Study Examines Mosquito Breeding Habits to Help Fight the Bite

Researcher Paul Leisnham and his team found that low socioeconomic conditions produced a lot of habitat suited to the Asian tiger mosquito.


Asian tiger mosquito (ATM) has become the most important nuisance pest in many northeastern urban and suburban areas. Aedes albopictus is found in 30 states and can reproduce in a bottle cap of water, not to mention flowerpots, clogged gutters, rain barrels, and wading pools. And the topper: it likely transmits West Nile virus.
 
Two hotbeds for ATM complaints are Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD. So Paul Leisnham focused his three-year research-extension project there in 2011. Leisnham, an ecologist at the University of Maryland, spearheaded Management of the Asian Tiger Mosquito among Socioeconomically Diverse Urban Neighborhoods through Community-based Education and Involvement.
 
According to Leisnham, “our work showed that low socioeconomic conditions produced a lot of habitat suited to ATM: large amounts of shaded, medium-small trash containers. Identifying social and environmental factors related to high abundances of water-filled containers is important for predicting where they are likely to be over the course of a summer.” (Interestingly enough, subsequent research revealed that these containers dry out and mosquito production switches during the summer to watered containers in higher socioeconomic neighborhoods).
 
Scientists know that communities can’t spray for ATM—not just because it’s expensive but because breeding sites are too numerous and diverse. Plus, the sites are often hidden on private property. The most practical solutions would be for residents to drain and remove small water-holding containers and to apply a biorational insecticide (mosquito dunk) to large amounts of standing water. But how to teach and motivate them?
 
Leisnham’s team visited 240 study households and once in the first two years distributed ATM print educational material to 50% of them. “Over half of the surveyed residents who received materials reported never reading them,” stated Leisnham. “Print education appears limited in its impact, is unlikely to be an effective intervention for most communities, and costs money.”
 
Click here to read more.
Source: IPM Insights