/ _ eal f2 AN INTEGRATED MOSQUITO MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR
JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA
by
John Albert Rightor
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTERS OF SCIENCE
in
Entomology
Co)
LAMA- H Chairman -€, Turner
907 “) f. a Choupee.
>: oR, Voshell J D. We. Clark
May 1987 Blacksburg, Virginia LD 565 \\055 40.1 253 CoOL AN INTEGRATED MOSQUITO MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR
JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA
by
John Albert Rightor
Committee Chairman: William H Robinson
Entomology
(ABSTRACT)
Twenty-six of the 49 mosquito species reported from
Virginia were collected in James City County, Virginia during 1985 and 1986. The most abundant species were
Psorophora coOlumbiae, Anopheles quadrimaculatus, and Culex species. P. columbiae accounted for 50% and 16% of the light trap collections in 1985 and 1986, respectively. The most predominant mosquitoes collected during 1986 were Culex species.
Mosquitoes had an impact on the amount of time residents and campers spent outdoors. Forty-seven percent of the residents and 28% of the campers surveyed had their time outdoors limited by mosquitoes. There was no significant association between the area where the respondant was brought up as a child and their perception of the mosquito problem. No economic impact could be attributed to mosquitoes but the benefits the county's residents received from the mosquito control program annually was estimated to exceed the programs costs by two times. The human tolerance level for mosquito bites was determined to be 5 per night.
James City County could adopt and benefit from an
integrated mosquito management program. The components of
the program are seasonal monitoring of mosquito populations, periodic public attitude surveys, public education programs, physical, chemical and biological control tactics, and
periodic program evaluation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my major professor Dr. Bill
Robinson for his support, understanding, and criticisms. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. E. C.
Turner and Dr. J. R. Voshell Jr. for serving On my committee and for their suggestions and input.
I would like to thank the boardmembers and staff at
James City County for their support, both moral and financials; Dave Clark, my boss and fourth committee member;
Jean Scott; and the landfill crew.
I am indebted to Dr. Ed Masteller who introduced me to the world of insects and to Jim Rindfliesch for his assistance in this project.
To all the graduate students especially Bonny Dodson,
Dave Reed, Dave Byron, Jim Harmon and Deb Davidson who gave me support, offered advice, created diversions and made it all worth while, I thank you.
A special thanks goes to the citizens of JCC who offered assistance until they found out what I was really doing.
Finally, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to my parents Helen and John for their support, encouragement, backing and faith in me.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ADSETAaCtecccccccccevccces ee Li
Acknowledgements....cccee ee iv
Table of Contents....ceee . Vv
List Of Tables...ccccees eeeseeaeeoeeeeuee4e«es ee Vi
List of FigureS..ccceece eeVii
Introduction. cccccccececs
Literature Revieweesesee
Methods and Materials...
Research Site@eccecececce
Distribution and Seasonal Abundance..
Adult Sampling:Light Traps..cccceee
Adult Sampling:Landing Rate Counts.
Larval SurveyScsccccces
Target Audience Survey.
Economic Impact Survey.
Results and Discussion..
Target Pest cecccccsces
Target Audience Survey.
Economic Impact Survey.
Mosquito Management Programe...
Further Reserch Need8 .ccccccvecce
ConclusiONneccceccccccecee
Literature Cited..s.cccoes
Appendix Aeoceccrccccsecves
Vit aC cceccccececccveeccer @eeeeoeee#?e 22127 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Mosquito species collected in James City.... 71
County using three collection methods.
2. Total number and percentages of female...... 72
mosquitoes collected in light traps during
1985 and 1986 in James City County.
vi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Map showing locations of light CrapSeccrcecee 18
in 1985.
Map showing locations of light CrapSr.ccrecvee 19
in 1986.
Location of subdivisions used in theseececeee 20
1985 public attitude survey.
Location of the campgrounds used in the..... 21
1986 camper/economic survey.
Map of JCC showing proposed locations for... 73
light traps in 1987.
vil INTRODUCTION
The control of mosquitoes (Diptera:Culicidae) is a very important element of public health maintenance in the
United States. Without mosquito control many areas would not be habitable by man and his animals due to the diseases transmitted by, and the severe nuisance caused by the biting habits of mosquitoes. Mosquito control originated in the U. S. primarily for disease control, but has gradually changed its role to nuisance prevention. The control of mosquitoes has played a major role in saving millions of lives annually, and opening many new lands for settlement
(Magu 1981, Simmons et al. 1956).
Large expenditures are put forth annually for mosquito control activities in the U.S. In fiscal year 1980 over
$81 million was spent on mosquito control by 650 control agencies in the the U.S. for an average of $125,660 per agencey (Challet and Keller 1981). These agencies provide mosquito control services to more than 125 million people.
Most of the control agencies are under the jurisdiction of local governments and their budgets are paid by citizens tax dollars.
The basic concepts of mosquito control have remained the same over the years, but the technologies and techniques involved have changed. No longer are large amounts of petroleum oils (40 - 50 gals./acre) applied to Standing water for mosquito control (Headlee 1945). The present concept involves the integration of a variety of control tactics to reduce the monetary costs but to maximize the effectiveness of the measure with minimum damage to the environment.
James City County (JCC), Virginia has a long history of problems with mosquitoes. Mosquitoes had an impact on the colonial settlements in the area (Hatch 1957), and are still causing problems today. JCC is experiencing a period of rapid growth. Since 1980 the population has increased over 26 percent and during the first half of 1985 the population growth was greater than 10 percent (Anonymous
1985). This growth includes new residential subdivisions being built in more rural areas. New construction and ineffective drainage ditches in the county have created many new breeding areas for mosquitoes.
The main industry in the county is tourism. In 1985 over 2.5 million tourists visited the JCC area. The value of tourism to the county is greater than $94 million and is worth more than $274 million to neighboring Williamsburg.
Many of the tourists come to this area to visit the outdoor attractions such as Jamestown Island, Busch Gardens and
Colonial Williamsburg. The presence of mosquitoes can decrease the pleasure that tourists experience.
James City County has had a limited mosquito control program since the early 1970s. The program was based entirely upon adulticiding. Each area of the county received two spray applications of pesticides per week applied by truck-mounted machines. Due to the proximity of the neighboring city and counties, some areas received more than the two applications per week. The decision to spray was based on the day of the week and weather conditions.
In 1984 some question was raised over the safety and the effectiveness of this program.
The objectives of the research presented here were to (1) collect, identify and record the mosquito species present in James City County, (2) record and map mosquito breeding sites, (3) determine the resident's attitudes
towards and knowledge about mosquitoes, (4) determine if mosquitoes have an economic impact on the county, and (5) design an integrated mosquito control program based on
these data. LITERATURE REVIEW
Medical Importance
The control of mosquitoes is very important to
providing protection from disease and ensuring comfort to
man and animals. Mosquitoes are known vectors of malaria;
viral diseases, and filariasis, worldwide (Horsfall 1972,
Gillett 1972, King et al. 1972). Mosquitoes can transmit
encephalitis, a viral disease which can kill man (Hall
1984). There are several types of encephalitis viruses in
the U. S..» some of these affect man directly and others
affect animals. Eastern Equinine Encephalitis was
responsible for the death of 5 horses in New Jersey in 1983
(Clark et al. 1985). Mosquitoes have recently been
implicated in the transmission of AIDS (Acquired Immunity
Deficiency Syndrome), although very little is known about
this association (Adams 1985, Blaser 1983).
Mosquitoes can be bothersome to the public by causing
irritation, restlessness, allergic reactions, and economic
loss due to restriction of outdoor activities (Pratt 1963).
Robinson and Atkins (1983) and Gerhardt et al. (1973)
reported on how the public perceive mosquitoes in urban and
rural areas in the Eastern U. S.
Gladney and Turner (1969) report 49 species of
mosquitoes from Virginia. Dorer (1944) listed 40 of these,
~4- and Bickley (1957) reported an additional three new mosquito species. Many of these species are vectors of diseases (Horsfall 1972).
The modern approach to mosquito control is the
integrated pest management (IPM) concept (Axtell 1979).
Olson (1979) used the phrase “Organized Mosquito Control” as the term for mosquito IPM. Organized mosquito control consists of monitoring mosquito populations, educating the public, and the judicious use of biological, chemical and physical control tactics (Olson 1979, Axtell 1979). A survey conducted by Magu (1981) indicates that most of the mosquito control agencies in the U.S. practice some form of
integrated mosquito control
Pratt et al. (1963) provided a general outline for initiating a mosquito control program. Surveying mosquito populations is the first step to determine the species of mosquitoes present, breeding site locations, densities of mosquitoes and flight ranges. These data can be utilized to make control decisions. The species of mosquitoes present are determined because not all species are pests.
The knowledge of the species present allows inferences to be made about the possible location of breeding sites, the time of occurrence, and the type of control measure that would be most effective (Pratt et al. 1963).
Breeding sites are determined so that control measures can be directed to these areas to control mosquito larvae.
The type of breeding habitat affects the type of control that is needed to control the larvae. Olson (1979) reported that the environmental factors which may be regulating the mosquito population should be assessed.
Mosquito breeding site locations do not remain constant. Dorer (1958) reported that construction and disruption of the land was constantly producing new breeding sites on the east coast of Virginia. Kraft
(1985b) reported that 36.7% of all the mosquito complaints in Fairfax, Virginia were directly attributed to the construction of new housing developments.
In an effort to reduce the cost of control, a number of studies have been conducted that analyzed the cost effectiveness of different methods of mosquito control.
Shisler and Schulze (1985), Langham and Lanier (1981),
Shisler et al. (1979), Carlson and DeBorg (1976), and
Sarham et al. (1979) have analyzed the difference between permanent and temporary control measures in salt marshes.
Shisler and Harker (1981), and Rapp (1977) compared source reduction costs to chemical control costs in controlling freshwater mosquitoes. Ofiara and Allison (1986) and John et al. (1987b) proposed two different methods to determine the value of a mosquito program to the public. Little has been published on the cost effectiveness between different chemical and biological treatments for mosquitoes.
Public Ed .
Beams (1985) reported on the extent of public education programs in mosquito control programs in the United States.
He reported that only a small portion of the budgets were allocated for public education. A well informed public can reduce the mosquito problems caused by backyard breeding.
Chambers et al. (1986) reported that the amount, type and condition of containers in residents backyards influences the mosquito species present and extent of breeding in that area. The container composition was significantly influenced by income level. Kraft (1985) stated that public education is one of the most effective and least expensive mosquito control methods. Smith (1986) described an education program used to inform the public about mosquito control and encephalitis outbreaks.
Public attitude surveys similar to that conducted by
John et al. (1987a), Robinson and Atkins (1983) and
Gerhardt et al. (1973) have been used to determine the extent of the need for public education programs. The public's attitudes are important in determining the need for and the success of a control program. Surveys can be used to determine threshold levels of mosquito bites that constitute a problem to the public.
Mapping
The use of computers in mosquito control has increased rapidly over the past years. Computers have been used in mapping mosquito control districts (Hunt and Hacker 1984), to make predictive models of mosquito populations (Hacker et al. 1973) and in the storage and retrieval of mosquito control data (Russo and McCausland 1983).
Barnes and Cibula (1979), and Wagner et al. (1979) report that remote sensing information is useful in designing mosquito control programs. Remote sensing was used to classify vegetation types, determine terrain types and indicate areas that are covered with water. These data was directly related to specific mosquito breeding habitats. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Site
The research site was James City County (JCC),
Virginia. The county is located on the east coast of the
State in the tidewater region. It is bordered by the City
of Williamsburg, York County, and the James, York, and
Chickahominy Rivers. JCC is approximately 180 square miles
in size and had a population in 1984 of 25,331 and is
experiencing a rapid increase in growth.
The mosquito species, their distribution and seasonal
abundance for JCC were determined by sampling. Adult
mosquitoes were sampled using light traps and landing rate
counts; mosquito larvae were sampled using dipping
techniques (Service 1976, Pratt et al. 1963).
New Jersey Mosquito Light Traps were placed in various
locations in the county in 1985 and 1986. The traps were
operated nightly and the specimens were removed the
following day. In 1985, seven light traps were operated ~ 10 - between June and September. They were located in the subdivisions of Windsor Forest (WF), Chickahominy Haven
(CH), Druid Hills (DH), Kingsmill (KM), Pine Ridge (PR),
First Colony (FC) and one was set at the Williamsburg Waste
Water Treatment Facility (TP) (Figure 1). In 1986, nine light traps were placed in the subdivisions of Windsor
Forest (WF), Chickahominy Haven (CH), Druid Hills (DH),
Kingsmill (KM), First Colony (FC), Norge (NO), Hicks Island
(HI), Riverview Plantation (RP), and Powhatan Shores (PS)
(Figure 2). They were operated from May until September.
The exact trap location was based on information provided by Mulhern (1942). The traps were hung at a level of 5 feet from the ground and in a location 10 feet or more away from a building. Other criteria used in trap placement selection included the proximity of blacklight “bug- zappers, or additional light sources (streetlights), and the location of the closest mosquito breeding habitats. A
1/4 inch piece of vapona (dichlorvos) insecticide strip was placed inside the collecting jar as a killing agent. A
4-oz. paper cup was placed in the collecting jar to aid the removal of the previous night's collection. The traps were operated nightly and the specimens removed the following day. Adult mosquitoes were sorted and recorded; the females were identified to species using identification keys provided in Darsie and Ward (1981), Stajanovich
(1960), and King et al. (1960). Mosquitoes were mounted on - ll -
points or placed in glass vials for reference.
AdultSurveys: Landing Rate Counts
Landing rate counts were taken to determine the pest
mosquito species actually biting humans in the county.
These counts were conducted in developed areas such as
subdivisions or parks. Female mosquitoes were collected
from exposed arms and legs as they landed using a manually
operated aspirator. The time for each collection period
was 15 minutes; the period was divided into 6 subperiods
and the number of mosquitoes collected in each was
recorded. The collected specimens were identified to
species and mounted on points for further reference.
Larval Surveys
Larval surveys were conducted using standard dipping
techniques (Service 1976) to determine the origins of the
pest mosquitoes in the county. Potential breeding sites
were surveyed using a 400 ml mosquito dipper mounted on a 3
foot dowel. Each dip was taken randomly throughout a
potential breeding site. The larvae collected were either
killed, and preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol and then
identified to genera; or they were kept alive and reared to
adults and identified to species. To survey for ~ 12 -
Coquillettidia perturbans larvae methods outlined by Morris et al. (1985) were used. Aquatic plants were pulled from the bottom of a body of water and the roots were shaken and rinsed over an enamel tray to remove the larvae, which were then preserved in 702 ethyl alcohol. The breeding site location was recorded and marked on a USGS topographic map.
A breeding site was defined as a body of water from which one Or more mosquito larvae were collected (Service 1976).
Other data recorded included the presence of other insects and fish, vegetation type, possible control measures and the reasons why the water was impounded.
Target Audience Survey
A survey was conducted to determine the attitudes of the county residents towards and knowledge about mosquitoes and control. This survey was conducted in September 1985, in three subdivisions, Windsor Forest (WF), Seasons Trace
(ST) and First Colony (FC), in JCC (Figure 3). The survey questions were adopted from the survey conducted by
Robinson and Atkins (1983). This survey consisted of 16 questions of which 15 were open ended, (i.e. no specific answers were provided by the interviewer). The final question, which dealt with the number of mosquito bites that constituted a problem, required a specific answer.
The survey method utilized face-to-face interviews. - 13 -
One interviewer questioned an individual from each randomly choosen household. An average of six minutes was required to complete each interview. The survey was conducted by two interviewers over a period of two days. The number of surveys taken in each subdivision was based on a percentage of the households. Approximately 30% of the households in each were contacted for a total of 80 surveys (28 WF, 18 ST. 34 FC).
The three subdivisions were chosen on the basis of proximity to a light trap, a known mosquito problem in that area, and similarities in neighborhood type (single family dwellings, similar land values). All three subdivisions were entirely residential and all except Seasons Trace contained only single family houses. Seasons Trace had several multifamily apartment units.
First Colony is located on the southern side of James
City County and is bordered by the James River and by a brackish marsh. A small lake is located in the center of the subdivision. The residential area is entirely wooded.
The soil type in this area is categorized as being poorly drained (Hodges et al. 1985). The average house value is estimated to be $90,000 (Sandy Hale, personal communication). Light trap collections in 1985 consisted of 702 Culex spp.» 14% Anopheles spp., 8% Coquillettidia sp.» 8% Uranotaenia sp. and Psorophora spp. The annoyance point, 24 or more female mosquitoes trapped per night - 14 -
(Headlee 1932), was reached on 32% of the 74 nights that the trap was operated (Appendix A).
Due to the proximity of the two subdivisions and
Similarities in mosquito problems, Windsor Forest and
Seasons Trace were considered to be one subdivision titled
Windsor Forest. Windsor Forest is located near the center of the county and is bordered by Longhill Swamp to the west and by Chisel Run to the south. These streams contain numerous beaver ponds and frequently overflow their banks flooding large areas of level, wooded land. Both of these subdivisions are located on soil types that are considered to be poorly drained (Hodges et al. 1985). The mean house value in this area is greater than $125,000 (Sandy Hale, personal communication). The light trap collections from this area in 1985 consisted of 67% Anopheles spp.,». 31%
Culex spp. and 3% Aedes spp.» Psorophora Spp.>» and
Uraneotaenia species. The annoyance point was reached on
60% of the 94 nights that the trap was operated (Appendix
A).
Due to the descriptive nature of these data, it requires no statistical analysis (Zungoli and Robinson
1984). To determine the relationships of demographic and other descriptive data with the residents responses a chi-square analysis was performed. Economic Impact. Survey
A survey of campers in the county was conducted to determine their attitudes towards and knowledge about mosquitoes and their control. The results of these data was used to determine if mosquitoes have an economic impact on the tourist trade in the county. The survey was conducted in September 1986, in the following six campgrounds in JCC; Jamestown Beach (JB); Anvil (AN);
Indian Village (IV); Five Forks (FF); Williamsburg (WI); and First Settlers (FS).
The survey method consisted of one interviewer questioning one individual from each randomly selected occupied campsite. Each interview took approximately five minutes to complete. The survey was conducted over a period of five days by one interviewer. Campers in 120 of the approximate 1389 campsites in the county were questioned. The original survey consisted of 13 questions, all of which, except one, was open ended. The majority of the questions were adapted from the survey conducted by
Robinson and Atkins (1983). The survey was pretested in
July 1986, in Anvil Campground and two additional questions were added to the survey resulting in 15 questions.
The campgrounds surveyed are located in various parts of the county (Figure 4). Jamestown Beach, First Settlers,
Five Forks and Indian Village Campgrounds are all located - 16 -
On Or near Powhatan Creek, in the southern part of the county. All of these campgrounds, except Five Forks are located on level land. The soil type in this area is considered to be poorly drained (Hodges et al. 1985). Five
Forks is located on gentle sloping land that is considered to be moderately well drained but borders poorly drained land. Anvil and Williamsburg Campgrounds are located near the center of the county. Both of these campgrounds are located on gentle sloping land that is considered to be well drained. The total number of campsites in each are
Jamestown Beach 600; Anvil 60; Indian Village 169; Five
Forks 60; Williamsburg 300; and First Settlers 200. An average of 9% of the total available campsites were contacted. The campground managers reported that the average summer campsite occupancy rate was approximately 40 percent. Landing rate counts for each campground were conducted to determine the extent of the mosquito problem
in that area.
The following formula was derived to determine whether mosquitoes have an economic impact on the county. This formula is based on whether or not campers are leaving the area sooner than planned due to the presence of mosquitoes. ExC*D Approximate B case) + (asx) k | creer = Economic G Loss
Average number of nights that campers are leaving early
Percentage of campers that are leaving the campground early
Total number of campsites in the county
Average campsite occupancy rate
Number of nights that the campground is open during the summer
Average cost of one nights stay in the campground
Average length of stay
Average number of occupants in each campsite
Predetermined constant. The value of one camper to the county in terms of money spent on food, drinks, admission tickets, insect repellents and souvenirs that are purchased in the county. 18
JAMES CITY COUNTY scale in miles 0 1
Figure l. Locations of seven light traps utilized in 1985 JAMES CITY COUNTY scaiein mies Q 1
Figure 2. Locations of the nine light trap sites utilized in 1986. JAMES CITY COUNTY scaiein miles 0 1
Figure 3. Locations of the three subdivisions used in the 1985 public attitude survey. 21
Le Le
VT Fy |
"mon? & &
SS
SSE!
wy wy Spe Spe
2 VE VE
a> ; ; v
-
oe
4 ~ ~
NN.
JAMES CITY COUNTY scale m miles
Oo 1
Figure 4. Location of the six campgrounds used in the 1986 camper/economic survey. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During 1985 and 1986, 26 of the 49 mosquito species reported by Gladney and Turner (1969) to occur in Virginia were collected in James City County (JCC) using three collection techniques (Table 1). The primary pest species, as determined by light trap collections, were Anopheles
Quadrimaculatus Say, Anopheles punctipennis (Say), Culex species., Psorophora columbiae (Dyar and Knab), Aedes vexans (Meigen), and Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker)
(Table 2). Depending upon locality, Aedes taeniorhynchus
(Weidemann) was also a pest as determined by landing rate counts. Most of the pest species were distributed throughout the county but tended to be concentrated in certain localities (Appendix A). The following mosquito species were collected in JCC.
Aedes atlanticus Dyar and Knab: This species was only occasionally encountered. Dorer et al. (1944) reported that it was fairly common in Virginia. In 1985 a small number (17 females) were collected in light traps throughout the county. In 1986 A, atlanticus was collected only in the Powhatan Shores light trap. This species was especially bothersome in this area during September 1986.
The larvae were collected from temporary woodland ponds in
- 22 - the Powhatan Shores area.
Aedes canadensis (Theobault): The adult of this species was rarely collected in JCC (2 female specimens,
1985). Gladney and Turner (1969) reported it to be fairly common and widely distributed in Virginia. The larvae were collected in large numbers from temporary woodland pools in
March 1986. King et al. (1960) reported A. canadensis this species to be an early spring breeder and having only one generation per year. Since light traps were not set up until May, the adults of this were probably missed.
Aedes fulvus pallens Ross: Gladney and Turner (1969) report this species to be very rare in Virginia. Dorer et al. (1944) reported a single female collected in the
Virginia Beach area in June 1943 from a light trap. A single female was collected in JCC on August 26, 1986 while conducting a landing rate count in Powhatan Shores.
Aedes sollicitans (Walker): This species commonly breeds in salt marshes. A, sollicitans was only occasionally encountered in JCC even though it is the major pest in other localities in eastern Virginia (Dorer et al.
1944, Dorsey 1944). Only 36 specimens (32-1985, 4-1986) were collected in light traps. Relatively few (<30 females) were collected during landing rate counts. No larvae were collected in JCC, but some were collected in neighboring York County. Even though this species was not found breeding in JCC, it may migrate into the county in - 24 - large numbers since this species has a flight range of up to 40 miles. One reason for the apparent lack of As sollicitans may be due to the structure of the salt marshes in the county. Most of the salt marshes which are located along the James River have steep sloping banks (25-50 percent slope, Hodges et al. 1985) which cause the marshes to flush out regularly with the tides. These steep banks do not allow the marsh to flood level lands which is the primary breeding site for this species.
Aedes taeniorhynchus (Weidemann): This salt-marsh mosquito can be a considerable pest in JCC. Light trap collections and landing rate counts in 1985 and those conducted before mid-July 1986 indicated that this was not a major pest species, but during the fourth week of July a large emergence of this species occurred in areas along the
York River. On July 31, 1986 over 42 female A, taenijiorhynchus were collected in 15 minutes during a landing rate count at Riverview Plantation. This species is primarily distributed along the river areas but was collected during landing rate counts conducted inland.
Aedes triseriatus (Say): As triseriatus was found to be common in areas close to favorable breeding habitats.
It is considered to be a tree-hole breeding mosquito but is commonly collected from a variety of containers holding water. Both larvae and adults were collected in large numbers from a large tire dump (>500 tires). This species - 25 - was also collected from other “trashy locations in the county. Small numbers of this species were collected in light traps throughout the summer. This was probably influenced by the presence of water holding containers in the area adjacent to the light trap. This species is economically important in that it is a vector of LaCrosse encephalitis (Hall 1984).
Aedes vexans (Meigen): This species was a common pest in most areas in JCC. It was collected in all light trap locations except Riverview Plantation. In 1985 and 1986 Aw vexans was the sixth and fourth most commonly collected mosquito species, respectively. The larvae were commonly collected in temporary woodland pools, roadside ditches and flooded fields. The presence of this mosquito becomes apparent in mid-May and was common throughout the summer.
Anopheles bradleyi King, and Anophles crucians
Weidemann: These species are very similar morphologically
(Darsie and Ward 1981) in the adult stage. The adults were separated based on the proximity of the collection site to particular breeding sites. These species were occasionally collected in light traps but rarely during landing rate counts. On one occasion An. bradleyi was collected from a brackish marsh in First Colony. Larvae of Ans crucians were collected from permanent freshwater swamps on several occasions. Adults of these species were collected from mid-May until September and had a peak of activity during - 26 - the first two weeks of August in both 1985 and 1986.
Anopheles punctipennis (Say): This species was a commonly encountered mosquito. It was the fourth and fifth most common species collected in light traps in 1985 and
1986, respectively. It was frequently collected during landing rate counts particulary in the Longhill Swamp area.
Adult Ans punctipennis were present at relatively the same frequency from June until September in 1985, but in 1986 a peak of adult activity occurred between mid-July and mid-August. Adults were collected as early as March in
1986 while conducting landing rate counts. As reported by
Gladney and Turner (1969) and King et al. (1960), the larvae of this species were found breeding in a variety of clean, freshwater habitats. The most prominent breeding sites were located along the margins of free flowing streams in which vegetation was present.
Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say: This anophelene was the most commonly collected and encountered species in JCC in 1986, and the third most common in 1985. Dorsey (1944) considered it to be the most common and predominant pest in eastern Virginia. Although Pratt et al. (1963), Service
(1976) and Bradley (1943) reported light traps were inefficient for collecting this species, considerable numbers were collected (> 69 females/night) in the light trap located in Windsor Forest. Landing rate counts indicate that this species is not the major pest species. - 27 -
An. Quadrimaculatus was collected throughout the summer, but populations peaked during the last two weeks in July in both 1985 and 1986. The larvae were collected from permanent swamplands, beaver ponds and marshes which had
Floating vegetation on the surface.
Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker): This species is the only representative of this genus in Virginia. It is commonly a pest in areas near freshwater swamps which contain emergent vegetation such as cattails. The larva and pupa of Cj perturbans are unique in that they obtain air by attaching their air tube (siphon) to aquatic plants
(King et al. 1960). As reported by Dorer et al. (1950) this species was most commonly collected from the roots of the arrowhead plant (Sagittaria spp). Light trap collections in First Colony and Druid Hills indicate that
C. perturbans is present in the southern part of the county from June until September. Light trap collections from
Chickahominy Haven (1985 and 1986) and Hicks Island (1986) indicate that a peak emegence period occurs during the last week in June until the second week in July in the northwestern part of the county.
Culex species: As a group, the species of this genera were the most common mosquitoes to be collected in light traps in 1986 and the second most common in 1985. Thirty percent of all the collections in 1985 and 37% in 1986 were composed of Culex species and Culex pipiens was most - 28 -
prominent. Five species of Culex were identified from JCC.
These include Culex erraticus Dyar and Knab», Cs pipiens pipiens L., Cw restuans Theobold, Cy salinarius Coquillett, and C,. territans Walker. These species were found to be common throughout the summer (May-September). The larvae were collected from many breeding habitats such as pond edges, drainage ditches, discarded containers, and temporary rainpools. One breeding habitat was a stream polluted with some sort of organic waste. Large numbers of
Culex larvae were collected along the margins and in slow eddys of the stream. This large population may have been caused by the absence of predators which were killed off by the pollution.
Culiseta melanura (Coquillett): This mosquito was collected on several occasions in JCC. In 1985 one male and one female were collected as larvae from a wooded pond in the First Colony area and reared to adults. Also one female was collected in a light trap in 1985. In 1986 four adults were collected in the light trap located in Hicks
Island. This light trap was located near ( < 50 yards) a flock of penned chickens. This species is reported to prefer avian blood (Horsfall 1972). Chamberlain et al.
(1958) reports Cy melanura to be economically important because it is the primary vector in the bird to bird cycle of eastern equine encephalitis.
Orthopodomyia signifera (Coquillett): Although rarely - 29 - collected by Dorer et al. (1944), two specimens were collected as larvae on August 12, 1985 from a tree hole.
King et al. (1960) indicates that there is conflicting data on the economic importance of this species.
Psorophora ciliata (Fabricius): This extremely large mosquito was found to occasionlly occur in JCC. It accounted for less than 1% of the total light trap collections in both 1985 and 1986 but was collected in considerable numbers (12 females/15 minutes) during landing rate counts. P. ciliata larvae were commonly associated with Psorophora columbiae in temporary puddles located primarily in areas of construction and agricultural production.
Psorophora columbiae (Dyar and Knab): This species is of considerable economic importance. It was the most frequently (50% total catch) collected species in light traps in 1985 and the third most frequent in 1986. These large percentages are due primarily to the proximity of the light trap in Kingsmill to a major breeding site. During
August 1985 over 7700 females were collected in this light trap. This species was found to be breeding in areas of construction. One area that was a major breeding site contained a large number of tire ruts and shallow depressions, both of which were overgrown with vegetation, that held water following a rain. P columbiae was found to occur throughout the summer with its peak emergence period - 30 - occurring in August. This species was collected in most parts of the county, but it was most common in areas of construction, and poorly drained agricultural areas.
Psorophora cyanescens (Coquillett): This mosquito species is reported to be rare in Virginia. Dorer et al.
(1944) and Gladney and Turner (1969) each reported a collection of a single female of this species. On August
26, 1986 two P. cyanescens were collected during a landing rate count conducted in the Powhatan Shores subdivision.
Three additional females were collected in 3 different light traps in 1986.
Psorophora ferox (Humboldt): The white-footed woods mosquito is the common name given to this species. A8 reported by Gladney and Turner (1969) it was not collected in large numbers in light traps. Pz ferox accounted for less than 1% of the total light trap catch in 1985 and
1986. It was commonly collected during landing rate counts that were conducted in the woods near a favorable breeding site. The peak occurrance of this species, as determined by light trap collections, is in August and September.
Over 982% of the specimens collected in light traps occurred at this time. These data are similar to those reported by
Gladney and Turner (1969). Landing rate counts indicate that the adult is present near breeding sites in late-June and early-July. The peak of activity observed in August and September may be due to the mosquito migrating from the breeding sites.
Psorophora howardii (Coquillett): This species was collected on 2 occasions in JCC. A single male was collected on August 23, 1985 from a roadside ditch as a pupa and was reared out to an adult. A single adult female was collected on July 31, 1986 during a landing rate count.
These collections are significant in that Gladney and
Turner (1969) report this species to be virtually unknown in Virginia.
Toxorhynchites rutilus rutilus (Coquillett): This large predacious mosquito was collected on two occasions in
JCC. A single female was collected on September 23, 1985 as a larva from a tire and was reared to adult. The tire was also found to contain a large number of Aedes triseriatus larvae. A single male was collected in a light trap on July 17, 1985. This species is not a pest since it does not feed on blood and is considered to be beneficial since the larvae feed on other mosquito larvae. Certain species of this genus have been used as a biological control agent (Hall 1986).
Uranotaenia sapphirina (Osten-Sacken): DU. sapphirina is a noneconomically important mosquito species which occurred occasionally in JCC. This species is not known to feed on man. It occurred throughout the summer with population peaks occurring in July (1985) and August
(1986). The larvae were collected from edges of permanent water.
Target Audience Survey
Eighty residents in three subdivisions were
interviewed to determine their attitudes towards and
knowledge about mosquitoes. The duration of residency for
the survey respondants ranged from <1 year to 19 years (X +
S.D. = 5 + 4). The respondants ranged in age from 18 to 86 (X + S.D. = 51 + 16). A majority of the respondants (662%)
were female. Thirty-seven percent of the residents
surveyed were raised in an urban area, while 31% and 29%
were raised in a suburban or rural area, respectively.
Three percent were raised in other areas.
Seriousnessof the mosquito problem
Q. Do you think there is a mosquito problem in your neighborhood?
Percent Response__ Response FC WF x Yes 59 22 38 No 38 65 54 Not sure 3 13 8
Significantly more residents (59%) in First Colony
(FC) (X2=12.10, df=2, P<0.002) compared to Windsor Forest
(WF) (22%) thought that there was a mosquito problem in
their neighborhood. These data conflict with light trap
data collected in each neighborhood during the summer of - 33 -
1985. The threshold level was reached or surpassed on considerably more nights in WF (60%) than in FC (322%).
Landing rate counts were also higher in WF than in FC.
These results may be due to the past mosquito problem in each neighborhood. When asked, 71% of the respondants in
FC felt that the mosquito problem had remained the same or gotten worse over the past two years, while 70% of the respondants in WF thought that the problem was the same or had gotten better in each respective neighborhood. Another factor that may affect the differences in responses between subdivisions is the amount of time that the respondants spend out-of-doors.
Q. Has the mosquito problem in JCC gotten better or worse during the past two years?
Percent Response Response FC WF X Better 15 28 22 Worse 17 2 9 Same 53 42 47 Not sure 15 28 22
Q. In the evening, during the summer, do mosquitoes limit the amount of time that you spend out-of-doors?
Percent Response_ Response FC WF xX Yes 53 41 47 No 47 59 53
Nearly one-half (472%) of the respondants reported their time out-of-doors was limited by the presence of mosquitoes. Besides reducing the pleasure received by the - 34 -
residents being outside, the limitation of time
out-of-doors could be having an economic impact on the
county.
Residents Knowledge
The respondants had a limited knowledge of mosquito
biology and habits.
Q. Where do you think mosquitoes breed in this area?
I. Percent Response_ Response FC WF xX Swamps 23 33 29 Ditches 24 6 14 Ponds 0 24 14 Streams 0 2 1 Lakes 32 0 14 Not sure 21 35 28
Il. Percent Response_ Response FC WF xX Breed on owners 6 2 3 property Breed off owners 91 81 85 property Not sure 3 17 12
There are differences between the two survey sites in
relation to breeding sites. A majority (57%) of the
residents did not know where or mentioned areas that do not
breed or breed only minor amounts of mosquitoes as
mosquitoes breeding areas. The respondants tended to
mention the most obvious water bodies in their
neighborhood. When the respondants answers were reanalyzed - 35 - only a small percentage (3%) of the respondants were aware of the potential of mosquitoes breeding on their property.
Q. What do you think is the most important reason for controlling mosquitoes?
Percent Response_ Response FC WF xX Disease 38 35 36 Nuisance 27 33 30 Both 35 28 31 Not sure 0 4 3
A majority (67%) of the respondants knew that mosquitoes are disease vectors, and considered disease control to be an important reason for controlling mosquitoes.
Q. What do you think is the best way to control mosquitoes?
Percent Response Response FC WF Xx Adulticiding 32 50 43 Larviciding 3 4 4 Adult/Larvicide 6 5 5 Drainage 15 4 9 Adult./Drainage 0 5 3 Larv./Drainage 1 0 1 Other nonchemical 12 15 13 Not sure 29 13 20
A majority (51%) of the respondants mentioned adulticiding (fogging, spraying) as the best way to control mosquitoes. Twenty-four percent were aware of the practices used to control mosquitoes by killing the larvae
A small percentage (13%) mentioned nonchemical control - 36 -
methods, such as increasing bird and fish populations, and
using blacklight “bugzappers~. One-fifth (202%) were not
Sure of the best way to control mosquitoes.
Mosquito Tolerance
It is important to determine the residents tolerance
to mosquitoes, From this information threshold levels can
be determined.
Q- How many mosquito bites per night would you accept or tolerate in this area?
Bites/night Sub Mean Median FC 5 2 WF 6 2
If in the course of the evening out-of-doors you receive 15 (10 7 4 2 1) mosquito bites, would you consider that to be a mosquito problem?
Percent Response (no. bites/night) Sub___§_ Response 15 10 1 4 2 1
FC No 6 10 30 76 94 100 Yes 94 90 70 24 6 0 WF No 4 8 21 64 86 99 Yes 96 92 79 36 14 1
When the respondants were asked the amount of mosquito
bites they would tolerate, 50% indicated that they would
tolerate 2 bites/night. The mean number of bites tolerated
ranged between 5 and 6 bites per night. In response to the
question requiring a specific answer, 70% felt that 4 bites - 37 - per night would not indicate a mosquito problem in that area. Robinson and Atkins (1983) report similar results in a survey conducted in Virginia Beach, Virginia. They found that the average number of bites that residents would tolerate per night was 8 bites/night, median 3 bites/night and that sixty-eight percent did not consider 4 bites/night to be a problem.
The similarity between these data and those reported by Robinson and Atkins (1983) indicates that these tolerance levels for the number of mosquito bites per night are valid for coastal areas in the mid-Atlantic area.
Headlee (1932) suggests that the human tolerance level is 1 mosquito bite per 15 minutes when outdoors. He reported that there are 3 hours per night of peak mosquito activity which translates to human tolerance level of 12 mosquito bites per night. Based on only nine nights of collecting, he concluded that a light trap will catch twice as many mosquitoes per night as a human collector will collect in 3 hours. The results reported by Headlee (1932) and
VanDerwerker (1937) on human tolerance levels in relation to light trap collections were based on subjective data in that the data was collected at different time periods and was based upon unsubstantiated data. With this information
Headlee (1932) concluded that a light trap catch of 24 female mosquitoes per night would represent an accurate threshold. This threshold is still used extensively by - 38 - mosquito control agencies throughout the U. S.
Using the formula proposed by Headlee (1932) and the tolerance level of the respondants (5 bites/night) the light trap threshold level in JCC would be approximately 12 female mosquitoes per night. VanDerwerker (1937) proposed lower light trap threshold levels. He proposed that threshold levels be based on the area of residency. The light trap threshold level for urban areas would be 8 females/night; suburban areas, 20 females/night; and rural areas, 40 females/night. The results data presented here are similar to those of VanDerwerker (1937). He also reported that temperature should be used in determining threshold levels.
Further research needs to be conducted to determine the association between human tolerance limits to mosquito bites and sampling techniques such as light traps and landing rate counts. Research similar to that of Nasci et al. (1983) could be conducted to help determine this relationship. Factors that need to be considered include the species of mosquitoes present, the attractiveness and manual dexterity of the human collector, trap and collector locations and environmental factors. Treatment threshold levels need to be set for an area based on the association of the residents tolerance and the species of mosquitoes present. The following would need to be included in an experiment aimed at providing an answer to this problem; - 39 -
(1) an extensive public attitude survey to determine the resident's tolerance levels, (2) landing rate counts conducted throughout the mosquito season to determine the actual species of biting mosquitoes, (3) nightly operation of light traps, and (4) environmental monitoring. Landing rate counts should be correlated with light trap counts using regression analysis. The mean tolerance level to mosquito bites of residents in that area could then be compared with the regression line so that a light trap threshold level could be determined for that area.
Environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity and rainfall need to be monitored so that trends or discrepancies can be explained.
The association of the extent of larval breeding with the number of adult mosquitoes in an area should also be included in this research since the larval threshold levels are not well known. Service (1976) reports that a postive breeding site is defined a body of water containing l mosquito. Since there are different species of pestiferous mosquitoes in an area, thresholds need to be developed for each. The number of larvae collected per dip during larval surveys could be correlated with light trap and landing rate counts. Breeding sites which produce mosquitoes which have flight ranges within the distance of local light traps should be sampled on a regular basis and compared with other sampling data. This will allow inferences to be made - 40 - about the population levels of larval mosquitoes which would become a significant problem when the adults emerge.
Larval threshold levels could be developed to determine the need for treatment or measure the success of a previous treatment.
Satisfaction
In general, the respondants were satisfied with the mosquito control program in JCC.
Q.- Have you ever contacted JCC about mosquito control?
Percent Response Response FC WF X Yes 6 4 5 No 94 96 95
A large majority (95%) of the respondants had never contacted JCC about mosquito control. Many of the residents expressed that they did not know that they could request assistance with mosquito problems.
Q. Are you satisfied with the present control program in JCC?
Percent Response. Response FC WF x Yes 65 69 67 No 29 20 24 Not sure 6 11 9 - 41 -
A majority (67%) of the respondants were satisfied with the present control program in the county. The respondants that were not satisfied gave various reasons for not being satisfied. Some respondants were upset because they did not feel that the county was doing a good job, they wanted more sprays, they expressed concern over the application of pesticides in neighborhoods, or did not like the smell of malathion. Since satisfaction is a measure of a control program's success, these data can be used in the future to determine if a new program is meeting up to the expectations of the county's residents.
Willingness-to-pay
The residents willingness to pay can be used to
justify an increase in spending for a control program.
These data can also be used as a measure of the success of
a program.
Q. In the past you have paid approximately $3.45 per year as part of your property taxes for mosquito control, would you consider paying more for better control?
Percent Response_ Response FC WF x Yes 65 81 74 No 18 15 16 Not sure 17 4 10 - 42 -
Q. If yes, how much more would you be willing to spend?
Sub Mean Median FC (n=22) $2.57 $3.00 WF (n=37) 4.08 3.00 KX (n=59) 3.37 3.00
A majority (742) of the respondants indicate that they would be willing to pay more in taxes for better mosquito control. The average willingness to pay (WTP) bid was
$3.37, this was in addition to the average amount of $3.45 that the residents were currently contributing in taxes to mosquito control. Using the method reported by John et al.
(1987b) a benefit value was determined. By adding the average WTP bid with the current mosquito control costs, the mean total value of mosquito control to the county's residents was estimated to be $6.82 for each household.
The aggragate total value of mosquito control to residents in JCC was estimated to be $65,403 by multiplying the total number of households (9,590 in 1985) times the mean total value. In fiscal year 1985, JCC spent $33,106 on mosquito control activities. John et al. (1987b) reported that the net benefit of mosquito control to an area i8 equal to the aggragate total minus the actual operating costs. The net benefit of mosquito control to the residents was estimated to be $32,297. The total benefits of the mosquito control program in JCC to the residents in the county were about twice the the costs that occurred during 1985. This value is similar to that of 1.8 reported by John et al. (1987b) - 43 -
Respondants in the survey conducted by Robinson and
Atkins (1983) were willing to pay on the average $0.93 more for better control. This is approximately a 1% increase over the current amount that they were currently paying in property taxes. Ofiara and Allison (1986) reported that respondants in Georgia were willing to pay an average total of $31.09 per household for mosquito control. It is interesting to note that a greater percentage of the respondants in WF (81%) compared to FC (65%) were willing to spend more for control but significantly fewer people in
WF thought that there was a problem in their neighborhood.
Willingness to pay appears to be influenced by the residents perception of the mosquito problem and the amount of money that they are currently paying for control.
Q. Do you regularly purchase insecticides to control mosquitoes on your property?
Percent Response Response FC WF Xx Yes 41 33 36 No 59 67 64
Q. If yes, how much do you spend during the summer?
Sub K +S. D. Range FC (n=12) $13.16 + 20.00 $3.50 - 76.00 WF (n=14) $ 9.82 + 6.96 $2.00 - 24.50
A majority (642%) of the respondants do not purchase pesticides to control mosquitoes on their property. The respondants who do purchase pesticides spent on average - 44 -
$11.50 for mosquito control products. The types of control
measures purchased include citronella candles, aerosol
insecticide yard foggers, and gas powered thermal foggers.
A majority (82%) of the respondants did not own a blacklight “bugzapper’.
Economic. Survey
A total of 120 people in six different campgrounds in
JCC were interviewed to determine their attitudes towards
and knowledge of mosquitoes. The mean age of the
respondants was (40.3 + 17.1), with a range of 18 - 81
years. A majority (62%) of the respondants were males.
For 74% of the campers surveyed, this was their first visit
to JCC. The average length of stay was 7 nights, median
length 2 nights, with a range of 1 - 120. A majority (552)
of the respondants were presently residing in a suburban
area, while 19% were residing in urban areas, 18% in rural
areas, and 8Z residing in other areas. Forty-two percent
of the respondants were raised in a suburban area, 35% in a
rural area, 22% in a urban area, and 1% in other areas.
Landing rate counts conducted in the areas near each
campground indicate that there was a problem in several of
the of them. - 45 -
Seriousnessof Mosquito Problen
Q.- Do you think there is a mosquito problem in this area?
Percent Response Camper Type _ Response Hard Soft X Yes 42 41 41 No 52 53 53 Not sure 6 6 6
There was no significant association (X2 = 0.016, df =
2, P < 0.992) between camper type (hard body, soft body) in relation to their perception of the mosquito problem in the campsite area. A small majority (53%) of the respondants felt that there was not a mosquito problem in the area.
Q. Is the presence of mosquitoes limiting the amount of time that you spend out-of-doors in this area?
Percent Response Camper Type Response Hard Soft X Yes 31 26 28 No 65 71 68 Not sure 4 3 4
There was no significant association (X2 = 0.381, df =
2, P < 0.826) between the camper type and the respondants limitation of time spent out-of-doors. Twenty-eight percent of the respondants reported having their time out-of-doors limited by mosquitoes. This percentage is smaller than the percentage of people that thought there was a mosquito problem in the area. This indicates that - 46 - even though some people think that there is a mosquito problem, people who camp do not let the presence of mosquitoes limit their time spent out-of-doors.
When asked if the respondant was leaving the area sooner than planned due to the presence of mosquitoes, all of the respondants (100%) indicated that they were not planning on leaving earlier than planned. Many indicated that if the mosquito problem got worse they would change their habits, apply more insect repellent, or take other actions before the presence of mosquitoes would cause them to leave early.
Knowledgeof Mosquitoes
The respondants had a limited knowledge of mosquito control, biology and habits.
Q. Where do you think mosquitoes breed in this area?
I. Response Percent Response Standing water 61 Flowing water 11 Other 10 Not sure 18 II. Response Percent Response Ditches 3 Swamps 26 Ponds 5 Stagnant water 27 Rivers/streams 11 Grass/woods 6 Dampness/leafmats 4 Not sure 18
A majority (61%) of the respondants were aware of the potential for standing water (swamps, ditches, ponds) to support mosquito larvae. In the target audience survey less than half (43%) correctly identified potential breeding sites. Thirty-nine percent of the respondants did not know wheres, or gave incorrect answers as to where mosquitoes breed.
Q. What do you think is the most important reason for controlling mosquitoes?
Response Percent Response Nuisance 32 Disease 51 Both 13 Not sure 4
A majority (642) of the respondants knew that mosquitoes can be vectors of disease. Thirty-two percent mentioned only nuisance control as being the most important reason for controlling mosquitoes. - 48 -
Q. What do you think is the best way to control mosquitoes?
Response Percent Response Drainage 6 Adulticide 34 Larvicide 13 Nonchemical 4 Adult/Drain 17 Larvi/Drain 2 Repellents 2 Not sure 22
Slightly more than half (51%) of the respondants
mentioned adulticiding practices as the best way to control
mosquitoes, 61% were aware of the potential for standing
water to support mosquitoes. Thirty-eight percent
mentioned some type of practice used to control mosquito
larvae. Over one-fifth (22%) did not know the best way to
control mosquitoes. Even though there was no significant
association between their responses and the area where they
were raised or are currently living, there is probably an
association between their responses and their past exposure
to mosquito control.
Mosquito Prevention
Q. Have you or do you plan on using preventative measures to protect yourself and family against mosquito bites?
Response Percent Response Yes 72 No 27 Not sure ] - 49 -
Amounts Used ($) Percent Response < 3.50 77 3.50-7.00 27 > 7.00 6
There was a significant association (X2=18.39, df=4,
P < 0.001) between the respondants perception of the
mosquito problem and their plans to use preventative
measures. A majority (72%) of the respondants had been or
were planning on using preventative measures (citronella
candles, repellents, aerosol insecticides) to protect
themselves against mosquito bites. Seventy-seven percent
had spent on the average less than $3.50 on preventative
measures,
Mosquito Tolerance
Q. How many mosquito bites/night would you accept or tolerate in this area?
Mean = 4 bites/night Median = 3 bites/night Range 1 - 20 bites/night
Q. If in the course of the evening out-of-doors you receive 15 (10, 7,5 4, 2+ 1) mosquito bites would you consider that to be a mosquito problem?
Percent Response No. Bites/Night Response 15 10 Ll 4 2 1
Yes 97 90 68 21 2 0 No 3 10 32 79 98 100
When asked the number of mosquito bites that the
respondant would tolerate, 50% indicated they would - 50 - tolerate 3 bites or less per night. The average acceptable number of mosquito bites per night was 4. When asked for a specific answer, 79% replied that 4 bites per night or less would not indicate a mosquito problem. These results are
Similar to those of the public attitude survey conducted in
JCC, and the survey conducted by Robinson and Atkins (1983) in Virginia Beach, Virginia. This replication of the respondants replys to the acceptable number of bites per night indicates that the human tolerance level is around five mosquito bites per night.
Using the formula derived for and the data collected
in this survey, no economic loss could be determined.
Since no (0%) campers were found to be leaving early, the economic loss formula always equals zero. The failure to determine an economic impact could be due to (1) the absence of a major mosquito problem due to the past weather conditions (drought), (2) the time of year that the survey was conducted or (3) the attitudes of the campers towards undesirable factors that limit their enjoyment while vacationing.
Several additional questions need to be added to this survey to aid in the determination of an economic impact.
One area that needs to addressed is whether or not the - 51 -
campers will be returning in the future and if their
decision is based on the presence of mosquitoes. Another
question that needs to be answered is if the camper's time
outdoors is being limited, what activities are being
affected. The respondants in this survey should not be
limited to only campers but should be expanded to include
people visting the outdoor areas of the county (e.g.
picnicers, fisherman, hikers).
This type of survey could be used by a community to (1) justify the need for a funding increase for mosquito control, (2) design a mosquito control program, or (3)
evaluate the current mosquito control program.
Mosquito Management Program
There is a need and the support of the public for an
integrated mosquito management program in James City
County, Virginia. There is a definite mosquito problem in
the county. The light trap annoyance point, 24 or more
female mosquitoes/night, was reached on the average of 24%
(1-742) and 9% (11-29%) of the summer evenings during 1985
and 1986, respectively. Over 50% of the landing rate
counts were greater than the 4 female mosquito/hour human
tolerance level proposed by Headlee (1932). The
residential growth in JCC is creating many new mosquito
breeding sites. By expanding residential structures in - 52 - rural areas there will be an increase in the mosquito problems experienced by residents. If unmanaged, mosquitoes can occur in large numbers under such circumstances and be a significant health and annoyance problem if they are not controlled. An integrated program can reduce the mosquito populations to levels that are tolerable. The county residents interviewed support an
integrated program. Nearly three quarters (74%) of these residents said that they would support a program that provided better control.
The components of an integrated mosquito management program (IMMP) for JCC would include: (1) seasonal monitoring of mosquito populations; (2) periodic surveys of residents to determine their knowledge of mosquito biology and control, and their perceptions of the local mosquito problem; (3) public education program for residents, county officials and control personnel; (4) physical, biological and chemical control tactics; and (5) periodic program evaluation.
“ . Moni .
Mosquito populations should be monitored so that control measures can be directed to areas where they are needed most. Monitoring can also be used as a measure of the effectiveness of the control tactics used. Three - 53 -
methods should be used to monitor mosquito populations:
light traps, landing rate counts, and larval surveys.
Light traps
These devices measure the relative abundance of adult
mosquitoes in a limited area. They should be set in the
following 12 locations (Figure 5): Grove (GR), James
Terrace (JT), Druid Hills (DH), Kingsmill (KM), Powhatan
Shores (PS), First Colony (FC), Windsor Forest (WF), Norge
(NO), Riverview Plantation (RP), Chickahominy Haven (CH),
Skillman Estates (SH), and Great Woods (GW). These
locations will provide an accurate estimation of the
mosquito populations in or near the more populated sections
of the county.
The light traps should be operated on a nightly basis
and the insects collected removed every other day and
identified to species. They should be started during the
first week of April and operated until the last week of
September. The criterea used in setting light traps
include (1) hanging the trap so that the lightbulb is 5
feet above the ground, (2) the trap is more than 10 feet
from a building, and (3) there are no “bugzappers or major
competing light sources in the area. The light trap should
be placed on a resident cooperator's property which will
give some protection from vandalism. The cooperator should - 54 -
be compensated for the use of their property and
electricity.
Landing rate counts
This method of monitoring can help determine if (1)
light trap counts are adequately measuring the the
neighborhood's mosquito problem, (2) an area not serviced
by a light trap is experiencing a mosquito problem, and (3)
to follow up on a citizen's complaint about mosquitoes.
Landing rate counts need not be conducted on a regular
basis, but should be done periodically to confrim light
trap collections. Counts consist of collecting, counting
and identifying the mosquitoes that are attracted to a
human during a period of 15 minutes.
Larval surveys
These should be conducted to determine if a particular
area is a mosquito breeding site, or to evaluate a
previously used control tactic. A special backyard larval
breeding survey should be conducted in different areas of
the county during the spring of each year as part of the
education program, and to physically control backyard
mosquito breeding. The survey should include the
presentation of educational literature to the resident at - 55-
the time of the survey. Data collected during the backyard
Survey includes total number and type of containers
present, the number of water retaining containers, and the
number of containers that prove positive for the presence
of mosquito larvae. A sample of the larvae should be
reserved for laboratory identification.
Resident Surveys
A survey of a representative sample of the county's
residents should be conducted to determine their attitudes
towards and their knowledge of mosquitoes. The survey can
be used to determine if the current level of control is
Satisfactory to the residents, to evaluate the present
education program and to act as part of the education
program by increasing the publics awareness of mosquitoes
and their control. The survey should be similar to the one
conducted in 1985 so that comparisions can made.
An education program is needed to develop good
relations between JCC residents and those responsible for
mosquito control. A well informed public will better
understand the principles of insecticide use. Those in
authority will have a better understanding of the - 56 - principles behind mosquito control and thus increase their
Support for the program. The county can establish better credibility with the residents. Since many mosquito problems originate on the residents property, an education program should make them more aware of this (Tanner 1984, Beams 1985).
The community education program should include the use of a variety of methods such as brochures, color slide shows, and periodic news releases. The brochures should be made widely available to the public through mass mailing and through self service distribution centers such as grocery stores, laundry facilities, and public offices.
The brochures should be no longer than 1 page, of a bright color and contain information on mosquito biology, habits, and control. The brochure should also contain the public's role in and the justification for mosquito control (Smith
1986)
A color slide show containing information on mosquito biology, habits, and control practices should be supplied to all public schools in the county. This program should contain approximately 40 slides and include a script which explains each slide. A presentation of the program by the mosquito control staff should be made available to all interested civic, neighborhood, and fraternal
Organizations. The program should be similar to the school program, but contain more information on the public's role - 57 -
in reducing backyard breeding.
News releases can serve as an additional tool for
developing positive community relations. Tanner (1985)
Stated that news releases should not be earth shaking, and
cautioned that speculation about events, such as
encephalitis outbreaks, can occasionally do more harm than
good. News releases should be provided to local papers,
radio, and television stations. Articles on mosquito
biology, the methods used in the current program and
residents role in control would provide valuable
information to the public while increasing awareness of
mosquito control.
A program should be designed to educate the mosquito
control personnel on the biologies and habits of
mosquitoes, the safe handling and application of
pesticides, methods of control, and how to deal with the
public. This program should be designed and conducted by
the mosquito control supervisor.
Control] Tactics
The objective of a integrated mosquito management
program is to use a variety of control measures in a safe
and economical manner to reduce the presence of adult
mosquitoes. Physical, biological, and chemical tactics are
used to control mosquitoes. The main goal of mosquito - 58 -
control is to control the larvae before they can emerge into adults.
Physical control involves manipulating mosquito breeding sites to prevent, limit, or eliminate mosquito production. This can be accomplished by draining or filling breeding sites to prevent water from accumulating, facilitate the removal of water from an area before mosquitoes can complete their development or by making the habitat more favorable for the production of natural enemies. Physical control practices are time consuming and labor intensive, and in many cases they are not cost effective (Mulhern 1976).
Physical tactics that should be conducted by JCC mosquito control to reduce mosquito breeding include:
(1) removal of unused and discarded containers from areas in the county, (2) periodically drain beaver ponds, (3) clear drain culverts to increase stormwater flow, and (4) drain or fill temporary puddles in constuction site areas.
Biological control should be utilized when possible.
Physical control measures in conjunction with environmentally safe larvicides should be used to enhance or at least not kill beneficial species. At the present time attempts should not be made to rear biological control agents in JCC. The mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis requires special equipment and this equipment is expensive and difficult to obtain. - 59 -
Chemical control is essential because it is effective, and generally fast acting. Insecticides can be applied to large areas in relatively short periods of time, thus making them cost effective.
The following larvicides are recommended for use in
JCC due to the high target pest specificity and low nontarget impact, Bacillus thuringiensis israeliensis (Bti) and Altosid (methoprene). Bti can be applied using several methods. The flowable formulations should be applied either with a compressed-air hand sprayer, or with a gasoline-powered portable backpack ULV machine. The hand sprayers should be used to treat relatively small breeding sites such as temporary puddles and drainage ditches. The backpack ULV sprayer should be used to treat larger areas such as beaver ponds, swamps, and flooded farmland.
Methoprene is formulated into briquets which can be placed by hand into breeding sites.
Adulticides are needed to control adult mosquitoes when they are present in such numbers that they cause a nuisance or pose a health threat. Adulticiding should be conducted on a need basis. The need for control can be determined by light trap counts, and landing rate counts.
Adulticides should only be applied when light trap collections excede 24 female mosquitoes per night or landing rate counts excede 1 mosquito/15 minute count.
Public complaints should be used as a basis for control - 60 -
only when the problem has been verified. The application of adulticides should begin no earlier than 1 hour before
Sunset and continue until the designated route is completed, but should not continue later than 11:00 pm.
Records should be kept on gasoline usage, total amount of adulticide used, the time and milage required to reach the treatment area, the locations, and the time each was treated.
The present adulticide used in JCC is technical grade
(95%) malathion (Cythion). The current inventory of this product indicates that the county has 12-54 gallon barrels of this product. Seven of these were purchased in or before 1985. The older barrels need to be used first. The newer barrels need to be rotated to the back of the storage facility so to increase the access to the older barrels.
The barrels need to be stored off of the ground, out of direct sunlight, and preferably indoors.
In the future (1989) JCC should consider changing their use of malathion to resmethrin, a synthetic pyrethroid (Scourge). This change would be beneficial to the control program because this chemical (1) has a much less objectional odor than malathion, (2) is noncorrosive to spray equipment and automobiles, (3) is reported to be very effective, (4) is reported to biodegrade rapidly, and (5) is less toxic than malathion (LD50 4240 mg/kg).
Although at the present time resmethrin is more expensive - 61 -
than malathion to apply per acre, the costs involved in
equipment maintenance due to the corrosive nature of
malathion could compensate for the cost increase.
Program Evaluation
The success of a mosquito control program can not be
judged on the amount of pesticides applied and the number
of drainage ditches dug. A method is needed to make
inferences about the programs success. The mosquito
management program success should be measured using public
attitude surveys and the overall differences in light trap
and landing rate counts.
Personne] Recommendations
To implement an integrated mosquito management program
the following personnel are needed.
Mosquito Control Supervisor/Biologist 1/Full time
Biologist's Assistant 1/Full time/temporary
Larvicide Applicator 2/Full time/temporary
Adulticide Applicator 1/Part time/temporary Mosquito Contra] S p : Bi ] .
Job description: The mosquito control supervisor's primary duty is to direct and coordinate an integrated mosquito control program. The work involves supervising and training employees; coordinating treatment activities; monitoring adult populations with traps, and dipping for larvae; responding to public complaints; designing and conducting educational programs; maintaining records; and updating the computer database. The work requires a general knowledge of insect biology. The duties should be performed under the direction of the Director of
Public Works and are evaluated through periodic conferences, review of reports and the overall success of
the control program.
Job specifications:
- Knowledge of mosquito and other pest habits, life cycles
and control
- Considerable knowledge of pesticide safety, application
techniques and pesticide formulations
- Ability to plan, assign and supervise a small group of
employees
- Ability to deal effectively with the general public and
county officials
- Ability to work out-of-doors - 63 -
- Proficient use of computers
- A knowledge of operating and maintaining mechanical
Spray equipment
- Valid Va. drivers license
Type of employment: Full time.
Desirable experience and training:
A bachelor's degree in a biological science preferably
entomology, plus two years experience in mosquito or other
insect pest control
Biologist'’s assistant
Job description: Assist the biologist in collecting data
on larval breeding areas; collecting and identifying adult
mosquitoes; conducting landing rate counts; recording and
computerizing data; and assist in reducing mosquito
populations.
Job specifications:
- Knowledge of insect biology
Ability to work out-of-doors with minimum supervision
Active interest in biology/entomology
Ability to use a computer
Valid Va. drivers license Type of employment: Full time/temporary (May-Sept.)
I icig
Job description: The primary duty of the larvicide applicator is to reduce the populations of mosquito larvae by applying larvicides or by manipulating breeding sites to reduce the potential for breeding mosquitoes. The applicator will also be available to assist in adulticide applications.
Job specifications:
- Knowledge of insecticide application
Ability to work out-of-doors
Valid Va. drivers license
Ability to keep accurate records
Type of employment: Full time/temporary (April-Oct.)
Mdulticid li
Job description: The primary duty of the applicator is to control adult mosquitoes with insecticides that are applied with a truck mounted ULV spray machine. Job specifications:
Valid Va. drivers license
Ability to work under mininum supervision
Knowledge of pesticide application
- Mechanical abilities
Type of employment: Part time/temporary (May-Oct.)
: LJ £3 ,
To operate an integrated mosquito control program in
James City County, a full time mosquito control supervisor
is needed. While the basic concepts behind mosquito control remain the same, the technology involved in controlling mosquitoes is changing. The methods of mosquito surveillance and control, biological, chemical and physical are changing and the person responsible should be constantly aware of new methods. This position cannot be added to an existing position as an additional duty. The growth in James City County is creating many new mosquito breeding habitats. Due to this increase in growth the mosquito control program should be regularly updated. The laws regulating pesticide usage change and the person responsible should have the opportunity to obtain training to reduce the liability of the county. ~- 66 -
Current Mosquito Control Supplies. Equipment and Facilities
James City County currently has the equipment and the
supplies to impliment an integrated management program.
The following is an inventory listing of the equipment and
supplies owned by JCC mosquito control.
Chemicals Quantity
Teknar HP-D (Bti flowable) 120 gals.
Vectobac-G (Bti granuales) 500 lbs.
Bactimos Briquets (Bti briquets) 4000 briq.
Altosid Briquets (methoprene) 1800 briq.
Arosurf MSF 55 gals.
Cythion (952 technical grade malathion) 648 gals.
Equipment
Leco HD/CV ULV machines (2)
New Jersey Light Traps (10)
Birchmeier hand sprayers (2)
Birchmeier backpack sprayer (1)
Birchmeier backpack ULV machine (1)
Miscellaneous
Mosquito dippers, gas can, outdoor extension cords,
office equipment, stereomicroscope and light, mosquito
literature, forcepts, vials
At the present time there is no designated area to - 67 -
store the pesticides in a legal manner. Pesticides must be
stored in an area to which only authorized personnel have
access. A building is needed to store pesticides and
equipment when not in use, or are in need of repair.
Mosquito Contro] Budget
The following is the approximate budgets that would be
required to operate an integrated mosquito management
program.
FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 Personnel Expenses $ 11,976 37,040 38,892 Operating Expenses 22,808 6,562 19,170 Capital Outlay 12,030 55,700 6,300
The line budgets for fisical year 1988 and 1989 are as
follows. Line Budget (FY 1988) Personnel Expenses Cost to County Supervisor $23,000 Supervisor assistant 3,800 Larviciders (2) 8,640 Adulticider (1) 1,600 Operating Expenses Light trap operation 462 Gas and lubricants 2,500 Insurance 2,000 Equipment update and 1,600 maintenance Capital Outlay Mosquito control storage building 25,000 Pickup truck 10,000 IBM PC 22100 Total $79,602 Line Budget (FY 1989) Personnel Expenses Cost to County Supervisor $24,150 Supervisor assistant 3,990 Larviciders (2) 9,072 Adulticider (1) 1,680 Operating Expenses Light trap operation 470 Gas and lubricants 2,700 Equipment update and maintenance 1,300 Insurance 2,000 Insecticides Scourge 7,200 Bti flowable 4,000 Bti granules 600 Altosid briquets 900 Capital Outlay Leco HD-D CV ULV machine 6.300 Total $64,362
Eurther Research Needs
Due to the inadequacies and the varibility of past
research on the association of mosquitoes and the urban
environment, further research needs to be conducted to
better understand this relationship. One area that needs
further strengthening is the association of human tolerance
levels to mosquito bites with that of sampling methods such
as light traps and landing rate counts. Light trap
threshold levels need to be determined based on human
tolerance levels. Light trap catches and landing rate
counts need to be statiscally correlated with human
tolerance levels to determine the threshold requiring
treatment. Larval threshold levels also need to be
developed so that larvicide treatments are conducted only
when they are needed, thus reducing the pesticide load - 69 - placed on the environment and the reduce the costs involved while maintaining adult mosquito populations at levels that are acceptable to the public.
Though several methods have been developed to estimate the economics of mosquito control, further research is needed to determine the practicality of these methods.
Since the need for urban pest management programs (e.g. mosquito control) cannot be based entirely upon direct economic loss alone, further research needs to conducted to determine the association of the urban pest, mosquitoes, with the aesthetic sense or emotional well being of the public.
The human tolerance level to mosquito bites was determined to be around 5 mosquito bites per night.
Further research is needed to correlate tolerance levels with sampling methods.
The total benefit of mosquito control to the residents of JCC was nearly twice the cost of the control activities conducted in 1985.
James City County has the potential for a serious mosquito problem. Though not determined in this study,» mosquitoes probably do have an economic impact on the county because they do limit the amount of time that - 70 - residents and tourists spend outdoors. If no mosquito
control program is implemented the loses in revenue will
probably exceed the cost proposed for the integrated
mosquito management program in the budget. The current
growth and development of the county further warrants the
need for control. An integrated mosquito management
program would provide a valuable service to the residents
and visitors of JCC. - 7J1lo-
Table 1. Mosquito species collected in James City County in 1985 and 1986 using three collection techniques.
Collection Method . . LR LT LS Species Mosquito
Aedes atlanticus Dyar and Knab * + & Aedes canadensis (Theobault) * + Aedes fulvus pallens Ross * Aedes Sollicitans (Walker) x + Aedes faeniorhynchus (Weidemann) x + Aedes triseriatus (Say) x + & & Aedes vexans (Meigen) x +
Anopheles bradleyi King * + Anopheles crucians Weidemann x + & Anopheles punctipennis (Say) x + & Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say * + &
Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker) * + &
Culex erraticus Dyar and Knab x + & * + & Culex pipiens DPipiens Linnaeus Culex pipiens quinquefasiatus (Say) x + & Culex restuans Theobold + & & Culex salinarius Coquillett + + Culex territans Walker + Culiseta melanura (Coquillett) Orthopodomyia signifera (Coquillett) & * + & Psorophora ciliata (Fabricius) columbiae (Dyar and Knab) x + & Psorophora x + Psorophora cyanescens (Coquillett) ferox (Humboldt) x + & Psorophora & Psorophora howardi (Coquillett) Toxorhynchites rutilus (Coquillett) & + & Uranotaenia sapphirina (Osten-Sacken)
“sampling Methods * Landing Rate Counts + Light Trap & Larval Surveys - 7J72-<-
Table 2. Total number and percentage of female mosquitoes collected in light traps during 1985 and 1986 in James City County.
Total no. z Total no. 4&4 ; Females Females Species 1985 1986 Aedes atlanticus 17 0.1 22 0.4 A. canadensis 2 x1 0 x] As. sollicitans 32 0.2 36 0.6 A. taeniorhynchus 5 «1 24 0.4 A. triseriatus 12 0.1 42 0.7 A. vexans 219 1.2 401 7.0 Anopheles bradleyi & 159 0.8 113 2.0 crucians An. punctipennis 357 0 371 6.6 An. quadrimaculatus 2169 12.0 1305 23.0 Coquillettidia perturbans 237 3 371 2.7 Culex species 5494 4 2121 37.5 Culiseta melanura 1 1 5 0.1 Psorophora ciliata 119 0.7 33 0.6 PRP. columbiae 9074 50.1 945 16.7 RP. cyanescens 0 0 3 0.1 RP. ferox 24 0.1 41 0.7 Uranotaenia sapphirina —_1li1 0.9 __42 0.7 Total 18093 5657
*l] Percent collection is < 0.1] JAMES CITY COUNTY
scatein mites 0 1
11 sitesi Figure 5. LocationsLeet o87. of the twelve propproposed 1ght trap LITERATURE CITED
Adams, C. 1985. The straight dope. The Dallas Observer.
Sept. 19, 1985.
Anonymous. 1986. James City County Annual Report 1985.
County Communications Off. James City Co. Va. l6pp.
Axtell, R.C. 1979. Principles of integrated pest management
(IPM) in relation to mosquito control. Mosq. News.
39(4):709-718.,
Barnes, C. Mes and W. G. Cibula. 1979. Some implications of
remote sensing technology in insect control programs
including mosquitoes. Mosq. News. 39(2):283-287.
Beams, B. F. 1985. Analysis of mosquito control agency
public education programs in the United States. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1(2):212-219.
Bickley, W. E. 1957. Notes on the distribution of
mosquitoes in Maryland and Virginia. Mosq. News.
17(1):22-25.
Bradley, G. H. 1943. Determination of densities of
Anopheles quadrimaculatus on the wing. Proc.
New Jersey Mosq. Exterm. Assoc. 30:22-27.
Carlson, G. A., and D. V. DeBord. 1976. Public mosquito
abatement. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 3:142-153.
Challet, G. L. and J. Keller. 1981. Directory of mosquito
control agencies in United States and Canada. Am. Mosq.
Control Assoc. Fresno, Ca.
- 74 - - 75 -
Chamberlain, R. W., W. D. Sudia, P. R. Burbutis, and M. D.
Bogue. 1958. Recent isolations of arthropod-borne
viruses from mosquitoes in the eastern United States.
Mosq. News. 18(3):305-308.
Chambers, D. M., L. F. Young, and H. S. Hill, Jr. 1986.
Observations on the effects of various income levels on
backyard mosquito breeding in East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana. Mosq. News. (in press).
Clark, G. Ge» W. J. Crans, and C. Le. Crabbs. 1985. Absence
of Eastern Equinine Encephalitis (EEE) virus in
immature Coquillettidia perturbans associated with
equine cases of EEE. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.
1(4):540-542.
Darsie, R. F. and R. A. Ward. 1981. Identification and
geographical distribution of the mosquitoes of North
America, north of Mexico. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.
Fresno, Ca. 313pp.
Dorer, R. E. 1958. Mosquito control highlights from the
states: Virginia. Mosq. News. 18(2):103-104.
Dorer, R. Ees We Ew Bickley, and H. P. Nicholson. 1944. An
annotatived list of mosquitoes of Virginia. Mosq. News.
40(1):48-50.
Dorsey, C. K. 1944. Mosquito survey activities at Camp
Peary, Virginia. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 37:376-387.
Gerhardt, Re Re» J. Cw Dukes, J. M. Faller, and R.C.
Axtell. 1973. Public opinion on insect pest management - 76 -
in coastal North Carolina. N.C. Agric. Ext. Serv. Ext.
Misc. Publ. 97, 81pp.
Gillett, J. D. 1972. The mosquito: its life, activities and
impact on human affairs. Doubleday Co. Inc. Garden City
N.Y. 358pp.
Gladney, W. J... and E. C. Turner. 1969. Mosquitoes of
Virginia (Diptera:Culicidae). Virginia Polytechnic
Inst. Research Division Bull. 49. 24pp.
Hacker, C. S.s De. W. Scott, and J. R. Thompson. 1973. A
Forecasting model for mosquito control. J. Med.
Entomol. 10:544-551.
Hall, R. 1986. Friendly cannibal promising. Pest Control.
54(4):31.
Hall, S. S. 1984. The LaCrosse file. Science 84. 5:54-62.
Hatch, C. EF. Jr. 1957. The first seventeen years, Virginia,
1607 - 1624. Garrett and Massie Inc. Richmond. 118pp.
Headlee, T. J. 1945. The mosquitoes of New Jersey and their
control. Rutgers Univ. Press. New Brunswick. 326pp.
Headlee, T. J. 1932. The development of mechanical
equipment for sampling the mosquito fauna and some
results of its use. Proc. Annu. Meet. N. J. Mosq.
Assoc. 19:106-128.
Hodges, R. Les P. Bez Sabo, D. McCloy, and C. K. Staples.
1985. Soil survey of James City and York counties and
the City of Williamsburg, Virginia. USDA Soil
Conservation Serv. 137pp. - 77 -
Horsfall, W. R. 1972. Mosquitoes: their bionomics and
relation to disease. Hafner Publ. N. Y. 723pp.
Hunt, G. J., and C. S. Hacker. 1984. Computer-generated
maps as an aid to mosquito control. J. Med. Entomol.
21:489-500.
John, K. Hes J. Rw. Stoll, and J. K. Olson. 1987a. The
public's view of mosquito problems in an organized
district. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 3(1):1-7.
John, K. He.» Je Re. Stoll, and J. Ke. Olson. 1987b. An
economic assessment of the benefits of mosquito
abatement in an organized mosquito control district.
J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 3(1):8-14. King, W. V.». G. H. Bradley, C. N. Smith, and W. C.
McDuffie. 1960. The handbook of the mosquitoes of
southeastern United States. USDA Ag. Handbook No. 173.
188pp.
Kraft, S. K. 1985a. Mosquito Control. Pest Control Tech.
13(7):36-40.
Kraft, S. K. 1985b. New housing developments = mosquito
control headaches. Pest Control Tech. 13(7):38, 82.
Langham, M. Res and R. Lanier. 1981. Public mosquito
abatement. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 8:97-99.
Magu, M. R. 1981. A survey of the administration,
Organization and operation of american mosquito control
agencies. Mosq. News. 41(1):13-17.
Morri8, C. Des Je Le Callahan, and R. H. Lewis. 1985. - 78 -
Devices for sampling and sorting immature
Coquillettidia perturbans. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.
1(2):247-250.
Mulhern, T. D. 1985. New Jersey mechanical trap for
mosquito surveys. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc.
1(4):411-418,
Mulhern, T. D. 1976. A training manual for California
mosquito control agencies. Calif. Mosq. Control Assoc.
Visalia, Ca. 176pp.
Nasci, R. Se.» C. W. Harris, and C. K. Porter. 1983. Failure
of an insect eletrocuting device to reduce mosquito
biting. Mosq. News. 43(2):180-184.
Olson, J. Ke 1979. Application of the concept of integrated
pest management (IPM) to mosquito control programs.
Mosq. News. 39(4):718-723.
Ofiara, D. Des and J. R. Allison. 1986. On assessing the
benefits of public mosquito control practices. J. Am.
Mosq. Control Assoc. 2(3):280-288.
Pratt, H. D.» Re C. Barnes, and K. S. Littig. 1963.
Mosquitoes of public health importance and their
control. U.S.D.H.E.W. Now 772. 64pp.
Rapps W. F. 1977. A mosquito management program for the
North Platte Valley of Nebraska. Mosq. News.
37(3):379-382.
Robinson, W. He.» and R. C. Atkins. 1983. Attitudes and
knowledge of urban homeowners towards mosquitoes. Mosq. News. 43(1):38-41.,
Russo, R. J., and S. McCausland. 1983. Strategies of
computer use in mosquito control. Mosq. News.
43(3):311-314.
Sarhan, MT. E., R. Ew. Howitt, and C. V. Moore. 1979.
Pesticide externalities and optimal mosquito
management. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 6:69-84.
Service, M. W. 1976. Mosquito ecology: Field sampling
methods. Applied Science Publ. London. 583pp.
Shisler, J. K., and T. L. Schulze. 1985. Methods for
evaluation of costs associated with permanent and
temporary control methods for salt marsh mosquito
abatement. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1(1):164-168.
Shisler, J. Ke» and W. Harker. 1981. Source reduction as an
economical approach to mosquito management. Mosq.
News. 41(3):419-423.
Shisler, J. Kes Fe. Lesser, and T. Candeletti. 1979. An
approach to the evaluation of temporary versus
permanent measures in salt marsh mosquito control
Operations. Mosq. News. 39(4):775-780.
Simmons, S. Wes G. R. Hayes Jr., and A. D. Hess. 1956. The
pest mosquito problem and its relation to public
health. Mosq. News. 16(1):53-58.
Smith, G. A. Jr. 1986. An educational campaign for mosquito
control in Lexington, Massachusetts. J. Am. Mosq.
Control Assoc. 2(1):97-98. - 80 -
Stajanovich, C. J. 1960. Illustrated key to the common
mosquitoes of Southeastern United States. California.
36pp.
Tanner, C. R. 1984. Mosquito control in the political
environment. Am. Cyanamid Co. Paluszek and Leslie
Assoc. N.Y. 35pp.
VanDerwerker, R. J. 1939. Effective and intelligent use of
the New Jersey mosquito trap for mosquito control in a
local area. Proc. Annu. Meet. Ne. J. Mosq. Exterm.
Assoc. 26:199-212.
VanDerwerker, R. J. 1937. The relation of mosquitoes trap
catches to human comfort. Proc. Annu. Meet. N. J. Mosq
Exterm. Assoc. 24:25-30.
Wagner, V. Ees Re. Hill-Rowley, S.A. Narlock, and H. D.
Newson. 1979. Remote sensing: a rapid and accurate
method of data acquisition for a newly formed mosquito
control district. Mosq. News. 39(2):283-287.
Zungoli, P. Ae and W. H Robinson. 1984. Feasibility of
establishing an aesthetic injury level for cockroach
pest management programs. Environ. Entomol.
13:1453-1458 APPENDIX A
Trap Number: 1 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Sewage Plant Collector John Rightor Year: 85
% Female species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus 2 ~43 Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans 4 85 Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus 4 ~85 Aedes vexans 14 2.99 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 29 6.20 Anopheles punctipennis 5 1.07 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 6 1.28 Coquillettidia perturbans 1 21 Culex species 384 82.05 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata Psorophora columbiae 6 1.28 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox 3 .64 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia Sapphirina 10 2.14
TOTAL: 232 468 700
Total night trap operation: 89 Night annoyance point* was reached: 2 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 2.25% Average number of females per night: 5.2 Average number of males per night: 2.6 Average number both sexes per night: 7.8
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 82
i
2
fb
{ 8
I 62
' [
OL-6
fny
R9
ow
S2
bny/por
€
J
é
2 Bb
b
ve b
I I
-
RR
82
wd
Ob
Le-le
cl
I U1
Aine
91
W
b
ra
02-bl
Rt
49
2
T
I I
I
Aine
Le
A
W
be
82
49
b I
I
Aine CI-d
eS
8t
W
ss
une/une
98
é
9- 2H
l I
Gow
0 tbl 80l
22
O€& GRGT GRGT
2 £
b6
98
2
6c-Ee £
3
oune
6b
W Wed Wed
db
2b
2
22-91
g WNW 4g I
aun ahemas ahemas
6S
el [| [|
_
OO
SI-bl
4d AVIS AVIS aune
0
4H
O AseumNng AseumNng
suetonad
A, A, ¥aamM ¥aamM
snzepnopwisapend suequnjiad
eurstyddes
pue
stuuadizound
suarsauekd 1013934 1013934
aeiqunjod
snyoucysotuaey
tpsemoy
byeL[
tAalpeuq
snjyelsasiay
eunuejauw
SUPJLIE[[OS
Stsuapeued
xOlay Saxag
$n917Ue(
vag
erpt1za [07 [07
satoads
td
satoads
SUPXaA
eruarqzouesn
esoydososd 10g
yoez PIOYdOI0S,
esoydouosd
esOydou0SY esoydosos, desy desy
say,
salt sajaydouy
e7VaSI{N)
Ie
(indo)
aydouy
aydouy
Sapay
sapay
Sapay
xan) [POL [eI0]
Sapay
Sapay
Sapay Sapay yb) 83
qdas
OL-une
J é Ol 89b
eA 002 002
W
| cf2 cf2
ot iJ
Ct 01-8 das OW 1 3das
4t L-l WwW WwW
et GRET GRET
Of J T€-S2 fny WwW
et 2UeLd 2UeLd
0b
82
i
b2-8l abemas abemas
19
Bny
te
ow
[ [ RI RI
d1-1l 1 axis axis
bny
WwW Aseumns Aseumns
sueionad
Ap Ap yaam yaam
sueginzsad
snzepnoewrapenh
PuLslyddes
pue
Stuuadij
suadsauek) uotqIa1 uotqIa1
aeiquin(od
SnNydUAYIOLUIPY
tpsemoy
PIPL(
tXappesq
Panuejaw
SNJOLUASE SuevIIL{ SuevIIL{
xOJay
saxas Stsuapeure) SN917UP
KIS
b1plzzaq
und 10) 10)
1D
Satdads
Satdads
SUBX3A
eruaPzouesn
eucydos0sd
esoydos0sg
e10YdOI0SG Ye} yj0g
euoydouosd
esoydo.10sg des des
sa|aydouy say
saj,aydouy
east [OS [OS {Ie AY
aydouy
indo)
xa[ny
[e10f
[030
Sapay sapay Sapay Sapay sapay Sapay
Sapay 14617
[ny - 84 -
Trap Number: 2 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Windsor Forest Collector John Rightor Year: 85
Species % Female P Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus 2 .07 Aedes canadensis 2 Aedes sollicitans .07 Aedes triseriatus 6 .20 Aedes vexans 22 74 Aeces species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 7 .23 Anopheles punctipennis 211 7.10 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 1770 59.60 Coquillettidia perturbans 5 .17 Culex species 891 30.00 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 4 13 Psorophora columbiae 10 . 34 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox 6 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 34 1.14
TOTAL: 143 2970 3113
Total night trap operation: 94 Night annoyance point* was reached: 56 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 59.57% Average number of females per night: 32 Average number of males per night: 2 Average number both sexes per night: 33
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 85
9b bt
6S
Ol-b Ol-b 6ny 6ny
bny/ior
€
i 89T BI bd UZ
- OZ
82
WwW ¢
L2-12 I 90E ce €02 U
Aine cle
w 9
02-bt
4d Ol
8b bOEe BI BI S22 S22
Aine 60€
OW
S Old Old 0S 8bl
Aine €I-L
612 612 6 6
inc/une
6be
6/
9- J
Ul IST
C9¢
v
0€
WW GA6I
SI2
91
62-€2 2S
col
i
N22
aune 3SAa404
§
OW
10¢
82 8b I
c2-91 bel
AOSPULM a
aune
02¢
6l 2
8
6€ Is
2
SI-bl I I
di
4915 aune
es
WwW Aseumng
sueronas AL yaIM
SuPquNjuad
snze_Neupupendb
pue
PuLuLyddes
stuuadizound
suadsauedk) UOLZD9,
BOLL
aeiqunyod
snysuAysotuaey
1Xa(pesq
Tp.tPMoy
BAnuP[aW
snyelaasisy
SUBJLII{
xOday Saxas
Stsuapeue) SN31}Ue[7e
xaS
ePIptiz.ay__inbo) 10)
saroads
saidads
SueKaA
ePLUuaeOUeI/
es0ydosIOSA
B.INYDOINSY eLOydoI0Sg yoezZ yyog
esoydososd esnydou0sd
sa(aydouy desy [OS
say sayaydouy
eVaST[ND
aydouy
Sapay
Sapay
xan)
Sapay
[070] [e301 Sapay
sapay Sapay Sapay 24617 86
adas adas ol-une ol-une
J é
je70)
OL2I
112 OL6e 168 be Elle
WwW
EbI pf pf RI
Ul StI
9Ic 9Ic
01-8 01-8
ydas ydas
GEec GEec 61 61
01
bel
Ne Ne
19 19
bed bed G2 G2 SR6T
J
T€-S2 6b el él
Cbl ySau04 ySau04 cSt
Bny
WwW
S
4OSPUIM 4OSPUIM
J J
be-8I be-8I 86 86
cle cle
Tel Tel Ul Ul
6£2 6£2
finy finy
W W
L L
2 2
dt-tl dt-tl J J 61 61
LEI LEI be be
l2 l2
9115 9115
Bny Bny
“ce “ce
OW OW
ve ve Asoung Asoung
suetonad suetonad
A, A, yaamM yaamM
suequnjiad suequnjiad snze_nzewtapenb snze_nzewtapenb
pue pue
PulLatyddes StuuadizIund StuuadizIund
UOLIIAL UOLIIAL usae) esoydosns” suassauek)
aeiqunz~od aeiqunz~od
snyduAysoluaey snyduAysoluaey
tpsemoy
WeLptd WeLptd iXappesg iXappesg
Punue(auw Punue(auw
SUPZLIEL SNjJe1saStay xoday
Saxas
StSuapeued StSuapeued SNILTURL SNILTURL
K9S
eipiz eipiz
(OD) (OD) Ssaidads Ssaidads Saideds
SUPXAA eluaezyoueln esroydososd
Puoydasosg yIOg
YIP]
esoydos0sy esoydos0sy
euoydos0sy euoydos0sy
desy desy
Sajaydouy Sajaydouy sajaydouy sajaydouy
sa, sa, iat iat
[OS
ePaStygNy ePaStygNy
IE IE
yinboz yinboz aydouy aydouy
xa[n)
Sapay Sapay Ssapay Ssapay
Sapay Sapay Sapay Sapay (P01 sapay sapay
| Sapay Sapay yybry
e10] Trap Number: 3 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Chickahominy Haven Collector John Rightor Year: 85
Species % Female — Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus 2 .49 Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans 4 .97 Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus Aedes vexans 89 21.65 Aedes species 2 ~49 Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 18 4.38 Anopheles punctipennis l 24 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 29 7.06 Coquillettidia perturbans 88 21.41 Culex species 99 24.09 Cuiiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 6 1.46 Psorophora columbiae 65 15.82 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox 7 1.70 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia Ssapphirina ] .24
TOTAL: 16 411 427
Total night trap operation: 86 Night annoyance point* was reached: 0 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 0% Average number of females per night: 5 Average number of males per night: .18 Average number both sexes per night: 5
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey.
6b £ Saxas yy9g [eIOL Ul T€ l Q2 €9 OF 91 Xag yoez [edo] 02 O co | 91 0 8b I é ol Tr 0 S2@ 9 £ 0 PULULYyddes elude OUeUN i tpaemoyesoydososg XOla} PLOYDOIOSY I suadsaueA) Puoydososg” aeiqun,od esoydouosg
ByeLE1d Puoydos0sd I 6 I I eunuejaw east [ny
vl st n b 2 2 satzads xan) 2 r S
88 Pipi yay inbo) St SI 8 le sueginjiad I £ snzepnoewtapenb sajaydouy 2 t S StuuadijzoUNd sSataydouy
sueyonadpue tXajpesgsajaydouy b 8 I I saioads sapay Sapay S é el SUBKAA é I € S SNJeLsasisysapay I snyduAysoriaey Sapay
SURFITI[OS Sapay 2 Sisuapeuessapay SNd1qUe[Ie Sapay
W 41 WwW 1 WwW 41 WW J WwW J WwW iJ WwW J WwW J WwW 4d
O1-b € - 82 le-leé Oc-bl CI-2 9- 0€ 62e-€2 éc-91 GI-bl Bny = ny /tne Aine Aine Aine = ne/une aune aun _aune
GQH[ uaaey Aurmoyeyxotyy € 9945 AaeuNns ALYaIamMUOL}IAL{O) deay yYybLy 89
idas idas O1-uNt O1-uNt
J é
{e20) 68 BI
62 88 66
lb
Leb
WwW
91 oT oT
4d 01-8 01-8
ydas
“I le
S
b
Re
WwW
c9
ce 8
9
c9 S861
«(0 uaney uaney OL
J bl
1€-Se I bd bd 6ny WwW
> AULWOYPYITYD AULWOYPYITYD
2 v
S
b2-81 1
Bny
W E€ E€
2
21-11 Il
41 91S 91S
6ny
WwW Aseuuns Aseuuns
sueionid A_yYaam A_yYaam
suequnjiad
snzepnoewiupend
eurstyddes
pue
StuuadiyIuNd
SuadsauerAy uO uO
aeiquNnyOd
snydUAysO
PIPI
{psemay
iXajpeaq Ia[ Ia[
eunuejaw
SNyPtsastay SUPJLIIE SUPJLIIE
Saxas
XOlap
Stsuappued snoejuelye snoejuelye
LID
X9S
e1pizzayptLNbo) [OD [OD
Satdeds satoads
SUBXDA
eruaeqouesn Hae
YIeJ 410g
CLOYDOIOSY e1r0ydos0Sd
BInydOIOSG e1OydOI0Sd
euoydos0sd dest dest
sat
Sataydouy [OS [OS sayjaydouy
e3ast[
aydouy
[e201
(eyo)
xan)
Sapay
sapay Sapay
Sapay sapay
Sapay ay6ry sapay
ny Trap Number: 4 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Druid Hills Collector John Rightor Year: 85
Species % Female P Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canaqgensis Aedes sollicitans Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus 1 .22 Aedes vexans 17 3.84 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians l .22 Anopheles punctipennis 29 6.55 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 178 40.18 Coquillettidia perturbans 21 4.74 Culex species 168 37.92 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 3 . 68 Psorophora columbiae 24 5.42 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina ] ~22
TOTAL: 41 443 484
Total night trap operation: 93 Night annoyance point* was reached: 0 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 0% Average number of females per night: 5 Average number of males per night: .5 Average number both sexes per night: 5
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 91
Ol O1-p fny
Bny/ine €
4i ol ol St -
SI 82 ew 0 J
Le-le
be be Te Te Aine
ce
OW € € 02-bI Se cl bb Aine cb €
J
09 97 97 Te
Aine CI-Z
€9
WwW
€
yar
8b
J 02
9 92 92
/une
bS
-
oW 9
OF
9€
61
62-E¢ J 2 GAGT b
Ul
aune
6£
WwW
€ SLLEH
oe
61
4d
2
ce-9l l
I I
aunr
Le Ptnag
Z
o6W p
0
SI-bl 1
aune 991g
n
WwW
0 Asaeumuns
SUP} ApyaaM
INA,
suequnjuad
snzernsewrapenb
PUlLuIYddesS
pue situuadiqound
suarsauek) UOLWDaL{O)
aeiquinyod
snyrudysoruaey
P3FeLp
ipaemoy
tXajpeig
eunuepow
SNIOLIISttY SUPZLILEL SUPZLILEL
XOJaJ
saxas
sisuapeues sndiqzueylyze sndiqzueylyze
K9S
e1piyqayyinbo)
satoads
Ld
saisads
SURXDA
PiuaeJOUeUH
Proyudo10Sd ye] yj0g
ePuoydou0S, esoydouosy esoydososd esaydos0sd deal
Sajaydouy sa, sa; OS OS
e79SI
aydouy aydouy xan)
sapay Sapay 12301
sapay [eI0L
sapay Sapay Sapay
Sapay 14604
[ND 92
ydas
BLT fbb
ot-une J 4 B9T 2
{2301 b8b
wW =6tb =6tb
pt 02 BC
bb Lb
€ 6€ 6€
GR6T J
T€-S2 2b 2b
finy & &
OW
SLLEH
J b2-81 on
bny
PENG
Ww
p Ul
{1-1
1
arts
bny
WwW
Asewuns
supionad
Ap
yaaM
snzyepnoewrspend suequnqjiad
PULULYddes
pye Stuuadiqound
SuadsauerAD
11017939]
aeiqun,od
snyouAysoruaey
B}et,t>
ipsemoy
tAappesq
Punuelaw
snyetiasts
SUPZLIE[
xOlay Saxas
SisuapPues
snd1jue(
xa
eiptizatpenbo)
(0)
saioads
Satdads
SUBXOA
elude
410g yoey
esoydos0sd euoydos0sd
esOydou0sY eu0oydos0sd PAOYdOIOSY
dest
sajaydouy say
sap
LOS
e7ISIL
ye
aydouy
aydouy
OUeIH xan)
[e320] {e301
Sapey
Sapay
Sapay Sapay sapay sapay
Sapay 14614
[ND - 93-
Trap Number: 5 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Kingsmill on the James Collector John Rightor Year: 85
Species % Female P Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans 22 .18 Aedes taeniorhynchus 5 .04 Aedes triseriatus Aedes vexans 50 41 Aedes species 2 02 Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 14 el Anopheles punctipennis 39 .32 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 51 .42 Coquillettidia perturbans Culex species 2751 22.97 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 100 .83 Psorophora columbiae 8930 74.55 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox Psorophora howard? Uranotaenia sapphirina 15 13
TOTAL: 927. 11979 12906
Total night trap operation: 8/7 Night annoyance point* was reached: 64 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 73.56% Average number of females per night: 137 Average number of males per night: 11 Average number both sexes per night: 148
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 94
€b0¢e €b0¢e
J Bb¢ LScl
OI-b BETZ BETZ
6ny
WwW S6 S6
ony/i9r
£
4
OOLT OOLT 882 882 STbt
- Tool
82
WwW 92
Le-le
i tcl Ile Tel
Aine 682
OW 81 cle
O2-b!
I 6cl 6cl 08
Ane 622
ow LI
clb
i 992
bel
€I-L
Aine SEb
€2
ow G86
une/une
89I 1 Ic
9 id
bee
- sater
£
Of W
Lb
62-€2 Ul
ayy 4
aune
WwW uo
[{tusbury et et
c2-91 4d
aune
91 91 € €
W G
SI-bl
aune a915°Aseumns
|
suetonad A,yaaM
snzeyndewupenb suequnjiad
euLuLyddes
pue
stuuadizound
suadsauek) 03991410)
aeiqunyod
snysudysoruaey
{paemoy
271,
iAappesq
eunue
snyeriastsy SUPJLIEL[OS
xXOlay
Saxas
sUSuapeue) SNILqWUeL
eiptiia;zpinbo)
xaS
sayoads
Saidads t>
suexaa
paw
etuaPezOUeI
P4OydoU0Sg e1oydoi0sg yyog
yoez
esoydou0sg euoydouo0s”
esvoydou0sd dPay
say sajaydouy saz
PVASL e Sapsy Ie
aydouy
aydouy
Sapay
xapn)
Sapay
(e201 [e301
Sapay Sapay Sapay sapay yy6t7
IND 95
das
62611
O1-une
JW
ce 0S
S (e90) oor 0€68
2 6€
bt
1Sd2
1S
90621
2c6
bt
J Bol
6€ e
dbl
b
b
I
01-8
dag
Tbe
ow
EL —GRGT —GRGT
Of6l
o£
bI bene 6b9I
€ 8
cl¢é
l o4W
I
ydas bS6!
C-1 Samer Samer
bb
S2be
tb
e S G92
€ ayy ayy 3
Ul
-Te-S20b2-BT
I
8S9€
bny uo uo W
EF2 [ptushuty [ptushuty
BOB
8L2 SSS
S
b 4d b b
I
I
sn
69cI
W Icb G G
bb
ese t I
£ b9S
8
l b
LITT
4d arts arts
0/6
Bny
Ee
W Aseumng Aseumng
Suet A, A,
INID yaam yaam
sueginjuad
snzyeynoewtupenb
Puratyddes
pue
StuuadijIuNd
Suadsauedd U01WIa[[O} U01WIa[[O}
aeLqwN(od
snysudysotuaey
Tp4semoy
tka[peig
P}e1jt>
snyeraasisy
eunuejaw
SuezLIt(
xXOday
saxag
SNd1qUeL SiSuapeue)
xag
Pipizjzalpinboz
saidads
saioads
suexaa
eruse
esoydososg
YyqyOg
PANYydOU0SY
yoeq
eu0Yydos0s,
PLOydosOSY esoydososd
Sal desy desy
[OS
Say, say
Ie
eyAst[N)
aydouy
aydouy
aydouy
ouesH
sapay
[P70] [e391
Sapay xatn)
Sapay
Sapay
SAapay
Sapay
sapoy WYybtY Trap Number: 6 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Pine Ridge Collector John Rightor Year: 85
. % Female species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus 3 1.01 Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans l . 34 Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus Aedes vexans 10 3.37 Aedes species 1 34 Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 3 1.01 Anopheles punctipennis 54 18.18 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 29 9.76 Coquillettidia perturbans 2 67 Culex species 125 42.09 Culiseta melanura l 34 Psorophora ciliata Psorophora columbiae Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox 8 2.69 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 60 20.20
TOTAL: 171 297 468
Total night trap operation: 89 Night annoyance point* was reached: 0 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 0% Average number of females per night: 39 Average number of males per night: 2 Average number both sexes per night: 59
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 97
1 Ot
I
I cl OI I I
I
I 62
S
Ol-v
Bny
€ SE 6€
WwW
Ot
bny/ine
€
I é Se
b
9
Jj
-
82
Ww
6OT:
J
l2-lé
9 6
v cl
«CUTE
Aine
af
WwW
CGC
O2-bI 4
8 61
S
I
Aine
€9
Ww
COE
02 CE
b 9
9
1 I I
I I
Ainge
tI-/
0S
w 1 ow
CSE
tnc/unae
COT
or
9- t
l
9?
WwW
O0€
eC
St
S
9
6¢-€2 I
41
aunt SB6T SB6T
LI
WwW
@ Abpty Abpty
41
9
b
2
b
4J
c2-9t I I
aune
cb autyg autyg
WwW
G2 9 9
u
41
SI-bt
aune arts arts
0
WwW
O Aseuung Aseuung
suetosnad Apyaam Apyaam
sueginjsad
snzepnoeurspenh
eursiuddes
pue Siuuadsi
suazsauek) wo1yIapp~o) wo1yIapp~o)
aeiquinyod
snysuAysotuaey
tpsemoy
PyeL_tD
tAappeuq
eunueyaw
suerdi( SNZOLSASLIY SNZOLSASLIY
snd
XOday
Saxasg
Sysuapeues
ound
Kas
Pipl}
Saivads satdeds satdeds
TPL SUPX3A SUPX3A
eLuaejoueun
e.soydos0sd
PLOYRdNIOSY yi0g
ePu0ydos0SY Yoe7
esoydososd esoydososg
sa| desy desy
[os sat
Sayjaydouy
ay__enbo)
&3aSL
Ie
aydouy
aydouy
Sapay
Sapay
xapn)
[P10]
Sapay Sapay [P10]
Sapay Sapay SApay SApay
Sapay sapay yyhry
[ND 98
ydas 09 or-unr c J L6c S2l [e3OL 89P WwW WwW «II ol IC 01-8
qdas ct €9 f€ 61
ydas 62
t-1 Ol
St
__ é
J 1€-S2 _—_— — YN =
GHEL
Bny le
WwW
et
aBpiy
et
bc-81 41
bt
Bny
aid
WwW
[
9
12
ét-Il
41
atts
le
bny
WwW
9
Aseumng
suetonad
Kp
yaaM
suequnjuad
snyeynoewtipenb
PuLsEYyddesS
pue
StuuadiqouNd
SuadsauPAD
woLgrA[
aPIqWN,oOd
SNyIUAYsOL
[pacmMoy
ByeL{
Aaj
BANuPpaw
SNJPOLLISI
SUPPLDIEL
x0.1a} Saxas
Ssnd1quey si
xa
peug
eipi3zaltpinbo)
Suapeues
10)
Satdads
td satoads
SUBKDA
ePLUaeOUeI
y}0g yrezZ
es0dos0Sq
P404dOI0Sg
eP4s0ydos0sd ePrOydoQu0sd”
ePA1oydo10SY Uae.
desy
[OS
say
sa,aydouy sataydouy
AY
PJASEIND
de
aydouy
[230) [2201
xa(n)
Sapay Sapay Sapay Sapay Sapay Sapay Sapay
34617 Trap Number: 7 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Shellbank Woods Collector John Rightor Year: 85
: % Female species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus 8 52 Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans l .07 Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus l .07 Aedes vexans 17 1.11 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 87 5.69 Anopheles punctipennis 18 1.18 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 106 6.93 Coquillettidia perturbans 120 7.85 Culex species 1076 70.37 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 6 .39 Psorophora columbiae 39 2.55 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox Psorophora howard) Uranotaenia sapphirina 50 3.27
TOTAL: 125 1529 1654
Total night trap operation: 74 Night annoyance point* was reached: 24 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 32.43% Average number of females per night: 21 Average number of males per night: 2 Average number both sexes per night: 22
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey.
yyOg [e301 Ca JE 6b! 89T éel c8 0 0 0 saxas
0.60 0 6—0 xag Yoez [POL 8f b 0. 6«~0 cld 6 oft 9 8el Te ost 8 92 I Putstyddes eluaejouein 61 9 2 8 I [paemoy es0ydos0sd xOlaJ P1OYdNIOSY Suaasauek) euoydososd ae1quinyod esoydou0sd 2 ByeE{12 esOYydoI0S I eANUejaw eVISL IN)
‘ saroadsxajnj S 8bT eI Stl 911 86 49 Suequnjiad eiptzzay[ indo) _ £ 8 I U snyepnsemtapenb sajaydouy 8 c 6 02 02 8 ' Stuuadijound Sa,aydouy et I . suetanad pue tAappeaq sataydouy 62 S 2 € 2 I saidads Sapay SueXaA Sapay I SN}PL4aSi4} Sapay SnyduAysoLuaey Sapay
SUPFIDEL {OS Sapay SiSuapeues Sapay $NI1}UP|Ie Sapay I 4i ow 41 WwW J WwW W di WwW 4d OW J WwW 6e-€2 c2-91 SI-bl OI-b € - 82 le-l é N2-b1 tt-Z 9 - 0&6 aune aunt aune 6Bny= 6ny/tne Ayn ‘ty Ayne Ainge = tng/une
GB6I SPOOM YUeqT{ays Z a9tS Aseuung A_¥I9M UOLZD9{(0) dev, 14617
101
ydas
6251 0S
O2t
OT-UNE 81 9L01
901 8
J £8
LeyoL
bs9l
Sel
W
oT fe
2 OU-8 3d4a5 Lv ot
S89 J
ani | ydas L-T W S86
SBI
J
T€-S2
102
Spoom
Bny
9I
W
yueq
£92
Ol £6
49
b2-81
bee
Bny
(ays
12
|
/£
SLT
9 eel
Ul
“1-1
1
3931S
uy
6ny
t
EI
ésW
Aseuuns
SUPLINJD
ApyaamM
sueqinjiad
snzepnoeuspenb
ePuLstyddes
pue
Stuuadiqound
suadsauek)
u0lz7a4
IPIQUN{OD
snyouAysotuaey
PVPL(
ipsemoy
tAaipesg
Punuie
Snye1sasiay
sueTdt
XO4a$
saxas
Sysuapeued
SN31quUP|ye
Kas
Ctpty
(0)
Lt) saioads
saizads
SUeKaA
paw
eluaeqouesn
y1og
eunydosnsg yoez
P104dOI0Sd
PLOYdOIOSY esoydosi0sd”
e4sOydoIOSY
desay
zat
[9s
sajaydouy sa}
sajaydouy
ePISL[AD
tinbo7
aydouy
Sapay
xan) [PIO [270]
Sapay Sapay
sapay Sapay Sapay
Sapay
yybi7 - 102 -
Trap Number: 1 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Druid Hills Collector John Rightor Year: 86
% Female species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans 2 ~45 Aedes taeniorhynchus 2 245 Aedes triseriatus 3 .67 Aedes vexans 29 6.50 Aedes species Anopheles bradley? and crucians 4 90 Anopheles punctipennis 33 7.40 Anopheles quadrimaculatus &5 19.10 Coquillettidia perturbans 19 4.30 Culex species 147 33.10 Culiseta melanura 1 ~22 Psorophora ciliata 6 1.40 Psorophora columbiae 24 5.40 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox 4 .90 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 3 .67
TOTAL: 82 362 444
Total night trap operation: 116 Night annoyance point* was reached: l Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 0.8% Average number of females per night: 3.1 Average number of males per night: ./ Average number both sexes per night: 3.8
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 103
i 6I-E1
Aine
ow
J Ob
Ol bl
Ul
Aine
21-9 bS
wWw bl
yar/une
4 8S 9€
ol
b
G-62 99
W &
oT
82-22
aune BT
2@
Ql
Ol
12-St
iJ
aune Le
WwW
6 aune
bI-8 et" et"
4d
QB6I
aune #1 #1
L-I S S
OW
SELIM
J
1€-S2 Sl
Aeyw
PLMUG
WwW
[
2-81
4
AILS
él
Aew
W
Asenmung
suetosnid
AL
yaaM
snzepndsewapenb sueqginguad
eursiyddes
pue
Siuuadizound
Suarsauek)
VOLZIAa[
aeiqunt~od
snyouAysotuary
B}e1[
}psemoy
tAaipesg
eunuepaw
snjyetsasiay
sN}zeLsastsy
SUPJEILL
xOuaJ saxas
SiSuapeued
SNI13UPL
xas
erplzqalyinboz
[OJ
saijads
sajjads 42
SUPX9A
eruaeqouesn
yjog YOR]
esoydou0s,
es0ydos0sd PsOYdOIOSY
eroydos0sy ePsoydos0sd
des,
sayaydouy sajaydouy
Sajaydouy
[OS
eVISL{NI
ze
xa(n) [00L (2301
Sapay sapay
Sapay
Sapay
Sapay
Sapay
Sapay
SApay
Yy61I 104
das-Aew
2 A 62 €t-8l iow
£
S8
ef 6I
b Lvl 9
b2 £ 29E
{ p
bbb
eR
41
Or
I é E
I I
I I
qydag_ f1-
cl
WwW
2
das
J
fe
2 6 2 2
9
T
I
/6ny
9-1€
be
Ww
I
cA
J
Of
6b
6 v eT 2
2 c
I
I IT
I
-b2
Gny
09
WwW
OI
J
€2-
61
9
€ £
5
eC
I I
6ny
l?
OW
2
éc
S
E 9t-O1 J
7 l
Ge
bny
WwW
¢
G2
2 2
9
4d 2 l
5 I I OAT
90
Bony
6-C
ON SELEH
bny/ine
GI
2
9
4
e-lé
it PENag
WwW
2 [
co
8
ol
2
J
92-02
I
Aine 3715
92
WwW
Ob Asewming
suetonad ApyaamM
suequnjyiad
snyerndsewiupenb
PuLALYyddes
pue
SituuadtyIUNd
suazsauek) votzIa_[o)
aPIqUN{OD
snysuAysoruaey
B7POt{
tpaemoy
tAa(peuq
SURTLIL[
Pinuejaw
SNzet4ASt4y
SNyPL4aStay
XO.1aj
Saxas
StSuapeuPr SNI1VUP| SNI1VUP|
xag
PLPt
ta
satoads
saizads
SUBX9A
eluaAPyOUeIN
yoe7 yyoOg
esoydosOSG
P4NYdOIOSd eu0ydososd P10ydON0Sd ei0ydos0Sd
27a, drayp
Salt sal
sapaydnuy e3asi
[OS Ie Ie
aydouy
aydouy
[ENbOD
xan)
Sapay Sapay
(e010)
SApay Sapay [e201
Sapay
sapay
Sapay Sapay Sapay yy
(nD Hey - 105 -
Trap Number: 2 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: First Colony Collector John Rightor Year: 86
% Female Species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans 1 -li Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes _triseriatus 1 ll Aedes vexans 64 6.97 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 35 3.81 Anopheles punctipennis 15 1.63 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 56 6.10 Coquillettidia perturbans 36 3.92 Culex species 662 72.11 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 9 .98 Psorophora columbiae 27 2.94 Psorophora cyanescens l .11 Psorophora ferox Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia Sapphirina ll 1.20
TOTAL: 79 918 997
Total night trap operation: 116 Night annoyance point* was reached: 10 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 8.62% Average number of females per night: 7.9 Average number of males per night: 0.7 Average number both sexes per night: 8.6
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey.
Saxas y10g [e301 ot SI SI be Ol LI Kas ye} [e201 = Nn pt 1 ca 6 R ™d 0 0 99 cl be € 9 b St 0 euLslyddes eruaeqoueun Ipaemoy e.10ydos0Sq XOla) BNYTO.I0Sd Sua rsauPAD esodoso0sd JPLQUN,OD PsOydou0Sd ™N ™N i PyeL{L2 esoydos0sd
I Panuejaw eVaSt[n) saidads xatn) suequnjquad eLpiazaytinbo) snzelnoewtspend sayjaydouy 106 Stuuadizound sajtaydouy suetonad pue tAappesqg Sajaydnuy satjads sapay snjyelsastsy Sapay SUPX3A Sapay é b OI | SNP IIS tA} Sapay snysuAysoluaer Sapay SUPTLDIL[OS sapay Sisuapeues Sapay Snd1jueyye Sapay W 41 OW W W 41 WwW W W 6I-€T Zt-9 GS-62 82-ce 12-ST bI-8 L-l Aine Aine pnc/une aune aun aunt aun(’
QRbI Atojoy 35404 2 AILS Aseusng ApyxIaq wot WI9Y {OD dew) 34614
m
a >
!
das-Aew
GE
RIK Gl 95 a
€t-sl i 299 6 p9
lz
I I
Ul
L6A
oW
62
7
ydas CI-Z 2
st c
I
Ee
ow
fA
das/bny
iw
9-T€
b 2 91
b
be
O£-b2 39
ROT
2
l i
I ul
b
I
b
96
Bny
HW
5S
€2-L1
b S 6
b £6
6
S
Ibl
fny
W
FEE
9T-OT
¢
E £6
I 2
S 9
Ony
O21
W QR6T QR6T
PME
I E 2
but 6 l
92
GY
6491
ony
6-€
W Anjo) Anjo)
LBL
Bny/ine
s9 E
l
I E
E
b
4
I
e-leé
56 yS4aty yS4aty
W 2 2
dS
92-02
eA
f
bil
2
2
Aine aVEg aVEg
Fel
NW Aseuung Aseuung
sueponad
Ap Ap yaam yaam
sueginj.ad
snzepnoewispenb
eursatyddes
pue
Stuuadiqzound
suaasauek) uorzda_ uorzda_
JeLqUIN{oO?
snyouAysoruaPey
PIPL{ld
Ipsepmoy
tAajpesq
SNzeltasi4y
PunuPlam
SNZOLsAaSL.I SUPTLILL SUPTLILL
X049J$
Saxas
StSuapeue)
snjique(ye
xas
erptr2zatpinboy lo) lo)
saisads
satdads
SUBKAA
eruarjouesn
P.1dYydos0Sd
Ps0ydoI0SY ye] yqOg
e4OYdNIOSY esoydososd euoydos0sd deay deay
sayaydouy
sataydouy
sat LOS LOS
eVaSt{N)
aydouy
Sapay
Sapay
xapny [ewoyL [e239]
Sapay
Sapay
Sapay Sapay Sapay
Sapay
Sapay WYyHt - 108-
Trap Number: 3 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Windsor Forest Collector John Rightor Year: 86
Species | of% Female P Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus 19 1.22 Aedes vexans 42 2.7/0 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 4 225 Anopheles punctipennis 244 15.67 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 867 55.68 Coquillettidia perturbans 18 1.16 Culex species 342 21.97 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata l 06 Psorophora columbiae 10 64 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox 5 .32 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 5 32
TOTAL: 76 1557 1633
Total night trap operation: 116 Night annoyance point* was reached: 34 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 29.3% Average number of females per night: 13.4 Average number of males per night: 0.7 Average number both sexes per night: 14.1
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey.
saxas yq0g [710] Ob lel o€ 91 el OI l Sl ag
xasg ye} [e201 BIT 6 62 iC It § at of 8 é GS 2 br oT # 860 6F oT ePululyddes eruaeyOUeuN ipaemoy er0ydosnsg xXOday PuNYydoi0Sd suadsauek) epuoydos0sd DPLQUN,[OD eP4OYdOI0Sd BIeLLLD esoydo10SY
eunuepaw eVaSE[ ND satoads xapny P be ol 8 S b £ S S suequnjsad erpiziayEnbo)
109 SNzC_ANIeUNLApeNd$ sayaydouy 6 1S bt ™ Situuadiqzound sa, aydouy
I suetonsd pue tAappesq sa, aydouy saizads Sapay SNJOLIISt4} Sapay SUBXDA Sapay SN}JOLsasisy sapay snysuAysoluaey sapay
sueqIIt[{OS sapay Stsuapeues Sapay sndtquelye Sapay
WwW J W i Ww J wW i WwW i ew i 61-1 21-9 S-62 82-22 I2-sl bI-8 1€-S2 be-8l Aine Aine enc/une aune aune aune Aow Aew
ORG 3SAIOY 1OSpUEM F 3915 AseuNS AL xYaaM01199440) desy 7461)
110 '
das-Aey
€I-8I J
bbz aI
199 2be
LGST
eo
WwW
92
4d ae ae
qydas
€I-Z RE RE
OW 0 0
=das/bny
di 29 ee ee
9-TE
19
OW 6S
O€-b¢c O€-b¢c fel fel
al ce
19
OFT OFT
Bny Bny 6 6 “1?
41
Cc-Ll
bel bS
U2 Lite
finy
WN 0
GRIT
€2 cb
£01
9t-0t
I
{
90e
Ony
Te
W 9861 9861
1 seW 41
690
s 9€ Ost bs
Sb
I
Bny
6-€ ISHIOY ISHIOY
lé
Ol
bay/ine 491
3 saosputm saosputm 69T
e-le ¢
oW E E
GSe
0S
1
p91
41
92-0¢
Qa’
Aine a7ztsS a7ztsS
WwW
G
" Asaeuuns Asaeuuns
suet Ayyaam Ayyaam
oni»
suequnjiad
snzyepNrewLupend
euLstyddes
pue
stuuadiqound
Suazsauek) uo1.da~{o) uo1.da~{o)
aeIQUIN{O.
snysudt.iniuaey
PyeL{LD
iAapeag
ipsemoy
Bunuejaw
SNIPLAASL SN}etsaSi4)
SUPPLILL
XO4d}
savas
SiSuapeued
SNdLjUeL
Xag
eipiz
satoads
satjads
SUPKaA
PLugseJOUeIN
P10YdO.L0Sq esoydos0sd
esoydoinsd HOP]
PudydO40Sd 419g
esoydounsd desy desy
Sajaydouy sal
sajaydouy
ap
[OS
AY
e7ast[N)
Ie
aydouy
inboy
xa[n)
Sapay
[PIO] [e710] Sapay Sapay Sapay
sapay
sapay Sapay
Sapay ryhKliy - lll-
Trap Number: 4 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Chickahominy Haven Collector John Right or Year: 86
% Female species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans 2 82 Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus 2 .82 Aedes vexans 34 13.99 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians l ~41 Anopheles punctipennis 23 9.47 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 52 21.40 Coquillettidia perturbans 19 7.82 Culex species 85 34.98 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 1 41 Psorophora columbiae 21 8.64 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox 2 .82 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 1 41
TOTAL: 31 243 274
Total night trap operation: 116 Night annoyance point* was reached: 1 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: .86 Average number of females per night: 2.1 Average number of males per night: .3 Average number both sexes per night: 2.4
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 112
61-€1
J
Aine
su
3
bt
Aine 21-9 SI
WwW
ot
(ne¢/une
i bl Ib
G-62 Lb
WwW
9 el
R2-ce
J
aune el
Ww st st
6
J
12-Sl I
Zt
aunt
Oc
w di Ww
aT
él
I
aune
bI-8
ONGT
dt
WwW
I
uaney
3
f(t
é I
UT é
aune
f-{
l OT ol
WwW
Aurmoyeyoty)
2
2Z
6
9
J I
1€-S2
Aew
WwW
1
p
l
8
b2-8I
4
9315
Cl
Aew
WwW
Asenmng
suetonad
Ap
yaaq
snjyepnoewtspend suequnjuad
eurstyddes
pue Stuuadijound
SuazsaueAd
u01399(
aeiqwn,od
snysukysotuae,
BIEL
LpaeMoy
pAapesg
punuejaw
SNJeLIaSlAy
SueIIIE[ snyelsasis?
XOlay saxas
Sisuapenied
SNI1WUE[
was eipiz
Ltd
(07)
saidads
Satjads
SUPX9A
etuaryoueun
esoydou0sSY YorRy yyOg
PU0ydou0SY
eudydaiosd
esoydoi0sd es0ydos0sd”
deay
sajaydouy zap
[OS
sayaydouy
Sal
eVasi(Ny
Ie
penbo)
aydouy
Sapay
xapn)
[PIOL [PIL
Sapay
Sapay sapey
Sapay sapay
Sapay sapay
yybry
113
das-Aew
€1-81
J
é
be
é 2
Ebe
Te c
c? eS 61 we
T2 I
I
I
bf”
WwW
TF
4d
S St
I
c
é S
ydasg CI-¢
91
Ww
0
das
ec
3
é
bl
y
I I
I t
/Bny
9-TE
at
ob
Ww
O0f-be
41 oe
5 I G 2 SI
9
I
Bny
Lf
WwW
/
Cc-L1
el
1
Z
9
I
I
fny
l el el
i
Ww
91-01
i
y
I
tr!
ONGT Bny
Ww
UaAeH
2
l
1
6
6ny 6-€
S 6
WwW
AuLWOYyeydIY)
0
bny/ine
S$
€ 2 £
J
c-le
9O
wW
p
9
2
92-02
41
3Vtg Aine
8
WwW
@
Asouuns
sueronad
Apyaam
suequngstad
snjepnsewiupenb
PULALYDAeS
pue
situuadij.ound
suazsauedd
olay
aeiquintod
snyduAysolUuae.
PIePLELD
Ipsemoy
pAaypesq
Punueyatu
SNYRLUaSI.t]
SUPJPLILL SNAJOLSASLA]
Saxasg
XO4aj
SNd12UP;Ie siStiapeue)
xag
P1piz2_pENdbo)
oO) saizads
saioads
SUPX9A
PLUAPOUPIN
yrog
Yyoez
es0ydou0sd PANYdOIOSY eunydos0s”
euNnydosasd esoudososd
dorp
sayaydouy salayqouy
sapaydouy
[OS
BYISLEN)
[e210]
xa[Nn) [eIOL
SaApay SApay sapay
SApay Sapay Sapay Sapay Sapay
yyAry - 114 -
Trap Number: 5 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Norge Collector John Rightor Year: 86
% Female Species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans l .17 Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus l 17 Aedes vexans 117 20.31 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 6 1.05 Anopheles punctipennis 16 2.78 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 40 6.94 Coquillettidia perturbans 12 2.08 Culex species 277 48 .09 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 8 1.39 Psorophora columbiae 92 15.97 Psorophora cyanescens l .17 Psorophora ferox 4 .69 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 1 .17
TOTAL: — 133 576 709
Total night trap operation: 116 Night annoyance point* was reached: 5 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 4.3% Average number of females per night: 5.0 Average number of males per night: 1.1 Average number both sexes per night: 6.1
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 115
61-€1
Aine
W
I
3
Of T
I
Ainge N OD H-
I9 S-62 éI-9
ef
W
2
enc/une
3
6€¢
9€
é
I
Ob
W
CT
i
82-22
€ l
I 1
fl
aune
bl
WwW
oT
1
T2-sl
0.
aune
0
WW
60
3
ft
ol
aun
I
I
bI-8 [
qI
WwW
€
€1
di
Ul I ~
aune
SI
£-T
e
ow
9961
zZ
é S It
2
2
i
T€-S2
Ut
Aew
a610N
WwW
0
G
£
I
€ I
4
be-8l
ot
a2tS
Aey
WwW
s¢
,
Asewuns
suetonad
A,
y¥aaM
sueginjiad
snzepnoewrupenb
PULALYddeS
pue
stuuadiqound
Suaasauek)
UOLWDAL{O)
JPIgIN{O
snysukysoruaey
PELL
[p.emoy
tAajpeuq
Smyetsasiay
snyzeisasisy
Punuepaw sueqist; Sysuapeues SNI17Ne(3e
x04)
saxas
wag
C1pt3zat_nbo?
Ssaizads
satdads LD
SUPXAA
eLUaP
b104dOI0Sq es0ydos0sd yoez
yioOg esoydososd
PsOydOIOSY PLONDOIOSd
desy [Os
sajaydouy say
sal
eVaSL[ND
aydouy
eydouy
OUPIN
SApay
Sapay Sapay Sapay Sapay Sapay
Sapay xan)
[070] [e10L sapay
74617 116
das
ral
Ob 26
9 9T Lle 8 b 949
LIT
I
et-al J
I
I I
-Aew
AO
WwW
EFI
RE é
di
8
é GSS
b I
IZ 9-I€ fI-Z
qydas_
Be
WwW
€2
das
Ff
Or
4d
6 lb b be
I
/6ny 06
II
o6W
Rb
0£
Of-b2 bor
2
J
6I
I I
I
I
I
lel
fny
€2
ou
et
Ob
SI
Il f2-cI 1
I
Ib
Bny
WwW
9
91-01
4
‘LI
l
It
2
£
Ul
I
és
Bny
WwW
1 U2 11
5
S be
£ I
l
I
41
l€
RY
fny 6-£
OW
dt QA6T QA6T
finy/ine
6b
l
€2
2
9
i
Tl
2-l2
/ ny 0/ Afton Afton
te
OW
SI
6
£
I
2
92-02
4
Aine ayes ayes
WwW
€ Aseumng Aseumng
sueionad ApydaM ApydaM
sueginjaad
snzepnoewiupenh
PULA
pue
stuuadizound
suaasauedd UOLIIAL UOLIIAL
aeiqunyod
snysuAysotuaey
Ipaemoy
PyPL{tD
tAappeug
SNzetdasiay
yddes
Bunuepaw
Snzetsasiay
SURTLIL[
xOuay
saxag
StSuapeue)
SNILBNeL
xag
erpiriatyinbo) LO) LO)
satdads
saidads
SUBKAA
BLiAPINNeUn
PAOYdOIOSY esoydo.snsd
esOYydou0S”
esoudososd esoydos0sg 10g
yey dery dery
sa,
[OS sa;aydouy
sat
eVasSL[N)
Ie
aydouy aydouy
Sapay Sapay
xan)
Sapay
Sapay Sapay
[P20f
[P70L
Sapay
Sapay
Sapay yybIy - 117 -
Trap Number: 6 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Kingsmill Collector John Rightor Year: 86
Speci ~ Female peeres Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis
Aedes sollicitans 21 1.86
Aedes taeniorhynchus 5 ~44 Aedes triseriatus
Aedes vexans 64 5.67 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 2 18
Anopheles punctipennis 9 .80
Anopheles quadrimaculatus 22 1.95
Coquilletticia perturbans 11 . 98
Culex species 257 22.78 Culiseta melanura
Psorophora ciliata 6 53 Psorophora columbiae 728 64.54
Psorophora cyanescens l .09 Psorophora ferox l .09 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 1 .09
TOTAL: 193 1128 1311
Total night trap operation: 116 Night annoyance point* was reached: 13 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 11.2% Average number of females per night: 9.7 Average number of males per night: 1.7 Average number both sexes per night: 11.3
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 118
8
é I
61-€T i
Aine
8
O
ow ec
be
b
7
Aine
él-9
o¢
9
Ww
=
ene/une
rt
9 yw
GS-62
SI
ot
Iz
I I
82-22 GW
aunt
Ie
0
bet
£ b b b
gd
I2-Sl
aunt
G2
WwW
od
6
aunt
bI-8
Ul
¢
W
—
Ol
a
aune
bl
L-I
ON6T
b
Ww
[ptusbury
Il
dg
1€-S¢
vl
Kew
€
Ww
6
9 S I I t
I
oa
be-8l
6
aq1g
Aew
60
W
Asewwng
SuPtonaDd
Ap
yaaM SuPgINjsad snjeynoewtspenb
eutstyddes
pue
Stuuadijzound
Sua
aerqwnjos
uoLy
snyouAysoiuae]
byerptd
ipaemoy
dsauery
thalpesq
eanuPpaw
SN}el4asis}
SNyetsasisy
SUPTLIEL
saxag
xOsay
IA
StSUapPUP)
SNItUP|
xag eLpli.9a1{
(09
satovads
satoads
SUPXAA
eruaezouPuy
yor7 yog
P.INYydOsOSY einydososd
ePsOYydos0Sd eroydos0sd esoydos0sg
deay
sajaydouy
sayaydouy
Sapaydouy
[OS
PaSL[N)
TP 4 1NbO)
[P10] [701
xatn)
sapay Sapay
Sapay
Sapay
sapay
Sapay
Sapay
Sapay
yybuy 119
das-Ary 8cll
ce
L6¢
el-8! b9 J Il
T2 Ttel
WwW €6l €b
SI
iJ
CI-2 ydag Sb
WwW ¢
das £6
ce J
I Z0l
/bny
9-T€
WwW OT
9bE ele LT
J
NE-b2
cor
fny
Ww LI c&e c&e
96[ 6¢
€e-L1
1 FSE FSE
Bny
Ww Icl Icl
€¢ b9 SI
9t-Ol
41 UT 89
6ny 6
W
fol
J
6tl
6-€
fny
ORG
WwW
2t
fny/ine
Lpemsbury
699
J
e-le
bl
WwW
RR
g
fb ce ce
J 92-02
Aine
aris Sb
2
W
Aseusng
Suetonad
A,
yaamM
sueqinjiad
snzeinzewtupenb
Pulatyddes
pue
stunadijqound
Staasauek)
uoLWdAY[OJ aPIquN,Od
snysuAyaniuaey
e1et{
[paemoy
tXajpesqg
Punuepaw
snyeqsasisy
SNJOLAISI
SuezLIIL
saxas xOlaj
SiSuapeues
SNILPUeEL
Kas
eipiqiatpinbo)
satdads i>
saisads
SUPXDA
eluaPzoue“n
ye] 410g
eioydos0Sd PAoydns0Sd
euoydos0S, e4soydou0sd esoydosnsd
desl
say
sayaydouy
Sal
OS
e.ast{ny
AY
Te
aydouy
aydouy
(er0L te10}
Kal) sapay sapay sapay sapay Sapey Sapay Sapay
Sapay 14604 ~ 120-
Trap Number: 7 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Hicks Island Collector John Rightor Year: 86
. % Female Species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus 4 .76 Aedes vexans 40 7.58 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 3 57 Anopheles punctipennis 30 5.68 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 138 26.14 Coquillettidia perturbans 35 6.63 Culex species 258 48.86 Culiseta melanura 4 .76 Psorophora ciliata Psorophora columbiae 10 1.89 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 6 1.14
TOTAL: 63 528 591
Total night trap operation: 80 Night annoyance point* was reached: 3 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 3./5% Average number of females per night: 6.6 Average number of males per night: .8 Average number both sexes per night: 7.4
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey.
an Fl Saxag YxIZ [POL 1S 9b G6 LE 6° oF Ont YoP] [PIL 6 6b wag a | fe | b6 9 fl Gg bb Lt 6 98 6 ce 0 CULALNddes eLuaPyouesN
I £ I I [paemoy esoydos0sd xOla}) P10YdOI0S Suadsauek) esoydoso0sd aPIQuiNyoOs esoYydososd é b I I BIEL[LD PAdydos0SY punuejpau PVISLIND I c sarsads xatng 82 BI tb Ol SI Ul 9€ be 8 el Sueginzsad e1pl32alfinbo) b bl sayaydouy ae dl snzepnoewiapenb cl El 8d bl i l 121 stuuadijzound sayaydouy cl b e b suetond>pue ikaipesqsajaydouy I satdeds Sapay SNTELIASL.A] Sapoy é I Suexad Sapay 6 ol 6 2 € I b SNJPLsaSisy Sapay sSnysuAysotuae) sapay SUPJLILE [OS Sapay StStapeued Sapay
sndiquey, ye Sapay
W Jd W dW 9 W 39 W G9 W 9G wd Ww J WwW J G-62 Re-2e €c-<1 91 -O1 6-€ a-le 92-02 61-€t 2-9 aune ‘6ny ‘finy ‘Bony Gny/ine Aine Aine Ainge une/unc
WybL7 9ABT PUBLST SHIH L AILS Asvuming Apy¥Aam wOLyda, (97 deay
122 yas
Ol
852 852 BET BET OC OC
€t-22 SE SE 41 /une
WwW WwW 9961 9961 (b
Jj
‘ydas
le
CI-Z cS
wW
Ul pueysy pueysy
das fo
el
41
/6ny
9-1€
le SHIN SHIN
WwW
0 Z Z
Af
te
2 bl
p 1
0€-b2
I
3 3 3974S 3974S
*bny
6d WwW WwW
9 Aseung Aseung
suetonad
Aj Aj yaaM yaaM
sueqinqiad
snzeipnoewitapend
pue
eursuryddes
stuuadiqound
suazsauek) UOLYIAL[O) UOLYIAL[O)
ae
snysudysotuaP) snysudysotuaP)
tXaipeaq
PTPL(
tpsemoy
SnyeLaaAsiay
qUN,Od
euNtepaW
SNyelsast.t} SUPPIILL SUPPIILL
XYOJazy
Saxas
SiSttapeuP) SiSttapeuP) SNdtjuel SNdtjuel
et Kas
saidads
td
satoads
pi77a{{1Nbo)
SUBX3A
eruaeyouesn
yg
eP4oydos0SY esoydqs0sd CINYTOIOS esoyudos0sd yor
esoyudauasd
sayaydouy desay desay
say
sa, [OS [OS
PPISLIND ye ye
yz
audouy
aydouy
Sapay
xan)
Sapay
Sapay [eyo] [P10]
Sapay
sapay sapay SApay SApay
Sapay Sapay
Sapay Sapay yYybLq
| - 123-
Trap Number: 8 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Riverview Plantation Collector John Rightor Year: 86
% Female Species Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans 9 4.07 Aedes taeniorhynchus 17 7.69 Aedes triseriatus 11 4.98 Aedes vexans Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians 58 26.24 Anopheles punctipennis l ~45 Anopheles quadrimaculatus 40 18.10 Coquillettidia perturbans 2 .90 Culex species 51 23.68 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata Psorophora columbiae 25 11.31 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 7 3.17
TOTAL: 22 221 243
Total night trap operation: 23 Night annoyance point* was reached: 2 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 8.7% Average number of females per night: 9.6 Average number of males per night: .9 Average number both sexes per night: 10.7
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 124
dasfiny
G2
8S Ov
1S 4 Ul
b-€T
€be
&@
ee
W
das
bl
I
ORGI
4
9-1€
/bny
8e
|
W
UOLZEWUEEY
cf
6l
T2
0€-b2
i
‘bony
20l
al
WN
MALAUBALY
Gv 91 Le €2
€2-Ll
4
ca
*Bny
WwW
Q 91
91-01 J
3ItS a1
*6ny 0
WwW
AseumiNS
suetonia
A[xAIM
Sueqinziad
snjyeinoeurapenb
Pitstyddes
pue
Stuuadiq
Suarsauery
VOLII3|
aeLqUN,
snysuAysoruae
PyeL{L>2 Tpaemoy
tXappeuq
eunuepaw
SNjJeLsastay
SN}OLtIStsY
SUPJIIEL
saxas
XOlas
Ststapeues
snotqueyqe
K9S
eLplyzalpindo)
ound
10)
Od
satoads
satdads
SUBYAA
PLuaejyoUeIN
y20g Yyre]
e1dydo.insd eLOYDOUNSd PsOydos0Sd esoydoI0Sd eP1OYydOIOSY
desy
sajaydouy
sataydouy sayaydouy
LOS
e7aSt
{e701 [e391 xa[N) sapay sapay sapay sapay
Sapay sopay Sapay Sapay
34617
[Ny - 125 -
Trap Number: 9 Light Trap Location: James City County Station: Powhatan Shores Collector John Rightor Year: 86
P Male Female Total Each Species
Aedes atlanticus 22 17.74 Aedes canadensis Aedes sollicitans Aedes taeniorhynchus Aedes triseriatus l .81 Aedes vexans ll 8.87 Aedes species Anopheles bradleyi and crucians Anopheles punctipennis Anopheles quadrimaculatus 5 4.03 Coquillettidia perturbans l 81 Culex species 42 33.87 Culiseta melanura Psorophora ciliata 2 1.61 Psorophora columbiae 8 6.45 Psorophora cyanescens Psorophora ferox 25 cG.16 Psorophora howardi Uranotaenia sapphirina 7 5.65
TOTAL: 19 124 143
Total night trap operation: 13 Night annoyance point* was reached: 1 Percent nights annoyance point was reached: 7.6% Average number of females per night: 9.5 Average number of males per night: 1.5 Average number both sexes per night: 11
* The annoyance point is twenty-four (24) or more female mosquitos for twelve (12) hours of operation with the standard New Jersey Light Traps used for this survey. 126
QA6T QA6T
das
bel Se Se
CI-le
J ce
Col $.a.104S $.a.104S /6ny
WwW
6!
UPPEYMOY
ol 1€
4
‘ydasg
Le
CIt-<
9
WwW
das
G
f6
ce
3
90T
/6ny
9-1£
3721S
€T
WwW
Aseimuns
SueLONAD
Apyaam
suequnjuad
snzepnoewt.ipend
eululyddes
pue
StuuadizIund
suarsauekd
uo1yIa]
FOLQUN{LOD
snyduAysoluarey
Tpaemoy
PPL,
tkappesq
Punuejaw
SN}eL4aStA7
SNyel4as14y
SUBPZIILEL
xXO4a)
saxas
SiSUapeUuP)
Sn31juUe(3e
XaS
&1pizzaiyinbo)
td
[OD
satjads
Satdads
SUPX9A
eruaezoueun
esoydos0s4
Ps0ydoINSY yoez yj0g
euoydos0sd
PLOYUDO4IOSY
eLOYdOIOSY
desy
sayaydouy
sajaydouy
Sajaydouy
[OS
east
4°70] [e70!
xan)
Sapay Sapay Sapay
SAapay
Sapay
Sapay Sapay
Sapay
WYybLy
{N) - 127 -
VITAE
John A. Rightor was born on the 14th of August, 1962 in Oil
City, Pennsylvania. In 1980 he graduated from the Oil City
Area Senior High School. He attended the Pennsylvania
State University in 1980 and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Entomology in 1985. He began graduate studies at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in conjunction with the county of James City County, Virgina
in 1985 working towards a Masters of Science degree in
Entomology. He is a member of the Entomological Society of
America and the American Mosquito Control Association.
Presently he is a candidate for a Masters of Science degree
in Entomology. pie Cn Cs J—