Next Article in Journal
Phototactic Changes in Phthorimaea absoluta Long-Wavelength Opsin Gene Mutants (LW2−/−) and Short-Wavelength Opsin Gene Mutant (BL−/−) Strains
Next Article in Special Issue
Zoonotic Cycle of American Trypanosomiasis in an Endemic Region of the Argentine Chaco, Factors That Influenced a Paradigm Shift
Previous Article in Journal
Chromosome-Level Genome Assembly of Apoderus dimidiatus Voss (Coleoptera: Attelabidae): Insights into Evolution and Behavior
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dengue Virus Serotype 1 Effects on Mosquito Survival Differ among Geographically Distinct Aedes aegypti Populations
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Mosquito Fauna of Arizona: Species Composition and Public Health Implications

1
The Center for Evolution & Medicine, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
2
School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
3
Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
4
Vector Control Division, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Phoenix, AZ 85009, USA
5
Arizona Department of Health Services, Phoenix, AZ 85007, USA
6
Biodiversity Knowledge Integration Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
7
Simon A. Levin Mathematical, Computational and Modeling Sciences Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2024, 15(6), 432; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15060432
Submission received: 7 May 2024 / Revised: 26 May 2024 / Accepted: 29 May 2024 / Published: 6 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Insect Vectors of Human and Zoonotic Diseases)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Many mosquito species not only serve as a nuisance but also pose a threat to public health by transmitting diseases to both humans and animals. We report an updated list of all known mosquito species identified in Arizona to date. It replaces the most recent lists published about 50 years ago. We also report their collection years, methods, areas/locations, feeding preferences, and the diseases they can or may carry or transmit.

Abstract

Arizona is home to many mosquito species, some of which are known vectors of infectious diseases that harm both humans and animals. Here, we provide an overview of the 56 mosquito species that have been identified in the State to date, but also discuss their known feeding preference and the diseases they can (potentially) transmit to humans and animals. This list is unlikely to be complete for several reasons: (i) Arizona’s mosquitoes are not systematically surveyed in many areas, (ii) surveillance efforts often target specific species of interest, and (iii) doubts have been raised by one or more scientists about the accuracy of some collection records, which has been noted in this article. There needs to be an integrated and multifaceted surveillance approach that involves entomologists and epidemiologists, but also social scientists, wildlife ecologists, ornithologists, representatives from the agricultural department, and irrigation and drainage districts. This will allow public health officials to (i) monitor changes in current mosquito species diversity and abundance, (ii) monitor the introduction of new or invasive species, (iii) identify locations or specific populations that are more at risk for mosquito-borne diseases, and (iv) effectively guide vector control.

1. Introduction

Mosquitoes are arthropod vectors that belong to the family Culicidae, comprising 3899 species categorized into 54 genera [1]. Many mosquito species are of medical importance as they can transmit mosquito-borne diseases (MBDs). MBDs pose an enormous threat to global human health worldwide, accounting for about 700 million cases and over 1 million deaths annually [2]. They are caused by parasites (e.g., malaria), viruses (e.g., West Nile and dengue), and worms (lymphatic filariases, heartworm), which are all transmitted by an adult female mosquito to their human or animal host. For example, arboviral diseases such as dengue, Zika, and chikungunya are typically transmitted by Aedes species, West Nile virus (WNV) and Saint Louis encephalitis virus (SLEV) by Culex species, and the malaria parasite by Anopheles species. Some of these diseases (e.g., Zika) can also be transmitted through other routes, such as from female mosquitoes to their offspring (vertical transmission) [3] or via human-to-human interactions through sexual contact [4].
Presently, in Arizona, WNV, SLEV, and dengue are circulating or have been transmitted to humans. In 2021 alone, there were 615 confirmed and 1095 probable human WNV cases, and 127 people who died from the disease in Arizona [5]. The occurrence of SLEV in Arizona is rare, but there was an outbreak in Maricopa County in 2015, which led to 19 confirmed and 3 probable human cases [6]. While autochthonous Zika, chikungunya, and malaria have not been detected in the State recently, locally acquired dengue was reported in Maricopa County in 2022 [7]. Outside Arizona, the local transmission of dengue has been reported in Texas, Hawaii, and Florida [8], Zika in Florida [9] and Texas [10], and more recently (2023), malaria in Florida, Texas, Maryland, and Arkansas [11]. Mosquitoes can also transmit a range of animal diseases, some of which are or have been circulating in Arizona. Examples include WNV in birds (house sparrow, great-tailed grackle, and house finch), which are predominant amplifying hosts for WNV in the State [12,13], Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) in a horse [14], and heartworm in dogs [15].
Some MBDs may currently only circulate in local animal reservoirs [16,17], but could at one point spill-over to humans. A notable example was the human Keystone virus case in Florida in 2016, which is a disease that is normally only found in, e.g., local deer, raccoon, and squirrel populations [16]. Humans (e.g., through tourism, recreational travel, and immigration) can also serve as reservoirs for MBDs when they move between regions when they are infected [18].
While many MBDs have not yet been identified in Arizona, it is important to note that they may circulate but go unnoticed in the State because of (i) an incorrect diagnosis, and (ii) infected individuals not seeking treatment as they are asymptomatic or believe they have a common disease such as the flu [19]. Therefore, it is important to have adequate and comprehensive surveillance systems in place, whereby all key players (animal reservoirs, mosquito vectors, and human hosts) are monitored regularly and where timely information is shared between stakeholders. Here we present a first step in that direction and identify the mosquito species (organized alphabetically by genus) that have been found in Arizona to date, as well as the (potential) risk they pose to both human and animal health. The last comprehensive list of mosquito species in Arizona was published approximately 50 years ago [20]. By presenting this inventory of historic and current records of mosquito species, we aim to enhance the understanding of mosquito biodiversity in Arizona and guide the development of more effective mosquito surveillance and control strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

References used in this review were selected from reading peer-reviewed publications identified from searches of PubMed, NCBI, and Google Scholar, from database inception up to 16 February 2024. The search terms used included “mosquito” in conjunction with “Arizona”. Each species identified in Arizona was paired with additional search terms, such as “feeding preference” and “vector competence”, with no language limitations. The taxonomic and nomenclatural conventions for the species listed in this review paper follow [21]. The data records of the species list in this review are from the following sources:
AZDHS—Arizona Department of Health Services. This indicates mosquito collections reported to AZDHS by local vector control agencies across the state.
JB—John Burger. Student in the University of Arizona Department of Entomology in the 1960s. He collected mosquitoes in the State and became a specialist in their taxonomy. He identified many specimens in the University of Arizona Insect Collection (UAIC).
NEON—National Ecological Observatory Network. The NEON Biorepository is operated by Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ [22].
UAIC—University of Arizona Insect Collection. This indicates that at least one mosquito specimen is housed in this collection, and includes records mentioned in [23]. The collection also contains mosquito specimens that JB and others collected.

3. Results: Checklist and Review of the Culicidae of Arizona (Insecta: Diptera)

3.1. Genus Aedes Meigen 1818

There have been 23 species of Aedes identified in Arizona (Table 1). Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus) and Aedes albopictus (Skuse) can vector a range of arboviruses to humans, including Zika, dengue, and chikungunya (Table 1).
In Arizona, the most common Aedes species of medical importance is Aedes aegypti (Table 1). Over the years, Aedes aegypti has also been the most abundant Aedes species reported to AZDHS by local vector control agencies. The collection of Aedes albopictus (also known as the Asian tiger mosquito) in 2008 in Maricopa County is noteworthy since this is the most invasive mosquito species in the world [24]. This collection was because of a complaint about mosquitoes in an office in Chandler, which led to an investigation. It was discovered that an employee brought back a ‘volcano plant’ from Hawaii to the office, and Aedes albopictus was being produced from eggs laid on the volcanic rock attached to the plant. The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Vector Control Division confiscated the plant, contained and isolated the eggs, and ultimately reared about 60 Aedes albopictus (personal communication, James B. Will and John Townsend, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department). Aedes albopictus is a competent vector for various arboviruses, including Chikungunya virus [25], dengue virus [26], and Zika virus [27]. While this invasive species has not recently been found in Arizona, it has established itself in several counties in the neighboring State of California [28].
Interestingly, while Culex Linnaeus species are typically held responsible for the transmission of WNV (see below), Aedes albopictus can be a competent vector of the disease under laboratory conditions [29]. WNV has also been isolated from field-collected (i) Aedes albopictus in Baltimore, MD, in 2015 and 2017 [30], (ii) Aedes aegypti and Aedes epactius (Dyar & Knab) in Chihuahua (shares border with Texas, USA), Mexico, in 2021 [31], (iii) Aedes taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann) in eastern Puerto Rico, in 2007 [32], and (iv) Aedes vexans (Meigen) in New Jersey, in 2001 [33].
It has been shown that Aedes sollicitans (Walker) can transmit EEE to animals (e.g., chickens and horses) under laboratory conditions [34,35,36]. Aedes sollicitans and Aedes vexans have also been implicated as vectors of EEE to humans during an outbreak in New Jersey [37].
Aedes vexans can transmit heartworm disease to dogs under laboratory conditions [38]. Dog heartworm disease has also been isolated from field-collected Aedes sollicitans and Aedes taeniorhynchus, in the Yucatan, southeastern Mexico, in 2007 [39].
Some other Aedes species that have been collected in the State are not (yet) associated with disease transmission and have also not been collected recently (but note that this may be due to the collection methods and protocols in place, see Discussion). These species include Aedes burgeri (Zavortink), Aedes monticola (Belkin & McDonald), Aedes muelleri (Dyar), Aedes papago (Zavortink), Aedes pullatus (Coquillett), and Aedes purpureipes (Aitken).
Table 1. List of Aedes species.
Table 1. List of Aedes species.
Collection YearCollection MethodCollection Area (by County)Feeding PreferenceDiseases They Can/May Transmit/Carry
Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus 1762)
1931–1943, 1994–2022 (UAIC)Unknown Apache
Pima
Humans, dogs, swine [40]
Birds [41]
Yellow fever [42,43] a, †
Zika virus [44] a, † [45,46] b, †††
dengue virus
[47] a, ††† [48] a, † [49,50] b, †††
Chikungunya virus [51] a, †, ††† [52] b, †††
West Nile virus [31] b, †††
On or before 1946 [53]UnknownUnknown
On or before 1997 [54] CO2-baited traps and hay-infused enhanced oviposition traps [54] Unknown
2003–2023 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsApache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Mohave
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
2018, 2021, 2022 (NEON) CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
2021 [55]BG-pro trap baited with dry iceMaricopa (Tempe)
Aedes albopictus (Skuse 1895)
2008–2009 (Maricopa County Vector Control) Collected from a volcano plant brought to Chandler, Arizona, from Hawaii. MaricopaHumans [56]West Nile virus [29] a, †
[30] b
Chikungunya virus [25] a, †, ††† [57] b, †††
dengue virus [26] a, † [58] b, †††
Zika virus [27] a, †, ††† [46] b, †††
Aedes burgeri Zavortink 1972
1964 (UAIC)Unknown (labelled as Ae. kompi)Pima UnknownUnknown
1964 [59,60]JB collected pupae (as Ae. kompi) from a tree hole [59,60]Santa Cruz
Aedes cataphylla Dyar 1916
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCoconinoHumans [23]James Town Canyon virus [62] b
1964 (UAIC)UnknownApache
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCoconino
Apache
Aedes dorsalis (Meigen 1830)
1944 (UAIC)UnknownYumaHumans [23,63]California encephalitis virus [63] b
Western equine encephalitis virus [63] b
[64] b, †††
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownApache
Navajo
Pima
Yuma
Yavapai
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownApache
Navajo
Pima
Santa Cruz
Yuma
2012–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsYuma
Yavapai
La Paz
Navajo
Cochise
Pima
Aedes epactius Dyar & Knab 1908
1963–1964 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Pima
Humans [61]Jamestown Canyon virus [65] a, ††
West Nile virus [31] b, †††
2014 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsYuma
2016, 2021 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Aedes fitchii (Felt & Young 1904)
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCoconinoHumans [66]Aleutian disease virus [67] a
Snowshoe hare virus [68] b
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCoconino
Aedes hexodontus Dyar 1916 
2007 (UAIC)UnknownCoconinoUnknown Jamestown Canyon virus
[62,69] b
2013 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsCoconino
Aedes implicatus Vockeroth 1954
1967 [70]Larval collectionGreenleeUnknownSnowshoe hare virus [71] c
Aedes increpitus Dyar 1916
On or before 1974 [20]UnknownUnknownLivestock (e.g., cattle), wildlife (e.g., deer) [72]
Mammals [66]
California encephalitis virus [73] a
2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsCoconino
Aedes monticola Belkin & McDonald 1957  *
On or before 1957 [23]UnknownCochise
Graham
Pima
Santa Cruz
Humans [23]Unknown
2018, 2019, 2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Unknown (UAIC)UnknownUnknown
Aedes muelleri Dyar  1920
1917 [63]Caught while biting a humanHead of Indian Creek in the Chiricahua Mountains in Arizona at 6100 feet elevationUnknownUnknown
1922, 1928 [61]Unknown Cochise
Santa Cruz
1964–1968 (UAIC)Unknown Cochise
Pima
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCochise
Pima
Santa Cruz
Aedes nigromaculis (Ludlow 1906)
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownNavajo
Yavapai
Humans and animals [23]Western equine encephalitis [74] b
1964, 2010–2015 (UAIC)UnknownPima
2012–2015, 2017 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Coconino
Navajo
2018 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Aedes papago Zavortink 1970
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownPimaUnknownUnknown
2016–2018, 2021–2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Unknown (UAIC)UnknownPima
Aedes pullatus (Coquillett  1904)
1967 [70]Larval collectionGreenleeUnknownUnknown
On or before 1974 [20]UnknownUnknown
Aedes purpureipes Aitken  1941
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownPima
Santa Cruz
Humans [23]Unknown
1996–2022 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Pima
Pinal
Yavapai
2012–2013, 2015–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Cochise
Maricopa
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Gila
2016–2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Aedes sollicitans (Walker 1856)
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownYumaHumans [23]
Birds and mammals [75]
West Nile virus [76] b, †††
Port Bolivar virus [77] b, †††
Cache Valley virus [78] a, ††
[79] b
Eastern equine encephalitis virus [35] a, b, ††
Dog heartworm disease [39] b, †††
Aedes taeniorhynchus (Wiedemann 1821)
1962 [80]A single female, taken in a biting collection at Yuma Test StationYumaHumans and Birds [81]
Mammals, reptiles and birds [82]
West Nile virus [83] a, ††
[32] b, †††
Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus [84] a, ††, †††
Dog heartworm disease [39] b, †††
Aedes thelcter Dyar  1918
On or before 1990 [85]UnknownYumaUnknownUnknown
2000–2022 (UAIC)UnknownPima
2012–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
2016, 2018, 2021 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Aedes trivittatus (Coquillett 1902)
1953–1964 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Navajo
Santa Cruz
Mammals (humans, deer, cat, horse, cow) and avian [86]Trivittatus virus [87] a, ††
[88] c
West Nile virus [89] a
Shunk river virus [90] b, †††
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownApache
Greenlee
Cochise
Santa Cruz
Gila
2014–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsApache
Cochise
Greenlee
Gila
Navajo
Santa Cruz
Coconino
2016, 2017, 2018, 2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Aedes varipalpus (Coquillett 1902)
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochise
Coconino
Graham
Pima
Humans [66]California Encephalitis virus [91]
1963 (UAIC)UnknownGila
2015 (AZDHS)UnknownNavajo
Aedes ventrovittis Dyar  1916 **
1964 (UAIC)Unknown GreenleeUnknownUnknown
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownGreenlee
Aedes vexans (Meigen 1830)
1938–2022 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Navajo
Pima
Yuma
Humans [23,66]
Other mammals (deer, horses, cats) and birds (American robin) [92]
West Nile virus [93] a, †
[33] b
St. Louis encephalitis virus [94] a
Zika virus [95] a, †, ††† [96] b, †††
Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus [97] b, †††
Dog heartworm disease [38] a, ††
[98] b, †††
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownApache
Cochise
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Pima
Pinal
Yavapai
Yuma
2012–2017, 2019–2020 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsCochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
2017, 2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
♦ One or more scientists in the State have expressed doubts about the accuracy of this collection record. * Ae. monticola (Belkin & McDonald) is cataloged as Ae. varipalpus in the UAIC collection because of the difficulty in morphologically distinguishing it from Ae. varipalpus. ** Ae. ventrovittis was on the 1973 list [23] but removed from the 1974 list without explanation [20]. However, one female that was collected and identified as Ae. ventrovittis by JB remains in the UAIC collection. a Vector competence study under laboratory conditions. b Virus isolated from field-collected specimens. c Transovarial transmission. Detection of virus in the saliva of mosquito post-infection. †† Evidence of transmission to animals by an infected mosquito. ††† Disseminated infection (i.e., detection of virus in body, legs, and/or wings of mosquito).

3.2. Genus Anopheles Meigen 1818

There are five species of Anopheles that have been identified in Arizona, which are Anopheles franciscanus (McCracken), Anopheles freeborni (Aitken), Anopheles hermsi (Barr & Guptavanij), Anopheles judithae (Zavortink), and Anopheles pseudopunctipennis (Theobald). Mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus can transmit malaria parasites to humans [99]. They can also transmit filarial parasites, causing human lymphatic filariasis [100] and arboviruses, such as Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus [101].
Three of the anopheline species that have been found in the State (Anopheles freeborni, Anopheles hermsi, and Anopheles pseudopunctipennis) can transmit or carry human malaria (Table 2). While human malaria is currently not locally transmitted in Arizona, historical records show it was a public health concern in the 19th century [102]. Public health scientists have suggested that Anopheles hermsi may have played an important role in its transmission during that period. Laboratory tests have shown that Anopheles hermsi is susceptible to Plasmodium vivax [103], suggesting that this species may have been historically implicated in malaria outbreaks that occurred in California and New Mexico [102]. This raises concerns for the potential introduction of P. vivax by travelers from regions where the parasite is endemic, such as India [104], to Arizona, where An. hermsi is present (Table 2). Anopheles hermsi is not a known vector of Plasmodium falciparum (the most deadly and prevalent malaria parasite [105]); however, further testing is needed to evaluate its potential role in the transmission of this malaria parasite. The last documented collection record of Anopheles hermsi reported to AZDHS (Table 2) was in 2014. Again, it is important to note that this may be due to the current trapping methods and surveillance strategies (see Discussion).
Finally, Anopheles pseudopunctipennis may be an important species to monitor. It was recently collected in Pima County in 2022 (Table 2), is anthropophilic, and has been implicated in P. vivax malaria [106] and Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus transmission [107].
Table 2. List of Anopheles species.
Table 2. List of Anopheles species.
Collection YearCollection MethodCollection Area (by County)Feeding PreferenceDiseases They Can/May Transmit
Anopheles franciscanus McCracken 1904
1934–2022 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Graham
Maricopa
Pima
Santa Cruz
Large mammals (Horse, cow sheep) and small animals (duck, turkey, rabbit, guinea pig) [108]Unknown
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
2012–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsCochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
2016, 2017, 2020–2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Anopheles freeborni Aitken 1939 
2013, 2017 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsSanta Cruz
Pinal
Large mammals [66]Malaria [109] a, †
Northway serotype virus [110] b
Anopheles hermsi Barr and Guptavanij 1989
1995 and 1997 [102]UnknownCochise
Navajo
Santa Cruz
Humans [102]Malaria [103] a
2004–2010, 2012, 2014 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsYuma
Cochise
Yavapai
Unknown (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Pima
Anopheles judithae Zavortink 1969
1964 (UAIC)UnknownCochiseUnknownUnknown
On or before 1969 [111]UnknownUnknown
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCochise
Maricopa
Pima
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Anopheles pseudopunctipennis Theobald 1901
2015, 2017 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPimaHumans [112]Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus [107] b
Malaria [113] b
2016, 2018–2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
One or more scientists in the State have expressed doubts about the accuracy of this collection record. a Vector competence study under laboratory conditions. b Virus or parasite isolated from field-collected specimens. Detection of the parasite in the saliva of mosquito post-infection.

3.3. Genus Culex Linnaeus 1758

There are 14 species of Culex identified in Arizona. Mosquitoes of this genus can carry or transmit arboviruses, such as WNV [76,114], SLEV [94], and Western equine encephalitis (WEE) [23,115], but also Zika virus [96], which is commonly associated with Aedes species (see below).
The most common Culex species of medical importance (vectors of, e.g., WNV & SLEV) are Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) and Culex tarsalis (Coquillett) (Table 3). These have also been the most abundant species reported to AZDHS in recent years. Many other Culex species identified in the State can carry and/or transmit WNV (Table 3). WNV is endemic to Arizona, with sporadic outbreaks of the disease [116,117], including the largest documented outbreak of the disease in a single county in the history of the United States in 2021 [118].
While mosquitoes of the genus Aedes, particularly Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, are commonly implicated with the transmission of Zika [119,120], the arbovirus has been found in field-collected Culex coronator (Dyar & Knab), Culex quinquefasciatus, and Culex tarsalis [96].
Finally, Culex erraticus (Dyar & Knab) has been incriminated as a laboratory vector of reptilian malaria caused by Plasmodium floridense [121].
Table 3. List of Culex species.
Table 3. List of Culex species.
Collection YearCollection MethodCollection Area (by County)Feeding PreferenceDiseases They Can/May Transmit
Culex abominator Dyar and Knab 1909 
2012–2014 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Yavapai
Yuma
Pinal
UnknownUnknown
Culex apicalis Adams 1903
1930–1963 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Pima
Reptiles, amphibians, and birds [66]Unknown
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownApache
Coconino
Maricopa
Navajo
Pima
Yavapai
Culex arizonensis Bohart 1949
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownPima
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
UnknownUnknown
1961–1964 (UAIC)UnknownPima
Santa Cruz
Culex coronator Dyar and Knab  1906
1930–1963, 1996–2021 (UAIC)UnknownUnknownMammals and avian [122]West Nile virus [114] a, †, †††
[76] b, †††
Zika virus [96] b, †††
St. Louis Encephalitis virus [94] a
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochise
Pima
2012–2015, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Culex erraticus (Dyar and Knab 1906)
2012–2021 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsYumaHumans and other mammals, birds, amphibians [123]West Nile virus [76] b, †††
Eastern equine encephalomyelitis virus [97] b, †††
Eastern equine encephalitis [124] b
Reptilian malaria [121] a, †
Unknown (UAIC)UnknownYuma
Culex erythrothorax Dyar 1907 *
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochiseHumans and birds [23]West Nile virus [125] b, †††
[93] a, †
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCochise
Santa Cruz
Yuma
1998–2023 (UAIC)UnknownPima
2012–2021 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsApache
Cochise
Coconino
Graham
Imperial
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
Culex nigripalpus Theobald 1901
1962 (UAIC)UnknownSanta CruzMammals and avian [122]West Nile virus [76] b, †††
St. Louis encephalitis virus [126] b, †††
Eastern equine encephalitis virus [127] b
Culex pipiens Linnaeus 1758 
2012–2013, 2015, 2021 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsYumaBirds [128]
Humans [129]
West Nile virus [130] b, †††
Usutu virus [131] a, †
Avian malaria [132] b, †††
Culex quinquefasciatus Say 1823
1920–2023 (UAIC)UnknownGraham
Pima
Mammals and avian [122]West Nile virus [133] a, †, †††
[31,76] b, †††
Zika virus [96] b, †††
St. Louis encephalitis virus [134] a
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochise
Graham
Maricopa
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yuma
2010, 2012–2021 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPinal
Pima
Maricopa
Mohave
Yavapai
Yuma
Cochise
La Paz
Santa Cruz
Coconino
Graham
Navajo
Gila
Apache
2016, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
In 2021 [55]BG-pro trap baited with dry iceMaricopa (Tempe)
Culex restuans Theobald 1901
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownSanta CruzBirds, humans and other vertebrates [135]West Nile Virus [136] a, †, †††
La Crosse virus [137] a, †
2015 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Culex stigmatosoma Dyar 1907 **
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochiseBirds, mammals and reptiles [138]West Nile virus [93] a, †
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCochise
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yuma
Culex tarsalis Coquillett  1896
1935–2023 (UAIC)UnknownPimaBirds, cattle, horses, and humans [135]West Nile virus [93] a, †
[31] b, †††
Zika virus [96] b, †††
St. Louis Encephalitis virus
[94] a
[134] a
Western equine encephalomyelitis [139] a
Western equine encephalitis [115] a
[64] b
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCollected in large numbers in every county at the time except Greenlee
2012–2021 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsApache
Cochise
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Pima
Pinal
Yavapai
Yuma
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Navajo
Santa Cruz
Imperial
2016–2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
In 2021 [55]BG-pro trap baited with dry iceMaricopa (Tempe)
Culex territans Walker 1856
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochiseAmphibians, reptiles, humans and other mammals [66]Unknown
2015, 2017 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Culex thriambus Dyar 1921
1953–2022 (UAIC)UnknownPima
Maricopa
Cochise
Santa Cruz
Yuma
Mohave
Birds [140]West Nile virus [140] b
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownApache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Greenlee
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
2012–2013, 2015–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Coconino
One or more scientists in the State have expressed doubts about the accuracy of this collection record. * Culex erythrothorax (Dyar) was listed as Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus (Say) in the 1973 and 1974 lists of mosquitoes of Arizona [20,23]. ** Culex stigmatosoma (Dyar) was listed as Culex peus (Speiser), a now suppressed name, in the 1973 and 1974 lists of mosquitoes of Arizona [20,23]. a Vector competence study under laboratory conditions. b Virus isolated from field-collected specimens. Detection of virus in the saliva of mosquito post-infection. ††† Disseminated infection (i.e., detection of virus in body, legs, and/or wings of mosquito).

3.4. Genus Culiseta Felt 1904

There are three species of Culiseta identified in Arizona as outlined in Table 4. Mosquitoes of this genus can transmit arboviruses, such as WNV, WEE, and SLEV [93,94,115,141]. All three species found in Arizona feed on mammals, including humans, and could serve as a potential vector for the transmission of arboviral diseases that are already present in the State, such as WNV and SLEV.
While mosquitoes of the Culex genus are more commonly associated with and screened for diseases like WNV and SLEV, Culiseta incidens (Thomson) and Culiseta inornata (Williston) have been successfully infected with WNV and SLEV in the laboratory (Table 4). While these species have been collected recently in the State, they are not typically screened for the presence of arboviruses (e.g., WNV) by public health departments.
Finally, Culiseta incidens and Culiseta inornata are confirmed laboratory vectors of WEE [115]. The virus has also been isolated from field-collected Culiseta inornata in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, in 1962 [64].
Table 4. List of Culiseta species.
Table 4. List of Culiseta species.
Collection YearCollection MethodCollection Area (by County)Feeding PreferenceDiseases They Can/May Transmit
Culiseta incidens (Thomson 1869)
1917–2022 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Maricopa
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Mammals, including humans [23,66]West Nile virus [141] a
St. Louis encephalitis virus [94] a
Western equine encephalitis [115] a, ††
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownGraham
Greenlee
Pinal
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownAll counties at the time except Pinal and Graham
2013, 2016–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsCoconino
Yavapai
Coconino
Pima
2020 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Culiseta inornata (Williston 1893)
1920–1989 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Maricopa
Mohave
Pima
Santa Cruz
Yuma
Humans and other mammals (cattle) [66]West Nile virus [93] a, †
St. Louis encephalitis virus [94] a
Western equine encephalitis [115] a
[64] b, †††
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownGila
Graham
Greenlee
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownAll counties at the time except Gila, Greenlee and Graham
2012–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsCoconino
Pima
Yavapai
Yuma
Cochise
Gila
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Apache
2018–2019, 2021–2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
In 2021 [55]BG-pro trap baited with dry iceMaricopa (Tempe)
Culiseta particeps (Adams 1903) *
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownSanta CruzHumans and other large mammals [23,66]Unknown
1963–1997 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Pima
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCochise
Pima
Santa Cruz
* Culiseta particeps (Adams) was listed as Culiseta maccrackenae (Dyar & Knab) elsewhere [61]. Although this species feeds on both humans and other animals, it has not been associated with any diseases. a Vector competence study under laboratory conditions. b Virus isolated from field-collected specimens. Detection of virus in the saliva of mosquito post-infection. †† Evidence of transmission to animals by an infected mosquito. ††† Disseminated infection (i.e., detection of virus in body, legs, and/or wings of mosquito).

3.5. Genus Orthopodomyia Theobald 1904

There are two species of Orthopodomyia identified in Arizona (Table 5). One of these species (Orthopodomyia signifera (Coquillett)) has been implicated in the transmission of EEE and WEE [142]. Although these two arboviruses are not currently circulating in the State, a horse recently tested positive for EEE [14], which suggests that monitoring this genus, in addition to, e.g., Aedes sollicitans, Aedes vexans, and Culex tarsalis, may be warranted. There are also no recent records of this genus in Arizona, which again may be attributed to surveillance systems currently in place (see Discussion).

3.6. Genus Psorophora Robineau-Desvoidy 1827

There are six species of Psorophora identified in Arizona (Table 6). Psorophora confinnis (Lynch-Arribalzaga) has been implicated as a probable vector of VEEV during epidemics and epizootics observed in Mexico, Venezuela, the southern United States, and Guatemala [143]. Additionally, WNV has also been detected in field-collected Psorophora columbiae (Dyar & Knab) and Psorophora signipennis (Coquillett) [116,144]. As Culex species are more commonly associated with and screened for WNV, Psorophora species are not included in the routine WNV surveillance by the public health departments in the State (see Discussion). Finally, field-collected Psorophora columbiae (Dyar & Knab) has been found infected with dog heartworm in 2010, in Payne County, Oklahoma [145].

3.7. Genera Toxorhynchites Theobald 1901 and Uranotaenia Lynch Arribálzaga 1891

Toxorhynchites moctezuma (Dyar & Knab), Uranotaenia anhydor (Dyar), and Uranotaenia sapphirina (Osten Sacken) have been identified in Arizona (Table 7). These species have no known association with disease transmission in humans and/or animals.
Toxorhynchites moctezuma are non-blood-feeding mosquitoes known for their larval predatory behavior (their larvae feed on the larvae of other mosquito species) [150]. Therefore, they may be used as a biological control for other mosquito species that are responsible for the transmission of MBDs.
There are no documented collection records of Uranotaenia anhydor since 1956 [61], which may again be attributed to surveillance systems currently in place (see Discussion). However, the collection of Uranotaenia sapphirina (Osten Sacken) was last reported to AZDHS in 2015 (Table 7).

4. Discussion

There is a total of 56 mosquito species that have been identified in Arizona to date, many of which can transmit disease to humans and/or other animals. This list serves as a foundational resource for understanding the mosquito diversity in the State. It is meant to guide both surveillance (e.g., target species in surveillance programs and molecular detection of diseases in different mosquito species) and research (e.g., improving our understanding of mosquito feeding preference and vector competence) agendas. While it is a good starting point for continued discussions about mosquito surveillance practices in the State, there are a few caveats, which we list below.
First, it is important to note that the morphological identification of some species may have been inaccurate, since some species are morphologically indistinguishable. To illustrate, the 1973 list included Anopheles barberi (Coquillett) [23], which may actually have been Anopheles judithae. Anopheles hermsi was cataloged as Anopheles freeborni in the 1973 and 1974 lists [20,23], which may have been due to their similar morphologies [102]. While Aedes infirmatus was initially included on the 1973 and 1974 lists of mosquitoes found in Arizona [20,23], it was noted as a misidentified Aedes trivittatus a few years later [151]. Currently, many health departments use dichotomous mosquito identification keys, which may result in misidentification. This can be overcome by species-specific molecular identification tools, such as internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) of ribosomal DNA (rDNA) [152] and mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase subunit 1 (CO1) gene-based DNA barcoding [153]. This will target specific rDNA or DNA sequences that are unique to individual mosquito species and allow for highly specific identification, even among closely related species with morphological similarities. Also, it is worthwhile to note that dichotomous keys are sometimes the most cost-effective mosquito identification method for some health departments and can be an effective identification tool if personnel are properly trained. Accurately identifying species is important in assessing MBD transmission risks and developing appropriate vector control strategies, since different species may differ in their competency in transmitting diseases.
Second, there is often no information on the collection/sampling methods for many of the mosquito species presented here. When information is available, CO2-baited traps (often using dry ice) are most commonly used in the State. Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona that includes the city of Phoenix, uses EVS (Encephalitis-Virus-Surveillance) traps more than other traps [154]. Although these traps collect Aedes aegypti [155,156,157], there are other trap types that may be more efficient in trapping Aedes species, such as the BG-Sentinel trap [157]. The same applies to anopheline species, where, e.g., CDC light traps [158] and Mosquito Magnet Patriot Mosquito traps [159] may be more effective in capturing this genus. In addition, other entomological indicators that can be used to guide vector control, such as (i) larval habitat preference (assessed through, e.g., larval dipping [160] or the use of environmental DNA [161]), (ii) indoor resting densities (assessed through, e.g., indoor resting collections and window exit traps), and (iii) the time of mosquito activity (assessed through, e.g., hourly switching of collection nets or rotator traps) are better assessed using different sampling methods [160]. Using the appropriate mosquito sampling methods in surveillance programs will ensure that the obtained data are reliable and relevant for public health decision-making, by identifying the appropriate control tools to optimally target vectors of medical importance [162].
Local Vector Control agencies should adopt a multifaceted mosquito surveillance approach that encompasses not only monitoring mosquito abundance in various counties but also investigating other ecological and behavioral relevant factors, such as breeding site selection, host preferences, flight ranges, and insecticide resistance status. For example, knowledge of their preferred breeding sites and areas allows for more effective and targeted larviciding efforts. And—as outlined in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7—there is a large variation in the feeding preference (i.e., host preference) between the different mosquito species, which determines the disease transmission risk to both humans and animals (i.e., an anthropophilic vector poses a larger threat to human health than a zoophilic vector and vice versa for animal health). It is also important to understand the flight ranges of the different species to create and implement spatially informed vector control strategies [163]. Resistance to many classes of insecticides has been observed in a range of mosquito species (e.g., Aedes, Culex, Anopheles), which affects vector control efforts [164,165,166,167] and has been reported for the main vector species (Culex quinquefasciatus, Culex tarsalis, and Aedes aegypti) by AZDHS and partners. Continuously monitoring insecticide resistance and developing an insecticide resistance management plan that also includes some of the other vector species listed in this paper allows us to ensure that current and future insecticides remain effective in MBD control and prevention.
Finally, to complicate matters, we need to face the fact that different mosquito species—and even genera—that we are currently not monitoring (or are collecting but not testing for diseases) may transmit common and emerging diseases in the State. For example, it has been shown that Culex mosquitoes can play a role in Aedes-borne disease transmission and vice versa. The same has been demonstrated between Culex and Psorophora or Anopheles species. Surveillance programs tend to primarily focus on, e.g., Aedes species when investigating diseases commonly associated with that genus (e.g., Zika, dengue). WNV is also mostly screened for in several Culex species, as they are considered the primary vectors. This focused approach may lead to the potential oversight of other competent vector species, which can lead to vector control decisions that do not necessarily impact disease transmission dynamics in local communities. Mosquito surveillance programs could screen for diseases in other potential vector species, even if it is in a so-called “snap-shot entomological surveillance” approach (i.e., only at certain time intervals and in certain places) [162].
Establishing a central mosquito biobank with a subset of specimens that are collected throughout the State is warranted. This will serve as a repository that will greatly enhance surveillance programs by (i) providing a central location for long-term mosquito preservation whereby specimens are available for training public health officials in species identification and (ii) serving as a valuable resource for (future) genetic studies (e.g., sequencing) to look for, e.g., insecticide resistance markers and novel viruses, or conduct species-specific molecular identification [168].

5. Conclusions

In this study, we presented a comprehensive and up-to-date list of all known mosquito species identified in Arizona to date. This supersedes the most recent lists published about 50 years ago. We provided valuable insights into the mosquito fauna of Arizona and shed light on the known feeding preferences of the different species, as well as the diseases they can potentially carry and/or transmit to humans and animals. To effectively address the public health implications of MBDs in the State, a large group of stakeholders—including entomologists, epidemiologists, social scientists, wildlife ecologists, and ornithologists—must collaborate and develop a mosquito surveillance framework that is tailored to better identify the factors that govern the diseases that (i) currently circulate in the State and (ii) may emerge here in the near future. Social scientists can play an important role in MBD prevention efforts by providing insights into the link between MBDs and socioeconomic status in order to identify locations or specific populations that are more at risk for MBDs. For example, studies have shown that lower socio-economic status is linked with higher disease incidence [169,170], although the opposite is observed as well [155]. The agricultural sector should also be involved if they use (or have used) insecticidal classes that are also used in public health [171,172]. Furthermore, it is paramount to collaborate with irrigation and drainage districts [173], as the systems currently in place in our desert environment may unintentionally create productive mosquito breeding areas (e.g., after flood irrigation, and inside storm drains). Additionally, it is essential to engage the community (through, e.g., community-based integrated vector management IVM programs [174]) to help with eliminating and preventing stagnant water sources serving as breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Furthermore, through collaborations with institutions like the USDA, local public health professionals can be effectively trained to monitor and detect not only autochthonous MBDs but also MBD occurrence through importations and in local zoonotic reservoirs (rodents, reptiles, amphibians, birds, etc.). This interdisciplinary approach of different stakeholders working together will ensure that proactive measures are put in place to safeguard the health of our local communities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.B.J.; methodology, N.B.J. and K.P.P.; project administration, N.B.J.; validation, N.B.J.; investigation, N.B.J.; resources, N.B.J., I.R., N.M.F., K.M.Y., M.A.J., J.T. and J.B.W.; data curation, N.B.J.; writing—original draft preparation, N.B.J.; writing—review and editing, N.B.J., N.M.F., M.A.J., A.B.M., I.R., J.T., J.B.W., K.M.Y. and K.P.P.; supervision, N.B.J. and K.P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

NMF: AJ and KMY were supported by the National Science Foundation (award numbers DBI 2217817 and DBI 2027654). IR was supported by the CDC Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Cooperative Agreement. KPP was supported by the National Science Foundation (award number 2052363). ABM and KPP were supported by a grant from ASU’s Women and Philanthropy and acknowledge funding support from the Pacific Southwest Regional Center of Excellence for Vector-Borne Diseases funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Cooperative Agreement 1U01CK000649). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data from AZDHS and UAIC can be made available by the authors on request. The original data from NEON presented in this study is openly available in the NEON Biorepository Data Portal.

Acknowledgments

We thank Frank Ramberg for his valuable insights, and the University of Arizona Insect Collection (UAIC) for providing information. The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) is a program sponsored by the National Science Foundation and operated under cooperative agreement by Battelle. This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation through the NEON Program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Catalogue of Life. 2024. Available online: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/search?TAXON_ID=C993M&rank=species&status=accepted&status=provisionally%20accepted (accessed on 6 February 2024).
  2. Caraballo, H.; King, K. Emergency department management of mosquito-borne illness: Malaria, dengue, and West Nile virus. Emerg. Med. Pract. 2014, 16, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Zimler, R.A.; Alto, B.W. Vertical Transmission of Zika Virus by Florida Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus. Insects 2023, 14, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mead, P.S.; Hills, S.L.; Brooks, J.T. Zika virus as a sexually transmitted pathogen. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 31, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Arizona Department of Health Services. Arizona 2021 West Nile Virus Statistics; Arizona Department of Health Services: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arizona Department of Health Services. Arizona 2015 St. Louis Encephalitis Virus Statistics; Arizona Department of Health Services: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kretschmer, M.; Collins, J.; Dale, A.P.; Garrett, B.; Koski, L.; Zabel, K.; Staab, N.R.; Turnbow, K.; Nativio, J.; Andrews, K.; et al. Notes from the Field: First Evidence of Locally Acquired Dengue Virus Infection—Maricopa County, Arizona, November 2022. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2022, 241, 2022–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bouri, N.; Sell, T.K.; Franco, C.; Adalja, A.A.; Henderson, D.; Hynes, N.A. Return of Epidemic Dengue in the United States: Implications for the Public Health Practitioner. Public Health Rep. 2012, 127, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Likos, A.; Griffin, I.; Bingham, A.M.; Stanek, D.; Fischer, M.; White, S.; Hamilton, J.; Eisenstein, L.; Atrubin, D.; Mulay, P.; et al. Local Mosquito-Borne Transmission of Zika Virus—Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, June–August 2016. MMWR Morb. Mortal Wkly. Rep. 2016, 65, 1032–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hinojosa, S.; Alquiza, A.; Guerrero, C.; Vanegas, D.; Tapangan, N.; Cano, N.; Olivarez, E. Detection of a Locally-Acquired Zika Virus Outbreak in Hidalgo County, Texas through Increased Antenatal Testing in a High-Risk Area. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2020, 5, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. CDC. Locally Acquired Cases of Malaria in Florida, Texas, Maryland, and Arkansas. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2023. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/new_info/2023/malaria_US.html (accessed on 2 January 2024).
  12. Hepp, C.M.; Cocking, J.H.; Valentine, M.; Young, S.J.; Damian, D.; Samuels-Crow, K.E.; Sheridan, K.; Fofanov, V.Y.; Furstenau, T.N.; Busch, J.D.; et al. Phylogenetic analysis of West Nile Virus in Maricopa County, Arizona: Evidence for dynamic behavior of strains in two major lineages in the American Southwest. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Komar, N.; Brault, A.C.; Levy, C.E.; Panella, N.A.; Young, G.R. Avian Hosts of West Nile Virus in Arizona. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2013, 89, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. EDCC Eastern Equine Encephalitis—Alert ID: 3350. Cochise County, AZ. 2023. Available online: https://equinediseasecc.org/search/alert/3350 (accessed on 6 February 2024).
  15. Self, S.W.; Pulaski, C.N.; McMahan, C.S.; Brown, D.A.; Yabsley, M.J.; Gettings, J.R. Regional and local temporal trends in the prevalence of canine heartworm infection in the contiguous United States: 2012–2018. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lednicky, J.A.; White, S.K.; Stephenson, C.J.; Cherabuddi, K.; Loeb, J.C.; Moussatche, N.; Lednicky, A.; Morris, J.G., Jr. Keystone virus isolated from a Florida teenager with rash and subjective fever: Another endemic arbovirus in the Southeastern United States? Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 68, 143–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Watts, D.M.; Gargan, T.P.; LeDuc, J.W.; Dalrymple, J.M.; Bailey, C.L. Serologic Evidence of Jamestown Canyon and Keystone Virus Infection in Vertebrates of the Delmarva Peninsula. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1982, 31, 1245–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Brown, A.B.; Miller, C.; Hamer, D.H.; Kozarsky, P.; Libman, M.; Huits, R.; Rizwan, A.; Emetulu, H.; Waggoner, J.; Chen, L.H.; et al. Travel-Related Diagnoses Among U.S. Nonmigrant Travelers or Migrants Presenting to U.S. GeoSentinel Sites—GeoSentinel Network, 2012–2021. MMWR. Surveill. Summ. 2023, 72, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mahdavi, S.A.; Raeesi, A.; Faraji, L.; Youssefi, M.R.; Rahimi, M.T. Malaria or flu? A case report of misdiagnosis. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2014, 4, S56–S58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. McDonald, J.; Olton, G.S. A List and Bibliography of the Mosquitoes in Arizona. Systematics 1974, 6, 89–92. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wilkerson, R.C.; Linton, Y.M.; Strickman, D. Mosquitoes of the World; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2021; 1308p. [Google Scholar]
  22. NEON Biorepository Data Portal. NEON Biorepository Mosquito Collection (Pinned Vouchers). 2023. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/72c42d42-030c-4b13-8815-281d3df11429 (accessed on 6 February 2024).
  23. McDonald, J.; Sluss, T.; Lang, J.; Roan, C. Mosquitoes of Arizona; College of Agriculture, University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1973; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  24. Benedict, M.Q.; Levine, R.S.; Hawley, W.A.; Lounibos, L.P. Spread of The Tiger: Global Risk of Invasion by The Mosquito Aedes albopictus. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007, 7, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Severini, F.; Boccolini, D.; Fortuna, C.; Di Luca, M.; Toma, L.; Amendola, A.; Benedetti, E.; Minelli, G.; Romi, R.; Venturi, G. Vector competence of Italian Aedes albopictus populations for the chikungunya virus (E1-226V). PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Joanne, S.; Vythilingam, I.; Teoh, B.T.; Leong, C.S.; Tan, K.K.; Wong, M.L.; Yugavathy, N.; AbuBakar, S. Vector competence of Malaysian Aedes albopictus with and without Wolbachia to four dengue virus serotypes. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2017, 22, 1154–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Azar, S.R.; Roundy, C.M.; Rossi, S.L.; Huang, J.H.; Leal, G.; Yun, R.; Fernandez-Salas, I.; Vitek, C.J.; Paploski, I.A.; Stark, P.M.; et al. Differential Vector Competency of Aedes albopictus Populations from the Americas for Zika Virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017, 97, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. CDPH Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus Mosquitoes in California by City or Census-Designated Place; California Department of Public Health: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2024.
  29. Martinet, J.-P.; Bohers, C.; Vazeille, M.; Ferté, H.; Mousson, L.; Mathieu, B.; Depaquit, J.; Failloux, A.-B. Assessing vector competence of mosquitoes from northeastern France to West Nile virus and Usutu virus. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2023, 17, e0011144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rothman, S.E.; Jones, J.A.; LaDeau, S.L.; Leisnham, P.T. Higher West Nile Virus Infection in Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Culex (Diptera: Culicidae) Mosquitoes from Lower Income Neighborhoods in Urban Baltimore, MD. J. Med. Entomol. 2020, 58, 1424–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Zuñiga, D.M.; Cime-Castillo, J.; Hernandez, L.M.; Mendoza, F.F.; Bueno, J.T.; Moya, R.; Aguirre, J.R.; Avitia, J.A.; González-Acosta, C.; Correa-Morales, F.; et al. Arbovirus surveillance on the Mexico–USA border: West Nile virus identification in various species of field mosquitoes. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2023, 28, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Barrera, R.; Mackay, A.; Amador, M.; Vasquez, J.; Smith, J.; Díaz, A.; Acevedo, V.; Cabán, B.; Hunsperger, E.A.; Muñoz-Jordán, J.L. Mosquito Vectors of West Nile Virus During an Epizootic Outbreak in Puerto Rico. J. Med. Entomol. 2010, 47, 1185–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. CDC West Nile Virus Activity—Eastern United States, 2001. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5029a1.htm (accessed on 6 February 2024).
  34. Chamberlain, R.W.; Bikes, R.K.; Nelson, D.B.; Sudia, W.D. Studies on the North American Arthropod-Borne Encephalitides: VI. Quantitative Determinations of Virus-Vector Relationships. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1954, 60, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Crans, W.J. The status of Aedes sollicitans as an epidemic vector of Eastern Equine Encephalitis in New Jersey. Mosq. NEWS 1977, 37, 85–89. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sudia, W.D.; Kissling, R.E.; Chamberlain, R.W.; Stamm, D.D. Transmission of Eastern Equine Encephalitis to Horses by Aedes Sollicitans Mosquitoes. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1956, 5, 802–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hayes, R.O.; Bonese, M.J.; Beadle, L.D.; Sussman, O.; Hess, A.D. Entomological Aspects of the 1959 Outbreak of Eastern Encephalitis in New Jersey. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1962, 11, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hendrix, C.M.; Bemrick, W.J.; Schlotthauer, J.C. Natural transmission of Dirofilaria immitis by Aedes vexans. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1980, 41, 1253–1255. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Manrique-Saide, P.; Bolio-González, M.; Sauri-Arceo, C.; Dzib-Florez, S.; Zapata-Peniche, A. Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus: A Probable Vector of Dirofilaria immitis in Coastal Areas of Yucatan, Mexico. J. Med. Entomol. 2008, 45, 169–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ponlawat, A.; Harrington, L.C. Blood feeding patterns of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Thailand. J. Med. Entomol. 2005, 42, 844–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tandon, N.; Ray, S. Host Feeding Pattern of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus in Kolkata India. Dengue. Bull. 2000, 24, 117–120. [Google Scholar]
  42. Couto-Lima, D.; Madec, Y.; Bersot, M.I.; Campos, S.S.; Motta, M.d.A.; dos Santos, F.B.; Vazeille, M.; Vasconcelos, P.F.d.C.; Lourenço-De-Oliveira, R.; Failloux, A.-B. Potential risk of re-emergence of urban transmission of Yellow Fever virus in Brazil facilitated by competent Aedes populations. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lataillade, L.d.G.d.; Vazeille, M.; Obadia, T.; Madec, Y.; Mousson, L.; Kamgang, B.; Chen, C.-H.; Failloux, A.-B.; Yen, P.-S. Risk of yellow fever virus transmission in the Asia-Pacific region. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Main, B.J.; Nicholson, J.; Winokur, O.C.; Steiner, C.; Riemersma, K.K.; Stuart, J.; Takeshita, R.; Krasnec, M.; Barker, C.M.; Coffey, L.L. Vector competence of Aedes aegypti, Culex tarsalis, and Culex quinquefasciatus from California for Zika virus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Diallo, D.; Sall, A.A.; Diagne, C.T.; Faye, O.; Faye, O.; Ba, Y.; Hanley, K.A.; Buenemann, M.; Weaver, S.C.; Diallo, M. Zika Virus Emergence in Mosquitoes in Southeastern Senegal, 2011. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e109442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Parra, M.C.; Lorenz, C.; de Aguiar Milhim, B.H.; Dibo, M.R.; Guirado, M.M.; Chiaravalloti-Neto, F.; Nogueira, M.L. Detection of Zika RNA virus in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes, São Paulo, Brazil. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2022, 98, 105226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Buckner, E.A.; Alto, B.W.; Lounibos, L.P. Vertical Transmission of Key West Dengue-1 Virus by Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) Mosquitoes from Florida. J. Med. Entomol. 2013, 50, 1291–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Poole-Smith, B.K.; Hemme, R.R.; Delorey, M.; Felix, G.; Gonzalez, A.L.; Amador, M.; Hunsperger, E.A.; Barrera, R. Comparison of Vector Competence of Aedes mediovittatus and Aedes aegypti for Dengue Virus: Implications for Dengue Control in the Caribbean. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2015, 9, e0003462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ali, E.O.M.; Babalghith, A.O.; Bahathig, A.O.S.; Dafalla, O.M.; Al-Maghamsi, I.W.; Mustafa, N.E.A.G.; Al-Zahrani, A.A.A.; Al-Mahmoudi, S.M.Y.; Abdel-Latif, M.E. Detection of Dengue Virus from Aedes aegypti (Diptera, Culicidae) in Field-Caught Samples From Makkah Al-Mokarramah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Using RT-PCR. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 850851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sarma, D.K.; Rathod, L.; Mishra, S.; Das, D.; Agarwal, A.; Sharma, G.; Singh, T.A.; Kumawat, M.; Singh, S.; Verma, V.; et al. Molecular surveillance of dengue virus in field-collected Aedes mosquitoes from Bhopal, central India: Evidence of circulation of a new lineage of serotype 2. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1260812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Agha, S.B.; Chepkorir, E.; Mulwa, F.; Tigoi, C.; Arum, S.; Guarido, M.M.; Ambala, P.; Chelangat, B.; Lutomiah, J.; Tchouassi, D.P.; et al. Vector competence of populations of Aedes aegypti from three distinct cities in Kenya for chikungunya virus. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cigarroa-Toledo, N.; Blitvich, B.J.; Cetina-Trejo, R.C.; Talavera-Aguilar, L.G.; Baak-Baak, C.M.; Torres-Chablé, O.M.; Hamid, M.N.; Friedberg, I.; González-Martinez, P.; Alonzo-Salomon, G.; et al. Chikungunya virus in febrile humans and aedes Aegypti mosquitoes, Yucatan, Mexico. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2016, 22, 1804–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bequaert, J. Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, in Arizona. Bull. Brooklyn Entomol. Soc. 1946, 41, 157. [Google Scholar]
  54. Engelthaler, D.M.; Fink, T.M.; Levy, C.E.; Leslie, M.J. The reemergence of Aedes aegypti in Arizona. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1997, 3, 241–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jobe, N.B.; Huijben, S.; Will, J.B.; Townsend, J.; Paaijmans, K.P. Comparing the efficiency of different carbon dioxide sources in collecting mosquito vector species on the Tempe Campus of Arizona State University. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2023, 39, 142–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kamgang, B.; Nchoutpouen, E.; Simard, F.; Paupy, C. Notes on the blood-feeding behavior of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Cameroon. Parasites Vectors 2012, 5, 54–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bonilauri, P.; Bellini, R.; Calzolari, M.; Angelini, R.; Venturi, L.; Fallacara, F.; Cordioli, P.; Angelini, P.; Venturelli, C.; Merialdi, G.; et al. Chikungunya Virus in Aedes albopictus, Italy. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2008, 14, 852–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kobayashi, D.; Murota, K.; Fujita, R.; Itokawa, K.; Kotaki, A.; Moi, M.L.; Ejiri, H.; Maekawa, Y.; Ogawa, K.; Tsuda, Y.; et al. Dengue Virus Infection in Aedes albopictus during the 2014 Autochthonous Dengue Outbreak in Tokyo Metropolis, Japan. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2018, 98, 1460–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Zavortink, T.J. Mosquito Studies (Diptera, Culicidae) XXVIII. The New World species formerly placed in Aedes (Finlaya). Rev. Lit. Arts Am. 1972, 8, 1–206. [Google Scholar]
  60. Burger, J.F. Aedes kompi Vargas and Downs 1950, new to the United States. Mosq News. 1965, 25, 396–398. [Google Scholar]
  61. Richards, C.S.; Nielson, L.T.; Rees, D.M. Mosquito Records from the Great Basin and the Drainage of the Lower Colorado River. Mosq. News 1956, 16, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hardy, J.L.; Eldridge, B.F.; Reeves, W.C.; Schutz, S.J.; Presser, S.B. Isolations of Jamestown Canyon Virus (Bunyaviridae: California Serogroup) from Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in the Western United States, 1990–1992. J. Med. Entomol. 1993, 30, 1053–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Carpenter, S.J.; Lacasse, W.J. Mosquitoes of North America (North of Mexico); University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 1955. [Google Scholar]
  64. Spalatin, J.; Burton, A.N.; McLintock, J.; Connell, R. Isolation of Western Equine Encephalomyelitis (Wee) Virus from Mosquitoes In Saskatchewan, 1962. Can. J. Comp. Med. Vet. Sci. 1963, 27, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Heard, P.B.; Zhang, M.B.; Grimstad, P.R. Laboratory transmission of Jamestown Canyon and snowshoe hare viruses (Bunyaviridae: California serogroup) by several species of mosquitoes. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1991, 7, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  66. PMVCD. Placer Mosquito Vector Control District. Vector Library. 2022. Available online: https://placermosquito.org/resources/ (accessed on 6 February 2024).
  67. Shen, D.T.; Gorham, J.R.; Harwood, R.F.; Padgett, G.A. The persistence of Aleutian disease virus in the mosquito Aedes fitchii. Arch. Gesamte Virusforsch. 1973, 40, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Walker, E.D.; Yuill, T.M. Snowshoe hare virus: Discovery, distribution, vector and host associations, and medical significance. J. Med. Entomol. 2023, 60, 1252–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Campbell, G.L.; Hardy, J.L.; Eldridge, B.F.; Reeves, W.C. Isolation of Jamestown Canyon Virus from Boreal Aedes Mosquitoes from the Sierra Nevada of California. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1991, 44, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Nielsen, L.T.; Wolff, T.A.; Linam, J.H. New distribution records for snowpool Aedes mosquitoes in the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico. Mosq. News. 1973, 378–380. [Google Scholar]
  71. McLintock, J.; Curry, P.; Wagner, R.; Leung, M.; Iversen, J. Isolation of snowshoe hare virus from Aedes implicatus larvae in Saskatchewan. Mosq. News 1976, 36, 233–237. [Google Scholar]
  72. Hartman, D.A.; Bergren, N.A.; Kondash, T.; Schlatmann, W.; Webb, C.T.; Kading, R.C. Susceptibility and barriers to infection of Colorado mosquitoes with Rift Valley fever virus. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kramer, L.D.; Hardy, J.L.; Reeves, W.C.; Bowen, M.D.; Eldridge, B.F.; Presser, S.B. Vector Competence of California Mosquitoes for California Encephalitis and California Encephalitis-Like Viruses. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1992, 47, 562–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Blackmore, J.S.; Winn, J.F. Aedes nigromaculis (Ludlow), Mosquito Naturally Infected with Western Equine Encephalomyelitis Virus. Exp. Biol. Med. 1954, 87, 328–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Hubálek, Z.; Rudolf, I.; Nowotny, N. Arboviruses pathogenic for domestic and wild animals. Adv. Virus Res. 2014, 89, 201–275. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  76. Unlu, I.; Kramer, W.L.; Roy, A.F.; Foil, L.D. Detection of west nile virus RNA in mosquitoes and identification of mosquito blood meals collected at alligator farms in Louisiana. J. Med. Entomol. 2010, 47, 625–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Tesh, R.B.; Bolling, B.G.; Guzman, H.; Popov, V.L.; Wilson, A.; Widen, S.G.; Wood, T.G.; Walker, P.J.; Vasilakis, N. Characterization of Port Bolivar Virus a Novel Entomobirnavirus (Birnaviridae) Isolated from Mosquitoes Collected in East Texas, U.S.A. Viruses 2020, 12, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Yuill, T.M.; Thompson, P.H. Cache Valley virus in the Del Mar Va Peninsula. IV. Biological transmission of the virus by Aedes sollicitans and Aedes taeniorhynchus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1970, 19, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Main, A.J.; Crans, W.J. Cache Valley virus from Aedes sollicitans in New Jersey. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1986, 2, 95–96. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  80. Rigby, P.T.; Blakeslee, T.E.; Forehand, C.E. The occurrence of Aedes taeniorhynchus (Widemann), Anopheles barberi (coquillett), and Culex thriambus (Dyar) in Arizona. Mosq. News 1963, 23, 50. [Google Scholar]
  81. Nava, M.R.; Debboun, M. Chapter 2—Mosquito species of Texas. In Mosquitoes, Communities, and Public Health in Texas; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 9–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Eastwood, G.; Goodman, S.J.; Cunningham, A.A.; Kramer, L.D. Aedes Taeniorhynchus Vectorial Capacity Informs a Pre-Emptive Assessment of West Nile Virus Establishment in Galápagos. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, srep01519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Turell, M.J.; O’guinn, M.L.; Dohm, D.J.; Jones, J.W. Vector Competence of North American Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) for West Nile Virus. J. Med. Entomol. 2001, 38, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Turell, M.J. Vector Competence of Three Venezuelan Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) for an Epizootic IC Strain of Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus: Table 1. J. Med. Entomol. 1999, 36, 407–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Maloney, F.A.; Reid, B.J. New record for Aedes thelcter in Arizona. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1990, 6, 138. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  86. Molaei, G.; Andreadis, T.G.; Armstrong, P.M.; Diuk-Wasser, M. Host-feeding patterns of potential mosquito vectors in connecticut, USA: Molecular analysis of bloodmeals from 23 species of Aedes, Anopheles, Culex, Coquillettidia, Psorophora, and Uranotaenia. J. Med. Entomol. 2008, 45, 1143–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Watts, D.M.; DeFoliart, G.R.; Yuill, T.M. Experimental Transmission of Trivittatus Virus (California Virus Group) by Aedes Trivittatus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1976, 25, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Christensen, B.M.; Hausler, W.J.; Rowley, W.A.; Dorsey, D.C.; Wong, Y.W. Laboratory Studies of Transovarial Transmission of Trivittatus Virus by Aedes Trivittatus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1978, 27, 184–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Tiawsirisup, S.; Platt, K.B.; Evans, R.B.; Rowley, W.A. Susceptibility of Ochlerotatus trivittatus (Coq.), Aedes albopictus (Skuse), and Culex pipiens (L.) to West Nile Virus Infection. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2004, 4, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Tangudu, C.S.; Charles, J.; Hurt, S.L.; Dunphy, B.M.; Smith, R.C.; Bartholomay, L.C.; Blitvich, B.J. Skunk River virus, a novel orbivirus isolated from Aedes trivittatus in the United States. J. Gen. Virol. 2019, 100, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Reeves, W.C.; Hammon, W.M.c.D. California Encephalitis Virus, a Newly Described Agent. III. Mosquito infection and transmission. J. Immunol. 1952, 69, 511–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Molaei, G.; Andreadis, T.G. Identification of Avian- and Mammalian-Derived Bloodmeals in Aedes vexans and Culiseta melanura (Diptera: Culicidae) and Its Implication for West Nile Virus Transmission in Connecticut, U.S.A. J. Med. Entomol. 2006, 43, 1088–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Goddard, L.B.; Roth, A.E.; Reisen, W.K.; Scott, T.W. Vector Competence of California Mosquitoes for West Nile virus. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2002, 8, 1385–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hammon, W.M.; Reeves, W.C. Laboratory transmission of St. Louis Encephalitis virus by three genera of mosquitoes. J. Exp. Med. 1943, 78, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Gendernalik, A.; Weger-Lucarelli, J.; Luna, S.M.G.; Fauver, J.R.; Rückert, C.; Murrieta, R.A.; Bergren, N.; Samaras, D.; Nguyen, C.; Kading, R.C.; et al. American Aedes vexans Mosquitoes are Competent Vectors of Zika Virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2017, 96, 1338–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Elizondo-Quiroga, D.; Medina-Sánchez, A.; Sánchez-González, J.M.; Eckert, K.A.; Villalobos-Sánchez, E.; Navarro-Zúñiga, A.R.; Sánchez-Tejeda, G.; Correa-Morales, F.; González-Acosta, C.; Arias, C.F.; et al. Zika Virus in Salivary Glands of Five Different Species of Wild-Caught Mosquitoes from Mexico. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  97. Cupp, E.W.; Tennessen, K.J.; Oldland, W.K.; Hassan, H.K.; Hill, G.E.; Katholi, C.R.; Unnasch, T.R. Mosquito and Arbovirus Activity During 1997–2002 in a Wetland in Northeastern Mississippi. J. Med. Entomol. 2004, 41, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Demirci, B.; Bedir, H.; Tasci, G.T.; Vatansever, Z. Potential Mosquito Vectors of Dirofilaria immitis and Dirofilaira repens (Spirurida: Onchocercidae) in Aras Valley, Turkey. J. Med. Entomol. 2020, 58, 906–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Sinka, M.E.; Bangs, M.J.; Manguin, S.; Chareonviriyaphap, T.; Patil, A.P.; Temperley, W.H.; Gething, P.W.; Elyazar, I.R.; Kabaria, C.W.; E Harbach, R.; et al. The dominant Anopheles vectors of human malaria in the Asia-Pacific region: Occurrence data, distribution maps and bionomic précis. Parasites Vectors 2011, 4, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. WHO. Lymphatic Filariasis: A Handbook of Practical Entomology for National Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination Programmes; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013; Available online: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/87989 (accessed on 4 May 2024).
  101. Guzman-Teran, C.; Calderon-Rangel, A.; Rodriguez-Morales, A.; Mattar, S. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus: The problem is not over for tropical America. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2020, 19, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Hayden, C.W.; Fink, T.M.; Ramberg, F.B.; Maré, C.J.; Mead, D.G. Occurrence of Anopheles hermsi (Diptera: Culicidae) in Arizona and Colorado: Table 1. J. Med. Entomol. 2001, 38, 341–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Porter, C.H.; Collins, F.H. Susceptibility of Anopheles hermsi to Plasmodium vivax. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1990, 42, 414–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. WHO. World Malaria Report 2023; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  105. Molina-Cruz, A.; Zilversmit, M.M.; Neafsey, D.E.; Hartl, D.L.; Barillas-Mury, C. Mosquito Vectors and the Globalization of Plasmodium falciparum Malaria. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2016, 50, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. González-Cerón, L.; Rodríguez, M.H.; Nettel-Cruz, J.A.; Hernández-Ávila, J.E.; Malo-García, I.R.; Santillán-Valenzuela, F.; Villarreal-Treviño, C. Plasmodium vivax CSP-Pvs25 variants from southern Mexico produce distinct patterns of infectivity for Anopheles albimanus versus An. pseudopunctipennis, in each case independent of geographical origin. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sudia, W.D.; Z., L.F.; Newhouse, V.F.; B., R.S.; Chlisher, C.H. Arbovirus Vector Ecology Studies in Mexico during the 1972 Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Outbreak1. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1975, 101, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Belkin, J.N.; Ehmann, N.; Heid, G. Preliminary field observations on the behavior of the adults of Anopheles franciscanus McCracken in southern California. Mosq. News 1951, 11, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  109. Beier, J.C.; Beier, M.S.; Vaughan, J.A.; Pumpuni, C.B.; Davis, J.R.; Noden, B.H. Sporozoite transmission by Anopheles freeborni and Anopheles gambiae experimentally infected with Plasmodium falciparum. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1992, 8, 404–408. [Google Scholar]
  110. Campbell, G.L.; Eldridge, B.F.; Reeves, W.C.; Hardy, J.L. Isolation of Northway Serotype and Other Bunyamwera Serogroup Bunyaviruses from California and Oregon Mosquitoes, 1969–1985. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1991, 44, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zavortink, T.J. Mosquito studies (Diptera, Culicidae) XV. A new species of treehole breeding Anopheles from the southwestern United States. Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. 1969, 4, 28–31. [Google Scholar]
  112. Dantur Juri, M.J.; Moreno, M.; Prado Izaguirre, M.J.; Navarro, J.C.; Zaidenberg, M.O.; Almirón, W.R.; Claps, G.L.; Conn, J.E. Demographic history and population structure of Anopheles pseudopunctipennis in Argentina based on the mitochondrial COI gene. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lardeux, F.; Aliaga, C.; Tejerina, R.; Torrez, L. Comparison of transmission parameters between Anopheles argyritarsis and Anopheles pseudopunctipennis in two ecologically different localities of Bolivia. Malar. J. 2013, 12, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Alto, B.W.; Connelly, C.R.; O’Meara, G.F.; Hickman, D.; Karr, N. Reproductive biology and susceptibility of Florida Culex coronator to infection with West Nile virus. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014, 14, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hammon, W.M.; Reeves, W.C. Laboratory Transmission of Western Equine Encephalomyelitis Virus by Mosquitoes of the Genera Culex and Culiseta. J. Exp. Med. 1943, 78, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Godsey, M.S.; Delorey, M.; Burkhalter, K.; Mutebi, J.-P.; Young, G.; Townsend, J.; Levy, C.; Smith, K. Entomologic Investigations during an Outbreak of West Nile Virus Disease in Maricopa County, Arizona, 2010. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2012, 87, 1125–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ruberto, I.; Kretschmer, M.; Zabel, K.; Sunenshine, R.; Smith, K.; Townsend, J.; Richard, D.; Erhart, L.M.; Staab, N.; Komatsu, K.; et al. Notes from the Field: An Outbreak of West Nile Virus—Arizona, 2019. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2021, 70, 123–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kretschmer, M.; Ruberto, I.; Townsend, J.; Zabel, K.; Will, J.; Maldonado, K.; Busser, N.; Damian, D.; Dale, A.P. Unprecedented Outbreak of West Nile Virus—Maricopa County, Arizona, 2021. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2023, 72, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ciota, A.T.; Bialosuknia, S.M.; Zink, S.D.; Brecher, M.; Ehrbar, D.J.; Morrissette, M.N.; Kramer, L.D. Effects of Zika Virus Strain and Aedes Mosquito Species on Vector Competence. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23, 1110–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Zhou, T.F.; Lai, Z.T.; Liu, S.; Zhou, J.Y.; Liu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Wu, K.; Gu, J.B.; Cheng, G.; et al. Susceptibility and interactions between Aedes mosquitoes and Zika viruses. Insect Sci. 2021, 28, 1439–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Klein, T.A.; Young, D.G.; Telford, S.R. Vector incrimination and experimental transmission of Plasmodium floridense by bites of infected Culex (Melanoconion) erraticus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1987, 3, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  122. Mackay, A.J.; Kramer, W.L.; Meece, J.K.; Brumfield, R.T.; Foil, L.D. Host Feeding Patterns of Culex Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. J. Med. Entomol. 2010, 47, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Egizi, A.; Martinsen, E.S.; Vuong, H.; Zimmerman, K.I.; Faraji, A.; Fonseca, D.M. Using Bloodmeal Analysis to Assess Disease Risk to Wildlife at the New Northern Limit of a Mosquito Species. Ecohealth 2018, 15, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Day, J.F.; Stark, L.M. Eastern equine encephalitis transmission to emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) in Volusia County, Florida: 1992 through 1994. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1996, 12, 429–436. [Google Scholar]
  125. Phillips, R.A.; Christensen, K. Field-Caught Culex erythrothorax Larvae Found Naturally Infected with West Nile Virus in Grand County, Utah. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2006, 22, 561–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kopp, A.; Gillespie, T.R.; Hobelsberger, D.; Estrada, A.; Harper, J.M.; Miller, R.A.; Eckerle, I.; Müller, M.A.; Podsiadlowski, L.; Leendertz, F.H.; et al. Provenance and Geographic Spread of St. Louis Encephalitis Virus. mBio 2013, 4, e00322-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Downs, W.G.; Aitken, T.H.G.; Spence, L. Eastern Equine Encephalitis Virus Isolated from Culex nigripalpus in Trinidad. Science 1959, 130, 1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Tiron, G.V.; Stancu, I.G.; Dinu, S.; Prioteasa, F.L.; Fălcuță, E.; Ceianu, C.S.; Cotar, A.I. Characterization and Host-Feeding Patterns of Culex pipiens s.l. Taxa in a West Nile Virus-Endemic Area in Southeastern Romania. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2021, 21, 713–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Osório, H.C.; Zé-Zé, L.; Alves, M.J. Host-Feeding Patterns of Culex pipiens and Other Potential Mosquito Vectors (Diptera: Culicidae) of West Nile Virus (Flaviviridae) Collected in Portugal. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 717–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Hamer, G.L.; Kitron, U.D.; Brawn, J.D.; Loss, S.R.; Ruiz, M.O.; Goldberg, T.L.; Walker, E.D. Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae): A Bridge Vector of West Nile Virus to Humans. J. Med. Entomol. 2008, 45, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Abbo, S.R.; Visser, T.M.; Koenraadt, C.J.M.; Pijlman, G.P.; Wang, H. Effect of blood source on vector competence of Culex pipiens biotypes for Usutu virus. Parasite Vectors 2021, 14, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Iurescia, M.; Romiti, F.; Cocumelli, C.; Diaconu, E.L.; Stravino, F.; Onorati, R.; Alba, P.; Friedrich, K.G.; Maggi, F.; Magliano, A.; et al. Plasmodium matutinum Transmitted by Culex pipiens as a Cause of Avian Malaria in Captive African Penguins (Spheniscus demersus) in Italy. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 621974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Reis, L.A.M.; da Silva, E.V.P.; Dias, D.D.; Freitas, M.N.O.; Caldeira, R.D.; Araújo, P.A.d.S.; da Silva, F.S.; Junior, J.W.R.; Brandão, R.C.F.; Nascimento, B.L.S.D.; et al. Vector Competence of Culex quinquefasciatus from Brazil for West Nile Virus. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2023, 8, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Meyer, R.P.; Hardy, J.L.; Presser, S.B. Comparative Vector Competence of Culex Tarsalis and Culex Quinquefasciatus from the Coachella, Imperial, and San Joaquin Valleys of California for St. Louis Encephalitis Virus. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 1983, 32, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Pecor, D.; Potter, A. West Nile virus: CONUS Hazard Report. Can. Pharm. J. 2019, 136, 26. [Google Scholar]
  136. Mutebi, J.-P.; Swope, B.N.; Doyle, M.S.; Biggerstaff, B.J. Vector Competence of Culex restuans (Diptera: Culicidae) From Two Regions of Chicago with Low and High Prevalence of West Nile Virus Human Infections. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 678–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Harris, M.C.; Jackson, D.M.; Yang, F.; Hawley, D.M.; Paulson, S.L.; Dotseth, E.J. La Crosse Virus Field Detection and Vector Competence of Culex Mosquitoes. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2015, 93, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. McPhatter, L.P.; Su, T.; Williams, G.; Cheng, M.-L.; Dhillon, M.; Gerry, A.C. Host-Feeding Patterns of Culex stigmatosoma (Diptera: Culicidae) in Southern California. J. Med. Entomol. 2017, 54, 1750–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Lee, J.-H.; Rowley, W.A.; Platt, K.B. Vector Competence ofCulex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicidae) from Iowa for a Sympatric Strain of Western Equine Encephalomyelitis (WEE-7738) Virus. J. Med. Entomol. 2000, 37, 194–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Nelms, B.M.; Thiemann, T.C.; Bridges, D.N.; Williams, A.E.; Koschik, M.L.; Ryan, B.M.; Scott, J.J. Bionomics and vector potential of culex thriambus (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes in lake county, California. J. Med. Entomol. 2016, 53, 1473–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Reisen, W.K.; Fang, Y.; Martinez, V.M. Vector Competence of Culiseta incidens and Culex thriambus for West Nile Virus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2006, 22, 662–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hanson, S.M.; Novak, R.J.; Lampman, R.L.; Vodkin, M.H. Notes on the biology of Orthopodomyia in Illinois. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 1995, 11, 375–376. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  143. Ortiz, D.I.; Anishchenko, M.; Weaver, S.C. Susceptibility of Psorophora confinnis (Diptera: Culicidae) to Infection with Epizootic (Subtype IC) and Enzootic (Subtype ID) Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Viruses. J. Med. Entomol. 2004, 41, 987–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Pitzer, J.B.; Byford, R.L.; Vuong, H.B.; Steiner, R.L.; Creamer, R.J.; Caccamise, D.F. Potential vectors of west nile virus in a semiarid environment: Doa Ana County, New Mexico. J. Med. Entomol. 2009, 46, 1474–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Paras, K.L.; O’Brien, V.A.; Reiskind, M.H. Comparison of the vector potential of different mosquito species for the transmission of heartworm, Dirofilaria immitis, in rural and urban areas in and surrounding Stillwater, Oklahoma, U.S.A. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2014, 28, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Qualls, W.A.; Xue, R.-D.; Holt, J.A.; Smith, M.L.; Moeller, J.J. Field evaluation of commercial repellents against the floodwater mosquito Psorophora columbiae (Diptera: Culicidae) in St. Johns County, Florida. J. Med. Entomol. 2011, 48, 1247–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Turell, M.J.; Britch, S.C.; Aldridge, R.L.; Xue, R.D.; Smith, M.L.; Cohnstaedt, L.W.; Linthicum, K.J. Potential for Psorophora columbiae and Psorophora ciliata Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) to Transmit Rift Valley Fever Virus. J. Med. Entomol. 2015, 52, 1111–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Edman, J.D. Host-Feeding Patterns of Florida Mosquitoes I. Aedes, Anopheles, Coquillettidia, Mansonia and Psorophora. J. Med. Entomol. 1971, 8, 687–695. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  149. Lanzaro, G.C.; Collier, T.C.; Lee, Y. Defining Genetic, Taxonomic, and Geographic Boundaries among Species of the Psorophora confinnis (Diptera: Culicidae) Complex in North and South America. J. Med. Entomol. 2015, 52, 907–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Donald, C.L.; Siriyasatien, P.; Kohl, A. Toxorhynchites Species: A Review of Current Knowledge. Insects 2020, 11, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Arnell, J.H. Mosquito studies (Diptera, Culicidae) XXXIII. A revision of the Scapularis Group of Aedes (Ochlerotatus). Contrib. Am. Entomol. Inst. (Ann Arbor) 1976, 3, 1–144. [Google Scholar]
  152. Walton, C.; Somboon, P.; O’loughlin, S.; Zhang, S.; Harbach, R.; Linton, Y.-M.; Chen, B.; Nolan, K.; Duong, S.; Fong, M.-Y.; et al. Genetic diversity and molecular identification of mosquito species in the Anopheles maculatus group using the ITS2 region of rDNA. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2007, 7, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Chan, A.; Chiang, L.P.; Hapuarachchi, H.C.; Tan, C.H.; Pang, S.C.; Lee, R.; Lee, K.S.; Ng, L.C.; Lam-Phua, S.G. DNA barcoding: Complementing morphological identification of mosquito species in Singapore. Parasite Vectors 2014, 7, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Wilke, A.B.; Damian, D.; Litvinova, M.; Byrne, T.; Zardini, A.; Poletti, P.; Merler, S.; Mutebi, J.-P.; Townsend, J.; Ajelli, M. Spatiotemporal distribution of vector mosquito species and areas at risk for arbovirus transmission in Maricopa County, Arizona. Acta Trop. 2023, 240, 106833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Coalson, J.E.; Richard, D.M.; Hayden, M.H.; Townsend, J.; Damian, D.; Smith, K.; Monaghan, A.; Ernst, K.C. Aedes aegypti abundance in urban neighborhoods of Maricopa County, Arizona, is linked to increasing socioeconomic status and tree cover. Parasites Vectors 2023, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Russell, R.C. The relative attractiveness of carbon dioxide and octenol in CDC- and EVS-type light traps for sampling the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti (L.), Aedes polynesiensis Marks, and Culex quinquefasciatus say in Moorea, French Polynesia. J. Vector Ecol. 2004, 29, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  157. Williams, C.R.; Long, S.A.; Russell, R.C.; Ritchie, S.A. Field efficacy of the BG-Sentinel compared with CDC Backpack Aspirators and CO2-baited EVS traps for collection of adult Aedes aegypti in Cairns, Queensland, Australia. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 2006, 22, 296–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Chow, W.K.; Cooper, R.D.; Lokhorst, M.; Zalucki, M.P.; Ambrose, L.; Beebe, N.W. Comparative assessment of a novel fan box trap for collecting Anopheles farauti and culicine mosquitoes alive in tropical north Queensland, Australia. J. Med. Entomol. 2024, 61, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Lühken, R.; Pfitzner, W.P.; Börstler, J.; Garms, R.; Huber, K.; Schork, N.; Steinke, S.; Kiel, E.; Becker, N.; Tannich, E.; et al. Field evaluation of four widely used mosquito traps in Central Europe. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. UCSF The Malaria Elimination Initiative Toolkit. 2020 Entomological Surveillance Planning Tool; University of California: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  161. Kristan, M.; Acford-Palmer, H.; Campos, M.O.; Collins, E.L.; Phelan, J.; Portwood, N.M.; Pelloquin, B.; Clarke, S.; Lines, J.; Clark, T.G.; et al. Towards environmental detection, quantification, and molecular characterization of Anopheles stephensi and Aedes aegypti from experimental larval breeding sites. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Alafo, C.; Martí-Soler, H.; Máquina, M.; Malheia, A.; Aswat, A.S.; Koekemoer, L.L.; Colborn, J.; Lobo, N.F.; Tatarsky, A.; Williams, Y.A.; et al. To spray or target mosquitoes another way: Focused entomological intelligence guides the implementation of indoor residual spraying in southern Mozambique. Malar. J. 2022, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Hamer, G.L.; Anderson, T.K.; Donovan, D.J.; Brawn, J.D.; Krebs, B.L.; Gardner, A.M.; Ruiz, M.O.; Brown, W.M.; Kitron, U.D.; Newman, C.M.; et al. Dispersal of Adult Culex Mosquitoes in an Urban West Nile Virus Hotspot: A Mark-Capture Study Incorporating Stable Isotope Enrichment of Natural Larval Habitats. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Alout, H.; Roche, B.; Dabiré, R.K.; Cohuet, A. Consequences of insecticide resistance on malaria transmission. PLOS Pathog. 2017, 13, e1006499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. 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]
  166. Weetman, D.; Donnelly, M.J. Evolution of insecticide resistance diagnostics in malaria vectors. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2015, 109, 291–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Yadouléton, A.; Badirou, K.; Agbanrin, R.; Jöst, H.; Attolou, R.; Srinivasan, R.; Padonou, G.; Akogbéto, M. Insecticide resistance status in Culex quinquefasciatus in Benin. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Thibault, K.M.; Laney, C.M.; Yule, K.M.; Franz, N.M.; Mabee, P.M. The US National Ecological Observatory Network and the Global Biodiversity Framework: National research infrastructure with a global reach. J. Ecol. Environ. 2023, 47, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Morgan, J.; Strode, C.; Salcedo-Sora, J.E. Climatic and socio-economic factors supporting the co-circulation of dengue, Zika and chikungunya in three different ecosystems in Colombia. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Zellweger, R.M.; Cano, J.; Mangeas, M.; Taglioni, F.; Mercier, A.; Despinoy, M.; Menkès, C.E.; Dupont-Rouzeyrol, M.; Nikolay, B.; Teurlai, M. Socioeconomic and environmental determinants of dengue transmission in an urban setting: An ecological study in Nouméa, New Caledonia. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Chouaïbou, M.S.; Fodjo, B.K.; Fokou, G.; Allassane, O.F.; Koudou, B.G.; David, J.-P.; Antonio-Nkondjio, C.; Ranson, H.; Bonfoh, B. Influence of the agrochemicals used for rice and vegetable cultivation on insecticide resistance in malaria vectors in southern Côte d’Ivoire. Malar. J. 2016, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Fodjo, B.K.; Koudou, B.G.; Tia, E.; Saric, J.; N’dri, P.B.; Zoh, M.G.; Gba, C.S.; Kropf, A.; Kesse, N.B.; Chouaïbou, M.S. Insecticides resistance status of An. gambiae in areas of varying agrochemical use in Côte D’Ivoire. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 2874160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Clemmens, A.; Dedrick, A.; Clyma, W.; Ware, R. On-Farm System Performance in the Maricopa-Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District Area. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 2000, 14, 93–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. CDC Prevention and Control: Community Engagement. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID). Division of Vector-Borne Diseases (DVBD); 2022. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/guidelines/west-nile/prevention-control/community-engagement.html#:~:text=Removal%20of%20residential%20mosquito%20sources,%2C%20flowerpots%2C%20or%20trash%20containers (accessed on 2 February 2024).
Table 5. List of Orthopodomyia species.
Table 5. List of Orthopodomyia species.
Collection YearCollection MethodCollection Area (by County)Feeding PreferenceDiseases They Can/May Transmit
Orthopodomyia kummi Edwards 1939
1958–1964 (UAIC)UnknownSanta CruzUnknownUnknown
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownSanta Cruz
Orthopodomyia signifera (Coquillett 1896)
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownSanta CruzUnknownEastern equine encephalitis and Western equine encephalitis [142]
1964–1968 (UAIC)UnknownPima
Santa Cruz
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownPima
Santa Cruz
Table 6. List of Psorophora species.
Table 6. List of Psorophora species.
Collection YearCollection MethodCollection Area (by County)Feeding PreferenceDiseases They Can/May Transmit
Psorophora confinnis (Lynch Arribálzaga 1891)  ,*
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochise
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Pima
Pinal
Yavapai
Yuma
Large mammals [143]Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus [143] a, †,†††
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCochise
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsYuma
Psorophora columbiae (Dyar & Knab 1906) *
1936–2022 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
La Paz
Maricopa
Pima
Pinal
Yuma
Humans [146]
Large mammals [147]
West Nile virus
[116,144] b, †††
Dog heartworm [145] b, †††
2010, 2012–2017, 2019–2021(AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Greenlee
Maricopa
Mohave
Yuma
Cochise
Pinal
Santa Cruz
La Paz
Graham
Yavapai
Coconino
2016–2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Psorophora ciliata (Fabricius 1794) 
2016–2017 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsMohave
Pima
Mammals [148]Unknown
Psorophora discolor (Coquillett 1903)
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochise
Santa Cruz
Humans and animals [23]Unknown
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCochise
Santa Cruz
2014–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
2014–2021 (UAIC)UnknownPima
2018 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Psorophora howardii Coquillett 1901
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownPinalHumans [23]Unknown
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownPinal
1997–2021 (UAIC)UnknownPima
2012, 2014–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Cochise
Santa Cruz
2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
Psorophora signipennis (Coquillett 1904)
1936–2022 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Graham
Greenlee
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Yavapai
UnknownWest Nile virus [144] b, †††
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCollected in every county except Apache, Gila, Navajo and Yuma
On or before 1973 [23]UnknownCochise
Coconino
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Mohave
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
2012–2017, 2019 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPima
Yuma
Maricopa
Yavapai
Greenlee
Gila
Graham
Navajo
Cochise
Mohave
2016–2018, 2021–2022 (NEON)CDC CO2 light traps baited with dry icePima
One or more scientists in the State have expressed doubts about the accuracy of this collection record. * The southwestern Ps. columbiae was elevated to full species status and a Dyar name, Psorophora toltecum (Dyar and Knab 1906) was resurrected for it. Also, South American populations are considered Psorophora confinnis [149]. a Vector competence study under laboratory conditions. b Virus isolated from field-collected specimens. Detection of virus in the saliva of mosquito post-infection. ††† Disseminated infection (i.e., detection of virus in body, legs, and/or wings of mosquito).
Table 7. List of Toxorhynchites and Uranotaenia species.
Table 7. List of Toxorhynchites and Uranotaenia species.
Collection YearCollection MethodCollection Area (by County)Feeding PreferenceDiseases They Can/May Transmit
Toxorhynchites moctezuma (Dyar & Knab 1906)
1955–2011 (UAIC)UnknownCochise
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Nectar and sugar [150] Unknown
2017 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsCoconino
Uranotaenia anhydor Dyar 1907
On or before 1956 [61]UnknownCochiseUnknownUnknown
Uranotaenia sapphirina (Osten Sacken 1868) 
2015 (AZDHS)A variety of CO2 traps and/or BG-Sentinel and/or Oviposition trapsPimaUnknownUnknown
One or more scientists in the State have expressed doubts about the accuracy of this collection record.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jobe, N.B.; Franz, N.M.; Johnston, M.A.; Malone, A.B.; Ruberto, I.; Townsend, J.; Will, J.B.; Yule, K.M.; Paaijmans, K.P. The Mosquito Fauna of Arizona: Species Composition and Public Health Implications. Insects 2024, 15, 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15060432

AMA Style

Jobe NB, Franz NM, Johnston MA, Malone AB, Ruberto I, Townsend J, Will JB, Yule KM, Paaijmans KP. The Mosquito Fauna of Arizona: Species Composition and Public Health Implications. Insects. 2024; 15(6):432. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15060432

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jobe, Ndey Bassin, Nico M. Franz, Murray A. Johnston, Adele B. Malone, Irene Ruberto, John Townsend, James B. Will, Kelsey M. Yule, and Krijn P. Paaijmans. 2024. "The Mosquito Fauna of Arizona: Species Composition and Public Health Implications" Insects 15, no. 6: 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15060432

APA Style

Jobe, N. B., Franz, N. M., Johnston, M. A., Malone, A. B., Ruberto, I., Townsend, J., Will, J. B., Yule, K. M., & Paaijmans, K. P. (2024). The Mosquito Fauna of Arizona: Species Composition and Public Health Implications. Insects, 15(6), 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15060432

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