Evaluation of enhanced oviposition attractant formulations against Aedes and Culex vector mosquitoes in urban and semi-urban areas

  • Devi Shankar SumanEmail author
Arthropods and Medical Entomology - Original Paper


Surveillance is not only an important tool to assess the population dynamics of vector mosquitoes, but it can also be used to control vector-borne diseases. Mosquito vectors that belong to several genera such as Anopheles, Aedes, and Culex play a crucial role in the transmission of malaria, dengue, chikungunya, Zika, and elephantiasis diseases worldwide. We tested the efficacy of two commercial-grade oviposition attractant formulations that were developed for the container-inhabiting Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, and Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes present in urban or semi-urban environments. These attractants can lure gravid females. Field trials were conducted in residential yards during a post-rainy season in September and October. Our data showed considerable efficacy for both attractants. Aedes-attractant collected 1.6-fold more larvae (101.2 ± 10.5 larvae/trap) than the control, and Culex-attractant collected 1.27-fold more larvae (151.2 ± 12.5 larvae/trap) than the control, resulting in 0.8 and 0.7 oviposition attraction indices (OAIs), respectively. Regression analysis indicated that the Aedes-attractant was more stable than the Culex-attractant. Location and time did not alter the efficacy of these attractants. Our experiment suggests that these attractants can be used for the development of species-specific gravid traps to detect, estimate, and control the mosquito population in urban and semi-urban areas.


Oviposition attractant Ovitraps Mosquito surveillance Container mosquito Arboviruses Vector-borne diseases 



The author sincerely thanks Dr. Kailash Chandra, Director, Zoological Survey of India, New Alipore, Kolkata, India, for his support and providing the facilities to accomplish this study. I thank Subhas Vasudeva, Maxtech Mosquito Control Inc., Ontario, Canada, for providing samples of oviposition attractants. I also thank the students and staff who helped in the study and premises owners for their permission to conduct the study. The author would like to thank Dr. Sarwar Hashmi and Dr. Alexandra Gillett for proof-reading the article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.


  1. Abramides GC, Roiz D, Guitart R, Quintana S, Guerrero I, Gimenez N (2011) Effectiveness of a multiple intervention strategy for the control of the tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) in Spain. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 105:281–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achee NL, Gould F, Perkins TA, Reiner RC Jr, Morrison AC, Ritchie SA, Gubler DJ, Teyssou R, Scott TW (2015) A critical assessment of vector control for dengue prevention. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9:e0003655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arunachalam N, Samuel PP, Hiriyan J, Gajanana A (1999) A comparative study on sampling techniques for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) surveillance in Madurai. South India Trop Biomed 16:25–29Google Scholar
  4. Barrera R, Amador M, Acevedo V, Caban B, Felix G, Mackay AJ (2014) Use of the CDC autocidal gravid ovitrap to control and prevent outbreaks of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 51:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellini R, Carrieri M, Burgio G, Bacchi M (1996) Efficacy of different ovitraps and binomial sampling in Aedes albopictus surveillance activity. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 12:632–636Google Scholar
  6. Bentley M, Day J (1989) Chemical ecology and behavioral aspects of mosquito oviposition. Annu Rev Entomol 34:401–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clements AN (1992) The biology of mosquitoes, development, nutrition and reproduction, vol 1. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, USA, pp 222–285Google Scholar
  8. Codeco CT, Lima AW, Araujo SC, Lima JB, Maciel-de-Freitas R, Honorio N, Galardo AK, Braga IA, Coelho GE, Valle D (2015) Surveillance of Aedes aegypti: comparison of house index with four alternative traps. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9:e0003475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day F (2016) Mosquito oviposition behavior and vector control. Insects 7:65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Degener CM, Eiras AE, Azara TMF, Roque RA, Rosner S, Codeco CT, Nobre AA, Rocha ESO, Kroon EG, Ohly JJ, Geier M (2014) Evaluation of the effectiveness of mass trapping with BG-sentinel traps for dengue vector control: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Manaus, Brazil. J Med Entomol 51:408–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Degener CM, Mingote Ferreira de Ázara T, Aparecida Roque R, Rösner S, Rocha ESO, Geessien Kroon E, Torres Codeço C, Araújo Nobre A, Ohly JJ, Geier M, Eiras AE (2015) Mass trapping with MosquiTRAPs does not reduce Aedes aegypti abundance. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro 110:517–527Google Scholar
  12. Englbrecht C, Gordon S, Venturelli C, Rose A, Geier M (2015) Evaluation of BG-Sentinel trap as a management tool to reduce Aedes albopictus nuisance in an urban environment in Italy. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 31:16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farajollahi A, Healy SP, Unlu I, Gaugler R, Fonseca DM (2012) Effectiveness of ultra-low volume nighttime applications of an adulticide against diurnal Aedes albopictus, a critical vector of dengue and chikungunya viruses. PLoS One 7:e49181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farajollahi A, Kesavaraju B, Price DC, Williams GM, Healy SP, Gaugler R, Nelder MP (2009) Field efficacy of BG-Sentinel and industry-standard traps for Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and West Nile virus surveillance. J Med Entomol 46:919–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fonseca DM, Unlu I, Crepeau T, Farajollahi A, Healy SP, Bartlett-Healy K, Strickman D, Gaugler R, Hamilton G, Kline D, Clark GG (2013) Area-wide management of Aedes albopictus. Part 2: gauging the efficacy of traditional integrated pest control measures against urban container mosquitoes. Pest Manag Sci 69:1351–1361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaugler R, Wang Y, Kshitij C, Suman DS (2017) Collapsible stackable disposable inexpensive pesticide free traps and attractant for surveillance and control of Aedes container breeding mosquitos and other container breeding insects. Accessed May 2017
  17. Gould E, Pettersson J, Higgs S, Charrel R, de Lamballerie X (2017) Emerging arboviruses: why today? One Health 4:1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hawley WA (1988) The biology of Aedes albopictus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc Suppl 1:1–39Google Scholar
  19. Jackson MJ, Gow JL, Evelyn MJ, McMohan TJS, Howay TJ, Campbell H, Blancard J, Thielman (2012) An evaluation of the effectiveness of a commercial mechanical trap to reduce abundance of adult nuisance mosquito populations. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 28:292–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson BJ, Hurst T, Quoc HL, Unlu I, Freebairn C, Faraji A, Ritchie SA (2017) 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 54:340–348. Google Scholar
  21. Kampen H, Schuhbauer A, Walther D (2017) Emerging mosquito species in Germany—a synopsis after 6 years of mosquito monitoring (2011–2016). Parasitol Res 116:3253–3263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kramer LW, Mulla SM (1979) Oviposition attractants and repellents of mosquitoes: oviposition responses of Culex mosquito to organic infusions. Environ Entomol 8:1111–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NVBDCP (2018) National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme. Directorate General of Health Services. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India. Diseases. (Accessed on 11.06.2018)
  24. Perich MJ, Kardec A, Braga IA, Portal IF, Burge R, Zeichner BC, Brogdon WA, Wirtz RA (2003) Field evaluation of a lethal ovitrap against dengue vectors in Brazil. Med Vet Entomol 17:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ponnusamy L, Schal C, Wesson DM, Arellano C, Apperson CS (2015) Oviposition responses of Aedes mosquitoes to bacterial isolates from attractive bamboo infusions. Parasit Vectors 8:486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ponnusamy L, Xu N, Böröczky K, Wesson DM, Ayyash LA, Schal C, Apperson CS (2010) Oviposition responses of the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus to experimental plant infusions in laboratory bioassays. J Chem Ecol 36:709–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reiter P, Amador MA, Colon N (1991) Enhancement of the CDC ovitrap with hay infusions for daily monitoring of Aedes aegypti populations. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 7:52–55Google Scholar
  28. Ritchie SA, Rapley LP, Williams C, Johnson PH, Larkman M, Silcock RM, Long SA, Russell RC (2009) A lethal ovitrap-based mass trapping scheme for dengue control in Australia: I. Public acceptability and performance of lethal ovitraps. Med Vet Entomol 23:295–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seenivasagan T, Sharma KR, Ganesan K, Prakash S (2010) Electrophysiological, flight orientation and oviposition responses of three species of mosquito vectors to hexadecyl pentanoate: residual oviposition repellent activity. J Med Entomol 47:329–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sharma KR, Seenivasagan T, Rao AN, Ganesan K, Agrawal OP, Malhotra RC, Prakash S (2008) Oviposition responses of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus to certain fatty acid esters. Parasitol Res 103:1065–1073. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharma KR, Seenivasagan T, Rao AN, Ganesan K, Agrawal OP, Prakash S (2009) Mediation of oviposition responses in the malaria mosquito Anopheles stephensi Liston by certain fatty acid esters. Parasitol Res 104:281–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silver JB (2007) Mosquito ecology: field sampling methods. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Dordrecht. Google Scholar
  33. Sirivanakaran S (1976) Medical entomology studies—III. A revision of the subgenus Culex in the Oriental region (Diptera: Culicidae). Contrib Am Ent Inst 12:1–272Google Scholar
  34. Suman DS, Shrivastava AR, Pant SC, Parashar BD (2011) Differentiation of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) with egg surface morphology and morphometrics using scanning electron microscopy. Arthropod Struct Dev 40:479–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suman DS, Shrivastava AR, Parashar BD, Pant SC, Agrawal OP, Prakash S (2009) Variations in morphology & morphometrics of eggs of Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes from different ecological regions of India. J Vector Ecol 34:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suman DS, Shrivastava AR, Parashar BD, Pant SC, Agrawal OP, Prakash S (2008) Scanning electron microscopic studies on egg surface morphology and morphometrics of Culex tritaeniorhynchus and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasitol Res 104:173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suman DS, Wang Y, Bilgrami AL, Gaugler R (2013) Ovicidal activity of three insect growth regulators against Aedes and Culex mosquitoes. Acta Trop 128:103–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trexler JD, Apperson CS, Schal C (1998) Laboratory and field evaluations of oviposition responses of Aedes albopictus and Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) to oak leaf infusions. J Med Entomol 35:967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Unlu I, Suman DS, Wang Y, Klingler K, Faraji A, Gaugler R (2017) Effectiveness of autodissemination stations containing pyriproxyfen in reducing immature Aedes albopictus populations. Parasit Vectors 10:139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. WHO [World Health Organization] (2009) Dengue: guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. In: In: organization WH (ed.). World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. WHO [World Health Organization] (2014) A global brief on vector-borne diseases. In: Organization WH (ed) A global brief on vector-borne diseases. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams CR, Long SA, Webb CE, Bitzhenner M, Geier M, Russel RC, Ritchie SA (2007) Aedes aegypti population sampling using BG-Sentinel traps in north Queensland, Australia: statistical considerations for trap deployment and sampling strategy. J Med Entomol 44:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wong J, Stoddard ST, Astete H, Morrison AC, Scott TW (2011) Oviposition site selection by the dengue vector Aedes aegypti and its implications for dengue control. PLoS Neg Trop Dis 5:e1015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoological Survey of IndiaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations