Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34732239›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2021

Comparison of trapping methods for use in surveys for potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses.

Michael Becker, Jeong-Seok Park, Glen Gentry, Claudia Husseneder, Lane Foil

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Comparative effectiveness of UV-LED light and COCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Host Associations ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. A Review of the Vector Status of North AmericanCurrent tropical medicine reports · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael BeckerAgricultural Experiment Station, Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 402 Life Sciences, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA. mbecker@agcenter.lsu.edu.
Jeong-Seok Park1S1-5 203a, Chungbuk National University, 1 Chungdae-ro, Seowon-gu, Chengju, Chungbuk, 28644, South Korea.
Glen GentryAgricultural Experiment Station, Bob R Jones Idlewild Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 4419 Idlewild Road, Clinton, LA, 70722, USA.
Claudia HussenederAgricultural Experiment Station, Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 402 Life Sciences, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA.
Lane FoilAgricultural Experiment Station, Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 402 Life Sciences, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA. lfoil@agcenter.lsu.edu.
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center · USChungbuk National University · KR

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2017-67016-26795
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBluetongue virus (BTV) and epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV) are orbiviruses that can cause fatal vector-borne diseases in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Trapping methods for collecting potential Culicoides vectors of orbiviruses were compared to optimize surveillance studies.

methodsThe number of captured midges and the virus infection rates of midge pools were compared for dry ice-baited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) traps with or without black light. The number of individual midges of different Culicoides species captured at different crepuscular and nocturnal periods using rotator traps also was determined. The number of species/specimens of Culicoides was measured using five different trap methods including three animal-baited methods, a CDC trap with black light, and a CDC trap with no light.

resultsIn trial one, there was no significant difference (P = 0.37) in the proportion of BTV-infected flies caught in traps with light compared to traps without light. However, there was a significant difference (P = 0.026) for EHDV-infected flies, and 89% were captured in traps with light. In trial two, more specimens of C. debilipalpis were captured in the morning hours (06:00-08:00) than in the evening hours (18:00-20:00). For trial three, the animal-baited traps did not capture any species of Culicoides that were not captured in the CDC light traps. There was no significant difference (P = 0.22) in total specimens captured among all five trap types.

conclusionsSpecimens of Culicoides infected with BTV were not repelled by light traps in the first trial, while the majority of the specimens positive for EHDV were caught in traps with light. For the second trial, specimens of C. debilipalpis were most abundant during early morning hours, and thus spray applications of insecticides for control of that species may be more effective at sunrise rather than sunset. For objective three, no animal-baited trapping method collected different species of midges when compared to the CDC traps with light, which is unlike certain studies conducted in other geographical regions.

Indexed as

AnimalsCeratopogonidaeDeerInsect ControlInsect VectorsOrbivirusReoviridae InfectionsBluetongue virusCulicoidesEpizootic hemorrhagic disease virusWhite-tailed deer

Identifiers

PMID34732239
PMCPMC8564964
OpenAlexW3211078665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.