Search

Simple Summary: This article presents the current state of knowledge of mosquito species occurring in Poland. The current work lists the presence of 51 species of mosquitoes from five genera: Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Culiseta, and Culex, compared to 47 species recorded in works published before 2000. Aspects of the ecology and biology of the Polish mosquito fauna, with particular emphasis on newly recorded species, are discussed. This article presents the current state of knowledge of mosquito species (Diptera: Culicidae) occurring in Poland. In comparison to the most recently published checklists (1999 and 2007), which listed 47 mosquito species, four species (Aedes japonicus, Anopheles daciae, Anopheles hyrcanus, and Anopheles petragnani) are added to the Polish fauna. Our new checklist of Polish mosquito fauna includes 51 species of mosquitoes from five genera: Aedes (30), Anopheles (8), Coquillettidia (1), Culiseta (7), and Culex (5). Aspects of the ecology and biology of the Polish mosquito fauna, with particular emphasis on newly recorded species, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Different trapping devices and attractants are used in the mosquito surveillance programs currently running in Europe. Most of these devices target vector species belonging to the genera Culex or Aedes, and no studies have yet evaluated the effectiveness of different trapping devices for the specific targeting of Anopheles mosquito species, which are potential vectors of malaria in Europe. This study aims to fill this gap in knowledge by comparing the performance of trapping methods that are commonly used in European mosquito surveillance programs for Culex and Aedes for the specific collection of adults of species of the Anopheles maculipennis complex. Methods The following combinations of traps and attractants were used: (i) BG-Sentinel 2 (BG trap) baited with a BG-Lure cartridge (BG + lure), (ii) BG trap baited with a BG-Lure cartridge and CO2 (BG + lure + CO2), (iii) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-like trap (CDC trap) baited with CO2 (CDC + CO2), (iv) CDC trap used with light and baited with BG-Lure and CO2 (CDC light + lure + CO2). These combinations were compared in the field using a 4 × 4 Latin square study design. The trial was conducted in two sites in northeastern Italy in 2019. Anopheles species were identified morphologically and a sub-sample of An. maculipennis complex specimens were identified to species level by molecular analysis. Results Forty-eight collections were performed on 12 different trapping days at each site, and a total of 1721 An. maculipennis complex specimens were captured. The molecular analysis of a sub-sample comprising 254 specimens identified both Anopheles messeae/Anopheles daciae (n = 103) and Anopheles maculipennis sensu stricto (n = 8) at site 1, while at site 2 only An. messeae/An. daciae (n = 143) was found. The four trapping devices differed with respect to the number of An. messeae/An. daciae captured. More mosquitoes were caught by the BG trap when it was used with additional lures (i.e. BG + lure + CO2) than without the attractant, CO2 [ratioBG+lure vs BG+lure+CO2 = 0.206, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.101–0.420, P