| Title |
Laboratory studies on the oviposition stimuli of Culicoides stellifer (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae), a suspected vector of Orbiviruses in the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Parasites & Vectors, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13071-018-2891-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dinesh Erram, Nathan Burkett-Cadena |
| Abstract |
Biting midges of the genus Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) exert a significant impact on animal agriculture worldwide because they transmit bluetongue virus (BTV) and epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV) to ruminants. Without effective vaccines, BTV/EHDV vector management strategies are needed, particularly in commercial white-tailed deer (WTD) facilities. However, detailed information on the ecology of midge immatures in/around cervid operations is currently lacking. Towards filling this knowledge gap, we conducted two-choice oviposition experiments with field-collected Culicoides stellifer Coquillett (a suspected vector of BTV/EHDV in the USA) under laboratory conditions to examine which natural source from the larval habitat is relatively more attractive for midge oviposition. Field-collected C. stellifer females (CDC-UV light traps) were given a blood meal from live chicken and examined for their oviposition preferences for individual (or mixed) potential larval habitat oviposition stimuli in two-choice bioassays. Substrates included mud from C. stellifer habitat, mud from allopatric site, vegetation (Sphagnum spp. mosses), field water, WTD manure and de-ionized water (control). The majority of midges (91%) oviposited in only one dish, with few females (9%) ovipositing in both the dishes. Gravid females demonstrated an overall oviposition preference for substrates with mud and vegetation from the larval habitat, depositing a significantly higher proportion of eggs on mud (52.3%) and vegetation (81.8%) than on controls (≤ 18.2%) (P ≤ 0.0320). Moreover, greater number of eggs per female were deposited on mud (29.5-40.7 depending on trial) and vegetation (38.2) than on controls (≤ 5.8). WTD manure, field water and mud from allopatric site were not found to be more attractive than controls for oviposition. Combining individual substrates (mud + WTD manure; mud + moss + WTD manure + field water) did not elicit greater oviposition responses than mud or moss alone. Management strategies to discourage C. stellifer oviposition in/around commercial cervid facilities should likely focus on mud and/or vegetation, rather than WTD manure. However, further studies are needed to examine whether the spatial distributions of C. stellifer and Sphagnum spp. moss are correlated, and to determine whether targeting vegetation in/around cervid facilities can contribute to reductions in local midge densities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 27% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,902,535
of 23,055,429 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#2,621
of 5,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,348
of 327,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#85
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,055,429 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.