Mosquito and arbovirus surveillance in wetlands of South-East England: Comparison of two adult mosquito traps, use of a novel trap with FTA™ cards and arbovirus testing

1Citations
Citations of this article
4Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Effective surveillance of mosquito populations is critical to monitoring and mitigating the spread of mosquito-borne diseases (MBDs). This study evaluated the relative trapping efficiency of two widely used adult mosquito traps—the Biogents BG-Sentinel (BGS) and the Mosquito Magnet® Executive (MM)—on British mosquitoes across four wetlands in south-east England over a 12-week period. A third trap, a Box-Gravid trap fitted with an FTA™ card, was deployed to detect arboviruses such as West Nile virus (WNV) via saliva collection. A total of 11,584 adult female mosquitoes representing 15 species were collected. The MM trap captured a significantly higher total number of mosquitoes, while the BGS trap demonstrated greater species evenness and was significantly more effective at catching Culex (Culex) pipiens L., 1758. Spatial variation strongly influenced catch rates, with significant differences between wetlands. No evidence of WNV was detected in any mosquito pools or FTA™ cards. While both trap types yielded similar species richness, the MM trap may be optimal for collecting large sample sizes of mammalophagic species, whereas the BGS is better suited for capturing enzootic vectors such as Culex pipiens s.l., and a broader spectrum of species. These findings provide evidence-based recommendations for future UK wetland surveillance and enhance preparedness for emerging vector-borne disease risks.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vaux, A. G. C., Hardy, H., Crossley, L., Johnston, C. J., Abbott, A. J., Findlay-Wilson, S., … Medlock, J. M. (2026). Mosquito and arbovirus surveillance in wetlands of South-East England: Comparison of two adult mosquito traps, use of a novel trap with FTATM cards and arbovirus testing. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 40(2), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/mve.70053

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free