Trapping mosquitoes using milk products as odour baits in western Kenya

Parasites & Vectors

Table 1 Comparison of the mean catch per trap per night for each of the three abdominal status of every mosquito species collected by the four trapping methods used in the preliminary investigations at Lwanda Nyamasari village.

		*Anopheles arabiensis*				*Anopheles gambiae*				*Anopheles funestus*				Total No. of mosquitoes %
Method	N	Fed mean	Unfed mean	Gravid mean	Sum %	Fed mean	Unfed mean	Gravid mean	Sum %	Fed mean	Unfed mean	Gravid mean	sum %
CFG	16	0.2^b	0.4^c	0.0^a	10 (9)	0.0^a	1.0^b	0.1^a	16 (15)	0.0^b	2.3^a	0.4^b	44 (23)	70 (17)
CDC	16	0.2^b	3.4^a	0.1^a	59 (51)	0.3^a	2.1^a	0.1^a	40 (36)	0.0^b	5.3^c	0.2^ab	89 (47)	188 (45)
ET	16	0.1^b	0.1^c	0.0^a	3 (3)	0.0^a	0.1^b	0.0^a	2 (2)	0.0^b	0.0^b	0.0^a	0 (0.0)	5 (1)
MLC	16	0.7^a	2.0^b	0.1^a	43 (37)	0.4^a	2.8^a	0.1^a	52 (47)	0.3^a	3.2^ac	0.1^a	57 (30)	152 (37)

Sum of each mosquito species in each trap is also shown with the percentage in parenthesis. CFG, counterflow geometry trap baited with Limburger cheese; CDC, standard centers for disease control light trap; ET, entry trap; MLC, man landing catches; N represents the number of days over which sampling was done. The percentages are calculated for each mosquito species. For example the CFG trap collected 9% of all the An. arabiensis collected by the four trapping methods while the CDC light trap collected 51% of the same. Values following each other in the same column with different letter superscripts are significantly different at (P = 0.05).

ISSN: 1756-3305