Table 2 Comparison of Anopheles abundance collected indoor or outdoor and in houses near or far from the rivers
Study site | Species | CDC light trap catch indoor | CDC light trap catch outdoor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Near (%) | Far (%) | Total | Near (%) | Far (%) | Total | ||
Ghibe | An. gambiae (s.l.) | 367 (89.1) | 45 (10.9) | 412 | 805 (87.5) | 115 (12.5) | 920 |
An. coustani | 7 (36.8) | 12 (63.2) | 19 | 66 (60.0) | 44 (40.0) | 110 | |
An. demeilloni | 10 (90.9) | 1 (9.1) | 11 | 12 (80.0) | 3 (20.0) | 15 | |
An. rupicolus | 3 (100) | – | 3 | 16 (66.7) | 8 (33.3) | 24 | |
An. christyi | 1 (100) | – | 1 | 10 (55.6) | 8 (44.4) | 18 | |
An. pretoriensis | 1 (100) | – | 1 | 27 (65.9) | 14 (34.1) | 41 | |
An. pharoensis | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | 3 | 11 (91.7) | 1 (8.3) | 12 | |
An. tenebrosus | – | – | – | 12 (70.6) | 5 (29.4) | 17 | |
Total | 391 (86.9) | 59 (13.1) | 450 | 959 (82.9) | 198 (17.1) | 1157 | |
Darge | An. gambiae (s.l.) | 48 (64.0) | 27 (36.0) | 75 | 20 (41.7) | 28 (58.3) | 48 |
An. coustani | 3 (100) | – | 3 | 25 (92.6) | 2 (7.4) | 27 | |
An. demeilloni | 5 (100) | – | 5 | 8 (100) | – | 8 | |
An. rupicolus | – | 1 (100) | 1 | 12 (100) | – | 12 | |
An. nili | – | – | – | 6 (100) | – | 6 | |
Total | 56 (66.7) | 28 (33.3) | 84 | 71 (70.3) | 30 (29.7) | 101 | |