Host-seeking activity and avian host preferences of mosquitoes associated with West Nile virus transmission in the northeastern U.S.A.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mosquito host-seeking activity was studied using a custom-designed trap to explore: (1) at which time interval of the night adult mosquito abatement would be most effective, and (2) if there exists an avian-specific host-seeking preference. Overnight trials using traps baited with dry ice showed that Aedes taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann) was most active at dusk and was then captured throughout the night. In contrast, Culex spp. (Cx. pipiens (Linnaeus) and Cx. restuans (Theobald) delayed most activity until about two h after dusk and were then captured through the night. This pattern suggests that management activities directed at adult Culex spp. would be most effective if initiated well after sunset. Mosquito capture rates in traps baited with birds in net bags were significantly greater than those with empty net bags, indicating that mosquitoes were attracted to the birds and not incidentally being sucked in by the custom trap's strong fan motor (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, n=24, t=30, p<0.05). Regression analysis showed that bird weight influenced mosquito attraction (r2=0.21, p=0.02). Trials with paired traps that contained different native bird species showed that Gray Catbirds, Dumatella carolinensis, attracted more mosquitoes than the heavier Northern Cardinals, Cardinalis cardinalis (paired samples t-test, t=2.58, df=7, p=0.04). However, attractiveness did not differ substantially among bird species, and Gray Catbirds did not attract more mosquitoes than all other birds combined as a group. American Robins, Turdus migratorius (n=4) were comparable in attractiveness to other bird species, but not enough American Robins were captured for a comprehensive study of mosquito avian preference.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".