Taming a tiger in the city: Comparison of motorized backpack applications and source reduction against the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus

Debin Sun, Eric Williges, Isik Unlu, Sean Healy, Gregory M. Williams, Peter Obenauer, Tony Hughes, George Schoeler, Randy Gaugler, Dina Fonseca, Ary Farajollahi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We evaluated 2 strategies to manage Aedes albopictus: 1) motorized backpack applications and 2) source reduction (coupled with hand-applied applications of larvicide). Backpack applications used a water-dispersible granular formulation (VectoBac® WDG) of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti), whereas source reduction used granular formulations of the insect growth regulator methoprene (Altosid®) combined with a monomolecular film surfactant (Agnique®). Six subplots (total 8.02 ha) were selected for backpack applications, source reduction, and control groups. The experiments were blind with applications conducted randomly and independently. Efficacy was determined through placement of bioassay cups with larvae within experimental plots 1 day before treatment. Backpack applications resulted in 76% (±8.2% SE) and source reduction resulted in 92% (±4.1% SE) larval mortality. Backpack applications required 50 times less labor than source reduction (0.25 versus 0.005 ha/h). The cost of backpack applications, including labor, was $159.88/ha, compared with $659.65/ha for source reduction. Although overall efficacy was slightly lower, motorized backpack applications of Bti were more efficient and cost-effective than source reduction methods to control Ae. albopictus in urban settings at the community level.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)99-105
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American Mosquito Control Association
Volume30
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Methoprene
Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis
Tigers
Aedes albopictus
Aedes
Panthera tigris
Culicidae
mosquito
labor
larvicides
Costs and Cost Analysis
Juvenile Hormones
methoprene
Bacillus thuringiensis
insect growth regulators
Surface-Active Agents
surfactants
Biological Assay
Larva
hands

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Insect Science

Keywords

  • Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis
  • Bti
  • backpack applications
  • hand applications
  • methoprene

Cite this

Sun, Debin ; Williges, Eric ; Unlu, Isik ; Healy, Sean ; Williams, Gregory M. ; Obenauer, Peter ; Hughes, Tony ; Schoeler, George ; Gaugler, Randy ; Fonseca, Dina ; Farajollahi, Ary. / Taming a tiger in the city : Comparison of motorized backpack applications and source reduction against the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus. In: Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2014 ; Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 99-105.
@article{bc1920269bf3454198957843ceb3fffa,
title = "Taming a tiger in the city: Comparison of motorized backpack applications and source reduction against the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus",
abstract = "We evaluated 2 strategies to manage Aedes albopictus: 1) motorized backpack applications and 2) source reduction (coupled with hand-applied applications of larvicide). Backpack applications used a water-dispersible granular formulation (VectoBac{\circledR} WDG) of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti), whereas source reduction used granular formulations of the insect growth regulator methoprene (Altosid{\circledR}) combined with a monomolecular film surfactant (Agnique{\circledR}). Six subplots (total 8.02 ha) were selected for backpack applications, source reduction, and control groups. The experiments were blind with applications conducted randomly and independently. Efficacy was determined through placement of bioassay cups with larvae within experimental plots 1 day before treatment. Backpack applications resulted in 76{\%} (±8.2{\%} SE) and source reduction resulted in 92{\%} (±4.1{\%} SE) larval mortality. Backpack applications required 50 times less labor than source reduction (0.25 versus 0.005 ha/h). The cost of backpack applications, including labor, was $159.88/ha, compared with $659.65/ha for source reduction. Although overall efficacy was slightly lower, motorized backpack applications of Bti were more efficient and cost-effective than source reduction methods to control Ae. albopictus in urban settings at the community level.",
keywords = "Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis, Bti, backpack applications, hand applications, methoprene",
author = "Debin Sun and Eric Williges and Isik Unlu and Sean Healy and Williams, {Gregory M.} and Peter Obenauer and Tony Hughes and George Schoeler and Randy Gaugler and Dina Fonseca and Ary Farajollahi",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2987/13-6394.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "99--105",
journal = "Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association",
issn = "8756-971X",
publisher = "American Mosquito Control Association",
number = "2",

}

Taming a tiger in the city : Comparison of motorized backpack applications and source reduction against the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus. / Sun, Debin; Williges, Eric; Unlu, Isik; Healy, Sean; Williams, Gregory M.; Obenauer, Peter; Hughes, Tony; Schoeler, George; Gaugler, Randy; Fonseca, Dina; Farajollahi, Ary.

In: Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, Vol. 30, No. 2, 01.01.2014, p. 99-105.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Taming a tiger in the city

T2 - Comparison of motorized backpack applications and source reduction against the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Aedes albopictus

AU - Sun, Debin

AU - Williges, Eric

AU - Unlu, Isik

AU - Healy, Sean

AU - Williams, Gregory M.

AU - Obenauer, Peter

AU - Hughes, Tony

AU - Schoeler, George

AU - Gaugler, Randy

AU - Fonseca, Dina

AU - Farajollahi, Ary

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - We evaluated 2 strategies to manage Aedes albopictus: 1) motorized backpack applications and 2) source reduction (coupled with hand-applied applications of larvicide). Backpack applications used a water-dispersible granular formulation (VectoBac® WDG) of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti), whereas source reduction used granular formulations of the insect growth regulator methoprene (Altosid®) combined with a monomolecular film surfactant (Agnique®). Six subplots (total 8.02 ha) were selected for backpack applications, source reduction, and control groups. The experiments were blind with applications conducted randomly and independently. Efficacy was determined through placement of bioassay cups with larvae within experimental plots 1 day before treatment. Backpack applications resulted in 76% (±8.2% SE) and source reduction resulted in 92% (±4.1% SE) larval mortality. Backpack applications required 50 times less labor than source reduction (0.25 versus 0.005 ha/h). The cost of backpack applications, including labor, was $159.88/ha, compared with $659.65/ha for source reduction. Although overall efficacy was slightly lower, motorized backpack applications of Bti were more efficient and cost-effective than source reduction methods to control Ae. albopictus in urban settings at the community level.

AB - We evaluated 2 strategies to manage Aedes albopictus: 1) motorized backpack applications and 2) source reduction (coupled with hand-applied applications of larvicide). Backpack applications used a water-dispersible granular formulation (VectoBac® WDG) of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti), whereas source reduction used granular formulations of the insect growth regulator methoprene (Altosid®) combined with a monomolecular film surfactant (Agnique®). Six subplots (total 8.02 ha) were selected for backpack applications, source reduction, and control groups. The experiments were blind with applications conducted randomly and independently. Efficacy was determined through placement of bioassay cups with larvae within experimental plots 1 day before treatment. Backpack applications resulted in 76% (±8.2% SE) and source reduction resulted in 92% (±4.1% SE) larval mortality. Backpack applications required 50 times less labor than source reduction (0.25 versus 0.005 ha/h). The cost of backpack applications, including labor, was $159.88/ha, compared with $659.65/ha for source reduction. Although overall efficacy was slightly lower, motorized backpack applications of Bti were more efficient and cost-effective than source reduction methods to control Ae. albopictus in urban settings at the community level.

KW - Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis

KW - Bti

KW - backpack applications

KW - hand applications

KW - methoprene

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902658245&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902658245&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2987/13-6394.1

DO - 10.2987/13-6394.1

M3 - Article

C2 - 25102592

AN - SCOPUS:84902658245

VL - 30

SP - 99

EP - 105

JO - Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association

JF - Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association

SN - 8756-971X

IS - 2

ER -