Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T22:04:43.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the Responses of the Female Aëdes Mosquito. Part I.—The Search for Attractant Vapours*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. W. A. Brown ,
D. S. Sarkaria  and
R. P. Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of the attractancy of water-vapour, carbon dioxide and candidate attractant compounds was investigated by the use of an olfactometer emitting freely into a 360-cu. ft. cage filled with female adult Aëdes aegypti. Moist air (85 per cent. R.H.) was found to attract 3–5 times as many mosquitos as dry air (15 per cent. R.H.). A moistened billiard-ball was found to attract about seven times as many mosquitos as a dry one, the result being similar whether black or white balls were used. The attractancy was reduced and even reversed at very high room humidities.

The addition of 10 per cent. CO2 to a dry air stream approximately doubled its ability to bring mosquitos within 0·5 inches of the olfactometer port. Its addition to a moist air-stream did not significantly increase its attractancy. Pure CO2 vapour proved to be no more attractive than dry air, and several times less attractive than moist air.

A number of chemical compounds found in body exudations, and some housefly attractants, were tested in the olfactometer for their effect on Aëdes adults. None were consistently attractive, and many were significantly repellent. However, sweat itself proved significantly attractive at a low vapour concentration, while significantly repellent at a high concentration.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , September 1951 , pp. 105 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Christophers, Sir S. R. (1947). Mosquito repellents ; being a report of the work of the Mosquito Repellent Inquiry, Cambridge, 1943–1945.—J. Hyg., 45, pp. 176–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crumb, S. E. (1922). A mosquito attractant.—Science, no. 1,426, pp. 446–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Headlee, T. J. (1941). New Jersey mosquito problems.—Proc. N. J. Mosq. Ext. Ass., 28, pp. 7–12.Google Scholar
Howlett, F. M. (1910). The influence of temperature upon the biting of mosquitoes.—Parasitology, 3, pp. 479–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. & Back, R. C. (1943). A study of methods of sampling mosquito populations.—J. econ. Ent., 36, pp. 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S. (1940). The visual responses of flying mosquitoes.—Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., (A) 109, pp. 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. (1947). Statistical Analysis in Biology, pp. 55–60.—New York, Interscience Publ.Google Scholar
Parker, A. H. (1948). Stimuli involved in the attraction of Aëdes aegypti, L., to man.—Bull. ent. Res., 39, pp. 387–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reuter, J. (1936). Oriënteerend onderzoek naarde oorzaak van het gedrag van Anopheles maculipennis Meigen bij de voedselkeuze.—Proefschr. Rijksuniv. Leiden, 118 pp. (Rev. appl. Ent., (B) 24, pp. 223–225.)Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. (1922). Chemotropism of mosquitos.—Bull. N. J. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 367, 23 pp.Google Scholar
Wieting, J. O. G. & Hoskins, W. M. (1939). The olfactory responses of flies in a new type of insect olfactometer. II.—J. econ. Ent., 32, pp. 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, E. R. (1947). The olfactory responses of female mosquitos.—J. econ. Ent., 40, pp. 769–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar