2019
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3606-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of subsampling methods for large mosquito samples

Abstract: Background The analysis of large mosquito samples is expensive and time-consuming, delaying the efficient timing of vector control measurements. Processing a fraction of a sample using a subsampling method can significantly reduce the processing effort. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the reliability of different subsampling methods is missing. Methods A total of 23 large mosquito samples (397–4713 specimens per sample) were compared in order to evaluate five sub… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At least 20% of each trap collection sample was identified to species using this technique, with the proportion tending toward 100% where samples contained fewer than 100 individuals. This method is considered to be accurate, and with minimal estimation error for the relative abundance of species (Jaworski et al 2019), and is in concordance with the sampling approach of others (Reinert 1989). Each mosquito from all light traps in both years was visually inspected for the presence of the fluorescent marking dust using a compound microscope and external UV (black) lights in a dark room.…”
Section: -Study Sitesupporting
confidence: 71%
“…At least 20% of each trap collection sample was identified to species using this technique, with the proportion tending toward 100% where samples contained fewer than 100 individuals. This method is considered to be accurate, and with minimal estimation error for the relative abundance of species (Jaworski et al 2019), and is in concordance with the sampling approach of others (Reinert 1989). Each mosquito from all light traps in both years was visually inspected for the presence of the fluorescent marking dust using a compound microscope and external UV (black) lights in a dark room.…”
Section: -Study Sitesupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Although in our estimations the consistency averaged 24%, this estimate maintained a positive correlation with the total amount of A. cannabicola per leaflet, regardless of the time and growing conditions. A similar approach to determine adult mosquito abundances showed evidence of acceptable consistency between image-based and direct counts (Jaworski et al 2019). The high correlation values between A. cannabicola counts on the distal and middle leaflet sections could be attributed to preference of mites associated with strategies such as nutrient availability, protection from predators, dispersal behavior, and environmental conditions (Zanolli et al 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We evaluated the consistency of subsamples explaining the number of mites per sample (Jaworski et al 2019). Consistency was estimated as the percentage of A. cannabicola per photograph with respect to the total number of mites tallied with the microscope (Consistency = number of mites per photo × 100/total number of mites from the microscope count).…”
Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also investigated the feasibility of using ImageJ to take automated whitefly counts under UV light, as previous research has shown its feasibility under standard white light (Moerkens et al, 2019). However, we were not able to use image evaluation parameters from Moerkens et al nor methods developed for other insects (Kesavaraju & Dickson, 2012;Jaworski et al, 2019;Parker et al, 2020), as the UV images differed in several ways from their white light counterparts (methods and results not shown). Our best attempt at a novel ImageJ protocol still overestimated whitefly counts on the lowdensity cards (e.g., r = 0.90, mean bias = 32.9) and grossly underestimated the counts on the high-density cards (e.g., r = 0.32, mean bias = −718.8).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%