A study comparing efficiency of insect capture between Stinger electric zapper and Mosquito-deleto at varying locations and heights in northern Michigan.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Kim, Jay en_US
dc.contributor.author Kostrzewski, Jennifer en_US
dc.contributor.author Maziak, Anya en_US
dc.contributor.author Spangler, Ingrid en_US
dc.coverage.spatial UMBS Campus en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2007-06-14T23:21:30Z
dc.date.available 2007-06-14T23:21:30Z
dc.date.issued 2002 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/54969
dc.description.abstract In the attempt to reduce biting insect populations, the general public has relied on many methods to kill mosquitoes and other biting insects. Presently, the most commonly used device, the electric zapper, utilizes ultraviolet light and electricity to lure and electrocute the targeted insects. Science has demonstrated that electric zappers do not catch as many biting insects as they claim; they also are harmful to beneficial, non-biting insects. A new, alternative technology uses carbon dioxide, heat, and octenol (a derivative of mammalian body odor) to attract biting insects. The study was run at two sites (a lakeside and a forested hilltop) in northern Michigan for five nights (20:00-23:00) with relatively similar weather. Two Stinger?zappers were raised to two feet and nine feet in order to compare heights, and one Mosquito DeletoTM was used to compare the insect lure methods. The experiment produced a total insect catch of 11, 078 insects; mainly from five predominate operational taxon units (Ichneumonidae, Noctuidae, Culicidae, Chironomidae, and Coleoptera). A relationship was shown to exist between total number of insects caught and each location, but height was shown as a significant variable (x2 = 759.17, df = 1, p <0.05) with preference towards the two-foot height. When location and height were combined as an inter-related factor, a significance factor could not be found. Although the Mosquito DeletoTM caught fewer total biting insects, its percent capture rate of biting insects was three times greater than the Stinger. Still, neither device was considered effective due to either ecological impacts (Stinger) or low number of biting insects caught (Mosquito Deleto). Regardless of treatments, we found that present technology is ineffective and neither the Stinger Electric Zapper nor the Mosquito Deleto work effectively. en_US
dc.format.extent 837379 bytes
dc.format.extent 3144 bytes
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.format.mimetype text/plain
dc.subject General Ecology en_US
dc.subject.other INSECTS en_US
dc.subject.other INVERTEBRATES en_US
dc.subject.other DIPTERA en_US
dc.subject.other ATTRACTION en_US
dc.subject.other CARBON en_US
dc.subject.other DIOXIDE en_US
dc.subject.other OCTENOL en_US
dc.subject.other BEETLES en_US
dc.subject.other COLEOPTERA en_US
dc.subject.other SCARABIDAE en_US
dc.subject.other SILPHIDAE en_US
dc.subject.other CARABIDAE en_US
dc.subject.other NOCTUIDAE en_US
dc.subject.other LEPIDOPTERA en_US
dc.subject.other CULICIDAE en_US
dc.subject.other CHIRONOMIDAE en_US
dc.title A study comparing efficiency of insect capture between Stinger electric zapper and Mosquito-deleto at varying locations and heights in northern Michigan. en_US
dc.type Working Paper en_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel Natural Resource and Environment en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel Science en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationum Biological Station, University of Michigan en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampus Ann Arbor en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurl http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/54969/1/3410.pdf en_US
dc.description.filedescription Description of 3410.pdf : Access restricted to on-site users at the U-M Biological Station. en_US
dc.owningcollname Biological Station, University of Michigan (UMBS)
 Show simple item record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Search Deep Blue

Advanced Search

Browse by

My Account


Available Now

MLibrary logo