Advertisement

Vector Surveillance and Control

  • Yuval Gottlieb
Chapter

Abstract

Field observations and laboratory vector competence tests support the assumption that lumpy skin disease (LSD) virus is mechanically transmitted by arthropods. Various blood-feeding arthropods such as haematophagous flies, mosquitoes and ticks are suspected as potential vectors, but their vectorial capacity has never been tested (see detailed descriptions in the Epidemiology chapter). Given the mechanical transmission mode and the large distribution of LSD from Africa to Europe over diverse climate regions, it is possible that different vectors are found in different areas and also in different farm settings and locations within a small area. Thus, for assessing vectorial capacity and prompting vector control programmes, the recognition and targeting of the local potential vectors are required. For this, local entomological data should be adequately collected and analysed. Such data can be collected by performing wide-taxa surveys, targeting potential vectors that feed on the affected animals. A wide-taxa survey should be planned appropriately to capture taxa with diverse biological and ecological characters (i.e. activity time and biting rates, dispersal, developmental cycle and life span, resting and breeding sites). Planning should include specific taxon traps or collection methodology, adequate trap locations, time of collection and methodology of identification of the collected arthropods (for general guideline, see http://vectormap.si.edu/Project_ESWG.htm). All steps are crucial for obtaining the relevant information on the vector abundance and seasonal dynamics, hence its relevance for vectorial capacity.

References

  1. Chihota CM, Rennie LF, Kitching RP, Mellor PS (2001) Mechanical transmission of lumpy skin disease virus by Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Epidemiol Infect 126:317–321CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. DeBach P, Rosen D (1991) Biological control by natural enemies. CUP, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS (2006) Sterile insect technique: principles and practice in area-wide integrated pest management. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. European Food Safety Authority (2017) Lumpy skin disease: I. Data collection and analysis. EFSA J 15:e04773Google Scholar
  5. Kahana-Sutin E, Klement E, Lensky I, Gottlieb Y (2017) High relative abundance of the stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans is associated with lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Israeli dairy farms. Med Vet Entomol 31(2):150–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Mullen G, Durden L (2009) Medical and veterinary entomology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Pedigo LP, Hutchins SH, Higley LG (1986) Economic injury levels in theory and practice. Annu Rev Entomol 31:341–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Phuc HK, Andreasen MH, Burton RS, Vass C, Epton MJ, Pape G, Fu G, Condon KC, Scaife S, Donnelly CA (2007) Late-acting dominant lethal genetic systems and mosquito control. BMC Biol 5:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Tuppurainen ES, Lubinga JC, Stoltsz WH, Troskie M, Carpenter ST, Coetzer JA, Venter EH, Oura CA (2013) Mechanical transmission of lumpy skin disease virus by Rhipicephalus appendiculatus male ticks. Epidemiol Infect 141:425–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuval Gottlieb
    • 1
  1. 1.Koret School of Veterinary MedicineThe Hebrew UniversityRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations