4.2 Article

Geographic Distribution and Relative Abundance of the Sibling Vector Species Culex torrentium and Culex pipiens in Sweden

期刊

VECTOR-BORNE AND ZOONOTIC DISEASES
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 1383-1389

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/vbz.2011.0630

关键词

Abundance; Culex pipiens; Culex torrentium; Distribution; Sindbis virus; Sweden; VectorsWest Nile virus

资金

  1. Helge Ax:son Johnsons Stiftelse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Culex torrentium and Culex pipiens are sibling species and potential viral vectors that coexist in Europe. Larvae and females of the two species are morphologically almost identical, and reliable identification can only be done on males. To investigate the distribution and relative abundance of the two species in Sweden, we collected Culex larvae from sites spread over the country, identified them as Culex pipiens/torrentium based on morphology, and identified them to species using a recently developed restriction enzyme method. Cx. torrentium was the dominant species (89%, n = 1012) and it occurred in 48 of the 49 sites investigated, and also dominated in most of the study sites. The proportion of Cx. pipiens larvae in relation to Cx. torrentium collected at each site decreased with both increasing latitude and altitude, and the presence of Cx. pipiens decreased with latitude. In addition, Cx. pipiens/torrentium females were sampled with Centres for Disease Control light traps baited with carbon dioxide. The overall country mean was 4.0 Cx. pipiens/torrentium caught per trap night, with decreasing numbers of Cx. pipiens/torrentium caught per trap night with increasing latitude. Thus, the abundance of Cx. pipiens/torrentium decreased, but the proportion Cx. torrentium increased, with increasing latitude. This is the first study that shows the vast dominance of Cx. torrentium over Cx. pipiens in Sweden. The unexpected dominance of Cx. torrentium highlights the importance of distinguishing between the two species in studies of Culex-borne arboviruses in Europe.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据