Scalable camera traps for measuring the attractiveness of sugar baits for controlling malaria and dengue vectors.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101462774 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1756-3305 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17563305 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Parasit Vectors Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : BioMed Central

Mosquito Control*/methods ; Mosquito Control*/instrumentation ; Mosquito Vectors*/physiology ; Dengue*/transmission ; Dengue*/prevention & control ; Anopheles*/physiology ; Aedes*/physiology ; Malaria*/transmission ; Malaria*/prevention & control; Animals ; Female ; Male ; Tanzania ; Humans ; Sugars ; Sucrose ; Feeding Behavior ; Photography

Background: Attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) are promising new interventions that can complement existing vector control tools. However, reproducible and quantitative information on the level of attractiveness of ATSBs under field conditions is needed. Therefore, we customized camera traps for close-up imaging. We integrated them into a rugged ATSB monitoring station for day and nighttime recording of mosquitoes landing on the bait.
Methods: The camera traps were evaluated in a semifield system and then in the field in rural Tanzania. In semifield experiments, camera traps were set up in large cages (2 m × 5 m × 2 m) to record mosquitoes landing on an attractive sugar bait (ASB), a blank ASB, or 20% sucrose (w/v). Next, 198 mosquitoes (33 males and 33 females of Anopheles arabiensis, An. funestus and Aedes aegypti) were released into each large cage and allowed to seek a sugar meal for 72 h with a camera recording images of the mosquitoes present on the ASB at 1-min intervals. In the field, 16 camera traps were set in 16 households, 7 with ASB attractant, 7 with ASB blank, and 2 with 20% sucrose (w/v). Human landing catch (HLC) was performed on the same nights as the camera trap recordings.
Results: Under semifield conditions, significantly more mosquitoes visited the ASBs than the blank baits, with An. funestus visiting more frequently than An. arabiensis. There were no significant differences between female and male An. arabiensis visits, but female An. funestus visited more than their conspecific males did. The duration of visits did not vary between the ASB and blank controls or between the mosquito species. Moreover, mosquitoes visited the ASB or sucrose equally, with An. arabiensis visiting the baits more than An. funestus. Compared with male mosquitoes, female mosquitoes visited the baits more often. There was no significant difference in visit duration between the species.  In the field study, a mean of 70 An. arabiensis were caught per person per night on HLC, while 1 individual was caught per night on ASBs. There were significantly more visits by mosquitoes to the ASB than to the ASB blanks or sucrose solution, with more An. arabiensis visiting the baits than An. funestus or Culex quinquefasciatus. Significantly more females than males visited the baits of all the species. Again, the duration of visits was similar among An. arabiensis, An. funestus and C. quinquefasciatus. Aedes aegypti very rarely visited ASBs in the semifield experiments, and none were observed on baits in the field.
Conclusions: Using camera traps to record still images of mosquitoes on ASBs offers reliable, reproducible and quantitative information on their attractiveness in various environmental conditions. Thus, camera traps serve as effective tools for evaluating and improving ATSB technology.
Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethical approval and consent to participate: Before starting the fieldwork, permission was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the Ifakara Health Institute (IHI/IRB/AMM/No: 24–2021) and Medical Research Coordination Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research in Tanzania (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/3777). Consent for publication: Volunteers provided written informed consent to participate in the study and for the publication of this report and any accompanying images. Approval for publication was also obtained from the National Institute of Medical Research in Tanzania (BD.242/437/01C/57). Competing interests: Fredros Okumu is a Subject Editor for Parasites & Vectors and was not involved in the peer review of this paper. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)

Malar J. 2017 Aug 15;16(1):338. (PMID: 28810866)
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Jun 19;7:276. (PMID: 24946878)
Med Vet Entomol. 2013 Sep;27(3):284-97. (PMID: 23077986)
Int J Parasitol. 2006 Sep;36(10-11):1077-80. (PMID: 16860326)
PLoS One. 2017 May 18;12(5):e0177807. (PMID: 28542335)
Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 17;8(1):13949. (PMID: 30224714)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Feb 20;12(2):e0006185. (PMID: 29462150)
Ecol Evol. 2017 Aug 14;7(18):7527-7533. (PMID: 28944036)
Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 29;12(1):20596. (PMID: 36446923)
Parasit Vectors. 2014 Jul 16;7:333. (PMID: 25030527)
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2008 May;102(5):480-4. (PMID: 18387642)
Malar J. 2008 Aug 20;7:158. (PMID: 18715508)
Malar J. 2010 Dec 08;9:356. (PMID: 21143870)
Acta Trop. 2014 Mar;131:104-10. (PMID: 24361724)
Malar J. 2020 Feb 13;19(1):70. (PMID: 32054502)
Malar J. 2010 Jul 21;9:210. (PMID: 20663142)
Parasit Vectors. 2013 Dec 05;6:340. (PMID: 24304974)
Pest Manag Sci. 2019 Sep;75(9):2341-2345. (PMID: 31050133)
Malar J. 2015 Aug 05;14:301. (PMID: 26242186)
Malar J. 2018 Jan 10;17(1):22. (PMID: 29321011)
Trends Parasitol. 2012 Mar;28(3):114-21. (PMID: 22300806)
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1983 Sep;32(5):1130-9. (PMID: 6625067)
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 1;11(1):4838. (PMID: 33649429)
Malar J. 2012 Feb 01;11:31. (PMID: 22297155)
Acta Trop. 2015 Oct;150:29-34. (PMID: 26119042)
Wellcome Open Res. 2017 Oct 2;2:96. (PMID: 29417094)
Parasitol Res. 2014 Jan;113(1):73-9. (PMID: 24122115)
Malar J. 2020 Feb 14;19(1):72. (PMID: 32059671)
Front Microbiol. 2020 Sep 25;11:584846. (PMID: 33101259)
Environ Entomol. 2013 Oct;42(5):1040-5. (PMID: 24331613)
Infect Genet Evol. 2014 Dec;28:648-61. (PMID: 24933461)
Acta Trop. 2021 Apr;216:105837. (PMID: 33485868)
Malar J. 2023 Mar 1;22(1):70. (PMID: 36855105)
Malar J. 2011 Jun 06;10:151. (PMID: 21645385)
Sci Transl Med. 2022 Jun 29;14(651):eabn3256. (PMID: 35767649)
Malar J. 2023 Jun 21;22(1):190. (PMID: 37344867)
Malar J. 2021 Mar 17;20(1):151. (PMID: 33731111)
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2008 Mar;24(1):147-9. (PMID: 18437830)
Phytochem Lett. 2014 May;8:196-201. (PMID: 25383131)
Malar J. 2020 Jan 7;19(1):11. (PMID: 31910831)
Malar J. 2011 Apr 09;10:80. (PMID: 21477321)
Annu Rev Entomol. 1995;40:443-74. (PMID: 7810991)
Malar J. 2010 Sep 20;9:262. (PMID: 20854666)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 May 24;119(21):e2104282119. (PMID: 35576470)
Parasit Vectors. 2020 Jun 10;13(1):295. (PMID: 32522290)
J Am Mosq Control Assoc. 2011 Dec;27(4):444-6. (PMID: 22329281)
Malar J. 2021 Apr 14;20(1):184. (PMID: 33853632)
Insects. 2022 Mar 22;13(4):. (PMID: 35447753)
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 19;8(12):e84168. (PMID: 24367638)

INV-007509 United States GATES Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; INV-007509 United States GATES Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Keywords: Aedes and Anopheles; ASB; ATSB; Camera trap; Dengue; Malaria

0 (Sugars)
57-50-1 (Sucrose)

Date Created: 20241203 Date Completed: 20241204 Latest Revision: 20241207

20250114

PMC11616269

10.1186/s13071-024-06539-4

39627795