Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41821075›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2026

Investigating habitat preferences and host-feeding behavior of mosquito disease vectors on commercial swine farms in the USA.

Stephen Edache, David Edache, Lauryn Mauler, Ashley Thackrah, Vanessa Horton, Christy Hanthorn, Andrea L Dixon, Cassandra Olds, Dustin Swanson, Dana Mitzel and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Stephen EdacheCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
David EdacheCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Lauryn MaulerCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Ashley ThackrahCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Vanessa HortonCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Christy HanthornCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Andrea L DixonCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Cassandra OldsDepartment of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Dustin SwansonForeign Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit, Agricultural Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Dana MitzelForeign Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit, Agricultural Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Chad MireForeign Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit, Agricultural Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, Manhattan, KS, USA.
Lee W CohnstaedtForeign Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit, Agricultural Research Services, United States Department of Agriculture, National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, Manhattan, KS, USA. lee.cohnstaedt@usda.gov.
Natalia CernicchiaroCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA. ncernic@vet.k-state.edu.

Funding

Agricultural Research Service 58-3020-9-022Elanco Animal Health Veterinary Research Scholar Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMosquito feeding behavior and habitat preferences strongly influence arbovirus transmission, particularly for viruses where swine serve as amplifying hosts. The high density of pigs in commercial operations poses a potential risk for severe outbreaks if mosquito-borne pathogens were to be introduced. This study characterizes habitat preferences and feeding behavior of mosquito species on commercial swine farms in the USA.

methodsOverall, ten farms (five sow and five wean-to-market [WTM] farms) were sampled biweekly from June to October 2024. At each farm, resting mosquitoes were collected outdoors using aspirators, while light traps were deployed indoors and outdoors to trap host-seeking mosquitoes. Blood-fed females from all capture methods underwent DNA extraction, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and Sanger sequencing to identify mosquito species and vertebrate hosts. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate associations between habitat, location, and calendar period with the abundance of resting and blood-fed mosquitoes.

resultsIn this study, 3009 resting mosquitoes (both males and females) were collected. Vegetation habitats consistently harbored more resting and male mosquitoes than water bodies (P ≤ 0.02), on both sow and WTM farms. A total of 444 blood-fed female mosquitoes were captured, of which 25.7% (114/444) were captured on sow farms and 74.3% (330/444) on WTM farms. On WTM farms, the abundance of blood-fed mosquitoes was significantly higher indoors than outdoors (P < 0.01). Across production systems, the dominant blood-fed species were Anopheles quadrimaculatus (n = 157), Culex pipiens (n = 105), Aedes vexans (n = 65), Culex salinarius (n = 46), and Anopheles punctipennis (n = 45). Pigs accounted for the majority of blood meals (n = 384), followed by white-tailed deer (n = 38), cattle (n = 11), and birds (n = 11). The probability of mosquitoes feeding on pigs compared with other hosts was significantly higher from late June through mid-September (P < 0.01).

conclusionsThis study provides baseline data on mosquito habitat preferences and feeding behavior on US commercial swine farms. Routine mosquito vector surveillance and targeted control measures, both indoors and in surrounding habitats, should be integrated into herd biosecurity programs to mitigate mosquito-associated health risks in commercial swine operations.

Indexed as

CulicidaeEcosystemFeeding BehaviorMosquito VectorsSwine DiseasesAnimalsFarmsFemaleMaleMosquito-Borne DiseasesSwineUnited StatesArbovirusBlood mealFeeding behaviorHabitat preferenceHostMosquitoSwine farmsVector

Identifiers

PMID41821075
PMCPMC13097815

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.