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Mosquito responses to LED lights differ depending on the wavelengths of light emitted by a bulb; for example, green LED at 520 nm is a more attractive light source for Anopheles mosquitoes than blue LED at 470 nm [22]. However, information on attraction of LED light sources in Anopheles mosquitoes in Thailand is limited. In this study, we compared light traps equipped with fluorescent and LED light sources of different wavelengths for collecting adult mosquitoes in a forest setting.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

This study was conducted in the forest fringe area of Pu Teuy Village, Sai Yok District, Kanchanaburi Province (14°17′ N, 99°1′ E), approximately 250 km northwest of Bangkok. This area was selected based on a previous report that the region is inhabited by several species of Anopheles mosquitoes [27]. The region has a dry season (February to May), a wet season (May to October), and a cold season (November to February). Human activity is mostly related to agriculture, animal, farming, and forest activities.

2.2. Light Traps

The mosquito traps (Black Hole™ Mosquito Trap, Bio-Trap Inc., Seoul, Korea) used in this study were purchased from Pan Science Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand (Figure 1). The black plastic traps measure 25 × 25 × 32 cm and weigh 1.2 kg. The traps were equipped with an electrical fan [28] and an ultraviolet (UV) light source (two, 4-watt UV fluorescent bulbs) powered by an alternating current (AC) 220–240 V electrical system. The fluorescent light is the default light provided in the trap. Five traps were modified by replacing the factory-equipped light source with a 6-watt LED bulb representing the light spectrum (UV, blue, green, or red) or a 4-watt fluorescent bulb (white; Eve Lighting Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand). A total of six traps were used in the experiment, with the following wavelength emission band ranges: UV fluorescent (354–468 nm; light intensity, 63,913 arbitrary units (a.u.)), white fluorescent (277–400 nm; light intensity, 53,791 a.u.), blue LED (416–428 nm; light intensity, 63,294 a.u.), green LED (553–567 nm; light intensity, 61,040 a.u.), UV LED (377–384 nm; light intensity, 63,554 a.u.), and red LED (740–755 nm; light intensity, 62,154 a.u.).

2.3. Mosquito Collection

Six trapping locations were established in the study area, approximately 200 m apart. Each light trap was hung approximately 150 cm above the ground level [29]. The experiment was conducted on six consecutive nights in each of the following months: February and April (dry season), June and August (wet season), and October and December (cold season), in 2020. During each of six consecutive trapping nights, the light traps were rotated among the six locations, using a Latin square design. Mosquito collection was conducted over 12 h, from 18:00 to 06:00 h. Each night, mosquitoes were collected from each trap every 3 h (at 21:00 24:00, 03:00, and 06:00 h). The collected mosquitoes were placed in a −20 °C freezer for 60 s and then morphologically identified.

2.4. Morphological Species Identification

Mosquitoes were separated from other insects, carefully examined by using a stereomicroscope, and identified according to sex. Species were morphologically identified based on the external features of proboscis, maxillary palpus, scutum, wing vein, spiracular-setae, legs, abdomen, and scales, using a standard taxonomic key [30,31,32,33,34,35]. All primary Anopheles species, including the Anopheles minimus complex, Anopheles maculatus group, and Anopheles dirus complex, were then stored at −20 °C for molecular identification.

2.5. DNA Extraction

All laboratory work was performed at the Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. DNA from individual An. minimus complex, An. maculatus group, and An. dirus complex mosquitoes was extracted by using an EZNA® tissue DNA kit (Omega Bio-Tek, Norcross, GA, USA). The final elution volume for DNA extractions was 50 μL. Distilled water was used as a negative extraction control. DNA solutions were stored at −20 °C until further use [36].

2.6. Molecular Species Identification

Multiplex allele-specific PCR assay (AS-PCR) was used to examine the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) genomic DNA region (Table 1). Members of the Minimus Complex (An. aconitus, An. harrisoni, An. varuna, and An. minimus) were identified following the procedure of [37] and members of the Maculatus Group (An. maculatus, An. pseudowillmori, An. sawadwongporni, and An. dravidicus) and Dirus Complex (An. dirus, An. scanloni, An. cracens, An. baimaii, and An. nemophilous) were identified by following the procedures of References [38,39], respectively.

2.7. Data Analysis

The numbers of each mosquito species captured by six different light traps were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test by mean ranks. The efficacy of the traps to collect mosquitoes was evaluated by a generalized linear model (GLM). The total number of collected Anopheles mosquitoes per trap-night was treated as the response variable, and the light sources, seasons, and collection periods were defined as key factors. The goodness-of-fit model was validated by considering the deviance value; the optimal model was selected by mean deviance closest to one. The results from testing the model showed statistical significance for all tests with p < 0.05. To finalize, the parameter (key factor) that was a statistically significant predictor of the number of mosquitoes caught was used to determine the regression coefficients (B), standard errors, p-values, and 95% confidence intervals for the coefficients, using the Wald Chi-square test. Mosquito-trap efficacy was analyzed based on incidence rate ratio (IRR), which provided a standard incidence rate (IRR = 1) for comparison of variables. All data were analyzed by using the SPSS program (version 11.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

A total of 873 adult mosquitoes were captured during the 36 trapping nights. More females (n = 818; 93.70%) than males (n = 55; 6.30%) were captured. The captured mosquitoes belonged to four genera: Anopheles, Aedes, Culex, and Armigeres. The most abundant genus was Anopheles (n = 514; 58.88%), followed by Aedes (n = 167; 19.13%), Culex (n = 148; 16.95%), and Armigeres (n = 44; 5.04%). The most abundant species in Anopheles was An. harrisoni (54.75%); in Aedes, it was Ae. albopictus (10.42%); in Culex, it was Cx. brevipalpis (8.36%); and in Armigeres, it was Ar. (Lei.) longipalpis (3.55%). Of the collected specimens, 4.24% could not be identified to the species level, due to damage.
Comparing among light sources, we found that the highest total number of mosquitoes was captured in the light trap fitted with UV fluorescent (n = 382; 43.76%), followed by UV LED (n = 177; 20.27%), blue LED (n = 133; 15.23%), green LED (n = 73; 8.36%), white fluorescent (n = 73; 8.36%), and red LED (n = 35; 4.01%). The highest number of individuals was captured by UV fluorescent for most genera, except Armigeres, for which the highest number was collected by using blue LED (Table 2).
For Aedes mosquitoes, the highest number of specimens was collected by using UV fluorescent light (n = 43; 25.75%), followed by blue LED (n = 40; 23.95%), UV LED (n = 23; 13.77%), green LED (n = 31; 18.56%), white fluorescent (n = 19; 11.38%), and red LED (n = 11; 6.59%; Table 2). The Kruskal–Wallis test by ranks showed that Aedes mosquitoes were non-significantly more responsive to UV fluorescent (mean rank, 122.92), followed by blue LED, UV LED, green LED, white fluorescent, and red LED (mean rank, 119.03, 110.89, 108.58, 103.39, and 83.19, respectively; p = 0.053; Table 3).
Of the Anopheles mosquitoes, 55.25% (n = 284) were caught by using the light trap with UV fluorescent, followed by UV LED (n = 115; 22.37%), blue LED (n = 54; 10.51%), white fluorescent (n = 34; 6.61%), green LED (n = 16; 3.11%), and red LED (n = 11; 2.14%; Table 2). The Kruskal–Wallis test by ranks showed that Anopheles mosquitoes were significantly more responsive to UV fluorescent and UV LED, with mean ranks of 144.56 and 127.82, respectively (Table 3). Significantly fewer specimens were collected from red LED, green LED, and white fluorescent, with the mean ranks of 92.69, 92.44, and 90.36, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean rank for blue LED was between the highest and lowest ranks at 103.13 (Table 3).
The highest number of Armigeres mosquitoes was collected by using blue LED (n = 12; 27.27%), followed by UV LED (n = 10; 22.73%), UV fluorescent (n = 9; 20.45%), red LED (n = 6; 13.64%), green LED (n = 4; 9.09%), and white fluorescent (n = 3; 6.82%; Table 2). The Kruskal–Wallis test by ranks showed that Armigeres mosquitoes were non-significantly more responsive to UV LED, followed by UV fluorescent, blue LED, red LED, green LED, and white fluorescent, with mean ranks of 116.89, 116.38, 114.56, 105.14, 99.28, and 98.76, respectively (p = 0.171; Table 3).
Most individuals with 31.08% (n = 46) of Culex were collected by using UV fluorescent light, followed by UV LED (n = 29; 19.59%), blue LED (n = 27; 18.24%), green LED (n = 22; 14.86%), white fluorescent (n = 17; 11.49%), and red LED (n = 7; 4.73%; Table 2). The Kruskal–Wallis test by ranks showed that Culex mosquitoes were significantly more responsive to UV florescent, UV LED, and blue LED, with mean ranks of 127.14, 114.57, and 118.94, respectively. Significantly fewer individuals were collected by using green LED, white fluorescent, and red LED, with mean ranks of 106.17, 99.01, and 85.17, respectively (p = 0.014; Table 3).
When comparing the total number of mosquitoes collected in each season, the greatest proportion of specimens were collected in the dry season (55.76%), followed by the wet (24.63%) and cold (19.70%) seasons. Comparing among nightly collection periods from the entire experiment, the maximum number of mosquitoes was trapped from 21:00 to 24:00 h (31.84%), followed by the time period from 18:00–21:00 h (28.29%), 24:00–03:00 h (24.63%), and 03:00–06:00 h (15.23%). More Anopheles mosquitoes were collected in the dry season (n = 435; 84.63%) than in the wet (n = 60; 11.67%) and cold (n = 19; 3.70%) seasons. In the dry season, the trap equipped with UV fluorescent light was the most effective for attracting Anopheles mosquitoes; the highest number was collected from 21:00 to 24:00 h, followed by 24:00–03:00 h and 03:00–06:00 h (Table 4; Figure 2). In the wet season, the UV fluorescent light trap was also the most effective for attracting Anopheles mosquitoes from 21:00 to 24:00 h (Table 4, Figure 3). In the cold season, the UV florescent trap captured most Anopheles mosquitoes from 18:00 to 21:00 h (Table 4; Figure 4).
We used a GLM with negative binomial regression to evaluate the factors (light sources, seasons, and time periods) that influenced the efficacy of light traps to capture Anopheles species. Deviance from the goodness-of-fit test at 0.751 and Pearson Chi-square at 1886.706 indicated that the negative binomial regression was suitably obtained (Omnibus test; p < 0.001). Light sources, seasons, and collection time periods were all significant predictors that influenced the number of Anopheles mosquitoes collected per trap (p < 0.05; Table 5). Based on the IRR values, the best efficiency was achieved by using the UV fluorescent light (treated as the standard; IRR = 1), followed by UV LED (IRR = 0.437), blue LED (IRR = 0.202), white fluorescent (IRR = 0.127), green LED (IRR = 0.063), and red LED (IRR = 0.045). The predicted count for mosquito captures in the dry season was 21.649, compared to the cold season as the standard (IRR = 1). In addition, the best trapping time period was 21:00–24:00 h (IRR = 2.54), followed by 24:00–03:00 h (IRR = 2.25) and 06:00–09:00 h (IRR = 1.93), as compared to 03:00–06:00 h as the standard (IRR = 1; Table 5).

4. Discussion

Among the four LED wavelength ranges and two fluorescent lights, UV fluorescent was the most effective for mosquito collection, followed by UV LED and blue LED. This is consistent with previous studies that reported the effectiveness of UV fluorescent light for collecting nocturnal mosquitoes [28,40,41]. The UV fluorescent light used in this study had a lower wavelength range (354–468 nm) than those previously evaluated. Breyev et al. [42] reported that more night-biting Anopheles mosquitoes, Anopheles hyrcanus and Anopheles maculipennis, were captured using UV fluorescent light traps (300–400 nm) compared with other light traps of longer wavelengths. This previous study also reported that light traps with spectral beams and 364–400 nm wavelengths increase mosquito attraction [43]. Other previous studies also reported differences in mosquito attraction to LED lights of different wavelengths [18,22,44]. Insect vision responds differently to UV, blue, and green spectra, and responses may vary between species, as well as individuals of the same species inhabiting different areas [21]. Silva et al. [45] reported that light traps with green and blue LEDs attracted more mosquitoes than other LEDs and incandescent lights. In our study, traps with blue LED attracted more mosquitoes than those with green and red LEDs. Although colors of the same brightness are used to evaluate mosquito attraction, physiological light intensities can be affected by differing wavelength absorption in the mosquito eye [46].
In our study, a higher number of Aedes species were collected by using the UV fluorescent light trap than the Culex species. Similarly, Tchouassi et al. [47] sampled Rift Valley fever vectors, using LED CDC light traps (red, green, and blue) and captured more Aedes species than Culex species. The lower response of Culex species to light traps has not been confirmed but could be attributed to their sensitivity to different wavelengths of light or neurophysiological aspects of their visual systems [48]. Kawada et al. [49] documented that nocturnal host-seeking behavior in nonblood-fed females of Aedes aegypti (L.) and Aedes albopictus (Skuse) was positively correlated with increasing light intensity. The study used an automatic recording device equipped with a photoelectric sensor and found that the eye of Ae. aegypti was highly sensitive to dim light, allowing the species to be active at night [49]. Our results also showed that diurnal Aedes mosquitoes were captured during the early evening period. Additionally, Muie et al. [50] reported that the eye of female Ae. aegypti has a broad spectral sensitivity, ranging from UV (323 nm) to orange (621 nm) with peaks in the UV (323−345 nm) and green (523 nm) wavelength ranges. Nocturnal Culex species’ attraction to light sources differs from other mosquito species [42,51]. In our study, more Culex mosquitoes were collected by using the UV fluorescent light trap than other light sources. Our results demonstrate that light source has a significant effect on the number of mosquitoes collected and can be tailored to attract specific genera.
Our light-trap mosquito sampling was conducted from February to December 2020 (dry, wet, and cold seasons). Most Anopheles species were collected in the dry season. A previous publication reported that heavy rainfall can flush out larval mosquitoes, resulting in reduced adult densities [52], which is consistent with the lower numbers we observed in the wet season. The best collection times were 21:00–24:00 h and 24:00–03:00 h during the dry season. Harbach et al. [53] reported that mean biting activity of anopheline mosquitoes peaked between 21:00 and 22:00 h Rattanarithikul et al. [54] also reported a prominent peak of Anopheles species blood-feeding between 18:00 and 23:00 h. Differences in mosquito behaviors among individuals of the same species have been reported, and are often related to adaptations to human behaviors [55], as well as geographical, climatic, and environmental conditions [7,56,57].

5. Conclusions

Trapping Anopheles species was found to be most efficient when using light traps fitted with a UV LED light, with the optimal times for collection from 21:00 to 03:00 h in the dry season. We demonstrated that the standard commercial UV fluorescent traps can be replaced with UV LED light traps in sampling Anopheles mosquitoes. For future surveillance of adult mosquitoes and incorporation of lights with either the “black hole” styled traps or modifications of other styles of traps, such as CDC, the inclusion of additional chemical lures, such as octanol or lactic acid, may change number of mosquitoes collected, even in the absence of carbon dioxide. This study contributes crucial information for monitoring vector density in regions affected by malaria. A more comprehensive and systematic investigation of mosquito responses to light would be beneficial to the national control program, facilitating more precise vector sampling and monitoring.

Author Contributions

All authors have contributed significantly to this study. P.J., M.S., M.K. and T.C. conceived of and designed the experiment; P.J. and M.S. performed the experiment; P.J. and R.N.-K. analyzed the data; P.J. and A.P. wrote the manuscript; T.C., M.K., A.S. and R.N.-K. consulted, read, corrected, and approved the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by a grant from Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute (KURDI) (Grant No. FF (KU) 14.64).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are included in the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express my gratitude to Bruce A. Wilcox and Alex Ahebwa for providing useful information in preparing this manuscript and the Thai Military Development Office, Ministry of Defense for supporting all studies and the Medical Entomology Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University for assistance with this research.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Becker, N.; Petric, D.; Zgomba, M.; Boase, C.; Madon, M.; Dahl, C.; Kaiser, A. Mosquitoes and Their Control; Springer Science & Business Media: Waldsee, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. Killeen, G.F.; Marshall, J.M.; Kiware, S.S.; South, A.B.; Tusting, L.S.; Chaki, P.P.; Govella, N.J. Measuring, manipulating and exploiting behaviours of adult mosquitoes to optimise malaria vector control impact. BMJ Glob. Health 2017, 2, e000212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Morgan, K.; Somboon, P.; Walton, C. Understanding Anopheles diversity in Southeast Asia and its applications for malaria control. Anopheles Mosq. New Insights Malar. Vectors 2013, 327, 355. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cano, J.; Berzosa, P.; Roche, J.; Rubio, J.; Moyano, E.; Guerra-Neira, A.; Brochero, H.; Mico, M.; Edu, M.; Benito, A. Malaria vectors in the Bioko Island (Equatorial Guinea): Estimation of vector dynamics and transmission intensities. J. Med. Entomol. 2004, 41, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. White, M.T.; Griffin, J.T.; Churcher, T.S.; Ferguson, N.M.; Basáñez, M.-G.; Ghani, A.C. Modelling the impact of vector control interventions on Anopheles gambiae population dynamics. Parasites Vectors 2011, 4, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Duo-Quan, W.; Lin-Hua, T.; Zhen-Cheng, G.; Xiang, Z.; Man-Ni, Y.; Wei-Kang, J. Comparative evaluation of light-trap catches, electric motor mosquito catches and human biting catches of Anopheles in the Three Gorges Reservoir. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e28988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Dusfour, I.; Carinci, R.; Gaborit, P.; Issaly, J.; Girod, R. Evaluation of four methods for collecting malaria vectors in French Guiana. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 973–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Tisgratog, R.; Tananchai, C.; Juntarajumnong, W.; Tuntakom, S.; Bangs, M.J.; Corbel, V.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Host feeding patterns and preference of Anopheles minimus (Diptera: Culicidae) in a malaria endemic area of western Thailand: Baseline site description. Parasites Vectors. 2012, 5, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Hoel, D.F.; Marika, J.A.; Dunford, J.C.; Irish, S.R.; Geier, M.; Obermayr, U.; Wirtz, R.A. Optimizing collection of Anopheles gambiae ss (Diptera: Culicidae) in biogents sentinel traps. J. Med Entomol. 2014, 51, 1268–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ponlawat, A.; Khongtak, P.; Jaichapor, B.; Pongsiri, A.; Evans, B.P. Field evaluation of two commercial mosquito traps baited with different attractants and colored lights for malaria vector surveillance in Thailand. Parasites Vectors 2017, 10, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Artsob, H.; Spence, L.; Surgeoner, G.; Th’ng, C.; Lampotang, V.; Grant, L.; McCreadie, J. Studies on a focus of California group virus activity in southern Ontario. Mosq. News 1983, 43, 449–455. [Google Scholar]
  12. Pezzin, A.; Veronesi, R.; Carrieri, M.; Maccagnani, B.; Bellini, R. Comparative study on the effectiveness of different mosquito traps in arbovirus surveillance with a focus on WNV detection. Acta Trop. 2016, 153, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Silver, J.B. Mosquito Ecology: Field Sampling Methods; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  14. Silver, J.B. Sampling adults with light-traps. In Mosquito Ecology: Field Sampling Methods; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 845–946. [Google Scholar]
  15. Saeung, M.; Jhaiaun, P.; Bangs, M.J.; Ngoen-Klan, R.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Transmitted light as attractant with mechanical traps for collecting nocturnal mosquitoes in urban Bangkok, Thailand. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2021, 37, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hoel, D.F.; Butler, J.F.; Fawaz, E.; Watany, N.; El-Hossary, S.; Villinski, J. Response of phlebotomine sand flies to light-emitting diode-modified light traps in southern Egypt. J. Vector Ecol. 2007, 32, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. González, M.; Alarcón-Elbal, P.M.; Valle-Mora, J.; Goldarazena, A. Comparison of different light sources for trapping Culicoides biting midges, mosquitoes and other dipterans. Vet. Parasitol. 2016, 226, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Kim, Y.H.; Viswanath, N.S.; Unithrattil, S.; Kim, H.J.; Im, W.B. Phosphor plates for high-power LED applications: Challenges and opportunities toward perfect lighting. ECS J. Solid. State. Sci. Technol. 2017, 7, R3134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zheng, L.; Zheng, Y.; Wu, W.; Fu, Y. Field evaluation of different wavelengths light-emitting diodes as attractants for adult Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2014, 43, 409–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Browne, S.M.; Bennett, G.F. Response of mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) to visual stimuli. J. Med. Entomol. 1981, 18, 505–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Cohnstaedt, L.; Gillen, J.I.; Munstermann, L.E. Light-emitting diode technology improves insect trapping. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2008, 24, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Costa-Neta, B.M.; Lima-Neto, A.R.; da Silva, A.A.; Brito, J.M.; Aguiar, J.V.C.; Ponte, I.S.; Silva, F.S. Centers for Disease Control-type light traps equipped with high-intensity light-emitting diodes as light sources for monitoring Anopheles mosquitoes. Acta Trop. 2018, 183, 61–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Meyer, D.B.; Johnson, B.J.; Fall, K.; Buhagiar, T.S.; Townsend, M.; Ritchie, S.A. Development, optimization, and field evaluation of the novel collapsible passive trap for collection of mosquitoes. J. Med. Entomol. 2018, 55, 706–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Oriyomi, M.; Babalola, P. Comparison of mosquitoes response to different diodes wavelengths. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2020, 9, 218–223. [Google Scholar]
  25. Silva, F.S.; Costa-Neta, B.M.; de Almeida, M.d.S.; de Araújo, E.C.; Aguiar, J.V.C. Field performance of a low cost, simple-to-build, non-motorized light-emitting diode (LED) trap for capturing adult Anopheles mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Acta Trop. 2019, 190, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sriwichai, P.; Karl, S.; Samung, Y.; Sumruayphol, S.; Kiattibutr, K.; Payakkapol, A.; Mueller, I.; Yan, G.; Cui, L.; Sattabongkot, J. Evaluation of CDC light traps for mosquito surveillance in a malaria endemic area on the Thai-Myanmar border. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Tainchum, K.; Kongmee, M.; Manguin, S.; Bangs, M.J.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Anopheles species diversity and distribution of the malaria vectors of Thailand. Trends Parasitol. 2015, 31, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wilton, D.; Fay, R. Air flow direction and velocity in light trap design. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1972, 15, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Burkett, D.A.; Butler, J.F.; Kline, D.L. Field evaluation of colored light-emitting diodes as attractants for woodland mosquitoes and other Diptera in north central Florida. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.-Mosq. News 1998, 14, 186–195. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rattanarithikul, R.; Harrison, B.A.; Panthusiri, P.; Peyton, E.L.; Coleman, R.E. Illustrated keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand III. Genera Aedeomyia, Ficalbia, Mimomyia, Hodgesia, Coquillettidia, Mansonia, and Uranotaenia. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2006, 37, 1–85. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  31. Panthusiri, P. Illustrated keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand VI. Tribe Aedini. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 2010, 41, 1–225. [Google Scholar]
  32. Panthusiri, P. Illustrated keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand IV. Anopheles. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 2006, 37, 1–128. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rattanarithikul, R.; Harbach, R.E.; Harrison, B.A.; Panthusiri, P.; Coleman, R.E. Illustrated keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand V. Genera Orthopodomyia, Kimia, Malaya, Topomyia, Tripteroides, and Toxorhynchites. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 2007, 38, 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rattanarithikul, R.; Harrison, B.A.; Panthusiri, P.; Coleman, R.E. Illustrated keys to the mosquitoes of Thailand I. Background; geographic distribution; lists of genera, subgenera, and species; and a key to the genera. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 2005, 36, 1. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Rattanarithikul, R.; Panthusiri, P. Illustrated keys to the medically important mosquitos of Thailand. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health. 1994, 25, 1–66. [Google Scholar]
  36. Linton, Y.M.; Harbach, R.E.; Seng, C.M.; Anthony, T.G.; Matusop, A. Morphological and molecular identity of Anopheles (Cellia) sundaicus (Diptera: Culicidae), the nominotypical member of a malaria vector species complex in Southeast Asia. Syst. Entomol. 2001, 26, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Garros, C.; Koekemoer, L.L.; Coetzee, M.; Coosemans, M.; Manguin, S. A single multiplex assay to identify major malaria vectors within the African Anopheles funestus and the Oriental An. minimus groups. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2004, 70, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Walton, C.; Somboon, P.; O’Loughlin, S.; Zhang, S.; Harbach, R.; Linton, Y.-M.; Chen, B.; Nolan, K.; Duong, S.; Fong, M.-Y. Genetic diversity and molecular identification of mosquito species in the Anopheles maculatus group using the ITS2 region of rDNA. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2007, 7, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Walton, C.; Handley, J.; Kuvangkadilok, C.; Collins, F.; Harbach, R.; Baimai, V.; Butlin, R. Identification of five species of the Anopheles dirus complex from Thailand, using allele-specific polymerase chain reaction. Med. Vet. Entomol. 1999, 13, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, H.I.; Seo, B.Y.; Shin, E.-H.; Burkett, D.A.; Lee, J.-K.; Shin, Y.H. Efficiency evaluation of Nozawa-style black light trap for control of anopheline mosquitoes. Korean J. Parasitol. 2009, 47, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Li, Y.; Su, X.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, H.; Puthiyakunnon, S.; Shuai, S.; Cai, S.; Gu, J.; Zhou, X.; Yan, G. Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of the BG-Sentinel trap, CDC light trap and mosquito-oviposition trap for the surveillance of vector mosquitoes. Parasites Vectors 2016, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Breyev, K. The effect of various light sources on the numbers and species of blood-sucking mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) collected in light traps. Entomol. Rev. 1963, 42, 155–168. [Google Scholar]
  43. DeLong, D. Fundamental studies on behaviour of larval and adult mosquitoes and evaluation of mosquito repellents. Ohio Engin. Exp. State News 1954, 26, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bentley, M.T.; Kaufman, P.E.; Kline, D.L.; Hogsette, J.A. Response of adult mosquitoes to light-emitting diodes placed in resting boxes and in the field. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2009, 25, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Silva, J.d.S.; Souto Couri, M.; de Leão Giupponi, A.P.; Alencar, J. Mosquito fauna of the Guapiaçu Ecological Reserve, Cachoeiras de Macacu, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, collected under the influence of different color CDC light traps. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Roeder, K.D. Insect Physiology; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1953; Volume 76. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tchouassi, D.P.; Sang, R.; Sole, C.L.; Bastos, A.D.; Cohnstaedt, L.W.; Torto, B. Trapping of Rift Valley Fever (RVF) vectors using Light Emitting Diode (LED) CDC traps in two arboviral disease hot spots in Kenya. Parasites Vectors 2012, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Bernáth, B.; Anstett, V.; Guerin, P.M. Anopheles gambiae females readily learn to associate complex visual cues with the quality of sugar sources. J. Insect Physiol. 2016, 95, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kawada, H.; Takemura, S.-Y.; Arikawa, K.; Takagi, M. Comparative study on nocturnal behavior of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. J. Med. Entomol. 2007, 42, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Muir, L.E.; Thorne, M.J.; Kay, B.H. Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) vision: Spectral sensitivity and other perceptual parameters of the female eye. J. Med. Entomol. 1992, 29, 278–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Chen, C.D. Biting behavior of Malaysian mosquitoes, Aedes albopictus Skuse, Armigeres kesseli Ramalingam, Culex quinquefasciatus Say, and Culex vishnui Theobald obtained from urban residential areas in Kuala Lumpur. Asian Biomed 2014, 8, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Tananchai, C.; Tisgratog, R.; Juntarajumnong, W.; Grieco, J.P.; Manguin, S.; Prabaripai, A.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Species diversity and biting activity of Anopheles dirus and Anopheles baimaii (Diptera: Culicidae) in a malaria prone area of western Thailand. Parasites Vectors 2012, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Harbach, R.E.; Gingrich, J.B.; Pang, L.W. Some entomological observations on malaria transmission in a remote village in northwestern Thailand. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1987, 3, 296–301. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  54. Rattanarithikul, R.; Konishi, E.; Linthicum, K.J. Detection of Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite antigen in anopheline mosquitoes collected in southern Thailand. Am. J. Trop. Med. 1996, 54, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tainchum, K.; Ritthison, W.; Chuaycharoensuk, T.; Bangs, M.J.; Manguin, S.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Diversity of Anopheles species and trophic behavior of putative malaria vectors in two malaria endemic areas of northwestern Thailand. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 424–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Parker, D.M.; Carrara, V.I.; Pukrittayakamee, S.; McGready, R.; Nosten, F.H. Malaria ecology along the Thailand–Myanmar border. Malar. J. 2015, 14, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Walsh, A.S.; Glass, G.E.; Lesser, C.R.; Curriero, F.C. Predicting seasonal abundance of mosquitoes based on off-season meteorological conditions. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 2008, 15, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 12 01076 g001 550
Figure 1. Mosquito traps (Black Hole™ Mosquito Trap, Bio-Trap Inc., Seoul, Korea) used in this study were purchased from Pan Science Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand.
Figure 1. Mosquito traps (Black Hole™ Mosquito Trap, Bio-Trap Inc., Seoul, Korea) used in this study were purchased from Pan Science Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand.
Insects 12 01076 g001
Insects 12 01076 g002 550
Figure 2. Mean numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes caught at different times of night by using different light traps during the dry season, February to May 2020.
Figure 2. Mean numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes caught at different times of night by using different light traps during the dry season, February to May 2020.
Insects 12 01076 g002
Insects 12 01076 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes caught at different times of night by using different light traps during the wet season, May to October 2020.
Figure 3. Mean numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes caught at different times of night by using different light traps during the wet season, May to October 2020.
Insects 12 01076 g003
Insects 12 01076 g004 550
Figure 4. Mean numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes caught at different times of night by using different light traps during the cold season, November to February 2020.
Figure 4. Mean numbers of Anopheles mosquitoes caught at different times of night by using different light traps during the cold season, November to February 2020.
Insects 12 01076 g004
Table
Table 1. Primers and sequences used for molecular identification of Anopheles mosquito species.
Table 1. Primers and sequences used for molecular identification of Anopheles mosquito species.
SpeciesPrimer NameSequence (5′ to 3′)
Universal forward primerITS2ATGT GAA CTG CAG GAC ACA
Anopheles aconitusACOACA GCG TGT ACG TCC AGT
Anopheles harrisoniMICGTT CAT TCA GCA ACA TCA GT
Anopheles varunaVARTTG ACC ACT TTC GAC GCA
Anopheles minimusMIACCC GTG CGA CTT GAC GA
Universal forward primer5.8FATC ACT CGG CTC GTG GAT CG
Anopheles maculatusMACGAC GGT CAG TCT GGT AAA GT
Anopheles pseudowillmoeiPSEUGCC CCC GGG TGT CAA ACA G
Anopheles sawadwongporniSAWACGGTC CCG CAT CAG GTG C
Anopheles dravidicusPDRAVGCC TAC TTT GAG CGA GAC CA
Form KKTTC ATC GCT CGC CCT TAC AA
Universal forward primerITS2ATGT GAA CTG CAG GAC ACA T
Anopheles dirusD-UGCG CGG GGC CGA GGT GG
Anopheles scanloniD-ACCAC AGC GAC TCC ACA CG
Anopheles cracensD-BCGG GAT ATG GGT CGG CC
Anopheles baimaiiD-DGCG CGG GAC CGT CCG TT
Anopheles nemophilousD-FAAC GGC GGT CCC CTT TG
Table
Table 2. Number and percentage of each adult mosquito species collected by using traps equipped with different light sources.
Table 2. Number and percentage of each adult mosquito species collected by using traps equipped with different light sources.
MosquitoesLight SourcesTotal No. (%)
UV LEDGreen LEDBlue LEDRed LEDWhite FluorescentUV Fluorescent
Aedes genus233140111943167 (19.13)
Ae. aegypti1010002 (0.23)
Ae. albopictus151328082791 (10.42)
Ae. albotaeniata0001001 (0.11)
Ae. albolateralis1010103 (0.34)
Ae. chysolineata0200103 (0.34)
Ae. flaripennis13123515 (1.72)
Ae. poicilia3000205 (0.57)
Ae. vexans0000011 (0.11)
Ae. saxicola0010012 (.023)
Ae. prominens0000112 (0.23)
Ae. khazani0000101 (0.11)
Ae. trilineata110671227 (3.09)
Ae. mikrokopion0011002 (0.23)
Ae. lineatopennis0000011 (0.11)
Ae. pipersalatus0000011 (0.11)
Aedes spp. *13101410 (1.15)
Anopheles genus11516541134284514 (58.88)
An. sawadwongporni0011068 (0.92)
An. minimus1001035 (0.57)
An. harrisoni1051551833266478 (54.75)
An. aconitus0010001 (0.11)
An. varuna3000025 (0.57)
An. dirus2001014 (0.46)
An. barbirostris1000034 (0.46)
Anopheles spp. *3110139 (1.03)
Armigeres genus1041263944 (5.04)
Ar. (Lei.) longipalpis52753931 (3.55)
Ar. subalbatus0120003 (0.34)
Ar. achaetae1000001 (0.11)
Ar. theobaldi0001001 (0.11)
Ar. leicester2000002 (0.23)
Armigeres spp. *2130006 (0.69)
Culex genus29222771746148 (16.95)
Cx. brevipalpis171311362373 (8.36)
Cx. tritaeniorhynchus73230722 (2.52)
Cx. malayi1010046 (0.69)
Cx. nitropunctatus3111181135 (4.01)
Culex spp. *15203112 (1.37)
Total (%)177 (20.27)73 (8.36)133 (15.23)35 (4.01)73 (8.36)382 (43.76)873 (100)
* These specimens could not be identified to the species level, due to damage.
Table
Table 3. Mean numbers and Kruskal–Wallis mean ranks of four mosquito genera collected during 36 trapping nights, using six different light source traps.
Table 3. Mean numbers and Kruskal–Wallis mean ranks of four mosquito genera collected during 36 trapping nights, using six different light source traps.
MosquitoesMean ± SD (Mean Rank)
UV LEDGreen LEDWhite FluorescentUV FluorescentBlue LEDRed LED
Aedes genus0.64 ± 0.99 a0.86 ± 1.91 a0.52 ± 0.01 a1.20 ± 1.94 a1.11 ± 1.95 a0.31 ± 0.95 a
(110.89)(108.58)(103.39)(122.92)(119.03)(86.19)
Anopheles genus3.19 ± 9.09 a0.44 ± 1.11 b0.94 ± 4.16 b7.89 ± 17.09 a1.50 ± 4.74 ab0.31 ± 0.52 b
(127.82) *(92.44)(90.36)(144.56) *(103.13)(92.69)
Armigeres genus0.81 ± 1.39 a0.61 ± 1.02 a0.47 ± 0.91 a1.28 ± 2.11 a0.75 ± 0.99 a0.19 ± 0.47 a
(116.86)(99.28)(98.79)(116.38)(114.56)(105.14)
Culex genus0.28 ± 0.51 a0.11 ± 0.39 ac0.08 ± 0.28 ac0.25 ± 0.44 a0.33 ± 0.76 a0.17 ± 0.45 bc
(114.57) *(106.17)(99.01)(127.14) *(118.94) *(85.17)
Different letters in each row indicate significant differences among the mean number of mosquitoes collected by each light traps (p < 0.05). * Significantly different mean rank, Kruskal–Wallis test.
Table
Table 4. Mean number (± SD) of Anopheles mosquitoes collected at different times of the night over three seasons, using six different light-source traps.
Table 4. Mean number (± SD) of Anopheles mosquitoes collected at different times of the night over three seasons, using six different light-source traps.
SeasonalLight SourcesTotal No.
(%)		Time Periods
Mean ± SD
18:00–21:00 h21:00–24:00 h24:00–03:00 h03:00–06:00 h
Dry
(12 nights)		UV LED93 (18.09)3.67 ± 10.881.83 ± 3.512.00 ± 2.260.25 ± 0.62
Green LED11 (2.14)0.17 ± 0.580.25 ± 0.450.33 ± 0.650.17 ± 0.58
Blue LED44 (8.56)0.17 ± 0.391.25 ± 2.222.00 ± 6.020.25 ± 0.62
Red LED5 (0.97)0.00 ± 0.000.17 ± 0.390.17 ± 0.390.08 ± 0.29
White Fluorescent33 (6.42)0.75 ± 1.420.92 ± 2.570.17 ± 0.390.92 ± 3.18
UV Fluorescent249 (48.44)2.75 ± 4.637.67 ± 12.216.67 ± 12.603.67 ± 4.27
Wet
(12 nights)		UV LED20 (3.89)0.42 ± 0.670.75 ± 0.970.17 ± 0.390.33 ± 0.65
Green LED5 (0.97)0.08 ± 0.290.25 ± 0.450.08 ± 0.290.00 ± 0.00
Blue LED6 (1.17)0.17 ± 0.580.17 ± 0.390.08 ± 0.290.08 ± 0.29
Red LED3 (0.58)0.08 ± 0.290.00 ± 0.000.08 ± 0.290.08 ± 0.29
White Fluorescent1 (0.19)0.08 ± 0.290.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.00
UV Fluorescent25 (4.86)0.58 ± 1.001.25 ± 1.820.25 ± 0.620.00 ± 0.00
Cold
(12 nights)		UV LED2 (0.39)0.08 ± 0.290.08 ± 0.290.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.00
Green LED0 (0)0.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.00
Blue LED4 (0.78)0.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.000.33 ± 0.780.00 ± 0.00
Red LED3 (0.58)0.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.000.25 ± 0.450.00 ± 0.00
White Fluorescent0 (0)0.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.000.00 ± 0.00
UV Fluorescent10 (1.95)0.58 ± 1.000.00 ± 0.000.25 ± 0.620.00 ± 0.00
Table
Table 5. Incidence rate ratios of factors influencing the efficacy of light traps for capturing Anopheles mosquitoes.
Table 5. Incidence rate ratios of factors influencing the efficacy of light traps for capturing Anopheles mosquitoes.
ParameterBSE95% Wald Confidence IntervalHypothesis TestIRR95% Wald Confidence
Interval for Exp(B)
LowerUpperWald Chi-SquaredfSigLowerUpper
(Intercept)−2.1990.3026−2.792−1.60652.81210.0000.1110.0610.201
Red LED −3.1110.3507−3.798−2.42378.66010.0000.0450.0220.089
Green LED−2.7720.3062−3.372−2.17181.91410.0000.0630.0340.114
Blue LED −1.6010.2203−2.033−1.16952.84910.0000.2020.1310.311
UV LED−0.8290.1928−1.207−0.45118.46810.0000.4370.2990.637
White Fluorescent−2.0650.2436−2.543−1.58871.90210.0000.1270.0790.204
UV Fluorescent (Standard)0 2 1
Dry Season3.0750.26292.5603.590136.83310.00021.64912.93236.240
Wet Season1.1620.29090.5921.73215.95510.0003.1961.8075.651
Cold Season (standard)0 2 1
18:00–21:00 h0.6570.22840.2091.1048.26910.0041.9281.2333.017
21:00–24:00 h0.9330.21880.5041.36218.19610.0002.5431.6563.904
24:00–03:00 h0.8110.22280.3741.24713.24410.0002.2491.4543.481
03:00–06:00 h (Standard)0 2 1
(Scale)1 3
(Negative binomial)1 3
Sig = significance; SE = standard error; df = Degree of Freedom; IRR = incidence rate ratios. 2 Set to zero because this parameter is redundant. 3 Fixed at the displayed value.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jhaiaun, P.; Panthawong, A.; Saeung, M.; Sumarnrote, A.; Kongmee, M.; Ngoen-Klan, R.; Chareonviriyaphap, T. Comparing Light—Emitting—Diodes Light Traps for Catching Anopheles Mosquitoes in a Forest Setting, Western Thailand. Insects 2021, 12, 1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12121076

AMA Style

Jhaiaun P, Panthawong A, Saeung M, Sumarnrote A, Kongmee M, Ngoen-Klan R, Chareonviriyaphap T. Comparing Light—Emitting—Diodes Light Traps for Catching Anopheles Mosquitoes in a Forest Setting, Western Thailand. Insects. 2021; 12(12):1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12121076

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jhaiaun, Pairpailin, Amonrat Panthawong, Manop Saeung, Anchana Sumarnrote, Monthathip Kongmee, Ratchadawan Ngoen-Klan, and Theeraphap Chareonviriyaphap. 2021. "Comparing Light—Emitting—Diodes Light Traps for Catching Anopheles Mosquitoes in a Forest Setting, Western Thailand" Insects 12, no. 12: 1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12121076

APA Style

Jhaiaun, P., Panthawong, A., Saeung, M., Sumarnrote, A., Kongmee, M., Ngoen-Klan, R., & Chareonviriyaphap, T. (2021). Comparing Light—Emitting—Diodes Light Traps for Catching Anopheles Mosquitoes in a Forest Setting, Western Thailand. Insects, 12(12), 1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12121076

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop