Next Article in Journal
Net-Winged Midge Genus Blepharicera Macquart (Diptera: Blephariceridae) in China: The First DNA Barcode Database with Descriptions of Four New Species and Notes on Distribution
Next Article in Special Issue
Lethal, Sub-Lethal and Trans-Generational Effects of Chlorantraniliprole on Biological Parameters, Demographic Traits, and Fitness Costs of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Parasitism by the Tachinid Parasitoid Exorista japonica Leads to Suppression of Basal Metabolism and Activation of Immune Response in the Host Bombyx mori
Previous Article in Special Issue
RNAi-Mediated Silencing of Putative Halloween Gene Phantom Affects the Performance of Rice Striped Stem Borer, Chilo suppressalis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/insects13090793
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Aedes Mosquito Surveillance Using Ovitraps, Sweep Nets, and Biogent Traps in the City of Yaoundé, Cameroon

by
Borel Djiappi-Tchamen
1,2,*,
Mariette Stella Nana-Ndjangwo
2,3,
Elysée Nchoutpouen
4,
Idene Makoudjou
2,3,
Idriss Nasser Ngangue-Siewe
2,5,
Abdou Talipouo
2,3,
Marie Paul Audrey Mayi
1,
Parfait Awono-Ambene
2,
Charles Wondji
4,6,
Timoléon Tchuinkam
1 and
Christophe Antonio-Nkondjio
2,6,*
1
Vector Borne Diseases Laboratory of the Research Unit Biology and Applied Ecology (VBID-RUBAE), Department of Animal Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Dschang, Dschang P.O. Box 067, Cameroon
2
Institut de Recherche de Yaoundé (IRY), Organisation de Coordination pour la lutte Contre les Endémies en Afrique Centrale (OCEAC), Yaoundé P.O. Box 288, Cameroon
3
Laboratory of Parasitology and Ecology, Department of Animal Physiology and Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Yaoundé I, Yaoundé P.O. Box 337, Cameroon
4
Centre for Research in Infectious Disease (CRID), Yaoundé P.O. Box 13591, Cameroon
5
Laboratory of Biology and Physiology of Animal Organisms, Faculty of Sciences, University of Douala, Douala P.O. Box 24157, Cameroon
6
Vector Biology Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2022, 13(9), 793; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090793
Submission received: 25 July 2022 / Revised: 27 August 2022 / Accepted: 29 August 2022 / Published: 31 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Managing Invasive Insects: Good Intentions, Hard Realities)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The emergence/re-emergence of arboviruses diseases including dengue, chikungunya, and yellow fever is of serious public health concern in Cameroon and vector surveillance is a key component of prevention strategies. Entomological surveys were carried out in and around the city of Yaoundé, Cameroon, using different collection methods including ovitraps, Biogent Sentinel traps, and sweep nets to assess Aedes species distribution. Results indicated high infestation level of Aedes species using ovitraps in the city of Yaoundé. The situation calls for regular surveillance and control of Aedes population to prevent the sudden occurrence of outbreaks.

Abstract

Arbovirus diseases represent a significant public health problem in Cameroon and vector surveillance is a key component of prevention strategies. However, there is still not enough evidence of the efficacy of different sampling methods used to monitor Aedes mosquito population dynamic in different epidemiological settings. The present study provides data on the evaluation of ovitraps and different adult sampling methods in the city of Yaoundé and its close vicinity. Entomological surveys were carried out from February 2020 to March 2021 in two urban (Obili, Mvan), two peri-urban (Simbock, Ahala), and two rural (Lendom, Elig-essomballa) sites in the city of Yaoundé. The efficacy of three sampling methods, namely ovitraps, Biogent Sentinel trap, and sweep nets, was evaluated. Different ovitrap indices were used to assess the infestation levels across study sites; a general linear model was used to determine if there are statistical differences between positive ovitraps across ecological zones. A total of 16,264 Aedes mosquitoes were collected during entomological surveys. Ovitraps provided the highest mosquito abundance (15,323; 91.14%) and the highest species diversity. Of the five Aedes species collected, Aedes albopictus (59.74%) was the most commonly recorded in both urban and rural settings. Different Aedes species were collected in the same ovitrap. The ovitrap positivity index was high in all sites and varied from 58.3% in Obili in the urban area to 86.08% in Lendom in the rural area. The egg density index varied from 6.42 in Mvan (urban site) to 13.70 in Lendom (rural area). Adult sampling methods recorded mostly Aedes albopictus. The present study supports high infestation of Aedes species in the city of Yaoundé. Ovitraps were highly efficient in detecting Aedes distribution across study sites. The situation calls for regular surveillance and control of Aedes population to prevent sudden occurrence of outbreaks.

1. Introduction

Aedes-borne diseases such as dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever, and zika are current public health threats in tropical and sub-tropical regions. Close to 4 billion people across the world are exposed to the risk of transmission of these diseases [1,2]. The prevalence of these arboviral diseases is on the rise across sub-Saharan Africa with important outbreaks registered in major urban settings [3,4,5,6]. In Cameroon, the frequency and magnitude of outbreaks have been on the rise during recent years [6,7,8,9,10,11]. In the city of Yaoundé, the number of dengue cases reported varied from 9.8% (59/603) in 2014 [12] to 12.5% (03/24) in 2018 [13] to 81.81% (90/110) in 2021 [8]. For chikungunya, the number of cases was 15.15% (5/33) in 2006 [14] and 25% (03/12) in 2013 [15]. Studies conducted so far indicated a large distribution of the main arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus across the country [16,17,18,19] and the possibility of transovarial transmission of dengue and chikungunya viruses [20,21].
Given the lack of fully protective vaccines or drugs against the majority of arboviruses, vector control through the reduction of Aedes breeding sites, environmental management, and improvements in water supply and storage are current practices to reduce the risk of diseases transmission [22]. Vector surveillance could be key for recording Aedes species distribution, population density, larval habitats, and for risk prediction. Visual search of larvae and pupae in water containers in and around houses is the main method used for vector surveillance activities. One of the major challenges for surveillance and control of Aedes populations using this approach is the wide range of cryptic breeding habitats for Aedes mosquitoes and limitation of the index threshold employed to assess transmission risk. Indexes such as the house index (percentage of houses infected by Aedes larvae or pupae) and the Breteau index (number of containers found with Aedes larvae or pupae for a set of 100 houses inspected) have shown low levels of infestations or negative results in areas with high predominance of Aedes aegypti [22]. Moreover, traditional larval indices are inadequate indicators for predicting dengue transmission risk partly because of disparities in the vectorial capacity of Aedes mosquitoes across epidemiological settings [23,24]. Given the biological specificities of some Aedes species and the cryptic nature of their breeding sites, a combination of methods/tools is currently used to monitor Aedes population dynamic in many countries in Africa, America and Asia [25,26,27,28]. These tools could give an accurate picture of Aedes species density, distribution, and biting dynamic in a particular environment. These collection methods include ovitraps which are relatively easy and inexpensive to produce and to monitor Aedes immature stages [29,30]: Biogents Sentinel trap [31,32], back-pack aspirators [33], and sweep nets [34] to evaluate adults mosquito biting densities. Monitoring adult vector population alongside larval surveys could provide additional information not always captured by larval surveys such as anthropophilic Aedes populations and biting dynamic of adults mosquitoes [35,36]. This information could be crucial for planning efficient control strategies.
The study’s main objective was to evaluate the efficacy of different collection methods for the surveillance of Aedes species in Yaoundé city and its close vicinity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

The study was conducted in Yaoundé, Cameroon, in both rural and urban settings. Yaoundé is located within the Congo–Guinean phytogeographic zone, and characterized by a typical equatorial climate with four seasons: two rainy seasons (March to June and September to November) and two dry seasons (December to February and July to August) [37]. The city has a population estimated at about 4 million inhabitants and is situated 800 m above sea level (https://populationstat.com/cameroon/yaounde) (accessed on 28 August 2022). Samplings were conducted in six sites: two sites in the urban area (Obili and Mvan), two sites in the peri-urban area (Simbock and Ahala), and two in the rural area (Lendom and Elig-essomballa) (Figure 1).
The rural areas Lendom and Elig-essomballa (separated from each other by about 3000 m) are surrounded by a preserved primary rainforest with dense canopy cover, trees with holes and bamboos. The study sites’ description is presented in detail elsewhere [17].

2.2. Study Design

The study was carried out from February 2020 to March 2021. Ovitraps were used to sample immature stages of mosquitoes whereas Biogent Sentinel traps and sweep nets were used for adult collection. An oral consent from each household owner was obtained before mosquito collection around houses. In each study site, 100 ovitraps were placed on trees close to houses to collect Aedes immature stages and these traps were monitored for 4 weeks (after every 7 days) in each study site. The traps consisted of small black plastic painted containers with a rounded shape (19.7 cm in height and 14.6 cm wide) covered in its inner side with filter paper soaked in water to collect the eggs laid by Aedes females (Figure 2A).
Ovitraps were placed on tree trunk at 1 m above the ground (attached on tree trunk or on any other support) close to human dwellings. Ovitraps were checked weekly (after every 7 days) for the presence of eggs and/or Aedes immature stages during 4 weeks in each study site. The trap was considered to be positive when it contained at least one egg or larvae of Aedes. After collecting immature stages, ovitraps were thoroughly rinsed and filled with clean water to minimize contamination and a new filter paper was placed. Lost ovitraps were not replaced. Immature stages collected in each ovitrap were brought to the insectary of OCEAC (Organization for the Coordination and fight against the great Endemics diseases in Central Africa) for rearing under controlled conditions (70–80% humidity, 28 ± 1 °C). After emergence, mosquitoes were provided 10% sucrose solution and adults were identified under a binocular magnifying glass using morphological identification keys [38,39].
The Biogent-Sentinel (BG) traps (https://www.bg-sentinel.com/) (accessed on 28 August 2022) containing a Biogent-lure as attractant and sweep nets were used for adults Aedes mosquito collection. In the afternoon from 3 to 6 p.m., once per week (for 4 weeks), two BG traps were installed around houses and at the same time. Three collectors using sweep nets also performed Aedes adults collection in greenswards. The source of CO2 of the Biogent-Sentinel traps consisted of 3 L of water, 700 g of sugar, and 40 g yeast (dry baker’s yeast); all these were added to the 5 L bottle connected to another 0.5 L bottle using pipe. Live mosquitoes collected using these technique were identified and preserved in RNA later (SIGMA Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) for further molecular analysis. The three collection methods were deployed in the same household area during the survey.

2.3. Data Analysis

A general linear model (GLM) was used to determine if there were statistical differences between positive ovitraps across each ecological zone. Moreover, an estimation of ovitrap efficacy was calculated according to the protocols of Gomes (1998) [40] and Focks [22]. The following indices were determined: Ovitrap Positivity Index (OPI): the ratio between the number of ovitraps containing Aedes eggs or immature stages and the number of traps examined × 100; Eggs Density Index (EDI) = total number of eggs/total number of positive ovitraps; and the Area Ovitrap Index (AOI): indicating the number of Aedes species collected using ovitraps in each study site.

3. Results

3.1. Aedes Mosquito Distribution following Each Sampling Method across Study Sites

A total of 16,761 mosquitoes belonging to four genera (Aedes, Culex, Eretmapodites, and Toxorhynchites) and nine species were collected during the study (Table 1). Out of these, 16,264 were Aedes, 445 Culex, 44 Toxorhynchites, and 8 Eretmapodites. Most of the mosquitoes were collected using ovitraps (91.14%), followed by sweep nets (8.26%) and Biogents sentinel traps (0.32%).
Aedes albopictus was the most abundant species collected (59.74%), followed by Ae. simpsoni (12.57%), Ae. aegypti (12.51%), Ae. contigus (6.43%), and Aedes (neomelaniconion) palpalis (0.0061%) (Table 2). Some Aedes mosquitoes (8.71%) that could not be identified morphologically were grouped under the term Aedes spp.

3.2. Ovitraps Positivity Indices in Each Ecological Zone

Four Aedes species including Aedes albopictus, Ae. aegypti, Ae. contigus, and Ae. simpsoni were recorded using ovitraps (Table 3). Aedes albopictus was the most frequent species collected using these traps in urban (96.33%, n = 3314), peri-urban (65.13%, n = 2490), and rural areas (40.67%, n = 2511). A significant difference (p = 0.0193; F-ratio = 3.619) was observed between the proportion of positive ovitraps (ovitraps with Aedes larvae or eggs) across study zones. The highest ovitrap positivity rate (83.50 ± 4.79) was recorded in rural settings. High area ovitrap positivity index associated with the presence of either Ae. albopictus and/or Ae. aegypti was recorded.

3.3. Weekly Variation of the OPI and EDI

Apart from the first week after the installation of ovitraps where Ovitrap Positivity Index (OPI) was close to 40% in urban area, the OPI was always above 60% in all sites supporting high infestation rate (Figure 3). The Egg Density Index (EDI) was found to vary more importantly in both rural and urban districts with values varying from 6.44 to 17.45 in rural area and from 4.06 to 10.07 in urban area. This indicator was more stable in peri-urban districts.
The co-occurrence of different Aedes species larvae was observed in ovitraps across study sites, with high level of species cohabitating in the same trap noticed in peri-urban and rural settings (Table 4).

3.4. Abundance of Adults Aedes Mosquito across Study Sites

Adult individual of the different Aedes species collected using sweep net and Biogent sentinel trap varied significantly according to the collection sites. Sweep net and Biogent traps (Table 5) collected high densities in both urban and peri-urban areas. Aedes albopictus was the most abundant species collected using these techniques.

4. Discussion

High Aedes species infestation rate in Yaoundé and its close neighborhood was detected. The Ovitrap Positivity Index was always above 40% in urban district and 60% in peri-urban and rural settings supporting a reproductively active population and frequent occupation of the traps by Aedes populations. The egg abundance and density per trap were all high, supporting a high infestation level across study sites. Similar infestation levels have been reported in urban settings in Brazil [41]. The Ovitrap Positivity Index has been reported to be more sensitive to detecting vector presence compared to larval surveys [42]. The density of the Aedes mosquito collected using ovitraps (15,323) were three-fold higher than the density collected by larval surveys in breeding containers during one year survey in the same sites [17] revealing the high sensitivity of ovitraps for detecting real Aedes infestations density in specific environment. High ovitrap positivity indices were observed around human dwellings, indicating that human activities provide suitable habitats for the maintenance and proliferation of arbovirus vectors, thus increasing the risk of disease transmission. In addition to the greater sensitivity of the traps, they also provided more information on mosquito population abundance and diversity which could be critical for the implementation of effective preventive measures [43,44].
During the present study, ovitraps were exclusively placed outdoors. Studies conducted in Indonesia indicated that ovitraps placed indoors could also be highly effective for vector surveillance activities [45,46]. Both Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus were recorded. Ae. albopictus was by far the most frequent species collected. This figure was in accordance with previous studies conducted in the city of Yaoundé [18]. The abundance of Ae. albopictus across different ecological zones confirms its high capacity to adapt to different environments and a competitive superiority of the species over Ae. aegypti and native species in different type of habitats. The distribution recorded during the present study contrasts with the situation in some countries such as Indonesia and Brazil where Aedes albopictus is known to prefer rural areas with high vegetation cover compared to Aedes aegypti more prevalent around human habitats in urban settings [47]. The predominance of Ae. albopictus in urban and peri-urban areas has been reported in Île de Mayotte [48] and in many countries in Africa [49,50].
High ovitraps indices were recorded for Ae. albopictus (0.54 to 0.81) compared to Ae. aegypti (0.004 to 0.36). It is considered that areas with ovitrap indices above 0.1% for Aedes species may be prone to risk of dengue outbreaks [22,51]. More than two species were commonly recorded per ovitrap which likely supports a high interspecific competition between Aedes species since they compete for the same food resources. It is possible that Aedes gravid females may practice skip oviposition, which could be part of a dissemination strategy aiming to disperse eggs in order to give more chances to the progeny to grow to the adult stage. This strategy has been reported by many authors [52,53,54].
Many other mosquito species including Culex, Toxorhynchites, and Eretmapodites were also collected alongside Aedes species in ovitraps. Although this cohabitation could increase competition between these species, this also suggest that ovitraps could also serve for the surveillance of vectors of other diseases such as filarial vectors (Culex species) as previously reported in Italy [55], India [56], and Mexico [29]. High species richness was recorded in rural and peri-urban area compared to urban districts and could result from the diversity of habitats and preserved ecosystems in those areas; similar findings were reported from rural areas in Sri Lanka [57].
In Cameroon, the use of ovitraps for routine surveillance of Aedes vector is not widely practiced despite the increasing number of dengue and chikungunya cases across the country [8,9,10,11,58]. The study stresses the need for the promotion of ovitraps for routine surveillance of arboviral vectors across the country.
Surveillance of adults Aedes mosquito is also important to monitor the biting dynamic of adult mosquito populations. A high density of adult mosquito was recorded using sweep nets and Biogent sentinel traps. Ae. albopictus represented the predominant adult biting species collected using both methods and this observation was similar to studies conducted in Yaoundé [59] and in China [60].

5. Conclusions

With the increasing number of dengue and chikungunya cases recorded in Cameroon, it becomes important that timely and accurate entomological data be collected to guide control efforts. Expanding the nationwide use of ovitraps-based monitoring tools in Cameroon could be key for effective monitoring of Aedes population dynamic and for predicting possible risk of dengue or chikungunya outbreaks. Involving the community in vector surveillance activities should be promoted also to improve the performance of control interventions.

Author Contributions

Contualization, B.D.-T., E.N., M.P.A.M., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Data curation, B.D.-T., M.S.N.-N., E.N., I.M., I.N.N.-S., A.T., M.P.A.M., P.A.-A., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Formal analysis, B.D.-T., M.S.N.-N., E.N., I.M., I.N.N.-S., A.T., M.P.A.M., P.A.-A., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Funding acquisition, M.S.N.-N., C.W. and C.A.-N.; Investigation, B.D.-T., M.S.N.-N., E.N., I.M., I.N.N.-S., A.T., M.P.A.M., P.A.-A., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Methodology, B.D.-T., M.S.N.-N., E.N., I.M., I.N.N.-S., A.T., M.P.A.M., P.A.-A., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Project administration, E.N., P.A.-A., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Resources, B.D.-T., M.S.N.-N., E.N., I.M., I.N.N.-S., A.T., P.A.-A., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Supervision, E.N., P.A.-A., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Validation, B.D.-T., M.S.N.-N., E.N., I.M., I.N.N.-S., A.T., M.P.A.M., P.A.-A., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N.; Visualization, B.D.-T., I.M., I.N.N.-S., A.T., M.P.A.M., P.A.-A. and T.T.; Writing original draft, B.D.-T.; Writing—review and editing, M.S.N.-N., E.N., I.M., I.N.N.-S., A.T., M.P.A.M., P.A.-A., C.W., T.T. and C.A.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received financial support from the Welcome Trust Senior Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine (202687/Z/16/Z) awarded to C.A.-N. and from MIN-KFW program awarded to M.S.N.-N.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Cameroon national Ethics Committee for research on human health, Ethical Clearance N0 2018/06/1039/CE/CNERSH/SP REF N0 D30-172/LMINSANTE/SG/DROS/TMC of the 4 April 2017.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to all the household owners for giving their consent during this entomological survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interest.

References

  1. Bhatt, S.; Gething, P.W.; Brady, O.J.; Messina, J.P.; Farlow, A.W.; Moyes, C.L.; Drake, J.M.; Brownstein, J.S.; Hoen, A.G.; Sankoh, O.; et al. The Global Distribution and Burden of Dengue. Nature 2013, 496, 504–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kraemer, M.U.G.; Reiner, R.C.; Brady, O.J.; Messina, J.P.; Gilbert, M.; Pigott, D.M.; Yi, D.; Johnson, K.; Earl, L.; Marczak, L.B.; et al. Past and Future Spread of the Arbovirus Vectors Aedes Aegypti and Aedes Albopictus. Nat. Microbiol. 2019, 4, 854–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Im, J.; Balasubramanian, R.; Ouedraogo, M.; Wandji Nana, L.R.; Mogeni, O.D.; Jeon, H.J.; van Pomeren, T.; Haselbeck, A.; Lim, J.K.; Prifti, K.; et al. The Epidemiology of Dengue Outbreaks in 2016 and 2017 in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lutomiah, J.; Barrera, R.; Makio, A.; Mutisya, J.; Koka, H.; Owaka, S.; Koskei, E.; Nyunja, A.; Eyase, F.; Coldren, R.; et al. Dengue Outbreak in Mombasa City, Kenya, 2013–2014: Entomologic Investigations. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Simo, F.B.N.; Bigna, J.J.; Well, E.A.; Kenmoe, S.; Sado, F.B.Y.; Weaver, S.C.; Moundipa, P.F.; Demanou, M. Chikungunya Virus Infection Prevalence in Africa: A Contemporaneous Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Public Health 2019, 166, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. WHO. Weekly Bulletin on Outbreaks and Other Emergencies; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; 21p. [Google Scholar]
  7. Galani, B.; Mapouokam, D.; Simo, F.; Mohamadou, P.; Njintang, N.; Moundipa, P. Investigation of Dengue-Malaria Coinfection among Febrile Patients Consulting at Ngaoundere Regional Hospital, Cameroon. J. Med. Virol. 2021, 93, 3350–3361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nana-Ndjangwo, S.M.; Djiappi-Tchamen, B. Laboratory of Parasitology and Ecology, Department of Animal Physiology and Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Yaoundé I, Cameroon; Institut de Recherche de Yaoundé (IRY), Organisation de Coordination pour la lutte Contre les Endémies en Afrique Centrale (OCEAC), Yaoundé, Cameroon. 2022; manuscript in preparation. [Google Scholar]
  9. Simo, N.; Yousseu, F.; Mbarga, E.; Bigna, J.; Melong, A.; Ntoude, A.; Kamgang, B.; Bouyne, R.; Fewou, M.; Demanou, M. Investigation of an Outbreak of Dengue Virus Serotype 1 in a Rural Area of Kribi, South Cameroon: A Cross-Sectional Study. Intervirology 2018, 61, 265–271. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tchuandom, S.B.; Tchadji, J.C.; Tchouangueu, T.F.; Biloa, M.Z.; Atabonkeng, E.P.; Fumba, M.I.M.; Massom, E.S.; Nchinda, G.; Kuiate, J.-R. A Cross-Sectional Study of Acute Dengue Infection in Paediatric Clinics in Cameroon. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yousseu, F.B.S.; Nemg, F.B.S.; Ngouanet, S.A.; Mekanda, F.M.O.; Demanou, M. Detection and Serotyping of Dengue Viruses in Febrile Patients Consulting at the New-Bell District Hospital in Douala, Cameroon. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Demanou, M.; Pouillot, R.; Grandadam, M.; Boisier, P.; Kamgang, B.; Hervé, J.P.; Rogier, C.; Rousset, D.; Paupy, C. Evidence of Dengue Virus Transmission and Factors Associated with the Presence of Anti-Dengue Virus Antibodies in Humans in Three Major Towns in Cameroon. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Monamele, G.C.; Demanou, M. First Documented Evidence of Dengue and Malaria Co-Infection in Children Attending Two Health Centers in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2018, 29, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Peyrefitte, C.N.; Rousset, D.; Pastorino, B.A.; Pouillot, R.; Bessaud, M.; Tock, F.; Mansaray, H.; Merle, O.L.; Pascual, A.M.; Paupy, C. Chikungunya Virus, Cameroon, 2006. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2007, 13, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Maurice, D.; Alain, S.-M.S.; Christophe, V.; Rene, N.; Irene, K.T.; Marthe, I.N.; Richard, N. Molecular Characterization of Chikungunya Virus from Three Regions of Cameroon. Virol. Sin. 2015, 30, 470–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bamou, R.; Mayi, M.P.A.; Djiappi-Tchamen, B.; Nana-Ndjangwo, S.M.; Nchoutpouen, E.; Cornel, A.J.; Awono-Ambene, P.; Parola, P.; Tchuinkam, T.; Antonio-Nkondjio, C. An Update on the Mosquito Fauna and Mosquito-Borne Diseases Distribution in Cameroon. Parasit. Vectors 2021, 14, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Djiappi-Tchamen, B.; Nana-Ndjangwo, M.S.; Tchuinkam, T.; Makoudjou, I.; Nchoutpouen, E.; Kopya, E.; Talipouo, A.; Bamou, R.; Mayi, M.P.A.; Awono-Ambene, P.; et al. Aedes Mosquito Distribution along a Transect from Rural to Urban Settings in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Insects 2021, 12, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Tedjou, A.N.; Kamgang, B.; Yougang, A.P.; Njiokou, F.; Wondji, C.S. Update on the Geographical Distribution and Prevalence of Aedes Aegypti and Aedes Albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), Two Major Arbovirus Vectors in Cameroon. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kamgang, B.; Vazeille, M.; Tedjou, A.N.; Wilson-Bahun, T.A.; Yougang, A.P.; Mousson, L.; Wondji, C.S.; Failloux, A.-B. Risk of Dengue in Central Africa: Vector Competence Studies with Aedes Aegypti and Aedes Albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) Populations and Dengue 2 Virus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. da Costa, C.F.; Dos Passos, R.A.; Pereira Lima, J.B.; Roque, R.A.; Vanderson de Souza, S.; Campolina, T.B.; Costa Secundino, N.F.; Paolucci Pimenta, P.F. Transovarial Transmission of DENV in Aedes Aegypti in the Amazon Basin: A Local Model of Xenomonitoring. Parasit. Vectors 2017, 10, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ferreira-de-Lima, V.H.; Santos Andrade, P.D.; Matsumiya Thomazelli, L.; Toledo Marrelli, M.; Roberto Urbinatti, P.; Marques de Sa Almeida, R.M.; Lima-Camara, T.N. Silent Circulation of Dengue Virus in Aedes Albopictus (Diptera:Culicidae) Resulting from Natural Vertical Transmisssion. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Focks, D. A Review of Entomological Sampling Methods and Indicators for Dengue Vectors. In Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR); Dengue Bull; WHO: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  23. Garjito, T.A.; Hidajat, M.C.; Kinansi, R.R.; Setyaningsih, R.; Anggraeni, Y.M.; Mujiyanto; Trapsilowati, W.; Jastal; Ristiyanto; Satoto, T.B.T.; et al. Stegomyia Indices and Risk of Dengue Transmission: A Lack of Correlation. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wijayanti, S.P.M.; Sunaryo, S.; Suprihatin, S.; McFarlane, M.; Rainey, S.M.; Dietrich, I.; Schnettler, E.; Biek, R.; Kohl, A. Dengue in Java, Indonesia: Relevance of Mosquito Indices as Risk Predictors. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Hemme, R.R.; Smith, E.A.; Felix, G.; White, B.J.; Diaz-Garcia, M.I.; Rodriguez, D.; Ruiz-Valcarcel, J.; Acevedo, V.; Amador, M.; Barrera, R. Multi-Year Mass-Trapping with Autocidal Gravid Ovitraps Has Limited Influence on Insecticide Susceptibility in Aedes Aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) From Puerto Rico. J. Med. Entomol. 2022, 59, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. James, L.D.; Winter, N.; Stewart, A.T.M.; Feng, R.S.; Nandram, N.; Mohammed, A.; Duman-Scheel, M.; Romero-Severson, E.; Severson, D.W. Field Trials Reveal the Complexities of Deploying and Evaluating the Impacts of Yeast-Baited Ovitraps on Aedes Mosquito Densities in Trinidad, West Indies. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 4047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kpan, M.D.S.; Adja, A.M.; Guindo-Coulibaly, N.; Assouho, K.F.; Kouadio, A.M.N.; Azongnibo, K.R.M.; Zoh, D.D.; Zahouli, B.Z.J.; Remoue, F.; Fournet, F. Spatial Heterogeneity and Seasonal Distribution of Aedes (Stegomyia) Aegypti (L) in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2021, 21, 769–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Zhou, Y.; Liu, H.; Leng, P.; Zhu, J.; Yao, S.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, H. Analysis of the Spatial Distribution of Aedes Albopictus in an Urban Area of Shanghai, China. Parasit. Vectors 2021, 14, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ortega-Morales, A.I.; Moreno-García, M.; González-Acosta, C.; Correa-Morales, F. Mosquito Surveillance in Mexico: The Use of Ovitraps for Aedes Aegypti, Ae. Albopictus, and Non-Target Species. Fla. Entomol. 2018, 101, 623–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. PAHO. Dengue and Dengue Haemorragic Fever in the Americas: Guidelines for Prevention and Control; Scientific Publication N° 548; PAHO: Washington, DC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  31. Barrera, R.; Mackay, A.J.; Amador, M. A Novel Autocidal Ovitrap for the Surveillance and Control of Aedes Aegypti. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2013, 29, 293–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Maciel-de-Freitas, R.; Eiras, Á.E.; Lourenço-de-Oliveira, R. Field Evaluation of Effectiveness of the BG-Sentinel, a New Trap for Capturing Adult Aedes Aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2006, 101, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Service, M.W. (Ed.) Mark-Recapture Techniques and Adult Dispersal. In Mosquito Ecology: Field Sampling Methods; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 652–751. ISBN 978-94-011-1868-2. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mayi, M.P.A.; Bamou, R.; Djiappi-Tchamen, B.; Fontaine, A.; Jeffries, C.L.; Walker, T.; Antonio-Nkondjio, C.; Cornel, A.J.; Tchuinkam, T. Habitat and Seasonality Affect Mosquito Community Composition in the West Region of Cameroon. Insects 2020, 11, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dibo, M.R.; Chiaravalloti-Neto, F.; Battigaglia, M.; Mondini, A.; Favaro, E.A.; Barbosa, A.A.; Glasser, C.M. Identification of the Best Ovitrap Installation Sites for Gravid Aedes (Stegomyia) Aegypti in Residences in Mirassol, State of São Paulo, Brazil. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2005, 100, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Morato, V.C.G.; Teixeira, M.D.G.; Gomes, A.C.; Bergamaschi, D.P.; Barreto, M.L. Infestation of Aedes Aegypti Estimated by Oviposition Traps in Brazil. Rev. Saúde Pública 2005, 39, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Suchel Les Climats Du Cameroun, Tome III; Thèse Université de Université Bordeaux III: Bordeaux, France, 1987; Volume 4, p. 1186.
  38. Edwards, F.W. Mosquitoes of the Ethiopian Region. HI—Culicine Adults and Pupae. In Mosquitoes Ethiop. Reg. HI—Culicine Adults Pupae; Trustees of the British Museum: London, UK, 1941. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jupp, P. Mosquitoes of Southern Africa: Culicinae and Toxorhynchitinae Hartebees Spoort (South Africa); Ekogilde Publishers: Hartebeespoort, South Africa, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gomes, A.C. Medidas Dos Níveis de Infestação Urbana Para Aedes (Stegomyia) Aegypti e Aedes (Stegomyia) Albopictus Em Programa de Vigilancia Entomológica. Inf. Epidemiológico SUS Braz. 1998, 7, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Honório, N.A.; Codeço, C.T.; Alves, F.D.C.; Magalhães, M.D.A.; Lourenço-De-Oliveira, R. Temporal Distribubtion of Aedes Aegypti in Different Districts of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Measured by Two Types of Traps. J. Med. Entomol. 2009, 46, 1001–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Wijegunawardana, N.D.A.D.; Gunawardene, Y.I.N.S.; Chandrasena, T.G.A.N.; Dassanayake, R.S.; Udayanga, N.W.B.A.L.; Abeyewickreme, W. Evaluation of the Effects of Aedes Vector Indices and Climatic Factors on Dengue Incidence in Gampaha District, Sri Lanka. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, e2950216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. De Las Liagas, L.; Tyagi, B.; Bersales, L. Aedes Dengue Vector Ovitrap Surveillance System: A Framework for Mosquito Density Prediction. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2016, 47, 712–718. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hii, Y.L.; Zhu, H.; Ng, N.; Ng, L.C.; Rocklöv, J. Forecast of Dengue Incidence Using Temperature and Rainfall. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2012, 6, e1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Martini, M.; Prihatnolo, A.; Hestiningsih, R. Modification Ovitrap to Control of Aedes Sp Population in Central Java. In Proceedings of the ASEAN/Asian Academic Society International Conference Proceeding Series, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, 9 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wibowo, A. The Difference Existence of Aedes Sp Larvae Based on Ovitrap Locating in Samarinda City Indonesia. Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 2018, 9, 1405–1409. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tantowijoyo, W.; Arguni, E.; Johnson, P.; Budiwati, N.; Nurhayati, P.I.; Fitriana, I.; Wardana, S.; Ardiansyah, H.; Turley, A.P.; Ryan, P.; et al. Spatial and Temporal Variation in Aedes Aegypti and Aedes Albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) Numbers in the Yogyakarta Area of Java, Indonesia, With Implications for Wolbachia Releases. J. Med. Entomol. 2016, 53, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bagny, L.; Delatte, H.; Elissa, N.; Quilici, S.; Fontenille, D. Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae) Vectors of Arboviruses in Mayotte (Indian Ocean): Distribution Area and Larval Habitats. J. Med. Entomol. 2009, 46, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wat’senga Tezzo, F.; Fasine, S.; Manzambi Zola, E.; Marquetti, M.D.C.; Binene Mbuka, G.; Ilombe, G.; Mundeke Takasongo, R.; Smitz, N.; Bisset, J.A.; Van Bortel, W.; et al. High Aedes Spp. Larval Indices in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. Parasit. Vectors 2021, 14, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Weetman, D.; Kamgang, B.; Badolo, A.; Moyes, C.L.; Shearer, F.M.; Coulibaly, M.; Pinto, J.; Lambrechts, L.; McCall, P.J. Aedes Mosquitoes and Aedes-Borne Arboviruses in Africa: Current and Future Threats. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2018, 15, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ministry of Health Malaysia. Guidelines of the Use of Ovitrap Surveillance; Ministry of Health Malaysia: Putrajaya, Malaysia, 1997; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  52. McGregor, B.L.; Connelly, C.R. A Review of the Control of Aedes Aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Continental United States. J. Med. Entomol. 2021, 58, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Reinbold-Wasson, D.D.; Reiskind, M.H. Comparative Skip-Oviposition Behavior Among Container Breeding Aedes Spp. Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2021, 58, 2091–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rey, J.R.; O’Connell, S.M. Oviposition by Aedes Aegypti and Aedes Albopictus: Influence of Congeners and of Oviposition Site Characteristics. J. Vector Ecol. 2014, 39, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Carrieri, M.; Bacchi, M.; Bellini, R.; Maini, S. On the Competition Occurring Between Aedes Albopictus and Culex Pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) in Italy. Environ. Entomol. 2003, 32, 1313–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Devi, N.; Jauhari, R.; Mondal, R. Ovitrap Surveillance of Aedes Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Selected Areas of Dehradun District, Uttarakhand, India. Glob. J. Med. Res. Dis. 2013, 13, 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dalpadado, R.; Amarasinghe, D.; Gunathilaka, N.; Ariyarathna, N. Bionomic Aspects of Dengue Vectors Aedes Aegypti and Aedes Albopictus at Domestic Settings in Urban, Suburban and Rural Areas in Gampaha District, Western Province of Sri Lanka. Parasit. Vectors 2022, 15, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Simo Tchetgna, H.; Yousseu, F.; Kamgang, B.; Tedjou, A.; McCall, P.; Wondji, C. Concurent Circulation of Dengue Serotype 1, 2 and 3 among Acute Febrile Patients in Cameroon. MedRxiv 2021, 15, e0009860. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kamgang, B.; Nchoutpouen, E.; Simard, F.; Paupy, C. Notes on the Blood-Feeding Behavior of Aedes Albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Cameroon. Parasit. Vectors 2012, 5, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, Y.; Su, X.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, H.; Puthiyakunnon, S.; Shuai, S.; Cai, S.; Gu, J.; Zhou, X.; Yan, G.; et al. Comparative Evaluation of the Efficiency of the BG-Sentinel Trap, CDC Light Trap and Mosquito-Oviposition Trap for the Surveillance of Vector Mosquitoes. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Insects 13 00793 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the city of Yaoundé showing the study sites.
Figure 1. Map of the city of Yaoundé showing the study sites.
Insects 13 00793 g001
Insects 13 00793 g002 550
Figure 2. Illustrative image of ovitrap (A) and Biogent Sentinel trap (B).
Figure 2. Illustrative image of ovitrap (A) and Biogent Sentinel trap (B).
Insects 13 00793 g002
Insects 13 00793 g003 550
Figure 3. Weekly variation of Ovitraps Positivity Index (A) and Eggs Density Index (B) around human dwellings.
Figure 3. Weekly variation of Ovitraps Positivity Index (A) and Eggs Density Index (B) around human dwellings.
Insects 13 00793 g003
Table
Table 1. Abundance of mosquitoes according to sampling techniques and ecological zone.
Table 1. Abundance of mosquitoes according to sampling techniques and ecological zone.
Ecological Zones
UrbanPeri-UrbanRuralTotal
ObiliMvanSimbockAhalaLendomElig-Essomballa
Ovitraps16601834303315601618561815,323
Sweep nets32032816942799411384
Biogent-Sentinel trap11131245054
Total19912175320320111722565916,761
Table
Table 2. Species distribution according to sampling methods.
Table 2. Species distribution according to sampling methods.
Sampling Methods
SpeciesOvitrapsSweep NetBiogent Sentinel TrapTotal
Aedes albopictus83151348549717
Aedes aegypti2033302036
Aedes contigus1047001047
Aedes simpsoni2042302045
Aedes spp. 1418001418
Aedes (neomelaniconion) palpalis0101
Culex culiciomayia group37140375
Toxorhynchites431044
Culex moucheti1312025
Culex lutzia tigripes7108
Culex duttoni0101
Culex quinquefasciatus2204
Culex spp. 266032
Eretmapodites6208
Total15,32313845416,761
Table
Table 3. Ovitrap indices in each sampling site.
Table 3. Ovitrap indices in each sampling site.
Area Ovitraps Index (Species Index)
Study AreasNnOPI (%)Number of EggsEDIAe. albopictusAe. aegyptiAe. contigusAe. simpsoni
Obili33119358.3 ± 10.80 b16608.601658 (0.80)2 (0.01)00
Mvan39127770.84 ± 9.95 a,b17806.421656 (0.81)26 (0.02)98 (0.04)0
Simbock34525273.04 ± 9.72 a,b22668.991129 (0.67)418 (0.31)390 (0.23)329 (0.15)
Ahala38123661.94 ± 10.63 a,b15576.591361 (0.74)1 (0.004)176 (0.11)19 (0.01)
Lendom38833486.08 ± 7.58 a457613.701457 (0.54)1395 (0.36)192 (0.09)1532 (0.41)
Elig-essomballa39124061.38 ± 10.66 a,b15986.651054 (0.60)191 (0.19)191 (0.21)162 (0.14)
Total22271532 13,437 8315 (61.88%)2033 (15.12%)1047 (7.79%)2042 (15.19%)
N = total number of ovitraps placed in each site, n = total number of ovitraps with eggs or larvae; OPI = Ovitrap Positivity Index; EDI = Eggs Density Index; (a,b) data followed by different letters are significantly different at p ˂ 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Aedes species cohabitating in ovitraps.
Table 4. Aedes species cohabitating in ovitraps.
SpeciesUrbanPeri-UrbanRural
ObiliMvanSimbockAhalaLendomElig-Essomballa
Ae. albopictus + Ae. aegypti1.03 (2/193)2.52% (7/277)22.22% (56/252)0.42% (1/236)14.16% (34/240)21.25% (71/334)
Ae. albopictus + Ae. contigus03.97% (11/277)17.06% (43/252)9.32% (22/236)14.16% (34/240)8.08% (27/334)
Ae. albopictus + Ae. simpsoni0012.69% (32/252)1.27% (3/236)11.25% (27/240)22.75% (76/334)
Ae. aegypti + Ae. contigus00.72% (2/277)12.69% (32/252)0.42% (1/236)5.41% (13/240)06.88% (23/334)
Ae. aegypti + Ae. simpsoni009.12% (23/252)05.41% (13/240)19.46% (65/334)
Ae. albopictus + Ae. aegypti + Ae. simpsoni009.12% (23/252)04.58% (11/240)18.56% (62/334)
Ae. albopictus + Ae. aegypti + Ae. contigus0016.66% (42/252)0.42% (1/236)5% (12/240)6.58% (22/334)
Ae. albopictus + Ae. contigus + Ae. simpsoni007.93% (20/252)0.84% (2/236)4.58% (11/240)7.18% (24/334)
Ae. aegypti + Ae. contigus + Ae. simpsoni006.34% (16/252)05% (5/240)6.58% (22/334)
Table
Table 5. Distribution of adult Aedes species collected using sweep nets and Biogent sentinel traps.
Table 5. Distribution of adult Aedes species collected using sweep nets and Biogent sentinel traps.
Ecological Zones
UrbanPeri-UrbanRuralTotal
Sampling MethodsSpeciesObiliMvanSimbockAhalaElig-EssomballaLendom
Sweep netAe. albopictus32032816642510991348
Ae. aegypti0000303
Ae. simpsoni0000303
Aedes palpalis0000101
Biogent Sentinel trapAe. albopictus11131240554
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Djiappi-Tchamen, B.; Nana-Ndjangwo, M.S.; Nchoutpouen, E.; Makoudjou, I.; Ngangue-Siewe, I.N.; Talipouo, A.; Mayi, M.P.A.; Awono-Ambene, P.; Wondji, C.; Tchuinkam, T.; et al. Aedes Mosquito Surveillance Using Ovitraps, Sweep Nets, and Biogent Traps in the City of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Insects 2022, 13, 793. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090793

AMA Style

Djiappi-Tchamen B, Nana-Ndjangwo MS, Nchoutpouen E, Makoudjou I, Ngangue-Siewe IN, Talipouo A, Mayi MPA, Awono-Ambene P, Wondji C, Tchuinkam T, et al. Aedes Mosquito Surveillance Using Ovitraps, Sweep Nets, and Biogent Traps in the City of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Insects. 2022; 13(9):793. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090793

Chicago/Turabian Style

Djiappi-Tchamen, Borel, Mariette Stella Nana-Ndjangwo, Elysée Nchoutpouen, Idene Makoudjou, Idriss Nasser Ngangue-Siewe, Abdou Talipouo, Marie Paul Audrey Mayi, Parfait Awono-Ambene, Charles Wondji, Timoléon Tchuinkam, and et al. 2022. "Aedes Mosquito Surveillance Using Ovitraps, Sweep Nets, and Biogent Traps in the City of Yaoundé, Cameroon" Insects 13, no. 9: 793. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090793

APA Style

Djiappi-Tchamen, B., Nana-Ndjangwo, M. S., Nchoutpouen, E., Makoudjou, I., Ngangue-Siewe, I. N., Talipouo, A., Mayi, M. P. A., Awono-Ambene, P., Wondji, C., Tchuinkam, T., & Antonio-Nkondjio, C. (2022). Aedes Mosquito Surveillance Using Ovitraps, Sweep Nets, and Biogent Traps in the City of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Insects, 13(9), 793. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090793

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop