exotic aedes receptacle breeding survey...

EXOTIC AEDES RECEPTACLE BREEDING SURVEY

OF MATARANKA AND KATHERINE

4-6 March 2003

July 2006

GISELA LAMCHE, NINA KURUCZ, JENNIFER GRIGG &

PETER WHELAN

For further information contact: Medical Entomology Branch Centre for Disease Control Department of Health and Community Services PO Box 40596 Casuarina NT 0811 Telephone: 08 8922 8901 Fax: 08 8922 8820 Email: [email protected]

Contents 1. ...................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction2. ..................................................................................................... 4 Materials and methods

2.1 ....................................................................................................................... 4 Rainfall2.2 ........................................................................................ 5 Receptacle breeding survey2.3 ............................................................................................................ 5 Adult trapping

3. ............................................................................................................................... 6 Results3.1 ....................................................................................................................... 6 Rainfall3.2 ....................................................................................................... 6 Receptacle survey

3.2.1 ........................................................................................................... 6 Mataranka3.2.1.1 ............................................................................................ 6 Species collected3.2.1.2 ................................................................. 6 Receptacles recorded and ranking

3.2.2 ............................................................................................................ 6 Katherine3.2.2.1 ............................................................................................ 6 Species collected3.2.2.2 ......................................................................................... 7 Receptacle ranking

3.3 ......................................................................................... 7 Comparison of both towns3.3.1 ............................................................... 7 Receptacle types and survey summary3.3.2 ................................................................................................ 8 Receptacle Index

3.4 ................................................................ 8 Adult mosquito collection Mataranka area4. .......................................................................................................................... 8 Discussion

4.1 ....................................................................................................................... 8 Rainfall4.2 ................................................................ 9 Adult mosquito collection Mataranka area4.3 ......................................................... 9 Larval survey and mosquito breeding potential

4.3.1 ........................................................................................................... 9 Mataranka4.3.1.1 ............................................................................................ 9 Species collected4.3.1.2 ............................................................... 10 Receptacles recorded and ranking

4.3.2 .......................................................................................................... 11 Katherine4.3.2.1 .......................................................................................... 11 Species collected4.3.2.2 ......................................... 11 Receptacles recorded, ranking and rectification

4.4 ..................................................... 12 Comparisons of both towns and risk assessment5. ..................................................................................................................... 13 Conclusions6. ......................................................................................................... 13 Acknowledgements7. ....................................................................................................................... 13 References

F:\ENTO\ento_files\public_information\branch_reports\aegypti surveys\2003_katherine_mataranka\Aedes Survey Kath & Mat 03.doc

2

Figures Figure 1: Aedes aegypti survey in Mataranka, 4th March 2003: premises inspected Figure 2: Aedes aegypti survey in Katherine 5th and 6th March 2003: premises inspected Figure 3: Results of receptacle breeding survey in Mataranka: potential and actual breeding sites per premise Figure 4: Results of receptacle breeding survey in Katherine: potential and actual breeding sites per premise Tables Table 1: Most common potential receptacles in Mataranka Table 2: Most common receptacle mosquito breeding sites in Mataranka Table 3: Most common potential receptacles in Katherine Table 4: Most common receptacle mosquito breeding sites in Katherine Table 5: Summary of receptacle surveys of Mataranka and Katherine Table 6: Summary of adult female mosquitoes collected in CO2 baited EVS traps in Mataranka, 4th March 2003 Appendices Appendix 1: Mataranka: Summary of total number of potential receptacles and mosquito breeding results Appendix 2: Katherine: Summary of total number of potential receptacles and mosquito breeding results Appendix 3: Mataranka: Number of receptacles positive for each species and number of larvae collected Appendix 4: Katherine: Number of receptacles positive for each species and number of larvae collected


3

1. Introduction Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus are the main mosquito vectors of dengue. Aedes albopictus is presently absent from the Northern Territory (NT) (Lamche & Whelan 2003a, Whelan 1991, Lee et al. 1987a). Aedes aegypti was present in the NT before, during and after World War II and included locations in Darwin, Howard Creek, Adelaide River, Pine Creek, Katherine, Daly Waters and Roper River in 1956 (O’Gower 1958, Taylor 1943). Aedes aegypti was detected in Tennant Creek in February 2004 was eradicated after a two years program (Whelan et al. 2006). Aedes aegypti was reported as absent in Darwin in 1969, and was confirmed absent through continuous surveying throughout the Northern Territory from 1974 to the present (Whelan 1998, Whelan 1991, Kay et al. 1990, Marks 1970). It is assumed that a general improvement of sanitation through the introduction of reticulated water and a concurrent removal of dry season breeding sites such as rainwater tanks, railway fire buckets and wells has been responsible for the disappearance of this species (Marks 1970, Whelan 1991). The Medical Entomology Branch carries out a comprehensive exotic mosquito surveillance program to enable early detection of an exotic mosquito importation, followed by elimination procedures (Whelan et al. 1998, Whelan & Tucker 1998). The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) also carry out exotic vector surveillance and there is a strong collaboration between the two bodies (Whelan & Tucker 1998). These exotic surveillance programs cover the vulnerable sea entrance points to the NT in Darwin, Nhulunbuy, and Alyangula (Whelan et al. Medical Entomology Branch Report 2002/03). Besides regular surveillance, the MEB carries out irregular receptacle surveys throughout the Northern Territory (Whelan & Tucker 1998). In March 2003, two MEB officers visited Mataranka and Katherine to conduct exotic Aedes receptacle surveys. The first aim of the investigation was to determine whether exotic Aedes were present in these towns. Mataranka and Katherine are both on the main road connecting route between Queensland and Darwin. Aedes aegypti is endemic in Queensland and there is always the possibility of introduction of this species into the Territory from Queensland as desiccant resistant eggs (Whelan 1991). Secondly, data on endemic receptacle breeding mosquitoes, as well as potential receptacle breeding sites, provides information for general risk assessment for exotic vector establishment. A third aspect of the survey was to encourage receptacle breeding site reduction with members of the public when entering private premises, by providing information on artificial mosquito breeding sites and methods to eliminate them. Adult mosquito trapping was also carried out in Mataranka to add to mosquito data in an area of the NT that is not part of the regular mosquito monitoring program.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Rainfall

Rainfall data were obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) monthly weather reviews February and March (2003a, b) and from the BOM daily records on the internet.


4

2.2 Receptacle breeding survey

After obtaining permission to enter a premise, all of the potential water holding receptacles were recorded, noting the presence of water and mosquito larvae. Mosquito larvae were collected using a standard dipper (270 ml), small (5 ml) or large (30 ml) plastic pipette, and a siphon pump or a net with a flexible plastic frame (Zhen & Kay 1993). The nets were made by using cable ties to form a plastic frame of approximately 15 cm diameter holding a net of approximately 10 cm depth made from plastic netting with 0.5 mm mesh width. These nets are effective in sampling tyres, as it is possible to move the net along the inner tyre surface, sampling most of the water (Zhen & Kay 1993). A second type of net with a wire frame of approximately 10 cm diameter was fitted with a sample jar. This net enabled the sampling of large amounts of water whilst concentrating the sample in the jar. Its size also allows for the sampling of tyres. The dipper was applied to larger water bodies, such as buckets, drums etc. Pipettes and the siphon pump were used to sample receptacles with a small access area such as 200 L drums, broken septic seals or bamboo trunks. An effort was made to collect all instar stages during sampling at each breeding site. To facilitate detection of first and second instar larvae, a piece of pale coloured cardboard was used to visualise small larvae against the dark background. Tun-Lin et al. (1994) concluded that 4th instar larvae are recovered most easily using a sweeping sampling method with a net, and such data most reliably represent the abundance of various species. Tun-Lin et al. (1994) also stated that sampling larger receptacles such as 200L drums using a single sweep is a more precise method to collect 4th instar larvae than a number of sweeps, as larvae are disturbed after the first sweep. As the receptacle survey presented here intended to just collect all species present rather than measure abundance. A single sweep applied to sample a receptacle seemed sufficient to achieve the goal. Larvae were preserved in 70% ethanol, while pupae were bred out to adults. Mosquitoes were identified using a stereo microscope and taxonomic keys (Lee 1944, Lee at al. 1989a, Lee et al. 1989b, Lee et al. 1989c, Lee at al. 1987a, Lee et al. 1987b, Lee et al. 1984, Lee et al. 1982). A Garmin GPS 12 was used to record the longitude and latitude of a premise visited. An overview of the premises visited is given in Figure 1 for Mataranka and Figure 2 for Katherine. Unfortunately due to time restraints only one residential property was able to be surveyed while visiting Katherine.

2.3 Adult trapping

Overnight trapping for the presence and relative abundance of mosquito species was carried out using carbon dioxide (CO2) baited modified encephalitis virus surveillance (EVS) traps (Rohe & Fall 1979). The mosquitoes were killed by freezing and identified using a stereo microscope and taxonomic keys (Lee at al. 1989a, Lee et al. 1989b, Lee et al. 1989c, Lee et al. 1988, Lee et al. 1987b, Lee et al. 1984, Lee et al. 1982). Two trap locations were selected in the Mataranka region before the survey. One trap was set on a tree near the Mataranka airstrip. The second trap was planned to be set downstream of the Mataranka Homestead Resort, near the Roper River. The Roper River crossing towards


5

the homestead was flooded with a water depth of more than 0.8 m. It was therefore decided to set the second trap near the Roper River crossing. A Garmin GPS 12 was used to record the longitude and latitude of the trap locations.

3. Results

3.1 Rainfall

The February rainfall in Mataranka was 352.0 mm collected at the Mataranka Council rain gauge. During the week prior to the survey, a low amount of rainfall was recorded daily and on Monday, 3rd March 43 mm of rain was measured at the Mataranka Homestead rain gauge. The total rainfall in Katherine in February was 258.4 mm at the Katherine Rural College and 253.0 mm at Katherine Aviation Museum. The rainfall was between 4 and 12 mm daily during the week before the survey, with a rainfall on the 3rd March 2003 of 73.4 mm recorded at Katherine Aviation Museum, 73 mm at Katherine Town and 64 mm at Katherine Bridge two days before the receptacle survey in Katherine.

3.2 Receptacle survey

3.2.1 Mataranka

3.2.1.1 Species collected

Ten mosquito species were collected (Appendix Table A1). Culex quinquefasciatus was the dominant species. Aedes tremulus, Ae. notoscriptus and Cx. pullus were other frequently collected species, whereas Aedes katherinensis, Tripteroides punctolateralis, Cx. annulirostris, Lutzia halifaxii, Anopheles annulipes and An. farauti sl were collected occasionally and in low numbers only (Appendix Table A1).

3.2.1.2 Receptacles recorded and ranking

Forty nine different receptacles were recorded (Appendix Table A1). The type of receptacle most frequently found were tyres, followed by buckets, bucket lids and unsealed septic tanks (Table 1). Pot plant bases, car bodies, rainwater tanks, gutters and drums were also potential receptacles recorded in high numbers (Table 1, Appendix Table A1).

3.2.2 Katherine


Eleven mosquito species were collected during the receptacle survey in Katherine (Appendix Table A2). Aedes notoscriptus was the species most frequently collected, followed by Culex quinquefasciatus, Tripteroides punctolateralis, and Ae. tremulus (Appendix Table A2). Less frequently recorded were Cx. annulirostris, Ae. katherinensis, Lutzia halifaxii, Cx. species 32, Cx. pullus, Anopheles annulipes and Cx. species 167. The highest number of larvae was Cx. quinquefasciatus, followed by Ae. notoscriptus, and Ae. tremulus. Low numbers of larvae were collected for all of the other species.


6

3.2.2.2 Receptacle ranking

The survey in Katherine specifically targeted tyre yards and auto wreckers as premises with a high potential for a large amount of receptacles. It is therefore no surprise that tyres and car bodies were among the highest potential receptacles recorded, but they also head the table of actual breeding sites (Tables 3, 4). The beer/soft drink cans were located in one premise as a pile of rubbish. As this type of rubbish was not the main target of the survey, only 3 cans were sampled, which were all negative for mosquito larvae (Table 4, Appendix Table A2). Of the 50 plants, only 10, which all held water, were sampled. All samples were negative for mosquito breeding (Table 4, Appendix Table A2). These plants were at the one residential premise sampled in Katherine (Table 5). Bamboo stumps, metal parts and buckets were found breeding (Table 4), whereas the remaining receptacle types listed in Table 3 were not breeding. Figure 4 summarizes the results of the receptacle survey in Katherine, showing the number of potential as well as positive receptacles per premise. The commercial premises targeted revealed a very high number of potential receptacles. Only a percentage of these were sampled. The majority of receptacles sampled were holding water and quite a high proportion of these were positive for mosquito larvae (Figure 4).

3.3 Comparison of both towns

3.3.1 Receptacle types and survey summary

The survey in Katherine targeted commercial risk premises such as tyre yards, wreckers and transport companies, which were expected to have a high number of potential receptacles (Whelan 1980, Ritchie et al. 2001). It had been planned to survey residential premises, but as the time was limited, only premises with a high potential for mosquito breeding were inspected. The survey in Mataranka, a small town of about 300 people (NT government, intranet 2002), set out to target most commercial and a selection of residential premises. Most of the commercial premises of Mataranka were inspected, whereas a number of residential premises were closed (Table 5). In both towns, tyres were the most common receptacle type recorded and were also the most common type found positive for mosquito breeding. Other receptacles types occurring in the ranking list of both towns were car bodies, buckets, and pot plant bases (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4). While a larger number of premises were inspected in Mataranka (17 versus 10 in Katherine), the total number of potential receptacles was considerably lower (230 in Mataranka, 2243 in Katherine, Table 5). In Mataranka, the majority of water holding receptacles (mostly tyres) detected were sampled, whereas the number of receptacles (mostly tyres) recorded in Katherine was very high, and therefore only a selection of these were sampled (Table 5). The average number of potential receptacles per premise was similar for commercial (13.8) and residential premises (13.0) in Mataranka. The number of potential receptacles per premise was higher in Katherine, with 240.5 for commercial and 78.0 for residential premises, respectively (Table 5).


7

3.3.2 Receptacle Index

A number of indices have been used to enable the comparison of Aedes. aegypti densities in different areas (Service 1993). Although no Ae. aegypti larvae were found in the present survey, the use of these indices for other receptacle breeding species is informative. A house index (% of houses positive for breeding) and a receptacle index (% of receptacles positive for mosquito larvae out of the total number of receptacles holding water) were calculated (Table 5). The total receptacle index for Mataranka of 25.36 is relatively high, with both commercial and residential premises displaying receptacle indices of 26.92 and 20.59 respectively. The total house index for Mataranka of 37.04 is also high, with commercial premises displaying a higher house index (50) compared to residential premises (23.08) (Table 5). The total receptacle index for Katherine of 31.34 is also relatively high, with commercial premises displaying a much higher receptacle index of 33.75 compared to residential premises with 3.57. The total house index for Katherine of 90.9 is very high, with both commercial premises and residential premises displaying very high indices of 90 and 100 respectively (Table 5). However, it has to be noted that only one residential premise was inspected in Katherine. The density figure defined by the World Health Organization (1972) is a relative measure for the risk of dengue transmission. This density figure is derived from larval indices of one or more of house index, receptacle index and Breteau index (refer to WHO reference 1972 for detailed information). The use of the density figure for other receptacle breeding species, provides a good indication of the likelihood of Ae. aegypti establishment in an area, due to the presence of suitable receptacle mosquito breeding sites. The overall density figure for Mataranka is 6 using the receptacle index or 5 using the house index (Table 5). The overall density figure for Katherine is 7 using the receptacle index or 9 using the house index. Any indices greater than 1 represent a high risk for Ae. aegypti establishment in an area, as this would be sufficient to maintain dengue transmission in an area if Ae. aegypti was present. Therefore, based on the density figure, the risk of Ae. aegypti establishing in Mataranka or Katherine is relatively high if this species was imported or introduced from overseas or Queensland.

3.4 Adult mosquito collection Mataranka area

The adult trapping results are summarized in Table 6. No male mosquitoes were collected during the trapping. A total of 12 species was recorded. The total number of mosquitoes collected was high at the Roper River trap and fairly low near the township of Mataranka. The dominant species collected at the Roper River was Aedes phaecasiatus followed by Culex pullus. Culex annulirostris was the main species collected near Mataranka, followed by Cx. pullus and Ae. normanensis.

4. Discussion

4.1 Rainfall

The February rainfall in Mataranka was 352.0mm, which is above the February monthly average of 217mm (BOM 2003a, BOM Climate Averages for Australian Sites). In Katherine the February rainfall, of 258.4mm, was also above the monthly average of 216.5mm (BOM 2003a, BOM Climate Averages for Australian Sites).


8

The fact that large amounts of rainfall were recorded at both locations on 3rd March 2003 provided good prerequisites for a receptacle breeding survey. Many receptacles were flooded, allowing for a good picture of wet season receptacle breeding site availability.

4.2 Adult mosquito collection Mataranka area

The mosquito species Culex gelidus was collected for the first time in the Mataranka area. This species was introduced into the Northern Territory several years ago (Whelan et al. 2000, Whelan et al. 2001). It is now widespread in the NT and is collected regularly in the Katherine routine monitoring traps (MEB database). The high number of mosquitoes collected near the Roper River (site 1) indicates a relative closeness to significant breeding sites. Aedes phaecasiatus breeding sites are not well known (Lee et al. 1984). In Darwin larvae of this species have been collected from interdunal pools filled by rain (MEB records). This species is not known to be a vector of disease (Lee et al. 1984). Culex pullus breeds in rock holes, artificial receptacles and ground water of many types (Lee et al. 1989b). Although virus isolations have been reported from Cx. pullus, this species is not regarded as a human disease vector (Lee et al. 1989b). The number of mosquitoes collected near the township was relatively low, indicating the absence of large breeding sites in the vicinity at the time of the survey. Culex annulirostris was the only species collected in appreciable numbers. This species is common throughout Australia and typically breeds in fresh water swamps, lagoons and transient grassy pools, but also in a variety of other habitats, usually with aquatic or emergent vegetation (Lee et al., 1989). Besides being considered a pest species, Cx. annulirostris is the principal vector of Murray Valley encephalitis virus and Kunjin virus (Lee et al., 1989, Russell & Dwyer, 2000). It is also a major vector of Ross River virus and Barmah Forest virus and can be a vector of other viruses, which are less common (Lee et al., 1989, Russell & Dwyer, 2000 and Harley et al., 2001).

4.3 Larval survey and mosquito breeding potential

4.3.1 Mataranka


All of the ten mosquito species collected in the receptacle survey are known to use receptacles as a preferred breeding habitat or are known to use receptacles (Lee at al. 1989a, Lee et al. 1989b, Lee et al. 1989c, Lee at al. 1987a, Lee et al. 1987b, Lee et al. 1984, Lee et al. 1982). All of these species had been recorded in previous surveys in Mataranka (Whelan 1980, Davis & Hodder 1983, MEB unpublished data). The dominance of Culex quinquefasciatus collected in receptacles in Mataranka points to the presence and availability of breeding sites for at least 1 – 2 weeks before the current survey. This species is considered a nuisance species rather than a disease vector in Australia (Kay et al. 2000). Aedes notoscriptus and Ae. tremulus are the two species most commonly recorded in receptacles in the Northern Territory (MEB unpublished data). Both species are considered potential vectors of Ross River virus (Russell 2002). Aedes katherinensis is not endemic to the Northern Territory (Lee et al. 1987a, Woodhill 1949), but is recorded widely in the NT, including Katherine, Darwin, and East Arnhem regions including Groote Eylandt (MEB, unpublished data) and is not known to spread human disease (Lee et al. 1987a).


9

No Aedes aegypti or other exotic Aedes were collected during the survey in Mataranka. In Queensland, Ae. aegypti is often found in similar sites as Ae. tremulus, especially in underground breeding sites (Kay et al. 2002, Russell et al. 2001). Aedes tremulus was the dominant mosquito species found recently in underground service manholes and pits in Darwin (Lamche & Whelan 2003b, MEB unpublished data). This species seems to be the dominant species in underground breeding sites in the NT. The collection of considerable numbers of Ae. tremulus indicates ample potential breeding sites and a strong potential for the establishment of any Ae. aegypti imported to Mataranka. During the survey a high proportion of 3rd and 4th instar larvae were collected. It is likely that larger larvae were easier to collect in a sample compared to smaller larvae when a large number of larvae are present. This could explain the higher percentage of larger larvae in the samples from Mataranka. It is also probable that the high number of 4th instar larvae were a result of an egg hatch from rain on 23rd February 2003, and the rain on 3rd March had resulted in few additional small larvae or the additional larvae were small 1st instar larvae that were less sampled by the methods used.

4.3.1.2 Receptacles recorded and ranking

Tyres were the most frequently recorded receptacles and also the receptacles most often breeding mosquitoes in Mataranka during this survey. Tyres are a favourable habitat for receptacle breeding mosquitoes for a long time (eg Tinker 1964). Tyres are also ideal receptacles to spread receptacle breeding mosquitoes as drought resistant eggs (eg Reiter 1988, Calder & Laird 1994, Laird et al. 1994). Tyres were the most common receptacles positive for Aedes aegypti in Cairns detected by the Dengue Action Response Team (DART) (Walsh, personal communication). The presence of a considerable amount of tyres in Mataranka poses a risk for a potential establishment of exotic Aedes mosquitoes. Of particular concern is the large number of unsealed septic tanks detected in Mataranka. Many of these were inaccessible for sampling, as the gap in the concrete lid was only a few millimetres wide, or the water level of the septic/ septic breather was low and could not be reached with the pipette/siphon on an extended arm. However 60% of the sampled septic tanks were found positive for mosquito larvae (Appendix Table A1). Aedes tremulus was collected from two underground breeding sites. This species is often found in association with Aedes aegypti (see 4.2.1.1) and Aedes aegypti is known to use septic tanks for breeding (Nwoke et al. 1993, Babu et al. 1983). The unsealed septic tanks therefore increase the risk of establishment of Aedes aegypti or other exotic Aedes in Mataranka.The problem of a large number of unsealed septic tanks has been brought to the attention of the Environmental Health Officer responsible for the town. The other receptacles found to be breeding mosquitoes belong to commonly used categories (Barker-Hudson et al. 1988) and did not indicate any new type of receptacle. Overall the survey demonstrates a considerable potential for the establishment of exotic Aedes mosquitoes. Mataranka is situated on the Stuart Highway, along the main road link between Queensland and Darwin, and is a well travelled road. The importation of Aedes aegypti from Queensland as desiccation resistant eggs, as adults, and as larvae is a possibility, and the presence of many available breeding sites will facilitate their establishment following an importation.


10

4.3.2 Katherine


All of the eleven species collected have been recorded previously in Katherine (MEB database). The frequently recorded species Culex quinquefasciatus, Aedes notoscriptus and Ae. tremulus have been discussed in 4.2.1.1. Tripteroides punctolateralis is a species recorded more frequently in Katherine compared to Mataranka. This species is a common receptacle breeder and not regarded as vector of human disease (Lee et al. 1989c). No Aedes aegypti or other exotic Aedes were detected during this receptacle survey in Katherine. Considerably more 4th and less 1st instar larvae were collected during the survey in Katherine compared with Mataranka. The overall number of specimens collected in Katherine (1786) was higher than in Mataranka (658) (Appendix Tables A3, A4). During the sampling process, consideration was given to the collection of specimens of different appearance observed in a receptacle. It is likely that larger larvae were easier to collect in a sample compared to smaller larvae when a large number of larvae are present. This could explain the higher percentage of larger larvae in the samples from Katherine. It is also probable that the high number of 4th instar larvae were a result of an egg hatch from 18mm of rain on 23rd February 2003, and the rain on 3rd March had resulted in few additional small larvae or the additional larvae were small 1st instar larvae that were less sampled by the methods used.

4.3.2.2 Receptacles recorded, ranking and rectification

The commercial premises targeted in Katherine were tyre yards, transport companies and car wreckers. Apart from the tyres, as discussed under 4.2.1.2, car bodies were favourable breeding sites for receptacle breeding mosquito species. Metal parts at car wreckers were commonly breeding mosquitoes. Only a few beer/soft drink cans were sampled as these were not a favoured breeding habitat in the United States (Tinker 1964). No mosquito larvae were found in these cans. One method to prevent mosquito breeding in tyres is to store them out of the rain. Tyres to be disposed of were, however, normally stored without cover. They need particular attention for treatment with insecticides or they should be disposed to a suitable disposal site. Car wrecks at wreckers are usually without cover and pose a particular problem. There are several options to prevent mosquito breeding, eg puncturing of water holding wrecks and metal parts. This would require a reasonable amount of time to find and rectify. Insecticide methods of preventing mosquito breeding/hatching would involve the use of a bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) or the insect growth hormone methoprene. The former product would need re-application every week, whereas the latter is available in a pellet form, which would need re-application every month. Both products have a good environmental safety record (Dale & Morris 2002), and could be dispersed by pressure sprayer or backpack misters for liquids, or granule backpack applicators for pellets when treating large areas of potential breeding sites.


11

A supplementary application of one of the residual insecticides such as deltamethrin or bifenthrin should also be applied to the inner surface of the receptacle. This treatment would need to be carried out every month throughout the wet season.

4.4 Comparisons of both towns and risk assessment

Mataranka and Katherine were both found to have a high potential for the establishment of exotic Aedes due to the high amount of potential and actual receptacle breeding sites recorded. Mataranka had lower receptacle numbers and larval numbers than Katherine. However, many of the premises inspected were directly on the Stuart Highway, the main connecting road from North to South (Figures 1 and 3). The premises surveyed in Katherine were not located on the Stuart Highway, but had very high numbers of potential and actual receptacle breeding sites. (Figures 2 and 4). The density figure, as a relative measure of the risk of dengue vector establishment shows a ‘significant risk’ of dengue vector establishment for both Mataranka (House index 5; Receptacle index 6) and Katherine (House index 9; Receptacle Index 7). As stated in 3.3.2 the density figure is strictly only valid for a receptacle index based on the breeding of Aedes aegypti. However, it clearly demonstrates a high potential for the establishment of Ae. aegypti if it is imported from overseas or Queensland, due to ample available breeding sites. According to the density figure Mataranka would be at a slightly lower risk of dengue vector establishment than Katherine. However, the finding of underground breeding sites such as septics (other underground sites such as service pits and manholes were not surveyed) in Mataranka would provide all year round breeding sites. All of the other breeding sites recorded (Appendix Tables A1, A3) are only productive during the wet season. Thus, Mataranka is assessed as a high risk town for exotic Aedes establishment. The issue of unsealed septic tanks had been discussed with the Environmental Health Officer, who stated that the problem was known and is to be addressed subject to funding. It is recommended that these septics be sealed in Mataranka as soon as possible in order to reduce the risk of the establishment of exotic Aedes in Mataranka, as well as to reduce the present pest mosquito problem. An established population of Aedes aegypti was detected in Tennant Creek in February 2004 (Whelan et al 2004, Elder & Lamche 2004). It is likely that the original importation of this species originated from Queensland as drought resistant eggs in dry receptacles, where it is well established (eg Ritchie et al 2001, Sinclair 1992). This importation has now been eradicated but indicates the potential for the establishment of this species in other towns in the NT on the NT/Qld road connections. As Mataranka and Katherine are the principal first major towns on the Qld Darwin road route, Ae. aegypti could be relatively easily imported into either of these towns.


12

5. Conclusions The receptacle survey carried out in Mataranka and Katherine confirmed the absence of dengue vectors in these towns. Tyres were confirmed as the main potential breeding sites for container breeding mosquito species in both towns. Both towns were assessed as high risk for the establishment of exotic Aedes if any are imported into the towns. This is of special concern after the recent establishment of Aedes aegypti in Tennant Creek. The major receptacle breeding mosquito problem in Mataranka includes unsealed septics, and this requires urgent rectification. The survey in Katherine targeted tyre yards, transport companies and wreckers, which all had a high potential for the establishment of exotic Aedes. These receptacles should be targeted for rectification or regular application of insecticides during the wet season. Katherine and Mataranka are both towns on the Stuart Highway connecting Queensland and Tennant Creek to Darwin. The high risk for the establishment of exotic Aedes found for Katherine and Mataranka is therefore of particular concern, as any establishment could lead to the further spread of exotic Aedes further north to Darwin, where any eradication would be extremely difficult.

6. Acknowledgements Chris Daly, Environmental Health Officer Katherine, was our local contact person and we discussed general Aedes aegypti issues and potential breeding sites in Katherine. Tony Morley was the Environmental Health Officer responsible for Mataranka and the problem of the high number of unsealed septic tanks in this town was pointed out and discussed.

7. References Babu CJ, Panicker KN, Das PK (1983): Breeding of Aedes aegypti in closed septic tanks. Indian J Med Res; 77: 637. Barker-Hudson P, Jones R, Kay B (1988): Categorization of domestic breeding habitats of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Northern Queensland, Australia. J Med Entomol 25(3): 178-182. Bureau of Meteorology (2003a): Monthly Weather Review February 2003, 24p. Bureau of Meteorology (2003b): Monthly Weather Review March 2003, 24p. Bureau of Meteorology: Climate Averages for Australian Sites, www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014902.shtml. Calder L & Laird M (1994): Mosquito travellers, arbovirus vectors and the used tyre trade. Travel Med Internat; 12(1): 3-12. Dale P & Morris C (Ed.) (2002): Australian Mosquito Control Manual. Mosquito Control Association of Australia Inc. 2nd ed.


13

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014902.shtml

Davis & Hodder (1983): Aedes aegypti survey, Mataranka, Roper River, Maranboy, Bamyilli, Beswick March 1983. Medical Entomology Branch, Department of Health & Community Services, 12p. Elder R & Lamche G (2004): Update on the Aedes aegypti eradication campaign in Tennant Creek, NT. NT Dis Contr Bull; 11(2): 1-2. Harley D, Sleigh A, Ritchie S (2001): Ross River virus transmission, infection and disease: a cross-disciplinary review. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, Vol 14 (4): 909-932. Kay BH, Lyons SA, Holt JS, Holynska M, Russell BM (2002): Point Source Inoculation of Mesocyclops (Copepoda: Cyclopoidae) Gives Widespread Control of Ochlerotatus and Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) Immatures in Service Manholes and Pits in North Queensland, Australia. J Med Ent; Vol 39(3): 469-474. Kay BH, Ryan PA, Russell BM, Holt JS, Lyons SA, Foley PN (2000): The Importance of Subterranean Mosquito Habitat to Arbovirus Vector Control Strategies in North Queensland, Australia. J Med Entomol; 37: 846-853. Kay BH, Ives WA, Whelan PI, Barker-Hudson P, Fanning ID & Marks EN (1990): ‘Is Aedes albopictus in Australia?’ Med. J. Aust; Vol. 153: 31-34. Laird M, Calder L, Thornton RC, Syme R, Holder PW, Mogi M (1994): Japanese Aedes albopictus among four mosquito species reaching New Zealand in used tires. J Am Mosq Contr Assoc; 10(1): 14-23. Lamche GD & Whelan PI (2003a): Variability of larval identification characters of exotic Aedes albopictus (Skuse) intercepted in Darwin, Northern Territory. Commun Dis Intell. 27:105-109. Lamche G & Whelan P (2003b): Initial survey of underground mosquito breeding sites in Darwin, NT. NT Dis Contr Bull; 10(3): 10-11. Lee DJ. (1944). An Atlas of the Mosquito Larvae of the Australasian Region, 119p. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Debenham ML, Griffiths M, Marks EN, Bryan JH, Russell RC (1989a): The Culicidae of the Australasian Region, Vol 7, 281p. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Debenham ML, Griffiths M, Marks EN, Bryan JH, (1989b): The Culicidae of the Australasian Region, Vol 8, 171p. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths M, Debenham ML, Marks EN, Bryan JH, Russell RC (1989c): The Culicidae of the Australasian Region, Vol 11, 306p. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths M, Debenham ML, Bryan JH, Russell RC, Geary M, Marks EN (1988): The Culicidae of the Australasian Region, Vol 6, 124p. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths M, Debenham ML, Bryan JH, Russell RC, Geary M, Marks EN (1987a): The Culicidae of the Australasian Region, Vol 4, 324p.


14

Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths M, Debenham ML, Bryan JH, Russell RC, Geary M, Marks EN (1987b): The Culicidae of the Australasian Region, Vol 5, 315p. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths M, Russell RC, Marks EN (1984): The Culicidae of the Australasian Region, Vol 3, 257p. Lee DJ, Hicks MM, Griffiths M, Russell RC, Marks EN (1982): The Culicidae of the Australasian Region, Vol 2, 286p. Marks EN (1970): Aedes aegypti in Queensland. Report to the National Health & Medical Research Council; 8p. Nwoke BEB, Nduka FO, Okereke OM, Ehighibe OC (1993): Sustainable urban development and human health: septic tank as a major breeding habitat of mosquito vectors of human diseases in south-eastern Nigeria. Appl Parasitol; 34: 1-10. O’Gower AK (1958): The mosquitoes of north western Australia. School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Commonwealth Government Service Publication No 7, 46p. Reiter P (1998): Aedes albopictus and the world trade in used tires, 1988-1995: The shape of things to come ? J Am Mosq Contr Assoc; 14(1): 83-94. Ritchie SA, Hart A, Long S, Montgomery B, Walsh I, Foley P (2001): Update on dengue in North Queensland. Arbovirus Res Austr; 8: 294-299. Rohe, DL & Fall, RR (1979): A miniature battery powered CO2 baited light trap for mosquito borne encephalitis virus surveillance. Bull Soc Vector Res; 4: 24-27. Russell BM, Foley PN, Sutton K, Kay BH (2001): The Deepening Problem of Subterranean Mosquito Breeding. Arbovirus Res Aust; 8: 324-330. Russell RC (2002): Ross River Virus: Ecology and Distribution. Ann Rev Entomol; 47: 1-31. Russell RC & Dwyer DE (2000): Arboviruses associated with human disease in Australia. Microbes and Infection, Vol 2: 1693-1704. Service MW (1993): Mosquito ecology – Field sampling methods. Chapman & Hall, London; 988p. Sinclair DP (1992): The distribution of Aedes aegypti in Queensland, 1990 – June 1992. Commun Dis Intell. 16(19):400-403. Taylor FH (1943): Mosquito intermediary hosts of disease in Australia and New Guinea; Commonwealth Australia Service Publication No 4, 154p. Tinker ME (1964): Larval habitat of Aedes aegypti (L.) in the United States. Mosq News; 24(4): 426-432. Tun-Lin W, Kay BH, Burkot TR (1994): Quantitative sampling of immature Aedes aegypti in metal drums using sweep net and dipping methods. J Am Mosq Contr Assoc; 10(3): 390-396.


15


16

Whelan PI (1998): Exotic mosquitoes arriving on seagoing vessels: recommended inspection and eradication procedures. Bull Mos Control Ass Aust; Vol 10(2): 14-22. Whelan PI (1991): Northern Territory remains free of dengue fever. Bull Mos Control Assoc Aust; Vol 3(1): 7-9. Whelan PI (1980): Aedes aegypti survey Larrimah and Mataranka September 1980. Medical Entomology Branch, Department of Health & Community Services, 9p. Whelan P, Krause V, Lamche G, Kurucz N (2004): Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, vectors for dengue, found in Tennant Creek – Elimination Campaign in Progress. NT Dis Contr Bull; 11(1): 1-3. Whelan P, Hayes G, Tucker G, Carter J, Wilson A, Haigh B (2001): the detection of exotic mosquitoes in the Northern Territory of Australia. Arbovirus Res Austr; 8: 395-404. Whelan P, Hayes G, Carter J, Wilson A, Haigh B (2000): Detection of the exotic mosquito Culex gelidus in the Northern Territory. Commun Dis Intell. 24: 74-75. Whelan P, Hayes G, Carter J (1998): Exotic Aedes surveillance program ovitrap servicing procedures. Bull Mosq Contr Ass Aust; 10(2): 24-30. Whelan PI & Tucker G (1998): Exotic Aedes surveillance and exclusion from the Northern Territory of Australia. Suppl Bull Mosq Contr Ass Australia. 10 (3): 86-99. Whelan PI, Kurucz N, Lamche G, Warchot A, Carter J, Haigh B, Grigg J, Strathford L & Olsen D: Medical Entomology Branch Report 2002/03. Department of Health & Community Services. Woodhill AR (1949): A note on experimental crossing of Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris scutellaris Walker and Aedes (Stegomyia) scutellaris katherinensis Woodhill (Diptera, Culicidae). Proceed Linnean Soc NSW; 74: 224-226. World Health Organisation (WHO) (1972): A system of world-wide surveillance for vectors. Weekly Epidemiological Record; 47: 73-84. Zhen TM & Kay BH (1993): Comparison of sampling efficacy of sweeping and dipping for Aedes aegypti larvae in tires. J Am Mosq Contr Ass; 9(3): 316-320.

Figures

CB00295

CB00282

CB00293

CB00294

CB00283

CB00289CB00287CB00288

CB00284CB00285

CO2- Trap site #2

CB00286

CB00292

CB00291

CB00290

CB00281

CB00296

CB00297

CB00298CB00299 - CB00301

CB00302CB00303CB00304

CB00306CB00305

CB00307

FIGURE 1: Aedes aegypti survey in Mataranka, 4 March 2003: premises visited are displayed by record number

F\ento\ento_files\public_information\branch_reports\aegypti surveys\Katherine Mataranka03 \Fig. 1 Mataranka

CB00314

CB00308

CB00315 CB00316Aerial photo from DLP&E 28/8/96

N

1.2 KM0

CB00309

CB00310

CB00311

CB00312

CB00317CB00318

FIGURE 2: Aedes aegypti survey in Katherine, 5/6. March 2003: premises visited are displayed by record number

F\ento\ento_files\public_information\branch_reports\aegypti survey\Katherine Mataranka03\Fig. 1 Mataranka

Receptacles not sampled

Receptacles dry

Receptacles with water, no larvae

Receptacles with mosquito larvae

Nil receptacles

Not inspected

1-5 potential receptacles




>100 potential receptacles

Nil receptacles

Rubbish tip

Not inspected

FIGURE 3: Results of receptacle breeding survey in Mataranka, 4 March 2003: potential and actual breeding sites per premise

F:\ENTO\ento_files\public_information\branch_reports\aegypti surveys\Exotic Aedes Receptacle Breeding Survey\Fig. 3 Mataranka

Aerial photo from DLP&E 28/8/96

N

1.2 KM0





>100 potential receptacles

Nil receptacles / not inspected Receptacles not sampled

Receptacles dry

Receptacles with water, no larvae

Receptacles with mosquito larvae

Nil receptacles

Not inspected

Rubbish tip

FIGURE 4: Results of receptacle breeding survey in Katherine, 5/6. March 2003:potential and actual breeding sites per premise

F\ento\ento_files\public_information\branch_reports\aegypti surveys\Katherine Mataranka03\Fig. 4 Katherine

Tables

Receptacle Type No. of potential receptacles foundTyre (all types) 39Bucket 21Bucket lid 21Septin including breather 16Pot plant base 12Car body 9Rainwater tank 9Gutter 8Drum 6Total 141

TABLE 1: Most common potential receptacles in Mataranka

F:/ento/ento_files/public_information/branch reports/aegypti surveys/2003_katherine_mataranka/Table 1.xls Medical Entomology Branch DHCS22/06/2009

Receptacle TypeNumber of receptacles positive for mosquitoes

Receptacle index: % of water holding receptacles breeding mosquitoes

Tyre 15 79Bucket 4 26.7Septic including breather 3 60Gutter 2 100Drum 2 66.7Car body 1 20Rainwater tank 0 0Pot plant base 0 0Bucket lid 0 0Total 27

TABLE 2: Most Common receptacle mosquito breeding sites in Mataranka


Receptacle Type No. of potential receptacles foundTyre (all types) 1409Beer/soft drink can 500Car body 193Plant (Bromeliad, Alocasia, Colocasia) 50Pot plant base 13Bamboo stump 10Bucket 10Metal part 9Bottle 6Boat 4Total 2204

TABLE 3: Most common potential receptacles in Katherine


Receptacle TypeNumber of receptacles positive for mosquitoes

Receptacle index: % of water holding receptacles breeding mosquitoes

Tyre 91 36.7Car body 9 39.1Bamboo trunk 3 42.9Metal Part 3 33.3Bucket 2 33.3Beer/soft drink can 0 0Plant (Bromeliad, Alocasia, Colocasia) 0 0Pot plant base 0 0Bottle 0 0Boat 0 0Total 108

TABLE 4: Most common receptacle mosquito breeding sites in Katherine


All premises Commercial Residential All premises Commercial ResidentialTotal No. of premises visited 27 14 13 11 10 1Total No. of premises inspected 17 11 6 10 9 1Total No. of potential receptacles 230 152 78 2243 2165 78Total No. of receptacles sampled 182 136 46 435 404 31Total No. of receptacles with water 138 104 34 351 323 28Total No. of receptacles breeding 35 28 7 110 109 1Average No. of potential receptacles per premise 13.5 13.8 13 224.3 240.5 78House Index (HI): % of premises positive for breeding 37.04 50 23.08 90.9 90 100Receptacle Index (RI): % of receptacles with water breeding 25.36 26.92 20.59 31.34 33.75 3.57Density figure WHO 5 (HI); 6 (RI) 7 (HI); 6 (RI) 4 (HI); 6 (RI) 9 (HI); 7 (RI) 9 (HI); 8 (RI) 9 (HI); 2 (RI)

TABLE 5: Summary of receptacle surveys of Mataranka and Katherine

Mataranka Katherine


Trap location An.

(C

el)

amic

tus

Cq.

(C

oq)

xant

hoga

ster

Cx.

(C

ui)

pull

us

Cx.

(C

ux)

annu

liro

stri

s

Cx.

(C

ux)

geli

dus

Cx.

(L

op)

hill

i

Ae.

(F

in)

koch

i

Ae.

(O

ch)

norm

anen

sis

Ae.

(O

ch)

phae

casi

atus

Ae.

(O

ch)

vigi

lax

Tp.

(T

rp)

mag

nesi

anus

Ve.

(V

er)

rees

i

Tot

al

Little Roper River crossing on road to Thermal Springs 11 198 64 3 1 477 5 3 3 765Tree near Airstrip 3 13 25 1 10 6 3 1 62Total 3 11 211 89 1 3 1 10 483 8 3 4 827

TABLE 6: Summary of adult female mosquitoes collected in CO2 baited EVS traps in Mataranka, 4 March 2003


Apendix

TABLE A1:MATARANKA

SUMMARY OF TOTAL NUMBER OF POTENTIAL RECEPTACLES AND MOSQUITO BREEDING RESULTS5-6 MARCH 2003

MATARANKA

RECEPTACLE DESCRIPTION Tot

al N

o. o

f po

tent

ial r

ecep

tacl

es

Tot

al N

o. o

f re

cept

acle

s sa

mpl

ed

Tot

al N

o. o

f re

cept

acle

s w

ith

wat

er

Tot

al N

o. o

f re

cept

acle

s br

eedi

ng

Rec

epta

cle

inde

x: %

of

wat

er

hold

ing

rece

ptac

les

bree

ding

Ae.

(St

g) k

athe

rine

nsis

An.

(C

el)

annu

lipe

s

An.

(C

el)

fara

uti s

.l.

Cul

icin

e pu

pae

Cx.

(C

ui)

pull

us

Cx.

(C

ux)

annu

liro

stri

s

Cx.

(C

ux)

quin

quef

asci

atus

Cx.

(L

ut)

hali

faxi

i

Nil

mos

quit

oes

No

sam

ple

(ina

cces

sibl

e)

Oc.

(F

in)

noto

scri

ptus

Oc.

(M

ac)

trem

ulus

Tp.

(P

ol)

punc

tola

tera

lis

Tyre (unspecified) 28 24 18 11 61.1111 1 2 2 0 3 2 4 1 0 0 3 1 0Bucket lid 21 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Bucket (plastic) 16 15 15 4 26.6667 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 1Pot plant base 12 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0septic 10 3 3 2 66.6667 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 6 0 1 1Car body 9 9 5 1 20 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0Rainwater tank 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0Drum (44 gal) lid 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0Gutter 8 7 2 2 100 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0Tyre (car) 8 8 4 3 75 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0Chair (plastic) 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0breather from septic 6 4 2 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0Drum (44 gal) 6 4 3 2 66.6667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0Bowl (plastic) 5 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0Fence post 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Metal part 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Tarpaulin 5 5 5 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0Bird bath 4 4 4 1 25 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0Plastic container 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0Table (plastic) 4 4 2 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0Ash tray 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Bowl (metal) 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Bucket (metal) 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0Concrete block 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Machinery 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Pooling 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0Tyre (truck) 3 3 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Bucket (mop) 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Drawer (metal) 2 2 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0Equipment 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Fan (upside down) 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Toilet cistern 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Toilet cistern lid 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Trailer 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Bonnet (car) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Bowl (ceramic) 1 1 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Drinking glass 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Fish bowl 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Fish pond 1 1 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Hub cap 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Industrial bin 1 1 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Milk crate 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Plastic casing 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Sink (kitchen) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Tap 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Tin can 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Toilet bowl 1 1 1 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Watering can 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Wheel barrow 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 230 182 138 35 25.3623 3 2 2 2 5 3 23 3 76 13 5 7 3

% OF TOTALS 79.13 75.82 19.23 5.17 3.45 3.45 3.45 8.62 5.17 39.66 5.17 8.62 12.07 5.17

NUMBER OF RECEPTACLES POSITIVE FOR EACH SPECIESPOTENTIAL RECEPTACLE SUMMARY

F\ento\ento_files\public_information\branch_reports\aegypti surveys\katherine matarnaka 03\Appendices.xls\Table A1 Medical Entomology Branch DHCS22/06/2009

TABLE A2:KATHERINE


KATHERINE

RECEPTACLE DESCRIPTION Tot

al N

o. o

f po

tent

ial r

ecep

tacl

es

Tot

al N

o. o

f re

cept

acle

s sa

mpl

ed

Tot

al N

o. o

f re

cept

acle

s w

ith w

ater

Tot

al N

o. o

f re

cept

acle

s br

eedi

ng

Rec

epta

cle

inde

x: %

of

wat

er h

oldi

ng

rece

ptac

les

bree

ding

Ae.

(St

g) k

athe

rine

nsis

An.

(C

el)

annu

lipes

Cul

icin

e pu

pae

Cx.

(C

ui)

pullu

s

Cx.

(C

ux)

annu

liros

tris

Cx.

(C

ux)

quin

quef

asci

atus

Cx.

(C

ux)

spec

ies

32

Cx.

(L

op)

spec

ies

167

Cx.

(L

ut)

halif

axii

Nil

mos

quito

es

No

sam

ple

sent

Oc.

(F

in)

noto

scri

ptus

Oc.

(M

ac)

trem

ulus

Tp.

(P

ol)

punc

tola

tera

lis

Tyre (car) 673 119 111 38 34.2342 3 0 1 0 4 9 0 0 1 0 0 19 13 12Tyre (unspecified) 660 123 114 41 35.9649 0 1 6 1 3 25 3 1 0 0 0 18 2 7beer can 500 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Car body 193 65 23 9 39.1304 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 5 2 4Tyre (truck) 59 23 16 10 62.5 0 0 3 1 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 11 0 0Plant (Bromeliad,Alocasia,Colocasia, Elephant ear) 50 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Pot plant (terracotta) 13 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0bamboo trunk 10 10 7 3 42.8571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0Bucket (plastic) 9 6 6 2 33.3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1Metal part 9 9 9 3 33.3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0Tyre (tractor) 7 7 7 2 28.5714 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Bottles (glass) 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Boat 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0Concrete block 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Bonnet (car) 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Bucket lid 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Gutter 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Plastic container 3 3 3 1 33.3333 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1Rubbish bin 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Tray (metal) 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Chair (plastic) 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Esky 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Pot (gardening) 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Trailer 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0wheelie bin 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Barbecue 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Bowl (metal) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Bowl (plastic) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Bucket (mop) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Canoe 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Cooking pot 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Drum 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Drum (1/2 44 gal) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Drum (44 gal) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Excavator scoop 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Fish pond 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Paint bucket 10L 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Plastic casing 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Pooling 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Rainwater tank 1 1 1 1 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Shovel 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Spa bath 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Wheel barrow 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 2243 435 351 110 31.339 5 2 10 2 9 47 3 1 4 45 2 63 18 25

% OF TOTALS 19.39 80.69 25.29 2.65 1.06 5.29 1.06 4.76 24.87 1.59 0.53 2.12 33.33 9.52 13.23

NUMBER OF RECEPTACLES POSITIVE FOR EACH SPECIESPOTENTIAL RECEPTACLE SUMMARY


TABLE A3:MATARANKA


MATARANKA

Receptacle description

No. of times collected

Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae


Sum of larvae

Tyre (unspecified) 1 1 2 2 2 3 0 0 3 8 2 16 4 23 1 1 3 7 1 2 0 0 19 63Bucket (plastic) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 6 29Tyre (car) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 78septic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 308 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 4 316Gutter 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 10Bird bath 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 49 0 0 0 0 3 52Car body 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5Drawer (metal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 3Drum (44 gal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3Table (plastic) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3Toilet bowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 11Tyre (truck) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2Bowl (ceramic) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 40Fish pond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22Tarpaulin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 8Industrial bin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9breather from septic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

TOTALS 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 11 3 25 23 520 3 4 5 58 7 20 3 10 58 658

NUMBER OF RECEPTACLES POSITIVE FOR EACH SPECIES AND NUMBER OF LARVAE COLLECTED

Cx.

(C

ux)

quin

quef

asci

atus

Cx.

(L

ut)

hali

faxi

i

Ae.

(St

g) k

athe

rine

nsis

An.

(C

el)

annu

lipe

s

An.

(C

el)

fara

uti s

.l.

Cul

icin

e pu

pae

Tp.

(P

ol)

punc

tola

tera

lis

Cx.

(C

ui)

pull

us

Cx.

(C

ux)

annu

liro

stri

s

TOTALSOc.

(F

in)

noto

scri

ptus

Oc.

(M

ac)

trem

ulus

F:\ento\ento_files\public_information\branch_reports\aegypti survey\katherine mataranka 03\Appendices.xls\Table A3 Medical Entomology Branch DHCS22/06/2009

TABLE A4:KATHERINE


KATHERINE

Receptacle descripton


Sum of larvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum oflarvae


Sum of larvae

Tyre (unspecified) 0 0 1 3 6 24 1 3 3 19 25 263 3 40 1 4 0 0 18 94 2 4 7 42 67 496Tyre (car) 3 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 11 9 130 0 0 0 0 1 1 19 224 13 94 12 49 62 517Tyre (truck) 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 16 0 0 9 333 0 0 0 0 3 3 11 125 0 0 0 0 27 480Car body 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 19 2 23 4 5 16 76Plastic container 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 109 1 1 4 114Bucket (plastic) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 62 0 0 1 1 3 63Metal part 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 23 0 0 0 0 3 23bamboo trunk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 3 5Tyre (tractor) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 9Rainwater tank 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

TOTALS 5 10 2 6 10 29 2 19 9 43 47 749 3 40 1 4 4 4 63 554 18 230 25 98 189 1786

An.

(C

el)

annu

lipe

s

Cul

icin

e pu

pae

Cx.

(C

ui)

pull

us

Oc.

(M

ac)

trem

ulus

Cx.

(C

ux)

annu

liro

stri

s

Cx.

(C

ux)

quin

quef

asci

atus

NUMBER OF RECEPTACLES POSITIVE FOR EACH SPECIES AND NUMBER OF LARVAE COLLECTED

Cx.

(Lu

t) h

alif

axii

Oc.

(F

in)

noto

scri

ptus

Cx.

(C

ux)

spec

ies

32

Cx.

(Lo

p) s

peci

es 1

67

Ae.

(St

g) k

athe

rine

nsis

Tp.

(P

ol)

punc

tola

tera

lis

TOTALS


exotic aedes receptacle breeding survey...

Documents