Fig 1.
(A) Human-baited double net trap with collecting cup (B) Odour-baited CDC light trap connected to a 6V battery with CO2-produced by sugar fermentation in the attached jerry can (C) Odour-baited BG sentinel trap connected to a 12V battery (D) Odour-baited Suna trap connected to a 12V battery with CO2-produced by sugar fermentation in the attached jerry can (E) Human Landing Catch method with collecting cup.
Table 1.
Analysis of female mosquitoes collected by the human-baited double net trap and outdoor traps comparison (experiment 1).
Table 2.
Means and rate ratio of female mosquitoes collected by the human-baited double net trap and outdoor traps comparison (experiment 1).
Fig 2.
Species diversity of mosquitoes collected by the human landing catch method and human-baited double net traps (experiment 2).
Fig 3.
Means and confidence interval for female mosquitoes collected by the human landing catch and human-baited double net trap comparison (experiment 2) Female mosquitoes collected both day ○ and night ● with 95% confidence intervals.
HDN, human-baited double net trap; HLC, human landing catch method.
Fig 4.
Comparison of the human landing catch and human-baited double net trap (experiment 2) Female mosquitoes collected both day ○ and night ● (A) All mosquito species collected by human landing collections (HLC) (n = 4967) and human baited double net (HDN) collections (n = 3315) (B) All Aedes albopictus mosquitoes collected by human landing collections (HLC) (n = 1163) and human baited double net (HDN) collections (n = 551) (C) All Anopheles mosquito species collected by human landing collections (HLC) (n = 86) and human baited double net (HDN) collections (n = 119) (D) All Culex mosquito species collected by human landing collections (HLC) (n = 268) and human baited double net (HDN) collections (n = 344).
Table 3.
Analysis of female mosquitoes collected by the human landing catch and human-baited double net trap comparison (experiment 2).