Joumal of the American Mosquito Control Association, l3(l):71J5' L99'l Copyright @ 1997 by the American Mosquito Control Association' Inc. HOST PREFERENCE OF MOSQUITOES IN BERNALILLO COUNTY NEW MEXICO''' K. M. LOF[IN,3j R. L. BYFORD,3 M. J. LOF[IN,3 M. E. CRAIG,T t'ro R. L. STEINERs ABSTRACT. Host preference of mosquitoes was determined using animal-baited traps. Hosts used in the study were cattle, chickens, dogs, and horses. Ten mosquito species representing 4 genera were collected from the animal-baited traps. Aedes vexans, Aedes dorsalis, Culex quinquefasciatus, Culex tarsalis, and Culiseta inomata were used as indicator species for data analysis. Greater numbers of Ae. vexans, Ae. dorsalis, and C.s. inornata were collected from cattle and horses than from chickens or dogs. In addition, engorgement rates were higher on mammals than on chickens. Engorgement and attraction data for Cx. quinquefasciatrs suggested a preference for chickens and dogs over cattle and horses. A slight preference for chickens and dogs was seen with Cx. tarsalis, but the degree of host preference of C.r. tarsalis was less than that in either Ae. vexans or Cx. quinquefasciatus. INTRODUCTION used cattle-baited traps to determine the biting flies and mosquitoes attacking cattle in Canada. Host preference is an important aspect of arthro- Studiesin the USA comparing relative attraction pod-borne diseases. Determining the host prefer- of multiple host species in traps are limited. In a ence of mosquitoes can aid in understanding the Texas rice-growing area, Kuntz et al. (1982) used transmissionof diseaseswithin a geographicalarea multiple, paired host speciesto determine that cattle (Defoliart et al. 1987). Mosquito host preference and horseswere the preferredhosts for Psorophora varies among geographical strains of the same mos- colurnbiae (Dyar and Knab). quito species.In addition, host preference studies The only previous study concerning host pref- potential have led to mosquito control strategies erence in New Mexico was conducted by Jones et (Kuntz et d. 1982). al. (1977), who identified the biting flies and mos- Bertsch and (1983), Norment using the capillary quitoes that attack horses. The presence of mos- precipitin method, determined the sources of blood quito-borne diseasessuch as canine heartworm dis- meals from field-collected Culex quinquefasciatus ease(Pfaffenberger and Fawcett 1983) and western Say in Mississippi. Their study showed prefer- a equine encephalitis (WEE) (Clark et al. 1986) sug- ence for avian hosts. Other researchers(Jones et al. gests that host preference research is needed in 1977, Kuntz et ^1. 1982, McCreadie et al. 1984) New Mexico. have used animal-baited traps to study mosquito ln our study, traps baited with chickens, a cow, host preference. a dog, and a horse were used to determine the host Most studies using animal-baited traps have de- preference of mosquitoes in north-central New termined the mosquito species attracted to a single Mexico. The study design allowed mosquitoes to host specieswithin a region. Dog-baited traps were choosefrom 4 host speciesand evaluatedpreferred used to find species composition and abundance in domestic hosts, potential vectors of diseasesof do- Indiana (Pinger 1985), Tennessee(Hribar and Ger- mestic animals, and relative host utilization of sev- hardt 1986), and Louisiana (Villavaso and Steelman eral mosquito species. I970a,1970b). Joneset al. (L977')used horse-bait- ed traps to identify potential vectors of Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) in the southwestern MATERHLS AND METHODS United States. Horses also were used to identify potential vectors of Potomac horse fever in Mary- Study sites: Mosquito trapping was conducted at land (Fletcher et d. 1988). McCreadie et al. (1984) 2 sites in the Rio Grande Valley in Bernalillo Co., New Mexico. The south valley site (site l) was an agricultwal area consisting of small, irrigated farms rThis research was supported in part by the New Mex- and pastures. In addition, a dairy operation was lo- ico Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State cated 1.2 km north and a small dog kennel was University, Las Cruces, NM, and the Albuquerque Envi- located 0.4 km west of the site. No domestic ani- ronmental Health Department, Albuquerque, NM. mals were present in the pasture during trapping. 'Animals used in this study were handled with the ap- The north valley site (site 2) was 24.2 km north proval and under the guidelines of the New Mexico State of site 1. Trapping was conducted on fenced prop- University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. 3 erty between an irigation canal and a pasture. The Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and area directly east consisted of mixed hardwood Weed Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, tree NM 88003. species and other vegetation. In comparison to site a Present address: 4823 Old 12 Crossroad. Chester. AR l, fewer domestic livestock were present in the sur- 72934. rounding area and no domestic animals were pres- 5 University Statistics Center, New Mexico State Uni- ent in the immediate trapping area. versity, Las Cruces, NM 88OO3. Iraps; Stable traps, 1.22 x 2.2O X 1.68 m, were 7l 72 JounNer- oF THE AMERTCAN Moseurro Cournol AssoctATroN Vol. 13, No. I constructed of standard aluminum screen (7 X 6 indicator species for data analysis. Site differences mesh/cm) and square steel rubing (1.9 cm). The ba_ within year for number of mosquitoes collected sic-design of the traps was similar to that used by were not statistically significant (X, : 6.48, p : Roberts (1965); however, rhe sides were modified, 0.09), but there were differences between years (1, with openings(1.3-1.9 : cm) running the length of 336, P < 0.0001). This year difference was de- the traps at heights of 22.9, 77.j, and 121.9 cm tected because of the large number (and therefore from ground level. These openingscould be closed high power of the test) of mosquitoes in the study. easily to prevent mosquitoesfrom entering or leav- Although the year difference was detected, trends ing traps. Nylon netting was placed behind each for host use were the same over years, so data were door to minimize mosquito loss when animals were pooled for final analysis. removed. Traps were placed 8 m apart and appro- Data summaries (Thbles 1-5) showed similar priate animal restraints were used to restrict animal seasonal distributions for Aedes and Culex indicator movement within traps. species, with low numbers of mosquitoes collected Design: Tfapping was conducted monthly from in June and September, and higher abundance in Junethrough Septemberat both sites.Each trapping July and August. Culiseta inornata catches were period consisted of 4 consecutive nights at each lowest in July, but due to the small number col- site. Using a random number table, relative loca- lected, this may not have shown the actual seasonal tions of animals were assignedfor each trapping distribution. Peak catches occurred in August for night. Because of the individualized animal re- all 5 species. straining modifications and possible residual host Total numbers collected, engorgement percent- odor, traps were rotated daily to assigned animal age, and proportion of engorged mosquitoes locations. Also, traps were washed out daily with showed preferences for either large or small animal tap water to minimize residual odor. hosts. Signiflcant differences were observed in host Animals used in the study were a cow (270 kg), preference parameters for attraction (X' : 7,514, P a horse (290 kq-),a dog (20 kg), and 6 chickens (3 < 0.0001) and engorgement (X' : 4,470, P < kg). Animals were placed in their respectivecages 0.001). at 1900 h; once all animals were in place, side slots Aedes vexans.' Collection numbers, percentage were opened,allowing host-seekingmosquitoes ac- of engorgement, and the proportion of engorged Ae. cessto bait animals. Side slots were closed at 070O vexans collected from each host showed that this h the following morning and traps were left undis- species preferred cattle and horses over chickens turbed for an additional 3Omin, allowing any unfed and dogs (Table 1). For all monthly trapping peri- mosquitoesthe opportunity to engorge.Mosquitoes ods, the cow and horse attracted almost the same then were collected with a battery-powered aspi- numbers of mosquitoes, and both hosts consistently rator (Meek et al. 1985) and identified according to attracted more than 3-fold as many mosquitoes as Darsie and Ward (1981). Engorgement was deter- the dog or chickens. Ninety-seven percent of allAe. mined by the expansionand coloration of engorged vexans collected from both the horse and cow were mosquitoes (Edman and Kale 1971). Partially en- engorged, versus engorgement rates of 78Vo for the gorged individuals were classif,edas engorged. dog and 34Vo for the chickens. The proportion of Data analysis was based on the number of mos- engorged mosquitoes collected from the large ani- quitoes attracted and number of engorged mosqui- mal hosts was similar, with 0.43 collected from the toes collected from the various hosts by site and horse and 0.46 collected from the cow. Small ani- year. The chi-square likelihood ratio statistic was mal hosts were less utilized, witln 8Vo of engorged used to compare utilization of each animal by se- mosquitoes collected from the dog and 3Vo from lected mosquito species. The chi-square test for chickens. These results agree with studies on wild- equal attraction or engorgementwas rejected at P collected Ae. vexans in Florida (Edman 1971) and < 0.01. Indiana (Nasci 1984). Both authors found that larg- er mammals served as primary blood sources for Ae. vexans. However, Edman (197I) suggested that RESULTS AND DISCUSSION blood meal sources are closely related to the avail- Ten mosquito speciesrepresenting 4 generawere ability of hosts within an area.