The Mosquito Fauna of Arizona: Species Composition and Public Health Implications.

Arizona is home to many mosquito species, some of which are known vectors of infectious diseases that harm both humans and animals. Here, we provide an overview of the 56 mosquito species that have been identified in the State to date, but also discuss their known feeding preference and the diseases they can (potentially) transmit to humans and animals. This list is unlikely to be complete for several reasons: (i) Arizona's mosquitoes are not systematically surveyed in many areas, (ii) surveillance efforts often target specific species of interest, and (iii) doubts have been raised by one or more scientists about the accuracy of some collection records, which has been noted in this article. There needs to be an integrated and multifaceted surveillance approach that involves entomologists and epidemiologists, but also social scientists, wildlife ecologists, ornithologists, representatives from the agricultural department, and irrigation and drainage districts. This will allow public health officials to (i) monitor changes in current mosquito species diversity and abundance, (ii) monitor the introduction of new or invasive species, (iii) identify locations or specific populations that are more at risk for mosquito-borne diseases, and (iv) effectively guide vector control.

COMPARING THE EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT CARBON DIOXIDE SOURCES IN COLLECTING MOSQUITO VECTOR SPECIES ON THE TEMPE CAMPUS OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY.

We compared the effectiveness of 4 different carbon dioxide (CO2) sources (sugar-fermented BG-CO2, sugar-fermented Fleischmann yeast, dry ice, and compressed gas cylinders) in attracting different mosquito species in 2 separate 4 × 4 Latin square trials. The CO2 generated by dry ice and the gas cylinders collected more Culex quinquefasciatus than the sugar-fermented BG-CO2 and Fleischmann yeasts during the 1st trial (16-h surveillance periods), but there was no significant difference in Aedes aegypti numbers. There were no significant differences between the different CO2 sources in collecting Cx. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti mosquitoes in the 2nd trial (24-h surveillance periods). Catches for Culiseta inornata and Cx. tarsalis were too low in both experiments for formal statistical analysis. Data can be used to inform local mosquito surveillance programs, but the selection of a CO2 source will also depend on financial and logistical constraints.