Content uploaded by Brian J. Johnson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brian J. Johnson on Jan 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Insects 2017, 8, 5; doi:10.3390/insects8010005 www.mdpi.com/journal/insects
Review
The State of the Art of Lethal Oviposition Trap-Based
Mass Interventions for Arboviral Control
Brian J. Johnson 1,2,*, Scott A. Ritchie 1,2 and Dina M. Fonseca 3
1 College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, McGregor Rd.,
Cairns, QLD 4878, Australia; scott.ritchie@jcu.edu.au
2 Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, P.O. Box 6811,
Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia
3 Center for Vector Biology, Rutgers University, 180 Jones Ave., New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA;
dinafons@rutgers.edu
* Correspondence: brian.johnson@jcu.edu.au; Tel.: +61-7-4232-1202
Academic Editor: Walter J. Tabachnick
Received: 2 November 2016; Accepted: 19 December 2016; Published: 8 January 2017
Abstract: The intensifying expansion of arboviruses highlights the need for
effective invasive
Aedes
control. While mass-trapping interventions have long been discredited as inefficient compared
to insecticide applications, increasing levels of insecticide resistance, and the development of
simple affordable traps that target and kill gravid female mosquitoes, show great promise. We
summarize the methodologies and outcomes of recent lethal oviposition trap-based mass
interventions for suppression of urban
Aedes
and their associated diseases. The evidence
supports the recommendation of
mass deployments of oviposition traps to suppress populations
of invasive Aedes, although better measures of the effects on disease control are needed. Strategies
associated with successful mass-trap deployments include: (1) high coverage (>80%) of the
residential areas; (2) pre-intervention and/or parallel source reduction campaigns; (3) direct
involvement of community members for economic long-term sustainability; and (4) use of new-
generation larger traps (Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap, AGO; Gravid Aedes Trap, GAT) to outcompete
remaining water-holding containers. While to the best of our knowledge all published studies so far
have been on Ae. aegypti in resource-poor or tropical settings, we propose that mass deployment of
lethal oviposition traps can be used for focused cost-effective control of temperate Ae. albopictus pre-
empting arboviral epidemics and increasing participation of residents in urban mosquito control.
Keywords: urban; invasive; Aedes; ovitrap; vector control; dengue; Zika; community engagement
1. Introduction
The
continued global scourge of mosquito-borne dengue fever [1],
the recent emergence and
explosive spread of chikungunya around the world [2], of Zika fever in South and Central
America and, most importantly, its association with fetal microcephaly [3],
have provided
renewed impetus for the development of effective urban mosquito control. The primary vectors
of emerging arboviruses are invasive
Aedes aegypti
and
Aedes albopictus
that thrive in private
backyards and/or inside the residence [4,5]
, limiting
the efficacy of area-wide mosquito control
approaches [6]
. Rising insecticide resistance in Aedes [7] often leads to failed control and the short-
lived efficacy of adulticides (often only a couple of days) requires frequent applications [8,9].
Therefore, although models often support the use of peri-domestic insecticide space spraying to
control dengue, and now Zika, there has been little to no epidemiological evidence that such costly
and time consuming control strategies are effective [10].
Insects 2017, 8, 5 2 of 15
The evidence is strong for the need for novel control methods, ideally those circumventing the
use of insecticides, and that are cheap, allowing for deployment in resource-poor areas and/or at the
large scale needed for eradication, a viable aim when addressing invasive species limited by their
association to humans and human-modified environments [11,12]. A standard approach in pest
control is to exploit “weak links”, critical needs of the pest that may be targeted for control [13], such
as the characteristic behavior of urban Aedes females to lay eggs
in artificial (man-made) water-
holding containers [14–16]
. Of note, in temperate regions, where with some exceptions [17,18] Aedes-
vectored viruses are still a worry and not a panic, public health campaigns employ
residents to
empty or remove any water-holding containers from their yards [19]
. Even when such advice is
supported by information campaigns, however, there has been a lack of entomological data showing
that residents on their own can significantly reduce Aedes habitat from their properties [20], but see
[21]. More importantly, however, there has been scarce evidence that targeting just immature stages
has a real impact on adult populations [22], possibly because there is such high baseline immature
mortality due to the transient nature of the small containers exploited by invasive Aedes [23] and
density-dependent regulation due to limited food in containers [24].
With the goal of developing new interventions aimed at reducing both adult female mosquitoes
and their future offspring, researchers have developed lethal oviposition traps, which are “lure and
kill” traps that lure ovipositing females with an attractive infusion and kill them when they attempt
to lay eggs (Figure 1). Importantly, these traps target a critical epidemiological stage: gravid female
mosquitoes that are more likely to be infected with a vector-borne pathogen than the general adult
population, since they have had contact with blood. Females are usually killed quickly, thus killing
their progeny, leading to population reductions—larvae or adults that may develop from dropped
eggs are killed by residual insecticide or trapped and drowned. Of note, likely a consequence of the
high container turnover rate, as well as the need to avoid high-competition environments for the
immature, female Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus are “bet-hedgers” that employ strategies to minimize
the risk of total reproductive failure, or the loss of all eggs, over space and time by laying their eggs
among several oviposition sources [25,26]. This “skip-oviposition” strategy [27,28] means the
attractiveness of the trap relative to alternative water-holding containers is critical for control
effectiveness. Of note, temperate populations of Ae. albopictus allow diapausing eggs to accumulate
in the fall [26], possibly to maximize the chance of successful emergence in the spring, a strategy that
can be easily exploited for control.
The first modern example of a lethal trap for mosquito control can be credited to Lok et al. [29]
and consisted of a black, water-filled cylindrical container with a flotation device made up of a wire
mesh and two wooden paddles. Although ovipositing females were not killed, after eggs laid on the
wooden paddles hatched, larvae developed in the water under the wire mesh and emerging adults
trapped under the wire mesh drowned. While the trap was largely successful at eliminating Ae.
aegypti from the Singapore International Airport in the late 1970s [29], it was prone to mechanical
failure and, as mentioned, did not kill adult females. Thus, the next step in trap evolution was the
development of the lethal ovitrap (LO, Figure 1a), the first lethal oviposition trap. LOs are commonly
comprised of a small black plastic cup (400–700 mL) containing an insecticide treated ovistrip that
kills ovipositing females attracted by the hay and water infusion [30–32]. LOs can be very cheap
(<US$1) and therefore hundreds of traps can be deployed simultaneously across many individual
residences to achieve high coverage. A drawback of LOs, however, is that they are ineffective against
insecticide-resistant individuals [30,32–34]. To overcome the problem imposed by insecticide
resistance, several researchers developed a sticky ovitrap (SO; Figure 1b,c) [35–38]. SOs use the same
“lure and kill” strategy of LOs, but instead of insecticide treated ovistrips, they contain an adhesive
strip that captures and kills ovipositing females. The added benefit of SOs is that they can be used for
mosquito surveillance or to determine viral infection rates in local mosquito populations.
But a trade-off of the low price of the original LOs and SOs is their small size and consequently
high evaporation rates, which mandates short maintenance intervals (at least once a week depending
on rainfall). A larger trap, besides holding more attractive infusion [39], allows for longer
maintenance intervals and also provides a more conspicuous visual target for gravid females
Insects 2017, 8, 5 3 of 15
searching for suitable oviposition sites by a greater release of infusion and olfactory attraction. When
dealing with females that “skip-oviposit” and the almost impossible task of removing all other
sources of standing water where a female may choose to lay eggs [14,16], it makes sense to stack the
odds towards deploying the most attractive lethal oviposition trap and kill the ovipositing females
at their first try. While urban Aedes will enter small openings to gain access to water in hard-to-find
(cryptic) areas [26,40], they typically will first lay eggs in open containers of easy access, if those are
present [26]. Of note, one of the foreseeable drawbacks of source reduction without providing
alternative oviposition substrates (such as the traps) is that cryptic habitats, which are harder to find,
may become the primary larval production sources, further complicating Aedes control [16,41].
To harness the potential benefits derived from a larger ovitrap, researchers have recently
developed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap (AGO; Figure
1e; [39]) and the Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT; Figure 1d; [42]). The AGO is a large (19 L) black bucket
with a relatively large opening (3.8 L black cylindrical entrance) in which an adhesive panel is placed
and is baited with 10 L of water-hay infusion. In contrast to the solid black design of the AGO, the
GAT employs a compartmentalized design with a black bottom bucket with 3 L of water-hay infusion
(or other types as needed) and a translucent middle collection chamber with a black entry funnel. The
translucent collection chamber helps retain captured mosquitoes by exploiting their “fly to the light”
behavior once they enter the trap. While the recommended killing agent in the GAT is the application
of a long-lasting surface spray to inside of the collection chamber, it has recently been demonstrated
that using a hanging adhesive panel or applying edible canola oil to the inside of the collection
chamber are effective non-insecticide killing agents [43].
Figure 1. Common ovitraps used in recent mass-trapping campaigns: (A) standard (500 mL) lethal
ovitrap (LO); (B) National Environmental Agency Singapore sticky ovitrap (SO); (C) MosquiTRAP
sticky ovitrap (SO); (D) Biogents Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT); and (E) Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap (AGO).
Although the traps differ in design, both the AGO and GAT have achieved the desired effect of
outperforming standard ovitraps and other lethal autocidal ovitraps in attractiveness to Aedes. Field
trials in Puerto Rico have demonstrated that the AGO captured more gravid females and provided
greater sensitivity (number of traps positive for Ae. aegypti) than conventional ovitraps [39], whereas
in field trials in Northern Australia, GATs collected 2–4 times more female Ae. aegypti than two
variations of SOs, the MosquiTRAP and the double sticky ovitrap [44]. Results from the AGO and
GAT trials support the notion that a larger size and greater amount of infusion increases trap efficacy.
The flexibility of the GAT allowing the use of a variety of killing agents—including edible canola
oil—makes it customizable and acceptable by residents that want to develop community-based Aedes
control [45].
Insects 2017, 8, 5 4 of 15
Because LOs, SOs and large AGOs and GATs all satisfy many of the requirements for sustainable
vector control (i.e., simple, cheap, target adult females), they make ideal candidates for mass-trapping
interventions. Here we summarize recent (2000–2016) mass-deployments of lethal oviposition traps.
We then provide a summary/discussion of best operating procedures and discuss limitations,
opportunities and future directions.
2. Mass Lethal Ovitrapping Interventions
2.1. LO Mass-Trapping in Brazil and Thailand
Two of the earliest attempts to reduce female Ae. aegypti populations using simple LOs were
conducted by Perich et al. [30] in Brazil, and Sithiprasasna et al. [33] in Thailand. Both studies
involved the placement of 10 LOs/residence for 12 weeks [30] or 30 weeks [33], and the sampling of
30 houses per intervention neighbourhood. Both studies used the same LOs comprised of a small,
473 mL black plastic cup baited with 10% hay (w/v) infusion and containing a 11 × 2.5 cm ovistrip
treated with deltamethrin, a pyrethroid. Neither study provided information on the proportion of
houses with LOs in the intervention areas or implemented any concurrent vector control (no space
spraying, source reduction, or larviciding). Despite the lack of additional control, these wide-scale
deployments of LOs resulted in a >40% reduction in adult female abundance in at least one site, a
49%–80% reduction in containers positive for Ae. aegypti larvae, and a 56%–97% reduction in the mean
number of pupae per house. Despite these successes, the observed impact on viral transmission risk,
particularly in the Sithiprasasna et al. [33] study, was lower than desired. The failure was attributed
to immigration of Ae. aegypti from adjacent areas, reduced lethality of the ovistrip after field exposure,
and competition from alternative breeding sites. However, particularly because no source reduction
or other complementary interventions were implemented, these standalone LO results provide
compelling support for multi-trap per residence LO-based interventions.
2.2. LO Mass-Trapping in Australia
Despite the relative success of the early LO mass-trapping interventions—or maybe because of
it—there was a lack of adoption of LO-based control interventions (at least published in the peer-
reviewed literature) until those conducted by Rapley et al. [46] in Cairns, Australia. In two studies in
separate areas of Cairns, 1.2 L LOs were deployed four per residence with 71%–93% coverage within
the intervention areas and both were preceded by area-wide larval control interventions. In the first
deployment, the trap buckets were made of durable plastic, while in a second deployment they were
made of biodegradable material. The hay infusion was 0.5 g alfalfa/1 L water and each LO contained
a 13.5 × 5 cm flannel ovistrip treated with bifenthrin, another pyrethroid. Larval control interventions
included a source reduction campaign and the treatment of non-removable containers with S-
methoprene pellets, a long-lasting insect growth regulator [47,48]. The primary results were an 87%
reduction in female collections during the mass trap deployment in concurrently monitored SOs
during the wet season, but, unfortunately, there were no observed reductions during the following
dry season. Likewise, the biodegradable LO intervention achieved only an unspecified reduction in
adult female collections in concurrently monitored SOs in one of three sites. Despite the generally
low efficacy of both LO interventions, the study achieved high public acceptability [49] and the lack
of significant adult control was attributed to the relatively short duration of the interventions (four
weeks). Of note, despite pre-intervention, large-scale source reductions and additional larval control
efforts before both experiments, they were not as effective as those reported by Perich et al. [30] or
Sithiprasasna et al. [33]. Based on their results, the authors concluded that LOs could be an effective
component of a dengue control strategy, particularly when coupled with pre-intervention larval
control interventions. While not formally quantified, this conclusion has been largely supported by
the absence of an explosive dengue outbreak on Thursday Island in the Torres Strait, Australia, where
intervention strategies involving source reduction, limited indoor residual spraying, larviciding, and
the widespread use of LOs and SOs to suppress local Ae. aegypti populations have been implemented
[50].
Insects 2017, 8, 5 5 of 15
2.3. Mass Deployment of SOs in Brazil
As mentioned, the small SOs were developed to circumvent the problems of insecticide
resistance and to allow the simultaneous surveillance of adult gravid mosquitoes by capturing them
on a sticky panel as they enter the trap. Interestingly, although SOs were developed over 10 years
ago [35], only one study to date has assessed their utility in a mass-trapping intervention. The study
was conducted by Degener et al. [51] in Manaus, state of Amazonas, Brazil, and used the
commercially available MosquiTRAP (Ecovec Ltd., Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil; Figure 1c) [52]. The
MosquiTRAP consists of a matte black container (16 cm high × 11 cm diameter) containing
approximately 280 mL of water, a synthetic AtrAedes® (Ecovec Ltd.) oviposition attractant and a
removable sticky card. Importantly, Degener et al. [51] monitored epidemiological outcomes by
monitoring dengue virus (DENV) IgM-seropositivity of residents in the intervention and control
clusters during the last two months of the intervention. The study involved a matched pair cluster
design (three treatment and three control areas) during which three MosquiTRAPs were placed at
each participating residence in the treatment clusters. Traps in the same household were positioned
at least 5 m apart from each other, preferentially in different environments (e.g., veranda, yard,
laundry area). In total, 51.1% of available households participated in the mass-trapping effort in the
intervention clusters and the intervention lasted 17 months.
Unfortunately, despite high household participation and the deployment of multiple traps at
individual residences, mass-deployment of MosquiTRAPs failed to reduce adult Ae. aegypti
abundance and serological data indicated that recent dengue infections were equally frequent in the
intervention and control areas. The failure of the MosquiTRAP mass-trapping intervention may have
resulted from its previously quantified poor performance relative to standard ovitraps (78.3%
ovitraps positive for eggs vs. 46.4% MosquiTRAPs positive for adult females, p < 005, [53]) and the
relatively low number of traps deployed per residence (three/house). More importantly, however, it
is likely that the lack of pre-intervention source reduction campaigns also contributed to the poor
performance of the relatively small MosquiTRAP due to competition from other water sources.
3. Large-Scale Mass-Trapping Interventions
3.1. Multi-Year Trapping Intervention in Brazil
Although the above studies provided evidence supporting mass-trapping intervention
strategies targeting ovipositing females, the studies were relatively small in scale (<200 houses)
making it hard to assess the sustainability of large-scale interventions. This was first addressed in a
study performed by Regis et al. [54] during which 8400 small (2 L) ovitraps were deployed over a
two-year intervention period, during which five ovitraps were placed at each participating residence.
Unlike the mechanical suppression of adults in Lok et al. [29], control in the Regis et al. [54] trap
intervention relied on the physical collection and destruction of eggs or treatment of containers with
Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) to kill any larvae that developed. The decision not to rely on
insecticide treated ovistrips was most likely based on the presence of insecticide resistance in local
Ae. aegypti populations in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil, in which the study was conducted [55]. To
make such a large-scale effort affordable, the LOs were made from recycled 2 L bottles that were
painted black, allowing traps to be produced at a cost of US$0.6 each. To overcome the problem of
keeping track of thousands of ovitraps, the research team coordinated their efforts with municipal
health departments, which were allowed to design their own intervention plans according to the local
characteristics and resources available, and operated a network of georeferenced sentinel ovitraps to
monitor the impact of the interventions. Altogether, control activities centered around: (1) mechanical
mass destruction through incineration of eggs laid on ovistrips; (2) indoor systematic removal of
adults using aspirators, targeting places considered highly important for virus transmission, such as
health units, schools and premises located within hotspots of mosquito density; (3) the addition of
larvivorous “piabas” fish added to nearly 7000 cisterns, the primary local water reservoirs; and (4)
educating the public about the importance of source reduction through public exhibition, radio,
television, banners, posters and leaflets. This stratified strategy resulted in decreases of 90% and 77%
Insects 2017, 8, 5 6 of 15
in egg density in sentinel ovitraps in the intervention areas relative to paired controls after two years
of sustained pressure. Overall, control efforts destroyed more than 8,000,000 eggs between the two
sites and at least 3200 adult females by aspiration. These results demonstrate that wide-scale
interventions can be successful if enough traps can be deployed, which is only likely if expertise and
resources are shared between researchers and municipal public health agencies, and effective public
engagement campaigns can be implemented. Unfortunately, because of the diversity of approaches
(source reduction, ovitraps, adult aspiration, and use of larvivorous fish), the authors were unable to
determine the level of impact of each individual intervention. Most regrettably, however, the impact
of such a wide-scale mass-trapping intervention on disease transmission remains unknown since the
authors did not measure epidemiological variables such as mosquito infection rate or seropositivity
rates in local residents.
3.2. Large Autocidal Gravid Ovitrap-Based success in Puerto Rico
Encouraged by the potential impact of large-scale trapping, a series of interventions using mass
deployments of large AGOs were conducted in Puerto Rico from 2011 to 2014 [56,57] to exploit the
greater visual and olfactory attraction afforded by large AGOs (Figure 1e) in a mass-trapping
intervention. The studies included two intervention zones, La Margarita (2011–2014) and Villodas
(2013–2014), each with a paired control area. The experimental design for both studies involved
placing three AGOs per house at 81% [56] and 85% [57] of the houses in each intervention area. The
researchers implemented a two-month service interval to take advantage of the extended activity of
the large AGOs (long-lasting stickiness of the glue panel and large water volume and closed design
reduces likelihood the traps will dry) to limit the amount of staff and resources required to service
the large number of traps deployed (>700 traps). Because of the long service interval, adult
populations were monitored using a combination of BG-Sentinel (BGS) traps and sentinel AGO traps
distributed throughout the intervention and control areas. In addition to the trap intervention, pre-
intervention source reduction, larviciding, and oviciding campaigns were conducted in both the
intervention and control areas. Source reduction consisted of the removal of all containers as allowed
by residents. The larvicide Natular (spinosad) was applied to containers that could not be removed
and which water was not for animal or human consumption. The inner walls of containers that could
not be removed were also brushed and rinsed to remove Ae. aegypti eggs.
The pre-intervention source reduction and larviciding campaigns combined with the wide-scale
distribution of large AGOs proved highly successful. Over the course of the first study (2011–2012),
the La Margarita (812–1050 traps) intervention area experienced a 53% and 70% reduction in weekly
BGS and sentinel AGO collections, respectively, relative to the control area. During the second study,
the La Margarita (2012–2014; 793 traps) and Villodas (2013–2014; 570 traps) intervention areas
experienced a 79% and 88% reduction in weekly sentinel AGO collections, respectively, relative to
their paired control areas. To date, these two studies provide the greatest support for large-scale
mass-trapping interventions as a means of controlling urban Aedes. The success of these interventions
is most likely due to the careful large-scale pre-intervention source reduction effort coupled with the
greater visual and olfactory attraction of the large AGO compared to smaller LOs and SOs, with the
added benefit of the long service intervals of large AGOs enabling greater deployment scale and
sustainability.
3.3. Epidemiological Support for Mass-Trapping Interventions in Puerto Rico
Although the large AGO interventions were highly successful, the lack of epidemiological
impact continued to impede the true assessment of the effectiveness of large-scale AGO mass-
trapping interventions for control Aedes-borne viruses. However, the chikungunya virus (CHIKV)
epidemic in the Caribbean from 2014 to 2015 allowed the quantification of the efficacy of a large AGO-
based mass-deployment for arboviral control. From early 2014 to the end of 2015, there were
approximately 29,000 confirmed chikungunya cases in Puerto Rico, which by fortunate happenstance,
overlapped with the AGO mass-trapping interventions in Puerto Rico. As mentioned, the
Insects 2017, 8, 5 7 of 15
interventions resulted in a ten-fold reduction in Ae. aegypti female densities (~1 per trap/week in
intervention sites vs. ~10 per trap/week in control sites) during the 2014–2015 chikungunya epidemic.
To assess the effect of the areawide deployment of AGO traps on chikungunya prevalence,
Lorenzi et al. [58] conducted a stratified random serosurvey of 620 households from intervention and
non-intervention communities, representing 28.5% of the residents of the communities participating
in the AGO field trial sites of Barrera et al. [57]. Serum specimens were tested by immunoglobulin G
(IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect evidence of recent chikungunya virus infection.
The authors reasoned that the prevalence of CHIKV IgG antibody after the introduction of
chikungunya in a population without previous chikungunya virus exposure provided a valid
estimate of chikungunya virus incidence in residents of these communities. After adjustment for
sample design, the serosurvey revealed that the proportion of CHIKV IgG antibody among
participants from the two intervention communities was one-half that of the participants from the
two non-intervention (no AGO traps) communities (22.9% vs. 45.4%; risk ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.38–
0.71). To date, this is the only evidence of a significant epidemiological impact by a mass-trapping
intervention.
The Lorenzi et al. [58] report was preliminary, but the findings are centered on a multi-year
mass-trapping intervention that significantly reduced adult female Ae. aegypti populations in the
intervention areas. However, while these results are promising, the cost of the AGOs, which like the
GAT are commercially available, is relatively high, likely dampening prospects for very large
deployments. Of note, efforts to reduce costs by decreasing the number of traps deployed per house
appear to result in decreased efficacy. A recent study in Clovis, CA, by Cornel et al. [59] using a single
AGO trap per house (144 houses in total) failed to significantly reduce adult Ae. aegypti populations
compared to the reductions experienced in the three traps/house interventions performed in Puerto
Rico. However, no intensive source reduction was performed and the study’s scale was relatively
small. One is hopeful that economies of scale as mass deployment of these larger lethal oviposition
traps become more common will lead to significant reductions in trap prices.
4. The Need for Community Engagement and Participation
Reliance on vertically structured government programs (top–down) standard in yellow fever
control in the early 20th century, and still common to dengue control programs in the 1980s, has since
shifted to community-based (bottom–up) programs [60]. This practice started from the realization
that disease control programs needed community engagement for long-term sustainability as well as
due to diminishing government funds [61]. Although community-based interventions have generally
failed to prevent epidemic dengue, there have been successes in mosquito control [62,63] and those
willing to implement a mass-trapping intervention should consider adopting a community-based
model.
At its most basic, this requirement is due to the colossal task of monitoring and servicing 100’s
to 1000’s of traps, all of which, if neglected, can become productive larval habitats. Furthermore, for
mass-trapping interventions to be a success, operators need continued access to the homes and yards
of participants, as well as engaged and informed homeowners who recognize and alert operators to
trap malfunctions. Ultimately, success through sustainability will rely on interagency cooperation
and coordinated involvement of local health services, trained vector control personnel, and the
community.
Source Reduction Campaigns Minimize Competition from Alternative Oviposition Sites
Destruction or removal of alternative water-holding containers is particularly important for
mass-trapping interventions targeting gravid Aedes females because they maximise the likelihood
that the females will try to lay eggs first in the trap, killing them and all their progeny. However,
source reduction for control of invasive Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus poses one of the greatest
challenges for dengue and Zika control. The difficulties arise from the ability of both species to exploit
small pockets of water, often inaccessible because they are located in private areas within the
peridomestic environment [14,64,65]. These sources are also often ephemeral and their abundance
Insects 2017, 8, 5 8 of 15
increases and decreases on a continual basis [6]. Combined, these factors, as well as inadequate
engagement of the local communities, likely accounted for the historical failures of traditional source
reduction campaigns [66]. However, recent community-based control initiatives, emphasising source
reduction and other non-insecticide methods of control, have been successful in Cuba [67], Singapore
[68], Nicaragua and Mexico [69], as well as India [70]. The success of these programs can be largely
attributed to extensive communication and cooperation among agencies, as well as the use of wide-
scale education efforts (e.g., school visits, use of community volunteers, door-to-door demonstrations
[21]). Of note, because they exploit and expose specific mosquito behavior, lethal oviposition traps
can be useful tools for active learning, providing “teachable moments” and indelible hands-on
experience that are worth thousands of written words (Fonseca, D.M., personal experience).
5. Recommendations, Conclusions and Future Directions
Based on the few available studies summarized and our own experience, we propose several
recommendations to help achieve the greatest entomological and epidemiological impact. These
recommendations are:
1. Conduct source reduction campaigns before implementing mass-trapping intervention to
remove competing containers. These efforts should involve collaboration and coordination
among all groups involved, especially the residents.
2. Involve homeowners in the maintenance/servicing of traps to achieve short-term success and
long-term sustainability. Motivating homeowners to purchase their own traps, particularly in
developed countries, and possibly at subsidized rates, may enhance participation in community-
based mosquito control, including source reduction (step 1).
3. Aim for a minimum of >80% coverage (i.e., number of houses with traps) within intervention
areas. Due to the limited data available, this is a “best guess” estimate based on the success of
the AGO interventions (81%–85% coverage) in Puerto Rico [56,57], which resulted in a positive
epidemiological outcome [58]. However, this value will likely depend on variables such as the
type and size of the trap deployed and the density and type of housing in the intervention
location. As such, further field trials are needed to determine the optimal coverage percentage
across trap and location types.
4. Optimize the number of traps per yard based on the size of the property, trap size and placement,
and number of competing water-holding containers. Again, undertaking source reduction
campaigns, while unlikely to overcome the spatial variability in target populations created by
cryptic breeding sites, will reduce and, to an extent, even out competition from secondary
breeding sources across residences. This will help operators optimise trap interventions based
on easy-to-assess metrics such as property and trap size, all the while helping to reduce the target
population prior to the intervention.
5. Use large autocidal gravid traps, such as the AGO and the GAT, to maximise visual and olfactory
attraction to achieve optimal suppression, while limiting the number of traps deployed.
Economies of scale will inexorably bring the price of the traps down as more programs start
buying them in bulk. To this point, initial investments and ongoing operational costs will need
to match or reduce operational costs relative to traditional vector control strategies such as space
spraying to be attractive to public health programs. The annual per-household costs of various
dengue vector control interventions have been estimated to cost between $1.89 and $31.75 [71–
73]. Although there is no available costing data for mass-trapping interventions, the long service
intervals (2–4 weeks or longer) and ability to reuse the traps for multiple seasons, combined with
emphasis on community involvement to reduce staffing, will likely help trap-based
interventions to match or reduce these costs. However, further research is needed involving
long-term interventions before cost estimates can be provided.
6. Avoid the use of organophosphate and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, as insecticide
resistance is increasing in urban Aedes. The use of edible canola oil makes GATs appealing to the
public who find them “safe” to use (Fonseca, D.M., unpublished data [41]).
Insects 2017, 8, 5 9 of 15
7. While the design of most lethal oviposition traps prevents adult emergence from dropped eggs
from escaping, treat infusions with S-methoprene or long-release Bti formulations to further
minimize the likelihood that traps may become productive larval habitats. Bti is particularly well
suited for community-based interventions as many formulations are commercially available and
do not require specialized applicator licenses or permits. These products can also be provided
by a local public health agency and simply added to trap infusions at each service interval to
maintain efficacy.
8. Use natural grass or hay infusions as the olfactory lure to attract gravid Ae. aegypti. The infusions
can last for up to 2 months or longer (see Mackay [39] or Barrera [56]). This can be tasked to
residents who can simply change water and add hay or other organic material provided by the
control program. The infusion material can also be sourced locally from their own yards (e.g.,
dead leaves, grass clippings) at no cost. Of note, field surveys by Johnson et al. [74] suggest that
aromatic infusions may be unnecessary as they found no difference in the number of gravid Ae.
albopictus females captured in GATs baited with (hay or fish food) and without (water or empty)
aromatic infusions. This finding is supported by Trexler et al. [75], who found that the initial
female attraction to the trap may be overwhelmingly associated with the water rather than an
olfactory attractant produced by the infusion. If extendable to other species and locations, the
omission of aromatic infusions would greatly extend and simplify trap servicing, reducing costs
and reliance on homeowners to maintain infusions, and possibly increasing participation by
homeowners opposed to having “smelly” traps around the house. These observations
undoubtedly warrant further investigation, but until more data is available, the
recommendation remains for the inclusion of aromatic infusions.
9. Use a mapping strategy (e.g., GIS) during trap placement so traps can be easily found. This will
be a useful tool to ensure that traps are accounted for even if a bottom–up approach is used in
which residents are encouraged to purchase their own traps. For example, a serial number or
barcode could be assigned to individual traps and reported to the corresponding public health
program overseeing the intervention. This identifier could then be linked to the residential
address, allowing the agency to periodically check to ensure that the traps are being properly
maintained, as well as track missing traps.
Of the eight studies summarised involving mass deployment of lethal oviposition traps (Table
1), seven resulted in a significant reduction in adult female Ae. aegypti abundance in at least one
intervention site, whereas five of these resulted in significant reductions across all sites. However,
only two studies attempted to assess the epidemiological impact of the intervention and only one
showed a significant reduction in disease prevalence. Based on these results, further large-scale
randomised controlled trials in disease endemic countries are needed before mass-trapping
interventions of lethal oviposition traps can be recommended as a means of suppressing disease.
However, there seems to be sufficient supporting evidence to recommend their use as a means of
suppressing female Ae. aegypti populations.
Furthermore, while to the best of our knowledge all mass deployments of lethal oviposition traps
so far have been on Ae. aegypti in resource-poor or tropical settings (Table 1), we propose that mass
deployment of lethal oviposition traps can be developed as a pre-emptive strategy for control of
temperate Ae. albopictus in resource-rich communities, because: (1) mass deployments can be focused
in a relatively short period of time in late spring to prevent exponential population growth to levels
that allow disease transmission; (2) as mentioned, these traps are a gateway strategy to involve
residents in local mosquito control, especially if they become directly “invested” by purchasing the
traps themselves (a relatively small investment in medium- and high-income neighbourhoods); (3)
by their simplicity and direct association to an understandable mosquito behaviour (oviposition) and
control outcome (i.e., observable dead mosquitoes), lethal ovitraps are an excellent “teaching tool”
that easily feeds back to community-level source reduction as residents understand the need to
reduce competing water-holding containers. A win-win.
Insects 2017, 8, 5 10 of 15
Table 1. Summary of lethal oviposition trap mass-trapping interventions to control female Aedes aegypti populations.
Standard Lethal Ovitraps
Author
General Trap
Design
Killing Agent
Length of
Intervention/Study
Location
Number
of Traps
per
Residence
Reduction Achieved
% Residences
Covered
Other
Interventions
Involved
Epidemiological
Outcome
Perich et al.
[30]
Black 473 mL cup
baited with 10% hay
(w/v) infusion
11 × 2.5 cm
ovistrip
treated with
deltamethrin
3 months; Areia
Branca and
Nilopolis, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil
10
Female adult abundance
reduced 47% at one site;
% containers positive for Ae.
aegypti larvae reduced 49%
and 80%;
Mean pupae per house
reduced 97% and 91%
Not specified
None
Did not measure
Sithiprasasna
et al. [33]
Black 473 mL cup
baited with 10% hay
(w/v) infusion
11 × 2.5 cm
ovistrip
treated with
deltamethrin
Two studies; each 12
months in length;
Ratchaburi Province,
Thailand
10
First study (1999): No
reduction
Second study (2000): 47%
reduction in female adult
abundance;
49% reduction in containers
with Ae. aegypti larvae;
56% reduction in containers
with Ae. aegypti pupae
Not specified
None
Did not measure
Rapley et al.
[46]
1.2 L black bucket
set with 1 L of water
and a 0.5-g alfalfa
pellet
13.5 × 5 cm
ovistrip
treated with
bifenthrin
4 weeks/site; Cairns,
Queensland,
Australia
4
Wet season: 87% reduction in
sticky ovitrap collections;
reductions in BG-Sentinel
(BGS) collections not
specified
75% Dry season;
71% Wet season
Larval control:
source reduction
and treatment of
potential breeding
sites with S-
methoprene
Did not measure
Rapley et al.
[46]
Biodegradable
ovitrap: 1.2 L
volume set with 1 L
of water and a 0.5-g
alfalfa pellet
13.5 × 5 cm
ovistrip
treated with
bifenthrin
4 weeks/site; Cairns,
Queensland,
Australia
4
Reduction observed in 1 out
of 3 sites;
% reduction not specified
93% Wet season
Larval control:
source reduction
and treatment of
potential breeding
sites with S-
methoprene
Did not measure
Regis et al.
[54]
Modified 2 L bottles
painted black
Bacillus
thuringiensis
israelensis
(Bti)-treated
water; egg
strips
incinerated
upon
collection
24 months; Ipojuca
and Santa Cruz do
Capibaribe;
Pernambuco, Brazil
5
90% and 77% in egg density
in two separate study sites
Not specified;
8400 ovitraps
installed during
intervention
larvivorous fish
and adult
aspiration
Did not measure
Sticky Ovitraps (adhesive sticky cards/panels)
Insects 2017, 8, 5 11 of 15
Degener et
al. [51]
MosquiTRAP: 700
mL black plastic
cylinder filled with
300 mL water
Black
adhesive
card. Card
contained
AtrAedes®
oviposition
attractant
17 months: Manaus,
Amazonas, Brazil
3
No, observed an increase in
trap counts in intervention
sites
51.1%
None
No difference in
dengue virus
(DENV) IgM
seropositivity
between
intervention and
control sites
Large (>5 L) Autocidal Gravid Ovitraps
Barrera et al.
[56]
AGO: 19 L black
bucket and 3.8 L
black cylindrical
entrance; baited
with hay infusion
(10 L water +10 g
hay)
Black
adhesive card
placed on
inside of trap
entrance
12 months; La
Margarita, Puerto
Rico
3–4
53% reduction in BGS
collections;
70% reduction in sentinel
AGO traps
81%
Source reduction,
larviciding and
oviciding (physical
destruction of eggs)
prior to trap
deployment
Did not measure
Barrera et al.
[57]
AGO
Black
adhesive card
placed on
inside of trap
entrance
24 months; La
Margarita, Puerto
Rico
12 months; Villodas,
Puerto Rico
3
La Margarita: 79% reduction
in sentinel AGO collections;
Villodas: 88% reduction in
sentinel AGO collections
85%
Source reduction,
larviciding and
oviciding (physical
destruction of eggs)
prior to trap
deployment
Did not measure
Lorenzi et al.
[58]
AGO
Black
adhesive card
placed on
inside of trap
entrance
Continuation of
study by Barrera et
al. [57]: 1 year prior
to introduction of
chikungunya and
CHIKV IgG
serosurvey
3
Not specified, but same study
areas as Barrera 2014a,b
85%
Same as Barrera et al.
[56,57]
Yes, 52%
reduction in
chikungunya virus
(CHIKV) IgG
antibody
prevalence in
intervention areas
(risk ratio = 0.52,
95% CI = 0.38–
0.71). 62% of
households and
64% of eligible
participants
surveyed.
Cornel et al.
[59]
AGO
Black
adhesive card
placed on
inside of trap
entrance
6 weeks; Clovis, CA,
USA
1
No, % reduction not
specified. Small slopes of
regression in weeks 3–8 in
intervention site (BGS =
−0.0047 and AGO = −0.0035)
indicate reduction due to
AGOs was minimal
Not specified;
144
residences in
a single
intervention
area
None
Did not measure
Insects 2017, 8, 5 12 of 15
Acknowledgments: Dina M. Fonseca would like to acknowledge the residents of the community of University
Park, MD, especially David Brosch and Arlene Christiansen for being strong community leaders willing to learn
new tricks. Funding for the University Park project mentioned as “Fonseca et al. unpublished data” was
provided by Multistate USDA-NE 1043.
Conflicts of Interest: Scott A. Ritchie receives a small royalty from sales of the BG-GAT. The other authors
declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. San Martín, J.L.; Brathwaite, O.; Zambrano, B.; Solórzano, J.O.; Bouckenooghe, A.; Dayan, G.H.; Guzmán,
M.G. The epidemiology of dengue in the Americas over the last three decades: A worrisome reality. Am. J.
Trop. Med. Hyg. 2010, 82, 128–135.
2. Morens, D.M.; Fauci, A.S. Chikungunya at the door—Deja vu all over again? N. Eng. J. Med. 2014, 371, 885–
887.
3. Kindhauser, M.K.; Allen, T.; Frank, V.; Santhana, R.S.; Dye, C. Zika: The Origin and Spread of a Mosquito-
Borne Virus. Bull. World Health Organ. 2016, 94, 675–686.
4. Guo, X.-X.; Zhu, X.-J.; Li, C.-X.; Dong, Y.-D.; Zhang, Y.-M.; Xing, D.; Xue, R.-D.; Qin, C.-F.; Zhao, T.-Y.
Vector competence of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) for DEN2-43 and New Guinea
C virus strains of dengue 2 virus. Acta Trop. 2013, 128, 566–570.
5. Guzman, M.G.; Halstead, S.B.; Artsob, H.; Buchy, P.; Farrar, J.; Gubler, D.J.; Hunsperger, E.; Kroeger, A.;
Margolis, H.S.; Martínez, E. Dengue: A continuing global threat. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2010, 8, S7–S16.
6. Fonseca, D.M.; Unlu, I.; Crepeau, T.; Farajollahi, A.; Healy, S.P.; Bartlett-Healy, K.; Strickman, D.; Gaugler,
R.; Hamilton, G.; Kline, D., et al. Area-wide management of Aedes albopictus. Part 2: Gauging the efficacy of
traditional integrated pest control measures against urban container mosquitoes. Pest Manag. Sci. 2013, 69,
1351–1361.
7. Maciel-de-Freitas, R.; Avendanho, F.C.; Santos, R.; Sylvestre, G.; Araújo, S.C.; Lima, J.B.P.; Martins, A.J.;
Coelho, G.E.; Valle, D. Undesirable consequences of insecticide resistance following Aedes aegypti control
activities due to a dengue outbreak. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92424.
8. Farajollahi, A.; Healy, S.P.; Unlu, I.; Gaugler, R.; Fonseca, D.M. Effectiveness of ultra-low volume nighttime
applications of an adulticide against diurnal Aedes albopictus, a critical vector of dengue and chikungunya
viruses. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e49181.
9. Mani, T.R.; Arunachalam, N.; Rajendran, R.; Satyanarayana, K.; Dash, A.P. Efficacy of thermal fog
application of deltacide, a synergized mixture of pyrethroids, against Aedes aegypti, the vector of dengue.
Trop. Med. Int. Health 2005, 10, 1298–1304.
10. Esu, E.; Lenhart, A.; Smith, L.; Horstick, O. Effectiveness of peridomestic space spraying with insecticide
on dengue transmission; systematic review. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2010, 15, 619–631.
11. Olson, L.J.; Roy, S. The economics of controlling a stochastic biological invasion. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002,
84, 1311–1316.
12. Olson, L.J. The economics of terrestrial invasive species: A review of the literature. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.
2006, 35, 178–194.
13. Flint, M.L. IPM in Practice: Principles and Methods of Integrated Pest Management; UCANR Publications:
Oakland, CA, USA 2012; Volume 3418.
14. Unlu, I.; Farajollahi, A.; Strickman, D.; Fonseca, D.M. Crouching tiger, hidden trouble: Urban sources of
Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) refractory to source-reduction. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e77999.
15. Chadee, D.; Huntley, S.; Focks, D.; Chen, A. Aedes aegypti in Jamaica, West Indies: Container productivity
profiles to inform control strategies. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2009, 14, 220–227.
16. Unlu, I.; Faraji, A.; Indelicato, N.; Fonseca, D.M. The hidden world of Asian tiger mosquitoes: Immature
Aedes albopictus (Skuse) dominate in rainwater corrugated extension spouts. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg.
2014, 108, 699–705.
17. Rezza, G.; Nicoletti, L.; Angelini, R.; Romi, R.; Finarelli, A.; Panning, M.; Cordioli, P.; Fortuna, C.; Boros, S.;
Magurano, F. Infection with chikungunya virus in Italy: An outbreak in a temperate region. Lancet 2007,
370, 1840–1846.
18. Xu, G.; Dong, H.; Shi, N.; Liu, S.; Zhou, A.; Cheng, Z.; Chen, G.; Liu, J.; Fang, T.; Zhang, H. An outbreak of
dengue virus serotype 1 infection in Cixi, Ningbo, People’s Republic of China, 2004, associated with a
traveler from Thailand and high density of Aedes albopictus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2007, 76, 1182–1188.
Insects 2017, 8, 5 13 of 15
19. Rochlin, I.; Ninivaggi, D.V.; Hutchinson, M.L.; Farajollahi, A. Climate change and range expansion of the
Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) in Northeastern USA: Implications for public health practitioners.
PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e60874.
20. Bodner, D.; LaDeau, S.L.; Biehler, D.; Kirchoff, N.; Leisnham, P.T. Effectiveness of print education at
reducing urban mosquito infestation through improved resident-based management. PLoS ONE 2016, 11,
e0155011.
21. Healy, K.; Hamilton, G.; Crepeau, T.; Healy, S.; Unlu, I.; Farajollahi, A.; Fonseca, D.M. Integrating the public
in mosquito management: Active education by community peers can lead to significant reduction in
peridomestic container mosquito habitats. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e108504.
22. Barrera, R.; Amador, M.; Diaz, A.; Smith, J.; Munoz‐Jordan, J.; Rosario, Y. Unusual productivity of Aedes
aegypti in septic tanks and its implications for dengue control. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2008, 22, 62–69.
23. Bartlett-Healy, K.; Healy, S.P.; Hamilton, G.C. A model to predict evaporation rates in habitats used by
container-dwelling mosquitoes. J. Med. Entomol. 2011, 48, 712–716.
24. Hancock, P.A.; White, V.L.; Callahan, A.G.; Godfray, C.H.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Ritchie, S.A. Density-
dependent population dynamics in Aedes aegypti slow the spread of wMel Wolbachia. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53,
785–793.
25. Reiter, P. Oviposition, dispersal, and survival in Aedes aegypti: Implications for the efficacy of control
strategies. Vector-Borne Zoonot. Dis. 2007, 7, 261–273.
26. Fonseca, D.; Kaplan, L.; Heiry, R.; Strickman, D. Density-dependent oviposition by female Aedes albopictus
(Diptera: Culicidae) spreads eggs among containers during the summer but accumulates them in the fall.
J. Med. Entomol. 2015, 52, 705–712.
27. Colton, Y.; Chadee, D.; Severson, D. Natural skip oviposition of the mosquito Aedes aegypti indicated by
codominant genetic markers. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2003, 17, 195–204.
28. Davis, T.J.; Kaufman, P.E.; Tatem, A.J.; Hogsette, J.A.; Kline, D.L. Development and evaluation of an
attractive self-marking ovitrap to measure dispersal and determine skip oviposition in Aedes albopictus
(Diptera: Culicidae) field populations. J. Med. Entomol. 2016, 53, 31–38.
29. Lok, C.; Kiat, N.; Koh, T. An autocidal ovitrap for the control and possible eradication of Aedes aegypti.
Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Publ. Health 1977, 8, 56–62.
30. Perich, M.; Kardec, A.; Braga, I.; Portal, I.; Burge, R.; Zeichner, B.; Brogdon, W.; Wirtz, R. Field evaluation
of a lethal ovitrap against dengue vectors in Brazil. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2003, 17, 205–210.
31. Williams, C.R.; Ritchie, S.A.; Long, S.A.; Dennison, N.; Russell, R.C. Impact of a bifenthrin-treated lethal
ovitrap on Aedes aegypti oviposition and mortality in north Queensland, Australia. J. Med. Entomol. 2007, 44,
256–262.
32. Zeichner, B.; Perich, M. Laboratory testing of a lethal ovitrap for Aedes aegypti. Med. Vet. Entomol. 1999, 13,
234–238.
33. Sithiprasasna, R.; Mahapibul, P.; Noigamol, C.; Perich, M.J.; Zeichner, B.C.; Burge, B.; Norris, S.L.; Jones,
J.W.; Schleich, S.S.; Coleman, R.E. Field evaluation of a lethal ovitrap for the control of Aedes aegypti (Diptera:
Culicidae) in Thailand. J. Med. Entomol. 2003, 40, 455–462.
34. Ritchie, S.A. Evolution of dengue control strategies in north Queensland, Australia. Arbovirus Res. Aust.
2005, 9, 324–330.
35. Ritchie, S.A.; Long, S.; Hart, A.; Webb, C.E.; Russell, R.C. An adulticidal sticky ovitrap for sampling
container-breeding mosquitoes. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2003, 19, 235–242.
36. Gama, R.A.; Silva, E.M.; Silva, I.M.; Resende, M.C.; Eiras, Á .E. Evaluation of the sticky MosquiTRAP™ for
detecting Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae) during the dry season in Belo Horizonte, Minas
Gerais, Brazil. Neotrop. Entomol. 2007, 36, 294–302.
37. De Santos, E.M.M.; de Melo-Santos, M.A.V.; de Oliveira, C.M.F.; Correia, J.C.; de Albuquerque, C.M.R.
Evaluation of a sticky trap (AedesTraP), made from disposable plastic bottles, as a monitoring tool for Aedes
aegypti populations. Parasit Vectors 2012, doi:10.1186/1756-3305-5-195.
38. Chadee, D.D.; Ritchie, S.A. Efficacy of sticky and standard ovitraps for Aedes aegypti in Trinidad, West
Indies. J. Vector Ecol. 2010, 35, 395–400.
39. Mackay, A.J.; Amador, M.; Barrera, R. An improved autocidal gravid ovitrap for the control and
surveillance of Aedes aegypti. Parasit Vectors 2013, doi:10.1186/1756-3305-6-225.
40. Strickman, D.; Kittayapong, P. Laboratory demonstration of oviposition by Aedes aegypti (Diptera:
Culicidae) in covered water jars. J. Med. Entomol. 1993, 30, 947–949.
Insects 2017, 8, 5 14 of 15
41. Fonseca, D.M. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. Unpublished data, 2016.
42. Eiras, A.E.; Buhagiar, T.S.; Ritchie, S.A. Development of the Gravid Aedes Trap for the capture of adult
female container–exploiting mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2014, 51, 200–209.
43. Heringer, L.; Johnson, B.; Fikrig, K.; Oliveira, A.B.; Silva, D.R.; Townsend, M.; Barrera, R.; Eiras, A.E.;
Ritchie, S.A. Evaluation of alternative killing agents for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Gravid
Aedes Trap (GAT). J. Med. Entomol. 2016, 53, 873–879.
44. Ritchie, S.A.; Buhagiar, T.S.; Townsend, M.; Hoffmann, A.; Van Den Hurk, A.F.; McMahon, J.L.; Eiras, A.E.
Field validation of the Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) for collection of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med.
Entomol. 2014, 51, 210–219.
45. GAT (Gravid Aedes Trap) Mosquito Control. Available online:
https://sites.google.com/site/mosquitocontrolup/gravid-aedes-trap (accessed 1st October 2016).
46. Rapley, L.; Johnson, P.; Williams, C.; Silcock, R.; Larkman, M.; Long, S.; Russell, R.; Ritchie, S. A lethal
ovitrap-based mass trapping scheme for dengue control in Australia: II. Impact on populations of the
mosquito Aedes aegypti. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2009, 23, 303–316.
47. Ritchie, S.A.; Long, S. Scientific note. Does S-methoprene affect oviposition by Aedes aegypti in an ovitrap?
J. Am. Mosquito. Control Assoc. 2003, 19, 170–171.
48. Braga, I.A.; Mello, C.B.; Peixoto, A.A.; Valle, D. Evaluation of methoprene effect on Aedes aegypti (Diptera:
Culicidae) development in laboratory conditions. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2005, 100, 435–440.
49. Ritchie, S.A.; Rapley, L.; Williams, C.; Johnson, P.; Larkman, M.; Silcock, R.; Long, S.; Russell, R. A lethal
ovitrap-based mass trapping scheme for dengue control in Australia: I. Public acceptability and
performance of lethal ovitraps. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2009, 23, 295–302.
50. Montgomery, B.L.; Ritchie, S.A.; Hart, A.J.; Long, S.A.; Walsh, I.D. Dengue intervention on Thursday Island
(Torres Strait) 2004: A blueprint for the future? Arbovirus Res. Aust. 2005, 9, 268–273.
51. Degener, C.M.; Á zara, T.M.F.d.; Roque, R.A.; Rösner, S.; Rocha, E.S.O.; Kroon, E.G.; Codeço, C.T.; Nobre,
A.A.; Ohly, J.J.; Geier, M. Mass trapping with MosquiTRAPs does not reduce Aedes aegypti abundance. Mem.
Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2015, 110, 517–527.
52. Fávaro, E.A.; Dibo, M.R.; Mondini, A.; Ferreira, A.C.; Barbosa, A.A.; Eiras, Á .E.; Barata, E.A.; Chiaravalloti-
Neto, F. Physiological state of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti mosquitoes captured with MosquiTRAPs™ in
Mirassol, São Paulo, Brazil. J. Vector Ecol. 2006, 31, 285–291.
53. Resende, M.C.d.; Silva, I.M.; Ellis, B.R.; Eiras, A.E. A comparison of larval, ovitrap and MosquiTRAP
surveillance for Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2013, 108, 1024–1030.
54. Regis, L.N.; Acioli, R.V.; Silveira, J.C., Jr.; Melo-Santos, M.A.V.; Souza, W.V.; Ribeiro, C.M.N.; da Silva, J.C.S.;
Monteiro, A.M.V.; Oliveira, C.M.; Barbosa, R.M. Sustained reduction of the dengue vector population
resulting from an integrated control strategy applied in two Brazilian cities. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e67682.
55. Melo-Santos, M.A.V.; Varjal-Melo, J.J.M.; Araújo, A.P.; Gomes, T.C.S.; Paiva, M.H.S.; Regis, L.N.; Furtado,
A.F.; Magalhaes, T.; Macoris, M.L.G.; Andrighetti, M.T.M.; et al. Resistance to the organophosphate
temephos: Mechanisms, evolution and reversion in an Aedes aegypti laboratory strain from Brazil. Acta Trop.
2010, 113, 180–189.
56. Barrera, R.; Amador, M.; Acevedo, V.; Caban, B.; Felix, G.; Mackay, A.J. Use of the CDC autocidal gravid
ovitrap to control and prevent outbreaks of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2014, 51, 145–
154.
57. Barrera, R.; Amador, M.; Acevedo, V.; Hemme, R.R.; Félix, G. Sustained, area-wide control of Aedes aegypti
using CDC autocidal gravid ovitraps. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2014, 91, 1269–1276.
58. Lorenzi, O.D.; Major, C.; Acevedo, V.; Perez-Padilla, J.; Rivera, A.; Biggerstaff , B.J.; Munoz-Jordan, J.;
Waterman, S.; Barrera, R.; Sharp, T.M. Reduced Incidence of Chickungunya virus infection in Communities
with ongoing Aedes aegypti mosquito trap intervention studies—Salina and Guayama, Puerto Rico,
November 2015–February 2016. CDC MMWR 2016, 65, 479–480.
59. Cornel, A.J.; Holeman, J.; Nieman, C.C.; Lee, Y.; Smith, C.; Amorino, M.; Brisco, K.K.; Barrera, R.; Lanzaro, G.C.;
Mulligan, F.S., III. Surveillance, insecticide resistance and control of an invasive Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)
population in California. F1000Research 2016, doi:10.12688/f1000research.8107.3.
60. Gubler, D.J.; Clark, G.G. Community involvement in the control of Aedes aegypti. Acta Trop. 1996, 61, 169–
179.
61. Gubler, D.J.; Clark, G.G. Community-based integrated control of Aedes aegypti: A brief overview of current
programs. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1993, 50, 50–60.
Insects 2017, 8, 5 15 of 15
62. Espinoza-Gómez, F.; Hernández-Suárez, C.M.; Coll-Cárdenas, R. Educational campaign versus malathion
spraying for the control of Aedes aegypti in Colima, Mexico. J. Epidem. Commun. Health 2002, 56, 148–152.
63. Leontsini, E.; Gil, E.; Kendall, C.; Clark, G.G. Effect of a community-based Aedes aegypti control programme
on mosquito larval production sites in El Progreso, Honduras. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1993, 87, 267–
271.
64. Dieng, H.; Saifur, R.G.M.; Ahmad, A.H.; Salmah, M.R.C.; Aziz, A.T.; Satho, T.; Miake, F.; Jaal, Z.; Abubakar,
S.; Morales, R.E. Unusual developing sites of dengue vectors and potential epidemiological implications.
Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2012, 2, 228–232.
65. Chan, K.; Ho, B.; Chan, Y. Aedes aegypti (L.) and Aedes Albopictus (Skuse) in Singapore City: 2. Larval
Habitats. Bull. World Health Organ. 1971, 44, 629–633.
66. Focks, D.A.; Brenner, R.J.; Hayes, J.; Daniels, E. Transmission thresholds for dengue in terms of Aedes aegypti
pupae per person with discussion of their utility in source reduction efforts. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2000, 62,
11–18.
67. Sanchez, L.; Perez, D.; Perez, T.; Sosa, T.; Cruz, G.; Kouri, G.; Boelaert, M.; Van Der Stuyft, P. Intersectoral
coordination in Aedes aegypti control. A pilot project in Havana City, Cuba. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2005, 10,
82–91.
68. Ooi, E.-E.; Goh, K.-T.; Gubler, D.J. Dengue prevention and 35 years of vector control in Singapore. Emerg.
Infect Dis. 2006, 12, 887–893.
69. Andersson, N.; Nava-Aguilera, E.; Arosteguí, J.; Morales-Perez, A.; Suazo-Laguna, H.; Legorreta-Soberanis,
J.; Hernandez-Alvarez, C.; Fernandez-Salas, I.; Paredes-Solís, S.; Balmaseda, A. Evidence based community
mobilization for dengue prevention in Nicaragua and Mexico (Camino Verde, the Green Way): Cluster
randomized controlled trial. Br. Med. J. 2015, 351, doi:10.1136/bmj.h3267.
70. Arunachalam, N.; Tyagi, B.K.; Samuel, M.; Krishnamoorthi, R.; Manavalan, R.; Tewari, S.C.; Ashokkumar,
V.; Kroeger, A.; Sommerfeld, J.; Petzold, M. Community-based control of Aedes aegypti by adoption of eco-
health methods in Chennai City, India. Pathog. Glob. Health 2012, 106, 488–496.
71. Nathan, M.B. Critical review of Aedes aegypti control programs in the Caribbean and selected neighboring
countries. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1993, 9, 1–7.
72. Baly, A.; Flessa, S.; Cote, M.; Thiramanus, T.; Vanlerberghe, V.; Villegas, E.; Jirarojwatana, S.; Van der Stuyft,
P. The cost of routine Aedes aegypti control and of insecticide-treated curtain implementation. Am. J. Trop.
Med. Hyg. 2011, 84, 747–752.
73. Tun-Lin, W.; Lenhart, A.; Nam, V.S.; Rebollar‐Téllez, E.; Morrison, A.; Barbazan, P.; Cote, M.; Midega, J.;
Sanchez, F.; Manrique‐Saide, P. Reducing costs and operational constraints of dengue vector control by
targeting productive breeding places: A multi-country non-inferiority cluster randomized trial. Trop. Med.
Int. Health 2009, 14, 1143–1153.
74. Johnson, B.J.; Hurst, T.; Quoc, H.L.; Unlu, I.; Freebairn, C.; Faraji, A.; Ritchie, S.A. Field Comparisons of the
Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) and BG-Sentinel Trap for monitoring Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae)
populations and notes on indoor GAT collections in Vietnam. J. Med. Entomol. 2016, doi:10.1093/jme/tjw166.
75. Trexler, J.D.; Apperson, C.S.; Schal, C. Laboratory and field evaluations of oviposition responses of Aedes
albopictus and Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) to oak leaf infusions. J. Med. Entomol. 1998, 35, 967–976.
© 2017 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
