| Literature DB >> 20854666 |
Günter C Müller1, John C Beier, Sekou F Traore, Mahamoudou B Toure, Mohamed M Traore, Sekou Bah, Seydou Doumbia, Yosef Schlein.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on recent studies in Israel demonstrating that attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) methods can be used to decimate local anopheline and culicine mosquito populations, an important consideration is whether the same methods can be adapted and improved to attract and kill malaria vectors in Africa. The ATSB approach uses fruit or flower scent as an attractant, sugar solution as a feeding stimulant, and an oral toxin. The ATSB solutions are either sprayed on vegetation or suspended in simple bait stations, and the mosquitoes ingesting the toxic solutions are killed. As such, this approach targets sugar-feeding female and male mosquitoes. This study examines the attractiveness of African malaria vectors to local fruits/seedpods and flowering plants, key biological elements of the ATSB approach for mosquito control.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20854666 PMCID: PMC2949744 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-262
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Picture of the type of glue trap used for testing mosquito attraction to local fruits/seedpods and flowering plants in Mali. The three pictures show how traps are mounted, how flowering plants are inserted, and how the outside of the trap is painted with glue.
Mean number of An. gambiae s.l. (± SE) females and males caught in seven replicates using fruits and seedpods of 26 plant species as attractants.
| Females | Males | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant species | Mean ± SE | P | Attraction indexa | Mean ± SE | P | Attraction indexa |
| 14.00 ± 2.52 | < 0.01 | 5.83 | 9.00 ± 2.16 | < 0.01 | 5.63 | |
| 8.00 ± 1.60 | < 0.01 | 3.33 | 5.57 ± 1.27 | < 0.05 | 3.48 | |
| 7.43 ± 1.71 | < 0.05 | 3.10 | 5.71 ± 1.43 | < 0.05 | 3.57 | |
| 6.29 ± 1.05 | < 0.05 | 2.62 | 4.14 ± 1.12 | < 0.05 | 2.59 | |
| 6.00 ± 1.62 | NS | 2.50 | 3.43 ± 0.78 | NS | 2.14 | |
| 5.86 ± 1.48 | NS | 2.44 | 3.86 ± 0.98 | NS | 2.41 | |
| 5.71 ± 1.29 | NS | 2.38 | 4.00 ± 1.00 | NS | 2.5 | |
| 5.57 ± 0.81 | < 0.05 | 2.33 | 3.71 ± 0.87 | NS | 2.32 | |
| 5.00 ± 0.97 | NS | 2.08 | 4.71 ± 1.54 | < 0.05 | 2.94 | |
| 4.57 ± 0.91 | NS | 1.90 | 3.29 ± 0.56 | NS | 2.06 | |
| 3.71 ± 0.90 | NS | 1.55 | 3.14 ± 0.72 | NS | 1.96 | |
| 3.29 ± 0.81 | NS | 1.37 | 2.14 ± 0.50 | NS | 0.86 | |
| 3.14 ± 0.76 | NS | 1.31 | 2.00 ± 0.53 | NS | 1.25 | |
| 3.00 ± 0.78 | NS | 1.25 | 1.86 ± 0.55 | NS | 1.16 | |
| 3.00 ± 0.62 | NS | 1.25 | 1.43 ± 0.46 | NS | 0.89 | |
| 2.86 ± 0.55 | NS | 1.19 | 1.57 ± 0.40 | NS | 0.98 | |
| 2.86 ± 0.44 | NS | 1.19 | 1.43 ± 0.66 | NS | 0.89 | |
| 2.71 ± 1.07 | NS | 1.13 | 2.29 ± 0.45 | NS | 1.43 | |
| 2.57 ± 1.13 | NS | 1.07 | 1.71 ± 0.66 | NS | 1.07 | |
| 2.57 ± 1.13 | NS | 1.07 | 1.29 ± 0.39 | NS | 0.81 | |
| 2.57 ± 0.81 | NS | 1.07 | 1.14 ± 0.44 | NS | 0.71 | |
| 2.43 ± 0.62 | NS | 0.94 | 1.71 ± 0.56 | NS | 1.07 | |
| 2.29 ± 0.70 | NS | 0.95 | 1.86 ± 0.76 | NS | 1.16 | |
| 2.29 ± 0.77 | NS | 0.95 | 1.43 ± 0.52 | NS | 0.89 | |
| 2.14 ± 0.80 | NS | 0.89 | 1.57 ± 0.62 | NS | 0.98 | |
| 2.14 ± 0.50 | NS | 0.89 | 1.14 ± 0.50 | NS | 0.71 | |
| Control | ||||||
| water | 2.40 ± 0.61 | - | 1.00 | 1.60 ± 0.52 | - | 1.00 |
| sugar solution | 2.75 ± 0.67 | = 0.47 | 1.15 | 1.50 ± 0.55 | = 0.84 | 0.94 |
a Attraction index: mean baited/mean baited by water-soaked sponge (control)
NS-not significantly different from water-soaked sponge mean catch (t-test).
Figure 2Pictures of the most attractive fruits/seedpods determined for .
Mean number of An. gambiae s.l. (± SE) females and males caught in six replicates using 26 flowering plant species as attractants.
| Females | Males | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant species | Mean ± SE | P | Attraction indexa | Mean ± SE | P | Attraction indexa |
| 105.83 ± 16.12 | < 0.01 | 19.24 | 41.33 ± 9.18 | < 0.01 | 14.76 | |
| 76.83 ± 12.35 | < 0.01 | 13.97 | 27.83 ± 7.30 | < 0.05 | 9.94 | |
| 64.00 ± 9.69 | < 0.01 | 11.64 | 34.67 ± 6.88 | < 0.01 | 12.38 | |
| 51.17 ± 12.64 | < 0.05 | 9.30 | 22.33 ± 7.37 | < 0.05 | 7.98 | |
| 36.67 ± 8.29 | < 0.05 | 6.67 | 18.83 ± 4.32 | < 0.05 | 6.73 | |
| 23.67 ± 4.16 | < 0.05 | 4.30 | 13.17 ± 2.73 | < 0.05 | 4.70 | |
| 19.83 ± 4.41 | < 0.05 | 3.61 | 11.83 ± 2.42 | < 0.05 | 4.23 | |
| 16.17 ± 4.09 | < 0.05 | 2.94 | 12.50 ± 2.91 | < 0.05 | 4.46 | |
| 9.17 ± 1.74 | < 0.05 | 1.67 | 8.67 ± 2.57 | NS | 3.10 | |
| 8.50 ± 1.61 | NS | 1.55 | 5.33 ± 1.28 | NS | 1.90 | |
| 7.83 ± 2.00 | NS | 1.42 | 3.83 ± 0.40 | NS | 1.37 | |
| 7.00 ± 1.24 | NS | 1.27 | 3.5 ± 0.72 | NS | 1.25 | |
| 6.50 ± 1.71 | NS | 1.18 | 3.67 ± 1.43 | NS | 1.31 | |
| 6.33 ± 1.28 | NS | 1.15 | 4.00 ± 0.63 | NS | 1.43 | |
| 6.17 ± 1.76 | NS | 1.12 | 2.50 ± 1.06 | NS | 0.89 | |
| 6.00 ± 1.24 | NS | 1.09 | 3.17 ± 0.83 | NS | 1.13 | |
| 5.67 ± 1.15 | NS | 1.03 | 2.00 ± 0.45 | NS | 0.71 | |
| 5.67 ± 1.17 | NS | 1.03 | 3.00 ± 0.73 | NS | 1.07 | |
| 5.50 ± 0.92 | NS | 1.00 | 2.67 ± 0.49 | NS | 0.95 | |
| 5.33 ± 1.33 | NS | 0.97 | 3.33 ± 0.61 | NS | 1.19 | |
| 5.17 ± 1.14 | NS | 0.94 | 2.33 ± 0.67 | NS | 0.83 | |
| 4.83 ± 1.01 | NS | 0.88 | 2.33 ± 0.92 | NS | 0.83 | |
| 4.83 ± 0.65 | NS | 0.88 | 2.17 ± 0.48 | NS | 0.78 | |
| 4.67 ± 1.23 | NS | 0.85 | 2.50 ± 1.02 | NS | 0.89 | |
| 4.33 ± 0.99 | NS | 0.79 | 2.83 ± 0.60 | NS | 1.01 | |
| 2.00 ± 0.58 | < 0.05 | 0.36 | 0.33 ± 0.20 | < 0.05 | 0.12 | |
| Control | ||||||
| water | 5.5 ± 0.90 | - | 1.00 | 2.79 ± 0.68 | - | 1.00 |
| sugar solution | 5.93 ± 1.12 | = 0.63 | 1.08 | 3.21 ± 0.72 | = 0.44 | 1.15 |
a Attraction index: mean baited/mean baited by water-soaked sponge (control)
NS-not significantly different from water-soaked sponge mean catch (t-test).
Figure 3Pictures of the most attractive flowering plants determined for .
Figure 4Picture of the only repellent plant (.
Figure 5Nocturnal periodicity of .