Nonlethal Effects of Pesticides on Web-Building Spiders Might Account for Rapid Mosquito Population Rebound after Spray Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of applsci-1061443: Nonlethal effects of pesticides on orb-weaving spiders might account for rapid mosquito population rebound after spray ap-3 plication

The manuscript presents an interesting study on faster mosquito population rebounds due to broad-spectrum insecticide use. The manuscript reads very nicely, and it is short and to the point. I think it will be of interest to a broad range of researchers. I do have some comments that I think need addressing, but it should be relatively easy for the authors to do so.

My only “bigger” suggestion is that this study mostly shows a correlation, not a causation (I know, of course it does). I don’t think this is bad, but I do wish for two or three sentences about it. We do not really know to what extent the investigated spider species really feeds on this species of mosquito (see comment for lines 79-81), and this is beyond the scope of this study (would call for gut content analysis or some other investigation, if nobody has done it before). Likely, several spider species feed on a common mosquito species, including cob and sheet web spiders (confirmed by the literature you cite). I suggest you explain to the reader that if broad range insecticides harm one spider species for around 3 days, they likely do so to others (+- a day). I think it’s not too much of a speculation if you hypothesize that broad range insecticides harm the entire local web spider community for around 3 days, giving time for mosquitoes to rebound quicker. In this light, I suggest changing the title to “web building spiders” rather than “orb weaving spiders”.

My other wish is some more explanation in methods and results. You do not explain how you scored the regularity of webs, to later quantify web reconstruction. These results are also not presented, apart from a significance statement. From text, I assume you scored web size (capture area size?), mesh width, perhaps total lengths of radial and spiral threads? I’m quite interested to see in numbers to what extent the individuals that did attempt building were unsuccessful.

Also, how did you trace spiders that did not rebuild webs in nature? Did they remain on old webs, or did you have to trace them on vegetation somehow?

Additional minor comments:

Lines 67-69: Orb weaving spiders in general rebuild webs daily, but they ingest the majority of the web, leaving the frame (the few threads needed for structural support) intact, not all radial threads.

Lines 79-81: The reference does not support the claim – it is about a SE Asian pholcid spider. Also, pholcids build long lasting sheet webs, not daily orbs.

Lines 180-182: While silk threads to respond to humidity (e.g. look up supercontraction), I don’t think silk threads consist of high amounts of water (but I’m not sure). Please check of cite. However, glue does consist of a lot of water, but this is mainly due to the intake of atmospheric water. I would be willing to bet that the smaller overall silk amount is due to the general poor condition of a poisoned spider. Probably, there is less total thread length, and perhaps also thinner threads and less glue, all of which would drastically affect all aspects of web performance.

Author Response

Review #1

The manuscript presents an interesting study on faster mosquito population rebounds due to broad-spectrum insecticide use. The manuscript reads very nicely, and it is short and to the point. I think it will be of interest to a broad range of researchers. I do have some comments that I think need addressing, but it should be relatively easy for the authors to do so.

My only “bigger” suggestion is that this study mostly shows a correlation, not a causation (I know, of course it does). I don’t think this is bad, but I do wish for two or three sentences about it.

Done.

We do not really know to what extent the investigated spider species really feeds on this species of mosquito (see comment for lines 79-81), and this is beyond the scope of this study (would call for gut content analysis or some other investigation, if nobody has done it before). Likely, several spider species feed on a common mosquito species, including cob and sheet web spiders (confirmed by the literature you cite). I suggest you explain to the reader that if broad range insecticides harm one spider species for around 3 days, they likely do so to others (+- a day). I think it’s not too much of a speculation if you hypothesize that broad range insecticides harm the entire local web spider community for around 3 days, giving time for mosquitoes to rebound quicker.

Done.

In this light, I suggest changing the title to “web building spiders” rather than “orb weaving spiders”.

Done.

My other wish is some more explanation in methods and results. You do not explain how you scored the regularity of webs, to later quantify web reconstruction. These results are also not presented, apart from a significance statement. From text, I assume you scored web size (capture area size?), mesh width, perhaps total lengths of radial and spiral threads? I’m quite interested to see in numbers to what extent the individuals that did attempt building were unsuccessful.

Addressed in the revised manuscript.

 Also, how did you trace spiders that did not rebuild webs in nature? Did they remain on old webs, or did you have to trace them on vegetation somehow?

 Addressed.

Additional minor comments:

 All minor comments addressed.

Lines 67-69: Orb weaving spiders in general rebuild webs daily, but they ingest the majority of the web, leaving the frame (the few threads needed for structural support) intact, not all radial threads.

Fixed. Thanks. 

Lines 79-81: The reference does not support the claim – it is about a SE Asian pholcid spider. Also, pholcids build long lasting sheet webs, not daily orbs.

 Deleted this sentence.

Lines 180-182: While silk threads to respond to humidity (e.g. look up supercontraction), I don’t think silk threads consist of high amounts of water (but I’m not sure). Please check of cite. However, glue does consist of a lot of water, but this is mainly due to the intake of atmospheric water. I would be willing to bet that the smaller overall silk amount is due to the general poor condition of a poisoned spider. Probably, there is less total thread length, and perhaps also thinner threads and less glue, all of which would drast

Reviewer 2 Report

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this manuscript, which is well written, almost devoid of typographical errors (I think I only picked up one..) and clearly of general interest due to the effects that mosquitos have on human wellbeing.

I have added a few very minor comments to the manuscript directly, but it can basically published as is.

I commend the authors for a fine study!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review #2

See PDF for additional comments & corrections.

We reviewed all suggestions in the PDF and addressed them in the manuscript. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of Rhoades and Stoddard 'Nonlethal effects of pesticides on orb-weaving spiders might account for rapid mosquito population rebound after spray application' submitted for publication in Applied Sciences.

This is a straight-forward and very interesting study evaluating the non-lethal effects of a common pesticide on the ability of an orb-weaving spider to prey on mosquitoes. The study evaluates the functional effects on both web construction and predatory role. This is a very relevant topic as much research has been focused on the lethal effects of pesticides on top predators, such as spiders, underestimating the non-lethal effects, which can be quite significant in reducing the predatory role of these organisms. It also has important implications for a more inclusive management of potential vectors of serious diseases. The manuscript is very well written (with some very minor suggestions) and easy to read. I have a few major comments followed by a list of specific comments and suggestions, which I hope will be useful to improve further an already good manuscript.

One of my major concerns about this study is the lack of a real control, that is, with nothing added to the webs (or just water, but no chemical). Authors described that webs were either sprayed with the pesticide, acetone+carrier and acetone only, but there were no untreated webs, therefore there is no real control to determine the outcome with clarity. Of course, results from the two treatments with no pesticide are clear and quite useful, but still we don't know whether the ingestion of webs sprayed with acetone+carrier or acetone alone have an effect on the spiders different to a 'natural' web. Yes, it doesn't kill the spiders (as noted in lines 93-94), but still the spiders are ingesting some 'unnatural' chemical that may affect other aspects of the spider biology. If authors cannot include in their design this real control, then a sound and strong justification needs to be explicit on why this control was not used. I understand that authors showed no major changes in web construction in the 'negative control' treatments compared to the pesticide treatment, but still it would have been nicer to have shown results of a no-treatment.

It is a very well written introduction that provides sufficient background information. One suggestion, though, is in relation to the last paragraph of this section. It feels it is cut short. The paragraph starts with the purpose of the study (which is fine) and provides some additional info about the pesticide (which is fine), but then stops there. Perhaps if authors introduce the Permithrin piece first, then introduce the purpose of the study and then add one or two sentences, for instance by providing some expectations of what the study may reveal, this would have a much better closure for this section.

Some minor precisions are needed in the methods section. In lines 104-105 authors mention that webs were 'photographed before this procedure'. However, it should be explicit and clear to what 'this procedure' they refer to, that is, is it after part of the web was removed and (presumably) before spraying? Also, in lines 105-106, authors mentioned webs were scored to measure web restoration; however, no details are provided on what the scoring criteria are. Please provide details. Also, on line 110, for the second part of the experiment, authors mention they sprayed webs 'with a control solution'. This is quite vague, which control solution if only one used, or if the two were used, how many webs were sprayed by each 16, or 8 and 8? Now, on line 114, authors mention an even mix of three mosquito species, but it is not really clear. How do they really know that mosquito numbers are even, based on the trapped numbers? If so, it would be quite useful for authors to provide the actual abundance ratio, as 'even mix' implies identical numbers (which I don't think they were). Now, it is not clear if five mosquitoes per species were blown into the web or from the 'mix', five mosquitoes (regardless of the species) were blown into the web. Given that authors mention that the three mosquito species are each of a different size class, is size another factor being considered in the experiment? These details are important and missing from the description.

Now, the Methods section is completely missing details about how data were analyzed and this is a major omission in this manuscript. There must be a detailed account of any analytical approaches taken, as without this piece, there is no way results would be believable. Some information, for example climatic data, is provided in the Results section; however, the Methods section is the more appropriate place for it.

How did the three treatments (pesticide, acetone+carrier, acetone) were allocated to the 15 webs? Was this at random? Please specify.

In the results, authors claim that webs treated with the 'negative controls' had been fully repaired 24 hrs later (line 128); however, the web in figure 2B clearly is not fully repaired; thus, the statement seems contradictory. Further, figure 2 seems contradictory as well based on what the legend reads. It says pictures were taken before and after exposure, but the captions on the 'before' pictures read 1 hour, which may be confusing and/or misleading. Either change the captions on the pictures or the text of the figure legend to improve clarity and avoid confusion.

The statement in lines 180-183 seems quite speculative and perhaps a bit of more support from the literature is needed, given the information provided. Results obtained do not suggest that smaller diameter in webs may be a result of dehydration caused by permethrin application; thus, a better justification, in my opinion, is in need. If such a reduction in diameter is evident, then something in the results section should be noted, for instance, performing an actual test comparing diameters between treated and untreated webs (here is were a control would have been quite useful). 

There is an interesting observation related to the inability of repairing webs in March vs. June. Authors suggest this as a result of temperature and humidity. These values (at least for temperature) and provided in the Results section (lines 145-147); however, it would have been much better if authors had registered temp/hum during the actual time in which the experiment was carried out and perhaps test formally (even as a correlation) to support statements. This is a very interesting observation that perhaps warrants more detail in the Discussion.

By the way, the Discussion section seems way too short (three short paragraphs) and perhaps, as suggested above, more details would be necessary to fully discuss the interesting results presented.

Specific comments:

L37-38. Make sure species abbreviation is correct, it should read A. aegipti.

L46. Although the statement is true to some extent, spiders are one of the dominant predators of insects (not necessarily only flying insects). Many spiders do not spin webs and have a much more limited ability to prey on flying insects. I'd suggest authors to reword.

L47. I'd be nice if authors can expand a bit on what the non-consumptive effects are, to provide a wider context to readers.

L55. Define 'UVL'

L56. 'permethrin; however, this'. Also, I suggest to remove 'both' as it reads difficult in the context of what is being said.

L58. 'change' in plural as it refers to 'spiders'. Also, it mentions 'in ways that reduce...', so perhaps having the following sentence starting with 'For instance,' makes a much better connection to the 'ways' in the previous sentence.

L61, 67 and 70. 'orb-weaving'.

L68-69. It would be useful if authors, for context purposes, include a brief statement explaining why these spiders eat the sticky spiral.

L71. I'd tone down the statement a bit as there are always exceptions to the rule. I'd say something like: 'Most species in the family Araneidae...., whereas many species in the family Tetragnathidae'.

L74. Be consistent on species naming format. Here the author is included, whereas for many other species authors have not been included. Also, for non-arachnologists, it would be good to mention up front that Leucauge argyrobapta is a tetragnathid. This will also connect nicely the last idea in the previous paragraph (I see it is mentioned later in line 77, though). Further, it may read better 'The Mable orchard spider (Leucauge argyrobapta, Tetragnathidae) is an abundant species in Florida (USA), throughout...'

L90. 'Miami-Dade County (Florida, USA)'

L96. Species name needs to be abbreviated.

L98. Perhaps provide the coordinates of the plot in which the experiment was conducted. This is useful information for interested readers.

L102. 'acetone plus carrier, and 15'

L114. 'A. aegypti'

L115. Is it perhaps 'BG-2 Sentinel trap'?

L117. 'that stick' in plural as is it refers to 'mosquitoes'

L127. Remove 'webs' from 'repaired webs' as the word has been used already previously in the same sentence.

L128-133. Perhaps this section can be organized for better flow. Here my suggested take: 'Webs treated with permethrin, in which some reconstruction had been attempted, showed significant changes to the final web design, and none did not resemble the species-typical webs. The circular web mesh, where it existed, had wider spacing on the adhesive spiral strands (Figure 2F) and the mesh was approximately half the diameter [on average?] of the original'. Please note that these results are purely descriptive, unless measurements were taken and provided.

L137-140. Normally results or interpretation of results should go in their corresponding main text locations, not in a figure legend.

L143. '...Test); however, after'

L145-147. This doesn't belong to the results, this is may be better suited for the Methods section

L163. 'in at least two ways'. Authors have evaluated two ways, this does not mean that Permethrin does not affect in other ways.

L74. Same a s above, 'in one of at least three ways'.

L178. Same as above, 'in at least two ways'

L182. Make sure the format of reference number 36 is correctly typed in the text.

L186. Check species abbreviation.

L188. 'incapacity' of what?

Author Response

Review #3

This is a straight-forward and very interesting study evaluating the non-lethal effects of a common pesticide on the ability of an orb-weaving spider to prey on mosquitoes. The study evaluates the functional effects on both web construction and predatory role. This is a very relevant topic as much research has been focused on the lethal effects of pesticides on top predators, such as spiders, underestimating the non-lethal effects, which can be quite significant in reducing the predatory role of these organisms. It also has important implications for a more inclusive management of potential vectors of serious diseases. The manuscript is very well written (with some very minor suggestions) and easy to read. I have a few major comments followed by a list of specific comments and suggestions, which I hope will be useful to improve further an already good manuscript.

One of my major concerns about this study is the lack of a real control, that is, with nothing added to the webs (or just water, but no chemical). Authors described that webs were either sprayed with the pesticide, acetone+carrier and acetone only, but there were no untreated webs, therefore there is no real control to determine the outcome with clarity. Of course, results from the two treatments with no pesticide are clear and quite useful, but still we don't know whether the ingestion of webs sprayed with acetone+carrier or acetone alone have an effect on the spiders different to a 'natural' web. Yes, it doesn't kill the spiders (as noted in lines 93-94), but still the spiders are ingesting some 'unnatural' chemical that may affect other aspects of the spider biology. If authors cannot include in their design this real control, then a sound and strong justification needs to be explicit on why this control was not used. I understand that authors showed no major changes in web construction in the 'negative control' treatments compared to the pesticide treatment, but still it would have been nicer to have shown results of a no-treatment.

We agree that a no-treatment control would have been ideal.  We addressed the concern in the manuscript with citations and explanations. Thanks.

It is a very well written introduction that provides sufficient background information. One suggestion, though, is in relation to the last paragraph of this section. It feels it is cut short. The paragraph starts with the purpose of the study (which is fine) and provides some additional info about the pesticide (which is fine), but then stops there. Perhaps if authors introduce the Permithrin piece first, then introduce the purpose of the study and then add one or two sentences, for instance by providing some expectations of what the study may reveal, this would have a much better closure for this section.

Good idea.  Done.

Some minor precisions are needed in the methods section. In lines 104-105 authors mention that webs were 'photographed before this procedure'. However, it should be explicit and clear to what 'this procedure' they refer to, that is, is it after part of the web was removed and (presumably) before spraying? Also, in lines 105-106, authors mentioned webs were scored to measure web restoration; however, no details are provided on what the scoring criteria are. Please provide details. Also, on line 110, for the second part of the experiment, authors mention they sprayed webs 'with a control solution'. This is quite vague, which control solution if only one used, or if the two were used, how many webs were sprayed by each 16, or 8 and 8?

Details and statistics added to methods section.

Now, on line 114, authors mention an even mix of three mosquito species, but it is not really clear. How do they really know that mosquito numbers are even, based on the trapped numbers? If so, it would be quite useful for authors to provide the actual abundance ratio, as 'even mix' implies identical numbers (which I don't think they were). Now, it is not clear if five mosquitoes per species were blown into the web or from the 'mix', five mosquitoes (regardless of the species) were blown into the web. Given that authors mention that the three mosquito species are each of a different size class, is size another factor being considered in the experiment? These details are important and missing from the description.

Addressed. Thanks.

Now, the Methods section is completely missing details about how data were analyzed and this is a major omission in this manuscript. There must be a detailed account of any analytical approaches taken, as without this piece, there is no way results would be believable. Some information, for example climatic data, is provided in the Results section; however, the Methods section is the more appropriate place for it.

Added. Thanks.

How did the three treatments (pesticide, acetone+carrier, acetone) were allocated to the 15 webs? Was this at random? Please specify.

Done.

In the results, authors claim that webs treated with the 'negative controls' had been fully repaired 24 hrs later (line 128); however, the web in figure 2B clearly is not fully repaired; thus, the statement seems contradictory.

Good eye!  We improved the text to be more accurate.

Further, figure 2 seems contradictory as well based on what the legend reads. It says pictures were taken before and after exposure, but the captions on the 'before' pictures read 1 hour, which may be confusing and/or misleading. Either change the captions on the pictures or the text of the figure legend to improve clarity and avoid confusion.

Thanks for spotting this mistake.  Fixed.

The statement in lines 180-183 seems quite speculative and perhaps a bit of more support from the literature is needed, given the information provided. Results obtained do not suggest that smaller diameter in webs may be a result of dehydration caused by permethrin application; thus, a better justification, in my opinion, is in need. If such a reduction in diameter is evident, then something in the results section should be noted, for instance, performing an actual test comparing diameters between treated and untreated webs (here is were a control would have been quite useful). 

We agree.  We deleted this text.

There is an interesting observation related to the inability of repairing webs in March vs. June. Authors suggest this as a result of temperature and humidity. These values (at least for temperature) and provided in the Results section (lines 145-147); however, it would have been much better if authors had registered temp/hum during the actual time in which the experiment was carried out and perhaps test formally (even as a correlation) to support statements. This is a very interesting observation that perhaps warrants more detail in the Discussion.

Done.

By the way, the Discussion section seems way too short (three short paragraphs) and perhaps, as suggested above, more details would be necessary to fully discuss the interesting results presented.

Done.  This is the first time in maybe 70 publications of mine that a reviewer has suggested lengthening the Discussion section.  

Specific comments:

L37-38. Make sure species abbreviation is correct, it should read A. aegypti.

Because “ae” is a typographical expansion of a single Latin character not present in the English alphabet, Aedes is properly abbreviated “Ae.” and not “A.”  That’s how it is done throughout the published literature.

L46. Although the statement is true to some extent, spiders are one of the dominant predators of insects (not necessarily only flying insects). Many spiders do not spin webs and have a much more limited ability to prey on flying insects. I'd suggest authors to reword.

Done.

L47. I'd be nice if authors can expand a bit on what the non-consumptive effects are, to provide a wider context to readers.

Rephrased to be more clear.

L55. Define 'UVL'

Done (should be ULV).

L56. 'permethrin; however, this'. Also, I suggest to remove 'both' as it reads difficult in the context of what is being said.

Done.

L58. 'change' in plural as it refers to 'spiders'. Also, it mentions 'in ways that reduce...', so perhaps having the following sentence starting with 'For instance,' makes a much better connection to the 'ways' in the previous sentence.

Done.

L61, 67 and 70. 'orb-weaving'.

Done.

L68-69. It would be useful if authors, for context purposes, include a brief statement explaining why these spiders eat the sticky spiral.

Authors assume spiders benefit by making a new, better-functioning web, and consuming the old web reduces the cost.  However, lacking experimental evidence, we don’t really know the extent of the benefits, so I don’t care to speculate in print. 

L71. I'd tone down the statement a bit as there are always exceptions to the rule. I'd say something like: 'Most species in the family Araneidae...., whereas many species in the family Tetragnathidae'.

Done.

L74. Be consistent on species naming format. Here the author is included, whereas for many other species authors have not been included. Also, for non-arachnologists, it would be good to mention up front that Leucauge argyrobapta is a tetragnathid. This will also connect nicely the last idea in the previous paragraph (I see it is mentioned later in line 77, though). Further, it may read better 'The Mable orchard spider (Leucauge argyrobapta, Tetragnathidae) is an abundant species in Florida (USA), throughout...'

Done.

L90. 'Miami-Dade County (Florida, USA)'

Done.

L96. Species name needs to be abbreviated.

Done.

L98. Perhaps provide the coordinates of the plot in which the experiment was conducted. This is useful information for interested readers.

Done.

L102. 'acetone plus carrier, and 15'

Done.

L114. 'A. aegypti'

See above.

L115. Is it perhaps 'BG-2 Sentinel trap'?

Done.

L117. 'that stick' in plural as is it refers to 'mosquitoes'

Done.

L127. Remove 'webs' from 'repaired webs' as the word has been used already previously in the same sentence.

Done.

L128-133. Perhaps this section can be organized for better flow. Here my suggested take: 'Webs treated with permethrin, in which some reconstruction had been attempted, showed significant changes to the final web design, and none did not resemble the species-typical webs. The circular web mesh, where it existed, had wider spacing on the adhesive spiral strands (Figure 2F) and the mesh was approximately half the diameter [on average?] of the original'. Please note that these results are purely descriptive, unless measurements were taken and provided.

Done.  Thank you.

L137-140. Normally results or interpretation of results should go in their corresponding main text locations, not in a figure legend. 

Adding descriptive information to figure legends greatly improves their value to readers.  See: Kroodsma DE (2000) A quick fix for figure legends and table headings. The Auk, 117,1081–1083, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/117.4.1081

L143. '...Test); however, after'

Done.

L145-147. This doesn't belong to the results, this is may be better suited for the Methods section

Moved.

L163. 'in at least two ways'. Authors have evaluated two ways, this does not mean that Permethrin does not affect in other ways.

Done.

L74. Same a s above, 'in one of at least three ways'.

Done.

L178. Same as above, 'in at least two ways'

Done.

L182. Make sure the format of reference number 36 is correctly typed in the text.

Done.

L186. Check species abbreviation.

Done.

L188. 'incapacity' of what?

Changed to “immobility”.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read the revised version of the manuscript and I am happy to see that  my suggestions and concerns were considered and many of them were addressed. I think the manuscript has improved considerably from previous version.

I'd suggest authors to carefully re-read the document once all the control-changes had been removed to make sure it flows naturally. For instance line 71 of the edited version would read 'ingesting the spiral silk strands while leaving the some of the radial structural strands'.

One minor comment in the Methods section (lines 147-158). Authors describe that five mosquitoes were propelled, selected at random. Having the statement 'selected at random' at this point bears no context and contributes little. It is only after, when authors mention that mosquitoes of two species were captured locally and these were used for the experiment. Thus, I suggest to provide this latter information first, so the 'selected at random' makes sense. Now, I'm curious, in the original manuscript it was mentioned that there were three mosquito species in the collected mix used for the experiment, but now in the new version one of the species was removed from the text. Why is that? These facts about the experiment shouldn't change as they should be 'set in stone' from the start of the experiment and have nothing to do with the review process.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

I have read the revised version of the manuscript and I am happy to see that my suggestions and concerns were considered and many of them were addressed. I think the manuscript has improved considerably from previous version.

I'd suggest authors to carefully re-read the document once all the control-changes had been removed to make sure it flows naturally. For instance line 71 of the edited version would read 'ingesting the spiral silk strands while leaving the some of the radial structural strands'.

We gave the manuscript a thorough re-ironing to smooth out all the wrinkles.

One minor comment in the Methods section (lines 147-158). Authors describe that five mosquitoes were propelled, selected at random. Having the statement 'selected at random' at this point bears no context and contributes little. It is only after, when authors mention that mosquitoes of two species were captured locally and these were used for the experiment. Thus, I suggest to provide this latter information first, so the 'selected at random' makes sense.

Thanks. We agree with you and rewrote the section to read better.

Now, I'm curious, in the original manuscript it was mentioned that there were three mosquito species in the collected mix used for the experiment, but now in the new version one of the species was removed from the text. Why is that? These facts about the experiment shouldn't change as they should be 'set in stone' from the start of the experiment and have nothing to do with the review process.

Reviewing our records to address the other questions alerted me to the “correction”.  Here’s what happened:  Our pilot experiments and first two field attempts used an even mix of the three mosquito species.  Catastrophic South Florida thunderstorms literally washed out our first two field trials, dispersing the spiders partway through and forcing us to start over.  By our third attempt, Culex were expiring in the summer heat while our traps were yielding fresh Aedes and Wyeomyia.  By the third and fourth field trials our mosquito cages just held the latter two mosquito species.  Throughout our pilot tests and early trials we found the spiders caught all three mosquito species with equal facility.  However, the final data set included in the report included no Culex.  Upon reflection, we thought it best the report be updated to reflect the mosquito mix in the completed data set and not the mix used in prior month’s efforts.  We hope you support this judgement call and apologize for the late change.