↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the human-baited double net trap with the human landing catch for Aedes albopictus monitoring in Shanghai, China
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13071-018-3053-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiang Gao, Fei Wang, Xihong Lv, Hui Cao, Jianjun Zhou, Fei Su, Chenglong Xiong, Peien Leng

Abstract

Human landing catch (HLC) is the most efficient method for Aedes monitoring, but it is not ethical due to its high risk of human exposure to pathogens. We designed trials to assess the performance of an alternative human-baited double net trap (HDN) for field Aedes albopictus monitoring compared with the standard HLC. Outdoor HDN and HLC catches were conducted simultaneously at 15 field sites on two sunny days in mid-July and August. The tests were performed 3 h apart: an early morning period (7:30-8:30 h), a pre-sunset period (16:30-17:30 h) and a post-sunset period (18:30-19:30 h). A total of 90 comparisons were made between the two methods. Field comparisons were designed to minimize half-hour bias and human-bait attraction bias. Two mosquito species were collected by HDN and HLC, with the predominated species being Ae. albopictus (HDN: n = 1325, 97.35% of total; HLC: n = 531, 92.51% of total). A small proportion were adults of the Culex pipiens complex (HDN: n = 36, 2.65% of total; HLC: n = 43, 7.49% of total). Although the mean Ae. albopictus catch per hour of HLC was significantly higher than HDN (14.72 vs 5.90 per h, t(178) = 3.151, P = 0.003), there were significant positive spatial and temporal correlations between HLC and HDN for Ae. albopictus sampling among different sites and hours (r(90) = 0.785, P < 0.001; r(90) = 0.785, P < 0.001). Both methods proved that Ae. albopictus was most active during the hours before sunset and least active after sunset. No significant variation was observed in Ae. albopictus catch size of HDN between groups of more attractive and less attractive humans (3.38 vs 2.51 per 30 min, t(88) = 1.283, P = 0.201). With moderate sampling efficiency, significantly positive spatial correlation with HLC, and less human-bait attraction bias, HDN appears to be a safer alternative to HLC for Ae. albopictus monitoring in Shanghai. With mosquito activity peaking in the pre-sunset hours, Ae. albopictus catches of HDN should be performed in the hours before dark. The trap design could be improved to make it more portable and easier for field operation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 20%
Researcher 10 17%
Other 8 13%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Environmental Science 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 20 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2020.
All research outputs
#13,388,707
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,338
of 5,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,662
of 334,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#46
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.